Monday, December 14, 2009
This would seem to be a machlokes harishonim. The gemara wants to know why the language of משתשקע החצה עד שתכלה רגל מן השוק, is used. The gemara offers 2 answers, אי לא אדליק מדליק אי נמי לשיעורא. Tosafos there understands this to mean as follows. the first answer is saying that if you did not light in this time (from shkia until תכלה רגל מן השוק) you missed the mitzva and cannot do the mitzva anymore, the second answer argues and says that it is coming to tell us how long the candles must burn. The Rambam as well understands the first answer as Tosafos, the Rambam however holds that the second answer is not arguing, rather it adds another requirement, how long the candles need to burn. The Rambam understands that these 2 go together and that the shiur is not in time but rather from when you light until תכלה רגל מן השוק. This is meduyak in the Rambam because he writes that תכלה רגל מן השוק is כחצי שיעור או יתר. The Rambam clearly states that the shiur of תכלה רגל מן השוק could be longer then a half hour.
According to both Tosafos and the Rambam it would seem that the mitva is a mitzva of פרסומי ניסא and therefore if you light after תכלה רגל מן השוק you are not יוצא. The Rashba however writes that the gemara did not mean that you are not יוצא at all. Rather you are not יוצא the way the Chachamim wanted but you are certainly יוצא the mitzva if you light at night. The Rashba seems to holds that it is a mitzva of night and therefore b'dieved the zman is all night. Lechatchila the chachamim said you should light when there is pirsumei nisa.
The same thing applies to lighting before the zman. According to the Rashba, just like you can do mitzva's of night starting from plag hamincha, you can light from plag hamincha. According to the Rambam there is no such din, lighting is not a mitzva of night and therefore before shkia is simply not the zman.
The obvious question on the Rambam is what about Friday night. The answer is that since Chanukka is 8 days and there must always be a Friday night, Chazal made a special takana on Friday night that you can light before shkia. According to the Rashba we don't need to come on to this, it is just the regular din of doing mitzvos of night from plag.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Here is a short summary of a number of the reasons presented by Rishonim for why “אין מפליגין בספינה פחות מג' ימים קודם לשבת” except if is for a devar mitzva or before three days before shabbas (mostly as summarized by the Ritva)
1. Rashbam (as quoted in Ritva and Tosfos Eruvin 43a) – The issue is one of finishing a melacha before shabbas and only assur according to beis shammai. It seems that there is a dispute if he means the melacha of a goy (the seifa of our mishna) or שביתת כלים. The language of the Rashbam in Tosfos Eruvin is “דלא שרו לעשות מלאכה בע”ש אלא בכדי שיעשו מבעוד יום”. It seems from the Rosh that we are talking about שביתת כלים since he asks the following question: Since the issur is techumim and only derabanan, even בית שמאי are modeh that there is no problem, like טוענים קורות בית הבד ועיגולי הגת. However, according to the Ritva, he quotes עורות לעבדן, and mentions the goy doing melacha for the Jew (again of brining him out of the techum)
2. Rabbeinu Chananel: The issur is techum and only applies to a low boat.
3. Rif: The problem is ביטול עונג שבת as it takes a few days to get used to the water and seasickness. (Can a large cruise be allowed as I assume you barely feel that you are at sea?)
4.Baal Hamaor: going on this trip is that you place yourself in a situation of ספק סכנה and therefore it looks as if you are creating a situation on purpose of being מחלל שבת. So, three days before shabbas is called “before shabbas” and one has to have it in mind. He therefore extends to this to other scenarios as well such as going to a desert (and what Rav Meir mentioned in shiur. Does this relate to cutting your nails three days before shabbas as well?)
5. Tosfos (Ritzba -eruvin 43a): The issur is a גזירה אטו שיטה על פני המים that you may make a boat or steer such a boat yourself for 4 amos in a karmelis (the water). Since this is just a חשש and גזירה, the takana does not take effect in case of devar mitzva or leaving before three days before.
6. Ramban: the case that is assur is where 50% or more of the passengers on the boat are ישראל and since driving the boat involves a number of issurei torah like tying and untying, if the goy is doing that melacha for you on shabbas, then it is assur. However, this is only when the boat is starting close to shabbas, since if earlier then it does not look like the goy is doing melacha for the ישראל anymore
It would seem according to all these reasons (except Tosfos and maybe Rif) that you can book your cruise without a problem and thought of when it is leaving. (there is a discussion if and how to go on shabbas as well)
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
The simple reading of the gemara is that Rabba’s peshat is accepted and in explaining that the beraysa that says it is assur to to put wheat in a Rechayim is according to Beis Hillel. This then means that the issur is because of hashmaas kol and such is the pesak of Rabbeinu Chananel. However, Rabbeinu Tam has a different reading of the gemara. He understands that Rav Oshaya accepted the reading of Rav Yosef in the beraysa, i.e. the words מאן תנא שביתת כלים דאוריתא are not discussing the opinion in general, but the beraysa we had just discussed. Thus Rav Oshaya agrees with the peshat of Rav Yosef (and he is the decider of pesak!), in which case the issur of hashmaas kol is not mentioned there, rather the issur by rechayim is due to שביתת כלים. This would mean that we do not have such an issur of השמעת קול learned out from the beraysa and perhaps no such issur exists.
As it turns out, the issue of what the pesak is in our sugya is a major machlokes rishonim, with the Baal Hamaor agreeing with Rabbeinu Tam and Ramban disagreeing. The Rambam omits this din and the Rif seems to be meikil about hashmaas kol as well, though he quotes the opinoin to be machmir due to hashmaas kol. For this reason, the Beis Yosef writes that we can be meikil in hashmaas kol and codifies this in the Shulchan Aruch as well (רנב:ה). The Rema starts by agreeing with this and then writes ויש אוסרים.
For this reason under various circumstances heterim are given even for things that make noise, especially in cases of financial loss. One significant one (and important if you want to do chazara early shabbas morning) is for an alarm clock, as the Rema writes “אע”פ שמשמיע קול להודיע השעות בשבת כי הכל יודעים שדרכו להעמידן מאתמול ”
Rav Meir explained in shiur that the issue of hashmaas kol is based on אוושא מילתא, which means a zilzul in shabbas. What creates the zilzul – if it is the noise itself, then why should the clock be allowed just because people know you set it up before? I think the tzitz eliezer in chelek 4 siman 31 (http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14503&pgnum=169) explains this idea. He says that the אוושא מילתא is still connected to whether people will think this is something you may have decided to do on shabbas in violation or obviously did beforehand. In his case, (he is dealing with watering seeds on shabbas where the sprinkler was turned on before shabbas), he feels that that people will realize that you needed to set it up beforehand (due to the urgency of that case), so maybe the idea is the same with the alarm clock – that it is obvious to people that you set up the alarm clock before and therefore the noise itself is less of a zilzul.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Rashi's peshat fits in better with the מי שבירך לחולים, we say the מי שבירך and then we tell the people in shul, don't be upset about the sick person it is shabbos. However, according to the Ran it is a bit difficult, we are contradicting ourselves, we just said a prayer for the sick person and we end off by saying we really aren't allowed to daven for you. Maybe the pshat is that we are explaining why this is the only tefilla we are saying for the sick person.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
The Ben Yehoyada gives a different interpretation from what we explained in shiur to explain the sugya about Tefilla and Torah
First of all, the Ben Yehoyada is medayeik from the language of the gemara “דקא מאריך בצלותיה” that is his tefilla that he was maarich in, as Rashi says “לרפואה לשלום ולמזונות” but not generic tefilla. Most of tefilla is חיי עולם.
The Ben Yehoyada asks – even if what ר’ ירמיה did by rushing shiur was not great, isn’t a bit overboard to call it תועבה, a word used for עבודה זרה and משכב זכר. Therefore he says that (based on a statement by בר קפרא elsewhere) that תועבה is נוטריקון for תועה אתה ב. The explanation is that this tefilla that he would daven now, when he stopped in the middle of learning, would lead his thought to לתעות, wander, and he will not be able to have any kavana in his tefilla since he would still be in that sugya. Ben Yehoyada says that this is the reason the חסידים הראשונים would prepare for an hour. Since they were learning at night, they needed to have a break to remove the torah thoughts from themselves before they daven.This also is a different explanation for why the people whose תורתם אומנותם do not have to daven: it is because they cannot have kavana!
Sunday, November 1, 2009
As we learned in shiur, there is a machlokes if a reshus hayachid requires הנחה ע”ג מקום ד על ד or not. We learned the simple peshat of 8a that both Rebbi and Chachamim agree with Rav Chisda that indeed a reshus hayachid does not require it. This is the way the Rashba understands as well, though in doing so he takes us through all the sugyos from 4b until 5b showing that we need to check each one as many of them are not easy to understand in this light. This provides with a closer analysis of the cases and how to understand them and a chazara over those cases.
As we remember on 4a, the gemara asks – don’t we require both עקירה and הנחה from a makom 4x4? The first proof, that it is shitas Rabbi Akiva does not pose a problem since his example involves a hanacha in reshus harabim and thus we can say that this is not an issue within reshus hayachid. However, in the first suggestion of shitas Rebbi, the issue of the זיז would depend on how we understand the case of שדי נופו בתר עיקרו. According to Rashi, the tree is considered to be in reshus harabim, so again the hanacha comparison to our mishna is fine and does not require 4x4 in reshus hayachid. (See tosfos for alternative peshat)
However, as we continue, the Rashba says it would seem that the sugya on dapim 4-5 really does not agree with Rav Chisda, as we see from the טרסקל case. The gemara there explicitly says “התינח טרסקל ברשות היחיד” which clearly shows a need for a טרסקל even in reshus hayachid for an area of 4x4. Similarly, in the previous gemara, the second shitas Rebbis is one where the hanacha took place in a reshus hayachid, meaning that Rebbi is the one who holds you dont need 4x4 in a reshus hayachid but others disagree, meaning he is the one shita that holds this way. Also, the case of הכניס ידו לתוך חצר חבירו וקיבל מי גשמים, here too we have a case in reshus hayachid and the gemara asks where is the 4x4?
However, the Rashba deflects all these and explains that the entire sugya is really only asking in one directions – about the case of placing in the hand of the עני and not the other way around. And the focus of the sugya is never on reshus hayachid.
A few other interesting opinions about reshus hayachid are: the shita of the Rach (quoted in Ramban) that only above 10 does not require 4x4, so therefore Rav Chisda is not taking on the sugya on 4b-5a. Also, a difference is noted between a person – who is not the reshus itself and thus would require 4x4 (just that in the maskana the hand is good enough) as opposed to the reshus itself or objects in it like the amud.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Rav Ashi explains that a karpaf is not a karmelis. If so, what is it? It is a reshus hayachid מדאורייתא with an issur of טלטול ד’ אמות. This begs the obvious question – doesn’t this mean that karpaf is not one of the 4 רשויות and it would be more correct to list 5 reshuyos in the beraysa on 6a, since its dinim are different than a karmelis (you are chayav mideoraisa if you transfer from רשות הרבים to it unlike the karmelis). The Rishonim address this question on 6a. Ramban answers that the beraysa is listing four different types of areas, not halachically, just physically. Their halachos are מדאורייתא only 3 but מדרבנן four. Therefore, the karpaf is not separate since physically it is a reshus hayachid. Tosfos’s (and others) answer is that the karpaf is a reshus hayachid gamur and only has the din of karmelis for carrying 4 amos within, so it is not new – it is like two reshuyos already counted, in some aspects like reshus hayachid and some like karmelis. The footnotes in the Ran explains this difficult answer that the gezeira of carrying in a karpaf does not define the area differently (as chazal did by karmelis), it just creates an איסור גברא, therefore it is not counted.
(Interestingly, see yerushalmi that says:ארבע רשויות לשבת: רשות היחיד, רשות הרבים, וכרמלית, ומבואות שאינם מפולשין )
Friday, October 16, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Saturday, August 1, 2009
The Keren Ora does not have a good answer for the question.
Friday, July 31, 2009
1. The Rambam (שופטים ט:ג) paskens that by the ב"ד הגדול we do not add dayanim, if so how can ר' נתן say 100 dayanim? How did they add 29 dayanim?
2. There is a din of אין ב"ד שקול so how can you have 100 dayanim?
The simple answer to the second question is that 100 is לאו דוקא, it is just a round number but it really was 99 or 101.
The מל"מ says maybe ר' נתן is talking about where they added שלא כדין however, he asks that ר' נתן learns his din out from a pasuk and it is very diificult to say that the pasuk is talking about where the ב"ד acted שלא כדין and he leaves it וצ"ע.
The Aruch Hashulchan answers that maybe we can be מחלק between הוראה and דין. In a case of דיני נפשות you can't have more then 71 dayanim and you can't have an even number. But maybe on איסור והיתר you can have more then 71 and it can be even.
The מהריץ חיות points out that the אנשי כנסת הגדולה had 120 members and it would seem that they were acting as the ב"ד הגדול.
Monday, June 8, 2009
The חק נתן explains that DAVKA when yoveil is not noheig we force the issue. This is because we need to ensure that the field get redeemed, since otherwise it stays kadosh forever, and we have to be chosheish for a takala. However, In the case where yoveil IS noheig, things will get rectified when yoveil comes and it leaves hekdesh anyway.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Tosfos says it means out of gaava. What does that mean? The chok nasan explains by limiting the whole issue to a personal tochacha -- when a person does something bad to you and need to give tochacha back to the person, i.e. that you are personally involved. This matches perfectly with the story later on with Rav Huna and Rav Chiya bar Rav. The anava is then easily understood that he says he should not give tochacha for his kavod. But its lo lishma since your real motivation is not to cause him anger. (seems to work perfectly in language of tosfos)
The gemara does not limit the tochacha explicitly which is why Rashi does not learn like this and understands that a person claims to be an anav, most likely building on the earlier gemara -- i am not qualified to give tochacha since he will say to me "טול קורה מבין עיניך" but the real motivation is to not get on his bad side.
Maharsha says the question is -- is it preferable to give tochacha even if it leads to embarassment or hold back to prevent embarassment and to this the story later on answers -- better to hold back and not embarass. This works well with the conclusion of the earlier gemara that no one today can give tochacha properly.
The Kesef Mishna has an interesting answer. The Gemara says כתנאי and בן עזאי says עד כדי נזיפה like R' Yochanan. It was clear to the Rambam that we don't pasken like בן עזאי and therefore we can ignore R' Yochanan so he was left with a machlokes Rav and Shmuel and he paskened like Rav.
What does Rav mean when he says עד הכאה? The Rambam interprets it literally however, the בה"ל in Siman תר"ח quotes the Chinuch (רל"ט) that it is only עד שישהיה קרוב להכותו.
Monday, April 27, 2009
What is the אבנט מכפר for? - Our Gemara says that the the אבנט is מכפר for הרהור הלב (meaning avoda zara where you are חייב for thought). However, the Yerushalmi has another interpretation that it is מכפר on someone who is not straight. The reason being that the אבנט was not wrapped straight but rather at an angle so that it didn't make such a big lump in the front and back.
How long was the אבנט? As was mentioned in the shiur, the אבנט was 32 amas long. In fact, the Chumash does not give a length for the אבנט. The 32 amas comes from the Yerushalmi (Yoma 8:3). Since an אמה is between 18 and 24 inches long this makes the אבנט a whopping 48-64 feet long.
Where was it worn on the body? - I always thought that the אבנט was a belt. However, as was pointed out in shiur the אבנט was really worn higher then the waist. This is learned out in the Gemara זבחים י"ט from a pasuk in נביא. The Gemara there states that he wore it right below the heart where the elbows meet the body (if you hold your elbows against your body).
How many times did the Kohen wrap it around? - As we saw above the אבנט was very long. As was pointed out in shiur, the Shita Mekubetzes on our Gemara states that he wrapped it around 32 times כנגד לב. However it is difficult to see how this works out in מציאות. The average waist/chest is at least 36 inches (3 feet). 64 / 3 = 21.3 and therefore I don't see how it would be possible to wrap it 32 times, it isn't long enough. Tosafos (15b) states that he wrapped it around ב (twice) כנגד לב. That is very difficult as after wrapping 2 times the Kohen would still have over 40 feet of אבנט left. What would he do with it? This would seem to be a misprint and probably should read לב instead of ב like the Shita Mekubetzes.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
The gemara in בבא בתרא says that lashon hara is an aveira that a person cannot be saved from daily.
Maharsha there asks -- if we cannot be saved from it, why punish us?
To answer this (in a different direction than maharsha there), he suggests that it is correct we have no real ability to be saved from it unless we use the solutions presented in the gemara, to involve yourself in learning or to be mashpil yourself to save yourself from this aveira. And the punishment for lashon hara is for not using this remedy. This is the reason why this specific aveira has a takana suggested for it.
Monday, April 13, 2009
However, the Rambam and Minchas Chinuch seems to be against the Gemara. The Gemara says אילימא זר ממש, it is already written, and Rashi comments that here would be a חיוב מיתה by the עבודת הלויים as well for a זר ממש.
The Brisker Rav answers that the Rambam is against the Gemara but the Rambam paskened like the Sifri Zuta and the chiyuv misa for a Yisrael doing avodas haleviim was only a הוראת שעה.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
We can certainly ask why did the medrash give a different reason then the Gemara and why do the Poksim quote the medrash?
The answer could be based on the end of the sugya. The Gemara asks why do we say Hallel on Chanukka (it doesn't fit the criteria outlined above) and the gemara answers because a נס happened. Based on this we could say as follows. You don't say Hallel on the seventh day of Pesach מטעם יו"ט because of the Gemara's reason that it is not חלוק בקרבנות, however, we should say hallel because of the נס of קריעת ים סוף. By the hallel of a נס the seventh day of Pesach should seemingly qualify (it is no worse then Chanuka). Therefore we need the reason of the medrash which is a reason why we don't say hallel on the נס on the seventh day of Pesach.
The Machlokes is based on a Gemara in Succah(53b) and our Gemara. The Gemara discusses the תקיעות in the מקדש. R' Yehuda holds that תקיעה תרועה תקיעה is 1 מצוה and therefore אין בין תקיעה לתרועה ולא כלום.
The Ritva, Ramban and others learn as follows. They read the Gemara literally that according to R' Yehuda there is absolutely no הפסק between the 3 קולות because they are 1 mitzva. Therefore they say even though we don't paskin like R' Yehuda, his din applies to שברים תרועה. Everyone agrees that שברים תרועה is 1 mitzva and therefore you cannot be מפסיק and שברים תרועה is בנשימה אחת.
Rashi and Tosafos in Succah learn that אין בין תקיעה לתרועה ולא כלום means you can't be מפסיק more then a נשימה. However, since these are separate קולות you are מפסיק a נשימה between them, which means that they hold שברים תרועה is בשתי נשימות.
There also is a מחלוקת what does בנשימה אחת and שתי נשימות mean. The Mishna Berura writes that נשימה אחת is if you were מפסיק less then a נשימה. The חזו"א disagrees and says that נשימה אחת is no הפסק whatsoever (and this is what the Rishonim seem to say). By שתי נשימות you have a similar dispute. The חזו"א holds that it means a הפסק but not an actual breath and may others (Shulchan Aruch Harav, מקראי קדש, etc.) hold you should specifically take a breath.
Monday, March 23, 2009
This seems to be the peshat of the Rabbeinu Gershom who says that הא בתחילה is that we tell the goy, no thank you, but if he already brings it (even though it is בתחילה) we accept his nedava.
Friday, March 20, 2009
the idea behind it is that shitas chachchim we do not say always אדם מוציא דבריו לבטלה, but only where we absolutely have no choice. since the word makdish unlike ערך can easily be understood to mean for money, therefore we are able to understand he means money. This din is extrapolated from the pesak of the Rambam about המקדיש את עצמו לא הקדיש אלא דמיו in 6:20 of Hilchos Erechin.
So, according to this, we limit the machlokes chachamim - Rabbi Meir to cases where a person says something that cannot be understood at face value and we are forced to reinterpret or abandon what he says. (a machlokes in psychology?)
Sunday, March 15, 2009
What is the hesber of this machlokes? It seems to be that Rashi is saying that that age of chinuch is across the board something objective, an age where we engage our children in all mitzvos, while Tosfos says there is no such thing as a generic age of chinuch and you need to examine each mitzva.
One problem with this explanation - in our gemara we see that each mitzva had specific requirements for the katan's chiyuv, sounding a lot like tosfos.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
There is a machlokes rishonim what the hekesh means. The 2 possibilities are:
1. It is an extension of the regular din of yeshiva b'succa. On the other days of Succos ratzah ochel ratzah lo ochel, on the first night the hekesh says that you must eat. However, the regular din of teishvu k'eyn taduru applies.
2. The hekesh creates a new chiyuv of achila on the first night unrelated to the regular din of yeshiva b'succa.
There are a number of nafka minas
1. What if rains the first night? Do you need to eat in the succah? This is a machlokes harishhonim. According to 1, you would not. The regular din of teishvu k'eyn taduru applies. According to 2 you would need to eat as there is a chiyuv achila.
2. What is the shiur, k'beitza or k'zayis? According to 1 the shiur would probably be k'beitzah like all of Succos, according to 2 it is a din of achila and the shiur of achila is k'zayis (again a machlokes rishonim).
In any case, according to everyone teishvu k'eyn taduru would certainly apply on the first night to sleeping in the succah, the only time it may not apply is to the first k'zayis that you eat.
The hekesh to Pesach is to be mechayev him to eat a kzayis (or k'beitzah) in the succah after that everyone agrees teishvu k'eyn taduru applies.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
One interesting question raised on this, by the Cheshek Shlomo (again in likutim in back of the gemara), is what about a yisrael -- he also is chayav in reiyas panim in the azara and therefore needs to be in a state of tahara! He suggests that mitzvas reiyas panim is only on the first day and simchas yom tov after that would be with כסות נקיה and ייו ישן. And in terms of the first night, he says that one would not get hte petur of the first night based on teshvu ke'in taduru since you are chayav the first night also because of hekesh to pesach!
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Tosafos asks that we find in other places where R' Shimon does darshen a ו. Similarly Tosafos asks from our Gemara where R' Yehuda does not darshen a ו but in Bava Metzia he does.
For those who were מסיים Bava Metzia, can anyone say where R' Yehuda darshens an extra ו?
Here is a hint it is in אלו מציאות.
On 27a the Gemara has a machlokes how do we learn out the din that you don't need to return an אבידה that is worth less then a שוה פרוטה. R' Yehuda learns out from ומצאתה (using the extra ו).
Tosafos in Sanhedrin explains that there is no hard and fast rule that R' Yehuda doesn't learns out things from a ו. The limud in Temura is an exception to the rule. Tosafos in Menachos (51b) says that it depends on the context sometimes yes sometimes no.
Monday, January 26, 2009
What about tzemed shel Paros, which has the same problem? Rosh there says שדרכם לרכס בתבואה. In case you forgot what this is referring to (I did) , see gemara 89b that discusses פרות המרכסות בתבואה, a part of the process of preparing barley for food where the cows are used to remove the the shells.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Shmuel told us that the din of collecting a mashkon from inside the house includes the shaliach bes din and on that Rav Yosef asks a kasha that our 2 dinim cant be referring to the baal chov since he cannot collect at all. But, acc to Rambam if the din here is even at the time of halvaa, then it can refer to the baal chov since at time of halvaa he can collect whatever he wants except these items and the lav makes sense to be referring to the baal chov himself. (if i did not write this clearly, you can find this summarize in the minchas chinuch).
(see also tosfos on 115a for issues between sugya with Shmuel and there, though i do not have full understanding there of his resolution)