Monday, March 23, 2009

erchin 6a - nidvas Akum

As we asked in shiur -- if the goy is actually bringing the present right away then what רפיון ידיים is there?
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

5b makdish behemas chaveiro

The חוק נתן understands that even though the Rambam paskens like חכמים, still in makdish behemas chaveiro the pesak is נותן דמיו as chachmim agree to this. (see inside for how to work out the various sugyos)
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

erchin 2b -- age of chinuch

the language of הגיע לחינוך as opposed to the other more specific languages first is used by shofar in our sugya. What is this age? Rashi quotes the gemara in Yoma to tell us ages. However, Tosfos attacks Rashi and says - what are you bringing in the gemara there -- that talks about fasting.
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

Petur Sukkah of תשבו כעין תדורו on the first night

In a previous post the point was raised that there is a petur of תשבו כעין תדורו on the first night. I believe that this is very much debatable.

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

erchin 3b petur suka for teshvu ke'in taduru

Rav Meir pointed out that there is a difficulty understanding what is the answer of the gemara about why kohanim are chayav. The answer given in shiur is that the sukka does not create a problem for teshvu ke'in taduru but something external to that, that they have a tahara issue. The Rema seems to use this idea to say that the problem today (or back when he wrote it) IS inherent to the sukka (to justify not sleeping there), as he does not have a "sukka meyuchedes" for him and his wife. However, the Gr"a and others disagree with this and say, (if i understood this correctly), that Tosfos and Rashi that teshvu kein taduru is not me'akev!! (this is for sure what the "chok nasan" in the back of the gemara says).

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

ערכין ב: - ור' יהודה ואם לא דריש

The acharonim point out a Tosafos in Sanhedrin י"ד. ד"ה ורבי שמעון. The Gemara there has a machlokes R' Shimon and the Chachamim how you learn מיוחדים שבשופטיך, the chachamim learn out from the ו, that it says ושופטיך and R' Shimon has a different derasha.

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.