kerisos 8a - takanas Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel

Rashba"g made a takkana in order to drive down the price of the birds for korabanos, that a woman is not chayav to bring korbanos for all vaday births. This is very difficult to understand -- how can he go against a chiyuv in the Torah for korbanos? See the Shita Mekubetzes in the back who bring the peshat of Rabbeinu Tam.

The Netziv in the Harcheiv Davar at the beginning of Parshas Tazria also grapples with this issue of Rashba"g seemingly going against halacha. To solve this problem, he says in the name of his son, Rav Chaim Berlin that we can see the peshat of Rashba"g in the pesukim of Tazria. The summary pasuk of "Zos Toras Hayoledes" is before the pasuk that addressed the poor korban. One would have thought that the order should have been reversed. Based on this, he argued that the ruling of multiple korbanos for multiple leidos is only for a rich yoledes. However if she is poor, not only does she bring a bird instead but also she only has to bring one for multiple births. Therefore when it became expensive, Rashba"g said the rest of the korbanos are no longer obligated and the yoledes only has to bring one, but should she become rich, then she would be obligated in all of them.

Thanks to my Rebbe, Rav Binyamin Tabory, may HKBH send him a refua sheleima, for pointing this Netziv out to me.

Shabbas 130a - Was Elisha Baal Kenafayim a model of Mesirus Nefesh?

According to the simple peshat of our sugya, the gemara is saying that we are not moser nefesh for tefillin the way that Elisha Baal Kenafayim did. But Tosfos on 130a quotes the Rashbam who says the opposite. When Elisha answered the officer and did not say he had tefillin, this was a proof to the claim of the gemara that no one is moser nefesh for tefilln, since even he did not and instead said he had kanfei yona.

The Maharam explains that the reason The Rashbam did not follow Rashi’s peshat is that Rashi implies that you need everyone to be moser nefesh and here only one person did. However, this is not true since even by Avoda Zara we find most did not other than Chananya Mishael and Azarya.

So why did a miracle happen to him? Perhaps because he was dedicated to the mitzva in a way that others were not in terms of being makpid on Guf Naki?

Shabbas 117b – Bahul al mamono

Rava explains the limit of how much we are allowed to remove from the house that is burning to be based on מתוך שאדם בהול על ממונו אי שרית ליה  אתי לכבויי.

This is contrast to 43b where R’ Yehuda Ben Lakish says מתוך שאדם בהול על מתו אי לא שרית ליה אתי לכבויי. Tosfos there (44a) explains that a person has more concern over a dead body than his money so he will put it out on purpose if we dont allow him a way to save the body. The concern over money however is more of when he is allowed to save, he may get so involved that he will forget its shabbas and then put out the fire.

However, the sugya on 65b still needs to be resolved with our sugya. The gemara, when raising the issue of saving clothes from a fire (הערמה), says that according to Rabbi Meir  on 120a we need to allow all clothes for if not,  דאי לא שרית ליה אתי לכבויי, which is like the death case and not monetary case above!

The Aruch Hashulchan in Siman 334 explains the difference between the sugyos as follows. He says that Rashi in 117b writes “ואי שרית ליה לאתחולי בהצלה”. This word is the key to understand, as it is based on human psychology. When a person is heavily involved in the act of saving things due to the fire he may forget its shabbas and chazal need to consider that and therefore use behala to expand the heter and allow him as much as possible so he does not resort to putting out the fire. Once he has been given enough leeway to act, he is calm and focused and we are no longer concerned about him putting it out, but if we limit him partially, then he may have more confusion and forget its shabbas. On the other hand, sometimes we may limit him from getting involved in kibuy, as in saving three meals which is a small act and not even a “start” in Rashi’s words, then the person understands that Chazal limited what he can do and he accepts it as a gezeira mishamayim and the worry is not that he will put it out, and instead we need to keep him away from getting involved in the acts that would make him forget its shabbas.

Therefore, according to Rabbi Meir we must allow all clothes and not limit to 18 as we are allowing him to act, and similarly on 120b, Chachamim allow all vessels including kelei cheres that will explode immediately since once he is allowed to build the mechitza we need to allow him to finish, for if not, this may cause behala and putting out of the fire.

The Aruch Hashulchan does not address Rabbi Yossi on 120b who says the opposite sevara – that by mechitza, he says that “אי שרית ליה אתי לכבויי”- which would seem to indicate that Rabbi Yossi and Chachamim are arguing about the Aruch Hashulchan’s explanation. Perhaps Rabbi Yossi has a different point of argument and is arguing on how sharp the lines have to be drawn between gerama and kibuy and his concern is that we cannot allow gerama because it looks too much like kibuy and this is unrelated to the question above.

Shabbas 120a - saving multiple items in one tallis

The Gemara, based on Rava’s statement that Rav Shizbi misled Rav Chisda, concludes that putting everything into one tallis and taking out is considered hatazala and thus mutar according to everyone.

If we turn back to 19b, we see that there were two talmidim who disagreed  -- one saved with one kli and one saved with many. The Gemara says this is the machlokes in our sugya of Rabba bar Zavda and Rav Huna. The simple interpretation would seem to be as Tosfos explains there that the talmid that saved many keilim was saving to the same chatzer (Rabba bar Zavda) and the one saving only one, was following Rav Huna that even to same chatzer you can only save one.

Based on this, Tosfos on 19b challenges Rashi’s interpretation of the sugya there as Rashi says that the talmid who carried many keilim did it by folding them up together and carrying out all in one shot. But as we said above, this is what our gemara said everyone calls matzil! The Ramban (and Maggid Mishne says Rambam learned this way as well in 23:23), explains that according to Rashi there is a difference between a real mixture where everything is poured together and mixed, as opposed to where all the keilim are put in one tallis and carried out but not really mixed. This latter case is not considered Matzil and only allowed according to Rabba Bar Zavda.

shabbas 111a -- female sirus

The Gemara states that if we hold that women have a mitzva of פריה ורביה, then this would mean that sirus is assur for them. What is the connection -- animals don't have such a mitzva and it is still assur?
The Minchas Chinuch explains that really the issur of sirus is not dependent on פריה ורביה, based on what we stated above -- that animals are included. Rather, the point of the gemara is that even though women are NOT included in the issur of sirus based on גזירת הכתוב (the source is from the toras kohanim), the gemara suggests a second reason that is independent that would forbid them to drink the כוס של עיקרין, which is פריה ורביה.
Another interesting peshat point in the Minchas Chinuch is that based on the reading of the peshat of our gemara he takes issue with the pesak of the Rambam who paskens that there is a different level of issur if you do direct or indirect sirus. For a man, direct sirus is chayav malkus, while כוס של עיקרין is only assur and for women it goes down one level, where direct is assur and כוס של עיקרין is mutar. He says that the answer of direct vs indirect in the sugya was rejected, thus the pesak should be that one is chayav malkus for a male either way and for a female it should be mutar either way, including a woman due to not being commanded in פריה ורביה.

Shabbas 49a - The Mesirus nefesh of Elisha Baal Kenafayim

The Rishonim all ask – this seems like it is a shaas hashemad, so shouldn’t one have to be moser nefesh for anything even not the big three – as the gemara states in Sanhedrin, even arakta demasana – the tying of the shoelace? Tosfos limits the ruling of arakta demasana to be something that is making you dress not like a Jew, while not wearing tefilin is different, since many Jews don’t wear tefilin all day so you won’t look like a goy. The Ramban and others formulate the difference as follows – tefillin is an aseh, so for bittul aseh we do not have to be moser nefesh, since שב ואל תעשה שאני. This leads to a different question, if he did not have to be moser nefesh, why did he take a chance in the first place and wear them? (Similar to the famous question on Mordechai why he risked his and Am Yisrael’s life not bowing to Haman).

This question leads to the BIG machlokes if one is allowed to give up their life optionally (not the big three and not shaas hashemad). The Rambam (יסודי התורה ה:ד) rules that one cannot do so as he writes: כל מי שנאמר בו יעבור ואל יהרג ונהרג ולא עבר הרי זה מתחייב בנפשו. The Lechem Mishneh asks from our case to this halacha and therefore rejects the ideas suggested above (aseh is different or based on how you look), However, he says that Elisha was able to take off his tefillin once he did the mitzva of wearing tefillin that day.

Other Rishonim use this case among others as proof that one may decide to give their lives. The Ran (based on the Ramban)  writes (on the Rif in our sugya) “שאע”פ שאינו מחויב ליהרג על קיומיה אפ”ה רשאי למסור נפשו עליה ומקבל שכר שכל מצוה שמסרו ישראל נפשם עליה בשעת הגזירה מוחזקת בידם ומקבלין עליה שכר הרבה ….”

For an interesting listen on this (related to Holocaust responsa: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/728723/Rabbi_Aaron_Rakeffet-Rothkoff/2008-11-02_Responsa_06, about halfway through the shiur

The definition of yad soledes bo

As Rav Meir mentioned, there is a large gap of what the definition of yad soledes bo. One of the significant sources for this is a teshuva of Rav SZ Auerbach in Minchas Shlomo, you can read here, continuing to here, where he uses a halacha from shechita to come up with minimum shiur for yad soledes bo lechumra. The basic idea there is that it is well documented that the body temperature of a duck is 45 degrees celsius and we also know that according to all opinions, the beis hashechita is not considered to be boiling until the end of the schechita, meaning that a knife that touches the beis hashechita for sure is not treif. Thus, at this temperature we know that we have not reached yad soledes bo