Chulin 037a: Mad cow disease
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Chulin 037a: Mad cow disease Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: Shalom, This daf - as well as others raise questions in relation to the problem of MAD COW DISEASE, do you have any info. related to examination of the shechted animal and if it would be shechted at all?? Thanks, Michael - The Kollel replies: As I understand it, mad cow disease is not recognizable when the cow is alive, so the question of whether it is permitted to slaughter such a cow is a moot issue. As for a cow which was found to have mad cow disease after Shechitah, its meat would certainly be prohibited. Even if it does not classify as a Tereifah (since it is not one of the ones listed in the Talmud), it would be prohibited because of Sakanah, the danger to health that it can cause, which is a more serious concern that the Kashrus issue (see for example Mishnah, Chulin 58b; Shulchan Aruch OC 173:2). Be well, Mordecai Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
RE: Chulin 021: How does Shechitah kill an animal?
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Chulin 021: How does Shechitah kill an animal? The Kollel wrote: Shechitah must cut a majority of the trachea. Accordingly, the animal cannot inhale if the trachea is severed rather than punctured. Jan Buckler [EMAIL PROTECTED] comments: I would be interested in hearing from a vet on this matter because there are documented cases of animals living with fully cut windpipes. The most famous is the case of Mike the Chicken who lived 18 months after its non-Jewish owner tried to kill it by chopping off its head. The cut went awry leaving one ear and most of the brain stem. The cut missed the jugular vein and any bleeding blood vessels developed clots. Nevertheless,the bird lived. Periodically, its owner used a syringe to suction out phlegm and placed feed into the animal's esophagus. The bird's death came one night when its owner awoke to sounds of the chicken choking and could not find the syringe fast enough. Veterinarians sain that the majority of the autonomic function in a chicken is contained in the brain stem and that the vast majority of Mike's brain stem survived the cleaver strike. While it is certain that without the owner's care the chicken would have died earlier, it is also clear the the chicken did not die shortly after its head was chopped off. Please see pictures attached. Jan Buckler attachment: chul-021.2c2.jpg
RE: Chulin 021: How does Shechitah kill an animal?
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Re: Chulin 021: How does Shechitah kill an animal? Avrohom Tzvi Elias [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: It appears to me that by cutting the windpipe of an animal we are actually improving it's ability to breath. Jan Buckler [EMAIL PROTECTED] commented: I would be interested in hearing from a vet on this matter because there are documented cases of animals living with fully cut windpipes. The most famous is the case of Mike the Chicken who lived 18 months after its non-Jewish owner tried to kill it by chopping off its head. (See http://www.miketheheadlesschicken.org/story.htm for more details.) Yitzchok Zirkind [EMAIL PROTECTED] notes: In my humble opinion something should be pointed out here. This question doesn't apply to cattle which needs that both Simanim be cut, and Nekuvas ha'Veshet b'Ma'she'hu (and perhaps the combination of the cutting of the two tubes weakens the animal enough to kill it). However with regard to fowl, cutting most of the windpipe is a valid Shechitah. (That is the case in which you are wondering how the fowl dies through Shechitah.) Kol Tuv, Yitzchok Zirkind Josh Marder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The way that my chevrusa and I understood the concept of treif is that it would die naturally were it not for any human intervention preventing that death from occuring. Because the person was feeding the chicken through a syringe, etc, that does not prevent the status of being a treif. An example of this concept would be the cow which can no longer graze being treif (45B) even though it could easily be kept alive by human intervention. Is this the proper perspective? Josh Marder --- The Kollel replies: I am not sure that what you say is consistent with the Gemara on 57b. There we are told of someone who made a splint for a chicken with a dislocated thigh, and yet the Gemara insists that it would not be able to help the bird survive longer than 12 months since a dislocated thigh makes a bird a Tereifah, and a Tereifah cannot be made to live longer than 12 months (if Tereifah Einah Chayah). Perhaps, though, the Gemara is talking about the norm, i.e. commonly available types of therapy. In very very unusual situations a Tereifah can perhaps be made to live longer than 12 months, either by using a normally unavailable type of therapy, or if the animal had some outstanding quality. (It is obvious that imitations of Mike the Headless Chicken have yet to arrive; it must have been an extremely unusual situation due to a combination of factors.) M. Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Megilah 015a: Purim, Esther, Daniel
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Megilah 015a: Purim, Esther, Daniel Randy Lazarus [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: 2 Questions: 1) According to the view that Chatach is Daniel, why wasn't Daniel Mordechai? In other words - We know that everyone but Mordechai succumbed to yeush and attended the king's feast or fled the city. How could daniel be so guilty? 2) When did Esther die? Did she go back to Israel with Mordechai? If not, how did he out-live her? What do we know of the rest of her life? Was she happy? Randy Lazarus, Ramat Bet Shemesh, Israel -- The Kollel replies: 1) I don't know it to be true that Mordechai was the only Jew not to sin. If there is such a Midrash (and if it is meant to be taken literally), the same question may be asked about the other members of the Anshei Knesses ha'Gedolah who lived at the time (see Megilah 16b). I presume Daniel did not sin along with the other Jews. 2) We do not know how long Esther lived; she did not go back to Israel as far as we know. Her end was anticlimatic, in a sense, in that she presumably remained in Achashverosh's harem until her demise. TOSFOS (Rosh Hashanah 3b, DH Shnas) tells us that she was the mother of Daryavesh, the king who took the throne after the death of Achashverosh and allowed Nechemyah to restart the construction of the Beis ha'Mikdash; we discussed this at length in our Insights there. Presumably Esther died happily, knowing that she not only saved the Jews from certain death but that she was the catalyst for the construction of the second Beis ha'Mikdash. Mordecai Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Re: Menachos 110: Petitionary Korbanot
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Re: Menachos 110: Petitionary Korbanot Joel Wiesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: Are there any petitionary korbanot? Today we have many petitionary prayers, but I cannot think of any similar korbanot (for health, prosperity, etc.) --- Yitzchok Zirkind [EMAIL PROTECTED] comments: What about a Noder b'Eis Tzarah (see Tosfos Chulin 2b DH Aval Amar, cited in YD 203:5)? Kol Tuv, Yitzchok Zirkind --- The Kollel writes: As Reb Yitzchok commented, Yakov asked Hashem to protect him in the house of Lavan, vowing that if Hashem protects him he will make this place a Beis Hashem, and offer a Nesech in gratitude. That would seem to qualify as petitionary. A similar vow was taken by the Jewish Nation when they were attacked by Amalek (in the end of Parashas Chukas). They pledged that if Hashem helps them to win the war they will offer all of the booty to Hekdesh (= Korbanos), see Rashi Bamidbar 21:2. See also Nazir 10a, Nedarim 28a, where a person makes an object Hekdesh in prayer that Hashem grant his wish about that object. I would think that the Se'ir la'Azazel is of the same category as the Selach Lanu prayer, in which we ask Hashem for forgiveness. The Se'ir is a way of requesting that Hashem forgive all of our sins. For that matter, every Korban Chatas is like that; we are beseeching Hashem to forgive our sins. Mordecai Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Re: Chulin 021: How does Shechitah kill an animal?
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Re: Chulin 021: How does Shechitah kill an animal? Avrohom Tzvi Elias [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: It appears to me that by cutting the windpipe of an animal we are actually improving it's ability to breath. Jan Buckler [EMAIL PROTECTED] commented: I would be interested in hearing from a vet on this matter because there are documented cases of animals living with fully cut windpipes. The most famous is the case of Mike the Chicken who lived 18 months after its non-Jewish owner tried to kill it by chopping off its head. (See http://www.miketheheadlesschicken.org/story.htm for more details.) Elliot Benjamin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am not a vet but an Ear, Nose and Throat Surgeon. It is clear that in the case of humans then can certainly survive with both trachea and esophagus completely severed. Yes, they would need other routes of nutrition and a way of securing the cut end of the trachea to the skin to prevent it closing off (as in a laryngectomy). But, the question still seems to stand that unless the Dam Nefesh is released i.e. via cutting the carotid artery or jugular veins then the animal may not necessarily die, yet this does not appear to be a halachic requirement for shechita (for Chulin)? Dr. Elliot Benjamin BSc. (Hons), MRCS., DLO To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Chulin 000: How does Shechitah kill an animal?
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Chulin 000: How does Shechitah kill an animal? Avrohom Tzvi Elias asked: For a kosher shechita we need only cut the trachea and esophagus. How does this alone kill the animal? The trachea is a hard tube and air can still enter. Doctors perform a trachaeotomy on humans by making a hole in the trachea of a patient who can't breath. It appears to me that by cutting the windpipe of an animal we are actually improving it's ability to breath. -- The Kollel replies: The difference can be found in the laws of Tereifos. Nekuvas ha'Kaneh (a puncture in the trachea) does not render the animal a Tereifah. The animal can live with a hole in the trachea. Shechitah must cut a majority of the trachea. Accordingly, the animal cannot inhale if the trachea is severed rather than punctured. D. Zupnik To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Re: Hashem's name in Zemiros
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Re: Hashem's name in Zemiros Tzvi Mordechai Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have heard not to use Hashem's name in Tzur Mishelo because each paragraph corresponds to a bracha in Birkas HaMazon creating Hlachik problems vi-a-vis eating more and benching. J. Hollander [EMAIL PROTECTED] comments: I have heard: There is no problem with Tsur MiShelo on days where we are not Yotsei without adding necessary timely additions such as on Shabbat - Retsei, or Yom Tov - Yaaleh veYavo. Thus, since it is not customary to sing Zemiroth on other days - there should be no problem at all. Yeshayahu HaKohen Hollander -- The Kollel adds: I suppose you also mean that we do not normally sing that Zemer for Se'udah Shelishis (during which one is Yotzei if he forgets Retzei). On the other hand, following the logic you suggest, you could have pointed out that we do not mention Bris Milah in Tzur mi'Shelo, and that is Me'akev the Birchas ha'Mazon (OC 187:3), so Tzur mi'Shelo alone will never suffice. But I'm not sure that your logic is enough to avoid the Tzur mi'Shelo problem, since if Tzur mi'Shelo is considered a Berachah (and not just Zemiros) because of Nevarech l..., we should not be allowed to sing it in order to avoid unnecessary Berachos (even if one will not be Yotzei Birchas ha'Mazon with it). Therefore, it would seem that the reason we sing it is because Tzur mi'Shelo is not considered a Berachah but a song of praise and as such we cannot be Yotzei Birchas ha'Mazon by singing it. By the way, if Tzur mi'Shelo had been sufficient for Birchas ha'Mazon, it may not help to say Hashem instead of Adnus. The PRI MEGADIM writes that one may be Yotzei a Berachah b'Di'eved using the word Hashem instead of Adnus, so not pronouncing the name of Adnus may not help. M. Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
RE: Chulin 007: The powers of evil
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Re: Chulin 007: The powers of evil Rabbi Lehrfield wrote: By the way, there is also a Ralbag similar to the Or ha'Chaim. He explains that the reason that the friends of Daniel (it is too hard for me to spell their names in English) were forced to leave the fire and that they did not want to leave the fire was because they were afraid that Nevuchadnezzer would harm them even though G-d had just save them. (I heard the above explanation on a Rabbi Reisman tape) . Jeffrey Katz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Just to add another prominent opinion which seems to be in concert with the Ohr HaChaim, one should take a look at the Biur Halachah (Siman 218), dh K'gon. In that Biur Halachah, the Chafetz Chaim, in trying to explain a Halachah brought down by the Kaftor VaPherach, states that although HaKadosh Baruch Hu specifically requested Eliyah HaNavi to appear before Achav, nevertheless, Achav is considered a Ba'al Bechira with regard to the life of Eliyahu and thus Eliyahu's life was deemed to be in danger. Jeffrey Katz To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Re: Daniel's name
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Re: Daniel's name Joel Schnur comments: By the way, the navi's name in Hebrew is Da-knee-yale. Not Da-ni-el, as most people mispronounce it. The tzeirei is under the yud not the aleph. check it out! (And to give credit, beshem omro, Rav Adin Steinsaltz pointed this out to me.) To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Re: Nevuchadnetzar or Nevuchadretzar
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)
_
THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
Re: Nevuchadnetzar or Nevuchadretzar
b lowinger asked:
could you please enlighten me, as to the variance in spelling
Nebbuchadnetzar or Nebuchadretzar?
b lowinger, new york usa
--
The Kollel replies:
Rav Joseph Pearlman replies:
In English, we call him Nebuchadnezzar, and in Tanach he is generally so
designated (Nevuchadnetzar) with or without an intermediate Alef (after
the second Nun). This is always the case in the books of Melachim,
Daniel, Ezra, Nechemyah, Esther, and Divrei ha'Yamim. However, in
Yechezkel, he is always called Nevuchadretzar, and in Yirmeyahu mostly
so, except in chapters 27 to 29. In chapters 21 (where he is first
mentioned) to 25, and from the second half of chapter 29 to the end, he is
called Nevuchadretzar always with an Alef after the first Reish.
This puzzles everyone who learns Yirmeyahu and Yechezkel for the first
time, and there is very little on it, if anything, in the regular
commentaries. There is one comment in Yalkut Me'am Lo'ez on Yirmeyahu 21:2.
He says, Here the verse calls him Nevuchadretzar, for before he destroyed
the Beis ha'Mikdash, the verse calls him Nevuchadnetzar, in a favorable
expression. After the Churban, it is [Nevuchad]retzar, from the expression
of 'Tzorer' ('one who afflicts'). However, this is forced, because it is
not consistent with every occasion of the word Nevuchadretzar in Tanach,
such as in Esther, Ezra, and Daniel, which were written before he destroyed
the Beis ha'Mikdash.
There is also a Midrash in Parshas Lech Lecha (Bereishis Rabah 45:9) on the
verse, Yado va'Kol v'Yad Kol Bo (Bereishis 16:12). The Midrash says,
When is 'his hand upon all, and the hand of all upon him'? It will be upon
the arrival of the one about whom it is written, 'And all places where
there reside people, beasts of the field, and birds of the sky, He has
given into your hand, and He has made you ruler over them all' (Daniel
2:38). This is as is written, 'For Kedar and the kingdoms of Chatzor, whom
Nevuchadnetzar, king of Bavel, smote' (Yirmeyahu 49:28). It is written
'Nevuchadretzar,' alluding to the fact that he tormented them in the desert
and killed them.
While this is a beautiful Derashah, it does not solve the problem in the
other places.
The true Peshat explanation presumably is that foreign names can vary in
their transliteration. Nevuchadnetzar's name is from the Babylonian
Nabu-Kudurri Usur, which means may Neba (an idol) protect the first
born (in Hebrew, Nevo Netzor Es ha'Bechor; see Yeshayah 46:1).
Accordingly, the name spelled with a Reish is closer to the original,
Nevuchadretzar, whereas the Nun form is perhaps closer to the Hebrew
equivalent, Nevuchad-netzar. (We find that Chazal always tried to
introduce a Hebrew connotation to foreign words. See Tiferes Yisrael to
Pesachim 10:3, and Insights to Pesachim 119:2.)
It should also be noted that certain letters are interchangeable for
various reasons. For example, letters may be interchanged according to the
five parts of the mouth by which they are pronounced: gutturals (Alef, Heh,
Ches, Ayin), labials (Beis, Vav, Mem, Peh), sibilants (Zayin, Samech, Shin,
Tzadi), linguals (Dalet, Nun, Tes, Taf, Lamed), and palatals (Gimel, Yud,
Kaf, Kuf). Also, letters may be interchanged between Hebrew and Aramaic
equivalents, such as Tes and Tzadi (as in the Hebrew Tzvi which, in
Aramaic, is Tavya), or Zayin and Dalet (as in Zahav and Dehav), or
Shin and Taf (as in Shor and Tora). Similarly, the Nun and Reish are
interchangeable, as in the Hebrew Ben which, in Aramaic, is Bar. Also,
the Nun and Reish and Lamed seem to change about in the words Margalis,
Marnisa, and Margaris, and in the words Almanah and Armela. Another
superb example is Achan in Yehoshua 7:18, who becomes Achar in Divrei
ha'Yamim I 2:7, because he was Ocher Yisrael through his sin. However,
this change is possible only if there is an inherent interchangeability
between cognate letters.
Rashi in Erchin (33a, DH Katzir) writes Katzin (for Katzir) because Nun
is interchangeable with Reish, as it is written Nevuchadnetzar and
Nevuchadretzar (however, see Rashi in Megilah 14b, who gives an
alternative explanation for Katzir referring to Yoshiyahu's kingship, which
does not involve letter interchangeability).
Another example is Sheni (two) in Hebrew which in Aramaic is Trei,
where the Shin is replaced by a Taf, and the Nun is replaced by a Reish.
There must be numerous other examples which one can find.
At all events, there is no particular problem
RE: Re: Chulin 007: The powers of evil
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Re: Chulin 007: The powers of evil Rabbi Moshe Lehrfield wrote: The first answer given by the kollel is interesting; however, it implies that another person can, in fact, harm another person even though such harm is not preordained from above. This is very difficult for me to except. Most people have a simple understanding that whatever occurs to a person whether naturally or through the act of another person is because the one above has decreed it to be so. Of course, there may be an exception to this rule in the case of witchcraft, which needs further clarification. There is a wonderful discussion of this entire matter in Sifsai Chaim. The Kollel replied: Difficult as it sounds, the Or ha'Chayim that we quoted (in Bereishis 37:21) indeed says that a person can, in fact, harm another person even though such harm is not preordained from above. I discussed this Or ha'Chayim with Hagaon Rav Moshe Shapiro (Bayit Vegan) shlit'a recently, and tried to argue that he doesn't really mean that the preordained can be changed by another person, but that greater merit is necessary to prevent damage being inflicted by a free-choosing person than to prevent damage by an animal etc. However, Rav Moshe did not accept my argument and said that the Or ha'Chayim's words imply that a person can, in fact, harm another person even though such harm is not preordained from above. Rabbi Lehrfield replies: Thank you so much for the response. I am aware of the shita of the Or ha'Chaim, however, I believe, that this is not the excepted opinion. Furthermore, notwithstanding the opinion of Harav Shapiro, the Sifchei Chaim (who, I understand, learned together with Harav Shapiro from Harav Dessler) clearly says that this explanation is not the opinion of the Or ha'Chaim; rather, it is limited to that one situation between Yosef and his brothers , based on a concept similar to that of ayin harah (but in general, even the Or ha'Chaim agrees that a person cannot harm another unless it was preordained from above). I also heard from my Rosh Yeshiva that there is a Kabalah from the Vilna Gaon that the halacha is not like the Or ha'Chaim and that the concept of witchcraft is as explained by the nefesh ha'chaim (which explanation, I did not fully understand). By the way, there is also a Ralbag similar to the Or ha'Chaim. He explains that the reason that the friends of Daniel (it is too hard for me to spell their names in English) were forced to leave the fire and that they did not want to leave the fire was because they were afraid that Nevuchadnezzer would harm them even though G-d had just save them. (I heard the above explanation on a Rabbi Reisman tape) . Thank you To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
RE: Hash-m's name in Zemiros
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Re: Zemiros The Kollel replies: The Halachic rationale for mentioning Shemos Kedoshim in Zemiros is that when one is expressing praise of Hashem, one may use the name of Hashem. Accordingly, this also relates to the refrain of the Zemer. We find the repeated use of Hashem's name in other Piyutim (such as the Birkas ha'Mazon said at a Bris Milah, and the Piyut of Hashem Melech on Yomim Nora'im, and in some of the Selichos). Thus, one may pronounce Hashem's name in the refrains of the Zemiros. Mark Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] adds: Many tunes for Zemiros include a repetition of the refrain (i.e. saying the refrain twice before starting the next stanza). Examples that spring to mind that include Hashem's name include Boruch Kel Elyon (Hashomer Lo'El Yerotzu), Yah Ribon and Tzur Mishelo (... kidvar Hashem). I have heard those who would not pronounce Hashem's name properly on the repeat Kol Tuv Mark Bergman To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Re: Nevuchadnetzar or Nevuchadretzar (corrected version)
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)
_
THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
Re: Nevuchadnetzar or Nevuchadretzar
b lowinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked:
could you please enlighten me, as to the variance in spelling
Nebbuchadnetzar or Nebuchadretzar?
b lowinger, new york usa
--
The Kollel replies:
Rav Joseph Pearlman replies:
In English, we call him Nebuchadnezzar, and in Tanach he is generally so
designated (Nevuchadnetzar) with or without an intermediate Alef (after
the second Nun). This is always the case in the books of Melachim,
Daniel, Ezra, Nechemyah, Esther, and Divrei ha'Yamim. However, in
Yechezkel, he is always called Nevuchadretzar, and in Yirmeyahu mostly
so, except in chapters 27 to 29. In chapters 21 (where he is first
mentioned) to 25, and from the second half of chapter 29 to the end, he is
called Nevuchadretzar always with an Alef after the first Reish.
This puzzles everyone who learns Yirmeyahu and Yechezkel for the first
time, and there is very little on it, if anything, in the regular
commentaries. There is one comment in Yalkut Me'am Lo'ez on Yirmeyahu 21:2.
He says, Here the verse calls him Nevuchadretzar, for before he destroyed
the Beis ha'Mikdash, the verse calls him Nevuchadnetzar, in a favorable
expression. After the Churban, it is [Nevuchad]retzar, from the expression
of 'Tzorer' ('one who afflicts'). However, this is forced, because it is
not consistent with every occasion of the word Nevuchadnetzar in Tanach,
such as in Esther, Ezra, and Daniel, which were written after he destroyed
the Beis ha'Mikdash.
There is also a Midrash in Parshas Lech Lecha (Bereishis Rabah 45:9) on the
verse, Yado va'Kol v'Yad Kol Bo (Bereishis 16:12). The Midrash says,
When is 'his hand upon all, and the hand of all upon him'? It will be upon
the arrival of the one about whom it is written, 'And all places where
there reside people, beasts of the field, and birds of the sky, He has
given into your hand, and He has made you ruler over them all' (Daniel
2:38). This is as is written, 'For Kedar and the kingdoms of Chatzor, whom
Nevuchadnetzar, king of Bavel, smote' (Yirmeyahu 49:28). It is written
'Nevuchadretzar,' alluding to the fact that he tormented them in the desert
and killed them.
While this is a beautiful Derashah, it does not solve the problem in the
other places.
The true Peshat explanation presumably is that foreign names can vary in
their transliteration. Nevuchadnetzar's name is from the Babylonian
Nabu-Kudurri Usur, which means may Neba (an idol) protect the first
born (in Hebrew, Nevo Netzor Es ha'Bechor; see Yeshayah 46:1).
Accordingly, the name spelled with a Reish is closer to the original,
Nevuchadretzar, whereas the Nun form is perhaps closer to the Hebrew
equivalent, Nevuchad-netzar. (We find that Chazal always tried to
introduce a Hebrew connotation to foreign words. See Tiferes Yisrael to
Pesachim 10:3, and Insights to Pesachim 119:2.)
It should also be noted that certain letters are interchangeable for
various reasons. For example, letters may be interchanged according to the
five parts of the mouth by which they are pronounced: gutturals (Alef, Heh,
Ches, Ayin), labials (Beis, Vav, Mem, Peh), sibilants (Zayin, Samech, Shin,
Tzadi), linguals (Dalet, Nun, Tes, Taf, Lamed), and palatals (Gimel, Yud,
Kaf, Kuf). Also, letters may be interchanged between Hebrew and Aramaic
equivalents, such as Tes and Tzadi (as in the Hebrew Tzvi which, in
Aramaic, is Tavya), or Zayin and Dalet (as in Zahav and Dehav), or
Shin and Taf (as in Shor and Tora). Similarly, the Nun and Reish are
interchangeable, as in the Hebrew Ben which, in Aramaic, is Bar. Also,
the Nun and Reish and Lamed seem to change about in the words Margalis,
Marnisa, and Margaris, and in the words Almanah and Armela. Another
superb example is Achan in Yehoshua 7:18, who becomes Achar in Divrei
ha'Yamim I 2:7, because he was Ocher Yisrael through his sin. However,
this change is possible only if there is an inherent interchangeability
between cognate letters.
Rashi in Erchin (33a, DH Katzir) writes Katzin (for Katzir) because Nun
is interchangeable with Reish, as it is written Nevuchadnetzar and
Nevuchadretzar (however, see Rashi in Megilah 14b, who gives an
alternative explanation for Katzir referring to Yoshiyahu's kingship, which
does not involve letter interchangeability).
Another example is Sheni (two) in Hebrew which in Aramaic is Trei,
where the Shin is replaced by a Taf, and the Nun is replaced by a Reish.
There must be numerous other examples which one can find.
At all events
Megilah 030b: Reading Zecher Amalek
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Megilah 030b: Reading Zecher Amalek Stuart Plaskow [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: Dear Rabbi Kornfeld, Could you please explain to me why some Baalei Kriah on Shabbas Zochor, read the word ZAYCHER then ZECHER in the Maftir.? Since it is not a KRI or KSIV how did this originate.? Wishing you a Happy Purim Stuart The Kollel replies: In Bava Basra 21b we find that Yoav almost killed (or actually killed) his childhood teacher for mistakenly reading to him the verse as Timcheh Zachar Amalek (obliterate the males of Amalek) rather than Zecher Amalek (any trace of Amalek). We only had to face Haman in a later generation because of this mistake in Yoav schooling. Because of this we are unusually sensitive to the correct pronunciation of this word, and we read it as both Zeicher (Tzeirei, Segol - the way the word is voweled throughout Tanach) and Zecher, (Segol, Segol - as in Mecher, Nechemyah 13:16 and Secher, Yeshayah 19:10, Mishlei 11:18), just in case that is the true pronunciation -- even though there is no difference in meaning at all between the two. Note also that in the Ashrei psalm, all Sidurim vowel the word as Zeicher (Tzerei, Segol), which is the way it appears in the Navi. However, the Vilna Ga'on, as cited in Sidur Sha'arei Rachamim, makes it Zecher (Segol, Segol). Likutei Maharich writes that this is also the pronunciation chosen by the Radak, and that the same pronunciation would apply to the word in the verse in Parshas Zachor. M. Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Megilah 010: Does Vayehi connote Tza'ar?
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Megilah 010: Does Vayehi connote Tza'ar? David Manheim [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: The gemara's hava amina is that the word vayihi by itself is a loshon tzar, but then rejects this because of some counter examples and says instead that the loshon of vayihi bimay is instead. However, in Ester rabbah, the hava amina is raised, the same objections are brought up, but they are answered. Why does the gemara not like the teretz of the medrash? David Manheim, Har nof, Israel / Atlanta, Ga, USA -- The Kollel replies: The Gemara proves that Vayehi cannot always imply Tza'ar from the verses Vayehi Erev Vayehi Boker that are repeated for the six days of creation. The Midrash in Esther Raba (Pesichta #11) asks also from Vayehi Or. It answers these Vayehis by asserting that the there was sorrow by the creation of the heavens and earth since they would eventually cease to exist, and by the other days since the creations of those days were not complete; wheat requires grinding and baking etc. The creation of Light was sorrowful since it was hidden away immediately after it was created. As to why our Gemara did not accept these answers, I would suggest the following: (a) A telling reference that puts the answers of the Midrash Raba in perspective is the Midrash Bereishis Raba 42:3, which adds one word to these answers. It states not that these Vayehis did not represent a Simcha, but that they did not represent a *full Simchah*. That is, there certainly is nothing sorrowful about the creation of the world, per se. However the joy of creation was *incomplete*, since something was still lacking in creation (i.e. the heavens and earth would eventually expire, and the rest or creation was not fully prepared for use). If so, the Midrash need not disagree with the statement of our Gemara. Our Gemara refuted the claim that Vayehi always represents *sorrow* since these Vayehis do not herald a cause for mourning and sorrow. The Midrash makes another postulate, namely that Vayehi represents a joy that is *lacking* in some respect, and it defends that postulate appropriately. Our Gemara might agree to this statement of the Midrash. (By the way, your statement that in the Midrash the same objections are brought up, but they are answered is inaccurate. The Midrash does not explain why Vayehi is appropriate in the verse discussing the building of the First Temple and in Yakov's meeting with Rachel, which the Gemara cites as additional proofs that Vayehi is not Tza'ar. However, the answers the Midrash would give to these verses can be learned from Rashi Bereishis 29:11 (Yakov cried at the time he met Rachel since he saw that Rachel would not be buried with him) and Rashi Shemos 38:21 (at the building of the Mishkan the verse alludes to the grief we would experience due to the destruction of the two Batei Mikdash -- the same would apply for the building of the Mikdash). (b) However, I believe that although what I have written above is correct there is yet more to the picture. The Midrash itself cites a disagreement on this matter. Although it cites Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani as postulating that Vayehis are signs of sorrow, it also cites Rav Shimon bar Aba as saying that Vayehi means either unparalleled grief or *unparalleled joy*. He apparently was of the opinion that the Vayehi's of the Creation of the World all were Vayehi's of joy that were *not* mixed with grief at all. (The Gemara implies as well that the Simchah of creation was *complete* when it says that the Simchah of the completion of the Mishkan was the epitome of joy, as exemplified by the joy of the creation of the heavens and the earth.) Why didn't Rav Shimon bar Aba accept the arguments of Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani, who showed that the Simchah of creation was indeed a mixed joy? The answer to this might lie in the argument between Rebbi Yirmiyah and Rebbi Zeira (Berachos 30b) as to whether one may fill his mouth with joy in this world (see Insights there; see also Insights to Avodah Zarah 3:2:b). It is clear from that Gemara that there is a difference of opinion as to whether one may view the present world as complete, since it fully serves the purpose for which it was created, or as incomplete, since compared to the state of matters in the World to Come it is found lacking. Rav Shmuel is asserting that the joy of creation is lacking (and that is why it says Vayehi) since this world is obviously not the final goal. It will be replaced by a better world, in which loaves
RE: Re: Chulin 007: The powers of evil
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Re: Chulin 007: The powers of evil Rabbi Lehrfield wrote: By the way, there is also a Ralbag similar to the Or ha'Chaim. He explains that the reason that the friends of Daniel (it is too hard for me to spell their names in English) were forced to leave the fire and that they did not want to leave the fire was because they were afraid that Nevuchadnezzer would harm them even though G-d had just save them. (I heard the above explanation on a Rabbi Reisman tape) . Morris Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] adds On the same topic---Rav Isaac Bernstein,ztl, also stated on his tape on parshat vayeshev that the Ohr Hachaim's concept of bechira is also alluded to in the beginning of tachanun --when David Hamelech asks to fall into the hands of Hashem and not into human hands To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Chulin 025: Ma'aser on Temed
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Chulin 025: Ma'aser on Temed Aharon Levine asked: On Chulin 25b, Rashi explains that according to the Chachamim, temed that has no more liquid than the amount of water that was initially added is considered water, not wine, despite the fact that it tastes like wine. Do the Chachamim disagree to the concept of Ta'am K'ikur that we find throughout Shas or is the situation with temed different from the typical Ta'am K'ikur? Aharon Levine, Baltimore, Maryland USA -- The Kollel replies: The Bartenura on the Mishnah in Ma'asros writes that it is not Ta'am Gamur, but rather only Kiyuha (a minor taste). However, the Ramban in Bava Basra writes that Shemarim are not considered Tevel, and, therefore, only if it becomes wine is there a Chiyuv of Ma'aser when there is actual volume. D. Zupnik To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Dimensions of the Luchos
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Dimensions of the Luchos Jay Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: What are the height/width/depth of EACH of the luchos measured in tefachim, and in what Maseches do we learn that? Thank you. Jay Meyer, Jacksonville, USA -- The Kollel replies: According to the Gemara in Bava Basra 14a, they each were a square of 6 Tefachim by 6 Tefachim, and 3 Tefachim thick. Be well, M. Kornfeld Dafyomi Advancement Forum To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Re: Chulin 007: The powers of evil
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Re: Chulin 007: The powers of evil Dr. M. Kaplan asked: The Gemara first quotes Rebbi Chanina who says that nothing (even Keshafim) has power in this world except for Hashem, as it is written, There is nothing besides Him (Devarim 4). Rebbi Chanina further states that a person does not hurt his finger unless decreed from above. The Gemara then quotes Rebbi Yochanan who says that sorcerers are called Keshafim because they are Makchishin Pamalya Shel Ma'alah, -- they contravene the powers of above. The Kollel replied: The answer to your question involves two elements... Rabbi Moshe Lehrfield writes: Thank you. The first answer given by the kollel is interesting; however, it implies that another person can, in fact, harm another person even though such harm is not preordained from above. This is very difficult for me to except. Most people have a simple understanding that whatever occurs to a person whether naturally or through the act of another person is because the one above has decreed it to be so. Of course, there may be an exception to this rule in the case of witchcraft, which needs further clarification. There is a wonderful discussion of this entire matter in Sifsai Chaim. The second explanation is nice, but I do not think that it is the Pshat. M. Lehrfield -- The Kollel replies: (a) Difficult as it sounds, the Or ha'Chayim that we quoted (in Bereishis 37:21) indeed says that a person can, in fact, harm another person even though such harm is not preordained from above. I discussed this Or ha'Chayim with Hagaon Rav Moshe Shapiro (Bayit Vegan) shlit'a recently, and tried to argue that he doesn't really mean that the preordained can be changed by another person, but that greater merit is necessary to prevent damage being inflicted by a free-choosing person than to prevent damage by an animal etc. However, Rav Moshe did not accept my argument and said that the Or ha'Chayim's words imply that a person can, in fact, harm another person even though such harm is not preordained from above. (b) I am not sure what your difficulty was with the second explanation. Perhaps you found it difficult to fit into the words of Rebbi Chanina that a person does not stub his toe on this world unless it is decreed from above; how can that be referring only to the very meritorious? However, that statement is not discussing harm being caused by a Ba'al Bechirah, but rather harm that comes by itself. Therefore it is true of everyone; one will not stub his toe without having it decreed from above. The other statement, Ein Od Milvado, is limited by the Gemara itself to those who are unusually meritorious, as we said in our second explanation (which complements the first). M. Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Re: Chulin 007: The powers of evil
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Re: Chulin 007: The powers of evil Dr. M. Kaplan asked: The Gemara first quotes Rebbi Chanina who says that nothing (even Keshafim) has power in this world except for Hashem, as it is written, There is nothing besides Him (Devarim 4). Rebbi Chanina further states that a person does not hurt his finger unless decreed from above. The Gemara then quotes Rebbi Yochanan who says that sorcerers are called Keshafim because they are Makchishin Pamalya Shel Ma'alah, -- they contravene the powers of above. How are we to reconcile these two statements? - The Kollel replied: The answer to your question involves two elements. First, Rebbi Chanina is not teaching that bodily harm that is caused by another person is decreed from above. Rather, he is referring to what happens to a person through the natural course of events without human intervention The second part of the answer to your question is that Keshafim cannot damage every person. There are certain people, such as Rebbi Chanina (who says that a person does not hurt his finger unless decreed from above), who are invulnerable to the powers of Keshafim. This is discussed by RAV CHAIM of VOLOZHEN in his classic work, NEFESH HA'CHAIM (3:12). He writes that the power of sorcery comes from the control that Hashem gave to man over certain lower metaphysical powers, powers that come through the stars and constellations. They do not have control over the powers that come from the holy Merkavah of Hashem, and the realm of the Mal'achim (celestial beings). When a person has firmly established Emunah in his heart that there is no other force in the world other than the will of Hashem, and his thoughts are so connected to the Master of all forces that it is clear to him that nothing else has any control or existence at all without Hashem's will, he can be confident that the forces of sorcery will have no influence over him (unless Hashem so desires) - Yeshayhu HaKohen Hollander comments: Dear Rabbi, A radically different interpretation may be given - I don't remember who gave this one: In the statememt of Rabbi Hanina Ein Adam Nokef etsba'o milemata ela im ken machrizin alav milmala one should not translate the word Machrizin as Decreed but as Announced, which is the usual translation of machrizin, as in the case of a lost item. The impact of the statement of Rabbi Hanina is that even a small thing done below is announced above: that the almighty is not indifferent even to a small action or hurt in this world. According to Rashi Nokef is Hurt; but Nokef has often another meaning: to pass or to bend, as shanim inkofu - years will pass. The difference between the two translations of NOKEf is: if Nokef = hurt, like Rashi - the announcer only announces hurts; if Nokef = bends, the heavenly announcer announces even seemingly insignificant actions. this would have similar meaning to Rabbi Akiva's statement Hakol Tsafui vehareshut netuna, as some interpret: Everything done is seen = registered [by the almighty], but is enabled by him [hareshut netuna], which ststement is amplified by the saying kol ha'omer HKBH vatran - yivatru meav - anyone who says that HKBH lets one do an action without getting the appropriate reward or punishment - will have his innards cut, because Hapinkas patuah veayad roshemet: everything is written down and account is taken. In this way Ein ode milvado: nothing can escape His presence: everything is noticed by Him. Rabbi Yohanan's statement Makchishin Pamalya Shel Ma'alah, like false witnesses who makchish other witnesses, but not contravene. Again, this is an old problem: what are the powers of Kishuf, if any. Yeshayhu HaKohen Hollander To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Chulin 024b: Sandals and Shoes
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Chulin 024b: Sandals and Shoes Joel Wiesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: Usually we read about sandals, and only occasionally about shoes. Are the unique words used for shoes and sandals used to mean the same footwear, or did they have real shoes back then? Yehuda Wiesen, Newton, Massachusetts - The Kollel replies: They wore different footwear in the summer and winter, see Gemara and Rashi Sukah 21b (DH Kol she'Ein), Bava Basra 58a (DH Ela Sandalim and Rashash there). Sandals were worn whenever weather permitted, since they were (and still are) much cheaper. M. Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Chulin 007: The powers of evil
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Chulin 007: The powers of evil Dr. M. Kaplan asked: The Gemara first quotes Rebbi Chanina who says that nothing (even Keshafim) has power in this world except for Hashem, as it is written, There is nothing besides Him (Devarim 4). Rebbi Chanina further states that a person does not hurt his finger unless decreed from above. The Gemara then quotes Rebbi Yochanan who says that sorcerers are called Keshafim because they are Makchishin Pamalya Shel Ma'alah, -- they contravene the powers of above. How are we to reconcile these two statements? -- The Kollel replies: The answer to your question involves two elements. First, Rebbi Chanina is not teaching that bodily harm that is caused by another person is decreed from above. Rather, he is referring to what happens to a person through the natural course of events without human intervention. The reason for this is because, as the Or ha'Chaim writes (in Bereishis 37:21), a person -- who has the power of free choice -- is able to intervene in another person's life and even to kill him, even though it was not decreed from above on that person to die. (The source for this teaching can be found in the Zohar on that verse. According to some, there is a Machlokes Tana'im in the Zohar regarding this point.) Therefore, just as a person can physically damage someone else even though it was not ordained from above, a person can also damage someone else through his use of sorcery, even though it was not ordained from above. In this manner, the Keshafim can contravene the destiny decreed from above. (We may wonder why the phrase Makchishin Pamalya Shel Ma'alah is used to describe only sorcery, when a person can contravene what was preordained with physical intervention as well. The answer is that when he contravenes with physical force, he is not enlisting any of the other powers or creations of Hashem to his use. Keshafim, in contrast, enlist the powers of above, which normally would have brought a different fate to the subject involved. The reason why a person can turn the powers above to his use is because Hashem instilled such an ability into the nature that He created, which allows a person to control certain powers of the physical and metaphysical world.) The second part of the answer to your question is that Keshafim cannot damage every person. There are certain people, such as Rebbi Chanina (who says that a person does not hurt his finger unless decreed from above), who are invulnerable to the powers of Keshafim. This is discussed by RAV CHAIM of VOLOZHEN in his classic work, NEFESH HA'CHAIM (3:12). He writes that the power of sorcery comes from the control that Hashem gave to man over certain lower metaphysical powers, powers that come through the stars and constellations. They do not have control over the powers that come from the holy Merkavah of Hashem, and the realm of the Mal'achim (celestial beings). When a person has firmly established Emunah in his heart that there is no other force in the world other than the will of Hashem, and his thoughts are so connected to the Master of all forces that it is clear to him that nothing else has any control or existence at all without Hashem's will, he can be confident that the forces of sorcery will have no influence over him (unless Hashem so desires). When Rebbi Chanina said that the sorcerers cannot affect him because, Ein Od Milvado, he was emphasizing the clarity of his perfect faith. People such as Rebbi Chanina are invulnerable to sorcery. Rav Chaim of Volozhen continues that when a person firmly establishes this belief in his heart, he can be confident than not only Keshafim cannot affect him, but that no other source, such as other persons, can cause him harm. It seems from his words that even the will of a person, who has the power of free choice, cannot affect a person who cleaves to Hashem and fully accepts in his mind and heart that there is no other force that has any power in the world other than Hashem alone. M. Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Makos 020: Removing hair on Shabbos
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Makos 020: Removing hair on Shabbos XON8 asked: In Makos, it says: (j) Support (Beraisa): One who shaves the length of a scissors blade on Shabbos is liable - this is two hairs; (k) R. Eliezer says, he is liable for one hair. 1. Chachamim admit, one is liable for removing a single white hair among black ones (because this is important to him); 2. Men are forbidden to do so even on a weekday - V'Lo Yilbash Gever Simlas Ishah (do not adorn yourself like a woman). (Rambam - he is lashed even for one hair; Ra'avad - it is forbidden only if he removes enough to make a recognizable difference; Ritva - our Tana holds that this is only forbidden mid'Rabanan on account of Simlas Ishah). --- This is fine. However, shouldn't he also be chayav for doing it on shabbat because of Borer (that you aren't allowed to separate the bad from good on shabbat) - here is is taking a white hair from the groups of black. This is assur also! -- The Kollel replies: The Melachah of Borer is considered a Tikun in the remaining good, desirable objects, in that the remainder becomes more usable since the bad was removed. See Or Same'ach (Hilchos Shabbos 8:11), who says that for this reason there is Borer only when the remainder is used together; in contrast, there is no Borer for Kelim (utensils) which are used individually. (Not all Poskim accept this reasoning.) Therefore, in the cae of hairs, one is not improving the remaining black hairs for they are not for use anyway. One merely wants to do away with the white hair. Although it is among the black, it still is not Borer. It is also possible that since each hair is connected individually to the body, it is not considered a mixture (Ta'aruves) which is neccesary to have before there is a problem of Borer. This is my suggestion, but I would not rely on it l'Halachah. D. Zupnik To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Chulin 005: The Shechitah of an idolater
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Chulin 005: The Shechitah of an idolater Shragie E. asked: 1)The gemora refutes Reb Anan who says that one may eat the shechita of an oved AZ from the braisa that says we do not accept the korbon oleh of an oved AZ. Why is this a problem, maybe his korbon is not acceptable but his shecitah is still kosher? 2)Reb Anan did want to use the rayuh from the braisa that a mumer loso davar could shecht because keivan dedush beh kehetairah dami. We don't see Rabah arguing with this sevureh. Or do we? 3) From Chatas on amud beis we see only those who commit beshogeg have their korbonos accepted. Implying, those who commit bemaized, including a mumer leteyavon are not. This is very different from the oleh on amud alef who only excludes an oved AZ and mechalel shabbos. What's the gemores question of Mei beneihoo? -- The Kollel replies: 1) The Gemara is not refuting Rav Anan from the Halachah of Olah, but rather it is refuting Rav Anan from the Beraisa of Olah. From the fact that the Beraisa differentiates between a Mumar l'Davar Echad whose Korban is accepted, and a Mumar l'Nasech whose Korban is not, we see that a Mumar l'Avodah Zarah is not like a Mumar l'Davar Echad, but rather like a Mumar l'Kol ha'Torah, and therefore his Shechitah will also be Pasul, like the Shechitah of a Mumar l'Kol ha'Torah. 2) Rav Anan said his Halachah independently, and not as an explanation of the Beraisa. The Gemara is looking for a different Perush of Mumar other than the Perush of Mumar l'Davar Echad, because Mumar l'Davar Echad is included in Arel. The Gemara suggests that Mumar refers to a Mumar l'Oso Davar, which would follow Rava who says that Mumar l'Oso Davar is Kasher for Shechitah. The Gemara is Docheh this, and says that perhaps the Shechitah of a Mumar l'Oso Davar is actually Pasul, *unlike* Rava, because of the logic of k'Heteira Dami. Rava must argue on this logic, for he relies on the logic of Lo Shavak Heteira, and if an Isur has become like a Heter to this Mumar, that logic falls away. Therefore, the Gemara must offer a different expalnation for Mumar, which is not included in Arel (Mumar l'Davar Echad) and is also not a Mumar l'Oso Davar. Accordingly, the Gemara suggests that it refers to a Mumar l'Avodah Zarah, which will follow Rav Anan. 3) The question of the Gemara (here and in Horayos) of Mai Beinaihu is what is the difference between the Man d'Amar that learns from m'Am ha'Aretz (which is a Mi'ut regarding the person himself who is a Mumar) that he may not bring a Korban, and the Man d'Amar that learns from v'Ashem, which is a Mi'ut on the bringing of the Chatas, teaching that it must be a case of Shav m'Yedi'aso, which, in practice, a Mumar is not. D. Zupnik To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Re: Shevu'os 003: Atonement
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Re: Shevuos 003: Atonement The Kollel wrote: A Chatas is considered inexpensive. It can be bought for even one Danka. Nevertheless, regarding the variable Chatas, the Torah was lenient for the pauper. Barry Epstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: How can a bull be inexpensive? It would appear today that a poor person who not be able to afford to buy a bull for a chatas. Barry Epstein, Dallas, USA -- The Chatas offering was a female sheep or goat, less than one year old. It was not considered an expensive item, and the Gemara testifies in a number of places (e.g. Shevuos 37a). That's at most 32 Perutos, or about $1.00. Be well, Mordecai Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Chulin 002: A Tamei who performs Shechitah of Kodshim
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Chulin 002: A Tamei who performs Shechitah of Kodshim joseph asked: the answer you state for the Rambam why he ommitted the requirement for the tuma who shected kodsim to say that he did not touch is because chibas hakodesh according to Rambam is only drabunan. if that is the case then he should be allowed to shect lcotchila. joseph, ny -- The Kollel replies: Although the Tum'ah would be d'Rabanan, we are stringent with the Tum'ah of Kodesh, and we make precautions that Kodesh should not become Tamei. (See Mishnah Chagigah 3:1 for some examples.) Therefore, l'Chatchilah we will not allow a Tamei to perform Shechitah. However, once he did, it is only a Safek d'Rabanan. D. Zupnik To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Menachos 108: One of my bulls
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Menachos 108: One of my bulls Mark Bergman asked: The Gemoro (108b) says that if one specified Echod MeShvari (one of my oxen) and he had 3, we are choshesh that he meant the middle one (as well as the best one). What if he had 5 - are we choshesh for all but the worst? Kol Tuv Mark Bergman Manchester UK -- The Kollel replies: The Aruch ha'Shulchan (94:25) asks the question and says that surely we will not say that he must bring all. He writes that in a case of three, the middle one has a special Chashivus since it is durectly above the bottom, whereas each middle one of many is not unique, since there are other middle ones. D. Zupnik To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Re: Menachos 096a: The Kanim of the Lechem ha'Panim
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Menachos 096a: The Kanim of the Lechem ha'Panim Mark Bergman asked: The Gemoro says (bottom of 96a) that there was a gap between each loaf of the Lechem HaPonim and the canes supporting the level above (to allow flow of air), yet it seems that the canes rested on the loaves (thus for example, the top level only had 2 canes since the weight resting was less). Mark Bergman continues: Maybe you didn't grasp the exact point of my question, which is that I understood the Gemoro to first say that there was a groove in the top of each loaf into which each of the Kanim fitted; then the Gemoro asks that there must be gap (between the loaves) for air to circulate, so the Gemoro answers that there was a small gap between the loaf AND THE ROD ABOVE (i.e. rod not resting on the loaf!) [magba lei purta] How exactly did you understand magba lei purta ? Any comment? Kol Tuv Mark Bergman Manchester UK The Kollel replies: I understood the term d'Magbah Lei Purta to mean that the *rods* lifted up the *bread* a bit. (Not that the *person* lifted the *rod* above the bread a bit, as you understood.) Best wishes, M. Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Chulin 002: The blood of a Korban being Machshir it
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Chulin 002: The blood of a Korban being Machshir it Moshe A. asked: Question on your answer, that the Rambam holds that Chibas HaKodesh is Miderabanon. Isn't dam shchita makshir the korbon? Moshe -- The Kollel replies: Your question is addressed by Tosfos (2b, DH Shema Yiga). He writes that Dam of Kodshim is not Mach'shir to be Mekabel Tum'ah. His source is the Gemara in Pesachim (16a, 20a). Y. Shaw To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Menachos 096a: The Kanim of the Lechem ha'Panim
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Menachos 096a: The Kanim of the Lechem ha'Panim Mark Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: The Gemoro says (bottom of 96a) that there was a gap between each loaf of the Lechem HaPonim and the canes supporting the level above (to allow flow of air), yet it seems that the canes rested on the loaves (thus for example, the top level only had 2 canes since the weight resting was less). Any comment? Kol Tuv Mark Bergman Manchester UK The Kollel replies: We addressed this issue in our Insights to the Daf. You will find a copy of our answers below. Best wishes, M. Kornfeld = 3) THE KANIM ATOP THE LECHEM HA'PANIM QUESTION: Rebbi Chanina and Rebbi Yochanan argue about the form in which the Lechem ha'Panim are made. Rebbi Chanina says that they are made in the form of a Teivah Perutzah. Rebbi Yochanan says that they are made in the form of a Sefinah Rokedes. The Gemara asks a number of questions on the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan. One of the questions is that the Mishnah later (96a) teaches that three golden, half-tube rods were placed atop each loaf of the Lechem ha'Panim. These rods supported the loaf that was placed on top of them, and they made a space between the loaves, allowing air to circulate between them. The Gemara asks that if the loaves were shaped like a Sefinah Rokedes, then how could three rods be placed on each one? The shape of the bread does not allow for more than one rod to be placed on the loaf! (See Row #4 in Graphic #6, The Lechem ha'Panim.) It is evident from the Gemara that the Kanim were supported by the bread. This is also evident from the Gemara later (97a) which teaches that only two Kanim were placed below the highest tier of loaves, while three Kanim were placed beneath the other tiers. The Gemara there says that the reason for this difference is that the highest tier was supporting much less weight, and thus two Kanim sufficed. It is clear from that statement that the Kanim between the lower tiers supported not only the loaves immediately above them, but also all of the tiers of loaves above that tier. Accordingly, the Kanim between the loaves must have been supported by the loaves themselves, and not by any other support that was not resting on the loaves. How can this be reconciled with the Mishnah and Gemara later (96a) that state that there were golden Senifin, panels, that were branched at their heads which served to support the loaves? This implies that the Kanim that supported each loaf rested on the Senifin, and not on the loaves! (TOSFOS DH k'Min) ANSWERS: (a) TOSFOS (DH d'Samchei) suggests that the Senifin did not support the Kanim at all. When the Mishnah says that they supported the loaves, this means that they only provided support to the sides of the loaves to prevent them from being crushed under the weight of the upper loaves. The Kanim between the tiers, though, were supported by the loaves alone. What does the Mishnah mean when it says that the Kanim were Mefutzalim k'Min Dukranim, branched like bamboo shoots? Tosfos explains that the word Mefutzalim does not mean branched, as it means in other places (Yoma 29a, Chulin 59b). Rather, it means indented or peeled (see RASHI to Bereishis 30:37). Tosfos explains that the Senifin covered the entire face of the bread on each side of the Shulchan (see Row #3 in Graphic #6). The Kanim that protruded from between the loaves prevented the Senifin from touching the faces of the loaves. In order to accommodate the Kanim, grooves were made on the inner side of the Senifin into which the Kanim protruded, while the remainder of the Senifin pressed directly against the loaves. According to Tosfos, the grooves which accommodated the Kanim apparently did not provide support for the Kanim (that is, the weight of the Kanim did not rest on them), and thus the Kanim had to rest on the loaves. Why, though, were the Kanim not placed to rest on the Senifin, if doing so would give more support to the loaves? Tosfos writes that it is possible that the Senifin did not reach past the top of the first tier of loaves (see following Insight.) Perhaps the lowest Kanim *did* rest on the Senifin (in the grooves, or Pitzulim). However, the upper Kanim had to rest on the loaves, since the Senifin did not reach that high. (See also Tosfos to 96b, DH Misgarto.) (b) However, RASHI (here, 96a, and in Shemos 25:29) writes that the Kanim indeed rested on the Senifin. This is also the opinion of RABEINU GERSHOM (here, and 97a, DH Mefutzalim). This is also the opinion
Re: Menachos 049: Precedence of Mitzvos
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Re: Menachos 049: Precedence of Mitzvos The Kollel wrote: Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah lYadcha Al Tachmitzenah is a requirement for Zerizus, and says nothing about precedence. Ein Ma'avirin Al ha'Mitzvos is said where both will eventually be done, but the question is which should be done first. However, when only one can be done, we must deal with which Mitzvah has precedence. I later saw the Divrei Malkiel (OC 1:8-18) who discusses the rules of Ein Ma'avirin at length, and asserts that it applies even when only one of the two Mitzvos can be done, not like I originally suggested to you. D. Zupnik To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Bava Metzia 093a: Perutah of Rav Yosef
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Bava Metzia 093a: Perutah of Rav Yosef Ruben Weiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: dear rav. why a shomer chinam doesnt become a shomer sachar because he doesnt have to give tzedaka to the poor(pruta the rav yoseph)while he is doing the mitzva(of watching for others for free)? thanks ruben weiser buenos aires. The Kollel replies: It would seem that Perutah d'Rav Yosef only applies to a Mitzvah such as watching an Aveidah, which one is obligated to do against his will. It does not apply to a Mitzvah that one voluntarily takes upon himself, such as agreeing to be a Shomer Chinam. Accepting to do a voluntary Mitzvah cannot exempt one from an obligatory Mitzvah, such as giving Tzedakah. One might question this assumption based on the Gemara (Basa Metzia 82b) which tells us that a Shomer Mashkon also benefits from Perutah d'Rav Yosef, even though it would seem that he has no obligation to lend out money (and to take the Mashkon in exchange). This would imply that even a voluntary obligation of Shemirah benefits from Perutah d'Rav Yosef. However, lending money is not the same as watching an object as a Shomer Chinam. There indeed *is* an obligation to lend money to someone who is in dire need of it (if one can afford to lend the money), but there is never an obligation to watch someone's object for him. Watching someone's object involves accepting responsibilities upon one's self, and the Torah does not *obligate* a person to accept responsibilities in order to help one's friend. D. Zupnik To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Sotah 049: Ongoing creation
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Sotah 049: Ongoing creation Simon Glass [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: If I understand correctly, the universe is sustained in part by the pronunciation of Yehai shemai rabah... and also by our understanding that the world is half good and half bad, and so the importance of the character of our next deed. I believe this implies that the world is always in a state of being created. Is there a source for this idea of constant renewal? If so, what is it? Simon Glass, Toronto, Ontario -- The Kollel replies: In our morning daily prayers, we say ha'Mechadesh b'CHol Yom Tamid Ma'aseh Bereishis, i.e. that Hashem is constantly renewing the creation of the world, daily. We cite a verse from Tehilim 136:6 as the source for this teaching. (I did not find a Midrashic source for this exegesis of the verse other than the daily prayers. The Sidur Sha'arei Rachamim points out that the Zohar (Shemos 10a) learns from the word Oseh in the verse Tehilim 104:4 that Hashem constantly creates angels, and a parallel application of that teaching would yield the Derasa we mention in our prayers.) M. Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Re: Moed Katan 028: Chasan sitting at the head
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Re: Moed Katan 028: Chasan sitting at the head The Kollel replied: The source for the rule of Chasan Domeh l'Melech is a Midrash (Pirkei d'Rebbi Eliezer). It is not mentioned in the Gemara. Joel Schnur [EMAIL PROTECTED] adds: Your mentioning of choson dome l'melech affords me the opportunity to share with your readership a mistaken impression that the olam may have in regard to the inyan of people standing when the choson comes down the aisle. Many think/say that it is because of choson dome l'melech that they are getting up yet they should be aware that Rav Moshe Feinstein never stood because he used to say, doi-meh (L)melech NOT (Ki)melech. (Watch his sons or talmidim muvhakim at the next chasuhah.) Reb Yaakov Kamenetsky stood but for a totally different reason. The question of L'melech or K'melech never entered into consideration as the choson is not a true choson until AFTER the chuppah. Reb Yankev stood purely because of the mishna in Bikurim, perek gimmel, mishnah gimmel, that discusses the bringing of bikurim and the rule of standing lif-nai oisei mitzva and since the choson is entering into a chupah which will enable him to be mekayeim the mitzvah of pe'ru u'revu, we stand. The Rav expands on this and brings down the inyan of standing for nosei mais and ma'vee tinok l'bris. We are therefore not standing for the mais or the kvatter, which is a mistaken impression, but for the people involved in doing the mitzva, the oisei mitzvah. As to why we don't stand for everyone doing a mitzvah, it's for a miztvah that is mei-kama zman l'zman, not a regular occurrence (see nosei kalim). The question remains as to a justification for why people stand for the kallah since she is not K' malka (see rav Moshe and Reb Yaakov above) and is patur from mitzvas peru u'revu. Rav Avraham Kamentsky, Rav Yaakov's son, told me that one can say that since the choson cannot be mekayeim the mitzvah without her, she has a chelek in the mitzvah and thus qualifies for lif-nai oisei mitzvah. He also said that his late father used to say that the best thing you can do for someone is to provide them with a new thought that takes them to a new/higher derech. In the Rosh Yeshiva's zehus, may we be zocheh. Kol Tuv and keep up the wonderful work of being marbitz Torah l'rabim. Joel Schnur To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Menachos 049: Precedence of Mitzvos
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Menachos 049: Precedence of Mitzvos Yeshayahu haKohen Hollander asked: Dear Rabbi, how can the Gemara suggest that the question of Rabbi Hiyya bar Avin applies to the dilemma of who takes precedence: today's Mussaf or tomorrow's Tamid? In this case the rule Ein Maavirin Al HaMitsvoth and Mitsva Habaa Leyadcha al Tahmitsena should apply, and of course we should do the Mussaf! Bye the way - what is the difference between these two rules? thank you - Yeshayahu haKohen Hollander -- The Kollel replies: Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah lYadcha Al Tachmitzenah is a requirement for Zerizus, and says nothing about precedence. Ein Ma'avirin Al ha'Mitzvos is said where both will eventually be done, but the question is which should be done first. However, when only one can be done, we must deal with which Mitzvah has precedence. D. Zupnik To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Menachos 034: Torah written on parchment
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Menachos 034: Torah written on parchment Levi asked: In Menachos daf lamed daled amud alef, the gemara right before the 2 dots asks, why do i need the gezeirah shava from sefer torah once i have a passuk that says uchesav'tam which implies it must be written on parchment. couldn;t the gemara have answered that i need it to tell u that it has to be written with diyo? and maybe that it has to be written on actual klaf, and not duchsustus? Levi, Brooklyn NY -- The Kollel replies: When the Gemara asks, Why do we need the Gezeirah Shavah, it is not a question on the Gezeirah Shavah, but rather a question on the Beraisa that gives this Gezeirah Shavah as a source for the Halachah that it must be written on Klaf and not on the stone. We definitely need the Gezeirah Shavah for other Halachos. D. Zupnik To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Menachot 073a: Dividing the Korbanos equally
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Menachot 073a: Dividing the Korbanos equally [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: We learn that all the Korbanot had to be divided by the entire Beit Av of Cohanim of that day. That the Cohanim could not tell each other you take the Meat , while I take the Bird, while he takes the Bread, etc... Even to the point where one Cohen could not take this bread, while the other Cohen takes the Bread of another Korban, even if it's the exact same Bread. Rather every Korban had to be divided among all the Cohanim. What this means, there had to been a person who would cut up every Korban into little pieces so that everyone gets a piece ( a small piece I might add ), acc. to this , it will turn out that the Cohanim ate everything in small bite size pieces, finger food. ( Now I personally like bite size pieces - It reminds me of Chinese ) I have a hard time to believe this to be true. Can you Imagine that a Cohen would not be able to get a good size Steak in the Beis Hamekdash . I would like to suggest that there was a cafeteria in the Beis Hamekdash. Where all the Korbanot of the Day went to, and a Chef ( a Cohen , of course ) prepared all the food for everyone. All the food belonged to everyone equally, and all the Cohanim of that shift ate there that day, so that nothing had to be cut into small pieces. And this is considered as if it belonged to everyone. That way a Cohen could have a decent size steak if he wanted ( I am also sure they had a stand for Chinese as well, except no vegetables or rice - the sauce I am sure they could bring from home, as per Zevachim 90 B - Mishna ) Is any of this true ?? or is there any reference to this ?? Dr. Katz - The Kollel replies: The Gemara implies that each and every Minchah that was brought was divided among the entire 50 or 100 Kohanim that served that day, by the Rosh Beis Av (or his secretary). Each Kohen in the Mikdash was then given his portion at the end of the day. Tosfos discusses whether the portions were actually measured or estimated. This method of dividing is evident from the Rambam as well (Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 10:15). The Rambam suggests that the Torah found it necessary to emphasize once again by Minchas Soles that the Minchah is to be split among each and every Kohen, since one would think that a handful of Soles is useless (unlike a Kezayis of baked bread), and there is no point in dividing a single Minchas Soles among all the Kohanim. The Torah tells us that nevertheless, each Kohen is given his handful of Soles. I am not sure whether this applies to hides of Olos as well. It would seem wasteful to cut up a whole hide, and would make it nearly worthless. From the Rambam (ibid. 10:14, 16) it might be inferred that the hides were in fact not divided in this manner. Be well, Mordecai Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Menachos 024: Touching a Midras
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Menachos 024: Touching a Midras Barry Epstein asked: The Gemara says that if one made a tamei sheet into a curtain, it is tahor from tumas midras but tamei from touching a midras. Since when can something make itself tamei? Barry Epstein, Dallas, USA -- The Kollel replies: The Acharonim discuss whether it actually makes itself Tamei (and thus there may be a problem of Maga Beis ha'Setarim, touching in a hidden, covered place), or whether the more severe Tum'ah contains within it the lesser Tum'ah. D. Zupnik To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
New links
New Dafyomi links on the D.A.F. site: http://www.dafyomi.co.il/menachos/techeles.htm - Special Techeles section http://www.dafyomi.co.il/rmeirshapiro-yahrzeit5764.htm - Special Rav Meir Shapiro Yahrzeit section To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Re: Kidushin 005: THE ''SOFEK'' ''KIDUSHIN''
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Re: Menachos 030b: Plowing with its mother A. Glatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] had asked: I can not understand the shita (number 3) on daf 30b regarding the words that the shita inserts: vechoresh im imo - how can a ben pekuah plow with its mother? Is this a misprint? What is pshat? -- Yeshayahu HaKohen Hollander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dear Rabbi Kornfeld: I believe a Ben Pakua can plough with its mother - since the rule of Ben Pakua is inherited: If a female calf is Ben Pakua, and - after maturity - she has a calf- a male calf, in this case, then he can plough with his mother - both being 'Ben Pakua' Yeshayahu HaKohen Hollander To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Etz Yosef
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Etz Yosef hg schild [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: Who is the Etz Yosef on Eyin Yaakov, Midrash Rabbah etc. When did he live and who was his teacher? what group? hg schild, spring valley , ny -- The Kollel replies: Rav Chanoch Zundel b'Rav Yosef, of Bialostok, who lived in Prussia (Poland/Germany) in the early 1800's. He first printed the Etz Yosef and Anaf Yosef on the Midrashim in 1829. I suppose he must have been a contemporary of the Chasam Sofer and Bnai Yisaschar. He wrote a Hesped for Rav Aryeh Leib Katzenelenbogen of Brisk (d. 1837, brother of Rav Shaul Katzlenelenbogen of Vilna, whose Hagahos appear in the back of the Vilna Shas), so he may have been a Talmid of his. M. Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Menachos 030b: Plowing with its mother
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Menachos 030b: Plowing with its mother A Glatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: I can not understand the shita (number 3) on daf 30b regarding the words that the shita inserts: vechoresh im imo - how can a ben pekuah plow with its mother? Is this a misprint? What is pshat? Thank you. -- The Kollel replies: You appear to be correct; if the mother was slaughtered she cannot be plowing. I suppose it ought to say v'Choresh Im *Aviv*. Male bulls were probably used for Charishah more often than female cows in either case. I could not verify the Girsa change or find a matching Girsa in either Chulin 74b (or Mishnayos Chulin) or here, though. The Dikdukei Sofrim cites the Shitah in a footnote, quoting it as it appears in our Gemara. M. Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Menachos 033: Placing a Sefer Torah in a diagonal position
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Menachos 033: Placing a Sefer Torah in a diagonal position A. FREILICH asked: WE LEARNT AN ARGUMENT BETWEEN RASHI AND TOSFOS WHICH IS MORE KAVOD FOR A SEFER TORAH.STANDING POSITION OR LYING DOWN. IS THERE ANY INYAN TO PLACE A SEFER TORAH IN A HORIZONTAL POSITION IN THE ARON HAKODESH TO SATISFY BOTH VIEWS? A. FREILICH, BROOKLYN , U.S.A. -- The Kollel replies: You are asking whether the Sefer Torah needs to be placed in a diagonal position. See the BACH in Yoreh De'ah 289:10 (end) who writes that one should lean the Sefer Torah. This is the Minhag in Belz (Where the Bach was the Rav), D. Zupnik --- In practice, it is not really possible to put the Ashkenazi Sefer Torah in a direct standing position, without leaning it against a wall (unless a special Torah-stand is built, which I assume is rather rare). The Sefardi Torah, on the other hand, does stand. But since the Sefardim rule like Rashi with regard to Mezuzah, their practice is consistent with their rulings. M. Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Menachos 034: The cover of a Mezuzah
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Menachos 034: Mezuzah, Rabeinu Tam Tefilin Shabtai Nacson [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: (a)Why the casing of the Mezusah is not considered chasisah between the parchement and the door-post? (b)Why Rabenu Tam ask the Soferim at his time on the order of the parchement? Was everyone had Rashi Tefilin before Rabenu Tam instituting the change?? Shabtai Nacson, Toronto,Canada -- The Kollel replies: (a) The Pischei Teshuvah (Yoreh De'ah 289:2) records the Minhag of the Vilna Ga'on not to wrap the Mezuzah, due to the concern for Chatzitzah. However, the Maharam Shik (Yoreh De'ah 288) offers explanations for our Minhag to place the Mezuzah in a casing. One of his explanations is the rationale that whatever is used for protection is not considered a Chatzitzah, and is Batel to the Mezuzah. (b) The two Minhagim regarding the order of the Tefilin predates Rashi and Rabeinu Tam by hundreds of years (see Tosfos), and is alluded to in the Zohar. (Apparently both were used in different communities, at the time of Rabeinu Tam and Rashi -MK) D. Zupnik It is true that it has been said in the name of the Vilna Ga'on not to wrap the Mezuzah -- and that some Briskers nowadays simply nail it in place under a piece of parchment, to satisfy this opinion. However, the ARUCH HA'SHULCHAN (Siman 289) and CHAZON ISH both write that whoever cited the Ga'on on this matter, must have misunderstood what the Ga'on said. He cannot have written that it is a Chatzitzah which disqualifies the Mezuzah, since the Gemara (Bava Metzia top of 102a) says that it may be placed inside a bamboo tube. The Chayei Adam (a close disciple and relative of the Ga'on) also seems to be of the opinion that a Mezuzah may be wrapped, since he discusses (in Hilchos Tzeniyus) double wrapping the Mezuzah. One might argue that the Vilna Ga'on only opposed a wrapper that is not secured to the wall of the house, such as a plastic bag (or piece of leather). The bamboo tube was nailed to the wall, so it was not considered a Chatzitzah, but rather part of the wall itself. Others point out, however, that if this argument is true, it would be necessary to *first* secure the tube to the wall, and only then to insert the Mezuzah, in order to avoid the problem of Ta'aseh v'Lo Min he'Asuy. M. Kornfeld, based on a discussion with Rav Eliyahu Feldman To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Menachos 033: Mezuzos on Doorways Used Infrequently
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Menachos 033: Mezuzos on Doorways Used Infrequently Aharon Levine [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: Rashi on Menachos 33a explains the gemara's rule B'Mezuza halach achar haragil to apply to any room with multiple doors and implies that it is necessary to affix a mezuza to only the doorway that is used most frequently. Is Rashi's opinion a da'as yachid? I thought that any doorway to a regular room, even if used infrequently, requires a mezuza unless it has been boarded up in a permanent manner. Are there other Rishonim that learn this rule applying to the case of a Bais HaMedrash alone? Aharon Levine, Baltimore, MD. USA -- The Kollel replies: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 286:18) writes that a Mezuzah must be affixed to the second door to a house, even if one generally uses another door. However, the REMA adds, citing MAHARIL, mentions that if a storehouse has, besides its normal entrance from the house, another entrance from the street, through which large barrels are periodically brought to the storehouse, the entrance to the street doesn't need a Mezuzah -- apparently because of our Gemara about Ragil. Apparently, a doorway qualifies as not Ragil only if it is *not used at all* most of the year. In the case of the Shulchan Aruch, presumably the doorway through which large barrels were brought was used only at the time of the harvest, when new barrels were filled, but not during the rest of the year. M. Kornfeld, based on discussions with Rabbi Eliyahu Feldman To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Menachos 033: Placement of the Mezuzah (question 2)
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Menachos 033: Placement of the Mezuzah (question 2) Dr. Katz [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: 2 - 33B - the Mezuzah should be placed on the outermost Tefach of the doorway facing the public. Most of our homes in Israel, have a stone entrance way ( Chalall ), which is a Tzurat Hapetach, and placed into the stone entrance way we have our door with it's door frame( aluminum ) recessed into it , towards the inner part of our house. Most of us place our Mezuzot on the door frame of the door, the aluminum part, which is about 2 Tefachim inside from the stone entrance way. ( lets face it, it is much easier to attach it to the door frame that to stone ). Is this the proper place / or should we ideally have our Mezuzot in the stone part of the entrance way, closer to the public ?? Thank You, for your help in advance, Shmuel Katz -- The Kollel replies: You are assuming that the stone entranceway to which the doorframe is attached is considered to be part of the doorway, and that it is appropriate to hang the Mezuzah there. Let us first discuss this point. (a) Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach has been quoted (by Rav Stern, in his pictorial Hilchos Mezuzah book) as saying that the Mezuzah should not be placed in the stone entranceway, but on the doorframe itself. The Sefer Chovas ha'Dar cites Rav Jungreis as saying that as well. Why should they not consider the stone entranceway to be part of the doorway? After all, when one exits the house, he passes between the walls of the stone entranceway, so they would seem to be the Mezuzos ha'Bayis, i.e. part of the doorway. One way of looking at this might be that the since a person the doorframe itself is made of another material from the stone, they are considered two different entities. This still does not explain why the stone is itself not a valid doorway, to which a Mezuzah can be affixed. Let us simply ignore the doorframe, and hang the Mezuzah in the stone entranceway! Rav Chayim Kanievsky, though, defends this opinion by citing a Ritva (see Ritva Eruvin 11a, Kidushin 32b), who writes that a doorway that does not have a doorframe is not considered a doorway with regard to Mezuzah. However, the opinion of the Ritva is not cited by the Poskim. (b) Another reason why it might be suggested that the Mezuzah must be placed on the frame, is based on another form of logic. Indeed, the doorframe and the stone entranceway are considered a single entity. However, the space through which a person must pass on his way out of the house, is the narrower space which is bounded by the doorframe. The rest of the entranceway is blocked for exit. Perhaps the Mezuzah must be within a Tefach of that open gateway. Therefore, if the walls of the stone entranceway are set back from (i.e. broader than) the doorframe by more than a Tefach on each side, the Mezuzah placed there will not be within a Tefach of the doorway. However, the Acharonim point out that none of the reasons given by the Rishonim for having the Mezuzah within a Tefach of the doorway would apply in this case, since the Mezuzah is still affixed to the side of the doorway. Therefore, it should be permitted to place the Mezuzah on the stone entranceway even if it is much wider than the actual doorway itself. Proofs to this ruling have been brought from the Derech ha'Chayim and others. If so, your conclusion seems to be correct. M. Kornfeld, based on discussions with Rabbi Eliyahu Feldman To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Menachos 033: Placement of the Mezuzah (question 4)
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Menachos 033: Placement of the Mezuzah (question 4) Dr. Katz [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: 4 - a Marpeset or backyard , which has no way of getting there from the outside. The only way to get there is from the inside of the house, which side do you put the Mezuzah on ? and if you change it to the other side do you make a Bracha ? Sorry for all the Questions, as I said, I have found this gemarah quite complex. Thank You, for your help in advance, Shmuel Katz --- The Kollel replies: (a) Let us first deal with the possibility that a Mezuzah must be affixed to the right as one enters the yard or open Mirpeset. We know from the Gemara (bottom of 33b, about the Ginah and Kitonis) that an entrance to a Ginah does *not* require a Mezuzah. (This is the Halachic conclusion.) If so, it would seem evident that if the doorway is leading from the house to the yard or Mirpeset, no Mezuzah at all should be required. However, the Rema cites a MAHARIL who rules that one must affix a Mezuzah by the entrance to *a* *Chatzer*. It is different from a Ginah, the Acharonim explain, since it is used the same way as a house. Nevertheless, it would seem obvious that nowadays, we do not use the yard or Mirpeset the same way as we use the house. People generally use them only to relax in the sun, or hang laundry, but not to live in. Therefore we may conclude that if the doorway is considered to be leading *to* the yard or Mirpeset, no Mezuzah at all is required. (b) Can the doorway be considered to be leading the other way, i.e. from the yard or Mirpeset to the house, if there is no way to enter the yard or Mirpeset without first going through the house? The BEIS MEIR and CHAZON ISH cite our Gemara (bottom of 33b) which says that one who goes from the Ginah to the Kitonis must place a Mezuzah by the entrance to the Kitonis, as proof that even a closed garden can be considered to be leading into the house. (That is, they assume that the garden in this Gemara was a closed one.) They therefore writes that a Mezuzah should be placed on the right side as one enters from the yard or Mirpeset into the house. However, if one takes a look in the NEMUKEI YOSEF, he will find that when the Nimukei Yosef drew a diagram to explain our Sugya, he put in some *extra* doors - he was careful to add doors *into* the garden and Beis Sha'ar (presumably from Reshus ha'Rabim), and not only *from* them towards the house! If so, it may be concluded that if there is *no* other entrance to the garden other than through the house, no Mezuzah at all is required. If one wants to be Machmir, he should put the Mezuzah on the right as one enters from the yard or Mirpeset to the house, as mentioned above. M. Kornfeld, based on discussions with Rabbi Eliyahu Feldman To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Menachos 033: Placement of the Mezuzah (question 3)
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Menachos 033: Placement of the Mezuzah Dr. Katz [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: 3 - If your entrance to your house has a metal door followed by a small hallway ( less than 4 x 4 Amot ) than the main door to your house. Which door should get the Mezuzah, or both ? Thank You, for your help in advance, Shmuel Katz --- The Kollel replies: Logic would seem to dictate that the two doors comprise a single entranceway, and only one Mezuzah is required, on the outer door. However, Rav Nisim Karelitz asserts that if the space between the two doors is more than four Tefachim, the inner door can be considered a separate door, bounding a small room of four Tefachim by four Tefachim. (Walls bounding *less* than four Tefachim are not considered Mechitzos, and therefore they are not considered to be bounding a separate little hall.) Such a small room would normally not be Chayav bi'Mezuzah, since it is not four Amos by four Amos. However, there are Poskim who say that a Beis Sha'ar is obligated in Mezuzah even if it is less than four Amos by four Amos, since it is made to serve a different purpose than a room inside of a house. The same can be said about this small room, by the entranceway. Therefore, in such a case the Mezuzah is affixed without a Berachah. M. Kornfeld, based on discussions with Rabbi Eliyahu Feldman To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Menachos 028: Ribuy Miut Ribuy or Klal Perat u'Klal
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Menachos 028: Ribuy Miut Ribuy or Klal Perat u'Klal Gary Schreiber [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: The gemara notes a machlokes between Rebbi and R' Yosi BR Yehudah regarding the materials appropriate for the menora (and by extension other kli shares). The essence of the machlokes revolves around how similar the analogy resulting from a ribui-miut-vribui vs. klall-prat-klall is. As I understand it a ribui-miut-ribui is more inclusive but does exclude things which are far afield. In this instance kli cheres is excluded but etz is OK. What disturbs me is I lack an understanding of the paramaters which are used to define the categtory. ie why say cheres is excluded, perhaps it should be included and only something like kli glalim is meant to be excluded. How does one know where to draw the line? (I suspect one can ask a similar question re klal uprat) To answer that there is a mesora as to what is included or excluded doesn't seem acceptable as my understanding of these drashos is that one need not have a specific mesora to make a limud of this sort. Gary Schreiber, Chicago -- The Kollel replies: Gary, You are asking a general question on the rule of Klal Perat u'Kelal as well as a specific question on this Sugya. (a) To answer your general question, I found and important Tosfos in Eruvin (15b DH Mah), which touches on this point. He explains that the Klal Perat u'Kelal written with regard to a Get is explained as excluding a living being or food from being used; the Klal Perat u'Kelal of Ma'aser Sheni teaches that it must be an item that multiplies and grows from the gournd, and with regard to Chagigah we exclude what is Mekabel Tum'ah and does not grow from the ground. Why didn't we use the same criteria in all three cases (since they would seem to apply by all of them)? Tosfos answers that it all depends on what the chachamim saw fit, as the case may be. That is, the Torah relies on us to use logic to explain every single Mi'ut or Ribuy in the Torah. When it comes to Klal Perat u'Kelal, it is necessary to define *logical* paramaters for what kind of thing ought to limit the Halachah under discussion, and only after that to decide how much to limit the Halachah, based on the 13 Midos. In our case, that means that Chachamim decided that there are three categories: wood, metal, and precious metals. (b) As for your specific question on our Sugya (why isn't Kli Gelalim a fourth category), perhaps the answer is what we say in Pitum ha'Ketores (Krisus 6a); urine was not allowed in the Mikdash out of respect. Since the same applies to excrement, it is not necessary for a verse to exclude using it for Klei Shares. Best wishes, M. Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Menachos 029: No more Zahav Sagur
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Menachos 029: No more Zahav Sagur J. Hollander [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: Dear Rabbi, Rabbi Ami says that in making the menora - all of the 'Zahav Sagur' of Shlomo was expended. The Gemara asks from Melachim I, 10,21, in which it says that King Shlomo's drinking vessels were gold, and the 'Kelim' of 'Beit Yaar Halevanon' were of 'Zahav Sagur'. The building of Beit Yaar Halevanon is described in Melachim I, 7 [verse 2 ff.] in detail. The classic commentators there all agree, according to Targum Yehonatan, that this is a palace of Shlomo, ostensibly built in a forest incalled Levanon. Clearly the fact that Shlomo had gold in Beit Yaar Halevanon raises a challenge to Rabbi Ami's statement, and the answer was that Rabbi Ami said only that in making the menora all of the 'Zahav Sagur' was expended. It would seem that the person who questioned Rabbi Ami's statement had not heard that Rabbi Ami used the word 'Sagur'. However - the answer that Rabbi Ami was relating only to 'Zahav Sagur' is untenable: the pasuk says explicitely that the 'Kelim' of 'Beit Yaar Halevanon' were of 'Zahav Sagur' - thus the challenge to Rabbi Ami's statement remains? If, on the other hand, we take the understanding of the Gemara - as is common in Piyutim - that 'Beit Yaar Halevanon' is Beis Hamikdash - we could say that the question is from the fact that the drinking vessles of Shlomo were gold, and the retort is that Rabbi Ami explicitely said 'Zahav Sagur' which was in 'Beit Yaar Halevanon' - the Beit Hamikdash. If that is the understanding of the Gemara of 'Beit Yaar Halevanon' - is it not strange that Rashi ignores this understanding in his commentary on the Tanach? Behatzlachah, Yeshayahu HaKohen Hollander --- The Kollel replies: SHITAH MEKUBETZES #3 (and Dikdukei Sofrim, and Rashi etc.) are not Gores the beginning of the verse, which discusses the vessels of the Beis Ya'ar ha'Levanon. The question of the Gemara is *not* that Shlomo should not have had any Zahav Sagur left for Beis Ya'ar ha'Levanon. It is possible that he built it *before* he ran out of Zahav Sagur. Rather, the question is that the verse indicates Shlomo remained rich throughout his reign, and he did not use all of his gold on the Menoros, since it concludes that *throughout* Shlomo's days silver was worthless (due to the large quantity of gold available; see Chidushei Rashba). The Gemara answers that indeed much gold remained; only the Zahav Sagur was depleted. (Even according to our Girsa, the Gemara must be explained in the same manner.) M. Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Sanhedrin 108a: b'Dorosav
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Sanhedrin 108a: b'Dorosav Stuart Plaskow [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: Dear Rabbi Kornfeld, Could you please explain to me why Rashi reverses the original order, of the discussion in Sanhedrin 108a, re. BDOROSOV Brayshis ch. 6 verse 9. (gemorra order LIGNYE --SHVACHRashi's order SHVACHLIGNYE) Best Wishes Stuart The Kollel replies: The Gemara cites Rebbi Yochanan (who explained l'Genai) before Reish Lakish (who explained l'Shevach) because he is older, and he is always cited first. Rashi does not mention names, so he begins with Shevach, so as not to begin with Genai. Mordecai Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Sukah 034b: Targum on the Four Minim
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Sukah 034b: Targum on the Four Minim Stuart Plaskow [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: Dear Rabbi Kornfeld, In Sefer Vayikra. Ch.23 Verse 40. I find the Onkelus commentary problematic, as he appears to use the word esrog,and lulav in the PLURAL. Am I mistaken in understanding the grammar? Gmar Chatima Tova, Stuart Plaskow -- The Kollel replies: Stuart, You are raising a very interesting point, and in fact the Ramban on the verse discusses your question. The first thing that comes to mind is that the Targum might be alluding to the Gemara (Sukah 41a) that derives from the word u'Lekachtem that each and every Jew must take the four Minim -- it is not sufficient for a single set to be taken by the Beis Din (see Tosfos Menachos 27a DH u'Lekachtem). By using the plural form, the Targum implies that many sets are taken by many people, rather than a single set which is taken by one person. This seems to be the intention of the Ramban there as well. But I think that there is more to it than that. You are touching on one of the basic grammatical differences between Lashon ha'Kodesh and Aramaic. In Lashon ha'Kodesh , the singular noun is often used to represent not just a single object but an entire species (see Midrash Bereishis Raba 75:6, Temurah 9a). Thus, instead of a citron fruit, Pri Etz Hadar could mean the citron fruit. Examples of this abound, see for instance, Bereishis 32:6 (Shor va'Chamor), Bamidbar 15:38 (Tzitzis) Devarim 25:15 (Even... Eifah). Aramaic has no such usage of the singular noun; thus in all of these cases the Targum uses the plural in his translation. Here, too, the Targum understood that the four items mentioned in the Pasuk refer to the species and not to the object (perhaps because many of each item were taken by Klal Yisrael, as we mentioned above). Therefore it translated them in the plural. One may ask that if this is true, why did the Pasuk describe the Lulav and Aravah with the plural nouns? They should also be written in singular, referring to the entire species. (This question, by the way, may also be asked on the opinion that maintains that we take on one of each of the four Minim, see Sukah 34b and Gemara there.) The answer might be that any of a number of *species* of palms and willows may be used for the Mitzvah, so even the species must be mentioned in plural form. (I wonder if this is an allusion that even the Canary Island Lulavim and weeping willows are acceptable for the Mitzvah.) Perhaps a more plausible answer to this last question is that Kapos Temarim *is* singlular. Kapos means bunched together, (like the Aramaic Kafus). Arvei Nachal may also be singular (as opposed to Arvos Nachal). Perhaps someone who knows Hebrew grammar better than I can offer his suggestions about this. Chag Same'ach, Mordecai Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Zevachim 082: Vessels used for Kodshim Kalim
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Zevachim 082: Vessels used for Kodshim Kalim Rob Shorr asked: On the subject of purging and washing and whether this applies to kaelim used for kodesh kodshim AND kodeshim kalim or just the former: How can we hold the latter opiniion given noser that would occur?I understand of course the inyan of nosan tam lifgam for issur and heter but if we apply this to kodeshim kalim why not kodesh kedoshim also? Do you we hold that the noser left over in the pot is ain bo mamash? -- The Kollel replies: See Avodah Zarah 76a where the Amora'im discuss this question. The conclusion of Rav Ashi is that in the case of Kodesh, it is Heterah Bala (it absorbed Heter), for it was not yet Nosar at the time it was absorbed. Ramban writes that it does not become Nosar as a Beli'ah. Rashi writes that it is Nosar, but we are lenient and permit Hag'alah alone. The law of a Chatas is a Chumra of the Torah. Rashi in Avodah Zarah compares it to the Chiyuv of Kibus. See Kereisi (#93) who says that the Chumra is to consider it as Isura Bala, as if it absorbed Isur. D. Zupnik To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Zevachim 097: Bitul b'Shishi for Kodshim that touches other meat
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Zevachim 097: Bitul b'Shishi for Kodshim that touches other meat Shabtai Nacson asked: A hekdesh korban touching another one, why should the contact be considered bitul beshishi since it is not distinguished by taste (same meat). Shabtai Nacson, Toronto -- The Kollel replies: From the words of Tosfos in Chulin 98b, it seems that there is a special Halachah by Kodshim that even the same taste is not Batel, which we learn from Chatas and Zero'a Besheilah, but this Halachah applies only to a significant taste (Ta'am Gamur), which is 1/60 or more. D. Zupnik To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Re: Zevachim 074a: An Isur that falls into the Yam ha'Gadol
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Re: Zevachim 074a: An Isur that falls into the Yam ha'Gadol Raphael Goldmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: The gemara in todays daf uses Yam Hagadol as the example of getting rid of the issur. Other times the gemara uses Yam Hamelach. Is there a difference between the 2? Is each one used only in certain instances? At one point the gemara mentions Yam Hamelach and then the shita switches the girsa to Yam Hagadol? Is there a difference? - The Kollel replied: I could not find any examples in which the Mishnah or Beraisa suggest that one discard an Isur into the Yam ha'Gadol to destroy it permanently. The Gemara always mentions Yam ha'Melach (and not Yam ha'Gadol) when describing where one is supposed to eliminate prohibited objects. In our Gemara, however, the Gemara is not telling us what one is *supposed* to do with a prohibited object. Rather, it is giving a commonplace example of where a prohibited object will most likely become permanently lost. If an object falls into an unknown location in the Yam ha'Gadol, it certainly is not expected to become available for use again in the future. (The SHITAH MEKUBETZES changes the Girsa from Yam ha'Melach to Yam ha'Gadol for the sake of consistency throughout the Sugya.) On the other hand, since there *is* a possibility that the object will later be retrieved by a person who will not be aware of its prohibited status, the Mishnah and Beraisa never *advise* us to rid ourselves of such an object in the Yam ha'Gadol. Rather, one should throw it into the Yam *ha'Melach*. There, no tides or waves will wash it to the shore, no pearl-divers will accidentally chance upon it, and after a number of years the object will be totally eaten away by the salt on the sea bottom. We ought to point out, though, that there are times when the Mishnah or Beraisa advises us to throw a prohibited object into a *river*. [See Insights to Bechoros 53 where we wrote about this, including a reference to your question of disposing of Isurim in the Yam ha'Gadol.] - Mark Bergman comments: The Kollel said: The SHITAH MEKUBETZES changes the Girsa from Yam ha'Melach to Yam ha'Gadol It was suggested in our Shiur that barrels of liquid would float in the Yam HaMelach but not in the Yam HaGadol, hence the change in Girsa! Kol Tuv Mark Bergman To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Zevachim 074a: An Isur that falls into the Yam ha'Gadol
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Zevachim 074a: An Isur that falls into the Yam ha'Gadol Raphael Goldmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: Dear Kollel, The gemara in todays daf uses Yam Hagadol as the example of getting rid of the issur. Other times the gemara uses Yam Hamelach. Is there a difference between the 2? Is each one used only in certain instances? At one point the gemara mentions Yam Hamelach and then the shita switches the girsa to Yam Hagadol? Is there a difference? Thanks Raphael Goldmeier -- The Kollel replies: I could not find any examples in which the Mishnah or Beraisa suggest that one discard an Isur into the Yam ha'Gadol to destroy it permanently. The Gemara always mentions Yam ha'Melach (and not Yam ha'Gadol) when describing where one is supposed to eliminate prohibited objects. In our Gemara, however, the Gemara is not telling us what one is *supposed* to do with a prohibited object. Rather, it is giving a commonplace example of where a prohibited object will most likely become permanently lost. If an object falls into an unknown location in the Yam ha'Gadol, it certainly is not expected to become available for use again in the future. (The SHITAH MEKUBETZES changes the Girsa from Yam ha'Melach to Yam ha'Gadol for the sake of consistency throughout the Sugya.) On the other hand, since there *is* a possibility that the object will later be retrieved by a person who will not be aware of its prohibited status, the Mishnah and Beraisa never *advise* us to rid ourselves of such an object in the Yam ha'Gadol. Rather, one should throw it into the Yam *ha'Melach*. There, no tides or waves will wash it to the shore, no pearl-divers will accidentally chance upon it, and after a number of years the object will be totally eaten away by the salt on the sea bottom. We ought to point out, though, that there are times when the Mishnah or Beraisa advises us to throw a prohibited object into a *river*. I will an include an Insight that we wrote about this below; you will find there a reference to your question of disposing of Isurim in the Yam ha'Gadol as well. Best wishes, M. Kornfeld Kollel Iyun Hadaf === Bechoros 53 1) THE SALTY SEA QUESTION: The Gemara tells us that what is Asur b'Hana'ah must be thrown into the Yam ha'Melach (salty sea, i.e. the Dead Sea). This implies that it is not sufficient to discard it in any river. Yet we find elsewhere (Erchin 29a etc.) that it suffices to throw such items into a river, i.e. any river! (TOSFOS DH Ma'os) ANSWER: (a) TOSFOS (DH Ma'os) quotes a Gemara in Pesachim (28a) which explains that one may discard an object that is Asur b'Hana'ah into any river if he first grinds the object into fine pieces. It is in such a fashion that the Gemara in Erchin and elsewhere ordered the objects to be thrown into a river. (b) Hagaon Rav Yakov Kaminetzky (Emes l'Yakov, Parashas Masei) points out that the RAMBAM (Perush ha'Mishnah to Kelim 15:1; Hil. Tzitzis 2:2) seems to use the term Yam ha'Melach to refer to the ocean. Since rivers feed into the ocean (Kohelet 1:7), what is thrown into a river will eventually reach the ocean. If so, the two Gemaras do not contradict each other after all! To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Zevachim 069: Shechitah of Tereifah
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Zevachim 069: Shechitah of Tereifah Gary Schreiber asked: Is there a seperate din of tumah for treifah or is it the tuma of neveila that the gemora is referring to? Gary Schreiber, chicago IL -- The Kollel replies: It is the Tum'ah of Neveilah which applies to Tereifah, if we say that the Shechitah does not help. D. Zupnik To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Zevachim 029: Pigul of a Korban Pesach
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Zevachim 029: Pigul of a Korban Pesach Gershon Dubin asked: Would shechting a korban pesach with kavana to eat if BEFORE the zeman, i.e., immediately, be pigul, or only after the zeman? -- The Kollel replies: Good question. I would suggest that since the Torah expresses Pigul in terms of Nosar (see Vayikra 7:17-18, and Vayikra 19:6-7), if the thought is not one of Nosar then there is no Isur of Chutz l'Zemano. D. Zupnik To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Binyan Av
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Zevachim 051: Binyan Av Moshe Reinitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This year on rosh chodesh Av, the sugya was about BINYAN AV (NOTE: The Binyan Beis Hamkidash of AV!) And the end was that the Gemorah couldn't FIND THE ANSWER to BINYAN AV. We don't know!! May we be zocheh to be oleh to theBayis Hashlee-shee. Moshe To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Re: Zevachim 028: Unintentional Pigul
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Re: Zevachim 028: Unintentional Pigul C. Taub asked: As a follow up what bothers me is what happens. Someone comes from a distance to bring a Korban he spends time and money and then the cohen invalidates it. Even in cases where the korban is accepted. Since the cohen changed the intention (even by mistake) does the baal now have to spend more time and money. Is there no responsibility on the cohen's part. - The Kollel replied: The Mishnah in Gitin 54b states explicitly that Kohanim who willfully made a Korban become Pigul are liable. - Shlomo Amar asks: that means that inadvertant mistake are a responsibility of the baal; am i correct? - C. Taub asks: But what if it wasn't intentional. Who is responsible for the korban the baal or the cohen. Logic would say when someone is in a position of responsibility and this causes at the least financial loss that person is responsible. We learned in a recent daf that the gemara sugest that the cohen not have any intention in mind so as not to cause a problem. However, my question is someone brings a korban, i.e. asham when it gets to the cohen he says by mistake ploney brings olah. what happens. Chanoch, Efrat -- The Kollel replies: Yes, Shlomo, the owner absorbs the loss, and the Kohen is not required to compensate. Chanoch, the same is true for any damage which is indirect and is a result of an unintentional act, where the Mazik is not responsible and the Nizak must bear the loss (in this case, he must bring another Korban). In certain cases, there may be a responsibility la'Tzes Yedei Shamayim, but Beis Din cannot force the Kohen to pay. D. Zupnik (Again, this discussion demonstrates the great degree of responsibility of the Kohen, and helps us to appreciate the degree of holiness that the Kohanim need to nurture, and the degree of skill for which they are trained for many years prior to serving in the Beis ha'Mikdash. -Y. Shaw) To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Re: Zevachim 028: Unspoken Pigul
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Re: Zevachim 028: Unspoken Pigul Arnon Kaplan asked: ... The Machshava of the Kohen renders the korban posul. However, if the Kohen was so unscrupulous to have these machshovas in the first place why should he reveal his true kavonahs to the participants! [baalim] In other words how would the baalim ever know if their korban was posul or not without the Kohen revealing his true kavanah! - The Kollel replied: Machshavos of Kodashim need to be spoken in order to be effective (see Insights to Zevachim 2a). Therefore, it is possible that the Kohen's words were overheard - Arnon Kaplan asks: Your answer is only true according to Rashi. However most others including the Rambam do not require Dibur. So the question returns. -- The Kollel replies: According to those who do not require Dibur for the thought to render the Korban invalid, the only way to know that there was an invalidating thought is if the Kohen admits to having either malicious or unmalicious intent. D. Zupnik (We are not concerned that the Kohen will not tell about what he thought, because if he did it by accident, then he certainly will tell so that the owner will be able to bring the proper Korban. If he did it willfully, then he also will certainly tell, because his purpose in disqualifying the Korban was to cause the owner a loss, as stated by the RASHBAM in Pesachim 121a, DH Mishum. (If you are concerned about the unfairness of a situation in which a Kohen who is so wicked that he will purposely disqualify a person's Korban without informing anyone, then this is a concern which applies to all areas of the Torah and not just to Pigul.) See comments at the end of the other Daf-Discuss responses on this topic. -Y. Shaw) To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Chulin 066: Kosher birds
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Chulin 066: Kosher birds Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: how can you tell if a bird is kosher or not Adam, woodmere,N.Y -- Rabbi Natan Slifkin replies: Dear Adam, The Torah names twenty-four types of birds that are not kosher; all the rest are kosher. However, we do not know the exact identifications of all the twenty-four types in the Torah. Furthermore, we don't know the exact definition of the Torah's type, i.e. how many species it includes. Therefore, our practice is to only eat birds for which we have a continuous tradition of their being kosher. There are signs that play a role in identifying kosher birds - the nature of their stomach, of their crop, the shape of their beak, the structure of their feet, whether they are predatory - but it is not universally agreed as to how to apply these, and therefore we only eat a bird which has a tradition. I see that you are from NY - if you are interested, I am giving a Torah tour of the Bronx Zoo on May 4. Details are on my website, www.zootorah.com. Best wishes, Rabbi Nosson Slifkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Zoo Torah is a non-profit educational enterprise that offers a series of books, programs for both adults and children, zoo tours, and South African safaris, all on the theme of Judaism and the animal kingdom. For more details and a taste of the experience, see www.zootorah.com. If you would like to subscribe to a regular ZooTorah essay, please e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Zevach vs. Korban
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Zevach vs. Korban Barry Epstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: What is the difference between a zevach and a korban? Does the Torah use different words for the same thing? Barry Epstein, Dallas, USA -- The Kollel replies: Korban is a general term even that includes even an offering of wood upon the Mizbe'ach. Zevach refers specifically to an animal offering, which is slaughtered, as opposed to wood or a Minchah or bird offering (Chagigah 7a). In addition, the word Zevach is often used to signify a Korban Shelamim which is eaten (see Shemos 18:12). D. Zupnik To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Amud yomi
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Amud yomi nate wiener [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: I'd like to get started w/ amud yomi before i try daf. do you know what amud yomi is up to currently and where i can find an amud yomi calendar? thanks and freilichin purim, nate wiener, teaneck, nj -- The Kollel replies: Although your plan is a good one, to the best of my knowledge an internationally accepted program for the study of an Amud a day has yet to be proposed. There are numerous local ones, studying whatever the local Rabbi sets as the curriculum. You will have to inquire about these in your local synagogue. If you do not find a Shiur, you might prefer to begin at your own pace, with a Chavrusa, using our study material to help you along. Or you might want to begin with Mishnah Yomis, the schedule for which is posted on our site at http://www.dafyomi.co.il/calendars/yomi/ymi-indx.htm . Best wishes, M. Kornfeld Kollel Iyun Hadaf To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Re: Kevodo bi'Mekomo Munach
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Kevodo bi'Mekomo Munach mordechai twersky [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: What is the origin for the phrase, Kvodo Bimkomo Munach? - The Kollel replied: See Kidushin 66a, Torah Mah Tehei Aleha? Harei Keruchah u'Munachas b'Keren Zavis. - Yitzchok Zirkind comments: See Bechoros 30b, Kevod Zaken Yehei Munach bi'Mkomo. Kol Tuv, Yitzchok Zirkind To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Kevodo bi'Mekomo Munach
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Kevodo bi'Mekomo Munach mordechai twersky [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: What is the origin for the phrase, Kvodo Bimkomo Munach? Thanks. mordechai twersky, Jerusalem -- The Kollel replies: See Kidushin 66a, Torah Mah Tehei Aleha? Harei Keruchah u'Munachas b'Keren Zavis. M. Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Shevuos 038: The justice of Beis Din
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Shevuos 038: The justice of Beis Din Rafi Goldmeier asked: Dear Kollel, Rashi on daf 38b says that in our days we no longer take shavuot because of its great punishment - instead, in court we force an arur in front of 10 people, as a type of shavuah. In practice, when 2 religious Jews (even Rabbis, let's say, who are not suspect of lieing) go to a Bet Din in a dispute of money matters and they want to take a shavua, would Bet Din allow them? Would Bet Din have them take an arur? I have been told that all Bet Din does nowadays is pshara (compromise - form of arbitration?). In the time of the Aruch Hashulchan (Choshen Mishpat 87:17-18), it is clear they were still forcing shavuot in money matters. If this is correct that nowadays Bet Din stopped giving shavuot because of liers, then there is no real justice in our Batei Din, just shuda d'daynie. When people go to court, it seems they would want din not always compromise. This seemingly would cause reluctance in going to Bet Din to resolve disputes, as the judges are not providing justice! For example, what would a Bet Din pasken (nowadays) if 2 people came with a dispute. Reuven claims Shimon owes $100, while Shimon agrees he owes $50. Would Bet Din make the person give $75? That is not justice? Also, it might cause people to fabricate claims - Reuven in such a case, knowing that Bet Din would only award him $75, would instead of claiming $100 rather claim $200 thereby receiving a higher settlement!! How do we see the justice in bet Din nowadays? - The Kollel replies: Pesharah does not mean a fifty-fifty compromise. Pesharah means that Beis Din is not obliged to rule in accorance with the absolute Din Torah for it is not always possible to reach the absolute Halachah in Choshen Mishpat. When the litigants accept the Pesharah, that means that they accept to transfer ownership of any money as per the court's ruling. However, generally they accept Pesharah Karov l'Din, which means that the Dayanim must base their P'sak on their understanding of what the true outcome of the Din would be l'Fi Halachah; it is *not* the same as Shuda. Even in the time of the Gemara, and surely in the time of the Rishonim, the Beis Din tried to get the people to refrain from making Shevu'os. The Ashkenazi Batei Din of today do not allow Shevu'os at all, and there is a formula for the monetary value (%) which each Shevu'ah is worth. As for fattening the claim, this was always a problem, even when Shevu'os were allowed to be made, since people generally refrained from swearing, and thus an unscrupulous litigant would inflate his claim, knowing that his opponent would probably not make a Shevu'ah. The Gemara is most unsympathetic to a litigant who uses this tactic. In general, the Torah gives the Dayan power to rule Al Pi Da'ato (see Kesuvos 85a) when he smells a rat. The Dayan who is well versed in Torah and has the proper Midos has the capacity to feel out the truth. As for the justice in Beis Din nowadays, according to the forementioned there is no question. Moreover, no other system of law can compare to the degree of justice of Beis Din. Dov Zupnik To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Shevuos 024: Isur haBa'ah me'Atzmo
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Shevuos 024: Isur haBa'ah me'Atzmo Mark Bergman asked: On Shevuos 23b (bottom), Resh Lokish says that Kollel does not apply to Issue Haba MeAtzmo. On 24b, the Gemoro says that there is a Hava Amina that Kollel does not apply to Issue Haba MeAtzmo, therefore... Does the Gemoro just mean to exclude the opinion of Resh Lokish? (If so, why not say so) -- The Kollel replies: Reish Lakish does not express this opinion explicitly; rather, the Gemara uses this Sevara to explain Reish Lakish's view. Therefore, the Gemara mentions the Sevara rather than saying l'Afukei m'Reish Lakish. D. Zupnik To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Shevuos 023: Isur Kollel
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Shevuos 023: Isur Kollel Mark Bergman asked: The Gemoro on Shevuos 21b describes a situation where a person including permitted and forbidden items in the same Shevuo. Rashi explains that by merely forbidding all foods, he is implicitly including forbidden foods. However, on 23b, the Gemoro says the same thing, and Rashi says that the case is where one explicitly states that he is forbidding both permitted and forbidden items. Admittedly, the second Gemoro is talking about a case of Mefaresh, and maybe the first Rashi is just telling us that in the general case, one need only forbid all foods (without mentioning forbidden foods); but I wonder if there is more to be said here. -- The Kollel replies: Rashi on 23b is explaining -- according to the Havah Amina -- that Ma'achalim Asurim are included in Ochlim She'einam Re'uyim, and therefore are excluded in the case of the Reisha. However, in the Maskana, we say that Ma'achalim Asurim are Ochlim ha'Re'uyim, and therefore the Reisha already reads that if someone made a Shevu'ah not to eat he may not eat Isurim, like Rashi says on 21b. D. Zupnik To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Shevuos 025b: Rav Ezra ha'Navi
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Shevuos 025b: Rav Ezra ha'Navi Mark Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: In the last Tosfos on 25b (DH Rav), Tosfos quote HaRav Ezra HaNovi. Do we know anything about this source? Kol Tuv Mark Bergman Manchester UK The Kollel replies: A contemporary of the Or Zaru'a (~1230 CE), Rav Ezra of Moncontour, France, called Ezra ha'Navi by his peers, was a pupil of RI Ba'al ha'Tosfos and a mentor of the Maharam of Rotenburg. He is also cited in Tosfos Gitin 88a. (Based on Rav Rafael Halpern's Atlas Etz Chayim, vol. 7:1936). He is also mentioned in Da'as Zekeinim to Shemos 21:29 (see also Tosfos Rabeinu Peretz to Bava Kama 23b). In fact, he is the Rav Ezra that Tosfos mentions, even when he is not called ha'Navi. He was a Rosh Beis Din and Rosh Yeshiva in his town, and, according to one Mesores, a decendant of the Ibn Ezra. His appelation was not simply a sign of the high regard in which he was held. Rav Ezra lived during the Shivas Tziyon movement in the times of the Rishonim (when Messianic hopes were high), and according to the Ma'amar Al Shenas ha'Geulah (an ancient document by Rav Elazar b'rebbi Shlomo, dating from not long after Rav Ezra's passing, printed in ha'Tzofeh l'Chochmas Yisrael, yr. 5 p. 194), He went up to heaven and asked the prohets Chagi Zecharyah and Malachi when Mashi'ach would arrive. Each wrote him an answer in three verses... It was hoped and even expeceted in those days that true prophesy would soon return to our people. (Based on Ba'alei ha'Tosfos by Rav A.A. Auerbach, p. 278.) He is the author of the commentary on Shir ha'Shirim that is attributed to the Ramban (and printed in Rav Shavel's Kisvei ha'Ramban), and some Kabbalistic treatises (based on Sarei ha'Elef by Rav Menachem Kasher, vol. 1 p. 142 and vol. 2 p. 537). To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Shevuos 015: It is forbidden to heal oneself with words of Torah
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Shevuos 015: It is forbidden to heal oneself with words of Torah Joseph Neustein, MD [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: How does this prohibition jive with the universal practice of praying for healing? Should we in fact never pray for our own welfare but only for others? If so, how do we deal with Heal me HashemPsalm VI and other supplications for healing in Tehillim? Thank you for your insights Joseph Neustein, MD, El Paso, Texas USA -- The Kollel replies: Praying is permitted; using verses as a *charm* is prohibited. Here is something we wrote on the subject in Shabbos 67. Be well, Mordecai Kornfeld === Shabbos 67 1) HEALING WITH VERSES FROM THE TORAH QUESTION: How can the Gemara here permit one to use verses from the Torah for healing? The Gemara (Shevuos 15b) states that it is forbidden to use verses for healing! ANSWERS: (a) When one's intention is to heal a spiritual ailment with verses, it is permitted. (MAHARSHA, see RAMBAM Avodas Kochavim 11:12) (b) If the illness poses risk of mortal danger, one may use verses for healing. (TOSFOS, Shevuos 15b and Pesachim 111a) To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Re: Sanhedrin 020: Joseph and Boaz
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Re: Sanhedrin 020: Joseph and Boaz Barry Epstein asked: On 20a, why are they referred to as daughters, re Mishlei 31:29? - The Kollel replied: Daughters is a catch-phrase for Yir'ei Hashem, G-d fearing people. As that same chapter in Mishlei ends, a woman who is G-d-fearing, she should be praised. Yir'as Shamayim, G-d-fearingness, is a characteristic which is more instinctive to women than men. (This is related to the recurring theme in Chazal that Man is supposed to be outgoing while Woman is supposed to be modest.) The manner in which these two Tzadikim checked their desires and held their evil inclinations in tow reflects Yir'as Shamayim, the characteristic of daughters. -- Yitzchok Zirkind comments: 1) The header should include Palti Ben Layish as he too is referred as Bonos by the word V'at. 2) See MaHaRShA Al Asar that the Gemara is referring to the wives so Bonos fit here. 3) bPashtus, while further in this Kopital it uses the term Isha for Yiras Hashem, here it perfers Bonos to indicate the opposite of marriage (Al Derech begining of Parshas Matos Isha and Bas Veod). According to Rabi Yonoson since there was a marriage by Palti Ben Layish we use the Possuk of Isha Yiras Hashem, (and would also add the Msiras Nefesh of his wife). Kol Tuv, Yitzchok Zirkind To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Sanhedrin 098: Praying for Mashi'ach *not* to come
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Sanhedrin 098: Praying for Mashi'ach *not* to come Barry Epstein asked: Ulla and Rabbah prayed for the Messiah to come but not in their lifetime. How could this be proper? Is it proper today? Barry Epstein, Dallas, USA -- The Kollel replies: Rav Joseph Pearlman replies: The Gemara does not in fact say that they did not want the final redemption to come in their lifetime. Rather, they said that they would prefer not to witness it happening. It could be that they meant that they did not want to participate in the cataclysmic events leading up to the advent of Mashi'ach, but just wanted to participate when all the hullabaloo was over. Even if the Gemara is interpreted to mean that they would rather that Mashi'ach not come at all during their lifetime, the Gemara itself gives the reason that they felt they would not be able to endure the acute trauma, pain, and suffering of Chevlei Mashi'ach, the pangs of the coming of Mashi'ach (just as women often say that had men been chosen to be the ones to give birth, no children would ever be born, as the pain is so excruciating notwithstanding the ultimate reward). Rebbi Yochanan here says the same thing. Perhaps it is comparable to his dictum in Berachos (5b), Lo Hen v'Lo Secharan (I do not want them (the tribulations) and I do not want their reward). Notwithstanding the fact that suffering wipes away all of the sins of a person, and he would have had complete atonement for all of his sins, he preferred not to risk it in case he might not be able to accept the suffering properly, b'Ahavah, with love, and instead of being his salvation, they may end up being his damnation if he were to be unable to bear them properly. So, too, here, he did not feel sufficiently confident to survive intact spiritually the birthpangs of the devastating incipient Messianic era. However, I much prefer the first explanation, that they wanted Mashi'ach to come -- Yesei -- but they would prefer all the preliminaries out of the way and out of their sight -- v'Lo Achminei. This also explains the choice of words, Let me not see him, rather than, Let him not come until after I am gone. They meant, Certainly, he must come now, but I do not want to witness it happening. In other words, let me know when all the screaming and yelling is over, and then I will open my eyes to see the finished product. Kol Tuv, Joseph Pearlman To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Megilah 017: The use of Braille
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Megilah 017: The use of Braille Benjamin Rubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: Braiile is a language of communication for the blind. If a Megilla was wriiten on Claf, with Dyo, all according to halacha. A megilla can have nekudot and taamim written into it. Could braille letters be coded (the parchment would have bumps embossed into the paqrchment) into the megilla. Would this allow a blind person to read the megilla. He would not be doing it by memory since his fingers would become his eyes Benjamin Rubin, Potomac MD, USA -- Rabbi Feinhandler replies: Dear Benjamin, I am in doubt if such a reading helps, since it is not a language as the others in the world. Rabbi Feinhandler To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Shevuos 057: Arayos
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Shevuos 057: Arayos Barry Epstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: The Sages say that all Arayos are also prohibited to a Noahite. Re the ones that carry the penalty of kares, can a Cuthean get kares? If not, what is his punishment? Barry Epstein, Dallas, USA -- The Kollel replies: A non-Jew can also get Kares. Here is our definition Kares, from Background to the Daf to Sanhedrin 83:6. (Note that some of the punishments are in this world as well.) M. Kornfeld == 6) [line 10] ELU SHEB'MISAH (MISAH B'YEDEI SHAMAYIM / KARES) (a) Some sins are so severe that they are punished with untimely death. There are two types of untimely death that are used as heavenly punishments: Kares, and Misah b'Yedei Shamayim. Kares means being severed from the world and dying before one's time. Misah b'Yedei Shamayim means death at the hands of heaven. These punishments are not administered by the courts, but through divinely administered justice. (b) One who deliberately transgresses a commandment that is punishable with either Kares or Misah b'Yedei Shamayim is punished even if there are no witnesses to his act, and even if he was not warned at that time of his transgression that his violation will result in his untimely death. (c) The commentaries explain that there are two major differences between Kares and Misah b'Yedei Shamayim (see TOSFOS to YEVAMOS 2a DH Eshes Achiv; RABEINU YONAH in Sha'arei Teshuvah, 3:6; TIFERES YISRAEL to Sanhedrin 9:6): 1. One who is punished with Kares will die before age 60 (according to Moed Katan 28a, or before the age of 50, according to the Yerushalmi Bikurim 2:1). One punished with Misah b'Yedei Shamayim will die after the age of 60 but before his time has come (according to Moed Katan ibid., or before the age of 60, according to the Yerushalmi ibid.) 2. When one is punished with Kares, even his children (who are minors at the time of his sin) die, and he bears no further children. When one is punished with Misah b'Yedei Shamayim, only he is punished and not his children (Yevamos 55a and RASHI there). (See, however, RIVA in Tosfos to Yevamos 2a DH Eshes, who maintains that Kares only involves the death of one's children in the two cases where the Torah adds the word Ariri. However, he might be referring to the death of children who are *not* minors.) 3. Some add that when punished with Kares, the sinner's cattle and possessions slowly expire until he is left destitute -- see Insights to Yevamos 73:2. (c) For a number of specific sins, the Torah assigns a form of Kares in which the sinner not only dies before his time but is not granted a portion in the World to Come (Sanhedrin 64b). To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Sanhedrin 020: Joseph and Boaz
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Sanhedrin 020: Joseph and Boaz Barry Epstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: On 20a, why are they referred to as daughters, re Mishlei 31:29? Barry Epstein, Dallas, USA -- The Kollel replies: Daughters is a catch-phrase for Yir'ei Hashem, G-d fearing people. As that same chapter in Mishlei ends, a woman who is G-d-fearing, she should be praised. Yir'as Shamayim, G-d-fearingness, is a characteristic which is more instinctive to women than men. (This is related to the recurring theme in Chazal that Man is supposed to be outgoing while Woman is supposed to be modest.) The manner in which these two Tzadikim checked their desires and held their evil inclinations in tow reflects Yir'as Shamayim, the characteristic of daughters. M. Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Re: Shabbos 150a: Shevus vs. d'Rabanan
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Re: Shabbos 150a: Shevus vs. d'Rabanan With regard to the question of Gershon Dubin who asked: Is there a rule when an issur derabanan is referred to as a shevus and when not? The Kollel replied: There are two kinds of Isurei Shevus on Shabbos. As the Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 22:1) writes, There are Shevusim that the Rabanan prohibited because they are *similar* to Melachos, and there are Shevusim that the Rabanan prohibited because they might *lead* to the transgression of an Isur Sekilah. The Gemara refers to the former as Shevus all the time, since they are not Gezeiros but rather enactments in deference of the commandment Shabason -- Shevos! (see Magid Mishnah there, and Gemara Shabbos 114b). An example of these is Amirah l'Nochri, which the Gemara always refers to as Shevus, or moving objects from or into a Karmelis. When addressing the second category (Gezeiros of Shabbos), the Gemara seems to call them Shevus only when in order to contrast them to an Isur d'Oraisa, e.g. when we first mentioned an Isur d'Oraisa, and then listed these as only Shevusim. -- Yitzchok Zirkind [EMAIL PROTECTED] adds: The Gemara records in a number places that Rebbi does not prohibit a Shevus from being performed Bein ha'Shemashos (see Shabbos 8b Rashi DH v'Rebbi Hi d'Amar, even though he is referring to any Isur d'Rabanan of Shabbos. Does this fit with what you wrote? With regard to Amirah l'Akum, the expression Shevus became a borrowed term used for any Isur performed through Amirah l'Akum, see Bava Metzia 90a, and especially Tosfos Rosh Hashanah 24b DH Sha'ani, see also Shach on Shulchan Aruch YD 141:23, etc. Kol Tuv, Yitzchok Zirkind -- The Kollel writes: The Takanah prohibiting the transfer of objects to a Karmelis is in the first category of Shevus; the Isur was enacted because moving to a Karmelis is *similar* to a Melachah. That is why the word Shevus is always appropriate when describing a Melachah involving a Karmelis. Although Rebbi is including any Isur d'Rabanan of Shabbos in his Heter, it is specifically applied in the Mishnah to tranferring an object to or from a Karmelis, which is why he mentions the word Shevus in that statement. M. Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Makos 007a: Killer courts
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Makos 007a: Killer courts Gedalliah [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: LAST MISHNA CHAPTER 1 - A SANHEDRIN THAT EXECUTES ONCE IN 7 [70] YEARS.. where the first part of the mishna deals with 2 different events [1) conviction in one court, escape, and return to same court; 2) conviction in one court, escape, and return to different court, and location of the different courts], why can't it be said that the rest of the mishna starting with a sanhedrin that executes once in seven years is a destroyer refers also to two events, and is a continuation of the first part of the mishna, such that it would refer to a situation where an escaped convicted person was returned to the court and gets executed without retrial. Then, it could be understood to imply not that ANY executing court is a destroyer, but that a court that executes once in 7 [70] years, without a retrial, based on testimony that a person was previously sentenced, is a destroyer? [and as addendum to makkos 10, much appreciation for helping isolated jews be able to get some protection of learning together] gedaliah The Kollel replies This part of the Mishnah (which is separated from the first part of the Mishnah by the statement Sanhedrin Noheges Ba'aretz u've'Chutz la'Aretz is clearly referring to the neccesity for Beis Din to be calculated, as is evident from the statements of Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Tarfon. This is the way all of the Rishonim explain the Mishnah. D. Zupnik To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Makos 017: Two sets of Malkus
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Makos 017: Two sets of Malkus Noach [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: When five sets of malkus are established as being the penalty for the various transgressions how do we understand this? Does it mean literally 195 blows, subject to the medical advice??!! If it means that the number is more than 39 or less than the total required is there a kapporah? If it is that there is a multiple application sentence, is it delivered all together or over a time after allowing each to heal? Noach , Israel -- The Kollel replies: The Mishnah (Makos 22b) writes that if when he is Chayav two Makos he is able to sustain even three Makos of the second set of Makos (i.e. three more than 39) according to the estimate of the court (Omed), he gets a total of 42 Makos and is exempt from further Makos. However, if he is only able to sustain less than 39, he is first given the first set and then after he heals he is given a second set (the amount of which is determined by the Omed of Beis Din). D. Zupnik To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Sanhedrin 016: King David's wars to strengthen the economy
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Sanhedrin 016: King David's wars to strengthen the economy Sh. Levenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: Is it not immoral and unjust to wage war for purely economic reasons. (Since it is natural for people to defend their homes, family and nation, deaths will certainly occur.) Also: A) There is no reason to suspect that these people are especialy depraved as were the 7 nations. B) There are things that theoreticaly are permitted under Halacha, but in practice are forbidden because it would seem that Jewish law is inferior or less moral than nonjewish law.( The nonjews have the concept of Just War, that wars should only be fought for certain just reasons. Sh. Levenson , Chicago USA -- The Kollel replies: (a) The MARGOLIYOS HA'YAM (#22,23) suggests, in answer to your question, that David's advice should be read, make war *against* the Gedud. The Gedud refers to the marauding Amaleki tribes who were constantly disturbing the economy by raiding the local fields and otherwise threatening the nation (Shmuel I 30:8 ha'Gedud ha'Zeh). This, he says, is why (according to Rashi here and in Berachos) he only asked Sanhedrin to pray for him, and not to *permit* the war (since it is certainly permitted to war against Amalek. Sharp though it is, this interpretation is somewhat forced in the words Pishtu Yedeichem..., nor does it fit into the Gemara about Ein ha'Bor Mismalei me'Chulyaso. All the Rishonim explain that Gemara to mean that the Jewish People were looking for wealth *outside* of the nation by overcoming a foreign nation. (According to the Margoliyos ha'Yam, it seems that David ha'Melech answered that it is not necessary to look for dirt to fill the pit as long as Amalek can be stopped from marauding. However, it would seem from the complaint of the people that even if they were not *losing produce* to Amalek, there still would not be enough to feed the people.) (b) It is perhaps more likely that the war David suggested that they start was the one in which he conquered Aram Naharayim and Aram Tzovah (or Surya), the nations that were considered to be Kibush Yachid of King David (Gitin 8a and elsewhere -- the description of our Gemara fits according to both Rashi and Tosfos' explanation of Kibush Yachid there, I believe). I found strong support for this suggestion in Rashi Sotah 44b DH u'Milchemes Beis David. As to your question, we may assume that the people of those areas were antagonistic to the Jews, and periodically waged war against the northern territories of Israel. Although David would not have instigated a war because of this (but rather would send troops to defend the nation each time a war was waged), since the people needed more territory, he waged a war and conquered the entire area. -Mordecai Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Sanhedrin 90a: Olam ha'Ba and Olam ha'Neshamos
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Sanhedrin 90a: Olam ha'Ba and Olam ha'Neshamos Samuel Kosofsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: Rabbotai, (a) When our perek speaks about olom haba it seems to be speaking about the olom haba after the moshiach comes and after techiyat hameysim. It doesn't seem to refer to the olom haneshamot where peoples' neshamot go after death. Menashe Hamelech appeared in a dream and spoke about the taava of avoda zara in his time. His neshama appears to be around. (b) Is anyone excluded from the olom haba of the olom haneshamot? Who would be excluded and what happens to their neshamot? Are any neshamot destroyed completely? Does anyone stay in gehinnom more than 12 months or indefinitely? Samuel Kosofsky -- The Kollel replies: (a) As we explained at length in our Insights, many commentaries explain that our Mishnah is indeed referring to the Olam ha'Ba after Techiyas ha'Mesim (as can be inferred from the Gemara's explanation for why one who denies Techiyas ha'Mesim has not Chelek in Olam ha'Ba); see also Ramban Vayikra 18:29. However, the *Rambam* (Hilchos Teshuvah 8:1) seems to learn that it is discussing the Olam ha'Neshamos immediately after death (which, he maintains, is the *only* place for ultimate reward). (b) It is clear that some Neshamos do not have an Olam ha'Neshamos, as the Ramban in Vayikra (ibid.) explains with regard to someone who is Chayav Kares and has more Aveiros than Mitzvos. The Ibn Ezra learns that those who are punished with Kares in both worlds (Sanhedrin 90b) have absolutely no afterlife after death. On the other hand, there are those who do *not* receive Olam ha'Neshamos, but *do* merit Techiyas ha'Mesim, as Rabeinu Bachye (Bamidbar 16:33) writes regarding Korach and his group. Of course, if a soul does not merit Olam ha'Neshamos or Olam ha'Ba, that does not mean that it is not around. It can still be around, and be punished eternally. The Gemara presents a list of sins warranting punishments of eternal Gehinom (and not just 12 months) in Rosh Hashanah 17a. An enlightening discussion of this topic can be found in Rabeinu Bachye, end of Acharei Mos. See also the Sha'ar ha'Gemul of the Ramban, at length. Mordecai Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Re: Sanhedrin 088a: Metzora from head to toe
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Re: Sanhedrin 088a: Metzora from head to toe Shabtai Nacson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How to understand the case of a person is completely covered with mud he is Tahor, whereas if he has a spot of mud he is Tamai? Yosey Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The Chasam Sofer (On the Parsha) writes that the reason Hashem inflicts a person with Tzoraas is because he has developed evil traists and Hashem wishes to seperate him from others so they do not learn from him. But, The Chasam Sofer says, That only applies to a basically good person who has developed faults. Therefore, since this person is basically good he may influence people into following his bad traits also, therefore HAshem sends him Tzoraas. Get him away from people until he cures himself However if a person is totally evil what kind of subtle influence can he have? People know he is bad and therefore will not learn from him. That is signified by the person being inflicted with Tzoraas from head oto toe, He is the same, through and through. EVIL! And therefore there is no reason to seperate him. People will not be influenced by him. Y. Goldstein Baltimore, MD To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Berachos 008: Shenayim Mikra v'Echad Targum
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Berachos 008: Shenayim Mikra v'Echad Targum Reuven Kasierer [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: why do you get arichus yomim for doing targum? Reuven Kasierer, silver spring, USA -- The Kollel replies: A suggestion. The idea of Targum is to bring the Kedushah of the Torah down from Lashon Kodesh which is otherworldly into the mundane language of this world. Someone who can do this shows that he is worthy of days on this earth for he will be anle to elevate the mundane. Just a thought. D. Zupnik --- The reward is for learning Torah Lishmah, as the Gemara learns from Orech Yamim bi'Yeminah (Shabbos ). If a person learns the Torah in order to understand it fuly and perform its Mitzvos,he is learning Lishmah. When one reviews the material twice, and then reads the Targum once (to ensure that he understands the meaning of the text fully), he is studying Lishmah. Rav Elozor Moshe Horowitz, in his Hagahos here, adds that the Gemar later (55b) tells us taht if a person is called toread from the Torah and does not rise to read, his days will be shortened. The Shulchan Aruch (OC 139:1) tells us that where it is customary for the person that is given an Aliyah to read from the Torah himself, and he did not yet read over the material a number of times (to become proficient in reading it), he should not rise to read. The purpose of Shenayim Mikra is to gain proficiency of the text *before* the Torah is read publicly. By doing so he will not have to turn down an Aliyah to the Torah, and therefore instead of having shortened days, his days will be lengthened. M. Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Sanhedrin 063: The young idolator
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Sanhedrin 063b: The young idolator Rabbi Yoseph Dov Karr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would like to share my own chedush. let me know if you like it. you may share it with others if you agree that it is good. The gamara tell a story about a young child who's stomach is bloated and he is starving to death. he is thrown on a garbage heap to die. Hashem send Elijah to save him. he is the only child left from a family of 3,000. Elijash asks to boy if he is willing todo something to save himself and live. the boy replies Yes. Elijah says all he has to do is say Shema every day and he will live. the boy is silent and refuses. he explains that his mother and father had not taught him. He instead kisses his avodah zorah and is stomach burst and he dies. I had two questions on this. First, why didn't the boy lied to save himself. he could of loved his avodah zorah and say shema. He should have done want ever he could to live. Second why mention his father and mother did not teach him. this does not answer the question as Elijah was willing to teach him now. Maybe he heard about the Torah or Shema from someone else? I would like to answer based upon the gamarah in Berachos that says there are three steps to fight the Yeitzer Harah. First go and learn Torah, if that works great. If not, Say Shema, if that works, great. If not you should comtemplate the yom hamesah ( the day of your death). Avodah Zorah is a Yitzer Harah. There three steps should work. We see they did not with the young boy. The Gemara in Huryos says a father (and mother) must first teach their son Torah tzivah lanu Moshe etc. The second thing is Shema. That is what the boy was saying - my father and mother never taught me torah - torah tzivah lanu Moshe. Torah can not help save me from the Yeitzer Harah. He also did not agree to say Shema. So this did not save him. What about thinking about the Yom Hamesah. After all he was about to die. the Vilna Gaon Z'tl explains why there are three steps to fight the Yitzer Harah. Why not just contemplate the day of one's death? Just skip the the third step. He explains not everyone will be effected by the Yom Hamesah. The Greeks say eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you will die. We unfortunately see that death means nothing to the Arabs that blow themselves up. It is only someone who learns Torah and accepts the Yoke of Heaven by saying Shema that one can properly give musser to and tell him to thing about the day he will die. Death meant nothing to this boy and therefore he died. We see all three steps to fight the Yeiter were used but to no avail. We now understand why Hazel had to daven to Hashem to save us from the Yeitzer Harah of Avodad Zorah. The three steps did not help to save us or this boy! Only Hashem could help. There our rabbis daven to Hashem to take away this Yeitzer Harah that we could not conquer by ourselves. Rabbi Yoseph Dov Karr, Passaic, N.J. To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Finding the right one
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Finding the right one [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: If Yakov did not go to Charan, would he have met Rochel anyway? Would she have gone to Israel? 1) The Bereshis Rabba's point on the beginning of Vayetze is not conclusive. The same Posuk is used at the beginning of Sota to prove the exact opposite! Therefore, there is no definitive proof from this Posuk. Please give appropriate sources for all information. I understand that as a practical matter, this is a moot point. Nevertheless, it is the principle which I am interested in. Thank you. New York, United States -- The Kollel replies: 1. Although a person's spouse is pre-ordained, since it is a Mitzvah, marriage is subject to Bechirah, free choice, just like any other Mitzvah. If a person chooses not to marry, he will not be made to marry his pre-ordained spouse against his will. If he does choose to marry, but decides to forego the proper match which was designated to him and to choose an improper woman instead, so be it. The Gemara that says Bas Peloni l'Peloni simply means that Hashem *makes it easier* for a person who *is* interested in finding a proper match, to find that match (see TASHBETZ 2:1 and MAHARAL to Sotah 2a (end of first piece); see also TESHUVOS HA'RAMBAM #345, cited by the Tashbetz there). Therefore, if a person concludes that he is supposed to travel at length in order to find his proper match (either because his parents direct him to do so, or through some other Halachic process), and he chooses to ignore the Halachic reasoning obligating him to travel and remains at home instead, he will not necessarily meet his pre-ordained at home. 2. Sometimes it is Hashem's will that certain people meet and marry each other. At such times, He sees to it that they meet, whether or not they are looking for each other (see Bereishis Raba 65:2). 3. I am not sure to which Pasuk you are referring when you write that the Midrash in Vayetzei (68:4) explains it differently from the way that is explained by the Gemara in Stoah 2a. The two sources learn the exact same lesson from the verse Moshiv Yechidim (i.e. that it is very hard to make matches). M. Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Re: Chanukah vs. Purim in the Mishnah
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Re: Chanukah vs. Purim in the Mishnah The Kollel wrote: Rav Reuven Margoliyos (Yesod ha'Mishnah va'Arichasah, p. 22) suggests that Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi did not include in the Mishnah anything that might sound like a political statement and arouse the suspicion of the Roman Empire. For this reason he did not discuss Moshi'ach ben Dovid (even though he discusses Techiyas ha'Mesim in Perek Chelek), nor did he discuss Chanukah, which was seen by the Romans as a celebration of our kingdom's independence from outside authorities and was likely to provoke their anger. (The Yerushalmi Sukah end of 5:1 tells how the Emporer persecuted the Jews with the claimthat their Chanukah candles were a celebration of his child's death; see also Tosfos Shabbos 45a DH Mekamei who writes that the Roman's enacted decrees against lighting Chanukah candles.) --- Mordechai Schwimmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If in fact the Romans interfered and hindered the Chanukah candles lighting, they had a very short and selective memory. They owed their status as a superpower to the Ness of Chanukah. The Gemara relates in Tractate Avodah Zarah 8b, that the Romans waged thirty-two battles against the Greeks and could not overpower them, at which point the Romans told the Greeks, up until now we tried to achieve supremacy through the battlefield, now we will do it through reasoning (or right). The conclusion of the Romans' argument was that since they, the Romans, are allied with Israel and have the Torah on their side, the Greeks have to relent. According to the Gemara the Greeks acquiesced. The obvious question arises: The Greeks had persecuted the Jews and enacted decrees against the fulfillment of the Torah's commands, how and why did they accept the Romans' argument? The answer lies in some key dates that appear in the Gemara ibid. According to the Gemara the above-mentioned event took place 180 + 26 = 206 years before the destruction of the Temple. Furthermore the Gemara states, ibid. 9a, that the Hasmonean rule also started 206 years before the Churban. Consequently, the Roman-Greek interchange took place just after Ness Chanukah, which explains the attitude of the Greeks. They have just experienced first hand the might of Hashem through Torah observant Jews. As stated, the Romans forgot that their entire power was a result of Ness Chanukah. Sincerely, Mordechai Schwimmer To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Sanhedrin 079a: Kol Kavu'a k'Mechetzeh Al Mechetzeh
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Sanhedrin 079a: A Nochri among nine Jews Solomon Spiro asked: [Kollel Iyun Hadaf wrote in Insights to Sanhedrin 79a:] the Rabanan are referring to a case in which there were nine Jews and only one Nochri. Since the Nochri is Kavu'a (in his place and not separated from the others in the group), he gives the crowd a status of half-Jews and half-Nochrim because of the principle of Kol Kavu'a k'Mechetzeh Al I would say that Kavu'a is the opposite, that he is separated from others in the group by virtue of his separate status as a nochri. If he is not separated then there is more logic to consider him batel berov. No? -- The Kollel replies: Kavu'a means that the object, or the person, is in his place, and is not moving away and separating physically from the rest of the objects, or persons, in the group. It is not defined by his status as being different than the others in the group, but by being physically moved away from the group. (In fact, the whole concept of Kol Kavu'a k'Mechetzeh Al Mechetzeh Dami applies *only* when one object has a different status than the other objects in the group -- such as Tereifah meat among Kosher meat). Regarding your question that there is more reason to consider him Batel b'Rov, that is exactly what the principle of Kol Kavu'a... is overriding, as the verse quoted in the Gemara here (as a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv) is teaching. The Gezeiras ha'Kasuv is teaching (as Rav Gustman zt'l explained) that when an object is not together with the rest of the group, we ask, which of the ten objects that were in the group is this -- one of the nine Kosher ones or the non-Kosher one. Since there are nine kosher answers of Kosher and one of non-Kosher, we follow Rov. When, however, the object in doubt is still among the other objects in the group, we do not ask which of the ten objects is this, because we cannot single out that object from the rest of the group in our question. We must ask a question that applies equally to the entire group. We are therefore told to ask is this object Kosher or non-Kosher, a question which can be asked and answered equally for any and every member of the group. When that is the question, the options for the answer are only two: Kosher or non-Kosher. We therefore give a 50% chance that it is Kosher, and 50% chance that it is not Kosher, and consider it a Safek. M. Kornfeld, Y. Shaw To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Sanhedrin 071: Bas Sorer and Moreh
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Sanhedrin 071: Bas Sorer and Moreh Shabtai Nacson [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: The Posuk says Ben and not Bat, Rashi says if not for the Posuk, she would be killed (Tamuth Zakai and not Hyab)because she would committe zenuth whereas in the case of a man he would end up killing during attempt to steal. The question was asked by Rabbi Bennette she is not haybet metha even if she take the profession of a zonah ( it is assure but not metha)? Shabtai Nacson, Mississauga, Canada -- The Kollel replies: The term Nidon Al Shem Sofo which is used with reference to a Ben Sorer u'Moreh cannot mean that we administer to him the punishment that he might eventually get, for a murderer is punished with the more lenient death of Sayaf and not Sekilah. In addition, the Gemara does not write that he will eventually become a murderer, but that he might become a Listim, or bandit. The intention of the Gemara is simply that we fear that he will learn wicked ways, which will be bad for both him and for the rest of society. The same fear applies to a Bas, for the reason that Rashi gives. D. Zupnik To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Re: Bava Metzia 085: Rebbi Chiya and sons vs. the Avos
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Re: Bava Metzia 085: Rebbi Chiya and sons vs. the Avos M. Kornfeld wrote: Yehudah, the other son, combined Rachamim and Din, which is why he was able to be Meshamesh both Rav and Shmuel, as we find in many places (see Rashbam Bava Basra 38b DH Ki). Rav's character was based on Din (Abba Aricha, see Chulin 137b, see also Shabbos 108a where Shmuel heals and Rav curses) while Shmuel's was Rachamim (Rebbi's doctor as the Gemara here describes). Mordechai Schwimmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] comments: Yehudah the son of Rabbi Chiya, and Rav Yehudah the disciple of Rav and Shmuel, were two different Amoraim. Rav Yehudah's father was named Yechezkel as mentioned in Kidushin 32a and 70a. This Rav Yehudah is *Stam* Rav Yehudah mentioned in Shas. Yehudah the son of Rebbi Chiya knew Rebbi, Rabeinu HaKadosh, as mentioned in Sanhedrin 38a, whereas Rav Yehudah was born the day Rabeinu HaKadosh passed away, as stated in Kidushun 72a-b. Finally, the two Amoraim are mentioned side by side in the span of lines 20-22 in Kesubos 62b. Respectfully, Mordechai Schwimmer - The Kollel replies: Oops -- thank you for the correction. I retract what I wrote about Yehudah b'Rebbi Chiya. I did notice, though, that we recently saw (Bava Basra 75a) a Gemara that seems to compare Yehudah and Chizkiyah to the angels Gavriel and Michael, implying that there is a Rachamim/Din connection between the two. The respective order in which they are mentioned in that Gemara might carry the implication that, in fact, *Yehudah* corresponds to Din and Chizkiyah to Rachamim. The same might be concluded based on the story in Kesuvos 62b that you mentioned in your comments, in which Yehudah's coming was always preceded by a pillar of flame, and in which Yehudah's death was brought about by the slightest touch of inconsistency. I'll add that Yehudah and Chizkiyah were also initiators of Torah-study along with their father (in Bavel), as the Gemara says in Sukah 20a. M. Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Bava Basra 109: Rashbam -- Im Ken
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Bava Basra 109: Rashbam -- Im Ken Simon Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: In the Rashbam on 109a, Divrei HaMatchil 'Im Ken' it says that we would have known that yerusha passes from a daughter to a brother even without the word 'V'Ha'avartem' because (now on the last line of the Rashbam) the pasuk says 'V'im ein lo bat, U'N'Tatem et Nachalato L'Aviv' -- Where is there such a pasuk, shouldn't 'L'aviv' read 'L'echav'? Simon Wolf, Westport, CT -- The Kollel replies: In earlier prints it actually says L'achiv. Good eye. D. Zupnik To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Berachos 028: Shimon bar Yochai
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Berachos 028: Shimon bar Yochai Steve Feuerstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: (1) What is the significance that the question posed to both rabbanim Gamliel and Yehoshua regarding whether or not maariv is an obligation, was presented by none other than Shimon bar Yochai? (2) And why did the gemara only state at the end of the discussion that it was in fact Shimon bar Yochai? Steve Feuerstein, New York, USA -- The Kollel replies: (1) When learning the Gemara, one wonders how the Talmid who posed the question to the two Gedolim had the Chutzpa to ask Raban Gamliel for a ruling after already receiving an answer from Rebbi Yehoshua - and even more, how did he have the Chutzpah to retort to the Nasi, But Rebbi Yehoshua told me it is a Reshus! And remember, this was after Raban Gamliel twice reprimanded Rebbi Yehoshua for not accepting other rulings of his. One would suspect the Talmid, Chas v'Shalom, of Rechilus and of being Marbeh Machlokes b'Yisrael. That is why the Gemara tells us that Rebbi Shimon was the Talmid. He was well-known for his attitude that learning Torah is more important than any other preoccupation, even Tefilah. Rebbi Shimon would only say Kri'as Shema, but not Tefilah, when he Davened (Shabbos 12b). He was happy to hear Rebbi Yehoshua rule that Ma'ariv was a Reshus, so that he would not have to be Mevatel Torah for it, and he wanted the ruling to be accepted by all of the elders. That is why he asked Raban Gamliel, the Nasi, for his ratification. (Tosfos Berachos 26a writes that Reshus does not mean that one does not have to Daven Ma'ariv if he wishes. It only means that Mitzvos which have a limited time to be performed (Zemanam Over) override it. However, if a person is Toraso Umanuso, and uses every minute of his free time for Torah, then learning Torah also becomes Zemanah Over, since had the person not occupied himself with Davening Ma'ariv he would have learned more Torah -- something that can never be made up at a later date, since he will be learning at the later date in any case.) As for the second point, how he retorted that Rebbi Yehoshua ruled otherwise, the answer is that Rebbi Shimon was also well known for his unwavering quest for truth (which eventually led him to compose the Zohar). As the Gemara in Shabbos 30b says, he was not even afraid of the powerful caeser; he stated the truth for what it is and had no other considerations. For this reason, nobody can suspect him of speaking out of disrespect for the Nasi. Unafraid, when he favored another opinion (that Ma'ariv is only a Reshus) as he heard it expressed by other Talmidei Chachamim, he spoke up to the Nasi l'Shem Shamayim, to clarify the issue and bring the truth to light. (2) Whether the actions of Rebbi Shimon were totally l'Shem Shamayim or not becomes apparent only at the end of the story. As Chazal say about a Machlokes l'Shem Shamayim, when something is instigated with pure intentions only good will come from it; if not, then Chas v'Shalom not. In the story with Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Yehoshua, as the story developed it was not clear to all whether the outcome of their dispute was positive or not. (The Gemara mentions that opposing approaches were voiced as to the benefit or loss caused by the added benches in the Beis Midrash.) Because of the outward appearance of things, one might be tempted to view with disapproval the actions of the Talmid when one reads the beginning of the story -- something that certainly would be inappropriate to think about Rebbi Shimon's actions. Only at the end, when we see that the Machlokes was Miskayemes (both remained Nesi'im, and the Nesi'us was actually strengthened from the experience in the end), can we know for certain that the intentions of all involved were truly l'Shem Shamayim. That is when the Gemara tells us that the Talmid was Rebbi Shimon. M. Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Shabbos 060: Sandal ha'Mesumar
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Shabbos 060: Sandal ha'Mesumar yh [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: one can still find 'hobnailed boots' and other similar shoes in our times [very old army boots, soccer kleats with metal spikes, mountain climbing boots with spikes] -would one be allowed to wear these bazman hazeh ? did the gzeirah persist and can we apply it to different kinds of shoes with 'nails' or spikes protruding or only their specific shoes ? Thank you. yh, ny -- Rabbi Feinhandler replies: Dear YH, Although the Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 19:2) did bring this Halachah, the Hagahos Maimoniyos (ibid) says that Sandal Mesumars *are* allowed as they are not common. The same would apply to the shoes you mentioned; they may be worn on Shabbos. Rabbi Yisroel Pesach Feinhandler Rabbi of Avney Yashpe Synagogue author of Beloved Companions, Beloved Children, Priority In Prayer Avney Yashpe Marriage Educational Counselor e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax: 972-2-537-2658 To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Megilat Ruth and the sale of Elimelech's property
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Megilat Ruth and the sale of Elimelech's property Yedidya Israel [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: I wonder if you an refer me for an explanation for these two queries. (a) It seems that Naomi inherited all possessions (especially lands) of Elimelech, Ruth did not have part of them as she didn't pass a Giyur when married Machlon and hence did not deserve a Ketuba. Why then didn't Naomi sell them for food, why Ruth has to go Lelaket Bashibolim? (b) How Ruth was related to the Geula of the land that Namoni sold/was about to sell? Marrying her ex-husband's uncle (or son of uncle) cannot be counted as a Ibum, how will then the Goel will Yakim Et Shem Hamet? Thanks in advance. -- Yedidya Israel, System Administrator. The Kollel replies: I discussed these points (among others) in a Parasha-Page (Shavuot 5756). Here, in brief, is what I wrote: (a) In Ruth 4:3, the verse says that Naomi indeed sold Elimelech's field (which she apparently received as her Kesuvah) in an attempt to support herself upon returning from Moav. Elimelech's relatives were thus expected to redeem the property from the buyer, as the Torah says in Vayikra 25:25. This is the redemption which is discussed in the end of Megilat Ruth. Presumably, it was when the money from the sale ran out (paying for rent and food over the first few months) that Ruth went to gather in Boaz's field. However, there is more to this than meets the eye. If the verse in Ruth 4:3 is to be taken literally (i.e. that Naomi already sold the field), what does Boaz mean when he later says, You are witnesses this day that I have purchased all that was Elimelech's ... from the ownership of *Naomi* (4: 9)? If Naomi already sold the property to someone else, it is from the hands of that other party that the redemption was taking place, not from Naomi! Similarly, in v. 5 the property Boaz bought is described as being purchased from Naomi and from Ruth. How could either Naomi or Ruth be involved in this transaction, if they already sold the property? In addition, the Torah says that redemption is not permitted until at least two years have passed following the sale of the property (Erchin 29b). In the story of Ruth, we are told that Naomi sold her husband's field upon returning destitute from Moav (4:3). We learn (1:22) that Naomi and Ruth returned to Israel at the beginning of the barley harvest (i.e. Pesach time). Ruth stayed at Boaz' field until the end of the wheat and barley harvests (2:23 - i.e. Shavuos time). It was during the winnowing process which immediately followed the harvest that Ruth approached Boaz and he agreed to redeem the field. Boaz acted upon his obligation of redemption the very next day (3:18). If so, the redemption must have taken place no longer than several months after the time when Naomi sold the property. Since two years had not passed, how was redemption possible? These questions are raised by Rav Shlomo Alkabetz (16th cent. Mekubal of Tzfat) in his work Shoresh Yishai on Megilat Ruth, and he discusses them at length. Here is what he writes about them. The key to answering to these questions can be found in a comment of the Ramban (to Vayikra 25:33). The Ramban proposes that the term redemption is also be applied to a situation other than the one outlined by the Torah in Vayikra for redeeming fields sold by relatives. When a person found it necessary to sell his ancestral property due to poverty, it was customary (although not obligatory) for a relative of his to offer to buy the field *directly* from him, so that he would not have to sell it to a non-relative in the first place. This, too, is referred to as redemption by the Torah. Although such preventative redemption was not a Mitzvah, it was nevertheless an ancient custom, explains the Ramban. With this in mind, the Ramban suggests that the property being redeemed by Boaz still belonged to Naomi -- she and Ruth had never sold the fields! Nevertheless, the Torah -- and the Book or Ruth -- refers to Boaz' act as one of redemption, because he stepped in to ensure that the property would not have to be sold to a stranger in the future. This seems to be the opinion of Rashi as well, in his comments to Ruth 3:9 and 4:5. This explains how the redemption could be carried out before the requisite two-year waiting period. The problem with this interpretation is that in 4:3 Boaz says, Naomi, who has come back from the fields of Moav, has *sold* the portion of land that belonged to our brother Elimelech. According to what we have just said
Rebbi Bena'a and the grave of Adam
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Rebbi Bena'ah and the grave of Adam Yedidya Israel [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: Shalom Rav. I wonder if Rabi Banaa entered the place where Adam HaRishon was buried or not. Strictly the Bat Kol did not permit it and when he claimed that he need to measure the place he was answered that there is no need to. But from the rest of the story we learn that he did enter the place as he knew how Adam and Even looked like. Thanks in advance. -- Yedidya Israel, System Administrator. -- The Kollel replies: The source for the statements in the Gemara comparing the looks of Adam and Chava to others was not necessarily Rebbi Bena'ah. They seem to have been Mesorahs, not directly related to the adventure of Rebbi Bena'ah. (They allude to unique qualities that Adam and Chava possessed, see Insights.) The Gemara does say that Rebbi Bena'ah saw the heel of Adam, and Rav Yakov Emden (in Hagahos printed in the Neharde'a Shas) asks, as you wrote, that this contradicts the previous statement of the Gemara. He answers that Rebbi Bena'ah didn't mean that he literally saw the heel of Adam, but that he *contemplated* the quality of Adam which is alluded to by his heel. (He proposes a very interesting allegorical meaning for the entire discussion here.) The simple reading of the Gemara is that he was not given permission to enter and see the face of Adam. From outside the grave, though, he was able to see his heel, which was positioned near the entrance to the grave. M. Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Re: Yevamos 062: Cain
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Re: Yevamos 062: Cain The Kollel wrote: The multiply Mitzvah is constant, but one is exempted from actively fulfilling it as long as one has two living children. If one child dies (without leaving behind children of his own) the requirement remains. The father has not unfulfilled the Mitzvah, he merely lost his exemption. (That is, he still retains the reward for the time during which the Mitzvah was fulfilled). Joel Schnur [EMAIL PROTECTED] asks: I was under the impression that the multiply mitzvah or pru u'ravu was only fulfilled when both a female and male offspring were produced and then only when each of them proved capable of having female and male offspring. Secondly, I believe that what you are describing in your answer may apply more readily to the mitzvah of sheves or populating rather than mulipyling. Please elaborate. And in the spirit of the upcomimg Yom Tov many thanks from all of your subscribers for helping us be koneh Torah. Chag Samayach v'Shabbat Shalom --- The Kollel replies: Yes, that is correct. When both a female and male offspring were produced and each of them proved capable of having offspring, the father is no longer required to have children. If the offspring die, though, the Gemara (Yevamos 62a) records a Machlokes among the Amora'im whether the father must have another two children. The conclusion is that he must. This interpretation of the Mitzvah of being fruitful (Pru u'Revu) is in fact inferred from the verse Lasheves Yetzarah, to which you referred (Yevamos, ibid.). By the way, there indeed is a technical problem with the Gemara that Barry Epstein referred us to (which records an opinion that Adam had to have another child to make up for Hevel, after Hevel was killed, since 2 boys and 2 girls are required by Halachah). As the Mahadura Basra points out, *Rav Huna*, who says Adam had to have a replacement for Hevel, is the same Amora who maintains that when a child dies it is *not* necessary to have a replacement child! Also, Barry mentioned a Pirkei d'Rebbi Eliezer who says that *Cain* was no longer considered a son of Adam after the point at which he killed his brother. I found a Pirkei d'Rebbi Eliezer (#21) that says Cain was not like Adam's son and did not follow Adam's or Hevel's ways, but it does not seem to be dealing with the issue of Adam's Mitzvah of being fruitful. In fact, to the contrary - from the Gemara in Yevamos that we are discussing it seems clear that *only* Hevel had to be replaced by Adam in order to fulfill his Mitzvah, not Cain. Best wishes, M. Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Re: Shavuos
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Re: Shavuos Sid Mosenkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: If the torah was given on 7 sivan, according to one opinion in the gemara, why do we say zman matan toraseinu on 6 sivan? S. Mosenkis, Queens N.Y. --- The Kollel replies: We wrote about this on Shabbos 88a, here is a copy of our Insights to the Daf there. Best wishes, Mordecai == Shabbos 88 1) ON WHAT DAY DOES SHAVUOS FALL QUESTION: The Tur and Shulchan Aruch (OC 494:1) say that Shavuos falls on the sixth of Iyar, fifty days after the day of bringing the Omer offering (the second day of Pesach). This implies that Iyar of the year that the Torah was given was not a full (Malei) month, but was 29 days long, for if Iyar of that year was 30 days long, Matan Torah would have been on the fifty-*first* day after the day of the Omer offering, and not the fiftieth. Our Sugya seems to conclude that according to the Rabanan, who maintain that the Torah was given on the *sixth* of Sivan, there were indeed fifty-*one* days between Pesach and Shavuos (since the Gemara (87b) resolves the Beraisa which conflicts with the opinion of the Rabanan by saying that Iyar of that year had 30 days). How, then, can we rule that Shavuos is on the sixth of Sivan and only *fifty* days after the day of the Omer offering? Besides, no matter how we rule, according to both Rebbi Yosi and the Rabanan, the Torah was given on the fifty-first day. According to the Rabanan Iyar was 30 days, as we explained above, and according to Rebbi Yosi Iyar was 29 days but the Torah was given on the *7th* of Sivan, or 51 days after the day of the Omer offering. ANSWERS: (a) The MACHTZIS HA'SHEKEL explains that this question is only a question if the Jewish people left Egypt on a Thursday (which would mean that there are fifty-one days between the second day of Pesach (Friday) and the day they received the Torah (Shabbos)). The Seder Olam, though, says that they left Egypt on a *Friday*, and thus the Torah, which was given on a Shabbos, was given *fifty* days later. (The Seder Olam also states that the Man started falling on a Monday. Even though the Gemara derived from verses that the Man started falling on a Sunday, this inference is not at all explicit in the verses, and the simple understanding of the verses does not imply that the Man started falling on a Sunday). We rule like the Seder Olam, and not like the Gemara. It should be noted that according to the Seder Olam, the tenth of Nisan (the day that the animals for the Korban Pesach were designated) was not Shabbos but Sunday -- contrary to what the TUR in OC 430 quotes from the Seder Olam -- since the Jews left Egypt on a Friday, as the PERISHAH points out. (b) The SEFAS EMES explains that the TUR holds that the Jewish people went out of Egypt on a *Thursday* (as he says in OC 430), and that the Torah was given on a *Friday* and not on Shabbos, as the Pirkei d'Rebbi Eliezer ch. 46 maintains. The Sefas Emes points out, however, that the Tur himself (OC 292) states that the Torah was given on Shabbos. (c) The RIVASH (#96) writes that the festival of Shavuos has nothing to do with the day upon which the Torah was given. Shavuos comes fifty days after the day of the Omer offering, whether or not it falls on the day that the Torah was given. The reason we call Shavuos Z'man Matan Toraseinu is because the way our calendar is set up, the festival falls on the sixth of Sivan, which is the day of the month on which the Torah was given (according to the Rabanan, whose opinion we follow). Unlike the day upon which the Torah was given, our 6th of Sivan falls *fifty* days after the Omer offering, while the original day of Matan Torah was fifty-one days after the Omer (because they left Egypt on a Thursday and received the Torah on Shabbos, as our Gemara states). (d) The MAGEN AVRAHAM (OC 494) cites from SEFER ASARAH MA'AMAROS that by adding a day on his own, Moshe Rabeinu alluded to the second day of Yom Tov which is observed outside of Israel. Thus, the Torah was actually *supposed* to have been given on the fiftieth day after the Omer of that first year, which is why our holiday begins on the fiftieth day after the Omer. The Torah was actually given on the fifty-first day to symbolize that that day would be Yom Tov as well, when the Jews would go into exile. That is, just like Moshe Rabeinu made that day into the day of Kabalas ha'Torah, the Rabanan would later make that day into Yom Tov. The BEIS HA'LEVI (Parshas Yisro) expands on this idea, explaining that even though the Jewish
Re: The movie version of The Chosen
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Re: The movie version of The Chosen Bruce Ledewitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: At the end of the movie version of the book, The Chosen, the narrator tells what he calls a story from the Talmud about the son of a king who has strayed from his father. The boy is told to return to his father but he replies that he cannot. The king then sends a message--Come as far as you can and I will meet you the rest of the way. This is a beautiful story and I don't doubt its authenticity, but I have been unable to locate it in the Babylonian Talmud. Does anyone know where it comes from? Please e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bruce Ledewitz, Pittsburgh, Pa. -- The Kollel replies: There is no such story in the Talmud, nor does it appear in any other Jewish source, to the best of my knowledge. G-d does not come to meet us halfway. What the Midrash does say is, If you open for me an aperture as small as the eye of a needle (in your hearts), I will open for you apertures large enough for carriages to enter. (Midrash Raba Shir ha'Shirim 5; Kol Dodi Dofek). Or, in the words of the Talmud (Yoma 38b), If a person comes to better himself, he is given Divine Help to accomplish his goals. Although I haven't seen the movie, I understand that The Chosen included numerous misrepresentations of Jewish law and literature. Best wishes, M. Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Bava Basra 049: Relinquishing of Chazal-given benefits
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Bava Basra 049: Relinquishing of Chazal-given benefits Gidon Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: if a woman tells her husband she does not want him to feed her and in return she will not give him her property - she is diminishing HIS Chazal given benefit - how can she do this? Gidon Schneider, London, England -- The Kollel replies: The benefit Chazal gave him to receive her earnings was meant as a reciprocation for requiring him to feed her. The main purpose, though, was to see to it that she would be fed. He is given her earnings only to ensure that he keeps his own part of the deal. Therefore, if she decides to forego being fed, Chazal no longer gave him her earnings. (See Kesuvos 58b) M. Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
Bava Basra 052: Rabeinu Yashar Gaon?
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] Bava Basra 052: Rabeinu Yashar Gaon? noah zablotsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: the rashbam brings the abbreviation meish which stands for rabbinu yashar gaon. I searched in the seder hadoros and other sefurim on that era and didn't find a mention of a gaon with this name. Noah Zablotsky, New York, USA -- The Kollel replies: The abbreviation stands for Rav Yisrael Gaon (as pointed out by the MAHARSHAL, see HAGAHOS MAIMONIYOS to Hilchos Nachalos, 9:8). According to Rav Refael Halpern (Atlas Etz Chaim, vol. 6 #226 -- I haven't found his sources) there wasa Rav Yisrael Gaon, son of Rav Shmuel bar Chofni Gaon, who was a brother in law of Rav Hai (last of the Geonim) and who authored a work on Hilchos Tefilah. M. Kornfeld To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message: unsubscribe daf-discuss
