Tzaros Acharonos Mishakchos es Ha'rishonos
This past Sunday we were bothered by the Gemara on 13a in the sugya which starts at the bottom of 12b by the machlokes of the Chachomim and Ben Zoma. The Gemara discusses how the nissim of later Geulos outshine earlier Geulos to the extent that the earlier nissim are "forgotten" and no longer mentioned. (The Gemara says that according to the Chachomim Yetzias Mitzrayim will always be mentioned, just in a tafel status to the ikar of the Geulah from shibud malchiyos.) The Gemara brings the posuk from Yeshaya 43 which syas that later nissim overshadow the earlier ones. The sugya closes with the moshol from the fellow escaping the clutches of the wolf, lion and snake, and all he talks about is the snake. "Af kach Yisroel, tzaros acharonos mishakchos es ha'rishonos". Beautiful, but shouldn't the flow of the Gemara be that the "nissim acharonos mishakchos es ha'rishonos"? Why is the focus on the later tzaros overshadowing the earlier ones?
Later on Sunday I was listening to Rabbi Yisroel Reisman's Navi shiur from 2 weeks ago on Ikvasa d'Meshicha. He didn't tzu shtel to this Gemara, but he talked about the posuk our Gemara brings down. Very much b'kitzur, he said b'shem Rav Yaakov, zt"l and others that the avoda of "tzipisa l'yeshua" is not as most of think that we simply wait for Moshiach to arrive; rather our job is to make the best of our Golus to grow. Each time Klal Yisroel experienced Geula, there is a lookback cheshbon made of what was accomplished during the Golus, and when Moshiach comes we will need to do the same analysis.
Perhaps, that same mehalech can be applied to our Gemara. It is the earlier and later tzoros which are the focus once we look back after the later Geula. The accomplishments under the tzaros of the later Golus should so outweigh the accomplishments under the tzaros of the earlier Golus that the earlier wolf and lion are forgotten.
Just a thought.
posted by Anonymous @ 10:26 PM
3 Comments:
I have a question unrelated to this post, and prob. a stupid question. Just thought you might know.
Today's daf speaks of the p'tur for a chasan saying krias sh'ma. We pasken SA OC 70:3 that b'zman hazeh a choson does say k"s b/c we don't consider ourselves to have kavana, and the MB says todayit would be yehura not to say it, b/c it would imply the choson has kavana normally.
I seem to remember learning that we pasken that a choson does say shma in ma'ariv but doesn't say krias shma al hamita - but I can't find a source for that at all. Is this so, or is my memory playing tricks on me (and what is the precise basis for this distinction if it exists?).
Thanks for any help you can offer.
I noticed that distinction made this morning when I was flipping through the back of my gemara. Now let me just find it. Aaah I found it.
The Mareh Kohen (on daf 33b in the counting between the gemara and the Rif) quotes the Sefer Pardes Hagadol who says that this whole gemara is only talking about k"s al hamita because they used to daven maariv and say shma earlier. Our gemara is just saying that in those days you were patur from k"s because you were only yotze the mitzva (acc. to Rashi) with k"s al hamita. However, nowadays that we generally daven maariv later there would be no distinction between a choson and others.
I wonder if this is quoted l'halacha also or if you're just remembering this from one of your previous times through Brachos.
P.S. If you'd like posting authority so you can post your own questions/hearos just email me.
Thank you.
This may just be my own personally invented mistake. I think that I may have remembered the gemara, seen nothing, known we paskened that a choson is m'chuyav in all regular davening and somehow come to the conclusion that there's a p'tur for K"S al hamita, without thinking it thru! (Sad, but seems to be the most likely) I am not sure if I saw this brought in some compendium of hilchos nida and related holachos or came to this conclusion myself.
On thinking this through, it makes no sense as unilateral advice, as the p'tur is only until the first biah, and assuming this takes place within 3 days, k"s would become obligatory immediately after tashmish (i.e. the recommended procedure in any case).
Post a Comment
<< Home