A Daf A Day (daf yomi)

This blog is history

2007-07-22T21:46:00.000-04:00

I think it's been long enough that it's time I officially say that I won't be posting anymore on this blog. I also started a new blog (nothing to do with daf yomi though). It was fun while it lasted but it was a lot of work and I failed to keep it going. There is a really good daf yomi blog that is everything I wish this blog could have become. There are insightful posts frequently and lots of good commenters. Check out dafnotes when you get a chance.

The juice is just contained in the grape (Pesachim 33b)

2006-02-20T07:34:00.000-05:00

The gemara on 33b says that according to one opinion the juice inside the grape is separate so when the grape becomes tamei the juice does not automatically become tamei. The gemara though says that if the grape was truma that became tamei we don't allow you to take the juice out of the grape and use it for fear that it may lead "lidei takala" - you may accidentally eat the truma temeia. Therefore the gemara says you need to burn it immediately. The thing that bothered me about this is: How can we burn the entire grape if the juice inside of it is tahor? You're not allowed to burn truma tehora and that's what the juice inside of the grape is!?!

Normally, in Pesachim whenever I've had a question I've just checked the Tzlach and he often asks the question and answers it. So that was the first place I checked but he didn't ask my question this time. He did ask another question though. Rashi in d"h "ksavar mashkin mifkad pakid" explains why the juice doesn't become tamei from the grapes while it's inside. The grape should be a rishon and that should make the juice a sheni. So Rashi says that the reason it doesn't become tamei is because it's not considered food until it actually comes out. The Tzlach asks why is Rashi forced to give this explanation, why couldn't he just simply explain that the juice can't become tamei because the solid in the grape is less than a k'beitza so it can't be metamei the juice? He does not answer the question but leaves it as a "tzaruch iyun."

I was thinking that my question and the Tzlach's could answer the other. The reason you're allowed to burn the liquid inside of the grape is because it's not considered food until it comes out. That's why Rashi wanted to stress that point right at the beginning of the gemara so that you wouldn't be bothered by my question. It's not truma when you're burning it so you're burning the solid of the grape which is truma temeia together with the liquid which isn't truma at all.

Could food and drinks be av hatuma? (Pesachim 17a)

2006-02-03T09:03:00.000-05:00

I was a little confused throughout the gemara if liquids could be an av hatuma. I had always assumed that food and liquids could only be a rishon l'tumah or lower but I wasn't really sure what that was based on. The thing that bothered me with that is what happens if the food or liquid comes in direct contact with a dead body - is it still only a rishon? Is that possible to just skip a level of tuma? On the other hand, if it really is an av hatuma then why do we always say that food and drink can't make humans and utensils tamei? (I'm not talking about R' Yehuda's opinion in the braisa - I assumed that he must hold that the liquid is an av hatuma and it makes the keilim into a rishon.)

Tosafos (d"h revii) on 17a quotes an imaginary (see Gilyon Hashas who says that he may be referring to the last daf in Eruvin) gemara in nida 28b that says that anything that doesn't have tahara in the mikva can't be an av hatuma. He suggests though that doesn't mean literally that it can't be an av hatuma but just that it can't transmit tuma to humans and utensils. So even though technically it's an av hatuma in that if it touches other food or drinks it makes them into a rishon, it's not a full-fledged av hatuma to make humans and utensils tamei. This pshat is necessary to understand Rashi's explanation of Ravina that the meis made the bread into an av hatuma so the case in the gemara is only talking about a shlishi. Tosafos doesn't like Rashi's pshat though for other reasons so he may understand in the end that food and drinks can never be av hatuma.

Stam mishna against R' Yehuda (Pesachim 13a)

2006-01-30T10:47:00.000-05:00

The gemara asks how Rav Nachman could pasked like Rav Yehuda that you can't eat chametz at four hours on Erev Pesach and you can't get hanaah (benefit) at 5 hours against R' Meir when we have a stam mishna on daf 21a that supports R' Meir. The mishna there says that "As long as you can eat you can give to eat." This seems to support R' Meir that the isur of hanaah and the isur of achila both come at the same time - at 5 hours. The gemara answers that (summary courtesy of Kollel Iyun Hadaf), "[We prove on Daf 21A that] that Mishnah is not Stam, because it says '[as long as it is] permitted [to eat', as opposed to 'as long as one may eat'], i.e. some people are permitted at the same time that others are forbidden - it is like R. Gamliel, who permits [Kohanim to eat] Terumah and forbids [Yisraelim, who eat only] Chulin in the fifth hour."

Tosafos asks what I think is the obvious question: That means that this stam mishna is like R' Gamliel and definitely not like R' Yehuda. So the gemara's initial question still remains: How could R' Nachman pasken like R' Yehuda? Tosafos gives a forced answer which really doesn't solve anything (see the Maharsha). The Ran and Pnei Yehoshua also offer suggestions. The Tzlach though has an answer that I enjoyed so I'll post it here.

The Tzlach says that the gemara there is really saying that from the fact that it says "mutar" in the mishna it proves that we're talking about two different types of people or two different types of things. Once we say that then the mishna can be like R' Yehuda also. Even though we don't see clearly from our gemara that R' Yehuda makes any distinction between different people or different types of chametz we can logically deduce that he does. Why does he say that you get an extra hour for hanaah than you get for eating? It must, says the Tzlach, because eating is an isur kares whereas hanaah is only a lav. Therefore, all things for which there is no kares the prohibition only begins at 5 hours. For example chametz nukshe (inedible chametz). I just googled chametz nukshe and it looks like we actually pasken that way that you can eat it until the end of the fifth hour. So then the mishna on 21a works out according to R' Yehuda: "As long as you can eat chametz nukshe then you can feed all chametz to the animals." Now we no longer have a stam mishna against R' Yehuda.

Chazaka beats rov (Pesachim 9a)

2006-01-26T21:38:00.000-05:00

The gemara on daf 9a says that when you find fruit from a talmid chacham you can assume he took off trumos and maasros because it's not merely a rov but it's a chazaka that he took it off. This implies that a chazaka is stronger than a rov. There is the general rule though that ruba v'chazaka ruba adif - rov is stronger than chazaka. Which is it?

The answer is that there are many different types of chazaka. You could probably divide it into many different categories. I saw that Encyclopedia Talmudis describes it as five different types so I'll base this on that. The terms though are my own so they may not be completely accurate:

1. Acquisition - this is the way to acquire certain things like land. If you do something to the land to show your ownership.
2. Status quo - this is the most common type of chazaka. If something was one way then we assume it remains that way. Like we can assume the eruv is up since we know it was up when Shabbos started. Of course certain things can weaken the chazaka or ruin it but in general we assume the status quo remains. Rov is stronger than this type of chazaka.
3. Common knowledge - you weren't at this couple's wedding but yet you assume they're married.
4. Habit - Once something happens three times (or two) then this establishes it as the normal way.
5. Probability - Something happens this way almost all the time so we can assume it happened this way. That's the type of chazaka we're talking about in our gemara. Talmidei chachamam almost always take off trumos and maasros right away so we can assume it happened here also. This really is a rov - just a really, really strong rov.

Bedika using sunlight (Pesachim 8a)

2006-01-25T15:23:00.000-05:00

The gemara on daf 8a quotes Rava who says that if a room is completely open so the sun lights up the entire room then you can check by the sunlight. Rashi says that this means that you don't need to use a candle at night but you can just check it during the day. The gemara on daf 4a says that we should check at night because that's when people are around and candlelight is good for bedika.

So the Tzlach asks how can our gemara say you can check by the sunlight if the light is good? You still need to do the bedika at night because that's when people are around!

He suggests that the gemara isn't giving two different reasons why you need to do the bedika the night of the 14th. First of all the gemara says you should do it when people are around which would exclude a regular workday. The gemara then answers the question it doesn't ask - everyone is around on the 14th in the morning so why can't you do the bedika then? So the gemara answers that the light from candle is better so we'd prefer to do it at night. Now the gemara is saying that's not always true. If it's a room which is completely open then the sunlight is just as good (or better) so you can check during the day on the 14th.

Burning chametz on the 15th (Pesachim 5a)

2006-01-22T09:56:00.000-05:00

The gemara quotes R' Akiva's explanation that it must be that the mitzva of burning the chametz is on the 14th and not the 15th because the Torah couldn't possibly tell you to do it on the 15th when there is an av melacha of burning on Yom Tov. How does that prove anything? Maybe there is normally an av melacha of burning on yom tov but the Torah is telling you here that this is an exception and here you have a special mitzva to burn it on the 15th!

The Pnei Yehoshua answers that R' Akiva agreed with the limudim from earlier on the amud that "rishon" (either here or generally) could mean the day before. His only question was if it means the 14th only or the 14th and the 15th. He proves that it can't be the 15th also from the fact that you're not allowed to burn on yom tov. If it meant the 14th and 15th then it would mean that you'd have a choice and it would become a "davar she'efshar laasoso m'esmol" (something you could have done yesterday) so you would never be able to burn it on the 15th. Ergo, the Torah must have meant only the 14th.

Shorter or Cleaner? (Pesachim 3b)

2006-01-20T10:08:00.000-05:00

From the conclusion of the gemara on daf 3b, it sounds as though ideally one should talk using clean speech (lashon nekiya) but if it's shorter the other way then you should choose the shorter way of speaking (lashon ketzara). I think that two things in our gemara contradict this point:
1. We have two pesukim in the Torah quoted on 3a where the Torah chose the longer way of speaking because it was lashon nekiya.
2. The two students who were in front of their rebbe and one asked "lama moskin b'tuma" and the other said, "lama ein moskin b'tahara." The rebbe praised one of them. The simple way of understanding is that he praised the one who spoke b'lashon nekiya but shouldn't the other one have been praised because he used less words?

There are really tons of answers in the Rishonim on these questions (it's amazing how many Rishonim there are on Pesachim) but I'll just quote a couple for each question. The Chidushei haRan says that we need both pesukim to teach us different things. Rabeinu Dovid and the Baal Hameor answer that there are actually three levels. There is "clean" talking, "unclean" talking and then something in the middle. So you should go the shorter method unless it's unclean so in the pasuk quoted about the "mikreh layla" that would be unclean to say tamei so it uses the clean lashon there even though it's longer. However when talking about a woman riding, it's not unclean to say "rocheves" instead of "yosheves" but it's just nicer to use the latter. So if they're equal then we'll go with the cleaner language but we won't go out of our way for that.

To answer the second question the Ran says that the problem is that by asking why do we harvest b'tuma, it's actually unclear because it makes it sound like you must harvest b'tuma and that's obviously not true. Therefore, shorter is better but if it's going to blur the meaning then you should choose the one that is more clear. The Ran in the name of Tosafos (I don't see a Tosafos that says that) says the praise was really for the one who used the shorter language even though it was less clean he was right to speak in the shorter method.

The Maharsha answers both questions that if the cleaner way is longer then you have the choice which one to use. The reason the second student was praised was because he changed from the normal way of talking (similar to the gemara in Brachos 38a which says that R' Zeira wasn't impressed with R' Zvid because he said motzi instead of hamotzi - and motzi was obviously OK but he should've said it in the less obvious way). So the other student did nothing wrong but Rebbe (or Hillel) realized that the one who changed was destined for greatness.

Ohr means night (Pesachim 2)

2006-01-18T22:52:00.000-05:00

Why does the term "Ohr", which literally means light, refer to night?

Maake

2006-01-17T07:48:00.000-05:00

I heard a couple people ask this question when we learned it a few weeks ago so yesterday when I saw this from Kollel Iyun Hadaf I figured that I'd post it here also.

Eric Haas asked:

Something that occurred to me - R. Yosef establishes the case he couldn't
remember as having partitions around the walls of the roof.  Doesn't a flat
roof have to have a maakeh of ten tefachim according to halacha, so how
could the case be otherwise?

Eric Haas, Philadelphia, USA
----------------------------------------------
The Kollel replies:

The case could be this way for a variety of reasons.  One reason may be
that the surface on top of the roof might be a Chatzer for Jews, while the
building itself is owned by a Nochri, which would make the Jews exempt from
Mitzvas Makeh.  Or the building is owned as a partnership between a Nochri
and a Jew which might also be a reason that it could be Patur from Makeh
(see Minchas Chinuch Mitvzah 546:7). 

All the best,
Yaakov Montrose
I had thought of a couple other possible answers: In Choshen Mishpat 425:1, it says that only a beis dira requires a maake. So maybe here we're talking a case where it's not a beis dira under it.

Also, it's a machlokes Rishonim how high the maake has to be. The Rambam paskens that it must be 10 tefachim all the way around but the Raavad argues. So according to the Raavad it may not be a question.

Gud Asik according to Shmuel (Eruvin 90)

2006-01-05T10:02:00.000-05:00

On 89a Shmuel takes the position that you say Gud Asik even by mechitzos she'ainan nikaros-covered walls. Accordingly, in the shitas Chachomim one can carry throughout an individual roof by a gog bein hagagin, as long as he doesn't transfer an object from one roof to another. This is because through Gud Asik the walls of each individual property are viewed as extending upwards, thereby providing a seperation between each adjoining roof.

On 90a Shmuel holds, in shitas R. Meir that one is allowed to carry from roof to roof bu gog bein hagogin, that all the roofs combine to form one reshus that is greater than a beis saseim shelo hukaf l'deira and therefore the combined reshus takes on the status of a carmelis and one can only carry four amos on the roof.

The seemingly glaring difficulty with this second opinion of Shmuel is as follows: Why don't we say Gud Asik on the walls of each of the individual residences, as Shmuel said on 89a, thereby providing a seperation between each individual roof. This would then make each roof a seperate enclosed area of (assuming) less than a beis saseim which would allow free range of carrying all across the roofs (since each roof would now be considered a reshus hayachid and according to R. Meir one can carry from one roof to another)?

This question bothered me greatly because it seems from the two opinions of Shmuel that Gud Asik is a concept that is applied arbitrarily , which with all the imaginary aspects of eruv that are already employed, to then add the element of arbitrariness is too much.

The Chazon Ish answers that Shmuel really doesn't hold of Gud Asik by mechitzos she'ainan nikaros at all. That is why in fact the gogin, on 90a, join to make one large gog greater than a beis sasaim and turn the reshus into a carmelis, disregarding each individual residence's seperating walls beneath. On 89a Shmuel is explaining within the shitas Chachomim that we say "just like the residences are seperated below so too they are seperated above". Since the Chachomim view the inhabitants below as being transposed above, thereby prohibiting anyone from carrying from one gog to another, it only makes sense to view the seperating walls as being transposed upwards as well. In other words, Shmuel is saying on 89a that if the Chachomim view the individual residents below as living seperately above, then you also must view the walls below as providing a seperation between each gog above.
It isn't a Gud Asik issue, it is in fact a consistency issue, the very issue that I was bothered with in the first place.

(A side issue as well is do we say Gud Asik on interior walls of an individual residence. If Gud Asik by mechitzos mechusos is an absolute fact according to Shmuel, then why not say it even regarding the walls of each room in a residence. Yet by gog gadol next to gog katon we seem to disregard interior walls. I won't elaborate here. With the Chazon Ish's take this isn't a question.)

Eruv Between Two Balconies (Eruvin 79a)

2005-12-23T12:15:00.000-05:00

The mishna on 78b says that two balconies can join in one eruv. Rashi says that the Mishna is teaching us that they can join even if they're far apart as long as you put a four tefach wide board to connect the two that people can comfortably walk across. Tosafos says that the case of the Mishna is that the two balconies are within four tefachim of each other they can combine because it's like a ditch less than four between them and they can easily get over it. So far so good.

Then Rava on 79a says that this is only true if they are less than three tefachim apart either horizontally or vertically. That means that they're not directly across from each other but if you would draw a straight line from the edge of one across to the other side it would be within three tefachim of the edge of the other one. Or the same thing vertically. That explanation probably wasn't great but if you don't get it then try to check one of the picture books. Anyway, if it's more than 3 tefachim then the two balconies can't combine. That's where I have a problem with Rashi and Tosafos.

Tosafos actually has a problem with Rashi. According to Rashi why should it matter that it's more than three tefachim away, there is a four tefach board going across between the two balconies and we said a few blatt ago that a person isn't afraid to walk on top of the wall if it's at least four tefachim across. The way I understood Rashi (and the way the Ran explains it) is that the reason this is worse is because the person is afraid to walk on a plank if it's on a steep slope or a sharp angle. My problem is that if that is true shouldn't we measure the angle and not the distance? In other words, if the two porches are 10 tefachim away from each other across and one is three tefachim higher than the other then you'd have a somewhat steep slope but if you push them to 20 tefachim apart from each other and keep one three tefachim higher than the other then the slope would be much, much less steep. So why shouldn't that be good? We should be looking at the slope!

I also have a problem with Tosafos' explanation. He said that there are four tefachim betwen the balconies and then Rava said that they're 3 tefachim apart which means that there is now actually a 5 tefach distance between the two. Why is that still good? We said that a person can only walk across four tefachim not five?

Wine and Oil (Eruvin 71a)

2005-12-15T10:47:00.000-05:00

Rav explains that the beginning of the mishna is talking about when the wine is in one utensil but if the wine is in two utensils it would not be good. Rava then tries to bring a proof that must be true from our Mishna and Abaye says that Rava's proof is no good. I think that the simple understanding of the gemara (especially when considering that Rava and Abaye were from the same generation - a few years later than Rav) is that the only machlokes is if the mishna can be used as a proof but Abaye does not intend to argue on Rav's statement. The Ritva though actually quotes it as two opinions and according to some Abaye is actually arguing on Rav.

Then on amud beis, Rav Yosef explains that the machlokes between R' Shimon and the Chachamim is if wine and oil mix or not. This makes it seem that he's definitely arguing with Rav and that's how the Maharsha explains it. Rav says the machlokes has nothing to do with the substance but the only thing that matters is if it's one utensil or two and Rav Yosef seems to say that the only thing that matters is the substance.

The Sfas Emes (it's very short but this is at least how I understand it) says that he disagrees with the Maharsha and he says that it could be that Rav Yosef and Rav agree. According to them the Chachamim hold that if it's wine then it depends if it's in one utensil or two but if it's wine and oil then it's no good even if they're both in one utensil. That also seems to be how the Ritva understands it.

Can a tziduki be part of the eruv? (Eruvin 69a)

2005-12-13T15:12:00.000-05:00

The mishna quotes a machlokes if a tziduki can be relinquish his rights in the courtyard - mevatel reshus (R' Gamliel) or if he's like a non-Jew and he can't be mevatel reshus (tanna kama). However, the gemara never seems to address the question if the tziduki can be part of the eruv in the first place. I think that there are three possibilities:
1. Everyone would agree that he can't be part of the eruv.
2. It would be the same machlokes - if you hold that he can't be mevatel then he can't be part of the eruv otherwise he could be part of the eruv.
3. Everyone would agree that he can be part of the eruv.

I think that Rashi would hold of option 1. In the mishna (on 61b) Rashi says that a tziduki can't be mevatel reshus because we're afraid he's going to carry there on purpose and thereby nullify his bitul. We don't have that fear if he's actually part of the eruv so that would be permissible. The Rambam (hilchos Eruvin 5:16) though seems to pasken like option 3. He paskens that a tziduki could be mevatel reshus but he can't be part of the eruv. I think that pashut pshat in the gemara is like option 2

Backdoor (Eruvin 67b)

2005-12-12T09:38:00.000-05:00

(a) (Rav Yehudah): If a Nochri has an opening four by four [Tefachim] to a valley, even if he brings camels and wagons [into the Mavoy], he does not forbid the Benei Mavoy.
(b) Question: What is the reason?
(c) Answer: He prefers using his own opening [for the valley is less crowded - therefore, it is as if he has no share in the Mavoy].
(d) Question: If a Nochri has an opening to a Karfef, what is the law?
(e) Answer (Rav Nachman bar Ami): I have a tradition, even if it is open to a Karfef [he does not forbid].
(f) (Rabah and Rav Yosef): If a Nochri has an opening to a Karfef [at most] Beis Sa'atayim, he forbids (it is not so big, he still uses the Mavoy); if it is more than Beis Sa'atayim, he does not forbid;
(g) If a Yisrael has an opening [to a Karfef at most] Beis Sa'atayim, he does not forbid (it is big enough for his needs on Shabbos); if it is more than Beis Sa'atayim (it is a Karmelis, he cannot bring from his house to it) he forbids [unless he participates in the Eruv].

Summary courtsey of Kollel iyun hadaf. The parentheses and brackets are their additions and not the translation of the gemara. In (g), they added in the words "at most" but that is not clear that those words should be there. The Sfas Emes assumes there there must be a minimum size to the karfef in order for the Jew not to forbid the others in the chatzeir. He is unsure what that minimum is. He suggests that maybe it is a beis sa'atayim which would mean that the only way he doesn't forbid is if the karfef is exactly that size. He finds that hard to believe but doesn't have any other suggestions for that minimum size.

I'm not sure why he doesn't quote Rashi d"h yisrael who says that the reason it doesn't forbid is because it's bigger than the courtyard. So that seems to be the minimum - as long as it's bigger than the chatzeir. Why is that the minimum shiur? It could be that as long as the Jew has this backdoor we will force him to use it (I think that we don't actually force him to use it but just force him to be mevatel his rights in our chatzeir since he could use that one - he could still walk through our chatzeir as a guest) so that he won't forbid the rest of us as long as it's bigger than the chatzeir because he really doesn't lose much. So it's a classic zeh nehene v'zeh lo chaseir. He might be losing a little because we're forcing him to use the backdoor but as long as it's bigger even by a little it balances out.

2 in the inner and 1 in the outer (Eruvin 65b)

2005-12-09T10:06:00.000-05:00

The gemara quotes a case of a Jew and a non-Jew living in the inner courtyard and only a Jew in the outer chatzeir. The gemara concludes that they can't carry in the outer courtyard because it's two Jews since the people from the inner walk through there but they can carry in the inner courtyard because there it's only one Jew living with the non-Jew and nobody else comes through. The gemara says this is based on R' Eliezer Ben Yaakov's opinion. Later the gemara says that they made the gezeira in this case even though it's just one Jew living with a non-Jew in a chatzeir because in this scenario it's not uncommon. The Jew isn't afraid to live with the non-Jew in the back because the guy in the front will check up on him if he doesn't come out for a few days so the goy will be afraid to do anything to him.

Someone asked this morning if that's true then why can the Jew in the inner courtyard carry? It's common for a Jew to live like this so they should have made the gezeira in that case! I immediately responded that it's true that in that scenario it may be common but they just made the rule across the board that one Jew living with one non-Jew in a chatzeir isn't a problem so they weren't going to pick out common scenarios and forbid only those. It's just an across the board rule.

I saw though that the Ritva asks this exact question. He answers that it's the fault of the guy in the outer courtyard that the inner guy is willing to live there so he's the one who gets penalized. If it wouldn't be for him the guy in the inside would never live there. He then asks the obvious question that we should just penalize both of them. Maybe I could understand choosing the guy in front if we were forced to penalize only one but we can easily penalize both. So he answers that we don't penalize the guy in back so as not to differentiate in REB"Y's opinion (which is basically what I said - baruch she'kivanti).

include akum in eruv II (Eruvin 64a)

2005-12-08T09:23:00.000-05:00

In order to ameliorate the situation of a Goy that won't rent his property in a movoi for Eruv purposes, Rava (on the top of 64a) says that "one Yid should go and befriend the goy (Likriv LeGabay) and borrow a spot in the movoi from him and the Yid should place something in that spot", which is effective for allowing the movoi to have an Eruv. Rashi comments on Likriv LeGabay, "work with the Goy until he is the Yid's friend...".

Is it not ironic that the reason that one must rent the property of a Goy who lives in a movoi with Yiddin is solely because the Chachomim sought to discourage us from living with them, yet Rava's solution to the problem of a Goy living in a movoi with Yiddin who will not rent his property is to befriend the Goy?

Did anyone see any Meforshim that comment on this?

include akum in eruv (Eruvin 62a)

2005-12-06T11:36:00.000-05:00

Rashi in d"h ela about 10 lines down on 62a explains that the purpose of the enactment to forbid the Jew from including the non-Jew in his eruv was to discourage us from living with them. This way we would need to go to them each week and ask them to rent the area from them. It would be such a huge pain in the neck that we would prefer just not to live with them.

Some rishonim pasken this way that you must make rent anew from the goy each week. The Rosh, however paskens that one rental is enough. Furthermore, he says that even Rashi agrees to that and the only reason that Rashi says you need to do it every week is if the non-Jew backs out then you must go re-rent it from him. To me that sounds a little forced in Rashi but I was thinking that maybe the Rosh is still correct that Rashi agrees that it doesn't have to be done every week ...

The Rashash asks on this Rashi, why does he say that the detriment is that you'll have to rent each week? The gemara says later that the reason this will disuade people from living with the goyim is because they won't rent it to the Jews - nothing to do with the bother of doing it every week! The Rashash answers, "maybe Rashi believes that the reason of the gemara doesn't apply unless it's a long term-rental." If I'm understanding the Rashash correctly, he's suggesting that Rashi believes that there are really two detriments:
1. A non-Jew won't make a long term rental of his land to a Jew
2. He would make a short-term rental but that's a pain in the neck for the Jew

So Rashi agrees that a long-term rental would be effective if you could somehow convince the non-Jew to do it.

Storage House counts as remnant (Eruvin 60a)

2005-12-05T07:50:00.000-05:00

Abaye says that in Pumpedisa they counted the storage hours of Bar Pupedisa as the remnant to allow them to make an eruv around the rest of the city. Rashi says that they were ablt to do this because we pasken like R' Shimon that you don't need 50 residents to consider it the remnant. How does it help that we pasken like R' Shimon - he still requires three chatzeiros?!?

Tosafos says that there were three chatzeiros together with this storage house - the point here is just that the storage house can count as one of them even though there are no residents. The Sfas Emes says that it doesn't sound like Rashi agrees with this because he doesn't mention that at all. He explains that it could be that Rashi didn't want to give that explanation because then that would be no proof. If Tosafos was right then the only thing we see is that the storage house could count as one of the houses needed but it doesn't answer Abaye's question if the entire remnant could be something that couldn't have been included. The Sfas Emes therefore explains that it must be according to Rashi the storage "house" included three chatzeiros of two houses each. My only problem with this explanation is why does Rashi say that we pasken like R' Shimon who says that you don't need 50 residents? Why doesn't he say it in the positive - we pasken like R' Shimon who requires only three chatzeiros?

The Rif though understands the gemara differently. He paskens like R' Yitzchok at the end of the gemara who says that you only require a single house (not like R' Shimon or the T"K of our mishna) and Pumpedisa likewise paskened like R' Yitzchok so there was no need for chatzeiros. Tosafos paskens like R' Shimon so he couldn't explain our gemara like that. The Rosh is bothered by this Rif - how could he pasken like an amora when there are tannaim who argue on him? We pasken like the Rif though.

I was thinking to answer the Rif and my question on Rashi that R' Yitzchok doesn't mean to argue on the tannaim but he just means to explain R' Shimon. He's saying that's what R' Shimon really held. Our mishna quotes him as requiring three chatzeiros but R' Yitzchok argues and says he only requires a single house. I'll admit that I'm not crazy about this explanation for a number of reasons.

What's this mishna doing here? (Eruvin 59a)

2005-12-03T19:39:00.000-05:00

When I started learning the mishna on 59a I assumed it was talking about eruvei techumin. Took me a couple minutes to realize that we had suddenly switched back to eruv chatzeros. Then I looked at the next mishna and we switch right back to eruvei techumin. That leads to the obvious question: What is this mishna doing in the middle of a perek all about eruvei techumin??

The Keren Orah pointed me to the Tosafos Chadashim in the mishnayos who asks this question. They answer that the last mishna concluded with the line that we're lenient by eruvin so this mishna shows that is not only true by eruvei techumin but even by eruvei chatzeros as evidenced by the fact that you can make an eruv around a city of a yachid that becomes a city of rabim. Not crazy about the answer but I haven't seen anything better.

70 and 2/3 (Eruvin 57a)

2005-12-02T10:24:00.000-05:00

The chachamim in the mishna on 57a say that the only time you get 70 and 2/3 amos extension on a city is when there are two cities. Then Rav Huna in the gemara says that between two cities you get 141 and 1/3 amos because each city gets the 70.7 amos. Does this mean that there is never a time that you'll only get the 70.7 amos?

Tosafos in d"h Rav Huna, explains that when the chachamim say you only get the karfef between two cities they don't mean between two cities but between two things. In other words a house gets the karfef also. You don't need a city at all. If I have a house and my neighbor has a house 70 amos away then that's OK and we can start our techums only after the other's house. However, when Rav Huna says that both get 70.7, he means that only when there are two cities. So between a house and a city you only get 70.7 just like between two houses but between two cities you get 141.3 (and I think that according to Tosafos that is only true if they're both walled).

The Ritva brings up another interesting point. Let's say you have a city with a house 50 amos away and then another city 140 amos from that house, can you say that it's all one big city? Or do you have have less than 140 amos between the cities and the house doesn't count to extend the city for that purpose? The Ritva says the house doesn't count. The Maharam M'Rutenberg disagrees.

City shaped like a bow (Eruvin 55a)

2005-11-29T21:37:00.000-05:00

This morning I had a little disagreement on pshat in Rashi when he says how to measure the bow shaped city that has 4000 amos or more between then ends. I understood that it meant that each person gets 4000 amos from his house so if a guy in middle of the bow leaves from the end, he may only get a few amos. Basically it's as though each house is treated as it's own city so you only square off each house since the city can't be combined.

Others understood it to mean that it depends where you're counting from - basically this is an exception where we won't have a square shaped city. You'll count two thousand from the center and then 2000 from each end. I found that hard to believe that was what Rashi meant. It turned out that our disagreement was actually a machlokes between the Rashba and the Ritva in how to explain Rashi.

Kollel Iyun Hadaf summarizes all the opinions:

(a) RASHI (DH Pachos; 61a, DH Ir ha'Asuyah) writes that "each person measures the Techum from the entrance of his house." Rashi implies that one may walk only 2000 Amos from his house, even though he is still within 2000 Amos of the border of the city. Rashi understands that we ignore the city limits entirely when the city is shaped like a broad bow and we view the house as though it is in an uninhabited desert. (This is the understanding of the RASHBA and MAGID MISHNEH (Hilchos Shabbos 28:8) in Rashi's words.)

(b) The RITVA and RASHBA disagree with Rashi. They point out that in every case of a city, the entire area of the city is considered like one's four Amos with regard to the Shabbos Techum, and the 2000-Amah Techum is measured from the borders of the city. Similarly, for the people living in the bow-shaped city, when the Techum cannot be measured from the "bowstring" it is measured from the borders of the "bow" part of the city (i.e., from the place along the "bow" that is parallel to the person's house). The RITVA asserts that this is also the intention of Rashi -- we measure each person's Techum from the edge of the bow. For those living further inside the bow, we measure 2000 Amos from the point along the bow that is closest to them. (According to this understanding, Rashi mentions "each person's house" only to negate the following two opinions.)

(c) The ROSH cites the MAHARAM MI'ROTENBURG who maintains that the people in the bow may walk 2000 Amos in the direction of the bowstring, starting from the place where the two separate sides of the bow have not yet begun to spread apart from each other, and an imaginary bowstring of less than 4000 Amos can be drawn between the two ends of the bow.

(d) The TUR (OC 398) explains that those in the bow may walk 2000 Amos in the direction of the bowstring starting from a point 2000 Amos away from the bow.

(e) The Rashba quotes the RA'AVAD who points out that one who walks in the direction opposite that of the bowstring may walk not only 2000 Amos from the border of the city, but also 2000 Amos from an imaginary square that is circumscribed around the bow's bend of the city. (That is, this bow-shaped city is measured the same way the Techum of any city, whose borders are not straight lines, is measured. A square is circumscribed around the city, from which the Techum is then measured; see previous Insight.)

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 398:4) writes only that the Techum is measured from the "bow" part of the city ((b) above). The REMA adds that it is measured from where the bow widens to more than 4000 Amos ((c) above).

retraction? (Eruvin 43a)

2005-11-17T15:29:00.000-05:00

This is a summary of the gemara in Eruvin 42b-43a courtesy of kollel iyun hadaf.

Question: All agree that the Halachah follows him [Rabban Gamliel] regarding a boat - what is the reason?
Answer #1 (Rabah): It is because he was Shoves within Mechitzos from before Shabbos;
Answer #2 (R. Zeira): It is because the boat constantly moves him out of his four Amos (he is like one who was forcibly taken by Nochrim out of his four Amos, he receives the four Amos in which they put him - this applies every time he steps, therefore the entire boat is permitted).
Question: What is the difference between these answers?
Answer #1: They argue about if the boat's walls were diminished [from 10 Tefachim - Rabah's reason no longer applies, R. Zeira's does];
Answer #2: They argue about one who jumped from one boat to another (Rabah forbids, for he was not Shoves within these Mechitzos).
Question: Why didn't R. Zeira answer like Rabah?
Answer: The walls of a boat are merely to keep the water out (they are not considered walls to make a boat like four Amos).
Question: Why didn't Rabah answer like R. Zeira?
Answer: All the Tana'im permit a moving boat [for R. Zeira's reason], they argue only about a stationary boat (R. Zeira's reason does not apply then. Tosfos - we retract from the two answers given above regarding the difference between Rabah and R. Zeira.)

When I went to the point by point summary I was happy to see that they quoted Tosafos because that's what I wanted to write about. Tosafos says that it must be that we're retracting because Rabba agrees with R' Zeira by mehaleches. R' Akiva agrees that if the ship is moving then you're allowed to move throughout the boat but he only argues by a standing ship then his reason must be mechitzos. Tosafos seems to assume that if R' Akiva agrees in a moving ship because of the walls then R' Gamliel must hold of that sevara also and therefore the gemara must be retracting the first two answers.

I don't think that it's muchrach to say as Tosafos does. It's true that Rabba agrees with R' Zeira that R' Akiva's reason is because the boat is moving but that doesn't necessarily mean that he's changing his explanation of R' Gamliel. He could be saying that is exactly the machlokes between the two. Rabban Gamliel says that the reason is because the mechitzos were there and R' Akiva says the reason is because the boat is moving. That means that R' Akiva could end up being more meikil. He would say that if the walls fall down or if someone jumped ship that you would still keep get 2000 amos but if the boat is stationary then you only get four amos. Rabban Gamliel would say just the opposite that if the boat is stationary you still get 2000 but if the walls fall down or you jump ship then you don't get them.

I haven't had a chance to look at the other rishonim but I suspect that someone must say it because pashut pshat in the gemara is that we're not being chozeir from what we said originally.

Carrying within 2000 amos (Eruvin 42a)

2005-11-16T07:33:00.000-05:00

The gemara quotes a machlokes amoraim in the case of someone who camped out in a large valley with no walls and on Shabbos some people built a wall around the entire valley. He can definitely only walk 2000 amos from where he started but the question is if he can carry. Normally you can carry even if the mechitzos were only put up on Shabbos.
Rav Nachman in the name of Shmuel: This is no different in a regular case so he can carry throughout the valley "al yedei zerika" even though he can only walk 2000 amos.
Rashi: He can carry regularly in the first 2000 amos and he can only throw beyond the 2000 amos because he's not allowed to walk there.
Tosafos: He can't carry anywhere in the bika because it's open l'makom h'asur lo but he can throw throughout the bika even beyond 2000.
Rav Huna:He can only carry the 4 amos. The fence doesn't help because we're afraid that he might follow the object he's throwing. He can't even throw within the first 2000 amos because it's open l'makom h'asur lo.

Then the gemara quotes Rav Chiya bar Rav (might have been named after his great uncle) who says that you can carry within 2000 amos. The gemara then questions that doesn't follow either opinion so how could he say that. The gemara's question is a little difficult to understand because why should he be forced into agreeing with one of the other opinions. He was a contemporary. They all lived the generation after Rav and Shmuel so he should have been able to argue. Rashi therefore explains the gemara's question wasn't that he can't argue but that there is no svara to split the psak. He seems to take a compromise shita which is very difficult to understand.

According to Tosafos above, I think that it's clear that Rav Chiya bar Rav's shita as written originally doesn't make sense. You can never do more within the first 2000 than you can do beyond because there is no heker separating them. Rav Nachman holds you can throw throughout and Rav Huna says you can't throw anywhere. It doesn't make sense to suggest that you can carry only 2000 amos.

However, according to Rashi it's a little harder to understand why the gemara finds Rav Chiya bar Rav's shita impossible to understand. All he's saying is that you can carry within the first 2000 amos but not beyond. That's not so different than Rav Nachman who basically says that but he says you can throw beyond that point. Obviously the gemara assumes that's not considered a makom asur since you can throw there. If you can't even throw there then there's no way you should be allowed to carry within 2000 amos. I can understand the svara but Rav Chiya's opinion as written doesn't seem so crazy either. I would think it would be possible that he believes that really m'ikar hadin you could carry throughout the valley. The only reason you can't carry past there is because you might walk there and we're not going to forbid you from carrying within 2000 just because of that gezeira. I guess the gemara doesn't like that svara - if you can't carry (or throw) there for any reason then that's considered a makom asur.

Kasha (Eruvin 40b)

2005-11-14T09:18:00.000-05:00

The gemara on daf 40a asks if we mention Rosh Chodesh in davening on Rosh Hashana. The gemara brings a braisa as proof. The gemara going on to daf 40b brings a proof from a braisa that you don't mention Rosh Chodesh because Beis Shammai says that you only make 10 brachos on Rosh Hashana and not 11 so you see that Rosh Chodesh doesn't get its own bracha. The gemara concludes the proof and says "kasha." Then five lines later the gemara asks what the conclusion is - do we or do we not mention Rosh Chodesh. This question seems strange because we just answered it a few lines earlier.

I think that the simple answer is like the Rosh says on the gemara in Shabbos 22b (the Rashash on our gemara pointed me there) that even though the gemara says kasha that's not irrefutable proof. It just means that it seems to be a question. Now the gemara wants to know if that proof is accepted l'halacha. This fits in with the explanation (I think it's the Rashbam in Baba Basra) that tyuvta means that it's a real proof but kasha just means that we don't know the answer. The Ritva explains why it's not a clear proof. All this braisa proves is that you don't mention Rosh Chodesh in the bracha but it does not proof that it doesn't get any mention in shmone esrei.

However, this explanation doesn't work with Rashi in d"h kasha on our gemara because he says that "shma mina" from the question that the halacha is that you don't mention shma. So if Rashi's right then why does the gemara ask what the halacha is. The Rashash explains that the next line after kasha is "kollel atzmo tanai hi" - the entire concept of kollel (from that braisa) is actually a machlokes tanaim. The gemara's point is that the entire braisa which is clear proof (acc. to Rashi) is only a daas yachid because it's assuming kollel but in reality others argue. So after the gemara says that it goes back and says that the proof isn't a proof according to everyone so then what is the halacha.

2 braisos vs. 1 mishna (Eruvin 37a)

2005-11-11T08:48:00.000-05:00

On 36b Rav said that our mishna is wrong because Ayo's braisa disagrees. The gemara asks why he prefers Ayo to our mishna and answers because he has another braisa that supports Ayo. It still seems like 2 braisos vs. 1 mishna. We say later in the gemara that in a case of 2 vs. 1 we'd prefer to change the 1 than the 2 but here it's a mishna on the other side so I would've thought that the Mishna should win. I saw that Rabbi Bechhofer discusses this.

Teshuvos Kol Mevaser (2:46) critiques the work of a Rabbi in Vienna who put out a new edition of the Tosefta to Bava Kamma.

In the Introduction, the author cites our Gemara as an example of a tendency that Rav had to give precedence to a Tosefta over a Mishnah — since that is evidently what Rav is doing here. The author also cited Yevamos 83a, where Rav seems to even give precedence to a "non-Tosefta" Baraisa over a Mishnah. [Were this to be true, perhaps it could be seen as an extension of the concept of Rav Tanna u'Palig — Rav had the status of a Tanna, and therefore was entitled to dispute them (see Eruvin 50b).]

Kol Mevaser, however, rejects both examples.

In the first place, the Baraisa in Yevamos is a Tosefta – in the second chapter of Tosefta Bikkurim).

Moreover, Ido's Baraisa here is not a Tosefta!

Rather, states Kol Mevaser, it is only when there are two Baraisos that contradict a Mishnah — as is the case in our Gemara (see Tosafos to Yoma 54b d.h. Mai Shnah who define this principle; see also there that it is uniquely Rav's, and that others do not necessarily agree) — or a case in which there is some unique reason to prefer the Baraisa (as is the case in Yevamos 83b) that Rav gives the Baraisa precedence.

After reading his post, it struck me that it makes some sense that Rav would be the one to give precedence to a braisa over a mishna because Rav was Rabbi Hiyya's nephew (see the bottom of Moed Kattan 20a) and he compiled many of the braisos. We know that Rav was also a talmid of Rebbe but he doesn't give the mishnayos absolute credence over the braisos because of his relationship with Rabbi Hiyya.

2003 amos away (Eruvin 35a)

2005-11-09T15:17:00.000-05:00

The gemara says that if the eruv rolled three amos after you had placed it 2000 amos away it's valid. What happens if l'chatchila you put it 2003 amos away? I wanted to do some research on that because I could hear both sides but I haven't had time. If I have time later I'll look around. In the meantime I wanted to know if anyone had heard anything.

pachos pachos m'daled amos (Eruvin 34a)

2005-11-08T10:16:00.000-05:00

I just learned today's daf with Rashi but there were a couple of points on which I was confused.

1. At the beginning of the gemara Rashi says that even if you have to go through reshus harabim to get your eruv to your makom shevisa that's OK since you could do that bein hashemashos by carrying less than 4 amos at a time. Then at the bottom of daf 34a, he says in his second pshat when explaining the gemara which says that if you lean the shovach or migdal over it will be more than four amos away that the problem is that it's more than 4 amos in the reshus harabim. Doesn't that contradict what he said earlier? The Maharam answers that our imagination can only run so far. In other words, we can allow you to say that you could get it bein hashemashos if you carry less than four amos at a time and we can also allow you to say that you could get it if you lean the shovach or migdal over but we can't allow you to say both of them at the same time. That requires way too much pretending to allow the eruv. (I just checked the insights to the daf and they quote the same Maharam in different words and also have more to explain Rashi's pshat)

2. The first thing that bothered me about the case of the window and the rope is what changed between the hava amina and the maskana - didn't the gemara think that it's likely the guy didn't have the rope with him? Tosafos asks another question: Why all of a sudden here did the gemara introduce this idea? Why couldn't this have been possible in the case of the tree from daf 33? Tosafos answers that just isn't common so the gemara didn't even entertain the possibility. This would answer my first question - the gemara assumed that most people who are on top of cabinets next to walls have ropes with them (are you going to argue with that?) but the gemara answers that's not true. He also suggests another answer that since we're already saying hoil here we ask this question but in reality we could have asked it earlier.

Eruvin 33B

2005-11-08T09:37:00.000-05:00

At the end of daf33, R' Yirmiya says that someone who's shevisa is in the Reshus Harabim at the foot of a tree and who's Eruv is in the basket attached to the tree above ten tefachim, the Eruv is valid since he can lower the basket below ten tefachim it is considered accesible Bein Hashmashos. Rav bar Sheva asks from an Eruv placed on Erev Yom Tov. Since a person can transport the Eruv from his house to his Makom Shevisah during Bein Hashmashos of Erev Y"T, why does the Mishna require him to actually place it in his Makom shevisa, according to R' Yirmiya the fact that he can transport it Bein Hashmashom to his Makom Shevisa should suffice to deem the Eruv accessible, and, therefore valid.

Why does the Gemarah feel that R' Yirmiya is more exposed to such a question than the original case of our Mishna (32B) which allowed an Eruv in a Reshus Harabim placed four+ Amos along the tree from your Makom Shevisa at the foot of the tree. In that case (as explained in accordance with Rava) the Eruv was valid since during Bein Hashmashos he can take the Eruv less than four amos at a time through the Reshus Harabim to his Makom Shevisa it was considered accessible Bein Hashmashos. Can't you ask just as well on the original case of the Mishna, that according to its logic, on Eruv Y"T it shouldn't be necessary to transport the Eruv to your Makom Shevisa, rather telepathically viewing your Eruv (which is sitting in your house) as transported to your Makom Shevisa should suffice?

In short, Why are we picking on R' Yirmiya?

(In Baba Basra R' Yirmiya was expelled from the B"M for asking about a bird who had one foot on one side of the line and one foot on the other. Maybe the Gemarah was telling R' Yirmiya to be careful, his P'Shat is crossing the line!-feel free to omit this comment)

Truma for a Yisrael (Eruvin 31a)

2005-11-05T21:57:00.000-05:00

The Mishna on 31a says that a kohen can use truma for an eruv. The mishna though on daf 26b quotes that as a machlokes. The tanna kama says that even a Yisrael could use truma. Only Sumchus disagrees. This appears then to be a stam mishna like Sumchus - machlokes v'achar kach stam - implying that we should pasken like Sumchus. We don't and the Shiltei Giborim says that our Mishna doesn't mean that only a Kohen can use truma it's just using that as an example because they're the ones most likely to have truma.

Also, the mishna on 26b quotes another machlokes between an anonymous tanna (we'll call it Rabonnon) and R' Yehuda about a kikar in a beis hakvaros for a Kohen. The Rabonnon say that only if the kikar is in a beis hapras can a Kohen use it for his eruv but R' Yehuda says that even if it's in a beis hakvaros he can use it because it's still possible for the Kohen to get there. Rashi on daf 30b all the way at the bottom says that they both hold like Sumchus that it must be edible for that person and the only question is what's considered accesible. The top Tosafos on 27a argues with Rashi and says that the Rabonnon may really agree with the Tanna Kamma in the reisha that it doesn't have to be edible for that person. They say though that it does have to be accessible - because of a different rule of "hu b'makom echad v'eiruvo b'makom acheir."

Apples for an eruv (Eruvin 29a)

2005-11-03T09:40:00.000-05:00

Rava challenged his student who asked how many apples you need for an eruv by asking him back how you could use apples for an eruv at all. What was Rava talking about, why shouldn't you be able to use apples for an eruv? The Yosef Daas section of the kollel iyun hadaf site quotes three answers to this question (I saw the Artscroll in the footnotes also quotes the same three answers):
1. Rava knew you could but he was just challenging the student to find a proof (from Tos on 27)
2. The question wasn't about regular apples but about wild apples that aren't normally eaten (quoted in the Rashba)
3. Rava held that you can't use things that aren't normally eaten as part of a meal for eruv. So you could use vegetables, meat, breat, and even salad dressing but not fruit (the answer the Rashba likes).

On a related topic I have a question on today's daf but I couldn't find anyone who discusses it leading me to believe that I'm just misunderstanding something. The gemara says that Rav said "v'chein l'eruv" on some tannaic statement about maaser ani. Rashi explains the gemara's question that the mishna and the braisa don't disagree with each other at all so what's the difference on which one we put the statement. I don't understand that. It seems like there is a machlokes. The braisa says that the shiur for peaches is 5, for esrog is 1 etc. and the mishna says the shiur for all fruit is the amount to sell and buy food for two meals. Are we saying that's the same shiur? Doesn't sound like it.

klal or rebuy (Eruvin 27b-28a)

2005-11-02T10:30:00.000-05:00

The gemara quotes the pasuk by maaser sheni that has a general statement followed by a limitation followed by another general statement. There is a four way machlokes tanaim what exactly should be included by that.
R' Yehuda Ben Gadish - you can buy anything besides salt and water.
R' Eliezer - you can buy anything besides salt and water and fish water
Braisa 1 - you also can't buy fish
Braisa 2 - you also can't buy birds

The last two shitos learn Klal prat u'klal (KPK) as opposed to the first two who learn ribuy miut ribuy (RMR). RMR is always much more inclusive than KPK. It assumes that you should include everything except the most basic thing that is completely dissimilar to the miut. There are two different ways to learn KPK that the gemara discusses. One is that the second klal is the main one so you start with PK which means that it's israbu lahu kol mili - it includes everything. Then the first klal comes and limits that. It limits it more than if you would learn RMR but not as much as if the other way of looking at KPK. The other way is that you look at the first klal as being the main one which means that you really have a KP which is ein b'klal ela ma sheb'prat and then the second klal can expand it but it's not going to expand it as much as the first way.

That's basically a summary of the gemara and it explains the machlokes between the last three shitos. Just to summarize:

RYBG and R' Eliezer - Ribuy miut ribuy - very, very expansive to include almost everything
Braisa 1 - klal prat uklal but start with prat uklal - somewhat expansive
Braisa 2 - klal prat uklal but start with klal u'prat - much more limiting

The only question that remains is what the source of the machlokes is between RYBG and R"E. It seems that RYBG should be correct. RMR should include everything except the bare minimum so why does R"E also exclude fish water? The fact that the gemara doesn't explain it makes me think that it's not a general machlokes but just a basic machlokes related specifically to this case. I think that the machlokes is either that R"E says that the exclusion is saltwater and if you have clear fish water that is no different than regular saltwater. RYBG maintains that if it's fish water then that's very different than just salt mixed with water. Another possible explanation is that R"E says that salt and water were never included in the original ribuy b/c they're not mazon. The ribuy only includes mazon so the miut has to exclude something that was initially included so he says that is the fish water. RYBG must hold that it doesn't have to be "mazon" to be included in the ribuy - just has to be food. (Before posting this, I just checked the Ritva and he seems to say like my second explanation which I like better also.)

Dveila Keilis (Eruvin 27b)

2005-11-01T19:20:00.000-05:00

The gemara says that had the pasuk about maaser sheni only said shechar we would have thought that it was coming to include dveila keilis (intoxicating dates from Keilis). We already know the klal, prat u'klal includes all food so why would would we have thought the extra limud includes these dates? Why wouldn't they be included?

Tosafos (in the middle of d"h hava) suggests that we're talking about watered down dates. It's more likely to be included than temed because the water is really mixed in but you still might have thought that it wasn't included like other foods. The Ritva has another answer. He says that these dates are inferior and aren't good for you so they're not normally eaten. You might have thought that they weren't considered like other foods and you couldn't redeem your maaser sheni onto them. (The Ritva has a a long, thorough explanation of our whole gemara. I didn't go through the whole thing but it did seem good.)

Why was Yeshaya at the door? (Eruvin 26a)

2005-10-31T11:56:00.000-05:00

The gemara concludes that you should not daven at someone's door for them b/c it could entice the Satan (malach hamaves) to come even though Yeshaya davened at Chizkiya's backdoor. The Maharsha asks two obvious questions on this gemara.
1. If you shouldn't do it why was it good enough for Yeshaya?
2. Why was he at the backdoor?

I thought that one question could answer the other. You shouldn't do it at the front door but the backdoor is OK. Not a great answer but it would have been enough for me.

Thankfully though the Maharsha had a much better answer. We can't daven at someone's door because maybe the satan wasn't planning on coming and we will change his mind. Yeshaya, on the other hand, KNEW that the satan was planning on killing Chizkiya so it was OK for him. He was at the backdoor because he also knew that was how the Satan was planning on entering. Helps to be a navi.

Exactly equal (Eruvin 16b)

2005-10-23T09:37:00.000-04:00

The Pnei Yehoshua on daf 15a in Sukka gives an excellent explanation to our gemara (15b-16b in Eruvin) which answers a bunch of questions. First a list of some of the questions:

Our gemara paskens like Rav Pappa that if parutz k'omed it's ok as long there isn't more open space than closed space. Tosafos d"h v'hilchasa asks why we pasken here that half and half is ok but in chulin 29a we pasked that half and half is not considered like rov. He "answers" that you could differentiate between mechitzos vs. isur and tumah.

How could the gemara bring a reaya to either Rav Pappa or Rav Huna Brei D'rav Yehoshua from sukka? They each said that the basis of their opinions is the wording of the halacha l'moshe misinai. The halacha was said regarding mechitzos not regarding schach of a sukka.

How can our gemara pasken like Rav Pappa despite the tyuvta?

Is the machlokes really based on a halacha l'Moshe Misinai? Are they really arguing historically what exactly Hashem told Moshe?

He says this also answers some of Tosafos' question in the gemara over there in sukka.

The Pnei Yehoshua says that their machlokes is really based on a much broader machlokes which is actually a machlokes Rishonim. They say that if it's 50-50 then it's treated like a safek. Rav Pappa believes that a safeik d'oraysa is l'chumra but that's only m'drabonnon. Therefore, in this case where it's a d'rabonnon and it's a tircha the Rabonnon allowed you to be meikil and say 50-50 is enough. R Huna Brei D'Rav Yehoshua holds that it's d'oraysa so we will be machmir even in this d'rabonnon by hilchos Shabbos where we will be machmir because of k'eyn d'oraysa tikkun. The gemara asked a question from Sukka because it's a d'oraysa yet we pasken that 50-50 is enough. The truth is that it would have been a question on Rav Pappa also but it was a more obvious question on RHB"Y. Rav Pappa would agree in other cases where it's an isur d'oraysa that we would be machmir. The tyuvta on Rav Pappa was from a case that might have been a reshus harabim d'oraysa in which case even Rav Pappa would agree.

3.14159265 or just 3? (Eruvin 14a)

2005-10-19T21:49:00.000-04:00

Someone pointed me to the Tosafos Harosh who asks the obvious question on today's daf. Why does the gemara need a pasuk to prove how to measure the circumference of a circle? Can't we just measure it? He answers that the pasuk tells us that we are allowed to estimate it. The gemara is questioning how does a circumference of 3 mean that the diameter is 1? We know that the circumference would have to be more than 3 to have a diameter of 1!?! The gemara answers that we see from Shlomo that for halachic purposes we can estimate pi to be 3 even though we all know that in reality it's more than 3.

Kilayim requires less than Shabbos (Eruvin 11b)

2005-10-17T12:14:00.000-04:00

R' Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about some kind of a tzuras hapesach that might work for Shabbos and and might work for kilayim. The gemara isn't sure exactly in which case they argue (if it's on the side or top and if it's less than or more than 10) but one thing that is clear is that Shabbos requires at least as much as kilayim to make a wall and maybe more. It could be that this tzuras hapesach will work for kilayim but not Shabbos. Why?

Doors on reshus harabim (Eruvin 6b)

2005-10-11T10:14:00.000-04:00

Someone introduced me to Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer's blog on halacha of the daf. I found today's post interesting because I was a little confused myself on the concept of doors after learning today's daf. I'll just quote some of it here:

Halacha distinguishes between the enclosure necessary to convert a carmelis into a reshus ha'yachidaand the enclosure necessary to convert a reshus ha'rabbim into a reshus ha'yachid. The Gemara relates that Yerushalayim would have been considered a reshus ha'rabbim had its doors not been closed at night.The Poskim disagree over whether these doors had to have been closed me'd'oraysa or me'd'rabbanan. Some sources maintain that me'd'oraysa a tzuras ha'pesach would have sufficed.Others maintain that in reshus ha'rabbim delasos are required me'd'oraysa. This requirement is limited, in any event, to reshus ha'rabbim. An enclosure intended to surround an area that fall into the category of carmelis does not require doors to allow carrying therein. The rectification of tzuras ha'pesach is sufficient in such cases.

He has some footnotes and more there.

Heker L'mata (Eruvin 5a)

2005-10-10T08:22:00.000-04:00

The gemara in the second to last explanation of the machlokes between Abaye and Rav Yosef says that maybe they argue if the heker shel mata is like the heker shel maala or not. Since when is there a heker shel mata?? Until now we've been talking about putting something on the bottom to close up the hole so it would be less than 20 amos. It has absolutely nothing to do with a heker!?! Someone suggested that the gemara is just calling it a heker on the bottom for parallel language even though the purpose isn't to be a heker. That would be possible but I still don't understand the machlokes here. Why should the width of the raised ground be dependent on the size of the heker on top? I can understand if you say the machlokes is based on if you could stand under that or if the reason for the heker on top is really because of mechitza but those were the other answers. What's the svara of the machlokes here?

I don't know an answer to that question but I saw that the Rif understands this gemara differently. He says we pasken that when you put a lower beam because the beam was higher than 20 amos - that beam only has to be one tefach because hekero shel mata is like hekero shel maala. So the gemara isn't talking about raising the ground but is instead talking about lowering the beam (or adding a second beam). The Rosh and the Baal Hamaor don't like this pshat for a number of reasons and I have trouble understanding this pshat also but I think that maybe the Rif felt he was forced into explaining this line differently based on what we said before. If we're only talking about raising the ground then that's not hekera shel mata. The fact that it's called a heker must be because we're talking about something on top.

Eruvin d'rabonnon? - Eruvin 2a

2005-10-07T17:40:00.000-04:00

Rav Nissim Gaon asks on the side of the daf how could our gemara say that Eruvin is only d'rabonnon when the gemara on daf 21b and in Shabbos daf 14b says that Shlomo Hamelech instituted it. Doesn't that make it something more than a d'rabonnon? He answers that if it's not written in Tanach then it's still called a d'rabonnon. I find that interesting. We know that if it's written in Nach then that's not a d'rabonnon. Also, if it's something from Moshe then it's not a d'rabonon either even though it's not written in the Torah. I think that it's generally accepted that Eruvin is d'rabonnon by all the Rishonim but I don't know if anyone else has different explanations to explain the apparent stira. I was thinking though that our gemara isn't necessarily a proof. Maybe it all means is that the psul of 20 amos is from the Torah whereas by sukka it's based on the pasuk of "l'maan yaidu.." At first I thought that's what Rashi was saying but then I saw that he said that the entire din eruvin is only d'rabonnon. I think it's pretty clear that eruvin are definitely d'rabonnon but all I'm saying is that our gemara is not necessarily a clear proof.

Siyum Hamesechta (Shabbos 157)

2005-10-06T12:36:00.000-04:00

It is customary to find a link between the end of the mesechta and the beginning. The sefer Shabbos Shel Mi says that we learn here that there is a leniency in the prohibition of measuring on Shabbos. For a Mitzvah, it is permitted. The beginning of the mesechta tells us, however, that carrying from one Reshus to another is not permitted even for a Mitzvah, such as giving a donation to a poor person.

Best wishes to all for a g'mar chasima tova!

The Silver Lining (Shabbos 138b)

2005-09-18T19:52:00.000-04:00

The Gemarah states that in the future Torah will be forgotten from Yisroel. Generally Aggadah can be classified in one of several categories. There are Aggadah pieces that talk about the punishment for aveiros, the reward for Mitzvos, and the great things that are going to happen le’osid lovo, among other categories. There are practical implications that can be gleaned from each of these various types of Aggadah. This Aggadah, however, seems only to provide reason for depression concerning the future of Torah, but no other Nafka minah. What is the lesson to take from this?

Based on the Ben Yehoyadah, the fact that Torah will be forgotten is a kind of brocha. It will result in extra toil in Torah to recover lost understanding and to retain all the different shitos that will result from this process, as well as enable us to take Chumrah positions in the many instances that there will be safek in Halacha. The fact that Torah is asidah to be forgotten is in fact a havtacha for Klal Yisroel that our extra toil and stringency that will be necessitated will serve as a mailitz yosher for us in Shamaim.

Now what do we learn from R’ Shimon bar Yochai who says that it will not be forgotten, rather Torah will not be found in one place? The Shearim Metzuim Behalacha explains that Pesak Halacha is not based on one Chochem for all of the Torah. We find that the Halacha is like Rav beissuri and like Shmuel bedini, and even then it is not absolute. Similarly, Halacha doesn’t follow only the Rambam or the Rosh, the Gr”a or the Shulchan Aruch HaRav. He quotes the Yam Shel Shlomo “ ...Lo zu Haderech that each person or community picks one (person) to follow, thinking that Torah is a yerusha to families...”. This is RSB”Y’s lesson, that as machlokes compounds in the future, we should not take one Chocham as the sole authority on the Torah.

The context of these comments are very telling. They were said “When the Rabbonon entered Kerem Beyavneh”. This was the period in Jewish history that the Sanhedrin had finished its wandering and met finally in Kerem Beyavneh. The beginning of the long and painful galus had begun for Klal Yisroel in general and the Torah in particular. Through the journeys ahead the integrity of the Torah would be challenged due to machlokes among the Chachomim resulting from the “forgetting of Torah” enduced by the trials of Galus. At this time the Chachomim in Yavneh wanted to find the silver lining, possibly as described by the Ben Yehoyadah, in the coming tribulations.

RSB”Y wanted, as well, to advise that Torah will no longer be found in one place as it was by Moshe Rabbeinu, the Shoftim, the Neviim and the ensuing Rashei Sanhedrin. Rather it will be splintered from here on out among the Geonei Hadoros, but, selecting from the various shitos, the integrity of Torah will survive in its entirety.

(This was the lesson of the Kerem, as it seems Rashi explains somewhere that it was a semi-circle of rows of Chachomim, so that one Chochem is not to be taken as the authority in front of all others. It symbolizes a degree of equity amongst them. Hence, “When they entered Kerem...”)

Tying garbage bags (Shabbos 112a)

2005-08-23T11:03:00.000-04:00

The following was posted as a comment on another thread but I wanted it to be a post. It was posted by "DAR"

I heard an interesting pshat today (from Rabbi Elefant's daf yomi shiur on ouradio.org) regarding tying garbage bags on shabbos. The Debetziner Rav says that since a "knot", by definition, is something which can be tied and untied, a knot on a garbage bag is not really a "knot" since it is never intended to be opened once you tie it. Thus, you can make such a tying on shabbos since a tying which you intend to last forever does not fall within the definition of a knot. The Maharil Diskin offers a similar explanation as to how a string was tied around the Seir Hamishtaleach on Yom Kippur. Why should this be allowed - isn't tying a knot assur? He explains that since the knot is intended to last forever - i.e. once the seir is pushed off the mountain, he is never heard from again - it is permissible to make such a knot.

I find that to be a huge chiddush. I'd have thought that the definition of a kesher shel kayama (at least according to Rashi) is one that lasts forever. I thought the only question is what is the minimum shiur of "shel kayama" - is it a week, a month or what but to say that there is a maximum shiur is just unbelievable.

I just looked what the Kollel Iyun Hadaf had to say and this is what they said:

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 317:1) cites the opinion of the Rif and Rambam (c), that one is permitted to tie a knot only when it is not a professional knot and it is tied to last for a short time. The REMA cites the opinion of Rashi (a), that if it is a permanent knot, one is Chayav regardless of the expertise of the knot.

All of the abovementioned Rishonim (Rashi (a), Re'em (b), and the Rif and Rambam (c)) require that the knot be permanent in order for one to be Chayav for tying it. What is a permanent knot that one may not tie, and what is a temporary knot that one may tie?

From the words of Rashi and the Rif, it appears that a permanent knot is defined as a knot that one ties in order to leave it as a knot forever, with no intention to ever untie it.

A knot that is not permanent and that one may tie l'Chatchilah is defined by the REMA in the name of the TUR and MORDECHAI as a knot that one ties with intention to leave it for less than one week.

According to this tying a garbage bag would be an isur d'oraysa. Before tying one on Shabbos you should consult with your LOR.

help finding a gemara

2005-08-23T10:55:00.000-04:00

Someone (ds) emailed me the following to post on the blog. Any help would be appreciated. My memory isn't so good but maybe someone else remembers to what he is referring.

I would appreciate if you can post my question thanks.

I started learning Bruchois and Shabbos with the daf yomi on the cd daf, I came across a gemeruah or at least that the maggidei shiur read with the actual text, its so clearly in my mind that I even think I remember the layout of that daf, I confirmed with my friend who also learned the daf and he too told me that he remembers it from Bruchois and Shabbos, but both of us couldn’t find it. Don’t get me wrong we tried for hours on end.

I did find that it’s the last piece in Makkos. (in Makkos it doesn’t reference back to Shabbos or Bruchois) I would appreciate if anyone can help me.
The gemruah says a story of when R' Akiva with other tannuim came up to Yerushaleim after the Chorbin when they saw it, they rant their cloths, when they came to the beis hamikdoish they saw a fox emerge. The tannuim started crying while R' Akiva started laughing…….they asked why are you laughing? he asked why are you crying? He said that since the Nuvi Yermiah became true so too will the Nuvi Zachari where it says "old men and women will……" (Zachari 8)

Any help would be appreciated it, but remember only in Bruchois or Shabbos.

Questions on Shaboss's daf (103)

2005-08-16T09:44:00.000-04:00

Here are some questions that were vexing me from Shabbos's daf.

1. R' Yehuda and his Rebbi agree that Shem Mishimon is Chayav, but argue about Sh"Sh from Shashbatzar. What possible reason should there be to distinguish between two different letters (shtei shemos) that make up a small word and two similar letters (shem echad) that make up a small word?

2. The gemarah asks (on Amud Beis) from the braisa of U'kesavtam, referring to the halachos of writing a mezuzah or tefilin, to question why Shem from Shimon would be chayav, since a mem peshutah used in place of a mem stumah is pasul for a mezuzah or tefilin. What do the halachos of Csivas STA"M have to do with the melacha of Cosev on Shabbos. Why must your cesivah on Shabbos be considered valid safrus to qualify as a melacha of cosev?

3. At the end of the daf the gemarah proves that a tanna holds a mem stumah used in place of a mem pshutah is kosher for mezuzah or tefilin, because the drasha that introduces Nisuch Hamaim on Succos uses a mem stumah as the beginning of the word Mayim. This question doesn't need to be vocalized it is so hard to swallow, but here goes. Its a drasha, using extra letters in the pasukim, so why should the drasha have to conform to hilchos STA"M in order to be valid?

Tearing is mesaken (Shabbos 105b)

2005-08-15T08:08:00.000-04:00

The gemara quotes a braisa that says that if one tears his garment on Shabbos because a relative died then he is yotze the chiyuv kria but is also chayav for kria on Shabbos. How is he yotze the mitzva if it's a mitzva habaa b'aveira? Why is this not different than eating stolen matza? Someone asked this question this morning and I saw that Kollel Iyun Hadaf asked the question and suggested a couple answers:

1. Some Rishonim explain that when one steals Matzah to eat on Pesach, the transgression has an effect on the object (the Matzah), and that effect remains on the Matzah until the moment he eats it. A stolen piece of Matzah is subject to an obligation to return the stolen object to its rightful owner, and therefore the object itself is an "object of Aveirah." In contrast, when a person tears his clothing upon hearing of the death of a relative on Shabbos, the transgression has no effect on the object, and thus one fulfills his obligation. The concept of "Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah" applies only when the object is affected by the transgression and is an object whose very nature contains an element of transgression. (RITVA to Sukah 30a)

I saw that the Sfas Emes quotes this answer also. He also uses this to explain an apparent contradiction within the halachos of kria. The Tur paskens (Y"D 340:28) that you are not yotze kria if you do it on a stolen garment but you are if you tear a garment of yours on Shabbos. This makes sense based on this answer. If you tear on a stolen object then the object itself is a stolen object so you can't be yotze the mitzva of kria with that but here it's just the act which is forbidden but the object never becomes a forbidden object.

2. Other Rishonim explain that "Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah" applies only when the Aveirah itself is the cause of the fulfillment of the Mitzvah. That is, without the Aveirah, the Mitzvah would not be done (see TOSFOS to Sukah 30a). A person must own the Matzah he eats in order to fulfill the obligation to eat Matzah on Pesach night. When a person steals Matzah, he acquires it when the owner gives up hope of ever retrieving (Yi'ush). Thus, it is the Aveirah (the act of stealing) that causes the Matzah to become his and enables him to fulfill the Mitzvah. In contrast, in the case of one who tears his clothing on Shabbos in mourning, the transgression of tearing on Shabbos is not what enables him to fulfill the Mitzvah. Since the person could fulfill his obligation to tear this garment without transgressing Shabbos (such as by tearing it on Sunday), his act on Shabbos is not considered a "Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah."

The Sfas Emes didn't like this answer so much because the split is hard to understand. Just like you could fulfill your obligation by tearing on Sunday so too you could fulfill by tearing another garment. Why is one considered a mitzva habaa b'aveira but not the other? He also suggests another couple of answers but doesn't stick with either one. He likes the first answer quoted above the best.

Does it have to be attached? (Shabbos 103a)

2005-08-12T10:30:00.000-04:00

The mishna says that if you gather wood on Shabbos to make the tree or ground you're chayav for any amount but if you do it for firewood then you need enough to cook an egg. Rashi comments that you are only chayav if it's attached. The Tiferes Yisrael says the Mishna is talking about where it's detached. You're chayav if you take it to improve the tree for zoreia and for the land for charisha. If you do it because you want the wood then it's meamer.

Rashi only means it has to be attached in order to be chayav for a kol shehu for zoreia or charisha. You don't need it to be attached for the chiyuv of meamer but that chiyuv is only if you take it to use it. If you are just taking it to clean up the field then there is no isur of meamer. The Tiferes Yisrael is a bigger chidush because he's saying that it's called charisha or ketzira even though the wood is not attached. I would have thought (like Rashi) that the definition of those melachos is taking something attached.

Hami'tsadayd Es Ha'even (Shabbos 102b)

2005-08-12T07:41:00.000-04:00

Rashi explains that Hami'tsadayd Es Ha'even refers to the bottom row of a brick wall, and the melacha is Boneh. The Rambam and Rabbeinu Chananel say that the melacaha is Makeh Bi'patish. The Magid Mishne says that this is the Rambam's girsa is the gemara. Apparently it is the Rabbeinu Chananel's girsa also. Still, why should this be Makeh Bi'patish, since he has just started making the wall, it's not finished yet. The Rabbeinu Chananel says that Mi'tsadayd means that he settles the stone in the ground so that he can build on it. He seems to say that the bottom row of stones is the foundation for the wall - a separate entity, and not the bottom row of the wall like Rashi says. Finishing the foundation is Makeh Bi'patish because he has finished making something that can be used for building a wall. It is similar to Rashi's explanation of Makeh Bi'patish in our Mishna, where Rashi says that he finishes chiseling a rock out of the mountain, which can now be used for building a wall.

Where does the wastewater go? (Shabbos 100b)

2005-08-11T08:47:00.000-04:00

The gemara on the bottom of 100b says that according to Rav Chisda and Rabbah who require a four by four area how can you the wastewater outside the ship? The gemara says that maybe they just put it in the same four by four area where they get the water from. The gemara rejects that because that would be disgusting. So the gemara ultimately answers that a four by four area isn't needed to dump the water and you can dump it down the side.

We were bothered by two points on this gemara. First of all, why is it disgusting to draw water from there, you're just making four walls but all the ocean water is still mixing? Also, why can't they just make another four by four area for dumping the water?

The Pnei Yehoshua answers that the problem isn't that it's literally disgusting. Of course, it doesn't matter where you pour the water but that people will just be disgusted at the idea of having a designated area set aside for the wastewater. Therefore the Chachamim didn't require you to do this.

This explanation doesn't fit into Rashi (the P"Y admits this) and there are other explanations found in the Ritva and other places but I liked this one the best

Do Hot and Cold Water Mix (Shabbos 99b-100a)

2005-08-09T08:23:00.000-04:00

The gemara says (explanation courtesy of Kollel Iyun Hadaf):

(Rava): The following is obvious to me - water on top of water is considered Nach (if one takes some of the water resting in a Kli or another place, this is considered Akirah)....
R. Yochanan ben Nuri and Chachamim argue about oil floating on top of wine: (Mishnah): If [Terumah] oil is floating on top of [Terumah]wine and a Tevul Yom touched the oil, only it is Nifsal (they are not considered connected, we do not consider it as if he touched the wine; the oil is only a Shelishi l'Tumah, it cannot Posel the wine);R. Yochanan ben Nuri says, they are connected (both are Nifsalim).

Why is it that the Chachamim consider oil on top of wine to be separate but not water on top of water? Is it just because they don't mix? If so then if you take boiling hot water and put it on top of cold water you should not be chayav because they won't mix (you can see how you could experiment with that here). It could be the Chachamim would say that is like oil on top of wine. However, I think that they probably would say it's different. In the case of oil and wine it has two things 1. it's two different substances and 2. they don't mix. However, in the case of the water, even though they don't mix but they're still the same substance so it would be a hanacha. I'm not sure about that though.

UPDATE: Please read the comment.

Why mention yom tov? (Shabbos 95a)

2005-08-05T09:03:00.000-04:00

The gemara quotes a tosefta from the 10th perek of Shabbos that says (from kollel iyun hadaf):

If one milked, curdled milk or made cheese the Shi'ur of k'Grogeres, swept or Ribetz (sprinkled water to prevent dust from rising) or removed cakes of honey from a hive: If he did so on Shabbos b'Shogeg, he is Chayav Chatas; if he did so on Yom Tov b'Mezid, he gets 40 lashes. Chachamim say, these are forbidden only mid'Rabanan.

Why does this Tosefta all of a sudden mention yom tov? Is there an added chidush by yom tov? This is smack in the middle of maseches Shabbos so it could have easily said b'shogeg chatas and b'meizid misa. Why all of a sudden the need to mention yom tov?

I think that Tosafos' question (d"h v'harode) can answer my question. There is a huge chiddush by yom tov because you might have thought that these melachos shouldn't be chayav on yom tov because of ochel nefesh. The chidush here is that according to R' Eliezer you are chayav despite the normal heterim of yom tov.

I'm not going to explain here the answer of why R' Eliezer says you're chayav anyway but there's a lot written on it. I think that the Ritva does a good job (especially if you use the MHK edition) of summarizing the opinions. It's not even clear if R' Eliezer is really mechayev in all the cases or only in the last three. I was just really bothered by the fact that yom tov was mentioned at all and Tosafos answered that question for me.

Chai Nose es Atzmo (Shabbos 94a)

2005-08-04T08:49:00.000-04:00

The gemara says that you may be patur for carrying a live person or animal because "chai nose es atzmo" - the person/animal that you're carrying is really partially carrying himself. Tosafos d"h Shehachay asks the obvious question: So what? You're still carrying it! You're chayav for carrying a feather on Shabbos and this is certainly heavier than that. Even if you say that the guy you're carrying is helping you but that's only mesayaya and we just said that you would still be chayav in that case so why should you be patur here? Tosafos answers that the only time you're chayav is if it's similar to a melacha that they did in the mishkan and in the mishkan they never carried live people.

The Pnei Yehoshua points out that this is only true by hotzaa. We see later on the daf that by other melachos even if they're only somewhat similar to what was done in the mishkan (braiding hair compared to building) that you are chayav. However, since by hotzaa it's a melacha gerua (see the first Tosafos in the mesechet) you are only chayav if it's exactly like what they did in the Mishkan.

Someone asked me yesterday morning how you could be patur according to R' Shimon and R' Yehuda for carrying with someone else because that's exactly what they did in the mishkan? They were carrying huge beams and keilim and one person couldn't have possibly carried it by themselves! Tosafos answers this question on daf 3a (d"h Shneihem) that is exactly why they need a pasuk to teach you that you're patur. It's true that without an extra pasuk you would have thought you'd be chayav. Tosafos then asks about other aspects of hotzaa which might not have been done exactly that way in the Mishkan. So you see again that hotzaa is very different from the other 38 melachos. By the other melachos if it's similar to a melacha then it becomes a tolda and is still chayav on Shabbos but by hotzaa because it's a melacha gerua it has to be exactly like they did it in the mishkan.

UPDATE: I saw that the YU Torah online had more:

R. Chaim Brisker (Chiddushim al HaShas) asserts that there are actually two exemptions derived from the same source: Shnayim Sheasauhu, and a “partial melakhah”. Only the first requires that both be capable; the second does not, and “chai nosei et atzmo” comes from that category. (See also Resp. Rabeinu Meshulam Igra, O.C. 8).

R. Moshe Feinstein (Resp. Iggerot Moshe, Y.D. I, 2) explains the position of Tosafot as being that the mishkan only teaches us about a melakhah of hotza’ah in a specific format – where an object will be moved from one domain to the next, and it will be clear from looking at the object in its new location that it was moved by someone. However, with a living being, as that being could have moved on its own power, it is not evident from seeing that being in a new location that someone else did the moving. Using this logic, R. Moshe explains the distinction between an adult and a baby in this realm.
http://www.yutorah.org/daf/

Carrying a meis (Shabbos 93b)

2005-08-04T08:35:00.000-04:00

The Mishna says that the shiur for hotzaa for a meis is a kezayis because that's the amount that is metamei b'ohel. Earlier though on daf 90a the mishna said that the shiur for mekak sefarim is a kol shehu because you need to bury it. Don't you need to bury a meis also? Tosafos Yom Tov has two answers:
1. You don't need to bury less than a kezayis of a meis. (I don't think that we pasken that way)
2. It's not so common to have less than a kezayis of a meis therefore the shiur is for the common ramification which is a kezayis for tuma.

l'acharav u'ba lo l'acharav (Shabbos 92b)

2005-08-03T19:34:00.000-04:00

The gemara explains that there are conflicting diyukim in the Mishna. As kollel iyun hadaf summarizes:

1. The Reisha exempts when he intended for in front and it went in back - but had he intended for in back and it went in back, he would be liable;
2. The Seifa is Mechayev when he intended for in back and it went in front - but had he intended for in back and it went in back, he would be exempt!

In that second case why are you chayav? If you are patur if you intended to carry it in the back and you did then you shouldn't be chayav just because it ended up in the front. At least not according to Rava. As kollel iyun hadaf explains the gemara on 72b:

ONE WHO INTENDED TO PERFORM A PERMITTED ACTION (a) If one intended to pick up something detached, and picked up something attached (Tosfos - he did not realize that it was attached; Rashi - he was trying to pick up something else), detaching it, he is exempt; (b) (Rava): If he intended to cut something detached, and he cut something attached, he is exempt; (c) (Abaye): He is Chayav.(d) Rava exempts, for he did not intend to cut something that may not be cut;(e) Abaye obligates, for he intended to cut in any case.

This is Rava talking in our gemara so doesn't it contradict his opinion from 72b? This morning someone showed me the Meromei Sade who answers this question. He says that when the gemara says that had he intended for in back and it went in back, he would be exempt it doesn't mean that he'd be patur had he done what he intended. It means that he'd be patur if he intended to carry it in the back on the side but it ended up in the back back because he intended for a good shemira but it ended up as a shemira pechusa. Had he intended for that shemira pechusa though he'd have been chayav. That would answer my question.

Machlokes Rebbi Yossi V'Rabbanan (Shabbos 87)

2005-07-29T12:58:00.000-04:00

The Rabbanan say that Rosh Chodesh Sivan was on Monday, Rebbi Yossi says it was on Sunday. I was wondering what the molad was. The sefer Itim L'Binah (Yosef Ginzburg, Warsaw, 5649, reprinted in Israel) says that the molad Nisan for that year was 5-2-332 (5 days, 2 hrs, 332 chalakim), so then molad Iyar was 6-15-45 and molad Sivan was 1-3-838. He has a long discussion to explain why Moshe Rabbeinu made Rosh Chodesh Nisan on Thursday, however basically, Hashem showed him the new moon during the day, and told him to be Me'kadaish the Chodesh then. Anyway, according to this, Rosh Chodesh Sivan should be on Monday (the new moon was not yet visible on Sunday night). However, this molad is the molad benoni, the molad amiti is different. For Nisan of that year, the molad amiti was Wed. at noon, (earlier than the molad beboni) , however, the sefer does not discuss when the molad of Sivan might have been.

B'He'elom Echod L'Rishus Echad (Shabbos 80a)

2005-07-22T07:39:00.000-04:00

Rabbeinu Tam agrees with the Rach that the girsa is B'He'elom Echod Mai'Rishus Echad Chayov. What is the reason according to Rabbeinu Tam that Mai'Rishus Echad is required but not L'Rishus Echad? Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky z"l explains that if the two Chatzi Grogeres started in two different places and ended up in the same place, at the beginning they were nothing since they were not combined, only at the end did they become something Choshuv - he was Molid a new thing when he brought them together. But, if they began together, and he moved them to two different places, he moved something choshuv. He moved half of it to one place and half to another place, so he is Chayov.

Then, he asks, what is the reason of Rashi who learns that L'Rishus Echad Chayov? He explains that according to Rashi, the shiur of K'Grogeres is different from other shiurim of M'lacha on Shabbos. Other shiurim are about what is considerd Choshuv, less than the shiur is not Choshuv. However, the shiur of K'Grogeres is Halacha L'Moshe M'Sinai, so even though a smaller amount could be Choshuv, still the HL"M tells us that this is the shiur. Therefore, even though the two Chatzi Grogeres started in two different places, still they were Choshuv at the beginning. So, moving them to one place is not considered making a new thing (like Rabbeinu Tam), it is just considered to be moving two half shiurim and is mits'taref. He says that Rashi in other places can also be explained using this idea.

Hamechabeh V'hamavir (Shabbos 73a)

2005-07-15T07:53:00.000-04:00

Why is Hamechabeh before Hamavir? Shouldn't it be the opposite, like Haboneh V'hasosair?

R' Yaakov Kaminetsky, z"l, in his sefer on the gemara, writes that the focus here is not about the benefit for the person, rather it is the benefit for the thing. Hamavir destroys the object, hamechabeh benefits and saves the object. See also Shabbos 106a and Rashi there.

Havara l'chaleik yatzas (Shabbos 70a)

2005-07-11T21:55:00.000-04:00

The braisa quotes R' Nosson saying the source of the 39 melachos is from eile hadevarim and then R' Nosson says that havara was singled out to teach that you're chayav on each of the 39 melachos. Someone asked this morning if there was any connection between those two statements. I assumed that there really wasn't but then I saw that the Pnei Yehoshua explains that they are somewhat connected. He says that really R' Yosi fits in better with the pesukim. It makes more sense to say that havara was mentioned to teach that it's a lav and that's why it's written in that lashon. R' Nosson though says that it doesn't make sense to say that because the posuk earlier had just said that if you're over on a melacha you are chayav misa and that is the source that there are 39. So it's saying that if you are over on any of the 39 melachos you are chayav misa. It therefore can't be that havara is only a lav. So he's forced to say that it's was singled out to teach that you're chayav a separate chatas for each melacha.

Shitas Munbaz (Shabbos 68b)

2005-07-10T21:38:00.000-04:00

I think that Munbaz' shita is a little confusing in the gemara. When I first read the gemara on 68b, I understood it to mean that Munbaz says you're only chayav a korban chatas if there is shigegas korban but not if there is shigegas lav or kareis. Here is the shakla v'tarya courtesy of Kollel Iyun Hadaf:

1. The case is, a baby was captured by Nochrim or a convert converted among Nochrim; he is also liable one Korban for eating blood, and one for Chelev, and one for idolatry [and for every other Chiyuv Chatas he transgressed].
2. Munvaz exempts.
3. Munvaz: [Regarding Shevu'as ha'Edus, one who transgresses] b'Mezid is called Chotei, just like Shogeg - just like Mezid knew [that he sinned], also Shogeg [is liable only if he once] knew.
4. R. Akiva: If so, you should say that just like Mezid knew at the time he sinned, also Shogeg who knows at the time he sins [is liable]!
5. Munvaz: Answer: Indeed, I say this! (This will be explained.)

The gemara will later explain that this is referring to shigegas korban. This sounds like Munvaz is saying that you are only chayav if you knew about it when you sinned and the only thing you didn't know was that you'd be chayav a korban if you did it b'shogeig. However, Rashi on the spot does say, "tchayvuhu gam b'zu chatas." I missed that when I read it though b/c to me it seems pashut pshat of the gemara is that you should only be chayav in that scenario just like line 3 from above. However, the gemara later makes it obvious that Rashi is correct. The gemara quotes the braisa on the bottom of 69a and attributes it to Munvaz where it says that you're chayav a chatas for shigegas korban and for shigegas lav. It fits in with the gemara on 68b but it just wasn't obvious to me when I first read it.

Me'ain Hameora (Shabbos 60b)

2005-07-01T07:37:00.000-04:00

This is only tangentially related to today's daf but I thought it was interesting. I can't remember where I saw/heard this (it was a few years ago) but I'm not making it up and I apologize for not saying it in the person's name.

Why do women not wash mayim acharonim? It's not a mitzvas asay shehazman grama so they should be obligated just like men (assuming men are still obligated). There are some contemporary poskim who do say that they are chayavos but the vast majority of women do not wash mayim acharonim. I once saw an answer based on our daf. There are two reasons given for mayim acharonim. The more famous reason is because of melach sdomis. Tosafos says that doesn't apply anymore so based on that neither men or women should need it. However the gemara in Chulin (106a) also relates a story as a reason:

Mayim Acharonim caused a man to divorce his wife, he (Rav Dimi) was referring to 'Reuven', who saw 'Shimon', after having eaten a meal of lentils, deposit a purse-full of coins with his wife, before leaving the house without washing Mayim Acharonim. After waiting a while, he approached the wife and told her that Shimon had sent him to fetch the purse. When she asked for a Siman, he told her that they had eaten lentils, which he learned from the remains of the meal that surrounded Shimon's mouth, upon which she handed him the purse. Note, that Mayim Acharonim is also meant to wash the remains the meal from around the mouth. When her husband returned home and discovered what had happened, he divorced her.

I once heard that this is a second reason that the Chachamim instituted mayim acharonim and this reason might still apply today even if the melach sdomis reason doesn't apply anymore. If this is the only reason left then it will only be necessary in a situation that is me'ain hameora. So it would only be necessary if it's a man because it wasn't a woman eating in this story.

Wearing rings on Shabbos (Shabbos 57a)

2005-06-28T08:46:00.000-04:00

The Mishna seems pretty clear that a woman cannot go out wearing a ring on Shabbos because she might take it off to show how beautiful it is to her friends. The Shulchan Aruch quotes this l'halacha in siman 303 seif 10. Then in seif 19, the Mechaber says that anything that is asur to be worn in reshus harabim is even asur in a chatzer with no eruv. He says that some even say that these things can't be worn in the house and certainly not in a chatzer which has an eruv. He then asks the obvious question - Why do women today just completely disregard this halacha and wear rings whereever they go.

He has a few possible suggestions why they do this:
1. Really it's not allowed but try telling that to your wife! It's better that they be shogegin and not mezidin (this is based on the Tosafos on daf 55 which says that if you know that someone won't listen then it's better not to give them musar).
2. We hold like the first opinion that the Mechaber said that it's not asur to go out to a chatzer even if it doesn't have an eruv with a ring on and nowadays we don't have too many reshus harabims d'oraysa so women wear rings in our carmelis'.
a. The Mishna Brura points out a problem with that is that when we do have a reshus harabim d'oraysa we don't tell women to take off their rings. Also, he says that we pasken like the second opinion quoted above that you can't even go out to a chatzer meureves and certainly not to a carmelis because you might come to carry it in a reshus harabim. So he says that since there are basically no reshus harabim d'oraysa there is no need for the gezeira in a karmelis.
3. The Rama adds another possible reason that nowadays rings are much more common so they're not as likely to take them off as they were in those days. Then they only wore rings for special occasions so they made the gezeira but the reason doesn't apply anymore.

I think that the problems with the first answer are obvious but there is a big chidush in the second and third answers. We are saying that batla taama batla gezeira. Just because the reason doesn't apply anymore the gezeira doesn't either. We don't always say that though. For example by tekias shofar we don't blow it on Shabbos even though you could say the same thing as the Mishna Brura says here. There aren't really many reshus harabims nowadays so according to the logic stated above we should be allowed to blow shofar on Shabbos.

Rav Hershel Shachter has explained that there are two different types of gezeiros. Some are made with the reason so the point is that once the reason no longer applies then the gezeira doesn't either. That was the situation here. The chachamim said you can't wear rings because you might come to carry them in reshus harabim. If we know that the reason doesn't apply anymore then you could wear rings. However, by shofar the reason was only stated later. There was a takana made not to blow shofar on Shabbos and then years later Rabba explained why the takana was made. The gemara wasn't even sure. They knew you couldn't do it but didn't know why. Therefore, even though the original reason for not blowing may have been because otherwise you might come to carry it, even if you know that the reason doesn't apply anymore the gezeira still lasts.

Shevisas behemto (Shabbos 51b)

2005-06-22T21:53:00.000-04:00

There is definitely a lav of mechamer on Shabbos (lo saase kol melacha ata ... u'Vehemtecha" in Yisro). There is also definitely no isur (Shabbos 122a) to allow your animal to graze on Shabbos. The question is what about everything else? In other words we know that we have 39 melachos and the animals have less but how do we know which ones they do have. Our Mishna says that it's asur for the animals to carry on Shabbos so how does that fit in? We said in the beginning of the masechte that hotzaa is a melacha gerua so if anything should have been mutar to let your animal do it should have been hotzaa?

The way that Tosafos here in our gemara and the Rambam in perek 20 of hil' Shabbos explain it is that the lav only applies when it's a melacha that you do with your animal. It doesn't apply to other melachos. Other melachos are asur because it's a lav haba michlal aseh of l'maan yanuach. Really all melachos should be asur m'doraysa to let your animal do. If you don't let your animal graze on Shabbos that that's not l'maan yanuach therefore the Torah must have meant to allow the animal to graze.

The Pnei Yehoshua though says that our entire Mishna is only asur m'drabonon. The Daf Digest discusses this and explains it more clearly than I could've so I'll just quote it here.

The Torah only forbids a person from arranging that his animal does an activity such as plowing or carrying packages, that are forbidden for a person to do due to their being laborious....
To confine the animal to remain indoors would cause it to have pain and not be at ease. Therefore it would not be a torah violation for an animal to walk into the public domain with decorative or ornamental accessories, just as it would be permitted for that animal to be loaded with equipement necessary to guard that it not run away and be endangered.

I am not sure that they're right in the interpretation of the Pnei Yehoshua. He only says that melachos like techina and ketzira are asur. They seem to be understanding that to extend to carrying packages but I don't think that the Pnei Yehoshua means that. I think that a melacha is either asur or not and hotzaa is not asur. I think that's clear from the fact that he's the one who asked the question that I asked at the beginning that hotzaa is a melacha grua. Obviously, he doesn't feel that hotzaa should be asur for an animal. The lav of mechamer is different because that's talking about leading your animal and doing the melacha with it. However, I don't think just putting the burden on the animal and getting it to go outside would constitute an isur d'oraysa according the to the Pnei Yehoshua.

Nedarim on Shabbos

2005-06-20T11:53:00.000-04:00

The Gemorah on 46b brings the halacha that a husband can annul the vow of his wife if it has to do with Shabbos. I have been thinking over the case and the following bothers me: When did this women make the vow? According to Tosfos (one answer) the case is a classic Migu Deiskatzay. If that is the case, then she must have made the vow before Shabbos. However, we know the halacha that the husband has only until Tzais to annul the vow ( Gemorah Nedarim) if he doesnt, its too late. If so, how can we be having this discussion about annuling a vow on Shabbos? if you want to say that she made it Friday but he did not hear it until Shabbos, we have a problem with Rashi because Rashi says the vow was " I will not eat today". I need some help here.

Chashivos

2005-06-20T11:27:00.000-04:00

The gemorah on 47a mentions that a pan that had dirt in it may be Muktzeh if it wasnt for the fact that it still has a small peice of incense in it. The Gemorah then asks that is a small peice of incense worth anything to Rebbi who was quite a wealthy man? My question is what do we do with the concept that we learn from Yaakov and the pachim ketanim? Anything even how minor it may be should should be worth somethig to him? Not much of a question but just a thought!!

Muktza for some but not others (Shabbos 47a)

2005-06-19T21:35:00.000-04:00

The gemara says that bigdei aniyim are begadim for aniiyim but not for ashirim but bigdei ashirim are begadim for both. The mishna that it's quoting is actually referring to tuma saying that a beged that is less than 3x3 tefachim is only a beged for aniyim but not ashirim. The gemara seems to equate muktza to this. What happens if an ashir has this piece of clothing that is less than 3x3 tefachim?

The gemara says that it will be muktze. Is it muktza just for the ashirim or because it's owned by an ashir is it muktza for the ani too? What about the reverse - if it's owned by an ani would it be muktza for an ashir? The gemara in 46b is what first alerted me to this question. There it was talking about if the woman made a neder not to eat a fruit, the fruit isn't muktze because the husband could be meifer neder implying that if that wouldn't be the case it would be muktze. Tosafos says that it could be that is only the case if they were her fruit and she asired it on everyone. I think that Tosafos is saying (at least in that answer) that had she not done that then maybe it wouldn't be muktze for anyone (even her) since everyone else could eat it.

I saw tonight that the Mishna Brura deals with this exact question. In the last seif in siman 308, the Shulchan Aruch paskens that muktze for ashirim is muktza for aniim also. However the Mishna Brura there says that there really could be partial muktze. He says the determining factor is who the owner is unless it's owned by an ani and an ashir would never use it. In that case only ashirim who are part of the ani's household can move it. For an outside ashir, it would still be considered muktza.

Sorry for the lack of writing in so long. There's been a lot to say on these dapim but I just haven't had time to organize my thoughts or look through many Rishonim. Others should feel free to post or email their hearos/questions to me.

shehiya or hachazara? (Shabbos 36b-37a)

2005-06-07T22:08:00.000-04:00

The gemara seems to try to force a pshat into the Mishna to explain that it's really talking about hachazara and not shehiya. Tosafos (d"h l'olam) is bothered why the gemara goes through such trouble to come up with this pshat in the Mishna. He suggests that it does it because we paken like Chananya that shehiya is allowed as long as it's k'maachal ben drusai even without giruf or kitum. So the gemara wanted to fit the Mishna in with that shita. So according to Tosafos that's why we added words to the Mishna and we explained the Mishna that we were first talking about hachazara then switched to shehiya and then back to hachazara.

The Mishna could fit in with Chananya even if you say it's talking about shehiya - it's talking about leaving something that is less than 1/3rd cooked on the fire when Shabbos starts. Then you don't have to change the whole mishna so to talk about hachazara but it still fits in with Chananya. So why, sccording to Tosafos, didn't the gemara do that?

If it holds two kur is it a kli? (Shabbos 35a)

2005-06-06T13:19:00.000-04:00

The gemara says that according to Rabba a kli is considered muktza only if it holds at least 3 kur it's muktze on Shabbos then it's a kli but less than that is not a kli. The gemara then quotes Abaye who says that Rabba paskened for him that two kur was not a kli. The gemara does not seem bothered by this apparent stira but quotes a mishna that supports Rabba's view. The mishna in keilim says that it can't become tamei if it holds at least two kurim. The gemara just ends with that not explaining how Rabba and Rav Yosef could learn differently if there is a mishna that says two kurim is not a kli.

I thought that it's possible that for tuma we are not interested in whether something is a kli or not. We want to know if it's metaltel malei. Something that holds two kur is not so therefore the mishna in keilim says that it can't become tamei. However, for hilchos Shabbos we want to know the definition of a kli and for that Rabba and Rav Yosef say that it's considered a kli (even if it can't be moved full) as long as it holds less than three or four kur. This still doesn't answer the stira within Rabba himself. I guess you have to say that he changed his mind at some point.

The Rambam paskens in hilchos keilim like the mishna that more than 2 kur can't become tamei but in hilchos Shabbos he says that size doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is if it is a kli so even if you need 10 people to move it, it's not muktza if it's a kli. The Magid Mishna points out that the Rambam actually goes even beyond even Rabba and Rav Yosef and paskens like another gemara later in the maseches.

Why not 3/5ths? (Shabbos 34b)

2005-06-05T21:25:00.000-04:00

Rabba says that shkia is three parts of a mil and the gemara tries to figure out what it means. Can't be 3 halves or 3/3rds because then he would have phrased it differently so he must mean 3/4ths. That's fine but then the gemara questions what Rav Yosef means when he says 2 parts. Can't be 2/2 because then he would have just said 1. Can't be 2/4ths because then he would have said a half so it must be 2/3rds. Why by Rav Yosef did the gemara entertain the possibility that he meant 2/4ths but by Rabba the gemara didn't even entertain the option of 3/5ths?

I was happy to see the Ritva asked this question but his answer didn't satisfy me so I was even happier to see the Rashash. The Ritva says that the gemara will start with the lowest until it gets to a number that makes sense. So in Rabba it never gets to 3/5ths. It really shouldn't have gotten to 2/4ths in Rav Yosef either but it thinks it's a possibility since we already established that Rabba was talking about fourths. The Rashash asks if that's the reason that the gemara had the hava amina that Rav Yosef meant fourths then why did we fall off that answer? The gemara only rejected the answer because if Rav Yosef wanted to say two fourths then he would have said one half instead. But maybe he said two fourths only because Rabba was already talking in fourths?

Simcha shel mitzvah (30b)

2005-06-01T12:57:00.000-04:00

Simcha shel Mitzvah is defined by Rashi as Hachnosos Kallah (D"H Simcha Shel Mitzvah), but by Elisha it seems Rashi (D"H Kchu Li Menagen) explains it as a general state of Simcha. Also, what is the "lelamedcha sheain Shechina shoreh lo mitoch atzvus velo atzlus velo mitoch tzchok...", how does the pasuk in Koheles (that teaches us Simcha shel Mitzvah is good and Simcha sheaino shel Mitvah is bad) teach us this?
R' Moshe in the Dibros Moshe explains that there are three types of Simcha, One is Beetzem simcha shel mitvah such as Oneg Shabbos and Hachnosos Kallah, a second is Simcha of Rshus such as Schok (besides simcha of aveira such as kalus rosh), and a third is simcha of rshus that is intended to create simcha of Mitvah such as the nagen hamenagen for nevius (or the joking before learning to be able to be at ease while learning).

The flow of the Gem' is as follows. Simcha sheaino shel mitvah is "Mah Ze Oseh", there is no toeles from Simcha that isn't shel Mitvah, only from Simcha shel Mitzvah. "Lelamadcha" that only Simcha of Mitvah can create Shrios Shechinah, not "mitoch atzvus velo atzlus velo mitoch TZCHOK..". But from Koheles you would think that this only applies to Simcha shel Mitzvah that is Beetzem shel Mitvah, like Hachnosos Kallah, so the Gem' brings the Pasuk by Elisha that even Simcha of Rshus that is done with the intention of bringing on the Shechina is called Simcha shel Mitzvah, like Rashi explains by the Menagen.

Heinu Detanina 3x3 VeLo YaDanah... (29a)

2005-06-01T09:00:00.001-04:00

The Gemarah at the end of 28b has an involved set of criteria in order to explain the Machlokes of why one can not light with an unsinged wick for Shabbos, ending with the comment of Rav Yosef "Now I understand what the explanation of a Mishna that I heard '3x3 exactly' was refering to" . On the top of 29a Rava gives a a very uncomplex explanation of the Machlokes, which has no connection to Rav Yosef's comment. The Gemarah asks then, what was Rav Yosef's comment referring to? It answers that the explanation Rav Yosef heard was referring to the Mishna in Keilim in which the Chachomim say "3x3 precisely" is Mekabel Tumah.

Why would Rav Yosef have said he doesn't know what the comment he heard "3x3 exactly" was refering to if in fact it refers to a BeFairush Mishna in Keilim? The comment he heard "3x3 exactly" and the words of the Mishna "3x3 precisely" are nearly identical.

Mevatel D'rabonnon l'chatchila? (Shabbos 29a)

2005-05-31T17:13:00.000-04:00

Rashi (d"h marbe) says that when you add pre-cut wood to the fire with wood that fell on Shabbos it is ok because you are mevatel the muktza wood b'rov. Isn't that a problem of being mevatel isur l'chatchila? The Rashba asks another question: How can it be batel if it's still nikar b'shas tashmisho? The Rashba therefore has a different explanation of the gemara. By adding more wood, you make it doesn't look like you're moving muktza and you're really just being metaltel min hatzad. I think he's saying that tiltul min hatzad alone would not be enough. Even though that alone takes off the isur muktze we're still worried about other people seeing. Therefore the gemara says you need rov so that people won't see the muktze.

The Mossad Harav Kook edition points you to the Rashba in beitza on daf 4b. There, the Rashba says basically like Rashi here except that he says you can only be mevatel it b'rov l'chatchila as long as you can't see the muktza wood. He says that the normal rules of bitul don't apply to d'rabonnons "d'ein lahen ikar b'doraysa klal." The MHK there says that the Rambam implies that the regular rules of bitul don't apply to any d'rabonnons.

Pigskin for tefillin shel yad (Shabbos 28b)

2005-05-30T08:01:00.000-04:00

The gemara says that we know you can't use non-kosher animal skin for tefillin because the shin of the tefillin is a halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai so we learn from mutar b'phicha. R' Akiva Eiger asks that this only proves tefilin shel rosh but how do you know about tefilin shel yad. The Rashash answers that there is a hekesh between tefilin shel yad and shel rosh so if the halacha is true by one then it must be true by the other. The Rashash says that this is actually a machlokes tanaim between R' Meir and R' Yehuda in Makos daf 11 if you can learn a hekesh to apply dinim that are halacha l'Moshe M'Sinai.

That seems like a good answer so why didn't R' Akiva Eiger like it? It could be that he questions the entire hekesh from tefilin shel yad to tefilin shel rosh. I don't think the gemara uses this to learn halachos one from the other. It could be that the only time R' Meir and R' Yehuda have their machlokes is if the hekesh applies in dinim d'oraysa so the question is will it also apply to halachos l'Moshe m'sinai or not. However, here the hekesh is not teaching us to learn halachos out one from the other just that as long as you're wearing tefilin shel rosh then you must be wearing tefilin shel yad also. If so then that would have no ramifications on the halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai so R' Akiva Eiger's question remains.

Rashi d"h k'man (Shabbos 27b)

2005-05-29T11:15:00.000-04:00

Rashi seems to have two pshatim here in the gemara. The second pshat seems simple to me. The gemara is asking which Tana does Abaye go like. He's understand R' Eliezer ben Shimon to mean any pishtan even if it's not a beged. The gemara is questioning how the amora Abaye could understand the tana that way. Is there any other tana who holds like that? The gemara then answers that R' Yehuda holds like that.

However, before that pshat, Rashi seems to have another pshat which I don't understand. The gemara is asking k'man on the Tana Sumchus? And it concludes that it's like R' Meir? First of all, why does Sumchus need another tana supporting him? Second of all, how is it like R' Meir? Or am I misunderstanding something in that Rashi?

Misa bidei shamayim by truma (Shabbos 25a)

2005-05-27T05:10:00.000-04:00

The gemara says that one of the chumros for Truma over kodshim is that it has misa bidei shamayim. Why is this a chumra - Kodshim has kares? Rashi says that kares is early death and no children while misa bidei shamayim is only early death so how is this a chumra? Rashi seems to be trying to answer this question because he says in the explanation of misa that a zar who eats truma is chayav misa while a zar who eats kodshim is not. That is a chumra but isn't that already listed as of the chumros -asura l'zarim?

light at both entrances because of Cheshad (Shabbos 23a)

2005-05-26T13:12:00.000-04:00

The gemara says that if a house has two entrances on two different sides, one must light at both entrances because of Cheshad. The Korban Nesanel asks that the halacha is - if it went out, he does not have to relight it (Kahvsa ain zakook lah). But why is this, he should need to relight it because of Cheshad?

The Korban Nesanel answers that the halacha of lighting at both entrances is needed mainly for lighting on Friday night. If a passerby does not see lights at the second entrance, he will suspect the owner of not lighting. But on weekdays, if he does not see lights, he will think that the light probably went out and the owner brought the menorah inside. Therefore the Chachamim made it a requirement to light at both entrances in order to take care of the problem of Cheshad on Friday night.

A simple answer could be that if the light goes out, a person needs to keep his menorah outside to avoid Cheshad, just he does not need to relight it. A problem with this answer is that if it is dark, perhaps people cannot see his menorah, so there would still be Cheshad.

Does anyone know of any other sefer that discusses this question.

Magen Avos on Yom Tov night (Shabbos 24b)

2005-05-26T08:11:00.000-04:00

Rashi (d"h mishum) says that the Rabonnon were mesaken Magen Avos on Shabbos because of the sakana. They wanted to give the latecomers a chance to catch up so everyone could leave shul together so they added the tefila. However, during the week most people just davened at home after work so there was no need for the takana. There also was no takana made on yom tov but Rashi doesn't explain why.

The Sfas Emes says that it could be there was no takana because everyone was in shul on time on yom tov night because they never started early. On Friday night they were often mekabel Shabbos early but they didn't do that on yom tov. I was thinking that it could be that people were in shul on time not just because it started late but because people spend weeks preparing for yom tov and by the time it starts people are ready and are in shul on time. Whereas Shabbos has become a routine and people don't take it as seriously so they often come late.

Or the answer could be the opposite. It could be that yom tov was more like chol in that people didn't come. He quotes Tosafos in Taanis on 2b who (in talking about something else entirely) quotes the Yerushalmi that says that not everyone is in shul on yom tov night. If that's true then there would be no need for the takana just like chol. He doesn't explain why but last night someone suggested this answer (we hadn't yet seen the Sfas Emes) and he said that nowadays it's true. On Friday, people have it in their schedules to leave work early so it's easy to get to shul on time. On Erev yom tov it's often harder to get off from work early. You're about to take off two days in the middle of the week and to leave early the day before is hard. So maybe that's why the takana wasn't made.

Ner Chanuka over kiddush (Shabbos 23b)

2005-05-25T00:16:00.000-04:00

The gemara says that if you can only do ner Chanuka or Kiddush on Friday night then you should light Chanuka candles. Someone asked this morning how could ner chanuka take precedence over kiddush which is a d'oraysa.

The Ran answers that the case must be that you also have bread and that works m'doraysa. The gemara had the hava amina that even though you're yotzei the mitzva it's still better to make kiddush on wine so that would take precedence over Chanuka but the gemara answers that pirsumei nisa adif.

The Ritva says even if you had no bread, you were yotzei your mitzva d'oraysa in shul.

The Hagaos Ashri argues and says that our gemara must hold that you can't make kiddush on bread otherwise ner Chanuka wouldn't take precedence.

Ahf Hen Hayu Beosei Haneis (23A)

2005-05-24T15:20:00.000-04:00

Rashi says that women were included in the neis because of the gezeira of tibael lehagmon techila and since they played a role in defeating the enemy. This begs the question, what was the primary nes, that men were included in and not women? It would seem that the Ikar nes was being saved from the gezeira of not keeping Shabbos, Rosh Chodesh and Bris Mila, as well as defeating the Yevanim (besides the neis of the Shemen). Women were included in the Geziera of Shmad regarding Shabbos, as well as Rosh Chodesh ( and were equally affected by the neis of the Shemen), even if they were not affected by the Gezeira of Bris Mila and were not directly involved in the battle. Why does Rashi feel compelled to introduce seemingly secondary aspects of the neis, even if they are unique to women?

Hanacha Oseh Mitzva (Shabbos 22b-23a)

2005-05-24T09:40:00.000-04:00

The gemara says that if you say hanacha oseh mitzva then if you have a lantern that was lit from Erev Shabbos and it stays lit until Motzei Shabbos then you would have to put it out, pick it up, put it back and then light it. Someone asked this morning: what exactly is required for hanacha oseh mitzva? Do you have to pick up the menora each night before you light it? If so then why shouldn't you have to pick it up and put it back after it's lit?

There is a machlokes between Rashi and Tosafos in this case why the lantern was lit on Erev Shabbos. Rashi says it was for Chanuka and Tosafos says it was for Shabbos. I saw this morning (I think it was in the Sfas Emes) that according to Tosafos the questions aren't so bad. As long as the menora was initially put there for the mitzva of Chanuka then that suffices for hanacha oseh mitzva once the menora is lit. However this case is where it was lit for Shabbos so you need a hanacha (even if it's before the candles are lit) which is l'shem neiros Chanuka. According to Rashi though the question remains. It seems that according to him, if you light the candles on Friday night and they go out that night then Motzei Shabbos you can just relight them without moving the menorah even though hanacha oseh mitzva. If the candles stayed lit though until you were ready to light on Motzei Shabbos then you must pick up the menorah to show that the hanacha is for the mitzva.

Wax candles (Shabbos 20b)

2005-05-22T18:43:00.000-04:00

The Mishna lists a bunch of things that can't be used as wicks and then a bunch of things that can't be used as fuel. Included in the latter list is wax. Yet that doesn't stop most people from using wax candles on Shabbos and the Shulchan Aruch paskens that there is no problem with the practice. So how does that jive with our Mishna?

Rashi (d"h shaava itztricha lei) at the bottom of the amud answers the question that the only time wax is forbidden is if it's used like oil. However, our candles are all stuck around the wick so it's like one big wax wick. The truth is that I didn't realize that was what Rashi was saying until I saw the Rashba quote the Rashi. It seems that almost all the Rishonim understand our Gemara this way and therefore one may even use wax candles l'chatchila. The point of the pesulim listed in our Mishna is that they don't light as nicely but our wax candles light just as nicely as oil so there is no preference. I remember once hearing that there are some poskim who say it's better to use oil but most poskim do not agree with that.

Bais Shammai's shita about melacha being started on Erev Shabbos (Shabbos 17-19)

2005-05-20T12:09:00.000-04:00

Beis Shammai's shita is a little bit hard to understand. In the mishna there seem to be two types of things that B"S says is asur to do on Erev Shabbos. The first is to put something in a kli like putting the flax in the oven. The second is to give things to a goy. I'm going to ignore the second one here. Why, according to Beis Shammai is it asur to put something in a kli on Erev Shabbos if it's going to complete on Shabbos?

It seems to be a machlokes Amoraim. Rav Yosef holds that it's because of shevisas keilim. B"S holds that there is an isur d'oraysa to let your keilim "do" melacha on Shabbos even if there isn't a real maaseh. However, Rabbah disagrees with that and holds that B"S only says that there is an isur of shevisas keilim if the kli is actually "doing" a maaseh. None of the cases of the mishna have a real maaseh. So then why does he say they are asur? Because of a gezeira. We don't want you to start them right before Shabbos because you might come to do it on Shabbos also. That fits in very well with the last case of the Mishna which says that B"S agrees by the grapes that there is no isur. That's because it's only asur d'rabonon to do it on Shabbos so the Rabbonon weren't gozeir on Erev Shabbos. How does Rabba understand that case? Why should there be no shevisas keilim d'oraysa? The gemara asks the question on 19a and says that it's only an isur d'rabonon so there is no gezeira.

Tosafos explains that the gemara is obviously working with R' Yosef's opinion because according to Rabba shevisas keilim is d'oraysa and not a gezeira.
The Ran says that this gemara is even working in Rabba and the gemara means that there is even though the kli doing the melacha is asur m'doraysa just like if you yourself did the melacha, they weren't gozer d'rabonons on keilim. He doesn't really explain why but I'd guess it's because there's no need. For a person we're afraid that if we let you do this then you might come to do something similar but we don't have that fear with keilim.
The Ritva though says it means that there is no isur and gzeira d'oraysa. He says that R' Yosef holds that according to B"S there is an isur d'oraysa of shevisas keilim so that you should rest and not come to do a melacha on your own. There aren't many gezeiros d'oraysa but according to this opinion this is one example.

Tamei keilim are machshiv liquids l'hachshir?

2005-05-19T13:22:00.000-04:00

Zeiri in the name of Rav Chanina says (17a) that Habozer l'gat is machshir, as a gezaira for the case of where the grapes are being put directly into tamei keilim. The "tumas haklee", Rashi explains, is "machshiv" the liquid to be "machshir", since the tumah and hechsher come "as one".

Can someone explain to be what this means? I don't understand the sevarah of why a context of "tumaso v'hechsero k'achas" is more likely to make a liquid be machshir l'tumah.

Don't start up with me or else ... (Shabbos 17a)

2005-05-19T07:52:00.000-04:00

Hillel asked Shamai a perfectly innocent question - if you made a gezeira on the juices of grapes being machshir even when they came out on their own then why weren't you also gozeir on olives? In the gemara Shamai doesn't even respond to the question but just says, "Don't bother me about olives or else I'll be gozeir on those also." Tosafos explains why the gezeira was made only on grapes but not on olives but it doesn't explain Shamai's response. Would he really make a gezeira just because Hillel was questioning his intial gezeira? Is that how the Rabonnon work?

The Chasam Sofer explains that Shamai was saying to Hillel that he didn't feel that a gezeira was necessary on olives for the reasons that Tosafos enumerates. However, if Hillel really was concerned that people wouldn't understand the distinction between olives and grapes then Shamai said he'd be forced to make the gezeira on olives also so people don't get confused. It wasn't meant as a threat just that if Hillel really was confused about it then it showed that there was a need for the gezeira on olives also.

Shitas Chachamim for Chalah = 1.5 Kav?

2005-05-17T15:42:00.000-04:00

Tosfos (d"h Shamai) quotes from the Yerushalmi the sevaros for Hillel and Shamai's shitos of 2 or 1 Kavim as the shiur of chiyuv chalah.
Does anyone explain the Chachamim's shita of 1.5 Kav?

Food in the aron kodesh?!? (Shabbos14a)

2005-05-17T12:32:00.000-04:00

In yesterday's daf, Shabbos 14a, it says that a sefer is Tamai because they used to put Teruma near the seforim, and the Chachamim wanted to stop them from doing so. Rabbi Rothchild in the torah journal Kol Hatorah (semi-annual journal from England) asks that "Ma'alin BaKodesh V'Ain Moridin" - an Aron Hakodesh may not be used for lesser purposes, so how could they have stored Teruma together with a Sefer Torah (or Nevi'im) in the first place. One answer he gives is that the Ta"z says that if the Sefer Torah is in the Aron, it's okay, it is only prohibited to use the Aron for other purposes if the Aron is not there. Others disagree with this.

Doneel (a new reader) sent me this to post on his behalf.

The power of the Rabonnon

2005-05-17T07:47:00.000-04:00

The gemara in Shabbos on daf 14 - 15 talks about different levels of tuma that the Rabonon placed on various things. I can understand them saying that the things should be nitle (safek tuma) but how could you be soreif truma or kodshim on a sofek or because of a gezeira? There's an isur d'oraysa (at least an isur asay) to be meabed kodshim or truma b'yadayim because the pasuk says mishmeres trumosai. So how could the Rabonon override that with a kum v'asay of destroying it?

Rav Yishmael ben Elisha

2005-05-16T12:07:00.000-04:00

Boy, it's been quiet here!
Has anyone else noticed (as someone pointed out to me) that Rav Yishmael ben Elisha was a cohen gadol that apparently lived through the time of the churbon.
In meseches brachos 7a, we learned about Rav Yishmael ben Elisha's famous story (now a popular song): "Paam Achas nichnasti l'haktir k'tores lifnei v'lifnim etc." Recently in meseches shabbos 12b, we learned that Rav Yishmael ben Elisha was the one who was unconcerned about chazal's takana not to read on shabbos by candlelight, and said "Ani Ekrah v'lo Ateh". According to the second version of the story, Rav Yishmael was actually nichshal in Isur shabbos, and wrote in his notebook: "when the bais hamikdash will be *rebuilt*, I will bring a fat chatos.

The nusach of birchot hamitzvah

2005-04-20T23:12:00.000-04:00

Rashi and Tosfot at the top of 51A disagree about the reason one who is tovel recites the bracha after the t'villa. Rashi explains that the individual was a baal keri who could not make the blessing before the tvilla while still tamei while Tosfot explains that the individual was a ger who was not yet able to make the bracha since he was not yet Jewish.

According to the gemara, the nusach of the bracha is "asher kidshanu b'mitzvotav v'tzivanu [AKB"V] al ha'tvilla." This nusach would appear to make sense. After all, as a general matter, brachot are made over la'asiyatan, that is, before the mitzvah's act is performed. And, in such circumstances, the birchat ha'mitzvah takes the active voice; for example, on Chanukah, the blessing is made AKB"V l'hadlik ner shel chanukah, then the candles are lit. However, when the act is performed first, the bracha is in the passive voice. The classic example is when one washes for ha'motzi, one washes first, then recites "al ntilat yadayim."

It would thus appear that according to both Rashi and Tosfot, since the individual who is about to immerse is unable to make the bracha until after the immersion, the blessing must follow the act and it is thus recited in the passive voice. If that is the case, why is the nusach bracha for candlelighting on Shabbat not similarly passive; after all, the candles are actually lit before the bracha is made since to light them after making the bracha would result in chilul shabbat?

What about tefilas haderech?

2005-04-15T10:10:00.000-04:00

The gemara in Brachos on 46a going onto 46b says that a bracha hasmucha lachaverta is the only type of bracha that does not require a baruch at the beginning. What about tefilas haderech? It's not next to another bracha but it doesn't start with baruch! The Shulchan Aruch quotes the Maharam M'rutenberg who would say tefilas haderech after birchas hashachar if he was travelling in the morning. The Mishna Brura adds that if you're not going to say birchas hashachar then you can make a shehakol or something immediately before saying tefilas haderech (the fact that you take a sip is not considered a hefsek). He says that you don't have to do this but it's preferred. That doesn't really answer the question though. If the rule is that only a bracha hasmucha lachaverta does not require baruch then why were the rabonon mesaken tefilas haderech without baruch if it was niskana as a bracha bifnei atzma?

Rabeinu Yonah (earlier in the masechta) answers that any bracha that was made as a bracha hasmucha lachaverta does not require baruch even if it is said independently. This was really part of shomei tefila in shomone esrei.
The Tur answers that it wasn't really made as a bracha. It's supposed to be a tefila so it didn't start with baruch. However, he says because we talk about so much in the tefila, the rabonon decided to conclude the tefila with a baruch. It's still not a "real" bracha.

Reb Yochanan says two cannot make Zimun

2005-04-14T10:20:00.000-04:00

The Gemorah on 45b proves that Reb Yochanan must be the opinion that holds that two people do make Zimun. The proof is from the fact that one person can be yotzei with the benching of his friend and we infer from the language that if we were talking about Zimun it would not have used a terminology of yotzei because by zimun each person is actually saying it. Therefore it must be that the two are not making Zimun together. Rashi comments that the language is only coming to teach us that "a zimun is not required" because of the inference that can be made. The obvious question is: The gemorah is trying to prove that R. Yochanan holds that a zimun is not allowed with two people. Accoring the the way Rashi is learning there is no proof at all. Rashi is saying that the language only proves that its not required. Where to we see that its not allowed??? It may be that I am missing something!!

Also, the Gemorah mentions that women cannot be included in a Zimun with men because of priztus. What exactly is the pritzus? Why are women allowed to answer at a meal when men make a Zimun? Why isnt that pritzus?

Laafukei Raychuni

2005-04-13T10:39:00.000-04:00

The Gemorah on 44b brings a Mishnah that says that " Anything that requires a bracha before requires one afterward and some require before and not after The Gemorah then says that according to Rav Papa that excludes Mitzvos ( that you dont have to make a Bracha after a Mitzvah) The Gemorah then asks " What about those that make a Bracha after Tefilin?" Answer: it comes to exclude for smelling ( that you dont make a bracha achrona) The question is what was the Hava Amina? Why couldnt the Gemorah just answer orginally that it excludes Raychani and that should follow all opinions?
I have looked for an answer. Any thoughts?

Rav Huna's bracha on pas haba b'kisnin

2005-04-11T08:11:00.000-04:00

The gemara in Brachos on the top of 42a says that Rav Huna ate some pas haba b'kisnin thing "v'lo barich." Rav Nachman responded that he should have benched because he ate enough for a normal person to be koveia seuda. What does it mean v'lo barich?

My first reaction was just that it meant that he didn't bench but he did say al hamichya. I knew that was not pashut pshat though because until now whenever we said "lo barich" it meant that either there was no bracha acharona at all or there was only a Borei nefashos. However, I saw that some Rishonim (the Ritva and the Tzlach quotes the Rashba) learn that it means that he didn't bench but he did say al hamichya. The Tzlach and the Pnei Yehoshua though don't like this pshat.

The Pnei Yehoshua says that he didn't even say al hamichya because the bracha acharona on pas haba b'kisnin is borei nefashos as we said on 41b. That was a chidush to me because when I learned the gemara on 41b that said no bracha acharona on pas haba b'kisnin I understood it to mean only because you don't have a kezayis of the mezonos in there. However if you would have a kezayis then you'd definitely need at least an al hamichya. Apparently, the Rishonim understand the Rashi there to mean that there is no al hamichya at all (just a borei nefashos).

The Tzlach has a novel approach to the sugya although he says it's not pshat because nobody learned like that. He says that Rav Huna was a bal keri and a bal keri doesn't make brachos that only d'rabonon. So he didn't make any bracha at all because he felt that there was no benching so no chiyuv d'oraysa.

Shiras Haleviim

2005-04-10T10:52:00.000-04:00

Also from Yosey G on daf 35a:

The gemmorah says when Wine was poured on the Mizbayach that is when the Shiras Leviim was sung.

A friend asked me: Did the leviim have a special tune(S) for the Shirah or did they use the TROP? His son's Rebbe said they used Trop. He said the Pe-As Hashulchon writes that the Vilna Gaon studied Music so as better to understand the Shiras Haleviim, and if all they used was Trop, why did he have to learn music? (If they used Trop, the term used all over "Shir she-hoyu OMRIM" the song they SAID, would seem to make sense!)

Any insights? Proof?

Why say havdala twice?

2005-04-10T10:47:00.000-04:00

Yosey G. asked me to post this (it's relevant to Brachos 33a - everyone should feel free to post on previous dapim also. It's not limited to that day's daf. I'd prefer if we didn't got back too far but a week is definitely no problem).

The gemmorah tells us that although one made Havdalah in Maariv one is still obligated to repeat Havdalah over wine.

A few lines later in the Gemorrah quotes Rav Acha as saying that it is better to make Havdalah in Davening than over wine, but if one does BOTH he will get blessing on his head. The gemmorah questions this and says it seems from Rav Acha's words that one alone will suffice, if that is the case then why should he be blessed for saying Havdalah twice it should be an unneeded blessing and as such that should be a violation of LO SISSA! The gemorah retracts and says rather if he makes only ONE Havdalah it is better.

Now does Rav Acha argue with the gemora quoted above that said "although one made Havdalah in Maariv one is still obligated to repeat Havdalah over wine."? And even if he is, why does the gemmorah's problem of Lo sissa not apply to our accepted Psak which requires us to say Havdalah in davening and over wine? Also when the gemorrah changes Rav Acha's words all it says is that if one only made Havdalah once he should get many blessings. But that was just the end of Rav Acha's statement. How, according to this retraction would Rav Acha Start his statement? It seems his entire statement should be, one should say Havdalah in Davening and over wine, but if you only said it once than you should be blessed! Then why should
he say Havdalah twice?

Fruit Juice and Vegetable Soup

2005-04-08T11:32:00.000-04:00

The gemara in Brachos on daf 39a says that you make ha'adama on the water in which vegetables were cooked. Tosafos asks that we just said on 38a that you make shehakol on all fruit juices. What's the difference between a fruit juice which could be pure fruit with nothing else mixed in that you make shehakol and vegetable soup which is really just water with the taste of the vegetables? He doesn't really answer - just says "yeish lechalek." So what is the difference?
1. The Rosh says that the difference is in the taste. Orange juice doesn't taste exactly like an orange whereas pea soup (even without the peas in there) still tastes exactly like peas. Therefore, if you'd cook oranges and not just squeeze them then it could be the bracha on orange soup would be haeitz.
2. The Divrei Chamudos (under the Rosh) quotes the Rashba who answers that it's not similar because the vegetables are normally eaten in this form. As we said on the last daf, many vegetables aren't eaten raw but only cooked. Therefore, if you cook them you make ha'adama even on the water. However, fruit is normally eaten and not squeezed so if you drink it it's a shehakol.
3. Rabeinu Yonah answers along the same lines that for vegetables it makes it better to cook them. Whereas, for fruit you're actually making it worse by squeezing it. He then asks what about beer? You are clearly making barley better by making it into beer so why does the bracha go down from ha'adama to shehakol? He suggests two answers - A. it's true that it's better but barley has an even better form if you make it into bread therefore it goes down to shehakol or because B. there's a difference between drinks and food. Even if it's better in the liquid form, if you drink it then you will always make shehakol (like Tosafos said on daf 38). When I first read the Tosafos on 39a that "yeish lechalek", I though that's what he meant as the chiluk between vegetable soup which is normally eaten and fruit juices which you normally drink. Tosafos holds that you always make a shehakol on drinks no matter what.

Why a "shehakol" on shesisa?

2005-04-07T12:54:00.000-04:00

I having trouble putting all the pieces together here, and hoping someone can help:
The gemarah on 38a tells that a thick shisisa mixture (flour from toasted kernels, then mixed with honey) is mazonos, but a thin mixture is shehakol. Initially, Rav Chisda explains that a thin mixture is made for medicine, and that's why it's shehakol. The gemara than asks from a mishna in shabbos, which says it's ok to mix (and ingest) a shisisa, which *shows* it must be food, not medicine. The gemara concludes: "mah is l'cha l'maymar - gavra l'achila kamichavain, hacha nami gavra l'achila kamichavain". Sounds like the gemara accepts that a thin mixture IS food. Then the gemara says "v'zricha d'rav, ... hacha kayvan d'lichatchila l'refuah kamichavayn...". Does the gemara mean it *is* food, but he intends it to work as medicine? If so,
that shouldn't change the bracha, should it? And why would the bracha be shahakol rather than mazonos? Tosfos (d"h v'ha tnan) says that the bracha is shehakol because it's a drink not a food; but where is that expressed in the gemara?

Why do we say Hamotzi?

2005-04-07T12:44:00.000-04:00

The gemara on daf 38a says that it's a machlokes between R' Nechemia and Rabonnon what bracha to make on bread. They both agree that it's ok to say motzi but only the Rabonnon say you can say hamotzi. Yet the gemara concludes that you should say hamotzi. Why?

1. Tosafos answers (quoting the Yerushalmi) that the advantage of hamotzi is to break up the mems. This way the lechem min won't run into each other because there is the hay in between. Tosafos then asks another what about lechem min. Why don't we do something there. He answers because it's a pasuk. I was thinking that even if you say lechemm in, people will know what you mean. It doesn't mean anything that way so it's obvious that it means lechem min. However if you say haolamm otzi. It will sound like you are saying "I will take break out from the ground" so it has a different meaning. Therefore Chazal was much more concerned about that.
2. The Ritva says (quoting the Reah) that the gemara doesn't mean that you have to say hamotzi. It just means that you can say either or and he therefore concludes that you are yotze if you say motzi (this doesn't really answer why the minhag is to say hamotzi l'chatchila).
3. The Ritva says (the answer he likes) that hamotzi is better because it implies past, present and future and grain is always coming out so this way we allude to that fact in the bracha. Motzi though does not imply future. He says that this is why we don't say Haborei pri haeitz - because fruit are seasonal not like grain and vegetables. He says haadama isn't Haborei just to be consistent. My only problem with this explanation is that the gemara seems to go out of its way to show that the Chachamim understand hamotzi to only be future and not past.

There are actually a lot of other explanations. I saw the Tzlach this morning but don't remember it well enough to write it up. Also I just googled and saw some other explanations. You can see Rav Kook's explanation here. Feel free to post other answers in the comments.

A Bracha When One Drinks Oil?

2005-04-06T23:05:00.000-04:00

On 35B, the gemara notes that the bracha made when one ingests oil is borei pri ha'etz. It then asks -- does one really drink oil -- uzukei mazik leih -- it is damaging; as Rashi puts it, since it damages the body, it is not an eating that requires a bracha. The gemara then goes on to cite a baraita on me'ila, which rules that one who drinks the oil of t'rumah need only replace it and is not obligated to pay the k'nas of a chomesh in constrast to one who uses the oil to anoint himself. As I understand it, this is because anointing was a proper use for oil, while drinking was not.

I am troubled by the connection between the question about drinking oil and the baraita. Once the gemara suggests that no bracha need be made when one drinks oil because it harms the body, what difference does it make as far as a bracha is concerned that drinking is not a proper use for the oil, thus exempting it from the rules of me'ila?

I have a suggestion that I believe resolves the question. When the gemara refers to uzukei mazik leih , perhaps it means not that the oil is the mazik, but rather that the one who has ingested it is a mazik, harming himself by using the oil in a manner in which it is not used. Then, the baraita that is cited follows logically -- one who ingests the oil of t'ruma and thereby does not use it in the fashion that it is normally used, is treated as a mazik and is not guilty of me'ila. See Rashi D"H Mshalem et Hakeren and D"H v'Ein Mshalem Chommesh. Thus, what the gemara is suggesting is that when one ingests harmful food, he is a mazik -- and we can hardly require a mazik to make a bracha on his destructive or harmful act.

Why is rice mezonos?

2005-04-06T11:44:00.000-04:00

The gemara in Brachos on daf 37 concludes that the bracha rishona on rice is mezonos and the bracha acharona is borei nefashos. The borei nefashos part I understand. We hold like the chachamim that it's not one of the five grains and only the five grains and the five fruits of the 7 minim get al hamichya/eitz. If it's not a grain then why do we say mezonos?

Tosafos and the Rif both say that rice is the only thing that is not one of the five grains on which we say mezonos. So the question is really on them. Rabeinu Yonah though argues and says that anything that fills you up and is a mazon. So according to him are there other things besides rice and dochen that you'd make mezonos on? It would seem to me that there should be.

I saw this discussed in an edited excerpt from Meoros (from a few years ago) which quotes HaRav Y. Y. Kanievsky zt'l, the Steipler who discusses why we don't make a mezonos on things made out of potatoes which could be quite filling.

In his opinion, even in the time of Chazal many foods existed such as corn flour that satisfied man's hunger, and nevertheless Chazal did not set a brocho of borei minei mezonos for them. Only on food that is particularly filling did Chazal set a brocho of borei minei mezonos.

They actually quote those who say that according to Rabeinu Yonah you would make mezonos on things made out of potatoes because it should be no different than rice. At least we can eat potatoes on Pesach!

Bracha on food

2005-04-04T16:39:00.000-04:00

Just a quick thought! The gemorah mentions that that anybody who gets benefit without making a bracha first its like he committed Meila. The concept is that its like somebody taking something without recognizing or thanking the owner first. If that is the case, if a person makes a bracha on food and doesnt finish it, why should he have to make another bracha? For example, if you eat Challah on Shabbos and dont finish it and want to make French Toast sunday morning with the leftovers, why would you have to make another bracha? You have already thanked Hashem for the food?