Beitzah 3b-4a.

1- We discussed the following concept: An item that we can eat because of bitul vs an item that we can eat because of ‘safek mi’deRabanan‘.

A- An egg which was born on Shabbos and Yom Tov cannot be eaten today.

Now this egg got mixed up with other permissible eggs. In theory it is batul and can be eaten today.

‘Davar Sheyesh Lo Matirin’ kicks in and we are told to wait until tomorrow, – for tomorrow it can be eaten without having to resort to bitul.

As Moshe pointed out – bitul is 99.99% but not 100%

Can we use the same logic  – [why eat it today utilizing bitul when tomorrow it can be eaten without the need for bitul] – when the issue is not bitul but ‘safek?

Why eat it today utilizing the leniency of ‘safek mi’deRabanan‘ when tomorrow there is no need for such leniency? For example:

B -An egg which is in doubt whether it was born on Shabbos or Yom Tov.

In theory it can be eaten today. (Assuming the reason for the prohibition of eating such eggs is only mi’deRabanan)

True – today it is a ‘safek‘ and not a problem [again- 99.99% or 100%]

But tomorrow it may be eaten without any issue.

It seems that the Gemara has two opinions on this query.

2- We spoke about the prohibition of ‘ein mevatlin issur lechatchila’. One is not allowed to add a large quantity of kosher food into treife food in order to be mevatel the treifa food.

This is an issue in Starbucks flavor pumps that are connected to various large bottles containing flavors.  Some flavors are not Kosher. The Kosher flavors end up occasionally in the bottles that previously contained non-Kosher flavors. But the residue of the non-Kosher flavor are batel to the large amount of Kosher syrup.

 

 

On the other hand it is performed unintentionally – and many times – by a goy.

3- Also discussed the common practice of food manufacturing companies which use actual food to kasher their production lines. After a run of non-Kosher food, a batch of Kosher food is run through the machines. This particular batch does not receive a Kosher stamp but the process itself Kashers the treif machinery! Subsequent product is certified “kosher”

4- We concluded with the piece of the Gemara that discusses the case of a chicken that is purchased ‘stam‘ – not particularly for the purpose of eating it (not muktzeh on Yom Tov) and also not for the purpose of using it for laying eggs (rendering it muktzeh on Yom Tov.)

Stam a chicken.

Now it lays an egg on Yom Tov. The Gemara suggests that the action of the the owner with the chicken will decide the fate of the egg, utilizing the unique principal of breirah: If he decides to eat the chicken then the egg will be permitted as well. If he decides to have the chicken lay eggs then she is muktzeh and so is the egg.

 

Beitzah 3b (2)

1- Our Beraisa states:  A Treifa egg that was mixed into a group of many Kosher eggs causes the entire mixture to be prohibited.

We are trying to figure why?

The general rule rule is that a non Kosher food item, when mixed into Kosher products is ‘Batul’, nullified.

There are a myriad of rules as to the precise ratio of Kosher to the non-Kosher one needs. But in general – the minority portion of non-Kosher is ‘batul’ and the entire mixture is permitted.

So why does this egg cause the mixture to be completely forbidden?

2- The Gemara attempts various answers. We tackled the first one:

Reb Meir states: An item which is sold by unit is considered important  – “chashuv”, and therefore not ‘Batul’. 

The Gemara discusses if it means: “only sold by unit” or “generally sold by unit”.

An egg, at least in the Gemara’s times, was usually sold by unit.

So if one assumes that an item that is “generally sold by unit” is not ‘batul’ this would answer why the Braisa states that  a treifa egg that was mixed into a group of many kosher eggs causes the entire mixture to be prohibited.

The halacha is that only 7 items are important enough for them not to be Batul an any mixture. See here.

3- Talking about the ratio of ‘Bitul’ we mentioned the various ratios:

Examples:

עבודה זרה ,יבש ביבש ,לח בלח/ מין בשאינו מינו, תרומה, כלאי הכרם and חמץ respectively.

 

Discussed letters between the Rebbe and his father regarding the number 1,000 and 10,000 mentioned in Tanya in regards to ‘Bitul’ of ‘evil’ in a צדיק שאינו גמור. The context of their correspondence is as to where one finds in Halacha these ratio numbers.

 

Chapter 10 (Chitas of next week Monday) from Chabad.org:

Now, this level — that of the “incomplete tzaddik” who “knows evil” — is subdivided into myriads of levels, consisting of [varying degrees in] the quality of the minute remaining evil [deriving] from [any] one of the four “evil elements” of which the animal soul is composed (see ch. 1).

The Alter Rebbe will now describe (as it were) a quantitative subdivision, depending on the degree to which the evil loses its identity within the good. In one tzaddik the vestigial evil may be such that the proportion of good to evil could be described as 60:1; the evil in another tzaddik may be more minute, so that it is overwhelmed by a proportion of good that is 1000:1; and so on.

Yet, to borrow a term from the law concerning non-kosher foodstuffs, where in certain cases of error the rule is that even a preponderance of 60 parts (kosher) to 1 (non-kosher) is sufficient to render the entire mixture kosher (since the non-kosher food is no longer capable of tainting the mixture with its flavor), we may likewise say in our case that a preponderance of good over evil to the degree of 60:1 is also capable of preventing the expression and perception of the remaining evil.

In the Alter Rebbe’s words:

ובענין ביטולו במיעוטו     [The subdivision] also takes into account the degree to which [the remaining evil] is nullified [in the good] because of its minuteness,

בששים על דרך משל, או באלף ורבבה וכיוצא, על דרך משל

whether in sixty [times as much good], for example, or in a thousand, or ten thousand, and so on.

See here the Rebbe’s own notes on this.

4- We mentioned the question posed by the famous Reb Menachem Mendel Kruchmel – the ‘original’ Tzemach Tzedek.

He is known for his many rulings among them a ruling pertaining to ‘one man one vote’ in community matters. This was in response to the wealthy and learned individuals who complained that their tax payments were considerably higher than the poor people and thus should have more than than one vote each. A true believer in democracy! 

Also mentioned is his ruling obligating the relatives of a murdered person R”L to pursue the murderer legally in the local court system. This he explains is part of the Mitzva of ‘Goel HaDom’ and applies to a Jewish murderer and of course also to a non-Jew.

Now to the crux of our discussion – the concept, which is a topic discussed by many great scholars thru-out the generations, is an interesting one. Tzemach Tzedek # 68.

Here it is.

A- An egg hatched on Shabbos or Yom Tov is prohibited. (Beis Hillel in our Mishna 2a)

If this egg gets mixed up with other eggs the entire mixture is prohibited. Why – see last weeks shiur. In short because it is  a דבר שיש לו מתירין- one can eat the egg on Sunday with no ‘Bitul’.

B-  An egg from a treifa bird is prohibited.

If this egg gets mixed up with other eggs the entire mixture is permitted.

So what happens if A and B happens to one egg? A farmer enters his coop on Yom Tov morning and collects all the eggs that were recently hatched into one basket. He then realizes that one of his chickens has a nail sticking out of its stomach rendering it and its egg treif.

If this were to occur on a weekday then the entire basket would be permitted because the treifa egg is nullified. But on Yom Tov this teirfa egg has, in addition to the treif problem, the issue of ביצה שנולדה ביו”ט!

So the issue of treif is ‘Batel’ today. But the issue of Yom Tov is not!

So telling someone to wait until Sunday to eat it without Bitul (for the Yom Tov problem)  is in a sense incorrect because we will still need Bitul for the treifa problem. So why not eat it today?

On the other had, (and so writes the Tzemach Tzedek and others) one can argue to split the two problems. Namely- what is Batul today (treif) cannot eliminate the Yom Tov issue which will be resolved on Sunday without Bitul.

5- We spoke briefly of the brilliant proof by Reb Akiva Eiger from chametz on Pesach. See here. # 65.

 

 

Beitza 3b

1-    We leaned the Beraisa with the 3 points:

• a) An egg hatched on Yom Tov or Shabbos is Muktzah.
• b) If we are in doubt if it was hatched on Yom Tov or Shabbos is still Muktzah.
• c) If this egg got mixed up with other eggs the entire mixture becomes Muktzah.

Point b above can only be understood if the prohibition of eating an egg hatched on Yom Tov or Shabbos is Min Hatorah. [This is indeed the opinion of (hachana of) Raba 2b] Thus, all ‘doubts’ [safek] are ‘lechumra –  ספק דאורייתא לחומרא.

On the other hand if eating the egg is only a ‘d’Rabannan’ [Rav Nachman, Rav Yosef & Rav Yitzchak] then why would an egg that is only a ‘safek’ if it was hatched on Yom Tov or Shabbos be prohibited? All ‘sefeikos’ of ‘deRabonon’ are ruled leniently  ספק דרבנן לקולא.

 

2-    The Gemara suggest that the ‘safek’ in point b is [not whether it was hatched on Yom Tov or Shabbos, but]  whether the egg came from a kosher or non-kosher fowl

.

3-    So then point c becomes problematic. Why would such an egg not be ‘batel’ when mixed in with other eggs.

4-    Introduction of the concept of “DAVAR SHE’YESH LO MATIRIN” דבר שיש לו מתירין.

The Gemara states that an egg laid on Yom Tov is a “Davar she’Yesh Lo Matirin,” an item that eventually will become permitted, and therefore if it was mixed with any number of normal, permitted eggs, the entire mixture is prohibited. The Gemara concludes that a “Davar she’Yesh Lo Matirin” does not become nullified in a mixture even if it is only an Isur d’Rabanan which became mixed with permitted items (such as in our case of an egg laid on Yom Tov).

Furthermore, even if the item is a Safek Isur d’Rabanan (such as when it is not known whether the egg was laid today, on Yom Tov, or whether it was laid on a weekday, before Yom Tov), it is not permitted if it is a “Davar she’Yesh Lo Matirin.” The normal principle of “Safek d’Rabanan l’Kula” does not apply to permit the item.

What is the logic behind the Rabanan’s enactment to prohibit a “Davar she’Yesh Lo Matirin”?

RASHI explains that since one will be able to eat the item when it becomes permitted (after Yom Tov), he should not rely on Bitul or on the principle of “Safek d’Rabanan l’Kula” in order to eat it on Yom Tov.

We mentioned the brilliant explanation of the Ran on this.

The Ran in Nedarim (52a) explains that the reason why, normally, an item of Isur becomes annulled in a mixture with items of Heter is because when opposites combine they contrast against each other and annul (whichever one is the majority is Mevatel the one which is the minority). This is the mechanism behind the concept of Bitul. When like items combine they cannot be Mevatel each other because there is no contrast.

Normally, when an item of Isur becomes mixed with Heter, one annuls the other. Even though the two items are the same type of food, they contrast because one is Asur and one is Mutar, and thus they are considered opposites. However, if an item is Asur now and will become Mutar later, it cannot become annulled when it falls into Heter because there is not enough opposition; it is as if the item of Isur (which will become Mutar later) is Mutar right now.

“דהיינו טעמא משום דמין במינו לא בטיל לפי שכל דבר שהוא דומה לחבירו אינו מחלישו ומבטלו אלא מעמידו ומחזקו ”

5-    We spoke about the story that occurred at a Shabbos sheva brochos that some of the chairs were Muktzah as a result of the lighting candles on them. The next morning these few chairs reappeared in the dinning mixed in with the other chairs.

The question was raised if any of the chairs at all were permitted to be used. Arguments pro and con were presented.

Pro: the Muktzeh chairs were a minority. Thus they were ‘batel’ to the large amount of the unproblematic chairs.

Con: The prohibition of the chairs – Muktzah – are only temporary. The ‘issur dissipates after the close of Shabbos! Therefore the principal of “Davar she’Yesh Lo Matirin,” kicks in and there is no ‘bitul’.

Pro: The Noda Biyehuda’s logic: “Davar she’Yesh Lo Matirin,” is only on items that can be used only once. Like food. So the logic is that why eat it with ‘bitul’ when you can eat it tomorrow without ‘bitul’.

On the other hand if it is an item that can be used over and over again (like chairs) then the fact that it can be used tomorrow without ‘bitul’ should not hold us back from using it today. Since it is a multi-use item then each use is individual.

וספק דרבנן בדבר שיש לו מתירין

Some in our shiur didn’t like this logic.

6-    Mentioned the issue of the kashrus of milk cows. Mendel Nemenov referred us to this link: https://oukosher.org/blog/consumer-kosher/milk-from-a-possibly-treif-cow/

7-    Mentioned last week the ‘proof’ from Megilas Esther that an institution (a mosad) is never closed……

 

 

 

Beitza 2b-3a.

1- We continue with answers #3 and #4.

 

The question: Why is an egg hatched on Yom Tov permissible to eat according to Beis Shamai and prohibited according to Beis Hillel.

The premise is that if one may Shecht the chicken (which is permissible on Yom Tov provided that one had the intention to do so before Yom Tov) then the egg should also be permitted.

Conversely if the chicken cannot be used (since it is an egg-laying chicken, and not intended to be shechted on yom tov, and therefore cannot be shechted on Yom Tov) then the egg is also Muktzeh/Nolad.

Answer #3- Rav Yosef: Picking a fruit (and harvesting in general) is prohibited on Yom Tov. (see below as to why). The Chachamim enacted a ‘Gezeira’ that prohibits a fruit that fell off of a tree as well.

When they enacted this ‘Gezeira’ they included a newly hatched egg as well. Thus the prohibition of Beis Hillel in our Mishna.

Answer #4 – Rav Yitzchak: Squeezing juice out of a fruit is prohibited on Yom Tov. (see below as to why). The Chachamim enacted a ‘Gezeira’ that prohibits a juice that flowed out of a fruit on it own as well.

When they enacted this ‘Gezeira’ they included a newly hatched egg as well. Thus the prohibition of Beis Hillel in our Mishna.

2- Underlying logic and difference between the two answers above: 

A hatched egg is more like a fruit because it is solid –  unlike juice which is liquid.

On the other hand an egg is more like juice since it is not visible until hatched, like juice which remains unseen until the fruit is squeezed – unlike fruit itself which is visible on the tree prior to picking.

Jabuticaba – The Tree that Fruits on its Trunk

3- We discussed at length the basic premise of work allowed on Yom Tov for the purpose preparing food.

The Torah prohibits all work on Yom Tov. All 39 Melachos just like Shabbos. But then it allows ‘all work that pertains to the preparation of food’. 

is all work permitted? All 39 Melachos? No. Some are indeed not allowed on Yom Tov; like picking fruit of fishing.

Why? So here is a fundamental argument in regard to the Halachos of Yom Tov:

A- Tosfos and many others are of the opinion that the Torah hinted as to what is permitted on Yom Tov.

In the adjoining verse permitting food related work אך אשר יאכל לכל-נפש הוא לבדו יעשה לכם [‘all work that pertains to the preparation of food’]  then it states ושמרתם את-המצות ‘ and also watch the Matzos’ so it should not become chametz.

 

When does the watching the Matzos begin?

Way before this!

Obviously not before the harvesting. The first opportunity for chometz in Matzos is after the harvesting the wheat.

So the Torah is hinting that only work that starts after harvesting is permitted. So kneading and baking is OK. Harvesting, picking fruit, threshing and the similar is not.

This picture was not taken on Yom Tov.

B- Other Rishonim (Rambam and others) disagree. In their opinion min Hatorah, every type of work is permitted.

It is only a Rabbinic decree that limits the work permitted on Yom Tov.  And the parameters of the type of work/melacha allowed in the preparation of food is only work that is performed for, say, one meal at a time, like cooking. As opposed to harvesting which is usually done with an entire field. Another example is milling of flour which is performed on tons of grains at a time.

The rationale is that if such work would be permitted then people would delay these time consuming jobs for a day when one is of from work…Yom Tov! And that would inevitably reduce Simchas Yom Tov.

See here  and here the Alter Rebbe that accepts this latter opinion.

4- We mentioned the Chasam Sofer that brilliantly reconciles the Gemara and Midrash regarding the ‘Mon‘ falling on Yom Tov.

A Freilichen Chanukah!

 

 

 

 

 

Beitza 2b-3a.

1-Our Gemara gives four answer on the question of why an egg hatched on Yom Tov is permissible to eat according to Beis Shamai and prohibited according to Beis Hillel.

The question: The premise is that if one may Shecht the chicken (which is permissible on Yom Tov provided that one had the intention to do so before Yom Tov) then the egg should also be permitted. Conversely if the chicken cannot be used (since it is an egg-laying chicken, and not intended to be shechted on yom tov, and therefore cannot be shechted on Yom Tov) then the egg is also Muktzeh/Nolad.

 

Answer #2.  “HACHANAH D’RABAH” – RABAH’S PRINCIPLE OF “HACHANAH”

Rabah’s novel explanation is that our Mishna is talking about a Yom Tov which occurs on a Sunday. Therefore

• an egg laid on Yom Tov is forbidden  (according to Beis Hillel in the Mishnah) because of “Hachanah,”.
•  The preparation for Shabbos or Yom Tov can only be done on a weekday.

The formation of an egg is completed one day before it is laid. So when Yom Tov immediately follows Shabbos, an egg laid on Yom Tov was completed on Shabbos. Since it is forbidden to use an object which was prepared on Shabbos for Yom Tov, the egg may not be used on Yom Tov.

Rabbah’s basis is from the Pesukim that describe the double portion of ‘Mon‘ which fell on Friday and the instructions that all food related work should be prepared ‘only on a weekday’.

2- Tosfos raises the issue whether or not the ‘Mon‘ fell on a Yom Tov. From our Gemara and Rashi it would seem that the ‘Mon’ did not fall on Yom Tov.

If it did not, we must say that a double portion fell on very ‘Erev Yom Tov’. Tosfos quotes other sources that say that the ‘Mon‘ did indeed fall on Yom Tov.

Please see interesting discussion here with special thanks to Berel Malachovsky

We mentioned the Rebbe’s explanation about this topic.

3- We spoke about the various Minhagim as to the position of the two challos that we place on the Shabbos and Yom Tov table in commemoration of the double portion of the ‘Mon’.

According to ‘Nigleh’ the two challos are placed one on top of the other. After the Brocho we cut the top one because it is closer to the cutter and one should not ‘pass over a Mitzvah’. (Ein ma’avirin al hamitzvah). (Some say that on Friday night one should cut the bottom challah. See here in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch on how to accomplish this without ‘passing over a Mitzvah’.)

According to Nistor/Chassidus the challos need to be placed side by side with the backs or bottom of the challos touching each other. See here the explanation to this.

Our Minhog is to always place them side by side except that Friday night we place the right one just slightly above the left one.

4- We spoke about the famous query of the Chasam Sofer as to why a goy is allowed to eat eggs!

 

Is not an egg ‘eiver min hachai’??!

The fact that a Jew is permitted to eat eggs is because of a special ‘limud’ which does not apply to a goy.

 

Shiur 11/09/15

Beitza 2a-b.

Our Gemara gives four answer on the basic question of why an egg hatched on Yom Tov is permissible to eat according to Beis Shammai and prohibited according to Beis Hillel.

The question: The premise is that if one can Shecht the chicken (which is permissible on Yom Tov if it was planned) the egg should also be permitted. Conversly if the chicken cannot be used (because it is designated only for laying eggs, and so cannot be shechted on yom tov) then the egg is also Muktzeh/Nolad.

Answer #1- Rav Nachman’s reasoning is that the the argument of B”S and B”H is whether or not there exists the concept of Muktzeh on Shabbos and Yom Tov.  In other words if the Chachomim did indeed enact many of the laws of Muktzeh to begin with. (Albeit all do agree to that some extent laws of Muktzeh do indeed exist).

So our Mishna is talking about an egg-laying chicken, which is Muktzeh. And the egg it has hatched on Yom Tov is also Muktzeh. Thus the prohibition of B”H. On the other hand according to B”S there are no laws of Muktzeh thus the chicken and the egg are permissible.

Answer 2-4 next Shiur IY”H.

2- we spoke about the three reason for enactment of the laws of Muktzeh. One is that people should not move around heavy furniture or rocks (phermitted Min-Hatorah) and desecrating the spirit of Shabbos and Yom Tov.

Precise Copy of Aron Kodesh in Beitar Ilit

When they expanded 770, (phase two) this question came into play as the Mizrach wall was demolished right before Shabbos and the moving of the Aron Kodesh was possible only after the Zman.

‎3- The Gemara burrows into the concept of ‘Machlokes v’acher kach stam’.

4- The Gemara quotes a Mishnah  concerning  remnants of a meal such as ‘shells and bones on top of a board’ – Tavlah –

The term ‘room and board’.  We mentioned the meaning of this ‘board’ which was the common way to eat prior to using plates. Steak on a board with gravy ridge.

In the Misnagdishe dry Kentucky counties – still under prohibition, only serve club members, in a club room in back of restaurants

We mentioned what was heard from the Shliach of Nepal R’ Chezky Lifshitz, because of political sparring with India which supplies resources to Nepal,  60 days have passed with no cooking gas, and no gasoline, resulting in very few cars on the road. The Chabad house cooks with wood. Imagine if this was done to Gaza…

5- Fundamental concept of ‘Koche deHetaira Adif’. Meaning that when answering a Halachik problem it is preferable to rule leniently.

Anyone can rule and be Machmir!   Rashi – “shehakol yecholin l’hachmir”.

On the other hand a lenient ruling is based on knowledge and experience.

Much has been written on the above concept. Many quote an incident mentioned in the Yerushalmi, about R Shmuel telling  R Nachman who claimed to be an expert on fish filet, “people that say treif on kosher will eventually…”

6- Story of my father:  At that time, those learning for smicha went to the lower East Side to the beis din shtiebel, near to the meat market where people would come with shaalos on their shechted chickens all day. The Rav would ask the bochurim to rule. When an old lady came in with a fleishig spoon which she had used for ice cream, the bochurim said – cold spoon and food, no problem. However, the Rav instructed the woman to go kasher the spoon.

When the boys questioned his ruling, the Rav, turned to the lady and asked what she did once she realized her mistake with the spoon, she replied “I washed it with hot water of course!”…

7-Heard from Reb Boruch Kievman – In the midbar, all had enough to eat; Man galore for all… So for the entire 40 years, how did one fulfill the mitzvah of feeding the poor?

For Tzaddikim, their Man fell at their doorsteps,  but the Man fell farther away for a not-so-holy person, so he would have to go out and gather his Man.

But the poor Rosh Yeshiva who by nacht hat gezindikt, would be too embarrassed to go and collect his Man, would remain indoors and go hungry…

 

 

Thanks to Eli Chitrik.

 

Beitzah 2a.

 

1. We spoke about the name of our Mesechta.
2. 

In the early Rabbinic writings this tractate is also known as tractate “Yom Tov” for it discusses the laws specific to Yom Tov.

The Yam Shel Shlomo writes (quoted by the Magen Avraham 156,2. The A”R omits it!) that one should not call this mesechta “Beitza” rather you should call it “Bei’a” which is the Aramaic word specifically for a chicken egg.

​2. When Reb Yonoshon Eibshitz’s father brought him for the first time to Yeshiva he was shocked that they were teaching Mesechtas Beiah which is a relatively easy tractate.

Reb Yonoshon turned to his father and humorously told his father that just like there are many ways to cook and egg, hard, soft, etc.. So too this Mesechta can be learned in a hard/deep or easy/superficial way too. “It all depends on how it is prepared and served……

 

3. We spoke about the seemingly different ‘editors’ of the individual Mesechtos of Sha”s.

For example: The language and grammar of Nedarim and Nazir are quite distinct from the rest of Sha”s.

The Rosh often makes note of this in his commentary. For example, on 19b, he writes “Shitas Nazir meshuneh.” “Nazir is “different'” We find the same phenomenon in regard to Tractate Nedarim.

4- In passing we mentioned the fact that the tractates of Nedorim and Nozir do not have an authentic commentary of Rashi. In regard to Nedarim, it is almost universally accepted that the commentary printed with the Vilna Shas and labeled as Rashi was not written by Rashi. What is printed on the side is from another Rishon.

Reb J. B  Soloveitchik, has an interesting and novel thought about this:

https://www.ou.org/oupress/product/the-koren-mesorat-harav-kinot/  Page 434

On Tishah B’Av when many Kinnos are recited, one particular [Kinnah 22] was written in response to the massacre of Jewish communities during the Crusades in Germany at the end of the eleventh century.  Many eminent scholars and Tosafists were killed in those attacks.

The Kinnah laments:

“Happiness has ceased and joy is gone … cut down are my heroes….

Torah, Torah wrap yourself in sackcloth. 

Who will now interpret the Nazirite vows and who will arrange the laws of oaths?”

The second half of the rhetorical question is readily understandable. The author is lamenting that there aren’t scholars left of great enough caliber to decide matters pertaining to vows (Nedorim). However, what was the intent in the first half of the question (Nazir)?

‘JB’ offered a novel interpretation of this verse in the kinnah: He said that since Rashi’s commentary for Nedorim and Nazir never reached us, it was left to the Tosafists to have assumed Rashi’s traditional role and interpret the text of these two Mesechtos.

Since the German Tosafists were killed, we are left without the analysis that they normally would have provided.

So the author of Kinna 22 is lamenting that there is no one left to explain Tractates Nedarim and Nazir. The student of the Talmud needs a replacement for Rashi for these two tractates. Sadly, the author laments after the massacres that there is no one left of the caliber to write a similar commentary.

5- We began tackling the concept of Muktza on Shabbos and Yom Tov.

​6. In connection with all the guest arriving for the Kinus we related the following story.

Briefly:

The Gemara in Pesachim states: Kol ma she’baal habyis omer lecho ase, chutz m’tze.  “A person must listen to whatever his host instructs him, except if he orders him to leave!”

 

What is the meaning of this? If the host wants you out then you stay put??

The Maharsha explains it to mean that one can refuse to go shopping in the market for his host if requested.

The Sfas Emes explains that the last few words “except if he orders him to leave” were inserted at a later date to remind people of the story with Kamtza and Bar Kamtza and the bitter consequences of a host kicking out a guest. Even if uninvited.

So the story is told of the Gerer Rebbe the Imrei Emes​ when he first came to Eretz Yisrael he went to visit Rav Kook who was the chief rabbi at the time .

Rav Kook greeted the Gerer Rebbe and insisted that he sit in his chair at the head of the table, which the Rebbe refused to do.

Rav Kook quoted the Gemara that says that whatever the Baal Habyis tells to his guest he must do, except to leave. Therefore since he is the Baal Habayis the Rebbe must comply and sit at the head table.

The Gerer Rebbe explained to Rav Kook that the meaning of the the Gemara is perhaps a bit different.

The Mishnah states that there are three things that can drive a person out of the world “Jealousy, desire of mundane matters and pursuit of honor”.

‘Kinah, Ta’avo and Kovod motzi’yin es ho’odom min ho’olam’.

This is what the Gemara meant to say: You should do everything that the Baal Habyis says. Except things that make you leave this world. Chutz m’tze.

Now, concluded the Rebbe, I have a big Ta’avo to sit on your chair……and therefore I don’t have to comply with your wishes……

7- We mentioned a humorous quip from an old Chosid, Reb Aharon Yoseph Belinitzki. (He was the son of the famed Reb Yisroel Noach who learned in Lubavitch and who lived to a ripe old age in the Yeshiva in Brunoy, France).

“It is quite common for many to ‘dream’ in middle of Davning, mumble along……and upon ‘waking up’ finding yourself way ahead in the Davning….”

Now he would ask the Bachurim: “If someone started Davning, dreams away and finds himself mumbling ‘Aleinu Le’shabei’ach’…. what part of Davening did he definitely NOT say?”……

“Answer: The ‘Shir Shel Yom‘. The specific Perek of Tehillim for the individual day of the week.

Because while dreaming/Davning one surely did not say all seven“……

This part of Shacharis requires the minimum concentration…..

Makos 24 a-b. Siyum Makkos

Well, we rushed to the finish line…. and made a Siyum.

Many thanks to all who organized and participated.

We spoke about the sushi served and discussed if nowadays when:

a- eating raw fish is acceptable, and

b- it being a ‘common’ and  “non fancy” dish

(the 2 requisites to label a food requiring Bishul Yisroel)

did the Halocha change and all cooked fish not need Bishul Yisroel?

Makos 24 a-b.

Here are just a few short notes.

1- 613, 11, 6, 3 and 1.

2- We mentioned the “Droshos Horan” who explains that the idea of the decreasing numbers of ‘fundamental’ Mitzvos was due to the Torah never elaborating which of the 613 were more important thus causing a bit of slack in all of them. So it was consolidated into 11.

But the 11 were also left without a sufficient scale of importance. Etc.

Here is the front page of the Venice edition in 1596. 

3- The Alter Rebbe’s explanation of Chabkuk’s ultimate “one”.

וזהו שאמרו רז״ל: תרי״ג מצות ניתנו לישראל, בא חבקוק והעמידן על אחת, שנאמר: וצדיק באמונתו יחיה

This is [the meaning of] what our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said:⁶ “Six hundred and thirteen mitzvot were given to Israel;… came Habakkuk and based them all on a single one – faith as it is written:⁷ ‘a tzaddik lives by his faith.'”

כלומר: כאלו אינם רק מצוה אחת, היא האמונה לבדה, כי על ידי האמונה לבדה יבא לקיום כל התרי״ג מצות

This means, it is as if they — all the mitzvot — consisted of this one mitzvah of faith alone, for through faith alone one will come to fulfill all the 613 mitzvot.

דהיינו, כשיהיה לבו שש ושמח באמונתו ביחוד ה׳ בתכלית השמחה, כאילו לא היתה עליו רק מצוה זו לבדה, והיא לבדה תכלית בריאתו ובריאת כל העולמות

That is, when his heart will rejoice and be glad with his faith in G‑d’s unity, in perfect joy, as though he were obligated by just this one mitzvah, and it alone were the purpose for which he and all the worlds were created — surely, if there were but one such mitzvah for him to do, he would fulfill it with utmost joy.

הרי בכח וחיות נפשו בשמחה רבה זו תתעלה נפשו למעלה מעלה על כל המונעים קיום כל התרי”ג מצות, מבית ומחוץ

Let him thus rejoice in the mitzvah of faith, and by the power and vitality of his soul [generated] from this great joy, his soul will soar far above all obstacles hindering his fulfillment of all the 613 mitzvot; both [obstacles] from within —from one’s animal soul, and from without — arising from one’s environment.

Being thus imbued with the awareness of G‑d’s true unity, he will be able to overcome any obstacle hindering him from carrying out the mitzvot. For how can anything stand in the path of G‑d’s Will — the mitzvot, when there is nothing in the world apart from G‑d

4- The opinions about collecting interest from an idolater. From a Rabbinic prohibition to a …. Mitzva as is the opinion of the Alter Rebbe. Par 75.

5- Synopsis of the Siyum by the Rebbe on Makos.

6- We spoke about Reb Yirmiyo and his ‘interesting’ questions that cause him to be ousted out of the Beis Medrash……

Mentioned briefly the Rebbe’s phenomenal explanation on this. See here page 66.   Thanks to Reb Sholom Mordechai Halevi Rubashkin for bringing this to our attention.

Che’irus Amiti NOW!

 

Will now roll into mesechte Bei’ah be”H…….☺

 

 

Makos 23b-24a

Three points from last week.

1- We spoke about the miraculous occurrences of Bas Kol and prophecies and how they cannot be used to prove or sway a Halachik decision.

Humorously, we related the story of Boaz  as it throws some light on the above.

Not this Boaz…

To start – some sources say he lived to the ripe old age of 400!

Just pior to his passing he married Rus (Ruth). Now, marrying this convert was very controversial at the time since her pedigree was from the nation of Moav.

The Torah explicitly prohibits a Jewish woman from marrying a male Moavi.

Ruth Meets Boaz, Poussin, Nicolas 1594-1665, France  – (also known in Brooklyn as Nicky the Fish)

Now as to whether a Jewish man may marry a Moavi woman convert was a point of fierce argument for many generations.

Boaz was of the opinion that one is indeed permitted to marry a Moavit. And he did exactly so! He married Rus.

Many at the time objected since in their opinion that the Halacha forbids such a marriage.  Others voiced their opinion that the Halacha was not yet settled at that time so why get involved in a unsettled issue.

Factually, even a hundred years after this famous marriage, no less that Dovid Hamelech – a descendant of Boaz and Rus,  had to counter those who considered him a “posul” Jew because of his ‘tainted’ linage to the ‘illegitimate’ marriage of Boaz and Rus.

See Yevamos 76a how David Hamelech suffered from this issue.

Eventually the Sanhedrin decided once and for all that a male Jew may marry a Moavi or Amoni woman convert.

Back to Boaz: The story goes that this great 400-year-old Tzadik passed away the day after his controversial marriage.

Would not common logic come to the conclusion that Boaz erred in marrying a Moavit? A great Tzadik who had the zechus to outlive many others dies immediately following his taking a particular side in an ongoing Machlokes? Doesn’t the timing seem odd?

Is that not proof enough that the Halacha is that one is not permitted to marry a Moavit as he did?

The answer is…no. Despite this peculiar phenomenon, it was not a ‘sign from Heaven’ trying to sway the Halacha.

In conclusion – despite the eerie timing of his death the Halocho is that Boaz did nothing wrong. 

So proof from ‘happenings’, even if they blatantly ‘prove’ and ‘decide’ the issue bear no weight in Halachik decisions.

We mentioned that an analogy to this would be if on the first Shabbos after the completion of the contentious Eiruv in Boro Park, one of the ‘lechis’ (poles) would come crashing down on the Rov that initiated the Eiruv……..

2- Also mentioned last week is the Gemara  (BB 75a) relating the  ‘argument’ between the two angels

as to what type of precious stone the 3rd Bais Hamikdosh will be built from. G-D hears both sides and declares: It will be made of both types stones.

Yoshfe and Shoham – Hashem said let it be both, which is written להוי
כדין וכדין, so that became כדכד, Kadkod. See here a very interesting Mamor from the Alter Rebbe explaining this wondrous Machlokes and the ‘halacha’.

3- Regarding as to why the rule established by Ezra to use G-d’s name when greeting people is not mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch or elsewhere.  The Chido writes that it got out of hand so it was abolished, just as the Minhag to use G-D’s name when sanctifying an animal was misused and abolished.

Now to this week’s Gemara. 

4- Makos 23b. The 3 times a ‘Ru’ach Hakodesh made an appearance in a Beis Din’:

1- Yehuda. (story with Tamar confirming that he was the father)

2 -Shmuel Hanavi. (To prove his honesty)

3 -Shlomo Hamelech. (confirming his decision in the case of the two women fighting for the surviving baby).

About case #3 we mentioned:

The Medrash that explains the story in a fascinating way. The two women were a mother-in-law and her daughter-in-law. The rest is history…

The joke of the ‘chosen‘, having been promised to two different families by his absent minded Rosh Yeshiva, arrives in the city to meet his future ‘kalah’  and is met by two warring ‘shvigers’……. He is is mine. No, he is mine……

 

The Rov rules that the ‘chosen‘ should be cut in half and divided between the two.

When one of the ‘shvigers‘ screams out: “Yes! cut him in half….” The Rav proclaims that she is indeed the true shviger……
5- We spoke about the popular English edition of the Talmud and their ‘misnagdish’ bent on things.

Our Mishna states “Rabbi Chananya ben Akashia says that Hashem wanted  to give Israel merit therefore He gave them Torah and Mitzvos in abundance as it is written ….”

The word merit here is translated from the Hebrew work ‘Le’zakos‘.

In this popular translation they note : ‘A novel explanation by the Meshech Chochma that Lezakos means to purify ‘. (please check actual wording there).  See here his bio.  He was the Misnagdishe Rov in Dvinsk.

It happens to be that this explanation of “Lezakos” to mean purify or to refine (In Yiddish: ois edelen) was already mentioned by the Mezritcher Magid! See here footnote 35.

[One can understand their deficiency of Chassidic works (or perhaps intentional omission…) but one is amazed by their lack of knowledge of Misnagdishe sources. For this explanation of “Lezakos” to mean purify is mentioned in the most classical of Misnagdishe book- the – the Nefesh Chaim (Thanks to Peretz Mochkin – Montreal – ed.) printed 100 years prior to the  Meshech Chochma!]

6- Our Gemara: “Said Rabi Simlo’yee – There are 613 mitzvos . 248 positive corresponding to the 248 “eivorim’ and 365 negative corresponding to the 365 days of the lunar calendar.”

Mentioned the various ‘613 Mitzvah counters’ such as the Beha”g, Reb Sa’adia Gaon, Rambam etc. See here. The Ramban writes that the number 613 was universally accepted.

7-We spoke about the 248 ‘eivorim’, enumerated in the Mishnah in Oholos 1,8. Much has been written about this number and how to reconcile it with modern day pathology. See Tiferes Yisroel there. And here.

In any case, these 248 ‘eivorim’ are only of parts of the human body that contain a bone. So it excludes the heart, lungs and kidneys. Et al.

So why when we make a Mi Sheberach for someone that is ill we limit it to only 248 ‘eivorim’ and not ‘to all his ‘eivorim’ that would include everything?

After a bit of searching one finds that this question has already been raised . See here footnote 73. and here footnote 5.

8- We are looking for a source that enumerates the 365 ‘gidin’. Translated nowadays as: veins, sinews and.or muscles. (if it does include muscles then the question above #6 is answered).

9- Our Gemara: From these 613 we heard 2 directly from G-D the 611 from Moshe Rabeinu.

We discussed the argument between the Rambam and the Ramban. The Rambam’s opinion is that the second one (You shall not believe in another god, do not make an image, do not bow to them  and do not worship them) is actually 4 distinct negative commandants. The Ramban takes issue with this as our Gemore seems to say that the first two commandments correspond to only two Mitzvos.

10- We spoke about the the opinion of the Beha”g who does not count the belief in G-D as one of the 613.

His reasoning is that it is the basis for all other Mitzvos.

Mentioned the thorough explanation on this topic by the Rebbe the Tzemach Tzedek.

FIN

 

 

 

 

 

 

Makos 23b

1- The Gemara deliberates the case of one who transgresses a sin that results in both Kares and Makos,  whether or not the Kares is forgiven after he received Makos.

Now, Kares is something between a man and his Maker. So whether or not he is forgiven is something not to be decided by humans!

Humans can discuss and argue the logic of either way but a decision must be made by G-D himself. There is no Bais Din decision involved.

Nevertheless at the conclusion Rav says: “The Halacha is that he is forgiven”. 

So Rav Yosef asks a very interesting question to Rav. “Who has ascended to heaven and returned with the decision”. 

2- We spoke about the numerous places in Sha”s where a ruling is issued about something that has no relevance today and the Gemara asks “Hilchiso le’Meshicha?!” Meaning, why rule and decide in a machlokes as to who is right when the practical application will only come into play when Moshiach arrives.

Tosfos take issue as to why the Gemara does occasionally ask this and sometime not.

3- We discussed the concept of “Tora lo Bashomayim”.

that prophecy, dreams and even the appearance of Eliyahu Hanavi are inadmissible to the Halachic process.

Here is the famous case of Rabba Bar Nachmeini (B”M 86a.)

The story concerns a question of tzara’at judged by Rabba bar Nachmeini: In the Heavenly Academy they were arguing: If the bright spot precedes the white hair, it is tamei; and if the white hair precedes the bright spot, it is tahor. If it is doubtful [which came first], the Holy One Blessed be He says it is tahor, and the entire Heavenly Academy says it is tamei. They asked, “Who shall decide? – Let Rabbah bar Nachmeini decide, who said, ‘I am peerless in the laws of Plagues and Tent-tumah.’” They sent a messenger out for him, but the angel of death could not touch him, because his mouth never ceased from its learning. Meanwhile, the wind blew among the reeds, and Rabbah bar Nachmeini thought it was a legion of mounted soldiers looking for him [he was a fugitive from the government]. He said, “Let me die at the hands of the angel of death rather than be delivered into the hand of the government.” At the time of his death he said, “Tahor, tahor!” A divine voice went forth and said, “Fortunate are you, Rabbah bar-Nachmani, for your body is tahor and your soul departed with ‘tahor.’” Despite all this, surprisingly the law follows the earthly majority! (Nega’im 4:11 and Rambam). See here a lengthy Mamor of the Alter Rebbe on this topic. The reasoning for the Rambam’s ruling is at the end. 4-We discussed one of the answer of the Kesef Mishna as to why the Rambam sides not with G-D…. and rules against “Him” and Raba bar Nachmeini. His answer: This story occurred in a forest with no one present. So how do we know it happened?   The only way we have a record of this ruling is that somehow this fascinating story and the conclusion of Rabba Bar Nachmani ruling in G-D’s favor was revealed to us via Ruach Hakodesh or through Eliyahu Hanavi. So the actual ruling of Raba Bar Nachmeini is known not through normal channels of Halacha but rather through a spiritual or miraculous method. We therefore cannot rely on this story.   5- We mentioned the Chasam Sofer who disagrees with the Kesef Mishna on this point. In short: If there was deliberation in the Sanhedrin about a vexing Halachik problem and a conclusion was reached in Yerushalayim but we in the USA have yet to hear about is. But in walks in Eliyahu Hanavi and tells us about the decision reached in Yerushalayim. Can we rely on him? Is accepting his testimony contrary to the concept of Torah Lo Bashmayim – since he is not a human bona fide witness? Absolutely says the Chasam Sofer. Why? Because we are not deciding the actually Halacha as a result of a prophecy. We are using Eliyahu as a mere informer as to what was decided by humans in the Sanhedrin! Therefore the fact that the entire episode of the ruling by Raba Bar Nachmeini reached us in an unnatural way does not preclude us from following it.   So the question remains as to why the Halacha does not follow RB”N’s ruling. 5- As an example of an issue that can in theory be decided by the Sanhedrin we chose the Zebu. Some have not yet heard about this issue so here it is short with some links. A Zebu is a South American humpbacked cow that made its appearance just a few decades ago. Can we eat this newly found “cow”? It is Ma’ale Geira and has split hooves. But Jews never came across it until recently. In any case…Bon Appetit! http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/Bleich%2086-106.pdf