Makos 20a

1- We continued talking about Ma’aser Sheini, the obligation to bring a tenth (1/10) of one’s produce to Yerushalayim and eat it there.

[If one lives too far from Yerushalayim then one can “transfer” the value of the fruit or grain to money, travel with the cash to Yerushalayim, purchase fresh food and eat it there.]

Once the food enters Yerushalayim it cannot be ‘transferred’ to cash.

The Gemara poses a question – what if the farmer, traveling with the fruit in his backpack, enters Yerushalayim and stops right at the gate – positioning himself inside the city but with the fruit remaining outside the city walls: Do we consider the fruit in or out?

2- We mentioned Reb Yirmeyah – who is known for these type of quirky questions. In Bava Basra 23b he posed a question which caused him to be ousted from the Beis Hamidrash!  (see here for Adin Steinzaltz’s take on this).

However on page 165b it relates that during the time he was ousted his colleagues could not solve a Talmudic issue and they sent the question out for his opinion. His reply pleased them so they readmitted him.

Now – for our quirky question – for how long was Reb Yirmeyah outside the Beis Hamidrash?

Well, that depends… if that Beis Midrash was a Litvisher Yeshiva where they only cover 5-10 ‘dafim’ a year…..then that would be a long time.

On the other hand if it was a Chasidisher Yeshiva (or they were Daf Yomi followers…) his ouster was short lived….

In Nida 23a we find the ultimate humorous question by Reb Yirmeyah:

He asked Rav Zeira a question about a very unusual case. According to Rebbi Meir, who says that a woman who miscarries a form that resembled an animal is tamei with Tum’as Yoledes as if she gave birth to a human, meaning that we consider the infant as human!

woman and her baby horse

Now a father can marry off his daughter if she is under the age of 12.

A happy couple in their spacious cave

So what is the law in a case in which one gives money to the father of such a creature in order to be Mekadesh the creature during the pregnancy? May he marry the animal’s sister afterwards?

Rav Acha bar Yaakov explained that Rav Yirmeyah was merely trying to get Rav Zeira to laugh, but he did not succeed.

That’s not funny.

What was Reb Yirmeyah’ s motivation for trying to amuse Rav Zeira and make him laugh?

The Maharatz Chayes there explains that it is possible that many of the unusual questions throughout the Gemara that Rav Yirmeyah posed to Rav Zeira can be attributed to Reb Yirmeyah’ s desire for Rav Zeira to laugh.

 

Maharatz Chayes

Rav Zeira was of a very serious nature and his student Reb Yirmeyah was attempting to get a laugh out of his teacher.

3- We spoke about the concept that all produce which is about to be “tithed’ – Truma and Ma’aser to be taken out of it – is in an abstract sense as if they were already taken out.

Following this logic the Gemara concludes that produce, although un-tithed, which was in Yerushalayim we consider the Maaser Sheini that is in the pile separated and designated as Maaser Sheini.

This concept is called “”Matanos she’Lo Hurmu k’Mi she’Hurmu Damu”.

3- We continued discussing the issues one would encounter if Jews were to bring a Korban Tzibur prior to the coming of Moshiach. In the previous Shiur we mentioned some potential problems and how they were addressed by Reb Tzvi Hirsh Kalisher.

Moshe Rosenfeld suggest this site for a quick overview.

One issue is that Korbonos Tzibur must belong to the Tzibur. The Machatzis Hashekel was collected for this purpose. Once donated it becomes “public funds”. One cannot donate, say, ten sheep, for the Korban Tamid and still consider himself a ‘noted donor’.

For example: The “kupa’ cannot accept from the “The Joseph S. Gruss Sheep Fund”……(Mr Gruss A”H was a great Bal Tzedoka. ULY on Albany was donated by him. His fund distributes over $15,000,000 a year to Yeshivos!!)\\

One may donate individually into this pot of Tzibur money on the condition that his name is not associated with his donation at all.

 

Joseph and Caroline Gruss

So in theory, we can indeed create a “Klal Yisroel Animal…Fund” and accept individual donations that lose their individuality by becoming part of the fund.

Or can we? How do the trustees represent Klal Yisroel? Who appoints them? Do we need at least 50% participation to be considered representing Klal Yisroel?

What of the millions of Jews that are unaware of this fund?  Can we donate on their behalf?

What if there are some who oppose this fund?

We mentioned the famous Rav from Yerushalayim, Rabbi Yechiel Michel Tukatchinsky, that wrote extensively on this topic.

Makos 19b

Thanks to Eli Chitrik

1. Our Gemora touched on the subject of a Be’chor- first born animal and the rules associated with it. Once a Be’chor develops a ‘blemish’ it loses its sanctity and can be consumed much like all other livestock. A blemish is defined as only such defects which are permanent – and cannot be healed.

An expert needs to certify whether or not the blemish is indeed a irreversible ‘Mum’- blemish.

We mentioned the story of why Reb Moshe Feinstein would involve himself in controversial topics. He replied with the following:

The Gemara in Sanhedrin (5b) tells the story of when Rav decided to leave Eretz Yisrael and go to Bavel he requested from Rebbi, [Reb Yehuda Hanosi] who was his teacher, to write him a letter of rabbinic certification.

Rebbi wrote on the Smicha the following:

“Rav is certified for Yoreh Yoreh (Yore Deah), Yodin Yodin (Choshen Mishpat) however he ‘does not have rabbinic permission to pasken in the Halchos of what is considered a Mum on an animal which is a Bechor’. 

Why did he not give him permission to rule on this particular Halacha of what is a Mum?

The Gemora explains Rebbi knew that Rav spent 18 months (!) on a farm to study what type of Mum is permanent and thus became an expert regarding what exactly is a Mum which allows normal (non-Kedusha) consumption.

Therefore, Rebbi was concerned that Rav may come to a town that for many years the general consensuses was that a particular Mum was not permanent. Rav, being an expert, would proclaim that it is indeed a Mum. This would cause people to think and extrapolate, incorrectly, on other types of a Mum that eventually would self-heal.

Reb Moshe asked, why did Rebbi have to write on his Smicha that he should not Pasken in a certain area, he could have just told him privately “Listen, please don’t Pasken regarding Mummim so people won’t think you are being too lenient in Halacha”?

Reb Moshe answered, this shows that when a Rov is familiar with a particular topic and he is asked to rule on it he must rule! He cannot withhold his opinion. 

Thus, Rav, could not have withheld his opinion about a Mum if he was asked to rule on it. The only way to avoid this is by Rebbi not giving him Semicha on this subject! By not having Semicha on the laws of a Mum he was not obligated to rule.

​2. ​We mentioned the famous Reb Zvi Hirsch Kalischer who was an Orthodox German rabbi who viewed the importance of Jewish re-settlement of the Land of Israel movement from a religious perspective.

Bio.

See here for the Neturei Karta view on him. 

 

See here an article by Rabbi Pinto. (Not our dear Pinto!)

Another Rabbi Pinto

His most famous book he called Drishas Le’tzion see here.

One of the issues discussed by Reb Zvi Hirsch was the possibility to bring a Korban Pesach despite there being no Beis Hamikdash.

A few weeks ago (shiur) we mentioned the Jewish world traveler Reb Ishtori Ha’parchi who penned a very fascinating travelogue.

[He is the one that tells the story of meeting one of the Rambam’s grandchildren that related to him the custom of the Ramban to add after his signature ‘he who transgresses 3 prohibitions daily for living in Mitzrayim’.]

Anyway, another interesting story Reb Ishtori writes is that the famous Ba’al haTosfos, Reb Yechi’el of Paris, wanted to do exactly that!! Travel to Eretz Yisroel and bring a Korban Pesach.

This was the basis of Reb Tzvi Hirsh’s drive to bring about the sacrificing of the Korban Pesach.

 

Modern Samaritans preparing to sacrifice Paschal Lamb.

To accomplish that one of the many issues one would need to overcome is the lack of ‘certified Kohanim’ which is a must in any Korban.

We briefly touched upon this issue of the status of Kohanim in our times. More bl”n next week.

[Reb Tzvi Hirsch Kalischer. We mentioned that originally when he started giving out his pamphlets his teacher R’ Akivah Eiger was not very pleased that he was arguing with the Rambam who maintains that there is no such thing as a certified Cohen these days. As well as many other Rishonim etc.

It is said that after he published his book he explained that his teacher towards the end of his life retracted his criticism in a private letter to the author]

​3. On the topic of whether there is such a thing as a true Kohen in our times we mentioned an interesting story that is brought in Sefer Chasidim see here. (Some dispute the validity of this story).

Someone once asked Eliyahu Hanavi when Moshiach will come, he replied when you surround Har Hazeisim with Kohanim.

Upon hearing this, the man took many Kohanim and surrounded Har Hazeisim, and as we know, sadly Moshiach did not come!

When Eliyahu met him he explained, that out of all the Kohanim that you took to surround Har Hazeisim only one of them was a real Kohen m’yuchas from Aharon Hakohen!

4. ​Reb Zalman Duchman was once by Yechidus and tells the Rebbe that he heard a story and he would like the Rebbe to verify it if it is a true:

Being that these days we do not really know who is a Kohen or not, it is said that Reb Hilel Paritcher,  every time he would meet a Kohen he would give him 5 Seloim to redeem himself for Pidyan Haben as he was a Bechor.

(This Minhag is known and was practiced by many. See here footnote 42)

The Rebbe went over to the book shelf and took down one of Reb Hillel Paritcher’s books and on the first page it said “Hillel Halevi” thus the story could not be true because a Levi does not need a Pidyon Haben.

We asked a simple question: The reason why he would give every Kohen he met the 5 coins is because we are not sure who is a Kohen. Surely we are not sure who is a Levi either.

Therefore, why can’t it be that R’ Hillel Paritcher was not sure if he was a Levi either and would give the 5 coins to a Kohen anyway….?

Some chevra suggested solid answers. To be continued….

Makos 19a

Special thanks to Eli Chitrik.

1. We mentioned the famous Rabbeinu Tam, Tosafos Kiddushin 36b, reason (twelve lines from the bottom) as to why there is no obligation to give Terumos and M’asros on fruits which grow outside of Eretz Yisrael: “because essentially the land does not belong to us… it belongs to the governing body of the land. The only place where a person actually owns the physical land is in Eretz Yisrael”.

Rabbeinu Tam

2. We discussed the Rambam regarding the holiness of Eretz Yisrael:

To see the Rambam in full see here Halacha 15 onward.

Background:

The history of the conquering and settlement land of Israel (and subsequent exiles) is split into two:

1- The original conquering by the children of the generation that left Egypt. That came to a bitter end at the first exile into Bavel (Babylon).

2- The second settlement movement and the rebuilding of the Second Temple by Ezrah the Scribe. That era too ended with the exile by the Romans.

What happened to the sanctity of the land and the Beis Hamikdash as a result of these two exiles? What was the status of Eretz Yisroel for the seventy years of the first exile and what is the status today?

Did the land retain its holiness? If yes, then the laws pertaining to it still apply – in practical terms one must give Teruma and Maaser on the produce grown in Israel.

Similarly the question is also on the state of Holiness of Yerushalayim and the area where the Beis Hamikdash was standing. Did the Kedusha of the Beis Hamikdash disappear after Nebuchadnezzar destroyed it? What about the destruction by Titus?

 

If the sanctity on the Beis Hamikdash remains unchanged then one would be prohibited to enter that area unless one was “Tahor” – something not practical today.

We find various opinions on both of the above questions in Shas.

3- The Rambam has an original take on the above. His ruling:

1- In regards to the land –

A- The first and original sanctification was nullified at the onset of the first exile.

B- The second sanctification by Ezrah was not be nullified; it is eternal.

2- In regard to Yerushalayim and the area of the Beis Hamikdash:

The first sanctification by Dovid and Shlomo Hamelech was never nullified. Even when most Jews were in Babylon the area of the Temple Mount retained its status.

In short, the Rambam maintains that anything which was conquered originally does not maintain the Kedusha of E”Y, however anything which was taken over subsequently by Ezra does maintain it’s holiness to this day.

Why? What is his rationale?

When they first entered Eretz Yisrael they did through means of “conquest”. Therefore once they were driven out of the land their “conquest” was nullified.

However when they came back for the second time they took it through “Chazakah” (occupation, or right of possession) and a Chazakah is something which is maintained for eternity.

This Rambam seems to be very problematic on many accounts.

Firstly the Kesef Mishnah asks two questions:

1. On what basis is Chazakah considered a more effective means of acquisition than conquest?

 

 

2. After the initial conquest of Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish people manifested their ownership over it and thus, effected a Chazakah. If so, why is Ezra’s Chazakah, which was not preceded by conquest, more effective than the Chazakah which followed the original conquest? Why should the conquest detract from the consecration of the land?

The Rebbe in a lengthy and complicated Sicha explains this Rambam:

(To see the Sicha in full see here, to see a shorter synopsis see here)

​​From Avraham’s time onward Eretz Yisrael became the property of the Jewish people. Though the land was possessed by the Canaanites, the Jews were already its legal owners.

Despite this claim of ownership, the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael came about only after the Jewish people entered the land, after the redemption from Egypt. At that time, they were commanded to conquer the land and take it forcefully from the Gentiles.

Since G-d made the consecration of the land dependent on its conquest by Israel, it follows that conquest by a Gentile nation can indeed nullify that holiness.

In contrast, Ezra was not commanded to reconquer Eretz Yisrael, but rather to settle it. Actually, there was no need to “conquer” since the had explicit permission granted to them by a decree of King Koresh (Cyrus) .

In this instance, G-d made the sanctity of the land dependent upon the Jewish people manifesting their ownership over the land which had been given to them as an eternal inheritance.

Since Eretz Yisrael remains our land, regardless of how many times it has been conquered by Gentiles, the sanctity effected by that manifestation of ownership is also eternal.

4- As to the sanctity of the Yerushalayim and the Beis Hamikdash the Ramban comes up with a fascinating explanation as to why once consecrated by Dovid and Shlomo it can never be annulled.

 

In his own words:

Since the sanctity of the Temple and Jerusalem stems from the Shechinah, and the Shechinah can never be nullified.

5- We mentioned that although the Rambam’s opinion is that the land of Israel, after the return of the Babylonian exile sanctified the land in a manner that cannot be nullified, nevertheless his opinion (as opposed to others) is that the laws of Teruma and Maaser are only applicable today mid’Rabanan. Not De’oraisa.

Why? Because in order to for the laws of Teruma etc. be applicable the majority of the Jewish worldwide population needs to be living in Israel!

We mentioned that the well-known religious Zionist Rabbi Eliezer Melamed who writes that he can’t wait for the majority of Jews to settle in Israel and then the Mitzvah of Teruma and Maaser will be De’oraisa.

Since we don’t need all Jews, but just a simple majority, this can/will occur with a single new individual that will make “aliya” or a new child born in Israel to tip the balance of the majority of Jews.

But he admits that it would be a challenge to know exactly when that will occur because to ascertain the precise number of Jews worldwide is not practical.

Nevertheless he is hopeful that the time will come that enough Jews will live in Israel to be certain of a majority. At that time Teruma and Maaser will be De’oraisa.

 

 

 

Makos 18b

1 – Kol ha’Ro’uy l’Bilah, Ein Bilah Me’akeves Bo; v’she’Ein Ra’uy l’Bilah, Bilah Me’akeves Bo.

כל הראוי לבילה אין בילה מעכבת בו

What does this classic statement mean?

Basically – when one brings a Mincha offering the ratio of flour to oil needs to be a maximum of 60:1. This is because the Torah says that the ingredients need to be mixed. If additional flour is added, then the blending of the two will not be accomplished properly.

Paradoxically, when all the ingredients are placed in one pan and the schlemiel [prior to the Kemitza and placement upon the Mizbeach] forgets to blend the mixture of flour and oil, the Mitzvah is considered done (albeit B’dieved).

So if the mixing is not important why should we care if the ratio is, say, 70:1? It needs not to be blended anyway (Be’Dieved)?

Good question. The answer is given in multiple places in Shas by Reb Zeira:

A Mincha needs to have the possibility and the option to be mixed. Thus a 60:1 Mincha can in theory be mixed properly even if ultimately the mixing never occurs.

Conversely, if too much flour is added then it could have never have been properly mixed – it has lost the possibility.
So in the Shiur we see the Gemara utilizing this concept with regards to Bikkurim.

Performing the Mitzvah of Bikkurim, once arriving in Yerushalayim, is a multi-step process.

1. The Reading of the verses mentioned in the Torah; thanking G-d for the blessings bestowed and enabling the farmer to harvest his produce.
2. The Placing of the fruit next to the Mizbeach.

What if one does A and not B? Or the reverse, B and not A?

We find two contradictory statements that address this question:

One states that the Bikkurim fruits must be placed next to the Mizbeach in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Bikkurim.

In contrast, the Reading of the Parshah of Bikkurim, although it is a Mitzvah, is not essential to fulfilling the Mitzvah of Bikkurim; if one fails to read the Parshah of Bikkurim, one still fulfills the Mitzvah of Bikkurim.

In a different statement we find that if a person prepares his Bikkurim before Sukkos but does not bring the fruit to the Beis Hamikdash until after Sukkos, he should leave them to rot.

Apparently, this is because one cannot read the Parshah of Bikkurim after Sukkos. This statement implies that the Reading of the Parshah is an integral part of the Mitzvah, and without it one cannot fulfill the Mitzvah of Bikkurim at all.

The Gemara reconciles these two statements using the above principle of “Kol ha’Ro’uy l’Bilah, Ein Bilah Me’akeves Bo; v’she’Ein Ra’uy l’Bilah, Bilah Me’akeves Bo.”  כל הראוי לבילה אין בילה מעכבת בו

As above, this rule teaches that it is possible for an act which is not an integral part of a Mitzvah to still be an obstacle to the fulfillment of the Mitzvah. If part of the Mitzvah cannot be applied in a certain case, then that component of the Mitzvah prevents the fulfillment of the entire Mitzvah. If that part can be done but just happens not to have been fulfilled, then it does not impede the fulfillment of the entire Mitzvah.

This explains the above seemingly contradictory statements.  In the first statement, the reading of the Parshah is integral to the Mitzvah of bringing Bikkurim, but if one does not do it, he nevertheless fulfills the Mitzvah because he can do the reading.

However, if a person is in a situation in which he cannot read the Parshah, such as when he delayed the bringing of the Bikkurim until after Sukkos (as discussed above), then the inability to read the Parshah does indeed impede the fulfillment of the entire Mitzvah.

2- We spoke about the question posed to the Rebbe in 1944 by Rabbi Yeshaya Horowitz from Tzfas/ Winnipeg Canada.

He was one of the first to urge the Rebbe to accept the ‘Nesius’ in 1950…..and was sharply rebuked……

Open this link to see his most interesting history and photo.

Also see here page 12.

Background: On Shavuos in addition to the Yom Tov offerings there is a unique Mitzva to bring the Shtei Halechem – two loaves of bread made of Chametz accompanied by animal offerings.  These loaves were distributed to the Kohanim to eat.

Surprisingly the Zohar states that the Shtei Halechem were “burned upon the Mizbe’ach”!!!

Rabbi Horowitz asked the Rebbe for an explanation since it is obvious that these breads were Chometz and as we say daily at the end of Ketores “anything with Chometz or honey is prohibited to be placed on the Mizbeach” and were entirely consumed by the Kohanim.

The Rebbe quotes at length the history of all the attempts to reconcile this difficult passage in the Zohar. Interestingly, no less than Reb Chaim Vital suggests an answer… which he himself admits is a stretch!

In short: The Rebbe’s answer is, one may humbly say, disarmingly simple.

The Rebbe quotes a Gemara that states the laws of placing ‘remnants’ on the Mizbeach.

The Torah requires that certain parts of the Karbanos be offered on the Mizbeach. These parts are collectively termed “Eimurim.”

It is prohibited to offer any other part (remnants of what was already placed on the Mizbeach) of the Korban on the Mizbeach.

The Gemara enumerates examples of placing on the Mizbeach “other parts”. One of them is Shtei Halechem!

The Gemara asks: Shtei Halechem? How are they “other parts”? They are not remnants of any part that was placed already on the Mizbeach since no part of them ever reached the Mizbeach!?

The Gemora answers that the Shtei Halechem are part and parcel of the accompanying animal offerings. They are inseparable parts of the total package. So despite the Shtei Halechem never reaching the Mizbeach they are considered “remnants” of this total Korban.

Thus, after placing the parts of the Eimurim (animal parts) on the Mizbeach, nothing else remaining from this Korban can be added. Not the remaining animal parts nor the Shtei Halechem themselves.

So in a sense the Shtei Halechem and the animal offerings are deemed to be placed on the Mizbeach!

And concludes the Rebbe, that is what the Zohar meant. The Shtei Halechem was an integral part of the korban that needs to be brought upon the Mizbeach.

See there entire letter as the Rebbe continues his explanation as to the Chasidisher explanation of all the above.

Makos 17b.

1- In continuation to last week’s shiur we spoke about the amazement expressed by Rava on Reb Shimon’s explanation of a pasuk in the Torah.

Yet, despite Rava’s statement that one should pray to have children (only) like Reb Shimon…..he then argues on all the points made by Reb Shimon!

So the Gemara asks: What was the cause of his amazement if he disputes every one of Reb Shimon’s points? The Gemara answers that he was impressed by the method used by Reb Shimon based on Reb Shimon’s own understanding.

We mentioned from Rishonim that the meaning of this answer is that Rava was cognizant that his questions on Reb Shimon’s idea were obvious to Reb Shimon too.

Nevertheless Reb Shimon ignored these questions because he definitely had a good response and held his ground. So Rava was amazed that answers to Ravas refutations existed in Reb Shimon’s mind although he, Rava, was unable to figure out what these answers were!  

2- We corrected what was mentioned last week that when the Mishna etc. quotes a saying from “Reb Shimon” as to which Reb Shimon they referred to.

It is Reb Shimon bar Yochai. See Rashi in Shevuos 2b, “Stam Reb Shimon is Rashbi”.

See here from the Seder Hadoros too.

3- Another statement from Rava: When a Korban Olah is sacrificed on the Mizbe’ach the rule is that it is to be totally burned. As opposed to other Karbanos, that a portion must be eaten, either by the donors or the Kohanim after the Mizbe’ach portions are set upon it, an Olah is not to be eaten at all.

So what happens if someone grabs a piece of the Olah right after it was shechted, (before the sprinkling of the blood on the Mizbe’ach), runs out of the Beis Hamikdosh, continues until he has reached outside the walls of Yerushalayim and then….eats it?

So Rava states that in Reb Shimon’s opinion he transgresses no less than five (!) Lavin.

1- Eating outside the Beis Hamikdosh.

2- Eating outside Yerushalayim.

3- Eating any Korban prior to the sprinkling of the blood.

4- Eating a Korban after the sprinkling of the blood by a “stranger – (Zar)”, (actually everyone is a ‘stranger’ in an Olah)

5- Eating a Karbon Olah which is supposed to be totally burned.

So we began our discussion as to how the fifth Lav can apply when this piece of meat is already prohibited because of the first four prohibition, in seeming contravention to the general rule that “Ein Issur Chal al Issur”. See here.

We will talk about possible answers next week bl”n.

4- In passing we discussed a rather famous statement of the Rambam who calls it “a wondrous point”! [Maybe “wonderful point”]

נקודה נפלאה “Nkudah Niflo’oh”. Perush ha’Mishnayos to Kerisus 3:4 (See here on the left side, 20 lines from the bottom) 

The ramifications of this “wondrous point” are relevant today…..at least to (for example) for Jewish pet owners…..

In the times of the Chasam Sofer this “wondrous point” was an issue about candles made from neveila animal fats mixed with butter.

So what is this “wondrous point”?

Some basic background:

There is the general prohibition (Lav) not to cook, eat or make use (Hana’ah) meat and milk together.

Meat and milk that has been cooked together is clearly prohibited from deriving from it any use, gain or pleasure.

The above rule pertains only to meat and milk that is Kosher such as meat from an ox and cow’s milk.

If either the meat or milk is from, say a camel, then there is no prohibition (at least min Hatorah).

What about meat from a neveilah?

A neveila is a kosher animal that was not shech’ted properly.

Let’s think -which of the three prohibitions should apply here?

1. Cooking it with milk.
2. Eating it.
3. Using it.

1- Cooking it with milk is obviously prohibited. (It is after all a kosher (tehorah) animal, albeit not edible).

2- Eating it is also prohibited because it is already a neveila and assur. But only the prohibition of neveila applies here- not ‘bosor vcholov’. Why?

Eating it would not be a transgression of “meat and milk” because of the above rule – something that is already prohibited cannot gain another prohibition. So this piece of meat (cooked with milk) being a neveila already cannot also be prohibited because of ‘bosor v’cholov”!

3- What about having “Hana’ah‘- using it?

 Logic would say…not allowed.

It is a “new prohibition”. There is no issur of ‘Hana’ah” of neviela.  But now that it has been cooked in milk we have a new issur of ‘Hana’ah of bosor v’cholov”.

For example – a cheese burger; (burger produced from steers – a kosher animal (tehorah). Ingredients: Neveila meat cooked with milk by a goy from McDonald’s. Unlike this picture below.

Can we buy a cheese burger and feed a non-Jewish worker?  Seems that the answer is …no. One cannot benefit from ‘bosor v’cholov”.

So here comes the Rambam and states his “wondrous point”.

He explains that when the Torah prohibits the cooking of meat and milk, the eating meat with milk and benefiting from a mixture of meat and milk, it uses the same phrase, Lo Tevashel.

Using the same word teaches that when the prohibition of eating does not apply, then the issur of Hana’ah also does not apply.

In our case of the cheeseburger being that is was made with neveilah meat with milk, if the prohibition to eat meat and milk does not take effect because “Ein Isur Chal Al Isur” (since the mixture is already prohibited to be eaten because it is a neveilah), then the Isur of Hana’ah also does not take effect.

in short – the issur of Hana’ah is subordinated to the issur achila.

Therefore, based on this “wonderful point” of the Rambam one would be able to feed non-Jewish workers or friends this cheeseburger.

Despite all the above one should not do it because most other Poskim disagree with the Rambam. So feeding them this neveila-made cheeseburger does indeed have the additional prohibition of Hana’ah of bosor v’cholov.

See here in the Pischei Teshuvah.

There is much more to this. Let this suffice for now.

 

 

 

 

 

Makos 17a

With thanks to Eli Chitrik.

1- We spoke about the fascinating explanation of Reb Shimon (how appropriate, today being Lag B’Omer) on the verse regarding the prohibition of eating Maaser and other items outside Yerusholayim.

Rava, (the Amora), amazed at the brilliance of Reb Shimon exclaimed:

“One should pray that to have children like Reb Shimon”. 

In our Gemara, Rava’s comment ends with the words “and if not… then it does not pay to have children”!!!!!

We mentioned that many delete these last words, for obvious reasons. True, Reb Shimon was a great Tzadik but there are many levels below Reb Shimon that are also of great stature. So while shooting for the top is to be admired, having children below the level of Reb Shimon is also something to pray for.

 

We spoke about the Mitzvah of Shiluach Haken and mentioned the age-old argument between the Rishonim if this Mitzvah should be associated with “rachmonus” – pity and kindness to animals.

 

 

The Mishnah (Gemara Brachos, 33b) states that one who says, “The Al-mighty’s mercy reaches the mother bird,” must be silenced. The Gemara explains that this is because the Mitzvos are purely G’zeiros, “heavenly decrees incumbent upon us to fulfill,” and they are not given to us as expressions of G-D’s mercy.

Reb Shimon says in Yevamos that all of the Mitzvos have reasons!

 

The Rambam in his Guide states that the above Mishna is not universally accepted. On the contrary, humans are endeavored to search for the logic and the reasoning of very Mitzvah and Shiluach Hakan is not an exception.

The point is to warn mankind against causing undue distress to animals.

Interestingly the the Rambam in the Yad (Hilchos Tefilah 9,7) states that there is in fact no reasoning for this Mitzvah. For if the Torah’s intent were to teach man to have pity for animals, how then could ritual slaughter be permitted? (pirush hamishnayos l’Rmbm, brachos 5:3)

The Ramban tries to reconcile both approaches.

We mentioned the 14th century scholar Reb Yosef Even Kaspi, who penned some controversial commentary, writes that Shiluach Hakan teaches us that in essence the Torah is pro Veganism!!!

It could not totally exclude meat from a Torah diet because that would be asking too much. So at the very least is requires one to show respect to a mother bird prior to taking away her young children.

We briefly spoke about Rabbi Kook’s take on the above. See here

 

For the Kabalistic and Chabad Chasidus explanation on Shiluach Hakan see in Tanya Igeres Ha’teshuva chapter 9 and Ohr HaTorah Parshas Ki Setze.

 

Makos 16b (2)

1. ​The Gemara we learned speaks about the concept of Produce that needs to be tithed. There are five types of tithes that need to be given:

 

Truma –                         2%  from the Yisroel to the Kohen.

Ma’ser Rishon –           10%  from the Yisroel to the Levi.

Trumos Ma’ser             10%  from the Levi to the Kohen.

Ma’ser Sheni-             10% for the Yisroel’s personal use to be eaten in Yerusholayim only.

Ma’ser Ani-                 10% from the Yisroel to the poor and needy.

Until the all of first four of the above are set aside or given away the produce is definitely considered Tevel.

The question in our Gemara was whether the ‘Lav’ of eating Tevel applies also to produce that is only lacking the giving of the last Tithe, Ma’ser Ani. # 5 above.

We discussed the physiological mind-set of simple farmers of old (times of the Tannaim) that would sell their produce as ‘Kosher’ when in reality only the Truma would be given by them. The other 3 or 4 tithes would be inside the produce despite their claim to the contrary.

Their reasoning was that people were not suspected of causing someone to eat Truma; this is something they were not comfortable with. On the other hand withholding Ma’ser from the Levi (stealing in other words) is something that they could live with….

Mentioned also was the famous opinion of Rashi that the prohibition of Tevel is because of the Truma that is in the Tevel prior to the removing the Truma.

(Yevamos 86a, Rashi, and Tosafos “Ma Toveles”, and R’ Y Engel, Asvun D’oraisa, klal 2 here)

​2. We mentioned an interesting idea pertaining to this weeks Parsha about the “Azazel” – the scapegoat.

On Yom Kippur 2 male goats would be selected and a Goral performed to choose the one to be sacrificed on the Mizbe’ach and the other to be sent to Azazel.

The Kohen Gadol confessed the sins of the people while laying his hands on the head of the goat which was sent out to Azazel in the wilderness.

The word Azazel is what philologists call a ‘hapax legomenon’. It is unique, found only in this passage; and therefore, its meaning cannot be easily deduced by comparing it with its usage in other places. The word sounds vaguely like a proper name, similar to names of supernatural beings that appear in Jewish mystical texts.

A most intriguing attempt to explain the text is provided by Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra. He writes cryptically:

And if you were capable of grasping the mystery of the word Azazel, then you would know its secret and the secret of its name, for it has equivalents elsewhere in the Bible. I shall reveal to you a portion of the mystery, only by way of an indirect hint. When you reach [the age of] thirty-three you will know it.

What did the Even Ezra mean with this “33” code?

The Ramban deciphers it.

He justifies his indiscretion by claiming that Ibn Ezra’s mysterious secret is not a secret at all, and merely refers to an interpretation that was well known from the Talmud and Midrash. According to the Ramban, the thirty-three does not designate a minimum age, but rather the number of verses that we are instructed to count until we arrive at the key to the solution. Do the math, and you will arrive at  17:7. The Torah talks about the prohibition against bringing any offering off-site; not in the Beis Hamikdash.

And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the satyrs [demons], after whom they go astray.

That is what the Even Ezra meant to say- count 33 verses ahead and you arrive at the prohibition on dealing/offering to demons- a practice common in the post-Egyptian era.

He equates both Azazel and the satyrs with tangibly demonic forces of evil. Azazel = satyr = goat = Se’ir = Esau = Sam”mael = the lord of metaphysical wickedness. Hence, the Torah is advising us that, though at all other times of the year we are supposed to be occupied in a relentless war against Azazel and his evil minions,

Only on the Day of Atonement, has G-d commanded us to buy them off with a generous offering of a sin-bearing goat, because the goat is Sammael’s  favorite animal.​

It a mystical explanation. True. But he does crack the code of the Even Ezra.

There are other explanations on the 33 mystery. Here is one.

The Torah, with the commandment to ‘send away the goat to Azazel in the desert’, means to drive home the point that sorcery and witchcraft are out of the realm of the Jewish religion.

The Gemara in Sanhedrin (105a) says that the great sorcerer of all times was Bilam. His power was [in a sense] derived from sorcery. His life span was shortened due to his shortcomings etc. He was killed at the age of 33 (106b)!

sanhedrin 106b

And that is what the Even Ezra meant.

Nu nu. A bit of a stretch.

We mentioned another attempt at cracking the number 33…but it is so ridicules that it’s not worth writing….

…you say a dude was trying to throw you off of what now?

Makos 16b

1. While discussing the concept if a person is allowed to annul his vow made in public and with the consent of the public we mentioned an interesting story:

Rabbi Benyamin Cohen, Rosh Yeshiva in Melbourne Australia relates that he once walked into 770 and two older Chassidim (one was reb Mendel Futerfas)  asked him to sit down with them to be part of a Beis Din in order to annul a vow.

The famed Chossid Reb Bentze Shemtov got up in front of the Beis Din and told the following:  upon his arrival to America he made a Neder that he would not walk into 770 without going first to the Mikvah. However it has since become very hard for him to continuing doing so because of his old age, therefore he is asking of the of the Beis Din to annul his vows.

And the Beis Din continued to ask the standard question, “If you would have known that you would come to such a stage would have you still made that Neder”?

To which he replied “NO” and with that they were Matir his Neder.

Interesting piece of history.

 

2. Our Gemore discusses the Mitzvah of Peah – leaving the edge of a field for the poor. Peah is one the Mitzvas associated with harvesting ones fields directing him to leave some of the produce for the poor.

We discussed the Vort from the Beni Yissachar (See here English Hebrew) the founder of the Munkatch dynasty.

It is brought in Tosefta a story about a father who once forgot a bundle in the field, out of excitement that he was now able to be Mekayem the Mitzvah of Shik’cha, he told his son that he should bring him a cow to be Makriv a Korbon Olah.

The Bnei Yisschar asks, what is so significant regarding the Mitzvah of Shikcha that he felt that he had to bring a Korban?

He explains, all the Mitzvos in the Torah were given in a way that person has to have intent when he performs the Mitzvah. If a person does not have Kavanah when he does the Mitzvah according to many he was not Mekayem the Mitzvah.

 

The only Mitzvah in the Torah that a person can only perform without intent is the Mitzvah of shikcha. If a person intentionally left a bundle in the field he is not Mekayem the Mitzvah.

 

Why did the Torah command of such a awkward Mitzvah that can only be done only without intention?

Unfortunately, although we are commanded to have Kavanah for every Mitzvah, many  times we do it without proper intention, we do it more in a way of “Hergel” routine.

 

This is why the Torah gave us the commandment of Shikcha, a Mitzvah that can only be performed without intention but nevertheless you are Mekayem this Mitzvah, it is through this Mitzvah that a person is “Maale’h” elevates all the other Mitzvos he did without Kavanah.

This is also why in the Torah by the Mitzvah of Shikcha it states: Hashem will bless you “Bechol Masseh Yadacha” (and not the usual “B’echol Asher Taaseh”)  this is because through the Mitzvah of Shikcha you elevate all of your other Mitzvos.

And this is why by the Mitzvah of Shikcha the father brought a Korban Ola’h.

When he was Mekyem the Mitzvah of Shikcha he thought to himself that this must have happened in order for him to elevate all the Mitzvos he did without proper intention. Therefore he brought a Korban to atone for all the Mitzvos which were not done properly.

Makos 16a.

Some background.

When a husband sends his wife a Get via a shliach he can in theory
(before the shliach hands over the Get to his wife), cancel the
shlichus and the Get is null and void.

A potential problem occurs when the shliach is traveling and is
unaware of the cancellation. He arrives to his destination and gives
the Get to the woman, both being unaware that the Get is worthless!

The woman, being under the impression that she is divorced, goes and remarries and has a child when in reality she is still married to her first husband, leading to a mamzer. Ouch.

In such a scenario Chazal created a rarely-used edict to be used at their discretion, known as Hafka’as Kidushin Le’Mafre’a – retroactive anullment of Kiddushin. The basis for this edict goes like this: Since all Jews upon their marriage attest that their marriage is accordance to Jewish law (Kedas Moshe v’Yisroel), one in a sense “conditions” his marriage on the consent of Chazal.

Thus, in the case above (canceling the Get-messenger without notifying him of the canellation), Chazal, seeing the potential problem have ruled that this man and woman were never married. In
other words they retroactively annul their marriage; They were just a man and woman living together.

So this woman (who thought she was divorced) has no halachic issue with her new (and only) husband and their child is not a mamzer.

In Tosfos we find Rabbeinu Shmuel (and other Rishonim) raised many fascinating issues on the above. Firstly, if indeed such is the case then in theory all cases of adultery have a great legal defense; The defendants, man and/or woman, can say that the “hasra’ah’ or warning given to them prior to them sinning was a ‘hasra’as safek’.

How? They can say to Beis Din “how do you know that we are married? True that we may be married now, but at some point in the future husband can send wife a Get via a shliach (as described above), then simply cancel the Get and recall the messenger without  advising him, messenger hands Get to wife, causing the the marriage to be retroactively nullified and voila! I was never married”.

True it may not happen but it is still a ‘hasra’as safek’!
The second issue raised is even more intriguing. Why do we not utilize this edict and legally reverse the status of all known mamzerim?

How? Have the first husband of the woman who had an illicit fair (and had a child from this affair) send her a Get via a shliach, recall the Sliach but don’t advise the shliach, give over the Get to the adulterers and Presto! The marriage is retroactively nullified and she was never married. We would thus have a world free of mamzerim……

The conclusion of all the Rishonim of why this suggestion would not
work is disarmingly simple.

This edict is enacted only ‘b’dieved’ – when no sin was transgressed,
such as a man changing his mind after the shliach has begun his shlichus and cannot be reached.

Thus, to avoid a potential and unintentional mamzer issue Chazal used their Torah-vested power to nullify a marriage.

But to use it to “clean up a mamazer” is something Chazal

surely do not sanction.
And here is the clincher – such a general
ruling would cause “Pritzus” for the fear of illicit affairs that may produce a mamzer would be eliminated.

So for hundreds of years this issue was put to rest. A mamzer status cannot be reversed in this manner.

So here we are in the middle of Ukraine sometime in the late 1800’s.

The famous Rabbi Sholom Shvadron (a Chossid of many Rebbes)
universally accepted for his knowledge and boldness in Halachik
rulings receives a letter from Odessa requesting a ruling on a rather
tragic story.

שו”ת מהרש”ם חלק א – שלום מרדכי בן משה הכהן שוואדרון3 (page 28 of 240) MAHARSHAM’
A distraught Aguna finally receives the unfortunate news that her
husband has died. The Beis Din interrogates the witness and allows her to remarry which she does and is now carrying a child.

Alas! The husband reappears…a case of mistaken identity….
Husband had loaned his passport and the borrower is the deceased. The child to be born will be declared a mamzer.

The Brezhaner Rov, (english) as Reb Sholom Mordechai was called, (Maharsham) comes with a suggestion – only in theory but not in practice as he writes: Have the husband send her a Get etc.… you get the picture. (See above)

see full teshuva here:

שו_ת מהרש_ם חלק א – שלום מרדכי בן משה הכהן שוואדרון3 (page 28 of 240) MAHARSHAM’

As to the ruling of the Rishonim that one should never do it because the ruling was made as a ‘takanah’ and to prevent the creation of a ‘takalah’, argued the Brezhaner Rov, this poor woman is totally innocent. She followed the ruling of the local Beis Din. This case is indeed a ‘takanah’.

Many, rather most, Poskim strongly opposed this suggestion.

Furthermore in this case, as the Maharsham writes, the local beis din had already instructed the poor woman to divorce her first husband, rendering the suggestion moot.

See this link

and other related discussion of retroactive rectification of Mamzeirus here

We discussed the laws of a ‘me’anes’ (rapist) who must marry his victim (with her consent) and is prohibited from ever divorcing her. If he does divorce her then he transgresses a Lo Saa’se and would be chayav Malkus but for the fact that the Torah allows him the opportunity to repent and remarry his wife thus avoiding the Malkus.

The only way he can be Chayev malkus is if he creates a situation which prohibits him from remarrying her. The Gemara attempts to find just such a scenario. Such as if he kills her?  But then he would not be chayav Malkus – he would be subject to much worse.

(shiluach hakan just looks good here).

Reb Akiva Eiger ask as to why not suggest that his wife was a ‘Treifa’, (and would not live 12 months anyway) thus taking her life does not render him chayv misa but nevertheless he must still remarry her…?

The Gemara concludes that the only scenario possible would be if he makes a ‘vow based on the public’s opinion’ (Neder al daas rabim) that he will not have anything to do with this woman who is required to marry. Being that such vows are irrevocable, making such a vow is considered ‘bi’tlo’  – (see end of shiur 3/31/15) he causes the impossibility for him to remarry her and would be indeed chayav Malkus.

We spoke about the Rebbe’s mentioning of this concept regarding the bringing of Moshiach. Tamuz 7549. See here:

ספר השיחות תשמ”ט – חלק ב – שניאורסון, מנחם מנדל, 1902-1994 (page 168 of…

Makos 15a (2)

1. In continuation of last weeks Shiur where we discussed the Admur Hazaken in the Kuntras Achron, we continued with another topic that has to do with Pesach.

Introduction: The shiurim (Halachic measurements) we have today are all Halacha L’Moshe M’Sinai. e.g. reviis, kezayis etc.

If one eats or drinks less than a Shiur, then there certainly no corresponding punishment. But is it prohibited?

This is the famous Machlokes between Reb Yochanan and Reish Lakish known as to the Halacha of Chatzi Shiur (literally: half a Shiur)

According to Reish Lokish a Chatzi Shiur is not prohibited Min Hatorah only Midirabanan.

On the other hand Reb Yochonon’s opinion is that all shiurim are only in regards to punishment. For example, the drinking of blood is a punishable Lav. But one needs to drink a Reviis to receive this punishment.

As to the actual prohibition, even less than the Shiur is surely prohibited Min Hatorah and such is the accepted Halocho.

Reb Yochnon’s opinion is that Chatzi Shiur is Assur Min Hatorah because being that it can accumulate to an Issur therefore even a bit is part of and Issur.

 

The universal understanding of the term Chatzi Shiur means “anything less than the Shiur”. Even a crumb or a drop.

It does not mean if you eat a “half” rather it means if you eat anything less than a Kezayis, even a crumb.

Surprisingly, the Tzemach Tzedek in Piskei Dinim (Here, first paragraph, line starts with the word “Bilvad”) writes “Only a Chatzi Shiur is Assur.”

 

Does he mean to say that the Issur of Chatzi Shiur is if you eat less than the full Shiur but at least half or more of of the full Issur?

That runs contrary to the common understanding of the opinion of Reb Yochanan and the Halacha that any infinitesimal amount is prohibited!

We mentioned that Reb Chaim Noeh seems to be of the opinion that the Tzemach Tzedek never wrote this.

 

However over a few years ago the original manuscript was discovered and it clearly in the handwriting of the T”T.

In 1935 the Rebbe asked his father Reb Levik to explain this perplexing passage in the Tzemach Tzedek. Reb Levik responded that it is indeed difficult to understand and attempts to explain it. See here.

 

 

The Rebbe himself in his published notes on the Piskei Dinim (See here) 

 

writes that this T’T need to be explained. He adds some footnotes. Here is one: See The Kesef Mishnah in the first Perek in the Ramabam in Hilchos Chametz and Matzah.

The Rambam writes “Eating even the slightest amount of chametz itself on Pesach is forbidden by the Torah as it states: “Do not eat”.

 

The Rambam seems to say that we need an extra Pasuk for chametz to tell us that even a tiny drop is assur on Pesach.

Asks the Kesef Mishnah; why do we need an extra Pasuk specifically for Peasach? Since Chatzi Shiur is always assur even if he only eats a tiny crumb, it is Asur Min Hatorah in every scenario including Pesach?!

The Kesef Mishnah finishes with “tzarich iyun” on the Rambam.

However according to the Tzemach Tzedek this question is easily answered: Since Chatzi Shiur means only a half (or more) then the proscribed amount, we then do need a special Pasuk for Pesach to tell us that even a single drop is Asur!

See here for more details.

A Kosher and Happy Pesach to all!