BS”D

Suka 24a-b

Menachem Av 18, 7581. July 27, 2021

1- We concluded the סוגיא  of Breira and continued. 

The Gemore reverses itself and states another reason Reb Meir says that one cannot use an animal as a Sukkah wall.  It’s (not because the animal may die or run away, but) because the definition of a מחיצה is something made of a material that humans can construct. Such as stone…

or wood.

That criterion excludes a wall created by an animal.

2- The Gemore continues explaining the end of the Beraisa where Reb Yosi HaGlili says that one cannot write a divorce on an animal. 

[In passing, we spoke about the Tosafos in Shabbos 152b, mentioned a few Shiurim ago, that the we find in Shas case studies of Halachos that are far fetched] 

Our Gemara goes back and forth trying to explain the reasoning of Reb Yosi HaGlili and the opposing opinion of the  חכמים that allow such a גט. 

At one point the Gemore says that ‘one would think’ that just as with קידושין,  to get married, one gives his bride כסף, similarly, one can divorce a wife with כסף! 

Rashi explains that in theory it would work with the husband giving his wife  כסף. 

The Sfas Emes differs and says that logic would say that it would be the woman giving the husband כסף. 

Why? When the marriage begins, the husband in a sense ‘buys’ her, with the כסף making the קנין. 

When the divorce occurs, she is ‘buys’ herself back from him, therefore she needs to ‘pay’ her husband. 

3- We mentioned the Rosh Yeshivaת in 770 for many years, Reb Yisroel Piekarski. 

In his Shiurim would always he mentioned his illustrious Rebbe, Reb Arye Fromer, known as the Kozlogover Rov, who became the Rosh Yeshiva of the Yeshivas Chachmei Lublin after the passing of Reb Meir Shapiro.  See a biography here. 

In one of his shiurim Rabbi Piekarski said that his Rebbe had a novel idea to explain the concept of חופה. As we know, the marriage is a two step process. 

Rabbi Piekarski at Kinus Torah in 770 in 5734/1974

First the קנין, which is usually done with כסף. The second is the couple living as one union in a home. 

This second part is symbolized by the חופה with the bride and groom standing under one canopy and then entering the חדר יחוד. 

But Rav says (Kesubos 3a) חופה can accomplish both step simultaneously. 

The קנין and “living as one”. 

How does חופה create a קנין? Suggests the Kozlogover Rov, that it acts like a חצר. 

And just as one is קונה an animal by bringing it into his חצר, similarly one is קונה his wife with חופה – חצר……..

4- Our Gemore discusses the idea that the Torah calls the גט a ספר כריתות. Book of disengagement. 

Does it mean it needs to be written on paper or parchment or any material works? 

שטר גט- וואדג’אן מרוקו ת”ש

In general – what does ספר mean? 

We mentioned in passing the famous case brought to the נודע ביהודה about a dispute of an estate. 

In short – a father wrote in his will that he is gifting to one of his sons “half my house and my ספרים’. Included in his collection of ספרים, was  a ספר תורה. 

After his passing, the other brother claimed that the ספר תורה was not included in his father’s gift since ספרים means only printed books! 

See here – the נודע ביהודה shrugs of this reasoning

נודע ביהודה מג ,חושן משפט, מהדורה תנינא – 

On the contrary, he writes, the word ספר means primarily a ספר תורה. We ‘borrow’ this word and use it for printed books. 

5- Speaking of marriage and divorce, we mentioned the מאמר of the Alter Rebbe where he quotes the Midrash story of the couple that were childless and Rashbi suggested to them to get divorced. He added that this divorce should be done with the same fanfare as the wedding. 

Here is a link to the מאמר. 

We mentioned the humorous addition to this story from the Magid Sholom Shvadron about what they wrote on the invitation inviting all to the divorce party…

6- We spoke of the weird results of a נדר being annulled. Ran in Nedorim, 85a. To be continued. 

דהתנן המקדש האשה על תנאי שאין עליה או עליו נדרים ונמצאו עליה או עליו נדרים אינה מקודשת ומדקתני אינה מקודשת משמע שאינה מקודשת כלל ויכולה להנשא לאחר אע”ג דתניא התם הלכה אצל חכם והתירה וכן הוא שהלך אצל חכם והתירו מקודשת אלמא אע”ג דמצי מיתשיל וחיילי קדושי למפרע כל אימת דלא מיתשיל לא חיישינן דלמא מיתשיל

7 – We ended off with the Tosafos that mentions the story of Tamar who was the daughter of שם the son of נח. 

בראשית רבה פה, י

אפרים מקשאה תלמידו של רבי מאיר אמר משום רבי מאיר תמר בתו של שם היתה דכתיב (ויקרא כא) ובת איש כהן לפיכך הוציאוה ותשרף

As a few pointed out, if one makes the calculation, Tamar, who married both of Yehuda’s sons was older that Yehuda himself!

 

BSD

Sukkah 23b-24a

Menachem Av 11, 7581. July 20, 2021

Some notes on Breirah ברירה. Retroactive choice. See here from Google. 

1- 

One who purchases wine from among the Samaritans and there is reason to suspect that teruma and tithes were not taken, and he is not in a position to separate teruma, he acts as follows. If there are one hundred log of wine in the barrels, he says: 

Two log that I will separate in the future are teruma, as the mandated average measure of teruma is one-fiftieth or 2%; 

ten log are first tithe or 10% ; and 

a tenth of the remainder, or 10%, which is nine log, are second tithe. 

And he deconsecrates the second tithe that he will separate in the future, transferring its sanctity to money, and he may drink the wine immediately, relying on the separation that he will perform later. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon prohibit one from doing so. 

2- According to the conclusion of the גמרא, the argument is whether this sort of giving תרומה ומעשרות has any validity at all. Or, using the term of the גמרא:

?יש ברירה, או אין ברירה. 

We discussed the following:

A- If you say יש ברירה  it works, and one can drink the wine immediately, relying on his separating תרומה ומעשרות at a later time, when he reaches close to the bottom of the barrel. 

See here the story of Rabban Gamliel on the ship.

If eventually he does not separate  this תרומה ומעשרות, [either  by drinking to the end of the barrel or if the barrel breaks] it is then retroactively acknowledged that there was no  תרומה ומעשרות given and this poor chap simply drank טבל. 

 

B- If אין ברירה, it means that such a method of giving תרומה ומעשרות does not work.

OK. So what happens if a person does utter such words (2% Truma, 10% Maser and another 10% Meser Sheini)?

What happens with this barrel? 

We discussed that this is a מחלוקת of the ראשונים if we say that since אין ברירה nothing happened and it’s still טבל.

Or, it does take effect. Meaning that his words did indeed create תרומה ומעשרות, it’s in the barrel somewhere, but since ,אין ברירה, we cannot know where in the barrel it is! 

Consequently, only a Kohen can drink from it! 

Reb Elchanan (Beitzah 35) has an interesting explanation as to why if יש ברירה and the barrel breaks it is deemed טבל,  and if אין ברירה we say that it is mixed תרומה ומעשרות.

3- We spoke about the rare expression in Tosfos. The question they ask is as follows: if one starts with 100 gallons and takes out 2 gallons for תרומה there are 98 gallons left. The next step of giving 10% of the remainder to a לוי would result in 9.8 gallons only. Not 10 gallons. Yet the Mishna says ’10 gallons to the Levi’? 

The simple answer is that the Mishna rounded the numbers.

.Tosafos writes that some say that one indeed needs to give the Levi a full 10 gallons! Why? Because in theory one doe not need to give 2% for תרומה. 

מן התורה   even one drop of wine is sufficient. So the Levi is owed a full 10 gallons. Therefore the Mishna states ‘10 gallons’ to the Levi. 

Tosafos categorically rejects this explanation: ‘This is totally incorrect’.  זה לא יתכן מכלל. Tosafos offers no explanation as to why not. 

We discussed the ריטב”א as to what Tosafos’s reason is. 

4- Reb Yehudah, who generally assumes that לא חיישינן למיתה, nevertheless says that on Yom Kippur, the כהן גדול, who needs to be married to do the עבודה, prepares another wife ‘waiting’ to become his wife if his current wife dies. 

 

The גמרא offers an explanation: מעלה עשו בכפרה. Meaning that Yom Kippur being the day of  כפרה results in taking extra precautions (מיתה)  that ordinarily we are not concerned with. 

We mentioned the Tosafos ישנים at the beginning of Yuma that writes that this entire idea of the Kohen Gadol being married is not מעכב. If he does the avodah and is single, it’s fine. 

 

Yet, כפרה is so important that we go out of our way (according to Reb Yehuda) and arrange this ‘second’ wife in order to ensure proper כפרה if the needs arrives. 

We mentioned R’ Yoel A”H:

The elderly Rosh Yeshiva  asks the “new” bochur his name:

‘My name is Chaim Lipkin and I’m not a grandson of Reb Yisroel Slanter.’

‘Ver hot ba dir gefregt?!!’.  

BSD

Sukkah 23b

Menachem Av 4, 7581. July 13, 2021

1- We discussed the concept of חזקת חיים. It’s an offshoot of the general idea of חזקה. Meaning status quo. 

If something is observed at a particular time, can we assume that it remains unchanged? If this object is unattended or not observed, how long can we take it for granted that it has not changed? 

We fill a Mikvah with 40 סאה. No doubt that the water will eventually evaporate. Until we check the water level can we assume that the original 40 are still intact?

A married man leaves on a trip. How long can we assume that he still living? If he is a Cohen married to an Yisraelis, thus allowing her to eat תרומה, can she continue to eat the תרומה on the assumption that he is still alive? 

 

2- There is a thought about the above case from Reb Yehuda Aszod. Known by his famous book שו”ת מהר”י אסאד. See here. 

 

His point is that this woman has two :חזקות – 

1- That her husband is till alive.

2-   חזקת אוכלת בתרומה.

 

A few years ago we related a  fascinating story about Reb Yehuda Aszod. As he didn’t never allowed himself to be photographed, when he passed away some of his students propped him up and snapped a picture of him.  Their reason was that their goal was to donate the funds from the sale of this unique portrait to his unmarried daughters. 

 

Some say that these ‘machers’ didn’t do that well after this incident. ר”ל.

3- Another case our Gemore brings is if a person gives his wife a גט now, but on the condition that it will only become valid ‘one hour before I pass away’. 

So if he passes away, say in a month from now, at 12 PM, the divorce occurs at 11 AM. 

 

So technically, the wife is constantly in limbo. 

What is she now? Married or divorced?

Well. No one knows now, but we will know in hour from now!

If he survives the next hour, she was still married. If he passes away, say at 2 PM, she was divorced at 1 PM. 

Can she eat Truma now? If we follow the חזקת חיים , she can. That is because we assume that he will indeed live for the next hour. If we don’t, חייש למיתה, she cannot. 

4- Question of the רש”ש: A Kohen who give his wife such a Get (  a גט now, but on the condition that it will become valid ‘one hour before I pass away’), how can he live with her at anytime? Perhaps he will pass away within the next hour. This triggers the Get to an hour before that….causing the Kohen to live with a גרושה !!!

5- We discussed the topics of טבל and תרומה. 

טבל  – Produce that is in its original form. No תרומה or מעשר has been taken from it. Prohibited from eating it. 

תרומה – Produce that has been taken from טבל. Prohibited from eating it except a Kohen. 

 

What is the איסור of טבל and תרומה?

We discussed the famous Rashi Yevomos 86b that says the reason for the prohibition to eat טבל is because it has (the potential) תרומה inside of it. 

The question asked is, if so, why can’t a Kohen eat טבל? Reb Yosef Engel and Reb Elchanan discuss it. 

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

Similar question now in regards to תרומה. Is the איסור of Truma the ‘remnants’ of טבל?

The fact that an Yisroel cannot eat תרומה is because to him the טבל prohibition is is still there or is it a new איסור called תרומה. 

To be continued.  

6- We began to discuss the sugya of ברירה. 

BSD

Sukkah 23a (2)

Tamuz 26, 7581. July 7, 2021

1- We continued on the topic of אינו ראוי או אסור מדרבנן נקרא אינו ראוי מן התורה .

Such as a Sukkah on a tree top. מדרבנן one cannot climb on a tree on Shabbos or Yom Tov. 

If however one does use this tree-top Sukkah, did he fulfill the מצוה? Or perhaps since the חכמים enacted their גזירה they uprooted this particular סוכה  and one is not יוצא  even מן התורה.

In different words: A Sukka must be a structure that can be used for the full 7 days of Sukkos.  The Schach needs to be in good shape (not dry and clubling) for the entire 7 days. ראוי לשבעה.

Now we have a Sukka, on top of a tree,  that מדרבנן, one will not be able to use on Shabbos and Yom Tov. Is such ‘valid for 7 days’?

The fact that such a Sukka cannot be used on Yom Tov makes it valid for only 6 days!

So it’s valid for 7 days מדאורייתא but מדרבנן for only 6.

Is this called ראוי לשבעה?

We mentioned the Reb Akiva Eiger who says although climbing a tree is prohibited on Shabbos and Yom Tov, if one climbs במזיד, he must stay on the tree all day. So when he will actually sit inside the Sukka he does it בהיתר. Therefore it is  it’s considered ראוי לשבעה! 

2- We continued with the :ברייתא  Reb Meir says that any living thing (animals)  cannot be used for a דופן לסוכה, לחי, פסי ביראות  גולל.

In regards to גולל, it means that this anima does not become part of the ארון and קבר and not טמא.

We discussed the two opinions of the meaning of גולל. Rashi says it is the cover of a coffin. So Reb Meir is saying, that  an animal does not become טמא  like the rest of the ארון. 

Rabeinu Tam says it’s inconceivable that anyone would place an animal, even temporarily, atop of a coffin. 

His opinion is that גולל means a מציבה. If one is buried and there is no stone around to mark the grave site, an animal would be tied temporarily to a stake on top grave site. 

3- We discussed the issue of הלכות in Shas that are very far fetched – meaning the odds of such occurrences to happen are  close to nil. Such as the גולל according to Rashi’s translation. 

Tosfos in Shabbos 152b says that Rashi is not bothered by the fact that no one places a horse, for example, on top of a corpse. 

“For we find in Shas many examples of cases that are not common and the Gemara has no issue with discussing its הלכות in great detail” דרוש וקבל שכר. 

And Tosfos goes on to numerate some of these far fetched examples. Such as ‘a cow giving birth to a calf with the newborn entering the womb of a another calf’! 

Our Gemara’s case of a cow hanging on a sling and creating a wall of a Sukkah is another example! See below. 

4- We discussed the Alter Rebbe’s words in Tanya where he too cites   הלכות that are unlikely to occur. 

Let us understand [how this applies to] the details of the laws that never occur at all,וּלְהָבִין פְּרָטֵי הַהֲלָכוֹת דְּלָא   שְׁכִיחֵי כְּלָל, and possibly never actually existed,וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ מֵעוֹלָם בִּמְצִיאוּת, and certainly will not come to pass in the Time to Come; מִכָּל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא, for example, the detailed laws of pigul and the like. כְּמוֹ פְּרָטֵי דִּינֵי פִּיגּוּל וּכְהַאי גַוְנָא……….

Likewise, all the detailed queries of R. Yirmiya, who posed so many hypothetical possibilities that he was escorted from the House of Study, as the Gemara relates,6

וְכָל פְּרָטֵי הָאִבַּעְיוֹת דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה,

Obviously, his queries involved situations that were entirely unlikely to ever take place.7

and [detailed queries such as] “If she wrapped him…,” in ch. 4 of Chullin,8 וּ”כְרָכַתּוּ כוּ'” פֶּרֶק ד’ דְּחוּלִּין.

The question discussed there is whether a firstborn animal can be considered to have directly “opened the womb” (and hence be sanctified) in either of two hypothetical cases. According to Rashi, it is a question of what happens if the person assisting in the birth entirely wraps up the animal as it is born. According to Rabbeinu Tam, the question involves a multiple birth, with a cow being born together with the firstborn bull, and wrapping itself completely around it—something extremely unlikely to ever occur. Nevertheless, all these detailed queries were given to Moses at Sinai.

5- Mentioned Rabbi Hirschsprung‘s quip regarding Reb Yirmiye. On Daf 23 in בבא בתרא it says that they ousted him for asking outlandish queries. On Daf 165b it says that due to another ruling by Reb Yirmiye he was allowed back in. 

How long was it from the time he was ousted to the time he was allowed back in? 

Well, said Rabbi Hirschsprung, it depends on the type of Yeshiva he attended. If a Litvishe one, where the learning is slow and cover little ground, it may have taken many years…..If it was a Chassidisher Yeshiva where there is more emphasis on covering many Dafim then it took just a few months….

6-  We mentioned the tragedy that happened in Surfside ר”ל  with the collapsed building. 

We spoke briefly about a case of of body that is never found and the resulting tragedy of an Aguna. The הלכה is that no mourning is allowed and that a woman ‘should not wear black clothing’. Least people think her husband has been confirmed dead. Here. EH 17, 5 in the רמ”א.

7- Our Gemare mentions the use of an elephant as wall of a Sukka. We mention the famous תשובה of the son of the נודע ביהודה ת Reb Shmuel Landau, who discusses the use of non Kosher animals materials in Mitzvos. It’s a long topic and we will elaborate some more on this next week בלי נדר. 

In the meantime here is the piece of his father coming to him in his dream to answer his question, Fascinating stuff. 

BS”D 

Sukkah 23a 

Tamuz 19, 7581. June 29, 2021

 1_ We continued with controversial passage in the מהר”ל about the אסמכתא concept. See previous shiur. 

Thank’s to Dani Chitrik for the link to the discussion regarding the Problem with Likkutei Maharil – Mi Yodeya.

Another link with links to two scholarly articles about the above.

2- Surprisingly, the מגן אברהם  writes explicitly that “if one hears a Halacha’ and it seems to him to be correct, he may tell others that ‘this Halachah was said by a great and accepted Rav’ if this will cause people to accept it! 

See here: OC 156,

 שמע דין ונראה לו שהלכה כך מותר לאמרו בשם אדם גדול כי היכי דליקבלי מיניה

 [עירובין דף נ״א ופסחים דף קי״ב] ובסוף מסכת כלה איתא האומר דבר בשם חכם שלא גמרו ממנו גורם לשכינה 

שתסתלק וכ״ה בברכות דף כ״ז ע״ש וצ״ע. 

3- A sukkah on a truck.

Although the our Mishnah permits it the Pri Megadim, OC 628, 4, says that it is only Kosher while parked. A Sukkah atop of a moving truck or flat bed is not considered a proper Sukkah. The ביכורי יעקב disagrees. 

We mentioned it seems from the Alter Rebbe 628, 4, that he would agree with the Pri Megodim.

That is interesting for all the Chabad Sukka mobiles. 

4- We scratched the surface of the huge topic of אינו ראוי מדרבנן נקרא אינו ראוי מן התורה .

Such as a Sukkah on a tree top. מדרבנן one cannot climb on a tree on Shabbos or Yom Tov. 

If however one does use this tree-top Sukkah, did he fulfill the מצוה? Or perhaps since the חכמים enacted their גזירה they uprooted this particular סוכה  and one is not יוצא  even מן התורה! 

More on this topic BL”N next week. 

5- Interesting question from the Maharil:

מדרבנן one cannot climb a tree or ride atop of an animal on Shabbos or Yom Tov. 

Similarly, one is prohibited to read in front of a burning candle on Shabbos. The גזירה is that inadvertently he may adjust the flickering wick when needed. 

However two people reading together may use a single candle to read since one will remind the other of the prohibition to adjust the wick. 

Asks  the Maharil;  would this permit two people to climb a tree at the same time or riding an animal together?

See here the מגן אברהם OC 285, 5, that answers that the leniency of two reading by candlelight applies on when learning. It would not apply to joy riding or tree climbing. 

So two people climbing a tree to eat in a Sukkah would be OK? 

To be continued…