Makos 4b. (7/1/14)

Makos 4b.

  1. We spoke about Reb Elchonon’s answer to a famous question. The definition in Sha”s of a ‘kenas’ (as opposed to – ‘momon’ regular payment of a guilty party) is when one is obligated to pay more than the actual damage incurred. Such as “kay’fel’ – a punishment to pay double the amount of the theft.

So the question is how can one say that Eidim Zomemin is not a kenas? They pay more than the intended damage (the Halocho is that they pay only when the falsely accused defendant didn’t pay)“Ka’sher zomam ve’lo ka’sher oso”.

Reb Elchonon explains that what creates the Eidim Zomemin’s obligation to pay is the Beis Din’s verdict that they are obligated to pay. Therefore, since it is only as a result of a Beis Din ruling/verdict, the required payment by the Eidim Zomemin has the category of money and not kenas.

Furthermore, even if the Eidim wanted to cause the defendant to pay a kenas, for example “Motize Shem Ra” nevertheless the money that the Eidim Zomemin are obligated to pay, becuase it is going through Beis Din,  has the category of money and not Kenas.

We heard some valid arguments to the contrary. Nu, that’s the idea of the shiur.

2-    לאו שאין בו מעשה.

We spoke about what the definition of ‘doing nothing’ is. Gornisht, Gor gornisht (a groiser Gornisht….HV)

3- We mentioned the Aruch – the first Hebrew encyclopedia/dictionary written by Reb Noson of Rome, Italy, a contemporary of Rashi. Actually this sefer is much more than just definitions of Aramaic words in Chaza”l. The author incorporates many Halachik opinions in various topics. Many Rishonim, including Rashi and Tosfos quote him and discuss his rulings.

Interestingly the Aruch was one of the first Jewish books to be printed. See here and below for the Venice edition of 1531.

Reb Noson had an interesting life. Read more:  English, or Hebrew.

4-    The prohibition of Kilaim is the planting of a grape seed with a wheat seed. Rabbi Akiva adds that also when one is ‘Makayem’ Kilaim one is chayev Malkus.

What is the definition of  the word ‘Makayem’ ?

The Aruch’s definition of being “Mikyem” Kilaim is that he did nothing at all, he didn’t plant the seeds, the wind blew them in and he just let remain there.

Tosfos does not like this interpretation because according to Rabbi Akiva’s opinion that one needs to perform an action to receive Malkus, if one really did nothing (such letting it remain in the ground) how can one receive Malkus for doing nothing

Therefore Tosfos has his own definition of the word ‘Makayem’  KilaimIt means that he built a fence around the Kilaim. Tosfos considers that an action in the prohibition of Kilaim.

We mentioned that Tosfos’s answer is hard to understand because one still did not do an action with the actual Kilaim which would warrant him to receive Maulks!

5-             For Gimmel Tamuz we semi-joked about the definition of a “meshichist”…..that it is an easily moveable and adjustable definition…….

6-             We mentioned the Ohr Hatorha about the definitions of death according to Kabala and Chassidus. The Rebbe Rashab also expounds on this topic. See attached.

At issue is an age old question of the Zohar and others. How can the Torah state that the cause of death in the human race is a result of Adam’s eating from the Tree of Life when the Torah (which preceded the creation of the world) states many laws of impurity which comes as a result of touching a dead body. It seems that death was programmed in the human race even prior to Adam’s failure in Gan Eiden.

The Zohar (as explained by the Rebbe the Tzemach Tzedek) responds that true, death was part of the original plan. But that ‘death’ would be a mere ‘transfer’ from one world to another. (Story of Reb Leivik).

In these ‘lighter forms of death’ the body either:

a-     ascends with the soul (Eliyohu and Chanoch) or,

b-     the body ceases to function and is actually buried. But the soul “transfers to another world just like one changes from weekday clothes to Shabbos clothes”.

In either case, had not Adam sinned,  one would not feel what is called ‘the pain of death’. This was the original idea of death! Painless.

The sin of Adam caused humans to go thru ‘ta’am miso’. A more ‘gross’ form of death.

Has any human experienced this (b- body ceases to function but soul is transferred) ‘lighter form of death’?

The Tzemach Tzedek says that that is the meaning of ‘Ya’akov ovinu lo mes’.


Ohr Hatorah

Atres Chukas

Makos 4a (2) Shiur (6/24/14)

Makos 4a (2) 6/24/2014

  1. We spoke about the Gemore that seems to say that if a few gallons of water are dumped into an ocean, as opposed to water of a river, the water does not mix in immediately. Last week we posted the Chasam Soifer where he writes that is perplexed about this as the water in an ocean is constantly moving etc.  He suggests that perhaps the salty ocean water does not quickly mix with fresh water.
  2. In connection to the above we mentioned a rare gem in the writings on the Rogatchover highlighting his regard to the Alter Rebbe and his Torah.

Some background first.

The common custom is that when writing a get in addition to writing the name of the city where the get is being written the city is identified with its nearest body of water. Such as an ocean, spring, river or a well.

In Yerushalayim they write “Yerusholayim that is adjacent to the water of the (river) Shelach (that is the Silwan stream) and waters of wells”.

In Brooklyn the custom is to write “City of Brooklyn that sits on the East River”.

[if it turns out that the river stated is not near the city and/or spelled incorrectly the Get may be invalid and a hoard of problems arise……

In 2011 some Rabbis raised the issue about all the Gitten written in Lakewood that perhaps are ALL invalid…… See here:

Oy Vey….]

See here a list of cities and the spelling of their rivers from the ‘Tiv Gittin’- an authoritative manual on Get writing.

What about a city that is located on a  lake? The common custom is to write “river” or “the wells near the city”.

The question is whether a lake is like an ocean (size, shape and water not flowing) or  a river. A lake that has waves is also a factor in the discussion.


In 1925, the famed Chossid and Rav, Reb Avrohom Eliyohu Plotkin wrote to the Ragatchover about an interesting ‘Pinkus’ or Community Historical Book of the City of Asvia  that was situated on lake Seliger. (?)


[I’m not sure about the exact city and/or name of the lake. Need help locating this city and lake on a map. See below comment from Alex Hepfenheimer]


The book contained an entry stating that the Alter Rebbe instructed that when writing a get there that one should write “City of Asvia, situated on a ‘small ocean’ “Yama Zuta” called Lake Seliger (or Suzia?) and some wells…”


Reb Avrohom Eliyohu Plotkin realized that using the term ‘small ocean’ for a lake is a novel idea not mentioned in earlier sources. He thus wrote to the Ragatchover if one can rely on the Pinkus.


The response on the Rogatchover is typical with loads of cryptic footnotes etc.


What is rare about the response is that as it is well known in the Yeshiva world, the Ragatchover never quotes any source other than a select few from the Rishonim. He ignored even the Shulchan Aruch! His ‘respect’ to anyone, save Rambam and Rashi, was very limited indeed.


Yet in this letter he refers to the Alter Rebbe as “the true genius”. “ha’Goan ho’Amitee”.


The Ragatchever cites numerous places in Sha”s that discuss the waves in the ocean as well as lakes.


He also refers to our Gemore about the water in an ocean not moving etc. therefore, in a sense, a lake is more similar to an ocean than to a river.


His solution to the question (how can you say that ocean water doesn’t move when there are waves?) is that in comparison to rivers, ocean water is stationary.


He then brings proof to the Alter Rebbe’s idea that the term “ocean” is used even when not referring to a large ocean such as the Atlantic.


Even a man-made large pool is called an ocean! He writes that in the Beis Hamikdosh there was a large copper basin placed on 12 copper oxen (for the Kohanim to wash their hands and feet) and that is indeed called in Tanach the “Sea of Solomon ”!

Despite all this and much much more, the Ragatchover instructs (in the second letter) not to use the term ‘small ocean’ for a lake since it is a term not mentioned in Gemore. He suggest writing ‘lake’ so and so.

  1. We mentioned the notes the Rebbe wrote on the letters he received from his father, Reb Levi’k, if one can be ‘makdish’ a korban in his heart without verbalizing. In Likutei Torah the A”R writes that one can etc.


The general response from Reb Levik to the Rebbe is that the Likutei Torah is a book of ‘Ma’amorin’ not a book of ‘halocho’…..


Please see the attached links.


Ragtshover regarding The AR Pesak to write a small river (2)

From Alex:


  1. “Asvia” is probably Osveya, located on the lake of the same name. (The expression quoted from the pinkas is באסוויע מתא דיתבא על ימא זוטא המכונה אזירא דמתקריא סוויע.) It has another claim to fame – it was the birthplace of R. Aharon Strasheler.

    Here’s Lake Seliger. A look at it in Google Maps shows that R. Plotkin’s town of Ostashkov is located on it.


Makos 4a – Shiur (6/17/14)

Makos 4a. 

1. We spoke about the big chiddush of the A”R in Hilchos Shabbos. In short, the A”R states that there are two ‘melochos’  pertaining to cutting/tearing/ripping on Shabbos:

A-  Chotech-, which only applies when cutting an object something to measure and/or in an exact line. Such as a perforated sheet or tissue.

B-  Ko’rea-  which only applies in a case where cutting, ungluing or taking apart any composite material. Meaning  that is put together from a bunch of parts. Such as a piece of cloth that is woven from many strands.

Therefore, cutting a paper, which is not a composite,  there is no issue to do so on Shabbos unless one forms something new by cutting it.

​ The Mishna Brurah mentions this chiddush of the A”R but does not mention the A”R’s name! See the attached PDF.

We mentioned that an Israeli Yemenite Rov, a  true talmid chochom, Reb Pinchos Zevichi,  writes that due to the change in the method of producing paper nowadays (it is a composite of many materials)   A”R would agree that even today you would not be allowed to tear a paper on Shabbos.

It is in his book  עטרת פז. ח”א.

Others who mention it:


2- We spoke about ‘tevilas nida’ in a ‘Mayon’ – meaning a well or spring and NOT a conventional Mikvah.  Machlokes.

Interesting that in Likutei Torah  the A”R says that one needs Mayim Chaim!

Rebbe’s note on this:


3- Discussed the common universal practice of warming a Mikva- something we  (correctly) take for granted that it is OK!

See here that the Shulchan Oruch/Mechaber has a big problem with it.

4- Issue with pouring water into an ocean or river and the water not mixing.

Chasam Sofer ​ notes that this Gemore is beyond him.  See here​.

We will continue this topic IY”H next week.


MIshna Berurah, referring to the שיטה  of the AR

Makos 3a-b Shiur (5/27/14)

Makus 3a-b

1. We spoke about R’ Eliezer from the city of Tul, regarding a teacher who did not get paid on time if he is allowed to charge what he could have invested and earned had he been paid on time. See here for more of this discussion.

2. We spoke about the Machlokes Rash”i  & Tosfos if a Pruzbull is the same thing as someone who gives his Shtar / debts to beis din.

3. We mentioned the Kovno Rov’s (In English and Hebrew) very logical explanation regarding why a person does not count Sefiras Haomer if he is unsure which day it is. The definition of counting, he says, is being definite about the number. When when counts ‘two or three’, it negates the concept of counting.
We then spoke about the Rebbe’s and Rav JB Solovetchik’s  identical response to the ‘logical and cute’ idea. (Attached please find the pdf).

 4- Attached please find the chart showing the two ways one can calculate the amount (net present value) of what a Kesubah is worth prior to death or divorce.

The Rebbe and JB


Makos 3a Shiur (5/21/14)

Makos 3a

1. We spoke about Reb Elchonon’s explanation that Eidim Zomemin don’t necessarily get what would have happened to the defendant, rather they get what Beis Din would have Pasekned. For example, if the witnesses claim that the defendant stole something, even though -had the verdict been carried out- the Bais Din would have sold the defendant as a slave (because of lack of money), the false witnesses would only have to pay money.

This is because the verdict of Beis Din would have been “pay money”. The selling the defendant as a slave is only a result of his lack of funds.


2- Attached is the famous letter of Reb Elchonon about Yeshiva University and other “Torah u’Mada” institutions.


3-  We mentioned, that we all assume, that the money paid by Eidim Zomemin goes to the defendant.


In reality there is no clear indication of this anywhere in Shas!


The first to question this assumption was Reb Eliezer of Metz, France who was a Tosafist, a student of Rabbeinu Tam and author of the Sefer Yerayim.

See here:


In Hebrew:


His Sefer in various editions:


See the attached PDF of the Yireim who brings up this question and proclaims that until someone shows him differently he thinks the Eidim can give the money to Bais Din and they can distribute it to whoever they or he would like. See the commentary on the side.



In the footnotes, Reb Yerucham Perla* also tries to answer the Yerayim’s question.


* Rav Yerucham Fishel Perla (1846-1934). Born in Warsaw in 1846 and studied under Rav Yehoshua Leib Diskin in Lomza and under Rav Yosef Dov Halevi Soloveitchik.While he was still young, he was offered prestigious rabbinates, including in Lublin and Krakow, but he turned them down so he could continue his studies. He is known for his encyclopedic commentary to the Sefer Hamitzvos by Rav Saadiah Gaon. Editor


Yiraim about who the money goes to


Reb Elchonon YU PDF

Makos 2b  Shiur (5/13/14)

Makos 2b

  1. We spoke about Zomemim that it is a Lav that is not connected with an action. Lav She’in Bo Ma’ase where the general rule is that Malkus is never given.

Why is Zomemim a Lav that is not connected with an action?

Either because when “testifying” one just  utters words or (even if talking is considered an “action”) or because the concept of a witness is “testifying what he “saw””and that, seeing, is not considered an “action”.


We mentioned the Magid Mishna’s opinion of the Ramba”m, that even if you are ovier lav without an action, if it was possible to do the lav with an action you are still going to get Malkus. (Lengthy Minchas Chinuch on this topic. # 8)

The opinion of the Rambam (as opposed to many others) is that witnesses can indeed submit their testimony in writing! Thus Zomemim should be considered a Lav that does indeed have “action”. A gute kashe


2. Ramban’s view that the real punishment for someone’s ox killing a person is misa bidei shmoyim. The “koifer” (atonement payment) is a means to avoid the misa bidei shmoyim. It is a substitute. Therefore the first set of eidim never really could have caused misa bidei shmoyim to happen to the victim, because heaven always knew he was innocent. Thus the eidim zomemeim can’t be required to pay the “koifer” which is only a substitute.


3-We started speaking about Reb Elchonon Wasserman vort on an Eved Ivry. See here  in English or Hebrew.

Attached is the preface his children wrote for his famous book “Kovetz Shiurim”. On the last page is the fascinating story of his heroic and holy stance before he was killed by the Germans YM”S.


Elchonon Wasserman

Makos 2a.  Shiur 5/6/14

Makos 2a.

1. We mentioned Tosfos’s question why the Mishna (citing two exceptions to the “hazomo rule”)  does not use a case of a mamzer which in theory pertains to everyone as opposed to a Gerusha Vachalutza that is limited to Kohanim.


2. In discussing if Makos is a separate tractate or combined with Sanhedrin, we spoke of the two different orders of the Mishnayos, either Zema”n Noka”t or Neze”m Koto”n. . Attached is the Sicah of the Rebbe regarding the Mitzva Tanks where he explained that the work ‘tank’ (same letters as “Noka”t) is symbolic with three ‘sedorim’ in Mishnayos and how one who goes on a ‘tank’ needs to follow the order to be successful.


The original Sicha was 12 Tamuz 5734.


3. Tosfos in Yevomos (88a, V. Oso Gavra) if two witnesses say that a person is dead, even if he shows up at a later date he is or may considered dead, or we must say that it is not him!


4. Ramaban’s logical reason why you believe the second set of witnesses because the first set turns into defendants.


5. Yaakov Emden’s  (Yavet”z) , (great-grandfather of NY Senator Jacob Javits) relates a fascinating story that occurred with his grandfather Reb Yakov.  During a pogrom where many Jews were beheaded, his grandfather was next on line to be killed. At the last moment he was miraculously saved from execution but fell into the pit where those before him were killed. People who witnessed the entire saga testified at the Beis Din of the famous Reb Heshel of Cracow (teacher of the Sha”ch) that they saw him beheaded. Despite his ruling that Reb Yakov’s wife can remarry she refused to do so. Sure enough  Reb Yakov reappeared. As a consequence of this story, Reb Heshel (the accepted ‘Rabbi’ of that time) refused to ever rule again on Agunos because of  the mistake that was almost made.


Attached is a PDF with the story.

Regarding the actual book Megilas Sefer see Here. You can also buy the book in English Here.

Sicha of the Rebbe about Mitzva Tanks

Yaakov Emdin’s Father, never wanted to deal with Agunos

Sicha of the Rebbe about Mitzva Tanks

Pesach Reading April 11, 2014


Yud Alef  Nissan 5774

April 11, 2014

Please enjoy some points of the last shiur accompanied by links to interesting reading material.

Chag Kosher ve’Sameach to all!




While discussing the prohibition to rebuild Yericho (Jericho), Sanhedrin 113a, we mentioned the prohibition to live in Egypt – Mitzrayim.


It is a topic that much has been written about – primarily as to why historically, despite the prohibition, one finds Jews – amongst them the Rambam no less – that did indeed live in Egypt.


Many explanations are offered. Here are some:


1- The prohibition was only temporary. G-D didn’t want Jews, soon after the exodus, returning to the awful place they had left from.


2- Only if one travels to Egypt using the exact route the Jews took at yetzias Mitzrayim. Not if one arrives via the sea for example.


3- One is allowed to live there temporarily for the sake of earning a living.


4- Assyrian King Sancheriv, upon conquering many lands, exiled every homogenous population and relocated them to another country. He did so to the Jews too – “the exile of the ten tribes.” The intention  of the Biblical prohibition not to return to mitzrayim was so as not to mingle and learn from the abominable original Egyptians. The Egyptian population since the reign of Sancheriv are newcomers. Thus the prohibition is null and void.


We mentioned the famous quote from the ancient Jewish traveler  Rabbi Ishtori Haparchi.

No – he was not Oriental…..

See his bio here:


In Hebrew:


His book: Kaftor vo’Ferach is a travelogue of Eretz Yisroel composed in the 13th century!


One printing:

It is indeed a very interesting read.


In any case, Reb Ishtori (or Ish Tori), writes that upon his visit to Cairo he met a great grandson of the Rambam. The descendant tells him his great grandfather would alway sign his letters:

“Moshe son of Maimon – he who daily transgresses three Lavim (prohibitions)”




The problem is that many say the Rambam never penned such words. Why?


Firstly, it does not make sense that the Rambam, who clearly states in his Yad that the prohibition still exists, would write that on himself. Surely the Rambam had a valid Halachic reason for remaining in Mitzrayim and would therefore not be transgressing these Lavs.


The Rambam in the Yad only writes exception # 3 above. Perhaps he felt that, after being exiled from Spain,  Egypt was the only place to survive as a Jew make a living.


Secondly, and recent finds of manuscripts support this, we have in our possession some actual letters written by the Rambam and this “alleged” subscript is nowhere to be found.



We mentioned a Kabbalistic answer. Here it goes:


The world was created with holy sparks sprinkled over the entire globe. The goal of Yiden is to find these lost sparks and elevate them by transforming each one with deeds of Torah and Mitzvos.


Creation began with 288 sparks. Moshiach will come when we find and elevate 100% of these wandering sparks.


When Jews left Mitzrayim they “emptied” that land of all “spark of Kedusha”. Thus, there was no need to be in Egypt any longer. Therefore a prohibition existed for Jews to return there as there was nothing for him to accomplish in Mitzrayim.


This idea is dealt at length in several of the Arizal’s works. See here from the Pri Etz Chaim written by Reb Chaim Vital:


Actually, that generation elevated 202 sparks out of the 288. The words “and also the eirev rav exited with them (Jews)” allude to the 202 (rav) that were purified.




Parenthetically, we have been trying hard to wrap up the measly balance of just 86 sparks…..


There is an explanation from the Rebbe as to why millions of Jews since 2448 can’t seem to accomplish in over 3,000 years what 600,000 did in a mere 210 years…… But that’s another topic for the future. Bl”n.



Now the Arizal adds the clincher.


Unfortunately Jews transgressed  this prohibition and returned to live in Mitzrayim. By doing this they “brought (back) unfiltered sparks”. Egypt received new ‘lost sparks’ waiting to be transformed into Kedusha.


Consequently there currently is no prohibition to go back to Mitzrayim as there are lost sparks that need to be elevated.


This latter point is mentioned in the name of the Ariza”l by the Chido on Yuma 39,a.


See here:.


We have a Kabalistic answer concerning the Rambam and others who lived in Egypt.



Today is Yud Alef Nissan so what follows is quite appropriate. The Rebbe mentioned the above explanation (why the Rambam et al did live in Egypt) in 1954 and again in 1974. (See both links below)


But all he said in 1954  was “as we find written” and in 1974 he added as it is in the “the writings of the Arizal”.


When they wrote the Sicha the world was turned over to find the exact location in the vast writings of the Arizal. (The Arizal didn’t write anything on his own. It was his students, primarily Reb Chaim Vital, who wrote what we know today as ‘Kabolas ho’Arizal”).


But alas! It was nowhere to be found. The Sicho in 1974 was printed without a footnote.


Enter the computer age….it was only in the last decade when searches were developed that it was located in the Chido’s writings in the name of the Arizal. A footnote was subsequently added.




Here is a spooky related item.


The previous Rebbe said in 1933 that the Maggid of Mezritch gave his students particular “Yechudim” for every country except for Germany! No explanation was offered.


In 1954, the Rebbe recounted that 1933 Sicha. He added that for years people wondered “what is wrong with  Germany?…..until after WWII it was unclear as to the German exception.150 years have passed since the Magid… it is finally understood……


He continued saying that nowadays one can say that even in Germany there is ‘work’ to do. The Rebbe paralleled this change to the prohibition concerning the return to Mitzrayim. That rule has changed  due to the fact that Jews were exiled there and brought with them Nitzozos that need to be found and elevated. Etc.


See here the 1954 Sicha – lost sparks in Egypt and Germany. Pages 256-257:


See here (again) the 1974 Sicha for a slightly different idea.


Here the Rebbe says that it was gentiles that brought back these spark.


In Likutei Sichos Vol. 19, footnotes on page 171 there are references to several ‘Nigle’ ideas about these topic. See above #1-4.


See here a general overview in Hebrew. The Chido is mentioned on Page 9:


Shiur 04/30/2013

Aspaklaria Ha’meira and Aspaklaria She’Aina Me’ira.

A-     Further to our discussion of Reb Yisroel Lifschutz, the open minded author of the “Tiferes Yisroel” commentary on the Mishna, we mentioned his take on the definition of Aspaklaria Ha’meira and Aspaklaria She’Aina Me’ira. Sanhedrin 97b.

Loosely translated as: Clear glass and unclear glass.

What is the real meaning of these two words?

See here in Mishnayos Kelim Chapter 30.

The Rambam there has interesting words to describe both types. What he describes can mean: Glass, mirror and/or clear stone.

The clear stone he mentions is actually a semi-precious stone that can be polished and used as a glass in a window.  See below what Boaz has located.

The Tosfos Yom Tov there says that according to the Rambam “Aspaklaria She’Aina Me’ira” means a mirror. And “Aspaklaria Ha’meira” – “brill”. A German word that can mean either spectacles or a telescope.

Reb Yisroel Lifschutz comments that it is impossible to say that the Rambam was referring to spectacles or a telescope because these two items were invented much after the Rambam.

He writes the names of the two inventors for these items.

1-      Alexander Spina- inventor of spectacles. “Glasses”.

2-      Zacharias Janssen one of the inventors of the telescope.

Reb Yisroel Lifschutz then continues tell us what the Rambam really meant.  This is where I’m lost. Please help. Does he mean 2 types of mirrors?

B-      The Previous Rebbe (Bar Mitzvah Ma’mor) translates Aspaklaria Ha’meira a microscope.

C-      The Alter Rebbe in Likutei Torah translates Aspaklaria She’Aina Me’ira  as a mirror.

D- The Mitteler Rebbe describes Aspaklaria Ha’meira as a microscope or telescope.

D-     See here a compilation of the places in Chassidus: page 121  page 83

E-      See here in Hebrew:

F- The Rambam mentions glass and a stone called Shoam that is translucent.

Boaz located this from the ‘Illustrated Dictionary of Historic Architecture’.

Specularia: Windowpanes used in ancient Rome; usually made of thin sheets of mica (lapis specularis).

Read more:;+usually+made+of+thin+sheets+of+mica+(lapis+specularis).&source=bl&ots=gPfQ_j4j_G&sig=9Df0iUe-8hzA3UKg3JdFadkokRY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8UJ5Uez5DorZ0QHcjICgAQ&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Windowpanes%20used%20in%20ancient%20Rome%3B%20usually%20made%20of%20thin%20sheets%20of%20mica%20(lapis%20specularis).&f=false


What is Shoham?


There is more.


Shiur 10/24/2012


Spontaneous Generation notes:

Tiferes Yisrael springmaus


who refers to Link (the Link is a link, but that is also his name) (Urwelt, page 327 –


Link Springmaus


However, Slifkin, (overview) and others, notably among many, Sid (Schneir) Z. Leiman, Professor of Jewish History and Literature in Brooklyn College and at YU posits in his book Hazon Nahum that the Tiferes Yisrael misunderstood Link and all subsequent commentators (including our own Margaliyos Hayam) accepted that error, in error.


As for the Rambam, accoding to R”Y Kapach he did not think it actually existed.