An Av and its Toladah

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The Gemora (Bava Kamma 2a) notes: We see regarding Shabbos that there are thirty-nine main categories of melachos (that are forbidden to perform according to Torah law) on Shabbos. This implies that there are sub-categories as well. Regarding Shabbos, we say that the sub-categories are like the main categories. Whether one transgresses a main category or sub-category unwittingly, he must bring a korban chatas. Whether one transgresses a main category or sub-category willfully, he is liable to be stoned. What difference, then, does it make that one is called a main category and one is called a sub-category? The difference is that if one performs two main category prohibitions or two sub-category prohibitions, he is liable twice. However, if he performs a main category prohibition and its sub-category prohibition at the same time, he is only liable for transgressing Shabbos once (and would only bring one korban chatas).

Rashi explains that when one performs an av (main category) together with its toladah (sub-category), he is liable for the av, and not for the toladah. For example, if one planted a tree (av) and watered a plant (a toladah of zore’a), he is liable for the av, and not for the toladah.

The commentators ask: What practical difference does it make if he is liable for the av or the toladah? The bottom line is that he is required to bring one korban chatas!?

Reb Tzvi Pesach Frank suggests the following: The Gemora in Shabbos (71b) rules that if one eats two olive-sized pieces of cheilev (forbidden fats) in one state of unawareness, and he is apprised of the first and he brings a korban. If subsequently, he becomes aware of the second, he is now required to bring another chatas for that one (for the bringing of one korban cannot exempt one from bringing a korban for a violation that he did not know about at the time). Accordingly, if one would perform an av and its toladah together, and he would be apprised of the av, but not the toladah, he would bring a korban for the av. If afterwards he is made aware of the toladah, he would be liable to bring a korban for it, for according to Rashi, one is not liable for a toladah when it is done together with its av.

Read more!

Best of Physicians to Gehinom

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The Mishna (Kiddushin 82a) had stated: Abba Guryon of Sidon says in the name of Abba Gurya: A man should not teach his son to be a donkey driver, a camel driver, a wagon driver, a sailor, a shepherd, or a shopkeeper, for their craft is the craft of robbers. Rabbi Yehudah says in his name, Most of the donkey drivers are evil men, and most of the camel drivers are righteous. Most of the sailors are pious. The best of the physicians are destined to Gehinom, and the most righteous of the butchers is the partner of Amalek.

There are several explanations as to the meaning of the Mishna when it states that the best of the physicians are destined to Gehinom.

Rashi understands it to mean that doctors do not fear sicknesses for they eat healthily. They therefore are not humble before Hashem. There are times that they will cause someone to die. They also can refuse to heal the poor if they do not have money to pay for their services.

The Pardes Yosef writes that a doctor must visualize Gehinom opened up before him at all times, for his decisions can lead to someone’s death.

The meaning cannot be that all doctors are destined for Gehinom, for there are many examples of great Torah scholars who were also physicians. Shmuel, Rabbi Chanina, Abba Umna, the Rambam and many more were all doctors. Rather, there are two types of doctors. There are the righteous ones who know that that they can accomplish nothing without Hashem; they are merely Hashem’s agents to heal. There are others, unfortunately, who are not believers. They think that they have the power of healing in their hands. These physicians skip the blessing of “Refa’einu” in Shemoneh Esrei. Accordingly, they have only seventeen brochos in Shemoneh Esrei. This is what the Mishna means: “Tov she’b’rofim” – the numerical value of “tov” is seventeen. Those doctors that have only seventeen brochos in their Shemoneh Esrei are destined for Gehinom.

Read more!

Discretion of the Judges - Kiddushin 74

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The braisa continues: A judge is believed to say the following: “I found in favor of this person, and I found against this person.” This is only true if the litigants are still standing before him (for then, he is still responsible to remember how he ruled); otherwise, he is not believed.

The Gemora asks: But let us check to see who is holding the document in which it is written that the verdict was in his favor?


The Gemora answers: The braisa is referring to a case where the document was ripped up.

The Gemora asks: Why don’t we just rejudge the case?

The Gemora answers: The braisa is referring to a case where it was decided based upon “the choice of the judges” (and we therefore are concerned that he will not reach the same verdict the second time).

The Gemora in Kesuvos (85a) cites the following dispute: If a person sold the same field to two people on the same day, Rav says they should split the field, and Shmuel says the law is the choice of the judges (they should decide who to give it to).

The Rishonim disagree as to the method that the judges should use to give one of the claimants the entire field. Rashi explains that “the choice of the judges” means that the judges choose to whom the property in question should be given by attempting to determine, based on logical considerations, to whom the seller would have preferred to give the field.

Tosfos argues with Rashi and maintains that “the choice of the judges” means that the judges give the field to whomever they please. They need not base their decision on whom they think the seller preferred, but rather, they base their decision on whatever considerations they deem appropriate, such as which of the two claimants needs the property more, or which one is a Torah scholar.

The Gemora maintains, at this point, that in general, it is preferable to resolve the case with “the choice of the judges” rather than to split the property, because by using this method, there is at least a possibility that the correct person will receive the entire field. Therefore, according to Shmuel, the judges give the entire field to one of the two claimants.

Kollel Iyun HaDaf discusses why Rav would disagree and hold that the property is divided because of the witnesses’ signatures.

Read more!

A Righteous Person Born on that Day

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The Gemora (Kiddushin 72) relates: When Rebbe was about to die, he said, “There is a city Homanya in Bavel, and all of its residents are Ammonites. There is a city Misgarya in Bavel, and all of its residents are mamzeirim. There is a city Birka in Bavel, and there are two brothers who swap their wives with each other. There is a city Birsa Disatya in Bavel, and today its residents have strayed from Hashem. One Shabbos there was an abundance of fish in the pond and they all came to catch the fish. Rabbi Achai the son of Rabbi Yoshiyah excommunicated them, and then they became apostates. There is a city Akra D’Agma in Bavel, and a man named Adda bar Ahavah resides there, who today is sitting in the lap of Avraham (for he was being circumcised that day). Rav Yehudah was born today in Bavel.”

For master taught: When Rabbi Akiva died, Rebbe was born. When Rebbe died, Rav Yehudah was born. When Rav Yehudah died, Rava was born. When Rava died, Rav Ashi was born. This teaches you that a righteous person does not leave this world until a righteous person like him is created. This is as it says: And the sun rises and the sun sets. Before the sun of Eli was extinguished, the sun of Shmuel the Ramasi rose.

The commentators ask: Why is it necessary to be anguished when a righteous person departs from this world? Why, behold, another righteous person was born and will be capable of taking his place?

The Chidah offers several answers:

1) It is not definite that the new righteous person will find himself in the same location as the previous one; it is therefore incumbent on the residents of the city to mourn their loss.
2) Although there will be an eventual replacement for the deceased tzaddik, but it will take some time until he reaches the level of his predecessor. It is for this period of time, when there will be a void of a righteous person, that people are required to mourn for.

Read more!

Money Purifies a Mamzer

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said (Kiddushin 71) : Money will purify mamzeirim (if they are accepted into Klal Yisroel through their wealth, Hashem will not make their disqualifications known in the Messianic era).

The question is obvious: How can money purify mamzeirim? Is money the answer for all things?

The Ri”f, when he cites Rabbi Tarfon in the Mishna (Rabbi Tarfon said: There is a manner in which mamzeirim can be purified. How is this? If a mamzer marries a slavewoman, the child is classified as a slave (and not a mamzer). If the child is freed, he is regarded as a free man, and is permitted to marry into the congregation.), writes: and this is what Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that money will purify mamzeirim.

The Ra”n explains the Ri”f as follows: He means that a mamzer can purify himself with money, by purchasing a slavewoman and marrying her. However, the Ra”n concludes that it does not appear that this is the simple explanation in the Gemora.

Reb Heshel from Cracow explained our Gemora based upon a Gemora in Bava Metzia (83b), which states that a person who acts with chutzpah is a sign that he is a mamzer. However, it is also known that rich people can also act with chutzpah. It emerges as follows: If one is seen acting with chutzpah, there is a strong possibility that he is a mamzer. However, money can purify a mamzer. For if he is wealthy, we will say that it is on account of his wealth that he is acting with chutzpah, and not because he is a mamzer.

Read more!

Converts

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

Converts are like Sapachas

Rabbi Chelbo said (Kiddushin 70) : Converts are as harmful to the Jewish people as sapachas (a type of tzara’as).

Rashi explains that this is because converts are not so meticulous in the performance of mitzvos, and those Jews who observe this behavior will become influenced by them.

Tosfos writes that each and every Jew is a guarantor for his fellow, and if converts do not perform mitzvos meticulously, they will be punished on account of them.

Tosfos rejects this explanation, for he proves that when the Jewish people accepted to be guarantors for each other, they did not accept to be guarantors for the converts as well.

Tosfos brings another explanation: They are harmful to the Jews, for it is impossible that someone will not bother them, and the punishment for this will be severe, for the Torah in twenty-four places warn the Jewish people not to bother the converts.

Tosfos brings another explanation: It is because of the converts that we are still in exile, for the Gemora says that Klal Yisroel are scattered all over the world much more so than other nations in order for there to be additional converts.

Rabbeinu Avraham the convert explains differently: It is because the converts are meticulous in their performance of the mitzvos. This shows the shortcomings of ordinary Jews.

TEACHING TORAH TO A GENTILE PLANNING ON CONVERTING
The Rambam (Issurei Bi’ah 14:2) writes that we inform the prospective convert the essentials of the faith, which is the unity of God and the prohibition of idolatry, and they go on at great length about these matters.

The Machaneh Chaim (Y”D II, 45) asks: Why isn’t this forbidden on account of a gentile studying Torah? The Gemora in Sanhedrin (59a) states explicitly that a non-Jew who studies Torah is liable for death.

He answers by citing a Medrash Tanchuma in Parshas Vayelech: The numerical value of Torah is six hundred and eleven. The remaining two mitzvos which complete the six hundred and thirteen are the two mitzvos which were given by Hashem directly at Har Sinai. This is the explanation of the verse: The Torah that Moshe commanded us to observe. Moshe instructed us regarding six hundred and eleven mitzvos; the other two were from Hashem.

The prohibition against teaching an idolater Torah is only applicable to the six hundred and eleven mitzvos that Moshe taught us. The other two, I am Hashem your God and the Unity of God; one would be permitted to teach to them. This is where the Rambam derived his ruling from; we can go on with great length discussing the unity of God and the prohibition of idolatry.

The Maharsha (Shabbos 31a) writes that it is permitted to teach Torah to an idolater who wishes to convert. He proves this from the incident with Hillel and the convert.

Reb Akiva Eiger (41) disagrees and maintains that it is forbidden to teach Torah to an idolater even if he is planning on converting. Hillel taught the convert Torah only after he converted.

NOT BELIEVING A SCHOLAR
At that time, the plaintiff spoke up and said to Rav Yehudah, “Is it me that you call a slave, when, in fact, I descend from the Chasmonai family!” Rav Yehudah responded, “Shmuel has said that whoever says that he is from the Chashmonai family is in truth a slave (for Herod had killed them all out).

Rav Nachman said to Rav Yehudah, “Do you not hold of that which Rabbi Abba said in the name of Rav Huna, who said in the name of Rav: Wherever a scholar issues a halachic ruling (that was previously unknown) and such a point comes up for a practical decision, he is obeyed if he made the statement before the incident occurred, but if the statement was made only after the incident occurred, he is not obeyed (and therefore, we do not have to accept this ruling which you stated in the name of Shmuel)!?

Rav Yehudah replied, “But there is Rav Masnah who holds like me as well?” Rav Masnah was not seen in Nehardea for thirteen years, but just that day, he came before them. Rav Yehudah asked him, “Does the master remember that which Shmuel said while he had one foot on the bank of the river and the other foot was on a boat?” Rav Masnah replied, “Shmuel said, ‘whoever says that he is from the Chashmonai family is in truth a slave, for no one remained from their family except for one maiden who went up on the roof and called out with a loud voice, “whoever says that he is from the Chashmonai family is in truth a slave.” She then threw herself off the roof and died.’”

Rav Nachman declared that the man was indeed a slave. That day, they ripped up many kesuvos in Nehardea (all the married woman from that man’s family lost their kesuvos).

From Rashi’s commentary (Yevamos 77a), it would seem that the reason we do not accept the scholar’s statement is because we are concerned that he might deliberately falsify the halachah.

The Ritva forcefully disputes this. Heaven forbid that a Torah scholar would deliberately falsify the ruling. Rather, the reason why we don’t believe him in these situations is because he might make a mistake; in the excitement of the moment, it would appear to him that he remembers the tradition in one manner, when in fact, it is really the opposite.

Read more!

Waiter in a Non-Jewish Restaurant

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

(From Meoros Daf HaYomi)

Our Gemara (Kiddushin 69) quotes the words of Nechemiya ben Chachalya, who is referred to in Ezra (2:63) as “Hatirshasa.” His job was to attend to King Nebuchadnezzar and to serve him his wine. Based on the Talmud Yerushalmi, Rashi (s.v. Hatirshasa) explains that part of Nechemiya’s task was to taste the wine before serving it as a security measure to prove that he was not trying to poison the king. As such, chachamim granted Nechemiya a special dispensation [heter] to drink [shasa] wine made by non-Jews, and therefore was given the name “Hatirshasa.”

Source of the prohibition against non-Jewish wine: Since Nebuchadnezzar was not an idol-worshipper, his wine was not considered libation wine, which is forbidden by the Torah (Avoda Zara 29b). Still, the Sages had to grant Nechemiya explicit permission to drink his wine because when Daniel was exiled to the Babylonian king’s palace, he pledged not to defile himself by drinking the king’s wine, even if it was not used for libation offerings (Daniel 1:8). This decree was enacted once again for Klal Yisrael by the talmidim of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel (Shabbos 17b), who prohibited drinking non-Jews’ wine, even in a Jewish home (see Beis Yosef, Y.D. 123, Os 1; see also Encyclopedia Talmudis, “Yayin shel goyim” p. 335).

A man who made his living as a waiter asked the Radvaz (Part IV §22) whether he would be allowed to work in a non-Jewish restaurant and serve wine there. The Radvaz replied that although Nechemiya ben Chachalaya served wine to Nebuchadnezzar, this should not be used as an example, for he had no alternative. Had he tried to disobey the king’s standing orders, he would have placed his life in danger. But a Jew may not engage in this profession of his own volition, and he should be rebuked and, if possible, prevented from doing so. Furthermore, said the Radvaz, a Jew should not set foot at non-Jewish parties to prevent him from learning their ways.

The Kol Eliyahu (Responsa II §27) adds that if a waiter is involved in warming or preparing the food, he is liable to come to taste it and to transgress a Torah prohibition.

Read more!

Eretz Yisroel; Highest Place

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

Does High and Low Apply to Spherical Objects?

(From Meoros Daf HaYomi)

In our sugya (Kiddushin 69) the Gemara cites a verse in Yirmyahu (23:7) “…Who brought Bnei Yisrael up from the land of Egypt” and a verse in Devarim (17:8) “…then you shall arise and go up unto the place which the Lord thy G-d shall choose” to demonstrate that Eretz Yisrael is higher than any other land, and that the Beis HaMikdash is the highest point in Eretz Yisrael. The wording of the Gemara seems to indicate that Eretz Yisrael is physically higher. In fact, the Yam Shel Shlomo (on our sugya, Kiddushin Chap. 4, 1) goes so far as to say that if someone standing in Eretz Yisrael says, “I vow to go up to Chutz La’aretz,” the vow is considered to be made in vain and is invalid. Leaving Yerushalayim or Eretz Yisrael is always referred to as “going down.”

Many commentators maintain that our Gemara should not be interpreted literally. The Chasam Sofer (Responsa, Part II, Y.D. §234) stresses this point, writing, “…in fact, those who are somewhat familiar with the world map can see otherwise…actually the world is round, and high and low do not apply to spherical objects; from any given point one sees the skies high overhead and low on the horizon, forming a dome. Someone who approaches from a point on the horizon appears as if he emerged from a deep pit, and high and low do not apply.”

Furthermore the Maharal of Prague (in his book on Talmudic Aggados and in Tiferes Yosef, Chagiga 3b, s.v. Eizehu) writes that the Gemara is referring to the spiritual loftiness of Eretz Yisrael, and not to its physical height.

It is interesting to note that the Chasam Sofer (ibid) writes that Eretz Yisrael is said to be “higher than all other lands” because Creation began from the even shesiya [foundation stone] located on Har HaBayis (see Rashi, Sanhedrin 26b, s.v. veshesiya). Thus all eyes are raised to Eretz Yisrael and Har HaBayis because mankind lifts its gaze to the spot where the ground beneath its feet was first created.

Read more!

Conceived First or Born first; Who is the Firstborn?

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The Gemora (Kiddushin 68) states: We have learned that kiddushin does take effect with women that are forbidden merely by a negative commandment. It is written [Devarim 21:15]: If a man has two wives, one beloved, and the other loathed. The Gemora asks: Is there a beloved or loathed wife before Hashem? Rather, the Torah is referring to their marriage. Beloved means that he is married to a permitted woman and loathed means that he is married to a prohibited woman and nevertheless, the Torah states regarding them “If a man has two wives.” We derive from here that if a man marries a woman that is forbidden to him merely by a negative commandment, the Torah recognizes and validates the marriage.

The verse mentioned above continues and states that if the loathed wife becomes the mother of the man’s firstborn son, the father is forbidden to deny that son the right to the double portion and give it instead to the son from the beloved wife.

How can the Torah refer to one of the wives as “a loathed one”? Why would it enter our mind that the father can deprive the son of the loathed one if he in fact is the firstborn? It would seem from the order of the words in the verse that the son of the beloved woman was actually born first.

The following explanation is written in the name of the Gr”a. The Torah is referring to a case where a man divorced a woman and that is why she is called “the loathed one.” He married another woman soon afterwards. His present wife gave birth to a son seven months after the marriage. The divorced woman gave birth to a son after nine months. One might think that the double portion designated for the firstborn should go to the son of the beloved woman because he was born first; the Torah teaches us that this is not the case. Since the son of the loathed woman was conceived first, by rights, he is deserving of the double portion. This is what the Torah means when it says “for he is the first-fruits of his strength.”

There are those (the Netziv) who question if the Gr”a ever said this. One of the questions that they ask is from Rashi in Bereishis (25:26), who writes from a Medrash: The interpretation is in accordance to its simple meaning: Yaakov held onto Esav’s heel lawfully, to restrain him. Yaakov was formed from the first drop and Esav from the second. We can learn from a tube that has a narrow opening. If one would insert two stones into it, one after the other, the one that entered first will emerge last, and the one that entered last will emerge first. The result is that Esav, who was formed last, emerged first, and Yaakov, who was formed first emerged last, and Yaakov came to restrain him so that he should be the first to be born as he was the first to be formed, and he would open her womb and take the birthright by law.

According to the Gr”a, this leaves us with a question: If Yaakov was the true firstborn, why was it necessary for him to purchase the birthright from Esav?

The Kli Chemda differentiates between the birthright for inheritance, which is related to the time of conception (since it is based on a relationship with the father) and between the rights to serve in the Beis Hamikdosh, which is dependent on the time of birth. This is what Yaakov wished to purchase from Esav.

Read more!

Kiddushin with a Slavewoman - Kiddushin 68

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explains a braisa (Gittin 40a) to be dealing with the following case: The master told her, “Become free with this deed (of betrothal) and be betrothed to me with this.” [In this case, she was obviously not freed from beforehand.] Rabbi Meir holds that this expression (be betrothed) includes emancipation (for she cannot become betrothed to him unless he frees her first), and the Chachamim maintain that it does not include emancipation.

Tosfos in Yevamos (47b) asks: How can the kiddushin be effective if the slave did not immerse herself in a mikvah beforehand? The halachah is that after a slave becomes free, he is immersed in a mikvah to become a complete Jew. If so, this woman is still a slave, and kiddushin is not effective with a slave!?

Tosfos answers that we are dealing with a case where she immersed herself prior to the kiddushin.

The Nimukei Yosef states that the requirement for this immersion is only Rabbinical, and therefore, the kiddushin will be Biblically effective even if she did not immerse beforehand.

Reb Chaim Brisker asks that both of these answers will not resolve the issue according to the Rambam. He proves that the Rambam holds that this immersion is a Biblical requirement. This is because the Rambam maintains that this immersion is a completion of her conversion process. If so, asks Reb Chaim, it is obviously a Biblical requirement and it also cannot be done before she becomes free, for it is part of her conversion process and that can only be accomplished after she becomes free! How would the Rambam understand our Gemora? How can the kiddushin be effective with a slavewoman?

He answers as follows: A freed slave requires immersion in order to accept upon himself those halachos that he was lacking while he was still a slave, for at that time, he was not a complete Jew. This, however, has no bearing on the fact that kiddushin is not effective with a slave or a slavewoman. That, our Gemora in Kiddushin (68a) explains, is because a slave does not have any lineage (yuchasin). A slave, in this respect, is inferior to an idolater, for an idolater does have lineage. As soon as the slave is freed and he is no longer a slave, he does have lineage, even though his conversion was not completed, for even an idolater has lineage. It is for this reason that kiddushin can be effective in this case even though she did not immerse in the mikvah yet. For in order for the kiddushin to be effective, it is not necessary for her to have a completed conversion; as long as she is not a slave is sufficient, and since at the moment she becomes free, she is no longer a slave, kiddushin may take effect.

Read more!

Follow the Father - Kiddushin 67

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The braisa states: How do we know that if a male from any nation (other than the seven nations of Canaan, where by the other nations, the prohibition of “you shall not spare the life of any soul” does not apply) cohabited with a Canaanite woman (where the prohibition of “you shall not spare the life of any soul” does apply) and had a child; one is permitted to purchase that child as a slave (for he follows the father’s nationality and we are not obligated to kill him)? The braisa answers: It is written [Vayikra 25:44]: And also from among the children of the residents who live with you, from among them you may purchase slaves. One might have thought that even if a Canaanite male cohabited with a woman from any of the other nations and had a child; one would be permitted to purchase that child as a slave. It is therefore written [ibid.]: ….whom they begot in your land. The Torah teaches us that one may purchase slaves only from those who were born in your land to Canaanite mothers from non-Canaanite fathers, but not from among those children who were born abroad to non-Canaanite mothers from Canaanite fathers, and who later returned to reside in your land with their fathers.

The Minchas Chinuch writes that the halachah of following the male by the other nations is only if the child was born from an idolater woman; however, if she converted while she was pregnant, the child is legitimate and he does not follow the father, provided that the mother is permitted to join the congregation. He adds that even according to those who hold that the fetus is not regarded as the “thigh of the mother,” nevertheless, the lineage of idolaters is determined only after their birth, but as a fetus, they are not accorded the status of the father. And therefore, in this case, the child was born as a Jew, and therefore he follows the mother.

This halachah is applicable even in a case which causes us to rule stringently. If the father would be from a nationality which is permitted to join the congregation and the mother was an Egyptian woman, and she converted while she was pregnant, the child will be accorded the status of its mother and would therefore be ruled to be a second-generation Egyptian.

Read more!

Wearing the Tzitz - Kiddushin 66

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The braisa states: King Yannai once went to Kuchlis, which is located in the desert, and captured sixty of its villages. When he came back, he was very happy, and called together all of the Torah scholars. He said: Our fathers ate salty vegetables when they were building the Beis Hamikdash, we should also eat these now to remember our fathers. He then had salty vegetables placed on tables of gold, and the people (at the gathering) ate. There was a scorning, bad hearted, godless person named Elozar ben Po’irah present. He said to Yannai: King Yannai, the heart of the Perushim (Torah faithful) is set against you! King Yannai replied: What should I do about this (to see if you are correct)? Elozar replied: Put the tzitz (an adornment only allowed to be worn by the “Kohen Gadol” -- “High Priest”) between you eyes. He did this. There was an elder named Yehudah ben Gedidyah present. He said to Yannai: King Yannai, it is enough that you have the crown of the throne! Leave the crown of Kehunah for the sons of Aharon! This is because they said regarding him that his mother had been captured by idolaters in Modi’in, but they searched to see if it was true and it (proof) was not found. [According to Rashi, his father was indeed a Kohen, but according to this rumor he should not have married his wife, as she was unfit to marry a Kohen. If the rumor was true (see below for the exact case), this would mean Yannai was a chalal, and was not fit to serve as a Kohen.]

Yannai angrily removed the scholars from the meal. Elozar ben Po’irah again spoke to King Yannai. He said: King Yannai, it is understandable that a regular Jew should swallow insults. However, you are a king and the Kohen Gadol, is it fitting that you should do the same? King Yannai asked: What should I do? Elozar replied: If you listen to my advice, you will kill them all. King Yannai asked: What will become of the Torah? Elozar replied: The Torah will be wrapped and placed in a corner, and whoever wants will go and study it.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak says: Immediately, a wind of heretical behavior entered Yannai’s mind. This is evident from the fact that he did not reply, “This maybe true about the written Torah, but what about the Oral Torah (which was not yet written down at all)?” Immediately, the spark of evil was started by Elozar ben Po’irah, and Yannai killed all the scholars. The world was lacking Torah knowledge until Shimon ben Shetach (Yannai’s wife’s brother; she hid him) came and returned the Torah back to its original state.

Rashi asks: How can he put the tzitz on at this time when he is not engaged in performing the Temple service?

He answers: The Kohanim were permitted to derive benefit from the Holy vestments, for the Torah was not given to the ministering angels, and they were not expected to remove these garments at the moment that they concluded the service.

Tosfos asks: On the contrary! They were obligated to remove them as soon as they had a chance!

Furthermore, asks the Rashba, the permission was only inside of the Beis HaMikdash, not outside!?

The Beis Halevi explains Rashi: Since they were not expected to remove these garments at the moment that they concluded the service, this proves that there was no prohibition whatsoever against deriving benefit from the Holy vestments, and they were permitted l’chatchilah to wear these garments even when they were not performing the Temple service, and even when they were not inside the Beis HaMikdash.

Rabbeinu Tam answers based on a Scriptural verse that the tzitz was different than the other garments, and they were allowed to wear it even when they were not performing the Temple service.

The Ritva writes that Yannai was not correct by wearing the tzitz at this time.

Read more!

Shavyah A'nafshei - Kiddushin 65

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The Mishna stated: If a man said to a woman, “I betrothed you,” and she said, “You did not betroth me,” he is forbidden to marry her relatives, but she is permitted to marry his relatives.

Rashi explains the man is forbidden to marry her relatives because of the principle of “shavya anafshei chaticha d’issura” i.e. she has made for herself a forbidden piece; she is compelled to abide by her declaration.

There are several explanations to this: The Ketzos Hachoshen explains that this is based upon “believability.” A person is believed with regards to himself, when it is disadvantageous to him. He cites a Rashi on our Daf that this is comparable to the halachah of “the admission of the litigant is like the testimony of a hundred witnesses.”

The Terumas Hakeri says that this is not because he is believed, but rather, it is based upon the following logic: Since he knows that something is forbidden to him, it is incumbent upon him to distance himself from this. Accordingly, Beis Din is obligated to ensure that he does not violate any prohibition that according to his words he knows to be forbidden, for Beis Din acts with him in the same manner that he acts with himself.

The Shaar Hamelech quotes the Mahari Assad that the reason why one can render the object forbidden with the principle of “shavya a’nafshei” is not because he is believed in respect to himself; rather, it is because it is regarded as an oath. The witness is taking a vow forbidding himself from this particular object.

The Maharit writes that this cannot be the reason, for if so, he should be able to annul this prohibition in the same manner that one can have his oath annulled!

The Noda Beyehudah writes that “shavya a’nafshei” cannot function like an oath because it is obvious that if one says on a Monday that “today is Shabbos,” it will not be forbidden for him to perform any labor. This is because there is no believability in this case. But, if it would be like an oath, it should be forbidden for him like any other oath!

The Chasam Sofer writes that there would be the following difference in halachah based upon the different reasons: If someone would tell Beis Din something that he knows to be false. If “shavya a’nafshei” is because he is believed in respect to himself, here, where he knows it to be false, he would be able to “transgress” his words in private. However, if it is based upon an oath, it will still be forbidden to him.

Read more!

Born into a Mixture - Kiddushin 64

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The Mishna states: If a man has two sets of daughters by two wives, and he declares, “I have given my elder daughter in betrothal, but I do not know whether it was the eldest of the elder group (the first marriage) or the eldest of the younger group (the second marriage), or the youngest of the elder group, who is older than the eldest of the younger group,” they are all forbidden, except for the youngest of the younger group. This is Rabbi Meir’s opinion.

The Makneh asks: Why are they all forbidden? Let us apply the principle of “following the majority”! We should say that each one of these women came from the majority of women that are permitted!?

He answers based upon the following opinion of the Mordechai: We say that something becomes nullified in a majority only when it was once recognized, and afterwards it became intermingled with others. However, something which was created in a state of mixture, it is not possible for it to be nullified by the majority. In our case, we never knew which daughter he was referring to and therefore they will all be forbidden.

Read more!

Witness to Disqualify from Kehunah - Kiddushin 63

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The Mishna stated: If a man said, “My daughter was in captivity and I ransomed her,” whether she is now a minor or whether she is an adult, he is not believed (and she will not be disqualified from the Kehunah).

The Tosfos Rid holds that in order to testify that a woman is a divorcee (and therefore she is disqualified for Kehunah), two witnesses are required, for there cannot be testimony regarding a davar she’b’ervah with less than two witnesses. The Rambam, however, maintains that one witness is believed to testify that a woman is a divorcee, or a chalalah, and based upon this testimony, she will be disqualified from the Kehunah.

The Shaar Hamelech asks on the Rambam from our Mishna. Why isn’t the father believed that his daughter was taken into captivity? Is the father any worse that an ordinary witness?

He answers that our Mishna is discussing a case where the daughter asserts that she was taken as a captive. Even in cases where we believe one witness, that is only if there isn’t any contradicting witness.

Read more!

Perhaps they Repented - Kiddushin 63

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The Gemora inquires: Would we execute someone by stoning (if she has relations with a man) based upon the father’s testimony (that he married her off)?

Rav said: We would not. We only believe the father with respect to a prohibition, but not for execution. Rav Assi said: We would. We believe the father for everything.

Rav Assi admits that if she would say, “I got married,” we would not stone anyone.

Rav Assi notes the apparent contradiction in his rulings: If in a case (the father said that he married her off) where we believe a man that he is able to marry her (if he comes saying that he was the one who married her), and we rule that we would execute someone by stoning (for having relations with this woman). Then, in a case (where she was the one who said that she got married) where we do not believe a man to marry her (if he comes saying that he was the one who married her), shouldn’t the halachah certainly be that we would execute someone by stoning (for having relations with this woman)!?

Rav Assi answers: There is a clear distinction. The Torah believed the father, but not her. [The only reason that she is forbidden to every man is because of the principle of “shavya anafshei chaticha d’issura” i.e. she has made for herself a forbidden piece; she is compelled to abide by her declaration.]

The Maharik (shoresh 33) writes concerning a case where one witness testifies that a certain shochet was slaughtering improperly and the shochet himself contradicts the witness; since the witness is not believed, he himself is permitted to eat all future meat slaughtered by this shochet. This is not comparable to a case where a witness testifies regarding wine that is forbidden on account of it being yayin nesech because here there is a possibility that the shochet will repent and slaughter properly.

The Pri Chadash (Y.D. 1, 14) asks: Why don’t we apply the principle of “shavya a’nafshei chaticha d’issura,” one who states that something is forbidden, even if he is not believed in respect to everyone else, renders the object forbidden to him (as is evident from the Gemora in Kesuvos 9a)? All the meat slaughtered by this shochet should be forbidden to this witness!?

The Pri Megadim (Sifsei Daas, ibid, 41) answers that the Maharik is referring to a case where the witness retracted and said that he had testified falsely. In such cases, the principle of “shavya a’nafshei chaticha d’issura” does not apply.

Rav Elyashiv answers: The reason why one can render the object forbidden with the principle of “shavya a’nafshei” is not because he is believed in respect to himself; rather, it is because it is regarded as an oath. The witness is taking a vow forbidding himself from this particular object. Accordingly, he explains that the witness who testified regarding the shochet it making a vow that he will not eat the meat from this animal, however, he will not be prohibited, on account of his vow, against eating from any other animal that this shochet slaughters.

The Mishna Lemelech (Hilchos Shechitah 1:26) challenges the ruling of the Maharik from a Gemora (Kesuvos 44a) which discusses a case where two deeds were given over regarding the same field. The ruling is that the second deed cancels the first one. Rafram explains that the recipient has admitted to the other that the first deed is invalid. Accordingly, the Gemora continues that these witnesses must be regarded as legally unfit for further evidence concerning this recipient since he is stating that they put their signatures to an invalid document. We do not say that they should be valid witnesses later, for perhaps they repented. What is the difference between the two cases?

The Shaar Hamishpat (92:7) answers: The Maharik rules that all meat slaughtered by this shochet will be permitted to eat by the witness because there is a double doubt; perhaps, he has slaughtered the animal properly and perhaps he repented. Just because he slaughtered improperly (according to the witness’ testimony) one time, it is not logical that we should prohibit his slaughtered meat forever. However, in respect to testimony, once the recipient has stated that these witnesses testified falsely, they will be disqualified to offer testimony for him forever. Even according to those that hold that we can apply the principle of a double doubt in regards to monetary judgments, here, it will not apply. What can be said? Perhaps the witnesses will testify truthfully and perhaps they repented. This logic is not applicable by testimony, for testimony functions as a proof, and if we are uncertain if the witnesses repented or not, they cannot be accepted as witnesses because we have no proof that they are testifying truthfully. Therefore, they will not be believed for all future testimonies regarding this recipient.

Read more!

Stealing from an Idolater

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The Gemora (Kiddushin 63) proves that Rabbi Meir holds a man may sell something that is not yet in existence from the following braisa: If a man said to a woman, “You shall be betrothed to me after I convert,” or “After you shall convert,” or “After I shall have been set free from slavery,” or “After you have been set free,” or “After your husband dies,” or “After your sister (my wife) dies,” or “After your yavam has submitted to chalitzah from you,” she, Rabbi Meir ruled, is legally betrothed! [The kiddushin is effective when the respective conditions are fulfilled, though at the time of the betrothal they were still unfulfilled; this indicates that an act that involves something that is not yet in existence is nevertheless, valid.]

The Acharonim ask: The Gemora in Bava Kamma (70b) explains that the acquisition using money (kinyan kesef) functions in the following way: When the seller receives the money, he becomes obligated to give the item being exchanged with the money. Now according to those that hold that it is permitted to steal from a gentile, how can the idolater betroth this woman with money after he converts? The woman is not obligated to return the money, and if she will lose the money, she would not be required to compensate him! If so, where is the kinyan?

Reb Shimon Shkop answers based upon the opinion of the Yereim, who says that even according to those that hold that it is permitted to steal from a gentile, one cannot fulfill his mitzvah with an esrog that he stole from a gentile. This is because it is not regarded as “his,” for the Torah did not render their money ownerless that anyone has the right to possess their money. “Stealing from an idolater is permitted” means that there is no prohibition against keeping that which was stolen from them. However, since it does not belong to the Jew, he still has an obligation to return it to its rightful owner, and he would be liable to compensate the gentile if he would lose it. Accordingly, the kinyan of money would still apply to an idolater.

Read more!

Kiddushin 62 - Two Perutos

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The Mishna states: One cannot take off terumah from what is detached from the ground in order to exempt things still attached to the ground. If he does, it is invalid.

Rav Assi asked Rabbi Yochanan: If someone says that the fruit of this row that is detached should be terumah for the fruit of this row that is still attached or visa versa, but he adds that this should take effect when the fruit becomes detached, what is the law? [Perhaps the attached fruit should be regarded as something that has not yet come into the world (for it is not yet subject to the halachos of terumah)?]

Rabbi Yochanan answered: Anything that is in his hands to do is not considered as if it is lacking an action (and it is therefore valid). [If one has the ability to change its status, the transaction can be valid, even though it presently is still not in the world.]

The Gemora asks a question from a statement of Rabbi Oshaya. Rabbi Oshaya says: If someone gives a perutah to his wife and says that this is her kiddushin for after he divorces her, it is invalid. However, according to Rabbi Yochanan this should be valid!?

The Gemora answers: Although he can indeed divorce her, he cannot make her accept kiddushin afterwards (this is not “in his hands”).

We should therefore be able to answer Rabbi Oshaya’s question. He asked: If someone gives two perutos to a woman, and says, “With the first one, I am betrothing you today, and with the second one, I am betrothing you after I divorce you,” what is the law? According to the above statement (he cannot make her accept kiddushin), the kiddushin should be invalid!?

The Gemora answers: Being that she is already accepting kiddushin from him now, it is possible that the kiddushin after future divorce is also valid.

What would be the halacha if one purchased a field with one perutah and stipulated that he is buying it back after he gives it back to the seller?

The Rashba proves from out Gemora that it will be ineffective because the Gemora needs to say a case where there were two perutos.

The Chasam Sofer makes a distinction: Our Gemora needs to discuss a case with two perutos, for kiddushin cannot take effect without a perutah. However, regarding a field, there are other ways to acquire a field, and it would not be necessary to have two perutos.

Read more!

Teaching Torah to an Idolater who Plans on Converting - Kiddushin 62

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The Rambam (Issurei Bi’ah 14:2) writes that we inform the prospective convert the essentials of the faith, which is the unity of God and the prohibition of idolatry, and they go on at great length about these matters.

The Machaneh Chaim (Y”D II, 45) asks: Why isn’t this forbidden on account of a gentile studying Torah? The Gemora in Sanhedrin (59a) states explicitly that a non-Jew who studies Torah is liable for death.

He answers by citing a Medrash Tanchuma in Parshas Vayelech: The numerical value of Torah is six hundred and eleven. The remaining two mitzvos which complete the six hundred and thirteen are the two mitzvos which were given by Hashem directly at Har Sinai. This is the explanation of the verse: The Torah that Moshe commanded us to observe. Moshe instructed us regarding six hundred and eleven mitzvos; the other two were from Hashem.

The prohibition against teaching an idolater Torah is only applicable to the six hundred and eleven mitzvos that Moshe taught us. The other two, I am Hashem your God and the Unity of God; one would be permitted to teach to them. This is where the Rambam derived his ruling from; we can go on with great length discussing the unity of God and the prohibition of idolatry.

The Maharsha (Shabbos 31a) writes that it is permitted to teach Torah to an idolater who wishes to convert. He proves this from the incident with Hillel and the convert.

Reb Akiva Eiger (41) disagrees and maintains that it is forbidden to teach Torah to an idolater even if he is planning on converting. Hillel taught the convert Torah only after he converted.

Read more!

Concern for an Unfulfilled Condition

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The braisa (Kiddushin 60) had stated: If someone says, “This is your get on condition that you give me two hundred zuz,” even if the get is torn or lost, she is divorced. She should not marry someone else until she gives him the money.

Rashi explains that we are concerned that she will remarry, and if she doesn’t give the money, it will emerge that she was never divorced, and her second marriage would be an adulterous one!

The Ran writes that we can derive from this halachah to any case where a man divorces his wife with a condition; she may not remarry before the condition is met, for otherwise, her second marriage would be an adulterous one!

The Ran challenges this principle from a Gemora in Gittin (83a): Rabbi Akiva said: What happens if after this Get (if one divorces his wife and stipulates that she can marry anyone except for one certain man), she marries a man and has children from him, and then subsequently he divorces her or dies? If she now goes and marries the man that her first husband forbade her to marry, this would make her first Get invalid and the children from her second marriage are rendered mamzeirim! The Gemora asks: According to this question all conditions made in gittin should not be valid, as she could always marry someone first, have children, and then not fulfill the condition! This is the question on Rabbi Akiva’s question.

It would seem from this Gemora that we are not concerned by an ordinary condition that it will not end up being fulfilled!?

The Ran differentiates between conditions that require an action, and those that don’t. In our case, the woman must give the two hundred zuz to the man. Here we are concerned that due to an accident, she will not give him the money. However, in the case in Gittin, we are not concerned that she will willingly violate the condition.

Read more!

Food for Thought - Kiddushin 59

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

*** The Mishna had stated: And similarly, if a man says to a woman, “Become betrothed to me after thirty days,” and someone else betroths her within thirty days, she is betrothed to the second person.

The Ramban writes that the first kiddushin was not totally voided, and therefore, if within the thirty days, the second man dies or divorces her, the first kiddushin will be valid. Proof to this is from the language of the Mishna when it states that she is mekudeshes to the second one, and it does not say that she is not mekudeshes to the first one.

The Rashba disagrees and holds that the action of the second marriage negates the verbal arrangement of the first one. He adds that the language of the Mishna does not prove otherwise, for once we have established that the second marriage is valid; it is obvious that the first one is voided.

*** Ravin Chasida went to betroth a woman for his son, but instead ended up marrying her himself.

The Gemora asks: Doesn’t the braisa say that in such a case what is done is done, but it is a deceptive act?

The Gemora answers: In the case of Ravin Chasida, the girl was not going to be given to his son in any event (the family did not agree to it).

The Gemora asks: He still should have first notified his son that this was the situation before going ahead and marrying her himself!?

The Gemora answers: He was worried that in the interim, someone else would betroth her.

The Ritva asks: Why was he concerned? Doesn’t the Gemora (Moed Katan 18b) say that every day a Heavenly voice pronounces: “The daughter of this individual is designated for that man”?

He answers that this was Ravin Chasida’s second marriage, for he already had a son, and the Heavenly voice only makes this proclamation by a first marriage.

Furthermore, he answers that perhaps someone will marry her as a result of their prayer. The Gemora in Moed Katan even states that another man might desperately want a certain woman as a wife and he cannot bear the fact that she will be married to another man; subsequently he will pray that she dies.

*** The Gemora asks: What is the law regarding someone who interferes with a poor person who is trying to get a loaf? Rabbi Abba answered: He is called an evildoer.

Rashi writes that the poor man saw a loaf that was abandoned by its owner, and he wanted to acquire it for himself. If another person snatches it away from him, he is a wicked man.

Tosfos writes that there is no ethical breach to do this when the item is ownerless, for if the other person will not acquire the loaf, he will not be able to get it anywhere else. He is not required to lose because of the poor man. The poor man only has a claim to the object when he wishes to purchase the item from another; there the poor person can claim that the “snatcher” is ruining his opportunity to profit.

Read more!

A Single Grain is Sufficient

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

Rabbi Chiya bar Avin inquired of Rav Huna (Kiddushin 58) : Is the “benefit of gratitude” regarded as money or not?

The Gemora comments: Let us say that this is a matter of a Tannaic dispute, for we learned in a braisa: If one steals the tevel (untithed produce) of his fellow, he is obligated to pay him for the value of the entire tevel (including the terumah and ma’aser that is mixed in, according to its value to him based upon his ability to choose who he wants to give them to). Rabbi Yosi the son of Rabbi Yehudah says: He is only obligated to pay him for the value of the chulin. It must be that Rebbe holds that the ability to choose who to give something to has a monetary value, while Rabbi Yosi holds it does not.

The Gemora rejects this, and gives an alternate explanation to their argument. Everyone holds that the matanos (gift portions for the Kohen) that were not yet separated are considered as if they were separated, and the “benefit of gratitude” is not regarded as money, and the dispute is regarding Shmuel’s ruling, for Shmuel said: One grain of wheat can exempt an entire pile (and there would be no need to separate any more terumah). Rebbe holds of Shmuel’s ruling (and the thief would be required to pay the full value, for the owner could have exempted himself with one grain of wheat), and Rabbi Yosi the son of Rabbi Yehudah does not.

The Acharonim ask that Shmuel is only discussing the Biblical requirement, but the Chachamim instituted that one must give at least one sixtieth of his produce to the Kohen as terumah! If so, the thief should be exempt from paying the value of terumah that he is Rabbinically required to give!?

The Oneg Yom Tov answers based on the Tosfos Ri”d, who says that even Rabbinically speaking, one grain of wheat can exempt an entire pile from the prohibition of tevel. The Chachamim instituted that there is a mitzvah of giving to the Kohen. This, however, the owner could claim that he would not have given, and the thief would therefore be required to pay the entire amount.

The Mishnah Lamelech disagrees and holds that if one does not give at least one-sixtieth to the Kohen, it is Rabbinically regarded as tevel. Accordingly, the thief should not be required to pay the entire amount!?

Read more!

Nullified Metzora Bird

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The Gemora (Kiddushin 57) had stated: One verse comes to include the metzora bird that is set free in the category of permitted birds. Another verse comes to include the slaughtered metzora bird in the category of forbidden birds.

The Gemora asks: Perhaps it is exactly the opposite!?

Rava answers: It is not logical to assume that the Torah said that the bird should be sent away in a matter where it will create a stumbling block (for if this would be the bird that is forbidden, someone might mistakenly find this bird and eat it, for there is no way to recognize that this was a metzora bird).

The Acharonim ask: What stumbling block would there be? The metzora bird will become nullified because of the majority of birds in the world that are permitted!?

The Shaar Hamelech answers: We are concerned that someone will find the metzora bird before it intermingles with other birds.

The Peleisi answers: The halachah is that if there is one person in the world that recognizes the forbidden item, it is not nullified, even for the people who do not recognize it. Accordingly, we are concerned that a person will be standing on the top of a mountain and will see where the metzora bird went.

Reb Shimon Shkop answers that the principle of nullification does not apply here, for all the birds in the world are not intermingled with each other in one location; rather, they are all scattered about. And even though it will be permitted, for we follow the majority and say that this one came from the permitted birds, the metzora bird does not lose its prohibited status and will therefore still be considered a stumbling block.

The Chasam Sofer answers that we are not concerned with the finder, for he will not violate any prohibition. We are concerned that the sender will violate the prohibition of outrightly nullifying a prohibition.

Read more!

"Es" Includes the Torah Scholars

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The Gemora (Kiddushin 57a) notes that some opinions do not expound the word “es.” This would be in accordance with the following braisa: Shimon Ha’amsoni, and others say that it was Nechemia Ha’amsoni, would expound on every word es that was written in the Torah. (This means that he would teach what the word es was coming to include.) When he reached the verse that states you shall revere es Hashem your G-d, he stopped expounding on the word es. Shimon Ha’amsoni felt that it is impossible to equate the reverence of Hashem to anything else, so he retracted from all of his previous interpretations of the word es. When questioned by his students what would happen to all the words es that he had expounded upon previously, Shimon Ha’amsoni replied, “Just as I received reward for expounding on those words, I will receive reward for retracting my interpretations. Rabbi Akiva arrived later and expounded the verse to mean you shall revere es Hashem your G-d, to include Torah scholars. Just like one is obligated to revere Hashem, so too, one must revere Torah scholars.

The Pardes Yosef (Vayechi) explains Rabbi Akiva by citing the Gemora in Nedarim, which states: Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: What does the verse mean when it says: Who is the man who is wise and can understand this? This (the reason for the destruction of the Second Temple) was asked to scholars and prophets and they could not explain it, until Hashem explained it Himself, as it says: And Hashem said that it is because they left my Torah. Isn’t the phrase “and they did not listen to My voice” the same as the phrase “and they did not go in its ways”? Rav Yehudah explains in the name of Rav: This means that they did not recite a blessing before learning Torah.

Rabbi Akiva was saying: The word es is including the Torah scholars. The Holy One, Blessed be He said: it is because they left “es” my Torah. They left that which was included from the word es, for they were not honoring the Torah scholars.

However, it can be asked that the Torah scholars should have been mochel the respect that they deserved!? We have learned that if a Torah scholar is mochel on the honor due to him, it is valid!

This is why Hashem continued with the verse, it is because they left my Torah. Hashem is saying: The Torah is Mine and the Torah scholar cannot be mochel. Why is the Torah Mine? It is because Klal Yisroel did not recite the blessing before learning Torah. The Gemora Brochos asks: It is written: The entire world belongs to Hashem. But it is also written: And the land was given to the people!? The Gemora answers: It depends if they recite a blessing first or not. Since they didn’t recite the blessing before learning Torah, it is regarded as Hashem’s Torah, and the Torah scholars could not be mochel on the obligation to honor the Torah.

Read more!

Yaakov's Altar (this week's Parshah)

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

It is written [Breishis 28:18]: And Yaakov arose early in the morning, and he took the stone that he had placed at his head, and he set it up as a monument, and he poured oil on top of it.

The Chasam sofer asks: The Gemora in Zevachim (116a) states: Anything used by a common person becomes forbidden to be used for the High! Once Yaakov used these stones for his head, how could he have used them afterwards to build an Altar?

He answers: the Yalkut (119) states that these stones were the stones from Noach’s altar, and it was also the stones used for Akeidas Yitzchak. The Zayis Raanaan asks: How could Yaakov use these stones to lie upon; he should be guilty of me’ilah in hekdesh!? Firstly, he answers that he did not actually use the stones, but rather, he placed them around him as a protection. Accordingly, we can use this to answer the original question. Yaakov could use these stones to build a monument, for he never actually used them for his personal needs.

The Zayis Raanaan offers an alternative answer to his question. Yaakov used these stones to lie upon even though they were hekdesh because he was in dangerous situation. He needed the stones to protect him from the wild animals. Accordingly, the first question returns. How could he then use these stones to build an altar, if these stones were actually used for his personal needs? He answers based upon our Gemora, which states that if one knowingly uses hekdesh for his own personal needs, the hekdesh does not become deconsecrated. Consequently, Yaakov was permitted to use these stones for an altar, for his deliberate usage of the stones beforehand did not deconsecrate them.

Read more!

Eating the Size of a Bean

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The Gemora (Kiddushin 53) states: The righteous Kohanim would withdraw their hands from the lechem hapanim (for eating a portion the size of a bean would not be regarded as a mitzvah), but the gluttons would divide their shares (seemingly this means that they would leave a large amount for one Kohen, and they would take his share a different time)

Rashi cites the Gemora in Yoma 39a which states that in the times of Shimon Hatzadik, there was a blessing in the lechem hapanim and a Kohen who would eat a k’zayis would be satisfied, but afterwards, they would only receive a portion the size of a bean, and still not be satiated.

Tosfos Yeshonim comments that if they would have become satiated from a portion the size of a bean, they would have fulfilled their mitzvah.

Chasam Sofer notes that there exists a novelty in the mitzvah of eating kodoshim. If one person eats from the korban the size of a k’zayis and the rest of the Kohanim all have less than a k’zayis, that is sufficient in respect to the korban. The first Kohen is the only one that fulfilled his mitzvah. This is why the righteous ones held back from eating when it was only the size of a bean.

The Beis Halevi explains the Tosfos Yeshonim that there is a distinction between the korban pesach and other korbanos. By the korban pesach, there is an obligation on the individual and he is required to eat a k’zayis. By the other korbanos, the mitzvah is that the korban should be eaten, and if accumulatively, the korban was eaten, even though there was no Kohen who had a k’zayis, that is sufficient.

According to the Beis Halevi, we do not understand why the righteous ones held back from eating when it was only the size of a bean; as long as everyone ate the entire lechem hapanim, the mitzvah would be fulfilled!?

(Shemuas Chaim attempts to answer this, however, it is not clear to me)

Read more!

It's Worth a Perutah to her

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

Rav said (Kiddushin 52) : We see four lessons from our Mishna, three of which Rav held of clearly. One is that a person who betroths a woman with shemitah fruit has done a valid kiddushin.

Rashi explains that the novelty is that even though the produce is ownerless because of shemitah, nevertheless, once he picks it up and takes it for himself, he acquires it, and he can use it for kiddushin.

The Mishnah Lamelech poses the following question: Can a man betroth a woman with something that to him is not valued at a perutah, but to the woman, it is worth a perutah? He resolves this from a Rashi in Avodah Zarah which seems to indicate that she would be mekudeshes.

However, from Rashi in our Gemora, it would seem otherwise. What compelled Rashi to say that the man had acquired the shemitah produce before he gives it to the woman? Even if he does not acquire it first, she should be mekudeshes, for she acquires it!?

The Chedvas Yaakov explains that with respect to the produce of shemitah, if it is not regarded as being in his possession, it will not be hers either, for we would say that it is regarded as Divine property (and it belongs to nobody). However, something that belongs to the man, but it is not worth a perutah, may be used to effect kiddushin, if to the woman, it is worth a perutah.

Read more!

Marrying off a Minor Daughter

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The Gemora (Kiddushin 51) challenges Rava from the following Mishna: If one marries off his daughter to a man, but he does not specify which daughter he is giving, the adult daughters are not included (for the father has no authority over them). It can be inferred from here that his minor daughters are included (and they all would require a get). But why should this be? It is a case where the marriage does not have the possibility of cohabitation. This is a refutation of Rava (for he holds that such types of kiddushin are not effective)!?

Rava answers: the Mishna is dealing with a case where he only had one adult daughter and one minor daughter (the key point being that there was only one minor daughter, for she is the only one that the father could have married off).

The Gemora asks: What then is the novelty of this Mishna?

The Gemora answers: The Mishna is referring to a case where the adult daughter appointed her father as her agent to accept kiddushin for her. You might have thought, that in this case, the father is accepting kiddushin for his adult daughter. The Mishna teaches us that the father would not leave something from which he would derive benefit (the kiddushin money that he receives for marrying off his minor daughter).

The Gemora asks: Are we not referring to a case where the adult daughter told the father that he can keep the kiddushin money?

The Gemora answers: The father would not leave a mitzvah that he is obligated to perform (marrying off his minor daughter) and perform a mitzvah that is not his obligation (accepting kiddushin for his adult daughter).

The Ritva asks: How can the Gemora say that it is a mitzvah for a father to give his minor daughter in kiddushin? Did we not learn before (41a) that it is forbidden for a man to marry off his minor daughter until she is mature enough to say that she wants to be married to a certain man?

He answers: That Gemora is referring to a case where there is a concern that she will not desire that specific man, and eventually, she will perform mi’un. (A girl whose father had died could be given in marriage while still a minor (under the age of twelve) by her mother or older brother. This marriage is only valid Rabbinically. As long as she has not attained the age of twelve, she may nullify the marriage by refusing to live with her husband. This act of refusal, referred to as mi’un nullifies the marriage retroactively.). However, in cases where there is no such concern, the father certainly has a mitzvah to marry her off.

Alternatively, he answers that our Gemora can be referring to a na’arah, who already is mature enough, but nevertheless, the father can marry her off, and he has a mitzvah to do so.

Read more!

Forced Divorce

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The Gemora (Kiddushin 50) asks: How does Rava know that “words that are only in the heart are not regarded as words”?

Perhaps it is from the following braisa: It is written regarding a sacrifice: He shall bring it. This teaches us that we force him to fulfill his obligation. Perhaps, you might think that he brings the korban even against his will. The Torah writes: Of his will. This teaches us that we compel him to bring the sacrifice until he says that he is willing to bring it. Evidently, the sacrifice is valid even though, in his heart, he does not want to bring it. This proves that words that are only in the heart are not regarded as words.

The Gemora rejects this proof: Perhaps there it is different, for everyone wishes to receive atonement (and he is really willing to bring the korban).

Rather, it may be proven from the latter part of that braisa, which states: And the same is true regarding a letter of divorce and the emancipation of slaves. We compel him to give the get (in cases where he is required to do so) until he says that he is willing to give it. Evidently, the divorce and emancipation is valid even though, in his heart, he is not truly willing. This proves that words that are only in the heart are not regarded as words.

The Gemora rejects this proof: Perhaps there it is different, for he has a mitzvah to listen to the Chachamim (to issue a divorce or to free his slave).

Similarly, the Rambam discusses a case when a person is obligated to divorce his wife due to the ruling of Beis Din. When he refuses, he is beaten until he says that he is willing.

The Rambam asks: How can a get that is given by force be ruled to be valid? A coerced get is not valid at all!?

He explains that it is only considered “forced,” if a Jew is compelled to do something that the Torah does not obligate him to do. However, if he is compelled to do something that the Torah instructs him to do, this is not considered “forced.” The explanation is as follows: A Jew wants to perform all the mitzvos and distance himself from all sins, but his evil inclination convinces him to do otherwise. When he is beaten, his evil inclination is broken and when he says that he is willing, it is his actual intent and the get is valid.

Read more!

Opportunity to Repent - Kiddushin 49

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

If he says, “Become betrothed to me on condition that I am a righteous person,” she is mekudeshes even if he is completely wicked, because perhaps he intends to repent.

The Beis Yosef writes in the name of Rabbeinu Yeruchem that if he is a rasha due to sins committed between his fellow man, such as a thief, he cannot be considered righteous until he returns the stolen object. And so it would be by all such sins; if he wounded his fellow man, he cannot be regarded as a Tzadik until he compensates the injured party.

However, some say that as long as he has resolved to make amends, he is considered a righteous person.

The sefer Shai Lemoreh asks: The Gemora in Bava Kamma states that if a person stole money and he decided that he will return it, but before he had the opportunity to return it, he died, he is not regarded as a wicked person. Yet we find that Yom Kippur does not atone for sins between a man and his fellow until one asks forgiveness from the one that he offended. It emerges that even though he already repented, Yom Kippur will not atone for those sins!?

He answers that by Yom Kippur, it is different. Since the injured party is still alive, he still has the opportunity to ask him for forgiveness. So long as he does not take advantage of that opportunity, he will not be forgiven. However, one who steals and later intended to return that which he stole, but he died beforehand, he is not regarded as a rasha, for now, he does have the availability to make amends.

Read more!

Accepting less than a Perutah - Kiddushin 46

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The Mishna had stated: If she was eating them one by one (as soon as one was given to her, she ate it), she is not mekudeshes unless one of the dates was valued at a perutah.

The Gemora asks: On which case of the Mishna is this ruling referring to?

Rav and Shmuel both answer: It is referring to the first case of the Mishna, and it is written in a “it was not necessary to state” format. Certainly, if she leaves the dates as is, the halachah is as follows: If one of them is valued at a perutah, the kiddushin is valid; otherwise, it is not. However, if she eats them one by one, perhaps she will be mekudeshes even if there is not one of them which is valued at a perutah. This would be because she derives the benefit from them immediately, and perhaps she decides to give herself to him even though it is less than a perutah. The Mishna teaches us that this is not so.

Tosfos Yeshanim writes that although the halachah is clear that kiddushin cannot take effect with an object valued at less than a perutah even if the woman consents to it; nevertheless, it is sufficient enough of a reason to explain why it was necessary for the Mishna to state such a case.

Poras Yosef explains based on a Gemora above (8a), which states: Rav Kahana indeed used to accept a (special male) head covering for the firstborn redemption, and he would say, “For me this is worth five sela’im.” The Ra”n there was uncertain if that logic could work for something that is not worth a perutah, and the person says, “To me, it is worth a perutah.” He specifically mentions kiddushin as a practical application for this. The reason to distinguish between the two is that perhaps something that is not “money” (if it less than a perutah), cannot be made into “money” by the fact that someone accepts it to be worth more than it actually is. Accordingly, it can be said that this is the novelty that our Mishna is teaching us. Although the woman accepts the date to be worth more than a perutah to her, the kiddushin is not valid, for the date (being valued at less than a perutah) is not regarded as “money” at all.

Read more!

Everybody Knows - Kiddushin 45

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The Gemora had stated: Everyone knows that the sister of one’s chalutzah is only prohibited to that person according to Rabbinic law! Therefore, if the yavam, the one who performed chalitzah, gives kiddushin to her sister, the kiddushin would clearly be valid.

Rav Yehudah Assad in teshuvos Yehudah Yaaleh asks the following question: Why do we assume that everyone knows that the chalutzah’s sister is only a Rabbinical prohibition? Tosfos in Bava Metzia (15b) writes: Shmuel maintains that if someone sells a field during Yovel, the money is returned. Shmuel does not say that since everyone knows that a field cannot be sold during Yovel, the money was definitely given as a gift. This is because there is a dispute on this matter, as Rav holds that a field can be sold during Yovel. Something that is a topic of dispute is not well-known. If so, perhaps everyone does not know that a chalutzah’s sister is only a Rabbinical prohibition, for Rabbi Akiva, in fact, holds that she is Biblically forbidden!?

He answers that it is quite possible that Rabbi Akiva holds that the chalutzah’s sister is Biblically forbidden to the yavam only if she was a nesuah to her first husband. However, if she was only an arusah, like in our case, everyone agrees that she is only Rabbinically forbidden.

Reb Ezriel Hildesheimer answers that Tosfos’ logic applied to Shmuel himself, for although the halachah is according to Shmuel, Shmuel himself could not say that everyone knows that a field cannot be sold during Yovel, because he knew that Rav disagrees with this. However, here, everyone knows that the halachah follows Rebbe that the chalutzah’s sister is only Rabbinically forbidden.

In the gloss to the sefer Yehudah Yaaleh, another distinction between the two cases is pointed out. Firstly, by Yovel, we are concerned about one person; namely, the buyer. Perhaps he does not know that a field cannot be sold during Yovel. Here, we are worried about the onlookers. We can safely assume that many people will not make a mistake even though there is an argument on the matter.

Read more!

Transposing the Opinions - Kiddushin Daf 44

It was stated: If a minor accepted kiddushin without the knowledge of her father, Shmuel said: She requires a get and mi’un (A girl whose father had died could be given in marriage while still a minor (under the age of twelve) by her mother or older brother. This marriage is only valid Rabbinically. As long as she has not attained the age of twelve, she may nullify the marriage by refusing to live with her husband. This act of refusal, referred to as mi’un nullifies the marriage retroactively.). Karna asked: If she needs a get, why is mi’un necessary? And if mi’un is needed, why do we require a get?

Other Amoraim replied to him: Mar Ukva and his Beis Din are in Kafri (let’s ask him). They switched the opinions of Shmuel and Karna and sent it to Rav (they did this on purpose, for Rav was a close friend of Shmuel and they wished to see if Rav would agree to Karna’s ruling if it was said in the name of Shmuel). Rav said to them: Hashem! She requires a get and mi’un and Heaven forbid that the son of Abba bar Abba (Shmuel) should say such a thing!

The Reshash asks: How can it be that they would think that Rav would be influenced to rule according to Shmuel, for he was his friend? And besides, Rav and Shmuel argue throughout Shas!? He shows that Rashi elsewhere understands the word “switched” to mean “by mistake.”

Some say that Rashi did not write this, but rather, one of his students mistakenly inserted this explanation into his commentary.

The Reshash also asks: Why doesn’t the Gemora mention what Mar Ukva answered?

Read more!

The Snake's Claim - Kiddushin 43

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

It is written [Breishis 3:14]: And Hashem said to the snake, “Because you have done this, cursed be you more than all the cattle and more than all the beasts of the field; you shall walk on your belly, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life.”

Rashi cites a Gemora in Sanhedrin (29a): From here we can derive that we may not intercede in favor of one who persuades people to commit idolatry, for had Hashem asked him, “Why did you do this?” the snake could have answered, “The words of the teacher and the words of the student; whose words do we listen to?” [Adam and Chavah should have obeyed Hashem rather than the snake!]

The Perashas Derachim cites a Medrash: Rabbi Chanina says: Under the Nohadite laws a murderer will be sentenced to death even if there is only one witness, even with only one judge, even without a proper warning and even if he killed via an agent. Evidently, the logic of “the words of the teacher and the words of the student; whose words do we listen to?” does not apply under Nohadite law! If so, what would it have benefited the snake by claiming that Adam and Chavah should not have listened to him? Under Nohadite laws, this would not have been a valid excuse!?

He answers based upon our Gemora, which states: Even if Shamai holds that agency applies by transgressions, he would admit that the agent is liable and the sender is exempt in the following case: If one tells his agent, “Go and cohabit with a forbidden relative,” or “Go and eat this forbidden fat.” The reason is because we do not find in the Torah that one person will benefit from the sin and a different person should be liable for that act. Accordingly, by the sin of the Tree of Wisdom, where the sin was the eating, the snake’s claim would have been valid, for we do not find that one person will benefit from the sin and a different person should be liable for that act.

The Shach asks that although we hold that there is no agency by transgressions, but the sender is nevertheless liable under the laws of Heaven. If so, what would it have benefitted the snake by this claim? He would anyways be liable under the laws off Heaven!?

The Mishnah Lamelech answers that since in this case the sin involved eating, the sender would not be liable even under the laws of Heaven. This is because we do not find in the Torah that one person will benefit from the sin and a different person should be liable for that act.

Read more!

Laws of Heaven

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The Gemora (Kiddushin 41b) cites a Mishna: If one sends out a fire in the hands of a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor (and it consequently burned someone’s haystack), he is not liable to pay according to the laws of man, but he is liable according to the laws of Heaven. If, however, he sent out the fire in the hands of a competent person, the competent person is liable to pay for the damages.

It would seem that in the case where the sender sent the fire with a competent person, the sender is not liable at all, even under the laws of Heaven!

The Ram”a (C”M: 32:2) rules that if one sends out false witnesses to testify against someone, and they cause that fellow a loss, the sender is not liable at all, even under the laws of Heaven. This is because we say that there cannot be a shliach to commit a transgression.

The Sha”ch disagrees and maintains that the sender will be liable to pay under the laws of Heaven. He explains the distinction between the two cases. The sender will always be liable under the laws of Heaven. The only reason that the sender is not required to pay at all in the case of the fire is because once the competent person is liable to pay, there is no place for the sender to be liable as well!

Read more!

Price Fraud by Land

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

Rav Nachman said: If brothers divide an inheritance, they are regarded as purchasers (for they are exchanging their true portions for those that they actually receive). If one brother received more than the other, but it was less than a sixth more than his brother’s share, the deal remains valid. If it was more than a sixth, the deal is void. If it was precisely a sixth, the deal is valid, but he is required to return the extra.

Rava rules: That which we said that if it was precisely a sixth, the deal is valid, but he is required to return the extra, that is only if they were dividing movable property. However, if they were dividing land, the rules for “price cheating” do not apply (and the extra would not need to be returned).

And by land, the extra does not need to be returned only if they divided it according to value. However, if they divided it according to measurement, the extra must be returned. This is in accordance with what Rabbah said, for he said: Anything which is sold according to measure, weight or number (and the amount specified was not the amount delivered), it must be returned even if it (the discrepancy) was less than the usual amount for “price cheating.”

The Ri”f rules (and this seems to be Rash”i’s opinion as well) that there is no “price fraud” by land is only if the discrepancy was exactly a sixth; however, if the discrepancy was for more than a sixth, the deal is void.

Rabbeinu Tam holds that there are no rules of “price fraud” by land as long as the discrepancy is not by more than half of its value; however, if the discrepancy was for more than half of the land’s value, the deal is void.

The Baal Hameor writes that if the discrepancy is for exactly half of its value, there is no rule of “price fraud”; however, if the discrepancy was for more than half of the land’s value, the deal is void.

The Rambam, however, rules that there are no halachos of “price fraud” by land at all, and the transaction is never voided. This is because there is no limit to the price of land.

Read more!

Honoring Shabbos Yourself

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The Gemora (Kiddushin 41a) asks: If he can betroth through an agent, he can certainly betroth himself!?

Rav Yosef answers: It is a mitzvah for him to do so rather than his agent (as by all mitzvos it is preferable for one to perform them oneself than send an agent). This is like Rav Safra who would personally singe the head of the animal and Rav who would personally salt the fish (before Shabbos in order to honor Shabbos themselves).

The Shaar Hatziyon (250:9) asks: Why did these Amoraim prepare the food for Shabbos themselves? The halachah is that one is not permitted to be interrupt his Torah studying in order to perform a mitzvah that is possible to be performed by others! These Amoraim should have instructed others to prepare the Shabbos food on their behalf!?

He answers that this is only true by a mitzvah that does not have to be performed by the person himself. However, the mitzvah of honoring Shabbos must be performed by the person himself, and therefore, they prepared the food themselves, for it is a greater mitzvah when it is done by the person himself.

The sefer Shulchan Shlomo explains that the Shaar Hatziyon does not mean that honoring Shabbos is a mitzvah similar to tefillin and sukkah, for if so, it cannot be given over to an agent at all (one cannot ask someone else to sit in a sukkah on his behalf). Rather, it is a mitzvah that is incumbent upon him, and therefore he himself must be involved with the mitzvah.

Alternatively, the Shaar Hatziyon answers that because of the severity of Shabbos, they prepared the food themselves even though it could have been accomplished through another.

The sefer Lev Yam asks that if the mitzvah of honoring Shabbos is different than any other mitzvah, and one should perform it himself even if someone else can do it, how does our Gemora bring a proof from these Amoraim that it is a greater mitzvah when he personally performs it more than when he does so through an agent? Perhaps the reason they prepared the food themselves is because of the uniqueness associated with the mitzvah of honoring Shabbos, but it will not prove anything with respect to other mitzvos!?

He cites a Shulchan Aruch Harav that answers this question.

Read more!

Craftsmen Standing for Torah Scholars

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

Rabbi Yochanan states (Kiddushin 33a) : They stood before those bringing the bikkurim, but not before Torah scholars.

Rabbi Yosi bar Avin explains: Come and see how precious a mitzvah is in its proper time, for the craftsmen would rise before those bringing the bikkurim, but not before Torah scholars.

The Gemora asks: Perhaps they would only rise before those bringing bikkurim (but not for an ordinary mitzvah) because if not, they will not bring the bikkurim in the future (for they will think that the people living in Yerushalayim have no respect for them).

The Pnei Yehoshua writes that although it is obvious that the studying of Torah is greater than the performance of mitzvos, and even a mitzvah which has a set time, nevertheless, here, those that are performing a mitzvah are greater than Torah scholars. This is because it is quite possible that the Torah scholar is not engrossed in learning as he is walking.

The Chasam Sofer asks: And is a Torah scholar not occupied in performing mitzvos as he is walking? The Gemora Brochos states that a Torah scholar does not walk even four amos without thinking in Torah!? Why shouldn’t they stand before him?

He answers that according to halachah, thinking in learning is not equivalent to studying out loud, and therefore it is not in the same category as one who is performing a mitzvah while he is walking.

The Noda BeYehudah answers that a mitzvah which does not apply every day is more significant than the mitzvah of studying Torah, which applies every day.

Read more!

Honoring Parents; Bein Adam l’Makom, or Bein Adam l’Chaveiro?

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The Gemora (Kiddushin 32a)inquires: From whose money are the needs of the parents provided for? [Do the children pay with their own money, or are they just responsible to ensure that their parents are taken care of?]

Rav Yehudah says: The son must pay for it. Rav Nosson bar Oshaya says: The father must pay for it.

Reb Zeidel Epstein in the sefer Afikei Ayil writes that their argument is based upon the following question: Is the mitzvah of honoring one’s father and mother a mitzvah which is between man and Hashem, and therefore the son would be obligated to use his own money just like any other mitzvah? Or perhaps the mitzvah is one that is between man and his fellow, and therefore one would not be required to use his own money.

The Dvar Yaakov asks: If it is a mitzvah that is between man and his fellow, the son would not be required to disrupt his work in order to honor his father!?

Rather, he explains: Everyone agrees that it is in the category of a mitzvah which is between one man and another, but Reb Boruch Ber explains that even in those mitzvos one would be required to spend money, provided that the money being spent is a part of the mitzvah, such as the mitzvah of giving charity. The dispute in the Gemora is regarding this point. Is the money being spent to honor one’s father a part of this mitzvah, or not?

The Minchas Chinuch writes that if honoring one’s parents is included in the category of mitzvos that are between people, Yom Kippur would not atone for these transgressions unless one would appease his father and mother beforehand.

The Ramban writes that the Ten Commandments were written on two tablets. This illustrates to us that the first five are different than the second five. The purpose of the first five is to honor Hashem. Honoring your parents is included in this category because when one honors his parents he is in fact honoring Hashem, for the parents were Hashem’s partners in the child’s creation.

Read more!

Miracle of Prayer

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The Mishna in Rosh Hashanah states that whenever Moshe held up his hand, Israel prevailed (against Amalek). The Mishna asks, do Moshe's hands make or break the battle? Rather, this teaches you that so long as Israel were looking upwards and subjugating their hearts to their Father in Heaven, they were victorious; if not, they would fall.

The Netziv in Merumei Sadeh asks on the Mishna's question. What was so strange about Moshe's hands making the battle? Didn’t Moshe’s hands split the sea and perform other miracles as well through his hand?

He answers that the fight against Amalek had to be won in a natural way and not through a miracle. Perhaps we can add that fighting Amalek is in essence the fight that we have daily with our evil inclination. This fight could not be left to miracles. This is what is bothering the Mishna. Could the battle have been won through Moshe's hands like the other miracles? The Mishna’s answer is no, it could not have been since this battle required a victory through natural means.

Let us examine the answer of the Mishna. Rather, this teaches you that so long as Israel were looking upwards and subjugating their hearts to their Father in Heaven, they were victorious; if not, they would fall. Isn't the Mishna stating that they relied on a miracle from Above. They looked upwards and they were victorious. How can this be explained?

The Gemora in Kiddushin (29b) relates an incident with Abaye and Rav Acha bar Yaakov. There was a certain demon that haunted Abaye’s Beis Medrash, so that when two people entered, even by day, they were injured. Abaye instructed the community not to provide Rav Acha shelter when he would arrive in the city, thus forcing the father to spend the night at the Beis Medrash; perhaps a miracle will happen [in his merit]. Rav Acha entered the city and spent the night in that Beis Medrash, during which the demon appeared to him in the guise of a seven-headed dragon. Every time Rav Acha fell on his knees in prayer one head fell off. The next day he reproached them, “Had not a miracle occurred, you would have endangered my life.”

The Maharsha in his commentary to Kiddushin asks that how did Abaye have permission to place Rav Acha in such a precarious position. One is forbidden to rely on a miracle? He answers that Abaye understood the potency of Rav Acha’s prayer. Abaye was certain that Rav Acha’s prayers to the Almighty would be answered and that this is not a miracle. Hashem has instilled in this world the power of prayer and incorporated it into the natural order of the world.

This is what our Mishna is answering. Amalek has to be defeated through natural means and that is what Klal Yisroel did at that time. They cried out to Hashem and subjugated their hearts towards Him and were answered.

Read more!

Women Plowing during Shemitah

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The Gemora in Moed Katan presents a dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elozar whether one would incur the thirty-nine lashes if he would plow during Shemitah.

Rashi (2b) states that there is a positive commandment which forbids plowing on Shemitah. It is written [Shmos 34:21]: From plowing and harvesting you shall desist. The point of contention between the two Amoraim is if there is a negative commandment as well.

The Rambam in Hilchos Shemitah rules that one who plows during Shemitah does not incur the thirty-nine lashes. Kesef Mishna explains: Since in our Gemora, it was left ambiguously regarding which Amora held what, we cannot administer the lashes when there is uncertainty.

Sha’ar Hamelech in the beginning of Hilchos Shemitah writes that the Yerushalmi in Shabbos (7:2) states that Rabbi Yochanan is the one who maintains that he does not receive the lashes and the rule is that when Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elozar argue, the halacha is in accordance with Rabbi Yochanan.

Minchas Chinuch (112) comments that women are obligated in this mitzvah even though it is a positive commandment that has a time element to it and the principle is that women are exempt from any positive mitzvah which is governed by time. He explains that this is applicable only regarding a positive mitzvah that is incumbent on the body of the person and not a mitzvah like Shemitah, which is a mitzvah that is dependent on the land (mitzvos hateluyos ba’aretz).

Proof to this is cited from the Ritva in Kiddushin (29a). The Gemora rules based on a Scriptural verse that women are not obligated to perform a circumcision on their sons. Tosfos asks: Why is a verse necessary; circumcision is a positive mitzvah which is governed by time since the mitzvah can only be performed by day, and women are exempt? The Ritva answers: Any mitzvah which is not related to the person themselves; this principle does not apply. The mitzvah of milah is to perform the circumcision on the son and therefore women would be obligated if not for the special verse teaching us otherwise.

Read more!