Giving Generously

The Gemora states that one who gives a present to another gives it away generously (with a favorable eye).

The Pardes Yosef quotes from the Vilna Gaon the following explanation: Hashem promised that He would give Eretz Yisroel to Avraham Avinu’s descendents. Avraham asked Him [Breishis 15:8]: How will I know that I will inherit it?

A righteous person obtains rewards for one of two reasons: either as a reward for his observance of mitzvos, or as a matnas chinam – it is given gratuitously. Something that is given to him as a reward can be negated if he commits a sin, for that nullifies the good actions that he performed. However, that which is given out of the kindness of the Holy One, Blessed be He, cannot be negated by a sin, for it is given gratuitously - with a good eye.

Accordingly, it can be explained that whenever Hashem promised Eretz Yisroel to Avraham Avenue, Avraham thought that it was a matnas chinam, and therefore, he was confident that his descendants will receive it. However, then it was said to him [ibid: 7]: I am Hashem who took you out from the fire at Kasdim. Now that the giving of Eretz Yisroel was dependant on the fact that Avraham threw himself into the furnace, Avraham was concerned that perhaps, he had committed a sin which would negate the mitzvah that he performed. Hashem replied to him that this inheritance will not be nullified for any reason whatsoever, and that is why Hashem said: To your children, I gave the land, for it was regarded as if it was already given to them, for nothing can prevent its happening.

Read more!

Borrowing with the Owner

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here.

By: Reb Avi Lebovitz

Rav Hamnuna holds that the exemption of borrowing an animal with its owner only applies to a case where the owner is borrowed to work in the same labor as the animal, AND that the owner was there at the time that the accident occurred.

This approach in שאלה בבעלים is certainly the most rationale, because the reason for the exemption is that since the owner was there at the time of the accident doing the same work, he should have watched his own animal.

This is the approach of the GR"A in Aderes Eliyahu to explain the concept of שאלה בבעלים. However, the Meshech Chochma (Mishpatim 22:3) points out that this approach doesn’t at all work with the halachic ruling, rejecting Rav Hamnuna entirely. We hold that שאלה בבעלים is completely dependent on the time that the object was borrowed, the owner must have already been in the borrower service (or at least begin immediately), AND it makes no difference if the owner is working with the object that has been borrowed or in something else. What then is the rationale behind this halachah?

The Meshech Chochma suggests that the rationale is based on a Gemora in Megillah (26b) which states that the sanctity of a Shul would go away, not only through a sale, but even if it is given as a gift because: if they would not have received any benefit from the recipient, they would not have given it to him (therefore it is like a sale). Here too, it is not common to do such a huge favor for the borrower to lend him an object and work for him at the same time. Therefore, we assume that the owner is only lending and working in exchange for something that he received. Since the owner received something in exchange, the borrower is no longer a borrower, but has been downgraded to a renter, who is exempt if an unavoidable accident occurs.

This approach doesn’t explain those who hold that negligence is also exempt, and it also doesn’t explain why he is exempt for theft according to those who hold a renter is normally liable for theft (like a spaid custodian). Perhaps we will have to assume a “lo p’lug” (no distinction) to explain those opinions.

With this, we can somewhat explain the Gemora’s question (96a) whether שאלה בבעלים applies when the owner sends his messenger rather than going himself. Does the sending of a messenger also indicate that the owner must have received something significant in return for lending and supplying a worker, or do we only assume that when he himself goes? However, if this is in fact the question of the Gemora, it shouldn’t really be dependent on the halachah of שלוחו של אדם כמותו anywhere else; it should be an isolated question regarding the assumption in this specific situation. Yet, the Gemora compares it to the general halachah of שלוחו של אדם כמותו by the annulment of vows.

Read more!

Samson and the Lion

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here.

It is written [Shoftim 14: 5 – 6]: And Shimshon and his father and mother went down to Timnah, and they came to the vineyards of Timnah, and behold, a young lion roared towards him. And there rested on him a spirit of Hashem, and he rent it as one would rent a kid, although he had nothing in his hand, but he did not tell his father and mother what he had done.

The question is asked: How did his father and mother not see what he did? The verse explicitly states that he went together with them!?

The Vilna Gaon answers based upon our Gemora, which states that that we tell a nazir, “Go around and do not come near the vineyard,” for we are concerned that the nazir will eat from the grapes.

Accordingly, it can be said that when Shimshon, who was a nazir, came across the vineyard, he immediately separated from them in order not to stumble by the vineyard. It was at this time that he met up with the lion.

Read more!

Perutah in Media

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here.

The Mishna had stated: One who steals from his fellow something worth a perutah and swears falsely is obligated to bring it to him, even to Media.

What is the significance of Media?

The Vilna Gaon (Kol Eliyahu; Kiddushin 12a) explains based on the following verse [Yeshaya 13:17]: Behold I stir up Media against them, who do not value silver, and do not desire gold. The thief must travel even to Media, a place where a perutah is completely insignificant because of the abundance of gold and silver that is found there. Nevertheless, the thief must go there and return the money that he stole.

This is why Shmuel (Kiddushin 12a) ruled that if someone betroths a woman with a date, even if a kur of dates is only worth a dinar, we say that she is betrothed, as a single date might be worth a perutah in (the country of) Media. Precisely in Media, where money is insignificant, that is where it is possible that one will receive a perutah in exchange of one date.

The Nitzotzei Ohr adds on his words: This is why the Gemora there mentions dates, for dates there were very expensive. That is why beer there was made from barley and not from dates, as we find the Gemora discusses the beer from Media. For this reason, one was prepared to pay a perutah for one date.

Read more!

Lesser of the Luminaries

The Mishna had stated: If one’s minor son or daughter find an object, it belongs to him. If one’s son or daughter who is of age finds an object, they may keep it.

Rabbi Chiya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: When the Mishna said “a son who is of age,” it does not mean that he is literally of age, and when the Mishna said “a minor son,” it does not mean that he is literally a minor. Rather, an adult who is dependent (for support) on his father’s table is regarded as “a minor,” and a minor who is not dependent on his father’s table is regarded as “one who is of age.”

It is brought in the sefer Peninim Mi’shulchan HaGr”a that once when the Vilna Gaon was travelling in Europe, he was hosted by a man well-versed in Torah learning. The man showed the Gaon what his deceased father had written on the margin of his Chumash regarding the verse in Breishis [1:16]: And Hashem made the two great luminaries: the great luminary to rule the day and the lesser luminary to rule the night, and the stars. Written on the margin was the following abbreviation: גועשאנ"ק. Many people had attempted to decipher the meaning of this, but to no avail.

The Gaon took a glance at the word and explained as follows: The abbreviation stands for the following: גדול וסומך על שולחן אביו נקרא קטן - an adult who is dependent (for support) on his father’s table is regarded as “a minor.” The explanation was now self-evident. His father was bothered why the moon was referred to as “the lesser luminary.” The answer was that since the moon has no light of its own, because it has no significant internal source of energy, it is referred to as “the lesser luminary” because its secondary light is produced by what it reflects from the sun.

Rashi cites from Chazal that they were both created the same size, but the moon complained and said that two kings cannot use the same crown and therefore the moon was diminished. The question is asked: It is well known that the moon does not have any intrinsic light source of its own, but rather it is only reflecting the sun light. What is the meaning that they were created equally?

Reb Aryeh Tzvi Frummer answers that that this was precisely the punishment to the moon; the moon did not decrease in size but rather its retribution was that it will not contain its own light and it will only provide light that it receives from the reflection of the sun.

Initially, the sun and the moon were both gedolim since they both had an intrinsic light source; afterwards, the moon became a katan because it could not provide light by itself. The Zohar in Breishis seems to explain in an identical manner.

The Beis Yosef (O”C 31) cites the Zohar in Shir Hashirim that Chol Hamoed is akin to the moon; it does not have its own sanctity but rather it receives kedushah from the Yom Tov.

It is for this reason why Mesechta Moed Katan is called Moed Katan. Since it contains many halachos regarding Chol Hamoed, it is called Moed Katan.

Read more!

Heilech

Heilech
By: Rabbi Avi Lebowitz

Rabbi Chiya says that included in the case of modeh b’miktzas where the person partially admits and partially denies is also a case of “heilech”. Meaning, Reuven claims that Shimon owes him one hundred zuz. Shimon responds by denying fifty and admitting on the other fifty, saying “heilech”. Rabbi Chiya holds that Shimon is required to take an oath on the fifty that he denies. Rav Sheishes disagrees and holds that heilech is exempt, because the fifty that he is admitting on is as if it has already been returned to the lender and the entire claim is only on the fifty that is being denied, so it is a case of kofer hakol, which does not require an oath.

Rashi implies that in order to qualify as heilech in a case of a loan, the borrower must say that he didn’t spend the money, but if he would have spent the money and is presenting the lender with other money, that would not qualify as heilech.

The Hagahos Ashri understands Rashi exactly like this, and therefore holds that if the borrower spent the money and is now replacing it by returning other money, even though we rule in accordance with Rav Sheishes that heilech is exempt, the borrower would have to swear because this isn’t a case of heilech.

However, the Bach on the Rosh says that Rashi is not coming to define heilech, rather he is coming to explain Rabbi Chiya who says that even by heilech the borrower must swear. Rashi is coming to say that even if the money has never been spent and it is a supercharged heilech, Rsbbi Chiya would still hold that the borrower must swear. But it is entirely possible that Rashi would hold that according to Rav Sheishes that heilech is exempt, it would even be exempt if the original money was spent so long as now the borrower is presenting the lender with other money in its place.

The Gr”a quotes from the Ran that a case of a loan is always considered as if the money has been spent since it is given to spend, and therefore a loan never qualifies as heilech. The only situation of heilech is when one gives another something to watch, and then presents him with only part of it at the time he returns it and denies the other part of it. Based on these Rishonim, in a case of a loan, even if it hasn’t yet been spent, the borrower would have to swear.

Read more!

Insights for Bava Kamma 83

By: Reb Yechezkel Khayyat

Dovecotes of Non Jews

The Gemora lists the dovecote of a non-Jew as not meriting a trap free zone around it. The Rishonim discuss the reason for this. The Meiri states that the Gemora was only referring to non Jews who are barbaric and have no religion at all. These people’s property is not afforded any protection, due to their barbaric behavior. All other dovecotes are protected, even if not owned by Jews. Rashi, on the other hand, understands the restriction of traps to be a special protection accorded to fellow Jews, as a kindness. This kindness is not extended to non-Jews.

Slave Value

The Mishna states that to estimate nezek, we evaluate the value of a slave with and without the damage. The Shitah quotes Rav Yehonasan who says that we do not estimate how much the victim feels he lost due to the permanent damage done to his body, since that would be so extreme as to be unfair to the damager. One would never put a reasonable price on his own physical body parts, and the resulting estimation would be exorbitant.

Rashi states that the slave market we are referring to is the market for an eved ivri – a Jewish slave. The Ketzos explains that a Jew cannot be estimated as a non Jewish slave, since he would never be one. The Rosh, however, says the market is for non Jewish slaves. Rashi’s opinion is difficult, as Jewish slaves are only sold for six years, and therefore the difference in value will not accurately reflect the damage done. Rabbi Akiva Eiger says that even if we were to continually reevaluate the damages every six years (to reflect the ongoing loss), this would be unfair to the damager, since the ultimate sum will be much larger than the one time loss to a permanent non Jewish slave. The Maharshal suggests that Rashi agrees that the slave market used for estimation is that for non Jewish slaves, but that Rashi here is simply giving a rationale for applying such an estimation to a free man. Since a free man can sell himself as a slave, this indicates a monetary loss ascribable to the damage done to his body. See Ketzos 420:1 for more detail on Rashi’s opinion.

Ayin Tachas Ayin

The Gemora explains how we know this verse is not literal. The Rambam (Chovel umazik 1:6) states that even though the straight reading of the verse is at odds with the halachah, the halachah comes from Moshe Rabbeinu himself, and has been always accepted. The commentators discuss why the Torah used this phrase, if the real meaning is not literal. The Ibn Ezra states that the Torah is telling us that if the damager would not pay money, it would be fitting for him to lose his eye. The Seforno similarly states that in a pure legal sense, the appropriate punishment would be physical, but the Torah was kind to allow monetary punishment instead. See the Ibn Ezra (Shmos 21:24) for a discussion of logical proofs to the monetary punishment.

The Gr”a states that the verse itself hints to the monetary punishment. The word Ayin is three letters – ayin, yud, nun. If we take the letters after each of those letters, we have the letters pei, kaf, samech. Rearranging those letters spells kesef – money. The verse tells us that for the eye, the damager pays tachas ayin – the letters below (after) ayin.

Read more!

Placement of the Chanukah Candle

The Shulchan Aruch (H”M 418:12) and the Rambam (Nizkei Mamon 14:13) rule against Rabbi Yehudah, and hold the store owner liable for his Chanukah candle. The reasoning given is that although the store owner had license to put the candle outside, to fulfill the mitzvah of Chanukah, he still is responsible to ensure no damage comes from it.

The Gemora (Bava Kamma 62) discusses whether Rabbi Yehudah’s exclusion of liability in the case of a Chanukah candle indicates that it should be below ten tefachim. The Gemora concludes with a limit of twenty amos. There is discussion in the poskim about reconciling the two measures. The Shulchan Aruch (O”H 671:6), following the Rosh, rules that the optimum placement (l’chatchila) is below ten tefachim, but the absolute limit (b’dieved) is twenty amos. The Gr”a explains that even though the Gemora deflected the proof from the Mishna, we follow the straightforward implication of the Mishna. The Rambam (Chanuka 4:7) only mentions the measure of twenty amos. The Rambam understood that the two measures are a dispute, and ruled like the opinion of twenty amos. The Rambam therefore could have held the store owner liable simply because he should have placed the candle higher, but nonetheless made the more fundamental statement that performing a mitzvah does not exempt a person from damages. This statement is a more general one, and has implications in other cases, as the Gr”a points out (H”M 418:28). The Shaarei Teshuva (O”H 761:8) points out that the Chachamim and Rabbi Yehudah’s dispute, as detailed in other sources, does not relate to different opinions on the location of the Chanukah candle, but rather on this fundamental question of exemption due to religious activity.

Read more!

Burning Hidden Things

Halachah

The Shulchan Aruch (H”M, 418:13) rules like the Chachamim (Bava Kamma 62), that one who burns a fire is not liable for embedded items (tamun). As the braisa details, this is only true if the fire was lit in one’s own property, and then spread to someone else’s. A fire lit in someone else’s property obligates the burner in the damages for embedded objects. This is due to the fact that the verse which excludes tamun is in the basic case of a fire described in the Torah – when a fire exited one’s property, and then damaged. However, liability for tamun in the case of a fire lit elsewhere is only for items normally embedded – and for which the burner should have considered may be burned. Therefore, in a field, he is only liable for farm implements, whereas in a house, he is liable for all items.

Which Cases?

The Gemora earlier in B”K (22-23), in the topic of whether a fire causes liability as the burner’s arrows or property, discussed the case of tamun. The Gemora stated that according to Rabbi Yochanan (whose opinion is the halachah), who holds that a fire is like the burner’s arrows, there seems to be no reason to exclude tamun: if a person shot an arrow, he’s liable for any damages, even on embedded items. Therefore, the Gemora states that Rabbi Yochanan only excludes liability for tamun when kalu lo chitzav – the direct effect of the fire has stopped (e.g., by being blunted by a wall, which then collapsed). In that case, the liability is only for the property aspect of the fire, since he should have put up a firewall to stop it from spreading. Even though Rabbi Yochanan holds that a fire causes liability as an arrow of the burner, Rabbi Yochanan agrees that a fire can also cause liability as the burner’s property, and would be considered so if the burner could have stopped the fire and didn’t. Therefore, the Shulchan Aruch rules that the exclusion of tamun only applies to a fire which was blunted by a wall.

The Gr”a (418:33), however, claims that this understanding of the Gemora on 23 is incorrect, and is not the way the Rambam and the Rif read it. Instead, the Gr”a says that when the Gemora clarified that Rabbi Yochanan agrees to a property aspect of a fire, the Gemora was reversing the limitation of tamun to kalu lo chitzav. The Gemora’s original question was how a person could be exempt for paying for tamun damages. The Gemora here states that a burner is liable for tamun when he lights the fire in the grain owner’s property. However, just as when someone fires an arrow, wherever it goes is considered his action, when someone lights a fire anywhere, wherever it goes should be considered his lighting, and therefore, all cases of tamun should be liable. The Gemora on 23 first answered that when the wall blunted the fire, it’s not an arrow anymore. However, the Gemora then reverses this, and states that a fire is different than an arrow, because a fire can be interrupted in mid flight. Therefore, the verse’s exclusion of tamun is only when the fault of the burner was simply not stopping the fire. The Gr”a therefore disputes the exception that the Shulchan Aruch places on the limitation of tamun, and instead holds that the burner of a fire is always not liable for tamun, as long as he lit the fire in his own property, and it spread elsewhere. [See Gra on B”K 23, note 1 for a different reading of the Gemora there.]

Grain coating

The Shitah quotes Rabbi Yehonosan who points out that we must explain that the case of a barley pile coated in wheat is a case where the field owner only allowed barley. If this would not be the case, there would be no reason to exempt him from paying for the wheat covering, which he allowed and saw. If so, the need for this case – even though we already learned the case of bringing a full wheat pile when only allowed to bring in barley – is to teach us that if the owner only allowed barley, he is not even obligated in the small difference that a wheat covering adds.

Read more!

Destined to Give an Account

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here. We now have a “less than ten minute” audio summary as well.

The Mishna in Pirkei Avos (4:29) states: Against your will you were created; against your will you were born; against your will you live; against your will you die; and against your will you are destined to give an account before the King who rules over kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He.

The question is obvious: If a person is living against his will, why is he forced to give an account of his actions?

The Vilna Gaon explains this based upon the Mishna: If someone (owned fields surrounding the field of his friend and) put up fences around three sides (separating their fields), we do not make the owner of the inner field pay (for the cost of building the fence, for it does not really help him, since his field is left opened on one side). Rabbi Yosi says: If the one being surrounded makes the fourth wall, he is obligated to pay his share in all of the walls (for he has demonstrated that he approves of the building of the other three sides). If the owner of the outer property surrounds the inner owner on three sides, the inner owner is not obligated to defray the cost of the building because he has not benefitted, for the fourth side is completely opened. He also can claim that he did not request this at all. However, if the inner owner builds the fourth wall, he has revealed that he approves of the building of the three walls, and he therefore is obligated to contribute to the cost of all four sides of the fence.

So too, explains the Gaon, Hashem fences a person on three sides: A person is created; he is born; and he is living against his will. Accordingly, he is not obligated to pay for it (to give an account of his deeds). But when a person becomes ill and is close to dying, he makes every effort available to him in order to stay alive. He will spend any amount of money for doctors, medicines and cures. He will cry out with all his might that he wants to live. This is as if he is fencing the fourth wall. He is demonstrating that although he was created and born against his will, he now approves and is willingly living. He therefore is destined to give an account of his actions.

The Netziv recounted that one time the students of the Gaon were sitting around the Gaon’s table when he said over this explanation. The Dubno Maggid was there as well, and upon hearing the interpretation, offered the following parable: A man had two daughters; one of them was extremely ugly and the other one had a very bad temperament. No man wanted to marry them until the following marriage was suggested: A blind man should marry the ugly one, and a deaf one should marry the one with the dire disposition, for he will not hear her yelling. The father of the girls accepted and his daughters were married off. Many years passed and the couples prospered. They became wealthy and built a beautiful family. One day an expert doctor arrived in the city and told them that he is capable of healing both the blind man and the deaf one. They agreed on a price and the procedures were successful. However, to the dismay of the couples, strife and arguments between the men and their spouses immediately flared up. The ex-blind man saw the hideous appearance of his wife and the ex-deaf man heard his wife’s constant nagging and yelling.

When the doctor approached them with his bill, they refused to pay him, claiming that he made it worse for them, not better. The case was brought to court and the judge inquired of the doctor if it was possible for him to undo that which was done. He replied that this would no problem at all for him to do. The judge ruled that since these men were better off before the doctor’s involvement in their life, he must make them blind and deaf again. When the men heard the ruling, they proclaimed that they would rather keep their sight and their hearing. Upon hearing this, the judge reversed his ruling and said that they now have revealed that they are happy with the improvement, and they are obligated to pay the doctor for his services.

Read more!

Deriving Benefit from a Corpse

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here. We now have a “less than ten minute” audio summary as well.

By Reb Avi Lebovitz Hearos on the Daf

Tosfos (Bava Kamma 10) asks: Why do we need a special verse to exempt a person who is killed by falling in a pit? It should be included in the exposition of “and the corpse shall belong to him”!? This means that the owner of the pit is only liable when the corpse can belong to the owner of the animal. Just as we exclude an animal that is a disqualified sacrifice, which cannot belong entirely to its owner (since certain restrictions apply to it even after it is redeemed), we should exclude man as well, since it is forbidden to derive pleasure from a corpse!?

Tosfos answers that from this verse alone, I would have said that the owner of the pit is liable for damaging a gentile, since one is permitted to derive pleasure from his corpse, so we need a verse to exempt the pit owner for the death of all people.

Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 349:1) writes that it is forbidden to derive benefit even from a gentile corpse. The Nekudas Hakesef quotes this from a Teshuvas Harashba. But, the Nikudas Hakesef points out that both our Tosfos and the Magid Mishnah hold that only a Jewish corpse is forbidden to derive pleasure from.

The Vilna Gaon proves that Tosfos is correct from David who used the foreskins from the Philistines to betroth the daughter of King Shaul. He also points out that the Rashba in his commentary on the Daf says like Tosfos.

However, the Pischei Teshuva reconciles Tosfos and the Rashba by saying that it is not Biblically forbidden, and that is why a special verse is needed to exempt the pit owner when a person is killed in a bor, but it is Rabbinically forbidden to derive pleasure from any corpse.

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!

Rav Kahana and the Poor Man's Dates

The Gemora (Gittin 61) relates an incident: Rav Kahana was going to Hutzal and he saw a certain person who was throwing sticks at a palm tree so that the dates would fall to the ground. Rav Kahana picked up the dates and ate them. The person said to Rav Kahana, “You saw that I had picked some of the dates with my hand (and therefore it is actual theft for you to take them).”

Rav Kahana said to him: You must be from Rabbi Yoshiyah’s city (who often gave public discourses in the city; that is why you know these halachos). Rav Kahana applied the following verse to Rabbi Yoshiyah: And a righteous man is the foundation of the world.

Tosfos asks: Even if Rav Kahana did not know that the person picked the dates with his hand, he still should not have eaten them!? Why was he not concerned with our Mishna’s ruling that we do not take from the poor in the interest of peace?

Tosfos answers that the man was taking the branches off the tree and the dates were falling off themselves. Rav Kahana thought that the man had no interest in the dates.

The Ramban answers that Rav Kahana thought that he was an idolater and the Mishna did not rule that the produce of an idolater is protected because of harmony.

The Rashba answers that Rav Kahana himself was a poor person (or he was regarded as one since he was traveling). [This answers why he would have been permitted to take the dates that was seemingly reserved for the poor.]

The Meiri writes that the decree of promoting harmony was instituted primarily for a poor person who would be taking for himself and eating in his house; however, the enactment for the interest of peace would not affect a passerby, such as Rav Kahana, who would be eating on the road.

The Vilna Gaon says that this decree was instituted only with respect to olives, but not for dates.

Read more!

Child Prodigy

The Gemora (Gittin 58) related the following incident: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiah once happened to go to the great city in Rome, and he was told there that there was in the prison a child with beautiful eyes and face and his curly hair was arranged in locks. He went and stood at the doorway of the prison and said, “Who gave Yaakov over for spoil and Israel to the plunderers?” The child answered (by continuing the verse mentioned by Rabbi Yehoshua), “Is it not Hashem? It is on account of this; we have sinned against Him, and our fathers did not want to go in His ways, neither did they listen to His Torah.” Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiah said: I feel sure that this child will be a teacher in Israel. I swear by the Temple service that I will not move from here before I ransom him with whatever price that they demand for him. They said that he did not leave the spot before he had ransomed him with a huge amount of money, and it was not too long afterwards before he became a teacher in Israel. Who was he? He was Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha.

The question is asked: What was so exceptional about the boy’s answer that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiah declared that he was certain that this child will grow up to be a tremendous Torah scholar?

The Vilna Gaon explains based on the following Gemora in Brochos (4a): It is written: “Ad ya’avor amecha Hashem; ad ya’avor am zu kanisa.” Until your people pass through, Hashem; until this people that You have acquired pass through. Until your people pass through, Hashem is in reference to the first time that the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisroel (in the times of Yehoshua). Until this people that You have acquired pass through is in reference to the second time that the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisroel (in the times of Ezra). From here, the Chachamim have said: The Jewish people deserved that a miracle should be performed for them at the time of Ezra (when they were crossing the Jordan River into Eretz Yisroel) in the same manner that happened to them in the times of Yehoshua. However, due to their sins, they lost this reward.

Accordingly, it can be said that this is what Rabbi Yehoshua was asking: Who gave Yaakov over for spoil and Israel to the plunderers? Although the Jewish people were on a low level when they entered Bavel (as the name Yaakov connotes), but why weren’t they redeemed with a complete redemption (when they were on a higher level, as the name Israel connotes)?

The child answered: It is on account of this (zu); we have sinned against Him. By the second redemption, it is written zu, this; and since we have sinned, we lost the reward that we originally deserved.

Read more!

Katafreis Connection

The Gemora (Daf Yomi: Gittin 16a) cites a Mishna in Taharos: A jet of liquid from a jug (nitzok), or liquid flowing down a slope (katafreis), or liquid enough to moisten (mashkeh tofe’ach) does not form a connection for tumah or for taharah. [The explanation that they are not a connection for tumah: Nitzok – if one pours liquid from a tahor vessel into a tamei one and the flow of the liquid is uninterrupted between them, it is not regarded as a connection to make the upper vessel tamei. Katafreis – if a liquid from a pool flows down a board on a slope into a pool of liquid which is tamei, the upper pool remains tahor. Mashkeh tofei’ach – a moist trough has two pools of liquid on opposite sides; one of them tamei and one of them tahor. Although the trough is damp enough that it can moisten anything that touches it, the tamei pool does not contaminate the tahor one. The explanation that they are not a connection for taharah: A mikvah must contain forty se’ah of water in order to be valid. If there are two mikvaos and neither of them contain forty se’ah and they are connected through any one of the three ways mentioned above, they are not considered halachically connected to form one large valid mikvah.]

The Vilna Gaon asks: Even without the connection through katafreis, why don’t we say that each droplet of tamei water should contaminate another drop, and ultimately, the water in the upper pool should be rendered tamei?

He answers that the halacha of katafreis would be necessary in a case where a tevul yom (one who was tamei, but has immersed himself in a mikvah; he is considered a tevul yom until nightfall) touched the liquid, for he cannot contaminate a food item with the capability of contaminating something else (and therefore, one droplet will not cause the other to become tamei). Through the principle of katafreis, it could be regarded that the entire flow is regarded as one body of liquid, and the upper pool could become tamei (if it would be considered connected).

Reb Shimon Shkop asks on his answer from the Rambam, who rules that these halachos would apply by tumas sheretz as well, and a sheretz can contaminate one drop to render the others tamei!?

He answers that one drop cannot render the other drops tamei because of the principle of beis hasetarim (for the drops touching each other are not recognizable).

Rav Elyashiv answers simply that if the liquid would be rendered tamei because of its contact with the first droplet, it would only be Rabbinically tamei, for that which a liquid is ruled to be a rishon l’tumah is only a Rabbinic decree. Hence, kodoshim that contracted tumah in such a manner could not be burned. However, through the principle of katafreis, the entire liquid would be rendered tamei on a Biblical level, and if kodoshim would be involved, it would be required to be burned.

Read more!

Dangerous Custodians

Daf Yomi: Gittin 14a - 14b: Rabbi Achi the son of Rabbi Yoshiyah deposited a silver vessel with custodians in Nehardea. He said to Rabbi Dustai the son of Rabbi Yannai and to Rabbi Yosi the son of Kippeir, who were on their way there, “When you come back from Nehardea, bring me the vessel back.” They went and got it from the custodians. The custodians said to them: “Make with us a kinyan (that we will thereby be exempt from any further responsibilities)!” They said, “No (we do not want the labilities)!” “Then, give it back,” they said. Rabbi Dustai the son of Rabbi Yannai was willing, but Rabbi Yosi the son of Kippeir refused. The custodians started to hurt Rabbi Yosi the son of Kippeir (in order to get the vessel back). They said to Rabbi Dustai, “See what your friend is doing.” He replied, “Beat him up good!” When they returned to Rabbi Achi the son of Rabbi Yoshiyah, Rabbi Yosi said, “Look, master, not only did he not assist me, but he even said to them, ‘Beat him up good’!” Rabbi Achi the son of Rabbi Yoshiyah asked Rabbi Dustai, “Why did you act in that manner?” He replied, “Those people are very tall and their hats are very tall, and their voices comes from their midsection (since they had very deep voices), and their names are frightening - Arda and Arta and Phili as their leader. If they give instructions, ‘Tie him up,’ they tie him up; if they instruct, ‘kill him,’ you are killed. If they had killed Dustai, who would have given Yannai, my father, a son like me?” Rabbi Achi the son of Rabbi Yoshiyah asked Rabbi Dustai, “Are these men connected with the government?” He replied, “Yes.” Do they have horses and mules that run behind them?” He answered, “Yes.” Rabbi Achi the son of Rabbi Yoshiyah asked Rabbi Dustai, “If that is so, you acted properly.”

*** It is evident from the Gemora that halachically, they were not obligated to return the vessel to the custodians. The Tosfos Harosh explains: The Gemora above had stated that unless the custodian has been established as a liar, he could claim that the depositor does not want that his deposit shall be in someone else’s hands (and therefore, it should be returned to the custodian). Here, the custodian cannot make such a claim. For Rav Achi explicitly instructed them to return the vessel to him.

*** Rashi cites two explanations as to what Rav Dustai said when the custodians were hurting Rabbi Yosi. Either he said, “Beat him up good (in order that he should return the vessel to them)!” Or, he said, “He is deserving of this (since he is not returning the vessel).” Some Rishonim derive from here that it is permitted to save oneself with someone else’s body, for Rav Dustai was telling them to hit Rabbi Yosi because he was terrified that he would get hit.

*** Rabbi Dustai excused his actions by saying, “Those people are very tall and their hats are very tall, and their voices comes from their midsection, and their names are frightening - Arda and Arta and Phili as their leader.” Rashi explains that they were men of great dimensions and they wore awesome clothing. And since they had very deep voices, it appeared as if their voices were coming from their midsections. The Maharsha brings an alternative explanation according to the simple reading of the Gemora: They were one cubit tall and their hats were one cubit tall. It was because of this that their voices appeared to emanate from their midsections.

*** Rabbi Dustai concluded, “If they had killed Dustai, who would have given Yannai, my father, a son like me?” The Vilna Gaon states that it may be gleaned from here that when a son adds an honorable title to his father’s name, he is permitted to say his father’s name. It is only forbidden for one to say his father’s name without a title.

Read more!

Get

A bill of divorce is referred to as a get. Tosfos (Daf Yomi: Gittin 2a) writes that it is the practice for a get to be written in twelve lines, because the numerical value (gematria) of the word get is twelve (gimmel = 3; tes = 9; 3 + 9 = 12).

The Vilna Gaon adds that the document could have been called differently, for there are many combinations of letters that add up to twelve, such as a “ches” and a “daled.” However, what is unique about the “gimmel” and the “tes” is that you will never find these two letters next to each other in the entire Torah. This is why the document which is used as a separation between the man and his wife is referred to as a get.

The Steipler asked that there are other combinations of letters, such as a “gimmel” and a “kuf,” or a “zayin” and a “tzadi,” or a “samech” and a “tzadi” that are also never found next to each other!? He answers that the “gimmel” and the “tes” are the first of such combinations.

It can also be said that they wanted a name that would accomplish two things; one, that its numerical value is twelve, and secondly, that the two letters are never found next to each other. The “gimmel” and the “tes” are the only two letters that have both components.

Read more!

Halacha Trumps a Verse

Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael (Daf Yomi: Sotah 16a): There are three places that a halacha l’Moshe mi’Sinai trumps the simple meaning of a verse: The Torah states that the blood must be covered with earth, and yet, the halacha is that it may be covered with anything (providing that it is something in which plants can grow). The Torah forbids a nazir from cutting his hair with a razor, and yet, the halacha is that he may not cut it with anything. The Torah says that a get (bill of divorce) must be written on parchment, and yet, the halacha is that it can be written on anything.

The Vilna Gaon in Aderes Eliyahu quotes our Gemora and provides other examples besides those mentioned in our Gemora. It is written with respect to a Jewish slave [Shmos 21:6]: His master shall bring him to the judges, and he shall bring him to the door or to the doorpost, and his master shall bore his ear with a tool, and he shall serve him forever. Based upon the textual reading of the verse, the doorpost would be a valid place to bore his ear, but halacha overrides the verse. Rashi states: I might think that the doorpost is a valid place on which to bore the slave’s ear. Therefore, the Torah says [Devarim 15:17]: “And you shall thrust it into his ear and into the door.” This means that it should be “into the door,” but not “into the doorpost.” What then does “or to the doorpost” mean? The Torah is comparing “the door” to “the doorpost.” Just as the doorpost is upright (attached to the house), so too, the door must be upright. [If the door is detached, it may not be used for the ritual of ear boring.]

The Gaon continues by citing the Gemora in Makkos (22b): How foolish are those who rise for a Torah scroll (to honor it), but they do not rise for a Torah scholar.

Read more!

Those that Study and those that Support Torah

Rav Yosef said to him (Nedarim 55a), “Do not sit down until have explained the following verse [Bamidbar 21: 18 – 19]: And from the wilderness to Mattanah; and from Mattanah to Nachaliel; and from Nachaliel to Bamos?” Rava replied, “When one makes himself as the wilderness, which is open to everyone (willing to teach them Torah), the Torah is given to him as a gift, as it says: And from the wilderness to Mattanah (a gift). And once it is given to him as a gift, Hashem makes it his inheritance, as it says: and from Mattanah to Nachaliel (inheritance from Hashem). And after Hashem gives it to him as an inheritance, he ascends to greatness, as it says: and from Nachaliel to Bamos (to heights). And if he becomes haughty, Hashem will lower him down, as it says: And from Bamos to the valley. And furthermore, Hashem sinks him into the ground, as it says: overlooking the surface of the wilderness. However, if he repents, Hashem will raise him up once again, as it says: every valley shall be raised.

The verse prior to these verses states: A well dug by princes, carved out by nobles of the people, through the lawgiver with their staffs, and from the desert to Mattanah. The Vilna Gaon says that this verse must be explained according to our Gemora as well.

He explains: The well is referring to the wellsprings of Torah. The princes are those that delving into the depths of Torah. The nobles are those people who are engaged in business activities and support those who are studying Torah. The verse concludes that both those that study Torah and those that support others who are studying have a portion in Torah.

The Chozeh mi’Lublin adds: Since the verse concludes with the words: and from the Desert to Mattanah, and we derived from there one is obligated to make himself similar to the wilderness; opened to teach Torah to all, this must be true for the supporters as well. One who is supporting Torah must view his support as if the Torah scholar is receiving it from the wilderness, and not directly from him. He should not expect a return on his investment in this world; the reward for supporting Torah is given out in the World to Come; the same time that those who study Torah receive their reward.

Read more!

A MAMZER WILL NOT SURVIVE - Yevamos 78 - Daf Yomi

Rish Lakish said: A mamzeres is permitted to marry into the congregation after ten generations. The Gemora cites the Scriptural source for this.

They asked Rabbi Eliezer: What is the halacha regarding a mamzeres after ten generations?

He said to them: If you would give me a third-generation mamzer, I will render him pure. (This scenario is not possible, because Heaven does not allow third-generation mamzeirim to be in existence, in order that the ordinary Jews will not unknowingly marry them.)

Rav Huna said: Mamzeirim do not survive.

The Gemora asks: But we learned in our Mishna that the prohibition regarding mamzeirim is eternal? It would seem that they do survive, and they have future generations.

Rabbi Zeira answers: Rav Yehudah explained to me the following: A known mamzer survives (since there is no danger of intermarriage with them or their descendants). An unknown mamzer does not survive. A mamzer that is known, but unknown (it is not common knowledge) will survive until three generations, but not longer (by that time, everyone will have forgotten).

Reb Yonasan Eibshitz explains: Up until ten generations, the strength of the father still exists in his descendants.

The Vilna Gaon states: A father and mother are equal partners in a child. A grandson would have twenty-five percent from the father. The third generation will have an eighth. The fourth will have a sixteenth. The fifth will have one thirty-second from the original mamzer. The sixth will have one sixty-fourth. The seventh generation will only have one out of one hundred and twenty-eight. The eighth will have one out of two hundred and fifty-six. The ninth will have one out of five hundred and twelve. The tenth generation will only have one out of one thousand and twenty-four from the original mamzer.

The portion of the mamzer that exists in the tenth-generation descendant has now become nullified. The Yerushalmi states that a berya, a complete creature can become nullified if it is intermingled among a mixture of more that nine hundred and sixty.

The Yerushalmi states that an unknown mamzer will not survive even for thirty days. The Aruch lener explains: This is only true when he is halachically classified as a mamzer (there were witnesses), but it is not public knowledge. Since he is forbidden to enter into the congregation, and people do not know this, there is a decree from heaven that he will die. However, in a case where there is a doubt if he is a mamzer, he will survive, because the halacha is that an uncertain mamzer is permitted to enter into the congregation. (Reb Elchonon disagrees with this.)

The Beis Shmuel (E”H, 2:18) cites a Sefer Chasidim who states that a mamzer will not survive twelve months, similar to a tereifah.

Read more!