From daf at dafyomi.co.il Thu Feb 2 11:48:39 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 18:48:39 +0200 Subject: Menachos 063: Perek out of Order? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Menachos 063: Perek out of Order? Chaim asks: Why was this past perek out of order from that in Mishnayos? Any profound or practical reasons? Chaim , ny usa ---------------------------------------------- The Kollel replies: (a) I am not sure why Perakim 6 and 10 of Menachos were interchanged in the Gemara. The same type of transposal occurs in two other locations: Megilah Perakim 3 and 4, and Sanhedrin Perakim 10 and 11. In the latter case, it is clear from the Gemara at the beginning of Makos (which refers to the Mishnah in Sanhedrin 89a as being the last Mishnah in Sanhedrin) that the correct order is that of the Mishnayos. And it is also clear that the Tosefta in all three locations had the Perakim listed in the order that they appear in our Mishnayos. (b) I noticed that in the Rif - the order of Perakim in Sanhedrin follows that of our Gemara, while the order in Megilah follows that of our Mishnayos. And in the Rosh, the reverse is true! (c) Nevertheless, the order we have in the Gemara already appears in the Munich manuscript of the Talmud (which doesn't even have Rashi or Tosfos). It is not clear who changed it and why. Mordecai Kornfeld Kollel Iyun Hadaf From daf at dafyomi.co.il Fri Feb 3 04:43:07 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:43:07 +0200 Subject: Erchin 015: Nega'im for Lashon ha'Ra Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Erchin 015: Nega'im for Lashon ha'Ra Yehuda Salamon and Sam Kosofsky ask: Why does R' Yosi ben Zimra go to such great lengths to connect tzara'as with lashon ha-ra - why not just bring a source from Miriam who received tzara'as moments after the story of isha kushis (which according to some, was a criticism of Moshe's abstinence from Tzipora)? Yehuda Salamon, Bronx, New York ---------------------------------------------- The Kollel replies: 1. The Panim Yafos (Rav Pinchas ha'Levi Horowitz, the author of Sefer Hamakneh on Kidushin and Sefer ha'Hafla'ah on Kesuvos) on the Chumash at the end of Parshas Tazria explains that the Gemara here wants to stress that the punishment for Lashon ha'Ra is that the speaker becomes a "Metzora Muchlat" -- he becomes a totally tamei Metzora and not merely a Metzora Musgar, one who must wait for a week to see if the Tzara'as spreads or becomes weaker. Since, for a woman, there is no difference between being a Metzora Muchlat and a Metzora Musgar, the Gemara could not have brought a source from Miriam. 2. The proof that the laws of Muchlat and Musgar are the same for a woman is from the Mishnah which the Gemara here cites. The Mishnah says that the only distinction between Muchlat and Musgar is "Peri'ah" (the requirement to let one's hair grow) and "Perimah" (the requirement to tear one's clothing). However, the Mishnah in Sotah (23a) states that a woman does not perform Peri'ah and Perimah. It therefore follows that there is no difference between Musgar and Muchlat for a woman. 3. We now can understand why Rebbi Yosi ben Zimra has to use this chain of three words, "Atzmis," "li'Tzemisus," "la'Chalutin"; he is trying to prove, by arriving at the word "la'Chalutin," that Lashon ha'Ra causes the speaker to become a Metzora Muchlat. To show what the difference between Muchlat and Musgar is he must cite a Mishnah which refers only to a male Metzora, and he cannot cite a proof from Miriam. Kol Tuv, Dovid Bloom >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 From daf at dafyomi.co.il Fri Feb 3 04:51:56 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:51:56 +0200 Subject: Megilah 009: Translating the Torah to Greek Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Re: Megilah 009: Translating the Torah to Greek Chaim M. asked: >>How long time did it take to our sages to translate the Torah into >>Greek? See Megilah 9a-b<< The Kollel replied: >>1. I found that the important historical work Seder ha'Doros writes >>that it took the Sages 72 days to translate the Torah. This is also >>cited by Yalkut Meam Loez at the beginning of Bereshis (on the >>first verse of the Torah on page 34 of the Hebrew edition). 2. However, it should be pointed out that there seem to have been two translations made by the Sages into Greek. Rav Yakov Emden (in Chidushei ha'Ya'avetz at the back of the Gemara, Megilah 9a) writes that the account of the translation of the Torah commissioned by "Talmai" as mentioned by the Gemara did not involve Ptolemy Philadelpho.<< --- Chaim M. asks further: Shalom ha'Rav Thanks you for continue being interested on answering my questions! Did it happen also a miracle with the translation of the Torah for Ptolemy Philadelpho? Did he also put 72 sages in differents places...etc? Was it translated into greek? Was it the known Septuagint? If I found something on this issue, bli neder, i will try to convey it to you. Have a nice day, Chaim --- Rav Chaim Mendelson asks: You wrote: "Rav Yakov Emden (in Chidushei ha'Ya'avetz at the back of the Gemara, Megilah 9a) writes that the account of the translation of the Torah commissioned by "Talmai" as mentioned by the Gemara did not involve Ptolemy Philadelpho". It appears that R. Yaakov Emden may have contradicted himself on this point in Maseches Sofrim. See there (Chap. 1:7-8) two stories with Ptolemy ordering translations of the Torah into Greek. In the first, five sages are involved. In the second one, seventy-two scholars were involved. In his glosses (ad loc.) R. Yaakov Emden posits that the first story (5 scholars) was Ptolemy "ben Lage", and the second story (72 scholars) was Ptolemy Philadelpho. Chaim Mendelson, Yerushalayim ------------------------------------- The Kollel replies: 1. Maseches Sofrim (1:7; printed in the Vilna Shas at the back of Maseches Avodah Zarah) states: "It happened that five elders wrote the Torah in Greek for King Talmai. This day was as difficult for Yisrael as the day that the Golden Calf was made, because it is impossible to translate the Torah properly." 2. The next paragraph in Masechet Sofrim states: "There was another incident involving King Talmai who gathered 72 elders and placed them in 72 houses and did not tell them why he had gathered them. The king went individually to each elder and commanded him: 'Write down the Torah of Moshe your teacher!' Hashem placed counsel in the heart of each one of them, and they all thought alike and each one wrote independently the identical translation of the Torah." 3. The question is, what is the identity of these two kings Talmai? It presumably refers to two different kings, since "Talmai" ("Ptolemy") is the name of the line of kings (like "Pharaoh" or "Caesar"). The Ya'avetz writes that the first translation was organized by Talmai the son of Laga, and the second one by Talmai Philadelpho. It seems to me that the reason why the Ya'avetz writes this is that he himself wrote in his emendations to Megilah 9a (cited in my previous answer) that Ptolemy Philadelpho was a lover of the Jewish people and the account of his translation is related in the famous Aristeas Letter. This suggests that the Philadelpho translation was a favorable incident and it is improbable that Maseches Sofrim would say about this that the day it happened was so bad for Yisrael. Therefore, Philadelpho is associated with the second translation made by the 72 elders. 4. A stronger proof for the assertion that the translation of the 72 elders was arranged by Philadelpho is simply that this is what is stated in the Aristeas Letter, which is also mentioned by Seder ha'Doros and Yalkut Me'am Lo'ez, as I cited earlier. 5. In summary, it appears that the miracle of the 72 elders' translation occured with Ptolemy Philadelpho's translation into Greek. This presumably is connected with the Septuagint, but it seems that the translations underwent many changes before they became what is known today as the Septuagint. All the best, Dovid Bloom >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 From daf at dafyomi.co.il Fri Feb 3 05:10:41 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 12:10:41 +0200 Subject: Bechoros 045: Is a left-handed Kohen Pasul for Avodah? Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Bechoros 045: Is a left-handed Kohen Pasul for Avodah? Dr. Yitzchak Metchik asks: Did I read today's daf correctly when it quoted a braisa that said that left-handed Kohanim are posul? I am a Kohen and I am left handed. Does this mean that I will not be able to serve I"YH in the Bais Ha Mikdash when it is rebuilt bimhaira b'yamenu. Thank you for clarifying (and quoting any contradictory opinions?). Dr. Yitzchak Metchik, Boston, MA ---------------------------------------------- The Kollel replies: In "Peninei Rabeinu ha'Kehilos Yaakov" (by Rav M. M. Shulsinger, page 127), it is reported that the Steipler Ga'on zt'l was once asked about a young boy who was a Kohen and left-handed. Should they attempt to accustom him to write with his right hand so that when the Beis ha'Mikdash will be rebuilt he will able to serve there? The Steipler Ga'on replied that in the same way that when we received the Torah at Har Sinai all those who had blemishes were healed, so, too, when Mashi'ach will come these people will also be healed and consequently this Kohen will be able to perform the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash. However, Rav Shulsinger added that in the Introduction to Sefer Shemiras ha'Lashon, the Chafetz Chaim (page 5, DH v'Zeh Yadu'a) cites the words of the Chachamim that in future times, everyone will be healed of their blemishes with the exception of those who speak Lashon ha'Ra. According to this, left-handed Kohanim will be able to officiate in the Beis ha'Mikdash only if they are careful now to protect their tongues from Lashon ha'Ra. (The source for this statement of Chazal seems to be the Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Vayigash #8, which states: "Everything which ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu has struck in this world, He will heal in the World to Come." The Midrash teaches that the wild animals will also be healed, with the exception of the snake. This is because the snake caused death for all mankind when it used Loshan ha'Ra to persuade Adam ha'Rishon to eat from the Etz ha'Da'as.) Kol Tuv, Dovid Bloom >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 From daf at dafyomi.co.il Fri Feb 3 05:14:04 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 12:14:04 +0200 Subject: Moed Katan 005: A decomposing body causes Tum'ah Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Moed Katan 005: A decomposing body causes Tum'ah Dov Shapiro asks: The Gemara says that exactly a kzayis of meis- since it will decompose shortly to be less than a kzayis, dont place a marker there. This implies that once it decomposes into the ground to less than a kzays, it is no longer tamei. Does this apply to all graves once the body decomposes it's no longer tamei. If so older graves that we know contains no more remnants of a meis because its all decomposed, a kohen can go to?! I always thought that agrave is metamei forever, if so what does the gemara mean?! Thank you Dov Shapiro, Monsey NY USA ---------------------------------------------- The Kollel replies: Even if the flesh has decomposed, the bones still remain. This Gemara refers to a case in which only a k'Zayis of the flesh of the Mes was found. However, if one finds the backbone or the skull etc. (and certainly if one finds an intact corpse), one must place a marker there, as we see a few lines later in the Gemara here, and thus we learn from this that we do not say that the bones will decompose. Kol Tuv, Dovid Bloom >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 From daf at dafyomi.co.il Fri Feb 3 05:42:46 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 12:42:46 +0200 Subject: Kesuvos 005: Maybe He Will Slaughter a Little Bird Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Kesuvos 005: Maybe He Will Slaughter a Little Bird Yehuda Sperling asked: We say if Yom Kippur is on Monday he might come to shecht a little bird.Its Shabbos, AND, its right before Yom Kippur, do we really think he will come to be Mechalel Shabbos? yehuda sperling, brooklyn,ny ---------------------------------------------- The Kollel replies: Abaye is saying merely that according to the logic being presented by Rebbi Zeira -- that we push off getting married due to this possibility which is a need for *after* Shabbos -- we similarly should make sure that Yom Kippur does not fall on Monday but rather on Tuesday. (The Gemara promptly differentiates between this case and Rebbi Zeira's case.) If you are bothered because this is right before Yom Kippur and thus how would anyone come to transgress the prohibition against doing Melachah on Shabbos, the answer is that Gezeiros are generally made even when people are in a holy time or situation. For example, in his famous comment, the Moshav Zekenim writes that the Torah prohibited a Kohen Gadol from marrying a widow because he might Daven for a married woman's husband to die when he is in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim on Yom Kippur, in order that he be able to marry her. It certainly is possible (within the realm of the Gezeiros of Chazal) that a person will have a very busy schedule and be extremely preoccupied and end up slaughtering on Shabbos. All the best, Yaakov Montrose >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 From daf at dafyomi.co.il Mon Feb 6 08:04:22 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:04:22 +0200 Subject: Erchin 013: Is it okay to call a person an "ugly Jew"? Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Erchin 013: Is it okay to call a person an "ugly Jew"? Alex Lebovits asks: The Mishna uses the terms The handsomest Jew and the ugliest Jew. The Gem. on 14A informs us, that the Mishna did this in order to teach us incidentally, something that R Yehuda had already taught us openly that its is asur for one to say. How handsome is this Kenani! 1. In order to teach us this (already known halacha) the Mishna also uses the term Ugly Jew. Is it OK to call one an Ugly Jew? 2. Furthermore it could have used the term Eved and say Echad ShHerich es Hanaeh Shbeved, Ves Hakaur ShBeved. An eved is in the parasha of erichin as we see in the 1st Mishna in the Mesechta. And we see later that an Eved is used as an example to tell us about a different din about Shor Hamuad 3. Incidentally, when the Gem. in Taanis talks about Rachav, that if someone would repeat her name, he would become a Bal Keri. Are they not talking about how beautiful this KNani was?! Thank you for considering my question. Alex Lebovits, Toronto, Canada ---------------------------------------------- The Kollel replies: 1. a. I certainly agree that it is not okay to call someone an ugly Jew. However, what can we do if the fact is that some Jews are ugly? The main thing is that I should not say that he is ugly because he is a Jew, Chas v'Shalom! b. I think it is not true that the Halachah that Rav Yehudah said in the name of the Rav was already known because the Mishnah came before Rav, who was an Amora. The Chidush here is that the Din of Rav is already hinted at in the Mishnah. We learn from the Gemara in Ta'anis (21a) that Ilfa offered to throw himself off of the mast of the ship if he could not find a source from the Mishnah for the Beraisos of Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Oshiya, so it certainly is very important to know that there is a source from a Mishnah for Rav's Halachah that one should not say how handsome this Kena'ani is. 2. If the Mishnah would have used the term "Eved," this would have caused us a problem. We would have thought that it is only if one was Ma'arich the most beautiful Eved that he need to pay 50 Shekalim, implying that if one was Ma'arich a beautiful Jew he must pay more than 50. 3. The Gemara in Megilah (end of 14b) relates that Rachav converted to Judaism and married Yehoshua bin Nun. So the Rachav referred to in Ta'anis (5b) and Megilah (15a) was already Jewish. Alex, Yeyasher Kokacha for all of your wonderful questions. Dovid Bloom >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 From daf at dafyomi.co.il Mon Feb 6 10:46:25 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:46:25 +0200 Subject: Megilah 009: Translating the Torah to Greek Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Re: Megilah 009: Translating the Torah to Greek Chaim M. asked: >>How long time did it take to our sages to translate the Torah into >>Greek? See Megilah 9a-b<< The Kollel replied: >>1. I found that the important historical work Seder ha'Doros writes >>that it took the Sages 72 days to translate the Torah. This is also >>cited by Yalkut Meam Loez at the beginning of Bereshis (on the >>first verse of the Torah on page 34 of the Hebrew edition). 2. However, it should be pointed out that there seem to have been two translations made by the Sages into Greek. Rav Yakov Emden (in Chidushei ha'Ya'avetz at the back of the Gemara, Megilah 9a) writes that the account of the translation of the Torah commissioned by "Talmai" as mentioned by the Gemara did not involve Ptolemy Philadelpho.<< --- Chaim M. asked further: >>Shalom ha'Rav Thanks you for continue being interested on answering >>my questions! Did it happen also a miracle with the translation of the Torah for Ptolemy Philadelpho? Did he also put 72 sages in differents places...etc? Was it translated into greek? Was it the known Septuagint? If I found something on this issue, bli neder, i will try to convey it to you. << --- The Kollel replied: >>1. Maseches Sofrim (1:7; printed in the Vilna Shas at the back of >>Maseches Avodah Zarah) states: "It happened that five elders wrote >>the Torah in Greek for King Talmai. This day was as difficult for >>Yisrael as the day that the Golden Calf was made, because it is >>impossible to translate the Torah properly." 2. The next paragraph in Masechet Sofrim states: "There was another incident involving King Talmai who gathered 72 elders and placed them in 72 houses and did not tell them why he had gathered them. The king went individually to each elder and commanded him: 'Write down the Torah of Moshe your teacher!' Hashem placed counsel in the heart of each one of them, and they all thought alike and each one wrote independently the identical translation of the Torah." 3. The question is, what is the identity of these two kings Talmai? It presumably refers to two different kings, since "Talmai" ("Ptolemy") is the name of the line of kings (like "Pharaoh" or "Caesar"). The Ya'avetz writes that the first translation was organized by Talmai the son of Laga, and the second one by Talmai Philadelpho. It seems to me that the reason why the Ya'avetz writes this is that he himself wrote in his emendations to Megilah 9a (cited in my previous answer) that Ptolemy Philadelpho was a lover of the Jewish people and the account of his translation is related in the famous Aristeas Letter. This suggests that the Philadelpho translation was a favorable incident and it is improbable that Maseches Sofrim would say about this that the day it happened was so bad for Yisrael. Therefore, Philadelpho is associated with the second translation made by the 72 elders. 4. A stronger proof for the assertion that the translation of the 72 elders was arranged by Philadelpho is simply that this is what is stated in the Aristeas Letter, which is also mentioned by Seder ha'Doros and Yalkut Me'am Lo'ez, as I cited earlier. 5. In summary, it appears that the miracle of the 72 elders' translation occured with Ptolemy Philadelpho's translation into Greek. This presumably is connected with the Septuagint, but it seems that the translations underwent many changes before they became what is known today as the Septuagint.<< --- Rav Chaim Mendelson asks: You wrote: "Rav Yakov Emden (in Chidushei ha'Ya'avetz at the back of the Gemara, Megilah 9a) writes that the account of the translation of the Torah commissioned by "Talmai" as mentioned by the Gemara did not involve Ptolemy Philadelpho". It appears that R. Yaakov Emden may have contradicted himself on this point in Maseches Sofrim. See there (Chap. 1:7-8) two stories with Ptolemy ordering translations of the Torah into Greek. In the first, five sages are involved. In the second one, seventy-two scholars were involved. In his glosses (ad loc.) R. Yaakov Emden posits that the first story (5 scholars) was Ptolemy "ben Lage", and the second story (72 scholars) was Ptolemy Philadelpho. Chaim Mendelson, Yerushalayim --------------------------------- The Kollel replies: Rav Mendelson has made a very important point. In fact, I think that on the basis of this we may be able, finally, to say that the translation mentioned in Megilah (9a) also took 72 days. To summarize: 1. The translation mentioned in Megilah (9a) seems to be identical to the second transation mentioned in Maseches Sofrim; among other similarities, both accounts mention that 72 Sages were involved. However, for some reason the Ya'avetz in Megilah writes that the account there is not the same as the one mentioned in the Aristea Letter. (Aristea was a non-Jew close to Ptolemy Philadelpho, and is cited in historical sources including Josephus and Seder ha'Doros.) It appears that the Ya'avetz in Megilah understood that there are certain negative aspects mentioned in Megilah which do not conform well with the picture of Philadelpho given as a strong supporter of the Jews. However, in Maseches Sofrim the Ya'avetz does write that the account involving the 72 Sages involved Philadelpho. We will follow what our teachers have taught us -- that where there are contradictions in the words of the Acharonim, we are not obliged to attempt to resolve them, and therefore I suggest that the more definitive approach is that of the Ya'avetz in Maseches Sofrim, namely that the account involving the 72 Sages was identical to the account involving Philadelpho. (See also Kisei Rachamim, by the Chida, on Maseches Sofrim.) (It has been suggested that the contradiction in the words of the Ya'avetz may be resolved by suggesting that there is a typographical error in the text of the Ya'avetz in Maseches Sofrim, and his two comments there should be switched around so that the first account there involved Philadelpho and the second account involved ben Laga. However, I personally cannot understand how this is plausable, because the sources state that the Philadelpho incident involved 72 sages (or some accounts say 70) while the first incident in Maseches Sofrim involved only five.) 2. Therefore, it seems to me that the account in Megilah is indeed Philadelpho, and therefore one can say that it took them 72 days. (It should be pointed out that the source for 72 days is not in fact from Chazal. Chazal mention that there were 72 Sages, but it is Aristea who gives the figure of 72 days. However, this length of time appears to have been accepted by the Jewish historians.) Many thanks for everyone's very helpful comments! Kol Tuv, Dovid Bloom >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 From daf at dafyomi.co.il Mon Feb 6 10:45:32 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:45:32 +0200 Subject: Chulin 083: A Tale of Two Gidim Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Re: Chulin 083: A Tale of Two Gidim Meir Eliezer Bergman asked: On daf 83a (before the first Mishna), the Gemoro brings a Baraisa about one who ate two Giddim, and concludes that the machlokes is about a gid less than a Kezayis, and the Gemoro brings another Baraisa that shows this machlokes. Rashi explains that this means that in the first Baraisa, one of the two giddim had less than a Kezayis, hence the machlokes is whether the person gets one or two sets of Malkus. My question is that if this is the machlokes, why do we need the first Baraisa?, i.e. why would they bother to argue also about one who ate two Giddim where one is less than a kezayis - obviously if they have a machlokes about a gid less than a kezayis, there will be a machlokes if there was another large gid as well?! Meir Eliezer Bergman Manchester UK --- The Kollel replied: >>Reb Meir, this is another excellent question! 1. Since the source for the two Beraisos is the Tosefta, it seems that your question is not actually a question on the Gemara but rather a question on the Tosefta. That is, since the Tosefta has already mentioned the dispute between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yehudah (that the Tana Kama maintains that one is Chayav for eating a complete Gid ha'Nasheh even if it is less than a k'Zayis, while Rebbi Yehudah maintains that one is Chayav only for a k'Zayis), what additional Chidush is the Seifa of the Tosefta teaching when it says that if one eats two Gidim from two different animals, he receives 80 lashes according to the Tana Kama and 40 according to Rebbi Yehudah? This is exactly the same dispute taught by the first part of the Tosefta! (The commentary of the Minchas Bikurim on the Tosefta in the Shas, and Rav Abramsky zt'l in his commentary Chazon Yechezkel, both explain that in the Seifa, both Gidim do not contain a k'Zayis. Accordingly, the dispute is the same one as in the previous line of the Tosefta.) 2. I want to suggest the following solution to this problem. Until now, we thought that there were only two opinions in this Sugya. There is the Machlokes Tana'im about whether one is liable for both the Gid of the right leg and that of the left leg, or only for that of the right leg. Rebbi Yehudah maintains that one is liable only for the right Gid. In addition, there is a Machlokes about whether a complete Gid is considered a "Biryah" even when it is less than a k'Zayis. Rebbi Yehudah maintains that it must have a k'Zayis. The Chidush of the end of the Tosefta is that there is room for a third opinion in the Sugya. In other words, it is possible to follow Rebbi Yehudah's opinion on one of these issues and disagree with him on the other. The Chidush of the Tana Kama in the Seifa (of Halachah Beis in the Tosefta) is that he agrees with Rebbi Yehudah that one is liable only for the Gid of the right leg (which is why he requires the two Gidim to be from two different animals) but he disagrees with Rebbi Yehudah on the issue of "Biryah" and maintains that one is Chayav even without a k'Zayis. This is an opinion we have not seen until now, so it is necessary for the Tosefta to tell us about it.<< ------------------------------------- The Kollel adds: The Gemara later (91a) answers your question when it says that the Beraisa which discusses eating 2 Gidin from 2 different animals is necessary according to Rebbi Yehudah's opinion. It is teaching that according to Rebbi Yehudah, it is obvious that the Isur applies only to the "Yamin" -- the right gid (which is why he at least receives one set of Malkus; if Rebbi Yehudah was in doubt about whether the Isur applied only to the right Gid or only to the left Gid, he would not receive Malkus at all), and, in addition, since only one of them contains a k'Zayis, he receives only one set of Malkus. Kol Tuv, Dovid Bloom >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 From daf at dafyomi.co.il Mon Feb 6 10:47:48 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:47:48 +0200 Subject: Bechoros 060: "Mekulkalim" or "Mekudashim"? Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Bechoros 060: "Mekulkalim" or "Mekudashim"? Aharon Gal asks: Shalom Rav, There are two cases in the Mishna where the Behema is not sacrified on the altar but instead go to the pasture until she will be blemished. In the first case the mishna says "Mekulkalim", and in the second "Kedoshin". How come the Gemara uses two oposite words where the destination of the behema is the same? Aharon Gal, New Jersey , USA ---------------------------------------------- The Kollel replies: Aharon, this is an excellent question. Below are two explanations mentioned by Rashi. 1. a. The first Peshat in Rashi states that if the first two animals exited simultaneously but he counted them only as one, then the one that he subsequently counted as "number 2" is really number 3, and so forth. It follows that the one he counted as "number 9" is really number 10, and what he called "number 10" is really number 11. Rashi writes about the above scenario that both animals are ready for "Kalkala" (i.e. are "Mekulkalin"). This is because he erringly thinks that what he called "number 9" is Chulin and "number 10" is Ma'aser. b. Rashi writes: "If he did so and did not consult Beit Din...." The Chafetz Chaim, in Likutei Halachos to Maseches Bechoros, writes that when Rashi writes, "If he did so...," this means that he went ahead and slaughtered what he called "number 9" on the assumption that it is Chulin, and what he called "number 10" on the assumption that it is Ma'aser (and not with intention of Shelamim, which is the intention he really should have had for what he called "number 10"). c. The continuation of the Mishnah, that he called (a) what is really number 10 by the name "number 9," and (b) what is really number 11 by the name "number 10," is referring to what would have happened had he consulted with Beis Din. They would have told him that in case (a), the animal has the status of Ma'aser since it is in reality the tenth animal, and in case (b) it has the status of Shelamim since he gave it the wrong name. This is what the Din would have been had he consulted with Beis Din,and afterwards slaughtered the animals with the intention for the Korbanos that Beis Din instructed him about. If he would have done so, the animals would have been "Mekudashin" -- they would have possessed the Kedushah that Beis Din instructed him about. Since, however, he slaughtered them without asking Beis Din, both were slaughtered with the wrong intention, and therefore both are Mekulkalin and Pasul. 2. Here is another way of explaining the difference in the Mishnah between "Mekulkalin" and "Mekudashin." This is based on the second Peshat in Rashi, which Rashi refers to as "Perush Acher." a. Rashi writes that if the first two exited simultaneously, and he mistakenly called "number 2" what is really number 3, and then he continued with his mistake until he called "number 9" what is really number 10, this means that neither what he called -- 9 or 10 -- possesses Kedushah that would enable it to be brought as a Korban. b. Rashi explains that the difference between the case above and the subsequent case in the Mishnah (where he called "number 9" what is really number 10, and "number 10" what is really number 11, in which case both animals possess Kedushah, namely the real number 10 is Ma'aser and the real number 11 is Shelamim) is that in the subsequent case he made a mistake only from number 9 onwards. In contrast, in the first case of the Mishnah he erred even before he got to number 9. Due to this big mistake that he made, these animals do not possess Kedushah at all. c. If one makes a mistake by being only one off mark, the Korbanos may be offered. In contrast, if one makes a mistake before he reaches number 9, this means that he is more than one off mark. Consequently, the animals do not possess Kedushah and are therefore called "Mekulkalin" because they can never be offered. d. However, the second part of the Mishnah includes the case where he called "number 10" what is really number 9, and therefore the real number 9 can be eaten only when it develops a blemish. This would appear to be exactly the same as what we called "Mekulkalin" in (a) above, so why does the Mishnah also give the title "Mekudashin" to the real number 9? The answer to this is that since three animals are mentioned in the second part of the Mishnah, and two of these three may be offered as Korbanos, the real number 9 is also called "Mekudashin" similar to the other two. (In addition, this animal could never have been Kadosh, because in reality it is number 9, and it is not similar to the two animals in the first case (a), both of which could have been Korbanos and become ruined -- "Mekulkal" -- because of the mistake made with them.) Kol Tuv, Dovid Bloom >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 From daf at dafyomi.co.il Wed Feb 8 09:39:10 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:39:10 +0200 Subject: Chulin 141: Sending Away the Mother Without the Egg Message-ID: This question and its answer were prepared in Hebrew. They can be viewed without installing Hebrew fonts by opening the attached .pdf file, which can also be accessed online at: http://www.dafyomi.co.il/chulin/discuss/chul-141.qa2.pdf . If the file does not open upon clicking, go to http://www.dafyomi.co.il/acrobat.htm for instructions on how to use Acrobat .pdf files. Kollel Iyun Hadaf >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: chul-141.qa2.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 34484 bytes Desc: not available URL: From daf at dafyomi.co.il Wed Feb 8 10:30:34 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:30:34 +0200 Subject: Moed Katan 009: Chanukas ha' Mikdash Message-ID: This question and its answer were prepared in Hebrew. They can be viewed without installing Hebrew fonts by opening the attached .pdf file, which can also be accessed online at: http://www.dafyomi.co.il/mkatan/discuss/moed-009.0t3.pdf If the file does not open upon clicking, go to http://www.dafyomi.co.il/acrobat.htm for instructions on how to use Acrobat .pdf files. Kollel Iyun >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: moed-009.0t3.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 72199 bytes Desc: not available URL: From daf at dafyomi.co.il Wed Feb 8 11:23:43 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:23:43 +0200 Subject: Chulin 083: A Tale of Two Gidim Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Re: Chulin 083: A Tale of Two Gidim Meir Eliezer Bergman asked: >>On daf 83a (before the first Mishna), the Gemoro brings a Baraisa >>about one who ate two Giddim, and concludes that the machlokes is >>about a gid less than a Kezayis, and the Gemoro brings another >>Baraisa that shows this machlokes. Rashi explains that this means that in the first Baraisa, one of the two giddim had less than a Kezayis, hence the machlokes is whether the person gets one or two sets of Malkus. My question is that if this is the machlokes, why do we need the first Baraisa?, i.e. why would they bother to argue also about one who ate two Giddim where one is less than a kezayis - obviously if they have a machlokes about a gid less than a kezayis, there will be a machlokes if there was another large gid as well?! << --- Dovid Bloom replied: >>Reb Meir, this is another excellent question! ...(I initially thought that this problem could be answered by suggesting that the word "Kegon" does not have to mean "for instance" but rather it can sometimes mean "the case referred to is such and such...." However, I found that the Maharsham in Da'as Torah (Hilchos Shechitah 15:20) writes at some length that the word "Kegon" always means "for instance." So there is still something to think about on this question.)<< --- Yitzchok Zirkind comments: See Rashi to Sanhedrin 98b DH Iy Min Chayah Hu, and see Margoliyos ha'Yam there # 18, for more sources relating to this last point. Y. Zirkind >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 From daf at dafyomi.co.il Thu Feb 9 11:27:00 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:27:00 +0200 Subject: Erchin 012: The Year of the Churban Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Erchin 012: The Year of the Churban Samuel Kosofsky asks: Rebbe, The Gemara goes through many mathematical calculations to show how the churban came out on a motzei sheviit even though there are difficulties with that cheshbon. Often, however, when the gemara deals with history it asks the question: "Moy dehava hava?" "What difference does it make, what ever occurred is what occured?" An answer is then provided following that question. Why doesn't the gemara pose that question here in our case? B'kavod, Samuel Kosofsky, Hillcrest NY, USA ---------------------------------------------- The Kollel replies: The Gemara generally asks "Mai d'Havah Havah" when the entire point of a statement is to figure out what happened, as in the Gemara in Yoma (5b) regarding, "How did he dress them?" However, in the Gemara here, this is not Rebbi Yosi's point. Rather, it was incidentally part of his proof that "Megalgalin Zechus l'Yom Zakai...." Once he brought up these facts as part of his proof, the Gemara analyzes how he knew that this was what happened. All the best, Yaakov Montrose From daf at dafyomi.co.il Thu Feb 9 11:32:06 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:32:06 +0200 Subject: Berachos 002: Sof Zeman Shema Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Berachos 002: Sof Zeman Shema Ben Shaw asks: Hi, I am trying to calculate the last time for morning Shema in Manchester UK. As a guide I used the web page http://www.myzmanim.com/day.aspx?askdefault=1&vars=39090887&q=manchester I can calculate the Gra's time. But I get a difference when I try and calculate the Mogen Avraham's time. Bellow are my figures. Where do you think I have gone wrong? (My times are based on 02 Feb) Gra Naitz: 07:53:24 - Shki'ya : 16:52:18 Sha'ot Zamani'ot: 44 mins 54 sec Sof Zaman Shema: 10:08 Mogen Avraham Alos: 06:05:16- Zais: 17:48:13 Sha'ot Zamani'ot: 58 mins 35 sec My calculation Sof Zaman Shema is 09:01. The web site shows 09:14 Many thanks, Ben Shaw ---------------------------------------------- The Kollel replies: It seems that "MyZmanim" is using the later time for Alos ha'Shachar -- 72 minutes before the Shekiyah -- instead of the earlier one -- 90 minutes before. If you work through the calculations, you get their time of 09:14. b'Hatzlachah, Yonasan From daf at dafyomi.co.il Thu Feb 9 11:33:57 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:33:57 +0200 Subject: Chulin 091: Following Rov Regarding 7-month Births Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Re: Chulin 091: Following Rov Regarding 7-month Births Jeno Gal asked: >>If one curses his father he is Chayav Misa. We go Basar Rov that >>Rov Be'Ilos Achar HaBaal. So why doesn't the Gemora here on Daf 91 >>also go Basar Rov, that Rov Leidos are from 9 month pregnancies, >>and also Mechayav him Vadai Misa? Thank You<< --- The Kollel replied: >>This is an excellent question. Why does Rashi in Chulin (91a, DH >>Hikah) write that if the son, who does not know whether he was a >>9-month baby fathered by his mother's first husband, or whether he >>was a 7-month baby fathered by her second husband, hits both >>possible fathers one after the other, this is considered a Hasra'as >>Safek? Why do we not say that since the Gemara in Yevamos (37a) >>teaches that most women give birth after 9 months, it is considered >>cetain (according to the Din of the Torah that one follows the >>majority) that the real father is the first husband and the son was >>born as a 9-month baby?<< --- The Kollel added: >>Here is a different answer to your question: Whenever there is a doubt about who a person's father is -- is it the first husband and the baby was born after 9 months, or is it the second husband and the baby was born after 7 months -- this is considered an equal Safek (50/50). This is because at the time the mother married the second husband, her baby could not yet have been apparent. Hence, the Rov that most women give birth after 9 months has been weakened (because there is another Rov that most 9-month babies are already recognizable after 3 months), and it is 50/50 doubt whether it is a 9-month or a 7-month baby.<< -------------------- The Kollel added: >>Here is an additional answer to this strong question. This answer >>is based on Tosfos in Yevamos (37a, DH Rov).... 6. To return to our original question: If the child cursed or struck a man who on the basis of the 9-month Rov should be considered as definitely his father, this is not sufficient proof to determine that he is Chayav Misah, because there is a significant minority of women who give birth after 7 months, so the real father might in fact be the second husband.<< --- Sam Kosofsky asks: Rebbe, I wonder if the hasraa can be: "If you hit both of these men you will be chayav meesa?" On the other hand, are we ever certain of paternity in such a case? Can either father say "Yakir" about this child? B'kavod, Sam Kosofsky ------------------------------- The Kollel replies: 1. Rashi in Chulin (82b, DH b'Vas) explains that when Rebbi Yehudah says that one is Chayav for hitting the two fathers only when he hits them simultaneously, this means that he lifted up both hands and hit one father with one hand and the other father with the other hand. We see from Rashi that if the Aveirah is not done immediately after the Hasra'ah, it is considered Hasra'as Safek. If the son would be warned: "If you hit both of these men, you will be Chayav," then he could say afterwards that the first man he hit was not in reality his father and that by the time he hit the real father he had already forgotten about the Hasra'ah. 2. I see no reason for why we should not be certain that the real father is one of the two. There is no reason to be concerned that a third man is a possible father, because in the case discussed by the Gemara the woman married both men with a perfectly valid marriage, and the only mistake was that she did not observe the requirement of the Rabanan to wait three months between the two marriages. Since both men were her proper husbands, we apply the rule of "Rov Be'ilos Achar ha'Ba'al" -- the relations that a married woman has are presumed to have been with her husband, and therefore one need not be concerned that a third man is involved. 3. Sam, your question about "Yakir" is another very interesting one. I found a Teshuvah by Rav Shalom Mashash zt'l, the former Sefardi Chief Rabbi of Yerushalayim, who discusses a case in which a woman remarried without waiting three months after the first marriage ended, and had a baby 7 months after marrying the second husband. The first husband claimed that the child is his. Rav Mashash writes that Yakir does not apply here. This is because Yakir means "he recognizes" while in this case it is impossible for the father to "recognize" because there is no way for him to know whether he is the real father, or whether the second husband is the real father, since the wife was married to both within three months, and nobody can claim to know for certain who the real father is. Rav Mashash cites a proof for this argument from the Mishnah in Yevamos (100b) concerning a woman who did not wait three months after her first marriage. The Mishnah teaches that if one husband was a Kohen and the other was not, the child born is a Safek Kohen. We see from the Mishnah that one cannot ask either father if the baby is his, because no one can know for certain who the real father is. We see also from the Mishnah that one does not follow the Rov that most women give birth to 9-month babies. We may explain that the reason for this is that this Rov is not sufficiently strong, as I wrote in previous replies. I think there is still quite a bit of exploring needed on this question of Yakir, but I will close for now. Kol Tuv, Dovid Bloom From daf at dafyomi.co.il Thu Feb 9 11:35:59 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:35:59 +0200 Subject: Shabbos 140: "Pilpalin" -- What type of peppers? Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Shabbos 140: "Pilpalin" -- What type of peppers? Moshe Golden asks: Hello, thank you for this great resource. Someone here in Providence was looking at the Gemara in Shabbos Daf 140A just before the mishna, it describes Anomlin as wine, honey and peppers. He asked me if I knew what type of peppers the word pilpallin usually refers to (I know the word pilpallin is in many places). Is that something someone there would be able to answer? Thank you very much. Moshe Golden, Providence, RI, USA ---------------------------------------------- The Kollel replies: Dear Moshe, The pepper described seems to be ground (black) pepper. The Yerushalmi (Shabbos 12:2), describing Anomlin, says that "grinding it" (Pnei Moshe) or beating it strongly into the mixture (Korban ha'Edah) is forbidden. The Beis Yosef (end of OC 319), when discussing Anomlin, mentions that honey and spices (apparently the pepper) are mixed into the wine to give it a special taste and smell. He adds that the mixture is then sifted so that the wine becomes clear. He also mentions that the preparation of Anomlin involves grinding. (See also Magen Avraham OC 321:25.) (Modern-day sources that mention the Greek "enomilin" discuss only the honey and wine, not the pepper.) All the best, Reuven Weiner From daf at dafyomi.co.il Thu Feb 9 11:40:11 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:40:11 +0200 Subject: Subject: Raban vs. Rabbi; Author of the Mishnah Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Subject: Raban vs. Rabbi; Author of the Mishnah Chaim M. asks: Shalom Kvod ha'Rabanim Questions: 1) Which is the difference between the title "Rabbi" and "Raban"? 2) I found written something about if it was Rabbi Yehuda ha'Nassi who wrote the Mishnayot or not...in the first pages of the Artscroll Mishnayot' Series. Tractate Brachot. Let me know if you've access to this book. Be well Chaim ---------------------------------------------- The Kollel replies: As Rav Dovid Bloom wrote to you at length in response to your question regarding "Respect for Sages and Mentors," the Aruch (in the section beginning "Abaye") states: Greater than "Rav" is "Rebbi," greater than "Rebbi" is "Raban," and greater than "Raban" is one's name (i.e. those mentioned with no title, like Hillel). This is based on Rav Sherira Ga'on who writes that the earlier generations were so great that there was no need to give titles. So also writes the Rambam (near the end of his introduction to Mishnayos): we cannot find a title high enough to honor them and thus they are called by their name alone, like the Prophets. Those slightly lower are called "Raban" (the Aruch says that this title was given only to the Nesi'im), and those lower are called "Rebbi." (It is important to remember that we are talking about the great and holy Tana'im and Amora'im, who could bring the dead back to life, and thus we must remember that the "lower" Sages were of immense greatness. See Tosefta Eduyos 3:4.) 2. (Yes, we have access to the Artscroll Mishnayos.) Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi was the final compiler of the Mishnayos. However, there were many Mishnayos in several forms before him, as is clear from many sources. Rebbi sometimes cites them word for word, and sometimes he shortens them, choosing the style he saw most fitting. All the best, Reuven Weiner From daf at dafyomi.co.il Thu Feb 9 11:41:08 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:41:08 +0200 Subject: Chulin 083: A Tale of Two Gidim Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Re: Chulin 083: A Tale of Two Gidim Meir Eliezer Bergman asked: >>On daf 83a (before the first Mishna), the Gemoro brings a Baraisa >>about one who ate two Giddim, and concludes that the machlokes is >>about a gid less than a Kezayis, and the Gemoro brings another >>Baraisa that shows this machlokes. Rashi explains that this means that in the first Baraisa, one of the two giddim had less than a Kezayis, hence the machlokes is whether the person gets one or two sets of Malkus. My question is that if this is the machlokes, why do we need the first Baraisa?, i.e. why would they bother to argue also about one who ate two Giddim where one is less than a kezayis - obviously if they have a machlokes about a gid less than a kezayis, there will be a machlokes if there was another large gid as well?! << --- Dovid Bloom replied: >>Reb Meir, this is another excellent question! ...(I initially thought that this problem could be answered by suggesting that the word "Kegon" does not have to mean "for instance" but rather it can sometimes mean "the case referred to is such and such...." However, I found that the Maharsham in Da'as Torah (Hilchos Shechitah 15:20) writes at some length that the word "Kegon" always means "for instance." So there is still something to think about on this question.)<< --- Yitzchok Zirkind comments: See Rashi to Sanhedrin 98b DH Iy Min Chayah Hu, and see Margoliyos ha'Yam there # 18, for more sources relating to this last point. Y. Zirkind --------------- The Kollel replies: Yitzchok, thank you very much for referring me to the Rashi in Sanhedrin (98b). With the help of this Rashi we can now resolve a problem, bs'd. 1. The Tur (EH 39, next to #14 in the Perishah) discusses the sort of blemishes in a woman which could render the marriage invalid. He writes that in addition to the blemishes for Kohanim, there are other "Mumim" that apply specifically for women. The Tur writes that these are "'Kegon' sweat and bad breath..." and proceeds to list all the blemishes that could exist. 2. The Beis Yosef there writes that the word "Kegon" stated by the Tur must be erased, because the Tur mentions *all* of the examples that exist. The Beis Yosef clearly understands that the word "Kegon" must mean "for instance," and if all the possible examples are listed, it is not appropriate to use the word "Kegon." 3. I want to argue that we can now defend the text of the Tur, and it is not necessary to erase the word "Kegon." The Gemara in Sahnhedrin (98b) quotes Rav as saying that if the Mashi'ach is alive at the present time, then he must be "Kegon" Rabeinu ha'Kodosh. Rashi writes that in fact there is no doubt about this, and if the Mashi'ach is alive today he is certainly Rabeinu ha'Kodosh, and therefore the word "Kegon" is "Lav Davka." We see from Rashi that sometimes "Kegon" does not mean "for instance," but rather it could possibly be explained as "Ki Hai Gavna" -- "in this way." In other words, when one looks at Rabeinu ha'Kodosh, he sees what the Mashi'ach is like. This may also be the intention of the Tur; the description of blemishes that occur in women is found in the complete list that he writes. 4. Returning to Chulin (83a), we have another example of "Kegon" being "Lav Davka." This is because the "Kegon" in "Kegon d'Leis Bei k'Zayis" also appears to be Lav Davka, since the only possible way of explaining the Beraisa is as I wrote in the above reply. (The above argument disagrees with the Maharsham that I cited above.) Kol Tuv. Dovid Bloom From daf at dafyomi.co.il Thu Feb 9 11:41:58 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:41:58 +0200 Subject: Erchin 013: Is it OK to Call a Person "Ugly Jew"? Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Re: Erchin 013: Is it OK to Call a Person "Ugly Jew"? Alex Lebovits asked: >>Incidentally, when the Gem. in Taanis talks about Rachav, that if >>someone would repeat her name, he would become a Bal Keri. Are they >>not talking about how beautiful this KNani was?!<< The Kollel replied: >>The Gemara in Megilah (end of 14b) relates that Rachav converted to >>Judaism and married Yehoshua bin Nun. So the Rachav referred to in >>Ta'anis (5b) and Megilah (15a) was already Jewish.<< --- R' Dovid I much appreciate your answers. In reference to Rachav, however, I am hesitant to agree with you, because it would then turn out , that this is the way they spoke about Yehoshua's wife; which seems to be grossly disrespectable Alex ---------------------------------------- The Kollel replies: Alex, you have a good point. However, we cannot get away from the fact that the Gemara states that Yehoshua married Rachav, so the question is not just on me, because you are also going to have to explain how it is that the Gemara spoke this way about Yehoshua's wife. I saw that the Ben Yehoyada in Megilah (beginning of 15a) writes that the Gemara there tells us about the world's four beautiful women in order to praise these women for their righteousness, because even though they were so beautiful (and therefore must have had great struggles with their Yetzer ha'Ra), nevertheless they remained Tzadkaniyos. Along these lines of thinking we may suggest that Rachav is receiving tremendous praise from the Gemara because she decided through her own choice to become a Giyores even though she had this fantastic beauty. Accordingly, the Gemara is not disrespectful to Yehoshua's wife, but, on the contrary, full of admiration. Alex, thanks again for the stimulating discussions. Kol Tuv, Dovid Bloom From daf at dafyomi.co.il Thu Feb 9 11:40:17 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:40:17 +0200 Subject: Erchin 013: Is it OK to Call a Person "Ugly Jew"? Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Re: Erchin 013: Is it OK to Call a Person "Ugly Jew"? Alex Lebovits asked: >>In order to teach us this (already known halacha) the Mishna also >>uses the term Ugly Jew. Is it OK to call one an Ugly Jew?<< The Kollel replied: >>a. I certainly agree that it is not okay to call someone an ugly >>Jew. However, what can we do if the fact is that some Jews are >>ugly? The main thing is that I should not say that he is ugly >>because he is a Jew, Chas v'Shalom! --- Yehoash Orange comments: Check Ta'anis 20b top of the page kama mechuor... and the story where he regretted calling someone ugly. Also check the maharsha there (says the story might not be talking about physical ugliness but spiritual). Yehoash Oange, Brooklyn, NY --- Rabbi Yitzchok Zirkind adds: (a) Regarding the question of calling someone ugly, see Taanis 20a. (According to the reasoning given there it appears that the prohibition would also include calling a non-Jew ugly, since they are also the creation of the Master Craftsman). (b) However, we should not conclude from this Gemara that ugly people do not exist. See Kesuvos 40b "If the father wishes, he can marry his daughter to a disgusting person or to a Muka Shechin (leper); compare this to the Rambam in Hilchos Erchin 1:8 (who uses the same term with regard to our Mishnah). See also the Gemara in Gitin 58 that discusses "a person who was extremely ugly" - though it appears that the person involved was a non-Jew. (c) Note also that there is no reason to presume that the person in our Mishnah said explicitly that he is accepting the Erech of "so and so who is ugly." Rather, the Mishnah is teaching as a side-point that we should not talk about how handsome a non-Jew is (even though the Mishnah is not discussing the wording used by the person who made the Neder). (d) Regarding a non-Jew, the Gemara is not saying that one may not *think* that he looks handsome. The Halachah is that when one sees a very handsome non-Jew he is obligated to recite a Berachah (she'Kachah Lo ba'Olamo - OC 225). See YD 151, that it is permitted to praise the looks of a non-Jew when one's intent is to express praise for Hashem (even where there are others of finer appearance, and even when one has seen the handsome non-Jew previously, such that there is no obligation to recite the Berachah). (e) Regarding your question about the Gemara that says that anyone who repeats the name 'Rachav' - the Gemara there is not saying that one is permitted to praise Rachav's beauty. To the contrary, it is forbidden to repeat her name (because of the reason mentioned in the Gemara). Rav Nachman did repeat her name only because he knew that the was capable of exercising self control. Yitzchok Zirkind >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 From daf at dafyomi.co.il Thu Feb 9 12:16:05 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:16:05 +0200 Subject: Erchin 012: The Year of the Churban Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Erchin 012: The Year of the Churban Samuel Kosofsky asks: Rebbe, The Gemara goes through many mathematical calculations to show how the churban came out on a motzei sheviit even though there are difficulties with that cheshbon. Often, however, when the gemara deals with history it asks the question: "Moy dehava hava?" "What difference does it make, what ever occurred is what occured?" An answer is then provided following that question. Why doesn't the gemara pose that question here in our case? B'kavod, Samuel Kosofsky, Hillcrest NY, USA ---------------------------------------------- The Kollel replies: The Gemara generally asks "Mai d'Havah Havah" when the entire point of a statement is to figure out what happened, as in the Gemara in Yoma (5b) regarding, "How did he dress them?" However, in the Gemara here, this is not Rebbi Yosi's point. Rather, it was incidentally part of his proof that "Megalgalin Zechus l'Yom Zakai...." Once he brought up these facts as part of his proof, the Gemara analyzes how he knew that this was what happened. All the best, Yaakov Montrose From daf at dafyomi.co.il Sun Feb 12 11:55:15 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:55:15 +0200 Subject: Chulin 078: Iy Avid Lo Mehani when Slaughtering a Mother and Child Message-ID: This question and its answer were prepared in Hebrew. They can be viewed without installing Hebrew fonts by opening the attached .pdf file, which can also be accessed online at: http://www.dafyomi.co.il/chulin/discuss/chul-078.qa2.pdf . If the file does not open upon clicking, go to http://www.dafyomi.co.il/acrobat.htm for instructions on how to use Acrobat .pdf files. Kollel Iyun Hadaf >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: chul-078.qa2.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 44499 bytes Desc: not available URL: From daf at dafyomi.co.il Thu Feb 16 03:22:56 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:22:56 +0200 Subject: Moed Katan 005: A decomposing body causes Tum'ah Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Re: Moed Katan 005: A decomposing body causes Tum'ah Dov Shapiro asked: >>Does this apply to all graves - once the body decomposes it's no >>longer tamei. If so older graves that we know contains no more >>remnants of a meis because its all decomposed, a kohen can go to?! >>I always thought that agrave is metamei forever, if so what does >>the gemara mean?!<< The Kollel replied: >>Even if the flesh has decomposed, the bones still remain. This >>Gemara refers to a case in which only a k'Zayis of the flesh of the >>Mes was found. However, if one finds the backbone or the skull etc. >>(and certainly if one finds an intact corpse), one must place a >>marker there, as we see a few lines later in the Gemara here, and >>thus we learn from this that we do not say that the bones will decompose.<< --- Y. Zirkind comments: Have a look at the Halachah of Melo Tarvad Rekev - see the comment of Rav Betzalel Rensberg on Tosfos DH she'Eno Metamei b'Ohel, and Rambam Tum'as Mes 2:11 (who implies that the bones do decay) an 3:3. Y. Zirkind ------------------------- The Kollel replies: Yeyasher Kokacha for the Ma'arei Mekomos, Yitzchak. 1. The Teshuvas Chasam Sofer (YD 337, cited by the Pischei Teshuvah YD 369:4) discusses the question one can assume that the bones in ancient graves have decayed. He cites the verse in Mishlei (14:30), "And the decay of bones is jealousy," which Chazal (see Shabbos 152b) explain to mean that if a person was jealous of others during his lifetime, his bones will decay after he dies, but if he did not suffer from jealousy, his bones will not decay. Based on this, the Chasam Sofer writes that one should assume that the bones of an ancient Kever have not decomposed (unless one has other reasons to be lenient), because the dead person has a "Chezkas Kashrus" that he was an upright person who was not jealous of others. 2. The law of Melo Tarvad Rekev is actually a source that the grave should still be Tamei, because the Mishnah in Ohalos (2:1) states that Melo Tarvad Rekev is Metamei in an Ohel. The Rambam (2:11) that you cited states that although the Mes decomposed and became "Rekev," it is still Tamei b'Ohel (he writes this in 3:3 as well). However, the aforementioned Chasam Sofer writes that since the Gemara in Nidah (27b) states that Melo Tarvad Rekev is Metamei only if the corpse was buried naked in a marble coffin, it follows that this Halachah is uncommon. In other words, even though Melo Tarvad Rekev would be a reason to be Machmir, in practice this Halachah is unusual, which is why the Chasam Sofer resorts to the other reasoning -- that one can assume that the Mes was not a jealous person and his bones did not decay. 3. Tosfos (DH she'Eino) appears to maintain that Tarvad Rekev is not Metamei in an Ohel, which is why Rav Betzalel Rensburg asks that Tosfos contradicts the explicit Mishnah in Ohalos (2:1, cited above) which says that it is Metamei. Perhaps we may answer Rav Betzalel Rensburg's question with the help of the Chasam Sofer cited before, that in practice it is unusual that Melo Tarvad is Metamei. (This answer requires further thought.) Kol Tuv, Dovid Bloom >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 From daf at dafyomi.co.il Thu Feb 16 03:25:02 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:25:02 +0200 Subject: Sukah 010: Definition of Sukah Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Sukah 010: Definition of Sukah Martin Ross asks: I get Shmuel's opinion fine, but Rav Huna's 1 tefach opinion and Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Hunas' 4 tefach opinions seem to be needlessly deviating from the pshat of the Mishna. Why do they feel the need to start looking for alternative definitions of the word Sukah other than the obvious 10 tefach one? Martin Ross ---------------------------------------------- The Kollel replies: Rashi points out a fundamental idea in the beginning of the Masechta: "It is called a 'Sukah' because of the Sechach." Applying this to the Mishnah here, it is not a deviation from the Peshat to say that "Sukah" refers to another layer of Sechach, as this indeed is the primary meaning of the word "Sukah." This is all the more applicable when we are discussing when the Sechach of a Sukah becomes invalid for having Sechach Pasul on top of it, as the Mishnah just discussed the case of a Sukah under a tree which clearly does not have to have walls to cause the Sukah underneath it to be invalid. (Indeed, the Sefas Emes notes that while the others clearly do not require Hechsher Sukah, as they are discussing the case of Sukah Tachas Sukah as though it is Pasul Sechach, it is unclear whether Shmuel requires Hechsher Sukah (i.e. including the walls, etc.) to be called a Sukah Tachas Sukah.) Accordingly, each opinion tries to understand how much separation is called another Sechach/Sukah that will cause a Pesul, as explained by the Gemara. All the best, Yaakov Montrose >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 From daf at dafyomi.co.il Thu Feb 16 04:20:39 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:20:39 +0200 Subject: Subject: Raban vs. Rabbi; Author of the Mishnah Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Subject: Raban vs. Rabbi; Author of the Mishnah Chaim M. asked: >>2) I found written something about if it was Rabbi Yehuda ha'Nassi >>who wrote the Mishnayot or not...in the first pages of the >>Artscroll Mishnayot' Series. Tractate Brachot. Let me know if >>you've access to this book. << The Kollel replied: >>2. (Yes, we have access to the Artscroll Mishnayos.) Rebbi Yehudah >>ha'Nasi was the final compiler of the Mishnayos. However, there >>were many Mishnayos in several forms before him, as is clear from >>many sources. Rebbi sometimes cites them word for word, and >>sometimes he shortens them, choosing the style he saw most fitting.<< --- Y. Zirkind comments: The reader might be asking a different question here. Did Rabeinu ha'Kadosh actually commit the Mishnayos to writing, or did he just organize them into Mishnayos which were transmitted Ba'al Peh (and it wasn't until after Rav Ashi that they were committed to writing). This is an extensive discussion in its own right. Y. Zirkind >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 From daf at dafyomi.co.il Sun Feb 19 16:09:26 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 23:09:26 +0200 Subject: Sotah 013: Joseph Buried by his Brother Tribes in Shechem Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Sotah 013: Joseph Buried by his Brother Tribes in Shechem sandra castellanos asks: what is said at sotah 13b about the above? sandra castellanos, riverton, new jersey ---------------------------------------------- The Kollel replies: The Gemara explains that because Yosef's bones were buried in Shechem, a city situated in Yosef's territory. Although Yosef's descendants could have claimed for themselves the honor of burying their ancestor, they allowed the whole of Yisrael to participate in the burial in order to properly honor the deceased. The children of Yosef allowed Moshe Rabeinu, the greatest among them, to transport Yosef's bones through the desert for precisely the same reason. The felt that this would better honor their ancestor. And the reason that Yosef was buried specifically in Shechem, the Gemara adds, was because he was stolen in Shechem (when the brothers captured and sold him), and so that is where the brothers eventually returned him. be'Virchas Kol Tuv Rabbi E.Chrysler >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 From daf at dafyomi.co.il Mon Feb 20 02:31:40 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:31:40 +0200 Subject: Subject: Animals that keep Shabbos Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Subject: Animals that keep Shabbos Chaim M. asks: Shalom u brachah, Kvod ha'Rabbanim. I read (Rinuna Shel Torah, citing Rav Yakov Emden in Migdal Oz, section Beis Midos/Aliyas ha'Teva - see attached, also available at www.dafyomi.co.il/general/discuss/chaimm031-1.pdf) that the dove doesn't rip up pasture, grass and even leaves from trees, nor does it cut them in order to eat them on Shabbat. I heard that if a Jew lets a dove choose between food which was cut on Shabbat and food which was cut before Shabbat, the dove will choose to eat the food that was cut before Shabbat, and it will reject the other food. Now before passing this wisdom on to others, I would like some more details: (a) Does this mean that all kinds of Tahor birds will not eat such foods? (b) What happens if a non-Jew cuts the food on Shabbat? Will the dove eat it? (c) I would like to know more about this issue, since it seems like a natural proof that Shabbat is G-d-given. (See Sanhedrin 65b, where Rebbi Akiva proved to Turnus Rufus that Shabbos is G-d's day of rest in a similar manner.). Please send me any sources you have from Midrashim or Rishonim for this phenomenon. (d) Are there such proofs from the animal kingdom? The Ba'al ha'Turim says a similar thing about the locusts (Shmos 10:14) - at least the ones that were in Egypt. Are any such phenomenae recognized today? (e) Do you know more proofs from nature of the sanctity of the Shabbat? Thanks you for sharing your wisdom and your time. Be well, Chaim M. ---------------------------------------------- The Kollel replies: (a) It is only the dove that will not each such foods. 1. The proof for this is from Sefer Divrei Shaul (Rav Yosef Shaul Natanson, the author of Sho'el u'Meshiv) on Parshas Noach (Bereshis 8:9), who cites the Migdal Oz that you mentioned. The Divrei Shaul writes that the reason why the dove would not pluck the leaf on Shabbos is that the Gemara (Shabbos 49a) likens the Jewish people to a dove, since the Mitzvos protect Klal Yisrael in the same way that the wings protect the dove. In addition, the Midrash (Bereshis Rabah 11:8) tells us how Hashem blessed Shabbos. Each of the other days of the week has a partner ("Ben Zug"). Sunday's Ben Zug is Monday, Tuesday is with Wednesday, and Thursday is with Friday. Shabbos was left on its own. The Midrash relates that Shabbos complained to Hashem that it did not have a partner. Hashem replied that the Jewish People would be the partner of Shabbos. Just as the Jewish People observe Shabbos, so does the dove observe Shabbos. 2. See the Gemara in Shabbos (122a) which teaches that one is allowed on Shabbos to place one's animal on grass so that it will eat the grass. Tosfos (DH Ma'amid) writes that this is derived from the verse in Parshas Mishpatim (Shemos 23:12) that states that we must observe Shabbos "in order that your ox and donkey should rest." Tosfos asks, why do we not learn from here that we are not allowed to let the ox or donkey uproot food on Shabbos? Tosfos answers that if we would prevent the animal from eating, this would not cause it to rest on Shabbos, but rather this would cause it to suffer discomfort on Shabbos. We learn from here that animals that belong to Jews *do*, in practice, uproot food on Shabbos. It is only the dove that observes Shabbos. (b) It appears to me that if a Nochri cuts the food on Shabbos for his own benefit (not for the benefit of the doves), the doves will eat it. The proof for this is from the Gemara in Shabbos (122a) which states that if a Nochri plucked herbs on Shabbos for the consumption of his own animal, a Yisrael is permitted afterwards to feed those herbs to his own animals. The reason is that the Nochri performed the work for his own benefit, not for the Jew's benefit, and therefore the Rabanan did not enact a preventative measure that a Jew may not have benefit from the Nochri's actions lest the Jew ask him explicitly to do work on Shabbos. (This is generally the reason why the Rabanan prohibited using the result of a Nochri's work on Shabbos.) Therefore, if a Jew is permitted to use the Nochri's herbs and feed it to his own animals, it follows that the doves also would eat it because there is no reason that doves should be more stringent in their observance of Shabbos than human beings. (c) Another proof of the sanctity of Shabbos is from the "Lechem ha'Panim" (the showbread) in the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Gemara in Menachos (96b) relates that a great miracle occured with the Lechem ha'Panim in that it was just as warm and fresh on the second Shabbos when it was removed from the Shulchan as it was on the previous Shabbos when it was first placed on the Shulchan. The Roke'ach, in his commentary to the Sidur (chapter 25, page 128), writes that this miracle is hinted to in the verse, "Your testimonies are very faithful, in Your house holiness is beautiful" (Tehilim 93:5). This refers to the miracles which occured in the Beis ha'Mikdash, the house of Hashem. From the fact that the Lechem ha'Panim remained warm, one recognizes the power of Shabbos. The Roke'ach adds (chapter 86, page 487) that since the Beis ha'Mikdash was a "mini world" full of everything that existed in the wider world, the miracles which occured on Shabbos outside the Beis ha'Mikdash also happened inside the Beis ha'Mikdash, because the world must possess its proofs of the sanctity of Shabbos. For this reason the Beis ha'Mikdash also showed to the entire world that Hashem created Shabbos. (d) B'Ezras Hashem, I will address this point later. (e) I will give an example from the world of fish. 1. This is mentioned by one of the Rishonim, the Roke'ach, in his commentary to the Sidur, chapter 86, in the section on Kidush on Friday night, page 487. The Roke'ach writes that "the sea is the mother of the waters, and it gives testimony to Shabbos." There is a fish which is called in the language of Yishmael, "Shabti." Every Friday eve this fish goes to the river bank and does not move from there until Motza'i Shabbos. 2. Another Rishon, the Radak (Rav David Kimchi) reports something similar to this in his commentary on Chumash (Bereishis 2:3). He relates that there is a fish in the sea which does not swim on Shabbos. This fish rests all day long near the dry land or on a rock. The Radak concludes that Hashem placed in His living creations a sign for the Shabbos day so that everyone in the world would be aware that Hashem created the world. Kol Tuv, Dovid Bloom >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 From daf at dafyomi.co.il Mon Feb 20 02:33:20 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:33:20 +0200 Subject: Erchin 032: Height of the Wall Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Erchin 032: Height of the Wall moshe lamm asks: does any mforesh talk about how high the wall of a walled-city has to be? i assume 10 tfachim would not be enough. moshe lamm ---------------------------------------------- The Kollel replies: Moshe, this is a very interesting question! I found that the Chazon Ish (Orach Chayim, Eruvin, Likutim 110(2):20, DH v'Amnam Im, page 322) writes that the wall must both protect the city and also ensure that the city is not exposed. It seems that there is no specific height for the wall; the crucial point is that it must defend the city against potential enemies. I will attemmpt to elucidate what the sources are for this explanantion. 1. The Chazon Ish cites a Gemara in Megilah (5b) that relates that Chizkiyah read Megilas Esther in Teveryah (Tiberias) on both the 14th and 15th if Adar because he was in doubt about whether it is considered a walled city (for which the Halachah is that one reads the Megilah on the 15th). The reason for Chizkiyah's doubt was that one side of Teveryah is the Sea of Kineret. The Gemara questions Chizkiyah from a Beraisa which derives from Vayikra 25:31 that Batei ha'Chatzerim are not considered houses in a walled city because they do not possess a wall "Saviv" -- "around" them, which teaches that Teveryah is *not* considered a walled city because the sea is its wall. What, then, was Chizkiyah's doubt? To answer this challenge from the Beraisa, the Gemara distinguishes between the definition of a wall required for the laws of Megilah and the definition of the wall required for the laws of Batei Arei Chomah. Since the word "Chomah" is not stated explicitly concerning Purim (see Rashi), it is possible that Teveryah is considered a "fortified" city because the sea on one side protects it, and thus it may be defined as a "walled" city for Megilah purposes. In contrast, with regard to houses in a walled city (where one has only one year to redeem a house that he sold), it is clear that Teveryah is not considered a walled city because it is exposed on its sea side, even though it is defensible. 2. The Chazon Ish writes that certainly Arei Chomah must possess a proper wall, while a "Mesipas" (a low partition made of pieces of wood) is not sufficient. For the laws of Batei Arei Chomah, the city must be both defensible and also not exposed. The Chazon Ish cites a source for this from Devarim 3:5, "Cities fortified with a high wall." 3. The above verse is also cited by Rashi in Erchin (33b, DH v'Ne'emar) as a source for the Gemara's statement there that "Chomah" is essential for the status of a walled city. We learn from this that the wall should be suitable for a fortress and capable of defending the city from invading armies. Kol Tuv, Dovid Bloom >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 From daf at dafyomi.co.il Mon Feb 20 02:34:21 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:34:21 +0200 Subject: Sukah 014: Lavud and Gezeiras Tikra Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Sukah 014: Lavud and Gezeiras Tikra Daniel Rabson asks: Hi, While learning daf 14 of Sukah I came to the opinion of R\'Meir who says a plank of four tefachim is unfit for use because it exceeds the law of lovud, and we therefore apply gezeiras tikrah. What is the connection between lovud and gezeiras tikrah? Why should lovud be relevant? Thank you, Daniel Daniel Rabson ---------------------------------------------- The Kollel replies: 1. In fact, the reason why Rebbi Meir says that a plank of four Tefachim is unfit is not because of Lavud. Lavud is a Halachah which depends on three Tefachim, not four. Rather, the reason why Rebbi Meir disqualifies the plank of four Tefachim (according to the way Rav explains the dispute between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah) is that the ceilings of most houses are made of planks of four or more Tefachim. Therefore, Rebbi Meir makes a Gezeiras Tikrah; he says that if we allow people to make the roof of a Sukah out of planks which are similar to the roofs of their homes, then they will say, "What is the difference between my house and my Sukah? I may as well live in my house during Sukos." 2. However, there is a connection in the Sugya between Lavud and Gezeiras Tikrah. This is evident in the way that Rav Papa explains the dispute between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah, according to Shmuel. Everyone agrees that planks of four Tefachim are unfit and, conversely, everyone agrees that planks of less than three Tefachim are fit. The dispute involves only planks between three and four. Rebbi Meir maintains that since these planks exceed Lavud we make a Gezeiras Tikrah. 3. Rashi (DH Keivan) explains what the connection is between Lavud and Gezeiras Tikrah. Since the planks are three Tefachim, they exceed Lavud and, consequently, they possess a degree of importance ("Chashivei"). Being "Chashivei," they are similar to the ceiling of a house which is also important. Therefore, Rebbi Meir maintains that the Rabanan made a Gezeiras Tikrah that if one uses planks of three or more, he might come to think that this is just the same as living in his house during Sukos. Kol Tuv, Dovid Bloom >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 From daf at dafyomi.co.il Tue Feb 21 02:43:18 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:43:18 +0200 Subject: Subject: Animals that keep Shabbos Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Subject: Animals that keep Shabbos Chaim M. asks: Shalom u brachah, Kvod ha'Rabbanim. >>I read (Rinuna Shel Torah, citing Rav Yakov Emden in Migdal Oz, >>section Beis Midos/Aliyas ha'Teva - see attached, also available at >>www.dafyomi.co.il/general/discuss/chaimm031-1.pdf) that the dove >>doesn't rip up pasture, grass and even leaves from trees, nor does >>it cut them in order to eat them on Shabbat. I heard that if a Jew lets a dove choose between food which was cut on Shabbat and food which was cut before Shabbat, the dove will choose to eat the food that was cut before Shabbat, and it will reject the other food. Now before passing this wisdom on to others, I would like some more details: (d) Are there such proofs from the animal kingdom? The Ba'al ha'Turim says a similar thing about the locusts (Shmos 10:14) - at least the ones that were in Egypt. Are any such phenomenae recognized today?<< ---------------------------------------------- The Kollel replies: (d) Here is another remarkable account from Chazal which is a proof that Shabbos is G-d-given. This is the well-known story in Pesikta Rabati (#14, DH Yelamdenu Rabeinu) of the cow that observed Shabbos. The Midrash there relates as follows: It once happened that a Yisrael owned a cow which he used for plowing. The Jew became poor and was forced to sell his cow. The Nochri who bought the cow started to work with his new cow on Sunday, and it plowed for him for the first six days. On Shabbos, the Nochri took the cow outside to plow, but the cow lay itself down under the yoke. The new owner hit the cow, but to no avail; it would not budge. The Nochri returned to the Jew who sold it to him and demanded that he take his cow back, since it apparently was homesick for its master, because however much he hit the cow, it would not move from its place. The Jew realized that the reason why the cow would not work was that it was accustomed to resting on Shabbos. He said to the Nochri buyer, "Come, I will make the cow get up." He said into the cow's ear, "Cow, cow, you know that when you were in my possession you used to work for me for six days, and on Shabbos you used to rest. Now that my sins have caused me to sell you and you are in the possession of a Nochri, please stand up and start plowing!" Immediately the cow stood up and started plowing. The Nochri insisted, "I beg you to take your cow back. I will always have to return to you in order to make it stand up! In addition, I will not leave you until you tell me what you whispered into the cow's ears, since I worked hard and hit the cow but it would not stand up for me." The Yisrael started to appease the Nochri and said, "I am not a magician and did not do any magic; all I did was to whisper these words in its ear." Immediately the Nochri became afraid and exclaimed, "If a cow, who is not capable of speaking and does not possess intelligence, recognizes its Creator, then I, who is formed by my Creator in His image, Who gave me intelligence, should I not go and know my Creator?!" He went and converted and was Zocheh to learn Torah and become a Talmid Chacham. They called him "Rebbi Yochanan ben Turta" ("Rebbi Yochanan the son of the ox"), and until this day the Rabanan teach Halachos in his name. (See the Gemara in Yoma 9a, where Rebbi Yochanan ben Turta is mentioned. The Tosfos Yeshanim there (DH Rebbi) mentions that "the Pesikta explains that he was converted to Judaism by a cow.") Dovid Bloom >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 From daf at dafyomi.co.il Tue Feb 21 08:56:10 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:56:10 +0200 Subject: Rosh Hashanah 018: Fasting Two Days on Yom Kipur in Eretz Yisrael Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Rosh Hashanah 018: Fasting Two Days on Yom Kipur in Eretz Yisrael bendavid asked: according to Tosafos did they observe 2 days of Yom Kippur in Eretz Israel where schluhim didn't arrive yet just like 2 days of rosh Hashana ? bendavid, London ---------------------------------------------- The Kollel replies: The Gemara in Rosh ha'Shanah (21a) cites Rava (in whose time the Sheluchim still used to arrive from Eretz Yisrae), who used to fast on the tenth and eleventh of Tishri, due to S'feika de'Yoma. Then it cites Rav Nachman, who used to fast only on the tenth, and in the course of an episode that occurred there he claimed that fasting two days was life-threatening. Rabeinu Chananel explains that what Rava did (according to him it was Rabah) was Midas Chasidus and not obligatory. No doubt the reason that Rav Nachman fasted specifically on the tenth was based on the fact that Elul was hardly ever Me'ubar (though the Gemara does not rely on that with regard to all the other Yomim Tovim). Consequently, the Chasam Sofer (and other Poskim) rule that nowadays, it is futile to fast two days (in keeping with the Minhag on all other Yomim Tovim). The reason for that is because we only observe two days Yom Tov since that is what our ancestors used to do. However with regard to Yom Kipur, never, at any time, did they fast two days. Eliezer Chrysler, Kollel Iyun Hadaf >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 From daf at dafyomi.co.il Tue Feb 21 10:01:31 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:01:31 +0200 Subject: Erchin 025: Rights of the Kohanim to Sedeh Achuzah at Yovel Message-ID: This question and its answer were prepared in Hebrew. They can be viewed without installing Hebrew fonts by opening the attached .pdf file, which can also be accessed online at: http://www.dafyomi.co.il/erchin/discuss/eruv-025.qa2.pdf . If the file does not open upon clicking, go to http://www.dafyomi.co.il/acrobat.htm for instructions on how to use Acrobat .pdf files. Kollel Iyun Hadaf >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 From daf at dafyomi.co.il Tue Feb 21 11:08:20 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:08:20 +0200 Subject: Dafyomi Calendar In-Reply-To: <14218301.1029219.1329802231815.JavaMail.root@vms170031> References: <14218301.1029219.1329802231815.JavaMail.root@vms170031> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daf at dafyomi.co.il Wed Feb 22 06:14:14 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:14:14 +0200 Subject: Sotah 013: Burial Place of Yosef Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Sotah 013: Burial Place of Yosef Shlomo Amar asks: Isn't the reason that Yossef was buried in Shchem that Yaakov who captured the city gave shchem specifically to Yossef ? Returning Yossef to the place where he was sold would be in my humble opinion counter productive; If fact he is sold in Dotan not in shchem. Let me know please ---------------------------------------------- The Kollel replies: Many of the Mefarshim make the points that you have raised. In fact, it would be correct to say that this Gemara -- "They sold him from Shechem, and to Shechem we will return the lost object" -- may be understood more as a Derash about what happened than as a simple explanation of Peshat. 1. However, let us first cite a Midrash which can help us to understand the depth behind what Chazal are attempting to teach us about the burial in Shechem. The Midrash (Shemos Rabah, end of chapter 20) quotes Rebbi Levi who said, "To what can this be compared? -To someone who placed his wine in the cellar. Thieves entered, took the barrel, went away and drank the wine. The owner of the wine came and found those who stole the wine and said to them, 'You drank the wine; you must return the barrel to its place.' Similarly, the brothers of Yosef stole him from Shechem and sold him. When Yosef was about to die, he made his brothers swear, saying to them, 'Please, my brothers, when I was alive you stole me from Shechem, so return my bones to Shechem.'" 2. The commentary of the Maharzav on this Midrash writes that since the brothers should have returned Yosef to Shechem during his lifetime, at least after he dies they should fulfill their obligation to return him to there. The reason is in order to rectify the sin in exactly the same place as they committed it. (This is in the spirit of the Gemara in Yoma (86b) which states, "Who is a proper Ba'al Teshuvah? One who refrains from doing the sin again when the same opportunity arises once or twice, and he had the opportunity to do the sin at exactly the same place as the first time.") 3. We may add to this that the reason why it was Yosef himself who requested to be buried in Shechem, as the Midrash says, presumably is that Yosef wished to help his brothers achieve a complete atonement for their sin in selling him, and therefore he wanted them to do Teshuvah in the same place that they did the Aveirah. 4. The above Midrash answers your questions, but I will now cite some Mefarshim who make similar comments to yours on this Gemara. The Maharsha here cites Rashi in Chumash (Bereshis 48:22) who says that Yakov promised Yosef that he would receive the extra portion of Shechem, more than his brothers. (The Radak to Yehoshua 24:32 writes that the simple explanation is that since Shechem was in the portion of Efrayim, and it was the first portion that Yakov received in Eretz Yisrael, Yosef was honored by being buried there.) The Maharsha writes that according to this, it is not necessary for the Gemara Gemara here to give the reason that Yosef was stolen from Shechem, but instead it is because Yakov conquered it and gave it to Yosef to be buried there. This is the same as your explanation. Baruch she'Kivanta! Kol Tuv, D. Bloom >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 From daf at dafyomi.co.il Wed Feb 22 06:32:09 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:32:09 +0200 Subject: Erchin 029: Kol Cherem Message-ID: This question and its answer were prepared in Hebrew. They can be viewed without installing Hebrew fonts by opening the attached .pdf file, which can also be accessed online at: http://www.dafyomi.co.il/erchin/discuss/eruv-029.qa5.pdf . If the file does not open upon clicking, go to http://www.dafyomi.co.il/acrobat.htm for instructions on how to use Acrobat .pdf files. Kollel Iyun Hadaf >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: erch-029.qa5.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 42939 bytes Desc: not available URL: From daf at dafyomi.co.il Wed Feb 22 06:28:48 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:28:48 +0200 Subject: Erchin 013: Sin of the Dor ha'Midbar; Nevel and Kinor Message-ID: This question and its answer were prepared in Hebrew. They can be viewed without installing Hebrew fonts by opening the attached .pdf file, which can also be accessed online at: http://www.dafyomi.co.il/erchin/discuss/eruv-013.qa3.pdf . If the file does not open upon clicking, go to http://www.dafyomi.co.il/acrobat.htm for instructions on how to use Acrobat .pdf files. Kollel Iyun Hadaf >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: erch-013.qa3.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 42824 bytes Desc: not available URL: From daf at dafyomi.co.il Fri Feb 24 06:08:48 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:08:48 +0200 Subject: Megilah 015: Directive for Dealing with Amalek Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Megilah 015: Directive for Dealing with Amalek Yerachmiel Schwartz asks: Did Mordechai have an obligation to kill Haman (or let him die) as Haman was the grandchild of Agag (i.e. the Tikkun for Hamelech Shaul's failure to fulfill Shmuel's instructions)? What do the Me'Forshim say? Yerachmiel Schwartz ---------------------------------------------- The Kollel replies: Many Meforshim (Rambam in Sefer ha'Mitzvos, end of Mitzvos Asei, after #248; Ramban in Shemos 17:16) say that this obligation is only on the public, not on the individual. Even the Sefer ha'Chinuch (Mitzvah #425), who says that it is a Mitzvah on the individual as well, says that it applies only when a person can do so without putting himself in danger (and presumably without causing a Chilul Hashem). Accordingly, Mordechai clearly had no obligation to kill Haman. All the best, Yaakov Montrose >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 From daf at dafyomi.co.il Sun Feb 26 09:47:51 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:47:51 +0200 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Questions_on_erchin_-_=F9=E0=EC=E5=FA_=F2=EC_?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?=EE=F1=EB=FA?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?_=F2=F8=EB=E9=EF?= Message-ID: These questions and their answers were prepared in Hebrew. They can be viewed without installing Hebrew fonts by opening the attached .pdf files, which can also be accessed online at: http://www.dafyomi.co.il/erchin/discuss/erch-011.qa1.pdf http://www.dafyomi.co.il/erchin/discuss/erch-013.qa3.pdf http://www.dafyomi.co.il/erchin/discuss/erch-025.qa2.pdf http://www.dafyomi.co.il/erchin/discuss/erch-026.qa1.pdf http://www.dafyomi.co.il/erchin/discuss/erch-027.qa1.pdf http://www.dafyomi.co.il/erchin/discuss/erch-029.qa5.pdf http://www.dafyomi.co.il/erchin/discuss/erch-032.qa5.pdf http://www.dafyomi.co.il/erchin/discuss/erch-033.qa2.pdf Kollel Iyun Hadaf >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: erch-033.qa2.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 40700 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: erch-011.qa1.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 48228 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: erch-013.qa3.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 38243 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: erch-025.qa2.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 39007 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: erch-026.qa1.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 40479 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: erch-027.qa1.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 35094 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: erch-029.qa5.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 34661 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: erch-032.qa5.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 43681 bytes Desc: not available URL: From daf at dafyomi.co.il Sun Feb 26 10:51:33 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 17:51:33 +0200 Subject: Rabbi Kornfeld's Purim Shiur now shipping! Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daf at dafyomi.co.il Mon Feb 27 05:06:51 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:06:51 +0200 Subject: Chulin 118: Hechsher Techilas Tum'ah Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Chulin 118: Hechsher Techilas Tum'ah Shmuel Belsh asked: Shalom uVracha, I was wondering- What can possibly be pshat in the tzad that hechsher is k'tchilas tumah? is that to say all 7 mashkim carry in them tumah? Harei wine and water go on the mizbeyach! Moreover- the Gemara seemed to conclude that the geder of hechsher is like the g'mar melacha simmilar to that of a tanur's finishing touch- and the Sefer HaChinuch is maarich to be masbir precisely what that means(aliba d'dina)- and yet we posken yesh yad l'hechsher! unless we say like the ee'ba'is eima kra and we ignore the svara l'dina... But it seems to be a stira since if the whole point of the hechsher is to complete its status of an "ochel"- that means it has nothing to do with a haschala of tumah, it is merely a heichi timtza to creating a catigorical davar hamikabel tumah! I must be going wrong somewhere... Thank you very much for taking the time to respond, I appreciate it. Kol tuv and gut Shabbos and gut Chodesh, Shmuel Belsh Shmuel Belsh ---------------------------------------------- The Kollel replies: Dear Shmuel, Hechsher Techilas Tum'ah does not mean that Tum'ah has begun. It means that its preliminary stage has begun. You correctly mention two interpretations of Hechsher based on the Chazon Yechezkel. If it is considered Techilas Tum'ah, we can understand that there is Yad for Hechsher just as there is Yad l'Tumah (as the Rambam rules l'Halachah). However, if Hecsher is considered the Gemar Melachah of food, then there is no source for Yad l'Hechsher. It is true that Rav Huna (118a) learns the second approach, but the Chazon Yechezkel does not consider this a contradiction. Apparently, according to the first method, the question on the Derashah remains, and a different verse must be used, as the Gemara itself mentions. All the best, Reuven Weiner >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 From daf at dafyomi.co.il Tue Feb 28 12:30:51 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 19:30:51 +0200 Subject: Menachos 036: Tefilin at Night - Halachah v'Ein Morin Ken Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Re: Menachos 036: Tefilin at Night - Halachah v'Ein Morin Ken Yonatan M. asked: >>On the contrary, when the expression "Halachah v'Ein Morin Kein" is >>used in the rest of shas, it is said in a straightforward manner. >>Besides, the gemarah says that a conversation within - and about - >>a sugya is not to be taken alibah dehilkhetah, not to be assumed as >>psak. So Rav Aschi really didn't have to worry about his response, >>particularly if he would eventually say it is halakha ve-ein morim >>ken, and the meandering form of this conversation is therefore unusual....<< The Kollel replied: >>I do not understand your point. In the words of the Gemara, Ravina >>realized that Rav Ashi maintains "Halachah v'Ein Morin Kein." If >>Ravina arrived at that conclusion, then that is what Rav Ashi >>maintains. What reason should there be to assume that this is not >>what Rav Ashi maintains?<< --- Yonatan M. asks further: Hello again; I am not suggesting that it is not halakha ve-ein morim ken. All I am pointing out is that Rav Aschi answered in an unusual roundabout way. This makes me wonder if the psak of H.V.M.K. is arrived at out of doubt (i.e. without being able to establish the exact reason for Rav Ashi's behaviour, it is fairly assumed.) Kol Tuv, YM ---------------------------- The Kollel replies: If Rav Ashi maintains Halachah v'Ein Morin Ken regarding Tefilin, it means that he holds 'Laylah Zman Tefilin' mid'Oraisa, but that he did not want to issue the ruling publicly because there are those who hold Laylah Lav Zman Tefilin. The episode with Ravina in no way contradicts that. Consequently, I don't fully understand what you are trying to say. In any event, Halachah v'Ein Morin Ken is no different here than everywhere else in Shas. B'Virkas Kol Tuv, Eliezer Chrysler >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 From daf at dafyomi.co.il Tue Feb 28 12:36:39 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 19:36:39 +0200 Subject: Megilah 017: Minim Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Megilah 017: Minim Ralph Serouya asks: Are you supposed to say zedim or minim at the end of Laminim? Ralph Serouya, West Long Branch, U.S.A. ---------------------------------------------- The Kollel replies: In Yechaveh Da'at (5:8), after much discussion, Rebbi Ovadyah Yosef Shlita says the correct text is "Zeidim." All the best, Yaakov Montrose >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004 From daf at dafyomi.co.il Tue Feb 28 12:47:47 2012 From: daf at dafyomi.co.il (Kollel Iyun Hadaf) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 19:47:47 +0200 Subject: Megilah 015: Directive for Dealing with Amalek Message-ID: (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________ THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf at dafyomi.co.il [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL] ________________________________________________________________ Megilah 015: Directive for Dealing with Amalek Yerachmiel Schwartz asks: Did Mordechai have an obligation to kill Haman (or let him die) as Haman was the grandchild of Agag (i.e. the Tikkun for Hamelech Shaul's failure to fulfill Shmuel's instructions)? What do the Me'Forshim say? Yerachmiel Schwartz, Long Island, U.S. ---------------------------------------------- The Kollel replies: Many Meforshim (Rambam in Sefer Ha'Mitzvos, end of Mitzvos Aseh after #248, Ramban in Shemos 17:16) say this obligation is only for the community as a whole. Even according to the Sefer Ha'Chinuch (Mitzvah #425), who says it is a Mitzvah on the individual as well, it applies only when a person can do so without putting himself in danger (and presumably without causing a Chilul Hashem). Accordingly, Mordechai clearly had no obligation to kill Haman. All the best, Yaakov Montrose >>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<< The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf Write to us at daf at dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004