Saturday, November 11, 2006
Posted by ben at 11/11/2006 11:49:00 PM
Posted by ben at 11/11/2006 09:04:00 PM
Friday, November 10, 2006
Posted by ben at 11/10/2006 03:49:00 PM
The Gemora asks on Rabbi Eliezer's criticism regarding the students who left and rebuking them that they were occupying themselves with provisional needs. Isn't there a mitzva of eating on Yom Tov? What was so terrible about going to fulfill the mitzva of eating on Yom Tov? The Gemora answers that Rabbi Eliezer is of the opinion that eating on Yom Tov is only optional. the Gemora cites a braisa where Rabbi Yehoshua rules that one should divide his time on Yom Tov. Half the day, one should rejoice with food and drink while the other half of the day, he should be involved in pursuing his spiritual needs, such as learning Torah and tefillah. Rabbi Eliezer maintains that a person has a choice and can either spend the entire day of Yom Tov rejoicing with food and drink or he can occupy himself with learning Torah.
The Birkas Avrohom is nonetheless troubled as to how the Gemora can say that eating on Yom Tov is considered a temporary need when Rabbi Eliezer agrees that there is a mitzva to eat if one so desires? He answers profoundly that the mitzva of eating on Yom Tov pales in comparison to the mitzva of learning Torah on Yom Tov. Eating is considered provisional when it is contrasted to the mitzva of learning Torah.
Rav Meir Bergman in Shaarei Orah (Parshas Mishpatim) adds that even though the students were ravished at the time, the act of leaving the Beis Medrash and causing that the Beis Medrash should become empty was deserving of Rabbi Eliezer's curse.
How careful one must be when closing a sefer or leaving the Beis Medrash.
Posted by Avromi at 11/10/2006 04:29:00 AM
Gemara in Pesachim 46a mentions Rav Chisda who says M'ikor
hadin it is muttar, in any case everyone agrees that Mid'rabanan
it is assur). It is muttar, however, on Yom Tov to cook more
than will be needed and use the left over for Shabbos. The Tur
writes that even if the person cooking openly said the food will
be used for the next day, it is muttar, as cooking a large amount
improves the taste. The Rokeach, however, writes that this
would be assur, as Chazal only allowed adding extra food to a
pot, is if the ikar cavana is for that day (the only way improper
kavana would hurt in this case is if the person cooking spoke it
out, not if it was merely thought), while the Aruch Hashulchan
explains the Tur as saying that in this case, kavana does not
matter (or, the Tur could be learned as saying that Ho'eel
miklayea leahorchim is a fact, regardless of whether the guests
come or not, or what the owner's intention was). The Tur brings
down b'shem the Baal Haitur, that if the person adds food after
they have eaten, this is considered harama and is assur (harama
that is not obvious would be muttar according to the Tur, for
example, cooking more than is needed, however, open trickery
is assur). If an Eiruv Tavshilin made, this enables one to cook on
Yom Tov for Shabbos directly. The mishna Berura writes that
even according to those that say that Hachana D'Rabba is an
issur D'oraysa, cooking with an Eiruv Tavshilin is still muttar
due to Ho'eel miklayea leahorchim (although according to this
shita, the cooking must be finished while there is still time for
the orchim to eat, meaning there must be time left over before
shkiya; for this reason, the Magen Avraham recommends
making early Shabbos when Yom Tov comes into Shabbos).
Posted by Avromi at 11/10/2006 03:28:00 AM
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Posted by ben at 11/09/2006 11:42:00 PM
Reb Akiva Eiger asks that even if separating is permitted according to Beis Hillel, one should not be allowed to handle the impurities of the mixture since the impurities shouls be regarded as muktza. It would be a stretch to answer that all cases of separating are referring to cases where the impurities are fitting to be eaten by animals.
Reb Akiva Eiger answers that this Gemora will be a proof to a principle that Tosfos states many times in this Mesechta. Tosfos holds that handling muktza for the sake of food preparation is permitted on Yom Tov. Tosfos on daf 8 rules like this regarding removing the ashes from an oven in order to bake.
The Reshash is perplexed by Reb Akiva Eiger's question and comments that it would seem that Reb Akiva Eiger forgot a Tosfos in Shabbos (142b) that explains why separating would be permitted even though the impurities should be muktza. Tosfos states that since the food items are considerably more than the impurities, the impurities are negated by the food majority thereby permitting one to handle the impurities and discard them.
Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach asks on this that while it is true that when the impurities are mixed with the food items, the impurities can be negated; however as soon as one separates them, the impurities should be considered muktza and he should be obligated to discard them immediately?
The Reshash cites a Tosfos (3b) that maintains that when one is holding muktza, he is permitted to bring it to any place that he desires. The Magen Avrohom (308:7) rules like this Tosfos, however the Even Haozer (266) disagrees and holds that Tosfos is only referring to a utensil that is normally used for issur and not by any other type of muktza.
Chazon Ish (47:15) offers a different reason as to why this would be permitted. Since it is impossible to consume the food unless the impurities are removed, handling the impurities would not be considered handling muktza, rather it is regarded as food preparation.
This entire discussion is relevant to peeling an egg on Shabbos and Yom Tov.
Posted by Avromi at 11/09/2006 11:24:00 PM
Rashi explains that pounding with a small mortar should actually be permitted. In Eretz Yisroel, they had servants who would pound with a large mortar which was prohibited and they would claim that they pounded the grain in a small mortar. In Bavel, they generally did not have servants and therefore there was no reason to prohibit pounding with a small mortar.
The Shar Hatziyon (504:22)explains that even though the Gemorah states that the concern was due to degenerate slaves, Rashi understands that where there were slaves, there is always a concern for degenerate slaves. The Rashba understands the Gemora to mean that the small mortar could not be used only if one had degenerate servants, but otherwise there was no concern and it would be permitted just like in Bavel where there were no servants. The Mishna Berura (504:16) states that the concern is only when one owns Gentile slaves, but when one has Jewish slaves, we certainly would not be concerned.
The Rambam learns our Gemorah differently. In Eretz Yisroel, it is forbidden to use even a small mortar since the grain there is of a superior quality and could have been pounded Erev Yom Tov. The grain in Bavel, which is of an inferior quality, could not have been done Erev Yom Tov without causing a loss and therefore it will be permitted to pound with a small mortar on Yom Tov. The Magid Mishna explains that this is consistent with the ruling that any preparations for food that cannot be performed on Erev Yom Tov may be done on Yom Tov. The Lechem Mishna states that one cannot use the large mortar since that would be considered work that one normally does in the weekday.
The Rosh Yosef asks as to why the Rambam did not make any mention of the concern for the depraved slaves. He answers according to the Rashba that we cited before, that the concern is only when one owns such slaves and since that is not common, the Rambam did not feel the necessity to write it.
Posted by Avromi at 11/09/2006 10:33:00 PM
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Posted by ben at 11/08/2006 11:25:00 PM
The Rambam rules that this principle of 'mitoch' is only permitted regarding these two melachos, carrying and kindling a fire. Magid Mishna explains that since carrying items from one domain to another is relevant to the food items themselves, that is why the permission extends to other objects. Other melochos are also permitted for food-related purposes, but we do not find that permission regarding the food itself, rather only to the preparation of the food. this is why the permission is not extended to instances where there is no necessary benefit for it on Yom Tov. Lighting a fire is permitted even for preparation of food, such as kindling the wood and nonetheless one is allowed to kindle a fire on Yom Tov for purposes unrelated to food. This is derived from the verse which states that one is obligated not to kindle a fire on Shabbos.' It is inferred from there that it is forbidden to light a fire on Shabbos, but on Yom Tov it will be permitted.
The Lechem Mishna asks that the same logic that the Magid Mishna applied to explain bishul can be used to explain carrying. The possuk in Yirmiya states that one should not transfer items from one's house on Shabbos. It can be inferred that on Yom Tov, it would be permitted to carry.
The Pri Megadim in his introduction to Hilcos Yom Tov answers that we cannot learn out from the pesukkim in Yirmiyah. He does not offer a reason for this.
Sheorim Mitzuyanim B'halacha states that the melocha of carrying is regarded as an inferior type of melocha as is stated in Tosfos in Shabbos. This can possibly explain why the principle of mitoch applies to the melocha of carrying.
Posted by Avromi at 11/08/2006 11:20:00 PM
Posted by Avromi at 11/08/2006 10:26:00 PM
Posted by ben at 11/08/2006 02:02:00 PM
The Mishnah cites a dispute between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel regarding transferring objects that are not food related from one domain to another on Yom Tov. Bais Shammai maintains that one cannot carry a child, a lulav, or a Sefer Torah into a public domain and Bais Hillel permits it. Rav Yitzchok bar Avdimi explains that Bais Hillel is of the opinion that since one can carry from one domain to another for the purpose of food related items, one is also permitted to carry items that are not food-related. Bais Shammai, however, does not agree with this concept. Rashi explains that according to Bais Hillel, it is even biblically permitted to carry items that have no purpose at all. The Chachamim, however, prohibited one from carrying stones or objects which serve no purpose on Yom Tov.
Tosfos disagrees with Rashi and Tosfos maintains that Bais Hillel only permits one to perform melachos that will either enhance ones enjoyment on Yom Tov or that will aid him in performing a mitzvah. According to Tosfos, it must be understood why Bais Hillel maintains that one who slaughters a donated olah on Yom Tov is not liable for the act of slaughtering. It would seem that there is no purpose in slaughtering a donated olah on Yom Tov because it is completely burned on the mizbeiach. Tosfos writes based on a Gemara later on Daf 20b that states that one cannot bear to see his own table full and the table of his master empty. If one is not able to offer a sacrifice to Hashem on Yom Tov, his own joy will be diminished.
The Teshuvos Ksav Sofer (65) rules that one is permitted to light a yahrtzeit candle on Yom Tov although the light does not serve a purpose for Yom Tov. If one would be prohibited from kindling this light, he would be grieved that he cannot honor his departed loved ones. This grief would significantly detract from his joy on Yom Tov and for this reason he is permitted to light the yahrtzeit candle.
The Biur Halacha (514:5) rules that it is preferable that one light the yahrtzeit candle prior to Yom Tov. If one was not able to light the candle prior to Yom Tov, he should light the candle in a room where he will be eating so that he will benefit from the light. The preferred approach is that one light a candle in the synagogue. The Biur Halacha concludes based on the Ksav Sofer that if one does not have available any of the aforementioned options, he is still be permitted to light the yahrtzeit candle because lighting a yahrtzeit candles has a semblance of a mitzvah as one is honoring his departed parent.
Posted by ben at 11/08/2006 12:30:00 AM
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Rav Elchonon Wasserman does not understand what Beis Shamai is concerned about. He asks that even if the fellow will decide not to shecht the animal, nonetheless at the time that he took out the knife, his intent was to perform a shechita and at that time it was necessary?
If someone would cook on Yom Tov and afterwards decide not to eat, would he be liable retroactively for cooking on Yom Tov? Obviously not. Rabbah maintains that if a person cooks on Yom Tov with the intention of eating the food after yom Tov, he is not liable since guests can come to his house on Yom tov and he will offer them from that food. This is true even if the guests do not come and certainly if his intention was to cook for guests, he will not be violating any prohibition, even if the guests do not show up.
Why is there a concern that he might change his mind and not perform the shechita?
Rav Menachem Kohn Zt"l in his sefer Ateres Avi suggests that perhaps there is a distinction between the melocha of cooking and extra exertion on Yom Tov. The Torah permitted one to perform melochos on Yom Tov that are for the necessity of preparing food to be eaten. Cooking is something that is completely permitted on yom Tov and therefore even is afterwards we would realize that the food was not eaten, we will not retroactively determine that something wrong was done. however when Chazal prohibited one from exerting himself unnecessarily on Yom Tov, this was forbidden completely and was only permitted in instances of food preparation. If retroactively, it has been determined that it was not used for food preparation, it will be regarded as unnecessary exertion and therefore Beis Shamai was concerned.
Posted by Avromi at 11/07/2006 12:56:00 AM
Rashbam in Bava Basra (80a) states that they have offspring every month of the year except for the month of Adar.
Sheorim Mitzuyanim B'halacha suggests that it might depend on the climate of each particular area.
Below is a picture from the first brood; the parent is on the right and the nearly-grown fledgling is on the left.
Posted by Avromi at 11/07/2006 12:18:00 AM
Monday, November 06, 2006
Mishna Berura (497:31) notes that Bais shamai will permit shechting the doves on Yom Tov even if he moved about the nest prior to Yom Tov and certainly if he handled the doves.
I am a little perplexed at to why moving about the nest would be sufficient. Would that be a proper indication that he is resolute on taking those first brood doves? If there are other doves in there at that time, it would seem that one would be required to handle the doves themselves for otherwise he is not indicating that his intention is to take the first brood.
Posted by Avromi at 11/06/2006 11:55:00 PM
The Gemara offers various proofs to demonstrate the leniencies of Bais Shammai and the stringencies of Bais Hillel regarding matters that pertain to being joyous on Yom Tov. Tosfos wonders why the Gemara does not cite the first Mishnah where Bais Shammai maintains that an egg that was laid on Yom Tov is forbidden and Bais Hillel permits one to eat the egg. Tosfos answers that eating an egg does not really make one joyous on Yom Tov.
It would seem that the explanation for the answer of Tosfos is based on the Gemara in Pesachim (109a) that states that one is required to provide his wife with nice clothing and a man is required to eat meat and drink wine. This ruling is based on the verse that states vesamachta bechagecha, and you shall be joyous on your festival. Eggs, however, are not included in this teaching, because they do not make one joyous.
Shearim Mitzuyanim B’Halacha cites a different Gemara in Pesachim (118a) which states that Hashem collects His debts from people according to their respective assets. A wealthy person will be punished by incurring a loss in his oxen, a pauper will incur a loss in his sheep and an orphan will incur a loss in his eggs. It is evident from this Gemara that an egg is not deemed to be an extravagant item and does not make one joyous.
Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 378:9) rules that the meal that is provided for mourners should consist of eggs. Rema (Orach Chaim 476:2) writes that one should eat eggs on Pesach night as eggs are a sign of mourning. Thus, we see further proof that eggs do not make one joyous, and in fact, eggs denote mourning and sadness.
Posted by Avromi at 11/06/2006 11:31:00 PM
Posted by ben at 11/06/2006 11:30:00 AM
Reb Chaim Voloziner talks at great length that there is a concept of ביטול תורה באיכות and not only בכמות. The Mateh Efraim explains the Gemora of מבטלין תלמוד תורה למקרא מגילה to mean that even though reading the Meggilah is considered learning, nonetheless it would be regarded as bitul Torah if not for the special halacha that one is obligated to close the Gemora and hear the Meggilah.
The Mishna in Avos says שנים שיושבין ואין ביניהם דברי תורה הרי זה מושב לצים אבל שנים שיושבין ויש ביניהם דברי תורה שכינה שרויה ביניהם. Rabbeinu Yonah has the version ועוסקים - to merit that the Shechinah should be in one's presence while learning, he must be toiling in learning.
The Mashgiach Reb Nosson Vachtfogel was apt to quote a Gemmorah in shabbos 63 that states regarding the possuk - אורך ימים בימינה ובשמאלה עושר וכבוד - if one is part of the mayminin, he will merit long life together with riches and honor; however regarding the masmilim, they will not merit the blessing of long life. Who are the masmilim? Rashi states that these are the one's who are not exerting themselves to their full potential.
Dirshu, under the leadership of Reb Dovid Hofstetter, together with the guidance of the Gedolei HaTorah, has risen to the challenge of promoting the learning of Daf Hayomi b'iyun. The Dirshu Kollelim throughout the world have inspired Baale batim to attend shiurim and chavrusos on a dail basis, learning the Gemmorah with proper understanding, reviewing it and taking bechinos.
The Rambam at the end of Hilchos Sechirus rules that a worker is obligated to work every moment of his hire and he concludes with the words בכל כוחו - with all his strength. The concept of performing with all one's strength is obviously true by learning as well. Whenit came time for Yaakov to establish Klal Yisroes, the possuk states ויגל יעקב את האבן מעל פי הבאר. Reb Chaim Shmuelvitz explains that moving the stone from the well could not have been a regular miracle, rather the explanation is that Yaakov dedicated his heart and utilyzed his full strength and ability thus enabling him to move the stone.
In this past week's parsha Avrohom was told to look up at the heavens and count the stars. How was it possible for him to fulfill such an unattainable task? Reb Meir Shapiro whose yahrtzeit was last week, explains that an inteligent person would have obviously been perplexed when receiving such an overwhelming instruction, knowing that it is impossible to complete. Avrohom was also well aware of this, but he knew that by following Hashem's commandment, he would receive a special syata dishmaya and with that knowledge, he began counting 1, 2, 3 .... Hashem, recognizing this enthusiasm and Avrohom's willingness to fulfill His commandments immediately blessed him with the brocha of children.
Kollel Dirshu has instilled in all of us the courage and desire to take the plunge one amud and one daf at a time, taking weekly bechinos, monthly bechinos and eventually to be tested on the entire Shas (notice I didn't say anything about passing the tests). Dirshu has raised the bar on what it means to be a Daf Yomi Yid. We owe Reb Dovid and his entire staff a tremendous yasher koach for establishing and perpetuating these programs with his sole desire of being yagdil Torah.
The Tanchumah in Chaye Sorah states that Avrohom Davened that people should be able to discern the difference in appearance between him and Yitzchok. Hashem acquiesed to his request and people were able to recognize him as Avrohom and not Yitzchok. Why was this necessary. I heard from Rabbi Margareten that Avrohom wanted to ensure that everyone would understand the significance of proper mesorah.
It is a great zchus for us to have in our midst one of the Gedolei Torah of our generation, someone who is a vital link in the chain of Klal Yisroel's illustrious mesorah from Avrohom, Yitzchok and Yaakov continuin to our present time. It is an honor for me to introduce to you the South Fallsburg Rosh Yeshiva HaRav Eli Ber Vachtfogel Shlita.
Posted by Avromi at 11/06/2006 08:57:00 AM
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Tosfos quotes the Yerushalmi that states that separating challah was included in the rabbinic prohibition of separating Terumos and Maasros. Rabbah only permitted separating the challah on Yom Tov if the dough was made on Yom Tov. Although one could separate the challah at the stage when the flour is mixed with the water, the prevalent custom was to separate the challah after the dough was made. Given the fact that the dough was made on Yom Tov, one can separate the challah on Yom Tov.
Tosfos then quotes a Tosefta that states that Rabbah only permitted separating challah on Yom Tov in the Diaspora where there is no concern that separating challah is akin to rectifying an object, because in the Diaspora one can eat dough even without separating challah. One would be prohibited from separating challah on Yom Tov in Eretz Yisroel because one cannot eat the dough in Eretz Yisroel without having separated challah, and separating challah would thus be akin to rectifying an object on Yom Tov which is forbidden.
Tosfos rejects the words of the Tosefta and Tosfos concludes that Rabbah permitted separating challah on Yom Tov even in Eretz Yisroel and the father of Shmuel prohibited separating challah on Yom Tov even in the Diaspora. Tosfos rules in accordance with Rabbah as Rabbah is a basraah, a later Amora.
The Maharshal in Chochmas Shlomo questions the ruling of Tosfos, as we have a tradition from the Geonim that we only rule in accordance with the basraah from the period of Abaye and Rava and on, whereas Rabbah lived earlier. The Maharshal writes that the Rif rules in accordance with the father of Shmuel. The Ran adds that Rava is the Amora who qualifies the opinion of the father of Shmuel and Rava is the basraah, so for this reason the Halacha is in accordance with the father of Shmuel.
The Mitzpei Aisan (in hashmatos) answers this question based on a Rashba in Shabbos who rules that when a student differs with his teacher, we rule in accordance with the student, but this principle only applies after the era of Abaye and Rava and not earlier. When the disputants are colleagues, however, then the Halacha is in accordance with the basraah, and this principle applies even prior to the era of Abaye and Rava. Tosfos in Kiddushin 45b writes that the reason why the Halacha follows the basraah is because the later Amoraim were more exact in establishing the Halacha clearly. Furthermore, the Rosh in Sanhedrin writes that the later sages understood the logic of their predecessors, thus giving them the ability to determine whose opinion was halachically correct. The distinction between the era of Abaye and Rava and the period prior to that is that prior to the era of Abaye and Rava, a student would only study what he had heard from his teacher, whereas after the era of Abaye and Rava, the students would analyze various opinions and they would conclude that the halacha was not necessarily in accordance with the opinion of their teacher.
Posted by ben at 11/05/2006 12:14:00 PM
Posted by ben at 11/05/2006 12:13:00 PM