DOCSLIB.ORG

Sukka Book.Indb

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sukka Book.Indb Perek IV Daf 44 Amud a NOTES Th e Sages say: For them in Eretz Yisrael it also does not overrideN ָא ְמִרי: ְלִד ְיד ּהו ַנ ִמי ָלא ָ ּד ֵחי. ְו ֶא ָּלא ַק ׁ ְשָיא The : ְלִד ְיד ּהו ַנ ִמי ָלא ָ ּד ֵחי – Shabbat. Th e Gemara asks: But if that is the case, the contradic- For them it also does not override Rambam explains that the Sages instituted ordinances to ָה ֵני ַּתְר ֵּתי; ְ ּד ָת ָנא ֲח ָדא: ָּכל ָה ָﬠם ִמוֹל ִיכין -tion between these two sources is diffi cult, as it was taught in prevent the Jews from splitting into sects where some seg ֶאת ּלו ְל ֵב ֶיהן ְל ַהר ַה ַּבִית, ְו ַת ְנָיא ִא ָיד ְך: one mishna: All the people bring their lulavim to the Temple -ments of the people practice one custom and other seg ְל ֵבית ַה ְּכ ֶנ ֶסת. ּו ְמ ָתְר ִצ ַינן: ָּכאן – ִּבְז ַמן Mount on Friday, and it was taught in another mishna that they ments either do not practice it or practice another custom bring their lulavim to the synagogue. And we resolved this con- instead. Although in other matters, e.g., the second day of ׁ ֶש ֵּבית ַה ִּמ ְקָ ּד ׁש ַקָיּים, ָּכאן – ִּבְז ַמן ׁ ֶש ֵאין ,tradiction as follows: Here, where the mishna says that they bring the Festivals observed in the Diaspora, this is not a concern ֵּבית ַה ִּמ ְקָ ּד ׁש ַקָיּים. their lulavim to the Temple Mount, it is referring to when the as can be explained the way Ritva explained it here: With Temple is standing, and there, where the mishna says that they regard to lulav, the Sages instituted that everyone follows his ancestral custom. Therefore, in the Diaspora the practice bring their lulavim to the synagogue, it is referring to when the is not to take the lulav on Shabbat, since in ancient times it Temple is not standing. Based on the above, when the Temple is was never the practice to take the lulav on Shabbat due to not in existence the mitzva of lulav does not override Shabbat. the uncertainty concerning the correct date of the Festival. Based on the conclusion of the Gemara here, apparently Th e Gemara resolves the contradiction: No, both this mishna and the practice in Temple times in the outlying areas of Eretz לֹא, ִא ִידי ְו ִא ִידי – ִּבְז ַמן ׁ ֶש ֵּבית ַה ִּמ ְקָ ּד ׁש that mishna are referring to Eretz Yisrael when the Temple is in Yisrael was not to take the lulav on Shabbat so as not to ַקָיּים, ְו ָלא ַק ׁ ְשָיא: ָּכאן – ַּב ִּמ ְקָ ּד ׁש, ָּכאן – deviate from the custom of the rest of Jewry. Therefore, existence; and nevertheless, it is not diffi cult. Here, where the ַּב ְּג ּבו ִלין. mishna says that they bring their lulavim to the Temple Mount, it even today, the lulav is not taken in Eretz Yisrael on Shabbat, is referring to the procedure in the Temple. And there, where the in keeping with the ancestral custom. mishna says that they bring their lulavim to the synagogue, it is HALAKHA referring to the procedure in the outlying areas in the rest of Eretz Nowadays the lulav is : ּלו ָלב ַּבְזּ ַמן ַהֶזּה – Yisrael, where they knew when the new month was established. Lulav nowadays However, today, neither in the Diaspora nor in Eretz Yisrael does not taken on Shabbat at all, even on the first day of the H Festival and even in Eretz Yisrael (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, the mitzva of lulav override Shabbat. Hilkhot Lulav 7:17–18). Since the mitzva of : ֲﬠָר ָבה ַּבְזּ ַמן ַהֶזּה – Abaye said to Rava: What is diff erent about lulav such that we Willow branch today ָא ַמר ֵל ּיה ַא ַּבֵיי ְלָר ָבא: ַמאי ׁ ְש ָנא ּלו ָלב perform the mitzva seven days in commemoration of the Tem- the willow branch is not explicitly written in the Torah, the ְ ּד ָﬠ ְבִד ַינן ֵל ּיה ׁ ִש ְב ָﬠה ֵז ֶכר ַל ִּמ ְקָ ּד ׁש, ּו ַמאי ple, and what is diff erent about the willow branch that we do Sages restricted their ordinance to taking it on the seventh day of Sukkot in commemoration of the Temple (Rambam ׁ ְש ָנא ֲﬠָר ָבה ְ ּד ָלא ָﬠ ְבִד ַינן ָל ּה ׁ ִש ְב ָﬠה ֵז ֶכר not perform the mitzva seven days in commemoration of the .(H Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Lulav 7:22 ַל ִּמ ְקָ ּד ׁש? ָא ַמר ֵל ּיה: ִהוֹאיל ְו ָאָדם ֵיוֹצא Temple? Rava said to him: Since a person fulfi lls his obligation -with the willow branch in the lulav, no additional commemora ְיֵדי ָחוֹבתוֹ ָּב ֲﬠָר ָבה ׁ ֶש ַּב ּל ּו ָלב. ָא ַמר ֵל ּיה: tion is necessary. Abaye said to him: Th at is not a satisfactory ַה ּהוא ִמ ּׁש ּום ּלו ָלב ּהוא ְ ּד ָקא ָﬠ ֵביד ֵל ּיה. answer, as he is performing that action due to the mitzva of ְו ִכי ֵּת ָימא ְ ּד ָקא ַמ ְג ַּב ּה ֵל ּיה ַו ֲהַדר ַמ ְג ַּב ּה taking the lulav and the other species. And if you say that he lift s ֵל ּיה – ְו ָהא ַמ ֲﬠ ִׂשים ְּב ָכל יוֹם ְ ּד ָלא ָקא the willow branch bound with the lulav to fulfi ll the mitzva of the ָﬠ ְבִד ַינן ָה ִכי! four species and then lift s it again in commemoration of the willow branch in the Temple, aren’t actions performed daily proof that we do not do so, as no one lift s the lulav twice? Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: Since the mitzva of lulav is ָא ַמר ַרב ְז ִביד ִמ ְּׁש ֵמ ּיה ְ ּדָר ָבא: ּלו ָלב -a mitzva by Torah law, we perform it seven days in commemora ְ ּד ַאוֹרְי ָיתא – ָﬠ ְבִד ַינן ׁ ִש ְב ָﬠה ֵז ֶכר ַל ִּמ ְקָ ּד ׁש. tion of the Temple even today. Since the mitzva of the willow ֲﬠָר ָבה ְ ּדַר ָּב ַנן – ָלא ָﬠ ְבִד ַינן ָל ּה ׁ ִש ְב ָﬠה branch is a mitzva by rabbinic law, we do not perform it seven ֵז ֶכר ַל ִּמ ְקָ ּד ׁש. days in commemoration of the Temple. Th e Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rava ְל ַמאן? ִא ֵיל ָימא ַא ָּבא ׁ ָש ּאול – ָה ָא ַמר: say this? If we say that Rava said this in accordance with the ַ״ﬠְר ֵבי ָנ ַחל״ ְּכ ִתיב, ׁ ְש ַּתִים – ַא ַחת ַל ּל ּו ָלב opinion of Abba Shaul, didn’t he say that it is writt en: Willows ְו ַא ַחת ַל ִּמ ְק ָ ּד ׁש. ִאי ְלַר ָּב ַנן – ִה ְל ְכ ָתא of the river, i.e., in the plural, indicating two willow branches, one ְּג ִמ ִירי ָל ּה. ְ ּד ָא ַמר ַר ִּבי ַא ִסי ָא ַמר ַר ִּבי for the lulav and one for the Temple? In his opinion, the mitzva .of the willow branch in the Temple is also a mitzva by Torah law ָיוֹח ָנן ִמ ּׁש ּום ַר ִּבי ְנ ּחו ְנָיא ִא ׁיש ִּב ְק ַﬠת ,If Rava said this in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis ֵּבית ְחוֹר ָתן: ֶﬠ ֶׂשר ְנ ִטיעוֹת, ֲﬠָר ָבה, ְו ִנ ּיס ּו ְך ,they learned this as a halakha transmitt ed to Moses from Sinai ַה ַּמִים – ֲה ָל ָכה ְלמֹ ׁ ֶשה ִמ ִּס ַיני. as Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said in the name of Rabbi Neĥunya of the valley of Beit Ĥortan: Th e halakha of the ten saplings, the mitzva of the willow branch in the Temple, and the mitzva of the water libation on the altar during the festival of Sukkot are each a halakha transmitt ed to Moses from Sinai. Rather, Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: With regard to the ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ַרב ְז ִביד ִמ ְּׁש ֵמ ּיה ְ ּדָר ָבא: ּלו ָלב ,mitzva of lulav, which has its basis writt en explicitly in the Torah ְ ּד ִאית ֵל ּיה ִﬠ ָּיקר ִמן ַה ּת ָוֹרה – ַּב ְּג ּבו ִלין -in the outlying areas we perform it seven days in commemora ָﬠ ְבִד ַינן ֵל ּיה ׁ ִש ְב ָﬠה ֵז ֶכר ַל ִּמ ְקָ ּד ׁש, ֲﬠָר ָבה tion of the Temple. With regard to the mitzva of the willow ְ ּד ֵלית ָל ּה ִﬠ ָּיקר ִמן ַה ּת ָוֹרה – ַּב ְּג ּבו ִלין ָלא branch, which does not have its basis writt en explicitly in the Torah, in the outlying areas we do not perform it seven days in ָﬠ ְבִד ַינן ׁ ִש ְב ָﬠה ֵז ֶכר ַל ִּמ ְקָ ּד ׁש, commemoration of the Temple. Perek IV . 44a 215 . פרק ד׳ דף מד. NOTES :Apropos the willow branch in the Temple, Reish Lakish said ָא ַמר ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש: ּכֹ ֲה ִנים ַּב ֲﬠ ֵלי Some say that Priests with physical defectsN enter between the Entrance Hall : ּכֹ ֲה ִנים ַּב ֲﬠ ֵלי ּמו ִמין – Priests with physical defects ּמו ִמין ִנ ְכ ָנ ִסין ֵּבין ָה ּאו ָלם ְו ַל ִּמְז ֵּבח -since in this case individuals with physical defects were permit and the altar in order to fulfi ll the obligation of the mitzva of the ְּכֵדי ָל ֵצאת ָּב ֲﬠָר ָבה. ָא ַמר ֵל ּיה ַר ִּבי ted to enter the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar, it willow branch.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mishnah: the New Scripture Territories in the East
    176 FROM TEXT TO TRADITION in this period was virtually unfettered. The latter restriction seems to have been often compromised. Under the Severan dynasty (193-225 C.E.) Jewish fortunes improved with the granting of a variety of legal privileges culminating in full Roman citizenship for Jews. The enjoyment of these privileges and the peace which Jewry enjoyed in the Roman Empire were·· interrupted only by the invasions by the barbarians in the West 10 and the instability and economic decline they caused throughout the empire, and by the Parthian incursions against Roman Mishnah: The New Scripture territories in the East. The latter years of Roman rule, in the aftermath of the Bar Kokhba Revolt and on the verge of the Christianization of the empire, were extremely fertile ones for the development of . The period beginning with the destruction (or rather, with the Judaism. It was in this period that tannaitic Judaism came to its restoration in approximately 80 C.E.) saw a fundamental change final stages, and that the work of gathering its intellectual in Jewish study and learning. This was the era in which the heritage, the Mishnah, into a redacted collection began. All the Mishnah was being compiled and in which many other tannaitic suffering and the fervent yearnings for redemption had culmi­ traditions were taking shape. The fundamental change was that nated not in a messianic state, but in a collection of traditions the oral Torah gradually evolved into a fixed corpus of its own which set forth the dreams and aspirations for the perfect which eventually replaced the written Torah as the main object holiness that state was to engender.
    [Show full text]
  • Melilah Agunah Sptib W Heads
    Agunah and the Problem of Authority: Directions for Future Research Bernard S. Jackson Agunah Research Unit Centre for Jewish Studies, University of Manchester [email protected] 1.0 History and Authority 1 2.0 Conditions 7 2.1 Conditions in Practice Documents and Halakhic Restrictions 7 2.2 The Palestinian Tradition on Conditions 8 2.3 The French Proposals of 1907 10 2.4 Modern Proposals for Conditions 12 3.0 Coercion 19 3.1 The Mishnah 19 3.2 The Issues 19 3.3 The talmudic sources 21 3.4 The Gaonim 24 3.5 The Rishonim 28 3.6 Conclusions on coercion of the moredet 34 4.0 Annulment 36 4.1 The talmudic cases 36 4.2 Post-talmudic developments 39 4.3 Annulment in takkanot hakahal 41 4.4 Kiddushe Ta’ut 48 4.5 Takkanot in Israel 56 5.0 Conclusions 57 5.1 Consensus 57 5.2 Other issues regarding sources of law 61 5.3 Interaction of Remedies 65 5.4 Towards a Solution 68 Appendix A: Divorce Procedures in Biblical Times 71 Appendix B: Secular Laws Inhibiting Civil Divorce in the Absence of a Get 72 References (Secondary Literature) 73 1.0 History and Authority 1.1 Not infrequently, the problem of agunah1 (I refer throughout to the victim of a recalcitrant, not a 1 The verb from which the noun agunah derives occurs once in the Hebrew Bible, of the situations of Ruth and Orpah. In Ruth 1:12-13, Naomi tells her widowed daughters-in-law to go home.
    [Show full text]
  • First-Suk 1..16
    English Abstracts: Bavli Sukkah Chapter IV Chapter IV, Sugya 1: ‘‘Rabbah’’ (42b-43a) According to Mishnah Sukkah 4:1-2, the lulav is not taken up on the Sabbath of the intermediary days of Sukkot; if, however, the first day of Sukkot falls on the Sabbath, the lulav is taken up on that day. Our sugya begins by probing the reason for the ban on taking up the lulav on the intermediary Sabbath. It cites the famous statement of Rabbah, according to which the Sages prohibited taking up the lulav on the Sabbath lest one come to carry it in the public domain. The Talmud’s assumption is that this prohibition applied even in the Temple, where taking up the lulav is considered scripturally mandated both on the first day of Sukkot and on the intermediary days, and it is puzzled by the discrepancy between the ruling regarding the first day of Sukkot and the ruling regarding the intermediary Sabbath. A number of suggestions are offered as to the reason for the discrepancy, the final one being that since the mitzvah on the first day of Sukkot is scripturally mandated not only in the Temple but all over, the Sages decided that it should override the fear of carrying a lulav into the public domain. The Talmud then asks why the lulav is not taken up on the first day of Sukkot today when it falls on the Sabbath; the answer given is that the lulav is taken up under such circumstances in the land of Israel; it is only in Babylonia that lulav on the first day does not override the Sabbath, because of the doubt as to which is the first day of the festival.
    [Show full text]
  • Torah Portion Summary
    PARASHAT BERESHEIT - BIRKAT HAHODESH October 6, 2007 – 24 Tishrei 5768 Annual: Genesis 1:1 – 6:8 (Etz Hayim, p. 3; Hertz p. 2) Triennial Cycle: Genesis 1:1 – 2:3 (Etz Hayim, p. 3; Hertz p. 2) Haftarah: Isaiah 42:5 – 43:10 (Etz Hayim, p. 36; Hertz p. 21) Prepared by Rabbi Joyce Newmark Teaneck, New Jersey Torah Portion Summary The Torah begins with God’s creation of the world – light, heaven and earth, the oceans and dry land, the heavenly bodies, plants, animals, and finally the first human beings – in six days. God then blesses the seventh day, Shabbat, the day of rest. The human beings are placed in the Garden of Eden “to till it and tend it,” but when Adam and Eve disobey God’s commandment and eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil they are expelled from the Garden. Eve gives birth to two sons. When they are grown Cain, the elder, kills his brother, Abel, and is punished by God. Adam and Eve have a third son, Seth, and the Torah relates the 10 generations from Adam to Noah. The parasha concludes with God’s sorrow over human wickedness. 1. Does "Torah" Mean "Law"? When God began to create heaven and earth – the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water – God said “let there be light,” and there was light. (Bereisheit 1:1-3) A. Rabbi Yitzhak said: It was only necessary to begin the Torah with “This month shall mark for you...” (Shemot 12:2), for this is the first mitzvah about which Israel was commanded.
    [Show full text]
  • Daf Review – Berachos 46 Compiled by Larry Ziffer • Yehudah Bar
    Daf Review – Berachos 46 Compiled by Larry Ziffer • Yehudah bar Mereimar, Mar bar Rav Ashi and Rav Acha mi'Difti ate together; normally, the most important one is motzi the others, but none of them was more important than the others; they thought that perhaps if all participants are equal, each should bench by himself; they did so, and asked Mereimar. He answered that they fulfilled birkas hamazon, but they did not fulfill their obligation to say birkas hazimun. • If one arrives at a meal and finds people saying birkas hazimun, what should he answer? Rav Zevid: "Baruch u'Mevorach"; Rav Papa: "Amein." Resolution: if one hears them saying, "Nivarech (Let us bench)" he answers, "Baruch u'Mevorach"; if one hears them saying “Baruch (Blessed is He),” he answers "AmeIn." • Two views on saying Amein after one’s own bracha: It is either praiseworthy or it is disdainful o Resolution: It is praiseworthy regarding boneh Yerushalayim (in benching) but it is disdainful regarding any other bracha. o Abaye would answer "Amein" loudly after boneh Yerushalayim so that workers would hear it and return to work; they should not stay to hear hatov vehametiv (it is only mid'rabanan.) o Rav Ashi would answer "Amein" quietly, so that people would not think that hatov vehametiv is only mid'rabanan and therefore treat it lightly. • R. Zeira was ill; R. Abahu visited him and said he would make a feast for the rabbis if R. Zeira would recover, which he did. At the meal, R. Abahu asked R. Zeira to be botzeia (make hamotzi for everyone).
    [Show full text]
  • Talmud-Based Solutions to the Problem of the Agunah
    Talmud-Based Solutions to the Problem of the Agunah To my parents Agunah Research Unit, Volume 4 Talmud-Based Solutions to the Problem of the Agunah Avishalom Westreich Deborah Charles Publications 2012 Copyright © 2012 Deborah Charles Publications All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be duplicated in any way without the expressed written consent of the publisher, except in the form of brief excerpts or quotations for the purpose of review. ISBN 978-1-906731-20-5 (hardback) Published and Distributed by: Deborah Charles Publications On behalf of The Agunah Research Unit, University of Manchester E-mail: [email protected] http://www.deborahcharles.co.uk Printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham and Eastbourne. This is the fourth volume of a five-volume series, by each of the members of the Agunah Research Unit: Vol.1: Bernard S. Jackson, Agunah : The Manchester Analysis (Agunah Research Unit, vol.1, based on the Working papers of Yehudah Abel, Nechama Hadari, Shoshana Knol, Bernard S. Jackson and Avishalom Westreich) Vol.2: Yehudah Abel, Confronting ‘Iggun Vol.3: Shoshana Knol, Agunah and Ideology Vol.4: Avishalom Westreich, Talmud-Based Solutions to the Problem of the Agunah Vol.5: Nechama Hadari , The Kosher Get: A Halakhic Story of Divorce Ordering details, for one or more volumes, may be found at: http://www.legaltheory.demon.co.uk/ARU.htm Acknowledgements The problem of agunot – the chained wives, whose husbands refuse to divorce and thus cannot remarry – has occupied a wide range of scholars from antiquity to modern days: from talmudic sages to modern day scholars; from rabbis to academics; from politicians to lay people: women, men and professional attorneys.
    [Show full text]
  • Download File
    Halevy, Halivni and The Oral Formation of the Babylonian Talmud Ari Bergmann Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2014 © 2014 Ari Bergmann All rights reserved ABSTRACT Halevy, Halivni and The Oral Formation of the Babylonian Talmud Ari Bergmann This dissertation is dedicated to a detailed analysis and comparison of the theories on the process of the formation of the Babylonian Talmud by Yitzhak Isaac Halevy and David Weiss Halivni. These two scholars exhibited a similar mastery of the talmudic corpus and were able to combine the roles of historian and literary critic to provide a full construct of the formation of the Bavli with supporting internal evidence to support their claims. However, their historical construct and findings are diametrically opposed. Yitzhak Isaac Halevy presented a comprehensive theory of the process of the formation of the Talmud in his magnum opus Dorot Harishonim. The scope of his work was unprecedented and his construct on the formation of the Talmud encompassed the entire process of the formation of the Bavli, from the Amoraim in the 4th century to the end of the saboraic era (which he argued closed in the end of the 6th century). Halevy was the ultimate guardian of tradition and argued that the process of the formation of the Bavli took place entirely within the amoraic academy by a highly structured and coordinated process and was sealed by an international rabbinical assembly. While Halevy was primarily a historian, David Weiss Halivni is primarily a talmudist and commentator on the Talmud itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Moshe Raphael Ben Yehoshua (Morris Stadtmauer) O”H Tzvi Gershon Ben Yoel (Harvey Felsen) O”H
    29 Teves 5780 Brachos Daf 23 Jan. 26, 2020 Daf Notes is currently being dedicated to the neshamot of Moshe Raphael ben Yehoshua (Morris Stadtmauer) o”h Tzvi Gershon ben Yoel (Harvey Felsen) o”h May the studying of the Daf Notes be a zechus for their neshamot and may their souls find peace in Gan Eden and be bound up in the Bond of life Mishna The Gemora asks: But it has been taught in a braisa: He could If one was standing reciting the Tefillah, and he suddenly move (four amos) to the side? remembered that he was a ba’al keri, he should not stop praying, but rather, he should shorten (each of the blessings). The Gemora answers: There is no difficulty, for one statement (the first one) refers to a case where it was possible If one went down to immerse himself (and it was immediately for him to go forward, and the other braisa is discussing a before the time for the recital of Shema was about to pass), case where it was not possible to go forward. the halachah is as follows: if he is able to come up (from the mikvah) and cover himself and recite the Shema before The Gemora states: If one was praying and he discovered sunrise, he should go up, cover himself and recite the Shema, some excrement in his place (within four amos of where he but if not (if he does not have time), he should cover himself was standing), Rabbah says that even though he has sinned, with the water and recite.
    [Show full text]
  • Shabbos - Simanim ףד ב – Daf 2
    Shabbos - Simanim ףד ב – Daf 2 האצוה The melocho of .1 From the opening Mishna’s eight cases of passing an object between the ba’al habayis standing in his reshus hayachid (private domain) and the poor person standing in reshus harabim (public domain) we learn: a. One has only transgressed m’doraysa the melocho of hotza’ah (transferring) if he does the act of the object from its state of rest in one domain as well as the act of placing it down )הריע(ק lifting .in another domain ( החנה ) lest one come to do both החנה or קע י הר b. The Rabbis forbid one from doing one of the acts of elements of the transfer. (Bringing in) כה הסנ .2 כה נ הס taking out) also refers to) האצוה Rav Ashi teaches that the Mishna’s usage of the term . האצוה bringing in), since the Mishna includes cases of bringing in as examples of) The Gemara further clarifies that the Tanna refers to any removal of an object from its place as an act of “taking out.” 3. Domains transfers) in the Mishna he is referring to) תואיצי Rava said the when the Tanna uses the word domains. Therefore, the Mishna is understood to mean that there are two domains where one is prohibited to commit four acts of transferring. Siman – House The strange house, where the owner kept passing objects back and forth to a poor person standing outside, featured an exit sign over the entrance and a door mat that said Welcome to the Home of Two Domains.
    [Show full text]
  • Pesahim Vol One.Indb
    Perek IV Daf 52 Amud a HALAKHA we do not perform labor in the sett led area due to the need to avoid ַּב ִיּ ּׁיש ּוב ָלא ָﬠ ִב ְיד ָנא – ִמ ְּפ ֵני ׁ ִש ּינ ּוי deviation that causes dispute, as it is the custom in the Diaspora to refrain In a settled area it is prohibited, in the des- : ַּבִיּ ּׁיש ּוב ָא ּסור ַּב ִּמְד ָּבר ּמו ָּתר – ert it is permitted ַה ַּמ ֲח ֶלוֹקת. ַּב ִּמְד ָּבר ַמאי? ֲא ַמר ֵל ּיה, ָה ִכי from performance of labor on those days. However, in the desert outside Residents of Eretz Yisrael who travel abroad ֲא ַמר ַרב ַא ִמי: ַּבִיּ ּׁיש ּוב – ָא ּסור, ַּב ִּמְד ָּבר – the Jewish community, what is the halakha? He said to him that this is with the intention of returning are required ּמו ָּתר. what Rav Ami said: In a sett led area it is prohibited; in the desert it is to refrain from violating the laws of the Festi- H permitt ed. val, even in private, when arriving at a Jewish settled area on the second day of the Festival. -Tangentially, it is reported that Rav Natan bar Asya relied upon his Since this custom is universally accepted out ַרב ָנ ָתן ַּבר ַא ְסָיא ֲאַזל ִמ ֵּבי ַרב ְל ּפ ּו ְמ ְּבִד ָיתא side Eretz Yisrael, violating the halakhot of the knowledge of the calendar and traveled from Rav’s study hall to ְּביוֹם טוֹב ׁ ֵש ִני ׁ ֶשל ֲﬠ ֶצֶרת, ׁ ַש ְמ ֵּת ּיה ַרב ֵיוֹסף.
    [Show full text]
  • MAASELER Moşavası, Ilk Aliya Dalgası Sırasında Oleler Toprak Işinde Usta Değildi Ve Bazı Kurulan Moşavaların Üçüncüsüydü
    NİDA PEREK 1: ŞAMAY MASEHET NİDA PEREK 1: ŞAMAY Bet Şamay ve Bet İllel Yaprak Masehet Nida’nın ilk mişnasında, Şamay ve İllel’in şahısları arasında son derece ender görülen bir görüş ayrılığı yer almaktadır. Bizim genellikle bildiğimiz görüş ayrılıkları, bu iki büyük hahamın ekolleri olan Bet Şamay ve Bet İllel arasındadır; ama 2 burada şahsen Şamay ile Hillel görüş ayrılığı içindedir. “Dorot Yeşarim” adlı kitap, “Bet Şamay” ve “Bet İllel”in iki büyük yeşiva olduğunu yazar. Bu yeşivalar “Yeşivat Bet Şamay” ve “Yeşivat Bet İllel” adını taşırdı. Yeşivaların başında da Şamay ve İllel vardı. Bu yeşivalar nasıl kurulmuştu? Haşmonay hanedanına mensup iki kardeş olan Orkanus ve Aristobulus arasındaki çekişme döneminde, Orkanus tarafından kendisine yardım etmeleri için çağrılan Romalılar, Yisrael halkının üzerinde egemenlik kurmuşlar ve Sanedrin’i lağvetmişlerdi. Neslin liderliği, yani Nasi (başkan) mevkii, “Bene Betera”nın eline teslim edildi (Pesahim 66a; bkz. I. Kitap, sayfa 36) ve onlar da liderliği, İllel Babil’den Erets-Yisrael’e çıktığı zaman ona aktardılar. Ancak bu Nasi’lik, büyük Bet Din’in başkanlığı değil, bir tür yeşiva başkanlığı niteliğindeydi. Romalıların Sanedrin’in tekrar kurulduğundan şüphelenmelerine neden olarak onların gazabını uyandırmamak için, Şamay’ın başkanlığında bir bet midraş daha kuruldu. Bu şekilde, Romalıları şüpheye sürükleyecek tek bir büyük ve merkezi bet midraş olmayacaktı (“Dorot Rişonim”, II. ve III. Bölüm. “Vayar Menuha” kitabının I. bölümünde aktarılmaktadır. Ayrıca bkz. Rav Margaliyot’un, “Yesod A-Mişna VaArihata” adlı kitabı). Zihron Yaakov Hahamlarımızdan 1882 yılında Karmel Dağı’nın mahsulleri yetiştirmek için “Tetis” adlı bir güneyinde kurulan Zihron Yaakov gemiyle buraya geldi. Ancak yeni gelen MAASELER moşavası, ilk aliya dalgası sırasında oleler toprak işinde usta değildi ve bazı kurulan moşavaların üçüncüsüydü.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Dikduk Torah?
    שעשועי הדף קדושין Daf Delights Kiddushin Rabbi Zev Reichman לכבוד שמחת הבר מצוה של אהרן דב רייכמן נ"י In Honor of the Bar Mitzvah of Ahron Dov Reichman כ"ו אייר תשע''ו מ''א לעומר יסוד שביסוד Daf Delights: Kiddushin © Zev Reichman, 2016 All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in printed reviews, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (printed, written, photocopied, visual electronic, audio, or otherwise) without the prior permission of the author. For any questions or comments, contact the author Rabbi Zev Reichman [email protected] Typesetting by Alec Goldstein [email protected] Table of Contents Author’s Introduction . 9 Gittin and then Kiddushin? . 13 1. a 2. Why Marry with a Ring? . 15 3. Is Dikduk Torah? . 17 4. Kichah Kichah mi-Sdeh Efron . 19 5. The Divine Bond . 21 6. Do We Need a Rabbi for Siddur Kiddushin? . 23 7. Marrying Multiple Wives . 25 8. Marriage with Milk and Meat . 27 9. Respect for a Gentile King . 30 10. The Need to Learn Many Areas of Halacha . 32 11. Objective or Subjective Standards for Marriage . 34 12. Rabbinic Lashes . 36 13. The Wife of an Angel . 38 14. Jewish Servitude . 40 15. Right or Left . 42 16. Naming a Child with a Letter . 44 17. Severance Pay in Jewish Law . 46 18. Did the Avos Have the Legal Status of Jews? . 48 19. A Minor’s Marriage . 50 20. A Jew Must Always Be Free . 52 21. Enabling a Jew to Lose His House in Israel .
    [Show full text]