DOCSLIB.ORG

Perek IV Daf 46 Amud A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Perek IV Daf 46 Amud A Perek IV Daf 46 Amud a HALAKHA The Gemara raises a difficulty: If the water was previously not in its current ָ ּכל שׁ ֶ ֵ ןּכ דְּהָ ווּלְ הוּנֹולָ ד דַּאֲסִ ירִ י! Flowing water, even state, all the more so should it be considered as something that came : י מָ םִ ז ֹורְ מִ י ם – Flowing water if it is privately owned, has the legal status of the person who draws it. The wording of the Gemara into being [nolad] on the Festival, and consequently it is prohibited to indicates that if the water is moving, as in the case carry it. Something that came into being or assumed its present form on . of flowing spring water, it has the legal status of Shabbat or Festivals is considered set-aside [muktze] and may not be .the person who draws it even if it does not leave its handled on Shabbat or Festivals מו place (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 397:15). Rather, we should say: The water in clouds is in constant motion and אֶ ָאּל מַּיָא בְּעָבִ ים מֵ ינַד נָיְידִ יד הָשְׁ ָּ תא The halakha is in accordance with the lenient therefore does not acquire residence there. The Gemara comments:Now דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי – אֹו ְיָינֹוס נַמִי לָא הֲ לָ כָ ה ְ ּכדִ בְ רֵ י – opinion with regard to an eiruv : Even a sleeping person establishes that you have arrived at this answer, the ocean should also not be dif- לִ י ְשׁ וּ לָךְ,מַּיָא בָּ אֹו ְיָינֹוס נַמִ י מֵ ינַד ּהַמֵי ֵל בְּעֵירוּב residence for the purpose of walking two thou- ficult for you,as the water in the ocean is also in constant motion. And it was taught in a baraita: Flowing rivers and streaming springs are like נַיְידִ יד וְתַ נְיָא: נְהָ רֹות הַ ּמֹושׁ ְכִ ין וּמַעְ יָינֹות sand cubits in each direction, since the halakha is the feet of all people, as their waters do not acquire residence in any הַ ּנֹובְעִ ין – הֲרֵ י הֵ ן ּכְרַ גְלֵ י כָ ל אָדָ םד in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Nuri. However, ownerless objects have the H halakhic status of the person who finds them and particular place. The same law also applies to clouds and seas. do not establish residence on their own, because -Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The ha אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲ ֹב בַּר אִידִ י, אָמַר רַבִּי the halakha is in accordance with the leniency of N ,lakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Nuri יְהֹושׁ ֻעַ בֶּ ן לֵוִ י: הֲ לָכָ ה ּכְרַ יבִּ יֹוחָ נָן בֶּ ן נוּרִ יד .(both opinions (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 401:1 that one who was asleep at the beginning of Shabbat may travel two thou- אֲמַ ר לֵ ּיה רַ בִּ י זֵ ירָ א לְרַ בִּ י יַעֲ ֹב בַּ ר אִ ידִ י: sand cubits in every direction. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi: בְּ ׳ ֵירוּשׁשְׁמִ יעַלָךְ, אֹו מִ ּכְלָלָ א שְׁמִ יעַ NOTES The halakha is in accordance with the opinion Did you hear this halakha explicitly from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, or לָךְ ? אֲמַ ר לֵ ּיה: בְּ ֵ ׳ירוּשׁ שׁ ְמִ יעַ לִ יד ?did you understand it by inference from some other ruling that he issued הֲלָכָ ה ּכ יְרַבִּ יֹוחָנָן בֶּ ן – of Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Nuri .If the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi said to him: I heard it explicitly from him : נ ּ ו רִ י Yoĥanan ben Nuri only when he is lenient, and ?The Gemara asks: Fromwhat other teaching could this ruling be inferred מַ אי ּכְלָלָ א? רדְּאָמַ ירַבִּ יְהֹושׁ ֻעַ בֶּ ן לֵוִ י: the halakha is in accordance with the Rabbis only where a leniency is involved, such as with regard :The Gemara explains: From that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said הֲלָכָ ה ּכְדִבְרֵ י הַ ֵּ מי ֵ ל בְּעֵ ירוּבד to ownerless utensils, the result is two contradic- The halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to tory leniencies. Some commentaries answer that an eiruv.HN perhaps we rule in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Nuri, but not for his rea- The Gemara asks:Why do I need both? Why was it necessary for Rabbi ְ ו תַ רְ ּ ֵ תי לָ ּ ָ מה לִ י ? son. Rather, since a sleeping person can establish residence when awake, he can also do so when Yehoshua ben Levi to state both the general ruling that the halakha is in asleep; a sleeping person establishes residence accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to an eiruv, and also the where he is. Ownerless objects, however, never specific ruling that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of establish residence (Rashba; Ritva). Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Nuri on this issue? The halakha is in accordance with the lenient Rabbi Zeira said: Both rulings were necessary, as had he informed us אָמַ ר רַבִּי זֵירָ א: צְרִ יכִי, דְּאִ י אַשְׁמַעִינַן הֲ לָ כָ ה ְ ּכדִ בְ רֵ י – opinion with regard to an eiruv only that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi הֲ לָכָ ה ּכְרַ יבִּ יֹוחָ נָן בֶּ ן נוּרִ י – הֲ וָ ה אָמִ ינָא The earlier and later commentaries : ּהַמֵי ֵל בְּעֵירוּב discuss this principle, limiting it in several ways: Yoĥanan ben Nuri, I would have said that the halakha is in accordance בֵּ ין לְ ָ ּוּלא וּבֵ ין לְ חוּמְרָ א, ָ א מַשׁ ְמַ ע לָ ן: They maintain that it applies only to an eiruv, but with him whether this is a leniency, i.e., that a sleeping person acquires -residence and may walk two thousand cubits in every direction, or wheth הֲלָכָ ה ּכְדִבְרֵ י הַ ֵּ מי ֵ ל בְּעֵ ירוּבד not to partitions, because the laws of partitions have a source in the Torah (Rivash). They further er it is a stringency, i.e., that ownerless utensils acquire residence and can state that this principle does not apply to cases of unresolved dilemmas. Since the Sages did not be carried only two thousand cubits from that place. Consequently, he resolve these dilemmas by applying this principle, teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion leniency cannot be presumed (Baĥ, based on the with regard to an eiruv, so that we rule in accordance with Rabbi Yoĥanan Rif). The principle also cannot be applied if the ben Nuri only when it entails a leniency. doubt arises from two different explanations of The Gemara asks: Let him state only that the halakha is in accordance וְלֵ ימָ א: “הֲ לָכָ ה ּכְדִבְרֵ י הַ ֵּ מי ֵ ל בְּעֵ ירוּב״, -the same statement (Baĥ). Some early commen taries claim that this principle refers only to dis- with the lenient opinion with regard to an eiruv. Why do I need the “הֲלָכָ ה ּכ יְרַבִּ יֹוחָ נָן בֶּ ן נוּרִ י״ לָ ָּ מה לִ י? putes among the tanna’im, since their statements statement that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi were known to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and he could decide among them, but not to the words Yoĥanan ben Nuri? of amora’im (Ra’avad; see Hagahot HaRosh; Me’iri). -The Gemara answers: This ruling was necessary as well, for had he in אִ יצְטְרִ יךְ, סָלְ ָ א דַּעֲתָךְ אָמִ ינָא: הָנֵי formed us only that the halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion ּמִילֵי – יָחִיד בִּמְ ֹום יָחִיד, וְרַבִּים with regard to an eiruv, it might have entered your mind to say that this בִּמְ ֹום רַ בִּ יםד אֲבָ ל יָחִ יד בִּמְ ֹום רַ בִּ ים – statement applies only to disputes in which a single authority disagrees -with another single authority, or several authorities disagree with sev אֵ י מָ א לָ א ד eral other authorities. But when a single authority maintains a lenient opinion against several authorities who maintain a more stringent posi- tion, you might have said that we do not rule in his favor. Hence, it was necessary to state that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Nuri although he disputes the Rabbis. ,Rava said to Abaye: Now, since the laws of eiruvin are rabbinic in origin אֲמַ ר ּלֵיה רָבָ א לְאַבַּיֵי: מִ ּכְדִ י, עֵירוּבִין what reason is there for me to differentiate between a disagreement of a דְּרַבָּנַן, מַ ה ּלִי יָחִ יד בִּמְ ֹום יָחִ יד וּמַ ה single authority with a single authority and a disagreement of a single ִ ּלי יָחִ יד בִּמְ ֹום רַבִּ ים? authority with several authorities? ׳ר קרפ דב מוד . Perek IV . 46a 238 HALAKHA -Rav Pappa said to Rava: Is there no difference with regard to rab אֲמַ ר לֵ ּיה רַ ב ַּ׳ ָּ ׳א לְרָבָ א: וּבִדְרַבָּנַן לָ א binic laws between a disagreement of a single authority with a A woman for whom it is enough that she be impure from the time she saw – : A woman שָׁנֵי לָן בֵּ ין יָחִ יד בִּמְ ֹום יָחִ יד לְיָחִ יד ָּׁהאִש ּשֶׁדַּיָיה ּשְׁעָתָה single authority, and a disagreement of a single authority with approaching menopause who passes three expected ִ בּ מְ ֹו ם רַ ִבּ י ם ? several authorities? menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding and then sees blood is regarded as ritually impure only from Didn’t we learn in a mishna that Rabbi Elazar says: Any woman the time that she examines herself and experiences וְהָתְנַן, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אֹומֵר: ּכָל אִ ּשָׁה who passed three expected menstrual cycles without experiencing menstrual flow.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Perek X Daf 110 Amud A
    NOTES Rav Naĥman said that the verse said: “It was a night of watching ָא ַמר ַרב ַנ ְח ָמן: ָא ַמר ְקָרא: ֵ״ליל Some com- to the Lord” (Exodus :), which indicates that Passover night : ֵליל ַה ְמ ׁש ּו ָּמר ּו ָבא – A night that remains guarded ׁ ִש ּמוִרים״ – ֵליל ַה ְמ ׁש ּו ָּמר ּו ָבא ִמן mentaries explain that this night remains guarded throughout is a night that remains guardedN from demons and harmful H ַה ַּמִזּ ִיקין. history, as it is set aside as the time of redemption for the Jewish people. Therefore, there is no concern for danger on spirits of all kinds. Th erefore, there is no cause for concern about this night (see Rashi tractate Rosh HaShana 12b). Alternatively, this form of danger on this particular night. the verse states with regard to this night: “The night shines Rava said a diff erent answer: Th e cup of blessing for Grace aft er ָר ָבא ָא ַמר: ּכוֹס ׁ ֶשל ְּבָר ָכה ִמ ְצ ָטֵרף like the day” (Psalms 139:12), i.e., demons have no power at -Meals on Passover night is used in the performance of an addi ְל ָטוֹבה, ְו ֵאינוֹ ִמ ְצ ָטֵרף ְלָר ָﬠה. ָר ִב ָינא .(that time (Iyyun Ya’akov Because safety is guaranteed on this night, the custom in -tional mitzva and is not simply an expression of freedom. Th ere ָא ַמר: ַאְר ָּב ָﬠה ָּכ ֵסי ַּת ִּק ּינו ַר ָּב ַנן ֶ ּדֶר ְך many communities was to leave one’s doors unlocked as an fore, it combines with the other cups for the good, i.e., to fulfi ll ֵח ּירות, ָּכל ַחד ְו ַחד expression of trust in God, as the Jews were redeemed due the mitzva to drink four cups, and it does not combine for the to their faith (ge’onim).
    [Show full text]
  • Moshe Raphael Ben Yehoshua (Morris Stadtmauer) O”H Tzvi Gershon Ben Yoel (Harvey Felsen) O”H
    6 Tishrei 5781 Eiruvin Daf 46 Sept. 24, 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 Abaye sat at his studies and discoursed on this subject the ocean? — Rabbi Yitzchak replied: Here we are dealing when Rav Safra said to him: Is it not possible that we are with a case where the clouds were formed on the eve of dealing here with a case where the rain fell near a town the festival. But is it not possible that those moved away and the townspeople relied on that rain? — This, the other and these are others? — It is a case where one can replied, cannot be entertained at all. For we learned: A recognize them by some identification mark. And if you cistern belonging to an individual person is on a par with prefer I might reply: This is a matter of doubt in respect of that individual's feet, and one belonging to a town is on a a Rabbinical law and in any such doubt a lenient ruling is par with the feet of the people of that town, and one used adopted. But why shouldn’t the water acquire its place for by the Babylonian pilgrims is on a par with the feet of any the Shabbos in the clouds? May it then be derived from man who draws the water.
    [Show full text]
  • The Theological Problems with Our Sounding of the Shofar Rav Jared Anstandig
    The Theological Problems with our Sounding of the Shofar Rav Jared Anstandig Why 30? 1. Bemidbar 29:1 ּובַחֹדֶׁשהַשְּׁבִיעִי בְּׁאֶחָד לַחֹדֶ ׁשמִ קְּׁרָ א־קֹדֶ ׁש יִהְּׁ יֶה לָכֶם כָל־מְּׁ לֶאכֶת העֲבֹדָ לֹא תַ עֲׂשּו יֹום תְּׁ רּועָהיִהְּׁ יֶה לָכֶם׃ In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall observe a sacred occasion: you shall not work at your occupations. You shall observe it as a day when the horn is sounded. 2. Rosh Hashana 34a אתקין רבי אבהו בקסרי תקיעה שלשה שברים תרועה תקיעה מה נפשך אי ילולי יליל לעביד תקיעה תרועה ותקיעה ואי גנוחי גנח לעביד תקיעה שלשה שברים ותקיעה Rabbi Abbahu instituted in Caesarea the following order of sounding of the shofar: First a tekia, a simple uninterrupted sound; next three shevarim, broken sounds; followed by a terua, a series of short blasts; and, finally, another tekia. The Gemara asks: Whichever way you look at it, this is difficult. If, according to the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu, the sound the Torah calls a terua is a whimpering, i.e., short, consecutive sounds, one should perform tekia-terua-tekia set. And if he holds that a terua is moaning, i.e., longer, broken sounds, he should sound a set as follows: Tekia, followed by three shevarim, and then another tekia. Why include both a terua and a shevarim? מספקא ליה אי גנוחי גנח אי ילולי יליל מתקיף לה רב עוירא ודלמא ילולי הוה וקא מפסיק שלשה שברים בין תרועה לתקיעה דהדר עביד תקיעה תרועה ותקיעה מתקיף לה רבינא ודלמא גנוחי הוה וקא מפסקא תרועה בין שברים לתקיעה דהדר עביד תש"ת The Gemara answers: Rabbi Abbahu was uncertain whether a terua means moaning or whimpering, and he therefore instituted that both types of sound should be included, to ensure that one fulfills his obligation.
    [Show full text]
  • Kesuvos 057.Pub
    "י א ניס תשע”ה Tuesday, March 31 2015 כתובות נ ז” OVERVIEW of the Daf Distinctive INSIGHT 1) Reducing the value of the kesubah (cont.) Defining the dispute מאי קא משמע ל ? הא קא משמע ל דפליגי תרי אמוראי אטעמא An incident related to reducing the value of a woman’s דנפשייהו ולא פליגי תרי אמוראי אליבא דחד אמורא kesubah is presented. R’ Dimi presents two statements which appear contra- n general, when an argument in the Gemara can be ex- dictory, one from R’ Yochanan and one from R’ Yehoshua I plained in one of two ways, Rav Pappa notes that there is a ben Levi, related to reducing the value of the kesubah. preference to explain it in a manner which avoids saying that R’ Avahu quotes R’ Yochanan as claiming that there is one of the opinions is outright mistaken. In this case, the no dispute between R’ Yochanan and R’ Yehoshua ben Mishnah discusses a case where a woman forgoes the full Levi. amount of her kesubah, but she does so only verbally, and not Ravin reports a second version of this discussion. in writing. At what point can she retract her willingness to R’ Pappa comments that were it not for R’ Avahu’s release the husband from paying the entire kesubah, if at all? statement he would assume that there is a dispute between The Baraisa (56b) featured three opinions. Rabbi Meir stated R’ Yochanan and R’ Yehoshua ben Levi rather than con- that no reductions are allowed at all. Rabbi Yose allowed the clude that there is a dispute between R’ Dimi and Ravin.
    [Show full text]
  • Moshe Raphael Ben Yehoshua (Morris Stadtmauer) O”H Tzvi Gershon Ben Yoel (Harvey Felsen) O”H
    27 Menachem Av 5780 Eiruvin Daf 8 August 17, 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 The dispute of Rav and Rav Yehudah owner may decide to build houses along one side (making the wall of the opening adjoin the wall of the storage area), and The Gemora explains what we thought the dispute was when the mavoi would thus be one that terminated at the sides of we thought that Rav and Rav Yehudah dispute whether or not a backyard [in which the movement of objects on the the residents of the mavoi – alleyway and the residents of the Shabbos] is forbidden. courtyard made an eruv. In the case where they didn’t make an eruv, their dispute is whether a lechi – pole which is visible The Gemora proves that we distinguish between privately outside but not inside is a valid lechi. [Since the courtyard is and publicly owned because of the concern about an wider than the mavoi, its walls along the entranceway are individual changing construction plans from a seeming effectively a lechi which they can see, but which the mavoi contradiction about the status of a dump. For Ravin bar Rav residents cannot. We thought that Rav considers such a lechi Adda quotes Rabbi Yitzchak who told a story of a mavoi which valid, and only prohibited the mavoi residents from carrying had one wall formed by the seawall and one formed by a because their dwelling is totally open to the street via the dump.
    [Show full text]
  • Daf Ditty Pesachim 113: Kaldiyyim, Kalda'ei
    Daf Ditty Pesachim 113: kaldiyyim, kalda'ei, The countries around Chaldea The fame of the Chaldeans was still solid at the time of Cicero (106–43 BC), who in one of his speeches mentions "Chaldean astrologers", and speaks of them more than once in his De divinatione. Other classical Latin writers who speak of them as distinguished for their knowledge of astronomy and astrology are Pliny, Valerius Maximus, Aulus Gellius, Cato, Lucretius, Juvenal. Horace in his Carpe diem ode speaks of the "Babylonian calculations" (Babylonii numeri), the horoscopes of astrologers consulted regarding the future. In the late antiquity, a variant of Aramaic language that was used in some books of the Bible was misnamed as Chaldean by Jerome of Stridon. That usage continued down the centuries, and it was still customary during the nineteenth century, until the misnomer was corrected by the scholars. 1 Rabbi Yoḥanan further said: The Holy One, blessed be He, proclaims about the goodness of three kinds of people every day, as exceptional and noteworthy individuals: About a bachelor who lives in a city and does not sin with women; about a poor person who returns a lost object to its owners despite his poverty; and about a wealthy person who tithes his produce in private, without publicizing his behavior. The Gemara reports: Rav Safra was a bachelor living in a city. 2 When the tanna taught this baraita before Rava and Rav Safra, Rav Safra’s face lit up with joy, as he was listed among those praised by God. Rava said to him: This does not refer to someone like the Master.
    [Show full text]
  • Moshe Raphael Ben Yehoshua (Morris Stadtmauer) O”H Tzvi Gershon Ben Yoel (Harvey Felsen) O”H
    21 Adar 5780 Shabbos Daf 11 March 17, 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 And Rava bar Mechasya also said in the name of Rav Chama bar Rav Mesharshiya said: What verse teaches this? The heaven for Gurya in the name of Rav: Every city whose roofs are higher than its height, and the earth for depth, and the minds of kings are synagogue will ultimately be destroyed, as it is written: To raise up unsearchable. the house of our God, and to repair its ruins. And Rava bar Mechasya also said in the name of Rav Chama bar The Gemora notes that this refers only to houses, but as for forts Gurya in the name of Rav: Fasting is as potent against a dream as and towers, we have no objection. fire is against (flax) tow. Rav Ashi said: I accomplished that the town of Masa Mechasya was Rav Chisda said: Providing it (the fast) is on that very day (of the not destroyed (by not allowing the houses to be built higher than dream). the synagogues). Rav Yosef added: And even on Shabbos (for although it is forbidden The Gemora asks: But it was destroyed!? to fast on Shabbos, here it is permitted, in order to relieve his anxiety).
    [Show full text]
  • Source Sheet
    Real Messiahs, False Messiahs, and Half-Messiahs: Apocalypticism and Messianism in Early Judaism Dr. Malka Z. Simkovich SVAJ Intellectual History Series April 29, 2018 Timeline 587-586 BCE Babylonians destroy the Jerusalem Temple; Babylonian Exile complete 539-538 Persia destroys the Babylonian Empire; allows Judeans to return 515 Building of the Second Temple is complete 334-333 Persian Period ends; Alexander the Great defeats Persia and the Hellenist Period begins 200 Judea has been mainly controlled by Ptolemies (Egyptian Greeks); it now comes under the control of Seleucids (Syrian Greeks) 175-164 Hasmonean Rebellion 103–76 Alexander Jannaeus rules Judea 99–93 Civil war in Judea between rebels against Alexander Jannaeus and his supporters; as many as 50,000 people are killed; Jannaeus finally suppresses this rebellion and crucifies 800 Pharisees (Josephus) 76–67 Salome Alexandra reigns as Queen of Judea 63 Hasmonean period ends; Judea becomes a client kingdom of Rome c.37–4 Herod reigns Judea c. 20 Philo of Alexandria is born 6 CE Judea becomes a province of Rome c. 32 Jesus is crucified by the Romans 38–41 Riots against the Jews in Alexandria, supported by Flaccus, the governor, and largely ignored by Gaius Caligula, the emperor c. 40 Philo of Alexandria writes Embassy to Gaius 66–73 The Jews rebel against Rome; the Jerusalem Temple is destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE; the rebellion is fully quelled three years later 115–118 Jewish rebellions against Roman rule crop up throughout the empire, leaving Jewish communities, particularly those in the vicinity of Alexandria, devastated 132–135 The Bar Kokhba revolt, which results in the Jews’ expulsion from Jerusalem; Rabbinic community moves to Yavneh and the Galilee c.
    [Show full text]
  • Daf Yomi Summary August 10Th 2020!!
    ?"? ? 152 PAGES UNTIL OUR NEXT SIYUM DAF YOMI SUMMARY AUGUST 10TH 2020!! ?? ? ?? ?? ?? If you want to contribute in any way or have any feedback, ? ??? - ?? ????? please email [email protected] IT'S ALL OUT OF ORDER..... not written down but memorized. THANKS TO RUSSEL LEVY M ay we continue to learn more ????? ? and Orders (????? ), and understand both the patterns within and order chosen to further In compiling the ????? ?, Rebbi, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi generally understand the content! kept to a set of systematized rules in the composition of individual ????? ?, the order of ????? ? inside a ???? ?, and the organization of the ????? ? inside the various ????? . A surprise lies at the PINAT HALACHA beginning of our 7th chapter, with a ??? ? that would serve as an THANKS TO RAV DANI SCHREIBER excellent introduction to our ???? ?. There are 39 categories of Question: I accidentally left the window open overnight on Friday ?????: one who plants, plows, harvests... hits with the hammer, night, and I ended up with a bunch of flies flitting around my and removes item from one domain to another. kitchen while I was preparing Shabbos lunch! I really wanted to swat them away, but I wasn?t sure if I could. Is there any heter? Two questions jump out of the page. Even though most ?????? are only introduced after the 7th chapter, why did Rebbi decide to Answer: One of the prohibited ?????? of ??? is shochait have six chapters that discuss only a subset of ????? of three (slaughtering), which includes taking the life of any animal, or even ??????? Additionally, why were the ????? of hotza?ah split and making a living creature bleed.
    [Show full text]
  • Nature Et Obligations Du Mariage Selon La Doctrine Juive Traditionnelle
    6/6 R3iX SOPHIE RÉGNIÈRE UNE UNION PROCLAMÉE AU CIEL : NATURE ET OBLIGATIONS DU MARIAGE SELON LA DOCTRINE JUIVE TRADITIONNELLE Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des études supérieures de Γ Université Laval pour Γ obtention du grade de maître ès arts (M,A.) FACULTÉ DE THÉOLOGIE ET DE SCIENCES RELIGIEUSES UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL OCTOBRE 2000 © Sophie Régnière, 2000 RÉSUMÉ Cette recherche traite de l’étude de la nature et des obligations du mariage juif à partir d ’un point de doctrine traditionnelle du Talmud de Babylone voulant que D’ieu ait uni l’homme et la femme quarante jours avant leur stade embryonnaire. S’ensuit une séparation nécessaire de ces âmes dans leur vie terrestre avant de renouer contact par le mariage, appelé kiddushin, impliquant une union par et avec D’ieu. Cette sanctification, le mariage, répond à deux buts précis : la compagnie et la procréation. Une attention particulière sera portée au récit du tout premier mariage de la Création : celui de Adam et de Hava. Il est impossible de passer sous silence le récit de la création de la femme, puisque l’existence même des kiddushin en fut conditionnée. Nous situerons la place et l’influence que la femme peut avoir au sein du mariage, ainsi que les qualités morales que doit rechercher un homme chez une femme. AVANT-PROPOS Un travail d ’une telle envergure ne peut être réalisé sans s’assurer la collaboration et le soutien de nombreuses personnes. Je souhaite donc leur exprimer mes plus sincères remerciements. Au Grand Rabbin David Sabbah et Monsieur Jean-Claude Filteau, directeur et co- directeur de mémoire, pour leur assistance, leur encadrement, leurs encouragements constants.
    [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]
  • Daf Ditty Pesachim 112
    Daf Ditty Pesachim 112: • Ownership: Is there a concept of “private property,” or does all property ultimately belong to God and/or the community? What can acquire the status of “property”? • The Moral Value of Wealth and Poverty: Is being wealthy a sign of divine favor? Is poverty ultimately a “better” state in which to live? • The Acquisition of Wealth: Are there better or worse ways to acquire wealth? Can one make money off the labor of others? How is the biblical prohibition against charging interest treated, and what are its ramifications? • Spending: What are good and bad ways of disposing of wealth? Do the poor have rights to the wealth of others? 1 The Sages taught: A person should not drink water from rivers or from ponds at night. And if he drank, his blood is upon his own head due to the danger. The Gemara explains: What is this danger? The danger of blindness. The Gemara asks: And if he is thirsty, what is his remedy? If there is another person with him, he should say to him: So-and-so, son of so-and- so, I thirst for water. And if there is no one else with him, he should say to himself: So-and-so, my mother said to me to beware of shavrirei, the demon of blindness. He should continue to say the following incantation, in the first part of which the demon’s name gradually disappears: Shavrirei berirei rirei yiri ri; I thirst for water in white earthenware cups. This is an incantation against those demons.
    [Show full text]