DOCSLIB.ORG

T']L]N 1¥.I Lip 'Lln

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
T']L]N 1¥.I Lip 'Lln KE[TZAD MEVARCH [N CHAPTER SIX BERACHOS 45a` tt¥P]J{ n]np!B| - who is being choked by a piece of meat, and '"5+ T!! =1. 19 XEi i]]! lDtF - Rava bar Raw Chanan said to is drinking water to dislodge the meat.[L] Ahaye, E|pll =|? b! l|P¥T - and some say he said it to Rav Yosef: .i<p ]tp??a - What is the halachah? Which blessing The Gemara cites the final clause of the Mishnah: should be recited on water, sfach¢faoj[2] or Bo7ie®. Nefushos?[3] |!ilpp] mat niuJ9! N|la lrailt tiBiv ]?i - R' TARFON sAys: one i[.7 lb¥ - He answered him: lE| A:P¥ lJ{ra lTB Pta - Go out who drinks water recites THE O^RE Wuro CREATES JVUMERoUS and see how the people €onduet themselves. I.e. it has become IIVING THINGS AND THEIR DEFICIENCIES. theacceptedpracticetoreciteshefaofaoJbeforedrinking,andBorej The Gemara inquires: Nofasho8 afhermards.un T']l]n 1¥.I lip 'lln WE SIIALL RETURN T0 YOU, KEITZAD MEVARCHIN B„tyr' rlllBB SHELOSHAH SHE'ACHLu CHAPTER SEVEN B[RACHOS 45d r qu 'T',,„(b D,P,D a:,,:"'"].]; Cfiapter Seve" DPD a ,[J I"P)] (J I :t,D b",' :I,„ ',a;:i3?;]i8',['3P: Misfin¢fr The Mishnah discusses the zjmztn blessing which precedes Bjncas ELMdeoro when three or more 1Dt DB19 blbtoF3 people eat bread together. p,I(, ,I., I"p)I(, nmF? lb?#V n¥tv -Three people who ate bread together tra!? Tl]7!B -are required tojoin in z!m«m. [1] bg# ;7.:7,„!]D::xp,#: 7i{pi -If one ate bread of dema!,t2] inp]lJ? n+pap Tiu}x| itry¥t?I -of mouser rz.8ho7i whose fereemoA had 'S:`:I,"b,`"p6!:":: been taken,[3] ]T?ap vjipF? l]ty lw¥a - or of znwzaser 8haj or €ousecrated produce that were redeemed;(4] p" 'fo r6 ,„,, r'bJ ,P,a B„"",I C A?I? b]#ty VjpgB? - or if the waiter ate an olive's volume of bread;[5] lJiaaB! - or a Cuthean ate together iD! Or737ti ?i6*5 with them;[6] 1l+¥ T7!p!p -in all these cases theyjoin inzjmzt» on account of him.[" bE¥ b!S -However, if •[„",I @''7 .'P one ate fez}ez, [8] 1m?llJ? n!p] x'b¥ Tlujx| lty¥p] -mouser rz.8hom whose fe"mch hadnot been taken, ltppxpl =- lTga N.brty ujtpH! .!W - or mouser shenf or consecrated produce that were not redeemed;[g] ninB baSty u}xp¥D| I"3,i rii,lan A?I?a -or if the waiter ate less than an olive's volume of bread; l|?!]T -or a gentile ate with them; Tl# P'E; ,1„7 app| (6) ' 3„, .,„PP 1„„',1' 17+¥ T]JxpIP -in all these cases they do notjoin in z!mpem on account of him.[1°] t]lapp] I).i?¥± z]]ty! -If women, slaves or minors ate bread, TH.+¥ |l!xp!xp |1# - we do not join in z!7mzire on account of them.[]L] nz?9 ly ;':?:.!7pb,D;::[::i; Tl]P!P -What is the minimum amount of bread that one must eat in order to be obligated to join in zz.mz4n?[]2] co b}B }jb 6D.Pb b, 3,I )„P, "",,I, NOTES :,D.:%B¥"D::; iDal }froFt }pB 1. I.e. in a collective blessing that is recited in plural form ( "Le£ %8 bzess disputethroughouttheTannaicperiod(seeKjddwsfoj7i75b).Intheenrl p:':J::gB::" [He] of Whose we have eahen," "Blessed is [He] Of Whose we hove eaten Amoraic period, it was resolved that they were not to be considered Jew etc. ") as an introduction to Bzroas Ha[Maeon (Rasfaj,. see Chapter Intro- (seeCfa"ZJjn6a).OurMishnahpredatesthatfinalresolutionandreflect =:=:= duction). See jidebez.nz6 yo7rofa and Rosfa for a disoussion of what is con- the Tannaic opinion that the Cutheans are considered Jews (Tog. fi B"Pn i,`5j sidered"eatingtogether";seealsoMishnah50aandOnacfaChafm193:2-4. YeJ"dch Hechasid, Tog. HaRosh). tD 75# n.1 iair` 2. Demaj is produce that was purchased from an ignorant person (om 7.[I.e.hecompletesthethree-personquorumandenableBustoreciteth faoarefz) who might not have separated all of the required tithes. It is zjmztr} blessing.] ;:g?,,?g:,:,bT,;;i Rabbinically prohibited to eat de77rof without separating those tithes The Gemara (47a) will explain that it was necessary for the Mighnfl i ,Blrt :„„', i," `t.3 i7jRP rTtp7v which are in doubt. See above, 40b. toteachthatalthoughonewhoeatsdema!j,etc.,appearstohave¢(}mmil P7r,`7 '`t,pl '`# 3. [Mcioser rishon is the "first tithe." When one completes the process- ted a transgression, the zjmz4n blessing that is subsequently recited i I,D, .#£,Btt i,BB not considered a blessing brought about by a transgression (RaeA!`,` fl€ ' ,D q7 'xp'| ,P'b5 ing of food grown in Eretz Yisrael, the requirement to separate ferz4mofa ) r)37 `t @1 '01D and mciaser (i.e. tithes) devolves upon it (see Mcasras 1:5-8). Prior to the note 10). [The Gemara (ibid. a,b) will also explain what tranBgrcrsio :'„B' separation of Je"m¢h, the food is fat;eJ and may not be eaten by anyone, may have been committed by one who ate mcaser righon whose f¢mumu* L#= including a Kohen. The owner must first separate approximately two has been taken or maeser sfaenE. or hefadesfa that were redeemed. Th Gemara also explains the novelty of the ruling that the waiter is eligibl '9pn 1" rmn percent (see Terz4mos 4:3) of the produce as terz4mafa, and present it to to complete the quorum.] I r! 1513,rs the Kohen. (This fermmafa is sometimes referred to as Jerz4moh gedozah, JP: ap ilcaingi i.e. £fa€ greaifer ferzcmch, to differentiate between it and ferztmas maaser, 8. FoueJ and the other items listed here are prohibited for consumptio [1 ,A Dwh] whichisseparatedbytheLevi;seebelow.)Afterseparatingtera4mafe,the I:¥iftBfi`9(a (see note 3). ownersetsasidetenpercentoftheremainingproduceasmaaserrishon, 9. [And he ate the maaser she72a. outside of Jerusalem.I which he presents to the Levi. He then separates ten percent of the p Jb rml 10. One who ate prohibited food is ineligivle to join in zzmz{&, Fuuthrm rem¢j7Dzng produce as 7"ouser sfae]tj (the second tithe), which remains in more, he does not even recite Bjroas HaMaeon on his own, for one doe his possession to consume but is sanctified and must be taken to 9,afpg,I:Ej:: not recite a blessing for the consumption of prohibited foods (f}¢mben SHELOSHAH SHE'ACHLu CHAPTER SEVEN BERACHOS 45a4 A?I? 1¥ - At least an olive's volume. I»iJ{ r7i]n? l?i - R' Yehudch says: n¥la? 1¥ - At least an egg's volume.[]3J Gem¢rn The Gemara seeke the source of the Mishnah's ted to raise his voice above that of the reader?[18] it?#!¥ opening ruling that three people who ate bread ''btp] ]]!¥! t]1FT.b#T! lai? nph„ - For it is stated: Ifoses tuoHJd together are required to join in zfmzi73 : 8pede and Gel wouRE respond to him with a voiee.r" T`ap •blp +!B J{!P - From where is this matter derived?[14] "blp?„ lptb llra?A - Now, it was not necessary for [the Torah] The Gemara presents two answers: to state "£th a t7oiee. [2°] ,,bip?,, luib "?a ,lp] -What, then, •pt5 ]| iDS -RavAssisaid: nxppll]] l" 'Ht`b|a,, It|P luS| does [the Torah] mean to teach by saying zo€th a zJo).ce? ibip? "lip! i»V - For Scripture states: I)oczare (plural) the grcaf- rtph b¥ - It teaches that God responded with the voice of ne88 Of Ha8han with me cnd, lct u8 exalt His Neyme together.TTbA Moses, i.e. with a voice equal to that of Moses.[21] IPF ]n?E l?i - R' Abahu said: J<?Bn - It is derived from The Gemara cites support for this ruling from a Baraisa: here: "]]lH.btt} b|-I ]]F ri|P# 'n t]ty lB,, -Wfoen JcoJl owf the ']B lra! Jt!?B - It was simflarly taught in a Baralsa: Tl# Name of IIa8hem, aserthe (rhardi) greaine88 to our Clod,USA JtilpB Tb inli ibip B1?}B? 7Ngi E]aibp] - TIIE TRANSIATOR Is NOT PERIMu"D To RAISE HIS VOICE ABOVE that of TRE READER. The Gemara derives another law from the verse Decha7ie the J<iipB i#? 1blp Bia}B? t]BiopE i¥?# .1{ EliF] - AND IF IT Is NOT greatness of Hashem u)ith rue .. poSSIBm FOR Tlm ThANSIATOR To RAlsE ms volcE To TRE LEVEL J<?# la T!q ]1. 1©¥ - Rev Chanan bar Abba said: ,i!iy! T?!» oFthe voice of THE READER,[22] J<iTp?] ibip ttilpB l#n? -THE tra¥ - From where is it derived, concerning one who answers READER SHOUID REDUCH HIS VolcE to the level of the voice of the "Amen" to ablessing, |t]PB |P lnll tbip Bla?I t€.bp -thathe translator AI`m READ. should not raise his voice above that of the one who recited theblessing? ''`iT! map n"l!] "t 'nE ]bTa„ lD#!P -Forit The Gemara discusses whether there is any possibility of two is grfuhedr. Declare the greatne88 of Ha8hem with rue and let u8 people reciting the zzmzt7} blessing: exalt lids Narr.e together.un lt?J]* - It was stated: nDS? lJ?¥V E]?!P - The subject of A related ruling is cited: two people who ate bread together T!TII I?t] ]t .al+? - is tT9 T? TIPptp 1?-I lt?# - R' Shimon ben Pazzi said: T1#P 1?!p a matter of dispute between Rav and R' Yochanan. IB¥ Ilo J{lipB TP lbi' 1blp a.?!B+ lJttyl.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]