Daf Yomi Summary Rosh Hashana 5781 ?? - ?? ??????? EDITIO N: 33
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
?''? ? daf yomi summary Rosh Hashana 5781 ?? - ?? ??????? EDITIO N: 33 without an eruv? THE PO WER O F SHABBAT Because of this, all of Klal Yisrael have to suffer the potential consequences of being judged without the mercy-arousing THANKS TO RABBI DO VID HO RWITZ characteristics of the Shofar? The Ben Ish Chai explains that deep down, we do not need the The Gemara in Eruvin 38 discusses how a person would make an Shofar to come to our defense this year, for the Shabbat is a far Eruv Techumin in a situation where Yom Tov falls on Friday, followed more powerful advocate for Klal Yisrael! by Shabbat. The Sages understood the awesome power of Shabbat. Honor her There is a dispute between the Tanaim whether an eruv that is and she will protect us! So although the coming year of 5781 will be established on Thursday evening for the sake of Yom Tov would also ushered in without the call of the Shofar, we call upon the Shabbat be effective for Shabbat if the Eruv (bread) was consumed before Queen herself to see our suffering and to go before Hashem?s mighty Shabbat entered. throne and advocate on our behalf that He should remove the plague that has ravaged so much of Klal Yisrael, and in its stead give One opinion states that since Yom Tov and Shabbat are two us a sweet new year of health, happiness and true spiritual distinct days, the bread would need to be in place over the course of fulfillment! both days. Another opinion suggests that we view the two days as if it were one long 48 hour day and therefore an eruv that was valid at the time when Yom Tov entered on Thursday evening would also THURSDAY 10 SEPTEMBER ?? ??????? serve as the eruv for Shabbat, even if the bread had been consumed THANKS TO HADRAN by the time Friday evening came. On Daf 32, Rav Nahman asserts that "??????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? - This debate about whether two days of Yom Tov are viewed as two (one cannot assume that an agent fulfills his agency) for Torah distinct days or one long day is discussed with regard to the second mitzvot." Rav Sheshet disagrees, contending that in fact one can day of Yom Tov in galut for those living in chutz la?aretz, and with assume that the agent fulfills their agency, for both Torah and regard to the nature of the two days of Rosh HaShana. rabbinic law. Nowadays, our months are fixed by a set calendar rather than the As proof, Rav Sheshet brings the teaching that you can eat from testimony of witnesses, and it is clear to the Sages that the first day crops immediately after the Omer sacrifice is offered by the Beit Din, of Yom Tov and Rosh HaShana is the day intended from the Torah?s even if you are not physically present for the offering. In other words, perspective, while the second day is the one added by rabbinic you can eat from the crops - because you can assume that the agent legislature. bringing the sacrifice fulfilled his agency. The Gemara in Rosh HaSshana says that although the Torah Rav Nachman counters that this is true only in the case of a court: requires us to blow the Shofar even when Rosh HaShana falls on one can assume that a court will not be lazy about offering the Omer Shabbat, our Sages decreed not to blow the Shofar, for it may lead in a timely way, but an ordinary agent might be, and therefore to an inadvertent desecration of Shabbat. This decree is perplexing if cannot be relied upon. Rav Sheshet brings another proof: a woman not astounding. after childbirth is required to bring a sacrifice. She puts money in the The Sages deny us the ability to fulfill the biblical mitzvah of collection box (to pay for the sacrifice), goes to the mikve, and can blowing Shofar on this most important of all days, and they leave us then eat sacrificial food at nightfall. to make do with the rabbinic mitzvah of Shofar on the second day! Again, the woman is assuming that the agent (the Kohen) fulfilled Why would the Sages deny us the ability to arouse Hashem?s mercy his agency. But Rav Nahman counters that the assumption of loyal on the one and only true day of Rosh HaShana because of a concern agency can be assumed only because the Kohen would definitely that some fool would come to carry the Shofar in the streets of a city offer the sacrifice on behalf of the woman; we cannot assume that ? ? S ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 3 A ? ? 1 3 0 1 6 ? 0 3 ? 1 4 6 ? 5 6 7 2 7 ? ? 1 5 ? 1 2 ? 4 5 2 3 6 5 6 ? ? 0 0 4 ? 3 ? ? ? ? 1 5 ? ? ? ? ? ? 7 0 ? ? 2 ? ? ? ? ? 2 2 ? ? 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ? ? ? 1 2 2 2 2 ? 2 2 ? 2 2 H ? ? ? 2 2 ? ? 2 2 ? ? 2 2 2 ? ? ? ? ? 2 2 ? ? ? 2 2 2 ? 2 ? ? ? 2 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 2 ? ? 2 ? ? 0 ? ? ? ? 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 ? ? ? 0 0 0 ? 2 2 0 0 0 ? 0 0 S ? 0 0 0 0 8 ? ? ? ? ? 0 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? 0 0 0 ? ? 0 0 ? 0 0 0 ? ? 0 ? ? ? ? 0 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0 ? 0 ? ? 2 ? ? ? 2 2 2 2 2 ? 2 2 2 2 2 ? ? ? ? ? 0 0 2 2 2 ? ? 2 2 2 2 ? ? 2 2 2 ? ? ? A ? ? 2 2 ? 2 2 2 ? ? ? 2 2 ? ? 2 2 2 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? 2 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 2 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 2 2 ? ? ? ? ? ) ? 8 ? ) r ? 3 1 ? 3 4 9 ? ? ? 1 4 5 9 6 ) ? H 6 0 1 4 0 3 0 1 7 ? ) ? ? ? ? ) ) ) 7 0 ) 4 5 3 ? 3 2 ? ) ) 8 9 1 ) ? 4 ) ) ) ) ) ? 2 3 ? ? ) ) 7 ) 5 ) ) 1 a 1 6 ) 2 3 ) ) 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 ) 5 ? 9 8 1 2 1 ? 2 2 1 1 ) ) 1 2 ) 7 ) 1 9 2 2 2 9 1 2 ? 1 ) ) 9 9 3 5 8 3 4 0 ? ) r r r y y 1 6 v 0 ? 0 1 4 5 3 3 6 l l ) 3 6 ) M p p r r 2 1 1 8 y 7 t t 2 8 7 ) v v v 1 n r r c c c 1 n 8 0 g g 3 M 2 5 4 3 ) 0 2 ( a a a p p n 8 b b a a 1 ( 2 ( ) ( n n 9 o 3 n n n 3 1 1 6 ( 1 3 ( 8 ( 3 u u ( ( c c 5 a a e e 1 6 a 2 2 ( 1 8 1 e e e o o o a ( 8 ( 4 U u ( ( p p ( 1 ( ( ( u u J J 5 ( 1 1 a e e 1 e e ( ( 1 ( ( 4 J a a a ( ( J u u ( ( 2 S S J 7 ( ( N 1 M M M ( M M 1 J J J J J Y O O A A ( F F S S 7 D D D A A 1 N N N M M ( M 3 I ( 1 ( 1 ( ( ( S ?''? ? ??????? ???? ?????? ???? ? ???? ??? ?????? ? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??? ? ?????? ? ???? 2 | DAF YOMI SUMMARY an ordinary agent would be similarly diligent. Rav Sheshet then brings Rambam?s qualification that it is only for a dvar mitzvah or a a case in which a field owner permits someone to gather figs from his particularly pressing / unusual need that may come up during this field. The Gemara explains that the gatherer must treat the figs as period. demai (literally dubious, refers to produce belonging to someone who SHABBAT 12 SEPTEMBER cannot be trusted to have tithed correctly). ?? ??????? THANKS RAV JO NNY SO LO MO N - The Gemara qualifies that the figs should be considered demai only HTTPS://RABBIJO HNNYSO LO MO N.CO M/ if the field owner is an am ha?aretz (one who is not careful or knowledgeable about Torah law). The Gemara brings the opinion of The M ishna in today?s Daf (Eruvin 3:3, 34b) discusses the question Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: if the field owner is a haver (literally, a ?friend? of whether we may rely on an eruv (Chatzeirot) which cannot be but in Talmudic parlance, a Torah Jew), one may assume that the accessed in the Bein HaShmashot period of Erev Shabbat because, for owner tithed! example, the eruv is locked in a box or building that cannot be opened. Rabbi Yehuda?s opinion contradicts the understanding of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel (Rabbi Yehuda?s father), who claims that actually As Rabbi Gil Student explains in his excellent essay on this topic (see if the owner is a haver, the gatherer must tithe the figs, because a https://www.torahmusings.com/2020/01/ haver would never tithe produce that is not adjacent to his own field private-eruvin-and-emergency-keys/), because - generally speaking - (????? ?? ??? ). Rabbi Yehuda stands by his opinion: a haver would rabbinic prohibitions do not apply in the Bein HaShmashot period, the prefer to tithe produce that is not adjacent to his own field over rule of thumb for such cases is that "if you cannot access the Eruv.. giving un-tithed food to an am ha?aretz. without violating a biblical prohibition, [then] you cannot carry within [the area which] that eruv [is intended for]? [Thus], if the [eruv] The common thread in the discussions on Daf 32 seems to reflect a is? inside a [locked] wooden box, then you can carry because certain diligence, a mindfulness and rigor that one does not impose breaking the box is only rabbinically prohibited.