| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1442.1 | The Weekly Daf #47 | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Dec 25 1994 11:48 | 93 |
| The Weekly Daf #47
Bava Basra 72-78
Week of 25 Teves-2 Shvat 5755 / 28 Dec. 1994-3 Jan. 1995
By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions
===========================================================================
This issue is dedicated in the memory of
Rebitzin Esther Golda Nusbaum O.B.M. on the Shloshim
===========================================================================
A Study in Skepticism
A student heard Rabbi Yochanan's sermon about the gates which G-d would
install at the entrance to Jerusalem in the hereafter. A gateway of 10 by
20 cubits would be cut out of precious jewels measuring 30 by 30 cubits.
The skeptical student mockingly remarked that if we are unable to locate
jewels even the size of a small bird's egg how can we believe that such
tremendous jewels will ever exist? On a subsequent sea journey this
unbelieving student saw heavenly angels sawing away at jewels of 30 by 30
to make an opening of 10 by 20. When he asked them what this work was
intended for, they replied that they were preparing the future gates of
Jerusalem. Upon his return to Rabbi Yochanan this now believing student
reported that he had actually seen what his master had described. Rabbi
Yochanan's response was that if he believed what he had heard only because
he saw it with his own eyes he was guilty of mocking the words of the Sages
and the outraged Sage's disapproving gaze turned the skeptic into a pile of
bones.
Tosefos in Masechta Chulin 57b raises the question as to why the severe
judgment visited upon this skeptic did not apply to Rabbi Shimon ben
Chalafta who conducted a scientific experiment to test King Solomon's
description of the ants as having no ruler. His resolution is that while
Rabbi Yochanan's student actually questioned the truth of his master's
teaching there was no question in the mind of Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta of
the truth of King Solomon's words. He simply wanted to determine whether
the wisest of men knew this as a result of his own scientific exploration
or of divine revelation.
Bava Basra 75a
===========================================================================
The Prophetic Fattened Geese
"Once upon a time," recounted the Sage Rabbah bar Bar Chanoh in one of his
famous allegories, "I was walking in the desert and I saw geese so heavy
with fat that their feathers were falling from them followed by a stream of
fat. When I asked them if I would be privileged to a portion of the
prosperity they symbolized in the World to Come one of them raised its wing
and the other exposed its flank as if to communicate the reward in store
for me. When I reported this incident to Rabbi Elazar he commented that
Israel would have to give an account for the suffering of these geese."
Rashi explains that our sins delay the arrival of Mashiach and cause pain
for these overweight geese who await the opportunity to reward us in the
hereafter.
Ritva sees this as an allegorical reference to the Babylonian and
Yishmaelite nations whose survivors will return to G-d in the days of
Mashiach -- a return delayed by our own shortcomings which prolong our
exile.
Bava Basra 73b
===========================================================================
SUBSCRIBE!
to one of the many weekly "lists" published by Ohr Somayach Institutions:
weekly - Summary of the weekly Torah portion.
dafyomi - Rav Mendel Weinbach's insights into the Daf Yomi.
ask - The Rabbi answers YOUR questions on Judaism.
parasha-qa - Challenging questions on the weekly Torah portion.
os-special - All the SPECIAL publications produced by Ohr Somayach.
os-alum - "Yachad" - the Ohr Somayach Electronic Alumni Newsletter.
judaismo - Spanish-Language newsletter on the Parsha & Judaism.
There is NEVER a charge for any of the above lists (though your local
information provider, such as AOL, Prodigy or CompuServe, might charge a
nominal fee). To subscribe to any of these lists, send the message:
subscribe {listname} {your full name}
to: [email protected]
===========================================================================
Dedication opportunities are available for The Weekly Daf
Please contact us for details.
===========================================================================
Jewish L EEEEEEEE Prepared by Ohr Somayach Institutions
J L E 22 Shimon Hatzadik Street, POB 18103
J L Exchange Jerusalem 91180, Israel
J J L E Tel: 02-810315 Fax: 02-812890
JJJJ Learning EEEEEEEE Internet: [email protected]
===========================================================================
(C) 1994 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.
This publication may be distributed to another person intact without prior
permission. We also encourage you to include this material in other
publications, such as synagogue newsletters. However, we ask that you
contact us beforehand for permission, and then send us a sample of an
issue.
|
| 1442.2 | Bava Basra 79-85 | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Jan 08 1995 10:54 | 99 |
|
The Weekly Daf - #48
Bava Basra 79-85
Week of 3-9 Shevat 5755 / 4-10 January 1995
By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions
===========================================================================
This issue is dedicated in honor of
Judy & Peter Sheldon Sandra & Stephen Seltzer
of Westcliff, England and of Roslyn Heights, New York
on the engagement of their children
Ella Sheldon and Lev Seltzer
===========================================================================
A Question of Quality
The Case:
Reuven contracts to sell Shimon good quality wheat. When it arrives,
Shimon discovers that he has received poor quality wheat.
The Scenarios:
1) Shimon wants to back out of the deal and Reuven wants to hold him to
it.
2) Reuven learns that the price of wheat has suddenly shot up and he
wishes to back out of the deal so that he can sell at a higher price,
but Shimon insists on the sale being final.
The Rule:
Shimon may back out because he has been deceived. Reuven cannot back
out because he is the victim of market circumstances, not deception.
Should the reverse have taken place -- Reuven contracts to sell poor
quality wheat and Shimon receives good quality -- then the reverse will
be the rule: Reuven can back out because he is the victim of deception
but Shimon cannot back out even if a sudden drop in the price of wheat
makes it worthwhile for him to do so.
The Problem:
The rule is that if Reuven contracts to sell red wheat to Shimon and it
turns out to be white wheat either of them has the right to back out and
demand his money back. Why is backing out only a unilateral privilege
when quality is the issue and bilateral when it comes to two kinds of
wheat?
The Resolution:
In regard to quality it is assumed that everyone prefers good quality to
poor. When Shimon ordered a good quality and received a poor one he is
considered as having been deceived and can nullify the deal. Reuven, on
the other hand, was interested in retaining his better quality grain and
passing off the poor quality to Shimon. Since he achieved this with his
delivery he cannot invalidate the deal. But in regard to two different
varieties of grain, some people prefer red and others white. When
Reuven and Shimon contract for the sale of red wheat, each of them may
subsequently claim that he was not interested in the way the sale turned
out -- Reuven because he wanted to dispose of red wheat, not white, and
Shimon because he wanted to acquire red wheat, not white.
Bava Basra 83b
===========================================================================
A Tale of Two Trees
A tzadik -- a righteous man -- is compared by King David (Psalm 92:13) to
both the date palm and the cedar trees. Just as the date palm yields
fruit, so does the tzadik enjoy the fruits of his good deeds in the World
to Come. Just as the cedar has the capacity to grow back even when it is
chopped, so does the tzadik bounce back from a setback and so does he leave
behind posterity like himself when he leaves this world.
Bava Basra 80b
===========================================================================
Ohr Somayach Institutions is an international network of Yeshivot and
outreach centers, with branches in North America, Europe, South Africa and
South America. The Central Campus in Jerusalem provides a full range of
educational services for over 550 full-time students. The Jewish Learning
Exchange (JLE) of Ohr Somayach offers summer and winter programs in Israel
that attract hundreds of university students from around the world for 3 to
8 weeks of study and touring.
===========================================================================
This publication is available via FAX and REGULAR POST within Israel.
For information, please send E-Mail to [email protected]
or send a fax to 972-2-812890 with your name & fax number,
or write to the address below.
===========================================================================
Dedication opportunities are available for The Weekly Daf
Please contact us for details.
===========================================================================
Jewish L EEEEEEEE Prepared by Ohr Somayach Institutions
J L E 22 Shimon Hatzadik Street, POB 18103
J L Exchange Jerusalem 91180, Israel
J J L E Tel: 02-810315 Fax: 02-812890
JJJJ Learning EEEEEEEE Internet: [email protected]
===========================================================================
(C) 1994 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.
This publication may be distributed to another person intact without prior
permission. We also encourage you to include this material in other
publications, such as synagogue newsletters. However, we ask that you
contact us beforehand for permission, and then send us a sample of an
issue.
|
| 1442.3 | Bava Basra 86-92 | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Jan 08 1995 10:55 | 90 |
|
The Weekly Daf - #49
Bava Basra 86-92
Week of 10-16 Shevat 5755 / 11-17 January 1995
By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions
===========================================================================
Sages and Swindlers
Honesty in weights and measures is forcefully commanded by the Torah and
was strictly enforced by the authorities in a Torah community. The
Talmudic Sages were aware of all the tricks which a swindling merchant
might do to deceive his customers -- from using metal weights which wore
out with use, to employing heavy sticks to smooth out measured flour to the
disadvantage of the buyer. The great sage Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai thus
expressed his dilemma in regard to making public this awareness of the
sages:
"Woe to me if I speak, woe to me if I do not speak."
Should he speak and reveal these strategies there was a danger that
swindlers might learn from him how to better deceive their unknowing
customers. Should he not speak, his silence might be interpreted by the
swindlers as an indication that the sages were unaware of their tricks.
Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai finally resolved his dilemma on the basis of a
passage in the prophecy of Hoshea (14:10):
"The ways of Hashem are straight. The righteous walk safely
upon them and the sinners stumble."
The ways of Hashem must be made known to all, decided the sage, and it was
the free will of man to utilize the information for good or evil.
There are three different interpretations as to what danger is involved in
the swindlers thinking that the sages are unaware of their tricks.
This will encourage them to fearlessly increase their swindling. (Rashbam)
They will say that even the sages are really dishonest but don't engage in
swindling only because they are unaware of how to do so. (Maharsha)
They will lose respect for the power of Torah to invest the scholar with
every sort of cleverness. (Ahavat Eitan)
(Maharsha suggests that the reason why the sage decided to publicize was in
order to protect customers from dishonest merchants and honest merchants
from unwittingly swindling their customers. So even if the sinner stumbles
by exploiting this information the honest merchant will be saved from
making such mistakes.)
Bava Basra 89b
===========================================================================
Woe to the Captain-less Ship
The day Avraham Avinu passed away all the great men of the generation
eulogized him thus:
"Woe to the world which has lost its leader.
Woe to the ship which has lost its captain."
Avraham, explains Maharsha, taught his generation both the intellectual
concepts of belief in the Creator and the character traits which are proper
for man. The first part of the eulogy focused on the service performed by
Avraham in making the world aware of its creator and leader, and the loss
felt by this world in relating to this leader now that their great teacher
was gone. The second part is based on the allegorical relationship of the
ship to this world, which is often repeated in this particular perek of
Bava Basra ("One Who Sells a Ship"). Just as passengers of a ship are in
danger when they lose the captain who steers a proper course, so were
Avraham's survivors imperiled when they lost the captain who taught them
the proper way to live.
Bava Basra 91a
===========================================================================
This publication is available via FAX and REGULAR POST within Israel.
For information, please send E-Mail to [email protected]
or send a fax to 972-2-812890 with your name & fax number,
or write to the address below.
===========================================================================
Dedication opportunities are available for The Weekly Daf
Please contact us for details.
===========================================================================
Jewish L EEEEEEEE Prepared by Ohr Somayach Institutions
J L E 22 Shimon Hatzadik Street, POB 18103
J L Exchange Jerusalem 91180, Israel
J J L E Tel: 02-810315 Fax: 02-812890
JJJJ Learning EEEEEEEE Internet: [email protected]
===========================================================================
(C) 1994 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.
This publication may be distributed to another person intact without prior
permission. We also encourage you to include this material in other
publications, such as synagogue newsletters. However, we ask that you
contact us beforehand for permission, and then send us a sample of an
issue.
|
| 1442.4 | The Weekly Daf - #50 | TAV02::JEREMY | | Mon Jan 16 1995 10:43 | 77 |
| The Weekly Daf - #50
Bava Basra 93-99
Week of 17-23 Shevat 5755 / 18-24 January 1995
By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions
===========================================================================
Jerusalem Greats
There were two great customs in Jerusalem:
1. If someone offered to cook the food which his friend had prepared to
serve guests and he spoiled the food he was required not only to
compensate the host for the damaged food but also for the embarrassment
suffered by him and his guests.
2. In a home which welcomed guests a tablecloth was hung at the entrance to
the house as a signal that guests were invited. Once the tablecloth was
removed it was understood that guests could no longer be accommodated.
These are referred to as "great" customs, explains Maharsha, because the
mitzvah of hospitality, which is the subject of these customs, is
considered a "great" mitzvah, surpassing even the welcoming of the Divine
Presence as we learn from Avraham Avinu who excused himself from the Divine
Presence, which had come to pay him a sick visit, in order to welcome his
guests.
Bava Basra 93b
===========================================================================
Poetic Justice and Pretenders
Wine turning sour, says Rabbi Chiya bar Yosef, is a case of Heavenly
justice of measure for measure.
The man who haughtily pretends to be what he is not finds that what he
thought was wine was only vinegar pretending to be more than it really is.
Such a haughty pretender, adds Rabbi Mori, ends up being rejected even by
his own wife.
The Talmud in Masechta Sotah (47b) notes that many women were attracted to
many men who had the outward appearance of being pious scholars because
they judged people only superficially. When they eventually discovered
that their husbands were only haughty pretenders they lost all respect for
them as Rabbi Mori warned they would.
Bava Basra 98a
===========================================================================
MATAN TORAH got you mixed up?
Rabbi Gavriel Reuven and Ohr Somayach present
Rashi's explanation of the Chronology of the Giving of the Torah
The chain of events surrounding the giving of the Torah is very difficult
to follow, because, according to Rashi's understanding, the verses are not
arranged chronologically. This file lists the events in correct
chronological order so that you can easily understand how the Torah was
given to the Jewish People.
This file is available from the following sources:
o The Jerusalem1 Gopher under the heading "Religious Institutions"
and the sub-heading "Ohr Somayach"
o CompuServe Religion Forum, Judaism Library (3), filename TORAH.TXT
o Sent via E-Mail for those without access to one of the above.
Send your request to [email protected]. To speed
processing, set your subject to "SEND ME TORAH" and do not include
any other topics in your message.
===========================================================================
Dedication opportunities are available for The Weekly Daf
Please contact us for details.
===========================================================================
Jewish L EEEEEEEE Prepared by Ohr Somayach Institutions
J L E 22 Shimon Hatzadik Street, POB 18103
J L Exchange Jerusalem 91180, Israel
J J L E Tel: 02-810315 Fax: 02-812890
JJJJ Learning EEEEEEEE Internet: [email protected]
===========================================================================
(C) 1995 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.
This publication may be distributed to another person intact without prior
permission. We also encourage you to include this material in other
publications, such as synagogue newsletters. However, we ask that you
contact us beforehand for permission, and then send us a sample of an
issue.
|
| 1442.5 | The Weekly Daf - #51 | TAV02::JEREMY | | Mon Jan 23 1995 09:47 | 101 |
| The Weekly Daf - #51
Bava Basra 100-106
Week of 24-30 Shevat 5755 / 25-31 January 1995
By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions
===========================================================================
This issue is sponsored in loving memory of Harry M. Iskowitz O.B.M.
by his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren
===========================================================================
Short Division
The Case:
Two brothers, Reuven and Shimon inherit six fields from their father.
Unaware that they have a brother in a distant land they divide the
estate equally, each taking three fields. Then Levi appears,
establishes his identity as a brother and makes a claim for his share of
the estate. The sages Rav and Shmuel disagree as to the proper course
of action -- invalidation of the original division in favor of a new
division among all three brothers or leaving the first division intact
but requiring Reuven and Shimon to each give one of their inherited
fields to Levi.
The Rule:
Rav's opinion is accepted as law. The original division is invalidated
and all three brothers must draw lots to determine which fields belong
to them.
The Problem:
The law says that had Reuven and Shimon known of Levi's existence and
divided the inheritance into three parts before a three-man court
without Levi's consent he would not have been able to invalidate this
division. If Levi's consent is not necessary why do we invalidate the
division made in our case?
The Resolution:
In the case where they knew about Levi they properly divided the
inheritance into three parts. Levi's lack of consent is insignificant
because in any event he would have to submit to a drawing of lots. But
where they were unaware of Levi and divided the inheritance into only
two parts each brother received more than the share due to him and this
division is therefore null and void.
Bava Basra 106b
===========================================================================
Walking The Land, Paving The Way
Avraham Avinu was commanded by Hashem to walk the length and breadth of
Eretz Yisrael which was being presented to him as a gift. The majority
view of the Sages rejects the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that this is proof
that one who acquires a field can finalize the transaction by simply
walking upon it. Their view is that one can only render a transaction
irrevocable by demonstrating his ownership through making some improvement
in the land. Avraham Avinu's walking was for a different purpose -- to
pave the way for his descendants to easily conquer the land.
This is best understood by applying our sages' principle of "Whatever
happened to the forefathers happened to their descendants" which Ramban
elaborates upon in his commentary on Chumash. The walking of Avraham is
symbolic sovereignty which transforms in the future to concrete conquest by
Joshua.
Bava Basra 100a
===========================================================================
MATAN TORAH got you mixed up?
Rabbi Gavriel Reuven and Ohr Somayach present
Rashi's explanation of the Chronology of the Giving of the Torah
The chain of events surrounding the giving of the Torah is very difficult
to follow, because, according to Rashi's understanding, the verses are not
arranged chronologically. This file lists the events in correct
chronological order so that you can easily understand how the Torah was
given to the Jewish People.
This file is available from the following sources:
o The Jerusalem1 Gopher under the heading "Religious Institutions"
and the sub-heading "Ohr Somayach"
o CompuServe Religion Forum, Judaism Library (3), filename TORAH.TXT
o Sent via E-Mail for those without access to one of the above.
Send your request to [email protected]. To speed
processing, set your subject to "SEND ME TORAH" and do not include
any other topics in your message.
==========================================================================
Dedication opportunities are available for The Weekly Daf
Please contact us for details.
===========================================================================
Jewish L EEEEEEEE Prepared by Ohr Somayach Institutions
J L E 22 Shimon Hatzadik Street, POB 18103
J L Exchange Jerusalem 91180, Israel
J J L E Tel: 02-810315 Fax: 02-812890
JJJJ Learning EEEEEEEE Internet: [email protected]
===========================================================================
(C) 1995 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.
This publication may be distributed to another person intact without prior
permission. We also encourage you to include this material in other
publications, such as synagogue newsletters. However, we ask that you
contact us beforehand for permission, and then send us a sample of an
issue.
|
| 1442.6 | The Weekly Daf - #52 Bava Basra 107-113
| TAV02::JEREMY | | Mon Jan 30 1995 13:19 | 116 |
| The Weekly Daf - #52
Bava Basra 107-113
Week of 1-7 Adar Rishon 5755 / 1-7 February 1995
By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions
===========================================================================
This issue is dedicated in the memory of
Rochel bas R' Avrohom Boruch HaLevi by her son, Jeremy Rose, of London
===========================================================================
Where Do We Draw the Line ------------------------
Case 1:
Reuven contracts to sell Shimon half of his field which has sections of
varying value, without specifying which half. When it comes to dividing
the field Shimon claims that it should be evenly divided into two parts.
Reuven, however, argues that he intended to sell him half the total
value of the field which he wishes to give him from the parts of
inferior value since he prefers to have a smaller amount of better land
to having much inferior land.
|9 |9 |9 |9 |9 |10|10|15|15|15| Total Value: 110
|Portion given to | | | | | Due to Buyer: 55
| Buyer | | | | | numbers indicate price of field
The Rule:
Since no specification was made the seller has the upper hand and can
give him half the total value of the field from its inferior parts.
Case 2:
This time the two parties specify that the southern half of the field is
being sold. Shimon claims this means a geographical half of the field
and again Reuven counters that he only intended to sell half the value
of the field.
|9 |9 |9 |9 |9 |10|10|15|15|15|
| Portion given to | | | |
| Buyer | | | |
Rashbam -- We make an evaluation of the total southern half of the field
(65) and allow the seller to give it from the inferior parts of his
field.
|9 |9 |9 |9 |9 |10|10|15|15|15|
| | | | | | | Portion |
| | | | | | | Given to |
| | | | | | | Buyer |
Rambam -- We make an evaluation of half of the total value of the field
(55) which the buyer receives in the southern (right side) part of the
field.
The Rule:
In regard to the Gemara's ruling in this case there are two
interpretations by the major commentaries diagrammed above.
Bava Basra 107b
===========================================================================
Dimensions of Dignity
"Skin a carcass in the marketplace to earn money,"
the Sage Rav advised his disciple Rabbi Cahana
"and don't hesitate to do so because it is unbecoming
to a man of you stature."
Rashbam points out that although a Torah scholar is required to maintain
his dignity because of the Torah he represents -- the Gemara in Masechta
Shabbos (114a) warns that a Torah scholar who appears in public with a
fatty stain on his clothes is deserving of a death penalty for disgracing
the Torah in the eyes of his beholders -- working for a livelihood in any
honest fashion is not considered an indignity.
Bava Basra 110a
===========================================================================
***************************************************************************
* Get ready for *
* SUMMER IN ISRAEL `95 *
* Look for details next week *
* *
* Can't wait for next week? *
* For information NOW send E-Mail to Rabbi Zalman Corlin: [email protected]*
***************************************************************************
SUBSCRIBE!
to one of the many weekly "lists" published by Ohr Somayach Institutions:
weekly - Summary of the weekly Torah portion.
dafyomi - Rav Mendel Weinbach's insights into the Daf Yomi.
ask - The Rabbi answers YOUR questions on Judaism.
parasha-qa - Challenging questions on the weekly Torah portion.
os-special - All the SPECIAL publications produced by Ohr Somayach.
os-alum - "Yachad" - the Ohr Somayach Electronic Alumni Newsletter.
judaismo - Spanish-Language newsletter on the Parsha & Judaism.
There is NEVER a charge for any of the above lists (though your local
information provider, such as AOL, Prodigy or CompuServe, might charge a
nominal fee). To subscribe to any of these lists, send the message:
subscribe {listname} {your full name}
to: [email protected]
===========================================================================
Dedication opportunities are available for The Weekly Daf
Please contact us for details.
===========================================================================
Jewish L EEEEEEEE Prepared by Ohr Somayach Institutions
J L E 22 Shimon Hatzadik Street, POB 18103
J L Exchange Jerusalem 91180, Israel
J J L E Tel: 02-810315 Fax: 02-812890
JJJJ Learning EEEEEEEE Internet: [email protected]
===========================================================================
(C) 1995 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.
This publication may be distributed to another person intact without prior
permission. We also encourage you to include this material in other
publications, such as synagogue newsletters. However, we ask that you
contact us beforehand for permission, and then send us a sample of an
issue.
|
| 1442.7 | Bava Basra 114-120 | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Feb 05 1995 10:57 | 130 |
|
The Weekly Daf - #53
Bava Basra 114-120
Week of 8-14 Adar Rishon 5755 / 8-14 February 1995
By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions
===========================================================================
Daughter Versus Granddaughter
The Rule:
The Torah law of inheritance limits the power of a woman to inherit any
part of her father's estate to a situation where she has no brothers.
Anyone who is an heir passes along his right of inheritance to his own
heir -- a grandchild inherits the grandfather if the father has already
passed away.
The Case:
A man has a son and a daughter. The son dies in his father's lifetime,
leaving behind a daughter. When this man eventually dies he is survived
by the aforementioned daughter and granddaughter. The granddaughter
claims she is the sole heir because her aunt's power to inherit has been
nullified by the existence of a male sibling heir or any of his
survivors. The daughter claims a share of the inheritance because she
is more closely related than the granddaughter. Who is right?
The Debate:
This was the subject of a great historical debate between the Talmudic
Sages and the Tzedukim (Sadducees) who distorted Torah teaching through
their literal misinterpretations of Chumash and through their faulty
logic. When the Tzedukim attempted to establish a claim for the
daughter they were forcefully challenged by Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai
to explain their case. Only one of their older representatives managed
to present any sort of argument and thus went his reasoning: "If a
granddaughter, who is only connected to her grandfather through his
son, has a claim to inheritance, then the daughter who is directly
connected to her father should surely have a claim."
Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai dismissed this argument as a foolish effort
to challenge Torah Law as handed down by tradition. "A granddaughter
has the power to inherit her grandfather," he pointed out, "even when
there are sons -- her uncles -- as heirs. (The daughters of Tzlofchad
shared with their uncles, the sons of Chefer, in the inheritance of
their grandfather Chefer.) But a daughter has no share in the
inheritance when she has a brother. (The daughters of Chefer had no
share with their brothers.) Just as she is eliminated from the
inheritance by her brother so too is she eliminated by her brother's
survivor, male or female."
The Tzedukim accepted the Sage's argument, and that day, the 24th day of
Teves, was established as a minor holiday to celebrate the re-
establishment of that oral law of inheritance.
Bava Basra 115b
===========================================================================
Asleep But Alive
"Hadad in Egypt heard that David reposed with his ancestors and that Yoav,
the military commander had died..." (Melachim I, 11:21)
Why, asked Rabbi Pinchas ben Chama, is King David's passing described as
"repose" while that of Yoav as "death"?
David left behind a son who was worthy of being his successor and therefore
is considered only to be asleep since his life's work is perpetrated by his
successor. Yoav, who left behind no son worthy of being his successor, is
described in the definitive term of death.
Bava Basra 116a
===========================================================================
Do you have a question about Judaism,
and don't know where to find the answer?
Just "Ask The Rabbi" and you'll get an answer.
Ohr Somayach has a staff of Rabbis
dedicated to answering YOUR questions.
Our Rabbis have researched questions on what Judaism says about Magic,
Virtual Reality Minyons, Why Honey and Locusts are Kosher, and Why People
Point Pinkies at the Torah. For each question that we answer in the weekly
column, DOZENS of answers are sent to individuals around the world who also
asked questions during that time.
Please feel free to avail yourself of this service. Just submit your
question to "Ask The Rabbi" and we'll begin researching your answer. If
you feel your question is personal, just tell us, and we'll be certain to
send the answer only to YOU!
To submit a question, address it to: [email protected]
To insure correct handling, set the subject to "ASK THE RABBI"
To subscribe to ASK THE RABBI, send the message:
sub ask {your full name}
to: [email protected]
===========================================================================
** Spend This Coming Summer Break In Israel For As Little As $599 **
** (including airfare from New York) **
===========================================================================
JLE Israel Summer Seminar '95
7 weeks of study and touring, optional Ulpan,
and structured encounters with Israeli Dignitaries
Departure June 14th - Optional free week August 8th - 14th
For Jewish men between the ages of 19 & 30
with demonstrated academic achievement
and a sincere motivation to explore their roots
Minimum scholarship price: $599
Covers round trip ticket, room, board, tuition and tours
For information:
o send E-Mail to Rabbi Zalman Corlin: [email protected]
o In the U.S. call toll-free 800-431-2272 / 212-213-3100
o Outside of N. America, send E-Mail to: [email protected]
===========================================================================
Dedication opportunities are available for The Weekly Daf
Please contact us for details.
===========================================================================
Jewish L EEEEEEEE Prepared by Ohr Somayach Institutions
J L E 22 Shimon Hatzadik Street, POB 18103
J L Exchange Jerusalem 91180, Israel
J J L E Tel: 02-810315 Fax: 02-812890
JJJJ Learning EEEEEEEE Internet: [email protected]
===========================================================================
(C) 1995 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.
This publication may be distributed to another person intact without prior
permission. We also encourage you to include this material in other
publications, such as synagogue newsletters. However, we ask that you
contact us beforehand for permission, and then send us a sample of an
issue.
|
| 1442.8 | Bava Basra 149-155 | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun May 21 1995 15:27 | 66 |
|
The Weekly Daf - #58
Bava Basra 149-155
Week of 13-19 Adar Sheini 5755 / 15-21 March 1995
By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions
===========================================================================
Deathbed Decisions
The Rule:
A man who makes a deathbed bequest of all his possessions and
subsequently recovers can retract his gift because it is obvious that he
intended giving away everything he owned only because he expected to
die.
The Issue:
What if he sold all his possessions on his deathbed and subsequently
recovered -- can he back out of the deal?
This question was put to Rabbi Yehuda. On one occasion he quoted his
teacher, the Sage Rav, as ruling that he could not back out. On another
occasion he quoted him as ruling that he could.
The Problem:
How do we reconcile these apparently conflicting rulings?
The Solution:
We examine what the seller did with the funds he received from the sale.
If he kept them in his possession it is an indication that his sale was
entirely conditional on his death and he therefore wished to have the
money available to refund the buyer. But if we find that he used those
funds to pay his debts it indicates that he intended the sale to be
final regardless of whether he lived or died and he therefore cannot
back out.
Bava Basra 149a
===========================================================================
Beyond Possession
The Rule:
Reuven declares that he is giving all his possessions to Shimon. The
gift is an irrevocable one because he makes the necessary kinyan for
transferring ownership. The question is only what is considered to be
included in the term "possessions"?
Proofs are presented that land, money, slaves, clothes, animals and even
tefillin come under the definition of possessions and are included in
the gift. The only object which remains a matter of doubt is a Sefer
Torah.
The Questions:
Possession implies not only ownership but the ability to sell. On the
one hand a Sefer Torah may not be sold as freely as other belongings and
therefore should not come under the title of possessions. On the other
hand a Sefer Torah may be sold if its proceeds are needed for the
fulfillment of the important mitzvah of studying Torah or getting
married. Perhaps even this limited range of freedom to sell qualifies a
Sefer Torah to be considered a possession and included in his gift.
The Resolution:
The issue remains unresolved. Shimon can therefore not present a legal
claim to Reuven's Sefer Torah, but if he took possession of this
disputed "possession" we do not take it away from him.
Bava Basra 151a
===========================================================================
|
| 1442.9 | Bava Basra 156-162 | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun May 21 1995 15:28 | 60 |
| The Weekly Daf #59
Bava Basra 156-162
Week of 20-26 Adar Sheini 5755 / 22-28 March 1995
By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions
===========================================================================
Fit To Be Tied
In addition to the regular type of document used either for the purpose of
divorce or for loans and sales there was once in use another type of
document called a "tied document". Whereas the regular one was written in
an unbroken flow of lines on a sheet of parchment with the witnesses signed
below, the "tied" one was written in a very complicated fashion. After
each written line a line was left blank and folded over the written one.
Then the two were sown together -- "tied" -- and the process was repeated
for the remaining lines and completed with the witnesses signing on the
back of the parchment.
What was the purpose of instituting such a complicated, time-consuming
procedure when a simple document would suffice?
This practice arose in a particular community with many kohanim who were
quick to lose their tempers towards their wives and rush into a divorce.
Since a kohen is forbidden to marry any divorcee, even his own, such an
impetuous move could result in an irreparable domestic tragedy. The Sages
therefore instituted for such a community a divorce document that would
take considerable time to prepare in the hope that during this interval the
enraged kohen would cool off and abandon his plans for divorce.
Once this procedure was established for divorce documents it was extended
to all other legal documents so there would be a uniform practice in that
community. Today it is not the practice to use a "tied document" even when
the divorcing husband is a kohen.
Bava Basra 160b
===========================================================================
Bridging The Generation Gap
"In the place of your fathers will be your children; You (Hashem) will
appoint them princes throughout the land." (Tehillim 45:17)
This is not intended as a law of inheritance which establishes a direct
link between grandfather and grandchild but rather as a blessing which
Hashem bestows upon His righteous servants. This blessing has a number of
dimensions:
1. The righteous will have not only children but grandchildren to inherit
their positions of honor. (Rashbam)
2. The righteous will have children as righteous as themselves and
deserving of inheriting their glory. (Tosefos)
3. What the children of the righteous attain in status and wealth will not
be at the expense of their parents but rather as an ancestral endowment
and they will share glory with their father as princes with a king.
(Ein Yaakov)
4. The children -- all righteous Jews -- will inherit from their fathers
-- the patriarchs Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov -- the blessings which
Hashem promised them and they will rule the land of Israel which Hashem
promised our ancestors to give to us. (Maharsha)
Bava Basra 159a
|
| 1442.10 | Bava Basra 163-169 | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun May 21 1995 15:29 | 48 |
| The Weekly Daf #60
Bava Basra 163-169
Week of 27 Adar Sheini - 4 Nisan 5755 / 29 March - 4 April 1995
By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions
==========================================================================
This issue is dedicated in the memory of
R' Kaddish ben R' Moshe by his son, Jeremy Rose, of London
==========================================================================
When Compliments Backfire
Lashon Hara -- forbidden speech regarding other people -- is not limited to
saying uncomplimentary things about them. Rabbi Dimi has warned us never
to say nice things about another because this can lead to saying
uncomplimentary things as well. The obvious question which such a ruling
invites is resolved by the following approaches:
1) Don't be excessive in your praise of another for this will inevitably
lead to mentioning his shortcomings as well. (Rashbam)
2) Don't praise someone in front of people who do not like him because
you invite them to mention the features they dislike. (Rambam)
Bava Basra 164b
===========================================================================
The Sages Beat Him to It
The Sage Abaye offered a bit of sage counsel which served him as well
as others.
When there is a need for a man who is signed as a witness on a document
to submit a signature specimen to the court to help it in certifying his
signature he should be careful to write this signature only at the very
top of a sheet. Should he write it lower there is the danger that it may
fall into the hands of an unscrupulous person who will then write a
promissory note on top of that signature and present it for collection as
a signed admission of indebtedness which is considered a valid document.
An unscrupulous tax collector once came before Abaye and told him that he
was prepared to offer an exemption from taxes to Torah scholars who
presented a letter of accreditation signed by the Sage. He asked Abaye to
give him a specimen of his signature and placed a sheet before him for this
purpose. As Abaye started to write his signature on the top of the sheet
this fellow attempted to pull the sheet away so that he would sign at the
bottom and thus enable him to write what he pleased atop that signature.
But Abaye simply reminded him:
"The Sages have already beat you to it!"
Bava Basra 167a
|
| 1442.11 | Bava Basra 170-176 | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun May 21 1995 15:29 | 62 |
| The Weekly Daf #61
Bava Basra 170-176
Week of 5-11 Nisan 5755 / 5-11 April 1995
By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions
==========================================================================
PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW ADDRESS: [email protected]
==========================================================================
Breaking the Impasse
The Case:
Rabbi Yitzchak ben Yosef loaned some money to Rabbi Abba but lost the
note which the borrower had given him. When he asked for the money in
court Rabbi Abba demanded that he present the note so that there would
be no danger of it ever being used for collection again. Rabbi
Yitzchak explained that he had lost the note but offered to write a
receipt. The borrower refused to accept this solution because if he
subsequently lost the receipt he would be vulnerable to a second
collection of the debt which he already paid.
The Impasse:
Whichever way we rule we place someone at a disadvantage. If we don't
allow for the writing of a receipt we force the lender to lose his
ability to collect his debt simply because he lost his note. If we do
allow him to collect in return for a receipt we expose the borrower to
the danger of being forced to pay a second time if he is not careful
in guarding his receipt and the allegedly lost note reappears.
The Solution:
Although this issue is a subject of debate amongst the Sages the court
ruled in favor of Rabbi Yitzchak and such is the ruling of the post-
Talmud Halachic authorities. The reason for favoring the lender over
the borrower is based on a passage in Mishlei 22:7: "The borrower is
servant to the lender." As the one who benefited from the kindness of
the lender it is he who must suffer the disadvantage in breaking the
impasse caused by the losing of the note.
Bava Basra 171b
==========================================================================
Secrets of Success
"One who wishes to gain wisdom," said Rabbi Yishmael, "should devote
himself to the laws of financial matters, for they are like an ever
flowing spring. And one who wishes to devote himself to the study of
the laws of financial matters should serve the Sage Shimon ben Nanas."
The author of "Iyun Yaakov" (quoted in Ein Yaakov) points out two
secrets of success offered by this statement in the closing pages of
the three tractates (Bava Kama, Bava Metzia and Bava Basra) which form
the very heart of the Talmudic laws of financial matters. Judging a
financial lawsuit requires extremely astute examination of the
protagonists and the witnesses in order to expose any deception. This
develops a cleverness and an ever increasing awareness comparable to
the ever flowing waters of the spring.
Serving the sage is the formula for success rather than just learning
from him as our Sages have already indicated (Masechta Brachos 7b)
that serving the Torah teacher achieves even more for the disciple
than learning from him.
Bava Basra 175
==========================================================================
|
| 1442.12 | Sanhedrin 2-8 | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun May 21 1995 15:30 | 58 |
| The Weekly Daf #62
Sanhedrin 2-8
Week of 12-18 Nisan 5755 / 12-18 April 1995
By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions
==========================================================================
PESACH KASHER v'SOMAYACH!
==========================================================================
Breaking the Three Steps to Twenty-Three
A Sanhedrin Ketanah -- a lower court with the power to judge capital
offenses -- consisted of 23 judges. Three steps must be taken to arrive
at this number:
Step One:
The Torah speaks of "a community convicting" and "a
community acquitting" regarding a capital case. Since the
minimum number for a community is ten we establish that
there must be enough members of the court for it to divide
into two opposing factions of ten each.
Sub-total = 20
Step Two:
The Torah directs us to acquit a defendant even if there
is only a majority of one in his favor but not to convict
him unless there is a majority of at least two against
him. We must therefore add two to the "convicting
community" of ten.
Sub-total = 22
Step Three:
No court can have an even number of judges because it
creates the possibility of being evenly divided and
incapable of rendering a decisive judgment. We must
therefore add one more judge in order to achieve an odd
number.
Total = 23
Sanhedrin 2a
==========================================================================
First Things First -- And Second
The first thing a man is judged on in the World to Come, says Rabbi
Hamnuna, is whether he learned Torah.
A question arises regarding this statement: The Gemara in Masechta
Shabbos (31a) states that judgment regarding Torah study comes only
after a man is tried regarding his honesty in business.
Tosefos resolves the problem with this explanation:
There are people who study Torah but don't consider it important
enough to set aside a specific schedule for such learning which he
will not readily disrupt. The first thing a man is held accountable
for is whether he studied Torah at all. Accountability for having a
fixed schedule for learning comes only after being judged in regard
to his honesty.
Sanhedrin 7a
==========================================================================
|
| 1442.13 | Sanhedrin 16-22 | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun May 21 1995 15:31 | 47 |
| The Weekly Daf #64
Sanhedrin 16-22
Week of 26 Nisan-2 Iyar 5755 / 26 April-2 May 1995
By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions
==========================================================================
The Object --> Objectivity
Every Rabbinical court had to be totally objective in deciding the case
before it. Even the slightest favor received from one of the litigants
was enough to disqualify a judge. These exacting criteria extended as
well to the judges who had to decide whether to add an extra month to the
year. Neither the king nor the Kohen Gadol, ruled our Sages, may
participate in the panel that decides on adding a month. Each of them is
suspect of being swayed from total objectivity by the particular demands
of his office. The king pays his soldiers by the year and therefore has
a vested interest in each year being longer. The Kohen Gadol, whose Yom
Kippur service in the Beis Hamikdash exposes him to barefoot contact with
a cold floor and numerous immersions in a cold mikveh, is naturally
prejudiced against an extra month which causes Yom Kippur to fall well
into winter.
Sanhedrin 18b
==========================================================================
Pulling Together
"Charm is false and beauty is vain," says King Solomon in the well known
Mishlei chapter about the Eishes Chayil - the woman of valor whose
qualities are used as a parable for Torah.
"Charm is false," says the Gemara, refers to the generation of Moshe
Rabbeinu and Yehoshua while "beauty is vain" alludes to the generation of
King Chizkiyahu. Both of these were golden eras of Jewish dedication to
Torah learning but they pale in comparison to the generation of Rabbi
Yehuda Berebi Iloi which deserves Solomon's accolade of "the woman who
fears Hashem deserves to be praised."
What was so special about Rabbi Yehuda's generation? They were so poor
that six Torah students had to share one garment, but this did not
prevent them from pursuing their studies.
How can six people possibly share one garment? Rabbi Chaim Shmulevitz,
zatzal, Rosh Hayeshiva of the Mirrer Yeshiva in Jerusalem, explained that
if everyone is pulling the garment to himself then many garments will not
suffice, but if everyone is more concerned that the other fellow is warm
then one garment is enough even for six.
Sanhedrin 20a
|
| 1442.14 | Sanhedrin 23-29 | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun May 21 1995 15:31 | 56 |
| The Weekly Daf #65
Sanhedrin 23-29
Week of 3-9 Iyar 5755 / 3-9 May 1995
By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions
==========================================================================
Why Gamblers Can't be Trusted
Dice gamblers and racing bettors are disqualified by rabbinic law from
being either judges or witnesses. Two opinions are offered for this
disqualification.
The Sage Rami bar Chama views the income from gambling as a form of
ownership. Rabbi Shaishes challenges this approach and rules that the
gambler is disqualified only if he has no other occupation because then
he "is not involved in something constructive for the world."
Two interpretations of this reason are offered by the commentaries:
1) It is improper for a man to be involved in anything but Torah
study, acts of kindness, business, craft or labor which are
constructive for the world.
- Rav Ovadia of Bartenura
2) One who is not involved in the normal ways of earning a living is
not aware of how hard another person works to earn his money and finds
no great difficulty in testifying falsely to cause him a loss.
- Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher, the Tur
Sanhedrin 24b
==========================================================================
Relative Objectivity
The Rule:
Relatives are ineligible to testify in any case, criminal or civil,
either on behalf of their relative or against him.
The Problem:
Disqualifying a witness to testify on behalf of his relative is easily
understandable because he is suspected of subjectivity. But if he
testifies against a relative whom he should favor is this not an
indication that he is objectively telling the truth?
The Resolution:
The Sefer Hachinuch offers two possible explanations:
1) In order to eliminate the possibility of a relative's subjective
testimony on behalf of his kin ever being accepted the Torah made his
disqualification absolute.
2) The close relationship of relatives inevitably leads to disputes
and in a moment of anger one of them may seek to harm the other by
falsely testifying against him, a move he will woefully regret once he
has calmed down. A relative's testimony is therefore always suspected
of being subjective whether he is testifying for or against his kin.
Sanhedrin 27b
==========================================================================
|
| 1442.15 | Sanhedrin 30-36 | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun May 21 1995 15:32 | 61 |
| The Weekly Daf #66
Sanhedrin 30-36
Week of 10-16 Iyar 5755 / 10-16 May 1995
By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions
==========================================================================
Ohr Somayach has a NEW Internet Address: [email protected]
==========================================================================
Never On Friday
The Rule:
Capital cases cannot be judged on Erev Shabbos or Erev Yom Tov.
The Reason:
If the judges reached a decision for acquittal in a capital case they
render judgment that very day. If the decision is for conviction they
must postpone final judgment till the morrow in order to allow for the
possibility of coming up with an argument for acquittal during the course
of the night.
The Other Options?
1. Judge him Erev Shabbos?
No! They may decide he is guilty and will have to postpone final
judgment till the next day -- Shabbos.
2. Judge him Erev Shabbos, render final judgment on Shabbos and execute
him that same day?
No! Execution is forbidden on Shabbos and Yom Tov.
3. Execute him the night after Shabbos?
No! Executions can only be conducted during the day.
4. Execute him during the day after Shabbos?
No! We would be guilty of prolonging the agony of the convicted man
awaiting execution.
5. Judge him Erev Shabbos, render judgment the day after Shabbos and
execute him on that same day?
No! We are concerned lest the passing of an extra day may cause a
judge to forget the exact reason for reaching his conclusion
regarding acquittal or conviction.
The Conclusion:
Don't judge a capital case on Erev Shabbos or Erev Yom Tov.
Sanhedrin 35a
==========================================================================
The Sanctity of Secrecy
When a court has rendered judgment in any case it is forbidden for a judge
to tell the party who lost the case that he ruled in his favor and it was
his colleagues who ruled against him. This comes under the category of the
tale-bearing prohibited by the Torah, for King Solomon (in Mishlei 11) has
already defined one who reveals secrets as a tale-bearer. A student in the
yeshiva of the Sage Rabbi Ami was expelled from the yeshiva because he
revealed a secret told in the Beis Midrash 22 years earlier. Rabbi Ami who
realized that the revelation of even so outdated a matter had an element of
lashon hara (evil gossip) in it, declared that there was no place in his
yeshiva for one who made public what should have remained private
information.
Sanhedrin 31a
===========================================================================
|
| 1442.16 | Sanhedrin 37-43 | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun May 21 1995 15:32 | 55 |
| The Weekly Daf #67
Sanhedrin 37-43
Week of 17-23 Iyar 5755 / 17-23 May 1995
By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions
==========================================================================
Ohr Somayach has a NEW Internet Address: [email protected]
==========================================================================
What's Wrong With Circumstantial Evidence?
"Villain,"
said Rabbi Shimon ben Shetach to the man holding a sword from which blood
dripped while on the floor of the deserted house another man gasped his
final breath. "Only one of us could possibly be the murderer. But I have
no authority to convict you (even though there was a second witness to this
scene) since the Torah insists on witnesses seeing the actual crime as a
basis for inflicting the death penalty. Nevertheless, the Omniscient One
will certainly see that justice is done to one who takes the life of
another."
This scene began when the sage saw the sword wielding pursuer chasing his
intended victim into the house and ended with a serpent biting the pursuer
and bringing about the divine justice foreseen by Rabbi Shimon.
In his Sefer Hamitzvos, Maimonides explains that the Torah rules out
circumstantial evidence as a basis for conviction in capital crimes because
it is too subjective and if one man can be put to death because of powerful
evidence another may be executed on the basis of inconclusive evidence.
The Torah therefore drew a sharp line by insisting on the objective
standard of two witnesses testifying to what they actually saw. Even if
such a standard may sometimes allow a guilty man to go free it is
preferable to taking the life of an innocent one.
Sanhedrin 37b
==========================================================================
Environmental Boomerang
Here is how Hashem explains why he chose Ovadia to prophesize regarding the
nation of Edom which was descended from Eisav:
"Let Ovadia, who lived in the company of two sinners -- King Achav and
Izevel -- and was not corrupted by their evil come and prophesize regarding
the wicked Eisav who lived in the company of two righteous people --
Yitzchak and Rivkah -- and did not learn from their good deeds."
In his "Michtav Me'Eliyahu", Rav A.E. Dessler zt"l cites this as a classic
example of how environment can sometimes have a boomerang effect. If one
is strong in his righteousness as was Ovadia the exposure to evil people
will only increase his contempt for evil, while if one is as corrupt as
Eisav his contempt for virtue will only increase from his exposure to
virtuous people.
Sanhedrin 39b
===========================================================================
|
| 1442.17 | Sanhedrin 44-50 | TAV02::JEREMY | | Thu Jun 22 1995 13:20 | 63 |
| The Weekly Daf #68
Sanhedrin 44-50
Week of 24 Iyar - 1 Sivan 5755 / 24-30 May 1995
By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions
==========================================================================
This issue is dedicated in the memory of Shalom Simcha Steinlauf Z"l
==========================================================================
Ohr Somayach has a NEW Internet Address: [email protected]
Also, look for Ohr Somayach, New York, on the World Wide Web.
You can find info on the JLE program by pointing to
http:/www.torah.org/os
==========================================================================
For Whom the Eulogy?
Is the purpose of the hesped eulogy said at a funeral to honor the
survivors or to honor the departed?
This is not a mere theoretical question. One practical implication
arises
in a case where the man makes a request before his death not to be
eulogized. If it is the honor of his survivors which is at stake his
wish
is ignored, while if it his own honor which is the issue his wish will
be
honored. Another ramification is a situation in which no such request
was
made but the survivors refuse to pay the expense of hiring a
professional
eulogizer. If it is their honor they have a right to waive it while if
it
is the honor of the departed they can be compelled to hire the
eulogizer.
The question is resolved on the basis of a statement by Rabbi Nossen to
the
effect that one who is not eulogized is considered as having suffered a
disgrace in this world which will serve as an atonement for him in the
World to Come. This is considered conclusive proof that a eulogy's
purpose
is to honor the departed.
Sanhedrin
46b
==========================================================================
Divine Commiseration
When a man suffers as a result of being executed for his sins Hashem,
as it
were, commiserates with him and says: "How heavy with pain is My head,
how
heavy with pain are My arms."
If this is how the Omnipresent One relates to the shedding of the blood
of
the wicked, observed Rabbi Meir, how much more so does He suffer along
with
the blood of the righteous.
Sanhedrin
46a
===========================================================================
|
| 1442.18 | Sanhedrin 51-57 | TAV02::JEREMY | | Thu Jun 22 1995 13:21 | 59 |
| The Weekly Daf #69
Sanhedrin 51-57
Week of 2-8 Sivan 5755 / 31 May-6 June 1995
By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions
==========================================================================
Ohr Somayach has a NEW Internet Address: [email protected]
Also, look for Ohr Somayach, New York, on the World Wide Web.
You can find info on the JLE program by pointing to
http:/www.torah.org/os
==========================================================================
When Logic Stops
The kal v'chomer is a method used in the Oral Law to interpret the
Written
Law. It is a logical deduction which states that if a particular rule
applies to a situation which is of a less serious nature (kal) then
this
rule should certainly apply to a situation of a more serious nature
(chomer).
An attempt to apply this method to determining a death penalty for an
offender is rejected by one school of thought in our Gemara on the
grounds
that we cannot punish someone on the basis of a kal v'chomer ("din").
The explanation for such limitation is offered by the Maharsha
(Sanhedrin
64b):
The death penalty administered by the Sanhedrin is an atonement for the
sinner, perfectly matched to the gravity of the crime. If someone
commits
a crime of a more serious nature we cannot assume that he can achieve
atonement for that graver sin through the penalty which is sufficient
as an
atonement for the lighter one.
Sanhedrin
54a
==========================================================================
The Price of Impatience
"Many old camels have carried on their backs the skins of younger
ones."
This is a folk saying which sums up this background story of the death
of
Aaron's sons, Nadav and Avihu:
Moshe and Aaron were once walking with Nadav and Avihu behind them,
followed by all of Israel. Said Nadav to Avihu: "When will these two
old
men die so that you and I will lead the generation!"
At that moment Hashem said to them: "Let us see who will bury whom!"
Sanhedrin
42a
===========================================================================
|
| 1442.19 | Sanhedrin 58-64 | TAV02::JEREMY | | Thu Jun 22 1995 13:22 | 58 |
| The Weekly Daf #70
Sanhedrin 58-64
Week of 9-15 Sivan 5755 / 7-13 June 1995
By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions
==========================================================================
Meat from Heaven
The Question:
What is the law concerning a piece of meat which miraculously comes
down
from heaven -- is it permissible to eat it?
The Background:
This question was asked in the Beis Midrash by Rabbi Shimon ben
Chalafta
at the conclusion of a remarkable incident. This sage had been
walking
along when suddenly confronted by two roaring, hungry lions. "The
lions
cry out for game" he quoted the words of King David (Tehillim 104:21)
and
Heaven responded by raining down two slabs of meat. One of them was
consumed by the lions and they left behind the other. It was this
meat
which Rabbi Shimon brought to the Beis Midrash and inquired about its
kashrus.
The Ruling:
"No impure food comes down from Heaven."
Sanhedrin
59b
==========================================================================
The Wicked Hand
"One who raises his hand to strike another," states the Sage Reish
Lakish,
"is considered a wicked man even if he does not actually hit him."
This is deduced from the words of admonition which Moshe Rabbeinu said
to
the man he saw threatening to strike another. "He said to the wicked
one,"
writes the Torah (Shmos 2:13) "why do you strike your neighbor." Since
he
did not challenge him for actually striking the other person we
conclude
that he was labeled a wicked man for merely raising his hand to do so.
Sanhedrin
58b
===========================================================================
Look for Ohr Somayach, New York, on the World Wide Web.
You can find info on the JLE program by pointing to
http://www.torah.org/os
===========================================================================
|
| 1442.20 | Sanhedrin 65-71 | TAV02::JEREMY | | Thu Jun 22 1995 13:22 | 93 |
| The Weekly Daf #71
Sanhedrin 65-71
Week of 16-22 Sivan 5755 / 14-20 June 1995
By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions
==========================================================================
This issue is dedicated in memory of
R. Avrohom David ben Zvi Hirsch Jacobs Z''L on his first Yahrzeit
14 Sivan 5755
===========================================================================
Announcing the Ohr Somayach Home Page on the World Wide Web!
just point to "http://www.jer1.co.il/orgs/ohr/intro.html"
==========================================================================
Entrapment of a Missionary
Even if a Jew is suspected of being a sinner of so serious a nature
that he
is liable for capital punishment, the authorities did not employ
entrapment
as a means of luring him into committing this sin in the presence of
witnesses and thus insure his prosecution. The only exception was the
meisis, the Jewish missionary who attempted to persuade other Jews to
worship idols. He was considered such a menace that entrapment was
employed to eliminate him.
How was it done?
A meisis preaches his missionary message to a Jew who feigns interest
as a
means of bringing him to justice and preventing him from tempting
others.
Aware that his testimony alone is insufficient for prosecution, he
strings
the meisis along by saying that he has friends who might also be
interested
in hearing his sales pitch. If the meisis is too clever for such a
ruse
and insists on the utmost secrecy the would-be victim invites him for a
secret meeting in a home to further discuss his conversion. Agents of
the
court light a candle in an inner room of this house and place two
witnesses
in the outer room who will be able to see and hear the meisis while he
will
be totally unaware of their presence.
"We're all alone," says the intended victim to the meisis. "Please
repeat
the proposition you made during out last meeting." When the pitch is
repeated by the meisis a protest is offered: "How can we abandon our
G-d
in Heaven and worship idols?" This is a last ditch effort to save the
meisis, and if he retracts he is acquitted. But if he insists that
idol
worship is the best course for all Jews the witnesses who heard him
bring
him to court where he is tried and executed.
Sanhedrin
67a
==========================================================================
The Tenth Man?
Can a man created by man through the supernatural forces unlocked by
utilizing the Sefer Yetzirah be counted as the tenth man for a minyan?
This question was put to Rabbi Zvi Ashkenazi, the great seventeenth
century
rabbi of Amsterdam known as the "Chacham Zvi." In his response
(Response
93) he notes that his grandfather, Rabbi Eliyahu of Chelm, is reputed
to
have created a man (but makes no mention of the so-called "golem" which
legend connects with the Maharal of Prague!) and then proceeds to offer
a
halachic ruling based on this week's section of the Daf Hayomi.
The Sage Rava created a man through the Sefer Yetzirah and sent him to
Rabbi Zeira. The latter tried speaking to him and when there was no
response (because the power of speech, a function of the soul, is
limited
to G-d's creation) he declared: "You are a product of our colleague.
Return to your dust!"
If such a creation could serve the purpose of completing a minyan,
concluded the Chacham Zvi, Rabbi Zeira would not have thus condemned
him to
oblivion and denied the world this benefit.
Sanhedrin
65b
===========================================================================
|
| 1442.21 | Sanhedrin 72-78 | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Jul 16 1995 11:46 | 74 |
| The Weekly Daf #72
Sanhedrin 72-78
Week of 23-29 Sivan 5755 / 21-27 June 1995
By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions
==========================================================================
Announcing the Ohr Somayach Home Page on the World Wide Web!
just point to "http://www.jer1.co.il/orgs/ohr/intro.html"
==========================================================================
Whose Blood is Redder?
"The non-Jewish ruler of my city ordered me to murder a fellow Jew and
if I
fail to do so he will murder me. What should I do?"
This is the question which was put to the Sage Rabbah.
"Allow yourself to be killed rather than commit murder," answered
Rabbah.
"Who says that your blood is redder than that if the other fellow?"
According to this logic if a group of Jews is commanded to deliver one
if
its members to enemies who intend to kill him and failure to do so will
result in all of them being killed it would seem that they should be
permitted to do so. But the halacha, as stated in the Jerusalem Talmud
and
recorded by Rambam (Yesodei Hatorah 5:5), requires the entire group to
give
up their lives rather than be guilty of being active accomplices to the
murder of one of their members.
Rabbi Yossef Caro, in his Kessef Mishneh commentary on the Rambam,
explains
that the law requiring a Jew to give up his life rather than commit
murder
was received by Moshe at Sinai and passed down to us by oral tradition.
The "blood not redder" idea is a logical explanation for this law
provided
by our Sages which fits most cases but was never intended to limit the
application of the rule to only those situations.
Sanhedrin
74a
==========================================================================
Two Sides of the Same Coin
Apreemptive execution is legislated for the rebellious son whose
undisciplined actions indicate an inevitable degeneration towards
becoming
a murderer. He is considered better off dying before he reaches this
level
of guilt.
Death for the wicked, conclude our Sages, is a benefit for them and for
the
world while death for the righteous is bad for them and bad for the
world.
Sleep and wine for the wicked are benefits for them and for the world,
while for the righteous they are bad for them and bad for the world.
Tranquillity for the wicked is bad for them and bad for the world while
for
the righteous it is a benefit for them and for the world, (for they
have
the opportunity to study Torah and perform mitzvos -- Rashi). Disunity
for
the wicked is a benefit for them and for the world while for the
righteous
it is bad for them and bad for the world.
Sanhedrin
72a
===========================================================================
|
| 1442.22 | Sanhedrin 79-85 | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Jul 16 1995 11:47 | 112 |
| The Weekly Daf #73
Sanhedrin 79-85
Week of 30 Sivan-6 Tamuz 5755 / 28 June 4 July 1995
By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions
===========================================================================
This issue is dedicated to the memory of
Dr. Binyamin Ben Moshe (Bernard) Burnham, O.B.M.
===========================================================================
Announcing the Ohr Somayach Home Page on the World Wide Web!
just point to "http://www.jer1.co.il/orgs/ohr/intro.html"
===========================================================================
A Different Murder Mystery
The Cases:
1. A man intends to kill Reuven with a stone and the stone kills
Shimon
instead.
2. A man sees Reuven and Shimon standing together and throws a stone
with
an intention to kill either of them.
3. A man sees a man who he believes is Reuven and throws a stone to
kill
him because he wants to kill Reuven and the victim turns out to be
Shimon.
The Dispute:
In all of these cases the majority opinion of the Sages is that he
is
guilty of murder and liable for capital punishment because he had an
intention to murder. Rabbi Shimon, however, deduces from a Torah
passage that he is only liable for capital punishment when he
explicitly
declares that he intends to kill a specific victim and does so. He
therefore rules that in all three cases there will be no death
penalty
for murder.
The Problem:
The Rambam (Laws of Murder and Life Preservation 4:1) rules that if
a
man indiscriminately throws a stone into a crowd of people and kills
one
of them he does not receive the death penalty. Is the Rambam ruling
like the Sages or like Rabbi Shimon? If he follows the Sages' view
it
would seem that the stone thrower should be guilty even in such a
case
because he intended murder. If he follows Rabbi Shimon's view the
Rambam should have cited the three cases listed above as well to let
us
know that even in such cases he is exonerated.
The Resolution:
Rabbi Yossef Caro, in his "Kessef Mishneh" commentary, explains that
the
Rambam follows the majority opinion of the Sages and the stone
thrower
will therefore be guilty in all of the above three cases. In the
particular situation described by the Rambam he is exonerated not
because of a lack of intention to murder but because of a technical
inability to issue the warning which must precede any crime in order
for
it to be punishable by a human court. This warning must be specific
to
the act he is about to commit and this is lacking when someone
throws a
stone indiscriminately.
Sanhedrin
79a
===========================================================================
How to Correct a Parent
If someone sees his father transgressing a Torah commandment he should
not
say to him: "Father, you have transgressed the words of the Torah!" He
should rather say: "Father, this is what it says in the Torah."
The first approach is ruled out because it embarrasses the father,
whose
honor he is obliged to respect. In regard to the proper approach there
are
two opinions as to how it is applied:
1. Statement:
"Father, this is what it says in the Torah."
By being reminded that there is such a passage the father will
realize
the practical application to his situation. -- Rashi
2. Question:
"Father, this is what it says in the Torah???"
By asking rather than reprimanding he avoids embarrassing his
father.
-- Rambam
The same caution in how to address a father applies to a situation
in
which he has made an error in citing a Torah source. The son must
avoid saying "Father, don't say it that way" in order to avoid
embarrassing him. He must use the indirect form, either as a
statement
(Rashi) or as a question (Rambam)
Sanhedrin
81a
===========================================================================
|
| 1442.23 | Sanhedrin 86-92 | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Jul 16 1995 11:47 | 96 |
| The Weekly Daf #74
Sanhedrin 86-92
Week of 7-13 Tamuz 5755 / 5-11 July 1995
By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions
===========================================================================
Announcing the Ohr Somayach Home Page on the World Wide Web!
just point to "http://www.jer1.co.il/orgs/ohr/intro.html"
===========================================================================
Stealing -- What or Whom?
The Passages:
In two different places in the Torah we are warned against stealing:
in the Ten Commandments (Shmos 20:13) and in Vayikra 19:11. One of
them
refers to theft of money and the other to kidnapping.
The Problem:
How can we deduce from the passages themselves what sort of theft
they
refer to?
The Resolution:
One of the thirteen rules of Torah interpretation is that we can
deduce
the nature of an unidentified subject by seeing the context in which
it
is found. The commandments preceding and following the one about
theft
in the Ten Commandments prohibit murder and adultery, both of them
capital crimes. We therefore conclude that the theft referred to
there
is kidnapping, which is also punishable by death if the kidnapper
took
his victim into his domain, exploited him for labor and consequently
sold him into slavery. (While any form of kidnapping is forbidden
by
this commandment the death penalty applies only when the
circumstances
of exploitation of labor are present for this was the principal
objective of kidnapping throughout history, as opposed to the more
modern ransom which is not mentioned in the Talmud as a capital
punishment situation.) In Vayikra 19:11-13 the context is monetary
injustice so we may conclude that the theft referred to is also one
of a
monetary nature.
Sanhedrin
86a
===========================================================================
Whose Land is It?
During the period when Eretz Yisrael was under the control of Alexander
the
Great, a challenge was presented by the Canaanites to the Jewish claim
on
the land which is identified in the Torah as the land of Canaan --
their
grandfather. In the subsequent trial before Alexander their challenge
was
convincingly rejected by the Jewish representative.
But the question which arises in regard to this historical incident is
how
the Canaanites dared to base their challenge on a Torah passage when
the
Torah is so explicit that the Creator gave the land of Canaan to
Avraham
Avinu and his descendants?
The Maharsha points out that the challenge took place at a time when
Jews
had already suffered exile from their land and even upon their return
were
not sovereign but subservient first to the Persians and now to
Alexander.
The Canaanites argued that they were expelled from the land because of
their sins and the righteous Jewish nation inherited it (as is pointed
out
in the first Rashi in Bereishis) so that our claim to the land is
conditional on our being more deserving than them. Once we were
expelled
from the land because of our sins, they continued, we lost our claim
based
on merit. Everything then goes back to inheritance from ancestors and
Canaan preceded Avraham.
(They were wrong, of course, but the issue they raised caused serious
concern for the Sages of that period -- and should today stir some
thoughts
about the rise of foreign claims to our land -- Ed.)
Sanhedrin 91
===========================================================================
|
| 1442.24 | Sanhedrin 93-99 | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Jul 16 1995 11:48 | 84 |
| The Weekly Daf #75
Sanhedrin 93-99
Week of 14-20 Tamuz 5755 / 12-18 July 1995
By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions
===========================================================================
Announcing the Ohr Somayach Home Page on the World Wide Web!
just point to "http://www.jer1.co.il/orgs/ohr/intro.html"
===========================================================================
Anatomy of a Miracle
Jerusalem was under heavy siege. Sancheriv and his mighty Assyrian
army
commanded by 185,000 officers stood outside its walls, poised for an
invasion.
Ten years earlier this world conqueror had forced ten tribes of Israel
into
exile and he was determined to now crush this last shred of Jewish
resistance offered by King Chizkiyahu.
During the night before the scheduled morning of attack a heavenly
angel
struck the Assyrian camp, slaying every one of its 185,000 officers and
compelling Sancheriv to withdraw to his homeland.
How did Chizkiyahu and his people merit this miracle?
The oil of Chizkiyahu, say our Sages, subdued the yoke of
Sancheriv.
Which oil?
The oil which burned in the synagogues and yeshivos for Jews to
study
Torah even at night.
How did Chizkiyahu motivate his people to such dedication to Torah
study?
He placed a sword at the entrance to each Beis Midrash and
proclaimed:
"Whoever fails to study Torah will be skewered with this sword!"
Torah study was thus so popularized that when a search was made from
the
northernmost part of Israel to the southern-most not one man ignorant
of
Torah could be found, and when a search was made from the easternmost
point
to the westernmost one not one little boy or girl could be found who
was
not well versed in the laws of impurity and purity.
Sanhedrin
94b
===========================================================================
Secret of the Baal Tshuva
"Where the baal tshuva stands," said Rabbi Avohu, "not even the most
righteous can stand."
(For the power of the returning Jew is so great that no-one is
worthy of standing near him -- Rashi.)
In his Michtav M'Eliyahu, the great Mussar master Rabbi Eliyahu Eliezer
Dessler zatzal offers the following explanation for the apparent
paradox of
one who returns occupying a greater place of honor than one who was
righteous all his life.
All of creation has the mission of expressing the glory of the Creator.
There are two ways in which men achieve this objective. The righteous
do
so with each of their heroic acts of fulfilling the will of the
Creator.
The sinner who returns to Hashem reveals another dimension of His glory
--
the heavenly assistance extended to him to transform his first tiny
step
towards Hashem into a giant leap heavenward.
The magnificent expression of heavenly mercy in the baal tshuva's
"shortcut" to higher spiritual levels cannot be generated by the
righteous
one who carries himself upwards on his own steam. In this sense the
baal
tshuva has a place all his own to which tzadikim have no access.
Sanhedrin
99a
===========================================================================
|
| 1442.25 | Sanhedrin 100-106 | NETRIX::"[email protected]" | Yehoshua | Tue Aug 29 1995 13:53 | 100 |
| The Weekly Daf #76
Sanhedrin 100-106
Week of 21-27 Tamuz 5755 / 19-25 July 1995
By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions
===========================================================================
A Trilogy of Justice
THREE people were consulted by Pharaoh when he planned the decree that all
male born children of the Hebrews be thrown into the river; Bilaam, Iyov
and Yisro.
Bilaam who advocated murder, was eventually slain by a Hebrew army.
Iyov who remained silent, was afflicted by terrible suffering.
Yisro who protested and had to flee for his life, merited that his
descendants sat with the Sanhedrin in the Beis Hamikdash.
Heaven rewards and punishes with the poetic justice of measure for measure.
The advocate of death by violence ends up the victim of it while the
courageous defender of a people is rewarded with grandchildren who rise to
that people's highest ranks. But what is the relationship between the
silence of Iyov and the pains he suffered?
Iyov was a righteous man and his failure to protest against Egyptian
genocide was certainly based on his conviction that Pharaoh had already
made up his mind and that his outcry would be futile. Heaven inflicted
pain upon him and he cried out. Does crying out bring the pain to an end?
Yet one cries because it hurts. In similar fashion Iyov was held
accountable for failing to cry out because it hurt to hear such a cruel
decree even if he could not change it.
Sanhedrin 106a
===========================================================================
Where Envy Ends
A man is envious of everyone except his son and his disciple.
Proof of the first is seen in the blessing which Bnayahu ben Yehoyada gave
to King David that the throne of his son Shlomo should be more exalted than
his own. If a father was capable of envying his son it would have been
disrespectful to utter such a wish.
Two proofs are offered for the master-disciple relationship. One is that
the Prophet Eliyahu granted his disciple Elisha his wish to attain double
his master's spiritual power. The other is Moshe Rabbeinu placing both
hands on his disciple Yehoshua when he passed on the mantle of leadership
even though Hashem only commanded him to place one hand upon him.
Sanhedrin 105b
===========================================================================
Spend this Coming Winter Break in Israel for as little as $599
(including airfare from New York)
with the Jewish Learning Exchange
-> JLE Israel Winter Seminar '95/'96
-> 3 weeks of study and touring (Departure December 21)
-> Optional free week Jan 11-18
-> for Jewish men between the ages of 19 and 30 with demonstrated academic
achievement and a sincere motivation to explore their roots.
For information: send E-Mail to Rabbi Zalman Corlin: [email protected]
or call 800-431-2272 / 212-213-3100
===========================================================================
SUBSCRIBE!
to one of the many weekly "lists" published by Ohr Somayach Institutions:
weekly - Summary of the weekly Torah portion.
dafyomi - Rav Mendel Weinbach's insights into the Daf Yomi.
ask - The Rabbi answers YOUR questions on Judaism.
parasha-qa - Challenging questions on the weekly Torah portion.
os-special - All the SPECIAL publications produced by Ohr Somayach.
os-alum - "B'Yachad" - the Ohr Somayach Electronic Alumni Newsletter.
judaismo - Spanish-Language newsletter on the Parsha & Judaism.
There is NEVER a charge for any of the above lists (though your local
information provider, such as AOL, Prodigy or CompuServe, might charge a
nominal fee). To subscribe to any of these lists, send the message:
subscribe {listname} {your full name}
to: [email protected]
===========================================================================
Dedication opportunities are available for The Weekly Daf.
Please contact us for details.
===========================================================================
Jewish L EEEEEEEE Prepared by Ohr Somayach Institutions
J L E 22 Shimon Hatzadik Street, POB 18103
J L Exchange Jerusalem 91180, Israel
J J L E Tel: 02-810315 Fax: 02-812890
JJJJ Learning EEEEEEEE Internet: [email protected]
===========================================================================
(C) 1995 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.
This publication may be distributed to another person intact without prior
permission. We also encourage you to include this material in other
publications, such as synagogue newsletters. However, we ask that you
contact us beforehand for permission, and then send us a sample issue.
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]
|
| 1442.26 | Sanhedrin 107-113 | NETRIX::"[email protected]" | Yehoshua | Tue Aug 29 1995 13:55 | 54 |
| The Weekly Daf #77
Sanhedrin 107-113
Week of 28 Tamuz - 5 Av 5755 / 26 July - 1 August 1995
By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions
===========================================================================
Listening to a Eulogy
The great flood which destroyed a wicked world was delayed until the tzadik
Mesushelach (A/K/A Methuselah - ed.) passed away so that he would not be
included in their judgment. The Torah, however, makes a point that another
seven day period of grace was granted after his passing.
What was the point of these seven days?
These seven days, explains the Sage Rav, were the days of mourning for
Mesushelach. This teaches us that the eulogies said for tzadikim have the
power to delay tragedy.
Two insights are offered by the commentaries regarding this power, each of
them focusing on a different sort of listener:
The eulogy for a tzadik can inspire repentance in the listening sinner who
is stirred to an awareness that he no longer has the tzadik's merits to
protect him. (Maharsha)
The deceased hears the eulogy said for him. The Sage Rav urged Rabbi
Shmuel bar Shilas to warm up the audience when the time came to say a
eulogy for him "because I will be standing there." If the tzadik delayed
tragedy in his lifetime he is considered as still being here during the
seven day period of mourning and eulogies. (Iyun Yacov)
Sanhedrin 108b
===========================================================================
Lesson of the Olive Leaf
The dove which Noach sent from the ark to check on whether the great flood
had subsided returned with an olive leaf in its mouth. This, says Rabbi
Elazar, was the dove's way of uttering this prayer:
"Sovereign of the Universe, may the food which nourishes me be as bitter as
the olive leaf but coming directly from Your hand and not sweet as honey
but dependent on flesh and blood."
This, explains Maharsha, is a lesson for every man to be content with even
the little he receives from Heaven and not seek the luxuries which will
make him dependent on other humans. Keep your Shabbos meals down to a
simple weekday level, say our Sages, rather than be dependent on others.
Sanhedrin 108b
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]
|
| 1442.27 | | NETRIX::"[email protected]" | Yehoshua | Tue Aug 29 1995 13:57 | 80 |
| The Weekly Daf #78
Makkos 2-8
Week of 6-12 Av 5755 / 2-8 August 1995
By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions
===========================================================================
This issue is dedicated in memory of Eve Lynn Koppele
on her first Yahrzeit 19 Av 5755
===========================================================================
Two and Two Equal = ?
The Cases:
Case 1:
Two witnesses testify that Reuven committed a murder. Two others
challenge them by testifying that on the day they claim the murder took
place the alleged murderer or his victim were with them at some other
location.
Case 2
The second pair of witnesses challenges the first by testifying that
these witnesses were with them on the day of the alleged murder at some
other location.
The Rule:
In Case One we cancel the testimony of both pairs, exonerate the
defendant for lack of evidence and dismiss the conflicting witnesses
without recourse. In Case Two we accept the testimony of the second
pair, absolutely exonerate the defendant and punish the first pair with
the fate they wished to bring upon the defendant.
The Problem:
In both cases it is the word of witnesses against witnesses. Why do we
absolutely believe the second pair in Case Two even though the first ones
contest their testimony?
The Resolution:
Although no reason is offered in the Torah or Talmud the Sefer Hachinuch
offers what he describes as a "little explanation":
Two witnesses who testify that three or more people are murderers are
believed by the court although they are outnumbered by their
contradicters. This is so because the two are considered witnesses while
the accused are defendants who are disqualified to serve as witnesses.
In similar fashion the first two witnesses ("eidim zomemim") in Case Two
have been challenged not regarding the whereabouts of the defendant as in
Case One but in regard to their own whereabouts and they are therefore
transformed into defendants whose testimony regarding themselves is
invalid.
Makkos 5a
===========================================================================
Double Deterrent
The judges of the Sanhedrin with the power to decide upon capital
punishment were so cautious in using this power that if they convicted a
man of a capital crime once in seven years they were branded a "vicious
court". One of the Sages even extends this to once in seventy years while
Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva claimed that had they lived in the time when
the Sanhedrin had the power of capital punishment no-one would ever have
been convicted of a capital crime. (They would have made such strict
demands on the testimony of witnesses that conviction would be rendered
impossible.)
When Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel heard their claim he chastised them for
favoring a position of such extreme caution that punishment would no longer
serve as a deterrent and bloodshed would thus be encouraged.
No counter-argument by the two super-cautious Sages is presented in the
Talmud but a case is made for them by Rabbi Zvi Hirsh Chayos, the rabbi of
Zalkova who wrote a commentary on the Talmud. He cites Rambam (Laws of
Murder and life Preservation 2:4-5) who rules that if the court believes
that someone is guilty of murder but cannot convict him because of
technical reasons it may still execute him if there is an emergency
situation demanding that justice be done. Even if no such emergency exists
the court is required to punish the murderer with severe beating, lengthy
imprisonment and any other penalty which will serve as a deterrent for
other potential murderers. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva would certainly
have relied on these deterrents to maintain order.
Makkos 7a
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]
|
| 1442.28 | Makkos 9-15 | NETRIX::"[email protected]" | Yehoshua | Tue Aug 29 1995 13:59 | 56 |
| The Weekly Daf #79
Makkos 9-15
Week of 13-19 Av 5755 / 9-15 August 1995
By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions
===========================================================================
The Range of Responsibility
An accidental murderer is required to go into exile in one of the cities of
refuge where he must remain until the death of the Kohen Gadol. The mother
of the Kohen Gadol therefore used to supply these exiles with food and
clothes so that they would pray for her son to live.
The implication is that without the prayer of these exiles the Kohen Gadol
was in danger of dying because of them. But why is he to blame for the
accidental taking of life which brought about their exile?
"Because," explained one older Sage who had heard a shiur in the Yeshiva of
the Sage Rava, "he should have prayed for the security of his generation
and he failed to do so."
An illustration of this concept of a tzadik's responsibility for the entire
community was the reaction of the Prophet Eliyahu to a lion killing a man
some twelve kilometers from where Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi lived. Although
this angelic personality daily visited Rabbi Yehoshua, he refused to speak
with him for three days because he held the Sage indirectly responsible for
the death in his vicinity which his prayers might have prevented.
Makkos 11a
===========================================================================
Gates of Jerusalem
A song of degrees to David. I rejoiced when they said to me "We will
go to the house of Hashem." Our feet did stand in the gates of
Jerusalem. (Tehillim 122)
Two comments on the supreme value of Torah study are offered by Rabbi
Yehoshua ben Levi on these passages:
David said to Hashem: I heard people say "When will this old king die so
that his son Shlomo will build the Beis Hamikdash and
enable us to make our pilgrimage to the house of
Hashem on the Festivals" -- and I rejoiced.
Hashem replied: One day of your Torah study is worth more to Me than
a thousand sacrifices which Shlomo will offer upon
the altar.
Said David: Who made it possible that our feet did stand their
ground successfully in war -- the Gates of Jerusalem
where Torah was studied.
Makkos 10
===========================================================================
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]
|
| 1442.29 | Makkos 16-22 | NETRIX::"[email protected]" | Yehoshua | Tue Aug 29 1995 14:01 | 41 |
| The Weekly Daf #80
Makkos 16-22
Week of 20-26 Av 5755 / 16-22 August 1995
By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions
===========================================================================
Split Personality
How is it possible to transgress the Torah prohibition against driving two
animals of different species even though you only drive one animal?
The answer lies in the peculiar split personality of an animal which has
been consecrated for sacrifice and then redeemed after developing a
disqualifying blemish. Such an animal still retains some of its original
sanctity and although its flesh may be eaten it cannot be sheared of its
wool or used for labor. It is therefore considered two species of animal
wrapped up in one and driving such an animal is considered a violation of
the ban on driving two animals of different species.
Makkos 22a
===========================================================================
One Lash Less
A Jew who transgresses a Torah prohibition is punished with lashes. How
many lashes?
The Torah mentions the number forty but the Sages interpreted this to mean
the number preceding forty and therefore rule that the number of lashes if
39.
How foolish are most people, exclaimed the Sage Rava, who stand up for a
Sefer Torah but not for a Torah scholar. The Torah says forty lashes and
the Sages limited it to 39.
A similar proof of the power of the Sages could apparently have been
brought from the fifty days of counting the Omer which the Sages interpret
as 49. But only the example of the lashes is cited because the true
greatness of the Sages to be appreciated by the masses is not in their
ability to make the Omer count one day less but in their ability to remove
one painful lash from a sinner.
Makkos 22b
===========================================================================
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]
|
| 1442.30 | Makkos 23 - Shavuos 6 | NETRIX::"[email protected]" | Yehoshua | Tue Aug 29 1995 14:02 | 50 |
| he Weekly Daf #81
Makkos 23 - Shavuos 6
Week of 27 Av-3 Elul 5755 / 23-29 August 1995
By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions
===========================================================================
Truth of the Heart
"He speaks truth in his heart" is the tribute which King David pays to the
truly righteous man.
Rabbi Safra is singled out by the Talmud as the personification of this
virtue.
The story of Rabbi Safra's exemplary honesty is related by Rav Achai Gaon:
Rabbi Safra had an item for sale and a customer arrived while he was in the
midst of reciting the Shema. The customer quoted the price he was offering
but the sage made no reply since no interruption was halachically
permitted. Assuming the lack of response as an indication that the price
was not right the customer raised his offer. When Rabbi Safra finally
completed the Shema he told the customer to take the item for the first
price he quoted because in his heart he had already consented to sell at
that price and he refused to exploit the error of the buyer.
Makkos 24a
===========================================================================
Is There a Jew Who Has Never Learned?
The Torah prescribes the atonement of a chatas sin offering for one who
involuntarily enters the Beis Hamikdash in a state of impurity. This is
limited, however, to one who was initially aware of the impurity and also
realized at a later point that he entered in such a state but had forgotten
about it at the time of entry. According to the Sage Rebbie (Rabbi Yehuda
Hanassi) this initial awareness need not consist of more than having once
learned in school that touching a contaminating object makes one impure
even though he fails to make the connection at the time of contact and
actually realize that he is impure.
If so, asked Rabbi Papa, how is it possible to have the case of no initial
awareness mentioned in the Mishna? Has not every Jew once learned in
school something so elementary that he becomes impure when he touches a
contaminating object?
This is possible, responded the Sage Abaye, if a Jewish child was taken
captive by gentiles and never had an opportunity to learn even the basic
laws of the Torah.
(We leave to the reader's imagination what sort of answer to Rabbi Papa's
question could have been supplied by contemporary Jewish society - Ed.)
Shavuos 5a
===========================================================================
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]
|