web analytics
October 26, 2014 / 2 Heshvan, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Al Hadaf’

Daf Yomi

Wednesday, October 17th, 2012

Crystal Clear As The Waters
Speak In The Manner Of One’s Teacher
(Shabbos 15a)

A mikveh must have, minimally, forty se’ah of water that has gathered in it by natural means. This precludes the use of mayim she’uvin – water that was drawn in a vessel to fill the mikveh. If a significant amount of mayim she’uvin fell into a mikveh before it contained the minimum forty se’ah of naturally-gathered water, all the water in the mikveh is disqualified. The question is: What constitutes a significant amount?

A Dispute Even In Expression

The Gemara cites a mishnah in Eduyos (1:3). Hillel says a hin of drawn water (three kabim) renders the mikveh unfit. Shammai maintains the measure is nine kabim. The Gemara notes Hillel’s unusual usage of the hin measure as opposed to the kab measure (which, the Ravad explains, is the term usually used in mishnayos) and explains that a person is required to speak in the manner of his teachers. Since Hillel was a student of Shemayah and Avtalyon who used the hin measure as opposed to the kab measure, he too used that measure.

Mispronouncing Hebrew

The Rambam (Pirush Hamishnayos, Eduyos, at the beginning, cited by Rabbenu Ovadiyah Mi’Bartenura) offers a unique explanation of the Gemara. He says that Shemayah and Avtalyon were converts who came from a nation where people were unable to properly pronounce the letter “heh.” They would pronounce it as an aleph. Thus, they would pronounce “hin” as “in.” In deference to his teachers, Hillel too would pronounce “hin” as “in.”

No Reason To Copy Mispronunciations

The Vilna Gaon (novella to Shabbos ad loc.) explains the mishnah in a similar fashion but rejects the notion that one is obligated to mimic one’s teacher’s mispronunciation of words. He explains that when the Gemara states that Hillel copied his teachers’ pronunciation, what it means is the following: Shemayah and Avtalyon used to preface the word “hin” with “maleh.” In other words, they used to say “maleh hin” even though saying “maleh” is redundant since, by definition, a hin is always maleh (just like a kab is always maleh which is why Shammai in the Gemara just says “kabim” and not “maleh kabim”).

Concern For A Halachic Misunderstanding

Why, indeed, did Shemayah and Avtalyon say “maleh hin”? Because they were concerned that people might misunderstand them. Since they couldn’t pronounce a “heh” properly, people might think they were saying “ein” – which means “no” – instead of “hin.” People would thus conclude that drawn water does not disqualify a mikveh. By adding the word “maleh,” Shemayah and Avtalyon made clear that they meant to say the word “hin,” not “ein.”

Even though, Hillel, whose pronunciation was fine, had no reason to add the word “maleh,” he did so nevertheless so as not to deviate from his teachers’ manner of speech.

This week’s Daf Yomi Highlights is based upon Al Hadaf, published by Cong. Al Hadaf, 17N Rigaud Rd., Spring Valley, NY 10977-2533. Al Hadaf, published semi-monthly, is available by subscription: U.S. – $40 per year; Canada – $54 per year; overseas – $65 per year. For dedication information contact Rabbi Zev Dickstein, editor, at 845-356-9114 or visit Alhadafyomi.org.

Daf Yomi

Friday, October 12th, 2012

Where Beis Shammai And Beis Hillel Agree
‘One Must Not Sit Before A Barber Near Minchah’
(Shabbos 9b)

Our mishnah states that one is proscribed from taking a haircut half an hour before the time for minchah lest one forget to pray that tefillah. The mishnah lists other activities, as well, that one may not engage in at this time for the same reason.

Rashi (s.v. “ad she’yispallel”) wonders why the tanna cites this halacha in the midst of a discussion of the laws of Shabbos. This halacha, after all, applies to every day of the week. Rashi suggests that that this halacha appears here specifically because it is similar to another one mentioned in the next mishnah: the halacha that a tailor may not go out in the public domain with his needle near nightfall.

A Shabbos Concern

The Sefas Emes (Novella, ad loc.) offers a different reason. He explains that one might have thought that on erev Shabbos there is no concern that a person may prolong his haircut to the extent that he will miss minchah since, in any event, he knows that he must stop all his activities before the onset of Shabbos. That’s why although this halacha applies every day, it is necessary for the mishnah to state that it applies even on erev Shabbos.

The Shofar Blasts

Additionally, the Gemara (infra 35b) teaches that there was a custom on erev Shabbos to sound several shofar blasts shortly before the onset of Shabbos to remind people to cease working. One might have thought that a person need not worry about taking a haircut half an hour before the time of Minchah on Friday since the shofar blasts will remind him that Shabbos is about to arrive. That’s why the tanna has to state that doing so in nonetheless forbidden.

To Honor The Sabbath

The Rashash (ad loc) offers yet another reason. He explains that taking a haircut and bathing in honor of Shabbos is a mitzvah. Therefore, the mishnah in Meseches Shabbos needs to stress that, nonetheless, one may not perform it starting half an hour before the time of Minchah.

The Maharitz Chayos (Novella, ad Loc.) cites the Rambam in Pirush HaMishnayos (first perek of Meseches Shabbos) who states that this halacha is among the (Sabbath-related) halachos that were jointly enacted by Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel in the aliyas Chananya ben Chizkiya ben Garon (infra. 13b). Therefore, it is stated here.

No Blessing

The Mechaber (Orach Chayim 251:1, based upon Pesachim 50b) states that one should not do any melachah from the time of Minchah since one will not see a siman berachah from it. Some say this applies starting from Minchah Gedolah; others say it only applies starting from Minchah Ketanah.

This week’s Daf Yomi Highlights is based upon Al Hadaf, published by Cong. Al Hadaf, 17N Rigaud Rd., Spring Valley, NY 10977-2533. Al Hadaf published semi-monthly, is available by subscription: U.S. – $40 per year; Canada – $54 per year; overseas – $65 per year. For dedication information contact Rabbi Zev Dickstein, editor, at 845-356-9114 or visit Alhadafyomi.org.

Daf Yomi

Thursday, September 20th, 2012

The Lady Of The House
‘One Blesses First On The Wine…’
(Berachos 51)

The evening Shabbos kiddush consists of two berachos: “Hagafen,” the blessing on wine, and birkas hayom, the blessing on the sanctification of the day. Our mishnah cites a dispute between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel. Beis Shammai assert that the sanctification blessing precedes the wine blessing. Beis Hillel, on the other hand, opine that the wine blessing goes first. The halacha follows Beis Hillel.

The Primacy Of The Wine

Beis Hillel offer two reasons for their view. First, it is the wine that causes the recital of kiddush (if not for the wine, we wouldn’t say kiddush). Second, the rule is “tadir v’she’eino tadir, tadir kodem” – whenever we have two mitzvos, the one that is performed more frequently takes precedence.

Biblical Vs. Rabbinical

The Pnei Yehoshua (ad loc.) points out a difficulty with Beis Hillel’s ruling. The obligation to recite the sanctification blessing is biblical whereas the mitzvah to recite the wine blessing is only rabbinic. Therefore, the sanctification blessing ought to go first. And yet, Beis Hille states the very opposite.

Rabbi Yechezkel Landau (the Tzlach ad loc.) asks another question: Why do Beis Hillel say that if someone lacks wine, he is not required to recite kiddush? Since the sanctification blessing is a biblical mitzvah, he should be required to say kiddush with or without wine.

Kiddush In Ma’ariv

The Pnei Yehoshua answers these questions by explaining that a person has already fulfilled the biblical mitzvah of sanctifying the day of Shabbos in the Ma’ariv Amidah. If there is no wine at home, therefore, there is no reason for him to recite kiddush.

Kiddush At Home

The Tzlach further notes that, according this reasoning, a woman who did not daven Ma’ariv and recites kiddush for herself should reverse the order of the berachos, with the sanctification blessing preceding the wine blessing.

The She’arim Metzuyanim B’Halacha (ad loc.) notes that this might be precisely why often the lady of the house, upon receiving kiddush wine from her husband, does not rely on her husband’s berachah of “borei pri hagafen” but recites her own. Since she did not daven Ma’ariv, her kiddush obligation at the Shabbos table is biblical. Thus, she must first hear the sanctification blessing and only then make the wine blessing.

This week’s Daf Yomi Highlights is based upon Al Hadaf, published by Cong. Al Hadaf, 17N Rigaud Rd., Spring Valley, NY 10977-2533. Al Hadaf, published semi-monthly, is available by subscription: U.S. – $40 per year; Canada – $54 per year; overseas – $65 per year. For dedication information, contact Rabbi Zev Dickstein, editor, at 845-356-9114 or visit Alhadafyomi.org.

Daf Yomi

Thursday, September 13th, 2012

Shehakol Bread?
‘One Recites A Blessing On The Primary Food’
(Berachos 44a)

The mishnah on our daf states that whenever a person eats a primary food (an ikar) and a subordinate food (a tafel), he should only recite a berachah on the ikar. For example, if someone eats salted food and subsequently eats bread solely for the purpose of absorbing the salt, he should only recite a berachah on the salted food, not on the bread. He should recite neither hamotzi nor birkas hamazon.

Set Before Him

Tosafos (sv. “b’ochlei…”) assert that the berachah on the ikar does not exempt the tafel unless the tafel was in the person’s presence when he recited the berachah on the ikar and intended to eat the tafel afterwards. However, if someone recites a berachah on salty fish without intending to eat bread at that time, and then afterwards decides to eat some bread to absorb the salt, he must recite a berachah on the bread.

Two Explanations

The Chazon Ish (Orach Chayim 27) suggests two possible reasons why a tafel does not require a separate berachah. First, the tafel is ancillary to the principal food and as such is considered too insignificant to require its own berachah. Second, the tafel, being ancillary to the ikar, is subject to the same berachah as the ikar. Thus, the berachah recited on the ikar covers the tafel as well. In other words, the tafel as not insignificant and does require a berachah according to this second explanation. However, the berachah recited on the ikar satisfies this requirement.

A Matter Of Intent

The Chazon Ish adduces proof from Tosafos that his second explanation is the correct one. According to the first explanation, even if someone did not originally intend to eat a tafel, it should still be exempt from a berachah since, in the end, it is being eaten as an ancillary to the ikar. And yet, Tosafos rule that the tafel is not exempt.

According to the second approach, however, Tosafos is more understandable. According to this explanation, the tafel is always subject to a berachah, only that the berachah on the ikar covers it. When one recites a berachah on the ikar, however, without intending to eat a tafel afterwards, the tafel cannot be subsumed under the berachah of the ikar and needs its own separate berachah.

Interestingly, the Magen Avraham rules (Orach Chayim 212 sk2) that in such an instance – where one only decides, for example, to eat bread as a tafel after making a berachah on an ikar like fish – the berachah for the bread would be shehakol, like the berachah one recited on the fish.

Berachah Acharonah?

The Shulchan Aruch Harav (op cit. sk10) notes that if someone only decides to eat a tafel after making a berachah on an ikar, he must make both a berachah rishonah and a berachah acharonah on the tafel. It is not covered by the berachah acharonah of the ikar.

This week’s Daf Yomi Highlights is based upon Al Hadaf, published by Cong. Al Hadaf, 17N Rigaud Rd., Spring Valley, NY 10977-2533. Al Hadaf published semi-monthly, is available by subscription: U.S. – $40 per year; Canada – $54 per year; Overseas – $65 per year. For dedication information contact Rabbi Zev Dickstein, editor, at their office 845-356-9114 or visit Alhadafyomi.org.

Daf Yomi

Thursday, August 23rd, 2012

No Cell Phones Please!
‘A Kerchief That One Designated For Storing Tefillin’
(Berachos 23)

R. Chisda on our daf cites the following halacha: If someone designates a kerchief for storing tefillin and then does in fact store his tefillin there, he may not store his money there too. However, if he designated a kerchief without actually storing his tefillin in it, or stored his tefillin in a kerchief without designating it for that purpose, he may also store his money there.

The Mechaber (Orach Chayim 42:3) codifies this halacha, and the Rema adds that this rule also applies to other tashmishei kedushah. For example, it is only forbidden to write on a piece of klaf if it has already been both designated and used for tefillin, a mezuzah, or Sefer Torah – whatever the case may be.

Tallis Bag

The Magen Avraham (ad loc. s.v. “ve’da d’chol zeh…”) notes that talleisim are not considered sanctified items but tashmishei mitzvah. Therefore, this rule about “designating and using” does not apply to them. Thus, we may store keys, reading glasses, and cell phones, for example, in a tallis bag.

A Designation How To

How does one formally designate a tefillin bag as a tashmish kedushah? The Mishnah Berurah (ad loc. sk 10, 24) writes that one may 1) verbally designate it; 2) manufacture it [or improve upon an existing bag] for the sake of tefillin; 3) actually place tefillin in it with the intent to permanently use it for storing tefillin; or 4) repeatedly use it for one’s tefillin.

The Aruch Hashulchan (ad loc. sk 4) argues that “repeatedly use” means three days. After that, the bag assumes the status of tashmishei kedushah. However, if one openly stipulates that he does not intend to use this bag for tefillin on a regular basis, then the bag does not acquire the status of tashmishei kedushah even after three days.

This week’s Daf Yomi Highlights is based upon Al Hadaf, published by Cong. Al Hadaf, 17N Rigaud Rd., Spring Valley, NY 10977-2533. Al Hadaf, published semi-monthly, is available by subscription: U.S. – $40 per year; Canada – $54 per year; overseas – $65 per year. For dedication information contact Rabbi Zev Dickstein, editor, at 845-356-9114 or visit Alhadafyomi.org.

Daf Yomi

Wednesday, August 15th, 2012

What About Ma’ariv?
‘The Bridegroom Is Exempt From Kerias Shema’
(Berachos 16a)

A mishnah on our daf states that a chassan who marries a besulah is exempt from the mitzvah of reciting kerias shema on the night of his wedding. This is because of the rule (Sukkah 25a): “osek b’mitzvah patur min ha’mitzvah – one who is presently occupied with one mitzvah is exempt from performing another mitzvah.” In this instance, the chassan is preoccupied with consummating the marriage.

The mishnah adds that if the chassan did not consummate the marriage on the night of the wedding, he is exempt from shema for the following three nights since his mind is still pre-occupied with the mitzvah at hand. The mishnah relates that Rabban Gamliel, however, did recite kerias shema when he was a chassan. When his students asked him about it, he explained, “I cannot possibly abrogate my obligation to accept Heaven’s kingship even for one moment.”

A second mishnah on our daf (16b) qualifies the rule of the previous mishnah, and seems to be in general agreement with Rabban Gamliel’s behavior. Indeed, it states that if a chassan so chooses, he may recite kerias shema.

Family Dispute?

Interesting, then, is the statement of his son, Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, that not everyone has the right to display such piety and therefore a chassan should not recite kerias shema on his wedding night. At the conclusion of our perek, Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel’s view is explained. Only one who is highly pious, a Torah scholar of note, may recite kerias shema on his wedding night. A Torah scholar of ordinary stature, however, may not. Thus, there is no inconsistency between Rabbi Shimon b. Gamliel’s view and that of his father cited in the earlier mishnah.

Kavanah, The Lack Of

The Mechaber (Orach Chayim 70:3), essentially quoting Tosafos (17b, sv “R. Shisha …”), rules that a chassan today should recite kerias shema since most people lack proper kavanah when they daven. In other words, a chassan’s kerias shema on the night of his wedding may lack kavanah but so do the kerias shemas he says throughout the year. If an ordinary chassan doesn’t say kerias shema on his wedding night, he appears haughty since he’s implying that if not for his preoccupied mind, his kerias shema would contain the proper level of kavanah.

Hand In Hand

What is the rule regarding davening Ma’ariv? It would seem that the same rules that apply to kerias shema should apply to Ma’ariv. Yet, we find that they don’t necessarily go hand in hand. The Shulchan Aruch Harav (Orach Chayim 70sk3) writes that a chassan is exempt from kerias shema and Ma’ariv, but when he discusses the minhag nowadays, he writes that a chassan should recite kerias shema and makes no mention of Ma’ariv. It thus seem that a chassan is exempt from Ma’ariv even nowadays. The reason for this is because, as the Shulchan Aruch Harav writes, kerias shema is a biblical obligation whereas Ma’ariv is only rabbinical.

This week’s Daf Yomi Highlights is based upon Al Hadaf, published by Cong. Al Hadaf, 17N Rigaud Rd., Spring Valley, NY 10977-2533. Al Hadaf published semi-monthly is available by subscription: U.S. – $40 per year; Canada – $54 per year; overseas – $65 per year. For dedication information contact Rabbi Zev Dickstein, editor, at 845-356-9114 or visit Alhadafyomi.org.

Daf Yomi

Wednesday, July 18th, 2012

Self Evident?
What Uncleanness Is There In A Nasal Discharge?’
(Niddah 55b- 56a)

The mishnah on 54b lists spittle (saliva) as one of the bodily secretions of a zav that convey tumah. This law appears in Vayikra 15:8: “Ve’chi yarok hazav batahor ve’chibes begadav ve’rachatz ba’mayyim ve’tamei ad ha’arev – And if the zav spit upon someone, that person shall immerse his garments and immerse himself in the water, and he remains unclean until the evening.”

A baraisa (on 55b) states that the term “if the zav spit” includes other secretions as well, such as mei ha’af (a nasal discharge). The Gemara then cites a dispute between Rav and Shmuel as to the meaning of mei ha’af: Shmuel says that it refers to all types of discharges – whether from the nose or the mouth since nasal secretions are no different than saliva.

Traces

Rav, on the other hand, asserts that a nasal secretion is not like saliva and therefore does not convey tumah. He says that the term mei ha’af in the baraisarefers to phlegm expelled through the mouth. The reason this phlegm conveys tumah is simply because it is impossible to discharge phlegm through the mouth without traces of saliva in it.

Two Questions

The commentators ask two compelling questions. First, the Aruch LaNer (ad loc.) asks why, according to Rav, must the baraisa derive the uncleanness of a nasal secretion from the pasuk “Ve’chi yarok.” Since the phlegm contains traces of saliva, it is self-evident that phlegm is unclean. Darshening the pasuk seems to be superfluous.

Second, the Be’er Avraham (Hilchos Metam’ei U’Moshav 1:14) asks why the small amount of saliva mixed in with the phlegm should be of any significance. Since the saliva comprises only a small percentage of the total mixture, it should be nullified in the majority (batal b’rov).

Simple Logic

The Marcheshes (siman 37:1-10) explains that these questions present no difficulty. Indeed, each one provides the answer for the other. He explains that if not for the pasukVe’chi yarok,” a zav’s phlegm would not be tamei despite the fact that it contains traces of saliva. Why? Because that small amount would, indeed, be batal b’rov as Be’er Avraham argues.

When Rav says that it is impossible to discharge phlegm through the mouth without traces of saliva, what he means to say is since orally-expelled phlegm invariably contains saliva, it is logical to treat such a discharge more stringently than a nasally-expelled discharge which contains no saliva. Rav assumes that “Ve’chi yarok,” which comes to include phlegm, does not include all discharges but only orally-expelled phlegm since it contains some saliva. Thus if not for the exposition from this pasuk, the miniscule amount of saliva would indeed be nullified.

This week’s Daf Yomi Highlights is based upon Al Hadaf, published by Cong. Al Hadaf, 17N Rigaud Rd., Spring Valley, NY 10977-2533. Al Hadaf published, semi-monthly, is available by subscription: U.S. – $40 per year; Canada – $54 per year; overseas – $65 per year. For dedication information, contact Rabbi Zev Dickstein, editor, at 845-356-9114 or visit Alhadafyomi.org.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/halacha-hashkafa/daf-yomi-34/2012/07/18/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: