Pesachim 91b

 

 

When the Gemara says that if Rebbe Yosi holds like Rebbe Shimon Rebbe Shimon must hold like Rebbe Yosi, besides for Tosafos' Kasha Rashi contradicts himself. On Amud Alef he says that when we ask how Rebbe Yosi knows to Darshen the Pasuk like Rebbe Shimon rather than like Rebbe Yehuda, it is not a real Kasha since one Darshens as he sees fit, and is only a passage to say that Ish Kefi Achlo is his main source. Here however, Rashi explains that if not for Rebbe Shimon learning like Rebbe Yosi he should have rather used the Pasuk like Reb Yehuda.

Perhaps, to straighten out Rashi and the Kasha of Tosafos we can say as follows. When the Gemara says that according to Reb Yehuda it is Tarti Masha, it doesn't mean that he actively Darshens the Pasuk in two ways. It means that he derives both Halachos from the Pasuk. One is a Drasha and one is self evident.

Since Rebbe Shimon expressed that this Halacha is a Drasha he does not Darshen the Pasuk like Rebbe Yehuda, and must hold like Rebbe Yosi. And, although we can't ask why he saw fit to Darshen one way over another we can ask why he doesn't hold like Rebbe Yehuda, since his Shita seems to be more explicit in the Pasuk.

Or better, in Amud Alef Rashi is saying not to ask why he chose Rebbe Shimon but on Amud Bais we aware asking on Rebbe Shimon why he didn't Darshen it like Rebbe Yehuda rather than for something that Rebbe Yehuda considers self evident. But once there are two established Drashos we can't ask why one is better.

In the previous approach we would still be stuck wondering why Rashi didn't explain the Kasha of Amud Alef similarly to the one on Amud Bais. In the latter approach this is not Shver, since on Amud Alef the Kasha is on Rebbe Yosi whereas on Amud Bais it is on Rebbe Yosi.

Ein Mukdam Ume'uchar Batorah

Rebbe Eliezer famously said that if the Torah were written in order, anyone would be able to be Mechaye Meisim. The question is, this is used to show that the Parshios are not written in order, so assuming Rebbe Eliezer is referring to the Torah not showing the sheimos of Hakadosh Baruch Hu, what does that have to do with the chronological order of the Parshios?

Perhaps it means that this order that we have is based on the Sheimos, and if it would be clear why the order is this way, then the Sheimos would be clear and open, as well.

Another explanation is that he is proving that the Torah is not in chronological order, for if this were the chronological order it would mean that anyone can be Mechaye Meisim, since we see people appearing after the Torah writes that they died.

Pesachim 9a

Rashi (Hai Mai) explains that Rava is saying that the Kasha doesn't begin, for even if it would be the nature of the weasel to leave over the meat of a Nefel, the Halacha would be the same. This sounds like in actuality Rava agrees that they don't leave over meat. If so, when we ask from the Braysa of the Cohen who looked over the pit, why don't we answer that the fact is that they don't leave over meat?

The answer to this is that Rashi (Hasam Vadai Uvadai) says that there is no going after Rov. We see from this that to qualify for a Vadai, enough to clear a Vadai Issur, we need a real Vadai and not a Rov. Therefore, the usual nature of the weasel doesn't either help.

If so, when Rashi said that Rava is talking as if the nature would be to leave over, Rava actually disagrees with Reb Zeira even though we say that they don't leave over, and he holds that we must come on to Safek Motzei Midei Safek even when normally they wouldn't leave anything over. He was only stressing the Chiddush that any Safek takes away from a Safek.

Alternatively, we can say that Rashi doesn't mean to say that Rava agrees to this fact, which might have been a conclusion drawn from the Kasha. Rava is arguing on the Terutz and its premise and says that we can even say that they do leave over.

The latter approach works better with what we say at the end, that although they leave over they definitely drag it away. Why couldn't we say that they definitely finish off meat once we are looking for a difference between the case of the Braysa and our Mishna? According to our second approach, that Rava holds that in actuality they do leave over (at least it is common enough not to make a difference), it works out well that we didn't mention that. This is not a Raaya though, because it might be that we are simply aware of the facts, and although they normally do finish it, it is not definite, while they always carry it away.

Giving to love

It has been said that the word Ahava comes from the (Aramaic) word, Hav, to give. This shows us that giving is loving. The more you care for someone and give them, the more you come to love them.

Obviously this is no different than any other case of Nifal Ha'adam Kefi Pe'ulosav. The Maharal explains the Maamar Chazal where Rav Simla'i says that the embryo lays folded like a pad. He says that this is to show us what a person is all about. A person is essentially a notenook whatever you write into it defines it. If you write acts of Sechel, you are a Secheldike person; if you write kind deeds you are a kind person.

Your actions don't only show the world your inside thoughts, they show them to you as well. Moreover, a person is fertile ground for many emotions and attitudes. You constantly stand at a crossroad with a choice of two attitudes. When you act out one of them you have chosen and solidified your view and approach.

This is why a Mitzva is supposed to consist of thought, verbal expression, and action. First realize what you are about to do, then express it and act on it.

As much as we like to think of ourselves as ironclad, our emotions and attitudes can be as easy as the flip of a coin. You can often just as easily love someone as hate them. When you think, 'I will give this person (that I love/respect/care for) something,' and then actually give it, you now think that way.

(Posted at http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/ahavahav-but-why.)

Retroreflectors

A retroreflector, or corner-cube prism, is a prism so designed that a light hitting it from any direction will be sent back to the same location it originated from. The basic idea is that it is cut in a way that any light entering the prism will be hitting a corner which will reflect the light to another corner and from there back out in the same direction that it entered.

 

There are two approaches of using the Torah to relate to the current time. One approach is to adapt the Torah's view to the situation and the other way is to apply the current mode of thinking to the Torah.

 

There are many explanations as to the deeper meaning of Chametz and Matza. One more understanding of it is, that Matza is pure and original while Chametz is made out of time. This wouldn't make it Traif. However, once a year we are to focus on our timelessness and our source, and therefore in that time such food becomes unkosher.

 

With each new generation comes new questions and unique challenges. Each generation has its own views, as well. It is easy to pick up the prevalent outlook and decide that that is what the Torah wants. But, the Matzo approach is to look purely into the Torah and derive only from there what the Torah says.

 

This is not to say that we ignore the changes of time. However, it does mean that we use the Torah as the source, and apply that to the times.

 

In other words, instead of using the Torah as a tool to back up what we already believe, we look to Torah for our answers. This is where the retroreflector comes in. We shine our question to it from any angle, and we get the response. We don't move the reflector, but from any angle you focus on it, it responds to you.

 

From the most obvious issues that come up as times change, are inventions and innovations. We have items and situations that were not around at the giving of the Torah or at the compilation of the Talmud. You won't find the relevant Halachos in the Shulchan Aruch. How to deal with these new questions takes a good understanding of the reasoning behind the Shulchan Aruch.

 

The Halachos of Shabbos are a very good example. Electricity was understood by all that it must be prohibited, yet the reasons vary. However, a careful look would show that the Chazon Ish, Reb Shlomo Zalman and Reb Moshe Feinstein do all have a common thread.

 

The Chazon Ish says that using electricity is like building. To understand this, he explains that actually every circuit should be viewed as if you are the inventor. When someone makes a siren for a project, he would have all the bare wires wrapped or soldered to the different components, and then to the battery. When you want to stop the siren, you would pull apart one of the wires. The electrical switch in just a convenient way to pull apart that wire.

 

Although you may ask that a door to a house is just a convenient way to break down your wall and quickly rebuild it, the difference is in the intent. The house is meant to be entered into and exited from; an electrical circuit is meant to run. The only reason you stop it is for external reasons, like energy costs. An appliance is dead until it is turned on.

 

Reb Shlomo Zalman says that turning on an electrical appliance is the Issur of Nolad. The idea, here too, is that from the human perspective something new has come about, a new action was created.

 

Reb Moshe, in some Teshuvos, writes that he doesn't yet understand electricity clearly enough to deal with it. In another Teshuva, he does say that it falls between Maka Bepatish and Tikkun Mana, both meaning the completion of an item. Completing or finalizing an item, even when there is no other Melacha being done, is the Melacha of Maka Bepatish, literally, the last blow.

 

What all three have in common is that the problem would only be to turn an appliance on. Adding to the load doesn't seem to fall under any of the above categories. However, Reb Moshe, in one Teshuva about using a microphone when it was turned on before Shabbos, writes that it is Assur for four reasons:
1- It has a loud sound, which is always a problem on Shabbos, because it looks or sounds like a Melacha was done.
2- Not being clear on the issue of electricity, perhaps it is a problem to cause more current to flow.
3- Using a microphone is similar to the Issur Derabanan of using musical instruments, where there is the danger of the person fixing the instrument. Here too, it is only a flick-of-the-switch away to fix the appliance.
4- When you talk into the mic you are causing a sound to be created at the speaker end. This could be a problem of Nolad.

 

I don't know if Reb Moshe would uphold the second issue, that of causing more current, in light of his later Teshuva, associating the usage of electricity with Maka Bepatish or Tikkun Mana. There does seem to be a difference among Poskim between turning something on and using something.

 

According to the logic of the Chazon Ish and Reb Shlomo Zalman, I wonder about cell phones, where there is current running through the device the whole time. By pressing a button, although you are running current through the button's contact leads, that shouldn't be considered Nolad nor Binyan in the scope of the device. You definitely don't want the button to stay down and nothing new is being started up, other than the device's usage. However, the general rule of Shema Yissaken Klei Shir surely does apply.

 

Automatic elevators and escalators might be a step further from ordinary electrical appliances in that the switch is not available, making the Shema Yissaken not so applicable. Although we normally don't make distinctions like this when dealing with a Gezeira, in our case, the Gezeira was only applied to these cases because of their similarity.

Welcome

I have searched around a bit to find a site dedicated to real Torah discussions. I haven't found one yet. I therefore decided to start one. I hope this will start out well. You are online anyhow, so why spend the time with small talk when it can be spent so well in discussing Torah.

All ideas are welcome.