Homestretch of our Mikvah Sugyah

Last night - Monday night - we did a review of our sugyah to date - after a lengthy break since Tuesday of last week.

Here are how the forces lined up:
R. Yehuda/Rav - hold that even if three lugin of drawn water are intact and then are invaded by a kortov of wine, and then fall into the mikvah, the mikvah is kosher
R. Chiya's baraita - הורידו את ה מקוה - in the exact same case, the baraita invalidates the mikvah
Rava - this is not a contradiction against Rav, but a machloket between the Tannaim, and Rav lined up with the lenient view.

Tanna Kamma: invalidates such a mikvah (like the Tanna of the baraita of R. Chiya)
R. Yochanan Ben Nuri: says such a mikvah is kosher (like Rav)

How do we know that TK of the upcoming mishna rules like the Tanna of R. Chiya's baraita? The TK seems to base his leniency for a mikvah on the fact that there was under 3 lugin of drawn water that fell in....but (inference): were TK to have been dealing with a full 3 lugin to begin with, he would invalidate the mikvah.

The Gemara now questions the basis of linking Rav ONLY to RYBN and linking R. Chiya's baraita to TK.  Couldn't it be, asks the Gemara that Rav EVEN lines up with TK?

The Gemara attempts to show - through R. Pappa's question - how this would occur:
Rav Pappa was uncertain as to whether Rav had the girsa/edition of a "Chaser Kortov" in the wine case (reisha) of the mishna.  One possibility is that the TK DID in fact have the girsa of "less a kortov" as we do in the mishna in front of us...  If so, Rava's linkage between Rav and RYBN - and not TK - was correct.  If, however, Rav did not have TK saying "chaser kortov" in the wine case- rather a full 3 lugin.......then the ruling of TK on the wine case is lenient EVEN IF THE WINE DROPPED INTO A FULL THREE LUGIN.  Put this way, Rav is consistent not only with RYBN, but even with the Tanna Kamma.


Since, the Gemara says, R. Pappa was entertaining such a possibility - and Rava was the rebbe of Rav Pappa, in whose name he often relied before making halachhic pronouncements - how could it be that Rava lined up Rav with RYBN and not Tanna Kamma, when Rava's student, Rav Pappa, still considered Rav as potentially consistent with Tanna Kamma?


The Gemara's answer:
Rava was nevertheless certain of Rav's edition of the reisha of the mishna, while R. Pappa remained uncertain...

Review of Tuesday night - Shiur for Wednesday unfortunately cancelled

As I’ve written, due to difficult travel conditions and a trip to Canada, the shiur I had hoped to give (even early!) this afternoon – will not take place.

To whatever extent I can minimize the lag between Tuesday’s class and next Monday’s shiur, here is a short summary of yesterday’s shiur:

We reviewed the interplay between Rav Yehuda/Rav and R. Chiya – on the one hand – and Tanna Kamma and R. Yochanan Ben Nuri on the other hand.

Here is the chart we saw last night:

Views from bottom of ג:	ג' לוגין מים + קורטוב יין		ג' לוגין מים חסר  קורטוב + קורטוב יין	Tanna of mishna
Rav Yehuda/Rav	Mikvah is Kosher		Everything goes according to the appearance (Rashi: Even if there were 3 full לוגין and then the wine dropped in) He paskens like RY/Rav	R. Yochanan Ben Nuri
Baraita of R. Chiya	Mikvah is Psula הורידו את המקוה		Mikva is Kosher (Rashi: Tanna Kamma of this mishna is only lenient, not invalidating the mikvah, in the case where the 3 lugin of water was not complete prior to the wine dropping in.   Therefore, the mikvah is kosher.)  However, were this same TK to be presented with a case like that of R. Yehuda/Rav/R. Chiyah’s baraita, he would rule like R. Chiya, who said הורידו את המקוה	Tanna Kamma

As I said in shiur, the goal of the Gemara is to validate the view of Rav Yehuda/Rav as being based on a legitimate Tannaitic view.  After all, R. Chiyah quoted a baraita

תני רבי חייא – and if Rav Yehuda/Rav is going to survive the attack questions of R. Kahana, he must provide Tannaitic back-up.

Make sure you know the chart above before you go to the next step.

The Gemara then asks the following question:

הא מיבעיא בעי לה רב פפא

But Rav Pappa had a question (Rashi: the Gemara’s goal is to question the limiting of Rav Yehuda/Rav’s view to that of R. Yochanan Ben Nuri, to the exclusion of Tanna Kamma of that mishna.  The Gemara wants to establish that Rav is also consistent with the view of Tanna Kamma/Rabbanan of that mishna)

דבעי רב פפא:

As R. Pappa asked:

רב תני חסר קורטוב ברישא, אבל שלשה לוגין לתנא קמא פסלי, ואתא ר' יוחנן למימר: הכל הולך אחר המראה, ורב אומר כר' יוחנן בן נורי;

(This first approach is exactly the way we’d explained Rav until now, that he lines up with R. Yochanan Ben Nuri, and R. Chiyah with Tanna Kamma) Did Rav have the text of “less a Kortov” in the opening case of the mishna, ie the wine case, but in the case of a full 3 lugin, Tanna Kamma would say the mikvah is psula – and R. Yochanan comes to say “everything goes according to the appearance” (thereby maintaining that even when there are 3 full lugin, and then the kortov drops in the mikvah is kosher)?  And Rav goes according to this view of RYBN?  (WE’LL CALL THIS APPROACH #1)

או דלמא רב לא תני חסר קורטוב ברישא,

Or perhaps, Rav does not have the edition of “less a Kortov” in the first case of the mishna (instead, it’s a full 3 lugin of water before the wine falls in  - and nevertheless the TK says the mikvah is kosher)

ור' יוחנן בן נורי כי פליג - אסיפא הוא דפליג, ורב דאמר כדברי הכל?

And when R. Yochanan Ben Nuri disagrees, he disagrees with the ruling of TK on the case of the milk. (In the milk case, the situation is “less a kortov” and TK says the mikvah is kosher because there are not 3 full lugin of water, and RYBN disagrees, using his principle of “everything goes according to the appearance”) – and Rav says what he says (regarding the 3 full lugin + wine = kosher mikvah) according to everyone – ie both RYBN and TK! (because both agree with this ruling)

It is this last point that completes the flow of this stage of the Gemara: Rav Pappa entertained the possibility that Rav could be ruling like both TK and RYBN – so why was he artificially linked only to RYBN??

Review of Monday - Tonight's shiur back on Webyeshiva site

Tonight, due to log in problems for some students, we will be back on Webex, ie Webyeshiva.org's website

On Monday night, we delved more into the mishna cited by Rava as the basis for the machloket between Rav and R. Chiya.

To review: 
In the case of 3 לוגין of water into which a קורטוב of wine dropped,
Rav Yehuda/Rav paskens that the mikvah is kosher - reasoning? It has a status of "diluted wine"
R. Chiya, however, cites a baraita that says - in the same fact situation -  הורידו את המקוה - which Rashi explains to mean: "Invalidate the mikva"

Rava explains that Rav is not contradicting R. Chiyah's baraita.  Rather, Rav has taken one side of a known Tannaitic debate, in a mishna in Masechet Mikva'aot.

The דתנן at the bottom of the page is the presentation of the issue as a machloket Tannaim.
The case - as we explained yesterday - is slightly different than ours - but we can infer from it halachic positions that match the views of Rav and the baraita of R. Chiya, respectively

The mishna deals with a case of 3 לוגין of drawn water MINUS a קורטוב, and the wine fills in the last קורטוב of the 3 לוגין - or a similar case in which milk dropped in.  In both cases, the mikva is kosher. 

Rashi helps us understand that the Tanna Kamma would invalidate the mikva were it to have had the full 3 לוגין of water before the wine dropped in.  Were it to have had the full amount, it would already have had the status of a "3 לוגין of מים שאובין" and could not have been transformed.  Tanna Kamma therefore lines up with R. Chiya's baraita.
However, R. Yochanan ben Nuri, who says הכל הולך אחר המראה - everything goes after the appearance, rules that even if 3 לוגין were present before the wine dropped in, such a mixture would not invalidate the mikvah.  This lines up with Rav!

Maintaining the Mikvah

Our new mini-sugyah deals with the status of a mikveh impacted by three לוגים of מים שאובין - or 'drawn water'; מים שאובין invalidates a mikvah מדרבנן.  The rule of Rav Yehuda is that 3 לוגים of such water that had one קרטוב of wine drop into it - and then the mixture dropped into the mikvah - do NOT invalidate the mikvah.  

Rav Kahana, who has been attacking R. Yehuda's halachot since the top of our amud, questions why this case - in which the mikvah is kosher - is different than the case of colored water of the same measure -that invalidates a mikvah according to R. Yosi in a mishna.

Rava's answer: the latter case has the status of colored water- and therefore, of מים שאויבים - whereas the former is called "diluted wine".  Diluted wine is not water and therefore does not invalidate the mikvah...

The Gemara does not accept this distinction, since R. Chiyah recounted a baraita that says that both the cases of wine and colored water both invalidate a mikvah.  So we are back to the question as to how R. Yehuda can say that the wine case still does not invlalidate a mikvah.  Rava answers in the Gemara - this issue of the debate between R. Yehuda and R.Chiya represents a long-standing machloket Tannaim.....and each one of these Amoraim 'sides' with his own Tanna....

Sunday Chazara, Nov 21st

Log on tonight for our Weekly review

go to http://demo.nachsoftware.com/

log in - the first six letters of your name; if shorter, include the first letters of your last name
this is both your username and password
all small letters

You'll see "Rabbi Ron-Ami Private Learning"

The name of our class tonight  Webyeshiva Matmidim Sunday 21st Chazara
connect to the meeting
have patience with the microphone and video; I have found that you have to "fiddle" with the mike and videocam icons

See you tonight!

מתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה

The Gemara made an initial assumption when it saw Shmuel's ruling regarding the Shemitta year; in the case, a lender made a תנאי with the borrower - to the effect that the Shemitta would not cancel a loan.  Shmuel rules that this תנאי  is בטל - or invalid. The Gemara assumes that this is called מתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה and that when one is מתנה, the תנאי is בטל or invalid.

The Gemara raises a parallel case in אונאה - which is cheating another person in a business deal. There, Rav rules that a תנאי that makes it not subject to אונאה doesn't work, while Shmuel rules that is does work.

This seems to be an internal contradiction in Shmuel; here - he seems to hold מתנה ע"מ שכתוב בתורה תנאו קיים !

Rav Anan reports that Shmuel once made the following distinction for him:
If the language of the request is to have a particular monetary right waived, then the תנאי works; if the language of the deal tries to make a תנאי that either Shemitta does not cancel loans or אונאה does not exist in a case of overcharging - then such a clause is not a halachic תנאי - and is invalid.

Coming out of this: Although Shmuel rules that מתנה works, the earlier case is NOT ONE OF מתנה - and that's why it doesn't work!!!

Microsoft Live Meeting Instructions for Tonight

download Internet Explorer 8 - it takes a few seconds  - other browsers may not work
go to http://demo.nachsoftware.com
your username and password are the first six letters of your name, in small, and not capital letters.
If your name is less than six letters long, continue with the first letter or letters of your last name, also in small letters
Barbara, your username and password is "barbara"
after you log in, scroll down to "Rabbi Ron-Ami Private Learning"
click on it
next page: on your left hand side at the top, it will say, "Webyeshiva Matmidim Gemara shiur" click attend meeting
it will take a few seconds to join the meeting
you will see a blue screen with bubbles - keep clicking until you're in the meeting
unmute your mike and get the video working by clicking on the microphone and video icons top right hand side
see you in shiur!