Wednesday evening we began a new mishna that asks the question, "why did the Torah - in reference to the number of witnesses required to execute an individual - say, 'based on two or three witnesses a person will die..." If two witnesses are sufficient to institute capital punishment, surely three are no worse! Kal V'chomer they are effective!
There are three views in the mishna on this:
a) Tanna Kamma: The Torah is linking three to two - just as edim who are "meizim" two witnesses are believed - so, too are edim who are "meizim" three witnesses. We discussed the הוא אמינא/assumption that we would have had - had this pasuk not been taught; the bottom line is, however, that that three cannot fend off two עדים מזימים. Also, 100 are incriminated by two (or even more!)
b) R. Shimon: The Torah is linking three to two- just as if you are not meizim both witnesses in a regular edut, you cannot kill two members of a group of three witnesses, even if those two COULD HAVE constituted a "stand-alone" edut. Since they came as a group of three, you need to be "meizim" all of them to kill any one of them. The same applies to 100 - if you incriminated 99 of them, but not the 100th - you cannot kill the 99.
c) R. Akiva: The Torah did not come to be lenient but to be strict - we ended yesterday's shiur with the Rashi on this comment of R. Akiva, and we will return to that Rashi at the start of today's shiur..........
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
New Sugyah Makkot 5b
As I mentioned at the conclusion of last night's shiur, we will be starting a new sugyah this evening. The mishna that kicks off the new topic is at the bottom of Makkot 5b, and deals with the intricacies of Edut - testimony, a spinoff of the discussion of עדים זוממים. Printed below, in digital form, is the mishna (courtesy of the Bar Ilan Responsa Project) See you in shiur!
תלמוד בבלי מסכת מכות דף ה עמוד ב
מתני'. על פי שנים עדים או שלשה עדים יומת המת - אם מתקיימת העדות בשנים, למה פרט הכתוב בשלשה? אלא להקיש (שלשה לשנים), +מסורת הש"ס: [שנים לשלשה]+ מה שלשה מזימין את השנים, אף השנים יזומו את הג'; ומנין אפי' מאה? ת"ל: עדים. ר' שמעון אומר: מה שנים אינן נהרגין עד שיהיו שניהם זוממין, אף שלשה אינן נהרגין עד שיהיו שלשתן זוממין; ומנין אפי' מאה? ת"ל: עדים. רבי עקיבא אומר: לא בא השלישי להקל אלא להחמיר עליו ולעשות דינו כיוצא באלו; ואם כן ענש הכתוב לנטפל לעוברי עבירה כעוברי עבירה, על אחת כמה וכמה ישלם שכר לנטפל לעושי מצוה כעושי מצוה. ומה שנים, נמצא אחד מהן קרוב או פסול - עדותן בטלה, אף שלשה, נמצא אחד מהן קרוב או פסול - עדותן בטלה; מנין אפי' מאה? ת"ל: עדים. אמר רבי יוסי: במה דברים אמורים - בדיני נפשות, אבל בדיני ממונות - תתקיים העדות בשאר; רבי אומר: אחד דיני ממונות ואחד דיני נפשות. ואימתי? בזמן שהתרו בהן, אבל בזמן שלא התרו בהן, מה יעשו שני אחין שראו באחד שהרג את הנפש?
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
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...
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...
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
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??
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
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!
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!
Monday, November 22, 2010
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, November 21, 2010
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)