Big Question!

"OK guys. Is pshat in Shanyim Ochazim that each guy is holding on to half or that each guy is holding on to the whole thing??"

What About Bal Yachel??

Chatas Ha-of Habaah Al Ha-safeik

Explicit Vs. Non-Explicit

There was a Rav who lived in Yerushalayim 50 years ago named Rav Dov Beirush Weidenfeld [d. 10th of cheshvan 1965] and known as the "Chebiner Rov". He was called the שר התורה - a title only given to the top of the top. He wrote a set of sfarim called the דובב מישרים [he originally wrote ten volumes but most of them were lost. They recently republished what we have in four volumes - please buy yourself a set]. He was not only a giant of Torah but a geshmake mentsch. There are numerous great stories about him. I am not aware of any biographies of him in English but I hope someone writes one [there is one in Hebrew]. 

He asks [ח"ג סי' פב] what the halacha would be in a case where there is a case of pikuach nefesh and one must do a melacha. He has two options: One melacha he needs to do is explicit in the Torah while the other one is אסור מדאורייתא but not explicit. Or one is an אב מלאכה and the other a תולדה.

He says that one should do the melacha that is NOT explicit in the Torah. He writes as follows: 

הארכתי בזה ונשכח ממני מה שכתבתי, אולם ראיה אחת אזכור שהערתי מתוספות יבמות דף ז ע"ב ד"ה ואמר עולא שכתבו דלא ניחא שידחה ביאת כולו דכתיב בהדיא אבל ביאה במקצת לא כתיב בהדיא עיי"ש אם כן מוכח מדברי התוס' דמאי דכתיב מפורש בתורה אין לדחות היכא דאפשר לבחור במה שאינו מפורש בתורה

Explanation: A Metzora is not allowed to go into the the עזרה until after he brings his korbanos and therefore he stands outside and just puts his fingers and toes inside in order to be purified with the blood applications, because partial entry is permitted. Asks Tosfos: Since ביאה במקצת שמיה ביאה - a partial entry is called entering, then why don't we just permit him to go completely inside? Tosfos answers that a complete entance is explicit in the Torah and therefore we prefer he only go in partially which, although also from the Torah, it is not explicit. 

This is seemingly a clear proof that one must prefer the non-explicit איסור over the explicit one.

Cool!:-)

Not so fast....

He then brings a question on this from his son ישראל הי"ד - The gemara [128b] talks about a woman who gave birth and is in need of oil which she doesn't have at home. We want to bring it to her it in the least אסור manner. The first choice is that her friend bring the oil in the palm of her hand [which is a shinui]. If that is not enough then she should soak her hair in oil [and then wring it out]. If that is not enough she should bring it in the normal way in a כלי. Asks the gemara - What do we accomplish by having her bring it in her hair in order to avoid carrying it in the normal manner in a כלי, since she will still transgress the melacha of סחיטה when she wrings it out of her hair??! עד כאן דברי הגמרא

According to the principle we established [that non-explicit is preferable over explicit] the gemara is difficult to understand. סחיטה is a תולדה while הוצאה is an אב מלאכה. It should be self-evident then that we would prefer that the woman who gave birth should be brought the oil in a way that would necessitate סחיטה and not הוצאה. So why does the gemara assume that we gain nothing by having her do סחיטה instead of הוצאה?

From this sugya it appears that it is no worse to do an אב than it is to do a תולדה. But before we proved that non-explicit [similar to a תולדה] is "less אסור" than explicit? And according to the Rambam - הוצאה is explicit in the Torah while סחיטה is not. 

We are in a quandry - aren't we?

What do you think?

Bracha Unclothed

The gemara [Bava Metzia 46a - see there] understands the Mishna to be discussing this seemingly odd case of a person who is standing naked on the threshing floor and thus can't perfom a kinyan chalifin. The gemara asks - ואיכפל תנא לאשמעינן גברא ערטילאי דלית ליה כלום? - Did the Mishna trouble itself to tell us such a remote case of a person who is standing naked on the threshing floor?

Asked the Chebiner Rov: Why wasn't the gemara bothered by a different issue - to redeem Maaser Sheni [which is what the Mishna is discussing] one needs to make a bracha. How does one make a bracha while wearing what [unfortunately] many women in New York city "wear" [or better "don't wear"] in the summer?? [I like to be melamed zchus and call it "insomnia". They just forgot to get dressed.]

Link

For the yahrtzeit - here. 

The Hekdesh Of A Fetus

לזכות ר' יוסף עזרא בן אסתר וכל ב"ב 

First a few preliminaries and then the kashya.

We pasken that one may sanctify an animal while it is yet in utero and thus prevent the kedusha of bechor from taking effect after birth [Temurah 24b]. 

The Torah says that one may not sacrifice an animal before its 8th day. The gemara [Yoma 63b] adds that not only may one not bring the animal as a sacrifice but one may also not sanctify [מקדיש] the animal before the 8th day. Tosafos ask [Zevachim 12a, Yoma 10a] – How then may we sanctify a fetus which is not yet 8 days old? They answer that since it is not yet fitting to be brought as a sacrifice, there is no prohibition to sanctify it.

The gemara [Temurah 25] asks what the din would be if a first born animal was sanctified as an Olah while still a fetus and the sanctification would take effect after most of the animal comes out. Would it become a Bechor or an Olah? 

The Chebiner Rov, Rov Dov Beirush Weindenfeld [שו"ת דובב מישרים ח"ג סי' ס"ב] was presented a question based on the foregoing, asked by the progidous bachur Yosef Altman הי"ד: How can the gemara consider the possibility that this animal will be an Olah? The sanctification was to take effect AFTER the animal is born and thus is already fitting to be brought as a sacrifice. According to what we learned from Tosafos – an animal that is fitting to be a sacrifice may not be sanctified before the 8th day?

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Answered the Rov – 

נ"ל ... כיון דאמירתו היתה בשעה שהיה עוד העובר במעי אמו רק חלות ההקדש התנה שיהיה ביציאת רובו, הוי כאילו הקדישה במעי אמו דאזלינן בתר אמירה.

Since the proclamation of sanctification [הקדשה] was done when the animal was still a fetus – we follow that time and not when the sanctity was to take effect after birth. Hence the hekdesh has the capacity to take effect.

He gives an example from the world of Terumos and Maasros. There is a din that one may only separate Terumah מן המוקף - namely that the Terumah and the fixed, leftover produce are near each other. The Ra"sh [Challah 3/1] taught that if one separated Terumah so that it would only take effect after a certain period of time, then even when if it is not מן המוקף when it takes effect it doesn't matter, as long as it wa sמן המוקף when he originally separated the produce. Similarly, since when he was originally מקדיש the animal was not yet fitting to be sacrificed, the הקדש is valid even though it was before the 8th day. 

Good one!!!

But it's not so pashut!:-)

The halacha is that if one marries a woman after thirty days and in the meantime the shtar ripped or was lost then the marriage doesn't take effect. Why don't we say that since the shtar was extant originally, it doesn't matter what happens later? According to the Chebiner we should follow the time of the original giving of the shtar!

Suggested Rav Avraham Genechovski ztz"l: Maybe we can answer that there is a fundamental difference. In the Kiddushin case – the kinyan can't take effect in the absence of a shtar. With respect to the korban – the חסרון is just in the animal that it may not be made הקדש now [after it was born]. In the latter case we may follow the time of the original הקדש and not the time when it takes effect. 

וצריך עוד עיון!