There is a fascinating discussion in the poskim about someone who had a long time to fulfill a duty or mitzva and was an אונס at the last minute. This is called אונס ביום אחרון. Do we say that since he had plenty of time before the אונס he is not considered אונס or perhaps since when he wanted to do it he was אונס we consider him אונס.
The Sefer Ha-aguda says that if someone made a neder to do something within 30 days and had an אונס he is not considered אונס. He proved this from the mishna at the end of Arachin. The halacha is that a person who sells his home in a city that was walled from the time of Yehoshua Bin Nun has one year in which he has the right to redeem it and after which he can no longer do so. When the buyers saw that it was the last day of the year they would hide so that the seller wouldn't be able to find them and they would be able to keep the house forever [note - nothing is forever. We are all going to a place where we must first give up all our possessions prior to entry....:-)]. Hillel made a decree that the seller could avoid this problem and having to get the FBI involved to find the buyer by simply putting the money in a special chamber and thereby redeem his former home. Asks the Aguda - Why was this decree necessary?? Since he was אנוס in his inability to redeem his home, it should remain his even without a special decree.
AAAHHHH!!!! From here we see that an אונס on the last day is not considered a valid אונס [a deathly blow to procrastinators...]. Thus, if not for the decree, the house would remain the buyer's.
The Acharonim spent thousands and thousands of hours on this Aguda [I spent quite a few myself:-)]. Thee Nesivos asked from a gemara at the beginning of Ksubos that says that if a person gives a get and says that if I don't return within thirty days the get should be valid and then attempts to return on the last day but finds a river in the way [read - אונס] the get would not be valid [i.e. he can claim אונס] if not for the fact that such a scenario is common and he should have considered that he would get stuck [and therefore the get IS valid]. We see from this gemara, that in principal, an אונס ביום אחרון is considered an אונס. KASHYAAAAA!!!!:-)
Rav Chaim HaLevi, with his unique powers of dissection, made a distinction between the two cases. There are two types of conditions relating to time. One is where the time frame is just a "book-end" to perform the act. The act must be performed one within that time period, from beginning to end. The other is where the time is part and parcel of the condition and applies every second during the duration of that time frame. In the former instance an אונס at the last second is not considered an אונס because the person had so much time to do the act and shouldn't have waited until the last minute. In the latter instance, since the time frame was part and parcel of the condition and applied every second, if there is an אונס even during the last second, one may claim אונס.
The case cited by the Aguda is an example of where the time frame is merely a book-end, circumscribing the time in which the house must be redeemed. Thus, even if there is an אונס on the last day, since he had so much time beforehand to redeem the house, the seller is not considered אונס. So too in the case where he made a neder to do something within a certain time period and experienced אונס.
In the case of the get, however, he is essentially saying "If I don't come back every second of the next twelve months then the get should be valid" and we see that there was a time when he desired to return but was prevented from doing so, we rule that the condition was not fulfilled [as he can claim אונס] and the get is invalid.
This is similar to what we discussed yesterday about mitzvos. Some mitzvos are זמן גורם where the time frame is a factor in the very obligation of the mitzva [such as tztizis, tfillin and succah] and other mitzvos where the time frame is called זמן המגביל - just a "book-end" within which he must fulfill the mitzva [we said that women are only exempt from זמן גורם but not זמן המגביל and with that premise answered two questions of tosfos].
In the vernacular [you may use this on a date to impress a girl or if you are already married - your wife] - sometime the זמן is מעצם התנאי - part and parcel of the condition [the get case] while in other instances it is only הארכת זמן על הקיום - a time frame in which to perform the action [the house redeeming and neder fulfillment]. If it is מעצם התנאי then one is considered an אונס even for a second [because he is lacking a vital aspect of the תנאי - freedom of action during a certain time] while if it is just הארכת זמן then we say "Sorry dude - you shouldn't have pushed it off. You had time to do it earlier so how can we consider you אונס".
One very practical application of this concept is when one pushes off davening until the last minute and then when he is ready to daven - אונס strikes [such as a trip to the asher yatzar preparation room]. Is he considered אונס which would mandate two shmone esreis next time around or is he considered negligent for waiting? The Shulchan Aruch rules.... Awww - I can't tell you everything. I will let you find it yourself.
I must add that there is SOOOO much more to say on this topic but for now I am אנוס as Shabbos is slowly spreading her holy wings on Eretz Yisrael and I am compelled to spend the next 25 hours in bliss.... A close friend gave this topic more detailed treatmen here [the second article on the page].
לזכות ר' יעקב דב הכהן בן דוד לברכה והצלחה בכל מעשה ידיו
Friday, January 10, 2014
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Two Types Of Mitzvos Governed By Time
There are two types of time as it relates to mitzvos. There is זמן המגביל - Time that limits and circumscribes the mitzva and זמן הגורם - Time that causes the mitzva. זמן הגורם is considered a מחייב - what creates the mitzva obligation. זמן המגביל is just the time period in which the mitzva is fulfilled but not a defining factor in the mitzva.
How do we know if the time frame for a mitzva is a זמן המגביל or זמן הגורם? If the mitzva is a continuous obligation throughout the entire time period, chances are that the time is זמן גורם. The time creates the obligation, so to speak, so as long as one is in that time period, the obligation is in force. If, however, it is a one time obligation, and after it is fulfilled one is no longer obligated, then it is likely considered a זמן המגביל. The "book-ends" of the mitzva are a certain time period within which one must perform the mitzva. Once performed, the person is freed from his obligation.
With this understanding in hand we can answer two questions of Tosfos. Tosfos [Kiddushin 29a] asks why we need a pasuk to teach us that women are exempt from the mitzva of bris milah. Milah is a time bound mitzva from which women are anyway exempt, so a pasuk is not necessary? They also ask [Kiddushin 36a] why the gemara needs a pasuk to teach us that women don't bring korbanos. The Avodas Hakorbanos is only done during the day so women are not "in the parsha" even without a special pasuk? Tosfos offer their own answer.
Based on our principal the answer [to both questions] is that women are exempt from time bound mitzvos that are זמן גרמא - that time is either the only cause or one of the causes of the mitzva. Examples of this are Tzitzis, Tefillin, Succah etc. The proof that these mitzvos are זמן הגורם mitzvos is that they can be fulfilled throughout the enitre duration of the given time period [as we explained earlier].
In contrast, the mitzva of Milah and bringing Korbanos are זמן המגביל mitzvos as evidenced by the fact that they can be performed only once. A bris is done once and a korban can only be brought once. Women are obligated in זמן המגביל mitzvos. That is why we need a special pasuk to teach us that women are nevertheless exempt.
Farentfert kushyos hatosfos - Tosfos' problems resolved....:-)
[Based on the sefer that every yeshiva bachur must own and use but unfortunately almost nobody ever heard of it - המדות לחקר ההלכה by HaRav Moshe Avigdor Amiel z"l (chief rabbi of Antwerp and then Tel Aviv) in Vol. 2 Page 330. This book is a treatise on the logical structures and constructs which underlie our holy Talmud. It is a pleasure to learn. I found it as a young avreich in Hakotel and have been a huge fan ever since].
לזכות כלב אברהם בן אלישבע רות
How do we know if the time frame for a mitzva is a זמן המגביל or זמן הגורם? If the mitzva is a continuous obligation throughout the entire time period, chances are that the time is זמן גורם. The time creates the obligation, so to speak, so as long as one is in that time period, the obligation is in force. If, however, it is a one time obligation, and after it is fulfilled one is no longer obligated, then it is likely considered a זמן המגביל. The "book-ends" of the mitzva are a certain time period within which one must perform the mitzva. Once performed, the person is freed from his obligation.
With this understanding in hand we can answer two questions of Tosfos. Tosfos [Kiddushin 29a] asks why we need a pasuk to teach us that women are exempt from the mitzva of bris milah. Milah is a time bound mitzva from which women are anyway exempt, so a pasuk is not necessary? They also ask [Kiddushin 36a] why the gemara needs a pasuk to teach us that women don't bring korbanos. The Avodas Hakorbanos is only done during the day so women are not "in the parsha" even without a special pasuk? Tosfos offer their own answer.
Based on our principal the answer [to both questions] is that women are exempt from time bound mitzvos that are זמן גרמא - that time is either the only cause or one of the causes of the mitzva. Examples of this are Tzitzis, Tefillin, Succah etc. The proof that these mitzvos are זמן הגורם mitzvos is that they can be fulfilled throughout the enitre duration of the given time period [as we explained earlier].
In contrast, the mitzva of Milah and bringing Korbanos are זמן המגביל mitzvos as evidenced by the fact that they can be performed only once. A bris is done once and a korban can only be brought once. Women are obligated in זמן המגביל mitzvos. That is why we need a special pasuk to teach us that women are nevertheless exempt.
Farentfert kushyos hatosfos - Tosfos' problems resolved....:-)
[Based on the sefer that every yeshiva bachur must own and use but unfortunately almost nobody ever heard of it - המדות לחקר ההלכה by HaRav Moshe Avigdor Amiel z"l (chief rabbi of Antwerp and then Tel Aviv) in Vol. 2 Page 330. This book is a treatise on the logical structures and constructs which underlie our holy Talmud. It is a pleasure to learn. I found it as a young avreich in Hakotel and have been a huge fan ever since].
לזכות כלב אברהם בן אלישבע רות
More On Reheating Water
Question:
You wake up on Shabbos morning and find the water on the blech is no longer hot ["yad soledes bo" about 110 degrees] but still warm - is it permitted to move it directly above the fire to heat it up and boil it?
Answer:
If there is any doubt as to whether it was hot [yad soledes bo] originally, then it is absolutely forbidden to move it. If originally it had been heated until yad soledes bo, but it cooled off a bit, lichtchila one should be strict and not move it but if necessary one may move it on the condition that on Erev Shabbos it was placed on the blech where it was yad soledes.
The reason is that if it wasn't originally hot then to heat it is bishul min ha-torah. If it was cooked originally then as long as it hasn't completely cooled off it is permitted to reheat [as the Rema says]. The problem is "chazara", namely, returning cooked food to the fire after it was removed. Even though it is still on the blech, it would seem to be a case where it is considered "off the fire" making it forbidden to return [unless one fill all of the conditions of chazara, such as having daas to return it to the fire when removing it].
If, however it was on the blech in a place where the water would be heated until yad soledes [and was moved afterwards so that the water doesn't dissipate] then one can put it directly on the fire. We can rely on the opinion of the Ran who says that the whole prohibition of chazara only applies when it was removed before Shabbos. In our instance, when it was in place when Shabbos started one would be permitted to do chazara. In addition there is a צורך גדול - a great need so that people can enjoy Shabbos more. We can also factor in the opinion that as long is it is still on the blech it is not considered chazara, even if it far from the fire. Also, if when he moved the water originally, he was under the assumption that it will remain very hot, we can apply the opinion of many Rabbis that if the gas extinguished on Shabbos [by itself] and the stove was completely cooled off, nevertheless it is permitted to return it to another fire since it wasn't removed from the fire on purpose. So too, if the removal was under false assumptions, he can return it [see Bitzeil Hachochma 4/ 137].
One should still be strict if possible.
[Based on Nishmas Shabbos 1/2 - see there for more]
לזכות כלב אברהם בן אלישבע
You wake up on Shabbos morning and find the water on the blech is no longer hot ["yad soledes bo" about 110 degrees] but still warm - is it permitted to move it directly above the fire to heat it up and boil it?
Answer:
If there is any doubt as to whether it was hot [yad soledes bo] originally, then it is absolutely forbidden to move it. If originally it had been heated until yad soledes bo, but it cooled off a bit, lichtchila one should be strict and not move it but if necessary one may move it on the condition that on Erev Shabbos it was placed on the blech where it was yad soledes.
The reason is that if it wasn't originally hot then to heat it is bishul min ha-torah. If it was cooked originally then as long as it hasn't completely cooled off it is permitted to reheat [as the Rema says]. The problem is "chazara", namely, returning cooked food to the fire after it was removed. Even though it is still on the blech, it would seem to be a case where it is considered "off the fire" making it forbidden to return [unless one fill all of the conditions of chazara, such as having daas to return it to the fire when removing it].
If, however it was on the blech in a place where the water would be heated until yad soledes [and was moved afterwards so that the water doesn't dissipate] then one can put it directly on the fire. We can rely on the opinion of the Ran who says that the whole prohibition of chazara only applies when it was removed before Shabbos. In our instance, when it was in place when Shabbos started one would be permitted to do chazara. In addition there is a צורך גדול - a great need so that people can enjoy Shabbos more. We can also factor in the opinion that as long is it is still on the blech it is not considered chazara, even if it far from the fire. Also, if when he moved the water originally, he was under the assumption that it will remain very hot, we can apply the opinion of many Rabbis that if the gas extinguished on Shabbos [by itself] and the stove was completely cooled off, nevertheless it is permitted to return it to another fire since it wasn't removed from the fire on purpose. So too, if the removal was under false assumptions, he can return it [see Bitzeil Hachochma 4/ 137].
One should still be strict if possible.
[Based on Nishmas Shabbos 1/2 - see there for more]
לזכות כלב אברהם בן אלישבע
Sent by my mother, she should live and be well.
A fly falls into a cup of coffee of an Italian, German, Frenchman, Chinese, Russian, Israeli and Palestinian.
The Italian - throws the cup against the wall, breaks it and walks away in a fit of rage!
The German - carefully washes the cup, sterilizes it and makes a new cup of coffee.
The Frenchman - takes out the fly and drinks the coffee.
The Chinese - eats the fly and throws away the coffee.
The Russian - drinks the coffee with the fly, since it came with no extra charge.
The Israeli - sells the coffee to the Frenchman, sells the fly to the Chinese, sells the cup to the Italian, drinks a cup of tea and uses the extra money to invent a device that prevents flies from falling into coffee.
Meanwhile, the Palestinian - blames the Israeli for the fly falling into his coffee, protests the act to the UN as an act of aggression, takes a loan from the European Union to buy a new cup of coffee, uses the money to purchase explosives and then blows up the coffee house where the Italian, Frenchman, Chinese, German and Russian are all trying to explain to the Israeli that he should give his cup of tea to the Palestinian!
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
