Discussion on the Daf - Brachot

malki2

Sun, Jan 19 2020, 4:05 pm

Aylat wrote:

Nope. Care to share? Smile

When the Gemara mentions a Halacha, there is a tiny Hebrew letter next to the Halacha. You then look up that particular letter in the עין משפט-נר מצוה . This will reference where the Halacha is found in the Rambam as well as the Tur-Shulchan Aruch. So when the Gemara deals with Halachot in Orach Chaim, if you use the נר מצוה you can actually go straight to a Mishna Berura and see the relevant Halachot. I have to run to a simcha now. If you can’t figure it out, LMK and I will post a specific example later.

JoyInTheMorning

Sun, Jan 19 2020, 4:07 pm

Aylat wrote:

Nope. Care to share? Smile

It’s an index from the Gemara to the halachic codes (Rambam, Shulchan Aruch) that base their rulings on that piece of Gemara. But if I started looking through that, I’d never get through the Daf.

We learned how to use it in Drisha, and I love to do that when I’m just focusing on a sugya, but it is not for Daf Yomi. One of the reasons I like this thread so much is that iy”h after 7.5 years we can come back to these questions and address them properly.

Aylat

Sun, Jan 19 2020, 4:09 pm

Brachot 16 ברכות טז

רבי אמי ורבי אסי הוו קא קטרין ליה גננא לר' אלעזר אמר להו אדהכי והכי איזיל ואשמע מלתא דבי מדרשא
I just love this image of R' Elazar on the day of his wedding, with his friends getting things ready, and he's like, you know what, I'm just going to nip off to the Beit Midrash to learn something before the chuppa.

קרא וטעה ואינו יודע להיכן טעה
How can you know you made a mistake and not know where?

סרכיה נקט
I wonder why Rashi thinks people are more fluent in the 3rd paragraph of the Shema than the others?

מעשה בר"ג שנשא אשה וקרא לילה הראשונה אמרו לו תלמידיו למדתנו רבינו שחתן פטור מק"ש
Interesting that Raban Gamliel already had lots of talmidim by the time he got married. Did he get married late? Was it a second marriage? Or was he like Elazar ben Azariah and brilliant as a young man? Just curious.

אומנין קורין בראש האילן ובראש הנדבך
What are employees allowed to do on their employers time? If they can't climb down a tree for Shema, and say a shortened Amida, I'm guessing checking facebook at work isn't allowed either Wink

בשבתך בביתך פרט לעוסק במצוה
Is this the source for העוסק מן המצוה פטור מן המצווה? Or it's a specific example for Shema? If we have a general principle from somewhere else, why do we need the drasha here for Shema?

מדומה אני שאתם נכוים בפושרים עכשיו אי אתם נכוים אפילו בחמי חמין
What an interesting way of expressing it.

כשם שאומרים לו לאדם על שורו ועל חמורו
How horrible, comparing a slave to an animal.

Another question, bit tangential, re mourning and slaves. I think this is talking about non-Jewish slaves who are obligated in a certain amount of mitzvot because of belonging to a Jew. Is that correct? What is their aveilut obligation? Does a non-Jewish slave sit shiva for their relative who is also a slave?

...ר' אלעזר בתר דמסיים צלותיה אמר
It's really fascinating reading the very different tefillot that different rabbanim added after the amida. I feel like there's loads of analysis possible here as to the connection between the different personalities and their personal prayer formulations. Also interesting which ones we have adopted in different places in our siddur: Rav for birkat hachodesh, Rebbi's in the morning after birkot hashachar. And so on.

Last edited by Aylat on Sun, Jan 19 2020, 4:18 pm; edited 1 time in total

Aylat

Sun, Jan 19 2020, 4:11 pm

malki2 wrote:

Thanks. Figured it was something like that.

Aylat

Sun, Jan 19 2020, 4:12 pm

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

Exactly.

Aylat

Sun, Jan 19 2020, 4:17 pm

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

Berakhot 15.

Lots of interesting things in this daf as well. So far I have found each and ever daf to be exciting.

I loved the discussion about the deaf but speaking person re Shema vs terumah. The distinction that is made seems to divide those acts that are by their nature speech acts, such as davening and bentching, and those that have a speech act as their non-essential part, such as terumah. The d’orayta part of the mitzvah of terumah is the separation of the produce (and presumably then giving it to the kohen); saying the beracha is d’rabbanan.

This got me thinking: what about taking a vow? Does Nedarim (or Nazir, which also focuses a lot on vows, and really delves into deep questions regarding intent and speech acts) discuss the case of a deaf but speaking person? Can such a person make a neder/become a nazir? Has anyone here learned about this?

I was very interested to learn of R. Meir’s opinion (which we do not hold by) that everything could be just read without being spoken! Can this opinion be relied on for a kula in the case of someone who is not deaf but loses their voice? What happens when it’s temporary, like laryngitis? Or ch”v permanent, like cancer or botched surgery?

I also loved the discussion of whether to include the self-referential part of Shema in the mezuzah/ tefillin. I had never considered that to be an issue. As Rabbanit Farber frequently says, there is so much that we take for granted because that’s the way we’ve always done it, but is really far from obvious!

Great questions about speech and hearing for mitzvot! I hope we address some of it in Nedarim.
There's a section in R' Avraham Steinberg's Encylopedia of Jewish Medical Ethics about deafness which summarises some halachot, I skimmed it briefly.

The bolded - absolutely! I love all your comments JoyInTheMorning, keep 'em coming (if you have time).

imorethanamother

Sun, Jan 19 2020, 4:18 pm

malki2 wrote:

I think the problem with saying Shema without tefilin is BC it’s like saying false testimony about yourself, because you are talking about tefilin so why aren’t you wearing them. But if we aren’t mechuyav in tefilin, then it’s not a problem for us of saying false testimony. It’s not like it’s a better Shema when you are wearing tefilin. Bc even men say it at night without tefilin and it’s not a problem bc they are not mechuyav at night.

Love this answer, thanks!

JoyInTheMorning

Sun, Jan 19 2020, 5:03 pm

naturalmom5 wrote:

Actually its not bosor v cholov
Ain issur chal al issur

The meat and milk need to be kosher to be bosor v cholov

That is an interesting point, naturalmom5. I did not know that. Aren’t there cases where you can violate multiple issurim at once? Like, don’t they tell you that you’re violating between 4 and 6 lavin if you eat a bug? What if the butter-topped treif sirloin is dipped in flour and fried and you eat it on Pesach? Don’t you violate the lav prohibiting eating chametz as well as the lav prohibiting eating treif?

Edited to fix the number of prohibitions violated.

Last edited by JoyInTheMorning on Sun, Jan 19 2020, 5:50 pm; edited 1 time in total

amother

Mustard

Sun, Jan 19 2020, 5:38 pm

Sorry to go backwards, but I didn’t get to learn today’s Daf, yet.

In reviewing last week’s blatt over Shabbos, I was struck by the story of Shaul’s kapparah. I understand that it is assumed that he received kapparah because he was told he would be in Gan Eden with Shmuel, and because he was later described positively, but I don’t understand why the assumption is that the kapparah was due to the embarrassment rather than due to his being killed in battle the next day. It would seem to me that the embarrassment was relatively minor, in that it was in private rather than in public and it was with a person who was no longer in this world and (presumably) knew about Shaul’s disgrace, in any case. Being informed of his (and his son’s) impending death at the hands of their enemies, accepting this decree and going forth the next day in accordance with Hashem’s will, and finally suffering from a brutal, untimely death would seem to me like a much more likely reason for his kapparah. Another issue is the bein adam l’chaveiro aspect of his actions, which should require him to be me’fayeis those whom he wronged, and as can be seen with the story of the Giv’onim, there is no indication that he did that. . . The more I think of this, the more perplexing it seems.

JoyInTheMorning

Sun, Jan 19 2020, 5:57 pm

amother [ Mustard ] wrote:

I believe one can violate multiple issurim at once, although one would only receive punishment for the most severe one (e.g. one would not receive malkos on the way to the death penalty even if had violated issurim that deserved both punishments). AFAIK, those issurim only apply to kosher meat for technical reasons, not due to multiple issurim.

Right: what I don’t understand is the technical reason that the butter topped sirloin is not considered basar vechalav. Nm5 seems to be saying it’s because you can’t have an issur on top of an issur and that’s what I don’t understand. I would understand if the point is that basar bechalav is defined as cooking kosher meat with kosher dairy.

I do remember learning when I did Mishnayot in Sanhedrin that you only get punished for the most severe sin, but don’t remember if that holds for everything. For example if you stole and killed, would you be absolved from having to pay back double because you get the death penalty for murdering?

JoyInTheMorning

Sun, Jan 19 2020, 6:04 pm

amother [ Mustard ] wrote:

I am also still confused by this. Chicco in some earlier posts argued persuasively that Shaul had in fact done complete teshuva, but I am not entirely convinced. The only thing I can think is that perhaps death works better as a kapparah if the process of teshuva has already begun — and that the charata that Shaul demonstrated due to his embarrassment was considered one step of the process of teshuva.

JoyInTheMorning

Sun, Jan 19 2020, 9:34 pm

amother [ Mustard ] wrote:

I think I understand your larger concern. It ties into a concern that runs through my study of Gemara, and has from the day I first looked inside a Gemara. This — at least for me — is the issue of proof texts. Often a proof text is given to prove some fact, and I am not convinced either that the proof text entails the fact or that some other text wouldn’t be stronger evidence.

In this case, I’m triply puzzled. The pasuk in יחזקאל doesn’t seem to me to say that Hashem always forgives those who feel shame, just that this can happen. The encounter of Shaul and Shmuel’s spirit shows Shaul’s embarrassment and that Shaul winds up in Gan Eden, but doeany show a causal connection. And I don’t see how the Gibeonite story helps.

I think what may sometimes have happened is that Chazal had a mesorah of certain things, such as Shaul being forgiven, and they found pesukim to support these facts, rather than actually deriving them. We know this is for sure the case of a rule like Gezeirah Shava, where there are a fixed number of instances of this rule, which means it’s not a real inference rule. Could be true here too.

amother

Mustard

Sun, Jan 19 2020, 10:19 pm

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

I’m definitely with you on the larger concern. I often don’t get the leap - that is described as “explicit in the passuk,” which then has additional assumptions built onto that first one. That first inference often seems to be not the only one- or even (to me) the most obvious one - but once it is accepted, multiple cascading inferences often follow, with that first one being accepted as simple statement of fact.

I think I have heard something like your answer before. DH also says that if we were more expert in the pesukim and the language typically used, the reason these specific inferences were chosen would be more obvious . .

naturalmom5

Sun, Jan 19 2020, 10:48 pm

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

Not 100% sure...

But I think chometz is karas and the meat is an issur lov, so we say
Kim le d rav miney , you get the bigger punishment, and are only oivr chometz

malki2

Sun, Jan 19 2020, 11:32 pm

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

Ain Issur Chal Al Issur generally applies where an object is assur with one lav. You can’t add another lav on top of it. (Unless the second lav is more inclusive in one way.) So NM5 would be correct that if sirloin is already assur, you can’t add another Issur to it. Your cases of the bug that has 4-6 lavin on it is different because those fall simultaneously I.e. when the bug is born, and don’t fall on top of each other. That which you only get punished for the most severe sin applies where you do a single act that carries both a monetary fine and a corporal punishment. You would only receive the corporal punishment, provided that both were committed simultaneously.