Home

Discussion on the Daf
  Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14 ... 26, 27, 28  Next  Last >>
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Judaism


View latest: 24h 48h 72h


malki2




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 22 2020, 1:38 pm
naturalmom5 wrote:
More on 18b


R. Yonatan Eibshutz (Chiddushei Rabbeinu Yehonatan to Berakhot) suggests an interpretation to the mysterious story about the spirits of the dead that appears in Berakhot 18b. In that story, a man fights with his wife and goes to sleep in a cemetery. R. Yonatan suggests that this is a parable for an individual’s internal struggle between his spiritual and physical elements. In an attempt to strengthen his spiritual side, he takes the Talmud’s advice to “remember the day of death”.

In this experience, he hears two spirits communicating. These spirits represent the positive and negative drives. The former says to the latter, “let us travel behind the curtain”, meaning the Torah, which is the border between man and G-d, and “going behind” it is thus a reference to delving into the Torah, “to see what disasters are coming”, to see what is the cost of neglecting the Torah.

The “negative” spirit declines, claiming to be buried in a box of reeds, I.e. too submerged in material considerations to explore the Torah. The spirit who investigates discovers that whoever plants in the first quarter finds his crops destroyed by hail. This is a reference to the stage of youth, when priority must be given to creating a foundation of Torah education. During thls stage of life, one who attempts to tackle the world without first laying that foundation is destined to failure. That failure is represented by hail, which during the plagues in Egypt consisted of fire inside of ice. As fire represents Torah, this imagery suggests a small vestige of learning trapped and obscured by outside elements.

The spirit's next mission discovered a different scenario, that one who planted in the second quarter would find his crops afflicted with shidafon. This represents the stage of life where one who has built his spiritual foundation must now arrange for support for himself and his family. If he pushes this off, into the second quarter, he will again be uncsuccessful.

Now the individual, having received the message, is complete, and the husband and wife are no longer fighting. The wife then argues with the mother of materialistic spirit, again representing negative inclinations, and tells her that she will show her that her daughter is buried in reeds. The message is thus that chasing after material desires exclusively leads to the next generation being trapped within temporal concerns.

The next year, this man again revisits the cemetery experience. This year is representative of the later stages of life, when people are more contemplative and reflective upon mortality. This time, the spirits are talking again, and the invitation to explore Torah is suggested anew. This time, though, the materialistic spirit says, leave me alone, our argument has already been settled in your favor; in old age, it is clear to all (“is already known among the living”) that obsession with materialism is ultimately empty and a life without spiritual meaning will be regretted.


Thank you! I knew that there was more to this story!
Back to top

malki2




 
 
 
 

Post  Thu, Jan 23 2020, 5:17 am
Aylat wrote:
So many questions!!


What happened to the questions?
Back to top

Aylat




 
 
 
 

Post  Thu, Jan 23 2020, 8:44 am
naturalmom5 wrote:
More on 18b


R. Yonatan Eibshutz (Chiddushei Rabbeinu Yehonatan to Berakhot) suggests an interpretation to the mysterious story about the spirits of the dead that appears in Berakhot 18b.


Very cool! This is an example of what you mentioned previously about chassidus on Gemara.


Last edited by Aylat on Thu, Jan 23 2020, 8:52 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top

Aylat




 
 
 
 

Post  Thu, Jan 23 2020, 8:47 am
JoyInTheMorning wrote:
Berakhot 17.


It was also interesting to see נשים במאי זכיין in context. Seen in context, it totally — for me at least — did not have the tone that I had assumed from reading (part of) the Imamother thread with that title. (ETA: in that thread, an amother quotes a Meiri that understands the Gemara as I did. Baruch shekivanti.) The context is that the Gemara has just pointed out that women have a greater reward than men, quoting the pasuk from ישעיה saying that women are content and confident. Given that context, and given the fact that Chazal clearly believed that learning Torah was the most important and joyful activity, it’s understandable that they would ask: what explains this reward for women? It was a fact at that time that the vast majority of women did not learn Torah, so how could they get this elevated status?

The answer was to attribute to women reward for whatever they could do that encouraged Torah study, even though at that time they weren’t doing it themselves. It wasn’t saying that women could only get reward that way. It wasn’t saying that women couldn’t learn Torah. It is a generous statement, not a restrictive one. I for one am touched that the chachamim would go out of their way to figure out how women could get rewarded for Torah study even when they weren’t directly involved in it.

I totally agree with naturalmom5 that this has been quoted out of context and twisted to mean something that Chazal never said and never intended.


Excellent way of putting it.
Back to top

Aylat




 
 
 
 

Post  Thu, Jan 23 2020, 8:51 am
malki2 wrote:
I don’t mean to rub it in, but for the next 7.5 years you’re going to be known as “mustard” (unless someone starts a new thread and you try again). What Mazel! They could have at least given you Chartreuse or Periwinkle! 🤣


So I'll let you in on my secret plan. BeH when we start Shabbat then I'll change this thread title to Discussion on the Daf - Brachot, and start a new thread Discussion on the Daf - Shabbat. Etc. So our conversations will be archived by masechta.
Back to top

malki2




 
 
 
 

Post  Thu, Jan 23 2020, 9:02 am
Aylat wrote:
So I'll let you in on my secret plan. BeH when we start Shabbat then I'll change this thread title to Discussion on the Daf - Brachot, and start a new thread Discussion on the Daf - Shabbat. Etc. So our conversations will be archived by masechta.


Good idea. That way there won’t be thousands of pages to scroll through in one single thread.
Back to top

naturalmom5




 
 
 
 

Post  Thu, Jan 23 2020, 12:29 pm
Malki... What do you make of the Maatun story..

He sounds like the progenitor of the Vaad ha Tznius, but it sounds less tznius to pull the garment off her

I never understood the R Yohanan sitting in front of the mikva story..

Will research it
Back to top

naturalmom5




 
 
 
 

Post  Thu, Jan 23 2020, 12:48 pm
Woman Who Is Uncertain If She Bensched
If women are only obligated rabbinically with birchas
hamozon, what should they do if they are uncertain
whether they bensched / the reason to make a difference
between the rabbinical obligation of birchas hamozon and
other rabbinical obligations / the opinions of the Poskim
that even if she ate to her satisfaction she need not repeat
birchas hamozon if there is a sfek sfeka
- שער אפרים, צל "ח, פמ "ג , רעק"א, בנין שלמה , ביאה "ל -
[ג [Our Gemara says, Ravina asked Rava, is the obligation of women
to say birchas hamozon from the Torah, or is it rabbinic? The
difference is if she can help others fulfil their obligation.
The Teshuvos Shaar Ephraim 15 asks, why does our Gemara not
say that the difference will be concerning if a woman is uncertain if
she said birchas hamozon or not? If her obligation is mide'oraysa, she
will need to repeat it, as we are stringent with uncertain obligations
mide'oraysa, but if it is only rabbinical, she will not need to repeat it.
The Tzlach here mentions the question of the Shaar Ephraim, but
is inclined to say that women who are uncertain if they said birchas
hamozon must repeat it, even if their obligation is only rabbinical. His
reason is because an uncertainty in a rabbinical obligation is exempt
only when there is no obligation mide'oraysa at all. As we see later
on 16, concerning one who was uncertain whether he said shema, that
Back to top

naturalmom5




 
 
 
 

Post  Thu, Jan 23 2020, 12:49 pm
according to the opinion that saying shema is only a rabbinical
obligation, one does not have to repeat it, as they hold there is no
obligation mide'oraysa at all. However, birchas hamozon which is a
Torah obligation for men, just as men must repeat it when in doubt,
women must do so as well.
With this, says the Tzlach, we may deflect the words of the Magen
Avraham 17 concerning what the Mechaber wrote there that if one ate
and was uncertain whether he said birchas hamozon, he must repeat
it, as it is an obligation from the Torah. He writes that this is only
when he ate till he was satisfied, as then his obligation is from the
Torah. The Tzlach points out that from the Rambam 18 and the Tur,
who wrote generally that "when one is uncertain if he said birchas
hamozon, he must repeat it," this implies that there is no difference
whether he ate to his satisfaction or not. If he ate to his satisfaction
the Torah obligates his to bensch, so, when the Chachomim instituted
that he must bensch even after eating a kezayis, they made it like the
Torah's obligation, I.e., there is no difference between eating a kazayis
or to one's satisfaction. Thus, in both cases if he is uncertain whether
he said it, he must repeat it. 
Afterwards the Tzlach expresses doubt about proclaiming a new
halachah, but in conclusion he reiterates this halachah, and says that
women must repeat birchas hamozon when they are in doubt.
However, the Pri Megadim 19 and Chiddushei Rabi Akiva Eiger
there clearly hold that if women are only obligated rabbinically, in
case of doubt they do not need to repeat it, and they wrote that in
practice if a woman is in doubt whether she bensched or not, since
it is uncertain whether women are obligated with birchas hamozon
mide'oraysa or only miderabonon, she does not need to repeat it. Her
law is unlike that of men, who must repeat it, since in her case she
has a sfek sfeka (double doubt) as far as her obligation from the
Torah. Firstly, the uncertainty if women are obligated from the
Torah, and secondly, if she bensched or not. And as far as her
obligation miderabonon, she has single doubt, and does not need to
repeat it.
The Teshuvos Binyan Shlomo 20 also writes that it is a sfek sfeka
and she is exempt, and writes, even though the Pri Chodosh 21 says
that when the Gemara has a reservation of about a certain issue, it
does not qualify to be considered a doubt in the way we have been
saying, and cannot be part of a sfek sfeka, the Pri Megadim 22 wrote,
unlike the Pri Chodosh, that it can be part of sfek sfeka.
The Biur Halachah 23 concludes about this, that although the view
of the Shulchan Aruch, Rambam, Rosh, Baal Hamaor and Riaz is
uncertain whether women are obligated with birchas hamozon
mide'oraysa, because of the unanswered inquiry of the Gemara,
nevertheless, the opinion of many of the leading Rishonim is that they
are certainly obligated from the Torah, and so, if one bases himself
on the Poskim who require a woman to repeat bensching in case of
doubt, one will certainly not lose out, since according to several
Rishonim she is certainly obligated from the Torah.
Back to top

chicco




 
 
 
 

Post  Thu, Jan 23 2020, 12:58 pm
naturalmom5 wrote:
Malki... What do you make of the Maatun story..

He sounds like the progenitor of the Vaad ha Tznius, but it sounds less tznius to pull the garment off her

I never understood the R Yohanan sitting in front of the mikva story..

Will research it


Is it possible that this story is placed here to demonstrate the extreme kanaus, rather than applaud the particular action? The fact that a. he mistakenly identified this woman as a Jew, and b. that he had to reimburse her for the garment suggests that this was not quite the 'win' he was going for. It does however display a tremendous offense that one personally felt towards a breech of tsnius, obviously lshaym shamayim. Which I think is why it is mentioned here.
Back to top

malki2




 
 
 
 

Post  Thu, Jan 23 2020, 1:22 pm
naturalmom5 wrote:
Malki... What do you make of the Maatun story..

He sounds like the progenitor of the Vaad ha Tznius, but it sounds less tznius to pull the garment off her

I never understood the R Yohanan sitting in front of the mikva story..

Will research it


Obviously he was acting leshem Shomayim and with real kanaus, which is something that has to be instinctive, meaning that he was instinctively fired up with righteous indignation and that’s why he did what he did. It’s sort of like with Pinchas, that the Halacha is that if you have to ask what to do, then you don’t kill them. Pinchas acted instinctively because he was so fired up by the chillul HaShem that was taking place. We don’t find that he was criticized for a lack of tzniyut by lifting up and carrying around the couple still connected in intercourse.

What I did find difficult with this Gemara was as follows: I’ve seen this Gemara before, and I’m always really touched by the point that is brought out in the first half of the Gemara, that it’s not quantity or even quality of learning that matters to Hashem, but it’s the level of mesirut nefesh. So I always found it a bit anti-climactic to have the story with the girl as the one story that stands out about the mesirut nefesh of the earlier generations. I would have chosen something else if I was the one writing the Gemara (thank G-d I’m not!) I mean, is this the best example of mesirut nefesh that we can find?

So I was thinking that you could perhaps answer based on the earlier explanation. Maybe you can understand the words mesirut nefesh not to mean that they sacrificed their lives for Torah, but rather that they gave over their souls to Hashem and the Torah to the point that it was such a part of them to the point that they would act on instinct for the sake of Hashem and wouldn’t even have to think twice about it. And that’s a much greater measure of Torah than learning in greater quantity or quality. How much is the Torah that we do learn internalized within the fiber of our nefesh?
Back to top

malki2




 
 
 
 

Post  Thu, Jan 23 2020, 8:22 pm
naturalmom5 wrote:

I never understood the R Yohanan sitting in front of the mikva story..

Will research it


I didn’t find the R Yochanan story to be so difficult. I’m sure that some people find it hard to believe, and the truth is that even his talmidim did. But he said that he had no yetzer hara for the women, and being that he is one of the greatest of the Amoraim, and according to some even on the level of a Tanna, I will take his word for it that he was 100% leshem Shamayim. I guess that if a doctor can manage looking at a woman, and we assume that he doesn’t feel anything from it, otherwise we would never go to a male doctor, then we can surely assume the same for R Yochanan.
Back to top

amother




Mustard
 

Post  Fri, Jan 24 2020, 12:29 am
naturalmom5 wrote:
Malki... What do you make of the Maatun story..

He sounds like the progenitor of the Vaad ha Tznius, but it sounds less tznius to pull the garment off her


R’ Rosner suggested that she was wearing another garment underneath it.
Back to top

amother




Mustard
 

Post  Fri, Jan 24 2020, 12:34 am
Brachos 20b

Anyone else feel sad about all the mitzvos from which women are excluded Sad ?
Back to top

Aylat




 
 
 
 

Post  Fri, Jan 24 2020, 2:04 am
I found daf 20 difficult to digest, the more so as I didn't manage to go through and formulate detailed questions but just have a vague sense of unease of 'things that need answers'.
Back to top

Aylat




 
 
 
 

Post  Fri, Jan 24 2020, 2:05 am
amother [ Mustard ] wrote:
Brachos 20b

Anyone else feel sad about all the mitzvos from which women are excluded Sad ?


Excluded or exempted? Only tefillin is excluded afaik and that's not even from this Gemara.
Back to top

Aylat




 
 
 
 

Post  Fri, Jan 24 2020, 2:06 am
malki2 wrote:
Obviously he was acting leshem Shomayim and with real kanaus, which is something that has to be instinctive, meaning that he was instinctively fired up with righteous indignation and that’s why he did what he did. It’s sort of like with Pinchas, that the Halacha is that if you have to ask what to do, then you don’t kill them. Pinchas acted instinctively because he was so fired up by the chillul HaShem that was taking place. We don’t find that he was criticized for a lack of tzniyut by lifting up and carrying around the couple still connected in intercourse.

What I did find difficult with this Gemara was as follows: I’ve seen this Gemara before, and I’m always really touched by the point that is brought out in the first half of the Gemara, that it’s not quantity or even quality of learning that matters to Hashem, but it’s the level of mesirut nefesh. So I always found it a bit anti-climactic to have the story with the girl as the one story that stands out about the mesirut nefesh of the earlier generations. I would have chosen something else if I was the one writing the Gemara (thank G-d I’m not!) I mean, is this the best example of mesirut nefesh that we can find?

So I was thinking that you could perhaps answer based on the earlier explanation. Maybe you can understand the words mesirut nefesh not to mean that they sacrificed their lives for Torah, but rather that they gave over their souls to Hashem and the Torah to the point that it was such a part of them to the point that they would act on instinct for the sake of Hashem and wouldn’t even have to think twice about it. And that’s a much greater measure of Torah than learning in greater quantity or quality. How much is the Torah that we do learn internalized within the fiber of our nefesh?


Excellent question and very interesting possible answer.
Back to top

malki2




 
 
 
 

Post  Fri, Jan 24 2020, 8:06 am
amother [ Mustard ] wrote:
Brachos 20b

Anyone else feel sad about all the mitzvos from which women are excluded Sad ?


I’ve never felt sad. First of all, as Ayalat said, it’s exempted, not excluded. Second, women have a different tafkid than men. We nurture and raise neshamot. We’re the Akeres Habayis of a Jewish home which is compared to the Bais Hamikdash. And we get to do whatever mitzvos we feel like doing. Appreciate your tafkid. Be FEMININE, not FEMINIST.
Back to top

JoyInTheMorning




 
 
 
 

Post  Fri, Jan 24 2020, 11:51 am
Regarding the story of Rav Adda bar Ahava tearing off the garment from the non-Jewish woman, clearly that was not the Kiddush Hashem [that the Gemara talks about to explain why the previous generation was worthy of miracles], because in fact, he was obliged to pay the woman a huge amount of money in damages. 400 zuzim is double the amount of money given in the ketubah!

Rabbanit Farber explained that the Kiddush Hashem was the fact that he agreed to pay this huge sum in order to rectify the situation. He accepted the judgment against him, and went on to speak very respectfully to the woman (when he asked her her name, etc.).
Back to top

JoyInTheMorning




 
 
 
 

Post  Fri, Jan 24 2020, 11:52 am
I've just finished Daf 21, which means for the first time I managed to do the Daf on Friday. This Shabbat, I'll try to go through a few dapim in Koren, so I can get a little ahead, since I have a very hectic week ahead.
Back to top
  Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14 ... 26, 27, 28  Next  Last >> Recent Topics

Page 13 of 28 View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Judaism

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Discussion on Nach Yomi
by amother
23 Tue, Feb 11 2020, 9:39 pm View last post
Do people pay R MM Weiss if they go to his Daf Yomi Shiur?
by amother
11 Sun, Feb 02 2020, 11:30 pm View last post
Anyone going to start daf yomi?
by amother
191 Wed, Jan 29 2020, 8:37 pm View last post
Daf yomi resources
by amother
8 Sun, Jan 26 2020, 6:17 pm View last post
Daf yomi
by EPL
1 Sat, Jan 18 2020, 4:52 pm View last post

Jump to: