חדש באתר: NotebookLM עם כל תכני הרב מיכאל אברהם. דומה למיכי בוט.

Question in the episode "Big Rule"

שו"ת › Question in the episode "Big Rule"
0 תן קול הסר קול
שאל לפני 10 שנים

Hello Rabbi.
The rabbi learns on page 8 from a verse that a person who made a mistake in several crafts and knew the essence of Shabbat and knew that today is Shabbat – owes sin for each and every one of them. The question is why is a verse needed for such a thing? Why is such a thing defined as one elem and in any case a verse is needed to owe several sins? Apparently, the simple explanation is that there are several elem here (after all, each craft is a different given that the person does not know) and sin is owed for each elem! This is also how Rashi on the Mishnah explains it simply (the Ritva complicates this, but I did not really understand his intention and what he brought was an example of a person who ate milk several times, I did not understand how this relates to the fact that there are several different elem here).
Thank you very much.

לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

השאר תגובה

0 Answers
0 תן קול הסר קול
מיכי צוות ענה לפני 10 שנים
The Torah itself does not mention the works of art, but rather the prohibition of work on Shabbat. The detail of what a work is is from the Metushevap (or MLT work is work in the Torah or from the Mishkan or from the interpretation. See Tos' and its commentaries on the Book of Revelation 2:1 and more). Therefore, it was reasonable to understand that one who does several works will be considered one sin, as if he were doing one work in several forms. For example, one who does a father and a son of a woman and knows the essence of Shabbat, is guilty of one sin. And so it is with one who does many works of one kind. why? Here too, two details of the law were missing (that the father is forbidden and that his offspring is forbidden). But the obligation is one sin because it is one prohibition and is considered as one sabbath. Regarding several different sabbaths, there is an innovation in the verse of dividing sabbaths, that several different sabbaths are not like a father and his offspring. Incidentally, it is also possible to conclude after the verse that these are not several sabbaths but one sabbath, and woe is like a timchayin who divides in the same prohibition, and in the Ritva on the Mishnah, the Rabbis brought that with regard to niddah and sabbath sabbaths, the days also divide (and not only in the case of a sabbath sabbath, as Rashi wrote there, but also in the case of a sabbath sabbath). And it seems that this depends on the dispute between Rashi and the Torah scholars as to whether the Sabbath works are actually different prohibitions (but are not counted as such for reasons of the number of mitzvot) or different applications of one prohibition. I understand that the Ritva you quoted is from the Gemara 7:1: The division of labor from one to another. The interpretation is that he is liable for every labor and labor when he does them in one household, and why is he called this? Since the labors are different and separate from each other, it is like eating milk and blood in one household, for which he is liable for two. In addition, since they are one labor and the prohibition of all of them is because he does not do any labor, it is like eating milk and blood in one household, for which he is liable for only one. He says that doing some crafts is like eating milk a few times, which is like dividing a ration, and they didn't ask how many virgins. And these are my words. We have learned that there are two possibilities for understanding the division into sins, knowing that today is the Sabbath and breaking the Sabbath and doing some work: A. The verse teaches that there are several mistakes here, not just one. on. This is one mistake, but there is a distinction here between sins like a slanderer. And the NFP is for understanding what the sin is for: does it come from a mistake or from a transgression, provided that it was committed by mistake? And the NFP is whether the number of sins is equal to the number of mistakes (every mistake requires a sin) or is it equal to the number of transgressions (except that the mistakes divide the transgressions from each other). And in an article I once wrote, I brought this from the Afiqi Yam, and I proposed a different explanation. And the NFP is for the matter of the attitude towards a secular person who commits transgressions and his failure. See my words Here in the body of the text after note 17, and in note 23 below (the editor cut things short for me. Originally I made it longer):

לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

השאר תגובה

© Copyright 2026,כל הזכויות שמורות  | 
Back to top button