Ra’a on the issue of mission
Shalom Rabbi in honor of the Rahga:
Today I discussed with RAA the issue of the mission that we will remain in the B’T’Ag.
I have consulted many of the latter (Chazo”a Rav Shmuel Dvar Yaakov and others… all of them mainly refer to the blessing of Shmor and Rav Yosef Eingal) and have not found anyone who would address it. I would be very happy if Tarb Ya’in would come up with a wonderful explanation, as is his custom in the Holy Scriptures:
And the late:
Rabbi Akiva Eiger Tractate Kiddushin, page 34, page 1
Thank you that we did not find it, etc., although the Lord is content with saying to the messenger, “You have reached out.” And the Lord did not simplify His sufficiency by virtue of this difficulty. If it is true that the messenger is above, then we have found that he enjoys it and this is binding, and in this there is some division, and in the reversal of the law, if it is true that it is not above, I will not forget Rava to renew this argument only for the judge, to quote the Dina Da’ag that in the case of a messenger, there is a transgression, according to the law, in saying to his messenger, “You have reached out your hand to the basket of the debtor, but we do not find that he enjoys it, and so on.
Thank you very much and Happy Hanukkah
I don’t have much time to go into the matter now. But I didn’t understand the problem from the beginning. After all, in the Toss, it is about accidental misappropriation, and in misappropriation when the messenger is accidental, by all accounts, there is a messenger who commits an offense. Besides, in misappropriation there is a messenger who commits an offense even intentionally, according to the Magyar. If so, the sufficiency of the Toss, is the messenger above when there is pleasure for the messenger to know everything. And what is the reason for the Shaytaan to be so?
Although, even in Tos’, I did not understand why they put a spikam in the accidental messenger. After all, in Mal’a there is a messenger for the sake of God as well as a messenger for the sake of God. And I thought that perhaps a distinction should be made between sending a messenger to do something for him (in which case there is a messenger for the sake of God in Mal’a for the sake of God) and telling a messenger to do something wrong (as in the case of Tos’), in which case there is no messenger to do something wrong but to the judge.
And perhaps this is Reka’s question: The difficult law in practice (not only for the assessee) why did they not establish the principle that we did not find that one benefits and one is obligated in the case of an accidental delegate to the court? And to this Reka says why did they not say this only to the assessee in the case of an intentional delegate. And in the case of an accidental delegate, there will truly be a delegate and the delegate will be obligated even when the delegate benefits.
But this should be dismissed lightly, Damai Shena Ha Maha. If we say this to the Shamai, why didn’t we also say this according to the law regarding the intentional messenger?! There is no reason to assume that the Shamai would disagree both regarding the principle that we did not find this to be beneficial and this to be obligatory, and also regarding the messenger of the Da.
In the end, this is all just a joke.
I didn't understand
Ket”r
The difficulty of a question is stronger than the difficulty of a sentence
???????!!!
I do not understand Tus’ and Req”a and I offered an interpretation of their words. And finally I noted that the difficulty of Req”a (if I understood it) can be resolved quite easily. But, as mentioned, all of this was written from Kufya and not from Qibaa.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
