Several questions
- The Rabbi often states that one does not learn two laws from one source, for example, that from the word "hear" one does not learn both what is heard and what is said in every language, unless one understands that one is learned from the other (i.e., from the fact that what is written again can be said in every language, one must understand that it must be heard in every language).
- In Kiddushin 34, the controversy regarding a messenger is brought up: "Rabbi said, a messenger is made until the time of the Lord, according to the words of the Lord, Rabbi Shila said, "There is no messenger made until the time of the Lord, because the Lord said, 'The messenger of a man like him is like his body.'" Ostensibly, the problem that Rav Shila raises is that the owner of something is invalid as a witness, and from what I understand, this is because relatives are invalid as witnesses and the owner of something is a relative of his own. I don't understand what Rav is answering him about this? Relatives are invalid as witnesses, after all, this is the decree of Scripture. I also don't understand exactly what Rav means. Is he saying that the messenger's testimony is strong – since he is the one who performs the action, so it is clear that he can testify best about it?
- In the article you wrote, "What is the difference between Passover and Gid Hanesha?" you write as follows: In conclusion, the disagreement between the Sha'ar and Ha'aretz is regarding the obligation to dissolve the leaven in chametz, and regarding eating, there is no disagreement, and according to all opinions, the obligation to dissolve the leaven in chametz is equal to the obligation to eat.
And again, it should be noted that the opinion of B.S. was not rejected because it is unreasonable to ignore the unfitness of the Shaur to eat. This point did not bother the Gemara. What rejected this position of the dispute was solely the sermon of R.Z. This argument emphasizes the fact that the Ho'a of the Gemara remains in need of explanation, also for the conclusion: Why is the Gemara not troubled by the irrelevance of the permission to eat regarding the prohibition of eating chametz?
I don't understand why not say that Rabbi Zira's teaching itself says this, that it really doesn't belong to learn that Shaur is forbidden in eating, and therefore Beit Shammai teaches this only with regard to shiur, and the difference between them and Beit Hillel is that they do not touch on eating to shiur, and therefore they can remain of the opinion that there is nothing written to renew the prohibition regarding Shaur, except because he wanted to teach that the lesson in it is different. I agree, it can be said that Rabbi Zira's teaching teaches that the prohibition of Shaur in eating does not belong at all if the Scriptures did not teach us this. And Beit Shammai agrees with this. And also everything the Gemara says before this does not contradict this, because what there is a pirkha about Shaur, just as there is a pirkha about chametz, belongs only to those who touch on eating to shiur, and this is only Beit Hillel, and in fact Beit Shammai, who deal with the obligation of shiur separately, does not belong to this pirkha. I would be happy to clarify.
לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
0 Answers
1. I didn't see a question here.
2. Simple. He does not accept that a person's emissary is exactly like him. Only his actions are like the emissary's actions. As is known, the emissary cannot put on tefillin or sit in a sukkah for me. And see the BM decree regarding a halitza and a question in the divided household whether a person's emissary is like him. In the OB, it is famous that he explained the dispute here in a similar way (Yada arikta or power of attorney).
3. I didn't understand.
לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
השאר תגובה
Please login or Register to submit your answer