#RebChaim #4 part 1

Home Coffeeroom Bais Medrash #RebChaim #4 part 1

  • This topic contains 1 voice and has 0 replies.
Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1572665

    YosefSebrow
    Participant

    #Rebchaim #04 part 1 version 2 7/9/18
    לזכות רפואה שלמה למינא חנה בת שרה פייגא

    Objective: To explain multiple stiros in the Rambam about the requirement for lishmah
    Quick summary: The Rambam explains the difference between battim and retzuos based on its requirement to be tanned instead of based on “hazmana milsa hee o lav” because the fact that the leather for the battim doesn’t need to be worked makes it subject to hazmana lav milsa hee, while the retzuos are on a higher level and therefore not subject to hazmana lav milsa hee.
    Mareh makom: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=39831&st=&pgnum=9
    http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=39831&st=&pgnum=10

    Full Summary:
    I.
    Rambam in hilchos Tefillin (perek 1 halacha 11) says that:
    A. The parchment for a sefer Torah and Tefillin need to be prepared “lishma”(for the sake of the mitzvah). If it wasn’t prepared lishma, it’s possul.
    B. However, a mezuza doesn’t need to be prepared lishma.
    II.
    A. Reb Chaim says that the mezuza halacha comes from a Yerushalmi (Yoma ch.3) where the chachomim say it’s ok to use parchment for a mezuza even if it was originally prepared to be used as an amulet. Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamliel argues and says it’s bad. Rambam paskens like the chachomim.
    B. Reb Chaim quotes the Gemara in Gittin which says we need lishmah for a Sefer Torah.
    C. Reb Chaim doesn’t understand why these 2 cases should be different, and concludes that the Yerushalmi and Bavli must be arguing on each other.
    D. Based on that conclusion, he questions how the Rambam could pasken like both, being as there’s no rational way to hold like both sugyas.
    III.
    Reb Chaim will now do a deep dive of the sugya of lishma, and put the first part on the backburner for now.
    A. In the Gemara in Sanhedrin (47B), we find a machlokes about if you wove clothing to dress a corpse, can you change your mind and repurpose the clothing for something else? 1. Abbayey says no- “hazmana milsa hi”- verbally designating is enough to make it forbidden for anything else. Like Rashi says, it’s as if you physically wrapped the corpse in it already. 2. Rava says yes you can, mere designation isn’t significant. You need to physically use it for the corpse to make it forbidden.
    B. The Gemara continues to explain that Abayey learns his halacha from Egla Arufa- just like when we merely designate a calf for Egla Arufa it becomes forbidden to be repurposed, so too when we merely designate clothing for a corpse it becomes forbidden. Rava responds with a simple chiluk- Egla arufa is itself a holy object- “hee gufa kedeisha”. In this case, it’s only “tashmishei kedusha”- an accessory for a holy object. By tashmishei kedusha it’s a lower level of holiness and mere hazmana is worthless. Abayey feels there’s no difference.
    C. The gemara brings a braysa as a proof to Rava- the braysa says if you asked someone to make you a tefillin holder or scroll holder, you can repurpose them as long as they weren’t used yet. These are only tashmishei kedusha, and we see clearly designation without use is worthless!
    D. Abayey admits this is not like him, but says it’s a machlokes tannaim.
    E. Abayey’s proof is from a case where the chachamim say you don’t need to prepare the leather for tefillin battim lishma and Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamliel argues. The simple reading of this is like Rashi (48b). If you hold hazmana milsa hi, you are saying verbal designation is a significant act. As such, we require verbal designation, which is how you make something lishma.
    F. So Abayey is saying (as per Rashi) I hold like Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamliel and Rava holds like the chachomim.

    IV.
    A. The Rambam in hilchos Tefillin (3:15) paskens that the leather battim don’t have to be tanned and worked lishma. Reb Chaim says this would be because we pasken like Rava- hazmana lav milsa hi and since verbal designation is worthless, no need to do things lishma as a result.
    B. The problem- the Rambam says that the retzuos need to be tanned lishmah. Why would the halachos be different since hazmana lav milsa hi and we don’t need lishmah?
    C. The Rambam himself says the difference between the 2 is that retzuos need to be tanned, but the battim can even be unworked leather. However, how does that fit into the gemara where the whole requirement of lishma is based on hazmana milsa hi?
    V.
    Reb Chaim is going to answer his latest question by examining the gemara of III, E. using other rishonim.
    A. Tosfos (48b), based on his kashya on Rashi in light of the gemara that says Sefer Torah parchment needs to be done lishmah, says the opposite of Rashi- if verbal designation isn’t anything, it’s because we need to do a higher level than just verbal designation to make the object holy. (Tosfos in Menachos 42B elaborates and says if hazmana milsa hi, just cutting the skin and small fixes would be enough to make it holy, rather than the entire working of the skin needing to be lishmah.) So we need to do the entire preparation lishmah. It comes out that Rava would actually hold like Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamliel, and that we would always need lishmah- Sefer Torah, Tefillin, mezuzah. And the Rambam could agree to his pshat in this step of the gemara. (However, we are still left with the initial kashya of why the Rambam is meikel by mezuza, especially now that we pasken like Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamliel)
    B. The Baal haMaor and Ramban in the Milchemes Hashem say that the difference between tefillin battim and the Sefer Torah parchment is that tefillin battim aren’t etzem kedusha, unlike the Sefer Torah parchment. And this is how we stay lemaskana. (At this stage it is unclear what they would say about mezuzah. At any rate they would say retzuos would be the same din as battim).
    C. Reb Chaim proposes another approach that would fully explain the gemara in Sanhedrin according to the Rambam- the gemara in Sanhedrin is according to Abayey, who equates hazmana milsa hi with lishmah. However, according to Rava, one has nothing to do with the other. So lefi ha’emes, even if battim are etzem kedusha, the argument between the chachomim and Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamliel is if we require lishmah at all, completely irrespective of hazmana milsa hee. The gemara in Gittin proves that we do pasken like Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamliel, and therefore we do require lishmah. So now it makes sense for the Rambam to make a split between if the leather for the battim even require to be tanned and worked to count as battim or not. If it’s required, it needs lishmah. If not required, it doesn’t need lishmah at all. Therefore, like the Rambam says retzuos need lishmah but not battim, since the leather doesn’t even need to be worked to be kosher. (This doesn’t answer the initial question of the stira in the Rambam (II.) between Torah parchment and mezuza, and only makes it stronger- we pasken like Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamliel, so how could he pasken like the chachamim in mezuza?)
    VI.
    A. Reb Chaim is now asking a question on the Baal Hamaor¬- Why would Tefillin battim be considered tashmishei kedusha instead of etzem kedusha? Granted, they are secondary to the parshiyos that they contain, but the battim are part of Tefillin!
    B. Reb Chaim answers that they are etzem kedusha but since they are secondary to the parshiyos, we can say that in terms of ibud lishmah it would have the same din of tashmishei kedusha.
    VII.
    Reb Chaim goes on to disprove his previous answer for the Baal Hamaor from Menachos 34- We see there that once you use parshiyos for shel rosh, you can’t use them for shel yad, even though the parshiyos are the same. It must be that the tefillin themselves have a kedusha separate from the parshiyos, and there was an added kedusha of “shel rosh tefillin” that took effect when you used it. So then battim are etzem kedusha, and shouldn’t be any different than a sefer torah klaf! As such the gemara makes no sense according to the Baal Hamaor.
    VIII.
    Reb Chaim now turns his attention to his other possibility, that in the maskana, according to Rava, the whole machlokes by tefillin is just if we need lishmah [for tefillin], not about hazmana milsa. The problem is from the gemara in Menachos 42B, where the gemara says you can’t use regular string to make tzitzis, and uses this machlokes about tefillin skin not being made lishmah to say that even tzitzis strings need to be made lishmah. However, since this was just a special din in tefillin, why would it apply to tzitzis?
    (Earlier, Reb Chaim explained this answer as saying that according to Rava we need lishmah in general, not just for tefillin. And in fact he compared it to Torah parchment earlier and said the same din of a Torah parchment would apply to tefillin, implying it’s not just for tefillin. So it’s unclear what he means to ask here, since according to how he explained it earlier it could very easily apply to tzitzis as well. Answers are beyond the scope of this project.)
    IX.

    To review, Reb Chaim has 3 questions he is trying to deal with right now, and a 4th one that he has shelved for the moment:
    A. The gemara says that according to Rava we don’t require verbal designation of lishmah for something that is a helper object to something that is holy, aka tashmishei kedusha (because hazmana lav milsa hee). Verbal designation is only needed and required for for something that is intrinsically holy. However, the gemara says (according to the Baal Hamaor) that Rava doesn’t require lishmah for tefillin as well, even though it should be intrinsically holy.
    B. The Rambam says there’s no need for the leather battim to be worked lishmah, but doesn’t say it’s because we hold hazmana lav milsa hee- it’s because it doesn’t even need to be worked.
    C. Why do retzuos need lishmah if the battim don’t?
    D. There is a 4th question as well that Reb Chaim has shelved for the moment- Why does the Rambam hold the klaf for a Torah requires lishmah but not the klaf for mezuzah?
    X.
    Reb Chaim has a new teretz for the Rambam. Really, Tefillin is etzem kedusha, and yet it still has what to do with hazmana milsa hee. Anything needed for tefillin has a din of etzem kedusha and needs to be done lishmah, and requires hazmana. So Tefillin retzuos need to be done lishmah and requires hazmana. Torah klaf needs to be done lishmah. However, the battim don’t need to be worked leather- they can be raw. As such, the lishmah aspect of the battim is on a lower level, and is subject to the debate about hazmana milsa hee. So when the Rambam says the difference between retzuos and battim is that the battim don’t need to be worked leather, he means “and therefore it is subject to the machlokes of hazmana milsa hee and we pasken we don’t need it.”
    XI. (He proceeds to tear down this beautiful answer)

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.


Trending