#RebChaim #4 part 2

Home Forums Bais Medrash #RebChaim #4 part 2

  • This topic contains 1 voice and has 0 replies.
Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1579018

    YosefSebrow
    Participant

    #Rebchaim #04 part 2 version 2 7/25/18
    לזכות רפואה שלמה של מינא חנה בת שרה פייגא
    Objective: To explain 3 out of the 4 kashyas on the Rambam using the pshat of the Baal Hamaor
    Quick summary: Ibud isn’t hazmana, even though it looks like hazmana.
    Mareh makom: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=39831&st=&pgnum=10
    http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=39831&st=&pgnum=11
    (or page 10 and 11 in the Reb Chaim pdf on the dropbox site)

    Full Summary:
    I.
    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 something that is intrinsically holy, eg Sefer Torah. 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?

    II.
    Reb Chaim has a new teretz for the Rambam. Really, Tefillin is etzem kedusha, and yet it still has what to do with the machlokes of hazmana milsa hee. Anything intrinsically 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 require 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, if there is any, 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.”
    III.
    Reb Chaim has a question on this teretz- we just said to answer for the Rambam that something needed for the actual creation of tefillin wouldn’t be subject to the machlokes of hazmana milsa hee since even Rava would admit there that hazmana milsa hee. Yet we see the gemara in Menachos 34 says that if you had intent to use a set of tefillin for shel rosh, as long as you didn’t actually wear it you could switch it around if you say hazmana lav milsa hee. So that’s a case where you did hazmana for something to do intrinsically with the actual tefillin (that of designating one of them to be your shel rosh)and yet it’s still subject to the machlokes of hazmana milsa hee!
    IV.
    Reb Chaim now moves on to his final answer to explain the Rambam according to the Baal Hama’or- If you say hazmana milsa hee, then just doing something called “hazmana” or “designation” causes a bunch of dinim to take effect. If you say hazmana lav milsa hee, then hazmana is worthless. Sure, preparing skins (whether for retzuos or for Torah parchment) requires the kavana of lishma, and it looks like hazmana since you are designating it lishma. However, it isn’t hazmana, it just an ingredient needed in preparing animal skins. But when it comes to other areas, for example, designating one of the tefillin for shel rosh, that’s just a typical hazmana and is subject to the debate of hazmana milsa hee. (Putting this all back in the Rambam, it almost like his previous teretz. Retzuos require ibud lishmah. Battim don’t require ibud lishmah, and their din is then based on the machlokes of hazmana milsa hee. So it’s like the Baal hamaor in that it’s meant to fit simply into the gemara.If it doesn’t require lishmah for intrinsic holiness then it’s like tashmishei kedusha and subkect to the machlokes. We have now answered 3 out of the 4 questions mentioned in I.
    V.
    Reb Chaim now moves on to the Ramban’s reading of the gemara.
    A. Torah parchment and Battim are the same in that both aren’t holy due to their own nature. Battim need the parshiyos, and the Torah klaf needs the writing on it. Thus they are like “tashmishei kedusha”. This is in contrast to the egla arufa, where the calf itself is holy intrinsically as an egla arufa.
    B. In addition, once you bring the calf down into the valley it immediately becomes holy. However, by Sifrei Torah, Tefillin, and Mezuza, they need much more preparation to become holy objects- namely, the actual writing.
    VI.
    Based on the Ramban, if the Rambam was trying to fit into that reading, it becomes difficult again and step III is reinstated- why is it that by Sefer Torah parchment the Rambam requires ibud lishmah but not by battim where it depends on hazmana milsa hee, since now both Sefer Torah parchment and Tefillin Battim are considered tashmishei kedusha?

    VII.
    Reb Chaim answers that when we are debating about hazmana milsa hee or lav milsa hee, that means, does the act of designating it for something act as an immediate catalyst for certain halachic changes to take effect, eg holiness and the issur to use it for anything else. So when we say hazmana lav milsa hee, that means that we don’t view hazmana as the catalyst to cause immediate halachic changes in the status. However, we still need lishmah as an essential ingredient in the manufacture of something. Reb Chaim goes onto explain that when we don’t actually require ibud, then when we do have ibud, it doesn’t need to be lishmah and designating it as lishmah is not an essential ingredient. So since battim don’t require ibud, the lack of lishmah doesn’t mean it’s lacking an essential ingredient. Now comes the other part- what about needing lishmah due to the requirement for hazmana as a catalyst? That gets into the debate of hazmana milsa hee, and we hold lav milsa hee. So now we answer the Rambam even according to the Ramban, and all we have left is the 4th question- why is mezuza different?
    VIII.
    (Reb Chaim will go on to explain why mezuza is different from sefer torah and tefillin in terms of the parchment requiring lishmah)

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


Trending