#RebChaim #4 part 3

Home Forums Bais Medrash #RebChaim #4 part 3

  • This topic contains 1 voice and has 0 replies.
Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1584184

    YosefSebrow
    Participant

    #Rebchaim #04 part 3 version 2 7/31/18
    לזכות רפואה שלמה של מינא חנה בת שרה פייגא
    Objective: To explain why Sefer Torah and mezuzah have different requirements for lishmah
    Quick summary: The only reason we know mezuzah needs have the parchment prepared is from a gezeira shava from megilas sotah. So unlike sefer torah, the parchment preparation has no intrinsic holiness and doesn’t need to be lishmah.
    Mareh makom:
    http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=39831&st=&pgnum=11
    http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=39831&st=&pgnum=12
    (or page 11 and 12 in the Reb Chaim pdf)

    Full Summary:
    (I. and II. Are copied from part 1. The new material begins from III.)

    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 points out that anything written on parchment requires ibud (skin preparation for writing on it), since “sefer” means the writing skin was prepared. This is true even by non-holy things like Megillas Sota which has no kedusha. The Rambam (hilchos mezuza Ch.1 halacha 14) does hold that mezuza requires ibud, unlike the battim for tefillin which don’t require ibud. However, the parchment for tefillin does require ibud as well.
    IV.
    Reb Chaim now has a chakira- is the ibud requirement for STa”M (sefer Torah tefillin mezuza) a special din of kedusha for STa”M , or is it just a din in “sefer”, in other words, since they’re written on parchment, the parchment needs to be prepared like megilas sota requires that, but like megillas sota the fact that it requires ibud adds nothing to the intrinsic holiness, since megillas sota has ibud and isn’t holy?
    V.
    A. Reb Chaim notes that in Maseches Shabbos daf 79 it says that there’s a Halacha LeMoshe misinai what kind of skin and what side it should be written on for mezuza and tefillin (dermis vs epidermis vs both together and on fur side vs other side).
    B. However, the gemara in Menachos Daf 34 has a gezeira shava by mezuza- just like “over there” (the exact definition of over there to be discussed below) it needs to be written on parchment and not on stones, so too over here by mezuzah. As Reb Chaim points out, once you know the Halacha leMoshe MiSinai that you need parchment, you would never think to write it on stones, so why do you need the gezeira shava? Must be to tell us it needs ibud, and you can’t use unprepared skin or partially prepared skin.
    C. So we see that despite the halacha leMoshe MiSinai, we still needed a gezeira shava to tell us it that mezuza has a din of sefer and shouldn’t be written on unprepared skin. So we still don’t know if the din of ibud is a special din of the kedusha of STa”M or just a din in sefer like every other sefer, including megillas sota.
    VI.
    A. Reb Chaim states that Sefer Torah has explicitly in the pasuk “Vekasav lo es Mishne HaTorah Hazos al sefer”. So writing the Sefer Torah on a proper sefer is part of the intrinsic holiness- that’s the actual mitzvah. It has both “kesiva” and “sefer” written by it.
    B. Tefillin doesn’t have the word “kesiva” written by it, so we learn out its dinim from Sefer Torah. So for these 2 at least, the fact that it needs ibud of the parchment is part of the etzem holiness.
    C. However, mezuza has “kesiva” but not “sefer”, and “sefer” we learn out from a gezeira shava. So is sefer part of the intrinsic holiness or not? That will depend on what “over there” is.
    VII.
    A. The gezeira shava by mezuza was (as per Reb Chaim’s explanation), just like “over there” it requires ibud, so too over here by mezuza it requires ibud. The question is, where is “over there”? Tosfos has 2 explanations- over there by megillas sota or over there by Sefer Torah.
    B. So if the gezeira shava is from Sefer Torah, it clearly has the full holiness. But what if we learn it out from Megillas Sotah?
    C. Perhaps the gezeira shava makes it like the word “sefer” is explicitly by mezuza, so the ibud requirement is part of the intrinsic kedusha just like by Sefer Torah and Tefillin. Or perhaps the gezeira shava makes the requirement of ibud just like the one by megillas sota- it needs it, but doesn’t have anything to do with kedusha.

    VIII.
    A. Reb Chaim says like the second side of the chakira for the Rambam- mezuza does require ibud. However, the ibud isn’t part of its intrinsic holiness. It’s just an additional requirement like by megillas sota, which requires ibud but has no intrinsic holiness. As such, it doesn’t need to be lishmah, since it’s not part of the intrinsic holiness of mezuza. It is similar to the tefillin battim, where since it doesn’t need ibud, the ibud doesn’t have to be lishmah, according to the chachomim. This is the view of the chachomim in the Yerushalmi. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel would argue and say it still needs ibud lishmah, just like he says tefillin battim require lishmah, since hazmana milsa hee. This is the hemshech and the explanation of the words “ulefi zeh” in Reb Chaim- he needed his previous chiddush about hazmana milsa hee and the machlokes between the chachomim and Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamliel to explain this machlokes by mezuza.
    B. However, this kula of the chachomim about lishmah would not be true for Sefer Torah, where the ibud is part of the intrinsic kedusha. So now there’s no machlokes between the Bavli and Yerushalmi about the need for ibud lishmah. and no stira in the Rambam.

    IX.
    Reb Chaim quotes a kesef Mishna who quotes a teshuva of the Rambam who explains the difference between mezuza and Sefer Torah and tefillin that mezuza if an obligation on the house while the other 2 are a chiyuv on the person- a chovas haguf. Reb Chaim explains this to mean that Tosfos has 2 ways of learning the gezeira shava- we can learn from “over there” by Sefer Torah or we can learn from “over there” by megillas sotah. Since megillas sota isn’t a chovas haguf it makes sense to learn the gezeira shava from there.

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


Trending