Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
AAQ, thanks for the kind words about my posts!
Now, about the Gemoro in Chullin:
1) It isn’t a double reference, “da’as – da’as Torah.” The Gemoro is explaining a B’raisa which uses the word da’as, and the Gemoro is asking if da’as in the B’raisa means Da’as Torah. So the first דעת is part of the question, and not part of the phrase דעת תורה. (This is the same mistake that appears on every כתב סמיכה which uses the phrase יורה יורה. This phrase is a quotation from Sanhedrin 5a, but there too the first יורה is a question (can he pasken?) and the second is the answer. So a כתב סמיכה should really say יורה just once.)
2) The phrase does not refer to סברא; rather, it refers to a דרשה: either the ה of הירך or the phrase בהאבקו עמו teaches us (according to Rebbi Yehuda) that the איסור גיד הנשה only applies to the right sciatic nerve. So what makes you think your teacher was unaware of this Gemoro, seeing as it has nothing to do with the concept of דעת תורה that we’re discussing?Reb Eliezer, when did I say that והגדת לבנך is Pesach Mitzrayim? I said that the only פסח that took place before the פרשה of והגדת לבנך was said was Pesach Mitzrayim.
@SQUARE_ROOT
The Gemoro to which you refer is in Chullin 90b; it’s in a discussion about the Gid haNosheh and has nothing to do with the concept of דעת תורה as it exists today.@ubiquitin
Exactly.However, saying there is no מקור for דעת תורה in Shas is not the same as saying there is no מקור for דעת תורה. The מדרש תהלים (שוחר טוב) on והיה כעץ שתול על פלגי מים reads as follows:
וכל אשר יעשה יצליח, שהכל צריכים לעצתו, כגון ר’ אלעזר בן ערך שהיה יועץ עצות ומתקיימות ומצליחות. אמרו לו, נביא אתה? אמר להן, לא נביא אנכי ולא בן נביא, אלא כך אני מקובל מרבותי, כל עצה שהיא לשם שמים סופה להתקיים. אמר רבי מנשיא מקרא מלא הוא, שנאמר ועצת ה’ היא תקום, עצה שיש בה דבר ה’ היא תקום.AAQ, it’s interesting that you draw a parallel between yourself and Shimon Ho’amsuni. As you will know, he was able to expound every ‘es’ in the Torah, until he reached one he couldn’t explain; at which point he retracted all of his דרשות. The Gemoro (Kiddushin 57a et al.) ends the story by saying, “עד שבא ר’ עקיבא ולימד את ה’ אלוקיך תירא לרבות תלמידי חכמים”. In other words, Shimon Ho’amsuni’s initial position – that every ‘es’ has a דרשה attached – was indeed correct! It’s just that he couldn’t think of a דרשה for one of them; so it was left to Rebbi Akiva to uphold and validate his initial view by finding a דרשה for that את.
I think our case is indeed very similar. I agree with your initial position (based on the words of your teacher) that the concept of דעת תורה does not appear in Shas; and I fail to see how the Gemoro you quote contradicts this notion. The Gemoro simply says that Rebbi Yochanan wanted Ze’iri to marry his daughter, and tried to convince him to do so. How does this imply דעת תורה? I’m sure there are many baalebatim who would like to see their daughter marry a top בחור, and might try to persuade him if he was reluctant!
Why do you need to bring the Targum Yonasan to prove that the Jews were not oleh l’regel at פסח מצרים? I mean, without the Targum Yonasan they simply stayed in Mitzrayim until the next morning, so they were certainly not עולה לרגל!
You then say that since בני ישראל were not עולה לרגל at פסח מצרים, no קרקע was required. I suppose you mean that even according to the Minchas Chinuch בדעת Tosafos that a regular קרבן פסח requires קרקע for it to be an obligation, פסח מצרים is somehow different, and does not need the ownership of קרקע for it to be a חיוב. So we agree that the כנענים could not have had a טענה regarding פסח מצרים, since there is no need to have קרקע for it to be a חיוב; and, if מעשה בראשית had been written after והגדת לבנך, they could not have had a טענה regarding any other פסח either! Which brings us back to your original קשיא (which is really the מעשי ה’s explanation of Rebbi Yitzchok’s קשיא): why could מעשה בראשית not have been written after והגדת לבנך?
So what have you answered exactly?
I thought you were trying to answer why the story of creation could not have put after והגדת לבנך. To defeat the טענה of גזל for פסח דורות, it would have been sufficient to put it after והגדת לבנך. The only קרבן פסח that would not be covered by putting מעשה בראשית after והגדת לבנך would be פסח מצרים.
And anyway, the כנענים would not have had a טענה on פסח מצרים for another reason as well: even according to the Minchas Chinuch בדעת Tosafos that someone who doesn’t own קרקע is also exempt from קרבן פסח, surely that הלכה had not yet been given at the time of פסח מצרים, seeing as it was before מתן תורה. So how would the כנענים know this הלכה if it had not yet been given?
I don’t see how that Chasam Sofer would apply to פסח מצרים, when there was no עליה לרגל anyway.
You’re right that the Minchas Chinuch indeed understands Tosafos like you, but that still doesn’t answer my second point: that even if someone is פטור from קרבן פסח by reason of not having קרקע, he can still bring it as a רשות! (Besides for this being stated explicitly by the אור חדש to פסחים דף פ”ח, it is also clear from Sanhedrin 11a, where we say that Beis Din make a leap year if people from Bovel are coming to Eretz Yisroel but have not yet arrived; רש”י explains this means they are coming לעשות פסחיהם. Surely these Babylonians did not all own land in EY; yet they were still coming לעשות פסחיהם!)
Reb Eliezer, Tosafos doesn’t mean that at all. Tosafos is not saying that someone who doesn’t own land in EY is exempt from bringing the קרבן פסח: as the משנה למלך points out, there is no מקור for saying this. Rather, as the צל”ח explains, they are explaining why R’ Yehuda ben Beseira was not עולה לרגל; on that they answer that he was פטור from עליה לרגל because he didn’t own land in EY, and so was automatically פטור from bringing the קרבן פסח because he was nowhere near ירושלים on ערב פסח.
But even if you would be right that not owning land in EY is an exemption from the מצוה of קרבן פסח, the כנענים would still not have a טענה; as even then we could bring the קרבן פסח without being מחויב, just like someone who is פטור from עליה לרגל can still choose to come.
Oh, and by the way, the דיבור המתחיל of Tosafos is not Me’eloho, but rather Mei’alyoh (from the tail).
@flyer
I just checked a fourth Chumash (המאור edition), and this one does have the piece you are referring to. (Seems like they added it in.) It is a quote from the Divrei Dovid, the Taz’s פירוש on חומש רש”י, who in turn is quoting something he saw as a boy in an old manuscript. And immediately afterwards, in square brackets, the copyist makes the same point I made: that this is definitely a מדרש תנחומא quoted by the ילקוט שמעוני.Interestingly, the אוצר הראשונים חומש brings this pshat (that Rebbi Yitzchok was Rashi’s father) from ר’ יהודה החסיד, author of Sefer Chassidim. (This was probably what the manuscript the Taz saw was based on.) Strangely, he says וזאת מימרא דר’ יצחק כל בעלי מדרשים בדקו אחריה ולא מצאו מקומה (!) אך קבלה היא (!) שרבינו שלמה אמרה בשם אביו.
@flyer
I’m not sure what you’re referring to. The first Sifsei Chachamim in the Torah reads as follows:
בראשית, דהא התורה לא נתנה לישראל אלא בשביל המצוות הכתובים בה שיקיימו אותם, (ועל כן נקראת בלשון תורה), אם כן כל הני ספורי דברים לא היה לו לכתוב בתורה אלא לעשות ספר בפני עצמו כמו ספר יהושע או ספר שופטים.
As you can see, not a word about Rebbi Yitzchok being Rashi’s father.I even checked 2 other Chumoshim to make sure I wasn’t missing something, but they were identical.
Reb Eliezer, one doesn’t need to own land in EY in order to bring the Korban Pesach. One only needs to own land in Eretz Yisroel in order to be obligated in עליה לרגל. Even someone who doesn’t own any land in EY can choose to be עולה לרגל, and while he is there can bring a קרבן פסח.
Also, Reb Eliezer, if you reread your original post you will see that it is very confused and unclear. I don’t actually understand what you are trying to say. Please do yourself a favour and explain it more clearly. Specifically, I don’t understand why you bring the Gemoro in Pesochim, nor why you bring the מעשי ה, (who as far as I can see doesn’t quote the Gemoro).
I couldn’t find anywhere in the Sifsei Chachomim that this Rebbi Yitzchok is Rashi’s father. But even if he (or someone else) does say it, with the greatest of respect it isn’t so. In actual fact, this statement of Rebbi Yitzchok appears in the Yalkut Shimoni on the possuk החודש הזה לכם in the name of the Tanchuma; indeed, it can be found in תנחומא ישן here in בראשית. See also Ramban on this Rashi who calls it an אגדה, a term he reserves for מאמרי חז”ל.
When I say, “learn with a Rebbe,” I don’t mean attending a shiur. A shiur won’t help you at all with translation. What I mean is learning b’chavrusa with a Rebbe. You’ll be able to read and translate the Gemoro yourself; go at your own pace; and chazer the same Gemoro as many times as you feel necessary. Eventually the translations will stick. If you do this for some time, you might only have learnt a few blatt with a couple of chazoros, but your translation skills will have improved massively, and hopefully you’ll retain them for life.
Please don’t be offended, but you might find it helpful to learn with a Rebbe who can focus on translation with you.
A direct quote from the Wikipedia entry about Hesh Kestin: “He escaped being of the victims of the 1985 Rome and Vienna airport attacks carried out by the Palestine Liberation Organization in which 19 passengers and were killed (along with 4 terrorists), because he had been out drinking the night before and had failed to wake up in time to get to the airport.”
Says it all, really.
(Actually, why doesn’t he suggest drinking all night, every night as a way to avoid being attacked by terrorists…?)If the ‘bride’ and ‘groom’ did not tell the witnesses that they aren’t really getting married, then their intentions are דברים שבלב and they are halachically married.