Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

11

As far as I know, the above answer is correct. A neveilah conveys ritual impurity, while a treifa does not; as per the gemura in Niddah on 42b, which makes a drasha from the pasuk in Vayikra 22:8. Here is a direct link: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/shas.aspx?mesechta=37&daf=42b&format=pdf it is about 3/4 of the way down the daf.


10

You're not mistaken: in fact the Tur and Shulkhan Arukh (335:2) say that only a בן גילו has the ability to take some of the sickness with him. This difficulty was recognised by the Drisha on Ramba"m and he stresses Ramba"m's wording: כאילו נטל חלק מחולייו - it is as if he takes part of the illness. However, there's a note in my Ramba"m that directed me to ...


7

The gemara (Nedarim 2b) says explicitly what the difference is between a neder and a shevuah: דתנא נדרים דמיתסר חפצא עליה... לאפוקי שבועה דקאסר נפשיה מן חפצא It taught nedarim where one forbids an object on himself, and excluded shevuot where one forbids one's self from the object. This distinction follows through to the Rambam (first two halachot in ...


7

If all conditions are right for the Asei to override the Lo Sasei, then it is permitted. Otherwise, it is a Mitzva haBa bAveira. Among the conditions that must be met: Fulfillment of the mitzva must occur at the same time (or with the same action) as the Aveira It isn't possible to avoid the conflict by performing the mitzva some other way The Aveira ...


7

UPDATE: msh210 beat me to it by a few seconds, but I'll post anyhow so you see the similarity between our answers. Try this page on the Brisk method. A hakira seeks to suggest two subtly-different explanations for something. If explanation A is correct, then X should apply in some other case; if explanation B is correct, then Y should apply instead. It ...


6

Literally it means "investigation" or something similar (and is used in other contexts, like that of evidence in court), but it's used to mean "hair-splitting". Yes, really. Well, almost really. A chakira is an investigation as to the exact nature of something, and is usually stated as a binary choice: is X an A or is X a B? (X can be an object, a state, ...


6

See the Aruch HaShulchan YD 87:10 where he says that you cannot bring a proof from the laws of Shabbos to say that frying is a problem of cooking meat and milk. Similarly, by smoking (in #25) he writes the same. In #31 he discusses bishul acher bishul, but seems to conclude that again, despite the rules of Shabbos, the rules of basar b'chalav are different. ...


6

Shehechiyuanu is a brikat hashevach. Now I have to explain to you how every instance of shehechiyanu is really recited after the occasion. On seeing a friend after 30 days or hearing good news that benefits only myself (I include here one who heard of rain after a drought): I think we all agree these are after. On acquiring new property: The shulchan ...


5

Rambam (Hil. Nedarim 3:7) draws exactly this distinction, based on Nedarim 16b. He says: ומפני מה נדרים חלים על דברי מצוה. ושבועות אין חלות על דברי מצוה. שהנשבע אוסר עצמו על דבר שנשבע עליו. והנודר אוסר הדבר הנדור על עצמו Translation from Chabad.org: Why do vows take effect with regard to mitzvot and oaths do not take effect with regard to mitzvot? ...


4

Isaiah 9:17- Therefore the Lord will take no pleasure in the young men, nor will he pity the fatherless and widows, for everyone is ungodly and wicked, every mouth speaks vileness. And for all this, his anger is not turned away, his hand is still upraised. As @GershonGold pointed out, the Talmud (Shabbos 33a) derives from here that nivul peh is a very ...


4

The principle of עשה דוחה לא תעשה tells one how to act when there two conflicting imperatives or obligations from the Torah. For example on one hand the Torah is commanding you to attach wool tzitzit to the four cornered garment. On the other hand the Torah is commanding you not to mix wool and linen. These are two conflicting imperatives that you must ...


4

Bavli Chullin 10b: מנא הא מלתא דאמור רבנן אוקי מילתא אחזקיה? אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר ר' יונתן, אמר קרא: ויצא הכהן מן הבית אל פתח הבית והסגיר את הבית שבעת ימים, דלמא אדנפיק ואתא בצר ליה שיעורא! אלא לאו משום דאמרינן אוקי אחזקיה.‏ Whence do we know that which the Rabbis said, "establish it based on its previous status [Chazaka]"? Rabbi Shemuel bar ...


4

Rashi's shittah is to explicate the gemara - not to provide a stand-alone peirush on the Mishna. As such, you will find that his interpretation of any given mishna will vary depending on the context in which the gemara is quoting it. To give you an example, consider Shevi'it 4:10. There, the mishna asks and answers a question as follows: מאימתי אין ...


3

The RaMBa"M considers this point to be rather fantastic - and even says so. The underlying logic is as follows: There is a concept in Halachah of "אין איסור חל על איסור", which means, "a prohibition cannot apply to another prohibtion." In plain English, this means that, once something is prohibited, additional categories of prohibition cannot be applied ...


3

The Achronim (Shulchan Aruch OC 316:3) deal with the case of closing a box on Shabbos when there might be fly in it: Safek if there will be a definite Melacha of trapping. I believe there is a large Machloket there between the Achronim, with the Taz famously permitting closing the box. See also the Gemoro in Shabbos 41b about allowing someone to put cold ...


3

The main Gemara is Nedarim 39b: אמר רבי אחא בר חנינא כל המבקר חולה נוטל אחד מששים בצערו אמרי ליה אם כן ליעלון שיתין ולוקמוה אמר ליה כעישורייתא דבי רבי ובבן גילו Said Rabbi Acha Bar Chanina: anyone who visits the sick takes away 1/60th of their pain. [The rabbis] responded to him: "if so, couldn't we just bring sixty people in, and boom he'd get ...


2

It doesn't make a difference that according to him the Eidim are Posul as Beis Din needs to believe the Eidim. We also can not stop him from bringing the Eidim, as Shavye Anafshei Chaticha De'isura is only applicable by someone prohibiting something on himself. (See the Sheeta Mekubetzes on Ksubos 9a who says that it is derived from the Din of Neder)


2

Nebelah: An animal that has died a natural death or was killed not in accordance with the jewish ritual lawnatural death is called "nebelah" (carcas). (Bechoros, 3a) Terefah: An animal afflicted with an organic disease or disability (eg. the removal of a certain portion of the knee) (Chulin, 42a) A first-born-Nebelah can have kedushat-Bechor ...


2

I haven't had time to go through the whole sugya, but this article by Dov Daniel (published in Daf Kesher vol 922, Parshat Pinchas 5763) seems to say that it is a din on the gavra and not the cheftza: דברי ר' יונה: "לא הוזכר דינא דמלכותא אלא בהפקעה שהנכסים מופקעים מבעליהם בדיני המלך וכענין הפקר בית דין הפקר ומי שיורד בהם במצות המלך זוכה ...


2

It seems that if you take a neder to go to work that it would not do anything. The לשון would probably be ’’הרי עלי להלוך לעבודה’’, which makes no sense, because there is no object on which the neder can be חל. However, if you said one of the following: a)הרי עלי שבועה שאלך לעבודה or b) הרי הליכה לעבודה על רגלי קונם or קונם רגלי בהליכה the neder would be ...


2

In Halachic discussions it is taken as axiomatic that the authors of the mishnayos and baraysos did not generally embellish and say things that were not pertinent. Therefore, if a tanna gives three reasons for something, it is assumed that each of the three reasons has independent application; that each reason has some application that could not have been ...


2

If I'm reading the Mishna right, the case of ודאי על הדמאי means you take some real Tevel Maaser Rishon and declare it all Terumat Maaser for the Maaser Rishon you separate from the Demai. If the Demai needs it, then such a declaration works and the real Tevel Maaser Rishon is now real Terumat Maaser. If the Demai doesn't need it, then the real Tevel Maaser ...


2

As mentioned in the comments פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה is probably equivalent to פסיק רישא דלא איכפת ליה. The Big Question is regular פסיק רישא vs. מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה Background There is double machlokes that comes up between R.Shimon and R. Yehuda. R.Shimon holds "דבר שאינו מתכוון is muttar (Beitza 2:10), while R.Yehuda holds its assur. R. Shimon holds ...


2

Hair is part of the body. The Gemara (Sukkah 6a) calls it טפל לבשרו; secondary to the flesh, but clearly a legitimate part of the body, as it needs to be included in tevila (ibid). As to why @SethJ heard that a married woman's hair is ervah and not an unmarried woman's, the source that hair is ervah is Berachos 24a. The Mordechai there cites a Ra'avya (an ...


2

Read here for an evolution of the different opinions in Halacha regarding blood that moved, and eating raw meat (from the Talmud to the Poskim). "blood that moved" is talking about the blood that is found in the meat, not the veins/arteries (as the Tur (67) and others say, while raw meat may be permitted without salting, the blood found in the ...


2

In "Gray Matter - Discourses in Contemporary Halachah", Rabbi Chaim Jachter explores various proposed solutions to the Agunah problem, including the idea of instituting a condition that would retroactively annul the marriage in the event of civil divorce. He writes that such a suggestion was made in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by some ...


2

Sometimes, the reason is technical: Often, there were only two leaders of the Generation, such as the Nasi and Av Beis Din of the Sanhedrin, or the Rosh Yeshivas of Sura and Pumbedeisa. In post-Talmudic texts, this is often just a preference of the Brisker Method of Talmudic analysis. On a more philosophical level, Occam's Razor applies - why assume ...


2

Look at the Haga'ot HaGRI"V 26 on the "Klalim B'Rashi", printed after the Mavo LaTalmud, at the end of Masechet Berachot. He says: ‫דרך רש״י בהרבה מקומות לפרש המשנה כס״ד דמקשן כדי להבין המשנה כס״ד טרם בואו אל המסקנא וזהו אך דרך‬ ‫רש״י לא כן שאר מפרשים תוי״ט פ״ב דפאה מ״ב‬ ‫ It is Rashi's way in many places to explain the Mishna according to the ...


1

It is grammatically impossible that חיים be modifying the construct noun דברי, as the nomen regens (נסמך) in all construct chains that feature a definite nomen rectum (סומך) must be grammatically definite as well. If you wanted to say "These and these are the living words of God", therefore, you would have to write: אלו ואלו דברי אלהים החיים — that is, ...


1

Grammatically, דברי is connected to the word after it (e.g. דברי ברכה - words of blessing). The אלוקים חיים is likely referring to דברים ה: כי מי כל-בשר אשר שמע קול אלוהים חיים מדבר מתוך-האש, כמונו--ויחי That both are the words of the living G-d that were heard at Sinai. As for why the plural, I heard many years ago that the rule in Hebrew grammar is that ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible