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 ...


9

Person. You don't need to have tzitzit on a tallit that you keep in a drawer. Source: Talmud Menachot 41. See also Rambam Hil. Tzitzit 3:10-11, Shulchan Aruch OC 19:1


8

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 ...


8

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, ...


7

Yerushalmi Terumoth (ch. 1): ולא יראה בך ערות דבר (דברים כג): ערות דיבור זה - ניבול - פה Also, see Mesilat Yesharim (ch. 11) about the severity of this sin, where he brings this and other sources.


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

There are two different types of gzeirah shava specific words were part of the mesorah but the pesukim used and / or the actual item that was derived from the gzeirah shava may not have been part of the mesorah. The content of the limud was part of the mesorah but not the words used in the gzeirah shava. Halichos Olam Shaar 4. See also Ramban sefer ...


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 ...


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. ...


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? ...


5

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 ...


5

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 ...


5

I once asked a rebbi of mine this very question, in a different context. The Gemara in Kiddushin 14b discusses a Gezerah Shavah using the word שכיר, a word that is found a number of times in the sections of the Torah that deal with slaves/servants. Tosofos there, s. v. מוכר, takes the liberty of applying this Gezerah Shavah to other instances of the word in ...


4

On your way, you may suddenly realize that you have something in your pocket. At that point, it would certainly be assur to continue to carry it. Checking your pockets prevents you from being in this situation so it is not a gezeira legezeira.


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

Rav Moshe Feinstein forbade it (IgM, OC 3, 47).


4

The Sefas Emes here says that the gemora continued to investigate because the refutation only succeeded in showing that the argument that the case was mentioned only incidentally was flawed, but maybe the assertion is still true anyway even without the attempted proof. Thus, this is the sequence of the gemora: The gemora asks about the permissibility of ...


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 ...


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 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

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 ...


2

A neveilah is tamei (ritually impure); a treifa isn't. Benefit is permitted either way.


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

As the other answers stated, the main difference between נבילה וטריפה is the טומאה. However, there are also other differences, such as אותו ואת בנו (see שמלה חדשה טו); in שלחן ערוך פב where ביצת טריפה is אסור but ביצת נבילה is not; and (lamely) someone who makes a vow נדר not to benefit from one but left the other alone. These are found all over שמלה חדשה ...


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

To some extent it seems to be. See Hullin 108b, Rashi DH "Aherim" and Ritva on that Rashi. He says that he level of Bishul that qualifies as a lav for Basar BeHalav is Ben D'rosai


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 ...



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