To subscribe to this group, send an email to: TeaneckDaf-subscribe@yahoogroups.com or go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TeaneckDaf/

---

From: crshulman@aol.com
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005
To: teaneckdaf@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [TeaneckDaf] Misc. on the daf

fw Misc. on the daf

INSIGHTS INTO THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim daf@dafyomi.co.il, http://www.dafyomi.co.il

SHABBOS 82-84 - Dedicated by Alex and Helen Gross of Rechavya, Jerusalem, lovers of Torah and builders of a home molded by dedication to Torah study. May the Zechus of the Torah always provide for and protect their entire family!
SHABBOS 81 - Dedicated by an anonymous donor who has given a generous gift to the Kollel.
SHABBOS 85 - Dedicated in memory of the Tzadik Harav Yisrael Azriel ben Harav Chaim (Feldman), of Milwaukee, and his Eishes Chayil, Sarah Dvosya bas Rav Mordechai.


Shabbos 77b
THE ETYMOLOGY OF ARAMAIC WORDS
QUESTION: Rav Yehudah explains the etymology of a number of Aramaic words. However, he explains that they derive from contractions of Hebrew words (for example, he explains that "Dasha" (door in Aramaic) comes from the Hebrew words, "Derech Sham"). How can words in Aramaic be contractions of words in a different language, Hebrew?

ANSWERS:
(a) The MAHARSHA explains that many Aramaic words have their roots in Hebrew. In general, Aramaic is very similar to Hebrew, and many of its words are corruptions of Hebrew words. (The son of the Vilna Ga'on, in TIRGEM AVRAHAM, shows that every word of Targum Onkeles stems from a Hebrew root.) Rav Yehudah teaches that these words, too, have Hebrew roots.

(b) The TIFERES YISRAEL (in "Boaz" to Pesachim 10:3) explains that the Aramaic and Greek words that are commonly found in the Gemara were not used by the Sages in the way that they were used in their original languages. Rather, the Sages Hebraicized the words and altered them from their original form. The Gemara here explains that the Sages pronounced certain Aramaic words in specific ways in order to make them sound like their Hebrew counterparts. (RAV YAKOV EMDEN, in Hagahos ha'Ya'avetz to Megilah 7a, offers a similar explanation for the Gemara's statements about the meaning of the name "Teveryah," even though it is known that the city was named in honor of the Roman emperor Tiberias.)
...


Shabbos 81b

USING THE HOLY NAME
OPINIONS: Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna said "something" in order to undo the witchcraft of the woman who cast a spell on their ship. What was it that they said?

RASHI in Chulin (105b, DH Amrei) offers two explanations. The first explanation is that they countered her spell by using their knowledge of black magic. The second explanation is that they uttered the Holy Name.
Rashi here, too, understands that they uttered the Holy Name.

With regard to the second explanation, Rashi comments, "it cannot be proven" ("v'Lo Muchecha Milsa"; see Rosh Yosef). Rashi implies that the second suggestion needs strong backing in order to be considered valid.
Why is that?

(a) In AVOS D'REBBI NASAN (12:13), we are taught that the expression, "d'Ishtamesh b'Taga Chalaf" (Avos 1:13), means that one who uses the Holy Name (for mundane purposes) will have no part in the World to Come.
This interpretation is quoted by the REMA (YD 246:21). (Although we find in Sanhedrin (67b) that when Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish learned Sefer Yetzirah, a calf was created, Rashi there explains that the calf came about by itself and they did not intentionally create it.)

(b) Rashi here, however, explains that the Amora'im used a "Shem Taharah" (Holy Name) to move the boat. This conforms to the opinion of the REMA (in YD 179:15), who permits the use of the Holy Name to perform miracles. In fact, "one who performs miracles with Hashem's Holy Name demonstrates the greatness and mightiness of the Creator (LEVUSH, ibid.)." According to the Rema, the statement of Avos d'Rebbi Nasan apparently pertains only to those who are not on the proper level of holiness when they use the Holy Name. (It is possible that the words "Shem Taharah" that Rashi here uses, as opposed to the words "Shem Kodesh," are a euphemism for Shem Tum'ah, and Rashi's opinion here is consistent with his words in Chulin.)


HALACHAH: The SHACH (YD 179:18) quotes the LEVUSH who states that since it is almost impossible for one to be on the proper level of Kedushah and Taharah in order to use the Holy Name, one should refrain from using it except under dire circumstances.



Shabbos 82

HALACHAH: USING A FLAMMABLE MATERIAL FOR HYGIENIC PURPOSES
OPINIONS: The Gemara (81b) says that a person should not use a piece of Cheres (potsherd) for Kinu'ach in the bathroom because of Sakanah (because of its sharpness, it can cause damage to the rectal musculature orifice), and because of Keshafim (sorcery; sorcerers are able to cast spells on those who use it). The Gemara (82a) then says that one should not use a material that is flammable, like grass, because it can cause damage to the rectal musculature.

The REMA (OC 3:11) mentions that it is the prevalent practice today to use paper for Kinu'ach. Why are we not concerned for the danger that the Gemara depicts?

(a) The REMA in DARCHEI MOSHE and in the Shulchan Aruch cites the AGUDAH who says that "since our bathrooms are not in the fields, we are not concerned about using a material that is flammable." The Rema in Darchei Moshe declares that he does not understand the Agudah's reasoning: Why does the fact that our bathrooms are not in the fields permit the use of a flammable material for Kinu'ach? Nevertheless, the Rema concludes that since people commonly use paper for Kinu'ach, it falls into the category of "Shomer Pesa'im Hashem" -- "Hashem protects the fools" (Tehilim 116:6).

(b) The MAGEN AVRAHAM explains that the Agudah means that the reason a flammable material is dangerous is because of Keshafim (it enables sorcerers to cast spells on those who use it); it is not physically dangerous by itself. (This is not the simple meaning of the Gemara on 81b that seems to distinguish between the two reasons of Sakanah and
Keshafim.) Since there is no fear of Keshafim nowadays, one is permitted to use paper.

(c) The PERISHAH explains that the Rabanan prohibited using a certain object for Kinu'ach only when there are *two* reasons not to use it (such as Sakanah and Keshafim). Nowadays, there is only one reason (Sakanah, and not Keshafim), and therefore one is not prohibited to use a flammable material.

(d) The CHASAM SOFER (81b) explains that we rule in accordance with Rava, who says that one is prohibited to use Cheres only because it may tear off hairs on Shabbos, and not because of Sakanah or Keshafim.
Although the Gemara refutes Rava when it cites a teaching of Rebbi Yochanan in which he is not concerned for a Davar she'Eino Miskaven, the Halachah apparently follows Rava. (With regard to Rebbi Yochanan's statement, we find in many places that there were two opinions as to whether or not Rebbi Yochanan ruled like every "Stam Mishnah," and therefore it is not clear that he ruled that Davar she'Ein Miskaven is
permitted.) Accordingly, the only reason one is prohibited to use Cheres is because it rips off hairs. Since Rava maintains that there is no concern for Sakanah and Keshafim with regard to Cheres, perhaps there is also no concern for Sakanah and Keshafim with regard to all other items, and that is why we may use flammable paper for Kinu'ach. (See CHASAM SOFER there.)



2) PEREK "AMAR REBBI AKIVA"
QUESTION: The previous chapter concludes with a Mishnah that deals with the minimum size of a clay potsherd for which one is Chayav for Hotza'ah when he carries it into Reshus ha'Rabim. The new chapter begins by discussing the Tum'ah that the Rabanan enacted for objects of idolatry.
What is the connection between this chapter and the previous one?

ANSWERS:
(a) RASHI says that the Mishnah here is unrelated to Shabbos. It is included here only because the Mishnah *later* (86a) teaches that a certain law of Shabbos is derived from an allusion in a verse, and therefore the Mishnah teaches other laws that are inferred from verses.
All of the Mishnayos that ask "Minayin" -- "from where [do we learn this law]" and answer with a verse are included here because of the one Mishnah that is relevant to Shabbos, in which it asks "Minayin" and answers with a verse.

(b) RABEINU CHANANEL says that the end of the *previous* Mishnah cites a verse as an Asmachta for a Halachah mid'Rabanan. This chapter continues with Asmachtos from verses for Halachos mid'Rabanan.

(c) TOSFOS gives the answer of Rabeinu Chananel and adds that the source for the Asmachta in this Mishnah is a verse in the *same* place in Yeshayah as the source for the Asmachta in the previous Mishnah.



--------------------------------


THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
daf@dafyomi.co.il

Shabbos 075: How could Rav Meir learn from Acher?
yehoash orange <litspeed20@hotmail.com> asked
it says anyone who learns from an apikores is chayiv misah. However, in maseches chagiga 15b it says that r' meir learned from acher. How could he do this?
yehoash orange, Brooklyn,n.y.

The Kollel replies:
The Gemara in Shabbos does not say Apikorus, but rather Gedufi (according to one opinion). If you look at Rashi (DH "Gedufi"), it is unclear whether or not Acher fits that description.
However, your question is addressed in another vein by the Gemara in Chagigah (15b) which asks how Rebbi Meir could have learned Torah from Acher as he did not fit the description of a Malach Hashem (which a Rebbi should be comparable to as per the teaching of Rebbi Yochanan there). The Gemara in Chagigah explains that Rebbi Meir learned from a Pasuk that one who is already a Gadol b'Torah can learn from such a person Torah, as long as he does not adapt the other person's poisoned mindset.
It should be noted that the RACH in Chagigah (ibid.) says that Rebbi Meir's position is not the Halachah, as the Gemara later says that Eliyahu ha'Navi reported that in Shamayim that the Torah of Rebbi Meir was not said over
because he learned it from Acher.
Kol Tuv,
Yaakov
Daf-discuss@shemayisrael.co.il



--------------------------------


http://www.ou.org/shabbat/5765/rsteinsaltz/072105sh8086.htm
Parshat Pinchas - 16 Tammuz 5765 / July 22-23, 2005
The Coming Week's Daf Yomi by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz

Shabbat 80a – 86b

This essay is based upon the insights and chidushim (original ideas) of Talmudic scholar Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, as published in the Hebrew version of the Steinsaltz Edition of the Talmud.

In Daf Yomi this week:

we conclude the eighth chapter, which focuses on the amount considered significant enough to be regarded as a burden on Shabbat.
we begin the ninth chapter, which discusses a range of issues that are not connected to Shabbat in any way, but whose inclusion in this tractate reveals important concepts about the way the Oral tradition (the Talmud) was passed down through the generations.


1. The eighth chapter of Masechet Shabbat focuses on the amount considered important enough to be regarded as a burden on Shabbat. The Mishnayot at the end of the chapter continue examining different objects, each of which has its own subjective size or amount that makes it significant.

The Mishnah (81a), for example, rules that to be held liable for carrying a bone on Shabbat, it must be large enough to make a spoon. Glass needs to be large enough for scraping the top of the whorl of a spindle; a chip or a stone needs to be large enough to throw at a bird; according to Rabbi Eleazar b. Jacob it must be large enough to throw at an animal.

The Gemara’s examination of this Mishnah includes rulings about carrying small stones on Shabbat for a variety of purposes, including to be used in the place of toilet paper – a common practice at that time. This discussion leads to the following conversation between Rav Huna and his son Rabbah (82a), as recorded by the Gemara:

R. Huna said to his son Rabbah, “Why are you not to be found before R. Hisda, whose dicta are [so] keen?” “What should I go to him for,” answered he, “seeing that when I go to him he treats me to secular discourses!” [Thus] he tells me, when one enters a privy, he must not sit down abruptly, nor force himself overmuch, because the rectum rests on three teeth-like glands, [and] these teeth-like glands of the rectum might become dislocated and he [his health] is endangered. “He treats of health matters,” he exclaimed, “and you call them secular discourses! All the more reason for going to him!”

It appears that, according to Rav Huna, not only is the study of hygiene-related issues important, but it falls under the category of Torah study. In his view, attention should be paid to such lessons no less than to any other category of Halakhah. This position is accepted, for example, by Maimonides, who begins the fourth chapter of his Hilkhot De’ot (in his master work of halakha, the Mishneh Torah) with the words “Given that a full, healthy body is one of the ways of God… therefore a man must distance himself from any force that would injure him”. Based on this, Torah scholars should value and involve themselves in the study of these topics.



2. The ninth chapter, Perek “Amar Rabbi Akiva,” is made up of a series of Mishnayot that contain laws seemingly based on a homiletic or allegoric interpretation of passages from Tanakh. The connection to Masechet Shabbat is tangential at best. Only one of the laws that appears seems explicitly connected: The Mishnah (86a) asks, “how do we know that a circumcised child may be bathed [even] on the third day [after circumcision] which falls on Shabbat? Because it is said, ‘and it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore’ (Bereshit 24:35).” While the passage is not strictly a legal one – it come from the narrative section in Bereshit that tells the story of Shimon and Levi saving their sister Dena who had been kidnapped by Shechem – nevertheless a Shabbat law is learned from it. Similarly, all of the other laws taught in the Mishnayot throughout this chapter are taken from non-halakhic sources.

To understand what is going on here, it is important to realize that, for hundreds of years, the “Torah she’ba’al peh” – the Oral Law – was transferred from teacher to student in words, without being written down. This method continued even after the Mishnah was edited in its present form. It was, therefore, necessary to use mnemonic devices and other methods, many of which were recorded in the Mishnah and Talmud, to assist memory. One of the methods used was to connect a series of laws that are not similar in their content, but rather are associated in other logical ways.

Sometimes the laws are connected because they all are presented in a similar fashion.

Another method is the use of an “asmakhta” to connect the law to a biblical passage that hints to the law, even if it is not truly the source of that rule. Aside from serving as an aid for memory, the methodology of asmakhta was also useful in creating logical connections between the Bible and the Oral Law. With regard to many such “proofs,” there are disagreements among the commentaries as to whether the Rabbis of the Talmud meant for them to be understood as the source for the halakha or as just a memory device. Nevertheless it seems clear that when the source is from Navi or Ketuvim (as opposed to Torah) it is brought only as a mnemonic device.

In our Perek, both of these methods are used. Each Mishnah opens the same way, with a question starting “Minayin?” (“From where?”) that searches for a source for the law. Each source that is brought in response is a hint, rather than a true textual proof. This section was, apparently, brought here as a continuation of the last Mishnah in the previous Perek (82b) that closed in this manner while searching for the designation of the size of a piece of pottery that cannot be carried on Shabbat, and finding it in a passage in Yeshayahu.

(In addition to his monumental translation and commentary on the Talmud, Rabbi Steinsaltz has authored dozens of books and hundreds of articles on a variety of topics, both Jewish and secular. For more information about Rabbi Steinsaltz’s groundbreaking work in Jewish education, visit www.steinsaltz.org or contact the Aleph Society at 212-840-1166.)


--------------------------------------
 

To [un]subscribe from this group, send an email to: TeaneckDaf-[un]subscribe@yahoogroups.com