Limud Torah

with Rav Chaim

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

Yevamos 4

The Gemara  says that the Parsha of tziztis is next to Shatnez. this teaches us that you can wear Tzitzis even if it contains Shatnez.

Tosfos asks why doesn't this also teach us that women are obligated to wear Tzitzis just like they're obligated not to wear Shatnez. There is a similar Drasha in Erichin that wants to say for this reason Kohanim should be exempt from Tzitzis since they can wear Shatnez. (However, the Gemara ends up saying that Kohanim are obligated in Tzitzis since they are obligated not to wear Shatnez while they're not doing the Avodah.)

Tosfos answers  that we learn that women are exempt from Mitzvos Aseh that are time related from a Hekish of all Mitzvos toT'filin. Just like woman exempt from T'filin which is time related so too all Mitzvos that are time related. A Hekish of P'sukim next to each other is stronger than Smuchim, Parshos written together. Therefore the Drasha to exempt wins out the Drasha to obligate.

However, Tosfos asks, if so then women should be able to wear Shatnez since they're not obligated in Tzitzis?

Tosfos answers that there must be some (unknown to us) Drasha to obligate women not to wear Shatnez.

 

Yevamos 3

The Gemara says that we only say an Aseh supersedes a  regular Lav not one that has Kores.

Tosfos asks why don't we have a Mekor to learn an Aseh supersedes a Lav of Kores? Why don't we learn it from Yimum that supersedes the prohibition of marrying your brother's wife?

Tosfos answers that the definition of Yibum is that it must supersede that prohibition. However, we cannot extrapolate to other Asehs that you can do it without transgressing any prohibition, for perhaps they were only commanded in those instances that there is no Lav. So therefore we need to learn a regular Lav from Shatnez with Techales. Since you can have Tzitzis with a wool Talis and would not need to transgress any Lav and yet the Torah permitted it.
 

Chagiga 27

The Gemara brings R' Elezer that holds the copper Mizbayach is Tahor, since the Torah refers to it as earth. The golden Mitzbayach is also Tahor since the Torah writes it next to the copper Mizbayach, to compare them. The first version of the Rabbanan disagree and that they are susceptible to Tumah, since they're metal plated we consider them metal utensils. The second version is that you don't need a Pasuk to make them Tahor, since the plated metal is Battul to the wood.

Tosfos asks (according to the explanation of the Mahrsha) why according to the first version  did we need to say that the reason the Shuchom is susceptible to Tumah is because the Torah calls it  "Tahor."(Therefore it must be able to become Tamai.) It's anyhow susceptible because it's metal plated. Even R' Elezer agrees to this in principle, except he has a Pasuk to exclude this.

(You cannot say that Shulchon is different since the Torah calls it "wood", since the Torah calls the Mizbach "wood" too, as he explained in an earlier Tosfos.")

Tosfos answers that the first version will hold the Pasuk by Shulchon that call it Tahor  tells us that the Torah  gives this as the rule for all metal plated wood have the status of metal and is susceptible to Tumah (even if the Torah  labels the utensil as "wood.") The Gemara that says the reason that the Shulchon is Tamai is because it's a wood utensil that you move must hold like the Rabanan in the second version. The Mizbayachs are different from the Shulchon because they're stationary so they cannot be susceptible to Tumah. 


 
More Articles...


Page 20 of 98

Sections

Minchas Chinuch
News
Gemara

New!

Who's Online

We have 2 guests online