Search This Blog

Thursday, September 26, 2019

Day Yoimie Snippets .... Kerisos 18,19,20,21,22,23,&24


A great opportunity for the entire family, to share some thoughts on the daf ...  the  family feels united by discussing what the head of the house is studying.
I try to break it down so that everyone can understand it .... 
You can copy and print this without my consent, since Torah belongs to all of us..... 

See  previous Daf Yoimie Snippets 

This week's "Daf Yoimie Snippets Sponsored For the Refuah Shliemah of 
צארטל בת אסתר מלכה 



Page 18 
Mesectas Kreesois
"Fat Prohibited and Fat Permitted"


Rav ruled:
 In a case where an individual had one portion of animal fat and it was uncertain whether that portion was shu’mahn (permitted fat) or chey’lev (prohibited fat), yet the individual ate it anyway — that individual is not required to bring a Korban Asham Talui (an offering sacrificed by a person who is uncertain whether or not they committed a transgression). 

However, if an individual had two portions of fat, one of shu’mahn and the other of chey’lev and ate one piece without knowing which was the shu’mahn (permitted fat) and which was chey’lev — that individual is chayav (obligated) to bring a Korban Asham Talui. 

What is the difference between the two cases above? 

Both individuals were uncertain whether they ate chey’lev or shu’mahn! 

Rav Nachman explained:
In the second case, the issur (prohibition) is strong. One of the two portions was undoubtedly chey’lev. When doubt arose that the individual clearly might have eaten chey’lev, that person was obligated to bring a korban. 

However, in the first case, it was not certain there was any issur, because there was only one portion, and it was not definitively determined whether that portion of fat was shu’mahn or chey’lev.  As such, no clear issur was established. In such a case, the Torah did not obligate the offering of a Korban Asham Talui.

Press "read more" right below to see rest of the dafim


Page 19 
Mesectas Kreesois
"Prohibited Labor Performed at Twilight"

A Jew performed a certain melacha (prohibited labor) bein ha’shma’shot (twilight), i.e., time that might belong either to the outgoing or incoming day. The specific “bein ha’shma’shot” in question was between Yom Kippur and Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer said this Jew was chayav (obligated) to offer a Korban Chatat (Sin Offering). However, Rabbi Yehoshua said that the Jew was patur (exempt). What is the reason for this machloket (dispute)? Rabbi Eliezer stated that even though we do not know whether the individual performed the melacha on Shabbat or Yom Kippur, it is certain that an aveira (transgression) was committed. Since the individual unquestionably violated an issur (prohibition), that individual is obligated to sacrifice a korban (offering). In contrast, Rabbi Yehoshua exempted the offender because the obligation to offer a Korban Chatat is not enacted until it is clear what specific issur was violated — and in the case debated here, it was not clear whether the individual violated the issur of performing melacha on Shabbat or the issur of doing melacha on Yom Kippur.



Page 20
 Mesectas Kreesois
" Prohibited Blood"


The first mishnah in this perek (chapter) deals with the issur (prohibition) of consuming blood.

 In VaYikra (Leviticus 7:26), the Torah states:
 “And you shall not consume any blood.” 

This verse teaches that it is prohibited to eat any form of blood. However, that is not the accepted practice. 

Indeed, we know that birds and meat from animals are koshered before eating. By salting and soaking those meats, their blood is effectively removed. However, no one salts fish to remove its blood before eating. Why? 

In the continuation of the pasuk it says: 

“And you shall not consume any blood, whether from birds or animals.” 

From the second clause of the pasuk we learn that it is only the blood that comes out of the bodies of animals regarding which there are certain dinim (laws) — i.e., those it is prohibited to eat before they have undergone shechita. 
For this reason, the blood of fish is not prohibited. 

     
Page 21 
Mesectas Kreesois
" For The Sake of Appearance"


We learned on the previous daf that it is permissible to eat fish blood. 
If so, why does Rav state on this daf that “Fish blood placed in a utensil is forbidden.” 
Since the Torah did not prohibit consumption of fish blood, how does its presence in a bowl make matters worse? 

Answer:
 Mar’eet Ayin (for the sake of appearance, or literally, ‘what appears to the eye’).

 When fish blood is placed in a utensil, it looks very similar to the blood of an animal. Chazal feared that by seeing the fish blood in a utensil, someone might err, and think that animal blood was permissible. It is only possible to identify blood as fish blood if one sees the blood on the fish; when that is the case, no one would make the mistake of permitting animal blood.

       
Page 22
 Mesectas Kreesois
" Whom Can She Marry?"


In ancient times, what woman would be prohibited from marrying any man? 

Answer:
 A half-slave, half-free shif’cha K’na’anit (Canaanite maidservant).

 How does a maidservant become “half-free”?

 For instance, if the shif’cha K’na’ani had two masters and she was freed by one of them.

 Before she became half-free, the shif’cha K’na’ani was permitted to marry either an eved K’na’ani (Canaanite slave) or an eved Ivri (indentured Hebrew servant). If the shif’cha K’na’ani had been fully freed, she would become a Jewess, and would be permitted to marry a Jew. However, in her current status, (i.e., half-slave, half-free), the woman is not allowed to marry an eved K’na’ani because she has already been half-freed, nor is she permitted to marry a Jew (because she is still half-slave). 

What is the solution for this woman?  

In order to marry, the only solution is for her remaining master to fully emancipate her, thereby enabling her to marry a Jew.

   
Page 23
 Mesectas Kreesois
"Remnant of Sacrificial Meat"

“Notar” refers to sacrificial meat that has been left over beyond the allotted timeframe for its consumption designated by the Torah.

 What is the punishment for eating notar?

 Anyone who benefits from hekdesh (a consecrated item) is obligated to offer a Korban “Asham Meilah” (Guilt of Misuse).
 Indeed, that is the teaching of one mishnah. 

However, we are taught in another mishnah that a person who eats notar after the designated time is not obligated to bring a Korban Meilah. 

How to reconcile conflicting rulings in these Mishnayot? 

The Gemara explains that the mishnah which exempts the notar eater from offering a sacrifice refers to an incident that takes place during the summer — when meat that sits out all night becomes spoiled.

 Only a person whose meilah (misuse) was worth more than a prutah is obligated to offer a korban. Since the spoiled meat was worthless, the person who benefited from it was not liable to offer any korban.


 

Page 24 
Mesectas Kreesois
 " An Ownerless Horse"

Tzachi walked around the village, minding his own business, when he saw Eli riding Yechezkel’s horse. 

He questioned — Eli, did you buy that horse from Yechezkel? 
Eli replied: 
No, I took it from the Beit Din (court) without paying a cent.

 What happened? 

Eli stopped to tell the story: 

Two witnesses testified that Yechezkel’s horse fatally kicked another horse. The Beit Din ruled that Yechezkel’s horse must be killed. However, before the horse was killed, another set of witnesses arrived and contradicted the first witnesses — stating the first witnesses had lied and had definitively not seen Yechezkel’s horse kick the other horse.

 After hearing the testimony of the second witnesses, the Beit Din reversed their ruling against the horse and declared the animal to be hefker (ownerless). 

Why did the Beit Din deem Yechezkel’s horse to be hefker? 

From the moment the horse was sentenced to sekilah (death by stoning), the owner abandoned the animal, as he no longer had any interest in it. However, the owner (Yechezkel) does not ultimately lose out because the eidim zomemim (conspiring witnesses) who made the initial false accusation are obligated to pay the owner the value of the horse.


No comments: