Thursday, September 19, 2019

Day Yoimie Snippets .... Kerisos 11,12,13,14,15,16,& 17

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 

''דף י'א ''ראובן מול העדים       
Page 11 Mesectas Kreesois
"Reuvein vs The Witnesses" 

Eidim (witnesses) appeared at the Beit Din (court) and testified they saw Reuven commit an aveira (transgression) b’shogeg (unknowingly), for which he was chayav (liable) to sacrifice a Korban Chatat (Sin Offering). 

If Reuven admits that he committed the aveira, then he is obviously liable to offer a Korban Chatat.

But what if Reuven disputes the testimony of the eidim and insists that he did not commit any aveira? 
Should Reuven be believed, despite the witness testimony he had committed an aveira?

According to halacha, we indeed believe Reuven over the testimony of the eidim, and he is patur (exempt) from offering a Korban Chatat. 

Why is Reuven patur

If Reuven was a liar who wanted to cast off his liability to offer a Korban Chatat, he could have told the Beit Din that the eidim were correct (i.e., he had committed the aveira), but that he had done so b’mayzid (on purpose) and not b’shogeg as stated by the eidim

A person who commits an aveira b’mayzid is not obligated to bring a Korban Chatat. 

The eidim are unable to contradict such a claim, because they have no way to prove what Reuven’s intentions were in the moment of sin. Being that Reuven did not make that simple claim, we conclude that he is not a liar. As such, we believe him that he did not commit any aveira.

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

''דף י'ב ''הכזית והפרורים       
Page 12 Mesectas Kreesois
"The Olives and the Crumbs" 

A person who ate a kezayit (olive’s bulk) of prohibited food b’mayzid (intentionally), is punished with malkot (lashes). 

However, if a person were to eat a kezayit of prohibited food, bit-by-bit (meaning, not all at one time), that individual would not be liable for malkot. Why? 

Because eating each of the small bits constitutes a string of separate acts that are not added together, and therefore, do not constitute the sum of a kezayit.

What if an individual ate each of the small bites consecutively, in a short time period, separated by just one minute? 
What is the sum of all the bites added together? 

The mishnah on this daf addresses this very question. 

Rabbi Meir says we must check how long it would have taken to eat the portion if it had been crumbled to pieces, and then eaten crumb-after-crumb, and that constitutes the amount of eating time required to charge an eater of prohibited food with the punishment of malkot

''דף י'ג ''התרת נדרים        
Page 13 Mesectas Kreesois
"Annulment of Vows" 

The Amora Rav Acha, from the city of Huzal, approached Rav Ashi (Compiler of the Babylonian Talmud) on Yom Tov and said: 

“I made a neder (vow) that I want to annul.”

How does one annul a neder

The Torah teaches that a neder can be annulled in certain circumstances. 

For example:
 A person made a neder to refrain from eating bread with the expectation of being able to eat cake. If it turns out that the person has no access to cake, it is permissible to approach a sage, verify the unanticipated circumstances, and have the sage annul the neder.

Aside from nullification by an expert sage, it is possible to have a layman’s court of three panelists annul the neder. The “judges” must say to the person who desires the annulment: “It is permitted to you. It is permitted to you. It is permitted to you,” and the neder is thereby cancelled. 

''דף י'ד ''רמי בר חמא        
Page 15 Mesectas Kreesois
"Rami Bar Chama" 

Rami Bar Chama was a fourth-generation Babylonian Amora

He studied Torah with Rav Chisda, whose daughter Rami Bar Chama had the privilege to marry.

 It is interesting to note that Rami Bar Chama’s brother, Mar Ukba, married one of Rav Chisda’s other daughters. The two brothers were the greatest Torah scholars of their generation and the sons-in-law of the greatest Torah scholar of his generation.

Rami Bar Chama was also privileged to continue the dynasty of Torah scholars in his family. 

One of his daughters was mother to the Amora Ameimar, and his other daughter married the Amora Rav Ashi (compiler of the Babylonian Talmud).
After his death, Rami Bar Chama’s wife married the Amora Rava. 

''דף ט'ז ''שלוש שבתות שכוחות        
Page 16 Mesectas Kreesois
"Three Forgotten Shabbatot" 

A certain Jew forgot to celebrate Shabbat three weeks in a row. Due to his lapse of awareness that Shabbat had arrived, he went out to the field to sow seeds. 

There is no doubt that this Jew is obligated to sacrifice a Korban Chatat (Sin Offering), since he performed prohibited labor on Shabbat b’shogeg (unintentionally).
How many Korbanot Chatat is this individual obliged to offer? 


Had all the prohibited acts of labor been performed during the same Shabbat, then the individual would only have been obligated to offer one Korbanot Chatat — because he had only forgotten it was Shabbat that one time. However, since there were yemai chol (weekdays) between the forgotten Shabbatot, this is a case of three separate lapses of awareness. The transgressor is obligated to offer of a Korban Chatat for each of the three separate lapses. 

''דף 'י'ז ''ספק דאורייתא לחומרא        
Page 17 Mesectas Kreesois
"Any Doubt Regarding Biblical Law Requires Stringency" 

When doubt arises as to whether a certain act is permitted or prohibited by the Torah, the guiding halachic principle is: 

“Safek d’Oraita l’chumra” (when the doubt concerns a Torah — as opposed to rabbinic — law, one must be stringent). One must err on the side of caution and act as though the matter is definitively prohibited.

What is the source for this ruling? 

The Rishonim were in disagreement on the matter.

 Rashba (Rabbi Shlomo ben Avraham ibn Aderet (1235–1310), a medieval halakhist and Talmudist) maintained this halacha comes from the Torah. 

However, Rambam (Rabbi Moshe Ben Maimon, or Maimonides (1135-1204), a preeminent medieval Spanish philosopher, astronomer, physician, and Torah scholar) held this ruling to be a Takanat Chazal (Rabbinic decree). 

No comments: