with a special thanks to Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz, dafyomi.co.il, and Chana T Fisch(for the great question)
Amud Aleph
The reason Rabbi Akiva holds that you get malkot when you're chayav Karet but not Chayav mitah, because you might never get Karet! If a person does teshuva, then he doesn't get karet!
Question: what if the the person doesn't do teshuva?
Answer: as long as there is a possibility for him not to get karet B"D can give malkot.
R. Yitzchak: The Torah teaches that Arayot are
Chayavei Keritot, and mentions Bi'ah with a sister, is also chayav karet;
- This teaches that this araya (sleeping with sister) and all other Chayavei Keritot
are punishable by Karet, and not by lashes.
Question: But the rabbanan hold that you do get malkot!
Answer: It's to divide the issurim, like R. Yochanan taught.
- R. Yochanan: If one forgot several Chayavei Keritot and then did them, he brings a Korban for
each one. (the pasuk teaches that you are chayav for each one individually)
Question: What is R. Yitzchak's source to
individualize the Arayos?
Answer: "V'ei Ishah b'Tumat Nidatah"
obligates in karet for every individual woman.
Challenge: But then the Chachamim should learn it from "v'El
Ishah..."!
Answer: they do, but the Kares for
Bi'ah with a sister teaches that if one has Bi'ah with his sister, and the
sisters of his father and mother, he is liable for each one.
Challenge: This is obvious! They are different sins with different women!
Answer: Rather, it teaches that if one has Bi'ah with
his sister, who is also the sister of his father and mother, he is liable (a
separate Korban) for each (of the three reasons she is forbidden to him)
Question: How can his sister be the sister of his
parents?
Answer: His father was a Rasha. A man slept with his mother, and had 2 daughters. Then he sleeps with his daughter (who is also his sister) and they have a son. Then his son sleeps with his mother's sister, who is also his sister because they have the same father, and also his father's sister because they have the same mother. So it's one woman but different Arayot.
Question: What is R. Yitzchak's source for this?
Answer: He learns it from a Kal va'Chomer;
Beraita - Question: Rabbi Akiva asks, if one has Bi'ah with
his sister, who is also the sister of his father and mother, is he is liable
once, or for each transgression?
Answer: Raban Gamliel and R. Yehoshua say we heard
only the following. If one has relations with five Nidot in one Helem, he is liable
for each woman. All the more so, in your case he is liable for each!
If he is liable for each when they are all Nidah, all the more so for different Arayot!
the Chachamim reject this Kal va'Chomer. He is liable for
each Nidah because they are different women!
R. Yitzchak must admit that the Kal va'Chomer
is refuted!
Response: He learns it from the end of the verse "Ervat Achoto Gilah"
Chachamim learn from this that one is liable for a full
sister, for we do not punish based on a Kal va'Chomer and we cannot learn from a
Kal va'Chomer, if he is liable for a half sister, and all the more so for a
full sister!
Question: What is R. Yitzchak's source to be chayav for a full sister?
Answer: He learns
liability from the Lav. ("Achotcha Hi" is a full sis)
Other Answer: R. Yitzchak holds
that we punish based on a Kal va'Chomer, therefore it suffices that there is a
Lav for a half-sister.
Alternate answer: He learns from the beginning of the verse "Achoto Bat Aviv Oh Bat Imo." 'Achoto' is extra to teach about a
full sister.
Chachamim use that 'Achoso' to teach that one who makes
oil like Shemen ha'Mishchah and anoints with (the original) Shemen ha'Mishchah
is liable twice.
R. Yitzchak learns like R. Elazar.
R. Elazar: Whenever the Torah writes separate
Lavim for two sins but mentions Karet only once, they are separate- regarding Korbanot, but if done in one Helem, two Korbanot are brought.
Alternatively, he does not learn like R. Elazar. Rather,
he learns from an extra Karet written regarding Nidah - "v'Ish Asher
Yishkav Es Ishah Davah... v'Nichresu."
Chachamim use this to teach R. Yochanan's law.
R. Yochanan: A woman becomes Nidah only if the
blood leaves through her Ervah (i.e. not blood that comes out through
Caesarian section).
Mishna: If a Tamei person eats Kodesh or enters
the Mikdash, he is lashed.
Question: We understand why a Tamei who enters the
Mikdash is lashed and is listed with the sins of Karet:
1. The punishment is explicit
2. The warning for lashes is explicit
3. The Karet for eating Kodesh is explicit
However, what is the warning against eating Kodesh?
Answer: Reish Lakish says it is "b'Chol Kodesh
Lo Siga."
Alt. Answer: R. Yochanan - we learn from a Gezerah
Shavah of Tumato
It says "vtumato alav" like it says
(about a Tamei who enters the Mikdash) "Od tumato Vo" just like there the Torah specifies warning and
punishment, also regarding eating Kodesh.
Question: Granted, Reish Lakish did not learn like R.
Yochanan, for he has no tradition for the Gezerah Shavah. However, why didn't R. Yochanan learn like Reish Lakish?
Answer: He holds that "b'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga"
discusses Terumah.
Question: Where does Reish Lakish learn that a Tamei is
warned not to eat Terumah?
Answer: "Ish Ish mi'Zera Aharon v'Hu Tzaru'a Oh Zav
ba'Kodoshim Lo Yachol"
Question: Why does it say "mi'Zera
Aharon"?
Answer: The verse discusses something that all decendents of Aharon (women included) may eat, which is Terumah.
R. Yochanan agrees that this forbids a Tamei to eat
Terumah. He holds that "b'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga" forbids touching
Terumah.
Question: Reish Lakish cannot say that "b'Chol
Kodesh Lo Siga" forbids a Tamei to eat Kodesh. He uses it to forbid a
Tamei to touch Kodesh!
Reish Lakish: If a Tamei touches Kodesh he is
lashed - "b'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga"
R. Yochanan: He is not lashed. That is a warning
not to touch Terumah,
Answer: Since it says "Lo Siga", it forbids
touching;
The verse "b'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga v'El ha'Mikdash Lo
Savo", equates Kodesh to the Mikdash. Just like a Tamei may not enter the
Mikdash, he may not eat Kodesh.
Question: We need the verse to forbid a Tamei to eat
Kodesh before the throwing the blood...
Reish Lakish: If a Tamei ate Kodesh before
Zerikah, he is lashed. "B'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga" applies before and
after Zerikah;
R. Yochanan: He is not lashed. A Gezerah Shavah
"Tumato-Tumato" (written regarding the punishment), teaches that
one is liable only for Kodesh permitted to Tehorim, which is after Zerikah.
Answer: Reish Lakish says, "b'Chol Kodesh"
includes before Zerikah.
Beraita in support: "B'Chol
Kodesh Lo Siga" forbids eating Kodesh;
Challenge: Perhaps it forbids touching!
Rejection: "B'Chol Kodesh... v'El
ha'Mikdash" equates Kodesh to the Mikdash. A Tamei who enters the Mikdash
is Chayav Mitah (b'Yedei Shamayim, this is included in Karet). The prohibition
of Kodesh also entails Mitah;
One is not Chayav Mitah for touching,
In a Beraita on amud aleph, Rabbi Akiva asks Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua a halachik question. The Gemara sets the stage by telling us that they were at a market/butcher and that an animal was being purchased for Rabban Gamliel's son's wedding.
Question: Why all the background info? Extra points if you reference another Gemara where background information is given to prove your point. :)
I think the background information is important because it shows us that from the Rabbi's, not only can we learn Torah, but we can learn how to behave and use our time everyday. Even when the rabbi's were in the market, they still spoke words of Torah. This reiterates an important lesson and gives us a practical example of the words in Sefer Yehoshua 1:8- "לֹא-יָמוּשׁ סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה הַזֶּה מִפִּיךָ"- the words of the Torah should not depart from your mouth. This idea is very important and is made even more relevant to us by our gemara which showed a practical case of this pasuk being followed.
ReplyDeleteVery similar to what Elisheva said, but Tosfot (as quoted in the Artscroll footnotes) say that the reason is to show that the Rabbis were always ready for a Torah discussion. They were always conscious of Halakhah and they were approachable when people had questions, no matter what else they were doing at the time. We too should try to emulate this, and constantly have Torah on our minds and always be up for a Torah discussion.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to both Chana and Elisheva's idea, I think that the gemara gives us this background information to show us that we should be incorperating Halacha into our everyday lives. I also think that the gemara wants to show us that these rabbis were real people with regular lives. I think that if we idolize these rabbis too much, we could fall into the trap of thinking that we only have to listen to them and not to Hashem. This idea is similar to the idea that we should not rely solely on doctors for medical treatment, as Assa did in Divrei HaYamim (16:12), but we must daven to Hashem for refua as well.
ReplyDeleteThe famous Gemara in Sanhedrin 74a, which we learned last year includes a similar phrase in introducing the topic of יהרג ואל יעבר, as the gemara prefaces "א״ר יוחנן משום ר״ש בן יהוצדק נימנו "וגמרו בעליית בית נתזה בלוד, meaning that this halacha was introduced in an attic in Lod. Last year, we discussed with Mrs. Lerner that the specified location indicates the importance of the halcha-- that in that case, they went to a secret attic so that they could have a unique experience where they would remember that halacha. Although here it seems that the question was somewhat arbitrarily posed at the meat market, there might still be a significance to the gemara noting a unique detail of how this point was made in order to make it unique and make it stand out.
ReplyDeleteI think giving background information proves how much thought was put into each halacha. Also, sometimes we use background information to question and understand each ruling. In extreme cases, we find that the ruling is not applicable anymore because the background information does not apply.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to what everyone else is saying, I think that it give us a lot of background info because it’s showing how much work goes into making a halacha It also shows that the Rabbis always spoke Torah wherever they were, whether it be in the Beit Midrash or the market. This teaches us that we should strive to always bring Torah into all aspects in our life and speak words of Torah whenever it is possible to do so.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what everyone has been saying. Knowing the context in which the halacha was discussed gives us an idea about the parameters of the mitzvah and allows us to make exceptions based on the specifications of the background or it helps us understand the halacha more.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what everyone has been saying. I think this really emphasizes the point that we should all always be striving to see HaShem wherever we are, no matter what we are doing. It also teaches how it is important to try and do everything the best way you can, even if it is purchasing an animal at the market.
ReplyDeleteI think that the reason the Gemara gives us background information sometimes is to show us and remind us that these Rabbis are also practicing Judaism as they debate Halacha- they are Jews just like us (only on much higher levels), but they are debating these laws so that we will know how to practice Judaism, just like they practiced Judaism. The extra information shows that they are real people just like us, also practicing Halacha.
ReplyDeleteI'm really sorry this is so late- I didn't get a chance to post last night:(
DeleteWhen background is given behind a teaching, it becomes more accessible and one is able to truly feel as if they are acquiring the information themselves or "seeing how the game plays out" rather than know the teaching or the final score of the basketball game. We are more able to connect and fulfill the mitzvah on a better level.
ReplyDeleteIt is very easy to learn Gemara and view the rabbis as this agen tof God that we cannot coonnect to. With background information, it makes the rabbis more human and it makes the conversation more human.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what has already been said-- giving background information shows us that these Rabbis were not discussing Torah solely in the Beit Midrash. They literally lived the Torah and thought through every action through a Torah lense.
ReplyDelete