Thanks to Eli Chitrik.
Beitzah 2a.
- We spoke about the name of our Mesechta.
In the early Rabbinic writings this tractate is also known as tractate “Yom Tov” for it discusses the laws specific to Yom Tov.
The Yam Shel Shlomo writes (quoted by the Magen Avraham 156,2. The A”R omits it!) that one should not call this mesechta “Beitza” rather you should call it “Bei’a” which is the Aramaic word specifically for a chicken egg.
2. When Reb Yonoshon Eibshitz’s father brought him for the first time to Yeshiva he was shocked that they were teaching Mesechtas Beiah which is a relatively easy tractate.
Reb Yonoshon turned to his father and humorously told his father that just like there are many ways to cook and egg, hard, soft, etc.. So too this Mesechta can be learned in a hard/deep or easy/superficial way too. “It all depends on how it is prepared and served……
- We spoke about the seemingly different ‘editors’ of the individual Mesechtos of Sha”s.
For example: The language and grammar of Nedarim and Nazir are quite distinct from the rest of Sha”s.
The Rosh often makes note of this in his commentary. For example, on 19b, he writes “Shitas Nazir meshuneh.” “Nazir is “different'” We find the same phenomenon in regard to Tractate Nedarim.
4- In passing we mentioned the fact that the tractates of Nedorim and Nozir do not have an authentic commentary of Rashi. In regard to Nedarim, it is almost universally accepted that the commentary printed with the Vilna Shas and labeled as Rashi was not written by Rashi. What is printed on the side is from another Rishon.
Reb J. B Soloveitchik, has an interesting and novel thought about this:
https://www.ou.org/oupress/product/the-koren-mesorat-harav-kinot/ Page 434
On Tishah B’Av when many Kinnos are recited, one particular [Kinnah 22] was written in response to the massacre of Jewish communities during the Crusades in Germany at the end of the eleventh century. Many eminent scholars and Tosafists were killed in those attacks.
The Kinnah laments:
“Happiness has ceased and joy is gone … cut down are my heroes….
Torah, Torah wrap yourself in sackcloth.
Who will now interpret the Nazirite vows and who will arrange the laws of oaths?”
The second half of the rhetorical question is readily understandable. The author is lamenting that there aren’t scholars left of great enough caliber to decide matters pertaining to vows (Nedorim). However, what was the intent in the first half of the question (Nazir)?
‘JB’ offered a novel interpretation of this verse in the kinnah: He said that since Rashi’s commentary for Nedorim and Nazir never reached us, it was left to the Tosafists to have assumed Rashi’s traditional role and interpret the text of these two Mesechtos.
Since the German Tosafists were killed, we are left without the analysis that they normally would have provided.
So the author of Kinna 22 is lamenting that there is no one left to explain Tractates Nedarim and Nazir. The student of the Talmud needs a replacement for Rashi for these two tractates. Sadly, the author laments after the massacres that there is no one left of the caliber to write a similar commentary.
5- We began tackling the concept of Muktza on Shabbos and Yom Tov.
6. In connection with all the guest arriving for the Kinus we related the following story.
Briefly:
The Gemara in Pesachim states: Kol ma she’baal habyis omer lecho ase, chutz m’tze. “A person must listen to whatever his host instructs him, except if he orders him to leave!”
What is the meaning of this? If the host wants you out then you stay put??
The Maharsha explains it to mean that one can refuse to go shopping in the market for his host if requested.
The Sfas Emes explains that the last few words “except if he orders him to leave” were inserted at a later date to remind people of the story with Kamtza and Bar Kamtza and the bitter consequences of a host kicking out a guest. Even if uninvited.
So the story is told of the Gerer Rebbe the Imrei Emes when he first came to Eretz Yisrael he went to visit Rav Kook who was the chief rabbi at the time .
Rav Kook greeted the Gerer Rebbe and insisted that he sit in his chair at the head of the table, which the Rebbe refused to do.
Rav Kook quoted the Gemara that says that whatever the Baal Habyis tells to his guest he must do, except to leave. Therefore since he is the Baal Habayis the Rebbe must comply and sit at the head table.
The Gerer Rebbe explained to Rav Kook that the meaning of the the Gemara is perhaps a bit different.
The Mishnah states that there are three things that can drive a person out of the world “Jealousy, desire of mundane matters and pursuit of honor”.
‘Kinah, Ta’avo and Kovod motzi’yin es ho’odom min ho’olam’.
This is what the Gemara meant to say: You should do everything that the Baal Habyis says. Except things that make you leave this world. Chutz m’tze.
Now, concluded the Rebbe, I have a big Ta’avo to sit on your chair……and therefore I don’t have to comply with your wishes……
7- We mentioned a humorous quip from an old Chosid, Reb Aharon Yoseph Belinitzki. (He was the son of the famed Reb Yisroel Noach who learned in Lubavitch and who lived to a ripe old age in the Yeshiva in Brunoy, France).
“It is quite common for many to ‘dream’ in middle of Davning, mumble along……and upon ‘waking up’ finding yourself way ahead in the Davning….”
Now he would ask the Bachurim: “If someone started Davning, dreams away and finds himself mumbling ‘Aleinu Le’shabei’ach’…. what part of Davening did he definitely NOT say?”……
“Answer: The ‘Shir Shel Yom‘. The specific Perek of Tehillim for the individual day of the week.
Because while dreaming/Davning one surely did not say all seven“……
This part of Shacharis requires the minimum concentration…..
