Makos 3a

1. We spoke about Reb Elchonon’s explanation that Eidim Zomemin don’t necessarily get what would have happened to the defendant, rather they get what Beis Din would have Pasekned. For example, if the witnesses claim that the defendant stole something, even though -had the verdict been carried out- the Bais Din would have sold the defendant as a slave (because of lack of money), the false witnesses would only have to pay money.

This is because the verdict of Beis Din would have been “pay money”. The selling the defendant as a slave is only a result of his lack of funds.

2- Attached is the famous letter of Reb Elchonon about Yeshiva University and other “Torah u’Mada” institutions.

3-  We mentioned, that we all assume, that the money paid by Eidim Zomemin goes to the defendant.

In reality there is no clear indication of this anywhere in Shas!

The first to question this assumption was Reb Eliezer of Metz, France who was a Tosafist, a student of Rabbeinu Tam and author of the Sefer Yerayim.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliezer_ben_Samuel

 

In Hebrew: http://www.daat.ac.il/encyclopedia/value.asp?id1=1592

 

His Sefer in various editions: http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/home.aspx?title=%u05E1%u05E4%u05E8%20%u05D9%u05E8%u05D0%u05D9%u05DD&auth=&ocr=&sort=0#gsc.tab=0

 

See the attached PDF of the Yireim who brings up this question and proclaims that until someone shows him differently he thinks the Eidim can give the money to Bais Din and they can distribute it to whoever they or he would like. See the commentary on the side.

 

In the footnotes, Reb Yerucham Perla* also tries to answer the Yerayim’s question.

* Rav Yerucham Fishel Perla (1846-1934). Born in Warsaw in 1846 and studied under Rav Yehoshua Leib Diskin in Lomza and under Rav Yosef Dov Halevi Soloveitchik. While he was still young, he was offered prestigious rabbinates, including in Lublin and Krakow, but he turned them down so he could continue his studies. He is known for his encyclopedic commentary to the Sefer Hamitzvos by Rav Saadiah Gaon. Editor

 

Yiraim about who the money goes to

 

Reb Elchonon YU PDF

Makos 2b

1. We spoke about Zomemim that it is a Lav that is not connected with an action. Lav She’in Bo Ma’ase where the general rule is that Malkus is never given.

Why is Zomemim a Lav that is not connected with an action?

Either because when “testifying” one just  utters words or (even if talking is considered an “action”) or because the concept of a witness is “testifying what he “saw”,  “and that, seeing, is not considered an “action”.

 

We mentioned the Magid Mishna’s opinion of the Ramba”m, that even if you are ovier a lav without an action, if it was possible to do the lav with an action you are still going to get Malkus. (Lengthy Minchas Chinuch on this topic. # 8)

The opinion of the Rambam (as opposed to many others) is that witnesses can indeed submit their testimony in writing! Thus Zomemim should be considered a Lav that does indeed have “action”. A gute kashe

 

2. Ramban’s view that the real punishment for someone’s ox killing a person is misa bidei shmoyim. The “koifer” (atonement payment) is a means to avoid the misa bidei shmoyim. It is a substitute. Therefore the first set of eidim never really could have caused misa bidei shmoyim to happen to the victim, because heaven always knew he was innocent. Thus the eidim zomemeim can’t be required to pay the “koifer” which is only a substitute.

 

3-We started speaking about Reb Elchonon Wasserman’s vort on an Eved Ivry. See here  in English or Hebrew.

Attached is the preface his children wrote for his famous book “Kovetz Shiurim”. On the last page is the fascinating story of his heroic and holy stance before he was killed by the Germans YM”S.

 

Elchonon Wasserman

Makos 2a.

1. We mentioned Tosfos’s question why the Mishna (citing two exceptions to the “hazomo rule”)  does not use a case of a mamzer which in theory pertains to everyone as opposed to a Gerusha Vachalutza that is limited to Kohanim.

 

2. In discussing if Makos is a separate tractate or combined with Sanhedrin, we spoke of the two different orders of the Mishnayos, either Zema”n Noka”t or Neze”m Koto”n.  Attached is the Sicah of the Rebbe regarding the Mitzva Tanks where he explained that the work ‘tank’ (same letters as “Noka”t) is symbolic with three ‘sedorim’ in Mishnayos and how one who goes on a ‘tank’ needs to follow the order to be successful.

 

The original Sicha was 12 Tamuz 5734.

 

3. Tosfos in Yevomos (88a, V. Oso Gavra) if two witnesses say that a person is dead, even if he shows up at a later date, he is or may be considered dead, or we must say that it is not him!

 

4. Ramaban’s logical reason why you believe the second set of witnesses because the first set turns into defendants.

 

5. Yaakov Emden’s  (Yavet”z) , (great-grandfather of NY Senator Jacob Javits) relates a fascinating story that occurred with his grandfather Reb Yakov.  During a pogrom where many Jews were beheaded, his grandfather was next on line to be killed. At the last moment he was miraculously saved from execution but fell into the pit where those before him were killed. People who witnessed the entire saga testified at the Beis Din of the famous Reb Heshel of Cracow (teacher of the Sha”ch) that they saw him beheaded. Despite his ruling that Reb Yakov’s wife can remarry, she refused to do so. Sure enough  Reb Yakov reappeared. As a consequence of this story, Reb Heshel (the accepted ‘Rabbi’ of that time) refused to ever rule again on Agunos because of  the mistake that was almost made.

 

Attached is a PDF with the story.

Regarding the actual book Megilas Sefer see Here. You can also buy the book in English Here.

Sicha of the Rebbe about Mitzva Tanks

Yaakov Emdin’s Father, never wanted to deal with Agunos

Sicha of the Rebbe about Mitzva Tanks

B”H

Yud Alef  Nissan 5774

April 11, 2014

Please enjoy some points of the last shiur accompanied by links to interesting reading material.

Chag Kosher ve’Sameach to all!

 

Ari

—————–

While discussing the prohibition to rebuild Yericho (Jericho), Sanhedrin 113a, we mentioned the prohibition to live in Egypt – Mitzrayim.

כתב הרמב”ם:

“ומותר לשכון בכל העולם חוץ מארץ מצרים מן הים הגדול ועד המערב ארבע מאות פרסה על ארבע מאות פרסה כנגד כוש וכנגד המדבר, הכל אסור להתישב בה. בשלושה מקומות הזהירה תורה שלא לשוב מצרים שנאמר ‘לא תוסיפון לשוב בדרך הזה עוד’, ‘לא תוסיף עוד לראותה’, ‘לא תוסיפו לראותם עד עולם’, ואלכסנדריאה בכלל האיסור” 

(משנה תורה, הלכות מלכים פרק ה’ הלכה ז’).

It is a topic that much has been written about – primarily as to why historically, despite the prohibition, one finds Jews – amongst them the Rambam no less – that did indeed live in Egypt.

Many explanations are offered. Here are some:

1- The prohibition was only temporary. G-D didn’t want Jews, soon after the exodus, returning to the awful place they had left from.

2- Only if one travels to Egypt using the exact route the Jews took at yetzias Mitzrayim. Not if one arrives via the sea for example.

3- One is allowed to live there temporarily for the sake of earning a living.

4- Assyrian King Sancheriv, upon conquering many lands, exiled every homogenous population and relocated them to another country. He did so to the Jews too – “the exile of the ten tribes.” The intention  of the Biblical prohibition not to return to mitzrayim was so as not to mingle and learn from the abominable original Egyptians. The Egyptian population since the reign of Sancheriv are newcomers. Thus the prohibition is null and void.

See לקו”ש יט. שופטים ב. ע 171.

5- The Halacha only applies in a time when Jew are שרויין על אדמתם” (See Ritva, Yuma 38A) (If so, if you are a real zionist there might be a problem specifically today to live in Egypt. See Tzitz Eliezer Chelek 14 Siman 87 Seif 7 )

6- Where the Rambam lived is not מצרים proper. 

7- Radvaz- Prohibition is only if upon entry to מצרים the intention was to stay forever. It does not apply if the original purpose was only for a visit.

—————————

We mentioned the famous quote from the ancient Jewish traveler  Rabbi Ishtori Haparchi.

No – he was not Oriental…..

See his bio here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishtori_Haparchi

In Hebrew: http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%A9%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99_%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%97%D7%99

His book: Kaftor vo’Ferach is a travelogue of Eretz Yisroel composed in the 13th century!

One printing: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/15272

It is indeed a very interesting read.

In any case, Reb Ishtori (or Ish Tori), writes that upon his visit to Cairo he met a great grandson of the Rambam. The descendant tells him his great grandfather would alway sign his letters:

“Moshe son of Maimon – he who daily transgresses three Lavim (prohibitions)”

Wow!

The problem is that many say the Rambam never penned such words. Why?

Firstly, it does not make sense that the Rambam, who clearly states in his Yad that the prohibition still exists, would write that on himself. Surely the Rambam had a valid Halachic reason for remaining in Mitzrayim and would therefore not be transgressing these Lavs.

The Rambam in the Yad only writes exception # 3 above. Perhaps he felt that, after being exiled from Spain,  Egypt was the only place to survive as a Jew make a living.

Secondly, and recent finds of manuscripts support this, we have in our possession some actual letters written by the Rambam and this “alleged” subscript is nowhere to be found.

וראה שדי חמד ג, מ”ע י, מו

——————-

We mentioned a Kabbalistic answer. Here it goes:

The world was created with holy sparks sprinkled over the entire globe. The goal of Yiden is to find these lost sparks and elevate them by transforming each one with deeds of Torah and Mitzvos.

Creation began with 288 sparks. Moshiach will come when we find and elevate 100% of these wandering sparks.

When Jews left Mitzrayim they “emptied” that land of all “spark of Kedusha”. Thus, there was no need to be in Egypt any longer. Therefore a prohibition existed for Jews to return there as there was nothing for him to accomplish in Mitzrayim.

This idea is dealt at length in several of the Arizal’s works. See here from the Pri Etz Chaim written by Reb Chaim Vital:

http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=49521&st=&pgnum=67

Actually, that generation elevated 202 sparks out of the 288.

The words “and also the eirev rav exited with them (Jews)” וגם ערב רב עלה עמהם  allude to the 202 (rav) that were purified.

This concept is mentioned by the Alter Rebbe in Torah Or, Parshas Bo. 120. 

See also 

כנפי יונה ח”ג סנ”ו. הובא במגלה עמוקות אופן נח. תו”א בא ס, ג. סה”מ תרפ”ט ע’ 205. וש”נ.

 תו”ח בא ח”א קטו, סע”ב.             

——————

Parenthetically, we have been trying hard to wrap up the measly balance of just 86 sparks…..

Question of the Alter Rebbe in Torah Or. וישב כז, ד.

There is an explanation from the Rebbe as to why millions of Jews since 2448 can’t seem to accomplish in over 3,000 years what 600,000 did in a mere 210 years…… But that’s another topic for the future. Bl”n.

———————–

Now the Arizal adds the clincher.

Unfortunately Jews transgressed  this prohibition and returned to live in Mitzrayim. By doing this they “brought (back) unfiltered sparks”.  ניצוצות שעדיין לא נתבררו

Egypt received new ‘lost sparks’ waiting to be transformed into Kedusha.

Consequently there currently is no prohibition to go back to Mitzrayim as there are lost sparks that need to be elevated.

This latter point is mentioned in the name of the Ariza”l by the Chido on Yuma 39,a.

See here:.

http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=40654&st=&pgnum=281

We have a Kabalistic answer concerning the Rambam and others who lived in Egypt.

[See here vort of the Besh”t that any Jew even when he arrives somewhere due to being lost! “clears the air” of Chutz Lo’Oretz. And he adds that this cleansing is accomplished via a Jew’s simple faith. Emuna Peshuta and even if this Emuna is currently asleep within him. 

http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14963&st=&pgnum=669]

——————

Today is Yud Alef Nissan so what follows is quite appropriate. The Rebbe mentioned the above explanation (why the Rambam et al did live in Egypt) in 1954 and again in 1974. (See both links below)

But all he said in 1954  was “as we find written” and in 1974 he added as it is in the “the writings of the Arizal”.

When they wrote the Sicha the world was turned over to find the exact location in the vast writings of the Arizal. (The Arizal didn’t write anything on his own. It was his students, primarily Reb Chaim Vital, who wrote what we know today as ‘Kabolas ho’Arizal”).

But alas! It was nowhere to be found. The Sicho in 1974 was printed without a footnote.

http://chabadlibrarybooks.com/pdfpager.aspx?req=4610&st=&pgnum=453&hilite

Enter the computer age….it was only in the last decade when searches were developed that it was located in the Chido’s writings in the name of the Arizal. A footnote was subsequently added.

דבש לפי מערכת ב, י. פתח עיניים יומא לח, א. ברכ”י אה”ע ד. 

העו”ב תתצד ע’ 17. 

———————-

Here is a spooky related item.

The previous Rebbe said in 1933 that the Maggid of Mezritch gave his students particular “Yechudim” for every country except for Germany! No explanation was offered.

http://www.lahak.org/pdf2/Reshimos/162.pdf

In 1954, the Rebbe recounted that 1933 Sicha. He added that for years people wondered “what is wrong with  Germany?…..until after WWII it was unclear as to the German exception.150 years have passed since the Magid… it is finally understood…… “

He continued saying that nowadays one can say that even in Germany there is ‘work’ to do. The Rebbe paralleled this change to the prohibition concerning the return to Mitzrayim. That rule has changed  due to the fact that Jews were exiled there and brought with them Nitzozos that need to be found and elevated. Etc.

See here the 1954 Sicha – lost sparks in Egypt and Germany. Pages 256-257:

 

http://www.chabadlibrary.org/books/default.aspx?furl=/admur/tm/10/27/257

 

See here (again) the 1974 Sicha for a slightly different idea.

http://chabadlibrarybooks.com/pdfpager.aspx?req=4610&st=&pgnum=453&hilite

 

Here the Rebbe says that it was gentiles that brought back these spark.

 

In Likutei Sichos Vol. 19, footnotes on page 171 there are references to several ‘Nigle’ ideas about these topic. See above #1-4.

 

http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14942&st=&pgnum=184

 

See here a general overview in Hebrew. The Chido is mentioned on Page 9:

 

http://download.swdaf.com/DafDocs/succah/succah051_Living_in_Mitzrayim.pdf

 

Aspaklariaw Ha’meira and Aspaklaria She’Aina Me’ira.

A-     Further to our discussion of Reb Yisroel Lifschutz, the open minded author of the “Tiferes Yisroel” commentary on the Mishna, we mentioned his take on the definition of Aspaklaria Ha’meira and Aspaklaria She’Aina Me’ira. Sanhedrin 97b.

Loosely translated as: Clear glass and unclear glass.

What is the real meaning of these two words?

See here in Mishnayos Kelim Chapter 30. http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9686&st=&pgnum=319

The Rambam there has interesting words to describe both types. What he describes can mean: Glass, mirror and/or clear stone.

The clear stone he mentions is actually a semi-precious stone that can be polished and used as a glass in a window.  See below what Boaz has located.

The Tosfos Yom Tov there says that according to the Rambam “Aspaklaria She’Aina Me’ira” means a mirror. And “Aspaklaria Ha’meira” – “brill”. A German word that can mean either spectacles or a telescope.

Reb Yisroel Lifschutz comments that it is impossible to say that the Rambam was referring to spectacles or a telescope because these two items were invented much after the Rambam.

He writes the names of the two inventors for these items.

1-      Alexander Spina- inventor of spectacles. “Glasses”.

http://books.google.com/books?id=1sc3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=alexander+spina+inventor&source=bl&ots=1TBmM-Ycd0&sig=oSRd4AqyHB_0ud2wNkdotgLDD1M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Eup3UfGeC5i54APnr4DgAQ&sqi=2&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=alexander%20spina%20inventor&f=false

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectacles#Invention_of_eyeglasses

2-      Zacharias Janssen one of the inventors of the telescope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacharias_Janssen

Reb Yisroel Lifschutz then continues tell us what the Rambam really meant.  This is where I’m lost. Please help. Does he mean 2 types of mirrors?

B-      The Previous Rebbe (Bar Mitzvah Ma’mor) translates Aspaklaria Ha’meira a microscope.

C-      The Alter Rebbe in Likutei Torah translates Aspaklaria She’Aina Me’ira  as a mirror.

D- The Mitteler Rebbe describes Aspaklaria Ha’meira as a microscope or telescope.

D-     See here a compilation of the places in Chassidus: http://www.haoros.com/Archive/?kovetz=811 page 121

http://www.haoros.com/Archive/?kovetz=819  page 83

E-      See here in Hebrew: http://www.aspaklaria.info/001_ALEF/%D7%90%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A7%D7%9C%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%90.htm

F- The Rambam mentions glass and a stone called Shoam that is translucent.

Boaz located this from the ‘Illustrated Dictionary of Historic Architecture’.

Specularia: Windowpanes used in ancient Rome; usually made of thin sheets of mica (lapis specularis).

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/specularia-1#ixzz2RUEintL7

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=6n4JLmyooTwC&pg=PA498&lpg=PA498&dq=Windowpanes+used+in+ancient+Rome;+usually+made+of+thin+sheets+of+mica+(lapis+specularis).&source=bl&ots=gPfQ_j4j_G&sig=9Df0iUe-8hzA3UKg3JdFadkokRY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8UJ5Uez5DorZ0QHcjICgAQ&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Windowpanes%20used%20in%20ancient%20Rome%3B%20usually%20made%20of%20thin%20sheets%20of%20mica%20(lapis%20specularis).&f=false

 

What is Shoham?

 

http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%94%D7%9D

 

There is more.

 

 

Spontaneous Generation notes:

 

Tiferes Yisrole refers to Link (the Link is a link, but that is also his name) (Urwelt, page 327 – http://books.google.com/books?id=gjUCAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

 

However, Slifkin, (overview) and others, notably among many, Sid (Schneir) Z. Leiman, Professor of Jewish History and Literature in Brooklyn College and at YU posits in his book Hazon Nahum that the Tiferes Yisrael misunderstood Link and all subsequent commentators (including our own Margaliyos Hayam) accepted that error, in error.

 

As for the Rambam, according to R”Y Kapach, he did not think/believe it actually existed.