|
(We said we learn the thickness of the cover of the Aron from the rim of the Shulchon) The Gemara asks why don't we learn it from the "crown" that were on the utensils that was only a very small amount? The Gemara answers that we need to learn the cover of the Aron, which is an intrinsic part of the Aron, from something that is an intrinsic part of the utensil and not from an accessory of an utensil. How can you call the rim of the Shulchon an intrinsic part of the utensil? It makes sense only to the Shita that holds the rim was below the table top (Rashi: the rim went from leg to leg and the table top was placed upon the rim,) but the Shita that holds it was above the table top what will you say? Tosfos says that this Gemara disproves Shitas R' Tam. R' Tam explains the Shita that the rim was below the table top that it was attached to the table top. Instead of going around the board on the top, it went around the board from the bottom. But in our Gemara it says that, according to that Shita, the rim was an intrinsic part of the utensil, but according to R' Tam, it was only decorative. What bothered R' Tam to explain it in that way? Since we see two Gemaras that implies that a wooden utensil that doesn't have a receptacle doesn't Mekabel Tuma from the Torah. (The Gemara in Bechoros says that we don't find Tuma in a flat wooden utensil only if it's made for sitting (that's Mekabel Tumas Medris.) The Gemara in Bava Basra says that the wooden flat baker's tray is only Mekabel Tuma Midarabanan. Yet the Gemara in Menachos says, that according to those that the rim was below, ,since the Torah implies the Shulchon can be Mekabel Tumah, we see that a reversible board is Mekabel Tumah. |
|
Read more...
|
|
|
The walls must be 10 T'fuchim. How do we know this? (Tosfos points out from here we'll also see that a Mechitza for Shabbos is 10 T'fucim.) The Gemara answers we learn it from the Aron. Since we learnt that the Shchina never went down within 10 T'fachim from the ground (and Moshe and Eliyahu never went within 10 T'fachim of Shamayim. This we learn from "the heaven is to Hashem and the earth was given to the children of Odom.) Therefore he must have resided on something that was it's own domain. So we see that anything that's 10 T'fachim is another domain. The Gemara asks how do we know that the Aron is 10 T'fachim high. The Pasuk says that the Aron itself is an Amah and a half. With a six Tefach Amah, that would make 9 T'fachim. So we must say that the cover was a Tefach. How do we know that the cover was a Tefach? We learn it from a Mah Metzinu from the rim around the Shulchon which was a Tefach. Why don't we learn it from the Shulchon itself? If we can learn it from two places, we always assume the lower amount. Why don't we learn it from the Tzitz (which is smaller?) Don't we have a Braisa that the Tzitz was like a foil that was 2 fingers wide and went from ear to ear. It had two lines. It said Yud and Hey on the top line Tosfos asks, how can the Braisa record this? This transgresses pronouncing the name of Hashem with it's letters. (presumingly, i.e. that you cannot spell out the letters of Hashem's name.) Tosfos answers that the prohibition is only for the full name of Hashem, but Yud Hey is only a half of name. Another answer, there is no prohibition to spell Hashem's name. Rather you're not allowed to Darshen the letters of the 42 letter name of Hashem (though we're careful not to do that to all the names of Hashem.) |
|
Read more...
|
|
|
If you put Schach on top of poles, the Rabanan Pasul and R' Yaakov says it's Kosher. R' Huna says they only argue if the poles are situated at the edge of the roof. R' Yaakov says that you say Good Asik from the sides of the house and the Rabanan says that we don't say Good Asik. But in the middle of the roof everyone holds it's not Kosher. Rav Nachman holds that they argue in the middle of the roof. The Gemara has a Shaila if the Rabanan agree by the edge of the roof or do they also argue by the edge of the roof. Tosfos says, though we already said that Good Asik is not a Mechitza for Sukka since you need a discernable wall, here the walls are considered more discernable because you can discern them from the inside of the house. The Gemara disproves R' Huna because a Braisa says that R' Yaakov permits it if it's on the ground (which is equivalent to in the middle of the roof.) As long as the pole is thick enough to carve two corner posts, each a Tefach wide, we view the pole as if it was carved and have those posts, which serve as the Mechitzos. Tosfos says, even though Pasei Beiros (corner posts that surrounds a well that they permit to draw water on Shabbos) you need each corner post to be at least an Amah, that's because we're more stringent by Mechitzos of Shabbos. |
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
|
| Results 1 - 4 of 236 |
