Joomla! site syndication http://limudtorah.jewishweb.org Thu, 02 Sep 2010 21:31:29 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.2 http://limudtorah.jewishweb.org/images/M_images/joomla_rss.png http://limudtorah.jewishweb.org Joomla! site syndication http://limudtorah.jewishweb.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=386&Itemid=37 The Gemara asks, how can we assume the smallest Shiur is the size of a human face? Maybe it's the size of the face of a small bird? The Gemara answers that we have a Gezaira Shava to the face of a person (even though we can learn it to the face from above, since it's larger we assume the smaller face, which is human.) Even though we also see the Torah talks about the face of a Keruv, that too is a Tefach. They're both human faces, but the Keruv is a younger man. Gemara and Tosfos - Sukka Thu, 29 Apr 2010 08:15:22 +0100 http://limudtorah.jewishweb.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=385&Itemid=37 The Gemara gives another reason how we know that the Kapores was a Tefach thick. Since the Torah calls the thickness a P'nai (in this context it means a surface but it could mean a face.) So we see that it's the size of a face, which is around a Tefach. The Gemara says why don't you say that it means to be the size of the face of a giant bird, which is a lot bigger. The Gemara answers that, given the choice between a larger Shiur or a smaller, we always assume the smaller one. Tosfos says that there are those that explain this rule, since you can always make the Shiur bigger and bigger, which can go on indefinitely, therefor we always take the smaller Shiur. Tosfos asks on this: In our Gemara, it cannot go on for ever, since it must fit into the Kodesh Hakodashim. So, why did the Gemara apply this rule over here? Gemara and Tosfos - Sukka Thu, 29 Apr 2010 08:10:27 +0100 http://limudtorah.jewishweb.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=384&Itemid=35 Dear readers, I would like to continue writting. Right now I'm having problems to have access to post these. I hope i'll be able to have access soon. Please contact me if you're bennifitting from this, so it will give me Chizuk to press further if I know people are reading it. Rav Chaim News - Latest Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:56:04 +0100 http://limudtorah.jewishweb.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=383&Itemid=37 (Back to the question: according to those that hold the rim was on top and was not an intrinsic part of the utensil, why do we learn the thickness of the Kaporos from the rim rather than the Tzitz?)The Gemara answers since we learn the Kaporos that the Torah gave some Shiur to it (since we know the length and the width) from the rim that the Torah gave a Shiur and not from the Tzitz that the Torah didn't give a Shiur to.Tosfos says, that even though we said that the Tzitz was 2 fingers wide, that is only because it's the size of a forehead.However, the Riva says that the Tzitz was not placed on the forehead, rather by the hair, like T'filin, since the Targum explains forehead to be between the eyes which is the same terminology that was used by T'filin. This answers the question why does the Torah change the name of the hat of the Kohein Gadol (Mitznefes) from the hat of the Kohein Hedyot (Migvos)? We see that there was a space between the Tzitz and the hat to put on T'filin. So too, since the Tzitz was in the place of the T'filin, the Kohein Gadol's hat was shorten to accommodate a space for the Tzitz and T'filin. But for a Kohein Hedyot, you only need to accommodate space for T'filin, so his hat was bigger.Even though the Tzitz was in the place of T'filin, the Kohein Gadol could wear both, since there is place on the head to put two T'filins. Gemara and Tosfos - Sukka Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:07:07 +0100 http://limudtorah.jewishweb.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=382&Itemid=37 Tosfos brings a Toras Kohanim that makes a similar Drasha. The Torah makes a Hekesh (by the Parsha of Tuma) from a wooden utensil to a sack. Just like a sack facilitates a person and his utensils, so too wooden utensils, they're only Mekabel Tumah if they facilitate people and utensils. (Tosfos infers that we're not referring to utensils made for sitting (that can Mekabel Tumas Medris) since the example the Braisa gives are tables and not beds. He also infers that they don't have receptacles, since they don't make the comparison to sack that just like sack that can be moved full or empty etc.)So, when the Gemara says that according to those that the rim is on top (therefore there is no proof from the Shulchon that a reversible board is Mekabel Tumah) there is a Shaila whether a reversible board is Mekabel Tumah from the Torah or not. The Shaila stems if this Drasha in Toras Kohanim is a true Drasha or only an Asmachta.Even to those that say the rim of the Shulchon was on the bottom, by the legs, and learns that a reversible board is Mekabel Tumah from the Shulchon (that the Torah calls it the Shulchon HaTahor. This infers that it may become Tumei.) We still need the Drasha of the Toras Kohanim (even if it's not an Asmachta) for other utensils that facilitate people and utensil. If it would only say the Drasha of Toras Kohanim, we would still need the Drasha of Shulchon Tahar to teach us that the Shulchon was removed during Yom Tov to show the people. (If it was always left in it's place, it would not Mekabel Tuma like all wooden vessels that are made to be only stationary.) Gemara and Tosfos - Sukka Mon, 15 Mar 2010 05:51:57 +0100