argument between Tosphot and the Rambam. Kritot 28a כריתות כ''ח ע''א

There is an argument between Tosphot and the Rambam about the law animals are not pushed off. [That means if one declares that "This animal will be a burnt offering" while that animal can't be a burnt offering. But the later it becomes fit.] To Tosphot, that is reflected in the statement R. Shimon and R. Elazar that if one sanctifies a female sheep to be a guilt offering or a burnt offering, and it gives birth to a male, that male can be sacrificed as a guilt offering or a burnt offering. The sages however disagree, and hold that the mother and male sheep have go to pasture, and stay there until they get a blemish, and then are redeemed (sold), and with that money they are sold for, one buys a male sheep to bring for a guilt offering or a burnt offering. However, the Rambam holds both with the principle “Animals are not pushed off” and with the sages that disagree with R Shimon and R Elazar. Rav Shach (sacrifies 15 law four) solves this puzzle with the idea that when the one sanctifies the female sheep to be a guilt offering that is holiness that is pushed off. And it is in such cases that even when the animal becomes fit for a sacrifice, it remains pushed off. However, in a case like when one partner sanctifies his portion in an animal and the other does not, then if that partner later buys the remaining part then the whole animal is fit for a sacrifice. The reason I bring this up is that it is unclear to me in what kind of case one says the holiness is pushed off. For two examples the case of the partners Rashi says there it is holiness that is pushed off. (However, that might be because Rashi there is explaining R. Yochanan. It might be that Rav hold the holiness is not pushed off]. Another example is in Kritot 28a where R Oshiya says if one is liable a sin offering as a rich man and puts aside two birds to sell and use that money to buy a sheep, and then becomes poor, he cannot bring the birds which are the sacrifice of a poor man. It is unclear to me why this case would be considered holiness that is pushed off while the case of partners is not. However, that might be because he holds like R Yochanan that even the case of partners is considered holiness that is pushed off. ( R.Yochanan holds animals can be pushed off.) And in fact, the Rambam wrote in that case that the pair of birds can be brought as his sin offering. So it might be that this is exactly the argument between Rav and R Yochanan, what kind of case is considered holiness that is pushed off. Much later after writing the above paragraph I noticed Rav Shach in the end of Laws of Temura brings two examples that might help to clarify the subject. One is the case of one sanctifies a female sheep for the Passover sacrifice. That animal and its temura and even the male offspring cannot be brought for a Passover sacrifice. But if one sanctifies a female animal to be a sacrifice and then it gets a blemish, and then gives birth, that offspring can be brought as a sacrifice. I have been pondering this for a while and this seem like a clear proof to this idea of Rav Shach that the difference is the sanctification of a female for a Passover sacrifice is holiness that is pushed off from the start. In general, the difference that Rav Shach is making is between regular "being pushed off " and between holiness that is pushed off. This might not work in all cases like the above example of the animal with a blemish, but in general the difference is normal being pushed off is like the case of partner where that being pushed off can be corrected. The partner can buy the second half. But the case of holiness that is pushed off is like the case where one sanctifies a female to be a guilt offering. that being pushed off can never be corrected. So, for regular pushing off we say animal are not pushed off. But for holiness that is pushed off we say it and its offspring go to pasture. This difference between what one can fix and cannot fix is how Tosphot explains the idea of animals that are devoted to be sacrifices that are in the Temple at a time when the altar becomes damaged. They can be sacrificed after the altar has been repaired. This is how Tosphot explains the opinion of R. Shimon. But Rav Shach uses this idea explain the opinion of the Sages in the approach of the Rambam. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ There is an argument between תוספות and the Rambam about the law animals are not pushed off.(כלומר שאם מפריש איזו בהמה להיות קרבן אבל אותה בהמה לא יכולה להיות קרבן. אבל מאוחר יותר הבמה נעשה ראוי) To תוספות that is reflected in the statement ר' שמעון and ר' אלעזר that if one sanctifies a female sheep to be a אשם or a עולה, and it gives birth to a male, that male can be sacrificed as a אשם or a עולה. The חכמים however disagree, and hold that the mother and male sheep have go to pasture, and stay there until they get a מום, and then are redeemed (sold), and with that money they are sold for, one buys a male sheep to bring for a אשם or a עולה. However, the רמב''ם holds both with the principle, “Animals are not pushed off” and with the חכמים that disagree with ר' שמעון and ר' אלעזר. In order to solve this puzzle, Rav Shach suggests the idea that when the one sanctifies the female sheep to be a אשם that is holiness that is pushed off. And it is in such in such cases that even when the animal becomes fit for a sacrifice, it remains pushed off. However, in a case like when one partner sanctifies his portion in an animal and the other does not, then if that partner later buys the remaining part, then the whole animal is fit for a sacrifice. The reason I bring this up is that it is unclear to me in what kind of case one says the holiness is pushed off. For two examples the case of the partnersרש''י says there it is holiness that is pushed off. (However, that might be because רש''י there is explaining ר' יוחנן. It might be that רב hold the holiness is not pushed off] Another example is in כריתות כ''ח ע''אwhere ר' אושיה says if one is liable a sin offering as a rich man and puts aside two birds to sell and use that money to buy a sheep, and then becomes poor, he cannot bring the birds which are the sacrifice of a poor man. It is unclear to me why this case would be considered קדושה דחויהwhile the case of partners is not. However, that might be because he holds like ר' יוחנן that even the case of partners is considered holiness that is דחויה. And in fact, the רמב''ם wrote in that case that the pair of birds can be brought as his sin offering. So it might be that this is exactly the argument between רב and ר' יוחנן, what kind of case is considered holiness that is דחויה. רב שך in the end ofה' תמורה brings two examples that might help to clarify the subject. One is the case of one sanctifies a female sheep for the Passover sacrifice. That animal and its תמורה and even the male offspring cannot be brought for a Passover sacrifice. But if one sanctifies a female animal to be a sacrifice and then gets a blemish and then gives birth, that offspring can be brought as a sacrifice. I have been pondering this for a while and this seem like a clear proof to this idea of רב שך that the difference is the sanctification of a female for a Passover sacrifice is קדושה דחויה In general, the difference that רב שך is making is between regular דיחוי and between holiness that isדחויה . This might not work in all cases, like the above example of the animal with a blemish, but in general the difference is normalדיחוי is like the case of partner where that דיחוי can be corrected. The partner can buy the second half. But the case of holiness that is דחויה is like the case where one sanctifies a female to be a guilt offering. Thatדיחוי can never be corrected. So, for regular דיחוי we say בהמות are not נדחות. But for holiness that isדחויה we say it and its offspring go to pasture. This difference between what one can fix and cannot fix is how תוספות explains the idea of animals that are devoted to be sacrifices that are in the מקדש at a time when the altar becomes damaged. They can be sacrificed after the altar has been repaired. This is how תוספות explains the opinion of ר' שמעון. But רב שך uses this idea explain the opinion of the חכמים in the approach of the רמב''ם. _______________________ יש ויכוח בין תוספות לרמב"ם על חוק בעלי חיים אין נדחקים. (כלומר שאם מפריש איזו בהמה להיות קרבן אבל אותה בהמה לא יכולה להיות קרבן. אבל מאוחר יותר הבמה נעשה ראוי) לתוספות זה באה לידי ביטוי בהצהרה ר' שמעון ור' אלעזר שאם מקדשים כבשה נקבה להיות אשם או עולה, והיא מולידה זכר, אפשר להקריב את הזכר הזה כאשם או עולה. אולם החכמים חולקים, וגורסים שהאם והכבשה ילכו למרעה, ונשארים שם עד שיקבלו מום, ואחר כך נפדים (נמכרים), ובכסף הזה הם שהם נמכרים, קונים כבשה זכר להביא לאשם או עולה. ברם, הרמב''ם תופס הן עם העיקרון " אין בעלי חיים נדחקים " והן עם החכמים החולקים על ר' שמעון ור' אלעזר. על מנת לפתור את החידה הזו, רב שך (מעשה הקרבנות ט''ו ה''ד) מציע את הרעיון שכאשר מקדש את הכבשה הנקבה להיות אשם, זו קדושה דחויה. וזה במקרים כאלה שגם כשהבהמה מתאימה לקרבן, היא נשארת נדחה. אולם במקרה כמו שותף אחד מקדש את חלקו בבהמה והשני לא, אז אם אותו שותף יקנה אחר כך את החלק הנותר, הרי כל הבהמה ראויה לקרבן. הסיבה שאני מעלה את זה היא שלא ברור לי באיזה מקרה אומרים שהקדושה דחויה. לשתי דוגמאות המקרה של השותפים רש''י אומר שם הקדושה היא דחויה. (עם זאת, זה יכול להיות בגלל רש''י שם מסביר ר' יוחנן. יכול להיות שרב מחזיק את הקדושה לא דחויה.] דוגמא נוספת היא בכריתות כ''ח ע''א מקום ר' אושיה אומר אם חייב קרבן חטאת כעשיר ומניח שתי ציפורים למכור ולהשתמש בכסף הזה לקניית כבשה, ואז נעשה עני, הוא לא יכול להביא את הציפורים שהם קורבן של עני. לא ברור לי מדוע תיק זה ייחשב כקדושה דחויה בעוד המקרה של שותפים לא. אולם יכול להיות שזה בגלל שהוא סובר כמו ר' יוחנן שאפילו דין שותפים נחשב לקדושה שהיא דחויה. ולמעשה כתב הרמב''ם באותו מקרה שאפשר להביא את צמד העופות כקורבן חטאתו. אז יכול להיות שזה בדיוק הוויכוח בין רב לר' יוחנן, איזה מקרה נחשב לקדושה דחויה רב שך בסוף ה' תמורה מביא שתי דוגמאות שעשויות לעזור להבהיר את הנושא. האחד הוא מקרה שמקדישים כבשה נקבה לקרבן פסח. אי אפשר להביא את אותה בהמה ותמורה שלה ואפילו את ולדה הזכר לקרבן פסח. אבל אם מקדישים בהמה נקבה להיות קרבן ואחר כך היא מקבלת מום ואז יולדת, אפשר להביא את ולד הזה כקרבן. וזה נראה כהוכחה ברורה לרעיון הזה של רב שך שההבדל הוא קידוש נקבה לקרבן פסח הוא קדושה דחויה באופן כללי, ההבדל שרב שך עושה הוא בין דיחוי רגיל ובין קדושה שהיא דחויה. זה אולי לא יעבוד בכל המקרים, כמו הדוגמה לעיל של בעל החיים עם מום, אבל באופן כללי ההבדל הוא נורמלי דיחוי הוא כמו במקרה של שותפים שבו ניתן לתקן את הדיחוי הזה. השותף יכול לקנות את המחצית השנייה. אבל קדושה דחויה דומה למקרה שמקדישים נקבה להיות קרבן אשם. את הדיחוי הזה לעולם לא ניתן לתקן. אז, עבור דיחוי רגיל אנחנו אומרים בהמות אינן נדחות. אבל לקדושה דחויה אנו אומרים אותה ואת ולדה הולכים למרעה ההבדל הזה בין מה שאפשר לתקן ולא יכול לתקן הוא איך תוספות מסבירים את הרעיון של בעלי חיים המוקדשים לקרבנות שנמצאים במקדש בזמן שהמזבח ניזוק. ניתן להקריב אותם לאחר תיקון המזבח. כך מסבירים תוספות את דעת ר' שמעון. אבל רב שך משתמש ברעיון זה להסביר את דעת החכמים בגישת הרמב''ם

za45 midi format same file in nwc format

za44 midi same piece in nwc format

za43 in midi same piece in nwc If you wonder about my style, it comes from listening to records of Mozart that my father bought for me, and fron playing in my high school orchestra with a conductor who had a profound taste in music, Mr. Smart. I know no one can ever reach Mozart, Beethoven or Bach, but these are my small attempts at music that I write mainly for my own sanity, and in hope that others may gain some benefit from them

Rav Shach had two major teachers; one was Rav. Isar Meltzer and the other a son of Reb Chaim of Brisk. So here I would like to share a question I have that occurred to me when I was learning the Even Haazel of Rav Isar Meltzer. But I want to mention that I have still to learn the subject in more depth to see if this really is a good question. The issue comes up in Temura 19b where the Sages (tana kama) say one who says, ''This female sheep should go to be a guilt offering." {A female sheep can not be a guilt offering.} The law then is it can be redeemed only once it gets a blemish. The reason is once something that can be brought to the altar get holiness of money, then automatically it gets holiness of body. Raba said, "Therefore one who says on an animal that is not fit for the altar that its monetary value should go to buy a burnt offering, that it can be redeemed only when it gets a blemish. But if he said, 'It will go for the wine offerings,' then it can be redeemed with no blemish." My question is based on the Gemara in Shavuot page 10B and 11A where the entire page is dealing with the argument between Raba and Rav Chisda about the incense where Raba holds it has holiness of body. So, I ask, how can Raba hold the incense has holiness of body, but the wine offering does not? Also, one can ask about the derivation of Rabah. From the Mishna that if one sanctifies a female sheep to be a guilt offering, it needs a blemish to be redeemed, that therefore one who sanctifies a male sheep to be the monetary value of buying a burnt offering, it becomes itself a burnt offering. From where is this derivation? The cases are opposites. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ תמורה י''ט where the חכמים say one who says ''this female sheep should go for a אשם." The law then is it can be redeemed only once it gets a מום. The reason is once something that can be brought to the altar get קדושת דמים, then automatically it gets קדושת הגוף. Then רבה said therefore one who says on an בהמה that is not fit for the altar that its monetary value should go to buy a עולה, that it can be redeemed only when it gets a מום but if he said it will go for the נסכים then it can be redeemed with no מום. My question is based on the גמרא in שבועות י''א ע''א where the entire page is dealing with the argument between רבה and רב חיסדא about the קטורת where רבה holds it has קדושת הגוף. So, I ask, how can רבה hold the incense has קדושת הגוף but the נסכים does not? Also, one can ask about the derivation of רבה From the משנה that if one sanctifies a female sheep to be a אשם, it needs a מום to be redeemed, that therefore one who sanctifies a male sheep to be the monetary value of buying a עולה, it becomes itself a עולה. From where is this derivation? The cases are opposites. בתמורה י''ט שם החכמים אומרים מי שאומר ''הכבשה הזו היא אשם, החוק הוא שאפשר לפדות אותה רק ברגע שהיא מקבלת מום. הסיבה היא מיד שמשהו שניתן להביא למזבח קבל קדושת דמים, ואז אוטומטית הוא מקבל קדושת הגוף. אז רבה אמר לכן מי שאומר על בהמה שאינה מתאימה למזבח שהערך הכספי שלה צריך ללכת לקנות עולה, שאפשר לפדות אותו רק כאשר הוא מקבל מום, אבל אם הוא אמר שזה ילך על הנסכים אז אפשר לפדות את זה בלי מום השאלה שלי מבוססת על הגמרא בשבועות י''א ע''א שם כל העמוד עוסק בויכוח בין רבה לרב חיסדא לגבי הקטורת שבה רבה מחזיק יש קדושת הגוף. אז, אני שואל, איך יכול רבה להחזיק שהקטורת יש קדושת הגוף אבל הנסכים לא וכן אפשר לשאול על הלימוד של רבה מהמשנה שאם המקדש כבשה נקבה להיות אשם, היא צריכה מום להיפדות, ולכן מי שמקדש כבש זכר להיות ערך כספי של קניית עולה , זה הופך בעצמו לעולה. מאיפה הגזירה הזו? המקרים הם הפכים ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Another question is this R Yochanan said animals that are left over can be sold without a blemish. Rabah repeated this. Abyee asked, “Aren’t you the one who said ‘one who sanctifies an animal for holiness of money that can go to the altar automatically gets holiness of body.’” Rabah answered that is for one who said for the cost of a burnt offering while the case of R. Yochanan is the case one said the cost of wine offerings. --what could this mean? Leftover animals are sold for new plating of the vessels of the Temple to the sages or to the dessert of the altar. not wine offerings. [Of course this means the wine offering that go with the dessert of the altar--but why put it in such an odd way?]

R. Shimon [Tractate Temura page 19B ] said if a person sanctified female sheep to be a guilt offering it should be sold without a blemish. [Not like the First Tana who said it can be sold only after it gets a blemish]/(A guilt offering can only be male.) Rav Shach [laws of things that invalidate a sacrificee] makes a comment on this that he should have said what is relevant to the altar does not leave the altar. This comment is based on the shita mekubetzes that says there is no such thing as having an animal that is totally secular, and yet one has to bring the money he sells it for to the Temple. [He means of course outside of the context of oaths and vows.] Rav Shach is asking why R Shimon did not make it clear that he means that the female sheep would-be old and money of that sale has holiness of money. Or maybe he even means that that money has to be used to buy a male sheep to bring as a guilt offering. This last possibility seems to me to be the clearest since R Shimon is going on the word of the first tana who said it goes to pasture until it gets blemish and then is old and the money of that ale goes to buy a guilt offering. And on that R Shimon inert his comment it is sold without a blemish. The idea of the Shita Mekubezet comes from this subject. bar pada said one cannot sanctify a fetus. the gemara asks on this from the mishna. One who wants to avoid of having to give the first-born sheep to a priest says, “What is in the womb of this sheep will be a burnt offering.” If it gives birth to a male, it burnt offering. Bar Pada answered that means the money of its sale will be for a burnt offering. Tosphot asks but what about the end of the Mishna that says, “If it gave birth two males, one is a burnt offering and the other is sold for a burnt offering.” If bar pade is right then both are equal. So why does the Mishna say they are different? Tosphot answers it must be the tana holds if an animal is fit for the altar and yet only has been sanctified with holiness of money, then the holiness of body comes on it automatically. the shita asks on tosphot why not answer the question tosphot thus: the first has holiness of money and the second does not and yet it still has to be sold to buy a sheep for a burnt offering. The shita answers if that money does not have holiness of money ten one could buy groceries with it. That means that this suggested answer cannot be true. and that is from where Rav shach learned his point that if the animal has neither holiness of body or monetary vale then there i no reason to buy a sacrifice with the money of its sale. _____________________________________________________ ר' שמעון בתמורה י''ט ע''ב said if a person sanctified female sheep to be a אשם it should be sold without a מום. [Not like the תנא קמא who said it can be נמכר only after it gets a מום]. רב שך בהלכות פסולי המוקדשין makes a comment on this that ר' שמעון should have said what is relevant to the altar does not leave the altar. This comment is based on the שיטה מקובצת that say there is no such thing as having an animal that is totally חולין and yet one has to bring the money he sells it for to the מקדש. [He means of course outside of the context of oaths and vows.] so I think רה שך is asking why ר' שמעון did not make it clear that he means that the female sheep would-be נמכר and money of that sale has holiness of money. Or maybe he even means that that money has to be used to buy a male sheep to bring as a guilt offering. This last possibility seems to me to be the clearest since ר' שמעון is going on the word of the תנא קמא who said it goes to pasture until it gets מום and then is נמכר and the money of that מכירה goes to buy a guilt offering. And on that ר' שמעון inserts his comment it is sold without a blemish. THE idea of the שיטה מקובצת comes from this subject. בר פדא said one cannot sanctify a עבר. the גמרא asks on this from the משנה . One who wants to avoid of having to give the first-born sheep to a priest says, “What is in the womb of this sheep will be a burnt offering.” If it gives birth to a male, it burnt offering. בר פדא answered that means the money of its sale will be for a burnt offering. תוספות, asks but what about the end of theרמשנה that says, “If it gave birth two males, one is a burnt offering and the other is sold for a burnt offering.” If בר פדא is right, then both are equal. So why does the משנה say they are different? צוספות answers it must be the תנא holds if an animal is fit for the altar and yet only has been sanctified with קדושת דמים then the קדושת הגוף comes on it automatically. the שיטה asks on תוספות why not answer the question תוספות thus: the first has holiness of money and the second does not, and yet it still has to be sold to buy a sheep for a עולה. The שיטה answers if that money does not have קדושת דמים then one could buy groceries with it. That means that this suggested answer cannot be true. And that is from where רב שך learned his point that if the animal has neither קדושת הגוף or קדושת דמים, then there is no reason to buy a קרבן with the money of its sale. ___________________________________________________ ______ ר' שמעון בתמורה י''ט ע''ב אמר אם אדם קידש כבשה נקבה להיות אשם צריך למכור אותה בלא מום. [לא כמו התנא קמא שאמר יכול להיות נמכרת רק לאחר שהיא שתקבל מום]. רב שך בהלכות פסולי המוקדשין מעיר על כך שר' שמעון היה צריך לומר מה שרלוונטי למזבח אינו יוצא מהמזבח. הערה זו מבוססת על שיטה מקובצת שאומר שאין דבר כזה שיש בהמה שהיא חולין לגמרי, ובכל זאת צריך להביא את הכסף שהוא מקבל ממכירתה למקדש. [הוא מתכוון כמובן מחוץ להקשר של השבועות ונדרים.] אז אני חושב שרב שך שואל למה ר' שמעון לא הבהיר שהוא מתכוון שהכבשה הנקבה תהיה נמכרת וכסף של המכירה הזו יש קדושה של כֶּסֶף (קדושת דמים שהולך לבדק הבית). או אולי הוא אפילו מתכוון שצריך להשתמש בכסף הזה כדי לקנות כבשה זכר כדי להביא כאשם. אפשרות אחרונה זו נראית לי הכי ברורה שכן ר' שמעון הולך על דברי התנא קמא שאמר הולכת למרעה עד שתקבל מום ואז נמכרת וכספי מכירה ההיא הולך לקנות קרבן אשם. ועל זה מכניס ר' שמעון את הערתו הוא נמכר ללא מום הרעיון של השיטה מקובצת נובע מהנושא הזה. בר פדא אמר אי אפשר לקדש עובר. הגמרא שואלת על זה מהמשנה. מי שרוצה להימנע מהצורך לתת את הכבשה הבכורה לכהן אומר: "מה שברחם הכבשה הזו יהיה לעולה". אִם תוֹליד זָכָר, הוא עוֹלָה. ענה בר פדא שכסף מכירתו יהיה לעולה. תוספות, שואלת אבל מה עם סוף המשנה שאומרת "אם ילדה שני זכרים, האחד הוא עולה והשני נמכר בעולה". אם בר פדא צודק, אז שניהם שווים. אז למה המשנה אומרת שהם שונים? תוספות עונה שזה חייב להיות התנא מחזיק אם בהמה מתאימה למזבח ובכל זאת רק התקדשה בקדושת דמים אז הגוף נעשה אוטומטית. השיטה שואלת על תוספות למה לא לענות על השאלה של תוספות כך: לראשון יש קדושת כסף ולשני אין, ובכל זאת צריך למכור אותו כדי לקנות כבש לעולה. השיטה עונה אם לכסף הזה אין קדושת דמים, אז אפשר לקנות איתו מצרכים. זה אומר שהתשובה המוצעת הזו לא יכולה להיות נכונה. ומכאן למד רב שך את דבריו שאם אין לבהמה לא קדושת גוף ולא קדושת דמים, אזי אין סיבה לקנות קרבן בכספי מכירתו

סוכה י''ז ע''א Tractate Suka page 17 side A. Shulchan Aruch Orach Haim 630 halacha 9. Rambam Laws of Suka chapter four, law four

The Rambam writes that if you have a wall ten handbreadths tall attached to the ground, but does not reach the sechach (roof) of the suka, you consider that wall as continuing until it reaches the roof. However, it needs to be in an exact straight line with the edge of the roof. [Laws of Suka chapter four halacha four.] The Meiri and Shulchan Aruch [Orach Chaim Laws of Suka 630 halacha 9.] disagree with this, and say it does not need to be in a straight line with the roof, but to be within three handbreadths horizontally. The issue is if you can combine two different laws גוד אסיק מחיצתא ולבוד ''bring up'' and everything within three handbreadths is considered attached. The Ran in Suka page 17a brings a proof from the Gemara that you cannot combine two different laws, for we see in the Gemara you cannot combine (lvud) attach and crooked wall. However, the achronim in Shulchan Aruch side with the Shulchan Aruch that in our case of “bring up” and Attach (lvud) you can combine two laws. I would say that the Rambam must have seen that same issue in Suka page 17 which shows you cannot combine two laws of (lvud) “attach” and “crooked wall” and understood from there that you cannot combine two different laws of “bring up” and attach (lvud) as we see here that he says a complete wall of ten handbreadths has to be in a direct line with the roof and you don't say (lvud) attach. [I noticed this subject in the book Even HaAzel of Rav Isar Meltzer, and today I was in a Litvak beit midrash where I had a chance to look up the Shulchan Aruch. I was quite surprized to see him [the Shulchan Aruch/ Rav Josef Karo] disagree with the Rambam without even mentioning the opinion of the Rambam. --unless Rav Karo thought the Rambam did not really mean "in direct line"? And there might be a reason for that in laws of Tumat Met. That is the same place Rav Melzer bring about our subject here and mentions that in fact the Rambam might mean the "upper board" only, not the lower board for this same reason, i.e., that "in direct line" might mean with a slight overlap."] The place over there in tumat met is a case of a small unclean kezait [size that is the volume amount of an olive] on parallel sequential boards that are do not overlap and the mishna says only what is over them is unclean. The Rambam however writes the law with the same words but replaces over them with over the upper board. So there it seems when the Rambam wrote in line he meant approximately ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The הלכות סוכה פרק ד ' הלכה ד' רמב''ם writes that if you have a wall ten handbreadths tall attached to the ground, but does not reach the סכך of the סוכה, you consider that wall as continuing until it reaches the סכך. However, it needs to be in an exact straight line with the edge of the סכך. The מאירי and שלחן ערוך disagree with this, and say it does not need to be in a straight line with the roof, but to be within three handbreadths horizontally. The issue is if you can combine two different laws גוד אסיק מחיצתא ולבוד ''bring up'' and לבוד everything within three handbreadths is considered attached. The ר''ן in סוכה דף י''ז ע''א brings a proof from the גמרא that you cannot combine two different laws, for we see in the גמרא you cannot combine לבוד and דופן עקומה. However, the אחרונים in שלחן ערוך side with the שלחן ערוך that in our case of “bring up” and לבוד you can combine two laws. I would say that the רמב''ם must have seen that same issue in סוכה י''ז ע''א which shows you cannot combine two laws of לבוד and ופן עקומה and understood from there that you cannot combine two different laws of גוד אסיק and לבוד as we see here that he says a complete wall of ten handbreadths has to be in a direct line with the roof and you don't say לבוד. The place over there in טומאת מת is a case of a small unclean כזית on parallel sequential boards that are do not overlap and the משנה says only what is over them is טמא. The רמב''ם however writes the law with the same words, but replaces "over them" with "over the upper board." So there it seems when the רמב''ם wrote מכוון he meant approximately בהלכות סוכה פרק ד' הלכה ד' הרמב''ם כותב שאם יש לך קיר בגובה עשרה טפחים שמחובר לקרקע, אבל לא מגיע לסכך של הסוכה, אתה מחשיב את הקיר הזה כממשיך עד שהוא מגיע לסכך. עם זאת, זה צריך להיות בקו ישר מדויק עם קצה הסכך. המאירי והשלחן ערוך (שלחן ערוך אורח חיים פרק תר''ל חלכה ט') חולקים על כך, ואומרים שהוא לא צריך להיות בקו ישר עם הגג, אלא להיות בטווח של שלוש טפחים אופקית. הבעיה היא אם אתה יכול לשלב שני חוקים שונים, גוד אסיק מחיצתא ולבוד (''להעלות'' והכל בתוך שלושה טפחים נחשב מצורף. הר''ן בסוכה דף י''ז ע''א מביא הוכחה מהגמרא שלא ניתן לשלב שני דינים שונים, שהרי אנו רואים בגמרא לא ניתן לשלב לבוד ודופן עקומה. אולם אחרונים בשלחן ערוך מצדדים כשלחן ערוך שבמקרה שלנו של "להעלות" ולבוד ניתן לשלב שני דינים. הייתי אומר שהרמב''ם ודאי ראה את אותה סוגיה בסוכה י''ז ע''א שמראה שאינך יכול לשלב שני דינים לבוד דופן עקומה והבין משם שאינך יכול לשלב שני דינים ונים של גוד אסיק ולבוד כפי שאנו רואים כאן שהוא אומר שקיר שלם של עשרה טפחים צריך להיות בקו ישיר עם הסכך ואתה לא אומר לבוד המקום שם בטומאת מת הוא מקרה של כזית מת טמאה קטנה על לוחות רצפים מקבילים שאינם חופפים והמשנה אומרת רק מה שיש עליהם טמא. אולם הרמב''ם כותב את החוק באותן מילים, אבל מחליף את "מעליהם" ב"על הלוח העליון". אז שם נראה כשהרמב''ם כתב מכוון התכוון בערך

Philosophy has not reached any conclusions to any problems for thousands of years. Yet, it is not a waste of time because it is an attempt to gain some understanding about our place in the universe. Thus, to me there is great importance in Kant' s idea of the limits of pure reason. But since Kant, things have gone from intractable problems to insanity in academic gowns of respectability. To ignore Kant and dive into the vacuous philosophies of the twentieth Century also seems a waste. Rather, I suggest a modification of Kant--the Kant-Friesian school which had a rather good start with Leonard Nelson. But has little to no academic respectability. Nelson’s main rival Husserl gained, for some reason, much more respect along with existentialism and post modernism;- and to me it is hard to know why. [To show the fallacies of any philosophy is easy. All you need to do is look up any other philosopher, since all they do is spend their time showing how every philosophy beside their own is incorrect. ] in spite of this I highly recommend Kelley Ross's web site on the Kant Friesian School because to my mind it gets to a deep truth about the connection between Pure Reason and Empirical knowledge. That is it shows a lot of insight about faith and reason conflicts

za41 midi same piece in nwc format i might mention here that I owe a lot of gratitude to my teachers in music, like my violin teachers and Mr Smart who was the conductor of the high school orcestra that I played in. and father who bought for me records of Mozart, Beethoven and also Rossini

za40 midi samein nwc

za39 midi za39nwc

I am not sure about how much philosophy is responsible for present day problems in politics. They ought to be separate fields. After all, they deal with different subject matters. But the effect of philosophy on politics has been mostly detrimental. England became a forerunner of modern democracies without the slightest influence of philosophy, but rather from the need of Edward the First to collect taxes with the tacet agreement of the lords [thus creating Parliament], and the result of Simon de Montfort [a crusader]] seizing power from a corrupt king, and thus creating the provision of Oxford. (Magna Carta was the result of a desire of the lords to limit the power of the king. )[John Locke was after the fact of the Glorious Revolution, not the cause.] Whenever philosophy professors venture into politics, their effect is almost always detrimental. [Take a look at the short dialogues of Plato and you will see tremendous depth, freshness and insight. but when Plato gets into politics in the republic and the laws, all that goes out the window.

Rav Isar Melzer [one of the two teachers of rav shach, the other was r. izhak zev soloveitchik] noted a hard to understand fact that in the opinion of Shmuel that a animal with a external defect is more strict in regards to temura {exchange} than an animal with an internal defect (traif). But when it comes to holiness of body, we see in the mishna in temura page 17b the opposite is the case. One can not sanctify an animal with a mum, but temura can be applied to it. He anwers this by an idea in Reb Chaim from Brisk. But I might mention that this is most likely to be the reasoning of R' Oshiya that held holiness [of body] can not be applied to a trifa. [Rambam Things Forbidden to the Altar 3 law 10] I.e., the mishna says tmura applies to a baal mum but not to a traifa [according to r elazar]. Therefore R Oshiya holds that holiness which can not be applied to a baal mum certainly can't be applied to a traifa. ___ [Holiness of body applied to an animal would be a case of an animal that one dedicated as a sin offering, and then afterwards it got an external defect. Then it would have to be sold, and with the money one brings another animal to be a sin offering. Holiness of money means like in our case one tried to sanctify an animal with an external defect. Well, the holiness of body can not be applied, but of monetary value can.] I might mention that Rav Meltzer says that the point of Shmuel is that he agrees that a mum [external defect] is more strict than traif [since temura can come on it] but the reason holiness of body can't come on it [while it canon a traifa] is that a mum is the reason in itself why holiness of body can not come on anything. It is the reason why something that already has holiness of body can be redeemed. ____ Rav Shach makes a point that if one says about something that can't be sacrificed on the altar that it makes a difference if one said this is a sacrifice. In that case it is nothing. But if he said this is for a sacrifice or for the altar that it gets holiness of money. That is it has to be sold and the proceeds go to buy sacrifices for the altar. and before it is sold it has a regular category of holiness of money. And in that case, it is forbidden to be used for plowing or shearing until after it has been sold. To Rav Shach there is no middle category of something that ha holiness of money and yet can be used for plowing. And if the Rambam wanted to come up with such a new category then he should have said so, instead of making an ambiguous statement that one who sanctifies a traifa, it totally hulin just a if he ha sanctified wood or stones. That statement on its face makes no sense. If one sanctified wood or stone they are not absolute hulin but rather have holiness of money. if the Rambam had wanted to create a new category that no one has heard of then he should have aid so openly instead of writing a statement that makes no sense. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ רב איסר מלצר אבן האזל ה' איסורי המזבח ג' ה''י noted a hard to understand fact that in the opinion of שמואל that a animal with a מום is more strict in regards to תמורה than an טריפה . But when it comes to קדושת הגוף, we see in the משנה in תמורה דף י''ז ע''א the opposite is the case. One can not sanctify an animal with a מום, but תמורה can be applied to it. He anwers this by an idea in ר' חיים מבריסק. But I might mention that this is most likely to be the reasoning of ר' אושיעיא that held קדושת הגוף can not be applied to a טריפה. [קדושת הגוף applied to an animal would be a case of an animal that one dedicated as a sin offering, and then afterwards it got an מום קבוע. Then it would have to be sold, and with the money one brings another animal to be a sin offering. קדושת מים means like in our case one tried to sanctify an animal with an מום. Well, the קדושת הגוף can not be applied, but of monetary value can.] I might mention that רב מלצר says that the point of שמואל is that he agrees that a מום is more strict than טריף since תמורה can come on it, but the reason holiness of body can't come on it [while it can on a טריפה] is that a מום is the reason in itself why קדושת הגוף can not come on anything. It is the reason why something that already has קדושת הגוף can be נפדה. רב שך makes a point that if one says about something that can't be sacrificed on the altar that it makes a difference if one said, "This is a sacrifice." In that case, it is nothing. But if he said, "This is for a sacrifice" or "for the altar", thaמ it gets קדושת דמים. That is it has to be sold and the proceeds go to buy sacrifices for the altar. and before it is sold it has a regular category of קדושת דמים. And in that case, it is forbidden to be used for plowing or shearing until after it has been sold. To רב שך there is no middle category of something that haS קדושת דמים and yet can be used for plowing. And if the רמב''ם wanted to come up with such a new category, then he should have said so, instead of making an ambiguous statement that one who sanctifies a טריפה, it totally חולין just aS if he haD sanctified wood or stones. That statement on its face makes no sense. If one sanctified wood or stone, they are not absolute חולין but rather have קדושת דמים. if the רמב''ם had wanted to create a new category that no one has heard of, then he should have Said so openly, instead of writing a statement that makes no sense. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ רב איסר מלצר [אבן האזל ה' איסורי המזבח ג' ה''י] ציין עובדה קשה להבנה שלדעת שמואל שבהמה עם מום חמורה יותר ביחס לתמורה מאשר לטריפה. אבל כשמדובר בקדושת הגוף רואים במשנה בתמורה דף י''ז ע''א ההיפך. אי אפשר לקדש בהמה עם מום, אבל אפשר להחיל עליה תמורה. הוא עונה על כך ברעיון מר' חיים מבריסק. אבל אני יכול להזכיר שזה ככל הנראה הנימוק של ר' אושיעיא שלא ניתן להחיל את קדושת הגוף על טריפה כלומר, המשנה אומרת שתמורה חלה על בעל מום, אבל לא על טריפה לפי ר' אלעזר. לכן ר' אושעיא סבור שקדושה שלא ניתן להחיל על בעל מום בהחלט לא יכולה להיות מיושמת על טריפה קדושת הגוף המיושמת על בהמה תהיה מקרה של בהמה שהקדישה אותה כקורבן חטאת, ואחר כך היא קיבלה מום קבועה. אז היה צריך למכור אותו, ובכסף מביאים בהמה אחרת להיות קורבן חטאת. קדושת דמים פירושו כמו במקרה שלנו שניסו להקדיש בעל חיים עם מום. ובכן, את קדושת הגוף לא ניתן ליישם, אבל קדושת מים יכול.] אני יכול להזכיר שרב מלצר אומר שהטעם של שמואל הוא שהוא מסכים שמום יותר חמור מטריף כיון שתמורה יכולה לבוא עליו, אבל הסיבה שקדושת הגוף לא יכולה לבוא עליו [בעוד שאפשר על טריפה] היא שאם היא הסיבה בפני עצמה לכך שקדושת הגוף לא יכולה לבוא על שום דבר. זו הסיבה שמשהו שכבר יש לו קדושת גוף יכול להיות נפדה רב שך מדגיש שאם אומרים על דבר שאי אפשר להקריב על המזבח יש הבדל אם אמר "זהו קרבן". במקרה כזה, זה כלום. אבל אם אמר "זה לקרבן" או "למזבח", זה מקבל קדושת דמים. כלומר צריך למכור את זה, וההכנסות הולכים לקניית קרבנות למזבח. ולפני שהוא נמכר יש לו קטגוריה רגילה של קדושת דמים. ובמקרה כזה אסור להשתמש בו לחריש או לגזירה עד לאחר מכירתו. לרב שך אין קטגוריה אמצעית של דבר שיש לו קדושת דמים ובכל זאת יכול לשמש לחריש. ואם רצה הרמב''ם לעלות על קטגוריה חדשה כזו, אז היה צריך לומר זאת, במקום לומר משפט דו-משמעי שמי שמקדש טריפה, זה לגמרי חולין כאילו היה הקדיש עצים או אבנים. האמירה הזו על פניו אינה הגיונית. אם אחד קידש עץ או אבן, אין הם חולין מוחלטים אלא יש להם קדושת דמים. אם הרמב''ם היה רוצה ליצור קטגוריה חדשה שאף אחד לא שמע עליה, אז הוא היה צריך לומר זאת בגלוי, במקום לכתוב אמירה חסרת היגיון