3.9.15
Rav Elazar Shach and the seventh year--Shemitah
The Rambam in Maasar Sheni I: 5 and I:6 says we go by the time of picking the estrog.
And also an estrog coming from year 6 to 7 is liable in maasar.
[The second law seems to indicate that we go by time of ripening. But we know that can not be true because of what the Rambam just wrote.]
I mentioned before that I have a way of understanding the rambam. But regardless of how anyone understands the rambam the fact is he is saying the same estrog will be liable in the seventh year laws and maasar/tithes also.
How is it possible to be liable in maasar for what is הפקר? Rav Shach answers it is not הפקר. Fruits of year 7 are not הפקר. If it would be then anyone could take it. That is is is not owner-less. Rather its owner is all Israel.
I have away of understanding Rav Shach. I would like the present the basic problem and my answer.
The problem is this. I don't care why the fruit of the seventh year is not liable in maasar. I only care that it is. So while it is true the fruit of the seventh year is not הפקר owner-less still it is not liable in maasar because of a different verse that tells the Jewish people to leave the fruit of the 7th year open for all.
My answer is this: The Torah does tell us that the fruit of the 7th year is not liable in maasar. True But for what period is the Torah talking? For trees it has to be talking about the period from Tu Beshevat to Tu Beshevat because that is the seventh year for the fruit of the tree as far as maasar is concerned. It is that 7th year fruit alone that the Torah is telling us that it is not obligated in maasar.
I hope this is clear. For after all rosh hashhana for trees is tu beshevat, not rosh hashanah as far as maasar is concerned.
________________________________________________________________________________
The רמב''ם in מעשר שני א:ה א:ו says we go by the time of לקיטה the אתרוג.
And also an אתרוג coming from year ששית to שביעית is liable in מעשר.
I mentioned before that I have a way of understanding the רמב''ם. But regardless of how anyone understands the רמב''ם, the fact is he is saying the same אתרוג will be liable in the ביעור and מעשר also.
How is it possible to be liable in מעשר for what is הפקר? He answers it is not הפקר. Fruits of שביעית are not הפקר. If they would be, then anyone could take them. That they are not הפקר. Rather their owner is all ישראל.
I have away of understanding רב שך. I would like the present the basic problem and my answer.
The problem is this. I don't care why the fruit of the שביעית is not liable in מעשר. I only care that it is. So while it is true the fruit of the שביעית is not הפקר, still it is not liable in מעשר because of a different verse that tells us to leave the fruit of the שביעית year open for all.
My answer is this: The Torah does tell us that the fruit of the שביעית year is not liable in מעשר. True But for what period is the Torah talking? For trees it has to be talking about the period from ט''ו בשבט to ט''ו בשבט because that is the שמיטה for the fruit of the tree as far as מעשר is concerned. It is that שביעית year fruit alone that the Torah is telling us that it is not obligated in מעשר.
I hope this is clear. For after all ראש השנה for trees is ט''ו בשבט, not א' תשרי as far as מעשר is concerned.
And also an estrog coming from year 6 to 7 is liable in maasar.
[The second law seems to indicate that we go by time of ripening. But we know that can not be true because of what the Rambam just wrote.]
I mentioned before that I have a way of understanding the rambam. But regardless of how anyone understands the rambam the fact is he is saying the same estrog will be liable in the seventh year laws and maasar/tithes also.
How is it possible to be liable in maasar for what is הפקר? Rav Shach answers it is not הפקר. Fruits of year 7 are not הפקר. If it would be then anyone could take it. That is is is not owner-less. Rather its owner is all Israel.
I have away of understanding Rav Shach. I would like the present the basic problem and my answer.
The problem is this. I don't care why the fruit of the seventh year is not liable in maasar. I only care that it is. So while it is true the fruit of the seventh year is not הפקר owner-less still it is not liable in maasar because of a different verse that tells the Jewish people to leave the fruit of the 7th year open for all.
My answer is this: The Torah does tell us that the fruit of the 7th year is not liable in maasar. True But for what period is the Torah talking? For trees it has to be talking about the period from Tu Beshevat to Tu Beshevat because that is the seventh year for the fruit of the tree as far as maasar is concerned. It is that 7th year fruit alone that the Torah is telling us that it is not obligated in maasar.
I hope this is clear. For after all rosh hashhana for trees is tu beshevat, not rosh hashanah as far as maasar is concerned.
________________________________________________________________________________
The רמב''ם in מעשר שני א:ה א:ו says we go by the time of לקיטה the אתרוג.
And also an אתרוג coming from year ששית to שביעית is liable in מעשר.
I mentioned before that I have a way of understanding the רמב''ם. But regardless of how anyone understands the רמב''ם, the fact is he is saying the same אתרוג will be liable in the ביעור and מעשר also.
How is it possible to be liable in מעשר for what is הפקר? He answers it is not הפקר. Fruits of שביעית are not הפקר. If they would be, then anyone could take them. That they are not הפקר. Rather their owner is all ישראל.
I have away of understanding רב שך. I would like the present the basic problem and my answer.
The problem is this. I don't care why the fruit of the שביעית is not liable in מעשר. I only care that it is. So while it is true the fruit of the שביעית is not הפקר, still it is not liable in מעשר because of a different verse that tells us to leave the fruit of the שביעית year open for all.
My answer is this: The Torah does tell us that the fruit of the שביעית year is not liable in מעשר. True But for what period is the Torah talking? For trees it has to be talking about the period from ט''ו בשבט to ט''ו בשבט because that is the שמיטה for the fruit of the tree as far as מעשר is concerned. It is that שביעית year fruit alone that the Torah is telling us that it is not obligated in מעשר.
I hope this is clear. For after all ראש השנה for trees is ט''ו בשבט, not א' תשרי as far as מעשר is concerned.
_______________________________________________________________________________
הרמב''ם (במעשר שני א: ה א: ו) אומר שאנחנו הולכים לפי הזמן של לקיטה לאתרוג. וגם אתרוג שמגיע משנה השישית לשביעית חייב במעשר. העובדה היא שהוא אומר את אותו אתרוג יהיה חייב בביעור ומעשר גם. איך אפשר להיות חייב במעשר למה שהוא הפקר? רב שך עונה שהוא לא הפקר. פירות השביעי אינם הפקר. אם הם היו, אז כל אחד יכול לקחת אותם. אלא שהם לא הפקר. יש להם בעלים. הבעלים שלהם הוא כל ישראל. אני רוצה להציג את הבעיה הבסיסית והתשובה שלי. הבעיה היא זו. לא אכפת לי למה הפירות של השביעית אינם חייבים במעשר. אכפת לי רק שזה עובדה. אז הגם שזה נכון שהפירות של השביעית לא הפקרים, עדיין זה לא יהיה חייבים במעשר בגלל פסוק אחר שאומר לנו לעזוב את הפירות של השנה השביעית פתוחים לכל. התשובה שלי היא זו: התורה אומרת לנו שהפירות של שנה השביעית אינם חייבים במעשר. נכון. אבל לאיזו תקופה מכוונת התורה? לעצים היא מדברת על התקופה מט''ו בשבט לט''ו בשבט כי זה שמיטה לפרי העץ. זה הוא תקופת השנה של השביעית שהתורה אומרת לנו שבפירות אינם מחויבים מעשר. אני מקווה שזה ברור. לאחרי כל ראש השנה לאילנות הוא ט''ו בשבט, לא א' תשרי
הרמב''ם (במעשר שני א: ה א: ו) אומר שאנחנו הולכים לפי הזמן של לקיטה לאתרוג. וגם אתרוג שמגיע משנה השישית לשביעית חייב במעשר. העובדה היא שהוא אומר את אותו אתרוג יהיה חייב בביעור ומעשר גם. איך אפשר להיות חייב במעשר למה שהוא הפקר? רב שך עונה שהוא לא הפקר. פירות השביעי אינם הפקר. אם הם היו, אז כל אחד יכול לקחת אותם. אלא שהם לא הפקר. יש להם בעלים. הבעלים שלהם הוא כל ישראל. אני רוצה להציג את הבעיה הבסיסית והתשובה שלי. הבעיה היא זו. לא אכפת לי למה הפירות של השביעית אינם חייבים במעשר. אכפת לי רק שזה עובדה. אז הגם שזה נכון שהפירות של השביעית לא הפקרים, עדיין זה לא יהיה חייבים במעשר בגלל פסוק אחר שאומר לנו לעזוב את הפירות של השנה השביעית פתוחים לכל. התשובה שלי היא זו: התורה אומרת לנו שהפירות של שנה השביעית אינם חייבים במעשר. נכון. אבל לאיזו תקופה מכוונת התורה? לעצים היא מדברת על התקופה מט''ו בשבט לט''ו בשבט כי זה שמיטה לפרי העץ. זה הוא תקופת השנה של השביעית שהתורה אומרת לנו שבפירות אינם מחויבים מעשר. אני מקווה שזה ברור. לאחרי כל ראש השנה לאילנות הוא ט''ו בשבט, לא א' תשרי
I wanted to talk about speaking the truth at all cost. The thing is that this comes up in Musar.
speaking the truth has power. It is the one thing that can save a person from all is enemies and troubles.
This should be taken with keeping in mind that many people do not speak the truth. Or they leave out things that change the significance. If you do commit yourself to speaking the truth you still need to be careful to stay away from liars.
is when a person is surrounded by darkness the way out towards the light is by holding to the trait of speaking the truth at all cost. In ch. 66 he refers to speaking the truth as a way of being saved from evil people.
speaking the truth has power. It is the one thing that can save a person from all is enemies and troubles.
This should be taken with keeping in mind that many people do not speak the truth. Or they leave out things that change the significance. If you do commit yourself to speaking the truth you still need to be careful to stay away from liars.
is when a person is surrounded by darkness the way out towards the light is by holding to the trait of speaking the truth at all cost. In ch. 66 he refers to speaking the truth as a way of being saved from evil people.
2.9.15
The Rambam in Maasaer Sheni I:5 does go like the sages in Usha that we go after picking. Then he goes like rabbi yochanan that an esrog coming from year 6 to year 7 is liable in maasar. This seems like a direct contradiction.
The Keseph Mishna says he is going לחומרא (being strict) in both cases. This seems to be absurd since the Rambam did not said we go by the time of picking and ripening according to which one is more strict.
To me it seems simple. It is like a gravitational field and an electric field. They don't interact.
The maasaer field is from Tu BeShevat to Tu Beshevat. So even though it is the 7th year in terms of shemitah it is still the sixth year in terms of Maasar.
________________________________________________________________________________
The רמב''ם in מעשר שני א:ה does go like the רבותינו in אושא that we go after לקיטה. Then he goes like רבי יוחנן that an אתרוג coming from ששית to שנה שביעית is liable in מעשר. This seems like a direct contradiction.
The כסף משנה says he is going לחומרא in both cases. This seems to be absurd since the רמב''ם did not said we go by the time of לקיטה and חנטה according to which one is more strict.
Rav Shach wrote "This כסף משנה is not understandable to me as much a it ought to be." He clearly was being polite.
To me it seems simple. It is like a gravitational field and an electric field. They don't interact.
The מעשר field is from ט''ו בשבט to ט''ו בשבט. So even though it is the שנה שביעית year in terms of שמיטה it is still the שנה ששית in terms of מעשר.
Though the כסף משנה is absurd you can still see why he said what he said. He was building on the גמרא where רבי עקיבא took two different kinds of מעשר from the same אתרוג because of some doubt which one it was liable to.
Also he might have considered my answer but noted that the phrase coming from ששית to שביעית only means the חנטה was in ששית. For all we know the לקיטה might be after ט''ו בשבט.
The Keseph Mishna says he is going לחומרא (being strict) in both cases. This seems to be absurd since the Rambam did not said we go by the time of picking and ripening according to which one is more strict.
To me it seems simple. It is like a gravitational field and an electric field. They don't interact.
The maasaer field is from Tu BeShevat to Tu Beshevat. So even though it is the 7th year in terms of shemitah it is still the sixth year in terms of Maasar.
________________________________________________________________________________
The רמב''ם in מעשר שני א:ה does go like the רבותינו in אושא that we go after לקיטה. Then he goes like רבי יוחנן that an אתרוג coming from ששית to שנה שביעית is liable in מעשר. This seems like a direct contradiction.
The כסף משנה says he is going לחומרא in both cases. This seems to be absurd since the רמב''ם did not said we go by the time of לקיטה and חנטה according to which one is more strict.
Rav Shach wrote "This כסף משנה is not understandable to me as much a it ought to be." He clearly was being polite.
To me it seems simple. It is like a gravitational field and an electric field. They don't interact.
The מעשר field is from ט''ו בשבט to ט''ו בשבט. So even though it is the שנה שביעית year in terms of שמיטה it is still the שנה ששית in terms of מעשר.
Though the כסף משנה is absurd you can still see why he said what he said. He was building on the גמרא where רבי עקיבא took two different kinds of מעשר from the same אתרוג because of some doubt which one it was liable to.
Also he might have considered my answer but noted that the phrase coming from ששית to שביעית only means the חנטה was in ששית. For all we know the לקיטה might be after ט''ו בשבט.
1.9.15
Music written for the glory of God
great title I was a teenager when this was written;
bar yochai
written in NY
orchestra This also was when I was in High School
n3n1
written in Uman
exodus 4
This I think was written in Philadelphia on a trip back from Uman.
q30
bar yochai
written in NY
orchestra This also was when I was in High School
n3n1
written in Uman
exodus 4
This I think was written in Philadelphia on a trip back from Uman.
q30
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)