השותף ללמידה שלי טען כי אחד יכול להיות מחויב חטאת עבור מתעסק (טעות בעובדות), רק כאשר יש הנאה.

My learning partner argued that one can be obligated a sin offering for מתעסק a mistake in the facts, only when there is הנאה pleasure. The normal case of a חטאת is when there is  a mistake in law, not in the physical facts.
Later I saw that this can not be the case to the רמב''ם as רב שך goes into  in laws of איסורי ביאה א:י''ב. What my learning partner suggested is in fact the opinion of תוספות and all other ראשונים but not the רמב''ם.
To make things short:
The רמב''ם in three places says the reason מתעסק בשבת is not obligated in a sin offering is because מלאכת מחשבת אסרה תורה. He does not say is is because he was not נהנה These places are ה' שגגות פרק ב' ה''ז פרק ז' הי''א and also in פירוש המשנה כריתות פרק ספק אכל. In all three places the  רמב''ם says the reason מתעסק בשבת is פטור  is because מלאכת מחשבת אסרה תורה and he says nothing about whether he was נהנה or not.
However נהנה even to the  רמב''ם can make one a מזיד in order to be obligated in lashes.

השותף ללמידה שלי טען כי אחד יכול להיות מחויב חטאת עבור מתעסק (טעות בעובדות), רק כאשר יש הנאה. המקרה הרגיל של חטאת הוא כאשר יש טעות במשפט, לא בעובדה הפיזית. רק אחר כך הבנתי שזה לא יכול להיות כן לרמב''ם כמו רב שך נכנס בזה בה' איסורי ביאה א: י''ב. מה שותף הלמידה שלי הציע הוא למעשה דעת תוספות והראשונים אבל לא הרמב''ם. כדי לעשות הדברים קצרים. הרמב''ם בשלושה מקומות אומר שהסיבה מתעסק בשבת אינו מחויב בחטאת היא משום מלאכת מחשבת אסרה תורה. הוא לא אומר שהוא משום שהוא לא נהנה. מקומות אלה הם ה' שגגות פרק ב" ה''ז, פרק ז' הי''א וגם בפירוש המשנה כריתות פרק ספק אכל. בכל שלושת המקומות האלה הרמב''ם אומר שהסיבה מתעסק בשבת הוא פטור היא משום מלאכת מחשבת אסרה תורה. והוא לא אומר כלום לגבי השאלה אם הוא היה נהנה או לא. עם זאת נהנה אפילו לרמב''ם יכול לעשות אחד למזיד כדי להיות מחוייב במלקות.

He argued that one can be obligated a sin offering for מתעסק [a mistake in the facts,] only when there is הנאה pleasure.. That is the normal case of a sin offering is when there is a mistake in law, not in the physical facts.

I saw that I had written something in my notes on Shas (Gemara. That is the Oral Law) in the name of my learning partner. He argued that one can be obligated a sin offering for מתעסק [a mistake in the facts,] only when there is הנאה pleasure.. That is the normal case of a sin offering is when there is  a mistake in law, not in the physical facts.
Later I saw that this can not be the case to the Rambam. Rav Shach goes into this in laws of איסורי ביאה א:י''ב. What my learning partner suggested is in fact the opinion of Tosphot and all other rishonim but not the Rambam.
To make things short:
The Rambam in three places says the reason מתעסק בשבת is not obligated in a sin offering is because מלאכת מחשבת אסרה תורה. He does not say is is because he was not נהנה (get pleasure.) ה' שגגות פרק ב' ה''ז פרק ז' הי''א and also in פירוש המשנה כריתות פרק ספק אכל in all three places the rambam says the reason מתעסק בשבת is פטור  is because מלאכת מחשבת אסרה תורה and he says nothing about whether he was נהנה or not.
However נהנה even to the Rambam can make one a מזיד in order to be obligated in lashes.
__________________________________________________________________________

a problem in the רמב''ם about laws of Passover הלכות חמץ ומצה ג:י''א.

The שאגת אריה and רב חיים הלוי deal with a problem in the רמב''ם but there is something unsatisfying about their answers. רב שך also deals with this question in  a way that seems to wrap up the issue completely.
The basic question is simple. Why does the רמב''ם say there are מלקות for owning חמץ on פסח against an open גמרא in פסחים  page צ''ה. בל אראה ובלימצא הם לאו הניתק לעשה. There are no lashes because owning חמץ has a correction, getting rid of it.

The basic answer רב שך gives is this. We have an argument between the sages and ר' יהודה about תשביתו. To ר' יהודה  that is by burning. To the sages it is in any way. רש''י says the argument is only before the time the leaven is forbidden and תוספות says after the time.
So the גמרא on page צ'ה to רש''י can only be to the sages and to תוספות it it is both to the sages and ר' יהודה.
The רמב''ם says תשביתו starts before the time of the prohibition הלכות חמץ ומצה ג:י''א.
So the correction starts before the time of the prohibition so the prohibition is not a לאו הניתק לעשה to the sages but it is to ר. יהודה if you go by תוספות. Simple. So the גמרא on page צ''ה  is going like ר. יהודה which is not the הלכה.

It could not be more simple. But the שאגת אריה and רב חיים הלוי gives answers why there are lashes to the רמב''ם which would work perfectly well on page צ''ה to be giving מלקות. However רב חיים הלויsays בל יראה is a positive and a negative command. Besides the question from where he would get this, if it would be true then on page צ'ה why is it considered a לאו הניתק לעשה?
The שאגת אריה answers it is two לאווין which is perfectly true, but then again the same question arises. Why would that not be so also on page צ''ה

בעיה רמב''ם על הלכות פסח הלכות חמץ ומצה ג: י''א. השאגת אריה ורב חיים הלוי עסקו עם בבעיה זו הרמב''ם אבל יש משהו מאכזב על בתשובותיהם. רב שך עוסק בשאלה זו בצורה שנראית לפתור את הבעיה לחלוטין. השאלה הבסיסית היא פשוטה. מדוע הרמב''ם אומר שיש מלקות בגין החזקת חמץ על פסח נגד גמרא פתוחה פסחים דף צ''ה. אל יראה ואל ימצא הוא לאו הניתק לעשה. אין מלקות משום שלבעלות בחמץ יש תיקון, תשביתו. התשובה הבסיסית של רב שך נותן היא זו. יש לנו ויכוח בין החכמים ור" יהודה על תשביתו.  ר" יהודה אומר הוא על ידי שריפה. הכחמים אומרים זה בכל דרך. רש''י אומר הטיעון הוא רק לפני זמן שהחמץ אסור והתוספות אומר לאחר הזמן. אז הגמרא בעמוד צ''ה  לרש''י יכול להיות רק לחכמים ולפי תוספות  הוא לפי חכמים או ר" יהודה. הרמב''ם אומר תשביתו מתחיל לפני זמן של איסור חמץ הלכות חמץ ומצה ג: י''א. אז התיקון מתחיל לפני זמן האיסור כך שהאיסור אינו לאו הניתק לעשה לחכמים אבל כן היא לר. יהודה אם אתה הולך לדעת תוספות. פָּשׁוּט. אז הגמרא בעמוד צ''ה הולכת כמו ר. יהודה אשר אינה ההלכה. זה לא יכול להיות יותר פשוט. אבל שאגת אריה ואת רב חיים הלוי נותנים תשובות למה יש מלקות לרמב''ם אשר תתעבדנה היטב בעמוד צ''ה לתת מלקות. ( רב חיים הלוי אומר בל יראה הוא עשה ולא תעשה.  אם זה נכון אז בדף צ"ה למה זה נחשב לאו הניתק לעשה? השאגת אריה עונה זה שני לאווין. זה נכון לגמרי, אבל אז שוב את אותה שאלה נשאלת. למה שלא יהיה כך גם בעמוד צ''ה?

הלכות חמץ ומצה ג:י''א.The Shagat Arye and Reb Chaim Soloveitchik deal with a problem in the Rambam but there is something unsatisfying about their answers. Rav Shach also deals with this question in a way that seems to wrap up the issue completely.

The Shagat Arye and Reb Chaim Soloveitchik deal with a problem in the Rambam but there is something unsatisfying about their answers. Rav Shach also deals with this question in  a way that seems to wrap up the issue completely.
The basic question is simple. Why does the Rambam say there are lashes for owning chametz on Pesach against an open Gemara in Pesachim page 95. בל אראה ובלימצא הם לאו הניתק לעשה. {No lashes because owning chametz has a correction--getting rid of it.}

The basic answer Rav Shach gives is this. We have an argument between the sages and R.Yehuda about תשביתו ["you must get rid of all leavened bread']. To R. Yehuda that is by burning. To the sages it is in any way. Rashi says the argument is only before the time the leaven is forbidden and Tosphot says after the time.
So the Gemara on page 95 to Rashi can only be to the sages and to Tosphot it is both to the sages and R Yehuda.
The Rambam says תשביתו starts before the time of the prohibition הלכות חמץ ומצה ג:י''א.
So the correction starts before the time of the prohibition so the prohibition is not a לאו הניתק לעשה to the sages but it is to R. Yehuda if you go by Tosphot. Simple. So the Gemara on page 95  is going like R.Yehuda. which is not the halacha.

It could not be more simple. But the Shagat Arye and Reb Chaim gives answers why there are lashes to the Rambam which would work perfectly well on page 95 to be giving lashes. Reb Chaim says בל יראה is a positive and a negative command. Besides the question from where he would get this, if it would be true then on page 95 why is it considered a לאו הניתק לעשה?
The Shagat Arye answers it is two לאווין which is perfectly true but then again the same question arises. Why would that no be so also on page 95

Music for the glory of God

T82  t82 in midi format

Getting out of the rat race

There is something about the basic idea of accepting the yoke of Torah along with trust in God to provide that really works. This was a path I was on for only a few years until the evil inclination got the better of me. Still it is worth while making clear what it means

The basic idea is to learn Gemara, Rashi and Tosphot without having it in mind to use it as a means to make money. That is called Torah "Lishma"--Torah for its own sake.
Most yeshivas nowadays use Torah to make money, and so the higher blessing is obviously absent.

It is not a phrase that I have heard for a long time, but recently Moshe Rosten mentioned it to me: To get out of the "rat race." That reminded me a lot of what I think must have been my original idea in going to yeshiva to learn Torah. I think to  large degree I wanted to get out of the rat race and devote myself to the service of God.
And to a large degree I still think that must be for me a major motivating factor.
It is not that I succeeded so well, but I think that without my actually being able to put it in those terms, I must have been very upset at the idea of spending my life in pursuit of things of this world.
And to a large degree I think this was the motivating idea for a lot of people in the Litvak NY yeshivas.

The idea of escaping the rat race to be attached to God and his service by going to a NY Litvak yeshiva was my approach to escaping the rat race. But where I grew up, most people were thinking in those directions. And those that were serious went into Eastern religions.
But then I came to Israel and there the religious  world was functioning on a different wavelength. Religion was more like a mass movement, and conformity was the goal. Still for my seven years in Safed, I felt absolutely attached to God.
What I suggest for myself and others to regain this basic approach of seeing attachment with God as the ultimate goal  is by means of learning Musar [Mediaeval Ethics]

In most of the cases of people joining some religious cause to get out of the rat race--the ultimate end was disappointment --especially with eastern religions. In my own experience in the religious world my own feeling also is largely that of disappointment.  Not that the path is wrong but a lot of the people on the path are not there with the goal of escaping the rate race but rather to use Torah as means to get farther in the rat race than others.

So I can honestly say that my intentions were certainly affected by the larger mentality that was around in California at the time--the search for truth and meaning. But mine was more a kind of philosophical approach to Torah than a religious one. That could be a lack of awareness of a certain area of value.Though I certainly had some religious interest, but still it seems I was more in tune with the rational nature of Torah. The deeper spiritual aspects perhaps not. So when in fact I became somewhat attached to God, perhaps I simply was not prepared, and so jettisoned the whole thing.
So looking back on it all today, I would have to say that the Mir yeshiva was right--learning Torah (that is- the plain and simple Gemara Rashi and Tosphot) is the key to everything--all the good and all the light in all the worlds.
[I should mention that if I had been aware of the Rambam's opinion in the Guide and Mishne Torah that Physics and Metaphysics are a part of the Oral Law then I very well have added them to my learning session. But who knows? I might have felt not ready to take them up before doing Shas a few times. I anyway felt a tremendous surge of energy when I got involved in learning Gemara.

There is a prohibition in the Torah to add to the commandments.

There is a prohibition in the Torah to add to the commandments. This comes up even in places were you would not expect it. The Rambam explains a priest can not add to the three blessings he is commanded to bless the Jewish people. The curious thing is that this is one a lot.People go to those who they think are holy to get a blessing. See the Ramban {Nachmanides} on Deuteronomy ch 4 verse 2. Even in the sidur we have  a father should bless his children on Friday night.
The Ramban explains the basic prohibition is not to make up mitzvot out of one's own heart. This idea of blessing people seems to be in this category.
To me it seems people make up their own mitzvot--all the time.

The questions here are a lot. First of all it is hard to know the definitions. Also we have the Ari giving lots of unifications and saying certain verses as corrections for sins. Reb Nachman also said to say what is called the tikun klali [psalms 16, 31,41,41,59,77,90, 105 137 150 as a general correction for sins.]
But none of that seems to be adding to any commandments. It is already a mitzvah to pray. That is in fact why we say the prayers and psalms.

____________________________________________________________________________


There is a לאו in the Torah to add to the מצוות. This comes up even in places were you would not expect it. The רמב''ם explains a כהן can not add to the three blessings he is commanded to bless the Jewish people. The curious thing is that this is one a lot. People go to those who they think are holy to get a blessing. See the רמב''ן on דברים פרק ד' פסוק ב' .
The רמב''ן explains the basic prohibition is not to make up מצוות out of one's own heart. This idea of blessing people seems to be in this category.


I admit this was a surprise to me. The reason most people including myself are unaware of this is the fact that it is mentioned there in the laws of the blessings of priests that a non kohen transgress the verse you but not strangers only at the time the regular blessing is supposed to be said. But from this Rambam we see  that means only to transgress that particular verse. But to transgress the general prohibition of adding to the mitzvot anyone including a kohen can be considered to transgress at any time-just by saying a blessing to another person.