Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHEN ONE MAY ENTER THE BORROWER'S HOUSE TO TAKE A SECURITY

(a) (R. Yochanan): If Reuven returned Shimon's security and Shimon died, Reuven may take it from the orphans.
(b) Question (Beraisa - R. Meir): Since we take a security, why do we return it?

1. Interjection: That is no question - the Torah commanded to return it!
2. Correction: Rather, since we must constantly return a security, why does one keep taking it?
3. Answer: In order that the debt will not be cancelled in Shemitah, and so the lender can collect the security from the orphans (normally, he may only take land they inherited).
4. Summation of question: This shows that had he not taken it back, he would not collect it from the orphans!

(c) Answer (Rav Ada bar Masnah): The Beraisa had to be corrected - one may correct it as follows:

1. Question: Since we must return a security, why take it at all?
2. Answer: In order that the debt will not be cancelled in Shemitah, and so the lender can collect the security from the orphans.

i. Once the lender takes it, it is his; even when he returns it, it is like a deposit by the borrower.

(d) (Beraisa): "Lo Savo El Beiso La'avot Avoto" - you may not enter the borrower's house, but you may enter the house of the Arev;

1. "Lekach Bigdo Ki Arev Zar" (the lender may take the borrower's garment); also, "Im Aravta l'Re'echa...(you will have to pay)";

i. If you were not an Arev, but "Nilkadta b'Imrei Ficha (you afflicted someone with words)...u'Rhav Re'echa (have friends ask him to forgive you)."

(e) Alternatively: you may not enter a borrower's house, but you may enter the house of one who owes for your labor, for rental of your animal or (inn) room.

1. Suggestion: Perhaps you may enter even if this was converted to a loan (e.g. a payment date was set).
2. Rejection "Mashas Me'umah (any debt)".

(a) (Mishnah): One may not take a security from a widow, whether she is rich or poor - "V'Lo Sachavol Beged Almanah".
(b) (Gemara - Beraisa - R. Yehudah): One may not take a security from a widow, whether she is rich or poor;
(c) R. Shimon says, one may take a security from a rich widow;

1. One may not take a security from a poor widow, for then he must return the security to her every day, and she will get a bad reputation (people will not know he is returning a security).

(d) Inference: This shows that R. Yehudah does not interpret the Mitzvos according to the (apparent) reason, and R. Shimon does!
(e) Contradiction (regarding both - Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "V'Lo Yarbeh Lo Nashim" - a king may marry many wives, on condition that they do not veer his heart (from fearing Hash-m);
(f) R. Shimon says, he may not marry even one that will veer his heart;

1. The Torah forbids marrying many wives, even if they are righteous as Avigayil.

(g) Answer - part 1: Really, R. Yehudah does not (normally) interpret the Mitzvos according to the (apparent) reason;

1. Here is an exception, for the Torah explicitly gives the reason - "V'Lo Yasur" (the prohibition is only if they will veer his heart).

(h) Answer - part 2: R. Shimon interprets the Mitzvos according to the reason, the Torah need not give the reason;

1. Here, the Torah explained "V'Lo Yasur" to forbid even one wife that would veer his heart.

(a) (Mishnah): If one takes a millstone as security he transgresses a Lav; he is liable for Rechev (the pounder) and the Rechayim (the stone it pounds on) - "Lo Yachavol Rechayim va'Rachev".

1. The Lav applies to every vessel used to process food - "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel".

(b) (Gemara - Rav Huna): If one takes a Rechayim as security he is liable twice (receives two sets of lashes), for "Lo Yachavol Rechayim" and for "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel".

1. If he takes a Rechayim and a Rechev he is liable three times, for "Rechayim", for "Rechev", and for "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel".

(c) (Rav Yehudah): If one takes a Rechayim or Rechev he is liable only once;

1. If he takes both he is liable twice;
2. He is not liable for "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel", that only applies to other vessels used with food.

4) GENERAL LAVIM

(a) Suggestion: Abaye and Rava argue as Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah argue.

1. (Rava): If one eats the Pesach sacrifice raw, he is lashed twice, for "(Do not eat it) Na (raw)" and for "Ki Im Tzli Esh (only roasted)";

i. If he eats it cooked (in water), he is lashed twice, for "Mevushal" and for "Ki Im Tzli Esh":
ii. If he eats (an olive's worth) raw and (an olive's worth) cooked, he is lashed three times, for "Na", "Mevushal" and "Ki Im Tzli Esh":
iii. (Abaye): One is not lashed for a Lav shebi'Klalos (such as "Ki Im Tzli Esh", which forbids things explicitly forbidden by other Lavim).

2. The suggestion is that Abaye holds like Rav Yehudah, and Rava holds like Rav Huna.

(b) Rejection #1: Even Rav Yehudah could agree to Rava - Rav Yehudah only exempted from "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel" because it does not connote Rechayim and Rechev, therefore it only applies to other vessels;

1. But once the Torah forbade eating the Pesach raw or cooked, we know it must be roasted; "Ki Im Tzli Esh" must be an additional Lav!

(c) Rejection #2: Even Rav Huna could agree to Abaye - Rav Huna only obligated for "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel" because it is extra, to forbid other vessels, therefore it also applies to Rechayim and Rechev;

1. But "Ki Im Tzli Esh" is needed to teach the following!
2. (Beraisa): The prohibition of eating the Pesach raw applies at the time there is a Mitzvah to eat it roasted.