Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Recent Gemara Final with Answers (Compiled by talmidim)

1. Explain the different
opinions about where makom kavua is neccesary, their rationales, and
how each opinion explains the halacha that you cant daven in the
first few feet of the shul?

The rosh holds that a
makom kavua is necessary in shul—he doesn’t mention anything
about home. Conversely, r yonah holds it is only necessary at home,
but serves no purpose in shul. We explained these opinions
rationales based on the tur, who writes that everything we do in
tefila is kineged something done in the beis Hamikdash by the
korbanos. The rosh agrees with this rationale, and therefore he
holds that makom kavua only applies in shul. We know that a shul is
a mikdash miat, and thus, everything done in the mikdash miat should
be similar to what was done in the real mikdash. But at home, where
there is no din of mikdash miat, there is no requirement to act like
one is in the mikdash, and therefore makom kavua doesn’t apply.
The r yonah, however, does not hold like the tur that everything is
like the korbanos, rather he holds that the purpose of all the things
we do in tefila is for kavanah. Thus, at home, where there are many
distractions, one needs a place set aside for tefila to focus—but
in shul, a place already designated for tefila, no makom is
necessary. Because these 2 opinions have 2 totally different
rationales, they explain the halcha of not davening in the beginning
of a shul in 2 differwent ways. R yonah holds this halcha is for
kavanah purposes, to leave the distractions of the outside world.
The rosh holds that since the mizbeach was in the center, one
shouldn’t daven in the place where no avodah was done, but rather,
closer to the mizbeach.

Explain what it means to have makom kavua (what level of kinyan is
it, etc.) according to the rosh.

According to the rosh,
when someone makes a seat in shul their makom, it is a real kinyan
forever after. This means that

    • You can put it in your will. Even if you are a Gadol and your son
      is not, he can inherit your seat.

    • If some one wants
      to add benches that will lessen your space you can make them go

    • If the shul wants
      to add a balcony that will go over your seat you can make them stop
      the building

    • You can kick some
      one that is in your seat out.

    • You are able to
      sell your seat

    • If the shul is
      destroyed (chas vishalom) and rebuilt, your seat is over the land
      where it originally was

3. What is the
machlokes between Rashi and Tosvos on Hashkivenu?

Answer 1:

Rashi: one can't
say krias shema shel arvis with hashkivenu during sof zman krias
shema (right before alos) only earlier during the night.

Tosvos: one can
say shema with hashkivenu up until alos and after that only shema

Proof: R' Zeira uses the 2nd lashon of R' Shimon bar yochai not the

4. What are the 2 ways R'
Shimon bar Yochai says you could say shema of arvis and shachris?
What are Tosvos's questions and answers?

Answer 2:

a) Say shema of
arvis before alos and shachris between alos and naitz

b) Say shema of
arvis between alos and naitz and shachris after naitz


a) Why not move
shema of arvis w/ shachris after alos?

Answer: The time between
alos and naitz is considered night for all mitzvos except shema

b) Why not move
shema of shachris w/ arvis before naitz?


1) The time
for getting up after night (between alos and naitz) is day for all
mitzvos except shema

2) You can
move shachris- but R' shimon bar yochai was trying to show that you
can't say shema of arvis after naitz

5. How does Rav Elyashiv
learn the Rosh, and why does Eliezer think he is wrong?

Answer 3-

Rav Elyashiv learns that
when the rosh says that only an ones can rely on the 2 lishonos of r
shimon bar yochai, but even then he can't do tartei disasrei, this is
all the chachamim limiting the mitzvah, for midiorysa these things
would be mutar. It is similar to the r yonah, who holds that the
chachamim were oker the mitzvah of krias shema past chatzos. How
does r yonah explain the maaseh in the gemara with r gamliel and his
sons?? It works well according to the other meforshim, because r
gamliel tells them the chachamim were just making a syag and really
its mutar to say shma, but according to r yonah it makes no sense??
R elyashiv answers with his explanation of the rosh, namely, that
chachamim were only oker the mitzvah for regular people, but not for
an ones. Except r elyashiv finds this difficult, because if they
were onsin, as rashi says they were, then the time should extend
until netz not just till alos?? R elyashiv leaves this as a tzarich

Eliezer doesn’t like
this for 2 reasons:

A- Because this question
has a really easy answer, namely that different levels of onsin
extend the time period of shma to different extents.

B- Other questions on R'

The rosh argues on r
yonah by the case of chachamim being oker the mitzvah past chatzos,
he never mentions the idea of akiras mitzvah at all!! Furthermore,
if chachamim were matir for an ones to say shma between alos and
neitz, why weren't they matir tartei disasrei, if it's permitted
midiorysa. We therefore are forced to find a new pshat in the rosh,
namely that midorysa, only an ones can daven between alos and neitz,
and midiorysa, one cannot do tartei disasrei. The reason we
suggested in shiur was that since bishachbicha and bikumecha are
subjective, they might be different for a regular person and an ones.
After all an ones could very well be first trying to go to sleep
after alos. Therefore, the time for krias shma for an ones also
extends to include that time. But even if this is true, midioraysa,
one cannot do tartei disasrei because for the individual person, it
is either night or day, and one is forced to pick.

6. Explain the Machlokes
b/w the Beis Halevi and the Chazon Ish regarding Shomei'a K'oneh.
Include the distinction Rebbe made distinguishing b/w shomei'a k'oneh
and shomei'a k'koreh.

Answer 4-

machlokes b/w the Chazon Ish and the Beis Halevi is regarding why one
is yotzei through shomei'a k'oneh. The Beis Halevi holds that the
reason you are yotzei is because the vibrations of the ear drum in
this case are equivalent to the vibrations of the vocal cords when
one speaks. Meaning: he is of the opinion that the essence of dibbur
is not the actual speech, but rather the vibrations inside one's body
in which the ears are equal to the mouth. The Chazon Ish holds that
you are yotzei Shomei'a K'oneh through shelichus. This means that you
are yotzei through your shaliach's kiyum of the mitzvah. We can now
make a diyuk in shomei'a k'oneh and shomei'a k'koreh. We can say that
the Beis Halevi says that it's a din in shomei'a k'koreh in that your
listening is really considered like you're saying it. While the
Chazon Ish would hold that it's a din in shomei'a k'oneh in that your
listening is what is making you yotzei.

7. Explain the machlokes
b/w R' Moshe and R' Shlomo Zalman regarding keriyas Hatorah. also
explain the Nafka Mina of whether, according to each opinion, one has
to be Mashlim a parsha if he missed it.

Answer 5-

The basis of the
machlokes b/w R' Moshe and R' Shlomo Zalman is whether keriyas
hatorah is a chovas hayachid or a chovas hatzibur. R' Moshe holds
that it is a chovas hayachid. Therefore: he holds that there are 2
separate dinnim. 1) Keriyas H'yom 2) Hashlamat Haparshios. Keriyas
H'yom means that on a weekday one has to hear 3 psukim each aliyah
and 10 total (minimum). On Shabbos, one has to hear every single
pasuk; otherwise he loses Keriyas H'yom and also loses Hashlamat
Haparshios which is the mitzvah to hear every parsha in the entire
year. Accordingly, one would most certainly have to be mashlim if he
missed even a single pasuk in order to be yotzei the mitzvah of
Hashlamat Haparshios.

R' Shlomo Zalman holds
that it is a Chovas Hatzibbur. He therefore holds that if one missed
a pasuk, he need not be mashlim it because keriyas hatorah is a
chiyuv on the tzibbur and not the individual.

Powered by ScribeFire.

R' Aryeh Levin's Gorol HaGro | Clipmarks

R' Aryeh Levin's Gorol HaGro | Clipmarks

Tuesday, January 01, 2008

Dvar Hashem me'Yerusalmi: A New Answer to an Age-Old Question?

One of the "standard" Chanukah questions is why the halachos of Chanukah are not considered in Mishnayos. One of the standard answers, related in the name of the Chasam Sofer, has always bothered me, as it goes something like Rebbe did not include these Halachos because the Chashmona'im had undermined the principle of La Yasur Shevet me'Yehuda u'Mechokek me'Bein Raglav, thus usurping the power that rightfully should have belonged to the House of the Nasi,

I always had difficulty assuming Rebbe was not enough of a Ba'al Mussar to overcome such a seemingly petty antagonism.

I think, however, that the basis of the question is the contrast to Purim, which is discussed extensively in its very own Mesechta. And a recent Daf Yomi Yerushalmi establishes that the question is the other way around: Why did Purim get that attention - i.e., really both Chanukah and Purim should have continued beyond the redaction of Mishnayos to remain relegated to Torah she'b'al Peh. Why did Purim get a Mesechta?

Says the Yerushalmi (Megillah 20b):

שמעון בר בא בשם ר' יוחנן וזכרם לא יסוף מזרעם מיכן שקבעו לה חכמים מסכת

Shimon bar Ba in the name of R' Yochanan: "V'zichram lo yasuf me'za'ram" - from here [we derive the reason] why Chazal designated for it [Purim] a tractate.

Were it not for that Yerushalmi, Purim would have has the same status as Chanukah - which would have been the default status of a Yom Tov d'Rabbanan of not being considered in detail in a Mishnah.

Yishma Chacham v'yosif lekach.