Shelichos- What exactly is BiMachshava?

Further discussing Shelichos, we learned that we can't derive Shelichos in Gerushin/Kiddushin from Teruma because Teruma is BiMachshava. BiMachshava means you can do it with a thought process, meaning that it requires less action that Gerushin/Kiddushin, so we weren't able to derive those two from Teruma. But what exactly is BiMachshava? It doesn't necessarily make any sense? Thankfully, we have Rashi around. Rashi explains to us that by BiMachshava, one can look at a portion of his crop and think, "This is my Teruma and now I can't eat it." Note: This is later seen in Korban Pesach, where somebody can look at a lamb and think "That is my Korban Pesach." So, my question is, what exactly does it mean that you can just "think" and do the Mitzva. Since when can a simple thought determine how a Mitzva is done? How much thought is required, and how can you measure it? Is there a certain amount of Kavana needed? And what other Mitzvos, other than Teruma and Korban Pesach, can be done through BiMachshava? These are good discussion questions, and hopefully y'all will be able to answer in the comments below...

we now know that we need the word "atem" to teach us that partners, sharecropper guys, ect cant give terumah but if in one of the cases the person is a messenger is it allowed? like in a partnership one of the partners to give terumah is that terumah terumah?

Rashi on Terumah: Follow-Up

Akiva broached a blog discussion regarding using a שליח for giving Terumah. He discussed how a messenger gives 1/50th if he does not know how much the בעל הבית wants to give and that a generous man gives 1/40th, according to Rashi, and a not so generous person gives 1/60th, while 1/50th is for בניניו.
But he forgot to address the significance of the messenger in giving 1/50th. Question: What happens if a messenger accidentally (or even intentionally) gives 1/40th or 1/60th as opposed to the middle 1/50th? Well, the answer is that yes, it still counts. So we learn that a messenger is certainly effective in carrying out another person's מצוה to add on to the ideas from the פסוק of "גם אתם." This can be a very useful source for שליחות and whether or not it works for Terumah.

Akiva's post can be found:
http://feigenbaumtalmud.blogspot.com/2011/12/rash-on-terumah.html

Shelichos- What about Keddushin?

In the latest episode of Rabbi Feigenbaum's Awesome Shiur of Shiur Awesomeness, we are discussing how we know we can use a messenger, or Sheliach, for Keddushin. Originally we learned it straight from a Pasuk in Devarim, but the Gemara points out that the Pasuk in particular was discussing Gerushin, or divorces. We then learned that you can't learn Keddushin straight out from Gerushin, because Gerushin is Ba'al Korcha, against her will, and Keddushin needs her consent. From here on out, we applied Gerushin and tried to learn other Mitzvos with Shelichos, like Teruma and Korban Pesach, with Gerushin. However, I remember asking, "What about Keddushin? We learned it technically was different from Gerushin, so why can't we try to apply that to learn other Mitzvos can use Shelichos?" Truth is, we answered my question, I just flat out forgot it. So, what do you say champs? Do you have an answer to my question? Sound off on the comments below...

rashi on terumah

Rashi comments something very interesting regarding a messenger who you ask to do terumah for you. It says in the gemara that if you do not know how much the person who told you to give terumah (the ba’al habayit) wants you to give (if he forgot to tell you or something along those lines), then you gather according to what you think he would gather. There is one problem. What if you don’t know or have a clue what the ba’al habayit would give? The gemara answers that you should just give in the middle and give 1/50^th. I had an obvious question on this so of course I immediately looked in Rashi who apparently helped me out. My question was: How is 1/50^th in the middle, what is it in the middle of? Rashi answered me by saying that a good/generous man, then he would give 1/40^th, and a bad (or should I say not as generous) man, would give 1/60^th. Now, I understand what the gemara means by 1/50^th being in the middle: it is in the middle of what a generous and not generous man would give.

It is a good idea to all of my fellow classmates to look in Rashi when they have a problem with something because most of the time, he will answer your questions. In this case, he answered mine, however, we did go over it a little, after I looked at the Rashi, in class also.

question

I have a question. Why on earth do we need to know all of the details about schlichos. It is clear from the first piece of gemara that we can use one for kedushin, which is what the whole gemara is about. Once we already know that we can use a messenger for kedushin because it says so in the mishnah, we don’t need to deal with the concepts of schlichos in this masechet. My question is: If we are focusing on kedushin in this masechet, then why do we need to go through all of the halachot regarding schlichos, shouldn’t this be dealt with in a different masechet?

(This is a good opportunity for people to comment and answer)

Raish Lakish's principle - Tav L'meitav - and my problems with it

Our Gemara’s original question on the Mishnah was: why is it necessary to say you can do kiddushin thru yourself (Bo) if it already says you can do it thru a messenger (shlucho). Rav Yehuda Amar Rav offers an opinion that the Mishnah must say Bo and Bshlucho because it is an Isur for a man to marry a woman without seeing her first. Rav Yehuda’s opinion only applies to men (the Reisha of the Mishnah). Then, Raish Lakish adds that the reason why there is only an isur on men to not marry without seeing a woman first is because it is better for a woman to go thru a grief-filled marriage rather than be single (Tav L’meitav Tan Do Melimeitav Armalo).

I do not like the opinion given by Raish Lakish. I believe that at the time Raish Lakish gave his opinion, it was true that women were much more dependent on men in their lives, and therefore it was not not unfair of him to say that it is better for them to be in grief filled marriage rather than be single. At the time when Reish Lakish gave his opinion, women did not go to school, they did not have as many rights as men, and of course they did not have jobs and could not support themselves. However, I believe Raish Lakish should not have said what he said because he should have known that times would change down the line. Today, women have the same rights as men, there are more women than men in college, and many women have jobs (and those that do not have jobs could get jobs if they wanted to). Therefore, I believe Raish Lakish should not have said that woman should go into a grief filled marriage rather than be single because he should have suspected that down the line, people would realize that women are humans just like men and that they deserve the same rights as men (which has happened), and now Raish Lakish’s opinion is totally outdated and no longer correct.

Vehavta Lereacha Camocha: Rambam vs. Ramban

Two of the greatest commentaries to ever live, the Rambam and the Ramban, argue on a specific point that we delved into in class, and really wanted to figure out, Vehavta Leracha Camocha.

This principle is something very hard to grasp. What does it mean? What do I have to do? Am I punished if I do not do it? And for very haughty people how is it possible to even care for someone else besides myself let alone care for them AS MUCH as I care for myself?

The Rambam holds that in order to fulfill this principle you have to love your fellow as much as you love yourself. What does this mean? He says that the 2 specific areas where Vehavta Leracha Camocha is most prevalent is in body and money. We went over an example in class, which was if I really, really, really want to be a famous musician one day, but my friend wants to become a doctor am I supposed to convince my friend to become a musician. After all, you are supposed to want for your friend what you want for yourself. The answer the Rambam gives is a flat out no. He expounds on his answer by saying that you aren’t necessarily supposed to want for your friend what you want for yourself rather you should want what is best for him.

The Ramban has two main issues with the Rambam’s interpretation of this universal principle:

1) How is it humanly possible for someone to care for his friend as much as he cares for himself.

Interestingly, this problem is very true nowadays with the society that we live and haughtiness is somewhat of a regular thing for a person.

2) Rabbi Akiva tells of a story where you and your friend are stuck on a beach and you have a bottle of water, but the only way someone will survive is if they drink the entire thing. Do you (a) drink the whole thing and you live and your friend dies, (b) split it half and half and after a matter of time you both die, or (c) give the whole thing to him and he lives on and you die. From the interpretation of the Rambam, the two most likely answers would be either b or c, yet Rabbi Akiva says you drink the whole thing because of Chayecha Kodmin .This seems to imply that you come first and you and your friend aren’t on an equal status of your care.

Overall, I believe that the Ramban’s approach is more realistic especially nowadays, but I think that Rambam’s approach also has validity especially because of the person who wrote it.

The Issurless איסור: A Recommendation

Why the need to say בו in the Mishna when the permissibility of Kiddushin with a messenger is already enumerated? The Gemara's second answer, that of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav, is fascinating. Rav Yehuda says that we learn from בו that there is an איסור for a man to be מקדש a woman without seeing her. Proof: ואהבת לרעך כמוך. The man may be disgusted by her appearance, and he is thus violating this Pasuk, for he will not love his wife. Or that is what the Gemara seems to say on the surface.

However, when looking deeper, Akiva Somer (with Rav Feigenbaum's עזרה) offered a modification to the above reasoning. The איסור is not an איסור. Say what?? Rav Yehuda is truly coming to offer a recommendation to not storm into a marriage with a girl you've never seen. This may (and according to Sir Isaac Graber, almost always) lead to tension between bride and groom, negativity between the in-laws and a divorce. Yes, not the best ואהבת לרעך כמוך scenario. Therefore, in order to prevent such repercussions, Rav Yehuda adds a recommendation for the man to not jump into a haphazard marriage.

But what should the man do? Rav Yehuda's answer: See her.

Without careful analysis, this answer seems superficial. Unless a person has a super power to look at a woman and immediately recognize all her characteristics, strengths and faults, it seems that Rav Yehuda can do better. Nevertheless, we should view his answer again not as the ultimate solution, but rather as a minimal recommendation. A man should at the very least look at her external appearance, and by doing so, he will have eliminated the massive barrier between he and herself. Of course Rav Yehuda would say the man should spend time with the woman to ascertain whether she is the one. Looking at her appearance at the very least will trigger a connection of some sort beyond random marriage, which as mentioned before, may have triggered animosity and sin.