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.

Maharshal view of Mitzvah of Pru Uruvu for women

I like the Maharshal’s view of women’s involvement in Pru Uruvu. The Maharshal explains a way in which women get a mitzvah in doing Pru Uruvu. This is possible, says the Maharshal, because even though the woman is not obligated in Pru Uruvu, if she still does Pru Uruvu she gets a Mitzvah. However, we asked a question on the Maharshal because his logic does not make total sense. According to what the Maharshal said, people can get a mitzvah for doing tasks they are not obligated in. For example, what would the Maharshal say about a case where a king gets a mitzvah for carrying a Torah? Would a regular person get that Mitzvah for carrying a Torah as well? So according to the Maharshal’s logic a regular person could carry the Torah and get a mitzvah even though he is not obligated to carry the Torah? In class we offered an explanation to why the Maharshal’s logic - stating that women can do Pru Uruvu and get a mitzvah even though they are not obligated - is good.

The answer we gave is that there are two cases where certain people are not obligated to do Mitzvos. There is a case where there is an obligation on everybody to do a mitzvah, but some people are exempt from that mitzvah (Patur). The other case is where the obligation to do a mitzvah is only on certain people, and other people are not even exempt, rather they are totally uninvolved in the mitzvah and have no obligation to do it at all (Hafkaah). In the case of Patur, if a person who is exempt from the mitzvah does the mitzvah anyway, the person still gets a mitzvah; however, in a case of Hafkaah, if a person who is not obligated in a mitzvah does it anyway, the person gets NO mitzvah.

This can explain why the Maharshal’s logic - that a woman can perform Pru Uruvu and get a mitzvah - is correct. Women are only Patur/exempt from the performance of Pru Uruvu so they can still get a mitzvah. It’s not that the Mitzvah is only on men and women have no obligation at all (which would be a case of Hafkaah), rather it is that the obligation of Pru Uruvu is on everyone, but women are one of the groups of people who are exempt from the Mitzvah. The case of women doing Pru Uruvu is different from my earlier example of an Average Joe carrying the Torah when the obligation is only on the king because the women are Patur but for the Average Joe it’s a case of Hafkaah.

I like the Maharshal’s view because I believe it only makes sense for women to receive a mitzvah for doing Pru Uruvu. I can understand men being obligated in Pru Uruvu and receiving a mitzvah, but if women want to take part in the mitzvah as well, and they are the ones actually carrying and giving birth to the child, then they should definitely get a mitzvah too, and the Maharshal’s view proves that.

The Mishna and My Problems With It

As we finished the introduction to Masechet Kiddushin, we started the Mishna as is procedurally done when beginning a Masechet or Perek. The Mishna we have learned spoke of six very similar Halachot with some contrasts. The first Halachah in the Mishna said that a man can marry a woman independently. Now, I have a question. Is the first Halacha not already obvious? I mean to say is that, obviously a man can marry a woman. What would be thought otherwise? We have not yet answered this question, but I am just expressing the way I feel about this Halacha. The second Halacha said a man can even marry a woman through a messenger. Hold up for a second. Is marriage a superficial thing that one can marry through messengers? This Halacha is almost like turning marriage into a business deal. So you one day decide to get married for social reasons, and you say to your assistant, “Go get me a woman to marry.” Is this what marriage is supposed to be like? I always thought that marriage must inherently have love and a commitment to be together for life.

The third Halacha this Mishnah mentions is that a woman can marry a man. I say, Kol HaKavod! Would we not already know that the woman can marry the man since the man can marry the woman!!! If the man marries the wife, what is the wife doing? I will gladly answer that question. She is marrying him! The Mishna won’t say the woman cannot marry the man and say that the man can marry the woman because it is impossible. If one marries the other, the other marries him or her. Obviously this is redundant and must be explained. Another question I have here: If the woman can marry the man, is it not obvious that the man can marry a woman? This question is for a different reason than the first. Men can do what woman can do and more. If someone like, let us say, a woman can lift 20 pounds or pass a class, then, Kal Vachomer a man can. So too, a man can obviously marry a woman if a woman can marry a man. Seemingly, the Mishna should have just started off with Halacha 3. The fourth Halacha said that a woman can marry by a messenger. This Halacha seems to tell us that Halacha 2 is obvious. So I repeat, seemingly, the Mishna should began with the third Halacha.

The fifth Halacha said that a father can marry off his adolescent daughter. This seems pretty strange. Shouldn’t the daughter make sure she loves the man the father is setting her up with and wants to spend the rest of her life with him? It seems that the father has control over her life, but isn’t it known that her father cannot control her health. For example, if the daughter wants to eat whole wheat bread, her father cannot force her to eat white bread. Therefore, the father also should not have control over his daughter's life in marriage. The six Halacha said her father can marry off her adolescent daughter by a messenger. This Halacha has all the problems I previously mentioned.

After I read the Mishna, I could not possibly imagine the amount of questions the Gemara would come up with if I, a student of the Margolin Hebrew Academy in Memphis, TN, came up with all of these questions. This anticipation kept me on the edge of my seat till I knew what will happen next.

We Can Be Great

Welcome to our shiur blog.

We have a tremendous opportunity to grow both in our learning and in our appreciation of learning. It is my sincere hope that we use this blog to enhance our shiur conversations, clarifying and refining the learning we begin in shiur.

To keep us motivated and positive let us keep two things in mind. First, it is a tremendous privilege to learn Torah. To access God's word, to study God in the best way possible, to perfect ourselves by learning the precepts through which He has instructed us to live, to continue the centuries long dialogue between Hashem and the Jewish nation. To paraphrase what we have already seen, praiseworthy are we and fortunate is our share, because we are privileged to be of those who study God's Torah. The angels on high are jealous of our studies. They look at us with wonder and they grant us prestige. They turn one to another and they ask 'who are these people shooting words of holy fire from their mouths? who are these people whom God is pleased with more than anything in the world?' (Chovas HaTalmidim Chapter 1) Second, we can accomplish our goals. The Torah is not too difficult for us to master. It is not in the Heavens, and it is not on the other side of the sea. It is very near and accessible to us. (Devarim 30) If we apply ourselves and invest our energies in learning we will find success. (Megilla 6b)

We can do it, we can be great. We can make tremendous strides in our learning , and we can enjoy the process.

I pray that God make the words of His Torah sweet in our mouths, and that we ascend to the status of grandeur which is destined to us by excelling in our learning.

Thank you Yaacov Dov and Aaron Ozer for setting up this blog.