tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post116481841985317213..comments2024-03-25T09:43:27.402-04:00Comments on Divrei Chaim: shabbos kiddush - does arvus apply to womenChaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-19028486617003431052010-02-02T18:57:10.720-05:002010-02-02T18:57:10.720-05:00interesting the nusach of the brocho that women ma...interesting the nusach of the brocho that women make according to the baal hatanya in his siddur is 'lehadlik neros shel shabbos KODESH', i think its the badei hashulchan on the ketzos hashulchan that explains the reason for the word 'kodesh' is that through reciting this work the woman has been yotze kiddush midorayso and consquently her husband can be motzi her as they are both obligated miderabanan.shoynnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1164911186393259222006-11-30T13:26:00.000-05:002006-11-30T13:26:00.000-05:00>>>What are you going to say, "Only where there wa...>>>What are you going to say, "Only where there was a vaday non-compliance with a derabbanan do the chachomim nullify your kiyum, not b'makom safeik compliance"??? Does that make sense to you?! <BR/><BR/>I'm afraid it does, so as you wrote eariler, we are going in circles. A reductio ad absurdum is not going to work on me here.Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1164909364038673182006-11-30T12:56:00.000-05:002006-11-30T12:56:00.000-05:00You didn't violate anything here (and that's the f...You didn't <B>violate</B> anything here (and that's the first point I made up top). What are you going to say, "Only where there was a vaday non-compliance with a derabbanan do the chachomim nullify your kiyum, not b'makom safeik compliance"??? Does that make sense to you?! What are the mechanics of how the chachomim are being oker your kiyum? The bottom line is that according to you, you didn't do the mitzva at all!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1164902429858044322006-11-30T11:00:00.000-05:002006-11-30T11:00:00.000-05:00R' Yonah's formulation was that the chachamim were...R' Yonah's formulation was that the chachamim were oiker the din d'oraysa. Only where there was a vaday violation of a derabbanan does that apply, not b'makom safeik, just like the PM"G holds that violating a derbbanan b'ones is an exception.Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1164899209662100402006-11-30T10:06:00.000-05:002006-11-30T10:06:00.000-05:00How can the chachomim declare you patur on a safei...How can the chachomim declare you patur on a safeik chiyuv d'oraysa? Let me clarify: According to you, every d'rabonon carries with it d'oraysa ramifications. (This is not the same as the Ramban's kasha on the Rambam.) You postulated that I am not yotzei the mitzva d'oraysa of tefilla if I did not fulfill all Rabbinic stipulations. So, if I am not sure if I fulfilled the Rabbinic stipulation of 18 brachos, it follows that I am also not sure if I fulfilled the d'oraysa requirement of tefilla. Since I'm not sure if I fulfilled the d'oraysa requirement of tefilla, I should have to daven again. <BR/><BR/>This argument is not mentioned anywhere in the poskim. Hagam sh'lo ra'inu aino raya, the PM"G himself offers an alternative understanding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1164896420517104022006-11-30T09:20:00.000-05:002006-11-30T09:20:00.000-05:00>>>1) SafekI have no idea how this follows. The c...>>>1) Safek<BR/>I have no idea how this follows. The chachamim said if you have a safeik you are patur - what does that have to do with the issue of failing to fulfill a vaday chiyuv derabbanan?<BR/><BR/>>>>2) Mitzva haba b'aveira. Tosafos himself (Sukka 9a) answers that MH"B is only a p'sul d'rabonon. According to you, why should that make a difference?<BR/><BR/>Tosfos' question is why you need an extra pasuk to pasel a sukkah gezulah. The Torah does not rely on the foreknowledge that maybe chazal would create an issur derabbanan of mhbb"a that would cause the miztva d'oraysa to be forfeit - the Torah creates such an issur where it seems necessary.Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1164850388890535842006-11-29T20:33:00.000-05:002006-11-29T20:33:00.000-05:00I'm sorry; I can't resist. The Mahari Algazi has a...I'm sorry; I can't resist. The Mahari Algazi has a sefer called "Ara D'rabonon". The purpose of the sefer is to examine various dinim and determine if they are d'oraysa or d'rabonon in nature. In his hakdama, he lists tens of nafka minos (some well known; others more obscure). Ayin sham. I will satisfy myself by enumerating just two of them:<BR/><BR/>1) Safek. According to you, if I'm not sure if I davened mincha, I'm mechyuv min haTorah to daven again. See SA OC 107and the N"K there. There is no question that anyone - including the PM"G himself (see B"H there) - entertains your idea. <BR/><BR/>2) Mitzva haba b'aveira. Tosafos himself (Sukka 9a) answers that MH"B is only a p'sul d'rabonon. According to you, why should that make a difference? One wouldn't be yotzei the mitzva m'd'oraysa anyway?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1164831156613983032006-11-29T15:12:00.000-05:002006-11-29T15:12:00.000-05:00We're going to go in circles.I'm glad you're using...We're going to go in circles.<BR/><BR/>I'm glad you're using the book. Stop thanking me for it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1164826471586945872006-11-29T13:54:00.000-05:002006-11-29T13:54:00.000-05:00>>>B"SH nullified the sukka. Where does it say by ...>>>B"SH nullified the sukka. Where does it say by kiddush that that if it's not “b'makom seuda”, or not “al hakos”, that the kiddush is pasul? <BR/><BR/>It says you are not yotzei - you assume that means not yotzei some kiyum derabbanan. Prove it.<BR/><BR/>>>>Are you denying that one can be mikayeim a mitzva on a d'oraysa level without also fulfilling all the d'rabonon criteria? <BR/><BR/>I am simply quoting the Pri Megadim who raises the same safeik by birchas hamazon without shem and malchus - does that forfeit the d'oraysa of bentching? Isn't that the same issue you raise of tefillah without 18 brachos? You are arguing like this is a reductio ad absurdum to suggest, but the PM"G didn't think so! (Also remember my caveat from yesterday (that you didn't like) that it only works on a derabbanan directly related to the d'oraysa.) <BR/><BR/>>>>It follows also, then, that if I move muktza on Shabbos, I should get stoned, because I was really being michalel Shabbos m’doraysa <BR/><BR/>No, because although you may not fulfill the d'oraysa of shabason, you have not violated a d'oraysa of chilul shabbos.<BR/><BR/>>>>Even if (like the Rambam) they say it's just a d'rabonon, they are still being mosef on the Torah? <BR/><BR/>How? There is a difference between the chachamim saying without doing X you fail to get a kiyum d'oraysa vs. the Torah saying without doing X you don't get a kiyum.Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1164823984335283772006-11-29T13:13:00.000-05:002006-11-29T13:13:00.000-05:00Look at Sukka 3a. "Poslin", "lo yatza", "gazrinan"...Look at Sukka 3a. "Poslin", "lo yatza", "gazrinan"...does that sound like a supplemental din d'rabonon? B"SH nullified the sukka. Where does it say by kiddush that that if it's not “b'makom seuda”, or not “al hakos”, that the kiddush is pasul? See Pesachim 106a and Tosafos there. (See also the bottom of 100b and top of 101a. Efsher sh'shadisi bi narga – aval yeish makom l’ayin.)<BR/><BR/>Are you denying that one can be mikayeim a mitzva on a d'oraysa level without also fulfilling all the d'rabonon criteria? Matza without heseiba? Tefilla without 18 brachos? Kiddushin without seeing the woman first? Bitul chametz without hashbasa? <BR/><BR/>It follows also, then, that if I move muktza on Shabbos, I should get stoned, because I was really being michalel Shabbos m’doraysa – since the chachomim added a supplemental din.<BR/><BR/>How is every d'rabonon not a violation of "al tosef"? Even if (like the Rambam) they say it's just a d'rabonon, they are still being mosef on the Torah? (I guess this can be a kasha on shitas Tosafos Sukka 3a as well.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1164821501167463882006-11-29T12:31:00.000-05:002006-11-29T12:31:00.000-05:00A sukkah which holds rosho and rubo but not shulch...A sukkah which holds rosho and rubo but not shulchano is just missing a supplemental derabbanan criteria - it's not a violation of anything. Here too, you said kiddush, but are missing the kos and the makom seudah.Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1164820204548471622006-11-29T12:10:00.000-05:002006-11-29T12:10:00.000-05:00Hold on. There is a major difference between being...Hold on. There is a major difference between being over an issur d'rabonon to achieve a d'oraysa and not being mikayeim a supplementary mitzva d'rabonon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com