tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post7664140639393595809..comments2024-03-28T21:21:02.777-04:00Comments on Divrei Chaim: ra'uy v'nidche by reading the parsha of bikurimChaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-33189235716934258092007-05-18T09:29:00.000-04:002007-05-18T09:29:00.000-04:00Looking at the Rashbam on BB 81, I was able to put...Looking at the Rashbam on BB 81, I was able to put my finger on what bothered me about this. The gemara says straight out that kriya for bikurim is like bilah for menachos and you apply R'Zeira's din. The point that the Rashbam notes is that there are cases that lechatchilah are mevi ve-eino korei -- like a ger or from sukkos to chanuka. That is the difference -- it is not just that kriya is not meakev like bilah is not meakev. But with bilah, there is no such thing as a mincha where lechatchilah you dont have the din of bilah. Here you have cases where lechatchilah you dont have kriya and shouldnt that show you that bilah doesnt apply. The Rashbam answers that the rule applies in any case that there could have been kriya and then there cant be (like in the gemara there because of a safek) then we apply R'Zeira's rule. That seems kind of different. But now that I am thinking about it more, I guess with the menachos there would be no bilah where there is no oil like a minchas chotei or minchas sotah. Interesting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-27258677589820482082007-05-17T17:41:00.000-04:002007-05-17T17:41:00.000-04:00Thanks -- I'll chazer the gemara. I guess the psha...Thanks -- I'll chazer the gemara. I guess the pshat is the kriya for havaa has the din for blilah for a korban mincha that harayu etc. And what the Rash overlays on that is that the din of kriya is subject to the whole nireh venidche analysis. Interesting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-40801511954305404882007-05-17T17:15:00.000-04:002007-05-17T17:15:00.000-04:00Actually, you don't need the Y-lmi for this, as th...Actually, you don't need the Y-lmi for this, as the same approach is in the Bavli in B"b 81b.Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-86737126078833426452007-05-17T15:20:00.000-04:002007-05-17T15:20:00.000-04:00It's a pliya, isn't it? I have no explanation, bu...It's a pliya, isn't it? I have no explanation, but it's not only the R"Sh, it's mefurash in the Yeruslami. Look at Bikurim 4a, where the gemara asks that kriah is not m'akeiv so how can it disqualify the fruit (your kashe, no?) and simply answers that 'hara'uy l'keriah ain keriah m'akeves' (sounds like like R' Zeira's din). The Rambam rejects this Yerushalmi (I think the Minchas Chinuch points this out - need to check again).Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-10111858072424318082007-05-17T13:49:00.000-04:002007-05-17T13:49:00.000-04:00Not holding in the sugya (been years since I passe...Not holding in the sugya (been years since I passed by the bikurim sugyos in the the 5th perek of BB) but not sure I get this -- the kriya clearly is not meakev so how can there be a nireh venidche concept on the havaas bikurim based on the kriya? It's one thing to say there is a kol ha-rayu le-bilah ein bilah meakeves vekol sheino rayu etc. --- but here the kriya is not meakev so even if there is nireh venidche on the kriya, how can that come into play on the havaah? Those are two separate mitzvos in the minyan ha-mitzvos and clearly not meakev each other. I know this is not the thrust of your piece but it bugged me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com