P. 1


|Views: 0|Likes:
Published by outdash2

More info:

Published by: outdash2 on Feb 18, 2014
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





November 17, 2013

A recapitulation of this week’s shiur:

S o to recap (kesuvos 30b)- a non-Cohen ingests terumah without stealing it first so that the issur of eating it and the hanah from terumah happen at the same time, comprising a case of kim le b’d’rabah mineh (the moral consequence of issur exacted by shemayim displaces the financial obligation) . The gemorah suggests the case to be one in which the terumah is taken from the Cohen, and placed in the recipients throat by a third party. The gemorah, in evaluating the recipients role in this exchange, asks, “if he is not mechanically able to remove it [from his own throat], why is he obligated?” The reference to obligation in the question is left ambiguous. There are two obligations being considered- the financial obligation and the moral (missa b’yadeh shmayim). Rashi insists that the gemorah is referring to the moral obligation (d.h. why obligated?); Rashi states that the recipient is ohnes and should not be morally responsible. Of course, Rashi says nothing about the financial responsibility, and presumably holds that the recipient would still be obligated financially to reimburse for the hanah he got from the terumah. The Ri, brought down by the baaleh tos’ (d.h. if he is unable to remove it, why obligated?), argues with Rashi. He states that the question of the gemorah (why obligated) refers to the financial obligation. He avers that the financial obligation to reimburse for hanah disappears when the food is in a place in the throat where it is irretrievable (“it is lost from the world”). Question 1: what is the machlokes between Rashi and the Ri? The Ri preempts a potential question on his construct. If it is true that something that is lost from the world no longer has an anchor for tashlulmei hanah, how do we understand the opinion in bava kama (111 b) of rav chisdah- someone who eats stolen food before the owner gives up on its return is obligated to pay the owner. Question 2: in what way is the opinion of rav chisdah relevant to the Ri’s construct? Hint: see the Rambam, gezalah v’avedah; 5th perek, 2-4.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->