אם ירצה ה׳
Previous 2b: https://markdownpastebin.com/?id=f767251e5ada4f2189364749ac508cc5
Rav Miller ztl Pesachim 3a chiour
Shakla V'Tarya: Pesachim 3a – Or as Evening, Euphemisms, and Lushon Naki
Talmudic Terms in the Sugya: - Mapil/Mapal (miscarriage/ladha/vlad): Refers to a woman experiencing a miscarriage; in halacha, this triggers obligations like korban yoldos (birth offerings) if the fetus is viable (over 40 days). - Yemei Melois (days of fulfillment/Taharos): The 80 days post-birth of a female child during which any blood seen is tahor (pure, dam tohar), exempting her from tumah (impurity) rules. - Dam Tohar: Pure blood during yemei melois; post-80 days, blood renders her tamei (impure). - Korban Yoldos: Offerings (chatas and olah) a woman brings after birth or miscarriage to complete purification. - Notar/Noser: Leftover sacrificial meat that becomes forbidden after its eating time; must be burned. - Shlomim: Peace offerings, eaten for two days and one intervening night. - Chatas/Todah: Sin or thanksgiving offerings, eaten for one day and the following night. - Havineinu: Abbreviated Shemoneh Esrei prayer with core blessings condensed into one for brevity in urgent situations. - Lushon Megune: Unseemly or coarse language to avoid. - Lushon Naki: Clean, euphemistic language preferred in speech and Torah to promote refinement. - Merkav/Maisha: Saddle or seat becoming tamei via zav/zavah (discharge impurity); merkav for astride riding (men), maisha for side-saddle (women, euphemized).
Kashya → Terutz Arc 1: Or as Evening in Yoldos Context
Kashya: If a woman miscarries on the night after 80 days (leil 81), does this count as within yemei melois (one korban yoldos suffices) or post (requiring a separate korban), given that night follows day? Terutz: Beis Hillel argues it's post-80, needing a new korban since dam seen that night is tamei (not dam tohar), proving night belongs to the 81st day; Beis Shammai counters that for korban, night extends the prior period as she can't offer until daytime 81st. Sevara: Korban timing hinges on practical ability to offer (day only), overriding dam tumah criterion which applies immediately at nightfall; this separates ritual feasibility from impurity status to avoid undue burdens.
Kashya → Terutz Arc 2: Or in Korban Eating Periods
Kashya: For shlomim (eaten two days), does "two days" include the night before the third day, or end at the second day's sunset, given parallels to chatas (one day + following night)? Terutz: Pasuk "vehanosar ad yom hashlishi" implies notar at second day's end, excluding the night before the third; extra pasuk on burning "bayom hashlishi" specifies daytime burning only, delaying incineration despite eating prohibition. Sevara: Eating windows prioritize scriptural hints over strict analogy to chatas (where burning follows eating end immediately), ensuring kodshim aren't destroyed prematurely at night when Beis Hamikdash operations halt.
| Din (Law) | Tzad (Side: Pro Inclusion of Night Before Third) | Rayah (Proof) | Chal (Challenge) | Pivot (Resolution Turn) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shlomim Eating | Analogy to chatas/todah: one day includes following night, so two days should include two nights. | "Yom hizbacho... umimacharas" (day + next day). | Extra "vehanosar mimenu ad yom hashlishi" calls it notar at day's end, not night. | Burning pasuk "bayom hashlishi" forbids night burning, holding notar till morning despite eating ban. |
| Notar Burning | Burning starts when eating ends (post-second day). | Chatas burns morning after night eating. | "Bayom hashlishi ba'eish yisaref" specifies daytime only. | Delays burning to third day dawn, as kodshim invalidation doesn't trigger nocturnal actions. |
| Yoldos Night Miscarriage | Night as extension of prior day for korban. | Dam tumah starts at nightfall (post-80). | Korban can't be offered at night, so ties to prior period. | Practicality over impurity: korban feasibility defines period end, not blood status. |
Kashya → Terutz Arc 3: Or in Tefillah on Erev Yom Kippur
Kashya: On erev Yom Kippur (or), can one daven Havineinu (abbreviated Shemoneh Esrei) like on regular erevim, or must it be full due to Yom Kippur's onset at night? Terutz: Full Shemoneh Esrei required to include "Havdalah" (separation blessing), which doesn't fit Havineinu; erev here means evening start of Yom Kippur. Sevara: Prayer structure demands completeness for key insertions like Havdalah, elevating the evening's sanctity over brevity, as night initiates the fast/holiday.
Kashya → Terutz Arc 4: Euphemisms in Torah Language
Kashya: Why does Torah add superfluous letters (e.g., "asher lo tithar mimkor besaro" instead of "tamei") to avoid unseemly words, even if it lengthens text? Terutz: Examples like 8-16 extra letters in pesukim (e.g., Shaul on David: "mikreh hu kilo tohor") teach prioritizing lushon naki; Baraisa parallels use "leilei" for or, but Mishnah prefers "or" as euphemism for night (avoiding gloom). Sevara: Speech refines character, so Torah models detours from direct (neutral/megune) terms to positive ones, conserving words generally but expending for this ethic—e.g., "or" (light) for night dispels unpleasantness.
Hermeneutical Flags: ⚖️ Binyan Av: Explicit in sugya for korban eating—build from chatas (one day + night) to shlomim (two days as day-night-day, excluding second night), but adjusted by pasuk "vehanosar" to pivot on notar timing (shown in shlomim rayah excluding night before third). 🧲 Davar Ha-Lamed Me-Inyano: Explicit in notar context— "bayom hashlishi" learned from surrounding pesukim on eating windows, teaching daytime-only burning as inferred from "yom" in sequence (shown in challenge to immediate night burning).
Kashya: If lushon naki justifies renaming merkav as maisha for women (despite din differences per Tosafos), how does this avoid falsehood when maisha implies a stationary seat, not riding—does Torah prioritize politeness over precision in explicit halachic terms?
Shakla V'Tarya: TOSFOS DH SHE'HAREI BE'ZAV KAR'O MERKAV
Lushon Naki in Zav/Merkav Dinim via Tosafot Expansion
Talmudic Terms in the Sugya: - Zav: A man with abnormal genital discharge causing tumah (impurity), transmitting via contact or pressure (e.g., sitting/riding). - Merkav: Lit. "riding seat" (e.g., saddle); tumah din: Touching it makes one tamei but clothes don't require tevila (immersion). - Moshav/Mishkav: Lit. "seat/bed"; tumah din: Touching makes one tamei and clothes require tevila. - Lushon Naki: Refined speech, here Torah's euphemistic shift from explicit "merkav" (astride riding, coarse for women) to "moshav" (sitting, polite). - Toras Kohanim: Midrash halacha on Vayikra, deriving merkav/moshav from pesukim like "asher hi yosheves alav" (this is moshav) and extra "kli" (this is merkav via remez/hint). - Remez: Allusion in Torah text, not explicit, used here to avoid direct coarse language for women's riding posture.
Kashya → Terutz Arc 1: Din Merkav vs. Moshav Equality
Kashya: If Torah calls women's saddle "moshav" for lushon naki, does this falsify halacha since merkav (riding) and moshav (sitting) have unequal dinim—touching merkav spares clothes tevila, but moshav requires it? Terutz: Tosafot (per Rav Miller) stresses dinim differ (from Toras Kohanim/Keilim), so renaming can't alter facts; Torah doesn't lie for politeness—Tosafot rejects "moshav" as mere euphemism for actual merkav din in women. Sevara: Halacha prioritizes precision over etiquette; euphemisms detour language but preserve din integrity, avoiding "merkav" explicitly for women to evade coarse implication of astride posture.
Kashya → Terutz Arc 2: Torah's Euphemistic Rename Without Falsehood
Kashya: How can Torah call women's riding "moshav" (implying stationary seat din) if it's truly merkav (riding din), without misleading on tumah transmission? Terutz: Rav Miller expands Tosafot by noting "moshav" derives from explicit pasuk "asher hi yosheves alav," while "merkav" comes via extra "kli" as remez only—Torah veils women's merkav indirectly to teach lushon naki without changing din. Sevara: Remez allows polite inference without explicit coarseness; Torah models refinement by hinting at women's merkav (parallel to zav's open merkav), ensuring halacha derives correctly from structure, not falsified terms.
Kashya → Terutz Arc 3: Women's Riding as Normative Merkav
Kashya: If women ride side-saddle (moshav-like), why invoke merkav at all—doesn't this make "moshav" accurate, negating need for lushon naki expansion? Terutz: Rav Miller elaborates Tosafot's refutation: Even women's saddle is merkav din (riding, not stationary), but Torah shifts to "moshav" linguistically; later sugya answers "bei'uta d'gamla" (fear of falling makes astride normative for women on camels), preserving merkav din. Sevara: Contextual norms (e.g., camel riding) align women's practice with merkav, but Torah prioritizes verbal modesty—expansion shows lushon naki adapts language to dignity without overriding practical halacha.
| Din (Law) | Tzad (Side: Rename Alters Din) | Rayah (Proof) | Chal (Challenge) | Pivot (Resolution Turn) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tumah via Saddle Touch | Euphemism makes women's "moshav" follow moshav din (tevila required). | Pasuk calls it "moshav" explicitly for women. | Dinim unequal per Toras Kohanim—merkav spares tevila. | Pivot to remez: "Kli" hints merkav without direct term, preserving actual riding din while teaching polite speech. |
| Women's Posture Euphemism | Call it "moshav" to avoid "merkav" coarseness (legs astride). | Torah adds letters elsewhere (e.g., tamei detours) for naki. | Can't falsify—saddle remains merkav even for women. | Pivot to normative: Fear-based astride riding keeps merkav din; rename is linguistic, not din-changing. |
| Torah's Explicit vs. Hint | Write women's merkav openly like zav's. | Zav pasuk direct: "merkav." | Women's via "kli" remez only. | Pivot to model: Veils for naki lesson—Rav Miller expands Tosafot by tying to midrash (Toras Kohanim) on extra lima/words. |
No explicit hermeneutical methods invoked by Rav Miller, sugya, or Tosafot here—derashot stem from pasuk structure (extra "kli" as remez), not flagged midos like binyan av or gezeira shava.
Kashya: If Rav Miller's expansion ties Tosafot to Toras Kohanim's remez for women's merkav, why does Torah hint at all if side-saddle (moshav) is typical—doesn't this imply astride is assumed, risking unnecessary coarseness without the veil?
Shakla V'Tarya: Pesachim 3a – Baraita as Perush on Mishna's Or
Talmudic Terms in the Sugya: - Mishna: The core oral law text, here stating "Or LeArba'asar Bodkin Es HaChometz LeOr HaNer" (On the evening of the 14th, we search for chametz by candlelight), using "Or" ambiguously as light/evening. - Baraita: External tannaitic teaching not in the Mishna, here paralleling with "Leilei Arba'asar" (nights of the 14th) to clarify bedikas chametz timing. - Perush: Commentary or explanation, where the Baraita elucidates the Mishna's term without adding new halacha. - Lushon Naki: Refined language, preferring euphemisms like "Or" (light, positive) over "Leila" (night, gloomy) to avoid unpleasant connotations. - Lushon Megune: Coarse or unseemly speech, which Torah and sages detour around, even adding letters/pesukim for politeness.
Kashya → Terutz Arc 1: Why Use Baraita If It Mirrors Mishna?
Kashya: If the Baraita says "Leilei Arba'asar Bodkin Es HaChometz LeOr HaNer" nearly identically to the Mishna, why bring it as a proof—doesn't it redundantly repeat the rule on searching chametz at night? Terutz: The Baraita isn't redundant but serves as perush, explicitly translating the Mishna's euphemistic "Or" (light, used for evening) as "Leilei" (nights) to confirm "Or" means evening without gloomy overtones. Sevara: Mishna prioritizes lushon naki for inspirational teaching, veiling direct terms; Baraita, as explanatory supplement, unveils plainly for clarity, ensuring halachic precision without compromising the Mishna's refined style.
No explicit hermeneutical methods (kal va-chomer, binyan av, etc.) invoked by Rav Miller or sugya here—interpretation stems from linguistic preference, not derashot.
| Din (Law) | Tzad (Side: Baraita as Independent) | Rayah (Proof) | Chal (Challenge) | Pivot (Resolution Turn) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bedikas Chametz Timing | Baraita parallels Mishna word-for-word except "Leilei" for "Or," suggesting standalone teaching on evening search. | Baraita: "Leilei Arba'asar... LeOr HaNer," mirroring Mishna structure. | If identical, no need for Baraita unless explanatory—Gemara uses it as rayah that "Or" = evening. | Baraita as perush: Decodes "Or" euphemism as "Leila," preserving Mishna's lushon naki while providing explicit meaning for learners. |
| Lushon Naki Application | Mishna could say "Leila" directly like Baraita, avoiding all prior proofs/debates on "Or." | Examples: Torah adds 8-16 letters (e.g., "asher lo tithar" over "tamei") to detour megune terms. | Baraita uses direct "Leila," not euphemism—why not consistent? | Pivot to role: Mishna models lushon naki; Baraita, as perush, uses plain speech to interpret, not to model—hence "Leila" explains without needing extra pleasant veil. |
Kashya: If Baraita functions solely as perush to decode "Or" as "Leila," why does it retain the full halachic phrasing instead of just stating "Or hu Leila"—does this imply Baraita adds independent authority, risking dilution of Mishna's primacy?
IYH kindly partner with the Toras Avigdor organization to spread Rav Avigdor HaCohen Miller ztl's Torah to all Yidden on Earth. For Gemarah sponsoring specifically 347-541-8051 or email info@kolavigdor.com