.ג Wozuman?

נשים מזמנות לעצמן

The concept of women having their own מזומן when they eat together seems to be generally regarded as a modern, non-mainstream practice. However, our גמרא would seem to imply that it is the correct one. Now, of course we can't go jumping to conclusions based on just the גמרא. After all, we are also taught here that boys under בר מצוה who understand to whom they are benching can be included to establish a זימון. Nevertheless, although ספרדים do actually abide by this, the practice of אשכנזים is to refrain from doing so. But this issue of women and זימון is even discussed in ביואר הלכה. It seems although the הלכה should be that women are required to, it seems the general accepted practice is that they do not.

What is accepted, however, is that in a meal with men, they are required to participate in the זימון just as the men are. R' Moshe Feinstein (אגרות משה או"ח חלק ה' סימן י) quite sternly points out that while a mother's tending to household matters determine that she is not part of the set group and might be exempt under certain circumstances, it is incumbent upon the husband to delay the זימון in order to call her and include her.

:ג Priestly ציצית?

הכל חייבין בציצית כהנים לוים וישראלים פשיטא כהנים איצטריך לי' סד"א הואיל וכתיב לא תלבש שעטנז גדילים תעשה לך מאן דלא אישתרי כלאים לגביה בלבישה הוא דמחייב במצות ציצית והני כהנים הואיל ואשתרי כלאים לגבייהו לא לחייבו קמ"ל נהי דאישתרי בעידן עבודה בלא עידן עבודה לא אישתרי

So, they are certainly not exempt from ציצית while they're out and about. But what about while they are actually performing the עבודה? This is discussed in this shtikle on פרשת תצוה.

:ב A Child's Obligation for Sukkah

הכל חייבין בסוכה לאיתויי מאי לאיתויי קטן שאינו צריך לאמו דתנן קטן שאינו צריך לאמו חייב בסוכה

Please see some related thoughts I shared on the occasion of our son's birth on סוכות תשע"ז.

ח: מחלוקת לשם שמים

בשלמא (לרבא) תבעו ממון תחלה בשלשה תבעו נפשות תחלה אפילו ממון בעשרים ושלשה אלא לעולא קשיא אמר רבא אני וארי שבחבורה תרגימנא ומנו רב חייא בר אבין הכא במאי עסקינן...

The משנה in אבות ה:י”ז speaks about the difference between a מחלוקת לשם שמים and a מחלוקת שלא לשם שמים. One of the prevailing interpretations of the מחלוקת לשם שמים, exemplified by הלל and שמאי is that both sides of the dispute actually share a common goal. They are each seeking to reach the common goal of the proper way to understand a סוגיא and thus, the proper way to serve the רבש”ע.

This is – perhaps subtly – on display in this גמרא. The גמרא asks a קושיא on עולא’s opinion cased on a ברייתא. But רבא, in conjunction with רב חייא בר אבין offers an understanding of the ברייתא which evades the קושיא. But wait, who was עולא arguing with? None other than רבא himself. So even while רבא is embroiled in this dispute with עולא over how to understand our משנה, he nevertheless comes to his defense to reject the גמרא’s question.

:ג Bava Kama and Shavuos

Ok, it's a little bit of a stretch but...

.מד Protecting the Sinners

רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר הירא ורך הלבב זהו המתיירא מן העבירות שבידו לפיכך תלתה לו התורה את כל אלו שיחזור בגללן

Well, I wasn't as active as I had hoped to be for סוטה. To end off, I want to quote one of my favourite הערות - because it is from my son, Efrayim. He made this observation a couple of years ago when he was 10 years old:

In a book of meshalim on the parsha, it is told that a group of maskilim once produced a satirical play about a Jewish army that was led to war according to the guidelines spelled out in פרשת שופטים  (20:5-8). The officer first announced that anyone who recently built a new house should return, upon which a thousand men got up and left the battlefield. The same occurred after the following announcements regarding having planted a vineyard or having recently betrothed a future wife. In the end, only the Vilna Gaon and the Sha'agas Aryeh remained.

The Brisker Rav, upon hearing of this production, commented that it was completely accurate, only that they left out the most important part - that they still win the war! 

Efrayim took issue with the way the process was related in the play, based on our משנה. There is a dispute over the term ירא ורך לבב. Rabbi Akiva asserts that it is understood literally as someone who is fearful of combat. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, however, maintains that it refers to someone who is fearful based on his transgressions that he will not merit to survive the war. He goes on to explain that this is why the Torah created the other exceptions, to save the fearful one from embarrassment as no one will know exactly why he is leaving the battlefield. Efrayim objected that in order for this arrangement to work, it would be futile to dismiss each group after each announcement. Clearly, they must have made all four declarations at once at which point all those subject to exemptions would leave together, thus concealing those who left because of their sins.

I'm back

Unfortunately, with the last bunch of מסכתות being somewhat unfamiliar to me as well as more difficult, I haven't found the time to be able to post any significant thoughts in quite a while. I have been anxiously awaiting סוטה since it is slightly easier and I have learned it a number of times before. Not sure how many out there are still getting this but I hope to have a bunch to say on סוטה.