.ו His Word is his Bond

אמר ליה אביי שאני מלכותא דלא הדרא ביה דאמר שמואל אי אמר מלכותא עקרנא טורי עקר טורי ולא הדר ביה

Interesting how sometimes the דף seems to curiously coincide with current events. I thought it was ironic that this גמרא appears right when their happens to be a current controversy regarding the President of the United States and a possible military strike against another country. Without getting into too many details, he is being criticized for having ordered the strike but cancelling it at the last moment. I suppose it can be argued that the statement of the גמרא does not apply to a democratically elected leader who is accountable to the people.

:ה Gentile Contributions

הלכתיה דרבי מאיר מסתברא דכתיב לא לכם ולנו לבנות בית אלהינו...ורבי יהודה האי לא לכם ולנו מאי עביד ליה ... אלא אמר רבא משום רפיון ידים הוא

רש"י ד"ה משום רפיון ידים. משום שלא היו מתכוונים לטובה אלא שיסמכו גם עליהם וישמעו לעצתם והם יאחרו הבנין עד שיסיבו את לב כורש שלא לבנותו

It would seem that the dispute between רבי מאיר and רבי יהודה is not confined to סברא as far as how they understood the rejection of the contributions for the בית שני. There would have to be a practical halachic implication as well. As רש”י explains, the pledges of those with ill intentions will prevent others from making their genuine pledges and the fundraising process will ultimately be stalled. But if a Gentile were to deliver the funds in hand, this concern would no longer apply. רבי יהודה would reject their pledges but not their actual donations. רבי מאיר, conversely, would seem to reject all outside contributions regardless. (I’m not quite sure how to understand the issue raised at the end of this סוגיא regarding the contribution of beams. The גמרא seems to only answer according to רבי יהודה’s reasoning.)

Considering this matter led me an insight regarding the growing trend of match-based charity initiatives where people are urged to donate to a specific cause within a certain time frame and each dollar will be doubled or tripled by matches pledged by larger donors. The program must hit a certain goal or it all collapses and all pledges are returned. I’m not sure who originally invented this brilliant idea but one of the more popular sites is charidy.com. I have heard a common gripe about these programs that the money is really all “ready” and larger donors have already assured ahead of time that no matter what, by the time the campaign is over, they will reach their goal. So why the whole charade?

We have learned from רש”י that the reality of human nature is that people’s desire to donate is driven by need. If people think that the money is already there or on its way, they will refrain from contributing. These larger donors could likely fund the whole campaign on their own. But participating in this “ruse” ultimately moves others to jump in and get involved. We should probably be looking at this whole idea as a fulfillment of the משנה in פרקי אבות:

ה:י”ג ארבע מדות בנותני צדקה:... יתן ויתנו אחרים, חסיד

.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...