Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

The Unique Character of Maaser Sheni – Gefet 34

In our new chapter, we are exposed to discussions regarding eating prohibitions which are less familiar to us, as they pertain to the world of the Mikdash. We saw in the first mishna that an uncircumcised man cannot eat from the Korban Pesach nor from terumah. Similarly, we saw that an onen is forbidden from eating korbanot. In our sugiya, we will attempt to clarify his status with regards to ma鈥檃ser. There are two pesukim from which we learn that an onen does not eat ma鈥檃ser:聽

讚讘专讬诐 驻专拽 讻讜, 讬讘-讬讚

聽讻旨执郑讬 转职讻址诇旨侄譃讛 诇址譅注职砖讉值专 讗侄转志讻旨指诇志诪址注职砖讉址支专 转旨职讘讜旨讗指转职讱指譀 讘旨址砖旨讈指谞指芝讛 讛址砖旨讈职诇执讬砖讈执謻转 砖讈职谞址郑转 讛址纸诪旨址注植砖讉值謶专 讜职谞指转址转旨指郑讛 诇址诇旨值讜执謼讬 诇址讙旨值专謾 诇址讬旨指转郑讜止诐 讜职诇指纸讗址诇职诪指谞指謹讛 讜职讗指讻职诇芝讜旨 讘执砖讈职注指专侄謻讬讱指 讜职砖讉指讘值纸注讜旨:聽 讜职讗指诪址专职转旨指帧 诇执驻职谞值讬蜘 讬职拽止讜指吱拽 讗直诇止讛侄譁讬讱指 讘旨执注址支专职转旨执讬 讛址拽旨止郑讚侄砖讈 诪执谉志讛址讘旨址謼讬执转 讜职讙址吱诐 谞职转址转旨执证讬讜 诇址诇旨值讜执讬謾 讜职诇址讙旨值专謾 诇址讬旨指转郑讜止诐 讜职诇指讗址诇职诪指谞指謹讛 讻旨职讻指诇志诪执爪职讜指转职讱指謻 讗植砖讈侄郑专 爪执讜旨执讬转指謶谞执讬 诇止纸讗志注指讘址芝专职转旨执讬 诪执诪旨执爪职讜止转侄謻讬讱指 讜职诇止芝讗 砖讈指讻指纸讞职转旨执讬:聽 诇止讗志讗指讻址吱诇职转旨执讬 讘职讗止谞执譁讬 诪执诪旨侄謼谞旨讜旨 讜职诇止讗志讘执注址证专职转旨执讬 诪执诪旨侄謾谞旨讜旨謾 讘旨职讟指诪值謹讗 讜职诇止讗志谞指转址芝转旨执讬 诪执诪旨侄謻谞旨讜旨 诇职诪值謶转 砖讈指诪址謼注职转旨执讬 讘旨职拽讜止诇謾 讬职拽止讜指郑拽 讗直诇止讛指謹讬 注指砖讉执謺讬转执讬 讻旨职讻止謻诇 讗植砖讈侄芝专 爪执讜旨执讬转指纸谞执讬:聽

 

Once we know that ma鈥檃ser is forbidden to an onen, we learn by way of kal va鈥檆homer that also the Korban Pesach is forbidden to the onen. The gemara turns to clarify whether the prohibition for an uncircumcised man to eat from the Korban Pesach is also learned from ma鈥檃ser. We will study two Tosfots; the first comes to help us understand the pshat of the sugiya and the second, along with Rashi, will help deepen our understanding and reveal additional layers.聽

  1. The pshat of the sugiya – how are we to read the question which was posed to Rav Sheshet?聽

The sugiya opens with a question that is posed to Rav Sheshet:聽

转诇诪讜讚 讘讘诇讬 诪住讻转 讬讘诪讜转 讚祝 注讙 注诪讜讚 讗

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 砖砖转: 注专诇, 诪讛讜 讘诪注砖专? 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讬诇讬祝 驻住讞 诪诪注砖专 诇注谞讬谉 讗谞讬谞讜转, 讬诇讬祝 谞诪讬 诪注砖专 诪驻住讞 诇注谞讬谉 注专诇讜转, 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讞诪讜专 诪拽诇 讬诇讬祝, 拽诇 诪讞诪讜专 诇讗 讬诇讬祝?聽

 

This question is very strange to those who learn daf yomi, as well as other gemara learners. The entire principle of learning from kal va鈥檆homer is that the stringent thing is learned from the lenient, and not the opposite. How can it even enter our minds that we could learn in the other direction? Tosfot address this question, and send us to daf 74 to complete the picture:聽

 

转讜住驻讜转 诪住讻转 讬讘诪讜转 讚祝 注讙 注诪讜讚 讗

拽诇 诪讞诪讜专 诇讗 讬诇讬祝 – 讜讗”转 诪讗讬 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讛讬讻讬 谞讬诇祝 拽诇 诪讞诪讜专 讜讬”诇 讚诪住驻拽讗 诇讛讜 讛讗 讚讬诇讬祝 驻住讞 诪诪注砖专 讗讬 讘讙”砖 讚诪诪谞讜 讬诇讬祝 讬诇驻讬谞谉 谞诪讬 诪注砖专 诪驻住讞 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛讜讬 拽诇 诪讞诪讜专 讗讜 讘拽”讜 讬诇讬祝 讜诇讗 讘讙”砖 讗”谞 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讙”砖 诪讜驻谞讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讜驻谞讛.

 

Tosfot explain that there is no possibility of learning lenient from strict, but rather that the meaning of the question is that there is a different way to learn from Korban Pesach back to ma鈥檃ser, and this is the way that Rabbi Yitzchak learned on daf 74a – 讙讝专讛 砖讜讜讛. We will examine the gemara there:

 

转诇诪讜讚 讘讘诇讬 诪住讻转 讬讘诪讜转 讚祝 注讚 注诪讜讚 讗

讜讗祝 专’ 讬爪讞拽 住讘专: 注专诇 讗住讜专 讘诪注砖专, 讚讗”专 讬爪讞拽: 诪谞讬谉 诇注专诇 砖讗住讜专 讘诪注砖专? 谞讗诪专 ‘诪诪谞讜’ 讘诪注砖专 讜谞讗诪专 ‘诪诪谞讜’ 讘驻住讞, 诪讛 诪诪谞讜 讛讗诪讜专 讘驻住讞 – 注专诇 讗住讜专 讘讜, 讗祝 诪诪谞讜 讛讗诪讜专 讘诪注砖专 – 注专诇 讗住讜专 讘讜.

 

The word from which we learn from ma鈥檃ser sheini is –聽 “讜诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 讘讗讜谞讬 诪诪谞讜”. This word appears many times with regards to the Korban Pesach, and so serves as the basis for the 讙讝专讛 砖讜讜讛 from Korban Pesach back to ma鈥檃ser sheini, and to the prohibition of the uncircumcised man from eating ma鈥檃ser sheini.聽

 

We will note that the Rambam brings a different source for learning that the uncircumcised man cannot eat from Terumah, which does not appear in our sugiya:

 

专诪讘”诐 讛诇讻讜转 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜谞讟注 专讘注讬 驻专拽 讙 讛诇讻讛 讚

讛注专诇 讻讟诪讗 讜讗诐 讗讻诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诇讜拽讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讻讚专讱 砖诇讜拽讛 注诇 讗讻讬诇转 转专讜诪讛, 砖讛转专讜诪讛 拽专讜讬讛 拽讚砖 讜诪注”砖 拽专讜讬 拽讚砖 砖讛专讬 谞讗诪专 讘讜 拽讚砖 诇讬”讬, 讜讟诪讗 砖讟讘诇 讗讜讻诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讛注专讬讘 砖诪砖讜.聽

 

The Rambam learns from a different 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讜讛 – from the words 拽讚砖 拽讚砖. Commentators on the Rambam comment on the gap between the Rambam and our gemara. Rabbi Yosef Kurkus makes an interesting comment on the Rambam鈥檚 language in this context:聽

 

专”讬 拽讜专拽讜住 讛诇讻讜转 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜谞讟注 专讘注讬 驻专拽 讙

[讚] 讛注专诇 讻讟诪讗 讜讻讜’. 讙诐 驻专拽 讛注专诇 讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 砖砖转 注专诇 诪讛讜 讘诪注砖专 讜讗住讬拽谞讗 讚注专诇 讻讟诪讗 讜专’ 讬爪讞拽 讬诇讬祝 诇讛 诪讙”砖 诪驻住讞 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 诪诪谞讜 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 诪诪谞讜 讜专讘讬谞讜 转驻住 诇讛 诪讙”砖 讚转专讜诪讛 讚拽讚砖 拽讚砖 诪砖讜诐 讚转专讜诪讛 讚诪讬 讟驻讬 诇诪注砖专 诪驻住讞 讜讘讛讜 谞诪讬 讬诇驻讬谞谉 讙”砖 诇诪讬诇讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 讜讚专讱 专讘讬谞讜 诇讻转讜讘 讛讟注诐 讗讜 讛诇讬诪讜讚 讛讬讜转专 驻砖讜讟 讗注驻”讬 砖讗讬谞讜 注讬拽专 讛讟注诐 讗讜 讛诇讬诪讜讚 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 谞”诪 诇注谞讬谉 讚讬谞讗 讜转讜 讘讻诇讛讜 拽讚砖讬诐 诪转专讜诪讛 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诇讛 讜诇讻讱 讻转讘 讻谉 专讘讬谞讜 讙诐 讙讘讬 诪注砖专 讚讬诇讬祝 诪转专讜诪讛 讜讻讘专 谞转讘讗专 讘讛诇讻讜转 转专讜诪讛 讚转专讜诪讛 讙讜驻讛 讬诇驻讗 转讜砖讘 讜砖讻讬专 诪讙”砖 诪驻住讞.

 

Rabbi Kurkus comments that the Rambam鈥檚 language in Mishneh Torah is not always precise, and the Rambam saw himself as free to use a simpler 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讜讛 which was made regarding a different law, even though the real drasha is that of Rabbi Yitzchak on daf 74. This is so that his writing will be simpler.聽

 

  1. Rav Sheshet鈥檚 answer

In the continuation of our sugiya, Rav Sheshet鈥檚 answer as to how we learn the law of the uncircumcised man regarding ma鈥檃ser, is brought. His answer is rejected, and the accepted answer appears on daf 74. We will examine Rav Sheshet鈥檚 answer and its rejection:聽

 

讗诪专 诇讛讜, 转谞讬转讜讛: 讛转专讜诪讛 讜讛讘讻讜专讬诐 – 讞讬讬讘讬诐 注诇讬讛谉 诪讬转讛 讜讞讜诪砖, 讜讗住讜专讬谉 诇讝专讬诐, 讜讛谉 谞讻住讬 讻讛谉, 讜注讜诇讬谉 讘讗讞讚 讜诪讗讛, 讜讟注讜谞讬谉 专讞讬爪转 讬讚讬诐 讜讛注专讘 砖诪砖, 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讘讘讻讜专讬诐 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘诪注砖专; 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗, 谞讬转谞讬: 注专诇 讗住讜专 讘讛谉, 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘诪注砖专!聽

 

转谞讗 讜砖讬讬专. 讜诪讗讬 砖讬讬专 讚讛讗讬 砖讬讬专? 砖讬讬专 讚拽讗 转谞讬 住讬驻讗: 讬砖 讘诪注砖专 讜讘讘讻讜专讬诐 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘转专讜诪讛, 砖讛诪注砖专 讜讛讘讻讜专讬诐 讟注讜谞讬谉 讛讘讗转 诪拽讜诐, 讜讟注讜谞讬谉 讜讬讚讜讬, 讜讗住讜专 诇讗讜谞谉, 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专, 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讘讬注讜专, 讜专”砖 驻讜讟专; 讜讗讬诇讜 讗住讜专 诇讘注专 诪讛谉 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗讜讻诇谉 讘讟讜诪讗转 注爪诪谉 诇讜拽讛 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘转专讜诪讛 诇讗 拽转谞讬, 讗诇诪讗 转谞讬 讜砖讬讬专.

 

Rav Sheseht claims that the mishna lists all of the prohibitions regarding eating of the bikkurim and Teruma, and says that all of these do not apply to ma鈥檃ser. If the prohibition of the uncircumcised man is also a difference between them and ma鈥檃ser – that he is prohibited from eating them, but is permitted to eat ma鈥檃ser, the mishna should have stated this. Since by ma鈥檃ser there is no mention of a prohibition to an uncircumcised man, there must be no difference between ma鈥檃ser and Teruma and bikkurim in this way, and just as the uncircumcised man is prohibited from Teruma and bikkurim, so too is he prohibited from ma鈥檃ser. The gemara rejects his words and claims that we cannot prove from what is missing here, as the mishna was written in the style of 转谞讗 讜砖讬讬专.聽

 

Rashi and Tosfot focus on particular words in the mishna in Bikkurim – “谞讻住讬 讻讛谉”. The mishna points out that Teruma and bikkurim are assets of the cohen, in contrast to ma鈥檃ser which is not. What exactly is the meaning of this phrase? We will look in Rashi:

 

讜讛谉 (讛谉) 谞讻住讬 讻讛谉 – 诇拽讚砖 讘讛谉 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讜诇讬拽讞 讘讛谉 注讘讚讬诐 讜拽专拽注讜转 讜讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讗讘诇 诪注砖专 诇讗 谞讬转谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讜砖转讬讛 讜住讬讻讛 讜讗讬谉 讗砖讛 诪转拽讚砖转 讘讜 讜住转诐 诪砖谞讛 专”诪 讚讗诪专 (讘”拽 讚祝 住讟) 诪注砖专 诪诪讜谉 讙讘讜讛 讛讜讗 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讜诇讗 讛讜讗 诇讙讘讬 转专讜诪讛 讜讘讻讜专讬诐 讗驻”讛 讞砖讬讘 诇讬讛 讜讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讘讘”诪 驻’ 讛讝讛讘 (讚祝 谞讙) 讚拽讜诇讗 讛讜讗.聽

 

Rashi points out that although from this mishna it seems that ma鈥檃ser is less holy than Teruma and bikkurim, as prohibitions pertaining to them do not pertain to it, the phrase 谞讻住讬 讻讛谉 points to ma鈥檃ser being stricter than Teruma and bikkurim. Ma鈥檃ser is property of Hashem and is only allowed to be benefitted from by eating, drinking, or anointing.聽

 

Tosfot too try to explain the unique status of ma鈥檃ser, which is lenient on the one hand, but property of Hashem, which makes it strict. Tosfot discuss the question of whether one can use ma鈥檃ser sheini in order to buy clothing for a living person, as a nafka mina to the question of whether ma鈥檃ser is really the property of Hashem or property of people, but with a special status:

 

转讜住驻讜转 诪住讻转 讬讘诪讜转 讚祝 注讙 注诪讜讚 讗

谞讻住讬 讻讛谉 – 讘驻专拽 讛讝专讜注 讜讛诇讞讬讬诐 (讞讜诇讬谉 拽诇讗.) 诪驻专砖 诇诪讛 讗诪专讜 讘讻讜专讬诐 谞讻住讬 讻讛谉 诇讬拽讞 讘讛谉 注讘讚讬诐 讜拽专拽注讜转 讜讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪砖讗”讻 讘诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讻讚转谞谉 讘诪住讻转 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 (驻”讗 诪”讝) 讜诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讘驻”讘 (讚祝 谞讜.) 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 注讘讚讬诐 讜拽专拽注讜转 诪诪注讜转 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜诇讻讗讜专讛 诪砖诪注 讚讚讜拽讗 讛谞讬 讛讜讗 讚讗住讬专讬 讗讘诇 诇讬拽讞 诪讛谉 诪诇讘讜砖讬谉 砖专讬 讜讻谉 转谞谉 讘诪住讻转 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 (驻”讛 诪砖谞讛 讬讘) 讜诪讬讬转讬谞谉 诇拽诪谉 (讚祝 注讚.) 诇讗 谞转转讬 诪诪谞讜 诇诪转 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讗专讜谉 讜转讻专讬讻讬谉 诪砖诪注 讛讗 诇讞讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚诪转 谞转转讬 讚讛讬讬谞讜 诪诇讘讜砖讬诐 讚讛讻讬 讚讬讬拽 诇拽诪谉 讙讘讬 住讬讻讛 讜拽砖讛 讚讘讬专讜砖诇诪讬 讗诪专 讘讛讚讬讗 诇讗 谞转转讬 诪诪谞讜 诇诪转 诪讛 讗谞谉 拽讬讬诪讬谞谉 讗诐 诇讛讘讬讗 讗专讜谉 讜转讻专讬讻讬谉 讚讘专 讝讛 讗住讜专 诇讞讬 讜诇诪转 诪砖诪注 讚讗住讜专 诇拽谞讜转 诪诇讘讜砖讬诐 诇讞讬 讜讘讻诪讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 转谞谉 讘诪住讻转 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 (驻”讗 诪”讝) 讚讗住讜专 诇注砖讜转 砖讜诐 住讞讜专讛 讘诪注砖专 讜诇讗 谞讬转谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讜砖转讬讛 讜住讬讻讛

 

聽讜讗专”讬 讚诪”诇 讚讛谞讛讜 诪砖谞讬讜转 讚讗住专讬 讗转讜 讻专”诪 讚讗诪专 (讘拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讚祝 谞讘:) 诪诪讜谉 讙讘讜讛 讛讜讗 讜讛谞讱 讻专”讬 讚砖专讬 讚讗诪专 (砖诐) 诪诪讜谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 讚诪砖诪注 讘驻”讘 讚拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 (讚祝 谞讚: 讜砖诐) 讚诇讬讻讗 讗诇讗 讞讚 住转诪讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛讛讬讗 讚砖专讬 诪诇讘讜砖讬诐 讗转讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 诪”诪 讬砖 讬讜转专 住转诪讜转 讻专”诪聽

 

注讜讚 谞专讗讛 诇专”讬 讚讛诪砖谞讬讜转 讗讬谞谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讝讜 注诇 讝讜 讜诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诇讗 讗住讬专讬 讗诇讗 注讘讚讬诐 讜拽专拽注 讜讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讗讘诇 诪诇讘讜砖讬诐 砖专讜 讜诪讚专讘谞谉 讗住专讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诪诇讘讜砖讬诐 讜讛讗 讚讚专讬砖 讘讬专讜砖诇诪讬 诇讗 谞转转讬 诇诪转 [讗讬] 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讗专讜谉 讜转讻专讬讻讬谉 诇讞讬 谞诪讬 讗住讜专 讗住诪讻转讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讬讗 讜讗讻讬诇转 讘讛诪讛 讚砖专讬讗 讘诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讘砖注转 讚讬砖讛 诇诪”讚 诪诪讜谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讛讜讗 谞专讗讛 讚讘砖诇讗 讘砖注转 讚讬砖讛 讗住讜专 诪讬讛讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜诇诪”讚 诪诪讜谉 讙讘讜讛 谞专讗讛 讚讗住讜专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诇讛讗讻讬诇 诇讘讛诪讛.

 

Tosfot鈥檚 challenge points to a contradiction in the mishnayot. On the one hand, there are mishnayot which forbid buying clothing with ma鈥檃ser coins, but there are other mishnayot which allow this. Ri suggests two possibilities in order to solve the contradiction between the mishnayot:

  1. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda argue as to the question of whether ma鈥檃ser is property of Hashem or of people. Rabbi Meir, who thinks that this is property of Hashem forbids buying clothing with it, and the mishnayot which forbid it go according to his opinion. The mishnayot which allow it go like Rabbi Yehuda who thinks that ma鈥檃ser belongs to people.聽
  2. Ri鈥檚 other solution withdraws from this suggestion and claims that there is agreement across the board that ma鈥檃ser is property of Hashem. The prohibition of buying clothing is merely a rabbinic prohibition, but on a Torah level, in addition to eating, drinking, and anointing, buying clothing is also allowed. The rabbis were the ones who decreed this, and the passuk which is used as a proof for this prohibition is not really the source, but just an 讗住诪讻转讗.聽

 

Tosfot, as is typical of them, bring wide ranging knowledge from other sugiyot, and using challenges and solutions, return to the same conclusion that was brought in Rashi, but through examination and discussion of parallel sugiyot which talk about ma鈥檃ser. Tosfot enrich our knowledge on a number of levels.聽

  1. We understood that there is a tannaitic dispute regarding the question of whether ma鈥檃ser is property of Hashem or of people. Additionally, we understand that Rabbi Yehuda determined that it is possible to expand the use of ma鈥檃ser and that it is available for all one鈥檚 needs. We also saw that Rabbi Yehudas opinion is rejected and that Rabbi Meir has the upper hand.聽
  2. We learned that there is a prohibition against buying clothing with ma鈥檃ser money, but must still contemplate whether it is on a Torah or rabbinic level. Ri in Tosfot leaned towards saying that it is rabbinic, and that the limmud in the Yerushalmi is merely an asmachta. We will also mention that a different tone arises from the Rambam, and it seems from him that this is a Torah prohibition:

专诪讘”诐 讛诇讻讜转 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜谞讟注 专讘注讬 驻专拽 讙 讛诇讻讛 讬

诪注砖专 砖谞讬 谞讬转谉 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讜砖转讬讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗讻诇转 诇驻谞讬 讬”讬 讗诇讛讬讱, 讜住讬讻讛 讻砖转讬讛, 讜讗住讜专 诇讛讜爪讬讗讜 讘砖讗专 爪专讻讬讜 讻讙讜谉 诇讬拽讞 讘讜 讻诇讬诐 讜讘讙讚讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 谞转转讬 诪诪谞讜 诇诪转 讻诇讜诪专 诇讗 讛讜爪讗转讬 讗讜转讜 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽讬讬诐 讗转 讛讙讜祝, 讜讗诐 讛讜爪讬讗 诪诪谞讜 讘砖讗专 讚讘专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 讻讙讜谉 砖诇拽讞 诪诪谞讜 讗专讜谉 讜转讻专讬讻讬谉 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 讛”讝 讗讜讻诇 讻谞讙讚讜 讘转讜专转 诪注砖专.聽

 

Summary:

Tosofot in our sugiya help us on two levels – the first in the simple reading of the sugiya and clarifying the question of the gemara, and the second, thanks to Rashi, in adding knowledge of other sugiyot and disputes surrounding the character of ma鈥檃ser sheini. We should merit to continue to collect more areas of knowledge of Shas with the help of the rishonim who stand on the side of the road and help us on our journey.聽

 

Rabbanit Yael Shimoni

Rabbanit Shimoni has learned at Migdal Oz, Matan, and the Susi Bradfield Women鈥檚 Institute for Halakhic Leadership at Midreshet Lindenbaum. She holds a BFA from Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design and a BEd in Torah Shebe鈥檃l Peh and Jewish Thought from Herzog College. She is currently studying towards an MA in Jewish Thought Education at Herzog College. Rabbanit Shimoni taught gemara and halakha at Pelech High School and served as a ramit for shana bet at Migdal Oz. She directs Meshivat Nefesh, the online responsa program of the rabbaniyot of Beit Hillel. She is also a plastic artist and member of 鈥淎 Studio of Her Own.
Scroll To Top