When I recently spoke with Abrach Bnei Torah about my conclusions on the matter of Sugi' Datchalat, in my request to bring up the matter in writing, and the matter is divided into two parts, first of all the clarification of the opinion of the arbitrators if there is an obligation to impose Techalat at all, and related to that and the ramifications of the issue of Techalat in our time, and also.. .!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen


When I recently spoke with Abrach Bnei Torah about my conclusions on the matter of Sugi' Datchalat, in my request to bring up the matter in writing, and the matter is divided into two parts, first of all the clarification of the opinion of the arbitrators if there is an obligation to impose Techalat at all, and related to that and branching out to the matter of Techalat in our time, and likewise to the matter of where The strings of the tzisit for the one who casts azure on his blanket [not yet brought here], and this began with the help of Zuri.

Here, first of all, regarding the mitzvot of light blue with a tzitzit, it was decided according to the opinion of the Tani'im and as it seems to me that the light blue and the white do not hinder each other, even though it is forbidden to wear a tzitzit without a tzitzit in any place, the Idna permitted to wear a tzitzit without a light blue, and simplicity is because it is not If there was a blue sky, then something was allowed that would have been forbidden if there was a blue sky, and as will be explained more below in the words of Mordechai.

And indeed, it is explained by some of the great jurists that it is forbidden to wear a tassel without a blue dress while there was a common blue dress, and it was not allowed except in rape.

Although it should be noted that, on the other hand, some of the great judges believe that even while it was worn, it was not an obligation to wear it, but only a compilation and commandment of the elite only.
And if a garment that requires a tzitzit without any tzitzit threads at all [in a place where it is possible to cast them] there is a prohibition against canceling the mitzvah of ``Asa, and it is forbidden to wear this garment, in any case if there are already white threads in this garment, it is not forbidden for him to wear this garment without light blue, but only a mitzvah from the elite .

Attributed to the Israel Defense Forces

First of all, we must bring the language attributed to the Rashba in the rabbinate of the sky [Menachot Lech 11 45 May] that Wzal wrote, I Nami I did not write from my hand and he is silent in his prayer, he is a believer, he hinders me from the mitzvah and without tarivahi, he does not There is a mitzvah from the chosen one and that is why he wrote it.

And here is a book attributed to the Hashva as it is known that Hafetz Chaim and the Gra Vaserman trusted it even though they knew it was not from the Hashva.
And there are many books whose authors are not known to us. We know from the book that the author was greater than Kamai, like everything in it and additions to many tractates.
And it is well known that the HH took the trouble to print the aforementioned essay.

Joshua's face

And also the writer Hafni Yehoshua [bm sa ev 4h betos] who brought the words of the tos about hanging a tree in his garment that passes over him from the time of hanging, and then he wrote VZL, who is the late Rabbi Dhai Shtola Klaa Ilan in his clothes were those who are sold to others in possession of azure.
And the meaning seems to me to be necessary that he is aliba dahlakta daha ki'l kelet does not hinder the white and later comes out in white separately and the teket is written in Orita we were a mitzvah from the chosen one and if so according to the 17th it is difficult why did he call the exodus from Egypt in tzitzit daha kala Ilan did not detract from the white one The blue is not because of a decree, and if so, it is permissible for Shiri to do kala Ilan unless it is a mitzvah from the chosen one like blue, and if so, there is no cheating involved in this, except that it is necessary for those who are sold to others.

And we find in his words that Tela interpreted the words of the Toss as he defined them as dela as the lekta, and it seems that his intention is that the words of the Toss are according to the system of conditions that state that he does not have a white collar, he does not cast white, and as he wrote about them and Zal, A tassel is the main thing, and on this Deitztrich wrote to pass over it from the time of hanging, so it seems clear to me in the intention of the Tos Akal, which is not the case, the Rash, who interpreted that it is known to others and is for the sake of theft and dishonesty, interpreted it as a permanent sentence because the light blue does not hinder the white, and there is nothing in this matter Total prohibition.

Edit the table

And it is necessary to add the words of the Aruch HaShulchan [OTH 39 C9] which discusses the matter of a bed sheet with a tzisit which is linen, according to those who believe that a tzisit is not put on it at all from the words of the scribes, a ruling that he should not put a blue cloth on it which is wool, and wrote Vazal, and it is not a question of the method This is the most important rabbinate of the mitzvah, and he made a dauriita for wearing a garment of God's wings with no tassels at all, but really they asked this in the Gemara [Yavmoth Tzab] and you want to desheb and do not do if they are able to dislodge and even in the case of Dain it is to return and don't do daha that does something to the wearer you want to be in toss There is a hump, a real wrapping is not binding until another is wrapped, and after it is wrapped, let him return and do not do so.
On the contrary, the first method is difficult for me, why did the Gemara think that a sheet with a tuft, in the removal of a word from the Torah, that a linen tuft fulfills the mitzvah? Akal [the Rambam], and since one casts a white piece of linen there is a mitzvah of doing, and there is no displacement of anything from the Torah at all and Tzag Akal.

And here, from his very words, why didn't he excuse the first of these people to be of the opinion that this is a prohibition from the Torah, since even though he brought the Rambam's language that the simplicity of his intention that he fulfilled a mitzvah he did and did not transgress the prohibition , MM After all, there is no difficulty with Rambam's language regarding the first-timers who disagree with 17, but rather it seems that the Hoh Pashita Lia in the simplicity of the issue that it is not possible for there to be a prohibition at all in wearing white without light blue, and therefore Hoh Adifa Lia to stand by the Tsa than to settle yes.

It is true that if Baal al-Aruch HaShalchan had seen the words of the first ones who forbade this thing completely lawfully nullifying the mitzvot of 'Asa [which are the previous stipulation and more] it is possible that he would have made an excuse that the first ones who believed that cutting a sheet with a tzizit is to cast a white person without a light blue thought that there is a prohibition in this, and as indeed the Baal of the PMG went on to explain Yes [in Shoshant Haemakim 32].
However, the opinion of the Arusha Gopi, who believed that there is no prohibition in this, was disputed.


It is true that the PMG Gofia [in his book Rosh Yosef Shabbat Kaha A.D. Sedin] again wrote Vazal, here is what Rashi wrote [D.H. They obliged and dismissed box vessels as the Toss [Da Sedin] and he is not his disciples as the 25th and Petri and imprisoned in the prisons because of nightcaps. In Tos' Tzizit, stand up and do what you want to do (in the MA we extended my disagreement with this like Mordechai and it was brought up in the 28th chapter of the 13th chapter) and Rashi of the A.S. thought they would only do a mitzvah from the chosen ones that they did not do Tkalat Kahag Shoa "Mkrei Dodai, the Torah did not forbid a daughter of God to wear veils without the blue of all who have God, a white thong (even if it is not according to Mordechai's opinion) and what would I do if Rashi God of Habin means that they were not circumcised at all, contradicting here and perhaps not according to your law, but God is for them of their kind As the mash of the Tos' to the Rashi and the mash of the Tos' D.H. Sedin to Rabbi Amram, refer to the Mor'am of Lublin, the late Dain NM, Kabbash Dainhu AKP of Darbanan Asri, and the late Rsha, La nicha li' In this, Danm regarding Dempsal's testimony, the Shabash MH, did not deny it to the LT and Luka, MH and his students, only from Darbanan, from a statue, and MASHA, Pi. The addition DKA Darshi Samokhin in wars there is an excuse for this and I understood from his words as the Tossh Rish Yavemat Nima Ifka instead of tassels you shall not wear and you shall leave Dammila the sabra yes and in the B.S Saberi Demzi to Milf from his head Dasha Dechi LT and wrote in Tzizit Dela Dehi and Amash in Sefer Purat Yosef of this Ya'ash Akal of the PMG.

And what is the meaning of his words here, who believes that there is no prohibition from the OT, apparently contradicting his words in Shoshant Ha'amkim, which he wrote to clarify the opinion of those who believe that the prohibition of a sheet in tzitzit is only in light blue, as we wrote to explain the words of the Arosh, and it is also not clear if he believes that it is permitted from Daoriyata, so what Ral Shab And don't do that I am, and it means that he is, and so what was the opinion of the makhshan in Gm' Dibmoth that he made a sheet with a tzisit because it was not reasonable for him to forbid it.

The holiness of Yot

Refer to the sanctity of the Yot Rabbi Hatchelet [C. 35] which the GCC took from the words of Rashi Datchelet is nothing but a commandment from the chosen one and later it also came out in white.
And extended there at that.

The lands of life

In the lands of life for the Malbim, the Gach is proven by his words, which he considers to be the opinion of the Holiness Yot in this matter, as was proved by the teacher of the Gara Garboz Shalita in his words, Handafsin in S. Shalmi Yosef, Menachot, Ch. And according to what he explained and forced there already in the TotoD, we saw no need to duplicate the things here.
And there this necessity also came from the words of the PMG, although we saw above a contradiction in the words of the PMG in this.

More recent ones

Refer to S. Ishr and Tov (Pietarkov 1556, also printed in the new Asifat Zakanim) Minacht Leh AA who extended that the blue is nothing but a commandment from the chosen one, and stated according to himself there Gach in S.P. Hacometz, but that he took the language there to begin with, etc. "Q, it is possible that he believed that there is a Durbanan ban or that the permit is only retrospective and I did not look at all of his words.
And see there also what he discusses about this method in the Issues section [page 27b of the book].

And in the Hoshat Hari Pemisim [HA of the Dok 37] Wzal wrote, however, for the LB Darshii, it is not kai diuka dahshas, only a mattalit in the eighth part of it is a lieshna in a tablit in the fourth part, even in retrospect It is invalid because they were marked in the mirror [and according to Rabbi DSL the white hinders the light blue] and a matlit bat 8 will not be brought because of the above concern and the language is therefore accurate a matlit bat 8 and difficult as above but 11 Dershii In my opinion, it is permissible that the Tos' brought by Rabbi Hatchelet and Rabbi Sanhedrin above named Dayin Bat in the number of the Hutin and it is allowed to add as much as one wants and also to the above Rabbi Drashi that the proof is a cloth of Bat 4 Gach apparently difficult isn't it? Afi' according to PM DKIL, it is permissible from one garment to another, even if it is not placed in the other garment, it is forbidden, as explained in the Tos' Shabbat that I brought above and in AH C. 15.
And if anyone who wants to make a more beautiful tassel is allowed to fulfill a mitzvah of the chosen one, this is to me and we will do it as explained in the 16th chapter of the same book. The dilemma is the fear that the priest will leave, according to his opinion that they are all blue in order to put white threads under them to fulfill a mitzvah of the chosen one. "M ZAZ But for the beginning of a mitzvah with a light blue and a white one, in order to fulfill a mitzva from the chosen one, one is permitted from garment to garment. And Tsa in this Akal.

And in the Shashat Hitcherot Tshuva [HA C. 19] wrote and Zal, the question of whether a deusk is exempt from the mitzvah if he also deals with the matter of a mitzvah which is only like a mitzvah and does not delay the mitzvah in retrospect if in this too he is exempted from a complete mitzvah.
It seems to me to bring evidence that deals only with the compilation of a mitzva in Alma Deftor even from a finished mitzva from a sukkah page 26 AA Datanya said Rabbi Ben Akavi wrote Tom books they and their challenges and their challenges and all those who are engaged in the work of heaven for those who sell Techelet Petorin from Kash, etc. And of all the mitzvahs mentioned in the Torah, here is a light blue for a tzitzit, and not specifically for priestly garments, and a light blue does not hinder the white and it is issued by a mitzva without a light blue. If so, a model is proven. Since it is a finished mitzvah to delay it, why did he resort to the signs of the sellers of azure, link to the signs of the sellers of a tzisit, but surely to hear the Dafi' of sellers of azure, which does not delay the white, Nemi is exempted, and this is explained, since Deushin in the work of the Creator is exempted from the work of a different mitzva, because Dakbar found out that he read Deusk A minor mitzvah is exempt even from a severe mitzvah as explained in Sogi' Shem and the entire answer must be extended in this Shem Akal.

And as 33 he discusses in the book Emek Sukkot about Sukkah 21a, [further printed in the collection of interpretations and essays "Old wine in a new jug" about Sukkah p. Taranch] and in his main words he pointed out to the Jewish Rabbinate that the entire tuft is called blue, and from M. Barash "Y doesn't mean yes.
And yet, between the deserters of the Awakening Tshuva and the deserters of the Sukkot Valley, they discussed what they thought about the fence of the charge in the blue in Tzitzit.

And it seems that if he thought that it was a complete obligation on the part of the law, he would have divided and emphasized the matter and not closed Delfinan from here to the compilation of a mitzvah.

A.A. in Sefer Shalmi Yosef [Manchut HCV 3. RICH] Deuteronomy from the author of the Garba Garboz Shalita, and in B. Habetzlet Hasharon [S. Deuteronomy HCV p.
And in Eilat at dawn that we will read below.


And the Habarbanel wrote [in Madbar 15:60] and Zal, and said, "And make them a tassel on the wings of their clothes for their generations, to say that even in the following generations, if the Israelites do not wear coats, they will make a garment with wings and make them a tassel [A. In the OT, as well as in the Ari and is attributed to the Hagra and more].
And this explains the error of those who say that if he wishes not to wear a tallit with four wings, he is not required to wear tzitzit matzot [that is, the opinion that blue hinders white and a butterfly for wisdom is a justification for calling Aliba dahlakta, so he does not come to reject conditions].
And he said and we put a light blue thread on the tuft of the wing to say that that mitzvah will shine in their silence.
But if he doesn't have azure blue, he will get out of his duty with white threads, all akal.

And it is possible to prove from any place mentioned by the rabbis that the word mitzvah is from the chosen one regarding a light blue which is not obligatory, and the dress code [Okh C. H.] and Zal, and if so when they bless with a tzitzit in Fatah, by necessity it also means with a special tzitzit And the clarifications, and we would be blue which is the main mitzvah of the tzitzit if it is found, and if so at this time when there is no blue tzitzit, the blessing with a tzitzit in Fatah is a vain and false blessing, which is as if he is saying to wrap himself in a blue tzitzit and that he fulfills the mitzva now and wraps himself in a blue tzitzit which is a commandment of the chosen one. And that's a lie.
Therefore, it is better to say in the Shoa, which means in a tzitzit, that is, even if I am unable to keep the mitzvot of the chosen ones, MM mtzot tzitzit I fulfill.
That's why I say the blessing in tzitzit in Fatah, it's a complete mistake.

And since he mentioned in his words a mitzvah from the chosen one about blue sky, I don't know if there is a necessity in his words that it is not an obligation.
And the words of clothing are known in his introduction to wearing the light blue, which he wrote, I called it the light blue dress because just as a person is obligated to wear light blue with a tzisitz every day if he can find it, he must dress himself according to these rules every day if he has the opportunity to do so, and it means that he believed that it was an obligation, and therefore also a commandment From the selection that he wrote above, it is possible to interpret it as an obligation, although there is no clear necessity here in his words to the other side, since in many places we find that they interpreted a light blue on a purely white tassel, even for a white one, and according to Rashi's Kms. To wear a tassel and not to shirk a mitzvah, and as Rabbi Katina said, Lia Malacha, and it is also possible that an obligation is a mitzvah from the chosen one, as we mentioned in the language of an obligation for the obligation to intercede even in things that are not an obligation, and as will be proven below [and with this it is already possible to justify that the person is obligated on a real blue sky].

If he has such a garment, the caller is not liable.
And if he finds it, he can include in his words, according to Mordechai, that if he does not find blue, he is allowed to wear the garment and is not obligated to exempt himself from any obligation.

And also in the Shtmaq [Minachot MA] in the name of the Tos' externalities he wrote, and not as the answer of Rashi [who believes that on a white sheet without a light blue] Amai Kamer a tzisit, whatever it may be on it, can we keep it in kind, and it should be said that the main thing is a tzisit of a light blue is and the main mitzvah Of the chosen ones, he is careful, and so is the one who dismembered what he was lighting [Shabbat 15], etc., until they would have made the wings of a cup from it, and if they had a tassel of their own kind, why would they hide it except because they did not have a blue one, the main reason for the Mitzvah is a tassel with that.
And it seems that it is impossible to prove from his words that a mitzvah from the chosen one is simply not an obligation, although it is also impossible to prove the opposite, and what is the main law of the punishment for a blue collar, see what is written below.

Evidence from the words of the

And in all that is being discussed here, we must not forget the simplicity of the words of the Toss [Manchut MA 1A] written by and Zal, and it is necessary to push Ha Dashra Rabbi Zira to its sheets, we were a blue tassel and Malacha Nami (Lakman page Ma.
) Damer to Rabbi Katina Sedina in Keita Tzitsit, what will happen to Alyah Tsittsit from the chosen one, ka Makfid, etc. Akal.
And it happened to be a tassel from the elite.

And I saw in Eilat HaShahar where he wrote, explained in the Toss of Menachot page 11 A.A. a model who does not do a mitzvah of the chosen one will be punished in the era of Ritha and Dato's shout, whoever buys a less fancy etrog will be punished and it is possible for me that it is a compilation written in the Torah to impose a tkalat akal.
And M.M. treated it as a compilation of the written Torah and not as an obligation.

Evidence from the words of Mordechai

And it should be noted that according to the words of Mordechai [Hel. Tzisit of the LKT 3. Titkmad] which was written by the late Rabbi Shlomo, says Rabbi Shlomo requires that if a person is deprived of a thread of a tallit on Shabbat that he is not allowed to wear it until he repairs it. Wings, and Rabbi Dalithia replied as Damokh in Shematin DA'G Daipsik in Carmelit Darbanan No Hoi Shiri [NA and Hoi Shiri] for the sake of the respect of the human beings do not dahinan but not do not pass, therefore it seems to Rabbi Dma Dzitzit nothing but to cast a tassel on him When we got dressed and the scripture did not say in the language you shall not wear a garment that has four wings without a tassel, then surely the law was with him, but only to put a tassel on it, and in any place there is no tallit, it is forbidden to wear it, and it is not permissible to wear it, nor does it pass because it is not now possible to put it on, since it is Shabbat and on the sand, it must pass every hour which were worn with a tassel in it, etc.

And here is what came out according to the words of the Rabbi from the requirement stated in Mordechai that if white and light blue were equal to each other, it was forbidden to wear a tassel without a light blue even when it is not present, since it is forbidden to wear a garment with wings without a tassel even when there are no tassel threads at all, and May He hates a light blue that is permitted, as they said [Minachot Lech 12] He does not have a light blue cast for a white person, and because they say to a person a sin in order for you to gain, that is, he sinned in the mitzvah of light blue in order for you to gain the mitzvot, for a white man, and we do not find a sermon to permit the prohibition of light blue that one cannot rebuke a mitzvah for a white man without It.

It is true that according to the Rabbi quoted in Mordechai there is no necessity for one of the parties here, since the Rabbi personally believes that if there is no white tassel, it is permissible to wear the garment without a tassel, and even more so if there is no light blue, one is permitted to wear a tassel with only a white one, which fulfills the mitzvot of a tassel in retrospect. "P.

And there is a reason to say that the opinion of the Rashid is required. It is heard in the opinion of R. Deed here that it is not peligi, but whether it is permissible to wear a garment without a white tassel when there is no light blue, but not peligi on the basis of what is the desiring of the Idna to wear a tassel without a light blue if it is on behalf of the above of R. Or which is on the grounds that teklat is not an obligation of mana, and Mordechai himself who brought the opinion of the Rash Medrosh Gach does not mainly disagree with the above account, but it is possible that it is not obligatory except in the opinion of the Rash Medrosh but not in the opinion of Rabbi.

In the opinion of Shuat Binyamin Ze'ev

I also saw that Rabbi Ariel pointed out to the Mash in Shu'at Binyamin Ze'ev [endnote] wrote and Zal, and let him not be likened to you who makes Tzitzat Laban Dadin remains from the mitzvah and it is not a complete mitzvah for he who does not do it is blue and his likeness is like one who puts on a tefillin of a single hand or The prayer of the head alone is death in tefillin when he puts on one of the mitzvahs of the first mitzvah and leaves another mitzvah, that is, the second prayer, but with the tzitzit, even if he does not put on blue, he makes the mitzva complete in its essence except that it is not dyed and perishable, and this does not hinder it. It hinders the white and the white does not hinder the light blue duff on the back of a damzu to give the light blue of B. a thong in the tzisit of the APA it does not hinder it and I did not work the four light blue or white came out as defirshi etc. Akal.

MM it seems that there is no evidence for our case, his opinion is that there is a complete mitzvah in this and MM there is still a discussion about the detail of Techelet whether it is a detail that is obligated in it or not.

In the opinion of the TPAI

I also saw that he pointed out to the Mash Hatfa'i (in his preface to Seder Moed, "Rules for the Holy Clothing of the Priesthood") and the late, therefore, from a light blue color inhibits whiteness, and Ika feared that Atanz, for the most invalidated in the days of the Geniuses to be completely light blue.
Even in this there seems to be no clear evidence, it is possible that his intention was that it was the agreement of all the Geniuses to amend this regulation (and this is the opinion of the Chav on his part), or it is possible that there were other additions of the decree of the king or that they should have brought the MAI in such a way that they were not obliged by the principle of the law to bother In this, but surely it is an answer to the above opinion.

The opinion of the great teachers of our time

And it seems simple that we found in the majority of the great teachers that they did not refer so much to the obligation of wearing light blue on the part of Halacha, it is founded on the basis of this opinion that light blue is not an obligation from the law, and in any case any reference to it accordingly.
And I heard about one of the great Rabbis who said in Sinai to one of his young students that it was a simple and agreed upon thing in his opinion that it was the light blue that was customary at that time, but that the harm in it for his students to wear is more than the benefit (from the owner of the rumor), and of course this is about yeshiva boys who are subject to their rabbis, and a guy who is not subject to his rabbis and even Not to the Sages of Israel, and doing what one's heart desires can result in harm, but everything depends on the matter, because everywhere this is considered disobedience to the Sages of Israel.

And here is a rule that is found in the judges that hindsight is like the time of blood pressure, and every time of pressure is like blood pressure, and in any case for our purposes, regardless of the fact that there is a matter of punishment even in a mitzvah of the chosen one, and as they said the punishment of a white person is greater than the punishment of a blue one, and some of the first learned that this was also the case with the punishment of Idan Ritcha , it was intended for a tzitzit without a light blue, and as stated above, and in truth also according to the rulings that Rabbi Katina did not cast a tzitzit at all in his talisman, then he was exempt from the law, he was empowered by the sages to disobey a mitzvah in Shev and do not, but he was punished for what he did not oblige himself to the mitzvah according to the words of Rabbi Yona, known in the Shaari Teshuvah Gate C.
And in any case, it does not appear that all of your rabbis were wrong about the sub-item that there is a punishment for those who do not put on the blue of their veil, since the punishment also belongs to the mitzvah of the chosen one.

And it should be noted that in the Zohar we also mention in several places that it speaks of punishment for things that are not lawful at all, and refer to Beit Yosef [Och C. 3] in the name of Rabbi Yona regarding the matter of touching a married person, [Vazal there, and after I wrote all this I found Rabbi Yona who wrote in the Book of Awe (Dah, these are the words) and this is his language, and if he urinates while standing, he must be careful not to touch her forehead unless she is wearing a crown and down to the side of the earth, even if he is married, because after that the punishment is so great that it is like bringing a flood to the world, so a person has to stay away and sanctify himself, even in what is permitted And so our holy Rabbi from his days did not put his hands below the Avanto (Shabbat Kih:) Akal and it seems that our Lord continued after him and wrote if it is not decorated and down to the side of the earth and even if he is married but he shortened it in the place he had to extend and interpret the Hassidic law of a year here and not from the Akal law B. B.].
Furthermore, it should be noted the words of our Rabbi Jonah in the Book of Awe regarding the matter of being united with his daughter.

But in fact the law is as above, that in anything that is not an obligation from the law, even if in a normal case there is a legal punishment for it, a punishment for a mitzva from the chosen one, in any case, the reward of a mitzva is calculated against the loss, and included in this is the rule that the reward of one mitzva should be calculated against what can To lose a ziz from other mitzvot by grama or by hand, and of course everything depends on the matter, broadcasting fees in the place that goes with it or in any way that does not cause any harm, the question is already different, and it still has to be discussed with other matters such as changes in mitzvot in our time which are dangerous, as well as a teaching against the great teaching In Sana'a and Parhasiya and in fact he will make a wise question.

The detection probability of the morax snail

And here I saw to Tomi in several places that the general reference by those who sat on the studies belonging to the identification of the blue snail, that from a scientific and research point of view it seems that this was the snail that existed at the time of the Sages, since there is clear evidence that this snail was used a lot in their time for dyeing, and also for blue dyeing.
And in any case, it would be remiss to say that their snail was a different snail, since we did not find that they warned sages against the prohibition of dyeing the tassel from the same snail that the whole world uses except them.

The level of the obligation to cast this azure is from the Halacha

But when we come to discuss this from the point of view of Gadari Halacha, if there is an obligation today to wear a light blue, we will not find clear reasons to oblige at all, first of all because there are some judges that we follow who wrote that wearing the light blue with a tzizit is not an obligation, and there are already some of the latter who have adopted that as long as it is not clear that the halkha is a man in number The threads, anyone who casts blue on his talisman loses all of the mitzvah of the tassel completely according to the opinions that he cast an incorrect number, and see what Rabbi Daniel Galis elaborated on this in his article printed in Moriah.

Does it belong to conditioning?

And what we argued in the Beit Midrash is that it is appropriate to make a condition that one does not intend to use the light blue color in the threads that are not an obligation [that if the caster according to the opinion of the Rabbis or Rambam makes a condition that if the light blue color is harmful to the tzitzit acids he intends not to go out in them, or if the caster according to the opinion of the Toss makes a condition that if he is obligated to use fewer threads Alo intends to go out only in the color he is obligated to wear], it really seems that it is impossible to say that the second sex will wear it and intend to go out in it for the first sex, and it should be noted in this the language of the Chazoa [C. In B. C. 9, he brought the opinion of the rishonim who disagree about Rashi and the Rabbis, that in their opinion white is not the color of the talit at all, and that the talit is not absolved by it except for a mina chal dakl that is not a light blue color. "For the tassel of the color of the wing, it is written on a white garment and the threads of the tassel are white [but it is not a condition in the law of the mitzvah that the color be of the same color as the garment, but that it should not be light blue] and according to the reason that God said the light blue threads are obligatory, and if God made the light blue Nemi kosher, that's what he said The stipulation that this is not true but the will of the Torah is precisely in two species, and if he did all of D'Hotin's light blue, the mitzvah would not be light blue, and if the tallit is light blue, it is not possible to make the white from the type of the tallit, but rather from a different species.

And for the fear that you should not add [who raised a claim in the BHMAD that if it is not light blue, it passes without adding] It is very possible that such a condition would be useful, since really on the side where there is no light blue, it is like the rest of a painted white.
And the Ilan prison should be discussed separately whether it belongs today or not [and it is a matter of discretion].

Additional concerns

And indeed, several more claims were heard in the Beit Midrash about the possibility of resuming voting today, and even though it seemed to the Anad Dam everything was benign other than that, it would not seem to Dina to trust Kola on the above claims, each for his own reasons[1], in any case, since there are already the above reasons, we can add them and add to them, since there is still room to discuss these things, especially since they are things that belong more to discretion, and since the great teachers of our time have already written that the matter is not decided yet, we do not have the power to argue about them and decide on it.

Still in the opinion of the great sages

And here Hazinan Dakhl Rabnan Kashishai did not refer to the question of the blue sky at the level of halacha, and even the Gerhak zt'al in his answers in a biased opinion it seems that the answers are not at all from the halachic side, for example in Alma Meshak there on the words of the Maharil, and this is a simple matter that in his opinion there is no The condemned in general is something to be discussed about as clear to all the source there, and on the other hand I also heard from his student Rabbi Uriel Shlangar who discussed with him the evidence in the book Luot Techelt and the Gerach told him about the words of the Levite that this is a beautiful piece of evidence, and similarly I heard from the Gerach's grandson Tzvion that he heard from his mouth as if This is about what is translated in the past as Teich Porfur Wahl (I don't remember the exact wording of this), [and it seems that his intention is that since we called it that way were translators abroad, so it was found that as a form of tradition it was customary for them to say that the name of the blue in the spoken language was Porfur], and with all this regarding The halachic question, his opinion is known regarding actual wearing, in fact there is no guesswork here.

And it is also known the opinion of some of the rabbis in writing and in the AP, that although in terms of probability it seems that the identification turns out, but with regard to wearing according to Halacha there is no doer, each for his own sake, such as Gersh Nadel and Germ Shafarn who wrote yes in writing, and more from the rabbis whose names we have heard rumors about such It's each one on his behalf, Garbad Klein and Garbad Diskin and more.

And it seems that there is a view here of the Torah scholars who are well versed in the mitzvahs of the Torah, which says that it is very difficult to almost impossible to reproduce such a mitzvah without a tradition, apart from all the claims made here, there is another claim that in the opinion of the Torah scholars is very weighty, not only that there are many deficiencies in the dyeing and casting of the blue , but also the problems that may arise from observing such a mitzva without a tradition, we will never know, and for example in Alma if we were to try to reconstruct the Lulav from the Gemara only without the rishonim (since even the rishonim did not have a blue sky in order to make us hear all the laws pertaining to it in the rest of the Torah, and there are not many rishonim on All the matters of the azure, as in the rest of the tzitzit laws) we will never know all the types of wrongs, such as a slik in a straight line and what is crooked before and after it, etc. And if we only had a species of mullein (something that could easily have been created over the years if there had been a legal ban on growing triangular mullein for example) that were not triangular, we would have said that the Sages did not intend for a complete trinity, and also according to the way, and this is roughly the spirit The well-known statements of the above-mentioned Garnak on the matter of azure in the second thread book, which actually changes the whole face of the issue of azure, that the discussion does not end at all when it becomes clear whether it is azure or not, and even when we accept the words of science as reliable that the type of purple was used to dye the azure, there is still no here The obligation of the Halacha to cast a veil, and all the casting of the initial doubt and the lack of need to find out the research on the subject is only as an appendix and as an ignorant addition to the main claim.

And this is why you noticed the Rash who will live their times in their hands to check the studies on the subject, God they will live, that although as is known most of the knowledgeable who were interested in the study of the azure and the snail, tended to say that the identification turns out, but the issue does not begin and end with the question of identification and as a SNA.

Last method

To sum things up, even though the common and simple opinion among the puskims is that there is an obligation to cast the azure, and there is a scientific probability that this is the ancient azure, in any case, since the opinion of many puskams, including some of the greatest puskams that we follow, is that there is no obligation to throw azure in the tzitzit, and since there are certain concerns about this azure, and also We have seen most of the great teachers of our time withdraw their hands from the imposition of this azure, therefore there is certainly no fear from the beginning on the part of the court to prevent its imposition, and so on until this becomes more widespread throughout Israel.

Addition after time

In the matter of the article on blue is not mandatory

Yeavi' in the Shua Okh C. Sha Salah who goes out with a tallit that is not crimped according to the law is obligated because those threads are important to him and his opinion about them until he completes and makes a tassel, and if it is crimped according to the law even though it does not have blue, it is permissible to go out with it on Shabbat Akal , and he wrote there in the Bayagra Skatz and Zal, a.f. as a rabbinical name there, and even in the worst, since he does not have the mind to complete the above-mentioned Akal, and wanted to say that he is not going to fix it at all, and here in raids from Meiri while there is a blue sky and he can make a blue sky However, there is no need to come to court, the light blue does not hinder the white, and even if he has light blue, he is allowed to go out in a garment with white threads on it on Shabbat, not from the opinion presented in Mordechai that on Shabbat there is no obligation on him because even if it is not decorated according to the law, it will be It is permissible to go out on Shabbat because it cannot be repaired on Shabbat, but only because the condition is that something is needed that is not ready to be repaired at all and does not need to be repaired at all, and only after this condition is met will it be important as it is not ready to be repaired and it will be permissible to go out on it on Shabbat, and the reason for this is that a garment that has white threads in it is not a garment that does not have a tassel, such a garment of white threads is not going to be completed at all.


And Yaoi' further in Rashi Menachot Ma EB DHA except for Kela Ilan, who wrote on the grounds that it would be ruined if he took Kela Ilan instead of Teklat in Tzizit and Zal, and one of them was found to have passed away in Kela Ilan for a light blue onion and two of Kela Ilan with a white one in Tzizit and Oi Kailaim Without the mitzva of Akal, and it is clear from his words that the whole fear is in the form of a name that he will throw the prison Ilan in possession of a light blue and then violate the prohibition of kalaim, but the fact that he wears a tassel with a white man without a light blue is not a reason to make a decision because of this, and the model in Gebra Dayit Lia a light blue is what we are dealing with, However, it is not a prohibition to cut because of it, but only because of the hybrids as above.

And Yaoi' there again in Thos. 15, and if he brought what he wrote to Mai Defirsh in the counters, he decla Ilan instead of white is invalid because it is similar to light blue, and there are not two species here, it is difficult, from a crisp dilemma, Hai Baryta Karbanan, Drish Perkin Damri, there is no light blue hindering the white Akal, we were That the Toss makes it difficult, why is it not justified by the Bariyata that Ilan prison is not exempted, considering that the white man is a hindrance, and the Madan considers that if he brought kosher as a man, the white man is not hindered, according to the explanation of their words, and here is the language if he brought kosher, it is included in this for the understanding that he is not obliged to permit the tassel and redo it , and it is clear from this that there is no prohibition to wear a garment that has light blue instead of white, and on the contrary, daha baha tlia and both of them together were said in the words of Rabbi Barish Perkin.

However, it should be noted from the second commentary in Rashi that Rashi took to the main point that it really follows that a son without techalet would have to permit and do it with techelet if he has techelet, and as such, this is the reason why Rashi did not make the difficulty of the toss difficult for him because the more he means to her that he does not hinder is not the permit Finished, but according to the first interpretation in the Rashi and the PD the Tossh comes out as above that there is no prohibition to wear a garment that does not have light blue, only from the Delhatos it comes out that in the first place such a tassel of one kind is not to be made but in the Parshai in the first interpretation There is no evidence for this ruling that it would be prohibited in the first place from the Rashi, not from Meiri, except from a fear of prisons (and even the Toss is not proven that way, they agree with the conclusion that they did not say anything but a settlement proposal for the difficulty of the Hajm' to interpret yes in the words of the Berita and to settle the Hagm's difficulty according to the second interpretation of the Hajj, but no It will be explained that this is their opinion of the Halacha that it is forbidden to make such a tassel in the first place).

And although the Shtmk and the Hagma interpret 33 as in the second part of the Barshi, but it is still not proven from this interpretation that there is a prohibition against white without light blue, the Dmm has a regulation mentioned in the gm there that does not prevent one from doing as the main tikkun of the mitzvah of two species even if It does not violate a prohibition.


A general comment on the matter of light blue

The state of affairs today is that the majority of scientists have given a positive attitude to the issue of blue matter, and the majority of halachic judges did not take it seriously at all or even expressed reservations explicitly, and the question arises because these and these are acting logically and intelligently, so what did some see to strengthen the matter and others to negate the matter, and the answer to this is Everyone when he comes to discuss something discusses it in his field of occupation and expertise, therefore a scientist when he comes to investigate the matter of azure focuses mainly on the question of whether or not there is evidence that this species was used in the past for dyeing or not, and the answer is yes, because this is how science proves that in the past there was a species called porphyra, some of which exist The day that was used for dyeing clothes, however, the man of halacha who came to examine the issue of blue-blue, the focus of the investigation is not directed to this issue, but even if we accept the assumption of scientists who used this species for dyeing in the past, there is still much to examine and learn, and a mitzvah that depends on colors and shades and an ancient dyeing process and to clarify a species that has A certain animal or a certain species or certain characteristics or even a certain family, and other disputes that have not been decided in Halacha, are very difficult to reproduce in practice, and until we manage to solve and decipher one question even if we trust all our decisions there is still a lot to discuss about other things.

What comes out of this is that in addition to reason, emotion is also at work here, and we mean that after the scientist sees how solid and proven the evidence is and proves this specific point, then all the other halachic questions can be given to narrow and less precise excuses, and since in matters that concern halachic, almost any proposal can be put forward The Ramban says that there is no such wisdom as the wisdom of Tashvorat, which has one and only answer to every question, (and by the Ramban and other rishonim regarding Zakan Mamra), but in order to rule on practical halachicism, people who have learned the issues of the halachic tzitzit for practical halachic gafat and Tobiah, And they have experience in halachic rulings on many other issues.



[1] And in short, with regard to the exact shade of coloring, it is difficult to say that it is an obstacle like the impurity of the blood of the Hendah Madorita which hinders an exact shade, because for the sake of simplicity the words of the Tosefta are not strict except that it be from a snail, nor have we found in the Sages a single person who ordered a certain shade, and rather in comparisons of the shade of light blue according to What was brought forth in the Sages and various midrashims and the Zohar we found that everywhere a different tone was brought forth.

And regarding the company of the Rishonim, if the marks are inserted into the gun during the drawing, here is the Zev that the overwhelming majority of the Rishonim believed that the marks should be inserted, which includes the opinion of the Tos, the Gaonim, the Rambam, and the Radek? Ravuta, and as explained in 2 Halachot Tzizit even more than that, see there, (and apart from this here, if a khashush is in his opinion, it will only be for the koala), and also in this chalzon AA to paint without markers, and it is clear that AA that the chalazoon will correspond to all the methods of the rishonim in the places that were divided In the interpretations of the issues, they themselves did not see the snail, and Segi, which agrees with the opinion of some of the first, and moreover, Aliba Dahalkalta also believes that Rashi does not insert the markers into the shoot, mm. There was no shortcoming, and they just pressed it there according to May DSD which changes the color and together with that the color is made, so the color becomes not only a snail, and on that you can do whatever you want, but in a way that does not participate at all in the way there is no SDD that would have a defect in it .

And I've heard it said that if we use this azure, we should be concerned that in the future another azure will be found that will be more precise and there is no end to the matter, since there have already been different identifications in the past, and finally this identification has come, so we are afraid that another identification may emerge in the future. to the claim as 17, but it seems that this claim mainly belongs to those who are outside the investigation of this identification, but anyone who has already been interested and has gone into the depth of this type [even though there is no obligation to do so according to the Mishnat, mm those who have already done so], will see that A to compare one to the other, since there is a very large distance between Radzin's blue, which was not based on any findable, literary, or historical evidence, and the morax, which was certainly used for coloring and is very well-founded, and when the extracts were not many, and in contrast, there was no epithet Hacham A. of the natural sages who took seriously the identification of Rabbi Dradzin, the Morkas I know and my acquaintances who agreed to the plausibility of this identification dozens of extreme and well-known there (and they are among the greatest of Israel), and in contrast this identification is also agreed upon and accepted by the natural sages [although there is not always Halachic weight according to the wisdom of the natural sages], and to all of this it should be added that the identification of the morax far precedes the identification of radzin, both among the sages of Israel and among the natural sages in contrast, and the identification of radzin is a short affair that began between the time when the identification of the morax was already raised by various sages and its circulation and publication, until it faded away Radzin's identification and he went as he came (and today there is no one who wore it on his own opinion and based on his own understanding).
And it seems to me that those who remain in the mentioned claim are more people who have not seen this kind of thing up close.
But it will already be explained that this is not the issue to oblige the Halacha to impose a blue sky.

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

B. K. Sa. A. This is how I accept all the morals, etc. They do not say a word of Torah on his behalf, and it is difficult since he commanded them to go and take risks. A response to the language of King David begins with the word "Who shall I drink water" etc. will go...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

B. K. Sa. A. This is how I accept all the morals, etc. They do not say a word of Torah on his behalf, and it is difficult since he commanded them to go and take risks


The language of King David begins with the word who in our Hebrew is known as I ask you that one of you will go and drink water, etc., although when we look at the Aramaic letter, the meaning of the letter "mi" means something that is avoided, such as who you thought, etc. And in a similar usage, we also find in some readings that used the language of who to express something that is forbidden, such as who knows the strength of your spirit (Psalms 36:11) and who knows the wise man will be, etc. For many others, the so-called question language is nothing more than a matter of prevention and the absence of reality.

And it must be interpreted with the taste of what God simply says in the interpretation of "Who will draw water" in this way, since this is how it is explained at the end of the things and he attributes them to God, who did not say their names, and it does not appear that He sent them.

And it should also be added that it does not appear that what David meant when he said "Whosoever will draw water" is for them to go and water him, it is the way of a king to reveal his opinion in this way but to command and command, and from what he said in this language, he did not mean that they should go and water him but as above.

And it must also be said that the GAM must interpret it as such, since it does not appear that David asked that for the sake of his studies and his Torah they risk being monitored, since according to Halacha one should not risk for the sake of clarifying Halacha or Din, and this is what David meant by what he said, who is my old man in the above manner.

BK Set AB Gabi Measer AAG Dammon is high, etc. Gabi Kerem Rabi AAG Dla Mamon Didia is, etc., and why did the language change between Mesher and Karam Rabai?


There was a place to say Dashigra Dalishna in the Alma is because of the issues of Dobpaschim and in the Sukkah on the tithing of a high amount of money is to Rabbi Meir, but from the change of the language pedia and profanity it seems that there really is a different definition in the tithe which is a definition of holiness and in Karam Rabi which is a definition of prohibition, and most of all remember about the tithe of the language pedia which was taken from another authority , and on the back of the tongue, blasphemy is mentioned, and it is easy to understand.

And M.M. in the question 22 about the language of the variable in the Gm, I would suggest to Katar to look at manuscripts and books that I have collected, such as the book grammars of Maharrab Neta Rabinovitz and the complete grammars of writers, as well as the Friedberg project.

BK AA AA, why is the word Emeri mentioned several times in the subject


It is known that there were many Amorites from the order of the Gam' after it was written, and therefore there are tractates and issues that are written in the special language, like the first ones regarding tractates, and also 20 a few other first ones on a number of vows whose language is different, and also 20 on a number of a monk, and the things are known, and I. In the order of Kabbalah for the Harabad, it took many years for Rabbi Ashi's students to get the Gam' in order, and it is known that some of the issues of the first 20 are from Rabbi Saburai and Achmal.

BK AA AB, and I did not say to you in the Orta, I ate in Shara Datorah, and the verse there (DA DLA) wrote that it was Rui in the fast.
Why don't they interpret it literally?


A. in Shovat Shlomat Chaim Yod Sacha who had a hard time with this, and T. Shem Dakhion Daran was married to Debi Nashirah A.K. He must have had meat every day, and in Shovat Aterat Paz HA volume 3 set "7 20 Yes and he further added that this is what was difficult Gach Rashi that Gach did not interpret as simply, and A. Yahbetz who expanded on it.

And perhaps it should be said in another way that Rabbi Nachman believed that he had an educational benefit in the Torah, of course, that G-d would let him eat it, and as Ihu Gofia said about wine in Erobin, 1900, before he repeated his words that he would like to drink wine first, so that it would be reserved for him, 17 Da'ta Tsiluta, A.S. (and A.A. in the words of his rabbi in the Bible on the issue of wine), and A.C. the reason he did not eat meat even though he thought it was good to eat it was because he was fasting.

Because of Sumachus, they said that they pay double payments and he pays three times for a month and two years for a ram, why didn't Shar and Sheh take a lickshana dekra.


The answer to this is clear, that since it is about payments of two years and three years, they took the Ishaq that speaks of two years and three, which is the written two tithes for a cow and two tithes for a ram, and they took a silent sign of Damanchot just as we found that they took a silent word that is similar to it in many places, the Ishak regarding theft payments that speaks About four past five does not belong here because there is no four past five here.

מגילה יב ע"ב

מה שהקשה רבי צבי אליהו שטינברג [רו"כ יששכר באהליך ב"ב] במ"ש במגילה י"ב ב', ויאמר המלך לחכמים מאן חכמים רבנן ידעי העתים שיודעין לעבר שנים ולקבוע חדשים אמר להו דיינוה לי אמרו היכי נעביד נימא ליה קטלה למחר פסיק ליה חמריה ובעי לה מינן נימא ליה שבקה קא מזלזלה במלכותא אמרו לו מיום שחרב בית המקדש וגלינו מארצנו ניטלה עצה ממנו ואין אנו יודעין לדון דיני נפשות זיל לגבי עמון ומואב דיתבי בדוכתייהו כחמרא דיתיב על דורדייה ע"כ.
ולכאורה הסנהדרין הוו מצו למימר לאחשורוש דאין דנין ד"נ בשבת, וממילא היו נפטרין מלדון דין זה.

תשובה הנה ע"ז מצי אחשורוש למימר להו שמחוייבים לדון כן מחמת מצות המלך ופקו"נ [כדקי"ל שיש חילוק בין מלך ישראל למלך גוי לגבי הפסקה בק"ש], משא"כ כשאמרו לו שאינן יודעין עי"ז ניצלו לגמרי.

עוי"ל דמה שאין דנין בשבת הוא רק בצורת דין תורה, משא"כ הכא יתכן שלא היה אלא בקשת חוו"ד.
ותי' ראשון נראה טפי.

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

שאלה שלו' וברכה איתא בש"ס בכמה מקומות הכלל "מים גנובים ימתקו" וגו'. האם כלל זה נאמר בכל איסורי תורה או רק באיסורי עריות (שכן בכל המקומות בש"ס שהובא, הוא לענין איסורי עריות. וכן גם יש ללמוד מהמשך הפס' "ולחם סתרים ינעם" וכמו שפרש"י ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen


שלו' וברכה

איתא בש"ס בכמה מקומות הכלל "מים גנובים ימתקו" וגו'.

האם כלל זה נאמר בכל איסורי תורה או רק באיסורי עריות (שכן בכל המקומות בש"ס שהובא, הוא לענין איסורי עריות.
וכן גם יש ללמוד מהמשך הפס' "ולחם סתרים ינעם" וכמו שפרש"י בסנהדרין ע"ה.

ויש לזה נפ"מ הלכתית, שבגמ' סנהדרין כ"ו: למדו מכלל זה שהחשוד לא נאמן להעיד על הדבר אף לאסור ע"ש, וא"כ נפ"מ אי לא נאמן רק באיסורי עריות וכבסוגיא שם, או אף בכל איסורין כמו איסורי אכילה וכדו'.

יישר כח גדול וחורף בריא



כ"ה תשרי תשע"ז

הנה בגמ' בסנהדרין שם לא קאמר אלא דס"ד לומר כן, אבל למסקנא ל"א לזה, ומ"מ גם אם היה נראה דאמרינן כלל זה גם בשאר מקומות, אבל מה אעשה דבכל מקום שמצאתי לזה בדברי רז"ל לא נזכר פסוק זה אלא גבי איסור עריות, בסנהדרין כ"ו ב' איתא, וז"ל, אמר רב נחמן החשוד על העריות כשר לעדות אמר רב ששת עני מרי ארבעין בכתפיה וכשר אמר רבא ומודה רב נחמן לענין עדות אשה שהוא פסול אמר רבינא ואיתימא רב פפא לא אמרן אלא לאפוקה אבל לעיולה לית לן בה פשיטא מהו דתימא הא עדיפא ליה דכתיב מים גנובים ימתקו וגו' קא משמע לן דכמה דקיימא הכי שכיחא ליה ע"כ.

ובשלהי נדרים דף צ"א ב' איתא וז"ל, ההוא נואף דעל לגבי דההיא אנתתא אתא גברא סליק נואף איתיב [בכלאי] בבא הוה מחתן תחלי תמן וטעמינון חויא בעא מרי דביתא למיכל מן הנהו תחלי בלא דעתא דאינתתא אמר ליה ההוא נואף לא תיכול מנהון דטעמינון חויא אמר רבא אינתתיה שריא אם איתיה דעבד איסורא ניחא ליה דליכול ולימות דכתיב כי נאפו ודם בידיהן פשיטא מהו דתימא איסורא עבד והאי דאמר ליה דניחא ליה דלא לימות בעל דתהוי אינתתיה עלויה מים גנובים ימתקו ולחם סתרים ינעם קא משמע לן ע"כ.

ובס"פ בן סורר בסנהדרין ע"ה א' איתא וז"ל, דאמר רבי יצחק מיום שחרב בית המקדש ניטלה טעם ביאה וניתנה לעוברי עבירה שנאמר מים גנובים ימתקו ולחם סתרים ינעם.

ובסוטה ז' א' איתא, לא אם אמרת בנדה שכן יש לה היתר תאמר בסוטה שאין לה היתר ואומר מים גנובים ימתקו וגו', וכ"ה בירושלמי פ"ק דסוטה ה"ג ובמדרש במ"ר פ' נשא פ"ט סי' ל"א.

ומה שהזכרתם מדברי רש"י, יעוי' עוד ג"כ בשכל טוב פרשת וישב פרק ל"ט ו' וז"ל, כי אם הלחם אשר הוא אוכל.
יש לומר כמשמעו ממש, אלא אמרו רבותינו לשון נקי הוא, כדכתיב ולחם סתרים ינעם (משלי ט יז), וכן חבירו מוכיח עליו, כי אם אותך באשר את אשתו (פסוק ט), לכך אוכל מלא ו' כתיב, לדרוש בו גבורי כח לשון אכילה ולשון ביאה, כשדרשינן ע"כ.

אמנם כתב ביד רמ"ה סנהדרין דף ע"ה א' חולק ע"ז, וז"ל, ולחם סתרים ינעם גבי דבר עבירה כתיב במשלי ודרך משל הוא ויש אומרים לחם סתרים כמו כי אם הלחם אשר הוא אוכל לאו מילתא היא דהתם לאו איתתיה קאמר (דלא) [דהא] בלחם ממש קאי והכי קאמר ולא ידע אתי מאומה כלומר מתוך שהאמינני על ממונו לא ידע אתי מאומה אינו יודע מאומה מכל ממוניה כי אם הלחם אשר הוא אוכל כשאני נותן את הלחם לפניו יודע בלבו שיש לו לחם לאכול תדע דקראי מוכחי דהכי קאמר דכתיב מקמי הכי הן אדוני לא ידע אתי מה בבית וכל אשר יש לו נתן בידי ע"כ.

ומ"מ גם לפירושו נראה דקאי על עריות דהרי לשון הכתוב כך הוא (במשלי ט, יג-יח): (יג) אֵשֶׁת כְּסִילוּת הֹמִיָּה פְּתַיּוּת וּבַל יָדְעָה מָּה: (יד) וְיָשְׁבָה לְפֶתַח בֵּיתָהּ עַל כִּסֵּא מְרֹמֵי קָרֶת: (טו) לִקְרֹא לְעֹבְרֵי דָרֶךְ הַמְיַשְּׁרִים אֹרְחוֹתָם: (טז) מִי פֶתִי יָסֻר הֵנָּה וַחֲסַר לֵב וְאָמְרָה לּוֹ: (יז) מַיִם גְּנוּבִים יִמְתָּקוּ וְלֶחֶם סְתָרִים יִנְעָם: (יח) וְלֹא יָדַע כִּי רְפָאִים שָׁם בְּעִמְקֵי שְׁאוֹל קְרֻאֶיהָ:

ואמנם במשלי היכן שנאמר זונה הוא משל לע"ז כמש"כ ברש"י ריש משלי, אבל מ"מ חזינן שקבלו חז"ל פסוק זה בעריות.

וכן נ"ל להוכיח מהתרומת הדשן (פסקים וכתבים סימן קכ"ב) שכ' וז"ל, כדמסיק באלפס כל הגונב כאלו שופך דמים, ר"ל הרי גנב שבא במחתרת חשביה ליה תורה כאלו שופך דמים, ובע"ז כתיב ארור האיש אשר יעשה פסל ושם בסתר שגנב, ומחביא פעולו וגילוי עריות הכל דרך גניבה הוא במסתרים, וכדכתיב מים גנובים ימתקו דדרשינן אאשת איש.
פי' דאין מונעין מהן ומאימתי מונין להן, תמצא בפי' באלפס קצת סותרים שם הדברים זה את זה עכ"ל.
ומבואר מדבריו שהעמידו פסוק זה על אשת איש.

והטעם שהעמידו כן, עי' ברפ"ב דחגיגה דגזל ועריות נפשו של אדם מחמדתן ועריות אפילו שלא בפניו.


!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

{בע"ה אור ליום ב' לסדר ויחי תשע"ו} היאך ישן יעקב ע"ג קרקע א) מה שהקשה היאך ישן יעקב ע"ג קרקע, הרי אמרו בברכות ס"ב ב' כל משכב שכב חוץ מן הקרקע, ומאידך קשה מדתניא בפ"ו דאבות תניא ועל הארץ תישן ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

{בע"ה אור ליום ב' לסדר ויחי תשע"ו}

היאך ישן יעקב ע"ג קרקע

א) מה שהקשה היאך ישן יעקב ע"ג קרקע, הרי אמרו בברכות ס"ב ב' כל משכב שכב חוץ מן הקרקע, ומאידך קשה מדתניא בפ"ו דאבות תניא ועל הארץ תישן ובתורה אתה עמל, וצ"ע.

Answer לא הבנתי ההכרח שישן יעקב ע"ג קרקע, דשמא פירס סדין וישן, והאבנים היו להגביה ראשו [ואבן אינו כקרקע], או לחצוץ מפני חיות רעות, [ופלוגתא היא בין הגמ' בחולין צ"א להב"ר כאן, אע"ג שרש"י הזכיר תרוייהו בהדי הדדי], אבל מנ"ל שישן ע"ג קרקע, ובלא"ה אין דברי הגמ' איסור מצד הדין, וגבי יעקב היה אקראי בעלמא, ומסתמא לא היה לו אז כלום, כפשטות דברי רז"ל גבי מעשה דאליפז, ומה שהביא ממתני' דאבות היינו באופן שצריך לזה כדי שיוכל לעסוק בתורה, כמ"ש שם רש"י דאין הכונה שחייב לעשות כן, אלא שאם א"א לו לעסוק בתורה אלא אם יחיה חיי צער הללו, אפ"ה עדיפא ליה עסוק בתורה, ופשיטא כיון דאינו איסור בעצם, דאם א"א לו לישן במיטה אא"כ יבטל תלמודו, דלא יבטל לימודו לצורך זה.
ובלא"ה קרקע מצינן למימר כעין קרקע, היינו ע"ג סדין, וכדאמרי' במו"ק כ"א א' וישכב ארצה כעין ארצה שכפה מיטתו וישן עליה.

למה הוצרך יעקב להבטחת ופרצת

ב) מה שהקשה עמ"ש רש"י שקיפל הקב"ה כל א"י תחתיו רמז שתהא נוחה ליכבש לבניו, [ובנ"א נוסף כד"א של אדם הקונות לו], א"כ אמאי בירכו עוד ופרצת ימה וקדמה וגו', הרי כבר לא היה צריך לזה.

Answer הנה עיקר הקו' לא הבנתי, דהרי כל הקיפול הלזה היה רק סימן בעלמא, וא"א לקנות קרקע שאינו שלו, וגם היה רק בחלום, ופשיטא שהעיקר הוא מה שמתברך להדיא מאת ה', אכן מ"מ י"ל ע"ד קו' זו, דב' הבטחות נאמרו כאן, ומ"ש שתהא נוחה ליכבש לבניו, היינו בעוה"ז שהוצרכו ליכבש, היינו שיעור שקדשו עולי מצרים ועולי בבל, אבל מ"ש ופרצת וגו' שזוהי נחלה בלי מצרים כמ"ש בשבת קי"ט, היינו לעתיד לבוא, דהנה עיקר גבולות א"י היה הרבה מאוד יותר ממה שכבשו עולי מצרים ועולי בבל, כמ"ש ושתי את גבולך וגו', וכמ"ש רז"ל בספרי ובמכילתא דרשב"י פ' בא דלעתיד לבוא ירשו גם את ארץ ג' עממין קיני קניזי וקדמוני, וזהו נחלה בלי מצרים שנאמר לו בפעם הב' ופרצת.
וע"ע רש"י בפ' ויחי בפסוק ברכות אביך גברו על ברכות הורי.

ג) מה שהקשה כת"ר מ"ט לא חשש עשו מצערו של אביו כששלח את בנו להרוג את יעקב, דהרי לעיל (כ"ט י"א) כתיב יקרבו ימי אבל אבי ואהרגה את יעקב ופרש"י שלא אצער את אבא.

Answer מה שלא שייך לתרץ בזה דעיקר חששו היה שאביו יכעס עליו שהוא הרגו, ולכך שלח את בנו, חדא דלישנא דרש"י שם לא משמע אלא דבאמת היה אכפת ליה מצערו של אביו, ועוד דבתנחומא נזכר שהוא עצמו רדף אחר יעקב להרגו במערה, אלא נראה דיצחק היה סומא ועשו לא חשש שישים יצחק לבו למיתתו של יעקב אלא בעוד שיעקב בן בית, וביום א' יעלם, משא"כ אם אינו בבית יש לתלות שלא ישים יצחק לבו לכך ולא ידע מזה לעולם.

ד) בהא דכתיב (ל"א כ"ו כ"ז) ויאמר לבן ליעקב מה עשית ותגנוב את לבבי וגו', למה נחבאת לברוח ותגנוב אותי, ופרש"י גנבת את דעתי, והקשה כת"ר מ"ט לא פי' כן ברישא, לא הבנתי הקו' דהא ברישא מפרש קרא שהיה זה גניבת לב, היינו גניבת דעת.

ה) ומה שהק' ממ"ש הריטב"א חולין צ"ד א' דלא אשכחן בתורה ל' גניבה סתם שתהא הכונה גניבת דעת, אלא רק כשנזכר גניבת לב, וק' מדברי רש"י כאן.

Answer איני יודע אם יש הכרח דהריטב"א מפרש כפרש"י, ואדרבה לפירושו ניחא טפי מה שכפל ב' גניבות, דהראשון היה גניבת לב והשני היה גניבה ממש, היינו גניבת התרפים או הבנות או הרכוש [כמ"ש ומאשר לאבינו עשה את כל הכבוד הזה, היינו שראו זאת כגניבה].

ועוי"ל דכאן הרישא דקאמר ותגנוב את לבבי מפרש לסיפא, ולא קאמר הריטב"א דלא אשכחן אלא היכא דכתיב סתמא לגמרי.

ו) בחולין צ"א ב' אמר הקב"ה צדיק זה בא לבית מלוני ויפטר בלא לינה, מיד בא השמש, וצ"ב באברהם כשהלך להר המוריה ויצחק שהלך שם לשוח בשדה, מ"ט בדידהו לא נאמר כן.

Answer עיקר הקפידא כאן נראה משום שרק נפגש בזה בדרכו, ולכך הוחלט מן השמים לעכבו עוד, משא"כ אברהם ויצחק שהלכו בדעת לשם, וקבעו את המקום יותר לא הוצרכו לעיכוב שיתעכבו שם.

והנה מה שנזכר על יעקב בשלב זה הוא שידע שהוא מקום שנתפללו שם אבותיו, אבל עדיין לא ידע ש'אכן יש ה' במקום הזה', וכדמסיים 'ואנכי לא ידעתי', ולכך משמים רצו לעכבו.

ז) כתיב (כ"ח ט"ז) אכן יש ה' במקום הזה ואנכי לא ידעתי, ופרש"י, שאם ידעתי לא ישנתי במקום קדוש כזה, והקשה הגר"ז ברלין [ר"מ דגאון יעקב] דהרי כך היה רצון ה' שיישן שם כנ"ל בתשובה לפנ"ז.

Answer מ"מ לא היה לו לזלזל בכבוד המקום, וגם הוא לא ידע מכך, ומה ששקעה לו השמש תחילה זה כבר היה אתמול ולא ידע עדיין.

ח) מה שהקשה הגר"א כץ נ"י מ"ט נזכר גבי ראובן ראיה כי ראה ה' בעניי, וגבי שמעון שמיעה כי שמע ה' כי שנואה אנכי.

Answer לא הבנתי הקו' דבאשה אחת קיימינן, שקראה את בניה גם על שם ראייה וגם ע"ש שמיעה, ומה שהקדימה ראיה לשמיעה אפשר שעיקר מידת ה' בראיה יותר מבשמיעה, כמ"ש עיני ה' המה משוטטים בכל הארץ, וכתיב ארדה נא ואראה הכצעקתה הבאה אלי וגו', חזינן דעיקר הנהגת הקב"ה ע"י מידת ראייה יותר מבשמיעה.

ואם כוונת כת"ר להקשות מ"ט גבי עוני נזכר ראיה וגבי שנאה נזכר שמיעה, כנראה ששנאה הוא דבר המתפרסם מפה אל פה, משא"כ עוני, ומאידך עוני הוא דבר שבחזותו אין נסתר כ"כ, משא"כ שנאה הוא דבר הנסתר פעמים רבות, ולכך מנהגו של עולם מצוי שהכרת השנאה תהא ע"י שמיעה והכרת העוני תהא ע"י ראיה.

ט) מה שהקשה הגר"א שפירא [ר"מ דבאר יעקב] מ"ט פעמים מתרגם אונקלוס שפחה 'לחינתא', ופעמים מתרגם 'אמתא', והביא בזה כמה דוגמאות, נ"ל הכלל בזה הוא דכל היכא שנזכר מצד מה שהיא שפחה, כגון שהיא שפחה של פלוני, אז נזכר ל' אמתא, וכמו בלהה שפחתו (כ"ט כ"ט), וכמו אמתי בלהה (ל' ג'), וכמו שפחת זלפה (שם פס' ט' י' י"ב), או גבי שפחה גמורה כמו הגר (בכל פרק ט"ז), משא"כ היכא שאין הכונה למה שהיו בלהה וזילפה שפחות, אלא רק מצד הם בעצמם שזהו שם הכינוי שלהן, בכל כה"ג נקט לישנא מעליא 'לחינתא' דהיינו פילגש, כיון שהיו פילגשים אחר הנישואין, דכאן לא נצרך לאשמעינן מידי על מה שמעיקרן היו שפחות.

י) בסוף מו"ק כ"ח א' אמרינן בני חיי ומזונא לאו בזכותא תליא מילתא אלא במזלא תליא מילתא, וקשה לפ"ז מ"ט אמרה רחל על לאה אלולא שצדקה ממני לא זכתה לבנים.

Answer אפשר דהוה קים לה שמזלותיהן שוין, וא"כ ע"כ שזהו מצד מעשיה הטובים, שבישראל יכולין לעקור המזל.
ואפשר עוד דמזלא היינו מזל הבעל, וכמו באמת גבי עובדי דמייתי במו"ק שם ובשבת קנ"ו א', וא"כ כאן הרי היו נשואות לאדם אחד.

יא) מה שהקשה עוד מהו ההדגש במ"ש (בראשית ל' א') כי לא ילדה 'ליעקב', דסגי במ"ש כי לא ילדה.

Answer נראה דטובא הוה אכפת לה, דאם היתה יולדת בן גרידא לא היה מועיל לה, דהאמהות היו מחזרות להרבות שבטים, ורק מיעקב היו יכולות לזה.
וגם יעויין באג"ק של הסטייפלר, דעיקר תקות האשה בעולמה הוא שיהא לה בעל האוהב אותה, ובל"ז הרי הן ממש כאלמנות חיות, ובודאי האמהות לא גרע טבען מטבע שאר הנשים בזה, וכמ"ש הפעם ילוה אישי אלי, הפעם יזבלני אישי, כי שכור שכרתיך, וגם כאן רצתה דוקא מיעקב כנ"ל.

יג) מה שהק' עמ"ש רש"י (כ"ט ל"ד) הפעם ילוה אישי אלי שהאמהות נביאות היו, מ"ט לא פירש כן כבר לעיל גבי ראו מה בין בני לבין בן חמי.

Answer אין דרך רש"י להוסיף הקדמות והערות ע"ד המקרא, אלא רק לפרש דבור דבור על אפניו, כמ"ש הוא בפ' בראשית, ולכך לא היה מה להוסיף בפי' המקרא אם היה מוסיף זה שם, דאדרבה בפסוק שם נזכר טעם אחר, ורק כאן מבאר עי"ז יותר את הכתוב, ופשוט.

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

נשאלתי, האם בזה נהנה וזה אינו חסר חייב בדיני שמים? שהרי לדברי הפני יהושע בסוגיא דב"ק עיקר החיוב של זה נהנה וזה לא חסר הוא משום הנהנה שבו. ‏תשובה הנה מה שנפסק שהדר בחצר חבירו שלא מדעתו פטור, וא"צ להעלות ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

נשאלתי, האם בזה נהנה וזה אינו חסר חייב בדיני שמים? שהרי לדברי הפני יהושע בסוגיא דב"ק עיקר החיוב של זה נהנה וזה לא חסר הוא משום הנהנה שבו.

הנה מה שנפסק שהדר בחצר חבירו שלא מדעתו פטור, וא"צ להעלות לו שכר, כ"כ בשו"ע חו"מ סי' שסג ס"ו, דקי"ל זה נהנה וזה אינו חסר פטור כמבואר שם, והנה אם מוחה אסור כמבואר שם, וכ"ז אם מוחה בדבר דהוי מצי למיגר, אבל במידי דלא הוי מצי למיגר הביא הפתחי תשובה שם בשם הנוב"י דיש מן הפוסקים דס"ל דבמה שא"א לו להשכיר ולהרויח כופין על מידת סדום, וא"כ ה"ה כל היכא שנהנה בלא להפסידו, אם אינו מוחה למה יהא אסור לכתחילה.

אבל בענין שיהא חייב בדיני שמים, הנה לכאורה לא עוד שפטור בדיני שמים אלא שרי לכתחילה, לפי מה דגרסי' בבבא קמא צ"ז א' וז"ל, בי רב יוסף בר חמא הוו תקיף עבדי דאינשי דמסיק בהו זוזי ועבדי בהו מלאכה א"ל רבה בריה מ"ט עביד מר הכי וכו' א"ל אנא כרב דניאל סבירא לי דאמר רב דניאל בר רב קטינא אמר רב התוקף בעבדו של חבירו ועשה בו מלאכה פטור אלמא ניחא ליה דלא ליסתרי עבדיה, ומבואר דשרי לתקוף עבדים, וה"נ בבית שיש בו טעם של ושאיה יוכת שער או דביתא מיתבא יתיב סגי בזה שיהא מותר.

וכן נראה ממה שאמרו בב"ק כ"א א' דהטעם לפטור הוא משום ושאיה יוכת שער או משום דביתא מיתבא יתיב, וכתב ברש"י שם וז"ל, שנאמר ושאיה יוכת שער שד ששמו שאיה מכתת שער בית שאין בני אדם דרין בו והלכך זה שעמד בו ההנהו לישנא אחרינא בית שהוא שאוי ויחיד מאין אדם יוכת שער מזיקין מכתתין אותו.
ביתא מיתבא יתיב בית שהוא מיושב בדירת בני אדם יתיב ישובו קיים לפי שהדרין בתוכו רואין מה שהוא צריך ומתקנין אותו עכ"ל רש"י.
ולפ"ז מסתבר דפטור, דכיון שהטעם הוא משום שמהנהו לכאורה א"כ בכל גוני יהיה פטור.

אכן כ"ז בבית שיש בו הנאה לבעה"ב, אבל לפ"ז בית שאין בו הנאה לבעה"ב לא יהיה ראיה שפטור לשלם לבעה"ב גם בדיני שמים, מככיון שאינו מהנהו.

אמנם ראיתי שכתב במהר"ם מלובלין שם וז"ל, משמע דבין לרב הונא ובין לרב יוסף צריך לומר שיש הנאה מה לבעל החצר במה שזה דר בו אי משום דשאייה יוכת שער או משום ביתא מיתב יתיב אבל אם אין לו הנאה צריך להעלות לו שכר ולעיל איתא אתמר אמר ר' חייא בר אבין וכו'.
אמר רב הונא אין צריך להעלות לו שכר משמע בכל ענין ונראה דהכא איירי בבית שיש קצת חסרון לבעל הבית במה שזה דר בו דהיינו שחרורית דאישייתא לכך מצריך קצת הנאה שיגיע מהדירה לבעל הבית כנגד אותו מעט חסרון עכ"ל.
ולפי דבריו אין ראיה לא לכאן ולא לכאן, דכל דברי הגמ' הם התייחסות לתשלום מועט עבור נזק שפועל עבורו, אבל לגבי תשלומים מדיני שמים לא מיירי על ההנאה עצמו, ומ"מ מסתימת הדברים משמע דאין עוד תשלומים בעולם חוץ מן הנזכר כאן.

אבל בתרומת הדשן (סימן שיז) בשם הפוסקים [כ"כ הרא"ש ושא"פ] מבואר דלא כהמהר"ם, וז"ל, מ"מ דמיא לחצר דלא קיימא לאגרא דצריך הדר בו להעלות שכר אי גברא דעביד למיגר הוא, הוי זה נהנה וזה חסר מעט, כגון בבית חדש שחרוריתא דאישיתא שאז צריך לשלם לו כל הנאותיו כדאיתא פ' כיצד הרגל [ב"ק כ ע"ב] בגמ' ובפסקי הגאונים.
וכן כתב בשו"ע חו"מ סי' שסג ס"ז וז"ל, יש אומרים דכשאין החצר עומד לשכר דאמרינן דאינו צריך להעלות לו שכר, אם חסרו אפילו דבר מועט, כגון שהיה הבית חדש וזה חסרו במה שהשחירו, אף על פי שאין הפסד אותו שחרורית אלא מועט, ע"י מגלגלין עליו כל השכר כפי מה שנהנה.
ולפי זה מבואר דאין השכר המועט הזה עבור השחרוריתא דאישייתא, אלא בשכר המועט הזה הוא כדי להצדיק את השתמשותו בזה, וא"כ מסברא יראה לכאורה דטעם זה מהני גם בדיני שמים, כיון שמהנהו, דכל מה שבדיני שמים היינו היכא שהזיק אדם אחר ורק א"א לתובעו מאחר ולא עשה הנזק בידים או מטעם אחר, אבל כאן דחזינן שהגמ' הצדיקה מעשהו מכיון שמועיל לבעה"ב לכאורה זהו גם מדיני שמים.

דברי הפנ"י הם במסכת בבא קמא כ' א', וז"ל, ונראה דלא קשיא מידי דסברת התוספות היא דודאי משום מה שחסר אין לחייבו כיון דהוי גרמא בניזקין אלא כיון שנהנה זה בגוף ממון חבירו שדר בביתו בזה לחוד סגי לחייבו, והא דמספקא ליה שם בזה נהנה וזה לא חסר היינו משום דאיכא למימר בכה"ג כופין על מידת סדום כיון שהלה אינו מפסיד כלל, וגדולה מזו כתב המרדכי בשם ראבי"ה דאפילו לכתחילה מצי הלה לכופו לדור בעל כרחו בחצר דלא קיימא לאגרא ואף על גב דרוב הפוסקים חולקים עליו מ"מ בדיעבד שדר כבר שלא מדעתו שפיר מספקא להש"ס, אבל בזה נהנה וזה חסר כגון בחצר דקיימא לאגרא וגברא דעביד למיגר כיון דלא שייך להזכיר כאן כלל מידת סדום כיון שמגיע לו היזק שפיר פשיטא ליה להש"ס לחייבו משום הנאתו לחוד, וכן נראה מלשון הש"ס בסמוך דמשום שחרירותא דאשיתא משלם כל דמי השכירות ולא אמרינן שלא ישלם אלא כפי שהפסידו אלא ודאי שעיקר החיוב הוא בשביל שנהנה והטעם שחרירותא אינו בא אלא להצילו מלומר שהיא מדת סדום, כן נראה לי לפרש דעת תוספות ועיין בהרי"ף דפליג באמת על התוספות בזה ודו"ק עכ"ל.

ועיין בחידושי רבי נחום פרצוביץ מה שכתב בדעת התוס' והרמ"ה אם החיוב הוא על החסרון או על ההנאה.
ואולי כונתכם לדברי הפנ"י שם ד"ה תרתי הא וכו' דמיירי על חצר דקיימא לאגרא בגברא דלא עביד למיגר לפי אותן הדעות בראשונים שבכה"ג פטור.

אחר כל הפלפולים אחתום במה שכתב בשו"ע בהגה בחו"מ סי' שסג וז"ל, ישראל שברח מן העיר, ולקח (השר) ביתו והשאילו לישראל אחר, אין צריך להעלות שכר לבעלים, דהא לא קיימא לאגרא, דאי לא הוי דר בו ישראל השני דר בו עובד כוכבים (הג"מ פ"ג דגזילה ומרדכי פ' כיצד הרגל).
וז"ל האור שמח (פ"ג מגזילה ואבידה): ובשו"ע, ישראל שברח מהעיר, ולקח השר ביתו והשאילו לישראל, אין צריך להעלות שכר לבעלים, דהא לא קיימא לאגרא, דאי לא הוי דר בו ישראל השני, היה גר בו עכו"ם, ולא קשה מדברי התוספות דבתחב לו חברו בבית הבליעה חייב לשלם.
אף על גב דבההיא שעתא לא חסר, מיהו כיון שהנאתו של זה בא ע"י חסרונו של זה, משלם מה שנהנה.
לא קשה, דהתוס' אזלי בשיטת ר"י שפירש שם בכתובות דמיירי שתוחב ברצונו התרומה לתוך פיו, ואם כן אף דאיהו לא חייב, שלא גזלו ולא עביד מעשה, חייב על ההנאה, כיון שהחסרון בא בשבילו&8230; אבל כאן שהחסרון לא היה בשביל הישראל שדר בו ולא על ידו בא החסרון, ודאי דהוה זה נהנה וזה לא חסר.
אולם באופן שאם לא ידור בו ישראל ידור בו העכו"ם, והוא חלוט עכשיו ביד העכו"ם, לא משלם, ומסולק תלונת המחנה אפרים וכו'.
(ועיין מה שכתב בחשוקי חמד בבא קמא דף צז ע"א).

ומבואר מכ"ז דבאופן שהיה זה נהנה וזה לא חסר שלא בדרך גניבה וגזילה א"צ להחזיר, וכן נראה מסתימת הפוסקים בכ"ז.

השואל הנ"ל אח"כ כתב שוב: השאלה אם החסר הוא רק סיבה שניתן לחייבו על מה שנהנה אבל זה רק בדיני אדם שבלי חסר לא נוכל לחייבו.
אבל בנהנה ולא חסר שכופין כי הא על מדת סדום כל זה דלא כפינו הרי לא מחל או נימא שעצם השימוש הוא הכפייה.

תשובה: כמדומה דבר פשוט שבשעה שכופין א"צ מחילה, ואם נטלו שלא מדעתו באופן שנפסק שא"צ להחזיר הר"ז ככפיה (אמנם יש דברים שכופין עד שיאמר רוצה אני, עי' קידושין נ' א', אבל כאן זהו דבר שבממון וא"צ מחילתו, דאין כאן דינים של לשמה ושליחות כבקרבנות וגט בקידושין שם).

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen