- This topic has 25 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
There Gemara in Kiddushin (12a-12b) relates the following:
There was this guy who was mekadesh a woman via a dark bluish stone/marble. Rav Chisda was evaluating whether it was worth (at least) a peruta in order to determine whether the kiddushin was valid or not. (I’m skipping the Gemara’s question and answer because it’s not relevant to my point.)
Meanwhile, another guy was mekadesh this woman. Apparently Rav Chisda determined that the first kiddushin was less than a peruta and therefore not valid. So the first guy’s mother came to Rav Chisda and said that it had in fact been worth a peruta at the time of the kiddushn but it subsequently went down in value (and therefore the first kiddushin should be valid and the second kiddushin should be invalid). Rav Chisda told her that there is nothing that she can do to make the girl in question assur to the second guy. I.e. we aren’t concerned with the mother’s testimony. (He brought a proof which I’m skipping because it’s also not relevant to my point.)
Then the Rabbis challenged Rav Chisda’s ruling by saying that there are witnesses in some other place who know that the blue stone thingy was worth a peruta on the day it was given as kiddushin. (Tosafos explains that this was not just a “maybe” because we obviously can’t be concerned for that because then ??? ???? ???, and it also wasn’t a certainty, because if we were certain that thee were witnesses then we would obviously be machmir. Rather, it means that there was a kol that there were witnesses.)
Rav Chisda responded that l’ma’aseh there are no witnesses presently here so we’re not concerned. And he invoked a precedent – in Kesubos 23a, Shmuel’s daughters were taken captive and eventually came to R’ Chanina and said that they had been taken captive but had not been defiled and R’ Chanina permitted them to marry (even kohanim). Rav Shaman Bar Abba objected and said that there were witnesses in some other place (same as earlier, that there was a kol that there were witnesses) and R’ Chanina responded that there are no witneeses presently here and we’re not going to make the girls assur because of witnesses somewhere else.
Abbaye and Rava disagreed with Rav Chisda. They said that the story with R’ Chanina cannot be used as precedent because “if over there we were meikil regarding a captive who was disgraced by her captor, shall we then be meikil regarding a married woman?”
Tosafos discusses several interpetations of Abbaye/Rava’s argument. One which he rejects is that they were saying that we could be meikil by a captive because it’s only an issur lav of a zonah, whereas in Rav Chisda’s case if the blue thing was really worth a peruta then the girl is an eishes ish which is an issur misa so we can’t be meikil (by allowing her to live with the second guy). Tosafos rejects this explanation because it is possible for there to be an issur misa in the captive case as well. If the captive goes and marries a kohen, and her son is really a chalal and he does the avoda on Shabbos (normally the avoda is docheh Shabbos but since he is not a valid kohen, it’s not docheh Shabbos) he is mechalel Shabbos which is an issur misa.
All that was the background. My question on Tosafos is that R’ Chanina permitted Shmuel’s daughters to remarry. In that case there was no chance of there being an issur misa, because there was no beis hamikdash for the son to do the avodah in on Shabbos. Therefore, the explanation which Tosafos rejects, should in fact be a good explanation.
After I had this question for some time, I found that the Meginei Shlomo in Kesubos in fact asks this on Tosafos. He does not give any answer. So here’s my answer:
Tosafos obviously held that we can rebuild the Beis Hamikdash at any time, even before Mashiach, and therefore even in R’ Chanina’s case there could have been an issur misa, because the Beis Hamikdash could have been rebuilt the next day.
Anyone have any different/better answers?
Why must you say even before Moshiach? Moshiach can come today.
My alternative ????? is that ?”? holds that ?? ????? ?????? is a general ????? which doesn’t depend on outside circumstances (the ??”?).
Even in the first approach, there’s no reason to say your chiddush – Rabeinu Tam could simply have disagreed with the M”S’s assertion that we’re not concerned about the eventuality of a chalal who will not be revealed as such doing avodah.
As far as my teirutz, I was m’dayek the lashon of Abaye and Rava, not of R’ Chanina.
I can tell you from personal experience:- It simply is awesome & wonderful being @the Bais haMikdosh. I wish it to each & everyone of you.
I have a better Kashya. Why is a Chalal attempting to do the Avoda (who doesn’t know he’s a Chalal) not a Toeh Bidvar Mitzvah?
Makes no sense. The only problem is on shabbos, and moshiach cannot come on shabbos.
Rather, he holds like the lunatics today who want to rebuild the beis hamikdosh before moshiach.
PAA, popa introduced his comment by saying it makes no sense.
Because we are issuing a psak which will lead to a person who is factually a chalal doing avodah on Shabbos.
You could make a similar argument for eishes ish; if beis din would be mattir her, there would be no actual issur, yet we do, when issuing the psak, take into account that there’s an issur s’kilah.
Bais haMikdosh shall IY’H flatten Golden Dome flat as a pancake, and the current attenders there shall be powerless to do anything about that.
147 stop disturbing the shiur.
aruch laner in rosh hashana and succah holds that we will build the bais hamikdash. it will not come down from heaven.
korbanos can definitely be brought before mashiach and you don’t need a bais hamikdash. it’s a straight out gemara in megilla and zvachim and the rambam paskens like that.
Are we really concerned about the eventuality of him being Mechuyav Misa, or is the point that this Halacha Carries with it a Chiyuv Misa.
There is a line in Yerushalmi Maaser Sheni 5:2, last line on 29b Vilna pages, which reads: ??? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? ??? ???
You cannot get more specific than that.
I think it’s just a way to measure the Chomer Hadavar. I get this impression from any other place this is invoked.
By the way, it is quite clear from many Rashi’s and certain Gemaros that the Beis Hamikdash will be built after Moshiach comes. It doesn’t actually have to be a Stira, since Moshiach will obviously first get involved with building the Beis Hamikdash before establishing the kingdom, as the Gemara in Bava Basra says. And especially since according to Rashi it will be built instantaneously.
We would need a Navi, though. The precise spot for the Mizbei’ach and for the design of the Beis Hamikdash. Would we go like Rashi or the Malbim? The Radak says that we can’t really get to the bottom of it and we will need a Navi. This is obvious to anyone who tried getting through it.
they made a song out of a medrash that says “at the time when the king mashiach comes he will stand on the roof of the bais hamikdash and he will say anavim anavim the time for your geula has arrived, and if you don’t believe it, see that my light shines”.anaaavim anavim… anyway this is mashma that mashiach will come after the bais hamikdash is already built.
wow! thank you for bringing that down.
it could be that there will be a king before the bais hamikdash is built but it doesn’t have to be mashiach. i’ll explain:
we know that the yidden were told three mitzvos- to make a king,to wipe out amalek, to build the bais hamikdash. in that order. in fact by the first bais hamikdash shaul was king then he fought amalek then david prepared and shlomo built the bais hamikdash. by the second bais hamikdash zerubavel was like a king then they killed 75000+ amalekim by the story of purim then they built the bais hamikdash (agav they were bringing korbanos already before the bais hamikdash was built).
so too by the third bais hamikdash there will be a king then a fight against amalek then the bais hamikdash.
But the king doesn’t have to be mashiach.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.