Resources for Taanis daf 24

Daf A Week

Rabbi Yitzchok Gutterman

  1. The גמרא brings a מימרא of שמואל who says if someone removes a fish from water on שבת and it partially dries up, he is חייב. רש''י here explains he is חייב משום נטילת נשמה. See the ירושלמי in שבת דף מ"ח: who says that he’s חייב משום קוצר. However, see the אגלי טל in מלאכת קוצר אות כ"ו who proves that the בבלי must argue with the ירושלמי since שמואל says in our גמרא that to be חייב, a part of the fish has to dry up to the point where the fish can no longer live. However, according to the ירושלמי, as soon as you disconnect the fish from its life source you should immediately be חייב. As far as the נקודת המחלוקת between the בבלי and ירושלמי, the אגלי טל says that the ראשונים explain the ירושלמי as holding that any removal of something alive from its source constitutes קוצר, whereas the בבלי maintains that קוצר only applies to items that grow from the ground.

 

  1. The גמרא says that the גבאי צדקה would hide whenever he saw אלעזר איש בירתא because אלעזר איש בירתא would always give away all his money. See the מגן אבות in פּרקי אבות פּרק ג' משנה ז who says אלעזר איש בירתא is the same person as רבי אלעזר איש ברתותא who famously said תן לו משלו, שאתה ושלך שלו (give your possessions to Hashem since Hashem owns you and also your belongings). However, see the גבורת ארי who asks the obvious: there is a תקנת אושא that says המבזבז אל יבזבז יותר מחומש (a person should not give away more than a fifth of his money). If so, how could אלעזר איש בירתא  give away all his money?  The גבורת ארי then quotes the רמב"ם in the beginning of פּירוש המשניות לפּאה who says the תקנת אושא just meant a person is not obligated to give more than a fifth of his money to help another, but he may if he so wishes. Accordingly, there is no question on אלעזר איש בירתא. However, the גבורת ארי disagrees with the רמב"ם since it seems to be against many גמרות. He answers that it’s a מחלוקת תנאים whether or not to hold of תקנת אושא (presumably he means there is a מחלוקת if this תקנה was ever instituted) and אלעזר איש בירתא didn’t hold of it. It is interesting to note that the רמב"ם does bring the הלכה of not giving away more than a fifth by ערכין. See the אגרות משה חלק יו"ד סימן קמ"ג who explains that the רמב"ם holds the איסור of giving more than a fifth only applies to הקדש and not צדקה.

 

  1. The גמרא in this מסכתא has mentioned on several occasions that one should not be נהנה from מעשה ניסים. See רש"י on דף כ"ד עמוד א ד"ה אלא כאחד who says it is אסור to be נהנה from מעשה ניסים as it says that one who benefits from miracles loses some of his זכותים. However, רש"י on דף כ"ד עמוד ב ד"ה אמר להו seems to be סותר himself as he says here it is just “טוב ונכון” to avoid benefit from miracles. Furthermore, there seems to be many occasions where great people were נהנה ממעשה ניסים. As an obvious example, the Jewish people ate מן in the מדבר for forty years! See the מצפּה איתן here who answers that there is a difference between an individual and a רבים. An individual is not allowed to benefit from a miracle, but a person can benefit from a miracle done for the רבים. On עמוד א, רש"י is talking about a miracle that occurred to אלעזר איש בירתא , whereas on עמוד ב he’s talking about a miracle that occurred for a whole city. See the שדה חמד in מערכת א אות ש"פּ who uses the same concept as the מצפּה איתן and explains it as follows: the issue with benefiting from a miracle is that it reduces the beneficiary’s זכותים. However, when it comes to the Jewish people as a whole, there’s no such thing as they’re being ממעט their זכותים as a ציבור always has זכותים. See also the גבורת ארי on דף כ"ה who proves that while one cannot get benefit from a miracle done for himself, one can benefit from a miracle done for someone else.

********************************

Click here to download maarei m’komos by Rabbi Asher Millman (in PDF)