302
טקסט זה הופק בזיהוי תווים (OCR) מסריקת הספר, ועלול להכיל שגיאות. לנוסח המדויק ראה את הסריקה.
= - איז.- דערפאַר. בכל.. -בוקר. - בשעת
הערות
- 2. שו"ע אדה"ז או"ח סמ"ו ס"ד. ממג"א שם סק"י. מאה שערים מו, ב (אוה"ת ענינים ע' שז). ועיין סי' האריזייל וכו' בברכות השחר. ואכ"מ.
- 3. או"ח מהדו"ק ס"ד ס"א.
- 3. ש"פ בא, ח' שבט, תש"מ
- 4. ספ"א.
- 5. ש,אף הן היו באותו הנס" (פסחים קח, ריש ע"ב. שו"ע אדה"ז הל' פסח סתע"ב סכ"ה). ועד"ז בנוגע לחנוכה (ראה שבת כג, א).
- 6. ע"ז ה, סע"א.
- 7. בחוקותי כו, ג.
- 8. שם, דזו. יב.
- 9. אבות פ"א מי"ז.
- 0. חולין יב, ב ואילך.
פסחים ק״ח ב - הטקסט מספריא
שֶׁאַף הֵן הָיוּ בְּאוֹתוֹ הַנֵּס.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אַרְבָּעָה כּוֹסוֹת הַלָּלוּ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא בָּהֶן כְּדֵי מְזִיגַת כּוֹס יָפֶה. שְׁתָאָן חַי — יָצָא. שְׁתָאָן בְּבַת אַחַת — יָצָא. הִשְׁקָה מֵהֶן לְבָנָיו וְלִבְנֵי בֵיתוֹ — יָצָא.
שְׁתָאָן חַי יָצָא, אָמַר רָבָא: יְדֵי יַיִן — יָצָא, יְדֵי חֵירוּת — לֹא יָצָא.
שְׁתָאָן בְּבַת אַחַת, רַב אָמַר: יְדֵי יַיִן — יָצָא, יְדֵי אַרְבָּעָה כּוֹסוֹת — לֹא יָצָא. הִשְׁקָה מֵהֶן לְבָנָיו וְלִבְנֵי בֵיתוֹ — יָצָא, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: וְהוּא דְּאִשְׁתִּי רוּבָּא דְכָסָא.
מֵיתִיבִי: אַרְבָּעָה כּוֹסוֹת הַלָּלוּ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא בָּהֶן כְּדֵי רְבִיעִית, אֶחָד חַי וְאֶחָד מָזוּג, אֶחָד חָדָשׁ וְאֶחָד יָשָׁן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא בּוֹ טַעַם וּמַרְאֵה יַיִן. קָתָנֵי מִיהַת כְּדֵי רְבִיעִית, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ כּוֹס יָפֶה!
אָמְרִי: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי חַד שִׁיעוּרָא הוּא, מַאי ״כְּדֵי מְזִיגַת כּוֹס יָפֶה״ דְּקָאָמַר — לְכׇל חַד וְחַד, דְּהָוֵי לְהוּ כּוּלְּהוּ רְבִיעִית.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא בּוֹ טַעַם וּמַרְאֶה. אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״אַל תֵּרֶא יַיִן כִּי יִתְאַדָּם״.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בְּאַרְבָּעָה כּוֹסוֹת הַלָּלוּ, אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים, וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים, וְאֶחָד תִּינוֹקוֹת. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: וְכִי מָה תּוֹעֶלֶת יֵשׁ לְתִינוֹקוֹת בְּיַיִן? אֶלָּא מְחַלְּקִין לָהֶן
As they too were included in that miracle of the Exodus, they are therefore obligated to participate in the celebration.
Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: These four cups must contain enough undiluted wine to allow for diluting a significant cup. In talmudic times, people would not drink pure wine. They would dilute it with water, generally adding three times as much water as wine. If one drank them undiluted, he has fulfilled his obligation. If one drank them all at once, i.e., he poured all four cups of wine into one large cup and drank it, he has fulfilled the obligation. If one gave his sons or the members of his household to drink from them, he has nevertheless fulfilled the obligation.
The Gemara now addresses each of these rulings of Shmuel in turn. Shmuel said that if one drank them undiluted he has fulfilled his obligation. Rava said: He has fulfilled the obligation to drink the four cups of wine, but he has not fulfilled the obligation to drink in a way that expresses freedom, which is the preferable way to fulfill the mitzva, as aristocrats do not drink undiluted wine.
If one drank the four cups all at once, Rav said that he has fulfilled the obligation to drink wine as an expression of rejoicing on the Festival, but he has not fulfilled the obligation to drink four cups, which requires four distinct cups, each drunk separately. Shmuel also stated that if one gave his sons or the members of his household to drink from them, he has nevertheless fulfilled his obligation. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And this is the case only if he himself drank the majority of the cup.
The Gemara raises an objection to the above rulings from a baraita: These four cups must contain one quarter-log, whether the wine is undiluted or diluted, whether it is new or aged. Rabbi Yehuda says: It must have the taste and appearance of wine. In any event, this baraita is teaching that each cup must contain at least the amount of one quarter-log, and yet you said that each must contain enough for diluting a significant cup.
They say in response that this and that are one and the same measure. The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the expression: Enough for diluting a significant cup, which Shmuel said? He meant that there must be enough undiluted wine for each and every one of the cups, i.e., one quarter-log of diluted wine. This amounts to one quarter-log of undiluted wine for all of them combined. A significant cup contains one quarter-log. This quarter-log is comprised of one quarter undiluted wine and three quarters water. Therefore, each cup must contain at least one quarter of one quarter-log of undiluted wine, so that one consumes a full quarter-log of liquid from each cup.
The baraita stated that Rabbi Yehuda says the cup from which one drinks must have the taste and appearance of wine. Rava said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? As it is written: “Look not upon wine when it is red” (Proverbs 23:31). This verse proves that the appearance of wine and not only its taste is important.
The Sages taught in a baraita: All are obligated in these four cups, including men, women, and children. Rabbi Yehuda said: What benefit do children receive from wine? They do not enjoy it. Rather, one distributes to them
משנה אבות א׳:י״ז - הטקסט מספריא
שמעון בנו אומר כל ימי גדלתי בין החכמים ולא מצאתי לגוף טוב אלא שתיקה ולא המדרש הוא העיקר אלא המעשה. וכל המרבה דברים מביא חטא:
חולין י״ב ב - הטקסט מספריא
הָכִי קָאָמַר: נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי בְּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁבַּשּׁוּק, שֶׁאַף רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי לֹא נֶחְלַק עָלָיו אֶלָּא בְּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁבַּבַּיִת, אֲבָל בְּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁבַּשּׁוּק מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ, וְנִרְאִין כּוּ׳.
חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, שֶׁמָּא יְקַלְקְלוּ אֶת שְׁחִיטָתָן. ״שֶׁמָּא קִלְקְלוּ״ לָא קָתָנֵי, אֶלָּא ״שֶׁמָּא יְקַלְקְלוּ״. אָמַר רָבָא: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת אֵין מוֹסְרִין לָהֶן חוּלִּין לְכַתְּחִלָּה.
וְכוּלָּן שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ וַאֲחֵרִים רוֹאִים אוֹתָם, שְׁחִיטָתָן כְּשֵׁרָה. מַאן תְּנָא דְּלָא בָּעֵינַן כַּוָּונָה לִשְׁחִיטָה?
אָמַר רָבָא: רַבִּי נָתָן הִיא, דְּתָנֵי אוֹשַׁעְיָא זְעֵירָא דְּמִן חַבְרַיָּא: זָרַק סַכִּין לְנוֹעֳצָהּ בַּכּוֹתֶל, וְהָלְכָה וְשָׁחֲטָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ – רַבִּי נָתָן מַכְשִׁיר, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹסְלִין. הוּא תָּנֵי לַהּ, וְהוּא אָמַר לַהּ: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי נָתָן.
וְהָא בָּעֵינַן מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא? שֶׁהָלְכָה וּבָאָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ.
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא, בָּעֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קָטָן יֵשׁ לוֹ מַחְשָׁבָה, אוֹ אֵין לוֹ מַחְשָׁבָה?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי: וְתִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ מַעֲשֶׂה? מַאי שְׁנָא מַעֲשֶׂה דְּלָא קָא מִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ – דִּתְנַן: ״יֵשׁ לָהֶן מַעֲשֶׂה״? מַחְשָׁבָה נָמֵי לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, דִּתְנַן: ״אֵין לָהֶן מַחְשָׁבָה״!
דִּתְנַן: הָאַלּוֹן, וְהָרִמּוֹן, וְהָאֱגוֹז שֶׁחֲקָקוּם תִּינוֹקוֹת לָמוֹד בָּהֶן עָפָר, אוֹ שֶׁהִתְקִינוּם לְכַף מֹאזְנַיִם – טְמֵאִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן מַעֲשֶׂה,
The Gemara explains: This is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears correct to Rabbi Ḥanina, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, in a case where one found them in a scrap heap that is in a marketplace, as Rabbi Ḥanina, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda only in a case where one found them in a scrap heap that is in the house. But in a case where he found them in a scrap heap that is in a marketplace he concedes to Rabbi Yehuda. And the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, appears correct to Rabbi Yehuda in a case where he found them in the house, as he concedes to Rabbi Ḥanina in that case.
§ The mishna stated: Everyone slaughters an animal, i.e., can perform halakhically valid slaughter, and their slaughter is valid, except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, lest they ruin their slaughter. The Gemara infers: The tanna does not teach: Due to the concern that they ruined their slaughter, in the past tense; rather, he teaches: Lest they ruin their slaughter, in the future. Rava says: That is to say that one does not give them non-sacred animals for slaughter ab initio, even with the supervision of others.
The mishna continues: And for all of them, when they slaughtered an animal and others see and supervise them, their slaughter is valid, including even a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, who lack competence and whose intent is not halakhically effective. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that we do not require intent for slaughter?
Rava said: It is Rabbi Natan, as Oshaya, the youngest of the company of Sages, taught a baraita, stating: If one threw a knife to embed it in the wall, and in the course of its flight the knife went and slaughtered an animal in its proper manner, Rabbi Natan deems the slaughter valid, and the Rabbis deem the slaughter not valid. Oshaya teaches the baraita and he states about it: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan that there is no need for intent to perform a valid act of slaughter.
The Gemara asks: How could the slaughter in the baraita be valid? But don’t we require that the slaughterer move the knife back and forth on the throat of the animal? When one throws a knife, it goes in one direction and does not return. The Gemara answers: The case in the baraita is one where the knife went and cut the animal’s throat, caromed off the wall and came back to cut the throat again in its proper manner.
§ Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a dilemma: In matters that require thought and intent, does a minor have halakhically effective thought, or does he not have halakhically effective thought?
Rabbi Ami said to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: And let Rabbi Yoḥanan raise this dilemma with regard to the action of a minor, whether the action of a minor that indicates intent is effective. What is different about the action of a minor that Rabbi Yoḥanan does not raise a dilemma? Is it due to the fact that we learned in a mishna (Kelim 17:15): A deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor have the capacity to perform an action that is halakhically effective? With regard to thought as well let him not raise this dilemma, as we learned in the same mishna: They do not have the capacity for halakhically effective thought.
As we learned in that mishna: With regard to an acorn, a pomegranate, or a nut, which minors hollowed in order to measure dirt with them or that they affixed to a scale, the halakhic status of those shells is that of vessels, and they are susceptible to ritual impurity. By contrast, if the minors merely thought to use the shells for measuring or weighing, unlike adults, they do not thereby render those shells into vessels. The reason for this distinction is due to the fact that they have the capacity to perform an action,
עמודים המצטטים את אותם מקורות
מקורות הגמרא שבעמוד זה נפוצים מדי או ייחודיים לו, ולכן אין לו עמודים מקושרים.