ישיבת כרם ביבנה

Hashavat Aveida

Etan Schnall

 

???? ?????

 

Etan Schnall

West Hempstead, NY

 

The second ??÷ of ??? ?????, known as ??? ??????, focuses primarily on the  ?????of ???? ?????, the ???? to return lost objects. The ???? first make reference to this ???? in???? ??????[1]:

?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????? ????, ??? ?????? ??.

"If you encounter the ox or donkey of your enemy roaming, you shall certainly return it to him." However, according to the ???"?[2], the principle source of the commandment is actually found in :[3]???? ?? ???

?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ???, ??? ????? ?????.

"You shall not see the ox or sheep of your brother wandering and hide yourself from them; you shall certainly return them to your brother."

 

After this ???? ???, the ???? continues with instructions as to how the ???? is to be performed. Finally, the ???? concludes with the addition of a negative commandment[4]:

?? ???? ??????.

"…you shall not hide yourself." As ??"? [5] explains, this is a prohibition against one's ignoring a lost object as if he does not see it.

 

The [6]???? puts a stronger emphasis on the ???÷ in ?????? as a source for the ????. However, the consensus among most of the ???? ?????, among them, the ??"?[7] and ??? ??????[8], follows the view of the ???"?.

 

In general, the obligation to a return an ????? remains in force until the original owner of the object has performed ????. This occurs when the owner gives up all hope of retrieving the????? , usually upon realizing that his property was left behind without any ??????, identifying features that could be used to claim the item if it was found[9]. In certain situations, factors such as the number of items lost, the way they were bound, or the place where they were lost, may serve as valid ??????, in addition to marks on the objects themselves[10]. ??"? in ??? ?????[11], as well as a number of other places in ?"?[12], refers to the moment when the owner says,"??? ??? ?????? ???," as the point in time when his despair becomes effective. The ???? statement essentially indicates that the owner will no longer pursue the item, and this permits one who subsequently find the item to keep it.[13]

 

However, the ?????? disagree as to exactly what ???? accomplishes in such a situation. According to the understanding of ??"?[14], the ????? becomes ??÷? when the owner gives up hope. In other words, ???? represents the owner's relinquishing his monetary ownership in regard to the lost object. ?????? in ??? ÷??[15] finds difficulty with this explanation. While  ?????? does not explicitly suggest an alternate understanding there, the issue is dealt with by the ÷??? ?????[16]. The ÷??? agrees that ???? does make the object ???? to one who finds it. However, the owner's despair will not suffice to actually remove it from his ????. Rather, the ownership of the?????  remains until a finder performs a ÷??? and acquires it for himself.

 

]According to the ?????? ?????[17], this is the opinion implied by ??????. He explains that the most obvious proof to this principle is found in cases of theft. When a person steals an object, even if the owner gives up hope of retrieving it, there is still a ???? to return the object[18]. If, as??"?  explains, after ???? there is no owner, so-to-speak, why would returning the object fulfill the ????? Rather, it must be that even after ????, the property remains in the original ????. Therefore, since the ???? cannot acquire the object[19], it remains in the possession of the ????, and ???? is effective.[20] [

 

Nevertheless, it is clear that ???? will not allow the finder to avoid violation of the ???? of ??? ????? if it occurs after the object has already been picked up[21]. This ???? is explained by employing the concept of ??????? ??? ???? ?????, found earlier in the ??÷[22]. The simple interpretation of this is that the finder was prohibited from keeping the item at the time of retrieval, and so is still required to perform the ????, despite the ???? that took place. The ???? follows with the case of "????? ?? ?? ??????? ??????", one who saw an ?????  and purposely waited for its owner to perform ???? before picking it up. Here, ??? rules that the finder only violates the negative commandment of ?? ???? ??????, for he has avoided obligating himself in the positive commandment of ??? ?????. This is the understanding asserted by ??"?[23] in the ????? stating that the ???? of ??? ????? exists only from the time that the finder picks up the ?????.

 

The eighth ???? of ??? ?????? establishes the standard that determines in what instances one is exempt from performing the ???? of?????  ???? even before ???? occurs:

?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?? ????.

The simple interpretation of this statement refers to an important person who would be degraded by picking up the lost object, based on the nature of the item or where it is located. If it is beneath the dignity of the individual to bring the  ?????into his house, he is ????.[24]

 

The???? [25] explains the source of this???  by citing a ?????? that includes a ???? from the???÷  of ""???????[26]- "????? ???? ?????." That is, while in most circumstances one may not ignore a lost object, sometimes one is permitted, or even required to do so. One of the examples mentioned is the case of ?÷? ????? ??? ?????, and elder whose honor would be disgraced by returning the ????? . The ??????? disagree as to what the ???? of ?÷? actually refers to. The opinion of the ????"?, quoted in the ???? ?÷????[27], is that the ???? was only stated in regard to a ????? ???, and it does not apply to any other person of importance. The ????"? also follows this opinion in ???? ??????[28], and the ?"?[29], citing ???"?, holds of this principle, as well. The???"?[30], however, writes that the ??? also holds true by a "????? ?÷?," implying that he extends the  ????to any distinguished elder.

 

In addition to the obvious difference as to whom the exemption applies to, it would seem that an additional ??÷? ???? arises between these two opinions. Normally, when ???? requires one to give honor to a ????? ???[31], the ????? ??? is also permitted to relinquish his right to that ????. The reason for this is because it was he who earned the honor through his own effort and ????? ?????. However, since, like any Jew, he would normally be obligated in the ???? of???? ????? , and it was the  ????that gave him an exemption ??? ?????, he is not able to give up that privilege. The ??"?[32] explains that returning the?????  in such an instance would constitute a ????? ?????, and therefore the ?÷? may not do so. However, if the ???? is unrelated to ???? ?????, as the ???"? would seem to hold, it might be permissible for the ????? ?÷? to return the object.

 

The first example brought in the ?????? is founded on ????? completely unrelated to the stature of the one who finds the ?????. Here, the ???? from ??????? is used in the instance of ??? ???? ???? ?÷????. If a ??? sees an ????? in a cemetery, he is not required to return it. In fact, he is not even allowed to enter the cemetery to retrieve the item, lest he become ???. The prohibition against ????? becoming ??? is also two-fold, including a positive and negative commandment. The ???? ??? stems from the ???÷ of ÷????? ????[33], and the?? ????  from the ???÷ of ???? ?? ????[34].

 

The ???? immediately questions the necessity of the ???? to teach this ????. If the ??? returns the lost object, he may fulfill the ??? of ??? ?????, but at the same time he will violate the ??? and ???? ?? of becoming ???. Obviously, he should not return the ????? , for the performance of a positive ???? never overrides the violation of both a positive and negative ???? ((?? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????[35]. The ???? does not even pose the fact that the  ???will violate the ???? of ?? ???? ?????? by not returning the item, for one ??? is never able to override the performance of another, and certainly not when an  ??? will also be violated. The question is only raised in regard to the precedence of the ??? of ??? ?????, for at least there are sources in ???? of a ???? ??? overriding a ?? ????[36].

 

The????  answers the question by establishing that the primary need for the  ????is actually unrelated to the ???? of ??? ???? ???? ?÷????. Nevertheless, it is the question that raises much debate among the ???????. This discussion will lead to a better understanding of the nature of the ???? of???? ????? .

 

The question of the????  suggests that the ??? avoids violating a ???? ??? and ?? ????, and so ??? ????? does not take precedence. However, as stated above, the????  earlier teaches that one who waits for ???? to retrieve a lost object only violates the prohibition of ?? ???? ??????. This clearly shows that the obligation of ??? ?????, as ??"? explains, does not exist until one actually picks up the????? . If so, there is no ??? that the ???? of ???? preclude in the case of ???. The ??? remains outside of the cemetery and merely sees the item. Why then does the????  bring in the issue of ?? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? It should simply state that a ??? may not retrieve the ?????, for he will become ??? when he enters the cemetery!

 

There are two approaches taken by the ??????? to solve this problem. The first is asserted by the ???"?[37]. He holds that since one who returns an?????  fulfills ??? ????? when he ignores a lost object, ???? considers it as if he violates this same ????, in addition to ?? ???? ??????. This holds true even when one has not yet retrieved the item to return it. As such, it is relevant for the????  to analyze the case of ??? ???? ???? ?÷???? in the context of ?? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????. However, this concept would appear to be a ????? in ????. In general, we do not find ????? that consider one a ???? ???? ??? when his current situation does not allow him the opportunity to fulfill the ????. One who is physically unable to perform a ????, or one who is prevented by exterior ????-related factors, such as here, is exempt through the rule of ???? ????? ?????[38].

 

Therefore, the ?"?[39] takes a different approach, opposing the position of??"?  that the obligation of ??? ????? begins "??????," the time one picks up the ????? . Rather, it must be that the ???? exists even from the point when one sees the item. Again, once the ??? sees the ?????  in the cemetery, the ???? ??? applies, and the ???? can relate the issue of ?? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????. The ?"? supports this principle by citing the ???"? who codifies the ???? accordingly. The ???"?[40] states:

  ????? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ... ???? ???? ???.

It is clear that he holds the ???? of  ???? ?????exists even in a case of one who is "????," one who merely sees a lost object.

 

Indeed, usage of the term ???? is consistent among most of the later ???÷??. However, the ??????? argue if this ???? is to be taken literally, as the ?"? would have it. The ??"? learns the ????? ????[41] as ??? ??÷?, and that the ???? actually begins from ??? ?????. He brings proof from the words of ????? quoted in the ???? [42] that "??????" in the???÷  of  ???? ????? implies ????? ?????. That is, one is only ???? when the object is already in his hand. The ?"? prefers to read the ???41 literally, and goes to the extent of establishing how close one must be to the ????? when he sees it to be obligated in its retrieval. Quoting the????  at the end of [43]??? ??????, the ???? requires a "???? ??? ?? ?????," defined as a distance of no more than 266 2/3 cubits[44]. The ??"? and the ????? justify each of these opinions through two variant readings of the verses that deal with  ???? ????? in ?? ???.

 

We must return our focus now to the ???? of the ?"? that states that one is ???? in ???? ????? from the time he sees the object. The foremost challenge to this view is the ??? mentioned above in regard to ????? ?? ?? ??????? ??????, one who see an item and waits for ???? to retrieve it. As previously mentioned, the????  writes that such a person only violates the prohibition of ?? ???? ??????. However, if seeing the object obligates him to return it, the????  should mention a violation of ??? ?????, as well!

 

The ?"? solves the difficulty himself by differentiating between one who ignores an ?????, where his opinion is stated, and one who waits for ????. Of course, if one sees an item and decides to leave it where it is, he is ???? the ???? ???. This is because the opportunity to return the object is lost by his own misdeed of ignoring the object. On the other hand, when ???? occurs before the?????  is picked up, it is the owner who removes the ???? of ????. Therefore, the finder is only considered in violation of ?? ???? ??????, and not ??? ?????.

 

Nevertheless, this answer will not suffice according to all ???????. As mentioned above, the concept of ??????? ??? ???? ????? does not allow ???? to be effective when it takes place after an?????  is picked up. There are differing opinions as to exactly how this rule operates[45], but the view of  ?????? in ??? ÷??[46] follows the explanation given above: if an object is prohibited to the finder because the owner has not yet performed ????, subsequent ???? will never permit the item to him. Rav Chaim Soloveitchik[47] points out, that if  ?????? follows the ???? of the ?"?, the case of ????? ?? ?? ??????? ?????? is again problematic. Why does the????  say that the finder only violates ?? ???? ??????? The requirement to return the object exists from the time he sees it. When he actually retrieves it, it already was, and remains, under the category of ??????? ??? ???? ?????. As such, ???? of the owner will never allow him to keep it, and therefore he also violates of ??? ?????, as well! The logic of the ?"? will not help, for the understanding of  ?????? of ??????? ??? ???? ????? would prohibit the item to the finder, regardless of the fact that it is the owner who removes the opportunity of ???? ?????[48].

 

Rav Chaim answers this difficulty by offering a more precise definition of the nature of the ????. In essence, every situation of ???? ????? is composed of two aspects. On one hand, the ???? requires the finder to return the object. Apparently, this is an obligation independent of the owner of the????? , focusing on the finder's personal responsibility of ??? ?????. Logically, it is this aspect that applies from the time one sees a lost object; as soon as he becomes aware that an ????? exists, he is required to retrieve it. However, when one actually picks up the item, his responsibility takes on another dimension, the second aspect Rav Chaim speaks of. Here, the ???? adds a ???? ????, a monetary obligation to the owner. This ???? results purely from the fact that the finder has in his possession something that belongs to another, and not because of any reason related to the ????.

 

If so, in the case of ????? ?? ?? ??????? ??????, the ???? can be productive to a limited extent, removing one's ???? to fulfill ???? ???? ?????. However, its effect does not extend any further in the way of removing the monetary ownership of the item[49]. In other words, when one merely sees the object and waits for ????, his obligation of ??? ????? did exist, but it was removed. Therefore, the????  is justified in explaining that he only violates ?? ???? ??????. He need not return it, for the object was permitted to him from a monetary standpoint when he picked it up. However, when the finder retrieves the item before ???? occurs, ??????? ??? ???? ?????, and the ???? ???? he has gained is in effect, and will remain even after ???? occurs. The finder essentially creates a debt to the ??? ?????? when he retrieves the object. This idea is further evident in the conclusion of  ?????? in ??? ÷??, where it is written that ???? of the owner leaves the finder with a requirement to pay only the value of the ????? to the owner. The finder may even keep the item itself, because, as Rav Chaim's principle dictates, there is no longer a ???? of returning the actual object after ????.

 

The logic behind the understanding of ??????[50] as to how ???? functions is now even more clear. He holds, based on a ???? later in the second ??÷[51] that ???? ????? applies only when there are ??????, owners who would claim the item from the finder. ???? means that those owners will no longer pursue the????? , and so ??? ????? no longer applies. It does not, however, mean that they relinquish their ????? of the item, or the obligation that rests on the finder to return its monetary value. Similarly, Rav Yitzchok Yaakov Weiss in his ??"? ???? ???÷[52] cites the ??? ???[53] who rules that ???? will not help to release a ??? between a borrower and a lender. The ???? ???? found here would apparently have the same ???.

 

Rav Boruch Ber Leibowitz[54] elaborates upon this explanation, and discusses its ramifications elsewhere in ????. In his words, Rav Chaim interprets the responsibility as:

????? ????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?????.

This separates the monetary obligation from the ???? itself. ??? ????? can now be identified as a ???? relevant to the idea of ?? ????? ????? ?? ???, protecting society in general. The ??? ??????[55] echos this thought when describing the ??? of the ????:

???? ?? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????, ??? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?÷??.

 

Yet another issue is clarified now. The ???"?, who holds the ???? of ???? begins at ??? ????? learns that one is ???? the ÷??? ??? when he ignores an ?????. This would not make sense if one fulfills the ???? only at the specific time of ????, for the opportunity to return the object has not yet arose. However, Rav Chaim[56] explains that the ÷??? is actually accomplished as soon as one picks up the item, for "??? ???? ???? ???? ??????." ??? ????? includes a focus on caring for the possession of a fellow Jew, aside from the specific action of returning the lost object.

 

This idea would appear to be integral in the lengthy discussions of the ???? that deal with the ????? that govern the period of time between ????? and ????. The finder is required to guard the object just as any ???? ?÷???, and is responsible accordingly[57]. The ??????? disagree as to what type of ???? the finder becomes[58], with ??÷? ????? affecting the extent of this ??????. The ???÷?? argue whether the ???? is like ???, that he is a ???? ???[59] (because he gets no compensation for his efforts), or ?? ????, that he is a ???? ???[60] (for he benefits from not having to give ??÷? to a poor person while caring for the ?????[61]). This aspect of the ???? stems from the???÷  of "????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ????." [62]

 

The ???"? in ????? ????? ??????, and the ??? ???? ???? in ???? ??? outline the duties of the ???? ?????. The ????? provide for the utmost care for the????? . The ???? is afforded very limited privileges in using the ????? , but the guidelines that dictate these privileges show that they are not only intended to prevent damage to the item, but more often to preserve the condition of the item. Likewise, the ???"? in ??? ????[63] states that the ???? of ???? ?????  entails the following aspect:

?? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ????÷.

Indeed, this expands the scope of the ???? to a much broader range of applications. However, it also reinforces the obligation of the Jew to the rest of ??? ????? that we now see in the???÷  of ??? ?????.

 

Nevertheless, the issue at hand is more than a civil responsibility to society in general. Other aspects of the ???? reveal that it is closely related to ????? ???? ????, as well, bringing the responsibility of ???? down to a more individual level.

 

The????  in ÷?????[64] quotes a ?????? that states that women are obligated in the ???? of ???? ?????, as it is not under the category of a ???? ??? ????? ????. However, the  ?????? ???"?[65] suggests that a woman should not be ???? in the ???? because of the ???÷ of "?? ????? ?? ??? ?????[66]." This ???? is immediately rejected, based on the rule stated by ??? in ??? ??????[67] that one of the standards of ???? is ?? ????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ?????. To determine if ???? a exists in any given situation, one should evaluate if he would go to the trouble of retrieving the ????? had it been his own. In fact,  ?????? ???"? holds that this principle even overrides the ???? of ?÷? ??? ?????. The ???"? and ??? both rule accordingly.

 

??? follows this theme earlier in the ??÷[68], as well. He attempts to explain why the finder will return the object to one who claims it based on ??????, without witnesses that the  ?????ever belonged to the claimant previously:

???? ??? ????? ????? ????? ????????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ???????.

The finder knows that he may lose something in the future and have no witnesses that the item is his. Therefore, he will consider the ?????? as valid proof of possession, just as he would prefer another to if his own property were lost.

 

Furthermore, the???? [69] explains the doubled words of ??? ????? as a ???? to return the same item four or five times when it is repeatedly lost. The ???"?'s version of the ???? extends this to returning the?????  even one hundred times[70], just as one might do with his own property. In the words of the ??÷?? ??????[71], "??? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ??????."

 

It is clear from these sources that the ???? of ????? ???? ???? plays an important role in the development of various  ?????relevant to the ???? of ???? ?????. Our understanding shows the importance of proper behavior ??? ??? ?????? is a lesson inherent in the commandment. But the discussion of ????? ???? ???? within the context of this ???? would not be complete without further mention of the ???÷?? found in ???? ??????. Instead of instructing ??? ????? in regard to the property of "????," as the ???? does in ?? ???, the terminology used here specifically mentions "??? ?????," the animals of one's enemy. The ???? gives several explanations for the variance. Perhaps the most well-known is "?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????[72]." ??"? are telling us that a portion of the ????, in essence, is a challenge to overcome the ???? ???? that exists between Jews, the cause of the destruction of the second ??? ??÷??. We are charged with obligation to defeat the ??? ??? inside of us to do wrong against another member of ??? ?????. We must respect even our enemy like ourselves, and his property as if it was ours. And, if we do succeed in conquering our ???, our evil inclination, ?÷?"? promises that our reward will be doubled:

??? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????, ????? ??? ?????? ??.[73]

 

[1]  ???? ??:?

[2]  ??? ????? ??? ??, ?? ???? ???

[3]  ????? ??:?

[4]  ?? ?

[5]  ?? ?"? ?? ???? ??????. ?"? ?"? ?? ??: ?"? ???? ???? ??? ?????

[6]  ????? ??:?

[7]  ???? ??, ????? ÷??

[8]  ???? ?÷??, ?÷??

[9]  ??"? ?"? ?? ??. ?"? ???? ???????; ???"? ????? ????? ?????? ??:?

[10]  ???"? ????? ????? ?????? ??:?; ??? ??"? ???? ???:?, ???:?

[11]  ?? ??: ?"? ????? ?????

[12]  ???? ?? ?. ?"? ?? ????; ??? ÷?? ?? ÷??. ?"? ?? ???????; ????? ?? ?: ?"? ??????? ??????

 [13] ???? ???"? ????? ????? ?????? ??:? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ???????? ??????

[14]  ?? ??: ?"? ????? ?????

[15]  ?? ??. ?"? ????

[16]  ???? ??:?

[17]  ???? ???:?

[18]  ???? "????? ?? ?????? ??? ???" (??÷?? ?:??)

[19]  ??? ÷?? ?? ??.; ???"? ????? ????? ?:??, ????? ????? ?????? ?:?; ??? ??"? ???? ???:?, ???:?

[20]  ???? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?????, ???? ??

[21]  ??? ????? ?? ??:

[22]  ?? ?? ??:

[23]  ?? ?? ??: ?"? ???? ???? ??? ?????

[24]  ?? ?? ??: ?"? ???? ???? ?????

[25]  ?? ?? ?.

[26]  ????? ??:?

[27]  ??? ????? ?? ?. ?"? ?÷? ??? ?????

[28]  ?? ?:

[29]  ????? ????÷? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??: ???? ???"? ?"? ???? ???  ???? ????, ???"? ?? ???? ?? ????÷ ?? ????"? ????? ????"? (???? ????)

[30]  ???"? ????? ????? ?????? ??:??

[31]  ???? ???? "???? ???? ?÷?? ????? ??? ?÷?" (??÷?? ??:??);  ???? ???"? ????? ????? ???? ?:?

[32]  ??÷? ???"? ??? ????? ???? ??

[33]  ??÷?? ??:?

[34]  ?? ?

[35]  ???"? ????? ????? ?????? ??:??, ????? ?????? ?:??, ????? ????? ??:??, ???? ??? ?÷????

[36]  ???? ????? ?? ??. ??? ??? ???? (??"? ??? ????? ?? ?. ?"? ??? ???); ?"? ???"? ????? ????? ???? ?:? ?????: "???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?÷??"

[37]  ??????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ?. ?"? ÷?? ???? ???; ?"? ???÷? ???? ??? ?????, ?? ??. ???? ???"? ?"? ???

[38]  ??? ÷?? ??:, ????? ??? ?? ??., ???? ??? ?÷???? ??????? ????÷ "?????? ?? ???? ???" (????? ??:??)

[39]  ??????? ?? ??? ?????, ?? ?. ?"? ÷?? ???? ???

[40]  ????? ????? ?????? ??:?

[41]  ??"? ???? ???:?. ???? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ???????? ??? ?? ????? ??: "????? ?? ??????," ??? "?????" ??? ?????? ????. ?"?  ??? ???? ?????? (????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ??????? "???? ?????" ?"÷ ?) ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??÷?, ??? ????? ???"?, ??? ??"? ??????.

[42]  ??? ????? ?? ?.

[43]  ?? ??:

[44]  ???? ??"? ,501 feet - ?' ????? ???? ??? - feet 401(The Practical Talmud Dictionary, Yitzchak Frank, Appendix II - Measures, Weights, Coins, and Numbers, page 298)

[45]  ???? ???"? ?????? ?' ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ???"? ?"? ??? ???, ????? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ????. ???, ?????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??????? (????? ???? ?????? ???? ???:?, ????? ??? ?÷?? "???? ?????")

[46]  ?? ??. ?"? ????

[47]  ?????? ???"? ??????? ??"?, ??? ????? ???? ?"? (?????? "???????")

[48]  ??? ????? ????, ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??????? "???????" ???? ??????. ????, ?? ?÷???? ?????? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ??"?. ????, ???? ??????? ?? ?"? ???, ???? ???? ??. ??"?: "?? ?? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ?????." ??????, ?????? ????÷ ???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ÷??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ????. ???, ????? ?÷ ???? ?? ??????, ???? ???? ?????, ????? ?? ?????. ????, ?? ?? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ???????? ???÷ ??? ?? ??? ?????, ??? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??:?, ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ÷??. ??? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ???"? ???? ????? ?? ??: ?"? ???? ????, ???? ?????? ??????? ?? "??????" (???? ???? 42) ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ???????? ??? ???? ?????.??, ????? ?? ??' ???? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????. ????? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ??' ???? ????????, ???? ??"?. ?? ?÷???? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ???÷?, ??? ?"???? ????????," ??? ?÷? ?????? ??? (???? ?? ???? ???? ?? "?????? ????????," ??? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ??÷?)

[49]  ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? , ??? ??"? (???? ???? 20)

[50]  ??? ????? ?? ??., ?"? ?? ???? ??????

[51]  ??

[52]  ??÷ ?, ???? ?"?

[53]  ??"? ???? ÷??:? (????? ??"?)

[54]  ???? ????? ??÷ ?, (??? ?????) ???? ??, ?"÷ ?

[55]  ???? ?÷??

 [56] ?????? ???"? ?????? ??"?, ??? ????? ???? ??; ?"? ??? ???? ?? (?????? "???????")

[57]  ????? ???? ???, ????? ????? ??÷???, ???? ??

[58]  ??? ????? ?? ??., ?????? ?? ??., ??? ÷?? ?? ??:, ????? ?? ??:

[59]  ??? ??"? ???? ???, ??"? ??, ????

[60]  ?????? ??? ????? ?? ??:, ?"? ????? ???? (???? ???"?), ???"? ????? ????? ?????? ??:?, ????? ???? ??"? ???? ???, ????

[61]  ???? ??? "????÷ ????? ???? ?? ?????"

[62]  ????? ??:?

[63]  ?? ??. ?"? ??? ?????

[64]  ???? ??:-??.

[65]  ???? ????? ?÷???? ??? ????? ?? ?., ???? ?? ?????? ???"? ?????? ???

[66]  ????? ??:??. ?????÷??????? ??????? ??? ??, ???? ??, ???? 606 ????: "???? ?????? ??? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ???, ??? ?? ?? ???????." ?? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?÷? ??? ????? ????? ??????? ???"?. ??, ????? ?? ?? ???? ??"?, ?? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ?÷??????.??? ????? ????, ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????, ??? ?? ??÷ ?????? ?? ???? ?????. (????? ?? ????? ?????? ????"? ????? ????? ?????? ??÷ ??. ????? ??"? ???? ???.)

[67]  ?? ?:

[68]  ?? ??:

[69]  ?? ?:

[70]  ????? ????? ?????? ??:??

[71]  ?? ??? ??? ??÷??, ??? ???? ?' ????? ????

[72]  ???? ?????, ?? ??? ???

[73]  ???? ????, ???? ??:? (???? ???? "???? ????")

 

 

קוד השיעור: 4054

סרוק כדי להעלות את השיעור באתר:

West Hempstead, NY

לשליחת שאלה או הארה בנוגע לשיעור:




הרב אחימאיר קלה
ע K
הרב קלמן מאיר בר
הרב קלמן מאיר בר
ע K
הרב קלמן מאיר בר
הרב קלמן מאיר בר
ע K
הרב אפרים רובינשטיין
הרב אפרים רובינשטיין
ע 2
הרב מרדכי גרינברג <br> נשיא הישיבה
הרב מרדכי גרינברג
נשיא הישיבה
ע 2 P
הרב שלום רוזנר
הרב שלום רוזנר
E 2
הרב אפרים רובינשטיין
הרב אפרים רובינשטיין
ע 2 P