During last night's shiur, it became clear that the Gemara's analysis of the din of אם מיעטן - כשר - is ultimately a קושיא on R. Yirmiya!
To briefly review:
Ostensibly, the Gemara was analyzing the context of the din in the mishna which stated that reducing the over-berried hadas makes that hadas kosher.
The Gemara proceeds to analyze the context: It rejects the option of having reduced the berries before the hadas was bound, since there would be no "chidush" in such a statement; it's פשיטא
It therefore concludes that the berry-reduction procedure must have been done after it was bound. This leads the Gemara to two conclusions: One implicit and one explicit.
The implicit conclusion - as explained by Rashi - is that the Tanna does not have a problem at all of תעשה ולא מן העשוי. Why? We do not learn Lulav from Succah. Why, we asked, did Rashi choose to explain our Tanna this way? He could also have more easily said that our Tanna does not believe that Lulav needs an Eged. This would have made it impossible to have a din of תעשה ולא מן העשוי - since there is no 'binding' required?! We answered that it must be, that Rashi, for some reason, believes that our Tanna holds Lulav צריך אגד. Therefore, he can only avert the תעשה problem by explaining that we do not learn lulav from Succah....
The explicit conclusion - that דיחוי מעיקרא is not dichui.
In other words, even though, once it became a candidate for a "halachic hadas" - ie after it was bound - it was invalid (too many berries) this hadas, once it has its berries removed, is kosher. It must be then, that a state of psul does not make it eternally pasul! It must be that a dichui state is reversible!
This conclusion is the fuel for the new קושיא on R. Yirmiya:
If an Amora is responsible for all the mishnayot, then why did he not see an answer to his "niktam rosho" question in our very own mishna? Just as the Gemara asked on 33a: why did he ask his question in the first place, after all there is a mishna of כיסוי הדם, so, too, we ask the same kind of question here: why did he ask his question in the first place, after all there is a mishna of אם מיעטן כשר?
The answer is going to have to be, that despite his knowledge of our mishna, he still asked his question: Our mishna apparently does not teach that אין דחוי במצוות
Our issue for tonight is: how to read our mishna so that it DOESN'T necessarily teach this principle, thereby justifying R. Yirmiya's question....
No comments:
Post a Comment