21:15 טו כִּי-תִהְיֶיןָ לְאִישׁ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים, הָאַחַת
אֲהוּבָה וְהָאַחַת שְׂנוּאָה, וְיָלְדוּ-לוֹ בָנִים, הָאֲהוּבָה וְהַשְּׂנוּאָה;
וְהָיָה הַבֵּן הַבְּכֹר, לַשְּׂנִיאָה There is a Shittah of the Taz who holds that
any Davar that is Mifurash Bik’ra, meaning any Heter that is says Mifurash in
the Pasuk, is something that remains Muttar and Chazal has no right to totally
Assur it. The case is in Yoreh Daya in 117, Chazal made it Assur to have business
dealings with Ma’achalois Assurois, and yet the Mechabeir says that Cheilev is
Muttar because it says in the Pasuk by Cheilev, Kal Melacha Yei’asa Lachem. The
Taz explains that the Kavana of the Shulchan Aruch is this idea, that Chazal
have a right to make Gizairois D’rabannan, however, they cannot make something
totally Assur, something that is Mifurash in a Posuk as a Davar Hamuttar. There
are a number of cases where Chazal made D’rabannans which seems to touch upon
something that is a D’oiraisa. In this week’s Parsha we actually have 2 questions. 1) The Chasam Sofer has a Teshuva in Cheilek 6 Siman 52, where he
asks the following Kasha. It says in the Pasuk, “Ki Siyena L’ish Shtei Nashim
Ho’achas Ahuva V’ho’achas S’nua.” How can Rabbeinu Gershoin make an Issur on taking
2 wives, it is a Davar Hamifurash Bik’ra? Who says this Pasuk is talking about
a man who is married to 2 women at the same time? The Pasuk is talking about
the Bechor coming from the woman who is not beloved. He still remains the
Bechor, and the son from the Ahuva can’t go before the son from the S’nua.
L’choira, it is not Mifurash Bik’ra. The scenario can be that he was married to
them at different times and he has a Ben from the Ahuva and a Ben from the
S’nua.
23:4 &5 ד לֹא-יָבֹא עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי, בִּקְהַל יְרוָר: גַּם דּוֹר עֲשִׂירִי, לֹא-יָבֹא לָהֶם בִּקְהַל יְרוָר עַד-עוֹלָם ה עַל-דְּבַר אֲשֶׁר לֹא-קִדְּמוּ אֶתְכֶם, בַּלֶּחֶם וּבַמַּיִם, בַּדֶּרֶךְ, בְּצֵאתְכֶם מִמִּצְרָיִם; וַאֲשֶׁר שָׂכַר עָלֶיךָ אֶת-בִּלְעָם בֶּן-בְּעוֹר, מִפְּתוֹר אֲרַם נַהֲרַיִם--לְקַלְלֶךָּ The Sefer Bishalal Rav asks,
it says “Loi Yavoi Amoini Umoiavi Bikhal Hashem” “Al D’var Asher Loi Kidmu
Eschem Balechem Uvamayim.” The Pasuk is saying B’feirush that we should have
been given bread and water by Ammon and Moav. The Kasha is, how did Chazal make
a Gezeira against Pas Akum, it says here B’feirush “Asher Loi Kidmu Eschem
Balechem Uvamayim.” Meaning, it is B’feirush in the Pasuk that Pas Akum is
Muttar? He answers, Amon and Moav were not punished because the Bnei Yisrael
needed their bread and water. Klal Yisrael had plenty to eat. The Oinesh was
because they didn’t offer any bread and water. They should have shown
friendship to Klal Yisrael. Even had they offered, we wouldn’t have eaten it.
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה