We pasken like Rebbi that kohanim can drink wine. However, there is a machlokes rashi and rabbeinu chananel to explain rebbi. Rashi explains that even a kohein who nows exactly his mishmar and bais av is allowed to drink wine, but Rabbeinu Chananel says that he is only arguing on the last situation when he doesn't know his mishmar and bais av. This machlokes is also an argument between the Ramabam (bias mikdash 1:7) who says like Rabbeinu Chananel that a kohein who knows his beis av cannot drink wine that day, and if he only knows his mishmar he can't drink wine the whole week, and the Ra'avad says like rashi that any kohein may drink wine.
Rashi/ra'avad seem to be gores "kilkalaso takanaso", meaning that the amount of time that elapsed that would be assur to drink (kilkalaso) is indicative of not having to be concerned for the imminent building of the bais hamikdash (takanaso). However, the girsa in our gemara and the Rambam is "takanaso kilkalaso" which is explained by the maharsha (chidushei agados) to mean that his takana to be able to drink wine which is not knowing his beis av and mishmar, is kilkalaso that perhaps he is not a kohein at all and can drink wine always - to the exclusion of a kohein who knows his mishmar and/or beis av who cannot drink wine on that day/week.
The difficulty with rashi is that we come out paskening like rebbi that we are not concerned for the rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdash. This is addressed by the Ra'avad that even if we assume it will be build imminently, the restoration of the mishmaros and beis av will take some time.
7 comments:
how come certaim families never worked in the beis hamikdash?rashi's 2nd pshat is that they were "mechulal" but in his 1st pshat he is ambiguous? why?
Yossie (hakohen)
A non - related question on daf 16 please.
In Gevulin the braisa states tiku bnei aharon tiku and the same by teruah. In the Mikdash, the braisa states tiku hakohanim b'nei aharon tiku. Why the switch?
Thank you
Avi
When learning the gemorah like rashi I was bothered how is it possible not to hold of shema yibaneh bais hamikdash. the gemorah in sukah by the omer learns it as a davar pashut that we are choshesh for shema yibaneh( also the gemorah in betiza 5b)? how does rashi fit in these gemorah with our gemorah.
this is getting confusing,
Avrumi,
your q from switching from kohanim to bnei ahron i think is discuused by the gvuras ari (and maybe also the rashash)
regarding not using the sefer 3 times. is this a halacha or a minhag? (sorry for the ignorance) in any case, the point of this halacha/minhag is that it's a "bizayon", but here this is exactly the point of going to the street.
aron,
thanks for the source.
tzvi - regarding rashi's opinion that we are not concerned for meheira yibaneh, i think that there is a strong question from the gemara about the yom hanaf kulo assur. that is why the ra'avad deviates slightly from rashi. but i think that aron's answer is very good that we are concerned for an issur b'kum v'aseh if the mikdash will be build imminently, but we are not so concerned about the inavailability of the kohanim.
yoselle the holy kohen - interesting question why all kohanim did not serve. but, a slightly different point, it seems that there is a nafkam minah between the 2 peshatim of rashi. Acc. to the first peshat the only concern for abstaining from wine (even acc. to chachamim) is if you are sure that your family serves at least one of the days that year. but acc. to the 2nd peshat, so long as you know you come from a meyuchas family that is able to serve you would have to abstain from wine (acc. to chachamim who argue on rebbi).
A mareh makom that sheds light on the issue of shema yiboneh. the haga of Reb Akiva Eiger tosfos eruvin 43b. I think he is says what Aron was saying.
Post a Comment