In the story with Ruth, the Go'el was concerned "pen achish nachalasi" - he was afraid that his children will be pesulei kahal, as rashi explains in Ruth 4:6 that the go'el made mistake by not realizing "moavi and not moavis". The Maharsha asks, based on his mistake of not making this drasha i.e. holding like Do'eg, he should have been concerned for doing an issur of marrying an Amonis. Why was his concern only about his children being pasul to kehal and not about himself doing an issur? Maharsha answers that he had a heter for yibum bec. the aseh of yibum would push off the issur moavi, but his children would still be pesulei k'hal. This approach if very difficult bec. even though based on Ramban by Tamar we find the concept of Yibum in regard to all relatives, it certainly would not have the power to push off an issur (especially in the time of Ruth which was after matan torah)?
The Brisker Rav on Ruth answers this question, that the beis din of Boaz was matir Ruth based on a drasha of "moavi and not moavis". Really this drasha was a halacha l'moshe misinai and could not be changed, but the go'el didn't accept that it was a halacha l'moshe m'sinai, rather assumed that it was a drasha of 13 midos which can be accepted in one generation and then overturned in the next generation. So, for himself he had a heter to marry Ruth since that was the p'sak of the beis din in his generation, but he was concerned that it will be overturned in future generations and retroactively render his children p'sulei k'hal.
Regarding Tosafos question, just like we make the drasha of "moavi and not moavis" we should make the drasha of "mitzri and not mitzris", both maharsha and brisker rav agree based on Rambam (Isurei Biah 12:18) that it is not a drasha, rather a halacha l'moshe misinai.
7 comments:
The Yerushalmi says that you can't even accept a ger from Moav. The Maharsha obviously is not following that opinion because otherwise, he couldnt be meyabem her at all.
The Brisker Rav piece is very shver. The gemara follows with the question after the halacha lemoshe misinai was stated, "MIKOL MAKOM KASHA", that is the gemara still holds you may ask the question even after the halacha was stated. Apparently, even Shmuel's Bais Din did not state it as a halacha l'moshe misinai, but rather as a drasha of the 13 middos.
I asked this question to R' Dovid Soloveitchik, the son of the Brisker Rov, who wasn't bothered by it. However, he didn't really answer me.
Send a reply message
First, it is not the brisker rav who creates the halacha l'moshe misinai idea, the maharsha already says that.
Following the brisker mehalech, i think i can explain r' dovid's answer to you. He meant to say that the gemara's question was not challenging the halacha l'moshe misinai. Based on the halacha l'moshe, the issur does not apply to women, so why would the reason of the torah apply to both men and women. To that the gemara answers that there was no compalint against the women.
I find the brisker rav's vort difficult bec. if Boaz was claiming halacha l'moshe misinai, what was the Go'el worried about? Did he not trust Boaz that it was halacha l'moshe misinai?
Avromi - where is the yerushalmi that you are quoting? if you are refering to the language of "mekabel", that could mean accept him to marry kehal. I won't beleive that the yerushalmi holds that we can't accept geirim from amon and mo'av unless it is absolutely explicit (and then i will just have a major question on how that can be!).
The Yerushalmi is in Dmai 2:1
Doveiv Meisharim 3:66 talks about it.
yad shaul S"A 262 doesnt like it though
Also check tosfos Nazir 23b
shkoyach! i don't have all the seforim that you mention but i did look up the yerushalmi. The yerushalmi says that acc. to R' Elazar we are choshesh for mi'ut, therefore if a non-jew has produce we are concerned he purchased it from a fellow non-jew and ma'aser must be taken b'vadai, rather than following the majority of land owners in Eretz Yisroel who are jews (which would render it d'mai). The gemara asks, if so, we should also be choshesh for any convert who comes to convert that we should not accept him since he may be from amon or moav....
The yerushalmi can be understood to simply be saying that we should not accept converts and assume they are from other nations to allow them to marry kehal hashem, rather we should be choshesh that they are from amon and mo'av and cannot marry kehal hashem.
i don't see any proof at all from tosafos in nazir.
these sources are not compelling enough to be mechadesh a new halacha that we don't accept converts from amon and mo'av.
Tosfos in Nazir states that a ger from ammon and moav are assur b'kehal and to the azarah like a tamei. Where does that come from; if he's a ger?
I agree, btw, not compelling, but hints to it.
Post a Comment