Sunday, October 29, 2006
Beitza 3b - Davar Sheyesh Lo Matirin
The gemara concludes (acc. to r' ashi) that davar sheyesh lo matirin is the reason to assur the ta'aroves and also the reason for it being assur misafek. Rashi and Ran disagree with the logic behind the chumra of davar sheyesh lo matirin. Rashi - since it will be mutar later, you should wait. Ran (Nedarim 52a) - bitul can only occur if the 2 are different but something which will be mutar is too similar to heter to become batul. In short, acc. to rashi bittul takes place but chazal still require you to be machmir, whereas acc. to ran the bittul does not take place (although even ran may agree it is only derabanan). The rashash and tzlach both point out that the logic of the Ran only explains ta'aroves, but it does not explain safek, so for safek lichumra we must say like rashi. Why then does the Ran add a new reason, since he anyway must come on to rashi's rationale to explain safek being assur? Perhaps it is based on tzlach who points out that rashi's reason only applies to eatable items since it is a 1 time use, but by something where one can benefit many times, the lose of todays use cannot be made upt so bittul does take place. The Ran's sevara would help to assur in the case of a non-eatable item where one can benefit multiple times.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Thank you - I actually went to bed last night thinking about this question and couldn't come up with an answer. Interestingly, the meforshim on the margin of the S"A discuss whether a person is mesupak if he waited the proper amount of time between meat and dairy, is it a davar shyeish lo matirin and therefore assur. Rabbi Genack believed that based on the Tzlach it is not a davar shyeish lo matirin because you wil never have those hours back. (This never made sense to me because the issue is about multiple usage and not lost time - the very concept of yeish lo matirin assumes lost time).
rav yisroel resiman also says that it is mutar to eat because you want to eat now and later.
ok - so r' reisman and r' genack are both saying the same thing. when the discussion is about a piece of food that can only be eaten once, the argument of the tzelach is applicable. but when the discussion is about eating dairy, which can consist of anything, it would be similar to hana'ah which can be done now and later and is therefore ein lo matirin and mutar misafek.
Post a Comment