Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Ta'anis 24a - Ma'aseh Nissim

There seems to be a contradiction between rashi 24a (d.h. ela) and rashi 24b (d.h. amar) whether it is "assur" or just "not proper" to benefit from the product of a miracle. I later found this question raised by the mitzpah eisan (he makes a distinction between a miracle done for an individual and an miracle done for the public - to me it seems to be a dochek). I think the distinction is that on 24a the miracle was done in the zechus of Elazar Ish birta and he (and his daughter) would be the ones benefiting so it is an issur since it will be deducted from his zechyos. But, on 24b the miracle was done in the zechus of R' Yehuda (just as the rain came in the zechus of him removing his shoe), and it was the buyers who were going to be benefiting, therefore it is not an issur on them to benefit from r' yehuda's zechuyos. Nevertheless, since the source of the benefit is a miracle, it is preferable not to benefit from a miracle at all (and perhaps their benefit would deduct from R' Yehuda's zechuyos so he tried to discourage them from benefiting).
The problem is that rashi 25a (d.h. ad) in the story with the oil says that r' chanina lit another candle from the miracle candle so as not to benefit from the miracle "just like r' yehuda did by the sand and flour". Based on the distinction above, in the case of R' chanina there would be an issur to benefit, so rashi should have cited the proof from the case of Elazar Ish birta?
For an answer - see comments.

3 comments:

Avi Lebowitz said...

The simple answer is that rashi prefers to cite the case where the gemara makes the comment mefurash that one should not benefit from miracles. On 24a the gemara doesn't say anything, it is rashi who adds that line.

Another answer (derech pilpul) is: It could be that the zechus of the vinegar burning was not in the merit of r' chanina but rather in the merit of his daughter, since she is the one who was sad by the mistake (also, it seems that it was burning before she even told her father about it!). Now, regarding the mitzvah of boreh meorei ha'aish on motzei shabbos - see biur halacha (end of 296) that even if women are chayav in havdola, they are not chayav in the birchas ha'ner. Therefore, if it is true that the miracle was in her zechus, but the benefit for havdalah is only for r' chanina not for her, there is no issur for him to benefit. That is why rashi cites the gemara on 24b rather than the story on 24a.

Anonymous said...

To answer the stira between the two Rashi's on 24, you could say that by R' Yehudah they needed the food, so since it was b'hechrach for R"Y to daven for food,it wouldn't be asur to be nehena from it. By the story on 24a, though, it wasn't really necessary, so to be nehena from it would be asur.

Yossie Schonkopf said...

before i read your post i was learning like the mitzpeh eitan and to answer the oil story i thought that on shabbos one may use nisim. this will answer question that rashi is mashma that his wife had miracle bread every shabbos again this is dificult if one may not use miracles. also in the candle sotory itself why on shabbos they used it and after shabbos not (know you addressed this). if one may use on shabbos then all fits in.
the problem is that the medrash shmos (52) has a famous story of a tana that got a precious stone from heaven and used it to buy shabbos food. according to my premise in rashi they should be alowed to use it. the story concludes however that his wife refused to eat the food. perhaps this was the argument between him and his wife or she went beyond the regular obligation.
i hear your pshat and its clever. just though you would appreciate another angle.