Weekly DAFootnotes Bava Kama 23-29 Issue #4 Week of 30 Av - 6 Elul 5761 / July 29 - August 4, 2001 By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions ===================================== A WARNING TO EVIL TONGUES Miriam was punished for slandering her brother Moshe by being afflicted with a spiritual form of leprosy called “tzaraat” which required her to be separated from the entire community. In response to Moshe’s prayers for her recovery Hashem thus explained the need for her to be punished for showing disrespect for Him by questioning the behavior of His chosen servant! “Had her father spit in her face would she not need to be ashamed for seven days?” (Bamidbar 12:14) This was followed by a Heavenly judgment that Miriam be shut out from the camp of Israel for seven days and serves as the basis for a discussion in our gemara about the rules of “kal vechomer” in Talmudic interpretation of the Torah. What prompted Miriam to speak so critically to her brother Aaron of Moshe’s separation from his wife and challenge his decision with the argument that Hashem had spoken with her and Aaron as well, and yet had not required them to cease marital relations? The Midrash provides the answer. When Eldad and Meidad were designated by Heaven as prophets (Bamidbar 11:26), Miriam, who was standing next to Moshe’s wife Zipporah, commented on how fortunate were the wives of these two men who had been chosen for leadership. Zipporah’s response was that the wives were unfortunate in their husbands’ being elevated to such contact with Hashem because ever since her husband had been thus elevated, he had decided to separate from her. Miriam, who had initially accepted his action because she assumed he had been commanded by Hashem to do so, became enraged when she now discovered that this separation had been his own initiative based on his special relationship with Hashem. In reprimanding her for her criticism, Hashem pointed out the difference between the ordinary prophets like herself and the prophet Moshe, whose sublime level did indeed require a different level of separation from human affairs. Moshe’s decision received Divine approval and the punishment suffered by his sister for slandering him is held up by the Torah as a warning to refrain from lashon hara. Bava Kama 25a ===================================== PATTERNS AND HABITS What is the connection between prayer and a goring ox? The Torah tells us that an ox which has demonstrated a pattern of goring achieves the status of a “shor hamuad” – an inveterate gorer – and his owner assumes greater responsibility for the damage it causes. How this pattern is established is thus spelled out: “Should the ox be a gorer yesterday and the day before that, and even after its owner has been warned he failed to guard it.” (Shmot 21:29) From this passage our Sages derived that it requires three gorings to reach the status of shor hamuad. The text of this passage indicates that these three gorings occurred in three consecutive days and it is therefore the position of Rabbi Yehuda that if they all took place in one day, the pattern has not been established. Rabbi Meir, however, disagrees because he argues that if goring in three days indicates a wild nature, then three times in one day is even more of an indication. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 114:9) applies Rabbi Meir’s logic to the laws of prayer in the following fashion. We stop mentioning in our Shmone Esrei our praise for Hashem as the provider of rain (“mashiv haruach umorid hageshem”) on the first day of Pesach, and if we inadvertently mention it afterwards we must repeat our prayer. Should we be uncertain as to whether we made such an error, it is the ruling of the Jerusalem Talmud that once 30 days have passed since we were required to make this change, we may assume that we have already become so habituated to this change that we probably did what we were supposed to. Rabbi Meir of Rottenberg, a German commentator of the Middle Ages, applied the logic of the Talmudic Sage Rabbi Meir to this situation by ruling that if a person, on the first day of Pesach, repeats this section of the Shmone Esrei 90 times with the deletion of the mention of rain, he may safely assume that his successive prayers were said with this required deletion. In the space of 30 days of three prayer services a day, we say this section of the services 90 times. If this habitualization can take place over a period of 30 days, he concludes, it can certainly happen when those 90 times are concentrated in one day. One of the challenges to this ruling is presented by the author of the Turei Zahav who asks how it is possible to base a rule in prayer on the position of Rabbi Meir when it is the conclusion of our gemara that the halacha is like the position of Rabbi Yehuda that three gorings in one day cannot establish the status of muad? A response to this challenge is provided by the author of the “Drisha”. Rabbi Yehuda does not actually dispute the logic of Rabbi Meir that a concentrated effort is more habit forming than one spread out over more time. His point is that we learn from zavah (the consecutive three-day menstrual flow which renders a woman spiritually impure for seven days) that wherever the Torah specifically designated a pattern based on separated days, it insisted on this pattern alone. Since there is no such Torah passage in relation to the deletion or mention of prayers, he concludes Rabbi Yehuda will also agree that 90 times in one day is at least as effective in creating a habit as 90 times spread out over 30 days. Bava Kama 24a ===================================== If you like this e-mail please share it with a friend. ===================================== To subscribe to this list please e-mail DafYomi-subscribe@ohr.edu To unsubscribe e-mail DafYomi-unsubscribe@ohr.edu ===================================== (C) 2001 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.