Key Ideas In Review
In honor of Succot, here is a video of a robot pet shaking a lulav:
Yesterday’s daf (Kiddushin 52) touched on topics we’ve covered in the past.
(1) Thus, we had the story of Sumchos pushing his way into the beit midrash. I discussed this at length in a Substack post and in a Jewish Link article, about a gemara in Nazir. You can read that here.
There are parallel of conflicting stories, in which Sumchos’ citation of Rabbi Meir is about different laws. As I observe here, the answer that perhaps the woman pushed her way into the Temple despite others not wanting her there is parallel to Sumchos’ own experience in being barred from entering Rabbi Yehuda’s beit midrash, only to push his way in.
To innovate a little here. Our Mishnah begins with a statement, seemingly without argument, that one cannot betroth using a sacrifice. Then, a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda as to whether and in which situation one can betroth using maasar sheini; then, another dispute between the two about using hekdesh.
If we examine the parallel Yerushalmi, we see a dispute between Rabbi Eleazar (ben Pedat) and Rabbi Yochanan. Rabbi Eleazar says that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda agree in the first segment of the Mishnah. Rabbi Yochanan says that they also argue in that first segment.
Check our sugya in Bavli. Now Rabbi Yochanan says that while Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda initially did argue, they voted and concluded like Rabbi Meir that she isn’t betrothed. (Rav says that this didn’t happen, and so they still argue.) I don’t think this is a contradiction within Rabbi Meir. His point there was that this was actually initially an argument (e.g. whether to compare it to maasar sheini or bechor). Later, sure, they can retract.
However, I am not sure who the Sumchos story (also appearing in Yerushalmi) supports. Rabbi Yehuda’s objection seems to support the idea that it is indeed a dispute, thus like Rabbi Yochanan. But Rabbi Yehuda seems to object to the very idea that such a case is practically possible to come about, and that Sumchos is saying nonsense to provoke. Doesn’t this imply that they didn’t argue about it during Rabbi Meir’s lifetime? Also, when exactly did they vote, and who voted? I suppose that the other fifth-generation Tannaim (Rabbi Yossi, Rabbi Eleazar ben Shamua, and Rabbi Shimon) are still around to vote.
(2) Also on the daf was yaal kegam and ruling like Abaye (*only) in those cases. I discussed this on Substack and in a Jewish Link article, Abaye Seldom Wins.
There is a reference there to how Tosafot on our daf mention a dispute as to the LAMED of yaal kegam.
To remind you of my novel suggestion there, I would consider this more or a masoretic note for the Garsan, the Reciter, about which cases across Shas we have a definitive ruling like Abaye. That should not be binding for posekim who might rule like Abaye in other cases. It doesn’t represent the restrictive halachic position of the Talmudic Redactors.
I’ve also been listening to Rav Schachter’s shiurim on Berachot, sixth perek, and there are a whole bunch of vehilchetas which are not dispositive, and indeed don’t make any sense. And they appear to be drawn from the Behag, rather than being original to the sugya. I have a post in draft about that, so it will hopefully be coming soon.