Shabbat 92-93: Many Leviim washing one kohen's hand

The Mishna on the bottom of Shabbat 92b:

MISHNAH. IF ONE CARRIES OUT A LOAF INTO THE STREET, HE IS CULPABLE; IF TWO CARRY IT OUT, THEY ARE NOT CULPABLE. IF ONE COULD NOT CARRY IT OUT AND TWO CARRY IT OUT, THEY ARE CULPABLE; BUT R. SIMEON EXEMPTS [THEM].¹⁷

In the gemara that follows, a distinction is made between where both are capable and where only one is capable. Where both are capable, the lack of culpability might arise from a special Scriptural derivation, which might not be extended to other cases. Where only one is capable and the other is merely helping, helping is considered no concrete act. And this extends to many different cases, in all fields of Jewish law.

So what of the Leviim washing the kohanim's hands, prior to duchening? In many shuls I've been, the Leviim greatly outnumber the kohanim, and so multiple hands lift the cup, or one pushes the elbow of the one who is pouring. Should this be considered a case when both are capable, or is "both are capable" dealing with a case where both are capable and are equally carrying the object, to the exclusion of both capable but one merely assisting? Can we extrapolate to our case from the gemara?

If one can extrapolate from two capable actors to declare the act not valid, would that invalidate the hand-washing as not being the result of koach?

Is assisting is considered no concrete act, then is there any point in all these other Leviim crowding in? I suppose to show eagerness for the mitzvah.

No answers here, nor even off-line analysis. The answers are left as an exercise to the reader.

Shabbat 53b: Abaye as a classic rationalist

You might have noticed that I fell a bit behind. I'm catching up on missed material while at the same time keeping pace with current Daf Yomi.

On Shabbat 53b:

Our Rabbis taught: It once happened that a man's wife died and left a child to be suckled, and he could not afford to pay a wet-nurse, whereupon a miracle was performed for him and his teats opened like the two teats of a woman and he suckled his son. R. Joseph observed, Come and see how great was this man, that such a miracle was performed on his account! Said Abaye to him, On the contrary: how lowly was this man, that the order of the Creation²⁴ was changed on his account!²⁵

This contrast between Rav Yosef and his student Abaye parallels arguments elsewhere between Abaye and his teacher (either Rav Yosef or Rabba, he simply refers to him as Mar). See Chullin 105b for examples (English pulled from Point By Point Summary):

(Abaye): I used to think that we do not wash after the meal onto the ground due to the filth. My Rebbi (Rabah) taught that it is due to the evil spirit that rests on the water.

(Abaye): I used to think that the reason we do not take something from the table in front of someone who is drinking is lest he get angry. Rabah taught that it is due to the spirit of Tzarda (dazing spells).

(Abaye): I used to think that we gather crumbs for the sake of cleanliness. Rabah taught that it is to avoid poverty.

(Abaye): I used to think that the reason we do not drink froth (on top of a liquid that was poured) is because it is repulsive. Rabah taught that it is because it leads to Karsam (a nasal drip and inflammation);

(Abaye): I used to think that the reason we do not eat a vegetable straight from the bundle is because it appears gluttonous. Rabah taught that it makes one susceptible to witchcraft.

(Abaye): I used to think that the reason we do not eat a vegetable that fell on the tray is because it is repulsive. Rabah taught that it leads to mouth odor.

(Abaye): I used to think that the reason we don't sit under gutter pipes is due to the water that flows down. Rabah taught that Mazikim (Shedim, which are beings with similarities to people and to angels) frequent the area.

(Abaye): I used to think that the reason we spill water from the top of a barrel is due to chips of wood that float on top. Rabah taught that it is lest Mazikim drank from it.

Many of the commonsense reasons Abaye gives are superseded by what we might term superstitious, or else, mystically-inclined reasons, provided by his teacher.

Turning back to the gemara in Shabbos, each Amora is making sweeping homiletic statements based on this incident. Indeed, the gemara continues with two additional statements.

I would say that Abaye is not trying to simply be contrary, and to contradict Rav Yosef, when Abaye says:

On the contrary: how lowly was this man, that the order of the Creation²⁴ was changed on his account!²⁵

Rather, I think Abaye was one of the early Jewish rationalists. Look at the "rationalist" Rishonim. When they explain Divine miracles by "natural" means, it was not an effort to discount the wonder of the miracle, and to encourage disbelief. Rather, they viewed the perfection of Creation as evidence of Hashem's absolute perfection. God set the constellations on their courses, and they continue in their set paths, and perhaps have influence on human events.

אשר במאמרו ברא שחקים, וברוח פיו כל צבאם, חוק וזמן נתן להם שלא ישנו את תפקידם

A change in the natural order in order for Hashem to accomplish His design implies that there was a flaw in the original act of creation, and a perfect God does not make a flaw. That is why, according to Avos, even the mouth of the pit that swallowed Datan and Aviram, and the mouth of the donkey that spoke to Bilaam, were created at twilight at the tail-end of the act of Creation.

This would lead Abaye to regard a diversion from the natural order as sub-optimal.

Meanwhile, Rav Yosef would regard the diversion from the natural order as evidence of an engaged God, who can bend nature to His Will, for He created nature.

Shabbat 89-90: In defense of Rav Kahana and Rav Yehuda

Shabbat 89a-b:
Rav Kahana tries to darshen the name Har Sinai, and appears to fail miserably:

One of the Rabbis asked R. Kahana: Hast thou heard what the mountain of Sinai [connotes]? The mountain whereon miracles [nissim] were performed for Israel, he replied. Then it should be called Mount Nisai? But [it means] the mountain whereon a happy augury [siman] took place for Israel. Then it should be called, Mount Simanai? Said he to him, Why dost thou not frequent [the academy of] R. Papa and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua, who make a study of aggadah. For R. Hisda and Rabbah the son of R. Huna both said, What is [the meaning of] Mount Sinai? The mountain whereon there descended hostility [sin'ah] toward idolaters.²⁴  And thus R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: It has five names: The Wilderness of Zin, [meaning] that Israel were given commandments there;²⁵  the Wilderness of Kadesh, where the Israelites were sanctified [kadosh], the Wilderness of Kedemoth, because a priority [kedumah] was conferred there;²⁶  the Wilderness of Paran, because Israel was fruitful [paru] and multiplied there; and the Wilderness of Sinai, because hostility toward idolaters descended thereon. Whilst what was its [real] name? Its name was Horeb. Now they disagree with R. Abbahu, For R. Abbahu said: its name was Mount Sinai, and why was it called Mount Horeb? Because desolation [hurbah] to idolaters descended thereon.

But is Rav Kahana's suggestion, 'The mountain whereon miracles [nissim] were performed for Israel', really so terrible? After all, the rejection was based on that this requires a transposition, Nisai as opposed to Sinai. Yet, in support of the eventual derasha, Sinai as Sinah, hatred, Rabbi Yossi b' Rabbi Chanina interpreted Midbar Tzin as the place shenitztavu Yisrael, that the Israelites were commanded. It appears that this derivation requires a transposition, of Nitz for Tzin.

Shabbat 90a:

LYE [BORITH]. Rab Judah said: That is sand. But it was taught: Borith and sand? Rather what is Borith? Sulphur. An objection is raised: To these were added halbezin⁶  and le'enn⁷  and borith and ahol.⁸  But if you maintain that it is sulphur, is then sulphur subject to shebi'ith? Surely it was taught: This is the general rule: Whatever as a root is subject to shebi'ith, but that which has no root is not subject to shebi'ith? But what is borith? Ahala.⁹  But it was taught: And borith and ahala?¹⁰  — There are two kinds of ahala.

Note that the rejection to Rav Yehuda, that there is a brayta that uses both chol and borit, can now fall away. For the gemara questioned the identification of borit with ahala, since a brayta put them together, such that they must be different. And the gemara concluded that they were two different shades of ahala. Once you can say this, you can also simply say that there are two different shades of chol, the typical chol and borit, specialized sand used for cleansing.

More than this, neither Rav Yehuda (as well as the eventual suggester in the gemara of ahala) knew full well of these braytot which listed both together. Indeed, rather than a rejection of their view, I suspect that this was the very basis of their view. Since items are listed in proximity in a brayta, it stands to reason that it is another shade of the same.

Coly Mackerel!

On Shabbos 39a:

וכל שלא בא בחמין מלפני השבת מדיחין אותו בחמין בשבת חוץ מן המליח ישן וקולייס האיספנין שהדחתן זו היא גמר מלאכתן ש"מ

but whatever did not come into hot water before the Sabbath, may be rinsed with hot water on the Sabbath,³  except old salted [pickled] fish and the colias of the Spaniards,⁴  because their rinsing completes their preparation.⁵  This proves it.

As R' Shteinsaltz writes, this kulyas is the coly mackerel.

I've never heard of the coly mackerel. But I've heard of the expression holy mackerel! According to   Wiktionary:

Etymology

Recorded from 1803 with uncertain origin, but possibly a euphemism for Holy Mary, with Mackerel being a nickname for Catholics because they ate the fish on Fridays. Another suggested explanation is the practice of selling mackerel on Sundays in the seventeenth century (because its quality deteriorates rapidly), so it was known as a holy fish.

But presumably, it also started because people knew of this thing called coly mackerel, and made the pun.

Shabbat 31b: Rava's diyuk

On daf 29b, I discussed the variant in the Mishna from Ktav Yad Kaufmann:

With the word מפני written in the margins, Rabbi Yossi's position in the Mishna becomes somewhat ambiguous.

1. It could be that the word מפני is implicitly there, in which case Rabbi Yossi only exempts when he wishes to spare the lamp or oil, but not if he wishes to spare the wick.
2. It could be that Rabbi Yossi exempts in all three cases, including where he wishes to spare the wick. The only place he holds one liable is for the wick which he is making into a pecham, charcoal. That is, it is his intention to light and then blow out the wick, to as to make it more fit for subsequent lighting.

Now on 31b, we see both possibilities put forth by different Amoraim.

Ulla holds like position #1, maybe.

ר' יוסי כמאן ס"ל אי כר' יהודה ס"ל אפילו בהנך נמי ליחייב ואי כר"ש ס"ל פתילה נמי ליפטר אמר עולא לעולם כר' יהודה ס"ל וקסבר ר' יוסי סותר על מנת לבנות במקומו הוי סותר על מנת לבנות שלא במקומו לא הוי סותר א"ל רבה מכדי כל מלאכות ילפינן להו ממשכן והתם סותר ע"מ לבנות שלא במקומו הוא א"ל שאני התם כיון דכתיב (במדבר ט, יח) על פי ה' יחנו כסותר ע"מ לבנות במקומו דמי 

Ulla maintains that Rabbi Yossi really holds like Rabbi Yehuda. He holds that only where one does a destructive action in order to make a constructive action in its place. Try to figure out Ulla, and see Tosafot.

But Rabbi Yochanan and Rava clearly hold like position #2:

ור' יוחנן אמר לעולם כר"ש ס"ל ומאי שנא פתילה כדאמר רב המנונא ואיתימא רב אדא בר אהבה הכא בפתילה שצריך להבהבה עסקינן דבההיא אפילו ר"ש מודי דקא מתקן מנא אמר רבא דיקא נמי דקתני שהוא עושה פחם ולא קתני מפני שנעשית פחם ש"מ:

That is, Rabbi Yochanan is asserting that in the general case of wick, Rabbi Yossi would indeed hold him exempt. It is only in the פתילה שצריך להבהבה that we are dealing. 

Then, Rava makes the diyuk in our Mishna. דקתני שהוא עושה פחם ולא קתני מפני שנעשית פחם ש"מ:

Note that when Rava quotes the Mishna, he does not include the word מפני. When he says what the Mishna does not say, he uses the word מפני. Some later hand corrupted Rava's statement. But at its core, it should read דקתני שהוא עושה פחם ולא קתני מפני. And stop there. You do not need to alternate between active and passive voice to make Rava's diyuk. Nor would the passive voice of שנעשית פחם necessarily be a convincing argument against the idea that it is a פתילה שצריך להבהבה, where he is מתקן מנא.

Shabbat 30a: Gates, lift up your heads

On Shabbat 30a:

For when Solomon built the Temple, he desired to take the Ark into the Holy of Holies, whereupon the gates clave to each other. Solomon uttered twenty-four prayers,¹⁴  yet he was not answered. He opened [his mouth] and exclaimed, 'Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors: And the King of glory shall come in.¹⁵  They rushed upon him to swallow him up, crying, 'Who is the king of glory'? 'The Lord, strong and mighty,'¹⁶  answered he. Then he repeated, 'Lift up your heads, O ye gates; Yea, lift them up, ye everlasting doors: and the King of glory shall come in. Who is this King of glory? The Lord of hosts, He is the King of glory. Selah';¹⁷  yet he was not answered. But as soon as he prayed, 'O Lord God, turn not away the face of thine anointed remember the good deeds of David thy servant,'¹⁸  he was immediately answered. 

If I recall the parallel Midrash Rabba correctly, it was a sizing issue. Shlomo Hamelech wished to take in the Aron, but the height of all of it combined they calculate to be precisely the height of the entrance. If the heights are precisely the same, then obviously one cannot enter the other. So Shlomo said "Lift up your heads, O ye gates."

This calls to mind this video which proves that Moshe Rabbenu was Satmar, and wore a Satmar hat:

Shabbat 29b: Rabbi Yossi exempts in all of them except...

The Mishna at the bottom of Shabbat 29b:

מתני' המכבה את הנר מפני שהוא מתירא מפני נכרים ומפני ליסטי' מפני רוח רעה מפני החולה שיישן פטור כחס על הנר כחס על השמן כחס על הפתילה חייב רבי יוסי פוטר בכולן חוץ מן הפתילה מפני שהוא עושה פחם:

MISHNAH. IF ONE EXTINGUISHES THE LAMP BECAUSE HE IS AFRAID OF GENTILES, ROBBERS, OR AN EVIL SPIRIT,³⁴  OR FOR THE SAKE OF AN INVALID, THAT HE SHOULD SLEEP, HE IS NOT CULPABLE.³⁵  IF [BECAUSE] HE WOULD SPARE THE LAMP, THE OIL, OR THE WICK, HE IS CULPABLE. R. JOSE EXEMPTS HIM IN ALL CASES, EXCEPT IN RESPECT OF THE WICK, BECAUSE HE MAKES CHARCOAL.³⁶

The Mishna, as it stands, is difficult to understand, within Rabbi Yossi's position. Perhaps to be discussed when we encounter the gemara on this.

When I was in Dr. Tzvi Hirsch Shteinfeld's class, he pointed out that in Ktav Yad Kaufmann (here for full color), the girsa in the Mishna is slightly different, with a very different implication.

משנה

Budapest, Akademia , Kaufmann A 50

שבת ב ד - שבת ג ו

According to this manuscript, the word מפני is a later insertion. See how it was written into the margins. If so, Rabbi Yossi's position is that he is exempt in all of them, meaning that he exempts in כחס על הנר כחס על השמן כחס על הפתילה. To stress, he even exempts in כחס על הפתילה. He only holds one liable in the case of הפתילה שהוא עושה פחם. That is, the wick that he is trying to light and extinguish, specifically in order to make it into charcoal.

Dr. Shteinfeld then proves that this is indeed the girsa of the Mishna that  the Amoraim had, even if the setama degemara did not have it -- from the diyuk that Rava makes. See the section of the gemara on 31b, starting with "With whom does R. Jose agree? If with R. Judah...".