הספר ״ע׳ פנים לתורה״ מר׳ יוסף ענגל

I just want to end with one kasha. It's not the easiest kasha ever, but it's kedai. It's just one kushya atsuma that Rebbi Yosef Engel asked. That is the Gemara in Maseches Pesachim daf mem gimmel daf mem dalet. This is really a Gemara that repeats itself in several places in Shas. Discusses the halacha of heter mitztaref le'issur. Which by the way is very much related to today's daf. We had a lot of taruvols and basar v'chalav and bliyos of plateus in today's daf. Which is very much related to the sugiyah of heter mitztaref le'issur. What is the halacha of heter mitztaref le'issur? So really it begins with a memra from Rebbi Yochanan. Amar Rebbi Abahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan, "Kol Yisurin sheb'Torah ein heter mitztaref le'issur chutz me'issurei nazir. With the exception of issurei nazir she'ari amar Torah "V'chol mishras anavim lo yishteh." Ordinarily, if somebody would eat machalos asuros and he would eat it together with something that you're allowed to eat. So somebody eats nevelah and he puts it in a sandwich. So he takes a bite out of a sandwich, there's a little bit of nevelah rachmana litzlan, and there's also a bun that this nevelah's inside. If he didn't eat a k'zayis of nevelah, he's not going to get malkus. Chatzi shiur we know is assur min ha'Torah, but he's not going to get malkus if he didn't eat a k'zayis of nevelah. Even if the bun itself is mashlim to where he ate a k'zayis between the nevelah and the bread, it doesn't matter. Because the bread is not inherently assur, the bread is mutar. And as a result, being that you only ate a pachas mi'k'zayis of nevelah, even though you ate a little bit of heter together with it, it's going to be okay. The halacha of heter mitztaref le'issur that there are times where if somebody eats issur together with heter, the heter itself is going to be mitztaref l'issur. And we'll say that even if the person ate pachas mikazayis of issur, but if he was mashlim the kazayis al yedei heter, the heter is mitztaref l'issur and now it's going to be necheshav as if he ate a kazayis, he's even going to get malkus. So the Bavos say in the name of Rabbi Yochanan Kol Yisrael are in heter mitztaref l'issur. When it comes to every issur in the Torah, heter is not mitztaref l'issur. So if somebody eats pachas mikazayis of neveilah and he eats a little bit of bread with it, he's not over the issur kazayis of neveilah. Chutz mi'issurei nazir. The only time we say heter mitztaref l'issur is when it comes to the nazir. The nazir the Torah said is not allowed to eat anavim, right? But the Torah didn't just say don't eat anavim, v'chol mishras anavim the Torah said lo yishteh. And from the fact that the Torah said v'chol mishras anavim, we learn from there that if somebody would eat anavim, a nazir together with a davar mutar, t'zamen the davar mutar would be mitztaref to the anavim and it would create the shiur. Over here heter mitztaref l'issur. This is the halacha of heter mitztaref l'issur. The Gemara on the very bottom of Pesachim 104b, it goes to the top of Pesachim 105a, asks to understand, if we have a makor in the sugiyah of nazir that heter is mitztaref l'issur, so then why don't we learn from nazir the kol haTorah kulah and say just like by nazir it says v'chol mishras anavim lo yishteh, heter is mitztaref l'issur, so too in kol haTorah kulah we should also say that heter is mitztaref l'issur. And the Gemara says, I'll tell you why. Mishum d'havei nazir d'chatas shnei suvim al bon echad. The whole shnei suvim al bon echad aim l'havin. You're right. Really based on the drasha of v'chol mishras anavim lo yishteh, we should say that if heter is mitztaref l'issur by nazir, it's mitztaref l'issur in kol haTorah kulah. But being that there's another time the Torah said the halacha of had to be star for so comes out the Torah didn't tell to me once the Torah told to me twice. We know the rule. If the Torah tells me something twice, you can't learn nothing from it. It's what's known as It's for that reason I don't have the ability to learn from Nazir that had to be It's going to be It's going to be called a terrible. Says the Gamara, Nazir, the fact that by Nazir it says had to be star for so I don't know. I learned it from the word mishras. We're in the parish of the carbon chata. So the Torah mentioned had to be star for so the Gamara says the Tanya, I know from the following braysa. It says Call asher yiga b'sar yiktash. Call asher yiga b'sar yiktash. The topic of the last part of today's daf. You have the braysa. You would think that even if somebody would take and eat basar that touched basar of a carbon chata. But it wasn't by leah from it. Still it would be yiktash. Talmed b'sar. And we learn from there actually it has to be by leah. Yiktash. What does yiktash mean? Leah is kimaya. She impsula ki pasul. The impsura they ochel. It teaches me that in the event that something would go ahead and would touch the carbon chata. So the halacha is it would take on the status of the carbon chata. In the event that the carbon chata is kosher, it would have the halacha of a kosher carbon chata. And in the event that the chata is pasul, it would have the halacha of a pasul carbon chata. Now the Gamara over here says that why did the Torah have to tell me this halacha of yiktash? To tell me that the davar that touches the chata is by leah from the carbon chata. Of course it's by leah from the carbon chata. Why would you think not? Must be it's coming to teach me the halacha of had to be star for This is the Gamara. So says the Gamara, it's true that by Nazir you see had to be star for Nazir, you would think that if by Nazir had the mitzvah of Nazir, we should now take Nazir and apply it to all machalos asuras and say "Mamos tzenu b'Nazir had the mitzvah of Nazir, so too b'kallah d'r'kula you can't." Because Nazir and chazos are shnay suvim m'bon ke'achad, and kol shnay suvim m'bon ke'achad e'malan. You have it side by Nazir, and I have it by chazos as well. By Nazir I have mishras, by chazos I have yiktosh. Yiktosh is coming to teach me liyus k'maya. What does it mean liyus k'maya? That halacha of hetsa'ah mitza'ah l'ser. By the way, if you look at Rashi in today's daf on the top of tzadik zayin amud beis, two lines from the top, "U'mikan on u'l'maydim hetsa'ah mitza'ah l'ser b'kochen." Rashi quotes this gemara, that it's from here that we learn the halacha of hetsa'ah mitza'ah l'ser, because that's what yiktosh is coming TO TEACH ME. NOT JUST THAT THESE bliyus plateus that are going to transfer from one to the other, but at the end of the day, at the end of the day, I know from here the halacha of hetsa'ah mitza'ah l'ser. Now, the gemara goes on, and the gemara hashvis a little bit more. And the gemara says like this, "What's the side always of in shnay suvim m'bon kol shnay suvim m'bon ke'achad e'malan?" If you can learn from mishras, then why would the Torah have to write chazos, right? And if I could learn from chazos, why would the Torah have to write mishras? So, from the fact that the Torah told me twice, that's a raya you can't learn from the one. So, the gemara goes and hashvis. The gemara says, "Bish l'ima, bish l'ima had it said chazos, I wouldn't necessarily know to learn Nazir, because you can always argue maybe by chazos, which is kochen, there had the mitzvah of Nazir. But, when it comes to Nazir, which is not kochen, maybe not. But, l'ichta brachmana b'Nazir, v'teisei chazos v'tigmar minei." Why don't you? Must be it's because you're not allowed to learn from Nazir, and that's how I know that even though hetsa'ah mitza'ah l'ser b'Nazir, but it's not true by kallah d'r'kula. From the fact that the Torah wrote yiktosh by chazos, must be I can't learn from Nazir, cuz if I can learn from Nazir, the Torah would not have to tell me Yiktash by Khatos, because it's anyways something I would know from Nazir. Oh, must be it's a shnay tzuvim b'avankah echad, the Khat shnay tzuvim b'avankah echad ain milan. Freak of Yesod Angle, I don't understand. Rav Ashi said in our Gemara that the word Yiktash teaches me something very important. You know what it teaches me? Not only that this Bliya is a plate dish, not only that this Hetem is taruf l'eiser. It teaches me THAT THERE'S AN ASSEI. L'maina nafka mina? I'll tell you the nafka mina. Assei is doicheh lo Assei, but Assei is not doicheh lo Assei b'Assei. Well, if that's the case, vos zogt die Gemara? That Yiktash is a shnay tzuvim b'avankah echad. And that's why I can't learn from Nazir to call it Yiro Kulo. That Hetem is mitztaref l'eiser, cuz if I could learn from Nazir, then why do I need Yiktash by Khatos? Let me learn Khatos gufa from Nazir. Why don't I tell you I could learn from Nazir? It's not a shnay tzuvim b'avankah echad. So, why did Torah tell me the word Yiktash? Because included in Yiktash is an Assei. And that Assei is a very important Assei that I would never know from Misras. And the Torah is telling me the word Yiktash, so I should know there's no t'chiyah when it comes to halachos of eating a carbon that's possul, based on the fact that you have the regular lo Assei, you never let Yiktashim that's possul, and I also have the Assei of Yiktash. So, vos zogt die Gemara in Pesachim mem hey? That Hetem is taruf l'eiser, Misras and Yiktash are shnay tzuvim b'avankah echad ain milan. L'choyra, Rav Ashi said in Zvachim tzadik zayin amud beis that the word Yiktash is coming to teach me not only that this Bliya is a plate dish, not only a chiddush in halachos d'oraysa, but a halacha in terms of minyan of mitzvos. Yiktash is an Assei, and a chofetz nafka mina in the world of Assei doicheh lo Assei. Well, if that's the case, the word is not extra. It's not tzuvim. You should be able to be and the talking to each other. This is the question that Engel asked. Now, you want to know how much of a Engel had in this question? Engel wrote a whole safer. He wrote a whole safer. The safer is called I am What is this reminiscent of? This is reminiscent of another safer that Engel wrote. That's also very much That safer was called Engel had a sense of humor as well. That was called where he wrote 80 into a different Remember that question? That question was that holds that I am in the So, every time a woman brings her her She always has the ability to have a piggle, which is going to knock out the If you knock out the is not going to work. And even if she's guilty, she's not going to blow up and everything is going to be KO'd, okay? Right, that was ENGEL'S QUESTION. AND HE wrote a safer called 80 to that question. Well, here he stopped by 70. Trust me, there were more than these 70 came from. But Engel wrote a safer called I am where he said 70 to this question. Every single one of his are people who This is not to be question of Why is it 8 days? It should have been 7 days, right? Which has so many that were written trying to be question of These questions are a little bit more intense. You can't ask this I need it for the so you shouldn't say I SAY THAT THE FOR THE in the base. This is maybe not the type of question you could say over at the next Hanukkah but at the same time, "Tireihi v'al olam oid anu tzerichim." It's a bomba kasha from Yosef Engel. If you want to see what a goyen oylem Reb Yosef Engel was, also if you want to get a little chalishas daas, just go through a little bit of the mahalchim of Reb Yosef Engel. Each one is mamish kol ha'Torah kulah al regel achas. But regardless, this is at the very least a kasha, the backdrop to Reb Yosef Engel's sefer, "Ayin Panim Ba'Torah."