Rav Simon Spring 2010 Midterm Bechina Chazara

Notes by Harry Portman

NOTE: Any and all mistakes are mine and mine alone.
Gemara, Rashi, and Tosafos (GEFET)
1) What do Ulla and the Nehardai argue about in the matter of to’ayn
v’chozer v’to’ayn oh lo? (Give the format/story that is brought in the
Gemara).
Bava Basra 31A: In the case of where Reuven and Shimon claim they that
the land was his father’s and he had chazaka, and Reuven brings eidim that
it was his father’s and Shimon brings eidim that he had a chazaka. Shimon,
who didn’t have eidim that the land was his father’s retracts (migo vs. eidim
doesn’t win) and says that it actually was Reueven’s father’s but that he
bought it from him. He then claims that what he meant when he said that it
belonged to his own father was that he felt so connected to the land, it was
as if it were his father’s. This is to’ayn v’chozer v’to’ayn – claiming, then
retracting and reclaiming/modifying the original claim. Can he do that?

Ulla says he can be to’ayn v’chozer v’to’ayn, Nehardai say he can’t be to’ayn
v’chozer v’to’ayn.

2) In what cases does Ulla agree that the plaintiff cannot be chozer
v’to’ayn?
Ulla says you can be to’ayn v’chozer v’to’ayn only when he said the original
claim in such a way that it can be later explained (IE: it was my father’s =
dear to me like my father’s). But, there are two cases where he cannot
reclaim:
1) If he said specifically “Shel avosai v’lo shel avosecha” - it was his father’s
and NOT the other guy’s father’s, he cannot retract and reclaim.
2) Ulla also says that a person cannot be chozer v’to’ayn in the case wherein
he did not make an initial claim in beis din, leaves the court, and comes back
hoping to make a claim. We are afraid that his friends prepped him with ideas
for a claim, so he is not believed in such a case

3) In what cases do the Nehardai agree that the plaintiff CAN be chozer
v’to’ayn?

Based on Rashbam – Nehardai agree that a person may be to’ayn v’chozer

v’to’ayn when the he doesn’t contradict anything they say, but rather
clarifies and add onto what was already said. For example “shelakchu shel
avosecha” thus adding that his father bought it from your father.

4) What’s the din if someone makes a claim outside beis din then
retracts and makes another claim in beis din?
 Any claim made outside of beis din, is meaninglesss – and is not taken
seriously. So even Nehardai would be agree that only what is actually said in
beis din counts as a ta’ana.

5) What is Tosafos’ question on the words of Abaye that he says “Ma li

leshaker b’makom eidim lo amrinan?”

The Gemara says: maybe chazaka eidim only guy should win because of
migo: believe me when I say it was my father’s because I could have said I
bought it from you. But that’s against eidim that it was his avosai and a migo
can’t win against eidim.

Tosafos asks in the name of the Rashba – why is it a stira that he has eidim
that it was his father’s and I have a migo that says it was my father’s? It
could be my father’s too. It could have been his father’s for 99 years and my
father’s for 1 day (bought it) and I inherited it – so no reason to say the eidim
beat the migo. Rabeinu Yitzchak replies: No, when each says “shel avosai”
– the implication means that it was shel avosai for generations. If the guy had
specifically said shel avosai yom echad, that might have worked. But when
both are claiming it was shel avosai forever, then the migo is defeated by the
eidim.

6) What do Rav Nachman and Rava argue about in the sugya of “zeh
omer shem avosai v’zeh omer shel avosai,” this one brings
witnesses that it was his father’s and that he ate his years of
chazaka and this one brings witnesses that he ate his years of
chazaka?

Rav Nachman says that the testimony on the two chazakas will cancel out,
but the testimony that Reuven has that it was his father’s wins the case. Rav
Huna says that no matter what, one of these two groups of witnesses is lying
since they contradict each other. Since they are all suspected liars, even the
testimony that is was Reuven’s father’s is thrown out.

7) What do Rav Huna and Rav Chisda argue about regarding two
groups of witnesses that contradict each other? Is there a
connection between this argument and the one between Rav
Nachman and Rava? Explain.

The Gemara (Bava Basra 31B) claims that the machlokes between Rav Huna
and Rav Chisda is the same as Rav Nachman and Rava. The case of Rav Huna
 and Rav Chisda has two sets of eidim (A and B) that contradict one another.
Rav Huna says that groups A and B can independently testify on a different
case, but not mixed (ex: A1B1 or A2B2). Rav Chisda says none of them can
testify again at all – they’re suspected liars! So Rava is like Rav Chisda and
Rav Nachman is like Rav Huna. No, really everyone agrees on Rav Chisda, but
they argue on Rav Huna, Rava will say Rav Huna said his din with regard to a
different testimony, but in his case (31A) the testimonies are in the same
case.

8) What do Abaye and Rava argue about in the matter of psul eid
zomeim? Give the nafka mina that the Gemara brings. (Bava Kama
72B-73A)

Abaye says an eid zomeim is posul lemafreia (retroactively) and Rava says he
is posul mikahn ulehaba (from then and on). We poskin like Abaye – this is
Ya’AL Ke’GaM. Really it should be lemafreia (Rava) – chidush, or pseida
lekuchos. The nafka minas are if it’s two eidim against each one of the huzam
pair, no chiddush there, or poslinan b’gazlanusa, also not a chiddush, he can’t
say he’s not a gazlan.

9) What does Tosafos ask about the words of Rava (Bava Basra 31A)
“But this is a contradictory testimony” in contrast with the Gemara
(Bava Kama 72B) where Rava holds that eid zomeim becomes posul
mikahn ulehaba? What does the Tosafos answer for this?

Tosafos “Amar Leih Rava V’ha Eidus Muchcheshes hu (31A) – Rava

contradicts himself. Here he says that not only is the contradictory testimony
on the chazaka thrown out, but the uncontested testimony on the father’s
ownership is thrown out as well. But, in Bava Kama Rava says that Eid
Zomem only takes effect mikahn ulehabah, so eidus on the tevicha is thrown
out but not the eidus on the geneiva – that implies that here, too the
testimony on the chazaka should be thrown out, but not the testimony on the
father’s ownership!

Tosafos says: Answer 1: if the pshat is eid zomeim chiddush hu, that’s only by
eid zomeim, we’re talking hachchasha which works lemafreia – that’s our
Gemara. But if you hold that pshat in Rava is pseida lekuchos, then Rava
never said this to Rav Nachman – it’s always mikahn ulehaba.
 That works for hazama and hachchasha, so huchchash should be mikahn
ulehaba as well. What if there were no lekuchos – no one is losing out. So
possibly work lemafreia.

10) What’s the din according to the one who says eid zomem is
posul mikahn ulehaba because of peseida lekuchos if there are no
peseida lekuchos?

Tosafos (Amar leih Rava… 31A) – in the event that there are no lekuchos
to be worried about, the shittah that holds of pseida lekuchos  mikahn
ulehaba would still not change his opinion to posul the eidim lemafreia. The
Gemara in Bava Kama does not list d’leika pseida lekuchos as an option, so
we don’t consider that as a possibility for our case here in Bava Basra.

11) What does Tosafos ask on the words of the Gemara according
to Rav Chisda no one argues? What does Tosafos answer for this?

Tosafos (Amar leih Rava… 31A) – The Gemara says nearby that everyone
agrees with Rav Chisda, but according to Rav Nachman, the eidus for chazka
is huchchash, but eidus for father’s ownership still good, while Rav Chisda
says when they’re huchchash on one thing which then goes down the drain
the whole thing goes down the drain – no good at all. Gemara says they
aren’t compatible. Maybe Rav Nachman holds mikahn ulehaboh, and that’s
why he said what he said, so the eidus that he gave before should still be
good. Rav Chisda – case for the future, holds like it’s still good, he holds like
Rava. But that doesn’t make sense, because we don’t hold like Rava.

12) Explain the shitta of the Rivah in the distinction between the
sugya of hazama for geneiva v’tevicha and the sugya of hazama on
avhasa v’shnei chazaka. What does Tosafos explain on his words.

Tosafos “Amar Lei Rava…” (bottom 31A) quotes the Rivah – over there
in Bava Kama, geneiva and tevicha are two separate things, we hold mikahn
ulehaboh, so if huzam for tevicha, then the eidus for geneiva is still good.
Geneiva and tevicha are two separate accusations, it is shayach to speak of
him as a ganav and not a toveach and a toveach and not a ganav. But here in
Bava Basra, the two parts of the case – father’s ownership and chazaka are
things that are connected – who cares about avhasa (father’s ownership)
without achilah, since it’ll then be no good. Both are needed - shnei chazaka
building up on the avhasa, once one of them gets knocked down the other is
as well.
13) What does Tosafos ask on the sugya of two groups of eidim
that contradict each other and what does he answer on this?

Tosafos (“V’zu ba’ah… top 31B) - one set of eidim testifies and another
set is huchchash them. The second pair could suggest – believe them when
they are correct with the migo that they could have said the first group were
gazlanim (and posul l’eidus). Trying to use hazama is not a good option, if
you are mazim someone you put yourself into the same position to be
huzam, but paslinan b’gazlanusa ok. Tosafos offers 3 answers why this
doesn’t work:

1) It’s migo b’makom eidim – believe me in what I’m saying, because I could
have said something else – can’t say that, we have eidim saying the
opposite of what you say.

2) We have 2 vs. 2, which is a stalemate. Even bringing more eidim to

another side to make is 4 vs. 2 or even 100 vs. 2 wouldn’t make one side
win over the other.

3) Migo only applies for one person (like a claimant) not with two people.
Each doesn’t know what the other would have said, how can the Beis Din
think they would do the same migo?

14) What does Tosafos ask on the Gemara in Kesubos that if their
hand writing is brought from another place it is trei u’trei from the
words of Rav Huna that this group can testify by itself and this
group can testify by itself? Explain.

The case is two eidim signed a shtar for a loan then died. Two witnesses then
came and said that the signing witnesses were ketanim, posul k’eidus, or
anusim. If there is an example of their signature from somewhere else they
aren’t believed to posul them. Yhe fact that they say psulei eidus – that’s trei
u’trei. Een hachi name, it’s a stalemate in that the signing eidim are
huchchash on their kashrus as eidim, but their signatures also serve as eidus
whether the case/loan happened – and they are believed there. Rav Nachman
is speaking, he holds like Rav Huna (after a hachchasha each group can
testify by itself). So he says the whole reason why you believe like Rav Huna,
they eidim have a chezkas kashrus. Regarding the challenges: if they were
ketanim, which would mean they didn’t have a chezkas kashrus, everyone
was originally a katan, regarding anusim: not a din of chezkas kashrus –
didn’t do anything wrong (like take money to sign the shtar), rather, they did
 it for their nefashos - they couldn’t do anything, and pesulei eidus means
krovim, no chezkas kashrus, now you’re not but who says you weren’t then?

15) What does Tosafos ask about the words of the Gemara that
Rava is like Rav Chisda to explain the words of the Gemara in Bava
Kama that eid zomeim chidush hu v’nifsal mikahn ulehaba according
to the shitta of Rava?

Tosafos (“V’Rava… 31B) – Machlokes between Abaye (lemafreia) and Rava

(mikah ulehabah) 1st pshat: eid zomeim chiddush hu – other pshat –really
Rava should have agreed with Abaye, but because of Pesaid Lekuchos he
holds mikahn ulehabah. Out Gemara at this point says Rava is like Ra chisda,
who says when you have 2 groups of eidim that contradict each other both
sets are no good for any further dinei Torah. So hachchasa = psulim, what
about Hazama? The chiddush is we believe the 2nd set over the 1st. Without
that we’d say that Hazama is the same as hachchasha. The fact that the the
first set is posul is no chiddush, they’d be posul either way.

Meforshim

1) Give the source for Hoda’as ba’al din k’mea edim dami. Does this
help for kiddushin? Explain.

Mishpatim (p.1-2) – “ki hu zeh,” have to pay up what you admitted to. They
accuse you of owing $100, and you say yes to $50, you are believed and
have to pay the $50 even if there are eidim that say you don’t owe the 50.

Kiddushin 65B (p.4) – does hoda’as ba’al din work by Kiddushin? If a

person is mekadesh an isha, normally need 2 eidim there. But what if there
weren’t 2 eidim present, and the husband and wife agree that it took place –
the Gemara says they aren’t believed. Why not? Because hoda’as ba’al din
doesn’t work if it is chav l’achrini. If I say I owe $100, no one is affected by
my hoda’ah, so I can be modeh and be believed. But if a couple says they are
married, a lot of people are affected – his relatives assur to her, her relatives
assur to him because of this kiddushin. So because of this chav l’achrini,
can’t say hoda’as ba’al din.
2) What do the Mahar”I Ibn Leib and the Ketzos aregue about
regarding Hoda’as ba’al din k’mea edim dami? What does the Ketzos
ask and what does Rav Soloveitchik as on the Ketzos?

Machlokes about the source of hoda’as ba’al din.

Ketzos (p.8) – If someone is nogayah badavar – invested in the situation,

not kosher l’eidus. So the Mahari Ibn Leib asked a question – if nogayah
badavar posul because he’s like a karov (relative) to himself when he is
modeh to soemthing, the reason why he’s believed because he could
mechayav himself – if I say I owe you $100, you’re telling me I’m lying, I
could just give it to you b’matana. Since I can be mechayav myself, I should
be believed – like a migo. Believe me that I owe the money because I could
have just given you the money. But is that the pshat? Can’t be migo, because
migo hoda’as ba’al din is stronger than eidim, and migo doesn’t work
b’makom eidim, so can’t be midin migo since it doesn’t work. I can be
mischayav myself right now by declaring it, so hod’'as ba’al din is ke’ilu
making a new chiyuv now. In short, Mahari Ibn Leib – says it’s a din of
hischaivus, can be mischayav yourself.

Ketzos says no – it’s a din in ne’emanus. Really you shouldn’t be believed

because you’re karov eitzel atzmo, but there is a special gezeiras hakasuv
from “ki huz zeh”. A karov can’t be me’id for his brother, even if he’s losing
out on the deal (nothing to do with favoritism), but you are believed for
yourself. The pshat is, the Torah only posuled a karov for being me’id on
another relative, but not on yourself.

R’ Dovid Willig – quoting a kasha from R’ Soloveitchik – the Gemara in

Kiddushin (see above question) supports The Ketzos. The Gemara had the
hava amina that hoda’as ba’al din works for kiddushin, but the only reason it
doesn’t work for kiddushin is because of chav l’achrini. So if din in hischayvus
as Mohar”I ibn Leib suggests, the question never gets off the ground, how
could it work for kiddushin?

Ketzos (p.9) – what if someone says you owe them money and you reply it
never happened. Then eidim say it DID happen and you say I paid.
 Shavuos 41A (p.5) – I said I didn’t borrow the money, and eidim say I did
borrow the money, but then the eidim say that I paid back. But since I
originally said shelo lavisi, ke’ilu I said lo porati. So he is believed. Shelo lavisi
is stronger than the eidim – not b’Toras chiyuv here, because it is a hoda’as
ba’al din to patur yourself.

3) Give the shitta of the Rambam and the Ri Migash in the sugya of
To’ayn V’Chozer V’To’ayn.

Try to do something for your benefit and then change the ta’ana, are you
believed.

Concept of Amasla – a woman says she’s married then says she’s single. For
a woman to say she’s married isn’t hoda’as ba’al din – that’s shavia nafshei
k’chaticha d’issura and she’s believed, the Gemara says if you can explain
why you said what you said, and you’re believed. Not so good guys chasing
her, so scared them off, and then good guys came around, and she got
married.

Ketzos (32-33) – isn’t that against the Rambam – to’ayn v’chozer v’to’ayn
seems to say it works. Rambam has a chiddush – can even change something
even if it is mamash a stira – how can you say that, because the Gemara says
that doesn’t work – shel avosai v’lo shel avosecha doesn’t work.

Rambam (13) – even if he doesn’t give an amasla, he can change his words.
Can change his claim however many times he wants. But if eidim come and
contradict your last claim, that’s it, can’t change anymore – unless he has an
Amasla. Always follow the last claim that you made – disprove claim D, can’t
make claim E, unless you give an amasla to explain why you lied.

Ri Migash (p.16) – our whole sugya here is because there were eidim, after
the eidim came, then he changed. But could be for a different reason – the Ri
Migash seems to write be’feirush that it’s sort of like a migo – that’s why
you’re believed, that implies if there are no eidim, don’t have a migo.
 Rambam (p.15) – Can change your ta’ana as much as you want, but as soon
as eidim contradict you, you’re huchzak k’krafa and you are no longer
believed. Once eidim contradict you, huchzak k’kafra – you’re considered a
liar, so of course you’re not believed.

Ketzos (32) – we see concept of amasla even by mamanos. Going to defend

the Maharas Chasom – what about the Rambam, not a raya because the
case of the Rambam was when you were giving an amasla to explain what
you meant, but do give an amasla to change totally, that only works by
shavia nafshei. She’s not saying eishes ish meant something else, she meant
that – she’s totally changing – and that’s only where that kind of amasla
works.

Ketzos (p.33) – changing from petur l’petur is like migo, but the Ketzos
doesn’t like the pshat of migo. The din of the Rambam – once eidim come,
not me’heman. What if when Eidim came and challenged ta’ana 1 and you
were one ta’ana 3 – you lose your migo le’mafrei’a.

4) Give the shittah of the Yad Rama in the explanation of the sugya of
To’ayn V’Chozer V’To’ayn.

Yad Rama (p.21) - Say you make 2 ta’anos for being patur 1) Never
happened 2) paid it back.Then, Eidim come and say you borrowed the
money, contradicting the first ta’ana you made. Their testimony messes up
your migo (opposite of the Rambam).

5) Give the explanation of the Ketzos in the Din of chozer Mpetur

lepetur.

Ketzos (p.33) – The reason why you can be chozer Mpetur lepetur is NOT
because of migo. He is believed to be mechayaiv himself based on the posuk
of “ki hu zeh,” but he has no ne’emanus to patur himself. In fact, any claim
he makes to patur himself is not even “registered” in beis din, hence he can
keep changing it – as long as he isn’t mechayaiv himself.

6) Give the shitta of the Nesivos in the din of Chozer Mipetur lepetur.
What is there to look into against him? Explain.
 Nesivos (p.34) – human nature is in dollars and sense – he isn’t medakdeik as
to why he doesn’t owe the money, he just knows he doesn’t owe anything.
True, he was caught in a lie in terms of inaccuracy, but the bottom line is he
isn’t trying to cheat. He knows his monetary obligation is nil, he just wasn’t
careful how he said that

Galia Masechta (footnote 50) – When eidim come and he’s caught in a lie,
he loses his migo and his ne’emanus. The Nesivos’ sevara should be good
enough to not make him huchzak k’kafran, maybe he didn’t speak accurately,
but that was the reality of his obligation.

7) What do the Achronim argue about in Amasla helps for a hoda’as

ba’al din with for dinei mamanos at all?

Ketzos (p.32) – Can you say a claim (such as owing $100) in Mamamos and
then change the claim (to not owing the $100), and explain yourself using an
Amasla? Moharash HaLevi – says yes, whereas Mohara Chason says no.

Ketzos asks: Isn’t this befeirush in our Gemara, that it DOES work, ie: you
claim “shel avosai” then “I bought it from you?”

Ketzos answers: Amasla doesn’t work for mammon. There are two types of
Amasla:

1) Explain what you meant.

2) Admit you totally lied and explain why you lied.

#2 works for Eishes Ish (is Kesubos: woman claimed she was married to get
weirdos to leave her alone, then claimed she wasn’t when they went away) –
as long as it doesn’t affect someone else – she can’t say she was married to
so-and-so. That case in Bava Basra is #1 - explaining. Totally changing the
story does NOT work for mammanos.

8) Explain the din “kayvan shehigid shuv aino chozer umagid.”

Vayikra 5:1 (p.29) – If saw something and don’t testify, that’s an aveira.

Kesubos 18B (p.30) – you have one opportunity to give eidus, and if you don’t,
missed it. The special gezeiras hakasuv is the source for this.

Tosefta (p.31) – When an eid gives testimony in beis din, has to go through
drisha v’chakira – interrogation questions. The din of “shuv aino magid” only
 kicks in after drisha v’chakira takes place. Even after he gives testimony up until
drisha v’chakira he could change his testimony.

9) What is the chiddush from the Gemara in Nedarim regarding Toch

Kedei Dibbur?

Eideim a me’id on the geneiva and huzam on the tevicha. Gemara says talui on
mikahn ulehaba, R’ Yose says lemafreia – toch k’dei dibbur, k’dibbur dami, but if
you hold mikahn u’lehaba, then the eidus of the genaiva is still good eidus.

Nedarim 87A (p.19) – kriah on a meis can only be fulfilled if the person is dead. If
someone tore kriah while the person was still alive – no good, but if he died toch
k’dei dibur, it counts. It’s considered one zman. Then Gemara says toch k’dei dibur
k’dibur dami with a couple of exceptions. If a person does one of these four things
and wants to retract (and says he doesn’t mean it), he can’t – curses G-d, worships
avoid zara, mekadesh an isha, megaresh an isha. Retraction toch k’dei dibur works
for a sale, but not these.

10) Explain the words of the Gemara and the Ran in the matter of
retraction toch kedei dibur and in what cases does retraction within
toch kedei dibur not work.

Nedarim 87A (p.19) – the halacha is toch kedei dibur kedibur dami, with 4
exceptions where he can’t retract: curses G-d, worships avoid zara, mekadesh an
isha, megaresh an isha. Retraction toch k’dei dibur works for a sale, but not these
since they are so severe. For a mammanos case, he can think about it for a few
seconds and retract if he wants to, after that, the sale is complete.

Ran (p.19) - Retraction toch k’dei dibur works for a sale because everyone always
has in mind to think about it for a few seconds and retract if he wants to, after that,
the sale is complete. But not these four since they are so severe – if you do/say
them, you are gomer da’as right away. The Ran says he saw in a Ramban that
quoted Rabbeinu Tam that din of toch kedei dibur is actually a tikkun derabbanan.
The original source for this is the case of a student in a store about the make a
purchase when his rebbe shows up – and he has to great him. Really, the student
wanted to retract and not buy the item, but the rebbe distracted him – hence given
the toch kedei dibur (to say hello to the rebbe) and can then retract. However, this
is strange, because that means you can use a tikun rabanan to uproot a deoraisa
neder, for example.

11) Give the yesod of the Ketzos to explain the question of Tosafos
in Bava Metzia regarding the shtar with interest and the mishna in
chulin regarding shocheit b’shabbos.

Bava Metiza 72 (p.10) Lends $100 and has to pay back $120 – a shtar that has
ribis. So the Gemara has two opinions – can’t collect the ribis, or can’t even collect
the principle itself.

Tosafos (p.10) – once the eidim sign the shtar, they are reshaim. There are two
types of Rasha, Rasha d’chamas – involved with money, or rasha d’lav chamas – not
because he wants to save money, but only lehachis did the aveirah, even though
the two products are the same amount of money. Abaye vs. Rava – we poskin like
Abaye, posul l’eidus – one dishonest in monetary, the other is not monetary just do
a lav that is punishable by malkus. So the eidim on the shtar aren’t gaining money.
Rasha d’chamas – normally eat kosher unless treif is cheaper, but rasha d’lav
chamas – eats treif even when it is the same price as the kosher. So what’s the
whole discussion in the Gemara, the shtar is posul – the eidim are reshaim. Yesh
Lomar – maybe it was ribis derabanan, not ribis deoraisa (I lend you $100, you pay
me $200), but ribis derabanan, (I lend you a bushel and you pay me back a bushel –
price might change and you might end up paying back more). Ribis derabanan
doesn’t make someone rasha d’lav chamas, not posul l’eidus. Or, since the eidim
don’t realize that it’s an issur – to be posul l’eidus is only when they know it, if they
didn’t realize or rationalized, not posul l’eidus. Hence the shtar is still good.

Chullin 14a Mishna (p.11) – a person who shechts on Shabbos or Yom Kippur,
despite being chayiv with his life, his shechita is kosher.

Tosafos (p.11) – If you’re a mumar, your shechita is no good. Answer 1: If shechita

is done in public, no good, in private, shechita is good. Answer 2: Only if you’re
mechalel Shabbos multiple times.

Ketzos (p.16) – Gives a different answer. Only become a mumar ONCE you
shechted, but not WHILE you’re performing the shechita. So by the shtar, when they
signed it, they were still kosher l’eidus, but only became resha’im after the finished
signing it.

12) Explain the words of the Maharshach and the Ketzos in the
matter of psul l’eidus and the question from the Gemara on hazama
b’eidi tevicha and what they answer on this.

Maharshach (p.13) – takana that you must have 10 people at a wedding and
acherem placed on anyone who had a wedding with just 2 eidim. Someone suggests
that the actual kiddushin itself should be no good lemafreia, since by agreeing to be
eidim they are posul l’eidus. Maharshach says no, ony posul after they serve as
eidim, but not WHILE they are serving as eidim at the wedding.

Ketzos (p.16) – quotes Maharshach and likes what he says. Makes a distinction
between Rasha d’chamas – don’t trust him with money because he’s a dishonest
guy – so he’s posul from now on AND for this case. Rasha d’lav chamas – may be
honest with money, but gezeiras hakasuv posul to be an eid because of his aveira –
but only from the next eidus and on.

Hazama – din that you lied, not rasha d’chamas, but same idea – can’t trust you
with mamanos.

Eid zomeim posul l’eidus because he lied, from that time on, even that eidus, he’s
posul, therefore he’s huzam on the tevicha, he’s considered a liar, and toch k’dei
dibur, the whole thing is no good

Not like rasha lav d’chamas, the posul only kicks in a second afterward.

13) Explain the chiddush of the Amudei Ohr regarding zman psul
le’eidus. Explain what was written to explain the sugya of huzmu al
hatevicha v’lo huzmu al hagenaiva. What does the Achiezer explain
in the matter of huzmu al hatevicha that the eidus was posul on the
geneiva.

Amudei Ohr (p.20) – can change your mind a little afterward, whenever you do
something not totally finished until a few seconds afterward, need a little time to
finish thinking about it, but not geirushin and kiddishun – don’t do those types of
serious things without having decided. What if a person gives eidus, not finished
until a few seconds afterward – it isn’t full eidus until those 4 seconds go by without
changing your mind. So what if you gave eidus and then a second afterward you did
an aveira, now you’re posul l’eidus. You can’t be chozer bo because you became
posul a second letter, so maybe you weren’t serious. So if huzam on tevicha right
after gave eidus on geneiva, then no good. Like if someone drops dead right after
finishing testimony – that eidus is no good.

Shut Achiezer (p.22) - Question on the Amudei Ohr – Gave eidus on the geneiva
and the tevicha – and then he was huzam on the tevicha. Amudei Ohr gives fancy
pshat, since it was toch kedei dibur, the eidus is no good, 1 second later became
posul. However - becoming huzam on the tevicha 1 second after is longer than
toch kedei dibur on the geniva eidus.

Top left:

14) Give the 2 pshatim in the words of the Gemara that someone is
huzam on the tevicha and not on the geniva that the eidus on the
geneiva is also posul. Explain

2 pshatim – 1) Amudei ohr, posul right away 2) R Chaim Ozer, Shita

Mekubetzes, eidus batul mikstasa batul kula.

Packet 10 – Shtei Kitei Eidim Hamachchisin zu es zu

15) Give the explanation of the Oneg Yom Tov in the machlokes
between Rav Huna and Rav Chisda in 2 groups of eidim that
contradict each other.

Rav Chisda, good for now, Rav Huna – no good for future eidus. We poskin like Rav
Huna – safeik psul – but chezkas kashrus, hachchasha with other eidim, still chezkas
kashrus. Rav Chisda doesn’t hold of chezkas kashrus? Oneg Yom Tov – if like
birur, it’s like more eidim, can’t say chazaka is a birur, because both aren’t telling
the truth, birur is trying to determine the reality – but we know the reality is they
aren’t telling the truth. But if chazaka is a nihug, telling you what to do in this
situation, even though we know one is lying, we are not going against reality.

16) What is the din with 2 groups of eidim that contradict each
other and these two groups want to join together to form one big
group of eidim in another case according the shita of Rav Huna?
Explain.

What if those guys from the 2 contradicting groups come together to make 1 group.

Yad Rama (p.2)- no good, at least 2 are liars.

Rabbi Akiva Eiger (p.6) - Points out that the Tosafos in Sanhedrin (p.4) –
someone says the guy owes 200 and the other says only 100 – the gemara says
maybe that’s not a hachchasha, they agree on 100. But what if they are in the same
group? That’s no good. Have 3 eidim, 1 posul, 2 good – the group is thrown out, but
that’s only if you know which one is the posul - but if not, then they’re good. So in
the case of 2 groups of eidim that contradict, we don’t know who the liars are – so
according to the Tosafos in Sanhedrin it would work, which is against the Yad
Rama.

17) What can we ask on Rav Huna’s shittah from the din of trei
u’trei shepaslinhu b’gazlanusa?

p.10 The Rambam poskins like Rav Huna. Have trei u’trei, you’d think safek and
follow the chazaka, yet the Rambam poskins like Rav Huna, and yet he still says
that if when we have poslinan b’gazlanusa, he can’t be me’id because he’s a safek
posul. But why not like Rav Huna?

Rav Huna – zu ba’ah bifnei atzmo ume’ida. Lechora he shouldn’t be able to be

me’id. B’makom safek follow his chezkas kashrus, why not here? Rambam says
safek psul. Yet in the other case, he does say zu ba’ah bifnei atzmo ume’ida v’zu
ba’ah bifnei atzmo ume’ida.

Bach (p.13) – one shita, trei u’trei – don’t follow the chazaka, either deoraisa or
derabbanan. That shakes up the chazaka, at least miderabbanan. That’s only when
they are me’id directly on you, but talking about the case, if case isn’t true, then
you lied, no trei u’trei and memayleh follow the chazaka.

18) Explain the din of sheni shevilin and the relevance to the sugya
of Rav Huna and Rav Chisda.

Taharos (5:5 p.18) - what’s the din of shnei shevilin – if safek if you came into
contact with tamei, in reshus harabim ( 3 people there) then tahor. If you have 2
roads, one has a body underneath, 2 guys each take one – then both are safek
tamei b’reshus harabim – sfeika tahor, but not if they come to beis din at the same
time.

Tosafos – only derabanan, even if they came together deoraisa – they’d be tahor. If
each touch the same piece of bread, it’d probably be tamei deoraisa.
 19) Give the explanation of the ketzos in the Shitas Rav Chisda
that these witnesses are liars, why do I need them?

What’s pshat in Rav Chisda – that they can’t be me’id for any other case, it’s
because it’s a ta’aruves, since there is a vadai issur there, that can uproot the
chazaka. One type of chazaka, don’t know if one is treif, but here I know one of the
two pieces is assur, so since davar issur is there – strong enough to beat the
chazaka.

20) What do the Rosh and Rashba argue about regarding bitul
yaveish b’yaveish 1 in 3. What is the chiddush of the Tosafos Rid
regaridn the sugya of two groups of witnesses that contradict each
other?

There is the concept of bitul b’rov – one piece of meet treif, 2 kasher, 2 pieces of
meat on the table – can eat them all, din of bitul b’rov says you can eat them all.
Both Rosha and Rashba agree that one person could eat them all, even though
he’s eating treif. But could he eat them all at once or only zeh achar zeh?

Rosh (p.20) – even one person at the same time can eat all three pieces in one
shot.

Rashba (p.21) – no, has to eat each piece by itself.

Pashtus is that this is only a din derabanan, that mideoraisa, the Rashba would
agree with the Rosh.

Tosafos Rid (p.22) – if one person would eat them all, he’d be chayiv a korban,
because he for sure ate treif, the idea of bitul is only said when you can rely on the
fact that you did it in a different way, that you didn’t sin. Can’t have one person
eating all three, three people eating one is ok. If you have one person eat all three,
it’s an issur deoraisa. Compares to shnei kitei eidim hamachchishim zu es zu – can’t
take one guy from group A and one guy from group B – for sure one is a liar, so too
can’t have one guy eat all 3 pieces.

Tosafos Chullin (p.23) – only a chashash for a din derabbanan.

Packet 11
 21) Give the explanation of the Tur for the believability of the 2nd
group in Eidim Zomemin. What is there to explain on his words?

Hachchasha is two pairs of eidim contradicting the facts of the case. Hazama is one
guy said so-and-so lent money Sunday morning in Brooklyn at such-and-such a
time, and another set says you guys were with us in Florida then and couldn’t have
seen it – not commenting on the case but that these eidim could not have witnessed
it transpire – so they get the punishment they tried to get sentenced on the
defendant.

Tur (p.2-3) – if we have 2 eidim that say that this eid was a gazlan, we treat him as
though he were a gazlan – he’s not believed about himself, and they are 2 eidim, so
it’s 2 vs. 0. That’s what Hazama is like, they’re speaking about the eidim, not the
case, it’s as though they’re saying these eidim are gazlanim – hence paslinan
k’gazlanusa, or paslinan b’shakranusa, so to speak. They are me’id in the eidim, not
the eidus. Whereas in hachchasha they are me’id on the eidus.

Sruli – how do we say that eid zomeim is chiddush hu, Rava says mikahn ulehaboh,
because eid zomeim chiddush hu or pseida lekuchos – according to this eid zomeim
isn’t a chiddush, it is pretty clear-cut.

Lechem Mishna (p.1) - asks this question and says that’s the machlokes between
Abaye and Rava, Rava holds chiddish, we poskin like Abaye – not chiddush.
Lechem Mishna continues and discusses what’s the din if you are mazim and
machchish? I would have thought that is has the din of hazama, but Rambam (p.1)
has the din of hachchasha. Rambam holds that both Abaye and Rava hold of
Chiddush, so the chiddush of hazama only applies when there is hazama alone and
not both hazama and hachchasha. Whereas The Tur seems to say it is hazama
when combined because we poskin like Abaye and that’s the machlokes Abaye and
Rava, poslinan k’gazlanusa, then the whole thing falls off.

Rabbi Berger – the whole machlokes – Rambam never really said hazama
b’hachchasha is hachchasha, Rambam was talking about – how could you be me’id
when you were with us and the other guy was with us too, so not really hazama,
Lechem Mishna himself points this out. Hazama means imanu hayisem b’makom
achair – here he’s saying they were all together in the same place, so maybe not
hazama, just hachchasha.
Divrei Chayim (p.4) – doesn’t think the Tur really means paslinan b’gazlanusa,
you say imanu hayisem in Florida, and I say New York – my word against your word,
so should still really be a hachchasha. SO why are they believed? Eid Zomeim are
chiddush hu – we treat it ke’ilu paslinan b’gazlanusa, because he is speaking about
the people and not the ba’alei devarim. So what’s the nafka mina of how you view
it? Who cares if we view eidim zomimim as paslinan b’galanusa or____

R’ Shmuel Rozofsky (p.?) – the difference is group b has to testify against group
a in their presence. Like if you give testimony that a shor killed someone, the owner
has to be there as the gemara in Bava Kama says. The Tur is saying that we view it
paslinan b’gazlanusa – they need to be there.

22) Explain the din of Hazama Shelo Bifneihem and the din of Hazama
V’Hachchasha together.

Kesubos 20A (p.8) – What if you are mazim shelo befanav, the Gemara says no
hazama, but it is still a hachchasha. So poshut pshat, it’s considered like a trei
u’trei, like hachchasha.

Rivash (p.?) – not an onesh because he’s not there, but still believe the 2nd over
the 1st. Two parts of hazama, believe the 2nd over the 1st, and also punish them. Only
the chiddush on the punishment is thrown out, but the 2nd still beats the 1st, and the
1st is posul le’eidus – which isn’t a punishment.

Tumim (14) – is befanav le’ikuva or only a mitzvah? Cites Rivash. 2 deios in the
Mordechai – din absolute or only a lechatchilah.

The Rambam don’t hold like the Tur, poslinan b’gazlanusa, can hold like the
Rivash, still Hazama, but no punished. Beautiful from R’ Shmuel Rozofsky.

Tur (p.2-3) – explains hazama as treating the first group of eidim like mechalelei
Shabbos – testifying about them is like saying they’re shakranim.

Lechem Mishan (p.1) – why do we need the Tur? The Gemara says it’s a chiddush.
Rambam (p.1) – a case of hazama and hachchasha is hazama.

Lechem Mishna (p.1) – Rambam arguing with the Tur. Hazama is only chiddush
when it is by itself.

Divrei Chayim (p.4) – Why does the Rambam say hazama plus hachchasha is just
hachchasha? What’s the pshat in the Tur? Tur isn’t saying that hazama makes them
mechalelei Shabbos – but LIKE mechalelei Shabbos – that’s how we treat them now
(no change to they’re status), that’s the chiddush. Hence Hazama and hachchasha
is just hachchasha (don’t believe on hazama, and left with hachchasha).

Inyanei D’yoma

Ta’anis Esther

1) Give the sources for Ta’anis Esther.

Megilas Esther (9:31 p.1) - Makor – is it from the posuk of divrei hatzamos then
it’s divrei kabbalah, or is that something else, nothing to do with Ta’anis Esther.

Ibn Ezra (p.1) says that – we accepted purim like the fast days were established.

Rambam (p.5) – this is referring to Ta’anis Esther.

Megillah (p.2) – they fasted

Rosh (p.7) – so we made a takana to fast.

Is it based on a posuk or just a tkana d’rabbanan?

Sefer Agudah (p.12) – difference is to what degree can we be maykil for cholim. If
you hold that it is only derabbanan, then if pregnant, yoledes, headache, can be
maykil. If based on the posuk, need to be more machmir.

Bach (p.16) – points it out, mentions Agudah, or Divrey Kabalah – if a choleh has to
fast or not.

Either makor from the posuk (p.1) or it’s a takana derabbanan because they fasted
then, or

Maseches Sofrim (p.4) – they fasted 3 fasts in Nissan, so we do Monday-

Thursday-Monday after Purim, like a BaHaB on Purim.
She’iltah (p.6) – based on Rabbeinu Tam - zecher

Shulchan Aruch (p.19) – this fast is not a chova, can be maykil for pregnant,
nursing, choleh she’ain bo sakana, even if only eye pains. Assuming it’s some type
of derabbanan. Then quotes the minhag of

How do you fast bichlal – we know there was a Megillas Ta’anis, all the times in the
Beis Hamikdash they gave wood, and so yomim tovim, don’t fast those days, and
we say batla the megillah except for Chanukah and Purim, so how do we fast?

Ra’avad from Ba’al Hameor – Purim is Divrei Kabbalah – only can’t fast on
regular yom tov day before, but Purim is divrei Kabbalah, so therefore it doesn’t
need the chizuk of having an issue ta’anis the day before. Some rishonim learn that
the batla of megillas ta’anis means only the days of Chanukah and Purim, not the
days before or after. Some say that this ta’anis is different.

Rav Schechter quotes Sefer Ha’Eshkol – this is a ta’anis shel simcha, maybe
that’s not nichlal in the issur because it is a happy fast

2) What’s the din if a bris mila falls out on a ta’anis in its time, and a
ta’anis that was pushed off?

Eruvin – family donated wood for mizbeach, when Tisha B’Av was nidcheh, they
didn’t fast, since it was a yom tov for them. Mashma whenever you have a private
yom tov, and Tisha B’Av is nidcheh, don’t have to fast, but if it isn’t nidcheh that
takes precedent over your family yom tov.

What about Ta’anis Esther – some say even if it is NOT nidcheh, your private family
yom tov is nidcheh the fast.

____ - it’s docheh the Ta’anis.

The GRA says even docheh other fasts - shiva asar b’Tamuz, asara b’Teves, but
certainly Ta’anis Esther.

Rav Shechter – it’s a ta’anis shel simcha, so different, other ta’aniyos only overdone
if nidcheh.

Ritvah (p.23) – if chasan during the 7 days of feasting, he has to fast on shiva asar
b’tamuz, but the GRA disagrees – the personal yom tov is stronger than the fast
day.

3) Should a chassan who is in the middle of the 7 days of feasting fast on

Ta’anis Esther? Other fasts?
By other Ta’aniyos, Ritva says it’s a chova on the rabim, Ta’anis Esther is d’yachid,
so d’rabim takes precedence on the Yachid. So the Chosson has to fast. What about
Ta’anis Esther.

GRA holds by other fasts the chosson doesn’t have to fast.

Others say by Ta’anis Esther, the Chosson’s simcha pushes off the chova of fasting
on Ta’anis Esther.

4) What is the shitta of the Ra’avyah regarding Seudas Purim at night?

Ra’avyah - It’s no good – also need to have a seudah bayom, not just at night.

Shulchan Aruch (p.11) – only bayom.

Magen Avraham (p.11) quotes Bach that he is machmir for this shittah of the
Ra’avyah.

5) What do the poskim argue about if you need bread at the Purim
Seudah?

Maharshal (p.12)– yes

Magen Avraham (p.15) – no chova of pas, just eat a nice meal

Meor Uketzia (p.17-8) – sides with Maharshal –seuda needs Pas.

6) Explain the shittos of Rashi and the Bach regarding switching seudos
with one another.

Switch off who would host the seudas Purim. The person would be yotzei Shaloch
Manos by hosting the Seudas Purim. So how is the guest yotzei? Pashtus, he gave
Shaloch Manos to someone else.

Bach says even if you’re just the guest, you’re also yotzei shaloch manos –
participating in Merayus gives it chashivus makes you yotzei.

7) What is the zman for eating the Purim Seudah?

Bayom – Ikkar Seudah.

Terumas Hadeshen (p.20) - people do it later because busy. Would do it in the
morning, but join with family in the afternoon.

GRA (p.21-22) – do it in the morning.

Parshas dei Eliezer (?) – do it at night, make connection to matan Torah, eaten 2
days with night in between, or to connect 14th and 15th – 2 different Purims –
together.

8) What is the chiddush of the Rambam with regard to eating the Purim
Seudah? Explain.

Rambam (p.23) – need meat (basar) not enough to just have wine.

Amek Bracha (p.25) – on Yom Tov the Shulchan Aruch only poskins yayin
nowadays since we don’t have shalmim, so meat not required. “Yemai Mishteh
v’Simcheh” – Misteh = wine, what’s Simcha? It’s the basar – and that’s where the
Rambam got the idea.

9) What is the geder for the din of chayiv inish livesumei b’puraya?

Rambam (p.23)– drink “ad sheyirade”

Rama (p.13) – gets it from here – drink more than usual

Orchos Chayim – issur to become drunk

Rav Abadi – drink a little bit more than you normally drink, get drowsy, but don’t
need to fall asleep like the Rama suggests to not maker bain arur Haman l’baruch
Mordechai.

10) Explain the words of the Gemara in Pesachim that everyone agrees for
Shavuos, Shabbos, and Purim that you also need “lachem.”
Normally there is a machlokes between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yehuda how to
mekayaym simchas Yom Tov. One opinion says: you can kulo HaShem or kulo
lachem. Or chetzi laShem and chetzi lachem. Everyone agrees on certain days have
to do more than kulo HaShem, which means a meager meal – this is Shavuos –
matan Torah, Shabbos – oneg, and Purim – mishteh v’simcheh.

She’ilta – What’s the inyan of seudas shabbos – build the Beis Hamikdash, inyan of
chanukas habayis, so too when the world was created, seuda of chanukas ha’olam –
the world being created, could go back to tohu vavohu, so when we accepted the
Torah, it became firmed at Shavuos, so make another seudah. But that kabbalah
was under duress, and it was accepted willfully at Purim, hence another kiyum.

Binyan Shlomo - The connection between these three days is kiyum ha’olam.

Halacha

1) What is the source for washing the hands before duchaning?

Sotah 49A (p.1) - Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi – any kohen that doesn’t wash
his hands can’t duchan, as it says in the posuk.

Rashi (p.1) – maybe if you washed your hands in the morning, that would be
good enough.

2) What do the Rishonim aregue about regarding washing the hands in

the morning and if you need to wash hands again before duchaning?

Rambam (p.2-4) – mashma that he does it right before, not a din of having
washed hands in the morning.

Beis Yosef (p.7) – It is only by hilchos netilas yadayim for a seudah that the
Rambam says you have to wash your hands again, which implies that for
duchaning, if you washed them once, don’t need to do so a second time.
Then quotes a different Rashi “shelo” – davka have do it it beforehand, linei
aloso on 39A.

The other Rashi that Tosafos quotes – it’s some talmid, a different shitta.

Shulchan Aruch – says like Rashin in the Gemara, need to do it again.

Tur uses a loshon – washes his hands and makes a bracha of Al Netilas
Yadayim. We’re not nohayg that way, because could be yotzei from the
morning washing.

Orchos Chayim – quotes Shitta of Rashi.

Magen Avraham (p.9) - quotes minhag of Egypt, don’t wash for the
shacharis duchaning, they rely on the morning washing. But would wash
again by Mussaf.

Rambam Hilchos Beis Hamikdash (p.4) –washing hands like part of

avodah. A kohen doesn’t have to wash his hands for every avodah, since he
did it in the morning, unless he had hesach hada’as – doesn’t need to wash
them again for every avodah as long as no hesach hada’as.
 3) What’s the makor for netillas yadayim al yedai levi?

Zohar (p.5) – wash their hands through someone who is kadosh like a Levi, so
mosif kedusha on the kedusha.

Magen Avraham (p.10) – if no Levi, use a bechor. If Levi is talmid chacham and
Kohen am ha’aretz, then the kohen washes his own hand.

Shulchan Aruch HaRav (p.15) – Levi does it to be mosif kedusha (like Zohar
said). If no Levi, get a bechor l’aim. If no bechor and no Levi, the kohen should was
his own hand, since he’s kadosh, which is better than having a regular, plain person
wash his hands.

4) Can you wash your hands on Shabbos and Yom Tov with rose water?

Magen Avraham (p.30) – It’s assur – not appropriate to put something in the
water and use for netilllas yadayim.

Taz (Magen David?) (p.30) – assur to do this, even if prepared beforehand.

Nesi’as Kapayim Kehilchasa (p.31) – quotes from Eliyahu Raba the issue is only
is it is prepared ON Shabbos Yom/Tov, but if prepared beforehand it is ok. Teshuvas
Ginas V’radim says it’s ok if prepared before.

5) Are you able to say psukim during the time of Nesias Kapayim?
Explain.

Masechta Sota (p.1-2) – not proper kavod, you’re not paying attention, the other
shitta – you SHOULD say it, shows gratitude

Tur (p.4-5) – shouldn’t say it, it’s like not paying attention to the bracha.

Some say if Kohanim are singing, should be nothing wrong with saying the psukim
while they are singing.
Taz (p.6) – Not going to be easy, since it doesn’t take long for the chazzan to say
“veyishmerecha” – but theoretically it would be a good time if he did indeed use a
niggun.

Pri Chadash (p.8) – you shouldn’t say shnayim mikrah v’echad targum during
duchaning – for the same reason you shouldn’t say the psukim.

Mekor Chayim (p.9) – Says you can look in a sefer to learn, but can’t speak in
learning.

Nesias Kapayim Kehilchasa (p.17) – doesn’t like this, because that’s also,
lechora, not paying attention. Still not respectful to the kohanim even if you aren’t
saying anything.

GR”A (p.15) – have to hear every word from the kohanim, so don’t say any
psukim.

6) Are you able to daven for dreams when the Kohanim are duchaning?
What’s the din for Yom Tov? Shabbos?

Tosafos Sota 41A (p.2) – isn’t that a problem? But because of sakana (danger)
they permitted it. If you have a bad dream, don’t want it to chas v’shalom come
true.

Maharil (p.20) - Quotes this minhag to daven for dreams. Bothered by the same
question – how do you say it? R’ Chiya bar Aba – in other kehilos they don’t say.
Then quotes Gemara in Sota – shouldn’t say it. Maybe difference in gevulin vs.
Mikdash, could say it in the Mikdash, but not in the gevulin. He concludes: Really it
is respect for the kohanim – saying we want their bracha because that will cause
the dreams to get better.

Magen Avraham (p.21) – minhag of not duchaning on Shabbos – because of the

prayer for dreams and you’re not allowed to have supplications on Shabbos.
Netziv (p.22) – Can even say the Yehi Ratzon on Shabbos. Since Yom Tov is a time
of din, so when Yom Tov falls out on Shabbos – DO say it. We don’t say Yehi Ratzon
on Shabbos back when they used to daven everyday. That was the minhag in
Volozhin (that’s not our minhag, we duchan on Shabbos and don’t say the Yehi
Ratzon).

Iggeres HaSofrim (p.23) – Mohalim would say a tefillah that they shouldn’t make
a mistake during the milah. But Tefillas Chalom not kavuah, only if you had a dream
- we say it because mistama you had a dream since the last Yom Tov.

Our Minhag is to say it while the Kohanim are singing.

7) Explain the matter of starting at the Kohanim during the time they
raise their hands, Bzman Hamikdash and Bzman Hazeh.

Chagiga (p.1) – Don’t look at Kohanim during duchaning since it will weaken your
sight, but Gemara says that’s only bzman HaBayis.

Rashi (p.1) – worried about Kohanim with deformed hands.

Tosafos (p.1) – quotes Yerushalmi - only worried about bzman Mikdash, but even
nowadays still worried about hesach hada’as. Citing Yerushalmi – if looking won’t
distract you, then you can look.

Rambam (p.4-5) – Kohanim shouldn’t look at the people either. Both people and
Kohanim should look at the ground, not each other. But the weakened eyes doesn’t
apply nowadays.

Midrash Rabba Parshas Nasso (p.6-7) – HaShem says: even though the
Kohanim are going to bless, I’m going to be there as well. That’s why the Kohanim
spread their hands, to show that HKBH is here. The posuk in Shir HaShirim says that
HaShem is looking through the cracks, so that’s between the Kohanim and the
fingers of the Kohanim. The Shechinah is going through the space between their
fingers.

Sefer Eshkol (p.8) – Quotes the Gemara in Chagigah without quoting the fact that
maybe it was bzman Hamikdash. So perhaps he’s poskening like the possibility that
there IS a Hashras HaShechinah today. Possibly holds like the midrash, against
Tosafos.

Tur (p.9) – quotes from the Midrash - the fact that we have nesiyas kapayim
b’zman hazeh, that implies that there is some type of Hashras HaShechinah today,
meaning having the spaces between the fingers.

Beis Yosef (p.10) – this is the language of the Rambam, and the source of this is
the Yerushalmi, because of hesach hada’as. It goes both ways, Rambam clearly
states that it is a hesach hada’as on the Kohanim as well. Can’t say the reason
bzman hazeh is because of weakening the eyesight, because the Gemara says that
was only when the Beis HaMikdash was kayam. The Kohanim in Egypt have the
practice of wrapping the tallis over their face and their hands. [Maybe this is a good
eitza –they can’t see the people and the people can’t see them, so they’re covered
in both ways – no hesach hada’as].

Darkei Moshe (Rama) (p.10) – In his lands, they only put the tallis on the heads,
but the hands are outside the tallis so that Kohanim themselves can’t see their own
hands. (Our minhag is to cover the hands as well).

Magen Avraham (p.13) – Don’t look elsewhere – that’s certainly a distraction. The
din in the Gemara in Chagiga means to overly look – “histakel,” just looking would
be okay. It must have been that bzman Hamikdash there was a minhag not to stare
even a little but because of Hashras HaShechinah. For us the issue is only hesach
hada’as, but we have the minhag as well not to look at all as a zecher l’mikdash.
Like by a rainbow – don’t stare at the rainbow, also Shechinah there.

R’ Yaakov Emden – Maor U’Ketzia (p.19-20) –Maybe davka the hands should be
uncovered – when you give someone a bracha, you don’t cover yourself up. Maybe
it’s not right that the people getting the bracha should hide their face. Just like we
said it isn’t right to say the psukim when you’re getting a bracha from someone – so
too covering yourself. It seems the Zohar holds that you shouldn’t even close your
eyes, because it is a chutzpa, look at the people and give bracha with a tova ayin.
Bottom line, minhag is not that way.

8) Explain the geder regarding people standing behind the Kohanim

are not included in the bracha.

Not just directly in back, but also any part not in front – on the side/back. But what
about directly to the side?

Taz said – Aron kodesh jutting out, you’re sitting by the Aron Kodesh, you’re going
back as far to the wall as you can and the wall comes out, as long as you go back as
far as you can, people going back further, that’s not acharei haKohanim (this is a
chiddush).
Prisha pshat in Beis Yosef – the people to the back of you, as long as they are not
directly in the back, they’re okay. Pashut Pshat, even to the sides is no good. People
not in the bracha, people in the rows that are North-South included, even in back,
only if they are in the ruach of the back, that’s no good.

Others – anyone in back of you is not included in the bracha.

Chasam Sofer (p.11) - minhag to go mamesh in front of the kohanim, like

medaber al chaveiro. Steipler was nohayg that way.

Nesi’as Kapayim Kehilchasa (p.14) – if you’re not an adam gadol/rav that may
look like arrogange.

9) Explain the shittah of the Sefer Chareidim in the matter of birkas

kohanim and what the Hafla’ah and Mahari Asa’ad argue about
within the Sefer Chareidim?

Sefer Chareidim (p.17) – A lot of people say the mitzvah is for the Yisraelim to get
the bracha also.

Sefer Hafla’ah (p.18) – says this also. Discussed in zar going up there is bad or
not. If there are other Kohanim, it’s a problem for him to go up, he’s missing out on
the bracha, if he’s the only one, then he can go up.

Teshuvas Mahari Hasa’ad (p.19-20) – no mitzvah on the zar. They are

facilitating the Kohanim, he thinks the Hafla’ah misinterpreted the Sefer Chareidim.

Amek Bracha (p.21) – cites the Ra’avad, if there is a nida in the house, then the
Kohanim can’t duchan. Imo, ishto, bito tameh – uses language that similar to Sefer
Chareidim. Unclear if it is a mitzvah on the zarim, or that they just help the
Kohanim.

10) Do the Yisraelim sit or stand during Nesi’as Kapayim?

Shulchan Aruch (p.25) – Kohanim have to stand, because it’s like an avodah.

Magen Avraham (p.25) – the people can sit, as implied in the Zohar.

Zohar (p.26) – The people need to sit with yirah.

Meiri (p.27-8) – quotes the minhag to stand.

Sefer Eshkol – implies that they should stand.

Minhag today is people stand, but me’ikar hadim, according to the Magen Avraham,
could sit.

11) If the Yisraelim stand in a high place, can they be included in

the bracha? Explain.
Rav Abadi – if makom kavuah – could be higher up. Like balcony at shul for
women, that’s their place.

12) What was the minhag of the Chasam Sofer with regard to
standing for Birkas Kohanim?

Chasam Sofer (p.11) - minhag to go mamesh in front of the kohanim, like

medaber al chaveiro. Steipler was nohayg that way.

Nesi’as Kapayim Kehilchasa (p.14) – if you’re not an adam gadol/rav that may
look like arrogange.

13) Explain the din of “two voices are not heard” with regard to
Birkas Kohanim.

How can two kohanim duchan together? Two voices at one time, can’t hear any of
them. Rather, anything that is chaviv, you will listen to.

Keren Orah has a question – maybe that’s only by Megillah, which you don’t say
every day. But Birkas Kohanim, you don’t really have to hear it, but by Megillah you
wouldn’t be yotzei otherwise. So it isn’t such a big deal not to hear, the chaviva lei
thing doesn’t apply. Maybe it is not so true that you don’t have to listen – “emor
lahem” maybe there is a chiyuv to listen to the bracha, especially according to the
Sefer Chareidim – it is their mitzvah.