Thursday, April 07, 2005

Teyuvto de-Rav u-Shemuel teyuvto

Rabbothai u-ghevirothai:

It seems that I am the first to post on this blog.

יהא רעווא מן קדם אלהא דשמייא דנצליח בסייעתיה

(I don't mind writing sheimos on the Internet, because, not being written, they are not going to be נמחקין. I might not want to write them on a website that does not show kovodh to them, but I do not feel that they would be dishonored by a Daf Yomi blog, even a pluralistic Daf Yomi blog-- nay, especially on a pluralistic Daf Yomi blog.)

On the very bottom of Berokhos 36b, two statements were reported in the name of Rav and Shemuel: 1) כל שיש בו מחמשת המינין מברכין עליו בורא מיני מזונות, and 2) כל שהוא מחמשת המינין מברכין עליו בורא מיני מזונות. Mr. Stam (i.e. the stammo di-gemoro) extrapolates from #1 that Rav and Shemuel mean to include these grains even when they are `al yedei ta`roveth (or, if you must, ta`aruves), and by #2 to rice. Mr. Stam goes on to question that Rav and Shemuel can be right. Ultimately, he quotes a boraitho (on 37a) that says when rice is ground, baked, and then boiled, one should say over it בורא מיני מזונות. Mr. Stam concludes: תיובתא דרב ושמואל תיובתא.

Yet on 37b, Rovo argues that one should say בורא מיני מזונות on any kind of rihata (apparently a kind of sweet cereal), based on statement #1 of Rav and Shemuel.

My frum teirutz of this contradiction would probably be that only statement #2 of Rav & Shemuel, which supposedly excludes rice, has been teyuvta'd by the boraiso, and that statement #1 is still available for Rovo to use as pesaq.
My akademishe explanation would be: Rav & Shemuel's statements never meant to exclude rice, so there was no reason for them to be teyuvta'd until Mr. Stam made them exclude rice and brought them into contradiction with the boraiso. For Rovo, living before the time of Mr. Stam, Rav and Shemuel's statements were both still considered valid.

תהווי ברכתא דיי עליכון

Mar Gavriel

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home