Melacha of Tying: Difference between revisions

Line 10:

== The Tzemach Tzedek's Commentary ==

Initially it appears the Gemara's conclusion learns the obligation of tying from Rava regarding chilazon trappers. However, examining Rashi's commentary on the Mishna shows he brings Abaye's explanation. This is puzzling. The Tzemach Tzedek proves from this that the basic obligation of tying is actually learned from Abaye, as there were no challenges to his explanation regarding tying itself - the challenge was only regarding untying. However, we need ~~Rava's~~ teaching to learn that tying applies specifically to permanent knots, as this is primarily learned from Abaye's explanation. While Rava's case sometimes involved opening and untying the knot, as Rava himself states "the chilazon trappers would tie and untie", since at the time of tying there was no obligation to untie it, it's considered a permanent knot~~. But without Abaye's teaching,~~ we ~~wouldn't~~ know that a permanent knot ~~specifically means one not intended to be untied~~.

Initially it appears the Gemara's conclusion learns the obligation of tying from Rava regarding chilazon trappers. However, examining Rashi's commentary on the Mishna shows he brings Abaye's explanation. This is puzzling. The Tzemach Tzedek proves from this that the basic obligation of tying is actually learned from Abaye, as there were no challenges to his explanation regarding tying itself - the challenge was only regarding untying. However, we need Abaye’s teaching to learn that tying applies '''specifically''' to permanent knots, as this is primarily learned from Abaye's explanation. While Rava's case sometimes involved opening and untying the knot, as Rava himself states "the chilazon trappers would tie and untie", (since at the time of tying there was no obligation to untie it, it's '''considered''' a permanent knot but we don’t know that it has '''must''' '''specifically''' be a permanent knot.)

== The Halacha ==

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 == The Tzemach Tzedek's Commentary ==
-Initially it appears the Gemara's conclusion learns the obligation of tying from Rava regarding chilazon trappers. However, examining Rashi's commentary on the Mishna shows he brings Abaye's explanation. This is puzzling. The Tzemach Tzedek proves from this that the basic obligation of tying is actually learned from Abaye, as there were no challenges to his explanation regarding tying itself - the challenge was only regarding untying. However, we need Rava's teaching to learn that tying applies specifically to permanent knots, as this is primarily learned from Abaye's explanation. While Rava's case sometimes involved opening and untying the knot, as Rava himself states "the chilazon trappers would tie and untie", since at the time of tying there was no obligation to untie it, it's considered a permanent knot. But without Abaye's teaching, we wouldn't know that a permanent knot specifically means one not intended to be untied.
+Initially it appears the Gemara's conclusion learns the obligation of tying from Rava regarding chilazon trappers. However, examining Rashi's commentary on the Mishna shows he brings Abaye's explanation. This is puzzling. The Tzemach Tzedek proves from this that the basic obligation of tying is actually learned from Abaye, as there were no challenges to his explanation regarding tying itself - the challenge was only regarding untying. However, we need Abaye’s teaching to learn that tying applies '''specifically''' to permanent knots, as this is primarily learned from Abaye's explanation. While Rava's case sometimes involved opening and untying the knot, as Rava himself states "the chilazon trappers would tie and untie", (since at the time of tying there was no obligation to untie it, it's '''considered''' a permanent knot but we don’t know that it has '''must''' '''specifically''' be a permanent knot.)
 == The Halacha ==