Hilchos Vestos: Eating Spicy Foods as a Cause or Siman of Re’iyah

Transcript

So there's three deios in Shulchan Aruch, the Ramo by vest, which is mushpa al dei oich. Hago, ochlu, shum v'rasa, ochlu, ... yesh omrim shekabela vest al yedei kol achilas devarim chamim. Yesh omrim, second shita, shekol ma shetirah al yedei maichel, k'mo shetirah al yedei kfitzah. Im hayom. Yesh omrim, shedina k'vest shetirah al yedei mikreh, afilu b'lo yom shavu. So what's the machlokes? What are the arguments? Ma'aseh, Toras Shlamim says that you have to be machmir. V'raui lachush l'divrei shneihem l'hachmir. You have to be machmir like both. Sheyesh oid nafkusa bein shtei hadeios l'inyan אונס. Yeah, machlokes. Now, sha... V'hainu, yeah, v'raui lachush l'divrei shneihem l'hachmir, sheyesh oid nafkusa bein shtei hadeios l'inyan אונס. So l'choira, what's the pshat? There's two yesh omrims. Yesh omrim like this, but there's still the ... yesh omrims, no? L'choira, there's still the ... yesh omrim. I mean, how could you be lachush l'beis hadeios? It's not— Yeah, but you're missing the point. In other words, I mean, if one says A and the other one says B. And the one that says B is saying it's not A, and the one that's saying it's A is not B. It's two opposites, unless it's not really opposite. So truth is, it's not really opposite, because he's saying both ways. It's not yechayish l'beis hadeos, because what would be l'gabei vesheinah kevuah? V'hainu dafka, yeah. V'ro'ui lachshov shnei l'hachmir, sheyesh oid nafkusa mishtei hadeos l'inyan beinis, right? But what about vest? Do you have to be choshesh for it? Ke'eino kavua? In other words, you're choshesh for it to kavua l'hachmir. And what about ke'eino kavua, also l'chumra, right? So the taiches is it's not really that we're paskening both deos, but rather we don't know what to do like. It's a different type of a safek. It's not pshat it's somewhere in the middle. It's not pshat. It's a safek dika chumra. We don't know what to do, so it's not. In other words, there's two types of l'hachmir. There's l'hachmir when both deos could be kept, and then there's l'hachmir when taka both deos asur, but because we don't know which deah, we go l'hachmir. So we go l'hachmir in both directions. The goyim taka paskens l'hakel. The goyim taka paskens l'hakel. Gemara sham, Yosef, mashma l'gimmel min hachiluk kaves, varv tmuin. V'zeh din b'ish shves l'yamim. Simanim, chashom pilpelim, v'yesh l'mud lirais barkos yamim, v'lachein nishmitu hapoiskim shenichlal b'din kfitzas. You see, that's this vort, that the reason why we don't talk about it, because it's nichlal in kfitzas, right? It's nichlal in kfitzas. Nichlal in kfitzas. V'yesh omrim, k'nal Daas HaRashba. That's the Rashba. V'yesh omrim, Tosfos sham achla. Okay. So the shaila is like this: vesta kfitzas, what's the halacha by vesta kfitzas? Why it can't be kovea? You need yamim also. So obviously, what is he saying? L'hakel, right? I mean, he's saying it's more like vesta kfitzas. So then it comes out, I hold there's a meirdike yesod over here. The mechaber who doesn't bring it down, because he learned that it's like mikra. Kfitzas is a mikra. The only problem is he talks about fahekes. Right, I don't think he calls mikra kfitzas.

Hach kfitzas, when it's kfitzas, you call it kfitzas. But hagam, you could say that that's what the Mechaber means. Mikra is kfitzas. Ma she'ein kein, ma she'ein kein, the Ramo is coming—he's arguing b'yesod. The Ramo is coming to say that I hold it's not even kfitzas; it's a new type of vest. That's the way I understood it. Again, Tevuas Shalom says that you can be machmir both ways because we don't know what the pasken. So the hainu comes out that be'emes, we don't know which way to take it, with yamim, without yamim. So the safek is not even so much in shitas; it's a safek of two different de'os. It's not a safek b'etzem, this way or that way. It's a safek how to pasken, yeish omrim, yeish omrim. So therefore we go l'chumra both ways. Ha'idilma, maybe... it's a safek not stam how to pasken; it's a safek b'yesod. Is this nichlal in kfitzas or it's not nichlal in kfitzas? The Gaon tells me lehakel. Why lehakel? Because it's nichlal in kfitzas. Once it's nichlal in kfitzas, then there's no makom to be machmir. You hear my vort? I'm saying a me'uredike vort. I'm saying a me'uredike, me'uredike he'arah. When it's not nichlal in kfitzas, so the she'eilah is which halacha should we give it? So you could say it's two different gedarim. But once you say it's nichlal in kfitzas, there's no safek anymore. The Gaon is saying that since it's nichlal in kfitzas, me'eileh you have to—meikel has the din of kfitzas. The Ramo is saying that, fakert, it's not kfitzas; it's its own halacha. Since it's zona halacha, we could clarify this halacha which way, and it says in Teres Shalom we can be machmir one way or the other. Lu yetzu, you want to be machmir. Could you be machmir if you have a tzad that it's really kfitzas? No. There's no makom to be machmir. There's nothing what to talk about. You'll see what I want with this. Now, what happens if she ate charif and she didn't see? She eats shum, shum, shum, and she's kovea for all dvarim chamim. That's what it says in Shulchan Aruch. Then she turned around and she ate a different davar cham and nothing happened. So the pischei teshuva brings down from the Chavos Daas, it's not nekar, not nekar, only if she ate that same shum, right? I asked you a kasha: is it the chayfetz or is it the choin? So shum is stronger. You want to class different type of choin. So shum, shum does more to the body. Here, my shaila is if you learn that it's the chayfetz, so then you can come and say she ate a different chayfetz and it didn't happen, so it's not nekar. But if it's the choin, what's the difference? What's the difference? So you see clear that the Chavos Daas is learning, pischei teshuva brings down the Chavos Daas, that it has to do with the chayfetz. So keep these two yesodos in mind. The first yesod is, huh? I don't know. So that's what I'm trying to say. No, I don't think so. See, I'm saying a different vort. I'm going to ta'inen that in the kvius you have the problem; in the nekar it's not going to work that way. I don't know. I don't know. So you say whatever you want, then go read it, you know, instead of saying. He says that if you, let's say you kovea with sub aleph beis... I know, so the... so, but you don't know what he means. I don't know. Yeah, what do you want to say? It says three things. Right. So let's say he ate three things, and then there was a fourth davar charif. For example, for example, a certain person's wife's honey cake. It's a davar charif. It has no sweetness at all in it. Anything she makes is a davar charif, right? Even the sweet cakes are a davar charif, right? It's good. But let's say she ate three things, and then she would eat a fourth thing. It would be a problem. But if she didn't see, so it's not neker. What's the pshat? Only for those things. So ela mai, the cheftza, it's taka not the charif. Okay. So keep these two yesodos in mind. The first yesod is that the goyen learns that it's kvitzas, while the Rama seems to learn it's a psananda zach. It's like a vestl dvar maichel charifim. It's not kvitzas, a nanda zach, something new. The Piskei Teshuva brings in the Chavas Daas that there's something...

About the object, even though it's charif. It's not about the charif; it's about the object, okay. Rav Akiva Eiger says a yesod that if, let's say, she sees only shum, right, so she's only kavua for shum, yeah? She wouldn't be kavua for something else, because the Mechaber brings the case that what, three different things. But let's say it was shum, shum, and shum, so she's kavua, but only for shum. His raya, first let's see what his yesod, because he says like Sharsha Nagach, that it's mu'ad l'dis and not mu'ad l'dat. Now what does he need the din of mu'ad? I don't see. If you hold that it's this that causes it, it's the cheftza; it's for this cheftza, it's not any cheftza. Ela mai, we should be machmir maybe, because you think be machmir for... I'm saying so maybe machmir. So then you're saying a different svara already. Once you say machmir, so then what? Chazakas. Oy dilma, he's saying a different taich. Oy dilma is on duchka. The yesod of vestes is the chazakah aleha. It's not to be choshesh. We spoke about this, remember we spoke about this? It's not to be choshesh because of the chazakah. The chazakah ases you, so whatever you have in the chazakah, not more. Remember we spoke about this. Over here the pshat is it could be it's a fourth thing. So either pshat is you don't have to be machmir on the fourth thing, oy dilma, no, ein l'cha bah ela chazakah, only what you're muchzak for. If you learn that it's the chayfetz, so then it's gargut. The pshat is you're only mosif for this chayfetz. But if you're mosif for the choref, so what's the difference? And the teretz is, obviously, because in chazakas, vest is not pshat chazakah me'elito choshesh. The chazakah makes the issur only on what you have an issur, that's it. The rest you're not to be machmir for. Ein lecha bo ela chaskaso, only what you're machmir for. Reb Akiva Eiger, yeah, you with me? Reb Akiva Eiger brings a raya. What's his raya? Because the Shulchan Aruch brings which case? Which case the Shulchan Aruch brings? Two and one. Says Reb Akiva Eiger, why didn't you bring three cases, different? Huh? You taka remove the... So one second, if you... says the raya the opposite. Right, he brings a raya from the opposite. Right, he only has to be pilpul in this and that, three different cases. That's like... Right. Oh, that's what I'm saying. Okay, he brings a raya from the Rama. But for the mechaber's mashma that it would be for everything, unless you learn the mechaber wouldn't be toleh on such a case, right? Again, pirka two and one. So if you learn that kvitzas, if you learn kvitzas, like he blays by tzarchis, I'm saying a different... Let's say you hold that it's kvitzas. Let's say you hold the Shulchan Aruch was talking about kvitzas, and he's talking about the case of Rama also, it's hua din, it's nichlal. Which means everything is kvitzas. Machal charifim is all kvitzas. It's all kvitzas. So by kvitzas, would there be a chiluk between two and one, or one, one and one? It should make a difference, right? But the Rama learns one, one, and one. Lo yitzuyir, it would be all the same, but you wouldn't be muchsik for everything. You'd just be muchsik for that thing, right? So the Rama that comes and says three different, the raya is that three different is a problem. Three the same would only be for that thing. So what do you say in the Mechaber? What's Reb Akiva Eiger's kasha in the Mechaber? No. So Reb Akiva Eiger's kasha in the Mechaber is they should have said better. Should have said the opposite case. They should have said the opposite case. So what? One, one, and one. It should not work. Right? One, one, and one. He should have said. But that's only if the Mechaber learns that simanim, meaning that the charifim, is nichlal in the kfitzas. Maybe he held it's not nichlal in the kfitzas. His question was not on the charifim in the Mechaber. His question was here, in Mikra Guf. But in Mikra Guf could be different than the case of charifim, I'm telling you. It is different. I'm saying, but what's his kasha? Tell me his kasha. What's Reb Akiva Eiger's kasha? It's mashma in the Mechaber that if it would have been one ituch, one pihu, and one something else, right, so the taka would be a kriyas, and at the same time the Mechaber says, Ein echad kovea es chaveiro. And still echad, ein echad...

It means one, one, one. They all have to be the same. In other words, the example is mashmaful, it would be all three different ones. Yutaka have a kfius. Yutaka have a kfius, but I'm saying, but the rule itself is saying you can't. But you can't bring a raya, Reb Akiva Eiger, from the mechaber story to your din of chamim. What is Reb Akiva Eiger bringing a raya? Reb Akiva Eiger is bringing a raya to the din of chamim from the mechaber of kfitzes. How do you know that it's the same halacha? You're saying maybe three different piyukim would not be a kfius. How about—who says the same thing? I mean, who says piyuk, mikri aguf, have the same yesod as chamim? Unless he's learning—Reb Akiva Eiger must have been learning that it's the same din. If Reb Akiva Eiger learned that it's the same din, right? If Reb Akiva Eiger learned that it's the same din, so then you can come and say a diyuk from the lashon of the mechaber to his case of chum, but if he learns different dinim, so then what's the negei? Why would you say it's different? Why would I say it's different? Any kfius. I mean, how does piyuk work? You also need three times. It's a chazakas. See, hold that. See, I'm not 100% sure. I'll explain to you what I mean. If you learned that piyuk is not the goyrim—it's the nigram. It's the nigram. So what do you want from this? In the goyrim, you can have a chazaka. In the nigram, you can't come and tell me chazaka. What do you want to tell me? You see, any siman that comes with a guf is a siman for her vest. Again, let's do this one more time. Let's just say it one more time. Let's say— Muad l'this, huh? Let's work it out. Every time you have a muad, what's the story of muad? Muad is a siman, or muad is... What is muad? No, he's learning to be a muad. No, the point is the fact that he sees this behavior, that behavior. Was that behavior a siman or a ger? That's a ger. It's a ger, right? The fact that he saw, he wanted to be a muad. That's what I'm clarifying. If the Rebbi Akiva Eiger's case of gimel נגיחות and the get to piyuk, that's what I'm clarifying. So if you learn like the Gaon that learns that the case of the Rambav of the oichel is nichlal in the mechaber, and it's the same as kvitzes, so then the Taz is that, and a Chanami, it's the same thing. So therefore, there's a chazakah works; it works in both cases. But if you learn piyuk, because don't forget, he didn't bring kvitzes, he brought piyuk. And that's what I was asking l'chapila: how can the Mechaber speaks about piyuk and not, or kvitzes? Mikrim. What is the mikrim? Mikrim is kvitzes, or is the mikrim piyuk? He didn't even say kvitzes either, because in both cases they're gerim. This case is siman. When it's a siman, the din of muad is not nigea, and therefore the Mechaber is not arrived from the fact that he speaks about two and one. You like? It's nice Taz. Nice stuff. It's nice stuff. Get up and say it: Amar haRaglecha, vhoyer haolam btoiras Volkin, btoiras Beis Aaron Volkin. Go ahead. It's good stuff, it's good stuff. The Mechaber says mikrim. We're not sure what mikrim is. Is mikrim kfitzah? Is mikrim... is mikrim... he speaks kpil? Maybe it's lav davka, okay. The Rama says... Rama says macholim. Macholim chamur. The Mechaber speaks about macholim. Teretzes, the goyim learns it's what? It's already kfitzah. It's already kfitzah. The question is the following. The Kereger has the question on this. The Rama's case is shum, batzel, and pilpel. What if she just ate shum three times, so he says she'd be kavua only for shum, not for every cham, but only for shum. And if she ate twice shum and once something else, still no kvius at all. Why? Because just like in Shor HaMuad, when he's nogeach three type minim, then he's kavua for everyone. But if you score two and one, it's not. So he says, lefi zeh I have a question. Let's say two dogs and a donkey. There's no kvius. He's not muad not for dogs, not for donkeys. If it's a dog, donkey, and a camel, he would... You hear? Moisha Roni, you're listening to this good stuff. Right, if it's three dogs, it's the dogs. If it's three different types, it's everything. If it's two of this and one of that, it's not. It's neither. So he says, therefore I have a question on the Mechaber. The Mechaber says if she was mitatesh twice and mifahek once, right, that's not a kvius. It's mashma, he says...

If she was mitatesh once, mefahek once, and something else once, a third thing, she taka would be kavua for everything. What? Why? Same thing like shor hamuad, right, just like shor hamuad. The problem is, the actual seifa that the Mechaber brings this in is what? That ein echad מהם קובע את חברו, that you can't have different ones combining in a thing. So it comes out the klal is soiser the example. Okay? Good. The answer is the following. The answer is that by a shor, the whole— The answer is that from the example of shor, right, he sees a donkey, he sees a dog, and he sees a camel. Those things are the gorim, those are the causes for him. When he sees those things, he causes him to do a negicha. Same thing with machalim. She eats this, she eats this, and she eats this, that causes her aiah. Mashenkin by piyuk, it's not a cause. Piyuk is an effect. That's when she has a vest, that's when she sees. So by simanim, by mikrei haguf, maybe you can't say the same thing. You can't say just because she saw three different ones, therefore she's kavua for all of them. So it became like a kvius? No, if it would be like kvius, kvius is a garma. But he talks about piyuk, because not a garma. It's an effect. All those things are— No, that's also garma. It's garma. Like kfitza. Mashenkin the mechaber didn't speak about kfitza. Piyuk he spoke about. That's why ein echad kovea. But by kfitza it would work. But usually we said by kfitza it's not kovea, it's not kovea in all. No, with yomim it is. What do you mean? If she's, let's say she has one Sunday like this, one Sunday like this, one Sunday like this. Okay, but she sees three different ones. But she was kofes, she, I don't know, and then she had something else. Three different ones. No, but the Rambam is saying without date, he's just saying the simanim by itself. No, but he brings machlokes later on. Two mandamrim. It brings that piyuk and kfitza are different things. That's that we learned. The Maharatzba says one is a siman and one's a garma. It's very good. Okay, so with this we can get into the following. Ready? Notice the next halacha: v'kulam ein chosheshim ... ela l'shaas, to the shaas of the vest, yeah? Next halacha: im echad me'eilu ba l'zman yadua, az vadai asurah, right? So if in case it has a yom also, then it's asur to the whole ona, right? Then it's asur to the whole ona. So normally, normally you don't have to have the whole shaas, the whole day, but only the shaas. Mashenkin im echad me'eilu ba l'zman yadua, az vadai asurah b'chol ha... Doesn't need the day, since it's a din in the day, so then it should be the whole ona. Doesn't it need the day, so why are you asering the whole ona? How does that work? You know, normally we learned till here that whenever it's colored to the day, then it needs the whole day. Wherever it's not colored to the day, then it doesn't need the whole day. So here it is, you don't need the whole day, but in case you know that there is a day, then it becomes. So what is? It's a very big chiddush, very big chiddush. Yeah, we just did two seifim. We just did chaf-hei, chaf-vav. No, I'm sorry, chaf-daled and chaf-hei. Okay, so listen what I'm taining. Here's an interesting vort. I'm taining an interesting vort, and then I'm gonna go. I'm taining like this, I'm gonna tain like this. The maichel of shum and all these things, and I asked you, is it cooked? Is it this? Is it that? If you learn... That there's a goyrim, so then there has to be a pshat in the goyrim. In order to come and say this is a goyrim for this, there has to be a connection between the this and this, that it triggers this. Why? Because it's the fact that you see the goyrim that's mechayev the prishah, where it works al siman. So it's not the pshat that the goyrim is mechayev it. There's a siman that could even be by maichel shum. In other words, like this: we see two days in the Rambam. Pretty chiddush, right? One day you do need yamim, one day you don't need yamim. On the tzad you need yamim, because what is it? It's like phitzus, which is a goyrim. On the tzad you don't need yamim, what is it like? Like mikria guf. So I asked you.

You watch the machloikes exactly. The Teretz is gargeshmak. Avadah, pashut, the shum is a goyrim? No. Maybe. Maybe it's taka siman, like, like, like, like Simanei Aguf, pshat. Where it's a goyrim, so you have to need hilchos grama. You'll have to see why it's goyrim. So if there's no taich in the goyrim, so what would be the reason to be choshesh? Mashenkein where it's just a siman, so it's not the goyrim, it's the siman. So you don't need any goyrim, which means it's, let's say, the same shum. You cooked it. So the svara, of course, is efsher doesn't have the same — it doesn't make a difference. Yeah, l'maaseh still, because of your eating, that it's happening, so why is it not a goyrim? It's not, because we know, we notice that every time you eat it, it happens. I didn't say because. Fill in the blank. Every time we notice, every time I jump, it happens. I need to be... Koftza v'ra'asa, achla v'ra'asa, it's the same... Right, I know, but we don't say that. I explained to you, by koftza, we said a vort that it has to do with an ones. Toireach. Toireach, which means it causes it. We spoke about it. You hear the vort? Hear it? Okay, go ahead, go ahead. There's two things. Is it the food that causes it, or is it that every time she eats it, she has it? Okay. The Ramo is telling me there's two ways to understand ochel charif. Either ochel charif is the taich, it's the component of charif which causes it, or it's not the component, but we see that every time she eats it. But chamim, charif becomes the common denominator. Is chamim the gorim or is chamim the cause and the denominator? And if the doctor proved to you that it's actually a גורם and it's not a... I don't know. It's chamim. It's the denominator that makes it. Exactly. That's what you asked me. You asked me about pills. Exactly where I'm going to. So the pills does the same thing, but it's not the same cheftza. What do you mean it's not the same? It גורם. It causes it. Right, but there's no Torah. That's exactly what I'm getting at. That's exactly what I told you. I told you, wait till the end of the shiur and we'll talk about pills. Is the taich in kvitzas gorim, and the question is, maichal, what's maichal? Is it the gorim sheboi, or it's just a siman? If for some reason every time she eats this, it happens. When gorim, there has to be a gorim. You have to explain what's causing it. Ma she'ein kein in siman, it really makes no difference. Yeah, so then by—why would we not use chamim? Is because that's what happens to the guf every time she sees. I said that. I said that. So then it's specifically those things. I said that. That's exactly what I said. Either the pshat in the— I said that. That's exactly what—mamish the last two minutes I said this yesod. Either the chamim is what's causing it, or the chamim is a siman, because that's what happens to the body when— That's exactly what I'm telling you. There's a question how to learn the chamim. Either the chamim is the taich. Huh? What do you mean a siman? It's a siman like this. In other words, whenever the body is having an orech, right, so what happens is certain things happen, piyuk, and it happens to be that there's some connection between the charif and that. So if she wouldn't have eaten anything— I don't know, but whatever it is, again, unless we don't say—you're right, and a chanami, if every time she gets hot it happens, then every time she gets hot. What I'm saying is either the pshat is it's like an ones, that it's gorem it, or it's a common denominator. The cham is a common denominator. You see a fluke, that every time she eats something, this happens, but it has to have some connection. The answer is by piuk, by piuk, yeah? Okay, that's the vort. Is chamin the cause, or is chamin the common denominator? Huh? That's the two days in the Ramo. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Two days in the Ramo is: is chamin the cause, that it's like piuk, is chamin the common denominator, that it's like piuk. Then it's like piuk. It's a common denominator, is it the cause? It's a common denominator. We don't know that. It's a correlation. There's something going on here, but we don't know how to explain it, but it's there. It's there. We find the connection. That's the chiluk, because— Not because. There's no because. Okay, Rafi, I have to run, but you hear what I'm going with all this?