The Eddie B. Sit edition presents an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, specifically focusing on Masechet Chullin. This series has been dedicated by our good friend, Mr. Joey Jamal, and his wife, in honor of their son Jack's engagement to Shirley Sutton. With God's help, they should marry at a favorable and successful time, and through the merit of the learning we will engage in over the next several months in Masechet Chullin, they should experience much joy, peace in the home, prosperity, and all blessings. Amen.
Today, we are studying Daf Zayin. Our learning is dedicated for the elevation of the souls of Avraham ben Esther and Rabbi Moshe ben Nuna, as well as for the success of Yaakov ben Yosef. We are currently on Daf Vav Amud Bet. We will begin today's Daf from the words: "He'id Rabbi Yehoshua ben Zeruz," which is eleven lines from the bottom of the page, starting from the last word on the line.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Zeruz testified concerning Rabbi Meir, the son of his father-in-law, in front of Rabbi regarding something Rabbi Meir did. What did Rabbi Meir do? He ate a leaf of a green vegetable in Beit She'an without taking ma'aser. Rabbi then declared that Beit She'an must not be part of Eretz Yisrael. If Rabbi Meir ate vegetables there and did not take ma'aser, this strongly indicates that Beit She'an is not considered part of Israel, and therefore there is no obligation to give terumot and ma'aser.
It is important to note that while there are ma'asrot outside of Eretz Yisrael, these are rabbinic in nature and only apply to items that would be de'oraita in Israel, such as olives, grapes, and wheat. In contrast, vegetables in Eretz Yisrael are only rabbinic as well, and thus outside of Eretz Yisrael, there is no halachic obligation at all. Based on this testimony, Rabbi permitted Beit She'an to be treated as outside of Eretz Yisrael.
However, Rabbi's friends and family opposed him, saying, "You are now permitting Beit She'an based on what Rabbi Meir did? Your ancestors and their ancestors treated Beit She'an with a prohibition." They argued that for generations, their forefathers had regarded Beit She'an as part of Israel, and now Rabbi was challenging that tradition based on a single incident.
In response, Rabbi cited a verse: "And he broke the copper serpent that Moses made." This verse refers to an incident during the time of Moses, where a plague of snakes afflicted the Israelites. Moses created a copper serpent, and those who looked at it were healed. However, in later generations, this serpent became an object of idol worship. King Chizkiyahu then destroyed it.
Rabbi pointed out that previous righteous kings, Asa and Yehoshafat, did not destroy the copper serpent. Thus, Rabbi reasoned, perhaps they left it for Chizkiyahu to elevate his name among the people of Israel. This illustrates that sometimes ancestors intentionally leave a matter for future generations to rectify and elevate their names.
Rabbi concluded that similarly, his ancestors left him the authority to permit Beit She'an, allowing him to establish this halachic ruling. The implication is that they anticipated a descendant of the righteous would eventually clarify this matter.
Next, we turn to Rashi to explore the text further. Rashi explains that Rabbi permitted the entire Beit She'an to eat vegetables without taking ma'aser, emphasizing that Rabbi Meir's actions indicated Beit She'an's status.
Rabbi Meir's actions were significant because they demonstrated that Beit She'an was not considered part of Eretz Yisrael. Rashi asks how Rabbi Meir could eat without taking ma'aser, given that it was customary to do so. The Gemara clarifies that Rabbi Meir must have eaten from a bundle of vegetables, which would obligate him to take ma'aser. This leads to the question of whether Rabbi Meir simply overlooked this obligation.
The Gemara asserts that it is impossible to think that Rabbi Meir, a tzadik, would have eaten without fulfilling the halachic requirement. It is inconceivable that a tzadik would stumble over such a matter. Therefore, the only reasonable explanation is that he must have taken ma'aser from another source, even if it was not visible at the time.
Rabbi Yehoshua's testimony is credible because he is a respected figure who would not make such claims lightly. The Gemara continues to explore this topic, emphasizing that a scholar's halachic declarations, even if they seem novel, should be accepted without skepticism.
As the discussion progresses, Rabbi Yirmiyah raises a question about the status of Beit She'an, asserting that it must be part of Eretz Yisrael since it was settled by Menashe. The Gemara explains that the sanctity of the land established by the initial settlers was temporary, and when the exiles returned, they did not re-sanctify Beit She'an, which led to its current status.
Ultimately, Rabbi's ruling that Beit She'an does not require ma'aser stands firm, as it reflects the historical context and the halachic implications of the land's sanctity.
As we delve deeper into the text, we learn about the importance of maintaining the integrity of halachic rulings and the respect due to those who convey them. The Gemara teaches that a scholar's word carries weight and should not be dismissed lightly, regardless of how unprecedented it may seem.
This exploration reveals the intricate balance between tradition and innovation within halacha, illustrating how the actions of past sages continue to shape our understanding and practice today. As we conclude this session, may our learning be a source of merit for our families and communities.