Parshas Vayeira 5787
Updated: 11 minutes ago
בכורות לט.
"שוטה למפרע"
The Mishnah lists [מים] water in the eye, as a מום. The gemara discusses a special 3 month diet that can be given to the בכור to determine if it is a מום קבוע or not. פנחס the brother of שמואל asks: what if we follow these instructions, & we determine this is a מום קבוע, Do we say this is a מום קבוע- למפרע? Or only מכאן ולהבא? The נפק"מ would be by פסולי המוקדשין. If one was מקדש a בהמה for a קרבן & then notices a מום & immediately is מפריש money & says this בהמה should be מחולל onto this money. Afterwards, he administers the above dietary test. Before the 3 months are up the owner was מועיל in this money. So, if the test proves that this is actually a מום קבוע, if we consider it as if it was a מום קבוע למפרע, it turns out that his פדיון was חל, thereby making him מועיל & חייב קרן חומש ואשם. If due to the test we only consider it a מום קבוע מכאן ולהבא, it emerges that this בהמה was never a בר פדיון & the money never had קדושה so ממילא he wasn’t מועיל when he used it? The gemara leaves this unresolved. The gemara [חגיגה ג:] says: who is considered to have the legal status of a שוטה, that is פטור ממצות וכדומה? This is one who 1) goes out at night alone 2) sleeps in a cemetery 3) rips his own clothing. ר' הונא says he must do all 3 things to be categorized as a שוטה. ר' יוחנן says he needs to do only one. The gemara asks, if he is doing these acts בדרך שטות, why do we require he do all 3? If he isn’t doing it בדרך שטות, then even if he does all 3 he shouldn’t be labeled a שוטה? The gemara answers, really ר' הונא agrees, if he is doing these בדרך שטות doing only one of these acts would be enough, but since there could be a rational reason behind it, we require that he do all 3 acts, this eliminates the possibility that there is a logical reason to his actions. The [שו"ת אהע"ז ס' פט' ד"ה ואמנם בלא"ה] בית אפרים discusses: if someone did all 3 of the above actions & is now considered a שוטה. Is this classification חל retroactively to the first time he did one of these acts? Or only from after the 3rd action (מכאן ולהבא) and on? The נפק"מ would be similar to the shaila of פנחס in our gemara. For example, if this person made a קנין on something after he did his first (seemingly) deranged action, if at a later time he has done a total of 3 actions בדרך שטות, if he is considered a שוטה retroactively, then that קנין that he did after his first action should not be חל, as it is now הוברר הדבר למפרע that he was always a שוטה? He answers that he is a שוטה למפרע. Since the gemara says 3 separate times are required for us to be positive there was no rational reason behind his behavior, this means that we are now certain that his behavior was always done בדרך שטות & this would include even the first action.