LichVod Ha'rav,
The machlokes between Rav Yahudah and the Rabanan.
The case is as follows: When a person takes a poisonous snake a pushes the tooth into his skin. Rav Yahudah say that since the poison is on the tooth or in the tip of the tooth you are doing a direct act. Therefore you did an act of murder. Rabanan say that after the tooth is in the skin of the person the snake has to do an additional act to get the venom into the person and therefore the act is only a grammah. It appears to me to be a ma'chlokes in mitzeyos.
I saw the Teferes Yisroel on the Mishniyos and discusses this point. He says it cant' be a dispute in mitziyos---- although it appears to me the way he explains it is also a dispute in mitziyos which obviously it is not as he just said at can't be.. Please explain to me how the Teferes Yisroel learns.(or any way)
Have a good week,
Sam
Dear Sam,
The Tiferes Yisrael does not seem to solve the Metzi'us problem. However, we can suggest as follows:
The Metzi'us is the same for both opinions. There is venom in the sac connected to the hollow fang. The Gemara mentions two ways to explain the same action. According to the Rabanan the snake is his tool (see Rashi DH Bein Shinav "like stabbing a knife in his stomach"; also Rashi Bava Kama 23b DH Bein Shinav "without the snake's intention the venom comes out"). This makes him the murderer, not the snake. "Venom between his teeth" means it is all there and ready. According to Rav Yehuda, it is the snake's action which brings the venom out. Rav Abramsky in Chazon Yehezkel (Bava Kama 2:2) explains that if the person who places the snake is Patur, you must say that the snake on its own extracts the venom and not the person. The Gemara says "from itself (the snake) comes the venom".
Similarly an ox that gores and kills in anger is killed. It is considered responsible. That's true even if its habit is to gore only after hearing a trumpet. However a "stadium" ox, trained to fight and kill is free from death. The goring is not its own action, but an action brought about by others. The horns of such an ox are like venom in the teeth (Meiri).
All the best,
Reuven Weiner
Dear Rabbi Weiner,
It appears to me that what you are saying is also a Metzeouss problem ....I really don't understand. According to one opinion you say the snake makes the venom come out(Rabanan and therefore it is a gramma) and according to the other opinion the venom comes out by itself. That is exactly what a Ma'chlokes in Metzeous is. Basically you are saying they agree expect the cases are different. If Both the Rabanan and Reb Yehudah would agree that the snake makes the venom come out...would they agree in the pa'sach ha'lacha? If the answer is yes...That means the only reason why they are arguing is because each one hold that it is a different case.They are not talking about the same Metzeous They are arguing in fact of how the venom comes out....if that isn't a metzeous problem than what is? (incidentally, you mistakenly used Rab Yehuda's position that the venom flows by it self with the Rabanan's that say it is a grammah)
Please me advise me.
Thank you,
Sam
Dear sam,
Thank you for your correction.
Concerning Machlokes b'Metzi'us it appears to be that a Metzi'us which cannot be discerned, only explained in two different ways, is not a problem. The problem is only when we say "why argue - let's see what the truth is."
Well, firstly I think what you are telling me is that there isn't any way to check and tell which way the venom comes out. If that is so, I believe (could be mistaken ...wouldn't be the first time) if there is a machlokes generally speaking each Man'de-uh'mar has to have a (severah) reason as to why they feel their opinion is correct. In this case of the snake it appears to be a guessing game . We therefore would need a reason why each one would not hold like the other. What is that reasoning?
Thank you once again for keeping me in the learning arena
Sam.
Perhaps the more logical view is that the snake injects its poison consciously.
The source for the dissenting opinion ("Eres ha'Nachash Bein Shinav Hu Omed") may be the Kal v'Chomer of the Gemara in Eruvin 13b. The Gemara there says that if a snake, which kills (without personal gain - see Ta'anis 8a) and increases Tum'as Mes in the world, is not Metamei, then certainly a Sheretz, which does not increase Tum'ah, should not be Metamei. The Gemara rejects this Kal v'Chomer because "a snake is simply doing the work of a thorn" (Ma'aseh Kotz b'Alma) when it kills. Thus, the fact that it kills is not a reason for it to be Metamei.
If a snake consciously injects its poison, it is not just acting as a "thorn" (which can kill if the person brushes it in the wrong way). It is actually *causing* death of its own accord. Therefore, it must be that the venom is already on the tooth and the snake simply touches the tooth to the person, without injecting the venom consciously.
(The first opinion will maintain that even if a snake does inject its venom consciously it can still be called a "Ma'aseh Kotz" - you can deduce for yourself why that is so.)
Best wishes,
Mordecai Kornfeld
Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Dear Rabbi Kornfeld,
What I think you are saying is not in line with the Teferes Yisroel. If there is a Machlokes as whether or not the snake ejects its venom conciously or not...don't we have the original problem of it being a Machlokes in Me'tzeos? Unless we say that it isn't possible to know if in fact ....whether a snakes ejects its venom consciously or not. And that is what the Machlokes is. Then (we already established in our previous emails) each Man'de-uh'mar has to have a (severah) reason as to why they feel their opinion is correct ....which I don't believe was sent to me in the emails. I feel we are going around in circles. If we are not...I don't have a clue of what you are saying. If you think I should just drop it and move on...... then so be it. Please let me know.
Have a good shabbos and regards to Rabbi Weiner,
Sam
Sam, you have a good point. My suggestion was that there indeed is no way to discern the correct physical situation and the argument is based on logic. One view follows what is more logical physically, while the other follows what is more logical Halachically (based on the Kal v'Chomer I mentioned).
But if you prefer, we can say they are arguing based on their Masores, and move on.
Best wishes,
Mordecai Kornfeld