[Avodah] ukimtas

[Zvi Lampel]

>
>
> Mon, 20 Apr 2020 16:19:06 -0400  Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org>
> wrote:To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group <
>


> > When Rishonim read ukimtas into the gemara (e.g. the gemara really was
> > dealing with a specific case even though it didn't mention it) how often
> > were they stating a tradition vs. using their own logic?
>
> I'm going to cut-n-past RETurkel's post from 28-Feb-2017, "ukimtahs":
> The rest of the thread is titled "Farfetched Ukimtas" and is available
> at http://aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=F#FARFETCHED%20UKIMTAS
>

Looking back at that thread, I was thinking over R. Marty Bluke's final
example:

*Message:* 13
> *From:* Marty Bluke
> *Date:* Sun, 6 May 2018 11:53:37 +0300
> *Subject:* Re: [Avodah] Farfetched Ukimtas
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=F#FARFETCHED%20UKIMTAS>
>
> Yesterday's daf (Zevachim 22) has another wild ukimta that seems to just be
> there to answer a question on an amora and not provide a sterile
> environment to learn out a new principle.
>
> Here is the gist of the Gemara:
>
> R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina states if the Kiyor does not contain enough water
> to be Mekadesh four Kohanim, it is invalid - "v'Rachatzu Mimenu Moshe
> v'Aharon u'Vanav."
>
> The Gemara asks a question from the following Baraisa: One may be Mekadesh
> from any Keli Shares, whether or not it contains a Revi'is of water (this
> is much less then the water needed for 4 people)
>
> Rav Ada bar Acha answers: The case is, the Keli Shares was carved into the
> Kiyor (so the water comes from the Kiyor, which contains enough water to be
> Mekadesh four Kohanim).
>
> I don't see any way that you can say here that the ukimta is to remove
> extraneous dinim etc. The ukimta here seems to serve one and only one
> purpose, explain the Barisa that it is not a question on an Amora.
>
> My first observation is that Tosefos' description of the ukimta translates
kodeiach not ''carved'' into Kiyor, but ''submerged'' into it. Meaning, the
we are speaking of a case where one dips a keli shareis into the Kiyor, and
washes from it. Although the kli shareis has a minimal amount of water,
since that water came from the Kiyor, which had the necessary amount, it is
valid for washing. This ukimta is therefore not at all wild. Of course,
this translation of kodeiach is unusual.

But the ukimta may not really be wild even according to Rashi, who takes it
that the kli shareis was literally carved into the Kiyor. Perhaps this was
really the way the Kinor was made, with small klei shareis attached to it,
and Rav Ada bar Acha is calling attention to the fact, oi at least
suggesting that such was the fact.

We really need to know how things were done, and how those doings were
described, to judge if the suggested scenario is normal or not.

I'm not really in the sugya, so be on the watchout that a thorough
understanding of the subject matter demolishes my suggestions.

Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200424/06de6318/attachment.html>