Ta'anis 24a - Ma'aseh Nissim

There seems to be a contradiction between rashi 24a (d.h. ela) and rashi 24b (d.h. amar) whether it is "assur" or just "not proper" to benefit from the product of a miracle. I later found this question raised by the mitzpah eisan (he makes a distinction between a miracle done for an individual and an miracle done for the public - to me it seems to be a dochek). I think the distinction is that on 24a the miracle was done in the zechus of Elazar Ish birta and he (and his daughter) would be the ones benefiting so it is an issur since it will be deducted from his zechyos. But, on 24b the miracle was done in the zechus of R' Yehuda (just as the rain came in the zechus of him removing his shoe), and it was the buyers who were going to be benefiting, therefore it is not an issur on them to benefit from r' yehuda's zechuyos. Nevertheless, since the source of the benefit is a miracle, it is preferable not to benefit from a miracle at all (and perhaps their benefit would deduct from R' Yehuda's zechuyos so he tried to discourage them from benefiting).

The problem is that rashi 25a (d.h. ad) in the story with the oil says that r' chanina lit another candle from the miracle candle so as not to benefit from the miracle "just like r' yehuda did by the sand and flour". Based on the distinction above, in the case of R' chanina there would be an issur to benefit, so rashi should have cited the proof from the case of Elazar Ish birta?

For an answer - see comments.

Ta'anis 23a - Choni Ha'magal

The Rambam (Talmud Torah 6:14) lists 24 things that someone is put in cherem for. #1 is for kavod of a chacham and #14 is one who brings the public to chilul hashem. The kesef mishnah explains that the source for #14 is the story with choni where shimon ben shetach says that he should be put in niduy bec. if this were like the days of eliyahu where there would be to contradictory oaths that would inevitably bring to chilul hashem. The Mishnah L'melech points out that Rashi (both in the mishna and gemara) take an alternate approach that the niduy was for kavod ha'rav i.e. being matriach Hashem excessively. The Mishnah L'melech asks, that since there was an issue of kavod ha'rav in the actions of choni, how can this story be a source that there is justification to put someone in niduy just for bringing to chilul hashem alone? Although he brings down an answer, he says that it is not "kdei sviah". Any thoughts?

Masrein Vrs. Misanin

This post has a little shaychus to todays daf but I think it is a important nekuda and since I did not post it earlier I am posting it.
The mishna at the begining of the perek discusses how to react to a es tzara. The tana kama says masrein umisanin but in a city which nearby we are is only misana. Acc. to Rabbi Akiva though cities nearby are masrea but not misana. What is the machlokes?
So the Ran brings down a yirushalmi that says the they argue about what you compare it to the day of Rosh Hashana or Yom kippur. Rabbi Akiva says you compare a es tzara to rosh hashana and therefore you blow a shofar like on R"H. The Tanna kama says you compare it Yom Kippur there fore you fast Like on Y"K. The yerushalmi goes lishtaso based on what the yirushalmi says you are tokea on a tannis. the milchamos in r"h says that only in the bais hamikdash did they blow with chatzosros but begivulin we blow a shofar b/c it is like r"h and the proof that the Ramban brings is from the gemora in the yirushalmi.
But if you learn like the Rambam that even begevulin we blow chatzozros. What is the Machlokes between Tana kama and Rabbi Akiva? To start a mehalach to understand the Rambams shita you have look at the Rambam in the 1st perek where he learns the if there is a es tzara than the torah says to blow chtazosros/masria. Come Chazal and say medirabanan that a you should also fast/ Misanea. So Acc. to the Rambam Chatzosros if a doraysa and tannis is derabanan.

taanis 24 take care of your own 1st?

i know i am a little ahead, but the gemara has a story regarding elaza who seemingly gave away his own daughter wedding money to 2 orphans marrying each other. the maharsha asks how was he allowed to do this as the din is that you take care of your own 1st.
.
i was thinking perhaps rashi is answering this by explaining the gemara that 2 orphans were marrying each other. maybe, the rule of taking care of your own 1st only applies when the needs are on the same plain more or less, but when the other need that is farther is more dire then it takes precedence. perhaps here the fact that there were no parents to help out and as we see in the beginning of ksubos that parents helping in the meal preparations are the norm then there was an added dimension to the needs of the orphans.
what is the din when 2 yeshivos are collecting, 1 local yeshiva for building a gym for american boys who need this type of thing and 1 is from erets yisroel and they are collecting for basic needs, which takes precedence?
(the maharsha answers more simply but acknowledges that it is dochak)

Ta'anis 22b - Fasting for Dever

There is a machlokes in the gemara whether you fast and are masriah for dever. Rashi explains the opinion of R' Chanan that even during the week we don't fast to get rid of plague "because it is a gezeira". What does Rashi mean? Rashi could mean to say that it is like a tefillas shav since it is a gezeira and tefillah will not help - similar to rashi 19a regarding the tevuah that dries up. But rashi still seems to contradict himself by the wild animal being a maka mushlachas (that you fast and cry out for) "it is a gezeira"?!

Without Rashi it seems that there is another rationale for not fasting for dever. Shulchan Aruch 576:2 paskens that we fast for dever. But the Sha'arei Teshuva brings from Birkei Yosef and Arizal that we don't fast for dever "and there is also a sevara like that in the talmud 22". The M.B. (2) explains that we no longer fast for dever since it is more contagious when one is fasting. We find a similar statement in Biur Halacha (554) when there was an outbreak of cholera to eat pachos m'kishiur as a way to strengthen the immune system (BTW, this implies he holds of pachos m'kishiur even on Tisha B'av). This seems to be the way the Sha'arei Teshuva explains the gemara, that R' Chanan held not to fast since it was more prone to spreading the plague.

Ta'anis 22a - Ben Olam Ha'ba Without Tzitzis

The gemara justifies the prison guards custom of not wearing tzitzis (and wearing black shoes which was a minhag of goyim that a jew must give up his life for in a time of shmad - sanhedrin 75b see tosafos). It seems that he was wearing a 4 cornered garment without tzitzis which was a bitul mitzvas aseh, and that is why R' brokah was surprised that he was a ben olam ha'ba. If he was simply not wearing a 4 cornered garment, it is unlikely that R' Brokah would have been so surprised since there is no chiyuv to wear a 4 cornered garment in order to wear tzitzis. Although this is debatable, it is meduyak in rashi "he did not put tzitzis on his tallis" - implies he was wearing a 4 cornered tallis and left off the tzitzis.

The question is that since he had to look like a goy in order to spy (perhaps it was even pikuach nefesh), why was he allowed to wear a 4 cornered garment w/o tzitzis. He should have worn a garment that is not chayev in tzitzis at all so he would not have to be mevatel a mitzvas aseh!

Perhaps this is a proof to the Mordechai that there is no issur to wear 4 corners without tzitzis, rather when wearing 4 corners there is a mitzvah to put on tzitzis. In a situation where one cannot put on tzitzis i.e. shabbos, it is permitted to wear the garment and is not considered a bitul mitzvah. Based on this, here to he was not able to put on tzitzis (so that he can spy), and was allowed to wear the 4 cornered garment w/o tzitzis. There is no advantage to wear a garment that is exempt from tzitzis.

Ta'anis 21a - Story of R' Yochanan and ilfa

R' Yisroel Gordon refered me to the hakdama of the margolis hayam on sanhedrin where he offers a very interesting analysis of this story.

His approach is that Ilfa excelled in learning more than R' Yochanan even after R' Yochanan was appointed as Rosh Yeshiva. Ilfa had no choice but to involve himself in business. Ilfa understood based on the gemara in Eruvin 55a that the ability to learn for hora'ah and halacha l'ma'aseh is not found by the businessman. But this affords the businessman like Ilfa the luxury and opportunity to focus on the depths of Torah and not having to flip through kitzur halachos seforim since he is not being consulted for pesak on a regular basis. Although Ilfa did not have the opportunity to teach Talmidim and study with Talmidei chachamim, he managed to record much of his learning in writing to pass on to the future generations (he cites menachos 70a and Yerushalmi in ma'asros 2:4 where they checked the notebook of Ilfa to figure out the din).

If anyone is familiar with the life story of R' Reuven Margolis, he seems to be comparing himself to Ilfa.

Ta'anis 20a - Cedars on water

This post is from R' Aaron Katz - it is a little long so i am posting as a comment.

rain in one city and no rain in another

במשנה: וכן עיר שלא ירדו עליה גשמים דכתיב והמטרתי על עיר אחת וכו' וברש"י כגון שהמטיר בעיר זו ובחבירתה לא המטיר דקללה היא. ובהמשך מבואר דגם העיירות שמסביב מתענות והטעם כתב רש"י כיוון שאותה העיר שלא ירדו עליה גשמים תלך לקנות באותה העיר ויהיה רעב.
.
מבואר דבעיר שירד גשמים כן יהיה תבואה אלא שמתענים מהחשש שהעיר שלא ירד עליה גשמים יקנו התבואה ויהיה רעב. ולכאורה תמוה דמפורש בגמרא לעיל ו' ע"ב על האי משנה דשתיהן לקללה וביאר שם רש"י מפני שרוב גשמים קלקלו תבואתם. דהיינו דגם בעיר שירד שם גשמים אין תבואה כפשוטו כיוון שנתקלקל מרוב גשמים. ונראה סתירה. ויותר מזה ששם לעיל בגמרא מפורש שר' חסדא אומר שגשמים שירדו על מקצת מדינה אין בהם משום ועצר ופרש"י כיוון שהמקצת שירד עליו גשמים יספק לכל המדינה. ובמשנה הכא ממש להיפך שחוששים שלא יהיה מספיק. ואין לתרץ ולומר שתלוי אם יש מספיק כדי לספק לכל הסביבה או לא דאם זה החילוק מדוע הגמרא שם לא תירצה ששניהם לקללה באופן שאין מספיק תבואה לכל המדינה.
.
ונראה לי שרש"י בדף כ' ע"א בא לתרץ כל זה באומרו על מימרא דרב יהודה ששתיהן לקללה דקאי על הפסוק. משמע שבפסוק הפשט דגם היכא שירד גשמים אין תבואה דנתקלקל מרוב גשמים אך במשנה לומד אפילו כשלא התקלקל. אך צ"ע ומה אם רב חסדא שביאר באין בהם משום ועצר ועוד מדוע רש"י לא מפרש כפשוטו במשנה ג"כ. דהיינו פשוטו היה כך דשתיהן לקללה דהיכא שירד גשמים היה יותר מדאי והתקלקל והיכא שלא ירד גשמים מתריעין מיד ולא מחכים לסדר הי"ג דעצם זה שיורד באופן משונה מראה שיש פה קללה ולא סתם עיכוב גשמים. אנא האירו עיני.

going back - ashes and dirt

מה שביאר ר' אבי לגבי רש"י באפר מקלה. שביאר שאפילו למ"ד שעפר סתם עדיין עדיף אפר כיוון שהוא יותר גנאי יש לכאורה לדון בזה. דהמעיין ברש"י ריש טז ע"א משמע שלאדם חשוב ששמים עליו אפר הוא מתבייש מזה אך לאדם פשוט משמע שאין בכלל בושה. ןמדוייק שע"ז מקשה הגמרא שא"כ מה בכלל הענין של אפר באדם רגיל וע"ז יש שתי טעמים בגמרא. יוצא שיש שני דינין באפר ־ על הנשיא ואב ב"ד ועל אדם רגיל. ולפ"ז מה שרש"י אומר במשנה שיש יותר גנאי באפר מאשר עפר זה אולי רק לנשיא שאצלו זה דין של בושה אך לאדם רגיל שדין האפר או מדין העקידה או מדין שחשובין כעפר לא מוכח שיש דין לכתחילה של אפר. כ"ז מהחברותא שלי נ"י

Ta'anis 18b - G-d's Executioner

Famous question of Rambam (Teshuva 6:5) - Why did g-d punish mitzraim, they acted as his agents to make the Jews suffer. Rambam says that Hashem was gozer on the nation not an individual. Ramban (lech licha 15:14) says that they were more oppressive than Hashem's decree. The Ra'avad says that in the larger plan G-d always uses wicked people to carry out wickedness and then punishes them for the wickedness they carried out. The Ramban also echoes this idea (although he doesn't seem to use it as an explanation for mitzrayim) "if it is decreed against a man on Y.K. to be killed, the thieves who murder him have cannot defend themselves by saying they did what was decreed against him, bec. although the victim was killed for his sin, his blood will be revenged from the killer".

The source of this yesod is the story of Turaynos. Lulaynos and Papus say to him that we are guilty of dying for our sins. Nevertheless, our blood will be revenged and you will be punished for being G-d's agent to murder us.

Ta'anis 18a - Chizuk for a Biblical Yom Tov

בתענית יז: קפריך מה הרויחו במה דאתותב יום דתמידא בא' ניסן הא בלא"ה אסור משום ר"ח, ומשני שעשו כן כדי לאסור אף יום שלפניו, דנהי דר"ח דאורייתא וא"צ חיזוק מ"מ יו"ט דרבנן שלהם צריכה חיזוק. וכעי"ז קאמר גבי פסח דקפריך למה לי עד סוף מועד לימא עד המועד ומועד גופיה יו"ט הוא, ומשני דאתותב חגא דשבועיא בפסח כדי לאסור יום שלאחריו. ונהי דפסח גופיה דאורייתא וא"צ חיזוק מ"מ יו"ט דרבנן שלהם צריכה חיזוק.
והנה, עצם היסוד דיו"ט שיש בו כעין ב' קדושות אחת שצריכה חיזוק ואחת שא"צ חיזוק, אכתי ראוי לאסור שלפניו ושלאחריו מחמת היו"ט שצריכה חיזוק, כבר חידש כן השאג"א (ס' ק"ב) והביא ראיה מגמ' דידן וגם מהגמ' בר"ה יט. אכן, העיר הר' יעקב בן-זקן (בבית מדרשנו בפאלא אלטא) דעיקר פירכת הש"ס היא, אמאי תקנו יו"ט דדבריהם בא' ניסן ובחג הפסח כיון דבלא"ה אסור, ומאי קמשני שעשו כן כדי לאסור יום שלפניו ויום שלאחריו, והא עד כאן לא קאמר השאג"א אלא דבמקום שהיו צריכים לתקן יו"ט דדבריהם איום שכבר אסור מדאורייתא, החמירו כאילו אין כאן יו"ט דאורייתא ואסרו שלפניו ושלאחריו, מ"מ אין זה מספיק לפרש אמאי הוצרכו לגזור משום יו"ט דדבריהם כלל ביום שכבר אסור מדאורייתא.
ונראה דמוכח מהש"ס דכדי להאלים ולחזק יו"ט דדבריהם תקנו בדוקא שתהא יו"ט דדבריהם בימים האסורים כבר מדאורייתא כדי לאסור שלפניו ושלאחריו ולהראות שיו"ט שלהם חזקה היא. נמצינו למדים דכשתקנו יו"ט דדבריהם מעיקרא, כללו בו אף יו"ט דאורייתא כדי לאסור יום שלפניו ושלאחריו רק כדי להראות כח תקנתם.

Ta'anis 18 - Public Protests

In the story of the 28th day of adar, they were advised to make a public protest at night and cry out "aren't we brothers, from one father and mother...". Rashi in Ta'anis seems to understand that this was done as a tefillah to Hashem. However, rashi in R"H seems to understand that it was directed toward seeking compassion from their oppressors, that is why they protested at night which was a time they would be heard by the officers ("b'cho Tichbeh b'layla" - maharsha r"h). Tosafos seems to say both.

Also the Maharsha points out that the intention of the decree was to break down the barriers that separate us from them i.e. torah, shabbos, milah. Our response was to pretend to express our "closeness" to them like being brothers...

This is similar to Ya'akov Avinu's encounter with eisav where he feared the attack and feared equally the brotherly love (beis haleivi - "hatzileini na m'yad achi, myad eisav"). He prepared himself by davening (like rashi in Ta'anis), and by sending gifts to appease and invoke the compassion of the enemy (like rashi in Rosh Hashana). - War was probably not a viable option!

Ta'anis 15a - Moving a Sefer Torah

I am copying and pasting a comment that was put under the kohanim discussion from avromi (dafnotes.blogspot.com) as a seperate post in order to keep the blog more organized.

When they would move the Aron out to the middle of the public square, it was only done during the week, but was moved back inside for Shabbos, right? I thought the halacha was that when the Aron was moved, the Torah needed to be used 3 times before it could be moved again, so how could they move it outside for only Monday / Thursday?This from one of my readers

Thanks

when love isn't appropiate

Rashi brings that when fighting about the date of the omer the tzdokim were stumped as rav yochanan asked them why should it be sunday. until some old man answered that Moshe Rabeni was a lover of the jewish people and he wanted shvuos to be 2 days and therefor made it always on a sunday.
just found it interesting that things don't change. how many times in history did people offer a compromise or other nonsense for the sake of Ahavas Yisroel!
Yossie (hakohen, perhaps great grandson of Pinchas...)
so when do we bend and when don't we...

Ta'anis 17a - Kohanim Drinking Wine

We pasken like Rebbi that kohanim can drink wine. However, there is a machlokes rashi and rabbeinu chananel to explain rebbi. Rashi explains that even a kohein who nows exactly his mishmar and bais av is allowed to drink wine, but Rabbeinu Chananel says that he is only arguing on the last situation when he doesn't know his mishmar and bais av. This machlokes is also an argument between the Ramabam (bias mikdash 1:7) who says like Rabbeinu Chananel that a kohein who knows his beis av cannot drink wine that day, and if he only knows his mishmar he can't drink wine the whole week, and the Ra'avad says like rashi that any kohein may drink wine.

Rashi/ra'avad seem to be gores "kilkalaso takanaso", meaning that the amount of time that elapsed that would be assur to drink (kilkalaso) is indicative of not having to be concerned for the imminent building of the bais hamikdash (takanaso). However, the girsa in our gemara and the Rambam is "takanaso kilkalaso" which is explained by the maharsha (chidushei agados) to mean that his takana to be able to drink wine which is not knowing his beis av and mishmar, is kilkalaso that perhaps he is not a kohein at all and can drink wine always - to the exclusion of a kohein who knows his mishmar and/or beis av who cannot drink wine on that day/week.

The difficulty with rashi is that we come out paskening like rebbi that we are not concerned for the rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdash. This is addressed by the Ra'avad that even if we assume it will be build imminently, the restoration of the mishmaros and beis av will take some time.

Har Hamoriya

Acc. to the man damar that its called har hamoriya because sheyatza memenu hora leyisroel. Rashi quotes the pasuk ki metziyon tezea torah and says the lishkas hagazis was there shebah amdo neviyim hamochichim leyisroel. Why does rashi not say pashut, that the torah comes from the bais din who gives psak? why does he have to say this idea of the neviyim giving mussar to klal yisreol and call that the torah that comes from tziyon?

Ta'anis 16a - Dirt and Goyim

The gemara gives 2 rationales for placing ash on their heads: 1. we are like ash. 2. to remember the akeida. Acc. to the 1st rationale dirt would work, but not acc. to second.

This seems to contradict rashi in the mishna 15a who says that we use ash rather than dirt bec. it is more degrading than dirt (this explanation is for the 1st rationale). But, the gemara implies that the only advantage of ash is acc. to the rationale of the akeida?

Clearly, rashi learns that even acc. to the 1st rationale ash is preferable bec. it is more degrading, but if you don't have ash, then acc. to 1st rationale use dirt, acc. to 2nd rationale use nothing (Tosafos also does not seem to understand this to be a typical "ika beinayhu").

It seems that rashi goes li'shitaso:

The gemara gives 2 rationales for going to the cemetery: 1. we are like the dead. 2. we beseech the dead to pray for us. According to the 1st rationale we can go to a non-jewish cemetery, but acc. to 2nd rationale it must be a jewish cemetery (and preferable tzadikim!). Rashi 16a d.h. kivrei, implies that acc. to everyone, a jewish cemetery is preferable. Rashi understands that the "ika beinayhu" of the non-jewish cemetery is only if there is no Jewish cemetery, similar to the "ika beinayhu" of the dirt is only if there is no ash.

The rashash seems to indicate this entire vort in a few words.

Ta'anis 15a - Fumbling the Davening

There is a Rashi on this Mishna which I believe is widely misunderstood. The Gemorah says that a "ragil" should lead the davening on the Ta'anis. Rashi defines a "ragil" as one who has the nusach down pat and won't fumble the davening. Our desire for such a chazzan, Rashi says, is based on the Mishna in Brachos 44b which states that when a chazzan errs it is a "siman ra" for the tzibur.
At first brush one would assume that Rashi's meaning is that we opt for a ragil in order to avoid the siman ra. This, of course, is untenable. As the Mishna in Brachos makes clear, the siman ra is Min HaShamayim and is unavoidable. The Mishna illustrates this with R. Chanina ben Dosa who knew in advance whether his tefillos were accepted by how well he was able to articulate the tefillah. So what does rashi mean when he says we want a ragil because fumbling is a siman ra?
I believe the answer is this: We want a ragil in order to identify a siman ra. If our chazzan is not a ragil then we can never know if his being toeh was a siman ra or just the natural result of his inexperience. When a ragil messes up, then we know.

ashes on the aron kodesh - Tzaar Hashchina

גמרא טז ע"א ולמה נותנין אפר מקלה ע"ג תיבה אמר רבי יהודה בן פזי כלומר עמו אנכי בצרה ריש לקיש אמר בכל צרתם לו צר
הבית הלוי בח"א דרוש ז' מפרש את החילוק בין שני הפסוקים (וכמעט מפורש במכילתא בא שמביא שם) דעמו אנכי בצרה משמע אפילו בצער דיחיד אך לר"ל שלומד מבכל צרתם זהו רק בצערא דציבור ומה שכתוב עמו אנכי וכו' מפרש ר"ל כפשוטו דאיירי שה' יושיע אותו
ולפ"ז מפרש דברי הגמרא במגילה ל"א לגבי דאין מפסיקין בקללות דריש לקיש ביאר שם שהטעם שאין פוסקין בקללות (דתורת כהנים) כיוון שאין אומרים ברכה על הפורענות וביאר שם התוספות דהטעם דהקב"ה בצער ולא ראוי שיהא מתברך והקשה שם הר"ן והרי הדין שכשם שמברכין על הטוב כך על הרע ומדוע שלא יתברך. וע"ז מתרץ הבית הלוי שר"ל לשיטתו שצער השכינה שייך רק ברבים ולא ביחיד וא"כ האי דינא דמברכין על הרע שייך רק ביחיד כשאין צער שכינה.
ע"ש דלא הארכתי לצטט אותו ורק מראה מקום אני לך

Ta'anis 14b - Answered like Yehoshua Bin Nun

The gemara says one should not fall on their face unless they are certain they will be answered like yehoshua. The gemara implies that yehoshua was in fact answered. The rashash points out that rashi in megillah implies that yehoshua was not actually answered. It seems that rashi by us is also very meduyak and implies that yehoshua in his version of the gemara, yehoshua was not actually answered. Rashi says that unless one is like yehoshua in the sense that everyone recognized his greatness and will not come to degrade him. This implies that even if one is not certain that they will be answered, so long as he is recognized as a great person, he is entitled to fall on his face while he davens.

Ta'anis 13a - Tevillah in Warm Water

The girsah in our gemara is that there can't be tevillah in warm water since it will inevitably be drawn water which is pasul for tevillah. Although both Rashi and Tosafos were not gores in the gemara "h'a sheuvin ninhu" - they clearly both explained the gemara that the problem is that all warm water is sheuvin. This gemara seems difficult in light of the gemara in yoma 34b that says that they would warm the mikvah water for the kohen gadol using hot metal that was heated from before yom kippur. Clearly, it is possible to warm the mikvah without rendering it sheuvin! Perhaps the answer is:
There is a reference in the hagahos ha'gra to his comments in Y.D. (201:125) where he seems to use this gemara as a support to the opinion who says that you cannot immerse in warm water even if it was poured into a mikvah after the mikvah is full [40 seah +] (so that the drawn water will not passul it) bec. it looks like a bath house. According to this approach, the issue is not that it is impossible to have warm water in the mikvah unless it is drawn, but rather the issue is that warm water resembles drawn water and is assur bec. of the appearance of a bath house. Based on this approach the issue in our gemara is not that it is actually sheuvin, but rather warm water looks like a bath house and therefore is "like sheuvin".
This explanation can be supported by the cheshek shlomo who points out that in brachos 22a the gemara is discussing the immersion of a b'al keri where actual sheuvin is not a problem (see beis yosef 88), yet there is a problem of warm water - clearly the problem is that it will be confused with a bath house and will lead to immersion inside a vessel itself which is prohibited even for a b'al keri.

tevilah b'zmana mitzvah

rashi is mashma (13a 4 lines before the ens of skinny lines) that the mitzva is to become tahor as fast as possible. tosfos in beitza 18b clearly holds that the mitzvah applies only if one is going to the mikva and the 1st day possible. that is why he says there that today when the women are machmir and go to the mikva late (as a zava) they do not fulfil that mitzvah.

hourly taanis -rashi

some points on rashi:

1. in the beginning of gemara 11b "halan betaaniso", rashi sounds as if he intends to eat in the morning and only fasting at night (see gvuras ari who also understood this way i think). The rosh clearly says he will fast the whole next day because as the gemara comes out in 12a that "taanis shaus"still means he wont eat the whole day, if so, what is pshat in rashi?
2. again in 11b rashi is mashma in the maskana that he may not daven tfilas taanis when he is continuing his fast, but it sounds from rashi that he still MUST fulfil his oath to fast (at least till morning), question is that in 12a rashi says that if he wont fast till night time he can eat in the morning also. seems to be a contradiction?
3. another q (strongest), in the maskana of 11b sounds from rashi that you must accept a taanis before the day in order to say "aneynu" but in 12a rashi holds that if one by chance was fasting till noon and then accepts to fast till night time he may say "aneynu". again a contradiction.

answer see comments:

Ta'anis 11a - Marital Relations During Famine

2 points:

1. The gemara cites a braisa that one who has no children is permitted to have relations in a year of a famine. What is the source of this Heter? Perhaps it can be explained based on Rashash and Gevuras Ari who understand this to refer to anyone who did not fulfill 'Pru u'rvu', even if they have a child. The heter may be that the mitzvah aseh of 'pru u'rvu' pushes off the issur of having relations. However, this would be dependent on various answers of Tosafos Baba Basra 13a whether or not this would qualify as violating the issur at the same time as performing the mitzvah.

2. The maharsha (agados) explains Tosafos that both Yosef and Levi had not performed 'pru u'rvu' so it was mutar for them to have relations during the famine. Yosef refrained as a middas chassidus, Levi did not, but we can deduce that since it is a midas chassidus if one does not have children, it would be an issur for one who already fulfilled the mitzvah (as the gemara implies "assur"). The question is: There should be no place for middas chasidus. If one has not fulfilled the mitzvah, it should be assur to be mevatel the mitzvah and should be required to have relations in order to perform the mitzvah! This would indicate that delaying the mitzvah of 'pru u'rvu' until after the famine would not be considered a bitul mitzvah and it would therefore be a middas chassidus to abstain.

Ta'anis 10a - Asking for Rain - 60 days after Equinox?

There is an enormous amount of discussion on the issue all over the internet. My intent is to try and simplify the material (thanks to Martin Handwerker a regular attendee at my daf yomi shiur for his help in calculating).

There is a machlokes first recorded by the rambam (Kiddush Hachodesh chapter 9-10) how to calculate the solar year. Shmuel (eruvin 56a) simplifies the calculation of the year to 365 days 6hrs. However, R' Adda (commentaries on Rambam attribute this to R' Adda, but i do not know where it comes from in the Talmud) gives a more accurate calculation of 365d 5hrs 997chal 48reg = 365d 5hrs 55min 25sec (approx.).

The actual astronomical solar year is 365d 5hrs 48min 46sec.

Although R' Adda is more accurate in conforming with the astronomical calculation, the minhag was to simplify and follow shmuel even though we drift from the true equinox a little more than 5min per year. R' Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe O.C. 4:17, 5:17) responded to a suggestion to follow the R' Adda equinox by asking the questioner if he thought he knew more than all the Rishonim and Achronim who decided to follow shmuel.

The original calendar (Julian) also simplified the system and was totally consistent with Shmuel. Therefore, the secular equinox was on Sept. 21 or 22 (depending on the conversion of the extra 6hrs per year by making Feb. 29 days), so 60 days later was Nov. 21 or 22. However, there is a discrepancy of approx. 11 minutes per year between shmuel and the actual solar year which will cause the calendar to be ahead approx. 3 days for every 400 years.

In the 1500's Pope Gregory moved the calendar ahead by 11 days to compensate for the discrepancy of the past 1500+ years (11 min per year = approx. 11 days per 1500) and implemented a system to calculate for the extra 3 days per 400 years. The secular calendar changed from the Julian/Shmuel calendar to the "Gregorian" calendar. Therefore, in the time of Gregory they began Tal Umatar 11 days later than the Julian date - Dec. 2 or 3rd. Since then another 400 years have passed which makes the Gregorian calendar another 3 days ahead of the Julian/Shmuel calendar - so we ask for rain on the night of Dec. 5 or 6 which is the night after the day of Dec. 4 or 5.

Regarding the minhag to ask for rain 60 days after the equinox rather than earlier (7 cheshvon), R' Moshe cites Rashi 10a that we follow the custom of Bavel even though in other places we may have a greater need for rain (see Rosh).

Ta'anis 10b - Vowing on Condition

The gemara says that if one makes a neder on condition that someone gets better, even if they get better, or die (rashi), before the vow is carried out, they are still required to carry out their vow. Rashi (d.h. al hatzara) seems to explain that it is improper to make conditions with Hashem (bec. it is considered chutzpah), therefore he must complete the vow. It would seem clear that to make an explicit condition would certainly be an issur. Rashi implies that whether the condition is explicit or not, one is compelled to complete their vow to avoid it looking as if they are making conditions with G-d, but the vow is not really binding since it was pending on the condition.
However, the Rema in Y.D. (220:15) qualifies the gemara that the vow must only be completed when the stipulation is not spoken out, but if he explicitly states he is giving the tzedaka or fasting on the condition that the person is healed, he does not have to complete the vow if the person dies. Clearly he understand that if one did not explicitly make a condition, they are bound by their words to complete their vow even if their intent was to vow only for this purpose (not like Rashi).
To fit the Rema with rashi it seems that the rema agrees that it is forbidden to vow with a condition bec. it is considered to be a display of chutzpa (as the rema indicates at the end of the paragraph, that it is a violation of serving Hashem without expecting reward). Therefore, if the condition is not explicit we assume that he did not mean to make the vow pending on the condition since this would be an issur, so we require the vow to be carried out regardless of the outcome. But, if the stipulation was explicit, although he violated a semi-issur by doing so, the stipulation is binding and if the person dies he does not have to complete the vow.

For a more details on this issue, click on the link in the first comment.

Ta'anis 8a - Public Pledges

The gemara says that for those who pledge tzedaka publicly and don't give it, rain is withheld. Rashi indicates that the punishment is for violating the pledge and therefore it is also true if the pledge is done in private (just that normally when one pledges in private they carry through since there is no other motivation to make the pledge). But the maharsha argues that the punishment is for teasing the aniyim who are anticipating the money and don't receive it.
Perhaps a slight support to the maharsha can be from the gemara in megilla, that the matnos aniyim has to coincide with the megillah reading bec. the eyes of the poor are looking forward to megillah reading to receive their money. we see that chazal were clearly very sensitive about teasing the poor, so that can be the issue here as well.

testing hashem with maaser

rabbi taub in his artsroll tzedaka book gives a few reasons why people who give maaser don't get rich even though the gemara says you can test hashem (pg 127-8 in ft note):

1. using rabeinu yona shaarei teshuva (3:30) that basically this is also a test and it is for your own good not to get rich
2. using the ahavas chesed (19:1) that still there are things that bring upon being poor so the maaser helps not to get poor but he may not become rich
3. the promise is only when you know the poor man is an honest poor man
4. netziv in meromei sadeh (r"h 4a) that it is only said when the maaser is given to people who learn torah
5. in the name of rav shlomo zalman that today hashem is hiding so much that this test doesn't apply (!)
6. using the rema (249:13) that if one takes honor for the tzedaka it is bad
7. the money given is not "clean" (chida on sefer chasidim)
8. radvaz (3:441) that only works if given to poor people and not used for other mitzvos
9. If i may add, i think it is very difficult especially today to calculate an exact amount since finances are much more intricate today
   

2 points agadata

1. the gemara sounds as if dovid was suppose to become king right after shaul sinned, if so how did shaul get an extension of 2.5 years and cause the kingdom of dovid to start late. unless the gemara means that shaul would've gotten an even longer extension because of shmuel and he only got 2.5 because that is when dovid was suppsoed to start his kingdom.

a 2nd point,why is it impossible for moshe and aron to loose the talmid yehushua in their lifetime but possible for them to loose nadav and avihu? i think maybe because yehushua was the ultimate talmid, that is why and the order of teaching of the torah mentioned in eruvin yehushua is not one of the teachers.

any thoughts??

strength and riches

i will throw a question out that is related to rain indirectly.
i once heard a joke from a rav: the mishna says who is rich the one who is happy with his share, however this is only m'drobonon but from the torah rich means one who has a lot of money. now this is a joke but its really true, for laws of tzedaka even one that is happy but has no money is considered poor.
what makes this more interesting is that we find the same idea regarding "gibor" what is a gibor one who conquers his evil side, but a gibor m'deoraysa is one who wins a war. in our gemara also gibor is attributed to giving rain resurrecting the dead and giving life.
a deeper look sees that the definitions are actually direct opposites! is a rich man one who is happy with LITTLE or one who has A LOT! is a gibor one who doesn't fight and conquers his OWN evil side or one who wins wars against OTHER PEOPLE!
i think something very important is happening here. something to think about...

q on rashi 4b

rashi learns the gemara question on rebi yochanan as follows:
.
how can he say we pasken like r' yehuda and also say that mentioning and requesting come together and on Smini Atzeres we start mentioning acc to r' yehuda but we don't request till a day later since there is only a y"t shmone esre.
.
if this is the q that starting requesting a day later is "not the same time" what is then the answer that he meant in eretz yisroel we pasken like r' yehuda when there is no mikdash, still we start mentioning a day before requesting???

Ta'anis 4a - Improper Tefillah

Tosafos asks why we don't mention that Kalev davened improperly bec. his tefillah could have caused his daughter to marry a mamzer, yet received Asniel ben Kenaz. Tosafos answers that it was considered proper since he knew that his zechus combined with that of his daughter's would entitle her to a proper shidduch. Why don't we use the same logic by Avrohom - the gemara should not have listed Avrohom's tefillah as improper since his zechus combined with Yitzchok would certainly entitle Yitzchok to a proper shidduch?

Perhaps zechus helps to prevent spiritual deficiencies, but would not prevent physical deficiencies, since that is not as important. Therefore, it is true that by Yitzchok the zechus would prevent spiritual deficiencies such as pesulei yuchsin like mamzer, but the tefillah of eliezer was still improper bec. it was open to physical deficiencies. It is very meduyak in the gemara by yitzchok where it switches to "chigeres or sumah" rather than "mamzeres or eved" - since it was clear that zechus would protect against "mamzeres or eved" (this would answer tosafos question in d.h. yachol). But by kalev, there was no concern for a physical deficiency bec. the person would be a warrior it top physical shape, and since zechus protects from spiritual problems, all concerns were alleviated. That is why the tefillah of Kalev was considered to be proper.

geshem or matar

i was asked, why do we mention "geshem" but request "matar" any ideas?

Ta'anis 3b - No Wind, No Dew

The gemara says that since wind and dew are never withheld, even if one declares that Hashem withholds wind and rain, it does not mess up their shemoneh esrei. The Poras Yosef (in the back of the gemara) says that so long as something is clearly an obvious falsehood, it does not mess up shemoneh esrei. Therefore, if one says ya'aleh v'yavo for rosh chodesh on a regular day, they do not have to repeat shemoneh esrei.

I am not convinced by his comparison. Although G-d does not withhold dew and rain, he at least has the power to do so, and in the context of the praise that he is the "almighty" it is not a 'sheker muchlat'. But, to declare today is Rosh Chodesh, when in fact it is not, may be worse. Any thoughts??

Ta'anis 3b - Mashiv Haruach in the summer

תענית ג: - הערה בהזכרת גשם בימות החמה

בגמ' ג. מבואר דכשלא אמר משיב הרוח מחזירין אותו. יש לחקור אם פירושו הוא דכשהזכיר משיב הרוח בגבורות בימות החמה הוי כאילו דילג כל הברכה כולה כיון שלא התפלל כהוגן ששינה במטבע התפלה, ואהני מה שמחזירין אותו מפני שעכשיו מתפללו כראוי בלי הזכרת גשם, או אף שכבר התפלל ויצא י"ח ברכה ד"אתה גבור" מ"מ מחזירין אותו כדי לדלג הזכרת גשם ועי"ז הוי כמבטל הזכרתו. וכן יש לחקור בימות הגשמים כשלא הזכיר גשם אי הוי שינוי במטבע של תפלה וקלקל בזה ברכה דגבורות וכאילו דילג כל הברכה או אף שכבר התפלל ויצא י"ח ברכה ד"אתה גבור" מ"מ מוטל עליו להזכיר גשם וחייב לחזור כדי להזכירו.

רש"י בד"ה מוריד כתב וז"ל וכיון דבעא אמיטרא לא התפלל תפלתו כהוגן וחוזר לראש הברכה ואומרה בלא מוריד הגשם וכו' עכ"ל. הרי משמע מפירושו דכיון שקלקל בברכתו הוי כאילו דילג הברכה ומש"ה מחזירין אותו )וכן משמע מק"נ אות ו' שהבין מדברי רש"י). ומסתברא דה"ה כשלא הזכיר גשם בימות הגשמים הוי כשינוי במטבע התפלה ולא אהני להזכירו בשומע תפלה, דכיון שלא הזכירו בגבורות בזמן שהיה לו להזכירו הוי כאילו דילג ברכת גבורות לגמרי. וזה דלא כדברי התוס' בד"ה בימות, שבימות הגשמים אם דילג גבורות אהני להזכירו בשומע תפלה ]מ"מ כשהזכירו בימות הגשמים פשיטא דמודו התוס' דמחזירין אותו וליכא תקנה בשומע תפלה, ולאו משום שקלקל ברכת גבורות בהזכרתו אלא שלא שייך לבטל הזכרתו בשומע תפלה] . אכן, דברי התוס' נכונים אם נפרש כדרך השני דבדילוג גשם בימות הגשמים מוטל עליו להזכיר גשם, ובהזכרת גשם בימות החמה מוטל עליו חובה לבטלו ולא להזכירו. וכן משמע מלשון הרא"ש בשם הראבי"ה וז"ל ולא דמי לאומר מוריד הגשם ]בימות החמה] דחוזר לראש הברכה, דהתם אם היה חוזר למכלכל חיים לא היה מבטל מה שהזכיר שלא כדין, אלא חוזר לראש הברכה ואינו מזכיר עכ"ל. הרי משמע דהא דמחזירין אותו לראש הברכה לאו משום דהוי כאילו דילג כל הברכה כולה אלא אהני הא דמחזירין אותו דבמה שמדלג הזכרת גשם בחזרתו הוי ביטול הזכרתו בטעות.

כעי"ז יש להסתפק במעין המאורע כשלא אמר יעלה ויבא בר"ח אי הוי קלקול בעיקר תפלתו או רק שמחזירין אותו כדי להזכירו, ונפק"מ כשדילג יעלה ויבא במנחה דר"ח אם מתפלל ערבית שתים אע"פ שאינו ר"ח. ונחלקו התוס' והרא"ש בברכות כו:, עיין בקה"י שם ס' ט"ז שהאריך בזה. ובסוף דבריו נסתפק במי שדילג יעו"י (בר"ח) וחזר להתפלל ודילג הזכרת גשם (בימות הגשמים), אם צריך להתפלל פעם שלישית כדי להזכיר שניהם או אם ממנ"פ יצא.

Morid Hageshem

It comes out that acc. to Reb Yoshoshua that Even though we are not mazkir morid hageshem bepeh in shmone esrea but we still do a maseh of nisuch hamayim which is to bring water which comes out to be a stirah in honhaga. (this is why the gemorah thought that acc. to reb Yehoshua you should not do nisuch hamyim until you mention morid hagashem. until the gemorah says it is halacha lemoshe misinai but that still doesn't explain the honhaga). It seem to me that there are two inynim in mayiam Mayim in the rakia and mayim in the tehom. Morid hageshem is for mayim from the rakia and nisuch hamiyim is for mayim from the tehom so reb yehoshua holds that to do something to for the mayim from the tehom is not a problem on sukkos but to mention that mayim should come from the rakia is a siman kelala.

what is dew?

see comments

Ta'anis 2a - Rain on Shemini Atzeres

Tosafos asks that outside Eretz Yisroel where we sit in the succah on shemini atzeres, rain should be a siman k'lala even on shemini atzeres, so why acc. to r' yehoshua should we be mentioning rain? Tosafos answers that sitting in the succah on shemini atzeres is only "midrabonon bec. of safek" [Poras Yosef - meaning that since it is a safek we can be lenient to assume that elul was not me'ubar, but midrabonon they were mesaken to be concerned that maybe elul was me'ubar]. Since it is only a mitzah midrabonon to sit in the succah, it is not considered a siman k'lala to leave bec. of rain.

Another suggestion as to why rain on shemini atzeres is not considered a siman k'lala can be based on Tosafos in Succah. Tosafos says that we don't take lulav on s"a out of safek bec. it is degrading to yom tov to proclaim that it is still chol hamoed, but sitting in a succah is different since it is often pleasant to sit in a hut and not recognizable that it is for the mitzvah of succah. Rashi (ta'anis 2a) implies that the siman klala is the fact that we exit the succah due to mitzta'er. It would seem logical that when it begins to rain on s"a, even before you reach a stage of mitzta'er, you have to exit the succah to avoid degrading the yom tov. Therefore, when one leaves the succah on shemini atzeres, they leaving before the stage of mitzta'er to avoid the degrading yom tov. Since they are not leaving due to mitzata'er, the rain is not a siman klala.

rainy season

in r"h in the machlokes when the world was created, rashi there says that r"e holds the world was created on r"h because they needed rain for things to grow and r"h is the rainy season. the maharsha there asks that cheshvan is the rainy season as we will see in taanis and says a "dachuk" pshat in rashi (dont remember off hand)
looking into the 1st daf in taanis, the mishna for example says "beunato" in its season referring acc to everyone to succos, the machlokes seems only to be that it is a siman klala to rain on succos because of the succah. bottom line, from learning the 1st daf with rashi it seems there are 2 dinim in rain (put on your brisker rain hat) 1 is the raining season which may start on r"h as rashi in r"h seems to say and 2 the season of gishmei bracha.if this is true, this might be parallel to the 2 rains mentioned in bresihis, the 1st rain came from hashem prior to creation of man, the 2nd rain came only after man was created and PRAYED for it, as rashi sasys in chumash that nothing grew till Adam prayed for rain because it only rains when man is grateful for it. i won't go further because when i slip into drush i tend to get ..... on this site!

Rosh Hashana 34b - Blowing or Blessing

MAZAL TOV ON MASECHES ROSH HASHANA!!!

If faced with a choice of one or the other, one should choose a place where they may blow shofar, rather than a place where they definitely have a shliach tzibur to daven, bec. shofar is d'eoraysa (gemara). The Sefas Emes asks that according to the Rambam that a safek d'oraysa is only derabonon l'chumrah, it comes out that either way it is only derabonon. He is mechadesh that even though the chiyuv is the same one way or the other, one is still required to choose the side where you may walk away fulfilling a mitzvah d'oraysa rather than a mitzvah derabonon.

A second point: The Nishmas Adam (68:3) proves from this gemara that one is not responsible to travel to another city to perform a mitzvah since the city where they have a shliach tzibbur are not traveling to hear shofar in the other city. Based on this, why would the individual have a chiyuv to travel to the city where they are blowing, he should also not be required to travel for a mitzvah!
Perhaps we can slightly modify the sefas emes's peshat and say that on the level of chiyuv there is no difference between the 2 cities since the chiyuv to go to either one is only d'rabonon. Nevertheless, the chiyuv d'rabonon requires this person to travel to one of them, therefore the gemara says there is an advantage in choosing a city where he may fulfill a d'oraysa mitzvah. But, the people of the city where they are blowing do not have chiyuv to travel because on the level of chiyuv, it is derabonon either way (at least acc. to Rambam).

Rosh Hashana 34a - Hefsek between tekiah and teruah

R' Avahu instituted (it is really a safek d'oraysa, unless you take the fascinating apporach of the Ba'al Hameor) to blow "tashrat" "tashat" and "tarat", each one 3 times. The gemara is clear that it was not sufficient to blow "tashrat" because the teruah is a hefsek for the shevarim and the shevarim is a hefsek for the teruah. The next line of the gemara says that one can be yotzei even if they hear the sounds spread out over the course of the day, implying that the break in time is not a hefsek. Simply speaking, there is no contradiction bec. it could be that the break in time is not a hefsek, but an actual shofar sound that doesn't belong is a hefsek.

However, Tosafos (33b) does not seem to understand this way. Tosafos cites Rabbeinu Tam who recommends doing "tashrat" for malchiyos, zichronos and shofaros. Tosafos comments that although there is a hefsek (with shevarim between tekiah and teruah), we pasken that if you hear 9 blasts over the course of the day you are yotzei and therefore hefsek is not really a concern. Tosafos seems to be using the break in time halacha to prove that even the hefsek of a sound that doesn' belong, does not qualify as a hefsek. Clearly Tosafos assumes that there is no difference between a hefsek of time or a hefsek of the wrong blast, they are both not lechatchila, but bidieved you are yotzei.

why we dont blow in a time of "tzara"

the rambam says that its a torah obligation to blow in a time of "tzara". the magen avrohom (o"c 576) asks why don't we blow today and fulfill our torah obligation especially since the rambam says that this mitzvah applies even in "g'vulim". the netiv Chaim there answerers that the rambam still means only in the holy land. the pri megdim elaborates that it is only an obligation when the "tzara" is on the whole tzibur not just one city and he also says only in Eretz Yisroel (i am not sure if he means that you need both most of klal yisroel + in eretz yisroel or not). What about today when we are all threatened by Arabs and nuclear weapons. What about 60 years ago? the netziv on the sifri (behaaloscha piska 18 page 237) says that the mitzva only applies when there is "lifnei hashem" which is referring to the Aron.

2 point on tkius

תוספות מעיר על שיטת רש"י בתרועה שלרש"י תרועה הוי שלש כוחות של משהו. שיש להיזהר מלהאריך בשבר שלא יעשה לתקיעה. ולכאורה תמוה דהרי בסדר קר"ק או קשר"ר שיעור התקיעה הוא כמו שיעור השברים או השברים־תרועה וא"כ מדוע יחשוש ששברים ארוכים יהיו תקיעה הרי כל זמן שהשברים פחותים משלש שברים הם כבר לא תקיעה
.
אלא נראה שתוספות סובר כשיטת הרי"ץ גיאות הידועה דמעיקר הדין בין שברים ובין תרועה ובין שברים תרועה כשרים לתרועה ולזה ניחא שאם יאריך בשבר כשיעור 3 תרועות כבר נעשה תקיעה.
.
עוד הערה מהגריש"א בתוספות דלכאורה מוכח שהשבר של תוספות הוא קול פשוט ולא קול עולה ויורד "טוויטו" של הליטבקס כיוון שתוספות חושש שהשבר יעשה לתקיעה.

women

תוס' מסתפק אי נשים יכולות לברך על מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא. ובאמת תמוה מדוע מותר לנשים לסמוך על קדשים הרי זה איסור דאורייתא של מעילה לסמוך על קדשים במקום שאין חיוב. ונצטרך לומר שאף שאין מחוייבים יש להם את קיום המצוה וא"כ צ"ע מדוע שלא יברכו על קיום מצוה כעין דאנן מברכים על מצוות קיומיות כעין סוכה וציצית
.
ובאמת בציצית יש לדחות דאחר ששמים בגד בעל 4 כנפות הוי חיות לציצית ובסוכה מאי? אולי ג"כ כיון שיש איסור לאכול חוץ לסוכה שייך ברכת וציונו אך אה"נ מצוה שהיא ממש רשות ל"ש לומר וציונו ובאנשים אינני יכול חשוב על ציור של מצוה קיומית שאין בה שום חיוב אך בנשים שייך ולכן אין אומרות וציונו (ע"פ דברים שיצאול מפלפול חברים) ועי"ל שכיון שהם לא מקיימים המצוה כעין שניתקנה ל"ש לומר וציונו ־ דלנו אלו מצות חיוביות ולהם קיומיות ולא ניתנה המצוה מעיקרא לקיומית אלא לחיובית. ואשמח לשמוע מהחבורה הקדושה בענין.
.
אגב הרע"א בסוכה מציין לראב"ן ועיינתי שם וסובר דאה"נ סמיכת קדשים אסורה לנשים ואיירי שסומכות שלא בכל כוחם ואף שזה ג"כ אסור מדרבנן לא מוחים לנשים באיסור דרבנן ועדיף שיהיו שוגגות וכן אומר שלכן מברכות אף שהוי ברכה שאינה צריכה אה"נ אסור מדרבנן ולא מוחין ־ כך לומד פשט ברבי יוסי ומאד תמוה לי אך כך מפוש שם

Rosh Hashana 32b - Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh

The mitzva of shofar doesn't push off chilul yom tov because yom tov is a positive and negative commandment. The Ran points out that the gemara does not have to say that yom tov is a positive and negative, there is another technical issue in that the aseh and lo ta'aseh does not happen at the same time and therefore yom tov cannot be pushed off for the sake of shofar. Furthermore the Ran points out that the gemara is making an assumption that chazal made chizuk l'divreihem to be like a d'oraysa.
Although the Ran makes these 2 points independently of one another, to me it seems that the second point somewhat answers the first. The reason why the gemara picks the aspect of yom tov being positive and negative, is that it wants to explain that yom tov is very severe and that is why even a rabbinic violation of yom tov is not transgressed for the sake of a mitzvah of shofar. If the gemara would have picked the technical issue of "b'idna", that is just a technicality in aseh docheh lo t'aseh and would not justify in any way why an issur derabonon cannot be done.
Btw, the magen avrohom (also korban nesanel) answer the question and create a yesod that you don't need b'idna for an aseh to be motzi a rabbim (see chayei adam 68).

Rosh Hashana 31 - Takanos of R' Yochanan B"Z

This post if from R' Tzvi Katz:

This Post is just conecting the dots.The Gemara compare the galus of the Shechina to the Galus of Shanhedrinand Rashi points out that when talking about Galus Shechina it istalking during the 1st Bais and Galus Shanhedrin is during the 2nd Bais.On yesterdays daf we find that the gemorah says the Raban Yochanan BenZakkai made 9 takanos. Raban Yochnana ben Zakkai was at the end of the2nd bais (as stated on t0days daf) made takanos that reflected hischanging time period. While we also find that at the during the time ofthe end of the 1st Bais Ezra Hasofer made 10 Takanos (Baba Kama 82) alsoreflecting his changing time period. Clearly the era of 1st Bais is onewhen we loose the torah sebecsav and the 2nd Bais is one where we loosea torah shebal peh/sanhedrin. The roshei beis din of their times try todeal with the loss therefore takanos are made.

kedusahs yerushalayim

בהא דר"א הפקיר פירותיו לעניים ותוספות מסתפק אי ס"ל קדושה ראשונה קדשה לעתיד לבא ורש"י הכא ובביצה מפרש דר"א ס"ל דקדושה ראשונה קדשה לעתיד לבא ולכן יכולים לאכול המעש"נ בירושלים. והמהר"ם בביצה משנה הגירסא בתוספות ורש"י לקדושה אחרונה דהרי קיימינן לאחר חרבן שני. אך באמת ידוע שיטת הרמב"ם שאפי' למ"ד קדושה ראשונה בטלה אך קדושת ירושלים לא בטלה. ויוצא לרמב"ם שקדושת ירושלים של היום היא מקדושה ראשונה ולא מקדושת עזרא. והרמב"ם חייב היה לומר זאת לשיטתו דלקדש ירושלים צרים אורים ותומים ונביא מה שלא היה בזמן עזרא. עכ"פ אי רש"י ס"ל להרמב"ם ניחא טובא ול"צ לדחוק כמהר"ם ולשנות הגירסא ברש"י + תוספות ־ מחכם אחד

Rosh Hashana 29b - Delayed witnesses

The witnesses came after mincha and there was a kilkul in that they said either the weekday song for afternoon tamid, or no song at all. Tosafos asks that there should be a much more serious problem. Since they assumed it would not be yom tov, they would not have brought the Korban Mussaf. Tosafos answers that they would have brought the Mussaf even after the afternoon Tamid since the public mitzvah of mussaf pushes off the mitzvah of making the Tamid the last korban of the day.

2 points:

1. Tosafos implies that when a korban is brought after the afternoon Tamid, it is considered to be a private violation done by the kohen sacrificing the mussaf, not a public violation to make sure no korbanos are brought after the Tamid.

2. Even with Tosafos answer the mussaf should still be a greater kilkul since it causes a violation of the aseh to bring the Tamid as the last korban of the day. The violation of 'aleha hashleim' should be more serious than the weekday song? Based on my first point, perhaps the very minor violation of the wrong song is more severe since it is on behalf of the public, than the violation of a "aleha hashleim" which was transgressed only by an individual.