I was having a discussion last night with R' Menachem Spira regarding what types of melacha are assur on chol hamoed. We discussed 2 issues:
1. The Gemara on 10b gives a list of things such as digging, letting water in the field, cutting branches from a palm... and says that if done in a certain way that shows that you need if for yom tov it is mutar, but if not it is assur. R' Spira asked that even if done in a way where your intent is not for the melacha, it should still be assur bec. of psik reisha? At first I thought that the nature of issur melacha on chol hamoed which is tircha rather than melacha would not include psik reisha, but rather all davar she'eino miskavein, even a psik reisha would be mutar. However, Tosafos 4b says in the context of shevi'is that psik reisha would be assur even on shevi'is. But, we learn from tosafos that if it is done with a shinuy, meaning if it is done differently than the melacha is normally done, it is mutar. Therefore, the heter for these cases on chol hamoed is perhaps not davar sh'eino miskavein, but rather shinuy?
2. How do the 39 melachos of shabbos relate to chol hamoed? Do we assume they are all assur unless there is a special heter for tzorech yom tov, davar ha'aveid, ein lo ma yochal e.t.c. or do we assume that they are all mutar unless they involve either tircha and ma'aseh uman? Tosafos 12b seems to be misupak whether tircha that is not a melacha is assur (such as pragmatia which is not a real melacha), or must the tircha be associated with melacha to be assur. The gemara about building the amah 4b implies that chol hamoed it is an issur tircha even if not associated with a melacha (like choresh), it is only to explain why it is assur by shevi'is does the gemara have to make the comparison to choresh. It seems clear that tircha is assur on chol hamoed even if it is not a melacha, bec. it is like uvda d'chol (similarly, the rosh also points out from the fixers of the reish gelusa 12a, that even when the melacha is b'etzem mutar bec. it is not a real melacha, the receiving of payment creates an issur bec. it is uvda d'chol). But, I don't think that there is any place where we see melacha is assur even if not a tircha. We actually find the hagdara of the issur melacha is "tircha" as the gemara distinguishes between chol hamoed and shevi'is on 2b and also implies this on 13a.
5 comments:
i was just discussing the 2nd point today with rabbi kalish, he said there is talk about it in later poskim and told me its mentioned in one of the moder works (maybe an english work but i dont remember the name). he assums that it has to do with tircha as you mention that its sounds like that in many places.
the q is can you flick on a light for no reason at all, if its "tircha" based it should be allowed.
עיין בהערות שיש מ"ח לגבי ההיתר של שכר פעולה באין לו מה יאכל דבפשטות ספק הגמרא לגבי פועל הוא שפועל חמור ממוכר כיון שהוא עושה מלאכה ולמעשה גם זה מותר אך י"א שבפועל אסור לעשות מלאכה ורק מותר טירחא א"כ מצינו עכ"פ לשיטות אלו שיש עכ"פ חומרא כשיש גם מלאכה.
ובדברי התוספות יב ע"ב שיש שיטה בתוס שסוברת שרק אסור כשיש מלאכה ומאד תימה בעיני מה יעשה אם המשנה שאין מפנין מבית לבית וכן בי"ב ע"ב במעשה דר' יוסף והכשורי שזה רק טירחא ואין מלאכה ושמעתי שהקרן אורה אולי עומד בזה ועדיין לא עיינתי.
לגבי השאלה של פס"ר זכול לי שמוזכר ב"הערות" ואנסה לעיין.
r' yossi,
i also used the turning on the light for no reason example as that question to determine the nature of the issur. baruch shekivanti! i find it hard to beleive that the first explicit mention of 39 melachos being assur on chol hamoed would be found in an english book printed a couple of years ago. from the mishna, gemara, shulchan aruch, and most of all minhag yisroel it is clear that there is no regular issur melacha.
r' menachem - any comments???
i made a mistake in the original post and modified it. please re-read.
Re: 39 melachos on chol hamoed - the shmiras shabbos kihilchasa 2:68:83 brings that there is mashmaos from a chayei adam that all 39 melachos are assur unless they are for a tzorech yom tov or davar ha'aveid. he supports this by saying that even fixing one letter is an issur (but this is not a proof, bec. even i agree that by mileches uman, it is assur to even do a small amount). He then cites the mashmaos of the gemara on 2b that it is only an issur if it is tircha (and rashi who says clearly that it is not an issur melacha), and 13a (and the ritvah 13a that the nature of the issur is tircha so as not be reduce the simchas haregel). He forgot to mention 4b!
i am a big fan of the chayei adam, but the mashmaos hagemara and rashi in 3 places vs. chayei adam - i go with the gemara.
There is an indication from Tosafos 14b d.h. mimnai, that melacha would be assur even without tircha, bec. tosafos assumes (in their question) that misas beis din should be an issur netilas neshama on chol hamoed (unless we assume that capital punishment involves tircha).
Post a Comment