Moed Kattan 9b - Torah vs. Mitzvah

The gemara makes a distinction between mitzvos that can be done by others for which one does not stop their learning and mitzvos that cannot be done by anyone else for which one must stop learning. We find a similar distinction made if one is conflicted with a mitzvah vs. kibud av; the shulchan aruch 240:12 says that if the mitzvah can be done by others one should choose kibud av, but if it can't be done by others one should forfeit kibud av and do the mitzvah. Normally when conflicted with 2 mitzvos to do, one should weigh and choose the "greater" mitzvah, but Torah is an exception that even though it is greater you stop learning to do the mitzvah that cannot be done by others (there is not even a p'tur of osek b'mitzvah). The halacha indicates that kibud av is like Talmud Torah in that you don't choose the greater mitzvah, rather you do the mitzvah that cannot be done by others. The question is, if we consider Talmud Torah and Kibud Av to be the greatest mitzvos which is why they override any mitzvah that can be done by others, why do we forfeit them for "smaller" mitzvos that can't be done by others. Why is it that kibud av is different than other mitzvos?

It seems the source is the gemara in megillah at the end of the 1st perek that Gadol Talmud Torah than kibud av. We learn from this that if one has to forfeit Talmud Torah for a mitzvah, then certainly one must forfeit kibud av for a mitzvah, bec. Talmud Torah is greater.

Just as by Torah one is required to stop learning and do the mitzvah, bec. the advantage of learning is only 'al m'nas la'asos', but at the expense of a mitzvah the learning is not considered to be a significant. The same holds true with kibud av, since the concept is bases on the "3 parteners in man" idea, one cannot forfeit their responsibility for avihem shebashamaim to fulfill kibud av.

Moed Kattan 8b - Ein Mearvin

R' Nota Greenblatt was in Palo Alto and we were busy doing gittin all day, so i didn't have time to post.

Quick point: Re: The source for not making wedding on chol hamoed, what is the difference whether it is bec. of ein mearvin simcha b'simcha or bec. of v'samchata b'chagecha and not your wife? It may be true that ein mearvin is more general in that it applies to other situations and also other forms of mitzvah conflicts like bris and pidyon as tosafos points out. The question is doesn't the other opinion also agree in concept to ein mearvin, why would they need a special pasuk to exclude ishticha (your wife)?

Moed Kattan 7b - Pushing off Mitzvos

I once saw a fabulous ma'areh makom on this gemara quoted by R' Schachter (from YU).

The gemara implies that we need a special pasuk to give the kohen a heter not to see negaim on yom tov and during the sheva brachos. The Chazon Ish (Negaim 13:17 - last one in Negaim) discusses whether one is allowed to push off a positive mitzvah that does not have any time limit and do it later. Is the pushing off the mitzvah tantamount to being mevatel the mitzvah? The Chazon Ish explains that the gemara implies we need a special pasuk to give a heter to the kohain to push off seeing the negah (acc. to one opinion we even need a special pasuk for a heter to push it off for a d'var mitzvah), which indicates that without a pasuk the torah recognizes this procrastination (acc. to one opinion even if it is for a mitzvah) to be a violation of the mitzvas aseh. The Chazon Ish then pushes this off by saying maybe Negaim are more chamur or maybe there is just a ma'alah of zrizin to do it immediately and we need a pasuk to teach that in this case one should wait and there is no advantage of zrizin. He brings a proof from moshe Rabbeinu who settled into the hotel before doing milah to his son and was punished bec. it was inappropriate for moshe to do that, but clearly moshe would not have done an issur. It must be that delaying a mitzvah does not constitue a violation of the mitzvah in any way.

Moed Kattan 5b - Minhag to Wash Meisim - Rashi

Rashi writes about the sadeh bochim, that it was a place where the niftar was transfered from one group to another and "they would bathe him there". As far as I know, this is one of the earlier sources for the minhag of the chevra kadisha to wash the meisim. The Rambam also mentions this (Avel 4:1) and it is recorded in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch 352:4. The Kol Bo brought in Beis Yosef explains that the purpose is to wash him so that he doesn't smell so that the people carrying him won't be disgusted by the smell. However, the Darkei Moshe (also in Rama) quote the Binyomin Z'ev who adds that we are meticulous to wash between the hands, feet, ears, and even comb his hair.... "so that he comes b'tahara to his resting place like one is accustomed to doing every shabbos before going to shul".

It seems that the source for washing found in Rashi and the Rambam was for practical purposes of the living, but our minhag is more mystical to prepare the meis for where he is going.

Moed Kattan 5a - Tziyun Kevaros

Rashi explains that the purpose of grave marking is to prevent terumah eaters from becoming tomei and then eating teruma b'tumah without realizing. It seems that Rashi prefers this concern rather than the issur of being metamei l'mais bec. it includes not only kohanim but even their wives and daughters. But why does rashi in d.h. metzaynin and d.h. asu mishmeres, say that the concern is for terumah eaters, but in d.h. lifnei, rashi says the concern is for terumah and taharos carriers?

Based on the gemara in avodah zarah 14a says that we are only concerned for lifnei iver, but we are not concerned with lifne d'lifnei. Meaning that if it is more that one step removed, it is not a violation of lifnei iver. Therefore, Rashi explains that the main concern is terumah eaters who would eat terumah temeiah, but by the esmachta of lifnei iver teruma eaters would not be a problem bec. it is an indirect michshol - meaning, by not marking the grave they will be tomei and then go home to eat terumah. Instead Rashi explains that there is a concern of a direct michshol that someone will be carrying terumah/taharos and it will become tomei when it is passed over the kever.

General Question: Going to Work on Chol Hamoed

I was asked recently whether someone who works for a large tech company and is entitled to a week vacation must take the vacation during chol hamoed. He prefers to take vacation in the summer when he can actually have a vacation, but then if he takes of chol hamoed they will deduct money from his salary. I don't have an answer, but it seems the question can be broken down into 3 issues:

1. Although in a case where missing work one will not receive their hourly wages, that is not davar ha'aveid (rather missing out on gains). But, perhaps deducting money from a salary that he is entitled to for the work that he will put in this year is considered money already in his hand and qualifies as a davar ha'aveid?

2. Even if loosing salary is davar ha'aveid, since there are still vacation days that he is entitled to they must be taken during chol hamoed. Or perhaps if this person needs a "real" vacation for his emotional well being, that itself is like a davar ha'aveid and therefore he may be entitled to his vacation in which case the extra time off from work which will cause a reduction in his salary is considered davar ha'aveid?

3. Perhaps davar ha'aveid is only necessary for real work such as field work and sechorah, but this person will be sitting in front of a computer and typing (not even writing) which would not be a violation of chol hamoed, so even without davar ha'aveid it should be mutar?

ANY THOUGHTS?

Moed Kattan 4b - Digging an Amah on Moed

The Chachamim in the mishnah allow digging an amah on shevi'is. They reject both the sevara of nira'ah k'oder and the sevara of machshir agfei l'zriah. Tosafos seems to imply that the sevara of looking like oder which is R' Elazar d'rabonon concern, the Rabonon simply don't hold of. The same would be true if machshir agfei l'zriah would just be that it looks like plowing, the Rabonon can easily not hold of it. But, if the concern of machshir agfei l'zriah is that it is an actual melacha of plowing that is done through a pesik reisha, the rabonon have to hold that it is mutar bec. of a shinuy. Since the melacha of plowing is done with a shinuy, it is not a melacha, and mutar.

Although the Rabonon hold that the fact that it is a shinuy removes the prohibition of plowing during shevi'is, on chol hamoed one cannot build a new amah. Shinuy helps by shabbos or shevi'is to remove an issur melacha, but chol hamoed which is an issur tircha as the gemara points out, the fact that the melacha is done through a shinuy doesn't matter, it is still assur.

It is important to note that even in the context of chol hamoed we find that chazal also said that melachas u'man such as writing is assur. This is clearly an issur melacha and therefore shinuy would help.

תוספת שביעית

בדין תוספת שביעית ל' יום יש לחקור האם יש דין כעין תוספת שבת, דל' יום לפני שביעית נחשבים ממש לשביעית, או שדין תוספת שביעית הוא שאסור לעבוד בל' יום אלו- דבר שיועיל לשביעית עצמה. והנפ"מ לחרישת נטיעות ילדות דמועיל לעכשיו שלא יתקלקלו. ונמצא מדין שמותר לחרוש עשר נטיעות מוכח דכל הדין של תו"ש הוא לא לעשות עבודה שתהני לשביעית. וכך ביאר ב"הערות" דלכן אף לר"ע שלומד תו"ש מקראי ס"ל דעשר נטיעות מותר -כדמוכח במשניות שמודה בזה- אף שאין לו הל"מ
.
רק דצ"ב לפ"ז מה התוספת שהוסיפו ב"ש וב"ה, דאם רק ל' יום מועיל לשביעית מהו השיעור של פסח ועצרת. והנראה שדין ל' יום הוא דין שבזמן זה מהני לעצם הקרקע דהיינו דהחרישה ל' יום לפני שביעית תשביח את הקרקע לשביעית ושיעור פסח ועצרת זה לתבואה ולאילן. אך א"כ לכאורה הדרא קושיא לדוכתא דמהו מקור ההיתר לר"ע לחרוש עשר נטיעות אי מועיל לקרקע עצמה של שביעית. ואולי כיוון שהחרישה מועילה לאילנות כעת זה מפקיע מהטפל שמחזק הקרקע וצ"ע
any thaughts?

Moed Kattan 3a - Toldos by Shevi'is

The gemara seems to indicate that to be considered an av it must be written in the Torah by shevi'is, that is why plowing is considered a Tolda (even though by shabbos it is an Av). But not every melacha written by shevi'is is an Av. Regarding Zeriah/Zemirah the gemara understands that Zeriah is the Av and Zemirah the Toldah. Regarding Ketzirah/Betzirah the gemara understands that Ketzira is the Av and Betzirah is the Tolda. Rashi is very meduyak in that we determine Zeriah to be the Av because it is more basic, and by default Zemirah is the Tolda. But by Ketzirah and Betzirah, they are both exactly the same just that one is to grapes and the other to tavuah. We cannot figure out from sevara which is the av and which is the Tolda, so we look at shabbos and determine that just as by shabbos Ketzirah is the av, so too here Ketzirah is the Av.

***

In short: Zeriah and Ketzirah are Avos. Zemirah and Betzirah are Toldos that you are chayev malkus for. Charishah is according to all an issur D'oraysa (if we assume that R' Elazar is the opinion who says that you don't get malkus - see Tosafos 3b). R' Yochanan would hold that you get malkus by charishah and by all the toldos mentioned in braisa (bec. only acc. to R' Elazar we say the braisa is an Esmachta). R' Elazar holds that Charishah is d'oraysa (based on klal prat..) but no malkus (based on his explanation of R' Dimi), and all other Toldos mentioned in braisa are only D'rabonon.

Moed Kattan 2b - Weeding: Not Harvesting

Rashi explains that the machlokes regarding weeding is only whether it is planting or plowing, but it is definitely not considered harvesting since it is not being done to collect and use the grass. It would seem that this would only work if we assume that one is patur on melacha sh'ein tzricha l'gufa, but according to R' Yehuda (who the Rambam paskens like) that you are chayev for ein tzricha l'gufa, you should be chayev for 'kotzer'. However, Tosafos in Shabbos 73b d.h. vtzarich, explains that kotzer by definition must be done for the purpose of using the items that were collected. Kotzer is not just a ma'aseh melacha, and therefore does not qualify as a melacha at all unless it is done for the purpose of collecting the wood. Tosafos supports this from tearing not for the purpose of sewing and erasing not for the purpose of writing, would also be patur even according to R' Yehuda bec. the definition of tearing is to erase, and the definition of erasing is to write.

torah is a song

בסוף מגילה הגמרא אומרת דיש מעלה שהתורה היא בבחינת זמרה ושאלתי דהרי במקום אחר יש טענה על דוד שאמר זמירות היו לי חוקיך

Moed Kattan 2b - Melacha on Chol Hamoed - Deoraysa or Derabonon

There is a big machlokes rishonim whether melacha on chol hamoed would be violation of a d'oraysa or a d'rabonon. It is based on the understanding of the cryptic line in chagiga 18a - see tosafos there and rosh and the beginning of moed katan.

Today's gemara seems very meduyak like the opinion that it is d'oraysa. The gemara says why should it be mutar to water on chol hamoed and shevi'is. Chol Hamoed makes sense since "it is an isuur tircha and in a situation of loss there was no prohibition", but shivi'is is an issur melacha d'oraysa so how can chazal permit it. To this the gemara answers that on shevi'is watering is also only derabonon, either bec. shevi'is nowadays is only derabonon or bec. toldos are only derabonon. From the fact that the gemara does not say, "chol hamoed makes sense since it is only an issur derabonon and in a situation of loss there was no prohibition", implies that really chol hamoed is an issur d'oraysa. The gemara is saying that even though it is an issur d'oraysa, it is not an issur melacha rather an issur tircha. Since the nature of the issur is tircha, it is automatically relative to the level of stress necessary and the loss that would be suffered by not doing it. It is considered excessive tircha which would be assur d'oraysa only if it would be very difficult i.e. watering from well water, or it is only for extra gains but not a loss i.e. beis hashalchin. But if the tircha is not excessive and it is to prevent loss, the rabbis determined that there would not be a torah prohibition of tircha in that case.

מראה מקום

והכי אמר רב האי שמעתי מפי חכמים כי תחיית המתים עתידה להיות בניסן ונצחת גוג ומגוג בתשרי ומש"ה בניסן מפטירין העצמות היבשות ובתשרי ביום בא גוג - ע"כ לשון הטור

בדין שמואל שאי י"ד אדר נופל ביום שיש קורין זכור למחרת בט"ו כי היכי שיהיה זכירה ועשייה בהדי הדדי. מכאן מוכיח הנוב"י באו"ח קמא מ"ב שסעודת פורים ומשלוח מנות דינם בשבת ולא ביוא ראשון - לאנשי ירושלים. ושנה הבאה כך יוצא שיש פורים משולש. ובירושלמי מפורש שהסעודה ביום ראשון אך המנ"ב פוסק שיש להמיר לצאת גם בשבת וגם ביום ראשון (סעודה + משלוח מנות)

במגילה ל"א ע"ב מאד כדי לעיין בביה"ל דרשא ז

Megillah 30b - Torah Reading on Public Fasts

The gemara implies that if a Ta'anis would occur on Monday and we would be able to accommodate for reading both the parsha of the week and the reading for the Ta'anis by having the parsha of the week read by shacharis and the Ta'anis reading by mincha, we should do so. But since the Ta'anis for rain did not allow for reading by shacharis we forfeit the regular parsha of the week for the Ta'anis reading. Based on this, when one of the 4 fasts or Ta'anis esther falls on monday or thurs, why do we read vayechal both by shacharis and mincha? Shouldn't we read the regular reading by shacharis and vayechal just by mincha?

Megillah 30b - Torah Reading for Holidays

Why does the mishnah list that the reading for pesach is parshas hamoados, but on succos mention that we read the korbanos on chol hamoed? Tosafos already points out that out minhag is always to be maftir with korbanos, but the mishnah leaves them out. This seems to strengthen the question as to why we mention them on Succos.

There are 2 requirements in the krias hatorah of moadim. 1. To read inyana d'yoma based on the drasha at the end of the mishna "sheyihu korin kol echad v'echad b'zmano". 2. To read the korbanos of that day based on tosafos who quotes the gemara in yoma 31b that the reading is equivalent to sacrificing them. The mishna is only listing the readings of inyana d'yoma (#1). We see from here that the gemara considers the inyana d'yoma of pesach to read the mitzvos related to pesach i.e. matzah, chometz. But the mishnah considers the inyana d'yoma of succos to be the Parei Hachag. The korbanos that are pochsin v'holchin are an integral part of the yom as the maharsha (succah 55b) brings from the midrash to symbolize that the nations of the world will be pocheis v'holeich.

Megillah 30b - Rashi: Question From Ta'anis is Only on R' Yirmiya

The gemara asks: "On Ta'anis (that falls on monday or thurs.) why do we stop reading the parsha of the week, we can read the parsha of the week in the morning and the Ta'anis reading in the afternoon?" Rashi comments that this question is only according to R' Yirmiyah who says that we try to incorporate the parsha of the week together with the special reading on the 4 parshiyos, so we should do the same here. But acc. to R' Ami that we interupt the parsha of the week and substitute if with the 4 parshiyos, we can skip the parsha of the week here too.

Lulei divrei Rashi: I would like to suggest that this question can even be acc. to R' Ami. The reading of the parsha on shabbos is not called the inyana d'yoma, rather it is the seder haparshiyos in order to finish the entire torah in a year (that is why bnei ma'arava could institute a different system to finish in 3 years). But, once there is a parsha that is going to be read on shabbos, portions of that reading are automatically considered inyanan d'yoma on monday and thurs. [see Rashi 22b (d.h. sh'ani) that to extend the reading of monday and thurs. and read more pesukim of that parsha also qualifies as inyana d'yoma]. Therefore, even acc. to R' Ami that we push off the shabbos reading for the 4 parshiyos, that is only bec. the shabbos reading is not inyana d'yoma, but the mon./thurs. reading from the section that will be read on shabbos is considered inyana d'yoma. So even acc. to R' Ami the gemara can ask that we should incorporate both the parsha of the week and the Ta'anis reading.

Megillah 29a - Transplanting Shules in The Holy Land

Tosafos 28b explains that the stipulation made on shuls that one should be able to derive personal benefit from them only applies to shuls that are outside the land of Israel and only applies after they have been destroyed. Tosafos explains that the stipulation doesn't work for shuls in E.Y. bec. there kedusha will always remain. But for shuls outside E.Y. the kedusha will go away (therefore, when they are no longer serving as a shul i.e. after they have been destroyed, there is no kedusha that remains). Magen Avrohom 151:15 asks that we say on 29a that the shul will be transplanted to E.Y. so the kedusha should linger similar to the shuls already in E.Y. He answers that any shul destroyed before the bi'as go'el will not be transplanted in E.Y. The Korban Nesanel #3 answers that the shuls outside of E.Y. will become part of the ground in E.Y. but they will not be shuls in E.Y. so they will only have kedushas E.Y. not kedushas Beis Hakneses.
I may be missing something, but when I learned Tosafos I understood the gemara to be supporting their explanation (opposite of Magen Avrohom's question). The shuls outside of E.Y. will be moved to E.Y., meaning the ground will be left void of a shul hence void of kedusha, therefore the spot on which the shul stands now has no kedusha (once the shul is destroyed).

Megillah 27b - Selling a Shul and Removing Kedusha

R' Moshe (Igros Moshe O.C. 1:51) was asked about using the Ezras Nashim of a shul to build a mikvah in a case where there was no other mikvah and no other space available for it. He first explains that gadol hashalom would be docheh even if there would be an issur, but then he launches into an elaborate explanation how to do it so that there should not be an issur. It seems that the main issue is that although the people in control of the shul may have the status of the 7 tuvei ha'ir, it cannot be done b'mamad anshei ha'ir. In the course of the discussion he answer the question of R' Akiva Eiger. The gilyon hashas 26a asks that Rashi 26a implies that without 7 tuvei ha'ir b'mamad anshei hair (7th-bmah) the kedusha remains on the shul and the money, and with 7th-bmah the kedusha is removed from both. Yet rashi on 27b writes that there is a case where the shul will not be kadosh, but the money will be. What is that case? R' Moshe writes that the 7th have the monetary control to sell the shul but it is like selling a sefer torah where the kedusha will remain on both the money and the item. The addition of bmah verifies that all agree that this location is no longer needed for the shul, so the kedusha will automatically go away. Therefore, when done by 7th-bmah, if the place is no longer needed the kedusha will leave the place but remain on the money. If the money is also no longer needed the kedusha will leave the money also. He is michadesh that if the halacha would endorse selling it, that is the equivalent of bmah since that we can assume all would agree, therefore the people in charge of the shul can sell the ezras nashim to be used for a mikvah since it is the equivalent of 7th-bmah and the kedusha goes away.

chaval al d'avdin v'lo mishtakchin!

Megillah 28a - Talmid Chacham Before Kohein

There is a machlokes rashi and tosafos whether the gemara is speaking about birchas hamazon or an aliya. Tosafos assumes that the gemara is talking about getting an aliya where they made a takana that a kohein is called bec. of darchei shalom and still the gemara implies that it is assur for a Talmid Chacham to allow a Kohein am ha'aretz to get the first aliya. In a situation where the kohein is also somewhat of a talmid chacham that they are considered "equal", Tosafos says the Talmid Chacham would go first only if other kohanim are submissive to him or that the takana only applied to a large group like that which gathers on shabbos. But, if the kohein is a real am ha'aretz it seems that the Talmid Chacham has to insist on getting the first aliya even if kohanim are not kafuf and even if there is a large gathering.

Maybe we should start a minhag that Talmidei chachamim leave the shul before the kohen is called up!

ג' קושיות

הרמב"ם בסוף מנין המצוות הקצר כותב דמצות דרבנן אינם בבל תוסיף כיון דהם לא אמרו שה' ציווה כך אלא שזה מדרבנן. "...ולכך אנו אומרים שהנביאים עם ב"ד תקנום וציוו לקרות המגילה בעונתה כדי להזכיר שבחיו של הקב"ה..." וצ"ע מאי קושית הגמרא מגילה י"ד ע"א שמ"ח נביאים וכו' ולא הוסיפו אלא מקרא מגילה ומאי דרשו וכו' עד שמצאו ק"ו? (וע"ש בסוגיא ברש"י ובמהרש"א ורש"ש וברמב"ן דברים פרק ד' על מצוות בל תוסיף). עכ"פ לרמב"ם מדוע הגמרא לא תירצה שיש לחכמים כח להוסיף כל עוד שאומרים שלא הוי דאורייתא
***
בהאי דאשה וקטן עולין לקריאת התורה הר"ן כותב (יג ע"א בדפי הרי"ף) שרק לשבעה אך לא לשלשה. ועדיין איך מוציאין הרבים ידי חובה ואי לא צריך להוציא מדוע א"כ לשלשה לא עולין
***
בריש פרק בני העיר מוכח שלכ"ע מקום מקודש לא נקרא אחוזתכם ולכן לא מיטמא בנגעים (לולא סוגיא דיומא כמבואר בתוס'). ואף שבית השותפין רגיל וודאי נקרא אחוזתכם נראה מוכח ששותפות דרבים שאני משותפין רגילה. (וזכור לי שבביצה בסוגיא דברירה יש מ"ח ראשונים איך ללמוד ששותפין שנדרו הנאה זה מזה לא נאסרין בעזרות ומבואר באגר"מ וצריך אני למצוא, עכ"פ מזיכרון שזה לפחות שיטה אחת בראשונים שם). ולפ"ז קשה לי על הרע"א ביו"ד ריש סימן ע"ר דכתב שלהתורת חיים שאם הקדיש ס"ת שלו לרבים לא יוצא מצוות כתיבת ס"ת שה"ה לבעלות בשותפות לא יצא ולכאורה יש לחלק בין שותפות רגילה לשותפות של רבים. וצ"ע
I would love to hear what the עולם thinks.

Megillah 27a - Selling an Aron and Buying and Aron

If one already sold an Aron (bidieved), can they use the money to buy another one, or must they go up in the level of Kedusha?

The gemara concludes that although one may not be allowed to sell a Torah to purchase another Torah (even a newer one), if it was already sold one should use the money to purchase another sefer Torah. Rashi explains that bidieved we tell you to use the money for another sefer Torah because "if not, what will you buy with that money". The Pri Megadim (O.C. -M.Z. 153:1) points out that based on Rashi's sevara, this only applies to a sefer Torah where you can't possibly go higher. But, if one sold another tashmish kedusha like an Aron or Paroches, since you can go higher, even bidieved (after it was already sold) we require you to use the money for something that has a higher level of kedusha.

Megillah 26b - Sefer Torah Cover

The gemara says that the curtain used in an Aron can be used for a sefer torah but not for chumashin. It would seem that a pasul sefer Torah has the status of chumashin rather than a sefer torah. Based on this, someone in my daf yomi shiur asked, how can we redress a sefer torah in the same cover after it has been found to be pasul? Isn't that using the cover of a sefer torah for chumashin? Any suggestions?

Megillah 24a - Like a Goy

Tosafos writes that chazal were not mesaken that women should be chayav miderabonon in time bound positive mitzvos (Tosafos proves that women are expempt from time bound rabbinic mitzvos so chazal were certainly not mechayev them midrabonon in d'oraysa time bound mitzvos). It was not necessary to be mechayev women miderabonon in time bound positive mitzvos, because they can express they "jewishness" by keeping many other mitzvos that they do have. But, blind people according to R' Yehuda who are expempt from mitzvos m'doraysa would be exempt from all mitzvos, therefore, Chazal were mechayev them in mitzvos m'drabonon so that they should not be like goyim.

There is a machlokes between the Noda b'yehuda and Pri megadim (i can't recall the ma'areh makom right now) whether this exemption for blind people according to R' Yehuda is only from positive mitzvos or whether they are exempt from even negative commandments (like a cheiresh and shoteh who are exempt from all mitzvos). According to the opinion that they are exempt from only positive mitzvos but are chayev d'oraysa in negative mitzvos, tosafos is saying a fascinating chiddush. Even though they would be chayev in negative mitzvos, chazal were still concerned that they would be like goyim since they would not be actively performing mitzvos aseh. What makes us different from "them" in the public eye is not what we don't do but rather what we DO!

Megillah 22a - Rashi's Peshat: Nichnasin Will Ask

The sevara of the tana kama to allow a parsha to begin with less than 3 pesukim being read is that the people coming in who will think that the previous reader only read 2, will be able to ask and find out that he really read 3. However, Rashi seems to add that he will be prompted to ask when he sees that the next reader reads 3 pesukim and he thinks that the previous reader only read 2 pesukim. It seems that the contrast will prompt him to ask. Based on this the heter of the tana kama to start a parsha with less than 3 pesukim will not apply to the last oleh bec. the nichnasin will have no one to compare it to.

Kriyas Megilla and Kriyas hatorah

From the mishna on todays daf that switch's gear from kriyas megilla to kriyas hatorah it became clear to me in a new way the relationship between the two. The gemorah on daf 14a says that the only thing that the neviyim added on to the torah is kriyas hamegilla. The gemorah says that the hosafa is not the yom tov of purim, not the writing of the megilla but the reading of the megilla. What chazal added on to the torah was a new kirya that is begader kriyas hatorah, as we have seen that the megilla in its kisva has dini sefer torah, sirtut, tefirah bigidin ect. Chazal instituted a kirya similar to kiryas hatorah but with some differences, for example the kirya of the megilla is medin shira mah sheain ken kriyas hatorah is not midin shira. this chiluk creates a halichik difference that you can have tri koli by megilla.( maybe this chiluk can help answer Yossis' earlier post) Also the days that chazal insituted for the kirya of kefarim is monady and thursday the same days that we read the torah. and the rambam when he talks about hilchos megilla it is all focused on dini keriya till the very end when he talks about mitzvos hayom.

Megillah 21a - Reading Megillah Sitting or Standing

The Turei Even quotes from the Rambam (Hil. Megillah 2:6) that one should not read the megillah while sitting in a tzibur. Based on this he asks, why does the gemara say there is a difference between megillah and torah? The requirement to stand for torah is also only b'tzibbur as rashi writes, so both megillah and torah seem to be the same that btzibbur the reader must stand but b'yachid the reader can sit?

It seems that although practically they may be the same, the lomdus is different. Standing for reading the Torah b'tzibbur is not just a din in kavod hatzibbur, but a din in kavod Hashem - as if to say that Hashem is standing for your reading so you must also stand. But by megillah it is only a din in kavod hatzibbur. Therefore the gemara means to say that Torah B'tzibur is not "just" a kavod tzibbur issue, but rather it must be read standing. Perhaps there would even be a practical difference bidieved if it was read while sitting were you yotzei - the mitzpah eisan mentions this.

One more question - If one is reading for a group of women, must the reader stand for kavod tzibbur?

Megillah 21b - The Institution of a Ba'al Korei

בביאור המנהג שש"ץ קורא בתורה ולא העולה

התוס' כתבו דטעם המנהג שנוהגין שש"ץ קורא היינו שלא לבייש את מי שאינו יודע לקרות כדאיתא בבכורים פ"ג מ"ז בתחלה מי שיודע לקרות קורא ומי שאינו יודע לקרות מקרין אותו נמנעו מלהביא מחמת הבושה התקינו שיהו מקרין את הכל. אלא שהקשה הרא"ש דאין הדמיון נראה דדוקא בבכורים איכא קלקול במה שנמנעו מלקיים מצות עשה דאורייתא , אבל הכא אדרבה ראוי שיתביישו ולא יעלו וממילא רק הבקיאים יקראו ועי"ז האחרים יתנו לב ללמוד הפרשה ולהיות בקיאין בו. אלא הטעם לפי שאין הכל בקיאין בטעמי הקריאה דהיינו בניקוד התיבות עד שלא יצאו הצבור בקריאתו "והוא בעיניו כיודע", ואם לא יקראוהו בתורה אתי לאינצויי, לכך התקינו שיקראו בעל קורא שהוא בקי בקריאה
ונראה שיש נפק"מ גדולה בין טעם התוס' לטעם הרא"ש. לטעמו של התוס' עיקר התקנה הוי דומיא דבכורים שיהו מקרין אותו אבל עיקר הקריאה להוציא הצבור נעשית ע"י העולה שמברך לפניה ולאחריה דומיא דבכורים שאף שמקרין אותו, עיקר קריאת הפרשה נתקיים ע"י המביא בכורים. משא"כ לטעמו של הרא"ש עיקר התקנה הוא שתהא הש"ץ קורא ומוציאים הרבים ידי חובתם והוא במקום המברך. ולפי"ז אתי שפיר שהוסיף הרא"ש שאף לפי טעמא דידיה "גם העומד לקרות יקרא בנחת ובדקדוק עם ש"ץ שלא תהא ברכה לבטלה". הרי מבואר שהעולה אינו קורא בשביל הצבור רק שקורא בנחת לעצמו שלא תהא ברכותיו לבטלה. אבל לפי התוס' פשיטא שהעולה קורא שהרי הוא מוציא את הרבים י"ח רק שש"ץ עומד ומקרין אותו ודו"ק
אולם אכתי טעמא בעי לפי דרכו של הרא"ש אמאי הוי ברכה לבטלה כשאין העולה קורא עם הש"ץ, נימא שע"י שמיעתו הוי כאילו הוא קורא בעצמו דומיא דכל מקום דאמרינן שומע כעונה. וצ"ל דלא שייך שומע כעונה רק בדבר שהוא חובה על השומע וע"י שמיעתו הוי כקורא כדאמרינן גבי קידוש בשבת וקריאת המגילה. משא"כ הכא דאין כאן מצוה לא שייך שומע כעונה, וממילא אם אינו קורא בהדי הש"ץ תהוי ברכתו ברכה לבטלה

שמיעת מגילה וקריאת התורה

הקשה לי חכם אחד דהמ"ב בקמ"ו ס"ק ט"ו לגבי שמיעת קרית התורה הביא כמה אחרונים דנכון לקרות בלחש מלה במלה עם הש"ץ דבלא זה אי אפשר לכוין ולשמוע. ולעומת זה בתר"צ לגבי שמיעת מגילה כתב בס"ק י"ג ...אבל יש מחמירין בכל גווני לפי שנותן דעתו בקריאתו ואינו משגיח למה שאומר הש"ץ כיון שהוא עסוק בקריאתה. נמצא כסותר עצמו האם עדיף שהשומע יקרא עם הש"ץ או להיפך שעדיף שישתוק. והמקור באליה רבה בתר"צ שיש להחמיר בקריאת המגילה יותר מקריאת התורה שישמע הכל ממש מהש"ץ
ובשלמא אי דין קריאת התורה לא חובה על כל יחיד ויחיד אלא על הציבור שפיר יש להחמיר במגילה אך אם קריאת התורה ג"כ חובה על כל יחיד האם יש מקום להחמיר יותר במגילה? מה דעתכם

Megillah 20 - Reading Megillah at Night

In the time of the Mishnah did they have a practice of reading the megillah at night or was the practice to read it at night (in addition to the day) first introduced by R' yehoshua ben levi?

Megillah 19b - Level of Obligation for Children to Read Megillah

משנה יט: בפלוגתא דת"ק ור"י אם קטן כשר לקריאת המגילה. עיין בר"ן שיש ב' דרכים לפרש פלוגתא דתנאי. א. אי נימא דקטנים חייבים במצות מדרבנן מטעם חינוך אתי שפיר דלת"ק אכתי אין הקטן כשר לקריאה דהוי תרי דרבנן ולא אתי ומפיק גדול שמחוייב בחד דרבנן כמש"כ התוס', ורבי יהודה סובר דלא שנא תרי דרבנן מחד דרבנן ושפיר אהני קריאת קטן אפילו לגדול. ב. אי נימא דקטנים אינם מחוייבים אפילו מדרבנן אלא דרמיא על אבוה לחנכו (רמב"ן, וכן רש"י בברכות מח.) אתי שפיר דלת"ק אין הקטן כשר לקריאה מפני שאינו מחוייב בדבר, אבל ר"י סובר דנהי דאינו מחוייב מצד מצות חינוך מ"מ אמרינן שאף הן היו באותו הנס כדאמרינן גבי נשים ( והקשה הר"ן על פירוש הב' שהוא מדברי הרמב"ן דסברא זו דאף הן היו באותו הנס שייך רק במי שמחוייב בשאר מצות כמו נשים דמטעם זה יש לחייבם אף בזו, אבל קטנים שלאו בני חיובא נינהו ופטורים מכל מצות שבתורה, לא שייך לחייבם במצוה זו מטעם אף הן היו באותו הנס).
והנה, מדברי הר"ן בפירוש השני מוכח שסובר כפרש"י בערכין ג. דהכל כשרין לקרות את המגילה לאתויי נשים שקורין לאנשים ומציאים אותם ידי חובתם, וכן הוא דעת הרמב"ם הל' מגילה א:ב כדדייק המגיד משנה מסתימת לשונו. וכן מבואר גם מדברי הר"ן בעצמו שרצה להביא ראיה שנשים מצטרפות למנין עשרה גבי קריאת המגילה משום ד"האיך אפשר שמוציאות אנשים ידי קריאה ואין מצטרפות עמהם". ולפי"ז שפיר מפרש בפירוש השני דאהני סברא דאף הן היו באותו הנס לגבי קטנים שקורין להוציא אנשים ידי חובתן. אבל אם נפרש כדעת הבה"ג בתוס' ד. ובערכין שם דנשים אין קורין לאנשים כדמוכח מתוספתא, ע"כ לא מהני סברא זו דאף הן היו וכו' לגבי קריאת נשים לאנשים, וא"כ כ"ש דלא מהני לקטנים רק שיתחייבו בקריאה לעצמן ולא שמהני קריאתם להוציא אנשים. גם מוכח מפירוש השני שאינו סובר כפרשב"ם (הובא בתוס' ד.) דאף הן היו באותו הנס היינו שהיו העיקר שע"י נעשה הנס, דזה ודאי לא שייך גבי קטנים. וכ"כ הר"ן בהדיא במגילה (ב: בדפי הרי"ף) שפירוש התוס' העיקר ודלא כרשב"ם. וכן מוכח מהר"ן בשבת (מד. בדפי הרי"ף) בשם ר"ת דנשים חייבות בג' סעודות בשבת וכן בב' ככרות מפני שאף הן היו באותו הנס של המן, ופליג הר"ן דא"צ שבלא"ה נמי בכל מעשה שבת איש ואשה שוין. מ"מ משמע מהר"ן שמסכים דשייך בזה אף הן היו וכו' אע"פ שבנס של ירידת המן לא היו נשים העיקר, אלמא שהר"ן אינו סובר כהרשב"ם.

Megillah 18a - Reading the Megillah in Alternative Languages

The Ran brings from the Ramban that the megillah may only be read in another language for one who does not understand hebrew (aside from requiring the understanding of that language). The Rashash brings a proof to this from the mishna that says that it can be read for "loazos b'la'az", and not "loazim b'la'az", which implies we are speaking about women. Women generally don't understand hebrew and that is why it can be read for them in la'az.

On another point, I had some trouble with the gemara discussing whether to read in ashuris, one must actually understand the language. First the gemara proves that it is not necessary similar to "nashim v'amei ha'aretz", but then asks that what about us, we don't understand achashteronim... so the gemara concludes that the mitzvah is to read and bring to parsumei nisah (as rashi explains). What is the shakla v'tarya? What is the difference if we prove that one does not have to understand the language from women or from achashteronim....?

Megillah 17a - Yacov Not Honoring His Parents 22 Years

The gemara works out that yacov was actually gone for 36 years but is only punished for 22 years bec. the 14 years spent studying torah in the house of eiver overrides the mitzvah to honor his parents. The obvious question is that Yacov was told by both his mother and father to go to the house of Lavan and find a wife (or 2, or 3, or 4), so the time he spent there should not be a violation of honoring his parents, rather a kiyum of honoring them.

The Maharsha asks this question and answers in the name of the Imrei Noam that Eisav was calmed down after the 14 years that Yacov spent in the house of Eiver, so he should have returned home at that point, but he didn't, so he was punished for the remaining 22 years. This peshat seems difficult - since it took 14 years for eisav to calm down (and also to get his wives) so 14 out of 36 were justified as fulfilling kibud av v'aim. How then can the gemara prove that Torah study is more valuable that kibud av v'aim from the fact that he was not punished for the 14 years spent in the yeshiva of eiver? Even without torah being more valuable he should not have been punished since he was justified for 14 years following the command of his parents?

To explain the Maharsha, it seems that had Yacov gone straight to Lavan, the 14 years spent there can be justified in fulfilling his parents wishes. But, since he stopped to study for 14 years, he was not fulfilling the wishes of his parents in any of the 36 years he was away. He should be punished for all 36, but from the fact that he was only punished for 22 we see that Torah study take precedence.

I remember hearing another answer to the maharsha's question (but I can't recall who says it). He was punished only for the 2 years he spent travelling back home, but those to year were a cumulative build up that followed 20 years (or really 34 years) away. Therefore, to punish him for 2 years after 20, Yosef is also gone for 2 years after 20 = 22 years.

Megillah 16b - Reading from a Book

Rashi comments that we learn from "im hasefer" that the megillah must be written in front of the reader at the time of reading. The Rashash asks, when the gemara 18a is searching for a source that one cannot read the megillah ba'al peh, why is this not cited as the source? I think that the Rashash's question can be strengthened based on Tosafos 7a. The gemara says that the megillah was b'ruach hakodesh to be read but not to be written. Tosafos asks that we find one cannot read the megillah ba'al peh. Tosafos answers that on the ruach hakodesh level (k'ein d'oraysa) one can read the megillah ba'al peh (see turei even that if one does not have a megillah they should still read it ba'al peh and be yotzei on the ruach hakodesh level), but midrabonon it must be written and read from the text. Based on Tosafos there cannot be a source in the megillah itself for the megillah being written before the reader, so how can rashi claim that it is learned from the words "im hasefer". It is true that Rashi may disagree with Tosafos, but then how would rashi reconcile the gemara 7a that it is only b'ruach hakodesh likros and not lichtov?

See comments for answer.

Megillah 15b - Should Esther Have Gone To Achashveirosh?

The gemara today changes the rating of the storyline from PG to R. Mordechai instructed Esther to "visit" Achashveirosh willingly even though the consequence of this seduction would be that she can no longer return back to live with Mordechai. Regarding her relationship with Mordechai the gemara considers this to be a willing act of adultery. However, in her tefillah she asks why has Hashem left me, "maybe you are judging an o'nes like ra'tzon" - and rashi explains that although she is making a decision to go, it is regarded as o'nes since it is for the sake of saving the Jewish people. Regarding the aveira of adultery she is considered forced and not liable, but regarding her husband it is considered consentual adultery. The reason is found in the Beis Shmuel (Even Haezer 178) in the name of Maharik that although her action was not a rebellion against Hashem, she becomes assur to her husband since it is a rebellion against him (the pasuk of adultery being assur to her husband is "mu'ala bo ma'al" not "ma'al b'hashem").

R' Shlomo Kluger (E.H 178 in chochmas shlomo) tries to prove that although Yael did something similar to Esther by seducing Sisrah, she remained mutar to her husband from the fact that in shiras devorah it refers to her as "aishes chever hakeini". He then tries to make a distinction between Yael and Esther based on whether the adultery was an imminent and clear lead to saving the Jewish people. A tremendous chiddush!!

Megillah 14a - The Pile and the Hole

The gemara compares Haman to someone who had a hole in his yard and compares Achashveirosh to someone who had a pile of dirt. The mashal seems to indicate that from Haman's perspective the Jews were a dangerous hole that was prone to cause problems and detrimental to the kingdom. But, from the perspective of Achashveirosh the Jews were like a pile of dirt that is extra and unnecessary but not in any way damaging to the malchus. In fact, when we look at Haman's arguments to Achashveirosh to justify wiping out the Jews, he does not claim that they actually pose a threat. All Haman's arguments are along the lines of how it will not negatively effect the kingdom since they are dispersed and contribute very little to society.

Perhaps this explains an apparent contradiction. The gemara said earlier 11a that we thank Hashem that is was a "man not a king" who wanted to destroy the Jews, namely Haman but not Achashveirosh. Yet we find in our gemara that Achashveirosh also considered the Jews to be an annoying pile of dirt and wanted it out? The answer is that for Achashveirosh the Jews were just an unnecessary appendix. He had no reason to kill them, but also no reason to spare them so he gave into Haman's wishes. Since Achashveirosh had no specific agenda, it was so easy for Esther to influence Achashveirosh to overturn the decree.

Megillah 13b - Contraception with Who?

Tosafos solves the problem of havchana between mordechai and achashveirosh by saying that esther was mishameshes b'moch. The maharsha says that with mordechai it would have been assur to be mishameshes b'moch so it must have been with achashveirosh that she used a moch. The obvious question is, so how did she get pregnant with daryavesh from achashveirosh (as rashi writes in r"h)? The maharsha says that after she went to achashveirosh b'ratzon, "ka'asher avadti, avadti", she stopped using a moch with achashveirosh since there was no longer a concern of havchana.

The Turei Even says that she got pregnant from achashveirosh bec. she used a moch with mordechai. The kunteros acharon (on turei even) says that the Turei Even must be correct, not the maharsha. He explains that esther became assur to mordechai in the 12th year of achashveirosh being king (that was when haman drew the lots), and achashveirosh was only king for 14 years, which was immediately followed by daryavesh taking over and granting permission to build the beis hamikdash. If the maharsha is correct that she only became pregnant with daryavesh after she was already assur to mordechai, then daryavesh would only be 2 and a half years old when he gives permission to build the beis hamikdash - which is highly unlikely!

Megillah Reading for Women

I am posting a pdf link to a shiur I recently gave on the megillah. The purpose of this shiur is to explain the opinion of the Behag that men are chayev to "read" and women to "listen".
http://www.freewebs.com/avilebo/Behag-Megillah.pdf



Audio Shiur discussing the approach of the Turei Even (1hr 17minutes):

Stream Link:
http://www.torahmedia.com/streamlink.php?fid=23189&bw=low

Download Link:
http://www.torahmedia.com/downloadlink.php?fid=23189&bw=low

Megilla 11a - A Man and Not a King

R' Nachman B' Yitzchok opened his drasha on the megillah by citing the pasuk that praises Hashem for protecting us when a "man" stood against us - A man and not a king. Simply, the praise to Hashem is that the main antagonist of the Jews was Haman rather than Achashveirosh, so that when the tables were flipped, they were easily flippable. I thought that perhaps this can be explained based on the gemara in gittin 56a when R' Yochanan B' Zakai greeted the general sent to take siege on Yerushalaim by saying sholom aleicha malka. The general responded, first of all I am not a king, and if I am a king, why didn't you come until now. R' Yochanan says back that you must be a king (or at least will be a king), bec. if you were not a king Hashem would not give Yerushalaim into your hands. Hashem will not degrade the Jewish people by allowing a "nobody" to destroy them, rather, their enemy will always be someone of stature. Based on this R' Nachman's drasha was to praise Hashem that it was only Haman who stood up against the Jews rather than a king, bec. if it were a king then the gezeira may have been carried out, but bec. it was a man, not a king, it was impossible for the Jews to be given in his hands.

Megilla 10b - Cutting off Language and Writing from Bavel

The Maharsha explains that people communicate in 2 ways. 1. Sending letters with a signature to people who are far away. 2. Speaking to those who are close by and able to hear. "Shem" refers to the signature at the end of a letter which is "ksav". "Sh'er" refers to those who are close by and spoken to verbaly which is "loshon". The pasuk says that Hashem will cut of "Shem" and "Sh'er" from Bavel, which means he will cut off their influence both near and far. This will answer Tosafos question, that although Aramaic is still spoken, the influence of Bavel was lost.

Megillah 9a - Translating Torah

It is not clear whether the discussion between Rabonon and R' Shimon B' Gamliel is: 1. An issur to translate the Torah. or 2. No issur but a Sefer written in another language would not qualify as Sifrei Hakodesh. According to #1 that the machlokes is simply whether a Sefer Torah written in another language has kedushas sefer torah, what would the gemara be proving from the story of Talmai that a Greek translation would have kedushas sefer torah? Who says that the 72 translations had kedushas sefer Torah! #2 must be correct - The Rabonon hold that Torah can be written in any language and have kedushas sefer Torah in any language. R' Shimon B' Gamliel argues and says that there is an issur to translate the Torah into any language other than Greek.

The Turei Even seems to concur that according to R' Shimon B"G there is an issur to translate into other languages. However, he discusses 2 possibilities whether this issur would be d'oraysa or d'rabonon. On the tzad that it is an issur d'rabonon the pasuk from yefes would only be an esmachte, but the real reason it is mutar is that since they were matir the translation by Talmai for a tzorech, the issur was removed to translate Torah (and acc. to RSBG in mishna even other seforim) into Greek. But, on the tzad that it is an issur d'oraysa and the source to be matir is a real drasha from the pasuk of yefes, it must be that the story of Talmai is cited bec. that is when they made the drasha to be matir translating into Greek.

It would seem that if the Torah was translated into another language - acc. to the first tzad since it is only an issur d'rabonon it would have kedushas sefer (like acc. to rabonon), but acc. to second tzad that it can't be translated m'doraysa it may not even have kedushas Sefer Torah.

Since we pasken like R' Shimon B' Gamliel, stone chumashim should be at least an issur d'rabonon - but the heter is the same heter to write torah not in a scroll bec. of 'eis la'asos l'hashem' - see Igros Moshe Y.D. 4:38:4.

Megillah 8b - Reading from a non-kisvei Hakodesh Book

Tosafos explains that only a megilla written with ashuris letters in hebrew language can qualify as kisvei hakodesh to be metamei yadayim, yet one can read the megillah from a book written in another language (for someone who understands that language). Clearly, the din of reading from ksav, to the exclusion of reading ba'al peh, would not require kisvei hakodesh. Based on this, I don't understand the question of Tosafos 7a. The gemara 7a says that if Ester was to be read b'ruach hakodesh, but not written b'ruach hakodesh, it would not be mtamei yadayim. Tosafos asks, if it is not metamei yadayim, why is one who reads b'al peh not yotzei? Based on Tosafos 8b, there is no question, bec. although one must read from a ksav, the ksav does not need to be kisvei hakodesh that is metamei yadayim?

megilas esther acc. to shmuel

Acc. to shmuel that esther was said beruach hakodeh likoros velo lictov . it comes out that esther is a bechina of torah shebal peh. (It seems to me the machlokes is whether after churban habais and in paras was it shayach to create torah shebecsav.)
tosfos is mebver that acc. to shmuel the kisiva of migilas esther was kein the kisiva of migillas tanis except a little stronger because by migilas esther there are dinim in the kisiva. I refer you back to the rashis in tannis that explain why by migilas tannis we find the lashon "dichsiv" because it also has a shaycus to torah shebecsav. so it comes out acc. to shmuel that migillas esther and migilas tannis are of the same type.

Megillah 7b - Seudas Purim at Night

The Rema brings down that there is a mitzvah to have a seudah also on the night of purim (after ta'anis ester). It seems very meduyak in the gemara bec. the gemara seems to take the perspective of assuming that one would have a seudah at night. It does not say that one should not have their seudah at night, rather that when one eats their seudah at night, it is not sufficient to fulfill their obligation of seudas purim. I think that this is also implied by tosafos 4a who explains that the primary mitzvah of reading the megillah is by day, just that r' yehoshua ben lavi is mechadesh that it should be done by night as well (that is why we make shehechiyanu again by day). Tosafos comments that we find a parallel to this by seduas purim, that the primary seudah is by day. It seems that the geder of seudah by night is similar to the megillah at night, and although it is not the ikar, it is still a mitzvah.

question

why do we need a pasuk and a sevara to say that a neder is not 'chayav b'achrayus'?

Megillah 4a - Women reading for Men

The Behag brought in tosafos holds that women cannot be motzi men in the reading of the megillah. The Behag expresses this by saying that the nature of the chiyuv on men is "kriah" whereas the nature of the chiyuv of women is "shmiah". Although it is clear that he is trying to say that men have a higher level chiyuv than women and therefore from the perspective of a man, a women is considered an "eino mechuyav b'davar"; the hagdara of the behag is stinn unclear. What does he mean that women are chayuv in only "shmiah" - it must mean more than just a lower level chiyuv? (i have some thoughts but i am interested in some comments).

הערה בקישור תענית ומגילה בדרך הדרוש

בדרך הרמז והדרוש

בשלהי תענית כל האוכל ושותה בט"ב כאילו אוכל ושותה ביום הכפורים. מבואר דט"ב שייך ליו"כ וכן ביאר הגרמ"ש ע"פ המדרש (ילקוא שמעוני פנחס רמז תשפ"ב) שלולא חטא העגל יו"כ היה בט"ב. וכן ט"ו באב שייך לט' באב דהרי מתי מדבר הפסיקו למות בט"ו באב. וא"כ שניהים שייכם לתיקון של חטא המרגלים.
עוד איתא בסוף תענית דט"ו באב היה יום תבר מגל כיוון שבו פסקו לכרות עצים למערכה מחשש תולעים כיון שהשמש לא חזקה כ"כ ויש לכלוכית בעצים. וכן ט"ו באב יום שבנות ישראל יוצאים לשידוכים. ומגל אותיות גלם. והנראה שאז התחילו לקחת הגלם מהשדה וליצור מזה צורת אדם ע"י השידוכין.
לאחר ז' חדשי העיבור מגיעים לט"ו באדר. ואז קוראים מגילה שהיא המגל עם שם י-ה. דהיינו שזיווג הזכר ונקבה שבשם י-ה מוליד בט"ו אדר.
וכיפורים הוא כפורים. דהיינו דיוצא דט"ו באב וכפורים ופורים כולם מכפרים על חטא המרגלים.
באופן שחטא המרגלים היה שדור דעה לא התקשר למצוות התלויות בארץ. וכדברי המהר"ל שאילולי דור דעה היו באי הארץ לא היה שייך חרבן. ותיקון חטא זה ע"י קישור הדעה והמעשה דהיינו עם הגוף. עיבור זה נעשה בט"ו באב (תחילת לכלוכית העצים ןהאדם עץ השדה) ובזמן ההריון הגוף בוחל בולד דהיינו שצריך קודם לעזוב את הגוף בבחינת יו"כ ולבסוף נוח היהודים בט"ו באדר שבו עם כל הגוף ושיכרון יוצא צורת אדם עם שם י-ה.
ט' באב הוא יום תחילת הניתוק ותחילת שריפת בהמ"ק ולא סופו משא"כ שמחת פורים היא הסוף אחר הניצחון וזמן שנחו היהודים בשושן. דלבסוף הכל טוב וסוף מעשה במחשבה תחילה.

עבדים בחיוב מגילה

עיין בשו"ע דרק עבדים משוחררים חייבים במגילה אך המ"ב מביא מ"ח שיש שמחייבים עבדים ממש

ולכאורה תלוי בהבנת אף הם היו בנס דלרש"י שגם הנשים ניצלו מהגזירה לכאורה זה גם שיים לעבדים אך לרשב"ם שהם היו עיקר הנס שפעלו הנס לכאורה זה ל"ש בעבדים. ושמעתי שהגרי"ז חקר אם אף הם היו בהנס זה חיוב חדש או רק מוריד את הפטור של זמן גרמא ונפ"מ לעבדים שאם זה חיוב חדש ל"ש לעבדים ואם כצד השני עבדים יהיו מחוייבים. ונ"ל שכל הספק רק שייך לרשב"ם אך לרש"י בפשטות גם עבדים יחויבו. וצ"ע ולא ראיתי הגדי"ז בעצמי

Megillah 3a - Megillah Reading vs. Torah Study

One should be mevatel talmud torah in order to read the megillah. The Maharatz Chiyus asks why is megillah reading referred to as bitul torah, isn't the megillah also torah? He answers that the travel to hear the megillah read in a minyan is bitul torah. This seems difficult to me in light of the gemara in chagiga 5b that one who learns torah for just one day a year (and spends the rest of the time travelling) is considered to have learned the entire year. Clearly, travel time to study torah is not counted as bitul torah. It seems more plausible to me to answer based on the gemara in chagigah 10a that there is bitul torah in quality, not just in quantity. To go from gemara to mikrah is bitul torah in quality (see also baba metziah 33a).

However, the gemara seems to give the impression that being mevatel torah for megillah is the exception, not the rule. We are always mevatel torah for mitzvos that can't be done by others (moed katan), so why does the gemara make such a big deal the we are mevatel talmud torah for megillah reading?

Megillah 2a - Reading Megillah for Bnei Kefarim

I am in Yerushalaim until wed. so i have not had time to post - Sorry.

There is a machlokes rishonim if on the day the bnei kefarim would come into the cities, one of the people of the city would read megillah for them (rashi) or if they would read for themselves (Ran, Tosafos Yevamos 14a). There are 2 difficulties with Rashi. 1. How can someone who is not mechuyav at that time (city person) read to be motzei someon - it seems to go against the mishna in r.h. (end of third perek)? The Ritvah is mechadesh that since he is mechuyav in megillah, just not that day, it is considered mechuyav b'davar. 2. There should be an issur of lo sisgodidu, since according to abaya even 2 batei dinim in one city is considered agudos agudos. If the Kfar person would read, since their intent was to return, it can be considered like 2 separate cities, but acc. to Rashi it is difficult.

Has anyone seen a peshat in dealing with lo sisgodidu acc. to rashi?

Ta'anis 30a - Learning on 9th of Av

The gemara cites the pasuk of "pikudei hashem yesharim" only as a reason for not learning with children, but not as a reason for the issur talmud torah. Although Rashi says that this is also the source for the issur Talmud Torah for adults, the maharsha says that for adults it is not necessary to cite the pasuk as a source. We find that there is an issur to be mesiach da'as from aveilus (see rashi 29b regarding washing clothes in the week of 9th av), so this would also be the reason to forbid learning - it is a hesech hada'as from the aveilus. This peshat is very difficult bec. we find that the Tana Kama allows to learn in areas that are not familiar. If the issur was simcha, then the tza'ar of trying to figure out something new would take away the simcha. Similarly, the tza'ar of learning iyov and other tragic stories would take away the simcha. But, according to maharsha who says that the issur is hesech hada'as, why should it be mutar to learn something new and something tragic?
We find that the Biur Halacha writes that concentrating on davening and learning while wearing tefillin is not considered a hesech hada'as. The reason is that the Torah doesn't demand concentration on tefillin, but rather any concentration on devarim shebikedusha is included in the kavana that is required. Similarly here, the issue of hesech hada'as only applies if one is mesiach da'as from the sadness by doing something which is mesameiach. Therefore, learning things that do not bring simcha i.e. new things or tragic things, is not a hesech hada'as. The point of the maharsha is simply that for adults this concept is clear without citing a pasuk - but when learning with kids one may of thought that it will not be enjoyable and not constitute a hesech hada'as. The pasuk teaches that the learning b'etzem is mesameiach and therefore even learning with kids is considered a hesech hada'as.

בחשבון מ' + מ' +מ' ימים ששהה משה בסיני

see comments. would love to hear some feed back. as an aside, after figuring out the math one can learn the gvuras ari here in 28b as he asks the reason why we don't equate how we count this as we do in nidah etc. i am not up to there yet.

not splitting a pasuk

the gemara brings the din that you cannot split a pasuk (the rambam doesn't bring it down! -asked by achronim) . the question i heard by rav yisroel reisman is what about kidush where we say and it was evening and it was morning of the 6th day. this question is asked by the chasam sofer.
i just found a 13 page essay about this from a rav morgenstern of ger chasidus. where he quotes many places where we do split and has a fascinating discussion.
i will just mention the yerushalmi in taanis he quotes that if it is a pasuk somewhere else you may split therefor you may say vayehi erev etc by yom rishon since there is a whole pasuk with this structure on yom shlishi. this will answr kidush as well.
also interesting is there are 2 dinim in this sugya - splitting a parsha and splitting a pasuk and the wording of the halacha is diferent here and in brachos 12b. if i finish writing this up soon i will post in comments more sources.

Ta'anis 28b - Hallel on Rosh Chodesh

A few seperate points:

1. Rashi explains that hallel on chanuka is "like d'oraysa". This can be understood based on chasam sofer (o.c. 208) that the parsumei nissah is a kiyum d'oraysa, just that chazal choose how it should be done for each yom tov (candles for chanuka, megilla for purim). Therefore, hallel on chanuka was instituted by the rabonon but is a kiyum d'oraysa and therefore can push off even tefillah d'orayasa such as mincha. Although even rambam holds tefillah everyday is only d'oraysa once a day so mincha should not be considered d'oraysa? Rashi explains 28a mincha is d'oraysa - since yitzchok instituted it, its like d'oraysa. Meaning that it is not a chiyuv d'oraysa, rather a kiyum d'oraysa. Therefore, the kiyum d'oraysa of hallel can push off the kiyum d'oraysa of tefillah of ma'mados (but zman atzei kohanim which is not even a kiyum d'oraysa can't push off mincha).

2. Tosafos (d.h. yom tov) says that the miracle of chanuka became greater everyday. This clearly assumes that the entire jar of oil was poured it on the first day, so that everyday it continued to burn it was a greater miracle. To the exclusion of one of the beis yosef's answers, that everyday they poured 1/8 of the jar.

3. Tosafos implies that full hallel must be said once over pesach but it is not specific to the first day. Therefore if one did not say full hallel on the first day, they can do so on any other day. However, on day 7 the poskim bring a midrash that full hallel should not be recited since the mitzrim drowned on that day. This reason is only necessary for a situation where one did not say full hallel until the 7th day, so they should really say it on day 7 - to that the poskim say it should not be recited since the mitzrim drowned that day.

mishmar of yisroelim

while learning rashi in the mishna it seemed to me that he was saying that the Yisroel people were living in yerushalayim all year long beauce he uses a language of kvuin in yerushalayim. today i found in the back of the frankel rambam that the aruch hashulcah and couple others make this diyuk. in tomorrows daf the yaavets asked that the 1st braysa seems to skip the yisroels traveling to yerushalayim and suggests it might be a printing error, but acc to rashi this will fit well.
problem is the 2nd braysa mentions yisroelim.
on the topic, i wasn't sure what the gaon 27a was trying to say with his haga, is he saying the leviyim were supplying the water? why? i thought the yisroelim were like rashi in the mishna says? unless he is trying to fir this braysa with rashi that the yisroelim didn't go to yerushalayim but lived there??? any thoughts?

Ta'anis 26b - Nesias Kapayim by Mincha of a fast day

The gemara comments that we duchan by mincha on a fast since there is no concern of drunkenness, and since we daven close to sunset, mincha is associated with neila and there is no concern that it will lead to duchening by mincha the rest of the year. It would seem that if one davens mincha k'tana on a fast, they should certainly duchan (in e.y. of course). However, rashi seems to explain that this is only when one normally davens mincha g'dola and on the fast is davening mincha k'tana, but if one normally davens mincha k'tana then they should not duchen on a fast even if they daven mincha k'tana. Nevertheless, following the simple understanding of the gemara, it would seem that if one daven mincha k'tana on a ta'anis, there is duchaning.

But, if one davens mincha g'dola on a fast, one should not duchen (even if the rest of the year they normally daven mincha k'tana so there is a heker, it seems from the gemara that its not sufficient, bec. we also need the sevara of being similar or in the place of neila).

The Chazon Ish (O.C. 20) suggests that even if one davens mincha g'dola they should duchan bec. at the close of the talmud the decision was to duchan at mincha of a fast. (He raises that the Ritvah seems to imply otherwise, but then explains that the Ritvah is speaking in a time where neillah is said so if duchaning was done by mincha g'dola it would be clear that there should be duchaning by mincha and will lead to duchaning by mincha on other days. But if there is no neillah, like by our fast days, then one should duchan by mincha since it will be understood that it is to make up for not duchaning by neillah).

The Steipler testifies that the Chazon Ish did allow duchaning even my m.g. on a ta'anis.

3 quick points taanis 25

בהא דשמע להנך ענני דקאמרי שיתנו גשם בעמון ומואב ביאר המהרש"א ששמע המלאך. וכן ברש"י בעמוד ב' לדיד חזיא לי האי רדיא ביאר שקאי אמלאך. ונשאלתי והרי מפתח הגשם רק אצל קודשא בריך? ונ"ל שדוקא המפתח לאוצר ביד הקב"ה אך זה שמוביל הסחורה מתוך האוצר לחוצה הוא המלאך

.
במעשה דתענית אחאב אחר שרצח את נביות ביאר רש"י שהחליט באמצע היום שיתענה. וצ"ע מכאן לשיטות הסוברים שאף תענית שעות צריך לקבל דווקא מבע"י דלשיטתם איזה סוג תענית היה כאן אלא א"כ הוי רק לצעורי בעלמא וצ"ע

.
בדין הלל הגדול. עיין רש"י הודו לאלוקי האלוקים ומשמע שמכאן מתחיל ההלל הגדול ועיין במלאכת שלמה במשניות שמביא תשובת הרשב"א ת"ג דמתחיל מהודו לה' כעין בפסח ותמוה לרש"י מדוע שיהי חילוק וע"ש שיש בזה מ"ח בירושלמי. ואולי לרש"י אפשר לומר שמצטט את אלוקי האלוקים דלכן נקרא הלל הגדול אך דלמא הקריאה מתחילה מהודו לה' וצ"ע