The gemara addresses whether they were mevatel the yomim tovim of megillas ta'anis, except for chanukah and purim that were kept bec. of parsumei nissah. I am trying to figure out how this fits with the gemara in megilla 14a that the nevi'im did not add anything new, except for mikrah megilla which was learned from a kal v'chomer (and ner chanukah - see rashi and maharsha that they found a semach in the midrash). The Ramban in the mitzvah of B'al Tosif understands that there would be a violation of B'al Tosif to add a new yom tov (unless they found a source in the Torah).
My question is, How could they have instituted all the yomim tovim of megillas ta'anis without a violation of this prohibition?
My understanding of Rashi in Megilla is that the concern of B'al Tosif by adding a yom tov would only apply in a time where there are nevi'im i.e. purim, and that is why the institution of chanukah is not a problem (not like the maharsha) [The rationale is that things said by Nevi'im can be confused with D'oraysa, but things instituted after nevuah stopped cannot be confused so the issur would not apply]. If this is true, then there is no question. But, if we assume like the maharsha and that B'al Tosif is a concern even after the Nevi'im era, how do we explain megillas Ta'anis.
Without the Ramban, one could argue that the issur is creating a new mitzvah, not a new yom tov [as the language of the gemara seems to imply by focusing on megilla rather than purim], but in light of the ramban it is clear that the issue is creating a new yom tov -so how does this fit with megillas ta'anis? Would the Ramban hold that hesped and ta'anis alone without a mitzvah associated would not be considered a new yom tov?
3 comments:
igros moshe y"d 4:12 says exactly as you say see there towards the end. i have more sources if you want. all a click away in the compyter...
i have seen that teshuva, but didn't realize that he discusses megilas ta'anis - will check again. thanks.
i took another look at the teshuva and found that he says megillas ta'anis yomim tovim are not bal tosif since they are only an issur on hesped and ta'anis. regarding chanukah he says that for the hallel, it may be deoraysa based on the kal v'chomer of the chasam sofer (see teshuva end of o.c. and also hagahos of chasam sofer megillah 6b printed in shas vilna). however, see igros moshe o.c. 1:15:2. Although at first he explains that the kal v'chomer may work for hallel since the hallel of shechitas pesach is deoraysa acc. to ramban in sefer hamitzvos; he seems to conclude that it is not a 'real' kal v'chomer and would not be deoraysa - so it is a little strange for him to write in y.d. 4:12 as a matter of fact that hallel of chanuka is deoraysa.
Post a Comment