The gemara says that a metzorah who is a tevul yom from keri should not be able to stand in machaneh leviya, and he should also not be able to stick his thumbs into machaneh shechina (since partial entering is called entering). The heter for the tevul yom to stand in machaneh leviya (sha'ar nikanor) is that the aseh of korban pesach pushes off the issur of tevul yom in machaneh leviya. But the heter to stick his thumbs into the azarah (machaneh shechina) for behonos is "ho'il v'ishtri" - meaning since we allow him to stick his hands in when he is a metzorah who is automatically mechusar kippurim (and not allowed in machaneh shechina), we also permit him to stick his hands in from the perspective of tevul yom.
Tosafos asks that once we allow him to stick his hands in and we hold that partial entering is a violation of entering, we might as well allow him to walk into the machaneh shechina. Tosafos answers: 1. The issur to go in partially is learned from a hekesh, so we are matir that issur. But the issur to walk in is mefurash in the pasuk, and we are not matir that issur. 2. He is required to reduce his "entry" as much as possible, so since he can accomplish what he needs by sticking his thumbs in, he is not allowed to walk in.
It seems that acc. to the first answer of Tosafos he can stick his entire arm in, since that will still only be a partial entering, but acc. to the 2nd answer he can only stick in the minimum that is necessary i.e. his thumbs but not even his hand and certainly not his arm.
7 comments:
very interesting,
on the subject, what is the סברא behind this whole Gemara? What is the idea of כיון שאישתרי אישתרי and why does it only apply in the case where the actual היתר had time to practiced, finally what is the הו"א of נשא חי ואח"כ נשא מת?
IS IT PREFERABLE TO VIOLATE A TOLDAH RATHER THAN AN AV (FOR ONE WHO IS DEATHLY ILL)?
The Tchebeiner Gaon (Dovev Meisharim, 3:82) inquires as to what the halacha would be in the following case. We are permitted to desecrate Shabbos for one who is deathly ill. Is it preferable to perform a labor which is only a toldah, a derivative of the av melocha, the primary categories of labor forbidden to do on Shabbos; or perhaps, there is no halachic difference since both are Biblically forbidden?
He ruled on this issue and cited support from our Gemora. It was taught in a braisa: A metzora whose eighth day (of purification) fell on Erev Pesach, but on that day had an emission of semen (resulting in the fact that he now cannot enter the Temple Mount to complete his purification process), and then immersed himself, the Chachamim said that although an ordinary tevul yom (one who has immersed in a mikvah but still has tumah on him until nightfall) may not enter the Temple Mount until nightfall, this one may enter in order to complete his purification process, thus enabling him to bring his pesach offering. It is preferable for a positive commandment that involves kares (pesach obligation) to override a positive commandment that does not involve kares (entering the Temple Mount while being a tevul yom).
Rabbi Yochanan maintains that it is only Rabbinically forbidden for a tevul yom to enter the Temple Mount.
Ula said: Why do we allow this tevul yom to enter? He answers: Since we would allow an ordinary metzora to enter the Temple Mount in order to complete his purification process, we allow a metzora who has had an emission of semen to enter as well.
Tosfos asks: Ula maintains that a partial entry into an area which is forbidden to enter is regarded as a full entry. If so, why do we limit this metzora, who is a tevul yom to insert his right ear, thumb and big toe into the Temple Courtyard, let him be permitted to enter entirely? What would be the distinction?
Tosfos answers: Entering completely into the Courtyard is regarded as being more severe than a partial entry. The Torah forbids a tevul yom from entering completely into the Courtyard explicitly, but a partial entry is only derived through the means of a hekesh (a Midrashic juxtaposition). Although both prohibitions are Biblical, the one that is written explicitly is stricter than the one which is merely derived from an exposition.
It emerges from here that a Biblical prohibition written explicitly is more stringent than one which is only derived through an exposition. He therefore posits that it would be preferable to engage in the labor which would only be violating a toldah rather than one which would constitute an av melocha. This is because a toldah is not written explicitly in the Torah.
avos of shabbos are also not written explicitly in the torah - they are learned from the mishkan. so there is no proof at all that there should be a distinction between an av and a tolda. furthermore, when the gemara asks in baba kama what is the difference between an av and tolda, let the gemara say that a tolda is more kal than an av. Clearly, they are both the same level of issur.
I had the same question and a different fellow asked it on my blog as well. Could be he means lo saaseh kol melocha meaning the avos is more explicit than the toldah.
there is another תולדה to this disussion, in the rule of מוטב שיהיו שוגגין ואל יהיו מזידין according to some apply only to things not explicit in the torah, how would תולדות of shabbos factor inot this?
and avos for that matter, according to Reb Avi.
Rav Chaim said...
Quote "It emerges from here that a Biblical prohibition written explicitly is more stringent than one which is only derived through an exposition. He therefore posits that it would be preferable to engage in the labor which would only be violating a toldah rather than one which would constitute an av melocha. This is because a toldah is not written explicitly in the Torah."
I don't know if the proof is similar to the Shaila. Over there going in completely is written specifically. Part way is a Drasha. Melachos are not written specifically in the Pasuk. Both are learnt from a Drasha. Either from the Meleches Hamishkon (Hekesh) or the many times it says Melacha in the Torah or Veleh Hadvarim. Toldos are learnt from Achas Meheina. Even though Toldos are derivatives of a derivative, still they might be all under one Darga of Drashos and not written Mifeirush.
Post a Comment