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.