Ta'anis 24a - Ma'aseh Nissim

There seems to be a contradiction between rashi 24a (d.h. ela) and rashi 24b (d.h. amar) whether it is "assur" or just "not proper" to benefit from the product of a miracle. I later found this question raised by the mitzpah eisan (he makes a distinction between a miracle done for an individual and an miracle done for the public - to me it seems to be a dochek). I think the distinction is that on 24a the miracle was done in the zechus of Elazar Ish birta and he (and his daughter) would be the ones benefiting so it is an issur since it will be deducted from his zechyos. But, on 24b the miracle was done in the zechus of R' Yehuda (just as the rain came in the zechus of him removing his shoe), and it was the buyers who were going to be benefiting, therefore it is not an issur on them to benefit from r' yehuda's zechuyos. Nevertheless, since the source of the benefit is a miracle, it is preferable not to benefit from a miracle at all (and perhaps their benefit would deduct from R' Yehuda's zechuyos so he tried to discourage them from benefiting).

The problem is that rashi 25a (d.h. ad) in the story with the oil says that r' chanina lit another candle from the miracle candle so as not to benefit from the miracle "just like r' yehuda did by the sand and flour". Based on the distinction above, in the case of R' chanina there would be an issur to benefit, so rashi should have cited the proof from the case of Elazar Ish birta?

For an answer - see comments.

Ta'anis 23a - Choni Ha'magal

The Rambam (Talmud Torah 6:14) lists 24 things that someone is put in cherem for. #1 is for kavod of a chacham and #14 is one who brings the public to chilul hashem. The kesef mishnah explains that the source for #14 is the story with choni where shimon ben shetach says that he should be put in niduy bec. if this were like the days of eliyahu where there would be to contradictory oaths that would inevitably bring to chilul hashem. The Mishnah L'melech points out that Rashi (both in the mishna and gemara) take an alternate approach that the niduy was for kavod ha'rav i.e. being matriach Hashem excessively. The Mishnah L'melech asks, that since there was an issue of kavod ha'rav in the actions of choni, how can this story be a source that there is justification to put someone in niduy just for bringing to chilul hashem alone? Although he brings down an answer, he says that it is not "kdei sviah". Any thoughts?

Masrein Vrs. Misanin

This post has a little shaychus to todays daf but I think it is a important nekuda and since I did not post it earlier I am posting it.
The mishna at the begining of the perek discusses how to react to a es tzara. The tana kama says masrein umisanin but in a city which nearby we are is only misana. Acc. to Rabbi Akiva though cities nearby are masrea but not misana. What is the machlokes?
So the Ran brings down a yirushalmi that says the they argue about what you compare it to the day of Rosh Hashana or Yom kippur. Rabbi Akiva says you compare a es tzara to rosh hashana and therefore you blow a shofar like on R"H. The Tanna kama says you compare it Yom Kippur there fore you fast Like on Y"K. The yerushalmi goes lishtaso based on what the yirushalmi says you are tokea on a tannis. the milchamos in r"h says that only in the bais hamikdash did they blow with chatzosros but begivulin we blow a shofar b/c it is like r"h and the proof that the Ramban brings is from the gemora in the yirushalmi.
But if you learn like the Rambam that even begevulin we blow chatzozros. What is the Machlokes between Tana kama and Rabbi Akiva? To start a mehalach to understand the Rambams shita you have look at the Rambam in the 1st perek where he learns the if there is a es tzara than the torah says to blow chtazosros/masria. Come Chazal and say medirabanan that a you should also fast/ Misanea. So Acc. to the Rambam Chatzosros if a doraysa and tannis is derabanan.

taanis 24 take care of your own 1st?

i know i am a little ahead, but the gemara has a story regarding elaza who seemingly gave away his own daughter wedding money to 2 orphans marrying each other. the maharsha asks how was he allowed to do this as the din is that you take care of your own 1st.
.
i was thinking perhaps rashi is answering this by explaining the gemara that 2 orphans were marrying each other. maybe, the rule of taking care of your own 1st only applies when the needs are on the same plain more or less, but when the other need that is farther is more dire then it takes precedence. perhaps here the fact that there were no parents to help out and as we see in the beginning of ksubos that parents helping in the meal preparations are the norm then there was an added dimension to the needs of the orphans.
what is the din when 2 yeshivos are collecting, 1 local yeshiva for building a gym for american boys who need this type of thing and 1 is from erets yisroel and they are collecting for basic needs, which takes precedence?
(the maharsha answers more simply but acknowledges that it is dochak)

Ta'anis 22b - Fasting for Dever

There is a machlokes in the gemara whether you fast and are masriah for dever. Rashi explains the opinion of R' Chanan that even during the week we don't fast to get rid of plague "because it is a gezeira". What does Rashi mean? Rashi could mean to say that it is like a tefillas shav since it is a gezeira and tefillah will not help - similar to rashi 19a regarding the tevuah that dries up. But rashi still seems to contradict himself by the wild animal being a maka mushlachas (that you fast and cry out for) "it is a gezeira"?!

Without Rashi it seems that there is another rationale for not fasting for dever. Shulchan Aruch 576:2 paskens that we fast for dever. But the Sha'arei Teshuva brings from Birkei Yosef and Arizal that we don't fast for dever "and there is also a sevara like that in the talmud 22". The M.B. (2) explains that we no longer fast for dever since it is more contagious when one is fasting. We find a similar statement in Biur Halacha (554) when there was an outbreak of cholera to eat pachos m'kishiur as a way to strengthen the immune system (BTW, this implies he holds of pachos m'kishiur even on Tisha B'av). This seems to be the way the Sha'arei Teshuva explains the gemara, that R' Chanan held not to fast since it was more prone to spreading the plague.

Ta'anis 22a - Ben Olam Ha'ba Without Tzitzis

The gemara justifies the prison guards custom of not wearing tzitzis (and wearing black shoes which was a minhag of goyim that a jew must give up his life for in a time of shmad - sanhedrin 75b see tosafos). It seems that he was wearing a 4 cornered garment without tzitzis which was a bitul mitzvas aseh, and that is why R' brokah was surprised that he was a ben olam ha'ba. If he was simply not wearing a 4 cornered garment, it is unlikely that R' Brokah would have been so surprised since there is no chiyuv to wear a 4 cornered garment in order to wear tzitzis. Although this is debatable, it is meduyak in rashi "he did not put tzitzis on his tallis" - implies he was wearing a 4 cornered tallis and left off the tzitzis.

The question is that since he had to look like a goy in order to spy (perhaps it was even pikuach nefesh), why was he allowed to wear a 4 cornered garment w/o tzitzis. He should have worn a garment that is not chayev in tzitzis at all so he would not have to be mevatel a mitzvas aseh!

Perhaps this is a proof to the Mordechai that there is no issur to wear 4 corners without tzitzis, rather when wearing 4 corners there is a mitzvah to put on tzitzis. In a situation where one cannot put on tzitzis i.e. shabbos, it is permitted to wear the garment and is not considered a bitul mitzvah. Based on this, here to he was not able to put on tzitzis (so that he can spy), and was allowed to wear the 4 cornered garment w/o tzitzis. There is no advantage to wear a garment that is exempt from tzitzis.

Ta'anis 21a - Story of R' Yochanan and ilfa

R' Yisroel Gordon refered me to the hakdama of the margolis hayam on sanhedrin where he offers a very interesting analysis of this story.

His approach is that Ilfa excelled in learning more than R' Yochanan even after R' Yochanan was appointed as Rosh Yeshiva. Ilfa had no choice but to involve himself in business. Ilfa understood based on the gemara in Eruvin 55a that the ability to learn for hora'ah and halacha l'ma'aseh is not found by the businessman. But this affords the businessman like Ilfa the luxury and opportunity to focus on the depths of Torah and not having to flip through kitzur halachos seforim since he is not being consulted for pesak on a regular basis. Although Ilfa did not have the opportunity to teach Talmidim and study with Talmidei chachamim, he managed to record much of his learning in writing to pass on to the future generations (he cites menachos 70a and Yerushalmi in ma'asros 2:4 where they checked the notebook of Ilfa to figure out the din).

If anyone is familiar with the life story of R' Reuven Margolis, he seems to be comparing himself to Ilfa.

Ta'anis 20a - Cedars on water

This post is from R' Aaron Katz - it is a little long so i am posting as a comment.

rain in one city and no rain in another

במשנה: וכן עיר שלא ירדו עליה גשמים דכתיב והמטרתי על עיר אחת וכו' וברש"י כגון שהמטיר בעיר זו ובחבירתה לא המטיר דקללה היא. ובהמשך מבואר דגם העיירות שמסביב מתענות והטעם כתב רש"י כיוון שאותה העיר שלא ירדו עליה גשמים תלך לקנות באותה העיר ויהיה רעב.
.
מבואר דבעיר שירד גשמים כן יהיה תבואה אלא שמתענים מהחשש שהעיר שלא ירד עליה גשמים יקנו התבואה ויהיה רעב. ולכאורה תמוה דמפורש בגמרא לעיל ו' ע"ב על האי משנה דשתיהן לקללה וביאר שם רש"י מפני שרוב גשמים קלקלו תבואתם. דהיינו דגם בעיר שירד שם גשמים אין תבואה כפשוטו כיוון שנתקלקל מרוב גשמים. ונראה סתירה. ויותר מזה ששם לעיל בגמרא מפורש שר' חסדא אומר שגשמים שירדו על מקצת מדינה אין בהם משום ועצר ופרש"י כיוון שהמקצת שירד עליו גשמים יספק לכל המדינה. ובמשנה הכא ממש להיפך שחוששים שלא יהיה מספיק. ואין לתרץ ולומר שתלוי אם יש מספיק כדי לספק לכל הסביבה או לא דאם זה החילוק מדוע הגמרא שם לא תירצה ששניהם לקללה באופן שאין מספיק תבואה לכל המדינה.
.
ונראה לי שרש"י בדף כ' ע"א בא לתרץ כל זה באומרו על מימרא דרב יהודה ששתיהן לקללה דקאי על הפסוק. משמע שבפסוק הפשט דגם היכא שירד גשמים אין תבואה דנתקלקל מרוב גשמים אך במשנה לומד אפילו כשלא התקלקל. אך צ"ע ומה אם רב חסדא שביאר באין בהם משום ועצר ועוד מדוע רש"י לא מפרש כפשוטו במשנה ג"כ. דהיינו פשוטו היה כך דשתיהן לקללה דהיכא שירד גשמים היה יותר מדאי והתקלקל והיכא שלא ירד גשמים מתריעין מיד ולא מחכים לסדר הי"ג דעצם זה שיורד באופן משונה מראה שיש פה קללה ולא סתם עיכוב גשמים. אנא האירו עיני.

going back - ashes and dirt

מה שביאר ר' אבי לגבי רש"י באפר מקלה. שביאר שאפילו למ"ד שעפר סתם עדיין עדיף אפר כיוון שהוא יותר גנאי יש לכאורה לדון בזה. דהמעיין ברש"י ריש טז ע"א משמע שלאדם חשוב ששמים עליו אפר הוא מתבייש מזה אך לאדם פשוט משמע שאין בכלל בושה. ןמדוייק שע"ז מקשה הגמרא שא"כ מה בכלל הענין של אפר באדם רגיל וע"ז יש שתי טעמים בגמרא. יוצא שיש שני דינין באפר ־ על הנשיא ואב ב"ד ועל אדם רגיל. ולפ"ז מה שרש"י אומר במשנה שיש יותר גנאי באפר מאשר עפר זה אולי רק לנשיא שאצלו זה דין של בושה אך לאדם רגיל שדין האפר או מדין העקידה או מדין שחשובין כעפר לא מוכח שיש דין לכתחילה של אפר. כ"ז מהחברותא שלי נ"י

Ta'anis 18b - G-d's Executioner

Famous question of Rambam (Teshuva 6:5) - Why did g-d punish mitzraim, they acted as his agents to make the Jews suffer. Rambam says that Hashem was gozer on the nation not an individual. Ramban (lech licha 15:14) says that they were more oppressive than Hashem's decree. The Ra'avad says that in the larger plan G-d always uses wicked people to carry out wickedness and then punishes them for the wickedness they carried out. The Ramban also echoes this idea (although he doesn't seem to use it as an explanation for mitzrayim) "if it is decreed against a man on Y.K. to be killed, the thieves who murder him have cannot defend themselves by saying they did what was decreed against him, bec. although the victim was killed for his sin, his blood will be revenged from the killer".

The source of this yesod is the story of Turaynos. Lulaynos and Papus say to him that we are guilty of dying for our sins. Nevertheless, our blood will be revenged and you will be punished for being G-d's agent to murder us.

Ta'anis 18a - Chizuk for a Biblical Yom Tov

בתענית יז: קפריך מה הרויחו במה דאתותב יום דתמידא בא' ניסן הא בלא"ה אסור משום ר"ח, ומשני שעשו כן כדי לאסור אף יום שלפניו, דנהי דר"ח דאורייתא וא"צ חיזוק מ"מ יו"ט דרבנן שלהם צריכה חיזוק. וכעי"ז קאמר גבי פסח דקפריך למה לי עד סוף מועד לימא עד המועד ומועד גופיה יו"ט הוא, ומשני דאתותב חגא דשבועיא בפסח כדי לאסור יום שלאחריו. ונהי דפסח גופיה דאורייתא וא"צ חיזוק מ"מ יו"ט דרבנן שלהם צריכה חיזוק.
והנה, עצם היסוד דיו"ט שיש בו כעין ב' קדושות אחת שצריכה חיזוק ואחת שא"צ חיזוק, אכתי ראוי לאסור שלפניו ושלאחריו מחמת היו"ט שצריכה חיזוק, כבר חידש כן השאג"א (ס' ק"ב) והביא ראיה מגמ' דידן וגם מהגמ' בר"ה יט. אכן, העיר הר' יעקב בן-זקן (בבית מדרשנו בפאלא אלטא) דעיקר פירכת הש"ס היא, אמאי תקנו יו"ט דדבריהם בא' ניסן ובחג הפסח כיון דבלא"ה אסור, ומאי קמשני שעשו כן כדי לאסור יום שלפניו ויום שלאחריו, והא עד כאן לא קאמר השאג"א אלא דבמקום שהיו צריכים לתקן יו"ט דדבריהם איום שכבר אסור מדאורייתא, החמירו כאילו אין כאן יו"ט דאורייתא ואסרו שלפניו ושלאחריו, מ"מ אין זה מספיק לפרש אמאי הוצרכו לגזור משום יו"ט דדבריהם כלל ביום שכבר אסור מדאורייתא.
ונראה דמוכח מהש"ס דכדי להאלים ולחזק יו"ט דדבריהם תקנו בדוקא שתהא יו"ט דדבריהם בימים האסורים כבר מדאורייתא כדי לאסור שלפניו ושלאחריו ולהראות שיו"ט שלהם חזקה היא. נמצינו למדים דכשתקנו יו"ט דדבריהם מעיקרא, כללו בו אף יו"ט דאורייתא כדי לאסור יום שלפניו ושלאחריו רק כדי להראות כח תקנתם.

Ta'anis 18 - Public Protests

In the story of the 28th day of adar, they were advised to make a public protest at night and cry out "aren't we brothers, from one father and mother...". Rashi in Ta'anis seems to understand that this was done as a tefillah to Hashem. However, rashi in R"H seems to understand that it was directed toward seeking compassion from their oppressors, that is why they protested at night which was a time they would be heard by the officers ("b'cho Tichbeh b'layla" - maharsha r"h). Tosafos seems to say both.

Also the Maharsha points out that the intention of the decree was to break down the barriers that separate us from them i.e. torah, shabbos, milah. Our response was to pretend to express our "closeness" to them like being brothers...

This is similar to Ya'akov Avinu's encounter with eisav where he feared the attack and feared equally the brotherly love (beis haleivi - "hatzileini na m'yad achi, myad eisav"). He prepared himself by davening (like rashi in Ta'anis), and by sending gifts to appease and invoke the compassion of the enemy (like rashi in Rosh Hashana). - War was probably not a viable option!

Ta'anis 15a - Moving a Sefer Torah

I am copying and pasting a comment that was put under the kohanim discussion from avromi (dafnotes.blogspot.com) as a seperate post in order to keep the blog more organized.

When they would move the Aron out to the middle of the public square, it was only done during the week, but was moved back inside for Shabbos, right? I thought the halacha was that when the Aron was moved, the Torah needed to be used 3 times before it could be moved again, so how could they move it outside for only Monday / Thursday?This from one of my readers

Thanks

when love isn't appropiate

Rashi brings that when fighting about the date of the omer the tzdokim were stumped as rav yochanan asked them why should it be sunday. until some old man answered that Moshe Rabeni was a lover of the jewish people and he wanted shvuos to be 2 days and therefor made it always on a sunday.
just found it interesting that things don't change. how many times in history did people offer a compromise or other nonsense for the sake of Ahavas Yisroel!
Yossie (hakohen, perhaps great grandson of Pinchas...)
so when do we bend and when don't we...

Ta'anis 17a - Kohanim Drinking Wine

We pasken like Rebbi that kohanim can drink wine. However, there is a machlokes rashi and rabbeinu chananel to explain rebbi. Rashi explains that even a kohein who nows exactly his mishmar and bais av is allowed to drink wine, but Rabbeinu Chananel says that he is only arguing on the last situation when he doesn't know his mishmar and bais av. This machlokes is also an argument between the Ramabam (bias mikdash 1:7) who says like Rabbeinu Chananel that a kohein who knows his beis av cannot drink wine that day, and if he only knows his mishmar he can't drink wine the whole week, and the Ra'avad says like rashi that any kohein may drink wine.

Rashi/ra'avad seem to be gores "kilkalaso takanaso", meaning that the amount of time that elapsed that would be assur to drink (kilkalaso) is indicative of not having to be concerned for the imminent building of the bais hamikdash (takanaso). However, the girsa in our gemara and the Rambam is "takanaso kilkalaso" which is explained by the maharsha (chidushei agados) to mean that his takana to be able to drink wine which is not knowing his beis av and mishmar, is kilkalaso that perhaps he is not a kohein at all and can drink wine always - to the exclusion of a kohein who knows his mishmar and/or beis av who cannot drink wine on that day/week.

The difficulty with rashi is that we come out paskening like rebbi that we are not concerned for the rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdash. This is addressed by the Ra'avad that even if we assume it will be build imminently, the restoration of the mishmaros and beis av will take some time.

Har Hamoriya

Acc. to the man damar that its called har hamoriya because sheyatza memenu hora leyisroel. Rashi quotes the pasuk ki metziyon tezea torah and says the lishkas hagazis was there shebah amdo neviyim hamochichim leyisroel. Why does rashi not say pashut, that the torah comes from the bais din who gives psak? why does he have to say this idea of the neviyim giving mussar to klal yisreol and call that the torah that comes from tziyon?

Ta'anis 16a - Dirt and Goyim

The gemara gives 2 rationales for placing ash on their heads: 1. we are like ash. 2. to remember the akeida. Acc. to the 1st rationale dirt would work, but not acc. to second.

This seems to contradict rashi in the mishna 15a who says that we use ash rather than dirt bec. it is more degrading than dirt (this explanation is for the 1st rationale). But, the gemara implies that the only advantage of ash is acc. to the rationale of the akeida?

Clearly, rashi learns that even acc. to the 1st rationale ash is preferable bec. it is more degrading, but if you don't have ash, then acc. to 1st rationale use dirt, acc. to 2nd rationale use nothing (Tosafos also does not seem to understand this to be a typical "ika beinayhu").

It seems that rashi goes li'shitaso:

The gemara gives 2 rationales for going to the cemetery: 1. we are like the dead. 2. we beseech the dead to pray for us. According to the 1st rationale we can go to a non-jewish cemetery, but acc. to 2nd rationale it must be a jewish cemetery (and preferable tzadikim!). Rashi 16a d.h. kivrei, implies that acc. to everyone, a jewish cemetery is preferable. Rashi understands that the "ika beinayhu" of the non-jewish cemetery is only if there is no Jewish cemetery, similar to the "ika beinayhu" of the dirt is only if there is no ash.

The rashash seems to indicate this entire vort in a few words.

Ta'anis 15a - Fumbling the Davening

There is a Rashi on this Mishna which I believe is widely misunderstood. The Gemorah says that a "ragil" should lead the davening on the Ta'anis. Rashi defines a "ragil" as one who has the nusach down pat and won't fumble the davening. Our desire for such a chazzan, Rashi says, is based on the Mishna in Brachos 44b which states that when a chazzan errs it is a "siman ra" for the tzibur.
At first brush one would assume that Rashi's meaning is that we opt for a ragil in order to avoid the siman ra. This, of course, is untenable. As the Mishna in Brachos makes clear, the siman ra is Min HaShamayim and is unavoidable. The Mishna illustrates this with R. Chanina ben Dosa who knew in advance whether his tefillos were accepted by how well he was able to articulate the tefillah. So what does rashi mean when he says we want a ragil because fumbling is a siman ra?
I believe the answer is this: We want a ragil in order to identify a siman ra. If our chazzan is not a ragil then we can never know if his being toeh was a siman ra or just the natural result of his inexperience. When a ragil messes up, then we know.

ashes on the aron kodesh - Tzaar Hashchina

גמרא טז ע"א ולמה נותנין אפר מקלה ע"ג תיבה אמר רבי יהודה בן פזי כלומר עמו אנכי בצרה ריש לקיש אמר בכל צרתם לו צר
הבית הלוי בח"א דרוש ז' מפרש את החילוק בין שני הפסוקים (וכמעט מפורש במכילתא בא שמביא שם) דעמו אנכי בצרה משמע אפילו בצער דיחיד אך לר"ל שלומד מבכל צרתם זהו רק בצערא דציבור ומה שכתוב עמו אנכי וכו' מפרש ר"ל כפשוטו דאיירי שה' יושיע אותו
ולפ"ז מפרש דברי הגמרא במגילה ל"א לגבי דאין מפסיקין בקללות דריש לקיש ביאר שם שהטעם שאין פוסקין בקללות (דתורת כהנים) כיוון שאין אומרים ברכה על הפורענות וביאר שם התוספות דהטעם דהקב"ה בצער ולא ראוי שיהא מתברך והקשה שם הר"ן והרי הדין שכשם שמברכין על הטוב כך על הרע ומדוע שלא יתברך. וע"ז מתרץ הבית הלוי שר"ל לשיטתו שצער השכינה שייך רק ברבים ולא ביחיד וא"כ האי דינא דמברכין על הרע שייך רק ביחיד כשאין צער שכינה.
ע"ש דלא הארכתי לצטט אותו ורק מראה מקום אני לך