(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)
_________________________________________________________________
INSIGHTS INTO THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.dafyomi.co.il
_________________________________________________________________
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
MOED KATAN 23 (14 Nisan) - Dedicated by Mr. D. Kornfeld, l'Iluy Nishmas
his grandmother, Chayah bas Aryeh Leib Shpira (nee Sole), on the day of
her Yahrzeit.
NOW AVAILABLE!
THE NEWEST HARDCOVER EDITION OF "INSIGHTS TO THE DAF"
Masechtos Moed Katan and Chagigah in one volume! To order, write to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Moed Katan 21
1) HALACHAH: TEACHING TORAH DURING AVEILUS
OPINIONS: The Beraisa states that although an Avel is not allowed to
learn Torah during his Aveilus, if the public needs him ("Rabim
Tzerichim Lo") he may teach Torah to them. The Gemara says that Rebbi
Yosi indeed taught Torah publicly when he was an Avel, as did Rabah bar
bar Chanah and Rebbi Yehudah bar Ila'i.
Is this Halachah still practiced today? May a person who is an Avel
teach Torah if the public needs him?
(a) The SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 384:1) rules that an Avel whom the public
needs is permitted to teach Torah. The SHACH adds in the name of the
KOLBO and the MAHARSHAL (Teshuvos #66) that "Melamdei Tinokos," teachers
of children, are considered to be providers of a public need and
therefore may teach even during their period of Aveilus.
(b) The REMA, however, adds two limitations to the allowance for an Avel
to teach publicly. He rules, based on the MORDECHAI, that a Talmid
Chacham who is an Avel may teach Torah to the public only by whispering
to a "Turgeman" who then expounds the Talmid Chacham's words to the
public. The Talmid Chacham is not allowed to lecture directly to the
public.
The Rema also rules that a Talmid Chacham is permitted to teach only
*Halachos* in public, and only when no one else is capable of issuing a
Halachic ruling. He may not expound on non-Halachic matters which the
students do not need to know in order to conduct themselves properly in
practice.
According to the Rema, why is a Melamed Tinokos who is an Avel permitted
to teach children? He fulfills neither of the Rema's requirements: he
does not use a "Turgeman," and he does not issue Halachic rulings when
he teaches.
Some Acharonim (see BE'ER HA'GOLAH) have a different Girsa in the words
of the Rema, according to which he permits an Avel to teach to the
public without a "Turgeman." Even according to the Girsa in our texts,
this limitation perhaps applied only in the days when it was common to
use a "Turgeman," and for the types of learning for which a "Turgeman"
was usually used.
The MAHARSHAL explains that although the Melamed Tinokos does not issue
Halachic rulings when he teaches the children, he is aware of the
significant responsibility that he bears and he does not derive pleasure
from the Torah he teaches. Since the prohibition against learning or
teaching Torah during Aveilus is because of the pleasure one experiences
from Torah, the Melamed Tinokos is permitted to teach.
Another reason for why a Melamed Tinokos is permitted to teach the
children is because his teaching is considered a "Davar ha'Aved," and an
Avel is permitted to do a Melachah for a Davar ha'Aved after the third
day of his Aveilus. Indeed, the TAZ rules that a Melamed Tinokos may
teach the children only after the third day of his Aveilus.
If the Melamed Tinokos or Talmid Chacham does not *want* to teach during
his Aveilus, he certainly is not required to teach. The Gemara says only
that he "does not have to refrain" from teaching, but not that he is
obligated to teach (SHEVET YEHUDAH).
21b----------------------------------21b
2) HALACHAH: GREETING AN AVEL
OPINIONS: The Gemara concludes that one should not greet an Avel with
"Shalom" until thirty days have passed since the beginning of his
Aveilus. If the Avel is mourning for the passing of his father or
mother, one should not greet him until twelve months have passed.
What is the Halachah in practice today?
(a) The RITVA and CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN write that they have not seen this
Halachah observed, but that they do not know why it is not observed.
The SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 385:1) quotes the Halachah as recorded in the
Gemara and writes that greeting an Avel with "Shalom" is prohibited.
(b) The REMA (YD 385:1), however, writes that people are generally
lenient and greet a person who is an Avel for a parent after thirty days
(and if he is an Avel for a relative other than a parent, after seven
days; DARCHEI MOSHE). The Rema suggests that the reason why the
prohibition against greeting an Avel as recorded in the Gemara is not
practiced today is that the form of greeting common in the times of the
Gemara differed from the form of greeting which is common today. The
DARCHEI MOSHE (OC 89) explains that in the times of the Gemara, when
they greeted each other with "Shalom Aleichem," they also bowed down.
The Gemara prohibits extending only that form of greeting to an Avel.
Today's form of greeting -- merely saying "Shalom Aleichem" without
bowing down -- is permitted.
HALACHAH: The SHACH and MAGEN AVRAHAM (OC 554:21) write that
l'Chatchilah a person should be stringent and observe the Halachah as it
is recorded in the Gemara, but if someone acts leniently he does not
have to be rebuked.
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)
_________________________________________________________________
INSIGHTS INTO THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.dafyomi.co.il
_________________________________________________________________
Moed Katan 22
1) JOINING THE SHIV'AH-COUNT OF THE REST OF THE FAMILY
QUESTION: The Gemara (end of 21b) teaches that if a number of family
members became Aveilim and started to observe the seven days of Shiv'ah,
and another family member -- who was not with them when they started
sitting Shiv'ah -- finds out about the death only later, when he comes
to join them he may start counting the days of his Shiv'ah from the day
on which the others started (and he does not have to sit a full seven
days). However, this allowance applies only if three conditions are met:
1. The "Gadol ha'Bayis" (the senior member of the household) is one of
those who started sitting Shiv'ah in the home earlier.
2. The Avel who comes later was in a place *near* the location of the
other Aveilim when they started sitting Shiv'ah. (TOSFOS (DH Makom)
explains that this means within a distance of ten Parsa'os, or one day's
journey.)
3. Rebbi Shimon, whom the Halachah follows, says that the one who comes
later may arrive as late as the seventh day of the Aveilus and still
count his Aveilus according to the count of the members of the
household, but *only* if he arrives at the house of the Aveilim while
visitors are present and comforting the mourners. If he arrives after
the visitors have left and the other mourners have arisen from the
Shiv'ah, he must begin his seven days of Aveilus at that point and he
may not follow the count of the other Aveilim.
The Gemara here (22a) discusses a situation in which the Gadol ha'Bayis
goes to bury the deceased relative while the other mourners return home
before the burial. Those who return home early begin sitting Shiv'ah as
soon as they part with the funeral procession, and the one who remains
to bury the deceased begins his Shiv'ah only at the time of the actual
burial ("Setimas ha'Golel"). The Gemara asks: when the Gadol ha'Bayis
returns home and joins the other Aveilim, does he follow the count of
those at home or does he count his own days of Aveilus from when the
burial was completed?
The Gemara concludes that the count of Shiv'ah of the Gadol ha'Bayis
depends on when he joins the others. If he joins them during the first
three days, he finishes with them, but if he joins them after the first
three days, he counts seven days of his own.
What is the Gemara's question? The Gemara earlier says that everyone
follows the Gadol ha'Bayis. Why should the Gemara now consider that the
Gadol ha'Bayis follows the count of everyone else? Moreover, if the
Gadol ha'Bayis does follow everyone else, why should his count depend on
whether he returns during the first three days? The Halachah is in
accordance with the view of Rebbi Shimon who maintains that even a
brother who joins the other Aveilim on the *seventh* day joins their
count of Shiv'ah.
ANSWERS:
(a) The Rishonim offer different explanations for the Gemara (see Tosfos
DH d'Asa). The BA'AL HA'ME'OR, RA'AVAD, and others explain that although
the Gadol ha'Bayis normally does not join the count of the younger
family members, in this case the Gadol ha'Bayis follows their count
because he was together with them when they were first informed of the
death. He was delayed from starting the count with them only because he
was busy with the burial. Therefore, if he returns home within three
days, he may count the seven days of Shiv'ah together with those who
started the Shiv'ah earlier. (Whether the cemetery was nearby or far
away makes no difference.) Any other Avel who arrives also joins their
count, since the Gadol ha'Bayis has the same count. If, however, three
days or more pass before the Gadol ha'Bayis returns home, that amount of
time is considered a significant interruption and the Gadol ha'Bayis who
was delayed at the burial must count his Shiv'ah separately from those
at home who started earlier.
In contrast, in the previous case of the Gemara the Gadol ha'Bayis is
unable to join the count of the other Aveilim because he did not even
know about the Aveilus when they started to sit Shiv'ah.
This is also the view of the RAMBAN (in TORAS HA'ADAM and MILCHAMOS),
who adds two important points. He adds that this Halachah applies not
only to the Gadol ha'Bayis who stays at the burial longer than the
others, but even to a younger member of the household who stays longer
and returns after three days -- that mourner does not count with the
others. Since he knew about the death and the burial but was unable to
start the Shiv'ah with the other mourners because he was involved with
the burial, he may not join the count of the Gadol ha'Bayis if he
returns home after three days.
The Ramban also adds that the opinion of the RIF is that even if the
person who remained at the burial returns home after three days, he may
join his brothers' count as long as he returns before the end of *seven*
days, before the visitors leave. The reason why the Gemara mentions
"three days" here is because it follows the opinion of the Tana Kama
(21b) who says that one may join the count of the Gadol ha'Bayis only if
he returns home within three days. According to this understanding, it
emerges that one's involvement with the burial allows him to join his
relatives' count even if the Gadol ha'Bayis is not at home; his
involvement with the burial removes that requirement.
(b) Other Rishonim, including the RIVA cited by the RITVA, maintain that
a person may join the count of the other Aveilim only if he did not know
about the Aveilus until he joined them. If he already started the count
of Shiv'ah from a separate day (when he found out about the death)
before he joined them, then he may not assume their count when he joins
them. Since he started his own count, he must continue it. Similarly,
when the Gadol ha'Bayis stays until the end of the burial he must start
his count immediately from that point. Consequently, when he returns to
his family he may not join their count and ignore the count he already
started. Since he started his count on a different day, he may not join
the count of his relatives.
According to this understanding, the Gemara does not refer to the Gadol
ha'Bayis who returns home, but to another relative who comes to join the
family during the Aveilus. Normally, another relative who did not know
about the death until he joined the others does *not* join their count
unless the Gadol ha'Bayis is there. However, if the Gadol ha'Bayis was
present at the time the family found out about the death, and now he is
not at home because he is busy with the burial, if the newcomer arrives
at the home within three days of the start of the Aveilus (when the
Gadol ha'Bayis is not there) he may join the count of the other
mourners, since the Gadol ha'Bayis was with them when they found out
about the death. If more than three days have passed, the newcomer may
not join their count, since the Gadol ha'Bayis is not there. The Gadol
ha'Bayis himself, however, certainly counts from a different day (from
when the burial was completed).
(According to the Riva, the newcomer does not join the count of the
Gadol ha'Bayis but rather the count of the *house* of the Gadol
ha'Bayis, which might differ from the count of the Gadol ha'Bayis.)
(c) The TOSFOS HA'ROSH in the name of "others" offers a third
explanation. He bases his explanation on the assumption of the Riva that
if the Gadol ha'Bayis begins his count from a separate day, he may no
longer join the other Aveilim under any circumstances. However, the
Tosfos ha'Rosh does not accept the proposal of the Riva that a newcomer
may join the count of the other Aveilim as long as he arrives within
three days of the Gadol ha'Bayis' departure, if the Gadol ha'Bayis
himself counts a different count. The Tosfos ha'Rosh explains instead
that the Gadol ha'Bayis who went to the cemetery did *not* go to bury
the deceased (in which case he would start his count from the end of the
burial and not from the time the other brothers started their count).
Rather, he went later in the day *after* the burial was finished in
order to build a gravestone for the deceased or to be involved in other
needs of the deceased.
In such a case, the Gadol ha'Bayis certainly counts like the other
Aveilim, since he began with them. The newcomer who arrives after the
Gadol ha'Bayis has left the house is considered as though he joins the
Gadol ha'Bayis (and joins the count of the other relatives) only when he
arrives within three days of the Gadol ha'Bayis' departure. However, if
three days have passed from the time the Gadol ha'Bayis left the house,
the newcomer joins a house of Aveilim which does *not* include the Gadol
ha'Bayis, and thus he follows his own count.
HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (375:8) makes no mention of the Halachah in
the case of the Gadol ha'Bayis who went to the cemetery, since the RIF
and RAMBAM omit it. The REMA, however, cites the opinion of the BA'AL
HA'ME'OR (in (a) above) who rules that when the Gadol ha'Bayis goes to
the cemetery to bury the deceased and returns within three days, both he
and any other newcomers who arrive (from a nearby place) join the count
of the other Aveilim.
The SHACH (12 and 13) rules in accordance with the addition of the
RAMBAN (mentioned in the end of (a) above) that if the Gadol ha'Bayis
returns home even within *seven* days, he and any newcomers (from a
nearby place) who arrive join the count of the other Aveilim. He also
rules in accordance with the "others" cited by the Rosh (in (c) above),
that if the Gadol ha'Bayis started to count with the others and then
went to the cemetery to take care of the needs of the deceased, any
relative who joins the Aveilim during the first three days after the
Gadol ha'Bayis' departure joins the count of the Aveilim, as though the
Gadol ha'Bayis was still there.
22b----------------------------------22b
2) HALACHAH: TEARING KERI'AH AT THE EDGE OF THE GARMENT
OPINIONS: The Gemara says that for relatives other than one's parents,
an Avel may choose to tear before the edge of the garment ("Kamei
Safah") or not to tear there. When he tears Keri'ah for the death of a
parent, however, he *must* tear before the edge of the garment.
What does the expression "before the edge of the garment" mean?
(a) RASHI explains that "before the edge of the garment" refers to the
stitching around the collar. By tearing "before the edge," the Avel
starts the tear before the edge of the stitching and continues the tear
downward, so that he does not tear the stitching itself. Rashi explains
that the reason one must tear in this manner when he is an Avel for a
parent is because the tear is more noticeable when the stitching is not
ripped. If the stitching is ripped, it simply looks like a wider collar
and not like a tear.
(b) RASHI on the RIF and others give the opposite explanation. Tearing
"before the edge of the garment" does not mean that one tears below the
stitching. Rather, it means that for a parent, one begins the tear from
*outside* of the stitching and continues to tear *through* the
stitching. They explain that the tear is more noticeable when it goes
through the stitching, because then the garment comes apart. When one
tears the garment only below the stitching, the tear is not as
noticeable because the garment itself remains fully intact (and merely
has a tear).
HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 340:12) cites the explanation of Rashi
on the Rif and rules that for the death of a parent one must tear
through the stitching so that the tear will be more noticeable. The REMA
rules in accordance with the stringent view of Rebbi Yehudah who argues
with this Tana and says that even for relatives other than one's parents
one must tear through the stitching (this ruling is based on the
MORDECHAI).
In practice, the members of the Chevra Kadisha usually cut with a knife
through the stitching and then let the Avel tear the rest of the
Keri'ah. Although the Gemara says that one must tear Keri'ah with one's
hand and not with a utensil, the practice is to be lenient for the
beginning of the tear, presumably because the tear made in the stitching
is not part of the Keri'ah but is done merely in order that the Keri'ah
of the rest of the garment be more noticeable.
(The BACH cites the explanation of Rashi in the Gemara, that one should
tear Keri'ah without the stitching when he tears for the death of a
parent. The Bach concludes that one should be stringent l'Chatchilah. He
apparently means that one should tear twice, once in the manner
described by Rashi on the Gemara and once in the manner described by
Rashi on the Rif.)
3) ON WHICH SIDES ARE THE ACTS OF "CHOLETZ" AND "KERI'AH" PERFORMED?
QUESTION: The Gemara explains that for the death of a Chacham, one is
Choletz with his right arm (that is, he bares his right shoulder by
placing his right arm through the top of his shirt). For the death of an
Av Beis Din (who is considered more prominent than a Chacham), one is
Choletz with the left arm.
Why is the act of Choletz with the left arm considered a greater sign of
respect than with the right arm?
ANSWERS:
(a) The RITVA and TALMID RABEINU YECHIEL write that the reason the act
of Choletz with the left arm is considered a greater sign of respect is
because, in the times of the Gemara, the people wore their robes draped
mostly over the left shoulder. By removing one's left shoulder, one
would expose more of his upper body than by removing his right shoulder.
(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Avel 9:2-3) rules that for the death of an Av
Beis Din or a Nasi one must rend his garment until he reveals his heart.
The MISHNEH L'MELECH and others are perplexed as to the Rambam's source
for such a ruling. The Gemara here cannot be the source because the
Gemara implies that the laws of Aveilus for a Nasi are not the same as
the laws of Aveilus for a parent, with the exception of the Halachah
that one may not mend the tear by sewing it. What is the Rambam's source
for ruling that one must rend his garment for the death of an Av Beis
Din or a Nasi until he reveals his heart?
Perhaps the Rambam understands that the reason for tearing Keri'ah on
the left side is in order to reveal one's heart. The Poskim (BACH YD
340, MAGEN AVRAHAM OC 561:4) rule that one should tear his garment on
the left side for the death of a parent. The tear should be on the left
side in order to reveal one's heart, which is on the left.
Accordingly, the Rambam understands that when the Gemara says that one
is Choletz for an Av Beis Din on the left side, it means that he must he
rend his garment on the left side. "Choletz" means, as the RIF explains,
that one then puts his shoulder and arm through the tear that he made in
the garment. Thus, when the Gemara says that one is Choletz on the left
side for an Av Beis Din and a Nasi, it means that one also *tears* on
the left side. This is the source for the Rambam's ruling. (M. Kornfeld)
HALACHAH: The Poskim rule that nowadays there is no requirement for an
Avel to be Choletz (RITVA) because such an act would provoke the Nochrim
to mock the Jews. This is the ruling of the REMA (YD 340:17).
The ARUCH HA'SHULCHAN gives another reason for why one is not Choletz
today. Today's clothing differs from that worn in the times of the
Gemara. Since jackets and shirts (button-down) today are open in the
front, those garments would fall off if the Avel would be Choletz, and
the Avel would be disgraced. In such a situation it is assumed that the
deceased certainly forgoes the honor of having the Avel be Choletz for
him.
With regard to Keri'ah, the practice is to perform Keri'ah on the left
side, over the heart, for a parent, and for other relatives on the right
side (MAHARSHAL, cited by the BACH). The Poskim (in YD 340:9) write that
if a person tore on the wrong side, he does not have to tear again.
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)
_________________________________________________________________
INSIGHTS INTO THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.dafyomi.co.il
_________________________________________________________________
Moed Katan 23
1) LEARNING TORAH IN THE HOUSE OF AN AVEL
QUESTION: The Beraisa (22b) states that when a Nasi dies, all of the
learning in all of the study halls ceases in respect for the Nasi. The
Beraisa continues (23a) and says that in the house of an Avel, words of
"Shemu'ah" and "Agadah" (Halachic teachings and Agadic teachings) are
not spoken. The Beraisa adds that Rebbi Chananyah ben Gamliel maintains
that words of "Shemu'ah" and "Agadah" may be spoken.
Why does Rebbi Chananyah ben Gamliel permit the learning of "Shemu'ah"
and "Agadah" in the house of an Avel? The Gemara (15a, 21a) states
clearly that an Avel may not learn Torah during Aveilus.
Moreover, why does the Beraisa single out these two areas of learning,
"Shemu'ah" and "Agadah," when it says that Torah may not be learned in
the house of an Avel? The Beraisa earlier (21a) records a lengthy list
of all of the areas of Torah learning which are prohibited for an Avel.
Why does the Beraisa here not mention all of them, as the Beraisa
earlier does?
ANSWERS:
(a) The RAMBAN (in TORAS HA'ADAM) explains that the Beraisa here refers
to learning Torah in the house of an Avel *on Shabbos*. On Shabbos, an
Avel is not permitted to observe any public practices of Aveilus. The
Beraisa teaches that although an Avel may not observe Aveilus in public,
he must refrain from learning these two parts of Torah. Rebbi Chananyah
permits him to learn these parts of Torah on Shabbos because he
maintains that refraining from learning them is considered a public act
of Aveilus. Everyone agrees that if a practical Halachic question
arises, the Avel is permitted to teach the Halachah.
(b) The RAMBAN gives a second answer. He says that the "Beis ha'Avel"
mentioned in the Beraisa refers to the study halls mentioned earlier in
the Beraisa, which must cease all learning activity at the death of the
Nasi. The Beraisa now adds that not only is the regular Torah learning
stopped as a sign of mourning for the Nasi, but the Talmidim may not
even learn areas of Torah which do not require deep analysis and are not
usually learned in the study halls. Rebbi Chananyah says that these
areas of Torah may be learned in the study halls during the mourning for
the Nasi.
(c) The SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 378:7) cites the ruling of the Gemara as the
Halachah. It is evident from the context of his words that he
understands that the Gemara refers neither to Shabbos nor to the study
halls of the Nasi, but to the home of an individual Avel. The SHEVET
YEHUDAH explains that the Shulchan Aruch maintains that the Beraisa does
not refer to what the Avel himself may or may not learn; the Avel
himself certainly is prohibited from learning Torah. Rather, the Beraisa
refers to others who come to visit the Avel. When they talk among each
other, they may not talk words of Torah, even matters of "Shemu'ah" and
"Agadah."
HALACHAH: The common practice today is to learn Mishnayos in the home of
the Avel, in the merit of ("l'Iluy Nishmas") the departed relative. The
Poskim write that this is a commendable practice. The NETZIV (Meshiv
Davar 5:56) explains at length that since the Mishnayos are learned for
the benefit of the soul of the departed, it certainly is permitted. The
Avel himself, however, should not listen, because he is not permitted to
learn. (If possible, the Avel should go into another room while the
others who have come to comfort the mourner learn the Mishnayos together
l'Iluy Nishmas the deceased.) In addition, the Talmidim of the deceased
should not be the ones who learn Mishnayos, because the Gemara says that
the Talmidim must refrain from learning.
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)
_________________________________________________________________
INSIGHTS INTO THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.dafyomi.co.il
_________________________________________________________________
Moed Katan 24
1) "ATIFAS HA'ROSH" OF AN AVEL ON SHABBOS
QUESTION: Shmuel maintains that in order to fulfill the obligation of
Atifas ha'Rosh, an Avel must wrap his head in the manner that Yishmaelim
do ("Atifas Yishmaelim"). The Gemara says that according to Shmuel, on
Shabbos an Avel is not permitted to walk around with Atifas ha'Rosh
because it constitutes an explicit act of Aveilus (which may not be
observed on Shabbos), as no one else walks around with his head
completely enwrapped. Rebbi Yochanan says that if the Avel wears shoes
when he walks around with his head enwrapped, the shoes give the
impression that he is not an Avel and thus he is permitted to walk
around with Atifas ha'Rosh.
RASHI (DH Ela) writes that if the Avel is wearing shoes, he may wrap his
head in private if he wants to, even in the manner of Atifas Yishmaelim.
The words of Rashi are difficult to understand. It is Rebbi Yochanan who
permits an Avel to wrap his head if he wears shoes. However, Rebbi
Yochanan is also the one who rules that an Avel must observe private
aspects of Aveilus on Shabbos, and thus he should require an Avel to
wrap his head when he is in private. Why, then, does Rashi say that if
the Avel *wants*, he may wrap his head in private, implying that he is
not *required* to do so? According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Avel is
required to wrap his head in private on Shabbos! Moreover, Rashi implies
that when the Avel does not wear shoes, he may not wrap his head even in
private. Rebbi Yochanan, however, requires an Avel to wrap his head in
private regardless of whether or not he wears shoes! (MAHARSHA)
Even if the statement that an Avel may wrap his head if he wears shoes
would have been made by an Amora other than Rebbi Yochanan, what
indication in the Gemara implies that an Avel may wrap his head on
Shabbos only in private if he wears shoes? The Gemara implies, to the
contrary, that even in *public* one may wrap his head as long as he
wears shoes.
ANSWER: In the PERUSH RABEINU GERSHOM ME'OR HA'GOLAH (on which the
commentary of Rashi in Moed Katan is based), these words do not appear
in the body of the commentary, but they appear as an addition in the
margin. Further examination shows that these words are actually a
verbatim quote from RABEINU CHANANEL (from the words "Aval l'Galos"
until the end of Rashi's comment). The beginning of the quote from
Rabeinu Chananel actually begins in the preceding comment of Rashi (DH
Lo Shanu) from the words "b'Shabbos Tzarich l'Galos Chotmo," and the
quote continues into the next comment of Rashi (DH Ela).
>From the words as they appear in the commentary of Rabeinu Chananel, it
is clear that Rabeinu Chananel does not refer to an Avel who wears
shoes, and, moreover, he does not refer to the opinion of Shmuel
altogether. Rather, these words are part of Rabeinu Chananel's Halachic
summary of the Gemara, and they express the opinion of Rav, not Shmuel.
(See also the text of Rabeinu Chananel as printed from manuscript by Rav
David Metzger.)
Rabeinu Chananel rules that although Rav does not require that an Avel
perform Atifas ha'Rosh in the manner of Atifas Yishmaelim, l'Chatchilah
he should perform it that way. With regard to an Avel on Shabbos,
Rabeinu Chananel understands that according to Shmuel, who requires an
Avel to perform Atifas Yishmaelim, the Chachamim suspended the
requirement for Atifah (and required the Avel to uncover his head) on
Shabbos so that the Avel not have the appearance of an Avel on Shabbos.
Since the Chachamim made it mandatory for the Avel to uncover his head
on Shabbos, they did not differentiate between an Avel in private and an
Avel in public. Therefore, even in private an Avel may not wrap his
head.
According to Rav, however, since an ordinary act of Atifah (as opposed
to Atifas Yishmaelim) also qualifies as Atifah for an Avel, and that
type of Atifah can be done inconspicuously on Shabbos even in public,
the Chachamim did not require that the Avel uncover his head on Shabbos.
Therefore, in private an Avel may wrap his head even with Atifas
Yishmaelim. In public, even Rav agrees that an Avel should not wrap his
head with Atifas Yishmaelim, because then he will stand out as an Avel.
This is the meaning of the words of Rashi here, which were erringly
printed as part of the explanation of the Gemara when they are actually
a Halachic summary (taken from the words of Rabeinu Chananel).
24b----------------------------------24b
2) WHY DOES SHAVUOS COUNT FOR SEVEN DAYS OF THE SHELOSHIM?
QUESTION: The Gemara teaches that if a person becomes an Avel one day
before the Yom Tov of Shavuos, with the passage of Shavuos it is
considered as though fourteen days of Aveilus have passed, and the Avel
counts only sixteen more days to complete his Sheloshim. This is because
the Yom Tov of Shavuos annuls the Shiv'ah (as the Mishnah says on 19a),
and thus the seven days of the Shiv'ah are considered as though they
have already passed. When Shavuos passes, it is considered as though
another seven days have passed, for Shavuos is a Yom Tov with the same
status as Pesach and Sukos (see RITVA), which last for seven days.
What is the basis for the second part of the Gemara's ruling, that one
day of Shavuos is considered like seven days? If Shavuos is considered
like seven days because it has six days of Tashlumin for its Korbanos
(Chagigah 17a), then why does the day of Shavuos itself count as seven
days, and the following six days count towards the Sheloshim? Those days
are being counted twice!
Furthermore, if, for some reason, a Yom Tov is considered like seven
days, then Sukos should count as 27 days (the first seven days of the
Shiv'ah are annulled by the Yom Tov, the first day of Yom Tov counts as
seven days, there are six days of Chol ha'Mo'ed, and, finally, the Yom
Tov of Shemini Atzeres counts as seven days, for a total of 27), and not
as 21 days as the Gemara says! Why do the six days of Chol ha'Mo'ed not
count towards the thirty days of the Sheloshim *by themselves*, like the
six days of Tashlumin which follow Shavuos? The Gemara says explicitly
(20a) that the entire festival, including Chol ha'Mo'ed, is included in
the count of thirty days of Sheloshim!
ANSWER: The TIFERES L'MOSHE (YD 399) suggests an ingenious solution. He
explains that during the times of the Beis ha'Mikdash, Shavuos was
considered a seven-day festival because of the six days of Tashlumin
that followed the Yom Tov. Those six days counted towards the thirty
days of Aveilus (as the Gemara says on 20a with regard to Chol
ha'Mo'ed). On the other hand, during those days of Tashlumin, an Avel
would not observe any of the laws of Sheloshim because the laws are
suspended during the festival. (This is based on the words of the TUR
(YD 399) in the name of the ROSH, who writes that an Avel is not allowed
to cut his hair or iron his clothes during Chol ha'Mo'ed -- *not*
because of the laws of Sheloshim but because of the laws of the
festival, as the Gemara says at the end of 19b. The other laws of
Sheloshim, such as wearing freshly pressed clothes, do not apply on Chol
ha'Mo'ed at all. The RAMBAN (in Toras ha'Adam), however, writes that all
of the laws of Sheloshim apply during the festival, and one may not wear
newly-ironed clothes on Chol ha'Mo'ed. The Tiferes l'Moshe suggests that
even the Ramban applies this ruling only in a case in which the death
occurred on the festival itself, in which case the festival does not
annul the Shiv'ah. In such a case, the restrictions of Sheloshim apply
not because those days are part of the Sheloshim, but because they are
part of the *Shiv'ah*. If, however, the death occurred before the
festival, and thus the festival annulled the Shiv'ah, then even the
Ramban agrees that the laws of Sheloshim are *not* observed during the
festival.)
Accordingly, during the times of the Beis ha'Mikdash an Avel gained
seven days during which he did not have to observe the laws of
Sheloshim, and yet those days still counted towards the thirty days. The
seven days that counted towards his Sheloshim comprised the one day of
Shavuos and the six days of Tashlumin that followed. When the Beis
ha'Mikdash was destroyed, the Chachamim did not want the Avel to lose
those days because of the Churban of the Beis ha'Mikdash, and therefore
they decreed that nowadays, too, the Avel subtracts seven days from the
count of thirty when Shavuos passes, and he observes seven days less of
Sheloshim. This is the intention of the Gemara here when it says that
Shavuos counts as seven days.
The Tiferes l'Moshe points out that this also explains why the days of
Chol ha'Mo'ed of Sukos and Pesach do not count towards Sheloshim by
themselves. Only the first day of Yom Tov counts as seven days, because
the only reason why a festival day should count as seven days is because
it has six days of Chol ha'Mo'ed that follow it. Thus, only when a Yom
Tov does not actually have any days of Chol ha'Mo'ed that follow it
(such as Shavuos) did the Chachamim give it a status of seven days by
itself.
Why, though, do each of the other single days of Yom Tov, such as
Shemini Atzeres, Rosh Hashanah, and Yom Kippur, count as seven days
towards the Sheloshim according to Raban Gamliel (whose opinion is the
Halachah)? Those days are not seven-day festivals, and during the times
of the Beis ha'Mikdash they were not followed by another six days of
Tashlumin. The RAMBAN explains that they nevertheless count as seven
days because the Torah compares all of the festivals to each other
(Shevuos 10a). Hence, since Shavuos counts as seven days even though it
is only a one-day festival, the other one-day festivals also count as
seven days even though they are not followed by days of Tashlumin.
3) ROSH HASHANAH COUNTS AS FOURTEEN DAYS
QUESTION: The Gemara concludes in accordance with the opinion of Raban
Gamliel (19a) that the day of Yom Tov annuls the Shiv'ah and removes
seven days from the Avel's observance of Sheloshim. The Yom Tov itself
counts as another seven days. Accordingly, Rav Papa states that if the
Aveilus begins one day before Rosh Hashanah, with the passage of Rosh
Hashanah it is considered as though fourteen days have passed: seven
days of the Shiv'ah which Rosh Hashanah annulled, and another seven days
towards the Sheloshim which the Yom Tov of Rosh Hashanah constitutes.
Ravina states that if the Aveilus begins a day before Sukos, with the
passage of Shemini Atzeres it is considered as though 21 days have
passed: the seven days of Shiv'ah which the first day of Yom Tov annuls,
the first day of Yom Tov itself which is counted as seven days towards
the Sheloshim, and Shemini Atzeres which is counted as another seven
days towards the Sheloshim.
Rav Papa emphasizes that Rosh Hashanah not only stops the Shiv'ah but
also counts as an additional seven days, and thus it counts as fourteen
days towards the Sheloshim. What, though, is Rav Papa's point? What
difference does it make that Rosh Hashanah counts as fourteen days
towards the Shiv'ah? In any case, Yom Kippur will arrive seven days
after Rosh Hashanah and annul the Sheloshim altogether! It does not
matter how many days of Sheloshim are left after Rosh Hashanah. (TOSFOS,
DH d'Rebbi Elazar)
(According to the opinion (on 19a) which maintains that Yom Kippur does
*not* annul the Sheloshim when the Avel does not shave before Yom
Kippur, the answer to this question is obvious: Rav Papa's statement
that Rosh Hashanah counts as fourteen days is relevant in a case in
which the Avel does not shave on Erev Yom Kippur and, consequently, he
needs to continue observing Sheloshim after Yom Kippur. In such a case,
Rosh Hashanah counts as fourteen days of the Sheloshim. However, the
Gemara there (19b) concludes that, contrary to this opinion, even if the
Avel did not shave before the festival, the festival nevertheless annuls
the Sheloshim. What, then, is the relevance of Rav Papa's statement that
Rosh Hashanah counts as fourteen days?)
ANSWERS:
(a) Some Rishonim answer that Rav Papa's teaching is relevant in a case
of a Shemu'ah Rechokah -- when one hears about the passing of a close
relative more than thirty days after the time of death (20a). If Rosh
Hashanah arrives between the time of death and the day on which one
hears about it, the festival counts as fourteen days. Accordingly, it is
able to transform a potential Shemu'ah Kerovah into a Shemu'ah Rechokah
(since one day is considered fourteen days).
TOSFOS and other Rishonim reject this explanation. As the RITVA writes,
there is no reason for why the festival should affect the amount of time
with regard to a Shemu'ah Rechokah; the festival reduces only the amount
of time which an Avel has already begun to observe. In the case of a
Shemu'ah Rechokah, the Avel did not yet begin to observe Aveilus
(because he did not hear about the death before the festival arrived).
(b) The Rishonim quote RABEINU SHIMSHON and the RI who answer that Rav
Papa's statement that Rosh Hashanah counts as fourteen days of the
Sheloshim has practical relevance. The Gemara earlier (23a) quotes a
Beraisa which details the different stages of Aveilus. During the first
week, the Avel must stay in his home. During the second week, he may
leave his home but he must sit in a different seat in the synagogue and
not in his regular seat. During the third week, he may sit in his
regular seat but he may not speak, and so on. Rav Papa teaches that the
week after Rosh Hashanah is not considered the second week of Aveilus;
rather, once Rosh Hashanah passes it is considered as though fourteen
days have passed, and it is the beginning of the *third* week.
Consequently, the Avel may sit in his regular seat in the synagogue, but
he may not speak.
(c) The BEHAG and the BA'AL HA'ME'OR (16a of the pages of the Rif)
assert that Yom Kippur does *not* annul the Sheloshim in this case, but
counts only as seven days towards the Sheloshim. As a result, the Avel
needs to observe an additional two days of Sheloshim after Yom Kippur.
(He already observed 28 days: the seven days annulled by Rosh Hashanah,
the seven days that Rosh Hashanah itself constitutes, the seven days
between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, and the seven days that Yom Kippur
itself constitutes.)
The reason for why Yom Kippur does not annul the Sheloshim is that a
festival cannot annul the Sheloshim when another festival already
annulled the Shiv'ah. Only one part of the Aveilus can be annulled by a
festival. Since Rosh Hashanah already annulled the Shiv'ah, Yom Kippur
cannot annul the Sheloshim.
Their proof for this assertion is from the next statement in the Gemara.
The Gemara says that Sukos counts as 21 days of the Sheloshim. Why,
though, does it not annul the Sheloshim entirely? The first day of Sukos
annuls the Shiv'ah and the following Yom Tov of Shemini Atzeres should
completely annul the Sheloshim. Why does Shemini Atzeres count only as
seven days towards the Sheloshim? It is evident that once a festival
already annulled part of the Aveilus, another festival cannot annul the
Sheloshim.
The RAMBAN and ROSH disagree. They refute the proof from the Gemara's
statement about Sukos by pointing out that a festival can annul part of
the Aveilus (Shiv'ah or Sheloshim) only if the Avel had already begun to
observe some of that part of the Aveilus before the festival. The first
day of Sukos annuls the Shiv'ah because the Avel observed some of the
Shiv'ah before the festival. Shemini Atzeres, however, cannot annul the
Sheloshim because the Avel never observed any of the Sheloshim (since
the laws of Sheloshim are not observed during the festival).
(d) The RITVA suggests that this question is addressed by the Amora'im
themselves. When Ravina was asked, "Did you say that Rosh Hashanah
counts as fourteen days?" he answered cryptically, "I said only that it
makes sense that the Halachah follows Raban Gamliel." What was he
protesting? Why did he not want to admit openly that he said that Rosh
Hashanah counts as fourteen days, especially since that is what Raban
Gamliel maintains?
The Ritva explains that Ravina was protesting the irrelevance of saying
that Rosh Hashanah counts as fourteen days. Since it is irrelevant to
say that Rosh Hashanah counts as fourteen days (as explained above in
the question), a statement to that effect is inaccurate. It is true,
however, that the Halachah follows Raban Gamliel, who says that a Yom
Tov counts as seven days.
Rav Papa, who explicitly states that Rosh Hashanah counts as fourteen
days, does not intend to make a relevant Halachic statement. Rather, his
point is to teach that the Halachah is that Rosh Hashanah annuls the
Shiv'ah. When he says that it counts as fourteen days, he means that had
this fact been relevant, Rosh Hashanah would have annulled both the
Shiv'ah and counted as seven days (thus constituting a total of fourteen
days).
HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 399:9) records the ruling of Rav Papa
as the Halachah, but he changes the wording to reflect the explanation
of the Ritva (in (d) above). He writes that Rosh Hashanah "annuls the
Shiv'ah," but he does not say how many days of the Sheloshim Rosh
Hashanah constitutes, because, as the Ritva explains, it is irrelevant
-- the Sheloshim anyway becomes annulled by Yom Kippur, as the Shulchan
Aruch himself writes later. In this respect, the Shulchan Aruch rules
like the Ramban and the Rosh, and not like the Behag (in (c) above),
since he follows their view that it is possible for two festivals to
annul both the Shiv'ah and the Sheloshim of one Aveilus.
The SHULCHAN ARUCH later (YD 399:12) records the view of Rabeinu
Shimshon and the Ri (in (b) above) who maintain that since Rosh Hashanah
counts as fourteen days, the week after Rosh Hashanah is considered the
third week of Aveilus and not the second week, and thus the Avel may sit
in his regular place silently.
The MISHNAH BERURAH (OC 548:4, based on the RI MI'GASH #185) writes that
the Gemara's statement that a Yom Tov always counts as seven days (even
when it does not annul the Shiv'ah, such as Shemini Atzeres) applies
only when the death occurred before the festival and the Avel started to
observe the Shiv'ah. If the death occurred *during* the festival (and
thus the Shiv'ah did not start at all), the festival does *not* count as
seven days, and the Avel observes all of the Shiv'ah after the festival
passes. (The Sheloshim, however, is counted from the day of death,
because the days of the festival do count towards the Sheloshim.)
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)
_________________________________________________________________
INSIGHTS INTO THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.dafyomi.co.il
_________________________________________________________________
Moed Katan 25
1) AGADAH: POSITIONING RAV HUNA'S COFFIN UPRIGHT
QUESTION: The Gemara describes how Rav Chaga brought Rav Huna's coffin
into the burial cave in which Rebbi Chiya and his sons, Yehudah and
Chizkiyah, were buried. When Chizkiyah arose to make room for Rav Huna,
a terrifying pillar of fire appeared. Rav Chaga, in his fright, erected
the coffin of Rav Huna in an upright position and fled the burial cave.
The Gemara adds that "the reason why he was not punished was because he
positioned the coffin of Rav Huna in an upright position."
What does the Gemara mean when it says that Rav Chaga was not punished
for this reason? On the contrary, he *should* have been punished for
placing Rav Huna's coffin in such a disrespectful position. (Leaving the
deceased in an upright position is disrespectful to the deceased, as the
Gemara says in Bava Basra 101b.)
ANSWERS:
(a) RASHI here (and RASHI KESAV YAD) implies that Rav Chaga stood up Rav
Huna's coffin in front of him so that the pillar of fire would not harm
him.
However, to protect oneself with the coffin of the deceased is also
disrespectful. Why did it serve to protect him?
The BEN YEHOYADA explains that Rav Chaga did not attempt to shield
himself with Rav Huna's coffin against the pillar of fire. Rather, Rav
Chaga did not want to gaze at the pillar of fire. Gazing at the pillar
fire would have been disrespectful because the pillar of fire
represented the glory of Hashem (see Chagigah 16a). His act of standing
up Rav Huna's coffin was not an act of self-protection, but an act done
out of honor for Hashem and for the deceased.
(b) RAV NISAN ZAKS in his notes to the PERUSH RABEINU GERSHOM ME'OR
HA'GOLAH explains that Rav Chaga's action was not an attempt to protect
himself from the fire. Rather, his intention was to protect the coffin
of Rav Huna from the fire by standing it upright. When Rashi says that
"he stood up the coffin before the pillar of fire so that *it should not
harm him*," he means so that it should not harm *Rav Huna*.
(c) The Girsa of RABEINU CHANANEL differs slightly from the Girsa in our
text. According to his Girsa, the Gemara cryptically says that "the
reason why the *members of the household of the Reish Galusa* (d'Vei
Reish Galusa) were not punished was because he stood up the coffin of
Rav Huna in an upright position." This is also the Girsa of RABEINU TAM
in SEFER HA'YASHAR (#513) and PERUSH RABEINU SHLOMO BEN HA'YASOM and
other Rishonim. The DIKDUKEI SOFRIM (in Hagahos) writes that he does not
know what the Gemara means according to this Girsa.
Perhaps the Gemara according to this Girsa means as follows. The
disgrace shown to Rav Huna in his burial (by being interred vertically)
served as an atonement not only for him but also for his descendants who
comprised the family of the Reish Galusa (as Tosfos points out, Rabeinu
Chananel maintains that "Rav Huna" here refers to Rav Huna the Reish
Galusa). Accordingly, the meaning of the Gemara is clear when it says,
"The reason why the members of the household of the Reish Galusa were
not punished was because he stood up the coffin of Rav Huna in an
upright position."
25b----------------------------------25b
2) THE DANGER OF THE TIGRIS RIVER
QUESTION: The Gemara relates that when Rava came to the Tigris River, he
asked Bar Avin to say some words of pray so that he should be saved from
the water. What danger did the water pose to Rava?
ANSWERS:
(a) The YA'AVETZ writes that the Girsa of the Gemara should be changed
to read "when the Tigris came" instead of "when he came to the Tigris"
("Ki Havah Asa Diglas" instead of "Ki Hava Asa *l*'Diglas"). The Gemara
means that when the Tigris overflowed and threatened to drown Rava's
city, Rava asked Bar Avin to pray.
This indeed is the text of the Gemara of RASHI KESAV YAD, and this is
the way he explains the Gemara in his second explanation.
(b) The PERUSH RABEINU GERSHOM ME'OR HA'GOLAH explains that Rava was
afraid when he came to the Tigris because "the waters were frightful."
This is also the first explanation of RASHI KESAV YAD and the ARUCH
(Erech Os). (See Berachos 59b, "the waters of the Tigris are Chadin
v'Kalin"; see also RASHI to Bereishis 2:14.) Rava wanted to cross the
river, but he feared that the rough waters would overturn the ferry.
>>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
<<
The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Write to us at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il
Fax(US): (206) 202-0323; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02)
651-5004
_______________________________________________
Daf-insights mailing list
Daf-insights@shemayisrael.co.il
http://mailman.shemayisrael.com/mailman/listinfo/daf-insights_shemayisrael.co.il
