Daf Yomi - Yoma 80- Lekavod Shabbos

The Gemara states that after the Torah was given to Moshe at Sinai, a prophet is not permitted to innovate any law. It is interesting to note that the laws of muktzeh appear to be innovative laws, yet do not constitute a contradiction to this Gemara. The Rambam and Raavad both offer various reasons for the institution of muktzeh, so it is clear that muktzeh is not an innovation. Rather, the prohibition of muktzeh was instituted as a safeguard for the biblical laws of Shabbos, and the laws of muktzeh also allow one to observe Shabbos properly without the distractions that one is faced with during the weekday.

For more inspirational thoughts on Shabbos, please visit www.torahthoughts.com

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 80 - Yom Kippur's Eating is Different

The Gemora states that in order to be liable for eating on Yom Kippur, one must eat food the size of a date. This must be eaten in the time it takes to eat a פרס - half a loaf.

By all other prohibitions in the Torah, there is a halacha that one must eat it in the normal manner in order to be liable. The Shagas Aryeh rules that if one eats raw meat on Yom Kippur, he would have violated the Torah's prohibition. This is because the Torah does not state by Yom Kippur "Don't eat," rather the Torah states "you should be afflicted." It therefore does not have the standard guidelines of eating.

The Ksav Sofer rules, based on this, that if one ate before Yom Kippur an amount less than a date and on Yom Kippur ate more which accumalatively equals a date and he is satiated, he will be liable for eating on Yom Kippur. This again can only be understood by saying that we must distinguish between the 'eating' on Yom Kippur and elsewhere. This person did not eat the full amount on Yom Kippur and yet has violated the trangression. On Yom Kippur, the prohibition is not to eat in a manner that will lead to satisfaction. The Achiezer discusses if one would be allowed to have food inserted through intravenous. The reason to say that it is not permitted is because the Torah is not particular on the action of eating, rather the satiation that comes from it.

This could be the explanation in our Gemora. Even though one who eats food in the amount of a date in a longer span that it would take to eat a half a loaf is considered eating, however he is not satiated through this and hence not liable.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 80 - Halachos that were Forgotten

The Gemora brings an argument regarding שיעורין. One Tanna holds that all the שיעורין are learned from a הלכה למשה מסיני and others hold that the court of Asniel ben Knaz established them and later they were forgotten and reestablished.

The Rambam states that it is impossible to argue on a halacha l'Moshe misinai and there cannot be arguments regarding that halacha. The Brisker Rov explains our Gemora. The first Tanna held that the halacha of 'amounts' were never forgotten and therefore there is no court that can ever change or argue on this. there is never a possibility that a future court will say that one will not be liable unless a larger שיעור is eaten. The second opinion held that this halacho was from the three thousand halachos that were forgotten in the time they were mourning for Moshe. The beis din of Asniel was able to reestablish these halachos using the thirteen principles that the Torah can be expounded with. Therefore it is possible that a future beis din can come and disagree or change the size of certain שיעורין.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 79 - Eating and Drinking

The Rama (197) brings an opinion that holds that there is not an obligation for birchas hamazon unless one eats and drinks. Eating alone is not sufficient for there to be an obligation. This is learned from the possuk ואכלת ושבעת וברכת. They learn that the word ושבעת is referring to drinking. The Torah is telling us that both are needed for bentching. The שער הציון brings from a Tosfos Yeshonim on our daf that the halacha is not in accordance with that opinion and that there is an obligation for a brocha acharona for eating and one for drinking and both together are not required.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 78 - Feeding a Minor

The Marcheshes wonders as to the reason we are allowed to feed minors on Yom Kippur. Is it because they are in a situation of danger if they would fast and therefore saving their life pushes away the prohibition of eating or is it because a minor is not obligated at all in the mitzva of afflicting himself on Yom Kippur.

Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank asks that a minor is not included regarding all prohibitions in The Torah and yet we are not allowed to feed him something which is forbidden, so Yom Kippur should be the same? This compels him to learn that the reason is because we are concerned for his health. The Rambam rules that a minor under the age of nine should not be afflicted on Yom Kippur and his reason is because otherwise, it might lead to endanger his life. The Ran on our daf seems to agree with this logic (although he disagrees with the Rambam in a different aspect).

There would be a difference l'halacha as to what the reason is. If the reason is because we are concerned for his life, there would be limitations on what and when we should feed him. However, if there is no prohibition, we can feed him whenever and whatever we please.

Minchas Chinuch writes that one should not feed a minor any more than he possibly needs. He states this even regarding a baby, however he concludes that it is difficult to ascertain precisely what is considered his needs.

There is a question as to how one should feed minors on Yom Kippur. Perhaps, one should not give them to eat directly, for one is not permitted to give issurim to someone else.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 78 - Touching Food on Yom Kippur

There is a question discussed in some of the Poskim if one is allowed to touch food on Yom Kippur. Perhaps it has a halacha similar to muktza. Mahril Diskin brings a proof from our Gemora that it is permitted. Rav Yehuda stated that one is permitted to cool himself off with fruit and he actually did so with a certain type of vegetable. However, he retracts from this proof because the Gemora can be referring to fruits and vegetables that cannot be eaten raw and there is no suspicion that he will come to eat it, however a food that we are worried that one might forget and eat it, should not be touched on Tom Kippur.

Read more!

Apology

We apologize for not posting or responding to comments yesterday. My computer was down - actually it still is, but we can't let another day slip by. Iy"H, it will be fixed today.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 77 - Notes on Agadata 1

77a-
"Had the coals not cooled off while being transferred from the hands of the Cherub to the hands of Gavriel, no remnant or survivor would be left from the enemies of Israel." The Gemara in Pesachim 118a states that Gavriel is the angel of fire, so it follows that Gavriel should be the one bearing the coals. yet, Gavriel has the Cherub transfer the coals to him, allowing them to cool down, and the Jewish People are saved. This transfer reflects the Gemara in Kesubos 5a that states that the Bais HaMikdash is created with two hands, whereas the heavens were created with one hand. The Bais HaMikdash is considered the handiwork of the righteous, so it follows that Gavriel saved the Jewish People from being destroyed in the merit of the righteous, as the Gemara here states earlier that Michael said to HaShem, "Master of the Universe, it is sufficient that the nation be spared for the sake of the good among them."

"They brought in Dubiel, the ministering angel of the Persians." The Gemara in Megillah 11a states that Persia is compared to a דוב, a bear, hence the name דוביאל.

"What is meant by כן יתן לידידו שנא, these are the wives of Torah scholars who lose sleep (מדדות שינה) in this world and merit the World to Come. " We find other instances where the word מדדד is used as a metaphor for toiling in Torah. Regarding Yaakov it is said ותדד שנתי מעיני, and the Bereishis Rabbah states there that Yaakov did not study Torah (משנתי מלשון משנה) while working for Lavan. (There it actually means he was pushed away from Torah). Furthermore, when the Jewish People received the Torah, the Gemara in Shabbos 88b states that the Jewish People moved backwards twelve mil and the angels pushed them forward, as it is said מלכי צבאות ידודון ידודון אל תיקרי ידודון אלא ידדון.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 76 - Drinking is Included in Eating

The Gemora states that there are five afflictions that we are obligated to submit ourself to on Yom Kippur. The Gemora asks that actually there are six? The answer given is that drinking is included in eating.

The Gemora in Chulin states that if one melts forbidden fats into a liquid and drinks it, he will be liable. This is learned from an extra word in a passuk. Tosfos asks that why is an extra possuk necessary, let us say that drinking is included in eating? Tosfos answers that this is only said by something that is normal to drink, however something which really is a food item and now it has been transformed into a liquid, there drinking is not included in eating and therefore we need a special possuk.

Reb Akiva Eiger asks a question on this from a Gemora in Shavuos. A similar question can be asked on our Gemora. Why does our Gemora say that there are only five afflictions, when in fact there are six? Drinking a liquid on Yom Kippur, which was originally a solid will not be included in eating and hence would be considered a sixth affliction?

Perhaps we can answer that Tosfos' distinction only pplies by something that is an 'issur cheftza'. Chelev, which is intrinsently forbidden, we can say that when it is transformed into a liquid, it is not included in the standard prohibition of eating. However, by Yom Kippur, which is an 'issur gavra', the food is not intrinsently forbidden, rather the person is obligated not to eat, here there is no difference between a standard liquid and a food item transformed into a liquid. All liquids are included in the prohibition of eating on Yom Kippur.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 76 - Manna Due to Yehoshua

The Gemora states that in the merit that Yehoshua waited for Moshe at the bottom of the mountain, maana fell for him in the amount fitting for the entire Klal Yisroel. What was the point for this? Even if you collected more, you nevertheless only were able to get according to the amount of people in your household and only a set amount per person?

Meshech Chochma has a novel approach to this Gemora. Klal Yisroel received the manna in the zchus of Moshe. Moshe died on the seventh of Adar. The manna lasted for them until the sixteenth of Nissan when they entered Eretz Yisroel. These forty days, the manna was in the zchus of Yehoshua. This was a direct result from the forty days that Yehoshua waited for Moshe.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 75 - Manna and more food?

The Gemara states that seasonings for making a sweet and aromatic cooked dish came down for the Jewish People together with the manna. It would seem odd that if the manna tasted like anything one could desire, that one should need seasonings to improve the food. Unless the seasonings were to improve the food that they bought from gentile mercahnts.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 75 - Agadta in Specific Mesechtos

posted by Reb Ben

The Gemara incorporated in Maseches Yoma the lessons of the manna that fell from heaven. Prior to the discussion of the manna the Gemara derives from verses that are stated regarding the manna the concept of inuy, affliction, which is the theme of Yom Kippur. Reb Tzadok HaKohen from Lublin writes in Tzidkas HaTzaddik that the Chachamim incorporated the agadata regarding the manna in Maseches Yoma similar to the discussion regarding the Receiving of the Torah which is recorded in Maseches Shabbos. The reason the Gemara discusses the receiving of the Torah in Maseches Shabbos is because the Torah was given on Shabbos and the power of Torah is through the Shabbos. Similarly, the Gemara expounds on the miracles of the manna in Maseches Yoma because the manna was absorbed into the bodies of those who consumed the manna. On Yom Kippur one is nourished from the spiritual aspect contained in the manna, and one needs Divine Assistance to merit this. In Maseches Gittin we find the discussion regarding the destruction of the Bais HaMikdash, as the destruction of the Bais HaMikdash and the exile of the Jewish People from Eretz Yisroel was similar to a divorce of which it is said, “what is your mother’s bill of divorce by which I sent her away?” Mahri Chagiz writes that all spiritual matter is clothed in this world in a physical garment, and one who is capable can separate the physical from the spiritual and the remnants are absorbed into one’s physical being. Such a person will not have a need to expel any waste. The Torah refers to the manna as lechem haklokel, the insubstantial food. Rashi in Avodah Zara and in Parashas Chukas writes that the manna was thus referred to because it was absorbed in the limbs of the Jewish People and they had no need to expel any waste from their system.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 75 - Could the Manna Taste like Pig?

Daf Yomi - Yoma 75 - Could the Manna Taste like Pig?

Gilyonei Hashas writes that he saw in a certain sefer that discusses the issue of what would be if a person had in mind that the manna should taste like something which is forbidden to eat, such as chazir. What would you think should be the halacha?

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 75 - Bentching After Eating the Manna

Daf Yomi - Yoma 75 - Bentching After Eating the Manna

Rav Yosef Engel asks on the obligation for birchas hamazon after eating the manna. He asks that benthcing is only after eating one of the five grains and the manna is not a grain? The fact that it tasted like bread should not be sufficient. He answers that the Gemora Brochos which states that they bentched after eating the manna is going in accordance with the opinion in our Gemora that not only did the manna taste like bread, but it had the texture and appearance of bread as well. This would require a birchas hamazon. There are some opinions who hold that they did not bentch after eating the manna.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 75 - Manna Issues Rulings

Daf Yomi - Yoma 75 - Manna Issues Rulings

The Gemora relates that the manna was able to reveal to us the status of a baby as to which family it belongs to. If a child is born and there is a doubt if it was a seven-month baby to the second husband or a nine-month baby to the first husband, the manna would be a determinating factor for us. An omer of manna per person in the household fell by that house. The amount of manna that fell by each house indicated to us the amount of children that belonged to that particular family.

The Tosfos Yom Hakippurim asks that there is a rule that Torah cannot be decided by heaven or a prophet. How could we rely on the manna for this? He answers that Moshe actually decided these issues without the benefit of the manna, however in order to avoid people having complaints on him, the manna served as a proof that he resolved the issue correctly.

Einei Shmuel answers that only a halachic judgement cannot be determined by heaven or a prophet, however an issue which is a factual doubt can be resolved in this method.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 75 - Digestion of the Manna

Daf Yomi - Yoma 75 - Digestion of the Manna

The Gemora states that when Klal Yisroel ate the manna in the desert, it absorbed into their limbs. The Chazon Ish explains this to mean that it entered straight into their limbs without being digested at all. Based on this, he asks a question on the Magen Avraham.

The Magen Avraham rules that one does not make a brocha acharona after smelling besamim because the benefit is not in existence anymore and it is similar to food being digested already, that one doesn't make a brocha acharona on. The Chazon Ish asks from a Gemora Brochos which states that Moshe instituted the first brocho of bentching at the time that the manna fell in the desert. The manna was absorbed into a person's limbs immediately without being digested and nevertheless there was an obligation to bentch afterwards, so too by smelling incense, there could be a brocha acharona afterwards. He offers a different reason why there's no brocha acharona on besamim based on Rashi who states that it is not enough of a prominent benefit that should mandate a brocha.

The mefarshim learn different than the Chazon Ish regarding digesting the manna. It was digested like regular food and it was not immediate, however it lacked any extraneous element. There was no waste product involved. A proof to this is from our Gemora which relates that when Klal Yisroel ate food which was purchased from the peddlers in the desert, the manna inside of them transformed that food to be similar to the manna. Evidently, the manna did not absorb immediately.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 74 - Half a Date

In order to be chayav on Yom Kippur for eating, one must eat at least the size of a large date, which will provide him satisfaction. Less than that amount, he will not be satiated and therefore not liable. The Gemora brings an argument between Reb Yochanan and Rish Lakish regarding one who eats less than this amount, if it will be forbidden min haTorah or not.

The Yerushalmi in Terumos disagrees and holds that even though Rish Lakish normally holds that chatzi shiur is permitted, by Yom Kippur he agrees that he will be chayav. The Gaon explains the reasoning. The Torah does not state by Yom Kippur that one should not eat, rather it says that a person should be afflicted, which we learn from there that one shouldn't eat and be satiated. Eating an amount equivalent to a date will satisfy a person fully and eating less than that will satiate him somewhat. This is why Rish Lakish agrees.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 74 - Face Washing

Daf Yomi - Yoma 74 - Face Washing

Tosfos Yeshonim states that it is forbidden min haTorah to wash or smear one's entire body on Yom Kippur. This is why it is permitted for a king or bride to wash their faces, for that would be only an issur midrobonon and the decree was never instituted by them.

The Gaon from Minsk asks that even though it's true that the Torah only forbade washing the entire body and not just their faces, but it should be forbidden min haTorah according to the opinions that chatzi shiur (less than the required amount)is forbidden min haTorah?

The Emek Brocha answers that chatzi shiur is ossur only when the Torah is particular on a certain amount. Here the Torah forbade washing the entire body for the benefit one receives from that washing is considered that he is not afflicting himself. Washing one's face is not a benefit that contradicts affliction and therefore the Torah did not forbid this and it will not be included in chatzi shiur as well.

Read more!