Lesser of the Luminaries

The Mishna had stated: If one’s minor son or daughter find an object, it belongs to him. If one’s son or daughter who is of age finds an object, they may keep it.

Rabbi Chiya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: When the Mishna said “a son who is of age,” it does not mean that he is literally of age, and when the Mishna said “a minor son,” it does not mean that he is literally a minor. Rather, an adult who is dependent (for support) on his father’s table is regarded as “a minor,” and a minor who is not dependent on his father’s table is regarded as “one who is of age.”

It is brought in the sefer Peninim Mi’shulchan HaGr”a that once when the Vilna Gaon was travelling in Europe, he was hosted by a man well-versed in Torah learning. The man showed the Gaon what his deceased father had written on the margin of his Chumash regarding the verse in Breishis [1:16]: And Hashem made the two great luminaries: the great luminary to rule the day and the lesser luminary to rule the night, and the stars. Written on the margin was the following abbreviation: גועשאנ"ק. Many people had attempted to decipher the meaning of this, but to no avail.

The Gaon took a glance at the word and explained as follows: The abbreviation stands for the following: גדול וסומך על שולחן אביו נקרא קטן - an adult who is dependent (for support) on his father’s table is regarded as “a minor.” The explanation was now self-evident. His father was bothered why the moon was referred to as “the lesser luminary.” The answer was that since the moon has no light of its own, because it has no significant internal source of energy, it is referred to as “the lesser luminary” because its secondary light is produced by what it reflects from the sun.

Rashi cites from Chazal that they were both created the same size, but the moon complained and said that two kings cannot use the same crown and therefore the moon was diminished. The question is asked: It is well known that the moon does not have any intrinsic light source of its own, but rather it is only reflecting the sun light. What is the meaning that they were created equally?

Reb Aryeh Tzvi Frummer answers that that this was precisely the punishment to the moon; the moon did not decrease in size but rather its retribution was that it will not contain its own light and it will only provide light that it receives from the reflection of the sun.

Initially, the sun and the moon were both gedolim since they both had an intrinsic light source; afterwards, the moon became a katan because it could not provide light by itself. The Zohar in Breishis seems to explain in an identical manner.

The Beis Yosef (O”C 31) cites the Zohar in Shir Hashirim that Chol Hamoed is akin to the moon; it does not have its own sanctity but rather it receives kedushah from the Yom Tov.

It is for this reason why Mesechta Moed Katan is called Moed Katan. Since it contains many halachos regarding Chol Hamoed, it is called Moed Katan.

Read more!

Women Plowing during Shemitah

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The Gemora in Moed Katan presents a dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elozar whether one would incur the thirty-nine lashes if he would plow during Shemitah.

Rashi (2b) states that there is a positive commandment which forbids plowing on Shemitah. It is written [Shmos 34:21]: From plowing and harvesting you shall desist. The point of contention between the two Amoraim is if there is a negative commandment as well.

The Rambam in Hilchos Shemitah rules that one who plows during Shemitah does not incur the thirty-nine lashes. Kesef Mishna explains: Since in our Gemora, it was left ambiguously regarding which Amora held what, we cannot administer the lashes when there is uncertainty.

Sha’ar Hamelech in the beginning of Hilchos Shemitah writes that the Yerushalmi in Shabbos (7:2) states that Rabbi Yochanan is the one who maintains that he does not receive the lashes and the rule is that when Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elozar argue, the halacha is in accordance with Rabbi Yochanan.

Minchas Chinuch (112) comments that women are obligated in this mitzvah even though it is a positive commandment that has a time element to it and the principle is that women are exempt from any positive mitzvah which is governed by time. He explains that this is applicable only regarding a positive mitzvah that is incumbent on the body of the person and not a mitzvah like Shemitah, which is a mitzvah that is dependent on the land (mitzvos hateluyos ba’aretz).

Proof to this is cited from the Ritva in Kiddushin (29a). The Gemora rules based on a Scriptural verse that women are not obligated to perform a circumcision on their sons. Tosfos asks: Why is a verse necessary; circumcision is a positive mitzvah which is governed by time since the mitzvah can only be performed by day, and women are exempt? The Ritva answers: Any mitzvah which is not related to the person themselves; this principle does not apply. The mitzvah of milah is to perform the circumcision on the son and therefore women would be obligated if not for the special verse teaching us otherwise.

Read more!

His Right from his Left

In the city of Dvinsk, there was a very prestigious and scholarly man named Reb Leib. He was referred to as Reb Leib Charif, the sharp one, due to his intelligent insights in torah. He was extremely close to Reb Meir Simcha, the Ohr Sameach, and they would spend many hours in each others company discussing Torah matters together.

There was once an incident where they were both sitting in the Beis Medrash when a different scholar was delivering a lecture to thirty laymen. Reb Leib heard how the scholar was explaining a certain topic to them and immediately asked a penetrating question that the scholar was incapable of answering.

Reb Meir Simcha arose from his designated seat near the eastern wall, walked to the back of the Beis Medrash and admonished Reb Leib: “Someone that doesn’t know between his right and his left, should be asking questions in the middle of a lecture?” Reb Leib was quiet, left the Beis Medrash in embarrassment and the scholar continued on with his lecture.

All those that witnessed the incident were bewildered. Is it possible that Reb Leib Charif could ask a question that was not fit to be asked? What did he do so terrible that caused Reb Meir Simcha to react in such a manner?

Reb Leib was puzzled as well and he went to Reb Meir Simcha’s house to inquire of him why he took such offense with his question, which was seemingly a legitimate one.

Reb Meir Simcha told him: “Did I say that your question was not a valid one? No, I did not. I was repeating a Gemora in Moed Katan (and in Sotah as well).”

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One who appraises his conduct (he considers the loss he might incur by performing a mitzva against the eternal reward that the mitzva will bring, and the benefit he may obtain by committing a sin against the tremendous loss that will result) will merit in seeing the salvation of Klal Yisroel through Hashem. He cites a verse in Tehillim [50:23]: Vesam derech arenu beyasha Elokim, And to him that sets his way, I will show the salvation of Hashem. Do not read it as Vesam (and to him that sets), rather, read it as Vesham, and one who appraises his way.

Rabbi Yannai had a student who would consistently ask questions during the lecture. On the Shabbos of the festival (within thirty days of the festival, the scholars would teach and discuss the laws of the festival), the student wouldn’t challenge Rabbi Yannai (since there were many people attending and if Rabbi Yannai wouldn’t know how to respond, he would be embarrassed). Rabbi Yannai said in reference to him: And to him that appraises his way, I will show the salvation of Hashem (due to the student’s careful calculation).

Reb Meir Simcha concluded: “You, Reb Leib, should have been cognizant of the difference between the right and the left of the letter sin; it was written vesam, with the letter sin, which has the dot on the left and the Gemora expounds it to mean vesham, with the letter shin, which has the dot on the right. Vesham means that one should appraise his ways and calculate his every move and word. When this scholar was lecturing in front of thirty laymen, you should not have asked a question that quite possibly could embarrass him.

(Margoliyos HaShas – Moed Katan)

Read more!

A Partial Day is Regarded as an Entire Day

We have learned in the following braisa (Daf Yomi: Nazir 15a): One who buried his dead three days prior to the festival, the decree regarding the seven days of mourning are cancelled. One who buried his dead eight days prior to the festival, the decree regarding the thirty days of mourning are cancelled. He may take a haircut on the eve of the festival; if he did not, he is forbidden from taking a haircut after the festival. Abba Shaul disagrees and holds that he would nevertheless be permitted to take a haircut after the festival since in the same manner that three days of mourning prior to the festival cancels completely the seven days of mourning, seven days of mourning prior to the festival cancels completely the thirty days of mourning.

What is Abba Shaul’s reason? Is it not because he maintains that part of the day is like the entire day and the seventh day counts for the last day of shiva (seven days of mourning) and for the first day of the sheloshim (thirty days of mourning).

The Gemora asks that perhaps Abba Shaul only ruled in this manner by the halachos of shiva, which is only Rabbinical, but with respect to a nazir, where his halachos are of Biblical origin, he would not rule this way (that one day can be counted as two).

*** Tosfos (Moed Katan 19b) cites Harav Yom Tov that since we have established that part of the seventh day counts for the last day of shiva (seven days of mourning) and for the first day of the sheloshim (thirty days of mourning), a mourner would be permitted to take a haircut on the twenty-ninth day, since the seventh day counts as two days. He then cites a dissenting opinion that with respect to the halachos of sheloshim, we do not rule that the seventh day counts as two days.

*** Reb Elchonon Wasserman in Koveitz Heoros (39:3) explains the dispute between the Tanna Kamma and Abba Shaul in the following manner: Abba Shaul holds that a partial day is regarded as a full day, and therefore a day can be split into two, and it may be counted as two days. The Tanna Kamma, however, holds that one who has observed the halachos of the day can be regarded as if he observed them for the entire day, but the day itself cannot be regarded as two days.

*** The Rosh holds that this halacha that part of the day is like the entire day is even applicable at night. If one observed the halachos of mourning on the night of the seventh day, it should be regarded as if he observed them the entire day. He cites a Rashbam, who says that the custom is for the mourning period to conclude by day. The Rosh does not understand the reason for this.

Read more!

Superstition

Ula says (Nedarim 56a): A dargash bed is a bed of good fortune.

The Rishonim ask: Shouldn’t such a bed be forbidden on account of the prohibition of nichush; One should not act upon the basis of omens or lucky times (Vayikra 19:26)?

The Radvaz answers that it is being used as a sign to strengthen one’s luck, but not to be superstitious about it. R’ Eliezer MiMitz disagrees with him and maintains that even that would be forbidden.

The Shitah Mikubetzes explains that this is a bed designated for the guardian angel of the house. It was done for the purpose of honoring the Holy One, blessed is He. This is similar in the manner that we prepare a chair for Eliyahu Hanavi by a bris milah.

The Ra”n in Sanhedrin explains that it is a bed which is constantly made and kept empty in order to demonstrate that the household has more than they need. Through this, one is recognizing that Hashem has blessed him with wealth and thanking Him for it.

The Rambam writes that dargash is a small bed that is placed before a larger bed; it is used as a stepping-stool in order to climb onto the higher bed.

The Rosh explains that the angel in charge of poverty resides in a dirty house and the angel in charge of riches and success resides in a clean house. The dargash is a bed which always remained clean in order to beckon the angel of wealth to reside in the house.

Read more!

Marrying Multiple Women on the Same Day

The Mishna (Kesuvos 93a) states: If someone was married to three wives, and died, this one's kesuvah is a maneh, and this one’s two hundred, and this one’s three hundred, and there is only a maneh, they all share equally (since they all have a lien of one hundred on his property).

Rashi explains that each of their kesuvah’s were signed on the same day, for otherwise, the one which was signed first would be entitled to collect her kesuvah first.

The Haflaah asks: The Chachamim instituted that a man is responsible for a kesuvah even if he does not write one; accordingly, the halacha should be that the one who was married first should be entitled to collect her kesuvah first?

The Haflaah adds that they obviously were not married on the same day, for the Gemora in Moed Katan (8b) states that we may not intermingle one joyous occasion with another, and that is why one may not marry a woman during the festival; so too, there should be a prohibition against marrying multiple women on the same day!

He answers that although a man is responsible for a kesuvah even without writing one, his property is not mortgaged for the payment, and therefore, the woman who was married first will not have any stronger rights that the women who married later.

It is noteworthy that the Rambam in Hilchos Ishus (10:13) writes that one is permitted to marry two women on the same day. The Haflaah writes that our Mishna is the source where the Rambam derived this halacha from.

Read more!