Daf Yomi - Sukkah 5 - Kapores ...Thick a Tefach or High?

Harav Dovid Meyers, in his sefer "מלאכת המשכן וכליו" wonders if the kapores was actually a solid tefach thick, or was it simply a hollow box. He points out the Gemara in Yoma (55a) which uses the term "עוביה של כפורת"- “The thickness of the kapores”, which seems to indicate that the kapores was not just a tefach high, but a tefach thick. However, there is a different version of that Gemara- that of Rabbeinu Chananel, which actually reads
"טפחא של כפורת"- “The tefach of the kapores”, instead of the thickness of the kapores. For further discussion on this, see page 74 of the aforementioned sefer.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 4 - Sitting or Standing?

If the sukkah is higher than ten tefachim and some of the leaves from the schach hang down within ten tefachim and those leaves by itself would not have more shade than sun, there is an argument if the sukkah is kosher or not. Rava maintains that it is not valid for this is considered a dirah seruchah.

The Reshash asks how can a sukkah which is precisely ten tefachim high be valid, the height of a regular person is eighteen tefachim? A person will not be able to stand straight in this sukkah and it will be extremely uncomfortable?

Sheorim Mitzuyanim Bhalacha answers that this is not a question for the obligation is to sit in a sukkah, not to stand. He sites a proof to this from the Rambam who rules that one should recite the brocha standing and then sit in order for the brocha to be recited before the performance of the mitzva. Even according to the Rishonim who disagree and hold that one can fulfill the mitzva by standing as well, they admit that the primary obligation is to sit as the Torah explicitly states basukkos teishvu.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 4 - Bent Walls

If a sukkah is higher than twenty amos and a platform is built next to three walls of the sukkah, this will reduce the size of the sukkah and it will be valid. If the platform is built less than four amos away from the walls, it will still be kosher due to the principle of dofan akumah.
...More on Dofan Akumah

There are two explanations in the Rishonim as to the mechanics of dofan akumah. Rashi understands that the schach which is higher than twenty amos and not on top of the platform is deemed to be an extension of the wall. According to this, one cannot sit under this portion of the sukkah and fulfill his mitzva, for he is sitting under a wall, not under schach.

Other Rishonim explain that since the wall is less than four amos away from the kosher schach and it is normal for a wall to be slanted less than four amos, dofan akumah teaches us that we consider it as if the wall would be touching the platform. According to this, one can sit under the schach that is higher than twenty amos, for since there is a kosher sukkah, there is another principle that any schach protruding out from a valid sukkah is deemed part of the sukkah.

A difference between the two explanations would be if the walls of the sukkah do not touch the schach. We would not be able to apply the principle of dofan akumah according to Rashi's explanation, for since there is a break in the wall, we cannot say that the schach is an extension of the wall. However, we can apply dofan akumah according to the other explanation, for we are connecting the wall to the platform and it doesn't bother us that the wall does not reach the schach.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 4 - Less than Ten

Sfas Emes quotes from the sefer Beis Yisroel that asks on the fact that the Gemora cites sources from the Torah that a sukkah is invalid if it's less than ten tefachim. Shouldn't it be passul because one cannot dwell comfortably in such a sukkah? The Sfas Emes answers that the possuk is needed for a case where the schach is higher than ten, but the walls are not. If not for the passuk, this would be valid for the schach is higher than ten.

The Brisker Rav states (similar to the Sfas Emes) that there are two aspects of this halacha. There is a requirement that the walls must be at least ten tefachim and that the sukkah must be one where a person can dwell comfortably. A difference would be in a case where one would rest his sukkah on bedposts. The sukkah has walls that are ten tefachim, however it would be passul for the bed inside the sukkah creates that one cannot live comfortably there.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 4 - Highlights

1. If a Sukkah is higher than twenty amos and one attempts to reduce its height by placing pillows on the ground, it is not a valid reduction, and the Sukkah is still viewed to be higher than twenty amos. The reason for this ruling is because one will not leave the pillows on the floor of the Sukkah for all seven days of the festival, as they will become ruined. If, however, he spreads straw on the floor of the Sukkah and verbally abandoned it there for seven days, or if he spread dirt on the Sukkah and verbally abandoned it there, this is considered a valid reduction in the height of the Sukkah. (3b3-4a1)


...Highlights of the Daf

2. If one spread straw on the floor of the Sukkah and he does not intend to remove it in the future, or if he spread dirt on the Sukkah floor without any specific intention, there is a Tanaaic debate. When the straw and dirt are verbally abandoned, the Tanna of the Mishnah and Rabbi Yose agree that they are nullified vis-à-vis their location. When there is no verbal indication, yet, the owner has no need for them, and regarding dirt where we are not aware of the owner’s needs, according to Rabbi Yose the straw and dirt are nullified, whereas the Tanna of the Mishnah maintains that they are not nullified. Regarding straw where there is no verbal indication and we are unaware of the owner’s needs and regarding dirt or straw where we know that the owner has an immediate need for them, everyone agrees that the straw and the dirt are not nullified. (4a1)
3. If a Sukkah is higher than twenty amos and some of the leaves from the schach hang down into the airspace of the Sukkah within twenty amos of the floor, if the shade from the leaves’ tips is greater than their sunlight, the Sukkah is valid, but if their shade is not greater than their sunlight, the Sukkah remains invalid. (4a2)
4. If the sukkah is exactly ten tefachim and some of the leaves from the s’chach were dangling within the ten-tefachim airspace and their sunlight is greater than their shade, there is a dispute if the Sukkah is valid or not. (4a2)
5. If a sukkah is higher than twenty amos and a platform is built in the Sukkah that abuts all three walls of the sukkah, since the airspace between the platform and the s’chach does not exceed twenty amos, the Sukkah will be valid. If the platform is built on the side of the Sukkah, if from the edge of the platform until the opposite wall is a distance of less than four amos, the Sukkah is valid. The reason for this ruling is because we apply the principle of dofen akumah, i.e. we say that an invalid covering can be viewed as part of a bent wall. The novelty of this ruling is that even though the third wall cannot be used as a wall of the Sukkah because it is higher than twenty amos and does not abut the platform, we still apply the principle of dofen akumah and even the third wall qualifies as a valid Sukkah wall. The principle of dofen akumah applies even when the platform does not abut any walls but the distance from the edge of the platform until the wall is less than four amos. (4a2-4a3)
6. If a Sukkah is less than ten tefachim high and one dug a pit in the middle of the floor so that the Sukkah is completed to a depth of ten tefachim, the Sukkah will be valid if there is less than three tefachim between the edge of the pit and the Sukkah wall. (4a4-4b1)
7. If a Sukkah is higher than twenty amos and one builds in the middle of the Sukkah a pillar that is ten tefachim tall and wider than seven squared tefachim, Abaye maintains that the Sukkah is valid because we apply the principle of gud asik, i.e. we extend and raise the partition on each of the pillar’s sides to the s’chach above, creating a valid Sukkah on the top of the pillar. Rava disagrees because he maintains that we need the walls of the Sukkah to be recognizable, and here there are no recognizable walls. (4b1)
8. If one built a Sukkah by driving four poles into the roof of a house and he placed s’chach across the poles, there is a debate if the Sukkah is valid or not. (4b1-4b2)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 3 - Mitzva of Maakeh

The Gemora states that if one has a house that is less than four amos squared, he is exempt from building a fence around the roof, for this is not considered a house. The commentators ask that it is still a stumbling block and if one doesn't build a fence there, it will endanger people's lifes? The Gemora in Bava Kamma 15b learns from the passuk of lo sasim damim beveisecha that one should not raise a wild dog in his house or a rickety ladder. Shouldn't he be required to build a fence here because of the possibility of someone falling?

...Read more

The Chazon Ish Yo"D 214 answers that in truth a roof is not a dangerous area and it is not considered a stumbling block. People who ascend a roof understand beforehand that they must be careful and this is a worldly custom. The Torah, nevertheless mandated that one who builds a house is required to build a fence on the roof and this halacha has its guidelines. A house that is less than four amos squared is not regarded as a house for nthis halacha.

The Emek Brocha adds that this explains why one is not allowed to build a professional maakeh on chol hamoed even though he would be permitted to build and fix other things for the fear of bandits. The lack of a maakeh is not an inherent danger and therefore is not considered a dovor heovud and will not be allowed to build on chol hamoed.

Reb Akiva Eiger asks on the obligation to recite a brocha when building a maakeh. Tosfos in Chulin 105a rules that one does not recite a brocha on mayim acaharonim for it was instituted for the benefit of man that he shouldn't harm himself due to the melach sdomis. It would stand t reason that maakeh should not have a brocha either, for it is only to prevent damage? Rabbi dovod Goldberg answers according to the chazon ish, a maakeh is not to prevent damage. In truth, it would not be necessary, the torah taught us that it is required even if it is merely a distant possibility for a damage occuring, hence there is still a brocha.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 3 - Highlights

1. The Gemara concludes that the Sukkah that Queen Helena sat in was comprised of different compartments. The Queen sat in a small room for reasons of modesty and since women are exempt from the mitzvah of dwelling in a Sukkah, the Queen was not concerned that the Sukkah was higher than twenty amos, thus rendering the Sukkah invalid. The debate between the Chachamim and Rabbi Yehudah was regarding where her children were dwelling. Rabbi Yehudah maintains that the children were together with the Queen and therefore it is a proof that a Sukkah higher than twenty amos is valid. The Chachamim, however, maintained that the Queen’s children were dwelling inside a room in the Sukkah where the s’chach was lower than twenty amos and therefore there is no proof that a Sukkah higher than twenty amos is valid. (3a1)


...Read more

2. The Gemara concludes that Bais Shammai and Beis Hillel disagree in two instances regarding the minimum dimensions that are required for the Sukkah to be valid. Bais Shammai maintains that the Sukkah must be large enough to accommodate ones head, most of his body and his table. Bais Hillel maintains that it is sufficient even if the Sukkah cannot accommodate the table. Bais Hillel and Bais Shammai also disagree regarding a large Sukkah that is adjacent to a house and the table is inside the house. Bais Shammai maintains that one does not fulfill his mitzvah in this manner as we are concerned that he will be drawn after his table which is in the house and Bais Hillel disagrees. (3a2-3a3)
3. Rebbe maintains that a Sukkah must be at least four squared amos in order to be valid. A Baraisa lists many rulings that would not apply to a house that is less than four squared amos. Such a house will be exempt from the obligation of placing a mezuzah on its doorpost. Furthermore, one will not have to build a fence on the roof to prevent others from falling. The rationale for these rulings is that regarding these cases the Torah states the word bayis, a house, and a house that is this small is not deemed to be a house. (3a3-3b1)
4. A house that is less than four squared amos is not required to contribute to an eruv along with all the other houses in the courtyard. Furthermore, the eruv for the courtyard cannot be placed in this house. The reason for this ruling is because a house that is less that four amos squared is not fit for dwelling. (3b1)
5. Although the eruv for the courtyard cannot be placed in a house that is less than four squared amos, the shituf (a device that allows carrying between a courtyard and a mavoi, which is accomplished by the courtyards preparing through the mutual contribution of food) for a mavoi can be placed in this house. The reason for the distinction between an eruv and a shituf is because the purpose of an eruv is to allow all the residents of a courtyard to be legally viewed as dwelling in one house and the house where the eruv is deposited must be fit for dwelling, i.e. one that measures at least fore amos squared. A shituf for a mavoi, however, functions as a merger of all the courtyards of the mavoi for their use but not for dwelling. As long as the shituf is placed in a protected area of the courtyard, the shituf is valid, so a structure that is less than four amos squared also qualifies for the placement of the shituf. (3b1-3b2)
6. Two brothers inherited a courtyard that contained one large house and three small ones, and the brothers divided the houses, with one brother taking the large house and the other taking the three small ones. Rav Huna maintains that the brother who received the three houses is entitled to three-quarters of the courtyard while the owner of the large house receives the remaining quarter. His reasoning is that the courtyard functions primarily as a passageway between one’s house and the street and as a place where packages can be delivered and unloaded, so any claim to courtyard area is directly related to the amount of houses one owns in the courtyard. Rav Chisda, however, maintains that each brother receives four amos for each and every entrance and the partners divide the remaining section of the courtyard equally. A house that is less than four amos squared is not awarded part of the courtyard because only a house that will endure is awarded part of the courtyard, whereas this house that is not four amos squared is destined to be destroyed. This renders the house unusable and we do not award it part of the courtyard for its needs. (3b2-3b3)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 3 - Tableless Sukkah

The Gemora concludes that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue in two cases. They argue as to what is the minimum size a sukkah can be to still be valid. Beis Shamai holds that the sukkah must be large enough to contain the person's head, a majority of his body and the table. Beis hillel maintains that it is sufficient even if it cannot contain the table. They also argue on a large sukkah that is next to a house and the table is in the house. Beis Shamai states that one does not fulfill his mitzva in this manner for there is a concern that he will be drawn after his table, which is in the house and Beis Hillel disagrees.

Tosfos concludes that the halacha is in accordance with Beis shamai regarding a small sukkah - it must be able to contain the table as well, however in a large sukkah the halacha is in accordance with Beis Hillel that the table is not required to be in the sukkah. The Rif and the Rambam disagree and maintain that the halacha in both cases is in accordance with Beis Shamai and the table must be in the sukkah.

The Pri Megadim 634:2 writes that if one ate in a sukkah where the table was in the house, he does not fulfill his mitzva at all, even min haTorah, for once the sages decreed that the table must be in the sukkah, this will prevent him from fulfilling his mitzva - period. He concludes that the person will have to recite another birchas shehechiyonu after he brings the table into the sukkah.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 3 - Sukkah Corners

The Magen Avrohom 634 rules that if one has a corner in a large sukkah that does not have seven square tefachim, one cannot sit in that portion of the sukkah for the space is too cramped to sit comfortably. He sites our Gemora as proof to this, for the compartment where Hilni was sitting was not deemed as part of the large sukkah.

Biur Halacha quotes the Bikurei Yaakov as asking on the proof. Perhaps the compartments of our Gemora is regarded as a separate entity for there is a wall separating between it and the sukkah, however a corner protruding from the sukkah with no separations could be considered part of the sukkah?

Raabi Dovid Goldberg wonders what the proof is that there is a dividing wall in the compartments mentioned in our Gemora?

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 3 - 49 Total or 7 by 7?

Tosfos, according to our version, rules that a sukkah that its length is longer than seven handbreaths, yet its width is less than seven would still be valid. It would seem that a sukkah that has over fortynine square tefachim would be valid. There is a version in Tosfos, brought down on the side of our Gemoros that disagrees with this and holds that a sukkah must have seven tefachim by the length and the width.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 2 - Highlights

1. There is a debate in the Mishnah regarding a Sukkah that is higher than twenty amos (cubits) high. The Chachamim maintain that it is invalid and Rabbi Yehudah maintains that it is valid. A Sukkah that is smaller than ten tefachim (handbreadths) or that does not have at least three walls or if there is more sun than shade, it is invalid.

...Read more

2. The Gemara quotes a Mishnah in Eruvin that records a debate regarding a mavoi (alleyway) whose korah, crossbeam, is higher than twenty amos. The Chachamim maintain that it is not valid and one must lower the korah to a height of less than twenty amos and Rabbi Yehudah maintains that one is not required to lower the korah. The Gemara offers two reasons why our Mishnah states that the Sukkah is invalid whereas the Mishnah in Eruvin states a remedy for the korah that is higher than twenty amos.
3. The Gemara offers various reasons as to why a Sukkah that is higher than twenty amos is invalid. One reason offered is that when one sits in a Sukkah whose s’chach, covering, is higher than twenty amos, he is not aware that he is dwelling in a Sukkah, as he does not notice the s’chach. A second reason why a Sukkah that is higher than twenty amos is invalid is because when the s’chach is higher than twenty amos, one is not sitting in the shade of a Sukkah but in the shade of the walls. A third reason why a Sukkah that is higher than twenty amos is invalid is because it is meant to be a temporary dwelling and a Sukkah whose s’chach is higher than twenty amos is a fixed dwelling and is thus invalid.
4. Rabbi Yoshiyah said in the name of Rav that if the walls of the Sukkah reach the s’chach, even the Chachamim agree that the Sukkah is valid. The reason it is valid is because we apply the reasoning that ones eyes will travel up the wall and will notice the s’chach.
5. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav that if the Sukkah is wider than four square amos, even the Chachamim would agree that the Sukkah is valid. The reason it is valid is because we apply the reasoning that the Sukkah is spacious so the shade is coming from the s’chach.
6. Rav Chanan said in the name of Rav that if the Sukkah is large enough that it will accommodate more than a person’s head, most of his body and his table, even the Chachamim agree that the Sukkah will be valid.
7. Rabbi Yehudah offers a proof to his opinion that a Sukkah higher than twenty amos is valid from an incident concerning Queen Helena. The Queen was sitting in a Sukkah that was higher than twenty amos and the elders came to visit her and they did not inform her that her Sukkah was invalid. The Chachamim countered that this incident is not a proof because Helena was a woman and a woman is exempt from the mitzvah of Sukkah. Rabbi Yehudah responded that Helena had seven sons and certainly one of them had reached the age where he would be required to dwell in a Sukkah, and furthermore, Queen Helena was scrupulous in that she performed all her deeds according to the words of the Chachamim. From this it is evident that her Sukkah was valid.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 2 passul is passul

The Gemara asks why here it states פסולה and in Eruvin it states ימעט. Why didn’t the Gemara answer that by Sukkah it cannot say anything else, because once the schach is higher than twenty amos, it is passul, because of תעשה ולא מן העשוי. In order to make it kosher, one would have to shake the schach or in this case actually lower it.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 2 - Chinuch with all the Pitchevkes

There is an argument regarding a sukkah that is more than twenty amos high. The sages hold that it is invalid and Rabbi Yehuda maintains that it is kosher. The Gemora proceeds to bring a proof by relating a story where the sages went to visit Hilni the Queen. Her sukkah was more than twenty cubits high. The Gemora could not bring a proof from her for a woman is exempt from the obligation of sitting in a sukkah. However, there is a proof nonetheless, for Hilni had seven sons and certainly one of them was of the age of chinuch and hence Hilni had an obligation to ensure that her son was sitting in a kosher sukkah. The Gemora states that Hilni was extremely conscientious to heed all the words of the sages and hence it must be a proof that a sukkah higher than twenty amos is valid.

The Ritva proves from this, that regarding the obligation of training one's child in mitzvos, he must perfprm the mitzva now in a kosher manner, for this will properly train him. However, if a father would allow the child to perform a mitzva as a child in a manner that would not be fulfilling the mitzva, that is not chinuch. The proof is, for our Gemora proves from Hilni that a sukkah higher than twenty is valid for she was concerned about her son's mitzva. If chinuch can be accomplished without all the technicalities of the mitzva, perhaps she was training him in the mitzva of sukkah even though it was not a valid sukkah.

The Raavan disagrees and maintains that there is an obligation for a father to train his child in a mitzva even if it will not be completely valid. He proves this from the fact that we would allow the child to take the lulav on the first day after the adults have finished using it. The first day of Sukkos, the lulav must be yours as is learned from the passuk 'lachem.' We are loaning it to the child and not giving it to him.

There are those who distinguish between where the specific of the mitzva is an integral portion and a defining part of the mitzva or is it just a technicality. One can argue that a sukkah higher than twenty cubits is not a sukkah with a psul but rather it is not a sukkah at all. One cannot train his son in the mitzva of sukkah in that manner. However, a lulav that is not yours is a kosher lulav - it is lacking a specific in the mitzva. Obviously an adult will not fulfill his mitzva with a borrowed lulav, but one can fulfill his mitzva of chinuch by giving his son a lulav which will not be his.

A proof to this distinction can be brought from the Mishna Berura. In one siman he brings the argument if one can fulfill his mitzva of chinuch by giving his child a lulav which has a psul in it that will invalidate the lulav. However in the siman prior to this, he states that one can give a borrowed lulav to his son and he doesn't bring a dissenting opinion.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 2 - Chanukah Derived from the Torah

The Gemora brings a Mishna in Eruvin which contains an argument regarding a mavuy which is higher than twenty cubits. The sages hold that it not valid and one should lower it and Rabbi Yehuda maintains that lowering it is not necessary. The Gemora explains why our Mishna states that the sukkah is unfit and the Mishna in Eruvin states how to fix the mavuy. One of the distinctions offered is that sukkah is a halacho from the Torah and therefore it says psula, however mavuy which is only from the sages, we do not utilize the word 'pasul,' rather the Mishna states what the options are.

Tosfos asks from a Gemora in Shabbos that states if one placed the menorah for Chanukah higher than twenty cubits from the street, it is passul. Lighting the menorah on Chanukah is only from the sages, so how can we state pesula? The Chasam Sofer offers a novel approach to answer this question. The Gemora in Megillah 14 states that if Klal Yisroel sang praise when leaving Egypt, from slavery to freedom, certainly there would be an obligation to sing praise to Hashem for saving us from death, which is what transpired by Chanukah. A kal vochomer is one of the thirteen principles that the Torah can be expounded by and these are regarded as being from the Torah. The Chasam Sofer concludes that lighting the menorah on Chanukah can be considered a Torah derived law and hence the Gemora can use the word pesula.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 2 - A Little Bit Shady

A Sukkah is designed to provide shade. The Mishnah states that if the sunny area of a Sukkah is greater than its shaded area, the Sukkah is invalid. Rashi explains that the minority of shaded area on the Sukkah floor is negated by the majority of sunny area. The commentators wonder why it was necessary for Rashi to offer this reason. Is it not obvious that a Sukkah that does not have the necessary amount of shade is invalid? Why does Rashi have to mention that the minority of shaded area is negated? The Eimek Bracha cites Tosfos here to answer this question. The Gemara states that there are those that maintain that if a Sukkah is higher than twenty amos, but is wider that four square amos, the Sukkah will be valid. Tosfos explains that the Chachamim have established that even if a Sukkah is more than a thousand amos high, if it is wider than four squared amos, there still will be some shade coming from the s’chach into the Sukkah. It is evident from the words of Tosfos that for a Sukkah to be valid, it is required that the Sukkah should provide at least minimal shade. A Sukkah that has a minority of shaded area would be valid if not for the fact that it is negated by the majority of sunny area. Regarding a Sukkah that has a minority of valid shade and there is a majority of shade which is invalid, i.e. when the shaded area is due to the height of the walls, then the Sukkah is valid. The reason for this is because there is a principle that shade cannot negate shade.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 2 - Spelling of Sukkah

The Cheishek Shlomo notes that the word Sukkah is always spelled in the Talmud with the letter vav, yet in Scripture the word Sukkah is always spelled without a vav. The word Sukkos in the plural form, however, is spelled with a vav. Rabbi Chaim Vital in Pri Eitz Chaim and other kabalistic works write that the numerical value of the word Sukkah is ninety-one, which is the same numerical value as the two Names of HaShem, adon-oy and the Shem Havayah. This is true when the word Sukkah is spelled with the letter vav. The Cheishek Shlomo cites a verse in Tehillim 76:3 where the word Sukkah is spelled with a vav. It is said vayehi vesahleim sukko, which can be translated to mean then His Sukkah was complete, i.e. when the word Sukkah equals in numerical value ninety-one, then umnaso b’tziyon, the Name of HaShem and His throne will be complete in Zion. The Cheishek Shlomo suggests that this is the meaning of the words that we recite in the Friday evening prayers, haporeis sukkas shalom, Who spreads the shelter of peace. This shelter of peace alludes to the Gemara in Bava Basra 75 that states that in the future, HaShem will fashion a Sukkah for the righteous.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Sukkah 2 - Shade at Twenty Amos

The Chachamim maintain that a Sukkah that is higher than twenty amos is invalid. One of the reasons offered by the Gemara is that one is obligated to sit in the shade of the Sukkah, which refers to the s’chach. When the Sukkah is higher than twenty amos, there will be no shade from the s’chach. Rather, the shade will be from the walls. Ritva wonders about this, because in the middle of the day, when the sun is directly above, the shade will be from the s’chach and not from the walls? Ritva offers two answers. One answer is that the sun is only directly above in the summer months when the sun travels in middle of the sky. In the month of Tishrei, however, when the sun is always to the side, there will be no shade from the s’chach even in the middle of the day. The second answer of the Ritva is that since in the middle of the day the walls do not provide shade, there will also not be any shade from the s’chach. The Aruch LaNer expresses his bewilderment to this answer, as the reality is that there is shade in the middle of the day. The Aruch LaNer offers a means of explaining the answer of the Ritva.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 88 - Being Seen in the Azarah on Yom Kippur

The Rosh brings from Rabbeinu Sadya Gaon that after immersing on Erev Yom Kippur, one should recite a blessing. The Rosh disagrees and maintains that there is no blessing because there is no obligation. The Rosh explains that it is at most a custom and on customs we do not recite blessings. He brings a proof from the mitzva of taking the arovos on Sukkos which the Gemora explicitly states that no blessing is recited for it is only a custom from the prophets. He continues that perhaps one might say that there should be a blessing based on the words of Rabbi Yitzchak (R"H 16) that a person is obligated to purify himself before a Yom tov. He responds that this means purified from tumas meis which entails the sprinkling from the ashes of the parah adumah and this we do not have anymore.

It is evident from the Rosh that the mitzva of purifying oneself before the regel applies to Yom Kippur as well. It would appear that the Rambam disagrees with this. The Rambam in Tumas Ochlin (16:10) states that the reason one is obligated to purify himself before the Yom Tov is to be prepared to eat kodoshim and to enter the Beis Hamikdosh. This would not apply by Yom Kippur, for one doesn't eat kodoshim and there is no obligation to enter the Beis Hamikdosh, like there is by the other Yomim Tovim.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 88 - Blessing Before Immersing on Erev Yom Kippur

The Tur (606) rules that when one immerses in the mikvah on Erev Yom Kippur he should recite a bracha first. The mefarshim ask that 'tevilas ezra', the requirement of immersing in the mikvah after one saw keri has been nullified so why would there be a blessing first? Rav tzvi Pesach Frank posits that since the immersing on Erev Yom Kippur was always cusomary and there never was an interuption in this, it is considered like the original established decree is still intact and therefore there is a blessing beforehand.

The Rosh brings from Rabbeinu Sadya Gaon that after immersing one should recite a blessing. The Rosh disagrees and maintains that there is no blessing because there is no obligation. Rav Shach writes that even though there is no obligation, but when a person immerses himself he is fulfilling a mitzva and now would be able to enter machane leviya if there would be a Beis Hamikdosh. This would be analagous to reciting a blessing on shechita. One is not obligated to slaughter an animal, but if he does he is fulfilling the din of the Torah which is permitting an animal for consumption through shechita. He concludes that according to Rabbeinu Sadya, this blessing can be recited any day of the year that one immerses himself due to keri.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 88 - Mikvah on Yom Kippur

The Gemora lists the different people who can immerse in a mikvah on Yom Kippur. One of them is a baal keri. It is ruled in shulchan Aruch that nowadays that the tevila of Ezra which was established for one that saw keri has been nullified, one should not immerse himself in the mikvah on Yom Kippur. There are many sources however that permit this and they maintain that if a person is accustomed to immerse in a mikvah for keri and it will disrupt his tefillah if we do not allow him, then he is permitted. They add that it has been ruled previously if one is walking for a dvar mitzva and there is a body of water impeding his path, he may continue walking through because it is not for the sake of enjoyment. Immersing in a mikvah is also not for pleasure and therefore will be permitted. It is brought down that it should be done privately and a person should fully repent beforehand.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 87 - Yaakov's Tefilah Voluntary?

One opinion in the Gemora maintains that tefillas maariv is not an obligation but rather only voluntary. A question is asked by the mefarshim. Each of our forefathers instituted one tefillah. Yaakov avinu established maariv. He was known to be the bechir shebovos. How can it be that his tefillah is only a voluntary one.

I once heard from Rabbi Blum (possibly in the name of Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky) an explanation. The Sforno on the possuk "im yeheye Elokim imodi etc." says a fascinating pshat. Yaakov at that time was on such a high level that he begged from Hashem to be treated only with the midas hadin. He did not want to accept Hashem's boundless compassion. Hashem agreed and that is why it is found that Yaakov suffereed the most from all of the Avos.

This is why the tefillah that Yaakov instituted could not be a requirement on Klal Yisroel. The foundation of tefillah is compassion. We beseech and pray to Hashem for Him to shower us with His mercy. Yaakov who personifies midas hadin could not compel others to rely on midas harachamim.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 87 - Lekavod Shabbos

The Gemara states that whoever causes the public to do good will not be given the opportunity to sin. This idea has found expression throughout Jewish history in those who have battled to safeguard the sanctity of Shabbos. In Eretz Yisroel, one can find many areas where there are signs declaring that the community should observe the Shabbos. In the Diaspora this is not very practical, but one can have a great impact by impressing on his or her neighbors that observing Shabbos is equivalent to observing the entire Torah. One must prepare for Shabbos during the week so that when Shabbos arrives it is obvious what we are safeguarding and why Shabbos is so critical to the existence of the Jewish People.

For more inspiring thoughts about Shabbos, please visit www.torahthoughts.com

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 87 - Maariv is Only voluntary if .....

Rav holds that the tefillah of neilah, the final tefillah prayed on Yom Kippur can be recited at night. Therefore, he rules that if one davened neilah after dark, he will be exempt from davaning maariv that night. His reasoning is neilah is considered an extra tefillah and since one davened a tefillah at night, that will be valid for maariv as well, which is a tefillah that is normally recited at night.

The Gemora asks on Rav that he rules in Berochos that the tefillah of maariv is only voluntary and not required, so why would our Gemora say that neilah exempts him from maariv - he is not obligated anyway? The Gemora answers that his ruling here would be relevant to the one's that hold maariv is mandated.

Tosfos quotes the opinion of the R"i that maariv is only voluntary if he has other pressing needs at the time, such as performing a mitzva that cannot be done at another time, but if there is no other urgent necessities at this time, he would be obligated to daven maariv.

Tosfos asks that according to the R"I, what is our Gemora's question? While it is true that Rav holds maariv is only voluntary, that is only in circumstances where he has other obligations but normally one would be duty-bound to daven maariv. He answers that on Yom Kippur night, there is automatically pressing needs such as the preparing of the meal for after the fast. The Midrash states that the meal after Yom Kippur is tantamount to a Yom tov meal and there would be a mitzva to involve oneself in the preparation. This would cause that the davaning of maariv is only voluntary.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 87 - Time for Neilah

Rav holds that the tefillah of neilah, the final tefillah prayed on Yom Kippur can be recited at night. Therefore, he rules that if one davened neilah after dark, he will be exempt from davaning maariv that night. His reasoning is neilah is considered an extra tefillah and since one davened a tefillah at night, that will be valid for maariv as well, which is a tefillah that is normally recited at night.

Many rishonim bring down a Gemora found in the Yerushalmi that disagrees with this and therefore they conclude that neilah must be recited by day. The Mordechai writes that although we witness many congregations davaning neilah after dark, this is not because this is the custom, but rather due to a mistake that the chazanim base themselves on.

The Beis Yosef writes that since tefillas neilah is a time that we beseech Hakodosh Boruch Hu for mercy and compassion, it should be commenced earlier in the day to enable the chazan's repeatal of shmone esrei to be by day and at least the birchas kohanim should be before nightfall. He concludes that based on his reasoning, neilah should be started very early in the day which is not practical, therefore the preferable manner is to shorten some of the slichos and pesukim in the middle of the tefillah and to instruct the chazan not to stretch out the words like he usually does.

There is a discussion in the poskim if Rav meant that neilah should be recited after dark preferably or did he mean that it can be recited at that time.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 87 - Confessing Sins of Father

Daf Yomi - Yoma 87 - Confessing Sins of Father

The Gemora states that the primary confession is when a person says "but we have sinned." The Rambam in Hilchos Teshuva 2:8 rules in accordance with this Gemora. Rabbeinu Yonah in shaarei Teshuva 1:40 writes that one must mention his own as well as his fathers sins for a son can get punished for the deeds of his father if he continues in his ways. Shmuas Cahim wonders as to why this is not mentioned in the Gemora or the Rambam. According to Rabbeinu Yonah, does one have to specify the sins of his father?

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 87 - Who Saved Aharon's Two Sons?

The righteous not only benefit themselves but also to their descendants. It was in Aharon's merit that his two other sons remained alive. The Maharsha asks from a Midrash in Parshas Ekev where it is evident that the tefillah of Moshe is what saved Elozar and Isomar?

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 87 - 2X or 3X?

Daf Yomi - Yoma 87 - 2X or 3X?

The Gemora states that if one commits a transgression and repeats it, it becomes like it is permitted to him. The Mabit in Beis Elokim (shaar hateshuva ch 11) writes that our sages have said if one commits a transgression three times, it becomes like it is permitted to him. Did he have a different version in the Gemora than us? Our Gemora states this to be correct if a person does an aveira even twice.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 87 - Transgression Committed Only Once

Daf Yomi - Yoma 87 - Transgression Committed Only Once

The Gemora states that if one commits a transgression and repeats it, it becomes like it is permitted to him. Rav Shach was once giving rebuke and he questioned if there is any among us that have committed an aveira and not repeated it. Woe is to us.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 87 - Highlights

When Rava and Mar Zutra Chasida noticed people bestowing honor upo them, they quoted different pesukim which teach humility. They were concerned that the honor might lead to arrogance.

It is good when rshaim are shown favoritism in this world. a proof is brought from Achav. It is not good when the righteous are shown partiality in this world and a proov is brought from Moshe.

The righteous not only benefit themselves but also to their descendants. It was in Aharon's merit that his two other sons remained alive. Reshaim also cause detrement to their future generations.

One who is mezakeh the public will be guaranteed that he will not sin. Hashem will drive away the opportunity to sin from him. This is because it is not proper for him to reside in Gehinom while his students are basking in Gan Eden. One who causes the public to sin will forego the opportunity to repent on his personal sin. This is for it is not appropriate for him to dwell in Gan Eden while his disciples will be in Gehinom.

The Mishna had stated that if one proclaims that he will sin and repent and sin and repent, he will lose the opportunity to repent. The Gemora learns from the fact that it is repeated twice that one who commits an aveira and repeats it, it becomes as if it is a permitted thing to do.

The Mishna had stated that if one commits a transgression against Hashem, Yom Kippur can provide atonement, however if he perpetrated a wrongdoing against his fellow, he must attemp to appease him.

If one wronged his friend, he must beg for forgiveness three times. Each time he should approach him with three people. If he owes him money, he should compensate him. If the fellow who he wronged is dead, he should have ten men accompany him to his grave and beg for forgiveness.

The Gemora brings different episodes from the amoroim regarding asking forgiveness from a friend. In one instance rav was teaching Nach to a group of disciples. Reb chiya arrived late and Rav started again. He did the same for Bar Kapara and Rebbe Shimon. However when reb chanina arrived later, he did not start from the beginning. Reb Chanina was insulted. Rav approached him on thirteen Erev Yom Kippur's to appease him and Reb chanina did not forgive him. Even though we have learned that a person is only obligated to ask forgiveness three times, Rav was stringent on himself.

It is generally advantageous to forgive someone eagerly. Hashem will forgive your sins as well. Reb chanina had a motive not to forgive Rav. He had seen in a dream that Rav was destined for greatness. He understood that if Rav stays in Eretz Yisroel, he must die in order for Rav to become the Rosh Yeshiva in his place. He therefore didnt forgive Rav compeling him to go to Bavel where he eventually became the Rosh Yeshiva there.

The mitzva of confessing one's sins is upon the commencement of Yom Kippur, however the sages state that it should be recited before one eats the seudah hamefsekes, for we are concerned that he might drink too much wine and not be able to recite the viduy. He nevertheless should repeat it afterwards for perhaps he sinned during the meal. Every tefillah that is recited on yom Kippur, one should confess his sins. A private person says it at the end of shmone esrei and the chazan recites it in the middle.

The Gemora discusses what is included in the confession. The Gemora concludes that stating 'we have sinned' are the primary words of the confession.

There is an argument as to what is the tefillah of neilah. Rav holds that it is an extra shmone esrei. Shmuel maintains that is the tefillah of ma anu meh chayenu. The Gemora refutes shmuel's opinion from a braisa.

Rav holds that the tefillah of neilah, the final tefillah prayed on Yom Kippur can be recited at night. Therefore, he rules that if one davened neilah after dark, he will be exempt from davaning maariv that night. His reasoning is neilah is considered an extra tefillah and since one davened a tefillah at night, that will be valid for maariv as well, which is a tefillah that is normally recited at night.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 86 - Stain Remains

Daf Yomi - Yoma 86 - Stain Remains

It is said the Kohen shall look, and behold! The tzaraas affliction had been healed from the metzora. Rabbi Refoel Hamburger wonders why the Torah refers to the person who has already been healed from tzaraas as the metzora. Rabbi Hamburger suggests an answer based on the Gemara here that resolves a contradiction in the statements of Reish Lakish. In one statement Reish Lakish maintains that repentance is great because willful transgressions are considered to be inadvertent errors, whereas in a second statement Reish Lakish maintains that willful transgression are transformed into merits. The Gemara resolves this contradiction by stating that in Reish Lakish’s second statement, he refers to repentance that is motivated by love whereas in his first statement, Reish Lakish refers to repentance that is motivated by fear. This idea can equally be applied to a metzora. One who contracted tzaraas repents because he does not wish to undergo the suffering of his condition and he does not wish to be subject to isolation from the rest of the community. This manner of repentance was not motivated by love for HaShem. Rather, his repentance was motivated by external factors, so the Torah still refers to him as a metzora, as he has not yet uprooted the sin from his being.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 86 - From Evil to Good

Daf Yomi - Yoma 86 - From Evil to Good

The Gemara states that repentance is so great that willful transgressions can be accounted for the penitent as merits, providing that one is motivated to repent by love. Reb Tzadok HaKohen from Lublin writes that although a gentile is also capable of repenting, he will not be motivated to repent by love. Thus, although a gentile can remove the stain that was caused by his sin, he is not capable of transforming a willful transgression into a merit. The source for this idea can be found in the Medrash Tanchumah regarding the priestly blessings. The kohanim would recite the words may HaShem lift His countenance to you. The Medrash wonders how this blessing can be recited if it said in the Torah regarding HaShem, Who does not show favor and Who does not accept a bribe. The Medrash answers that HaShem will show favor to the Jewish People if they repent, but the gentiles cannot merit this favoritism, as it is said may HaShem lift His countenance to you, and this excludes the gentiles. Rabbi Mordechai Miller zt”l extends this idea to explain the Gemara in Shabbos 146a that states that when the primal serpent seduced Chava, he cast impurity into her, which she then passed on to future generations of men. The Jewish People stood at Mount Sinai to accept the Torah, so their impurity was removed. The gentiles, however, who did not stand at Mount Sinai, did not have their impurity removed. It is the power of Torah that motivates a Jew to repent by love and thus a Jew’s willful transgressions will be accounted for as merits, whereas a gentile who does not study Torah cannot be motivated to repent by love.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 86 - Repentance in the same situation

The Gemara explains that a true penitent is one who committed a sin in the past and then the opportunity for the same sins comes again a first time and a second time and he is saved from the sin on both occasions. The Sefer Chasidim writes that a person should not put himself into a situation where he is tempted to sin, because he may not be able to withstand temptation. The Tzlach questions the words of the Sefer Chasidim from the commentary of the Kli Yakar in Parshas Chukas, who writes regarding the phenomena of the Parah Adumah that the Parah Adumah was capable of rendering pure those that were impure and conversely, rendering impure those that were pure. The Kli Yakar likens this idea to certain medicines that are beneficial for one who is ill but can prove fatal for one who is healthy. There is a parallel between remedying the body and remedying the soul. One who wishes to repent must be with the same woman that he sinned with the first time, at the same time of the year in which he had sinned, and at the same place where he sinned with her. Thus, the temptation to sin is particularly strong, as his Evil Inclination will entice him to respond exactly as he did before. By resisting the temptation, he demonstrates that he is a true penitent. The Kli Yakar adds that this is what the Gemara (Brachos 34b) means when it states that in the place where penitents stand, the completely righteous do not stand, i.e. the completely righteous cannot stand in a place of temptation.Yet, according to the Sefer Chasidim, a righteous person is not permitted to endanger himself by entering into a such a situation.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 86 - Publicizing Sins to inspire other to repent

Daf Yomi - Yoma 86 - Publicizing Sins to inspire other to repent

The Nesivos in his commentary on Eicha, Palgei Mayim explains the verse that states (1:18) Hashem is righteous, for I disobeyed His utterance. Listen, now, all you peoples and see my pain etc. The Nesivos writes that although one normally should conceal his sins, when the punishment is horrific and there is a desecration of HaShem’s Name, it is necessary to publicize the sin. The reason it is permitted to reveal the sins is because then HaShem’s Name will be glorified and others will be inspired to repent.

The Beis HaLevi in Parashas Vayera writes in a similar vein that once one has been punished, he is allowed to reveal the sin to show that HaShem’s judgment is just. We find that the Gemara in Sanhedrin 107a states that Dovid HaMelech prayed to Hashem that the sin that he committed with Batsheva should not be publicized, but his prayer was not accepted.

The Gemara in Avodah Zara 4b states that the incident with Batsheva was not fitting for Dovid HaMelech and the sin of worshipping the Golden Calf was not fitting for the Jewish People. Rashi explains that although the Jewish People could have withstood the temptation from their Evil Inclination, HaShem decreed that they should sin so that their repentance would inspire future generations to repent. An individual who sins will be motivated to repent because of Dovid HaMelech’s repentance, and if the masses sin, they will be motivated to repent because of the Jewish People’s repentance from worshipping the Golden Calf.

The Maharal writes that Tosfos understand the Gemara in Avodah Zara to mean that it was not fitting to have their sins publicized, as is stated in the Gemara here in Yoma. Yet, the sins of the Jewish People and the sins of Dovid HaMelech were revealed, so that they would serve as an inspiration to future generations to repent from their sins.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 86 - Reuven's Admission

Daf Yomi - Yoma 86 - Reuven's Admission

The Gemara states that one should not reveal a sin that he committed in private. Rashi explains that one who reveals a sin that he committed in private is minimizing the glory of HaShem. The Gemara in Sota 7b wonders if one should not reveal a sin that he committed in private, how could Reuven have admitted that he was the one who switched the bed of Yaakov. The Gemara answers that Reuven’s justification for revealing his sin was because he sought to ensure that Yaakov would not suspect any of the other brothers. The Minchas Chinuch (mitzvah 364) questions Reuven’s approach, because when one publicizes his sin, he is diminishing HaShem’s glory. Certainly the desire to alleviate suspicion from the brothers did not override the glory of HaShem. Shemuas Chaim notes that Rashi in Sota offers a different explanation for the teaching that one should not reveal the sins that he committed in private. Rashi to Sota writes that one should not reveal his sins as it would then appear that he is not ashamed of his actions. Regarding the incident where Reuven switched the beds, Yaakov knew that someone had changed the beds, but he did not know that it was Reuven who had performed the act. Reuven’s admission would not have diminished HaShem’s glory, because both Yaakov and Reuven were aware that a sin was committed and HaShem’s glory had already been diminished. The Gemara only discusses the issue of Reuven revealing his sin, as his admission would demonstrate that he was not ashamed of his actions. In response to that question, the Gemara answers that Reuven maintained that it was more important for him to reveal that he had sinned than for Yaakov to suspect his brothers.

Read more!

Daf Yomi -Yoma 86 - Highlights

Highlights

1. We learned in the Mishnah that repentance alone provides atonement for all lenient transgressions. Rabbi Yehudah explains that the Mishnah means to say that repentance atones for the violation of a positive commandment and for the violation of a lav hanitak l’aseh, a prohibition removed to the remedy of a positive commandment. A negative commandment that is punishable by lashes, however, is considered a severe transgression and repentance alone is insufficient to atone for such a sin. Rather, one also needs Yom Kippur to gain atonement for such a transgression.
2. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya maintains that are three divisions of atonement. If one transgressed a positive commandment and repented, he is forgiven. If he transgressed a negative commandment and repented, the repentance suspends punishment and Yom Kippur atones for the sin. If one committed a sin that is punishable by kares or by judicial execution, repentance and Yom Kippur suspend, i.e. protect him from premature death or alternatively, from full retribution, and suffering purges the sin. Regarding one who has committed the sin of desecrating the Name of HaShem, however, repentance is insufficient to suspend punishment, Yom Kippur will not atone, and suffering will not purge the sin. Rather, all three of those together will suspend the sin and death purges the sin.
3. The Gemara offers different examples of chillul Hashem, the desecration of HaShem’s Name. Rav maintains that if someone like himself would take meat from a butcher and not pay for it immediately, that would constitute the desecration of HaShem’s Name. This is only considered a desecration of HaShem’s Name if the shopkeeper does not demand payment of the money owed to him, but in an area where the shopkeeper demands payment, it is not considered a desecration of HaShem’s Name. Rabbi Yochanan maintains that if he would walk four amos without studying Torah or wearing Tefillin, this would constitute the desecration of HaShem’s Name. Yitzchak of the academy of Rabbi Yanai maintains that if ones friends suffer embarrassment because of his bad reputation, that would constitute the desecration of HaShem’s Name. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak maintains that if people say that Hashem should forgive someone for his actions, that would constitute the desecration of HaShem’s Name.. Abaye maintains that a Torah scholar who conducts himself honestly in business and converses pleasantly with others accords honor to HaShem’s Name. One who does not conduct himself honestly in business and does not converse pleasantly with others causes dishonor to HaShem’s Name. Such conduct will cause people to say about him, “woe unto that person who learned Torah, woe unto his father who taught him Torah and woe unto his teacher who taught him Torah. See how corrupt are his deeds and how ugly are his ways.”
4. Repentance is great as it brings healing to the world and great is repentance that it reaches the Heavenly Throne. The Gemara states that repentance is so great that a willful transgression is transformed into a merit for the penitent. This teaching is qualified to mean that if the penitent was inspired by love of HaShem, then his sins are erased completely and his sins will be a source of merit, as they have motivated him to perform acts of righteousness.
5. Great is repentance that it can override a negative commandment of the Torah. One cannot remarry his wife after he divorced her and she married another man in the interim. HaShem, who is likened to the husband of the Jewish People, will still welcome them back if they repent. Repentance is also great because it brings the redemption nearer, and repentance also lengthens the years of a person.
6. The Gemara poses a contradiction in statements made by Reish Lakish. In one statement Reish Lakish maintains that repentance is great because willful transgressions are considered to be inadvertent errors, whereas in a second statement Reish Lakish maintains that willful transgression are transformed into merits. The Gemara resolves this contradiction by stating that in Reish Lakish’s second statement, he refers to repentance that is motivated by love, whereas in his first statement, Reish Lakish refers to repentance that is motivated by fear.
7. The Gemara states that the manner in which HaShem conducts himself with man is in contrast to the way man conducts himself with his fellow. If one aggravates his fellow with words, it is doubtful if the victim will be appeased by the one who harmed him, and even if he will be appeased, it is doubtful whether he will be appeased with words. If one sins against HaShem in secret, however, HaShem is appeased through words, and HaShem even considers the person’s repentance as a good deed. Furthermore, it is as if the penitent has offered voluntary sacrifices.
8. The Gemara explains that a true penitent is one who committed a sin in the past and then the opportunity for the same sin comes again a first time and a second time and he is saved from the sin on both occasions.
9. The Gemara poses a contradiction in verses, as one verse states that one who conceals his sins is fortunate, whereas a second verse states that one who conceals his sins will not succeed. The Gemara resolves this contradiction by answering that the verse that condemns one who conceals his sins refers to one whose sins are public knowledge, whereas the verse that condones concealing ones sins refers to sins that are not public knowledge. Alternatively, the Gemara answers that regarding sins between man and his fellow, one should not conceal his sins, whereas regarding sins between man and HaShem, one should conceal his sins.
10. One who commits a sin three times will be forgiven but once he commits the sin a fourth time, he is not forgiven. If one confessed his sins on this Yom Kippur, he should not confess those sins on another Yom Kippur. If he repeated the sins, however, he should confess them on another Yom Kippur. One opinion maintains that one who confesses sins that he did not repeat is likened to a dog that returns to its vomit, whereas a second opinion maintains that one who confesses his sins is praiseworthy.
11. There is an debate if one who is confessing his sins should specify the sin he committed.
12. We publicize hypocrites who are wicked people and pretend to be righteous, because otherwise there will be a desecration of HaShem’s Name, as others will attempt to emulate their flawed deeds.
13. One who is completely wicked and repents will cause his punishment to be blocked, and this is so even if the decree of punishment against him has already been sealed.
14. The tranquility of the wicked results in trouble, because while they enjoy the tranquility, they are devising ways of committing evil.

Read more!

Repentance is part of the Divine Throne of Glory

The Gemara states that repentance is great because it reaches unto the Divine Throne of Glory, as it is stated Return, O Israel, unto HaShem your G-d. This Gemara is difficult to understand, as repentance can only reach the Heavenly Throne, as is evidenced by the Medrash that states that wisdom, prophecy, and the Torah all offered various responses as to the retribution of the sinner, and only HaShem Himself responded that the sinner should repent from his sins. There are many interpretations to this enigmatic Gemara, but we can suggest that the Gemara means that repentance is not just a one time performance like other mitzvos. The Gemara states that a mitzvah protects a person at the time he is performing the mitzvah. Repentance, however, is so beloved to HaShem that HaShem incorporates repentance into the Divine Throne of Glory. We find that when Moshe ascended upon high and the angels dueled with him regarding the Jewish People receiving the Torah, HaShem instructed Moshe, “take hold of the throne of My Glory and give them an answer.” The word for answer in the Gemara is Teshuvah, which also means repentance. HaShem was alluding to Moshe that the correct response to the angels’ protests was that the Jewish People can repent from their sins, and in this regard man is superior to the angels. Thus, repentance is great because it reaches the Divine Throne of Glory, i.e. it is the response to the angels as to why man was created and why the Jewish People received the Torah.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 85 - Healing the “Hard of Hearing”

Daf Yomi - Yoma 85 - Healing the “hard of hearing”

The Gemara states a source for the law that one can save a person from a life-threatening danger even if the laws of Shabbos will be violated. The Medrash in Haazinu poses a question regarding one who has an ear ache, if we are allowed to heal him on Shabbos. The Medrash answers that we are permitted to heal one who has an ear ache because when one is in a situation of a life-threatening danger, we are allowed to violate the Shabbos. The Chasam Sofer explains that this Medrash is referring to Shabbos Shuva, the Shabbos between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, and especially when the Rav delivers his sermon. One may claim that it is forbidden to rebuke the congregation harshly on the Shabbos preceding Yom Kippur, as one is forbidden to cause pain and anguish on Shabbos. The Medrash therefore states that this is a life-threatening situation, because if one does not hear and accept the rebuke on Shabbos Shuva, he never will repent before Yom Kippur.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 85 - One who Mocks his Friend is Akin to Denying the Existence of HaShem

Daf Yomi - Yoma 85 - One who mocks his friend is akin to denying the existence of HaShem

Rabbi Meir Bergman writes at length in his discourse on Parshas Kedoshim regarding the gravity involved in the sin of one who ridicules or defames another Jew as this is akin to a direct affront on Hashem. Rav Bergman offers a proof to this thesis from the fact that the Torah juxtaposes the mitzvah of providing for the poor next to the laws regarding the festival of Shavuos and Rosh Hashanah. He writes that showing concern for the needs of a friend is in the category of accepting on oneself the yoke of the Heavenly Kingdom. This demonstration of concern is in a sense a prerequisite to the mitzvah of blowing shofar on Rosh Hashanah, which is the ultimate crowning of Hashem. Rav Bergman cites the Gemara in Yevamos that states that when a gentile seeks to convert to Judaism, we inform him of certain mitzvos, one of which is the severity of one who refuses to give charity. The reason why we inform him of the obligation to give charity is because we are demonstrating to the potential convert that if one does not show concern for a fellow Jew, he is in essence demonstrating that he does not have concern for his creator. Rabbi Klonimus Kalman Shapiro hy”d writes that it is a greater mitzvah to give up one’s life for his friend than to give up ones life for Hashem, because when one gives up one’s life for the son of the king, this signifies how much one loves the king. This, Rabbi Klonimus Kalman explains, is why the Gemara here states that Yom Kippur atones for all sins, regardless of a person repenting, except for the sin of one who removes from himself the yoke of Heaven. The Sheiltos of Rabbi Acahai Gaon (V’Zos Habracha 167) states that Yom Kippur atones for all sins except for the sin of one who mocks his friend. The reason that ridiculing a fellow is so severe is because when one mocks his friend, it is akin to denying the existence of HaShem.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 85 - Arrogance is a Sin Between Man and his Fellow

Daf Yomi - Yoma 85 - Arrogance is a Sin Between Man and his Fellow

The Mishnah states that Yom Kippur atones for sins between man and HaShem but Yom Kippur does not atone for sins between man and his fellow until he appeases his fellow. Rav Shach zt”l is quoted in the Sefer Machsheves Mussar (page 109) as having said that one who is arrogant or who constantly seeks honor may erroneously assume that this is a sin between man and HaShem, but this thought is a grave mistake. In truth, the arrogant person or one who seeks honor is slighting his friend, as he is demonstrating that he is better than others, and for such sins one must seek forgiveness from his fellow and only then will Yom Kippur atone for his sins.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 85 - Violate one Shabbos to have many Shabbosos Observed

One opinion in the Gemara derives the source for the law that saving a life overrides the Shabbos laws from the verse that states the children of Israel shall observe the Shabbos in order to perform the Shabbos throughout their generations. This teaches us that one should violate one Shabbos by saving a life so that the person whose life was saved may live to observe many Shabbosos. The implication from the Gemara is that if we know for certain that the person whose life is being saved will not live until the next Shabbos, one is forbidden to violate the Shabbos on his behalf.

The commentators question this theory from the Gemara that we learned earlier (Yoma 71) that states that we allow the Shabbos to be violated even if the person for whom the Shabbos is being violated will only live for a few hours.

It is worth noting that the Ohr HaChaim in Parashas Ki Sisa (31:16) writes that we do not violate the Shabbos to save a life if the person will only live for a few more hours. The ruling of the Ohr HaChaim would appear to contradict the accepted halacha.

The Minchas Chinuch (mitzvah 32) resolves this issue by writing that we allow the laws of Shabbos to be violated to save a person’s life even for a few hours if a rabbinical prohibition will be violated. Regarding a biblical prohibition, however, we do not allow one to violate the Shabbos laws to save a life for only a few hours. The verse quoted earlier which teaches us that one can violate the Shabbos laws to save ones life so that one will be able to observe many Shabbosos refers to violating biblical prohibitions.

The Minchas Chinuch concludes that the final halacha is that one can violate even the biblical prohibitions of Shabbos to save a life, even if the person whose life is being saved will only live for a few hours. This is based on the exposition of the Gemara that derives the source for saving a life on Shabbos and overriding the laws of Shabbos from the verse that states you shall guard My decrees and My laws that man shall carry out and by which he shall live.

Read more!

Purity below, purity from Above

Posted by Ben

The Mishnah states that Rabbi Akiva said: “fortunate are you, O Israel. Before Whom do you cleanse yourselves? Who cleanses You? Your father in Heaven! As it is stated I will sprinkle pure water upon you, and you shall be cleansed. And it also says: The mikveh of Israel is HaShem. Just as a mikveh purifies the contaminated, so does the Holy One, Blessed is He, purify Israel.” It is noteworthy that Rabbi Akiva poses two questions. One is, “before Whom do you cleanse yourselves,” and the second question is, “Who cleanses you?” When one seeks to become pure, i.e. to gain atonement for his sins and find himself once again in the good graces of HaShem, he must realize that purity and atonement is a two-step process. One must attempt to purify himself, by cleansing himself from sin, and he must realize that only Hashem can purify him from all his sins. The Rambam alludes to this idea in Hilchos Teshuvah (2:2) when he writes that the definition of repentance is that the sinner distances himself from the sin, removes the sin from his thoughts, and accepts on himself not to commit the sin ever again. The sinner must also regret his past actions, and the One Who knows all hidden matters, i.e. HaShem, will testify on him that he will never commit this sin again. The Rambam states explicitly that in order to gain atonement, one must make all the effort that is necessary for the repentance process to be effective, but ultimately, one has to rely on HaShem to testify that he will never commit that sin again. This is parallel to the purification process, where one does everything he can to purify himself, but ultimately, it is HaShem who cleanses him from all sin.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 85 - Highlights

1. If an ox of a Jew gores the ox of another Jew, the owner of the ox that damaged is required to pay to the claimant half damages. If the owner of the damaging ox is a Cuthean, he pays full damages. We have learned previously that if half of a city’s population is Jewish and half of the population is Cuthean and a child was abandoned and we are uncertain if the child is a Cuthean or a Jew, we treat the child as a Jew. The Gemara concludes that this refers to a case where his ox that was a tam (an ox that gored less than three consecutive times) gored an ox of a definite Jew. A Jew would be required to pay half damages whereas a Cuthean would be required to pay full damages. The law is that he is only required to pay half the damages to the claimant and regarding the other half he can tell the claimant , “bring proof that I am not a Jew and then collect the full damages from me.” Unless the claimant can prove that the damager is a Cuthean, the damager is only required to pay half the damages.
2. If a building collapsed on Shabbos and we are uncertain whether there is a person buried underneath, one must clear the rubble. Furthermore, even if we are certain that a person is buried underneath but we are uncertain if the person is alive or dead, we are obligated to clear the rubble on Shabbos. Lastly, not only are we obligated to clear the rubble if there is a doubt whether the person is alive or dead and we are certain that the person is a Jew, but even if there is a doubt whether the buried person is a Cuthean or a Jew, we are obligated to clear the rubble on Shabbos. The rationale for this ruling is that the possibility of saving a Jew’s life overrides the prohibition of clearing the rubble on Shabbos. One is obligated to clear the rubble even if the person buried underneath will only live afterwards for a short time period.
3. Rebbe Yehudah ben Lakish maintains that one can rescue a corpse from a fire on Shabbos, although the corpse is muktzeh and one is normally rabbinically prohibited to move muktzeh items on Shabbos. The rationale for this ruling is that because one is in turmoil that his relative’s corpse will be destroyed, and if he is not permitted to move the corpse before the corpse is consumed by the fire, he may come to extinguish the fire. Rather than have him violate a biblical prohibition of extinguishing a fire, the Chachamim allowed for him to move the corpse which is only a rabbinical prohibition. When a building collapsed and the person buried underneath died, we do not allow one to remove the corpse from the rubble, because there is nothing that he will do that will constitute a biblical prohibition, so there is no need to permit one rabbinical prohibition to prevent one from violating a different rabbinical prohibition.
4. If a victim was buried by the rubble and he is not moving and appears to be dead, there is a debate regarding where on his body one has to check to ascertain that he is dead. Some say that we must check up to his nose and if there is no breathing, then he is certainly dead and he should not be moved until after Shabbos. Others maintain that we check up to his heart to see if there is a heartbeat.
5. There is a debate in the Gemara regarding the source for the ruling that saving one’s life overrides the laws of Shabbos. Rabbi Yishmael derives this law from what is said if the thief was discovered while tunneling in. There is uncertainty whether the thief is merely coming to steal or to kill as well, and murder contaminates the land and causes the Divine Presence to depart, yet the owner is allowed to save himself at the cost of the thief’s life. Certainly, then, the saving of a life will override the laws of Shabbos, which is less stringent than bloodshed. Rabbi Akiva maintains that the source for the law that saving ones life overrides the laws of Shabbos is derived from the verse that states if a man shall act intentionally against his fellow to kill him with guile, from beside my altar shall you take him to die. The words from beside my altar teach us that only when a Kohen who was accused of murder and is about to begin the avodah is he taken away to be tried, whereas a Kohen who is already serving on the altar completes the avodah and then is taken away to be tried for murder. However, this only applies to being put to death, i.e. we allow the Kohen to complete the avodah before he is tried for murder, but if the Kohen knows testimony regarding someone else who is about to he executed, the Kohen is removed from performing the avodah even while in middle of the service. If regarding the Kohen, of whom it is uncertain whether his testimony will even save the life of the one standing to be executed, and furthermore, the avodah that he is performing is so stringent that it overrides Shabbos, yet we have the Kohen interrupt the avodah to possibly save a life, then certainly saving a life overrides Shabbos. Rabbi Elazar maintains that we derive the source for saving a life overriding the Shabbos laws from circumcision, which is an improvement to only one of a person’s two hundred and forty eight limbs, yet overrides the Shabbos, so certainly if one acts to save a person’s entire body, it should override Shabbos. The Gemara also cites three other opinions who offer various sources for the law that saving a life overrides the Shabbos laws.
6. Rabbi Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel that if he would have been involved in the discussion of the aforementioned Tanaaim, he would have offered a source for the law that saving a life overrides the Shabbos laws and that source would have been superior to all the other sources. The source that Shmuel would have offered was from the verse that states you shall guard My decrees and My laws that man shall carry out and by which he shall live. The verse implies that one shall live by the commandments and not die because of the commandments, so saving a life will override all commandments except for the three cardinal sins of murder, idolatry and adultery.
7. The Mishnah states that one who brings a chatas offering and a definite asham offering will gain atonement for sin. Death and Yom Kippur atone for sin as long as one repented. Repentance provides atonement for lesser transgressions, whether one violated positive or negative transgressions. Regarding severe transgressions, however, repentance suspends punishment until Yom Kippur arrives and atones.
8. An asham vaday, a definite asham, is brought when one definitely violated certain prohibitions, such as stealing and misusing scared objects. If one is uncertain whether he violated a prohibition which bears the punishment of kares, he must bring an asham taluy, a doubtful asham. There are two differences between the asham vaday and the asham taluy. An asham vaday effects a complete atonement whereas an asham taluy protects the person from punishment as long as he remains doubtful, but once he ascertains that he indeed sinned, he would be required to bring a chatas. A second difference between the two offerings is that regarding an asham vaday, nothing else can effect atonement, even after Yom Kippur has passed, whereas one who is liable to bring an asham taluy and Yom Kippur passes, he is exempt from bringing an offering because Yom Kippur effects the necessary atonement.
9. The Mishnah implies that Yom Kippur effects atonement only in conjunction with repentance. Rebbe, however, disagrees and maintains that Yom Kippur alone effects atonement for all sins in the Torah except for one who throws of the yoke of HaShem, one who acts insolently towards the Torah or for one who violates the covenant of the flesh, i.e. he refuses to circumcise himself or he hides the evidence of being circumcised. Yom Kippur will only atone for these two sins if one repents.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 84 - Science or Fiction?

Daf Yomi - Yoma 84 - Science or fiction?

The Mishnah states that if one was bitten by a mad dog, we do not feed him from the dog’s liver lobe in order to heal him. Rambam explains that the rationale for this ruling is that the laws of the Torah are only suspended for cures that have a scientific rationale or have been shown by experience to be effective. One whose life is in danger can be healed through non-kosher medicine as long as it is a natural medicine. Rashi maintains that the reason we can not feed the person the dog’s liver lobe is because it is not a valid cure. The commentators wonder why one cannot heal someone on Shabbos even with a dubious remedy, as the halacha is that the laws of Shabbos are suspended in order to save a life. Shearim Mitzuyanim B’Halacha answers that Rashi’s explanation must be aligned with the opinion of the Rambam that the reason we cannot heal the person with the dog’s liver lobe is because this is not a scientific cure. Rather, this is a remedy known as a segulah, a talisman. It is noteworthy that the Chidah maintains that one is permitted to attempt to save a life with a forbidden food even if the remedy is only a segulah.

Read more!

Day Yomi - Yoma 84 - Highlights

Highlights


1. Five things were said regarding a mad dog. Its mouth is open, its saliva drips, its ears droop, its tail rest on its legs, and it walks on the side of the road, Some say that it also barks but its voice is not heard. There is a debate as to how the dog becomes mad. Rav maintains says that female sorcerers play with the dog and Shmuel maintains that an evil spirit rests on it. According to Shmuel the mad dog must be killed by throwing something at it, for if one gets too close to the dog, the evil spirit will attach itself to him. One who is rubbed by the mad dog will be in grave danger. The Gemara discusses the remedies if one is rubbed by the mad dog or if one was bitten by the mad dog.
2. Rabbi Yochanan suffered from a condition known as tzefidna, which begins in the teeth and gums and spreads to the intestines. A certain noblewoman provided Rabbi Yochanan with a remedy for his condition for Thursday and also for Friday. When Rabbi Yochanan pressed her to reveal to him the remedy for Shabbos, she revealed the remedy to Rabbi Yochanan but she made him swear that he would not divulge the secret. Rabbi Yochanan took the oath and immediately explained to her that the oath he had taken was not valid. This disclaimer allowed Rabbi Yochanan to teach the remedy in public. Had Rabbi Yochanan not explained to the noblewoman immediately that he had not made a binding oath, there would have been a desecration of HaShem’s Name.
3. The Gemara discusses different ailments and which remedies are allowed to be administered on Shabbos as these particular remedies have therapeutic value
4. One can desecrate Shabbos if it is possible to save one’s life. This is true even if we are convinced that he will survive through Shabbos even without the medicine. The rationale for this ruling is that we are concerned that if we do not heal him today, he may not live until the next Shabbos.
5. When it is necessary to administer medicine on Shabbos to one who is sick, we do not allow a gentile to administer the medicine. The reason for this ruling is that we are concerned that the gentile will procrastinate and this will cause the Jew to be in danger. For this reason we have the medicine administered by Jewish adults.
6. We do not listen to a woman or a Cuthean (converts to Judaism after an outbreak of wild animals in Eretz Yisroel and their conversion was debated as to its validity) if they assess that a patient requires a procedure that constitutes a desecration of Shabbos. However, if there is a situation where two Jewish males maintain that it is necessary to desecrate the Shabbos for this person and three people maintain that it is not needed, the woman or the Cuthean can combine with the opinion of the two Jewish males to make the two sides equal. Then we can apply the rule that when there is a doubt whether we should override the Shabbos prohibitions to provide for the patient, we are lenient regarding life and death matters and we treat the patient.
7. In a situation where there are nine gentiles and one Jew and one of the ten people departed and he is now in a life threatening situation, we do not maintain that the person in danger is a gentile because of the majority. Rather, we are lenient and we assume that the individual may be the Jew and we desecrate the Shabbos on his behalf.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 84 - An Exalted Jew

An exalted Jew

The Gemara states that if one found an abandoned child in the city and we do not know whether the child is a Jew or a Cuthean, if a majority of the city’s inhabitants are Cutheans, he is treated as a Cuthean, and if the majority of the city’s inhabitants are Jews, he is treated as a Jew. If half of the inhabitants are Jews and half are Cutheans, then he is treated as a Jew. Rav said regarding the Mishnah that if most of the inhabitants are Jews, the child is treated as a Jew only with respect to sustaining him, but not with respect to ascribing pure lineage to him. Rashi explains that if the child is a female, a Kohen is prohibited to marry her even after she converts to Judaism, as a Kohen cannot marry a convert. Although the principle of majority dictates that this child was born a Jew, Rabbinic law requires extra safeguards to render her eligible for marriage to a Kohen. This is truly an amazing concept . One can be considered a Jew, yet we will not grant that person the status of having attained pure lineage. This idea can also be applied to the soul of a Jew. Although every soul was created from beneath the Heavenly Throne, one can cause his soul to be sullied through sin. The Gemara in Sanhedrin states that a Yisroel, even if he has sinned, is still a Yisroel. This implies that a Jew never loses his exalted status of being considered one of HaShem’s children. Yet, the Arizal writes that when a Jew sins, his soul departs from him. Yes, one is always a Jew, but a Jew without a soul is not an exalted Jew. Our ambition should be to remain exalted Jews, with the soul that HaShem breathed into us always functioning and retaining its pristine status that it had when it descended from the Heavenly Throne.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 84 - Question

Question regarding biblical prohibitions on Shabbos and Yom Tov

The Mishna states that if one feels pain in his throat, it is permitted to place medicine in his mouth on Shabbos, as saving a life supersedes the Shabbos prohibitions. The Gilyon Maharsha wonders what possible Shabbos prohibition could be violated in such a situation. Rav Zalman Leff, the Rosh Kollel from Boston noted that a similar question arises in the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah 33. The Mishnah there states that one cannot move a boulder which is resting on a shofar. Rabbeinu Chanannel states explicitly that this would be biblically forbidden. There too we must wonder what biblical prohibition is involved in moving a boulder on Yom Tov.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 84 - Perform a Less Severe Act even though Success is not Guaranteed

Daf Yomi - Yoma 84 - Perform a less severe act even though success is not guaranteed

The halacha is that when feeding a sick person with forbidden food, we initially attempt to feed him the food that is least severe in punishment regarding its consumption. The Sefer Toras HaYoledes wonders what the halacha would be in a situation where the food that is more severe in punishment for its consumption will certainly heal the person, whereas the food that is more lenient regarding the punishment for its consumption will not definitely heal the ill person. Do we disregard the certainty of the former food and feed the patient the food that is less severe in punishment for its consumption? It is clear that this question is only relevant when there is time to attempt feeding the patient the food that is less severe in punishment regarding its consumption. If this was not the case, it is clear that we would feed the patient the food that would certainly cure him. The Toras HaYoledes offers a proof from Tosfos here who writes that the Gemara states that one can extinguish a fire on Shabbos or one can set up utensils that are filled with water which will cause the fire to be extinguished. Tosfos wonders why the Gemara found it necessary to state that one can place utensils near the fire to cause it to be extinguished if we have already been taught that one can extinguish the fire directly. In his second answer, Tosfos explains that one would have thought that one is permitted to extinguish a fire directly because one will accomplish what he has set out to do. When one places utensils near the fire to extinguish the fire, however, it is possible that he will not accomplish what he set out to do, i.e., extinguishing the fire, and one would have thought that such an act should not be permitted. The Gemara therefore felt it necessary to teach us that even if one is not certain of the outcome, he can place the utensils near the fire to cause the fire to be extinguished. The Toras HaYoledes understands from the words of Tosfos that placing the utensils near the fire is only a rabbinical prohibition, as such an act will cause the fire to be extinguished indirectly. Since the act is only prohibited rabbinically, we prefer that one exercise this approach even though he may not accomplish what he has set out to do. Hence, we have a proof that one must always attempt to perform the act that is less severe in punishment even though one cannot be certain of success.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 84 - Violating the Shabbos to Save a Life

Daf Yomi - Yoma 84 - Violating the Shabbos to save a life

The Gemara states that one can violate the Shabbos if there is a possibility that ones life will be saved. The Aruch HaShulchan in Orach Chaim 328:3 notes that there is a debate amongst the Rishonim if the violation of Shabbos is totally permitted or if the laws of Shabbos are merely overridden because of the life-threatening situation. This debate would be analogous to the ruling that the laws regarding tumah, ritual impurity, are suspended regarding the community. The Gemara stated earlier that a korban belonging to the community can be offered even if the Kohanim are tamei. The Gemara records a debate regarding the need to find a Kohen who is tahor to perform the avodah. The argument is predicated on the question if the laws of tumah are totally permitted or if they are merely overridden because of the current situation. The same rationale can be applied with regard to saving a life on Shabbos. If saving a life is totally permitted, it is not necessary to seek a means of saving a life in a manner that the Shabbos would not be violated. If, however, we say that saving a life merely overrides the Shabbos prohibitions, then one must first ensure that there is no other means of saving the person’s life before one violates the Shabbos. The commentators wonder according to the opinion that maintains that saving a life on Shabbos is totally permitted, why is there a halacha that one must seek the more lenient prohibition?

Read more!

Some New Additions Iy"H

1. The posts (not the comments) will be professionally edited before they are posted.

2. There will be highlights of the daf posted every day. This will give a quick overview of the daf without delving into too much detail, yet retaining the flavor of the Gemora.

3. There will be more posts with more variety.

4. Anyone wishing to receive the daf notes via e-mail, which can be easily printed out should send an e-mail to midrashiya at eagleintl dot com and write in the subject line subscribe.

Please scroll down for highlights on daf 83 and five posts.

Thank you and tizku l'mitzvos

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 83 - Highlights

Daf Yomi - Yoma 83 - Highlights

1. Rabbi Yanai maintains that if one who is ill claims that he must eat on Yom Kippur and the doctor disagrees, we listen to the sick person and give him to eat. The rationale behind this ruling is that the heart knows the bitterness of its soul and we assume that he does not want to sin by eating on Yom Kippur.
2. Rabbi Yanai rules further that if the doctor maintains that the ill person is required to eat and the ill person disagrees, we listen to the doctor and give him to eat. In this situation the ill person’s feelings are disregarded as we posit that he is delirious due to his illness.
3. Mar bar Rav Ashi maintains that if the ill person maintains that he must eat on Yom Kippur and one hundred doctors disagree, we listen to the sick person and give him to eat.
4. The Mishnah rules that if a person suffers from a bulmus attack i.e. a life-threatening disease induced by hunger and one of its symptoms is that the person’s vision weakens, we can even offer him forbidden foods to eat until his eyesight improves.
5. When there is no permitted food available to improve ones health, he is permitted to consume prohibited food. Nonetheless, we must first feed him from forbidden foods whose consumption is of less severity in punishment.
6. It is beneficial to consume sweet foods that will improve ones eyesight as long as the sweet foods are consumed after having eaten other foods.
7. One who is afflicted with bulmus and seeks to improve his eyesight should consume the tail of a sheep, fine flour or barley flour mixed with honey.
8. Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Yose were once traveling and Rabbi Yehudah was afflicted with bulmus. Out of desperation, Rabbi Yehudah stole a loaf of bread from a shepherd so that he would be healed and Rabbi Yose reprimanded him. Upon entering the city, Rabbi Yose was afflicted with bulmus and the people of the city were compelled to bring him sweets in order to heal him.
9. The Gemara relates a story where Rabbi Meir determined that an innkeeper was a wicked person by examining his name.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 83 - Baal Loshon Hora Compared to a Mad Dog

Daf Yomi - Yoma 83 - Baal Loshon Hora Compared to a Mad Dog

The D’aas Kedoshim writes that the Chachamim compared one who speaks Lashon hara to a mad dog. This statement is sufficient to humiliate one who speaks Lashon hara, as man was created in the image of G-d and through his despicable actions he can be denigrated to the level of a mad dog. The analogy of one who speaks Lashon hara to a mad dog is appropriate, as both the one who speaks Lashon hara and a mad dog have similar characteristics. The Gemara in Yoma 83b states that five things were said regarding a mad dog. Its mouth is open, its saliva drips, its ears droop, its tail rest on its legs, and it walks on the side of the road. Some say it also barks but its voice is not heard. One who speaks Lashon hara always has his mouth open, and he is constantly dripping saliva, i.e. words of slander and degradation. One who speaks Lashon hara also has drooping ears, because the Gemara in Kesubos 5a states that one should pace his earlobe inside his ear so he should not hear improper words, whereas one who speaks Lashon hara not only does not refrain from hearing Lashon hara, but he widens his ears to hear more Lashon hara. For this reason he is likened to a mad dog whose ears are enlarged and doubled over. Furthermore, the mad dog walks on the side of the road, and a person who walks on the side of the road is deemed to be arrogant. It is well-known that arrogance leads one to denigrate the righteous. Lastly, the one who speaks Lashon hara is likened to a mad dog that barks but its voice is not heard. The one who speaks Lashon hara is concerned that the person he denigrates should not be informed of the slander, and if the victim is informed, the one who slandered him will deny his wrongdoing. Since he “barks” but his voice is not heard, the righteous person who is a victim of the slander is not aware of the words that were spoken against him and it is difficult to spare himself from the suffering which is caused by the one who barks and bites with his speech.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 83 - Bad Names - Bad Deeds

Daf Yomi - Yoma 83 - Bad Names - Bad Deeds

The Gemara relates a story where Rabbi Meir determined that an innkeeper was a wicked person by examining his name. Tosefes Yom HaKippurim questions this from a Medrash in Parshas Shelach regarding the names of the spies that Moshe sent to inquire about Eretz Yisroel. The Medrash states that some of their names were pleasant yet their deeds were despicable whereas others had despicable names yet their deeds were virtuous. Thus, we see that a name is not always indicative of ones actions. The Tosefes Yom HaKippurim answers that this Medrash would be deemed an anomaly, as people whose names have negative connotations usually act in a despicable manner.

The Shearim Mitzuyanim B’Halacha, however, posits that Rabbi Meir is of the opinion that we must always be concerned for the minority and it was for this reason that Rabbi Meir suspected the innkeeper of evil intentions. The language that Rabbi Meir used is proof to this, as Rabbi Meir said, “when I said that one should be particular about names, I meant only that someone with a name that has negative connotations warrants suspicion.” Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Yose, who were traveling with Rabbi Meir, maintained that one always follows the majority opinion, and in this instance they felt that the majority of names are not indicative of ones character.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 83 - Providing the Sick with the Most Lenient Prohibition

Daf Yomi - Yoma 83 - Providing the Sick with the Most Lenient Prohibition

The Gemara states that when there is no permitted food available to improve ones health, he is permitted to consume prohibited food. Nonetheless, we must first feed him from forbidden foods whose consumption is of less severity in punishment. An example of this would be a food that is only forbidden on account of a positive commandment, such as food that was planted during the Shemittah year. The prohibition of consuming such a food is more lenient than the prohibition of consuming tevel, which is food that Terumah and Maaser was not yet designated, and one who consumes tevel is punishable by death from heaven. The Ohr Sameyach in Hilchos Maachalos Asuros 14:14 suggests that this guideline only applies to the one who is feeding the sick person. The sick person himself, however, is not required to be particular and he can eat whatever he desires. The Ohr Samaeyach writes that this idea that the sick person does not have to be particular regarding what he eats would be analogous to the rule regarding a rodeif, one who is chasing after someone with the intent to kill him. A bystander can attempt to intervene by wounding the assailant but he must ensure that he does not kill the assailant. The victim, however, is not required to make such a calculation and he can actually kill the attacker. The Ohr Samaeyach writes that this is implied in the words of the Gemara that states that one who was seized with bulmus, we “feed” him the least severe of the forbidden foods available, implying that only the one performing the feeding must make a calculation, but the one consuming the food is not required to make such a calculation.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 83 - Listening to the Sick Person on Yom Kippur

Daf Yomi - Yoma 83 - Listening to the Sick Person on Yom Kippur

Rabbi Yanai maintains that if a sick person declares that he must eat on Yom Kippur and the doctor disagrees, we listen to the sick person and give him to eat. The rationale for this ruling is that the heart knows the bitterness of its soul and we assume that he does not want to be wicked and violate the prohibition of eating on Yom Kippur. The Shulchan Aruch in Orach Chaim 618:1 rules that even if there are one hundred doctors that concur that the sick person does not need to eat, we still listen to the sick person. Mishna Berurah writes that we must verify that the sick person knows that it is Yom Kippur, because it is possible that he forgot what day it was. The Gemara states further that if the doctor maintains that the sick person must eat and the sick person disagrees, we listen to the doctor and give him to eat. The sick person’s feelings are disregarded because it is possible that he was delirious due to his sickness. Shulchan Aruch in Orach Chaim 618:2 rules that if one doctor claims that the sick person should eat and another doctor disagrees, we give the sick person to eat. The rationale for this ruling is that when there is a doubt regarding saving someone’s life, we rule leniently. Shulchan Aruch in Orach Chaim 328:10 rules that if anyone claims that there is a sickness for which we need to desecrate the Shabbos, we listen to that person even if he is not an expert in the medical field, as we rule leniently when ones life is in danger. Regarding Yom Kippur, however, Shulchan Aruch does not make mention of the need to consult a medical expert. The Rema in Darchei Moshe to Orach Chaim 618:3, however, maintains that a medical expert is not necessary as long as one claims that he recognizes the sickness.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 83 - Story Regarding the Riva

The Radvaz (3:444) relates an incident regarding the Riva, one of the Baalei HaTosafos, who was ill with an illness that he eventually succumbed to. The doctor informed the Riva that if he were to fast on Yom Kippur he definitely would not be able to continue living and were he to eat, it would be possible that he could continue to live. The Riva was adamant in his refusal to eat on Yom Kippur and he subsequently died. The Radvaz writes that the Riva certainly did not maintain that one is permitted to be stringent with regard to his own health, as one is prohibited from disobeying the directives of the doctor. If one was coerced to violate a mitzvah in the Torah, if through his death HaShem’s Name will be sanctified, he is permitted to forgo his life. Rather, the Riva was aware that even if he were to eat he was not going to live and this is an illustration of the proverbial dictum that the heart knows the bitterness of its soul.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 82 - Chinuch on the Mother

Tosfos Yeshonim states that the mitzva of chinuch is only on the father and not on Beis Din. He extends this to mean that it is only on the father and not on the mother. He asks on himself from a Gemorah in Sukkah by Hilni HaMalka that it is evident from that Gemora that there is a mitzva of chinuch on the mother? He answers that there it was only "lmitzva b'alma."

Reb Akiva Eiger in Sukkah asks on this that the Gemora there is clear that it's more than just mitzva b'alma - it is the real mitzva of chinuch for the Gemora is prooving the halachos of sukkah from there?

This will be discussed at greater length iy"H, soon.

Read more!

Notes from David

I’m looking at my notes, and I have a couple of heorahs:



80a – the Marhartatz Chiyus has a discussion on shiurim (measurements) and concludes “according to this we can understand the whole topic”. However, in the first perek of Succah he writes that “the whole topic is very very deep and requires great investigation”.



81a – Rav Shizbi makes a statement about a shizbin of terumah. This relates to our discussion earlier regarding names of amoraim.



81b – regarding the concept that one who eats on the 9th is as though eh fasted 2 days. I heard two contradictory explanations for this: 1) eating a lot the day before makes you able to daven better on Yom kippur, and so its commendable to eat before to get comfort the next day; 2) eating the day before makes you fell the withdrawal from eating even more the second day, and so the hunger pangs are increased, making your fast equivalent to a 2 day fast

Read more!