THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
1) HALACHAH: GOING TO THE MIKVAH ON TISHA B'AV AND YOM KIPPUR
OPINIONS: The Beraisa states that anyone who is obligated to immerse in a
Mikvah may immerse in the usual manner even on Tisha b'Av and on Yom
Kippur. Is it permitted for a woman to immerse on those days if her Tevilas
Mitzvah falls at that time?
2) "BNEI MELACHIM" AND "DAVAR SH'EIN MISKAVEN"
The Rishonim write that it is not permitted, even though there may be
reasons to permit it.
(a) TOSFOS (Beitzah 18b, DH) explains that today, our Tevilos are not
considered to be "in their proper time." We do not follow the exact
schedule of counting days as prescribed by the Torah; rather, we are much
more stringent and we add days to be safe. Therefore a woman's Tevilas
Mitzvah never occurs at the Torah-prescribed time, so she may not immerse
on Tisha b'Av or Yom Kippur. It was only permitted to immerse on those days
since "it is a Mitzvah to perform Tevilah in its proper time" (Beitzah
HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 554:8 and 613:12) rules that a woman may
not immerse in a Mikvah on Tisha b'Av or Yom Kippur because of the first
reason -- our Tevilos are not considered to be in their proper time.
(b) TOSFOS (ibid.) cites RABEINU TAM who says that we rule l'Halachah that
immersing at the proper time is *not* a Mitzvah. According to that opinion,
it was never permitted to perform Tevilah on Tisha b'Av and Yom Kippur.
(c) The RI cited by TOSFOS here (DH Lo) explains that immersing at the
proper time, even on Tisha b'Av and Yom Kippur is permissible only in order
to handle and eat Taharos, but not in order to be permitted to one's
husband. Today, since we do not immerse for Taharos, it is not permitted
for a woman to immerse in order to be permitted to her husband. (The
concession to immerse for Taharos was a special necessity, because we
feared that one might come into contact with Taharos right away and be
Metamei them. Immersing for one's husband, though, is not immediately
necessary, because marital relations are forbidden on Yom Kippur and Tisha
(d) TOSFOS here (DH Tovlin) cites the Gemara in Ta'anis (13a) which says in
the name of Rebbi Chanina Segan ha'Kohanim that even if Tevilah in its
proper time is still a Mitzvah, it is not proper to perform Tevilah on
Tisha b'Av because "it is worthwhile to lose a day of Tevilah once a year
in mourning over the Beis ha'Mikdash." The Yerushalmi rules like Rebbi
Chanina Segan ha'Kohanim.
QUESTION: In the Gemara, Rav says that the Halachah follows Rebbi Shimon
who maintains that all Jews are considered to be "Bnei Melachim." The
Gemara asks how can Rav rule in accordance with Rebbi Shimon here while
elsewhere -- regarding Davar sh'Ein Miskaven -- Rav rules *against* Rebbi
Shimon and says that Davar sh'Ein Miskaven is forbidden.
What does one ruling have to do with another? Rav's ruling against Rebbi
Shimon with regard to Davar sh'Ein Miskaven should have no bearing on his
ruling with regard to "Bnei Melachim!"
(a) The RASHBA explains that the Gemara knew from an accepted tradition
that the most lenient ruling that Rebbi Shimon issued in the laws of
Shabbos is the ruling that all Jews are considered to be "Bnei Melachim."
Consequently, if Rav rules in accordance with that leniency, then certainly
he must agree with all the other, less lenient, rulings of Rebbi Shimon.
(b) The BA'AL HA'ME'OR says that on the contrary, it was an accepted
tradition that according to Rav the Halachah does not follow Rebbi Shimon
*at all* in the laws of Shabbos. The Gemara is asking, then, how can Rav
rule like Rebbi Shimon even in this one Halachah of "Bnei Melachim?"
3) THE SOURCE FOR THE MELACHAH OF TYING
QUESTION: RASHI (DH v'Eilu Kesharim) writes that we learn the Melachah of
tying from the repairs that were done to threads that ripped in the Yeri'os
of the Mishkan. Rashi (DH Kach Hu Chayav) writes further that we learn the
Melachah of untying from the Chilazon trappers who used to untie the nets
in order to adjust their sizes while hunting for the Chilazon.
However, the Gemara earlier (74b) concluded that the source for both tying
and untying is from the Chilazon trappers! Why, then, does Rashi here cite
a different source for the Melachah of tying? (TOSFOS REBBI AKIVA on the
(a) The TIFERES YISRAEL (Boaz, #1) suggests that according to Rashi, a
person is Chayav even for tying an *unprofessional* knot (see Insights to
Daf 112). Therefore, the nets of the Chilazon trappers cannot be the source
for the Melachah of tying, because the knots that those trappers tied were
knots of professionals. For this reason, Rashi explains that the source of
the Melachah of tying (even unprofessional knots) is from the Yeri'os that
needed to be repaired.
(b) RAV YAKOV D. HOMNICK (NACHALAS YAKOV #38) writes that Rashi here (DH
v'Elu) explains that in order to be Chayav for tying, one must tie a
permanent knot. The knots tied by the Chilazon trappers in their nets were
not permanent (since they were untied and retied elsewhere), and therefore
Rashi cites the source of the torn Yeri'os.
He adds that in the Gemara on 74b, Abaye says that the source for the
Melachah of tying is from the Yeri'os that tore. Rava argues and says that
the source is from the nets of the Chilazon trappers, which is how the
Gemara concludes. The argument there, he suggests, is based on where
permanent knots were tied. Abaye maintains that the knots tied in the nets
of the Chilazon trappers were not considered permanent (as we mentioned
above), whereas Rava considers them to be permanent. Since the simpler case
of permanent knots is Abaye's source of the torn Yeri'os, Rashi cites that
opinion here. (Rava, on the other hand, prefers the less simple explanation
in favor of learning both tying and untying from a single source.)