Daf Yomi Summary Parashat Tetzaveh 5781 ?? - ?? ???? ? EDITIO N: 57
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
?''? ? daf yomi summary parashat Tetzaveh 5781 ?? - ?? ???? ? EDITIO N: 57 Aharon had the same status of the ???? mentioned regarding THE ????, KO RBAN PESACH, AND MO URNING ??? ?? ?? and that this phrase refers to the day of death, leading us to conclude that ???????? ?????? refers to the day of death, at least LAWS O N PURIM prior to the burial, and possibly also afterwards. THANKS RABBI YO NI ISAACSO N In truth, the Gemara (Zevachim 100b) brings a Beraisa which The M ishna at the bottom of daf 90b lists a number of people who records a debate between Rebbe and Chachamim as to how long despite currently being unfit to eat the ?? ? ???? may still be ?????? continues, at least on a rabbinical level/ Rebbe is of the view included in a group that the ???? is slaughtered for, seeing as they that it is only until the burial whereas the Chachamim hold that it is will be fit to eat it in the evening. This list includes, amongst others, the entire day. one who is an ???? and a prisoner who has been promised that he The Gemara discusses which day they are talking about, whether it will be freed by evening. is the day of death or the day of burial, in a case where the two do Although they may be included in a group, the ???? may not be not coincide. It argues that it is impossible that Rebbe holds that slaughtered for them alone, in case they do not become fit to eat it ?????? on the day of death ends after the burial even before the day and the entire ???? becomes invalid. Although the term ???? is is over, seeing as everyone agrees that the entire day of death is generally used to refer to someone who has lost a relative and still subject to the laws of ?????? based on the passuk ??? ???? ???????? has not buried him, the usage of this term does seem to vary from (after it is like a bitter day- Amos 8/10 ) and everyone also holds place to place, and the reference to one over these 3 daf presents an that the night after the day of death is rabbinically subject to the opportunity to begin clarifying the scope, status, and laws of an ???? laws of ??????. ? as opposed to an ??? and a regular person. ??? ? ?? It then suggests that the dispute is referring to the day of The term ??????/???? is found in the Chumash itself in the burial and a long discussion ensues. The Gemara concludes that ???? ?? ????, the declaration made in the third and sixth year before according to Rebbe, the whole of the day of death is subject to Pesach verifying that one has separated all his tithes and treated ???????? ?????? and the night after, as well as the day and night after them according to halacha. One of the phrases in this declaration is burial are subject to ????? ?????? Returning to our sugya, Rashi ????? ????? ????? ??? (I never ate from it while I was in my ?????? ? explains that the ???? mentioned in our M ishna who may be included Devarim 26/14.) in the group for a ?? ? ???? seeing as he will be fit to eat it as night, The implication is that it is forbidden to eat one?s M aaser Sheini is referring to one who has not yet buried his death, bringing support while one is an ???? (the other tithes are not eaten by the original from the Gemara in Zevachim. owner but by the Levi ,the poor, or the Kohain) What precisely The Gemara (Pesachim 92b) explains that seeing as ?????? at night ??????? means is not evident from the ?? ??,but the Ibn Ezra sees it as (even on the day of death) is only ?????, Chazal did not apply their synonymous with ?????? (my mourning) and connects it to the own restrictions in a way that would cause the ???? to miss out on a naming of Binyamin as ??? ????? (Bereishis 35/18.) and ?????? ??? ? ?? ? ???? whose neglect incurs the penalty of ???. In contrast, (Hoshea 9/4). other ?????? may not be eaten at night during ????? ?????? as Although the actual word is not used, reference to the day one Chazal upheld their restrictions even in cases where the ???? would lost a relative can also be found regarding sacrifices, where Aharon miss out on a regular ?? ? ???? , so long as its neglect does not explains that the reason he did not eat from the inaugural sacrifices incur the penalty of ??? . This requires further explanation- After all, we because he had lost his 2 sons that day (Vayikra 10/19) The the Gemara (M oed Katan 14b) rules that ????? does not apply on Targum Yonatan explains that Aharon made a ?kal vachomer? Chol haM oed seeing as the ????? ?? ? (public positive mitzva) of argument to M oshe- If an ???? is not permitted to eat ??? ?? ??, ??? ??? ???? pushes aside the ????? ?? ? of ?????. how much more so a ???? ???? which has a much greater sanctity. The usage of the term ?? ? indicates that this is referring to By making this link, the Targum seems to have made it clear that ???????? ?????, in other words, ?????? on the first day. If a public positive mitzva of rejoicing on chol hamoed pushes aside ? ? S ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 3 A ? ? 1 3 0 1 6 ? 0 3 ? 1 4 6 ? 5 6 7 2 7 ? ? 1 5 ? 1 2 ? 4 5 2 3 6 5 6 ? ? 0 0 4 ? 3 ? ? ? ? 1 5 ? ? ? ? ? ? 7 0 ? ? 2 ? ? ? ? ? 2 2 ? ? 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ? ? ? 1 2 2 2 2 ? 2 2 ? 2 2 H ? ? ? 2 2 ? ? 2 2 ? ? 2 2 2 ? ? ? ? ? 2 2 ? ? ? 2 2 2 ? 2 ? ? ? 2 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 2 ? ? 2 ? ? 0 ? ? ? ? 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 ? ? ? 0 0 0 ? 2 2 0 0 0 ? 0 0 S ? 0 0 0 0 8 ? ? ? ? ? 0 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? 0 0 0 ? ? 0 0 ? 0 0 0 ? ? 0 ? ? ? ? 0 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0 ? 0 ? ? 2 ? ? ? 2 2 2 2 2 ? 2 2 2 2 2 ? ? ? ? ? 0 0 2 2 2 ? ? 2 2 2 2 ? ? 2 2 2 ? ? ? A ? ? 2 2 ? 2 2 2 ? ? ? 2 2 ? ? 2 2 2 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? 2 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 2 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 2 2 ? ? ? ? ? ) ? 8 ? ) r ? 3 1 ? 3 4 9 ? ? ? 1 4 5 9 6 ) ? H 6 0 1 4 0 3 0 1 7 ? ) ? ? ? ? ) ) ) 7 0 ) 4 5 3 ? 3 2 ? ) ) 8 9 1 ) ? 4 ) ) ) ) ) ? 2 3 ? ? ) ) 7 ) 5 ) ) 1 a 1 6 ) 2 3 ) ) 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 ) 5 ? 9 8 1 2 1 ? 2 2 1 1 ) ) 1 2 ) 7 ) 1 9 2 2 2 9 1 2 ? 1 ) ) 9 9 3 5 8 3 4 0 ? ) r r r y y 1 6 v 0 ? 0 1 4 5 3 3 6 l l ) 3 6 ) M p p r r 2 1 1 8 y 7 t t 2 8 7 ) v v v 1 n r r c c c 1 n 8 0 g g 3 M 2 5 4 3 ) 0 2 ( a a a p p n 8 b b a a 1 ( 2 ( ) ( n n 9 o 3 n n n 3 1 1 6 ( 1 3 ( 8 ( 3 u u ( ( c c 5 a a e e 1 6 a 2 2 ( 1 8 1 e e e o o o a ( 8 ( 4 U u ( ( p p ( 1 ( ( ( u u J J 5 ( 1 1 a e e 1 e e ( ( 1 ( ( 4 J a a a ( ( J u u ( ( 2 S S J 7 ( ( N 1 M M M ( M M 1 J J J J J Y O O A A ( F F S S 7 D D D A A 1 N N N M M ( M 3 I ( 1 ( 1 ( ( ( S ??????? ???? ?????? ???? ? ???? ??? ?????? ? ???? ?''? ? ?"? ???? ???? ?? ????? ????? ??? ? ?????? ? ???? ?"? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ? ?????? ? ???? 2 | DAF YOMI SUMMARY ???????? ?????? , why shouldn?t the mitzva of eating any ????, On the other hand, if we follow other Rishonim who hold that the particularly public ones, push aside ????? ??????? Furthermore, surely laws of aveilus are only rabbinical in status, it is more likely that the the rule of ?? ?? ?? ???? ?? ? should allow the mitzva of eating a higher status of Simchas Purim as a ?????? ??? ???? AND a korban to push aside even a biblical prohibition of ?????? ? ????? ???? will override them. The solution to the later question seems rather straight-forward: The resolution of this question is way beyond the scope of this post, When one action consists of 2 independent results, one a mitzva and but it is indeed a matter of debate between the M echaber and the one an aveira, the above rule might tell us that the action is defined as Rema in Orach Chaim whether public mourning applies on Purim or a mitzva and not an aveira. not! (O.C. 696/4 but compare Y.D. 401/7 where the M echaber seems to agree with the Rema that it does not.)- Perhaps the law of However in the case of the prohibition of eating ??? ?? ?? or ????? ????? ????? ???? should apply?! www.Yoniisaacson.com ??? ?? during ??????, the very essence of the prohibition forbids performing the ?? ?. From the fact that the Torah forbids eating These posts are intended to raise issues and stimulate further ??? ?? during ?????? , it is clear that the rule of ?? ?? ?? ???? ?? ? research and discussion on contemporary topics related to the daf. cannot apply here anymore than it would apply to any of the other They are not intended as psak halacha. prohibitions regarding eating them, such as doing so when impure. BACK TO THE MAKO R...... ANALYSIS It could follow that when Chazal extend such prohibitions, they do so under the same parameters as the original biblical prohibition and O F PASUKIM IN THE DAF unless they specifically say otherwise, the fact that their decree is THANKS stopping the fulfillment of an ???????? ?? ? is irrelevant- that is the Learning Daf 94, I believe Chazal were not teaching a science class.