כ"ג טבת תשפ“אThurs, Jan 7 2021 OVERVIEW of the Daf Distinctive INSIGHT work to allow crushing clods of dirt on הואיל Cooking on Yom Tov for weekday use (cont.) Can (1 Two more unsuccessful challenges to R’ Chisda Yom Tov? אמר רב פפא בר שמואל אבים מקורזלות, ראויות לכותשן... .are presented R’ Chisda unsuccessfully challenges Rabbah’s posi- and הואיל T he Gemara analyzes the concept of . הואיל tion that we subscribe to the principle of applies his rule. The רבה Abaye unsuccessfully challenges Rabbah’s posi- under what circumstances מלקות tion. Baraisa quoted lists eight different sets of which apply in the case of a kohen and nazir who leads a team of animals through a vineyard in a ceme- REVIEW and Remember tery on Yom Tov during Shemitta. Among the pun- 1. Why, according to R’ Chisda, are the lechem ishable infractions is plowing. Rav Chisda challenges there should be , הואיל hapanim not baked on Yom Tov? Rabah. If we have the rule of no lashes for plowing, because the dirt might be need- 2. What eight prohibitions could be violated when ed to cover the blood of birds which might be slaugh- plowing one furrow? tered. Rabah answers that in fact, if we were speaking about regular dirt being plowed, one would not be 3. What are the five prohibitions violated when liable for lashes. However, we are dealing with a case one cooks and eats a gid hanasheh with milk on where the person is plowing and dislodging hardened Yom Tov? clumps, which cannot be used for covering the blood of a bird. 4. What is the source for the opinion that main- Rav Chisda pursues the discussion further, and tains that the prohibition of muktzeh is Biblical points out that it should be allowed to crush the clump of dirt to use the soft ground to cover the in origin? blood. Rabah answers that crushing the dirt is not al- lowed on Yom Tov. who asks why, in ריב“א cites “(ד ה כתישה) Tosafos fact, do we not allow crushing the clod of dirt due to as we were willing to allow plowing? Rashbam , הואיל HALACHAH Highlight answers that there is a fundamental difference be- The halachic status of non-religious Jews tween the suggestion of the Gemara to fulfill the mitz- כאבא שאול דאמר לכם ולא לכרים vah of covering the blood by plowing and crushing Like Abba Shaul who said “yours” and not for the gentile. the clod of dirt. The goal of plowing is to prepare the T he Poskim 1 write it would also be forbidden to ground for planting. Using the dirt for a different pur- מלאכה cook on Yom Tov for a Jew who publicly desecrates pose results in the labor of plowing being a where it is being done for an— שאיה צריכה לגופה (Shabbos, for such an individual has the halachic (legal status of a non-Jew for every Jewish law. There is a dis- objective other than what plowing is aimed to accom- pute amongst the Rishonim and poskim of the status of plish normally. The challenge of the Gemara is, there- איה צריכה those children born 2 to parents who (erroneously) fore, that this should be a labor which is and should be permitted. However, when the לגופה raised them with heretical beliefs (for example 3 the “Karaites”). There are those 4 who hold that even though Gemara suggests to crush a clump of dirt, which is a this would be (טוחן) these children were subsequently exposed to authentic form of the labor of grinding (Continued on page 2) precisely the labor itself, with its being performed for (Continued on page 2) פסחים מ“ז—Number 369 (Highlight...Continued from page 1) (Insight...Continued from page 1) Jews (Jews who keep Torah and Mitzvos properly) and the purpose for which grinding is usually done. This because we would , הואיל still did not return to keeping the Torah, they nonethe- is not permitted, even with ,to observe Yom Tov) לא תעשה and a עשה less retain their status as Jews. They have the status of have an “tinok shenishba” (captive in infanthood), for they were and not to violate it) which would not permit the sin- .that of covering the blood , עשה raised with false beliefs (they would only lose this status if gle they were given the active opportunity to return and הראשון. ובש “ ך ביו “ ד ק “ ט סק “ ו כתב שהרמב “ ם יודה chose 5 not to). Others 6 hold, once they were exposed to בחילוים שאין בהם את המעלות טובות שהין לקראים Torah-true” Judaism, and nevertheless continued to“ שבזמן הרמב “ ם, שלכו “ ע דים ככרי. וכן עי ‘ ברדב “ ז על הרמב“ ם ה“ל publicly disgrace Shabbos (etc.), they have a status of a .7 בסימן תקי “ ב ס “ ק ב ‘. שהביא את המחלוקת שבמ “ א שם, non-Jew. In our days, this dispute manifests itself in how שהביא שלר “ ב אסור ולמהרש “ ך מותר, ועי “ ש בשו “ ת to view children born to irreligious families. Although מהרש “ ך בסוף סימן ט “ ו וז “ ל ולא יספיק טעת היותם Mishna Berura 7 brings down both opinions and does not אוסים וכתיוק שישבה לבין הגוים שכתב הרמב “ ם רק 8 שלא למהר להורגם וכו ‘. עכ “ ל. שמקורו מהרמב “ ם ה “ ל. indicate to be lenient, the Chazon Ish , however, writes וכן עי ‘ בשו “ ת מה “ ר בצלאל אשכזי סימן מ “ ג, שבגן .that they do indeed have a status of a tinok shenishba אברהם וכ“ ל. שיסוד הסוגיא הוא מהדין הכללי בכל התורה -Nonetheless 9, in a situation where hatred will be in של הקראים. וגם בשעה “ צ ס “ ק ב ‘ רואים שהאם מותר curred due to the neglect of cooking food for them on לבשל לקראים ביו “ ט תלוי בדין גם בחילוים שבזמה “ ז.] Yom Tov, it would even be permissible to add food for a וע “ ע בבאה “ ל בסימן ש “ ל ס “ ב בד “ ה כותית, שהחמיר מלחלל שבת להצלת חיי הקראים. (אלא שבזה והגים להקל non-Jew into a dish which one was already preparing for כדברי חיים ואג “ מ ועו “ פ) ועוד פוסקים הסתפקו והחמירו himself, provided no extra melachos were performed for בדין הקראים, עי ‘ פת “ ש ביו “ ד סימן ק “ ט סק “ ו בשם .him החו“ ד. ועע“ ש בדרכי תשובה .1 במ “ ב תקי “ ב ס “ ק ב ‘ ועע “ ש בשעה “ צ ס “ ק ב ‘ שטעם .8 החזו “ א בהלכות שחיטה סימן א ‘ ס “ ק ו ‘, וצ “ ע לפי “ ז מדוע האיסור הוא מפי שהרי דיו כעכו “ ם לכל דבריו [ועי ‘ בא “ ר דם בסימן ב ‘ ס “ ק ט “ ז בד “ ה וראה, החזו “ א צרך לומר סימן תמ “ ה שאם יתבייש מלחלל שבת בפי גדול הדור איו טעם לקרב החילוים שבזמה “ ז מפי שבזמה “ ז יפסידו חשב כמחלל ” בפרהסיא “] מריחוקם, והרי בלא “ ה צריך לקרבם מדין תיוק שישבה. 2. כ“ ז ברמב“ ם בהלכות ממרים פ“ ג ה“ג וצ“ע 3. כ“ כ הרדב“ ז בפירושו לרמב“ ם ה“ל .9 במ “ ב תקי “ ב ססק “ ו [וע “ ע בשש “ כ פ “ ב הערה כ “ א, ובשו “ ת 4. כ“ כ הרמב“ ם ה“ ל. וכן דעת השו“ ע ורמ“ א ביו“ ד ק“ ט ס“ד רב פעלים ח“ א סל“ ב כתב שמקודם יאכל ישראל לפי שיתו .5 כמבואר ברדב “ ז ה “ ל. וכ “ ה בחזו “ א בהלכות שחיטה פ “ א לכרי, כיון שאפשר בהכי.] ולשון מ “ ב ” דאפשר “ דמותקר. ס“ק ו‘ ובחילוים קל עוד יותר 6. כ “ כ המ “ י בפרק איזהו שך בדפי הרי “ ף מ “ ב ב ‘ בדיבור question of R’ Yonasan Eybeschuetz actually ruined as a result of his ac- regarding this case. This person has tion, and not merely subject to a legal Gemara GEM taken two items, one kosher (milk) limitation. If the item is still useful or now איסור Is cooking milk and meat together and the other non-kosher, but per- functional, although an applies to the final product, this is . (גיד השה) considered an act of destruction— mitted to use for benefit and this is not an , מקלקל As a result of his actions, this combi- not called ? מקלקל .nation becomes prohibited for bene- action which is exempt לוקה משום מבשל גיד ביום טוב Why should the Another answer is that although .( בשר בחלב ) fit ,person be liable for lashes, when the this item has been ruined for a Jew מלקות A baye lists five sets of which can be applied to a case where nature of this act is destructive, and however, in regard to a non-Jew this in milk we have a rule that a labor on Yom item has been improved, or at least it גיד השה a person cooks a -is exempt? is still useful. The fact that this mix מקלקל and eats it. Because the mixture is Tov that is and milk can be גיד השה applies ture of מקלקל prohibited to eat, the cooking process The answer is that on Yom Tov is one of the categories when the outcome of an action is de- eaten by a non-Jew is enough of a which is punishable. The Minchas structive in an objective sense. In oth- consideration for the act to be viewed Chinuch (Mitzvah 298, #13) brings a er words, the item must be become as being constructive. Daf Digest is published by the Chicago Center, under the leadership of HaRav Yehoshua Eichenstein, shlit”a HaRav Pinchas Eichenstein, Nasi; HaRav Zalmen L. Eichenstein, Rosh Kollel; Rabbi Tzvi Bider, Executive Director, edited by Rabbi Ben-Zion Rand. Daf Yomi Digest has been made possible through the generosity of Mr.