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) ONE IS "CHAYAV" FOR "ME'ILAH" EVEN WHEN HE IS "MIS'ASEK"
QUESTION: The Gemara, explaining the Beraisa cited earlier (32b) which says
that Me'ilah is more severe than other Isurim in one respect, offers several
ways to explain in what manner Me'ilah is more severe than all other Isurim.
One explanation, suggested by Mar brei d'Ravna, is that one is Chayav for
Me'ilah even when it is done without intention ("Eino Miskaven"), but one is
not Chayav for any other Isur when it is done without intention. For
example, on Shabbos, if one intended to cut an item which it is permissible
to cut (it is already detached from the ground) and he unintentionally cut
something which it is forbidden to cut (it is attached to the ground), he is
Patur because he did not do what he intended to do. This is not so when it
comes to Me'ilah, though. If one had intention to warm himself with fabric
of Chulin and he unintentionally warmed himself with the wool from a Korban
Olah, he is Chayav for Me'ilah.
2) TAKING TERUMAH FROM CHAMETZ ON PESACH
RASHI (DH she'Im Niskaven) explains that the words "Eino Miskaven" in this
sense refer to Mis'asek (one who performs an Isur without intention to do
so). Mis'asek is normally Patur, "*even on Shabbos*," Rashi asserts, because
in order to be Chayav one must do a "Meleches Machsheves."
(1) What does Rashi mean that "even" on Shabbos one is Patur for an Isur
done unintentionally? Why would we have thought that Shabbos is more
stringent than any other Isur, that Rashi has to point out that "*even*" on
Shabbos one is Patur?
In fact, Rashi tells us that Mis'asek is Patur because one is only Chayav
for "Meleches Machsheves," an act done intentionally. The words "Meleches
Machsheves" were stated with regard to Shabbos -- why, then, should Mis'asek
be Patur not only on Shabbos but by all other Isurim? If anything, it is
*more* obvious that Mis'asek is Patur by Shabbos than by other Isurim.
(2) TOSFOS RABEINU PERETZ, TOSFOS HA'ROSH and TOSFOS SHANZ, as well as the
P'NEI YEHOSHUA, point out further that not only does the exemption of
"Meleches Machsheves" not apply to other Isurim, but we find that one will
indeed *be Chayav* for other Isurim done b'Mis'asek (Shabbos 73a; Rashi
there, DH d'Savur. Why, then, does Rashi say "even on Shabbos," when the
Petur applies *only* on Shabbos?
(a) The DEVAR SHMUEL suggests that Rashi here holds that the Petur of
"Mis'asek" does apply to other Isurim besides Shabbos. (This is learned from
the word "Bah," see Kerisus 19 and Insights). Even though one is also Patur
for "Mis'asek" on Shabbos, that exemption is not the normal exemption of
"Mis'asek," but rather a new verse is needed to teach that "Mis'asek" on
Shabbos is Patur -- the verse which teaches that Shabbos requires "Meleches
Why is this extra verse necessary? Because the general Petur of "Mis'asek"
will not suffice to exempt one on Shabbos, for the following reason. On
Shabbos, if a person did not realize that it was Shabbos and he did a
Melachah, thinking that it was a weekday, he is Chayav to bring a Korban.
Why is that act of unintentional transgression not included in the general
Petur of "Mis'asek?" The CHELKAS YO'AV (OC 7) concludes that it must be
learned from a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that the Petur of Mis'asek does not apply
to this particular Halachah of Shabbos. If so, we might have thought that
all forms of "Mis'asek" are Chayav on Shabbos as well. Therefore, Rashi says
that "*even* on Shabbos" one is Patur for Mis'asek; that is, one is Patur
when one knew it was Shabbos but intended to do an act which was Mutar and
unintentionally did an act which was Asur. This is what Rashi means by
saying one is Patur from Mis'asek *even* on Shabbos. (DEVAR SHMUEL)
(b) The Gemara gives a second answer to explain why Me'ilah is more severe
than other Isurim. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak says that the difference between Me'ilah and other Isurim is that one is Chayav for Me'ilah "b'Mis'asek."
RASHI (DH Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak) explains this as follows. Rav Nachman
argues with the explanation of Mar brei d'Ravna, because he maintains that
even by non-Me'ilah Isurim one would be *Chayav* for the type of Eino
Miskaven described by Mar brei d'Ravna, since one performed the same act
that he intended to perform; he just did not perform the act on the *object*
for which he had intended. What makes Me'ilah exceptional is that one is
Chayav when one intended to do one act and unintentionally did an entirely
*different* act; for example, he intended to *take out* an object from a
vessel and he ended up *rubbing oil* of Hekdesh on his hand. Such a mistaken
transgression is a true case of Mis'asek, which is Patur when other Isurim
(Incidentally, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak and Mar brei d'Ravna appear to be
arguing the same Machlokes argued by Rava and Abaye, in Shabbos 73a, about
how to define Mis'asek; see Chart there).
Rashi says that according to Rav Nachman, a person who does the act he
*intended* to do but with a different object (for example, he intended to
cut something detached and he cut something attached) is Chayav when Isurim
besides Me'ilah are involved. It is not included in the Petur of "Mis'asek"
because one did a "Meleches Machsheves"; he performed the same action that
he intended to.
How can "Meleches Machsheves" affect the Halachah with Isurim other than
Shabbos? The principle of "Meleches Machsheves," which is stated with regard
to Shabbos, applies only to Shabbos!
Perhaps there is a printing error in the words of Rashi. The words "even on
Shabbos," which appear in Rashi above (DH she'Im Niskaven) and which are
difficult to understand there, belong in Rashi here (DH Rav Nachman), which
is difficult to understand *without* those words. (The words should be
placed right after the phrase "Meleches Machsheves Hi v'Chayav -- *Afilu
b'Shabbos*"). Rashi is saying that even on Shabbos one is Chayav because it
not only is not Mis'asek, it is even a "Meleches Machsheves." The words
"even on Shabbos" do not mean that one is *Patur* for Mis'asek even on
Shabbos, but that one is *Chayav* for "Meleches Machsheves" on Shabbos. (M.
QUESTION: There is a Machlokes (32a) whether one is Chayav or Patur for the
Isur of Chametz when one eats Chametz of Terumah on Pesach. The Gemara adds
that the Machlokes applies only when the Chametz had become Terumah prior to
Pesach. If the grain, though, became Chametz on Pesach before Terumah was
taken from it, everyone agrees that the Chametz is *not* Terumah and one is
Chayav for eating Chametz on Pesach. Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua explains
that the reason is because the Torah calls Terumah "Reishis," which is
explained to mean "Reishis she'Sheyareha Nikarin." In this context, this
means that one of the conditions of Terumah is that it must permit the rest
of the produce from which it was taken. If one cannot actually eat the
remainder of the produce, one's declaration of separating Terumah is
meaningless. In the case of Chametz on Pesach which is Tevel, even when
Terumah is taken from it the remainder is Asur (because it is Chametz), Rav
Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua explains.
REBBI AKIVA EIGER (Gilyon ha'Shas) and the TZELACH ask that if the problem
with taking Terumah from Chametz on Pesach is that doing so will not serve
to permit the produce, then it depends solely on what the remainder of the
produce is, and not what the Terumah itself is! That is, if part of the
grain was made into Matzah and part became Chametz, if one separates the
Chametz as Terumah for the remainder (the Matzah), then the Terumah *should
be* valid. Why, then, does the Beraisa insist that Chametz cannot be made
(a) The SEFAS EMES answers that the requirement of "Reishis she'Sheyareha
Nikarin" does not depend on the produce which remains after Terumah has been
separated from it. Rather, it depends on the status of the Terumah itself.
That is, the Terumah is valid if the remainder would be permitted to eat had
some of this Terumah not been made into Terumah but remained Chulin (or had
the remainder of the dough had the same Halachic status as the Terumah). We
look only at the Terumah and not at the rest of the produce. In our case,
then, Chametz cannot become Terumah because the Chametz itself would not
have become Mutar had Terumah been taken on its behalf.
(The RASHASH cites a Yerushalmi which asks the question of the Tzelach and
gives the answer of the Sefas Emes.)
(It should be pointed out that Rebbi Akiva Eiger, when he asked his
question, may have based himself of the Gemara in Eruvin (37b). The Gemara
there discusses another aspect of ""Reishis she'Sheyareha Nikarin," and
clearly understands it to be a requirement related to the produce which
remains, and not the Terumah itself.)
3) THE JUICE INSIDE A GRAPE
QUESTION: Rebbi Yochanan says that one may squeeze the juice out of grapes
that are Tamei and the juice will remain Tahor, as long as one squeezes
grapes which are less than a k'Beitzah in size. The Gemara explains that
Rebbi Yochanan is of the opinion that the liquid inside a fruit is not part
of the fruit, and it does not become Tamei along with the fruit.
RASHI (DH ka'Saver Mashkin Mifkad Pekidi) asks why, according to this
opinion, the grape which is Tamei does not make the juice inside of it Tamei
through contact. The reason it does not make the juice Tamei, Rashi answers,
is because as long as the juice is inside the grape, it does not qualify as
a "Mashkeh" and thus it cannot be Mekabel Tum'ah. Rashi adds that the juice
inside of the other grapes cannot join to the juice inside of one grape to
make a large enough Shi'ur of juice to become Tamei, because the other
grapes only touch the outside of the grape and not the juice inside.
What does Rashi mean by this added sentence? Even if the juice of the other
grapes join the juice of this grape so that they add up to a Revi'is, Rashi
already wrote that it will not be Mekabel Tum'ah because the juice was never
outside of the grape and is not yet considered a Mashkeh! Conversely, if
what Rashi says here at the ends of his comment is correct, that one grape
does not join to the grape next to it, why did Rashi have to explain that
the liquid inside is not considered a Mashkeh? Even if it *is* a Mashkeh, it
will not become Tamei because there is not enough juice in the grape to be
Mekabel Tum'ah! (TZELACH)
ANSWER: The RASHASH and NIMUKEI HA'GRIV explain that the second statement of
Rashi is an alternate approach. If so, Rashi is apparently unsure whether or
not liquids totaling less than a Revi'is become Tamei or not. First, Rashi
suggests if even a minute amount of liquid can become Tamei, we must
conclude that the juice inside a grape is not a Mashkeh at all, and
therefore will not become Tamei. Secondly, Rashi states that if Mashkeh that
is less than a Revi'is is *not* Mekabel Tum'ah, then we have a simpler
solution to the question of why the liquid in the grape does not become
Tamei through contact with its skin. That is, Rashi here is in doubt whether
a liquid can be *Mekabel* Tum'ah (as opposed to *transmit* Tum'ah) when it
is less than a Revi'is, and therefore Rashi gives these two alternate
TOSFOS in Shabbos (91a, DH Iy) says, regarding whether food less than a
k'Zayis is Mekabel Tum'ah, a related question, that Rashi changed his
opinion in this matter, at times saying it is and at other times saying it
is not. It is then fully within reason to suggest that Rashi here is
offering two explanations in order to cover both opinions.