Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Pesachim 47

1) "YOM TOV SHENI SHEL GALUYOS" IN YERUSHALAYIM

QUESTION: The Gemara cites a Mishnah which states that when the two days of Rosh Hashanah fall immediately prior to Shabbos (that is, on Thursday and Friday), the Lechem ha'Panim is eaten in the Mikdash on the eleventh day after being baked. (That is, from when it was baked -- Wednesday, the day before Rosh Hashanah, until the Shabbos of the following week, when it is eaten, is eleven days).

RASHI (DH Sh'nei Yamim Shel Rosh Hashanah), at the end of his comments, asks why does the Beraisa say two days of Rosh Hashanah, and not two days of any Yom Tov (that is, "Yom Tov Sheni Shel Galuyos")? Rashi answers that "at the time of the Lechem ha'Panim, there was no second day of Yom Tov."

What is Rashi talking about? Our discussion involves the Lechem ha'Panim in the Beis ha'Mikdash! There are *never* two days of Yom Tov in the Beis ha'Mikdash other than on Rosh Hashanah -- even today only one day of Yom Tov is observed in Yerushalayim! What does Rashi mean by saying that "in the *times of the Lechem ha'Panim* they did not have two days of Yom Tov in the Beis ha'Mikdash?" (TZELACH)

ANSWERS:

(a) The CHASAM SOFER writes that when in his youth he brazenly suggested an answer to the TZELACH, who nodded his head in affirmation. He answered that it could be construed that there sometimes were two days of Yom Tov even in Yerushalayim. During the time that the leading Torah sages were outside of Israel, the sages of Chutz l'Aretz would accept the testimony of witnesses who saw the new moon to establish the new month (Berachos end of 63a). Since it took time for the messengers of Beis Din to bring news of the new month to Yerushalayim, the people of Yerushalayim would have to keep two days of Yom Tov, out of doubt (just as cities outside of Israel kept two days of Yom Tov when the Beis Din in Yerushalayim established the new month)!

Why then *weren't* there two days of Yom Tov in Yerushalayim in the "times of the Lechem ha'Panim?" Perhaps, suggests the Chasam Sofer, the verse "v'Alisa El ha'Makom" comprises a requirement that as long as there is a Beis ha'Mikdash, the Sages of Eretz Yisrael must establish the beginning of the new month, no matter who lives in Chutz l'Aretz.

(b) RAV YOSEF SHAUL NATANSOHN notes (in a comment on the famous Teshuvah of the CHACHAM ZVI #167 -- who reaches the opposite Halachic conclusion), suggests that we see from here that two days of Yom Tov were always kept by the people of Yerushalayim! Tosfos (Pesachim 14a DH Shtei) explains that since people from many different locales would gather in Yerushalayim, the city would always keep the most stringent customs that were common. If so, an argument could be made that they kept two days of Yom Tov in Yerushalayim, following the more stringent custom of Chutz l'Aretz, since people from Chutz l'Aretz were constantly there. Rashi had to explain that at that time of Lechem ha'Panim, there was not yet a rabbinical enactment to keep two days of Yom Tov outside of Israel (Beitzah 5b), rather two days were kept in outside of Israel out of doubt. Since there was not yet a "Minhag" to keep two days of Yom Tov in Chutz l'Aretz, Yerushalayim kept only one day. (The comments of Rav Y.S. Natansohn can be found at the end of most prints of the Chacham Zvi.)

(c) Perhaps when Rashi says that "there were not two days of Yom Tov *in the time* of the Lechem ha'Panim," he does not mean that in the historical era of the Beis ha'Mikdash there were not two days of Yom Tov. Rather, Rashi means to say that when discussing *the duration of time* from when the Lechem ha'Panim was baked until it was eaten, *it is not relevant* to discuss two days of any Yom Tov other than Rosh Hashanah, for the very reason we mentioned in our question -- because such a thing does not exist in Yerushalayim. (That is, Rashi is to be read as follows: "When discussing the duration of time of the Lechem ha'Panim, there is no [pertinence to] two days of Yom Tov.")

Why did Rashi find it necessary to point this out if it is obvious? Rashi wants to explain why *other* Mishnayos do not discuss "Yom Tov Sheni Shel Galuyos" but refer to two days of Rosh Hashanah instead. For instance, the Mishnah in Shabbos (137a) tells us that Milah is sometimes performed 12 days after a birth when two days of Yom Tov of "Rosh Hashanah" intervene between the birth and the Bris. Does this law apply to when two days of any other Yom Tov intervene as well, or do we just go ahead and circumcise the baby on the second day of Yom Tov, on every other Yom Tov besides Rosh Hashanah?

This is actually the subject of a debate among the Rishonim. Most rule that there is no difference between Rosh Hashanah and any other Yom Tov. The TASHBETZ (3:284, cited by TSHUVOS CHASAM SOFER, YD 250) infers this to be the opinion of Rashi, as well, since Rashi here implies that had another Yom Tov intervened between the baking and eating of the Lechem ha'Panim, it would have had to have been baked *before* that Yom Tov. The Rambam (Hilchos Milah 1:15), on the other hand, differentiates between Rosh Hashanah and other Yomim Tovim, based on the wording of the Mishnah in Shabbos.

Rashi in our Sugya is attempting to rebut the Rambam's proof from the wording of the Mishnah that discusses Milah. He points out that there is a specific reason why *this* Mishnah does not mention Yom Tov Sheni of Galuyos. Since this Mishnah had to two days of "Rosh Hashanah," the other Mishnayos that discuss something (Milah) that is delayed due to two days of Yom Tov it also mentions Rosh Hashanah, even though the Halachos of Milah apply equally to Yom Tov Sheni Shel Galuyos. (M. Kornfeld)

47b

QUESTION: The Gemara, attempting to prove that we do not utilize the principle of "Ho'il," cites a Mishnah. The Mishnah states that someone will be Chayav and receive Malkus for doing Charishah (plowing a field) on Yom Tov. If there is such a principle of "Ho'il," though, then one should not get Malkus, because "Ho'il" tells us that "since he could have done it in another, entirely permissible way, doing it this way is also permitted." When plowing on Yom Tov, one should not get Malkus because since it would have been permitted had he been plowing the earth in order to cover the blood of a bird that was slaughtered (that is, in fulfillment of the Mitzvah of "Kisuy ha'Dam"). According to the principle of "Ho'il," even when there is no blood to cover it should be permitted mid'Oraisa to plow, since blood *might* be brought to that place later in the day. From the fact that the Mishnah states that one gets Malkus for Charishah we see that we do not utilize the reasoning of "Ho'il."

What does this have to do with the principle of "Ho'il?" "Ho'il" means that a Melachah is permitted on Yom Tov if it is possible to benefit from that Melachah later on Yom Tov. Even if he does not actually benefit from the Melachah, as long as it is *possible* to benefit from it, the Melachah is permitted. Here, though, when it comes to Charishah, even if it is permitted to do Charishah in order to cover the blood of a bird, that applies only when blood is actually present at the moment that he plows the earth -- at which time the Aseh of covering the blood overrides the Lo Ta'aseh of plowing. (Our Gemara apparently maintains that the injunction against doing Melachah on Yom Tov is only a Lo Ta'aseh, and not a Lo Ta'aseh together with an Aseh as the Gemara in Beitzah 8b concludes -- see following Insight (b)). However, if the Lo Ta'aseh (of plowing) is done at a different time than the Aseh (of Kisuy ha'Dam), then it is *not* permitted to plow, since a condition for "Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh" is that the Lo Ta'aseh be done at the same time as the Aseh. (For example, cutting off a leprous mark of Tzara'as which is on the place of the Milah in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Milah.) One may not do the Lo Ta'aseh in order to fulfill an Aseh later on that day. If so, even if blood is brought to that place later in the day, the plowing was done in a prohibited manner; what effect should Ho'il have on whether or not Malkus is to be administered! There is nothing at all that could happen at a later time that could make this Charishah permissible! (RABEINU DAVID, MAHARAM CHALAVAH, CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN; also TUREI EVEN, cited by GILYON HA'SHAS)

ANSWERS:

(a) The TUREI EVEN answers that it must be that the Gemara here is relying on another line of logic to permit plowing. There is another Heter for doing Melachah on Yom Tov, other than "Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh." That is the Heter called "Mitoch." The principle of Mitoch does not permit doing an action now based on what *will occur* in the future, like "Ho'il," but it works with the present. Any Melachah which can sometimes be performed on Yom Tov for Ochel Nefesh (food preparation), may be performed on Yom Tov for *any* purpose. Similarly, perhaps "Mitoch" tells us that a Melachah which may be done on Yom Tov because of "Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh" (such as doing Charishah when there is actually blood to be covered) may be done under any circumstances, even when there is no Mitzvah to be fulfilled.

Consequently, any Charishah that benefits a person on Yom Tov is Mutar because of "Mitoch." If it does not benefit the person until after Yom Tov, though, it may not be performed on Yom Tov (just as it is not permissible to cook on Yom Tov for a meal that will be eaten after Yom Tov). That is where Ho'il comes in. If we accept the principle of Ho'il, any Charishah that could *possibly* benefit a person on Yom Tov should be Mutar because of "Ho'il," i.e. it is possible that later on Yom Tov a bird will be slaughtered and sand will be needed to cover its blood. The sand turned over by the plow will then come in handy on Yom Tov. Following the principle of Ho'il, even if no bird is later slaughtered, the person who plowed has not transgressed an Isur.

(b) The logic of the Turei Even is problematic because "Mitoch" means that the Torah never prohibited on Yom Tov all Melachos that *could* be used for Ochel Nefesh. In this case, though, Charishah is only permitted because of Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh. There is no reason to assume that the Torah permits it under all circumstances!

Perhaps the reason why an Aseh is not Docheh a Lo Ta'aseh when they do not occur simultaneously is because we are afraid that one might do the Lo Ta'aseh and then later he will not do the Aseh. That is, mid'Oraisa one may do a Lo Ta'aseh in order to fulfill an Aseh at a later time. It is only prohibited either because of a Safek, i.e. the possibility that the Aseh will not be fulfilled later, or because of an Isur d'Rabanan. However, if a person indeed fulfills the Aseh later, then perhaps he will have corrected the Lo Ta'aseh retroactively, mid'Oraisa, by performing the Aseh. If so, our Gemara is straightforward: since one might later find the blood of a bird and use the dirt that he plowed for the Mitzvah of Kisuy ha'Dam, he does not transgress the Melachah d'Oraisa of Charishah and thus he should not get Malkus. (M. Kornfeld)

(c) These two answers are valid for RASHI (DH Dam Tzipor) who explains that the application of "Ho'il" here would permit plowing now because of the possibility that *later in the day* one will find it necessary to cover the blood of many birds and Chayos. However, TOSFOS (DH a'Charishah) says that the application of "Ho'il" in our Sugya is that if there *would have been* birds' blood on the ground at the time of the Charishah, then the Charishah would have been Mutar because of "Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh," because then the Aseh and the Lo Ta'aseh would have indeed occurred simultaneously. What does that have to do with Ho'il?

Perhpas Tosfos understands the Gemara the way that RABEINU DAVID and the CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN explain (in the name of the RAMBAN). Although there is no blood on the ground at the moment that one pushes the plow into the earth, in the fraction of a second between the time that the plow pulls up the earth and the time that the clod of dirt falls down to the side of the plow, perhaps someone will come and slaughter a bird there. In such a case, the Kisuy ha'Dam will be considered as being done at the same time as the plowing, since one action of plowing accomplishes both the Aseh (Kisuy ha'Dam) and the Lo Ta'aseh (Charishah). Therefore, "Ho'il" indeed applies, since the act of Charishah could become Mutar based on what happens after (that is, a split second after) the act.

(NOTE: Answer (a) of the following Insight also answers the question posed in this Insight, although the Rishonim consider that entire approach somewhat forced.)

The Gemara challenges the assumption that Charishah would be permitted because of "Ho'il" and asks, "Is Ketishah permitted on Yom Tov?"

Why does the Gemara assume that Ketishah is *not* permitted? It should be permitted because of "Ho'il," just like the Gemara said about Charishah!

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS (DH Charishah, citing Rashbam) says that indeed, the Gemara never assumed that Charishah is permitted because of "Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh." Rather, it thought that it is permitted because when one is plowing in order to cover the blood of a bird, it is a Melachah sh'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah! One is digging in order to obtain the dirt (for Kisuy) and not to obtain the hole.

That is how the principle of "Ho'il" here applies -- since the dirt is fit for covering a bird's blood, therefore it is considered as though one wants the dirt that he is now plowing and not the hole. Ketishah, on the other hand, is a Melachah she'Tzerichah l'Gufah when done in order to cover the blood, because one needs to crumble the dirt in order to spread it on the blood!

(This explanation is problematic, as MAHARAM CHALAVAH points out, since Ho'il should not be able to make the plowing into a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufa, if the person who is plowing actually *intends* to soften the earth in order to plant. Ho'il does not change a person's intentions!)

(b) RABEINU TAM (cited by Tosfos) says that the Gemara certainly knows that Ketishah is not permitted, and furthermore, it knows that Charishah is not permitted either. That is, the principle of "Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh" does not apply to either of those Melachos, because the Isur of doing Melachah on Yom Tov is both an Aseh and a Lo Ta'aseh. "Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh" can only be applied to permit Charishah of Kil'ayim, or on Shevi'is.

That is what the Gemara means to ask when it says, "Is Ketishah permitted on *Yom Tov*?" (The Gemara means to include Charishah as well in its question - - that is, it could have also questioned Charishah on Yom Tov directly, without mentioning the Melachah of Ketishah.)

(c) The RIVA cited in Tosfos Rabeinu Peretz and in the Chidushei ha'Ran suggests that when the Gemara says that Charishah is permitted because of "Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh," the Gemara does not mean to say that it is Mutar l'Chatchilah to do Charishah on Yom Tov, because the Isur Melachah of Yom Tov is both a Lo Ta'aseh (do not do Melachah on Yom Tov) and an Aseh (rest on Yom Tov). An Aseh (covering the blood) is not Docheh a combined Aseh and Lo Ta'aseh. Rather, the Gemara means that even though it is forbidden to plow, one should not get *Malkus* for Charishah, because even a Lo Ta'aseh combined with an Aseh are pushed aside for the sake of an Aseh when, b'Di'eved, the act was already done. Even though one transgressed the laws of Yom Tov, one will not receive Malkus for it. (In other words, when we say that "Ein Aseh Docheh Aseh v'Lo Ta'aseh," that is with regard for it to be Mutar l'Chatchilah to do. But "Aseh *Docheh* Aseh v'Lo Ta'aseh" with regard to receiving Malkus.)

However, now that an added Isur of Ketishah must be done in order to exempt the person plowing from Malkus, Ho'il can no longer be applied. Ho'il applies only if there is a *permitted* way to exempt one's self from Malkus by doing another act in the future, but not if Malkus can be prevented through the transgression of an Isur Torah (as suggested by MAHARAM CHALAVAH). After one plows, he can only exempt himself from Malkus by performing Ketishah, a prohibited act. (That is, Ketishah is prohibited even in order to perform Kisuy ha'Dam, just a Charishah is prohibited l'Chatchilah, since Yom Tov is an Aseh and Lo Sa'aseh.) Therefore, the principle of Ho'il does not apply. (M. Kornfeld, based on the Riva cited here)

(Alternatively, the Gemara is asking that Charishah should not be permitted because an Aseh can only be Docheh the Malkus of a *Lav and an Aseh*, but it cannot be Docheh the Malkus of *two Lavim* and an Aseh.

Or perhaps, since one must still do Ketishah in order for the dirt to be soft enough to cover the blood, it emerges that the Charishah certainly is not being done *at the time* of the Aseh (Kisuy ha'Dam) -- RAMBAN, cited by RABEINU DAVID -- it is not clear how the Ramban understood the Gemara's answer to the question of Ketishah that "it is being done kil'Achar Yad.")

(d) TOSFOS RABEINU PERETZ says that the Gemara means that since Ketishah is also Asur, and one must do both acts -- Charishah and Ketishah -- in order to cover the blood, permitting it would require that a *double "Ho'il"* be utilized, and we do not rely on a double "Ho'il." (See Insights to 46b:2)