Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shabbos 111

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?

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 18b).

(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 b'Av.)

(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.

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.

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!"

ANSWERS:

(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?"

111b

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 Mishnayos)

ANSWERS: (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.)