Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Yoma 78

78b

QUESTIONS: The Gemara says that children are not required to observe any of the Isurim of Yom Kipur except for Ne'ilas ha'Sandal, wearing shoes. As Rashi explains, the Gemara initially suggests that the reason children must observe the Isur of Ne'ilas ha'Sandal is because if they were permitted to wear shoes, people would see the child wearing shoes and think that his parent put them on him, which is prohibited because of the Derasha of "Lo Sachilum" (from Vayikra 11:42; Yevamos 114a), which teaches that an adult may not give an Isur to a child. The Gemara rejects this reason, because if it is true, then Rechitzah and Sichah should also be forbidden for a child for the same reason. The Gemara responds that when people see that a child is washed or smeared with oil, they will think that it was done to the child the day before, whereas when it comes to wearing shoes, everyone knows that shoes are only donned on that day and no one wears shoes overnight, and thus they will think that the child's parent put the shoes on him on Yom Kipur.

The Gemara says that this reason is still not correct, because the Beraisa which says, "Children are permitted in all of the Isurim except Ne'ilas ha'Sandal," implies that it is permitted l'Chatchilah for an adult to do the Isur for the child (to wash the child and to smear oil on him). Rashi explains that since it is permitted l'Chatchilah, when the father asks the Beis Din whether he may feed or wash his son, the Beis Din will tell him to feed and wash him, and the father will thus know for sure that the child was fed and washed on Yom Kipur. The Gemara is making a point that we see that there is no concern that people will think that an adult did it for the child on Yom Kipur.

There are a number of problems with Rashi's comments.

(a) Why does Rashi add that the father asks if he is allowed to *feed* the child? There never was a question whether the father may feed the child! Feeding a child is certainly permitted on Yom Kipur, because it is dangerous for the child not to eat.

(b) Why does Rashi say that if Beis Din tells him that he is allowed to wash the child, we should because the father knows that he did it on Yom Kipur, and people will suspect that something prohibited was done by giving a child an Isur? Rashi should say that there is a much more obvious problem, besides people's *suspicion* that an adult gave a child an Isur -- the father *did*, and was permitted by Beis Din to, give the child an Isur! We see, then, that there is no Isur of "Lo Sachilum," and if so, there should be no concern that people will suspect him of transgressing that Isur, because it is not Asur!

ANSWERS:

(a) The SI'ACH YITZCHAK answers that Rashi is explaining how the Gemara knows that it is permitted to wash a child l'Chatchilah on Yom Kipur. From the Heter to feed a child, it can be inferred that one may also wash a child. There is no doubt that it is permitted to feed a child l'Chatchilah, since it is dangerous if he does not eat. Since the Beraisa groups together all of the Inuyim except for Ne'ilas ha'Sandal, it implies that they are all similar to Achilah and are permitted l'Chatchilah. That is why Rashi adds that the father asked if he could *feed* the child and wash him -- to show how the Gemara knows that washing the child is permitted l'Chatchilah.

(b) The RAN at the beginning of the Perek asks that according to Rashi, the Rambam, and the others who hold that the other Inuyim are Asur mid'Oraisa, how is it permitted to do those things to a child on Yom Kipur? Anything which is Asur mid'Oraisa for an adult to do, is also Asur for an adult to do on behalf of a child because of the Derasha of "Lo Sachilum." It should be prohibited to help a child perform any of the Inuyim because of "Lo Sachilum," just like Rashi says here with regard to Ne'ilas ha'Sandal!

Actually, the Tosefta (4:1) says that Ne'ilas ha'Sandal for a child is Asur only because of Mar'is ha'Ayin (and not because of "Lo Sachilum"). What is the Mar'is ha'Ayin here? RABEINU ELYAKIM explains what the Mar'is ha'Ayin is: Although the Isur of Lo Sachilum does not actually apply here, people will *think* that it applies to smearing, washing, or shoeing a child on Yom Kipur. If they see others doing such acts (or if they see Beis Din permitting such acts), they will think that the Torah did not prohibit any Inuyim other than eating and drinking, and that smearing, washing and wearing shoes are permitted! For this reason, the Rabanan prohibited putting shoes on children on Yom Kipur. They permitted smearing and washing the child only because of "Hainu Rivisai'hu," it is needed for the normal development of the child.

Why does Lo Sachilum actually *not* apply? Either because the Inuyim are prohibited mid'Rabanan, and not mid'Oraisa (and the Rabanan do not apply Lo Sachilum to their own prohibitions), as many Rishonim say, or, even if they are d'Oraisa (as Rashi seems to say, see Insights to 74:1), the Torah may not have prohibited the other Inuyim when the primary Isur of fasting does not apply (as we wrote there).

This may be Rashi's intention in our Sugya as well. Rashi does not mean to say that the Gemara originally prohibited putting shoes on a child because of Lo Sachilum. Rather, it prohibited the act lest people *think* that Lo Sachilum is being transgressed, and come to permit wearing shoes on Yom Kipur. Similarly, Rashi tells us that if Beis Din permit a person to wash or smear his child l'Chatchilah, the person may think that those acts are not prohibited at all on Yom Kipur, for otherwise it should not have been permitted to do this to his child because of Lo Sachilum