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) "HATMANAH" -- INSULATING A POT
OPINIONS: The Gemara teaches three Halachos and gives the reason for each
one. There are different opinions in the Rishonim how to understand these
three Halachos, based on different texts of the Gemara.
(1) *On Shabbos* one is not allowed to do Hatmanah (to insulate a pot) in
material that does *not* add heat, because perhaps on Shabbos he will find
that the food has cooled off and he will re-heat it ("Shema Yartiach").
(b) RAMBAM (Hilchos Shabbos 4:2):
(2) *During Bein ha'Shemashos* one *is* allowed to do Hatmanah in material
that does *not* add heat, because the pot is still very hot at that moment
and one certainly will not feel the need to reheat it.
(3) *On Friday*, before Shabbos one is *not* allowed to do Hatmanah in
material that *adds* heat, because we are concerned that someone might do
Hatmanah in ashes with coals mixed in. If someone does Hatmanah in such a
material, we are worried that he might stoke the coals on Shabbos.
(According to Rashi's explanation, this apparently is a Gezeirah
le'Gezeirah, a decree on top of another decree [see Insights 11:2]. It must
be that Rashi maintains that the above was all included in one broad
(1) *On Friday before Shabbos* one is not allowed to do Hatmanah in
material that *adds* heat, because perhaps the pot might boil over ("Shema
Yartiach") and, in order to prevent the dish from overcooking, one will
open and close the pot to keep the boiling down. Closing an open pot
resting on a source of heat constitutes the Melachah of cooking. (That is,
we assume that since the Hatmanah was done while it was still day, the pot
probably did not yet reach a boil before the Hatmanah and one did not have
a chance to adjust the heat to the desired temperature.)
(c) RA'AVAD (ibid.):
(2) *During Bein ha'Shemashos* one *is* allowed to do Hatmanah in material
that *adds* heat(!), because by that time it is presumed that the pot has
already reached a boil and the fire has been adjusted accordingly;
therefore it will not boil or foam over any more on Shabbos (so we are not
concerned that one might open and close the pot).
(3) *On Shabbos* one is *not* allowed to do Hatmanah even in material that
does *not* add heat, because we are concerned that one might do Hatmanah
with ashes containing an ember which is still burning and he will stoke
that ember and make it burn more.
(1) Although the Ra'avad favors Rashi's explanation, he gives an alternate
explanation based on the text of the Gemara that the Rambam had (which was
also the Rif's version of the Gemara). The Ra'avad explains that *on
Friday*, before Shabbos, one may *not* do Hatmanah in a material that
*adds* heat, because perhaps on Shabbos he will find that the food has
cooled off and he will re-heat it ("Shema Yartiach"). Since one is showing
(by doing Hatmanah) that he wants his food to be very hot, we are concerned
that on Shabbos he will forget and heat it.
(2) *During Bein ha'Shemashos" one is allowed to do Hatmanah even in
material that adds heat, because usually pots that are left on the fire
until Bein ha'Shemashos become so hot that they will remain hot until the
night, and we are not worried that one will re-heat it. (We might have
thought that since the person indicates his desire for the pot to be very
hot by waiting until the last moment to take it off of the fire and do
Hatmanah, we should be concerned that he might re-heat it on Shabbos.
However, in truth we are not concerned because since it is so hot, it will
not lose any heat.)
(3) (Same as the Rambam:) *On Shabbos* one is *not* allowed to do Hatmanah
even in material that does *not* add heat, because we are concerned that
one might do Hatmanah with ashes containing an ember which is still burning
and he will stoke that ember and make it burn more.
2) THE "ZAV" WHO SAW A DISCHARGE DURING "BEIN HA'SHEMASHOS"
QUESTION: The Gemara states that Bein ha'Shemashos might be *completely
day*, *completely night*, or *part day and part night*. The Gemara cites a
Mishnah (Zavim 1:6) to explain how each of the three possibilities can
effect a Chumra: if a Zav saw a discharge during Bein ha'Shemashos on two
consecutive days, it is possible that he is required to (1) bring a Korban
(a Chatas ha'Of, which may be brought for a Safek), which is brought only
when one sees three consecutive discharges (either three separate
discharges on one day, or one long discharge that lasted for three days).
It is also possible that he does not have to bring a Korban, but only has
to (2) count seven clean days, which is done when a Zav sees two
consecutive discharges. A third (3) possibility is that he is not Tamei
with Tum'as Zav altogether (that is, it is considered as though he saw only
one discharge, or two discharges separated by one "clean" day).
It is obvious that the status of Bein ha'Shemashos does not change.
Whatever it is today (e.g. completely night), it must also be tomorrow. If
a Zav had a discharge at the same time on two consecutive nights, we must
ascribe the same status to the second Bein ha'Shemashos as the first. How
could there be a possibility that he is not Tamei at all? Either both times
he saw are considered day or both are considered night, in which case he
saw on two consecutive days, or both are part day and part night, in which
case there is a possibility that he even saw three consecutive days. How
can he have seen two discharges separated by one full day?
(a) The simple understanding of RASHI (DH Safek l'Tumah u'l'Korban) is that
the doubt about Bein ha'Shemashos actually does permit us to ascribe a
completely different status to one Bein ha'Shemashos than to another. Thus,
if the Zav sees a discharge at *any* point during each Bein ha'Shemashos
(even if he sees at the *exact same time* during each Bein ha'Shemashos),
it is possible that he saw for *three* days, because the first Bein
ha'Shemashos might have been part day (first day's discharge) and part
night (second day's discharge), and the second Bein ha'Shemashos might have
been completely night (third day's discharge) or part day and part night
(third day's discharge). This is the simple way of understanding Rashi.
This is problematic, however, because -- as we explained above -- if we
ascribe one status to the first Bein ha'Shemashos (such as *completely
day*), then we cannot switch and ascribe another status to the next Bein
ha'Shemashos (such as *completely night*). This point can be proven both
logically, and from the Gemara on Daf 35b. For this reason, the RITVA and
others (see Me'iri, Rashash) understand Rashi differently. They explain
that Rashi also knows that we cannot switch and ascribe a different status
to the second Bein ha'Shemashos. Rashi means that the Zav *does not know*
exactly when during each Bein ha'Shemashos he saw the discharges.
Therefore, if both Bein ha'Shemashos are *part day and part night*, since
he *does not know* when he saw each discharge, it could be that he saw the
first one during *day* (towards the beginning of Bein ha'Shemashos), and
the second one during *night* (towards the beginning of Bein ha'Shemashos),
in which case he is Tahor because there was a day separating the two
discharges. It could also be that he saw the first one during both day and
night, and the second one during night, in which case he has seen on three
consecutive days, or that he saw both during night, in which case he has
had two consecutive discharges.
(b) The RASHBAM cited in TOSFOS (DH Safek l'Tumah u'l'Korban) explains that
when the Gemara says that he saw on two Bein ha'Shemashos, it does not mean
consecutive ones, but rather there was a day separating each Bein
ha'Shemashos (for example, he saw a discharge on Sunday evening during Bein
ha'Shemashos, and then he saw another discharge on *Tuesday* evening, at
the same time, during Bein ha'Shemashos). The two discharges took place at
the same time each Bein ha'Shemashos. If Bein ha'Shemashos is part day and
part night, then his discharges on both Sunday and Tuesday evenings may
have occurred exclusively during the day or exclusively during the night,
and thus there is a full day separating them and he is Tahor. Possibly,
though, the discharges might have occurred at the point when day becomes
night (and thus he saw on both Sunday and Monday and Tuesday and
Wednesday), and he is therefore obligated to bring a Korban. There is no
possibility, though, for him to have seen *two* consecutive discharges.
(c) RABEINU TAM cited by TOSFOS (DH Safek l'Tumah u'l'Korban) explains that
the only way that the Zav's two discharges can be in doubt whether they
were on three consecutive days or on two non-consecutive days is if he saw
at *different times* during each Bein ha'Shemashos, and the time at which
he saw during the first Bein ha'Shemashos was *earlier* than the time at
which he saw during the second Bein ha'Shemashos. If the Zav saw a
discharge during the *beginning* of the first Bein ha'Shemashos, and a
second discharge near the *end* of the second Bein ha'Shemashos, it is
possible that he saw on three consecutive days: if Bein ha'Shemashos is
part day and part night, then his first discharge might have occurred while
the day turned to night, and it is considered as though he saw on two
consecutive days. Then, during the next Bein ha'Shemashos, when he sees a
discharge a little later than the time that he saw during the first Bein
ha'Shemashos, this will be considered seeing a discharge on the third
consecutive day. It could also be that the early discharge during the first
Bein ha'Shemashos was during the day, and the later one during the second
Bein ha'Shemashos was during the night, and he is Tahor because there is a
full day separating the two discharges.
(The only difference between this and Rashi's explanation, according to the
Ritva's understanding, is that according to Rashi the Zav had no idea when
he saw the discharge, and it is therefore *possible* that he saw the first
discharge at an earlier time of day than the second one; while according to
Tosfos the Zav *knew* that he saw the first discharge at an earlier time of
day than the second one.)