Moed Katan 2: Damage from failing to irrigate

Today we began Moed Katan in Daf Yomi. The Mishna (on 2a) begins with the idea that on Chol HaMoed, one can irrigate his field which required irrigation.

מתני' משקין בית השלחין במועד  

MISHNAH. AN IRRIGATED FIELD MAY BE WATERED DURING THE FESTIVAL [WEEK].

Not watering an irrigated field will cause damage, as the gemara explains:

מאן תנא דפסידא אין הרווחה לא

Who may be the [unnamed] Tanna who maintains that [work to prevent] loss is allowed, but [to augment] profit is not allowed?

How is not watering an irrigated field a case of loss? It is the loss of profit, sure, because that time that you didn't water it, it won't improve. But how exactly is this loss?

Fortuitously, just today, the blog Overlawyered linked to this article at Economics 21, which illustrates the loss quite nicely. Look at the two sentences I have bolded:

The proposed regulation, stemming from the 2011 Food Safety Modernization Act, would limit E. coli levels in irrigation water for any foods that could be consumed raw. This sounds like a justified reason for government action since E. coli outbreaks have the potential to sicken consumers. Just one problem, onions are not subject to E. coli contamination from irrigation. 

According to a thorough field study led by Oregon State University Agricultural Professor Clinton Shock, there is absolutely no risk of E. coli contamination from irrigation water, regardless of method used and bacteria levels in the water. This confirms what farmers and their customers have long known.

Complying with this regulation would have substantial financial consequences for farmers. Their irrigation water would need to be tested weekly and they would have to stop watering if E. coli levels were found to be too high. Onions are finicky and even a small break in irrigation could drastically reduce crop yields. 

Currently, most onion farmers would not be in compliance with the proposal. Yet there are no outbreaks of E. coli from onions. Why does FDA insist on meddling where there is clearly no problem?

So we can see that a break in irrigation can cause tremendous loss.

Daf Yomi Moed Katan 20b: Mourning because of his wife's honor

I initially found this gemara troublesome, but I think the answer is apparent. I thought to write down my thoughts, though, and to point out the obvious.

Moed Katan 20b:

ולא אמרו בכבוד אשתו אלא חמיו וחמותו אבל אחי אשתו או אחותו לא
דתניא מי שמת חמיו וחמותו אינו רשאי לכוף את אשתו להיות כוחלת ולהיות פוקסת אלא כופה מטתו ונוהג עמה אבלות וכן היא שמת חמיה וחמותה אינה רשאה להיות כוחלת ולהיות פוקסת אלא כופה מטתה ונוהגת עמו אבלות
ותניא אידך אף על פי שאמרו אינו רשאי לכוף את אשתו באמת אמרו מוזגת לו את הכוס ומצעת לו את המטה ומרחצת פניו ידיו ורגליו
קשיאן אהדדי אלא לאו ש"מ כאן בחמיו וחמותו וכאן בשאר קרובים שמע מינה
תנ"ה לא אמרו בשביל כבוד אשתו אלא חמיו וחמותו בלבד

And they only said that {he should maintain mourning} for his wife's honor regarding {the death of} his father-in-law and mother-in-law, but for his brother-in-law or sister-in-law, no.
For they learnt {in a brayta}: One whose father-in-law or mother-in-law died is not permitted to force his wife to apply kohl to her eyes or to arrange her hair, but rather he overturns his mattress and practices mourning with her. And so too she, where her father-in-law or mother-in-law died, is not permitted to apply kohl to her eyes or to arrange her hair, but rather she overturns her mattress and practices mourning with him.
And another brayta states: Even though they said that he is not permitted to force his wife {to apply kohl, etc.}, in truth {often = halacha lemoshe miSinai} they said that she mixes for him the cup and arranges for him the bed, and washes his face, hands, and feet.
These appear to contradict one another? Rather do we not derive from this that here it is for his father-in-law and mother-in-law, and here is for other relatives. We indeed so deduce.
A brayta also says so: They only said {he should maintain mourning} for his wife's honor for his father-in-law and mother-in-law.

This is the setama digmara's resolution of the difficulty. But the resolution is hard to swallow, for the second brayta explicitly makes mention of the laws of the first, stating "Even though they said that he is not permitted to force his wife..." The resolution would be that it is talking about a different list of activities, not that it is talking of mourning for different people!

This is only if you don't read it carefully, though. The contradiction the setama is pointing out is not whether one forces his wife to apply kohl to her eyes, etc., but rather what he himself is doing in terms of keeping mourning. In the first brayta, it states אלא כופה מטתו ונוהג עמה אבלות, "but rather he overturns his mattress and practices mourning with her." In the second brayta, he once again may not force her to apply kohl, etc., but he clearly is not practicing mourning with her, and indeed, they said מוזגת לו את הכוס ומצעת לו את המטה ומרחצת פניו ידיו ורגליו, "that she mixes for him the cup and arranges for him the bed, and washes his face, hands, and feet." Thus he is not keeping mourning. Perhaps it is really a machloket. But given that other brayta that made the distinction between her parents and other relatives, such that only for her parents does he keep mourning for his wife's honor, it is a pretty safe bet that the other brayta was working from a base case of the death of one of her other relatives.

This is pashut peshat and no chiddush, but just something I wanted to speak it out.

Update: Though perhaps one can make a distinction based on the content rather than identities. In the first perek of Taanit we learn:

והלכתא אבל אסור בין בחמין בין בצונן ופניו ידיו ורגליו בחמין אסור בצונן מותר ולסוך אפילו כל שהוא אסור להעביר את הזוהמא מותר:

This that they said that he is forbidden to wash, there is no distinction between washing with hot or washing with cold, for we learned in Taanit, in the first perek: And the halacha is that a mourner is forbidden {to wash his body}, whether with hot or cold, and his face, and his face, hands and feet, with hot it is forbidden and with cold it is permitted. And to anoint, even any amount, is forbidden; to remove the sweat, it is permitted.

Thus the washing of his face, hands and feet, is perhaps permitted him assuming she did it with cold water. On the other hand, she is setting up his bed as opposed to him overturning his bed. This is perhaps the best proof that not, for that is the only direct contradiction. In terms of mixing his drink, perhaps that it not one of the things forbidden him in this sympathetic mourning. The simplest, though, is as the setama suggests, based on identity rather than actions.

Daf Yomi Moed Katan 18b: An Interesting Kelal Horaah: Shema Mina Telas - What is the reach and provenance of this statement?

Today, in daf Yomi, we read Moed Katan daf 18. I had a question the other day on this very daf, and this very sugya, in that it appeared to recommend biting toenails!

There is another interesting point here for those fascinated by kelalei horaah. In Rif's discussion of the daf, he notes that someone bases a ruling -- that even on chol haMoed, one must bite the nails rather than use a nail scissors/clippers -- on something derived from an incident of Rabbi Yochanan biting his fingernails in a synagogue {in our gemara, it is a Bet haMidrash, while Rif has a Be Kenishta, a synagogue}. Rif rejects this since the gemara explicitly derives three points of law from this incident, and what is suggested in not amongst the three. Rif follows:

{Moed Katan 18a}
ת"ר כשם שאמרו אסור לגלח במועד כך אמרו אסור ליטול צפרניו במועד דברי רבי יהודה
ורבי יוסי מתיר
וכשם שאמרו אסור לגלח בימי אבלו כך אמרו אסור ליטול צפרניו בימי אבלו דברי רבי יהודה
ורבי יוסי מתיר

אמר עולא הלכתא כר' יהודה באבל והלכתא כר' יוסי במועד
ושמואל אמר הלכתא כרבי יוסי בזה ובזה

דאמר שמואל הלכתא כדברי המיקל באבל וקי"ל כשמואל ול"ש צפרניו דיד ול"ש צפרניו דרגל כולהו שרו
מיהו ה"מ בשיניו אבל בגנוסתרי אסור דאמר ר' חייא בר אשי (א"ר אשי) א"ר ובגנוסתרי אסור

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: Just as they said that it is forbidden to shave on chol haMoed, so they said that it is forbidden to cut his nails on chol haMoed. These are the words of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Yossi permits.
And just as they said that it is forbidden to shave during his days of mourning, so did they say that it is forbidden to cut his nails during his days of mourning. These are the words of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Yossi permits.

Ulla said: The halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda as regards mourning and like Rabbi Yossi as regards chol haMoed.
And Shmuel said: The halacha is like Rabbi Yossi by both this and that.

For Shmuel said: The halacha is like the words of the lenient one by mourning. And we establish like Shmuel.

And it matters not whether they are fingernails or toenails, all they permitted.
However, these words are with his teeth. But with a nail scissors, it is forbidden. For Rabbi Chiyya bar Ashi (cited Rav Ashi) cited Rav: And with a nail scissors it is forbidden.

וחזינן למקצת רבוותא דאמרי דוקא בתוך שלשים אבל בתוך שבעה אסור
ואנן לא ס"ל הכי אלא אפי' בתוך שבעה שרי
וה"מ בימי אבלו אבל במועד אפי' בגנוסתרי מותר
ואיכא מאן דאמר דבמועד נמי בגנוסתרי אסור ומייתי ראיה מיהא דאמר רב שימי בר אבא הוה קאימנא קמיה דר' יוחנן בבי כנישתא בחולו דמועדא ושקלינהו לטופריה בשיניה וקאמר מדשלקינהו בשיניה ש"מ דבגנוסתרי אסור
ואנן לא סבירא לן הכי דאי ס"ד דבגנוסתרי אסור אדאמר ש"מ תלת הוה למימר ש"מ ארבע ונמני ליה בהדייהו ומדלא אמר הכי ש"מ דבגנוסתרי מותר והאי דשקלינהו בשיניה משום דהוה בבי כנישתא דליכא גנוסתרי ולהכי לא חשיב לה בהדייהו ולהכי אצטריך למימר דהוה קאי בבי כנישתא משום דלא תגמר מיניה דבגנוסתרי אסור הלכך לא גמרינן מיניה אלא הנהו תלת בלחוד דגמרי רבנן ותו לא מידי:
And we have seen that a few {post-Talmudic} Sages say that specifically within 30 days of his mourning, but within 7 is it forbidden. And we do not hold this, but rather even within 7 is permitted.
And these words are regarding his days of mourning, but during chol haMoed, even with nail scissors is permitted.
And there is one who says that on chol haMoed as well, with nail scissors it is forbidden. And he brings a proof from this that Rav Shimi bar Abba said: "I was standing before Rabbi Yochanan in the synagogue on chol haMoed, and he cut his nails with his teeth," and he {this man deAmar} states that from the fact that he cut them with his teeth, we may derive that with a nail scissors it is forbidden.
And we do not hold so, for if you think that with nail scissors are forbidden, where it said "we deduce from this three things," it should have said "we deduce from this four things," and listed this {not to use nail scissors} among them. And from the fact that it does not say so, we deduce that with nail scissors are permitted. And this that he {Rabbi Yochanan} cut them with his teeth, this was because he was in the synagogue, where there are no scissors, and therefore it is not counted among them, and therefore it was necessary to state that he was in the synagogue, so that you do not deduce from it that with a nail scissors it is forbidden. Therefore we only learn from it those three that the Sages learned, and further nothing.

As summarized in the Point by Point Summary of Kollel Iyun haDaf, the three things derives are:

1. He held it is permitted to cut nails on Chol ha'Mo'ed
2. It is not gross to bite your nails in front of other people (Rashi MS).
3. One may throw one's nails on the floor.

Note that the second point is Rashi's explanation of what merely states that it is not mius. Biting nails specifically is not mentioned.

The incident, by the way, was that Rav Shemen bar Abba stood before Rabbi Yochanan in the study hall {or synagogue} and saw his remove his nails, and it does not specify with what, and thus does not mention this nail clippers. But this is not necessarily so. Rif's girsa is apparently equal to the person that he cites, where the gemara explicitly states that he removed his nails with his teeth. This difference in girsaot is also something that can influence how one will paskin, though not for Rif -- he does not need this to reject this. It is unclear what girsa Rashi had, where Rashi explains the mius as being because he removed it with his teeth.

Can we indeed make sure a derivation from an incident, even where the gemara gives a series of things derived, and a number of things derived? That is, did it really intend a closed class? Or was it just listing three things which one could derive from this?

Another interesting point is that even Rif does not explicitly say that it was Rav Shemen bar Abba who deduced these three points, just the "Rabbanan" who derived this. In other words, it is the gemara who deduces this.

Would we make the same judgment? Someone should do a study -- perhaps it has already been done -- on the construction of Shema Mina Telas, to try to determine its provenance. That is, do other Amoraim react to such derivations? If so, it would be early, and part of an early formulation. On the other hand, if it is stamaic, then perhaps it should not bear so much influence in determining halacha, such that we would exclude other derivations from it.

Daf Yomi Moed Katan daf 18: Do Chazal Really Recommend Biting Toenails???

So it would seem, at least at first glance. From Moed Katan 18b {see here in the Rif}:

{Moed Katan 18a}

ת"ר כשם שאמרו אסור לגלח במועד כך אמרו אסור ליטול צפרניו במועד דברי רבי יהודה
ורבי יוסי מתיר
וכשם שאמרו אסור לגלח בימי אבלו כך אמרו אסור ליטול צפרניו בימי אבלו דברי רבי יהודה
ורבי יוסי מתיר

אמר עולא הלכתא כר' יהודה באבל והלכתא כר' יוסי במועד
ושמואל אמר הלכתא כרבי יוסי בזה ובזה

דאמר שמואל הלכתא כדברי המיקל באבל וקי"ל כשמואל ול"ש צפרניו דיד ול"ש צפרניו דרגל כולהו שרו
מיהו ה"מ בשיניו אבל בגנוסתרי אסור דאמר ר' חייא בר אשי (א"ר אשי) א"ר ובגנוסתרי אסור

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: Just as they said that it is forbidden to shave on chol haMoed, so they said that it is forbidden to cut his nails on chol haMoed. These are the words of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Yossi permits.
And just as they said that it is forbidden to shave during his days of mourning, so did they say that it is forbidden to cut his nails during his days of mourning. These are the words of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Yossi permits.

Ulla said: The halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda as regards mourning and like Rabbi Yossi as regards chol haMoed.
And Shmuel said: The halacha is like Rabbi Yossi by both this and that.

For Shmuel said: The halacha is like the words of the lenient one by mourning. And we establish like Shmuel.

And it matters not whether they are fingernails or toenails, all they permitted.
However, these words are with his teeth. But with a nail scissors, it is forbidden. For Rabbi Chiyya bar Ashi (cited Rav Ashi) cited Rav: And with a nail scissors it is forbidden.

Note that the way the Rif resolves this, it is speaking of a mourner rather than conduct during chol haMoed, where even with nail scissors it is permitted.

If one cannot clip with a nail scissors {or perhaps clippers - machloket Aruch vs. Rashi} but only with teeth, how is one supposed to cut toenails. Ew!

Indeed, the story about Rabbi Yochanan which follows demonstrates that it is not disgusting to bite your nails in front of other people {at least the way Rashi interprets ain baHem mishum mius -- we might say this refers to the nails themselves}. But surely there is mius in biting toenails, even in private!

Some possible answers:
1) Perhaps not. Perhaps this is a 21st century Western construct.
2) Perhaps the halacha is different that laid out, and they meant that with a nail scissors it is forbidden on fingernails, but on toenails of course one has no recourse. Or some similar hanacha.
3) Perhaps what is meant by "teeth" is any non-clipper/nail scissors solution. Thus, perhaps a nail filing tool. Or perhaps a regular scissors. Or a razor. Related to this suggestion:
4) We have the Mishna in the 10th perek of Shabbat:

MISHNA VII.: One who pares his finger-nails, either by means of his nails or by means of his teeth; also one who plucks hair from his head, beard, or lip; also a woman who braids her hair, or paints her eyebrows, or parts her hair, is, according to R. Eliezer, culpable. The sages, however, declare this to be (prohibited only by rabbinical law) as a precautionary measure.

If so, paring his toenails my means of his fingernails might be the implication of his teeth -- anything non-nail scissors-y.

Daf Yomi Moed Katan 14b -- Why No Mourning on a Festival?

Moed Katan 14b reads:

אבל אינו נוהג אבילותו ברגל שנאמר ושמחת בחגך

אי אבילות דמעיקרא היא אתי עשה דרבים ודחי עשה דיחיד
ואי אבילות דהשתא היא לא אתי עשה דיחיד ודחי עשה דרבים

A mourner does not conduct himself in mourning on the Festival.

For it is written {Devarim 16:14}

יד וְשָׂמַחְתָּ, בְּחַגֶּךָ: אַתָּה וּבִנְךָ וּבִתֶּךָ, וְעַבְדְּךָ וַאֲמָתֶךָ, וְהַלֵּוִי וְהַגֵּר וְהַיָּתוֹם וְהָאַלְמָנָה, אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ.

14 And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy man-servant, and thy maid-servant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are within thy gates.

If it is mourning from before {the Festival}, the positive commandment of the many comes and pushes off the positive commandment of the individual. And if it is the mourning of now {once the Festival has begun}, the positive commandment of the individual does not come and push off the positive commandment of the many.

Note that there is an abrupt transition in language from the first line to the second line. The first line is in Hebrew: אבל אינו נוהג אבילותו ברגל שנאמר ושמחת בחגך -- well, the pasuk is Hebrew of course, but we also have the word נוהג with the internal vav for present tense, which would not be present in Aramaic {they would use a kametz}, we have the ending of אבילותו with a vav rather than yud heh, another mark of Hebrew over Aramaic, the ש of שנאמר rather than a daled, and the nifal form of שנאמר, another mark of Hebrew.

In contrast, the rest of the statement is pure Aramaic.

אי אבילות דמעיקרא היא אתי עשה דרבים ודחי עשה דיחיד
ואי אבילות דהשתא היא לא אתי עשה דיחיד ודחי עשה דרבים
You have אי for "if," daled rather than shin in words like דמעיקרא דהשתא, דרבים , דיחיד, the kametz aleph ending in words like דמעיקרא and דהשתא, verbs like אתי where the root is Aramaic, and אתי and דחי which have Aramaic verb patterns. Thus, it is clearly Aramaic.

Why does this matter? Just because it is then an apparently later elaboration in Aramaic on an earlier Hebrew (possibly Tannaitic) statement.

I would suggest that rather than the reasoning supplied by the setama digmara in Aramaic above, there is a straightforward derasha going on:

אבל אינו נוהג אבילותו ברגל שנאמר ושמחת בחגך
For it is written {Devarim 16:14}

יד וְשָׂמַחְתָּ, בְּחַגֶּךָ: אַתָּה וּבִנְךָ וּבִתֶּךָ, וְעַבְדְּךָ וַאֲמָתֶךָ, וְהַלֵּוִי וְהַגֵּר וְהַיָּתוֹם וְהָאַלְמָנָה, אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ.

14 And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy man-servant, and thy maid-servant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are within thy gates.

Note how the mitzva is rejoicing in the Chag. And the pasuk ends וְהַיָּתוֹם וְהָאַלְמָנָה, "and the fatherless, and the widow." Thus, even those who are just now deprived of their relative have an obligation of וְשָׂמַחְתָּ בְּחַגֶּךָ.

Update: The above derasha I offered is unnecessarily complex and furthermore is false. I would suggest that the derasha is really as follows:

וְשָׂמַחְתָּ בְּחַגֶּךָ - And you shall rejoice in your Festivals, and not mourn in your Festivals.
Now who would I think would mourn in the Festival? Only a mourner. Thus, we have an explicit exclusion forbidding mourning during Festivals.

The whole give and take of the setama digmara does not read this derasha as an exclusion and as a derasha, but rather just takes it at face value, on the level of peshat. Thus, one has the standard commandment to rejoice, just as everyone else has. Therefore, the setama must resolve this generic positive commandment with the other general commandment for a mourner to mourn. And that is where I think the setama goes off in its explanation of the derivation of this law.

Indeed, there is Rif on Chagiga

When we finish Moed Katan, Daf Yomi moves on to Chagiga. Alas, there is no Rif on Moed Katan. Or Rosh, for that matter.

Or so it seems.

In fact, there is for both. It is simply very short and out of order. While Bavli has Chagiga after Moed Katan, Yerushalmi has it first. And so, that is where Rif and Rosh place it. Of course, not much is relevant halacha lemaaseh, and so we have only on Chagiga 18a.

Daf Yomi Moed Katan 2a: Is it Bet haShalchin or Bet haShalhin?

It is the name of the perek, after all. Almost everybody has the text with a ח rather than a ה. Thus, our Mishna and the subsequent discussion in our gemara. Thus, the Mishna states משקין בית השלחין במועד ובשביעית and the gemara states ומאי משמע דהאי בית השלחין לישנא דצחותא היא דכתיב (דברים כה) ואתה עיף ויגע ומתרגמינן ואת משלהי. So too the Mishna in Yerushalmi, and the Talmud Yerushalmi - e.g. א כל שהוא פסידה והולכת זו היא בית השלחין. So too Tosefta. So too Rashi and Rabbenu Chananel.

Still, if we look at the prooftext in the gemara, it is from Tg. Onkelos and has משלהי, with a heh. As (e.g.) Rashi points out, this is acceptable, for heh and chet switch off.

Particularly amusing in this regard is Rodkinson's Talmud online, which states

(The letter "h" is changeable for "'h"; and "mshalhi" is equivalent to "mshal'hi.")

Presumably two of those half of the occurrence of h had a dot underneath it, which did not not translate to electronic form, thus further proving the statement.
{Update: As Steg points out in the comments, chet is actually being encoded as single quote h. Thus, they are distinct.}

Why mention all this? Because Rif appears unique in all this, having a heh rather than chet in bet hashalhin, both in the Mishna and gemara. The Mishna:
כדתנן משקין בית השלהין במועד ובשביעית
and the gemara:

מאי משמע דהאי בית השלהין לישנא דצחותא הוא
כדכתיב עיף ויגע ומתרגמין משלהי ולאי

For Rif, the prooftext of the gemara needs no additional explanation. Later on, though, the word appears with a chet in Rif's citation of gemara.

Another interesting data point is Nimukei Yosef (sometimes mislabeled as Ran) in commenting on the Rif. His ד"ה has shalhin rather than shalchin, and he cites the derivation of the gemara. But he also cites a pasuk in Shir haShirim to show the word with a chet! {Shir haShirim 4:13}:

יג שְׁלָחַיִךְ פַּרְדֵּס רִמּוֹנִים, עִם פְּרִי מְגָדִים: כְּפָרִים, עִם-נְרָדִים.

13 Thy shoots are a park of pomegranates, with precious fruits; henna with spikenard plants,

then mentioning the heh and chet both being gutturals and thus switching off. Obviously, he is translating this verse differently than the English translation offered above.

Update: As S. notes in the comments, heh and chet are not just both gutturals but also share similar orthography, such that it is easy to account for a switch of one to another in the text. I would agree that this is the most likely path to arrive at Rif's girsa, or at our girsa from Rif's. Within the gemara itself, it shalchin and meshalhi are present, then the idea is that (at least at the time of the proof) the word with either letter had the same (or similar) meaning. This could arise due to either orthographic or phonological similarity, where I would lean towards the latter.