Moed Katan 11

Daf Ditty Moed Katan 11: Fishy Tales
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zBm_6IfInY
Come all you young sailor men, listen to me

I'll sing you a song of the fish in the sea
And its windy weather, boys, stormy weather, boys

When the wind blows, we're all together, boys
Blow ye winds westerly, blow ye winds, blow
Jolly sou'wester, boys, steady she goes
Up jumps the eel with his slippery tail

Climbs up aloft and reefs the topsail

And then up jumps the shark with his nine rows of teeth
Saying, "You eat the dough boys, and I'll eat the beef!"
1
Up jumps the whale, the largest of all
"If you want any wind, well, I'll blow ye a squall"

MISHNA: One may construct a railing for a roof or a balcony if it is done in a nonprofessional
manner, as the work of a layman, but not if it is done skillfully, as the work of a craftsman.
One may plaster the cracks in an oven and roll over them with a roller, a wooden tool used to
smooth out clay, with a hand or a foot, but not with a presser, a tool that is specially designed
for this task.
2
With regard to the hinge of a door, and the cylinder of the hinge, and the cross beam that holds
the door, and a lock and a key that broke, one may fix them on the intermediate days of a
Festival as these items are essential for the festival and their repair cannot be delayed. This is
permitted, provided that he does not intend ahead of time to do his labor on the festival and
delay it until that time.
And with regard to all preserved food from which one can eat on the festival, since they become
ready to be eaten in a short amount of time, he may preserve them on the intermediate days of a
Festival.
§ It was taught in the mishna: With regard to all preserved food from which he can eat on the
festival, he may preserve them on the intermediate days of a Festival. The Gemara relates that
the Bedita River once overflowed, depositing large quantities of fish in small water deposits on
the riverbank on the intermediate days of a Festival. Everyone went and trapped and brought
home fish, and Rava permitted them to salt some of the fish.
Abaye said to him: Didn’t we learn in the mishna: With regard to all preserved food from
which he can eat on the festival, he may preserve them on the intermediate days of a Festival?
In this case it was impossible to eat that many fish on the festival, and therefore preserving them
should have been prohibited. Rava said to him: Since they initially brought these fish with the
intention of eating them on the festival, and it only became clear afterward that they had brought
3
too many, and if one would leave them without salting them, they would be ruined, they are
treated like merchandise that will be lost, and therefore preserving them is permitted.
And some say that it did not happen in this manner, rather, Rava permitted them to trap the fish,
to bring them home, and to salt them. Abaye said to him: Didn’t we learn in the mishna: With
regard to all preserved food from which he can eat on the festival, he may preserve them on
the intermediate days of a Festival? These fish were heavily salted and consequently could not be
eaten until they
Rava said to him: These fish that were just salted can also be eaten now, by pressing out the salt
and brine, and therefore, they too are fit to be eaten on the Festival, as in that case of Shmuel,
where they prepared recently salted fish for him by pressing it sixty times and he ate the fish.
The Gemara relates that Rava happened to come to the house of the Exilarch and they prepared
freshly salted fish for him by pressing it sixty times, and he ate it.
Rava said to him: These fish that were just salted can also be eaten now, by pressing out the salt
and brine, and therefore, they too are fit to be eaten on the Festival, as in that case of Shmuel,
where they prepared recently salted fish for him by pressing it sixty times and he ate the fish.
The Gemara relates that Rava happened to come to the house of the Exilarch and they prepared
freshly salted fish for him by pressing it sixty times, and he ate it.
4
Apropos eating fish in various ways, the Gemara relates that Rav once happened to come to the
house of Rav Shapir, and they brought before him a certain fish, of which one- third was
cooked, one-third was salted and made edible via pressing, and one-third was broiled.
JASTROW
Rav said: Adda the fisherman told me that a fish that has sat for some time and is close to
spoiling is at its best. And Rav also said: Adda the fisherman told me: With regard to a fish,
broil it with its brother, i.e., with salt, which, like fish, also comes from the sea; place it in its
father, i.e., in water; and eat it with its son, i.e., with fish brine which comes from it; and drink
after it its father, i.e., water.
RASHI
Tosafos
‫ת וס פ ות ד " ה כ וו ר א ס מ ו ך ל מ ס ר ח י ה מ ע ל י‬
Tosfos explains why this is not so nowadays
‫ ובזמן הזה תופסים סכנה למיכל סמוך לסירחון וגם משתי עלה אבוה דאמר בסמוך‬-
‫דמעלי‬
Nowadays, it is considered dangerous to eat [fish] shortly before it spoils, and also drinking
afterwards water, which we say below that it is beneficial.
5
‫ושמא נשתנו כמו הרפואות שבש"ס שאינן טובות בזמן הזה‬
Perhaps nature changed, just like cures in the Gemara, which do not work nowadays.
‫או שמא נהרות דבבל מעלו לו טפי‬

Perhaps the rivers of Bavel were better for it (fish, than our rivers are).
‫ויש מפרשים דכוורא לא בכלל דגים מיירי ושם דג ששמו כוורא ומשונה בדברים האלו‬
(:‫משאר דגים כדאמרינן פ' כל הבשר )חולין דף קט‬
Some say that "Kavra" does not refer to all fish. There is a fish called Kavra. It is different
than other fish in these ways, like it says in Chulin 109b.
And in addition, Rav said: Adda the fisherman told me: After eating fish, cress, and milk, let
the body carry them and let not the bed carry them, i.e., it is advisable to go for a walk after
eating them, rather than immediately going to sleep. And Rav said: Adda the fisherman told
me: After eating fish, cress, and milk, it is better to drink water and not beer, and if he has no
water, he should drink beer and not wine, in order to avoid harming his body.
RASHI
Jastrow
6
MISHNA: The mishna discusses one who had already turned over his olives as part of the
process of preparing them for pressing and mourning for a close relative befell him and as a result,
he was prohibited from engaging in work, or some other unavoidable accident occurred, or his
workers misled him, promising to come but failing to do so, so that he could not press his olives
before the festival.
Under these circumstances, during the intermediate days of the Festival, he may place the olives
in the press and load the beam with weights for the initial pressing of the olives and leave it this
way until after the Festival; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
Rabbi Yosei says: He may press the olives and complete the process and then plug each barrel
of oil in its usual manner. Since delay can entail financial loss, the Sages did not require him to
alter the normal process of extracting the oil.
7
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: The tanna opens the mishna with a case of mourning and ends it
with the halakhot of the intermediate days of the festival, leaving the connection between them
unclear.
Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: That is to say: Actions that are permitted on the
intermediate days of a Festival are prohibited during the days of one’s mourning. Therefore,
if a mourning period befell one before the festival, and he could not prepare properly for the festival
due to the prohibition against performance of labor by a mourner, he is permitted to perform labor
during the intermediate days of the festival to avoid financial loss.
Rav Ashi said that the tanna of the mishna is speaking utilizing the didactic style of: It is not
necessary, and he is teaching two separate halakhot, one about mourning and the other about the
Festival: It is not necessary to state that during the days of his mourning, when the prohibition
against labor is rabbinic, it is permitted to perform labor that, if delayed, could cause serious
loss; but even on the intermediate days of the Festival, when the prohibition against performing
labor is by Torah law, performing such labor is permitted because in a case of a loss the Sages
permitted it.
The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Sheisha,
son of Rav Idi: These are actions that others perform for the mourner during the days of his
mourning: If his olives have already been turned over, they may load them for him into the
8
olive press, and likewise if his cask needs to be plugged, or if his flax needs to be lifted out of
the soaking pool where it will rot if not removed in time, or if his wool needs to be lifted from
the cauldron into which it was placed for dyeing, they perform all these actions for him.
They also irrigate his field when his turn for water arrives, as in many places, each field would
receive water in turn according to a prearranged schedule. If one does not utilize the water when
his turn arrives, he loses that water.
This supports Rav Sheisha’s opinion that the prohibition against performing labor is waived in
cases of loss only on the festival. Under such circumstances, labor is prohibited to a mourner and
in cases of loss may only be performed for him by others.
Summary
Introduction Perek 2 1
We review yet another criterion used in determining whether work is permitted on the festival. We
have already learned that one should not save work to be done on the festival. Things that can be
done before the festival cannot be done during the festival. Our mishnah deals with a person who
intended to do something before the festival but then was not able to. If he doesn’t do the work
during the festival, he will incur a financial loss.
If one had turned his olives, and mourning or some unforeseen circumstance
befell him, or workmen misled him, he may [during the festival] put on the
beam for the first time and leave it until after the festival, the words of Rabbi
Judah.
The mishnah refers to the preparation of olives. They would put the olives in a large sack so that
they would heat up and start to release the oil. After time they would flip the bag with a special
stick so that they would get very soft. This was done prior to pressing them with a large beam. In
our mishnah someone turned his olives over and was planning to put them under the beam before
the festival.
However, he was not able to do so due to some unforeseen circumstance. The mishnah gives a
couple of examples of such a circumstance. First of all, someone in his family might have died and
a mourner is not allowed to work. Alternatively, he might have had workers who reneged on an
agreement to help press his olives. In any case, Rabbi Judah allows him to begin pressing the olives
so that they will not rot, but he does not allow him to complete this process.
1
https://www.sefaria.org/Moed_Katan.11b.1?lang=bi&p2=Mishnah_Moed_Katan.2.1&lang2=bi&w2=English%20Explanation%
20of%20Mishnah&lang3=en
9
Rabbi Yose says: he may pour off [the oil] and complete the process and seal
[the jars] in his usual way.
Rabbi Yose is more lenient. He allows him to take the oil that comes out of the first pressing and
even do the second and third pressing. He may put the oil in jars and close them up as well. Rabbi
Yose reasons that once he has been allowed to do some of the work, he should be allowed to
complete it.
Financial Hardship... and Ordinary Hardship
We know that we are permitted to work on the Moed if refraining from work would cause financial
hardship.2 Our daf explores what 'financial hardship' means. It uses a number of situations to
explore the fences built around this concept of financial hardship. Coincidentally, one of those
examples is a fence.
Beyond financial hardship, the rabbis are concerned about related issues. One regards communal
service: is a person permitted to work on the Moed if s/he is not working for him/herself but for
the community? Further, if a person must work in order to survive day-to-day, and not to prevent
financial hardship, is his or her work permitted?
I admire the rabbis for including this last question. Certainly, the risk of financial hardship is very
real. However, to experience financial hardship one must have some means that can be lost. For
those living in profound poverty, financial hardship does not exist. It is the hardship of day-to-
day life that creates risk. And thus, the rabbis are wise to ensure that people in this situation are
cared for in our halacha, as well.
The rabbis wonder about an extremely small home that requires a balcony around the roof: is it
permitted to build this balcony on the Moed? There may be no financial risk at hand, but safety
could be an issue. The rabbis wonder whether such a small home should be defined as a house at
all. They consider the notion of safety and of community involvement.
In amud (b) the rabbis consider the example of olive pressing. If a person cannot complete their
work before the festival because their staff do not come to work, or because they are in mourning
- both 'reasonable' excuses - can the work be completed on the Moed? The process of olive oil
production is outlined. We learn that olives are too hard and must be packed together to soften
before oil extraction can occur. If they are left for too long, the harvest would be wasted. We are
advised that is is permitted to 'turn the olives'. This means that we can do the minimum amount
of work required to save the olives and use their oil.
2
http://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/2014/08/
10
Learning about the strenuous, pressured and critical steps in food production is one of the
surprising pleasures about learning daf yomi.
Rav Avrohom Adler writes:3
The Mishna states: One is permitted to build a fence (maakeh) for a roof or a porch, provided that
it is done in an amateur manner. One may coat the cracks in the oven with plaster and roll over
them with a roller, using his hand or his foot; however, one may not use a machlatzin (wooden
block, used for sealing). One may fix a broken hinge, socket, lintel, lock or key during Chol
Hamoed (prevent thieves from stealing), provided that he did not delay the repair of these items
until Chol Hamoed. One is permitted to pickle foods that one can eat during the festival.
The Gemora asks: How does one construct a maakeh in an amateur manner? Rav Yosef answers:
He builds a fence using palm leafs and laurel branches. It was taught in a braisa: One piles stones
on top of other stones but does not use mortar to cement them together.
The Mishna had stated: One may fix a broken hinge, socket, lintel, lock or key during Chol
Hamoed. The Gemora asks on this from another Mishna (Maaser Sheini 5:15) which states:
Yochanan Kohen Gadol instituted that tool should not be used on Chol Hamoed? The Gemora
answers: Yochanan Kohen Gadol was referring to the hammer of a blacksmith, which makes a lot
of noise; our Mishna is referring to the hammer of a carpenter, which does not generate a loud
noise and therefore is permitted.
The Gemora asks: How will people be able to make the distinction between which noise is
prohibited and which is permitted? Rav Chisda answers: Our Mishna is referring to a large saw,
which doesn’t generate any noise; Yochanan Kohen Gadol was referring to axes, which generate
noise and therefore prohibited. Rav Papa answers: Our Mishna is discussing the halachos before
Yochanan Kohen Gadol issued his decree. Rav Ashi answers: Yochanan Kohen Gadol was
following the viewpoint of Rabbi Yehudah who maintains that work done (if it’s to prevent a loss)
during Chol Hamoed must be done in an irregular manner; our Mishna is following Rabbi Yosi’s
opinion that permitted work may be done in the usual manner.
The Gemora records an incident: The Bedisa river of Levai was drained causing an abundance of
fish on the riverbank. Everyone went and brought back fish. Rava permitted them to salt the fish
on Chol Hamoed (even though the salting process would make the fish inedible for the festival).
Abaye asked him: Doesn’t our Mishna state that on Chol Hamoed, one can only pickle foods that
can be eaten during the festival? Rava replied: Since initially they brought the fish with the intent
to eat them, and if they leave the leftover fish unsalted, it will be an irretrievable loss and therefore
permitted. The Gemora cites a slightly different version of this incident: Rava permitted them to
go and catch the fish and salt them on Chol Hamoed. Abaye asked him: Doesn’t our Mishna state
that on Chol Hamoed, one can only pickle foods that can be eaten during the festival? Rava replied:
These can also be eaten by squeezing out the salt, as it happened once with Shmuel, who was
3
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Moed_Katan_11.pdf
11
served salted fish, and he ate them after squeezing them sixty times. The Gemora concludes with
different statements from Rav regarding the eating of fish.
WE SHALL RETURN TO YOU, MASHKIN BEIS HASHELACHIN
The Mishna states: If one turned over his olives to press them and he became a mourner
(prohibiting him from work), or something unavoidable occurred before a festival (and he couldn’t
press the olives) or if his workers failed to come to work before the festival, he is permitted to load
the beam one time on the olives during Chol Hamoed and leave it there until after the festival.
(Once the olives have been turned over, they must be pressed immediately; otherwise, they will
spoil. In this situation, one is permitted to press the olives on Chol Hamoed. Usually, it would be
forbidden on account of threshing.) This is the viewpoint of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Yosi maintains:
He is permitted to pour the olives onto the press and load the beam as many times as is necessary
and he may cover the barrel in the usual manner.
The Gemora asks: The Tanna began with a case where one became a mourner and concluded with
the permissibility of pressing the olives during Chol Hamoed? What is the law regarding the
mourner? Rav Shisha the son of Rav Idi says: It is evident from the Mishna that permission is
granted only in regard to Chol Hamoed, but we are stricter regarding a mourner, and he would be
forbidden from pressing the olives even one time. Rav Ashi disagrees: It is not necessary to teach
the permission regarding a mourner since the prohibition against working is only Rabbinic; the
Mishna is teaching us that even during Chol Hamoed, which involves a Biblical prohibition, it
would still be permitted because of the loss that would result if the olives would not be pressed.
The Gemora cites a braisa supporting the opinion of Rav Shisha.
CONSTRUCTING A MAAKEH
The Mishna states: One is permitted to build a fence (maakeh) for a roof or a porch, provided that
it is done in an amateur fashion.
The Ritva states that our Mishna is not referring to the mitzva of maakeh since a porch is exempt
from the obligation of constructing a maakeh. Furthermore, if there would be a mitzva, he should
be permitted to build a maakeh using a professional.
The Gemora in Sukkah (3a) states that if one has a house that is less than four amos squared, he is
exempt from building a fence around the roof, for this is not considered a house. The commentators
ask that it is still a stumbling block and if one doesn't build a fence there, it will endanger people's
lives?
The Gemora in Bava Kamma (15b) learns from the passuk of lo sasim damim beveisecha that one
should not raise a wild dog in his house or a rickety ladder. Shouldn't he be required to build a
fence here because of the possibility of someone falling?
The Chazon Ish (Y” D 214) answers that in truth a roof is not a dangerous area, and it is not
considered a stumbling block. People who ascend a roof understand beforehand that they must be
careful, and this is a worldly custom. The Torah, nevertheless, mandated that one who builds a
12
house is required to build a fence on the roof and this halachah has its guidelines. A house that is
less than four amos squared is not regarded as a house for this halachah.
The Emek Brocha adds that this explains why one is not allowed to build a professional maakeh
on Chol Hamoed even though he would be permitted to build and fix other things for the fear of
bandits. The lack of a maakeh is not an inherent danger and therefore is not considered a dovor
heovud, an irretrievable loss and will not be allowed to build on Chol Hamoed. (This is not like
the Ritva we mentioned above.)
Reb Akiva Eiger asks on the obligation to recite a blessing when building a maakeh. Tosfos in
Chulin (105a) rules that one does not recite a blessing on mayim acaharonim (water after the meal)
for it was instituted for the benefit of man that he shouldn't harm himself due to the melach sdomis
(certain type of poisonous salt). It would stand to reason that constructing a maakeh should not
have a blessing either, for it is only to prevent damage? Rabbi Dovid Goldberg answers according
to the Chazon Ish: A maakeh is not built to prevent damage. In truth, it would not be necessary;
the Torah taught us that it is required even if it is merely a distant possibility for a damage
occurring, hence a blessing is recited.
Something Fishy
Rabbi Eli Mansour writes:
The Gemara presents a number of rules regarding the consumption of fish. It establishes that it is
more healthful to eat old fish rather than fresh fish, and that it is harmful to drink water immediately
after eating fish. Tosafos comment that the first of these guidelines – that old fish is preferable to
fresh fish – applied only in Talmudic times.
As we know from our own experience, fish spoils very easily, and thus in our times fresh fish is
far more healthful than old fish. Rabbi Akiva Eiger notes that the second provision, warning
against drinking water immediately after eating fish, indeed applies even today.
Accordingly, a number of authorities, including the Kaf Ha'chaim and the Aruch Ha'shulchan, rule
that one should not drink water immediately after eating fish.
MELACHAH DURING "AVEILUS"
Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:4

The Gemara rules that an Avel may not complete the processing of olive oil during Aveilus even
though he is permitted to complete it during Chol ha'Mo'ed because of Davar ha'Aved. The Gemara
says that although Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed is prohibited mid'Oraisa (or based on an Asmachta
4
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/mkatan/insites/mo-dt-011.htm
13
in the Torah; while Melachah during Aveilus is prohibited only mid'Rabanan, the Rabanan were
more stringent with regard to Aveilus.
If Aveilus is only mid'Rabanan, why were the Rabanan more stringent with regard to its laws than
with regard to the laws of Chol ha'Mo'ed?
(a) The ROSH explains that the Rabanan actually were not more stringent with regard to
Melachah during Aveilus. Although an Avel is not permitted to do Melachah himself, he is
permitted to have someone else do Melachah for him (if it is a Davar ha'Aved), as the Beraisa
states. Since he could have someone else do it for him, the Rabanan did not permit the Avel to do
the work himself. In contrast, on Chol ha'Mo'ed one is not permitted to have someone else do
Melachah for him, because everyone is prohibited from doing Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed.
(Even according to the Tana'im who prohibit an Avel from doing Melachah when nobody else can
do it for him, the logic of the Rosh still may apply. Since most of the time another person can do
the Melachah for him, the Rabanan did not permit the Avel to do it himself
under any circumstances.)
(b) TOSFOS (12a, DH Amar, according to the RASHASH) explains that the Rabanan were more
stringent with regard to Aveilus specifically because the prohibition of Melachah of an Avel is
only mid'Rabanan. They saw the need to strengthen their decree and thus they prohibited Melachah
during Aveilus under all circumstances. In contrast, the prohibition of Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed
is mid'Oraisa (or based on an Asmachta in the Torah) and thus it needs no "Chizuk."
HALACHAH: The Poskim rule that an Avel may not do Melachah for a Davar ha'Aved during
his Aveilus, but he may have someone else do it for him (as Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi teaches).
When there is nobody available to do the Melachah for him, the RIF and RA'AVAD prohibit the
Avel from doing Melachah, like the Tana Kama of the Beraisa who does not say that the Avel may
do Melachah himself in private when there is nobody available to do it for him.
(The Rif and Ra'avad understand that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel argues with, and does not
explain, the view of the Tana Kama.)
The ROSH, however, suggests that the Halachah should follow the lenient view of Raban Shimon
ben Gamliel in the Beraisa, who says that an Avel may do Melachah in private when nobody is
available to do it for him, because in matters of Aveilus the Halachah always follows the more
lenient opinion.
However, the Ra'avad agrees that after the first three days of Aveilus have passed, the Avel may
do Melachah in private when nobody else can do it for him, as the Rosh explains (based on the
Gemara later, 21b).
The REMA (YD 380:5) rules like the Ra'avad, that an Avel may not do Melachah himself even
when there is nobody available to do it for him, unless three days of Aveilus have passed.
14
When someone else does Melachah for an Avel, he is not limited to doing Melachah which
involves no excessive exertion (even though such Melachah is prohibited on Chol ha'Mo'ed). Since
someone else is doing the Melachah and not the Avel, even a Melachah which involves excessive
exertion is permitted.
A BUSINESS PARTNER WHO BECOMES AN AVEL

The Gemara relates that Meryon brei d'Ravin and Mar brei d'Rav Acha had a partnership in the
ownership of a pair of oxen. When Mar brei d'Rav Acha became an Avel, he removed his ox from
the yoke so that it would not do work for him during his Aveilus, even though his partner also
suffered a financial loss as a result.
Rav Ashi questioned Mar brei d'Rav Acha's actions. The Beraisa states that when others use an
Avel's objects for their work, they are allowed to continue using them during the owner's period
of Aveilus. The Halachah does not require that the Avel's objects cease from doing Melachah when
such a cessation from Melachah will cause a loss to someone else. Why, then, did Mar brei d'Rav
Acha take away his ox if doing so would cause his partner to suffer a loss?
The Gemara answers that "Adam Chashuv Sha'ani" -- a prominent individual is different. He must
be stringent upon himself and prevent his objects from doing Melachah when he is an Avel.
The question remains, however, why should even a prominent individual be stringent on someone
else's account? By withholding his ox from doing work, Mar brei d'Rav Acha was causing his
partner to suffer a loss.
(a)The ROSH quotes the RA'AVAD who cites the Yerushalmi that says that when one partner is
an Avel, neither partner may operate the business. The Yerushalmi seems to disagree with the
Gemara here which says that the partner of an Avel is not required to suffer a loss as a result of
the Avel's Aveilus unless the Avel is a prominent individual.
However, the Ra'avad explains that perhaps the Yerushalmi does not disagree with the Gemara
here. When the Gemara here permits the other partner to work, perhaps it permits him to work
only in private but not in public. The jointly owned business must be closed, but the partner who
is not an Avel may continue to work and conduct transactions on behalf of the partnership in
private.
According to the Ra'avad's understanding, when the Gemara says that "a prominent individual is
different," it means that since one of the partners is a prominent individual, everyone knows which
ox belongs to him. If he would be permitted to let his ox continue to work so that his partner not
suffer a loss, it would be akin to working in public and not in private, since everyone knows that
it is his ox at work. Since there is no way to have his ox work in private, his partner must refrain
from working.
(b) The RITVA in the name of "Yesh Omrim" (the MICHTAM) states that when one of the
partners is a prominent individual and thus must refrain from work during Aveilus even though he
is part of a partnership, he is obligated to compensate his partner for any loss incurred.
15
(c) The RITVA suggests further that when the ox of a prominent individual (who is an Avel) does
work, it is a disgrace to the prominent individual because people suspect him of being negligent in
the observance of the laws of Aveilus. Therefore, in order to uphold the reputation of the prominent
individual, even his partner is enjoined to refrain from work (and to incur a loss). (The Ritva adds
that this requirement applies only when the non-mourning partner is a Talmid Chacham and
understands the need to protect the honor of the prominent individual. When the partner is a simple
laborer, he is not expected to stop working.)
HALACHAH: The RIF and RAMBAM rule like the Yerushalmi which, according to their
understanding, maintains that partners must close the business when one is an Avel. A jointly
owned business differs from the case of the Beraisa in which the Avel's object is leased to someone
else, in which case the lessee is permitted to work with the object.
(Although the Beraisa also permits a sharecropper (Aris) to work in the Avel's field (according to
the understanding of the Ra'avad; see Rosh) and to give a percentage of his earnings to the owner
of the field, apparently there is a difference between a business partnership and a sharecropper
agreement. When the partnership involves land and not objects, the non-mourning partner is
permitted to work the land during his partner's Aveilus.)
However, the SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 380:21) rules leniently, like the RA'AVAD, that the
non-mourning partner may do work in private.
Pressing Olives on Hol HaMoed
Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:5
In the previous chapter of Moed Katan, we learned different reasons that a person might be allowed
to engage in work on Hol HaMoed, among them the idea of davar ha-aved – when the individual
would suffer a financial loss if the work was not performed at a specific time. In the second perek,
which begins on today’s daf, the Gemara investigates when the rule of davar ha-aved should be
applied. One question is how we define davar ha-aved. Is every case of financial loss enough to
allow work on Hol HaMoed, or does the loss need to be a significant one? Furthermore, if a person
creates a situation whereby, he must work on Hol HaMoed or else he will suffer a loss, do we
permit the work based on the fact that it is a davar ha-aved, or do we penalize him for his behavior?
Two other reasons for permitting work on Hol HaMoed are discussed in this perek:
1. If a person is working for the community, and not for himself.
5
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/moed11/
16
2. If a person is destitute and will not have anything to eat unless he works.
The first Mishna in the perek offers a case of davar ha-aved that would permit agricultural work
on Hol HaMoed. According to Rabbi Yehuda, a person who has already “turned his olives” but
was unable to complete pressing the olives into oil (either because of some accident or because his
workers did not appear as promised) is permitted to set the olive press and remove the first oil,
which will minimize his losses, but he has to leave the rest until after the holiday. Rabbi Yose
permits such a person to complete the work in its entirety.
After the olive harvest, the olives are usually very hard and need to be softened before the oil can
be removed. To accomplish this, the newly harvested fruit is first collected in a pile, where the
olives become warm and soft. The reasoning behind “turning the olives” is that they will become
ruined if they get too hot, so it is necessary to occasionally turn them over. When they are
sufficiently softened, they need to be processed, or else the harvest may go to waste.
The Bedisa River dried up on Chol Hamoed and an abundance of fish were left stranded on the
riverbed.6
Rava permitted the people to collect the fish, and to preserve them. Abaye asked about this ruling,
because the Mishnah allowed preserving food only that can be eaten on the festival, whereas Rava
permitted pickling fish for much longer than that. Rava answered that the people had initially
collected the fish to eat, and they had extra which was too much to eat. In order to prevent a
financial loss, they were allowed to preserve the remaining fish to prevent them from being wasted.
According to a second version,
Rava explained his ruling based upon the fact that each piece of fish that was salted was not
necessarily being designated for post-festival consumption. Any of the salted pieces could each be
pressed as needed and eaten after the salt was thereby removed.
Rosh (#28) cites Raaved who asks why Rava had to resort to these particular explanations to justify
his leniency. The Yerushalmi clearly rules that if a caravan passes through the town on Chol
Hamoed, and a timely opportunity to acquire merchandise at a discount presents itself, one may
buy these goods, even though he has no need for them on Yom Tov. Losing the opportunity for
financial gain of buying at a discount is halachically equivalent to a potential loss, and it is allowed
on Chol Hamoed. Why, then, do we need the excuses of Rava in his allowing the people to gather
many fish?
Rosh gives two answers. A found object, such as by the fish, is a total gain, and not being able to
gather more is not a loss, just less of a gain. This is not allowed without extenuating conditions.
Secondly, to secure a gain via buying and selling is not a genuine melachah. It is a normal
6
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/MoedKatan%20011.pdf
17
transaction, and there is no physical exertion, per se. Salting and preserving a large number of fish
is a physical labor, and it is not permitted without the justification which Rava gave.
According to the first answer of Rosh, one is allowed to do a melachah to avoid a lost business
opportunity. The second answer holds that in order to avoid a loss, one may only do an act which
is rabbinic (buying and selling), but never an outright melachah (salting fish). Magen Avraham
rules according to the second answer, and melachah may not be done to avoid a loss.
Rabbi Akiva Eiger and the Gr” a say that Shulchan Aruch holds according to the first answer (see
O.C. 533:3).
We make a railing for a roof or balcony in an unskilled manner but not the work of a craftsman
Ritva (1) writes that the Mishnah refers to a roof that is not required to have a railing because the
Mishnah also mentions constructing a railing for a balcony, and Sifri explicitly exempts a balcony
from a railing. Additional proofs are cited that indicate that the Mishnah’s ruling refers to cases
where the mitzvah is not being fulfilled. This implies that in a case where the railing does fulfill
the mitzvah it would be permitted to construct the railing even if it is constructed like the work of
a craftsman.
Biur Halacha (2), however, notes that the majority of Poskim cite the halacha of the Mishnah
without qualification, thus indicating that under all circumstances a railing may not be constructed
using the work of a craftsman.
Rav Shmuel HaLevi Wosner (3), the Shevet HaLevi, offers a proof to the conclusion of Biur
Halacha that during Chol HaMoed one should not do the work of a craftsman even when fulfilling
the mitzvah of building a railing.
The Gemara Bava Metzia (4) rules regarding the rental of property that the landlord is responsible
for the door and all other repairs that require the work of a craftsman, but the tenant is responsible
for the railing. Since the obligation to construct a railing rest upon the tenant, it is sufficient to
make a railing in an unskilled manner.
This clearly indicates that even when fulfilling the mitzvah, it is acceptable for the railing to be
built in an unskilled manner. Therefore, on Chol HaMoed, there is no reason to permit craftsman
work in the construction of a railing if a railing constructed in an unskilled manner will fulfill the
mitzvah.
Rav Moshe Shternbuch (5) challenges this restrictive ruling against constructing a railing with the
work of a craftsman. If there is an ongoing mitzvah to construct a railing, the construction should
be considered a Yom Tov need, and there would not be a restriction against constructing the railing
using the work of a craftsman.
18
He therefore concludes that the only time the restriction against using the work of a craftsman will
apply is in a case where a railing constructed in an unskilled would be sufficient to fulfill the
mitzvah
A dispute between two business partners went to court, and it was decided that if one would
consent to swear, he would save his friend a large monetary loss.
Naturally, the partner who stood to lose the money insisted that his partner take an oath. The other
partner, however, declined to do so. He said, “I have never sworn in court before, and I don’t plan
to start now. Although I am very sorry about your problem, the loss you will incur if I refrain from
swearing makes no difference to me.”
This partner felt that since taking an oath is not considered a praiseworthy thing to do, he was
within his rights to refuse his partner’s request. The man justified his position, “The fact that this
is causing you a loss may be painful but is not enough to force me to swear. A proof can be found
in Moed Katan 11b, where we find an aggadata about Mar, the son of Rav Acha bar Rava, who
was a partner with Mari in the ownership of a pair of oxen.
When Mar was in mourning, he did not allow Mari to harness his ox to the plow even though Mari
could not possibly plow without the second ox. Because Mar was considered a person of
significance, there was no grounds to force him to consider his partner’s loss over his own
principles. This is also true of swearing!”
When this reasoning was presented to Mahari HaLevi, zt” l, he dismissed it. “That is not a proof.
Who said that Mar didn’t compensate Mari for his monetary loss!” When the Tchebiner Rav, zt”
l, discussed this reasoning he said, “In the Ritva in Moed Katan there are two opinions about this.
The first says that Mar paid for Mari’s loss, and this is also the opinion of the Meiri, zt” l. The
second opinion is that he didn’t have to pay his partner since he is a Tzurba d’Rabanan and there
will be a chillul Hashem if people see the oxen of such a prominent person at work when he is
forbidden to engage in commerce! Mari was therefore required to forgo his profit to avoid this.
These opinions are exactly parallel to the case of the partners that was brought before the Mahari
HaLevi!”
19
Rabbi Elliot Goldberg writes:7
The Talmud is full of rules. Much of the time, the Gemara’s rules come with exceptions. You can
learn a lot about the rabbis and the world that they were trying to create by studying the rules, but
it’s the exceptions that are often the most illuminating.
The second chapter of Moed Katan opens with a mishnah that lists unforeseen circumstances that
would prevent a person from being able to complete a particular task before the onset of a festival,
when many labors are prohibited.
One who had already turned over his olives as part of the process of preparing them for pressing,
and mourning for a close relative befell him, or an unavoidable accident occurred, or his
workers misled him, so that he could not press his olives before the festival, he may place the
olives in the press and load the beam with weights for the initial pressing of the olives during
the intermediate days of the festival and leave it this way until after the festival — this is the
statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: He may press the olives and complete the process
and then plug each barrel of oil in its usual manner.
We learn from the mishnah that when unforeseen misfortunes interrupt our work in the days before
a festival, it is sometimes permissible to complete the work during hol hamoed, the intermediate
days of a festival. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei disagree, however, about how much of the
remaining labor can be completed during hol hamoed. Rabbi Yehuda allows the owner to load the
olives into the press — to do what is necessary to prevent a loss; Rabbi Yosei allows one to
complete the entire process.
Just as work is limited during hol hamoed, so too is work limited during the week that follows a
close relative’s funeral. The former restriction allows laborers to be free to celebrate the festival,
the latter permits those who have experienced a loss to focus on their grief. Because the case of
the mourner is first on the mishnah’s list of circumstances, the Gemara inquires about what a
mourner should do if their olives are turned over but not yet pressed when the mourning period
begins.
The rules of festivals affect everyone, but the restrictions that fall on mourners only affect a few.
So Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, teaches that people should help:
If a mourner's olives have already been turned over, others may load them for him into the olive
press.
7
Myjewishlearning.com
20
But what if no one is available to take care of a mourner’s olives?
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If his olives have already been turned over and there is no
skilled worker available who knows how to press them properly but him, he may do so in private.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permits mourners to complete work in progress during their
mourning period to prevent a financial loss. But he requires that they complete the work privately,
so that they will not be seen working during their time of mourning. Doing so prevents others from
seeing them work and from giving the impression that they are not taking the mourning period
seriously.
In this case Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel makes an exception, allowing mourners to work to protect
them from loss. He also makes an exception if the mourners are needed to perform a communal
function:
If this mourner was a craftsman who serves the public, providing a necessary service, or a
barber or a bath attendant for the public, and the time of the festival arrived, i.e., it was the eve
of a festival, and there is no other skilled worker available but him, then he may perform the
labor even in public.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s first exception is helpful to mourners. Not only does it protect them
from financial loss — it also puts their mind at ease. Allowing them to take care of their olives sets
their concerns aside and frees them to focus on their grief.
The second exception pulls in the other direction. It frees the mourner from personal, religious
obligations so that the community can benefit from their services. There is a certain logic to this
— a community needs its front line workers, especially before a holiday. Yet, this one gives me
pause. Certainly, there are necessary services that the community can’t live without. And, if the
text had made reference to those who prepare food for the communal soup kitchen or those who
teach children, it might have sat better with me.
But, the text points to barbers and bath attendants. True, it’s nice to bathe and get a trim before the
holiday; yet, couldn’t the community do without these services to allow a worker to mourn their
dead, even leading up to a holiday? I am left wondering if this exception is more about Rabban
Shimon ben Gamliel’s desire to preserve his creature comforts (recall in Yoma 34 that Rabban
Gamliel, a relative of Rabban Shimon, declared himself to be “delicate” as a way to support
exceptions to the rules that he made for himself) than to comfort those who are in mourning.
21
Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:8
Massechet Moed Katan, which spans three chapters, primarily addresses the laws of Chol
HaMoed. However, much of its third chapter is dedicated to the laws of ‫( אבלות‬mourning), and this
is because a mourner is forbidden to perform certain activities which generally align with those
activities forbidden on Chol HaMoed, and also because some mourning practices cease on festive
days.
I mention this as today we begin the second chapter of Moed Katan (Moed Katan 11b), and it is
noteworthy that the first two Mishnayot of this chapter (Moed Katan 2:1-2) connect the two themes
of Chol HaMoed and mourning.
In particular, the first Mishna begins by speaking about ‫‘ – מי שהפך את זיתיו‬someone who has
already already “turned over” their olives (as part of the process of preparing them for pressing)’,
‫‘ – וארעו אבל‬and [then suddenly, a close relative dies and] they become a mourner’. The question
then addressed by the Mishna is whether the loss that they would incur - or what is known as ‫דבר‬
‫ האבוד‬- if they do not proceed in the process of pressing their olives, justifies them performing
certain activities as a mourner or on Chol HaMoed.
Of course, we could simply read this Mishna as a teaching of law and focus our attention on what
the law is in such a situation. However,9 I believe that the Mishna is often poetic in its style and
phraseology, and that oftentimes much is being said in Mishnayot beyond that which is explicit.
And I believe that this is certainly the case here.
In terms of the olives, the case being discussed is where only part of the process has been
completed. The individual has “overturned” (‫ )מי שהפך‬the olives but has now stalled in their process
because a relative has died. As such, we need to know whether the “losses” they are likely to incur
(‫ )דבר האבוד‬justify them performing certain actions in their days of mourning.
Yet it is significant that though both of these words, “overturned” and “loss”, describe what is
being done which needs to be evaluated now that someone is a mourner, they also powerfully
capture the feelings of someone who is in mourning. Their world has been overturned, and they
are trying to make sense of their loss. And like the law being discussed, the question which many
mourners struggle with is how do they proceed? And how can they move forward with what they
were doing before their loss and before their world was overturned?
And in answer to this question, we find that there is a debate. According to Rabbi Yehuda, they
should place the olives in the press and load the beam with weights and then leave it this way until
after the Festival. What this means is that they should do whatever is immediately needed in the
process, but deal with the rest after the festival. Whereas Rabbi Yossi rules that, notwithstanding
the fact that they are a mourner, they should complete the pressing process. And the very fact that
8
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com
9
as discussed in my recent interview with Rav Yaakov Nagen (see https://youtu.be/E0UALH9VU38)
22
there is a debate about this law is, to my mind, reflective of the different ways that some people
deal with personal loss.
When people have suffered a loss and are in mourning, some feel that they can only do the bare
minimum in terms of non-essential activities and they leave the rest until a later time. Whereas
others feel the urge to address other issues, even when they are in mourning, for the sake of their
own peace of mind.
Ultimately, what we learn from our Mishna is that how people cope with the threat of financial
loss when they have suffered a personal loss differs from person to person, and this is because
different people react differently when their world has been overturned.
Aveilut on Yom Tov
If a relative passes away on Yom Tov the aveilut only begins after the holiday. The Shiva begins
on the second day of Yom Tov and the Shloshim is counted from the time of the burial.[1]
Aninut on Yom Tov or Chol Hamoed
1. If a person's relative dies on Chol Hamoed he is in the state of aninut.[2]

2. If a person's relative dies on Yom Tov and even the second day of Yom Tov since
he doesn't plan to do the burial on Yom Tov he isn't in the state of aninut.[3]
23
Aveilut on Yom Tov
1. If someone's relative died during a Yom Tov or Chol Hamoed, Yom Tov doesn't
cancel shiva rather aveilut is observed privately on Yom Tov and Chol Hamoed
and shiva is actively observed after the Yom Tov and Chol Hamoed.[4]
1. For example, if someone's relative died on the 3rd day of Chol
Hamoed Pesach, private aveilut begins after the burial, the shiva
begins after Pesach, and shloshim begins immediately.[5]
2. If someone's relative died during a Yom Tov or Chol Hamoed, even though the
shiva doesn't start until after the Yom Tov and Chol Hamoed, shloshim does start.[6]
3. If someone is in shloshim on Yom Tov he must observe the laws of shloshim such
as not cutting his nails, wearing newly ironed white clothing, or joining in meals
with friends.[7]
Private Aveilut on Yom Tov
1. If someone is in aveilut on Yom Tov, tashmish and bathing are forbidden. Some
say that learning torah is permitted even though it is usually forbidden during
shiva.[8] He should wear normal Yom Tov clothing and not change his seat in
shul.[9]
2. It is permitted to get an aliyah on simchat torah otherwise it would be considered
a display of public mourning on yom tov.[10]
Aveilut on Second Day of Yom Tov
1. If a person died on the second day of Yom Tov and they did the burial that day the
minhag is that no aveilut is observed that day.[11]
2. If a person's relative died on the second day of Rosh Hashana and they did the
burial that day aveilut is not observed that day.[12] The practice today is not to do
burials on the second day of Yom Tov.[13]
Laws of the Delayed Shiva
1. If shiva began after the Yom Tov then after seven days passed from the day of the
death it is permitted to have work done by other people even though normally that
is forbidden during shiva.[14]
2. If burial occurred on Chol Hamoed if there is a loss the mourner can do melacha
himself and if there's no loss the mourner can have others do melacha outside of
his house.[15]
3. Outside Israel, if shiva is pushed off until after Yom Tov it is only observed for six
days after Yom Tov since the second day of Yom Tov counts towards the shiva
even though we don't observe Aveilut on Yom Tov.[16] Even the second day of
Rosh Hashana counts towards the aveilut.[17]
24
25
Pertaining to Mourning Practices
Isaac Pollak writes:10
10
augmented by Dan Fendel https://www.jewish-funerals.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/index-to-moed-katan.pdf
26
Rav Asher Meir writes:11
There is a fundamental difference between the rules of mourning on Shabbat and Yom
Tov. The Talmud explains, "Shabbat counts and doesn't interrupt; Yom Tov interrupts and doesn't
count," (Mo'ed Katan 19a.) That is, Shabbat is considered itself to be a day of mourning, and
therefore is included in the count of seven or thirty days; therefore, the count continues as
before. But Yom Tov interrupts mourning; if Yom Tov occurs in the middle of the shiv'a, then the
shiv'a ceases altogether.
11
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/halakha/studies-halakha/philosophy-halakha/mourning-shabbat-and-yom-tov
27
The key to understanding this difference is the Talmudic statement which explains why Yom
Tov terminates mourning: "The commandment of the community [to rejoice] comes and cancels
out the commandment of the individual [to mourn]" (Mo'ed Katan 14b.) While both Shabbat and
Yom Tov are days of rejoicing and delight, the special character of Yom Tov is that its rejoicing
has a public character. Here are some examples:
• While Shabbat occurs automatically each week, Yom Tov only occurs when the
month is sanctified by the Beit Din - the representative of the community.
• Yom Tov, more than Shabbat, is characterized by honor – which is a public
concept. For this reason, Yom Tov clothes should be more elegant than Shabbat
ones (SA OC 529:1.)
• The particular delights of Yom Tov, for which cooking is permitted, are those
which are "equal for everybody" (Ketubot 7a.)
• On Yom Tov, more than on Shabbat, giving charity – which is a communal act – is
an essential part of the holiday (Rambam Yom Tov 6:18, Zohar Yitro II:88b. See
chapter 98 for additional examples and elaboration.)
• On Yom Tov there is a mitzva to go to Yerushalaim – the place of national unity
and community.
Since the essence of Yom Tov is communal joy, it supersedes the mitzva of mourning - which
is all about private sorrow and isolation. But Shabbat is focused more on private enjoyments. So,
while mourning is limited on Shabbat, to permit these enjoyments; private observations of
mourning are permitted, and these are enough to maintain the continuity of mourning.
THE SOLACE OF WEEPING
Here is a complementary explanation. Normally, a person should not cry on Shabbat,

which is a day of rejoicing. Yet sometimes the solace of weeping is itself a kind of joy. Therefore,
it is permitted to weep on Shabbat to relieve one's sorrow (Rema OC 288:2.) This halakha is not
mentioned regarding Yom Tov.
This is a corollary of the previous idea; weeping contradicts the public character of a
holiday, but for this particular individual it is a source of solace.
28
For this reason, mourning - though in public a sign of sorrow yet may be of private solace – and
thus is permitted on Shabbat but not on Yom Tov.
HOLIDAYS TRUNCATE SEVEN-DAY AND THIRTY-DAY MOURNING

PERIODS
The basic idea of holidays truncating the mourning period was explained last chapter. The
festivals are a time of public, communal rejoicing; this is a complete contradiction to the private
isolation of the mourner, and so his mourning, whether of seven or of thirty days, is interrupted.
There are still two nuances that require explanation: the influence on the thirty-day
mourning period, and the fact that Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur count as festivals.
COUNTING THE THIRTY DAYS
When a festival occurs during the seven-day mourning period, the counting is affected in
two ways.
First of all, even though the seven-day period is truncated, the period during which the
primary mourning took place is still counted as seven days. So that if the departed was buried the
day prior to a festival and mourning took place for one day only, that one day is counted as seven
days, and twenty-three days remain in the count.
This teaches that the "thirty-day" period is more accurately viewed as two periods - one
period of primary mourning, which is usually seven days but may be truncated by a festival; and
a second period of secondary mourning, which is usually twenty-three days. Each stage has its
own individual importance and its own count.
Secondly, the festival counts as seven days of the remaining twenty-three days even if it is
a one-day festival. So that if a person begins mourning the day before Sukkot, then the one day of
primary mourning counts as seven; the seven-day Sukkot holiday counts as an additional seven,
29
leaving sixteen; and Shemini Atzeret counts as another seven, leaving only nine days. The entire
thirty-day period is in fact only sixteen days.
In a way this rule is parallel to the rule we learned in chapter 213, that the period a widower
has to wait to remarry is three holidays, irrespective of the amount of time. The reason is that the
man is acutely aware of his departed wife's absence during holidays, which are a time of family
togetherness.
By the same token, the amount of adjustment that takes place to a relative's absence during
a holiday is much greater than the adjustment that takes place during a regular day. During a time
of family togetherness, the absence is so conspicuous that one day of absence during a festival has
the impact of a full week.
THE DAYS OF AWE
Although we relate to Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur primarily as days of judgment, they
too truncate the periods of mourning. These days also, despite their awe, are days of happiness –
joy that we have the opportunity for judgment and to confront our sins, and joy in the confidence
that we will successfully repent and thus merit a favorable judgment.
This happiness is particularly acute for a mourner, since mourning itself can be a time of
sterner judgment – a time when the family of the departed consider themselves singled out for
judgment, as we explained in chapter 215. So, it is a relief for them to join the common judgment
of the entire community.
OBSERVING THE YAHRZEIT, THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE DEATH
It is an ancient custom that the anniversary of the death of a parent is observed as a day of
partial mourning, when the child fasts, says kaddish, and lights a memorial candle (Rema end
of YD 402, Beit Yosef end of YD 403.) This practice is considered an "ilui neshama," an elevation
of the soul of the departed.
30
The Talmud mentions this idea of a continued elevation of the soul: "Torah scholars find
no rest either in this world or in the World to Come, as it is said: (Tehillim 84:8) They will go from
strength to strength, to appear before God in Zion" (Berakhot 64a.) The souls of Torah scholars
continue to ascend even after they depart this world. Indeed, we sometimes say that a departed
Torah scholar has gone to "the supernal Yeshiva," because the next world is conceived as a Torah
academy, where the secrets of God's will continue to be revealed to those who began to study them
in this world.
This continued elevation is possible because a person's acts cannot be completely judged
at the time when he departs this world - the impact of his acts continue for generations. This is
particularly true of a Torah scholar, who continues the chain of tradition and has many students;
his impact may continually grow even for years after his soul ascends.
But the same applies to a parent - the impact of his acts may become evident in the behavior
of his children only years after his passing. When the son is careful each year to improve his
behavior through the repentance of fasting, and to sanctify God's name through saying kaddish -
which causes the entire congregation to proclaim God's glory, then the parent's merit can
continually grow (See chapter 26.) So, the observation of the yahrzeit can be an occasion for a
new review of the parent's judgment and an additional elevation for the soul.
31
GRIEF AND JOY IN THE WRITINGS OF RABBI
SOLOVEITCHIK
Alex Sztuden writes:12
12
Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought, SUMMER 2012, Vol. 45, No. 2 (SUMMER 2012),
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
A Fishy Tale
The Halachot of which and what fish. What is Kosher?
What can be eaten with fish and why? Kosher fish...
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff writes:13
In this week’s parsha, the Torah teaches that every fish that has fins and scales is kosher. The
Mishnah (Niddah 51b) notes that all species of fish with scales also have fins. Thus, one may
assume that a slice of a fish with scales is kosher even if one sees no fins.
The Gemara (Chullin 66a) states further that a fish species that has scales at any time during its
life is kosher. Therefore, a fish is kosher even if "it has no scales now, but they will grow later, or
it has scales, and they fall off when the fish leaves the water." Thus, sardines are kosher even
though sometimes they are caught before scales develop. Similarly, certain herrings that shed their
scales upon harvest are also kosher.
The early Acharonim discuss a variety of fish, or more accurately some type of legged sea creature,
called the stincus marinus that inhabited the seas near Spain which was reputed to have scales but
13
https://www.yeshiva.co/midrash/7081
46
no fins. The Tosafos Yom Tov, in his commentary to the Rosh (Chullin 3:67, Maadanei Yom Tov
#5) records that when he was a rav in Vienna he was shown a specimen of this fish, which is
naturally toxic, but the toxins can be removed, and it can (and was) used for food and medicine.
Maadanei Yom Tov presents a few possible explanations why this creature does not defy the rule
established by the Gemara.
Some poskim ruled that this creature is unquestionably non-kosher, and that the Gemara means
that there are very few sea creatures that have scales and no fins. One may assume that a fish or
other sea creature one finds with scales is kosher; however, if one knows that it has no fins it is
non-kosher (Kereisi 83:3; HaKsav ViHakabalah, Vayikra 11:9). Other poskim contend that the
Gemara’s rule is inviolate and without exception (Pri Chodosh YD 83:4). In their opinion, stincus
marinus must have fins, but they fall off in the sea or when they are young; and it is indeed kosher.
What is very curious is that according to our contemporary scientific data, the creature that the
Maadanei Yom Tov was referring to is probably a type of sea lizard, and he considered the scales
on lizards and sea snakes to be kaskeses. The more likely answer to his question is that the scales
on these reptiles are very different from the scales that the Torah defines as the kosher sign of fish.
(This last information is courtesy of Rav Shmuel Silinsky, who I thank.)
To summarize, one may assume that any fish one discovers with scales is kosher, and it suffices
to check an unknown fish for scales in order to verify that it is indeed kosher (Shulchan Aruch,
Yoreh Deah 83:3).
The word used by the Torah for scales, kaskeses, refers to a scale that is removable from the skin
(Rama, Yoreh Deah 83:1). Thus, fish like sturgeon and swordfish whose scales cannot be removed
from the skin are not kosher.
SHOPPING FOR FISH IN A NON-KOSHER STORE
I live in a town without a kosher fish market. May I purchase fish fillet from a species that I know
is kosher?
Halachically, one may only use skinned fish that was supervised from the removal of its skin until
it was sealed as kosher (Gemara Avodah Zarah 39b). This is because of a concern that the fish is
not the kosher species one thinks it is, but a similar looking non-kosher fish.
What if a non-Jew or a non-observant Jew guarantees that this is a kosher fish?
47
The halacha is that one may not rely on the non-Jew and the product must be sealed by an observant
Jew (Gemara Avodah Zarah 39b). However, there is one instance where we may rely on a non-
Jew’s testimony - when he knows that he will lose financially if he is caught deceiving us (Taz,
Yoreh Deah 83:9). Therefore, if the non-Jew knows that we can independently verify his
information, we may rely on him.
However, one is usually unable to verify the information provided by the person behind the counter
in a non-kosher fish market. Therefore, since he is unafraid that we will catch him lying, one may
not rely on his authority.
The poskim of a generation ago disputed whether one may purchase fish without skin from a non-
Jewish company that has business reasons to produce only a certain type of fish that is kosher.
May one use fish from a plant without having a mashgiach check every fish? This question affects
production of canned tuna or salmon. Does it require a round-the-clock mashgiach checking that
every fish is kosher, or can we rely on the fact that the company has its own reasons to pack only
the type of fish stated on the label?
Some poskim hold that one may rely on the company’s business reasons because of the halachic
principle, "uman lo marei umnaso," a professional does not damage his reputation. According to
this approach, we can assume that a company would not mix a different, non-kosher species into
its canning operation because it is detrimental to itself (Rav Aharon Kotler; Shu"t Chelkas Yaakov
3:10). Other poskim contend that Chazal did not permit this lenience in the production of kosher
fish but require full-time supervision under all circumstances (Shu"t Igros Moshe, Yoreh Deah
3:8; Kisvei Rav Henkin, 2:53). Many of the major hechsherim in the United States follow the
lenient opinion.
WHITEFISH SALAD
According to the lenient opinions cited, could one allow a company to produce whitefish salad
without a mashgiach? After all, whitefish is a kosher fish.
This is disputed by contemporary poskim. Some contend that this is prohibited according to all
opinions of the earlier generation, since the company can mix small amounts of less expensive
non-kosher fish into the whitefish salad without it being discerned. Thus, the company’s
professional reputation is not at stake. Other poskim maintain that it suffices to spot-check that no
non-kosher fish is in the factory since the company’s professional reputation is at stake.
48
WHAT IF SOMEONE LIVES IN AN AREA WITHOUT A KOSHER FISH MARKET?
How can someone purchase fresh fish if he lives in an area that does not yet have a kosher fish
market? Since he may not rely on the fishmonger’s assurances, must he forgo purchasing of fresh
fish?
There is a perfectly acceptable halachic solution. Once should go to the fish store, identify a fish
that still has its skin on and identify the scales. One should then provide the store with one’s own
knife and supervise the fish’s filleting.
WHY MUST HE BRING HIS OWN KNIFE?
The fish store knives usually have a thin layer of grease from other, possibly non-kosher, fish (see
Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 96:5). One cannot assume that the store cleans the knife between
fish to the extent halacha requires to guarantee that it is totally clean (ibid.).
In the rare instance that the shop is unwilling to allow the use of private knives, then you should
supervise that the knives are scraped extremely clean. Standard cleaning does not guarantee that
the grease has been removed from the knife.
SALMON STORY
Salmon is a very healthy fish, high in omega oils. It is also a kosher species.
Many years ago, I attended a conference of rabbonim where a highly respected posek stated that
one may assume that salmon fillet is always kosher, even without its skin. He explained that salmon
meat’s red or pink color does not exist in any non-kosher fish species. Therefore, he contended
that one may safely assume that red or pink colored fish is kosher (Shu"t Igros Moshe, Yoreh Deah
3:8).
I did some research on this subject. There is a basis to this statement, but it is not as simple as had
been presented at the time. Indeed, there are several non-kosher fish, including some varieties of
shark and catfish, which have a pink pigment. However, there are distinct shades of red and reddish
pink that belong only to salmon and to certain varieties of trout, which are also kosher. One should
not rely on determining that a certain fish is kosher based on its hue without training.
Although this halacha was presumably true at that time, I am uncertain whether one may still make
this presumption because of an unusual snippet of news I discovered.
49
I recently read an article comparing the environmental benefits of commercially sold Pacific
salmon to those of Atlantic salmon. Pacific salmon are wild fish that roam the oceans and pick up
their red or pink color from their natural diet that includes red crustaceans. (The fact that a fish
consumes non-kosher creatures as part of its diet does not affect its kashrus.) However,
commercially sold Atlantic salmon, the source for fillets and steaks, are bred in fish farms that
populate the coasts of the Atlantic Ocean and its inlets. (Atlantic salmon is no longer harvested
directly from the sea because of decreasing wild populations.) These fish eat a diet that does not
make their flesh pink. To give the fish their trademark hue, the farmers add colorant to their diet.
It seems that any fish wandering into these farms and sharing the salmons’ diet would also develop
pink flesh, which would destroy the theory that every pink fish must be kosher. Indeed, the fish
could be non-kosher but have devoured significant amounts of red color.
After further research, I discovered another reason why salmon and trout have a distinctive color
not found among other deep-sea fishes. When most sea creatures eat colorants like colored
crustaceans, they store the excess pigment in their skin. Only salmon and trout store the color in
their flesh. Thus, many respected rabbonim still maintain that fish with the distinctive salmon color
must be kosher since only salmon and trout are able to convert their food coloring to their flesh.
However, a research scientist I spoke to dismiss this argument for two reasons: First, he pointed
out that it is virtually impossible to prove that no other fish has this ability. To do this, one would
have to conduct research on every fish variety worldwide which is an impossible task.
Furthermore, he pointed out that the ability to transfer food color to flesh is an inherited
characteristic that the salmon possesses in its DNA. It is feasible that someone has isolated this
gene, and that some fish farmer is marketing a different species of fish as salmon fillet. Thus, our
question whether one may assume that all red or pink fillet is kosher remains valid.
Nonetheless, I personally side with the lenient ruling. Since we have no evidence of a non-kosher,
reddish-flesh fish, I think that we may still assume that any fish with this distinctive color is salmon
until evidence appears that someone has isolated the gene that allows the color to be stored in the
flesh and transferred it to a non-kosher species. Until we have such evidence, if the fish looks like
salmon, smells like salmon, and swims like salmon, we will assume that it is salmon (see Shach,
Yoreh Deah 83:27).
OTHER CANNERY ISSUES
Are there any other potential kashrus issues with canned fish?
50
Fish factories often produce non-kosher products that would render the tuna or salmon non-kosher.
Additionally, even if the factory only cans kosher fish, it might use non-kosher ingredients. Most
fish are processed in oil, which can be non-kosher or be produced on non-kosher equipment.
There is also a discussion among contemporary poskim whether canned tuna or salmon is
prohibited because of bishul akum, food cooked by a non-Jew. Explaining this complicated subject
will be left for a different article.
What other halachos pertain to fish?
FISH AND MEAT
Chazal advise that consuming fish and meat together is harmful to one’s health (Gemara Pesachim
76a). To avoid swallowing fish and meat together, one should eat and drink something between
eating fish and meat in order to clean the mouth from residual particles (Rama to Yoreh Deah
116:3). Sefardim are more stringent and follow the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch who rules that
one must wash one’s hands and mouth carefully between eating fish and meat (Shulchan Aruch,
Yoreh Deah 116:3).
Question:
I have never noticed anyone getting sick from eating fish and meat together. Furthermore, the
American Medical Association does not consider this harmful. Does this affect halacha in any
way?
Some prominent poskim contend that although mixing fish and meat was unhealthy in the days of
Chazal, today the nature of the world has changed, and it is no longer unhealthy (Magen Avraham
173:1). This concept is referred to as "nishtaneh hateva," that nature has altered since the days of
Chazal (see Tosafos, Moed Katan 11a; Gemara Niddah 3a). Others contend that Chazal were
referring to a specific type of fish and that their concern does not extend to most varieties (Shu"t
Chasam Sofer, Yoreh Deah #101).
Other poskim rule that one should still not eat fish and meat together since Chazal may have been
aware of a medical issue unknown to modern medicine (see Shu"t Shvus Yaakov 3:70; Shu"t
Chasam Sofer, Yoreh Deah #101). The accepted practice is to be stringent (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh
Deah 116:3).
51
SCHNAPPS AFTER THE FISH
Chassidim have a minhag to drink schnapps after fish. Does this practice have a halachic source?
Indeed, it does. Some poskim cite that it is dangerous to drink water immediately after fish
(Tosafos, Moed Katan 11a; quoted by Aruch Hashulchan, Yoreh Deah 116:10; another source one
could possibly quote for this minhag is a Shla, quoted in Darkei Teshuvah 116:31, who implies
that one should drink a beverage after fish, but not water). In earlier generations, there were not
too many beverages available; often water, wine, and schnapps were the only choices. Thus, when
wine was expensive, and one did not want to drink water after fish, schnapps was the most practical
alternative. I suspect that this is the origin of washing down fish with schnapps (see Shaar
HaTziyun 174:46). Today, a wine connoisseur can substitute white wine and a teetotaler can
substitute juice for the same purpose. (Someone asked me whether one can use soda or
reconstituted juice for this purpose, since both are predominantly water. To this date, I have found
no halachic discussion about this shaylah.)
THE FISH POT
Question: My bubbie had a special pot that she used only to cook fish. Is there halachic significance
to this fish pot?
Although most poskim contend that there is no halachic or safety problem with cooking fish in a
fleishig pot, some poskim are stringent (Taz, Yoreh Deah 95:3; Shu"t Shvus Yaakov 3:70). Based
on this concern, many people have a family custom to cook fish only in a pot that they never use
for meat. However, the common practice is to allow the cooking of fish in meat pots.
FISH AND MILK
Based on certain halachic sources, some people, most commonly Sefardim, have the practice not
to mix fish and milk products together (Pischei Tshuvah, Yoreh Deah 87:9). This is important for
an Ashkenazi to know when he invites Sefardi guests for a milchig meal.
WORCESTERSHIRE SAUCE ON MY MEAT
People often ask the following question: Some steak sauces or Worcestershire sauces have
52
anchovies or other fish products among their ingredients. I have noticed that some hechsherim
place a notation identifying that these items contain fish next to their hechsher symbol, whereas
sometimes they do not. Is this an oversight?
The answer to this question requires an introduction. Poskim dispute whether any admixture of
fish and meat is dangerous or only if there is enough to taste both (see Taz Yoreh Deah 116:2;
Pischei Tshuvah 116:3; Darchei Tshuvah 116:21). Thus, according to many poskim, if a small
number of fish is mixed into a meat product, one may eat it. Furthermore, we mentioned before
that some poskim contend that today one may eat a mixture of fish and meat and rely on that nature
has changed since the days of Chazal (or that Chazal were concerned only about a specific species
of fish).
Because of these rationales, many poskim rule that one may eat a small number of fish mixed into
a meat dish (Shu"t Chasam Sofer, Yoreh Deah #101; Pischei Tshuvah 116:3). Therefore, some
hechsherim indicate when a product has more than a sixtieth part of fish so that the consumer
avoids using it to spice meat. But if the fish constitutes less than a sixtieth, they rule that one may
spice meat with the sauce.
The Midrash (Breishis Rabbah 97:3) points out that Klal Yisroel is compared to fish. Just like fish
who are completely surrounded by water rise excitedly to the surface at the first drops of rain to
drink a fresh drop of water, so too Jews who are surrounded by Torah run enthusiastically to hear
a new chiddush of Torah and drink it thirstily as if this was their first opportunity to learn. May
we indeed live up to our reputation.14
14
This article was originally published in the American edition of Yated Neeman
This Shiur is published also at Rabbi Kaganof's site
53
Fish and Meat
Rabbi Avi Zakutinsky writes:15
Fish and Dairy

1. Harav Yosef Karo zt”l in the Beis Yosef (Yoreh Deah 87), the Shulchan Aruch’s commentary
on the Tur, writes that “one should not eat fish and milk together because of the danger involved,
as it is explained in O.C. 173.”
2. However, many authorities, including the Rama, Prisha, Taz, Shach, Magen Avraham and
Aruch Hashulchan point out that the location the Beis Yosef referenced for his halachic decision
to be machmir is referring to eating fish with meat, not milk. They therefore maintain that this
issue is a case of mistaken identity (misprint) and that eating fish with milk is 100% permissible.
The Chida (Machzik Bracha 87:4) also feels that it is permissible to eat fish and dairy together and
that there is a misprint in the Beis Yosef. He adds that if it is indeed true that fish and dairy is
dangerous, Harav Yosef Karo should have written so in his Shulchan Aruch.
3. It is worth noting that although many assume that there was a misprint in the Beis Yosef, the
notion of avoiding fish and dairy due to danger was already advanced hundreds of years earlier by
Rabbeinu Bachya (Shemos 23:19). Rabbeinu Bachya writes, “The doctors feel that fish and cheese
that are cooked together can cause bad health and tza’raas.”
15
https://outorah.org/p/27253/
54
4. Indeed, there were authorities who were stringent and did not allow for fish to be eaten with
dairy. They explain that they also heard from doctors that fish and dairy can be harmful to one’s
health (see Darkei Teshuva 87:43 and Yechava Daas 6:48).
5. Other authorities, including the Chinuch Beis Yehuda, Pri Megadim (see Pischei Teshuva Y.D.
87) and Kaf Hachaim (87:24), differentiate between fish and milk (or cheese) which they believe
to be harmful and fish and butter (or cream) which is not damaging to one’s health. The Ben Ish
Chai (Year 2 Bahaloscha 15) cites these authorities and writes that one should be stringent with all
forms of dairy and that in Baghdad the common custom is to refrain from even eating fish and
butter.
6. Harav Ovadia Yosef zt” l discusses this issue at length and concludes that, “One should refrain
from eating fish and milk or cheese due to the potential danger involved. However, those that are
lenient to eat fish and butter together are permitted to continue in their approach. Ashkenazi Jews
dismiss this issue entirely and eat fish with all forms of dairy and they have what to rely on.” It is
based upon the ruling of Harav Ovadia Yosef zt” l and the Ben Ish Chai that many Sefardim avoid
eating fish and dairy together (some will eat fish and butter, as cited above). However, as noted
most Ashkenazic communities dismiss this issue entirely.
Drinking Water After Fish
1. The Rama (Y.D. 115:3) writes that in between eating fish and meat one should eat and drink
something.
2. Tosafos (Moed Katan 11a) writes that in his day it was considered dangerous (to one’s heart) to
drink water immediately after eating fish. This teaching is cited by many authorities, including
Rav Akiva Eiger zt” l (Y.D. 116:5) and the Aruch Hashulchan. (116:10)
3. According to Harav Nissam Karelitz shlit” a (Chut Shani Shabbos vol. 4 page 399) tea, coffee,
soda and cola have the same status as water.
4. Harav Nissam Karelitz shlit” a write that today one may rule leniently. He explains that Tosafos
never meant to imply that this is a rabbinic prohibition, rather the doctors of his time felt that it
was harmful to drink water after eating fish. Therefore, today where the doctors feel that it is no
longer harmful one may rule leniently. Harav Karelitz shlit” a continues that some are stringent
however and avoid drinking water after eating fish.
5. On Shabbos, following the fish course, those who are stringent face an interesting dilemma. As
noted above (halacha 1) in between fish and meat one should drink something. However, according
to Tosafos one should not drink water (or soda etc.) after fish. Therefore, writes Harav Karelitz
shlit” a many have the custom to drink wine or whiskey in between the fish and chicken soup
courses.
6. Harav Chaim Elazar Shapiro zt” l of Munkatsh (the author of the Minchas Elazar) added another
reason why many drink whiskey immediately following the fish course on Friday night. The word
whiskey in Hebrew is “yayin saraf.” The first two letters being “yud” and “shin.” The first letter
of the hebrew word for fish is “daled” (“dagim”). All three letters together spell out the name of
Hashem “Shakay.” In order not to separate the name of Hashem one should drink the whiskey
immediately after the fish (Darkei Chayim V’Shalom 396).
55
Mourning on Shabbat, Festivals and other Holy Days Ref: Sefer
Shoftim, Hilchot Evel, Chapters 10–11 16
16
https://rambampress.com/tables-outlines/Mourning-on-Shabbat-Festivals-and-other-Holy-Days.pdf
56
Our Daf recalls the following:
Rav said: Adda the fisherman told me that a fish that has sat for some time and is close to
spoiling is at its best.
Tosfos is bothered by the claim that spoiled food is healthy and claims that nature has
changed….
How do scholars who respect the laws of science and data deal with sacred texts of our
tradition?
57
Medicine And Mysticism
Rabbi Yair Hoffman writes:17
It is the rare sefer that has had some of its rabbinic endorsements revoked after publication. There
is a dayan in the chassidish community who has issued a ruling that it is forbidden for Jewish
bookstores to sell it and any that do so are in violation of machti’im es ha’rabbim–bringing the
masses to sin.
17
https://www.5tjt.com/medicine-and-mysticism/
58
This new book, “Ki Ani Hashem Rof’echa: Alternative Medicine in Halachah,” is written by an
outstanding talmid chacham, Rabbi Rephoel Szmerla, a dayan in a Lakewood beis din. The
halachic arguments and discussions are fascinating, representing an original analysis of the rare
halachos that deal with the occult.
The endorsements were revoked because of alleged misrepresentations of halachah. It is this

author’s view, however, that Rabbi Szmerla’s halachic views are cogently argued–that should not
have been the reason to revoke the approbations (haskamos). However, there are some very serious
issues with the work, in this author’s opinion.
The sefer is divided into two sections: the main part of the sefer and the in-depth biurim in Hebrew
in the back of the work. The halachic discussions are truly groundbreaking in terms of their
exhaustive treatment of the aveiros of the occult: specifically, kishuf, doresh el ha’meisim,
nichush, and kosaim. It also deals with following the ways of the gentiles (darchei emori) and of
the mitzvah of tamim tihyeh. In discussing these aveiros, the author takes us through every opinion
of the Rishonim.
In the body of the English text, the sefer is comprehensive in its discussion of alternative forms of
healing. In terms of the Torah scholarship, it is quite clear that we are dealing with an extraordinary
talmid chacham. The sefer has numerous haskamos from leading figures who affirm the Torah
erudition of the author.
There are two underlying ideas that permeate the work. The first is that the multiple modalities of
alternative medicines do not at their core violate the aveiros of the occult. The second underlying
idea is that these alternative forms of medicine are effective.
59
It is this author’s opinion, however, that the author makes a number of fundamental errors in
coming to this conclusion, and that this thesis can seriously compromise the physical health of the
Torah-observant community with the publication of this sefer.
And while Rabbi Szmerla states that it is not his goal to encourage people to discount conventional
medicine, advocating the efficacy of modalities of treatment that have statistically been proven
ineffective actually does the very thing that Rabbi Szmerla claims he is not doing. His book will
perforce encourage people to discount conventional medicine in favor of the forms of medicine
that he claims work.
Major Problems with The Sefer
Specifically, it can cause those who are ill, and their family members, to (a)Â squander much-
needed and valuable resources on ineffective treatments; (b)Â not pursue effective and proven
forms of treatment; and (c)Â suffer unnecessary damage.
In the majority of cases, the moneys spent on pursuing most of these alternative treatments would
be far better spent on supporting Torah learning instead. Rabbi Szmerla ignores the overwhelming
medical evidence that these treatments have proven ineffective.
It is clear that Rabbi Szmerla is a scholar of great knowledge and depth, which is perhaps why
great rabbis provided him with approbations. However, a careful reading of a number of the
approbations clearly indicates that they do not necessarily agree with his conclusions.
A Dangerous Thesis
It is this author’s view that this second and central thesis of the sefer is dangerous and can seriously
undermine the health of many members of Klal Yisrael. People may pick up the sefer and peruse
the haskamos. They may erroneously assume that the information about treatments contained in
60
the sefer is correct. If they discontinue their regular course of treatment, which many will do, this
can be extremely problematic.
In this reviewer’s view, the thesis flies in the face of basic mathematics. The proper use and
understanding of statistics are essential in determining whether a modality of treatment should be
used or not. It is the correct hishtadlus–al pi derech ha’teva. That is what modern medicine is based
upon. This sefer, notwithstanding the deep Torah erudition of its author, has the potential to throw
us back to the days when families of cancer victims squandered their parents’ life’s savings on the
likes of such cures as shark cartilage.
Faulty Understanding of Statistics
The vast majority of people who advocate the efficacy of most of the alternative medicines found
in the sefer are not at all proficient in the use of advanced statistical analysis. Because of this flaw,
they are unable to differentiate between what constitutes a valid study and an invalid one.
One example of this problem can be seen with those who advocate against vaccinations. They
claim that they have studied the statistics behind both sides of the vast literature regarding
vaccinations. However, when put to the challenge, those who argue against vaccinations are
fundamentally unable to answer basic questions in simple statistics. Arguing in statistics with
someone who has no background in statistics is akin to arguing about translations of sentences in
Hebrew with someone who does not understand a word of it.
Dealing with factual mistakes
When a rabbinic scholar makes a mistake regarding metzius (physical reality), and we are sure of
the error, we do not adhere to that person’s view–no matter how great the individual is. This
concept was told to this author by the greatest gedolei ha’poskim in America and Eretz Yisrael
61
(Rav Dovid Feinstein, shlita, Rav Chaim Kanievsky, shlita, and Rav Elyashiv, zt’l). Thus, when
the Aruch HaShulchan had a fundamental misunderstanding of the dynamics of electricity, the
view of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt’l, and other gedolei ha’poskim won out. Yet the
greatness of the Aruch HaShulchan and his vast depth and erudition in dalet chelkei Shulchan
Aruch are there for everyone to see.
Most Disturbing
Rabbi Szmerla dismisses the view of Rav Dovid Morgenstern, shlita, Rav Elyashiv, zt’l, and Rav
Nissim Karelitz, shlita, regarding the definition of what would constitute a refuah bedukah–a tested
and certain cure. He writes that Chazal only required a cure to have worked three times–as manifest
in the Shulchan Aruch’s ruling on kamiyas. Rav Morgenstern writes that it must be a statistically
valid cure and cites these other authorities (see Sefer Piskei Din Vol. X p. 535). Rav Elyashiv, zt’l,
has praised Rav Morgenstern, shlita, numerous times as fluent in kol haTorah kulah, and the
dismissal of his views and quotes of Rishonim by Rabbi Szmerla is wholly unwarranted. But let
us now examine the various forms of treatments the rabbi advocates.
Energy Medicine
In regard to “energy medicine,” Rabbi Szmerla ignores the six most recent studies showing that
there is absolutely no efficacy to such healing–disproving Richard Gerber’s earlier assertions
(Gerber is quoted authoritatively by Rabbi Szmerla). Rabbi Szmerla attempts to associate the
Gemara’s discussion of B’boah d’boah with the concept of “aura.” The association is far from
proven. Boah is described by Rishonim as a shadow. True, Rav Chaim Vital disagrees with this
association, but that does not mean that it means “aura.”
Rabbi Szmerla thus rejects the views of the Rishonim, asher mi’pihem anu chaim, and adopts a
Kabbalistic view which he assumes is synonymous with “aura.” This is far from conclusive. The
62
fact that the overwhelming scientific evidence has demonstrated that there is a lack of efficacy to
this type of healing is also proof that boah d’boah is not “aura.” 18
As far as Rabbi Szmerla’s identification of qi or chi with an adaptive definition of nefesh–this

identification is clearly not the authorial intent of Rashi in Vayikra 17:11.
Therapeutic Touch/Hands-On Healing
“Therapeutic touch” healing is a pseudoscience based on the belief that by placing their hands on
or near a patient, practitioners are able to detect and manipulate the patient’s “energy field.” Study
after study has shown that this is completely ineffective. [See, for example, JAMA (279:13 pp.
1005—1010) Rosa, Linda; Rosa, E; Sarner, L; Barrett, S (1998-04-01). “A Close Look at
Therapeutic Touch.” It includes a demonstration by a nine-year-old girl that practitioners of it
either are charlatans or are fooling themselves.] Indeed, the American Cancer Society has
remarked, “Available scientific evidence does not support any claims that TT can cure cancer or
other diseases.”
Rabbi Szmerla’s impressive halachic argument that it does not constitute kishuf is irrelevant. It
doesn’t work beyond the placebo effect.
Acupuncture
This reviewer agrees with Rabbi Szmerla that acupuncture is, for many types of maladies,
effective. However, the theories behind acupuncture–the notion of restoring energy meridians–
18
[See, as just one example, the article “Spiritual healing as a therapy for chronic pain: a randomized, clinical trial” in the medical
journal Pain (91, pp. 79—89) by Abbot, NC; Harkness, EF; Stevinson, C; Marshall, FP; Conn, DA; Ernst, E (2001). There are
numerous others.]
63
have been summarily rejected by those with a thorough and grounded understanding of the
underlying science behind it. (ed. Actually this is not true see footnote)19
Kinesiology
It is this reviewer’s contention that Rabbi Szmerla fails to differentiate between the current state
of kinesiology and the notion of applied kinesiology which he mentions on page 81. Practitioners
of applied kinesiology claim the ability to diagnose illness or to choose the required effective
treatment by testing muscles for strength and weakness. However, once again, the vast majority of
statistically valid surveys have proven beyond a sliver of a doubt that there is no validity to this
method for diagnosing illness. One who is untrained in statistics will not be able to differentiate
between a valid study and an invalid one–and there are plenty of both. The American Cancer
Society has also gone out of its way to state that the scientific evidence does not support the claim
that applied kinesiology can diagnose or treat cancer or other illness.
Dowsing
Rabbi Szmerla explains that dowsing is the ability to uncover information through the use of an
L-shaped rod or a pendulum. He claims that dowsing is not pseudoscience by virtue of the fact that
a number of respectable rabbanim have concluded, through their experience, that dowsing is
authentic. The conclusion of the scientific community is that it is no more effective than random
chance guessing.20
Homeopathy And Flower Essence
19
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S109621909800033X
20
[See Water Witching U.S.A. (2nd ed.): Vogt, Evon Z.; Ray Hyman (1979), Chicago: Chicago University Press, via Hines,
Terence (2003). Pseudoscience and the Paranormal (second edition). Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, p. 420.]
64
When it comes to homeopathy and flower essence, here too the author seems to be claiming
efficacy of a discredited form of therapy. And while it may be incorrect to forbid the practice of
these therapies as darchei emori, they can be forbidden because they are a waste of time and
money. The statistical studies are conclusive that they do not work. [See, as just one example,
Bioethics (26:9 pp. 508—512) Smith K (2012). “Homeopathy Is Unscientific and Unethical.”]
Gem Therapy
The modern-day crystal therapy is compared by the rabbi to the even tekumah discussed in the
Gemara in Sanhedrin (68a). However, not all Rishonim agree with this definition of even tekumah,
and it is far from clear that it refers to the same type of stone. Let us also keep in mind that the
Baalei Tosfos in Moed Katan 11a (d’h Kavra) write that nishtaneh ha’teva, and that the medical
cures in Chazal may not be effective nowadays. Other poskim who rule in this manner are cited in
the authoritative Nishmas Avraham 1:4, note 14. See also Rav Akiva Eiger, Yoreh Deah
336:1 (d’h Nitna) that one should not even attempt to use the remedies in the Gemara because we
cannot properly identify the various samim discussed nor do we know exactly how to administer
the remedies. See also Yam shel Shlomo (Chulin 8:12) that even the effective cures should not be
done so that am haaratzim not develop kefirah.
Feng Shui And Shamanic Healing
The author finds that some aspects of Feng Shui violate the prohibition of darchei emori–following
the ways of the gentiles. He concludes that this form of alternative medicine is forbidden, because
we cannot determine which aspects of it achieve true energy harmonization and which one’s stem
from superstitious beliefs. This reviewer believes that the former is completely ineffective and
have been statistically proven invalid.
The author concludes that shamanic healing is strictly forbidden.
65
Hypnotherapy
The author’s conclusions on both the effectiveness and the halachic validity of hypnotherapy are
both perfectly valid. The effectiveness of hypnotherapy is accepted in the medical and scientific
communities. However, there are issues of undergoing hypnotherapy when matters of gender and
tzniyus are involved. The author does not mention this, and recent events have shown some serious
breaches in this regard.
Yoga
Rabbi Szmerla’s conclusions on yoga’s effectiveness are not out of the ordinary and do fall in line
with the accepted scientific understanding of it. Halachically, he points to some problems with
some aspects of yoga meditation techniques. He does not mention another halachic problem and
that is the use of the mantra that has one clearing his mind of all thoughts. This does not fall in line
with mitzvah of always having in mind the sheish zechiros: Anochi Hashem, belief in Hashem; Lo
Yihyeh, there shall be no other gods; Yichud Hashem, belief in the absolute Oneness of Hashem;
Ahavas Hashem, loving Hashem; Yiras Hashem, fear of Hashem (or, as the Nesivos Shalom
understands it, fear of losing one’s kesher with Hashem); and Lo Sasuru, do not stray, following
apikorsus and taavah.
Conclusion
As stated throughout this review, the halachic views of the Rabbi Szmerla demonstrate amazing
depth and profundity in the Hebrew biurim section. The medical views espoused in the main body
of the book are, in this reviewer’s opinion and in the opinion of a number of mathematically adept
doctors and scientists, quite dangerous. Traditionally, our abilities in calculating the ibbur and
other such areas of Torah thought have been described by the Rishonim as “ki hi chachmaschem
66
u’vinaschem b’einai ha’amim.” The rejection of statistics in evaluating how medicine should be
applied is a dangerous trend.
Health Care According to Jewish Law: The Basics

Dr Arie E. Pelta MD writes:21
21
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/health-care-according-to-jewish-law-the-basics/
Arie E. Pelta, M.D., a Board Certified General and Colorectal Surgeon from the USA, made aliyah with his wife and 7 children in
2013. Received Rabbinical ordination in 1997. He is also an active Medical Corps Officer holding the rank of Captain in the IDF
Reserves. Currently practicing in Laniado Hospital in Netanya; speciaizing in the surgical care of all problems of the colon, rectum
and anus.
67
1. Do we have permission to heal?
The Torah gives permission to the doctor to heal from the following passuk: “…and he who caused
the injury shall provide for his healing”(Shemos 21:19). The Hebrew words used in the pasuk for
healing are commonly quoted as the source for providing medical care, referred to as “verapo
yerapei/ ‫“ ורפא ירפא‬. This pasuk is brought down as the biblical source in Talmud Berachos (60a).
In Baba Kama (85b), Rashi comments, why do we need permission to heal G-d’s affliction? The
answer is that we should not say that when G-d afflicts, how dare man intervenes and heal.
Therefore, it was necessary for the Torah to instruct us to heal. Tosfos comments that we may
think that we can only heal injuries caused by man but not from G-d; this is not so.
The Rashba points out that the repetitive phrase used “heal to heal/verapo yerapei”, teaches us that
we may treat injuries caused by man and we may treat illnesses sent by G-d.
The Midrash (Socher Tov Shmuel 4:1) quotes an incident where Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva
gave medical advice to a sick person. A farmer who observed this behavior of these famous Rabbis
asked why they were permitted to heal, if G-d gave a man an illness? They answered, just as a tree
will not grow if the earth surrounding it is not fertilized and plowed, so too, if a tree is not watered
and fertilized it will not live but will die. Similarly, the body of man is like a tree; man’s fertilizer
is medication and man’s farmer are the doctor.
In Sefer Devarim, the Zohar (Haazenu 299a) states, “one should not say since G-d imprisoned,
one should not try and release him”. Even though G-d had imprisoned the sick man, nevertheless,
one should try to free him. If the doctor can cure his physical illness, good. If not, the doctor should
try to bring him to repent from his sins and cure his soul. The Zohar comments about this doctor
– “G-d will bless this doctor in this world and the next”.
68
The commentary, Shoel u` Meshiv (Yoreh Deah 336), points out that the Halacha in Shulchan
Aruch gives permission for a doctor to heal any illness. The Taz asks if it is a mitzvah for a doctor
to heal the sick? He answers, in the affirmative, that it is a commandment (mitzvah) for a doctor
to treat the sick. Had the Torah not give permission, it would seem the doctor interferes in the work
of G-d.
This Halacha is clearly stated in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 336:1), “The Torah has given
permission to the doctor to heal. It is a mitzvah to do so and part of pikuach nefesh (saving a life).
If a doctor refuses to do so he is guilty of bloodshed”.
The Ramban (Perush Mishnayos, Nedarim 84) points out that the Torah commands the doctor to
treat sick Jews. Similarly, the Nishmat Avraham states that it is an obligation of the doctor to
prevent healthy Jews from becoming sick or injured.
How do we know who is a qualified physician, according to Halacha? The Chida (Shiyorei Beracha
Ohr HaChaim 328:1) states that nowadays, the permission granted for a doctor to practice medicine
is issued by a professional body (State/Government Medical License Board). Based upon the
official medical license, diploma, board certification etc. one can assume the doctor is qualified.
Similarly, the Shevet Halevi (She`alos v`Teshuvos 4:151) comments that doctors today practice
with the permission of Beis Din. When a physician has qualifications from an accredited
institution, the Beis Din accepts this as evidence of the doctor`s ability to practice medicine
competently.
2. Why do we get sick?
One usually becomes ill through his own fault (Midrash Vayikra Rabba). Rebbe Acha states that
we have a personal obligation not to get ill. This can apply to us being obligated to keep a proper
diet, exercise, not smoking, getting a colonoscopy at age 50, preventive medicine etc. We learn
69
this from the passuk “G-d will turn away every illness from you” (Devarim 7:15). The words
“from you” tells us that not to become ill, depends on you.
The 8th blessing in the Shemoneh Esrei is Refaenu (‫)רפאנו‬. The Talmud (Megilla 17b) asks: “Why
did the Great Rabbis establish the blessing for healing as the eighth one in the Amidah?” Because
bris milah is performed on the eight day and it is an operation which requires healing; they
therefore designated the eight blessing for healing.
The Maharal (Ner Mitzvah) points out that the number eight stands for all that is above nature
(‫)למעלה מן הטבע‬. This emphasizes that physical healing is a supernatural occurrence above the plane
of nature. Similarly, the Chanukah miracle is celebrated for 8 days to symbolize that the Jewish
victory was miraculous.
The Talmud (Shabbos 32b) teaches: “A healthy person should always pray that he does not get
sick, because once sickness strikes he must have great merit to regain his health.”
The Refaenu tefillah states: “Save us – then we will be saved \‫“ הושיענו ונושעה‬. When a person lives
a holy life, he is insulated from sickness. When one is afflicted by a physical ailment it is often a
symptom of a spiritual failure. A sick person is called a “choleh – ‫”חולה‬, which is from root word
“chol – ‫“ חול‬, unholy. The word “chol -‫“ חול‬is from word “‫חלל‬,” emptiness, implying that there is
a void of sanctity. We therefore ask G-d to save us, “‫ ”הושיענו‬from spiritual failure and then “‫”נושעה‬
we will be saved from medical sickness (Tefillah L’Dovid). We also beseech G-d not only to cure
us, but to save us from the adverse side effects of surgical procedures and medications
(Noviminsker Rebbe).
Refaenu continues: “for you are our praise ‫כי תהלתנו אתה‬-.” What does praising G-d have to do with
good health? We learn from a verse in Mishlei (27:21) that a person who prays with fervor and
passion is aflame with love and praise for G-d. This spiritual fire cleanses the body of all its
70
physical ailments. Thus, we pray for G-d to heal us because we are aflame with His praises which
should cure us. The Midrash (Shir HaShirim Rabbah 2:14) states that the sicknesses that G-d
afflicts us with are only meant to bring us closer to Him – ‫ה(כל חולת אהבה אני‬:‫ )שיר השירים ב‬. So,
three times a day we pray “Heal us Hashem. You need not make us sick in order for us to love and
praise You – You are our praise already and we promise to continue praising You in good health.
You afflict only those who are indifferent to you – we promise not to forget You (G-d)!”.
The Zohar (Parshas Shelach) teaches that sickness results when the accusing angels denounce a
person for his sins, and he is condemned to suffer. But when the sick person repents and accepts
G-d as his King, all is forgiven. G-d himself participates in every successful healing procedure.
The Almighty holds the doctors hand and guides him – ‫ד(ה יסעדנו על ערש דוי‬:‫”)תהילים מא‬
3. Must one practice preventive medicine and protecting oneself from

disease?
Yes, this includes not smoking, observing a proper diet, exercise etc. Ramabam (laws of
murder/Rotzeach 11:4) states that it is a positive mitzvah to remove obstacles that may lead to a
danger to one’s life; “It is a positive mitzva to remove any impediment that might pose a danger
to life, and to be extremely cautious in this regard”.
We must also guard our health based on the Torah commandment to guard our bodies, “shmor
nafshecha”. The Torah says “…guard your life very carefully… (Hishamer Lecha U’shmor
Nafshecha Me’od).” This means a person should do the utmost to preserve his health and prolong
his life (Devarim – 4:9).
4. Is one allowed to use the alternative medicine mentioned in the Talmud?
71
No. (Tosfos Moed Katan 11a, Chazan Ish Nashim 27:3) nishtaneh hatevah, the natural order of the
world has changed since the times of Chazal, so that the treatments offered in the Talmud are not
effective nowadays. The cures in the Talmud are written in code and are now not understood. Since
we don’t understand the Talmud the treatments will not work, and this will disrespect the words
of Chazal (Rav Akiva Eger Yoreh Deah 336:1). Rav Shrira Gaon (Gitin 68b) has a different
approach. He points out that when Chazal discuss medicine and nature, they discuss the topics
based upon the contemporary knowledge of their time, not to be confused with the holy words of
the Torah. Thus, we can only accept their words in these matters if current medicine has the same
understandings nowadays.
Rav Shlomo Kluger writes (shailos v’teshuvos uvacharta bachayim 87) that one may set aside
Shabbos laws to save a life. However, this is only if the cure is conventional and only if it has been
tried and proven. One may not violate Shabbos laws with supernatural cures or prayers.
Beit Lechem Yehuda (on Yorei Deah) forbids taking medication for any illness unless prescribed
by an expert physician. One who disregards this is like one who commits suicide. Similarly, the
Nishmat Avraham comments that it is prohibited for a layman to advise a patient to take medication
based on the fact a doctor gave medication for the “same condition”.
Midrash (Tanchuma Yisro 8) states “G-d says there is no illness which cannot be healed. The
medication and cure for each and every disease is known.” The Talmud in Berachos (10b) states
that King Chizkiyahu concealed the book of cures so that the sick would pray to G-d for mercy.
People at that time placed their trust in doctors not in G-d. The Ramban points out (Yayikra 26:11)
that when the majority of the Jews are free of sin, they will not need the services of a doctor. This
is based on the pasuk “…For I am Hashem your Healer” (Shemos 15:26). This is how the tzadikim
acted during the era of the Neviim. The Navi would tell them how they had sinned so they could
do teshuva and regain their health. Rav Ovadia Yosef ((‫ שו” ת יחוה דעת ח” א סי’ סא‬writes that
72
according to the Ramban nowadays times are different, and prophesy has ceased to exist, therefore,
we must act in accordance with medical advice.
5. Who are the best doctors? Does one need to consult his rabbi to get a
referral to the “best” doctor?
Tzitz Eliezer (Shaylos Teshuvos 5, Ramat Rachel 22) states that even a doctor with minimal
experience is also obligated to treat patients, as long as he is competent. However, the doctor
should not be embarrassed to ask for advice when he has a doubt about the diagnosis or treatment.
There is a famous misquoted Mishna in meseches Kiddushin (82a), “the best of doctors go to
Gehenom(hell)”. This refers to doctors who are guilty of harm from willful and negligent actions.
The Tiferet Yisrael explains – the doctor who considers himself the “best”, according to the words
of the Mishnah, is one who prides himself on his knowledge and therefore refuses to consult with
other physicians and does not consult the textbooks [medical literature]. The greater the danger
that the doctor may be sent to Gehenom, the greater the reward if he conquers this faulty character
trait.
We have in the 8th blessing of the Amida:‫ – ” כי קל מלך רופא‬For you are G-d, King, the healer”.
The King of all healers is G-d himself. The blessing of ‫ רפאנו‬designates G-d as the ultimate healer,
not a haughty doctor. Such a doctor deletes the prayer of ‫ רפאנו‬or recites it without the proper
intent. Now for this doctor he has 17 blessings in the Amida not 18. This is another explanation of
the Talmud, ‫קידושין פב(טוב שברופאים לגיהנם‬:). Since (Tov)‫ טוב‬means the best and the gematria of
“Tov” is 17, the arrogant “best doctor” “‫ ”הרופא הכי טוב‬recites only 17 blessings with kavanoh
(proper intention) in the Shomeh Esrei prayer, not 18.
Nowadays, one should daven for G-d to send the right doctor to be His agent for healing.
In Talmud Avodah Zarah (55a) Rabbi Akiva explains how sickness is healed – G-d Himself
dispatches the angels of suffering and sickness. G-d makes each angel swear that they will enter
73
this man only at a specified time and the angel will only leave him on a certain hour, but only if
he is treated by the particular doctor who administers a specific medicine (treatment) and none
other. When the angels depart at the pre-ordained time G-d is a;‫ רופא נאמן‬whereas when the patient
does a full teshuva, G-d immediately acts a ‫רופא רחמן‬and sends an instant cure.
6. Is one allowed to study medicine?
Rambam (Chapter 5 Shemoneh Perakim) the practice of medicine is a good introduction to

acquiring intellectual and moral values and truly succeed in attaining knowledge of G-d. The
Chovos Halevavos (Shaar Habechina 5) suggest that it is our obligation to study the creation of a
human being, his early development, the formation of the body, the structuring of its organs, the
basic functions of each one, and why it was necessary to make him in the form in which he is
fashioned. In this way we can recognize the greatness of G-d as it says in Iyov (19:26) “from my
own flesh I will see G-d”.
According to the Levushei Mordechai (Shaylos vTeshuvos 29) Chelkat Yaakov (Shaylos
vTeshuvos 84) it is a mitzvah to study medicine. Whereas Rav Moshe Feinstein in Iggros Moshe
(Shaylos vTeshuvos Yorei Deah 151) states that there is no obligation to study medicine. Similarly,
Rav Auerbach clarifies that there is a mitzvah to study Torah. However, if one is to choose a
profession, and not learn Torah full time, it is better to study medicine, if one is capable.
7. Can a layman or pharmacist give patients medical advice? Can a

paramedic give medical treatment when a qualified doctor is present?
One should not treat a patient unless he is qualified and there is no other doctor who is more
competent than he who can treat the patient; otherwise, he is guilty of bloodshed. (Shulchan Aruch,
Yorei Deah 336:1)
74
If one treated a patient without the permission from Beis Din, he is obligated to pay damages, even
if he is qualified.
8. Can a pharmacist prescribe medications?
Tzitz Eliezer warns pharmacists not to prescribe medication on the basis of their superficial
knowledge of medicine. They do not know how to examine a patient properly. They do not
examine patients as part of their profession to fill prescriptions. In addition, they are not trained
how to diagnose illnesses. Thus, a pharmacist may only prescribe well known medications (like
over the counter medications).
Similarly, a patient must be careful not to take medication on his own initiative (or from a
medication gemach) without the instructions of a physician. However, one may take over the
counter (OTC), well known medications, when clearly indicated.
9. Who is liable for unintentional harm to a patient?
If one has permission from Beis Din to treat and he harmed the patient unintentionally, he is exempt
from judgment by man but will be judged by Heaven (Yoreh Deah 336:1). If the patient dies and
he realized that this was due to error on his part, he goes into exile (needs to repent/do teshuva) on
his own.
Tashbetz (Shaylos vTeshuvos 3:82) explains that if doctors would be liable for damages because
of inadvertent mistakes, no one would practice medicine. The Torah gave permission to heal
knowing the risks of the practice of medicine.
A medical doctor is a “Rofeh”, he is not liable for unintentional harm since he can only treat what
he can see. This is assuming one is treating according to the accepted practice and standard of care!
75
Yad Avraham comments that if a patient dies, the doctor has not performed the mitzvah of healing,
however, one is not liable for damages while in the act of attempting to perform a mitzvah.
Tashbetz points out that physicians are always involved throughout their workday as being
involved in a mitzvah.
10. What is the difference between the liability of a surgeon and a physician?
According to Rav Auerbach if a surgeon operated on a part of the body that he should not have, or
the patient dies; then that surgeon goes into the galus(exile)/do teshuva.
When a patient agrees to surgery, he is aware the success rate is not 100%. Therefore, the surgeon
is not liable for a mishap if it is not the result of negligence.
It is permitted to operate even if there is doubt an operation will succeed; especially if the situation
is where the patient may die immediately if an operation is not done.
11. Is a doctor allowed to take payment for treatment?
The Shulchan Aruch states in Yoreh Deah (336:2) that it is forbidden for a doctor to take payment
from a patient for his knowledge and advice. However, he may take payment for his trouble (sechar
batalah) and from refraining from other employment. The Talmud is more clear on this
topic, (Baba Kama 85a) “a doctor who charges nothing is worth nothing”. In other words, you get
what you pay for. Targum Yonasan quotes the pasuk (Shemos 21:19) “verapo yerapei” – he must
pay the doctor’s fees until he is cured.
Aruch Hashulchan Halacha 3 allows the doctors to charge for travel, writing prescriptions and all
overhead expenses. The Torah Shelaima also quotes the pasuk (Shemos 21:19) “verapo yerapei”
76
“and he should provide for his healing” gives the doctor right to charge for his services, otherwise
without the pasuk one might think it is forbidden.
Only G-d is free. The Birkei Yosef (Yoreh Deah 336) points out the gematriah of shechina (‫)שכינה‬
is 385, which equals the phrase ‫( רופא חנם‬He Who heals for free).
12. Is a doctor allowed to refuse treatment to one who cannot afford to pay?
A doctor’s payment is for S’char batalah, for choosing the medical profession as a job. According
to Rav Auerbach a doctor is entitled to a higher salary if he chooses to work at another hospital.
He is also entitled to charge a USA salary if he chooses to live in Israel.
Teshuva Meahava (Shaylos vTeshuvos 408,336) states that the doctor who refuses to treat a patient
who truly cannot afford fees is guilty of “the best doctors go to Gehinom”. In this scenario, the
Beis Din can force a doctor to treat without charge. If more than one physician is available, the
community must pay from public funds (government health care).
13. Can one charge a high fee?
If the doctor demands a high fee as a precondition for treatment, the patient is obligated to pay him
since he is in fact paying for his knowledge and experience, and that has no particular price
tag (Yoreh Deah 336:3).
14. Is the patient obligated to pay the doctor?
Must one pay for medical care or get free care? Zohar (Haazinu 299b) explains that sometimes
illness is a result of a punishment decreed on one’s property and the patient will not recover until
he has spent all the money he was decreed to lose. Only then will G-d send the cure.
77
Ramban (Vayikra 26:11) The door to healing may not open through doing mitzvos, but the door
to healing will open to the doctor.
Although it is a mitzvah for the doctor to treat the patient, he is not required to do so for free and
is entitled to receive his fee. The patient must pay the doctor since it is a mitzvah required of
everyone (the patient) to seek medical care. This obligation does not fall on a particular doctor and
different doctors have different fees.
A doctor has no obligation to learn medicine in the first place. The mitzvah of treating patients is
not one particular doctors’ obligation, since others can also learn medicine. The Taz (Yoreh Deah
336) explains that there is an understanding that the doctor and patient have agreed to payment
terms, thus the patient must pay. Rav Waldenberg (Tzitz Eliezer 25) clarifies that if only one doctor
is available the patient is not obligated to pay any higher fee than he agreed upon. However, the
Rama (Choshen Mishpat 264:7) and Yam Shel Shlomo write that a patient must pay the doctor bill
if it is usual to pay for this type of service.
Tosafot (Moshav Zekainim Shemos 21:19) comments on the double phrase “verapo yerapei” in
the Torah – which means that if one is not helped by one physician he must go to another physician
to search for a cure of his illness.
15. May one depend on miracles and not seek medical assistance?
Rashba (Shailos v’Teshuvos 413) states that it is forbidden to depend on a miracle. Everything that
may heal is permitted. Birkei Yosef also states one cannot depend on miracles and is obligated to
go to a medical doctor. If a patient does not go to a physician, then he is guilty of an aveira (sin).
The reasons a person may not go to doctor is based on pride or one is depending on a miracle, and
both are aveiros.
78
One who is sick is obligated to seek out a physician to heal him. The patient needs to search for
the most qualified physician and the most appropriate medications. One who is lazy or negligent
and does not do so is a fool “shoteh”. He is acting with criminal negligence regarding his health
and will ultimately have to stand judgment for this (Shevet Yehuda 336).
The Ramban’s opinion (Vayikra 26:11) is that during the era of the prophets, if one became ill
because of some sin, he did not seek the help of a doctor but rather a Navi (Prophet). Rav Ovadia
Yoseph (Sheailot Teshuvot) states that nowadays we have no prophets, therefore, we must act
according to proper modern medical advice.
Chazon Ish (Kovetz Iggros) writes that the need to stay healthy is a mitzvah and obligation. G-d
created the world to act in this fashion. If one could save a life by one’s efforts and instead prays
to G-d, he will have violated the negative commandment of “do not stand idly by while your
fellow’s blood is shed” (Vayikra 19:16) “‫”לא תעמד על דם רעך‬, (Chazon ish zichron Yaakov 5739).
The doctor is a “Shaliach”, a messenger of G-d. Everything comes from G-d. Every cure can only
come from Him. He decides one’s medical fate not the doctor or the particular treatment. When
sickness befalls a person, it is sworn to only come on a certain day and only leave on a certain day
and time and only through a certain medication/[treatment] (Tzitz Eliezer). One must listen to the
doctors’ instructions just like any law in the Shulchan Aruch (Gesher Hachayim).
Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah, Siman #336 (‫)של” ו – יורה דעה שולחן ערוך‬
Nishmat Avraham. Dr. Avraham S. Avraham.
Shemoneh Esrei. Rabbi Avrohom Chaim Feuer. Artscroll Mesorah Series.
79
Chazal, Galen and Nishtaneh haTeva22
The concept of nishtaneh hatevah - that the nature of physical reality has changed (see Tosafot,
Moed Katan 11a) - is commonly proposed by the most extreme OrthoFundies as a last resort when
they cannot reconcile the current state of scientific knowledge with statements of chazal. This idea
can encompass the range of everything from a relatively reasonable assertion (although still
without any scientific evidence) such as a purely morphological change (cannot jive the shiur of a
k'beitzah or a k'zayit with the size of an egg or olive? The size of eggs and olives have gotten
(much) smaller in the last 2000 years!) to the wackiest claims of relating to astronomical
phenomena (geocentrism, spheres around the earth). Lice reproduce via spontaneous generation
22
http://frumheretic.blogspot.com/2009/01/chazal-galen-and-nishtaneh-hateva.html?m=1
80
(so that we can kill them on Shabbat)? Well, they must have done so 1500 years ago when the
Talmud was written down! A seven-month-old fetus is more viable than an eighth month fetus?
Eating fish and meat together are a danger? Can't rely on the medical cures of the Talmud any
longer? Nishtaneh hatevah.
But my purpose here is not to beat a dead horse. You've seen many postings over the years
discussing the absurdity of such a notion and are well aware that Rabbi Natan Slifkin's books were
banned by some gedolim - in part - for suggesting that chazal relied on the science of the time and
were thus often wrong in their beliefs regarding the nature of physical reality, a notion
anathema to some folks.
I recently came across a fascinating parallel idea taken from the annals of the history of medicine,
as described in Bill Schutt's book, Dark Banquet: Blood and the Curious Lives of Blood-Feeding
Creatures. (Warning: don't read if the nitty gritty details about bed bugs creep you out!)
The medical theories of Roman physician, Galen of Pergamum (CE 129 – 200, contemporaneous
with Rabbi Yehudah haNasi, the redactor of the Mishnah) dominated Western medical science for
more than 1300 years. Although he proved that “blood, not pneuma (an airlike spiritual essence
dreamed up by the ancient Greeks), traveled through arteries”, he also “had no real concept of
blood circulation. He believed that blood ebbed and flowed like the tides, with venous blood
originating from and returning to the liver… Galen's deeply flawed concepts of human anatomy
and physiology would have a serious and long-lasting effect on the field of medicine— especially
with regard to the circulatory system.
As previously mentioned, Galen's overarching ideas on the human body were generally
extensions of those proposed by the ancient Greeks, and these mistake-laden views came to
completely dominate the field of medicine. Not only did Galen's take on medicine and anatomy
remain pervasive for fifteen hundred years, but it also remained unchallenged. According to Bill
Hayes, the author of Five Quarts—A Personal and Natural History of Blood, "In the early Middle
Ages, church leaders declared his work to have been divinely inspired and thus infallible."
Rather than experimenting or dissecting specimens (and thereby bringing down upon themselves
the serious and often deadly wrath of the church), the disciples of "Galen the Divine" simply
deferred to their long-deceased master and his stance on any given medical topic. Anything else
would have been blasphemous…”
“One of those responsible for attempting to revive experimental medicine was Andreas Vesalius.
Born into a family of Belgian physicians, Vesalius received his doctorate in 1537 from the
University of Padua, where he soon became the chair of surgery and anatomy… Rather than
blindly accepting Galen's well-worn teachings, Vesalius took a new and dangerous approach. He
employed dissection in his classroom and preached a hands-on approach to his students… The
young anatomist not only studied their anatomy but also produced a set of remarkable and highly
detailed anatomical diagrams, which were included in his seven-volume On the Fabric of the
81
Human Body. It was his masterwork and it hammered Galen's inaccurate and erroneous views on
anatomy into the ground like so many tent pegs. Using cadavers, Vesalius disproved Galen's
concept of invisible pores in the heart. He also demonstrated that the human heart had four
chambers (not three) and that half of the body's major blood vessels did not originate in the liver
(as described by Galen) ...”
“Understandably, Vesalius (who was not yet thirty) upset many of the Galen faithful by
dismantling so many of their master's long-held claims. One outraged Galenite went so far as
to publish a paper in which he asserted that the work of Vesalius didn't prove Galen wrong, it
simply indicated that the human body had changed since Galen's time.”
Nature Changes
Jeremy Brown writes:23
23
http://www.talmudology.com/
82
On our daf, Rav reports several aphorisms said by Adda the Fisherman. Here is one.
‫ א‬,‫מועד קטן יא‬
‫ ְלִמיְס ְרֵחיהּ ְמַﬠֵלּי‬y‫ ְכּווֹ ָרא ָסמוּ‬,‫ ֲאַמר ִלי ַאָדּא ַצָיּיָדא‬:‫ָאַמר ַרב‬
Rav said: Adda the Fisherman told me that a fish that has sat for some time and is close to
spoiling is at its best.
And so according to Adda, fish is not at its best when it is fresh. In fact, it is best eaten just before
it spoils. Tosafot is surprised at this advice, and notes that eating fish (or any food) close to its
expiration date is a dangerous thing to do. Tosafot raises the possibility that perhaps that kaverah
(‫ )ְכּווָֹרא‬does not mean fish in general, but instead refers to a specific species of fish, named kaverah.
However, Tosafot rejects this solution, and instead suggests a different one. “Perhaps, nature has
changed.” It is also for this reason, Tosafot notes, that the medicines suggested in the Talmud are
no-longer effective. They once were of course, but nature has changed.
‫כוורא סמוך למסרחיה מעלי‬. ‫ובזמן הזה תופסים סכנה למיכל סמוך לסירחון וגם משתי עלה אבוה דאמר בסמוך‬
‫דמעלי ושמא נשתנו כמו הרפואות שבש"ס שאינן טובות בזמן הזה או שמא נהרות דבבל מעלו לו טפי ויש‬
‫מפרשים דכוורא לא בכלל דגים מיירי ושם דג ששמו כוורא ומשונה בדברים האלו משאר דגים כדאמרינן פ' כל‬
‫חולין דף קט(הבשר‬:) ‫אסר לן גירותא שרא לן לישנא דכוורא ואין נראה שיהא בכל הלשונות של דגים טעם‬
‫אחד‬
ANOTHER EXAMPLE
In Avodah Zarah (24b) the Talmud states that a cow or donkey less than three years old cannot
conceive. Once again, Tosafot notes that this claim is factually incorrect:
‫ ב‬,‫תוספות עבודה זרה כד‬
‫פרה וחמור בת שלש שנים ודאי לכהן‬- ‫פי' דקודם שלש ודאי לא ילדה ויש לתמוה דהא מעשה בכל יום דפרה‬
‫בת שתי שנים יולדת וי"ל דודאי עתה נשתנה העת מכמו שהיה בדורות הראשונים‬
…this is surprising, because we see that each and every day that a two-year-old cow does in fact
give birth! Perhaps this is because the times have changed, and are things are not as they were
for earlier generations…
THE CHAZON ISH ON NATURE AND ITS CHANGES
There are many examples of this explanation being used. Here, is one given by the great Chazon
Ish, Rabbi Avrohom Yeshaya Karelitz (1878-1953). The Talmud (Yevamot 42) states that a baby
born after eight months of gestation will not survive, but one born after seven or nine months will.
(We have discussed this is detail elsewhere.)
83
Not so, said the Chazon Ish. A baby born after eight months can indeed survive. “It seems to me”
he wrote, “that nature has changed” and therefore the Sabbath may indeed be broken in order to
save the now viable life of such a child.
155 ‫ יורה דעה‬- ‫חזון איש‬
‫ וחייבים‬...‫ וזו טעות‬,‫יש שטועין וסוברים דהנולד קודם ט' הוא נפל ומתיאשין הימנו ואינם זריזין ברפואתו‬
‫ אבל לא היו נגמרין‬,‫ ורובן לתשעה‬,'‫ בימים הראשונים הי' מיעוט המצוי שנגמרו לז‬...‫להשתדל ברפואתו‬
,‫ וכפי בחינת הרופאים‬,‫ וכמדומה דעכשיו נשתנה הטבע‬,‫ ולפיכך אמרו האי בן שבעה הוא ואשתהי‬,‫לשמונה‬
‫ כמ"ש הרמ"א‬,‫ והרי נשתנו הטבעים ללדת למקוטעין‬,'‫אפשר שהוסיפו השתלמותם אחר ז' ונגמרו לח‬
In his 2013 book Torah, Chazal and Science, - Rabbi Moshe Meiselman is certain that natural
changes are the reason that things the rabbis said then are not correct today:
Chazal were describing realities that they lived with on a daily basis. They were not ivory-tower
academicians making armchair speculations. They had firsthand knowledge of both human and
animal reproductive cycles. They had firsthand knowledge of animal anatomy. If our
observations do not always match theirs, it is clearly because the realities have changed.
As long-time readers of Talmudology will realize, this statement is incorrect. The fact that the
rabbis of the Talmud made first hand observations does not make these observations correct. To
choose but one, rather obvious example, the sun looks like it rises every day in the east, and it
certainly feels like the earth is not moving. But in reality is is the earth that is moving, and the sun
is stationary, at least with reference to the earth. Here are some other examples of things that
certainly looked correct to the sages of the Talmud, but are in fact incorrect:
• Male and female fetuses grow at different rates

• Male babies are born facing down, females are born facing up
• The circumference of the circle will be always be 1.5 times larger than the perimeter
of the square that is drawn around it
• It is impossible to stay awake for more than three days
• Alcohol improves cognitive function
• The value of Pi is three
• A salamander is fireproof
• Deaf people are less intelligent
• Israel is the highest country in the world
In all of these instances, Rabbi Meiselman, and others who claim that the rabbis of the Talmud
were never wrong about anything, suggest that these were in fact correct statements, only the world
has changed in such a way that they are no-longer true.
84
There is a long Jewish tradition of believing the sages of the Talmud incapable of error. Here for
example is the Rashba, Rabbi Shlomo ben Avraham ibn Aderet (1235-1310), a favorite of Rabbi
Meiselman, for reasons that will be quickly apparent.
‫ויבטל המעיד ואלף כיוצא בו ואל תבטל נקודה אחת ממה שהסכימו בו חכמי ישראל הקדושים הנביאים ובני‬
‫נביאים ודברים שנאמרו למשה מסיני‬
It is better to deny the truth of one person - or one thousand like him, rather than deny one tiny
part of that which the holy rabbis have agreed upon, for they are like prophets and are descended
from prophets, and their words were revealed to Moshe at Sinai.
I suppose you could believe that, but how about a much simpler suggestion: They were wrong, but
(usually) were no more wrong than anyone else at the time. There is of course much more to be
said about this (and here is a book with many more examples of the phenomenon).
85
But here is an excerpt from Judah Landa’s excellent 1991 book Torah and Science24, still one of
the best books on the topic (but not the best). Landa (p. 348) bemoans the fact that a number of
Jews have “strayed from the Orthodox path as a result, at least in part, of the widespread
misconception that an unmitigated conflict exists between the fundamental principles of Judaism
and science.” And then comes this:
This misconception has been aided and abetted by the stubborn insistence on the part of many
of our brethren in the Orthodox community that the sages were infallible and incapable of error.
even in matters that are outside the domains of Torah. This leads to the rejection of any and all
scientific principles, no matter how well supported by the evidence, that contradict the expressed
opinions of the rabbis.
The highly visible achievements of science stand in stark contrast to these dogmas that have
been turned, by thoughtless and repeated insistence, into new pseudo-tenets of the faith. These
dogmas have gone unchallenged, for too long a time, from within the Orthodox community. It
is time that this misrepresentation of what is and is not inherent to Judaism be rectified.
For some Jews, a belief in the absolute infallibility of the sages is central.
Their religious worldview would be shaken and left in tatters if that belief was challenged. Others,
no less fervent in their Jewish commitment, seem to be just fine, thank you very much, with the
belief that the rabbis of the Talmud provide us with much wisdom and guidance, but hey, every
now and again they made some mistakes. Where are you on this spectrum, and why?
24
Ktav, 1991
86
Sea Shanties
Ben Johnson writes:25
The origins of the traditional Sailors’ Sea Shanty have been lost in the midst of time. Traceable
from at least the mid-1400s, the shanty hails from the days of the old merchant ‘tall’ sailing ships.
The shanty was quite simply a working song that ensured sailors involved in heavy manual tasks,
such as tramping round the capstan or hoisting the sails for departure, synchronised individual
efforts to efficiently execute their collective task, i.e., simply making sure that each sailor pushed
or pulled, at precisely the same time.
The key to making this happen was to sing each song, or shanty, in rhythm.
More often than not there would be a solo-singer, a shantyman, who would lead the singing of the
songs with the crew joining in for the chorus.
25
https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/Sea-
Shanties/#:~:text=Traceable%20from%20at%20least%20the,merchant%20'tall'%20sailing%20ships.&text=Similar%20to%20the
%20marching%20songs,raise%20the%20heavy%20iron%20anchor
87
Although the actual singing of these songs may date back several hundred years, the origin of the
word ‘shanty’ is more recent. Only traceable back via the dictionaries to around 1869, there are a
number of variations in the spelling of shanty, including chantey and chanty. There is also some
debate as to the actual derivation of the word shanty, with some citing the French word “chanter”,
‘to sing’, with others proposing the English “chant”, synonymous with those religious Gregorian
chants.
Getting down to the nitty gritty technicalities of these sailors working songs though, there are
indeed two major variants of the shanty, known as the Capstan Shanty and the Pulling Shanty.
Similar to the marching songs of those soldier boys, the Capstan Shanty was sung to accompany
work of a regular rhythmical nature, such as tramping round the capstan in order to raise the heavy
iron anchor. With no special requirements other than to hold the attention of – and of course amuse
– the sailors, virtually any ballad could be adopted for this purpose, provided it was delivered at
the required tempo and preferably with some ‘mucky’ innuendo… “Farewell and Adieu to you,
Ladies of Spain,” would perhaps be one famous example.
The Pulling, or Long Drag, Shanty however, required something a tad more specialised to
accompany the spasmodic and irregular work involved with raising the yardarms or hoisting the
sails. With work of this type, as well as keeping the attention of the sailors it was also necessary
to ensure that all pulled together at exactly the same time, with a sufficient gap in-between to
regain a fresh grip on the rope, as well as gathering breath before the next exertion. Normally this
type of ‘call and response’ shanty involves a solo shantyman singing the verse with the sailors
joining in for the chorus. Using the shanty “Boney” as an example.
Shantyman: Boney was a warrior,
Crew: Way, hey, ya!
88
Shantyman: A warrior and a terrier,
Crew: Jean-François
In their response to the shantyman, the crew would pull together exactly on the last syllable of
each line.
Without doubt though, the main attraction of either shanty was to bring a sense of humour and
spirit of fun to the hard manual tasks that the sailors encountered each and every day on the long
sea voyages that they endured. It is said that having a good shantyman aboard was worth a couple
of extra hands, and as such this valuable asset often enjoyed special privileges such as lighter
duties, and / or perhaps an extra tot of rum.
The arrival of those new-fangled steamships however, brought an end the days of the tall ships and
the need for raw manpower. And so, by the turn of the 20th century, the sounds of the sea shanty
were seldom heard and had almost been forgotten, but thanks to several notables including Cecil
James Sharp (1859-1924), we have been left with legacy of more than 200 of these sailors’ working
songs.
Travelling the length and breadth of the nation’s coastal trading towns and fishing villages, Sharp
interviewed retired old sailors and noted down both the words and music of those traditional
working songs in a number of collections including ‘English folk-chanteys: with pianoforte
accompaniment, introduction and notes’, first published in 1914.
In more recent times, these songs are brought to life each summer by groups of shantymen
performing in seafaring ports (and pubs) up and down the country in order to preserve and share
with others this important part of our maritime heritage.
89
https://stormweathershantychoir.bandcamp.com/track/fish-in-the-sea-single
90

Moed Katan 11

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moed Katan 11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Daf Ditty Moed Katan 11: Fishy Tales

Come all you young sailor men, listen to me

And its windy weather, boys, stormy weather, boys

Up jumps the eel with his slippery tail

And its windy weather, boys, stormy weather, boys

And its windy weather, boys, stormy weather, boys

‫או שמא נהרות דבבל מעלו לו טפי‬

Financial Hardship... and Ordinary Hardship

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:3

WE SHALL RETURN TO YOU, MASHKIN BEIS HASHELACHIN

Rabbi Eli Mansour writes:

MELACHAH DURING "AVEILUS"

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:4

A BUSINESS PARTNER WHO BECOMES AN AVEL

Pressing Olives on Hol HaMoed

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:5

1. If a person is working for the community, and not for himself.

Aveilut on Yom Tov

Aninut on Yom Tov or Chol Hamoed

1. If a person's relative dies on Chol Hamoed he is in the state of aninut.[2]

Private Aveilut on Yom Tov

Aveilut on Second Day of Yom Tov

Laws of the Delayed Shiva

Isaac Pollak writes:10

THE SOLACE OF WEEPING

Here is a complementary explanation. Normally, a person should not cry on Shabbat,

HOLIDAYS TRUNCATE SEVEN-DAY AND THIRTY-DAY MOURNING

COUNTING THE THIRTY DAYS

THE DAYS OF AWE

OBSERVING THE YAHRZEIT, THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE DEATH

Alex Sztuden writes:12

Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff writes:13

SHOPPING FOR FISH IN A NON-KOSHER STORE

What if a non-Jew or a non-observant Jew guarantees that this is a kosher fish?

WHY MUST HE BRING HIS OWN KNIFE?

OTHER CANNERY ISSUES

What other halachos pertain to fish?

FISH AND MEAT

THE FISH POT

FISH AND MILK

WORCESTERSHIRE SAUCE ON MY MEAT

This Shiur is published also at Rabbi Kaganof's site

Fish and Dairy

Rabbi Yair Hoffman writes:17

The endorsements were revoked because of alleged misrepresentations of halachah. It is this

Major Problems with The Sefer

Faulty Understanding of Statistics

Dealing with factual mistakes

As far as Rabbi Szmerla’s identification of qi or chi with an adaptive definition of nefesh–this

Therapeutic Touch/Hands-On Healing

Homeopathy And Flower Essence

Feng Shui And Shamanic Healing

The author concludes that shamanic healing is strictly forbidden.

Health Care According to Jewish Law: The Basics

2. Why do we get sick?

3. Must one practice preventive medicine and protecting oneself from

4. Is one allowed to use the alternative medicine mentioned in the Talmud?

6. Is one allowed to study medicine?

Rambam (Chapter 5 Shemoneh Perakim) the practice of medicine is a good introduction to

7. Can a layman or pharmacist give patients medical advice? Can a

8. Can a pharmacist prescribe medications?

9. Who is liable for unintentional harm to a patient?

11. Is a doctor allowed to take payment for treatment?

13. Can one charge a high fee?