IS IT PREFERABLE TO VIOLATE A TOLDAH RATHER THAN AN AV (FOR ONE WHO IS DEATHLY ILL)?

The Tchebeiner Gaon (Dovev Meisharim, 3:82) inquires as to what the halacha would be in the following case. We are permitted to desecrate Shabbos for one who is deathly ill. Is it preferable to perform a labor which is only a toldah, a derivative of the av melocha, the primary categories of labor forbidden to do on Shabbos; or perhaps, there is no halachic difference since both are Biblically forbidden?

He ruled on this issue and cited support from our Gemora. It was taught in a braisa: A metzora whose eighth day (of purification) fell on Erev Pesach, but on that day had an emission of semen (resulting in the fact that he now cannot enter the Temple Mount to complete his purification process), and then immersed himself, the Chachamim said that although an ordinary tevul yom (one who has immersed in a mikvah but still has tumah on him until nightfall) may not enter the Temple Mount until nightfall, this one may enter in order to complete his purification process, thus enabling him to bring his pesach offering. It is preferable for a positive commandment that involves kares (pesach obligation) to override a positive commandment that does not involve kares (entering the Temple Mount while being a tevul yom).

Rabbi Yochanan maintains that it is only Rabbinically forbidden for a tevul yom to enter the Temple Mount.

Ula said: Why do we allow this tevul yom to enter? He answers: Since we would allow an ordinary metzora to enter the Temple Mount in order to complete his purification process, we allow a metzora who has had an emission of semen to enter as well.

Tosfos asks: Ula maintains that a partial entry into an area which is forbidden to enter is regarded as a full entry. If so, why do we limit this metzora, who is a tevul yom to insert his right ear, thumb and big toe into the Temple Courtyard, let him be permitted to enter entirely? What would be the distinction?

Tosfos answers: Entering completely into the Courtyard is regarded as being more severe than a partial entry. The Torah forbids a tevul yom from entering completely into the Courtyard explicitly, but a partial entry is only derived through the means of a hekesh (a Midrashic juxtaposition). Although both prohibitions are Biblical, the one that is written explicitly is stricter than the one which is merely derived from an exposition.

It emerges from here that a Biblical prohibition written explicitly is more stringent than one which is only derived through an exposition. He therefore posits that it would be preferable to engage in the labor which would only be violating a toldah rather than one which would constitute an av melocha. This is because a toldah is not written explicitly in the Torah.

avi lebovitz said...

avos of shabbos are also not written explicitly in the torah - they are learned from the mishkan. so there is no proof at all that there should be a distinction between an av and a tolda. furthermore, when the gemara asks in baba kama what is the difference between an av and tolda, let the gemara say that a tolda is more kal than an av. Clearly, they are both the same level of issur.

Quote "It emerges from here that a Biblical prohibition written explicitly is more stringent than one which is only derived through an exposition. He therefore posits that it would be preferable to engage in the labor which would only be violating a toldah rather than one which would constitute an av melocha. This is because a toldah is not written explicitly in the Torah."

I don't know if the proof is similar to the Shaila. Over there going in completely is written specifically. Part way is a Drasha. Melachos are not written specifically in the Pasuk. Both are learnt from a Drasha. Either from the Meleches Hamishkon (Hekesh) or the many times it says Melacha in the Torah or Veleh Hadvarim. Toldos are learnt from Achas Meheina. Even though Toldos are derivatives of a derivative, still they might be all under one Darga of Drashos and not written Mifeirush.

You said it well - a number of us were wondering the same thing. a question was brought up regarding mutav sheyehei shog'gin v'lo meizidin only applies when it is explicit in the Torah; what is the halacha regarding avos or toldos?

I think I have a proof from Horiyos 4a that if you make a Hoyra on something the Tzidukim admit to is not a Hoyra, since just read the Psukim. The Gemara says that Hoitza that says Mifeirush is only included in this Din, but nit the other Melachos and on Amud b is Mifeirush that other Avs not. Thus we can say they're not Mifeirush that someone will automatically will accept them.

Quote "furthermore, when the Gemara asks in baba kama what is the difference between an av and tolda, let the Gemara say that a tolda is more kal than an av. Clearly, they are both the same level of issur."

Lav Davka, because this can be all inclusive to the Gemaras answer that those that are in the Mishkon where Avs. Since that is the reason why we'll say that those are more Chumur, so it's inclusive to say that we should do the Tolda first. Tosfos there gives a similar answer to the question if you need to give Hasra for a Tolda with the Av. See there.

Maybe the Rav held that we see that the Torah says specifically "you shouldn't do Malacha. All the Drashos are only a Giloy Milsa what is included in Malacha of the Pasuk. But it's clearly a definite group that the Pasuk is talking about. This excludes Toldos that are learnt from a Drasha Achas mihaina, that is purely a Drasha.