Should we tie one one during hol hamoed? TB Moed Katan 19

Work, malakha, is not only prohibited on the holiday but also during hol hamoed, the intermediary days. Nevertheless, we have previously learned that the person is allowed to do malakhot on the intermediary days of the holiday if needed for the holiday. The Mishnah on daf TB Moed Katan 18b presents a list of documents one may write on hol hamoed because a mitzvah is involved like an get, the bill of divorce.  On today’s daf TB Moed Katan 19 we learn “ The Sages taught the following baraita: A person may write phylacteries (tefillin-gg)and mezuzot for himself and spin sky-blue wool for his fringes on his thigh. And for others he may do these things as a favor, but not for payment. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he initially made them for himself, he may employ artifice, sell his own and then go back and write new ones for himself. Rabbi Yosei says: He may write and sell them in his usual manner, in the amount that is enough to provide for his livelihood.

"Rav ruled for Rav Ḥananel, and some say it was Rabba bar bar Ḥana who ruled for Rav Ḥananel: The halakha is that one may write and sell them in his usual manner, in the amount that is enough to provide for his livelihood.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Since the Gemara never explicitly deals with the question whether a person should or not should put on tefillinon hol hamoed, the Rishonim decipher what a person should do by analyzing the phrase "A person may write phylacteries and mezuzot for himself ."

Since he may write tefillin for himself and potentially for others on hol hamoed, does this mean he writes them in oprder to put them on during hol hamoed? As in most cases the answer is yes and no, depending upon where you come from, your tradition and your posek, decider of Jewish law.

Many Rishonim including the Rif, Rambam, Rashba, and the Bet Yosef, say that one should not put on tefillin during hol hamoed because these days are part and parcel of the holiday. The scribe writes them for himself or for others so that the tefillin are immediately ready for use after the holiday. Meiri writes this is the custom of the Sephardim. The Ritba and Rabbi Shimshon ben Avraham write men are obligated to put on tefillin during hol hamoed. The Meiri writes that this is the custom in most places in France. Some Rishonim like the Meiri say that since there's a doubt whether one should or should not put on tefillin, he should put them on without the appropriate blessings. The Rama poskins for Ashkenazi Jews that we should put on tefillin with the blessings.

Today Sefardim, Hasadim who were very much influenced by Sefardic traditions, and almost everybody in Israel who have been influenced by the Vilna  Gaon strong opposition to putting on tefillin during hol hamoed, do not put on tefillin during hol hamoed. Ashkenazim will put on tefillin with the appropriate blessings, but take them off before the special hol hamoed Torah readings signaling for them the transition from hol to the moed.

I personally do not put on tefillin during hol hamoed in order to make these days more festive and holiday like.

 

Where there's smoke is there fire? TB Moed Katan 18

 How much should we pay attention to rumors and gossip surrounding a person is the question that daf TB Moed Katan 18 entertains. 

“Rav said in the name of Rabbi Reuven ben Itzterobili, and some say that it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Reuven ben Itzterobili said: A man is suspected of having done something wrong only if he has indeed done so. And if he did not do it wholly, then probably he did it partly. And if he did not do it even partly, then probably he thought in his heart to do it. And if he did not even think to himself to do it, then certainly he saw others doing it and was happy. Suspicions do not arbitrarily arise about a person; therefore there is certainly some basis for them.” (Sefaria.org translation

The Gemara immediately brings three challenges  to the notion “where there is smoke, there is fire” by citing three cases where rumors were spread about completely innocent people. 

“Rabbi Ya’akov raised an objection: Does the verse not say: “And the children of Israel fabricated matters that were not right against the Lord their God” (II Kings 17:9), which indicates that it is possible to make up stories about someone else even though they are entirely baseless. The Gemara answers: There they did it in order to anger God, but they did not actually think that what they were saying was true.

“Come and hear a challenge from a different source: The verse states: “And they were jealous of Moses in the camp, of Aaron the Lord’s holy one” (Psalms 106:16). Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: This verse teaches that every man warned his wife against seclusion with Moses because he was jealous. This implies that every man thought that his wife had secluded herself with Moses and sinned, although this was certainly not the case. This demonstrates that it is possible to suspect an absolutely innocent person. The Gemara answers: There they did it out of hatred for Moses. They did not actually suspect him of wrongdoing. Instead, their goal was to degrade him by leveling these false accusations against him.

“The Gemara raises another challenge, based on yet another source: Come and hear that which Rabbi Yosei said: May my portion in the future world be with one who is suspected of a certain wrongdoing but is innocent, as the pain that such a person experiences atones for his sins. This statement also appears to imply that it is possible to suspect an absolutely innocent person. And Rav Pappa said: They suspected me of a certain wrongdoing but I was not guilty.”

I think the Gemara is trying to teach us to be wary of rumors. When we  evaluate the truth of the rumor, we have to examine the source and what is that person's motive. Sometimes anger and hatred are the fuel to spread rumors about another person who is completely innocent. Sometimes the powerful destroy his opponents by spreading rumors. "And we said that a rumor that does not stop must be taken seriously only if the slandered person has no enemies. But if he has known enemies, then it can be assumed that it was the enemies who disseminated the rumor." (Sefaria.org translation)

Rumors have a life of their own and they never seem to die. A rumor can haunt a completely innocent person and ruin his life. Unless the accusation is backed by evidence,  “What you don’t see with your eyes, don’t witness with your mouth.”  ~ Jewish Proverb

The original man in black TB Moed Katan 17

I’m going to share the following famous story in its entirety on daf TB Moed Katan 17 before I comment on it.

There was a certain Torah scholar who gained a bad reputation due to rumors about his conduct. Rav Yehuda said: What should be done? To excommunicate him is not an option. The Sages need him, as he is a great Torah authority. Not to excommunicate him is also not an option, as then the name of Heaven would be desecrated.

Rav Yehuda said to Rabba bar Ḥana: Have you heard anything with regard to this issue? He said to him: Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek Torah at his mouth; for he is a messenger [malakh] of the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 2:7)? This verse teaches: If the teacher is similar to an angel [malakh] of the Lord, then seek Torah from his mouth, but if he is not pure and upright, then do not seek Torah from his mouth; even if he is knowledgeable about Torah, do not learn from him.

Based on this statement, Rav Yehuda ostracized that Torah scholar. In the end, after some time had passed, Rav Yehuda took ill and was on the verge of death. The Sages came to inquire about his well-being, and the ostracized scholar came along with them as well. When Rav Yehuda saw him, that scholar, he laughed.

The ostracized scholar said to him: Was it not enough that you excommunicated that man, i.e., me, but now you even laugh at me? Rav Yehuda said to him: I was not laughing at you; rather, I am happy as I go to that other world that I did not flatter even a great man like you, but instead I treated you fairly in accordance with the halakha.

Rav Yehuda died. The ostracized scholar came to the study hall and said to the Sages: Release me from the decree of ostracism. The Sages said to him: There is no man here as eminent as Rav Yehuda who can release you from the ostracism. Rather, go to Rabbi Yehuda Nesia in Eretz Yisrael, as only he can release you. That scholar came before Rabbi Yehuda Nesia. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said to Rabbi Ami: Go and examine his case. If it is necessary to release him from his decree of ostracism, release him on my behalf.

Rabbi Ami examined his case and thought at first to release him from his ostracism. But Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani rose up on his feet and said: If the maidservant in the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi once ostracized another person, and the Sages did not relate frivolously to her decree of ostracism and did not revoke it until three years had passed, all the more so, with regard to a decree of ostracism placed by Yehuda our colleague, we must take it seriously and not release this scholar.

Rabbi Zeira said: What caused this Elder, Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, to come before us in the study hall today though for many years he did not come, and now he comes precisely during this discussion. Learn from this that it is not necessary to release him from his decree of ostracism, as this combination of events is certainly not a coincidence. Rather, it should be viewed as an instructive sign from Heaven. Consequently, Rabbi Ami did not release him from the ostracism, and the ostracized scholar left in tears.

A wasp came and stung the ostracized scholar on his penis and he died. Because he was a great Torah scholar, they took him into the caves in which the pious are interred in order to bury him there, but the caves did not accept him. A snake stood at the entrance of the caves and did not let them pass. They then took him into the caves of the judges, and they accepted him.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that he was accepted there? The Gemara answers: Even though he sinned, he still acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ilai, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Ilai says: If a person sees that his evil inclination is gaining control over him and he cannot overcome it, then he should go to a place where he is not known. He should wear black, and he should wrap his head in black, as if he were a mourner. Perhaps these changes will influence him, so that he not sin. Even if these actions do not help, he should at least do as his heart desires in private and not desecrate the name of Heaven in public. Although this person had sinned, he did so in private and in a manner that did not publicly desecrate God’s name, and therefore it was fitting that he be given an honorable burial. (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara never explicitly tells us what that Torah scholar did to gain a bad reputation.  Rabbeinu Hananiel explains that he was involved with sectarianism. Nevertheless, most Rishonimin say his sin was illicit sexual relations. The Ritba explains that this Torah scholar did not transgress any Torah prohibitions, but rather violated rabbinic ordinances by permitting himself to be sequestered with women who are not his wife and similar prohibitions. Tosefot ד"ה סְנוּ שׁוּמְעָנֵיהּ agrees that his transgression was sexual in nature by virtue of his punishment. Tosefot sees his comeuppance as measure for measure, מידה כנגד מידה . He sinned with his penis and was punished via his penis.

I think the point that Rabbi Yehuda makes on his deathbed concerning this Torah scholar is that no one is above the law. If rabbis or Christian clergy take advantage of their position and sexually abuse children or anybody else, they should be treated like all other criminals. They should pay for their crimes. No one should be above the law.

 So far only ordinary American citizens who on January 6 breached the capital in order to prevent the lawful transfer of power from Pres. Trump to President-elect Biden have been indicted, tried, found guilty, and sentenced according to the crime. We do not know who the DOJ has investigated in Trump’s inner circle including Trump himself. I can only hope that the DOJ’s investigation is going up the ladder of seditionists. If evidence points to these people’s guilt whether they be congressmen, senators, cabinet members, or even the president of the United States himself, they should be indicted and tried. If found guilty they should suffer the maximum penalty for the crimes to overthrow our democratic government. Nobody is above the law.

Last of all, wearing black and going out of town won’t provide you an anonymity anymore. Think of all those January 6 insurrectionists who came from all points of our country and how they were identified. If, God forbid, you are thinking of breaking the law, remember that is no such thing as privacy anymore. There are cameras everywhere. Even if you delete the posts, social media captures and preserves what you say and what you do. These posts can and will be used against you. Better off if you don’t sin or break the law at all.

The penalty for disobeying a court subpoena TB Moed Katan 16

Since the Mishnah on daf TB Moed Katan 13b includes “one who had been ostracized (menudeh-מְנוּדֶּה) in the list of people who may cut their hair on hol hamoed, Today’s daf TB Moed Katan 16 discusses the three different levels of ostracism and the length of punishment.

The first level is nezifah-נְזִיפָה admonition or censorship. If the person unintentionally insults somebody, the length of censorship in the land of Israel is seven days and in Babylonia one day.

The second level is nedui-נִידּוּי ostracism. For example, if the court subpoenas somebody and he disobeys the subpoena and refuses to come, the court may put him in nedui. Of course the recalcitrant person needs to be warned before he is ostracized. In the land of Israel the period of ostracism is 30 days and in Babylonia seven days. People may not come within 4 cubits of the menudeh. If he still is recalcitrant, the court can extend his ostracism for another 30 days.

The third and final level is herem-חֶרֶם excommunication. A curse accompanies the excommunication. If the person has been ostracized for 60 days, the court excommunicates him.

The court may apply other pressures upon the recalcitrant. The court has the power to declare that the person’s positions ownerless. “And from where do we derive that the court may declare the property of one who does not obey its orders as ownerless? As it is written: “And that whoever would not come within three days, according to the counsel of the princes and the Elders, all his substance shall be forfeited [yaḥoram] and himself separated from the congregation of the exiles” (Ezra 10:8). “Shall be forfeited” is referring to excommunication.” (SEfaria.org translation) This is the source for this seizure power of the court (הפקר בית דין בפקר). The court also may contend with the person, curse him, beat him, pull out his hair, and make him take an oath by God. The court may also shackle his hands and feet, chain him, and apply pressure.

The daf is replete of stories of people who were admonished or ostracized. Excluding the case of someone who doesn’t obey a court’s subpoena, I personally think that the rabbis were way too sensitive and the offending person should not have been admonished or ostracized. To see what I mean, study the rest of the daf.

Disobeying a subpoena in order to subvert justice remains a crime today. I only wish that the House of Representatives special committee investigating the January 6 insurrection’s subpoenas had more teeth. Too many people who may have incriminating information or refusing to appear before the committee and give testimony. Those accused of the insurrection or abetting it must be tried, and if found guilty punished. The fate of our democracy hangs in the balance.

The dos and don’ts of mourning TB Moed Katan 15

 Today’s daf TB Megillah 15 lays out the source for ten prohibitions and three obligations the mourner observes. Now those who are ostracized (מְנוּדִּין ) and those stricken with tzar’at (מְצוֹרָעִין) share some of these prohibitions and obligations, but not all of them. The Gemara analyzes whether they observe these prohibitions and obligations or not. Since I am only going to share with you mourning halakhot, I recommend that you study the entire daf, if you’re interested in learning when these laws converge and diverge.

Instead of following the Gemara presentation of these halakhot, I’m going to present the three obligations first and then the ten prohibitions to organize these laws for you. All translations are from Sefaria.org.

The obligations:

1

1.“A mourner is obligated to wrap his head as a sign of mourning, covering his head and face. This is derived from the fact that the Merciful One says to Ezekiel, while he is in mourning: “And cover not your upper lip” (Ezekiel 24:17). God commands Ezekiel not to display outward signs of mourning, which proves by inference that everyone else is obligated to wrap their heads in this manner.”

2.     “A mourner is obligated to rend his clothes. This is derived from the fact that the Merciful One says to the sons of Aaron: “Neither rend your clothes” (Leviticus 10:6), which proves by inference that everyone else, all other mourners, are obligated to rend their clothes.” (This is the back story. After Aaron’s two sons Nadav and Avihu died by the hands of Heaven because they offered up alien fire which God had not enjoined upon them, Moses instructed his brother the high priest how to behave. “And Moses said to Aaron and to his sons Eleazar and Ithamar, “Do not ^bOr “dishevel your hair.” bare your heads^-b and do not rend your clothes, lest you die and anger strike the whole community. But your kinsmen, all the house of Israel, shall bewail the burning that the LORD has wrought.” (Leviticus 10:6)

3.     “A mourner is obligated to overturn his bed, so that he sleeps on the underside of it, as bar Kappara taught a baraita that states: God stated: I have placed the likeness of My image [deyokan] within humans, as they were created in My image, and owing to their sins I have overturned it, as when this person died the Divine image in him was removed. Therefore, you must also overturn your beds on account of this.

Ezekiel, who was a priest himself, prophesied the word of the Lord to the Jews in Babylonia. Many times God instructs His Prophets to behave in a symbolic manner to convey His message. God tells him: “O mortal, I am about to take away the delight of your eyes from you through pestilence; but you shall not lament or weep or let your tears flow. Moan softly; observe no mourning for the dead: Put on your turban and put your sandals on your feet; do not cover over your upper lip, and do not eat the bread of comforters.”^g Lit. “men.” In the evening my wife died, and in the morning I did as I had been commanded.” Tosefot ד"ה בִּשְׁאֵילַת שָׁלוֹם notes that God tells Ezekiel to act like a mourner and not like a mourner at the same time. Symbolically Ezekiel is telling the Israelites that tragically will before them, but they will not be able to show their mourning.

Those who are familiar with our mourning practices will recognize that we no longer observe wrapping our heads or overturning our beds.

The prohibitions:

1.     “The source for the halakha that it is prohibited for a mourner to receive a haircut is derived from the fact that the Merciful One states to the sons of Aaron: “Let not the hair of your heads go loose” (Leviticus 10:6). It was prohibited for them to let their hair grow long during their period of mourning over the death of their brothers, Nadav and Avihu. By inference, it is teaching that for everyone else, i.e., non-priests, it is prohibited to cut their hair during the period of mourning.”

2.     “The Gemara moves on to another halakha: A mourner is prohibited from donning phylacteries (tefillin-gg). This is derived from the fact that the Merciful One says to Ezekiel, while he is in mourning: “Bind your headwear [pe’er] upon yourself” (Ezekiel 24:17). The word pe’er alludes to phylacteries. Ezekiel was unique in that he was commanded to put on phylacteries while in mourning, which proves by inference that everyone else is prohibited from doing so.” (This halakha only applies to the first day of mourning. Shulkhan Aruk, Orekh Hayim, 38:5 and Yoreh De’ah 488:1-gg)

3.     “The Gemara continues: A mourner is prohibited from greeting others or be greeted. This is derived from the fact that the Merciful One says to Ezekiel: “Sigh in silence” (Ezekiel 24:17), implying that aside from what was absolutely essential, he was prohibited from speaking.” (During the first three days of mourning, the mourner does not greet nor respond to greetings because the sages consider these days the deepest of mourning. The rest of the week the mourner may not initiate a greeting, but may respond to one.-gg)

4.     “A mourner is prohibited from studying words of Torah. This prohibition is derived from the fact that the Merciful One says to Ezekiel: “Sigh in silence” (Ezekiel 24:17). Ezekiel was commanded to be silent and not discuss even Torah matters.”

5.     “A mourner is prohibited from laundering his clothes, as it is written: “And Joab sent to Tekoa, and fetched from there a wise woman, and said to her, I pray you, feign yourself to be a mourner, and put on now mourning apparel, and do not anoint yourself with oil, but be as a woman that had a long time mourned for the dead” (II Samuel 14:2).” (This is the back story. King David’s son Amnon raped his half-sister Tamar. Tamar’s brother Avshalom had Amnon murdered to avenge his sister’s violation. Avshalom fled from his father and remain away for three years. “King David was pining away for Avshalom, for [the king] had gotten over Amnon’s death.” Leviticus 13: 39)

6.     “A mourner is prohibited from performing work, as it is written: “And I will turn your Festivals into mourning” (Amos 8:10). The Gemara infers: Just as a Festival is a time when it is prohibited to work, so too, a mourner is prohibited from performing work.”

7.     “A mourner is prohibited from bathing, as it is written: “And do not anoint yourself with oil, but be as a woman that had for a long time mourned for the dead” (II Samuel 14:2). And bathing is included in the category of anointing, as both activities have a similar goal, i.e., cleanliness.”

8.     “A mourner is prohibited from wearing (only leather shoes—gg) shoes. Since the Merciful One says to Ezekiel with regard to how his mourning rites should differ from the accepted custom: “And put your shoes upon your feet” (Ezekiel 24:17), which shows by inference that everyone else, i.e., all other mourners, is prohibited from wearing shoes.”

9.     “The Gemara considers another issue: A mourner is prohibited from engaging in sexual relations, as it is written: “And David comforted Bath-Sheba his wife, and went into her, and lay with her” (II Samuel 12:24), after their son had died. This proves by inference that initially, during the period of mourning, sexual relations were forbidden.” (This is the back story. King David impregnated Bat Sheva, a woman married to Uriah, one of his soldiers. King David instructed his general Yoav to place Uriah on the front lines of a heated battle to ensure his death. When news arrived that Uriah died, King David married Bat Sheva. Their baby conceived in sin died at birth.-gg)

10.                         “A mourner may not send his offerings to the Temple, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: A peace-offering [shelamim] is given this name also to teach us that one may sacrifice it only at a time when he is whole [shalem] and his mind is settled, but not at a time when he is an acute mourner, i.e., on the first day of his bereavement, when he is distressed.” (Obviously now that the Temple is destroyed and sacrifices are no longer offered, this halakha is no longer observed as well.-gg)

Are the laws concerning the holiday and mourning Torah in origin or rabbinic in origin? TB Moed Katan 14

 Starting at the very bottom of yesterday’s daf TB Moed Katan 13b and continuing on today’s daf TB Moed Katan 14 we begin the third and final chapter of our massekhet. This was the first Gemara I studied as a rabbinical student with Rabbi Meyer Rabinowitz. I’m sure he chose this chapter because it contains most of the laws concerning mourning. This would be practical and helpful knowledge for young rabbis entering the first pulpit.

A person may not get his haircut nor wash his clothse on hol hamoed, the intermediary days of the holiday. The rabbis wanted to prevent people from procrastinating. “Ordinary people are prohibited from cutting their hair or laundering their clothes on the intermediate days of a Festival, in order that they complete all necessary preparations beforehand and not enter the Festival when they are untidy (-מְנֻוּוֹלִין the Hebrew word has the connotation of being disgustingly disheveled. I think untidy is not a great translation-gg).” (Sefaria.org translation) The Mishna lists the exceptions, those people who are allowed to get a haircut and wash their clothes on hol hamoed. Since they were unavoidably prevented (אָנוּס) to cut their hair before the holiday, the sages permitted them to do so on hol hamoed.

 The Gemara discusses what happens when a person’s week a mourning (shiva-שבעה) intersects with the holiday. “A mourner does not practice the halakhot of his mourning on a Festival, as it is stated: ‘And you shall rejoice in your Festival’ (Deuteronomy 16:14).

“The Gemara explains: If it is a mourning period that had already begun at the outset of the Festival, the positive mitzva of rejoicing on the Festival, which is incumbent upon the community, comes and overrides the positive mitzva of the individual, i.e., the mourning. And if the mourning period began only now, i.e., the deceased died during the Festival, the positive mitzva of the individual does not come and override the positive mitzva of the community.” (Sefaria.org translation) We shall learn later on in our chapter that the holiday ends all the shiva mourning that began before the holiday. If a person becomes a mourner during hol hamoed, all shiva mourning practices are postponed until after the holiday.

Based on our Gemara, Rashi holds that both rejoicing on the holiday and observing the week of shiva are Torah laws. Concerning the holiday the Torah says “And you shall rejoice in your Festival.” Concerning the laws of mourning Rashi cites a verse in Jeremiah 6:26 “Mourn, as for an only child;” as proof that Jeremiah is describing a known Torah practice. Tosefot ד"ה עֲשֵׂה דְיָחִיד agrees with Rashi that mourning laws are Torah in origin (דאורייתא); however, they base it on logic. Since the Gemara does not qualify mourning laws as rabbinic in origin (דרבנן), they must be Torah in origin. Otherwise if observing the holiday is Torah in origin, it would automatically override mourning which is rabbinic in origin. There would be no need for any discussion.

 Tosefot interprets the Gemara in a very surprising second way. Both rejoicing in the holiday and mourning practices today are rabbinic origin. Rejoicing in the Festival only refers to eating the special sacrifices offer up on the holiday to increase joy (shalmai simkha-שלמי שמחה) which is no longer observed since the Temple has been destroyed. All other things we do to rejoice on the holiday are rabbinic in nature. Since there is no explicit verse in the Torah concerning the laws of mourning, they too must be rabbinic in nature.

 

 

Who pays the fine? TB Moed Katan 13

Throughout the Gemara there is a running discussion about fines. When the rabbis impose a fine, are they imposing it on the person or are they imposing it on the item. If they are imposing it on the person and that person dies in the meantime, his heirs are not responsible for the fine. If the rabbis are imposing a fine on the item and the person dies, his heirs are responsible for the fine. On yesterday’s daf TB Moed Katan 12b Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Zeira this very question based on the example given in the Mishna. “The mishna states: And he may draw his flax out of the soaking pool so that it is not ruined from soaking too long in the water, provided that he does not plan from the outset to do his work on the intermediate days of the Festival. And with regard to anyone, if he planned from the outset to perform his labor on the intermediate days of the Festival, the fruit of that labor must be destroyed. Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Zeira: If one planned from the outset to perform his labor on the intermediate days of a Festival, and he died after doing so, what is the halakha? Should his children be penalized after him and have to lose the products of their father’s labor?” (Sefaria. Org translation)

On today’s daf TB Moed Katan 13 the Gemara brings five more case studies to ascertain whether the above person is fined or whether the item is fined

1.     “In the case of one who slit the ear of a firstborn animal, the Sages penalized his son after him, that is because the prohibition is by Torah law (Leviticus 21:22-gg). A firstborn animal is disqualified from sacrifice if it becomes blemished, rendering it permitted to be eaten as non-sacred meat (as a gift to the priest-gg). It is prohibited to deliberately engender a blemish in a firstborn animal (based upon the drasha of the above verse-gg), and one who does so is prohibited from eating the meat.” (Once the Temple was destroyed and animal sacrifices were no longer permitted, the sages were afraid that either the priests or their friends would deliberately blemish the firstborn animal so they could eat it right away. Consequently, they fined the priests and their descendants. They were not permitted to eat that blemished animal until it became blemished naturally with a second blemish. There is a significant difference between soaking the flax on the intermediate days of the holiday and that of the firstborn. Here the Gemara asserts that the soaking of the flax is only a rabbinic prohibition while the desecration of the firstborn animal is a Torah prohibition. Consequently, this case study does not answer Rabbi Yirmeya’s question. Even those who hold that working on the intermediate days of the holiday is a Torah prohibition would say since the Torah permits work being done in cases of excessive loss, this prohibition falls under the category of a rabbinic ordinance-gg)

2.     “And if you might say that in the case of one who sold his slave to a gentile and then died the Sages penalized his son after him,  that is because every day the slave is in the gentile’s possession precludes him from performing mitzvot. A Canaanite slave is obligated in the same mitzvot as a Jewish woman. If he is illicitly sold to a gentile and escapes, requiring the seller to compensate the gentile, the seller may not then re-enslave the slave, who is regarded as emancipated. The Sages extended this penalty to the owner’s heirs as well.”  (The sages fined the person who sold his Canaanite slave with two fines. The first fine is that the sold slave is now considered a freed Jew and one is not allowed to re-enslave him. The second fine is that the original master is obligate redeem his former slave no matter what the cost, even 100 times of his original selling price. I think this case is rejected as an answer because we are dealing with two fines and not just one; consequently the cases are not similar-gg )

“What, then, is the halakha here, where one planned from the outset to perform his work on the intermediate days of a Festival and then after performing the work he died? Should one say that the Sages penalized the man himself and he is no longer alive, or perhaps the Sages imposed a penalty on the money, such that no benefit may be derived from it, and it still exists in the hands of his heirs?

3.     Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya: You already learned the answer to your question in a mishna (Shevi’it 4:2): A field whose thorns were removed during the Sabbatical Year may be sown in the eighth year, as removing thorns is not full-fledged labor that renders the field prohibited; but if it had been improved with fertilizer, or if it had been enclosed so that animals therein would fertilize it with their manure, it may not be sown in the eighth year. The Sages imposed a penalty that one not benefit from prohibited labor.” But (The Ritba makes a distinction between thorns that are already detached from the ground i.e. this case and plucking thorns from the ground would be a Torah violation.-gg)

4.     “And Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: We have a tradition that if one improved his field in a prohibited manner and then died, his son may sow it. Apparently, the Sages penalized only him, the one who acted wrongly, but the Sages did not penalize his son. Here, too, with regard to work performed on the intermediate days of a Festival, the Sages penalized him, but the Sages did not penalize his son. (This is the halakha. Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Sefer zera’im, hilkhot shemita, chapter 1 halakha 14-gg)

5.     “Abaye said: We have a tradition that if one rendered impure another’s ritually pure items and died before paying, the Sages did not penalize his son after him and require him to pay for the damage. What is the reason for this? It is that damage that is not evident, i.e., that does not involve any physical change visible to the eye, is not considered damage by Torah law; nevertheless, the injured party suffers a loss, and the Sages penalized only him, but the Sages did not penalize his son.” (Sefaria.org translation) (This is the halakha. Shulkhan Arukh, Hoshen Mishpat, 485:1)

As you can see, in the first two cases the item is fined and if the person dies before paying the fine, his descendants are liable. In all the other cases brought to bear on Rabbi Yirmeya’s question, the person is fined and if he dies, his descendants are not liable. This leads me to believe by the preponderance of evidence that a person who purposely waits until the intermediate days of the holiday to do a forbidden labor is fined, but if he dies first, his descendants are not liable.