# dafyomi

lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE DUAL FORMS OF FIVE LETTERS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> This is wrong! A final Mem is better than a 
          regular Mem (for it was on the Luchos), therefore it may 
          replace it - but the regular, inferior Mem may not be 
          used in place of a final Mem. 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Chisda):</font></b> Two letters stood miraculously in the 
               Luchos - [final] Mem and Samech (the interior was 
               suspended, disconnected from the Luchos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (R. Yirmiyah):</font></b> [Later] prophets taught [the 
               additional forms of] Mem, Nun, Tzadi, Pe, Chaf. 
               (Since there was only one Mem at the time of Matan 
               Torah, it was final Mem; regular Mem came later!)
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Objection:</font></b> This cannot be! 'Elu ha'Mitzvos' - 
               prophets cannot change Mitzvos [after Matan Torah - 
               the forms of the letters affects Tefilin, Sefer 
               Torah...]!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> All the forms were already known, just we 
               did not know which go at the [beginning or] middle 
               of words, and which at the end - the prophets taught 
               this.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Still, this is something new, prophecy may 
               not teach it!
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The prophets merely reminded us of something 
               which had been known and was forgotten.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> Two letters stood miraculously in the 
          Luchos - [final] Mem and Samech.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> The Luchos could be read from the front or 
          back (the letters were carved out from one side to the 
          other) - if from the front one read 'Nevuv', from the 
          back one read [reversed, i.e.] 'Buvan'.
<br>
<b><font>2) EXPOUNDING THE ALEPH BEIS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rabanan):</font></b> Children came to the Beis Medrash saying 
          Chidushim [regarding the order of the Aleph-Beis] that 
          were not said in the days of Yehoshua!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  (The names of some letters are expounded like words; 
          often we expound a word beginning with that letter.) 
          Aleph Beis - Aleph (learn) Binah (understanding, i.e. 
          Torah); Gimel Dalet - Gomel Dalim (bestow to the poor).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> [When the letters are written in order,] why 
          does the leg of Gimel [that sticks out] point towards 
          Dalet?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This teaches that the giver should go to the poor 
          (do not make the poor come to you).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why does the face (interior) of Dalet point 
          away from Gimel?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This teaches that one should give covertly, so 
          the receiver will not be ashamed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Hei Vov - this is a name of Hash-m (Ani v'*Hu*); Zayin 
          Ches, Tes Yud, Chaf Lamed - if you will do so (learn 
          Torah and bestow to the poor), Hash-m will Zan (feed) 
          you, give you CHen (grace), MeiTiv (do good) to you, give 
          you Yerushah (inheritance), tie to you a Keser (crown) 
          L'Olam ha'Ba (in the world to come).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  There is an open Mem and a closed Mem, alluding to an 
          open Ma'amar (matters which may be expounded) and a 
          closed Ma'amar (things which should not be expounded, 
          e.g. the Merkavah);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  There is a bent Nun and a straight Nun - a Ne'eman 
          (proper person) must be bent (humble), then he will be 
          upright in the world to come.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  Samech Ayin - one must Somech (support) Aniyim (poor 
          people); alternatively - Simanim Ase, make ways to 
          remember Torah and acquire it;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  There is a bent Pe and an open Pe - sometimes the Peh 
          (mouth) should be open (when there is no bigger Chacham 
          to disseminate Torah), at other times it should be 
          closed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  There is a bent Tzadi and an open Tzadi - a Tzadik must 
          be bent, then he will be upright in the world to come.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We already expounded this regarding Nun!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This teaches that one should reach higher and 
          higher levels of humility - Torah is given amidst awe and 
          humility.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  Kuf represents Kadosh, Reish is Rasha - the Kuf does not 
          look at the face of the Reish, to teach that Hash-m 
          cannot bear to look at the face of a Rasha.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is there a [crown like a] Zayin on the top 
          of the Kuf facing the Reish?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Hash-m says, if he will repent, I will tie a 
          crown on him, like I have.
<br>
<b><font>3) OTHER THINGS LEARNED FROM THE LETTERS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is the leg of the Kuf disconnected?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> If he will repent, there is an opening for him to 
          enter.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  This supports Reish Lakish:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Reish Lakish):</font></b> 'Im la'Letzim Hu Yalitz vela'Anavim 
               Yiten Chen' - Hash-m gives opportunity for one who 
               wants to defile himself, He helps (makes an opening) 
               for one who wants to Metaher himself.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Shin represents Sheker, Tov is [the last letter] of Emes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why are the letters of Sheker next to each 
          other, whereas the letters of Emes are spread out (at the 
          beginning, middle and end of the Alef Beis)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Falsehood is common, truth is hard to find.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why do the letters of Sheker have a single 
          narrow leg, and the letters of Emes have a [wide] base 
          like a brick?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Truth stands, falsehood does not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  (We now pair letters from the beginning to the end of the 
          Aleph Beis and expound them.) Aleph Tov - he despises Me, 
          should I desire him?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  Beis Shin - he does not treasure Me, should My name rest 
          upon him? Gimel Reish - he defiled his body, should I 
          have mercy on him? Dalet Kuf - He locked My doors, will I 
          not cut down his horns?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  We expounded regarding Resha'im - now we expound 
          regarding Tzadikim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  Aleph Tov Beis Shin - if you will feel Bushah (shame, in 
          front of Me), Gimel Reish Dalet Kuf - you will live in 
          Duk (Heaven; alternatively - the One who lives in Heaven 
          will cause that) Hei Tzadi Vov Pe - a Chatzitzah will 
          separate between you and anger.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  Zayin Ayin Ches Samech Tes Nun - you will not tremble on 
          account of the Satan; Yud Mem Kaf Lamed - the angel 
          appointed over Gehinom asks Hash-m that everyone fall 
          into his great sea (Gehinom), even Yisrael; Hash-m 
          responds Aleph Ches Samech, Beis Tes Ayin, Gimel Yud Pe 
          (skipping six letters each time) - I have mercy on them, 
          for they shunned adultery;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  Dalet Kuf Tzadi - they are humble, truthful and Tzadikim; 
          Hei Lamed Kuf - you (Sar of Gehinom) have no stake in 
          Yisrael; 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  Vov Mem Reish Zayin Nun Shin Tov - the Sar of Gehinom 
          requests to be fed from all descendants of Shes;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b></b>  Hash-m responds Aleph Lamed Beis Mem Gimel Nun Dalet 
          Samech (skipping half the Aleph Beis each time), you have 
          no stake in them (Yisrael), I am taking them to the Gan 
          of myrtle (Eden);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b></b>  Hei Ayin Vov Pe - I (the Sar) am faint from hunger! Zayin 
          Tzadi Ches Kuf - Hash-m answers, these descend from 
          Yitzchak; Tes Reish Yud Shin Kaf Tes - I have others 
          (Nochrim) stored up for you.
<br>
<font size='+1' color='#3300CC'><center><b>       <b>   1.  </b> 104b-----------104b</b></center></font>
<p>
<b><font>4) CHIYUVIM FOR WRITING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> In the following cases one is liable:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He wrote two letters in one Helam, using Deyo, Sam, 
               Sikra, Kumus, Kankantom or anything that marks;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> He wrote on two walls that meet in a corner, or on 
               two tablets that can be read together;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> He wrote on his skin.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer says, if he scratched on his skin he is Chayav 
          Chatas;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Chachamim exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  In the following cases he is exempt:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He wrote with [ohliquids, fruit juice, mud 
               (alternatively - in dry dirt), dust of residue left 
               in an inkwell, or anything that does not last;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> He wrote [holding the quill] with the back of his 
               hand, with his foot, mouth or elbow;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> He wrote one letter next to a letter that was 
               already written;
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> He wrote [letters] on top of letters that were 
               already written;
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> He intended to write a Ches and he [omitted the roof 
               connecting them, and thereby] wrote the letter Zayin 
               twice;
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> He wrote one letter on the floor and one on a 
               ceiling beam;
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b></b> He wrote on two walls or in two columns of a tablet 
               that cannot be read together;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah ben Beseira is Mechayev if he wrote one letter 
          Notrikun (with a mark showing that it represents a word);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Chachamim exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Gemara):</font></b> Deyo is ink, Sam is orpiment (a yellow dye).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> Sikra is a red dye.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  Kumus is sap;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> Kankantom is vitriol.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Or anything that marks.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does this come to include?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Chananyah - Beraisa):</font></b> If a Get was written 
          with rainwater (alternatively - juice of Tarya (a fruit)) 
          or with gallnut juice, it is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (R. Chiya - Beraisa):</font></b> If he wrote a Get with lead, coals, 
          or vitriol, it is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he scratched on his skin...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> [We find that people do this -] 
          Ben Stada smuggled witchcraft out of Mitzrayim scratched 
          on his skin!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Chachamim:</font></b> He was a lunatic - we do not bring proofs from 
          lunatics [normal people do not do this].
<br>
<b><font>5) EXEMPTIONS FOR WRITING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he wrote one letter next to a letter that 
          was already written [he is exempt].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana of the Mishnah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah bar Rav Huna):</font></b> It is unlike R. Eliezer:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah - R. Eliezer):</font></b> If one wove another thread 
               onto something woven, he is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> He wrote on top of letters that were already 
          written.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana of the Mishnah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Chisda):</font></b> It is unlike R. Yehudah:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> If a scribe was writing a 
               Sefer Torah and needed to write Hashem's name, but 
               he intended to write 'Yehudah' and mistakenly 
               omitted the Dalet (so the letters of Hashem's name 
               were written, but without the required intent for 
               His name), he may trace the quill over the letters, 
               to Mekadesh the name;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, this is not an ideal writing of 
               Hashem's name.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If one wrote one letter and completed a Sefer, 
          or wove one thread and completed a garment, he is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana of the Beraisa?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rabah bar Rav Huna):</font></b> It is R. Eliezer, who 
          says that if one wove another thread onto something 
          woven, he is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> It is even like Chachamim - they 
          agree that one is liable for finishing something.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (R. Ami):</font></b> If one wrote one letter in Tiverya and one 
          letter in Tzipori, he is liable - it is writing, just the 
          letters must be brought together.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> If he wrote on two walls or on two 
          columns of a tablet that cannot be read together, he is 
          exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> There, an action must be done to bring the 
          letters together (he must cut the tablet or wall in 
          between) - here, he need only bring them together.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If one corrected one letter, he is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If one is exempt for writing one letter, why is 
          he liable for correcting one letter?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> He removed the roof in the 
          middle of Ches, thereby 'writing' the letter Zayin twice.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> Even if he removed the protrusion [in 
          the top right corner] of a Dalet, thereby making it a 
          Reish, he is liable (for this fixes the Sefer - it is 
          forbidden to have an errant Sefer).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #1):</font></b> If one intended to write one letter and he 
          wrote two, he is liable;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Contradiction (Beraisa #2):</font></b> He is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(t)</font></b><font>  Resolution:</font></b> If the letters require crowns, he is exempt 
          [for he is not yet finished].
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE WRITING ON THE TABLETS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Rav Chisda teaches that the writing on the Luchos could be read 'from the inside and from the outside.' What does this mean?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> here (DH v'Nikra) explains that the engraved writing on the Luchos went straight through the stone, from one side to the other.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> in the Chumash (Shemos 32:15) appears to explain differently. The letters not only went all the way through the Luchos, but they miraculously were in the proper, readable direction on both sides. (The <b>MAHARAL</b> in <b>GUR ARYEH</b>, however, asserts that Rashi in Shemos means to say the same explanation that he says here in the Gemara.)
</p><p>
(c) According to the Yerushalmi in Shekalim, not only were the letters reversed on the second side (so that they were in the proper, readable direction), but the rest of the word was also miraculously reversed, so that the entire text could be read from either side of the Luchos. (See also <b>SIFSEI CHACHAMIM</b> to Rashi, Shemos 32:15.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) EXAMPLES OF WORDS IN REVERSE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> When the Gemara explains how the letters could be read from both sides of the Luchos, the Gemara gives three examples of words with their reversed readings -- 'Nevuv,' 'Behar' and 'Saru.' Why does the Gemara choose these three words over any other words? These words were not even in the Luchos! (<b>TOSFOS</b> DH Nevuv)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) Perhaps the Gemara's intention is to prove its previous statement, that the letters were carved into the Luchos such that they penetrated to the other side. 
</p><p>
When the Jews sinned with the Golden Calf, Hash-m said to Moshe, 'Saru Maher Min ha'Derech' -- 'They have gone wayward quickly away from the path that I have commanded them...' (Shemos 32:8). The Chachamim relate that when the Jews sinned with the Golden Calf, the letters on the Luchos 'flew to the heavens' and no trace of them remained on the Luchos. How did that happen? The letters had no 'backs' -- that is, there was no surface at the back of the engraved letter, since it penetrated straight through the Luchos. When the Luchos fell apart, no part of the letters remained -- since they were comprised of hollows in the Luchos rather than actual letters engraved <i>on</i> the Luchos.
</p><p>
This is alluded to by the words the Gemara here chooses. The word 'Nevuv' appears in Shemos 27:8 and means 'hollow.' When the Gemara uses this word as an example of a word and its reverse, it alludes to the Luchos that Moshe Rabeinu was given at Har Sinai that were 'hollowed out' (that is, the writing punctured the stone from one side to the other). The hollowed-out letters flew off the Luchos (and left an empty impression, or a 'Buvan,' the reverse of 'Nevuv,' from the word 'shadow') when the Jews sinned 'Behar,' while they were still at the mountain (as the Gemara says in Shabbos 88b). (They sinned because their arrogance -- their 'Rahav' led them to sin.) The letters then left ('Saru') the Luchos (and the Luchos fell apart into small pieces, 'v'Ras,' from 'Resisin,' since every letter that was carved into the Luchos was broken into pieces).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>BEIS HA'LEVI</b> (Derashos, Derush 18) explains that in the first set of Luchos, the entire Torah was written upon the Luchos miraculously. These three words also appeared on the Luchos, since they appear in the Torah. (See Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld's 'Torah from the Internet,' Parshas Ki Tisa.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) NOTRIKUN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Yehudah ben Beseira):</font></b> If he wrote one 
          letter Notrikun, he is liable; Chachamim exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Where does the Torah write Notrikun?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Yochanan citing R. Yosi ben Zimra):</font></b> 'Ki <i>Av 
          Hamon</i> Goyim Nesaticha':
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> '<b><b><b>AV</b></b></b>' - I made you (Avraham) <i>A</i>v (a father) and 
               <i>B</i>achur (choicest) among the nations;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> 'HaMON' (Hei and Ches are interchangeable) - you are 
               <i><b><b><b>CH</b></b></b></i>aviv (dearest), <i>M</i>elech, <i>V</i>atik (wisest), and 
               <i>N</i>e'eman (the most faithful) of the nations.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #2A (R. Yochanan himself):</font></b> 'ANoCHI' (in the 10 
          utterances) is Notrikun - Ani Nafshi Kesivas Yehavis (I 
          wrote and gave Myself [with the Torah]).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2B (Chachamim):</font></b> This stands for Amirah Ne'imah 
          Kesivas Yehavis (Maharsha - a pleasant utterance was 
          [automatically] written and given - the Torah attributes 
          the writing to 'Etzba Elokim' for that is easier for 
          people to fathom).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #2C:</font></b> Some expound this backwards - Yehivah Kesivah 
          Ne'emanim Imreha (Maharsha - it was given written, it may 
          not be transmitted orally).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Tana d'vei R. Noson):</font></b> 'Ki YaRaT ha'Derech 
          l'Negdi' - [Bil'am's donkey] Yar'ah Ra'asah Notsah (it 
          feared the angel, saw him and turned away).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #4 (Tana d'vei R. Yishmael):</font></b> [The barley for the 
          Omer must be] 'KaRMeL' - KaR MaLei (the straw is full 
          with barley).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #5 (Rav Acha bar Yakov):</font></b> 'V'Hu Kilelani Kelalah 
          NiMReTZeS' - [Shim'i ben Gera cursed David, saying that 
          he is] No'ef (an adulterer), Mo'avi (forbidden to marry a 
          Bas Yisrael, for he descends from Rus the Mo'avis), 
          Rotze'ach (for causing the death of Uriyah), TZorer (one 
          who causes pain), To'evah (abomination).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #6 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> 'Mah Nedaber u'Mah 
          NiTZTaDaK' - we (Yosef's brothers) are Nechonim 
          (truthful), TZadikim, Tehorim, Dachim (humble) and 
          Kedoshim.
<br>
<b><font>2) YEDI'AH L'CHETZI SHI'UR </font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Gamliel):</font></b> If one wrote one letter in the 
          morning and one in the evening, in two Ha'alamos (Tosfos; 
          Rashi - because he had enough time to remember, it is 
          like two Ha'alamos), he is liable;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Chachamim exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What do they argue about?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Gamliel holds that Ein Yedi'ah l'Chetzi Shi'ur 
          (if one finds out that he transgressed [b'Shogeg] half a 
          Shi'ur, if he later completes the Shi'ur [b'Shogeg] he is 
          liable, as if he did not find out in the middle);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  Chachamim hold Yesh Yedi'ah l'Chetzi Shi'ur.
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>***** <b>PEREK HA'OREG</b> *****
</b></font></center><p>
<br><br><b><font>3) LIABILITY FOR WEAVING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Eliezer):</font></b> If one wove three threads at the 
          beginning, or added another thread onto something woven, 
          he is liable;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, whether he wove at the beginning or at the 
          end, the Shi'ur is two threads.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  If one makes two Batei Nirim (passes warp threads through 
          holes in a frame that lifts and lowers warp threads) 
          b'Nirim or a Kirus (these will be explained), [or weaves 
          a reed in and out when making a] sieve or basket, he is 
          liable;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  If one sews two stitches or tears in order to sew two 
          stitches [he is liable].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - R. Yitzchak):</font></b> R. Eliezer is Mechayev for 
          weaving two threads.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Mishnah says that he is Mechayev for three!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One discusses strong threads, the other discusses 
          small threads.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Version #1:</font></b> He is Mechayev for three strong threads, or 
          two small threads - this amount will not come apart;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Version #2:</font></b> He is Mechayev for two strong threads, or 
          three small threads - this amount is noticeable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #1):</font></b> If one wove three threads at the beginning, 
          or added another thread onto something woven, he is 
          liable;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, whether he wove at the beginning or at the 
          end, the Shi'ur is two;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  On the edge, the Shi'ur is two threads for the width of 
          three Batei Nirim.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is like one who weaves a small belt - he is 
               liable for two threads the width of three Batei 
               Nirim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa is Mechayev for three threads at the 
          beginning or adding one onto something woven - this is 
          like R. Eliezer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #2):</font></b> If one added two threads onto a large 
          amount of something woven or the border [beginning] of a 
          garment, he is liable;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer is Mechayev even for one.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b></b>  If he wove two threads on the edge the width of three 
          Batei Nirim he is liable.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is like one who weaves a small belt - he is 
               liable for two threads the width of three Batei 
               Nirim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b></b>  It is Mechayev for two threads onto a large amount of 
          something woven or on the border - this is like 
          Chachamim.
<br>
<b><font>4) THREADING AND SEWING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one makes two Batei Nirim b'Nirim...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> It is threading two [warp] threads 
          through heddle eyes (used to move the warp threads 
          alternatingly above and below the woof. We explain like 
          R. Chananel - there are many varied Pirushim on these 
          words.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> In a Kirus.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What it this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav):</font></b> It is a foot loom (Rashi; R. Chananel - it 
          is a strainer).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one sews two stitches.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This was already taught among the 39 Melachos 
          (73A, and no Chidush is added here)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> It was repeated on account of the Seifa, one 
          who tears in order to sew two stitches [is liable].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Also this was taught among the 39 Melachos!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Sewing was repeated on account of [tearing in 
          order to sew, and tearing was repeated on account of] the 
          Seifa (continuation of our Mishnah on Amud B), one who 
          tears out of anger or on account of a Mes [is exempt].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One who tears in order to sew two stitches.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the case?
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) ONE LETTER IN THE MORNING, ONE IN THE EVENING</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah at the end of the Perek cites an argument between Raban Gamliel and the Chachamim with regard to one who writes 'two letters in two lapses of awareness, one letter in the morning and one letter in the evening.' What exactly is the case of one who writes one letter in the morning and one in the evening?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that the Mishnah refers to two different cases. The first case is where one writes two letters in two lapses of awareness. The second case is where one writes one letter in the morning and one in the evening. Since he had so much time in between the two letters to find out that it was Shabbos (or to find out that writing on Shabbos is forbidden), he is considered as though he wrote the two letters in two separate lapses of awareness.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> disagrees. We never find that an extended period between two forbidden acts done unknowingly at two different times in the day is considered like two lapses of awareness. Rather, Tosfos explains that the Mishnah refers to a case in which the person indeed remembered that it was Shabbos between writing the two letters, and thus he had two lapses of awareness. The reason why the Mishnah mentions that there was such a long period of time between the writing of the two letters is to teach that even in such a case, Raban Gamliel argues with the Chachamim and says that the person is Chayav to bring a Korban for writing two letters on Shabbos.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) ONE WHO SETS UP TWO 'BATEI NIRIN' ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah says that one who sets up two Batei Nirin is Chayav, whether in 'Nirin' or in 'Kirus.' (See D.A.F.'s photograph of a homemade loom in Graphics section, Photo #1.) Abaye explains that this means 'two in the Batei Nira and one in the Nira.' To what do these parts of the loom refer?
</p><p>
A few words of introduction are necessary. The general function behind the loom's operation is to raise one row of warp threads (Shesi) and to lower the other so that one may pass the woof thread (Erev, which is wound in the Buchiyar, or shuttle) between them, and then to reverse the action and raise the row that was lowered and lower the row that was raised so that one may again pass the woof thread between them and thereby form a weave. The 'heddles' are the parts of the loom which lift and lower the rows of warp threads. The heddle is a frame that contains rings through which the warp threads are threaded. When one heddle is lifted, all of the warp threads that pass through its rings are also lifted, so that one may then pass the shuttle (that contains the woof thread) between the two rows of warp threads. Each ring in the heddle is held in place by a taut string that is attached to the top of the frame of the heddle and by a taut string that is attached to the bottom of the frame of the heddle.
<br> 
<br>(a) The <b>TOSFOS YOM TOV</b> explains that 'two in the Batei Nira and one in the Nira' means that one warp thread is passed through one hole in the first heddle (so that the thread is lifted when the first heddle is raised) and then that thread is passed <i>between</i> the rings in the second heddle (so that the thread is <i>not</i> lifted when the second heddle is raised), and then the thread is passed through the comb which is held at the end of the warp threads right before they are woven. This comb is used to press each woof thread against the previous one after it is woven. Even though this comb is called the 'Nira' here, it is normally called the 'Kirus.'
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TIFERES YISRAEL</b> (in Kalkeles ha'Shabbos) says that it means that two strings are passed through one ring of one heddle and one other string is passed through one ring of the other heddle.
</p><p>
(c) <b>RASHI</b> may understand that 'two in the Batei Nira and one in the Nira' refers to two threads that are passed through two adjacent rings, and one string is passed in the open space <i>between</i> the two rings. 'Batei Nira' refers to the rings, and 'Nira' refers to anywhere within the heddle frame, but not in the rings. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(d) The <b>TOSFOS RID</b> in the seventh Perek (73a) writes that 'making two Batei Nirin' does not mean passing threads through the rings in the heddle. Rather, it refers to actually making the rings themselves. Accordingly, the Gemara may mean as follows. Each ring has two strings tied to it that hold it in place ('two in the Batei Nirin'), and the other ends of the strings are each attached, respectively, to the top and bottom of the heddle ('and one in the Nira' -- since only one string is attached to each side of the heddle's frame).
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The garment had a protrusion (it must be torn to 
          make it straight).
<br>
<b><font>5) LIABILITY FOR TEARING OR BREAKING KELIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one tore out of anger or on account of his 
          Mes, or did anything destructive, he is exempt;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If one ruined something in order to fix it, the Shi'ur to 
          be liable is like one who fixes;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The Shi'ur to be liable for the following is twice Malei 
          ha'Sit (this will be explained) - laundering, Menapetz 
          (banging wool, or separating clumps into fibers, or 
          brushing and combing it), dying and spinning.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Contradiction (Beraisa):</font></b> If one tore out of 
          anger, or if a mourner tore [his clothing] on account of 
          his Mes, he is liable;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Even though he desecrated Shabbos, [the mourner] 
               fulfilled his obligation to tear.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer - part 1:</font></b> He is liable for a Mes he must mourn 
          over, he is exempt for any other Mes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Mishnah exempts one who tore for <i>his</i> Mes!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is <i>his</i> Mes, i.e. he is obligated to bury it 
          - but it is not one of the relatives over which he must 
          mourn [and tear, i.e. a parent, child, sibling or 
          spouse].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If the Mes was a Chacham, he is liable!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> Everyone is a relative of a Chacham.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Objection:</font></b> This cannot be!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Correction:</font></b> Rather, everyone is like a relative of a 
               Chacham, he must tear, leave his shoulder uncovered 
               and eat the first meal after the burial from others' 
               food in the street.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Mes was not a Chacham.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If the Mes was a proper person, he is liable!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> A person's children die in order that he 
               will cry and mourn over a proper person.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Objection:</font></b> Does Hash-m take a 'security' from one 
               who did not yet sin?!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Correction:</font></b> Rather, they die because he did not cry 
               and mourn over a proper person.
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  If one cries over a proper person, all his sins 
                    are forgiven on account of the honor he showed. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Mes was not a proper person.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If he was present at the time of death, he is 
          liable!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> If one was present 
               at the time of death, he must tear - this is like a 
               Sefer Torah that was burned.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He was not present at the time of death.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This resolves tearing on account of his Mes, 
          but the contradiction regarding tearing out of anger 
          remains!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer - part 2:</font></b> The Beraisa is R. Yehudah, who is 
          Mechayev for Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah; the 
          Mishnah is R. Shimon, who exempts.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We know that R. Yehudah is Mechayev when he did 
          something constructive - is he Mechayev for something 
          destructive?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Avin):</font></b> It is considered constructive, for 
          it calms his anger.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This is forbidden [for it strengthens the 
          Yetzer - it is not constructive]!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> One who tears his 
               clothes or breaks Kelim in his anger is like one who 
               serves idolatry, for this is the way of the Yetzer 
               ha'Ra - today it tells one to do a small 
               transgression, and another one tomorrow, in the end 
               it gets him to serve idolatry! (Iyun Yakov - doing 
               the desire of his Yetzer in place of that of his 
               Creator is itself like idolatry.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (R. Avin):</font></b> He learns from 'Lo Yihyeh <i>Vecha</i> El Zar 
               v'Lo Sishtachaveh l'El Nechar' - the foreign god 
               <i>in</i> a person is his Yetzer ha'Ra (if he obeys it, 
               in the end he will bow to idolatry).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> The case is, he did so to instill fear in his 
          household;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> [To instill fear, Chachamim would do actions that 
               <i>appeared</i> destructive -] Rav Yehudah would remove 
               the edge from his garment, Rav Acha bar Yakov would 
               break Kelim that were already broken, Rav Sheshes 
               would throw brine at his Shifchah (it is not fitting 
               to drink - Yoma 81A), and R. Aba would break a lid.
<br>
<b><font>6) CRYING OVER A PROPER PERSON</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> If one sheds tears over a proper 
          person, Hash-m counts them and puts them in his 
          treasure-house - 'Nodi Sofarta Atah Simah Dim'asi 
          v'Nodecha ha'Lo b'Sifrasecha'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> If one is lazy and neglects to properly 
          eulogize a proper person, he should be buried alive - 
          'V'Yikberu (Yehoshua)...mi'Tzafon l'HaR Go'aSH' - this 
          teaches that he <b>ROGASH</b> (aroused) the mountain against 
          them to kill them, because he was not eulogized properly.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (R. Chiya bar Aba citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> If one is lazy and 
          neglects to properly eulogize a proper person, he will 
          not live long, Midah k'Neged Midah - 'B'Sas'ah (in the 
          same Se'ah (measure)) b'Shalchah Terivenah'. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> '...Ha'Zekenim Asher 
          He'erichu Yomim Acher Yehoshua' (they lived long)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> (R. Yochanan): [Foolish] Babylonian! They had 
          length of days, but not length of years. (Rashi - they 
          lived well, but not long; Maharsha - they lived long, but 
          not well, it was as if they already died).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> 'Lema'an Yirbu Yemeichem vi'Mei Veneichem' - 
          does Mezuzah give length of days, but not of years?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> A Berachah is different (it gives both).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> If one brother died, all of the 
          brothers should worry;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  If one member of a group died, all of the members should 
          worry.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Version #1:</font></b> This is if the greatest one died (since Midas 
          ha'Din prevailed over the head).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Version #2:</font></b> This is if the smallest died (punishments 
          usually begin with the least important).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) ONE WHO TEARS HIS CLOTHING IN MOURNING ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that one who tears his clothing on Shabbos out of anger or in mourning over the death of a relative is exempt, because his act is not a constructive one but a destructive one. The Gemara points out that there is a contradiction between the Mishnah and a Beraisa that states that one who tears his clothing for the death of a relative is Chayav, since he accomplishes something positive -- he fulfills the Mitzvah of tearing Keri'ah. The Gemara concludes that the Mishnah refers to the death of a distant relative for whom one is not Chayav to tear Keri'ah, while the Beraisa refers to the death of a close relative for whom one is Chayav to tear Keri'ah.
</p><p>
Why does one fulfill the Mitzvah of Keri'ah on Shabbos? The act of Keri'ah should constitute a 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah,' a Mitzvah that was done through a transgression!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>RITVA</b> quotes the Yerushalmi that asks this question. The Yerushalmi asks what the difference is between one who tears Keri'ah on Shabbos and one who eats stolen Matzah on Pesach (in which case one does not fulfill the obligation to eat Matzah, because it is a 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah'). The Yerushalmi answers that in the case of Matzah, 'the act of eating is an Aveirah,' but here, 'the person himself transgresses the Aveirah.' The case here is no different from a case in which one eats Matzah that was carried from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim; he nevertheless fulfills his obligation. What exactly does the Yerushalmi mean?
</p><p>
(a) Some Rishonim explain that when one steals Matzah to eat on Pesach, the transgression has an effect on the object (the Matzah), and that effect remains on the Matzah until the moment he eats it. A stolen piece of Matzah is subject to an obligation to return the stolen object to its rightful owner, and therefore the object itself is an 'object of Aveirah.' In contrast, when a person tears his clothing upon hearing of the death of a relative on Shabbos, the transgression has no effect on the object, and thus one fulfills his obligation. The concept of 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah' applies only when the object is affected by the transgression and is an object whose very nature contains an element of transgression. (<b>RITVA</b> to Sukah 30a)
</p><p>
(b) Other Rishonim explain that 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah' applies only when the Aveirah itself is the <i>cause</i> of the fulfillment of the Mitzvah. That is, without the Aveirah, the Mitzvah would not be done (see <b>TOSFOS</b> to Sukah 30a). A person must own the Matzah he eats in order to fulfill the obligation to eat Matzah on Pesach night. When a person steals Matzah, he acquires it when the owner gives up hope of ever retrieving (Yi'ush). Thus, it is the Aveirah (the act of stealing) that causes the Matzah to become his and enables him to fulfill the Mitzvah. In contrast, in the case of one who tears his clothing on Shabbos in mourning, the transgression of tearing on Shabbos is not what enables him to fulfill the Mitzvah. Since the person could fulfill his obligation to tear this garment without transgressing Shabbos (such as by tearing it on Sunday), his act on Shabbos is not considered a 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah.'
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) ONE WHO DESTROYS ON SHABBOS EXEMPT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one did anything destructive, he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Avahu - Beraisa):</font></b> Anyone who ruined is exempt, except 
          for one who wounded [a person] or burned.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  R. Yochanan:</font></b> Don't say that - there cannot be such a 
          Beraisa!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If there is such a Beraisa, the case is, he wounds 
               to feed the blood to his dog, or burns for the sake 
               of the ashes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Our Mishnah exempts for anything destructive!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Our Mishnah is R. Yehudah, the Beraisa is R. 
          Shimon.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why does R. Shimon Mechayev one who wounded or 
          burned?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Since a verse was needed to permit circumcision 
          on Shabbos ('Uva'Yom ha'Shemini' - even on Shabbos), we 
          infer that normally, one is liable for wounding (if a 
          Melachah is forbidden mid'Oraisa, one is liable for it. 
          Even Isi ben Yehudah, who exempts one Melachah from 
          stoning (6b), agrees that one is Chayav Chatas for it.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> [It says 'Lo Seva'aru Esh b'Chol Moshvoseichem b'Yom 
               ha'Shabbos' - this teaches that] Beis Din may not 
               burn (or administer any other death) on Shabbos - 
               presumably, this is because one is liable for 
               burning. (Even the opinion that says that burning is 
               only a Lav (70A) agrees that one is lashed for it.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah argues, for these are constructive!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Circumcision [fixes a person, it] is 
               like fixing a Kli;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Cooking lead (melting it for the Mitzvah of Misas 
               Beis Din) is [constructive] like cooking ingredients 
               for dye.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'ur for laundering [is twice Malei 
          ha'Sit].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  Rav Yosef gestured to show that this is double [the 
          distance one can separate his index and middle fingers];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  R. Chiya bar Ami showed that it is not double [rather, it 
          is exactly the distance one can separate his thumb and 
          index finger - this is the same as Rav Yosef's Shi'ur].
<br>
<b><font>2) THE 'CHIYUV' FOR TRAPPING ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> If one trapped a bird in a 
          cabinet or a deer in a house, he is liable;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, he is liable for a bird in a cabinet or a 
          deer in a garden, Chatzer or Biver (an enclosure of 
          game);
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) MELACHOS DONE FOR A DESTRUCTIVE PURPOSE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (105b) states that one is exempt for all acts of Melachah that he does for a destructive purpose ('Mekalkel'). Rebbi Avahu quotes a Tana who states that the Melachos of Chovel (inflicting a wound) and Mav'ir (kindling a fire) are exceptions for which one is Chayav even when he does the Melachah for a destructive purpose. Rebbi Yochanan argues and maintains that one is Chayav for Chovel and Mav'ir only when there is a constructive element in the perpetrator's act. For example, he is Chayav for Chovel only when he inflicts a wound on an animal in order to obtain blood to feed to his dog, and he is Chayav for Mav'ir only when he kindles a fire because he needs the ashes.
</p><p>
The Gemara questions Rebbi Avahu's opinion from the Mishnah that states that one is exempt for <i>all</i> Melachos done for a destructive purpose. The Gemara answers that the Mishnah follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, while the Tana quoted by Rebbi Avahu follows the opinion of Rebbi Shimon. (From the words of Rashi it seems that Rebbi Yochanan, who argues with Rebbi Avahu, follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, like the Mishnah.)
</p><p>
Rashi explains that according to Rebbi Shimon, it is not possible to perform an act of Mav'ir or Chovel she'Tzerichah l'Gufah for a constructive purpose. This raises the following question. Even though one is Chayav for an act of Mekalkel according to Rebbi Shimon, in order to be Chayav on Shabbos for doing a Melachah another condition must be met. The Melachah must be a Melachah <i>she'Tzerichah l'Gufah</i> (even for Chovel and Mav'ir, Sanhedrin 85a). How can one do an act of Mekalkel, a Melachah for a non-constructive purpose, which is Tzerichah l'Gufah? Since it is a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, one should be exempt according to Rebbi Shimon even for Mekalkel b'Chaburah! (<b>TOSFOS</b> to Sanhedrin 84b, DH Man Shemat)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) According to Rashi, Rebbi Shimon maintains that one is Chayav only in a situation in which a person intends to <i>do damage</i> (such as by burning or hurting his friend; see Rashi DH Chutz and DH u'Mav'ir). Even though he intends to do damage, the damage is still objectively called 'Mekalkel,' and therefore Rebbi Yehudah exempts him for such an act, while Rebbi Shimon maintains that he is Chayav. (See <b>MAHARSHA</b> for another explanation. However, it does not seem from Rashi (DH u'Beraisa) that he would consider the Maharsha's case one of 'Mekalkel.')
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Chutz) disagrees with Rashi's analysis of Rebbi Shimon's opinion. According to Tosfos, the category of Melachah she'Tzerichah l'Gufah is much broader. Cooking on a wood fire is considered to be a Melachah she'Tzerichah l'Gufah even according to Rebbi Shimon. (That is, the category of Tzerichah l'Gufah includes not only a case in which the destruction of the wood is the objective, but even when the cooking of the food is the objective, and not the destruction of the wood.) Consequently, according to Rebbi Avahu, a situation of Mekalkel that is Tzerichah l'Gufah exists when a person lights a fire to cook food (which is Tzerichah l'Gufah) with wood that is, unbeknownst to him, Asur b'Hana'ah and therefore may <i>not</i> be used to cook in truth (and thus the act is Mekalkel).
</p><p>
Tosfos adds that Rebbi Yochanan, who says that an act of Chovel must be done for a constructive purpose such as to feed one's dog, also expresses the opinion of <i>Rebbi Shimon</i>, and not Rebbi Yehudah. According to Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Shimon maintains that one who does an act of Mekalkel of Chovel or Mav'ir is Chayav only when there is <i>some</i> degree of constructive outcome from the action, even though the action is <i>not normally</i> done for such a purpose (such as bruising in order to feed blood to dogs), or even though the constructive goal is attained only <i>after</i> the bruising has been done (the blood is fed to dogs only <i>after</i> the animal is bruised; Rabeinu Tam). Tosfos maintains that such an act is also considered to be Tzerichah l'Gufah, since the blood (i.e., the Neshamah that was removed) itself is used to feed the dogs. Rebbi Yehudah, who argues with Rebbi Shimon, requires <i>fully</i> constructive intent and thus maintains that one is not Chayav in the two cases mentioned above.
</p><p>
(According to Tosfos, Rebbi Shimon's only source that one is Chayav for an act of Mekalkel of Chovel or Mavi'r is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv (it is learned from Milah on Shabbos, etc.), as the Gemara here concludes.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, not all Bivrin are the same.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  The general rule is, if it still needs to be trapped 
          (this will be explained) he is exempt; if not, he is 
          liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Mishnah #1):</font></b> One may not trap fish from a Biver 
          on Yom Tov, and one may not put food in front of them 
          (Rashi - because they are Muktzeh; Ri - because 
          mid'Oraisa they are not trapped);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  One may trap a Chayah or bird [from there], and one may 
          put food in front of them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Contradiction (regarding Chayos and birds - Beraisa):</font></b> One 
          may not trap Chayos, birds or fish from a Biver on Yom 
          Tov, and one may not put food in front of them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 - part 1 (regarding Chayos):</font></b> The Beraisa is 
          like R. Yehudah, who says that Chayos are not trapped 
          until they are in the house (therefore one may not take 
          them from a Biver), Mishnah #1 is like Chachamim of our 
          Mishnah, who say that it is already trapped in a Biver.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  The contradiction regarding birds remains!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Mishnah #1 discusses a roofed Biver 
               (they are trapped there), the Beraisa discusses an 
               uncovered Biver.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> A house is roofed, yet R. Yehudah and 
               Chachamim agree that a bird is not trapped in a 
               house, only in a cabinet!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer - part 2 (regarding birds - Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> 
          Our Mishnah discusses a wild bird, it does not accept 
          authority;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - Tana d'vei R. Yishmael):</font></b> It is called 
               Tzipor <i>Dror</i> because it is Dar (dwells) in the 
               house like in the field [and hides in the corners].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 - part 1:</font></b> Likewise, regarding Chayos, Mishnah 
          #1 discusses a large Biver, our Mishnah discusses a small 
          Biver.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is considered a large Biver, and what is 
          small?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> If one bends down and can catch it 
          in one chasing, this is small - if not, it is big.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> If the shadows of one wall reach to the 
          opposite wall (Rambam 10:20 - if they both reach to the 
          middle, at different times during the day) it is small; 
          if not, it is big. (Tosfos - there was a known standard 
          height for walls. <b><b><b>PF</b></b></b> - the Gemara must also be assuming a 
          fixed value for the angle of the sun - at sunrise and 
          sunset, rays of sun are horizontal, no matter how big it 
          is the shadows reach from one wall to the other! Perhaps 
          it refers to the noontime sun on the day of Tekufas 
          Tishrei or Nisan (the equinox), when the angle of the 
          shadow equals the latitude, about 30 degrees in Eretz 
          Yisrael - accordingly, if the width is less than half the 
          height of the wall it is small; if not, it is big.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer #3:</font></b> If there are no corners [for it to hide in], 
          it is small; if not, it is big.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> [Not all Bivrin are 
          the same].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Shimon ben Gamliel.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Abaye:</font></b> This implies that Chachamim argue with him (but we 
          established the Mishnah to discuss a small Biver)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Rav Yosef:</font></b> What difference does it make (in any case, the 
          Halachah follows him)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(t)</font></b><font>  Abaye:</font></b> Should we say teachings like a song [for which 
          there is no need]?!
<br>
<b><font>3) FOR WHICH ANIMALS IS ONE LIABLE FOR TRAPPING ON SHABBOS?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If one trapped a blind or sleeping deer, he is 
          liable; if one trapped a lame, old or sick deer, he is 
          exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> What is the difference between them?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> A blind or sleeping deer is prone to 
          escape [when it senses people - Rashi; R. Chananel - one 
          needs to wait in ambush to catch it], but not a lame, old 
          or sick deer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Contradiction (Beraisa):</font></b> If one trapped a sick deer, he 
          is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Resolution (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> If it has a fever, he is 
          liable; if it is tired, he is exempt (it cannot move, it 
          is as if it is already trapped. Aruch - alternatively, if 
          it has a fever, it is truly sick and cannot run, he is 
          exempt; if it is tired, he is liable, for it can run.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #1 - R. Meir):</font></b> If one trapped grasshoppers, 
          Gazin (Bach - a kind of Tamei Sheretz; Rashi, R. Chananel 
          - a species of grasshoppers or wasp), wasps or mosquitoes 
          on Shabbos, he is liable;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, one is liable for species normally 
          trapped, and exempt for species not normally trapped.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #2):</font></b> If one trapped grasshoppers when there is 
          dew (they are blind then), he is exempt; if he trapped 
          them when it is dry, he is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  Elazar ben Mehavai says, if they were swarming (they are 
          easy to trap), he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Does Elazar discuss the Reisha or the Seifa?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> If one trapped grasshoppers when there 
          is dew, he is exempt; when it is dry, he is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  Elazar ben Mehavai says, even when it is dry, if they 
          were swarming, he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a deer entered a house and one locked the 
          door, he is liable; 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If two people locked the door, they are exempt;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If one could not lock it and two people locked it, 
               they are liable;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon exempts.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - R. Yirmeyah bar Aba):</font></b> If one trapped a lion on 
          Shabbos, he is not liable until he puts it in its cage.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven sat in the doorway and did not fill 
          it, and Shimon sat [next to him] and filled it (trapping 
          a deer in the house), Shimon is liable;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b></b>  If Reuven sat in and filled [the width of] the doorway, 
          and Shimon sat next to him (and also filled the width), 
          even if Reuven left and Shimon remained, Reuven is liable 
          and Shimon is exempt;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b></b>  [Shimon] is like one who locked his house to guard the 
          contents, and a deer was found inside. (Rashba - the deer 
          was already trapped (the door was closed) - he may lock 
          the door to increase security [lest someone open the 
          door], just like he may guard his other possessions. 
          Alternatively, he did not know about the deer until after 
          locking - he is allowed to keep it locked after he finds 
          out. Yerushalmi - one may intend to lock the door to 
          guard his house and trap the deer. Ran - it is permitted 
          only if he did not know about the deer at the time - if 
          he knew, it is a Pesik Reisha, it is forbidden!)
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) 'TZIPOR DROR'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rabah bar bar Chanah says that the Mishnah (106a) discusses a 'Tzipor Dror,' a wild bird which does not accept authority. Such a bird is not considered captured even when it is enclosed in a house. <b>RASHI</b> (DH b'Tzipor Dror) explains that the reason the bird is not considered captured while it is in the house is because it flies from one corner of the house to the other and one cannot catch it.
</p><p>
In the Mishnah, however, Rashi (DH ha'Tzad Tzipor) explains that the bird is not considered captured because it escapes through the windows. Why does Rashi change his explanation? (Rashi in Beitzah (24a) also changes his explanation from the Havah Amina, in which he explains that the bird escapes through the windows, to the conclusion, in which he explains that the bird escapes by fleeing from one corner of the house to another.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The Gemara initially suggests that the difference between a bird that is considered captured and one that is not considered captured depends on the type of enclosure surrounding the bird. If it is roofed, the bird is considered captured. If it is not roofed, the bird is not considered captured. If the Gemara at this stage means that the bird can evade capture by fleeing from one corner to the other, then it should not matter whether the enclosure is roofed or not; the bird can always escape. It must be that the Gemara at this stage refers to an ordinary bird that can escape only through open parts of the house (and not by fleeing from corner to corner).
</p><p>
The Gemara concludes that a bird is not considered captured even in a roofed area when that bird is a Tzipor Dror. Accordingly, it must be that the bird escapes by flying from corner to corner, and not by flying away through the windows. This is why a Tzipor Dror is the only bird that is not considered captured in such a situation.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) 'PETURIM' THAT ARE PERMITTED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - R. Aba):</font></b> If a bird entered under the corner of 
          one's garment [and trapped itself, on Shabbos], one may 
          guard it until Motzei Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Version #1 - Question (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak - 
          Mishnah): If Reuven sat in the doorway and filled it, and 
          Shimon sat next to him, even if Reuven left and Shimon 
          remained, Reuven is liable and Shimon is exempt.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Shimon is exempt, but it is forbidden to 
               remain!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, he is exempt and permitted [to do so].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Support (Seifa):</font></b> [Shimon] is like one who locked his 
          house to guard the contents, and a deer was found inside.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This shows that he is exempt and permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  Version #2 - Support (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak - 
          Mishnah): If Reuven sat in the doorway and filled it, and 
          Shimon sat next to him, even if Reuven left and Shimon 
          remained, Reuven is liable and Shimon is exempt.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Shimon is exempt, and permitted [to do 
               so]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> No, he is exempt and forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Rejection of rejection (Seifa):</font></b> He is like one who looked 
          his house to guard the contents, and a deer was found 
          inside.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This shows that he is exempt and permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> All Peturim in the Mishnayos regarding Shabbos 
          are forbidden [mid'Rabanan], with three exceptions, which 
          are permitted - this is one of them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source that it is permitted here?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer (Seifa):</font></b> [Shimon] is like one who looked his house 
          to guard the contents, and a deer was found inside.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Exception #2 (Mishnah):</font></b> If one pierces an abscess to make 
          an opening, he is liable; if it is to let out the pus 
          [now, and he does not care if it closes], he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source that it is permitted?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer (Mishnah):</font></b> A hand needle (used to sew garments) 
          may be moved, for it is useful to remove a thorn [stuck 
          in one's skin - even though this surely wounds, Melachah 
          she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah is permitted to alleviate 
          pain, the same applies to an abscess].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Exception #3 (Mishnah):</font></b> If one traps a snake on Shabbos - 
          if this was so it will not bite him, he is exempt; if 
          this was to use it for a cure, he is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source that it is permitted?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer (Mishnah):</font></b> One may put a bowl over a Ner to 
          prevent the ceiling beam from catching fire, and over 
          excrement of a child, and over a scorpion so it will not 
          bite.
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>***** <b>PEREK SHEMONEH SHERATZIM</b> ***** 
</b></font></center><p>
<br><br><b><font>2) LIABILITY FOR WOUNDING 'SHERATZIM' ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  If one traps or wounds any of the eight Sheratzim listed 
          in the Torah he is liable;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Regarding other Shekatzim u'Rmashim (vermin):
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If one wounds them he is exempt;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If he traps them for a need he is liable; if it was 
               not for a need, he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  If one traps animals or birds in his domain, he is 
          exempt; if he wounds them he is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Inference:</font></b> If one is liable for wounding [the 
          eight Sheratzim], they must have skin (i.e. the wound 
          will not heal, this is a Toladah of slaughtering; 
          alternatively, the Chiyuv for wounding is for coloring 
          the skin via blood).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana of the Mishnah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Shmuel):</font></b> It is R. Yochanan ben Nuri:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah - R. Yochanan ben Nuri):</font></b> The eight 
               Sheratzim have skin [that is Halachically different 
               than their flesh].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rabah bar Rav Huna):</font></b> It is even like 
          Chachamim:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> (In Chulin 122A, Chachamim list some of the eight, 
               for which ka'Adashah of skin [of a Nevelah] is Tamei 
               like their flesh.) Chachamim argue with R. Yochanan 
               ben Nuri only regarding Tum'ah, for it says 'Eleh 
               ha'Teme'im Lachem', to teach that their skin is like 
               their flesh - but regarding Shabbos, they agree.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> They also argue regarding Shabbos!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Yochanan ben Nuri):</font></b> If one traps any 
               of the eight Sheratzim or wounds it, he is liable 
               (perhaps the Bach's Hagahah (Beis) belongs here - Oz 
               v'Hadar);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, only the Sheratzim that Chachamim 
               listed have skin.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE MELACHAH OF 'SHOCHET' AND INFLICTING A WOUND ON A 'SHERETZ'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that one who wounds any of the eight Sheratzim listed in the Torah is Chayav. One who wounds other Sheratzim is Patur.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b>, in one explanation, explains that one is Chayav for wounding (Chovel) the eight Sheratzim because of the Melachah of Shochet. The eight Sheratzim have skins, and when one wounds such a Sheretz, its blood is moved from its place but remains under the skin, and this constitutes a Toldah of Shochet. One is not Chayav for wounding the other Sheratzim, because they do not have skins, and when he bruises their body no blood comes forth. Since no blood is removed from its place (because if blood would have been removed from its place, it would have been clearly visible), he is Patur.
</p><p>
Why is the act of Chovel considered a Toldah of Shochet (Netilas Neshamah)? In what way does inflicting a wound that draws blood resemble killing the creature?
</p><p>

<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> in Kesuvos (5b) explains that since 'blood is the life-source' ('ha'Dam Hu ha'Nafesh,' Devarim 12:23), when one causes blood to come out, he is considered as though he has taken part of the life of the creature. When one bruises a creature and causes blood to form a clot under the skin, he is considered as though he has taken part of the life of the creature, because the blood has left its place in the body.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE MELACHAH OF 'TZOVE'A' AND INFLICTING A WOUND ON A 'SHERETZ'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Mishnah states that one who wounds any of the eight Sheratzim listed in the Torah is Chayav. One who wounds other Sheratzim is Patur.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b>, in a second explanation (see previous Insight), explains that one is Chayav for wounding (Chovel) the eight Sheratzim because of the Melachah of Tzove'a (dyeing). Since the eight Sheratzim have skins, wounding them causes the color of their skin to turn red because of the blood.
</p><p>
The Rishonim refer to the Gemara in Chulin (46a) that says that if a person hits and thereby removes blood from <i>any</i> Sheretz, he is Chayav. They explain that the Mishnah here refers to when one bruises the creature but no blood emerges.
</p><p>
A number of questions may be asked on this explanation of the Rishonim.
</p><p>

(a) The Gemara earlier (75b) quotes Rav who says that one who slaughters an animal on Shabbos is Chayav not only for Netilas Neshamah (killing), but also for Tzove'a (dyeing). Rav explains that a person wants the throat area to be red with blood so that the animal will appear to be freshly slaughtered and will be sold easily. The Gemara there implies that Tzove'a applies even when the flesh is colored, and not just the skin! Why, then, does Rashi say here that one is Chayav only for wounding the eight Sheratzim, because their skin becomes colored as a result of the wound, but one is not Chayav for wounding other types of Sheratzim that do not have skin? Even though they have no skin that becomes colored, their <i>flesh</i> becomes colored as a result of the wound!
</p><p>
(b) As the Gemara earlier (75b) makes clear, one is Chayav for Tzove'a only when he has an interest in coloring the item. Why, then, should one be Chayav for dyeing the skin of the eight Sheratzim if he has no interest in making the skin red?
</p><p>
(c) The Rishonim ask that if the blood goes out of the animal, then one is Chayav for Chovel even when he hits any other type of Sheretz other than the eight Sheratzim. Why is he Chayav when he hits a Sheretz that has no skin, if nothing was dyed?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> 
<br>(a) Flesh inside the body does not become colored as a result of a wound. Only the flesh at the surface of the body becomes colored when the blood cannot exit due to the presence of skin. Accordingly, Rashi says that one is Chayav only for wounding the eight Sheratzim, because their skin becomes colored as a result of the wound, but one is not Chayav for wounding other types of Sheratzim that do not have skin. Their flesh does not become colored as a result of the wound. This answers the first question.
</p><p>
(b) When one wounds a Sheretz and causes its skin to be colored as a result of the blood that clots underneath, he <i>does</i> have an interest in coloring the skin of the Sheretz. Just as Rav says that a person is interested in the red color around the throat of an animal that he slaughters, a person is interested in the red color in the skin of a Sheretz, because he wants to sell the skin. He wants the skin to be red so that when prospective buyers see the redness, they will know that it was killed recently, and they will buy it more readily and at a higher price. This answers the second question. One is Chayav for dyeing the skin of the eight Sheratzim, because he <i>does</i> have an interest in making the skin red.
</p><p>
(c) Rashi agrees that when one causes blood to go out of the body of the Sheretz, he is Chayav for <i>Shochet</i>, since he took [part of] the life of the creature. However, when the blood stays in the body under the skin, the blood never actually separates from the body. Consequently, he is Chayav only for Tzove'a (which applies only when the creature has skin). This answers the third question; the person who hits the Sheretz is Chayav for Shochet (because blood came out), but not for Tzove'a. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


<font><b>3) CAPTURING A 'SHERETZ'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that one who captures any of the eight Sheratzim listed in the Torah is Chayav, because those Sheratzim have skin. One who captures other Sheratzim is Patur. Why is one Chayav for Tzeidah only for Sheratzim that have skin?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that there are two reasons why one is exempt when he captures creatures that do not have skin. First, 'Ein b'Mino Nitzod' -- those creatures are not in the category of animals that are normally captured. Second, the act of capturing a Sheretz with no skin is considered a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah. Since the reason why one normally captures a Sheretz is in order to obtain its skin, one who captures a Sheretz that has no skin is not doing the Melachah for its intended purpose. The Mishnah follows the view of Rebbi Shimon, who maintains that one is Patur for a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH she'Lo l'Tzorech) and other Rishonim question Rashi's explanation. Why does Rashi need to mention the reason that creatures without skin are 'Ein b'Mino Nitzod,' they are not in the category of animals that are normally captured? The Gemara (107b) explicitly says that the reason one is Patur is because one does not capture such animals for their own sake (Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah). Also, if one is Patur because this animal is not the type that is normally captured, then what difference does it make if one captures it for its own sake? One should still be Patur, because it is 'Ein b'Mino Nitzod.'
</p><p>
The Rishonim explain instead that one is Patur solely because the act is a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah. (Rabeinu Tam even suggests that the first reason that Rashi gives should be erased from the text of Rashi.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Objection:</font></b> Just the contrary - Chachamim listed the 
               Sheratzim whose skin is <i>the same</i> as their flesh! 
               (The Beraisa is errant.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Correction #1 (Abaye):</font></b> Rather, Chachamim say, only 
               the Sheratzim that Chachamim <i>did not</i> list have 
               skin different than their flesh [but one is exempt 
               for wounding the ones listed, i.e. they argue about 
               Shabbos]!
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Objection (Rava):</font></b> The text says...'only the 
               Sheratzim that Chachamim <i>listed</i> have skin' (it is 
               unreasonable to say that the text was totally 
               reversed)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (and Correction #2 - Rava):</font></b> Rather, Chachamim 
          say, skin is Metamei like the flesh only regarding the 
          Sheratzim that Chachamim listed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> This implies that R. Yochanan ben Nuri holds 
          that the skin of all eight is Metamei like the flesh.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> But in the Mishnah he says that the eight 
          Sheratzim have skin [that is not Metamei like the flesh]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (and Correction #3 - Rav Ada bar Masnah):</font></b> 
          Rather, Chachamim say, regarding Tum'ah, only the 
          Sheratzim that Chachamim listed have skin.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We have a different source that they argue 
          regarding Shabbos!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> If one traps any of the eight Sheratzim 
               or wounds one of the Sheratzim with skin, he is 
               liable;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If the blood gathers in one place, even if it did 
               not leave, the wound will not recover.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan ben Nuri says, all eight Sheratzim have 
               skin.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> The first Tana is R. Yehudah, who says 
          that it depends on the thickness of the skin:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> A lizard is like a rat (its 
               skin is not Tamei).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim argue with R. Yochanan ben Nuri only about 
               Tum'ah, not about Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If so, [in the Beraisa] why was R. Yochanan ben 
          Nuri's law [regarding wounding] said only in his name - 
          it should have been said also in the name of Chachamim 
          that argue with him [about Tum'ah]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, it should say 'R. Yochanan ben Nuri and 
          the Chachamim that argue with him say...'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Question (Levi):</font></b> What is the source that a wound does not 
          recover?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer - Question:</font></b> 'Ha'Yahafoch Kushi Oro v'Namer 
          <i>Chavarburosav</i>': what are these?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> It refers to [a leopard's] spots.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> If so, it should have said 'Gavanav' (his 
               colors)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Rather, it [refers to a wound and] equates 
               it to a Kushi (negro) - just like a Kushi cannot 
               change his skin, a wound cannot revert to normal 
               skin.
<br>
<b><font>3) LIABILITY FOR KILLING ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Regarding other Shekatzim u'Rmashim (if one 
          wounds them he is exempt).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> If he kills them he is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana of the Mishnah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Yirmiyah):</font></b> It is R. Eliezer:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> If one kills a louse on 
               Shabbos he is [liable] like one who kills a camel.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Chachamim argue with R. Eliezer 
          only regarding lice, for they do not reproduce 
          [sexually], but they agree that one is liable for other 
          Shekatzim u'Rmashim which reproduce! The footnote in 
          Michtav me'Eliyahu (Vol 4, p.355 (4)) says in the name of 
          the author that accepted Halachos are not changed by 
          scientific discoveries, e.g. one may kill lice even 
          though we find that they do reproduce sexually - 
          Chachamim transmitted known Halachos which are not 
          dependent on the explanations given. Menuchas Ahavah 
          (3:18:6) suggests that since they cannot hatch without 
          sweat, this is not considered reproduction from male and 
          female [*alone*]. He cites (in the appendix) the Rambam 
          and others who say Chazal's words on matters like this 
          were not all based on prophecy, tradition or Ru'ach 
          ha'Kodesh. The Yerushalmi says that one may kill lice 
          because they have meager life (anything without a spine 
          cannot live more than six months), but the Bavli argues 
          with this (it obligates for killing a Pir'osh).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Both of them learn from rams (which were slaughtered 
               for their skins for the curtains).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer says, just like they were killed, one is 
               liable for killing anything;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, just like they reproduce, one is 
               liable for anything that reproduces.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> Lice do reproduce,
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It was taught that Hash-m feeds the entire world, 
               from Karnei Re'emim [the biggest animals] to Beitzei 
               Kinim (lice that just hatched).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Beitzei Kinim is the name of a species (other 
          than lice). 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> Tipuyei (a small insect) and Beitzei 
          Kinim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Beitzei Kinim is the name of a species.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> A Pir'osh reproduces, yet R. Yehoshua exempts! 
          (Bi'ur Halachah (316:9 Lehargah) - Rambam says that 
          Pir'osh is a flea - those that arise spontaneously from 
          dirt (but not those that arises from mold) can reproduce. 
          Ramban - anything that does not come from male and female 
          cannot reproduce - Pir'osh must be some other species.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> If one traps a Pir'osh on 
               Shabbos he is liable;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehoshua exempts.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Trapping is unlike killing!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer obligates even if the species is not 
               normally hunted, R. Yehoshua exempts in such a case 
               - but R. Yehoshua agrees that he is liable for 
               killing them!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he traps them for a need he is liable; [if 
          it was not for a need, he is exempt].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Version #1 - Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana of the Mishnah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> It is R. Shimon, who exempts 
          Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Version #2 (Beraisa):</font></b> If one punctures a blister 
               [with pus inside] on Shabbos:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  If it was to make a (Rashi - permanent) opening 
                    (Tosfos 3A u'Mafis - also to let in air), he is 
                    liable, if it was just to let out pus, he is 
                    exempt.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana of the Beraisa?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> It is R. Shimon, who exempts 
               Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Version #3 (Mishnah):</font></b> If one traps a snake on 
               Shabbos:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  If this was so it will not bite him, he is 
                    exempt;
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> If this was to use it for a cure, he is liable.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana of the Beraisa?
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> It is R. Shimon, who exempts 
               Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> If one removes a fish [that was already trapped 
          before Shabbos] from the sea, once the size of a Sela (a 
          coin) dries up, he is liable [for killing it, for it will 
          not live].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (R. Yosi bar Avin):</font></b> This is if the area that dries is 
          between its fins.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Rav Ashi):</font></b> It need not become fully dry - it suffices if 
          sticky strands exude when one touches it.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>4) HALACHAH: KILLING LICE ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara quotes the argument between Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabanan with regard to whether one is permitted to kill lice on Shabbos. Rebbi Eliezer maintains that one may not kill lice on Shabbos, just as he may not kill any other animal on Shabbos, because of the Melachah of Shechitah. The Rabanan maintain that one may kill lice on Shabbos, because lice do not reproduce the way other living creatures do. Since lice are spontaneously generated from the sweat and dirt upon man's flesh, they are not included in the Melachah.
</p><p>
The Gemara earlier (12a) concludes that one may kill lice on Shabbos and the act does not constitute the Melachah of Shechitah, killing a living creature. This is also the ruling of the <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 316:9).
</p><p>
Although in the times of the Chachamim (and until just two hundred years ago) it was accepted by all that some creatures are formed from inanimate objects, today the concept of spontaneous generation is no longer accepted as a scientific truth; modern science professes that all living things come about through propagation and regeneration. Is the Halachah different now if lice are not spontaneously generated? (See also Insights to Chulin 126:5.)
</p><p>
(a) Rav Yitzchak Lampronti, in Pachad Yitzchak (1750), quotes <b>RAV YEHUDAH BRILL</b> who asserts that the Halachah remains the same, regardless of what the wise men of the nations teach about the natural world. He writes that through the study of nature, secular scientists cannot understand the inner essence of nature; they can only judge by what is evident on the surface. To the Chachamim, however, all of the secrets of creation are revealed. If the Chachamim established the Halachah in a certain way, then that Halachah remains, for the 'spirit of Hash-m is with them.' (<b>PACHAD YITZCHAK</b>, Erech 'Tzeidah Asurah')
</p><p>
Similarly, <b>RAV ARYEH CARMELL</b> cites his mentor, <b>RAV ELIYAHU DESSLER</b> zt'l in a footnote to <b>MICHTAV ME'ELIYAHU</b> (volume 4, p. 355), who teaches that the law does not change even though the reason for the law is difficult for us to understand. We must accept the rulings of the Chachamim, whether they are lenient or stringent. Rav Dessler points out that the reason mentioned in the Gemara for the ruling of the Chachamim is not necessarily the only possible reason. The Chachamim gave the reason that was most obvious in their day, which, in this case, was the universally accepted biological fact that lice spontaneously generate. There are other reasons for their rulings (see also <b>RAMBAN</b> to 12a, DH v'Ha Pligi, in the name of the Yerushalmi), and thus we may not conduct ourselves differently. Rav Dessler suggests, in the case of lice, the following explanation. It is a known principle that Halachah considers only factors that the senses can detect. Accordingly, since the egg of a louse is so small that it cannot be detected by the eye, the Halachah does not consider it at all, and thus the louse is given the status as a lower degree of life-form, for which there is no prohibition to kill.
</p><p>
<b>RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN</b> zt'l rules that the Halachah does not change, despite a change in our understanding of the natural world (see <b>IGROS MOSHE</b>, CM 2:73:4). He reasons that even if nature, or our understanding of nature, has changed, the Halachah does not, because the Halachah depends solely on the situation at the time of the original ruling of the Chachamim. (See also <b>CHAVAS DA'AS</b> 98:3, and <b>CHAZON ISH</b> YD 5:3.)
</p><p>
(b) However, <b>RAV YITZCHAK LAMPRONTI</b> himself disagrees with Rav Brill. He asserts that it is possible that the ruling of the Chachamim on this issue was based on their wisdom and human investigation, and not necessarily on received tradition. Perhaps had the Chachamim heard the proofs of modern scientists against spontaneous generation, they would have ruled otherwise. 
</p><p>
He proves from the Gemara in Pesachim (94b) that there are occasions when the Chachamim based themselves on their own knowledge and not on received tradition. In the Gemara there, the Chachamim argued with the contemporary scientists, and Rebbi later commented that the opinion of the scientists was more plausible. If the words of the Chachamim were based on a received tradition, how could Rebbi side with the scientists against the received tradition? (See also Shabbos 85a.)
</p><p>
He therefore concludes that one who is concerned for his soul will conduct himself stringently and avoid killing lice on Shabbos, and thereby he will avoid a doubtful obligation to bring a Korban Chatas. This is also the ruling of the <b>TESHUVOS SHEVET HA'KEHASI</b> (3:126), cited by the <b>PISKEI TESHUVOS</b> (OC 316:6), who rules that one may not kill lice on Shabbos nowadays. His reasoning, however, is different. He asserts that the lice of today are not the same type of lice discussed in the Gemara.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> Today, the common practice is to refrain from killing lice on Shabbos. The <b>ORCHOS SHABBOS</b> (14:30) writes that 'it is preferable to refrain from killing lice in our days, since the lice in our days are known to propagate reproductively, and it is possible that they are not the lice that are mentioned in the Gemara.' The authors of Orchos Shabbos (fn. 47) write that they heard this ruling in the name of <b>RAV YOSEF SHALOM ELYASHIV</b> shlit'a. However, they also point out that <b>TESHUVOS LEV CHAYIM</b> (3:17) permits killing lice today, and they write that they also heard this ruling in the name of <b>RAV SHLOMO ZALMAN AUERBACH</b> zt'l.
</p><p>
(This topic has been discussed extensively in various sources. For a list of some of those sources, contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf.) 
</p><p>


<font><b>4) OPENING A BLISTER</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara quotes the Mishnah (Eduyos 2:5) that teaches that one who opens a blister (Mefis Mursa) on Shabbos in order to extract pus (the pressure of which causes him pain) is Patur. Rav explains that such an act is a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, and the Mishnah follows the view of Rebbi Shimon, who says that one is Patur for a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah. Shmuel (107a) says that one is permitted even l'Chatchilah to open a blister to extract its pus, because the Rabanan permitted one to relieve himself of pain on Shabbos.
</p><p>
Earlier in Shabbos (42a), Shmuel rules like Rebbi Yehudah, who says that one is Chayav for a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah. According to Rebbi Yehudah, a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah is forbidden even mid'Oraisa. Why, then, does Shmuel here rule that one is permitted to open a blister in order to remove the pus? The Rabanan permitted one to transgress an Isur d'Rabanan because of pain; they cannot permit one to transgress an Isur d'Oraisa!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (3a, DH ha'Tzad) cites <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who answers that Shmuel does not actually rule that one is permitted to open a blister to extract the pus. Rather, Shmuel merely states what <i>Rebbi Shimon</i> maintains with regard to opening a blister to remove the pus.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MAGID MISHNEH</b> (Hilchos Shabbos 10:17) explains that according to Shmuel, one who opens a blister is not exempt because he is doing a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah. Rather, he is exempt because he is not doing a Melachah at all. When one opens a blister not to extract the pus, but for therapeutic purposes, one <i>completes</i> the formation of the blister, and if his intention is to complete the blister, he is Chayav for the Melachah of Makeh b'Patish. According to Shmuel, if he extracts the pus from a blister, he is not doing an act of Makeh b'Patish at all, since he does not 'finish' anything. Therefore, he may open the blister for this purpose even l'Chatchilah (in order to relieve the pain) even according to Rebbi Yehudah.
</p><p>
(c) <b>RASHI</b> (107a, DH Chayav) also maintains that letting out pus does not involve a Melachah at all. Rashi explains that if one opens the blister in order to make an opening (literally, a 'mouth'), he is Chayav either because of Boneh or because of Tikun Kli. Boneh applies only when one makes a hole that will be used for putting things in and for taking things out. However, when one makes a hole in a blister to let out the pus, he does not care if the hole closes right away when he is finished (Rashi here, DH l'Hotzi). Consequently, he is not making a hole that will be used for putting things in and for taking things out, and he is Patur since no act of Boneh (or Tikun) has been done at all.
</p><p>
(Rashi and the Magid Mishneh understand that Shmuel argues with the Gemara on 107b and maintains that the permissibility of Mefis Mursa is unrelated to the view of Rebbi Shimon with regard to Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah.)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) TIPS FOR GOOD HEALTH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Muna):</font></b> If a man touches any of the 
          following before washing his hands in the morning, his 
          hand is worthy to be cut off [so it will not do so again] 
          - his nose, mouth, ear, bloodletting wound, Ever, anus, 
          or barrel of beer. (Rashi - touching the Ever is always 
          forbidden lest it cause seminal emissions; one should not 
          touch the anus too often, lest it cause hemorrhoids. 
          Aruch - he teaches that one should not drink beer 
          regularly, lest he lose his source of income.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Touching them can cause blindness, deafness, or bad 
               breath.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Noson):</font></b> The Ru'ach that dwells on hands 
          before washing is a Bas Chorin (dignified), it does not 
          go away unless each hand is washed three times, 
          alternating.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Painting the eyes removes [damage done by] 
          a Bas Chorin, inhibits tears, and increases the 
          eyelashes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Mar Ukva):</font></b> (Rashi - the following are eaten; Tosfos - 
          they are put on the eyes.) Alin (a certain kind of 
          leaves) do not heal eyes;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Coriander does not heal eyes;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> Hops does not heal eyes;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Coriander pains even my eyes (he and Rav 
          Sheshes were blind);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> Gargira (rocket plant) is helpful even for 
          me.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Mar Ukva):</font></b> All kinds of hops are permitted, except for 
          Teruza (a certain hops).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (Tosfos) (Rav Chisda):</font></b> [On Shabbos] one may 
          strain the juice of watermelon (one drinks it to loosen 
          the bowels);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One may not strain soft-boiled eggs.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (Rashi) (Rav Chisda):</font></b> One may smear oil and 
          soft-boiled eggs on [hot] roasted meat.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One may not scramble soft-boiled eggs (it looks like 
               he intends to cook them).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  Ze'iri's wife scrambled soft-boiled eggs for Chiya bar 
          Ashi; he did not eat them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Ze'iri's wife:</font></b> I made them for your Rebbi (Ze'iri), and 
          he ate them - you do not eat them?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  Ze'iri permitted it, like he taught elsewhere:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One may strain clear wine or clear water through a 
               cloth - since it could be drunk without this, it is 
               permitted.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Similarly, since the eggs could be eaten without 
               scrambling, it is permitted.
<br>
<b><font>2) SOAKING AND BATHING ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mar Ukva):</font></b> If one bruised his hand or foot, he may put 
          it in wine to stop the bleeding.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> May he put it in vinegar to stop the bleeding?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Hillel):</font></b> The academy of Rav Kahana forbids 
          this (it is very strong).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> People of Mechuza (Rava's city) are delicate, for 
          them wine works like vinegar (it is forbidden).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Version #1:</font></b> A donkey stepped on the back of Rav Ashi's 
          foot; he put it in vinegar.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Ravina:</font></b> Do you disagree with Rav Hillel?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Rav Ashi:</font></b> The back of the hand and foot are different.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Version #2:</font></b> Rav Ashi put his foot in wine.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Ravina:</font></b> Rava forbids wine for delicate people - you are 
          delicate!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Rav Ashi:</font></b> The back of the hand and foot are different: 
          (end of Version #2)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Ada bar Masnah):</font></b> [A wound on] the back of the 
               hand or foot is like an internal injury (there is 
               mortal danger), one may Mechalel Shabbos for it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #1):</font></b> One may bathe in water of Gerar (even 
          though they are a bit salty, it is not evident that this 
          is for healing), Chamsan, Asya, or Tiverya, but not in 
          the Yam ha'Gadol (Meditarranean Sea), in Mei Mishre 
          (water in which flax was soaked) or in the Dead Sea.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Contradiction (regarding Yam ha'Gadol - Beraisa #2):</font></b> One 
          may bathe in water of Tiverya or Yam ha'Gadol, but not in 
          Mei Mishre or the Dead Sea.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Resolution #1 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Beraisa #2 is R. Meir (who 
          equates Yam ha'Gadol to all seas), Beraisa #1 is R. 
          Yehudah:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah - R. Meir):</font></b> All seas are Mikva'os (they are 
               Metaher only if the water is gathered, they are not 
               Mayim Chayim required for a Zav, Metzora or Parah 
               Adumah) - 'Ul'Mikve ha'Mayim Kora Yamim'.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, the Yam ha'Gadol is a Mikveh - it 
               is called Yamim (plural) because it has many kinds 
               of water;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi says, all seas are Metaher even if the water 
               is flowing [because water constantly flows in], they 
               are Pesulim for a Zav, Metzora or Parah Adumah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> They argue 
          regarding Tum'ah and Taharah - there is no source that 
          they argue about healing!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) TOUCHING PARTS OF THE BODY IN THE MORNING WITH UNWASHED HANDS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that a person should not touch his eyes, nose, mouth, ear, scab, Amah, rectal area (Pi ha'Taba'as), or a beer-barrel before he washes his hands in the morning upon rising. The <b>TUR</b> (OC 4) cites only the first four. Why does he leave out the other four?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) With regard to touching the Amah and Pi ha'Taba'as, the <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> explains that the Tur may understand the Gemara like <b>RASHI</b> (DH Ma'aleh), who explains that touching the Amah and Pi ha'Taba'as is unrelated to one's unwashed hands in the morning. Rather, touching those areas is <i>always</i> forbidden. Touching the Amah leads to Keri, and touching the Pi ha'Taba'as causes rashes. Therefore, the Tur has no need to mention those parts in this Halachah. Similarly, the Tur does not mention touching a scab, because a scab also should not be touched at any time for health reasons.
</p><p>
With regard to why the Tur omits mention of a barrel, the Beis Yosef writes that touching a barrel, too, is unrelated to one's unwashed hands in the morning. Rather, touching a beer barrel anytime causes the beer to spoil. Therefore, it is not relevant to the Halachah of touching things in the morning with unwashed hands.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>BACH</b>, <b>TAZ</b>, and <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> disagree. They ask that according to the Beis Yosef's explanation, why does the Gemara say that 'the hand that touches a barrel should be caught off'? Just because a person ruins his beer is no reason to say that his hand should be cut off! (It could be that the Beis Yosef understands that Gemara refers to touching and ruining <i>someone else's</i> beer.) They therefore explain that a barrel <i>should</i> be included in the Tur's list of things that a person should not touch with unwashed hands in the morning.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Resolution #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> It is forbidden 
          if one stays in the water for a long time (it is 
          evidently to heal), it is permitted to bathe quickly.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> If Beraisa #2 discusses bathing quickly, it 
          should be permitted even in Mei Mishre!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa #3):</font></b> One may bathe in water of Tiverya, Mei 
               Mishre or Dead Sea, even if he has sores on his head 
               (this also contradicts Beraisos #1 and #2 regarding 
               Mei Mishre and the Dead Sea);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This is if he bathes quickly - it is forbidden to 
               stay in the water for a long time.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Resolution #3 (regarding Yam ha'Gadol):</font></b> It is permitted 
          to bathe in parts of Yam ha'Gadol where the water is 
          nice, it is forbidden where the water is bad.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Resolution (regarding Mei Mishre and the Dead Sea):</font></b> 
          Beraisa #3 permits bathing quickly, Beraisos #1 and #2 
          forbid staying in a long time.
<br>
<b><font>3) EATING FOODS FOR CURES ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not eat Ezovin on Shabbos because 
          healthy people do not eat it (the entire Mishnah will be 
          explained).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  One may eat Yo'ezer and drink Avuvaro'ah;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  One may eat any food, or drink any drink for a cure, 
          except for Mei Dekalim or a cup of Ikarim because they 
          are for jaundice;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  One may eat drink Mei Dekalim to quench his thirst or 
          anoint with a cup of Ikarim not for the sake of a cure.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Rav Yosef):</font></b> Ezov (hyssop required for 
          sprinkling for a Metzora or a Tamei Mes) is what we call 
          Evrasah bar Hemeg (it grows among bulrushes);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Ezovin [of our Mishnah] is what we call Evrasah bar Hinag 
          (it grows among thorn bushes).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  The household of Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah served to Ula [a 
          plant called] sage; he said that this is Ezov of the 
          Torah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rav Papi):</font></b> Shumshuk is Ezov of the Torah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (R. Yirmiyah mi'Difti):</font></b> Presumably, Rav Papi is right:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> The Mitzvah is to have three Ezov 
               branches, each with one shoot. (Rashash - Rashi 
               explains that each has three shoots, like R. Yehudah 
               (who argues in the Seifa of this Mishnah), for from 
               this we prove that it is Shumshuk.) 
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Shumshuk has shoots like this!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why do people eat it?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It helps get rid of intestinal worms.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> With what does one eat it?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He eats it with seven black dates.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What causes the worms?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They come from barley flour at least 40 days old.
<br>
<b><font>4) OTHER CURES ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may eat Yo'ezer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  This is mint; people eat it to get rid of worms in the 
          liver, with seven white dates;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The worms come from eating any of the following on an 
          empty stomach, and drinking water afterwards:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Meat [roasted on coals], fatty meat, ox meat, nuts, 
               shoots of fenugreek.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  If not (one does not have mint, or if it did not help), 
          one should swallow white cress;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  If not, one should fast, put fatty meat on coals, suck a 
          nice limb and swallow vinegar.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Some say not to use vinegar, for it is bad for the 
               liver.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  If not, one should take bark peeled off a bush from top 
          to bottom (but not vice-versa, lest this cause the worms 
          to leave through his mouth) and cook it with beer in the 
          cemetery;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The next day he should close his nostrils (so he 
               cannot smell; alternatively - also his ears, lest 
               the potency leave him) and drink it; when he needs 
               to eliminate, he should do so where a date tree was 
               pruned.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may drink Avuvaro'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Avuvaro'ah is Chumtriya.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is a tree that goes straight up, without 
          branches.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  It cures one who drank water that was left exposed (we 
          are concerned lest a snake drank from it and put venom in 
          it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  If not, he should take five roses and five cups of beer 
          and cook them until only a Revi'is remains, and drink it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  Rav Achdevoy bar Ami's mother prepared this for a man, 
          using one rose and one cup of beer. She cooked it and 
          gave to him to drink; she lit the oven, swept out the 
          coals [to temper the heat] and put a brick for him to sit 
          on [lest he get burned] - he vomited out the poison, it 
          was like a green palm leaf.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  Rav Avya said, one should drink a Revi'is of milk from a 
          white goat;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  Rav Huna bar Yehudah says, he should hollow out a sweet 
          Esrog and fill it with honey, and put it among glimmering 
          coals, and eat it [after it cooks].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b></b>  R. Chanina says, one stung by a wasp should drink a tiny 
          cup (an eighth of a Revi'is) of 40 day old urine 
          (alternatively - of a 40 day old baby);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> For a scorpion bite he should drink a Revi'is, half 
               a Log for exposed water, a full Log helps even 
               against witchcraft.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The following help against [venom which 
          might have been ingested in] exposed water and witchcraft 
          - water in which were cooked beets or a certain herb, and 
          sap.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b></b>  If one swallowed a snake, he should eat hops in brine and 
          run three Mil.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Version #1:</font></b> Rav Simi Bar Ashi saw a man who 
               swallowed a snake; Rav Simi made himself look like a 
               soldier [to frighten him], he made him eat hops in 
               brine and run three Mil in front of Rav Simi - the 
               snake came out piecemeal.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Version #2:</font></b> Rav Simi swallowed a snake; Eliyahu 
               appeared to Rav Simi like a soldier, made him eat 
               hops in brine and run three Mil - the snake came out 
               piecemeal.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b></b>  If one was bitten by a snake, he should bring a fetus 
          from a white donkey that was not Treifah, tear it and put 
          it on the wound.
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) EVADING SNAKES ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  In Pumbadisa, a [Yisrael] officer of the king was bitten 
          by a snake; there were 13 white donkeys in the city, all 
          were found to be Treifah. There was another at the other 
          end of the city - by the time they brought it, he was 
          eaten by a lion.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Abaye:</font></b> Perhaps he was bitten by a 'snake' 
          (excommunication) mid'Rabanan, for which there is no cure 
          - 'U'Foretz Gader Yishchenu Nachash'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Abaye was told that this was correct - when Rav had died, 
          Rav Yitzchak bar Bizna decreed that [for a year] no one 
          should bring to a wedding myrtle or date branches with 
          bells, and this man did so - therefore, he was bitten by 
          a snake and died from it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  If a snake wraps itself around a person, he should go 
          near water, put a basket over his head and slowly lower 
          it over himself; so it will separate between him and the 
          snake. When the snake goes onto the basket, he throws the 
          basket into the water and flees.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  If a snake is angry at a person [and chasing him] - if 
          another person is there, he should carry the pursued one 
          for four Amos (the snake will lose track of the smell of 
          the footsteps of its target);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If not, he should jump over a ditch of water;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If not, he should cross a river, and at night put 
               his bed on four barrels and sleep under the stars 
               (without a roof); he ties a cat to each leg of the 
               bed, and surrounds the area with twigs, so the cats 
               will hear the snake's coming and eat it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  If a snake is chasing a person, he should run through 
          sand (snakes cannot go quickly there).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  If a woman sees a snake and does not know whether or not 
          it desires her (for relations), she should remove her 
          garments and put them in front of it - if it wraps itself 
          in them, this shows that it desires her; if not, not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What solution is there [if it desires her]? 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> She should have relations [with her husband] 
          in front of it (she will become disgraced in its eyes).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  Others say, just the contrary - this will make it desire 
          her even more!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> She should throw some of her hair and 
          fingernails in front of it and say 'I am Nidah'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  If a snake entered [the Ervah of] a woman, she should 
          widen her legs as much as possible, roast meat and bring 
          cress and fragrant wine - when it smells them it will 
          come out;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> She grabs it with tongs and burns it - if not, it 
               will return to her.
<br>
<b><font>2) EATING AND DRINKING FOR A CURE ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may eat <i>any</i> food [or drink any drink for 
          a cure].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does this come to include?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This includes spleen to heal teeth and vetch for 
          the intestines. (Even though people usually do not eat 
          these, for spleen is bad for the intestines and vetch is 
          bad for teeth, so it is evident that he eats for a cure, 
          it is permitted.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does 'any drink' come to include?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This includes caper-berry juice with vinegar.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question (Ravina):</font></b> May one drink urine on Shabbos?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava - Mishnah):</font></b> One may drink any drink - people 
          do not drink urine [except for a cure].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Except for Mei Dekalim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Except for Mei Dekarim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  The Tana of the Beraisa calls it Mei Dekarim because it 
          is Doker (pierces) the gallbladder; the Tana of the 
          Mishnah calls it Mei Dekalim because it exudes between 
          two date trees.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Rabah bar Beruna):</font></b> There are two date trees in Eretz 
          Yisrael, a spring exudes between them;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One cup of the water loosens (the bowels), a second 
               cup causes diarrhea, a third cup leaves the body 
               just like it entered (the intestines are totally 
               empty).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Ula):</font></b> I drank beer of Bavel - it worked better than Mei 
          Dekalim.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is only if one did not have it for 40 days.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Zeisum ha'Mitzri [is Mei Dekarim, it pierces 
          the sickness - it] is a third barley, a third saffron, 
          and a third salt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Rav Papa):</font></b> It is a third wheat, a third saffron, and a 
          third salt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  A way to remember who said which - Sisni (a basket for 
          dates - the letter Samech occurs twice in this word, to 
          connect Rav Yo<i>S</i>ef with <i>S</i>e'orim (barley - Samech and 
          Sin are interchangeable).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b></b>  One should drink it between Pesach and Shavu'os - it 
          loosens one who is constipated, and constipates one who 
          has diarrhea.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> ...Or a cup of Ikarim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is a cup of Ikarim?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> One takes the weight of a Zuz of 
          sap of Alexandria, and of alum, and of Oriental 
          safflower, grates them together:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A Zavah drinks all three in wine, it will cure her 
               without causing sterility;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> For jaundice, one drinks two of them in beer, it 
               causes sterility.
<br>
<b><font>3) ALTERNATIVE CURES FOR A 'ZAVAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  An alternative cure for a Zavah is to bring three jugs 
          (each holding three Lugim) of Persian onions and cook 
          them in wine; she drinks it, one says to her 'Get up from 
          your Zivah'!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) MEDICATION THAT CAUSES STERILITY</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara asks that drinking 'Kos Ikrin,' even for medicinal purposes, should be forbidden because it causes sterility, and causing sterility ('Sirus') is forbidden by the Torah. 
</p><p>
Why should it be forbidden when a person drinks it for healing? Since he intends to heal himself and not to make himself sterile, it is a Davar she'Ein Miskaven, and it should be permitted.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Talmud Lomar) cites the <b>SHE'ILTOS</b> who writes that the Gemara asks that it should be forbidden only according to Rebbi Yehudah, who maintains that a Davar she'Ein Miskaven is forbidden. However, if this is the Gemara's intention, then l'Halachah one should be permitted to drink Kos Ikrin, because the Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Shimon, who maintains that a Davar she'Ein Miskaven is permitted, and yet none of the Poskim permit one to drink Kos Ikrin. The Sh'eiltos answers that we rule like Rebbi Shimon only with regard to Davar she'Ein Miskaven on <i>Shabbos</i>. In all other areas of Halachah, though, we rule like Rebbi Yehudah with regard to Davar she'Ein Miskaven.
</p><p>
(b) Tosfos cites the <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> who argues with the She'iltos and says that even according to Rebbi Shimon, one may not drink Kos Ikrin, because it is a Pesik Reshei.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>ROSH</b> (14:9) adds that this type of Pesik Reshei is forbidden even according to the opinion that maintains that a Pesik Reshei that one does not want ('d'Lo Nicha Lei') is permitted on Shabbos (<b>ARUCH</b>, cited by Tosfos to 103a, DH Lo Tzerichah). Such a Pesik Reshei is permitted only with regard to the laws of Shabbos, when the additional exemption of Meleches Machsheves applies. In all other areas of Halachah, Meleches Machsheves does not apply and therefore a Pesik Reshei that one does not want remains forbidden.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Alternatively, she should sit at the crossroad and 
          holding a cup of wine; someone goes in back of her and 
          scares her, and says to her 'Get up from your Zivah'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Alternatively, one takes one handful of cumin, one of 
          saffron, one of fenugreek, cooks them in wine, gives to 
          her to drink, and says 'Get up from your Zivah'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Alternatively, one soaks 60 corks [of barrels of wine] in 
          water, rubs them on her, and says 'Get up from your 
          Zivah'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  Alternatively, one cooks fern in wine, rubs them on her, 
          and says 'Get up from your Zivah'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Alternatively, one burns a certain herb that grows amidst 
          thorns, carries the ashes in a worn out linen garment in 
          summer [or in a worn out cotton garment in winter];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  If not, one digs seven pits and burns in them seven young 
          vines of Orlah; she takes a cup of wine in her hand, and 
          sits on one after the other, each time one says to her 
          'Get up from your Zivah'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Alternatively, one anoints her bottom half with fine 
          flour and says 'Get up from your Zivah'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  Alternatively, she burns an ostrich egg, and carries the 
          ashes in a worn out linen garment in summer [or in a worn 
          out cotton garment in winter];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  Alternatively, one opens a barrel of wine for her [to 
          drink a lot];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  Alternatively, she should take barley from the dung of a 
          white mule:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If she takes it one day, the blood will stop for two 
               days; if she takes it two days, the blood will stop 
               for three days; if she takes it three days, the 
               blood will stop forever.
<br>
<b><font>4) CURES FOR JAUNDICE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  For jaundice, he drinks two [of the ingredients in a cup 
          of Ikarim] in beer; it causes sterility.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Alternatively, he cooks a salted head of a certain fish 
          in beer and drinks it;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Alternatively, one brings brine of grasshoppers [or of 
          Nekiri (small birds), if grasshopper brine is 
          unavailable] to the bathhouse, and rubs him with it;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  If there is no bathhouse, he stands between the oven and 
          the wall (he will sweat due to the heat, the sickness 
          will leave).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> If one wants to warm the Choleh, he should 
          wrap him in his garment (or the garment of someone else 
          with jaundice)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Rav Acha bar Yosef had jaundice; Rav Kahana cured him 
          using the garment.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Alternatively, he brings three jugs of Persian dates, 
          three of wax that drips from an overflowing hive and 
          three of red aloe, cooks them in beer, and drinks it;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Alternatively, he brings a male donkey born from a 
          donkey, shaves the middle of its head, draws blood from 
          its forehead and puts it on [the shaved part of] the 
          head, being careful to avoid the eyes, lest he blind 
          them;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  Alternatively, he brings the head of a ram pickled in 
          vinegar or brine, cooks it in beer and drinks it;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  Alternatively, he brings a spotted pig, tears it, and 
          puts it over his heart;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  Alternatively, he takes leeks from the middle of the 
          patch.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  An Aravi had jaundice; he told a gardener 'Take my 
          garment, and give me a patch of leeks'; the gardener 
          accepted. He ate the leeks, and asked to borrow the 
          garment to sleep in. While sleeping, the sickness left 
          him, and the heat tore the garment into many pieces.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  For jaundice, he drinks two in beer; it causes sterility.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This is forbidden!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Chanina):</font></b> It is forbidden to castrate 
               a person - we read 'U<i>v</i>'Artze*chem* Lo Sa'asu' like 
               'Bachem Lo S<i>e</i>'asu' (do not become sterile).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> It is forbidden to intentionally castrate - 
          here, he intends to be cured, the castration results by 
          itself:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> To castrate a rooster, one shears its 
               mane, it is castrated by itself:
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> Rav Ashi taught, it is not really castrated - 
          it merely mourns the loss of its glory (but one may not 
          even cause castration)!
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) WHO MAY USE THIS CURE?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> A Seris (one who was already castrated) may 
          use this cure.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> But R. Chiya bar Aba taught that [regarding 
          Menachos,] all agree that one is liable for Mechametz 
          (fermenting) after Mechametz, for it says 'Lo Se'aseh 
          Chometz' and 'Lo Se'afeh Chometz' [to Mechayev for every 
          step of baking, even if the dough already became 
          Chometz];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> All agree that one is liable for castration after 
               castration - 'u'Ma'uch v'Chasus v'Nasuk v'Charus' 
               (the verse discusses blemishes of castration, it 
               ends '... uv'Artzechem Lo Sa'asu');
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> If one is liable for Kores (disconnecting 
               the testicles), all the more so for Nosek (Tosfos - 
               totally cutting them off, but they are still in the 
               sac; Rashi - removing them from the sac) - why did 
               the Torah need to say 'v'Nasuk'?)
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> This teaches that one is liable for Nosek 
               after Kores.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #3:</font></b> Someone too old to have children may use this 
          cure.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> But R. Yochanan said 'These [cures discusses 
          in Gitin] returned me to my youth (fertility)!'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #4:</font></b> A woman may use this cure (she is not 
          commanded to have children).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> According to R. Yochanan ben Berokah, who says 
          that '...Va'Yomer Lahem Peru u'Rvu' was also said to 
          women (they are also commanded to have children), how can 
          we answer?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #5:</font></b> A woman who is sterile or too old to have 
          children may use this cure.
<br>
<b><font>2) INGESTING VINEGAR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one's teeth hurt, he may not Yigma (ingest) 
          vinegar [on Shabbos];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  He may eat vegetables dipped in vinegar - it is no 
          problem if he gets healed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  If one's loins hurt, he may not anoint with wine or 
          vinegar; he may anoint with oil, but not rose oil;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Princes may anoint their wounds with rose oil;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon says, all of Benei Yisrael are like princes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Rav Acha bar Papa) Question:</font></b> Our Mishnah 
          forbids vinegar for aching teeth - this implies that 
          vinegar helps teeth - but it says 'Ka'Chometz l'Shinayim 
          uche'Ashan la'Einayim'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> The verse alludes to vinegar that comes from 
          grapes that did not yet ripen; the Mishnah discusses 
          vinegar from proper grapes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> Both discuss vinegar from proper grapes - 
          vinegar helps for a wound, but it loosens healthy teeth 
          [from the gums].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> He may not Yigma vinegar.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Contradiction (Beraisa):</font></b> He may not Yigma (put in his 
          mouth) and spit out, but he may ingest and swallow.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Resolution #1 (Abaye):</font></b> Also the Mishnah forbids [only] to 
          put in his mouth and spit out.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Resolution #2 (Rava):</font></b> It forbids even to swallow, but 
          only after eating (it is clearly to heal); the Beraisa 
          permits before eating (this is a normal alternative to 
          dipping in vinegar).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Migo (since) it is permitted before eating, it 
          should also be permitted after eating (even though it is 
          clearly to heal) - Rava himself applies Migo!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rava):</font></b> [On Yom Kipur, one may not bathe for 
               pleasure. One may immerse in a Mikveh on Shabbos - 
               even though this resembles fixing something, we do 
               not forbid, because it looks like he is merely 
               cooling off. Even though this reason does not apply 
               to Yom Kipur (one may not enter water to cool off), 
               it is permitted even then, for there is nothing 
               permitted on Shabbos that is forbidden on Yom Kipur 
               [on account of Melachah] - since it is permitted in 
               Shabbos, it is permitted on Yom Kipur.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rava retracted from his explanation of our 
          Mishnah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps he retracted from saying 'Migo'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Surely he did not, a Beraisa says so!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> Anyone who needs to immerse [to become 
               permitted to her husband] may immerse normally on 
               Tish'ah b'Av or Yom Kipur.
<br>
<b><font>3) ANOINTING WITH ROSE OIL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one's loins hurt [...R. Shimon says, all of 
          Benei Yisrael are princes].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Aba bar Zavda citing Rav):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. 
          Shimon.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Rav does not hold like R. Shimon (Rashi - 
          regarding all laws or all his leniencies of Shabbos; 
          Tosfos - we are thinking that R. Shimon permits when he 
          does not intend to be cured, for it is Davar she'Eino 
          Miskaven)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Simi bar Chiya citing Rav):</font></b> It is forbidden to 
               wrap a rag tightly in the spout of a barrel on Yom 
               Tov [even though he does not intend to squeeze out 
               liquid]!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: GOING TO THE MIKVAH ON TISH'AH B'AV AND YOM KIPPUR</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Beraisa states that one who is obligated to immerse in a Mikvah may immerse in the usual manner even on Tish'ah b'Av and on Yom Kippur. Is a woman permitted to immerse on those days if her Tevilas Mitzvah falls at that time?
</p><p>
The Rishonim write that she is not permitted to immerse, even though there may be reasons to permit it.
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Beitzah (18b, DH Kol) explains that today, our Tevilos are not considered to be 'in their proper time.' We do not follow the exact schedule of counting days as prescribed by the Torah; rather, we are much more stringent and we add days in order to be safe. Consequently, a woman's Tevilas Mitzvah never occurs at the Torah-prescribed time, and thus she may not immerse on Tish'ah b'Av or Yom Kippur. It was permitted to immerse on those days only because 'it is a Mitzvah to perform Tevilah in its proper time' (Beitzah 18b).
</p><p>
(b) Tosfos (ibid.) cites <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who says that we rule l'Halachah that immersion at the proper time is <i>not</i> a Mitzvah. According to that opinion, it was never permitted to perform Tevilah on Tish'ah b'Av and Yom Kippur.
</p><p>
(c) The <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> cited by <b>TOSFOS</b> here (DH Lo) explains that immersion at the proper time, even on Tish'ah b'Av and Yom Kippur is permissible only in order to handle and to eat Taharos, but not in order to be permitted to one's husband. Today, since we do not immerse for Taharos, a woman is not permitted to immerse in order to be permitted to her husband. (The concession to immerse for Taharos was made due to a special necessity, out of fear that one might come into contact with Taharos right away and be Metamei them. Immersion for one's husband, though, is not immediately necessary, because marital relations are forbidden on Yom Kippur and Tish'ah b'Av.)
</p><p>
(d) <b>TOSFOS</b> here (DH Tovlin) cites the Gemara in Ta'anis (13a) which says in the name of Rebbi Chanina Segan ha'Kohanim that even if Tevilah in its proper time is a Mitzvah, it is not proper to perform Tevilah on Tish'ah b'Av because 'it is worthwhile to lose a day of Tevilah once a year in mourning over the Beis ha'Mikdash.' The Yerushalmi rules like Rebbi Chanina Segan ha'Kohanim.
</p><p>



<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 554:8 and 613:12) rules that a woman may not immerse in a Mikvah on Tish'ah b'Av or Yom Kippur because of the first reason -- our Tevilos are not considered to be in their proper time.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) 'BNEI MELACHIM' AND 'DAVAR SHE'EIN MISKAVEN'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> In the Gemara, Rav says that the Halachah follows Rebbi Shimon who maintains that all Jews are considered to be 'Bnei Melachim.' The Gemara asks how Rav can rule in accordance with Rebbi Shimon here, while elsewhere -- with regard to Davar she'Ein Miskaven -- he rules <i>against</i> Rebbi Shimon and says that Davar she'Ein Miskaven is forbidden.
</p><p>
What is the Gemara's question? One ruling is not related to the other. Rav's ruling against Rebbi Shimon with regard to Davar she'Ein Miskaven should have no bearing on his ruling with regard to 'Bnei Melachim'!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHBA</b> explains that the Gemara knew from an accepted tradition that the most lenient ruling that Rebbi Shimon issued in the laws of Shabbos is the ruling that all Jews are considered to be 'Bnei Melachim.' Consequently, if Rav rules in accordance with that leniency, then certainly he must agree with all the other, less lenient, rulings of Rebbi Shimon.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> says that, on the contrary, it was an accepted tradition that according to Rav the Halachah does not follow Rebbi Shimon <i>at all</i> in the laws of Shabbos. Accordingly, the Gemara is asking how Rav can rule like Rebbi Shimon even in this single Halachah of 'Bnei Melachim.'
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Abaye and Rava both say that R. Shimon agrees 
          about a Pesik Reisha, it is as if he intended.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Rav Chiya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav that 
          the Halachah follows R. Yehudah [regarding Davar she'Eino 
          Miskaven], Rav Chanan bar Ami said in the name of Shmuel 
          that the Halachah follows R. Shimon;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Chiya bar Avin directly cited these rulings in 
               the name of Rav and Shmuel.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava and R. Chiya bar Avin):</font></b> Rav says that the 
          Halachah follows R. Shimon, but for a different reason.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does this mean?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> R. Shimon holds that rose oil heals 
               [nevertheless it is permitted, for we never permit 
               something to some people and forbid it to others]; 
               Rav permits because he holds that it does not heal.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> In the Mishnah, Chachamim permit princes 
               to anoint their wounds with rose oil - this implies 
               that [all agree that] it heals!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Shimon permits, even where rose oil is scarce 
          [and expensive, and it is evident that he anoints to 
          heal]; Rav permits only where it is abundant;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> In Rav's area, it was abundant.
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>***** <b>PEREK V'ELU KESHARIM</b> *****
</b></font></center><p>
<br><br><b><font>4) KNOTS ONE IS LIABLE FOR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One is liable for [tying] knots of 
          camel-drivers and sailors (these will be explained);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Just like one is liable for tying them, he is liable for 
          untying them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Meir exempts for any knot that one can untie with one 
          hand.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What are knots of camel-drivers and 
          sailors?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> They are the knots tied through the ring 
               in a camel's nose or through the ring in a mast or 
               at the head of a ship.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> These are not permanent!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They are the rings themselves tied through the 
          nose or through the mast or head of a ship.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Meir):</font></b> One is exempt for any knot that one 
          can untie with one hand.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Achdevoy):</font></b> What is R. Meir's opinion about 
          a [tight] bow?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he exempts because one can untie with one hand, 
               he would also exempt for a bow;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> But if he exempts because it is loose, he would 
               Mechayev for a tight bow!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  This question is not resolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> There are knots for which one is exempt, 
          unlike those of camel-drivers and sailors:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A woman may tie the straps of her cloak, threads of 
               her hairnet, a belt fastened by straps, laces of 
               shoes and sandals, drawstrings on pouches of wine 
               and oil, and a garment around a pot of meat.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, one may tie [a rope] in front 
          of an animal to prevent it from going out.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> It says that there are knots for which 
          one is exempt, unlike those of camel-drivers and sailors;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> One is exempt, but they are forbidden.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Contradiction (Seifa):</font></b> A woman may tie the straps of 
               her cloak - this is l'Chatchilah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It means, there are knots for which one is 
          exempt, unlike those of camel-drivers and sailors, e.g. 
          knots tied through rings a camel's nose, in a mast or at 
          the head of a ship;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One is exempt, but they are forbidden (for sometimes 
               one leaves them tied for a while);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Other knots are permitted - a woman may tie the 
               straps of her cloak...
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) THE SOURCE FOR THE MELACHAH OF TYING</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah and Gemara discuss the Melachah of Kosher, tying a knot. <b>RASHI</b> (DH v'Eilu Kesharim) writes that we derive the Melachah of tying from the repairs that were done to threads that tore in the Yeri'os of the Mishkan. Rashi (DH Kach Hu Chayav) writes further that we learn the Melachah of untying (Matir) from the Chilazon trappers, who would untie their nets in order to adjust the sizes while hunting for the Chilazon.
</p><p>


However, the Gemara earlier (74b) concludes that the source for both tying and untying is from the Chilazon trappers! Why, then, does Rashi here cite a different source for the Melachah of tying? (<b>TOSFOS REBBI AKIVA</b>, Mishnayos)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>TIFERES YISRAEL</b> (Boaz, #1) suggests that according to Rashi, a person is Chayav even when he ties an <i>unprofessional</i> knot (see Insights to Shabbos 112:1). Therefore, the nets of the Chilazon trappers cannot be the source for the Melachah of tying, because the knots that those trappers tied were professional knots. For this reason, Rashi explains that the source for the Melachah of tying (even unprofessional knots) is from the Yeri'os that needed to be repaired.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RAV YAAKOV</b> D. HOMNICK (in <b>NACHALAS YAKOV</b> #38) writes that Rashi here (DH v'Elu) explains that in order to be Chayav for tying, one must tie a permanent knot. The knots tied by the Chilazon trappers in their nets were not permanent (since they were untied and retied elsewhere). Therefore, Rashi cites the torn Yeri'os as the source for the Melachah of tying.
</p><p>
Rav Homnick adds that in the Gemara earlier (74b), Abaye says that the source for the Melachah of tying is from the Yeri'os that tore. Rava argues and says that the source is from the nets of the Chilazon trappers, which is how the Gemara concludes. The argument there, he suggests, is based on where permanent knots were tied. Abaye maintains that the knots tied in the nets of the Chilazon trappers were not considered permanent (as we mentioned above), whereas Rava considers them to be permanent. Since the simpler case of permanent knots is Abaye's source of the torn Yeri'os, Rashi cites that opinion here. (Rava, on the other hand, prefers the less simple explanation in favor of deriving both tying and untying from a single source.)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) PERMITTED KNOTS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> [She may tie] straps of her cloak.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This is obvious (she unties it every day)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, there is one strap above and one 
          below - it suffices to untie one to remove her cloak;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One might have thought that we are concerned lest 
               she Mevatel one (permanently leave it tied) - the 
               Mishnah teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> ...Threads of her hairnet.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This is obvious (she unties it every day)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, it is tied loosely, she need not 
          untie it to remove it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One might have thought that we are concerned lest 
               she permanently leave it tied - the Mishnah teaches, 
               she would not do so, for she does not want to uproot 
               hairs.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> [One may tie] laces of shoes and sandals.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #1):</font></b> If one untied laces of shoes or sandals he 
          is Chayav Chatas;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #2):</font></b> He is exempt, but it is forbidden;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #3):</font></b> It is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  There are contradictions regarding shoes and sandals!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Resolution - part 1 (regarding shoes):</font></b> Shoemakers tie the 
          lace onto the shoe permanently, one is liable for this 
          (we need not specify tying or untying, the law of both is 
          the same);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One is exempt for tying like Rabanan, but it is 
               forbidden (it is not so tight, i.e. one can remove 
               the shoe without untying it);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> It is permitted to tie like people of Mechuza (a 
               city - it is very tight, and one must untie it each 
               night to remove the shoe).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Resolution - part 2 (regarding sandals):</font></b> Shoemakers 
          permanently tie the strap onto the sandal of Yishmaeli 
          merchants - one is liable for this;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Other people tie the strap on by themselves (it is 
               not permanent, but it can be left for a while) - one 
               is exempt for this, but it is forbidden;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> In a sandal used by two people, like Rav Yehudah's, 
               it is permitted (each must retie it to fit his foot, 
               it is untied every day).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  Rav Yehudah the brother of Rav Sala Chasida had one pair 
          of sandals - sometimes he would go out with it, sometimes 
          his son would. On Shabbos, he asked Abaye if he may tie 
          it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Abaye:</font></b> One is Chayav Chatas for this!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Rav Yehudah:</font></b> I did not understand why it is forbidden 
          [l'Chatchilah] - can you say that one is liable for it?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Abaye:</font></b> Why should it be permitted?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Rav Yehudah:</font></b> Even during the week, sometimes I go out 
          with it, sometimes my son does.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Abaye:</font></b> If so, it is permitted.
<br>
<b><font>2) A SANDAL WITH A BROKEN STRAP</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Yirmiyah was walking in a Karmelis, the strap of his 
          sandal snapped; he asked R. Avahu what to do.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  R. Avahu:</font></b> Take a moist reed which an animal could eat, 
          and tie it on [in place of the strap].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  (A sandal has an Ozen (flap) and Tarsis (a place in which 
          the straps are fixed) on each side.) The [outer] Tarsis 
          of Abaye's sandal snapped [in the Chatzer]; he asked Rav 
          Yosef what to do.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Rav Yosef:</font></b> Leave it!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Abaye:</font></b> Why is this different than the case of R. 
          Yirmiyah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Rav Yosef:</font></b> There, the sandal was in an unguarded place - 
          yours is in a guarded place.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> Why can't I move it? It is a Kli, I 
          could wear it on the other foot! (It is shameful to wear 
          it when the outer strap is broken, but if worn on the 
          other foot, the broken strap would be on the inside and 
          not noticeable!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Since R. Yochanan answered according 
          to R. Yehudah, this shows that the Halachah follows R. 
          Yehudah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What does this refer to?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> If the two Oznayim or two Tarsiyos 
               of a sandal snapped; or if the entire sole came off, 
               it is Tahor; 
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> If one Ozen or Tarsis snapped, or if most of the 
               sole came off, it is Tamei;
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, if an inner Ozen or Tarsis snapped 
               it is Tamei, if an outer one snapped it is Tahor.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> They argue about Shabbos [when the 
               outer strap snapped] just like they argue about 
               Tum'ah, but not regarding Chalitzah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What does R. Yochanan hold regarding 
               Chalitzah (which Tana agrees to the other)?
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Answer #1:</font></b> He holds that Chachamim consider it a Kli 
               for Shabbos, just like for Tum'ah, but not regarding 
               Chalitzah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b><font> Rejection (Mishnah):</font></b> If Chalitzah was done on the 
               right foot with a left shoe, it is Kosher. (If the 
               outer Ozen of a left sandal snapped, it is still a 
               Kli because he can wear it reversed on the right 
               foot, then the inner Ozen will be broken - all 
               consider this a proper sandal, surely it is valid 
               for Chalitzah!)
       <br><b>   <b><font>9.  </font></b><font> Answer #2:</font></b> He holds that R. Yehudah does not 
               consider it a Kli for Shabbos, just like it is not a 
               Kli for Tum'ah, but it is a Kli for Chalitzah.
        <br><b>  <b><font>10. </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Chalitzah on the right foot with a left 
               shoe is Kosher when it is a proper left shoe - here, 
               R. Yehudah says that it is not a proper left shoe 
               (he is Metaher)!
        <br><b>  <b><font>11. </font></b><font> Correction:</font></b> Rather, R. Yochanan said...'And 
               similarly regarding Chalitzah';
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  He teaches that Chalitzah with a left shoe is 
                    Kosher only when it is a proper left shoe. 
                    (This must be like R. Yehudah - it is no 
                    Chidush according to Chachamim, it is a proper 
                    sandal in any case,)
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) DIFFERENT TYPES OF KNOTS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara explains that there are three types of knots with regard to the Melachah of tying: a knot that is forbidden to be tied and for which one who ties is Chayav; a knot that is forbidden to be tied but one is Patur for tying; a knot which is permitted to be tied. There are three different approaches in the Rishonim to explain these three categories of knots.
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> maintains that one is Chayav for tying a knot to last for a <i>long</i> time, regardless of the quality of the knot (that is, whether it is a professional knot or an unprofessional one). One is Patur for tying a knot that is meant to last for an <i>intermediate</i> amount of time, although tying such a knot is still forbidden. One is permitted to tie a knot that is meant to last only for a <i>short</i> amount of time.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RE'EM</b> cited by the <b>MORDECHAI</b> writes that if one has <i>definite</i> intention to leave the knot for a long time, he is Chayav. If his intention is that he <i>might</i> leave it for a long time, but he is not sure, then he is Patur. If he has <i>definite</i> intention to leave the knot only for a short time, he is permitted to tie it.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RIF</b> and the <b>RAMBAM</b> rule that one is Chayav only when two criteria are met. First, the knot must be <i>professionally</i> tied, and it must be <i>long lasting</i>. If only one of these conditions are met, then one is exempt. If neither condition is met, then one is permitted to tie the knot. What defines a professionally-tied knot? The <b>SHILTEI GIBORIM</b> explains that it is a strong knot. The <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> adds that it is a knot that will never become undone by itself.
</p><p>


<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 317:1) cites the opinion of the Rif and Rambam (c), that one is permitted to tie a knot only when it is not a professional knot and it is tied to last for a short time. The <b>REMA</b> cites the opinion of Rashi (a), that if it is a permanent knot, one is Chayav regardless of the expertise of the knot.
</p><p>
All of the abovementioned Rishonim (Rashi (a), Re'em (b), and the Rif and Rambam (c)) require that the knot be permanent in order for one to be Chayav for tying it. What is a permanent knot that one may not tie, and what is a temporary knot that one may tie?
</p><p>
From the words of Rashi and the Rif, it appears that a permanent knot is defined as a knot that one ties in order to leave it as a knot forever, with no intention to <i>ever</i> untie it. 
</p><p>
A knot that is not permanent and that one may tie l'Chatchilah is defined by the <b>REMA</b> in the name of the <b>TUR</b> and <b>MORDECHAI</b> as a knot that one ties with intention to leave it for less than <i>one week</i>.
</p><p>
<b>RABEINU YERUCHAM</b> (cited by the <b>BEIS YOSEF</b>) writes that one may tie a knot as long as he intends for it to last for less than <i>three days</i>.
</p><p>

The Rema cites the <b>KOL <b><b>BO</b></b></b> who rules like Rashi here, who says that a temporary knot that one may tie on Shabbos is one that is normally untied <i>every day</i>.
</p><p>
The Rema rules that, in practice, one should be stringent and not tie a knot on Shabbos with intention that it last for more than one day.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) A SHOE THAT TORE ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara says that Rebbi Yirmeyah was once walking in a Karmelis when one of the straps of his sandal tore. Rebbi Avahu permitted him to tie a temporary string around it so that he could wear it until he arrived home. The Gemara relates a second incident, in which Abaye's shoe tore while he was in a private courtyard, and Rav Yosef ruled that the broken shoe was Muktzah. The Gemara says the difference between the two cases is that in the first case, the shoe tore while Rebbi Yirmeyah was in an unprotected area, and in the second case, the shoe tore while Abaye was in a protected area.
</p><p>
(a) What difference does it make where the person was when his shoe tore? If it is Muktzah, it should be Muktzah regardless of where it tore!
</p><p>
(b) Why should the shoe be Muktzah altogether? Since it can be used for another useful purpose, it should be permitted to be handled.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>RASHBA</b> cites the <b>RA'AVAD</b> who says that in the first case, Rebbi Yirmeyah was walking in a public area when the shoe tore. If he would have left the torn shoe there, someone else would have taken it to use for some other purpose. Thus, his broken shoe was considered to have be usable for some other purpose. In contrast, in the second case, Abaye's shoe tore in a private area (a Chatzer). Since no one else would have found the shoe there and taken it to use for another purpose, and the owner of the shoe had intention to mend the broken strap, the broken shoe indeed had no other permissible use on Shabbos. The owner had intention to use it <i>only</i> as a shoe, and he definitely will mend it after Shabbos to use as a shoe. Therefore, it is Muktzah.
</p><p>
(For this reason, an object such as a button that falls off of one's garment in a private area (such as one's home) and which one definitely will sewn back on after Shabbos should be considered Muktzah.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This shows that R. Yochanan rules like R. 
          Yehudah - but R. Yochanan said that the Halachah follows 
          a Stam (anonymous) Mishnah!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> If an Ozen of a [Tamei Medras] sandal 
               snapped and was fixed; it is Tamei Medras.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> This is even if the outer Ozen snapped!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, it is only if the inner Ozen snapped.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> If the outer Ozen snapped, it is Tahor;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If so, why does the Seifa teach that if the 
          other Ozen snapped and was fixed; it is Tahor from Medras 
          but Tamei like Maga (something that touched a) Medras - 
          the distinction is not whether one or two snapped, 
          rather, if it was the right or left Ozen!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yitzchak bar Yosef):</font></b> We establish the Mishnah 
          to discuss a sandal with four Oznayim and four Tarsiyos, 
          to avoid a contradiction in the words of R. Yochanan.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Ravin):</font></b> Rav rules like R. Yehudah, R. Yochanan does not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But R. Yochanan answered according to R. 
          Yehudah - surely he holds that the Halachah follows R. 
          Yehudah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Amora'im argue about the opinion of R. Yochanan.
<br>
<b><font>3) PANIM CHODOSHIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a (wooden) Kli of a Ba'al ha'Bayis (i.e. 
          not a craftsman) has a hole k'Rimon (the size of a 
          pomegranate), it is Tahor.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (Chizkiyah):</font></b> If a Kli had a hole the size of 
          k'Zayis, and it was sealed, then got another hole the 
          size of k'Zayis, and it was sealed, and so on, until the 
          total size of the holes was k'Rimon, what is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> [We can learn from what] you taught 
          us about a sandal!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Chizkiyah):</font></b> If (a sandal became Tamei Medras (an Av 
               ha'Tumah) through a Zav or Nidah), and one Ozen 
               snapped and it was fixed, it is [still] Tamei Medras 
               (this is true even if it was not fixed - we say that 
               it was fixed on account of the next clause); 
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If the other Ozen snapped and it was fixed, it is 
               not Tamei Medras, it only (a Rishon), like something 
               that touched a Medras.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> When the first Ozen snapped, it did not 
               lose Tum'as Medras, because the second strap was 
               intact - likewise, when the second Ozen snaps, it 
               should not lose Tum'as Medras on account of the 
               other intact (replaced) strap!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer (Chizkiyah):</font></b> There are Panim Chodoshim 
               (enough of the sandal (that received Tum'ah) is 
               missing to Metaher, therefore, even when it is fixed 
               the initial Tum'ah does not return) - the same 
               applies to your question!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (Chizkiyah):</font></b> You are not human (your Chachmah 
          is angelic)! 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (Chizkiyah):</font></b> You are an [ideal] person! 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (R. Zeira):</font></b> If the early Chachamim were like sons of 
          angels, we are like people; if they were like people, we 
          are like donkeys;	
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> I do not refer to the donkeys of R. Chanina ben Dosa 
               or R. Pinchas ben Ya'ir [they could tell if food was 
               Tevel, and would not eat it], rather, to regular 
               donkeys.
<br>
<b><font>4) OTHER PERMITTED KNOTS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> [One may tie] drawstrings of pouches of wine 
          and oil.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This is obvious (one unties it for every use)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, the pouch has two openings from 
          which one can pour - one might have thought that we are 
          concerned lest he permanently leave one tied - the 
          Mishnah teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> [A garment] around a pot of meat.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This is obvious! 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, the pot has a spout - one might have 
          thought that we are concerned lest he permanently leave 
          the opening covered [and always remove through the spout] 
          - the Mishnah teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Eliezer ben Yakov):</font></b> One may tie [in front 
          of an animal].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This is obvious (one unties it to let it out)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Version #1 - Answer:</font></b> The case is, the rope is tied on 
          both sides of the opening - one might have thought that 
          we are concerned lest he will permanently leave one end 
          tied - the Mishnah teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Version #2 - Answer:</font></b> The case is, there are two ropes, 
          one above the other - one might have thought that we are 
          concerned lest he will permanently leave the top rope 
          tied (the animal can crouch under it) - the Mishnah 
          teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Eliezer ben Yakov.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Abaye:</font></b> This implies that Chachamim argue with him!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Rav Yosef:</font></b> What difference does it make (either way, the 
          Halachah follows him)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Abaye:</font></b> Should we say teachings like a song [for which 
          there is no need]?!
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) THE STATUS OF A REPAIRED SHOE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites the Mishnah in Kelim (26:4) which teaches that if one of the loops (for the strap) on the side of a sandal that was Tamei (with Tum'as Midras) tears and is repaired, the sandal remains Tamei with Tum'as Midras. If the second loop (on the other side of the sandal) tears and is repaired, the sandal is no longer Tamei with Tum'as Midras, because the sandal is unfit for use without loops for the strap. Nevertheless, it is Tamei with Tum'as <i>Maga</i> of Midras, because the repaired shoe 'touched itself' (while it was Tamei with Tum'as Midras) before the second loop tore.
</p><p>
Why does the Mishnah in Kelim say that the loops were repaired after they tore? The Halachah should be the same even when the loops were <i>not</i> repaired! When the first loop tears, the sandal is still usable and thus it retains its Tum'as Midras, and, when the second loop tears, it is no longer usable as a shoe and therefore it loses its Tum'as Midras but remains Tamei with Tum'as Maga Midras!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Mai Lav) explains that it indeed does not make a difference whether the loops were repaired or not. Even if they were not repaired, after the first loop tears the sandal is still Tamei with Tum'as Midras, and after the second loop tears it is still Tamei with Tum'as Maga Midras. This is because even without its loops, the sandal is a usable utensil and can become Tamei with Tum'as <i>Maga</i> Midras. The reason why the Mishnah in Kelim says that the loop was repaired is because it wants to teach that <i>even though</i> the first loop was repaired and the sandal became a completely usable sandal, it still loses its Tum'as Midras when the second loop tears, because the sandal is not the same sandal that it was originally.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Sandal) points out that Rashi here (in DH Mai Lav) follows his original explanation, which is printed in the margin of Rashi in our texts. According to that explanation, even though the straps of the shoe are torn, the shoe is still considered to be a usable utensil because it can be used for some other useful purpose. However, in his final version, Rashi (DH Aval Tamei) writes that once both straps are torn, the shoe is <i>not</i> considered a utensil at all, and if both straps were to be torn at one time, the shoe would be completely Tahor. Therefore, the Mishnah must say that the first strap was repaired before the second strap broke, because, otherwise, once the second strap broke and both straps were broken at the same time, it would not be a utensil and would not become Tamei at all.
</p><p>
Tosfos proves from the Mishnah in Kelim (26:4) that if both straps were torn at the same time, the sandal would indeed be Tahor, like the second version in Rashi. However, Tosfos points out that the <i>second</i> strap that tore did <i>not</i> have to be repaired in order for the shoe to be Tamei with Tum'as Maga Midras. The only reason the Mishnah says that the second strap was repaired is to be consistent with the first part of the Mishnah, which necessarily states that the <i>first</i> strap was repaired (for if it was still ripped at the time that the second one ripped, the shoe would be entirely Tahor). (See also Insights to Eruvin 24:2.)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) DECREES ON ACCOUNT OF TYING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may tie a belt on a bucket [to hang it 
          over a pit, for one will not Mevatel it], one may not tie 
          it with a rope;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah permits.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, the general rule is, one is not liable 
          for any knot that is not permanent.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What kind of rope is it?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> It is a regular rope.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> R. Yehudah would not permit this, it is 
               permanent [he will Mevatel it]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is a weaver's rope [he needs it, he will not 
          Mevatel it].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> Chachamim decree to forbid a weaver's rope on 
          account of a regular rope, R. Yehudah does not decree.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Contradiction (Beraisa):</font></b> If the rope of a bucket broke, 
          one may not tie it, he may make a bow; 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah permits to tie a belt, but not to make a 
               bow (he decrees on account of a knot)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah and Chachamim both contradict themselves!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer - part 1 (for Chachamim):</font></b> Chachamim forbid a 
          weaver's rope on account of a regular rope, for these can 
          be confused - they do not forbid a bow on account of a 
          knot, people do not confuse them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer - part 2 (for R. Yehudah):</font></b> R. Yehudah does not 
          forbid a bow on account of a knot - rather, he holds that 
          a bow is considered a knot!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (R. Aba):</font></b> One may bring a rope from his house and tie a 
          cow to a feeding trough.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question (R.  Acha bar Papa):</font></b> If a rope is tied on a 
          feeding trough, one may tie the other end to a cow, and 
          vice-versa;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One may not bring a rope from his house and tie a 
               cow to a feeding trough.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Aba):</font></b> The Beraisa forbids a regular rope, I 
          permit weaving ropes.
<br>
<b><font>2) MOVING KELIM USED FOR WEAVING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel):</font></b> On Shabbos, one may move 
          Kelim used for weaving.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> May one move the upper and lower warp beams?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Rav Yehudah could not give a clear answer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman citing Shmuel):</font></b> On Shabbos, one may move 
          Kelim used for weaving, even the upper and lower warp 
          beams, but not Amudim (beams of a vertical (women's) 
          loom.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question (Rava):</font></b> Why are Amudim forbidden?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> This is because one makes a little hole in 
          the ground when moving them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> The holes come by themselves!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> If one stores (Ramban - a bunch of) 
               turnips or radishes under a vine, leaving some of 
               the leaves (Rav Hai Gaon - some of them) exposed, we 
               are not concerned for Kil'ai ha'Kerem, Shemitah, or 
               Ma'aser; 
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> One may remove it on Shabbos (we are not concerned 
               for making a hole)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> In the field one will not even out the holes, in 
          the house one might.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Yochanan):</font></b> On Shabbos, may one move Kelim 
          used for weaving, such as the upper and lower warp beams?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yehudah bar Livai):</font></b> One may not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This is because they are not normally moved 
          during the week [because they are so heavy, they are 
          exclusively for weaving].
<br>
<b><font>3) GARMENTS OF SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may fold garments, even four or five 
          times;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  One may spread bed linens on Shabbos night for the sake 
          of Shabbos day, but not on Shabbos for the sake of Motzei 
          Shabbos;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yishmael says, one may fold garments or prepare a bed 
          on Yom Kipur for the sake of Shabbos; Chelev of [Korbanos 
          of] Shabbos may be offered on [the following night, even 
          if it is] Yom Kipur, but Chelev of Yom Kipur may not be 
          offered on [Motzei Yom Kipur if it is] Shabbos;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Akiva says, Chelev of Shabbos may not be offered on 
          Yom Kipur, nor may Chelev of Yom Kipur be offered on 
          Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - D'vei R. Yanai):</font></b> One person may fold garments, 
          but two may not [fold together, for it evens out creases, 
          this is like fixing garments];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Even one person is permitted only new garments, not old 
          ones;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Even new garments are permitted only if they are white, 
          not if they are colored;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Even white garments are permitted only if he has nothing 
          else to wear on Shabbos - if not, they are forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> The household of R. Gamliel would not fold 
          white garments because they had others to wear.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> If one an wear different garments on Shabbos 
          than he wore during the week, he should do so;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If not, he should wear his garments lower down [to 
               show that he does not need to do Melachah].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Safra):</font></b> This looks like haughtiness!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Since he does so only on Shabbos, it does not 
          look like haughtiness.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  'V'Chibadto' - your clothing on Shabbos should not be 
          like your clothing on a weekday;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan called his garments 'What honors me'.
<br>
<b><font>4) DISTINGUISHING SHABBOS FROM A WEEKDAY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  'Me'Asos Derachecha' - your should not walk on Shabbos 
          the same way you walk on a weekday;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  'Mi'Mtzo Cheftzecha' - your [business] desires are 
          forbidden, those of Shomayim (e.g. Tzedakah) are 
          permitted;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  'V'Daber Davar' - your speech on Shabbos should not be 
          like your speech on a weekday (one should not talk idly 
          or discuss business);
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE WEAVER'S UTENSILS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> Rav Yehudah says in the name of Shmuel that the rods of a weaver may be handled and moved on Shabbos. Rav Yehudah was in doubt whether one may also move the beams of the loom (which hold the warp threads). The Gemara concludes that Shmuel permitted moving the beams of the loom.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Mutar l'Taltelan) explains that one is permitted to handle the rods of the weaver because they are not utensils which are designated for a forbidden labor ('Melachtan l'Isur'). He explains (DH Mahu) that the reason Rav Yehudah was in doubt whether one may handle the beams of the loom is because perhaps they are objects which <i>are</i> designated for a forbidden labor. Rashi points out that if the weaver is strict not to use the utensil for any other purpose, then it is considered an object designated for a forbidden labor. If, however, the weaver does not care if someone uses it for another purpose, it is not considered designated for a forbidden labor.
</p><p>
(a) Rashi's explanation is difficult to understand. First, even if the weaver allows these utensils to be used for other purposes, their <i>primary</i> use is for weaving, which is a forbidden labor. Therefore, these utensils should still be considered to be utensils designated for a forbidden labor, regardless of whether the weaver <i>also</i> uses it for other purposes! (<b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b>)
</p><p>
(b) Second, the Gemara says that one is permitted to move these items. Rashi explains that they may be moved because they are not utensils designated for a forbidden labor. However, even if they were designated for a forbidden labor, they should still be permitted to be moved if one needs to use them for a permitted purpose, or if one needs the place on which they are resting ('l'Tzorech Gufan u'Mekoman'). Shmuel should have said that one is permitted to move items from the sun into the shade, since the weaver is not strict about using them for other purposes!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> It seems that when Rashi uses the term 'designated for a forbidden labor,' he does not refer to the normal concept of utensils that are used for a Melachah that is Asur ('Kli she'Melachto l'Isur'). Rather, Rashi refers to what the Gemara later (123a) describes as a utensil which is Muktzah due to its great value ('Muktzah Machmas Chisaron Kis'), which a person uses exclusively for the purpose for which it was made and is careful not to use it for any other purpose. Since the owner designates a place to store the utensil so that it not become dirty or ruined, and he actively sets it aside from use on Shabbos, it becomes Muktzah due to its great value. <i>This</i> is the type of utensil which Rashi describes when he says 'Melachtan l'Isur' -- that is, a utensil which a person designated to use <i>only for a prohibited purpose</i>. Such a utensil becomes Muktzah according to everyone (even Rebbi Shimon), and it may not be moved even l'Tzorech Gufo u'Mekomo.
</p><p>
When Rashi here says that the weaver is not particular about using his rods for other purposes and they are 'not designated for a forbidden labor,' he does not mean that they are not a <i>Kli she'Melachto l'Isur</i>. Rather, Rashi means that we might have thought that the item no longer has any use whatsoever, since it was set aside not to be used at all on Shabbos. This type of Muktzah may not be moved <i>at all</i>.
</p><p>
Rashi uses the term 'Kli she'Melachto l'Isur' to refer to a utensil that is set aside not to be used for <i>any</i> purpose on Shabbos in other Sugyos as well. The Gemara later (123a) discusses items that are Muktzah due to their great value, because they are set aside from being used for any purpose. Rashi says that a slaughterer's cutting board and a mortar also fall into this category. However, Rashi earlier (81a, DH Madochah Ketanah) says that a mortar is a <i>utensil designated for a forbidden labor</i> ('Kli she'Melachto l'Isur'). Apparently, Rashi uses the term 'Kli she'Melachto l'Isur' to refer to a utensil which was set aside from being used for <i>any</i> purpose on Shabbos.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'Davar' - speech is forbidden, thoughts are 
               permitted. (Shulchan Aruch - to fulfill Oneg, one 
               should consider that all of his work is finished.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We understand all of these, except for 'you 
          should not walk on Shabbos the same way you walk on a 
          weekday' - how should it be different?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> Rav Huna taught, if one encounters a stream, 
          if he can leave one foot on the ground and step across, 
          it is permitted [even to jump]; if not, he may not [jump 
          across].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> Should he rather go around? This causes 
          him extra walking! If he will walk through the water, his 
          garments may get soaked and he will come to squeeze out 
          water!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rather, since there is no alternative, he may jump 
               across.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 - Question (Rebbi):</font></b> May one take a big step 
          (more than one Amah, which is normal) on Shabbos?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Answer (R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi):</font></b> One may not even 
               during the week, for it diminishes one part in 500 
               of his sight; it is restored at Kidush of Shabbos 
               night (by drinking from the wine. Big steps are 
               forbidden on a weekday, just like on Shabbos (except 
               for running to a Mitzvah) - the Gemara does not 
               explicitly say how they are different! Ritva - sight 
               lost for big steps on Shabbos is not returned at 
               Kidush. Maharsha - the difference is, there is also 
               an Isur on Shabbos ('Me'Asos Derachecha'), whereas 
               on a weekday it is forbidden only because it harms 
               sight. Ben Yehoyada - Rebbi only asked [and accepted 
               the answer] regarding Shabbos - Rebbi permits during 
               the week and forbids on Shabbos.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question (Rebbi):</font></b> May one eat dirt on Shabbos (is it 
          forbidden on account of healing)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi):</font></b> It is forbidden even 
          during the week, for it makes one sick.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (R. Ami):</font></b> Eating dirt of Bavel is like eating one's 
          ancestors [that died in the flood].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  Some say, it is like eating Shekatzim u'Rmashim (vermin 
          that died in the flood) - 'Va'Yimach Es Kol ha'Yekum...'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Reish Lakish):</font></b> Bavel is called 'Shin'ar' because all who 
          died in the flood Nin'aru (were shaken) to there;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Bavel is called 'Metzulah' (Yeshayah 
          44:27) because all who died in the flood Nitztalelu 
          (sunk) to there.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  Some say, it is like eating Shekatzim u'Rmashim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Surely, they dissolved!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, they did - however, since it is forbidden 
          to eat because it is unhealthy, Chachamim forbade also on 
          account of Shekatzim u'Rmashim.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A certain man ate clean dirt and cress; it sprouted 
               in his stomach, reached his heart and killed him.
<br>
<b><font>5) BO'AZ AND RUS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> 'V'Rochatzt va'Sacht v'Samt <i>Simlosayich</i>' - 
          this refers to Shabbos clothing.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> 'Ten l'Chacham v'Yechkam Od' - this refers 
          to Rus and Shmuel;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> No'omi told Rus to bathe, anoint, put on her Shabbos 
               clothing and go to the granary - Rus went to the 
               granary first (lest people see her adorned and 
               suspect that she is a harlot);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Eli told Shmuel '... Im Yikra Elecha v'Amarta Daber 
               Hash-m Ki Shome'a Avdecha', but Shmuel omitted 
               'Hash-m' (lest it was not Hash-m, and he would say 
               His name in vain).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> 'Va'Telach va'Savo va'Telaket' - Rus kept 
          coming and going until she found proper people to go 
          with;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> 'Va'Yomer Bo'az...l'Mi ha'Na'arah ha'Zos' - did 
          Bo'az normally ask about girls?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Elazar):</font></b> He saw Chachmah in her - she would 
          take two sheaves (of Leket, i.e. what falls during 
          harvesting), but not three (for three are not considered 
          Leket).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Beraisa):</font></b> He saw Tzeni'us in her - she would 
          gather attached [Shichchah] while standing, she would sit 
          to pick up from the ground [to avoid bending over].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> 'V'Cho Tidbakun Im Na'arosoi' - did Bo'az 
          normally cling to girls?! (Maharsha - he told her to 
          cling to his girls - nevertheless, since 'Divuk' is 
          usually between man and wife, we expound the word. Bach's 
          text - did Bo'az normally speak with girls?!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Elazar):</font></b> Because 'Va'Tishak Orpah la'Chamosah 
          v'Rus Dovkah Bah', he realized that it is permitted to 
          cling to her (Iyun Yakov - if Rus would be forbidden to 
          Benei Yisrael, No'omi would not have agreed to convert 
          her);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> 'Va'Yomer Lah...Goshi Halom' - he hinted to 
          her that Malchus Beis David will descend from her, like 
          it says '...Havi'osani Ad Halom'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> 'V'Tovalt Pitech ba'Chometz' - this teaches 
          that vinegar is good in hot weather.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani):</font></b> He hinted to her that someone 
          will descend from her whose deeds are as bitter as 
          vinegar, i.e. Menasheh.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> 'Va'Teshev mi'Tzad ha'Kotzrim' - to the 
          side, but not amidst the harvesters - he hinted to her 
          that Malchus Beis David will split (10 tribes will be 
          given to Yarov'om).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> 'Va'Yitzbat Lah Kali va'Tochal' - 
          'va'Tochal' in the days of David, 'Va'Tisba' - in the 
          days of Shlomo; 'Va'Tosar' - in the days of Chizkiyah. 
          (Rashi - this refers to the Malchus that will come from 
          her; Maharsha - it refers to herself.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Some say, 'va'Tochal' in the days of David and 
               Shlomo, 'Va'Tisba' in the days of Chizkiyah, 
               'Va'Tosar' - in the days of Rebbi;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> It was taught that the one appointed over Rebbi's 
               horses and mules was richer than Shevor Malka (the 
               Persian king).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> 'Va'Tochal' in this world, 'Va'Tisba' - in 
          Yemos ha'Moshi'ach; 'Va'Tosar' - in the world to come.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE PROPER WAY TO WALK ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa teaches that one should not walk on Shabbos the same way he walks during the week. The Gemara asks what type of walking is permitted during the week but is not permitted on Shabbos. The Gemara answers by citing a dialogue between Rebbi and Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi, who discussed whether one is permitted to walk with Pesi'ah Gasah (large steps) on Shabbos. When Rebbi asked whether one may walk with Pesi'ah Gasah on Shabbos, Rebbi Yishmael responded that not only is walking in such a way forbidden on Shabbos, but it is also forbidden during the week, because Pesi'ah Gasah takes away 1/500th of a person's eyesight.
</p><p>
How does the Gemara answer its original question, what type of walking is permitted during the week but prohibited on Shabbos? The Gemara concludes that walking with Pesi'ah Gasah is prohibited even during the week, and thus there is no difference between Shabbos and the rest of the week!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi said that the reason one may not walk with Pesi'ah Gasah during the week is because it is dangerous to one's health. However, there is no prohibition or enactment per se that forbids it. On Shabbos, though, there is an <i>enactment</i> that forbids one from walking with Pesi'ah Gasah, in addition to the health risk that it poses. The prohibition is Divrei Kabalah, as derived from the verse in Yeshayah. (<b>MAHARSHA</b>)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>SEFAS EMES</b> explains that when Rebbi questioned whether Pesi'ah Gasah is permitted on Shabbos, he was not referring to the normal form of Pesi'ah Gasah. Walking with large steps is certainly forbidden on Shabbos as well as during the week. Rather, he was asking whether <i>normal</i>-sized steps are permitted on Shabbos, or whether one must walk with <i>smaller</i> than usual steps on Shabbos. When the Beraisa says that one should walk differently on Shabbos, it means that one should take smaller steps than he takes during the week. Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi apparently misunderstood Rebbi's question and thought that he was referring to taking larger than normal steps on Shabbos, and that is why he responded that even during the week such steps are prohibited.
</p><p>
This may be the meaning of the phrase, 'Pos'im Bo Pesi'ah Ketanah' -- 'We walk on it (Shabbos) with <i>small</i> steps,' which we say in the Shabbos song, 'Kol Mekadesh Shevi'i.' On Shabbos we must walk differently than we walk during the week, and we must take smaller steps than usual (like Rebbi's ruling).
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Ta'anis (10b, DH Pesi'ah Gasah) concludes that it is only the first step of Pesi'ah Gasah that takes away a fraction of one's eyesight. The subsequent steps have no effect. Accordingly, the Gemara here may mean that even after one has already walked one step with Pesi'ah Gasah, he is still not permitted to walk another Pesi'ah Gasah on Shabbos even though it is no longer harmful to his eyesight. Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi merely said that one should not enter a situation in which he is permitted to walk with Pesi'ah Gasah in the first place. Rather, one should be careful never to take the first step of Pesi'ah Gasah.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE HONOR OF GARMENTS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> 'V'Sachas Kevodo Yekad Yekod ki'Kod Esh' - 
          [the bodies of Sancheriv's army, which are] under their 
          Kavod (garments) were burned - their garments themselves 
          were not burned;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan does not explain Kavod literally (their 
               bodies) - he calls his garments Machbedosai. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> Tachas (in place of) their actual Kavod 
          (bodies, which were burned, will be ashes);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani):</font></b> [Their Neshamos, which are] 
          under their Kavod (bodies) were burned (but not their 
          bodies), like the death of Nadav and Avihu.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Just like there, the Neshamos were burned and the 
               bodies were intact, also here.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Acha):</font></b> What is the source that changing 
          garments shows honor to Hash-m?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'U'Foshat Es Begdav v'Lovash Begadim Acherim' 
          (inferior garments are used to take ashes from the 
          Mizbe'ach outside);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Tana d'vei R. Yishmael):</font></b> The Torah teaches proper 
               conduct - one should not mix a cup for his master in 
               the same garments he wore while cooking food.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> It is disgraceful for a Chacham to go 
          out with patched shoes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But R. Acha bar Chanina went out with patched 
          shoes!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Nachman):</font></b> It is disgraceful 
          only if there is a patch on top of a patch.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> If Revav (Rashi - a stain of fat; Rif 
          - of wax or pitch) is found on a Chacham's garment, he is 
          Chayav Misah [bi'Dei Shomayim] - 'Kol Mesan'ai Ohavu 
          Maves' - we read this 'Masni'ai' (those who make people 
          hate 'me' (Torah)).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Version #1 - Rashi - (Ravina):</font></b> This applies to Revad (a 
          stain of semen).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> They do not argue - one is liable for Revav only on 
               the outermost garment, one is liable for semen even 
               on an inner garment.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Version #2 - Ran - (Ravina):</font></b> This applies to Revad (dry 
          blood, people will suspect that he had relations with a 
          Nidah).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> They do not argue - one is liable for blood only on 
               the outermost garment, but on an inner garment 
               people will attribute it to a louse.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Version #3 - Tosfos Avodah Zarah 33a - (Ravina):</font></b> This is 
          called Revad. (end of Version #3)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> What do we learn from 
          'Ka'Asher Holach Avdi Yeshayahu Arum v'Yachef [Shalosh 
          Shanim]'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He was naked, i.e. in worn out garments; he was 
          barefoot, i.e. in patched shoes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Revav on a [donkey] saddle is a Chatzitzah 
          [regarding immersion];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, the Shi'ur to be Chotzetz is 
          an Italian Isar (a coin).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b></b>  Revav on both sides of a garment is a Chatzitzah, on one 
          side it is not a Chatzitzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, even from one side it is Chotzetz.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Question (Reish Lakish):</font></b> On a saddle, is it a Chatzitzah 
          only from both sides, or even from one side?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(t)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Chanina):</font></b> I did not hear about this, but we 
          can learn from a related law:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah - R. Yosi):</font></b> A stain on a garment of Bana'im 
               (this will be explained) from one side is Chotzetz, 
               on a boor's garment it is Chotzetz only if it is on 
               both sides.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> A saddle should not be more prestigious than a 
               boor's garment (on one side it is not Chotzetz)!
<br>
<b><font>2) DIFFERENT LEVELS OF CHACHAMIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Who are the Bana'im mentioned in the Mishnah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> They are Chachamim, who engage 
          in building the world all their days.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Which Chacham is believed to 
               say that he recognizes that a lost object is his 
               [even though he cannot give a sign]?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It is one who is particular about his 
               garment, that if he put it on inside-out he reverses 
               it (Rashi; Maharsha - he is concerned for a stain 
               even from one side, even if it will not show 
               (therefore a stain on one side is Chotzetz). 
               Shulchan Aruch also requires that he never lies, 
               with only three exceptions, based on Bava Metzi'a 
               24A.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Which Chacham is qualified 
               to be appointed over the Tzibur?
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Version #1 (Rashi) Answer:</font></b> He must know everything 
               so well that he can answer questions on it, even 
               'Kalah' (a minor tractate, it can be found after 
               Maseches Avodah Zarah). 
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Version #2 (Tosfos) Answer:</font></b> He must know <i>something</i> 
               so well that he can answer questions on it, even 
               'Kalah' (laws of the festival that are learned 30 
               days beforehand, most people are familiar with it).
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Question (R. Yochanan):</font></b> For which Chacham must 
               residents of the city do his work?
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It is one who abandons his business and 
               engages [only] in spiritual matters.
       <br><b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b></b> He must know something so well that he can answer 
               questions on it, even 'Kalah'.
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  This refers only to things like digging, i.e. 
                    essentials that he cannot do himself.
       <br><b>   <b><font>9.  </font></b><font> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> A Chacham is one who can answer a 
               question about any Halachah.
        <br><b>  <b><font>10. </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the application of this?
        <br><b>  <b><font>11. </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It is to be appointed over the Tzibur - if 
               he knows one Maseches, he can be appointed where 
               they are learning that Maseches; if he knows 
               everything, he can be appointed Rosh Yeshivah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Reish Lakish):</font></b> Bana'im are bathhouse 
          attendants, they have Ulyarim (special towels for 
          important people).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> [Since a small stain is a Chatzitzah,] this 
          implies that Ulyarim are white (people are not concerned 
          for small stains on colored clothing).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But R. Yanai told his children 'Do not bury me 
          in black clothing - perhaps I will merit to be in Gan 
          Eden, I will look like a mourner among Chasanim (people 
          rejoicing);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Also, do not bury me in white clothing - perhaps I 
               will be in Gehinom, I will be like a Chasan among 
               mourners!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Rather, bury me in Ulyarin garments of overseas.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Outer Ulyarin garments are red, inner Ulyarin 
          garments are white.
<br>
<b><font>3) IS SHABBOS MORE KODESH THAN YOM KIPUR?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Yishmael):</font></b> One may fold...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Yishmael):</font></b> 'Olas Shabas b'Shabato' (we 
          expound as if it says 'b'Shabas'), Chelev of [Korbanos 
          of] Shabbos may be offered on [another Shabbos, i.e.] Yom 
          Kipur;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva says, it teaches that Chelev of Shabbos may 
               be offered on Yom Tov.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps it may be offered even on Yom 
               Kipur!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> 'B'Shabat*o*' excludes this.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yishmael holds that we may bring Nedarim and Nedavos 
          on Yom Tov - we do not need a verse to permit Chelev of 
          Shabbos on Yom Tov, therefore it teaches about Yom Kipur;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva holds that we may bring Nedarim and Nedavos 
               on Yom Tov, so we need the verse to permit Chelev of 
               Shabbos on Yom Tov.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A STAIN ON THE CLOTHING OF A TALMID CHACHAM</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Rebbi Yochanan states that a Talmid Chacham who walks in public with a 'Revav' (stain) on his clothing is Chayav Misah. Ravina states that he may not go out with a 'Revad.' The Gemara explains that they do not argue; one refers to the Talmid Chacham's overgarment, and the other refers to the shirt underneath his overgarment. 
</p><p>
What is the difference between a 'Revav' and 'Revad,' and what is the difference between a stain found on the overgarment and a stain found on the shirt beneath the overgarment?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> says that a 'Revav' is a stain of oil or fat. Oil or fat is forbidden only on one's overgarment, where it can be seen by all.
</p><p>
'Revad' is a stain of Shichvas Zera. A stain of 'Revad' is forbidden even on one's undergarment, because it gives the impression of Shichvas Zera and is exceedingly disgraceful.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> says that 'Revav' refers to a stain of tar. The reason a Talmid Chacham may not walk out with a tar-stain on his garment is because it causes people to stay away from him in fear that the tar on his clothing might touch and stain <i>their</i> clothes. Tar is forbidden even on one's shirt <i>beneath</i> the overgarment for this reason. 
</p><p>
'Revad' refers to blood. A Talmid Chacham may not go out with a bloodstain because it looks like a 'Kesem' (a bloodstain from a woman who was a Nidah). People might think that it is from a woman and they will stay away from him, because they are disgusted by the blood. However, a bloodstain is forbidden only when it is on the overgarment, because when it is on the undergarment, everyone will assume that it came from a bug that he killed (or from a scratch on his body), and they will not think it is a 'Kesem' and stay away from him.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> When Yom Kipur is on Erev Shabbos, they do not 
          Toke'a (blow the Shofar at the beginning of Shabbos (35B) 
          - Teki'ah shows that the coming day is more Kodesh);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> When Yom Kipur is on Motzei Shabbos, we do not say 
               Havdalah [in Shemoneh Esre - Havdalah shows that the 
               day that ended was more Kodesh].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (R. Zeira):</font></b> In Bavel, we used to say that all agree to 
          this Beraisa; 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> In Eretz Yisrael, Yehudah the son of R. Shimon ben 
               Pazi said that it is like R. Akiva - but R. Yishmael 
               would say that we Toke'a (when Shabbos follows Yom 
               Kipur; R. Chananel - when Yom Kipur follows 
               Shabbos), to publicize that [Shabbos is more Kodesh, 
               i.e.] we may offer Chelev of Shabbos on Yom Kipur
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> I told him that Kohanim are zealous (they already 
               know this; we need not Toke'a for them).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question (Mar Kashisha brei d'Rav Chisda):</font></b> We do not say 
          that Kohanim are zealous!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> [The Teki'os in the Mikdash on Erev 
               Shabbos include] three to cease people from 
               Melachah, and three to separate Kodesh from profane.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Elsewhere, Abaye answered, they are 
          for others (not Kohanim) in Yerushalayim - here also, 
          they are for others in Yerushalayim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> [According to everyone] we should Toke'a to 
          publicize that Kenivas Yerek (Rashi - cutting vegetables; 
          Ran - rinsing them) is permitted on Yom Kipur from the 
          time of Minchah [to be eaten at night, on account of Inuy 
          (Rashi - he deals with food but may not eat it, 
          increasing anguish; Ba'al ha'Ma'or - to lessen his 
          anguish that he will not have food ready to break his 
          fast after dark) - this is forbidden on Shabbos]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> We do not override Shevus (the 
          Isur mid'Rabanan of Teki'ah) to publicize that something 
          is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi):</font></b> We override Shevus 
          only for something that applies right away, but not for 
          Kenivas Yerek (R. Chananel - it is not permitted until 
          Minchah; Rashi - the suggestion was to Toke'a when 
          Shabbos begins on Motzei Yom Kipur, to teach about future 
          years).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> We do not always override Shevus for something 
          that applies right away!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> When Yom Tov is on Motzei Shabbos, they 
               do not Toke'a, we say Havdalah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> According to Rav Shisha, we should Toke'a to 
               publicize that one may slaughter immediately!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Conclusion:</font></b> We must answer like Rav Yosef.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (R. Zeira):</font></b> When Yom Kipur is on Shabbos, Kenivas Yerek 
          is forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Support (Rav Mana - Beraisa) Question:</font></b> What is the source 
          that when Yom Kipur is on Shabbos, Kenivas Yerek is 
          forbidden?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It says 'Shabason' - cease.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What does this teach about?
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> It forbids Melachah.
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> It explicitly says 'Lo Sa'aseh Chol 
                    Melachah'!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It forbids Kenivas Yerek.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> When Yom Kipur is on Shabbos, Kenivas 
          Yerek is permitted [after Minchah].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa) Question:</font></b> What is the source that when 
          Yom Kipur is on Shabbos, Kenivas Yerek is forbidden?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> 'Shabason' - cease.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What does this teach about?
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> It forbids Melachah.
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> It explicitly says 'Lo Sa'aseh Chol 
                    Melachah'!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It forbids Kenivas Yerek.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer (and Defense of Suggestion):</font></b> Really, it adds an 
          Isur [derived from an] Ase in addition to the Lav 
          forbidding Melachah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Support (for R. Yochanan - Beraisa):</font></b> When Yom Kipur is on 
          Shabbos, Kenivas Yerek is permitted [after Minchah].
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) BLOWING THE SHOFAR TO INDICATE THAT WORK IS PERMITTED</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Shisha maintains that the Shofar is blown on Shabbos or a festival to indicate that something that is forbidden today will become permitted tomorrow. The Gemara says that according to Rav Shisha, when Yom Tov occurs on Motza'i Shabbos the Shofar should be blown right after Shabbos to indicate that it is now permitted to slaughter an animal.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara mention specifically Motza'i Shabbos which coincides with <i>Yom Tov</i>? The Gemara should ask that the Shofar should be blown <i>every</i> Motza'i Shabbos to indicate that Melachah is no longer forbidden. (<b>RITVA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>RITVA</b> answers that the Gemara knows that there is no reason to blow the Shofar simply to indicate that things that were forbidden until now have become permitted. Rather, the Gemara assumes that if something now becomes permitted which is also a <i>Mitzvah</i> to do, then the Shofar should be blown. On Yom Tov, slaughtering an animal is not only permitted, but it is a Mitzvah as well (for the sake of Simchas Yom Tov).
</p><p>


<font><b>3) CLIPPING LEAVES ON YOM KIPPUR THAT FALLS ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> On a regular Yom Kippur, one is permitted to clip the leaves ('Kenivas Yerek') off of a [detached] vegetable towards the evening in preparation for the meal for that night. Rav Huna says that when Yom Kippur occurs on Shabbos, one may not clip the leaves off of a vegetable. The Gemara cites a Beraisa which seems to support this ruling from a verse in the Torah.
</p><p>
Rebbi Yochanan, however, says that one is permitted to clip the leaves of a vegetable on Yom Kippur that occurs on Shabbos. The Gemara attempts to refute Rebbi Yochanan's opinion from the Beraisa. The Gemara answers that when the Beraisa says that 'Kenivas Yerek' is forbidden on Yom Kippur that falls on Shabbos, it does not refer to clipping the leaves off of a detached vegetable, but it refers to a Melachah d'Oraisa of cutting the vegetable from the ground (the Melachah of Kotzer). The Gemara explains that even though there is already a negative prohibition (Lo Ta'aseh) that forbids Melachah, the Beraisa teaches that there is also a Mitzvas Aseh that commands us to refrain from doing Melachah on Shabbos.
</p><p>
According to the Gemara's answer, what does this Mitzvas Aseh have to do with Yom Kippur that falls on Shabbos? The prohibition, and Mitzvas Aseh, against doing Melachah apply <i>every</i> Shabbos!
</p><p>
In addition, if the Beraisa derives from the verse that there is a Mitzvas Aseh to refrain from Melachah, why does the Beraisa specify this particular Melachah of cutting a vegetable from the ground?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> and the <b>RAMBAN</b> explain that the Gemara is not explaining the Beraisa. The Beraisa indeed contradicts the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan. (There is another Beraisa which supports Rebbi Yochanan, as the Gemara says later). Rather, the Gemara here is merely answering how <i>Rebbi Yochanan</i> learns the verse that the Beraisa cites, so that the verse itself will not be a contradiction to Rebbi Yochanan's opinion. Rebbi Yochanan learns from this verse the Isur Aseh against performing <i>any</i> Melachah on Shabbos.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH l'Olam l'Melachah) understands that the Gemara is indeed explaining the Beraisa when it says that the 'Kenivas Yerek' mentioned in the Beraisa is a Melachah d'Oraisa (see <b>RAV ELAZAR MOSHE HA'LEVI HOROWITZ</b>). How, then, does Tosfos understand the Beraisa? Why does the Beraisa discuss Yom Kippur that falls on Shabbos, and why does it mention in particular the Melachah of Kenivas Yerek?
</p><p>
Perhaps Tosfos understands the Gemara like the <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b>. The Tosfos ha'Rosh explains that when the Gemara says that the Beraisa derives from the verse that Melachah is also forbidden due to a Mitzvas Aseh as well as a Lo Ta'aseh, it does not mean that there is actually a Mitzvas Aseh <i>d'Oraisa</i> to refrain from Melachah. Rather, the verse is merely an Asmachta, a textual support for a rabbinical enactment. The Rabanan wanted to teach that when one clips the leaves off of a detached vegetable on Yom Kippur that occurs on Shabbos, he should be careful to clip only the leaves, and not to clip small pieces of the vegetable, for that would constitute an Isur d'Oraisa (Tochen). The Rabanan relate this warning to us in the form of a verse from the Torah (as though their warning is contained in the Torah). When the Rabanan in the Beraisa cite the verse in the Torah, they are teaching that it is forbidden to clip the leaves off of a vegetable in a way that is forbidden to do on Shabbos.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) PREPARING FOOD ON YOM KIPUR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> On Yom Kipur, one may break open nuts and 
          pomegranates after Minchah, on account of Inuy.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The household of Rav Yehudah would cut (or rinse) 
          cabbage; the household of Rabah would peel gourds.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Rabah saw that they were starting before Minchah - [to 
          get them to cease,] he told them that a letter came from 
          Eretz Yisrael saying that R. Yochanan forbids.
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>***** <b>PEREK KOL KISVEI HA'KODESH</b> *****
</b></font></center><p>
<br><br><b><font>2) KISVEI HA'KODESH IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may save all Kisvei ha'Kodesh from a fire 
          [on Shabbos], whether or not we read in them;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Even if they are written in another language, they 
          require Genizah (one may not abandon them);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  We may not read in them for this draws people away from 
          [the lecture in] the Beis Medrash.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Rav Huna):</font></b> If Kisvei ha'Kodesh were written in 
          Targum [Arame'ic translation] or any other language 
          [other than Lashon ha'Kodesh], we may not save them from 
          a fire;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> We may save them from a fire.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  They do not argue according to the opinion that permits 
          to read in them - surely, he permits saving them;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> They argue according to the opinion that forbids 
               reading them:
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Rav Huna forbids saving them, for we may not read 
               them;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Rav Chisda permits, to avoid disgrace to Kisvei 
               ha'Kodesh.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> One may save all Kisvei ha'Kodesh 
          from a fire, whether or not we read in them, and even if 
          they are written in another language.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Those we read are Nevi'im (i.e. 
               Haftorah), those we do not read in are Kesuvim;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Even if they are written in another language and we 
               may not read in them, nevertheless we may save them 
               - this refutes Rav Huna!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Counter-question (Rav Huna - Seifa):</font></b> They require 
          Genizah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If we save them on Shabbos, there is no need to say 
               this (surely, we do not abandon them)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Huna):</font></b> Those we read in are Nevi'im, those 
          we do not read in are Kesuvim;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This discusses Seforim in Lashon ha'Kodesh - if they 
               are written in another language, we may not save 
               them - nevertheless, they require Genizah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Chisda):</font></b> Those we read in are Nevi'im, 
          those we do not read in are Kesuvim;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Even if they are written in another language, we 
               save them;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Mekek (worm-eaten) Seforim require Genizah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question (against Rav Huna - Beraisa):</font></b> If they are 
          written in Targum or any other language, we may save them 
          from a fire.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Huna):</font></b> This Tana holds that one may read in 
          them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question (against Rav Huna - Beraisa #1):</font></b> If they were 
          written in Giftis, Midis, Ivris (Lashon ha'Kodesh, but 
          the letters are not [Ashuris] like we write them today), 
          Ilmis or Yevanis, even though one may not read them, we 
          may save them from a fire.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Huna):</font></b> Tana'im argue [as I and Rav Chisda 
          do]:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa #2):</font></b> If they are written in Targum or any 
               other language, we may save them from a fire;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi says, we may not save them.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> R. Yosi:</font></b> A case occurred, my father found R. Gamliel 
               at the table of Yochanan ha'Nazuf reading Sefer Iyov 
               in Targum.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> My father:</font></b> Your grandfather R. Gamliel [ha'Zaken] 
               stood on a step in Har ha'Bayis; someone brought to 
               him Sefer Iyov in Targum - he commanded to bury it 
               under the rocks.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> R. Gamliel himself [accepted this and] commanded to 
               bury the Sefer.
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, they dumped a kneading 
               trough full of mud over it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Objection #1 (Rebbi):</font></b> Where would they find mud in 
               Har ha'Bayis? (Cement was used for building!)
       <br><b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b><font> Objection #2 (Rebbi):</font></b> It is forbidden to overtly 
               ruin Kisvei ha'Kodesh!
       <br><b>   <b><font>9.  </font></b><font> Rebbi:</font></b> Rather, we leave them in an unguarded place, 
               they perish by themselves.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Which Tana'im argue like Rav Huna and Rav 
          Chisda?
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) REFERRING TO ONE'S FATHER BY HIS NAME</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Yosi relates an incident in which Aba Chalafta visited Raban Gamliel b'Ribi and found him reading from a book of Iyov written in Aramaic.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> points out that Chalafta was the father of Rebbi Yosi, who related this incident about his father. How could Rebbi Yosi refer to his father by name? The Gemara in Kidushin (31b) says that one may not call one's father by his name! (<b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> cites his son, <b>REBBI SHLOMO EIGER</b>, who answers that Rashi in Sanhedrin (100a, DH b'Shmo) says that one may say the name of one's Rebbi only if he prefaces it with a phrase of praise and deference (such as 'Rebbi u'Mori'). The same applies to one who mentions the name of his father. When he prefaces it with a term of deference, he may say his father's name. 'Aba' is a term of respect (see, for example, Berachos 16b), and therefore Rebbi Yosi was permitted to refer to his father by his name, since he prefaced the his father's name with the term 'Aba.'
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> The first Tana is like Rav Chisda, R. 
               Yosi is like Rav Huna.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> Perhaps the first Tana permits reading in 
               them and R. Yosi forbids [but no one holds like Rav 
               Chisda, who permits saving something that one may 
               not read]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yosi is like Rav Huna, the Tana of Beraisa #1 
          is like Rav Chisda.
<br>
<b><font>3) SAVING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT A PROPER SEFER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> [Written] Berachos and Kemi'im, even though 
          they have letters [of Hashem's name] and verses from many 
          Parshiyos, may not be saved from a fire, one must let 
          them burn;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is why Chachamim said that one who writes 
               Berachos is like one who burns Torah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> A case occurred, people told R. Yishmael about 
               someone who was writing Berachos. When R. Yishmael 
               was ascending a ladder [to inspect], the man sensed 
               this, and stashed loads of them in a flask of water.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> R. Yishmael:</font></b> You will be punished more for this 
               [putting them in water] than for writing them!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (Reish Galusa):</font></b> If they were written in Lashon 
          ha'Kodesh in yellow dye, red dye, sap or vitriol, do we 
          save them?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> We ask according to Rav Huna and Rav Chisda.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Perhaps Rav Huna forbids saving only when they are 
               written in other languages, but he agrees here, for 
               they are in Lashon ha'Kodesh;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Perhaps Rav Chisda permits saving only when they are 
               written in ink, for they will last, but he agrees 
               here, for they will not last!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah bar Rav Huna):</font></b> We may not save them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Reish Galusa:</font></b> But Rav Hamnuna taught a Beraisa that 
          permits!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Rabah bar Rav Huna:</font></b> If a Beraisa permits, I retract.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Which Beraisa permits?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Ashi - Beraisa):</font></b> The only difference between 
          Megilah [Esther] and [other] Seforim is that Seforim may 
          be written in any language, but Megilah may be written 
          only in Ashuris, in a Sefer, in ink.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Huna bar Chaluv):</font></b> If a Sefer Torah [is 
          worn] and does not have 85 intact letters, like the 
          Parashah 'Va'Yhi bi'Nso'a ha'Aron' may we save it from a 
          fire? (Ran - he asks according to Rebbi (below), who 
          considers this Parashah itself to be a Sefer. Rashba - 
          Rav Huna bar Chaluv knew the Beraisa (o) which requires 
          85 - he asked because he thought that Beraisa (j) argues 
          with it.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Rav Nachman:</font></b> Why don't you ask about saving Parashas 
               'Va'Yhi bi'Nso'a ha'Aron', itself, if it is missing 
               a letter? 
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rav Huna:</font></b> Since that Parashah has Hashem's name, 
               surely we save it even if less than 85 letters 
               remain - I ask about when [less than 85] letters 
               remain [without Hashem's name].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> One may not save it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> If Targum (words in Aramaic) were 
          written like Mikra (in Lashon ha'Kodesh), or vice-versa, 
          or if it was written in Ivris, we may save it from a fire 
          - there is no need to say that we may save Targum in 
          Sefer Ezra, Daniel or the Torah (where the text itself is 
          Aramaic)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Where do we find Targum in the Torah?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> [Lavan called Gal Ed] 'Yegar Sahadusa'.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> We save it, even though it is less than 85 letters!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa teaches that Targum can complete the 
          Shi'ur of 85 letters.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Must the 85 letters be near each other, or may 
          they be scattered?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Huna):</font></b> They must be near each other.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Chisda):</font></b> They may be scattered.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> If 85 intact letters can be found in 
          a deteriorated Sefer Torah, like Parashas 'Va'Yhi 
          bi'Nso'a ha'Aron', we may save it from a fire; if not, 
          not.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> ['Can be found' connotes that they are scattered] - 
               Rav Huna is refuted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Chisda, on behalf of Rav Huna):</font></b> The letters 
          are in words (the argument is about scattered letters 
          that do not form words).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) HALACHAH: PUTTING PRAYERS AND SCRIPTURE INTO WRITING</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that one is not allowed to write books of Tanach in any language other than Hebrew, and one is not allowed to write blessings at all. Why, then, is it the widespread practice today to write such things?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>ROSH</b> writes that the Gemara in Gitin (60a) teaches that although it was originally prohibited to write any part of Torah she'Ba'al Peh (the Oral Torah), the Rabanan permitted it when they saw that the Torah might, G-d forbid, become forgotten unless. Their ruling was based on the verse, 'A time to act for Hash-m, they [may] annul Your Torah' (Tehilim 119:126). For the same reason, today we are permitted to write the books of Tanach in other languages (and, since such books may be written, they may also be saved from a fire even on Shabbos). The same applies to writing prayers and blessings (Sidurim). The same reasoning permits writing all of these books in inks other than 'Dyo,' the special ink required for writing Torah scrolls.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MAGEN AVRAHAM</b> (OC 334:12) adds in the name of the <b>TESHUVOS HA'REMA</b> (#34) that the letters that appear in our Sefarim are not the same as the letters used in a Torah scroll. The Rema says that perhaps the printers developed this new typeface in order to permit them to print Divrei Torah, because the prohibition of writing Torah she'Ba'al Peh applies only to writing with Kesav Ashuris (the type of letters used in a Torah scroll).
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE PARSHA OF 'VA'YEHI BINSO'A'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> There are Simanim (an inverted Nun before and 
          after) Parashas 'Va'Yhi bi'Nso'a ha'Aron', to teach that 
          this is not its proper place;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Rebbi says, there are Simanim because this Parashah 
          itself is a Sefer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Like which Tana is the following teaching?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani):</font></b> 'Chatzvah Amudeha Shiv'ah' 
               - these are the seven Seforim of the Torah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is like Rebbi (from the beginning of Bamidbar 
          until 'Va'Yhi bi'Nso'a', Parashas 'Va'Yhi bi'Nso'a', and 
          the rest of Bamidbar count like three Seforim).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana that argues with Rebbi?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is R. Shimon ben Gamliel:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> Ultimately, 
               Parashas 'Va'Yhi bi'Nso'a' will be uprooted from 
               here and written in its proper place;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> It was written here to separate between two 
               punishments of Benei Yisrael - the latter was 
               'Va'Yhi ha'Am k'Mis'onanim' (they complained about 
               the journey, and Hash-m killed some of them] ;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> The former was 'Va'Yis'u me'Har Hash-m';
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Rav Chama bar Chanina):</font></b> They veered from 
                    Hash-m (Rashi - they started lusting for meat 
                    (even though this is written <i>after</i> Va'Yhi 
                    ha'Am k'Mis'onanim. Tosfos - they were eager to 
                    leave Sinai lest they get more Mitzvos. 
                    Maharsha - we expound this, for it is not 
                    called Har Hash-m anywhere else. The punishment 
                    was that the Aron was distanced three days from 
                    Benei Yisrael, corresponding to three days in 
                    which they did not learn.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the proper place for this Parashah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> It belongs by the Degalim (grouping of 
          the Shevatim into four sets of three).
<br>
<b><font>2) DO WE SAVE 'GILYONIM' OF 'SEFARIM' ON SHABBOS?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Do we save Gilyonim (blank areas of parchment) 
          of a Sefer from a fire?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Beraisa):</font></b> If 85 intact letters can be found in 
          a deteriorated Sefer Torah, like Parashas 'Va'Yhi 
          bi'Nso'a ha'Aron', we may save it from a fire; if not, 
          not.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> We may not save it on account of the margins!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> A deteriorated Sefer Torah is different (once 
          it deteriorated, also the margins lost their Kedushah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Beraisa):</font></b> If the letters in a Sefer Torah were 
          erased, if 85 intact letters can be found, like Parashas 
          'Va'Yhi bi'Nso'a ha'Aron', we may save it from a fire; if 
          not, not.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> We may not save it on account of the parchment that 
               used to be written on!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> We do not ask about the parchment that used to 
          be written on - surely, its Kedushah is on account of the 
          writing, when the writing departs, its Kedushah departs;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> We ask about the margins above and below, between 
               Parshiyos, between columns [of text], and at the 
               beginning and end of a Sefer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> Even so, the Beraisa answers our question (we 
          save only on account of 85 letters, not on account of 
          these margins)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> The case is, all of these margins were cut off 
          [only the parchment that used to be written on remained].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Mishnah):</font></b> (Chachamim decreed that Kisvei 
          ha'Kodesh are Metamei hands (above, 14A).) The margins 
          above and below, between Parshiyos, between columns, and 
          at the beginning and end of a Sefer are Metamei hands. 
          (This shows that they have Kedushas Sefer!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> Perhaps that is only when the writing is 
          intact (we ask about after the writing was erased).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #4 (Beraisa):</font></b> One may not save Gilyonim or Sifrei 
          Minim (those written by heretics) from a fire, we let 
          them burn, with the Azkaros (names of Hash-m).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> This refers to Gilyonim of a proper 
               Sefer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, it refers to Gilyonim of Sifrei Minim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> One may not save Sifrei Minim, there is no need 
          to say that one may not save their Gilyonim!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It means, Sifrei Minim are like Gilyonim (blank 
          parchments that were never written on).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One may not save Gilyonim or Sifrei Minim from 
          a fire;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi says, on a weekday one cuts out the Azkaros and 
          buries them, the rest we burn.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  R. Tarfon:</font></b> I swear, if I find one I will burn it with the 
          Azkaros!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If one is pursued by one who wants to kill him or by 
               a snake, one may enter a house of idolatry, but not 
               a Min's house - idolaters do not recognize Hash-m 
               and deny Him (this is how they were raised), Minim 
               recognize Hash-m and deny Him!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> It says about Minim 'V'Achar ha'Deles veha'Mezuzah 
               Samt Zichronech' (they remember Hash-m and cast Him 
               aside).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b></b>  R. Yishmael says, we learn from a Kal va'Chomer - to make 
          Shalom between a man and his wife (a Sotah suspected of 
          adultery) the Torah commands to erase Hashem's name, 
          which was written in Kedushah, into water - Minim, who 
          arouse envy and animosity between Yisrael and Hash-m, all 
          the more so their Azkaros should be eradicated - 
          'Mesan'echa Esna uvi'Skomemecha Eskotat; Tachlis Sin'ah 
          Seneisim'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b></b>  Just like we do not save them from a fire, we do not save 
          them [even during the week] from a house that collapsed, 
          from water, or anything [else] that will destroy them.
<br>
<b><font>3) REFUTING HERETICS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (Yosef bar Chanin):</font></b> Do we save Seforim of Beis 
          Avidan (debates between Minim and Yisrael)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Avahu could not give a definitive answer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Rav would not go to Beis Avidan, all the more so not to 
          Beis Nitzrefei (a particular house of idolatry);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Shmuel would not go to Beis Nitzrefei, but he would go to 
          Beis Avidan.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  People asked Rava why he doesn't go to Beis Avidan; he 
          attributed this to a date tree in the way. They offered 
          to uproot it; he said that still, it would be difficult 
          to pass through the area (a very frail excuse).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Mar bar Yosef knew the people there, he did not fear to 
          go - once, he went and was almost killed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer's wife, Eima Shalom, was the sister of R. 
          Gamliel. One of their neighbors was a Min who publicized 
          that he judges without taking bribes (he took covertly). 
          They wanted to mock him (publicly expose him).
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE PARAGRAPH OF 'VA'YEHI BI'NESO'A HA'ARON'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says that the paragraph of 'va'Yehi bi'Neso'a' serves as a separation between two incidents of calamity that befell the Jewish people.
</p><p>
However, there is no clear mention of any calamity in the verses prior to the passage of 'va'Yehi bi'Neso'a.' Moreover, in the verses that follow that passage, there are <i>two</i> incidents of calamity with no separation between them -- the incident of the complainers (Mis'onenim), and the incident of the lust for meat (Kivros ha'Ta'avah). What calamities does the passage of 'va'Yehi bi'Neso'a' separate?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that the Jewish people already complained for meat when they left Har Sinai, and thus the calamity of Kivros ha'Ta'avah occurred as they left Har Sinai. When the verse before the passage of 'va'Yehi bi'Neso'a' says that 'they traveled <i>from the mountain of Hash-m</i> for three days,' it refers to the calamity of Kivros ha'Ta'avah, at which the Jewish people 'traveled away from Hash-m' and rebelled.
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAN</b> (Bamidbar 10:35) explains that Rashi means that even though the Torah describes the incident of Kivros ha'Ta'avah later, it does not mean that the incident took place then. Rather, in the verses later, the Torah is describing what happened earlier.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Pur'aniyos) writes that the calamity that happened at Har Sinai, before the passage of 'va'Yehi bi'Neso'a,' refers to what the Midrash describes: 'The Jewish people ran away from Har Sinai hastily, the way a child runs when he is let out of school.' What, though, was the element of calamity inherent in this conduct? Although it was improper for the Jewish people to run away from Har Sinai, their conduct does not seem to involve a calamity (i.e., punishment for wrongful actions). The <b>RAMBAN</b> (ibid.) explains that perhaps the Jewish people would have arrived at the border of Eretz Yisrael immediately after they left Har Sinai, had they not run away from there. Instead, it took them three days to get there. This was considered a punishment for their hasty departure.
</p><p>
Why, though, is there no break between the next two calamities? Perhaps Tosfos understands that only the Erev Rav (or the 'Am,' as the Torah calls them in the Parshah of Kivros ha'Ta'avah) were involved in the incident of Kivros ha'Ta'avah, while the first two sins involved all of the Jewish people ('Bnei Yisrael'). Therefore, the Torah separates only between the first two calamities.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAN</b> (ibid.) explains that the Gemara does not mean that the passage of 'va'Yehi bi'Neso'a' separates <i>two</i> calamities. Rather, the passage of 'va'Yehi bi'Neso'a' separates <i>three</i> calamities, so that there should not be three calamities in a row, for three consecutive calamities would be a 'Chazakah' of calamities.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  She brought to him a gold lamp; she said that she wants 
          to inherit a share of her father's estate - he authorized 
          this.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  R. Gamliel:</font></b> Our Torah says that a daughter does not 
          inherit when there are sons!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  The Min:</font></b> From when Yisrael were exiled, Torah was taken 
          from you, a new Sefer was given to you - it says that 
          daughters and sons inherit equally.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  The next day R. Gamliel brought to him a donkey of Luva.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  The Min:</font></b> The end of the new Sefer says 'I do not come to 
          detract nor add to the Torah of Moshe', and Moshe's Torah 
          says that a daughter does not inherit when there are 
          sons!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Eima Shalom:</font></b> Let your wisdom illuminate like a lamp 
          (remember the bribe I gave to you)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  R. Gamliel:</font></b> The donkey knocked over the lamp (my bribe 
          overcame yours)!
<br>
<b><font>4) THE PROHIBITION AGAINS READING 'KISVEI HA'KODESH' ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We may not read in them [for this draws people 
          away from the Beis Medrash].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> It is forbidden only at the time of [the lecture 
          in] the Beis Medrash - at other times one may read them;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> It is forbidden even at other times.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> Shmuel was the Chacham of Neharda'a, and in 
          Neharda'a they would learn Kesuvim on Shabbos afternoon!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 - Correction:</font></b> Rather, Rav forbids only in a 
          Beis Medrash [where a Chacham teaches] - in other places 
          he permits;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Shmuel):</font></b> At the time the Chacham teaches, it is 
               forbidden in the Beis Medrash and outside; when he 
               is not teaching it is permitted everywhere.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This is consistent with the custom in Neharda'a to 
               learn Kesuvim on Shabbos afternoon.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> The original version was correct - 
          Shmuel holds like R. Nechemyah:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> Even though Chachamim forbid reading 
               Kisvei ha'Kodesh, one may expound them; if one needs 
               to see a verse, he may bring the Sefer and read it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Nechemyah says, they forbade reading Kisvei 
               ha'Kodesh in order that people will reason - if it 
               is forbidden to read Kisvei ha'Kodesh, all the more 
               so secular documents are forbidden!
<br>
<b><font>5) DO WE ALLOW SAVING MORE THAN WHAT IS ESSENTIAL?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We may save the case of a Sefer or Tefilin 
          with the Sefer or Tefilin, even if there are coins 
          inside;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> To where may we [take them to] save them?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> We may take them to a Mavuy (alleyway) that is 
          not Mefulash (open - this will be defined);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Ben Beseira):</font></b> We may take them even to a Mavuy 
          Mefulash.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  (Gemara - Beraisa - R. Yishmael, son of R. Yochanan ben 
          Brokah): If Erev Pesach is on Shabbos, the Korban Pesach 
          is flayed until the chest (on Shabbos), the rest is 
          flayed at night;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, it is flayed entirely on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We understand R. Yishmael - he allows only what 
          is necessary for the Avodah (to remove the Eimurim (e.g. 
          Chelev) that are burned on the Mizbe'ach);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Why do Chachamim permit flaying it entirely?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> 'Kol Po'al Hash-m 
          la'Ma'anehu' (we do whatever is necessary to honor 
          Hash-m).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How does flaying it entirely honor Hash-m?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> This [cools the meat, which] 
          prevents it from rotting.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rabah):</font></b> It would be dishonorable if Kodshei 
          Hash-m lied around [half-flayed] like a carcass.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the difference between these 
               answers?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer #1:</font></b> If the animal was on a gold table, it 
               would not be dishonorable, but there is still 
               concern lest it rot.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer #2:</font></b> On a day when the north wind blows, there 
               is no concern lest it rot, but it is dishonorable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How does R. Yishmael expound 'Kol Po'al Hash-m 
          la'Ma'anehu'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This forbids removing the Eimurim before flaying 
          it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Noson):</font></b> We do not want hairs 
          (wool) to stick to the Eimurim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What was Chachamim's response to R. Yishmael?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Chisda):</font></b> They said, if we may save the 
          case of a Sefer with the Sefer, all the more so we can 
          flay Pesach entirely!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> We cannot learn from a Sefer - there, we are 
          lenient about mere Tiltul (moving something, which is 
          forbidden only mid'Rabanan) - flaying is a Melachah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer #2A (Rav Ashi):</font></b> They argue about Tiltul (R. 
          Yishmael forbids moving the Pesach after the Eimurim were 
          removed, for the skin is still attached) and Melachah;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Chachamim:</font></b> If we may save the case of a Sefer with 
               the Sefer, all the more so we can move the skin on 
               account of the meat attached!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> We cannot learn from a Sefer - there, the case 
          is a Bosis for (serves) something permitted - here, the 
          skin is a Bosis for something forbidden!
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) AGADAH: READING 'KESUVIM' ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br></b>The Mishnah (115a) states that we do not read Kesuvim on Shabbos because of 'Bitul Beis ha'Midrash.' The Gemara cites another reason in the name of Rebbi Nechemyah, who said that we do not read Kesuvim on Shabbos as a safeguard to prevent people from reading business contracts on Shabbos.
</p><p>
Based on the Gemara here, the <b>ROGATCHOVER GA'ON</b> explains an enigmatic change in the text of Birkas ha'Mazon on Shabbos. During the week, we say 'Magdil Yeshu'os Malko,' a verse from Tehilim (18:51). On Shabbos, though, we say, '<i>Migdol</i> Yeshu'os Malko,' from Shmuel II (22:51). What is the basis for this change? The Rogatchover Ga'on explains that the reason for this change is the rule that the Gemara here expresses, that one may not learn Kesuvim on Shabbos. Since 'Magdil' is from Kesuvim (Tehilim), we replace it with 'Migdol' (from a parallel verse in Nevi'im), since learning from Nevi'im on Shabbos is permissible! (See Mishnah on 115a and Rashi there.)
</p><p>
(Even though there are many other verses from Kesuvim in the Shabbos liturgy, we may recite them because there is no other choice, as they do not have any close match in Nevi'im. Since they are part of our daily prayers, we are permitted to recite such quotes from Kesuvim. However, in Birkas ha'Mazon we change 'Magdil' to 'Migdol' in order to remind us of the prohibition against learning Kesuvim on Shabbos when <i>not</i> praying on Shabbos. -M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(The <b>TORAH TEMIMAH</b> proposes an interesting hypothesis to explain the change in Birkas ha'Mazon. The change in the text may stem from a misreading of an abbreviation in the early printings of Birkas ha'Mazon. In the margin next to the word 'Magdil,' the following appeared in parentheses: 'Migdol, S.B.' (the Hebrew letters 'Shin' and 'Beis'). The intention of that marginal note was that in Sefer Shmuel II ('Shmuel Beis,' or S.B.), the word 'Migdol' appears instead of 'Magdil.' Later printers who copied from the earlier manuscripts misinterpreted the abbreviation to mean that 'Migdol' is recited on Shabbos (which can also be abbreviated as S.B.).)
</p><p>


<font><b>3) HALACHAH: READING PERSONAL LETTERS ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> According to Rebbi Nechemyah, the Rabanan prohibited reading Kesuvim on Shabbos as a precaution to prevent people from mistakenly thinking that they may read their business contracts and other non-sacred documents on Shabbos. May one read personal letters on Shabbos?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Shetarei Hedyotos) writes that friendly letters are also included in the prohibition against reading contracts.
</p><p>
(b) The <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b>, cited by <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH v'Kol she'Ken), permits one to read personal letters on Shabbos, on the basis that their content might involve some urgent matter of Piku'ach Nefesh. Even if a person is familiar with the contents of the letter and knows that there is no matter of Piku'ach Nefesh contained therein, <b>RABEINU TAM</b> permits him to read such letters on the basis that the information contained in the letters is not necessary and therefore it is not comparable to reading contracts.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>ROSH</b> (23:1) is inclined to prohibit reading personal letters, as a precaution to prevent people from reading their contracts as well. Although his reasoning differs from that of Rashi (a), his ruling is the same.
</p><p>


<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 307:13) includes personal letters in the category of contracts which are prohibited to read on Shabbos, and thus a person may not read a personal letter if he knows that it contains nothing more than friendly chatter, because of the enactment against reading contracts. In the next Halachah (307:14), the Shulchan Aruch is lenient like Tosfos (b) and permits one to read a new letter that he has not yet read, because it might contain matters of Piku'ach Nefesh or other urgent matters which require immediate attention.
</p><p>
(The <b>BE'ER HA'GOLAH</b> understands the Shulchan Aruch's first ruling (in 307:13) to be in accordance with the ruling of Rashi (a). The Mishnah Berurah, however, understands that the Shulchan Aruch rules like the Rosh (c). This may depend on whether the phrase 'and letters of friendly regards' is to be read as a third type of document contained in the category of 'Shetarei Hedyotos' (like Rashi) or as a totally new category of document (like the Rosh). However, as mentioned above, l'Halachah it does not seem to make any difference. -Y. Shaw)
</p><p>
<b>RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN</b> zt'l (Igros Moshe OC 4:72) writes that if a friendly letter contains Divrei Torah, then one certainly may read it on Shabbos.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) WHOSE OPINION IS REFLECTED IN THE MISHNAH?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If the fire was on Shabbos night, one may save 
          three meals.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> It was before eating the evening meal 
               (it is like Chachamim, who say that one eats three 
               meals on Shabbos)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> No, it was after eating (it is like R. 
               Chidka, who says that one eats three meals after the 
               evening meal)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If the fire was on Shabbos morning, one may 
          save two meals.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> It was before eating (it is like 
               Chachamim).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> No, it was after eating.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If the fire was on Shabbos afternoon, one may 
          save one meal.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> It was before eating.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> No, it was after eating.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (Seifa - R. Yosi):</font></b> No matter when it was, one 
          may save three meals.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This implies that the first Tana agrees that we eat 
               three meals on Shabbos (but he only allows saving 
               for remaining meals)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Conclusion:</font></b> Our Mishnah is unlike R. Chidka.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> One who has food for two meals may 
          not take from the Tamchuy (food that is collected and 
          distributed daily to the poor), one who has food for 14 
          meals may not take from the Kupah (money collected and 
          distributed weekly to those ashamed to take from the 
          Tamchuy).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is not like either Tana! 
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim hold that one eats 15 meals each week [two 
               each weekday, and three on Shabbos], R. Chidka adds 
               one more, i.e. 16!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> Really, it is like Chachamim - the third 
          Shabbos meal is eaten [shortly before evening,] in place 
          of what the Oni would normally eat at night on Motzei 
          Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> It is like Chachamim, it is unlike R. Chidka!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Rejection and Answer #2:</font></b> It can even be like R. Chidka - 
          [also] the Shabbos night meal is in place of what the Oni 
          would normally eat during the day on Erev Shabbos!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> It is unreasonable to require him to fast [any 
          day, but especially] Erev Shabbos! (Ta'anis 26A - 
          Ma'amados do not fast on Erev Shabbos, because it is 
          dangerous.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #3:</font></b> It is like R. Akiva, who says that it is 
          better to conduct on Shabbos like on a weekday [and have 
          only two meals] than to (Mishnah Berurah 242:1 - begin 
          to) receive Tzedakah. (Regarding Shabbos meals, it can be 
          like Chachamim or R. Chidka.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If an Oni passes through a city, we do not 
          give less than a loaf bought for a Pundiyon (a 12th of a 
          Dinar) when four Sa'im of wheat sell for a Sela (four 
          Dinarim - it follows that a Pundiyon buys a 12th of a 
          Se'ah, the size of the loaf is half of this (the baker 
          takes half the price for his expenses and labor), i.e. 18 
          eggs. The loaf is for the two meals he eats in one day.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he will stay for the night, we provide what he 
               needs for the night;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If it is Shabbos, we give him food for three meals.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> This is like Chachamim, it is unlike R. 
          Chidka!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> It is even like R. Chidka - the case is, he 
          already has a meal with him, he will eat it for the 
          fourth Shabbos meal.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Will we send him away with nothing?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We give him a meal when he leaves.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What are 'needs for the night'? (We give a 
          night meal even if he will not stay!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is a bed and felt to put under his head.
<br>
<b><font>2) THE REWARD FOR HONORING SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One may wash bowls that he ate in on Shabbos 
          night for the sake of Shabbos morning; one may wash bowls 
          used Shabbos morning for the sake of Shabbos afternoon;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  One may not wash [on Shabbos] bowls used Shabbos 
          afternoon [since he will not eat another meal on 
          Shabbos];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  One may wash cups, jugs and flasks at any time, for one 
          does not fix times for drinking.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (R. Shimon ben Pazi):</font></b> The three Shabbos meals are learned 
          from three times it says 'Yom'; one who fulfills them is 
          saved from three harsh 'Yomim' - the birth pangs of 
          Moshi'ach, judgment in Gehinom, and the war of Gog and 
          Magog:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Regarding birth pangs of Moshi'ach it says 'Hine 
               Anochi Shole'ach Lachem Es Eliyahu ha'Navi Lifnei Bo 
               Yom Hash-m'; we learn from there to judgment in 
               Gehinom and to the war of Gog and Magog, about which 
               it also says 'Yom' - 'Yom Evrah ha'Yom ha'Hu', 
               'B'Yom Bo Gog'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Anyone who makes Shabbos a delight 
          receives an inheritance without boundaries - 'Az Tis'anag 
          Al Hash-m...v'Ha'achalticha Nachalas Yakov' (Beis Yosef - 
          this is Midah k'Neged Midah, for spending to honor 
          Shabbos without limit);
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THREE MEALS OR FOUR MEALS ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites a Beraisa that states that one may wash dishes on Shabbos in preparation for a meal that will be eaten on Shabbos. Therefore, one may wash dishes after the Friday night meal for the Shabbos morning meal, after the Shabbos morning meal for the noon meal, after the noon meal for the afternoon meal. After the afternoon meal, however, he may not wash dishes, because no other meal is eaten on Shabbos.
</p><p>
Why does the Beraisa say that one may wash dishes after the noon meal for another meal later in the afternoon? Once one has eaten the noon meal, he has already eaten three meals on Shabbos, and the Rabanan rule that we eat only <i>three</i> meals on Shabbos (bottom of 117b). After the third meal, it should be forbidden to wash the dishes!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHBAM</b> (in Hagahos on the Rif, cited by the Dikdukei Sofrim #20) and the <b>ME'IRI</b> explain that the author of this Beraisa was Rebbi Chidka, who maintains that one must eat <i>four</i> meals on Shabbos.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TOSFOS RID</b> says that the Beraisa means that if a person <i>wants</i> and intends to eat a fourth meal, then he may wash the dishes after the third meal. In fact, he may wash the dishes for as many meals as he intends to eat on Shabbos; the Beraisa lists four meals only because a person commonly eats up to four meals on Shabbos.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It is not like the [limited] inheritance promised to 
               Avraham, 'Kum His'halech ba'Aretz l'Arkah 
               [ul'Rachbah]', or that promised to Yitzchak, 'Ki 
               Lecha ul'Zar'acha Eten Es Kol ha'Aratzos ha'El';
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Rather, it is like what was promised to Yakov, 
               'U'Foratzta Yamah va'Kedmah v'Tzafonah va'Negbah'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> He is saved from servitude in 
          Galus - 'V'Atah Al Bamoseimu Sidroch'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> He is given his heart's desires - ' 
          V'His'anag Al Hash-m va'Yiten Lecha Mish'alos Libecha';
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What 'Oneg' does the verse discuss 
               ('V'His'anag')?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> 'V'Korasa la'Shabos Oneg'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How does one makes Shabbos a delight?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah bar Shmuel):</font></b> One eats a dish of spinach, big 
          fish and heads of garlic (these were prestigious foods).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (R. Chiya bar Ashi):</font></b> Even a small matter for the honor of 
          Shabbos fulfills Oneg.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is this small matter?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> It is fish fried in its own oil with 
          flour.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> Anyone who guards Shabbos properly, 
          even if he serves idolatry like the generation of Enosh, 
          he will be forgiven - 'Ashrei Enosh Ya'aseh Zos...[Shomer 
          Shabos] <i>me'Chalelo</i>' - we read this 'Machul Lo' (he is 
          forgiven).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Had [all of] Yisrael observed the first 
          Shabbos, no nation could have ruled over them - it says 
          'Va'Yhi ba'Yom ha'Shevi'i Yotz'u Min ha'Am Lilkot', and 
          afterwards 'Va'Yavo Amalek'. (Tosfos 87B asks, this was 
          not the first Shabbos - Hash-m commanded them about 
          Shabbos in Marah, the Man fell more than a week later! 
          Tosfos ha'Rosh - Moshe did not tell Yisrael until the Man 
          fell, it was the first Shabbos after Yisrael were 
          commanded.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> If Yisrael would observe two Shabbosos 
          properly, they would be redeemed immediately - it says 
          'Asher Yishmeru Es Shabsosai', and shortly afterwards it 
          says 'Va'Havi'osim El Har Kodshi'. (Tosfos Nidah 13A - 
          there is a storehouse of Neshamos that must be born 
          before the redemption - women would have multiple births 
          to fulfill this speedily.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (R. Yosi):</font></b> May my portion be among those who eat three 
          meals on Shabbos! (He said this because people do not 
          realize how important it is.)
<br>
<b><font>3) R. YOSI'S DICTUMS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Yosi):</font></b> May my portion be among those who finish 
          Hallel every day.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But it was taught that one who says Hallel 
               every day blasphemes! (Rashi - Hallel was enacted to 
               thank Hash-m at certain times - if one says it every 
               day, it is a mere song! Maharsha - the enactment was 
               to publicize Hashem's miracles done at certain times 
               - if one says it every day, he does not publicize 
               these miracles - it is as if he denies Hashem's 
               ability.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> R. Yosi refers to those who say two psalms 
               of praise in Pesukei d'Zimra ('Halelu Es Hash-m Min 
               ha'Shomayim...' and 'Halelu Kel b'Kodsho').
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Yosi):</font></b> May my portion be among those who pray when 
          the sun is red (Shacharis at sunrise, and Minchah at 
          sunset)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> It is a Mitzvah to pray when the 
               sun is red.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (R. Zeira):</font></b> He learns from 'Yira'ucha Im Shamesh 
               v'Lifnei Yare'ach Dor Dorim'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (R. Yosi):</font></b> May my portion be among those who die from 
          intestinal sickness (the pain atones for transgressions).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It was taught that most Tzadikim die from intestinal 
               sickness.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (R. Yosi):</font></b> May my portion be among those who die on the 
          way to a Mitzvah (Maharsha - at the time of doing a 
          Mitzvah - Sheluchei Mitzvah are not harmed on account of 
          engaging in the Mitzvah, but there is no blanket 
          protection from any harm at the time).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (R. Yosi):</font></b> May my portion be among those who bring in 
          Shabbos early in Tiverya (it is in a valley, it gets dark 
          very early), and those who end Shabbos late in Tzipori 
          (it is elevated, and it is very late when it gets dark)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (R. Yosi):</font></b> May my portion be among Moshivei Beis 
          ha'Medrash (Rashi - those who arouse Talmidim to come; 
          Maharsha - those who sit, they are not quick to leave), 
          not among Ma'amidei Beis ha'Medrash (those who tell them 
          to leave [to eat]; Maharsha - those who stand).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (R. Yosi):</font></b> May my portion be among those who collect 
          Tzedakah (one who causes others to give is greater than 
          one who gives - Bava Basra 9A), not among those who 
          distribute Tzedakah (it is hard to know how much to give 
          to each Oni).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (R. Yosi):</font></b> May my portion be among those who are wrongly 
          suspected of transgressing.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Papa):</font></b> People wrongly suspected me.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (R. Yosi):</font></b> I did five Bi'os (acts of relations), 
          producing five great Chachamim in Yisrael.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Who are they?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi, R. Elazar b'Rebbi 
               Yosi, R. Chalafta b'Rebbi Yosi, R, Avtilas b'Rebbi 
               Yosi and R. Menachem b'Rebbi Yosi.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> There was also Vardimus!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Vardimus is Menachem - he is called Vardimus 
               because his face was [pink] like Varad (a rose).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> [Surely, 'I did five Bi'os' teaches that he had 
          relations only five times, and each resulted in a Chacham 
          -] did R. Yosi not fulfill the Mitzvah of Onah (having 
          relations with his wives regularly)?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, five times he did Bi'ah and repeated 
          the act [to help cause the children to be males].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (R. Yosi):</font></b> I always call my wife 'my house' (she conducts 
          the whole house), I always call my ox 'my field' (the 
          produce is due to its strength).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (R. Yosi):</font></b> I never looked at my Milah (Ever).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Rebbi [Yehudah ha'Nasi] was called Rabbeinu 
          ha'Kodesh because he never looked at his Milah - R. Yosi 
          should have also received this title!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rebbi had another attribute - he never put his 
          hands below his belt (to distance himself from things 
          that arouse lust).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (R. Yosi):</font></b> The rafters of my house never saw the fringes 
          of my garment (he would remove it only under a sheet, for 
          Tzeni'us).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (R. Yosi):</font></b> I never transgressed the words of my 
          colleagues:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> I know that I am not a Kohen - nevertheless, if they 
               would tell me go to the Duchan [at the time of] 
               Birkas Kohanim, I would go! (Maharsha - he would 
               ascend the Duchan, but he would not say the 
               Berachos, a Yisrael is forbidden to do so. Tosfos 
               ha'Rosh - this is just a parable for how far he 
               would go to comply.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  (R. Yosi):</font></b> I never said something and retracted [when the 
          one I spoke about came. Alternatively - I never said 
          something and turned around to see if the one I spoke 
          about was there. Maharsha - R. Yosi permits statements 
          like, 'There is fire in Ploni's house' - surely, if Ploni 
          was there, it was not said in a negative way.]
<br>
<b><font>4) 'MITZVOS' THAT THE 'CHACHAMIM' WERE ESPECIALLY CAREFUL ABOUT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> I will receive (Rashi - reward; Maharsha - 
          help from Hash-m) for fulfilling three meals on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> I will receive for concentration in 
          prayer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> I will receive for not 
          going four Amos with my head exposed. (Maharshal 
          (Teshuvah 72) - this shows that this is only Midas 
          Chasidus. Taz (O.C. 8:3) - now that baring the head is a 
          Nochri rite, it is letter of the law.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> I will receive for fulfilling the Mitzvah 
          of Tefilin (not going four Amos without them).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> I will receive for fulfilling the Mitzvah 
          of Tzitzis.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Rav Yosef (to Rabah's son):</font></b> What was your father most 
          careful about?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Rabah's son:</font></b> He was very careful about Tzitzis - once he 
          was ascending a ladder, and his Tzitzis snapped - he did 
          not descend until he put in a new thread to fix it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> I will receive, for when I see a Chacham finish 
          learning a Maseches [by heart], I make a celebration for 
          Rabanan.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> I will receive, for when a Chacham comes in front 
          of me for judgment, I do not sleep until I investigate 
          all angles to vindicate him.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Mar bar Rav Ashi):</font></b> I am disqualified from judging a 
          Chacham - I love him like myself, and a person does not 
          see fault in himself!
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) BRINGING THE GE'ULAH BY OBSERVING TWO SHABBOSOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara teaches that 'if the Jewish people would observe two Shabbosos properly, they would immediately be redeemed.' This is derived from the verses in Yeshayah, 'Thus says Hash-m to the Sarisim (eunuchs) who observe My Shabbosos.... I will bring them to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer...' (56:4, 7).
</p><p>
Why does the verse specifically refer to 'Sarisim' who observe Shabbos? Furthermore, why does the Gemara cite the earlier verse (v. 4), and not the verse (v. 6) which immediately precedes the promise of the redemption (v. 7), 'All who guard My Shabbosos from profaning it... I will bring them to My holy mountain...'?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>MAHARSHA</b> suggests an original interpretation of this Gemara. The Gemara in Nidah (38b) relates that there is a set range of lengths for the human gestation period. 'Chasidim ha'Rishonim,' who were aware that a pregnancy can last only 271, 272, or 273 days, abstained from relations during the early part of the week in order to avoid conceiving a child that would be born on Shabbos, which would necessitate Chilul Shabbos.
</p><p>
The Maharsha suggests that the Gemara here hints to us that if a husband abstains from his wife on particular days of the week (that is, he conducts himself like a <i>eunuch</i>) in order to avoid a birth on Shabbos, he thereby prevents the desecration of two Shabbosos (the day when the child is born, and a week later when the child has his Bris Milah). Through his concern for the observance of Shabbos, he will merit the coming of the final redemption!
</p><p>


<font><b>3) SAYING 'HALLEL HA'GADOL' EVERY DAY</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Yosi prayed that his lot should be among those who say the complete psalm of Hallel every day. The Gemara asks that we have learned that a person who says Hallel ha'Gadol every day 'scorns and blasphemes.' The Gemara answers that Rebbi Yosi prayed that he should be among those who say Pesukei d'Zimra every day, and not Hallel ha'Gadol. We see from here that the psalms of Pesukei d'Zimra are good to say every day. Furthermore, the Gemara in Berachos (6b) states that one who says Tehilah l'David (Ashrei) three times each day is assured to have a share in the World to Come.
</p><p>
What is the difference between the psalm of Hallel ha'Gadol and the psalms of Pesukei d'Zimra and Ashrei?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> says that the theme of Hallel ha'Gadol is to proclaim that Hash-m wrought open miracles for his people. If one recites this psalm every day, even on days on which no open miracle occurred, then on days on which Hash-m did cause a miracle to happen, the miracle will not be made evident through this person's recitation of Hallel ha'Gadol (since he says it every day). The other psalms, though, are general praises of Hash-m which do not specifically praise Him for His open miracles.
<br> 
<br>(b) The <b>MESHECH CHOCHMAH</b> (beginning of Parshas Bechukosai) explains that the entire process of nature itself is a miracle. However, a person becomes accustomed to it and fails to give adequate praise to Hash-m. The open miracles that Hash-m performs serve to <i>remind</i> a person about the miracles inherent in the natural order of the world. This is the purpose of saying Hallel ha'Gadol on days on which Hash-m performed open miracles. One who says Hallel ha'Gadol every day loses this reminder, and he thinks that he must praise Hash-m <i>only</i> for the open miracles. 
</p><p>
On the other hand, Ashrei and the other psalms of Pesukei d'Zimra discuss how all of the parts of the natural world are governed by Hash-m. By saying those psalms every day, a person praises Hash-m for the subtle miracles of nature. The processes of nature are represented by the alphabetical composition of Ashrei since it progresses in a natural order, as does nature.
</p><p>


<font><b>4) A NON-KOHEN WHO BLESSES THE PEOPLE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Yosi proclaimed that in all of his days, he never acted against the words of his friends, to the extent that even if his friends were to tell him 'to go up to the Duchan,' he would do so, even though he was not a Kohen. 
</p><p>
How could Rebbi Yosi, who was not a Kohen, go up to the Duchan? The Gemara in Kesuvos (24b) states that it is forbidden with an Isur Aseh (a prohibition resulting from a positive commandment) for a non-Kohen to bless the people!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>REMA</b> (OC 128:1) writes that the prohibition mentioned in Kesuvos refers only to a non-Kohen who blesses the people by himself. If he goes up with Kohanim, he transgresses no prohibition. Rebbi Yosi's statement referred to when there were other Kohanim; if his friends told him to go up to the Duchan, he would do so, provided that there were other Kohanim there.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>HAFLA'AH</b> in Kesuvos (24b) suggests the opposite approach. The Hafla'ah explains (as does the <b>SEFER CHAREDIM</b> and the <b>RITVA</b> in Rosh Hashanah) that just as there is a Mitzvah for the Kohen to bless the people, there is a Mitzvah for the people to be blessed by the Kohen. Consequently, when there are Kohanim there to bless the people, a non-Kohen may not join them in blessing the people, because he will thereby miss receiving the blessing from the Kohanim. However, when there are <i>no</i> Kohanim present to bless the people, he may go up to bless the people, since he does not miss any blessing from Kohanim by doing so.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>TORAH TEMIMAH</b> (Parshas Pekudei) cites the introduction to the Sefer of <b>RABEINU YERUCHAM</b>, who quotes a variant reading of this Gemara. In Rabeinu Yerucham's version, Rebbi Yosi said, 'Even though I am not <i>Kedai</i> (worthy), I would go up to the Duchan,' and not, 'Even though I am not a <i>Kohen</i>...,' as the words appear in our texts. According to this reading, Rebbi Yosi might not have been discussing the blessing of the Kohanim at all. Rather, he was discussing going up to the Duchan (platform) from which the public lecturer would teach the people, and that is why he said, 'Even though I am not <i>worthy</i>.'
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) HOW THE 'CHACHAMIM' PREPARED FOR SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Chanina would dress nicely at the coming of Shabbos, 
          and say 'Come, let us go to greet Shabbos the queen!'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yanai would get dressed and say 'Come bride, come 
          bride!'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Rabah bar Rav Huna visited the house of Rabah bar Rav 
          Nachman; they brought three Sa'im of wafers with oil (so 
          he could choose the nicest).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Rabah bar Rav Huna:</font></b> Did you prepare because you knew that 
          I was coming?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Rabah bar Rav Nachman:</font></b> Are you more important than 
          Shabbos?! (We prepared to honor Shabbos.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Aba bought 13 Dinars of beef from 13 butchers (to 
          taste from the best); he would pay them at the door 
          (alternatively - he would bring meat to the door of his 
          house, and before going to buy more, he would command his 
          servants) and say 'Hurry up'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  R. Avahu would sit on an ivory chair and fan the fire;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Rav Anan would wear black garments on Erev Shabbos (to 
          show that we do not consider ourselves too important to 
          engage in cooking);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Tana d'vei R. Yishmael):</font></b> One should not mix a cup 
               for his master in the same garments he wore while 
               cooking food.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  Rav Safra would roast the head of an animal, Rava would 
          salt a fish, Rav Huna would light the lamp, Rav Papa 
          would twine wicks, Rav Chisda would cut beets, Rabah and 
          Rav Yosef would chop wood, R. Zeira would kindle the fire 
          with twigs;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak would go back and forth carrying 
          nice Kelim and foods to get ready - he said, if R. Ami 
          and R. Asi were coming, I would toil like this for them 
          (all the more so, I should do so for Shabbos)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  A certain man Yosef was known to cherish Shabbos; 
          astrologers told a rich Nochri in his neighborhood that 
          Yosef will consume all of his wealth (Maharsha - he 
          already spent the amount of your wealth to honor Shabbos, 
          he will be paid back). The Nochri sold all his 
          possessions and bought a gem; he made a setting for it in 
          his hat and put it there.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  When the Nochri was crossing a bridge; a wind blew his 
          hat into the river; a fish ate the gem. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  The fish was caught on Erev Shabbos; people told the one 
          who caught it to see if Yosef would buy it. He did; he 
          found the gem inside, he sold it for gold coins that 
          filled 13 attics.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  An elder:</font></b> He who borrows to honor Shabbos is paid back by 
          Shabbos!
<br>

<b><font>2) HONORING SHABBOS THROUGH EATING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (Rebbi):</font></b> What is the merit of rich people in 
          Eretz Yisrael?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi):</font></b> They take Ma'aser - it 
          says 'Aser Te'aser' - tithe in order that Tis'asher (you 
          will become rich).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (Rebbi):</font></b> What is the merit of rich people in 
          Bavel?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi):</font></b> They honor Torah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question (Rebbi):</font></b> What is the merit of rich people in 
          other places?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi):</font></b> They honor Shabbos;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> I was once hosted by a man in 
               Ludkiyah; they brought in front of him a gold table 
               which had to be carried by 16 people. Sixteen silver 
               chains were fixed in it, bowls, cups, flasks and 
               plates were fixed in it, and all kinds of special 
               foods and spices.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> When they bring it they say 'La'Shem ha'Aretz 
               u'Mlo'ah'; when they remove it they say 'Ha'Shomayim 
               Shomayim la'Shem veha'Aretz Nosan li'Vnei Adam'.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> I asked him how he merited this. He told me that he 
               was a butcher; he would save every nice animal for 
               Shabbos. I blessed him.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question (Kaiser):</font></b> Why do Tavshilim of Shabbos smell so 
          nice?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yehoshua):</font></b> We have a special spice called 
          Sheves (dill) which we put into it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Kaiser:</font></b> Give us some of it!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Yehoshua:</font></b> It only works for one who guards Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question (Reish Galusa):</font></b> [It already says 'V'Korasa 
          la'Shabos Oneg' -] what does 'Li'Kdosh Hash-m Mechubad' 
          refer to?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Hamnuna):</font></b> This refers to Yom Kipur, on which 
          we do not eat or drink - the Torah tells us to honor it 
          with clean clothing.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> 'V'Chibadto' - you should honor Shabbos by eating 
          the meal earlier than on a weekday;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> You should eat later than on a weekday. (He and 
          Rav do not argue, both hold like Rav Papa below.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question (Benei Rav Papa bar Aba):</font></b> We have meat and wine 
          all week long - how should we make Shabbos different?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> If you normally eat early, eat later 
          on Shabbos; if you normally eat late, eat earlier.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b></b>  In summer, Rav Sheshes would seat Talmidim [on Shabbos] 
          in a place where the sun would beat on them [at a proper 
          time to leave to eat; Ben Yehoyada - they would not 
          leave, just they would move around, so Rav Sheshes (who 
          was blind) would realize that it was time to stop 
          teaching]; in winter he sat them where they would be in 
          the shade [and get cold].
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) PREPARING FOR SHABBOS AND 'BITUL TORAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates how Rebbi Avahu, Rav Huna, Rabah, Rav Yosef, and many other Amora'im would physically involve themselves in the preparations for Shabbos. The Gemara in Kidushin (41a) adds that they performed the preparations for Shabbos even though they had servants that could do it for them.
</p><p>
The Gemara in Moed Katan (9a) states that learning Torah is more important than all of the other Mitzvos, so that if one is presented with the opportunity to do Mitzvah of learning Torah and the opportunity to do another Mitzvah, the Mitzvah of learning Torah takes precedence (if someone else can do the other Mitzvah). (If no other person can do the other Mitzvah, then one may interrupt his Torah learning in order to perform it, since the purpose of learning Torah is to perform the Mitzvos.) Since there were others who could do these preparations for Shabbos, why were these Amora'im permitted to stop learning Torah? (<b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> in <b>SHA'AR HA'TZIYUN</b> OC 250:9)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>SHA'AR HA'TZIYUN</b> writes that when the Gemara in Moed Katan says that one does not stop learning Torah in order to perform a Mitzvah that can be done by someone else, it refers to a Mitzvah that requires that a certain objective accomplished. Since that objective can be accomplished by someone else, one may not stop learning Torah to do it himself. When the Gemara there mentions a Mitzvah that cannot be done by someone else, it refers to a Mitzvah that obligates the person himself to be involved, such a wearing Tefilin. Preparing for Shabbos falls into the latter category; the person <i>himself</i> is required to be involved in the preparations for Shabbos, and not merely to ensure that the preparations are accomplished. (This answer is problematic, because if the Mitzvah of preparing for Shabbos obligates the person himself to be involved, how can the Gemara in Kidushin prove from these Amora'im that it is better for a person to perform a Mitzvah himself than to appoint a Shali'ach to do it? A Shali'ach cannot perform a Mitzvah that another person is personally obligated to perform!)
</p><p>
(b) The Mitzvah of honoring the Shabbos is a very important Mitzvah, and thus it requires that one even stop learning Torah in order to fulfill it. (Ibid.)
</p><p>
(c) Perhaps these Amora'im did not stop learning Torah at all. Rather, they continue to learn Torah at the same time that they performed their Shabbos preparations.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b></b>  When R. Zeira would see pairs of Talmidim learning on 
          Shabbos, he would tell them not to Mechalel Shabbos (by 
          neglecting to eat).
<br>
<b><font>3) OTHER WAYS TO HONOR SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> Even someone praying alone on Shabbos night must 
          say 'Va'Ychulu [ha'Shomayim veha'Aretz...]'
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Hamnuna):</font></b> If one says 'Va'Ychulu' on Shabbos 
               night, the Torah considers him a partner in creation 
               - we read it 'Va'Yichlu' - they (Hash-m and this 
               person) finished. Maharsha - he publicizes that 
               Hash-m created the world.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Elazar):</font></b> What is the source that speech is 
          like an action (Anaf Yosef - so one's speech is 
          restricted on Shabbos, just like his actions)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'Bi'Dvar Hash-m Shomayim Na'asu'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> If one says 'Va'Ychulu' on Shabbos night, 
          the two angels that accompany a person on Shabbos put 
          their hands on his head and say 'V'Sar Avonecha 
          v'Chatosecha Techupar'. (Ben Yehoyada - his sins are 
          forgiven in order that he will be considered a Kosher 
          witness; Etz Yosef - it is very difficult to guard 
          oneself from transgressing Shabbos - he merits help from 
          Shomayim not to sin, even b'Shogeg.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> On Shabbos, when a person leaves synagogue he 
          is accompanied by one good angel and one bad angel;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If when he comes home the Ner is lit, the table and 
               beds are set, the good angel prays that it should be 
               this way next Shabbos - the bad angel must answer 
               'Amen' against his will; if not, the bad angel prays 
               that it should be this way next Shabbos - the good 
               angel must answer 'Amen' against his will.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> One should always set his table on Erev 
          Shabbos [for the evening meal], even if he only plans to 
          eat k'Zayis; 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (R. Chanina):</font></b> One should always set his table on Motzei 
          Shabbos [for a meal, like one escorts a king when he 
          leaves], even if he only plans to eat k'Zayis.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  [On Motzei Shabbos, drinking and washing with] hot water, 
          and eating hot bread heal;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  On Motzei Shabbos they would prepare a calf that was a 
          third grown (alternatively - third born from its mother) 
          for R. Avahu - he would eat the kidney;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  When his son Avimi grew up he suggested that they could 
          spare this expense by saving a kidney [from what was 
          prepared for the sake of Shabbos] for Motzei Shabbos. 
          They did so - a lion came and ate it (i.e. a calf, in 
          place of what he normally slaughtered on Motzei Shabbos).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> If one answers 'Amen Yehei Shmei 
          Raba' will all his Ko'ach (concentration), harsh decrees 
          against him are torn up (Rashi; Maharsha - if one answers 
          'Amen Yehei Shmei Raba', Hash-m uses all His Ko'ach 
          ('Yigdal Na Ko'ach Hash-m' - Bamidbar 14:17) to tear 
          harsh decrees against him.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'Bi'fro'a Pera'os b'Yisrael b'Hisnadev Am Borachu 
               Hash-m' - the reason the decrees were cancelled is 
               because they blessed Hash-m.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> Even if he did idolatry, he will be 
          forgiven - it says here 'Bi'fro'a', like [it says 
          regarding the golden calf], 'Ki Faru'a Hu'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Reish Lakish):</font></b> If one answers 'Amen' with all his 
          Ko'ach, gates of Gan Eden are opened for him [to enter] - 
          'Pischu She'arim v'Yavo Goy Tzadik <i>Shomer Emunim</i> - we 
          read this 'she'Omrim Amen'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does 'Amen' mean?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Chanina):</font></b> It is the acronym of 'Kel Melech 
          Ne'eman'. (Tosfos - one should have this in mind when 
          saying it.)
<br>
<b><font>4) CAUSES OF THE 'CHURBAN'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah brei d'Rav Shmuel):</font></b> Fires are common only in 
          a place where Shabbos is desecrated - 'V'Im Lo Sishme'u 
          Elai Lekadesh Es Yom ha'Shabbos...v'Hitzati Esh...v'Lo 
          Sichveh'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does it mean 'V'Lo Sichveh'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> It will be at a time 
          when people are not around to extinguish it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> Yerushalayim was destroyed on account of Chilul 
          Shabbos - 'Umi'Shabsosai Helimu Eineihem va'Echal 
          b'Socham'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (R. Avahu):</font></b> Yerushalayim was destroyed because they 
          neglected to say Shma morning and evening - it says 'Hoy 
          Mashkimei va'Boker Shechar Yirdofu', and 'V'Hayah Chinor 
          va'Nevel...v'El Po'al Hash-m Lo Yabitu' (they do not 
          declare His unity over His creations) - 'Lachen Golah Ami 
          mi'Bli Da'as'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rav Hamnuna):</font></b> Yerushalayim was destroyed because they 
          stopped children from learning from their Rebbi - 
          'Shefoch Al Olal ba'Chutz' - the anger was poured out 
          because children were outside.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Ula):</font></b> Yerushalayim was destroyed because people felt no 
          shame in front of each other - 'Hovishu Ki So'evah Asu 
          Gam Bosh Lo Yevoshu'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> Yerushalayim was destroyed because they 
          equated small people to important people - 'V'Hayah 
          Cha'Am ka'Kohen; Hibok Tibok ha'Aretz'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rav Amram):</font></b> Yerushalayim was destroyed because people 
          did not rebuke each other - 'Hayu Sareha k'Ayalim Lo 
          Motz'u Mir'eh' - just like one ram's head is next to 
          another's tail, Yisrael of that generation buried their 
          faces in the ground and did not rebuke each other.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Yerushalayim was destroyed because they 
          disgraced Chachamim - 'V'Yihyu Mal'ivim b'Malachei Elokim 
          u'Vozim Devarav umi'Tate'im bi'Nvi'av Ad Alos Chamas 
          Hash-m...'
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What does it 'Ad Ein Marpei'?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> If one disgraces Chachamim, 
               there is no cure for his affliction.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> What does it mean 'Al Tig'u 
          bi'Mshichai uvi'Nvi'ai Al Tare'u'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Reish Lakish):</font></b> The world endures only on account of the 
          breath (words) of children learning from their Rebbi.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Rav Papa (to Abaye):</font></b> Why isn't our Torah good enough?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Abaye:</font></b> You cannot compare breath [from a mouth] that 
          sinned to breath free of sin.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Reish Lakish):</font></b> We do not interrupt children learning 
          from their Rebbi, even to build the Beis ha'Mikdash.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Reish Lakish (to R. Yehudah Nesi'ah):</font></b> I have a tradition 
          from my (alternatively - your) fathers that any city 
          without children learning from their Rebbi will be 
          destroyed [with a remnant];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Ravina):</font></b> It will be destroyed without a remnant.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) PEOPLE OF TRUSTWORTHINESS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rava taught that the Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed because there ceased to exist men of trustworthiness. The Gemara challenges this from a teaching of Rav Katina, who said that even during the time of the collapse of Yerushalayim, when the Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed, 'men of trustworthiness did not cease [to exist].' The Gemara concludes that when it came to business, there were no trustworthy people. In Torah, though, there were still trustworthy people whom one could trust when they said that they did not know Torah.
</p><p>
What is so noteworthy about the fact that people were proud to be honest and say that they did not know Torah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: HA'GAON RAV SHLOMO FISHER</b> shlit'a (author of Sefer Beis Yishai) explained the words of the Gemara here as follows (as heard from him in person):
</p><p>
The Sefer ha'Akeidah and Abarbanel explain that Hash-m gave the Jewish people a special blessing that 'men of trustworthiness in Torah would not cease to exist.' The essence of this blessing is as follows: We find in the Torah (Devarim 31:21) that Hash-m has promised that the Torah will never be forgotten. In order for the Torah not to be forgotten, Hash-m ensured that when the elders do not know the Torah, they will admit it. This prevents the forging and misconstruing of the Torah.
</p><p>
Rav Fisher added that this may also explain the choice of the psalm-of-the-Day recited on Shemini Atzeres, chapter 12 of Tehilim. This psalm does not seem to be related in any way to Torah (Simchas Torah) or to Shemini Atzeres. 'Save us Hash-m, because... no one can be trusted anymore, everyone speaks falsely... the words of Hash-m are pure words, like finely refined silver. You, Hash-m, will protect them and save them forever....'
</p><p>
<b>RAV SAMSON RAPHAEL HIRSCH</b> explains that there is a fine correlation between Pesach and Shavuos, and between Sukos and Shemini Atzeres. The first pair, Pesach and Shavuos, represents the 'birth' of the nation with the Torah. The second pair, Sukos and Shemini Atzeres, represents the continuity of the nation with the Torah.
</p><p>
Accordingly, chapter 12 of Tehilim is most appropriate for Shemini Atzeres, because the subject of that psalm is the special blessing that men of trustworthiness in Torah will never cease, which, as we explained, is a safeguard for the continuity of the Torah. Since Shemini Atzeres is the time that represents the perseverance of the nation and the protection of the Torah, it is most appropriate to discuss on this day the blessing that Hash-m gave us, that the Torah will be preserved throughout all of the generations: 'No one can be trusted anymore, everyone speaks falsely... [but] the words of Hash-m (the Torah) are pure... You, Hash-m, will protect them, You will preserve them from this generation forever.'
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) DID ANY HONEST PEOPLE REMAIN AT THE TIME OF THE 'CHURBAN'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> Yerushalayim was destroyed because faithful 
          people ceased from it - '...U'Vakshu bi'Rchovoseha Im 
          Timtze'u ...Oseh Mishpat Mevakesh Emunah v'Eslach Lah'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But Rav Katina taught that even when 
          Yerushalayim stumbled, faithful people did not cease from 
          it - '...Simlah Lechah Katzin Tihyeh Lanu' - you know 
          matters that others seek to cover up [their ignorance 
          about them] like with a garment;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'Veha'Machshelah ha'Zos Tachas Yadecha' - you know 
               matters that others understand only after stumbling 
               in them, so you will be our leader.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> 'Yisa va'Yom ha'Hu Leimor Lo Ehyeh Chovesh...' - 
               Yisa refers to an oath, 'Lo Sisa Es Shem Hash-m 
               Elokecha la'Shav';
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> 'Lo Ehyeh Chovesh [uv'Veisi Ein Lechem]' - I am not 
               the type that locks himself in the Beis Medrash 
               [even] when he has no bread in the house;
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> 'V'Ein Simlah' - I do not know written Torah, 
               Mishnah, or Gemara. (This shows that there were 
               honest people)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps they were not honest, just they 
               were afraid to lie, lest they be asked to teach!
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> If so, they could have said 'I learned, 
               but I forgot' - 'Lo Ehyeh Chovesh' implies that he 
               never learned!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They were honest about Torah, but dishonest in 
          business.
<br>
<b><font>2) HOW MUCH MAY ONE SAVE ON SHABBOS?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We may save a whole basket of loaves [from a 
          fire], even if it has enough for 100 meals, or a [big] 
          ring of figs or barrel of wine;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  One may tell others 'Come save for yourselves' - if they 
          are clever, after Shabbos they will make a calculation 
          with him.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> To where may we save?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> We may save to a Chatzer that has an Eiruv;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Ben Beseira):</font></b> We may save even to a Chatzer 
          without an Eiruv;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Also, one may also save to there all Kelim that he uses 
          [for eating and needs for Shabbos];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  He may wear and wrap himself with as much as he can;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi says, he may not wear more than 18 garments;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  He may remove the clothes [in a safe place] and return to 
          wear other clothes [standing to be burned. Rambam - R. 
          Yosi teaches this; Rashi - the first Tana teaches this.]
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  He may tell others 'Come save with me'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> The Reisha permits saving only enough 
          for three meals!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Huna):</font></b> One may save one basket, even if it 
          has a lot; Lekapel (Rashi (19B) - to gather baskets in 
          one big Kli; Tosfos - to save and go back and save 
          again), he may save only enough for three meals.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (R. Aba bar Zavda):</font></b> Both discuss Lekapel - 
          there is no limit when saving to the same Chatzer, he may 
          save only for three meals to another Chatzer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> If one spread 
          his garment and put (Tosfos; Rashi - emptied) many Kelim 
          into it, what is the law?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Is this like saving one Kli, or like Lekapel 
               (because it is many exertions)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> [A Beraisa teaches that if a barrel broke on the 
          roof, one may bring and put a on the ground Rav Shizbi 
          taught Rav Chisda 'on condition that he does not bring a 
          Kli that holds more than three meals', and Rava said that 
          this is a mistake (a big Kli is permitted) - this shows 
          that it is like saving.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> Why is Rav Shizbi 
          wrong?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava - Seifa of Beraisa):</font></b> He may not bring 
          another Kli to catch the falling stream in midair or 
          where it leaves the roof.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> Another Kli is forbidden, but the first 
               Kli may be any size!
<br>
<b><font>3) OTHERS THAT HELP TO SAVE FROM A FIRE ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A ring of figs...[after Shabbos they make a 
          calculation with him].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What do they calculate? What they took was 
          Hefker (Rashi - for he said 'Save for yourselves'; Ran - 
          because the owner may not save more himself)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Chisda):</font></b> The Mishnah discusses Midas 
          Chasidus (they go beyond the letter of the law - they 
          return the food to him and he pays them for their toil).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> A Chasid would not take wages for what 
          he did on Shabbos!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> The Mishnah discusses one who fears 
          Shomayim - he does not want to benefit from another [who 
          was forced to Mafkir his food] - however, he does not 
          want to [go beyond the letter of the law and] go 
          unrewarded for his toil;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It teaches that if they are clever, and know that 
               this is not wages for Shabbos, after Shabbos they 
               will make a calculation with him.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah) Question:</font></b> To where may we save?...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why does it say in the Reisha 'Save for 
          yourselves', and in the Seifa 'Save with me'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Regarding food, the owner cannot take more than 
          three meals [the rest is Hefker] - regarding clothing, 
          there is no limit to how much he can save.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> He may wear [clothes], go out, and 
          remove them; wear, go out, and remove them, the whole 
          day;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi says, he may not wear more than 18 garments - a 
          cloak, a housecoat (worn under a cloak), a money belt, a 
          close-fitting linen jacket, an undershirt, a sheet worn 
          as a cloak, a scarf, two garter belts, two shoes, two 
          socks, two gaiters (garments that go over the shoe and 
          cover the leg), a belt on his loins, a hat, and a cloth 
          on his neck (to clean his mouth and eyes).
<br>
<b><font>4) THINGS THAT MIGHT EXTINGUISH FIRE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Shimon ben Nanas):</font></b> One may spread a [moist] 
          kid's skin over a box that caught fire, because it gets 
          charred [but does not burn, it will save the rest of the 
          box];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  One may make a Mechitzah with any Kli, whether it is full 
          [of water] or empty, to prevent the fire from spreading;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi forbids new Klei Cheres full of water, for they 
          will break and extinguish the fire.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Rav Yehudah):</font></b> If one end of a Talis caught 
          fire, one may put water on the other side - if it 
          extinguishes, this is no problem.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> If one end of a Talis caught fire, 
          one may take it off and put it on again - if it 
          extinguishes, this is no problem.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) SAVING FOOD FROM A BURNING HOUSE ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> According to Rav Huna, one is permitted to take out as much food as he wants from a burning house on Shabbos if he does so in the manner of 'Matzil,' by carrying the food in one basket or container into a Chatzer. However, one is not permitted to save as much food as he wants in the manner of 'Mekapel.' When he saves food through Mekapel, he may carry only as much food as he needs for three meals.
</p><p>
The Gemara says that there is a third way to carry food out of a burning house -- by spreading out a Talis and placing the food items in it. The Gemara concludes that this is not similar to Mekapel, and one may carry out as much food as he wants in this manner.
</p><p>
What is Mekapel, and what is the difference between Mekapel and putting all of the food into a Talis?
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (19b, DH v'Chad) explains that Mekapel refers to taking out food in individual containers, one after the other. This differs from using a Talis to save food, because one places <i>multiple containers</i> into a single Talis and then takes them all out in one act by carrying the Talis.
</p><p>
(b) Rashi earlier (19b, DH v'Chad) explains that Mekapel refers to placing many containers into one large container, and that is what is forbidden according to Rav Huna. (Rashi's definition of Mekapel is identical to Tosfos' definition of Talis, which is <i>permitted</i>). This also seems to be Rashi's intention in the Gemara here (Rashi adds the word 'ul'Osfam' in his explanation for Rav Huna, which implies that all of the containers are first gathered into one large one before they are taken out).
</p><p>
Tosfos questions Rashi's explanation. According to Rashi, there seems to be no difference between being Mekapel and using a Talis to carry out all of the containers of food, since both involve placing many containers into one larger one and carrying it out. Why, then, should a Talis be more permitted than Mekapel?
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAN</b> answers that according to Rashi, in the case of the Talis, one empties the containers of food into the Talis and carries out the Talis full of food <i>without</i> the containers themselves. This is permitted. Mekapel, though, refers to placing the containers themselves into one large container and carrying them all out together. Carrying the food out in this manner is prohibited.
</p><p>
(The Gemara compares placing food into a Talis with the case of saving wine from a leaking barrel. It should be pointed out that only according to Rashi is the comparison exact, because the wine falls directly into the container that one puts underneath the barrel, just as the food that one puts into the Talis goes directly into the Talis and is not contained within any other utensil within the Talis.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SAVING FOOD AND SAVING CLOTHES</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah says that when one wants to save his food from his house that is on fire, he may announce to others, 'Bo'u v'Hatzilu <i>Lachem</i>' -- 'Come and save <i>for yourselves</i>.' However, when one wants to save his clothing from the fire, the Mishnah says that he may announce, 'Bo'u v'Hatzilu <i>Imi</i>' -- 'Come and save <i>with me</i>.' Why does the declaration for saving food differ from the declaration for saving clothes?
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that the maximum amount of food that is fit for the owner is enough food for three meals. Any more food than that is not fit for him. On the other hand, he is not as limited with regard to clothing as he is with regard to food, since he can wear many articles of clothing throughout the day.
</p><p>
How does the Gemara's answer address the difference in the words that he may use to announce to others to help him save his items, 'Lachem' for food and 'Imi' for clothing?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
</p><p>
(a) The <b>BARTENURA</b> explains that with regard to food, any person who comes to save food from the burning house may save only enough food for his own Shabbos needs, which is a maximum of three meals' worth of food. Therefore, the amount that one may save depends on how many meals he has already eaten (for example, if he has already eaten one meal, he may save only two meals' worth of food). Consequently, the amount of food that any person may save is subjective, based on what that person has already eaten. Therefore, the owner of the food who wants to save his food from the fire announces, 'Bo'u v'Hatzilu <i>Lachem</i>' -- 'Come and save <i>for yourselves</i>,' because each person may save only enough food for <i>his own</i> Shabbos needs.
</p><p>
When one saves clothes, on the other hand, it does not matter how much one has worn or is presently wearing. One may always save eighteen items of clothing, since they can be worn throughout the day. Therefore, one announces, 'Bo'u v'Hatzilu <i>Imi</i>' -- 'Come and save <i>with me</i>,' since everyone may save the same amount of eighteen items of clothing.
</p><p>
(b) <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> (on the Mishnayos) points out that the Bartenura's approach contradicts the assertion of the <b>RAN</b> that other people may save from the fire as much food as they want, and that only the <i>owner</i> is limited to saving three meals. Rebbi Akiva Eiger suggests instead that with regard to food, since the owner may take only the amount that he needs for that day and no more, he is makes the rest of the food Hefker, since he has no other choice. Therefore, he says, 'Lachem,' which expresses his intent to make the food Hefker and let others take it for themselves.
</p><p>
With regard to clothing, though, since the owner is permitted to go back into the house as many times as he can and take out more clothing, he does not make his clothing Hefker. Therefore, he says, 'Imi' -- come and save the clothing '*with me*' (that is, 'for me, because I still own it'). When the Gemara says that clothing 'is fit for him all day,' it means that the owner can continue to enter the house to wear more sets of clothing in order to save them, and consequently he does not make his clothing Hefker.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>YERUSHALMI</b>, cited by the <b>RASHBA</b> on the Mishnah, explains that food and clothing may be saved by others because food is normally fed to guests, and clothing is normally loaned to others.
</p><p>
Accordingly, perhaps one says 'for yourselves' with regard to food because he has nothing to do with the food that others save; they take it out only because they can eat it themselves. With regard to clothing, though, he announces that others should come and save his food 'with me,' as if to say, 'Take out <i>my clothing</i> because I can lend it to you, and you will wear it and immediately return it to me.' This may be the meaning of the words of the Gemara here that says that clothing is 'fit for him the entire day.' After others finish wearing borrowed clothes, they are returned to their original owner who can wear them the rest of the day. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rav Yehudah holds like Ben Nanas.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Ben Nanas permits spreading a skin because it 
          gets charred [and contains the fire] - does he permit 
          Geram [causing] to extinguish?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Yes - in the Seifa, R. Yosi forbids new Klei 
          Cheres full of water, for they will break and extinguish 
          the fire - this implies that the first Tana permits!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If a lamp is on a board, one may shake the 
          board and it will fall - if it extinguishes, this is no 
          problem.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (D'vei R. Yanai):</font></b> This is only if he forgot it - if he 
          intentionally left it on the board, the board is a Bosis 
          for Isur (the lamp, so he may not shake the board).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If a lamp is in back of a door, one may open 
          and close it normally - if the lamp extinguishes, this is 
          no problem.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  Rav cursed those who ruled according to this Beraisa.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question (Ravina):</font></b> Why did Rav curse them?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Rav holds like R. Yehudah (who forbids 
               Davar she'Eino Miskaven), the Beraisa is like R. 
               Shimon (who permits).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> That is no reason to curse them!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Acha brei d'Rava):</font></b> Even R. Shimon forbids 
          this;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Abaye and Rava):</font></b> R. Shimon agrees that a Pesik 
               Reisha is forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> One may open and close a door in front of 
          a bonfire on Shabbos (even though a gust could fan the 
          fire).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b></b>  Abaye cursed those ruled like this.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the case?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If a normal wind is blowing, why does Abaye forbid 
               (it is unlikely to fan the fire)?!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If an unusually strong wind is blowing, why does Rav 
               Yehudah permit?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> A normal wind is blowing - Abaye decrees lest one 
          will open even when a very strong wind blows, Rav Yehudah 
          does not decree.
<br>
<b><font>5) 'GRAMA'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may make a Mechitzah...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> Chachamim permit Gram Kivuy (causing to 
          extinguish), R. Yosi forbids.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Elsewhere, they taught oppositely!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> One may make a Mechitzah with empty Kelim 
               or with full Kelim that don't usually break, i.e. 
               metal Kelim;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi says, even [earthenware] Kelim of [clay of] 
               Kefar Sichin and Kefar Chananyah don't usually 
               break. (He is more lenient than Chachamim!)
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> We can switch the opinions in our 
               Mishnah (R. Yosi permits causing to extinguish, 
               Chachamim forbid); in the Beraisa, R. Yosi addresses 
               Chachamim according to their reasoning. (I permit 
               causing to extinguish - even though you forbid; you 
               should permit Kelim of Kefar Sichin, for they don't 
               usually break!)
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> Rabah bar Tachlifa taught that R. Yosi 
               forbids causing to extinguish!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We do not switch the Mishnah; the entire Beraisa 
          is R. Yosi, it is abbreviated, it means as follows:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> One may make a Mechitzah with empty Kelim 
               or with full Kelim that don't usually break, e.g. 
               metal Kelim;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Also Kelim of Kefar Sichin and Kefar Chananyah may 
               be used, for they don't usually break - R. Yosi 
               taught this.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Contradiction:</font></b> Chachamim and R. Yosi both contradict 
          themselves!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> If Hashem's name was written on a person 
               he may not wash or anoint [lest this erase His name] 
               or stand in a filthy place (it is disgraceful to His 
               name);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If he has a Mitzvah to immerse, he wraps a reed 
               around it and immerses;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi says, he immerses normally, as long as he 
               does not rub it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Resolution (for R. Yosi):</font></b> Erasing Hashem's name is 
          different, for it says 'V'Ibadtem Es Shemam...; Lo 
          <i>Sa'asun</i> Ken la'Shem Elokeichem' - explicitly erasing 
          the name is forbidden, Grama is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Also regarding Shabbos, it says 'Lo Sa'aseh 
          Chol Melachah' - we should likewise expound, doing is 
          forbidden, Grama is permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Because a person is frantic about [losing] his 
          money, if we permit Grama he may overtly extinguish.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If so, the contradiction in Chachamim is even 
          stronger!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim permit Grama regarding Shabbos, even 
               though people are frantic about money - all the more 
               so they should permit it regarding erasing Hashem's 
               name!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Counter-question:</font></b> Surely, Chachamim do not require the 
          reed on account of Chatzitzah - it would not help!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If it is tight, it is a Chatzitzah; if it is not 
               tight, water will go through (and erase His name)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Why are we concerned that the reed is 
               Chotzetz - the ink [of His name] itself is Chotzetz!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The case is, the ink is moist.
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> The following are a Chatzizah if 
                    they are dry, not if they are wet - blood, ink, 
                    honey, and [a woman's] milk.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah bar Shila):</font></b> Chachamim forbid immersing 
          because one may not be naked in front of Hashem's name.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Does R. Yosi permit to be naked in front of 
          Hashem's name?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> No, he covers the name with his hand.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Chachamim should also permit this!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> They forbid, lest he forget and remove his 
               hand.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Objection:</font></b> R. Yosi should also be concerned for 
               this!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> All agree that if a reed is available, he must 
          use it - they argue about whether or not he must toil to 
          find a reed:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi holds that Tevilah bi'Zmanah (to immerse at 
               the first opportunity to become Tahor) is a Mitzvah 
               - therefore, if he cannot find one, he immerses 
               without it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim hold that Tevilah bi'Zmanah Lav Mitzvah - 
               therefore, if he cannot find one, he waits until the 
               morrow.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) MOVING A DOOR THAT SUPPORTS A CANDLE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that one is permitted to open and close a door that has a candle affixed to it, as long as there is no Pesik Reshei that the candle will become extinguished as a result.
</p><p>
Why is the Gemara not bothered by the problem that the door is a Basis l'Davar ha'Asur? The Gemara earlier (47a) teaches that the flame of a lit candle is a Davar ha'Asur, an object forbidden to be handled on Shabbos, and thus the door that supports the candle is a Basis for the forbidden object, and a Basis l'Davar ha'Asur may not be moved!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Posei'ach) offers three answers. First, Tosfos suggests that opening and closing a door is not considered an act of moving Muktzah. Since the door is attached to, and part of, a larger object (the house), moving the door is not considered moving a forbidden object, because only part of the object is being moved. The entire object (the house) is not being moved from its place. Therefore, when one moves the door, he is not considered to be moving a Basis l'Davar ha'Asur.
</p><p>
This approach seems to be the opinion of the <b>RAMBAM</b> as well. The Gemara (44b) teaches that if a Muchni that is attached to a Shidah has money on it, one may move the Muchni on Shabbos. The Rambam (in Perush ha'Mishnayos) explains that the Muchni is a drawer that slides in and out of a bureau. When the Gemara says that one may move the Muchni on Shabbos even when there is money on it, it means that one may slide the drawer in and out if it is permanently attached. If the drawer is not permanently attached, it may not be removed from the bureau. The reason for this is that when an object is a Basis for Muktzah, one is prohibited only from moving the entire object from its place, but he may move a part of it.
</p><p>
(b) Tosfos says that a door cannot become a Basis to a lit candle, because the door is part of the house and a house cannot become subordinate to a candle. A Basis is defined as something that supports and <i>serves</i> the Muktzah item. The entire house cannot be said to be <i>serving</i> the flame.
</p><p>
(c) Tosfos explains that we find in the Gemara that an object does not become a Basis for a forbidden object unless a person purposely leaves the forbidden object on top of it. Tosfos suggests that perhaps the lit candle was left on the door unintentionally; someone intended to remove it from there before Shabbos but forgot. Therefore, the door does not become a Basis l'Davar ha'Asur.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) IS 'TEVILAH BI'ZMANAH' A MITZVAH?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> R. Yosi does not hold that Tevilah bi'Zmanah 
          Mitzvah!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> The following immerse during the day - a 
               Zav, Zavah, Metzora, Metzora'as, Bo'el Nidah, and 
               Tamei Mes;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> A Nidah and Yoledes immerse at night.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> A Ba'al Keri may immerse at any time during the day;
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi says, if his emission was after [he prayed] 
               Minchah, he need not immerse during the day (he can 
               immerse at night before praying Ma'ariv).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That opinion is really of R. Yosi b'Rebbi 
          Yehudah, who says that it suffices for her to immerse at 
          the end [regarding a woman who does not know when she 
          gave birth - others require her to immerse every day that 
          <i>could</i> be her first opportunity to become Tehorah].
<br>
<b><font>2) ALLOWING OTHERS TO EXTINGUISH A FIRE ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Nochri comes to extinguish, [the owners 
          of the burning properly] do not (i.e. may not) tell him 
          to extinguish, nor do (must) they tell him not to 
          extinguish, because his rest on Shabbos is not their 
          responsibility;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  But if a minor comes to extinguish, they do not allow 
          him, for it is their responsibility that he rest.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - R. Ami):</font></b> Regarding a fire, Chachamim permitted 
          to say [in front of Nochrim] 'Anyone who extinguishes 
          will not lose!'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Support (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Nochri comes to extinguish, they 
          do not tell him to extinguish, or not to extinguish, 
          because his rest is not their responsibility.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> They may not tell him to extinguish - but 
               they may say 'Anyone who extinguishes will not 
               lose!'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> It also says that they do not tell him not to 
          extinguish.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> They need not tell him to extinguish - 
               but they may not say 'Anyone who extinguishes will 
               not lose!'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Conclusion:</font></b> [The inferences contradict one another - we 
          cannot determine which is correct,] the Mishnah neither 
          supports nor refutes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> A case occurred, a fire erupted in the Chatzer 
          of Yosef ben Simai; the authorities (Nochrim) of Tzipori 
          came to extinguish it, for Yosef was the overseer of the 
          king's money - he did not allow them, on account of the 
          honor of Shabbos (lest people think that he asked them to 
          extinguish);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A miracle occurred, rain fell and extinguished it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> At night, he sent two Sela'im to everyone [that came 
               to extinguish but consented to refrain] and 50 
               Sela'im to the mayor.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> When Chachamim heard about this, they said that he 
               did not need to stop them - it was taught that if a 
               Nochri comes to extinguish, they do not tell him to 
               extinguish, or not to extinguish.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> But if a minor comes to extinguish, they do 
          not allow him, for it is their responsibility that he 
          rest.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> If a child is eating Neveilos [or doing any 
          Isur], Beis Din [and all of Yisrael] must stop him!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Rejection (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The case is the child comes to 
          extinguish because the father wants this [but others need 
          not stop him]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If so, likewise the Nochri [in the Reisha] does 
          so for the sake of the Yisrael - but this is forbidden!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> A Nochri acts for his own sake.
<br>
<b><font>3) COVERING EXCREMENT ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may put a bowl over a Ner to prevent the 
          ceiling beam from catching fire, and over excrement of a 
          child, and over a scorpion so it will not bite;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, a case occurred - R. Yochanan ben Zakai 
          said that he suspects that the person is Chayav Chatas.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Gemara):</font></b> Rav Yehudah, R. Yirmeyah bar Aba and Rav Chanan 
          bar Rava visited the house of Avin of Nashikiya; Rav 
          Yehudah and R. Yirmiyah were given beds to lie on, but 
          not Rav Chanan. Rav Chanan heard Avin teaching to his son 
          'over excrement of a child on account of a child (lest he 
          play with it)'.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) PREVENTING A CHILD FROM SINNING</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that if a Nochri tries to extinguish a fire in a Jewish house on Shabbos, we do not stop him, since we are not commanded to ensure that a Nochri desists from Melachah on Shabbos. If a Jewish child, however, tries to extinguish the fire, we do stop him, since we are commanded to ensure that a child desists from Melachah on Shabbos. The Gemara points out that it is evident from the Mishnah that if a child is eating Neveilos, Beis Din is obligated to stop him. The Gemara rejects this inference and asserts that Beis Din is <i>not</i> required to stop a child from eating Neveilos. The case of the house on fire is different, because the child wants to extinguish the fire <i>for his father</i>, and therefore we must stop him. In contrast, when he eats Neveilos, he eats for his own enjoyment.
</p><p>
How can the Gemara say that we are not required to stop a child from eating a forbidden food? We know that there is a Mitzvah of Chinuch that obligates us to teach the child to follow the ways of the Torah!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 17:28) explains that the Mitzvah of Chinuch applies only to the father of the child. His father indeed <i>is</i> required to stop him from eating something forbidden. No one else, though, is required to stop him.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> in Yevamos (114a) and <b>TOSFOS</b> here (DH Shema Mina) explain that the Gemara refers only to a child who has not yet reached the age of Chinuch. A child who has reached the age of Chinuch must be stopped from eating forbidden food.
</p><p>
(c) The Rashba adds that one's obligation of Chinuch of a child requires that he train the child to do <i>actions</i>. One is not required to enjoin the child to <i>stop</i> doing actions.
</p><p>
The Rashba also writes that one is permitted to feed a child an item which is prohibited mid'Rabanan in order to satisfy the needs of the child (and not to serve the one feeding the child).
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 343) cites the Rambam's opinion that only the father is commanded to stop the child from sinning. The <b>REMA</b> cites both the opinions of the Rambam (a) and Tosfos (b), with the Rambam's opinion as a 'Yesh Omrim.' (See also Insights to Yevamos 114a.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Rav Chanan:</font></b> Avin the fool teaches folly to his son! 
          Excrement itself is fitting for a dog (we need not give 
          other reasons to permit covering it! Bava Kama 92b - dogs 
          eat Glalei (excrement) when they are hungry; Rashi 
          prefers to say (there) that 'Glalei' refers to rocks, for 
          dogs normally eat excrement.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps another reason is needed because 
               the excrement was not ready from before Shabbos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection (Beraisa):</font></b> One may take [water from] 
               flowing rivers and springs wherever he may go [even 
               if it came from outside his Techum - since he knows 
               that the river flows, he intends to use water that 
               will come - likewise, he may use excrement, for he 
               knows that it will come].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Avin:</font></b> What should I teach?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Rav Chanan:</font></b> You should teach 'over excrement of a chicken 
          (dogs do not eat it) on account of a child.'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> It should be permitted because it is Geraf Shel 
          Re'i (a Kli for excrement)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps excrement may be moved only Agav 
               (along with) a Kli.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> A mouse was found in Rav Ashi's spices - 
               he commanded to remove it by its tail.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> The Mishnah discusses excrement in a wasteheap 
          [in Reshus ha'Rabim; one may move Geraf Shel Re'i only if 
          it is in a place where it bothers him].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> [If so, we should not be concerned -] children 
          would not be in a wasteheap [in Reshus ha'Rabim]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> The excrement is in a Chatzer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> One may move Geraf Shel Re'i in a Chatzer!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The excrement is in a wasteheap in a Chatzer.
<br>
<b><font>4) KILLING DANGEROUS ANIMALS ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> ...And over a scorpion so it will not bite.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> One may kill any damager on 
          Shabbos;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Yosef - Beraisa):</font></b> Five animals may be 
          killed on Shabbos - a fly in Mitzrayim, a wasp in Ninveh, 
          a scorpion in Chadayev, a snake in Eretz Yisrael, or a 
          rabid dog anywhere.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana of the Beraisa?
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  It cannot be R. Yehudah - he is Mechayev 
                    Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah (he could 
                    not permit unless there is mortal danger, and 
                    then any animal could be killed)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer #1:</font></b> It is R. Shimon, and he permits only 
               these five!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Yirmiyah):</font></b> Perhaps the Beraisa is mistaken 
          (it is not a Tosefta)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (to both questions - Rav Yosef):</font></b> The case is, 
          they are pursuing him (these animals pose mortal danger), 
          the Beraisa is like both Tana'im (Tosfos; Rashi - R. 
          Yehoshua ben Levi discusses when they are pursuing him).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (A reciter of Beraisos):</font></b> If one kills snakes and 
          scorpions on Shabbos, Chasidim are displeased with him.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Rava bar Rav Huna:</font></b> Chachamim are displeased with these 
          Chasidim!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  He argues with Rav Huna.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Huna saw a man kill a wasp. He asked, 'Did you 
               kill them all?!' (What you did will not help.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If one encountered snakes and scorpions:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he killed them, this shows that Hash-m summonsed 
               them to give him the merit of killing them;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If he did not kill them, this shows that Hash-m 
               summonsed them to kill him (for a sin), just Hash-m 
               saved him miraculously.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Ula):</font></b> This is when they were hissing at him.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  R. Aba bar Kahana:</font></b> Once, one of them fell into the Beis 
          Medrash; one of the Talmidim killed it. Rebbi remarked 
          that it met someone like it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Does this mean, [it sought to kill, its intent 
          was carried out on itself,] the Talmid acted properly?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Or, does it mean, [it kills needlessly, it was 
               killed needlessly,] the Talmid acted improperly?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer - Question (R. Aba and R. Zeira):</font></b> May one kill 
          snakes and scorpions on Shabbos?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Answer (R. Yanai):</font></b> I kill wasps - all the more so I 
               kill snakes and scorpions!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> Perhaps he permits only [to trample them] l'Fi 
          Tumo (Rashi - in the course of walking, without overtly 
          trying to kill them; Mishnah Berurah - he may intend, but 
          makes it look like he does not).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> One may trample spit l'Fi Tumo 
               (Mishnah Berurah - he may intend to walk on it, he 
               may not intend to smear it);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> One may trample a snake l'Fi Tumo.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (Rav Katina):</font></b> One may trample a scorpion l'Fi Tumo.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  Aba bar Marsa owed money to people of the Reish Galusa's 
          house; they brought him and were paining him. There was 
          spit in front of them (it was Shabbos) - the Reish Galusa 
          told them to cover it with a Kli.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Aba bar Marsa:</font></b> There is no need to do so - Rav 
               Yehudah permits to trample spit l'Fi Tumo!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Reish Galusa:</font></b> Leave him alone, he is a Chacham.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) HALACHAH: MAY ONE KILL 'MAZIKIN' ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara teaches that one is permitted to kill Mazikin (insects or animals that bite and harm people) on Shabbos even if they are not pursuing a potential victim. Which Mazikin may one kill on Shabbos?
</p><p>
(a) According to <b>RASHI</b> (DH v'Divrei ha'Kol), one is permitted to kill only the five very dangerous Mazikin mentioned in the Beraisa, because those Mazikin pose a threat to human life. Since Sakanas Nefashos is involved, one may kill them even if they are not running after someone, because they might come to harm someone later. This is also the opinion of the <b>RIF</b>, <b>ROSH</b>, and others.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH b'Ratzin), the <b>BEHAG</b>, and other Rishonim maintain that one is permitted to kill <i>all</i> types of Mazikin on Shabbos, even if they are not pursuing someone. Why may one kill commonplace Mazikin if they are not pursuing someone? The <b>RASHBA</b> explains that since they <i>commonly</i> cause harm ('Hezekan Matzuy'), the Rabanan permitted killing them. The <b>ROSH</b> adds that these animals pose a <i>significant threat</i> to human welfare, and therefore one may kill them, even though the threat and danger that they pose is not as great as the danger posed by the five Mazikin listed in the Beraisa.
</p><p>
Although one is <i>permitted</i> to kill certain animals even when they are not chasing a person (according to Rashi, the five mentioned in the Beraisa, and according to Tosfos, all Mazikin), the Rishonim dispute whether the Chachamim are <i>pleased</i> with someone who kills them on Shabbos ('Ru'ach Chasidim Nochah Hemeinu'). Therefore, <b>TOSFOS</b> concludes that one should be stringent and not kill Mazikin on Shabbos when no there is no threat to a person's life. The <b>RAMBAM</b>, however, is lenient and rules that one is permitted to kill them.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 316:10) follows the ruling of Tosfos, that one should not kill Mazikin that are not pursuing a person (and that do not pose an immediate threat to a person's life).
</p><p>
The above discussion involves only killing Mazikin deliberately, with obvious intent. The Gemara concludes that everyone agrees that one is permitted to trample the Mazikin 'l'Fi Tumo,' not deliberately, and to kill them while one walks innocently by. (See following Insight for reasons why one is permitted to kill them in this manner.)
</p><p>
One is also permitted to prevent any animal from harming a person by <i>trapping</i> it without killing it. The Gemara (107a) states that one may catch and confine a snake or other type of Mazik in order to prevent it from harming someone. The Gemara here prohibits only <i>killing</i> the Mazik.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) KILLING 'MAZIKIN' ON SHABBOS 'L'FI TUMO'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Why is one permitted to kill on Shabbos even Mazikin that do not pose an immediate danger by stepping on them 'l'Fi Tumo'? (See previous Insight.)
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Dilma l'Fi Tumo) writes that one is permitted to kill Mazikin 'l'Fi Tumo' because doing so is only a Davar she'Eino Miskaven, since the person is walking along normally and has no intention to kill the creature. Even Rebbi Yehudah, who normally maintains that a Davar she'Eino Miskaven is forbidden mid'Rabanan, agrees that one is permitted to kill these Mazikin through an act of Davar she'Eino Miskaven.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> disagrees with Rashi. According to the Rashba, the Gemara permits one to kill the creatures in a deliberate manner as well, as long as he does not make it evident to all that he is deliberately trying to kill something on Shabbos (i.e., he appears to be simply taking a step). The Rabanan permit one to kill with a Shinuy of this sort, because these animals frequently inflict harm.
</p><p>
The Rashba challenges Rashi's explanation (that 'l'Fi Tumo' means that one is walking along and just happens to step on the creature unintentionally) from the Gemara later in which Aba bar Marta told the servants of the Reish Galusa that they may step on spittle lying in the way on Shabbos 'l'Fi Tumo.' Obviously, they knew that the spittle was there, and yet the Gemara calls this 'l'Fi Tumo'! (According to the Rashba's explanation, though, this Gemara is easily understood. One may indeed <i>intentionally</i> trample a Mazik, or spittle, as long as he makes it look like it was not his intention to do so.)
</p><p>
It could be that according to Rashi, the Gemara means that one may intend to <i>step on the spittle</i>, but he may not intend to <i>smooth the road</i>. That is, one is permitted to knowingly step on spittle when one does not intend (Eino Miskaven) to smooth the road, even though it is possible that he indeed will end up smoothing the road. This is similar to one who kills Mazikin 'l'Fi Tumo,' where one intends to walk on his way, but not to transgress the prohibition of killing creatures. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) SPECIAL LAWS THAT WERE OBSERVED IN REBBI'S HOUSE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Aba bar Kahana):</font></b> Candlesticks of Rebbi's house may be 
          moved on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Zeira):</font></b> Is this only if they can be moved 
          with one hand, or even if they require two hands?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Aba):</font></b> They are like those of your father's 
          house (Rashi - small, but one fixes a place for big ones; 
          Tosfos - they are large, or are small and have grooves 
          and look like they must be assembled (but small ones 
          without grooves are obviously permitted). Ramban - R. 
          Zeira's father was the king's overseer, it was known that 
          his are big.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (R. Aba bar Kahana):</font></b> Wagons of Rebbi's house may be moved 
          on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Zeira):</font></b> Is this only if one person can move 
          them, or even if they require two people?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Aba):</font></b> They are like those of your father's 
          house (they require two).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (R. Aba bar Kahana):</font></b> R. Chanina permitted Rebbi's house 
          to drink wine (R. Chananel - brought) in wagons of 
          Nochrim with one seal [on the barrel].
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> I do not know if this was because he holds like R. 
               Eliezer (who requires only one seal for wine), or 
               because Nochrim feared Rebbi (the kingdom backed 
               him).
<br>
<b><font>2) SOMETHING A 'NOCHRI' DID FOR HIMSELF ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Nochri lit a Ner, a Yisrael may use it;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If he lit it for the Yisrael, it is forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  If a Nochri drew water [from a well in Reshus ha'Rabim] 
          for his animals, a Yisrael may use it;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  If he drew for the Yisrael, it is forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  If a Nochri made a ramp [to descend from a ship], a 
          Yisrael may descend on it;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  If he made it for the Yisrael, it is forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Once, R. Gamliel and Chachamim were on a ship, and a 
          Nochri made a ramp to descend - R. Gamliel and Chachamim 
          descended on it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Gemara):</font></b> We must teach all the clauses;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If we only taught about a Ner, one might have 
               thought that this is because a Ner for one person is 
               also good for 100, but we forbid regarding water, 
               lest he draw extra for the Yisrael.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why do we need the clause about the ramp?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This is taught in order to bring the episode with 
          R. Gamliel and Chachamim.
<br>
<b><font>3) WHEN WE ARE CONCERNED THAT IT WAS DONE FOR A JEW</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If a Nochri gathered grass [for his animals to 
          eat], a Yisrael may let his animals eat it afterwards;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he gathered for the Yisrael, it is forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If he drew water for his animals, a Yisrael may use it; 
          if he drew for the Yisrael, it is forbidden.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is if he does not know the Yisrael - but if he 
               recognizes him, it is forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But Rav Huna taught that one may lead his 
          animal to eat from [attached] grass on Shabbos (we are 
          not concerned lest the Yisrael will detach it), but not 
          to eat from Muktzeh (grass detached on Shabbos, lest the 
          Yisrael will give it to the animal - what the Nochri 
          gathered is Muktzeh)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa does not permit the Yisrael to lead 
          his animal there, rather, he stands in front of it [and 
          does not let it go anywhere else] so it goes by itself 
          and eats.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> This is if he does not know the Yisrael - but 
          if he recognizes him, it is forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Nochri who made a ramp for R. Gamliel knew 
          him!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> R. Gamliel was not there at the time.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> Even if R. Gamliel was there at the 
          time, it is permitted - a Ner for one person is also good 
          for 100 (the same applies to a ramp. Tosfos - Abaye 
          normally agrees with this - however, because R. Gamliel 
          was so important, if it was made in front of him we would 
          assume that it was made primarily for him.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa - R. Gamliel):</font></b> Since he made it when we 
          were not there, we may descend on it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He means, since he made it, we may descend on it. 
          (R. Gamliel happened to mention 'We were not there at the 
          time', but the Heter does not depend on this.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question (against Abaye and Rava - Mishnah):</font></b> If Yisraelim 
          and Nochrim are in a city, and there was a bathhouse open 
          on Shabbos:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If the majority [of the residents] are Nochrim, one 
               may bathe in the bathhouse immediately [on Motzei 
               Shabbos];
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If the majority are Yisraelim, one must wait the 
               time needed to heat the water [after Shabbos, even 
               though it was not done in front of Yisraelim, and 
               heating the bath for one heats it for everyone]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The bath is heated for the majority of residents.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question (against Abaye and Rava - Beraisa):</font></b> If a Ner was 
          lit at a party:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If the majority are Nochrim, one may use the light;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If the majority are Yisraelim, or even half, it is 
               forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> There also it is lit for the majority.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) USING THE LIGHT OF A CANDLE KINDLED BY A NOCHRI ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah lists three cases in which a Jew may benefit from a Melachah performed by a Nochri on Shabbos: (a) If a Nochri lights a candle on Shabbos, a Jew may use the light. (b) If a Nochri draws water to feed to his animal, a Jew may use that water 'after him' for his own animal. (c) If a Nochri builds a ramp from a boat to the shore, a Jew may use that ramp 'after him.'
</p><p>
Rashi explains that the Jew may use the water or ramp only <i>after</i> the Nochri has used it, because he must make it apparent that the Nochri drew the water or built the ramp for himself and not for the Jew. Why, then, does the Mishnah not say that the Jew may use the light only 'after him' in the first case, in which a Nochri lights a candle on Shabbos from which a Jew may benefit?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: RAV ELAZAR MOSHE HA'LEVI HOROWITZ</b> explains that when it comes to a light, by nature a person normally derives benefit from it at the moment that he lights it, because it is in front of him and it provides him with light. It was not necessary to say that the Jew uses it after the Nochri uses it, because at the moment that the Nochri lights it, he has already used it.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) HALACHAH: BENEFIT FROM MELACHAH PERFORMED BY A NOCHRI</b></font><b>
<br></b>The Gemara discusses when a Jew may benefit from a Melachah performed by a Nochri on Shabbos. The Gemara concludes that there are two types of cases, each with its respective Halachos. The first type of case is one in which a majority of the people in that place (who might benefit from the Melachah that was performed) are not Jewish. The second type of case is one in which a majority of the people in that place are Jewish, or the numbers of Jews and Nochrim are equal.
</p><p>
(a) Where most of the people are not Jewish, a Jew may benefit from Melachah performed by a Nochri if any one of the following three conditions is fulfilled:
</p><p>
1. The Nochri does not know who the Jew is.
<br> 
<br>2. It is the type of Melachah that serves many people the same way it serves one person ('Ner l'Echad, Ner l'Me'ah').
</p><p>
3. The Nochri performed the Melachah while the Jew was not present.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> adds that the Nochri must actually benefit from the Melachah first before the Jew may benefit from it.
</p><p>
(b) Where most of the people are Jewish, or the numbers of Jews and Nochrim are equal, a Jew is permitted to benefit from the Melachah performed by a Nochri only when it is clear that the Nochri performed the Melachah for his own use.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  Shmuel visited the house of Avin Torin; a Nochri came and 
          lit a lamp, and Shmuel turned away;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b></b>  Shmuel saw the Nochri read a document, and realized that 
          he lit it for himself - Shmuel faced the lamp.
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>***** <b>PEREK KOL HA'KELIM</b> *****
</b></font></center><p>
<br><br><b><font>4) MOVING DOORS OF 'KELIM' ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> All Kelim may be moved on Shabbos, and their 
          doors may be moved with them, even if the doors came off;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Doors of the house [that came off on Shabbos] are 
          different, for they are not prepared [to be moved].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  One may take a hammer to break nuts, an axe to break a 
          ring of figs (it is hard and thick), a saw to cut cheese, 
          a shovel to sweep figs, a pitchfork to feed a child, a 
          spindle or Karkar (Kli used to separate threads on a 
          loom) to insert into food [for eating], a hand needle 
          (used to sew garments) to remove a thorn, or a thick 
          needle (used to sew sackcloth, to substitute for a key) 
          to open a door.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Gemara):</font></b> It means, all Kelim may be moved [with their 
          doors], even if the doors came off on Shabbos (some 
          forbid Kelim that broke on Shabbos on account of Nolad), 
          all the more so if they came off on a weekday!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> Just the contrary! If they came off on 
          Shabbos, at the start of Shabbos they were Muchanim 
          (prepared for use) as part of the Kelim, but not if they 
          came off before Shabbos!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> Indeed, it means, all Kelim may be moved with 
          their doors; even if the doors came off on a weekday, 
          they may be moved on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One may take the door of a chest, box or 
          cupboard, but may not return it;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  One may not take nor return the door of a chicken coop.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We understand why the Tana forbids the coop - 
          he holds that since it is attached to the ground, 
          building and destroying apply to it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Why does he forbid returning the door of a Kli?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If he holds that building applies to Kelim, 
               destroying should also apply (it should also be 
               forbidden to take it); if he holds that destroying 
               does not apply to Kelim, building should not apply 
               either!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> He holds that building and destroying 
          apply to Kelim - the Beraisa means, if the door was 
          removed, one may not return it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Objection #1 (Rava):</font></b> It says 'One may take'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Objection #2 (Rava):</font></b> It says '...but [one may not 
          return]'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> He holds that building and destroying 
          do not apply to Kelim - he decrees to forbid returning, 
          lest one will firmly insert it [and be liable for Makeh 
          b'Patish].
<br>
<b><font>5) 'KLI SHE'MELACHTO L'ISUR'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may take a hammer [to break nuts].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> One may take a hammer special for breaking 
          nuts to break nuts, but not a smith's hammer;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  He holds that Kli she'Melachto l'Isur (it is used for 
          something forbidden on Shabbos) may not be moved, even if 
          it itself is needed [for something permitted].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rabah - Seifa):</font></b> ...A pitchfork to feed a 
          child.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> People do not designate these to feed children!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rabah):</font></b> The Mishnah permits a smith's hammer to break 
          nuts.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  He permits moving Kli she'Melachto l'Isur if it itself is 
          needed.
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) USING 'KELIM' FOR UNUSUAL PURPOSES ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye - Beraisa):</font></b> If there is garlic in a 
          Meduchah (a bowl in which things are pounded), it may be 
          moved; if not, not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah):</font></b> That is like R. Nechemyah, who permits 
          moving a Kli only for its intended purpose.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye - Mishnah - Beis Shamai):</font></b> One may not 
          take an Eli (a thick board used to crush wheat) to cut 
          meat on it [on Yom Tov];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Beis Hillel permit.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Both agree that if one cut meat on it, it may not be 
               moved [afterwards - even Beis Hillel permit only for 
               the sake of Simchas Yom Tov].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Intended Answer:</font></b> Rabah was going to answer that also this 
          is like R. Nechemyah;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rabah heard Rav Chinena say that all agree about 
          dying (alternatively - weaving) tools (they may not be 
          used for other purposes) - since people care about them, 
          they fix a place for them - we can say the same about an 
          Eli.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> The Mishnah permits a hammer used to 
          beat gold (people are not so concerned for it, for 
          banging it on the anvil fixes it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (R. Shemen bar Aba):</font></b> It permits a hammer used to grind 
          spices.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  All the more so, R. Shemen permits a hammer for gold - 
          but R. Chiya forbids a hammer for spices, people are 
          insistent that it not get repulsive.
<br>
<b><font>2) 'TILTUL MIN HA'TZAD'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A spindle or Karkar...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If an unripe fig was wrapped in straw, or if a 
          cake was wrapped in coals:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If it is partially exposed, one may move it; if not, 
               not;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer ben Tadai says, one may insert a spindle 
               or Karkar into it [and take it], the wrapping falls 
               off by itself.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Eliezer ben Tadai.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This implies that Rav Nachman holds that Tiltul 
          Min ha'Tzad Lo Shmei Tiltul (indirect movement [of 
          Muktzeh] is not considered movement, it is permitted);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> But he permits to remove a radish that is partially 
               in the ground only if it is upside down (for the 
               bottom is wider, he does not move dirt when taking 
               it), not if it is right side up!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rav Nachman retracted from that teaching [about 
          the radish].
<br>
<b><font>3) ARE THE LAWS OF 'TUM'AH' AND SHABBOS INDEPENDENT?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A hand needle [to remove a thorn].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (Rava brei d'Rabah):</font></b> May one move a needle if 
          its hole or point was removed?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yosef - Mishnah):</font></b> A hand needle, to remove a 
          thorn.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The hole is not needed to remove a thorn!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> If the hole or point of a needle is 
          missing, it is Tahor.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> You cannot ask from Tum'ah to Shabbos!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Tum'ah depends on 'Kli Ma'aseh' (it still serves the 
               use it was made for), Shabbos depends on being 
               useful - it can remove a thorn!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> He can ask - since it is not a Kli 
          regarding Tum'ah [even if it will be designated for use], 
          it is not a Kli regarding Shabbos!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> A needle may be moved on Shabbos 
          whether or not it has a hole - only Tum'ah depends on 
          having a hole.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye, for Rava):</font></b> The Beraisa discusses 
          unfinished needles - sometimes one decides to use them as 
          is [without a hole, therefore they may be moved]; 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> However, if the hole or point of a finished needle 
               was removed, one throws it amidst scrap metal (it is 
               no longer a Kli).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Asuvi Yenuka (to straighten limbs of a 
          baby [that were disturbed through birth; R. Chananel - 
          removing Orlah [excess flesh] of the throat from a baby 
          using the fingers, this often indices vomiting] is 
          forbidden;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> It is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Support (Rav Nachman, for himself - Mishnah):</font></b> One may not 
          drink Afiktizin [to make himself vomit, to make room to 
          eat more];
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'ASUVEI YENUKA'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshes argue whether 'Asuvei Yenuka' is permitted on Shabbos or not. Rav Nachman attempts to prove that it is forbidden from the Mishnah (147a) that states that it is forbidden to cause Apiktevizin (vomiting) on Shabbos. Rav Sheshes attempts to prove that it is permissible from the Mishnah here (122b) that states that one may use a needle to remove a splinter on Shabbos.
</p><p>
What is 'Asuvei Yenuka,' and how is it comparable to Apiktevizin and removal of a splinter?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that Asuvei Yenuka refers to manipulating the bones and joints of a baby in order to straighten them into their proper positions. It is comparable to Apiktevizin because it is a corrective procedure which involves manipulating the body. In this respect it is also similar to removing a splinter. (Rashi later (147b), however, says that Apiktevizin has medicinal properties, and it is not merely a corrective procedure; see Rebbi Akiva Eiger in Gilyon Hashas.)
</p><p>
According to Rashi, it is not clear why the Gemara states at the end of the Sugya that a splinter is not comparable to Asuvei Yenuka because it is 'Lo Pakid.' It should have said that a splinter is not part of the person's body, while Asuvei Yenuka involves adjusting parts of the body!
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b>, the <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b>, and the <b>ARUCH</b> explain that Asuvei Yenuka refers to a disorder in which a certain cartilage or bone in the upper throat of the child descends into the lower part of the throat (either the esophagus or trachea). A nurse puts her finger down his throat in order to bring the bone back into its proper position. Since the treatment can cause vomiting, the Gemara compares it to Apiktevizin.
</p><p>
This explanation, too, is difficult to understand. How is this treatment comparable to the removal of a splinter? Furthermore, the comparison to Apiktevizin is not clear, because the nurse has no intention to cause the child to vomit, and thus her act is a Davar she'Eino Miskaven with regard to Apiktevizin.
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> answers that, normally, the nurse who performs the procedure of Asuvei Yenuka causes the child to vomit and <i>spit up blood</i> (which is forbidden because of Netilas Neshamah). Therefore, such an act falls into the category of Pesik Reshei (something which is definitely going to occur and thus is forbidden even if one had no intention for it to occur). Accordingly, the Gemara's question is whether the Rabanan permitted an act of Eino Miskaven which <i>nearly always</i> causes a Melachah to be done, for the sake of healing on Shabbos. In this respect it is comparable to the removal of a splinter, which also usually causes blood to flow and is therefore a Pesik Reshei. (Rav Sheshes, who permits the act to be done, apparently does not consider it to be a Pesik Reishei, since it is possible that there will be no bleeding. Nevertheless, he does not permit such an act for non-therapeutic purposes, since it is very close to a Pesik Reishei. -M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(c) The Rishonim cite <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who says that the question is whether one may open a closed duct in order to take something out of it. Is such an act considered healing or not? According to Rabeinu Tam, the case of the bone that became displaced, the case of causing one to vomit, and the case of the removal of a splinter are all cases that involve opening a closed duct for the sake of healing. The Gemara answers that the splinter is 'Lo Pakid' -- it is not the same as Asuvei Yenuka because it is merely deposited underneath the skin. It does not block any natural path that will be used as a duct of some sort. The throat, in contrast, is a duct that needs to be opened in order to allow for the passage of air and food.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Rejection (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> That is abnormal, but Asuvi 
          Yenuka is normal (Rashi - like eating and drinking).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Support (Rav Sheshes, for himself - Mishnah):</font></b> [One may 
          take] a hand needle to remove a thorn.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Rejection (Rav Nachman):</font></b> The thorn is merely deposited in 
          the skin (it is not embedded), removing it is not Tikun 
          (fixing something) - you cannot say this about the limbs 
          (R. Chananel - Orlah), Asuvi Yenuka is Tikun!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> An olive stick (used to flip and check olives 
          waiting to be pressed) is Mekabel Tum'ah only if it has a 
          cap at the end;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b></b>  In either case it may be moved on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> [Even if it has a cap,] it is a Pashut 
          Kli Etz (wooden Kli that does not hold anything), it is 
          not Mekabel Tum'ah!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Why are Peshutei Klei Etz Tehorim?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Klei Etz that Mekabel Tum'ah are equated to 
               Sak, i.e. they must hold something.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> When one flips the olives, one turns it 
          over to see if there is oil in the cap (it is like a 
          receptacle).
<br>
<b><font>4) WHICH 'KELIM' MAY BE MOVED ON SHABBOS?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Yosi):</font></b> Any Kli may be moved, except for a 
          big saw or the blade of a plow (people do not use them 
          for anything else).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Rav Nachman):</font></b> A launderer's sieve (used to 
          sprinkle water on clothes or to enable clothes to absorb 
          scent of incense) is like a plow blade.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> A knife of shoemakers (for cutting or scraping 
          leather) or of butchers (for chopping meat or 
          slaughtering) and a carpenter's axe are like a plow 
          blade.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> At first, they said that only three Kelim may 
          be moved (Tosfos - except for Kelim that hold things - 
          surely, cups, bowls and plates were permitted) - a knife 
          to cut a ring of figs, a big spoon to remove froth from 
          pots and a small table knife;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> They permitted more, and permitted more, until they 
               permitted all Kelim except for a big saw or a plow 
               blade.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does it mean 'They permitted more, and 
          permitted more'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> They permitted to use Kli she'Melachto 
          l'Heter (it is used for something permitted on Shabbos), 
          then permitted to move it when its place is needed, then 
          permitted to use Kli she'Melachto l'Isur (for permitted 
          uses) but not for the sake of its place;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Still, only Kelim that can be moved with one hand 
               were permitted, not those that require two, until 
               they permitted all Kelim (with exceptions), even 
               those that require two hands.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> It says that they permitted - this 
          applies to its use and for its place!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> They permitted Kli she'Melachto l'Heter 
          both for its use and place, then permitted to move it out 
          of the sun to the shade [so it will not get ruined]; 
          later, they permitted Kli she'Melachto l'Isur for its use 
          or place, but not from the sun to the shade;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Still, only Kelim that can be moved by one person 
               were permitted, not those that require two, until 
               they permitted all Kelim, even those that require 
               two people.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye - Beraisa):</font></b> If there is garlic in a 
          Meduchah, it may be moved; if not, not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> That refers to moving it from the sun to 
          the shade.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> Both [Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel] 
          agree that if one cut meat on it (an Eli) it may not be 
          moved.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> Also that refers to moving it from the sun 
          to the shade.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (R. Chanina):</font></b> This Beraisa (that only three Kelim were 
          permitted at first) was taught in the days of the Navi 
          Nechemyah - 'Ba'Yamim ha'Hemah Ra'isi bi'Yhudah Dorchim 
          Gitos ba'Shabbos u'Mevi'im ha'Arimos' (people were 
          Mechalel Shabbos, it was necessary to be extra 
          stringent).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROHIBITION OF 'MUKTZAH'</b></font><b>
<br></b>The Gemara relates that the prohibition of Muktzah began in the times of Nechemyah, who made an enactment (with a few exceptions) that no utensils may be handled on Shabbos. When he saw that people were desecrating Shabbos by bringing piles of wheat from the fields into the city, he made a decree that prohibited any utensil to be carried.
</p><p>
The Rishonim record a number of different reasons for the decree of Muktzah. Different types of Muktzah may be related to the different reasons for the decree.
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RA'AVAD</b> (Hilchos Shabbos 22:12) says that reason for the decree of Muktzah is to prevent people from carrying from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos (like the purpose of the original decree of Nechemyah). This reason is supported by the Gemara later (124b).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> does not mention this reason, but he lists three other reasons for the decree of Muktzah. First, the decree of Muktzah is intended to prevent a person from making his Shabbos into a regular weekday by carrying all of his things around all day. Second, conversely, a person who does not work during the week needs some way to designate the day of Shabbos as different from the weekdays. It is the prohibition of Muktzah that distinguishes Shabbos from the weekdays for such a person. Third, the Rabanan prohibited handling a utensil used primarily for a labor which is forbidden on Shabbos (Kli she'Melachto l'Isur), lest one inadvertently use it for its purpose and do a Melachah on Shabbos.
</p><p>
(c) The Gemara in Beitzah (2b) and Eruvin (38b) gives another source for the prohibition of Muktzah: 'Hachanah d'Rabah.' Rabah derives from a verse in the Torah that one is required to prepare things prior to Shabbos for use on Shabbos. If one did not prepare them prior to Shabbos, they are forbidden to be used on Shabbos. According to this source, it seems that the prohibition of Muktzah is mid'Oraisa. Does this conflict with our Gemara which states that Muktzah is only a decree mid'Rabanan from the time of Nechemyah?
</p><p>
The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> (introduction to Mahadura Tinyana on Beitzah) explains that there are different parts to the decree of Muktzah. We find that the Gemara later in Shabbos (128a) differentiates between eating Muktzah and handling or moving it. Rabah's source for the prohibition of Muktzah, which implies that Muktzah is an Isur mid'Oraisa, refers to an Isur to <i>eat</i> (or consume, such as in the case of firewood) items which were not prepared before Shabbos. There is no source from that verse to prohibit <i>handling</i> Muktzah; that prohibition comes from the decree of Nechemyah.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) STRINGENCIES OF MOVING 'KELIM' ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> The following Mishnayos were all taught 
          before other Kelim were permitted - Kanim, poles, 
          Glustera and [the Beraisa about] Meduchah:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Kanim - (Mishnah):</font></b> Arranging the small poles (that 
               held up Lechem ha'Panim) or removing them does not 
               override Shabbos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Poles - (Mishnah):</font></b> There were smooth thin poles in 
               the Azarah - [when Erev Pesach is on a weekday] two 
               people hold up a pole on their shoulders, the Pesach 
               is flayed hanging on it;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  R. Eliezer says, when it is on Shabbos, each 
                    man puts one hand on his friend's shoulder, the 
                    Pesach is flayed hanging from their hands;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Glustera - (Mishnah - R. Yehoshua):</font></b> If a bolt (for 
               locking a door) has a thick end (fitting to crush 
               garlic), one may [remove and] drag it from one door 
               to [hang on] another (it may not be moved normally, 
               even though it is Kli she'Melachto l'Heter); 
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  R. Tarfon says, it is like all Kelim, it may be 
                    moved in the Chatzer.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> Meduchah is the above Beraisa (123B, that Abaye 
               asked from).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> Perhaps all of these were after Kelim 
          were permitted!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> (New Lechem ha'Panim is placed on the Shulchan on 
               Shabbos day, the old bread is removed.) Kanim hold 
               up and separate the loaves so they will not get 
               moldy - it is possible to remove poles from the old 
               bread before Shabbos and arrange the new bread on 
               them on Motzei Shabbos, we are not concerned for 
               mold in a short time (the old loaves are without 
               poles for less than a day, and also the new bread. 
               Rashba - since it is possible without them, it is as 
               if there is no need for them; <i>Rabah</i> makes this 
               objection, he forbids moving from the sun to the 
               shade.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> We do not use poles to hold up Korban Pesach on 
               Shabbos, because it is possible to do like R. 
               Eliezer;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yanai explained that the Mishnah of Glustera 
               discusses a Chatzer without an Eiruv;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  R. Yehoshua holds that within the doorway (from 
                    which the bolt was taken) resembles inside [the 
                    house], therefore one may not carry it normally 
                    in the Chatzer;
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> R. Tarfon holds that within the doorway is like 
                    outside, one may not take it out to the 
                    Chatzer;
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa of Meduchah is like R. Nechemyah (in the 
               coming Mishnah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> All Kelim may be moved for a need or without a 
          need;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Nechemyah says they may be moved only for a need.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What are 'for a need' and 'without a 
          need'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rabah):</font></b> 'For a need' is using Kli she'Melachto 
          l'Heter; 'without a need' is moving Kli she'Melachto 
          l'Heter for its place, or moving Kli she'Melachto l'Isur 
          to use it, but not for its place;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Nechemyah permits even Kli she'Melachto l'Heter 
               only to use it, but not for its place.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> You cannot call for its place 'without 
          a need'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> 'For a need' is Kli she'Melachto 
          l'Heter for its use or place; 'without a need' is from 
          the sun to the shade, or Kli she'Melachto l'Isur for its 
          use or place, but not from the sun to the shade;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Nechemyah says that even Kli she'Melachto l'Heter 
               may be moved only for its use or place, but not from 
               the sun to the shade.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Safra, Rav Acha and Rav Huna):</font></b> According to 
          Rabah, according to R. Nechemyah, how may we move bowls 
          [after finishing the food inside]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Safra):</font></b> One may move it just like Geraf Shel 
          Re'i (because it bothers him there).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  Abaye asked the same question to Rabah, he cited Rav 
          Safra's answer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye - Beraisa):</font></b> If there is garlic in a 
          Meduchah, it may be moved; if not, not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah):</font></b> That refers to moving it from the sun to 
          the shade.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye - Beraisa):</font></b> Both [Beis Shamai and Beis 
          Hillel] agree that if one cut meat on it (an Eli), it may 
          not be moved.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah):</font></b> Also that refers to moving it from the 
          sun to the shade.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> [On Yom Tov] one may not support a 
          bowl or door with a piece of wood.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A piece of wood is Melachto l'Heter on Yom Tov (it 
               may be burned) - this teaches that Kli she'Melachto 
               l'Heter may not be moved for its use or place!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> There, since it is Melachto l'Isur on Shabbos, we 
          decree to forbid on Yom Tov like on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Even on Shabbos it should be permitted - 
          Melachto l'Isur is permitted for the sake of its use or 
          place!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That is only if it is a Kli - this is not a Kli.
<br>
<b><font>2) PROHIBITING AN ACT YOM TOV ON ACCOUNT OF SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We do not decree [Yom Tov on account of 
          Shabbos]!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font>(Mishnah #1):</font></b> One may lower produce [on the roof to 
               avoid the rain] through a skylight on Yom Tov, but 
               not on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Contradiction:</font></b> We [usually] do decree [Yom Tov on account 
          of Shabbos]!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah #2):</font></b> The only difference between [what is 
               permitted and forbidden on] Yom Tov and Shabbos is 
               preparation of food.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Resolution #1 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Mishnah #1 is R. Yehoshua [who 
          permits toil on Yom Tov to save one's money]; Mishnah #2 
          is R. Eliezer:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> If an animal and its child 
               fell into a pit [on Yom Tov], he brings one animal 
               up with intent to slaughter it today, and brings 
               food down to sustain the other;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehoshua says, he brings one animal up with 
               intent to slaughter it today, then decides that he 
               would rather slaughter the other today, permitting 
               him to bring it up - then he may slaughter either.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> Perhaps R. Eliezer does not permit toil there 
          because it is possible to feed the animal in the pit 
          [there will not be a loss], but he would permit lowering 
          produce [he has no other way to save it];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Perhaps R. Yehoshua permits only when there is a 
               scheme [it looks like he toils in order to slaughter 
               it], but he would forbid where there is no way to 
               scheme!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Resolution #2 (Rav Papa):</font></b> Beis Shamai decree Yom Tov on 
          account of Shabbos, Beis Hillel do not:
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A 'KLI SHE'MELACHTO L'HETER' WHICH IS FORBIDDEN TO BE USED ON SHABBOS </b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that in the Beis ha'Mikdash, small, smooth sticks were used to suspend the animal used for the Korban Pesach while it was skinned. The Gemara says that these sticks were not used on Shabbos. Rabah says that even though the use of a Kli she'Melachto l'Heter (a utensil used for an act that is permitted on Shabbos) is permitted, these sticks were not permitted to be used because it was possible to skin the Korban without them. Two people could place their arms on each other's shoulders and hang the animal over their arms while they skin it. The Gemara gives the same ruling for the sticks that separated the loaves of the Lechem ha'Panim from each other to allow air to circulate around them; since it was not necessary to use these sticks, they may not be moved on Shabbos.
</p><p>
Why should these items be prohibited to be moved simply because it was not necessary to use them? Since they are utensils that are used for permitted purposes, they should not be considered Muktzah at all.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> and <b>RASHBA</b> answer that Rabah here is consistent with his reasoning elsewhere. Rabah (later on 124a) maintains that a Kli she'Melachto l'Heter may not be moved solely for the sake of protecting the utensil ('me'Chamah l'Tzel' -- 'from the sun to the shade'). It may be moved only in order to use it or to use its place (see Chart). Since it was possible to hang the animal on the arms of two people and it was not necessary to use the sticks, using the sticks would be akin to moving them me'Chamah l'Tzel, and therefore it was prohibited.
</p><p>
(b) The Rishonim cite a variant text of the Gemara in which it is Rava, and not Rabah, who made this statement. This is even more difficult to understand, because Rava permits moving utensils of permitted usage even me'Chamah l'Tzel (124a)!
</p><p>
The annotator of the 'Oraisa' edition of the <b>RASHBA</b> (Rav Moshe Mordechai Karp of Kiryat Sefer) points out that according to the <b>MAGID MISHNAH</b>, the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Shabbos 25:3) maintains that even a Kli she'Melachto l'Heter may not be moved for <i>no purpose</i> at all. It may be moved only for a definite purpose. (The Rashba on 43b also records such an opinion.) According to this opinion, we can understand the ruling of the Gemara here. Moving the sticks in order to hang the Korban Pesach on them was considered moving them for <i>no purpose</i>, since the animal could be suspended without the sticks.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah - Beis Shamai):</font></b> One may not Motzi a child, 
               Lulav or Sefer Torah to Reshus ha'Rabim [on Yom 
               Tov];
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Beis Hillel permit.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> Granted, Beis Shamai forbid Hotza'ah [on Yom 
          Tov on account of Shabbos] - this is no source that they 
          do so regarding Tiltul (moving Muktzeh)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Tiltul was forbidden on account of Hotza'ah - if 
          people can move, they will be Motzi!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Rav holds like Rava:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav):</font></b> Moving a hoe so it will not be stolen is 
               Tiltul without a need, it is forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> He forbids moving so it will not be stolen - 
          but for its use or place is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But Rav Kahana visited Rav's house, and Rav 
          said 'Bring a beam for him to sit on';
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Rav said 'to sit on' to teach that Kli 
               she'Melachto l'Isur is permitted only for use, not 
               for its place
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> No, he said 'Move the beam [so he can sit in 
          its place]'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> He moved it from a bad place to a good place 
          (had Rav not said 'to sit on', one might have thought 
          that it is permitted from sun to shade).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  Mari bar Rachel had felt pillows in the sun; he asked 
          Rava if he may move them; Rava permitted.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Mari:</font></b> I have others!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rava:</font></b> These are useful in case guests will come.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Mari:</font></b> I have others in case guests will come!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Rava:</font></b> This shows that you hold like Rabah [who 
               forbids from sun to shade] - it is permitted for 
               anyone else, it is forbidden for you.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (R. Aba citing Rav):</font></b> One may move a cloth brush on 
          Shabbos, but not a broom made from a date branch;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> Even a date broom is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the case?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> They argue about 'for its use and 
               place'.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> Rav would not forbid - he holds like 
               Rava!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They argue about from sun to shade.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> R. Elazar would not permit this regarding a 
          date branch!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Really, they argue about from sun to shade - it 
          should say, also R. Elazar said so (cloth is permitted, a 
          branch is forbidden).
<br>
<b><font>3) MOVING BROKEN 'KELIM' ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Kli may be moved, its fragments may be 
          moved with it, on condition that they have a use, e.g. 
          pieces of a kneading trough to cover a barrel, or pieces 
          of glass to cover a flask;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, the fragments may be moved only if they 
          have a use like the original function of the Kli, e.g. 
          pieces of a trough to pour thick porridge into it, or 
          pieces of glass to pour oil into them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Rav Yehudah):</font></b> They argue about when it broke 
          before Shabbos - R. Yehudah requires a use like the 
          original Kli, Chachamim accept any use;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If it broke on Shabbos, all permit, for at the start 
               of Shabbos the fragments were Muchanim (prepared for 
               use) as part of the Kelim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Rejection (Rav Zutrai - Beraisa):</font></b> One may burn Kelim [on 
          Yom Tov], but not broken Kelim.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> When did the Kelim break?
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> They broke before Yom Tov.
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> They are like pieces of wood, surely 
                    they may be burned!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> They broke on Yom Tov (and nevertheless, one 
               may not burn them)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, Rav Yehudah taught that they argue 
          about when it broke on Shabbos - Chachamim say that the 
          fragments were Muchanim, R. Yehudah says that they are 
          Nolad (unless they can be used like the original Kli);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If it broke before Shabbos, all permit, for the 
               fragments were Muchanim for use before Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #1):</font></b> One may burn Kelim, but not broken Kelim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #2):</font></b> Just like one may burn Kelim, he may burn 
          broken Kelim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #3):</font></b> One may not burn Kelim or broken Kelim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Resolution:</font></b> Beraisa #1 is R. Yehudah [who forbids Muktzeh 
          and Nolad - Kelim are not Muktzeh, but broken Kelim are 
          Nolad], Beraisa #2 is R. Shimon [who permits Muktzeh and 
          Nolad], Beraisa #3 is R. Nechemyah [who only permits 
          Kelim for their intended purpose].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> One may move bricks left over from 
          building, for one can sit on them;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he piled them up, this shows that he plans to use 
               them for [another] building (they are forbidden).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman citing Shmuel):</font></b> One may move a small piece 
          of earthenware in a Chatzer, but not in a Karmelis;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman himself):</font></b> It is permitted even in a 
          Karmelis, but not in a Reshus ha'Rabim;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> It is permitted even in a Reshus ha'Rabim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  This is like Rava taught elsewhere:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rava was walking in a Reshus ha'Rabim of Mechuza; 
               his shoes got muddy, so he took a piece of Cheres 
               and cleaned them; Rabanan shouted to protest.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rava:</font></b> Not only do they not know what is permitted 
               and what is forbidden, they even teach [their 
               mistakes] to others!
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  If it was in a Chatzer it would be fitting to 
                    cover a Kli - here also it is fitting for me!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> If a barrel was crushed, the cork and the 
          fragments may be moved on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> If a barrel was crushed, the cork and 
          the fragments may be moved on Shabbos;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b></b>  One may not cut off protrusions from fragments to make 
          them fitting to cover Kelim or support the legs of a bed 
          (this is Makeh b'Patish);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b></b>  If he threw the cork to the wasteheap, it is forbidden 
          [it is no longer a Kli].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Papa):</font></b> If one threw his cloak to the 
          wasteheap, is it forbidden?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(t)</font></b><font>  Correction (Rav Papa):</font></b> Rather, if he threw the cork to 
          the wasteheap before Shabbos, it is forbidden.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) DECREES THAT FORBID THINGS ON YOM TOV BECAUSE OF SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara (124a) cites the Mishnah in Beitzah (32b) that states that one may not use a piece of wood to support a pot or a door on Yom Tov. The Gemara explains that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue whether or not the Rabanan enacted decrees to forbid certain things (such as firewood) from being moved on Yom Tov lest one move them on Shabbos. Beis Shamai says that the Rabanan did enact such decrees, and Beis Hillel says that they did not.
</p><p>
Does the Gemara's conclusion imply that the Mishnah in Beitzah follows the opinion of Beis Shamai?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> 
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> and the <b>SHITAH L'RAN</b> explain that the Mishnah in Beitzah indeed expresses the opinion of Beis Shamai. Since the Mishnah there expresses the opinion of Beis Shamai, it would seem that the Halachah does <i>not</i> follow the ruling of the Mishnah there. However, the Ritva explains that the Halachah <i>does</i> follow the ruling of the Mishnah there, because there is another Sugya in Beitzah that gives a different reason for why one is prohibited to lean a pot on a piece of wood on Yom Tov. The Gemara says that since pieces of wood are designated to be used <i>exclusively</i> as fuel for fires, they are Muktzah and may not be used for any other purpose. According to that reason, the Mishnah in Beitzah follows the opinion of <i>Rebbi Yehudah</i>, who is stringent with regard to the laws of Muktzah.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> explains that when the Gemara here says that 'this [Mishnah] expresses the opinion of Beis Shamai,' it does not refer to the abovementioned Mishnah in Beitzah. That Mishnah indeed follows Beis Hillel, and the reason why pieces of wood may not be used on Yom Tov is because pieces of wood are designated exclusively for lighting fires (as mentioned in (a) above). When the Gemara says that 'this [Mishnah] expresses the opinion of Beis Shamai,' it refers to the Mishnah that the Gemara cites from Megilah (7b) which states that the <i>only</i> difference between Shabbos and Yom Tov is food preparation.
</p><p>
(c) The Tosfos ha'Rosh cites <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who explains that the Gemara here and the Gemara in Beitzah are saying the same thing. Although the Gemara here says that the Mishnah in Beitzah follows Beis Shamai, the Gemara here agrees with the Gemara in Beitzah that says that pieces of wood are designated exclusively for lighting fires. The Gemara here understands that the reason why pieces of wood are Muktzah for any other purpose other than fuel for fires is <i>because</i> of the Gezeirah that forbids them to be moved on Yom Tov, lest one think that he may move them on Shabbos as well.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) THE MUKTZAH-STATUS OF A BROKEN PIECE OF EARTHENWARE</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara records a dispute between three Amora'im with regard to the status of a broken piece of earthenware (Cheres) in the various domains on Shabbos. Everyone agrees that one may handle a Cheres in a Chatzer. However, Shmuel says that it may be handled only in a Chatzer, but not in a Karmelis (and certainly not in a Reshus ha'Rabim). Rav Nachman says that a Cheres may be handled in a Karmelis as well, but not in a Reshus ha'Rabim. Rava permits one to handle a Cheres even in Reshus ha'Rabim.
</p><p>
What is the basis of their dispute?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that Shmuel permits one to handle a Cheres only in a Chatzer, because in a Chatzer there are plenty of vessels. A broken piece of earthenware can be used to serve as a cover for other vessels. In contrast, vessels are not usually found in a Karmelis, and thus a Cheres in a Karmelis has no use and is Muktzah.
</p><p>
Rav Nachman maintains that even in a Karmelis a Cheres is not Muktzah. Even though there are no vessels in a Karmelis, nevertheless the Cheres can be used to cover spittle, and thus it has a use and is permitted to be handled. Shmuel does not consider such an uncommon and trivial use to be significant.
</p><p>
Rava, who permits one to handle a Cheres even in Reshus ha'Rabim, maintains that since a Cheres in a Chatzer has a normal use (a cover for vessels) and thus it retains its status as a usable utensil, one is permitted to handle a Cheres even in Reshus ha'Rabim. (The fact that it can be used to wipe mud off of one's shoes in Reshus ha'Rabim does not make it into a usable utensil, because wiping off mud is done even with a stone or a piece of garbage which one intends to discard. Such a usage does not serve the purpose of a 'utensil.')
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> explains, as Rashi does, that everyone permits using a Cheres in a Chatzer, because it may be used to cover vessels.
</p><p>
He explains Rav Nachman's reason for permitting the use of a Cheres in a Karmelis as follows. Since carrying from a Karmelis into a Chatzer is prohibited only mid'Rabanan, one might accidentally carry the Cheres from the Karmelis into a Chatzer, where it will then serve a significant purpose of covering a vessel. Therefore, one is permitted to handle a Cheres even in a Karmelis.
</p><p>
Rava permits one to handle a Cheres even in Reshus ha'Rabim, because he maintains that even the relatively insignificant use of wiping mud off of shoes is sufficient to give it the status of a utensil.
</p><p>


