# dafyomi

lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If Rav and Shmuel argue about lighting a Ner 
               directly from another, but all forbid lighting 
               through a chip, this is not difficult;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> But if both permit lighting a Ner directly from 
               another, and Shmuel permits lighting through a chip, 
               this would refute him!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah):</font></b> The Beraisa forbids weighing against 
          coins of Ma'aser Sheni, lest the gold Dinarim will not be 
          the correct weight and he will not redeem with them, and 
          it will turn out that he used Ma'aser Sheni for naught!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Sheshes - Beraisa) Question:</font></b> (The Menorah 
          is) 'Mi'Chutz l'Faroches ha'Edus...Ya'aroch' - Hash-m 
          does not need the light, the 40 years in the Midbar, 
          Hash-m illuminated for Yisrael (with a pillar of fire)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Rather, the Menorah is Edus (testimony) that 
               the Shechinah dwells amidst Yisrael.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the testimony?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rav):</font></b> The testimony was the Ner Ma'aravi 
               (according to the opinion that the (length of the) 
               Menorah is north-south, the middle lamp tilts 
               westward; according to the opinion that it is 
               east-west, this refers to the more western of the 
               two easternmost lamps
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  The same amount of oil was put in all the 
                    lamps; the others were lit [before evening] 
                    from the Ner Ma'aravi; they would finish 
                    burning in the morning, it kept burning until 
                    the next evening.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Summation of question:</font></b> The Neros were fixed in the 
               Menorah, they can only be lit through an 
               intermediary (even if a Ner could light an adjacent 
               Ner, the Ner Ma'arivi could not reach to the Ner at 
               the end) - this is difficult [for Shmuel] according 
               to both versions of the argument!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> The Neros had long wicks, it was 
          possible to light all directly from the Ner Ma'aravi.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b></b>  In any case, this is difficult for Rav Ada.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What was the conclusion?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> If the Mitzvah is 
          Hadlakah (to light Neros Chanukah), it is permitted to 
          light Neros directly from each other; if the Mitzvah is 
          Hanachah (to place the Neros in the proper place), it is 
          forbidden (he uses the Neros for something which is only 
          preparation for a Mitzvah).
<br>
<b><font>3) WHAT IS THE 'MITZVAH'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Is the Mitzvah Hadlakah or Hanachah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> Rava taught that if someone held Ner Chanukah 
          [until it extinguished], he did not fulfill the Mitzvah 
          (this shows that Hanachah is the Mitzvah)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> No, he was not Yotzei because it looks like he 
          needs the light (he did not publicize the Nes). 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rava taught that if one lit inside and took it 
          outside he was not Yotzei.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> We understand this if the Mitzvah is Hadlakah - 
               Hanachah must be in the place of Hadlakah;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> But if the Mitzvah is Hanachah, why wasn't he 
               Yotzei?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> There also, he was not Yotzei because it looks 
          like he needs the light.
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) WHAT IS THE 'MITZVAH'? (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Answer #3:</font></b> R. Yehoshua ben Levi taught that if a big 
          lantern [was lit for Ner Chanukah on Erev Shabbos] burned 
          the entire day, one may extinguish it on Motzei Shabbos 
          and relight it (for the Mitzvah on Motzei Shabbos).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If the Mitzvah is Hadlakah, we understand why it 
               suffices to extinguish it and relight it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> But if the Mitzvah is Hanachah, he should also have 
               to pick it up and put it down! (Tosfos - he also 
               must relight it, since it was not lit at the time of 
               the Mitzvah. This answer is accepted; the Gemara 
               further supports it.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer #4:</font></b> We bless '...Asher Kidshanu...*Lehadlik*...' - 
          this shows that the Mitzvah is Hadlakah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Corollary:</font></b> Since the Mitzvah is Hadlakah, if a child, 
          lunatic or deaf person lit, the Ner may not be used for 
          the Mitzvah [unless someone obligated to keep Mitzvos 
          will extinguish it and relight it].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Surely, a woman may light;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> Ner Chanukah is obligatory 
               upon women, because they were party to the Nes (they 
               were saved from Yevani decrees; also, a woman had a 
               share in the Nes of the war).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> Ner Chanukah is obligatory upon someone 
          lodging outside his house.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (R. Zeira):</font></b> When I was single and learning by my Rebbi, I 
          would contribute a Perutah towards the cost of the Neros 
          [of my host];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> After I married, I need not - my wife lights on my 
               behalf in my house.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> All oils are good for Ner 
          Chanukah (he holds like Rav (21B) - olive oil is the 
          best.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> At first, Rabah would seek to use sesame oil, 
          for it burns longest - after he heard R. Yehoshua ben 
          Levi's teaching, he would seek olive oil, for its light 
          is clearest.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> All oils are good for ink - olive 
          oil is the best.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> (In making ink, one smokes glass in steam of 
          oil (blackening it), then scrapes off the black and 
          kneads it with a bit of oil; when it dries, it is smeared 
          into the ink.) Is olive oil best for smoking, or for 
          kneading?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Version #1 - Answer (Rav Shmuel bar Zutri - Beraisa):</font></b> All 
          oils are good for ink - olive oil is best, both for 
          smoking and for kneading.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (Rav Shmuel bar Zutr*a* - Beraisa):</font></b> All smokes 
          are good for ink - the best is of olive oil.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> All saps are good for ink - the best is sap 
          of Ketaf (balsam).
<br>
<b><font>2) THE 'BERACHOS' MADE ON 'NEROS CHANUKAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> One who lights Ner Chanukah must 
          bless.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Yirmeyah):</font></b> One who sees Ner Chanukah (Rashi - before 
          he lit; Ran - and he himself will not light tonight) must 
          bless.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> The first night, one who sees Ner Chanukah 
          makes two Berachos (he omits 'Lehadlik'), one who lights 
          makes three Berachos; on other nights, one who sees makes 
          one Berachah, one who lights makes two Berachos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Which Berachah is omitted on other nights?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Shehecheyanu is omitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> He should omit Nes (she'Asa Nisim la'Avoseinu)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Nes applied every day (so we bless for it 
          every day).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the text of [the other] Berachah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is '...Asher Kidshanu b'Mitzvosav v'Tzivanu 
          Lehadlik Ner Shel Chanukah'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Where did Hash-m command us about Ner Chanukah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Avya):</font></b> He commanded 'Lo Sasur' (do not 
          deviate from what Chachamim say).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Nechemyah):</font></b> It says 'She'al Avicha 
          v'Yagedcha Zekenecha va'Yomru Lach'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Amram - Mishnah):</font></b> One may use Demai 
          (doubtfully tithed produce) for an Eiruv or Shituf (an 
          Eiruv of an alleyway); we bless on it make a Zimun on it; 
          one may tithe it when naked or Bein ha'Shemashos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If we must bless on all Mitzvos mid'Rabanan, why may 
               one tithe it when naked - 'V'Hayah Machanecha 
               Kadosh' (one may not say Divrei Kedushah where Ervah 
               is visible)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> We bless on all Vadai Mitzvos 
          mid'Rabanan, but not on tithing Demai, for it is a Safek 
          (perhaps it was already tithed).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> In Chutz la'Aretz, people observe a second day 
          of Yom Tov on account of Safek, yet they bless on it 
          (e.g. Kidush)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> [Letter of the law they should not bless -] 
          Chachamim were concerned that if they will not bless, 
          they will be treat it lightly.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> [We bless even on Safek Mitzvos 
          mid'Rabanan -] Demai is not even considered a Safek, for 
          most Amei ha'Aretz tithe (it is a mere stringency 
          mid'Rabanan to tithe it).
<br>
<b><font>3) CONCERN FOR THAT ONE MIGHT AROUSE SUSPICION</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> If a house has two openings to a Chatzer, Ner 
          Chanukah must be placed in both.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> This is only if the openings are on different 
          sides of the house, not if they are on the same side.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Two Neros are required on account of 
               suspicion (people will think that the Ba'al ha'Bayis 
               did not light):
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Whose suspicion are we concerned for?
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  If we are concerned for people from other 
                    cities, even if both openings are on the same 
                    side they will suspect (that the house is 
                    split, and the resident of one side did not 
                    light)!
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> If we are concerned for people of this city 
                    (they know that the house is not split), even 
                    if both openings are on opposite sides they 
                    will not suspect (they will see that the Ba'al 
                    ha'Bayis lit on the other side)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We are concerned for people of this city - 
          perhaps some will pass by only on this side, they will 
          suspect, just like the Ba'al ha'Bayis did not light on 
          this side, he did not light on the other side!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source that we are concerned for 
          suspicion?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer (Beraisa - R. Shimon):</font></b> There are four reasons why 
          the Torah commands to leave Pe'ah at the end of the 
          harvest (they will be explained) - to protect the poor 
          from theft, to spare them time, on account of suspicion, 
          and on account of 'Lo Sechaleh';
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> To protect the poor from theft - lest the Ba'al 
               ha'Bayis will find an opportune time to tell one of 
               his poor relatives 'This is the Pe'ah [go take it]!'
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: A BLESSING FOR A 'SAFEK MITZVAH'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara teaches that we must recite a blessing on all Mitzvos d'Rabanan. Rav Amram questions this assertion from the Mishnah in Demai (1:4) which says that one may separate Terumah from Demai (doubtfully tithed produce) even while one is unclothed. If we must recite a blessing on all Mitzvos mid'Rabanan, then why may one separate Demai when unclothed? One may not recite a blessing while unclothed!
<br> 
<br>Abaye answers that we must recite a blessing only on all <i>Vadai</i> Mitzvos d'Rabanan, but not on <i>Safek</i> Mitzvos d'Rabanan, such as Demai.
</p><p>
Rava answers that we do not recite a blessing for the Mitzvah of separating Terumah from Demai because Demai is not even considered a Safek, as most Amei ha'Aretz are careful to tithe. As <b>RASHI</b> (DH Rava Amar) explains, the requirement to separate Terumah from Demai is not due to a doubt, but rather it is a 'Chumra b'Alma,' a stringency established by the Rabanan.
</p><p>
Rava's words imply that he argues with Abaye and maintains that in all other cases of a Safek Mitzvah d'Rabanan (for example, when one is in doubt whether or not he fulfilled his obligation to perform a Mitzvah d'Rabanan), he must recite another blessing when he performs the Mitzvah again.
</p><p>
Is this indeed the Halachah?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RAN</b> writes that Rava requires that one recite the blessing again in a case of a doubt only when the doubt involves whether or not he performed a Mitzvah d'Oraisa. Since he must perform the Mitzvah again out of doubt, he must also recite the blessing again. However, when the Mitzvah itself is the blessing (for example, one is unsure whether he recited 'Emes v'Yatziv'), one does <i>not</i> recite the blessing again out of doubt, as the Gemara in Berachos (21a) says. 
</p><p>
This also seems to be the intention of <b>RASHI</b> (DH Rava Amar). The <b>RA'AVAD</b> rules like this (Hilchos Milah 3:6), as does <b>RABEINU YONAH</b> (Berachos 21a). However, this ruling applies only when one is in doubt whether he did the Mitzvah or not. If one knows that he did the Mitzvah but is in doubt whether he recited the blessing, he does <i>not</i> recite the blessing again.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Milah 3:6, Hilchos Tzitzis 3:9), however, writes that one does <i>not</i> recite a new blessing when one performs a Mitzvah when he has a doubt whether he did the Mitzvah or not. This is also the view of the <b>RIF</b> and <b>RAV HAI GA'ON</b> as quoted by the Ran. The Poskim rule in accordance with the opinion of the Rambam.
</p><p>
According to this opinion, what does Rava mean when he says that the reason why we do not recite a blessing when separating Terumah from Demai is because Demai is not a real Safek? This clearly implies that in the case of a real Safek Mitzvah d'Rabanan, one <i>does</i> recite a blessing!
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAN</b> (as cited by the Ran) explains that we might have thought that since the Rabanan established the requirement to separate Terumah from Demai, that requirement has the status of a <i>Vadai</i> Mitzvah d'Rabanan, for which we must recite a Berachah. Rava therefore explains that since most Amei ha'Aretz separate Terumah, when one separates Terumah from Demai he is doing so only out of doubt, and therefore he does not recite a blessing, just as one does not recite a blessing for any Safek Mitzvah d'Rabanan.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> To spare Aniyim time - so they will not wait around, 
               anticipating that the Ba'al ha'Bayis is about to 
               declare the Pe'ah;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> On account of suspicion - so passersby will not [see 
               the entire perimeter harvested and] curse the Ba'al 
               ha'Bayis for not leaving Pe'ah;
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> On account of 'Lo Sechaleh' (this connotes the end).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The first three reasons explain why the Torah 
          commands to leave at the end!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> It means, on account of swindlers [who 
          would claim that they already left Pe'ah and Aniyim took 
          it].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (R. Yitzchak bar Redifah):</font></b> If a Ner has two openings (for 
          wicks), two people can fulfill the Mitzvah through it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> If one filled a bowl with oil, surrounded it with 
          wicks and covered it with a Kli, many people may be 
          Yotzei with it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If it is not covered, [the flames merge,] it is like 
               a bonfire, no one may be Yotzei (it does not 
               resemble a Ner).
<br>
<b><font>4) HOW TO MERIT CHILDREN THAT ARE 'CHACHAMIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> The following is obvious to me - if one does not 
          have enough money for Ner Shabbos and Ner Chanukah, Ner 
          Shabbos has precedence, so there will be Shalom Bayis 
          (people are pained to dwell in darkness).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If he does not have enough money for Ner Shabbos and 
          [wine for] Kidush ha'Yom [at the start of Shabbos, it is 
          mid'Oraisa], Ner Shabbos has precedence, on account of 
          Shalom Bayis;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (Rava):</font></b> If he does not have enough money for Ner 
          Chanukah and Kidush ha'Yom, which has precedence?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Kidush ha'Yom has precedence, for it is Tadir (comes 
               more frequently);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps Ner Chanukah has precedence, to 
               publicize the Nes!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Conclusion (Rava):</font></b> Ner Chanukah has precedence, to 
          publicize the Nes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> One who regularly fulfills Ner Shabbos and 
          Ner Chanukah will have children who are Chachamim ('Ki 
          Ner Mitzvah v'Sorah Or';)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  One who is careful to fulfill Mezuzah properly will merit 
          to have a nice dwelling; one who is careful about Tzitzis 
          will merit to have a nice garment;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  One who is careful about Kidush ha'Yom will merit to have 
          much wine;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Rav Huna used to pass by the door of R. Avin Nagra; he 
          saw that he used to burn much oil. Rav Huna said that 
          great Chachamim will descend from him; this was fulfilled 
          through Rav Idi bar Avin and Rav Chiya bar Avin.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  Rav Chisda saw that the father (or father-in-law) of Rav 
          Shizbi used to burn much oil; he said that a great 
          Chacham will descend from him - this was fulfilled 
          through Rav Shizbi.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  Rav Yosef's wife used to light Ner Shabbos late [close to 
          dark].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Rav Yosef:</font></b> A Beraisa teaches 'Lo Yamish Amud he'Anan 
          Yomam v'Amud ha'Esh Laylah Lifnei ha'Am' - the fire came 
          before the cloud left (towards evening - this teaches 
          that it is proper to light before dark); the fire would 
          not leave until the cloud came (in the morning).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  His wife:</font></b> If so, I will light early in the day!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (An elder - Beraisa):</font></b> One may not light too early [for 
          then it is not evident that the light is for the sake of 
          Shabbos] nor too late.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> One who loves Chachamim will have children who 
          are Chachamim; one who honors Chachamim will have 
          son-in-laws who are Chachamim; 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  One who fears Chachamim will himself become a Chacham;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If this is not feasible [for he does not learn 
               regularly], his words will be heeded like those of a 
               Chacham.
<br>
<b><font>5) 'SHEMEN SEREIFAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not use Shemen Sereifah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is Shemen Sereifah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah):</font></b> It is Tamei Terumah oil - it is called 
          Shemen Sereifah because it must be burned.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is it forbidden to use for Shabbos?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> Because it is a Mitzvah to burn it [lest 
          someone will come to eat it], we decree lest he will tilt 
          the Ner [to ensure that all of it burns].
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question (Abaye - Mishnah):</font></b> One may not light Shemen 
               Sereifah on Yom Tov.
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  This cannot be a decree lest he tilt! (Burning 
                    is permitted on Yom Tov.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rabah):</font></b> This is a decree, lest one will burn 
               it on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Chisda):</font></b> [One may use Shemen Sereifah on a 
          regular Shabbos,] we are not concerned lest he tilt the 
          Ner;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah forbids it only when Erev Shabbos is Yom 
               Tov, for we may not burn Kodshim on Yom Tov.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Seifa (the next Mishnah) forbids lighting 
          Shemen Sereifah on Yom Tov - this implies that the Reisha 
          does not discuss Yom Tov!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Chanina of Sura):</font></b> The Seifa gives the reason 
          for the Reisha - we may not burn Shemen Sereifah on Erev 
          Shabbos that is Yom Tov, for we may not burn [Pasul] 
          Kodshim on Yom Tov.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Support (for Rav Chisda - Beraisa):</font></b> All the oils 
          forbidden for Shabbos are permitted on Yom Tov, except 
          for Shemen Sereifah, for we may not burn Kodshim on Yom 
          Tov.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) HALACHAH: THE CHANUKAH LIGHTS TAKE PRECEDENCE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that buying Chanukah lights takes precedence over buying wine for Kidush, because the Chanukah lights involve Pirsum Nes, the publicizing of the miracle of Chanukah. The <b>RAMBAM</b> takes this further and rules that one should even sell his clothing in order to buy the materials needed for kindling the Chanukah lights. The Rambam writes, 'The Mitzvah of the Chanukah lights is a most beloved Mitzvah, and one must be very prudent in its fulfillment in order to publicize the miracle and to increase the praise of Hash-m and gratitude to Him for the miracles that He wrought for us. [Therefore,] even if one [is so poor that he] has nothing to eat except for what he takes from charity, he should borrow money or sell his clothing in order to buy oil and candles to light' (Hilchos Chanukah 4:12).
</p><p>
What is the Rambam's source for this ruling?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAGID MISHNEH</b> explains that the Rambam's source is the Gemara here, which says that the publicizing of the Mitzvah of Chanukah makes the Chanukah lights more important than Kidush. We find with regard to the Four Cups of wine of the Seder night that if one cannot afford to buy wine, he should take charity in order to buy wine to fulfill the Mitzvah. The Gemara in Pesachim (112a) says that the Four Cups also serve to publicize a miracle. If one must take from charity in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of the Four Cups, then all the more so must one take from charity or sell one's clothing in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of the Chanukah lights.
</p><p>
(The <b>LECHEM MISHNEH</b> asks why the Magid Mishneh says 'all the more so' regarding the Chanukah lights. Why should the Mitzvah of the Chanukah lights be more stringent than the Four Cups, if they are both Mitzvos d'Rabanan of Pirsum Nes? He concludes that the Rambam's ruling can be learned from comparing the two Mitzvos ('Hu ha'Din'), but not from the logic of 'Kol she'Ken.')
</p><p>
(b) The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (<b>BI'UR HA'GRA</b> OC 671) says that the source for this Halachah is as follows. The Gemara in Pesachim (112a) says that even a poor person who is already supported by the communal charity fund should take more charity in order to provide a minimal amount of food in honor of Shabbos. The <b>RASHBAM</b>, in his comments to the Mishnah in Pesachim (99b), says that taking from charity means even hiring oneself out or selling one's clothing. The Gemara there (Pesachim 105b) says that one must rely on charity if he does not have enough money to buy wine for Kidush. Since the Gemara here says that the Chanukah lights take precedence over Kidush, we may derive that certainly one must sell his clothing to buy Chanukah lights.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>ROGATCHOVER GA'ON</b> in <b>TZAFNAS PANE'ACH</b> says that it is not necessary to prove from the Gemara in Pesachim that one is required to sell his clothing in order to buy wine for Kidush, because the Gemara elsewhere says so explicitly. The Gemara in Megilah (27b) relates that some of the Amora'im sold their clothing in order to buy wine for Kidush. Since the Gemara here says that the Chanukah lights take precedence over Kidush, we may derive that certainly one must sell his clothing to buy Chanukah lights.
</p><p>


<font><b>4) WHEN TO LIGHT THE SHABBOS CANDLES</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates that the wife of Rav Yosef used to light the Shabbos candles late. Rav Yosef pointed out that it is 'proper etiquette' (Rashi) to light while it is still day.
</p><p>
How could the wife of Rav Yosef light the Shabbos candles late? Did she not know the explicit Torah prohibition against lighting a fire on Shabbos? Furthermore, if she was desecrating the Shabbos, why did Rav Yosef reprimand her with a metaphor instructing proper etiquette, and not with the explicit verse in the Torah that commands us to observe the Shabbos?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>RAN</b> explains that Rav Yosef's wife certainly lit the candles before sundown and was not desecrating the Shabbos. However, she thought that although there is a Mitzvah to add to the Shabbos from the weekday ('Tosefes Shabbos'), that Mitzvah does not apply to lighting the Shabbos candles, and the Shabbos candles may be lit <i>after</i> Tosefes Shabbos, <i>before</i> sundown. Her reasoning was that Tosefes Shabbos applies only to the prohibition of Melachah (that is, one should cease from performing Melachah some time before sundown), but not to a Melachah that involves a hallowed act of a Mitzvah (lighting the Shabbos candles). Rav Yosef therefore informed her that it is proper to observe Tosefes Shabbos with the lighting of the Shabbos candles as well.
</p><p>
The Gemara continues and relates that after Rav Yosef told her that she should light the candles earlier, she wanted to light them <i>very</i> early. A certain elder told her that she should not light the candles too early, but rather after she ceases doing the other Melachos she should light the candles in order for the lighting of the Shabbos candles to be the last Melachah that she does before Shabbos.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) WHEN DO WE MENTION 'CHANUKAH'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Must one mention Chanukah (Al ha'Nisim) in 
          Birkas ha'Mazon?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Since it is only mid'Rabanan, he need not;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps he must, to publicize the Nes!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> He need not mention it; if he wants to, he 
          mentions in Hoda'ah (the second Berachah, Birkas 
          ha'Aretz).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Rav Huna bar Yehudah visited Rava; he intended to mention 
          it in Bone Yerushalayim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> Just like in Tefilah, we mention it in 
          Hoda'ah, the same applies to Birkas ha'Mazon.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Must one mention Rosh Chodesh (Ya'aleh v'Yavo) 
          in Birkas ha'Mazon?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Perhaps one need not mention Chanukah, since it is 
               only mid'Rabanan, but Rosh Chodesh is mid'Oraisa, he 
               must mention it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps since it is permitted to do Melachah, he 
               need not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav):</font></b> He must mention it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (R. Chanina):</font></b> He need not mention it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rav Zerika):</font></b> One should follow Rav, for R. Oshaya holds 
          like him.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Oshaya - Beraisa):</font></b> On days when there is Korban 
               Musaf, such as Rosh Chodesh and Chol ha'Mo'ed, one 
               says Shemonah Esre at Ma'ariv, Shacharis and 
               Minchah, and mentions the day [in Ya'aleh v'Yavo] in 
               Avodah (Retzei) - if he did not mention it, he must 
               pray again;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> One does not make Kidush on these days; one mentions 
               them in Birkas ha'Mazon.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> On days when there is no Korban Musaf, such as 
               Mondays, Thursdays, fast days, Ma'amados 
               (representatives of Kohanim, Leviyim and Yisraelim 
               that are present when Korbanos Tzibur are offered; 
               they fast and say special Tefilos - Ta'anis 26A)...
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Interjection:</font></b> What is special about Mondays and 
               Thursdays?!
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Correction:</font></b> Rather, on Mondays and Thursdays of fast 
               days (they would decree fasts on Mondays and 
               Thursdays on account of lack of rain) and Ma'amados, 
               one says Shemonah Esre at Ma'ariv, Shacharis and 
               Minchah, and mentions the fast (says Aneinu) in 
               Shome'a Tefilah; if he did not do so, he does not 
               pray again; he does not mention them in Birkas 
               ha'Mazon (e.g. when eating the night before).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Does one mention Chanukah in Musaf (on Rosh 
          Chodesh or Shabbos)?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Since we do not say Musaf on account of Chanukah, he 
               does not;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Or, since he must say four Tefilos today, he 
               mentions Chanukah in all of them!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah):</font></b> He does not mention 
          it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Nachman and R. Yochanan):</font></b> He mentions it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah learned their law from 
          Rav!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav):</font></b> If Rosh Chodesh is on Shabbos, the Maftir who 
               reads from the Navi does not mention Rosh Chodesh in 
               the Berachah afterwards, for we read from the Navi 
               solely on account of Shabbos, not on account of Rosh 
               Chodesh.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Rejection (Rav Yosef):</font></b> There is different - when Rosh 
          Chodesh is not on Shabbos, we do not read from the Navi 
          at all;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Here, when there is no Musaf on Chanukah, we mention 
               Chanukah in three Tefilos!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  Rather, the law resembles the following:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav):</font></b> (They used to read from the Navi at Minchah 
               on Shabbos, this ceased in the days of the 
               Persians.) If Yom Tov is on Shabbos, the Maftir who 
               reads from the Navi at Minchah does not mention Yom 
               Tov, for we read from the Navi at Minchah solely on 
               account of Shabbos.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) CHANUKAH AND 'SHEMEN SEREIFAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Why does the Gemara interrupt its discussion of Chanukah to discuss the prohibition of lighting the Shabbos candles with the Sugya of 'Shemen Sereifah' (Terumah oil that became Tamei and must be burned)?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHBA</b> (end of 23b) in the name of <b>RABEINU YONAH</b> and the <b>CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN</b> explain that the Sugya of Shemen Sereifah is relevant to the laws of Chanukah. Rabah and Rav Chisda (23b) argue concerning the reason why one may not light the Shabbos candles with Shemen Sereifah. Rabah says that it is because of the fear that one might tilt the lamp to hasten the burning process. Rav Chisda says that it is because the Mishnah is referring to a case in which Yom Tov falls on Friday, and lighting with Shemen Sereifah is forbidden on Yom Tov. 
</p><p>
Consequently, this discussion is also relevant to the laws of Chanukah. When Shabbos and Chanukah coincide, may one use Shemen Sereifah for the <i>Chanukah lights</i> on Friday evening? Even if we conclude that it is permitted to use all of the other inferior oils on Chanukah (because 'Kavsah Ein Zakuk Lah' and 'Asur l'Hishtamesh l'Orah'), using Shemen Sereifah should still be prohibited according to Rabah because of a different concern -- perhaps one will tilt the lamp on Shabbos in order to hasten the burning process. Therefore, the discussion of Shemen Sereifah is interjected here in the Gemara.
</p><p>
The <b>MAHARATZ CHAYOS</b> adds that according to Rabah, one is not permitted to burn Shemen Sereifah even on a <i>weeknight</i> of Chanukah. Since Rabah maintains that there is a fear that one might tilt the lamp to speed up the burning of the oil, we are concerned that one might consequently cause the amount of oil in the Chanukah lamp to diminish to less than the amount required to remain burning for the proper length of time.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHASH</b> says that the discussion of Shemen Sereifah is interjected here for the opposite reason. According to Rav Chisda's reason for not lighting the Shabbos candles with Shemen Sereifah, the discussion of Shemen Sereifah is not relevant <i>at all</i> to Chanukah. Therefore, the Gemara waited until <i>after</i> the discussion of kindling the wicks and lights of Chanukah to discuss Shemen Sereifah. After it discusses the Chanukah lights, the Gemara returns to the Mishnah and discusses this Halachah (which also involves wicks and lights). Afterwards, the Gemara returns to address the laws of Chanukah which are unrelated to the kindling of the Chanukah lights. (Since the laws of Chanukah are discussed nowhere else in the Gemara, they are discussed here as an addendum to the laws of the wicks and oils that may be used.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) SAYING 'AL HA'NISIM' IN BIRKAS HA'MAZON</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara asks whether we recite 'Al ha'Nisim' in Birkas ha'Mazon on Chanukah. Both <b>RASHI</b> and <b>TOSFOS</b> explain that the Gemara does not ask whether we recite 'Al ha'Nisim' in Shemoneh Esreh, because it is obvious to the Gemara that we do (as Rav Sheshes says at the end of the Sugya). Rashi and Tosfos seem to argue, though, about <i>why</i> we recite 'Al ha'Nisim' in Shemoneh Esreh.
</p><p>
Rashi says that we recite 'Al ha'Nisim' in Shemoneh Esreh because '[the days of Chanukah] were established as days of praise and thanksgiving, as the Gemara said earlier (21b)' (and therefore it is obvious that we make mention of Chanukah in our Shemoneh Esreh).
</p><p>
Tosfos, however, says that it is because 'Shemoneh Esreh is recited in public, where there is Pirsum Nes (publicizing the miracle of Chanukah), and thus Al ha'Nisim is recited. But Birkas ha'Mazon is recited individually in one's home where there is no Pirsum Nes.' 
</p><p>
Furthermore, Rashi and Tosfos argue about another point. In the end of the Sugya, Rav Sheshes says, 'Just like Al ha'Nisim is recited in the Hoda'ah (thanksgiving) section of Shemoneh Esreh, so, too, it is recited in the Hoda'ah section of Birkas ha'Mazon.'
</p><p>
Rashi explains that the reason why 'Al ha'Nisim' is mentioned in the Hoda'ah section of Birkas ha'Mazon (and Shemoneh Esreh) is because the entire institution of Chanukah is for the sake of giving thanks (Hoda'ah), and thus, naturally, we recite 'Al ha'Nisim' in the blessing of giving thanks.
</p><p>
Tosfos, however, writes that we recite 'Al ha'Nisim' in Hoda'ah because the style of the 'Al ha'Nisim' addition is that of thanksgiving (thanking Hash-m) and not of prayer (making requests of Hash-m). Had it been written in the style of a prayer, it indeed would have been placed in 'Boneh Yerushalayim,' where all other special days are mentioned. What is the basis of the argument between Rashi and Tosfos?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> When the Gemara answers, 'If one wants to say Al ha'Nisim, he may say it in Hoda'ah,' Tosfos understands that the reason to say 'Al ha'Nisim' is the same reason for saying any other special paragraph for a special day (like Shabbos, Rosh Chodesh, or Yom Tov); the Rabanan established that on special days, one should make mention of that day in Birkas ha'Mazon.
</p><p>
Rashi, on the other hand, understands that the Gemara's reason for saying 'Al ha'Nisim' is not because of the concept of making mention of the special day in Birkas ha'Mazon (because we make mention only of festivals that are mid'Oraisa, and Chanukah is mid'Rabanan). Rather, the reason for saying 'Al ha'Nisim' in Birkas ha'Mazon is because of the unique obligation to give thanks to Hash-m on Chanukah (because that is the purpose of Chanukah, as the Gemara says earlier, 'l'Hallel v'Hoda'ah').
</p><p>
This difference in understanding the essential nature of 'Al ha'Nisim' explains why Rashi and Tosfos give different reasons for reciting it in Shemoneh Esreh, and different reasons for reciting it in the section of Hoda'ah. (<b>RAV</b> Y. D. HOMNICK in <b>SEFER NACHALAS YAKOV</b>)
</p><p>


<font><b>3) HALACHAH: SAYING 'AL HA'NISIM' IN BIRKAS HA'MAZON</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Berachos 2:6) rules that one says 'Al ha'Nisim' in Birkas ha'Mazon. This is also the ruling of the <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 682:1).
</p><p>
Why is saying 'Al ha'Nisim' obligatory? The Gemara here implies that it is optional ('Rav Huna said that one does not mention Al ha'Nisim, but if one wants to mention it, he says it Hoda'ah')!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>ROSH YOSEF</b> gives three answers. First, the simple understanding of the statement of Rav Sheshes at the end of the Gemara is that he argues with Rav Huna and maintains that one <i>must</i> say 'Al ha'Nisim' in Birkas ha'Mazon. This is how <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> understands the Gemara (although his text had the name 'Rava' instead of 'Rav Sheshes').
</p><p>


(b) Since the Jews accepted upon themselves to say 'Al ha'Nisim' in Birkas ha'Mazon, it has become obligatory (similar to the way that the Shemoneh Esreh of Ma'ariv became obligatory).
</p><p>
(c) The Yerushalmi says that 'Al ha'Nisim' is obligatory, and one who forgets to say it must <i>repeat</i> Birkas ha'Mazon. Since the Bavli and Yerushalmi are arguing, the Rambam rules that we must be stringent in accordance with the Yerushalmi and require that 'Al ha'Nisim' be said in Birkas ha'Mazon. However, one does not repeat Birkas ha'Mazon if he forgets to say 'Al ha'Nisim,' because doing so would be a Berachah l'Vatalah according to the Bavli. (<b>ROSH YOSEF</b> in the name of the <b>LECHEM MISHNEH</b>)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  The Halachah does not follow any of these teachings, 
          rather, it is like the following:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> If Yom Kipur is on Shabbos, 
               in Ne'ilah (an additional Tefilah) one mentions 
               Shabbos, for it is one of the four obligatory 
               Tefilos of the day[time, i.e. excluding  Ma'ariv].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Contradiction:</font></b> But the Halachah follows Rava!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rava):</font></b> If Yom Tov is on Shabbos, when the Shali'ach 
               Tzibur says Birkas me'Ein Sheva (Kone Shamayim 
               va'Aretz...Magen Avos...) after Ma'ariv, he does not 
               mention Yom Tov, for this Berachah is solely on 
               account of Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Resolution:</font></b> That is different! Letter of the law, Birkas 
          me'Ein Sheva should not be said even on Shabbos - it was 
          enacted on account of danger (latecomers might be left 
          alone after the Tzibur finished - the synagogues were in 
          unpopulated areas, Shedim could harm individuals, 
          therefore it was decreed to prolong the Tefilah of the 
          Tzibur); (From Tosfos (Ta'anis 2B, based on Yerushalmi) 
          it seems that people did pray b'Tzibur on Yom Tov night - 
          Sefas Emes suggests that the Berachah was not enacted on 
          Yom Tov, for everyone came together, but on Shabbos most 
          people accepted Shabbos early, a minority would come 
          late.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The four [daytime] Tefilos of Yom Kipur are 
               intrinsic to the day.
<br>
<b><font>2) WHICH OILS ARE PERMITTED FOR THE SHABBOS LIGHTS?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not use the tail [or Chelev; Nachum 
          ha'Midi permits cooked Chelev; Chachamim forbid it, 
          whether or not it is cooked]. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The latter Chachamim do not argue with the 
          first Tana!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They argue about Rav Beruna's law (that one may 
          put a drop of good oil into melted Chelev or fish innards 
          and light with it) - we cannot determine which holds like 
          Rav Beruna and which argues.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not burn Shemen Sereifah on Yom Tov;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Yishmael forbids lighting [Neros Shabbos] with Itran 
          (tar) it is dishonorable to Shabbos (this will be 
          explained);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Chachamim permit all oils - sesame, nut, radish, fish, 
          wild gourd, tar and kerosene;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  R. Tarfon says, only olive oil may be used.
<br>
<b><font>3) ONE MAY NOT BURN 'SHEMEN SEREIFAH' ON 'YOM TOV'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Why is it forbidden [to burn Shemen 
          Sereifah on Yom Tov]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This is because we do not burn [Pasul] Kodshim on 
          Yom Tov (Ri - because we may not benefit from them; 
          mid'Oraisa, one may burn Tamei Terumah for the sake of 
          cooking on Yom Tov - Chachamim decreed on account of 
          Kodshim. Riva - since even Terumah is burned primarily 
          for the Mitzvah (just it is permitted to benefit from it 
          at the time), it is forbidden mid'Oraisa.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source of this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Chizkiyah) Question:</font></b> 'Lo Sosiru Mimenu Ad 
          Boker (do not leave over meat of the Pesach until the 
          morning of the 15th) veha'Nosar Mimenu <i>Ad Boker</i> ba'Esh 
          Tisrofu' - why are these words repeated?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> This teaches that Nosar is burned on another 
               morning (which is not Yom Tov, the 16th).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> 'Olas Shabas b'Shabato' - but one may 
          not burn on the Mizbe'ach [limbs of] an Olah of Chol 
          (Erev Shabbos or Erev Yom Tov) on Shabbos or Yom Tov (all 
          the more so, one may not burn Pasul Kodshim on Yom Tov).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Rava):</font></b> 'Hu Levado Ye'aseh Lachem' - 'Hu' 
          (Melachah of food preparation is permitted on Yom Tov), 
          not Machshirim (making things used to prepare food); 
          'Levado' - but not circumcision after day eight, which 
          [if not for the verse] would have permitted from a Kal 
          va'Chomer. (All the more so, burning Kodshim, which does 
          not have a fixed time, does not override Yom Tov.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #4 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> 'Shabaton' - there is a Mitzvas Ase 
          to rest on Yom Tov [in addition to the Lav of Melachah], 
          the Ase to burn Kodshim does not override a Lav and an 
          Ase.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>4) MENTIONING ROSH CHODESH IN THE BLESSING OF THE HAFTARAH ON SHABBOS-ROSH CHODESH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara concludes that the Halachah is not like 'all of these teachings,' but rather like the teaching of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi who says that we mention Shabbos in the Ne'ilah prayer on Yom Kipur when Shabbos and Yom Kipur coincide. <b>RASHI</b> says that the Gemara is repudiating <i>all</i> of the previous statements, including that of Rav Gidal, who says that we do not mention Rosh Chodesh in the blessing after the Haftarah on Shabbos (when Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh coincide).
</p><p>
Why does Rashi say that Rav Gidal's ruling is also refuted? The ruling of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi does <i>not</i> conflict with the ruling of Rav Gidal! The reason why we mention Shabbos in Ne'ilah (Rebbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's ruling) is because of the concept of 'Yom she'Chayav Bo Arba Tefilos' -- there are already several other Shemoneh Esreh's that one recites on Shabbos-Yom Kipur which must include mention of Shabbos (since they would be recited even if it was not Yom Kipur). Therefore, even though one recites Ne'ilah only because of Yom Kipur, one should still make mention of Shabbos. The Haftarah, however, is <i>never</i> read on Rosh Chodesh, so there is no reason to warrant mentioning Rosh Chodesh in the blessing of the Haftarah! (<b>TOSFOS</b> DH v'Leis)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>ROSH</b> (2:16) explains that once we are informed of the second statement of Rav (related to us in his name by Rav Achdevoy), in which it is clear that Rav does not agree with the concept of 'Yom she'Chayav Bo Arba Tefilos,' it is evident that Rav Gidal and Rav Achdevoy are not arguing, but are expressing the same opinion of Rav through two different cases. Consequently, it makes sense to say that once Rav Achdevoy's opinion is rejected, so, too, is Rav Gidal's.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> apparently understands that the Shemoneh Esreh of Ne'ilah is unlike any other Shemoneh Esreh. Ne'ilah is not in the category of ordinary Tefilos (which were instituted to correspond to the various Korbanos), but it is a completely new institution which was established as a way of concluding the fast. (Ne'ilah is not an 'Avodah,' but rather a 'Gemar Tzom.') Therefore, since Shabbos has no connection with Ne'ilah because it is not a normal Shemoneh Esreh, this case is identical to the case of mentioning Rosh Chodesh in the Haftarah blessing (and since Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's ruling is in contrast to Rav Gidal's, Rav Gidal is refuted). (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> According to Rashi's explanation of the Gemara, we <i>do</i> mention Rosh Chodesh in the blessing after the Haftarah on Shabbos (<i>not</i> like Rav Gidal). According to Tosfos' explanation, we do <i>not</i> mention Rosh Chodesh (like Rav Gidal).
</p><p>
Many Rishonim learn like Rashi (the Rif, Rabeinu Yonah, Rosh), but, as the Rosh writes, they limit the Halachah to mentioning Rosh Chodesh in the middle of the blessing, but not in the concluding blessing itself (the same way we mention 'Ya'aleh v'Yavo' in the Shemoneh Esreh on Shabbos, but we do not make mention of it in the concluding blessing, 'Baruch Atah Hash-m Mikdash ha'Shabbos').
</p><p>
The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 284:2) cites first the opinion of Tosfos and then the opinion of the Rosh, and concludes that 'the common practice is like the first opinion,' that is, <i>not</i> to mention Rosh Chodesh at all in the blessing after the Haftarah.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) ONE MAY BENEFIT FROM 'TERUMAH' THAT IS 'TEMEI'AH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> This is forbidden on Yom Tov, but on Chol one 
          may burn Shemen Sereifah [and benefit from this]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav):</font></b> Just like it is a Mitzvah to burn Tamei 
          Kodshim, it is a Mitzvah to burn Tamei Terumah - the 
          Torah permitted to benefit at the time of burning 
          [Terumah].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Where does the Torah permit this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> We learn from Rav Nachman:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Nachman):</font></b> '...Mishmeres Terumosai' - the verse 
               discusses two Terumos, Tahor and Tamei;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  It says 'Lecha' - they are yours (the Kohen's - 
                    Tamei Terumah may not be eaten, but) you may 
                    burn it and cook over the fire.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> We learn from R. Avahu:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Avahu):</font></b> 'V'Lo Vi'arti Mimenu b'Tamei' - you may 
               not consume Ma'aser b'Tum'ah (eat it when it or you 
               are Tamei, or burn it if it is Tamei), but you may 
               burn [and benefit from] Tamei Terumah oil.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Why don't we say, you may not burn Tamei 
               Ma'aser, but you may burn [and benefit from] Tamei 
               Kodesh oil?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> A Kal v'Chomer refutes this:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Ma'aser is lenient, yet it may not be burned in 
                    Tumah - Kodesh is stringent, all the more so!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Objection:</font></b> If so, the same applies to Terumah!
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> 'Mimenu' excludes [and permits Terumah].
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps 'Mimenu' excludes Kodesh!
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> This is unreasonable, for Kodesh has many 
               stringencies:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  It can become Pigul (if a Korban was offered 
                    with intent to eat or offer it after the 
                    allotted time), or Nosar, it is called Korban, 
                    Me'ilah applies to it, a Tamei [person] who 
                    eats it is Chayav Kares, it is forbidden to an 
                    Onen.
       <br><b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Rather, we should forbid Terumah, since it 
               has these stringencies:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  A Tamei who eats it is Chayav Misah bi'Dei 
                    Shamayim, a Zar (non-Kohen) who eats it 
                    b'Shogeg must add a fifth when paying for what 
                    he ate, it cannot be redeemed, it is forbidden 
                    to a Zar.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE REASON FOR BURNING 'TERUMAH TEME'AH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (20b) states that one may not light the Shabbos candles with 'oil that is burned.' The Gemara (23b) explains that this refers to oil that is Terumah which became Tamei, which one is obligated to burn. It is called 'burned oil' because there is a Mitzvah to burn it. The Gemara explains that one may not use it for the Shabbos candles because 'since one is obligated to burn it, we are afraid that he might tilt the lamp (to speed up the burning process).'
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (23b, DH she'Mitzvah Alav) explains that the reason why one must destroy Terumah that became Tamei is in order to prevent one from accidentally eating it (which is a severe Isur d'Oraisa).
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> here (25a, DH Mitzvah li'Serof), however, gives <i>two</i> reasons why one must burn Terumah Teme'ah -- 'because it is similar to Kodshim that became Tamei (which must be burned), and, furthermore, in order to prevent [eating it by] accident.' Why does Rashi give two reasons here, and only one reason earlier (on 23b)? (See <b>BEIS HA'LEVI</b>.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) Earlier, the Gemara focused on why using such oil on Shabbos is prohibited. The Gemara said that the reason is because of the concern that one might tilt the lamp to hasten the burning process. There is no concern that one might tilt the lamp simply to perform a Mitzvah of burning the oil; only when there is a <i>strong</i> reason for someone to want to get rid of the oil do we worry that he might tilt the lamp. The strong reason why he would want to get rid of the oil is in order that he not accidentally transgress the severe prohibition of eating Terumah Teme'ah. That is why Rashi there emphasizes that the reason for burning the oil is to avoid accidental transgression.
</p><p>
Here, however, the Gemara is discussing the general source for burning Terumah Teme'ah. Therefore, Rashi gives both reasons. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(b) As we explained above, the Gemara (on 23b) gave the reason for why using such oil on Shabbos is prohibited -- it is because of the concern that one might tilt the lamp in order to get rid of the oil that could cause him to transgress a severe prohibition. The Gemara was not concerned with <i>how</i> one will get rid of the oil, but just that one <i>wants</i> to get rid of it. Therefore, Rashi there gives the reason why one would want to get rid of it.
</p><p>
Here, though, the Gemara is discussing the specific Mitzvah to <i>burn</i> the Terumah Teme'ah (<i>how</i> to get rid of it). What is the source for specifically <i>burning</i> Terumah Teme'ah (as opposed to using any other form of disposal)? The source for specifically burning Terumah Teme'ah is the law that requires <i>Kodshim</i> Teme'im to be burned. Therefore, Rashi mentions both reasons, one to explain why Terumah Teme'ah must be disposed of, and one to explain why it is specifically burned. (<b>RAV YAAKOV</b> D. HOMNICK in <b>SEFER NACHALAS YAKOV</b>)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE SEVERITY OF DEATH AT THE HANDS OF HEAVEN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that one of the features of Terumah that makes it more severe than Kodshim is that one who eats Terumah while he is Tamei is punished with Misah b'Yedei Shamayim, while one who eats Kodshim while he is Tamei is punished only with Kares (early death and childlessness). Why is Misah b'Yedei Shamayim considered more severe than Kares, when Kares itself <i>includes</i> Misah? (Kares not only causes a person to die before his time, but it <i>also</i> causes him to die younger according to some, or to die childless according to others.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> When the Gemara mentions Misah, it is not referring to the punishment for eating Terumah while one is Tamei. Rather, as <b>RASHI</b> explains, it is referring to the punishment for a <i>non-Kohen</i> who eats Terumah. The punishment for a non-Kohen who eats Terumah is Misah b'Yedei Shamayim, while a non-Kohen who eats <i>Kodshim</i> is punished only with Malkus (Rambam, Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 11:8), and not with Misah or Kares. In this respect, Terumah is more severe than Kodshim. (<b>TOSFOS</b> to Yevamos 73b, DH she'Ken; see also Insights to Pesachim 32:2 and to Yevamos 73:2.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>9.  </font></b><font> Answer #1:</font></b> Kodesh has more stringencies.
        <br><b>  <b><font>10. </font></b><font> Answer #2:</font></b> Kares is more stringent than Misah bi'Dei 
               Shamayim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> 'Titen Lo' (give 
          [Tahor] Terumah which the Kohen himself can eat), do not 
          give [Tamei Terumah, which will be fuel] for his fire;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This implies that the Kohen may use it for [fuel] 
               for his fire.
<br>
<b><font>2) WHY TAR MAY NOT BE USED FOR THE SHABBOS LIGHTS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Yishmael):</font></b> One may not light [with tar, it 
          is dishonorable to Shabbos].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> It smells bad - we decree, lest he will 
          leave the room [and be in dark on Shabbos].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> What is wrong if he leaves?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> I hold that Ner Shabbos is obligatory:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav):</font></b> Ner Shabbos is obligatory; washing the hands 
               and feet in hot water on Shabbos night is Reshus 
               (optional).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Rava):</font></b> I say that washing is a Mitzvah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the Mitzvah?
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Rav Yehudah taught, on Shabbos night they 
               would bring to <i>R.</i> Yehudah a basin of hot water, he 
               would wash his face, hands and feet, cloak himself 
               and sit in decorated linen garments [with Tzitzis, 
               including woolen Techeiles], he resembled an angel.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> His Talmidim hid the corners of their garments [of 
               linen, they did not have Tzitzis].
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> R. Yehudah:</font></b> I taught to you - Beis Shamai exempt 
               linen garments from Tzitzis and Beis Hillel 
               obligate, and the Halachah follows Beis Hillel! 
               (Tosfos - Beis Shamai decree, lest one put Techeiles 
               on a night garment, which is exempt from Tzitzis, he 
               transgresses Sha'atnez; Rashi - Beis Shamai hold 
               that mid'Oraisa, the Mitzvah of Tzitzis does not 
               override Sha'atnez).
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b></b> His Talmidim held that Chachamim decreed to exempt 
               linen garments, on account of a night garment [even 
               according to Beis Hillel].
<br>
<b><font>3) THE BEST THINGS IN LIFE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does it mean 'Va'Tiznach mi'Shalom Nafshi 
          (I had no Shalom)'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Avahu):</font></b> This is [not having] Ner Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does it mean 'Nashisi Tovah (I forgot what 
          is good)'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Yirmeyah):</font></b> This is a bathhouse.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> This is washing hands and feet 
          in hot water.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> This is a nice bed 
          and nice Kelim on it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #4 (R. Aba):</font></b> This is a spread bed and a wife 
          adorned (Rashba - in her deeds) for a Chacham.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> A wealthy person is one who enjoys 
          his wealth (Maharsha; Rashi - he is happy with what he 
          has);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  R. Tarfon says, it is one who as 100 vineyards, 100 field 
          and 100 slaves to work them. (Maharsha - one who gathers 
          wealth to be called Ashir will feel that he needs all 
          this - and still, he will not be satisfied with it);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  R. Akiva says, it is one who has a wife whose deeds are 
          nice;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi says, it is one who has a Beis ha'Kisei near his 
          <br>table 
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) WHO IS WEALTHY?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara presents four different views among the Tana'im as to the definition of 'wealth.' The Tana'im define it a number of ways:
</p><p>
1. A person who has 'Nachas Ru'ach' from his wealth (he is happy with what he has, -Rashi) (Rebbi Meir)
</p><p>
2. A person with 100 vineyards, 100 fields, and 100 slaves to work them (Rebbi Tarfon)
</p><p>
3. A person who has a wife who does good deeds (Rebbi Akiva)
</p><p>
4. A person with a bathroom near his table (Rebbi Yosi)
</p><p>
What is the underlying point of their argument?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) According to <b>RASHI</b> the point in question is how much money a person should make it his goal to attain. (Apparently, the Tana'im are advising a person to work only until he has attained the prescribed amount, and then to retire and work no more.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> explains that the first Tana (Rebbi Meir) emphasizes that money is worthless if one does not make use of it himself ('Nachas Ru'ach').
</p><p>
The other three Tana'im teach that it is futile to strive for wealth. If one's purpose is to become rich and famous (Rebbi Tarfon), regardless of how much he has he will always feel a need to attain more. If his goal is to earn money in order to provide for his wife and family, he would be better off marrying a woman whose needs are minimal and who does not make great demands of him (Rebbi Akiva). If he intends to save money so that he will be able to afford medical treatments when he becomes old and sick, he would be better off simply making it his practice to go to the bathroom immediately after every meal, and to accustom himself to other healthy practices (Rebbi Yosi).
</p><p>
(c) The words 'poor' and 'rich' are often used to refer to wealth and poverty in terms of Torah and Yir'as Hash-m (see Rashi, end of 33a). Rebbi Meir says that a person is considered a true Ben Torah and a G-d-fearing person if he is happy with whatever amount of wealth Hash-m granted him. One who displays content with his lot demonstrates complete trust in Hash-m.
</p><p>
Rebbi Tarfon explains that wealth is breadth of Torah knowledge. Grain produce ('100 fields') is a common metaphor for Halachic statements, while products of the vine ('100 vineyards') is a metaphor for Agadic statements (Vayikra 1:2; Sifri on 'Dagan v'Tirosh'). The '100 servants to work them' refer to the large number of students who attend to the Rav and analyze every statement he makes.
</p><p>
Rebbi Akiva explains that the measure for achievement in Torah is how well-versed in Halachah a person is, and whether he practices what he preaches. A 'wife' refers to the Torah that a person has learned (as in Mishlei 30; see Bava Metzia 84b and Rashi there, DH Haysah). A person's actions must be commensurate with his Torah knowledge.
</p><p>
Finally, Rebbi Yosi explains that wealth is measured by the ability to weed out flawed outlooks (Hashkafos) from one's mind, so that his material wealth (his 'table,' as in Berachos 5b) will not affect him adversely.
</p><p>
In short, the Tana'im are describing four different aspects of Torah wealth: wealth in emotion (Rebbi Meir), in speech (Rebbi Tarfon), in deed (Rebbi Akiva), and in thought (Rebbi Yosi). (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) OILS FORBIDDEN EVEN DURING THE WEEK</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> One may not light with 
          Tzari (balsam sap).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah):</font></b> Since it smells nice (it is one of the 
          ingredients in the Ketores), we decree lest he will take 
          some of the sap [and be liable for extinguishing].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> You should say that it is forbidden for 
          it flies (Rashi - it is dangerous, it may burn the house; 
          Tosfos - one may come to extinguish)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah):</font></b> I agree that it is forbidden because it 
          flies - I add, we also decree lest he will take some of 
          the sap.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  There was a mother-in-law who hated her daughter-in-law; 
          she told her to anoint with balsam oil, and to light a 
          lamp. The daughter-in-law did so; she was consumed in 
          fire.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yosef - Beraisa):</font></b> 'Umi'Dalos ha'Aretz Hish'ir 
          Nevuzaradan...l'Chomrim ul'Yogvim' - Chomrim are people 
          who collect balsam from Ein Gedi to Ramot;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Yogvim are people who hunt for the Chilazon (a fish whose 
          blood is used to make Techeiles) from the hill of Tzur to 
          Chaifah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One may not light with Tamei Tevel (untithed 
          produce) on Chol, there is no need to say it is forbidden 
          on Shabbos;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  Similarly - one may not light with white kerosene on 
          Chol, there is no need to say it is forbidden on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We understand why white kerosene is forbidden - 
          it flies;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Why is Tamei Tevel forbidden?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> '...Mishmeres Terumosai' - the verse discusses 
          two Terumos, Tahor and Tamei;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Just like you may not benefit (eat) from Tahor 
               Terumah before separating it (it is Tevel), you may 
               not benefit (e.g. burn) from Tamei Terumah before 
               separating it.
<br>
<b><font>2) OILS FORBIDDEN TO BE USED ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> One may not light with 
          Tzari - this is balsam sap.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yishmael says, one may not light with anything that 
          comes from a tree.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yishmael ben Brokah says, one may light only with 
          things that come from produce.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Tarfon says, only olive oil may be used.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  R. Yochanan ben Nuri:</font></b> [This is unreasonable -] what will 
          people in Bavel do, they have only sesame oil! People in 
          Madai, Alexandria and Klal, Prat and Kaputkia have 
          (respectively) only nut oil, radish oil and kerosene!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One may light with anything Chachamim did not 
               forbid.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  One may light with fish oil or tar;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon Shezuri permits wild gourd and kerosene;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Sumchus says, the only thing that comes from flesh that 
          one may light with is fish oil.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Sumchus does not argue with the first Tana!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They argue about Rav Beruna's law (that one may 
          put a drop of good oil into melted Chelev or fish innards 
          and light with it) - we cannot determine which holds like 
          Rav Beruna and which argues.
<br>
<b><font>3) WHICH GARMENTS CAN BECOME 'TAMEI' THROUGH 'TZARA'AS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> A garment of [at least] 
          three fingers by three fingers of any material derived 
          from a tree is not Mekabel Tum'ah, unless it is of linen;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Any tree derivative may be used for Sechach (the 
               roof of a Sukah), except for linen.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WHAT OILS MAY BE USED FOR THE SHABBOS LIGHTS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa lists a number of opinions concerning what materials may be used for kindling lights for Shabbos. Rebbi Tarfon says that one may use only olive oil. Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri says that one may use <i>all</i> oils except those mentioned by the Chachamim in the Mishnah (20b). Rebbi Shimon Shezuri says that one may use the oil of Paku'os (a type of gourd) and Neft (naphta, which is distilled coal, tar, or petroleum). 
</p><p>
In what way is Rebbi Shimon Shezuri arguing with the previous Tana, Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri? He cannot mean that <i>only</i> these two materials may be used, because these two are inferior to other oils, as is evident from the Mishnah. If these may be used, then certainly other oils may be used. He cannot mean <i>even</i> these two materials may be used, because Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri already said that one may use any materials not prohibited by the earlier Mishnah, and thus these two may be used!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Chulin (75b, DH Ana) and the <b>RITVA</b> explain that Rebbi Shimon Shezuri indeed maintains that these two materials are the only ones with which one may light. This, however, does not mean that all other materials (even better oils) are prohibited. Rather, <i>of all of the inferior oils that Rebbi Yochanan permits</i>, Rebbi Shimon Shezuri permits only these two.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Rebbi Shimon Shezuri) mentions an alternate reading in the Gemara, according to which the text is, 'Rebbi Shimon Shezuri says we do <i>not</i> light with oil of Paku'os and Neft.' While Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri permits these two, Rebbi Shimon Shezuri (according to this text) prohibits them because they have a bad smell, but he permits the other oils. (This approach is the exact opposite of the previous explanation, that of Tosfos in Chulin and the Ritva.) 
</p><p>
(c) The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> answers that when Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri says that one may use any oil not mentioned in the Mishnah, he is not permitting the oil of Paku'os and Neft, even though these two are not mentioned in the Mishnah. (Although he cites the practice of the people of Kapotkia who light with Neft, in that statement he is referring to <i>black</i> Neft, which he permits. He prohibits using <i>white</i> Neft. Rebbi Shimon Shezuri permits even white Neft.)
</p><p>
How do we know that Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri does not permit the oil of Paku'os and Neft, even though he says that all oils not mentioned in the Mishnah are permitted? The Rosh explains as follows. Once Rebbi Yochanan has said that one may light with all oils that are not listed in the Mishnah, why does he add, 'And one may light with the oil of fish and with Itran'? If he has already said that all oils not listed in the Mishnah are permitted, he does not need to say that these two oils are permitted! It must be that when Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri says that all oils are permitted, he does not mean literally <i>all</i> oils, but rather all oils that are permitted by tradition (such as the ones which he specifically mentions). Oil of fish and Itran, however, may be used even though there is no tradition that permits their use.
</p><p>
Since Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri does not permit all oils, it is possible that he indeed prohibits the use of the oil of Paku'os and Neft (white Neft). Rebbi Shimon Shezuri, then, permits lighting with the oil of Paku'os and white Neft.
<br> 
<br>The <b>RASH MI'SHANTZ</b> challenges this explanation, because the words of Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri clearly imply that <i>all</i> other oils are permitted (including the two that Rebbi Shimon Shezuri mentions).
</p><p>
In response to the question of the Rash mi'Shantz, we may suggest that when Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri says 'all oils,' he is referring only to oils that one may not use because they do not burn well (and the Rabanan were concerned that one might tilt the lamp on Shabbos). Perhaps he agrees, though, that there are other oils that may not be used for other reasons (such as oils that have a bad smell). This is why he adds that the oil of fish and Itran may be used, even though they have a bad smell. He might agree, though, that there are other oils which are prohibited for a <i>third</i> reason (such as oils that have a <i>nice</i> smell, like white Neft, in which case the Rabanan were concerned that one might take some oil out of the lamp). Rebbi Shimon Shezuri means to permit even those oils. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) INTRODUCTION: GARMENTS BECOMING 'TAMEI'</b></font><b>
<br></b>(a) Two categories of garments: The Gemara discusses the Tum'ah of small pieces of garments, including when they are able to become Tamei and when they are not. These small pieces of garments are divided into two categories: 1. pieces that are 'Shalosh Al Shalosh Etzba'os' (three by three <i>fingerbreadths</i>), and 2. 'Sheloshah Al Sheloshah Tefachim' (three by three <i>handbreadths</i>). (The Gemara uses the masculine word for three, 'Sheloshah,' to refer to 'Tefachim,' a masculine noun, and the feminine form for three, 'Shalosh,' to refer to 'Etzba'os,' a feminine noun. Generally, wherever the abbreviation 'Gimel' appears in the Gemara and Rishonim in this Sugya, it represents the feminine 'Shalosh').
</p><p>
The difference between these two categories of garments is that if a garment is only three by three Etzba'os, then it is useful only for a poor person who hoards even small scraps of material to use. If it is three by three Tefachim, then even rich people find it useful and keep it.
</p><p>
(b) Two categories of Tum'ah: There are two general categories of Tum'ah: 1. Tum'as Nega'im (this refers to a garment upon which green or red spots appear, which are classified as Nig'ei Begadim, an affliction of Tzara'as that affects a garment), and 2. all other Tum'os (Tum'as Mes, Tum'as Sheretz, etc.).
</p><p>
The Mishnah in Nega'im (11:2) teaches that only garments made of wool (Tzemer) or flax (Pishtim) can become Tamei with Tum'as Nega'im. Everyone agrees with this law.
</p><p>
Regarding the other types of Tum'os, there are differing opinions whether only wool and flax can become Tamei or other materials can also become Tamei. Some maintain that other materials cannot become Tamei with such Tum'os, just as they cannot become Tamei with Tum'as Nega'im. Others maintain that they can become Tamei, but only when they are three by three Tefachim, and not when they are merely three by three Etzba'os. Others maintain that even when they are three by three Etzba'os they can become Tamei. (See Chart #6.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> R. Shimon ben Elazar and Tana d'vei R. Yishmael 
          agree with each other.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Tana d'vei R. Yishmael - Beraisa):</font></b> The Torah often 
               says 'Beged' without specifying; in one place, it 
               specified 'Tzemer u'Pishtim' - in all places, it 
               refers to wool or linen.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> They argue regarding garments of other materials 
          that are three Tefachim by three Tefachim - R. Shimon ben 
          Elazar says that they Mekabel Tum'ah, Tana d'vei R. 
          Yishmael says they do not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> All agree that three by three fingers of wool 
          or linen can receive [Tum'as] Tzara'as - from where do 
          they learn this?  
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> 'Beged' only teaches that a [full] 
          garment can receive Tzara'as; 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the source for even three by three 
               fingers?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> '*Veha*'Beged' includes this.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps it comes to include three 
               Tefachim by three Tefachim!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> Rejection We know that from a Kal va'Chomer - even 
               warp and woof threads receive Tzara'as, all the more 
               so three by three Tefachim!
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> The same Kal va'Chomer should teach that 
               three by three fingers receives Tzara'as!
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The Kal va'Chomer only teaches three by 
               three Tefachim, for fabric this size is fitting for 
               rich and poor alike;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  It does not teach three by three fingers, for 
                    such pieces are fitting only for poor people; 
                    we learn three by three fingers only from the 
                    verse.
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Why not say that '*Veha*'Beged' includes 
               three Tefachim by three Tefachim of garments of 
               other materials!
       <br><b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> 'V'Beged Tzemer O b'Veged Pishtim' - wool 
               and linen, nothing else.
       <br><b>   <b><font>9.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Perhaps that only excludes three fingers 
               by three fingers (of other garments), but we learn 
               three Tefachim by three Tefachim from Veha'Beged'!
        <br><b>  <b><font>10. </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> There are two verses to exclude other 
               garments - [the above verse and] 'Beged ha'Tzemer O 
               ha'Pishtim';
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  One verse excludes three fingers by three 
                    fingers, the other excludes three Tefachim by 
                    three Tefachim.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) THE SOURCE FOR A SMALL GARMENT BECOMING 'TAMEI'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that we learn that a garment of wool or flax which is only three by three Etzba'os in size can become Tamei from the word 'veha'Beged' (Vayikra 13:47). The Gemara asks that perhaps this word is intended to teach that a garment of other materials that is three by three <i>Tefachim</i> can become Tamei, and that a wool or flax garment of three by three Etzba'os is derived from another source. From what other source does the Gemara intend that it be derived?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH v'Eima l'Rabos and DH v'Eima Ki) says that it would be derived from the Kal v'Chomer from 'Shesi va'Erev' that the Gemara suggested earlier and refuted.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH v'Eima l'Rabos) disagrees, because the Gemara just said that the Kal v'Chomer cannot teach that a garment of three by three Etzba'os becomes Tamei. Tosfos therefore explains that since the verse specifically mentions 'Tzemer' and 'Pishtim,' thereby limiting Tum'as Nega'im to garments made of wool and flax, it must be that they have some law that other materials do not have. Consequently, if 'veha'Beged' teaches that other materials of three by three Tefachim can become Tamei, then it must be that wool and flax can become Tamei even when they are only three by three Etzba'os.
</p><p>
To defend Rashi's explanation, we may suggest that perhaps Rashi understands that the Gemara earlier was unsure whether the Kal v'Chomer from 'Shesi va'Erev' to garments of three by three Etzba'os is a workable Kal v'Chomer. Even though the Gemara refutes the Kal v'Chomer by saying that 'Shesi va'Erev' is more of a completed garment than one which is only three by three Etzba'os, the Gemara makes that statement only because the word 'veha'Beged' ostensibly teaches us not to make the Kal v'Chomer. However, the Gemara may still be in doubt about whether 'Shesi va'Erev' is <i>less</i> of a garment than one which is three by three Etzba'os (because at least the small garment is fit for a poor person's use, while 'Shesi va'Erev' cannot be used even by a poor person), and if the word 'veha'Beged' can be used to teach something else, then the Kal v'Chomer will work. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) 'TUM'AH' OF OTHER GARMENTS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Rava says that R. Shimon ben Elazar is Metamei 
          three fingers by three fingers of other garments - what 
          is his source?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He learns from 'O Veged'.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> 'Veged' only teaches that a [full] 
               garment is Mekabel Tum'ah;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the source that even three 
               Tefachim by three Tefachim is Mekabel Tum'ah?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> We learn from 'O Veged'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> According to Abaye, what do our Tana'im learn 
          from 'O Veged'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This teaches that three fingers by three fingers 
          of wool and linen is Mekabel Tum'as Sheratzim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  Rava says, the Torah taught that they can receive 
          Tzara'as, we learn that they also receive Tum'as 
          Sheratzim, no other verse is needed for this.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Abaye:</font></b> We cannot learn from Tzara'as - they have a 
          stringency, even warp and woof receive Tzara'as!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Rava:</font></b> Tzara'as cannot be more stringent - if so, the 
          Torah would have taught [that three fingers receives 
          Tum'ah] regarding Sheratzim, and we would learn to 
          Tzara'as!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Abaye:</font></b> We could not learn from Sheratzim to Tzara'as - 
          Sheratzim have a stringency, the size of a lentil of a 
          Sheretz is Metamei!
<br>
<b><font>2) 'TANA D'VEI REBBI YISHMAEL' CONTRADICT THEMSELVES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> The following Tana d'vei R. Yishmael argues on 
          the Tana d'vei R. Yishmael of the previous Beraisa (26B):
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Tana d'vei R. Yishmael - Beraisa):</font></b> 'Veged' - one 
               might have thought, only garments of (sheep's) wool 
               and linen receive Tum'as Sheratzim - 'O Veged' 
               teaches that also garments of camel's of rabbit's 
               wool, goat's hair, silk, Kalach and frayed silk.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Resolution #1:</font></b> Rava): They do not argue - they agree 
          that three fingers of other garments does not receive 
          Tum'ah, but three Tefachim does! 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But Rava said above that only R. Shimon 
               ben Elazar holds that way, but Tana d'vei R. 
               Yishmael says that other garments never receive 
               Tum'ah!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer #1:</font></b> Rava retracted.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer #2:</font></b> Rava did not say this (Resolution #1), 
               rather, Rav Papa [gave a slightly different answer].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Resolution #2 - Rav Papa):</font></b> When the previous Tana d'vei 
          R. Yishmael (26B) said 'in all places, ['Veged'] refers 
          to wool and linen', he referred to Sha'atnez (and not to 
          Tum'ah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> Why would he have to teach that - it 
          explicitly says 'Lo Silbash Sha'atnez Tzemer u'Fishtim 
          Yachdav'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought, that only applies to 
          wearing Sha'atnez - but the prohibition to put Sha'atnez 
          on one's body [even without wearing it - 'U'Veged 
          Kil'ayim Sha'atnez Lo Ya'aleh Alecha'] applies to any two 
          materials - holds that teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But a Kal va'Chomer teaches this!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The whole body benefits by wearing, yet the Torah 
               forbids only wool and linen - putting the garment on 
               the body [is less benefit], all the more so!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Rav Papa's resolution is refuted.
<br>
<b><font>3) MATERIALS THAT ARE OBLIGATED IN 'TZITZIS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Resolution #3 - Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> When the 
          previous Tana d'vei R. Yishmael (26B) said 'in all 
          places, ['Veged'] refers to wool and linen', he referred 
          to Tzitzis (and not to Tum'ah).
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'TUM'AH' OF MATERIALS OTHER THAN WOOL AND LINEN </b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites two statements of Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishmael which apparently contradict each other. The first Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishmael says that other materials (in addition to wool and linen) cannot become Tamei with Tum'as Sheratzim. The second Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishmael says that other materials can become Tamei with Tum'as Sheratzim. Rava resolves the contradiction by saying that both statements of Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishmael agree that other materials can become Tamei when they are three by three Tefachim large, but not when they are three by three Etzba'os. The first Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishmael was referring to other materials that are only three by three Etzba'os when he said that other materials cannot become Tamei.
</p><p>
The Gemara points out that Rava, by giving this answer to resolve the two statements of Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishmael, contradicts an earlier statement that he made. Rava said (26b) that Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishmael is of the opinion that other materials, even when they are three by three Tefachim, <i>cannot</i> become Tamei.
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that either Rava changed his mind and retracted his earlier statement, or that it was actually Rav Papa, and not Rava, who suggested this resolution of the two statements of Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishmael. (Since Rav Papa was a student of Rava, the students mistakenly attributed the answer that Rav Papa suggested to his mentor, Rava.)
</p><p>
How can the Gemara say that Rav Papa is the one who gave the resolution that was originally said in the name of Rava, when Rav Papa himself (a line later in the Gemara) gives a completely different resolution? (Rav Papa explains that the first Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishmael agrees that other materials can become Tamei, and when he said, 'Just like there [regarding Tum'as Nega'im] the Torah limits it to wool and linen, so, too, everything is limited to wool and linen,' he was not referring to all other Tum'os, but rather, to the laws of Kil'ayim.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that when the Gemara says that Rav Papa is the one who said this answer, it does not mean that he gave the same answer as the one above that was attributed to Rava. Rather, he gave a different answer to resolve the contradiction between the two statements of Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishmael; it was not the same answer that was attributed to Rava. The students thought that they heard the answer in the name of Rava, and, furthermore, they misunderstood the answer, misconstruing it to have something to do with Rava's original statement (that he really did say, concerning the opinion of Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishmael that other materials do not become Tamei).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> suggests that when Rav Papa's own answer (that the first Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishmael was referring to Kil'ayim) was refuted, he offered a <i>new</i> solution. That second solution was the one that was originally attributed to Rava.
</p><p>
(c) The Ramban offers another approach. Rav Papa's answer <i>does</i> differentiate between other materials that are three by three Tefachim and those that are three by three Etzba'os. The first Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishmael agrees that other materials can become Tamei when they are three by three Tefachim. However, when he says 'so, too, everything is limited to wool and linen,' he is stating that just like Nega'im is absolutely limited to wool and linen (and not even large articles made of other materials can become Tamei with Tum'as Nega'im), so, too, there is another Halachah that is absolutely limited. He cannot be referring to other Tum'os, because other Tum'os <i>do</i> apply to other materials when they are three by three Tefachim. It must be that he is referring to some other Halachah that does not apply at all to other materials. Rav Papa explains, therefore, that the words 'so, too, everything is limited to wool and linen' must be referring to Kil'ayim, and that is what is similar to Nega'im.
</p><p>
Accordingly, Rav Papa actually said both ideas -- that other materials can become Tamei with Tum'as Sheratzim when they are three by three Tefachim, and that the first statement of Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishmael was referring only to Kil'ayim.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why should he have to teach that - the law is 
          obvious!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Right after 'Lo Silbash Sha'atnez Tzemer u'Fishtim 
               Yachdav' it says 'Gedilim Ta'aseh Lecha'! 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought to learn like Rava.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Contradiction (Rava):</font></b> One verse says 'Ha'Kanaf' - 
               the Tzitzis should be the same material as the 
               corner (this implies that Tzitzis applies to 
               garments of any material);
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  But Tzitzis is written adjacent to 'Tzemer 
                    u'Fishtim Yachdav'!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rava):</font></b> Fringes of wool and linen are Kosher 
               for any garment; fringes of any other material are 
               Kosher only for garments of that material.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Tana d'vei R. Yishmael teaches unlike Rava, i.e. 
               Tzitzis applies only to wool and linen.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (R. Acha brei d'Rava):</font></b> Tana d'vei R. Yishmael includes 
          other garments regarding Tum'ah because it says 'O 
          Veged';
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We should include other garments also regarding 
          Tzitzis - it says 'Asher Techaseh Bah'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> That comes to include the garment of a 
          blind man.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> 'And you will see it' - this excludes a night 
          garment.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps it excludes a blind man's 
               garment, not a night garment!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> 'Asher Techaseh Bah' includes a blind 
               man's garment.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> [The inclusion and exclusion are not specific 
          -] why don't we learn the opposite way (include a night 
          garment and exclude a blind man's garment)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is more reasonable to include a blind man's 
          garment, which other people see, than a night garment, 
          which no one sees.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why don't we say that the inclusion is for 
          garments of other materials?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The verse is right after 'Tzemer u'Fishtim' - 
          presumably, it includes garments of wool and linen, not 
          of other materials.
<br>
<b><font>4) PREPARATION TO RECEIVE TZARA'AS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> R. Shimon ben Elazar and Sumchus agree with each 
          other.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He refers to R. Shimon's teaching above (26A, that 
               linen is the only tree derivative Pasul for Sechach. 
               He is Posel even linen that was not spun or woven, 
               for it receives Tzara'as.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - Sumchus):</font></b> If one covered a Sukah with 
               anything spun it is Pasul, because it receives 
               Tzara'as. (Tosfos - R. Shimon ben Elazar agrees that 
               it is Pasul mid'Oraisa only if it was spun.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Version #1 - Question:</font></b> Like whom does Sumchus hold?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Version #2 - Question:</font></b> Like whom does Abaye hold? (end of 
          Version #2) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He holds like R. Yehudah:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah - R. Meir):</font></b> Warp and woof (Tosfos - of 
               wool) receive Tzara'as immediately;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, warp receives [Tzara'as] after it 
               is removed from the pot; woof receives immediately; 
               bundles of flax (Tosfos - linen threads) receive 
               after they are whitened in the oven.
<br>
<b><font>5) SPECIAL LAWS THAT APPLY TO LINEN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We may not use anything from a tree for a 
          wick, except for linen;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If anything from a tree was an Ohel over a Mes, it itself 
          does not become Tamei, except for linen.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What is the source that linen is 
          considered a tree?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (Mar Zutra):</font></b> '...Va'Titmenem b'Fishtei ha'Etz'.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) 'TUM'AS OHALIM' APPLIES TO NO WOOD PRODUCTS EXCEPT 'PISHTAN'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that products of a tree cannot become Tamei with Tum'as Ohel.
</p><p>
How can the Mishnah say that Tum'as Ohel does not apply to products of a tree? The Gemara (17a) explicitly states that a Marde'a (a wooden stick) can become Tamei with Tum'as Ohel if it hovers over a Mes!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH v'Ein Metamei) answers that tree products remain Tahor when they are made into an Ohel <i>while they are attached</i> to the ground. Pishtan is the only tree product that can become Tamei even while it is attached to the ground.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> suggests that all materials, even Pishtan, are Tahor when attached to the ground. When not attached to the ground, all materials that pass over a dead body become Tamei. The Mishnah is referring to a piece of wood that was set up for <i>permanent use</i> as a tent, but was not attached to the ground. In such a case, only Pishtan can become Tamei.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> explains that the Mishnah is discussing an object that is still in the process of being made. If, while making the object, one decides to use it as an Ohel, it is no longer considered a Kli and it will not become Tamei. Pishtan, on the other hand, remains a Kli even if one decides, while processing it, that it will be used only as an Ohel (and not as a utensil or article of clothing). It does not lose its status of a Kli and it will still become Tamei.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) WHAT IS 'MEKABEL TUM'AS OHALIM'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Nothing from a tree is Mekabel Tum'as Ohalim 
          (i.e. when it is an Ohel over Tum'as Mes, it becomes 
          Tamei), except for linen.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source of this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Elazar):</font></b> We learn from a Gezerah Shavah 
          'Ohel-Ohel' from the Mishkan (the bottom curtains, made 
          of wool and linen);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It says 'Adam Ki Yamus b'Ohel', and it says 
               'Va'Yifros Es ha'Ohel Al ha'Mishkan' - just like the 
               latter Ohel had nothing from a tree except for 
               linen, also the first verse does not apply to 
               anything from a tree other than linen.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> Just like the latter Ohel was twined and each 
          thread was six-fold, also the first verse applies only to 
          such an Ohel!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> 'Ohel' is repeated [in the Parshah of Tum'as 
          Mes] to include an Ohel without these.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If so, we should include an Ohel from any 
          material!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We cannot learn to, for then the Gezerah Shavah 
          would not teach anything.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We should say, just like in the Mishkan there 
          were beams with the linen, also Tum'as Ohalim is only 
          when there are beams with the linen (Tosfos; Rashi - we 
          should say that beams are also Mekabel Tum'as Ohalim)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'V'Asisa Es ha'Kerashim la'Mishkan' - the beams 
          are <i>for</i> the Mishkan, they themselves are not called 
          Mishkan (Ohel).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> (On top of the bottom curtains of wool and 
          linen were curtains of goat's hair, and on top of them 
          one or two curtains of skins of rams and Tachashim, as we 
          will explain.) If so, we should expound 'V'Asisa Michseh 
          la'Ohel' - the covering [of ram and /or Tachash skins] is 
          for the Ohel (of goat curtains), they themselves are not 
          called Ohel!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> But R. Elazar asked whether or not skin of a Tamei 
               animal is Mekabel Tum'as Ohalim - if even [the 
               Michseh, made of] skin of Tahor animals is not 
               Mekabel Tum'as Ohalim, all the more so skin of 
               Teme'im is not! (Our only source for Tum'as Ohalim 
               is the Mishkan - if the Tachashim were Tehorim, no 
               Tamei skins were in the Mishkan!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Another verse teaches that they are called Ohel - 
          'V'Es Ohel Mo'ed Michsehu u'Michse ha'Tachash Asher Alav' 
          - the upper covering is equated to the lower one;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Just like the lower covering (of goat curtains) is 
               called Ohel, also the upper covering [of skins over 
               it].
<br>
<b><font>2) SKIN OF AN ANIMAL THAT IS 'TAMEI'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Elazar):</font></b> Is skin of a Tamei animal Mekabel 
          Tum'as Ohalim?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Why does he ask (Tum'as Ohalim applies 
               only materials used for an Ohel in the Mishkan, only 
               Tahor animals were used)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rav Ada bar Ahavah):</font></b> He asks whether or not 
               the Tachash in the days of Moshe was Tahor or Tamei.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question (Rav Yosef):</font></b> He should know this from a 
               Beraisa!
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Only skin of Tahor animals is Kosher 
                    for Meleches Shamayim (i.e. the Mishkan).
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Objection (R. Aba - Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> There 
               were two covers [over the goat curtains], one of 
               [skin of] red rams, one of Tachashim.
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  R. Nechemyah says, there was one covering (half 
                    of ram skins, half of Tachash skins), it was 
                    like a squirrel.
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> A squirrel is Tamei! (R. Nechemyah argues with 
                    Rav Yosef's Beraisa, therefore it is reasonable 
                    that R. Elazar was unsure!)
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> [R. Nechemyah means,] it was multicolored 
               like a squirrel, but it was Tahor, unlike a 
               squirrel, which is Tamei.
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Support (Rav Yosef):</font></b> The Targum (translation) of 
               Tachash is Sasgona - it Sas (rejoices) over its many 
               Gavanim (colors).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rava):</font></b> A Beraisa teaches that skin of a Tamei 
          animal is Mekabel Tum'as Ohalim:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> (Beraisa) [Regarding Tzara'as it says] 'O <i>b</i>'Or' to 
               include skin of a Tamei animal, or a garment that 
               developed a Nega while the Kohen was looking at it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the source to include a garment 
               made of pieces of all of the materials [mentioned in 
               the verse]?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> 'O b'Chol Meleches Or' includes this.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> We cannot learn from Tzara'as, even Shesi or 
          Erev (threads) are Teme'im (even though they are not 
          Mekabel other Tum'os).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> We learn from [Tum'as] Sheratzim:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa) Question:</font></b> 'Or' - perhaps only skin of 
               Tahor animals is Mekabel Tum'ah (from a Sheretz) - 
               what is the source to include skin of a Tamei 
               animal?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> 'O Or'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> We cannot learn from Tum'as Sheretz, even 
          k'Adashah (the size of a lentil) is Tamei (but Tum'as Mes 
          requires a k'Zayis)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Tzara'as Yochi'ach (shows that this is not the 
          determining factor) - we learn from a Tzad ha'Shavah:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Each has its own stringency; the Tzad ha'Shavah 
               (common side) of them is that skin is Mekabel 
               Tum'ah, even skin of a Tamei animal - the same 
               applies to Tum'as Ohalim!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rava of Barnish):</font></b> We cannot learn from them, 
          neither requires a k'Zayis for Tum'ah, unlike Tum'as Mes!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Rava of Barnish):</font></b> We learn from a Kal 
          va'Chomer from goats' hair - it is not Mekabel Tum'as 
          Tzara'as, yet it is Mekabel Tum'as Ohalim - skin of a 
          Tamei animal is Mekabel Tum'as Tzara'as, all the more so 
          it is Mekabel Tum'as Ohalim!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) LEARNING THE LAWS OF 'TUM'AS OHALIM' FROM THE 'MISHKAN'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara derives from the laws of the Mishkan that Pishtan can become Tamei if it serves as an Ohel over a dead body. The Torah states, 'And he spread the covering (Ohel) over the Mishkan' (Shemos 40:19). A Gezeirah Shavah with the verse discussing Tum'as Ohalim, 'When a person dies in an Ohel...' (Bamidbar 19:14), teaches that Pishtan that serves as an Ohel can become Tamei with Tum'as Ohel. 
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Mah Tachton) explains that the word 'Mishkan' refers to the ten lengths of Pishtan (and woven material) that were hooked together to form one large piece and spread over the Mishkan, and which served as its lower covering. The word 'Ohel,' when describing a covering of the Mishkan, refers to the eleven lengths of goat-hair material which were connected into one large piece that was placed <i>above</i> the lower covering of Pishtan.
</p><p>
According to Rashi's explanation, how can we learn from the verse, 'And he spread the covering (Ohel) over the <i>Mishkan</i>,' that the covering of <i>Pishtan</i> becomes Tamei? The 'Ohel' that that verse mentions is the covering of goat-hair!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH va'Yifros) and the <b>RAMBAN</b> explain that even though the word 'Ohel' usually refers to the covering of goat-hair over the Mishkan, in this verse it must be referring to the lower covering of Pishtan, because the verse states that this Ohel was spread <i>directly</i> upon the Mishkan. Since the covering of Pishtan was the lowest covering, it obviously was placed on the Mishkan first.
</p><p>
(b) Tosfos suggests further that the verse, 'Mishkan Ohel Mo'ed,' teaches that the word 'Mishkan' (which, as mentioned above, refers specifically to the covering of Pishtan) is synonymous with 'Ohel.' Accordingly, not only is it inaccurate to cite the verse, 'And he spread the covering (<i>Ohel</i>) over the Mishkan,' in order to prove that the Pishtan covering is considered an Ohel (since that verse is referring to the goat-hair covering), but it is unnecessary. It is obvious that the Pishtan covering is an Ohel, since it is called 'Mishkan.' (Rashi, DH Mishkan Karuy, also alludes to this approach.)
</p><p>
Why, then, does the Gemara cite the verse, 'And he spread the covering (<i>Ohel</i>) over the Mishkan' (Shemos 40:19), as the source for the Halachah that Pishtan is called an Ohel? The Gemara cites this verse because the <i>end</i> of the verse refers to the covering of Pishtan as 'Mishkan,' and we find elsewhere that 'Mishkan' and 'Ohel' are analogous. The word 'Ohel' in that verse (Shemos 40:19), however, is not at all pertinent to the subject of the Gemara here (<b>RITVA</b>). Alternatively, the Gemara indeed is not citing the accurate source for the Halachah, but rather it is relying on another verse (the one that equates 'Mishkan' with 'Ohel').
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE 'TACHASH' ANIMAL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Nechemyah compares the Tachash animal with the 'Tala Ilan' animal, which has very colorful fur. Rav Yosef, upon hearing this, exclaimed, 'That is why the Aramaic word for Tachash is 'Sasgona' -- it rejoices (Sas) in its many colors (Gavna).' 
</p><p>
Why was Rav Yosef looking for a meaning for the Aramaic translation of 'Tachash'? Perhaps 'Sasgona' is simply the Aramaic name for the animal. Why does it have to have any deeper meaning, such that Rav Yosef needed an acronym to explain it?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: RAV HESCHEL</b> of Krakow (<b>CHANUKAS HA'TORAH</b>, Parshas Terumah) explains that since the Tachash appeared only for Moshe Rabeinu (as the Gemara says on 28b), it was never known to any other person who would be able to give it a name in his own language, like Aramaic. Therefore, Rav Yosef was bothered how the Tachash ever acquired an Aramaic name. The Targum should have translated Tachash as 'Tachash,' and not as 'Sasgona'! It must be that the name 'Sasgona' is merely <i>descriptive</i>, and that is why Rav Yosef was happy to find out how it describes the Tachash.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Rav Yosef's Beraisa taught that only skin of 
          Tahor animals is Kosher for Meleches Shamayim - if this 
          does not Metaher skin of a Tamei animal from Tum'as 
          Ohalim, what does it teach?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is Posel skin of a Tamei animal for Tefilin.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> A verse explicitly teaches that!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'Lema'an Tihyeh Toras Hash-m <i>b'Ficha</i>' - Tefilin 
               must be made from something permitted to your mouth, 
               i.e. skin of a Tahor animal!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> [The verse only discusses the parchments, on 
          which Divrei <i>Torah</i> are written -] the Beraisa is Posel 
          Teme'im for the boxes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> Abaye taught that a tradition from Moshe from 
          Sinai mandates that [head] Tefilin have [a protrusion on 
          the box shaped like] a Shin (it is part of 'Shakai', a 
          name of Hash-m, so the verse also teaches about the 
          boxes)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, it teaches that hair [and sinews] of 
          Teme'im may not be used to wrap the parchments [and sew 
          the boxes].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> Also this we know from tradition
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> A tradition from Sinai teaches that 
               Tefilin must be square, and [the parchments must be] 
               wrapped with 'their' hair (i.e. of animals Kosher 
               for parchments), and [the boxes must be] sewn with 
               'their' sinews!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer #3:</font></b> Rather, it is Posel Teme'im for the straps.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But R. Yitzchak taught that a tradition from 
          Sinai requires the straps to be black! (Tosfos - if the 
          Torah mandates what color they must be, all the more so 
          it mandates that they be from a Tahor animal, just like 
          the boxes.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The tradition requires them to be black, it does 
          not require them to be from Tahor animals [nor can we 
          learn from a Kal va'Chomer]. (On 62A, it says that a 
          tradition from Sinai requires the straps to form a Dalet 
          and Yud to complete 'Shakai'; Tosfos deletes this from 
          the text, for our Gemara finds no source to require 
          straps from Tahor animals other than the Beraisa. Rashba 
          defends the text - since these letters are not written, 
          merely formed, this would not mandate being from 
          Tehorim.) 
<br>
<b><font>3) THE 'TACHASH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What was the conclusion about the Tachash in 
          the days of Moshe?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Ila'a):</font></b> It was a species unto itself; 
          Chachamim did not determine if it is a Chayah or Behemah; 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It had a horn on its forehead, it existed only at 
               that time, for the sake of the Mishkan, afterwards 
               it was hidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> Since it had a horn, it must be Tahor!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> The ox that Adam offered had one horn 
               on its forehead - 'V'Sitav la'Shem...Makrin'.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> 'Makrin' is plural (suggesting at least 
               two)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It is written missing the 'Yud', suggesting 
               the singular (mi'Keren).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Since it had a horn, it must be a Behemah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> A Keresh (giraffe) has a horn, it is a Chayah - 
          perhaps also the Tachash was a Chayah.
<br>
<b><font>4) A WICK MADE FROM A GARMENT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Eliezer):</font></b> If one twined a garment to make a 
          wick but did not singe it, [if it is three fingers by 
          three fingers] it is Tamei, one may not light with it;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Akiva says, it is Tahor, one may light with it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> We understand the argument regarding 
          Tum'ah - R. Eliezer holds that twining does not Mevatel 
          it from being a garment, R. Akiva holds that it does;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> What is the argument regarding lighting?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah):</font></b> The case is, the garment 
          was exactly three by three, Erev Shabbos was Yom Tov;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Both hold like R. Yehudah, who says that we may 
               light with a Kli, but not with a Kli that broke [on 
               Yom Tov, for it is Nolad];
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Both hold like Ula, who says that [before removing 
               his hand] one must light the majority of the Yotzei 
               (the part of the wick outside of the Ner);
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  R. Eliezer holds, the wick is still considered 
                    a garment - once a bit burns, it is a broken 
                    Kli, it is forbidden to continue to light the 
                    majority of the Yotzei;
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> R. Akiva holds, the garment was Batul was it 
                    was folded, it is like a piece of wood.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Rav Yosef:</font></b> I had heard that a Mishnah discusses exactly 
          three by three - I did not understand this until now.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Presumably, Rav Ada explains that all hold like 
          R. Yehudah because he holds like him - but this is not 
          so!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Ada bar Ahavah):</font></b> A Yisrael may burn his log on 
               Yom Tov, even if a Nochri carved out a [cavity 
               holding a] Kav in it [that same day]. 
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Summation of question:</font></b> This is Nolad (firewood 
               became a Kli)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, Rav Ada explains that R. Eliezer and R. 
          Akiva hold like R. Yehudah, but he himself does not.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) HALACHAH: TOUCHING AND BENEFITING FROM 'MUKTZAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> In the Mishnah, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Akiva argue whether one may light Shabbos candles with a small piece of cloth that was folded into a wick. In the first explanation of their argument, the Gemara says that they are arguing in a case in which Yom Tov falls on Friday. One must hold the flame to the wick until most of it is lit (that is, until the flame takes hold nicely). Rebbi Eliezer forbids using such a wick, because before the flame takes hold to most of it, it will lose its status of a garment and will become a useless fragment of a garment and thus it is Muktzah (because of 'Nolad'). 
</p><p>
(a) May we infer from the Gemara here that one is prohibited from even <i>touching</i> Muktzah on Shabbos and Yom Tov?
</p><p>
(b) Even if one does not have to wait until most of the wick catches fire, when the wick diminishes to less than three by three Etzba'os on Shabbos, it loses its status of a garment and becomes Muktzah. Why, then, is one permitted to eat by its light and derive benefit from the flame on Shabbos, if the flame is Muktzah? The Gemara later (43a) teaches that an egg that is Muktzah may not be used to support a bench!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The Yerushalmi (in Beitzah) says that one may cover an egg laid on Yom Tov with a utensil as long as he does not touch it with the utensil. This implies that it is forbidden to touch Muktzah on Shabbos or Yom Tov even with another object.
</p><p>
The <b>MAGID MISHNEH</b> (Hilchos Shabbos 25:23) explains that the prohibition against <i>touching</i> Muktzah applies only to an egg, because it moves when it is touched due to its shape. This is the Halachah (<b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> OC 310:6 and 322:1; <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> 310:22 and 322:3). Therefore, one is permitted to touch any other Muktzah object.
</p><p>
Why, then, in the case of the Gemara here, may one not continue lighting the wick even though it is Muktzah? Perhaps it is prohibited because a wick is so insubstantial that it inevitably will be moved when one touches a flame to the wick (this is similar to the Magid Mishneh's understanding of the Yerushalmi). (The <b>RASHBA</b>, however, suggests another reason, as described below.)
</p><p>
(b) With regard to deriving pleasure on Shabbos or Yom Tov from an item that is Muktzah, <b>TOSFOS</b> in Pesachim (26b, DH Chadash) implies that deriving pleasure from Muktzah is <i>not</i> prohibited. Why, then, does the Beraisa prohibit resting a bench on an egg?
</p><p>
A closer look at the Beraisa (on 43a) reveals that it is possible to be read as follows: 'One may not <i>move</i> an egg... in order to rest a bench on it.' That is, resting a bench on it is permitted, but <i>moving</i> it in order to get it into position is prohibited.
</p><p>
The <b>RASHBA</b> here also permits one to derive pleasure from an object that is Muktzah, but he adds that there is an exception to this allowance. One may <i>not</i> derive pleasure from Muktzah when physical contact with the object of Muktzah is involved. For this reason, he explains, it is prohibited to rest a bench on an egg of Muktzah. This is why lighting the wick of Muktzah is prohibited -- one derives pleasure from the wick at the same moment that he touches it. When he is not touching it, however, he may derive pleasure from the flame even though the wick is Muktzah.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) A WICK MADE FROM A GARMENT (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (to Question 4:</font></b>c, 28B - Rava): R. Eliezer 
          forbids lighting with a wick or rag that is not singed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Rav Yosef heard that a Mishnah discusses 
          exactly three by three - how can we explain this 
          (according to Rava, the size does not matter!)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It teaches about Tum'ah:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah - R. Shimon):</font></b> A garment must be three 
               [fingers] by three to Mekabel Tum'ah - this excludes 
               the Malal (a hem around the perimeter).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, [it suffices if there was] exactly 
               three by three [at the beginning, even though there 
               will be less after the hem is made].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> R. Yehudah permits lighting with a Kli, but not 
          with a Kli that broke [on Yom Tov];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon permits [in either case].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah permits lighting with dates (since they are 
          fit to eat, one may move them for other purposes), but 
          not with pits of dates [eaten on Yom Tov, since they are 
          Nolad];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon permits.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah permits lighting with nuts, but not with 
          shells of nuts [eaten on Yom Tov];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon permits.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  We must teach the argument in all three cases:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Had we only taught the first, one might have thought 
               that there R. Yehudah considers it Nolad for it was 
               a Kli and now it is a broken Kli - but he would not 
               forbid the pits, for they did not change;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Had we only taught the second, one might have 
               thought that there R. Yehudah considers it Nolad for 
               the pits were hidden and now they are exposed - but 
               he would not forbid shells, which were exposed from 
               the beginning
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Therefore, we also need to teach the third.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Rav did not say this explicitly, rather it was inferred 
          from the following episode:
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  Rav was eating dates and throwing the pits into an oven.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  R. Chiya:</font></b> It would be forbidden to do so on Yom Tov.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Did Rav agree to this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> When Rav came to Bavel, he ate dates [on Yom Tov] 
          and threw the pits to animals.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> He was eating good, ripe dates (nothing 
               remains on the pit - even though they are no longer 
               fit for people, Rav would move them -) this shows 
               that he did not accept R. Chiya's words!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> No, they were poor dates (some fruit remains 
          on the pit, they are still fit for people).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Shmuel bar bar Chanah):</font></b> According to R. 
          Yehudah, who permits lighting with a Kli, but not with a 
          broken Kli, once one starts to light it, it is a broken 
          Kli, he moves Isur!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> He does like Rav Masnah:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Masnah):</font></b> If wood fell from a date tree into an 
               oven on Yom Tov, one may add to it a larger amount 
               of [permitted] wood ready from before Yom Tov (to 
               Mevatel the Nolad) and light all of it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Hamnuna):</font></b> The case is, the wick was a 
          lowly rag less than three by three [Tefachim, from the 
          beginning it was not considered a Kli];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer and R. Akiva are consistent with what 
               they taught elsewhere.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah - R. Eliezer):</font></b> If a garment less than three 
               by three [Tefachim] was designated to plug up [an 
               opening through which water enters] a bathhouse or 
               to be a potholder, or to clean out a grinder, 
               whether or not it is prepared (this will be 
               explained), it is Tamei;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yehoshua says, in either case it is Tahor;
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva says, if it is prepared, it is Tamei, if 
               not, it is Tahor.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> (Ula):</font></b> All agree that if the owner threw it in the 
               wasteheap, it is Tahor;
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE ARGUMENT BETWEEN REBBI ELIEZER AND REBBI AKIVA</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Hamnuna offers a second explanation for the argument between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Akiva in the Mishnah. He says that the Mishnah is discussing pieces of cloth smaller than three by three Tefachim but larger than three by three Etzba'os. The argument between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Akiva revolves around the dispute between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua in Kelim (28:2) with regard to 'Kulei Matlaniyos.'
</p><p>
Why does the Mishnah here in Shabbos discuss a topic which seems entirely unrelated to the laws of Shabbos and belongs in the Mishnayos of Kelim?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that the garment under discussion in the Mishnah here is a small piece that is hanging on a hook behind the door, which the owner decided to use as a plug for the bath drain. It could be that it was common to use such scraps for wicks as well, and therefore the Mishnah discusses using such a piece of cloth as a wick. The Mishnah records the argument concerning whether or not the wick needs to be singed before it is lit, because that argument deals with the same type and size of object (the wick) which the argument concerning Tum'ah discusses. Indeed, the Mishnah could have discussed only the argument about singeing a wick, but it cited the argument concerning Tum'ah because the two topics deal with the same object. (According to Rashi, the discussion of Tum'ah indeed is unrelated, Halachically, to the discussion of pre-lighting a wick.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> explains that the garment or scrap that the Mishnah is discussing is not hanging on a hook, but it <i>used</i> to be hanging on a hook. The owner now has designated it as a wick. Such a designation makes it lose the status of a usable garment, the same way that designating it as a plug for a drain does. The Tana'im are arguing whether the act of taking the cloth and using it as a plug, or folding it into a wick, removes its status as a usable garment.
</p><p>
Accordingly, the explanation of the argument in the Mishnah is basically the same as the Gemara earlier explained (28b) -- the Tana'im are arguing whether or not Kipul (folding a scrap into the shape of a wick) removes the scrap's status as a 'usable garment.' The difference between whether they argue in the case of Kulei Matlaniyos or in the case of Kipul Mo'il is basically whether the argument in the Mishnah involves a cloth less than three by three Tefachim (Kulei Matlaniyos) or whether it involves a cloth of any size that is folded up (or perhaps a cloth that is exactly three by three <i>Etzba'os</i>; see Rambam).
</p><p>
According to the Ritva, the reason why the Mishnah records this argument is because the question of Tum'ah specifically involves something that is <i>presently being used</i> as a wick.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> All agree that if he left it in a box, it is Tamei;
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b></b> They argue about when he hung on a peg or left it in 
               back of the door:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  R. Eliezer holds, since he did not throw it in 
                    the wasteheap, this shows that he cares about 
                    it - it is called unprepared in relation to 
                    something left in a box;
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> R. Yehoshua holds, since he did not leave it in 
                    a box, this shows that he was Mevatel it - it 
                    is called prepared in relation to something 
                    thrown in the wasteheap;
             <br><b>  <b><font>iii. </font></b></b>R. Akiva holds like R. Eliezer when he hung it 
                    on a peg, he holds like R. Yehoshua when he 
                    left it in back of the door.
       <br><b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b></b> Later, R. Akiva adopted R. Yehoshua's opinion in 
               both cases.
       <br><b>   <b><font>9.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the source of this?
        <br><b>  <b><font>10. </font></b><font> Answer (Rava) Question:</font></b> Why does it say Pesilas 
               ha'Beged (wick of garment, a construct form) instead 
               of Pesilas Shel Beged (a wick [made] of garment)?
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This teaches that it is still a 
                    garment.
<br>
<b><font>2) LEAVING OIL TO DRIP INTO A LAMP</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not puncture an eggshell and fill it 
          with oil and put it on top of a lamp in order that the 
          oil will drip into the lamp [on Shabbos];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  It is forbidden even to leave oil dripping from a Kli 
          Cheres;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah permits [both of these].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  If the potter made it like this from the beginning, it is 
          permitted, for it is one Kli.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  One may not fill a bowl [next to a lamp] with oil and 
          insert a wick to draw oil;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah permits.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Gemara):</font></b> The argument must be taught in all three cases:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If they argued only about an eggshell, one might 
               have thought that Chachamim forbid this because one 
               might take from it [for consumption], but they 
               permit from a Kli Cheres because it is repulsive, 
               one is not likely to take oil from it; (Rashi - 
               since the oil was designated to burn, one who takes 
               it is liable for extinguishing; Tosfos (42B) - one 
               is liable for extinguishing only if he takes from 
               the oil in the Ner itself, taking oil dripping into 
               it only <i>causes</i> it to extinguish sooner, it is 
               forbidden on account of Muktzeh 
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If they argued only about a Kli Cheres, one might 
               have thought that R. Yehudah permits because one is 
               not likely to take from it, but he would forbid from 
               an eggshell.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If the potter made it like this from the 
          beginning, it is permitted...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If [anyone] joined them with plaster or clay, 
          it is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Mishnah permits only if the potter joined 
          it!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It means, it is permitted only if it was joined 
          [very well,] like a potter would do.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> Once we spent Shabbos in Beis 
          Nitzeh in Lud, they brought to us an eggshell; we filled 
          it with oil, punctured it and put it on top of a lamp; R. 
          Tarfon and Chachamim were there, they did not say 
          anything.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Chachamim:</font></b> In Beis Nitzeh they are zealous, but in other 
          places it is forbidden.
<br>
<b><font>3) ONE WHO DOES NOT INTEND TO TRANSGRESS SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Avin of Tzipori dragged a bench on a stone floor of an 
          Aliyah (upper story) in front of R. Yitzchak ben Elazar.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> R. Yitzchak:</font></b> If I will be quiet, like the Chachamim 
               who saw R. Yehudah use the eggshell,  disaster will 
               result (people will think that it is permitted)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> It is forbidden - we decree about a stone floor of 
               an Aliyah on account of a regular Aliyah [with a 
               dirt floor, it could make a furrow].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The overseer of the synagogue in Botzrah dragged a bench 
          on a stone floor in front of R. Yirmeyah the elder.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> R. Yirmeyah:</font></b> You do this for you hold like R. 
               Shimon? R. Shimon permits only big benches, which 
               one cannot carry - he forbids dragging a small 
               bench, for one can carry it!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yirmeyah argues with Ula:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Ula):</font></b> They (R. Shimon and R. Yehudah) argue about 
               small benches (and R. Shimon permits), but all 
               permit a big bench!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Question (against R. Yirmeyah and Ula - Rav Yosef - 
          Beraisa - R. Shimon): One may drag a bed, chair or bench, 
          as long as he does not intend to make a furrow;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> (In the Seifa, R. Yehudah forbids everything except 
               for a wagon, for it does not make a furrow.) This 
               shows that they argue about big and small Kelim!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (for Ula):</font></b> The bed discussed is small, just 
          like a chair [which is taught with it].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (for R. Yirmeyah):</font></b> The chair discussed is big, 
          just like a bed [which is taught with it].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question (against R. Yirmeyah - Rabah - Mishnah):</font></b> One who 
          sells garments [with Sha'atnez] may sell normally [he 
          wears it to display it], as long as he does not intend 
          that it will protect him from the sun or rain [or cold, 
          and it is possible that he would be protected without the 
          Sha'atnez, i.e. he also wears other garments].
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Tzenu'im (who are careful to avoid suspicion) hang 
               such garments on a stick in back of them.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This is like a small bench, for one could do like 
               Tzenu'im to avoid benefit - still, R. Shimon 
               permits!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  R. Yirmeyah is refuted.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) DERIVING PLEASURE FROM 'SHA'ATNEZ'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites the Mishnah in Kil'ayim that states that a garment seller is permitted to wear a garment of Kil'ayim as long as he does not intend to derive pleasure from it, according to Rebbi Shimon (who maintains that if one does not have intention to transgress a prohibition, his action is not considered a transgression).
</p><p>
However, Rebbi Shimon agrees that if the transgression will <i>definitely</i> occur as a result of one's action, then it is forbidden even if he does not intend for it to occur ('Pesik Reishei'). Here, the person wearing the garment definitely derives pleasure from it, since he is wearing it in the rain and it protects him! Why is he permitted to wear the garment?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (u'Vilvad) answers that the garment seller is permitted to wear the Kil'ayim on top of other clothes. When worn on top of other clothes, it is not certain that he will derive pleasure from the forbidden garment.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> explains that the seller does not actually wear the garment. He merely places it over his shoulders, and the rain may wet him despite the garment slung over his shoulders.
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Kil'ayim 10:16) also says that the seller may place it over his shoulders, but for a different reason. The Rambam maintains that <i>wearing</i> a garment of Kil'ayim ('Levishah') is forbidden even when one derives no pleasure from it. Only when he does not wear it in the normal manner ('Ha'ala'ah') -- for example, he throws it over his shoulders -- does the prohibition depend on whether he derives pleasure from it. (<b>HAGAON RAV CHAIM KANIEVSKY</b> in <b>DERECH EMUNAH</b>, p. 75)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAN</b> in Chulin (32a of the pages of the Rif) says that the prohibition of 'Pesik Reishei' (doing an act that will definitely result in a second outcome, aside from the intended outcome, which transgresses a prohibition) applies only to prohibitions that depend on an action being done. Here, though, the prohibition is one of <i>enjoyment</i> and involves no real action. Since enjoyment depends entirely on a person's frame of mind, 'Pesik Reishei' does not apply. A person cannot enjoy something against his will. (The Ran cites a proof for this. The Gemara teaches that 'ha'Mis'asek b'Chalavim v'Arayos Chayav' -- one who unintentionally eats forbidden Chelev or unintentionally participates in forbidden relations is Chayav. Only in those two cases is one Chayav for deriving pleasure without intention to do so, because there the source of the pleasure physically enters the person's body, and thus the pleasure does not depend on his frame of mind. In all other cases of forbidden pleasure, though, one must intend to derive pleasure in order to be Chayav.)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) EXTINGUISHING A LAMP FOR A 'CHOLEH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven extinguished a Ner because he fears 
          that Nochrim or bandits will see it [and harm him], 
          because the light depresses him, or to enable a Choleh 
          (sick person) to sleep, he is exempt (the entire Mishnah 
          will be explained);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If he extinguished to save the Ner [from breaking], to 
          save oil or the wick, he is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi exempts in every case, except for saving the 
          wick, for he makes a singed wick (which lights better).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> The middle clause obligates [for 
          Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, i.e. it does not 
          bring benefit (Tosfos - like in the Mishkan)], like R. 
          Yehudah - what is the case in the Reisha?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If the Choleh is in mortal danger, it should not say 
               'exempt' (implying that it is forbidden), it is 
               permitted!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If he is not in mortal danger, Reuven is Chayav 
               Chatas!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Really, he is in mortal danger, it should say 
          'permitted' - it says 'exempt' for parallel structure 
          with the Seifa, which says 'Chayav'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How do we explain the following Beraisa?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Oshaya - Beraisa):</font></b> It is forbidden to extinguish 
               a Ner to enable a Choleh to sleep; if one did so, he 
               is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, there is no mortal danger; it is 
          like R. Shimon [who exempts Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah 
          l'Gufah].
<br>
<b><font>2) DO THE DEAD TRANSCEND THE LIVING?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (to R. Tanchum of Noy):</font></b> May one extinguish a Ner 
          to enable a Choleh to sleep? (He prefaced his answer with 
          a related Agadata.) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Contradiction (R. Tanchum):</font></b> How do we understand the 
          words of Shlomo, the greatest Chacham - not only do they 
          contradict the words of David, they are 
          self-contradictory!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> David said 'Lo ha'Mesim Yehalelu Kah'; Shlomo said 
               'V'Shabe'ach Ani Es ha'Mesim [...Min ha'Chayim]', 
               but also said 'L'Chelev Chai Hu Tov Min ha'Arye 
               ha'Mes'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Resolution:</font></b> David arouses one to glorify Hash-m by 
          engaging in Torah and Mitzvos while he is alive, for he 
          cannot do so after death;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> 'Ba'Mesim Chofshi' - once someone 
               dies, he is exempt from Torah and Mitzvos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Shlomo said 'V'Shabe'ach Ani Es ha'Mesim', for the Zechus 
          of the Avos helped where Moshe's Zechus did not;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Moshe said many prayers to save Yisrael after Chet 
               ha'Egel, but was not answered until he said 'Zechor 
               l'Avraham l'Yitzchak and ul'Yisrael Avadecha'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  Another supremacy of the dead - normally, a mortal 
          officer decrees, people might or might not fulfill it; 
          even if they do, this is only during his life, not after 
          his death;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Another supremacy is like Rav Yehudah taught:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> What does it mean 'Ase Imi 
               Os l'Tovah v'Yir'u Son'ai v'Yevoshu'?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> David asked forgiveness for his sin [with 
               Bas Sheva] - Hash-m granted it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> David:</font></b> In my lifetime, give me a sign that you 
               forgave me!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Hash-m:</font></b> I will not do this in your life, only in the 
               life of your son Shlomo;
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> When Shlomo built the Beis ha'Mikdash and wanted to 
               bring the Aron into the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim, the 
               gates clung to each other and would not let it 
               enter. Shlomo sang 24 praises to Hash-m, they 
               remained closed.
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> He said 'Se'u She'arim Rosheichem...v'Yavo Melech 
               ha'Havod', they thought that he referred to himself, 
               they sought to swallow him - 'Who is the King of 
               honor?'!
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Shlomo:</font></b> 'Hash-m Izuz v'Gibor; Se'u She'arim 
               Rosheichem...v'Yavo Melech ha'Havod...Hash-m 
               Tzevakos Hu Melech ha'Havod'. The gates remained 
               closed.
       <br><b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b></b> When he said 'Zochrah l'Chasdei David Avdecha', they 
               opened; the faces of David's enemies turned black 
               (from shame), all knew that Hash-m forgave David.
       <br><b>   <b><font>9.  </font></b></b> This explains why it says [after the celebration 
               over Binyan Beis ha'Mikdash] '...Va'Yelchu 
               l'Ohaleichem Semechim v'Tovei Lev Al Kol ha'Tovah 
               Asher Asah Hash-m l'David Avdo ul'Yisrael Amo';
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  'Va'Yelchu l'Ohaleichem' - everyone found his 
                    wife Tehorah; 'Semechim' - because they enjoyed 
                    the radiance of the Shechinah; 'v'Tovei Lev' - 
                    everyone's wife became pregnant and gave birth 
                    to a son; 'ha'Tovah Asher Asah Hash-m l'David' 
                    - he forgave him for the sin; 'ul'Yisrael Amo' 
                    - he forgave Yisrael for [feasting on] Yom 
                    Kipur [during the celebration].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Another teaching of Rav Yehudah explains 'L'Chelev Chai 
          Hu Tov Min ha'Arye ha'Mes':
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> 'Hodi'eni Hash-m Kitzi...' - David 
               asked to know how long he will live.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Hash-m:</font></b> I decreed that a person will not know this 
               (so he will constantly repent)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> David:</font></b> 'U'Midas Yamai Mah Hi ...' - which day of the 
               year will I die? (Maharsha - he would still be 
               motivated to repent every year. Rashi - the first 
               question was, what will happen to him in the rest of 
               his life; this question was how long he will live.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Hash-m:</font></b> I decreed that a person will not know this 
               (so he will repent every day)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> David:</font></b> 'Ed'ah Meh Chadel Ani'  - David asked to know 
               which day of the week he will die.
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Hash-m:</font></b> You will die on Shabbos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> David:</font></b> May I live another day, and die on Sunday (so 
               people can take care of my body and eulogize me)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b><font> Hash-m:</font></b> The reign of your son Shlomo must begin that 
               Shabbos, a king cannot usurp a moment of the reign 
               destined for another king.
       <br><b>   <b><font>9.  </font></b><font> David:</font></b> May I die the day before, on Erev Shabbos!
        <br><b>  <b><font>10. </font></b><font> Hash-m:</font></b> [I do not desire this -] 'Ki Tov Yom 
               ba'Chatzerecha me'Elef', the Torah you learn each 
               day is dearer to me than 1000 Olos that Shlomo will 
               offer to me on the Mizbe'ach.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: EXTINGUISHING A CANDLE ON SHABBOS FOR A SICK PERSON</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara explains that it is permitted to extinguish a candle for a sick person who is in mortal danger and needs the room to be dark. When the Mishnah says that one who extinguishes a candle for such a sick person is 'Patur,' it means that it is Mutar (permitted) to do so.
</p><p>
Does this law apply even if there is another way to make the room dark for the sick person, such as by carrying him into another room, or by carrying out the candle, or by erecting a divider?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Perush ha'Mishnayos) says that it is prohibited to extinguish a candle for a sick person if there is some other way to make the room dark for him.
</p><p>
The <b>BI'UR HALACHAH</b> (OC 278) proves from the Gemara here that according to the Rambam, it is forbidden <i>mid'Oraisa</i> to extinguish a candle for a sick person when there is some other way to make it dark for him. The Gemara asks why the Mishnah says that one who extinguishes a candle for a sick person is 'Patur' (and not 'Chayav,' if it is discussing a sick person who is not in danger, or 'Mutar,' if it is discussing a sick person who is in danger). The fact that the Gemara does not answer that one is Patur when he extinguishes a candle for a sick person in mortal danger <i>when there is some other way</i> to make the room dark indicates that it must be that one would <i>not</i> be Patur, but Chayav. It must be that it is forbidden mid'Oraisa. 
</p><p>
(b) The <b>CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN</b> cites the <b>RE'AH</b> who permits extinguishing a candle for a sick person in danger even if there is another way to make the room dark. The <b>ME'IRI</b> (cited by the Bi'ur Halachah) also permits it.
</p><p>
<b>RAV YEHOSHUA NEUWIRTH</b> in <b>SHEMIRAS SHABBOS K'HILCHASAH</b> (32:175) suggests that the argument between the Rambam and Re'ah may depend on their respective opinions expressed elsewhere. The Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 2:1) maintains that desecrating Shabbos for the sake of saving a life merely <i>overrides</i> the laws of Shabbos (Shabbos is 'Dechuyah' for Piku'ach Nefesh), but it does not <i>permit</i> the prohibitions of Shabbos entirely. The prohibitions of Shabbos remain in effect, but one may transgress them for the sake of Piku'ach Nefesh. Other Rishonim maintain that the prohibitions of Shabbos are entirely suspended for the sake of saving a life (Shabbos is 'Hutrah' for Piku'ach Nefesh).
</p><p>
The Rambam, who maintains that the laws of Shabbos are still in effect, forbids extinguishing a candle for a sick person when there is some other way to make the room dark. The Re'ah maintains that the laws of Shabbos are entirely suspended for Piku'ach Nefesh, and thus one may extinguish a candle even if there is another way to make the room dark.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> Rav Neuwirth (Shemiras Shabbos ke'Hilchasah 32:70) writes that if it is possible to move the sick person out of the room <i>easily</i>, then one should do so and not extinguish the candle.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE GATES OPENED ONLY IN THE MERIT OF DAVID HA'MELECH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> When Shlomo ha'Melech brought the Aron ha'Kodesh to the Beis ha'Mikdash (to the Kodesh Kodashim, according to Rashi) the gates did not open for him until he prayed that they open in the merit of his father, David ha'Melech. When the gates opened at the mention of David ha'Melech, this exonerated David ha'Melech and proved that he was righteous and innocent of any wrongdoing, much to the consternation of his adversaries. Why was the merit of David ha'Melech mentioned specifically at this point?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The verse (Divrei ha'Yamim I 22:8) relates that Hash-m told David ha'Melech that he may not build the Beis ha'Mikdash personally, because he was involved in wars. Rather, his son will build it. The Gemara (Makos 10a) tells us that people used to taunt David ha'Melech, asking him when he will die so that they will have the Beis ha'Mikdash (see also Yerushalmi Berachos 2:1). In response to their derision, David ha'Melech rejoiced and said that he is happy to see that the people desire to have the Beis ha'Mikdash. 
</p><p>
His enemies claimed that he was not fit to have the Beis ha'Mikdash built in his lifetime due to his sins (with Bas Sheva). Hash-m wanted to show them that David ha'Melech was indeed worthy of building the Beis ha'Mikdash, but was not to be involved in its construction for another reason. When the Beis ha'Mikdash was eventually built by his son (Shlomo, the son of Bas Sheva), it was built entirely in the merit of David ha'Melech. This is why here, at the dedication of the Beis ha'Mikdash, everyone was shown the righteousness of David ha'Melech. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>        <b>  <b><font>11. </font></b></b> Every Shabbos David would learn Torah the entire day 
               (the Satan (angel of death) cannot kill one who is 
               learning). The Shabbos he was due to die came; the 
               Satan was unable to do anything, for he did not 
               cease learning. David had an orchard in back of his 
               house; the Satan made the trees move, David went to 
               see what was happening. When he was ascending steps, 
               the Satan removed a step; David ceased learning, and 
               died.
        <br><b>  <b><font>12. </font></b><font> Shlomo asked Chachamim:</font></b> My father is dead, in the 
               sun [perhaps the body will rot], and his dogs are 
               hungry - what should I do?
        <br><b>  <b><font>13. </font></b><font> Chachamim:</font></b> Cut up a Nevelah for the dogs to eat; put 
               a loaf or child on top of your father, you may move 
               his body together with the loaf or child. (Ben 
               Yehoyada - this is a parable through which Shlomo 
               asked, people used to taunt my father about the 
               episode with Bas Sheva, he humbly bore their insults 
               - if I do not nothing, they will speak more, now 
               that he is dead! Chachamim told him to kill them, 
               and publicly justify his father (prove that Bas 
               Sheva was already divorced).)
        <br><b>  <b><font>14. </font></b></b> Regarding this Shlomo said 'L'Chelev Chai Hu Tov Min 
               ha'Arye ha'Mes' (the dogs could be fed normally, 
               David's body could not be moved normally (by itself, 
               it is Muktzeh); alternatively, they answered about 
               the dogs before about David 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (to Question (h) - R. Tanchum):</font></b> A lamp is called 
          Ner, just like a Neshamah ('Ner Hash-m Nishmas Adam)' - 
          it is better to extinguish a mortal's Ner to preserve the 
          Ner of Hash-m.
<br>
<b><font>3) OTHER TEACHINGS OF 'KOHELES'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah brei d'Rav Shmuel):</font></b> Chachamim sought to bury 
          Sefer Koheles, because of the [seeming] contradictions in 
          it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why didn't they bury it?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They did not because it begins and ends with 
          Divrei Torah:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Near the beginning it says 'Mah Yisron la'Adam 
               b'Chol Amalo Tachas ha'Shemesh';
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (D'vei R. Yanai):</font></b> Nothing is gained through 
                    toil under the sun, but there is gain in what 
                    preceded the sun (Torah).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The end says 'Sof Davar ha'Kol Nishma Es ha'Elokim 
               Yera v'Es Mitzvosav Shemor Ki Zeh Kol ha'Adam';
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does it mean 'Ki Zeh Kol ha'Adam'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Elazar):</font></b> The entire world was created only 
          for this (fearing Hash-m and doing his Mitzvos).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Aba bar Kahana):</font></b> This is worth as much as 
          the entire world.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Ben Azai):</font></b> The entire world was created to be 
          company for one who fulfills this.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What contradictions are in Koheles?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer - Contradiction #1:</font></b> It says 'Tov Ka'as mi'Sechok' 
          (even anger is better than laughter), and it says 
          'Li'Schok Amarti Mehulal' (it is praiseworthy)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Contradiction #2:</font></b> It says ' V'Shibachti Ani Es 
               ha'Simchah' and it says 'Ul'Simchah Mah Zo Osah'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer (to Contradiction #1):</font></b> The anger that Hash-m has 
          against Tzadikim [to punish them] in this world is better 
          than His laughter with the Resha'im in this world (they 
          are rewarded for their Mitzvos here, and get no share in 
          the world to come);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Sechok Hash-m will have with Tzadikim in the 
               world to come is praiseworthy.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer (to Contradiction #2):</font></b> Shlomo lauds the Simchah 
          one has in a Mitzvah (Rashi - Simchah that is itself a 
          Mitzvah, e.g. to gladden a Chasan and Kalah), but sees no 
          value in other Simchah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  We learn from that the Shechinah does not rest [on a 
          person] amidst sadness, laziness, Sechol, 
          lightheadedness, conversation or idle words, only amidst 
          Simchah of a Mitzvah - 'V'Hayah k'Nagen ha'Menagen 
          va'Tehi Alav Ru'ach Hash-m'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Similarly, one must learn Halachah amidst 
          Simchah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rava):</font></b> Similarly, going to sleep amidst Simchah 
               will cause good dreams.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But Rav Gidal taught that if a Talmid learns 
          from his Rebbi and his lips are not dripping with 
          bitterness [on account of awe], his lips should be 
          burned!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It says 'Sifsosav Shoshanim Notfos Mor Over' - we 
               read this 'she'Shonim Notfos Mar' (lips that are 
               learning drip with bitterness).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> The Rebbi should be amidst Simchah, the 
          Talmidim must be in awe.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> The Rebbi should begin amidst Simchah, 
          afterwards he must be in awe.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rabah would begin with something amusing to make the 
               Talmidim jovial - afterwards he would teach amidst 
               awe.
<br>
<b><font>4) ANSWERING FOOLS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  They also sought to bury Sefer Mishlei, because of the 
          [seeming] contradictions in it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why didn't they bury it?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They said, just like we investigated and resolved 
          the contradictions in Koheles, we can do the same for 
          Mishlei!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What are contradictions in Mishlei?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer - contradiction:</font></b> It says 'Al Ta'an Kesil 
          k'Ivalto', and it says 'Ane Chesil k'Ivalto'!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Resolution:</font></b> One may answer a fool regarding Torah, 
               one may not respond to other things he says.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  A man came in front of Rebbi and said 'Your wife is my 
          wife, your children are my children (they are Mamzerim).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Rebbi offered him wine; he drank and died. (Iyun Yakov - 
          one who blemishes others, he himself has that blemish - 
          the man was a Mamzer, [unknown] Mamzerim do not live 
          (lest people marry them). Maharshal - some say, he 
          intended for 'Im Ra'ev Sona'acha...Hashkehu' (Mishlei 
          25:21); Maharal - a Tzadik humbling himself in front of a 
          Rasha is called giving him to drink, it is like poison 
          for the Rasha.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  A man came in front of R. Chiya (text of Ein Yakov - 
          Rebbi) and said 'Your mother is my wife, your are my son 
          (you are a Mamzer). R. Chiya offered him wine; he drank 
          and died.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> R. Chiya:</font></b> Rebbi's prayer helped prevent him from 
               being considered a Mamzer!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Rebbi used to pray 'May it be Your will to save me 
               today from brazen people and from [accusations of] 
               brazenness (i.e. that I am a Mamzer).'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What are cases when it is proper to answer a 
          fool regarding Torah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Gamliel was teaching that in the future, women 
          will give birth every day - 'Harah v'Yoledes Yachdav'.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A Talmid mocked this - 'V'Ein Kol Chadash Tachas 
               ha'Shamesh' (nothing ever changes)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> R. Gamliel:</font></b> We have something like this even today - 
               hens [lay eggs every day].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  R. Gamliel:</font></b> In the future, trees will bear fruit every 
          day - 'V'Nosa Anaf v'Asah Feri' - just like it has 
          branches every day, it will bear fruit every day.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Talmid mocked this - 'V'Ein Kol Chadash Tachas 
               ha'Shamesh'!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Gamliel showed him a caper bush (which bears 
               three kinds of fruits, once one is picked, another 
               starts growing immediately).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  R. Gamliel:</font></b> In the future, buns and silk garments will 
          grow in Eretz Yisrael - 'Yehi Fisas (this word also 
          suggests hand-sized, or silk) Bar ba'Aretz'.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> The Talmid:</font></b> 'V'Ein Kol Chadash Tachas ha'Shamesh'!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Gamliel showed him mushrooms and truffles 
               (overnight, they grow to be big and round, like 
               buns) and moss growing around bark, which resembles 
               a silk garment.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) MOVING A CORPSE ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara teaches that a dead body (which is Muktzah) may be moved on Shabbos by placing a loaf of bread or a baby on top of it.
</p><p>
The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 311:3) cites the ruling of the <b>MORDECHAI</b> that if the body has clothes on it, one may move the body without putting anything else on top of it (since the clothes are not Muktzah and serve the same purpose as the loaf or baby). The <b>SHELAH HA'KODESH</b> challenges this ruling from the Gemara here. Certainly the body of David ha'Melech was garbed in clothes, and yet the Chachamim did not permit moving the body without placing another object on top of it!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAGEN AVRAHAM</b> cites those who answer that when a king dies, it is not permitted for anyone else to use his possessions (see Sanhedrin 22a), and thus they must be burned. Therefore, David ha'Melech's clothes were Muktzah, and they could not permit his body to be moved.
</p><p>
However, the <b>MACHTZIS HA'SHEKEL</b> cites the <b>BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH</b> who asks that it <i>is</i> permitted for the <i>son</i> of a king to use his father's possessions. Since Shlomo ha'Melech was alive, he was permitted to use his father's clothes, and therefore they were not Muktzah!
</p><p>
The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> answers that Shlomo ha'Melech felt that he was unfit to take the place of his father (or, literally, to 'fill his father's shoes'), and therefore the clothes of his father were also Muktzah to him. (The Chachamim of the time apparently concurred and ruled that some other object which is not Muktzah must be placed on the body to permit moving it.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>EVEN SHOHAM</b> (cited by the <b>LEVUSHEI SERAD</b>, OC 311, and <b>BECHOR SHOR</b>) answer that the Halachah is that if a person dies by falling from a high place, he is buried <i>in his clothes</i>, instead of the usual procedure of removing his clothes and dressing the body in shrouds (<b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> YD 364:4). Since David ha'Melech fell to his death when the stair broke beneath him, the Halachah required that he be buried in his clothes, and therefore they were Muktzah, since they were considered like shrouds and became Asur b'Hana'ah. (The <b>SHACH</b> writes that the reason the clothes must be buried with him is because when a person falls and dies, he bleeds a lot and the clothing may contain a Revi'is of blood.)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE PATIENCE OF HILLEL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One must always be humble like Hillel, and not 
          demanding like Shamai;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Reuven bet Shimon 400 Zuz that he can anger Hillel. It 
          was Erev Shabbos; Hillel was washing his hair. Reuven 
          went by Hillel's door asking 'Who here is Hillel'? Hillel 
          cloaked himself and asked what he can do for him.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Reuven:</font></b> Why do people of Bavel have round heads?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Hillel:</font></b> That is an important question - the answer is, 
          because their midwives are unskilled. (Maharsha - surely, 
          the questions alluded to Divrei Torah, otherwise one does 
          not answer a fool! He asked why rich Bavliyim lose their 
          wealth - Hillel answered, because of [haughtiness, which 
          is] folly.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  Reuven waited [for Hillel to resume washing his hair] and 
          again went by his door asking 'Who here is Hillel?' 
          Hillel cloaked himself.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Reuven:</font></b> Why do people of Tarmud have round eyes?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Hillel:</font></b> That is an important question - the answer is, 
          [so sand will not enter,] for they live amidst the sand. 
          (Maharsha - he asked why they stray after their eyes and 
          transgress Arayos; Hillel answered, because they live 
          amidst profane people (slaves of Shlomo became mixed with 
          them).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  He waited a while and again asked 'Who here is Hillel?' 
          Hillel cloaked himself.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Reuven:</font></b> Why do Africans have wide feet?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Hillel:</font></b> That is an important question - the answer is, 
          because they live amidst the swamps (wide legs prevent 
          them from sinking in; alternatively, they do not wear 
          shoes, which impose their shape on feet. Maharsha - he 
          asked why they lust to gather money; the answer was, 
          because they live amidst people that seek dishonest 
          gain).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Reuven:</font></b> I have many questions to ask, I fear that you 
          will get angry!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Hillel:</font></b> Ask whatever you want.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Reuven:</font></b> Are you Hillel, whom they call Nasi Yisrael? 
          There should not be more like you in Yisrael!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Hillel:</font></b> Why not?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Reuven:</font></b> Through you I lost 400 Zuz!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Hillel:</font></b> It is fitting that you lose 400 Zuz and [do not 
          gain] 400 Zuz, and Hillel should not get angry.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> A case occurred, a Nochri came in front of 
          Shamai; he asked, how many Toros do you have.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Shamai:</font></b> We have two, written and oral.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> The Nochri:</font></b> I believe you about the written Torah, 
               not about the oral Torah - convert me on condition 
               that you will teach written Torah to me!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Shamai angrily drove him away.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> The Nochri came in front of Hillel; Hillel converted 
               him. The first day, Hillel taught him Aleph, Beis, 
               Gimel, Dalet; the next day, Hillel reversed the 
               order of the letters.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> The Nochri:</font></b> Yesterday you taught differently!
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Hillel:</font></b> You rely on me to know the letters - you can 
               also rely on me regarding oral Torah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b></b>  Another Nochri came in front of Shamai; he requested 
          conversion on condition that Shamai teach him the entire 
          Torah while standing on one foot - Shamai drove him away 
          with the builder's rod.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Nochri asked Hillel to convert him [on the same 
               condition].
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Hillel:</font></b> Do not do to your friend what is hateful to 
               you (Rashi - do not transgress Hashem's words, like 
               you do not like people who transgress your words), 
               the rest is commentary - go learn!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b></b>  Another Nochri was walking outside a synagogue and heard 
          the Parshah of Bigdei Kohen Gadol read from the Torah; he 
          was told that the Kohen Gadol wears them. He came in 
          front of Shamai; he requested conversion on condition to 
          be appointed come Kohen Gadol - Shamai drove him away 
          with the builder's rod.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Nochri asked Hillel to convert him [on the same 
               condition]; Hillel did so. (Maharsha - he began 
               teaching him, but he did not convert him until the 
               Nochri realized that he cannot be Kohen Gadol). 
               Hillel told him, only one who understands kingship 
               is appointed king - go learn about kingship 
               (Kehunah)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The Nochri was reading the verses that discuss 
               Kehunah - he reached 'Veha'Zar ha'Karev Yumas', and 
               asked who is considered a Zar.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Hillel:</font></b> This applies [to any non-Kohen,] even to 
               David Melech Yisrael!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> The Nochri reasoned - Yisrael are called children of 
               Hash-m, out of His love he calls them 'Beni Vechori 
               Yisrael', nevertheless 'Veha'Zar ha'Karev Yumas' 
               applies to them - all the more so it applies to one 
               who comes to convert with his staff and bag!
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> The Nochri returned to Shamai and said 'I cannot be 
               Kohen Gadol - 'Veha'Zar ha'Karev Yumas' (you should 
               have told me this, instead of driving me away)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> He returned to Hillel and blessed him, for 'Your 
               humility caused me to come under the wings of the 
               Shechinah!'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(t)</font></b></b>  The three converts met each other; all agreed that 
          Shamai's anger sought to deter them from converting, but 
          Hillel's humility caused them to come under the wings of 
          the Shechinah. (There was no flaw in Shamai's Midos, he 
          held that one must react angrily to words that belittle 
          the honor of Torah; Hillel held that one may pardon the 
          affront to Torah in order to ultimately bring them to 
          convert Lishmah.)
<br>
<b><font>2) 'YIR'AS SHAMAYIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Reish Lakish):</font></b> Question: What do we learn from 'V'Hayah 
          Emunas Itecha Chosen Yeshu'os Chachmas va'Da'as'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> (It alludes to the six orders of the Mishnah -) 
          Emunas refers to Seder Zera'im (one plants, relying on 
          Hash-m to make it grow; Maharshal - one may grow in 
          Emunah by testing Hash-m through giving Ma'aseros; Rashi 
          - one must be trustworthy to tithe his produce), Itecha 
          refers to Mo'ed, Chosen refers to [inheritance, i.e. 
          children which come from] Nashim, Yeshu'os refers to 
          Nezikim (it teaches one to beware of damaging, saving him 
          from Chiyuv), Chachmas refers to Kodshim (it is difficult 
          to learn), Da'as (which is greater than Chachmah) refers 
          to Taharos (the hardest Seder);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Nevertheless, 'Yir'as Hash-m Hi Otzaro' (it is what 
               enables him to remember all of them).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> The verse also alludes to six things a person is 
          asked when brought to judgment [after death]:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Were your business dealings be'Emunah (honest)?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Did you fix Itim (times) for Torah?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Did you engage in Peru u'Rvu (Chosen)?
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> Did you anticipate Yeshu'ah (salvation)?
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> Did you delve deeply into Chachmah?
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> Did you understand one matter through another [to 
               attain greater Da'as]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Nevertheless, 'Yir'as Hash-m Hi Otzaro' - if one fears 
          Hash-m, good (these attributes will persist) - if not, 
          not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  A parable - Reuven asked Shimon 'Bring my wheat up to the 
          attic'; Shimon did so.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Reuven:</font></b> Did you put with it a Kav (a small measure) 
               of Chumtin (sand or salty dirt, to retard spoilage)?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Shimon:</font></b> No.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Reuven:</font></b> It would have been better had you not 
               brought it up!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Tana d'vei R. Yishmael - Beraisa):</font></b> (Normally, one who 
          sells may not add fillers to produce, but) one may mix a 
          Kav of Chumtin with a Kor (180 Kavim) of grain.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rabah bar Rav Huna):</font></b> One who has Torah but not Yir'as 
          Shamayim is like a treasurer who was given keys to the 
          treasury inside, but not keys to the outer gates - he 
          cannot enter!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HILLEL AND THE PROVOCATEUR</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> A certain fool attempted to arouse Hillel's anger by asking him ridiculous questions on Erev Shabbos as Hillel prepared for Shabbos. Hillel answered all of the fool's questions calmly and patiently.
</p><p>
Why did Hillel respond to the fool who was trying to arouse his anger? The Gemara (30b) just taught that one should not respond when a fool provokes him with worldly matters! Certainly the questions that this fool was asking Hillel were worldly, trivial matters!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The only time one is not allowed to respond to a fool is when he questions with an attitude of mockery. Hillel, in his humility, thought that the person was genuinely curious and sincere, and therefore he answered his questions (<b>MAHARSHA</b>). This may also explain why the Gemara records that Hillel exclaimed after each question, 'You have asked a very important question' -- this shows that Hillel thought that the inquirer was sincere. (Y. Shaw)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE THREE QUESTIONS ASKED TO HILLEL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> A certain fool attempted to arouse Hillel's anger by asking him ridiculous questions on Erev Shabbos as Hillel prepared for Shabbos.
</p><p>
The first question he asked was, 'Why do Babylonians have elongated heads?'
</p><p>
The second question was, 'Why do the people of Tarmod have round eyes?'
</p><p>
The third question was, 'Why do the people of Africa have flat feet?'
</p><p>
Why did the man choose these questions of all of the possible inane subjects he could have asked about? Why did Hillel, who was very modest, not simply reply that he is unlearned in those areas? Why did he spend time answering the questions so earnestly? Moreover, how did Hillel know for certain that the shape of the Babylonian's heads was a result of poor midwifery?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> There seems to be more to this lesson in humility than meets the eye. The questions posed to Hillel may have a deeper significance.
</p><p>
Hillel himself was from Bavel (Pesachim 66a, Sukah 18a). The question, 'Why do Babylonians have elongated heads?' was thus a direct insult to Hillel himself. However, it was not merely an insult to Hillel's physical appearance. The insult was directed at Hillel's leadership qualities. The man was not asking about the physical condition of the Babylonians' heads, but about what is <i>inside</i> of their heads. His true intention was to ask, 'Why is it that while we residents of Eretz Yisrael have a conventional, straightforward manner of thinking, you Babylonians have an 'elongated' or irregular manner of thinking? How do you dare take your crooked, Babylonian method of thought and rule over sages whose background is so much more intellectually sound than yours?' This was meant to be a harsh insult to the man who was the spiritual leader of the nation. (The insult seems even more vicious when we bear in mind that Hillel was granted his lofty post only through proving himself more worthy than the scholars in Eretz Yisrael in an intellectual challenge, as described in Pesachim 66a.)
</p><p>
To this disparaging remark Hillel modestly replied, 'You are correct. Perhaps our minds are not as keen as those of the people of Eretz Yisrael. However, even if that is so, we are not to be blamed. It is a result of a lack of professional 'midwives.' The people who brought us into the world of Torah and nurtured our development were not as learned as the great Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael. If you believe that my intellectual capabilities are inferior to those of my colleagues, it is due to a flaw in my early education.'
</p><p>
The <b>YA'AVETZ</b> suggests a similar approach. He applies this approach to the next two questions as well. Based on his words, the underlying intentions in the dialogue between Hillel and the provocateur may have been as follows.
</p><p>
The Gemara in Yevamos (17a) teaches that most people with dubious lineage come from Tarmod, and most of the families of questionable lineage in Tarmod, in turn, derive from Bavel. When the provocateur asked Hillel why Tarmodians have round eyes, he was alluding to their marital infidelity. Round eyes are an allusion to immorality, as the Gemara in Ta'anis (24a) says. The man was questioning Hillel's lineage, saying, 'Why are the Tarmodians so lewd? Did that trait not begin in Bavel? Who can be sure that your lineage is pure and that you are a descendant of David ha'Melech and worthy of being a leader of the Jewish people?' Hillel answered, 'They live among the sands.' That is, only when the Babylonians arrived in Tarmod, an oasis in the desert, did they Babylonians acquire this bad trait from the influence of the surrounding nations.
</p><p>
The verse (Tzefanyah 3:10, see Targum) states that some of the Jewish exiles during the time of the Churban of the first Beis ha'Mikdash went to Kush (Africa). These Jews did not return with the rest of the nation when the second Beis ha'Mikdash was built. The provocateur was asking Hillel, 'Why is it that the people of Africa (the Jews who did not return to Eretz Yisrael) have such flat feet,' that is, why did they stay in Africa even when the Beis ha'Mikdash was rebuilt? He was taunting Hillel, asking why Hillel stayed in Bavel so long, and why his fellow Babylonians were still living there, even though the Beis ha'Mikdash was now standing in Yerushalayim. Hillel answered, in his modesty, that the people in Bavel have difficulty leaving because they are stuck in its 'quicksand,' in the comfortable standard of living of Bavel, and they do not mean to slight the Beis ha'Mikdash. (Adapted from 'Torah from the Internet' by Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld, Parshas Beha'aloscha; see also Hagahos Ya'avetz here.)
</p><p>


<font><b>3) IMPURE MOTIVES</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> A Nochri came to Hillel and asked to be converted on the grounds that he wanted to be a Kohen Gadol. Hillel converted him, and told him to go learn the laws of Kehunah Gedolah.
</p><p>
Why did Hillel convert him? The Gemara in Yevamos (24b) states that it is forbidden to accept a convert who wants to convert only to receive the benefits that a Jew receives!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> explains that Hillel did not actually convert the Nochri right away. Hillel converted him only <i>after</i> he went and learned that he cannot become a Kohen Gadol. Hillel told him to learn about the laws of Kehunah Gedolah <i>before</i> he converted.
</p><p>
However, this poses another problem. Why was Hillel allowed to teach Torah to a Nochri before he converted? The Gemara in Chagigah (13a) states that it is forbidden to teach Torah to a Nochri! Similarly, the Gemara in Sanhedrin (59a) states that a Nochri who learns Torah is Chayav Misah! The Maharsha answers that for purposes of converting, it is permitted to teach Torah to a Nochri.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Yevamos suggests another answer. Hillel saw that the Nochri was sincere and that he would convert even if he could not become a Kohen Gadol, and therefore he converted him.
</p><p>
(<b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> points out that the words of Tosfos imply that Hillel specifically waited until after he converted the Nochri in order to teach Torah to him, for otherwise he would not have had to 'take a chance' by converting the Nochri before knowing for certain that the Nochri would not change his mind after learning that he could not be a Kohen Gadol. Accordingly, this approach of Tosfos refutes the supposition of the Maharsha and proves that one is <i>not</i> permitted to teach Torah to a Nochri even when the Nochri plans to convert.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (R. Yanai):</font></b> Woe to one who lacks a Chatzer, and he toils 
          to make a gate for a Chatzer! (Torah will not help one 
          who lacks Yir'as Shamayim, it is merely a gate for it.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Hash-m made the world solely in order that 
          people will fear Him - 'V'Ha'Elokim Asah she'Yir'u 
          mi'Lfanav'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  R. Yakov bar Acha passed in front of R. Simon and R. 
          Elazar - one of them suggested standing up for him, for 
          he fears sin.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  The other:</font></b> We should stand up for him, for he is a great 
          Chacham!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  The first:</font></b> I say that we should honor him for Yir'as 
          Chet, and you say on account of Torah (which is less 
          important)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Conclusion:</font></b> The following shows that R. Elazar suggested 
          standing up on account of Yir'as Chet:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Elazar citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> Hash-m has only 
               [desire for] Yir'as Shamayim in His world - 'Mah 
               Hash-m Elokecha Sho'el me'Imach Ki Im l'Yir'ah...', 
               and it says 'Hen Yir'as Hash-m Hi Chachmah'
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  In Yevanis, 'Hen' means 'one' (it is the only 
                    Chachmah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Ula):</font></b> 'Al Tirsha Harbeh' - is it permitted 
          to do a little evil?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, one who ate garlic and gives off an 
          offensive smell, should he eat more garlic and give off 
          more smell?! (One who sinned a little should not sin 
          more!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question (Rabah bar Rav Ula):</font></b> Question: What does it mean 
          'Ki Ein Chartzubos l'Mosam u'Vari Ulam'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Hash-m says, not only are Resha'im not sad [about 
          their past] and unafraid of the day of death - more than 
          this, their hearts are clear (Maharsha - they expect to 
          have everything nice in this world,) like the opening to 
          the Ulam (the biggest opening in the Mikdash, 40 Amos by 
          20 Amos)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  (Rabah):</font></b> 'Zeh Darkam Kesel Lamo' - Resha'im know that 
          they go on the path of death, yet they have Chelev on 
          their kidneys (insulation from considering changing their 
          ways)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps they forget about their end!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(t)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> 'V'Achareihem b'Fihem Yirtzu Sela' (they talk 
          about their end, yet they do not change).
<br>
<b><font>3) LIABILITY FOR EXTINGUISHING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he extinguished to save the Ner, oil or 
          wick, he is liable (R. Yosi is Mechayev if he intended to 
          save the wick).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Whom does R. Yosi hold like [regarding Melachah 
          she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah]?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he holds like R. Yehudah, he should be Chayav in 
               all cases; if he holds like R. Shimon, he should be 
               exempt even if he intended to save the wick!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Ula):</font></b> He holds like R. Yehudah; he holds that 
          Soser (destroying) is liable only if he intends to build 
          [it better] in the same place (for then the Stirah is 
          constructive - likewise, extinguishing makes a better 
          wick, but it does not improve the Ner or oil).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question (Rabah):</font></b> We learn Melachos from the Mishkan 
               - they would Soser (dismantle) the Mishkan or 
               rebuild it elsewhere!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer (Ula):</font></b> Since it says 'Al Pi Hash-m Yachanu', 
               it is like Stirah in order to rebuild in the same 
               place (it is a Mitzvah to set up the Mishkan in the 
               new encampment, therefore the Stirah is 
               constructive).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> He holds like R. Shimon - a wick 
          is different, like Rav Hamnuna taught:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Hamnuna):</font></b> The case is, the wick needs to be 
               singed (it was not singed before Shabbos) - R. 
               Shimon admits that one is liable, for this makes a 
               Kli.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Support (Rava):</font></b> It says 'for he [now intentionally] makes 
          a singed wick' - it does not say, for it becomes a singed 
          wick (i.e. on account of Binyan, even if it was singed 
          before Shabbos).
<br>
<b><font>4) SPECIAL 'MITZVOS' OF WOMEN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Women die when giving birth on account of 
          three transgressions - they are not careful about Nidah, 
          Chalah, and lighting Neros [Shabbos].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Why do they die on account of Nidah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> She sinned regarding something 
          inside her womb, therefore she is stricken through 
          something inside her womb.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This does not explain dying on account of 
          Chalah and lighting Neros (presumably, there is a common 
          reason for all three)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Chisda):</font></b> Hash-m said, I put a Revi'is of 
          blood in you (this is considered the minimal Shi'ur 
          necessary for life) - I commanded you about Dam [Nidah];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> I called you Reishis ('Reishis Tevu'asah'), I 
               commanded you about Reishis [Arisoseichem, 
               i.e.Chalah];
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> I gave you a Neshamah that is called Ner ('Ner 
               Hash-m Nishmas Adam' - Mishlei 20:27), I commanded 
               you about Ner;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  If you will fulfill these [three Mitzvos], good 
                    - if not, I will take back the Neshamah I gave!
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>4) THE ONLY WISDOM IS FEAR OF G-D</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites a verse that says, 'Only the fear of Hash-m is wisdom' -- '<i>Hen</i> Yir'as Hash-m Hi Chochmah' (Iyov 28:28). The Gemara says that 'Hen' means 'one' in Greek ('henos'), and thus the verse is saying that the one and only wisdom is the fear of Hash-m. Why does the Torah teach us this principle by using a Greek word?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The Greeks excelled and prided themselves in their great wisdom (see, for example, Sotah 49b, 'Chochmas Yevanis,' and other places). The Gemara teaches that the verse uses the Greek word for 'one' in order to emphasize that all wisdom is worth nothing without the fear of Hash-m. Even those who think they excel in wisdom, like the Greeks, are really lacking any wisdom because they have no fear of Hash-m. (M. Kornfeld, as heard from ha'Gaon Rav Moshe Shapiro)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) PUNISHMENTS COME AT TIMES OF DANGER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why do they die specifically when giving birth?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rava):</font></b> People run to slaughter a bull that it 
          fell (it is the best opportunity - likewise, the time of 
          birth is most opportune for a woman to die).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> A Shifchah gets beaten for all of her 
          transgressions at once (similarly, a woman is punished 
          for her sins together with fulfillment of Chavah's curse 
          that birth will be painful).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Rav Chisda):</font></b> One need not topple a drunkard 
          (he will fall by himself - similarly, a fetus is primed 
          to kill a pregnant woman, if Hash-m will not save her).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #4 (Mar Ukva):</font></b> A lame shepherd cannot hit healthy 
          goats [that deserve to be hit], they will receive their 
          lashes in the pen - likewise, often a healthy woman has 
          merits that do not allow the Satan to prosecute, but when 
          she needs a miracle to give birth, he can prosecute).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #5 (Rav Papa):</font></b> There is brotherhood in a place of 
          wealth, but not in a place of poverty (likewise, when a 
          woman is in danger [on account of birth], her advocates 
          abandon her).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> When are men judged?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (Reish Lakish):</font></b> They are judged when they pass 
          over a bridge.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Is this the only time?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They are judged when they pass over a bridge, or 
          anything similar (any place of danger).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  Rav would not go [across a river] on a ferry with a 
          Nochri, lest the Nochri is due to be punished, and Rav 
          will be punished with him.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  Shmuel would go on a ferry only with a Nochri - he holds 
          that the Satan does not rule over (punish people of) 
          different nations at the same time.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  R. Yanai would check a ferry [for leaks] before going on 
          it - this is like he taught elsewhere:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Yanai):</font></b> One should not go in a place of danger, 
               expecting a miracle - perhaps a miracle will not be 
               done for him; even if a miracle is done, it 
               diminishes from his merits.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (R. Chanin):</font></b> He learns from 'Katonti mi'Kol 
               ha'Chasadim umi'Kol ha'Emes' (Yakov's merits were 
               reduced through the miracles Hash-m did for him).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  R. Zeira would not go between date trees on a day when 
          the south wind was blowing (it can topple walls).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (R. Yitzchak brei d'Rav Yehudah):</font></b> One should pray that he 
          not get sick, for one who is sick needs merits to be 
          cured.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Mar Ukva):</font></b> He learns from 'Ki Yipol ha'Nofel <i>Mimenu</i>' - 
          if one falls, proof is required from him (that he merits 
          to be saved).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Tana d'vei R. Yishmael):</font></b> 'Ki <i>Yipol ha'Nofel</i> Mimenu' - 
          he is called 'ha'Nofel' even before he fell, for 
          accidents were decreed from the Creation - [nevertheless, 
          one must build a railing around his roof,] for good 
          things happen through virtuous people, bad things happen 
          through those lacking merit.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If one is sick and about to die, we tell him 
          to confess, just like one who is executed confesses [in 
          order to get a share in the world to come].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b></b>  One who goes in the market should view himself [to be in 
          danger] as if he was handed over to a magistrate; one who 
          has a slight headache should view himself as if he has a 
          noose around his neck (and is being judged); one who is 
          bedridden on account of illness should view himself as if 
          he was being judged in Gardom (where they try the most 
          serious offenders, almost all are killed);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One in Gardom is not saved unless he has great 
               advocates.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The advocates are Teshuvah and Ma'asim Tovim.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Even if 999 condemn, and one advocates, he will be 
               saved - 'Mal'ach Melitz Echad Mini 
               Elef...Peda'ehu...'
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer, son of R. Yosi ha'Galili says, even if 
               the advocate has 999 reasons to condemn, and one 
               reason to acquit, he will be saved - 'Melitz Echad 
               Mini Elef'
<br>
<b><font>2) CAUSES OF EARLY DEATH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #1):</font></b> Women die when giving birth on account of 
          [these] three transgressions;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer says, women die young [on account of them, 
          even not at the time of birth];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Acha says, they die because they launder [clothing 
          dirty from] their children's excrement on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Some say, this is because they call the Aron Kodesh 
          'Aron' (just like they call chests; Chachamim also call 
          it Aron, but they do not call anything else Aron).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Yishmael ben Elazar):</font></b> Amei ha'Aretz 
          (ignoramuses) die on account of two things - they call 
          the Aron Kodesh 'Aron', and they call the synagogue 'Beis 
          Am' (a lowly name, i.e. everyone gathers there. Malei 
          ha'Ro'im - the same name is used for theatres; Chachmas 
          Mano'ach - they do not attribute the Beis ha'Kneses to 
          [Keneses Yisrael, which alludes to] the Shechinah, 
          rather, to people.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Yosi):</font></b> Three ['transgressions] are Badkei 
          Misah (reasons why one might not be saved from danger) in 
          women - Nidah, Chalah and lighting Neros;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Some call these Davkei Misah (they cause premature 
          death).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi holds like the first Tana of Beraisa #1, the 
          latter opinion holds like R. Eliezer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> Laws of Hekdesh, 
          Terumos and Ma'aseros are fundamentals of Torah, the 
          Torah trusts Amei ha'Aretz about them. (Chachamim later 
          saw reason to suspect them about Ma'aseros.)
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) REFERRING TO HOLY THINGS WITH MUNDANE WORDS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that Amei ha'Aretz are punished with [premature] death for referring to the synagogue as a 'Beis Am' (gathering hall) and for calling the Aron ha'Kodesh an 'Arna' (chest). By using mundane words for these items, one slights the holiness of these things.
</p><p>
What is the difference between calling the Aron ha'Kodesh 'Arna' and calling it 'Aron'? 'Arna' is simply the Aramaic form of 'Aron,' and the word 'Aron' is also used to refer to ordinary chests, both in the Torah and the Mishnah (see, for example, Bereishis 50:26 and Moed Katan 25a). It must be that the Gemara means that one must mention the <i>Kedushah</i> of the Aron ha'Kodesh when he refers to it. (<b>MAHARSHA</b>)
</p><p>
(a) However, we find in a number of places that the Torah itself refers to the Aron ha'Kodesh by calling it an 'Aron,' such as when the Torah describes the construction of the Mishkan, where it refers to the Aron ha'Kodesh simply as 'Aron'!
</p><p>
(b) Also, the Gemara in Berachos (47b) refers to the Aron ha'Kodesh as 'Aron' as well (see <b>TOSFOS</b>)! (<b>MAHARSHA</b>)
</p><p>
(According the <b>VILNA GA'ON's</b> explanation of the Gemara in Berachos (in Divrei Eliyahu, Berachos 47b), this is not a question. The word 'Aron' in Berachos does not refer to the Aron ha'Kodesh, but rather it is an acronym for the words, 'Echad Ro'eh v'Eino Nir'eh,' and it alludes to the fact that when there are nine men present, Hash-m joins them to make a Minyan; see the Gemara's conclusion there in Berachos.)
</p><p>
Aside from the use of the word 'Aron' to refer to the Aron ha'Kodesh, we find many places where the Mishnah and Beraisa use the word 'Teivah' (box) to refer to the Aron ha'Kodesh in which the Sifrei Torah are kept (see, for example, Ta'anis 15a), without any modifier to distinguish between a mundane box and the Aron ha'Kodesh. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(c) In addition, how can the Gemara say that one is punished for calling a synagogue a 'Beis Am,' when the prophet himself (Yirmeyahu 39:8) refers to a synagogue as a 'Beis ha'Am'? (<b>MELO HA'RO'IM</b>)
</p><p>

<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) Regarding the question that the Torah itself uses the single word 'Aron' when referring to the Aron ha'Kodesh, a closer look at the verses reveals that <i>all</i> of the verses refer to the Aron either as 'Aron Bris Hash-m' or 'Aron ha'Edus.' It is called 'Aron' with no modifier only when the Torah discusses the Aron <i>before</i> the Luchos were placed inside (it was the Luchos that gave the Aron its sanctity). (At times, when a verse discusses the Aron and calls it 'Aron Bris Hash-m' or 'Aron ha'Edus,' it refers to it as 'Aron' in the same verse, relying on the earlier modifier.) (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(b) The question from the word 'Aron' in Berachos and the word 'Teivah' in the Mishnah is more difficult. The Acharonim suggest the following answers:
</p><p>
1. The <b>MAHARSHA</b> (Chidushei Halachos) answers that one is permitted to call it 'Aron' when it is clear to all that he is referring to the Aron ha'Kodesh that contains the Sifrei Torah. It is disgraceful only in a situation in which it is possible that some listeners might think that one is referring to a simple chest and not to the Aron ha'Kodesh.
</p><p>


2. The <b>MAGEN AVRAHAM</b> (OC 154:18) answers that while one learns Torah, he is permitted to refer to the Aron ha'Kodesh as 'Aron,' because every word that one speaks while learning Torah is holy.
</p><p>


3. The Magen Avraham (ibid.) suggests further that perhaps there <i>is</i> a difference between Aramaic ('Arna') and Hebrew ('Aron'). Although the word 'Aron' can refer to either the Aron ha'Kodesh or to a chest, the Aramaic word 'Arna' used <i>only</i> to refer to a chest. The prohibition applies only to using the Aramaic 'Arna,' which connotes only a mundane chests when talking about the Aron ha'Kodesh. (The reason the word 'Arna' was never used to refer to the Aron ha'Kodesh was because the people were careful to use Lashon ha'Kodesh when talking about objects of Kedushah. Using a foreign word to refer to objects of Kedushah was considered disgraceful (<b>IYEI HA'YAM</b>, cited by <b>LIKUTIM</b>, beginning of Mishnayos Beitzah; according to this, the use of words such as 'synagogue,' 'Temple,' 'Bible,' and 'ark' today might be subject to further investigation). Support can be found for this in the Gemara at the end of Sukah (see also <b>RAMBAM</b> in Perush ha'Mishnayos), which seems to understand that the family of Bilgah was punished because Miriam bas Bilgah called the Mizbe'ach 'Lucas,' or wolf in <i>Latin</i>. -M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(c) The previous three answers do not suffice to explain why the prophet refers to a Beis ha'Keneses as a 'Beis ha'Am.' The <b>MELO HA'RO'IM</b> suggests that in the times of the Gemara, the term 'Beis Am' was used to refer to theaters. Consequently, it was a disgrace to use such a term to refer to a holy Beis ha'Keneses. However, before the times of the Gemara, in the times of Yirmeyahu, 'Beis Am' referred only to the Beis ha'Keneses. Therefore, it was permitted to refer to it by that name.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #1 - R. Noson):</font></b> A man's wife is prone to die on 
          account of his vows [to Hekdesh that he does not fulfill] 
          - 'Im Ein Lecha Leshalem Lamah Yikach Mishkavcha 
          mi'Tachtecha'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  Rebbi says, minors die on account of vows of their 
          parents - 'Al Titen Es Picha Lachati Es 
          Besarecha...v'Chibel Es Ma'ase Yadecha ' - the handiwork 
          of man is his children.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #2 - R. Eliezer b'Rebbi Shimon):</font></b> Children die on 
          account of vows of their parents;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah ha'Nasi says, they die on account of Bitul 
          Torah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> R. Eliezer learns from the above verse, but 
          what is R. Yehudah ha'Nasi's source?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He learns from 'La'Shav Hikeisi Es Beneichem 
          Musar Lo Lakachu (did I strike your children for nought?! 
          No - it was because they did not learn)'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> R. Eliezer also learns from 
          this verse - children are stricken on account of Shav 
          (vain vows).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Rebbi is R. Yehudah ha'Nasi - he contradicts 
          himself!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Beraisa #1 was taught after he heard [and 
          accepted] R. Eliezer's opinion.
<br>
<b><font>3) REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS OF OTHER 'MITZVOS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Chiya bar Aba or R. Yosi):</font></b> [Children die] on account 
          of [not fulfilling] the Mitzvah of Mezuzah;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (The other of R. Chiya bar Aba and R. Yosi):</font></b> [They die] 
          on account of Bitul Torah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  (The second Parshah of Shma discusses Divrei Torah, then 
          Mezuzah, then mentions long life.) The first opinion 
          expounds ['Lema'an Yirbu Yemeichem vi'Mei Veneichem'] to 
          be contingent on the previous verse, but not the verse 
          before the previous verse;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The latter opinion expounds it to refer to the 
               previous verse and the verse before that.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (R. Meir or R. Yehudah):</font></b> [Children die] on account of 
          [not fulfilling] the Mitzvah of Mezuzah;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (The other of R. Meir and R. Yehudah):</font></b> [They die] on 
          account of [not fulfilling] Tzitzis.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We understand the first opinion - it says 
          'Lema'an Yirbu Yemeichem vi'Mei Veneichem' right after 
          'U'Chsavtam Al Mezuzos Beisecha uvi'Sh'arecha';
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> What is the source of this of the latter opinion?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Kahana):</font></b> [Shortly after 'La'Shav Hikeisi...' 
          it says 'Gam bi'Chnafayich Nimtze'u Dam Nafshos Evyonim 
          Nekiyim'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> The first opinion learns from 
          the end of this verse - 'Lo va'Machteres Metzasim' - 
          their doorways were like tunnels [without Mezuzos].
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The latter opinion expounds it to refer to the 
               previous verse and the verse before that.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Reish Lakish):</font></b> One who zealously fulfills Tzitzis will 
          have [in the future] 2800 slaves (10 from each of the 70 
          nations on each of the four corners of his garment) - 
          'Ba'Yamim ha'Hemah Asher Yachaziku Asarah Anashim mi'Kol 
          Leshonos ha'Goyim v'Hecheziku bi'Chnaf Ish Yehudi...'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Nechemyah):</font></b> Groundless hatred is punished 
          by an increase of quarrels in one's house, miscarriages, 
          and children dying young.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer b'Rebbi Yehudah says, [failure to take] Chalah 
          is punished by a lack of Berachah is stored [food], 
          causing a rise in prices; people plant, and others reap 
          it - 'V'Hifkadti (I will diminish) Aleichem 
          Behalah...U'Zratem la'Rik Zar'achem va'Achaluhu 
          Oyveichem';
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> We read 'Behalah' like 'b'Chalah'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  If people take Chalah, they will be blessed - 'Reishis 
          Arisoseichem Titnu la'Kohen Lehani'ach Berachah El 
          Beisecha'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  Failure to give Terumos and Ma'aseros is punished by 
          Shamayim withholding rain and dew, causing a rise in 
          prices; people cannot earn money, they seek income and do 
          not attain it - 'Tziyah Gam Chom Yigzelu Meimei 
          Sheleg...'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How do we learn this from the verse?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer (Tana d'vei R. Yishmael):</font></b> On account of things I 
          commanded in summer [when crops are harvested] which you 
          did not fulfill, water of [melting] snow will be withheld 
          in winter.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b></b>  If they give, they will be blessed - 'Havi'u Es Kol 
          ha'Ma'aser...va'Harikosi Lachem Bracha Ad Bli Dai'.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What does it mean 'Ad Bli <i>Dai</i>'? 
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rami bar Rav):</font></b> It means, until your lips 
               will wear out from saying 'Enough'!
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) FOUR SINS WHICH CAUSE A PERSON'S CHILDREN TO DIE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara enumerates four things which cause a person's children to die young: failure to keep one's vows, Bitul Torah, failure to affix Mezuzos, and failure to wear Tzitzis. Why do these four actions warrant the specific punishment of the loss of one's children?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>MAHARAL</b> (in <b>GUR ARYEH</b> on Maseches Shabbos) explains that Bitul Torah results in the death of one's children because the spoken word is called 'Niv Sefasayim,' or 'the fruits of one's lips' (Yeshayah 57:19). When a person does not spend his time learning Torah and producing fruits with his lips as he learns, Hash-m takes away his other fruits, his children. Likewise, when a person misuses his lips to utter vows that he does not keep and he does not create meaningful fruits with his lips, Hash-m punishes him by taking away his other fruits, his children.
</p><p>
What is the connection between the death of one's children and not properly observing the Mitzvah of Mezuzah? We may suggest that since the Mezuzah serves to arouse Hashem's protection of one's household, lack of care in that Mitzvah causes a lack of protection of the members of one's household, and they are left vulnerable to be taken from him. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
Why is failure to observe the Mitzvah of Tzitzis punishable with the death of one's children? The Midrash in Tehilim (Midrash Shocher Tov to Tehilim 90, on the verse 'v'Hadarcha Al Beneihem') states that Hash-m gave us the Mitzvah of Techeles of Tzitzis in order to show that we are His children by having us dress in 'royal' garb (Techeles was normally worn only by royalty). When one chooses not to show that he is Hashem's child, Hash-m takes away the person's own children. (Y. Shaw)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS OF OTHER 'MITZVOS' (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Robbery is punished by locusts, which causes hunger; 
          people eat the flesh of their children - '...Ha'Oshkos 
          Dalim ha'Rotzetzos Evyonim'...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Interjection (Rava):</font></b> This refers to women of Mechuzah 
          (Rava's city), who eat and do not work [thereby stealing 
          from their husbands].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Shortly after this it says 'Hikeisi 
          Eschem...Ganoseichem...Yochal ha'Gazam';
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It also says 'Yeser ha'Gazam Ochal ha'Arbeh v'Yeser 
               ha'Arbeh Ochal ha'Yelek v'Yeser ha'Yelek Ochal 
               he'Chasil'; 'Va'Yigzor Al Yamin v'Ra'ev...Besar 
               Zero'o Yochelu' - we read this Besar Zar'o (flesh of 
               his children).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  The punishment for delay of judgment, perversion of 
          judgment b'Mezid or due to haste, and Bitul Torah is the 
          sword (war), massive looting, pestilence, and famine; 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  People eat but are not satiated, they eat their bread by 
          weight (it breaks in the oven, everyone takes a weight of 
          crumbs according to how much dough he put in) - 
          'V'He'veisi Aleichem Cherev Nokemes Nekam Bris 
          v'Shilachti Dever b'Sochachem v'Nitatem b'Yad Oyev; V'Afu 
          Eser Nashim [Lachmechem b'Sanur Echad v'Heshivu 
          Lachmechem ba'Mishkal va'Achaltem v'Lo Sisba'u]'.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Bris refers to Torah - 'Im Lo Vrisi Yomam 
               va'Laylah'.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The punishment is also for improper judgment - 
               'Ya'an uv'Ya'an b'Mishpatai Ma'asu'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  The punishment for vain or false oaths, Chilul Hash-m 
          (desecration of His name, causing a decreased in people's 
          respect for Torah or Mitzvah observance) or Chilul 
          Shabbos, vicious animals are increased, Behemos cease, 
          people are diminished, roads are desolate - 'V'Im b'Eleh 
          Lo Sivasru Li...' - we read this 'V'Im b'Alah' (on 
          account of oaths);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The previous verse says 'V'Hishlachti Vachem Es 
               Chayas haSadeh...';
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> We learn that the same punishment comes for Chilul 
               Hash-m and Chilul Shabbos from a Gezerah Shavah 
               'Chilul-Chilul' - regarding false oaths it says 
               'V'Chilalta Es Shem Hash-m Elokecha', regarding 
               Chilul Hash-m it says 'V'Lo Sechalelu Es Shem 
               Kodshi', regarding Chilul Shabbos it says 
               'Mechaleleha Mos Yumas'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  The punishment for murder is Churban Beis ha'Mikdash and 
          the departing of the Shechinah from Yisrael - 'V'Lo 
          Sachanifu...v'Lo Setamei Es ha'Aretz Asher Atem Yoshvim 
          Bah Asher Ani Shochen b'Sochah';
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This implies that if you will Metamei the land, you 
               will not dwell in it and the Shechinah  will leave.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  The punishment for Giluy Arayos, idolatry and working the 
          land in Shemitah or Yovel is exile - other nations will 
          dispossess Yisrael;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> [Regarding Arayos] it says 'Ki Es Kol ha'To'evos 
               ha'El Asu Anshei ha'Aretz... Va'Titma ha'Aretz', and 
               it says 'V'Lo Saki ha'Aretz Eschem b'Tama'achem 
               Osah';
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Regarding idolatry it says 'V'Eschem Ezareh 
               va'Goyim'.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Regarding working the land in Shemitah or Yovel it 
               says 'Az Tirtzeh ha'Aretz Es Shabsoseha...v'Atem 
               b'Eretz Oyveichem'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  The punishment for foul language is many afflictions; 
          harsh decrees come, youths of [haters of - this is a 
          euphemism] die, orphans and widows cry and are not 
          answered - 'Al Ken Al Bachurav Lo Yismach Hash-m v'Es 
          Yesomav v'Es Almenosav Lo Yerachem...v'Chol Peh Dover 
          Nevalah'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The verse ends 'V'Od Yado Netuyah - what does 
          this mean?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Chanan Bar Rav):</font></b> All know why a bride enters 
          the Chupah, but one who fouls his mouth to discuss it, 
          even if 70 good years had been decreed for him, they are 
          changed for evil.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Rabah bar Shila):</font></b> Gehinom is made deeper for one who 
          fouls his mouth - 'Shuchah Amukah Pi Zaros'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> This applies even to one who 
          hears it and is silent - 'Ze'um (one who bears the wrath 
          of) Hash-m Yipol Sham'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (R. Oshaya):</font></b> If one is Mamrik (diverts himself) to sin, 
          wounds come on him - 'Chaburos Petza Tamruk b'Ra';
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Further, he will be judged to receive Hadrokan (in 
               which the stomach swells) - the verse ends 'U'Makos 
               Chadrei Vaten'.
<br>
<b><font>2) SICKNESSES SENT FOR PUNISHMENT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> Hadrokan shows that a person 
          transgressed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> There are three kinds of Hadrokan:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If it is punishment for sin, his skin becomes [hard 
               and] thick;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If it is on account of hunger, his skin swells (it 
               is soft underneath);
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> If it is on account of witchcraft, his skin is thin 
               and weak.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Shmuel ha'Katan contracted Hadrokan - he beseeched 
          Hash-m, 'People might think that it is on account of 
          sin!' Hash-m healed him.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Abaye contracted Hadrokan; Rava said, this is because he 
          starves himself (there is no suspicion that it is on 
          account of sin).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  Rava contracted Hadrokan.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But surely, Rava avoided the causes of 
          Hadrokan! (Rava said that Abaye starves himself, implying 
          that he disapproves, and) Rava said that more people die 
          from delaying bowel movements than from [Hadrokan] on 
          account of hunger!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Rava had fixed times to learn with Talmidim, he was 
          forced to delay bowel movements.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Four maladies are signs - Hadrokan is a sign 
          of sin, jaundice is a sign of Sin'as Chinam (groundless 
          hatred), poverty is a sign of haughtiness, Askarah 
          (croup) is a sign of Lashon ha'Ra.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Croup comes to the world on account of [not 
          giving] Ma'aser;
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) PUNISHMENTS FOR SINS, MEASURE FOR MEASURE</b></font><b>
<br>AGADAH:</b> The Gemara lists punishments for various sins. For most of the punishments, the element of 'Midah k'Neged Midah' (measure for measure) is obvious, but for some it is less obvious.
</p><p>
For the sin of stealing, a person is punished with locusts and other forms of pestilence, because such pestilence 'steals' a person's livelihood. Indeed, the Chachamim refer to locusts as 'thieves' ('Masikin') in Bava Kama (116b).
</p><p>
For the sins of making false or vain oaths, Chilul Hash-m, and Chilul Shabbos, the population decreases and the roads are left desolate. Since a person was 'Mechalel' -- that is, he took away the Kedushah from the world, leaving a vacuum of emptiness in its place (from the word 'Chalal') -- Hash-m causes the world to be empty (the population decreases and the roads are left desolate).
</p><p>


<font><b>2) EATING WELL</b></font><b>
<br>AGADAH:</b> Abaye became sick, and Rava said that it was because of Abaye's practice to fast often. Rava asserted that a person must make sure to eat well.
</p><p>
This difference in approach between Abaye and Rava appears elsewhere. Rav Ada bar Ahavah used to question why the students 'eat dry bones' with Abaye, when they could 'eat fat meat' with Rava (Bava Basra 22a). The simple understanding, as Rashi explains there, is that the teachings of Abaye are 'dry' while the teachings of Rava are based on sound logic and are 'juicier.' It could be that Rav Ada bar Ahavah was not merely speaking figuratively, but he meant it literally as well. Since Abaye's practice was not to eat, Rav Ada felt that his ability to properly analyze the depths of a Sugya was compromised, and therefore it would be preferable to learn under Rava, who eats well and has energy to properly analyze the Sugya. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
We find a similar difference in approach among other Amora'im, such as Rebbi Zeira and Rebbi Yirmeyah (see Insights to Berachos 30b, in the name of the <b>CHAVAS YAIR</b> #152, quoted by the Chafetz Chayim at the end of Sefer Chafetz Chayim).
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar b'Rebbi Yosi says, it comes for Lashon ha'Ra.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> He learns from '...Ki <i>Yisacher</i> Pi Dovrei 
          Shaker'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Does R. Elazar teach that it comes only for 
          Lashon ha'Ra, or also for Lashon ha'Ra?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  Answer - Question (of R. Yehudah, R. Elazar b'Rebbi Yosi 
          and R. Shimon): Why does croup begin with the intestines 
          and end with the mouth?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Answer #1 (R. Yehudah, who is always first to 
               speak): Even though the kidneys counsel, the heart 
               understands and the tongue enunciates, it (Lashon 
               ha'Ra) is finished through the mouth.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer #2 (R. Elazar b'Rebbi Yosi):</font></b> It is because 
               the mouth ingests Tamei food.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Objection:</font></b> One is not killed for eating Tamei 
               things!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Correction:</font></b> Rather, it is because the mouth ingests 
               Tevel (punishable by Misah bi'Dei Shamayim. This 
               completes the answer, R. Elazar holds that croup 
               <i>also</i> comes for Lashon ha'Ra; in any case, the 
               entire Beraisa is brought.) 
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer #3 (R. Shimon):</font></b> It is because the mouth is 
               Batul from Torah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Question #1:</font></b> [If so,] why do women get croup?
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Answer (R. Shimon):</font></b> They cause Bitul Torah of their 
               husbands.
       <br><b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b><font> Question #2:</font></b> Why do Nochrim get croup?
       <br><b>   <b><font>9.  </font></b><font> Answer (R. Shimon):</font></b> They cause Bitul Torah of 
               Yisrael.
        <br><b>  <b><font>10. </font></b><font> Question #3:</font></b> Why do children get croup?
        <br><b>  <b><font>11. </font></b><font> Answer (R. Shimon):</font></b> They cause Bitul Torah of their 
               fathers.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why do children learning from their Rebbi get 
          croup?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This is on account of R. Guryon's teaching:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Guryon):</font></b> When there are Tzadikim, they are 
               punished for sins of their generation; when there 
               are no Tzadikim, children learning from their Rebbi 
               are punished.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (R. Yitzchak bar Ze'iri):</font></b> He learns from 'Im Lo 
               Sed'i (if you do not know to guard the 
               Mitzvos)...Tze'i Lach b'Ikvei ha'Tzon u'Re'i Es 
               Gediyosayich Al Mishkenos ha'Ro'im (request mercy in 
               the merit of the Avos, so children will not be 
               punished for the generation)'.
<br>
<b><font>3) REBBI SHIMON AND HIS SON IN THE CAVE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why does it say that R. Yehudah is always first 
          to speak?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yehudah, R. Yosi, R. Shimon and Yehudah ben 
          Gerim were sitting together.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> R. Yehudah:</font></b> This kingdom (Romi) has done great deeds 
               - they established markets, bridges and bathhouses!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi was silent.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> R. Shimon:</font></b> Everything they did was for themselves! 
               They established markets to seat harlots [to take 
               revenue from them], they established bathhouses for 
               their pleasure, they established bridges to collect 
               taxes! (Avodah Zarah 2B - this is Hashem's rebuttal 
               of Nochrim who will request reward in the future. 
               Maharsha - R. Yehudah agrees with R. Shimon, just he 
               was careful not to say so lest the kingdom find 
               out.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> Yehudah ben Gerim repeated these words; [without his 
               intention,] the kingdom found out. They decreed that 
               R. Yehudah, who praised them, will be elevated [to 
               speak first everywhere]; R. Yosi, who was silent 
               (perhaps they were upset that he did not rebuke R. 
               Shimon), will be exiled to Tzipori; R. Shimon, who 
               denounced them, will be killed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon and his son (R. Elazar) hid in the Beis Medrash 
          the entire day; his wife brought bread and water to them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  When the decree [to kill him] was intensified, he feared 
          lest Romi will torture her and find out his whereabouts, 
          for women's minds are easily diverted. He and his son 
          fled to a cave; miraculously, a carob tree and a spring 
          of water were created for them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  To preserve their clothes, the entire day they learned 
          sitting in sand up to their necks; they wore their 
          clothes only at the time of prayer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  After 12 years, Eliyahu came to the entrance of the cave 
          and informed him that the king died and the decree was 
          cancelled. They came out and saw people plowing and 
          planting.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> R. Shimon:</font></b> How can they abandon eternal life [Torah] 
               and engage in temporary life! (One who fears Hash-m 
               should learn, Hash-m will supply his needs!) 
               Wherever they looked would burn up.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> A voice from Heaven:</font></b> Did you come out to destroy My 
               world?! Return to your cave!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  They returned to the cave for 12 months; they reasoned, 
          this is how long Resha'im are punished in Gehinom, our 
          punishment should be no longer! A voice from Heaven told 
          them to leave the cave.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Wherever R. Elazar would strike [people engaging in this 
          world], R. Shimon would repair it. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  R. Shimon:</font></b> It suffices that we (who properly engage in 
          Torah) are in the world.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  On Erev Shabbos, they saw an elder running Bein 
          ha'Shemashos carrying two bundles of myrtle.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> R. Shimon and R. Elazar:</font></b> What is the myrtle for?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> The man:</font></b> They are [to smell,] to honor Shabbos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> R. Shimon and R. Elazar:</font></b> One should suffice!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> The man:</font></b> One is for Zachor (the Ase to Mekadesh 
               Shabbos), one is for Shamor (the Lav not to do 
               Melachah).
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> R. Shimon:</font></b> See how much Yisrael cherish the Mitzvos! 
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon and R. Elazar were assuaged.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  R. Pinchas ben Ya'ir, R. Shimon's son-in-law, heard that 
          they left the cave; he came to greet R. Shimon, and 
          brought him to the bathhouse. R. Shimon's skin was 
          creased on account of the sand; R. Pinchas was smoothing 
          it out and crying, 'Woe that I saw you like this!'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  R. Shimon:</font></b> You are fortunate to see me like this! (I grew 
          greatly in Torah)! Beforehand, R. Shimon would ask a 
          question and R. Pinchas would give 12 answers; now, R. 
          Pinchas would ask and R. Shimon would give 24 answers.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  R. Shimon:</font></b> Since a miracle was done for me, I will fix 
          something;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav):</font></b> 'Va'Yavo Yakov Shalem Ir Shechem' - his body, 
               his money and his Torah were intact.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Rav):</font></b> 'Va'Yichan Es Penei ha'Ir' - he established 
               coinage for the city;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (Shmuel):</font></b> He established markets for them;
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> He established bathhouses.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) DISCUSSING THE VIRTUES OF THE NATIONS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara describes why Rebbi Yehudah was called the 'first of the speakers in every place' and relates that it happened once that the Tana'im were discussing the virtues of the Romans. Rebbi Yehudah spoke commendably about their large marketplaces, sophisticated bridges, and bathhouses. Rebbi Yosi was silent. Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai countered Rebbi Yehudah's praise of the Romans and said that whatever they build is for their own immoral purposes.
</p><p>
Why were the Tana'im discussing such seemingly trivial matters? Why did Rebbi Yehudah find it necessary to praise the Romans, and why did Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai speak so degradingly of the Romans, when doing so was dangerous?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN</b> zt'l (in <b>DIBROS MOSHE</b>) explains that the discussion of the Tana'im had significant Halachic ramifications. The Gemara in Avodah Zarah (3b) says that when the nations claim in the future that everything they built was for the sake of the Jewish people, Hash-m will rebuke them and say that they did everything for themselves and for their own benefit. The Nochrim will not be rewarded for what they did, even though the Jews benefited from it, because they had no intention to help the Jews.
</p><p>
Perhaps, though, this attitude is appropriate only with regard to whether Hash-m rewards them or not. In contrast, the Jews themselves are obligated to feel and express gratitude to the Nochrim, even though the Nochrim built all of their edifices for themselves and did not intend for the Jews to benefit from them.
</p><p>
Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai debated this point. Rebbi Yehudah maintained that the Jews <i>are</i> obligated to have gratitude to the Nochrim, even though the Nochrim have no intention to benefit the Jews. Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai maintained that there is no obligation to express gratitude to the Nochrim since they have no intention to help the Jews. Rav Moshe Feinstein concludes that in practice the Halachah remains undecided.
</p><p>
(His son, Rav Dovid Feinstein shlit'a, questioned his father's approach from the verse, 'Do not persecute the Egyptian, for you were a stranger in his land' (Devarim 23:8), from which we learn that there <i>is</i> an obligation to show gratitude to the nations! Rav Moshe answered that the command not to persecute the Egyptian does not mean that one must have gratitude to him. Rather, it means simply that one may not harm him. Alternatively, it refers to an Egyptian <i>convert</i>. We may add that perhaps the verse is commanding us to have gratitude to the Egyptians because of the way the Egyptians treated the Jews in the time of Yosef, when they were genuinely hospitable to the Jews. Second, the discussion in the Gemara here involves situations in which the Nochrim did not intend for the Jews to benefit <i>at all</i>; it does not involve a situation in which they intended to benefit the Jews but had ulterior motives. Regarding the latter category (which includes the Egyptians), it is clear that we must show gratitude for the benefit received. -M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


<font><b>4) THE ROMANS' RESPONSE TO THE ARGUMENT OF THE TANA'IM</b></font><b>
<br>AGADAH:</b> The Romans rewarded Rebbi Yehudah for praising them by giving him the honor of being the first to speak at every gathering. They punished Rebbi Yosi for being silent by exiling him to Tzipori. For Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai, who spoke degradingly about them, they issued a death sentence, and he was forced to flee to a cave where he spent many years in isolation.
</p><p>
<b>RAV AVIGDOR MILLER</b> zt'l explains that the reward or punishment that each Tana received was clearly an example of Divine providence, for each Tana received what his particular personality required.
</p><p>
Rebbi Yehudah always saw the good in everything. He lived during the Roman occupation, which was a period of great difficulty for the Jews, who suffered from the harsh persecution of the Roman decrees. They needed a leader who would guide them with a positive attitude. Hash-m therefore brought about that Rebbi Yehudah was appointed as their leader.
</p><p>
Rebbi Yosi always had deep reasons for all of his statements, as the Gemara in Gitin (67a) says, 'Rebbi Yosi, Nimuko Imo -- the depth of reasoning is with him.' He was a profound thinker, and he contemplated deeply before reaching a conclusion (which is why he did not respond immediately in the incident quoted by the Gemara here). Hash-m arranged that he be exiled to Tzipori, where he could think unencumbered.
</p><p>
Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai saw through everything to the absolute Emes (which is why he responded the way he did in this incident). He needed to be away from the world of falsehood in order to become fully immersed in Toras Emes. Hash-m therefore arranged that he would have to hide in a cave for thirteen years, where the truth of Torah would be revealed to him.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) REBBI SHIMON'S 'TIKUN'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon asked if anything needs to be fixed; they told 
          him about a place of Safek Tum'ah, it was a burden for 
          Kohanim to go around it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  R. Shimon:</font></b> Does anyone here know if this place was once 
          Tahor (if so, it is not a cemetery, we may use it
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  An elder:</font></b> Here, R. Yochanan ben Zakai (a Kohen) cut 
          lupines (legumes) of Terumah (the place is Tahor).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (Tosfos):</font></b> R. Shimon also made a Tikun (like 
          Yakov. He spread a wet sheet; where the ground was soft, 
          it absorbed water from the sheet.) The soft places he 
          marked Tamei (they were dug), the hard places he marked 
          Tahor.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (Rashi):</font></b> He also cut [and cast down] lupines 
          of Terumah - miraculously, the Tum'ah came to the surface 
          (Chachmas Mano'ach - it moved, causing the dirt above it 
          to soften, showing where is Tamei, so R. Shimon would not 
          Metamei the Terumah), enabling him to mark off the place 
          of Tum'ah.) (end of Version #2) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  The elder:</font></b> R. Shimon just declared the cemetery to be 
          Tahor!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  R. Shimon:</font></b> Had you not been with us (in the matter of 
          demarcating the Tum'ah), or had you been with us but did 
          not agree with us, you could dissent - but you were with 
          us and agreed with us! If you dissent people will say 
          that harlots adorn one another, all the more so 
          Chachamim! (Anaf Yosef - they adorn each other, even 
          though they compete with each other, for the more harlots 
          the more lust in the world - all the more so regarding 
          Kedushah, assent among Chachamim increases dearness of 
          Torah and Yir'as Shamayim! Chasam Sofer - in spite of the 
          competition and mutual hatred, harlots adorn one another 
          in order to be adorned - people will say that Chachamim 
          are craftier, all the more so they honor each other 
          (hoping to receive honor in return, i.e. that is why you 
          initially agreed), and when one sees another succeed, he 
          rebels! Ben Yehoyada - in spite of the hatred, harlots 
          adorn one another to prevent a cheapening of the 
          profession - likewise, you should not belittle Chachamim, 
          this belittles yourself!)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon put his eyes on him - the elder died.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon went out and saw Yehudah ben Gerim (who had 
          repeated R. Shimon's words, leading to the decree), and 
          was amazed that he was still alive - he put his eyes on 
          him, and turned him into a pile of bones.
<br>
<b><font>2) THINGS THAT MUST BE DONE BEFORE DARK</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A man must say three things in his house 
          shortly before dark [on Erev Shabbos] - Have you tithed? 
          Have you made an Eiruv? Light Ner Shabbos!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If it is Safek dark (i.e. Safek night), one may not tithe 
          Vadai (definite) Tevel, immerse Kelim, or light Ner 
          Shabbos;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> [At this time] one may tithe Demai (Safek Tevel), 
               make an Eiruv, and do Hatmanah (wrap food to keep it 
               warm).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What is the source that one must say 
          command to light Ner Shabbos?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> 'V'Yodata Ki Shalom 
          Oholecha u'Fokadta Nacvha v'Lo Secheta' (you should 
          verify that Ner Shabbos, which promotes Shalom, is lit).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> Even though one must say these, 
          he should say them gently, in order that people will 
          hearken.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rav Ashi):</font></b> I know this from reasoning even before I 
          heard Rabah's teaching!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> One must say three things shortly 
          before dark;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> When it is Safek dark, all are forbidden 
               (one of them is to make an Eiruv).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Contradiction (Seifa):</font></b> When it is Safek night, one 
               may make an Eiruv.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Aba):</font></b> One may not make Eiruv Techumim at this 
          time, one may make Eiruv Chatzeros. (On Shabbos one must 
          stay within his Techum, i.e. 2000 Amos in every direction 
          from his residence or city; one can fix his residence 
          anywhere inside his Techum, to allow walking 2000 Amos 
          from there, by leaving an Eiruv (food) there for <i>all</i> of 
          Bein ha'Shemashos. Mid'Rabanan, one may not carry from 
          one Reshus ha'Yachid to a different one, unless Eiruv 
          Chatzeros (food jointly owned by the residents of the 
          Reshuyos) was left.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rava):</font></b> If Reuven and Shimon each told Levi 'Make an 
               Eiruv (Tosfos - Techumim; Rashi - Chatzeros) for 
               me', and Levi made Reuven's Eiruv before Shabbos and 
               Shimon's Eiruv Bein ha'Shemashos, [even] if Reuven's 
               Eiruv was eaten Bein ha'Shemashos and Shimon's was 
               eaten after dark, both of them are valid.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Either way you say, this is difficult!
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  If Bein ha'Shemashos is day, Reuven's Eiruv 
                    should be invalid; if it is night, Shimon's 
                    Eiruv should be invalid!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> [It is Safek day, Safek night -] the law of 
               Eiruv is mid'Rabanan, we are lenient about a Safek.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> After dark, Hatmanah is forbidden [even] in 
          something that does not add heat - this is a decree lest 
          one heat the food before wrapping it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> If so, it should be forbidden even Bein 
          ha'Shemashos!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> We are not concerned for this, for 
          normally pots are already boiling Bein ha'Shemashos.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'HATMANAH' -- INSULATING A POT</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara teaches three Halachos and gives the reason for each one. There are different opinions in the Rishonim how to understand these three Halachos, based on different texts of the Gemara.
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b>:
<br>1. <i>On Shabbos</i> one is not permitted to do Hatmanah (to insulate a pot) in material that does <i>not</i> add heat, because perhaps he will find that the food has cooled off and he will re-heat it ('Shema Yarti'ach'), thereby transgressing a Melachah on Shabbos.
</p><p>


2. <i>During Bein ha'Shemashos</i> one <i>is</i> permitted to do Hatmanah in material that does <i>not</i> add heat, because the pot is still very hot at that moment and one certainly will not feel the need to reheat it.
</p><p>


3. <i>On Friday</i>, before Shabbos, one is <i>not</i> permitted to do Hatmanah in material that <i>adds</i> heat, because we are concerned that he might do Hatmanah in ashes mixed with coals. We are concerned that one who does Hatmanah in such a material might stoke the coals on Shabbos. (According to Rashi's explanation, this apparently is a Gezeirah l'Gezeirah, a decree for another decree (see Insights to Shabbos 11:2). It must be that Rashi maintains that all of these edicts were included in one general decree.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Shabbos 4:2):
<br>1. <i>On Friday before Shabbos</i> one is not permitted to do Hatmanah in material that <i>adds</i> heat, because perhaps the pot might boil over ('Shema Yarti'ach') and he will open and close the pot to keep the boiling down and to prevent the dish from overcooking. Closing an open pot that is resting on a source of heat constitutes the Melachah of cooking. (We assume that since the Hatmanah was done while it was still day, the pot probably did not yet reach a boil before the Hatmanah was done, and he did not have a chance to adjust the heat to the desired temperature.)
</p><p>


2. <i>During Bein ha'Shemashos</i> one <i>is</i> permitted to do Hatmanah in material that <i>adds</i> heat, because by that time the pot presumably has already reached a boil and the fire has been adjusted accordingly. Since there is no concern that the pot will boil or foam over on Shabbos, there is no concern that one might open and close the pot.
</p><p>


3. <i>On Shabbos</i> one is <i>not</i> allowed to do Hatmanah even in material that does <i>not</i> add heat, because of the concern that one might do Hatmanah with ashes containing an ember that is still burning and he will stoke that ember and make it burn more.
</p><p>
(c) <b>RA'AVAD</b>:
<br>1. Although the Ra'avad favors Rashi's explanation, he gives an alternate explanation based on the text of the Gemara that the Rambam had (which was also the Rif's text of the Gemara). The Ra'avad explains that <i>on Friday</i>, before Shabbos, one may <i>not</i> do Hatmanah in a material that <i>adds</i> heat, because perhaps on Shabbos he will find that the food has cooled off and he will re-heat it ('Shema Yarti'ach'). Since one is showing (by doing Hatmanah) that he wants his food to be very hot, there is a concern that on Shabbos he will forget and heat it.
</p><p>


2. <i>During Bein ha'Shemashos</i> one is permitted to do Hatmanah even in material that adds heat, because usually pots that are left on the fire until Bein ha'Shemashos become so hot that they will remain hot until the night, and thus there is no concern that one will re-heat it. (We might have thought that since the person indicates his desire for the pot to be very hot by waiting until the last moment to take it off of the fire and do Hatmanah, we should be concerned that he might re-heat it on Shabbos. In truth this is not a concern, because since the pot is so hot, it will not lose any heat.)
</p><p>


3. <i>On Shabbos</i> one is <i>not</i> allowed to do Hatmanah even in material that does <i>not</i> add heat, because of the concern that he might do Hatmanah with ashes that contain an ember that is still burning and he will stoke that ember and make it burn more. (This is the same as the Rambam's view.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> Hatmanah is forbidden in something that adds 
          heat, even before Shabbos - this is a decree lest one 
          wrap in hot ashes and coals.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> Before Shabbos this is permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> We decree lest he will stoke the coals 
          after dark.
<br>
<b><font>3) 'BEIN HA'SHEMASHOS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> We are unsure if part of Bein ha'Shemashos is 
          day and part is night, or if all of it is day, or if all 
          of it is night - therefore, we are stringent, perhaps it 
          spans two days (this will be explained).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> When is Bein ha'Shemashos? (The Gemara will 
          discuss whether we ask about its beginning or its 
          duration.) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Yehudah):</font></b> It is after sundown, as long as 
          Penei Mizrach (simply translated, the eastern sky) is 
          reddish; when the horizon darkens but not the middle of 
          the sky, it is Bein ha'Shemashos (the Gemara will ask 
          about this); when the middle of the sky is as dark as the 
          horizon, it is night;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (R. Nechemyah):</font></b> It lasts the amount of time 
          needed to walk [1000 Amos, i.e.] half a Mil (nine or 11 
          minutes) after sunset - after this, it is night;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (R. Yosi):</font></b> It lasts as long as the blink of an 
          eye (a moment), immediately after it comes, it is night - 
          one cannot know the exact moment.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> We are stringent, perhaps it spans two days.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What difference does it make if it spans two 
          days?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> This affects 
          Tum'ah:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> If a man saw [emissions of Zivah] during 
               Bein ha'Shemashos on two consecutive days (e.g. 
               Sunday and Monday), he is in doubt regarding Tum'ah 
               and Korban. (If the sightings were separated by a 
               day, i.e. he saw Sunday during the day and Monday 
               night; he is not a Zav, he is just a Ba'al Keri; in 
               any other case, the sightings were on the same or 
               consecutive days, he is a Zav; if the sightings 
               spanned all three days, e.g. Sunday's sighting was 
               partially during the day and partially at night, and 
               Monday's sighting was at night, he must bring a 
               Korban.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If he saw during one Bein ha'Shemashos, he is a 
               Safek Zav (if the sighting was partially during the 
               day and partially at night, he is a Zav; if not, he 
               is just a Ba'al Keri).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> [R. Yehudah said that] Bein ha'Shemashos is 
          from sundown, as long as the eastern sky is reddish - 
          this implies that once the horizon darkens, it is night;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> But then he says that when the horizon is dark but 
               not the middle of the sky, it is Bein ha'Shemashos!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rabah):</font></b> It means, Bein ha'Shemashos begins at 
          sundown and lasts as long as Penei Mizrach is reddish - 
          when the horizon is dark but not the middle of the sky, 
          this is also Bein ha'Shemashos;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> When the middle of the sky is as dark as the 
               horizon, it is night.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> After sundown, as long as Penei 
          Mizrach is reddish, it is still day; when the horizon is 
          dark but not the middle of the sky, this is also Bein 
          ha'Shemashos; when the middle of the sky is as dark as 
          the horizon, it is night.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  This is consistent with their argument regarding the 
          duration of Bein ha'Shemashos (Rabah holds that it is 
          longer than Rav Yosef says).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How long does Bein ha'Shemashos last?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rabah):</font></b> It is the time to walk three parts of 
          a Mil.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What does this mean?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer #1:</font></b> It means, three half-Milim (3000 Amos).
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> If so, he would have said one and a half 
               Milim!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer #2:</font></b> It means, three thirds of a Mil.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> If so, he would have said one Mil!
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Answer #3:</font></b> It means, three quarters of a Mil.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> It is the time to walk two parts 
          of a Mil.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What does this mean?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer #1:</font></b> It means, two halves.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> If so, he would have said one Mil!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer #2:</font></b> It means, two quarters of a Mil.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> If so, he would have said half a Mil!
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Answer #3:</font></b> It means, two thirds of a Mil.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How much do the opinions of Rabah and Rav Yosef 
          differ by?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They argue about a 12th of a Mil.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE 'ZAV' WHO SAW A DISCHARGE DURING 'BEIN HA'SHEMASHOS'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses the possibility that Bein ha'Shemashos might be <i>completely day</i>, <i>completely night</i>, or <i>part day and part night</i>. The Gemara cites the Mishnah in Zavim (1:6) to explain how each of the three possibilities can effect a Chumra: If a Zav saw a discharge during Bein ha'Shemashos on two consecutive days, it is possible that he is required to (1) bring a Korban (a Chatas ha'Of, which may be brought for a Safek), which is brought only when one experiences three consecutive discharges (either three separate discharges on one day, or one long discharge that lasts for three days). It is also possible that he does not have to bring a Korban, but only has to (2) count seven clean days, which is done when a Zav experiences two consecutive discharges. A third possibility (3) is that he is not Tamei with Tum'as Zav altogether (that is, he is considered to have experienced only one discharge, or two discharges separated by one 'clean' day).
</p><p>
It is obvious that the status of Bein ha'Shemashos does not change. Whatever the status of Bein ha'Shemashos is today (e.g. completely night), it must have that status tomorrow. If a Zav had a discharge at the same time on two consecutive nights, we must ascribe the same status to the second Bein ha'Shemashos as we ascribe to the first. How, then, could there be a possibility that he is not Tamei at all? Either both times he saw are considered day or both are considered night, in which case he saw on two consecutive days, or both are part day and part night, in which case there is a possibility that he even saw three consecutive days. How can his discharges, seen during two consecutive periods of Bein ha'Shemashos, be considered as two discharges separated by one full day?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The simple understanding of <b>RASHI</b> (DH Safek l'Tum'ah ul'Korban) is that the doubt about Bein ha'Shemashos actually does permit us to ascribe a completely different status to one Bein ha'Shemashos than to another. Thus, if the Zav sees a discharge at <i>any</i> point during each Bein ha'Shemashos (even if he sees at the <i>exact same time</i> during each Bein ha'Shemashos), it is possible that he saw for <i>three</i> days, because the first Bein ha'Shemashos might have been part day (first day's discharge) and part night (second day's discharge), and the second Bein ha'Shemashos might have been completely night (third day's discharge) or part day and part night (third day's discharge). This is the simple way of understanding Rashi.
</p><p>
This is problematic, however, because -- as we explained above -- if we ascribe one status to the first Bein ha'Shemashos (such as <i>completely day</i>), then we cannot ascribe a different status to the next Bein ha'Shemashos (such as <i>completely night</i>). This point can be proven both from logic and from the Gemara later (35b). For this reason, the <b>RITVA</b> and others (see <b>ME'IRI</b>, <b>RASHASH</b>) understand Rashi differently. They explain that Rashi also maintains that we cannot ascribe a different status to the second Bein ha'Shemashos. Rashi means that the Zav <i>does not know</i> exactly when during each Bein ha'Shemashos he saw the discharges. Therefore, if both Bein ha'Shemashos are <i>part day and part night</i>, since he <i>does not know</i> when he saw each discharge, it could be that he saw the first one during <i>day</i> (towards the beginning of Bein ha'Shemashos), and the second one during <i>night</i> (towards the end of Bein ha'Shemashos), in which case he is Tahor because there was a day separating the two discharges. It could also be that he saw the first one during both day and night, and the second one during night, in which case he saw on three consecutive days, or that he saw both discharges during night, in which case he saw two consecutive discharges. 
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBAM</b> cited by <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Safek l'Tum'ah ul'Korban) explains that when the Gemara says that he saw during two periods of Bein ha'Shemashos, it does not mean two consecutive periods of Bein ha'Shemashos, but rather there was a day separating each Bein ha'Shemashos (for example, he saw a discharge on Sunday evening during Bein ha'Shemashos, and then he saw another discharge on <i>Tuesday</i> evening at the same time during Bein ha'Shemashos). The two discharges took place at the same time each Bein ha'Shemashos. If Bein ha'Shemashos is part day and part night, then his discharges on both Sunday and Tuesday evenings may have occurred exclusively during the day or exclusively during the night, and thus there is a full day separating them and he is Tahor. However, it is also possible that the discharges occurred at the point when day becomes night (and thus he saw on both Sunday and Monday, and on Tuesday and Wednesday), and he is therefore obligated to bring a Korban. There is no possibility, though, for him to have seen <i>two</i> consecutive discharges.
</p><p>
(c) <b>RABEINU TAM</b> cited by Tosfos (ibid.) explains that the only way that there can be a doubt about whether the Zav's two discharges were on three consecutive days or on two non-consecutive days is if he saw at <i>different times</i> during each Bein ha'Shemashos, and the time at which he saw during the first Bein ha'Shemashos was <i>earlier</i> than the time at which he saw during the second Bein ha'Shemashos. If the Zav saw a discharge during the <i>beginning</i> of the first Bein ha'Shemashos, and a second discharge near the <i>end</i> of the second Bein ha'Shemashos, it is possible that he saw on three consecutive days: if Bein ha'Shemashos is part day and part night, then his first discharge might have occurred while the day turned to night, and it is considered as though he saw on two consecutive days. Then, during the next Bein ha'Shemashos, when he saw a discharge a little later than the time at which he saw during the first Bein ha'Shemashos, this discharge is considered to be on the third consecutive day. It could also be that the early discharge during the first Bein ha'Shemashos occurred during the day, and the later one during the second Bein ha'Shemashos occurred during the night, and he is Tahor because there is a full day separating the two discharges.
</p><p>
(The only difference between this explanation and Rashi's explanation, according to the Ritva's understanding, is that according to Rashi the Zav had no idea when he saw the discharge, and it is therefore <i>possible</i> that he saw the first discharge at an earlier time of day than the second one. According to Rabeinu Tam, the Zav <i>knew</i> that he saw the first discharge at an earlier time of day than the second one.)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF 'KELIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  They argue oppositely regarding a chest (Rav Yosef gives 
          a bigger Shi'ur).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rabah):</font></b> If a chest holds two Kor (a Kor is 30 Sa'im), 
          one may move it [on Shabbos, it is considered a Kli]; if 
          it holds three Kor, one may not move it;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Even if it holds three Kor, one may move it; 
          if it holds four Kor, one may not move it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Abaye:</font></b> A case occurred, I asked Rabah - he forbade to 
          move even a two Kor chest.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  This ruling is like the following Tana:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> The following are Tehorim (they are too 
               big to be considered Kelim), even if they have 
               bottoms, if they hold 40 Sa'im of wet measure, which 
               is like two Kor of dry measure (it can be piled 
               above the top) - a chest of straw or reeds, and a 
               water pit in a big ship.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> We learn from this that the Godesh (the amount 
          that can be piled above the top) is [20 Sa'im,] a third 
          of the [total dry] volume (60. This is for a chests of a 
          standard shape.- the Godesh depends only on the length 
          and width, but not on the height.)
<br>
<b><font>2) WHEN IS 'BEIN HA'SHEMASHOS'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Version #1:</font></b> Abaye saw Rava looking west [at the beginning 
          of Shabbos, to see if it was still light].
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question (Abaye - Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> Bein 
               ha'Shemashos lasts as long as Penei Mizrach 
               Ma'adimin (the eastern sky is reddish - you should 
               look eastward)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rava):</font></b> No, Penei Mizrach Ma'adimin means, 
               the direction whose rays redden the east [at 
               sunset], i.e. the west.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Version #2:</font></b> Rava saw Abaye looking east; he told him, 
          Penei Mizrach Ma'adimin means, the direction whose rays 
          redden the east, i.e. the west. (end of Version #2) 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A way to remember this is a window (light from it 
               illuminates the opposite wall).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Nechemyah):</font></b> It lasts the amount of time 
          needed to walk half a Mil after sunset.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (R. Chanina):</font></b> To know the Shi'ur of R. Nechemyah, when 
          the sun is at the peak of Mount Karmel, he should descend 
          to immerse in the sea and ascend (Rashi - when he 
          returns, it is night; Tosfos - he immerses while it is 
          day, afterwards is Bein ha'Shemashos).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Chiya):</font></b> To see Miryam's well (that accompanied 
               Benei Yisrael in the Midbar), he should ascend Mount 
               Karmel and look - he will see [a round rock shaped 
               like] a sifter in the sea.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Rav):</font></b> A moving well is Tahor.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> The only such well is Miryam's.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Kohanim may immerse during Bein 
          ha'Shemashos of R. Yehudah [and eat Terumah at night, 
          i.e. it is day].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> According to which opinion is this?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Surely, it is not according to R. Yehudah - he 
               considers it Safek!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is according to R. Yosi.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This is obvious! (Since R. Yosi's opinion is 
          brought at the end, surely it is after R. Yehudah's Bein 
          ha'Shemashos.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that R. Yosi's Shi'ur is 
          during R. Yehudah's, towards the end - Rav Yehudah 
          teaches, this is not so, it begins after R. Yehudah's 
          Shi'ur ends.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yehudah 
          regarding [doing Melachah on] Shabbos, the Halachah 
          follows R. Yosi regarding Terumah (this will be 
          explained).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We understand, the Halachah follows R. Yehudah 
          regarding Shabbos - this is a stringency [to cease 
          Melachah at the start of Shabbos once R. Yehudah's Shi'ur 
          begins];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> In what respect does the Halachah follow R. Yosi 
               regarding Terumah?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> One may immerse during R. Yehudah's Bein 
               ha'Shemashos [and eat Terumah at night].
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> Since R. Yochanan forbids Melachah then, 
               he considers it Safek!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) BEIN HA'SHEMASHOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> According to Rebbi Yehudah, the duration of Bein ha'Shemashos (from Sheki'ah until Tzeis ha'Kochavim, when three stars appear) is either 2/3 (Rav Yosef) or 3/4 (Rabah) of the time that it takes to walk one Mil. However, the Gemara in Pesachim (94a) records a discussion concerning how long it takes for the sun to go through the 'thickness of the firmament' (that is, for its light to disappear). The Gemara says that it takes from sunset (Sheki'ah) until the stars appear (Tzeis ha'Kochavim) for the sun's light to disappear. Rebbi Yehudah there says that the period from Sheki'ah to Tzeis ha'Kochavim is the amount of time that it takes to walk <i>four</i> Mil! 
</p><p>
How are we to reconcile this contradiction in the words of Rebbi Yehudah? In Pesachim, he says that the duration of Bein ha'Shemashos is <i>four</i> Mil, but here in Shabbos he says that it lasts only 2/3 or 3/4 of a Mil!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> 
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Trei) explains that there is a difference between the Gemara here and the Gemara in Pesachim. When the Gemara in Pesachim says '<i>mi'Sheki'as</i> ha'Chamah' (and not '<i>mi'Shetishka</i> ha'Chamah,' as it says here), it is referring to the moment that the sun disappears <i>from our vision</i>. At that moment, though, it is still journeying through the firmament. When the sun reaches a certain point in the thickness of the firmament, its light <i>begins</i> to disappear. This is referred to as '<i>mi'Shetishka</i> ha'Chamah.' Shortly afterwards, its light disappears altogether and three stars can be seen.
</p><p>
In summary, the order of events is: 1. the sun disappears, 2. a period of 3 1/4 (or 3 1/3 according to Rav Yosef) Mil passes, after which time the light of the sun <i>begins</i> to totally disappear (this is the start of the Beis ha'Shemashos discussed here in Shabbos), and then 3. a period of 3/4 Mil (or 2/3 according to Rav Yosef) passes, after which the sun has completely disappeared and the stars appear. This is the view of <b>RABEINU TAM</b>.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (in <b>SHENOS ELIYAHU</b>, beginning of Maseches Berachos, and in <b>BI'UR HA'GRA</b> OC 235 and 261) explains that both here and in Pesachim the times mentioned (3/4 Mil and 4 Mil) start from the time that the sun completely disappears from our view. However, the Gemara in Pesachim is discussing a different <i>Tzeis ha'Kochavim</i> than our Gemara (and not a different Sheki'as ha'Chamah, as Rabeinu Tam suggests). In Pesachim, 'Tzeis ha'Kochavim' refers to the time at which every last ray of light disappears from the sky (which occurs four Mil after sunset), and <i>all</i> of the stars can be seen. In the Gemara here, 'Tzeis ha'Kochavim' refers to the time at which <i>three medium-size stars</i> can be seen, which is the Halachic definition of nightfall. (The Gemara in Pesachim, in contrast, is an Agadic discussion and is not referring to the Halachic Tzeis ha'Kochavim.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) MOSHE RABEINU'S SIN AND MIRIAM'S WELL</b></font><b>
<br>AGADAH:</b> The Gemara states that the waters of the well of Miriam (Be'er Miriam) were valid for Tevilah. Based on this statement, The <b>ROGATCHOVER GA'ON</b> (in <b>SHE'EILOS U'TESHUVOS TZAFNAS PANE'ACH</b> 119:7) explains the nature of the sin of Moshe Rabeinu, when he hit the rock to bring forth water for the Jewish people. Why was Moshe Rabeinu punished for hitting the rock, when Hash-m had commanded him to hit it?
</p><p>
When Moshe Rabeinu took the stick and hit the rock, the verse states, '... as He commanded him (Asher Tzivahu)' (Bamidbar 20:9). In other places, though, when Moshe fulfills the dictates of Hash-m, the verse says, 'As <i>Hash-m</i> commanded him (Asher Tzivahu <i>Hash-m</i>).' This subtle change indicates that when Hash-m commanded Moshe to take the stick, Moshe acted according to <i>his</i> interpretation of Hashem's command, which was slightly different from what Hash-m had actually intended. Hash-m told Moshe to take '<i>the</i> stick' (Bamidbar 20:8). Moshe, in his modesty, thought that Hash-m meant Aharon's stick, the one that had been placed in the Sanctuary from the time that it miraculously sprouted almonds. The verse states that Moshe took a stick from 'before Hash-m' (Bamidbar 20:9), that is, from within the Sanctuary -- Aharon's stick. That was the stick he used to hit the rock to bring forth water.
</p><p>
In the Mishnah in Mikva'os (5:5), Rebbi Yosi says that a Mikvah formed by objects (such as lining up sticks around a Mikvah to direct water into it) that can become Tamei is invalid. Since sticks can become Tamei, a Mikvah made with sticks is invalid and cannot be used for Tevilah. When the Jews were traveling through the wilderness, there were no valid Mikva'os for them to use (see Tosfos to Bechoros 56a). The only water in which they could immerse themselves was in the water that came forth from Miriam's well, as the Gemara here says.
</p><p>
Had Moshe struck the rock with his own stick -- which was made out of sapphire (Shemos Rabah 6), a stone that cannot become Tamei -- the water that came from the rock would have been valid for Tevilah. Since he hit the rock with Aharon's stick which was made of wood and could become Tamei, the waters of the rock were invalid for Tevilah, because they were brought about by an object that could become Tamei. As a result, for the last year of their sojourn in the wilderness, the Jewish women were unable to immerse themselves. This caused considerable stress in the relationship between husband and wife, which is why those waters were called 'Mei Merivah' -- 'the Waters of Strife'!
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Kohanim may not eat Terumah until after Bein 
          ha'Shemashos of R. Yosi.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> When [it begins to get dark and] one may 
          see [only] one star it is still day; when two stars are 
          visible, it is Bein ha'Shemashos; when three stars are 
          visible, it is night.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> When one star is visible, it is still 
          day; when two stars are visible, it is Bein ha'Shemashos; 
          when three stars are visible, it is night.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi says, this does not refer to big stars that are 
          visible even during the day, nor small stars that are 
          visible only [later] at night [when it is very dark], 
          rather, it refers to medium stars.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Zevida):</font></b> One who did Melachos [all of] 
          Bein ha'Shemashos of Erev Shabbos and [all of] Bein 
          ha'Shemashos of Motzei Shabbos is Chayav Chatas - whether 
          it is day or night, he did Melachah on Shabbos! (We must 
          say that he did <i>Melachos</i> each Bein ha'Shemashos - if it 
          was one prolonged Melachah, e.g. carrying in Reshus 
          ha'Rabim, perhaps only half the Melachah was done on 
          Shabbos!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Rava (to his servant):</font></b> You do not know the Shi'urim of 
          Bein ha'Shemashos - light Ner Shabbos when [it is Vadai 
          day, i.e. when] the sun is seen at the top of date trees.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What should one do on a cloudy day?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> If he is in a city, light when roosters sit on 
          beams; if he is in a field, light when ravens sit or when 
          mallow (a flower) leans all the way to the west.
<br>
<b><font>3) THE 'SHOFAR' BLASTS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Noson):</font></b> We blow six shofar blasts on Erev 
          Shabbos to stop people from doing Melachah:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The first tells people in the field to cease 
               Melachah (they need extra time to return home), the 
               second tells people in cities and stores to cease 
               Melachah,
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The third tells people to light Ner Shabbos;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Rebbi says, the third tells people to remove Tefilin.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> After the time needed to roast a fish or stick a 
               dough to [a wall of] the oven, we blow Teki'ah (a 
               long sound) - Teru'ah (broken sounds)- Teki'ah, then 
               everyone stops all Melachah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel:</font></b> People in Bavel blow Teki'ah - 
          Teru'ah, and cease Melachah after the Teru'ah (it would 
          be better if they did like us)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> If so, they have only five blasts!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, they blow Teki'ah - Teki'ah - 
          Teru'ah, then cease Melachah!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> We cannot change them, they follow the custom of 
               their ancestors.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> The second tells people to light Ner 
          Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This is not like R. Noson, nor like Rebbi!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, the third tells people to light Ner 
          Shabbos - this is like R. Noson.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #1 - Tana d'vei R. Yishmael):</font></b> We blow six shofar 
          blasts on Erev Shabbos:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The first tells people in the field to cease 
               digging, plowing and all Melachah in the field;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Workers closer to the city must wait for those 
               further away [to reach them] and they return 
               together (lest people who do not know where everyone 
               works will suspect that the latter return later 
               because they continued to work after the first 
               blast);
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Stores may remain open with [merchandise on 
               removable] doors outside [until the second blast];
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> After the second blast, the doors are removed and 
               the stores are closed - pots and hot water may be 
               left on ovens;
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> After the third blast, pots and hot water for the 
               evening meal are taken off the oven and we are 
               Matmin food for the morning meal;
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> After the time needed to roast a fish or stick a 
               dough to the oven, we blow Teki'ah, Teru'ah, 
               Teki'ah, then everyone stops all Melachah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (R. Yosi):</font></b> I heard that one may light Ner Shabbos [right] 
          after the final blasts - (they are somewhat before 
          Shabbos, for the shofar was blown on the highest roof, 
          and) Chachamim gave the Chazan (the overseer of the 
          synagogue, who blows) enough time to return the shofar to 
          his house before Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Tana d'vei R. Yishmael):</font></b> If so, the time between the 
          last blasts and Shabbos would vary (depending on how far 
          away the Chazan's house is)! Rather, he has a hiding 
          place for it on the roof;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One may not move a shofar or trumpet on Shabbos. 
               (Chachamim forbade musical instruments, lest one 
               will fix it.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Contradiction (Beraisa #2):</font></b> One may move a shofar on 
          Shabbos, but not a trumpet.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> An individual may move his shofar, 
          one may not move the shofar of the Tzibur.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) HALACHAH: DOING 'MELACHAH' AFTER LIGHTING THE SHABBOS CANDLES</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> In the Beraisa, Rebbi Nasan says that we blow six Shofar blasts on Erev Shabbos. One of the blasts (the third) tells people to light the Shabbos candles.
</p><p>
Is one permitted to do Melachah after he has lit the Shabbos candles? The Gemara in Yoma (81b) says that when a person recites the blessing 'Shehecheyanu' to herald the arrival of Yom Kipur, he becomes prohibited from doing Melachah, and all of the prohibitions of Yom Kipur take effect, even though the sun has not yet set. Does the same Halachah apply to one who lights the Shabbos candles before Shabbos? Does Melachah become forbidden once he has lit the candles?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RAMBAN</b> (Shabbos 23b) writes that the two cases are not comparable, for several reasons:
</p><p>


1. When one recites 'Shehecheyanu' before Yom Kipur, he demonstrates that his intention is to accept upon himself the sanctity of the day. With regard to Shabbos, one's lighting of the candles does not necessarily show that he wants to accept upon himself the sanctity of Shabbos. Rather, since lighting on Shabbos itself is forbidden, he is merely trying to finish lighting the candles early enough so that he can move on to the other preparations for Shabbos.
</p><p>

2. Second, lighting the candles is itself a Melachah, and by lighting them one shows that it is <i>not</i> Shabbos. Therefore, the act of lighting the candles cannot serve to usher in Shabbos the way that the blessing of 'Shehecheyanu' serves to usher in Yom Kipur.
</p><p>


3. The Ramban finds support for his opinion in the Gemara here, which says that the third blast of the Shofar indicates the time to light the Shabbos candles. The Gemara explains that time was given before the blowing of the fourth blast to allow the person who just lit Shabbos candles to go 'roast a small fish or affix dough to the inside of the oven.' The Gemara clearly says that one is permitted to do Melachah after he lights the Shabbos candles. (<b>RASHI</b> 35b, DH Madbik, also says that this time was given for them to actually place the dough in the oven.)
</p><p>
Therefore, the Ramban concludes that on Shabbos Chanukah, a person should light the Shabbos candles before he lights the Chanukah candles, because the Shabbos candles are more important (as the Gemara on 23b states), and one is permitted to do Melachah after lighting them.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAN</b> and <b>BEHAG</b> disagree with the Ramban. They base their view on three points:
</p><p>
1. The lighting of the Shabbos candles marks the beginning of Shabbos. Although the lighting itself is a Melachah, since it is a Mitzvah that is done for the sake of Shabbos, it is considered the beginning of the cessation from Melachah.
</p><p>
2. When the Gemara says that there was a pause between the third and fourth Shofar blasts so that people could roast fish or affix dough to the ovens after lighting the Shabbos candles, it means only that this <i>amount of time</i> was given as a pause between the blasts, but not that it was actually permitted for them to do Melachah after lighting the Shabbos candles.
</p><p>
3. The Beraisa mentions that 'they would light the Shabbos candles' after it lists all of the other tasks that people would do first. This implies that the lighting of the candles is the last Melachah to be done before Shabbos. This is especially evident from the Mishnah earlier (34a), which states that one is permitted to do Hatmanah during Bein ha'Shemashos. Accordingly, the Beraisa here should list Hatmanah <i>after</i> it lists the lighting of the Shabbos candles (because lighting the candles is forbidden during Bein ha'Shemashos, since it is a Melachah d'Oraisa, and Safek d'Oraisa l'Chumra). It must be that the Rabanan decreed that the lighting of the candles is to be the last Melachah done before Shabbos. Similarly, the Beraisa says that according to Rebbi Yehudah, the third Shofar blast signaled to everyone to remove their Tefilin, and the fourth blast signaled the time to light the candles. Since wearing Tefilin is a Mitzvah, removing the Tefilin should have been done <i>after</i> lighting the candles. It must be that once the Shabbos candles have been lit, the sanctity of Shabbos takes effect and Melachah is forbidden.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 263:10) cites both opinions and writes that we follow the second opinion (the more stringent one). The <b>REMA</b>, however, notes that one may stipulate before lighting the candles that one does not intend to accept Shabbos at that moment. According to the opinions that the Rema cites, the ruling that lighting the Shabbos candles serves as one's acceptance of Shabbos is only a custom, based on the fact that the woman's unexpressed intention is usually to accept Shabbos at that time. She may, however, stipulate not to accept Shabbos. (In contrast, according to the Ran, who says that the Rabanan <i>decreed</i> that when one lights the candles, she accepts Shabbos, stipulating not to accept Shabbos does not help.)
</p><p>
The <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> (263:42) points out that when a <i>man</i> lights the Shabbos candles, the lighting does not serve as his acceptance of Shabbos. (This seems to be in accordance with the ruling of the Rema, who maintains that it is only a custom, and not a decree, that a woman's acceptance of Shabbos is dependent on lighting the candles. The custom was accepted by women, but not by men.)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) MOVING A 'SHOFAR' OR TRUMPET ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question #1 (Abaye):</font></b> Surely, one may move an individual's 
          shofar because it can be used to give water to a child to 
          drink - likewise, the shofar of the Tzibur can be used to 
          give water to an Oni to drink (the Tzibur must provide 
          for needs of the poor)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question #2 (Abaye - Beraisa #3):</font></b> Just like one may move 
          a shofar, one may move a trumpet.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is not like Beraisa #1 nor Beraisa #2!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> You must say that Beraisa #2 (which 
          permits only a shofar) is like R. Yehudah (who forbids 
          Muktzeh - he permits a shofar because it has a use, it is 
          a Kli), Beraisa #3 (which permits both of them) is like 
          R. Shimon (who permits Muktzeh), and Beraisa #1 (which 
          forbids both of them) is like R. Nechemyah (who permits 
          Kelim only for their designed use).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Implied question:</font></b> Beraisa #3 forbids a trumpet, just 
          like a shofar - it is a bigger Chidush that a shofar is 
          forbidden!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer):</font></b> Beraisa #3 switches the words trumpet and shofar 
          [from our usual understanding], like Rav Chisda taught:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Chisda):</font></b> The meanings of three [pairs of] words 
               changed after the Churban - one is trumpet and 
               shofar;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What difference does it make?
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> On Rosh Hashanah we must blow [what was 
                    initially called] a shofar (but commoners now 
                    call it a trumpet).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Aravah (willow) and Tzaftzefa (which has white 
               branches with round leaves) were switched; 
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What difference does it make?
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> On Sukos, one of the four species we 
                    must take is [what was initially called] Aravah 
                    (but commoners now call it Tzaftzefa).
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Petora (a big table) and Petorsa (a small table) 
               were switched; 
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What difference does it make?
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> If one says 'I sell to you Petorsa' 
                    (and the buyer does not see it, e.g. he bought 
                    it through Chalifin), he must give a big table 
                    (according to the present usage).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> Another pair has switched - Huvlila (Masas, the 
          roundest stomach of a Kosher animal) and Bei Kasi (Beis 
          ha'Kosos, the end of the Keres (the first stomach)).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What difference does it make?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> If a needle is found in the [wall of the] Beis 
          ha'Kosos - if only one layer of the wall is punctured, it 
          is Kosher; if both are punctured, it is Tereifah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Another pair has switched - Bavel and Borsif 
          (another place in Chutz la'Aretz).
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HANDLING A SHOFAR ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites the opinions of Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon with regard to the Muktzah-status of a Shofar and Chatzotzros. They argue whether one may handle Chatzotzros on Shabbos (for the sake of using it for a permissible purpose, or moving it in order to use the place where it is resting -- l'Tzorech Gufo u'Mekomo). They agree that one may handle a Shofar (l'Tzorech Gufo u'Mekomo).
</p><p>
A Shofar is included in the category of 'Kli she'Melachto l'Isur' -- an instrument normally used for an activity that is forbidden on Shabbos. Although such an object is Muktzah, one may handle it l'Tzorech Gufo u'Mekomo.
</p><p>
If one may handle a Shofar on Shabbos l'Tzorech Gufo u'Mekomo, then why does Rebbi Yehudah prohibit one from handling the Chatzotzros? They, too, are included in the category of Kli she'Melachto l'Isur!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> (DH Ha) explains that a Kli she'Melachto l'Isur that has <i>no</i> normal, permissible use may not be moved according to Rebbi Yehudah, even l'Tzorech Gufo u'Mekomo. The reason is because a person puts the object totally out of his mind since it has no permissible use. Conceptually, this type of object is comparable to logs of wood that are stored in a barn, which are Muktzah on Yom Tov even though they may be used for firewood, because a person completely puts the wood out of his mind (Beitzah 30a).
</p><p>
A Shofar, on the other hand, has a permissible use (one may drink with it). Therefore, a person does not put it out of his mind for Shabbos, and it may be handled l'Tzorech Gufo u'Mekomo even according to Rebbi Yehudah.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) WORDS THAT WERE CHANGED AFTER THE 'CHURBAN'</b></font><b>
<br>AGADAH:</b> The Gemara mentions several pairs of words whose meanings were exchanged after the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash (such as 'Shofar' and 'Chatzotzros,' 'Aravah' and 'Tzaftzafah,' 'Pesora' and 'Pesorasa'). The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> explains homiletically why the meanings of these words changed after the Churban.
</p><p>
(a) 'Shofar' and 'Chatzotzros' - The Chatzotzros were blown on fast days, during times of trouble (Rosh Hashanah 26b). Chatzotzros, then, are a sign of troubles befalling the Jewish people. The Shofar, on the other hand, is blown on Rosh Hashanah, a festival. After the Churban, the troubles that befall us are for our good, because they spur us to do Teshuvah (as mentioned in Megilah 14a). Times of tranquility are not necessarily constructive in the sense that the Jews tend to neglect doing Teshuvah during good times. Consequently, the Chatzotzros -- which used to be a sign of bad -- are now a positive sign.
</p><p>
(b) 'Aravah' and 'Tzaftzafah' - 'Tzaftzafah' refers to those who speak (from the word 'l'Tzaftzef') words of Torah -- the Sages who lead the Jewish people. 'Aravah' is a reference to the simple, unlearned people (because the willow has neither smell nor taste, as the Midrash explains). When the Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed, the mantle of leadership was taken from the Torah Sages and given to the unlearned. As the prophet says, 'Yirhavu Na'ar ba'Zaken' -- 'The young one will lord over the elder' (Yeshayah 3:5; Sotah 49b).
</p><p>
(c) 'Pesora' and 'Pesorasa' - 'Pesora' originally referred to the 'greater table,' that is, the lot of the Talmidei Chachamim. As the Mishnah in Avos (6:5) teaches, '[Students of the Torah,] you should have no desire for the table of kings, for your table is greater than theirs.' When the Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed, the Talmid Chacham lost his importance in the eyes of the people, and the 'big table' became small in their eyes, while the smaller table, that of the wealthy, became important to them. May Hash-m return us to the way it once was, speedily in our days!
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What difference does it make?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One must write the [current] name of the city on 
          a Get (document of divorce - Rashi; Tosfos - it was 
          enacted that when a Shali'ach brings a Get from Chutz 
          la'Aretz, he must testify that he saw it written and 
          signed - the enactment does not apply to Bavel (which is 
          called Borsif today).
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>***** <b>PEREK KIRAH</b>****</b></font></center><p>
  
<br>
<b><font>2) LEAVING A POT ON THE OVEN OR RETURNING IT TO THE OVEN ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Kirah (oven) was heated with straw or 
          stubble, one may put a Tavshil (cooked food) on it; 
          (Maharam - Rashi says that one [also] cooks <i>in</i> it, to 
          teach that it is unlike our ovens; we shall learn (37A) 
          that the Mishnah discusses putting on top of it.) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If it was heated with Gefes (the waste of olives or 
          sesame after the oil was extracted) or wood, one may not 
          put in it unless it was Garuf v'Katum (the coals were 
          swept [out; Ba'al ha'Ma'or - to the side] or ashes were 
          put on the coals). (Whenever we discuss a Kirah that was 
          not Garuf v'Katum, it was heated with Gefes or wood; 
          putting food in is forbidden [Rashi - for it is Hatmanah 
          in something that adds heat] lest one come to stoke 
          coals.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Beis Shamai permit hot water [for it does not require 
          further cooking], but not a Tavshil (this will be 
          explained);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Beis Hillel permit both of these.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  Beis Shamai permit removing from the Kirah, but not 
          returning to it;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Beis Hillel permit both of these.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What does it mean 'one may not put'?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Does it mean, one may not return to the Kirah - but 
               Shehiyah (leaving in it when Shabbos begins) is 
               permitted, even if it was Garuf v'Katum - this would 
               be like Chananyah;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Beraisa - Chananya):</font></b> Shehiyah of anything 
                    k'Ma'achal Ben Drusai (a third or half cooked) 
                    is permitted, even if the stove was not Garuf 
                    or Katum (since it is edible, we are not 
                    concerned lest he stoke the coals).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps it refers to Shehiyah - this is 
               permitted only if it was Garuf v'Katum, if not it is 
               forbidden, all the more so returning is forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> In the Mishnah, Beis Shamai permit hot water, 
          but not a Tavshil - Beis Hillel permit both; Beis Shamai 
          permit removing, but not returning - Beis Hillel permit 
          both;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If the Reisha discusses Shehiyah, we understand this 
               - it permits Shehiyah of a Tavshil on a Kirah heated 
               with straw or stubble, if Gefes or wood was used, it 
               is forbidden unless it was Garuf v'Katum;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Beis Shamai permit Shehiyah of hot water and 
                    forbid a Tavshil, Beis Hillel permit even a 
                    Tavshil;
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> They also argue about returning - Beis Shamai 
                    permit removing and forbid returning, Beis 
                    Hillel permit both.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> But if the Reisha discusses returning, we must 
               explain as follows:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  One may return a Tavshil to a Kirah heated with 
                    straw or stubble, if Gefes or wood was used, it 
                    is forbidden unless it was Garuf v'Katum;
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> Beis Shamai permit returning hot water and 
                    forbid a Tavshil, Beis Hillel permit even a 
                    Tavshil;
             <br><b>  <b><font>iii. </font></b></b>Beis Shamai permit removing and forbid 
                    returning [a Tavshil], Beis Hillel permit both.
             <br><b>  <b><font>iv. </font></b><font> Summation of question:</font></b> The last clause is 
                    unnecessary!
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) THE PROHIBITION OF 'SHEHIYAH'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS: RASHI</b> and <b>TOSFOS</b> argue about the nature of the prohibition of Shehiyah (placing a pot of food on the stove before Shabbos and leaving it there during Shabbos). 
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that the prohibition of Shehiyah is an integral part of the prohibition of Hatmanah b'Davar ha'Mosif Hevel. Since the wood or coals of the Kirah is a material that heats whatever is placed on it, one may not leave food in (or on) a Kirah over Shabbos. Hatmanah prohibits one from not only completely <i>wrapping</i> food in a material that adds heat, but even putting food <i>on top</i> of a material that adds heat (the stove). Once the coals are cleared away or covered, the Kirah cools down so much that it is no longer considered Hatmanah with a material that adds heat.
</p><p>
Chazarah refers to the act of returning a pot of food to the stove on Shabbos when it was removed on Shabbos. Why is the law of Chazarah more stringent than the law of Shehiyah? (That is, according to Chananyah, Shehiyah is permissible even when the coals on the stove are not cleared away or covered, while Chazarah is permissible only when the coals were taken away before Shabbos or covered. Also, Beis Shamai permits Shehiyah but forbids Chazarah. Why is Chazarah more stringent?)
</p><p>
Rashi (38b, DH Machzirin) explains that doing Chazarah is similar to doing Hatmanah for the first time on Shabbos. (Rashi there explains why one may not return a pot to the stove if he did not have in mind to return it at the moment he removed it. The reason is that since he took his mind off of it, it is considered as though he is doing a new Hatmanah on Shabbos.) Rashi is consistent with his reasoning, for he maintains that the acts of Shehiyah and Chazarah are forms of Hatmanah.
</p><p>
Rashi apparently agrees that according to <i>Chananyah</i>, leaving food on top of a burner is <i>not</i> considered Hatmanah, and is therefore permitted (if it is cooked k'Ma'achal ben Derusa'i). The reason Chananyah prohibits Chazarah on an uncovered Kirah is because it <i>appears</i> as though the person is cooking on Shabbos (although the food was cooked before Shabbos). When the coals are covered, however, it does not look like real cooking and is therefore permitted.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Lo Yiten) argues with Rashi. If a pot of food is on top of a burner, it cannot be called Hatmanah. Hatmanah applies only when the food is completely surrounded by the heat-insulating material. The reason why Shehiyah and Chazarah are prohibited is because of a new Gezeirah -- the Rabanan were concerned that someone might stoke the coals below in order to increase the heat (as mentioned on 18b). According to the Rabanan who argue with Chananyah, one may not place food on the stove before Shabbos and leave it there over Shabbos, even if it is already cooked k'Ma'achal Ben Derusa'i, lest one stoke the coals.
</p><p>
According to Tosfos, why is Chazarah more stringent (according to Chananyah, or according to Beis Shamai)? Tosfos understands that Chazarah is more stringent because it more closely resembles an act of Melachah of Shabbos, as the person places the food on the stove on Shabbos.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) DOES THE MISHNAH AGREE WITH CHANANYAH?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> Really, it discusses returning - the Mishnah 
          is abbreviated, it means as follows:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One may return a Tavshil to a Kirah heated with 
               straw or stubble, if Gefes or wood was used, it is 
               forbidden unless it was Garuf v'Katum;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Shehiyah is permitted even if it was not Garuf 
               v'Katum;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Beis Shamai permit Shehiyah of hot water and forbid 
               a Tavshil, Beis Hillel permit even a Tavshil;
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> The Heter to return [if it was heated with straw or 
               stubble, or if it was Garuf v'Katum] is not 
               unanimous - Beis Shamai permit removing and forbid 
               returning, Beis Hillel permit both.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> R. Chelbo said that the Mishnah permits 
          putting food on a Kirah, but it is forbidden to put 
          inside it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If the Reisha discusses returning [like we just 
               explained], we understand the difference (Ramban - 
               returning inside looks like cooking);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> But if the Reisha discusses Shehiyah, it permits 
               only if it is Garuf v'Katum - if so, this should be 
               permitted even inside!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> R. Chelbo does not discuss the Reisha, rather, 
          the Seifa:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah - Beis Hillel):</font></b> Even returning is 
               permitted.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (R. Chelbo):</font></b> One may return on top, but not inside.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> If two Kiros are 
          connected, and only one of them is Garuf v'Katum, 
          Shehiyah is permitted on it, not on the other.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Beis Shamai forbid any Shehiyah, Beis Hillel permit 
               only hot water.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If one removed the water, all forbid returning it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, Beis Shamai permit Shehiyah of hot 
               water, Beis Hillel permit even a Tavshil;
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> Beis Shamai permit removing but not returning, Beis 
               Hillel permit even returning.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> If the Reisha of our Mishnah discusses Shehiyah, the 
               Mishnah is like R. Yehudah;
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> But if the Reisha discusses returning, the Mishnah 
               is unlike either Tana:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Regarding Beis Shamai, it is unlike R. Meir in 
                    one respect (the Mishnah distinguishes whether 
                    or not it was Garuf v'Katum, R. Meir does not, 
                    he forbids all Shehiyah);
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> Regarding Beis Hillel, it is unlike R. Meir in 
                    two respects (the Mishnah permits all Shehiyah, 
                    R. Meir permits only water and only if it was 
                    Garuf v'Katum; the Mishnah permits returning if 
                    it was Garuf v'Katum, R. Meir forbids even 
                    then)!
             <br><b>  <b><font>iii. </font></b></b>It is unlike R. Yehudah - he says that all 
                    forbid Shehiyah if it was not Garuf v'Katum, in 
                    the Mishnah Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai argue 
                    about what is permitted in this case!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> Really, the Reisha discusses returning; the 
          Tana of our Mishnah holds like R. Yehudah regarding the 
          distinctions between hot water and Tavshil, and between 
          Shehiyah and returning (in both cases, Beis Shamai permit 
          only the former, Beis Hillel permit both);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He argues with R. Yehudah regarding Shehiyah - he 
               permits in any case, R. Yehudah permits only if it 
               was Garuf v'Katum. (Rashba - the Gemara prefers to 
               establish out Mishnah like R. Meir or R. Yehudah, 
               who distinguish between water and Tavshil, and 
               whether or not it was swept or covered, and not like 
               Chananyah, who did not.)
<br>
<b><font>2) PLACING A POT NEAR A 'KIRAH' ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> May one Somech [put a pot near a Kirah]? (Rif 
          proves from here that the Halachah does not follow 
          Chananyah - he permits Shehiyah in or on a Kirah, all the 
          more so one may leave pots near a Kirah! Tosfos - if the 
          Reisha discusses returning, here we ask whether or not 
          one may return near a Kirah; really, the Halachah follows 
          Chananyah.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Perhaps it is forbidden to put in or on a Kirah, but 
               Semichah is permitted;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps there is no distinction!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Beraisa):</font></b> If two Kiros are connected, and only 
          one of them is Garuf v'Katum, Shehiyah is permitted on 
          it, not on the other.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One leaves the food near a (i.e. the other) Kirah in 
               which Shehiyah is forbidden, even though it is 
               warmed by it!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> Since the pot is above, the heat from the 
          'forbidden' Kirah dissipates in the air - we cannot learn 
          to Semichah next to a Kirah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rav Safra taught that if one put ashes on 
          coals and they flared up, Semichah and Shehiyah are 
          permitted, one may remove and return.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> Semichah is permitted because the coals 
               were covered - otherwise, it is forbidden!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> If so, you should likewise permit removing 
          only if the coals were covered (surely, this is not true, 
          one may remove in any case)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rather, you must say that one may remove in any case 
               - removing was taught only on account of returning;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Likewise, Semichah is always permitted, it was 
               taught only on account of Shehiyah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No - one returns to the same place he removed 
          from, to teach returning one must first mention removing;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> But Semichah and Shehiyah are in different places, 
               there is no need to teach Semichah on account of 
               Shehiyah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What was the conclusion? 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Beraisa):</font></b> If it was heated with Gefes or wood, 
          Semichah is permitted, Shehiyah is forbidden unless it 
          was Garuf v'Katum;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If the coals dimmed, or if one put thin chaff of 
               flax on top of them, this is like covering with 
               ashes.
<br>
<b><font>3) PUTTING ASHES ON COALS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Yitzchak bar Nachmani):</font></b> If one put ashes on coals and 
          they flared up, one may Meshaheh fully heated water or a 
          fully cooked Tavshil.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) PLACING FOOD INSIDE A 'KIRAH' RIGHT BEFORE SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara quotes Rav who explains that when the Mishnah says that one may place food on a Kirah on Shabbos, it means only on <i>top</i> of the Kirah, but not <i>inside</i> the Kirah, for the act of placing food inside the Kirah is more stringent than the act of placing food atop the Kirah.
</p><p>
The Gemara says that if the Mishnah follows the view of Chananyah, it makes sense why one may not place food inside the Kirah (see below). If, however, the Mishnah follows the view of the Rabanan, there should be no difference between placing food on top of the Kirah and placing food inside the Kirah. (This is because one may place food on top of the Kirah only when the coals were cleared away or covered. In such a case, however, where the coals were cleared away or covered, it should also be permitted to put the food inside the Kirah!)
</p><p>
According to Chananyah, what is the difference between placing food inside the Kirah and placing food on top of the Kirah? Rashi (DH Hayinu) explains that since Chananyah permits Shehiyah even when the coals were not cleared away, he cannot permit one to place food inside the Kirah, because the coals are still there and doing so constitutes an act of Hatmanah in a material that adds heat, which is forbidden (see Insights to Shabbos 34:1:a:3).
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Ela Iy) asks that placing food inside the Kirah cannot actually be considered Hatmanah in coals, because we find that Chananyah permits placing dough in an oven before Shabbos as long as there is time left before Shabbos for its surface to become crusted (20a). Placing food inside an oven is apparently <i>not</i> considered Hatmanah in a material that adds heat. Why, then, is one forbidden from placing food inside a Kirah according to Chananyah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> Tosfos answers that when the Gemara says that one may not place food inside the Kirah, the Gemara is referring to an act of <i>Chazarah</i> performed <i>on</i> Shabbos, and not to <i>Shehiyah</i> performed <i>before</i> Shabbos. On Shabbos, one may not place food back <i>inside</i> a Kirah because such an act resembles an act of actual cooking (see Insights to Shabbos 36:3:b).
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> [Even when Shehiyah of partially cooked food 
          is forbidden,] Mitztamek v'Yafeh Lo (fully cooked food 
          that improves through further cooking, it dries out) is 
          permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> No, Shehiyah of such food is normally 
          forbidden - here it is permitted because ashes were put.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If so, what is the Chidush?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that since the coals 
          flared up, it is as if they were not covered - R. 
          Yitzchak teaches, this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> If one put 
          ashes on coals and they flared up, one may Meshaheh fully 
          heated water or a fully cooked Tavshil, even if Rosem 
          coals were used (they are hotter and last longer than 
          regular coals).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> Mitztamek v'Yafeh Lo is permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> No - only here it is permitted, because he put 
          ashes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If so, what is the Chidush?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> It is a Chidush because the coals flared up.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> We already learned this from R. Yitzchak!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rabah bar bar Chanah permits even if Rosam 
          coals were used.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Rav Sheshes citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> If a Kirah was heated 
          with Gefes or wood, one may Meshaheh even water that was 
          not fully heated and a Tavshil that was not fully cooked;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If one removed them, he may not return them until 
               sweeping or putting ashes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  He holds that [the Reisha of] our Mishnah discusses 
          returning, Shehiyah is permitted even if it is not Garuf 
          v'Katum.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> We already learn both laws of Rav 
          Sheshes from Mishnayos!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Regarding Shehiyah - Mishnah):</font></b> One may not put 
               bread in an oven just before Shabbos or a cake on 
               top of coals unless there is time for the faces to 
               form a crust before Shabbos;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> If there is time to form a crust, it is 
               permitted!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (Regarding returning - Mishnah - Beis Hillel):</font></b> One 
               may even return.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> Beis Hillel permit only when it was Garuf v'Katum!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, Rav Sheshes teaches that we learn these 
          laws from these Mishnayos.
<br>
<b><font>4) 'MITZTAMEK V'YAFEH LO'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> If a Kirah 
          was heated with Gefes or wood, one may Meshaheh water 
          that was fully heated and a Tavshil that was fully 
          cooked, even if it is Mitztamek v'Yafeh Lo.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> A Chacham:</font></b> But Rav and Shmuel forbid Mitztamek 
               v'Yafeh Lo!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rav Shmuel:</font></b> I know that Rav Yosef says that Shmuel 
               forbids - but R. Yochanan permits.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Rav Ukva of Meishan (to Rav Ashi):</font></b> You live near the 
          region of Rav and Shmuel, you must follow them (one may 
          not permit something in front of people who are stringent 
          about it); we conduct like R. Yochanan (the Halachah 
          follows him).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> [If the Kirah was not Garuf v'Katum,] 
          is Shehiyah permitted [if the food was partially cooked, 
          or Mitztamek v'Yafeh Lo]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> People are Meshaheh on behalf of 
          Rav Yehudah, and he eats it!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Rejection (Abaye):</font></b> We cannot learn from him - if he does 
          not eat good food, he is prone to become dangerously sick 
          - what is the Halachah for us? 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> In Sura, they do Shehiyah. ('D'Ha' 
          must be deleted from the text, for Rav Nachman bar 
          Yitzchak did not live in Sura, and Rav Yosef would not 
          bring a proof from Rava's Talmid).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak was very careful about his 
          actions; Shehiyah was done for him, and he would eat it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Rav Ashi:</font></b> I was in front of Rav Huna, they were Meshaheh 
          Kisa d'Harsena (fish cooked with flour in their oil) for 
          him, and he ate it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> I do not know if he permits Mitztamek v'Yafeh Lo, or 
               if he considers it Mitztamek v'Ra Lo on account of 
               the flour.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman [bar Yakov]):</font></b> Mitztamek v'Yafeh Lo is 
          forbidden, Mitztamek v'Ra Lo is permitted;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The general rule is, anything with flour is 
               Mitztamek v'Ra Lo, except for a Tavshil of turnips, 
               even with flour it is Mitztamek v'Yafeh Lo;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This is only if it has meat (the fat blunts the 
               pungency of the turnips), otherwise it is Mitztamek 
               v'Ra Lo.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Even if it has meat, this is only if he does not 
               need it for guests - if it is for guests, [he wants 
               to give big pieces,] it is Mitztamek v'Ra Lo.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) HALACHAH: 'SHEHIYAH'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Chananyah and the Rabanan argue whether one may place food that is cooked k'Ma'achal Ben Derusa'i, right before Shabbos, on top of a stove whose coals have not been cleared away or covered. What is the Halachah?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH v'Rav Sheshes) and <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Amar Rav Sheshes) in the name of <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> write that the Halachah follows Chananyah, and one is permitted to do Shehiyah and place food on a stove whose coals have not been cleared away or covered, as long as the food was already cooked k'Ma'achal ben Derusa'i. 
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ROSH</b> (3:1) cites many Rishonim (including the <b>RIF</b> and <b>RAMBAM</b>) who rule that it is <i>prohibited</i> to do Shehiyah on an uncovered flame. The Rosh prefers this ruling.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 253:1) cites both opinions of the Rishonim. He first cites the opinion of the Rosh, Rif, and Rambam (b). He cites the opinion of Rashi and Tosfos by saying, 'And there are those who say....' The <b>BI'UR HALACHAH</b> points out that this wording of the Shulchan Aruch indicates that he rules like the first opinion.
</p><p>
The Bi'ur Halachah adds that we should not reprimand one who is lenient, who relies on the opinion of Rashi and Tosfos, because, as the Rosh writes, 'There is a major argument as to how to rule in this matter, and the Jewish people are very attached to the Mitzvah of Oneg Shabbos and will not listen to us if we tell them to be stringent, therefore we should leave them to practice their custom of relying on those who rule like Chananyah.' However, for oneself (as opposed to instructing others what to do), one should be stringent and not do Shehiyah on an uncovered flame with a food that is not completely cooked (or with a food that will improve in taste the more it is cooked), unless there are extenuating circumstances that compel him to do so, such as if guests arrived at one's home not long before Shabbos.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) ONE WHO TRANSGRESSED 'SHEHIYAH' ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If one forgot and left a pot on a Kirah and it 
          cooked on Shabbos, what is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Chiya bar Aba did not answer; the next day, he 
          expounded in public.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> If one cooks on Shabbos:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he was Shogeg, he may eat the food; if he was 
               Mezid, he may not eat it (if this is like R. Meir, 
               he discusses eating the food on Shabbos; if it is 
               like R. Yehudah, he discusses eating it after 
               Shabbos);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If he did Shehiyah, there is no distinction (between 
               Shogeg and Mezid).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does this mean?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rabah and Rav Yosef):</font></b> In both cases, it is 
          permitted;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One who cooked b'Mezid may not eat it, for he did an 
               action - one who did Shehiyah b'Mezid may eat it, 
               for the cooking was not through an action;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> In both cases, it 
          is forbidden;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One who cooked b'Shogeg may eat it - we are not 
               concerned lest a Yisrael cook on Shabbos, we need 
               not decree on account of Mezid; Shehiyah is 
               forbidden only mid'Rabanan, if it is permitted 
               [b'Diavad] when one was Shogeg, people may come to 
               do so b'Mezid and claim that it was b'Shogeg.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> If one forgot and left a 
          pot on a Kirah and it cooked on Shabbos:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he was Shogeg, he may eat it; if he was Mezid, he 
               may not eat it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This refers to partially cooked food - if it was 
               fully cooked, in either case he may eat it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, water that was fully heated is 
               permitted, for it is Mitztamek v'Ra Lo;
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> A Tavshil that was fully cooked is forbidden, for it 
               is Mitztamek v'Yafeh Lo.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> This is not difficult for Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak - 
               the Beraisa discusses before the decree (this will 
               be explained), R. Chiya bar Aba's law applies after 
               the decree;
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> But according to Rabah and Rav Yosef - if R. Chiya's 
               law is before the decree, it is difficult why he 
               permits Mezid; if it after the decree, it is also 
               difficult why he permits Shogeg!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  This is left difficult.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What was this decree?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rav Yehudah bar Shmuel taught, at first, the 
          Halachah was that if one cooked on Shabbos, he may eat 
          it; if he was Mezid, he may not eat it; the same applies 
          to one who was Meshaheh;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Many people did Shehiyah b'Mezid and said that they 
               were Shogeg, Chachamim decreed that even if one was 
               b'Shogeg it is forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Contradictions:</font></b> R. Meir (in the Beraisa) contradicts what 
          he said [in the Beraisa on 37A, that Beis Hillel permit 
          only water, not a Tavshil], and so does R. Yehudah 
          (there, he permitted Tavshil [Stam], he did not forbid 
          Mitztamek v'Yafeh Lo)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer - part 1:</font></b> Here, R. Meir merely permits b'Diavad, 
          he forbids l'Chatchilah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer - part 2:</font></b> There, R. Yehudah discusses a Kirah that 
          was Garuf v'Katum - here he discusses one that was not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If one transgressed Shehiyah, is the food 
          forbidden? (Tosfos - above [on this Daf] we concluded 
          that it is forbidden - that refers to food that was not 
          k'Ma'achal Ben Drusai before Shabbos, now we ask about 
          Shehiyah of Mitztamek v'Yafeh Lo b'Shogeg, according to 
          R. Yehudah. Alternatively, we ask about Shogeg before the 
          decree. Rosh - here, we ask if it is forbidden only to 
          the Meshaheh, or to his entire family.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer (Shmuel bar Noson):</font></b> A case occurred, R. Yosi went 
          to Tzipori and saw that Shehiyah of water and dried eggs 
          was done on Kiros - he did not forbid the water, he 
          forbade the eggs.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> He forbade them [b'Diavad] that very 
               Shabbos!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> No, he forbade them to do so l'Chatchilah the 
          next Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This implies that dried eggs are Mitztamek 
          v'Yafeh Lo!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Affirmation:</font></b> Yes! Rav Chama bar Chanina said that he and 
          Rebbi were once served dried eggs as small as 
          sorb-apples, and they ate many!
<br>
<b><font>2) CONDITIONS THAT ALLOW ONE TO RETURN A POT TO THE FIRE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - Beis Hillel):</font></b> One may return even a Tavshil.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Version #1 - Tosfos - (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> According to the 
          opinion that one may return, this is permitted [not only 
          Erev Shabbos just before Shabbos, rather,] even on 
          Shabbos;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Version #2 - Rashi - (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> According to the 
          opinion that one may return, this is permitted [not only 
          at night, rather,] even on Shabbos [day - we do not say 
          that surely it was removed without intent to return it]. 
          (end of Version #2)
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'IF ONE TRANSGRESSED AND DID SHEHIYAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara asks, 'What [is the status of the food] if one transgressed and did Shehiyah?' What is the Gemara's question? The Gemara just concluded a lengthy discussion in which it addressed, and answered, that very question!
</p><p>
The Gemara taught that if the food was not cooked yet, whether one intentionally left it on the stove or unintentionally left it there, it is forbidden b'Di'eved. If the food was cooked, then Rebbi Meir permits it (even if it was intentionally left on the stove) and Rebbi Yehudah forbids it (if it is a food that becomes tastier the more it is cooked, 'Mitz'tamek v'Yafeh Lo'). Since the Gemara clarified the Halachah, what is the Gemara asking now?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Avar) explains that the Gemara's question is what the Halachah would be according to Rebbi Yehudah, who says that cooked food that was left on the stove is forbidden if it was Mitz'tamek v'Yafeh Lo. Does Rebbi Yehudah forbid the food only when it was left on the stove intentionally, but not when it was left here unintentionally, or does he forbid the food even when it was left there unintentionally? (Rebbi Yehudah did not specifically mention that the food is prohibited even when it was left on the burner b'Shogeg; perhaps he discussed only a case where it was left there b'Mezid.)
</p><p>
The explanation of Tosfos raises a different question. The Gemara says that if one <i>forgot</i> and left food on the stove, the Rabanan penalized him and prohibited him from benefiting from the food. Since this decree was made after the time of Rebbi Yehudah, what difference does it make if Rebbi Yehudah permitted the food that was left on the stove unintentionally? Rebbi Yehudah's opinion is irrelevant nowadays, when the decree of the Rabanan prohibits the food!
</p><p>
1. <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that the Gemara was merely curious as to what Rebbi Yehudah's original opinion was, before the Rabanan enacted the decree to prohibit the food.
</p><p>
2. The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> explains that the decree that prohibits the food that was left on the stove unintentionally applies only to the person himself who left the food there. Perhaps it does not prohibit the food to all other people. The Gemara is asking whether the food indeed is permitted to everyone else or not.
</p><p>
3. The <b>RA'AVAD</b> cited by the <b>RASHBA</b> explains that there is a difference between one who 'forgets' (Shoche'ach) the food on the stove and one who leaves the food there by accident (b'Shogeg). When one leaves it there b'Shogeg, the Halachah is lenient and permits him to benefit from it, because he was completely unaware that it was Shabbos (or that it was forbidden to do so on Shabbos) when he left the food there. In contrast, one who <i>forgot</i> that he had placed the food on the stove <i>was</i> aware that Shabbos was coming at the time that he placed the food on the stove, but he forgot to remove it before Shabbos arrived. Therefore, the Rabanan were stringent and decreed that he may not eat the food.
</p><p>
4. The <b>RAMBAN</b> adds that perhaps the penalty applies only to food that was not <i>entirely</i> cooked, but not to food that was entirely cooked before Shabbos. The Rabanan did not prohibit food that was entirely cooked, because there is no concern that one might intentionally place a fully-cooked dish on the stove and claim that he did so inadvertently, with intention to make the cooked dish a little more tasty on Shabbos.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU YONAH</b> cited by the <b>RASHBA</b> and the <b>RAMBAN</b> says that the Chachamim who asked the question, 'What [is the status of the food] if one transgressed and did Shehiyah?' were unaware of the Beraisa quoted previously, in which Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah argue over that point. They were asking what the Halachah is when one <i>intentionally</i> left a fully cooked dish on the stove which is Mitz'tamek v'Yafeh Lo. In such a case, did the Rabanan decree that it is forbidden? (The Rashba says that this is also Rashi's intention.)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> explains that the Gemara's question is what the Halachah would be if one leaves on the stove food which improves as it gets drier, and that food is <i>already</i> as dry as it will get. Did the Rabanan apply their decree in such a case, or is such a case comparable to hot water, which does not improve when left on the stove?
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RITVA</b> says that the Gemara is discussing a case in which one removed the pot from the stove <i>before</i> it had a chance to improve. Did the Rabanan decree that the very act of placing it on the stove (when there is a chance that it will improve) makes the food forbidden, even if in the end it does not improve at all, or did they only decree that the food is forbidden when it actually undergoes some improvement. (When the Gemara attempts to answer the question from the case of 'dried out eggs,' it is referring to a case in which one removed the eggs from the stove before they had a chance to become more dried out.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Oshaya also permits returning on Shabbos:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> R. Oshaya:</font></b> I was once in front of R. Chiya in the 
               upper story - they brought a kettle of hot water 
               from the ground floor, mixed a cup of wine for him, 
               and returned the water [to the Kirah], he did not 
               comment.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rav Tadai):</font></b> One may return only if the pot is still in 
          his hand, not if he put it on the ground.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (R. Ami):</font></b> That is Rav Tadai's opinion, but R. Chiya 
          permits even if he put it on the ground.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rav Dimi or Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah):</font></b> R. Elazar permits 
          only if the pot is still in his hand, not if he put it on 
          the ground.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (The other of Rav Dimi and Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah):</font></b> R. 
          Elazar permits even if he put it on the ground.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (Chizkiyah):</font></b> The Heter to return if it is 
          still in his hand is only if he removed it with intent to 
          return it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> If he put it on the ground it is 
               forbidden even if he intended to return it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (Chizkiyah):</font></b> The Isur to return if put it on 
          the ground is only if he removed it without intent to 
          return it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> If it is still in his hand, he may return 
               it even if he removed it without intent to return 
               it. (end of Version #2) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Questions (R. Yirmeyah):</font></b> If he hung it on a stick, or put 
          it on a bed, what is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Ashi):</font></b> If he transferred the water from one 
          pot to another, what is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  These questions are not resolved.
<br>
<b><font>3) THE LAWS OF A 'TANUR'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> (A Tanur is an oven wide at the bottom and 
          narrow on top, it retains heat better than a Kirah.) 
          [Even] if a Tanur was heated with straw or stubble, one 
          may not <i>put</i> in or on it (all explain this the same way 
          they explained the Reisha (36B), i.e. Shehiyah or 
          returning);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If a Kupach (another kind of oven, it will be explained 
          below) was heated with straw or stubble, its Halachah is 
          like a Kirah; if it was heated with Gefes or wood, it is 
          like a Tanur.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Rav Yosef):</font></b> The Mishnah forbids only putting in 
          or on a Tanur, but Semichah is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye - Mishnah):</font></b> If a Kupach was heated with 
          straw or stubble, its Halachah is like a Kirah; if it was 
          heated with Gefes or wood, it is [forbidden] like a 
          Tanur.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> The Seifa had to equate it to a Tanur, 
               for regarding a Kirah it is permitted.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the case?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer #1:</font></b> The Mishnah discusses putting on top of 
               it.
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the case?
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b><font> Answer #1:</font></b> It is not Garuf v'Katum.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> If so, even regarding a Kirah it is 
               forbidden!
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer #2:</font></b> The Mishnah discusses Semichah, and it 
               equates a Kupach to a Tanur [to teach that it is 
               forbidden]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  Answer (and Answer #2 to Question 3:i - Rav Ada bar 
          Ahavah): The Mishnah discusses a Kupach or Tanur that was 
          Garuf v'Katum;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Seifa equates a Kupach to a Tanur - even if it 
               is Garuf v'Katum, it is forbidden to put on it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This is permitted on a Kirah that is Garuf v'Katum.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Support (for Abaye - Beraisa):</font></b> If a Tanur was heated with 
          straw or stubble, it is forbidden to Somech a pot near 
          it, there is no need to say that one may not put a pot in 
          it, there is no need to say that these are forbidden if 
          it was heated with Gefes or wood.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  If a Kupach was heated with straw or stubble, Semichah is 
          permitted, one may [not - some delete this from the text] 
          put a pot in it; if it was heated with Gefes or wood, 
          [even] Semichah is forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rava):</font></b> If a Kupach is like a 
          Kirah, it should be so even if it was heated with Gefes 
          or wood; if it is like a Tanur, it should be so even if 
          it was heated with straw or stubble!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> It retains heat better than a Kirah, 
          but not as well as a Tanur.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the difference between a Kupach and a 
          Kirah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina):</font></b> Only one pot can be 
          placed on a Kupach (it is square), two pots fit on a 
          Kirah (it is like a double Kupach).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Support (Abaye - Mishnah):</font></b> If a Kirah was split along its 
          length, it is Tehorah (each half is too narrow to hold a 
          standard pot); if it was split widthwise, it is Teme'ah 
          (it is now like a Kupach);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  If a Kupach was split either way, it is Tehorah (it 
          cannot hold a pot).
<br>
<b><font>4) COOKING WITH HOT ITEMS HEATED BY THE SUN OR BY FIRE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not put an egg near a [hot] kettle in 
          order to roast (Chachmas Mano'ach - this is called 
          Megalgel, for a cooked egg spins nicely);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  One may not wrap (Aruch; Rashi - crack an egg) in 
          garments [heated in the sun, in order to roast];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi permits.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  One may not Matmin an egg in sand or dust of the road in 
          order to roast;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  A case occurred, people in Tiverya brought a pipe of cold 
          water through a hot spring (cold water constantly flowed 
          through and became heated; alternatively, it emptied into 
          the spring, heating the cold water and tempering the heat 
          of the spring; alternatively, they put a Kli of cold 
          water in the spring, to bathe on Shabbos in the Kli, they 
          would open plugs, letting hot water into the Kli);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Chachamim:</font></b> If this was on Shabbos, it is considered 
               water heated on Shabbos, one may not bathe in it or 
               drink it; if it was on Yom Tov, it is considered 
               water heated on Yom Tov, one may not bathe in it, 
               one may drink it.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) OPINIONS: 'CHAZARAH' EVEN ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Sheshes and Rav Oshiya maintain that one may return a pot of cooked food to the stove (Chazarah) 'even on Shabbos.' What is their intention? The concept of Chazarah is relevant only for Shabbos! When else would there be a question whether one may return food to the stove?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that the Gemara is teaching that even during the <i>daytime</i> on Shabbos one may do Chazarah. We might have thought that Chazarah may be done only at night, because when one removes the pot from the stove during the day there is no indication that one's intention is to put it back on the stove.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (36b, DH Beis Hillel) says that the prohibition against doing Chazarah when the stove's coals are not cleared away applies on Friday before Shabbos. On Friday, when the food is cold and there is not enough time for it to become hot before Shabbos, one may not put it back on the stove because he might be tempted to stoke the coals to warm it up on Shabbos. (Even if it is still warm, it might be forbidden to put it back on the stove if there is not enough time for it to become warm <i>had it been</i> cold, because an onlooker might mistakenly assume that it is permissible to put it back on the stove when it is cold, and he might forget and stoke the coals to make it warm.)
</p><p>
According to Tosfos, Beis Hillel means that one may do Chazarah not only on Friday but <i>even</i> on Shabbos (as the Amora'im here teach) when the coals are covered. (Beis Hillel agrees that if the coals are not covered, then even on <i>Friday</i> Chazarah is prohibited).
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAN</b> explains that the last argument in the Mishnah between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel involves the prohibition of doing an action that will lead to a Melachah being done by itself on Shabbos. Both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel are consistent with their opinions expressed elsewhere. Beis Shamai requires that there be enough time for the food to become hot before Shabbos (19b) in order for one to be permitted to place food on the stove before Shabbos; the Melachah must begin before Shabbos, for otherwise there is a concern that people will think that it is permissible to do Melachah on Shabbos (this is according to one explanation of Beis Shamai's view, and not according to the explanation that Beis Shamai forbids Melachah before Shabbos because of Shevisas Kelim; see 18a). Here, Beis Shamai prohibits Chazarah on Friday immediately before Shabbos (as Tosfos also explains), when the food will become hot only on Shabbos, so that people not think that it is permissible to heat up food on Shabbos (this reason for the prohibition of Chazarah on Friday is not like Tosfos' reason). Beis Hillel <i>permits</i> Chazarah on Friday, because he maintains that the Rabanan did not prohibit actions before Shabbos that would cause Melachah to be done on Shabbos. However, we might have thought that Chazarah <i>on Shabbos</i> is prohibited according to everyone, even Beis Hillel, because it looks as though one is cooking on Shabbos. Therefore, the Gemara teaches that Beis Hillel permits Chazarah even on Shabbos.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> It is best to be stringent like Tosfos and not put any food on a stove (whose coals are uncovered) on Friday close to Shabbos, when there is not enough time for the food to get hot by the time Shabbos arrives (<b>REMA</b> OC 253:2).
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) COOKING WITH HOT ITEMS HEATED BY THE SUN OR BY FIRE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> If one roasted an egg [near a kettle 
          heated on a fire], what is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> He is Chayav Chatas.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Support (Mar brei d'Ravina - Mishnah):</font></b> Any food that that 
          was soaked [and fully cooked] in hot water [in a Kli 
          Rishon (a pot that was on the fire)] before Shabbos, one 
          may soak it in hot water on Shabbos;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Any food that that was not soaked in hot water 
               before Shabbos, one may pour hot water over it 
               (Rashbam - from a Kli Rishon; R. Tam - from a Kli 
               Sheni (a Kli into which food was poured from a Kli 
               Rishon)) on Shabbos, except for old salted fish or 
               tuna fish, for rinsing them is their final 
               preparation (and one is liable for this).
<br>
<b><font>2) COOKING USING THE SUN ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not wrap an egg in garments; [R. Yosi 
          permits].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> The following Mishnah is like R. Yosi [who 
          permits cooking via the sun], it is unlike Chachamim!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> One may put a Tavshil in a pit [on 
               Shabbos] to guard it; one may put good water [in a 
               Kli] in bad water to cool it, one may put cold water 
               in the sun to warm up.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Rejection (Rav Nachman):</font></b> No, all permit cooking <i>in</i> the 
          sun; all forbid cooking through something heated by fire;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  They argue about cooking through something heated by the 
          sun - Chachamim decree [lest one will come to cook in 
          something heated by fire, R. Yosi does not decree.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not Matmin an egg [in sand or dust to 
          roast].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> R. Yosi should also argue about this [and 
          permit it]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rabah):</font></b> He forbids this, lest one will do 
          Hatmanah in hot ashes [and make them flare up on 
          Shabbos];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (Rashi) Answer #2 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> He forbids 
          this, lest one will uproot dirt [and make a hole].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (Tosfos) Answer #2 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> He forbids 
          this, for one moves [Muktzeh] dirt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the difference between these answers?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They argue about loose dirt (this is also 
          forbidden on account of hot ashes, but we are not 
          concerned for making a hole (the remaining dirt caves in) 
          or moving Muktzeh (one merely drops the egg, it sinks in 
          itself)).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> One may roast 
          an egg on a hot roof (heated by the sun), but not in hot 
          plaster (heated by a fire).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If the decree is on account of hot ashes, we 
               understand this - but if the decree is on account of 
               moving dirt, this also applies on a roof!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Normally, a roof does not have [much] dirt (to 
          warrant a decree).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> A case occurred, people in Tiverya 
          brought a pipe of cold water through a hot spring...
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If [the previous law,] Hatmanah in sand or dirt is 
               forbidden on account of hot ashes, we understand why 
               Chachamim forbade the water, it also resembles 
               Hatmanah - but if it is on account of moving dirt, 
               why did they forbid?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This episode does not support the previous law, 
          rather, the Reisha, Chachamim argue with R. Yosi who 
          permits wrapping an egg in garments;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> They said, just like [previous] Chachamim forbade 
               water heated through [the spring, which is heated 
               by] the sun, one may not cook in anything heated by 
               the sun;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi says, the spring is heated by fire, it 
               passes over the opening to Gehinom.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> The episode in Tiverya teaches (Ramban - 
          prompted Chachamim to decree) that Hatmanah in something 
          that adds heat is forbidden, even from Erev Shabbos.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HEATING AN EGG IN SAND HEATED BY THE SUN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> In the Mishnah (38b), the Tana Kama forbids one to heat an egg by breaking it over a cloth that was heated by the sun. Rebbi Yosi argues and permits it. He agrees, however, that one may not heat an egg by placing it into sand that was heated by the sun. The Gemara asks why Rebbi Yosi agrees in the latter case, if he maintains that one is permitted to do Hatmanah in material that was heated by the sun.
</p><p>
Rabah answers that Rebbi Yosi prohibits heating an egg in sun-heated sand because of a decree that one might think that it is also permissible to do Hatmanah in ashes in which there are coals, which one might then stoke in order to increase their heat.
</p><p>
Rav Yosef answers that Rebbi Yosi prohibits heating an egg in sun-heated sand because one might move dirt in order to bury the egg in the hot sand.
</p><p>
The Gemara makes it clear that the opinion that says that the decree was because of the fear that one might move dirt is not concerned that one might come to do Hatmanah in ashes.
</p><p>
(a) Why is that opinion not concerned that one might do Hatmanah in ashes? One who places an egg into a material that adds heat transgresses a Gezeirah that the Rabanan made lest one do Hatmanah in ashes with coal and stoke the coal, as the Gemara clearly says (34b)!
</p><p>
(b) Furthermore, even if sand would be a material that does not add heat, the Halachah is that Hatmanah in material that does not add heat is forbidden <i>on Shabbos itself</i> (see Insights to Shabbos 34:1)!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Ela) answers that the Gezeirah against Hatmanah in a material that adds heat (lest one come to do Hatmanah in hot ashes and then, on Shabbos, stoke the coals) applies only on Friday, before Shabbos. <i>This</i> Gezeirah does <i>not</i> apply on Shabbos, because there is no fear that one will do Hatmanah in hot ashes on Shabbos and thereby cook uncooked food.
</p><p>
(b) Tosfos answers the second question by pointing out that the Gezeirah not to do Hatmanah on Shabbos lest one attempt to bring the food to a boil applies only to something that is already cooked. That is, normally one insulates a food that is already cooked in order to preserve its heat; such Hatmanah is prohibited lest he unexpectedly find that his food is cold and heat it up, forgetting that it is Shabbos. In contrast, in the case of the egg, the person not only <i>knows</i> that his food is cold, he knows that it is <i>not even cooked</i>. We are not concerned that he will attempt to cook it from scratch (using fire) on Shabbos.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Ula):</font></b> No - the Halachah follows the people of Tiverya 
          [who permitted it]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> No - they [accepted Chachamim's words and] 
          broke their pipe.
<br>
<b><font>3) BATHING ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The people of Tiverya... [Chachamim said, on 
          Shabbos, it is like water heated on Shabbos, one may not 
          bathe in it or drink it.]
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What bathing is discussed?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> It discusses bathing the whole body.
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> One may not bathing the whole body 
                    in water heated on Shabbos, but it is permitted 
                    in water heated from before Shabbos;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection (Beraisa #1):</font></b> On Shabbos, one may wash his 
               face, hands and feet in water heated from before 
               Shabbos, but not his whole body.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> It discusses washing one's face, hands and 
          feet.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection (Seifa):</font></b> If it was on Yom Tov, it is like water 
          heated on Yom Tov, one may not bathe in it, one may drink 
          it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Is our Stam Mishnah like Beis Shamai?!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah - Beis Shamai):</font></b> One may not heat water [on 
               Yom Tov] to wash his feet unless it is fitting to 
               drink (Tosfos - unless he intends to drink some of 
               it);
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Beis Hillel permit.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Ika bar Chananyah):</font></b> Our Mishnah discusses 
          showering (pouring water on) the whole body - it is like 
          R. Shimon:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa #2 - R. Meir):</font></b> [On Shabbos] one may not 
               shower his entire body in hot or cold water;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon permits;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah forbids in hot water, he permits in cold 
               water.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> The Tana'im in this Beraisa argue about 
          bathing in a Kli, but all permit bathing in the ground 
          (it does not look like bathing in hot water).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> The episode in Tiverya was in the ground, and 
          Chachamim forbade!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, Rav Chisda taught that they argue 
          about bathing in the ground, but all forbid bathing in a 
          Kli (onlookers will assume that the water was heated by 
          fire on Shabbos).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> The Halachah 
          follows R. Yehudah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Did you hear this explicitly, or 
          did you infer it from another teaching?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> From which teaching could one infer it?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> R. Yochanan taught that the Halachah always 
               follows the Machri'a (the mediating opinion), except 
               for the case of a rag. (If a rag less than three by 
               three [Tefachim] was designated for a lowly use, 
               e.g. to plug up a bathhouse, R. Eliezer is Metamei 
               whether he hung on a peg or left it in back of the 
               door; R. Yehoshua is Metaher in both cases; R. Akiva 
               is Metamei if he hung it on a peg, he is Metaher if 
               he left it in back of the door.) 
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Even though R. Eliezer is stringent, R. Yehoshua is 
               lenient and R. Akiva is Machri'a, the Halachah does 
               not follow R. Akiva:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Firstly, R. Akiva was a Talmidim of R. Eliezer 
                    and R. Yehoshua;
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> Also, R. Akiva later retracted and adopted R. 
                    Yehoshua's opinion in both cases.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What difference would it make if he 
               inferred it?
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Perhaps R. Yochanan holds that the Halachah 
               always follows the Machri'a in Mishnayos [with just 
               the one exception], but the rule does not apply to 
               Beraisos. (Even if he also said it regarding all 
               Beraisos [that he knew], perhaps he never heard 
               Beraisa #2!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> I heard it explicitly.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) DOING 'HATMANAH' IN MATERIAL THAT ADDS HEAT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Chisda says that we learn from the incident with the people of Tiberias that Hatmanah in material that adds heat is prohibited. Why does he say that we learn this from the incident with the people of Tiberias? The Mishnah later (47b) states this Halachah explicitly!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH mi'Ma'aseh) answers that without the incident in Tiberias, we might have thought that the Mishnah later only prohibits Hatmanah during <i>Bein ha'Shemashos</i>, but while it is still daytime on Friday afternoon Hatmanah is permitted. We learn from the incident in Tiberias that even on Friday before Shabbos, Hatmanah in material that adds heat is prohibited.
</p><p>
(b) Tosfos suggests another answer. If we had only the Mishnah later, we might have thought that Hatmanah is prohibited only l'Chatchilah, but <i>b'Di'eved</i> if one did Hatmanah the food is permitted. The incident in Tiberias teaches us that the food itself is also prohibited.
</p><p>
(c) <b>RABEINU YONAH</b> (cited by Tosfos) answers that the incident in Tiberias teaches that one may not do Hatmanah in material that adds heat even with a <i>raw</i> food. Even though one is permitted to leave a raw food on the stove (Shehiyah) on Friday, one may not do Hatmanah with a raw food.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RITVA</b>, <b>RAMBAN</b>, and <b>RASHBA</b> explain that the Halachah stated in the Mishnah later (47b) was taught as a <i>result</i> of the incident in Tiberias. It was in Tiberias, during the episode described in the Mishnah here (38b), that the Chachamim first said that Hatmanah in material that adds heat is prohibited.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) HOW MUCH MAY ONE BATHE ON SHABBOS?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (Rav):</font></b> If water was heated from before 
          Shabbos, one may bathe his whole body in it on Shabbos;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> He may wash only his hands, feet and face. (The 
          following questions are against Rav.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa #1):</font></b> On Shabbos, one may wash his face, 
          hands and feet in water heated from before Shabbos, but 
          not his whole body.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (for Rav):</font></b> It means, he may not wash his whole 
          body at once, only one limb at a time.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But it says, one may wash [only] his face, 
          hands and feet!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer (for Rav):</font></b> It means, he may wash his whole body 
          only like face, hands and feet [i.e., only one limb at a 
          time]. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa #2):</font></b> If water was heated from before 
          Shabbos, on Shabbos one may wash only his face, hands and 
          feet.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (for Rav):</font></b> Also this means, he may wash his whole 
          body only like face, hands and feet.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Support (for Shmuel - Beraisa):</font></b> If water was heated from 
          before Shabbos, on Shabbos one may wash his face, hands 
          and feet, but not his whole body one limb at a time - all 
          the more so regarding water heated on Yom Tov.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Version #2 - Rabah - (Rav):</font></b> If water was heated from 
          before Shabbos, on Shabbos one may bathe his whole body 
          in it, except for one limb.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  The same questions were asked against Rav - he was 
          refuted (the answer given above on his behalf does not 
          apply).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Yosef of Abaye):</font></b> Did Rabah conduct 
          according to what he said in the name of Rav?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Abaye:</font></b> I do not know.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Surely, Rabah did not, for Rav was refuted!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Perhaps he (Rabah - alternatively, Rav Yosef) did 
          not hear the Beraisa that refutes him.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If he did not hear the Beraisa, surely he 
          followed Rav's teaching!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Abaye):</font></b> Wherever Rav and Shmuel argue, Rabah always 
               followed Rav, except for three Halachos in which he 
               followed Shmuel:
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> One may remove Tzitzis from a garment to attach them 
               to another garment, one may light a Ner Chanukah 
               from another Ner Chanukah, the Halachah follows R. 
               Shimon regarding dragging [a bed, chair or bench on 
               a dirt floor, as long as he does not intend to make 
               a furrow].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b></b>  Rabah always followed the stringencies of Rav, he did not 
          follow all of his leniencies.
<br>
<b><font>2) DECREES AGAINST BATHING ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If the holes of a bathhouse were plugged up 
          from before Shabbos [to store the heat; alternatively, so 
          the fire will not heat the water on Shabbos], one may 
          bathe in it on Motzei Shabbos immediately;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If the holes were plugged up from before Yom Tov, one may 
          Mezi'a (take a steambath) in it on Yom Tov and shower in 
          the outer room.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  R. Yehudah:</font></b> A case occurred in Benei Berak, the holes 
          were plugged up from before Yom Tov, R. Elazar ben 
          Azaryah and R. Akiva were Mezi'a in it on Yom Tov and 
          showered in the outer room - however, the hot water was 
          covered with boards (Rashi - ensuring that the water was 
          not heated on Yom Tov; Tosfos- so people would not 
          suspect that they bathed in hot water).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Chachamim:</font></b> It is permitted even if the hot water was 
               not covered.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  After many people transgressed, Chachamim began to forbid 
          [bathing] - but one may walk through a city bathhouse 
          [without intent to sweat].
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What did the transgressors do?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer (R. Shimon ben Pazi):</font></b> At first, people bathed 
               on Shabbos in water heated from Erev Shabbos; 
               bathhouse attendants started to heat water on 
               Shabbos (Ran, based on Yerushalmi - they were 
               Meshaheh water to get hot on Shabbos - Yisraelim are 
               not suspected of transgressing Shabbos mid'Oraisa) 
               and say that it was hot from before Shabbos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Chachamim forbade [bathing], but still permitted 
               Zei'ah. People would bathe in hot water and claim 
               that they were Mezi'a - Chachamim decreed to forbid 
               Zei'ah, but still allowed hot springs;
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> People would bathe in hot water and claim that they 
               bathed in hot springs - Chachamim forbade hot 
               springs, but still allowed bathing in cold water;
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> Chachamim saw that people could not abide by the 
               decree against hot springs - they permitted hot 
               springs, but Zei'ah remains forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> If one transgresses mid'Rabanan laws, others may 
          call him a transgressor. (Me'iri - it is a Mitzvah to 
          debase him, do deter others from transgressing.).
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) BATHING ON SHABBOS AND YOM TOV</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> One is forbidden to bathe his entire body with hot water on Shabbos and Yom Tov because of a Gezeirah that was enacted in order to prevent the bath attendants from heating water on Shabbos.
</p><p>
Why, though, does the Gezeirah against bathing apply on Yom Tov? On Yom Tov one is permitted (even l'Chatchilah) to heat water for bathing, as the Mishnah in Beitzah (21b, and as quoted here on 39b) teaches!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (39b, DH u'Beis Hillel) and the Yerushalmi answer that since rinsing one's <i>entire</i> body is an indulgence that is 'Eino Shaveh l'Chol Nefesh' -- it is not a pleasurable activity commonly done by everyone (in those days), the allowance to do a Melachah for such a purpose on Yom Tov does not apply, and i8t remains Asur mid'Oraisa.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b>, <b>RE'AH</b>, and <b>CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN</b> argue that washing one's entire body is certainly a normal, pleasurable activity done by everyone, and heating water for that purpose is permissible. The reason why one may not bathe in hot water on Yom Tov is not because of the same decree that forbids bathing on Shabbos, but rather because one might come to transgress any one of several other Melachos that bathing may entail, such as smoothing the floor of the bath or squeezing out a towel.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) HALACHAH: WASHING ONE'S ENTIRE BODY ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br></b>The Gemara concludes that the Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Yehudah, who says that one is permitted to wash with cold water, but not with hot water, on Shabbos. However, the custom is not to wash even with cold water, because there are many prohibitions that one might accidentally transgress (such as squeezing the towel or one's hair).
</p><p>
One who must immerse in a Mikvah may do so on Shabbos in an unheated Mikvah, as long as one is careful not to squeeze the towel or one's hair, or carry something in Reshus ha'Rabim to the Mikvah. (<b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> OC 326:8 and <b>BI'UR HALACHAH</b> there)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  This is like this Tana (he calls people who violated the 
          decrees 'transgressors').
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One may walk through a city bathhouse.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> Bathhouses of cities are permitted, those of 
          villages are forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Since they are small, they get very hot (he will 
          Mezi'a).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> [On Shabbos] one may heat himself in front of 
          a fire and shower in cold water, one may not shower in 
          cold water and then heat himself in front of a fire, for 
          this makes the water lukewarm (and it is forbidden to 
          wash [Rosh - even part of; Rambam - all of] the body in 
          water heated on Shabbos; Tosfos ha'Rosh - the Yerushalmi 
          forbids on account of cooking the water).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  One may heat a towel and put it on an aching stomach;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  One may not put a kettle of hot water on the [Tosfos - 
          towel on the] stomach [lest water drip out, causing him 
          to wash in water heated on Shabbos (or he may come to 
          squeeze water from the towel); Tosfos - this looks like a 
          cure, which is forbidden on Shabbos);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is forbidden even on a weekday on account of 
               danger (lest he burn the stomach).
<br>
<b><font>3) HEATING OIL ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> [On Shabbos] one may leave a kettle of water 
          in front of a fire, not long enough to (Rashi; Rif - not 
          in a place where it could) get hot, only to blunt its 
          chill.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, a woman may leave a flask of oil in 
          front of a fire, not to get cooked, only to get warm;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, she may anoint her hand with 
          oil, heat it in front of a fire and anoint her son (a 
          minor) without any concern.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the first Tana's opinion about oil?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rabah and Rav Yosef):</font></b> He permits [Rashi - 
          heating it to Yad Soledes Bo (so hot that it makes one 
          withdraw his hand); Rashba - to put it where it could 
          become Yad Soledes Bo];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> He forbids this.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rabah and Rav Yosef say that he permits even Yad 
               Soledes Bo - he holds that cooking does not apply to 
               oil;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says that cooking applies to oil, but 
               warming it is not cooking it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says that cooking applies to 
               oil, and warming it is cooking it (therefore it may 
               be warmed only through a Shinuy, e.g. on the hand)
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> Rav Nachman says that the first Tana forbids even 
               below Yad Soledes Bo - he holds that cooking applies 
               to oil, and warming it is cooking it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says that cooking applies to oil, but 
               warming it is not cooking it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says that cooking applies to 
               oil, and warming it is cooking it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> R. Shimon does not argue with the first 
               Tana!
       <br><b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> R. Shimon permits through a Shinuy, the 
               first Tana does not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> The law is the same for water and oil - 
          Yad Soledes Bo is forbidden, less than this is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How hot is Yad Soledes Bo? (Rashi - it is 
          different for different people; Me'iri - when she puts 
          her anointed hand near the fire, how can she gauge if the 
          oil would make her hand recoil?)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rachbah):</font></b> It is hot enough to scald a baby's 
          stomach.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (R. Yitzchak bar Avodimi):</font></b> I once went to bathe in back 
          of Rebbi; I wanted to warm oil in the water and anoint 
          him with it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Rebbi:</font></b> Put the [flask of] oil in water in a Kli 
               Sheni (do not heat it in the bath, it is like a Kli 
               Rishon).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  We learn three things from this:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Cooking applies to oil;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> A Kli Sheni does not cook;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Warming oil is (our text, Rashi; Rashba - is not) 
               cooking it. (Rashi - this is why he did not allow in 
               a Kli Rishon; Rashba's text - this is why he allowed 
               warming it.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How could Rebbi say this in the bath - Rabah 
          bar bar Chanah taught that one may think about Torah 
          anywhere (Me'iri - even if is he is unsure if the place 
          is clean) except for a bathhouse or bathroom [even if it 
          is clean]!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps it is forbidden only in Lashon 
               ha'Kodesh (and he said this in another language).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> Abaye taught that secular matters may be 
               said even in Lashon ha'Kodesh, Torah is forbidden in 
               any language!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One may stop someone from transgressing [even if 
          this implicitly teaches Halachos].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Support:</font></b> Rav Yehudah taught that a Talmid followed R. 
          Meir into a bathhouse and wanted to wash the floor and 
          apply scented water to it - R. Meir said that these are 
          forbidden [lest one even out holes in a dirt floor]. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  This shows that the Isur does not apply to preventing 
          transgression. (Ritva - this is a clearer proof than the 
          case of Rebbi, for R. Meir explicitly said that they are 
          forbidden; Maharshal - one might have thought that Rebbi 
          requested a Kli Sheni because he did not want the oil to 
          be so hot.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Ravina):</font></b> We learn that one who cooks in hot spring water 
          on Shabbos is liable - the episode with Rebbi was after 
          the decree (against bathing in hot water, we must say 
          that it was in hot spring water), and he told R. Yitzchak 
          to put the oil in a Kli Sheni!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But Rav Chisda taught that one who cooks in hot 
          spring water on Shabbos is exempt!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Ravina meant, he is lashed mid'Rabanan.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) PLACING A KETTLE OF HOT WATER ON ONE'S STOMACH</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara states that a person should not place a kettle of hot water on his stomach on Shabbos. What is the reason for this prohibition on Shabbos?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> says that it is prohibited because the hot water may spill over onto the person and it will be as if he is washing his body on Shabbos with hot water. (This apparently is a Gezeirah for a Gezeirah. It is evident from Rashi's words that washing the torso is equivalent to washing one's entire body, which is prohibited on Shabbos.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> disagrees and says that the Gemara is discussing a case in which there is a towel on one's stomach underneath the kettle. The Rabanan were concerned that the water would spill over from the kettle and one would squeeze out the towel.
</p><p>
(c) Tosfos gives an alternative reason and says that it is prohibited to place hot water on one's stomach when it is done for medicinal purposes. This act is included in the decree of the Rabanan that prohibits medical acts on Shabbos.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) LAWS OF BATHING IN THE RIVER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Zeira):</font></b> I saw R. Avahu swim in a bath [on Shabbos] - 
          I do not know whether or not he was Oker (Rashi - picked 
          his feet off the ground; Me'iri - splashed water).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Surely, he did not!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> One may not swim in a pool of water, even 
               in a Chatzer (where we are not concerned for 
               splashing water four Amos - the concern is that he 
               will make a flotation barrel to support himself).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is permitted when there are steep banks (Rashi 
          - then it does not resemble a river, the decree does not 
          apply; Me'iri - then, water does not splash to another 
          Reshus), it is forbidden if the banks are not steep.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (R. Zeira):</font></b> I saw R. Avahu put his hands over his Ever - 
          I do not know whether or not he touched it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> Surely, he did not touch it!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> One who holds his Ever while 
               urinating causes [thoughts that can cause emissions 
               of semen, like the sin of the generation punished 
               by] a Mabul (flood)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> Here there was no concern, like the case 
          of soldiers:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> If soldiers entered a city in peacetime, 
               open barrels of wine are forbidden [lest they were 
               Menasech (poured) it to idolatry], closed barrels 
               are permitted;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> In wartime, all barrels are permitted because they 
               do not have time to Menasech.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> Because they are nervous, they do not 
               Menasech.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> Likewise, because R. Avahu was nervous, he would not 
               have thoughts!
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Why was R. Avahu nervous?
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> He was afraid of the river.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But R. Aba taught that putting one's hands over 
          the Ever is like denying (showing that he is ashamed of) 
          Bris Milah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That applies to one who descends to the river (he 
          does not face anyone) - but when he returns from the 
          river [he faces people on the bank,] it is proper to 
          cover it for modesty.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  Rava use to bend over (Rashash - even when descending, 
          this does not show shame like covering it), R. Zeira 
          walked upright (he was concerned for R. Aba's law).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  Rabanan of Rav Ashi's academy would descend upright, and 
          bend over when returning.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  R. Zeira wanted to go to Eretz Yisrael, therefore he was 
          avoiding Rav Yehudah;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> One who goes from Bavel to Eretz 
               Yisrael transgresses an Ase - 'Bavelah Yuva'u 
               v'Shamah Yihyu Ad Yom Pokdi Osam' (Yisrael should 
               remain there until Hash-m redeems them; R. Zeira 
               held that the verse refers to Klei ha'Mikdash).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  R. Zeira decided to hear another teaching of Rav Yehudah 
          before leaving. He found him in the bathhouse, and heard 
          him tell his servant [in Lashon ha'Kodesh] to bring soap 
          and a comb; he also said 'Open your mouths and let the 
          steam in, and drink hot water of the bathhouse (i.e. even 
          if it was heated for bathing).'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  R. Zeira:</font></b> It was worth coming just to hear this!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We understand what he learned from the command 
          to bring soap and a comb, i.e. that one may speak secular 
          matters in Lashon ha'Kodesh in a bathhouse;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'Open your mouths and let the steam in' teaches like 
               Shmuel;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> Letting heat into the body causes one 
                    to emit heat (sweat, this is healthy).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> But what do we learn from 'Drink hot water of the 
               bathhouse'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> If one ate and did not walk four Amos 
          before going to sleep (Rambam - if one did not walk four 
          Amos [or exert himself in another way] before eating), 
          the food [will not be digested properly, it] will rot 
          [inside him] - this will lead to bad breath;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One who eats when he needs to move his bowels is 
               like an oven ignited with the old ashes inside - 
               this will lead to a persistent odor of sweat;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> One who bathed in hot water and did not drink hot 
               water is like an oven ignited externally but not 
               internally;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> One who bathed in hot water and did not rinse in 
               cold water is like iron heated in the fire that was 
               not put in cold water [to solidify it];
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> One who bathed and did not anoint [with oil (Tosfos 
               - afterwards)] is like water on top of a barrel (it 
               does not enter).
<br>
<b><font>2) HOT WATER FROM A KETTLE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> (Mulyar and Antichi are kinds of kettles, the 
          Gemara will describe them.) One may drink from a Garuf 
          Mulyar on Shabbos (Rashi - the water is not heated [much] 
          on Shabbos; Tosfos - one may mix the water with wine, it 
          cannot cook the wine), but not from an Antichi, even if 
          it was Garuf.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What is a Garuf Mulyar?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> [It has two receptacles;] the coals are on the 
          outside (some say - on top), the water is inside. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is an Antichi?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rabah):</font></b> It is Bei Kiri (an oven like a Mulyar, 
          it has a receptacle for water next to that for the 
          coals);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> It is Bei Dudi (a 
          big pot with two floors, coals are on the bottom, the 
          water is on top).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Rav Nachman says that Antichi is Bei Dudi - all the more 
          so he forbids drinking from Bei Kiri (it is hotter, for 
          it is constantly heated for the sake of cooking);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Rabah says that Antichi is Bei Kiri - but he permits 
          drinking from Bei Dudi (it is like Mulyar).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Support (for Rav Nachman - Beraisa):</font></b> One may not drink 
          from an Antichi, even if it was Garuf v'Katum, for the 
          floor (some say - copper) radiates much heat.
<br>
<b><font>3) PUTTING WATER INTO A HOT KETTLE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one cleared a [hot] kettle, one may not put 
          water in it to get hot (this entire Mishnah will be 
          explained), but one may put water in it or in a cup to 
          become lukewarm.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What does this mean?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Ada bar Masnah):</font></b> If one cleared (emptied) 
          the water out of a kettle, one may not put a small amount 
          of water in it to get hot, but one may put much water in 
          it to become lukewarm.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) SWIMMING IN A PRIVATE POOL OR BATH ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara says that it is forbidden to be 'Oker' (lift up one's feet, -Rashi) in a pool, even if the pool is in a Reshus ha'Yachid, if the pool does not have 'Gedudi' (a rim around it). Why is this prohibited?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that 'Oker' refers to lifting one's feet off of the floor of the pool, which is prohibited because it constitutes swimming -- an activity that the Rabanan forbade on Shabbos. Thus, if the pool does not have 'Gedudi,' one may go into the pool on condition that he not lift his feet from the floor.
</p><p>
Regarding the definition of 'Gedudi,' in his first explanation Rashi explains that 'Gedudi' refers to a pool that has high edges. If the pool does not have high edges, it must be that the bottom of the pool rises near the edge. In such a pool, there is concern that one will dig his toes into the dirt on the bottom, causing the dirt and water to be kneaded together. (According to this explanation, it seems that even if one does not lift his feet from the floor of the pool, he is not permitted to use such a pool on Shabbos, since the problem is one of 'kneading.')
</p><p>
(b) According to Rashi's second explanation, 'Gedudi' refers to a rim around the edges of the pool that gives the pool the appearance of a large vessel. No one will confuse swimming in a vessel with swimming in a river (which is forbidden, lest one make a flotation device). If the pool has no rim, it resembles a river, and therefore one may go in only if he does not actually swim or float (that is, he keeps his feet on the floor of the pool).
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RIF</b> explains that 'Oker' means to uproot <i>water</i> from the pool. If the pool has no rim (and is level with the rest of the Chatzer), one may not splash water out of the pool. The water that splashes out of the pool will look like a rivulet and give the impression that one is permitted to swim in a river -- an act which the Rabanan prohibited on Shabbos. However, if the pool has a rim, the rim surrounds the pool-water and prevents the water from splashing out of the pool. It does not look like the pool is part of a rivulet; it clearly appears as an independent vessel. Therefore, one is permitted to swim normally, because it does not look like one is swimming in a river.
</p><p>
(Apparently, Rebbi Zeira's doubt was whether splashing is permitted even when there is a rim, and the conclusion is that it is indeed permitted. It is not clear why splashing should not have been permitted. Alternatively, the <b>RIF</b> permits swimming in a pool with a rim since the rim 'surrounds' its waters ('Mehadri Lehu') and makes the water of the pool distinct from the water that splashes out from it. This is why it cannot be confused with a rivulet. If this is the Rif's intention, it is more easily understood why Rebbi Zeira entertained the possibility that it is prohibited to splash in a pool with a rim; he thought that perhaps the rim does not set the pool clearly apart from the water that splashes from it. It is also apparent from the Gemara's conclusion, according to the Rif, that one <i>may</i> swim in a pool without a rim which stands in a Chatzer, as long as he is careful not to splash. However, this Halachah is not cited explicitly by the Poskim. -M. Kornfeld.)
</p><p>
<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 339:2) rules like the Rif (c).
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This (putting cold water in hot metal) is 
          Metzaref (solidifies the metal, this is forbidden on 
          Shabbos!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He does not intend to Metzaref - the Mishnah is 
          like R. Shimon, who permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven 
          (something which may result in a transgression, if one 
          does not intend for it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> The Mishnah does not say that he 
          cleared <i>out of</i> a kettle, rather, he cleared a kettle!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> If one cleared a kettle [off a fire], 
          one may not put a small amount of water in it to get hot, 
          but one may put much water in it to become lukewarm;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If one emptied the water out of a kettle, one may 
               not put any amount of water in it, for it is 
               Metzaref;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah is like R. Yehudah, who forbids Davar 
               she'Eino Miskaven.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> It is permitted to put water in it to become 
          lukewarm, but not [in order] to Metzaref.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> It is permitted even to Metzaref.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> Surely, one may not intend to Metzaref!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, Rav permits only a Shi'ur [amount] of 
          water which will become lukewarm, but not a Shi'ur to 
          Metzaref;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Shmuel permits even a Shi'ur to Metzaref.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) PUTTING COLD WATER IN A HOT VESSEL WITHOUT INTENTION TO HARDEN IT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Ada bar Masna explains that the Mishnah (41a) means that when the hot kettle has been emptied of its water, one is permitted to pour cold water into the kettle in order to warm it, even though pouring cold water into a hot vessel tends to harden the vessel. Since one does not intend to harden the vessel, it is a Davar she'Eino Miskaven and is permitted (according to Rebbi Shimon).
</p><p>
However, even Rebbi Shimon agrees that unintentionally performing a Melachah is forbidden when the Melachah will inevitably occur as a result of one's action ('Pesik Reishei'; see Insights to Shabbos 29:2)! Why, then, is one permitted to pour cold water into the hot kettle in order to warm the water, when the vessel will <i>definitely</i> be hardened as a result of pouring in the water?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Meicham) says that it is <i>not</i> certain that the utensil will become hardened.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RA'AVAD</b> (cited by the Ramban in Milchamos Hash-m) answers that the Gemara does not know at this point that Rebbi Shimon agrees that in cases of Pesik Reishei, even a Davar she'Eino Miskaven is forbidden. The Gemara assumes that he permits a Davar she'Eino Miskaven in all cases, even when it is a Pesik Reishei. The Ramban rejects this explanation.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RITVA</b> and <b>RAMBAN</b> explain that the Gemara is discussing a utensil that already underwent an extensive hardening process (and it is doubtful whether it can be hardened further). 
</p><p>
(d) Alternatively, they suggest that it was doubtful whether the heat at which the utensil was heated was enough to enable it to be hardened when cold water is poured into it.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) HARDENING A METAL UTENSIL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION: RASHI</b> (DH Ela Shi'ur) says that a utensil is hardened (through heating it to a very high temperature and then pouring cold water into it) only when it is <i>completely</i> filled with cold water. According to Rashi's words, when Rav Ada bar Masna (41a) says that one is permitted to pour a large quantity of cold water into a hot vessel in order to warm the water, and the Gemara asks that it should be forbidden because of hardening, the Gemara should answer simply that Rav Ada is discussing a case where he did not completely fill the utensil!
</p><p>
Furthermore, Abaye states that if one emptied a hot vessel, one may not put 'any cold water in it at all' because of hardening. Why does he prohibit putting any cold water in, if it will be hardened only when it is completely filled?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> says that according to Rashi, the words 'Kol Ikar' ('any [cold water] at all') are a mistake and do not belong in the Gemara. (See also <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> at the end of the page, who cites <b>MAHARASH M'MIRZBURG</b> who understands the Gemara differently from Rashi.)
</p><p>
(b) Rashi may have learned that the Gemara here, which discusses the view of Rav, does not agree with the Gemara earlier that assumes that hardening can be accomplished with even a small amount of cold water.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) MELACHAH SHE'EINAH TZERICHAH L'GUFAH AND DAVAR SHE'EINO MISKAVEN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> Shmuel holds like R. Shimon (who permits Davar 
          she'Eino Miskaven).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But Shmuel holds that we may extinguish (on 
          Shabbos) a metal coal in Reshus ha'Rabim, in order that 
          people will not be harmed (normally, this is forbidden 
          mid'Rabanan), but not a coal of wood (for this is 
          forbidden mid'Oraisa);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he held like R. Shimon, he should permit 
               extinguishing even a wooden coal (this is Melachah 
               she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, it is forbidden only 
               mid'Rabanan)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He holds like R. Shimon regarding Davar she'Eino 
          Miskaven, but he is Mechayev for Melachah she'Einah 
          Tzerichah l'Gufah like R. Yehudah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Ravina):</font></b> Shmuel teaches that Isurim mid'Rabanan are 
          permitted to prevent damage to the public - therefore, if 
          a thorn is in Reshus ha'Rabim, one may carry it less than 
          four Amos at a time [to the side of Reshus ha'Rabim];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If it is in a Karmelis, one may carry it [to where 
               people do not walk] without stopping.
<br>
<b><font>2) MIXING HOT AND COLD WATER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> But one may put...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - Beis Shamai):</font></b> One may pour hot water into cold 
          water, but not vice-versa;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Beis Hillel permit both of these.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  This refers to a cup (a Kli Sheni used for drinking, 
          people do not make it so hot);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> However, in a bath (Tosfos - a Kli Sheni; 
               alternatively, a Kli Rishon - Tosfos ha'Rosh), one 
               may put only hot into cold [for people make it very 
               hot].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Menasiyah forbids.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> A bucket (used for bathing) is like a bath.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Rejection (Abaye - R. Chiya's Beraisa):</font></b> A bucket is not 
          like a bath.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How could Rav Yosef have thought that a bucket 
          is like a bath - Rav Nachman taught that the Halachah 
          follows R. Shimon [ben Menasiyah, who forbids mixing bath 
          water in every case] - it there no way to bathe in hot 
          water on Shabbos?! (Water on the fire is too hot, one 
          must mix it with cold water; it is unfeasible to wait 
          until it cools down.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> [Tosfos - Rav Yosef thought that] R. Shimon does 
          not discuss the Seifa (a bath), rather, the Reisha - Beis 
          Hillel permit hot into cold and cold into hot;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon forbids [cold into hot].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Does R. Shimon hold like Beis Shamai?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, he says that there is no argument about this 
          (all forbid cold into hot).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> I saw that Rava was not 
          particular about the Kli (Rishon or Sheni) - he relied on 
          R. Chiya's Beraisa:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Chiya - Beraisa):</font></b> One may put a flask of water 
               into a bucket, whether hot into cold or vice-versa.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Huna):</font></b> Perhaps this is permitted only 
          because a Kli separates the hot and cold water!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> The Beraisa permits <i>pouring</i> a flask 
          of water into a bucket, whether hot into cold or 
          vice-versa.
<br>
<b><font>3) WHAT COOKS SALT AND SPICES?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one removed a frying pan or pot from the 
          fire, one may not put spices into it [on Shabbos]; (R. 
          Akiva Eiger - Rashi suggests that Bein ha'Shemashos this 
          is permitted - perhaps he holds [like Tosfos] that 
          cooking spices is not forbidden mid'Oraisa, and our 
          Mishnah is like Rebbi, who permits Shevus (Rabbinic 
          decrees of Shabbos) Bein ha'Shemashos.)
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) COMPARING 'DAVAR SHE'EINO MISKAVEN' TO 'MELACHAH SHE'EINAH TZERICHAH L'GUFAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara asks that since Shmuel permits a Davar she'Eino Miskaven, like Rebbi Shimon, he should also permit a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah. The Gemara answers that the two concepts are not related.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara initially assume that the two concepts are related when they have entirely different laws? First, a Davar she'Eino Miskaven is permitted on Shabbos, while a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah is prohibited mid'Rabanan even according to Rebbi Shimon. Second, the concept of Davar she'Eino Miskaven applies to all prohibitions in the Torah, while the concept of Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah is a concept unique to Shabbos, which is derived from the verse of 'Meleches Machsheves' (Shemos 35:33). We see that they are two completely independent Halachos. Why does the Gemara compare them?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Afilu) explains that whenever a person does an action that unintentionally results in a Melachah being performed (that is, he does a Davar she'Eino Miskaven), by definition the Melachah that results is not Tzerichah l'Gufah (because the person had no need to perform the Melachah). Hence, the Gemara's initial assumption was that the reason why, on Shabbos, Rebbi Shimon permits a Davar she'Eino Miskaven is because even if a Melachah is done unintentionally, it remains no more than a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, which he prohibits mid'Rabanan. Similarly, the Gemara assumed that Rebbi Yehudah prohibits a Davar she'Eino Miskaven because of the possibility that it will result in a Melachah that the Torah prohibits, since he considers a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah to be a Torah transgression.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> and <b>TOSFOS</b> in Zevachim (92a) explain that the Gemara initially assumed that if a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah is forbidden, it is because one's <i>intention</i> does not make a difference (that is, even though he did not intend to perform the Melachah for its normal <i>purpose</i>, he is still Chayav). If one's intention does not make a difference, then it stands to reason that not only does not having intention to perform the Melachah <i>for its purpose</i> not make a difference (and he is still Chayav), but not having <i>any intention at all</i> to do the Melachah also does not make a difference.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) POURING HOT INTO COLD AND COLD INTO HOT</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Beis Shamai permits pouring hot water into cold water that is in a cup, but not cold water into hot water in a cup. Beis Hillel does not differentiate between hot into cold or cold into hot in a <i>cup</i> (he permits both). Rather, he differentiates between a <i>tub</i> and a cup. In a tub, he agrees that only hot water may be poured into cold water, but not cold into hot.
</p><p>
What is the difference between pouring cold into hot and hot into cold, and what is the difference between a tub and a cup?
</p><p>
There are three basic approaches in the Rishonim.
</p><p>
(a) According to <b>RASHI</b>, the difference between pouring hot into cold and pouring cold into hot is based on the rule that 'Tata'ah Gavar' (Pesachim 76a). 'Tata'ah Gavar' means that the temperature of the substance on the bottom 'overpowers' the temperature of the substance on the top, so that if a hot substance falls into a cold substance, the cold overpowers and cools the hot. (The <b>SEFAS EMES</b> points out that this applies only when the lower and upper waters are roughly equal in quantity. If the quantity of the hot water that is poured into the cold water is much greater than that of the cold water, it is forbidden and 'Tata'ah Gavar' does not permit it. Likewise, if the quantity of cold water that is poured into the hot water is much greater than that of the hot water, it is permitted.)
</p><p>
Regarding the difference between a tub and a cup, Rashi explains that a tub is a Kli Rishon, and that is why Beis Hillel is stringent with regard to a tub. As a Kli Rishon, it is inherently hotter than a Kli Sheni and it has the power to cook. A cup, on the other hand, is a Kli Sheni and is not hot enough to cook.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Nosen, DH Ambati) has a different approach. Tosfos explains that the water resting in the container is of much greater quantity that the water that is poured into it. (Tosfos says that this is the normal method used when one pours one liquid into another -- he pours the smaller quantity into the larger quantity). The larger quantity of water (the water on the bottom) is the dominant one.
</p><p>
Regarding the difference between a tub and a cup, Tosfos explains that although a tub, like a cup, is a Kli Sheni, the Rabanan were stringent with regard to a tub, because if they would permit one to pour cold water into a hot tub, people might assume that one may also pour cold water into a Kli Rishon. Since a tub is so hot, they will not distinguish between a tub (which is actually a Kli Sheni) and a Kli Rishon.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RASHBA</b> explains the difference between hot water poured into cold and cold water poured into hot as follows. While the hot water is being poured, the stream of water cools off and it cannot heat the cold water, regardless of how much hot water is poured. (The hot water is cooled as it flows through the air, as well as by contact with the cold water into which it flows as a thin stream.)
</p><p>
Regarding the difference between a tub and a cup, the reason Beis Hillel permits one to pour even a little cold water into a lot of hot water in a <i>cup</i> is because a cup is a Kli Sheni, and a normal Kli Sheni cannot cook (regardless of how little or how much water is poured into it). The Rashba adds that even if one touches the water after he pours the cold into the hot and it feels like it is boiling hot, nevertheless the cold water was not cooked by the hot. Rather, the heat that one feels is the hot water, and the cold water which was poured in merely became warmed up. In contrast, although a <i>tub</i> is also a Kli Sheni, it is a very hot Kli Sheni. Therefore, it will cook whatever cold water is poured into it (even a large quantity).
</p><p>
<br>


