# dafyomi

lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  One may put spices into a bowl (a Kli Sheni).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, one may put [spices] into any [food], 
          except for one with vinegar or brine.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What does R. Yehudah discuss?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Perhaps he discusses the Reisha (putting spices in a 
               Kli Rishon off the fire, compared to the first 
               Tana), he is lenient;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Perhaps he discusses the Seifa (putting in a Kli 
               Sheni), he is stringent.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> One may put [spices] into 
          any simmering pot or pan, except for one with vinegar or 
          brine.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Salt is like spices, [according to the first 
          Tana] it is cooked only in a Kli Rishon, not in a Kli 
          Sheni.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Version #1 - Objection (Abaye - R. Chiya's Beraisa):</font></b> Salt 
          is unlike spices, it is cooked even in a Kli Sheni.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa also argues with Rav Nachman:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> Salt needs much cooking, 
               like ox meat (it gets cooked only in a Kli Rishon).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Version #2 - Objection (Abaye - R. Chiya's Beraisa):</font></b> Salt 
          is unlike spices, it is not cooked even in a Kli Rishon 
          [off the fire]. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  This supports Rav Nachman:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> Salt needs much cooking, 
               like ox meat 
<br>
<b><font>4) FOR WHAT WE MAY MOVE A KLI</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not put a Kli under a Ner to catch 
          dripping oil;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If one put a Kli there from before Shabbos, it is 
          permitted;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One may not benefit from the oil, for it is nor 
               prepared [for use on Shabbos, it is Muktzeh].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Rav Chisda):</font></b> Even though it was taught that one 
          may not put a Kli under a hen to catch an egg it will lay 
          (e.g. it is about to lay an egg on an incline, it is 
          prone to roll and break), one may put a Kli over an egg 
          to prevent it from getting broken.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rabah):</font></b> He holds that hens often lay eggs in 
          wasteheaps (where they are in danger of getting broken), 
          they rarely lay eggs on inclines;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Version #1 (Rashi):</font></b> Chachamim permitted moving a Kli 
               to save [something Muktzeh, like an egg laid on 
               Shabbos] in a common case, not in an unusual case.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Version #2 (Tosfos):</font></b> Chachamim permitted exertion to 
               prevent a loss in a common case, not in an unusual 
               case.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question #1 (Abaye - Beraisa):</font></b> If a barrel [of Tevel - 
          Tosfos deletes this from the text] broke on the roof, one 
          may bring a Kli underneath it [to catch the contents].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa discusses a new barrel [it is prone 
          to break].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question #2 (Mishnah):</font></b> One may put a Kli under a Ner to 
          catch sparks.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> A Ner often emits sparks.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) HALACHAH: PLACING A RAW FOOD INTO A 'KLI SHENI'</b></font><b>
<br></b>The Gemara discusses the laws of placing an uncooked food into a Kli Sheni on Shabbos. Two common, practical applications of the Gemara's discussion are as follows.
</p><p>
(a) The Mishnah differentiates between putting spices into a Kli Rishon (that is not on the fire) and putting them into a Kli Sheni. A Kli Rishon cooks them, a Kli Sheni does not cook them. The <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> (OC 318:65) points out that this rule does not always apply. A <i>solid</i> object (in contrast to a liquid) that is still very hot (Yad Soledes Bo) will cook regardless of the type of Kli into which it is placed (that is, even a hot Kli Shlishi will cook the food).
</p><p>
(b) The Gemara discusses whether salt can be cooked or not. According to the first version in the Gemara, Rebbi Chiya says that salt <i>does</i> cook in a Kli Sheni. According to the second version, Rebbi Chiya says that it does <i>not</i> cook even in a Kli Rishon.
</p><p>
The Rishonim rule in accordance with the second version, because the second version is consistent with the ruling of Rav Nachman. However, <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH v'Hayinu) and the <b>MORDECHAI</b> conclude that since there is another version in the Gemara, one who refrains from placing salt even into a Kli Sheni 'is worthy of blessing.' The <b>REMA</b> cites this ruling (OC 318:9).
</p><p>
The Mishnah Berurah adds that the type of salt that is cooked as part of its processing, or sugar that is cooked as part of its processing, may be placed into a Kli Rishon (that is not on the fire), because once an object has been cooked it cannot be re-cooked (Ein Bishul Achar Bishul). However, some people are stringent not to place such salt or sugar into a Kli Rishon, because it appears as though one is cooking. Therefore, it is best not to put salt into a Kli Rishon.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) MOVING A KLI TO PREVENT A LOSS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question #3 (Mishnah):</font></b> One may put a bowl over a Ner to 
          prevent the ceiling beam from catching fire.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, the ceiling is very low, it is prone 
          to catch fire.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question #4 (Mishnah):</font></b> If a ceiling beam broke, one may 
          support it with a bench or bed board.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah discusses new beams, they are prone 
          to break.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question #5 (Mishnah):</font></b> One may put a Kli under a leak on 
          Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah discusses a new house, it is prone to 
          leak.
<br>
<b><font>2) MAKING A KLI MUKTZEH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (to Question 4:</font></b>d, 42B - Rav Yosef): Rav Chisda 
          forbids putting a Kli to catch an egg because this will 
          make the Kli Muktzeh (now it may be moved; if the egg 
          will fall on it, it will be forbidden to move it. 
          Mid'Rabanan, one may not make a Kli Muktzeh, for this is 
          like breaking it or plastering it in place.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question #1 (Abaye - Beraisa):</font></b> If a barrel of Tevel broke 
          on the roof, one may bring a Kli underneath it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We do not say that Tevel makes the Kli Muktzeh, 
          for if one tithed the Tevel [even though this is 
          forbidden], it is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question #2 (Mishnah):</font></b> One may put a Kli under a Ner to 
          catch sparks.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> Sparks have no 
          substance (one may move the Kli they fall into).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question #3 (Mishnah):</font></b> If a ceiling beam broke, one may 
          support it with a bench or bed board.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He does not wedge it in tightly, he may remove it 
          at any time.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question #4 (Mishnah):</font></b> One may put a Kli under a leak.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, the water is usable (Rashi - for 
          drinking; Rambam - for washing).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question #5 (Mishnah):</font></b> One may tilt a basket on its side 
          in front of chicks to enable them to climb or descend on 
          it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rav Yosef holds that one may move the basket even 
          after chicks came on it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Objection (Beraisa):</font></b> It is forbidden to move [a basket 
          that chicks came on].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa forbids only while the chicks are on 
          it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Objection (Beraisa):</font></b> It is forbidden to move even after 
          the chicks came down.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Avahu):</font></b> This is when the chicks are on it for 
          all of Bein ha'Shemashos - since it was Muktzeh 
          (forbidden to move) all of Bein ha'Shemashos, it is 
          Muktzeh for all of Shabbos.
<br>
<b><font>3) MOVING A KLI FOR THE SAKE OF MUKTZEH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> Just like one may not put a Kli under a 
          hen to catch an egg [on Shabbos], one may not put a Kli 
          over an egg [laid on Shabbos] to guard it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He holds that a Kli may be moved only for the sake 
               of something that may be moved on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Questions:</font></b> The same questions asked [against Rabah and 
          Rav Yosef] apply to R. Yitzchak!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> In every case, we answer that he was permitted to 
          pick up the Kli because he needed its place. (Then, he 
          may put it down anywhere. Tosfos - some of the previous 
          answers would have sufficed, e.g. the leaking water is 
          usable - the Gemara prefers to give one answer for all of 
          them. It is clear that this answer also suffices for the 
          coming questions - the questioner wanted to see if there 
          were alternative answers.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question #1 (Beraisa):</font></b> An egg laid on Shabbos or Yom Tov 
          may not be used to cover a jar or to support the leg of a 
          bed, but one may put a Kli over it to guard it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, he needed the place of the Kli.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question #2 (Beraisa):</font></b> On Shabbos, one may spread mats on 
          rocks [even though they are Muktzeh]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This refers to pointy rocks which are used [to 
          clean oneself] in the Beis ha'Kisei.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question #3 (Beraisa):</font></b> On Shabbos, one may spread mats on 
          bricks.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This refers to bricks left over after building, 
          people lie on them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question #4 (Beraisa):</font></b> On Shabbos, one may spread a mat 
          over a hive, to protect it from the sun or rain, as long 
          as he does not intend to trap [the bees].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, there is honey inside.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Ukva of Meishan):</font></b> Granted, there is honey 
          in summer - in winter, how can we answer? (Bees produce 
          honey only in summer; normally, one takes the honey, 
          leaving only two cakes to sustain them through winter.)
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) LOOKING FOR ANSWERS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites the opinion of Rebbi Yitzchak who maintains that one may move a utensil on Shabbos only for the sake of something which is not Muktzah. The Gemara challenges his opinion from all of the cases cited by the Gemara earlier. The Gemara answers that none of those cases pose a difficulty to Rebbi Yitzchak, because they all refer to a person who picked up a utensil for a permissible use (in which case one may put the utensil down wherever he wants, even to cover a Muktzah item). 
</p><p>
This answer resolves all of the questions. Why, though, does the Gemara continue to ask new questions if it knows this answer?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> (DH Kofeh) says that although the Gemara knows this answer, it asks additional questions because it is looking for other answers.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> There are the two cakes inside.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> They are Muktzeh (one does not intend to take 
          them, lest the bees die)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, [before Shabbos] he intended to take 
          them.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> Had he not intended, it would be 
               forbidden [to spread a mat].
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> If so, why does the Mishnah say 'as long 
               as he does not intend to trap' - it should say, only 
               if he intended [for the cakes]!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah teaches, even if he intended 
               [for the cakes], it is permitted only if he does not 
               intend to trap.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana of the Beraisa?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon would not require intent for the honey - 
               he permits [most categories of] Muktzeh [including 
               this]! (R. Yehudah forbids most kinds of Muktzeh.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah would forbid even if he does not intend 
               to trap - he forbids Davar she'Eino Miskaven!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is R. Yehudah - it means, he spreads the mat 
          in a way that it will not trap, i.e. he leaves room for 
          the bees to leave.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> The Beraisa did not say 'in the 
          <i>days</i> of rain (winter)', rather, in the [sun or] rain - 
          it discusses [between] Nisan and Tishrei, when there is 
          honey (in addition to the two cakes).
<br>
<b><font>4) MOVING A CORPSE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Rav Sheshes:</font></b> Tell R. Yitzchak [in Eretz Yisrael] that in 
          Bavel, Rav Huna taught like him:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Huna):</font></b> We may make a partition for the sake of 
               a Mes if it is [also] for the sake of a living 
               person, not [solely] for the sake of a Mes (it is 
               Muktzeh). 
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the case?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Shmuel bar Yehudah taught, if a Mes is in 
               the sun (it may rot quickly), two people come and 
               sit on opposite sides of it. When the heat of the 
               ground bothers them, they bring beds to sit on; when 
               the sun bothers them, they bring a mat and spread it 
               over themselves (Rambam - each spreads a mat over 
               himself). Later, they may erect their beds [to hold 
               up the mat] and leave - the partition is made by 
               itself.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> If a Mes is in the sun, we may flip it 
          from bed to bed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chanina bar Shalmiya):</font></b> We put a loaf or infant on 
          it, and move the Mes with it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  All agree that when a loaf or infant is available, we 
          move it like R. Chanina;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  They argue about when there is no loaf or infant - R. 
          Chanina holds that Tiltul Min ha'Tzad Shmei Tiltul 
          (moving something indirectly is considered moving it, it 
          is forbidden to move the Muktzeh by itself), Rav Yehudah 
          holds that Lo Shmei Tiltul (it is not considered moving 
          it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> Tana'im argue whether or not Shmei Tiltul:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> One may not save a Mes from a fire;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> R. Yehudah ben Lakish:</font></b> I heard that one may save a 
               Mes from a fire.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the case?
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  If a loaf or infant is available, why does the 
                    first Tana forbid?
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> If a loaf or infant is not available, why does 
                    R. Yehudah permit?
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> They argue about Tiltul Min ha'Tzad - the 
               first Tana holds that Shmei Tiltul, R. Yehudah holds 
               that Lo Shmei Tiltul.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> No, all agree that Shmei Tiltul - R. Yehudah 
          permits (Rif - Tiltul Min ha'Tzad; Rosh - even direct 
          Tiltul) because a person panics about his Mes (the body 
          of his relative, lest it burn), if we do not permit [the 
          Isur mid'Rabanan of] moving it, he may extinguish (a 
          mid'Oraisa Isur).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah ben Shila):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yehudah 
          ben Lakish regarding a Mes.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) COVERING A 'MES' ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Yitzchak maintains that one may not move an item on Shabbos for the sake of something which is Muktzah. The Gemara asks how, according to Rebbi Yitzchak, one may bring a covering to cover a corpse (to protect it) which is Muktzah. Rav Huna explains that the permissible procedure is as follows: two people should sit down next to the body, and when they begin to get hot from the ground beneath them, they should go and bring couches upon which to sit. When they get hot from being unsheltered, they should go and bring a mat to hold above their heads. Then, while holding the mats above their heads (and above the body), they should lift the couches to support the mat, and then they may depart, leaving the body properly sheltered.
</p><p>
Why must the two people first bring the couches and then bring the mat? They should simply bring both the beds and the mat at the same time!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Cham) explains that the real purpose of the mat is to cover the body. However, to do so outright with the mat is prohibited, because one may not move an item for the sake of something that is Muktzah (according to Rebbi Yitzchak). In order to permit covering the corpse with the mat, the shelter must be erected for the sake of a living person and not for the corpse. Accordingly, the Rabanan required that one show that the mat is for his personal benefit. When he first brings the couch to sit on, he thereby does an action for himself first, and thus when he brings the mat it is not obvious that the mat is for the sake of the body.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Shabbos 26:22) writes that they do not use the couches to make the shelter. Rather, they merely leave two mats leaning against each other (like a teepee) above the body. Why, then, do they bring the couches? The <b>KESEF MISHNEH</b> explains that since their true intention when bringing the mats is not to protect themselves from the heat, but rather to shelter the corpse, they must make it look like they are bringing the mats for their personal use. Bringing the couches, which <i>remain</i> for their own personal use and are not used for the corpse, gives the appearance as if the mats are also brought for their personal use.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) HALACHAH: THE PROCEDURE FOR COVERING A 'MES' ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara discusses at length the procedure for covering the body of a dead person on Shabbos. What is the Halachah?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RIF</b> and <b>ROSH</b> omit the entire discussion of the Gemara concerning how to cover a body on Shabbos. It seems that they omit it because the Gemara's discussion is only according to the view of Rebbi Yitzchak, who prohibits moving any object for the sake of an object that is Muktzah. Since the Halachah does not follow Rebbi Yitzchak, one is permitted to carry an object to the body, with no pretenses, in order to cover it.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> and <b>TUR</b> record the Gemara's conclusion that a covering for the corpse may be brought only under the pretenses of using it for living people (see previous Insight). The <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> (OC 311) explains that the reason a body must be covered in this manner is not because it is prohibited to carry a mat for an object that is Muktzah. Rather, it is because erecting a mat as a shelter constitutes the Isur d'Rabanan of building a temporary tent. (Even a shelter that is pointed at the top and does not have a ceiling with a width of one Tefach may be made only for a live person, but not for a dead person.)
</p><p>
What is the Rambam's source that Rav Huna is discussing the prohibition of building a temporary tent? It seems clear from the Gemara that Rav Huna is explaining how to circumvent the prohibition against moving an object for something that is Muktzah, and not how to circumvent the problem of building a tent!
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> and the <b>RIF</b> point out that Rav Huna elsewhere (154b) seems to argue with Rebbi Yitzchak. Accordingly, the real reason why Rav Huna requires that the shelter for the Mes be made in this manner must be because of the problem of making a tent (and not because of the problem of carrying an object for the sake of placing it over a Muktzah object).
</p><p>
(However, we may ask another question on the Rambam's explanation. If one is permitted to carry an object for the sake of a Muktzah object, why must one perform this complex procedure in order to cover the corpse? One should just spread a mat directly over the corpse, with no space between the mat and the corpse (such that no Ohel is formed). The answer must be that one usually wants air to circulate around the body, and the only way to achieve this is to leave a tent above the body, as the Rambam describes. -M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) OIL LEFT IN A LAMP</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not benefit from the oil, for it is 
          Muktzeh.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #1):</font></b> Leftover oil in a Ner or bowl [that was 
          burning when Shabbos began] is forbidden;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon permits it.
<br>
<b><font>2) WHICH LAMPS ARE MUKTZEH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may move a new [earthenware] Ner (Hagahos 
          Ashri - if one needs it for a permitted use, or needs its 
          place), but not a used Ner (after one use it is 
          repulsive, it is Muktzeh Machmas Mi'us);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon permits moving any Ner, except for one burning 
          on Shabbos (for doing so extinguishes; alternatively, it 
          is a Basis (something that supports Muktzeh, it itself is 
          forbidden like Muktzeh) for the flame).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #2 - R. Yehudah):</font></b> One may move a new Ner, but 
          not a used Ner;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Meir permits moving any Ner, except for one that was 
          burning on Shabbos (it is Muktzeh Machmas Isur - since it 
          was Asur to move it while it burned, it is forbidden for 
          all of Shabbos);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon permits any Ner, except for one burning on 
          Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  If it extinguished, one may move it - but one may not 
          move a cup, bowl or lantern [in which a light was 
          burning, even after it extinguished].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon permits taking oil from a lamp 
          that extinguished (Rashi - is about to go out), or from 
          dripping oil, even from a burning lamp.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon holds like his father 
          in one respect, and argues about another:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He permits Muktzeh, like his father;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> His father permits taking oil from a lamp only after 
               it extinguished, he permits [Tosfos Rosh - what 
               drips] from a burning lamp (Rashi - from the lamp 
               itself, if it is extinguishing).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #2):</font></b> But one may not move a cup, bowl or 
          lantern.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why are these different than a lamp?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Ula):</font></b> This clause is according to R. Yehudah 
          [who forbids even a lamp].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Objection (Mar Zutra):</font></b> If so, it should not say 'but'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Mar Zutra):</font></b> It is like R. Shimon - he permits 
          a lamp, for it holds little oil, one anticipates moving 
          it [after it goes out on Shabbos] - a cup, bowl or 
          lantern holds much oil (one expects it to burn all 
          Shabbos).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa #1):</font></b> Leftover oil in a Ner or bowl 
          [that was burning when Shabbos began] is forbidden;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon permits it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Presumably, Beraisa #1 discusses a small bowl, 
          for it is taught together with a lamp; Beraisa #2 
          discusses a large bowl, for it is taught together with a 
          cup.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (R. Zeira):</font></b> If a Pamut (Menorah (candelabra) of metal; 
          Aruch - it has only one Ner) burned on Shabbos [and went 
          out - it is not Mi'us, it is an issue of Muktzeh Machmas 
          Isur]:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Version #1 - Rashi:</font></b> The opinion (R. Meir) that 
               permits [above, a used Cheres lamp, i.e. Muktzeh 
               Machmas Mi'us] forbids [here]; the opinion (R. 
               Yehudah) that forbids [above] permits [here].
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Version #2 - Tosfos:</font></b> The opinion (R. Shimon) that 
               permits [above] forbids [here, for the Pamut is 
               big]; the opinion (R. Yehudah and R. Meir) that 
               forbids [above] permits [here],
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Rejection (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> Every metal Ner is 
          permitted, except for one that burned on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, R. Zeira taught that if a Pamut 
          burned on Shabbos, all forbid [moving it]; if it did not 
          burn on Shabbos, all permit;
<br>
<b><font>3) MUKTZEH MACHMAS ISUR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> If a bed was designated for coins, one may not 
          move it [on Shabbos]. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak - Mishnah):</font></b> One may 
          move a new Ner, but not a used Ner.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) MOVING 'MUKTZAH' INDIRECTLY</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara concludes that one is permitted to move the body of a dead person, which is Muktzah, by way of 'Tiltul Min ha'Tzad,' indirectly moving Muktzah, in order to save it from being destroyed in a fire. The Rabanan permitted one to move the body out of concern that one might otherwise be tempted to extinguish the fire.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH d'Kuli Alma) infers from the Gemara's conclusion that 'Tiltul Min ha'Tzad' in any other circumstance is forbidden. Tosfos, however, explains that there are two types of 'Tiltul Min ha'Tzad,' and only one of them is included in the prohibition:
</p><p>
1. One is permitted to lift an object which is not Muktzah, even though while one lifts the object it touches and moves a Muktzah object. This is permitted, because the person intends to move only the non-Muktzah object.
</p><p>
2. In contrast, when one wants to move the Muktzah object, he may not do so even if he moves it by way of moving a non-Muktzah object.
</p><p>
The <b>ROSH</b> writes that there is a third type of 'Tiltul Min ha'Tzad':
</p><p>
3. One is permitted to move a Muktzah object with a part of his body (such as his elbows or feet) that one usually does not use for moving that object, even if his intention is to move the Muktzah object itself. (The <b>CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN</b> appears to disagree with this category of 'Tiltul Min ha'Tzad' and suggests a different explanation for the Gemara upon which it is based.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) REMOVING OIL FROM A LAMP ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara cites a Beraisa in which Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon argues with his father, Rebbi Shimon. Rebbi Elazar states that a person may take and use oil from a lamp that went out, and he may even use oil that dripped from a lamp while the lamp is still aflame.
</p><p>
In what respect, though, does he argue with Rebbi Shimon? Rebbi Shimon agrees that when the lamp is no longer aflame, one is permitted to take oil from it and use it; when the lamp is still aflame, one is prohibited from taking oil directly from the lamp (because of the Melachah of extinguishing). In the case of oil that drips out while the lamp is lit, Rebbi Shimon does not say that he prohibits the oil.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that when Rebbi Elazar says that one may use the oil 'when the lamp goes out,' he means that the lamp is in the <i>process</i> of going out, but it is still lit. Rebbi Elazar maintains that once it is clear that the candle will not be able to burn much longer, one may remove oil from the lamp and he does not transgress the Melachah of extinguishing. (Since the flame is going out and will not consume this oil anyway, removing the oil is not considered an act of extinguishing.) Rebbi Shimon, however, maintains that the oil is Muktzah because the candle is still burning; when a person lights a candle before Shabbos, he does not have in mind to use the oil that remains in the lamp as it is going out.
</p><p>
According to Rashi, it appears that both Rebbi Shimon and his son agree that when oil drips out of the lamp one is permitted to use that oil, since it is no longer in a burning candle. (See Maharsha and Sefas Emes to Rashi, and Rosh. See also Chart #9, footnote #2.)
</p><p>
(b) Other Rishonim (<b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b>, <b>RITVA</b>, <b>TOSFOS</b> 42b, DH b'Ein) explain that while the candle is burning, even if it is beginning to go out, one is prohibited, according to <i>everyone</i>, from taking oil from the lamp, because of the Melachah of extinguishing. The argument between Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Elazar concerns oil that drips from the lamp while it is still lit. Rebbi Shimon prohibits using such oil, because a person does not consider before Shabbos the possibility of using the oil that drips while the lamp is aflame. Therefore, one may not eat or use the oil that dripped until after the candle goes out. (See Chart #9 for an elaboration of the details.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A Ner is made for lighting, yet one may move it 
               before lighting in it - a bed is not made for coins, 
               all the more so it is permitted before it was used 
               for coins!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, if a bed was designated for coins and 
          one put coins on it, one may not move it; if he did not 
          put coins on it, one may move it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If it was not designated for coins, if there are 
               coins on it, one may not move it; if not, one may 
               move it, as long as there were not coins on it [all 
               of] Bein ha'Shemashos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Elazar - Mishnah):</font></b> If the Ofan of a Sheidah 
          (Rashi - wheel of a wagon; R. Tam - the base of a chest) 
          comes off [easily]:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It is not considered attached (it and the Sheidah 
               are distinct Kelim - if Tum'ah touched one, the 
               other is Tahor);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> It is not measured with it [regarding Tum'ah - a 
               wooden Kli of 40 Sa'im (volume) is Tahor);
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> It does not shield from Tum'as Mes with it (the 
               Sheidah is an Ohel that suppresses Tum'ah underneath 
               it, but Tum'ah breaks through the Ofan and goes up);
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> One may not drag it on Shabbos when there are coins 
               on it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> One may drag it when there are no coins 
               on it, even if there were coins on it Bein 
               ha'Shemashos!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah is like R. Shimon, who permits 
          Muktzeh; Rav holds like R. Yehudah.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) THE 'MUCHNI'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara cites the Mishnah in Kelim (18:2) that says that a non-removable 'Muchni' can protect utensils from becoming Tamei in an Ohel ha'Mes, a sheltered area in which a corpse lies. What is a 'Muchni,' and what is the case in which the Muchni can prevent utensils from becoming Tamei?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> seems to understand the case as follows. The Muchni or wagon wheel was attached to a wagon that was traveling in a graveyard. The wagon wheels were 'taller than the height of the wagon' (the open, upper part of the side of the wagon). Some utensils that were loaded in the wagon protruded above the top of the wagon's side, but not higher than the top of the wheel. Tum'ah would come up and enter the top of the wagon from the side and be Metamei the utensils, if not for the wheel protecting them.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> challenges Rashi's explanation, because we have never heard of such a thing as Tum'ah creeping in from the side. Tosfos explains that the Mishnah is discussing a wooden vessel that holds a volume of at least forty Se'ah (as Rashi explains), and it is sealed tight (with a Tzamid Pasil) that protects everything inside from becoming Tamei.
</p><p>
However, the forty-Se'ah wooden vessel has a hole in it (either on the side or bottom), and the Muchni is covering the hole, making it less than a Tefach in diameter. The Muchni itself is a flat wooden wheel ('Peshutei Kli Etz') that cannot become Tamei. Since the Muchni is not covering the entire hole and it has left a space less than a Tefach in the hole of the wooden vessel, it can block Tum'ah from rising up into the vessel only if it has been affixed there <i>permanently</i> (see Bava Basra 19b, and Tosfos there (20a, DH Hi)). If the wheel is removable, then Tum'ah will enter the vessel through the hole and will be Metamei anything inside the vessel.
</p><p>
Alternatively, the Muchni itself is a wooden vessel (which holds <i>less</i> than forty Se'ah, and therefore it <i>can</i> become Tamei) that is covering the entire hole. If it is affixed permanently, then it is considered part of the larger wooden vessel (which holds more than forty Se'ah and is not Mekabel Tum'ah), and it, too, cannot become Tamei and it blocks Tum'ah from entering the hole. If it is removable, then it is not part of the larger wooden vessel, but it is an independent, small vessel, and it <i>can</i> become Tamei. Consequently, it does not block Tum'ah from entering the hole. (<b>RAN</b>, quoting 'Yesh Mefarshim')
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RITVA</b> here and the <b>BARTENURA</b> in Kelim explain that Rashi does not mean that the wheel prevents Tum'ah from entering from the <i>side</i>. Rather, Rashi means that the wheels are <i>underneath</i> the wagon, and utensils protrude horizontally over the side of the wagon, above the wheels. If the wheel is not removable, then it is not Mekabel Tum'ah and it prevents the Tum'ah from reaching the utensils. If the Muchni is removable, then it does not prevent the Tum'ah from reaching the utensils, since the Muchni itself is Mekabel Tum'ah and it cannot prevent Tum'ah from spreading to other objects.
</p><p>
The Ritva's explanation of Rashi is difficult to reconcile with the words of Rashi. Rashi states that the wheels are 'higher' than the walls of the wagon! In order to understand how the Ritva's explanation is evident in the words of Rashi, we must understand two other questions that the Rishonim ask on Rashi's explanation of the Mishnah:
<br> 
<br>First, according to Rashi's explanation, why does the Mishnah say 'Muchni' ('wheel') in the singular form? A wagon has at least two wheels, one on each side!
</p><p>
Second, as the wheel rolls over the graveyard, it rests directly on top of the ground, and there is not a one-Tefach separation between the ground and the bottom of the wheel. How, then, can the wheel prevent the upward diffusion of Tum'ah? In order to stop Tum'ah from spreading, an object must be an Ohel. It is considered an Ohel only when there is a Tefach of empty space between it and the ground!
</p><p>
Perhaps Rashi understands that the Mishnah is discussing a wagon with <i>one</i> wide wheel underneath it that extends from one side of the wagon to the other side (like the wheel of a modern steam-roller). The long wheel is hollow in the middle with at least a Tefach of space inside, between the bottom of the wheel and the top. The Tefach space that is hollow inside the wheel serves as the Ohel to block the Tum'ah from ascending above the wheel.
</p><p>
When Rashi says that the 'height' of the wheel is greater than the height of the wagon, he is referring to the <i>length</i> of the wheel (which, if stood upright, would be its height), as it extends from one side of the wagon to the other. That length -- or 'height' -- is greater than the corresponding length of the wagon, such that part of the wheel protrudes beyond the wagon on each side. (Rashi calls this measure of the wheel its 'height,' describing it as a pillar lying horizontally, in contradistinction to its width, or diameter.) Accordingly, Rashi is saying exactly what the Ritva understands him to be saying. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


<font><b>4) MOVING AN OBJECT WITH 'MUKTZAH' ON IT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara concludes that if the 'Muchni' (wheel, see previous Insight) is permanently attached to the wagon, one may drag it on Shabbos even if there is money on the Muchni.
</p><p>
What difference does it make whether the Muchni is attached permanently or not? The Muchni serves as a 'Basis l'Davar ha'Asur' -- a base for a forbidden object (money) -- and it should be forbidden to be moved!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Ein) explains that an object becomes a 'Basis' only when the Muktzah item is on top of the <i>primary part</i> of the object. If it is on top of a secondary part of the object, the object does not become a 'Basis.'
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (in Perush ha'Mishnayos) explains that the Muchni is not a wheel, but a drawer that slides in and out. When the Gemara says that one is permitted to move it when it has money on top, it means that one may slide the drawer in and out if it is permanently attached and cannot be removed. The reason is because when an object is a 'Basis' for Muktzah, its status as a 'Basis' only prohibits moving the <i>entire</i> object from its place; moving part of it is permitted. If the drawer is removable, then it is considered a separate utensil and moving it is like moving an entire object and is prohibited.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RITVA</b> says that in the case in the Mishnah in Kelim, the object inside the wagon is <i>not</i> a Muktzah-object, and there is money (which <i>is</i> Muktzah) on top of the wheel. The Halachah is that an object that serves as a 'Basis' for both a permissible object and a forbidden one <i>may</i> be moved (Shabbos 141a). If the Muchni is removable, it is not considered part of the wagon but has its own, individual identity, and thus it has only one object on top of it -- an object of Muktzah (the money). In contrast, if the Muchni is non-removable, then it is not considered an independent object, but rather it is part of the wagon. Consequently, it is considered to be a 'Basis' for both a permissible object and a Muktzah object, and therefore it may be moved.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) REBBI SHIMON'S OPINION</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Support (that Rav holds like R. Yehudah):</font></b> Rav taught that 
          one may leave a Ner on a date tree to burn on Shabbos, 
          but not on Yom Tov.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he holds like R. Yehudah, we understand the 
               difference (on Yom Tov, he might take the Ner, 
               thereby using the tree, which is forbidden 
               mid'Rabanan - we are not concerned for this on 
               Shabbos, for even after a Ner extinguishes one does 
               not move it);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> But if he holds like R. Shimon, who permits a moving 
               a Ner that went out on Shabbos, the same concern 
               applies on Shabbos!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The following shows that Rav does not hold like 
          R. Yehudah!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rav was asked if one may remove a Ner Chanukah lest 
               it be seen by Chaverim (a nation amidst the Parsim 
               that decreed against it) - he permitted it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Sha'as ha'Dechak (pressed circumstances) in an 
          exception.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Support - Question (Rav Kahana and Rav Asi):</font></b> Is this 
          really the law?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rav):</font></b> In Sha'as ha'Dechak, we may rely on R. 
               Shimon's opinion.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question (Reish Lakish):</font></b> If one planted wheat in the 
          ground, or put an egg under a hen, what is the law?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Perhaps R. Shimon permits Muktzeh only when one was 
               not Docheh b'Yadayim (overtly show that he does not 
               intend to use the item), but when he was Docheh 
               b'Yadayim, he forbids;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps he permits in any case!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> R. Shimon forbids only oil in a 
          burning lamp, for it was Huktzah (set aside) for the 
          Mitzvah (Ner Shabbos) <i>and</i> (Tosfos ha'Rosh adds this 
          word to the text) Huktzah on account of Isur (one may not 
          take it, lest he extinguish).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> R. Shimon forbids Muktzeh for the Mitzvah 
          [alone]!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> If a Sukah had the proper amount of 
               Sechach, and one adorned it with colorful 
               illustrated curtains and sheets, and hung nuts, 
               peaches, almonds, pomegranates, twigs with grapes 
               clusters, crowns on ears [of grain], wines, oils and 
               flour, it is forbidden to use [or eat] them until 
               after Simchas Torah;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If he stipulated [that he may use them during Bein 
               ha'Shemashos of the first night], it works (they are 
               permitted).
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> How do we know that this Beraisa is like 
               R. Shimon?
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> R. Chiya bar Yosef recited the following 
               Beraisa in front of R. Yochanan.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> On Yom Tov, one may not take wood from a 
               hut, only from wood nearby;
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon permits.
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b></b> On Sukos, all agree that one may not take from a 
               Sukah for the Mitzvah; if he stipulated, the 
               stipulation works.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yochanan meant, R. Shimon forbids [on account 
          of Muktzeh] only things like oil in a [burning] lamp - 
          since it was Huktzah for the Mitzvah, it is Huktzah 
          regarding Isur (one may not move it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Support (R. Chiya bar <i>Aba</i> citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> R. 
          Shimon forbids only things like oil in a burning lamp - 
          since it was Huktzah for the Mitzvah, it is Huktzah 
          regarding Isur (Me'iri - it was Huktzah for the Mitzvah 
          <i>or</i> Huktzah on account of Isur).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> R. Shimon forbids [on account of Muktzeh] 
          only [figs and grapes left to become] dry figs and 
          raisins [for they are not fit to eat when they are 
          partially dried].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> He forbids other things also!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> If one was eating figs or grapes and 
               brought the leftovers to the roof to make dry figs 
               or raisins, he may not eat them [on Shabbos] unless 
               he was Mezamen (declared intent to eat) them;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The same applies to peaches, quince and all species.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana of the Beraisa?
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  It is not R. Yehudah - he requires Hazmanah 
                    even if he was not Docheh b'Yadayim!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer #1:</font></b> It is like R. Shimon.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer (and Answer #2 to Question l:</font></b>3): Really, it is 
          like R. Yehudah, he teaches a Chidush concerning eating;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One might have thought that since he was eating, 
               Hazmanah is not required - the Beraisa teaches, this 
               is not so - once he puts them on the roof, he ceases 
               to think about them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Shimon bar Rebbi):</font></b> What is R. Shimon's 
          opinion about [detached] unripe dates [that ripen by 
          themselves]?
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) MOVING AN OIL LAMP ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that an oil lamp may not be moved on Shabbos, even according to Rebbi Shimon who is lenient with regard to Muktzah, because it is 'Huktzah l'Mitzvaso' -- it is set aside for the Mitzvah [of lighting the Shabbos candles].
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara need to give the reason of 'Huktzah l'Mitzvaso' to explain why the lamp may not be moved even according to Rebbi Shimon? Rebbi Shimon agrees that one may not move a lamp that is lit because it is a 'Basis l'Davar ha'Asur' (46b-47a; see Insights there). Why, then, does the Gemara give the reason of 'Huktzah l'Mitzvaso' if the reason of 'Basis' prohibits the lamp from being moved while it is lit? (<b>SEFAS EMES</b>)
</p><p>
(The answer cannot be that the reason of 'Huktzah l'Mitzvaso' is necessary to prohibit the oil that drips out while the lamp is lit (see Tosfos) or to prohibit taking oil from the lamp as it begins to go out (see Rashi 44a, DH Min ha'Ner and DH Kavah, and Insights to 44:1), because the Gemara implies that according to Rebbi Shimon, the person did not anticipate using any of the oil before the candle went out, and therefore it is Muktzah Machmas Isur and not just 'Huktzah l'Mitzvaso' -- see Rashi DH k'Ein. Why, then, does the Gemara need to say that Rebbi Shimon prohibits the lamp because of 'Huktzah l'Mitzvaso'?)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>ME'IRI</b> answers that the proper text of the Gemara's conclusion is 'Ho'il v'Huktzah l'Mitzvaso <i>v'Huktzah</i> l'Isuro' (with the 'Vav'), and it means that there are indeed two different reasons to prohibit the lamp. This also appears to be the Girsa of the Ritva and Ramban (see Girsa section).
</p><p>
It appears that <b>RASHI</b>, though, had the text as it appears in our edition of the Gemara, 'Ho'il v'Huktzah l'Mitzvaso <i>Huktzah</i> l'Isuro' (without the 'Vav'). Nevertheless, Rashi understands the Gemara the same way as the Me'iri, and both reasons to prohibit moving the lamp apply. He understands that the words of the Gemara mean that 'for the same amount of time that the lamp is Muktzah due to the Isur (i.e., it may not be moved because it is a 'Basis l'Davar ha'Asur'), it is also Huktzah l'Mitzvaso.' Accordingly, both prohibitions apply. (This is also the conclusion of the <b>SEFAS EMES</b>.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rebbi):</font></b> R. Shimon forbids only dry figs and 
          raisins.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Rebbi does not permit [all other cases of] 
          Muktzeh!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not give to drink (Rashi - to 
               facilitate flaying; Rambam - to clear the lungs of 
               things that look like blisters that make it Treifah) 
               and slaughter Midbariyos (wilderness animals); one 
               may give to drink and slaughter Baisos (domestic 
               animals):
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> Midbariyos are animals that go away [to 
               the wilderness] at Pesach, and return at the first 
               rainy season [in Cheshvan, the start of winter]; 
               Baisos are those graze outside the Techum (outskirts 
               of the city) during the day, and spend the night 
               within the Techum.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Rebbi says, both of these are Baisos - Midbariyos 
               are those that graze in the dirt and never enter 
               civilization, not in summer nor winter.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> Midbariyos are just like dry figs and raisins 
          (he keeps them in a place where it will be an exertion to 
          get them, showing that he does not intend to use them - 
          R. Shimon admits in such cases);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rebbi explained [to his son] the opinion of R. 
          Shimon - he himself disagrees.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer #3:</font></b> [In the Beraisa] Rebbi addresses Chachamim 
          according to their reasoning, he himself disagrees:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> I permit Muktzeh - granted, you forbid Muktzeh, but 
               you should agree that animals that go away at Pesach 
               and return in winter are Baisos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim call these Midbariyos.
<br>
<b><font>2) LIKE WHOM DOES R. YOCHANAN RULE?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> [In the Beis 
          Medrash] they said that the Halachah follows R. Shimon.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But an elder asked R. Yochanan whether or not 
          one may move a hen's nest, and he answered, it is solely 
          for chicks (it is forbidden, like a Kli she'Melachto 
          l'Isur (its normal usage is forbidden on Shabbos)).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> The case is, there is a dead chick inside (R. 
          Shimon agrees that it is Muktzeh).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This is like Mar bar Ameimar, who says that R. 
          Shimon agrees that if an animal [that was healthy before 
          Shabbos] died on Shabbos, it is Muktzeh;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> But according to Mar brei d'Rav Yosef, who says that 
               R. Shimon permits even this, how can we answer?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> The case is, there is an egg inside (it is 
          forbidden on account of Nolad (something that came into 
          existence on Shabbos).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> Rav Nachman taught that the opinion (R. 
          Yehudah) that forbids Muktzeh forbids Nolad, the opinion 
          (R. Shimon) that permits Muktzeh permits Nolad!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #3:</font></b> The case is, in the nest is an egg with a 
          chick inside (it is not fit even for a dog, R. Shimon 
          agrees that it is Muktzeh).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (R. Yitzchak bar Yosef):</font></b> R. Yochanan says that the 
          Halachah follows R. Yehudah, R. Yehoshua ben Levi says 
          that it follows R. Shimon.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Rav Yosef:</font></b> This is why Rabah bar bar Chanah cited R. 
          Yochanan to say '*They* said that the Halachah follows R. 
          Shimon' - R. Yochanan himself disagrees.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> You should have known this before 
          hearing R. Yitzchak's teaching!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Aba and R. Asi visited R. Aba of Chaifa; a 
               Menorah fell on R. Asi's garment [on Shabbos] - he 
               did not move it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Surely, this was because R. Asi was a Talmid of R. 
               Yochanan, and R. Yochanan holds like R. Yehudah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> We cannot learn from there, a Menorah 
          is different (even R. Shimon forbids)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Reish Lakish):</font></b> One may move a Menorah that can be 
               held in one hand, but not one that requires two 
               hands;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> One may move a [used] Ner, like R. 
               Shimon, but not a Menorah, whether it is held in one 
               or two hands;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rabah and Rav Yosef):</font></b> This is because a person 
          fixes a place for it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> A person fixes a place for Kilas 
          Chasanim (a canopy over a bed, it is supported on a beam 
          in the middle and slopes down on both sides), yet Shmuel 
          permits to spread the covering or take it down on 
          Shabbos!
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) MOVING A CHICKEN COOP ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Yochanan was asked whether one is permitted to move a chicken's nest, or roost, on Shabbos. He answered, 'It is made only for the chickens,' and one may not move it.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Ela l'Tarnegolin) explains that the Gemara's initial assumption is that the coop is Muktzah because it is a Kli she'Melachto l'Isur, a utensil whose primary use is for a Melachah that is forbidden on Shabbos. The conclusion of the Gemara is that the coop has an inedible egg resting in it which makes it a 'Basis l'Davar ha'Asur.' According to the Gemara's conclusion, why did Rebbi Yochanan say that 'it is made only for the chickens'? He should have said that it is forbidden simply because it has an inedible egg in it, and thus it is forbidden whether the nest is made for chickens or not!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> (DH d'Is Bei Beitzas) answers that one of the conditions of 'Basis l'Davar ha'Asur' is that an object does not become a 'Basis' unless a Muktzah object was placed on it <i>intentionally</i>. If a Muktzah object accidentally landed there, it may be shaken off and the object beneath it is not a 'Basis.' Therefore, had we not anticipated that an egg would be found in the nest, the nest would not have been a 'Basis' and the egg could have been shaken off and the nest moved. However, since 'a nest is made only for the chickens,' we expect to find eggs there, and thus it is considered as though the owner placed the egg there intentionally. Therefore, the roost is a 'Basis' for an object of Muktzah and may not be moved.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) MOVING A 'MENORAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> Reish Lakish and R. Yochanan discuss a 
          Menorah composed of rings (one may not move it lest it 
          come apart and he will fix it, making a Kli).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If so, why does Reish Lakish permit a small 
          Menorah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He means, they discuss a Menorah with grooves, it 
          looks like it has rings;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A Menorah of rings is forbidden, whether big or 
               small;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> All forbid a big Menorah with grooves, for people 
               will think that it is of rings;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> They argue about a small Menorah with grooves - 
               Reish Lakish forbids, R. Yochanan does not (people 
               will not think that it is of rings).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But R. Yochanan says that the Halachah follows 
          a Stam Mishnah (and there is a Stam like R. Yehudah!)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> If the Ofan of a Sheidah comes off 
               [easily]:
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> It is not considered attached, it is not measured 
               with it, it does not shield from Tum'as Mes with it, 
               one may not drag it on Shabbos when there are coins 
               on it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> One may drag it if there are no coins on 
               it, even if there were coins on it Bein 
               ha'Shemashos!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Zeira):</font></b> To avoid a contradiction in the words 
          of R. Yochanan, we explain that it may be moved if coins 
          were not on it [for at least part of] Bein ha'Shemashos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> Once, Rebbi went to a certain 
          place and ruled about a Menorah, like R. Shimon regarding 
          a Ner.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Does this mean, he permitted [moving] a 
          Menorah, like R. Shimon permits regarding a Ner (Rashi; 
          Tosfos - and he permitted a Ner, like R. Shimon);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Or, did he rule about a Menorah (that it is 
               forbidden), and permitted a Ner, like R. Shimon?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  This question is not resolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  Rav Malkiyah visited the house of R. Simlai, and moved a 
          Ner (after it extinguished) - R. Simlai was upset.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi of Galil visited the area of R. Yosi b'Rebbi 
          Chanina and moved a Ner - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina was 
          upset.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  When R. Avahu would visit the area of R. Yehoshua ben 
          Levi, he would move Neros; when he would visit the area 
          of R. Yochanan, he would not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Either way you say, this is difficult!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he holds like R. Yehudah, he should not move them 
               anywhere; if he holds like R. Shimon, he should move 
               them everywhere!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He holds like R. Shimon - he was stringent in the 
          area of R. Yochanan on account the honor of R. Yochanan 
          (who forbids).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> One may move an oil lamp, but not a 
          kerosene lamp (it smells terrible, people do not use it 
          for anything else); 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Rabah and Rav Yosef):</font></b> One may move even a kerosene lamp.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b></b>  Rav Avya visited Rava's house; his feet were muddy, he 
          sat on a bed in front of Rava - Rava was upset, and 
          wanted to pain him.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question (Rava):</font></b> Why do Rabah and Rav Yosef permit 
               moving a kerosene lamp?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rav Avya):</font></b> It may be used to cover a Kli.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question (Rava):</font></b> If so, it should be permitted to 
               move rocks in the Chatzer, they may be used to cover 
               Kelim!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rav Avya):</font></b> A kerosene lamp is a Kli, rocks 
               are not;
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) REBBI RULED LIKE REBBI SHIMON WITH REGARD TO MUKTZAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi relates that when Rebbi went to Diyospera, he ruled that one is permitted to move a lamp while it is lit, in accordance with the opinion of Rebbi Shimon. 
</p><p>
The Gemara on the previous page (45b) was in doubt whether Rebbi ruled like Rebbi Yehudah or like Rebbi Shimon. Why was the Gemara there in doubt if Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi explicitly states that Rebbi ruled like Rebbi Shimon? (<b>TOSFOS</b> DH l'Devarav)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RAMBAN</b> says in the name of <b>TOSFOS</b> that the Gemara earlier was unaware of this incident, and therefore it was in doubt as to how Rebbi ruled.
</p><p>
In a similar approach, the <b>RASHBA</b> says that the Gemara earlier meant that we cannot prove how Rebbi ruled from the <i>Mishnah</i> in Beitzah that it cites. The Gemara knew, though, that Rebbi ruled like Rebbi Shimon from the incident discussed by Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi in the Gemara here (46a).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> explains that the Gemara earlier knew that Rebbi ruled like Rebbi Shimon with regard to Muktzah Machmas Isur. The Gemara was in doubt whether Rebbi ruled like Rebbi Yehudah even when the object's status of Muktzah is due to the fact that it is not readily available for use (such as the animals that stay outside the city). The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> gives a similar answer.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> suggests further that we find that it is possible for an object to be Muktzah with regard to eating (Achilah), but not with regard to handling (Tiltul). This implies that Muktzah with regard to eating is more stringent. The Gemara here says that Rebbi ruled like Rebbi Shimon with regard to Tiltul, while the Gemara earlier was in doubt whether Rebbi ruled like Rebbi Shimon regarding <i>eating</i> Muktzah, which is the topic of discussion there.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) RAVA AND RAV AVYA'S ALTERCATION</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates that when Rav Avya visited Rava, he removed his muddy shoes and placed them on Rava's couch. Rava wanted to harass Rav Avya in return by asking him a question he could not answer. 
</p><p>
What was the intention behind their conduct? Why did these great Talmidei Chachamim behave in such a way?
<br> 
<br><b>ANSWER: RAV YECHEZKEL ABRAMSKY</b> (in <b>CHAZON YECHEZKEL</b> on Maseches Shabbos) in the name of <b>RAV YISRAEL YEHONASAN YERUSHALAYIMSKY</b> suggests a brilliant explanation for the conduct of Rav Avya and Rava.
</p><p>
The Gemara later (124b) says that if a person finds a small shard in the courtyard, it is not Muktzah, because it is considered a Kli (since it can be used for covering pots or other utensils which are commonly found in courtyards, -Rashi DH b'Chatzer). Rava there teaches that even if one finds a shard in Reshus ha'Rabim, it is not Muktzah and may be handled, because had it been found in a courtyard it would have had a use as a Kli. (Since it is a Kli when it is in a courtyard, where pots are commonplace, it is considered a Kli regardless of where it is found, -Rashi). The Gemara there continues and says that Rava was once walking through Reshus ha'Rabim and his shoes became muddy. He picked up a shard and wiped off his shoes, consistent with his own opinion that a shard is not Muktzah in Reshus ha'Rabim.
</p><p>
Rav Avya, however, ruled like the Rabanan there that a shard in Reshus ha'Rabim is not considered a Kli. Accordingly, he wanted to show Rava that one may <i>not</i> use a shard in Reshus ha'Rabim to wipe off muddy shoes, because a shard is Muktzah. He therefore made a point of showing Rava that his shoes were still muddy when he entered Rava's home. Rava was upset that Rav Avya did not want to accept his opinion and that Rav Avya specifically acted in opposition to his opinion. Rava wanted to prove to Rav Avya that his opinion was correct. He therefore pointed out that if an object is considered a Kli because it could be used for covering a pot, then all of the pebbles in the courtyard should not be Muktzah either. It should follow that they should not be Muktzah even if they were in Reshus ha'Rabim (as Rava states on 124b).
</p><p>
(Rav Avya, though, merited Divine assistance and gave the correct answer to Rava's question. Even according to Rava's opinion, a <i>pebble</i> may not be used in Reshus ha'Rabim. Using an object as a cover for other utensils does not give it the status of a Kli; rather, it merely <i>preserves</i> the status of a Kli if the object was already one, such as a shard from a broken clay vessel. -M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Bracelets, nose-rings and rings are 
                    like regular Kelim, one may move [but not wear] 
                    them in a Chatzer [even though Chachamim 
                    decreed not to wear them in Reshus ha'Rabim, 
                    lest one take it off to show someone and carry 
                    it].
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b><font> (Ula):</font></b> This is because they are Kelim.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> Here also, we are more lenient about a kerosene 
               lamp, because it is a Kli!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak:</font></b> Blessed is Hash-m, who did not 
          allow Rava to embarrass Rav Avya!
<br>
<b><font>2) SOMETHING ONE DID NOT EXPECT TO USE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye - Beraisa):</font></b> Leftover oil in a Ner or bowl 
          [that was burning when Shabbos began] is forbidden;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon permits it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This shows that R. Shimon permits Muktzeh.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Contradiction (Mishnah - R. Shimon):</font></b> [If a Bechor 
               Behemah was found to have a Mum on Yom Tov], if the 
               Mum was not known from before Yom Tov [one may not 
               slaughter it on Yom Tov], for it was not Muchan 
               (prepared for use on Yom Tov).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah):</font></b> He permits leftover oil, for a person 
          waits for a Ner to go out so he can use the remaining 
          oil;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A person does not wait for a Bechor to get a Mum so 
               he can slaughter it (because it is very unlikely):
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Nothing suggests that it will get a Mum; even 
                    if it will get a Mum, nothing suggests that the 
                    Mum will be Kavu'a (permanent); even if it will 
                    get a Mum Kavu'a, nothing suggests that he will 
                    find a Chacham [to inspect the Mum and permit 
                    the animal, R. Shimon forbids this on Yom Tov]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (Rami bar Chama - Beraisa):</font></b> Vows may be annulled 
          [by a husband] on Shabbos, for the need of Shabbos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Even if a vow [not to eat a food] is annulled, the 
               food should be forbidden, for she did not plan to 
               eat it - nothing suggests that her husband will 
               annul it! (Tosfos - if she forbade the food to 
               herself, it should be forbidden for her to eat it, 
               but even she may move it; Ran - it should be 
               forbidden for anyone to move it. Rashash - this is a 
               Beraisa (Nedarim 77A), it is like the opinion that a 
               husband has 24 hours to annul from when he heard the 
               vow, therefore he may annul only for the sake of 
               [eating the food on] Shabbos (if not, he can annul 
               on Motzei Shabbos). We could not ask from the 
               Mishnah, which includes the bracketed words 
               discussing Heter (permission of vows by a) Chacham, 
               for it only requires <i>Heter</i> to be for the sake of 
               Shabbos - annulment need not be for the sake of 
               Shabbos, like the Tana that a husband may annul only 
               until nightfall (therefore he may annul on Shabbos 
               even if the food will be Muktzeh).)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> She expects her husband to annul it, like Rav 
          Pinchus taught:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Pinchus):</font></b> A woman vows on condition that her 
               husband will agree to it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> One may ask [a Chacham] to permit 
          vows on Shabbos, if they are for the need of Shabbos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The food should be forbidden, for she did not plan 
               to eat it - nothing suggests that she will find a 
               Chacham to permit it!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> If she does not find a Chacham, she can get three 
          commoners to permit it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye - R. Shimon - Mishnah):</font></b> One may move any 
          Ner, except for one burning on Shabbos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One may not move a Ner that is burning, lest he 
               extinguish it while moving it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> But R. Shimon permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Shimon):</font></b> One may drag a bed, chair or 
               bench, as long as he does not intend to make a 
               furrow;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> If doing an action with intent would be an 
          Isur mid'Oraisa, R. Shimon decrees to forbid Davar 
          she'Eino Miskaven; if with intent it is only an Isur 
          mid'Rabanan, he permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven 
          l'Chatchilah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rava - 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];
       <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> Even though intent to benefit from Kil'ayim is an 
               Isur mid'Oraisa, R. Shimon permits Davar she'Eino 
               Miskaven!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> Rather, R. Shimon forbids moving a 
          burning Ner, because it, the oil and wick are all Basisim 
          for something forbidden (the flame).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) MOVING A BURNING LAMP</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara asks, 'Why does Rebbi Shimon prohibit moving a burning lamp?'
</p><p>
What is the Gemara's question? The Gemara (45a) already taught that one is forbidden to move a burning lamp because it is Huktzah l'Mitzvaso, and because it is Huktzah l'Isuro! We know that it is Muktzah. Why, then, does the Gemara ask why Rebbi Shimon prohibits moving it?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> (45a, DH v'Ela) explains that when an object is Huktzah for a Mitzvah, one is prohibited only from using it in a way that will detract from the Mitzvah for which it is designated (such as taking oil out of a lamp). <i>Moving</i> the object, however, does not detract from the Mitzvah. Therefore, the reason of Huktzah l'Mitzvaso does not prohibit <i>moving</i> the object according to Rebbi Shimon. (See also <b>RITVA</b> here, who explains this answer more clearly.)
</p><p>
The reason of Huktzah l'Isuro does not apply here because the Isur to which the Gemara earlier referred was that the lamp is a 'Basis' to Muktzah (the flame), a concept which the Gemara at this point has not yet introduced. (That is, the lamp is considered Huktzah l'Isuro only according to the conclusion of the Gemara here.) (M. Kornfeld; see Chart #9, and see Insights to Shabbos 45:1.)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) MOVING 'ISUR' WITH 'HETER'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> R. Rumnus said that Rebbi permitted him to 
          move [in Rebbi's house] an incense pan with ashes in it 
          (the pan has permitted uses; we are thinking that the 
          ashes were forbidden).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Zeira):</font></b> But R. Yochanan forbids this!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> One may carry his son while his son is 
               holding a rock, or a basket with a rock in it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The case is, there are fruits in the 
               basket.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> If there are no fruits inside, it is 
               forbidden!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Asi):</font></b> The case is, [in addition to the 
          ashes] there are sticks of frankincense left in the pan 
          [that did not burn, one can smell them - therefore, this 
          is like a basket with fruits and a rock].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> Sticks of frankincense are of no significance 
          in the house of Rebbi (he was very rich)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps because they are significant for 
               Aniyim (poor people), they are significance for 
               everyone!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> Aniyim may move cloths of Aniyim (they 
               are three by three fingers, they can be used for a 
               patch), Ashirim may move clothes of Ashirim (e.g. 
               three Tefachim by three Tefachim), but not of 
               Aniyim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> It may be moved, just like a privy may 
          be removed (because it disgusts one).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Objection #1 (Rava):</font></b> A privy disgusts people, ashes do 
          not!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Objection #2 (Rava):</font></b> A privy is exposed, the ashes are 
          covered!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Rava):</font></b> In Rav Nachman's house, they would move 
          a pan on account of ashes (which can be used to cover 
          spit or excrement), even though there are broken pieces 
          of wood inside. (Rebbi gave this same Heter to R. 
          Rumnus.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> All agree that if there are broken 
          wicks inside [the Ner, one may not move it].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> The Beraisa refers to Galil [where oil is 
          abundant (Rashi - wicks are scarce), therefore the wicks 
          are not Betelim].
<br>
<b><font>2) ASSEMBLING THINGS THAT COME APART</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (Levi bar Shmuel):</font></b> May one assemble a bed of 
          Tarsim (travelling craftsmen, it comes apart)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Aba and Rav Huna bar Chiya):</font></b> It is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Rav Yehudah:</font></b> Rav and Shmuel say that one who assembles 
          such a bed is liable!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (against R. Aba and Rav Huna - Beraisa):</font></b> One who 
          assembles a Menorah of rings [that come apart] is liable;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One may not assemble a plasterer's rod - if he did 
               so, he is exempt.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Simai says, one who inserts [a flute] in a round 
               horn [a musical instrument with holes] is liable 
               [for it must be wedged in tightly]; one who inserts 
               it in a straight horn is exempt (it goes in 
               loosely).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Aba and Rav Huna hold like R. Shimon ben 
          Gamliel:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> One may not return Malbenos (coverings 
               for legs) of beds, legs of beds, or the wood on a 
               bow (on which the arrow rests) - if he did so, he is 
               exempt;
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A FLAME IS MUKTZAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara says that a lamp, oil, and a wick are all considered to be a 'Basis l'Davar ha'Asur' according to Rebbi Shimon. <b>RASHI</b> explains that the Davar ha'Asur is the flame, which is Muktzah and may not be moved even l'Tzorech Gufo u'Mekomo. Why is the flame Muktzah? The Gemara explains that the flame is comparable to a rock on the ground, which is not a Kli and which has no useful purpose on Shabbos.
</p><p>
1. How is a flame comparable to a rock? A flame <i>has</i> a useful purpose -- it provides light! Indeed, if one anticipates that he will need light in a certain room on Shabbos, he is permitted to designate a flashlight or a phosphorescent rock such as phosphorus for use on Shabbos and move it to the room in which he needs light. Since the flame has a useful purpose of providing light, one should be allowed to bring it from one place to another on Shabbos in order to use its light!
</p><p>
2. If a flame is considered Muktzah Machmas Gufo, why is one permitted to move logs in a fire on Yom Tov (when doing so is not l'Tzorech Ochel Nefesh)? One may move a lit flame or log on Yom Tov even when it is not l'Tzorech Ochel Nefesh, and the log is not considered to be a 'Basis' for a flame that is Muktzah Machmas Gufo. (This is evident from the fact that Tosfos never cites this as proof that Muktzah may be moved on Yom Tov for the sake of Ochel Nefesh; see Tosfos to Beitzah 8a, DH Amar (M. Kornfeld). (<b>RAV SHLOMO ZALMAN AUERBACH</b>, zt'l, in <b>MINCHAS SHLOMO</b> 14:1)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>CHAZON ISH</b> (Moed 41:16) explains that people abstain from moving candles on Shabbos out of fear that the candle might go out. (Even though it will only be a Davar she'Eino Miskaven if the candle goes out, people refrain from moving it lest it go out, since they will not be able to relight it. -Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, ibid.) <b>TOSFOS</b> (46a, DH v'Ha) states that objects that are specifically designated to be kept in a one place ('Kove'a la'Hem Makom') are Muktzah because they are never moved. Similarly, a flame is Muktzah because it is never moved, and thus it is considered as though it was designated to be kept in a certain place.
</p><p>
On Yom Tov, however, since it is permitted to rekindle a flame, people do not refrain from moving candles. Therefore, a candle is not Muktzah as a result of being designated to remain in one place.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RAV SHLOMO ZALMAN AUERBACH</b> answers that a flame cannot be considered a utensil, for three reasons. First, the flame is used only for its light. Second, it is a Davar she'Ein Bo Mamash (it has no tangible substance) and thus cannot be called a Kli. Third, it is always changing (the flame burning now is not the same flame that existed moments ago, as the Gemara mentions in Berachos 53a), and thus it cannot be considered a Kli. On Yom Tov, however, since one is permitted to light other fires from it, it is considered to be a significant object and it obtains the status of a Kli.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RITVA</b> here explains that the flame is Muktzah because 'one is forbidden to touch it.' He seems to mean that on Shabbos, if one touches the flame with an object, he transgresses the Melachah of cooking (or if he touches it with his hand, he transgresses the Melachah of bruising). Since one cannot touch the flame, as far as Shabbos is concerned it is not considered a Kli, because a Kli is something that can be <i>handled</i> by itself (without the help of the candle under it). On Yom Tov, one may light from the flame and touch it to another object, and therefore it is considered a Kli and is not Muktzah.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) MOVING A FIRE PAN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that one may move a fire pan with ashes in it (Kenuna <i>Agav</i> Kitma) even though (v'Af Al Gav) it also has wood splinters on it. The Gemara seems to be teaching two things: First, one may move a fire pan <i>because</i> it has ashes which are not Muktzah on it (without the ashes, the fire pan would be prohibited to move), and, second, even though there are Muktzah items (the wood splinters) on top of it, one may still move the fire pan.
</p><p>
Why would it have been prohibited to move the fire pan had it had no ashes on it, even without wood splinters on it?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> says that it would <i>not</i> have been prohibited, and the Gemara is teaching only that even when there are wood splinters on top, it may still be moved (the second teaching mentioned above).
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Beitzah (21b) explains that the fire pan is a Kli she'Melachto l'Isur, a utensil used for a Melachah that is forbidden on Shabbos, and that is why it may not be moved by itself. If it has ashes on it, it may be moved like any other permissible utensil (that is, it may be moved even for its own protection, 'me'Chamah l'Tzel').
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RA'AVAD</b> (Hilchos Shabbos 26:13) explains that the fire pan contains ashes that existed before Shabbos <i>in addition to</i> ashes that came into existence on Shabbos. The ashes from before Shabbos are permitted to be handled. If not for those ashes, the fire pan would be prohibited to move because of the ashes that came about on Shabbos. (The fire pan itself, though, is not Muktzah.)
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RAMBAN</b> explains that the ashes in the fire pan are Muktzah because they came about on Shabbos. Nevertheless, one may move the fire pan because the pan itself is completely permissible, and therefore the ashes are subordinate to the fire pan. That is, the Gemara does not mean that the ashes <i>permit</i> the pan to be moved. Rather, it means that the pan may be moved <i>despite</i> the ashes that are on it.
</p><p>
(e) The <b>RAMBAM</b> says that the fire pan is Muktzah (like (b) above) and the ashes are also Muktzah (like (d) above), and the only reason one may move it is because it has a status of a 'Graf Shel Re'i,' a utensil with offensive contents, which the Rabanan permitted one to move from his presence on Shabbos. (Even though the Gemara just said that a vessel that is covered is not considered a Graf Shel Re'i, a fire pan -- unlike a Machatah -- is uncovered. Alternatively, the <i>ashes</i> have a status of Graf Shel Re'i, and therefore the entire fire pan may be moved to remove the ashes from one's presence (Magid Mishneh).)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> He may not bang them in tightly - if he did, he 
               brings a Chatas;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if they fit loosely, it 
               is permitted. (Tosfos - Rav and Shmuel discussed a 
               tight fitting bed.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  There was a Gelalnisa bed (like of Tarsim) in Rav Chama's 
          house, he would assemble it on Yom Tov.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question (A Chacham, to Rava):</font></b> Do you [not rebuke him] 
          because [it is not wedged in tightly] this is like 
          building non-professionally? Granted, it is permitted 
          mid'Oraisa, but it is forbidden mid'Rabanan!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> I hold like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, who 
          permits if it fits loosely.
<br>
<b><font>3) CATCHING SPARKS IN A UTENSIL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may put a Kli under a Ner to catch sparks; 
          one may not put water in it, for this extinguishes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> The Kli will become Muktzeh (Rav 
          Chisda forbids to make a Kli Muktzeh on Shabbos)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> Sparks have no 
          substance (one may move the Kli).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not put water in it, for this 
          extinguishes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> Our Stam Mishnah is like R. Yosi, who forbids 
          causing to extinguish.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> R. Yosi forbids causing to extinguish on 
          Shabbos, he does not forbid before Shabbos something that 
          will cause extinguishing on Shabbos!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Perhaps our Mishnah only discusses [putting water 
          on] Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Rejection (Beraisa):</font></b> One may put a Kli under a Ner to 
          catch sparks on Shabbos, there is no need to say that one 
          may do so from before Shabbos;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One may not put water in the Kli [from before 
               Shabbos], there is no need to say that this is 
               forbidden on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Conclusion (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Our Mishnah is even like Chachamim 
          [who permit causing to extinguish] - here it is 
          forbidden, lest one [directly] make a spark extinguish 
          earlier (put in water or lift the Kli with water when a 
          spark is falling; we forbid Erev Shabbos on account of 
          Shabbos).
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>***** <b>PEREK BA'MEH TOMNIN</b> ****</b></font></center><p>
 
<br>
<b><font>4) IN WHAT IS 'HATMANAH' PERMITTED?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah) Question:</font></b> In what may one do Hatmanah (wrap 
          things to keep them warm), in what is it forbidden 
          [because it adds heat - this is a decree on account of 
          Hatmanah in hot coals]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer - part 1:</font></b> Hatmanah is forbidden in the following, 
          whether they are moist or dry 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Gefes (waste of olives or sesame after the oil was 
               extracted), manure, salt, plaster, and sand;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Hatmanah in the following is permitted if they are 
               dry and forbidden if they are moist - straw, grape 
               skins or pits, tufts, and grass.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Does the Mishnah refer to Gefes of 
          olives, but that of sesame is permitted (it does not give 
          as much heat);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Or does it refer to Gefes of sesame, all the more so 
               Gefes of olives is prohibited?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Zeira taught, if Hatmanah was done in a pot, 
          one may not leave it on Gefes of olives.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This shows that the Mishnah refers to Gefes of 
               olives.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> No - perhaps Hatmanah <i>in</i> Gefes of sesame is 
          forbidden, but one may leave a pot Tamun in something 
          else on top of sesame, for its meager heat will not reach 
          the pot.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) DISMANTLING A LOOSE-FITTED BED ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Tana Kama argue whether one is permitted to assemble a bed loosely on Shabbos. The Tana Kama says 'Patur Aval Asur' (one is forbidden to do so, but he is not Chayav if he does). Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says that one is permitted to assemble a bed loosely. The Gemara says that the Amora'im argue whether the Halachah follows Raban Shimon ben Gamliel or the Tana, and thus Levi bar Shmuel permits one to dismantle such a bed while Rav Yehudah prohibits it.
</p><p>
How can the Gemara say that Rav Yehudah agrees with the Tana Kama, who prohibits assembling (and dismantling) a loose-fitted bed? Rav Yehudah says that one is <i>Chayav</i> to bring a Korban Chatas if he takes apart such a bed, and the Tana Kama says that one is <i>Patur</i>!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> (DH Raban Shimon ben Gamliel) explains that Rav Yehudah means that since one who knocks the leg tightly into the bed is Chayav to bring a Korban Chatas, one is prohibited (but Patur) from assembling (or dismantling) the bed even loosely.
</p><p>


<font><b>4) PLACING A DISH UNDERNEATH A LAMP TO CATCH THE SPARKS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that one may not place a dish of water underneath a lamp on Friday afternoon to catch the sparks that fall on Shabbos. The reason seems to be due to a Gezeirah: if one were to place a dish there on Shabbos itself, he would be Chayav for extinguishing, and thus the Rabanan made a Gezeirah that one may not do so even on Friday.
</p><p>
Why, though, would one be Chayav for extinguishing, when all he did was lay the dish there?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that one indeed is Chayav to bring a Chatas for committing the Melachah of extinguishing on Shabbos. The <b>RITVA</b> explains that Rashi means that if one places the dish in a place where the sparks usually fall on Shabbos, and one knows that the sparks are going to fall there, it is considered as though he actively extinguishes the spark when it falls there.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> understands Rashi differently. Tosfos says that Rashi does not mean that one is Chayav to bring a Chatas for merely putting the dish there, but rather that there are certain cases in which one would be Chayav for extinguishing, such as when one pours the water into the dish after a spark has already fallen into it, and the water extinguishes it, or when one lifts the dish while the spark falls into it.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) TRANSGRESSIONS IN THE HOUSE OF THE 'REISH GALUSA'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Rabah and R. Zeira visited the Reish Galusa's house; they 
          saw a slave put a flask of [cold] water on top of a 
          kettle. Rabah rebuked him.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> R. Zeira:</font></b> It is permitted to put a kettle on top of 
               a kettle!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rabah:</font></b> It is permitted to keep the top kettle warm 
               in that way - here, he heats cold water for the 
               first time.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The slave spread a turban over a flask and put a ladle on 
          top; Rabah rebuked him.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> R. Zeira:</font></b> What is wrong with this?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rabah:</font></b> See what will happen! 
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> The slave later squeezed out water absorbed in the 
               turban.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Zeira):</font></b> Since people may come to squeeze, 
          why do Chachamim permit spreading a cloth over a flask?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah):</font></b> We are not concerned lest one squeeze a 
          cloth, for people do not care if it is wet; people do not 
          want a turban to be wet.
<br>
<b><font>2) MOVING MATERIALS USED FOR 'HATMANAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> [Hatmanah in the following is permitted if 
          they are dry and forbidden if they are moist -] 
          straw...[tufts].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Ada bar Masnah):</font></b> If one did Hatmanah in 
          tufts, may he move them on Shabbos?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> If someone has no straw, will he squander 
          tufts [to dedicate them for Hatmanah?! Even if he used 
          them now for Hatmanah, surely they are still destined to 
          be used to make felt, they are Muktzeh.]
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> Hatmanah is permitted in wool 
          shearings, or pieces of combed wool, or in strips of 
          purple wool, and in tufts, but we may not move them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> The Beraisa means, if one was not Matmin in 
          them, they may not be moved.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This is obvious!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that they may be moved 
          because one can lie on them - the Beraisa teaches, this 
          is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Rav Chisda permitted returning tufts to a pillow [from 
          which they fell out].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Chanan bar Chisda - Beraisa):</font></b> One may untie 
          the neck-opening of a garment [tied by a launderer], but 
          one may not open it for the first time;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One may not insert tufts in a pillows or blanket on 
               Yom Tov, there is no need to say it is forbidden on 
               Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Chisda):</font></b> It is forbidden to insert tufts for 
          the first time (this if Makeh b'Patish, finishing a Kli), 
          but one may return them if they fell out.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> One may not insert tufts [for the 
          first time] in a pillow or blanket on Yom Tov, there is 
          no need to say it is forbidden on Shabbos;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If they fell out one may return them on Shabbos, 
               there is no need to say it is permitted on Yom Tov.
<br>
<b><font>3) 'UTENSILS' THAT ARE CONSIDERED CONNECTED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> If one opens the neck-opening of a garment 
          for the first time, he must bring a Chatas.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Kahana):</font></b> Why is this different than a cork 
          of a barrel (one may puncture it)?
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) OPENING A SEWN COLLAR ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav says that one who tears open a sewn collar (and thereby forms the hole in a shirt through which one puts his head) on Shabbos is Chayav to bring a Korban Chatas. <b>RASHI</b> says that the transgression is 'Makah b'Patish,' performing the final act to complete an object. The <b>RITVA</b> in Makos (3b) also explains that one is Chayav because of 'Makah b'Patish.' He adds that one is not Chayav for 'Kore'a Al Menas Litfor,' tearing for the sake of sewing, because he does not tear the collar with intention to sew an improved seam.
</p><p>
However, the Gemara later (105b) says that a person who tears his clothing on Shabbos to assuage his anger is Chayav for Kore'a. The Rishonim explain that even though he does not tear his clothing with intention to sew it again, his act is nevertheless considered a constructive one (it serves a constructive purpose of assuaging his anger) and therefore he is Chayav. According to the Gemara there, whenever tearing is done as a constructive act, one is Chayav for Kore'a. Why, then, is tearing open the collar of a shirt in order to make a hole for the neck not considered Kore'a?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>BI'UR HALACHAH</b> (OC 340) says that it is not considered Kore'a for another reason (and not because it is done for a purpose other than re-sewing). Kore'a refers to an inherently <i>destructive</i> act which is done to bring about a constructive result. In the case of tearing open the collar, the act if tearing is not destructive at all; it is <i>completely</i> constructive, for it is done in order to make a hole for the neck!
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Shabbos 10:11) says that one indeed is Chayav for Kore'a in this case, because this is a Keri'ah with a constructive purpose.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> The garment is all connected, the cork is 
          separate from the barrel.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Yirmeyah - Mishnah #1):</font></b> Clothes tied 
          together for the sake of laundering (so small items will 
          not get lost), or garments tied with Sha'atnez (e.g. wool 
          garments connected by a thread of linen) are connected 
          regarding Tum'ah (if Tum'as touches one, all become 
          Tamei) until one begins to untie them;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> It is connected even when not in use.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Contradiction (Mishnah #2):</font></b> If a stick was used for a 
          handle for an axe, it is connected [regarding Tum'ah] 
          while it is being used.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> It is not connected when it is not in 
               use!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> An axe handle is not connected when not in use 
          because one normally throws it in the wood pile - clothes 
          tied together are connected when not in use because one 
          leaves them connected, in case they will get dirty and he 
          will have to wash them again.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Which Tana says that anything connected is like 
          what it is connected to [regarding Tum'ah]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Answer (Rav Chisda or Rav Kahana or Rava, citing Rav 
          Yehudah): It is R. Meir:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah - R. Meir):</font></b> A receptacle in the wall of a 
               Kirah for oil (to warm it), spices or a Ner is 
               Mekabel Tum'ah through Maga [if something touches 
               the Kirah], not through the airspace [of the Kirah];
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon is Metaher.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> We understand R. Shimon - he does not 
               consider these like [part of] the Kirah;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  But if R. Meir considers them like the Kirah, 
                    they should Mekabel Tum'ah even through the 
                    airspace; if they are not like the Kirah, they 
                    should not Mekabel Tum'ah through Maga!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Mid'Oraisa, they are not like the Kirah; 
               mid'Rabanan, they are.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> If so, they should Mekabel Tum'ah even 
               through the airspace!
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Chachamim decreed that they are not, so 
               people will know that the Tum'ah is only mid'Rabanan 
               and therefore we do not burn Terumah or Kodshim on 
               account of it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Scissors that come apart, and a [carpenter's] 
          plane (the blade can be removed from the wood) are 
          connected regarding [Kabalas] Tum'ah, but not regarding 
          Haza'ah (one must sprinkle Mei Chatas on each part by 
          itself).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If they are considered connected, they should 
          be connected even for Haza'ah; if they are not connected, 
          they should not be connected for Tum'ah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah):</font></b> Mid'Oraisa, when they are being used, 
          they are connected, at other times they are not;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim decreed [to consider them connected for] 
               Tum'ah when they are not being used on account of 
               when they are being used, and they decreed [to 
               consider them disconnected for] Haza'ah when they 
               are being used on account of when they are not.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) TWO THINGS ATTACHED TO EACH OTHER</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa says then when two parts of an instrument are attached to each other (such as a two-part scissors, or a carpenter's plane), they are considered attached ('Chibur') mid'Oraisa with regard to being Mekabel Tum'ah while they are being used. 
</p><p>
If two, attached parts of an instrument are considered to be a single instrument with regard to Tum'ah, then why does the Gemara earlier say that the Beis ha'Pach of an oven, or two garments that were attached to each other by the launderer, are considered attached only mid'Rabanan, even b'She'as Melachah (i.e., while the oven is in use or while the clothes are being washed)?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> (DH Iy Chibur) says that two items attached to each other are considered to be attached mid'Oraisa only when those two parts <i>need</i> each other in order to do their job. In the case of the Gemara earlier, each garment has its own separate use (and the two garments are attached only for the sake of laundering them). Similarly, the Beis ha'Pach has a separate use from the oven. Therefore, they are not considered attached mid'Oraisa.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) 'HATMANAH' IN WET THINGS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> When they are wet [Hatmanah is forbidden].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Are they forbidden (Rashi - only; Rambam - 
          even) when they are naturally wet, or (Rashi - even; 
          Rambam - only) if they are wet on account of outside 
          moisture?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Mishnah):</font></b> ...Not in straw, grape skins or 
          pits, tufts, and grass [when they are wet].
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> We understand that these can be wet on account of 
               outside moisture - but tufts cannot be naturally 
               wet!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> Wool from between the thighs can be naturally 
          wet [from sweat or urine].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (R. Oshaya's Beraisa):</font></b> One may Matmin in dry 
          clothing or produce, but not in wet clothing or produce.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Clothing cannot be naturally wet!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> It is made from wool from between the thighs.
<br>
<b><font>2) OTHER MATERIALS FOR 'HATMANAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may Matmin in clothing, produce, dove's 
          wings (Rashash - feathers), sawdust and fine chaff of 
          flax;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah forbids if it is fine, and permits if it is 
          coarse.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - R. Yanai):</font></b> One must [be able to] guard his body 
          to wear Tefilin, like 'Elisha of the wings'.
<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 (Abaye):</font></b> He must be able to guard himself from 
          passing gas [while wearing Tefilin].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (Rashi) Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> He need [only] be 
          able to guard himself from sleeping [while wearing 
          Tefilin, lest he pass gas - when awake, anyone can guard 
          himself.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (Tosfos) Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> He must [also] be 
          able to guard himself from sleeping (one must be 
          conscious of Tefilin the entire time he wears them; also, 
          lest he pass gas.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is he called 'Elisha of the wings'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Romi decreed to puncture the skull of anyone who 
          will wear Tefilin; Elisha wore Tefilin in the market. An 
          officer appointed to enforce the decree saw him and 
          chased him; when he caught him, Elisha took the Tefilin 
          from his head and put it in his hand. 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The officer asked what he is holding; Elisha said 
               that it is dove's wings - a miracle was done, he 
               opened his hand and revealed dove's wings.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is special about dove's wings more than 
          those of other birds?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Keneses Yisrael is compared to a dove - 'Kanfei 
          Yonah Nechpah va'Kesef';
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Just like a dove's wings protect it [from cold, and 
               it uses them to fight off attackers], Yisrael's 
               Mitzvos protect them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Sawdust [and fine chaff of flax; R. Yehudah 
          forbids if it is fine].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Does R. Yehudah [Maharsha - also] argue about 
          sawdust, or [only] about chaff of flax?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> Fine chaff of flax is like 
          manure (it adds heat, one may not Matmin in it. 
          Presumably, if he also argued about sawdust, the Beraisa 
          would teach this.)
<br>
<b><font>3) ARE SKINS 'MUKTZEH'?
</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Hatmanah is permitted in skins, one may move 
          them;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Hatmanah is permitted in wool shearings, one may not move 
          them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How may one take the food [since it is 
          forbidden to move the wool]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One lifts the cover [of the pot with the wool on 
          it], the wool falls [to the side].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar ben Azaryah says, one tilts the box [in which 
          Hatmanah was done] and takes from the pot, lest he remove 
          the pot, the pit (in which it was Tamun) will cave in and 
          it will be forbidden to return the pot;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, he takes the food and returns it (this 
          will be explained).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  (Gemara - R. Yonason, R. Yonason and R. Chanina) 
          Question: Does the Mishnah discuss skins of a Ba'al 
          ha'Bayis (they may be moved, for they can be used to lie 
          on), but those of a tanner are forbidden (he would not 
          lie on them, lest they get dirty);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps it permits skins of a tanner, all the 
               more so those of a Ba'al ha'Bayis!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Yonason ben Elazar):</font></b> It discusses skins of 
          a Ba'al ha'Bayis.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (R. Chanina bar Chama):</font></b> R. Yishmael b'Rebbi 
          Yosi said that his father was a tanner, yet he would lie 
          on skins [on Shabbos; Rashi - on a weekday].
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) RETURNING A POT TO ITS PLACE OF 'HATMANAH'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah states that if a pot was surrounded by insulating material in such a way that when one lifts the pot, the material around it falls to where the pot was resting, he may not return the pot to its place. The Gemara (50b) says that even the Rabanan agree that if the material on the sides falls in, one may not return the pot. Why is one prohibited from returning the pot in such a case?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that one may not return the pot to its place of Hatmanah because the material (such as strips of wool) in which it was insulated is Muktzah, and one may not move the material in order to return the pot to its place.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (in Perush ha'Mishnayos) says that even if one uses non-Muktzah objects for Hatmanah, he still may not return the pot to its place. The reason is that since one needs to clear away the area that became covered by the insulating material, he is considered as though he is doing a new Hatmanah (and not merely continuing the previous Hatmanah). The <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> says that this is also the ruling of the Rambam in Hilchos Shabbos (although this ruling is not written explicitly there). The Rambam is more stringent than Rashi because according to Rashi one <i>may</i> move non-Muktzah material in order to return a pot to its place, while according to the Rambam one may not.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 259:3) mentions both opinions. Although the <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> cites a proof for the Rambam's stringent opinion from the Yerushalmi, the <b>BI'UR HALACHAH</b> writes that the Shulchan Aruch seems to side with the first opinion, since it mentions the Rambam's opinion only as a 'Yesh Omrim' -- 'there are those who say.'
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question (against R. Chanina - Beraisa):</font></b> One may move 
          boards of a Ba'al ha'Bayis, but not of a craftsman;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If one intended to use them to serve bread to 
               guests, it is permitted in either case.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Boards are different, people are particular that 
          they not get ruined.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question (against R. Chanina - Beraisa):</font></b> One may move 
          skins whether or not they were tanned - we distinguish 
          them only regarding Tum'ah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> This applies both to skins of a Ba'al 
               ha'Bayis and of a tanner!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, it applies only to skins of a Ba'al ha'Bayis.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If so (one may not move a tanner's tanned 
          skins), the Beraisa should have distinguished between 
          skins of a tanner!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa discusses only skins of a Ba'al 
          ha'Bayis.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b></b>  Tana'im argue about this [moving a tanner's tanned 
          skins]:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> One may move skins of a Ba'al ha'Bayis, 
               but not of a tanner;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi permits moving both of them.
<br>
<b><font>4) THE SOURCE THAT THERE ARE 39 'MELACHOS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Question (R. Yonason, R. Yonason and R. Chanina) A 
          Mishnah (73A) teaches that there are 39 Melachos - how 
          did the Tana know this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Chanina bar Chama):</font></b> He learns from the 
          labors used to build the Mishkan (39 primary labors were 
          done);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (R. Yonason ben Elazar):</font></b> He learns from 39 
          occurrences of the word 'Melachah' [or Meleches or 
          Melachto] in the Torah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Is 'Va'Yavo ha'Baysah La'asos 
          Melachto' [regarding Yosef] among the 39? 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Abaye:</font></b> Let us bring a Sefer Torah and count them! Rabah 
          bar bar Chanah said that a case occurred, they took out a 
          Sefer Torah and counted!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> I know how many times it says Melachah (R. 
          Chananel - there are 61 in all - 38 of them are surely 
          counted; 21 of them are surely excluded, e.g. those 
          commanding to do Melachah or those forbidding Meleches 
          Avodah)! The question is whether the 39th is this verse 
          or another verse:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If we count 'Veha'Melachah Haysah Dayam' (it means, 
               they finished the work), we exclude 'Va'Yavo 
               ha'Baysah...', like the opinion that Yosef wanted to 
               be with Potifar's wife (until the image of Yakov 
               deterred him - 'Melachto' is a euphemism);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If we exclude 'Veha'Melachah Haysah Dayam' (it 
               means, enough donations were given for the Mishkan), 
               we include 'Va'Yavo ha'Baysah...', like the opinion 
               that Yosef went to do his work.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  This question is not resolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Support (for R. Chanina - Beraisa):</font></b> One is liable only 
          for Melachos resembling those done for the Mishkan;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> They planted and harvested - you may not; 
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> They passed boards from the ground to the wagons, 
               and returned them to the ground - you may not 
               transfer from Reshus ha'Rabim to Reshus ha'Yachid or 
               vice-versa.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> They passed boards from wagon to wagon - you may not 
               transfer from one Reshus ha'Yachid to another.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> This is not a Melachah!
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer (Abaye and Rava):</font></b> You may not transfer from 
               one Reshus ha'Yachid to another if Reshus ha'Rabim 
               is in the middle.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE SOURCE FOR THE THIRTY-NINE MELACHOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara records two opinions regarding the source for the thirty-nine Melachos. Rebbi Chanina bar Chama says that we learn them from the labors performed in the Avodas ha'Mishkan. Rebbi Yonasan b'Rebbi Eliezer (in the name of Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi Yosi ben Lekunya) says that the thirty-nine Melachos are derived from the thirty-nine times that the Torah mentions a form of the word 'Melachah.'
</p><p>
The Gemara implies that these two opinions argue with one another. However, <b>RASHI</b> explains that according to the first opinion, we learn from the Avodas ha'Mishkan exactly <i>which</i> Melachos are forbidden. The other opinion, though, merely gives a source for the <i>number</i> of Melachos that are forbidden. The two opinions complement each other. Why, then, does the Gemara imply that they argue?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: RAV MENACHEM KASHER</b> zt'l (Torah Sheleimah, Bereishis 39, #97) writes that the Yerushalmi (Shabbos 7:2) records this argument in a slightly different way, and it is cited in more detail in the Midrash (Mishnas Rebbi Eliezer, Parshah 20). There, the first opinion says that the thirty-nine Melachos correspond to the number of times the words 'Melachah' and 'Avodah' are mentioned in the description of the building of the Mishkan. According to the Yerushalmi, the first opinion in the Gemara is not only giving the source for <i>what</i> the Melachos are, but also for <i>how many</i> Melachos there are.
</p><p>
(See also Shabbos 70a, where the Beraisa suggests another source for the number of Melachos based on a verse which mentions the words 'Eleh ha'Devarim' in connection to Shabbos. The Yerushalmi presents a similar source as well.)
</p><p>


<font><b>3) WHERE ARE THE 39 WORDS OF 'MELACHAH'?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara quotes several opinions for the source of the thirty-nine Melachos of Shabbos. The second opinion says that the Torah uses the word 'Melachah' (or a construct thereof) thirty-nine times. The Yerushalmi says that the last 'Melachah' of the count appears in Devarim 16:8, where the Torah commands us not to do Melachah on the seventh day of Pesach.
</p><p>
When we count the number of appearances of the word 'Melachah' (or a construct thereof) in the Torah, we will find that the word actually appears <i>65</i> times (the word 'Melachah' appears alone 25 times, and the word constructed with a prefix or suffix appears another 40 times; see Concordance). How, then, does the Gemara come up thirty-nine appearances of the word 'Melachah'?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> (cited by the <b>RAMBAN</b> here, and discussed at length by the <b>RA'AVAN</b> #350) explains that the Gemara counts the word 'Melachah' only when it is written in the context of an act that is forbidden on Shabbos. (This assumption is implicit in the Gemara here, which relates the question of what each appearance of the word 'Melachah' <i>means</i>, to the question of which words are included in the count). For this reason, the Gemara does not count the appearances of 'Melachah' in the description of Creation in Bereishis, and it does not count the appearances of 'Melachah' mentioned with regard to 'Meleches Avodah' of Yom Tov (because the Melachos of Yom Tov do not include all of the Melachos that are forbidden on Shabbos). Similarly, the Gemara does not count the word 'Melachah' in the verse, 'For six days you shall do Melachah,' because that verse does not command us to <i>refrain</i> from Melachah on Shabbos, but rather it commands us to do Melachah during the rest of the week. According to this criterion, the number of remaining appearances of the word 'Melachah' is indeed thirty-nine.
</p><p>
Rabeinu Chananel, however, addresses only 61 of the 65 appearances of 'Melachah.'
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TOSFOS YOM TOV</b> (Shabbos 7:2) explains that included in the count are only appearances of the word 'Melachah' that are <i>not</i> part of the commandment of 'Lo Ta'aseh Melachah' -- 'Do not do Melachah.' The count, not including all of the commandments not to do Melachah, comes to a total of thirty-nine.
</p><p>
The problem with this answer is that the Yerushalmi says that a commandment that uses the word 'Melachah' <i>is</i> included in the count (the Yerushalmi says that the last word in the count is the word in the verse that commands that Melachah not be done on the seventh day of Pesach). Also, the MAR'EH <b>HA'PANIM</b> on the Yerushalmi points out that the Tosfos Yom Tov missed a few occasions of the word 'Melachah' and the count comes to more than 39, even without the commandments not to do Melachah.
</p><p>
(c) The MAR'EH <b>HA'PANIM</b> says that the word 'Meleches' is not included in the count (because it is not a word by itself, but a dependent construct). This decreases the number by 19. He omits several other words from the count, because they do not refer to a Melachah that is forbidden on Shabbos.
</p><p>
However, the Torah Sheleimah (Bereishis 39, #97) points out that the Mar'eh ha'Panim does not account for all of the extra words. Another problem with his approach is that the text of the Gemara here, which says that 'Meleches' <i>is</i> included in the count, must be emended.
</p><p>
(d) The Torah Sheleimah quotes the <b>SEFER NETZACH YISRAEL</b> (Rav Yisrael Segal, 1741) who says that the count does not include the appearance of the word 'Melachah' in its raw form, with no prefix or suffix. This reduces the total of 65 to exactly 40 (from which our Gemara subtracts one). He, too, will have to emend the text of the Gemara here, which says that the word 'Melachah' <i>is</i> included in the count. (See also Parasha Page, Pekudei 5757.)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) DESIGNATION FOR PERMITTED USES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Hatmanah is permitted in wool shearings, one 
          may not move them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> If one was not Matmin in them, they may not be 
          moved - if they were used for Hatmanah, they may be 
          moved.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Objection (a new Talmid - Mishnah):</font></b> Hatmanah is permitted 
          in wool shearings, one may not move them - how may one 
          take the food? One lifts the cover, the wool falls (but 
          one may not directly move the wool)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> Rava really said, the Mishnah discusses when 
          one did not designate the wool for Hatmanah - if he 
          designated it, it may be moved.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Support (Ravin citing Rebbi):</font></b> The Mishnah discusses when 
          one did not designate the wool for Hatmanah - if he 
          designated it, it may be moved.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Ravina):</font></b> The Mishnah discusses wool stored to 
          be sold (Rava discusses regular wool).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> One may not move wool stored to be 
          sold; if the owner prepared it for use, it may be moved.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah - Beraisa #1):</font></b> If one cut Chariyos 
          (hard, leafless Lulav branches) for the sake of 
          [fire]wood, and then decided to use them to sit on, he 
          must tie them (to show that they will be used for sitting 
          - if not they are Muktzeh);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, he need not tie them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Shimon 
          ben Gamliel.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> He must tie them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> It suffices to intend to sit on them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Rav Asi):</font></b> It suffices to sit on them [before Shabbos], 
          even if he did not tie them or intend to sit on them [on 
          Shabbos].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We understand Rav - he holds like the first 
          Tana; we understand Shmuel - he holds like R. Shimon ben 
          Gamliel;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> But Rav Asi is not like either Tana!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He holds like the following Tana:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> One may go out with combed flax or 
               unraveled wool on a wound (Rashi; Rav Hai Gaon - a 
               toupee), if it was dyed [Rashi's text - with oil] 
               and tied on with a string - if it was not dyed or 
               tied, one may go out with [or even move] it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If one went out with it before Shabbos, even if it 
               was not dyed or tied, one may go out with it on 
               Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Support (for Rav Asi - Rav Ashi - Mishnah):</font></b> One may not 
          use his hand to move straw on a bed, but he may move it 
          with his body;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If the straw was food for animals, or if a sheet or 
               blanket was spread over it (Rashi - and he slept on 
               it; Rambam - it is as if he slept on it; Me'iri - 
               the Beraisa discusses a normal case, normally one 
               would not sleep directly on straw - the Heter 
               depends only on sleeping) before Shabbos, he may 
               move it with his hand.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana that argues with R. Shimon ben 
          Gamliel [in Beraisa #1]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is R. Chanina ben Akiva:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Ze'iri):</font></b> R. Chanina ben Akiva once came to a place 
               and found Chariyos that had been cut for the sake of 
               wood; he told his Talmidim to intend to sit on them 
               on the morrow (Shabbos) - I don't know if they were 
               involved with a [wedding] celebration or consoling 
               mourners.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> This was permitted because they were busy 
               with a celebration or consoling mourners - otherwise 
               it is forbidden unless they were tied!
<br>
<b><font>2) DESIGNATING DIRT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> One may bring a box of dirt into his house 
          [before Shabbos] for all his needs on Shabbos (e.g. to 
          cover spit or excrement).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Mar Zutra):</font></b> This is only if he designated a corner [of 
          the house for the dirt].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Suggestion (Rabanan):</font></b> This is like R. Shimon ben Gamliel 
          (no action need be done to the dirt)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Rejection (Rav Papa):</font></b> It is even like Chachamim - they 
          require an action only when it is possible - but nothing 
          can be done to dirt to prepare it!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> Tana'im argue about this:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa #1):</font></b> One may rub Kelim with anything to 
               polish them, except for silver Kelim, which may not 
               be rubbed with alum;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> It is permitted to use nitre or sand.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa #2):</font></b> It is forbidden to use nitre or sand.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Tana #2 requires an action, Tana #1 does 
               not!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Rejection #1:</font></b> No, neither Tana requires an action - 
          Beraisa #2 is like R. Yehudah, who forbids Davar she'Eino 
          Miskaven (he might scrape the Kli, this is Memachek 
          (smoothing)); Beraisa #1 is like R. Shimon, who permits 
          Davar she'Eino Miskaven.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> The Seifa of Beraisa #1 is unlike R. Shimon!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Seifa):</font></b> One may not shampoo his hair with them 
               (nitre or sand).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon permits this!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) PREPARING A WOUND-COVER FOR USE ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa teaches that one may wear a wound-cover outside of his home on Shabbos, when he daubed it with oil before Shabbos, or when he wore it out of his home once before Shabbos. In such cases, the wound-cover is not considered an object that he carries, but rather a garment that he wears. The Beraisa implies that if he did not wear it on Friday, he may not go out with it on Shabbos because, as Rashi explains, it is not considered a garment.
</p><p>
If merely wearing the wound-cover once on Friday gives it the status of a garment, then the person should simple wear it on Shabbos inside his home in order to give it the status of a garment! Why does the Gemara not consider this option?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) According to <b>RASHI</b>, it could be that when one wears it on Shabbos without having daubed it with oil before Shabbos, one does not show that it is a garment. Since the wound-cover is normally worn with oil, if one wears it without oil on Shabbos he does not show that he likes to wear it that way and considers it a garment without oil. Rather, the reason why he is wearing it without oil is because it is forbidden to put oil on it on Shabbos! If he wears in on Friday without oil, it must be that he <i>likes</i> to wear it that way and considers it a garment even without oil (because otherwise he would put oil on it), and therefore he may go out with it on Shabbos.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Aval Lo) explains that the Gemara is not discussing whether or not the wound-cover is a garment with regard to walking out with it. Rather, the Gemara is discussing whether it is Muktzah -- whether it is considered designated for use on Shabbos? When the Beraisa says 'one may go out' or 'one may not go out' with it, it means 'one may handle it' or 'one may not handle it.' Accordingly, one may not put it on even at home on Shabbos.
</p><p>
(c) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> and the <b>RAMBAM</b> explain that this wound-cover ('Pikurin') is actually a wig (made to cover rashes on the head, -Rambam). According to this explanation, it could be that if one wears it on Shabbos for the first time, there is a fear that he may become uncomfortable and take the wig off after he walks out into Reshus ha'Rabim. If, however, he daubed it with oil before Shabbos, or if he tried it on Friday and saw that it was comfortable, the Rabanan permit him to wear it on Shabbos without fear that he will feel uncomfortable and remove it. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) HALACHAH: PREPARING AN OBJECT FOR USE ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara cites three opinions concerning how a person must prepare an object for use on Shabbos so that it is not Muktzah: (1) he must do a <i>formal act of preparation</i> with the object; (2) he merely needs to <i>think</i> about using the object on Shabbos (that is, to mentally designate it for use on Shabbos); (3) he merely needs to use it once before Shabbos (with no formal act of preparation or mental designation). What is the Halachah?
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> cites <b>RABEINU SHIMSHON</b> who rules leniently (one merely needs to use it once before Shabbos), because that seems to be how Rav Ashi and Rav Asi conclude in the Gemara.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Shabbos 25:21) rules that one must think about it before Shabbos (the second opinion in the Gemara).
</p><p>
(c) Tosfos cites <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who rules like the Tana Kama, that one must do a formal act of preparation. His ruling is based on a Gemara later in Shabbos.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 308:20) rules like the lenient opinion of Tosfos (a), that using it once before Shabbos is sufficient preparation for Shabbos.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> A Nazir may shampoo his hair and separate 
               the hairs [even though he might pull out hairs], but 
               he may not comb his hair (Rashi - this surely pulls 
               out hairs; Rashba - one who combs intends to remove 
               dangling hairs).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Rejection #2:</font></b> Both Beraisos are like R. Yehudah - the 
          Tana'im argue about R. Yehudah's opinion about scraping:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Tana #1 holds that one might scrape, Tana #2 is not 
               concerned for this.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We cannot establish Beraisa #1 like R. Yehudah, 
          on account of its Seifa!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Seifa):</font></b> One may wash his face, hands and feet [with 
               nitre or sand, on Shabbos].
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This might remove [facial] hair!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answers:</font></b> The Beraisa refers to a child, woman or Seris 
          (they do not have beards).
<br>
<b><font>3) WHAT MAY BE USED TO WASH ONE'S SELF</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> A ground up brick (R. Chananel - 
          frankincense) is permitted [for washing the face on 
          Shabbos. Me'iri - hair of the head comes out easier than 
          beard hairs].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> The waste of sesame is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> Ground up pepper is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> Barda is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is Barda?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> It is one third aloe, one third 
          myrtle [leaves], and one third violets.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (R. Nechemyah bar Yosef):</font></b> As long as aloe is not the 
          majority, it is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> On Shabbos, may one bruise olives (Rashi - on a 
          rock, to temper their bitterness; Tosfos Yeshanim - on 
          one's face, hands and feet, for the sake of washing - are 
          we concerned lest they remove hair)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> This is always forbidden, on 
          account of ruining food (Bal Tashchis).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> Rav Sheshes argues with Shmuel:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Shmuel):</font></b> One may use bread for any need.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> Bread is different, it does not get ruined 
          like olives.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  Barda was brought in front of Ameimar, Mar Zutra and Rav 
          Ashi - Ameimar and Rav Ashi washed with it, Mar Zutra did 
          not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Ameimar and Rav Ashi:</font></b> Rav Sheshes permits it!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Rav Mordechai:</font></b> Mar Zutra does not use it even during the 
          week [on account of Beged Ishah, adorning oneself like a 
          woman]:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> A man may scrape hardened filth or scabs 
               on account of pain, but not to beautify himself.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Ameimar and Rav Ashi permit Barda - which Tana 
          do they rely on?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> One should wash his face, hands and 
          feet every day in honor of Hash-m (in whose 'form' he was 
          made) - 'Kol Po'al Hash-m la'Ma'anehu'.
<br>
<b><font>4) RETURNING SOMETHING TO ITS STATE OF BEING 'TAMUN'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Elazar ben Azaryah):</font></b> One tilts the box and 
          takes from the pot, lest he remove... [Chachamim say, he 
          takes the food and returns it].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Aba):</font></b> All agree that if he removed the pot and the 
          pit caved in, it is forbidden to return the pot (Rashi - 
          one may not move the wool; Rambam - this is like new 
          Hatmanah on Shabbos).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (Mishnah - Chachamim):</font></b> He takes the food and 
          returns it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the case?
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  If the pit did not cave in, this is obvious 
                    (alternatively - R. Elazar would not argue)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer #1:</font></b> The pit caved in, nevertheless Chachamim 
               permit returning!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (and Answer #2 to Question (c:</font></b>1)): Really, it did 
          not cave in;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Version #1 (Rashi):</font></b> They argue about whether or not 
               we are concerned that it will cave in [and he will 
               return it anyway] - R. Elazar is concerned for this, 
               Chachamim are not.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Version #2 (Rashba):</font></b> They argue about whether or not 
               we are concerned that it caved in - R. Elazar is 
               concerned (one may not return unless he knows that 
               it did not cave in) Chachamim are not (one may 
               return unless he knows that it caved in).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> If Slikusta (an herb) was inserted into moist 
          dirt, removed and re-inserted before Shabbos, one may 
          remove it (e.g. to smell it) and re-insert it on Shabbos;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Version #1 (Rashi):</font></b> If not (it was not removed and 
               re-inserted before Shabbos), it is forbidden [even 
               to remove it on Shabbos, for he will move dirt].
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Version #2 (Tosfos (43B-44A), Rashba):</font></b> If not, it is 
               forbidden [to return it on Shabbos, for this will 
               widen the hole].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> If a knife was inserted between rows of bricks 
          in a wall, removed and re-inserted before Shabbos, one 
          may remove it and re-insert it on Shabbos; if not, it is 
          forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Mar Zutra):</font></b> One may insert a knife between branches 
          coming out of a date stamp for the first time on Shabbos 
          (we are not concerned lest he scrape off bark).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Question (Rav Ketina, against Rav Huna and Shmuel - 
          Mishnah): If one is Tomen (Ramban, citing Yerushalmi - a 
          bunch of) turnips or radishes under a vine, leaving some 
          of the leaves (Rav Hai Gaon - some of them) exposed, we 
          are not concerned for Kil'ai ha'Kerem, Shemitah, or 
          Ma'aser; one may remove it on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  Rav Huna and Shmuel are refuted. (Tosfos ha'Rosh - 
          surely, they knew the Mishnah! They established the case 
          to be that the turnip was inserted, removed and 
          re-inserted before Shabbos - the Gemara rejects this, and 
          says that they are refuted.)
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) BRUISING AN OLIVE ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara discusses whether one may bruise an olive on Shabbos. Other than the problem of handling food disrespectfully, what law of Shabbos prohibits bruising an olive on Shabbos?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that one bruises an olive to make it sweeter. <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Mahu) explains that Rashi means that bruising an olive might be prohibited on Shabbos because one thereby makes it into an edible food item, an act which is prohibited on Shabbos (155a). The Rishonim dispute Rashi's explanation because according to Rashi, the question of bruising an olive has nothing to do with the subject of the Gemara here.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> and the other Rishonim explain that the question is whether or not one may bruise olives in order to obtain their juice to smear on one's skin on Shabbos. This is relevant to the subject of the Gemara here, because the Gemara has been discussing the use of various materials for washing one's skin on Shabbos.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) PERFORMING 'HATMANAH' TO KEEP SOMETHING COLD</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If it (a pot) was not covered before Shabbos, 
          one may not cover it on Shabbos;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If it was covered and became exposed, one may cover it;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  One may fill a flask [of cold water] and put it under a 
          pillow or blanket [to keep it cold].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Shmuel):</font></b> One may Matmin something cold [to keep 
          it cold].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Yosef):</font></b> We already learn this from our 
          Mishnah - one may fill a flask and put it under a pillow 
          or blanket!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> One might have thought that this is 
          permitted only regarding things [like water (Rashi; 
          Tosfos ha'Rosh - wine)] that people do not normally 
          Matmin [to keep them warm], but not regarding things 
          [like a Tavshil] that people normally Matmin - Shmuel 
          teaches that both of these are permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rav Huna citing Rebbi):</font></b> One may not Matmin something 
          cold.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> Rebbi permitted Hatmanah of something 
          cold.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rav Huna cited what Rebbi said at first, the 
          Beraisa is after Rebbi heard R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi 
          [cite his father]:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Rebbi:</font></b> Hatmanah of cold food is forbidden.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi:</font></b> My father permitted it!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Rebbi:</font></b> The elder has already ruled (I retract)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Rav Papa:</font></b> See how much Chachamim endeared each other! Had 
          R. Yosi been alive, he would have sat humbly in front of 
          Rebbi, just like his son did - R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi 
          was as great as his father;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Nevertheless, Rebbi showed honor to R. Yosi by 
               saying 'The elder has already ruled'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  On Shabbos, Rav Nachman told his slave to Matmin water; 
          on a weekday, he told his slave to bring hot water from a 
          Nochri. R. Ami was upset.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Yosef):</font></b> R. Ami should not have been upset - 
          Rav Nachman followed his Rebbi'im, Rav and Shmuel!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Shmuel):</font></b> One may Matmin something cold.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Rav):</font></b> Bishul Akum (the Isur mid'Rabanan to eat 
               something cooked by a Nochri) does not apply to 
               something that can be eaten raw.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Ami holds that an important person should be 
          stringent.
<br>
<b><font>2) THE COVERING OF A POT THAT IS 'TAMUN'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Even though on Shabbos Hatmanah is forbidden 
          even in something that does not add heat, one may 
          increase the coverings;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, one may remove the sheet it 
          was wrapped in and Matmin in a coat [which insulates 
          better], or vice-versa.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Similarly, R. Shimon ben Gamliel taught [another leniency 
          -] Hatmanah is forbidden only in the kettle that was on 
          the fire - if one transferred the water to another 
          kettle, one may Matmin the latter kettle.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> [Hatmanah on Shabbos is forbidden lest one heat the 
               food beforehand -] since he cools the food [by 
               transferring it to another kettle], we are not 
               concerned lest he heat it!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  If one covered a pot with something that may be moved [on 
          Shabbos], whether Hatmanah (surrounding the pot) was done 
          in something that may or may not be moved, one may take 
          [the pot, to take food] and return [it];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  If one covered with something that may not be moved, 
          whether Hatmanah was done in something that may or may 
          not be moved:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If the pot was partially uncovered, one may take and 
               return; if not, not.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: AN INSULATED POT THAT BECAME UNCOVERED</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that if one covered a pot with insulating material before Shabbos and it 'became uncovered,' one may cover it again on Shabbos, and it is not considered a new Hatmanah (which is prohibited on Shabbos). 
</p><p>
Why does the Mishnah say that the pot 'became uncovered,' implying that it became uncovered by itself or by accident? Even if one <i>intentionally</i> removed the cover, he should be permitted to replace it on Shabbos. We find that if one removes a pot from a stovetop on Shabbos, he may replace it afterwards (Mishnah 36b, according to Beis Hillel). The Mishnah here should emphasize that one may re-cover the pot even if he <i>intentionally</i> removes the cover on Shabbos!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> explains that the Mishnah is referring to a pot that became uncovered on <i>Friday</i> before Shabbos (and not on Shabbos or during Bein ha'Shemashos). If it <i>accidentally</i> became uncovered on Friday (and remained uncovered until after Shabbos arrived), then one may re-cover it on Shabbos. If, however, one <i>intentionally</i> uncovered it on Friday, he may not return the cover on Shabbos, because it is considered a new Hatmanah and is prohibited on Shabbos. (However, if the pot was covered until after Bein ha'Shemashos, one may intentionally uncover it and re-cover it on Shabbos as necessary.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>SEFER HA'TERUMAH</b> and the <b>SEMAG</b> cited by the <b>HAGAHOS MAIMONIYOS</b> (Hilchos Shabbos 3:6 and 4:2) explain that the Mishnah is referring to a pot that became uncovered on <i>Shabbos</i>. The Mishnah is teaching that if it became uncovered by accident -- or even intentionally -- on Shabbos, one may replace the cover. The reason the Mishnah mentions that it was un-covered 'unintentionally' is in order to teach that if it became uncovered on <i>Friday</i> even unintentionally (and remained uncovered until after Shabbos arrived), one may not cover it on Shabbos. They cite support for this explanation from the Yerushalmi.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 257:4) rules stringently, like the second opinion. Therefore, if the pot became uncovered <i>even by itself</i> on Friday before Shabbos, one may <i>not</i> cover it on Shabbos.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, fine chaff of linen is like manure (it 
          adds heat, one may not Matmin in it even from before 
          Shabbos).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  [On Shabbos] one may put a [copper] kettle on top of a 
          kettle, or a [Cheres] pot on top of a pot, or a pot on 
          top of a kettle (this text is according to the comment in 
          the margin), but not a kettle on top of a pot (for the 
          kettle retains heat better, it will heat the pot. Rashi's 
          preferred text permits even this.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One may seal the opening of the pot with dough 
               (kneaded from before Shabbos);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> One may not put one pot or kettle on top of another 
               in order to warm the top one, it is permitted to do 
               so just to keep it warm.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Just like [on Shabbos] one may not Matmin something hot, 
          one may not Matmin something cold.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  Rebbi permits Hatmanah of something cold.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  One may not crush hail or snow in order to melt it; one 
          may put it in a cup or bowl [to cool off liquid inside].
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>***** <b>PEREK BA'MEH BEHEMAH</b> ****
</b></font></center><p>
<br><br><b><font>3) 'SHEMIRAH' THAT IS NECESSARY FOR DIFFERENT ANIMALS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah) Question:</font></b> What may animals go out with on 
          Shabbos? (A person is commanded that his animal rest on 
          Shabbos; it may wear something [normally] used for 
          Shemirah (to protect the animal, or to prevent it from 
          running away. Tosfos (53A Mahu) - we ask about Reshus 
          ha'Rabim; regarding animals we do not forbid in a 
          Chatzer.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> A camel may go out with a halter (a noose around 
          the head), a Na'akah may go out with a Chotem (these will 
          be translated), Luvdakim may go out with Prumbi'a, a 
          horse may go out with a chain [around the neck with a 
          ring in it, one leads the horse by a rope going through 
          the ring];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  All Ba'alei Shir (animals that normally go out with a 
          chain) may go out with a chain and are pulled by a chain 
          [on Shabbos].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  [If it became Tamei], one may sprinkle [Mei Chatas] on it 
          and immerse it while it is in place (on the animal; we 
          are not concerned lest the animal be a Chatzitzah, i.e. 
          if it is too tight).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What is a Na'akah with a Chotem?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> It is a white camel 
          (Me'iri - mule) with an iron ring (it goes through a hole 
          pierced in the wall in the middle of the nose - this is a 
          great Shemirah, for it is prone to run away).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Luvdakim with Prumbi'a.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> This is a donkey from Luv with an iron 
          halter.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  Levi sent money to Bei Chuzai, and asked them to buy a 
          donkey from Luv (they are big and fast); they returned 
          his money with barley, hinting to him that [one need not 
          make the long journey to Luv to get a good donkey,] a 
          local donkey is fine if he will constantly feed it 
          barley.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel):</font></b> People asked Rebbi whether 
          or not an animal may go out with Shemirah which is 
          permitted for a different animal.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> We need not ask about a white camel with a halter - 
               since it is insufficient Shemirah, surely it is like 
               carrying a load;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> We ask about a [regular] camel with an iron 
               nose-ring - since a halter would suffice, it is like 
               a load;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps excessive Shemirah is not considered a 
               load.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi:</font></b> My father taught that four 
          animals go out with a halter - a horse, mule, camel and 
          donkey.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> A camel may go out with a halter, but not with 
          a nose-ring!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> No, we infer that a camel may go out with a 
          halter, but a white camel may not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> A donkey of Luv or a camel may go out with a 
          halter.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  Tana'im argue about whether or not excessive Shemirah is 
          considered a load:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> A Chayah may not go out with a noose;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Chananyah permits a noose, and anything that guards 
               it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the case?
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  It cannot discuss a large Chayah - surely, a 
                    noose does not suffice!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer #1:</font></b> It discusses a small Chayah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> A noose surely suffices (the first Tana 
               would not forbid)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Answer #2:</font></b> They argue about a cat:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  The first Tana holds that since a small rope 
                    suffices for it, a noose is a load; Chananyah 
                    holds that excessive Shemirah is not considered 
                    a load.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Rav Huna bar Chiya citing Shmuel):</font></b> The Halachah follows 
          Chananyah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b></b>  Rabah bar Rav Huna and Levi, the son of Rav Huna bar 
          Chiya were riding together on donkeys. Levi's donkey went 
          in front of Rabah's; Rabah was upset (he thought that 
          Levi did so intentionally, even though Rabah was a bigger 
          Chacham). Levi sought to [show that it was unintentional 
          to] appease him.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Question (Levi):</font></b> May a wicked animal like my donkey go 
          out with an iron halter [or is this excessive Shemirah]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah bar Rav Huna):</font></b> Your father taught that the 
          Halachah follows Chananyah (it is permitted even if it 
          would be excessive Shemirah).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) HALACHAH: CRUSHING OR MELTING ICE ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Beraisa at the end of the chapter says that one may not crush ice on Shabbos, but one may put it inside a cup to melt. What is the problem with crushing it, and why is one permitted to place it in a cup to melt?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> writes that one is prohibited to crush ice because it <i>appears</i> as though one is creating a new entity ('Nolad'), water, on Shabbos. The prohibition is limited to a <i>positive action</i> that produces a new entity. One may, however, let water become created itself by placing the ice in a cup. Since it is not a genuine case of Nolad (but just 'looks like' Nolad), the water produced is not Muktzah. As long as no active crushing is involved, one is permitted to allow the ice to melt.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> cites the <b>SEFER HA'TERUMAH</b> who says that making water from ice <i>is</i> a genuine case of Nolad, and the water produced in such a manner is Muktzah. The <b>RITVA</b> explains that according to this approach, when the Beraisa says that one may let ice melt in a cup, it is referring to a cup that already <i>has water in it</i>. Since the newly created water (from the melting ice) mixes immediately with the water already in the cup and is never an independent entity, one is permitted to let the ice melt in such a manner.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RASHBA</b> himself says that the problem is that crushing ice gives the appearance of 'Sechitah,' squeezing an object to obtain its juice. If crushing ice was permitted, people might err and think that it is also permissible to squeeze fruit to obtain juice (which is an Isur d'Oraisa). However, one is permitted to crush ice inside of a cup if it is filled with water (because the resulting liquid becomes mixed immediately and is not seen, and it is not obvious that he has created liquid). Likewise, letting the ice melt by itself even when it is not in a cup is permitted (it does not resemble Sechitah because no action of squeezing has been done). That is, the Rashba accepts the lenient rulings of both Rashi and the Sefer ha'Terumah: ice may be left to melt by itself, or crushed manually into a cup with water.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 320:9) cites the explanation of Rashi (a). The <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> (320:34) cites the Rashba (c) and says that one may leave ice to melt in the sun, or crush ice into a cup of water. The Mishnah Berurah (320:35) then cites the <b>REMA</b> (OC 318:16) who quotes the Sefer ha'Terumah that crushing ice may be forbidden because of Nolad, and therefore one should only let it melt in a cup that already has water in it.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) AN ANIMAL THAT GOES OUT TO 'RESHUS HA'RABIM' WITH UNNECESSARY ATTIRE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses whether an animal may walk in Reshus ha'Rabim with 'Shemirah Yeseirah' (items that assist in restraining or protecting it, which provide <i>more</i> than enough restraint or protection) on Shabbos. Is such attire considered a 'Tachshit' (common accessory), which an animal may wear in Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos, or is it considered a 'Masuy' (load), which an animal may not take into Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos.
</p><p>
The Gemara quotes Rebbi Yosi who said that four animals may go out with a halter ('Afsar'), and it attempts to prove from his statement that 'Shemirah Yeseirah' <i>is</i> considered a Masuy. Rebbi Yosi's statement that four animals may go out with a halter implies that they may <i>not</i> go out with another type of restraint, such as one that provides excessive restraint. The Gemara refutes this proof and suggests that Rebbi Yosi meant that only these four <i>animals</i> may go out with a halter, but other types of <i>animals</i> may not go out with a halter (because it does not provide protection for them at all).
</p><p>
The Gemara then cites another short Beraisa that says that a 'Luvdekim and camel may go out with a halter.' Why is this Beraisa mentioned here? What is it adding to the current discussion?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) This Beraisa indeed is not relevant here, but since the Gemara has cited Rebbi Yosi's list of animals that may go out with a halter, the Gemara records another list.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> and <b>MAHARAM</b> explain that this Beraisa is proving that 'Shemirah Yeseirah' is prohibited, since it implies that a camel may <i>not</i> go out with an iron nose-ring, but only with a halter. It is true that Rebbi Yosi's list provides no clear proof, since it might be implying that other <i>animals</i> may not go out with a halter, for Rebbi Yosi explicitly emphasized that '<i>these</i> animals may go out with a halter,' excluding all other animals. The short Beraisa, however, does not specify that only 'these' animals may wear a halter, and thus it is not excluding other animals from wearing a halter. Rather, it is teaching that a camel may go out with a halter, but <i>not</i> with an iron nose-ring.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>SEFAS EMES</b> and <b>KORBAN NESANEL</b> (#2) explain that this Beraisa is proving that Rebbi Yosi's list of 'four animals that go out with a halter' is incomplete. Even a Luvdekim may go out with a halter. Accordingly, when the first Tana said that four animals may go out with a halter, the implication could not have been that only <i>these</i> animals may go out with a halter but not any other animals. Rather, the implication must be that these four animals may not go out with an iron nose-ring ('Shemirah Yeseirah'), as the Gemara originally assumed.
</p><p>


<font><b>4) GIVING HONOR WHILE TRAVELING</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates that Levi, the son of Rav Huna bar Chiya, and Rabah bar Rav Huna were traveling on donkeys from one town to another. Levi's donkey galloped ahead of Rabah's donkey. Rabah became upset that Levi went ahead of him and neglected to give him the respect due to him. Levi indirectly informed Rabah that it was not done on purpose, but that his donkey was difficult to control.
</p><p>
Why was Levi required to let Rabah go ahead of him in the first place? Even though Rabah was deserving of respect, the Gemara in Berachos (47a) clearly states there is no obligation to let the more respected person go first on the road! Why, then, was Rabah upset?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> cites <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who answers that the Gemara in Berachos, which says that there is no obligation to let the more respected person go first while traveling, applies only when each person is traveling by himself and they happen to meet up with each other. However, if they are traveling together as a group, then certainly one must give deference to one who is greater and allow him to travel at the head.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) IS EXCESSIVE 'SHEMIRAH' PERMITTED?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Tana d'vei Menasheh - Beraisa):</font></b> If one carved a hole in 
          the horn of a goat, it may go out with a halter on 
          Shabbos [inserted through the hole - otherwise it is 
          forbidden, for the goat slips its head out of it].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Yosef):</font></b> If one [tied its beard and] 
          inserted the halter through a hole in the beard, what is 
          the law?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The goat would not pull itself away, for this would 
               be painful (it is proper Shemirah, it is permitted);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Or, we are concerned lest the beard get untied and 
               the halter will fall off, and the owner will carry 
               it four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim, so it is forbidden!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  This question is not resolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A cow may not go out with a strap between its 
          horns.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (R. Yirmiyah bar Aba):</font></b> Rav and Shmuel argue about this - 
          one forbids whether it is for Noy (decoration) or for 
          Shemirah (to hold it by the strap - this is excessive, 
          for one can lead a cow without holding it);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The other forbids if it is for Noy, but permits if 
               it is for Shemirah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Surely, Shmuel permits for Shemirah, for Rav 
          Huna said in Shmuel's name that the Halachah follows 
          Chananyah (excessive Shemirah is not a load)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> Just the contrary, Shmuel forbids even 
          for Shemirah!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel):</font></b> People asked Rebbi 
               whether or not an animal may go out with Shemirah 
               which is permitted for a different animal.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi:</font></b> My father taught that four 
               animals go out with a halter - a horse, mule, camel 
               and donkey.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> A camel may go out with a halter, but not 
               with a nose-ring!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> We reject that teaching (it must be 
          mistaken) on account of Rav Huna's teaching.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why do we reject Rav Yehudah's teaching and 
          accept Rav Huna's - perhaps we should reject Rav Huna's 
          and accept Rav Yehudah's!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We do so on account of what other Amora'im said 
          in the name of Rav and Shmuel:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Chiya bar Aba citing Rav):</font></b> It is forbidden 
               whether it is for Noy or for Shemirah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (R. Chiya bar Avin citing Shmuel):</font></b> It is forbidden 
               if it is for Noy, it is permitted if it is for 
               Shemirah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> If Reuven had a Parah Adumah and tied 
          a halter on it, it is Kosher;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If it was considered a load, this would disqualify 
               it - 'Asher Lo Alah Aleha Ol' (any Melachah 
               disqualifies it)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> The case is, Reuven was leading it 
          from one city to another (in this case, a halter is 
          needed for Shemirah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> Parah Adumah is different, for it is 
          very valuable (its proper Shemirah is better than that of 
          regular cows).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Ravina):</font></b> The case is, it was rebellious.
<br>
<b><font>2) TAKING AN ANIMAL OUT WITH A CHAIN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A horse may go out with a chain [and all 
          Ba'alei Shir go out with a chain and are pulled by it].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does it mean 'Go out with a chain and are 
          pulled by it?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Huna):</font></b> The chain may be Karuch (wrapped 
          around the neck), or used to pull the animal. (Tosfos - 
          he holds that Karuch is also for Shemirah, it can be used 
          to grab the animal; Rashi - Karuch is only for Noy.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Shmuel):</font></b> It may be Karuch only if the animal 
          is pulled by it. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Animals may go out Keruchim to be pulled by 
          it. (Tosfos - Rav Huna explains, they may go out Keruchim 
          if they could be pulled by it, i.e. there is room to 
          insert one's hand.) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> I saw calves of Rav Huna's house go out 
          Keruchim with halters.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rav Dimi):</font></b> The mules of Rebbi's house went out with 
          halters on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Did they go out Keruchim, or pulled?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah):</font></b> His mules went out 
          Keruchim with halters on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question (Rabanan):</font></b> We already know this from Rav Dimi's 
          teaching!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Surely, Rav Dimi did not teach that they were pulled 
               on halters - Rav Yehudah already taught that Rebbi 
               permits this!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> People asked Rebbi whether or not an 
               animal may go out with Shemirah which is permitted 
               for a different animal.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi:</font></b> My father taught that four 
               animals go out with a halter - a horse, mule, camel 
               and donkey.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Asi):</font></b> [Perhaps Rav Dimi taught that they were 
          pulled on halters,] nevertheless we could not have 
          learned from Rav Yehudah;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Yehudah taught that Rebbi heard that R. Yosi 
               permitted a mule to go out with a halter; he did not 
               say whether or not Rebbi accepted this!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Rav Dimi teaches that Rebbi accepted this, but he 
               did not specify if he permits Keruchim only if they 
               can be pulled by them (there is room to insert one's 
               hand), or even if not;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Therefore, Rav Shmuel's teaching is necessary.
<br>
<b><font>3) TAKING AN ANIMAL OUT WITH A RING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may sprinkle on it [a chain] and immerse 
          it while it is in place.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> This implies that it is Mekabel Tum'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Contradiction (Mishnah):</font></b> Rings of (worn by) people are 
          Teme'im (Mekabel Tum'ah);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rings of animals (e.g. in a chain) or of vessels 
               (e.g. handles) and all other rings are Tehorim.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: AN ANIMAL'S ATTIRE AND 'SHEMIRAH YESEIRAH'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara records a Machlokes whether an item which provides excessive restraint or protection for an animal is considered attire (and the animal is permitted to go out with it on Shabbos) or a load (and the animal is not permitted to go out with it). What is the Halachah?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>ROSH</b>, <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b>, <b>RIF</b>, and <b>RAMBAM</b> rule like Rav, who is stringent and says that any attire which provides extra protection is considered a load and is forbidden. They prove that the Halachah is like Rav from the fact that all of the Amora'im, who answer why the reins upon a Parah Adumah are not considered a load, apparently agree with Rav.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RA'AVAD</b> cited by the <b>RASHBA</b> and <b>RAN</b> explains that in this case, we rule like Shmuel who is lenient, and one may let the animal go out with attire which provides extra protection. The reason the Halachah is like Shmuel is because we find that Rabah bar Rav Huna ruled like Shmuel (in the incident with Levi's donkey).
</p><p>
(c) The <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> (according to the <b>RAN's</b> understanding) says that in one respect, the Halachah is like Rav that an animal may not go out with an item that provides extra protection. However, the Halachah is also like Chananya and Rabah bar Rav Huna, who permit a cat to go out with a rope collar, even though it is considered extra protection. The reason for this is that a rope collar for a cat is the type of restraint that <i>some</i> people use all the time for their cats, and therefore it is not considered a load (even though it provides more protection than necessary). It was in such a case that Rabah bar Rav Huna permitted an animal to go out with extra protection.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 305:17) rules that 'Shemirah Yeseirah' is prohibited and a cow may not be taken out with a rope around its neck (like (a) above).
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> Our Mishnah discusses a person's 
          ring that became Tamei, then was designated for an 
          animal.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> It is Tamei because people use it 
          to pull the animal:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> A metal rod used for animals is Tamei.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This is because the person hits the animal with it 
               [to make it go, the rod serves man] - likewise, 
               since a person uses the chain to pull the animal, it 
               is Tamei.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may immerse it while it is in place.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> There is a Chatzitzah! (Rashi - the ring is 
          snug in the chain; R. Pores - it is tight against the 
          animal's neck.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Ami):</font></b> The case is, it was beaten, it is 
          loose.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> R. Ami holds like Rav Yosef - if he held 
               like R. Yitzchak, since an action was done to it, 
               the Tum'ah would have vanished!
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> [If one is making a Kli,] intent (to 
                    use it like it is now) causes it to Mekabel 
                    Tum'ah, a physical change is needed to Metaher 
                    (intent to fix it for a different use does not 
                    suffice).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> He can hold even like R. Yitzchak - he 
               holds like R. Yehudah, who says that a constructive 
               change does not Metaher (beating it makes it useful 
               for an animal).
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> A physical change is 
                    Metaher only if it is destructive, not if it 
                    improves.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Beraisa):</font></b> The hole was big from the beginning.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question (a Talmid):</font></b> I heard that there is a difference 
          between different kinds of rings!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Eliezer):</font></b> There is a difference regarding 
          Shabbos, but all are the same regarding Tum'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> Rings of people are Tamei, rings of 
          animals, of vessels and all other rings are Tehorim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Eliezer discusses only rings of people.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Not all rings of people are the same regarding 
          Tum'ah!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> If a ring was fixed [for a buckle through 
               which a strap passes] for girding oneself at the 
               loins, or between the shoulders [to hold rolled up 
               sleeves], it is Tahor;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Only a ring worn on the finger is Tamei.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Eliezer discusses only rings worn on the 
          finger.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Not all rings worn on the finger are Teme'im!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> If a metal ring has a stamp of coral 
               wood, it is Tamei; if the ring is coral and the 
               stamp is metal, it is Tahor.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Eliezer discusses metal rings.
<br>
<b><font>4) DIFFERENT KINDS OF NEEDLES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (the Talmid):</font></b> I heard that there is a difference 
          between different kinds of needles!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Eliezer):</font></b> There is a difference regarding 
          Shabbos, but all are the same regarding Tum'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> If the hole or point of a needle is 
          missing, it is Tahor.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Eliezer discusses intact needles.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> If a needle became rusty - if the 
          rust prevents sewing, it is Tahor; if not, it is Tamei;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Yanai):</font></b> It is Tamei only if the end can be used 
               for writing (alternatively - it is Tahor if the rust 
               leaves a mark on the item sewn).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Eliezer discusses needles that were filed down 
          (they have no rust).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Even such needles are not always Tamei!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> A needle may be moved on Shabbos whether 
               or not it has a hole - only Tum'ah depends on having 
               a hole.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> The Beraisa discusses unfinished needles.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) TURNING A MAN'S ORNAMENT INTO AN ANIMAL'S</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION: RASHI</b> (DH b'Va'in) explains that if one makes a man's ornament, such as a ring, into an ornament for an animal (such as a ring to fasten its collar), and it was Tamei before it was made into an animal's ornament, it retains its Tum'ah even when it is placed on the animal.
</p><p>
Rashi emphasizes that the ring was Tamei before it was put on the animal, because, apparently, after it becomes an animal's ornament it no longer can become Tamei. However, if this is true, then even if it is already Tamei it should lose its previous Tum'ah when it becomes an animal's ornament, because an animal's ornament cannot become Tamei! If, on the other hand, it can become Tamei even after it becomes an animal's ornament, then why does Rashi say that the ring was Tamei <i>before</i> it was put on the animal?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (52a, DH b'Va'in) argues with Rashi and says that when a ring is made into an animal's ornament, it still can become Tamei. (It retains the status of an ornament of a man, since no physical change was made to it.) It indeed can become Tamei even when it is on the animal.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MAGINEI SHLOMO</b> and <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> defend Rashi's explanation. They write that the Gemara later concludes that the case under discussion is where one <i>did</i> make a physical change to the ring, but the change was a <i>constructive</i> one (i.e., it made the man's ring into a usable ring for an animal). In such a case, the Gemara explains, changing the ring physically does not cause it to become Tahor (according to Rebbi Yehudah).
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> understood that even according to Rebbi Yehudah, who says that a constructive change to the item does not make it Tahor, this only means that a constructive change cannot <i>remove</i> Tum'ah that was there already. However, a constructive change does <i>prevent</i> the item from being Mekabel Tum'ah in the future. (The ring, in this case, is now defined as an animal ring and not a man's ring, and an animal ring cannot become Tamei.)
</p><p>
Apparently, the reason for this distinction is that in order to make a Tamei item Tahor, one must <i>break</i> it, and a constructive change is not called 'breaking' it. However, in order to <i>prevent</i> it from becoming Tamei, it is necessary only to give the item a new status. Even a constructive change gives an item a new status. Therefore, if a man's ring was made into an animal's ring, the ring cannot become Tamei once it has become an animal's ring. This is why Rashi says that the ring became Tamei <i>before</i> it was made into an animal's ornament. (Rashi's intention is to explain the Gemara in a manner consistent with the Gemara's conclusion.)
</p><p>


<font><b>3) CORAL AND 'TUM'AH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that a ring made of 'Almog' with a metal signet cannot become Tamei. <b>RASHI</b> says that the reason is because it is 'Peshutei Kli Etz,' a wooden item with no receptacle, which cannot become Tamei.
</p><p>
Why does Rashi have to say that it does not become Tamei because it is a 'Peshutei Kli Etz'? 'Almog,' Rashi says, is 'Atzei Almogim,' which the Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 23a, Bava Basra 80b; see Rashbam, Bava Basra 81a) and the Bartenura (Kelim 13:6) define as <i>coral</i>. The Mishnah in Kelim (17:13) teaches that everything that grows in the sea is Tahor. The Rambam (Hilchos Kelim 1:3), citing the Toras Kohanim, writes that this refers not only to living creatures in the sea such as fish, but also to seaweed that grows in the sea. Coral should be no different from seaweed -- it should not be Mekabel Tum'ah because it grows in the sea! Why, then, does Rashi say that it is Tahor because it is a 'Peshutei Kli Etz'?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>TIFERES YISRAEL</b> and <b>SIDREI TAHAROS</b> (Kelim 13:6) explain that the coral is attached to the earth at the <i>bottom</i> of the sea. Therefore, it is considered a <i>tree</i> and not an underwater organism, and thus the only reason why it is Tahor is because it is 'Peshutei Kli Etz.' The type of seaweed that is Tahor is a plant that grows while drifting in the water.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>SIDREI TAHAROS</b> cites an original explanation in the name of the <b>YESHU'OS YISRAEL</b>. The Mishnah in Kelim (17:13) states that if one attaches something that is Mekabel Tum'ah to an object that grew in the sea, the object that grew in the sea can now be Mekabel Tum'ah because of that attachment. Perhaps Rashi maintains that when one attaches something to the object that grew in the sea, the attachment turns the sea object into a regular land object, so to speak. Since the Gemara here is discussing a metal signet attached to a ring made of coral, the metal signet turns the coral into a land object, so that it can now be Mekabel Tum'ah. However, the coral does not become like the metal that is attached to it. Rather, it is considered like <i>coral</i> that grew on dry land, and it is grouped with wooden utensils. Therefore, it would have been Mekabel Tum'ah if not for the reason of 'Peshutei Kli Etz.' (The Sidrei Taharos, however, finds flaws in this reasoning.)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) WHICH SADDLES ARE PERMITTED FOR AN ANIMAL TO WEAR ON SHABBOS?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A donkey may go out with a Marda'as (a pack 
          saddle for loads, it gives warmth - donkeys are always 
          cold) that is tied to it;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Rams may go out Levuvim; female sheep may go out 
          Shechuzos, Kevulos and Kevunos (all of these will be 
          defined);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Goats may go out [with their udders] wrapped; 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi forbids all of these, except for sheep Kevunos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah permits goats to go wrapped to be dry (not to 
          produce milk), not for milk (wrapped loosely, so it will 
          not inhibit milk or in order to catch drops; 
          alternatively - to prevent dripping). 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Shmuel):</font></b> [A donkey may go out with a Marda'as] 
          only if it was tied from before Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Support (Rav Nachman - the coming Mishnah):</font></b> A donkey may 
          not go out with a Marda'as if it is not tied.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the case?
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  If it is not tied at all, surely it is 
                    forbidden, lest it will fall, and the owner 
                    will carry it [in Reshus ha'Rabim]!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It was not tied from before Shabbos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> Our Mishnah discusses a Marda'as that was 
               tied from before Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> A donkey may go out with a Marda'as if 
          it was tied from before Shabbos; it may not go out with 
          an Ukaf (another kind of saddle), even if it was tied 
          from before Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel permits an Ukaf that was tied from 
          before Shabbos, as long as he does not tie straps at the 
          front or under the tail (the straps keep loads from 
          slipping to the back or front).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Asi bar Noson):</font></b> May one put a Marda'as on a 
          donkey on Shabbos?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Chiya bar Rav Ashi):</font></b> It is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Asi):</font></b> Why is this different than an Ukaf?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  R. Chiya did not answer. (Rav Asi thought that he did not 
          bother to answer for he also permits an Ukaf.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Asi - Beraisa):</font></b> If an Ukaf is on a donkey 
          on Shabbos, one may not move it; rather, one leads the 
          donkey into the Chatzer, the Ukaf will fall by itself.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One may not take the Ukaf off, all the more so one 
               may not put it on!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  R. Zeira (to Rav Asi):</font></b> Do not bother him - he holds like 
          his Rebbi (Rav):
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Chiya bar Aba citing Rav):</font></b> One may hang a [food] 
               basket on [the neck of] an animal on Shabbos, all 
               the more so a Marda'as;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  We permit [a basket] for mere pleasure (so it 
                    can eat without bending down), all the more so 
                    [a Marda'as] to avoid pain (the cold)!
<br>
<b><font>2) THINGS CARRIED ON ACCOUNT OF PAIN OR PLEASURE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> A Marda'as is permitted, a basket is forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Chiya bar Yosef told Rav's opinion to Shmuel.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Shmuel:</font></b> If Rav said that, he does not know anything 
               about laws of Shabbos!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (R. Binyamin bar Yefes citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> One may hang 
          a Marda'as on a donkey on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  R. Zeira:</font></b> Very good - Shmuel taught similarly in Bavel.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Rav also said this! (Rav was greater than 
          Shmuel, why did R. Zeira mention only Shmuel?)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Binyamin's teaching concluded'But not a 
          basket' [unlike Rav].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> All agree that a Marda'as is permitted - why is 
          it different from an Ukaf (one may not even remove it)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> An Ukaf can fall by itself (therefore, we need 
          not permit removing it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Papa):</font></b> One may put on a Marda'as for 
          warmth, to alleviate pain - removing an Ukaf is to cool 
          the donkey, this is merely a matter of comfort; 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> People say that a donkey is cold even in the heat of 
               summer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question (against Shmuel - Beraisa):</font></b> A horse may not go 
          out with a fox' tail [to ward off Ayin Ra'ah] or ribbon 
          (for Noy) between its eyes, nor a Zav with a pouch [to 
          collect Zivah, so he will know how many sightings he 
          had], nor a goat with a pouch on its udder, nor a cow 
          with a muzzle in its mouth, a colt may not go out to 
          Reshus ha'Rabim with a basket under its mouth, an animal 
          may not go out with a [metal] sandal, nor with a Kemi'a 
          (an amulet containing writing or herbs), even though it 
          is Mumcheh (established to heal);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is a stringency of animals over people.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> An animal may go out with a bandage tied over a 
               wound, or a splint tied over a broken bone, or with 
               an afterbirth dangling [from its womb]; if a bell's 
               clapper is plugged up [so it will not clang], it may 
               go out with it in a Chatzer.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> A colt may not go out to Reshus ha'Rabim 
               with a basket under its mouth - but it may go out in 
               a Chatzer!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> The Beraisa discusses a mature colt, a 
               basket is permitted even though it is for mere 
               pleasure!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, it is permitted for young colts [with big 
          legs and small necks], to avoid pain [of having to bend 
          down to eat].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Support:</font></b> Presumably, this is like the case of a Kemi'a 
          [taught shortly afterwards, it is not for pleasure].
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A DONKEY THAT GOES OUT WITH ITS SADDLE PAD</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> A donkey girded with a saddle pad ('Marda'as') may be taken into Reshus ha'Rabim only if the saddle pad was tied to it on Friday, before Shabbos.
</p><p>
If a saddle pad is considered attire (and not a load), then what difference does it make whether it was placed on the donkey before or during Shabbos?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> (54b, DH k'd'Amran) says that one must demonstrate that this donkey generally wears the saddle pad as its attire. By putting it on the donkey on Friday (and leaving it there for an extended period of time), one shows that it is a garment and not a load.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH v'Hu she'Keshurah) suggests two other explanations. In his first explanation, Tosfos says that if one ties the saddle pad to the donkey on Shabbos, it appears as though his intention is to <i>transport</i> the saddle pad from one place to another (which is forbidden), and not merely to take the donkey for a walk.
</p><p>
(c) In his second explanation, Tosfos (in the name of <b>RABEINU PORAS</b>) says that when one ties the saddle pad to the animal on Shabbos, it appears as though he intends to take the animal for a <i>long ride</i> on Shabbos.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RASHBA</b> and <b>ROSH</b> cite the Yerushalmi that says that one may not tie the saddle pad to the animal on Shabbos because of the prohibition of 'Mishtamesh b'Ba'alei Chayim.' That is, while one ties the saddle pad to the donkey, he leans on the donkey and uses it, which is forbidden mid'Rabanan on Shabbos.
</p><p>
If the Gemara here means that one may not tie the saddle pad to the donkey on Shabbos because of the problem of 'Mishtamesh b'Ba'alei Chayim,' what, then, is the Gemara's question later when it inquires whether one is permitted to put a saddle pad on a donkey [inside a courtyard] without intention to take the donkey outside? If putting the saddle pad on the donkey violates the prohibition against using an animal on Shabbos, then what difference does it make whether or not the donkey remains in the courtyard?
</p><p>
Perhaps the Gemara later does not intend to differentiate between one who puts a saddle pad on a donkey that will walk <i>outside</i> and one who puts a saddle pad on a donkey that will stay <i>inside</i>. Rather, the Gemara is differentiating between one who <i>places</i> a saddle pad on the donkey and one who <i>ties</i> it to the donkey. The Gemara wants to know if one is permitted to <i>place</i> a saddle pad on a donkey on Shabbos, because one does not lean on the animal when he merely places the pad on its back. (This answer is supported by the text of the Gemara here. The Gemara earlier says 'Keshurah' (tied) and later it says 'Liten' (to place). This answer is also implicit in the words of the Me'iri.) (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<b><font>3) CURES FOR ANIMALS ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Nor with a Kemi'a, even though it is Mumcheh.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> A man may not go out with a Kemi'a 
          that is not Mumcheh.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> He may go out with a Kemi'a Mumcheh (an 
               animal should also be permitted)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa forbids a Kemi'a that is not Mumcheh.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa says, even though it is Mumcheh!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is Mumcheh for people, but not for animals.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Surely, if it is Mumcheh for people, it is 
          Mumcheh for animals!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No - people have Mazel (Rashi - angels that 
          advocate for them; Me'iri - a person's confidence that 
          the Kemi'a will work helps to cure him) - perhaps the 
          Kemi'a will not help animals, which lack this.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa calls this a stringency of animals 
          over people - if an animal may go out with a Kemi'a 
          Mumcheh for animals, animals are not more stringent than 
          people! (Maharsha - the Gemara must know that Mumcheh for 
          animals is not Mumcheh for people (Me'iri - this is 
          because animals are very physical) - if not, it is harder 
          to be Mumcheh for animals, this is a stringency of 
          animals!) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, 'This is a stringency of animals over people' 
          does not refer to a Kemi'a, rather, to going out with a 
          sandal (if it would fall off an animal, one might carry 
          it; if a person's sandal fell off, he would not carry it, 
          he would put it on again)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question (against Rav and Shmuel - Beraisa):</font></b> One may 
          anoint and preen a person, but not an animal [on 
          Shabbos].
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> The case is, there is a wound, it is on 
               account of pain (nevertheless, it is forbidden on 
               behalf of an animal)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, the wound healed, it is on account of 
          pleasure. (Rashi - this answers for Shmuel; Rav is a 
          Tana, he argues with the Beraisa.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question (against Rav and Shmuel - Beraisa):</font></b> One may not 
          put a sick animal in water to cool it; a sick person may 
          enter water to cool off.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer (Ula):</font></b> Chachamim decreed against cures on Shabbos, 
          lest one grind up spices to make medicine.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If so, why may a sick person enter water?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It looks like he enters the water to cool off 
          [not for the sake of a cure].
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> It should be permitted for an animal for 
               the same reason!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> People normally do so to cool off, animals 
               do not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We do not decree against curing animals!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> If an animal was standing outside the 
               Techum (outskirts of the city, the furthest that one 
               may go on Shabbos), one may call for it to come - we 
               do not decree lest he leave the Techum to bring it 
               (people are not frantic about animals - similarly, 
               he may cure an animal, he will not come to grind 
               spices)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Ravina):</font></b> [We decree against curing animals -] 
          the case is, the animal was within the Techum of its 
          owner, it was outside its Techum (it receives the Techum 
          of its shepherd).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> Tana'im argue about 
          whether or not one may cure animals:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> If an animal ate [too much] vetch, one 
               may not make it run through the Chatzer [to induce 
               diarrhea, to cure it];
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Oshaya permits.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Oshaya.
<br>
<b><font>4) PROTECTING THE UDDER OF THE ANIMAL ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #1):</font></b> A Zav may not go out with a pouch, nor a 
          goat with a pouch on its udder.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Contradiction (Beraisa #2):</font></b> A goat may go out with a 
          pouch on its udder.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> It may go out if it is tight 
          fitting, not if it is loose (lest it fall and one will 
          carry it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Rav Yosef:</font></b> You deny that Tana'im argue about this - but 
          they argue! 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> [Beraisa #1 is like the first Tana 
          of out Mishnah, Beraisa #2 is like R. Yosi.]
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> Goats may go out wrapped;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi forbids all of these, except for sheep 
               Kevunos;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah permits goats to go wrapped to be dry, 
               not for milk.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Both Beraisos are R. Yehudah - 
          Beraisa #1 discusses wrapping for milk, Beraisa #2 
          discusses wrapping to dry.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> The goats of Beis Antuchya 
               had big udders, they went out with pouches, so they 
               would not get scratched. (Maharsha asks, why did Rav 
               Yosef reject Rav Yehudah - perhaps this was Rav 
               Yehudah's answer! Ri - Answer #3 also forbids 'for 
               milk' because it is loose, it might fall - but Rav 
               Yehudah did not cite this Beraisa, he did not 
               'limit' the Beraisos to R. Yehudah. Rashi - Answer 
               #3 forbids 'for milk' on account of carrying [milk 
               that drops]; R. Pores - Answer #3 forbids 'for milk' 
               for the pouch is a load [to prevent milk from 
               dripping, not to guard the animal].) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> A case occurred, a woman died, leaving a 
          nursing baby. The father could not afford to hire a wet 
          nurse - a miracle occurred, he developed breasts and was 
          able to nurse the baby.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Rav Yosef:</font></b> This man had great merits to merit such a 
          miracle!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Abaye:</font></b> Just the contrary - it is demeaning that [he did 
          not merit income, rather,] the order of creation had to 
          be changed for him! (Ya'avetz - the miracle was in the 
          merit of the baby. Ga'on Yakov - Abaye means, the man was 
          left with little merits after deducting for a miracle 
          like this.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Rav Yehudah:</font></b> This shows how difficult it is to merit 
          income - Hash-m changed the order of creation for him, 
          this was easier [for him to merit] than income!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Support (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Many people are saved through 
          miracles, but Hash-m does not create food (i.e. it does 
          not grow by itself in storehouses)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> A case occurred, a man married a woman missing 
          a hand - he did not notice this until the day she died.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Rebbi:</font></b> That woman was exceedingly Tzenu'ah (she dressed 
          modestly)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  R. Chiya:</font></b> Her Tzeni'us is not so outstanding, women 
          normally cover themselves [and she had extra incentive, 
          to cover up her blemish] - he was exceedingly Tzenu'a not 
          to notice!
<br>
<b><font>5) RAMS GO OUT 'LEVUVIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Rams may go out Levuvim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does this mean?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Huna):</font></b> They go out tied together in pairs 
          [to prevent them from fleeing].
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the source that Levuvim denotes 
               closeness?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> 'Libavtini Achosi Chalah'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Ula):</font></b> Hide is put over the Lev (heart) to 
          protect from attacking wolves.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> [Why is this done only for males -] 
               surely, wolves also attack females!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer #1:</font></b> Rams go at the front of the herd.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Objection:</font></b> Surely, wolves also attack the back of 
               the herd!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, rams are fat.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Objection #1:</font></b> [Many] females are also fat!
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Objection #2:</font></b> Surely, wolves cannot distinguish 
               males from females [before attacking them! Beitzah 
               20A - Talmidei Shamai saw Hillel bringing a Korban, 
               they could not tell that it was a male [Olah], even 
               though they were right there and suspected this.]
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Answer #3:</font></b> Rams stick up their noses and look to 
               both sides when walking (wolves think that the rams 
               want to attack them).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> [Levuvim is when] 
          hide is tied under the Ever of rams to prevent them from 
          mating.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is his source?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Seifa permits female sheep to go out 
          Shechuzos, i.e. with hide tied under the tail to enable 
          rams to mate with them - presumably, the Reisha discusses 
          a related matter.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How do we know that Shechuzos refers to 
          exposure [of Ervah]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'V'Hinei Ishah Likraso Shis Zonah u'Ntzuras Lev' 
          (Shis refers to Ervah; Shechuzos is like an acronym of 
          Shis Zonah, if we interchange Sov and Ches which look 
          similar).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) CALLING THE COW TO COME HOME</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> In an attempt to prove that the Rabanan did not uphold their decrees when doing so would cause pain to an animal, the Gemara cites a Beraisa that says that if a man sees his animal standing outside its Techum, he may call it to come home, and the Rabanan were not concerned that he might go and bring the animal with his hands and transgress the Isur of Techumin on Shabbos. Had the Rabanan prohibited the owner from calling his animal to come home, the animal might have experienced distress as a result of being lost from its owner.
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that the law of the Beraisa is no proof. The Beraisa is discussing a case in which the animal's Techum was inside the owner's Techum. Therefore, he may call the animal to come home, and there is no concern that he will go and bring the animal and transgress the Isur of Techumin.
</p><p>
The Gemara implies that one is permitted only to <i>call</i> the animal to come home, but not to go and <i>bring</i> the animal home (by pulling it, or even by chasing it). Why, though, are these acts prohibited, and if they indeed are prohibited, why is there no concern, according to the Gemara's conclusion, that the owner will go bring the animal instead of just calling it?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> The answers to this question take into account three issues of concern in this case. First, a man is not permitted to walk outside of his Techum on Shabbos. Second, any object may not be moved out of the Techum of the owner (or trustee) of the object. Hence, a cow that is given to a shepherd may be moved only as far as the shepherd may walk. (It does not matter <i>who</i> moves the object; the limits of an object's Techum are determined by the Techum of its owner.) Third, a man is not permitted to have his animal perform Melachah for him on Shabbos because of the Mitzvas Aseh of 'Shevisas Behemto,' to ensure that one's animal rests on Shabbos. Perhaps this Mitzvas Aseh also prohibits him from allowing his animal to leave its Techum, even in order to return home.
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that the Gemara initially assumes that the animal is outside of the owner's Techum, and the prohibition involved in bringing back the animal is that the owner will go out of his Techum (the first concern mentioned above). The animal itself, however, is not necessarily outside of its own Techum.
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that the animal is within the man's Techum, but it is outside of its own Techum. Accordingly, the owner is not permitted to bring the animal to his home, because he will be taking the shepherd's object (the animal) outside of the shepherd's Techum (the second concern above). Rashi explains that this prohibition is a weaker prohibition than taking <i>oneself</i> out of one's own Techum. For such a weak prohibition, the Rabanan did not make a decree out of concern that one may go and bring his animal back home.
</p><p>
With regard to the third concern (that the animal will walk out of its Techum for the owner's benefit (to bring the animal home)), Rashi explains that the Mitzvah of 'Shevisas Behemto' requires that the owner prevent his animal from doing any of the 39 Melachos. He is permitted, though, to let his animal walk out of its Techum (which is not one of the 39 Melachos). Therefore, he is permitted to call the animal to come back home, but not to bring it home actively with one's hands (because then he transgresses the second concern, actively taking the object out of its Techum).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> gives the exact opposite explanation. The Gemara initially assumes that the animal is outside of its own Techum (and it does not matter whether or not it is within the owner's Techum). The only way the owner can bring the animal home is by calling it and causing the animal to transgress the Isur of Techumin (the third concern above). Even though the Torah does not prohibit one to cause his animal to transgress the Isur of Techumin, the Rabanan prohibited it. However, since it is not such a strong prohibition, the Rabanan permitted one to call his animal to come back to its Techum in order to prevent the animal from having pain.
</p><p>
Why were the Rabanan not concerned that the owner will bring the animal home by hand (or by chasing it) and transgress the second concern above by actively taking it out of its Techum, and by carrying an object (the animal) four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim? It must be that the Rabanan did not enforce decrees when doing so would cause pain to an animal. This is the Gemara's attempted proof.
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that the animal is not outside of its own Techum; it is only outside of the <i>owner's</i> Techum (like the Gemara's initial understanding according to Rashi). Therefore, the owner may not make the animal move by physically going out to the animal and leading or chasing it, but he may call it to make it move. By calling it, he does not transgress any prohibition whatsoever, because the animal is inside of its Techum.
</p><p>
(If this is the case, there is no concern that the owner will think that he is also permitted to go out of his Techum to fetch the animal, and there is no concern that he will transgress an Isur d'Oraisa by pulling the animal four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim. Such a concern exists only in the original scenario, in which the Rabanan suspended the third concern mentioned above for the well-being of the animal. In the present scenario, since the owner is not permitted to transgress any trace of a rabbinical prohibition, there is no concern that he will think that he is permitted to do an Isur d'Oraisa or an Isur d'Rabanan for his animal.) 
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) HOW MAY GOATS AND SHEEP GO OUT ON SHABBOS?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Females may go out Kevulos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does this mean?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The tail is tied down to prevent mating.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source that Kevulos denotes 
          something that does not bear fruit?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'Mah he'Arim?Eretz <i>Kavul</i>'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does this mean?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Huna):</font></b> It was full of people adorned with 
          gold and silver.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question (Rava):</font></b> If so, why was Chiram unhappy with 
               them - 'V'Lo Yoshru b'Einav'!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rav Huna):</font></b> Because they were rich and 
               delicate, they did not work.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> The land was sandy 
          (alternatively - salty and cleaved).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Why was it called Kavul?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> One who walks in it sinks in until the Kavla 
               (Rashi - ankle; Tosfos - thigh); this is like people 
               say, a Mekavla land that does not bear fruit. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> They may go out Kevunos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does this mean?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The wool is guarded [from birth to be utterly 
          clean] for Milas (quality wool).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> [The appearance of Tzara'as called] Ses 
               is like white wool.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is white wool?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rav Bivi bar Abaye):</font></b> It is wool of a newborn 
               lamb that is guarded for Milas.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Goats may go out wrapped.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (Rav):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yehudah (he 
          permits wrapped to be dry, not for milk);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yosi (he forbids both 
          of these).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (Rav):</font></b> Goats may go out wrapped to be dry, not 
          for milk;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> Both of these are forbidden. (Tosfos - in this 
          version, they did not cite the Halachah in the name of 
          the Tana'im, because there was dispute about which Tana 
          said what.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Goats may go out wrapped to be dry, not for 
          milk;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah ben Beseira says, [letter of the law] 
               this is the Halachah - however, onlookers cannot 
               tell the intent! Therefore, both of these are 
               forbidden. (Tosfos - in a place where they are 
               wrapped only to be dry, this is permitted.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yehudah ben Beseira.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  (Ravin):</font></b> The Halachah follows the first Tana (Tosfos - of 
          the Beraisa; Rashi of our Mishnah).
<br>
<b><font>2) TAKING AN ANIMAL OUT WITH ITS LIMBS TIED TOGETHER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> It is forbidden for animals to go out in the 
          following ways:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A camel may not go out with Metulteles (a strap or 
               pillow under the tail to stop a load from slipping; 
               alternatively, a Marda'as), nor Akud nor Ragul (with 
               limbs tied - these will be explained);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The same applies to all animals.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  One may not tie camels one to another and lead them;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  One may lead several camels at once, holding the ropes in 
          his hand, on condition that he does not wind the ropes 
          (this will be explained).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Beraisa):</font></b> A camel may not go out with a 
          Metulteles tied to the tail, but it may go out with a 
          Metulteles tied to the tail and hump.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rabah bar Rav Huna):</font></b> A camel may go out with a 
          Metulteles tied to its bottom.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> It may not go out Akud nor Ragul.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Akud is when the hand (foreleg) and [hind] 
          leg are tied together, like Akeidas Yitzchak (Medrash 
          Tanchuma);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Ragul is when the hand is bent and tied [so it 
               cannot be extended].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa #1):</font></b> Akud is when both hands or both 
          feet are tied together; Ragul is when the hand is bent 
          and tied.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> Rav Yehudah holds like the following Tana:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa #2):</font></b> Akud is when the hand and leg are tied 
               together, or both hands or both feet; Ragul is when 
               the hand is bent and tied.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> The Tana agrees with what Rav Yehudah calls 
          Akud and Ragul, but he says that both hands or both feet 
          tied together is also Akud, unlike Rav Yehudah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, Rav Yehudah holds like the following 
          Tana:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa #3):</font></b> Akud is when the hand and leg are tied 
               together; Ragul is when the hand is bent and tied.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not tie camels one to the other and 
          lead them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> It looks like he takes them to sell 
          them in the market.
<br>
<b><font>3) HOLDING THE ROPES OF AN ANIMAL ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may hold the ropes in his hand [but may 
          not wind them].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rav Ashi):</font></b> It is forbidden to wrap them on account of 
          Kil'ayim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Which Isur of Kil'ayim does he refer to?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> He refers to different species working 
               together (he and the camels pull the ropes; 
               alternatively, he and the camels pull a wagon, e.g. 
               on a weekday).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection (Mishnah):</font></b> A person may plow or pull with 
               any animal.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He refers to Sha'atnez (some ropes are of wool, 
          others are of linen).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Objection (Beraisa):</font></b> If wool and linen were connected 
          through one stitch or knot, they are not considered 
          connected regarding Kilayim (all the more so, ropes wound 
          in the hand that are not tied)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Really, he refers to Sha'atnez - the Mishnah 
          means, one may not wind them and tie them [twice].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> One may not leave a Tefach of the ropes 
          sticking out of his hand [away from the animals, for it 
          looks like he carries something other than the reins].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Contradiction (Tana d'vei Shmuel):</font></b> Two Tefachim may not 
          stick out.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Resolution (Abaye):</font></b> Letter of the law, up to two Tefachim 
          may stick out - however, we tell people that only one 
          Tefach may stick out.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A CAMEL THAT GOES OUT WITH A 'METULTELES'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that a camel may not go out into Reshus ha'Rabim with a 'Metulteles.' The Gemara explains that this prohibition does not apply when the Metulteles is tied to both the hump and the tail of the camel, in which case the camel may go out with it. <b>RASHI</b> (DH b'Shilyasah) explains that a Metulteles is a small, stuffed pillow that is placed under the animal's tail so that the strap which binds the load-saddle to the animal's back will not rub against the tail and harm the animal when it is carrying a load.
</p><p>
If, as Rashi explains, the sole purpose of this pillow-pad is to protect the camel while it carries a load, then why is the camel permitted to go out with this pillow-pad on Shabbos? A camel may not carry a load on Shabbos! Since the pad serves no purpose other than to protect the camel while it carries a load, on Shabbos it should be considered a Masuy (load) and not a garment of the camel, and it should be forbidden! (<b>SEFAS EMES</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> Perhaps Rashi is following his own opinion as expressed elsewhere. At the beginning of the Perek, Rashi (51b, DH Yotz'in) writes that anything that is usually worn by an animal, whether it is for the sake of adornment or for the sake of protection, is permitted. Here, although the Metulteles might not be for adornment nor for protection, since the animal <i>usually</i> goes out with it (even after its load has been removed), it is not considered a Masuy and is permitted. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> One may not let the rope hang within 
          a Tefach of the ground [but we are not concerned if much 
          sticks out of his hand]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That refers to the rope between him and the 
          camel.
<br>
<b><font>4) THINGS ANIMALS MAY NOT GO OUT WITH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A donkey may not go out with the following 
          (most of them will be explained):
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A Marda'as if it is not tied; a bell, even if the 
               clapper is plugged; a 'ladder' on its neck; a strap 
               between its legs.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  A chicken may not go out with strings or ribbons on its 
          legs;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  A ram may not go out with a wagon under its tail; female 
          sheep may not go out Chanunos;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  A calf may not go out with Gimon; a cow may not go out 
          with porcupine skin, nor with a strap between its horns;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The cow of R. Elazar ben Azaryah used to go out with 
               a strap between its horns - Chachamim disapproved.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Why is Marda'as forbidden?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (our text, Rashi) Answer:</font></b> This is like we 
          explained (since it was not tied from before Shabbos, it 
          is not considered clothing).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (Tosfos):</font></b> We are concerned lest it fall, and 
          the owner will carry it in Reshus ha'Rabim. (end of 
          Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Nor with a bell, even if the clapper is 
          plugged.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  This is because it looks like he takes it to sell it in 
          the market.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> ?Nor with a 'ladder' on its neck. (Rashi - 
          from now on, everything is forbidden lest it fall, and 
          the owner will carry it; Me'iri - some say that they are 
          considered loads.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> This is tied to the jaw, to stop a donkey 
          with a wound from scratching it with its teeth.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Nor with a strap between its legs.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  This is to prevent it from knocking its knees while it 
          walks.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A chicken may not go out with strings [on its 
          legs].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  The string shows who owns the chicken.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> ?Nor with straps on its legs.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b></b>  This is to prevent it from breaking vessels.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A ram may not go out with a wagon under its 
          tail.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b></b>  This is to prevent the tail from getting wounded on the 
          ground.
<br>
<b><font>5) THINGS ANIMALS MAY NOT GO OUT WITH (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Female sheep may not go out Chanunos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Explanation #1 (Rav Acha bar Ula):</font></b> When they shear a 
          sheep, they soak a tuft in oil and put it on the forehead 
          so it will not be cold [until it grows more wool].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Chisda):</font></b> It is proper to show such concern 
          for Mar Ukva (the Av Beis Din), but not for a sheep!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Explanation #2 (Rav Papa bar Shmuel):</font></b> When a sheep gives 
          birth, they put tufts soaked in oil on its forehead and 
          womb to warm it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Nachman):</font></b> It is proper to show such 
          concern for Yalsa (my wife, the Nasi's daughter), but not 
          for a sheep!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Explanation #3 (Rav Huna):</font></b> This is a wood called Chanun 
          found on islands - one puts a chip in its nostril to make 
          it sneeze and expel worms from its head.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If so, this should also be done for males!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Males batter each other, this causes worms to 
          fall out.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Shimon Nezira:</font></b> A chip of Risma (Rosem, a wood that makes 
          hot coals - 37B) is used.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> According to Rav Huna, we understand why this 
          is called Chanunos - how do the other opinions explain 
          this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This is a merciful thing to do (like Chanun).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A calf may not go out with Gimon.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> This is Bar Nira (a small yoke to accustom 
          the calf to bend its head, so it will be prepared to bear 
          a proper yoke when it matures).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> He learns that Gimon connotes bending from 
          'Ha'Lachof k'Agmon Rosho'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A cow may not go out with porcupine skin.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b></b>  This is put [over the udder] so that porcupines (Tosfos; 
          Rashi - leeches) will not suckle.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Nor with a strap between its horns.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b></b>  Rav forbids this whether it is for Noy or for Shemirah; 
          Shmuel forbids if it is for Noy, and permits if it is for 
          Shemirah.
<br>
<b><font>6) PROTESTING AGAINST TRANSGRESSORS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> R. Elazar ben Azaryah's cow
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> R. Elazar ben Azaryah had more than one cow!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav):</font></b> R. Elazar ben Azaryah used to designate 
               12,000 calves to be Ma'aser every year (120,000 
               calves were born in his herds).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> It was his neighbor's cow - since he 
          did not protest, it was attributed to him.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  (Rav, R. Chanina, R. Yochanan, and R. Chaviva (whenever 
          these four taught in Seder Mo'ed, some versions replace 
          R. Yochanan by R. Yonason)): If one could protest against 
          the evil deeds of his household [and it would help] but 
          he does not, he is punished for their sins;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If one could protest against the evil deeds of his 
               city, or of the entire world, but he does not, he is 
               punished for their sins.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rav Papa):</font></b> The Reish Galusa is accountable for the sins 
          of the world.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question (R. Chanina):</font></b> 'Hash-m ba'Mishpat Yavo Im 
               Ziknei Amo v'Sarav' - if the Sarim (officers) 
               sinned, why are the Chachamim punished?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> They are punished because they did not 
               protest against the Sarim.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) AN ANIMAL THAT GOES OUT WITH A STUFFED BELL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara explains that an animal may not walk into Reshus ha'Rabim while wearing a bell, even if the bell is stuffed and does not clang, because an animal with a bell looks as though it is being taken to the marketplace.
</p><p>
The <b>SEMAG</b> rules that an animal may not go out with a stuffed bell because it is considered as though it is <i>carrying</i> the bell, and it is forbidden for one's animal to do Melachah (such as carrying) on Shabbos. Why does the Semag give an entirely different reason than the reason the Gemara gives? According to the Gemara's reason, the prohibition to go out with a bell is mid'Rabanan, while according to the Semag's reason, it is forbidden mid'Oraisa!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> answers that since the usual manner is for an animal to wear a bell when going to the marketplace, it follows that on days when it cannot go to the marketplace, it is <i>not</i> the usual manner to wear the bell. Therefore, on Shabbos, when the animal cannot go to the marketplace, wearing the bell is not the usual manner and therefore it is prohibited for a different reason -- carrying.
</p><p>
This is what the Gemara means, according to the Semag, when it says that the animal may not go out with the stuffed bell because it appears as though it is being brought to the marketplace. Since a bell is worn only when the animal goes to the marketplace -- to which it is forbidden to go on Shabbos -- the bell is not considered attire, but rather a load (Masuy). (This understanding of the Semag does not seem to be the understanding of Rashi that we presented earlier (Insights to 54:1). According to Rashi, the animal is permitted to wear on Shabbos anything that it usually wears <i>during the week</i>.)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) PROTESTING AGAINST TRANSGRESSORS (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Rav Yehudah was in front of Shmuel (his Rebbi); a woman 
          was screaming [that no one is judging her case], he 
          ignored her.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Rav Yehudah:</font></b> Don't you hold that 'Otem Azno mi'Za'akas 
          Dal?' applies?! (Maharsha - primarily, the verse 
          discusses Tzedakah, but it also applies to judgment.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Shmuel:</font></b> If your Rebbi is in cold water (will be punished 
          mildly for this), the one over your Rebbi is in hot water 
          (will be punished severely) - Mar Ukva, the Av Beis Din 
          is here (it is his obligation to judge her) - 'Beis 
          DavidDino la'Boker Mishpat v'Hatzilu Gazul mi'Yad Oshek 
          Pen Teztei cha'Esh Chamasi?' (Shmuel reasoned, since Mar 
          Ukva sees her and ignores her, it will not help to rebuke 
          him. Tosfos (Bava Basra 10B) cites a tradition that on 
          account of this episode, Rav Yehudah became the Rebbi of 
          Shmuel in the world to come.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Zeira asked R. Simon to protest against the household 
          of the Reish Galusa - R. Simon said that it would not 
          help.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> R. Zeira:</font></b> Still, you should protest (you do not know 
               for sure)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Rav Acha b'Rebbi Chanina):</font></b> Only once, Hash-m said 
               to do something good and retracted - 'V'Hisvisa Tav 
               Al Mitzchos ha'Anashim ha'Ne'enachim veha'Ne'enakim 
               '
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Hash-m told the angel Gavri'el to write the letter 
               'Tav' in ink on the foreheads of Tzadikim in 
               Yerushalayim, in order that angels of destruction 
               will not harm them, and to write a 'Tav' in blood on 
               the foreheads of Resha'im, so that angels of 
               destruction will kill them. (The verse does not 
               explicitly mention writing on the Resha'im; Maharsha 
               - Ne'enachim refers to Tzadikim pained by the evil, 
               Ne'enakim alludes to Resha'im that will be killed - 
               also, the coming dialogue discusses absolute 
               Tzadikim and absolute Resha'im [but not  people in 
               the middle].)
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Midas ha'Din:</font></b> Why will these be spared and these 
               will be killed?
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Hash-m:</font></b> These are absolute Tzadikim, these are 
               absolute Resha'im!
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Midas ha'Din:</font></b> The Tzadikim could have protested!
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Hash-m:</font></b> I know that it would not have helped.
       <br><b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b><font> Midas ha'Din:</font></b> You know that, but they did not know!
       <br><b>   <b><font>9.  </font></b></b> This explains the retraction in the verse - at 
               first, 'V'Al Kol Ish Asher Alav ha'Tav Al Tigashu' - 
               but then, 'umi'Mikdashi Tachelu va'Yachelu 
               ba'Anashim ha'Zekenim Asher Lifnei ha'Bayis'.
        <br><b>  <b><font>10. </font></b><font> (Rav Yosef - Beraisa):</font></b> We read 'Mikdashi (my 
               Mikdash)' like 'Mekudashai (my holy ones)', people 
               who fulfilled the Torah from Aleph to Tav. (Alshich, 
               brought in ha'Rif - there was no criticism or decree 
               against Tzadikim that had no authority and were 
               unable to protest.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  Immediately, 'V'Hinei Shishah Anashim Ba'im?va'Ya'amdu 
          Etzel Mizbe'ach <i>ha'Nechoshes</i>'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The copper Mizbe'ach [of Moshe] was not in the 
          Beis ha'Mikdash (Shlomo replaced it with a stone 
          Mizbe'ach)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Hash-m told them to start [killing] where they 
          sing Shirah (with copper instruments).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Who are the six 'men'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Chisda):</font></b> They are Ketzef, Af, Chemah, 
          Mashchis, Meshaber and Mechaleh (angels of wrath and 
          destruction).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why was the letter 'Tav' written?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav):</font></b> It signifies Tichyeh (you will live, for 
          Tzadikim) and Tamus (you will die, for Resha'im).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Shmuel):</font></b> It signifies that Tamu (ceased) 
          Zechus (the merit of the) Avos. (Tosfos - it ceased for 
          Resha'im; Maharsha - these answers apply to Tzadikim and 
          Resha'im - Resha'im will die without Zechus Avos, 
          Tzadikim will live in their own merit.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Tachun Zechus Avos (Tzadikim 
          will be graced with it). 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer #4 (Reish Lakish):</font></b> It is the end (last letter) of 
          Hashem's signature [on the decree].
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Chanina):</font></b> Hashem's signature is Emes (truth).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer #5 (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani):</font></b> It signifies [for 
          Tzadikim] that they fulfilled the Torah from Aleph to Tav 
          [and Resha'im transgressed from Aleph to Tav]. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> When did Zechus Avos cease? (Ri - when did it 
          cease for Resha'im? R. Tam - Zechus Avos ceased, Bris 
          Avos will never cease.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav):</font></b> It ceased in the days of [the Navi] 
          Hoshe'a - 'V'Ata Agaleh Es Navlusahv'Ish Lo Yatzilenah' 
          (Yisrael will no longer be saved in the merit of the 
          Avos);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Shmuel):</font></b> It ceased in the days of Chaza'el - 
          'Va'Chaza'el Melech Aram Lochatz Es Yisrael?; Va'Yochan 
          Hash-m OsamLema'an Briso Es Avraham Yitzchak v'Ya'akov 
          v'Lo Avah Hashchisam?Ad Atah'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> It was in the days of 
          Eliyahu - 'Hash-m Elokei Avraham Yitzchak v'Yisrael 
          <i>ha'Yom</i> Yivada Ki Ata Elokim b'Yisrael' (but after this 
          day there will not be Zechus Avos).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(t)</font></b><font>  Answer #4 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> It was in the days of Chizkiyah 
          - 'Me'Ata v'Ad Olam Kin'as Hash-m Tzevakos Ta'aseh Zos' 
          (but not Zechus Avos).
<br>
<b><font>2) IS THERE DEATH WITHOUT SIN?
</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Ami):</font></b> One does not die without Chet - 'Ha'Nefesh 
          ha'Choteis Hi Samus?';
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One is not afflicted (Tosfos - severely) without 
               Avon (intentional sin) - 'U'Fokadti v'Shevet Pish'am 
               uvi'Nga'im Avonam'.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: REBUKING A WRONGDOER</b></font><b>
<br></b>The Gemara says that a person must rebuke his fellow Jew when he sees him commit a sin, even when he knows that the sinner will not listen to him. <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH v'Af Al Gav) writes that the obligation to give rebuke depends on various conditions. The Poskim (see <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> OC 608:2) discuss the details of this obligation that are relevant in practice:
</p><p>
(a) One must rebuke his fellow Jew when he <i>willfully</i> sins, even if one is certain that the recipient of the rebuke will not heed the rebuke. Consequently, when a person transgresses a prohibition that is written explicitly in the Torah, we may assume that he knows that it is forbidden and that his sin is intentional, and one must rebuke him and tell him to stop sinning.
</p><p>
(b) When one sees that the wrongdoer does not accept the rebuke, he should continue to rebuke him, but in private and not in public (one rebukes a sinner in public only once). Also, if the sinner committed the sin in private, one should rebuke the sinner only in private.
</p><p>
(c) However, if the sin is not stated explicitly in the Torah, or it is prohibited mid'Rabanan (and it is not evident that the sinner knows that it is forbidden), then when one knows for certain that the sinner will not listen to the rebuke, he is not required to tell the sinner to stop. In such a case, the rebuke would serve only to worsen the severity of the sin by causing the sinner to transgress intentionally instead of unintentionally.
</p><p>
(d) If, however, there is a <i>possibility</i> that he might listen to the rebuke, then one is obligated to rebuke him, as the Gemara here says.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) 'ZECHUS AVOS' -- THE MERIT OF OUR FOREFATHERS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> According to several Amora'im, Zechus Avos (the merit of our forefathers) has been 'used up' and no longer protects us. According to their view, why do we continue to mention the Avos and summon their Zechus in all of our prayers?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH v'Shmuel) cites <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who answers that the Gemara means that <i>Zechus</i> Avos is finished; their merits cannot arouse Divine protection and help for us anymore. However, the <i>Bris</i> Avos is still intact. The Bris Avos is the covenant that Hash-m made with the Avos, whereby he assured them that no matter what happens, their children will never be destroyed, as the verse says, 'v'Lo Yishkach Es <i>Bris Avosecha</i>' (Devarim 4:31).
</p><p>
(b) The <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> says that even according to the opinion that says that Zechus Avos has ended, it has ended only for the evildoers. The Tzadikim, though, still have Zechus Avos. Shmuel, who says that Zechus Avos has ended, and Rebbi Yochanan, who says that Zechus Avos still can be aroused, are not arguing. Shmuel refers to evildoers, and Rebbi Yochanan refers to Tzadikim.
</p><p>
(c) Tosfos (ibid.) cites the Midrash (Vayikra Rabah) in which Rebbi Acha argues with the Amora'im in the Gemara here and states that Zechus Avos exists forever, and we will always mention it in our prayers, as the verse says, 'v'Lo Yishkach Es Bris Avosecha' (loc. cit.). 
</p><p>


<font><b>3) HASHEM'S SEAL IS 'EMES'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Chanina says that the 'seal of Hash-m is Emes.' What is it about Truth (Emes) that gives it the superior position of being the seal, or signet, of Hash-m?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The unique nature of Truth is that it can never be forged, for if it is forged it is no longer truth! (<b>SI'ACH SARFEI KODESH</b> in the name of the Kotzker Rebbe) 
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa #1):</font></b> The angels asked Hash-m why he 
          decreed death on Adam ha'Rishon. (Mahadurah Basra - many 
          Mitzvos involve death, surely there would be death even 
          had Adam not sinned - why is death attributed to his 
          sin?)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Hash-m:</font></b> I gave one easy Mitzvah to him, and he 
               transgressed it!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> The angels:</font></b> Moshe and Aharon fulfilled the entire 
               Torah, yet they died! (They thought that Hash-m 
               answered why Adam died.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Hash-m:</font></b> 'Mikreh Echad la'Tzadik vela'Rasha' (I 
               decreed that all people will die. Indeed, Moshe and 
               Aharon sinned at Mei Merivah, but this did not cause 
               their death, it only forbade them to enter Eretz 
               Yisrael.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Ami holds like the following Tana:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa #2 - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> Even Moshe and 
               Aharon died on account of their sin - 'Ya'an Lo 
               He'emantem Bi' - had you trusted Me [to speak to the 
               rock exactly as commanded; alternatively, had you 
               done so, you would have elevated Benei Yisrael's 
               belief in Me, and] you would not have to die now.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa #3):</font></b> Four people died only on account 
          of [Adam's sin through] the snake (Me'iri - their sins 
          were so small, one cannot fathom that they should be 
          judged for them) - Binyamin, Amram, Yishai, and David's 
          son Kalev.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> It says 'Avigayil Bas Nachash Achos 
               Tzeruyah' - [this] Avigayil was the daughter of 
               Yishai, not of Nachash!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Yishai is called Nachash to teach that he 
               died only on account of the snake.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> We have a tradition about the other three.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana of Beraisa #3?
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  It is not Tana #1 - he holds that Moshe and 
                    Aharon also died without sin!
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It is R. Shimon ben Elazar - even he holds 
               that one can die without sin and [presumably, also] 
               one may be punished without Avon.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Ami is refuted.
<br>
<b><font>3) SINS THAT THE SCRIPTURE EXAGGERATED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani):</font></b> If one says that Reuven sinned 
          [like the verse says, that he had relations with Bilhah], 
          he errs!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'Va'Yihyu Venei Yakov Shneim Asar' - this teaches 
               that all 12 sons of Yakov were equal (all absolute 
               Tzadikim);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> If so, how do we explain 'Va'Yishkav Es 
               Bilhah Pilegesh Aviv'?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> This teaches that he moved his father's bed 
               - the Torah considers it as if he had relations with 
               her (Maharsha - because he thought that she was 
               permitted to him, for Kidushin does not apply to 
               slaves; he did not realize that when Rachel gave her 
               to Yakov, this freed her).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> Reuven [was tempted, 
          but] refrained from the sin - had he sinned, the Torah 
          would not have commanded his Shevet to stand on Har Eival 
          and answer Amen to 'Arur Shochev Im Eshes Aviv'!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> If so, how do we explain 'Va'Yishkav Es 
               Bilhah Pilegesh Aviv'?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> He protested the insult to his mother - 'If 
               Rachel was a Tzarah (competitor) to my mother 
               (Yakov's used to leave his bed in Rachel's tent; 
               after she died, Yakov put it in Bilhah's tent), will 
               her Shifchah be a Tzarah to my mother?!' Therefore, 
               he disturbed the bed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Others say, he disturbed two beds, of the Shechinah and 
          of Yakov - 'Alisa Mishkevei Avicha Az Chilalta Yetzu'i 
          Alah' (the Shechinah used to dwell on Yakov's bed; 
          alternatively, we expound Mishkevei (plural)).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Tana'im argue about whether or not he had relations with 
          her:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> '*PaChaZ* ka'Mayim At Tosar' 
               - this is an acronym for Pazasah (you were hasty), 
               Chavtah (you became liable) Zalsah (you disgraced);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehoshua says, Pasatah Al Das (you overstepped 
               the law),Chatasah (you sinned), Zanisah (you had 
               illicit relations);
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Gamliel says, Pilaltah (you prayed to be saved 
               from sinning), Chalsah (you made yourself sick to 
               overcome your urge to sin), Zarchah Tefilasecha 
               (your prayer succeeded);
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> R. Gamliel:</font></b> We need the opinion of R. Eliezer 
               ha'Moda'i (it is the best)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer ha'Moda'i says, we reverse the word and 
               expound it - Zazatah (you were agitated), Hirtatah 
               (you withdrew), Parchah Chet Mimecha (sin fled from 
               you);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> [We can reverse the word and expound] Zacharta 
          Onsho Shel Davar (you remembered the punishment for 
          Zenus), Chalisa (you made yourself very sick), Pirashta 
          mi'Lachato (you refrained from sinning).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani):</font></b> If one says that Eli's sons 
          sinned [through Zenus, like the verse says], he errs!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'Shnei Venei Eli Chofni u'Finchas Kohanim la'Shem' - 
               the verse equates them, just like Pinchas did not 
               sin (like Rav expounds below), also Chofni.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> If so, how do we explain 'Asher Yishkevun 
               Es ha'Nashim'?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Because they delayed offering women's birds 
               [to complete their Taharah], they delayed the women 
               from returning to their husbands (hindering Peru 
               u'Revu), the verse considers it as if they slept 
               with them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> Pinchas did not sin - it says 'Va'Achiyah ben 
          Achituvben Pinchas?' - had he sinned, the verse would not 
          attribute the lineage of a Tzadik to him!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Regarding Zenus it says 'Yachres HashemEr 
               v'Onah?u'Magish Minchah la'Shem' - if he is a 
               Yisrael, his descendants will not be Er (sharp) 
               among Chachamim or Onah (able to answer) among 
               Talmidim; if he is a Kohen, his descendants will not 
               serve in the Mikdash.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Conclusion:</font></b> Pinchas did not sin.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> If so, how do we explain 'Asher 
               <i>Yishkevun</i> (plural)'?
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It is written Yishkevan (lacking a 'Vov', 
               suggesting the singular, only Chofni sinned).
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> How do we explain 'Al <i>Banai</i> (plural) Ki 
               Lo Tovah ha'Shem'uah'?
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> This can be read 
               Beni (singular).
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> How do we explain 'Ma'avirim (plural)'?
       <br><b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> [Tosfos - in 
               the Gemara's text of the Navi,] it is written 
               Ma'aviram (singular. Rashi - no text of the Navi 
               says Ma'aviram - this answer and even the question 
               must be deleted ('Ma'avirim' refers to Am Hash-m, 
               not Eli's sons). Maharam - Rashi is bothered that 
               our errant text attributes this answer to a 
               particular Amora.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>9.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> How do we explain '*Benei* Veliya'al 
               (plural)'?
        <br><b>  <b><font>10. </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Because Pinchas should have protested 
               against Chofni, the verse considers it as if he 
               sinned.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>4) UNWARRANTED DEATH</b></font><b>
<br>AGADAH:</b> The Gemara concludes that 'Yesh Misah b'Lo Chet...' -- 'there <i>is</i> death without [a person having committed a] sin, and there <i>is</i> suffering without [a person having committed] iniquity.' 
</p><p>
How is the Gemara's conclusion to be reconciled with the verse cited at the beginning of the Gemara's discussion, 'The soul that sins -- it shall die...' (Yechezkel 18:20), which states that only for a sin does one die?
</p><p>
Moreover, the Gemara in Berachos (7a) relates that when Moshe Rabeinu asked Hash-m why the righteous suffer and the wicked prosper, Hash-m answered that suffering befalls the righteous person who is not <i>completely</i> righteous (Tzadik she'Eino Gamur). The Gemara there proves from verses that if a Tzadik does not sin at all, then he will not be punished for the sins of his forebears and he will not suffer. Why, then, does the Gemara here conclude that there <i>is</i> death without sin?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The masters of the hidden aspects of Torah teach that Neshamos ('souls') are corporeally transcendent. A person living in a later generation can share the Neshamah of a person who lived in an earlier generation. Scientifically (that is, on a measurable, tangible level), we can understand this in terms of Midos (character traits). That is, through following the Mitzvos of the Torah, a person perfects himself and his Midos. However, a person does not necessarily begin with perfect Midos; he may have inherited undesirable Midos from earlier generations, and thus a person may be born with certain Midos that he must overcome. His task is to break the deeply rooted ('hereditary') tendency towards evil until he no longer feels such a tendency altogether (and can no longer pass it on to his own progeny).
</p><p>
According to this understanding, what is the status of a person who is alive now and has never sinned? On one hand, since he has never sinned, he is a 'Tzadik Gamur,' absolutely righteous. On the other hand, his Neshamah -- which has traveled through time through many generations -- <i>is</i> tainted by sin (or, in terms of Midos, his Neshamah still has in it the roots of imperfect Midos that distance him from Hash-m to some degree, even if they have not caused him to sin actively). As such, he is only a 'Tzadik she'Eino Gamur.'
</p><p>
The Gemara concludes that 'there is death without sin'; although a person himself committed no sins in his life, yet he still suffers and he still dies because of the flaws of the Neshamah, or Midos, that he inherited from his ancestors and did not correct. When the Gemara in Berachos teaches that a person dies only because of his sins, it refers to the sins of his Neshamah (Midos) of former generations. The Gemara calls such a person a 'Tzadik she'Eino Gamur' -- a Tzadik who is not <i>completely</i> righteous -- since he did not perfect the Neshamah and Midos that he inherited.
</p><p>


<font><b>5) ARE THERE DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE SCRIPTURES?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara derives from the way the word 'Ma'avirim' is spelled ('Ma'aviram') that only one of the sons of Eli sinned. Rashi points out that even though the Gemara says that the text of the Navi is 'Ma'aviram,' the text of our Navi reads 'Ma'avirim.' <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> (in Gilyon ha'Shas) cites many places where the Gemara quotes a verse differently from the way it appears in the texts that we have. How are we to reconcile these differences?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Ma'avirim) says that there often are inconsistencies between the text of our Mesorah and the text of the Midrash (or Gemara). He cites an instance where the reading of the Yerushalmi differs from the reading of our texts. The Yerushalmi appears to have had the word 'forty' where our texts state 'twenty.' Apparently, the text of the Mesorah overrides the text of the Midrash, as the Mesorah reflects the majority opinion of the early authorities. (See also <b>CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN</b> to Sanhedrin 4a, in the name of the <b>RASHBA</b>, and <b>TESHUVOS HA'RASHBA HA'MEYUCHASOS L'RAMBAN</b> #232.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>YAD MALACHI</b> (#283) disputes the conclusion of Tosfos. When there is a question with regard to Chaseiros and Yeseiros (additions or omissions of a single letter that does not change the pronunciation or the meaning of the word, such as the Yud or Alef of 'Bereishis'), it is possible that there indeed are two different versions. However, in a case of an entirely different <i>word</i>, it is not possible that an incorrect word found its way into Tanach. The Yad Malachi explains that in cases such as the Yerushalmi quoted by Tosfos, the Chachamim do not mean that the actual text of Tanach should read differently; rather, they mean that we may infer a particular understanding from the Tanach <i>as if</i> it read differently. (For further elucidation of this topic, see <b>TORAH FROM THE INTERNET</b>, Parashat Naso, by Rabbi M. Kornfeld, Judaica Press, 1998. See also the Yad Malachi there who discusses many other such instances.)
</p><p>
(c) Although the word discussed by the Gemara here, 'Ma'avirim' or 'Ma'aviram,' is a case of Chaseiros and Yeseiros, perhaps the Yad Malachi's approach also applies here. That is, the Chachamim mean to teach that we should understand the verse <i>as if</i> it says 'Ma'aviram.' As Rashi himself says, 'Ma'avirim' can be interpreted to mean that 'the <i>Jewish people</i> circulated rumors about him (Eli's child, in the singular).' This is indeed how the Targum understands the verse. Therefore, even if the word in the verse is not 'Ma'aviram,' it is <i>as if</i> the verses says that only one of Eli's children sinned. (M. Kornfeld) (<b>RAV REUVEN MARGOLIYOS</b>, in Ha'Mikra veha'Mesorah #2, reaches a similar conclusion. However, the interpretation that he offers to explain the Gemara here based on a Midrash does not appear to conform to the words of the Gemara; the Midrash he quotes clearly follows the opinion of Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani, and not that of Rav.)
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> in Moed Katan (28b) in fact proposes a similar approach to that of the Yad Malachi with regard to a verse in Iyov cited by the Gemara there. Even though the inconsistency in the spelling of the word involves only whether the word is Chaser or not, he does not accept the suggestion that there were different versions of the scriptures.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) DID SHMUEL'S SONS SIN?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani):</font></b> If one says that Shmuel's sons 
          sinned [took bribes and perverted judgment], he errs!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It says 'V'Lo Holchu Vanav bi'Drachav' - they were 
               not as pious as Shmuel, but they did not sin.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> If so, how do we explain 'Va'Yitu Acharei 
               ha'Batza [va'Yikchu Shochad va'Yatu Mishpat]'?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Shmuel used to travel around Yisrael to 
               judge - '...V'Sovav Beis Kel veha'Gilgal 
               veha'Mitzpah v'Shofat Es Yisrael'; his sons stayed 
               in their cities and judged, in order to benefit 
               their attendants (that summons people to judgment) 
               and scribes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Tana'im argue about whether or not they sinned:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> 'Va'Yitu Acharei ha'Batza' - 
               they explicitly requested Ma'aser Rishon (and people 
               would not refuse them - this hurt other Leviyim).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, they gave merchandise to people for 
               business, the latter would return the profit [and 
               Benei Shmuel would favor these people in judgment];
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva says, they took by force more Ma'aser than 
               they were entitled to;
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi says, they took by force Matanos [Ma'aser 
               Rishon; alternatively, the foreleg, jaw and stomach 
               of Chulin animals, which should be given to a 
               Kohen].
<br>
<b><font>2) KING DAVID'S SIN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani):</font></b> If one says that David sinned 
          [with Bas Sheva], he errs!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'Va'Yhi David l'Chol Derachav Maskil va'Shem Imo' - 
               had he sinned, the Shechinah would not be with him!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> If so, how do we explain 'Madu'a Bazisa Es 
               Devar Hash-m La'asos ha'Ra'?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> He sought to sin (have relations with her 
               before she was divorced), but did not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Rav:</font></b> Rebbi descends from David, he toils to expound to 
          defend David!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rebbi):</font></b> Everywhere else, it says 'va'Ya'as ha'Ra' - 
               here it says 'La'asos ha'Ra', to teach that he 
               sought to sin, but did not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  'Es Uriyah ha'Chiti Hikisa va'Cherev' - you should have 
          judged him through the Sanhedrin, but you did not;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  'V'Es Ishto <i>Lokachta</i> Lach' - you could have been 
          Mekadesh her (she was divorced);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani):</font></b> Everyone who went to war 
               in David's army wrote a Get (document of divorce) to 
               his wife (like Yishai's household used to do, lest 
               one will be killed without witnesses or captured and 
               his wife will be unable to remarry).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What does it mean '...V'Es <i>Arubasam</i> 
               Tikach'?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> This is what joins a man to his 
               wife (Kidushin; Yishai told David to take Gitin from 
               his brothers at war).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  'V'Oso Haragta b'Cherev Benei Amon' - just as you will 
          not be punished for the sword of Amon, you will not be 
          punished for Uriyah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He [was Chayav Misah because he] rebelled against 
          the king - 'Va'Doni Yo'av...' (Rashi - he called Yo'av 
          'Adoni'; Tosfos - he disobeyed David - 'va'Ani Avo El 
          Beisi...').
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> The only sin of David we find is regarding Uriyah 
          - 'Rak bi'Dvar Uriyah ha'Chiti'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Contradiction (Abaye Kashisha):</font></b> Rav himself taught that 
          David believed Lashon ha'Ra!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  This is left difficult.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> 'Va'Yomer Tziva... Hu Beis Machir...b'Lo Davar' 
          (Tziva said that his master (Mefivoshes) is not a 
          Chacham);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> David saw that Tziva lied - 'Va'Yikach... Milo 
          Davar' - why did he later believe Tziva when he said 
          'Hinei Yoshev bi'Yrushalayim...' (Mefivoshes was hoping 
          that you would die and he, the grandson of Sha'ul, would 
          become king)?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the source that David believed 
               this?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> [He gave Mefivoshes' property to Tziva -] 
               'Va'Yomer ha'Melech l'Tziva Hine Lecha Kol Asher 
               l'Mefivoshes'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> David did not believe the Lashon ha'Ra (he only 
          suspected it, the gift was on condition that his words 
          will be found to be true) - rather, he saw indications 
          that it was true:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'U'Mefivoshes...v'Lo Asah Raglav v'Lo Asah Sefamo 
               v'Es Begadav Lo Chives' (he was waiting until David 
               would resume kingship to fix his appearance - David 
               thought that Mefivoshes was saddened by David's 
               return).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> David asked Mefivoshes why he did not accompany 
               David when David fled from Avshalom.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Mefivoshes:</font></b> I wanted to, I asked my slave to prepare 
               a donkey for me - he tricked me (I am lame, I could 
               not do so myself)! You are [full of Ru'ach 
               ha'Kodesh] like an angel, you will do as you see 
               fit.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) MEFIVOSHES -- SON OF WHOM?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites a verse that calls Mefivoshes the son of Shaul (Shmuel II 19:25). Why does the verse call him the son of Shaul when he was really the son of Yehonasan?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>IYUN YAKOV</b> explains that in this incident, Mefivoshes displayed animosity towards David ha'Melech by saying that Hash-m should not have helped him to overthrow Avshalom. Therefore, the verse relates him to Shaul, who also hated David, and not to Yehonasan who loved him.
</p><p>
(b) Since, in this incident, Mefivoshes complained about the way Hash-m was conducting the affairs of the world the same way that Shaul complained (as the Gemara says on 56b), the Gemara relates him to Shaul and not to Yehonasan. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> David:</font></b> 'Amarti Ata v'Tziva Tachleku Es ha'Sadeh' 
               (Maharsha - I am unsure, therefore both of you will 
               split the field; Maharshal - this is like I 
               initially said, that all Mefivoshes' property will 
               [*also*] be Tziva's, i.e. they will be partners).
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Mefivoshes:</font></b> 'Gam Es ha'Kol Yikach Acharei Asher Ba 
               Adoni ha'Melech b'Shalom' - I was hoping for your 
               return, and you treat me like this?! My complaints 
               are not against you, rather, against He who returned 
               you!
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> This explains 'U'Ven Yehonason Meriv Ba'al'.
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> His name was Mefivoshes, not Meriv Ba'al!
       <br><b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> He is called Meriv Ba'al because he made a 
               Merivah (quarrel) with his Master;
       <br><b>   <b><font>9.  </font></b><font> A Bas Kol (voice from Heaven):</font></b> You are a Netzei 
               (bickerer), the [grand]son of a Netzei (Sha'ul).
        <br><b>  <b><font>10. </font></b><font> (R. Mani):</font></b> 'Va'Yavo Sha'ul Ad Ir Amalek va'Yarev 
               ba'Nachal' - he quarreled about things done in a 
               valley (Eglah Arufah. Sha'ul said, murder of an 
               innocent person is so severe that it requires a 
               special atonement, all the more so I should not kill 
               animals and children that did not sin!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah citing Rav):</font></b> When David said that Tziva will 
          split the field with Mefivoshes, a Bas Kol announced that 
          [Midah k'Neged Midah, Shlomo's son] Rechav'om and 
          Yarov'om (his slave) will split the kingdom of Yisrael. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah citing Rav):</font></b> Had David not believed the 
          Lashon ha'Ra, the kingdom of Yisrael would not have been 
          split, Yisrael would not have served idolatry, and we 
          would not have been exiled from our land.
<br>
<b><font>3) KING SHLOMO'S SIN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani):</font></b> If one says that Shlomo sinned 
          [did idolatry], he errs!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'V'Lo Hayah Levavo Shalem...ki'Lvav David Aviv' - he 
               was not as pious as David, but he did not sin.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If so, how do we explain 'V'Yhi l'Es Ziknas 
          Shlomo Nashav Hitu Es Levavo [Acharei Elohim Acherim]'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We explain it like R. Noson:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Contradiction (R. Noson):</font></b> It says '...Nashav Hitu Es 
               Levavo' - but it also says 'V'Lo Hayah 
               Levavo...ki'Lvav David ' - he was not like David, 
               but he did not sin!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer (R. Noson):</font></b> His wives swayed his heart to 
               serve idolatry, but he did not serve.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But it says 'Az Yivneh Shlomo Bamah li'Chmush 
          Shikutz Mo'av'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> He sought to serve, but he did not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> It also says 'Az Yivneh Yehoshua Mizbe'ach 
          la'Shem' - will you say that he sought to serve, but he 
          did not?!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rather, Yehoshua built a Mizbe'ach - also Shlomo 
               built one!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Beraisa - R. Yosi) Question:</font></b> [Yoshiyahu 
          eradicated] 'V'Es ha'Bamos...Asher Banah Shlomo' - Asa 
          and Yehoshafat previously destroyed all the idolatry in 
          Yisrael, how is it possible that they did not destroy 
          these Bamos?!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> [Indeed, he is credited for destroying even 
               though he did not destroy -] we equate Shlomo to 
               Yoshiyahu, just like Yoshiyahu is praised for 
               something he did not do, Shlomo is blamed for 
               [building the Bamos,] something he did not do.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But it says 'Va'Ya'as Shlomo ha'Ra b'Einei 
               Hash-m'!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Because he could have protested against his 
               wives [who served idolatry] but did not, the Torah 
               considers it as if he sinned.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> It would have been better for this Tzadik 
          to be a servant [to cut wood and draw water] for idolatry 
          than to have the verse say 'Va'Ya'as Shlomo ha'Ra b'Einei 
          Hash-m'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> When Shlomo married Bas Par'o, she brought 
          1000 instruments and told him which are played for 
          various idolatries - he did not protest.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> When Shlomo married Bas Par'o, Gavri'el 
          inserted a reed in the sea; dirt was deposited there, the 
          great city of Romi was later built there (when Yakov 
          falls, Esav rises).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> The day that Yarov'om set up golden calves in 
          Beis Kel and Dan, a small hut was built, it was the start 
          of Italya of Yavan.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani):</font></b> If one says that Yoshiyahu 
          sinned, he errs - 'Va'Ya'as ha'Yashar b'Einei Hash-m'.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> If so, how do we explain '...Asher Shav' 
               (implying that he sinned and repented)?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> He overturned every judgment he made from 
               the age of eight until 18 [years later, when they 
               found the Sefer Torah. An opinion brought in 
               Shulchan Aruch (perhaps based on our text in Rashi) 
               explains, from the age of 18, for one should not 
               judge before this.]
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps he took back the money from the 
               one to whom he gave it!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> He did this 'B'Chol Me'odo' (from his own 
               money).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  Rav Shmuel argues with Rav:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav):</font></b> Yoshiyahu was the greatest penitent of his 
               generation;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The greatest [penitent] of our generation is Aba, 
               the father of R. Yirmeyah bar Aba; some say, it is 
               Acha, R. Yirmeyah's uncle.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Aba and Acha were brothers.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> The greatest of our generation is Ukvan, the 
          son of R. Nechemyah the Reish Galusa - this is Noson 
          d'Tzutzisa (light radiated from his head; he is usually 
          called Mar Ukva);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> In a dream. I saw an angel's hand stretched out to 
               accept his Teshuvah.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE SEVERITY OF THE SIN OF 'LASHON HA'RA'</b></font><b>
<br>AGADAH:</b> The Gemara says that because David ha'Melech accepted words of Rechilus about Mefivoshes (as the verse says, 'va'Yeragel b'Avdecha' (Shmuel II 19:28)) and as a result he confiscated half of Mefivoshes' property, Hash-m punished him by taking away half of his kingdom several generations later.
</p><p>
<b>RAV MORDECHAI ARAN</b> in <b>SEFER NIFLA'OS MI'TORASECHA</b> (Jerusalem, 1997) points out that a computer search shows that in only two places in the entire Torah do the 'Sofei Teivos' (the last letters of consecutive words) spell out 'Rechilus' ('Rechilus' never appears as 'Roshei Teivos,' an acronym comprised of the initial letters of consecutive words).
</p><p>
The first place is in Bereishis 3:11, where Hash-m asks Adam, 'Did you eat from the tree from which I commanded you not to eat?' -- (asheR tzivisiCHa l'viltI achoL mimenU achalTa). The Midrash (Tanchuma Bereishis 8:8) teaches that it was Lashon ha'Ra that brought death to Adam ha'Rishon, who believed the serpent when it told him that Hash-m does not want Adam to eat from the Tree of Knowledge lest man will become as great as He (that is, Hash-m is greedy). Appropriately, the Torah hints this to us through the Sofei Teivos which spell the word, 'Rechilus.'
</p><p>
The second place is in Melachim I 14:8, where the prophet tells Yeravam, 'I have <i>taken away the kingdom</i> from David and given it to you, but you have not kept all the Mitzvos the way David did' (asheR halaCH acharaI b'choL levavO la'asoS). Here, also, the prophet hints that David, although he was nearly perfect, committed one sin -- he believed the Rechilus which Tziva told him about Mefivoshes. The Gemara here says that it was because of that sin that Hash-m divided David's kingdom, as the verse there in Melachim describes!
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THINGS A WOMAN MAY WEAR OUTSIDE ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah) Question:</font></b> What may a woman wear outside, and 
          what is forbidden? (Mishnayos starting on 64B will detail 
          what is permitted.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> She may not go out with threads of wool or linen 
          in her head, or ribbons;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  She may not immerse with them unless she loosens them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  She may not go out with Totefes or Sarbitin (the various 
          ornaments are explained later) if they are not sewn [into 
          a headdress that covers her hair]; 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  She may not go out with Kavul to Reshus ha'Rabim, nor 
          with Ir Shel Zahav, nor with Katla, nose rings or rings 
          without a stamp, or a needle without a hole;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If she went out with any of these, she is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Why does the Mishnah mention immersing 
          [while wearing Kelim that she may not wear]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> This clause is the 
          reason for the previous one:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> She may not go out with threads of wool or linen 
               because Chachamim require her to remove them before 
               immersing, even during the week - if she will wear 
               them on Shabbos, perhaps she will have to immerse, 
               and she will remove them and carry them four Amos in 
               Reshus ha'Rabim!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Kahana):</font></b> What is the law regarding [woven] 
          chains of threads?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav):</font></b> Anything woven is permitted [it cannot be 
          made tight, therefore it need not be removed].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> Anything woven 
          is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> I saw that my 
          sisters are not particular to remove them [when bathing, 
          for they do not obstruct water at all, all the more so 
          one need not remove them to immerse].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the difference between these versions? 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They argue about when they are dirty:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Version #1 permits them, for they are woven; Version 
               #2 forbids them, for one removes them [when 
               immersing] for one's own cleanliness.
<br>
<b><font>2) WHICH THREADS ARE A 'CHATZITZAH'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The following are a Chatzitzah on a person - 
          threads of wool or linen or ribbons in a girl's head;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, [threads of] wool or hair are not a 
          Chatzitzah, because water goes through them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> [Not only ribbons, but] also the threads 
          discussed are in a girl's head.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Yosef):</font></b> What does Rav Huna come to exclude?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He excludes threads on the neck (all agree that 
          they are not a Chatzitzah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What kind of threads [on the neck] does he 
          exclude?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> They cannot be wool - the first Tana says that 
               something soft (wool) tied on something hard (the 
               hair on her head) is a Chatzitzah, all the more so 
               soft on soft (the neck) is a Chatzitzah (for it can 
               be tied more tightly)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> They are linen.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> The first Tana says that hard (linen) on hard 
          is a Chatzitzah, all the more so hard on soft!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> [They can be any material -] threads on the 
          neck are not a Chatzitzah because a woman does not tie 
          them tightly, lest she choke herself.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye - Beraisa):</font></b> Girls may go out with strings 
          in their [pierced] ears (to prevent the holes from 
          closing), but not with Chavakin (bands) wrapped around 
          their necks.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If a woman does not tie tightly around her neck, 
               Chavakin should be permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer (Ravina):</font></b> The Beraisa discusses [thick] Katla'os 
          tied tightly to make her neck look stout (since they are 
          thick, they do not choke her. Tosfos - Katla of the 
          Mishnah is loose, one may not go out with it lest she 
          remove it to show to friends and carry it.)
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WALKING INTO 'RESHUS HA'RABIM' WHILE WEARING A COAT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah and Gemara enumerate various items with which a woman may not walk out into Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos, because she might take them off and carry them four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim. She is permitted to go out only with jewelry that she never removes. 
</p><p>
Why, then, is she permitted to go out with a coat or jacket? Why are we not concerned that she will take it off and walk four Amos while carrying it in Reshus ha'Rabim! (<b>TOSFOS</b> DH ba'Meh)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that the Gezeirah applies only to small objects that a person often carries in his hand while he walks. The main attire of a person, on the other hand, is usually not carried around; rather, one puts it on immediately before going out and leaves it on.
</p><p>
(b) The <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> explains that the Gezeirah applies only to items that might be removed for a specific reason, such as in order to immerse in the Mikvah, or to show to a friend, or because it makes one dirty. If there is no reason for a person to want to remove a particular article of clothing, then there is no concern that he will do so. One is even permitted to intentionally take off such attire and put it back on in Reshus ha'Rabim, as long as he does not walk while holding it.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> [Threads of] wool or hair are not 
          a Chatzitzah, because water goes through them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yehudah regarding 
          threads of hair.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> This implies that Chachamim argue 
          about threads of hair (but we have no source to say 
          this)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> We must say that the first Tana also 
               discussed threads of hair, for otherwise R. Yehudah 
               would not have discussed them!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> Perhaps R. Yehudah says, just like you 
               agree with me that threads of hair are not a 
               Chatzitzah, you should agree that threads of wool 
               are not a Chatzitzah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Chachamim agree that threads of hair are 
          not a Chatzitzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> Threads of wool are a Chatzitzah, 
          threads of hair are not a Chatzitzah;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, neither of these is a Chatzitzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> We can also derive this from 
          a Mishnah (64B):
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> A woman may go out with threads of hair, 
               whether they are hers or of someone else.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana of the Mishnah?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> It is not R. Yehudah - he permits even threads of 
               wool (a bigger Chidush, he would have taught this)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It is Chachamim - this shows that they agree 
               about threads of hair.
<br>
<b><font>3) WEARING ADORNMENTS OF THE HEAD ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> She may not go out with Totefes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is Totefes?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> It is a Kesher (spices wrapped 
          together; alternatively, pearls) worn around the neck to 
          counter Ayin Ra'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> If so, it should be permitted, like a 
          Kemi'a!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> It is an ornament worn on the 
          forehead.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> A woman may go out with a golden 
          headdress, and with Totefes or Sarbitin fixed in it. (The 
          Kesher for Ayin Ra'ah is not usually put in the headdress 
          (Tosfos ha'Rosh) - we cannot support Rav Yehudah from 
          [the following] Amora'im, the support must be from the 
          Beraisa itself.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (R. Avahu):</font></b> Totefes goes from one ear to the other, 
          Sarbitin reaches until the jaws.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> Poor girls make them from colored strings 
          (Tosfos ha'Rosh - nevertheless, we are concerned lest 
          they remove them to show friends), rich girls make them 
          from silver or gold.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> She may not go out [to Reshus ha'Rabim] with 
          Kavul (this can refer to a sign showing that the wearer 
          is a slave, or to a woolen cap worn for a Tachshit under 
          her headdress).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Yanai):</font></b> Does the Mishnah discuss a signet 
          [of slavery] - but one may wear a cap in Reshus ha'Rabim 
          (she is unlikely to remove it, lest her hair will be 
          exposed);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Or, does it forbid a cap, and all the more so a 
               signet (she might remove it to avoid publicizing 
               that she is a slave)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Avahu):</font></b> Presumably, it discusses a cap.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> A woman may go out with a Kavul or 
          Istama (this will be defined) in a Chatzer;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Elazar permits to go out to Reshus 
               ha'Rabim with a Kavul.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Elazar says, the general rule is - she 
               may go out with anything under the headdress, not 
               with something over the headdress.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is Istama?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Avahu):</font></b> It is Bizyoni.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is Bizyoni?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> It is felt used to tie down hairs that 
          leave the headdress (Rashi; Aruch - to tie down the 
          apparel on her head; alternatively, they are strings to 
          deter flies).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Three Halachos were taught regarding Istama:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Sha'atnez does not apply to it; (Rashi - for felt is 
               not spun. Tosfos - mid'Rabanan, Sha'atnez applies to 
               felt, for the wool and linen were each Shu'a 
               (combed) - Chachamim did not forbid Istama, for it 
               is hard and does not give warmth. Ramban - it is not 
               worn for the sake of a garment, only for a 
               Tachshit.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Tzara'as does not apply to it (for it is not 
               considered a garment. Ramban - no Tum'ah applies to 
               it; Tosfos - it is Mekabel other Tum'os);
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> One may go out with it to Reshus ha'Rabim;
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon adds a fourth Halachah - the decree 
               against crowns of brides [to limit Simchah after the 
               Churban] does not apply to it.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE 'KETALA'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa says that a woman may not go out into Reshus ha'Rabim with a 'Chavak' around her necks. The Gemara explains that the Beraisa refers to a 'Ketala.' <b>RASHI</b> (DH b'Ketala Askinan) explains that a Ketala is a ribbon that holds a bib around a woman's neck, which is not decorative.
</p><p>
Why does Rashi explain that the Ketala is different from all other articles mentioned in the Mishnah, which <i>are</i> worn for beauty? Furthermore, Rashi himself says later (59b, DH Menakta) that a Ketala has gold in it and it <i>is</i> worn for beauty. Why does Rashi give two different definitions for a 'Ketala'?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> (DH Hacha b'Ketala) asks another question. The Gemara concludes that a Ketala may not be worn outside on Shabbos because it is considered a Chatzitzah (separation) and therefore a woman might remove it if she goes to the Mikvah (similar to the strings that she wears in her hair, 57a). Why, then, is the Ketala not mentioned with the strings in the <i>beginning</i> of the Mishnah, but only in the <i>end</i> of the Mishnah with the ornaments that a woman wears for beauty? 
</p><p>
Tosfos explains that the case in the Mishnah must be when the Ketala is fastened loosely. Thus, there is no concern that the woman will remove it in order to immerse, since it does not act as an intervening object when she immerses. However, there <i>is</i> a concern that she might remove it to show it off to her friends. The Beraisa, on the other hand, is referring to a Ketala that is fastened tightly around the neck. In such a case, there is <i>no</i> fear that the woman will take it off to show to her friends (because if she takes it off, she will no longer look affluent and attractively heavy), but there <i>is</i> a fear that she might remove it to immerse in a Mikvah and carry it in Reshus ha'Rabim, since it is considered to be a separation.
<br> 
<br><b>RASHI</b> seems to propose another answer to Tosfos' question. Rashi explains that there are two types of Ketala. One Ketala is ornamental and is tied tightly, to make the woman look more corpulent (59b). In contrast, the Ketala mentioned by the Gemara here is <i>not</i> an ornament, and therefore it is <i>not</i> worn tightly (the <b>RASHBA</b> and <b>RITVA</b> and others offer similar explanations for Tosfos' question). (<b>HAGAHOS RAV ELAZAR MOSHE HA'LEVY HOROWITZ</b>)
</p><p>


<font><b>3) THE DIFFERENT 'SARVITIN' OF POOR WOMEN AND RICH WOMEN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Huna says that there are two types of Sarvitin that hang from a woman's Totefes at the side of her head. Poor women wear Sarvitin made of colored fabric. Rich women wear Sarvitin made from silver and gold. What is the purpose of describing the different types of Sarvitin that different women wear?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> answers that the Gemara is teaching a stringency. The Gemara is teaching that a poor woman is forbidden to go out even with Sarvitin made from fabric, because that is what she takes pride in and there is a concern that she will remove it to show to her friend.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> says that the Gemara is teaching a leniency. Only when rich women wear silver and gold Sarvitin may they <i>not</i> go out with them. A rich woman who wears Sarvitin of fabric <i>may</i> go out with them. Since they are not considered elegant ornaments in her eyes, there is no fear that she will take them off to show to her friend.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Shabbos 19:6, 10) mentions only Sarvitin of gold and not Sarvitin of fabric. The <b>MIRKEVES HA'MISHNEH</b> suggests, based on a Yerushalmi, that perhaps even poor women may go out with Sarvitin made of fabric, because they will not take them off to show their friends since they are not such elegant ornaments. Only Sarvitin made of gold are forbidden. This is how the Rambam may have understood the Gemara; the Gemara mentions Sarvitin of fabric to teach that the prohibition does <i>not</i> apply to such ornaments.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE 'KAVLA' OF SLAVES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (to Question 3:</font></b>j, 57B - Shmuel): The Mishnah 
          discusses (forbids going out with) a signet [of slavery; 
          normally, it is made of dried mud].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Contradiction:</font></b> But Shmuel permits a slave to go out with 
          a signet on his neck, but not on his garment!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Resolution #1:</font></b> Shmuel discusses a signet made by the 
          master - the slave fears to remove it [for the master 
          would consider this rebellion], the Mishnah discusses a 
          signet the slave made for himself (he might remove it and 
          carry it in Reshus ha'Rabim).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If Shmuel discusses a signet made by the 
          master, he should permit even if it is on his garment (he 
          fears to remove it)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We are concerned lest it break, and the slave 
          will fear [lest his master assume that he intentionally 
          broke it] and fold his garment onto his shoulder [to 
          cover up its absence];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Yitzchak bar Yosef):</font></b> If one walks in Reshus 
               ha'Rabim on Shabbos with his garment folded onto his 
               shoulder (this is not the way to wear it, it is a 
               load), he is Chayav Chatas.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Shmuel (to R. Chinena bar Shila):</font></b> All Rabanan of the 
          Reish Galusa's house may not go out with a coat with a 
          signet, except for you. (Rashi - it is a sign of 
          submissiveness to the Reish Galusa - if anyone else was 
          not wearing it, the Reish Galusa would be upset; Rashba - 
          the Reish Galusa levied a tax on important coats, the 
          signet shows that the tax was paid; anyone except for R. 
          Chinena would be afraid if it fell off.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> A slave may go out with a signet on his neck, 
          but not on his garment.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Support (Beraisa #1):</font></b> A slave may go out with a signet on 
          his neck, but not on his garment.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Contradiction (Beraisa #2):</font></b> A slave may not go out with a 
          signet on his neck or on his garment; neither of them is 
          Mekabel Tum'ah;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He may go out with a bell on his garment, but not on 
               his neck - both of these are Mekabel Tum'ah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> An animal may not go out with a signet or bell on 
               its neck or garment - neither of them is Mekabel 
               Tum'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps Beraisa #1 discusses signets made by 
          the master, and Beraisa #2 discusses signets the slave 
          made for himself!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> No, both discuss signets made by the master - 
          Beraisa #1 discusses signets of mud (if it breaks, the 
          fragments are worthless), Beraisa #2 discusses metal 
          signets:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Nachman):</font></b> A slave may not go out with something 
               that his master is insistent about [that it not get 
               lost - perhaps it will break and the slave will 
               carry the pieces];
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> He may go out with something that his master does 
               not care about.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Support (Beraisa #2):</font></b> ...Neither of them is Mekabel 
          Tum'ah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> We understand this if Beraisa #2 discusses metal 
               signets - they are not Mekabel Tum'ah, but other 
               metal Kelim are;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> But if Beraisa #2 discusses mud signets, why must it 
               teach that they are Tehorim - all mud Kelim are 
               Tehorim!
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Kelim made of stone, dung or dirt 
                    are not Mekabel Tum'ah, not mid'Oraisa nor 
                    mid'Rabanan.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Conclusion:</font></b> Beraisa #2 discusses metal signets.
<br>
<b><font>2) WEARING BELLS ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #2):</font></b> He may go out with a bell on his garment, 
          but not on his neck.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is a bell on his neck forbidden?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Presumably, we are concerned that it will fall and 
               he will carry it - the same applies to a bell on his 
               garment!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, it is woven into the garment 
          (surely, it will not fall):
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> Anything woven is 
               permitted. (Above (57A), we said that because it is 
               not tight, it need not be removed when immersing - 
               but the Heter also shows that we are not concerned 
               lest something fall from it.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #2):</font></b> An animal may not go out with a signet or 
          bell on its neck or garment; neither of them is Mekabel 
          Tum'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> A bell of an animal is Mekabel Tum'ah!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Contradiction (Beraisa #3):</font></b> A bell of an animal is 
               Mekabel Tum'ah, a doorbell is Tahor;
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A SLAVE GOING OUT INTO 'RESHUS HA'RABIM' WITH HIS BADGE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa says that a slave <i>may</i> go out on Shabbos into Reshus ha'Rabim with a bell that is sewn to his garment. However, the same Beraisa says that he may <i>not</i> go out with a slave's badge, presumably even if it is sewn on to his garment. Why is a badge different from a bell?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Hacha b'Mai Askinan) explains that the Rabanan prohibited a slave to go out with a badge even when it is sewn on, lest he go out with a badge that is not sewn on. However, they permitted him to go out with a bell that is sewn on because it was very common to sew bells to garments, and the Rabanan did not want to trouble people to remove their bells from their clothing before Shabbos. It is much less common to sew a slave's badge to his garment, and therefore the Rabanan did enact a decree that he may not go out with it on Shabbos even if it is sewn on.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> and <b>RAN</b> explain that it is <i>permitted</i> to go out with a badge that is sewn to the slave's garment. When the Beraisa says that he may not go out with a badge, it refers to a <i>normal</i> badge which is not sewn to his garment. When the Beraisa says that he may go out with a bell, it refers to the <i>normal</i> type of bell, which <i>is</i> sewn to his garment.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) AN ANIMAL THAT GOES INTO 'RESHUS HA'RABIM' WITH ITS BELL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa teaches that an animal may not go into Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos with a bell, even if it is sewn to its garment. Why is the Halachah more stringent with regard to an animal than with regard to a slave, who is permitted to go out with a bell sewn to his garment?
</p><p>
The answer to this question can be found in the Gemara earlier (54b), as <b>RASHI</b> and <b>TOSFOS</b> here point out. One may not take an animal with a bell into Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos, since it appears as though he is bringing the animal to the marketplace.
</p><p>
However, this Gezeirah applies only to a bell on an animal. We do not find that it applies to a badge on an animal; an animal wearing a badge does not appear as though it is being taken to the marketplace (see Tosfos DH Lo, in contrast to the <b>LEVUSHEI SERAD</b> OC 305:12). Why, then, is one prohibited to take out an animal with a badge sewn on its garment? (<b>MAHARSHA</b>, <b>MAHARAM</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARAM</b> and <b>MAHARSHA</b> suggest that the Beraisa does not refer to a badge <i>sewn</i> on the animal's garment. One indeed is permitted to take out such an animal on Shabbos. Rather, the Beraisa refers to a badge that is <i>not</i> sewn on the animal's garment (or a bell that is not sewn on the animal's garment). One may not take the animal out, lest the badge (or bell) fall and the owner pick it up and carry it.
</p><p>
When Rashi and Tosfos mention the Gemara's reason that it appears as though the animal is being taken to the marketplace, they mean that in the case of a bell, <i>even if</i> it would be sewn on the garment, one may not take the animal out for this reason.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>LEVUSH</b> (OC 305:12) writes that a badge serves no purpose on an animal's garment. Consequently, it has the status of a load (and not an adornment or garment) and the animal may not be taken out with it on Shabbos. 
</p><p>
that it is uncommon to sew a bell to an animal's garment, and thus the Rabanan did not permit an animal to go out with that type of bell (lest one let the animal go out with a bell that is not sewn on) just as they did not permit a slave to go out with a badge sewn to his garment (see previous Insight, (a)).
</p><p>
(b) However, <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Lo Tetzei, and 54b, DH Mishum) suggests another explanation. When one walks with an animal that has a bell, he gives the appearance that he is taking the animal to the market place to be sold. In contrast, a slave with a bell gives no such appearance.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If a doorbell was put on an animal, it is Tamei; if 
               a bell of an animal was put on a door, even if it 
               was nailed in, it is [still] Tamei.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> This is because a Kli is Mekabel Tum'ah through 
               intent [to use it for something that is Mekabel 
               Tum'ah], but it does not cease to Mekabel Tum'ah 
               until an action is done [that hinders its original 
               use].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> A bell of an animal is Mekabel Tum'ah only if it 
          has a clapper.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If it is a Kli, it is Mekabel Tum'ah even 
          without a clapper; if it is not a Kli, will a clapper 
          make it a Kli?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Yes, a clapper makes it a Kli!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani):</font></b> What is the 
               source that a metal Kli that makes noise is Mekabel 
               Tum'ah?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> 'Kol <i>Davar</i> Asher Yavo ba'Esh...' - even 
               Dibur (making noise) is included. (These words 
               discuss Kashering vessels - since noise cannot 
               affect Kashrus, we apply the Drashah to the subject 
               of the continuation of this verse, i.e. Tum'ah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Beraisa #2 cannot discuss a bell without a 
          clapper!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Middle clause of Beraisa #2):</font></b> One may go out with a 
               bell on his garment, but not on his neck - both of 
               these are Mekabel Tum'ah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> A bell without a clapper is not Mekabel Tum'ah!
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> The following bells are Mekabel 
                    Tum'ah only if they have a clapper - a bell for 
                    a grinder (noise is beneficial when grinding 
                    spices for Ketores), crib, cloth over a Sefer 
                    [Torah] or around a child's neck.
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> If the clapper was removed, it is still Tamei.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Regarding a child, it is Mekabel Tum'ah only if 
          it has a clapper - Beraisa #2 discusses an adult, a bell 
          is a Tachshit (ornament) for him even without a clapper.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If the clapper was removed, it is still Tamei.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> [Why is it Tamei -] what use is a bell without 
          a clapper?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> Because a commoner can put back the 
          clapper [it is still considered connected].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rava - Mishnah):</font></b> A bell and a clapper are 
          connected.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps this means, even if they are 
               [physically] separated, it is as if they are 
               connected (like Abaye taught)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection (Beraisa):</font></b> Scissors that come apart, and a 
               [carpenter's] plane (the blade can be removed from 
               the wood) are connected regarding [Kabalas] Tum'ah, 
               but not regarding Haza'ah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> If they are considered connected, they 
               should be connected even for Haza'ah; if they are 
               not connected, they should not be connected for 
               Tum'ah!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rabah):</font></b> Mid'Oraisa, when they are being 
               used, they are connected, at other times they are 
               not;
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> Chachamim decreed [to consider them connected for] 
               Tum'ah when they are not being used on account of 
               when they are being used, and they decreed [to 
               consider them disconnected for] Haza'ah when they 
               are being used on account of when they are not.
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> (The decree to consider them connected for Tum'ah is 
               when they are together [but not in use] - when they 
               are separate, they are not considered connected at 
               all!)
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) CAN A BELL BECOME 'TAMEI'?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that the Beraisa (58a) is discussing an animal's bell that does not have a clapper, and that is why it cannot become Tamei. The Gemara asks why an animal's bell without a clapper cannot become Tamei; if the bell is an ornament and has the status of a Kli, then it should become Tamei even <i>without</i> a clapper.
</p><p>
However, we see in the very next line that the Gemara knows that there is a Beraisa which clearly states that bells of various usages are Mekabel Tum'ah <i>only</i> if they have a clapper. Why, then, is the Gemara bothered by the fact than an animal's bell is not Mekabel Tum'ah only if it does not have a clapper? (<b>MAHARAM</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> When the Gemara discusses the bell of an animal, the Gemara assumes that the bell has <i>no use</i> other than that of a decorative ornament. Consequently, whether or not the bell has a clapper should make no difference, since the bell is an ornament with or without a clapper.
</p><p>
In contrast, the bells mentioned in the Beraisa that the Gemara quotes are bells which have the status of <i>Kelim</i>, and which are used specifically for making noise. Therefore, when those bells do not have a clapper, they are not complete utensils and are not Mekabel Tum'ah.
</p><p>
Similarly, when the Gemara answers its question about the animal's bell by saying that an animal's bell is considered a Kli because it makes noise, it means that since it is a Kli and not just an ornament, it is Mekabel Tum'ah only if it has a clapper and produces a sound. That is, an animal's bell is <i>not</i> an ornament for the animal, but it is an object, a utensil, that man uses for some purpose. For what purpose does man use the bell? He uses it by listening for its sound in order to know where his animal is. (M. Kornfeld. This seems to be the intention of the Maharam's answer as well.)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) A UTENSIL THAT CAN NO LONGER BE USED AKIN TO ITS ORIGINAL PURPOSE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava; also, R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina):</font></b> A bell 
          without a clapper is Tamei because it can be banged 
          against earthenware [to make it ring].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> It is Tamei because it can be 
          used to give water to a child to drink.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> R. Yochanan says that a Kli is Mekabel Tum'ah 
          only if it can be used akin to its intended purpose!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa) Suggestion:</font></b> 'V'Chol ha'Kli Asher Yeshev 
               Alav' - perhaps if a Zav sat on a [Kli that holds a] 
               Se'ah or half-Se'ah, it becomes Tamei (an Av 
               ha'Tum'ah)!
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> 'Asher Yeshev Alav' - the verse 
                    discusses a Kli meant to be sat on, not 
                    something that [if one sits on it,] people may 
                    tell him 'Get up, we need to use the Kli!'
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (R. Elazar):</font></b> We Metaher from Tum'as Medras (Mishkav 
               u'Moshav) on account of  'Get up, we need to use the 
               Kli!', but not from Tum'as Mes;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font>(R. Yochanan):</font></b> This is Metaher even from Tum'as Mes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The opinions of R. Yochanan and [his colleague] 
          R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina above must be switched.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why do we switch the opinions of R. Yochanan 
          and R. Yosi above - alternatively, we could switch the 
          opinions of R. Yochanan and R. Elazar!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We have another source that R. Yochanan requires 
          a Kli to have a use similar to its intended purpose:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> A sandal for an animal is Mekabel Tum'ah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Why is it Mekabel Tum'ah? (Kelim that 
               serve only animals are not Mekabel Tum'ah!)
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer #1 (Rav):</font></b> One can drink water from it in war 
               [when one does not have a regular cup];
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer #2 (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina):</font></b> One can anoint 
               oil from it in war;
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer #3 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> One who flees the front 
               line [in war] can wear it to enable him to run over 
               thorns and thistles.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the difference between the answers of 
          Rav and R. Yosi?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> If the sandal is repulsive [it can be used for 
          oil, but not for drinking].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the difference between the answers of 
          R. Yochanan and R. Yosi?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> If the sandal is heavy [it can be used for oil, 
          but not for fleeing. Maharsha - it is possible that R. 
          Yochanan does not require a Kli to have a use akin to its 
          intended purpose - he did not answer like Rav or R. Yosi, 
          for he holds that soldiers do not take oil to war for 
          anointing, and he teaches that even a repulsive sandal is 
          Tamei. This is a retraction from Answer (f); indeed, we 
          could switch the opinions of R. Yochanan and R. Elazar.]
<br>
<b><font>2) WEARING 'TACHSHITIM' OF THE HEAD ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> She may not go out with Ir Shel Zahav.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> It is a crown (Tosfos; 
          Rashi - round ornament) on which Yerushalayim is 
          depicted, like R. Akiva made for his wife. (Rashash - the 
          Gemara knew that it is a crown - it asked, this is 
          forbidden even on weekdays, on account of the Churban! It 
          answers, since it recalls Yerushalayim, the decree 
          against crowns does not apply to it.)
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) LAWS OF 'TUM'AH': USING AN OBJECT FOR ITS ORIGINAL PURPOSE</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Rebbi Yochanan says that to be Mekabel Tum'as Mes, an object must be used for its original purpose. Rebbi Yochanan states that 'we say Amod v'Na'aseh Melachteinu' (literally, 'stand and we shall perform our work') with regard to Tum'as Mes. What does this expression mean?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that this means that a utensil which broke must serve in its original capacity (to some extent) in order to be considered Tamei even when it is broken. Thus, if we can say to the utensil, 'Amod v'Na'aseh Melachteinu' -- 'Stand and we shall perform our work [by using you for the purpose for which you were originally made],' then it is Mekabel Tum'as Mes.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RIVA</b> cited by <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH v'Ein) explains that it means that if an object which is broken can be used only for a purpose other than its original purpose, then it is <i>not</i> Tamei, because we tell the person who uses it, 'Amod v'Na'aseh Melachteinu' -- 'Stop! We want to [fix it in order to] use it for its original purpose.' It is therefore still considered broken and is not Mekabel Tum'ah.
</p><p>
(According to Tosfos, the phrase that Rebbi Yochanan uses, 'Amod v'Na'aseh Melachteinu,' is consistent with the way it is always used; that is, if we tell a person to stop using a utensil -- 'Amod...' -- the utensil is <i>not</i> Mekabel Tum'ah.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> A woman may not go out with Ir Shel 
          Zahav; if she did, she is Chayav Chatas;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, she may not go out with it; if she 
               did, she is exempt;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer permits her to go out with it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What do they argue about?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Meir holds that it is a load (Ramban - because 
          she does not intend for decoration, merely to flaunt her 
          gold; Rashash - because Chachamim forbade wearing it, it 
          is not a Tachshit); 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim forbid it like other Tachshitim, lest she 
               will take it off to show others; 
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer permits, for only very esteemed women 
               wear it, and they do not take off Tachshitim to show 
               others. (However, even esteemed women may not wear 
               [regular] Tachshitim worn by all women.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> A woman may not go out with Kalila (a band across 
          the forehead); 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> She may go out with it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Version #1:</font></b> All forbid Kalila of Niska (entirely of gold 
          and silver) - they argue about Aruksa (a band of silk 
          with gold and gems woven inside):
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rav considers the gold and gems to be primary (we 
               are concerned she will show it to friends), Shmuel 
               [is not concerned for this, for he] considers the 
               band to be primary.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Version #2 - (Rav Ashi):</font></b> All permit Kalila of Aruksa - 
          they argue about Niska:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rav is concerned that she will show it to friends. 
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Shmuel is not concerned, since it is worn by 
               esteemed women, they will not show it to friends. 
               (Maharsha - Rav could hold even like R. Eliezer, 
               Shmuel could hold even like Chachamim. R. Eliezer 
               permits Ir Shel Zahav, but he could forbid Kalila 
               for it is worn by women of somewhat lower esteem. 
               Chachamim forbid Ir Shel Zahav, but they could 
               permit Kalila, for esteemed women are less eager to 
               show it off to friends than Ir Shel Zahav. Me'iri - 
               they could permit Kalila, for only the most elite 
               women wear it.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Rav Shmuel bar bar Chanah (to Rav Yosef):</font></b> You taught us 
          [before you became sick and forgot your learning] that 
          Rav permits Kalila (i.e. Aruksa - this is like Rav Ashi)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  People told Rav that a great Chacham came to Neharda'a; 
          he limps, and he permits Kalila.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  \Rav:</font></b> It must be that [in Eretz Yisrael] R. Efes died, R. 
          Chanina was appointed Rosh Yeshivah, and Levi (who had 
          been learning with R. Chanina outside the Yeshivah) came 
          here because he had no one to learn with.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps R. Chanina died, R. Efes was still 
          Rosh Yeshivah, and Levi came here because he had no one 
          to learn with!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Rejection #1:</font></b> If so, Levi would have learned inside the 
          Yeshivah. (He would be submissive in front of R. Efes, 
          his elder, but not in front of R. Chanina; until now he 
          was outside to honor R. Chanina, who was a greater 
          Chacham than R. Efes.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Rejection #2:</font></b> It was inevitable that R. Chanina would 
          become Rosh Yeshivah, for Rebbi decreed this before his 
          death (but R. Chanina had refused to be Rosh Yeshivah 
          because R. Efes was older) - regarding Tzadikim it says 
          'V'Sigzar Omer va'Yakam Lach'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b></b>  Levi expounded in Neharda'a that Kalila is permitted - 24 
          women went out with Kalilos in the city.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b></b>  Rabah bar Avuha expounded in Mechuza that Kalila is 
          permitted - 18 women went out with Kalilos in one 
          alleyway.
<br>
<b><font>3) WEARING BELTS ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Shmuel):</font></b> Kamra (a prestigious belt) is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Version #1:</font></b> He discusses Aruksa (gold and gems are woven 
          inside);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Safra):</font></b> It is permitted like a golden Talis (it 
               is a Tachshit; we are not concerned lest one remove 
               it, for then his clothes would fall).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Version #2:</font></b> He discusses Niska (it is all gold);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Safra):</font></b> It is permitted like a prince's belt. 
               (It is not considered a load - all Yisrael are 
               fitting to wear it; R. Tam - men do not take off 
               Tachshitim to show others (at least according to 
               Version #2).)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (Ravina):</font></b> May one wear Kamra and also a belt?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> This is like wearing two belts. (Rashi 
          - it is forbidden; Tosfos - it is permitted only if a 
          garment separates between them; Talmidei R. Yitzchak 
          (brought in Rashi) - it is permitted in any case.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rav Ashi):</font></b> A thick slab of a cloak is permitted if it 
          has straps [to tie it tightly].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> She may not go out with Katla.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  This is a decorative garment tied around the neck (it 
          gathers crumbs that fall from her mouth; alternatively, 
          it is a gold half-ring around the neck that goes through 
          the openings of her garment to clasp it closed).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> ...Nor with Nezamim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  These are nose rings.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Nor with rings without a stamp.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> If she went out with a ring with a stamp, she 
          would be Chayav Chatas. (This is not a solid inference - 
          really, we rely on a Mishnah (62A) which explicitly says 
          this.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  This teaches that a ring with a stamp is not a Tachshit.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Contradiction (Mishnah #1):</font></b> Tachshitim of women are 
          Teme'im, i.e. Katla'os, earrings, rings with or without a 
          stamp, and nose rings.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Zeira):</font></b> Our Mishnah is like R. Nechemyah 
          [who says that the primary part of a ring is the stamp; 
          it discusses rings with a wooden stamp, therefore they 
          are not Tachshitim].
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> If a metal ring has a stamp of balsam 
               wood, it is Tamei (Mekabel Tum'ah, even though it 
               does not hold anything, for it is considered a metal 
               Kli);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If a balsam ring has a metal stamp, it is Tahor 
               (like a wooden Kli that does not hold anything);
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Nechemyah is Metamei (he always judges according 
               to the part used, not the Ma'amid (what holds it in 
               place), i.e.):
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> A ring is judged according to its stamp;
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> A yoke is judged according to its pegs [on each side 
               of the ox' neck, to keep it in place];
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> A pole [on which merchandise hangs from nails] is 
               judged according to its nails;
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b></b> A ladder is judged according to its rungs;
       <br><b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b></b> A scale is judged according to its chains;
       <br><b>   <b><font>9.  </font></b></b> Chachamim judge [all of these] according to the 
               Ma'amid.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) 'IMPORTANT' WOMEN WEARING JEWELRY ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara tells us that Rebbi Meir, the Chachamim (who are the source for the ruling of the Mishnah), and Rebbi Eliezer argue whether a woman may go out into Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos while wearing an 'Ir Shel Zahav.' Rebbi Eliezer, who argues with the ruling of the Mishnah, permits her to go out with it because only a prominent woman wears such an ornament, and it is beneath her dignity to remove it to show to someone else. Therefore, there is no fear that she will carry it in Reshus ha'Rabim.
</p><p>
Later in the Gemara, Shmuel permits wearing a 'Kelila' (a gold plate worn on the forehead), because only a prominent woman wears such an ornament, and there is no fear that she will remove it in Reshus ha'Rabim. Does Shmuel mean that the Halachah follows Rebbi Eliezer, and not the Tana of the Mishnah who prohibits a woman to go out while wearing an Ir Shel Zahav?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>ME'IRI</b> quotes the 'Gedolei ha'Mefarshim' who says that Shmuel indeed sides with Rebbi Eliezer and not with the Mishnah.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> and <b>RITVA</b> say that Shmuel does <i>not</i> agree with Rebbi Eliezer. They explain that there are three types of ornaments. The Kelila which Shmuel permits is an elegant ornament of <i>average</i> quality worn by wealthy women. Since it is average, they will not feel compelled to remove it to show to their friends. However, an Ir Shel Zahav is an unusually elegant ornament and, therefore, even wealthy women will remove it to show to their friends (this is the point of dispute between the Mishnah and Rebbi Eliezer). The third type is an elegant item which even poor women wear; such an item is prohibited to be worn by anyone in Reshus ha'Rabim.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>MIRKEVES HA'MISHNEH</b> says that according to the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Shabbos 19:6), Shmuel agrees that an Ir Shel Zahav is prohibited, but not for the same reason as the Gemara earlier suggests. Rather, according to Shmuel one is prohibited to wear the Ir Shel Zahav (and the other ornaments mentioned in the Mishnah) due to a concern that it will <i>fall off</i> and she will carry it in Reshus ha'Rabim. (This, in fact, is the way the Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 19:6) records the laws of the Mishnah.) Perhaps a Kelila, in contrast, is worn tighter and therefore there is no concern that it will fall off. The only possible concern is that she might remove it in order to show it to her friends, but Shmuel says that we are not concerned that she will do that. Therefore, Shmuel may still agree with the Mishnah that prohibits a woman to go out with an Ir Shel Zahav.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) WEARING RINGS AND NEEDLES ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> Mishnah #1 discusses two different 
          cases:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A ring with a stamp is a Tachshit for a man, a ring 
               without a stamp is a Tachshit for a woman.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> The laws of Tum'ah 
          and [carrying on] Shabbos are different!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Tum'ah depends on 'Kli Ma'aseh' - in either case it 
               is a Kli;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Shabbos depends on whether or not it is a load - if 
               it has a stamp, it is considered a load [for a 
               woman]; if not, it is a Tachshit.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> ...Or a needle without a hole.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why does a woman wear such a needle [even 
          during the week]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> She wraps around it hairs sticking 
          out from her braids [and inserts it under the headdress 
          (Rashi; Tosfos - she uses it to hold down the headdress, 
          so hair will not go out).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> If so, it should be like a garter belt 
          [to hold up socks], which is Tahor (i.e. not a Tachshit) 
          and permitted (Rashi - it is immodest to remove it; 
          Tosfos - the decree against Tachshitim on Shabbos should 
          not apply)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Ada Narsha'ah):</font></b> She uses it to part her 
          hair.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does she use it for on Shabbos? (Rashi - 
          one may not part hair on Shabbos; Tosfos - it is not a 
          Tachshit nor a garment, it should be a load!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> It has a gold plate at the other end - on 
          a weekday she parts her hair with the needle, on Shabbos 
          she wears the plate on her forehead.
<br>
<b><font>2) THE DECREE AGAINST WEARING NAILED SANDALS ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not go out [on Shabbos] with nailed 
          [wooden] sandals, nor with [only] one sandal, unless he 
          has a wound on his foot;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  One may not go out with Tefilin, a Kemi'a that is not 
          from a Mumcheh, armor, a helmet or iron boots;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  If one went out with any of these, he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Why is a nailed sandal forbidden?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Shmuel):</font></b> Yisraelim were hiding in a cave on 
          account of a royal decree; people were allowed to enter 
          (for one may see that no one is looking at the time), but 
          not to leave (lest the kingdom will see where they are 
          hiding);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> (A nailed sandal can be worn reversed.) Someone had 
               entered wearing a reversed nailed sandal, his 
               footprints (seemingly) indicated that someone had 
               left - everyone was panicking, expecting the enemy 
               to attack. They pushed and shoved each other, this 
               killed more people than the enemy killed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (R. Ila'i ben Elazar):</font></b> They were in a cave [on 
          account of a decree]; they heard sounds [of nailed 
          sandals] above the cave. They panicked; more people were 
          killed by the pushing and shoving than by the enemy.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Rami bar Yechezkeil):</font></b> They were in a 
          synagogue; they heard voices outside; they panicked, 
          pushing and shoving; more people were killed by their 
          nailed sandals (which are thick at the front) than by the 
          enemy.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  [According to all three answers,] at this time, it was 
          decreed not to wear a nailed sandal on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If so, it should be forbidden even during the 
          week!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The episode occurred on Shabbos, so only Shabbos 
          was forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If so, why is it forbidden on Yom Tov?!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) GOING OUT WITH A NEEDLE WITH NO HOLE IN IT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah says that a woman may not go out with an un-holed needle. The Gemara explains the Mishnah in two stages, in which it asks two questions: First, it asks, 'For what is this un-holed needle used?' (The Gemara answers that it is used for parting her hair.) Second, it asks, 'For what is the un-holed needle used on Shabbos?'
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara repeat its question? Why does the answer that the Gemara gives for the first question (that the needle is used for parting her hair) not answer the second question?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains the difference between the two questions as follows. The Gemara first asks why an un-holed needle is considered a part of her clothing and not something that she carries. The Gemara answers that since she parts her hair with it, it is considered part of her clothing. The Gemara then asks that on Shabbos, when she cannot part her hair with it, why is it considered part of her clothing? The Gemara answers that on Shabbos it is worn as an ornament, with the gold plate at its tip displayed prominently.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH l'Mai Chazya) asks several questions on Rashi's explanation. First, why does the use of the needle to part her hair make the needle into a piece of her clothing? Even if she <i>could</i> part her hair with it on Shabbos, it would <i>not</i> be considered a piece of her clothing or an ornament. It is simply stuck into the hair so that it should be available to the woman at all times, and thus she is <i>carrying</i> it in her hair! Second, why is one prohibited to part her hair on Shabbos? (It cannot be prohibited because of the possibility that she may pull out hair. Such an act would be no more than a Davar she'Eino Miskaven, akin to combing the hair of a Nazir, which Rebbi Shimon (50b) permits.)
</p><p>
Tosfos therefore suggests that the two questions of the Gemara are as follows. The Gemara first asks a general question: what does a woman generally do with an un-holed needle? Second, once we know that it is generally used to part her hair, why is the needle considered an <i>ornament</i>, or a piece of clothing, and not just something that she is carrying? (Tosfos understands the second question in the same way that Rashi understands the first question.)
</p><p>
In defense of Rashi, we may suggest that Rashi understands that the needle, after being used to part her hair, was then <i>pinned</i> into the hair to <i>keep it parted</i>. Therefore, it is appropriately considered an ornament, because by being there it makes her hair look nice. This answers Tosfos' first question.
</p><p>
Second, the Gemara later (95a) says that a woman may not braid her hair on Shabbos because braiding is considered an act of Binyan (building). Accordingly, pinning-up her hair is also considered Binyan and therefore it is prohibited on Shabbos. This answers Tosfos' second question. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE 'SANDAL HA'MESUMAR'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah says that one is prohibited to wear a 'Sandal ha'Mesumar' (a shoe with spikes; see Graphic) on Shabbos. The Gemara explains why the Rabanan enacted such a prohibition. It relates that several tragedies occurred whereby many Jews inadvertently killed each other. What do these tragedies have to do with a Sandal ha'Mesumar?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that the cause of death was that they trampled each other with their Sandalim ha'Mesumarim, which had thick nails protruding from their soles.
</p><p>
(b) According to <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH v'Sham'u) and other Rishonim, the Sandal ha'Mesumar was the cause of the stampede in the first place. In the first incident, it was a Sandal ha'Mesumar that was reversed that caused everyone in the cave to panic at the thought that someone may have walked out of the cave and been spotted by the Romans. In the second and third incidents, it was the noise of a Sandal ha'Mesumar's nails clanging against the ground that caused the Jews to panic at the thought that a Roman had found their whereabouts and was approaching to kill them.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> One may send garments to a friend on Yom 
               Tov, whether or not they are sewn [as long as they 
               can be used on a weekday], but not a nailed sandal 
               or a sandal that was not sewn. (This is a special 
               stringency of a nailed sandal - even though it is 
               usable on weekdays, one may not even send it on Yom 
               Tov, lest one come to wear it.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Shabbos was forbidden, for it is a day when 
          everyone gathers [in synagogues and Batei Medrash, like 
          the episode] - the same applies to Yom Tov.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  \Question:</font></b> If so, also fast days should be forbidden, for 
          everyone gathers then!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They forbade only days when everyone gathers and 
          it is forbidden to do Melachah, like the episode - 
          Melachah is permitted on fast days (R. Akiva Eiger - at 
          night, in any case - Ta'anis 12B); 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> (A case occurred, ashes of the Parah Adumah were 
               being taken across the Yarden in a boat; Tum'as Mes 
               was found in the bottom of the boat, the ashes 
               became Tamei and hence disqualified. Chachamim 
               decreed not to take the ashes across a river, not in 
               a boat or over a bridge or to swim across with them, 
               not across the Yarden or any other river.) Even R. 
               Chanina ben Akiva, who says that the decree was only 
               not to take them across the Yarden in a boat, could 
               agree here [that Yom Tov is also forbidden];
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> He holds that they did not decree about other 
               rivers, for the [depth or width of the] Yarden is 
               unlike other rivers - but Yom Tov is just like 
               Shabbos!
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The only difference between [what is 
                    forbidden on] Shabbos and Yom Tov is Melachah 
                    done to prepare food.
<br>
<b><font>3) HOW MANY NAILS FORBID A SANDAL?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> A sandal is considered nailed only if the 
          nails are to keep it together - if they are for 
          decoration, it is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How many nails are allowed [for decoration]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Five nails are allowed on each 
          sandal.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (R. Chanina):</font></b> Seven are allowed on each.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> R. Yochanan:</font></b> I allow five - two on the inside 
               (facing the other sandal, i.e.) one by the toes and 
               one by the sole, two on the outside (one by the 
               toes, one by the sole), and one on the strap;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Chanina allows seven - three on the inside, three 
               on the outside, and one on the strap.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa #1 - R. Noson):</font></b> If a sandal is uneven 
          (one side is thicker than the other), one may insert 
          seven nails [and it is still not considered a nailed 
          sandal];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rebbi permits 13 nails.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Chanina is like R. Noson - but R. Yochanan is not 
               like either Tana!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yochanan holds like R. Nehurai:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa #2 - R. Nehurai):</font></b> Five nails are permitted, 
               seven are forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Eifah (a Chacham, to Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> You Talmidim 
          of R. Yochanan must follow his opinion - we follow R. 
          Chanina's opinion.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Huna):</font></b> Are five permitted?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Even seven are permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Huna):</font></b> Are nine permitted?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Even eight are forbidden.
<br>
<b><font>4) NAILED SANDALS THAT WERE NOT FORBIDDEN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (a shoemaker):</font></b> If a [leather] lining was sewn 
          into a nailed sandal, what is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Ami):</font></b> [R. Yochanan taught that] it is 
          permitted, but I do not know why. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Rav Ashi:</font></b> Surely, you know - it is considered a shoe on 
          account of the lining, the decree was only regarding a 
          sandal!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Aba bar Zavda):</font></b> If he fastened it with nails 
          bent in a semicircle, what is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Aba bar Avina):</font></b> It is permitted.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina also permitted this.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> If one inserted nails sticking out 
          underneath the sole so it will not get worn out, it is 
          permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Support (Beraisa #3):</font></b> One may not go out with a nailed 
          shoe, even from house to house, even from bed to bed;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One may use it to cover a Kli or to support legs of 
               a bed (for it is a Kli);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon forbids (lest one will come 
               to wear it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  If most of the nails fell out and four or five remained, 
          it is permitted;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  Rebbi permits until seven remain.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  If it was covered with leather on bottom and they were 
          fastened with nails from above, it is permitted;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  If he made the heads of the nails wide or very pointy, or 
          covered the entire bottom with nails so it will not wear 
          out, it is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> 'If most of the nails fell out' implies that 
          any minority is permitted, even if many remain - but then 
          it says that only four or five are permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  \Answer (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> If the tops of the nails fell out 
          but it is evident that more used to be there, any 
          minority is permitted (one can see that it changed);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  If the nails were totally uprooted and there is no trace 
          that more used to be there, only four or five are 
          permitted. (Some permit any minority in this case, but 
          only four or five when the tops fell out.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #3):</font></b> Four or five are permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> It suffices to permit five, all the more so 
          four are permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Chisda):</font></b> Four are permitted in a small 
          sandal, five in a large sandal.
<br>
<b><font>5) HOW MANY NAILS ARE PERMITTED?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #3 - Rebbi):</font></b> It is permitted until seven remain.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Contradiction (Beraisa #1):</font></b> Rebbi permits 13 nails.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Beraisa #1 discusses an uneven sandal, it is 
          different (its nails are to make it even).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Rav Masnah):</font></b> The Halachah does not follow R. Elazar 
          b'Rebbi Shimon.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This is obvious, the Halachah is not like an 
          individual against the majority!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that the Halachah follows 
          him because his reasoning is sound - Rav Masnah teaches, 
          this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  R. Chiya:</font></b> If they didn't call me 'The Babylonian that 
          permits', I would permit even more!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How many [nails] does he permit?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Chachamim of Pumbadisa):</font></b> He permits 24.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Chachamim of Sura):</font></b> He permits 22.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> A way to remember the 
          opinions - on the way from Pumbadisa to Sura, Chaser 
          (were lost - this sounds like Sura) two [nails].
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) THE PROHIBITION OF 'SANDAL HA'MESUMAR' ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> According to both explanations for why the Rabanan prohibited wearing the Sandal ha'Mesumar (see previous Insight), why did they prohibit it only on Shabbos and Yom Tov? Although the Gemara says that the tragic incidents that involved a Sandal ha'Mesumar occurred on Shabbos, the tragedies themselves were unrelated to Shabbos (and they could have happened any day of the week). The tragedies occurred simply as a result of the Jews' flight from the Romans. What is the logical connection between the tragedies and Shabbos?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>ME'IRI</b> explains that the Rabanan wanted to prevent the joy of Shabbos and Yom Tov from being compromised if people were to be reminded of the tragedies that occurred on those days. Therefore, they prohibited wearing the Sandal ha'Mesumar on Shabbos and Yom Tov, the days on which the tragedy happened, so that people would not be reminded of it and be saddened.
</p><p>
(b) The Rabanan were concerned of a recurrence of those tragedies. Therefore, on days when Jews gather together because they cannot work (Rashi DH Ika) -- which closely resembles the circumstances in which the tragedies occurred -- the Rabanan prohibited wearing the Sandal ha'Mesumar. On other days of public gathering, such as a fast day, since people gather together to pray (that is, they gather for a positive reason and not a negative reason), the Rabanan assume that they will be engrossed in their prayer and no tragedy will occur. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) SHOWING PREFERENCE TO ONE FOOT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not go out with [only] one sandal 
          unless there is a wound on his foot [otherwise, people 
          might suspect that he is carrying the other shoe under 
          his garment; alternatively, perhaps people will laugh at 
          him, and he will take off the shoe and carry it].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If there is a wound on his foot, he may wear 
          one shoe - on which foot does he wear it?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Huna):</font></b> He wears it on the wounded foot.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> He holds that sandals are [normally] worn to 
          avoid pain. (The bare foot shows that he has hard feet 
          and is not pained by walking on bumpy surfaces, people 
          will realize that the covered foot is wounded, they will 
          not suspect him; alternatively, he will bear the ridicule 
          and keep the shoe on to avoid pain.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Chiya bar Rav):</font></b> He wears it on the healthy 
          foot.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> He holds that sandals are worn for comfort. 
          (People realize that he would like to wear sandals on 
          both feet, but the wound prevents him, they will not 
          suspect him; alternatively, they will not laugh at him 
          because they see the wound.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  An episode shows that R. Yochanan holds like Rav Huna:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shemen bar Aba was bringing R. Yochanan's shoes 
               to him to wear - he [first] gave to him the right 
               shoe (R. Yochanan always donned the left shoe 
               first).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> R. Yochanan:</font></b> You make it appear that it (my right 
               foot) is wounded [hence I should put a shoe only on 
               it]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> Perhaps he holds like R. Chiya - he means, you 
          make it appear that my left foot is wounded.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan is consistent with what he taught elsewhere:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Just like we put Tefilin on the left hand, we put 
               the left shoe on first [to show preference for the 
               left].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> One puts on the right shoe before the 
          left.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Since the Beraisa and R. Yochanan say 
          differently, one may conduct like either of them. (Tosfos 
          - they do not argue - one may show preference for the 
          left, like the Torah does regarding Tefilin, or for the 
          right, like it does regarding Chalitzah and blood of 
          Asham Metzora.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> (Abaye): Perhaps they argue - R. Yochanan 
          never heard the Beraisa, had he heard it he would have 
          retracted!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Alternatively, perhaps he heard it, but he knew that 
               the Halachah does not follow it!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> One who fears Shamayim will 
          fulfill both opinions - Mar brei d'Ravina is such a 
          person.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How does one fulfill both opinions?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One puts on the right shoe, then the left, then 
          ties the left, then ties the right.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Rav Ashi:</font></b> I saw that Rav Kahana was not particular [about 
          which shoe he put on first].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One puts on the right shoe before the left; 
          when removing them, he removes the left shoe first.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b></b>  One washes or anoints the right [hand] before the left;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b></b>  When washing the whole body, one should wash the head 
          first, for it is the king over all the limbs.
<br>
<b><font>2) GOING OUT WITH TEFILIN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not go out with Tefilin.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (Rav Safra):</font></b> This is not only according to the 
          opinion that [the Mitzvah to wear] Tefilin does not apply 
          on Shabbos;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rather, even the opinion that it applies on Shabbos 
               forbids, lest he will [remove them to go to the 
               bathroom and] carry them in Reshus ha'Rabim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (Seifa):</font></b> If one went out with any of these, he 
          is exempt.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Safra):</font></b> This is not only according to the 
               opinion that Tefilin applies on Shabbos - rather, 
               even the opinion that it does not apply on Shabbos 
               exempts.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> This is considered wearing (it is not 
               considered carrying).
<br>
<b><font>3) A KEMI'A OF A MUMCHEH IS PERMITTED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not go out with a Kemi'a that is not 
          [Muchzak to heal, i.e.] from a Mumcheh. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rav Papa):</font></b> We do not require the Kemi'a and its author 
          to be Mumchim - it suffices if the author is Mumcheh, 
          even if the Kemi'a is not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Support:</font></b> The Mishnah forbids 'A Kemi'a that is not <i>from</i> 
          a Mumcheh', it does not say 'that is not Mumcheh'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #1):</font></b> A Kemi'a is Mumcheh if it healed three 
          times - this applies equally to a Kemi'a of writing or of 
          herbs, and whether or not the Choleh was dangerously 
          sick.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  Not only is it permitted for one who has had epileptic 
          fits, it is permitted even to prevent them (for one from 
          a family afflicted by this).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  One may tie and untie the Kemi'a [around the herbs or 
          writing] even in Reshus ha'Rabim;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One may not tie it on a [leg] bracelet or ring and 
               wear it in Reshus ha'Rabim, on account of Mar'is 
               ha'Ayin (it looks like he wears it for a Tachshit) 
<br>
<font size='+1' color='#3300CC'><center><b>61b-------------61b
</b></center></font>
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (Rashi) Contradiction (Beraisa #2):</font></b> A Kemi'a 
          is Mumcheh if it healed three people (i.e. with different 
          maladies - Beraisa #1 does not require this).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (Tosfos) Contradiction (Beraisa #2):</font></b> A Kemi'a 
          is Mumcheh if [three Kemi'im with] its text healed three 
          people at the same time. (end of Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Beraisa #2 discusses to Machzik the author (to be 
          Mumcheh), Beraisa #1 discusses Hachzakas Kemi'a. (Rashi - 
          an author is Mumcheh if it is Muchzak that any Kemi'a he 
          writes will heal; Tosfos - he is Mumcheh for a text if it 
          is Muchzak that when he writes it, it heals. Rashi, 
          according to Tosfos ha'Rosh - if Reuven wrote a Kemi'a 
          and it healed Shimon three times, the text is Mumcheh 
          only if Reuven writes it; if it healed three people, or 
          if three doctors wrote this text and each of them healed 
          Shimon, it is Mumcheh no matter who writes it.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Rav Papa):</font></b> It is obvious to me that if Reuven wrote 
          three [different] Kemi'im for three people (with 
          different maladies - Rashi; Tosfos - three identical 
          Kemi'im for one person) and each healed three times, he 
          and the Kemi'im are [Muchzakim to be] Mumchim;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he wrote three Kemi'im for three people and each 
               healed once, he is Mumcheh, the Kemi'im are not;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If he wrote one Kemi'a and it healed three people, 
               it is Mumcheh, he is not;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Papa):</font></b> If he wrote three Kemi'im and all 
          healed one person, what is the law?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Surely, the Kemi'a is not Mumcheh - is the author 
               Mumcheh?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Perhaps he is Mumcheh because he healed three times;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps he is not Mumcheh, all worked because 
               the patient has a Mazel (angel appointed over his 
               illnesses) to be cured through writing!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  This question is not resolved.
<br>
<b><font>4) KEDUSHAH OF KEMI'IM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Does a Kemi'a have Kedushah?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Regarding what do we ask?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer #1:</font></b> We ask whether or not one may save it 
               from a fire [on Shabbos].
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> A Mishnah teaches this - [written] 
               Berachos and Kemi'im, even though they have letters 
               [of Hashem's name] and verses from many Parshiyos, 
               they may not be saved from a fire [by taking them to 
               a Chatzer lacking an Eiruv], one leaves them to be 
               burned.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer #2:</font></b> We ask whether they need Genizah (burial 
               - or, perhaps one may dispose of them in any way).
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> A Beraisa teaches this - if Hashem's name 
               was written on the handle of a Kli or the leg of a 
               bed, one cuts off the part containing His name and 
               buries it (but the rest of the Kli is permitted - 
               surely, the same applies to Kemi'im).
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Answer #3:</font></b> We ask whether or not one may enter a 
               Beis ha'Kisei with it - this is permitted only if it 
               has no Kedushah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not go out with a Kemi'a that 
          is not from a Mumcheh.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> One may go out with a Kemi'a from a 
               Mumcheh.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If one may not enter a Beis ha'Kisei with it, we 
               should forbid, lest one will remove them to enter a 
               Beis ha'Kisei and carry them four Amos in Reshus 
               ha'Rabim (we learned that even if Tefilin apply on 
               Shabbos, one may not go out with them for this 
               reason)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Objection #1:</font></b> [Perhaps] only a [Mumcheh] Kemi'a of herbs 
          is permitted (but one of writing is forbidden for this 
          reason)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Rejection (Beraisa):</font></b> The laws of a Kemi'a of herbs and 
          one of writing are the same.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Objection #2:</font></b> [Perhaps] a [Mumcheh] Kemi'a is permitted 
          only for a dangerously sick person!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Rejection (Beraisa):</font></b> The law of a Kemi'a is the same 
          whether or not the Choleh is dangerously sick.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Objection #3:</font></b> Since a [Mumcheh] Kemi'a heals, one may 
          even carry it in his hand (therefore, even if he will 
          remove it to enter a Beis ha'Kisei, he will not 
          transgress)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Rejection (Beraisa - R. Oshaya):</font></b> One may not walk four 
          Amos with a Kemi'a in his hand.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WHICH SHOE TO PUT ON FIRST</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> According to Rebbi Yochanan, one should put on the left shoe first, in order to show deference to the Tefilin which are worn on the left arm. The Beraisa, on the other hand, maintains that one should put on the right shoe first. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak concludes that a G-d-fearing person, like Mar brei d'Ravna, should satisfy both opinions by putting on the right shoe first and tying the left shoe first.
</p><p>
How does this satisfy both opinions? It seems to <i>contradict</i> both opinions, since neither the right shoe nor the left shoe is completely donned first.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> (DH v'Sayem) answers that when Rebbi Yochanan says that one should put on the left shoe first because the Tefilin are placed on the left arm, he means that since the Tefilin are <i>tied</i> to the left arm, the left side takes precedence when it comes to <i>tying</i>. Therefore, by <i>tying</i> the left shoe first (even though one dons the right shoe first), one fulfills Rebbi Yochanan's opinion. The Beraisa maintains that the right shoe should be <i>donned</i> first, and it is not concerned with which shoe is tied first. According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak and Mar brei d'Ravna, Rebbi Yochanan does not argue with the Beraisa.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) SUMMARY: 'MUMCHEH KAMEI'A' AND 'MUMCHEH GAVRA'</b></font><b>
<br></b>The Gemara discusses what makes a Kamei'a (an amulet for healing) into a Kamei'a Mumcheh (one that has been proven to be effective), which one may wear in Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos regardless of the level of expertise of the doctor who wrote it. The Gemara also discusses what makes a doctor into a Rofeh Mumcheh (who has been proven to be an expert healer with his amulets), such that any amulet written by him may be worn in Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos. In order to better understand the Gemara, it is important to review several rules:
</p><p>
(a) There are three factors involved with giving a doctor or a Kamei'a the status of a Mumcheh:
</p><p>
1. the Kamei'a that was used
</p><p>
2. the doctor who wrote it
</p><p>
3. the person who was healed by it.
</p><p>
The Rishonim also mention a fourth factor -- which <i>sickness</i> the Kamei'a was intended to cure. However, this is not really an additional factor, but it is included in the first (the Kamei'a that was used). The practice was to write a different type of Kamei'a for each type of sickness, and to write the same type of Kamei'a for the same sickness. Therefore, for which sickness the Kamei'a was written is really the same as which Kamei'a was written (#1 above).
</p><p>
(b) The success of the cure may depend on the Mazal of the doctor, the Mazal of the sick person, or both. However, when a Kamei'a is proven effective, its success is not attributed to its Mazal but rather to the wisdom that went into writing it. The effectiveness of the doctor, on the other hand, can depend on his Mazal (<b>RASHI</b> 61b, DH Mazlei, and <b>RAN</b> there, who writes this more clearly). Thus, a doctor who is a 'Mumcheh' may have propitious Mazal, while the 'Mumcheh' status of the Kamei'a is determined solely by the skill and expertise involved in writing it.
</p><p>
(c) A Kamei'a becomes Mumcheh by successfully curing an illness three times, even if it was written by one doctor, or if it healed the same patient three times. We do not attribute the success of a Kamei'a that worked three times to the patient's Mazal or to the doctor's Mazal. Thus, if a doctor wrote one Kamei'a three times (and it was successful every time), the doctor does <i>not</i> become Mumcheh. The reason for this is either because the success of the Kamei'a depends on wisdom, and not on Mazal (Rashi DH Mazlei, and <b>RAN</b>), or because the Kamei'a is the main factor in improving the health of the sick person, since without the Kamei'a the doctor has no chance of curing the illness (<b>RITVA</b>). (Rashi at the beginning of the Sugya seems to contradict this when he writes that the doctor does become Mumcheh if he wrote the successful Kamei'a three times; see Insights to Shabbos 61:4.)
</p><p>


<font><b>3) 'MUMCHEH KAMEI'A'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> What is a Kamei'a Mumcheh? What makes it Mumcheh?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> says that the Mumcheh Kamei'a refers to the charm (that is, the specific script) that is written inside the amulet. Once that charm becomes Muchzak (it has worked three times consecutively), it may be written by any doctor to cure that illness, and it may be worn outside on Shabbos. According to Rashi, in order for a doctor to become Mumcheh, he must write three different successful charms. Once he has written three different successful charms, he may now write any charm, and one may wear it outside on Shabbos.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> and <b>ROSH</b> (6:8) disagree and say that just because a doctor knows how to write three charms is no proof that every charm he writes from then on will be successful. They therefore say that what Rashi describes as making the Kamei'a Mumcheh is actually what makes the doctor Mumcheh. A doctor who is Mumcheh, then, is one who has written one charm successfully three times. Mumcheh Kamei'a, according to Tosfos and Rosh, means that the <i>very same</i> amulet (that is, the actual piece of parchment itself) worked three times. Such an amulet may be worn by anyone on Shabbos. According to Tosfos, if the same text of that amulet is re-written and another amulet is made, even though it contains the same text as the successful amulet, it is considered an entirely new and different amulet.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) MAY ONE ENTER A BEIS HA'KISEI WITH A KEMI'A?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Objection #4:</font></b> [Perhaps] one may go out with a Kemi'a only 
          if it is covered with leather (for then, one may enter a 
          Beis ha'Kisei with it)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Tefilin are covered with leather, yet one may 
          not enter a Beis ha'Kisei with them!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> One who enters a Beis ha'Kisei removes 
               his Tefilin four Amos before the Beis ha'Kisei.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One may not enter a Beis ha'Kisei with [head] 
          Tefilin on account of the Shin (a letter of Hashem's name 
          'Shakai', which is not covered):
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Abaye):</font></b> A tradition from Moshe from Sinai mandates 
               a [protrusion on the box of the head Tefilin shaped 
               like a] Shin.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Abaye):</font></b> A tradition from Sinai mandates [making the 
               knot in the strap of the head Tefilin to form] a 
               'Dalet'. (Tosfos deletes this and the next teaching 
               from the text, because the Gemara (28B) learned that 
               the boxes must be from a Kosher animal from the fact 
               that the Shin is written from the box itself, but it 
               needed a different source for the straps. Rashba 
               (28B) disagrees - even though tradition requires the 
               Dalet and Yud, they are mere knots, not writing.) 
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (Abaye):</font></b> A tradition from Sinai mandates (Rashi - 
               making the knot in the strap of the head Tefilin to 
               form) a 'Yud'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  (Objection #4 stands; we do not resolve whether or not an 
          uncovered Kemi'a may be taken into a Beis ha'Kisei.)
<br>
<b><font>2)  THINGS FORBIDDEN TO GO OUT WITH </font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not go out with Shiryon, Kasda or 
          Magafayim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Shiryon is armor;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> Kasda is a cap worn under a helmet; Magafayim are 
          iron boots.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Meir):</font></b> A woman may not go out wearing the 
          following; if she did, she is Chayeves Chatas: 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A needle with a hole, a ring with a stamp, Kuliyar, 
               Koveles (these will be explained), or a flask of 
               [fragrant] balsam oil.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  Chachamim exempt regarding Koveles or a flask of balsam 
          oil.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Ula):</font></b> The law of a man is opposite [regarding a 
          ring, he is liable only for a ring without a stamp].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> Ula holds that anything fitting for a man (it 
          is a garment or Tachshit for him) is not fitting for a 
          woman (it is a load for her), and vice-versa.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Yosef - Beraisa):</font></b> Shepherds may go out in 
          Sak (sackcloth); 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Anyone is allowed - [Chachamim mentioned shepherds 
               because] it is common for them to go out with Sak.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Ula holds that women are a nation 
          unto themselves (utterly different from men - but 
          anything fitting for some men [or women] is fitting for 
          anyone [of that gender]).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye - Beraisa):</font></b> If one finds Tefilin [in a 
          place where they are prone to be disgraced], he brings 
          them into the city [by wearing them] one pair at a time, 
          whether the finder is a man or woman.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Women cannot be a nation unto themselves [for then 
               they could not wear Tefilin just because it is 
               fitting for men, it would be a load for them]! 
               Tefilin are not intrinsically fitting for women, 
               since it is Mitzvas Ase sheha'Zeman Grama (a 
               positive Mitzvah that applies only at certain 
               times), they are exempt from such Mitzvos,
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Meir holds that [the Mitzvah of] Tefilin 
          applies at night and on Shabbos, therefore it is she'Lo 
          ha'Zeman Grama, such Mitzvos apply to women.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is one liable for wearing a ring [that is 
          not fitting] - this is not the normal way to carry!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Yirmeyah):</font></b> The Mishnah discusses a female 
          Gizbar (treasurer, it is normal for her to wear a ring 
          with a stamp).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> (Rabah): You explain how a woman is liable for 
          a ring with a stamp, but not how a man is liable for a 
          ring without a stamp!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> Sometimes each wears a ring normally 
          worn by the other gender, i.e. a man gives his ring to 
          his wife to put away, she wears it home; a woman gives 
          her ring to her husband to bring to a repairman, he wears 
          it on the way.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> [She may not go out with] Kuliyar or 
          Koveles...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> Kuliyar is a clasp worn around the neck (it passes 
          through the openings of her garment to keep it closed - 
          Rashi; Aruch - it is a crown).
<br>
<b><font>3) GOING OUT WITH FRAGRANCES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav and Rav Asi):</font></b> Koveles is spices bound together.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #1 - R. Meir):</font></b> A woman may not go out with 
          Koveles; if she did, she is Chayeves Chatas;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, she may not go out with it; if she did, 
          she is exempt;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer permits her to go out with it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What do they argue about?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Meir considers it a load; 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim consider it a Tachshit - they forbid lest 
               she will take it off to show it, and come to carry 
               it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer also considers it a Tachshit - he is not 
               concerned lest she show it off, for it is worn to 
               cover up body odor, she does not want people to know 
               that she needs it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Contradiction (Beraisa #2 - R. Eliezer):</font></b> She is exempt 
          for Koveles or a flask of balsam oil (this implies that 
          he forbids)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Resolution:</font></b> In Beraisa #1, R. Eliezer responds to 
          Chachamim, who forbid and exempt b'Diavad - therefore, he 
          says that she is permitted;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> In Beraisa #2, R. Eliezer responds to R. Meir, who 
               obligates - therefore, he says 'She is exempt' for 
               parallel structure.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) ENTERING A BATHROOM WHILE WEARING TEFILIN OR A KAMEI'A</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara suggests that a person is permitted to walk into a bathroom while wearing a Kamei'a that is covered in leather. The Gemara adds that if not for the letter 'Shin' inscribed on the outside of Tefilin, one would be permitted to walk into a bathroom while wearing Tefilin, since the Parshiyos themselves are covered in leather.
</p><p>
However, the Gemara in Berachos (23a) teaches that Tefilin may not be brought into a bathroom unless they are placed in a covering that is not their designated covering. Even though the Parshiyos are already covered by their designated covering (the leather encasement of the Tefilin), they need an additional covering in order to be brought into a bathroom. The Gemara there seems to contradict the Gemara here, which says that if not for the 'Shin' on the outside of the Tefilin, one would be <i>permitted</i> to walk into a bathroom with Tefilin without any additional covering, since the leather encasement around the Parshiyos suffices. How are we to reconcile these two Gemaros? (<b>RASHBA</b> to Berachos 23a)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> here answers that the statement of the Gemara in Berachos -- that a holy object's designated covering does not permit one to bring it into a bathroom -- applies only when the holy object is sometimes <i>removed</i> from that covering. A Kamei'a and Tefilin, though, are <i>never</i> removed from their leather encasements. Even though the leather is made to hold the Kamei'a and Tefilin, one may walk into the bathroom with them (if not for the 'Shin' on the outside of the Tefilin) since they are never removed from their encasements. When the Gemara in Berachos requires that the Tefilin be placed in a covering that is not designated for the Tefilin, such a covering is necessary because of the 'Shin' on the outside of the Tefilin. Since the Tefilin are frequently removed from that covering, a <i>designated</i> covering does not suffice.
</p><p>
(b) According to <b>RASHI</b> in Berachos (23a), the Gemara there is not referring to one who brings Tefilin into a bathroom, but rather it is referring to one who places the Tefilin on the ground. The Gemara says that a covering that is designated for the Tefilin is not a sufficient separation between the Tefilin and the ground. Such a covering <i>is</i> a sufficient separation with regard to entering a bathroom with Tefilin. (<b>MAGEN AVRAHAM</b> OC 43:13; <b>SEFAS EMES</b>)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Where do we find that R. Eliezer responds to R. 
          Meir?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> A woman may not go out with a 
          key in her hand; if she did, she is Chayeves Chatas;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer exempts for Koveles or a flask of balsam oil.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Interjection:</font></b> R. Meir did not discuss Koveles!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa is abbreviated, it means as 
               follows:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  R. Meir also forbids her to go out with Koveles 
                    or a flask of balsam oil; if she did, she is 
                    Chayeves Chatas;
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> R. Eliezer exempts for Koveles or a flask of 
                    balsam oil.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Continuation of Beraisa):</font></b> R. Eliezer exempts if there 
          are spices in the Koveles - but if it is empty, she is 
          liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Inference (Rav Ada bar Ahavah):</font></b> This teaches that if 
          someone was Motzi (took from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus 
          ha'Rabim) food in a Kli, and the food was less than the 
          Shi'ur to be Chayav, he is liable for the Kli!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is because a Koveles without spices has just a 
               remnant of fragrance, this is like less than a 
               Shi'ur of food!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Rejection (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Perhaps one who was Motzi food less 
          than a Shi'ur in a Kli is exempt, because the Kli is 
          Batul to the food - but Koveles cannot be Batul to a 
          remnant of fragrance, since smell has no substance! 
<br>
<b><font>4) CONDUCT THAT CAUSED THE CHURBAN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> 'V'Reishis Shemanim Yimshachu' - this 
          refers to balsam (the choicest oil).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Yosef - Beraisa):</font></b> R. Yehudah ben Bava 
          decreed even against balsam oil [after the Churban] - 
          Chachamim did not agree;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If it is for indulgence, Chachamim would have 
               agreed!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Counter-question (Abaye):</font></b> You assume that every matter of 
          indulgence was forbidden - this is not so!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Ami or R. Asi):</font></b> 'Ha'Shosim b'Mizrekei Yayin' - 
               this is Kenishkin (a Kli with two [or more] mouths, 
               enabling people to drink together; alternatively, 
               wine is thrown from one end to the other when it is 
               tilted);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (The other of R. Ami and R. Asi):</font></b> They used to throw 
               their cups one to another [when drinking; Rashi - 
               they would juggle them].
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Nevertheless, Rabah bar Rav Huna saw the Reish 
               Galusa drink from Kenishkin, and he did not comment 
               (this shows that it was not forbidden)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer to both questions (Abaye):</font></b> Rather, Chachamim only 
          decreed against indulgence which also brings Simchah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina):</font></b> 'Ha'Shochvim Al Mitos Shen 
          u'Sruchim Al Arsosam' - they would urinate naked in front 
          of their beds (they would not bother to go outside).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Objection (R. Avahu):</font></b> We cannot say that for this 'Yiglu 
          b'Rosh Golim (they will be the first to be exiled)'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (R. Avahu):</font></b> Rather, they would eat and drink together, 
          stick their beds together and swap wives; making their 
          beds stink with others' semen.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (R. Avahu):</font></b> Three things cause poverty - urinating in 
          front of one's bed while naked, disgracing Netilas 
          Yadayim (washing the hands before eating) and making his 
          wife curse him in his presence.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> Urinating in front of one's bed while naked is 
          problematic only if he faces the bed - if he turns away, 
          it is fine; 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Even facing the bed is problematic only if he 
               urinates on the ground - if he urinates into a Kli, 
               it is fine;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> Disgracing Netilas Yadayim is problematic only if 
          he did not wash at all - if he washed minimally, it is 
          fine.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> This is wrong!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Chisda):</font></b> I pour generous handfuls over my 
               hands, and Hash-m fills my handfuls with goodness.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> 'Making his wife curse him in his presence' 
          refers to one who does not give her money for cosmetics;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It is problematic only if he has money but refuses 
               to give to her.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Rava brei d'Rav Ilai):</font></b> 'Ya'an Ki Gavhu Benos Tziyon' - 
          they (married women) would walk erect;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'Va'Telachnah Netuyos Garon' - they walked heel to 
               toe [tiny steps, like one who sticks out his neck 
               and faces up and cannot see where he walks; this was 
               to allow men more time to look at them];
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> 'U'Meshakros Einayim' - they would paint their eyes 
               and wink [at single men];
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> 'Haloch v'Tafof' - a tall woman would walk next to a 
               short woman [to make a more impressive appearance];
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> (Rav Yitzchak d'vei R. Ami):'Uv'Ragleihem 
               <i>Te'akasnah</i>' - they would put fragrances in their 
               shoes, and kick the ground near unmarried men, 
               spraying the scent to arouse their lust like the 
               venom in Ka'os (an angry snake).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How were these women punished?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah bar Ula):</font></b> 'V'Hayah Sachas Bosem Mak Yihyeh' 
          - the place where they would perfume themselves will 
          melt;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'V'Sachas Chagurah Nikpah' - where they would gird 
               themselves with pretty belts, it will be full of 
               wounds;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> 'V'Sachas Ma'aseh Mikshah Karchah' - where they 
               would adorn their hair, it will be full of bald 
               patches;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> 'V'Sachas Pesigil Machagores Sak' - their openings 
               (Ervah) that led to joy will be girded with 
               sackcloth.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> 'Ki Sachas Yofi' - in place of beauty will be 
          pus.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina):</font></b> '*V'Sipach* Hash-m Kodkod 
          Benos Tziyon' - they were stricken by Tzara'as, about 
          which it says '...Vela'Sapachas'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  (Rav or Shmuel):</font></b> 'Va'Shem Pasehen Ye'areh' - blood [of 
          Zivah] poured out of their openings;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  (The other of Rav and Shmuel):</font></b> Their openings became like 
          a Ya'ar (forest, i.e. full of hair and hence despised for 
          relations).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) PLEASURE AND JOY</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that the Rabanan did not prohibit Palyatan (balsam) oil after the Churban because it does not provide both Ta'anug (pleasure) and Simchah (joy); it provides only Ta'anug.
</p><p>
Based on this statement of the Gemara here, the <b>BECHOR SHOR</b> (at the end of Maseches Ta'anis, and cited here by Rav Yosef Engel in Gilyonei ha'Shas) explains an apparently self-contradictory Halachah in the laws of Tish'ah b'Av. The <b>REMA</b> (OC 553:2) explains that when Tish'ah b'Av occurs on Motza'i Shabbos, one may eat whatever he wants during the third Shabbos meal in the afternoon. However, one should not study Pirkei Avos, because after midday of the day before Tish'ah b'Av the practice is to refrain from learning Torah which rejoices a person's heart.
</p><p>
The <b>TAZ</b> (OC 554:1) asks that if one must have Simchah on Shabbos, and therefore one may eat whatever he wants throughout the entire day, then the same requirement of Simchah should permit one to learn Torah! After all, the only reason one is prohibited to learn Torah on Tish'ah b'Av (and Erev Tish'ah b'Av after midday) is because the words of Torah are 'Mesamchei Lev' (OC 554:1).
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>BECHOR SHOR</b> answers that we see from the Gemara here that there is a clear differentiation between Ta'anug and Simchah. Ta'anug refers to the physical pleasure of eating, or of smearing oil on one's skin. Shabbos is called 'Oneg' (Yeshayah 58:13). Therefore, on Shabbos there is a Mitzvah to partake of large and delicious meals, and one is permitted to do so even on Erev Tish'ah b'Av. However, Simchah is an entirely different Mitzvah; there is no Mitzvah of Simchah on Shabbos. Since learning Torah gives a person <i>Simchah</i>, one should not learn Torah after midday of Erev Tish'ah b'Av that occurs on Shabbos. (The <b>ME'IRI</b> in Beis ha'Bechirah, first Perek of Beitzah, also distinguishes between Oneg and Simchah and explains that there is no Mitzvah of Simchah on Shabbos, only on Yom Tov.)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) LEWD TALK OF THE MEN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Men of Yerushalayim would haughtily 
          discuss their sexual affairs [through allusions]:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'Did you eat well kneaded bread, or poorly kneaded 
               bread (was she Be'ulah, or a virgin)?'
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> 'Did you drink white wine, or black (what color was 
               she)?'
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> 'Did you recline on a wide bed, or a thin bed (was 
               she fat or thin)?'
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> 'Did you eat with good company, or bad (was she 
               attractive)?'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> All of these refer to Zenus.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rachbah):</font></b> There used to be cinnamon trees in 
          Yerushalayim, they would give a nice smell when burned - 
          they were hidden after the Churban, only [wood the size 
          of] a barley seed remains, in the treasury of the queen 
          Tzimtzemai.
<br>
<b><font>2) CARRYING WEAPONS OF WAR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A man may not go out with a sword, bow, 
          shield, Alah (club) or spear; if he did, he is Chayav 
          Chatas;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer says, these are Tachshitim for him;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, they are a disgrace - 'V'Chitsu Charvosam 
          l'Itim...Lo Yisa Goy El Goy Cherev v'Lo Yilmedu Od 
          Milchamah'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  A Biris is Tahor, one may go out with it; Kevalim are 
          Teme'im, one may not go out with them (these will be 
          explained).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Gemara):</font></b> Alah is a club.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Eliezer):</font></b> These are Tachshitim for him;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (Beraisa - Chachamim):</font></b> If they are Tachshitim, 
          why will they be Batul in the time of Moshi'ach?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  R. Eliezer:</font></b> They will not be needed - 'Lo Yisa Goy El Goy 
          Cherev'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> [If they are Tachshitim, even if they are 
          unnecessary] they should be permitted, for Noy!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> This is like a Ner in daylight (since it 
          is useless, it is not Noy).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  The Beraisa is unlike Shmuel:</font></b> (Rashash - the Beraisa is 
          not considered a question against him, for the text could 
          be errant (R. Chiya and R. Oshaya did not authenticate 
          it), or because Shmuel's teaching does not affect 
          Halachah.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Shmuel):</font></b> The only difference between this world and 
               Yemos ha'Moshi'ach is that the kingdoms will cease 
               to rule over Yisrael - 'Ki Lo Yechdal Evyon mi'Kerev 
               ha'Aretz'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa supports R. Chiya bar Aba:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> Nevi'im prophesized about Yemos 
               ha'Moshi'ach, but not about the world to come - 
               'Ayin Lo Ra'asah Elokim Zulasecha Ya'aseh li'Mchakeh 
               Lo'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (Beraisa - Chachamim):</font></b> If they are Tachshitim, 
          why will they be Batul in the time of Moshi'ach?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  R. Eliezer:</font></b> They will not be Batul then ('Lo Yisa Goy...' 
          refers to the world to come).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa is like Shmuel, it is unlike R. Chiya bar 
          Aba.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> What is R. Eliezer's source that they 
          are Tachshitim?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Dimi):</font></b> 'Chagor Charbecha Al Yarech Gibor 
          Hodcha va'Hadarecha'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Kahana):</font></b> The verse refers to words of 
          Torah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Answer (Mar brei d'Rav Huna):</font></b> The simple meaning of the 
          verse is [always] true [as well].
<br>
<b><font>3) HOW CHACHAMIM SHOULD LEARN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Rav Kahana:</font></b> I learned all of Shas (oral Torah) by the age 
          of 18, yet I did not know that the simple meaning of the 
          verse is [always] true (even if it is a metaphor or 
          Shirah (Maharitz Chiyus) or parable (Anaf Yosef)). 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What do we learn from this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One should first learn (memorize teachings from 
          his Rebbi), and later understand them [fully].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (R. Yirmeyah):</font></b> If two Chachamim sharpen each other in 
          Halachah, Hash-m prospers them - '*V'Hadarcha Tzelach* - 
          we read this 'V'Chidadcha' ('Hei' and 'Ches' are 
          interchangeable, also 'Reish' and 'Dalet'.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Moreover, they will become great - 'Tzelaf Rechav'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps this is even if they learn Lo 
          Lishmah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> 'Al Devar Emes'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps this is even if he gets haughty!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> 'V'Anvah Tzedek'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  If they do so, they merit Torah which was given by 
          Hashem's right hand - 'V'Sorcha Nora'os Yeminecha'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> They merit things which were 
          said regarding the right ['hand'] of Torah:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rabah bar Rav Shila) Question:</font></b> 'Orech Yamim 
               bi'Minah bi'Smolah Osher v'Chavod' - does the right 
               [hand] of Torah only give length of days, but not 
               wealth and honor?!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Those who are Maimin (meticulous, like the 
               skilled right hand; alternatively, Lishmah) 
               regarding Torah get length of days, all the more so 
               wealth and honor;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Those who are Masmilin (lethargic; 
                    alternatively, Lo Lishmah) regarding Torah get 
                    wealth and honor, but not length of days.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (R. Yirmeyah):</font></b> If two Chachamim learn Halachah together 
          gently, Hash-m listens to them - 'Az Nidberu Yir'ei 
          Hash-m...';
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'Dibur' means gently - 'Yadber Amim Tachtenu'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does it mean 'Ul'Choshvei Shemo'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Ami):</font></b> Even if he intended to do a Mitzvah and 
          was Ne'enas (unable to), the Torah considers it as if he 
          did it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (R. Chanina bar Idi):</font></b> Anyone who does a Mitzvah the way 
          it was commanded will not hear bad tidings - 'Shomer 
          Mitzvah Lo Yeda Davar Ra'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Rav Asi):</font></b> Even if Hash-m had made a harsh decree on him, 
          He will tear it up - it says 'Ba'Asher Devar Melech 
          Shilton u'Mi Yomar Lo Mah Ta'aseh', and then 'Shomer 
          Mitzvah Lo Yeda Davar Ra'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (R. Ami):</font></b> If two Chachamim hearken to each other in 
          Halachah, Hash-m listens to them - 'Ha'Yosheves ba'Ganim 
          Chaverim Makshivim l'Kolech Hashmi'ini';
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If they do not hearken to each other, the Shechinah 
               departs from Yisrael - 'Berach Dodi...'
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (R. Aba):</font></b> If two Chachamim gather together to learn 
               Halachah, Hash-m loves them - 'V'Diglo Alai Ahavah'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> This is only if they already learned some of the 
          matter from a Rebbi, and they do not have a Rebbi here.
<br>
<b><font>4) WHAT TO APPROACH AND WHAT TO AVOID</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Aba):</font></b> One who lends money is greater than one who 
          gives Tzedakah [because the receiver is less 
          embarrassed]; best of all is one who invests money [and 
          the receiver does business with it, and they split the 
          profits].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Aba):</font></b> If a Chacham takes vengeance like a snake, 
          cling to him; (Anaf Yosef (Yoma 23A) - he avenges the 
          insult to Torah without personal benefit, like a snake 
          kills and does not eat; Maharsha - he takes a small 
          vengeance for a great offense - 'Hu Yeshufcha Rosh v'Ata 
          Teshufenu Akev');
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Do not live near an ignoramus [who tries to go 
               beyond the letter of the law, to be a] Chasid (he 
               can make great mistakes).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rav Kahana):</font></b> One who raises an evil dog in his house 
          inhibits Chesed from his household (the poor are afraid 
          to come) - 'La'Mas me'Re'ehu Chased', in Yevanis 'Lamas' 
          means dog.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE RAMBAM'S OPINION OF THE WORLD IN THE TIMES OF MASHI'ACH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> There are two opinions concerning what the world will be like in the times of Mashi'ach. According to Shmuel, the world will be the same as it is now, with the exception that the Jewish people will be autonomous and not subjugated to foreign dominion. According to Rebbi Chiya bar Aba, the world will change fundamentally; all of the prophecies of the prophets will come true, and war and poverty will be eradicated.
</p><p>
When the <b>RAMBAM</b> describes the times of Mashi'ach, he appears to contradict himself. In Hilchos Teshuvah (8:7), the Rambam writes that all the prophecies of the prophets apply to the times of Mashi'ach, and not to Olam ha'Ba. Similarly, in Hilchos Melachim (12:1, 5) he writes that there will be no more war or hunger in the times of Mashi'ach. The Rambam clearly rules in accordance with the opinion of Rebbi Chiya bar Aba. However, in the same chapter (12:2), the Rambam quotes the words of Shmuel, 'There is no difference between this world and the times of Mashi'ach except the lack of subjugation to foreign dominion,' who argues with Rebbi Chiya bar Aba and the other statements that the Rambam writes. How are we to reconcile the words of the Rambam?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The Rambam himself writes the answer to this apparent contradiction. In Hilchos Melachim (12:1), the Rambam writes that all of the prophecies in Yeshayah that refer to the times of Mashi'ach (chapter 11) such as the wolf living with the lamb are all metaphorical. They represent the fact that there will be peace between the Jews and the seventy 'wolves,' the other nations of the world.
</p><p>
The Rambam understands that Rebbi Chiya bar Aba maintains that although the prophecies <i>will</i> come to pass in the days of Mashi'ach, the natural order of the world will <i>not</i> change. There will be no miraculous changes in the physical nature of the world. Any prophecy that alludes to a miraculous change is a metaphor.
</p><p>
According to Shmuel, on the other hand, the prophecies will not come to pass at all in the times of Mashi'ach, and there will <i>not</i> be peace among the other nations. That is why the Rambam -- who says that the prophecies <i>will</i> come true in the time of Mashi'ach (not like Shmuel) -- still says that there will be no change in the actual <i>nature</i> of the world. (See <b>LECHEM MISHNEH</b>, Hilchos Teshuvah 8:7.)
</p><p>
Why, then, does the Rambam use the words of Shmuel to express this thought, when Shmuel himself means his words literally (that there is no difference between this world and the times of Mashi'ach even with regard to peace in the world, and not just with regard to the physical nature of the world)? Why does the Rambam use those same words to refer to a different concept -- that there <i>will</i> be a significant difference between this world and the times of Mashi'ach?
</p><p>
The answer seems to be that we find that the Rambam favors the phraseology of Chazal when they express his point, even when those words themselves were originally stated in a completely different, and even opposite, context (see, for example, Hilchos Isurei Bi'ah 1:3). Here, the Rambam quotes the words of Shmuel to express his own view, even though Shmuel himself meant something entirely different. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE WORLD IN THE TIMES OF MASHI'ACH</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> What will the world be like in the times of Mashi'ach, according to the Chachamim who hold that the prophecies of the prophets will come true? 
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Melachim 12:1) writes that the prophecies will come true, but they are all metaphors. The nature of the world will not change; it will change only insofar as peace and plenty are concerned, but the physical properties of the world will not change. (See previous Insight.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RA'AVAD</b> disagrees and cites as proof the verse, 'And I will cause all wild animals to cease...' (Vayikra 36:6). The Ra'avad apparently means that even if the words of the prophets can be understood figuratively, the words of the Torah must be understood literally (as we find in the 32 Midos of Rebbi Eliezer ben Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, Midah #26). Since the Torah says that the physical properties of animals will change in the times of Mashi'ach, we see that there will also be physical changes in the nature of the world.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RADBAZ</b> on the Rambam (ad loc.) compromises and suggests that in Eretz Yisrael, the words of the prophets will come true in their literal sense, while outside of Eretz Yisrael, they will occur only in a figurative sense.
</p><p>
<br>


