# dafyomi

lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) 'YETZI'OS HA'SHABBOS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> (A Ba'al ha'Bayis is in his house (a Reshus 
          ha'Yachid), an Oni (poor person) is standing outside (in 
          a Reshus ha'Rabim.) If one of them passes an object (on 
          Shabbos) to the other, there are two Yetzi'os (taking 
          something out to a different domain) that the Ba'al 
          ha'Bayis might transgress (depending on the case), four 
          in all (this will be explained), and two Yetzi'os that 
          the Oni might transgress, four in all:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If the Oni takes an object (from outside), sticks 
               his hand inside and places it in the Ba'al ha'Bayis' 
               hand, or if he takes an object from the Ba'al 
               ha'Bayis' hand (inside) and withdraws his hand 
               (outside, holding the object), he is liable (Chayav 
               Misah if he was warned, Chayav Kares if he was 
               Mezid) and the Ba'al ha'Bayis is exempt;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If the Ba'al ha'Bayis takes an object (from inside) 
               and places it in the Oni's hand (outside), or takes 
               an object from the Oni's hand (outside) and takes it 
               inside, he is liable, the Oni is exempt;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> If the Oni takes an object (from outside) and sticks 
               it inside, and the Ba'al ha'Bayis takes it from the 
               Oni's hand, or if the Ba'al ha'Bayis puts an object 
               in the Oni's hand (inside) and the Oni withdraws his 
               hand (outside), both of them are exempt;
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> If the Ba'al ha'Bayis takes an object (from inside) 
               and sticks it outside, and the Oni takes it from his 
               hand, or if the Oni puts an object in the Ba'al 
               ha'Bayis' hand (outside) and the Ba'al ha'Bayis 
               withdraws his hand, both are exempt.
<br>
<b><font>2) WHICH CASES ARE COUNTED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Mishnah (in Shevu'os)):</font></b> There are two primary 
          kinds of oaths (of Bituy, that one will or will not do a 
          certain act), there are four in all;
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE NATURE OF THE MELACHAH OF HOTZA'AH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah enumerates four actions of transferring from one domain to another by a person standing outside (the 'Ani') in Reshus ha'Rabim and four identical actions performed by a person standing inside (the 'Ba'al ha'Bayis') in Reshus ha'Yachid.
</p><p>
The Mishnah counts the act of the Ani who puts an object into Reshus ha'Yachid and the act of the Ba'al ha'Bayis who puts an object into Reshus ha'Rabim as two separate acts of Hotza'ah. Since these actions are essentially the same, why does the Mishnah count them as two separate cases?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> (DH Pashat) explains that the Melachah of Hotza'ah is different from the other Melachos of Shabbos. It is a 'Melachah Geru'ah,' a 'less-defined' Melachah, because its rationale is not easily understood. Why should it be permitted to carry from one Reshus ha'Yachid to another Reshus ha'Yachid, while it is prohibited to carry from Reshus ha'Rabim to Reshus ha'Yachid? Since the laws of Hotza'ah depend on fine differences that are difficult to grasp, we are not at liberty to compare one type of Hotza'ah to another and to derive one from the other. Therefore, each case of Hotza'ah must be taught in the Mishnah separately.
</p><p>
Tosfos says that the premise that Hotza'ah is a 'Melachah Geru'ah' has additional implications.
</p><p>
1. The Gemara later (96b) derives from the verse, 'va'Yikalei ha'Am...' (Shemos 36:6), that one may not move objects from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim. In Eruvin (17b), however, the Gemara derives the Melachah of Hotza'ah from a different verse, 'Al Yetzei Ish mi'Mekomo...' (Shemos 16:29)! Why are two verses necessary?
</p><p>
Tosfos explains that the verses are necessary for the <i>two types</i> of Hotza'ah. One verse teaches the Melachah for the person in Reshus ha'Rabim who extends his empty hand into Reshus ha'Yachid, picks up an object, and brings it into Reshus ha'Rabim. The other verse teaches the Melachah for the person in Reshus ha'Yachid who extends his full hand out and transfers an object into Reshus ha'Rabim.
</p><p>
2. Similarly, because Hotza'ah is a Melachah Geru'ah, two sources are necessary to teach the two types of <i>Hachnasah</i> as well, that of the Ani and that of the Ba'al ha'Bayis. 
</p><p>
3. Generally, the source for a Toldah of a Melachah is logic. There is no need to cite a verse as the source, or for the act to have occurred in the Mishkan. However, the Gemara later (96b) asks what the source is that Hachnasah is a Toldah of Hotza'ah. A source is necessary because Hotza'ah is a Melachah Geru'ah, and thus we would not have derived its Toldos from logic without an explicit source.
</p><p>
4. Tosfos (96b, DH Hotza'ah) adds that the prohibition of Hotza'ah itself on Shabbos is novel. In the act of Hotza'ah, one does not effect any physical change on the object being moved, and thus it is not a 'creative act.' Generally, only creative acts are prohibited on Shabbos (<b><b><b>OR</b></b> ZARU'A</b>). The fact that Hotza'ah involves no physical change on the object is another reason why it is a Melachah Geru'ah. 
</p><p>
Consequently, the fact that a Melachah was performed in the Mishkan is usually sufficient to make it an Av Melachah. Hotza'ah, however, requires a verse as well.
</p><p>
5. In addition, Tosfos in Beitzah (12a, DH Dilma) explains that the fact that Hotza'ah is a Melachah Geru'ah is the reason why, according to some Rishonim, Hotza'ah is not prohibited on Yom Tov.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> There are two primary Yedi'os ha'Tum'ah (finding out 
               that one transgressed Tum'as Mikdash), four in all;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> There are two primary appearances of Tzara'as, four 
               in all;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> There are two primary Yetzi'os of Shabbos, four in 
               all.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why does that Mishnah count only two Yetzi'os 
          that are four [and not the other cases in our Mishnah]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> Our tractate is all about Shabbos, the Mishnah 
          counts Avos (primary Melachos, such as Yetzi'os) and 
          Toldos (those derived from Avos);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Tractate Shevu'os mentions Shabbos only in passing, 
               the Mishnah counts only Avos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> The Avos are Yetzi'os (taking something from 
          Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim, the case mentioned 
          in the Torah, i.e. people were bringing donations for the 
          Mishkan from their tents to Machaneh Levi);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> There are only two Yetzi'os (one by the Ba'al 
               ha'Bayis (in (b) above), and one by the Oni (in (a) 
               above) - how can the Mishnah (in Shevu'os) say that 
               there are four in all?!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> That Mishnah counts (two) Yetzi'os for 
               which one is liable, and (two) Yetzi'os for which 
               one is exempt (e.g. when the Akirah (uprooting a 
               stationary object) and Hanachah (putting it down to 
               rest) were done by different people).
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> Surely, the Yetzi'os are akin to 
               appearances of Tzara'as [in the same Mishnah];
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  All four appearances are Tamei - likewise, one 
                    is liable for all four Yetzi'os!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Papa):</font></b> Our tractate is all about Shabbos, 
          the Mishnah counts cases of Chiyuv and Petur;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Tractate Shevu'os mentions Shabbos only in passing, 
               the Mishnah counts only those of Chiyuv.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> One is liable for Yetzi'os - there are only two 
          Yetzi'os, how can the Mishnah say that there are four in 
          all?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> There are two Yetzi'os and two Hachnasos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Mishnah only mentions Yetzi'os!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> The Tana includes Hachnasos in the 
          term 'Yetzi'os':
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> Ha'Motzi (one who is taking something 
               out) from one domain to a different domain is 
               liable.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Explanation:</font></b> This refers to taking (from Reshus 
               ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim, and also) from Reshus 
               ha'Rabim to Reshus ha'Yachid, and this is called 
               Hotza'ah!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Why are Hachnasos called Yetzi'os?
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Any uprooting of an object from one place to 
               another is called Hotza'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Support (Ravina):</font></b> Our Mishnah mentions Yetzi'os, and the 
          first case it explains is Hachnasah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Rava):</font></b> The Mishnah means, there are two 
          domains of Shabbos (Reshus ha'Yachid and Reshus ha'Rabim; 
          our Mishnah counts four prohibitions of transferring 
          between them for a Ba'al ha'Bayis, and four for an Oni, 
          the Mishnah in Shevu'os counts four Chiyuvim (altogether) 
          for a Ba'al ha'Bayis and Oni.)
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) IS 'HACHNASAH' AN 'AV' OR A 'TOLDAH'?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara teaches that Hachnasah is also referred to as 'Hotza'ah.' Accordingly, when the Mishnah here (2a) and in Shevuos (2a) depicts four types of 'Hotza'os' for which one is liable, it is referring to Hachnasah as well. The Gemara proves this from the statement of the Mishnah later (73a), 'One who transfers from one domain to another is liable,' which includes Hachnasah.
</p><p>
How does the Gemara prove from the Mishnah later that Hachnasah is included in Hotza'ah? The Mishnah there lists only the Av Melachos, and Hachnasah is not an Av but a Toldah, as the Gemara here says!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that since we know that Hachnasah is prohibited, it is likely that it is included in the Mishnah later.
</p><p>
What does Rashi mean? The fact that Hachnasah is prohibited is not a reason for the Mishnah there to include it in its list of Melachos, since it is prohibited only as a Toldah! Why would we think that the Mishnah there is also referring to Hachnasah, when that Mishnah is discussing the <i>Av</i> Melachos (as Rashi himself says)?
</p><p>
The answer is that Rashi is following his own opinion as expressed elsewhere. Rashi understands that the term 'Av Melachah' does not necessarily refer to an Av as opposed to a Toldah. Rather, it means 'a category of Melachah which the Torah prohibits on Shabbos,' whether it is an Av or a Toldah (Rashi to 68a, DH Av Melachah; see also Rashi to 18a, DH she'To'anin). Rashi here is saying that since the <i>category</i> of 'transferring from one Reshus to another' includes both the Av and the Toldah, it presumably includes Hachnasah as well. (See also Insights to Chulin 14:6, Shevuos 5:3.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> points out that the Gemara in Shevuos (5a) asks this question. The Gemara there answers that if the Mishnah later is referring only to the Av of Hotza'ah, then it would have said, 'One who transfers from a <i>Reshus ha'Yachid to a Reshus ha'Rabim</i> is liable.' Since it says instead, '... from <i>Reshus to Reshus</i>,' its intention is to include Hachnasah as well.
</p><p>
Why, though, is Hachnasah included in the Mishnah of Av Melachos when it is only a Toldah? The <b>RASHBA</b> (2b) explains that Rav Papa argues with the statement of the Gemara here (beginning of 2b) and with the opinion expressed in the Gemara later (96b). He maintains that Hachnasah is indeed an Av and not a Toldah.
</p><p>
Tosfos in Shevuos (5b, DH Mi) answers that Hachnasah is included in the Mishnah even though no other Toldah is included, because the Mishnah is able to include Hachnasah with a very minor emendation (which <i>reduces</i> the number of words it uses and does not increase the number of words).
</p><p>
Alternatively, the Mishnah later includes a Toldah of Hotza'ah because Hotza'ah is a 'Melachah Geru'ah,' a lesser form of Melachah, and we would not have known that it has Toldos had the Mishnah not said so explicitly (see previous Insight).
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) WHICH CASES ARE COUNTED (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Masnah):</font></b> Why does our Mishnah count a total 
          of eight Yetzi'os (including Peturim) - there are 12 (two 
          Chiyuvim for the Oni (a), two Chiyuvim for the Ba'al 
          ha'Bayis (b), and four Peturim for each, in (c) and (d))!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Counter-question:</font></b> If you count more than eight, you 
               should count 16 (also count Peturim when the other 
               party is Chayav, i.e. two more for the Ba'al 
               ha'Bayis (a), and two more for the Oni (b))!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> I do not count those four Peturim in the 
               Reisha, for they are permitted (regarding Shabbos; 
               indeed, if the other party is a Yisrael, it is 
               forbidden to cause him to transgress);
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  I count the eight Peturim in the Seifa (when 
                    both of them are Peturim), for they are 
                    forbidden [mid'Rabanan].
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Is it really true that the Peturim in the 
               Reisha are permitted?!
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> All Peturim in the Mishnayos of 
                    Shabbos are forbidden [mid'Rabanan], with three 
                    exceptions, which are permitted - 'trapping' a 
                    deer (that is already trapped), trapping a 
                    snake, and causing pus to leave [a wound].
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Shmuel teaches the three actions that are 
               Patur and permitted - he does not address cases of 
               passivity (e.g. an object is taken from or deposited 
               in one's hand).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Repeat of question:</font></b> (Why does our Mishnah count a total 
          of eight,) there are 12!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> Our Mishnah only counts Akiros, for these 
          could lead to Chiyuvim (if he will do Hanachah), it does 
          not count Hanachos, for these cannot lead to Chiyuvim 
          (since the one who did Hanachah did not do Akirah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> In the Seifa, why are both Peturim - together, 
          they did a Melachah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> 'Me'Am ha'Aretz ba'Asosah' - 
          one who does an entire Melachah is Chayav, not one who 
          does part of a Melachah;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If one did a Melachah he is liable, if two people 
               did it they are exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (R. Chiya bar Gamda):</font></b> 'Ba'Asosah' - if one did a Melachah 
          he is liable, if two people did it they are exempt.
<br>
<b><font>2) 'AKIRAH' OF SOMETHING IN THE HAND</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav):</font></b> If Reuven loaded food and drink on 
          Shimon's body and Shimon went outside (from Reshus 
          ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim), what is the law?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If Akirah of his own [laden] body like Akirah of an 
               object, Shimon is liable; if not, he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rebbi):</font></b> He is liable, [Akirah of] his body is not 
          like [Akirah of] his hand (the Mishnah exempts an Oni who 
          withdraws his hand after the Ba'al ha'Bayis put something 
          in it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> His body rests on the ground, his hand does not 
          (Rashi; Tosfos - the status of his hand is [partially] 
          determined by his body, if his hand is in a different 
          Reshus what is inside is not Munach (at rest)).
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WHICH ACTS OF 'HOTZA'AH D'RABANAN' ARE COUNTED BY THE MISHNAH?</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara says that the Mishnah includes in its count of four additional Hotza'os only those that are forbidden mid'Rabanan and could lead to a transgression mid'Oraisa (and a Chiyuv Chatas). What are those acts of Hotza'ah that are mid'Rabanan?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> and <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> explain that the Mishnah counts acts of Hotza'ah in which a person performed an <i>Akirah</i>, for in such cases he could have completed his action and performed a Hanachah, making himself liable.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RIVA</b> (cited by Tosfos DH Peturi), the <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b>, and the teachers of Rashi (cited by Rashi) explain that the Mishnah counts act in which a person <i>extends his hand</i> from one Reshus to another Reshus, for such acts closely resemble the Melachah d'Oraisa, which involves transporting an object from one Reshus to another.
</p><p>
Rashi explains the logic of this approach in a slightly different way. He explains that the person who passes his hand from one Reshus to another <i>initiates</i> the Melachah by doing the first motion involved. (See <b>SEFAS EMES</b> for a novel understanding of the Riva's explanation.)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>RASHBA</b> mention that according to others, the Mishnah counts only acts of <i>Hanachah</i>. The Hanachah completes the Melachah, and it is at the point of Hanachah that a person would be liable had he done an entire Melachah. That is why it is more similar to Hotza'ah d'Oraisa and is counted in the Mishnah.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  R. Chiya (to Rav):</font></b> You should only ask about the tractate 
          your Rebbi is teaching - if Rebbi was not a great 
          Chacham, he might have answered incorrectly, and he would 
          be embarrassed!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> [Fortunately,] Rebbi is a great Chacham, he answered 
               well.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> If Reuven was loaded with food and drink 
               from before Shabbos (this is like when someone put 
               something in Reuven's hand, he cannot be Chayav for 
               such an 'Akirah'), and on Shabbos he went outside 
               (Tosfos - after dark he stopped to rest, then 
               finished the Hotza'ah), he is liable, for his body 
               is unlike his hand (rather, Akirah of his laden body 
               is like Akirah of an object).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> It is clear to me that a man's hand is not 
          considered like Reshus ha'Rabim (when he is in Reshus 
          ha'Rabim and his hand is in Reshus ha'Yachid) - we learn 
          from the Oni in our Mishnah (when he sticks his hand in, 
          the Ba'al ha'Bayis is exempt if he takes from it);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Likewise, we learn from the Ba'al ha'Bayis that a man's 
          hand is not considered Reshus ha'Yachid (when he is in 
          Reshus ha'Yachid and his hand is in Reshus ha'Rabim - the 
          Oni is exempt if he takes from his hand in this case).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> (Karmelis is a Reshus mid'Rabanan, it 
          has the stringencies of Reshus ha'Yachid and Reshus 
          ha'Rabim.) If a man's hand is in a different Reshus than 
          he is, is his hand considered a Karmelis?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Did Chachamim [make it a Karmelis to] fine one who 
               put his [laden] hand into a different Reshus, 
               forbidding him to withdraw his hand (because he 
               started to transgress, forcing him to leave it there 
               until the end of Shabbos)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> Tana'im argue about this:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa #1):</font></b> If a man was holding fruit and put his 
               hand outside, it is forbidden to return it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa #2):</font></b> It is permitted to return it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Tana #1 considers his hand to be 
               Karmelis, Tana #2 does not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Rejection #1:</font></b> No, all consider his hand to be Karmelis;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> In Beraisa #1, his hand is within 10 Tefachim of the 
               ground, in Beraisa #2 it is above 10 Tefachim 
               (Reshus ha'Rabim does not extend that high - since 
               he did not start to transgress, there is no fine).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Rejection #2:</font></b> All agree that his hand is not like a 
          Karmelis, in both cases, his hand is below 10 Tefachim;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> In Beraisa #2 he put out his hand before Shabbos, 
               there is no fine; in Beraisa #1 he put out his hand 
               on Shabbos, there is a fine.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> Just the contrary! If he put out his hand 
          before Shabbos, and drops the object [on Shabbos], he did 
          not do a Melachah on Shabbos, Chachamim can fine him;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he put out his hand on Shabbos, Chachamim should 
               not fine him, lest he drop the object and transgress 
               a Chiyuv Chatas! (If he realized while holding it 
               that he may not drop it, he is exempt from Chatas; 
               one is not Chayav Chatas unless he was Shogeg from 
               the beginning until the end (4A)! Rather, Chachamim 
               do not want to cause him to do an Isur [for which 
               one who was totally Shogeg is Chayav] Chatas.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If we are not concerned for this, we should be 
          able to resolve Rav Bivi bar Abaye's question!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question (Rav Bivi bar Abaye):</font></b> (Bread was normally 
               baked by sticking dough to the wall of an oven, 
               mid'Rabanan it is forbidden to peel it off the 
               wall.) If Reuven stuck dough [on a wall] in an oven 
               on Shabbos, may he remove it before it bakes, to 
               avoid a Chiyuv Chatas?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If Chachamim are stringent and are not concerned 
               lest he drop the fruit and complete Hotza'ah, they 
               should not permit removing the dough before it 
               finishes baking!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> Indeed, we can resolve his question - we are 
          not concerned, Reuven may not remove the dough.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> We cannot resolve his question - Chachamim are 
          stringent about Hotza'ah, for he (initially) transgressed 
          b'Mezid, perhaps they are lenient about baking when his 
          initial transgression was b'Shogeg.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer #3:</font></b> Also the case of Hotza'ah was b'Shogeg - Tana 
          #1 fines Shogeg on account of Mezid (lest one who was 
          Mezid will say that he was Shogeg), Tana #2 does not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer #4:</font></b> Neither Tana fines Shogeg on account of Mezid 
          - Beraisa #1 forbids throwing the fruit to another 
          Chatzer, Beraisa #2 permits returning it to the original 
          Chatzer.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is like Rava's question.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question (Rava):</font></b> If a man was holding fruit and put 
               his hand outside, may he return it to the same 
               Chatzer?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> It is permitted.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Question (Rava):</font></b> May he throw them to another 
               Chatzer?
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> It is forbidden.
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Question (Rava):</font></b> What is the difference between the 
               cases?
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> In the first case, he does not 
               accomplish his original goal (to move the fruit 
               elsewhere), in the latter case he does.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) EXTENDING HIS HAND INTO RESHUS HA'RABIM</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> One Beraisa says that when a person extends a hand full of fruit from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim but keeps his hand within ten Tefachim of the ground, it is forbidden to bring his hand back to Reshus ha'Yachid. Why can he not simply lift up his hand to a level higher than ten Tefachim from the ground (which would constitute a Makom Petur) and then bring his hand back into Reshus ha'Yachid (since transferring from a Makom Petur to a Reshus ha'Yachid is permitted)?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Kan l'Ma'alah) says that this indeed would be permissible.
</p><p>
(b) According to one opinion in the Gemara in Eruvin (85b), it is forbidden to transfer from a Karmelis to a Makom Petur.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RASHBA</b> explains that the Rabanan prohibited this due to a concern that he might bring his hand directly back into his Reshus without first lifting it up higher than ten Tefachim.
</p><p>
(d) Perhaps lifting his hand above ten Tefachim and then bringing his hand back to Reshus ha'Yachid would not be considered bringing it from a Makom Petur into Reshus ha'Yachid, because he never rested his hand or its contents in the Makom Petur. Since his hand only <i>passes through</i> a Makom Petur, it is not considered as being brought from a Makom Petur to a Reshus ha'Yachid, but rather it is considered as being brought directly from a Karmelis to a Reshus ha'Yachid, which is prohibited. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


<font><b>3) RAV BIVI'S QUESTION</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> Rav Bivi asked whether or not it is permitted for one who affixed dough to the sides of a lit oven on Shabbos to remove it ('Rediyas ha'Pas') before it is baked. The Gemara asks why we do not infer the answer to his question from the explanation given to reconcile the two Beraisos regarding whether or not a person who extended his hand outside on Shabbos while holding fruit is permitted to return his hand to Reshus ha'Yachid. In one of its answers, the Gemara resolves the contradiction between the two Beraisos by saying that the Rabanan prohibited a person from bringing his hand back into his Reshus when he put his hand out on Shabbos, even though such a decree may cause him to transgress a Melachah d'Oraisa (he might become tired and cast down the contents of his hand into Reshus ha'Rabim). The Gemara replies that we cannot infer an answer to Rav Bivi's question from the Gemara's answer for the Beraisos, because 'in this case it is Shogeg, and in this case it is Mezid.'
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that the words, 'in this case it is Shogeg, and in this case it is Mezid,' refer back to the two Beraisos. The Gemara is saying that Rav Bivi's question can be resolved neither from the case of Shogeg nor from the case Mezid, because the case of the outstretched hand is more strict in one respect, and more lenient in another respect, than the case of removing the bread from the oven. Perhaps only in the case of one who inadvertently extended his laden hand into Reshus ha'Rabim do the Rabanan permit him to bring his hand back in, because there was no pre-existing prohibition mid'Rabanan against bringing his hand back into the Reshus in which he is standing. In the case of Rav Bivi, however, there is a pre-existing prohibition mid'Rabanan against removing dough from the sides of an oven, and therefore the Rabanan did not relax their prohibition, even though this stringency will lead to a transgression of an Isur d'Oraisa.
</p><p>
On the other hand, perhaps only in the case of one who knowingly extended his laden hand into Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos do the Rabanan prohibit him from bringing his hand back in, because the Rabanan know that a person would not jeopardize his life by throwing the object down and being liable to the death penalty, and it is very likely that he will not cast the object down. In Rav Bivi's case, however, if the Rabanan uphold their decree, the person will <i>definitely</i> transgress an Isur d'Oraisa when the bread is baked (for it is not in his ability to avoid the transgression), and therefore perhaps they do not forbid him from removing the dough. 
</p><p>
(a) Why does Rashi not give a much simpler explanation for the words of the Gemara? When the <i>Beraisa</i> says that it is forbidden to bring back his hand, it is talking about when he <i>deliberately</i> extended his laden hand, while <i>Rav Bivi</i> refers to a case in which he put the dough on the oven <i>unintentionally</i>, and therefore the Rabanan do not forbid him to remove it!
</p><p>
(b) If the Gemara is saying that Rav Bivi's case is, in one sense, more strict than the case of the outstretched hand, while in another sense it is more lenient, then why does the Gemara have to differentiate at all between 'Shogeg' and 'Mezid'? The Gemara can retain its original answer, that one Beraisa refers to when he extended his hand before Shabbos ('mib'Od Yom') and the other Beraisa refers to when he extended his hand on Shabbos ('mishe'Chashechah'), and the differences between Rav Bivi's case and the case of the outstretched arm will still exist! Why, according to Rashi's explanation, does the Gemara have to give a new resolution for the Beraisos?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The Gemara later (4a) concludes that the case of Rav Bivi refers to when one placed dough into the oven <i>intentionally</i>. Rashi, therefore, explains that the words, 'in this case it is Shogeg,' do not refer to the case of removing bread from the oven (since that case was not Shogeg), but rather to one of the two Beraisos that discuss the outstretched hand.
</p><p>
(b) From the wording of the Gemara it is clear that the question on Rav Bivi (why he did not resolve his question from the Beraisa that prohibits one to return his laden hand to Reshus ha'Yachid) applies only if we say that there is a difference between extending one's hand before Shabbos and extending it on Shabbos, and extending it on Shabbos is treated as more severe. (That is, even though a decree prohibiting him from returning his hand to his Reshus in such a case may lead to a severe transgression of Hotza'ah, nevertheless the Rabanan make such a decree.) Since this would be the <i>opposite</i> of Rav Bivi's proposed logic (that if the decree will lead to a transgression of an Isur d'Oraisa, then perhaps the Rabanan do <i>not</i> uphold their decree in such a case), the Gemara sees it as a resolution for Rav Bivi's question (and the Rabanan <i>do</i> uphold their decree in Rav Bivi's case). Otherwise, why did the one who gave the resolution for the two Beraisos not give the opposite answer (that extending one's hand <i>before</i> Shabbos is considered more severe, because doing so will not lead to a transgression of an Isur d'Oraisa)?
</p><p>
The Gemara replies that we misunderstood the previous statement of the Gemara. When the Gemara says that one Beraisa refers to when he put out his hand 'before Shabbos,' it means that he put his hand out <i>b'Shogeg</i> (because normally one is not thinking about Shabbos when he stretches out his hand before Shabbos starts.) When the Gemara says that the other Beraisa refers to when he put out his hand on Shabbos, it means that he put out his hand <i>b'Mezid</i>. Hence, the Gemara's real differentiation between the Beraisos was not between 'before Shabbos' and 'on Shabbos,' but rather between Shogeg and Mezid! Since the Gemara is no longer proposing a logic <i>opposite</i> to that of Rav Bivi's, we cannot resolve Rav Bivi's question based on the Gemara's statements (since there is reason to be either more or less stringent in the case of the outstretched hand, as Rashi explains). (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) REMOVING DOUGH FROM AN OVEN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Version #1 - Question (Rav Bivi bar Abaye):</font></b> If Reuven 
          stuck a dough in an oven on Shabbos, may he remove it 
          before it bakes, to avoid a Chiyuv Chatas?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question (Rav Acha bar Abaye):</font></b> What is the case?
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  If he put it in b'Shogeg and is still Shogeg, 
                    the law is irrelevant (he is unaware of any 
                    transgression, surely he will leave it in!)
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer #1:</font></b> Rather, he put it in b'Shogeg and later 
               remembered.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Objection:</font></b> If so, he cannot be Chayav Chatas!
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One is not Chayav Chatas unless he 
                    was Shogeg at the beginning and at the end.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, he was Mezid.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Objection:</font></b> If so, it should say '...To avoid an Isur 
               Skilah (stoning)'!
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Answer #3 (Rav Shila):</font></b> Really, he was Shogeg;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Rav Bivi's question was whether or not someone 
                    else [who knows that Reuven is transgressing] 
                    may remove it to exempt him.
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Objection:</font></b> One may not sin (even mid'Rabanan) in 
               order to save someone else from sin!
       <br><b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b><font> Defense of Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Really, he was 
               Mezid; it should say 'To avoid an Isur Skilah.'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Version #2 - Rav Acha brei d'Rava - (Rav Bivi bar Abaye):</font></b> 
          If Reuven stuck a dough in an oven on Shabbos, he may 
          (Tosfos - some texts say 'may he', it is a question) 
          remove it, to avoid an Isur Skilah.
<br>
<b><font>2) 'AKIRAH' AND 'HANACHAH' REQUIRE A SUBSTANTIAL PLACE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If the Oni put his hand inside...[and put an 
          object in the hand of the Ba'al ha'Bayis, he is Chayav].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is he Chayav? Akirah and Hanachah must be 
          from [and on] a place that is four by four [Tefachim; a 
          hand is much smaller]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rabah):</font></b> The Mishnah is like R. Akiva, who does 
          not require a place that is four by four:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah - R. Akiva):</font></b> If one throws from a Reshus 
               ha'Yachid to another Reshus ha'Yachid and Reshus 
               ha'Rabim is in between, he is liable;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim exempt.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva holds Kelutah k'Mi she'Hunchah (something 
               in the air is considered to be at rest), Chachamim 
               do not say Kelutah k'Mi she'Hunchah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> This implies that Rabah is sure that the 
               case is (that he threw) within 10 Tefachim of the 
               ground, and they argue about Kelutah k'Mi 
               she'Hunchah - but he was unsure about this!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) PUTTING BREAD IN THE OVEN TOWARDS THE END OF SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara tells teaches that in order to be obligated to bring a Chatas, a person must be unaware of the Isur that he did from the beginning until its end. Therefore, if one placed dough in an oven on Shabbos and remembers -- before the bread is baked -- that baking bread on Shabbos is prohibited, he is not obligated to bring a Chatas, since he remembered before the end of the Melachah (the baking of the bread). What is the Halachah in a situation in which the bread was placed in the oven on Shabbos, but became baked only after Shabbos?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>AVNEI NEZER</b> (OC 48:5; <b>IGLEI TAL</b>, Zorei'a #8) debated with Rav Yoav Yehoshua of Kintzk (the <b>CHELKAS YOAV</b>) what the Halachah would be if one puts bread in the oven on Shabbos and it becomes baked after Shabbos. The Avnei Nezer insisted that one is exempt, for it is not logical that the results of an action that occur after Shabbos should retroactively cause a person to have desecrated Shabbos. If a person would be liable for such an act, then when a person lights a candle for a very sick person on Shabbos (which is permitted), immediately after Shabbos ends he should be required to extinguish it so that it not continue to burn the fuel because of an action done on Shabbos for the sick person, retroactively causing his action of kindling a flame on Shabbos to be an Isur d'Oraisa (since the sick person no longer requires the Chilul Shabbos once Shabbos is over).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>CHELKAS YOAV</b> argued that one <i>is</i> liable when the bread becomes baked after Shabbos. His position is based on the logic of the <b>NIMUKEI YOSEF</b> in Bava (Kama 22a, DH Esho Mishum Chitzav) who writes that a person is permitted to light candles before Shabbos even though they remain lit when Shabbos arrives, and it is not considered as though he is continuing to light them on Shabbos even though they are lit as a result of his action ('Esho Mishum Chitzav'). The reason is because the original act of lighting the candle 'contains' in it all of the consequences of that act. The Chelkas Yoav suggests that the original act of cooking <i>on Shabbos</i> similarly contains within it even the cooking that occurs after Shabbos.
</p><p>
These two opinions seems to revolve around whether the Melachah includes only the act of <i>placing food</i> on the fire, or whether the Melachah includes the <i>baking process</i> as well. If the baking process is part of the Melachah, then the baking itself must also occur on Shabbos, and not just the act of placing the dough into the oven. If the baking process is only a condition in the Melachah (that is, one who bakes on Shabbos is liable only if that condition is fulfilled), then the person may be liable if the bread is baked (the condition fulfilled) even after Shabbos.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Techilasah v'Sofah) states clearly that the transgression of baking is <i>not</i> finished until the bread is baked. This seems to support the view that the baking process is part of the Melachah, and the Avnei Nezer's ruling that the bread must be baked entirely on Shabbos. (<b>RAV HILLEL RUVEL</b>)
</p><p>
The Avnei Nezer (in Iglei Tal) points out that one is liable for performing the Melachah of Zorei'a even before the plant grows (which occurs long after the Melachah was done), while one is liable for performing the Melachah of cooking or baking only when the food becomes cooked right away as a result of his act.
</p><p>
What is the reason for this difference between Zore'a and Bishul? Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that food is normally baked on the same day as it is placed in the oven, while produce does not normally grow until long after it is planted. Each Melachah is based on the normal manner in which the action is done. It is logical to assume that the Torah does not intend for a person to be left in doubt for several weeks or months until it becomes known whether he has transgressed a Melachah or not; after Shabbos it should be clear whether or not he has done a Melachah.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) 'HASRA'AS SAFEK'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> In order for one to be given the death penalty for intentionally committing an Isur, one must have received 'Hasra'as Vadai' -- unequivocal warning from witnesses ('By doing this act, you will transgress the Isur and be liable...'). If the person is not definitely going to be liable for the punishment for the transgression even if he commits the act, the warning of the witnesses is considered 'Hasra'as Safek' ('By doing this act, you <i>might</i> transgress the Isur and be liable...'), which does not constitute Hasra'ah according to many opinions, and one is not liable for punishment in Beis Din in such a case. 
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Kodem) asks, how could anyone be liable for baking bread on Shabbos? At the moment he puts the dough into the oven, he must be warned with Hasra'ah. However, the Hasra'ah will not be definite Hasra'ah, because perhaps the bread will be removed before it is baked and the person will not transgress the prohibition of baking with his act of placing dough into the oven!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> answers that the category of 'uncertain warning' ('Hasra'as Safek') only includes situations in which the transgressor is warned against transgressing a prohibition which still requires that <i>another act be done</i> before the transgressor may be punished. In the case of baking, there is no other act for the baker to do; by leaving the dough alone and doing nothing he will transgress. Even though he may do an act to <i>avoid</i> being liable, this does not make the Hasra'ah into a Hasra'as Safek. 
</p><p>
Tosfos adds that to be liable for baking, an additional condition is necessary. The person who puts the dough into the oven must <i>intend</i> to keep it there until it is baked. <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> (in Gilyon ha'Shas) asks why this extra condition is necessary. As long as the dough will become baked eventually, that should be sufficient to make him liable, since no further action is required for the  transgression! The Acharonim (see Chazon Yechezkel, Chidushim on Maseches Shabbos) answer that the baking of the bread is an intrinsic part of the Melachah, and not merely a <i>condition</i> for transgressing the Melachah (see previous Insight). The person who sins must have in mind to violate the transgression in its entirety. Normally, however, when the transgression is completed in its entirety with the initial misdeed, it is not necessary for the person to intend to fulfill the conditions that are related to the transgression.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  Question (Rabah):</font></b> In what case do they argue?
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> Perhaps they argue within 10 Tefachim, whether 
                    or not Kelutah k'Mi she'Hunchah, but all exempt 
                    above 10, no one learns throwing from Moshit 
                    (passing an object from one Reshus ha'Yachid to 
                    another, through Reshus ha'Rabim);
             <br><b>  <b><font>iii. </font></b></b>Or, they argue above 10 Tefachim, R. Akiva 
                    learns throwing from Moshit, Chachamim do not - 
                    but all Mechayev below 10, Kelutah k'Mi 
                    she'Hunchah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Rabah later answered his own question (they 
               argue below 10.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> Perhaps R. Akiva does not require Hanachah on 
          a place that is four by four, but he requires Akirah from 
          a place that is four by four:
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (to Question (b) - Rav Yosef):</font></b> Our Mishnah is 
          like Rebbi.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Like which teaching of Rebbi is it?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> If one threw something [in 
          Reshus ha'Rabim] and it landed on a ledge of any size, he 
          is liable;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> No - Abaye explained, the Beraisa discusses a 
          tree in Reshus ha'Yachid, its foliage hangs into Reshus 
          ha'Rabim, the thrown object landed on the foliage;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rebbi applies the status of the trunk (Rashi - it is 
               four by four; Tosfos - and it is Reshus ha'Yachid) 
               to the foliage, Chachamim do not. (Tosfos ha'Rosh - 
               just like Abaye taught that Rebbi considers the 
               foliage to be Reshus ha'Yachid on account of the 
               trunk, we can say that Rebbi considers the foliage 
               to be four by four on account of the trunk.)
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'HANACHAH' AND 'AKIRAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara suggests that Akirah must be done from a place which has an area of at least four by four Tefachim, but Hanachah does not have to be done onto a place which has an area of four by four Tefachim.
</p><p>
What is the source that Akirah must be done from an area of at least four by four Tefachim in order to be considered an Akirah? In addition, what is the reason for the difference (in the Gemara's Havah Amina) between Akirah and Hanachah?
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH v'Dilma) suggests two sources for the requirement of four by four Tefachim for Akirah. First, in the Mishkan, they would remove the objects used to build the Mishkan from their boxes and give them to the people who did the work. Since the box in which they were kept was most likely at least four by four Tefachim, we may derive from what was done in the Mishkan that Akirah must always be from an area that is at least four by four Tefachim. In contrast, when they handed the objects to the people doing the work, they did not place them on areas of four by four Tefachim. Therefore, the Gemara proposes that Hanachah does not need an area of four by four Tefachim.
</p><p>
(b) Tosfos writes that the requirement that Akirah be done from an area of four by four Tefachim is derived from the verse, 'A person shall not bring out (lit. go out) <i>from his place</i> (mi'Mekomo)...' (Shemos 16:29). The Gemara in Eruvin (17b) states that we derive from this verse that one may not bring an object out <i>from its place</i> on Shabbos. The word 'place' describes an area of significant size, or at least four by four Tefachim. With regard to Hanachah, though, The Torah does not specify any need for a significant 'place' with regard to where the object is <i>put down</i>.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>ME'IRI</b> (4a, DH ha'Zorek) says that it is more logical to require a place of four by four Tefachim for Akirah, because Akirah is the beginning of the execution of the Melachah.
</p><p>
(d) It could be that Hanachah does not require an area of four by four Tefachim because of the concept of 'Achshevei.' By placing an object on a particular place, one bestows upon that place importance (Eruvin 99a). This does not apply to Akirah, because when one <i>removes</i> an object from a certain place, he is not giving that place any importance.
</p><p>
(This difference applies to the case in the Mishnah here, and in the case of Acherim on 5a, in which one <i>intends</i> to place an object in a particular place. However, it will not explain why an area of four by four Tefachim is not necessary for a Hanachah in the case of 'Kelutah,' where one has no intention that the object rest where it is, in mid-air. This perhaps is why the Rishonim do not suggest that 'Achshevei' explains why Hanachah does not need an area of four by four Tefachim. See also <b>TOSFOS</b> DH Ela. -M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


<font><b>4) WHEN DOES 'KELUTAH' WORK?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> According to Rebbi Akiva, an object that passes through the air of Reshus ha'Rabim is considered as though it has rested there ('Kelutah k'Mi she'Hunchah Dami'). The Rishonim ask that according to Rebbi Akiva, how can one ever be liable for throwing an object four Amos through the airspace of Reshus ha'Rabim, if the object is considered resting at every point through which it travels?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (5b, DH b'Shleima) answers that it is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai that 'Kelutah k'Mi she'Hunchah Dami' does not take effect when an object is thrown four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim (as the Gemara says (96b), carrying or throwing an object four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim is derived from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> (5b) and <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> (4b) explain that the concept of 'Kelutah' applies only l'Chumra, to make a person liable, but not l'Kula, to exempt a person from transgressing.
</p><p>
(c) The Ramban and Rishonim offer another answer. The concept of 'Kelutah' applies only after the object has entered a new Reshus. Within the same Reshus, though (such as Reshus ha'Rabim), 'Kelutah' does not apply.
</p><p>


<font><b>5) THE BRANCH OF A TREE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that when one throws an object from Reshus ha'Rabim onto the branch of a tree, whose trunk is in Reshus ha'Yachid and branch is in Reshus ha'Rabim, he is Chayav according to Rebbi. Rebbi maintains that although the branch is very small, we consider the branch to have an area of four by four Tefachim because it assumes the properties of the trunk to which it is subordinate.
</p><p>
Why, though, is the person Chayav for transferring an object four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim by throwing it onto the branch? If the branch is within three Tefachim of the ground of Reshus ha'Rabim, then one does not need an area of four by four Tefachim to be obligated for Hanachah on the branch (100a). If, on the other hand, it is higher than three Tefachim from the ground, the branch is not a Reshus ha'Rabim even if it is considered to have an area of four by four Tefachim: if it is less than four by four Tefachim it is a Makom Petur, and if it is more than four by four Tefachim it is a Karmelis! If we give the branch the status of the tree, it is a Reshus ha'Yachid altogether! How, then, could the branch possibly be considered a Reshus ha'Rabim such that one is liable for carrying four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim when he throws an object onto it?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH b'Ilan) gives an entirely different explanation for the Gemara. Tosfos explains that the Gemara does not mean that the branch is considered a Reshus ha'Rabim and one is Chayav for moving an object four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim. Rather, the branch is a Reshus ha'Yachid. When the Gemara says that the branch follows the properties of the trunk, it means that it is considered a Reshus ha'Yachid. Therefore, one is Chayav according to Rebbi for transferring from Reshus ha'Rabim to Reshus ha'Yachid, and not for transferring four Amos within Reshus ha'Rabim.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Zarak) says that the branch is considered Reshus ha'Rabim. How, then, does Rashi answer our question? Tosfos suggests that perhaps Rashi means that the person threw a sticky object that stuck to the side of the branch. Since it is stuck to the side of the branch and is hanging over Reshus ha'Rabim, it is considered to be resting in Reshus ha'Rabim (as we find in Rashi to 7a, DH Chayav). Nevertheless, if the branch to which the object is stuck is not four by four Tefachim, it will not be considered to be resting on an area of four by four since it is actually resting on the branch and not on the ground beneath it (as Rabeinu Tam explains on 7b, as cited by Tosfos DH v'Tach).
</p><p>
(c) Perhaps Rashi is discussing a branch that is exactly nine Tefachim above the ground. Since people rest their objects on it (8a), it is considered a Reshus ha'Rabim. Tosfos does not suggest this obvious answer because he is of the opinion (as the <b>RASHBA</b> explains on 8a) that anything that is nine Tefachim high on which people rest their loads is considered significant even if it is <i>not</i> four by four Tefachim. If Rebbi requires a surface of four by four Tefachim, he cannot be discussing a nine-Tefach tall branch. Nevertheless, Rashi maintains that even a nine-Tefach tall pedestal in Reshus ha'Rabim must be four by four Tefachim in order for the act of placing an object on it to be considered an act of Hanachah (as Rashi writes on 92b, DH v'Iy Neima; see, however, Rashi to 8a, DH Mikatfei). (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) HOW TO EXPLAIN THE MISHNAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> If one threw something from 
          Reshus ha'Rabim to Reshus ha'Rabim and it passed through 
          Reshus ha'Yachid, he is liable;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim exempt.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Rebbi is Mechayev two Chata'os (if he 
               was Shogeg), one for Hotza'ah and one for Hachnasah 
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> (Surely, this is because Kelutah k'Mi she'Hunchah -) 
               - this shows that he does not require Akirah or 
               Hanachah to be from (or on) a place four by four!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> No - Rav and Shmuel explained, Rebbi is 
          Mechayev only in a Reshus ha'Yachid with a ceiling over 
          it, he considers it to be filled (with articles, 
          therefore it is as if the thrown object rests on 
          something), but he exempts if there is no ceiling. 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps [in our Mishnah] a ceiling 
               covers [the Oni and Ba'al ha'Bayis]!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> That would explain Akirah and Hanachah in 
               Reshus ha'Yachid, but one would not be liable for 
               transferring to or from such a Reshus ha'Rabim!
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah):</font></b> One who carries four 
                    Amos in a Reshus ha'Rabim with a ceiling is 
                    exempt, for this is not like Machane Yisrael in 
                    the Midbar.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  (Rav Yosef (Answer #2, 4B 2:g) is rejected.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (to Question 2:</font></b>b, 4B - R. Zeira): Our Mishnah 
          is like Others.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - Others):</font></b> If Reuven threw something and Shimon 
          stood still and caught it (in a different Reshus or at 
          least four Amos away in Reshus ha'Rabim), Reuven is 
          liable;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If Shimon moved and caught it, Reuven is exempt.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This shows that Others do not require Hanachah on a 
               place four by four! 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Rejection #1:</font></b> Perhaps Others do not require four by four 
          for Hanachah, but they require it for Akirah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Rejection #2:</font></b> Perhaps Others require four by four even 
          for Hanachah - the case is, Shimon spread a [four by 
          four] garment to catch it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #4 (to Question 2:</font></b>b, 4B - R. Aba): The case (in 
          our Mishnah) is, the object was put in on a basket that 
          is four by four.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Mishnah says that he put it in the 
          other's hand!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It means, he put it in a basket in the other's 
          hand.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This explains Hanachah in Reshus ha'Yachid, but 
          in Reshus ha'Rabim, such a basket is a Reshus ha'Yachid 
          (so why is the Ba'al ha'Bayis Chayav for Hotza'ah?)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Our Mishnah is unlike R. Yosi b'Rebbi 
               Yehudah.
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah):</font></b> If one 
                    inserted a pole in Reshus ha'Rabim with a 
                    basket (four by four) on top, and one threw 
                    something (from Reshus ha'Rabim) and it landed 
                    on the basket, he is liable.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> According to R. Yosi, such a basket is Reshus 
               ha'Yachid, the Ba'al ha'Bayis cannot be Chayav for 
               Hotza'ah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Our Mishnah can be even like R. Yosi;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He considers the basket to be Reshus ha'Yachid only 
               if [the top of] it is above 10 Tefachim - in the 
               Mishnah, it is below 10 (and is Batul to Reshus 
               ha'Rabim).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Objection (to Answers (j) and (h) - R. Avahu):</font></b> The 
          Mishnah does not say that he put it in a basket, rather, 
          in the other's hand!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer #5 (R. Avahu):</font></b> The case is, the receiving hand was 
          within three Tefachim of the ground (therefore it is 
          Batul to the ground and is considered to be four by 
          four.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Mishnah says that the Oni is standing 
          outside (surely, his hand is above three!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answers:</font></b> The case is, he is bending down; alternatively, 
          he is standing in a pit; alternatively, he is a midget.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> Did the Tana teach Hotza'ah only in 
          such unusual cases?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer #6 (Rava, and Ravin citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> A 
          person's hand is considered to be four by four.
<br>
<b><font>2) CATCHING IN THE HAND</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Avin citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> If Reuven threw something 
          and it landed in Shimon's hand, Reuven is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the Chidush?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Chidush cannot be that a person's hand is 
               considered to be four by four, for R. Yochanan 
               explicitly taught this (he would not teach it again 
               in different words!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, that is the Chidush;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One might have thought, a hand is like four by four 
               only when a person specifically intended [to put 
               something in the hand] - here, R. Yochanan teaches 
               that even if he did not care where it lands, the 
               hand is considered four by four.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (R. Avin citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> If Shimon stood still and 
          caught it, Reuven is liable; if Shimon moved and caught 
          it, Reuven is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Support (Beraisa - Others):</font></b> If Shimon stood still and 
          caught it, Reuven is liable; if Shimon moved and caught 
          it, Reuven is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Yochanan):</font></b> If Reuven threw an object and ran 
          to catch it, what is the law?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is R. Yochanan unsure about?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rav Ada bar Ahavah):</font></b> He asks about one 
               person who did two distinct actions (that together 
               comprise a Melachah):
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  Version #1 (Rashi):</font></b> If we consider him like one 
                    person, he is liable; if we consider him like 
                    two, he is exempt [like two who did a Melachah 
                    together].
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b><font> Version #2 (R. Chananel):</font></b> If we consider him 
                    like two, he is liable; if we consider him like 
                    one, he is exempt (it is as if the Akirah and 
                    Hanachah are in the same place). (end of 
                    Version #2) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  This question is not resolved.
<br>
<b><font>3) IS WATER 'NACH'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Avin citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> If Shimon put his hand into 
          Reuven's Chatzer (Reshus ha'Yachid), received [falling] 
          rainwater and withdrew his hand (to Reshus ha'Rabim), he 
          is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Zeira):</font></b> Surely, it makes no difference 
          whether someone else fills Shimon's hand or if Shamayim 
          (falling rain) does - he did not do Akirah, he is exempt!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> R. Avin means, he gathered rainwater (he hit 
          falling rain, diverting it, and caught it with his other 
          hand).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If so, Akirah was not from a place that is four 
          by four, he should be exempt!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Chiya brei d'Rav Huna):</font></b> He gathered rainwater 
          from on top of a wall.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Such water is not considered to be Nach (at 
          rest, for it would have run off the wall!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, the wall is slanted - this is like 
          Rava said elsewhere:
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A BASKET IN RESHUS HA'RABIM</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that if the Mishnah is discussing a person who puts an object into a <i>basket</i> held by another person in Reshus ha'Yachid, then it is consistent even with the view of Rebbi Yosi bar Yehudah. Even though Rebbi Yosi bar Yehudah says that a basket which is four by four Tefachim in Reshus ha'Rabim is considered a <i>Reshus ha'Yachid</i>, that is only if it is higher than ten Tefachim from the ground. If it is within ten Tefachim of the ground of Reshus ha'Rabim, it is considered part of Reshus ha'Rabim. 
</p><p>
Why is the basket considered part of Reshus ha'Rabim? It should be a Karmelis, because it is four by four Tefachim and less than ten Tefachim high! Why is one Chayav for transferring an object from Reshus ha'Yachid into this basket?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> (DH Kan) answers that a <i>utensil</i>, such as a basket, can never be considered a Karmelis. Rather, it remains subordinate to Reshus ha'Rabim and it is neither a Makom Petur nor a Karmelis.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (8a, DH Pachos mi'Ken) makes a similar statement. The Rabanan did not give a utensil the status of a Karmelis, because if one cannot transfer objects between the utensil and its surrounding Reshus ha'Rabim, it is not usable as a utensil.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven was reading a Sefer [of rolled 
               up parchment] on a porch (a Karmelis) and it became 
               unraveled (and the other end fell to Reshus 
               ha'Rabim), he may roll it back to himself;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If he was on the roof (Reshus ha'Yachid) and it 
               became unraveled:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Before the end comes within 10 Tefachim of the 
                    ground, he may roll it back;
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> Once the end is within 10 Tefachim, he [may not 
                    roll it back, this is a decree lest he grab it 
                    when it fell totally from his hand, he would be 
                    Chayav for this; rather, he) should turn it 
                    over so the writing is not seen (lest Kisvei 
                    ha'Kodesh be disgraced.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Why is there a decree? Even if it fell 
               from his hand, he would not be Chayav for retrieving 
               it, for it is not Nach!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rava):</font></b> The case is, the wall is slanted (and 
               we decree, lest it rest on the wall.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> Rava considers a Sefer on a slanted wall to be 
          Nach, but he would not say so about water, for it runs 
          off!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> The case is, he took water from a 
          ditch.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> If so, obviously he is liable, what is the 
          Chidush?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> (He only took some of the water, i.e. on top -) 
          one might have thought that it is not considered to be 
          Nach (for water constantly mixes) - Rava teaches, this is 
          not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  Rava's answer is like the reasoning behind a question he 
          asked.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question (Rava):</font></b> If a nut is in a vessel floating on 
          water:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Do we focus on the nut in the vessel, and consider 
               it Munach (at rest?)
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Or, do we focus on the vessel in the water, and say 
               that it is not Munach, for it moves [through the 
               water]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  This question is not resolved. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan ben Nuri and Chachamim argue about oil 
          floating on top of wine:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> If (Terumah) oil is floating on top of 
               (Terumah) wine and a Tevul Yom touched the oil, only 
               the oil is Nifsal (for it is not considered 
               connected to the wine);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan ben Nuri says, they are connected (both 
               are Nifsalim).
<br>
<b><font>4) ONE IS NOT LIABLE UNTIL HE STOPS </font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Avin citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> If Reuven was laden with 
          food and drink, and went back and forth between Reshus 
          ha'Rabim and Reshus ha'Yachid all day, he is exempt until 
          he stops.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> He is not liable until he stops to rest. (If he 
          stops to adjust the load, this is not considered 
          Hanachah, he is exempt.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is Abaye's source to say this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rabah taught, if one carried four Amos in Reshus 
          ha'Rabim, but stopped in the middle to rest, he is exempt 
          (this is Hanachah, it ends his Ha'avarah (transport) 
          before he did a Shi'ur to be Chayav); 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he stopped to adjust, he is liable (when he 
               finishes);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If after four Amos he stopped to rest, he is liable; 
               if he stopped to adjust, he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> R. Yochanan taught the same Chidush (as (a)) in 
          different words!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Safra citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> If one moved objects 
               from one corner to another, and reconsidered to take 
               them out, he is exempt, since his initial intention 
               was not to take them out.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Amora'im argue about which of these R. Yochanan 
          really said.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If one was Motzi from a store (Reshus 
          ha'Yachid) to the market (a Reshus ha'Rabim) via a Stav 
          (a place of platforms where merchants sit, it is a 
          Karmelis), he is liable;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Ben Azai exempts.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) WALKING IS LIKE STANDING ('MEHALECH K'OMED DAMI')</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Ben Azai maintains that 'walking is like standing,' and every step a person takes is considered to be a new Hanachah. According to Ben Azai, how can a person ever be Chayav for carrying four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim? If every step is a new Hanachah, he never walked four Amos at once!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH b'Shleima) cites a Yerushalmi that says that he will be Chayav for carrying four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim only if he jumps the entire four Amos at once.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RAV YECHEZKEL ABRAMSKY</b> zt'l (in <b>CHAZON YECHEZKEL</b> on Shabbos) explains that perhaps Ben Azai's concept that 'walking is like standing' does not mean that every time one puts his foot down, it is considered a new Hanachah. Putting one's foot down cannot be a Hanachah, since it is considered merely 'Omed l'Katef' -- 'standing to re-arrange one's load'; one cannot remain suspended in the air while walking, and resting his feet on the ground is the only way that he can move four Amos. Rather, whenever one has one foot off the ground, the other foot is on the ground, and thus one is never totally removed from the ground when he walks. As a result, there is never a valid <i>Akirah</i> while walking, according to Ben Azai. The Yerushalmi that says that one must jump does not mean that one must jump an entire four Amos, but that one must jump initially in order to have a valid Akirah (jumping takes both feet off the ground at the same time, and thus one thereby performs a valid Akirah).
</p><p>
(c) Tosfos says that since the Talmud Bavli does not suggest that one needs to jump in order to be Chayav for carrying four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim, it must be arguing with the Yerushalmi. The Bavli maintains that it is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai that even though one did not do a proper Akirah according to Ben Azai, one will still be Chayav. (See also Insights to Shabbos 4:4:a.)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) WHY CHACHAMIM ARE 'MECHAYEV'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We understand Ben Azai - he considers one who 
          walks to be at rest (each step is Hanachah - therefore, 
          it is as if he was Motzi to Karmelis, and then from 
          Karmelis to Reshus ha'Rabim);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> What is Chachamim's reason? Granted, they do not 
               consider one who walks to be at rest, but we never 
               find that one is liable for Hotza'ah like this (it 
               passes through another Reshus)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Safra):</font></b> This is like carrying something 
          [more than four Amos] in Reshus ha'Rabim - even though he 
          is exempt as long as he walks, when he is Mani'ach, he is 
          liable - the same applies here.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> There is different - there, every point along 
          the way is a place of Chiyuv if he would Mani'ach there 
          [after having carried four Amos] - here he passes through 
          a Stav, a place of Petur!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, this is like carrying exactly four 
          Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim - even though he would be exempt 
          if he was Mani'ach it in the middle, when he is Mani'ach 
          at the end, he is liable - the same applies here.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> There is different - there, every point along 
          the way is a place of Chiyuv for anyone else [who started 
          carrying more than four Amos from there] - here he passes 
          through a mpa for everyone!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #3:</font></b> Rather, this is like Hotza'ah from a Reshus 
          ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim via Tzidei (e.g. a Chatzer 
          open to) Reshus ha'Rabim - even though he would be exempt 
          if he was Mani'ach in Tzidei Reshus ha'Rabim, when he is 
          Mani'ach at the end, he is liable - the same applies 
          here.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Papa):</font></b> This is according to Chachamim, who 
          do not consider Tzidei Reshus ha'Rabim to be like Reshus 
          ha'Rabim - but R. Eliezer considers it like Reshus 
          ha'Rabim, (if he would Mani'ach in the middle he would be 
          liable), how can we answer?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika):</font></b> R. Eliezer consider 
          Tzidei Reshus ha'Rabim like Reshus ha'Rabim when there 
          are no pegs (to distance wagons from the wall) - we have 
          no source that he argues about Tzidei Reshus ha'Rabim 
          with pegs - he learns from such a case.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Ben Azai agrees that one who throws [from 
          Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim via Karmelis] is 
          liable (for it did not rest in the middle).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> If one was Motzi from a store (Reshus 
          ha'Yachid) to the market (Reshus ha'Rabim) via a Stav 
          (Karmelis), he is liable;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The same applies if he brought in (from the market 
               to the store), whether he carried, threw, or passed 
               the item.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  Ben Azai exempts one who carried, and obligates one who 
          threw or passed.
<br>
<b><font>2) THE 'RESHUYOS' OF SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> There are four Reshuyos of Shabbos - Reshus 
          ha'Yachid, Reshus ha'Rabim, Karmelis and Makom Petur;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  An example of] Reshus ha'Yachid is a ditch 10 [Tefachim] 
          deep and four [Tefachim] wide, or a fence that is 10 tall 
          and four wide, this is a bona fide Reshus ha'Yachid;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  [An example of] Reshus ha'Rabim is a road between cities, 
          a big market, and alleyways in a city that are (Rashi - 
          at least 16 Amos wide and) open on both ends, this is a 
          bona fide Reshus ha'Rabim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  One may not Motzi from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus 
          ha'Rabim, or bring in from Reshus ha'Rabim to Reshus 
          ha'Yachid;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If one did so b'Shogeg, he is Chayav Chatas; if one 
               did so b'Mezid, he is Chayav Kares and is stoned [if 
               he was warned].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  A sea, valley, platform, or Karmelis is not like Reshus 
          ha'Rabim nor Reshus ha'Yachid:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One may not carry [four Amos] in it - if he did, he 
               is exempt;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> One may not Motzi from it to Reshus ha'Yachid or 
               Reshus ha'Rabim, nor bring in from Reshus ha'Rabim 
               or Reshus ha'Yachid to it - if he did, he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  If an Eiruv was made in a public Chatzer or an alleyway 
          that is not open on both ends (bread jointly owned by all 
          the members was set aside), it is permitted to carry 
          inside it; if not, not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Someone standing on a threshold (it is not four Tefachim 
          wide, it is Makom Petur) may take from or give to a Ba'al 
          ha'Bayis [in Reshus ha'Yachid], or take from or give to 
          an Oni [in Reshus ha'Rabim] - but he may not take from 
          the Ba'al ha'Bayis and give the item to the Oni, nor 
          vice-versa;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he did so, all of them are exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Others say, the status of the threshold alternates:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> When the door is open, it is like inside [the house, 
               Reshus ha'Yachid];
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> When the door is closed, it is like outside (Reshus 
               ha'Rabim).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  If the threshold is 10 tall and four wide, it is a Reshus 
          [ha'Yachid] unto itself (mid'Rabanan, one may not 
          transfer between it and the house).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa said '*This* is Reshus ha'Yachid - 
          what does this come to exclude?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It excludes R. Yehudah's case:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> R. Yehudah said an even bigger Chidush - 
               if one owns two houses on opposite sides of Reshus 
               ha'Rabim, he puts a Lechi (vertical post) on each 
               side (of one house, near it) and he may carry in the 
               middle. (He holds that two walls makes a Reshus 
               ha'Yachid mid'Oraisa, the posts are needed to permit 
               carrying even mid'Rabanan.)
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'KARMELIS'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Beraisa teaches that there are four domains with regard to Shabbos: Reshus ha'Rabim (public domain), Reshus ha'Yachid (private domain), 'Karmelis,' and Makom Petur (exempt area). What does the word 'Karmelis' mean, and how does it relate to the domain that it describes?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (3b, DH Ba'i Abaye) says that it comes from the verse, 'Ye'aro <i>v'Charmelo</i>...' (Yeshayah 10:18), which means 'fertile field.' Such a field is not a place of public travel nor is it a place for the use of a private individual.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (6a, DH Karmelis) explains, based on a Yerushalmi, that 'Karmelis' comes from the words 'Rach u'Mal,' which mean 'soft and rollable,' referring to grain that is neither very moist nor very dry. Since a Karmelis is neither a Reshus ha'Rabim nor a Reshus ha'Yachid, it is referred to by this hybrid name.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (in Perush ha'Mishnayos) explains that 'Karmelis' means 'k'Armelis' -- 'like a widow.' A widow is not married, but she is also not a Besulah. Likewise, a Karmelis is not a Reshus ha'Rabim, but it is also not a Reshus ha'Yachid.
</p><p>
The <b>ROSH YOSEF</b> explains that perhaps all three explanations are valid, and each one refers to a different type of Karmelis:
</p><p>
1. One type of Karmelis is the Bik'ah, a valley full of grain. It is called a Karmelis because of the word 'v'Charmelo' which means 'fertile field' (Rashi's explanation).
</p><p>
2. Another type of Karmelis is the Mavoy (alley) and Karpaf she'Lo Hukaf l'Dirah (open field that was fenced-in but not for the sake of residential purposes; Gemara 7a). Mid'Oraisa, such a place has the status of a Reshus ha'Yachid, but the Rabanan decreed that it has the stringencies of both a Reshus ha'Yachid and a Reshus ha'Rabim. It is called 'Karmelis' because it is like a woman who was <i>once</i> married (i.e., the field once had a status of a Reshus ha'Yachid), but then lost her status (the field is now considered to have the stringencies of a Reshus ha'Rabim).
</p><p>
3. The Rosh Yosef does not explain the third Karmelis. We may suggest that the third type of Karmeles is, as the Gemara mentions, a pole in Reshus ha'Rabim or a step between Reshus ha'Yachid and Reshus ha'Rabim. Since it is set between, or adjacent to, the two domains, it is represented by the hybrid name, 'Rach u'Mal.'
</p><p>
We thus find that the three meanings of the word 'Karmelis' refer to the three different types of Karmelis!
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Chachamim:</font></b> That is not a proper Eiruv [to permit 
               carrying] in Reshus ha'Rabim! 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why does the Beraisa call it a bona fide Reshus 
          ha'Yachid?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that Chachamim agree that 
          R. Yehudah's case is Reshus ha'Yachid mid'Oraisa, and 
          they argue only regarding carrying inside - the Beraisa 
          teaches, this is not so (two walls do not make Reshus 
          ha'Yachid mid'Oraisa).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa said '*This* is Reshus ha'Rabim - 
          what does this come to exclude?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It excludes R. Yehudah's other case:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> (Chachamim enacted Pasei 
               Bira'os, if four L-shaped corner-posts [of a certain 
               size] surround a well, it is permitted to take from 
               a well and carry inside the posts.) If Reshus 
               ha'Rabim passes through the posts, it must be 
               diverted (if not, the area inside is Reshus 
               ha'Rabim, the posts do not permit  it);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, there is no need for this.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why does the Beraisa call it a bona fide Reshus 
          ha'Rabim?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This is for parallel structure with the Reisha.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why didn't the Tana include the Midbar?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> Reshus ha'Rabim is a road between cities, 
               a big market, open alleyways and the Midbar.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> That Beraisa discusses when Benei Yisrael 
          were in the Midbar, then it was Reshus ha'Rabim; our Tana 
          discusses nowadays, when there is little traffic there.
<br>
<b><font>3) THE PUNISHMENT FOR 'HOTZA'AH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If one was Motzi or Machnis [from Reshus 
          ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim, or vice-versa] - if he was 
          Shogeg, he is Chayav Chatas; if he was b'Mezid, he is 
          Chayav Kares and is stoned.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> Obviously, he is Chayav Chatas b'Shogeg!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Chidush is, if he was Mezid, he is Chayav 
          Kares and is stoned.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This is also obvious!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We understand the Chidush according to Rav:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav):</font></b> I found a hidden scroll (initially it was 
               forbidden to write Oral Torah, but a Chacham could 
               write Halachos to help himself remember) - in it, 
               Isi ben Yehudah says that one is liable for only one 
               of the 39 Avos Melachos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Objection (Mishnah):</font></b> There are 39 Avos Melachos.
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why do we need to know the number?
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b><font> Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> this teaches that is one 
                    did all of them in one Helam, he is liable for 
                    each.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Correction:</font></b> Rather, Isi says that says that one is 
               not liable for one of the 39.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> Our Beraisa teaches that Isi does not exempt 
               Hotza'ah. (The Beraisa must be like Isi, otherwise 
               there is a clause without any Chidush!)
<br>
<b><font>4) A VALLEY THAT IS 'RESHUS HA'YACHID'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> A sea, valley, platform, or Karmelis is not 
          like Reshus ha'Rabim nor Reshus ha'Yachid:
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> A valley is Reshus ha'Yachid [regarding 
          Shabbos]!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> In summer, a valley is Reshus ha'Yachid 
               regarding Shabbos and Reshus ha'Rabim regarding 
               Tum'ah; in winter, it is Reshus ha'Yachid regarding 
               both.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Ula):</font></b> Really, it is a Karmelis;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah calls it Reshus ha'Yachid because it is 
               not Reshus ha'Rabim (it is forbidden to carry four 
               Amos inside it).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) 600,000 PEOPLE: DEFINING A 'RESHUS HA'RABIM'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara discusses whether an Eruv may be made for a Reshus ha'Rabim to permit carrying there. <b>RASHI</b> (6a, DH Reshus ha'Rabim, and 6b, DH Yerushalayim) defines Reshus ha'Rabim as a major highway between cities, or a major public gathering spot in town. The Gemara later (99a) adds that it must be 16 Amos wide. The Gemara here says that when the Jewish people were in the desert, the desert was considered to be a Reshus ha'Rabim. What was it that made it into a Reshus ha'Rabim at that time?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that when the Jews were in the desert, the desert became a 'Makom Hiluch la'Rabim,' a place in which many people walk. Rashi understands that a defining property of a Reshus ha'Rabim is that many people <i>actually</i> walk there. There is no fixed number of how many people have to walk there in order for it to be considered a Reshus ha'Rabim. This is also the opinion of the <b>RAMBAN</b>, <b>RAN</b>, <b>RASHBA</b>, and the <b>RAMBAM</b> (see (c) below). (See also (d) in the following Insight.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Kan) explains that one condition of Reshus ha'Rabim is that <i>600,000</i> people are actually found there. That is what made the desert a Reshus ha'Rabim. The opinion that 600,000 people are necessary to make a Reshus ha'Rabim is also the opinion of <b>RASHI</b> in Eruvin (6b and 59a), the <b>BEHAG</b>, and the <b>ROSH</b> (Eruvin 1:8). (Tosfos in Eruvin 6a points out that even though the Jews numbered far more than 600,000 people when we include the number of women, children, and mixed multitude, nevertheless the criteria for Reshus ha'Rabim is established based only on what is written explicitly in the verses.)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Shabbos 14:1) rules that a desert <i>today</i> is a Reshus ha'Rabim. The Kesef Mishneh cites a responsum written by the Rambam's son, Rav Avraham, who explains his father's opinion. When the Gemara differentiates between a desert in the time that the Jewish people sojourned there and in our time, it means that in our time a desert is a Reshus ha'Rabim, while in the times of the Jewish people's sojourn there it was not a Reshus ha'Rabim (as opposed to the way the other Rishonim understand, that it <i>was</i> a Reshus ha'Rabim when the Jews were there, and it is <i>not</i> a Reshus ha'Rabim in our time). A desert is a Reshus ha'Rabim now because all people are <i>free to walk</i> through it. When the Jews were in the desert, the area in which they were encamped was not free for all to walk through, because it was the Jews' private residential area, and thus it was not a Reshus ha'Rabim. Accordingly, the Rambam's criterion for a place to have the status of Reshus ha'Rabim is that it must be an area that is <i>free for everyone</i> to walk through, even if large numbers of people are not actually found there at any given time.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>BI'UR HALACHAH</b> (OC 345) writes that a G-d-fearing person should follow the more stringent opinion that does not require a Reshus ha'Rabim to have 600,000 people (a). One who follows this stringent opinion will not rely on a 'Tzuras ha'Pesach,' or what we commonly call an 'Eruv,' if it encloses a street that is 16 Amos wide, even though 600,000 people do not use that street. (A 'Tzuras ha'Pesach' only transforms a Karmelis, and not a Reshus ha'Rabim, into a Reshus ha'Yachid. According to those who do not require 600,000 people, any public area wider than 16 Amos is a Reshus ha'Rabim).
</p><p>


<font><b>3) 600,000 PEOPLE -- WHEN?</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> According to the opinion that an area needs 600,000 people walking through it in order to be considered a Reshus ha'Rabim (see previous Insight), how often must they be there?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>REMA</b> (OC 345:7) says that the 600,000 people must go through that area <i>every day</i>. (This appears to be based on an inference from the <b>RAN</b> who -- when he argues on the opinion that requires 600,000 people -- says that it is not necessary for '600,000 people to be going through <i>every day</i>.')
</p><p>
The <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> (345:24) disputes this ruling and points out that no Rishon actually suggests such a ruling.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> and <b>RASHI</b> in Eruvin write that 600,000 people must be 'Metzuyim Sham,' they must frequent the area. They do not need to be walking through together at one moment. Rather, each person may frequent the area at a different time.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAN</b> in Eruvin (59a) adds that even according to those who require 600,000 people, the requirement of 600,000 people applies only to an open square ('Pelatya') where people gather together. However, a highway ('Seratya') is considered a Reshus ha'Rabim even without 600,000 people there, since it <i>leads</i> to a place where 600,000 people gather, and it is used by the public.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RAN</b> cites the <b>RE'AH</b> who adds that according to those who require 600,000 people, not only is a highway considered a Reshus ha'Rabim because it opens into a place where 600,000 people gather, but <i>any area</i> which opens into a gathering place of 600,000 people is considered a Reshus ha'Rabim. Consequently, the <i>entire desert</i> became Reshus ha'Rabim because of the one place in the desert in which the Jews dwelled. (<b>BI'UR HALACHAH</b> OC 345)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) OTHER KINDS OF 'KARMELIS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> The Mishnah discusses a valley 
          enclosed by walls.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Ula):</font></b> If a Karfef (a Chatzer without houses open to 
               it) more than Beis Sa'atayim (5000 square Amos) was 
               surrounded by a wall, but not for the sake of 
               dwelling, [it is forbidden to carrying four Amos 
               inside, yet] one who throws to it [from Reshus 
               ha'Rabim] is liable;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The same applies even if it is more than a Beis Kor 
               (75,000 square Amos) or two.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The Karfef has a proper wall, just it lacks 
               residents [it is a Reshus ha'Yachid mid'Oraisa, 
               mid'Rabanan we are stringent to consider it a 
               Karmelis].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We understand why Rav Ashi did not answer like 
          Ula (see (d) below);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Why didn't Ula answer like his teaching? 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He holds that the Tana would not call it 'valley' 
          if it had walls, rather, 'Karfef'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Rav Ashi holds that since the Tana called it Reshus 
          ha'Yachid, surely it is Reshus ha'Yachid mid'Oraisa.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> [A sea, valley, platform,] or Karmelis...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The things listed beforehand are also Karmelis!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Dimi):</font></b> 'Karmelis' includes a corner next to 
          Reshus ha'Rabim (e.g. someone's property bordered Reshus 
          ha'Rabim, and his house jutted out - he allowed Reshus 
          ha'Rabim to 'annex' the property next to his house)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Even though sometimes it is crowded in Reshus 
               ha'Rabim and people enter this area, since it is 
               inconvenient (one must return to the main road when 
               he encounters the house) it is [not Reshus ha'Rabim, 
               only] Karmelis.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rav Dimi):</font></b> Between the pillars [in the market, where 
          merchants hang their wares] is a Karmelis.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Even though many people go there, since it is 
          inconvenient, it is [not Reshus ha'Rabim, only] Karmelis.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (R. Zeira):</font></b> The platform in front of the pillars is a 
          Karmelis.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  Rav Dimi said that between the pillars is a Karmelis, all 
          the more so he holds that the platform is a Karmelis;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Version #1:</font></b> R. Zeira said that the platform is a 
          Karmelis, but he would hold that between the pillars is 
          not so inconvenient, it is [Reshus ha'Rabim,] not 
          Karmelis.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Version #2:</font></b> Between the pillars is Reshus ha'Rabim, 
          because sometimes people walk there.
<br>
<b><font>2) THE EXTENT OF 'KARMELIS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rabah bar Shila):</font></b> If one threw something [four Amos] in 
          Reshus ha'Rabim at (and it stuck to) the side of a brick 
          standing upright in Reshus ha'Rabim, he is liable (it is 
          as if rested on the ground below);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If it landed on top, [this is not considered Reshus 
          ha'Rabim], he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Abaye and Rava):</font></b> This is only if the brick is [at least] 
          three Tefachim tall - if not, many people trample on it 
          (even the top is [Batul to] Reshus ha'Rabim);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Regarding prickly bushes, even if they are not three 
               Tefachim [they are not Reshus ha'Rabim, for people 
               do not step on them].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Chiya bar Rav):</font></b> Prickly bushes are Reshus ha'Rabim 
          [people wearing shoes step on them], but excrement is not 
          (people do not walk on it). 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Even excrement is Reshus ha'Rabim (anything 
          less than three tall is Batul to Reshus ha'Rabim, even if 
          people do not walk on it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rav Dimi):</font></b> Karmelis does not apply to an area less than 
          four [by four Tefachim].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> Karmelis applies up to 10 [Tefachim above 
          the ground].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does this mean?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Karmelis applies only if there is a wall 
               10 Tefachim tall.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> Rav Gidal taught that if the interior of 
               a house is less than 10, and the roof completes the 
               Shi'ur of 10, one may carry anywhere on the roof (it 
               is Reshus ha'Yachid), one may not carry four Amos 
               inside (it is Karmelis).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It means, until 10 Tefachim off the ground is 
          Karmelis, above is not (it is Makom Petur), like Shmuel 
          taught to Rav Yehudah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> No laws of Shabbos apply above 10 Tefachim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does Shmuel teach?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> He teaches that Reshus ha'Yachid does 
               not apply above 10.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> Rav Chisda taught, if one erects a beam 
               in Reshus ha'Yachid with a basket on top, even if it 
               is 100 Amos tall, one who throws something into it 
               from Reshus ha'Rabim is liable, for Reshus ha'Yachid 
               extends to the sky.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WALKING OVER EXCREMENT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Ashi states that excrement lying in Reshus ha'Rabim is not considered a Makom Petur, but it is part of Reshus ha'Rabim. 
</p><p>
Generally, areas where people do not walk are considered to be a Makom Petur and <i>not</i> Reshus ha'Rabim. Why, then, is excrement considered to be Reshus ha'Rabim if people do not step in it?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>MORDECHAI</b> (#377) says that Rav Ashi is consistent with his opinion later (100b). Rav Ashi maintains that a narrow puddle less than four Tefachim wide is considered a Reshus ha'Rabim even though people do not step <i>into</i> it, since they step <i>over</i> it. Here, too, Rav Ashi says that since people walk <i>over</i> the excrement, that is enough to make it into Reshus ha'Rabim. (The <b><b><b>OR</b></b> SAME'ACH</b>, Hilchos Shabbos 14:24, and <b>SEFAS EMES</b> to 100b suggest the same approach without mentioning the Mordechai.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) AN OPEN VALLEY</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION: RASHI</b> (DH d'Ad Asarah) implies that a Karpaf (open valley) which is larger than a Beis Se'asayim and was fenced-in but not for residential purposes is considered a full-fledged <i>Karmelis</i>. This seems to contradict the Gemara earlier which says that it is a <i>Reshus ha'Yachid</i> with the stringencies of a Karmelis. Rashi later (80a, 99b) reiterates his opinion that it is a full-fledged Karmelis and not a Reshus ha'Yachid. How are we to reconcile the words of Rashi with the Gemara? (<b>GILYON HA'SHAS</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The Acharonim explain that <b>RASHI</b> (DH Kegon) stresses that a Karpaf that was not fenced-in for residential occupation is a Reshus ha'Yachid only when it did <i>not</i> have any houses in it before the wall was built around it. This implies that a Karpaf has the status of a Reshus ha'Yachid when, <i>after</i> the wall was built, a house was erected inside the Karpaf. Perhaps Rashi holds that a fenced-in Karpaf is considered a Reshus ha'Yachid only when a house was later built inside the walls. If no house was ever built inside the walls, the Karpaf remains a full-fledged Karmelis.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> He teaches that Reshus ha'Rabim does not apply 
          above 10.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> We already learn this from a Mishnah!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> If one threw something four Amos [in 
               Reshus ha'Rabim] at (and it stuck to) a wall:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  If this was above 10 Tefachim [he is exempt], 
                    it is as if he threw in the air (i.e. and it 
                    never landed);
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> If this was below 10 Tefachim [he is liable], 
                    it is as if he threw on the ground.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> He teaches that Karmelis does not apply above 
          10.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  Chachamim gave the leniencies of Reshus ha'Yachid and 
          Reshus ha'Rabim to Karmelis:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It has the leniency of Reshus ha'Yachid, that it 
               does not apply to an area less than four by four 
               Tefachim;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> It has the leniency of Reshus ha'Rabim, that it does 
               not apply above 10.
<br>
<b><font>3) 'CHOREI RESHUS HA'YACHID' AND 'CHOREI RESHUS HA'RABIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Gidal):</font></b> If the interior of a house is less than 10, 
          and the roof completes the Shi'ur of 10, one may carry 
          anywhere on the roof, one may not carry four Amos inside.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> If one dug out a cavity four by four in the 
          floor, so that the interior height of the house in that 
          place is 10, it is permitted to carry in the entire 
          house.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> (The place of the cavity is a proper Reshus 
          ha'Yachid (it need not be adjacent to the walls),) the 
          rest of the house is like Chorei [holes coming out from] 
          Reshus ha'Yachid, they are like Reshus ha'Yachid:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Chorei Reshus ha'Yachid are like Reshus ha'Yachid;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Abaye):</font></b> Chorei Reshus ha'Rabim are like Reshus 
               ha'Rabim;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (Rava):</font></b> They are not like Reshus ha'Rabim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question (Rava, against Abaye):</font></b> Rav Dimi taught that 
          'Karmelis' (in the Beraisa 6A) includes a corner next to 
          Reshus ha'Rabim - it is Chorei Reshus ha'Rabim, according 
          to you it is like Reshus ha'Rabim!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> It is not like Reshus ha'Rabim because it 
          is inconvenient to use them (walk there) - regular Chorei 
          Reshus ha'Rabim are convenient to use.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question (against Abaye - Mishnah):</font></b> If one threw 
          something four Amos at a wall:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If this was above 10, it is as if he threw in the 
               air; if this was below 10, it is as if he threw on 
               the ground. 
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> When it was below 10, why is he liable - 
               it was not Nach [outside of four Amos, for it 
               bounces back]!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The case is, he threw a fat 
               date [it stuck to the wall].
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Summation of question:</font></b> According to Abaye, R. 
               Yochanan could have established the Mishnah to 
               discuss a pebble or object that landed in a hole in 
               the wall, i.e. Chorei Reshus ha'Rabim!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> A pebble or object would probably 
          bounce off and not land in the hole.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> The Mishnah discusses a wall without a 
          hole.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source to say this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Reisha says, if it was above 10, it is as if 
          he threw in the air - if there is a hole [and it landed 
          inside], this is not like throwing in the air [it is 
          Chorei Reshus ha'Yachid, he is liable]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps the case is, the wall is not four by 
          four (therefore, above 10 is not Chorei Reshus 
          ha'Yachid)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> Rav Yehudah taught that if one threw above 10 
          and it landed in a hole of any size [less than four by 
          four], R. Meir and Chachamim argue about whether or not 
          he is liable:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Meir says [regarding Mezuzah, and would also say 
               here] Chokekim Lehashlim (if there is a small hole 
               in something thick, we consider it as if the entire 
               thickness was carved out - therefore, if the wall is 
               four by four, it is as if the hole is four by four);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim do not say Chokekim Lehashlim.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Since we may assume that our Stam Mishnah is like R. 
               Meir, it must be that there is no hole.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> If one erects a beam in Reshus ha'Yachid 
          with a basket on top, even if it is 100 Amos tall, one 
          who throws something into it from Reshus ha'Rabim is 
          liable, for Reshus ha'Yachid extends to the sky.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> This is like Rebbi:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> If one threw something [in Reshus 
               ha'Rabim] and it landed on a ledge of any size, he 
               is liable;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Rejection (Abaye):</font></b> No, all agree to Rav Chisda's law in 
          Reshus ha'Yachid - the Beraisa discusses a tree in Reshus 
          ha'Yachid, its foliage hangs in Reshus ha'Rabim, the 
          thrown object landed on the foliage;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rebbi applies the status of the trunk (i.e. a Reshus 
               ha'Yachid that is four by four) to the foliage, 
               Chachamim do not.
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THROWING A BASKET</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> If one threw a [wicker] basket that is 10 
          Tefachim tall [from Reshus ha'Yachid] to Reshus ha'Rabim:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If its width (diameter) is less than six Tefachim 
               wide, he is liable; if it is more than six, [since 
               it contains a square more than four by four, it 
               itself is a Reshus ha'Yachid,] he is exempt. 
               (Really, he is exempt whenever it is wide enough to 
               contain such a square, i.e. slightly more than five 
               and three fifths - Abaye was not precise.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> Even if it is not six wide, he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Surely, strands [of the basket] extend above 10 
          Tefachim, so part of the basket is in Makom Petur.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (Rashi):</font></b> [If it is not six wide], if he turned 
          it over [so the opening faces down]:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> [Even] if it is Mashehu [a tiny amount] more than 
               seven tall, he is liable; (Even when it is 
               considered to be Munach on account of Lavud (a 
               Halachah from Sinai that Mechitzos less than three 
               Tefachim apart are considered connected), i.e. it is 
               within three Tefachim of the ground, it is entirely 
               in Reshus ha'Rabim.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If it is seven and a half (or even seven and two 
               Mashehu'im) tall, he is exempt (when it is three 
               Tefachim less one Mashehu off the ground, it is 
               considered Munach, and part is in Makom Petur).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (Tosfos):</font></b> [If it is six wide], if he turned it 
          over:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> [Even] if it is just over seven tall, he is liable 
               (it is not considered Reshus ha'Yachid even when it 
               is within three of the ground, for Lavud applies 
               only to Mechitzos surrounding the airspace [of a 
               Reshus], not to the walls around the bottom of the 
               basket).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If it is seven and a half (or even seven plus the 
               thickness of the bottom wall plus Mashehu) tall, he 
               is exempt (for it is considered Reshus ha'Yachid 
               when it is within three of the ground). (end of 
               Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Even if it is seven and a half, he is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Walls of a Kli serve to store things inside 
          (therefore we do not apply Lavud to extend them 
          downwards).
<br>
<b><font>2) USAGE WITH DIFFICULTY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Ula):</font></b> If a pillar in Reshus ha'Rabim is nine Tefachim 
          tall and many people use it to adjust loads (e.g. on 
          their backs), if one threw something and it landed on the 
          pillar, he is liable. (Rashi (on 91B) requires it to be 
          four wide, Rashi here does not. Rosh - it can be up to 10 
          Tefachim; Rashi, Rambam - it must be exactly nine. 
          Ra'avad - many people must actually use it; Rambam and 
          Rashi (Eruvin 33A) - it suffices that it is fit for 
          public use.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Something [in Reshus ha'Rabim] less than three 
          Tefachim tall [is Reshus ha'Rabim, for] people walk over 
          it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Something at least three but less than nine [is 
               Makom Petur, or Karmelis if it is at least four by 
               four, for] people neither walk over it nor use it to 
               adjust a load;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Something nine tall [is Reshus ha'Rabim, for] many 
               use it to adjust loads.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> What is the law of a ditch [that is 
          nine (Rashi; Tosfos - or less) Tefachim deep]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> A ditch has the same law [as a 
          pillar].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> A ditch is different (it is Makom 
          Petur, or Karmelis, if it is four by four).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Usage with difficulty is not considered usage (to 
          make it Reshus ha'Rabim, i.e. one must descend into the 
          ditch in order to adjust a load on the ground next to 
          it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Ada bar Masnah, against Rava - Beraisa):</font></b> If 
          a box in Reshus ha'Rabim was 10 tall and four wide, one 
          may not transfer from it to Reshus ha'Rabim or 
          vice-versa;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If it is less than this, it is permitted.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The same applies to a ditch.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> This last clause applies [even] to the 
               Seifa (even if it is nine deep, it is permitted, for 
               it is a Reshus ha'Rabim)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, it applies [only] to the Reisha.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE BRANCH FOLLOWS THE TREE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Chisda (7b) says that it is not necessary for Hanachah to be done on an area of four by four Tefachim in order to be a valid Hanachah. The Gemara suggests that Rebbi agrees with Rav Chisda and does not require Hanachah on an area of four by four Tefachim. Rebbi's opinion is expressed in an argument with the Rabanan argue concerning the case of a person who throws an object from Reshus ha'Rabim into Reshus ha'Yachid and it lands on a small protrusion ('Ziz'). Rebbi says that he is Chayav, and the Rabanan say that he is Patur. The Gemara presumes that Rebbi does not require Hanachah on an area of four by four Tefachim, and that is why he says that one is Chayav even when the object lands on a protrusion less than four by four.
</p><p>
Abaye responds to the Gemara's suggestion and says that Rav Chisda is not necessarily following Rebbi's opinion, because Rebbi and the Rabanan are referring to a case of a tree whose branch was in Reshus ha'Rabim and whose trunk was in Reshus ha'Yachid, and a person threw an object from Reshus ha'Rabim onto the branch.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Shadi Nofo) gives two explanations for the Gemara. According to the first explanation, Abaye is saying that Rebbi's opinion is <i>not</i> consistent with Rav Chisda, and <i>both</i> Rebbi and the Rabanan contradict Rav Chisda's opinion and require Hanachah on an area of four by four Tefachim. The reason Rebbi says that the person is Chayav when the object lands on a branch that is less than four by four is because he maintains that the branch acquires the properties of the trunk, and thus it is considered to have an area of four by four Tefachim.
</p><p>
According to Rashi's second explanation of the Gemara, <i>neither</i> Rebbi nor the Rabanan contradict Rav Chisda's opinion. They both maintain that in Reshus ha'Yachid, Hanachah does not need to be done on an area of four by four Tefachim (because the inside of a Reshus ha'Yachid is considered to be totally filled, as Tosfos writes). Similarly, they both maintain that in Reshus ha'Rabim, Hanachah needs to be done on an area of four by four Tefachim. They only argue whether or not the branch in Reshus ha'Rabim is considered to be an area of four by four Tefachim by virtue of its connection to the tree-trunk. 
</p><p>
We may ask a basic question on the Gemara.
</p><p>
According to both explanations of Rashi, the argument between Rebbi and the Rabanan is whether the branch is considered to have an area of four by four Tefachim. Why, then, does Abaye explain that case is where the tree-trunk is in Reshus ha'Yachid and the branch is in Reshus ha'Rabim? The same argument will apply when the <i>entire tree</i> (branch and trunk included) is in Reshus ha'Rabim (according to Rashi's second explanation, or even when both are in Reshus ha'Yachid according to his first explanation)! Why does Abaye insist that the trunk is in Reshus ha'Yachid and the branch is in Reshus ha'Rabim?
</p><p>
(That is, the only thing that changed between the Gemara's initial suggestion and the conclusion is that initially, the Gemara assumed Rebbi and the Rabanan were arguing over whether it is necessary to have a Hanachah on an area of four by four. In the conclusion, they are arguing about whether the branch follows the properties of the trunk or not. If so, what Reshus each one is in is irrelevant!)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (4b, DH b'Ilan) explains that the argument between Rebbi and the Rabanan is not whether the branch <i>has an area of four by four</i> by virtue of its connection to the trunk, but rather whether the branch <i>is considered to be in Reshus ha'Yachid</i> by virtue of its connection to the trunk. They do not argue whether a person who threw an object onto the branch from a distance of four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim is Chayav for transferring an object four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim, but rather they argue whether he is Chayav for transferring an object from Reshus ha'Rabim into Reshus ha'Yachid. Abaye explained that the branch and the tree are in two different domains, because that is the subject of their argument -- whether the branch in one Reshus follows the tree in another Reshus! (This is also the <b>MAHARSHA's</b> understanding of the second explanation in Rashi. It clearly is not consistent with the first explanation in Rashi. See also Rashi to 4b, DH Zarak.)
</p><p>
(b) It is true that the Gemara could have said that both the tree and the branch are in Reshus ha'Rabim (or both are in Reshus ha'Yachid). However, the Beraisa refers to a 'protrusion,' and the normal manner of a protrusion is to project into Reshus ha'Rabim from a Reshus ha'Yachid. Therefore, the Gemara describes the case in such a way. (Based on <b>MAHARSHAL</b>)
</p><p>
(c) We may suggest that the Gemara takes for granted that if the tree and the branch are both in Reshus ha'Rabim, the branch would certainly acquire the properties of the trunk and have an area of four by four Tefachim, because it is just a part of a large tree. The argument between Rebbi and the Rabanan must therefore be in a case in which the different parts of the tree are in <i>different</i> domains. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THROWING A BASKET INTO RESHUS HA'RABIM</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara says that if one throws a basket into Reshus ha'Rabim, he is Patur. Why is he Patur?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Rechavah) explains that one is Chayav only for throwing <i>objects</i> from one domain into another, and not for throwing <i>domains</i>. A basket is considered a domain and not an object, because it is ten Tefachim high with a diameter of six Tefachim. This condition is learned from the Melachah as it was performed in the Mishkan, where only objects were thrown from one domain to another but not domains. (<b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> points out that although they did not <i>throw</i> domains, they did <i>carry</i> domains from one domain to another, as we see that they carried the Aron and the Mizbe'ach. Apparently, Rashi maintains that one is exempt only for <i>throwing</i> a basket. If one <i>carries</i> a basket into another Reshus, he indeed would be Chayav.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Rechavah) explains that one is Patur because when he picks up the basket it is a Reshus ha'Yachid, and when it comes to rest it is a Reshus ha'Yachid. His act, therefore, is viewed as an act of throwing the basket from one Reshus ha'Yachid into another, for which one is Patur.
</p><p>
According to this explanation, if the basket was originally lying on its <i>side</i> in Reshus ha'Rabim, one who throws it into a Reshus ha'Yachid <i>is</i> Chayav for Hotza'ah.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RASHBA</b> explains that one is Patur because wherever the basket is, it is a Reshus ha'Yachid, even while it hurtles through the air. This also seems to be the understanding of the <b>RIF</b>. This explanation differs from that of Tosfos, because Tosfos says that it is a Reshus ha'Yachid only when it <i>lands</i>. Accordingly, even if one moves a basket four Amos along the length of Reshus ha'Rabim, according to the Rashba he will not be Chayav, because it is considered to have remained in its original Reshus. According to Tosfos, however, it should be considered an act of carrying from one Reshus ha'Yachid to another Reshus ha'Yachid through Reshus ha'Rabim, for which one is Chayav (this is the law of 'Moshit'; <b>TOSFOS</b>, 2a, DH Pashat).
</p><p>

<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question (against Rava - Beraisa):</font></b> (On Shabbos and Yom 
          Tov, one may walk 2000 Amos in every direction from the 
          place of his Shevisah (residence). If one leaves food in 
          a place from which he could take it Bein ha'Shemashos 
          [without transferring Reshuyos], he may declare that 
          place to be his Shevisah - this is Eiruv Techumim.) If 
          one intended to make Shevisah in Reshus ha'Rabim and left 
          his Eiruv in a pit above 10 Tefachim, it is a valid 
          Eiruv;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If it is below 10, it is invalid.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the case?
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> The pit is deeper than 10, 'above 
                    and below' refer to leaving the food more or 
                    less than 10 Tefachim above the bottom of the 
                    pit.
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> In either case [the entire pit is 
                    Reshus ha'Yachid,] he is in a different Reshus 
                    from his Eiruv (it is invalid)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> If the bottom of the pit is higher than 10 
               [Tefachim below the ground], it is a valid Eiruv.
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  We must say, [such a pit is Reshus ha'Rabim 
                    because] usage with difficulty is considered 
                    usage!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rava):</font></b> No, it is Karmelis - the case is, also 
          he is in a Karmelis;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa called it Reshus ha'Rabim, only because 
               it is not Reshus ha'Yachid.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> No, it is Karmelis, he is in Reshus 
          ha'Rabim;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa is like Rebbi, who says that Shevus 
               (mid'Rabanan prohibitions of Shabbos, e.g. 
               transferring from Karmelis to Reshus ha'Rabim) does 
               not apply Bein ha'Shemashos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Rava:</font></b> Don't think that my answer is inadequate - a 
          Mishnah supports me!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reshus ha'Rabim (many people) walk 
               through [gravel covered by] a puddle, one who throws 
               four Amos in it is Chayav.
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  The puddle must be less than 10 Tefachim [to be 
                    Reshus ha'Rabim].
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If one throws into a puddle that many people walk 
               through, he is liable.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> We understand why the Mishnah mentions 
               puddle twice - it needs to teach that this applies 
               in summer and winter:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Had it only taught about summer, we would have 
                    thought that that is because people often go 
                    there to cool off (but in winter it is not 
                    Reshus ha'Rabim);
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> Had it only taught about winter, we would have 
                    thought that that is because [the ground 
                    everywhere is muddy, so] people often go there 
                    (but in summer it is not Reshus ha'Rabim).
             <br><b>  <b><font>iii. </font></b></b>But why does the Mishnah mention 'walking' 
                    twice?
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It teaches that walking with difficulty is 
               considered walking, but usage with difficulty is not 
               considered usage! 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> If one transported a bundle of long reeds 
          in Reshus ha'Rabim by repeatedly standing it on its end 
          and casting it down in the desired direction, he is not 
          liable unless he was Oker (moved the entire bundle four 
          Amos without stopping in between. He is exempt even 
          though this is the normal way to transport it, i.e. it is 
          too heavy to carry.)
<br>
<b><font>3) TRANSFERRING FROM A 'MAKOM PETUR'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Someone standing on a threshold [between two 
          Reshuyos] may take from or give to a Ba'al ha'Bayis [in 
          Reshus ha'Yachid], or take from or give to an Oni [in 
          Reshus ha'Rabim].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the status of the threshold?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If it is Reshus ha'Rabim, why may he take from the 
               Ba'al ha'Bayis - he is Motzi from Reshus ha'Yachid 
               to Reshus ha'Rabim!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If it is Reshus ha'Rabim, why may he take from the 
               Oni - he brings from Reshus ha'Rabim to Reshus 
               ha'Yachid!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> It is Karmelis.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> Mid'Rabanan, it is forbidden to transfer from 
          Karmelis [to either Reshus]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> It is Makom Petur, e.g. it is less than four 
          by four.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Dimi):</font></b> If a place is less than four by four, 
               both those in Reshus ha'Yachid and Reshus ha'Rabim 
               may adjust loads on it, as long as they [people in 
               different Reshuyos] do not switch loads.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> He may not take from the Ba'al ha'Bayis and 
          give the item to the Oni, nor vice-versa; if he did so, 
          all three are exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> This refutes Rava!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rava):</font></b> One who transfers an item four Amos in 
               Reshus ha'Rabim is liable, even if he carried it 
               above 10 Tefachim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> No - in Rava's case [he is liable] because the 
          item did not rest [in the middle] - here, it was Nach [in 
          the middleman's hands].
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) PUSHING A BUNDLE OF STICKS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Yehudah says that one who pushes a bundle of sticks (Zirza d'Kani) in Reshus ha'Rabim is Patur. In what way is this ruling related to the Sugya, which is discussing the definitions of the different domains?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> (DH Lo Mechayev) answers that since a person normally lifts up one side of the bundle of sticks and pushes it over the other side in order to move it, we might have thought that it is not considered Hanachah when it rests, the same way that it is not considered a Hanachah when a person puts down his load in order re-arrange it on his back (8a). Therefore, after one has walked four Amos and stops moving the bundle, he should be Chayav. Rav Yehudah teaches that he is Patur. Rav Yehudah's statement, therefore, is loosely related to the Sugya (8a) that discusses a pole which is nine Tefachim tall upon which people re-arrange their loads.
</p><p>


<font><b>4) A DOORSTEP THAT LEADS TO RESHUS HA'RABIM</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses what the status of 'Iskufah' mentioned in the Beraisa (6a) is. The Gemara says that it cannot be an Iskufah of Reshus ha'Rabim, because it would be prohibited for the person standing there to take the object from the Ba'al ha'Bayis in Reshus ha'Yachid, as he would be transferring from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Iskupas Reshus ha'Rabim) says that the Gemara is referring to a doorstep in front of a Mavoy that does not have a roof beam above it or a Lechi on its outer side to make it part of the Mavoy.
</p><p>
Why does Rashi say that this doorstep is that of a Mavoy, instead of saying simply that it is the doorstep of a house?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> answers that since the Gemara later (9a) will explain (in its first answer) that the doorstep is in front of a Mavoy, Rashi introduces the concept to us here, since it is needed for the answer of the Gemara later in the Sugya.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE STATUS OF THE THRESHOLD</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - Others):</font></b> The status of the threshold 
          alternates - when the door is open, it is like inside 
          [the house, Reshus ha'Yachid];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> When the door is closed, it is like outside (Reshus 
               ha'Rabim).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Is this even if there is no Lechi? (A Lechi 
          (vertical post) helps permit carrying in an open Mavuy, 
          either because it demarcates the end of the Mavuy, or 
          because it is considered a Mechitzah.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> But Rav taught, to permit carrying in the opening 
               (i.e. even with the thickness of a Lechi which ends 
               at the end] of the Mavuy, a second Lechi is needed 
               (totally outside the Mavuy, for a Lechi only permits 
               carrying from its inner end; the threshold is like 
               the opening of a Mavuy!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> The threshold is less than four by four.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> Rav taught, even if the opening is less than 
          four by four, a second Lechi is needed!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav):</font></b> Others discuss the threshold of a Mavuy 
          [permitted by a Korah, a beam over the entrance], only 
          the inner half is covered [by the Korah] - when the door 
          is open, it is like inside [Rav permits carrying under 
          the Korah];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> When the door is closed, it is like outside (a Korah 
               does not permit an area less than four by four).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Really, it discusses the threshold 
          of a house - the case is, there are two Koros less than 
          three Tefachim apart, and the door is in the middle;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> When the door is open, it is like inside - Lavud 
               joins the Koros, so they are like one roof that is 
               four wide, Pi Tikra Yored v'Sosem (the outer edge is 
               considered a Mechitzah, as if it descends to the 
               floor).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> When the door is closed, it is like outside - we 
               cannot join the Koros through Lavud.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If the threshold is 10 tall and four wide, it 
          is a Reshus [ha'Yachid] unto itself.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  This supports R. Yitzchak bar Avodimi:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Yitzchak bar Avodimi):</font></b> R. Meir says, whenever 
               there are two Reshuyos [ha'Yachid)= by each other, 
               such as a pillar 10 tall and four wide standing in 
               Reshus ha'Yachid, it is forbidden to adjust a load 
               on it;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  This is a decree, lest one do so on a mound (10 
                    tall and four wide, which is Reshus ha'Yachid) 
                    in Reshus ha'Rabim.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A DOORSTEP IN FRONT OF A 'MAVOY'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that the doorstep of a Mavoy that has an area of four by four Tefachim is not considered to be part of the Mavoy (for the purpose of carrying while walking along the doorstep, or carrying from the doorstep into the Mavoy). <b>RASHI</b> (DH Tzarich Lechi) explains that in the Mavoy itself, one is permitted to carry because of the Lechi that is standing at the opening of the Mavoy along the side of the doorstep. The permissible carrying area is limited to within the Lechi's <i>inner</i> edge, which is at the inner side of the doorstep; therefore, the doorstep is <i>not</i> included in the Lechi's function.
</p><p>
The Gemara then entertains the possibility that on a doorstep <i>less</i> than four by four Tefachim wide, one might be permitted to carry. In the case of such a small area, one is permitted to carry anywhere within the <i>outer</i> edge of the Lechi. Rashi (DH v'Chi Teima d'Leis Bei) explains that if the doorstep is less than four by four, then there is <i>no need</i> for a real Lechi, because the very walls of the entranceway serve as the Lechi for the doorstep area and permit one to carry from the doorstep to the Mavoy.
</p><p>
[<b>DIAGRAM <b><b>IS</b></b> BEST VIEWED <b><b>IN</b></b> COURIER</b> 10PT. <b>FONT</b>]
</p><p>
   <b>DOOR</b> 
<br>   <b>STEP</b>    <b>WALL CONSIDERED <b><b>TO</b></b> <b><b>BE</b></b></b> '<b>LECHI</b>'
<br> ____  \  /____
<br>|____|   |____|
<br>| |         | |
<br>| |         | |
<br>| |         | |
<br>| |         | |
<br>| |  <b>MAVUY</b>  | |
<br>| |         | |
<br>| |         | |
<br>| |         | |
<br>| |         | |
<br>| |         | |
<br>| ----------- |
<br>\-------------/ 
</p><p>
Why does Rashi introduce the concept of the walls serving as a Lechi <i>now</i>? He should have mentioned it at the beginning of the Sugya, when the Gemara assumed that the doorstep was four by four Tefachim. Rashi should have said there that the wall is the Lechi and the inner side of the wall cannot serve to permit the doorstep! (<b>MAHARSHAL</b>, <b>MAHARSHA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARSHAL</b> explains that when Rashi says that there was a Lechi on the doorstep whose inner side is the limit for the carrying-area inside the Mavoy, Rashi does not mean that there was an independent 'Lechi.' Rather, Rashi is referring to the wall adjacent to the doorstep when he mentions 'Lechi.' He called it a 'Lechi' because it performs the same function as a Lechi, as Rashi says later.
</p><p>
(b) Perhaps Rashi's intention is to first show that not only does the inner side of a <i>wall</i> permit carrying only from its inner edge and inward, but a full-fledged Lechi also serves to permit carrying only from its inner edge and inward. Afterwards, when the Gemara suggests that carrying on a doorstep less than four by four Tefachim will be permitted by the outer edge of a Lechi, Rashi emphasizes that even the outer edge of a <i>wall</i> will also permit the doorstep. (M. Kornfeld) 
</p><p>


<font><b>2) SUMMARY: THE DOORSTEP THAT SERVES TWO DOMAINS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> In the Beraisa (6a), Acherim say that a doorstep 'serves two domains.' When the door of Reshus ha'Yachid is open, it is part of Reshus ha'Yachid. When the door is closed, it is part of Reshus ha'Rabim. The Gemara inquires as to the situation in which this statement applies. When does the status of a doorstep depend on whether the door is open or closed?
</p><p>
The Gemara suggests two answers that are based on the same premise: the doorstep is considered Reshus ha'Yachid only when it fulfills one of two conditions: 1. It is covered by a roof with an area of four by four Tefachim (the edge of such a roof is considered to descend and serve as a fourth wall, while the door and the lintels serve as the other three walls, making the doorstep under it a Reshus ha'Yachid). 2. A roof beam ('Korah') of a Mavoy is on top of the doorstep (this gives the doorstep the status of Reshus ha'Yachid due to the special enactment of the Rabanan that a roof beam serves as either a reminder that this is the extent of Reshus ha'Yachid, or because of 'Yored v'Sosem' -- the roof beam's edge descends to act as a fourth wall to make the enclosed area a Reshus ha'Yachid).
</p><p>
If it is the doorstep of a house, it is considered part of the inside of the house when it has a roof which is four by four Tefachim. If it is the doorstep of a Mavoy, it is considered part of the inside of the Mavoy if it has <i>either</i> a four-by-four roof or a Korah on top of it.
</p><p>
(a) Rebbi Yehudah in the name of Rav says that Acherim are talking about a doorstep of a Mavoy which has a roof beam on top of it. The roof beam is only one Tefach wide, and it is located on the inner side of the doorstep (that is, closer to the door). When the door is open, the roof beam serves to enclose the part of the doorstep that is underneath it (as in #2 above). When the door is closed, the roof beam cannot be viewed as enclosing the part of the doorstep underneath it, because the roof beam is no longer associated with the Mavoy. A roof beam makes whatever is underneath it into a Reshus ha'Yachid only when it is associated with a Mavoy (this was part of the Rabanan's enactment).
</p><p>
(b) Rav Ashi explains that Acherim are talking about the doorstep of a <i>house</i>. Above the doorstep is a roof made of two beams. Each of the two beams by itself is less than four by four Tefachim, but together they cover an area of at least four by four Tefachim. The gap between the two beams is less than three Tefachim. When the door is open, the concept of Lavud takes effect and the two beams are viewed as one large beam, and that large beam encloses the entire four by four Tefachim underneath it (as in #1 above). When the door is closed, the door dissociates the outer beam from the inner beam, and the outer beam is left enclosing an area of <i>less</i> than four by four Tefachim. Therefore, it is not able to create an outer (fourth) Mechitzah for the doorstep, and the doorstep is considered part of Reshus ha'Rabim.
</p><p>
(If the roof of the doorstep had been just one large roof beam, then closing the door at the middle would not have been able to dissociate the outer part of the doorstep from the inner part, and the doorstep would still be a Reshus ha'Yachid.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<b><font>2) THINGS FORBIDDEN BEFORE 'MINCHAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The following are forbidden from shortly (a 
          half-hour) before the time of Minchah, until praying:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> To begin a haircut from a barber, to enter the 
               bathhouse or a tannery, to eat, to judge;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If one began, he need not stop.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> We stop to say Shma, but not for prayer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Before which Minchah are these 
          forbidden?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> They are forbidden before Minchah Gedolah 
          (which starts half an hour after noon).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> Why should these be forbidden - there is 
          plenty of time to finish them and pray afterwards!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> They are forbidden before Minchah Ketanah 
          (which starts three and a half hours after noon).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  .Suggestion:</font></b> The Mishnah refutes R. Yehoshua ben Levi!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> It is forbidden to eat 
               anything once the time of Minchah arrives.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Rejection (and Defense of Answer #1):</font></b> Really, they are 
          forbidden before Minchah Gedolah;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Answer #1 (to Objection (d)):</font></b> (The Mishnah discusses 
               elaborate activities which could last the entire 
               afternoon) - it refers to the haircut of Ben El'asa 
               (like that of the Kohen Gadol, in which each hair 
               reaches to the next), and to a big tannery (with 
               many skins, at the beginning of their tanning), and 
               to the full works in the bathhouse (shampoo, rinsing 
               in hot and cold water, and a steambath), and eating 
               a big meal (e.g. at a wedding), and to the beginning 
               of judgment.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer #2 (to Objection (d) - Rav Acha bar Yakov):</font></b> 
               The Mishnah discusses a normal haircut - Chachamim 
               decreed not to start before prayer, lest the 
               scissors break;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  A mere steambath is forbidden, perhaps he will 
                    grow faint and be unable to pray; 
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> One may not peruse his skins in a tannery (even 
                    in the middle of tanning), lest he see that he 
                    will suffer a loss, and will be upset and 
                    unable to pray;
             <br><b>  <b><font>iii. </font></b></b>One may not begin even a small meal, lest it 
                    get drawn out;
             <br><b>  <b><font>iv. </font></b></b> One may not even finish judgment before 
                    praying, lest he will see a reason to change 
                    the verdict [and will start to judge anew].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is considered the beginning of a haircut 
          (after which it is permitted to continue)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Avin):</font></b> It is from when the barber puts the 
          smock on the customer's knees (Aruch - from when the 
          customer puts his turban on his knees).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is considered the beginning of a bath?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is from when he removes his cloak (Rashi - his 
          outermost garment; Rambam - his undergarment).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is considered the beginning of entering 
          the tannery? 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is from when he rolls up his sleeves.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is considered the beginning of eating?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav):</font></b> It is from when he washes his hands.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (R. Chanina):</font></b> It is from when he unties his 
          belt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Resolution:</font></b> R. Chanina discusses the law in Bavel (where 
          people used to gird themselves tightly, one must untie 
          his belt before eating), Rav discusses the law in Eretz 
          Yisrael.
<br>
<b><font>3) EATING BEFORE PRAYING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  (Abaye - many change this to say Ze'iri, for Abaye lived 
          in Bavel): For our colleagues in Bavel, according to the 
          opinion that Tefilas Ma'ariv is optional (Tosfos - i.e. 
          one need not strive to fulfill it as much as other 
          Mitzvos), if one untied his belt [to eat before praying 
          Ma'ariv, even though this is forbidden l'Chatchilah], 
          since it would be a toil to tie it again, he may eat 
          before praying.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> The opinion that Ma'ariv is obligatory 
          requires him to retie it and pray Ma'ariv before eating.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But all agree that Minchah is obligatory, and 
          the Mishnah permits one to finish eating if he began, and 
          R. Chanina taught that this is once he untied the belt!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> We are more stringent regarding Ma'ariv for it 
          is common for a person to get drunk at night, therefore 
          there is more danger that if he eats first he will miss 
          praying - there is less concern for this regarding 
          Minchah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> We are more lenient regarding Minchah because 
          the time to pray is limited, people fear missing it, they 
          are not prone to delay praying - since one may pray 
          Ma'ariv the entire night, people do not fear missing it, 
          and they are prone to delay it.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) GOING TO A BARBER BEFORE MINCHAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states, 'A person should not go to barber close to Minchah time before he prays. A person should not enter a bathhouse, nor enter to tan hides, nor to eat, nor to judge.' Why does the Mishnah include going to a barber in an entirely separate statement from all of the other activities that should not be done close to Minchah time? The Mishnah should include them all in one statement!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that the law of this Mishnah is cited in Maseches Shabbos, even though it does not involve the laws of Shabbos, because it is similar to the law of the following Mishnah (11a), which says that a tailor should not walk out on Friday near sundown with his needle, lest he forget and carry his needle on Shabbos and transgress the Melachah of Hotza'ah. The Mishnah here says that, similarly, a person should not become involved in certain activities shortly before Minchah, lest he forget to pray Minchah.
</p><p>
In all of the cases of the Mishnah except for the first (going to a barber), the fear is that the person may forget to pray because he is <i>involved</i> in another act which distracts him from Minchah. In contrast, when a person sits in front of a barber, he is passive. He is not physically involved in any act. Nevertheless, we are still concerned that he might forget about Minchah. Logically, going to a barber most closely resembles the case of the following Mishnah, because there, too, the tailor is not involved in any particular <i>act</i> that will distract him and cause him to forget and carry his needle on Shabbos.
</p><p>
Since the case of the barber is similar in nature to the case of the next Mishnah, it is the case of the barber that is the reason for recording this Mishnah here. Therefore, it is given special status and mentioned separately from the other cases in the Mishnah. (Rashi alludes to this when he explains, with regard to going to a barber, that 'perhaps one <i>will forget</i> and not pray,' while with regard to the other activities Rashi writes, 'The reason for all of them is that perhaps one will <i>get so involved</i> in them that he will forget....') (Y. Shaw)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHASH</b> suggests another reason for why this Mishnah is included in Maseches Shabbos. This Mishnah indeed <i>is</i> related to the preparations required for Shabbos, since one is supposed to get a haircut before Shabbos (see  <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> OC 260). According to his suggestion, it is appropriate that going to a barber is given special status in the Mishnah, since it is the sole reason for including this Mishnah in Maseches Shabbos. (The bathhouse that is mentioned in the Mishnah does not refer to the obligation to wash oneself before Shabbos. Rather, it refers to a much more involved process of bathing, like a spa, which is not done in preparation for Shabbos.)
</p><p>


<font><b>4) HALACHAH: EATING BEFORE MINCHAH</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah teaches that one may not begin a meal close to Minchah time. In practice, when is a person allowed to eat before Minchah?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RIF</b> and the <b>RAMBAM</b> rule like the second answer of the Gemara (Rav Acha bar Yakov), that even a <i>normal</i> meal is prohibited from right before <i>Minchah Gedolah</i> and onward (this is the most stringent opinion).
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> and the <b>ROSH</b> explain that the Halachah follows the first answer of the Gemara, because it was Rav Ashi, the redactor of the Gemara, who said it. Therefore, it is prohibited only to start a <i>large</i> meal before <i>Minchah Gedolah</i>. A normal meal, however, is permitted. Before Minchah Ketanah, even a normal meal is prohibited (in accordance with the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi).
</p><p>
(c) The <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> writes that since the Gemara in Berachos (28b) teaches that the Halachah does not follow Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, the question of the Gemara does not apply in practice. Consequently, the original assumption of the Gemara remains; the Mishnah prohibits only starting the activities that it mentions before <i>Minchah Ketanah</i>. It is therefore permitted to start even a <i>large</i> meal before Minchah Gedolah, but it is prohibited before Minchah Ketanah.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>TUR</b> cites <b>RABEINU YEHUDAH</b> (in the name of his Rebbi) who maintains that only a <i>large meal</i> is prohibited, but it is prohibited before both Minchah Gedolah and Minchah Ketanah. A normal meal is permitted, because the Halachah is not in accordance with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 232) cites the opinion of the Rif and the Rambam, the most stringent opinion. The <b>REMA</b> mentions the other three opinions.
</p><p>
The <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> writes that we may follow the lenient element of any of the opinions (because the prohibition is only mid'Rabanan). Therefore, the practice is to permit starting a large meal before Minchah Gedolah, and a normal meal before Minchah Ketanah, and to refrain only from starting a large meal before Minchah Ketanah. The <b>KAF HA'CHAYIM</b> rules that even Sefardim may rely on this lenient practice, because nowadays we have a set time for Minchah and that prevents us from forgetting to pray.
</p><p>
However, the <b>BI'UR HALACHAH</b> adds that it is 'Midas Chasidus' (a trait of righteousness) to be stringent, but only to the extent of Tosfos' stringency (b); it is not necessary to be as stringent as the Rambam's opinion (a). The Kaf Ha'Chaim, however, maintains that it is 'Midas Chasidus' to be stringent even like the Rambam's opinion.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) PREPARATIONS FOR PRAYER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Objection #1 (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> Is it such an exertion to 
          return one's belt?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Objection #2 (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> One may pray without a belt!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (to Objection #2):</font></b> It is proper to pray with a 
          belt, on account of 'Hikon Likras Elokecha Yisrael'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Rabah bar Rav Huna would put on nice socks before praying 
          on account of 'Hikon Likras Elokecha Yisrael'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  Rava would pray without his mantle and clench his hands 
          on his fingers, [to appear undistinguished and to show 
          fear] like a slave in front of his Master.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Rav Ashi:</font></b> When there was suffering in the world, Rav 
          Kahana would pray without his mantle and clench his 
          hands, like a slave in front of his Master;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> At times of Shalom, he would dress nicely and cover 
               himself with a Talis on account of 'Hikon Likras 
               Elokecha Yisrael'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Rava saw Rav Hamnuna pray at length - he said, 'He 
          abandons eternal life (Torah, to pray) for temporary life 
          (prayer is mostly for matters of this world)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Rav Hamnuna holds that Torah and Tefilah each have their 
          time (we do not rush Tefilah in order to return to 
          learning).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  R. Yirmeyah was learning with R. Zeira (his Rebbi), the 
          time to pray was expiring. R. Yirmeyah quickly rose to 
          pray - R. Zeira cited 'Mesir Ozno mi'Shmo'a Torah Gam 
          Tefilaso To'evah' (Hash-m despises the prayer of one who 
          does not want to learn)!
<br>
<b><font>2) THE TIME FOR JUDGMENT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is considered the beginning of judgment?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Yirmeyah or R. Yonah):</font></b> It is from when the 
          judges cloak themselves (cover their heads, to have more 
          fear of Hash-m).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (The other of R. Yirmeyah and R. Yonah):</font></b> It is 
          from when the litigants begin to state their claims.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  They do not argue - Answer #2 is when the judges had 
          already been judging, Answer #1 is when they were not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Ami and R. Asi were learning between the pillars [that 
          support the Beis Medrash]; they would periodically rap 
          the bolt on the door and say 'If anyone has a case, come 
          in!'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna were judging the whole 
          day, and they were getting weak.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chiya bar Rav mi'Difti):</font></b> 'Va'Ya'amod ha'Am Al Moshe 
          Min ha'Boker Ad ha'Erev' - if Moshe indeed judged Yisrael 
          the entire day, when did he learn?!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rather, if one judges a case to its ultimate truth, 
               even for a short time, the Torah considers him 
               Hashem's partner in creation - it says 'Min ha'Boker 
               Ad ha'Erev', like it says regarding creation, 
               'Va'Yhi Erev va'Yhi Boker Yom Echad'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Until when do we sit in judgment?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> We sit until the time to eat (this 
          will be explained);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chama):</font></b> He learns from 'I Lach Eretz she'Malkech 
          Na'ar v'Sarayich ba'Boker Yochelu Ashrech Eretz 
          she'Malkech Ben Chorim v'Sarayich ba'Es Yochelu bi'Gvurah 
          v'Lo va'Shesi' - they eat in the Gevurah (might) of 
          Torah, not in the drinking of wine.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> The first hour of the day is when Ludim eat 
          (they are cannibals, they immediately fulfill their 
          ravenous appetites);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Bandits eat in the second hour (they stay up at 
               night), heirs [who did not work for their money] eat 
               in the third hour, workers eat in the fourth hour, 
               most people eat in the fifth hour...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Interjection:</font></b> But Rav Papa taught that most people eat in 
          the fourth hour!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, most people eat in the fourth hour, 
          workers eat in the fifth hour, Chachamim eat in the sixth 
          hour;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  (If one did not eat before noon,) eating after this does 
          not help (it might be harmful) - it is like throwing a 
          rock into a pouch with little wine. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> This is only if he did not taste anything all 
          morning - but if he ate [even a bit], there is no 
          problem.
<br>
<b><font>3) 'DIVREI KEDUSHAH' IN A BATHHOUSE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Ada bar Ahavah):</font></b> One may pray in the bathhouse.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> In a bathhouse:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> [In the outer room,] where people are clothed, it is 
               permitted to say Shma and pray, there is no need to 
               say that one may give (greet someone with) 'Shalom'; 
               one may put on Tefilin, there is no need to say that 
               one need not remove Tefilin; (Ran - an Amora must 
               explain his words, we cannot say that Rav Ada 
               referred only to the outer room.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b>[In the middle room,] where some people are clothed 
               and others naked, one may give Shalom, it is 
               forbidden to say Shma or pray; one need not remove 
               Tefilin, but he may not put them on;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> [In the inner room,] where everyone is naked, one 
               may not give Shalom, there is no need to say it is 
               forbidden to say Shma or pray; one must remove 
               Tefilin, there is no need to say he may not put them 
               on.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> Rav Ada permits prayer in an empty bathhouse.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> But R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina taught that all 
          Isurim of a bathhouse apply even when no one is there; 
          all Isurim of a bathroom apply even when no excrement is 
          there!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rav Ada permits prayer in a new bathhouse.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Ravina never resolved this question!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question (Ravina):</font></b> If one designated a place to be a 
               bathroom, does it take effect (to forbid Divrei 
               Kedushah there before it is used)?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> The same question applies to a 
               bathhouse!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Perhaps the question only pertains to a bathroom, 
          for it is more repulsive.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: ONE WHO TURNS HIS EAR AWAY FROM HEARING TORAH</b></font><b>
<br></b>When Rav Yirmeyah wanted to get up from learning in order to pray, Rebbi Zeira said about him, 'When one turns his ear away from hearing Torah, his prayer is also an abomination' (Mishlei 28:9). This verse teaches that if a person stops learning Torah in order to pray, his prayers are not effective.
</p><p>
The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> suggests another explanation for the verse. If a person does not want to listen to a Torah teaching <i>because he has already heard that Torah already</i> ('mi'Shmoa' meaning 'Mipnei she'Shama'), so, too, Hash-m will not accept his prayers, measure for measure -- because He has already heard them!
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> [In the inner room] one may not give Shalom.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  This supports Rav Hamnuna:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Hamnuna):</font></b> It is forbidden to give Shalom in a 
               bathhouse [for this is a name of Hash-m - 'Va'Yikra 
               Lo Hash-m Shalom'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If so, it should also be forbidden to mention 
          'Emunah' in a Beis ha'Kisei, for it says 'Ha'Kel 
          ha'Ne'eman'!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps it is indeed forbidden!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> Rav permitted mentioning 'Emunah' in a 
               Beis ha'Kisei.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That is different, for Emunah [is an attribute of 
          Hash-m, it] is not His name - the Targum of Ha'Kel 
          ha'Ne'eman is Eloka Mehemna (who is faithful).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Hash-m Himself is called Shalom - 'Va'Yikra Lo 
               Hash-m Shalom'.
<br>
<b><font>4) THE GIVER SHOULD INFORM THE RECEIVER </font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rava bar Machsiya citing Rav):</font></b> One who gives a gift 
          should inform the receiver - 'Lada'as Ki Ani Hash-m 
          Mekadishchem'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> 'Lada'as Ki Ani Hash-m Mekadishchem' - 
          Hash-m told Moshe, I have a great gift in my treasure 
          house, Shabbos, I want to give it to Yisrael - go tell 
          them;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, this teaches that one who 
          gives bread to a child should inform the child's mother.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How should he do this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> He should smear some oil between the 
          child's eyes and paint around the eyes (when the mother 
          asks about this, the child will mention that he received 
          bread).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Nowadays, people would suspect that this was 
          for the sake of witchcraft - what should one do instead?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> He should smear between the child's 
          eyes some food like he gave to the child.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But Rav Chama b'Rebbi Chanina taught that one 
          who gives a gift need not inform the receiver - 'U'Moshe 
          Lo Yoda Ki Karan Or Panav' (Moshe did not know that his 
          face was radiating)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> If the receiver will find out anyway, the giver 
          need not inform him; if not, he must.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But Hash-m told Moshe to inform Yisrael about 
          Shabbos, even though they would find out anyway!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They would not find out about the reward for 
          guarding Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  Rav Chisda had two [sets of] Matanos (Zero'a, Lechayayim 
          and Kevah given to a Kohen from a Chulin animal) from 
          oxen - he offered them to whoever would tell him a 
          teaching of Rav he had not yet heard.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Rava bar Machsiya citing Rav):</font></b> One who gives a gift 
          should inform the receiver - 'Lada'as Ki Ani Hash-m 
          Mekadishchem'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  Rav Chisda gave the Matanos to him.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Rava:</font></b> Are Rav's teachings so dear to you?!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rav Chisda:</font></b> Yes!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Rava:</font></b> This is like Rav taught - a garment is dear to 
               the wearer (you are Rav's Talmid, therefore his 
               teachings are dear to you)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Rav Chisda:</font></b> I like that more than the first teaching 
               - if I had more Matanos, I would give them to you!
<br>
<b><font>5) MORE TEACHINGS OF RAVA BAR MACHSIYA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rava Bar Machsiya):</font></b> One should not favor one child over 
          the others - a small amount of fine wool which Yakov 
          added to Yosef's garment caused [his brothers to envy 
          him, resulting in] the descent of our ancestors to 
          Mitzrayim!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rava Bar Machsiya):</font></b> One should strive to live in a city 
          that was settled recently, for then its sins are fewer;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> 'Hine Na ha'Ir ha'Zos Krovah...v'Hi 
               Mitz'ar' - what does this mean?
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> It (Tzo'ar) is nearby; 'v'Hi 
                    Mitz'ar' - it is small.
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> There would be no need to say this, 
                    they could see it!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Rather, because it was settled [more] 
               recently (one year after Sedom), its sins are fewer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (R. Avin):</font></b> He learns from 'Imaltah Na' - the Gematri'a 
          (numerical value) of Na is 51 (alluding to 51 years), 
          whereas Sedom was settled for 52:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Sodom was serene for 26 years (for 26 of the 52 
               years it was afflicted) - 'Shteim Esre Shanah Ovdu 
               Es Kedarla'omer u'Shlosh Esre Shanah Maradu; Uv'Arba 
               Esre Shanah...'
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) SHABBOS -- HASHEM'S HIDDEN TREASURE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara calls Shabbos a gift that Hash-m kept in His house of hidden treasures which He decided to give to the Jewish people. Where is Hashem's 'house of hidden treasures'? What does He keep there?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The Gemara in Chagigah (12a) relates that the Divine light of Creation was hidden away for the righteous in the World to Come. However, the Midrash (Bereishis Rabah 11:2) teaches that this light appeared on the first Shabbos, for the benefit of Adam and Chavah. The Midrash adds that Shabbos was blessed with the Divine light: ''Hashem blessed the seventh day and sanctified it' (Bereishis 2:3) -- how did He bless it? With the Divine light....' We see from the Midrash that even though the Divine light was hidden away, Shabbos contains a quality of that light that may be experienced in this world.
</p><p>
The Gemara itself teaches that Shabbos is a 'sampling (me'Ein) of what is destined for us in the World to Come' (Berachos 57b). Shabbos is considered 'one sixtieth of the World to Come' -- it is a taste of the righteous will experience in the World to Come (ibid.). Perhaps the Gemara there is teaching the same lesson as the Midrash. Just as the light that Hash-m hid away from this world will shine and bathe the righteous in the World to Come, so, too, a glimpse of that Divine light shines and is palpable on Shabbos.
</p><p>
Perhaps this is what the Gemara here means when it says that Shabbos is one of the hidden ('Ganuz') treasures of Hash-m. Shabbos holds within it the key to experiencing the Divine light ('Or ha'Ganuz') in this world.
</p><p>
(b) How is the Divine light hidden in Shabbos? The <b>BENEI YISASCHAR</b> quotes sources in Kabalah and writes, 'Where did Hash-m hide away the Divine light? He hid it away in the Torah' (Benei Yisaschar, Kislev #1). We can find that light even in this world, in the Torah. (See also Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Noach #3.)
</p><p>
The Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni #408) teaches that we must set aside time for Torah study on Shabbos. Shabbos was given in order for us to take advantage of our physical rest and involve ourselves with spiritual growth. Perhaps this is what the Midrash means when it says that the Divine light shines on Shabbos. Shabbos is the opportunity for the Divine light that emanates from the Torah to shine. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) MORE TEACHINGS OF RAVA BAR MACHSIYA (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rava Bar Machsiya):</font></b> If the roofs in a city are taller 
          than the synagogue, in the end it will be destroyed - 
          'Leromem Es Beis Elokeinu u'Lha'amid Es Charvosav';
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is only if the houses are taller - we are not 
               concerned for buildings and towers (made for 
               beauty).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Rav Ashi:</font></b> I caused that Masa Machsya (my city) will not 
          be destroyed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> It was destroyed!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It was not destroyed on account of houses being 
          taller than the synagogue.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rava Bar Machsiya):</font></b> It is better to be under 
          (subservient to) a Yishmaeli than under a Nochri (of 
          Edom, they are worse); 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It is better to be under a Nochri than under a 
               Chaver (Rashi - a nation descended from Persians; 
               Tosfos - they lived in Bavel); 
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> It is better to be under a Chaver than under a 
               Chacham (a disgrace to a Chacham is a disgrace to 
               Torah, it must be avenged - a Chacham who does not 
               take vengeance like a snake is not a Chacham (Yoma 
               22B));
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> It is better to be under a Chacham than under an 
               orphan or widow (they are prone to cry if afflicted, 
               'Yitz'ak Elai...; V'Haragti Eschem' - Shemos 
               22:22-23).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rava Bar Machsiya):</font></b> The worst sickness is of the 
          intestines, the worst [protracted] pain is of the heart, 
          the worst [temporary] pain is of the head, the worst evil 
          is an evil wife.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rava Bar Machsiya):</font></b> The kingdom must have so many things 
          in mind, they could not be written down even if all the 
          seas were ink, and all the swamps quills, and Shamayim 
          was parchments, and all people were scribes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rav Mesharshiya):</font></b> He learns from 'Shamayim la'Rom 
          va'Eretz l'Omek v'Lev Melachim Ein Cheker'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rava Bar Machsiya):</font></b> A fast helps for [annulling harsh 
          decrees in] a dream like fire consumes stubble.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> The fast must be the same day as the dream.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> One may fast [on account of a dream] even on 
          Shabbos [even though it is normally forbidden to fast on 
          Shabbos].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  R. Yehoshua brei d'Rav Idi came to Rav Ashi's house, they 
          prepared for him an Eglah Tilsa (a healthy calf - 
          alternatively, it was born third to its mother; or was a 
          third of its ultimate growth).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> R. Yehoshua:</font></b> I am fasting today.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rav Ashi's household:</font></b> Rav Yehudah taught that one 
               may borrow (eat on a day he intended to fast) and 
               repay later!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> R. Yehoshua:</font></b> I am fasting on account of a dream - 
               this helps like fire for [consuming] stubble, but it 
               must be the same day as the dream, even on Shabbos.
<br>
<b><font>2) WHO STOPS FOR PRAYER?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one began [any of these activities before 
          praying Minchah], he need not stop; we stop to say Shma 
          [but not for prayer].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why does the Mishnah repeat 'We do not stop for 
          prayer'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The repetition refers to Torah:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> If Chachamim were engaging in Torah, they 
               stop to say Shma, but not for prayer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> This applies only to Chachamim like R. 
          Shimon, who engage in Torah and nothing else - but people 
          like us stop even for prayer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> Just like we do not stop for prayer, 
          we do not stop for Shma.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That refers to judges deciding whether or not to 
          Me'aber (and a month to) the year.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Eliezer bar Tzadok):</font></b> When we engaged in Ibur 
               Shanah in Yavneh, we did not stop for Shma nor for 
               prayer.
<br>
<b><font>3) DO WE DECREE ON ACCOUNT OF 'MID'RABANAN' LAWS?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Shortly before dark on Erev Shabbos, a tailor 
          may not go outside with his needle (this informs people 
          that he is a tailor), nor a scribe with his quill, lest 
          he will forget and come to carry it on Shabbos;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  One may not delouse clothing nor read by light of a lamp;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  However, a teacher of children may look at where they are 
          reading [by light of a lamp], but he himself may not 
          read.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Similarly, a Zav may not eat with a Zavah lest they come 
          to have relations (this will be explained).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Mishnah):</font></b> One may not stand in Reshus ha'Yachid 
          and [stick out his mouth and] drink in Reshus ha'Rabim, 
          or vice-versa (lest he bring the cup into the Reshus he 
          stands in, he would be liable for this);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If most of his head and body are in the Reshus in 
               which he drinks, it is permitted.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) CARRYING ON EREV SHABBOS CLOSE TO SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah teaches that a tailor may not carry his needle outside on Erev Shabbos close to Shabbos, lest he forget and carry it on Shabbos. What exactly is it that he might forget?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The simple explanation is that he might forget that he is carrying the needle, and when Shabbos arrives he will inadvertently carry it outside.
</p><p>
(b) However, according to Rava (11b), the Mishnah cannot mean that we are concerned that the tailor will forget that he is carrying a needle. Rava maintains that the Rabanan do not make decrees to enforce pre-existing decrees (Gezeirah l'Gezeirah). Inadvertently carrying an object outside involves only an Isur d'Rabanan, and not an Isur d'Oraisa. An act of 'Mis'asek' -- performing a forbidden act on Shabbos without awareness that one is performing that act -- is prohibited only mid'Rabanan. (This is in contrast to an act of 'Shogeg,' where a person is fully aware of what he is doing but he forgot the Halachah.) Accordingly, the Rabanan would not forbid one from carrying a needle on <i>Erev Shabbos</i> in order to prevent him from inadvertently carrying it outside on <i>Shabbos</i>, because such a decree would be a decree enforcing another decree.
</p><p>
Rather, <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Shema) explains that the concern is that he will forget <i>before</i> Shabbos that he is carrying the needle, and then on Shabbos he will remember that he is carrying the needle, but at that time he might forget that it is Shabbos and inadvertently carry the needle outside. (Although one who forgets that it is Shabbos will likely transgress many additional (and more severe) prohibitions than merely carrying a needle into Reshus ha'Rabim, the Mishnah specifically teaches that one may not carry a needle before Shabbos because we assume that he will remember that it is Shabbos before he does a more obvious Melachah than carrying, and, furthermore, the act of carrying on Shabbos is preventable with such a decree.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  The same applies to a winepress (this will be explained).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> May one stand in Reshus ha'Yachid or Reshus 
          ha'Rabim and drink in Karmelis?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> The same decree applies to Karmelis.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> The Isur of [transferring to or from a] 
          Karmelis is only mid'Rabanan - Chachamim do not decree 
          lest one will come to transgress an Isur mid'Rabanan.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Support (Abaye, for himself - Mishnah):</font></b> The same applies 
          to a winepress.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What kind of winepress is discussed?
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  It is not a Reshus ha'Yachid or Reshus 
                    ha'Rabim, the Mishnah already taught these!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It is a Karmelis.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Rejection (Rava):</font></b> No, the Mishnah teaches about a 
          winepress regarding Ma'aser (one may drink in the 
          winepress [before the wine descends to the pit, for then 
          it is finished] without tithing, for this is Arai 
          (haphazard), even if he stands outside; if he takes the 
          wine outside, he must tithe before drinking):
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah - R. Meir):</font></b> One who drinks in a winepress 
               is exempt from Ma'aser, whether it was mixed with 
               hot or cold water (wine used to be very strong, it 
               was normal to dilute them with water);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer bar Tzadok obligates;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Chachamim exempt regarding [diluting with] cold 
               [water], for he could return the leftovers [to the 
               remaining wine]; they obligate regarding hot (he 
               would not return it, lest it spoil the other wine - 
               it is as if he removed the wine from the winepress).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Support (for Abaye - Mishnah):</font></b> A tailor may not go 
          outside with his needle shortly before dark, lest he will 
          forget and will carry it on Shabbos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> It is inserted in his garment. (It is 
               not normal to carry this way, it is forbidden only 
               mid'Rabanan - nevertheless we decree on Erev 
               Shabbos, lest he will transgress a mid'Rabanan law 
               on Shabbos!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> No, it is in his hand.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Support (for Abaye - Beraisa #1):</font></b> A tailor may not go 
          outside with his needle inserted in his garment.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> This is forbidden on Erev Shabbos (lest 
               he will carry it like this on Shabbos)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> No, it is forbidden only on Shabbos itself.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Objection (Beraisa #2):</font></b> A tailor may not go outside with 
          his needle inserted in his garment on Erev Shabbos close 
          to dark.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Beraisa #2 is R. Yehudah, who obligates a 
          craftsman in such cases (but we do not decree on account 
          of mid'Rabanan laws).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> On Shabbos, a tailor may not go 
               outside with his needle inserted in his garment, nor 
               a carpenter with a ruler on his ear, nor a fuller 
               (one who cleans and thickens cloth) with a string on 
               his ear, nor a weaver with a tuft on his ear, nor a 
               dyer with a sample [of different colors of dyed 
               wool] around his neck, nor a moneychanger with a 
               coin in his ear;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  If he did, he is exempt;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, a craftsman who carries something 
               like people of his trade is liable (for it is normal 
               for him to carry this way), anyone else is exempt 
               (it is abnormal for him).
<br>
<b><font>4) WEARING A POUCH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #1):</font></b> A Zav may not walk [in Reshus ha'Rabim on 
          Shabbos] with a pouch [to catch emissions from his Ever] 
          - if he did, he is exempt;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Contradiction (Beraisa #2):</font></b> If he did so [b'Shogeg], he 
          brings a Chatas.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Beraisa #1 is R. Meir, Beraisa #2 
          is R. Yehudah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> We know that R. Meir exempts something 
          carried abnormally - we have no source that he exempts 
          for something carried normally!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Support:</font></b> If not, will you say that he exempts a 
          non-craftsman who carved out a [receptacle holding a] Kav 
          in a log on Shabbos [just because he is not a craftsman, 
          and does it unprofessionally]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Hamnuna):</font></b> Beraisa #1 discusses a Zav who 
          already had three emissions, Beraisa #2 discusses a Zav 
          who had only two emissions so far.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> A two-emission Zav is liable, for he needs to 
          know whether or not he had a third emission [which would 
          obligate him to bring a Korban, therefore it is normal 
          for him to wear a pouch to collect emissions];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Also a three-emission Zav should be liable, for he 
               needs to know if he had an emission today, for his 
               count (he needs seven clean days to become Tahor)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, he already saw Zivah today 
          (additional emissions today do not matter).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) MAKING A DECREE TO ENFORCE ANOTHER DECREE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara explains that Abaye maintains that the Rabanan indeed make decrees to enforce other decrees. <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Amar Abaye) points out that Abaye himself says elsewhere that the Rabanan do <i>not</i> make decrees to enforce other decrees. Tosfos explains that Abaye maintains that the Rabanan make decrees to enforce other decrees only with regard to the Melachah of <i>Hotza'ah</i> on Shabbos.
</p><p>
Why is Hotza'ah different from all other Isurim, for which the Rabanan do not make decrees to enforce their decrees?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RAN</b> explains that since Hotza'ah is not an obvious act of Melachah (it is a 'Melachah Geru'ah'; see Insights to Shabbos 2:1), it needs an additional safeguard.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> answers that since carrying items from one place to another is a common act and is done very frequently, the Rabanan deemed it necessary to make extra decrees to ensure that the prohibition against carrying is observed properly.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAN</b> explains that whenever there is a strong similarity between a situation in which a particular act is Asur mid'Rabanan and a situation in which the same act is Asur mid'Oraisa (and there is a concern that people might confuse the two cases), when the Rabanan enacted their initial decree as a safeguard in the situation of the Isur d'Oraisa, they simply applied that same decree to the situation of the Isur d'Rabanan. In the case of the Gemara here, in which Abaye says that the Rabanan made a decree to prohibit one from standing in a Karmelis and drinking in a Reshus ha'Yachid, since a Karmelis is so similar to Reshus ha'Rabim, the Rabanan included a Karmelis in the decrees that they made with regard to Reshus ha'Rabim. This is also the approach of the <b>MAHARAM</b> and <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b>.
</p><p>
(This explanation is problematic, because the Gemara continues to cite proofs against Rava from Beraisos that discuss carrying an object into Reshus ha'Rabim in a manner that is forbidden only mid'Rabanan (such as carrying something on one's lapel). Such acts do not involve a Karmelis. Why did the Rabanan make decrees to enforce other decrees even when the domain under discussion is <i>not</i> a Karmelis? The Ramban answers that in those cases as well there is logical justification for enforcing rabbinical decrees, because wherever carrying is forbidden on Shabbos (such as from Reshus ha'Yachid into Reshus ha'Rabim), carrying should also be forbidden on Erev Shabbos, lest people confuse the two cases. That is, carrying on Erev Shabbos is so similar to carrying on Shabbos that the decrees made with regard to carrying on Shabbos apply to carrying on Erev Shabbos as well.)
</p><p>
(d) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Mai Lav) seems to understand that Abaye maintains that the Rabanan make decrees to enforce their other decrees in <i>all</i> prohibitions of Shabbos.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) 'CHIYUV' FOR CARRYING IN 'RESHUS HA'RABIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The pouch will keep his [other] garments clean 
          (it should be considered carrying for this reason)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Zeira):</font></b> This Tana holds that anything worn 
          to shield from filth is not considered carrying.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> If a man placed a bowl on a wall in order 
               that the bowl should get wet, and water fell on it, 
               the water is 'Ki Yutan' (it is Machshir produce);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If he placed a bowl so the wall should not get wet, 
               water that falls on the bowl is not Ki Yutan.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> There is different, he does not need the water 
          at all - here, he needs the pouch to shield from filth! 
          Our case resembles the Seifa:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Seifa):</font></b> If water was dripping into a bowl, drops 
               that splash outside or float on top are not Ki Yutan 
               (he does not want them), water in the bowl is Ki 
               Yutan.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Abaye and Rava):</font></b> (Melachah she'Einah Tzericha 
          l'Gufah is a Melachah done for a different purpose than 
          in the Mishkan (Tosfos 94A), or one done to avoid 
          something undesired, without producing something desired 
          (Rashi).) Beraisa #2 is like R. Yehudah (who obligates 
          for Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah), Beraisa #1 is 
          like R. Shimon (who exempts).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - Tana d'vei R. Yishmael):</font></b> A person may walk 
          outside wearing Tefilin on Erev Shabbos close to dark (we 
          are not concerned that he will forget to remove them 
          before Shabbos and carry them in Reshus ha'Rabim on 
          Shabbos).
<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> Rabah bar Rav Huna taught that one must 
          constantly touch Tefilin (when he wears them), we learn 
          from a Kal V'Chomer from the Tzitz (that the Kohen Gadol 
          wears on his forehead):
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Tzitz has Hashem's name on it only once, yet the 
               Torah says 'V'Hayah Al Mitzcho Tamid', the Kohen 
               Gadol may not cease to be aware of it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Hashem's name is written 21 times in each Tefilah, 
               all the more one must constantly be aware of them!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Since he is constantly aware of Tefilin, he will not 
               forget.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - Chananya):</font></b> A person must check his garment on 
          Erev Shabbos [lest there is something in the pocket, he 
          will carry it in Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> This is a great law of Shabbos!
<br>
<b><font>2) DELOUSING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not delouse clothing [or read by light 
          of a lamp].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does this mean?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Possibility #1:</font></b> One may not delouse [even] during 
               the day, lest he kill a louse - it is like R. 
               Eliezer;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> If one kills a louse on 
                    Shabbos he is [liable] like one who killed a 
                    camel;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> One may not read by light of a lamp lest one tilt 
               the lamp [an oil lamp is prone to get dim, tilting 
               it brings more oil to the wick, making it burn 
               better].
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Possibility #2:</font></b> Delousing and reading by light of a 
               lamp are both forbidden lest one tilt it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Beraisa):</font></b> One may not delouse nor read by 
          light of a lamp. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> Why is this different than the Mishnah, which 
          can be understood either way?! (Tosfos - the one who gave 
          Answer #1 thought that the wording of the Beraisa is more 
          like Possibility #2; alternatively, a Beraisa must 
          explain more than a Mishnah, if the concern was killing a 
          louse it should have said so.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Beraisa):</font></b> One may not delouse by light of a 
          lamp nor read by light of a lamp - these are some of the 
          laws said in the attic of Chananyah ben Chizkiyah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Both are forbidden lest one tilt the lamp.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> One may not distinguish between his 
          clothes and his wife's (which are similar) [by 
          lamplight].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> This applies only to city dwellers - farmers' 
          clothes [are narrower, for one works in them] are easily 
          distinguished, it is permitted by lamplight.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Even city dwellers' clothes may be distinguished 
               from young women's clothes (which are very wide) - 
               it is forbidden only to distinguish from clothes of 
               older women (which are also moderately wide).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One should not delouse in Reshus ha'Rabim, for 
          it is dishonorable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  Similarly, R. Yehudah or R. Nechemyah taught that one 
          should not make himself vomit in Reshus ha'Rabim for it 
          is dishonorable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One who delouses his clothes [on Shabbos] may 
          roll the lice between his hands (to weaken them, so they 
          will not return to him) and cast them down, but he may 
          not kill them;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  Aba Sha'ul says, he may remove them and cast them down, 
          but he may not roll them (lest he kill them - Aba Sha'ul 
          obligates for killing them, like R. Eliezer).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> The Halachah permits rolling them, but not 
          kill them - even during the week it is dignified to do so 
          (not to kill them).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  Rabah and Rav Sheshes used to kill them (Rashi - on 
          Shabbos; Riva - on a weekday); Rava would cast them into 
          a vessel of water.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Rav Nachman (to his daughters):</font></b> Kill them, so I will hear 
          the death of my enemies! (R. E.M. Horowitz - he wanted to 
          in publicize that the Halachah follows Beis Hillel [in 
          the following Beraisa], who totally permit killing lice, 
          even in a vengeful way, i.e. Tzericha l'Gufah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> Beis Shamai forbid 
          killing lice on Shabbos; Beis Hillel permit.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b></b>  Beis Shamai forbid the following on Shabbos - to arrange 
          marriages for daughters, to hire teachers to teach sons 
          Torah or a trade, to console mourners, and to visit the 
          sick;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b></b>  Beis Hillel permit them.
<br>
<b><font>3) 'BIKUR CHOLIM' ON SHABBOS </font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One who is Mevaker (investigates the needs of) 
          a Choleh (sick person) on Shabbos says 'It is Shabbos, so 
          we do not pray [for a cure - in any case,] the cure will 
          come soon.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Meir says, the merit of honoring Shabbos [by not 
          feeling pained] will cause Hash-m to have mercy (and cure 
          him)!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'MELACHAH SHE'EINAH TZERICHAH L'GUFAH'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> A fundamental argument concerning the liability of one who performs Melachah on Shabbos involves a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, a Melachah 'that is not needed for itself.' Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon argue whether one is Chayav for performing a Melachah that is 'not needed for itself.' Rebbi Yehudah says that one is Chayav, while Rebbi Shimon says that one is Patur. What exactly is the definition of a Melachah 'that is not needed for itself'?
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (94a, DH Rebbi Shimon Poter) quotes <b>RASHI</b> as saying that a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah is any Melachah that one does in order to <i>prevent</i> something else from happening, or in order to <i>rectify</i> a wrong that was already done. For example, when a person carries a dead body out of a house on Shabbos, his primary intention is to correct an uncomfortable situation (the dead body being in his house); he does not specifically intend to transport the dead body to Reshus ha'Rabim. He would have preferred that no dead body enter his house in the first place.
</p><p>
Tosfos, however, refutes this explanation. In the case of a curtain that has a wormhole and a person tears the curtain some more above the hole and below the hole in order to mend it neatly, he is Chayav (this is the Melachah of Kore'a, Shabbos 75a). According to Rashi, one should be Patur in such a case. The person tears the curtain only in order to prevent further damage, and he would have preferred that the wormhole not be there in the first place!
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (ibid.) defines a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah as any Melachah that is not performed for the same reason for which that Melachah was performed <i>in the Mishkan</i>.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAN</b> (94b) and <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> (106a) write that a Melachah must be performed with the objective for which that activity is <i>normally performed</i>. If one does the Melachah for a purpose other than its normal objective, the act is a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah. For example, digging a pit in order to use the dirt is a Melachah that is not needed for itself, because, normally, the objective of digging is in order to have a pit, and not to use the dirt, which is a secondary outcome of the digging. In addition, a Melachah performed in order to prevent damage from happening, such as capturing a snake in order to prevent it from causing harm to people, is considered a Melachah that is not needed for itself, because the normal objective of the act of capturing an animal is to use the animal. The same applies to carrying an object into Reshus ha'Rabim in order to keep oneself from becoming soiled. This may be Rashi's opinion as well, unlike Tosfos understanding of Rashi (as mentioned in (a) above). This is why tearing a curtain to repair a wormhole is considered an actual Melachah; the person who tears the curtain is primarily interested in having the curtain torn (the primary effect of the Melachah) and not in a secondary outcome of the tearing.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, [he says] 'Hashem will have mercy on you 
          and all Cholei Yisrael.'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi says, 'Hashem will have mercy on you amidst all 
          Cholei Yisrael.'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  Shevna of Yerushalayim says, when he enters [visits a 
          Choleh on Shabbos] he says 'Shalom', when he leaves he 
          says 'It is Shabbos, so we do not pray - the cure will 
          come soon, His mercy is great - rest peacefully.'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Like which Tana is the following?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Chanina):</font></b> If there is a Choleh in one's house, 
               he must request mercy for him amidst all Cholei 
               Yisrael.'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is like R. Yosi.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (R. Chanina):</font></b> With difficulty, Chachamim permitted Bikur 
          Cholim and consolation of mourners on Shabbos (for these 
          sadden people).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> When we would go in back of R. 
          Elazar to Mevaker a Choleh, sometimes he would say 
          'Hashem should bring Shalom upon you', sometimes he would 
          say 'Rachmana (this is Arame'ic for 'the merciful one', 
          i.e. Hash-m) should guide you to Shalom'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But R. Yochanan taught that if one prays for 
          his needs in Arame'ic, the angels do not deal with his 
          prayer (Rashi - to take it up to Hash-m), for they don't 
          know Arame'ic! (Tamim De'im, brought in Etz Yosef in 
          Sotah - if it is with great Kavanah, Hash-m heeds it in 
          any case.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> A prayer said in front of a Choleh is different, 
          for the Shechinah is with him:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Anan):</font></b> The Shechinah is So'er (Mevaker) a 
               Choleh - 'Hash-m Yis'adenu Al Eres Devai', we read 
               this 'Yis'arenu'. (We prefer this text, for 
               according to our text (So'ed, sustains), this is 
               virtually identical to Rava's teaching (below), they 
               should have been taught together.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> One who is Mevaker a Choleh should not 
          sit on a bed or chair (some texts - or a high place), 
          rather, he should cloak himself and sit [in awe] in front 
          of him, for the Shechinah is at the head of a Choleh - 
          'Hash-m Yis'adenu Al Eres Devai'.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rava):</font></b> The Shechinah sustains a Choleh - 'Hash-m 
               Yis'adenu Al Eres Devai (He will sustain us on the 
               bed of the sick)'.
<br>
<b><font>4) READING BY LIGHT OF A LAMP</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not read by light of a lamp.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rabah):</font></b> This is forbidden even if it is twice the height 
          of an [average] person above the floor (he is unlikely to 
          tilt it to make it burn better), or two plowshare lengths 
          above the floor, even the height of 10 houses!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> One person may not read, but two may (for one 
          will remind the other if he goes to tilt it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Contradiction (Beraisa):</font></b> It is forbidden for one or two 
          people.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Resolution (R. Elazar):</font></b> If two people are learning the 
          same matter, it is permitted; if they are learning 
          different matters, it is forbidden (neither pays 
          attention to the other).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> It is forbidden to read by light of a 
          bonfire, even if there are 10 people (everyone is by 
          himself, he will not notice if someone else goes to fix 
          the fire).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> An important person may read by light of a lamp 
          (he normally does not tilt it even on a weekday).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> One may not read by light of a lamp, 
          lest he tilt it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yishmael ben Elisha said, I will read, I will not 
               tilt it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Once, he was reading, and was about to tilt it - he 
               said, how great are the words of Chachamim, who 
               forbade to read by a lamp!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Noson says, he tilted the lamp, and wrote on his 
               ledger 'I, Yishmael ben Elisha, read by a lamp on 
               Shabbos and tilted it - when the Mikdash is rebuilt, 
               I will bring a fat Chatas.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Aba):</font></b> We cannot learn from R. Yishmael, he 
          would [waive his honor] and  act like a commoner for the 
          sake of Torah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #1):</font></b> A servant may check [the cleanliness of] 
          cups and bowls by light of a lamp.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #2):</font></b> A servant may not check cups and bowls by 
          light of a lamp.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Resolution #1:</font></b> A regular [permanent] servant may not 
          check (he is concerned to check very well), a temporary 
          servant may check.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Resolution #2:</font></b> Both refer to a regular servant - it is 
          forbidden with an oil lamp, it is permitted with a 
          kerosene lamp (it smells foul, he will not tilt it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> May a temporary servant check with an oil lamp?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav):</font></b> It is permitted, but we do not in 
          publicize this (lest people will be too lenient).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (R. Yirmeyah bar Aba):</font></b> It is permitted, and we 
          publicize this.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b></b>  R. Yirmeyah bar Aba came to Rav Asi's house; R. 
          Yirmeyah's servant checked by light of a lamp.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Rav Asi's wife (to Rav Asi):</font></b> You do not do so!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Rav Asi:</font></b> Do not protest, he holds like his master.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) ASKING THE ANGELS TO HELP</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara implies that a person should pray in a language which the Mal'achim understand so that they will advocate on his behalf. Does this Gemara support the custom to recite prayers such as 'Machnisei Rachamim' (that some say in Selichos) in which we request that the Mal'achim advocate our cause before Hash-m?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The Acharonim assert that this Gemara does not support the custom of reciting prayers such as 'Machnisei Rachamim.' Even though it is true that the Mal'achim help our prayers find favor before Hash-m, we are not permitted to <i>ask</i> them for their involvement. We must speak only to Hash-m directly; the Mal'achim are Hashem's emissaries, not ours. The Gemara here is saying that we merely may make it easier for the Mal'achim to fulfill their mission by using a language which they understand.
</p><p>
Those who have the custom to say the prayer 'Machnisei Rachamim,' however, are not in error. They are not making <i>requests</i> of the Mal'achim, but rather they are <i>acknowledging</i> to themselves that the Mal'achim are helping their prayers. They find support and encouragement in the knowledge that the Mal'achim are advocating on their behalf.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) PRAYING IN ARAMAIC</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that the Mal'achim do not understand Aramaic. <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH she'Ein Mal'achei ha'Shares) asks how the Gemara can say that the Mal'achim do not understand Aramaic when we know that they understand man's thoughts. If they understand the thoughts of man, then certainly they understand the words that he uses to articulate those thoughts, even if those words are said in Aramaic!
</p><p>
How does Tosfos know that Mal'achim are aware of our thoughts? There seem to be a number of sources that indicate, to the contrary, that Mal'achim do <i>not</i> know our thoughts. First, the <b>MA'ADANEI YOM TOV</b> (Berachos 2:6) points out that the verse says, 'You [Hash-m] alone know the thoughts of man' (Divrei Ha'Yamim II 6:30), and, 'Who knows [the thoughts in the hearts of men]? I, Hash-m, probe thoughts...' (Yirmeyahu 17:9-10). Second, the <b>SEFAS EMES</b> points out that the Zohar (I:101b, Parshas Vayera) explicitly states that the Mal'achim asked Avraham where Sarah was because they only know that which Hash-m lets them know. From where, then, does Tosfos know that the Mal'achim know man's thoughts?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (in <b>BI'UR HA'GRA</b> to <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> OC 101:11) suggests a source for Tosfos' assertion. The Gemara in Berachos (55a) states that 'Iyun Tefilah' causes one's sins to be reviewed in heaven. The Gemara explains that 'Iyun Tefilah' is when a person prays and expects that his prayers will be answered as a result of his concentration in prayer. The Mal'achim see the person's self-confidence in his righteousness and they ask Hash-m to review whether or not he is really righteous, causing all of his sins to be examined (Rashi ibid.). This implies that the Mal'achim know his thoughts, because it is only his thoughts that cause the Mal'achim to review his sins. It must be that the Mal'achim assigned to Tefilah are given the ability to understand thoughts in order to appropriately advocate for or against the fulfillment of one's prayers, because part of their advocacy depends on what the person thinks while he prays.
</p><p>
However, if, as Tosfos writes, the Mal'achim understand man's thoughts, then how are we to understand the Gemara here? Why do the Mal'achim not understand words spoken in Aramaic if they understand man's thought?
</p><p>
1. Perhaps Tosfos' assertion that Mal'achim know man's thoughts is incorrect, and they indeed do not know man's thoughts, as many Acharonim maintain (as mentioned above).
</p><p>
2. The <b>RA'AVAD</b> (in <b>TAMIM DE'IM</b>, cited by the Gilyon ha'Shas) suggests that even though the Mal'achim understand thoughts and, therefore, they understand prayers recited in Aramaic, Hash-m does not want the Mal'achim to advocate for prayers that were recited in Aramaic, lest the people start using that language for their prayers instead of using Lashon ha'Kodesh. (According to the Ra'avad's explanation, this concern should to prayers recited in any language other than Lashon ha'Kodesh. However, if a person is unable to pray in Lashon ha'Kodesh, then the Mal'achim nevertheless are given the ability to advocate on his behalf, since he is not rejecting Lashon ha'Kodesh by choice.)
</p><p>
3. The <b>ROSH</b> (Berachos 2:2) and Ra'avad (ibid.) suggest that the Mal'achim do understand Aramaic, since they understand thoughts, but it is a repulsive language to them because it is a perversion of Lashon ha'Kodesh, the holy language. They therefore do not advocate on behalf of one who prays in Aramaic.
</p><p>
4. The Rosh and Ra'avad mention another explanation. The Mal'achim listen only to Lashon ha'Kodesh and <i>no</i> other language. The Gemara mentions Aramaic because one might have thought that the Mal'achim do listen to prayers recited in Aramaic because it closely resembles Lashon ha'Kodesh. Therefore, the Gemara says that the Mal'achim do not listen <i>even</i> to Aramaic.
</p><p>


<font><b>4) THE PROHIBITION AGAINST READING BY THE LIGHT OF A FLAME ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnayos mention many enactments that the Rabanan made in order to protect the sanctity of Shabbos. In many cases, the Mishnah mentions the reason for the enactment (for example, 'A tailor should not go out with a needle, <i>lest he forget</i>...'). Why does the Mishnah (11a) not mention the reason for the prohibition against reading by the light of a flame on Shabbos? (<b>P'NEI YEHOSHUA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The Tana of the Mishnah does not include the reason for this enactment in the Mishnah because he wants to teach that even where the reason does not seem to apply, the prohibition remains in force. The Gemara in Sanhedrin (21b) says that the reasons for the Mitzvos and prohibitions in the Torah were not revealed so that people would not say that the reason does not apply to them and permit for themselves that which the Torah forbids. Similarly, the Chachamim did not reveal the reason for the prohibition against reading by the light of a flame, because they did not want a person to think that the enactment does not apply to him if he will be especially careful not to tip the lamp (and, as a result, he will inadvertently tip the lamp and desecrate Shabbos). 
</p><p>
This is what Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha means when he says, 'How great are the words of the Chachamim who said, 'One should not read by the light of a candle!' -- that is, how great is the wisdom of the Chachamim who taught the Halachah but did not continue and teach the reason, 'lest he tip the lamp' -- so that no one should say that the reason does not apply to him and inadvertently sin! (<b>MAHARATZ CHAYOS</b> in the name of the <b>VILNA GA'ON</b>)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) DECREES TO PREVENT SIN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> However, a teacher...[he himself may not 
          read].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Reisha permits him to see where they 
          are reading;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> He also reads!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He only reviews the beginning of the Parshiyos 
          (he remembers the rest).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> He may read the entire Parshah [just like 
          children]!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> Children in the 
               house of their Rebbi may arrange the Parshiyos and 
               read by light of a lamp.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> Also children may read only the beginning of 
          the Parshiyos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> We are more lenient about children, for the 
          fear of their Rebbi is on them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Similarly, a Zav may not eat [with a Zavah...]
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> People are very careful 
          about Taharos!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Even though there is no prohibition for a Zav to 
               have relations, the Mishnah did not need to forbid a 
               Tahor to eat with a Teme'ah (for he would not eat 
               with her anyway, lest she Metamei his food)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Rather, it only needs to forbid a Zav from eating 
               with a Zavah, lest they come to have relations.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  Similarly - a Zav Parush (he is meticulous about Taharah) 
          should not eat with an ignoramus Zav, lest he will cause 
          the latter to come frequently. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is wrong if the ignoramus come frequently 
          (the Parush is Tamei anyway)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> Rather, we are concerned that the ignoramus 
          will give Tamei food to the Parush to eat.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> The Parush is eating Tamei food in any case 
          when he is a Zav!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> Rather, we are concerned that the 
          ignoramus will give untithed food to the Parush to eat.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> Most ignoramuses tithe properly (we 
          would not decree on account of the minority)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Rava):</font></b> Rather, we are concerned that when the 
          Parush is Tahor, the ignoramus will give Tamei food to 
          him to eat.
<br>
<b><font>2) MAY ONE SLEEP IN THE SAME BED WITH A 'NIDAH'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> May a Nidah sleep [in the same bed] with her 
          husband, when each is in his or her own garment?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Yosef -- Mishnah - Beis Shamai):</font></b> Fowl may 
          be put on the same table as cheese, but they may not be 
          eaten together;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Beis Hillel say, they may not be put on the same 
               table nor eaten together. (Likewise, we decree 
               regarding a Nidah - the Halachah follows Beis 
               Hillel. Also, perhaps even Beis Shamai would agree 
               that we decree concerning Nidah, it is mid'Oraisa.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> Perhaps we need not decree about Nidah, since 
          there are two people (if one forgets, the other will 
          remind him).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Version #1 - Support of Rejection:</font></b> The Seifa of that 
          Mishnah shows that we need not decree when there are two 
          people!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> Two lodgers may 
               eat at the same table, one meat and the other 
               cheese, we are not concerned.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> R. Chanan bar Ami taught, this is only if they 
          do not know each other, but if they know each other, it 
          is forbidden;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Here also, the husband and wife know each other, it 
               should be forbidden!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Lodgers that know each other are forbidden, for 
          even though there are two of them, there is no Shinuy 
          (something different to remind them not to share food);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Here, the question is if they may sleep together 
               with a Shinuy, i.e. each is clothed (normally, they 
               sleep unclothed).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Version #2 - Support (of Rav Yosef - Mishnah - R. Shimon 
          ben Gamliel): Two lodgers may eat at the same table, one 
          meat and the other cheese, we are not concerned;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Chanan bar Ami):</font></b> This is only if they do not 
               know each other, but if they know each other, it is 
               forbidden.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Here also, the husband and wife know each other, it 
               is forbidden!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> Lodgers that know each other are forbidden, 
          for even though there are two of them, there is no Shinuy 
          - here, there is a Shinuy! (end of Version #2) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Support (for Rav Yosef - Mishnah):</font></b> Similarly, a Zav may 
          not eat [with a Zavah...]
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> There also, there are two people, but there is 
          no Shinuy!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Support (for Rav Yosef - Beraisa):</font></b> '...V'Es Eshes Re'ehu 
          Lo Timei v'el Ishah Nidah Lo Yikrav' - the verse equates 
          a Nidah to another man's wife:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Just like one may not sleep [in the same bed] with 
               another man's wife (even seclusion with her is 
               forbidden), even if both are clothed, the same 
               applies to one's own wife when she is Nidah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  Rav Yosef argues with R. Pedas:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Pedas):</font></b> (It says 'Lo Sikrevu Legalos Ervah' -) 
               the Torah forbids only actual relations with Ervah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  When Ula would come home from learning, he would kiss his 
          sisters on the [garment over their] chest; some say, on 
          the arm. (Tosfos - he was a total Tzadik, he was sure 
          that this would not have cause him to have lust. Chasam 
          Sofer - this is a Mashal for the way he embraced Chachmah 
          - nevertheless, the Gemara challenges this [immediately], 
          for one should not use a Mashal of doing an Isur.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  Ula contradicts himself!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Ula):</font></b> Even approaching Arayos is forbidden - 'Lech 
               Lech Amri Nezira...' (one must distance himself from 
               sin).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Tana d'vei Eliyahu):</font></b> A case occurred, a Talmid who had 
          learned and served Chachamim greatly died very young. His 
          wife took his Tefilin around to Batei Medrash and 
          synagogues, and asked:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It says 'Ki Hi Orech Yamecha' - my husband learned 
               and served Chachamim greatly, why did he die young?!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) READING BY THE LIGHT OF A FLAME</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara (end of 12b) says that although one may read the 'Roshei Parshiyos' (chapter headings) by the light of a flame on Shabbos (because one knows them by heart and does not need to look intently into the books, -Rashi), he may not read the entire chapter (because this requires more concentration and we are concerned that he may inadvertently tilt the lamp). The Gemara challenges this ruling from a Beraisa which states that the schoolchildren would study the Torah portion by the light of a flame.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara ask from a Beraisa, when the Mishnah (11a) also states that children study by the light of a flame? (This question is valid only according to Rashi's first explanation of the Mishnah.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Meisivei) answers that the Gemara does not ask from the Mishnah, because it is possible that the Mishnah is referring to children who <i>wrongly</i> read by the light of a flame. The Gemara could not ask from the Mishnah that reading by the light of a flame is permitted, because the children mentioned in our Mishnah are doing so improperly.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> explains that the Mishnah refers to when the children are reading in front of their Rebbi. Since the fear of their Rebbi is upon them, they will not make <i>any</i> movement, and certainly they will not tilt the lamp, without their Rebbi's express permission. The Beraisa, in contrast, is discussing children who are reading when their Rebbi is not present, and therefore the Gemara asks that we see from the Beraisa that it is permitted to read by the light of a flame. The Gemara answers that even though their Rebbi is not present, they still sit in fear of him and therefore there is no concern that they will tilt the lamp.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RITVA</b> and <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> answer that the Mishnah refers to when the Rebbi is reading with his students, and therefore they are like two people reading together. The Gemara earlier says that two people may read together by the light of a flame because they will guard each other from tilting the lamp. In the case of the Beraisa, though, the Rebbi is not reading with the students.
</p><p>
(d) <b>RAV NISIM GA'ON</b> quotes the Yerushalmi that gives another answer for the Gemara's question from the Beraisa. The Yerushalmi answers that the case in the Beraisa is different; children are permitted to study by the light of a flame because we have no fear that they will tilt the lamp, because they <i>want</i> the flame to go out (and tilting the lamp lengthens the time that it burns) so that they can stop learning and go play!
</p><p>
Perhaps the Gemara understands that the Mishnah refers to such children who would never even attempt, even accidentally, to lengthen the time that they have to sit and study, which is why they are permitted to read by the light of a flame. However, the Beraisa is discussing children who are 'preparing their studies for the following day,' in which case there is a concern that they will tilt the lamp in order to make sure that they do not run out of time to finish what they need to study. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> No one answered her. Once, I (Eliyahu) stayed by her 
               - she told the story to me.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Eliyahu:</font></b> How did he act with you when you were 
               Nidah?
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> The widow:</font></b> He didn't even touch my pinky!
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Eliyahu:</font></b> How did he act with you when you were 
               counting seven clean days? (Rashi - after Zivah, she 
               is still like a Nidah until immersing; R. Tam - she 
               already immersed and was Tehorah mid'Oraisa, but all 
               Benos Yisrael are concerned for Zivah, to require 
               seven clean days before immersing after any sighting 
               of blood.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> The widow:</font></b> He would eat and drink with me and sleep 
               [in the same bed] without clothes [on either of us], 
               but he never even considered relations!
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Eliyahu:</font></b> Blessed is Hash-m who killed him, and did 
               not show partiality [to overlook his Mezid 
               transgression] on account of his Torah! It says 
               'V'El Ishah b'Nidas Tum'asah Lo Sikrav'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Rav Dimi):</font></b> The Talmid had one [wide] bed (and would not 
          contact her, therefore he was lenient to sleep with her).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef):</font></b> She used to wear a garment over 
          her Ervah (therefore he was lenient).
<br>
<b><font>3) THE EIGHTEEN DECREES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> These are among the Halachos said in the attic 
          of Chananyah ben Chizkiyah when Chachamim came to visit 
          him (this will be explained);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  They counted, and found that Beis Shamai outnumbered Beis 
          Hillel; they decreed 18 things that day.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Abaye) Question:</font></b> Does the Mishnah say 'Elu' 
          (these, i.e. the following) Halachos, or 'v'Elu' (the 
          previous) Halachos?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yosef - Beraisa):</font></b> One may not delouse 
          clothing nor read by light of a lamp - these are among 
          the Halachos said in the attic of Chananyah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This shows that the text is 'v'Elu'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa) Question:</font></b> Who wrote Megilas Ta'anis (days when 
          it is forbidden to fast or eulogize, on account of 
          miracles done for Yisrael)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Chananyah ben Chizkiyah and his colleagues wrote 
          it, they afflictions [and the salvation from them] were 
          very dear to them;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, afflictions are dear to us 
          also - but if we would write them all, we would not 
          finish (alternatively - we could not make every day a Yom 
          Tov)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Also - a fool does not recognize when he is stricken (we 
          do not know many of the miracles done for us)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  Also - flesh of a Mes does not feel when it is cut (we 
          have suffered so much, we barely feel the afflictions and 
          salvations).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But R. Yitzchak taught, 'Ach Besaro Alav 
          Yich'av v'Nafsho Alav Te'eval' - worms [consuming a Mes] 
          hurt it like a needle hurts live flesh!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Correction:</font></b> Dead flesh of a live person does not feel 
          when it is cut.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Blessed is Chananyah ben Chizkiyah - if 
          not for him, Sefer Yechezkeil would have been Nignaz 
          (buried), for it [seemingly] contradicts the Torah!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Chananyah brought 300 barrels of oil up to his attic 
               [to enable learning at night] and resolved the 
               difficulties.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> They decreed 18 things.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What are other decrees [among the 18]? (We 
          already mentioned (1) delousing and (2) reading by light 
          of a lamp. The Gemara will complete the count of 18 on 
          Daf 17B. We count according to Rashi (17B).)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer (Decrees #3-11) (Mishnah):</font></b> The following Posel 
          Terumah (make it a Shelishi l'Tum'ah) - one who eats a 
          Rishon (3) or Sheni l'Tum'ah (4), or drank Tamei liquids 
          (5) (all of the decrees will be explained);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> [A Tevul Yom, i.e. one who immersed from Tum'ah 
               today] who entered his head or the majority of his 
               body in Mayim She'uvim (water that was in a Kli) (6) 
               (even after nightfall, he is Posel Terumah until he 
               immerses again) or even one who is [fully] Tahor who 
               had three Lugim of Mayim She'uvim poured on his head 
               (7);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> One who touched a Sefer [Torah, Nevi'im or Kesuvim] 
               (8), [Stam] hands (9) (they have not been guarded in 
               Taharah);
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> A Tevul Yom (9), food (10) or vessels (11) that 
               became Tamei through liquids,
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) HALACHAH: EATING WITH ONE'S WIFE WHO IS A NIDAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> In the account (cited from Tana d'Vei Eliyahu) of the young scholar who died as a result of his improper conduct with his wife when she was a Nidah, the wife of that scholar said that during the days of Libun he ate and drank with her and slept in the same bed with her. Eliyahu exclaimed that the young scholar deserved to die, because the Torah prohibits such close contact between a man and his wife when she is a Nidah. 
</p><p>
Is eating and drinking with one's wife when she is a Nidah prohibited? If it is not prohibited, then why does the Gemara record that they ate and drank together?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH bi'Yemei Libunech) says that the Gemara records that they ate together for no special reason, but rather simply because that is what happened. Eliyahu's exclamation was only in response to the fact that they slept in the same bed together. There is nothing wrong with eating and drinking with one's wife when she is a Nidah.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ROSH</b> (1:32) says that their eating and drinking together was indeed inappropriate, because in those days they used to eat on a single, small table, and eating together on such a small table was considered an activity of intimacy. The Rosh adds that even today, when we eat at large tables, it is best for a man and his wife who is a Nidah to place an object as a reminder between them while they eat. (The <b>HAGAHOS ASHIRI</b> writes that if they usually eat from one plate, then they should eat from two plates, and no further reminder is necessary. Perhaps the young scholar and his wife ate from one plate, which was improper.)
</p><p>


<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (YD 195:3) rules like the Rosh (and many other Rishonim) that one may not eat at the same table with one's wife who is a Nidah unless they place an object (which is not normally placed on the table) between them, or their plates are placed on separate tablemats. The <b>REMA</b> cites and rules like the Hagahos Ashiri that if a husband and wife normally eat together from one plate, then when she is a Nidah they may eat from two separate plates without any additional reminder.
</p><p>
The <b>SHACH</b> cites the <b>BACH</b> who adds that besides eating from separate plates, they must also have other members of the household sitting at their table.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THINGS THAT ARE 'POSEL' THE 'TERUMAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Tana holds that one who eats a Rishon or 
          Sheni is Posel Terumah, he does not Metamei it (make it 
          able to Posel other Terumah, e.g. a Sheni) - who is the 
          Tana?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> It is R. Yehoshua:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah - R. Eliezer):</font></b> One who eats a Rishon 
               becomes a Rishon, one who eats a Sheni becomes a 
               Sheni, one who eats a Shelishi becomes a Shelishi;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehoshua says, one who eats a Rishon or Sheni 
               becomes a Sheni; Sheni becomes a Sheni, one who eats 
               a Shelishi becomes a Sheni regarding Kodesh, but not 
               regarding Terumah;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  This refers to Chulin Al Taharas (guarded as if 
                    they were) Terumah (but regular Chulin cannot 
                    become a Shelishi).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why did they decree that one who eats a Rishon 
          or Sheni becomes a Sheni?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This is a decree lest he put Terumah liquids in 
          his mouth together with Tamei food, which would Posel the 
          Terumah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why did they decree that one who drinks a Tamei 
          liquid becomes a Sheni?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This is a decree lest he put Terumah food in his 
          mouth together with Tamei liquids.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This is just like the previous decree (why are 
          they counted separately)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that we do not make the 
          latter decree, because [it is common to drink while 
          eating, but] it is not common to eat while drinking - the 
          Mishnah teaches, this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One [a Tevul Yom] who entered his head or his 
          majority in Mayim She'uvim [is Posel Terumah].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why was this decreed?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> People used to immerse in [Mikva'os of] stinking 
          water in caves; afterwards, they would pour [three Lugim 
          of] Mayim She'uvim on their heads - it became Keva 
          (primary), so they decreed about it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does it mean, 'it became Keva'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> People used to say that the Mikvah is 
          not Metaher without the Mayim She'uvim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> That would not be a problem, for they 
          would continue to immerse in the Mikvah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> People used to say that the Mikvah is 
          not Metaher, only the Mayim She'uvim are.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A Tahor who had three Lugim of Mayim She'uvim 
          poured on his head.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why was this decreed (the above reason applies 
          only to a Tevul Yom)?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> If not for this decree on all people, the decree 
          on a Tevul Yom would not be followed.
<br>
<b><font>2) 'TUM'AH' OF HANDS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One who touched a Sefer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why was this decreed?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Mesharshiya):</font></b> People used to store Terumah in 
          the same place that Sifrei Torah were kept, for both of 
          them are Kodesh;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Terumah [attracted mice, which] caused Seforim 
               to be ruined - they decreed Tum'ah on Seforim [to 
               discourage the practice].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> [Stam] hands.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why was this decreed?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Hands touch many things (Rashi - perhaps they 
          will touch filth and debase Terumah; alternatively - 
          perhaps they touched Tum'ah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Even hands that touched a Sefer Posel Terumah, 
          on account of R. Parnach's teaching:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Parnach):</font></b> One who holds [the parchment of] a 
               Sefer Torah in his bare hand [not through a cloth] 
               will be buried bare.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Objection:</font></b> This is unreasonable!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Correction:</font></b> Rather, he will be buried bare of 
               Mitzvos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Objection:</font></b> This is unreasonable!
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Correction:</font></b> Rather, he will be buried bare of that 
               Mitzvah (of learning in it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Which of these two decrees was first?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> We cannot say that the decree on Stam hands was 
               first - if so, there would be no need to decree on 
               hands that touched a Sefer!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) EATING TERUMAH THAT IS TAMEI</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara explains that the reason the Rabanan made a decree that a person becomes Tamei if he eats food that was Tamei with Sheini l'Tum'ah is because he might put Terumah into his mouth when the Tamei food is there, and the Terumah will become Tamei ('Shlishi'). <b>RASHI</b> (DH u'Pasil Lehu) explains that he will thereby transgress the Mitzvah to preserve the Taharah of Terumah.
</p><p>
Why does Rashi not give the much more obvious concern, that if the Terumah becomes Tamei from the other food inside his mouth, he will be eating Terumah Teme'ah, which is punishable with death?
</p><p>
This question may also be asked on the Gemara itself. The Gemara says that the problem is that he might put Terumah in his mouth and 'invalidate it' ('u'Pasil Lehu'; that is, make it Tamei). The Gemara should have said instead that he may put Terumah in his mouth and 'eat Terumah which is Tamei' (which is a very severe transgression)!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> says that indeed both concerns exist, and the Gemara and Rashi simply chose to express one of them.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHASH</b> cites the Mishnah in Terumos (8:2) that states that if one was eating Terumah and it became Tamei while he was eating it, Rebbi Yehoshua says that he must spit it out, and Rebbi Eliezer says that he should swallow it so that he does not transgress the prohibition against wasting Terumah. Why is he permitted to swallow the Terumah Teme'ah if it is forbidden to eat Terumah Teme'ah?
</p><p>
The <b><b><b>RI</b></b> BEN MALKI</b>-<b>TZEDEK</b> (Terumos ibid.) explains that at the moment that he starts chewing on the Terumah, the Terumah is already considered to be consumed. When he subsequently swallows it, it is no longer considered an act of eating Terumah Teme'ah. Since the Gemara here is explaining the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer as well as the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua, it cannot say that the concern is that one might end up eating Terumah Teme'ah, because -- according to Rebbi Eliezer -- he would <i>not</i> be liable for eating Terumah Teme'ah, since he already put the Terumah in his mouth and started to chew it!
</p><p>


<font><b>2) TAKING A SHOWER AFTER IMMERSING IN A MIKVAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses the decrees that were enacted by the Chachamim during their assembly in the upper chamber of Chananyah ben Chizkiyah. Among them was the decree that one who immerses in a Mikvah and then puts his head and most of his body into drawn water (Mayim She'uvim) is Tamei, and the decree that one who immerses in the Mikvah and then has three Lugin of water poured over him is Tamei. What is the difference between the two decrees?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (13b, DH v'Tahor) explains that the common practice (before the decree) was that immediately after immersing in a Mikvah, one would pour over himself drawn water in order to clean himself. The Rabanan feared that people would begin to think that the drawn water is what makes the person Tahor, and not the Mikvah, and therefore they decreed that not only should one not pour drawn water over himself after immersing, but one should not <i>submerge</i> himself into a pool of drawn water either (and if one does so, he becomes Tamei). Even though people did not normally submerge themselves into drawn water after immersing in the Mikvah, the Rabanan decreed that one who does so is Tamei in order to ensure that people do not mistakenly think that pouring water over oneself also makes one Tahor. This was the first decree, and it applies only on the <i>same day</i> upon which the person immersed himself (i.e. when he is a Tevul Yom).
</p><p>
In a separate enactment, the Rabanan decreed that if it is no longer the same day on which the person immersed himself in a Mikvah, he may <i>submerge</i> himself in drawn water, but he may not <i>pour</i> drawn water over himself. The fact that it is a separate day makes it different in one respect from the original situation about which the Rabanan were concerned and which prompted the first decree, and therefore the Rabanan decreed only that one may not have drawn water poured over him. (A decree that one also may not submerge in drawn water would have been different from the original situation in two ways, and thus it would have been be too far removed from the original situation to warrant making a decree.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos She'ar Avos ha'Tum'ah 9:2) says that both decrees are essentially the same; both pouring water on oneself and submerging in water make a person Tamei. The only difference is that one decree applies to the day of immersion, and one applies to the day after immersion. The original decree applied only on the day of immersion, but subsequently the Rabanan made a decree for the day after as well.
</p><p>
(This explanation is problematic, because the Gemara expresses the decrees in terms of two different actions -- submerging oneself in drawn water, and pouring drawn water over oneself -- which implies that the two decrees are not identical. It could be that the decrees were phrased with two different actions because that is what the people normally did at the two respective times. That is, immediately after going to the Mikvah, they would pour water over themselves, and then the next day (or the night that followed the day they immersed) they would take a bath.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The decree on hands that touched a Sefer was 
          first.
<br>
<b><font>3) OTHER THINGS THAT ARE 'POSEL' THE 'TERUMAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A Tevul Yom.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This is not a decree, he is Posel Terumah 
          mid'Oraisa - 'U'Va ha'Shemesh v'Taher'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Correction:</font></b> We must delete Tevul Yom from the Mishnah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Food that became Tamei through liquids.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What kind of liquids were Metamei the food?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> The liquids touched a Sheretz.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> If so, the food is Posel Terumah 
               mid'Oraisa!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The liquids touched [Stam] hands - this is a 
          decree on account of liquids that touched a Sheretz.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Vessels that became Tamei through liquids.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What kind of liquids were Metamei the vessels?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> They are fluids of a Zav (spit, 
               urine...)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> If so, the vessels are Posel Terumah 
          mid'Oraisa!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'V'Chi Yarok ha'Zav ba'Tahor' - if a Zav spits on 
               something the Tahor holds, he is Metamei it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The liquids touched a Sheretz - this is a decree 
          on account of fluids of a Zav.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We said that these decrees were made when Beis 
          Shamai outnumbered Beis Hillel - but Hillel and Shamai 
          themselves decreed about hands, not their Talmidim!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> Yosi ben Yo'ezer and Yosi ben Yochanan 
               decreed Tum'ah on Chutz la'Aretz and on glass 
               vessels;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Shimon Ben Shetach enacted [a lien on all a man's 
               property to pay a] Kesuvah and decreed Tum'ah on 
               metal vessels (this will be explained);
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Hillel and Shamai decreed Tum'ah on [Stam] hands.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps this means, Hillel and his 
               followers and Shamai and his followers decreed.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> Rav Yehudah taught that there was an 
               argument about all 18 things decreed - Hillel and 
               Shamai argued about only three things [and Tum'ah of 
               hands was not among them]!
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> Hillel and Shamai argued about 
                    three things and nothing else.
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps Hillel and Shamai decreed to 
               Toleh Terumah touched by Stam hands, and their 
               Talmidim decreed to burn it!
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> Ilfa taught that the initial decree 
               regarding [Terumah that touched Stam] hands was to 
               burn it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Hillel and Shamai decreed about Terumah touched 
          by Stam hands, the decree was not accepted; their 
          Talmidim decreed, the decree was accepted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Shlomo decreed this [long before Hillel and 
          Shamai]!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> When Shlomo decreed Eiruvin and 
               Netilas Yadayim, a Bas Kol (voice from Shamayim) 
               said 'Beni Im Chacham Libecha Yismach Libi Gam Ani' 
               and 'Chacham Beni v'Samach Libi va'Ashivah Chorfi 
               Davar'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Shlomo decreed regarding Kodshim, they decreed 
          regarding Terumah.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) THE JEWS DID NOT ACCEPT THE GEZEIRAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Why did the Jews not accept the original decree of Shamai and Hillel who decreed that normal, un-watched hands are Tamei, and they only accepted it later when it was reinstated by the disciples of Shamai and Hillel?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> writes that the people could not accept such a strict measure to <i>burn</i> Terumah on account of a Tum'ah decreed by the Rabanan, since the Torah forbids destroying Terumah if it is Tahor. They accepted the decree only later when the disciples repeated it, for by then they had become accustomed to the notion of burning Terumah that is Tamei with a Tum'ah decreed by the Rabanan.
</p><p>
(b) It could be that the students of Hillel who argued with the students of Shamai and wanted to be Metaher the hands maintained that Hillel never participated in the original decree to make the hands Tamei (for it is not logical to assert that Hillel's students would rule contrary to a decree that their own master instituted). That is why it was not accepted. Later, though, when the students of Hillel saw that they were outnumbered, they conceded to the decree and everyone accepted it. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) WHAT HILLEL AND SHAMAI ARGUED ABOUT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> There was an argument about all 18 things 
          decreed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> They agreed about everything.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> On that day (of the vote) they argued, on the 
          morrow [Beis Hillel retracted and] they agreed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> Hillel and Shamai argued about three things:
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Argument #1) (Mishnah - Shamai):</font></b> One must separate 
          Chalah from a dough of at least a Kav of flour;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Hillel says, [a dough of at least] two Kavim is liable;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, one and a half Kavim are liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  After measures were increased, one and a quarter [of the 
          new] Kavim are liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi says, one and a quarter Kavim are exempt, more 
          than this is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Argument #2) (Mishnah - Hillel):</font></b> A Hin (12 Lugim) of 
          Mayim She'uvim is Posel a Mikvah;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> [Normally, Chachamim discuss Lugim] - Hillel said 
               'Hin', for one must repeat exactly what he heard 
               from his Rebbi;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  Shamai says, nine Kavim (#2) is Posel;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, neither of these is correct, but they did 
          not know the Shi'ur until two weavers from Sha'ar 
          ha'Ashpah testified in the in the name of Shemayah and 
          Avtalyon that the Shi'ur is three Lugim - the testimony 
          was accepted. (Their profession and residence were 
          recorded to teach that no one should shy away from the 
          Beis Medrash - people of a lowly profession from a lowly 
          place established the Halachah!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Argument #3) (Mishnah - Shamai):</font></b> If any woman sees that 
          she became Nidah, Dayah Sha'atah (she is Teme'ah from now 
          and onwards, not retroactively);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  Hillel says, she is retroactively Teme'ah from her last 
          Bedikah (when she checked herself and found herself to be 
          Tehorah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, she is never retroactively Teme'ah for 
          more than 24 hours; if her last Bedikah was in the last 
          24 hours, she is retroactively Teme'ah from then.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Questions:</font></b> They argued about other things!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question #1 (Mishnah - Hillel):</font></b> We do Semichah on 
               Nedarim and Nedavos on Yom Tov;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Shamai says, we do not Somech on Yom Tov.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Rav Huna only lists arguments that started 
               with Hillel and Shamai (the previous Nesi'im and 
               Avos Beis Din argued about Semichah).
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Question #2 (Beraisa -Shamai):</font></b> If one harvests 
               grapes in order to make wine, the juice that drips 
               from them is Machshir them (for he wants the juice 
               to exude);
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> Hillel says, it is not Machshir.
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> That is not counted, for Hillel later agreed 
               to Shamai.
<br>
<b><font>2) THE DECREES OF TUM'AS CHUTZ LA'ARETZ</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Yosi ben Yo'ezer and Yosi ben Yochanan decreed 
          Tum'ah on Chutz la'Aretz and on glass vessels;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This was decreed by Chachamim 80 years before 
          the Churban (long after Yosi and Yosi)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi):</font></b> The evil kingdom (Romi) 
               started to conquer Eretz Yisrael 180 years before 
               the Churban;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> They decreed Tum'ah on Chutz la'Aretz and on glass 
               vessels 80 years before the Churban;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Forty years before the Churban, the Great Sanhedrin 
               exiled itself to Chanuyos (a place in Har ha'Bayis).
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What do we learn from this?
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> (Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi): After they exiled 
               themselves, fines were not enforced.
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Objection:</font></b> That cannot be! (Fines do not depend on 
               the Sanhedrin sitting in its place; also, Rav 
               Yehudah taught that [after the Churban] R. Yehudah 
               ben Bava gave Semichah to five Chachamim, enabling 
               the continuation of collection of fines!)
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Correction (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> Rather, after 
               they exiled themselves, capital punishment was not 
               enforced.
       <br><b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps Yosi ben Yo'ezer and Yosi ben 
               Yochanan lived [and made their decrees] 80 years 
               before the Churban!
       <br><b>   <b><font>9.  </font></b><font> Rejection (Beraisa):</font></b> The Nesi'im during the last 100 
               years before the Churban were Hillel, Shimon, 
               Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. 
               Gamliel who was Nasi in Yavneh);
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Yosi and Yosi were long before Hillel!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE MINIMUM AMOUNT REQUIRED FOR CHALAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara quotes Rav Huna who says that there were three occasions on which Shamai and Hillel argued. The first involved the minimum amount of dough required for Chalah to be separated from the dough. Shamai required that there be at least one Kav of dough in order for one to be obligated to separate Chalah from it. Hillel required two Kavim. The Chachamim argued with both Shamai and Hillel and said that there must be at least one and a half Kavim of dough.
</p><p>
The Chachamim's opinion is simple to understand. One and a half Kavim is equivalent to the quantity of Man that fell for each person every day when the Jews traveled through the wilderness. (There are 432 eggs in one Eifah. Hence, 1/10 of an Eifah equals 43.2 eggs, which equals 1.8 Kavim in Midbariyos units (24 eggs = 1 Kav), which is 1.5 Kavim in Yerushalmiyos units.) The Chachamim derive from a verse that the requirement of Chalah is equivalent to the amount of Man that fell for each person. What, though, is the reasoning of Shamai and Hillel?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Shamai Omer) cites the Yerushalmi that explains that Shamai and Hillel also derived their amounts from the Man, but they measured the Man differently from the way the Chachamim measured it. Even though the Man that fell each day was 1/10 of an Eifah, they both understood that the tenth was a tenth 'from the outside' (that is, if it is added with another nine parts, it equals ten parts), or, in our terms, 1/9 of an Eifah. (The Man, therefore, measured 48 eggs (1/9 of 432), which equals 2 Kavim.) 
</p><p>
Hillel maintained that Chalah must be separated from dough of that quantity, and thus he required at least 2 Kavim. Shamai said that Chalah needs to be taken from <i>one meal's worth</i> of the quantity of Man that fell. Since the Man fell in quantities of two meals' worth, and the total amount of Man was 2 Kavim, Shamai required that Chalah be separated from 1 Kav of dough. (Accordingly, Hillel and Shamai are not discussing the same type of Kavim that the Chachamim are discussing. They are discussing Kavim of Midbariyos units, and the Chachamim are discussing Kavim of Yerushalmiyos units.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> cites <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who explains the respective reasons of Hillel and Shamai. Hillel and Shamai agree that the amount of Chalah that the Torah requires us to separate is a significant amount, which means a measure of at least one egg. The Torah, therefore, requires us to separate Chalah only when there is enough dough from which to separate one whole egg unit of dough as Chalah. 
</p><p>
The Mishnah (in Maseches Chalah) teaches that a Ba'al ha'Bayis (one baking bread for his own personal use) separates 1/24 of his dough for Chalah, and a professional baker (who uses large amounts of dough) separates only 1/48 for Chalah. This fair percentage must have been the practice before the Rabanan officially instituted it as law. Hillel maintained that one Kav of dough is the minimum amount that can be obligated in Chalah, because when the Ba'al ha'Bayis separates 1/24, he has one egg's worth (because 1 Kav = 24 eggs). Shamai maintained that the Torah's directive to separate Chalah also refers to a professional baker, and thus the minimum amount of dough that is obligated is 2 Kavim (such that when one separates 1/48 of it, he separates one egg's worth).
</p><p>


<font><b>2) SPEAKING IN THE DIALECT OF ONE'S REBBI</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Hillel said that a 'Melo Hin' of drawn water invalidates a Mikvah. Hillel concluded his statement by saying, '... because a person is required to speak the way his Rebbi speaks.' What was Hillel's intention in making that statement?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH she'Chayav) explains that Hillel was explaining why he used the name for the unit of measure that the Torah uses ('Hin'), and not the name of the measure used by the Rabanan ('Lug').
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (in Perush ha'Mishnayos, Eduyos 1:3) explains in the name of his father that since Hillel's teachers, Shemayah and Avtalyon, were converts (Berachos 19a), they spoke with the inflection of the language of the land in which they were raised. Instead of 'Melo <i>Hin</i>,' they pronounced the words, 'Melo <i>Ein</i>.' Hillel would therefore repeat the words with the same mispronunciation of his teachers and excuse himself, 'I know that I mispronounced it, but that is the way my Rebbi spoke!'
</p><p>
(c) The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (Eduyos 1:3) explains that it does not seem reasonable to suggest that a person is required to mispronounce words the way his Rebbi did. Instead, he explains that since Shemayah and Avtalyon could not pronounce 'Hin' properly and said 'Ein' instead, they feared that their students might misunderstand what they were saying. They might think that their teachers were saying '<i>Ein</i> Mayim She'uvim Poslim Es ha'Mikvah' -- 'drawn water does <i>not</i> invalidate a Mikvah,' instead of '<i>Hin</i> Mayim She'uvim Poslim...' -- 'a <i>Hin</i> of drawn water invalidates a Mikvah.' Therefore, they would phrase their Halachah by saying, '<i>Melo</i> Hin Poslim Es ha'Mikvah' -- 'a <i>full</i> Hin of drawn water invalidates the Mikvah,' so that the students would not misunderstand it. When Hillel repeated it, although he pronounced 'Hin' properly and it was not necessary for him to say 'Melo Hin...,' he nevertheless added the word 'Melo' because that is the way his Rebbi taught the law!
</p><p>
(d) The <b>DOROS RISHONIM</b> explains that all three Tana'im -- Shamai, Hillel, and the Chachamim -- had received through oral tradition their opinions as to how much drawn water invalidates a Mikvah. Their oral tradition was common in that it said that a Mikvah is invalidated by <i>3</i> of some measure (Shamai said 9 Kavin, which is 3 Hin; the Chachamim said <i>3</i> Lugin; and Hillel said a Hin, which is <i>3</i> Kavin). Shamai and Hillel did not specifically use the number 3 with the appropriate unit of measure, even though that was the tradition they had received, because they were saying it the way they had heard it from their teachers.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> Rather, Yosi and Yosi decreed Tum'ah on dirt 
          of Chutz la'Aretz and to burn Terumah that become Tamei 
          on account of it - they did not decree about the airspace 
          of Chutz la'Aretz;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim 80 years before the Churban decreed Tum'ah 
               on the airspace of Chutz la'Aretz, and to Toleh 
               Terumah that become Tamei on account of it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> The first decree [about Tum'as Chutz la'Aretz 
          for which we burn Terumah] was to burn.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> But Ilfa taught that the initial decree 
          regarding [Terumah that touched Stam] hands was to burn 
          it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> The first decree of other things was not 
               to burn!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, Yosi and Yosi decreed to Toleh on 
          account of dirt of Chutz la'Aretz, they did not decree on 
          the airspace;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim 80 years before the Churban decreed to 
               burn on account of the dirt, and to Toleh on account 
               of the airspace.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> The decree was made [later,] in Usha!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> There are six cases in which we burn 
               Terumah on account of a doubt - if it became Tamei 
               through a Beis ha'Peras (a field in which a grave 
               was plowed or lost), through dirt from Chutz 
               la'Aretz, through clothes of an ignoramus (someone 
               not careful about Tum'ah), through Kelim that are 
               found, through spit (perhaps it is from a Zav), and 
               through urine, even if it could be of an animal (and 
               even if it is a person's, perhaps the person was 
               Tahor).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> For Vadai Maga (something definitely touched one of 
               these), even though the Tum'ah is Safek, we burn 
               Terumah;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi says, in Reshus ha'Yachid, we burn even for 
               Safek Maga;
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, in Reshus ha'Yachid we Toleh for 
               Safek Maga; in Reshus ha'Rabim, it is Tahor.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> (Ula):</font></b> These six Sefekos were enacted in Usha.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #3:</font></b> Rather, Yosi and Yosi decreed to Toleh on 
          account of dirt of Chutz la'Aretz, they did not decree on 
          the airspace;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim 80 years before the Churban decreed to 
               Toleh also on account of the airspace;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> In Usha they decreed to burn on account of the dirt, 
               they left the decree to Toleh on account of airspace 
               as it was.
<br>
<b><font>3) 'TUM'AH' OF GLASS VESSELS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why did they decree Tum'ah on glass vessels?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (Reish Lakish):</font></b> Because they are made from sand, 
          Chachamim made them like Klei Cheres (earthenware 
          vessels).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But immersion in a Mikvah is Metaher them 
          [unlike Klei Cheres]!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> The following are a Chatzizah (blockage) 
               that invalidate immersion - pitch and Mor (myrrh (a 
               spice) or sap) on glass vessels...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Immersion does not Metaher vessels or pure glass 
          - the Mishnah discusses vessels that were punctured and 
          sealed with a drop of molten lead;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It is like R. Meir, who says a vessel gets the law 
               of its Ma'amid (what makes it usable) - immersion is 
               Metaher metal vessels.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> If a glass vessel 
               was punctured and sealed with a drop of molten lead, 
               R. Meir is Metamei, Chachamim Metaher.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) THE TWO STAGES OF THE DECREE OF GLASS VESSELS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa says that Yosi ben Yo'ezer and Yosi ben Yochanan were the first to enact the decree that land outside of Eretz Yisrael ('Eretz ha'Amim') makes a person Tamei. The Gemara challenges the Beraisa from sources that clearly state that later Chachamim instituted that decree. The Gemara answers that Yosi ben Yo'ezer and Yosi ben Yochanan originally made the decree, and the later Chachamim added to it. 
</p><p>
However, this does not answer the question regarding the second decree enacted by those two Tana'im, the decree that glass vessels can become Tamei, which the Gemara also asserts was made by later Chachamim. If the same answer applies (that the later Chachamim merely <i>added</i> to the original decree), then what did they add? They could not have added that the Tum'ah of glassware requires Terumah to be <i>burned</i>, because the Gemara (16a) explicitly says that it causes Terumah to be Toleh and not burned (as a reminder that the Tum'ah of glassware is not mid'Oraisa).
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Asu Inhu) answers that the initial decree was to be Toleh the Terumah that touched <i>any</i> part of the glass vessel. The later Chachamim added that if Terumah touches the <i>inside</i> of the glass vessel, it must be burned. When the Gemara later says that the Tum'ah of glassware only requires Terumah to be Toleh, but not burned, it is referring to Tum'ah that is caused by the Terumah's contact with the <i>outside</i> of the glass vessel.
</p><p>
(b) Tosfos suggests another answer. Originally, the decree on glassware was not accepted. The later Chachamim re-enacted the decree, and it was accepted. (Tosfos says that this is actually the text of some editions of the Gemara.)
</p><p>


<font><b>4) A BROKEN GLASS VESSEL REPAIRED WITH LEAD</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites an argument between Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan concerning a case of a glass vessel that was punctured and the hole was filled with lead. Rebbi Meir maintains that it can become Tamei because it is considered to be a metal vessel, because that which makes the vessel useful is the metal patch (it is the 'Ma'amid'). The Rabanan say that we do not attribute the laws of the 'Ma'amid' to the entire vessel, and thus it is not considered a metal vessel and cannot become Tamei. 
</p><p>
However, even if the Rabanan say that we do not assign the laws of the 'Ma'amid' to the mended glass vessel, they should not say that the glass vessel is <i>Tahor</i>. Since it is repaired, it should become Tamei mid'Rabanan, like any other glass vessel!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> in Rosh Hashanah (19b, DH v'Chachamim Metaharin) and <b>TOSFOS</b> here (DH Chachamim) explain that the Rabanan meant only that the glass vessel does not become Tamei <i>mid'Oraisa</i> like a metal vessel; it still becomes Tamei with the Tum'ah <i>d'Rabanan</i> that the Chachamim decreed upon glassware.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> in Rosh Hashanah (19a, DH Yehudah) gives another explanation. The argument between Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan involves Tum'ah Yeshanah, <i>retroactive Tum'ah</i>. If a metal vessel becomes Tamei and is then broken so that it is no longer a vessel, it loses its Tum'ah. However, when the metal vessel is repaired, it reverts to its original Tum'ah. Rebbi Meir says that a glass vessel that was repaired with lead reverts to its original Tum'ah, because it is now considered to be a metal vessel. The Rabanan say that it is still considered only a glass vessel, and thus it does not return to its original Tum'ah when it is repaired (like earthenware), and it is <i>Tahor</i> until it touches Tum'ah again.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RASHBAM</b> (cited by Tosfos here and in Rosh Hashanah) says that Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan agree that the status of the object follows the 'Ma'amid,' and thus the glass vessel has the laws of the material that was used to repair it. They argue about whether lead used to plug a hole in glass is considered a proper plug. Rebbi Meir says that since the vessel is usable, it is Tamei. The Rabanan say that it is not usable, and therefore it is not considered a utensil and it is Tahor. (The Rashbam's text of the Gemara omits the words, 'We follow the Ma'amid.')
</p><p>
(d) <b>RASHI</b> here (DH Metamei) explains that according to the Rabanan, a glass vessel that is broken is like any <i>earthenware</i> vessel that is broken, which loses its status as a utensil even after it is repaired. The argument between Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan is whether it is considered <i>metal</i> now that it was repaired with lead, or whether it is still considered like earthenware. Tosfos cites a Tosefta that supports this view when it says that an earthenware vessel that is broken can never become Tamei again.
</p><p>
(However, Tosfos and most other Rishonim interpret the Tosefta differently. They prove that it is discussing a broken earthenware vessel that breaks a <i>second</i> time after being repaired. Once it breaks a second time, it is basically unusable. After the first break and repair, it is still usable and can become Tamei. Perhaps Rashi maintains that a glass utensil that breaks for the <i>first</i> time is like an earthenware utensil that breaks for the <i>second</i> time, because glass is much more fragile. -M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) 'TUM'AH' OF GLASS VESSELS (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If Chachamim made glass vessels like Klei 
          Cheres, why are they Mekabel Tum'ah from the back?!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> The Tum'ah of Klei Cheres and vessels of 
               nitre (white earth) is the same - they Mekabel 
               Tum'ah from their inside and from [the interior of] 
               their outside (e.g. if a receptacle was hollowed out 
               in its outside), but not from their exterior 
               [surface].
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The only way to Metaher them is to break them.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> The Tum'ah of Kelim of Cheres and nitre 
               is the same, but nothing else is like them!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> Because a glass vessel can be fixed (melted 
          down and made into a new Kli) if it is broken, Chachamim 
          equated it to a metal Kli.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If so, it should have Tum'ah Yeshanah (return 
          to its old Tum'ah if it is broken and fixed)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> A metal vessel receives Tum'ah, whether 
               or not it holds anything;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If it was broken, it becomes Tahor; if it was fixed, 
               it is Tamei like before [it broke].
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> A glass vessel receives Tum'ah only if it 
               can hold something;
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> If it was broken, it becomes Tahor; if it was made 
               into a Kli again, it is Mekabel Tum'ah from now and 
               onwards.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> it is Mekabel Tum'ah from now and 
               onwards, it is not Tamei like before!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Tum'ah of glass vessels is mid'Rabanan, 
          Tum'ah Yeshanah is mid'Rabanan - Chachamim only decreed 
          on glass vessels Tum'os that are mid'Oraisa in other 
          vessels.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Glass vessels that cannot hold anything should 
          be Mekabel Tum'ah, for this is mid'Oraisa regarding metal 
          vessels!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Chachamim decreed that they are not Mekabel 
          Tum'ah, to show that the Tum'ah of glass vessels is only 
          mid'Rabanan, so people will not burn Terumah or Kodshim 
          on account of them.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) UTENSILS MADE OF DUNG</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara cites the Mishnah in Mikva'os (4:1) that teaches that certain types of vessels invalidate rain water from being used for a Mikvah by giving it the disqualification of drawn water ('Mayim She'uvim'). Among the vessels listed there are Klei Gelalim. What are 'Klei Gelalim'?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that this is 'Shayish,' which normally means 'marble' in Hebrew. We find this word in the verse, 'Even <i>Glal</i>' (Ezra 5:8). (<b>TOSFOS</b> in Bava Kama (2b) cites <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> who interprets the word 'Galal' in a different verse (Ezra 6:4) to mean marble. However, this does not mean that he also translates the word 'Gelalim' in the Mishnah in Mikva'os to mean marble as well.)
</p><p>
(b) However, all of the other Rishonim, including <b>RASHI</b> himself elsewhere (such as later in Shabbos on 58a) and <b>TOSFOS</b> (Menachos 69a), explain that Klei Gelalim refers to vessels made from dry animal dung. The Rishonim cite three proofs for this interpretation:
</p><p>
1. The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Perush ha'Mishnayos to Kelim 10:1) says that if Gelalim means marble, then it is already mentioned in the Mishnah, because the Mishnah lists 'stone vessels,' and marble is a type of stone.
</p><p>
2. <b>TOSFOS</b> in Menachos (69a) points out that the Gemara teaches that if an elephant swallows a basket and eliminates it in its waste, the basket has the status of Klei Gelalim. If Klei Gelalim are marble vessel, then why should the basket that comes out in the waste of an elephant be considered Klei Gelalim?
</p><p>
3. The <b>RASH MI'SHANTZ</b> to Uktzin (2:10) writes that the Mishnah there says that if vessels made of 'Adamah' (earth) or Gelalim are soft enough to allow roots to penetrate through them, they are considered to be utensils with holes in them. The Mishnah specifically omits stone utensils, because stone utensils are never soft enough to allow the roots of a plant to penetrate. If Gelalim refers to marble, then the Mishnah should also omit Gelalim, because marble is even harder than ordinary stone! It must be that Gelalim refers to utensils made of dried animal dung.
</p><p>
The <b>NETZIV</b> in <b>MEROMEI SADEH</b> suggests that even Rashi here understands that Klei Gelalim are vessels made from animal dung. The word 'Shayish' that Rashi quotes is a foreign word, and not a Hebrew one, that means animal dung. (Perhaps the Netziv is referring to the German word for dung.) Accordingly, all of the Rishonim agree that Klei Gelalim are vessels made from dung. (However, when <b>RABEINU ELYAKIM</b> in Yoma (2a) explains what Klei Gelalim are, he cites two different explanations and says that they are either vessels made from 'Shayish' or vessels made from dung.)
<br> 
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Chisda):</font></b> Really, Chachamim made glass 
          vessels like Klei Cheres;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> They are Mekabel Tum'ah from the back because the 
               inside can be seen like the outside (it is as if 
               there is no distinction).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Shimon Ben Shetach enacted [a lien on all a 
          man's property to pay a] Kesuvah and decreed Tum'ah on 
          metal vessels.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Tum'ah of metal vessels is mid'Oraisa - 'Ach Es 
          ha Zahav v'Es ha'Kesef...'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He decreed Tum'ah Yeshanah on them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> A case occurred, Shel Tziyon ha'Malkah 
          made a party for her son; all her vessels became Teme'im, 
          she broke them and gave them to a smelter to solder them 
          to fix them. Chachamim said that they are Teme'im like 
          before.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This is so people [who do not want to wait seven 
          days to Metaher vessels] will not cease to use Mei Chatas 
          to Metaher from Tum'as Mes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We understand this according to the opinion 
          that Tum'ah Yeshanah applies only to Tum'as Mes;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> According to the opinion that it applies to all 
               Tum'os, how can we answer?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> He decreed lest were not broken enough 
          to Metaher them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> He decreed lest people will say that a 
          Kli is fully Tahor the same day it is immersed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the difference between these answers? 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> If he mashed them [surely they were broken 
          enough, but Rava's decree still applies].
<br>
<b><font>2) A DECREE OF 'MAYIM SHE'UVIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What were some other decrees [of the 18]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (Mishnah - Beis Shamai):</font></b> If one put Kelim under a 
          pipe to catch rainwater, or forgot and left them there, 
          whether they are big or small, or even if they are made 
          of stone, dirt or dung (which are not Mekabel Tum'ah), 
          the water caught is Posel a Mikvah (it is She'uvim) 
          (Decree #12);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Beis Hillel say, if he forgot them the water is Tahor 
          (not Posel);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Meir says, they counted, and Beis Shamai outnumbered 
          Beis Hillel (Beis Hillel ceased to argue about this).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  Beis Shamai agree that if he forgot them in the Chatzer 
          the water is Tahor (it is not clear that he wanted them 
          to gather water).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi says, Beis Hillel did not retract.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rav Mesharshiya):</font></b> All agree that if he left the Kelim 
          when clouds were gathered (but the rain delayed coming, 
          and he forgot them) the water is Teme'im (he initially 
          wanted them to collect water);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> All agree that if he left them when clouds were 
               dispersed, the water is Tahor;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> They argue about when he left them when clouds were 
               gathered, then dispersed, then gathered again:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Beis Hillel say that his initial intent was 
                    Batul (once the clouds dispersed), Beis Shamai 
                    say that it is not Batul.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> (We count 18 decrees, there was consensus on 
          all of them -) according to R. Yosi, Beis Hillel still 
          argue, he is missing one of the 18 decrees (surely, all 
          agree that there were 18)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> [He holds that] the 
          decree of Benos Kusim (the people Sancheriv settled in 
          place of the 10 exiled Shevatim, who later converted; 
          they decreed to consider Kusi girls Nidos from birth) was 
          on that day (13). (On 17B, all count this among the 18, 
          we give another answer for R. Yosi.)
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) OTHER DECREES OF 'TUM'AH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What were some other decrees?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (Mishnah):</font></b> (Mid'Oraisa, Tum'as Ohel applies only 
          under a covering at least a Tefach by a Tefach; 
          mid'Rabanan,) any Kli as thick as a [standard] plowshare 
          is a conduit for Tum'as Ohel (14).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  R. Tarfon:</font></b> Surely, the one who said this erred! He heard 
          that if a farmer was carrying plowshare on his shoulder, 
          and one end of it towered above Tum'as Mes, he is Tamei;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He did not realize that the farmer is Tamei because 
               he touches the plowshare (Rashi - a Kli over a Mes 
               becomes Tamei no matter how thin it is; Tosfos - he 
               heard that the farmer is an Av ha'Tum'ah (Tamei 
               seven days, he needs Mei Chatas to become Tahor), he 
               did not know that Tum'ah b'Chiburim (touching 
               something that is currently touching or towering 
               over a Mes) makes an Av ha'Tum'ah) - he assumed that 
               Tum'as Ohel applies.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  R. Akiva:</font></b> I can explain why the thickness of a plowshare 
          was mentioned:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A Kli over a Mes becomes Tamei no matter how thin it 
               is;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> It is Metamei one who carries it [to become an Av 
               ha'Tum'ah] only if it is at least the thickness of a 
               [standard] plowshare (this is a decree on account of 
               a Kli a Tefach thick, which brings Tum'as Ohel 
               mid'Oraisa. Tosfos - the decree is needed only when 
               Tum'ah b'Chiburim does not apply, e.g. a garment 
               separates between him and the plowshare);3.  It is 
               Metamei other people and Kelim [mid'Oraisa, through 
               Ohel] only if it is at least a Tefach by a Tefach.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (R. Yanai):</font></b> A standard plowshare is not a Tefach thick, 
          but its circumference is a Tefach - Chachamim decreed on 
          a Tefach circumference on account of a Kli a Tefach 
          thick.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> According to R. Tarfon, there was no decree 
          about this - he is missing one of the 18 decrees!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> He holds that Tum'as 
          Kusis was on that day, and he holds like R. Meir (that 
          there was a decree about forgotten vessels that collected 
          water).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What were some other decrees?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (Beraisa -Shamai):</font></b> If one harvests grapes in order 
          to make wine, the juice that drips from them is Machshir 
          them (15);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Hillel says, it is not Machshir.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Hillel:</font></b> Why do you say that one must harvest grapes in 
          Taharah (even though the juice goes to waste, it is 
          Machshir), but you do not require harvesting olives in 
          Taharah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Shamai:</font></b> If you anger me, I will decree Tum'ah (Hechsher) 
          even on harvest of olives! (Chachmas Mano'ach - if you 
          [mistakenly] equate them, all the more so we must be 
          concerned that others will do so, we must decree on 
          olives also!) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  A sword was inserted in the Beis Medrash (Yerushalmi - 
          they were killing each other); Talmidim were allowed to 
          enter, but not to leave (for they wanted to count, to see 
          if the majority follow Shamai or Hillel). Hillel was 
          submissive to Shamai like a Talmid; the day was as harsh 
          for Yisrael as the day the golden calf was made. (Chasam 
          Sofer - the Nasi (Hillel) was very modest, Shamai did not 
          defer to him, just like Benei Yisrael did not defer to 
          Aharon on the day the Egel was made.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  Hillel and Shamai decreed [that one must harvest grapes 
          in Taharah], it was not accepted; later, their Talmidim 
          decreed this, it was accepted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason for the decree?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Ze'iri):</font></b> This is a decree lest one harvest in 
          Tamei baskets.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We understand according to the opinion that a 
          Tamei Kli causes liquids to Machshir produce inside (even 
          without intent);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> But according to the opinion that a Tamei Kli does 
               not make liquids Machshir, how can we answer?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Ze'iri):</font></b> This is a decree lest one harvest in 
          baskets sealed with pitch (he is happy with the juice 
          that leaves, it will not be lost).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Rava):</font></b> This is a decree on account of Noshchos 
          (Rashi - grapes that are stuck together, one 
          intentionally pulls them apart, knowing that juice will 
          exude; Ramban - there is juice between grapes stuck 
          together, it does not get lost; R. Chananel - grapes are 
          'bitten' by protrusions in the Kli or by the harvester, 
          and juice exudes).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Answer #4 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Sometimes a person enters his 
          vineyard to see if the grapes are ready to be harvested - 
          he squeezes a cluster of grapes, juice splashes on 
          grapes, they might still be wet at the time of harvest.
<br>
<b><font>2) THE REMAINING DECREES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What were some other decrees?
<p>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE DAY THAT HILLEL'S OPINION WAS OVERTURNED</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that the day that Shamai overruled Hillel was as 'difficult for the Jews as the day that the golden calf was made.' What does the day that Shamai overruled Hillel have to do with the day that the golden calf was made?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that it was a difficult day for the Jewish people, because Hillel was the Nasi, the leader of the generation, and he was exceedingly humble. The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> explains that Rashi means that just as the will of the people at the time of the sin of the golden calf overruled the will of their leader, Aharon ha'Kohen (Moshe at the time was receiving the Torah on Har Sinai), so, too, the opinion of the contending academy of Shamai overruled the academy of the authority, Hillel, and they subjected him to their will by forcing him to comply with their ruling against his own reasoning.
</p><p>
(b) Perhaps we may expound further on the comparison between the overruling of Hillel and the sin of the golden calf. We find that in Avos (1:12) Hillel says, 'One should be of the disciples of Aharon and constantly pursue peace.' He says 'disciples of <i>Aharon</i>' and not 'disciple of <i>Moshe</i>,' because it was Aharon's special trait of loving peace and kindness that Hillel wanted people to follow. Moshe's trait was that of strict justice, which Hillel felt was not the trait that the masses should cultivate in themselves for the sake of peace among men (Sanhedrin 6b). 
</p><p>
Thus, it was Hillel's opinion that Aharon's traits should be emulated. This was consistent with own personality. As the Gemara later in Shabbos (30b) says, 'One should be patient, forgiving, and humble like Hillel, and not stand on one's honor like Shamai.' We indeed find that Beis Hillel, the disciples of Hillel, almost always give the more lenient opinion and Beis Shamai the more strict one.
</p><p>
The day that Aharon was overruled by the people building the golden calf was the day when the traits of Aharon were overruled and the trait of Moshe, strict justice, dominated. Justice and punishment was wrought upon the Jewish people that day. Similarly, when Shamai overruled Hillel, the traits of Hillel were conquered and Shamai's traits of strict justice ruled. It was difficult for the Jewish people to live with the strictness of Beis Shamai, just as it was difficult for them to live in that state when Aharon's traits were conquered at the sin of the golden calf. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
</p><p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (Tavi Rishba):</font></b> They decreed that if Terumah is 
          planted, what grows is Terumah (16).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Chanina):</font></b> This is a decree lest a Yisrael 
          will [not want to give Terumah to a Kohen, rather,] keep 
          Terumah to plant it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> If a Yisrael does not want to give 
          Terumah, he would just not separate [more than a drop]!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Since the Yisrael could have exempted the entire 
               harvest [mid'Oraisa] by separating just one wheat 
               kernel, like Shmuel taught, but did not do so, we 
               trust him [to give it to the Kohen].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> This is a decree lest a Kohen will keep 
          Tamei Terumah (which may not be eaten) around [until it 
          is time to plant it], one might come to eat it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What were some other decrees?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Chiya bar Ami):</font></b> They decreed that one who was 
          carrying his wallet in Reshus ha'Rabim when Shabbos 
          entered should [not carry it less than four Amos at a 
          time, rather,] ask a Nochri to carry it home for him 
          (17).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What was the last decree?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer (Beili):</font></b> They decreed against bread, wine, oil and 
          [seclusion with] daughters of Nochrim (18). (These are 
          counted like one, for all were decreed for one reason, as 
          we will explain.) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This is like R. Meir - according to R. Yosi 
          (who does not count vessels under a pipe (16B)), there 
          are only 17!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> There was another decree, like Rav Acha taught:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Acha bar Ada):</font></b> They decreed against Nochri 
               bread, lest one consume Nochri oil; they decreed 
               against Nochri oil, lest one drink Nochri wine.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Objection:</font></b> It says that the decree against Nochri 
               bread was on account of Nochri oil - what is worse 
               about Nochri oil than Nochri bread?!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Correction:</font></b> Rather, they decreed against Nochri 
               bread and oil, lest one drink Nochri wine; they 
               decreed against Nochri wine, on account of 
               [seclusion with] Nochri girls; they decreed against 
               Nochri girls, on account of another matter 
               (idolatry); another matter was on account of another 
               matter (this will be explained).
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is this 'other matter [on account of 
               another matter]'?
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> They decreed that 
               Nochri boys are Tamei like Zavim, so Yisrael boys 
               will not regularly be with them, lest they come to 
               homosexuality.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If so, there are 19 according to R. Meir!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He counts food and Kelim that became Tamei 
          through liquids (they are Posel Terumah) like one decree 
          (at the end of 13B, we counted them like two).
<br>
<b><font>3) STARTING 'MELACHAH' BEFORE SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - Beis Shamai):</font></b> On Erev Shabbos, one may not 
          soak dye, ingredients [for dye] or vetch (horsebean, for 
          animals to eat) unless it will get soaked before Shabbos;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Beis Hillel permit [in any case].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Beis Shamai forbid putting bundles of combed flax in an 
          oven unless they will get warm before Shabbos;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Beis Hillel permit.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  Beis Shamai forbid setting traps for animals, birds or 
          fish unless they might catch something before Shabbos;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Beis Hillel permit.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Beis Shamai forbid selling to a Nochri, or helping him 
          load a donkey or himself unless he can reach his 
          destination before Shabbos;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Beis Hillel permit.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  Beis Shamai forbid giving skins to a [Nochri] tanner, or 
          garments to a launderer unless there is enough time [to 
          tan or launder them] before Shabbos;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  Beis Hillel permit all of these anytime before nightfall.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel:</font></b> My father's house used to give 
          white garments (which are hard to launder) to a Nochri 
          launderer three days before Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai agree that one may put beams 
          on top of olives or grapes in the olivepress or winepress 
          [any time before Shabbos].
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE 18 DECREES</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara goes to considerable lengths to count every one of the 18 decrees that were made on the day that Beis Shamai was the majority. As the Beraisa (12a) says, the first two decrees that are counted are the decrees in the Mishnah (11a) against checking for lice on Shabbos by the light of an oil lamp, and reading on Shabbos by the light of an oil lamp.
</p><p>
However, the same Mishnah that teaches these two decrees continues, 'Similarly, a Zav should not eat together with a Zavah....' This wording ('Similarly...') implies that the decree against a Zav and Zavah eating together is in the same category as the previous two decrees, which were part of the 18 decrees. In fact, the Tosefta clearly specifies that it was among the 18 decrees! Why, then does the Gemara not count this degree among the 18 decrees listed in the Gemara?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Hanicha) explains that it indeed is included in the count of 18 decrees. In order to avoid reaching a total of 19, we simply count 'ha'Ochel Ochel Rishon' and 'ha'Ochel Ochel Sheni' as one decree. (Alternatively, 'ha'Ba Rosho v'Rubo' and 'Tahor she'Naflu Alav' are counted as one).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Perush ha'Mishnayos) suggests a novel way to interpret the Gemara. The Mishnah (13b) mentions first the <i>Halachos</i> of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel, and afterwards it discusses their <i>Gezeiros</i>. Later in the Gemara (top of 15a), we refer to their Gezeiros, their <i>disagreements</i>, and their agreements. According to the understanding of Rashi and Tosfos, <i>all</i> of these terms refer to the same 18 decrees. Originally Beis Hillel argued with Beis Shamai in this 18 matters. Beis Hillel was then overruled and consented to Beis Shamai.
</p><p>
The Rambam, however, suggests that these terms refer to three different sets of 18 decrees.
</p><p>
The first set were the 18 <i>decrees</i> ('Gazru') that were made that day, as the Gemara here enumerates. The second set were 18 unanimous <i>Halachos</i> that were announced the following day ('l'Machar Hushvu'). These are the laws mentioned in the Mishnah from the law of the poor man and the rich man (i.e., the eight permutations of the Melachah of Hotza'ah) until the present Mishnah. The third set were 18 more laws that were discussed that day, about which Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel remained in disagreement ('Nechleku'). These are the 18 laws that appear in the Mishnayos (from here until the end of the Perek) about which Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel disagree.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THINGS THAT KNEAD THEMSELVES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana of the Mishnah, who 
          says that [merely] putting water into dye is considered 
          soaking it (one who does so on Shabbos is liable, 
          therefore Beis Shamai forbid causing it to happen on 
          Shabbos)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> It is Rebbi:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> If Reuven put flour [into a 
               trough] and Shimon put water, Shimon is liable [for 
               kneading];
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah exempts, unless he [overtly] 
               kneaded.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> Perhaps R. Yosi exempts only regarding 
          flour, for it is Bar Givul (must be kneaded), but he is 
          Mechayev regarding dye, for it suffices to add water (it 
          mixes by itself)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That cannot be!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> If Reuven put Efer (ashes) and 
               Shimon put water, Shimon is liable;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah exempts, unless he kneaded 
               (even though ashes are not Bar Givul)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps the Beraisa does not mean Efer, rather, 
          Afar (dirt, which is Bar Givul)! (Maharitz Chiyus - we 
          know that Efer is called Afar (Bamidbar 19:17), perhaps 
          Afar is also called Efer.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Another Beraisa says that they argue about Afar 
          (surely, both Beraisos do not teach the same thing)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> The two Beraisos were not taught together 
          (perhaps both teach about dirt)!
<br>
<b><font>2) 'SHEVISAS KELIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> The following are permitted just before 
          Shabbos, even though the activity will continue during 
          all of Shabbos:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One may dig a trench that will cause water [from a 
               spring] to irrigate a garden;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> One may put incense [over a fire and] under clothes 
               to scent the clothing;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> One may put sulfur [over a fire and] under Kelim for 
               the sake of engraving on them;
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> One may put a bandage on an eye or wound that will 
               cause it to heal;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  However, one may not put wheat in a water mill unless it 
          will be ground before Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rabah):</font></b> This is because the mill makes noise 
          (it is a disgrace to Shabbos).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> It is forbidden on account of 
          Shevisas Kelim (one must allow his vessels to rest on 
          Shabbos).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> 'Uv'Chol Asher Amarti Aleichem Tishameru' 
               - this commands about Shevisas Kelim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If [even] Beis Hillel say that Shevisas Kelim 
          is mid'Oraisa, why may one put incense or sulfur under 
          Kelim?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> It is permitted because the Kli does not do an 
          action (it merely holds the incense, unlike the mill, 
          which grinds).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why do Beis Hillel permit putting flax in an 
          oven?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> The oven does not do an action (it passively 
          holds in the heat).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why do Beis Hillel permit setting traps - they 
          do an action (they snap shut)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> They discuss hooks and narrow mouthed cages, 
          the fish or animal gets stuck by itself, the trap does 
          not do an action.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  We can answer these questions differently according to R. 
          Oshaya:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Oshaya):</font></b> The Beraisa that derives Shevisas Kelim 
               from a verse is like Beis Shamai, but Beis Hillel 
               disagree.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (to Questions (m), (o), (q)):</font></b> Beis Shamai 
          require Shevisas Kelim even from passive Melachah, Beis 
          Hillel are not concerned even for active Melachah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If Beis Shamai forbid even passive Melachah, 
          why do they permit incense and sulfur?
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) IS SQUEEZING GRAPES AND OLIVES AN AV MELACHAH?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> In the Mishnah, Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai agree that one may put beams on top of olives or grapes in the olive press or winepress at any time before Shabbos.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH she'To'anin) writes that the act of squeezing grapes or olives itself is an Av Melachah. Rashi's words are difficult to understand for two reasons.
</p><p>
First, squeezing juice out of a fruit is not an Av Melachah, but it is a Toldah of the Melachah of 'Dash,' threshing.
</p><p>
Second, Rashi himself later in the same comment states that squeezing grapes or olives on is a <i>Toldah</i> of the Melachah of threshing!
</p><p>
Why does Rashi first write that squeezing grapes or olives on Shabbos is an Av Melachah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: RAV DOVID COHEN</b> (in <b>GEVUL YA'AVETZ</b>) explains that Rashi uses the phrase 'Av Melachah' to refer to any Melachah d'Oraisa of Shabbos (as opposed to an Isur d'Rabanan of Shabbos, or a Melachah of another Halachic category, such as working one's field during the Shemitah year). Rashi's source for calling a <i>category</i> of work with regard to Shabbos (whether it is an Av or a Toldah) an 'Av Melachah' is the Gemara in Pesachim (5a) which says that from the fact that Rebbi Akiva said 'kindling is an Av Melachah' we derive that the prohibition of kindling on Shabbos is a category of Melachah with regard to Shabbos and is punishable with Kares, and it is not just a Lav punishable with Malkos.
</p><p>
We see this usage of the phrase 'Av Melachah' again in Rashi later (68a, DH Av Melachah). Rashi there says that the words 'Av Melachah' in the Mishnah are not meant to exclude Toldos, but rather they refer to any <i>category</i> of Melachah.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) HALACHAH: USING A SHABBOS CLOCK</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara cites a Beraisa that says that one is permitted to open his sluice gate, before Shabbos, to allow water to flow into his garden or field on Shabbos. Similarly, mid'Oraisa one is permitted to put wheat into a watermill before Shabbos and have the mill grind the wheat on Shabbos. The Rabanan, however, prohibited letting a mill operate on Shabbos because it makes excessive noise (according to Rabah).
</p><p>
Does this Gemara have any implications with regard to setting a timer or 'Shabbos clock' prior to Shabbos in order to cause a Melachah to be performed on Shabbos?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN</b> (in <b>IGROS MOSHE</b> OC 4:60) rules that one may not set a timer before Shabbos in order to cause a Melachah to be performed on Shabbos. He writes that although the Gemara permits certain actions to be done prior to Shabbos when the results of those actions will occur on Shabbos, that allowance applies only when the process of the Melachah began prior to Shabbos. In the case of Shabbos clocks, however, the Melachah begins on Shabbos.
</p><p>
Rav Moshe Feinsten writes two reasons why the use of a Shabbos clock should be prohibited. First, the Halachah prohibits one from telling a Nochri to perform Melachah for him on Shabbos. Just as one may not tell a Nochri to perform Melachah for him on Shabbos, one may not 'tell,' or program, a mechanical device to perform Melachah for him on Shabbos. Second, Rashi (DH she'Yitchanu) explains that one may not have his millstone operate on Shabbos because the noise that it makes is a disgrace to Shabbos, and if people were to have their mills running on Shabbos they would be transgressing the Mitzvah of Kavod Shabbos, honoring the Shabbos. Similarly, setting a Shabbos clock to do Melachah on Shabbos is a disgrace to Shabbos and a violation of the Mitzvah of Kavod Shabbos.
</p><p>
Nevertheless, Rav Moshe Feinstein does permit the use of a Shabbos timer for setting lights to go on and off. Even though he prefers to disallow the use of a Shabbos timer altogether, he permits using it for lights, because it was the accepted common practice in Europe to have a Nochri extinguish and re-kindle the lights in the homes of Jews at given hours. We do not have to be more stringent with regard to a Shabbos timer.
</p><p>
(b) Other authorities differ with Rav Moshe Feinstein's ruling. The <b>CHAZON ISH</b> (OC 38:2-3) permits setting a Shabbos timer to cause a Melachah to be performed on Shabbos, and this is the Halachah as recorded in <b>SHEMIRAS SHABBOS K'HILCHASAH</b>.
</p><p>
<b>RAV SHLOMO ZALMAN AUERBACH</b> (in <b>MINCHAS SHLOMO</b> #11) even permits changing on Shabbos the time that a Shabbos timer is set to perform a Melachah by altering the controls in such a way that one <i>delays</i> the action that the Shabbos clock is set to cause, because doing so is not considered an act of performing a Melachah. (For specific details about the proper way to change the time of a Shabbos timer on Shabbos, see <b>SHEMIRAS SHABBOS K'HILCHASAH</b> 13:25-27).
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The incense or sulfur is on the ground, not in a 
          Kli.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> (Some Melachos require a Kli on Shabbos or Yom 
          Tov -) why do Beis Shamai permit [brewing beer] in a 
          barrel [for more than a week, i.e. including Shabbos, 
          burning oil in] a lamp, [leaving food in] a pot [on a 
          fire, it gets more cooked, and the Korban Pesach on] a 
          spit [while roasting]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Beis Shamai require one to make these Kelim 
          Hefker (before Shabbos - one is commanded only about his 
          Kelim; Rashba - Chachamim make the Kelim Hefker on 
          Shabbos [and restore ownership after Shabbos]).
<br>
<b><font>3) DECREES LEST ONE STOKE COALS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana of the following Beraisa?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> A woman may not fill a pot with lupines 
               or Asasiyos (peas?) (they must be cooked a long 
               time) and put it in an oven just before Shabbos - if 
               she did, it is forbidden Kedei she'Ya'asu (until it 
               would get cooked had she put it in) after Shabbos 
               (to avoid benefit from Melachah done [b'Isur] on 
               Shabbos).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Similarly, a baker may not fill a flask with water 
               and put it in an oven just before Shabbos - if he 
               did, it is forbidden Kedei she'Ya'asu after Shabbos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> It is Beis Shamai, it is unlike Beis 
               Hillel.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> It is even like Beis Hillel - this is a 
          decree, lest one stoke the coals [on Shabbos to hasten 
          the cooking].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question #1:</font></b> They should forbid [leaving] incense and 
          sulfur [on a fire under Kelim just before Shabbos, for 
          the same reason]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> There, one would not stoke, lest it make smoke 
          which will be bad for the Kelim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question #2:</font></b> They should forbid leaving flax in an oven!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One would not do so, for opening the oven lets in 
          wind, which is bad for the flax.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question #3:</font></b> They should forbid leaving dye in a pot!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (Shmuel):</font></b> They permit when the pot is off the 
          fire.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Still, it should be forbidden, lest he 
               stir the pot (Tosfos - helping to dye the wool 
               faster and better, he would be liable for this; Rosh 
               - he would be liable for cooking)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The case is, the pot is plastered shut (it 
               is an exertion to open it, before doing so he would 
               remember that it is Shabbos).
<br>
<b><font>4) FOODS THAT MAY BE LEFT COOKING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Deduction:</font></b> Because leaving a pot in an oven before 
          Shabbos is forbidden [only] lest one stoke the coals, it 
          is permitted to leave a pot with raw food.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Since it will not be ready to eat at night, he 
          puts it out of his mind [until morning, when it will be 
          ready in any case], he will not stoke the coals.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  It is permitted to leave a pot with fully cooked food;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  It is forbidden to leave a pot with partially cooked 
          food;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he adds to the pot a raw bone, it is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Version #1 - Deduction:</font></b> We said that we are not concerned 
          in a case when wind would be harmful (for he would not 
          open the oven) - therefore, one may leave kid meat in a 
          sealed (plastered) oven.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  [Wind is not harmful for ram meat - therefore,] one may 
          not leave ram meat in an unsealed oven.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rav Ashi):</font></b> One may leave kid meat [even] in an unsealed 
          oven, or ram meat in a sealed oven;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (R. Yirmeyah mi'Difti):</font></b> Both of these are forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question (against Rav Ashi - Mishnah):</font></b> One may not leave 
          meat, onions or eggs to roast unless there is time for 
          them to get roasted before Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah forbids ram meat in an unsealed oven.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Version #2:</font></b> All permit kid meat, even in an unsealed 
          oven, and ram meat in a sealed oven;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  They argue about ram meat in an unsealed oven - Rav Ashi 
          permits, R. Yirmeyah forbids.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question (against Rav Ashi - Mishnah):</font></b> One may not leave 
          meat, onions or eggs to roast unless there is time for 
          them to get roasted before Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah forbids meat on coals (there is no 
          covering, one is very prone to stoke them).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Ravina):</font></b> Raw gourds may be left [in an oven] - since 
          wind is bad for it, it is like kid meat.
<br>
<b><font>5) LIMITATIONS OF SELLING TO NOCHRIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - Beis Shamai):</font></b> One may not sell, lend or give 
          something to a Nochri unless [enough time remains so] he 
          can reach his house before Shabbos (for it looks like the 
          Nochri carries on behalf of the Yisrael);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Beis Hillel permit if he can reach the first house in his 
          city;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Akiva permits if he can leave the Yisrael's door 
          before Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, R. Akiva [does not argue 
          with Beis Hillel, he] argues with the previous Tana about 
          Beis Hillel's opinion.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - Beis Shamai):</font></b> One may not sell Chametz to a 
          Nochri unless he knows that the Nochri will finish it 
          before Pesach;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Beis Hillel permit selling Chametz as long as it is 
          permitted to eat it (until the fifth hour on Erev 
          Pesach).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, all kinds of Kutach (dips made with 
          Chametz, they are consumed very slowly) may not be sold 
          30 days before Pesach.
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) WHEN ARE WE CONCERNED FOR WHAT NOCHRIM DO ON SHABBOS?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One may put food in front of his dog (which he 
          is obligated to feed) in the Chatzer; if the dog takes it 
          out, we are not concerned;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Similarly, one may put food in front of a Nochri in the 
          Chatzer; if he takes it out, we are not concerned.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why do we need the Seifa, it is just like the 
          Reisha?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that it is permitted only 
          regarding his dog, for he is obligated to feed it - the 
          Seifa teaches, this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One may not rent vessels to a Nochri on Erev 
          Shabbos (Rashi - it looks like he rents them to do 
          Melachah on Shabbos; Tosfos - it looks like he receives 
          rental for Shabbos, even though he rents for a whole week 
          or month); on Wednesday or Thursday, it is permitted;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Similarly, one may not send letters with a Nochri on Erev 
          Shabbos; on Wednesday or Thursday, it is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Nothing written by R. Yosi ha'Kohen (some say, R. Yosi 
          ha'Chasid) was ever given to a Nochri.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One may not send letters with a Nochri on Erev 
          Shabbos unless they agreed on the price (for then, the 
          Nochri works on his own behalf);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  Beis Shamai permit only if he can reach the destination 
          before Shabbos;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  Beis Hillel permit if he can reach the first house in the 
          city of the receiver.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Since they agreed on the price, Beis Hillel 
          should permit in any case!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> It means, if they did not agree on 
          the price, Beis Shamai permit only if he can reach the 
          destination, Beis Hillel permit if he can reach the first 
          house in the city.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Reisha forbids [unless they agreed on the 
          price]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (Rashi, according to Ritva) Answer:</font></b> The Seifa 
          is when the recipient is always at home, in the Reisha he 
          is not (if the Nochri does not find the receiver, he will 
          have to look for him on Shabbos. The Gemara calls the 
          recipient 'Do'ar' (mayor), for most letters are sent to 
          him.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (Rif) Answer:</font></b> The Seifa is when there is a 
          fixed Do'ar (postmaster) in the recipient's city (the 
          Nochri gives it to the Do'ar, who delivers it to the 
          recipient), in the Reisha there is not a Do'ar. (end of 
          Version #2)
<br>
<b><font>2) THINGS FORBIDDEN CLOSE TO SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One may not embark on a ship less than three 
          days before Shabbos. (Tosfos - this is on account of the 
          Isur to swim on Shabbos (Beitzah 36B); R. Chananel - the 
          case is, the water is less than 10 Tefachim deep, it is 
          forbidden on account of Techum Shabbos; Rif - we are 
          concerned that he will get seasick, and not enjoy 
          Shabbos; Ba'al ha'Ma'or - we are concerned that danger 
          will arise necessitating him to do Melachah. Before three 
          days, he need not be concerned for the coming Shabbos) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  This refers to a voyage of Reshus, but it is permitted if 
          he goes for a Mitzvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Rebbi says, he must stipulate with the captain that they 
          will not travel on Shabbos - [later,] we are not 
          concerned if they actually do travel on Shabbos;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, he need not stipulate.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It is permitted to go from Tzor to Tzidon even on 
               Erev Shabbos (the voyage takes only one day).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> We may not begin a siege around a Nochri city 
          less than three days before Shabbos;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  If we began within three days, we do not stop.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Shamai expounded 'Ad Ridtah' - (we may conquer a city) 
          even on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> My father's house used 
          to give white garments to a Nochri launderer three days 
          before Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Tzadok):</font></b> R. Gamliel's house used to give 
          white garments to a Nochri launderer three days before 
          Shabbos, and colored garment even on Erev Shabbos;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  This teaches that it is harder to launder white garments 
          than colored garments.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  Abaye gave a colored garment to a launderer, who wanted 
          to charge the same as for a white garment.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Abaye:</font></b> Chachamim taught that it is harder to launder 
          white garments!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> When you give a garment to a launderer, it is 
          wise to measure it beforehand and when taking it back:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If it got longer, the launderer is at fault for 
               stretching it; if it got shorter, the he is at fault 
               for shrinking it (by using water that is too hot).
<br>
<b><font>3) JUICE THAT COMES OUT ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai agree that one may 
          put beams [on top of olives or grapes...]
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why do Beis Shamai decree about everything 
          else, but not this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> In the other cases, if one would do so on Shabbos 
          he would be liable, Beis Shamai decree just before 
          Shabbos; here, if one would put on the beams on Shabbos 
          he would be exempt, they do not decree.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Who is our Tana, who permits whatever comes by 
          itself (e.g. the juice that flows from the grapes and 
          olives)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina):</font></b> It is R. Yishmael:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah - R. Yishmael):</font></b> If one crushed garlic, 
               Boser (unripe grapes) or Melilos (unripe grain), 
               (and placed stones on them to squeeze out the 
               juice), he may allow it to continue on Shabbos;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva forbids;
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) SENDING MAIL BEFORE SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara quotes a Beraisa that teaches that one may not send a letter with a Nochri on Friday that he will deliver on Shabbos, because it appears that the Nochri is doing a Melachah for the Jew. However, if one arranges with the Nochri, before he departs with the letter, to give him a payment for his services, then he may give the Nochri a letter to deliver even though he might deliver it on Shabbos. Alternatively, if there is enough time for the Nochri to reach the house closest to the boundary of the city (according to Beis Hillel) to which the letter is being sent, one may send it with the Nochri on Friday.
</p><p>
The Gemara adds that there is a difference between a city which has a 'Bei Davar' and a city which has no 'Bei Davar.'
</p><p>
What is a 'Bei Davar,' and why does a 'Bei Davar' make a difference whether one may send a letter with a Nochri to that city? Furthermore, why does this unique condition exist only with regard to sending letters, and it was not stated with regard to any of the other acts that a Nochri might do for a Jew on Shabbos (such as delivering utensils to another place)?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that a 'Davar' is a person to whom the letter is addressed (literally, it refers to an important person in the city, to whom one usually sends letters). If the addressee is not known to be in the town, then a Jew may not send a letter with a Nochri even if he will reach the house closest to the edge of town before Shabbos. The reason for this is because if the addressee is out of town, then the Nochri never reached the house closest to the edge of the town of the addressee's actual location. If the Nochri continues traveling on Shabbos with the letter in order to deliver it to the addressee, it will look as though he is doing Melachah for the Jew on Shabbos.
</p><p>
What is the difference between sending a letter with a Nochri and sending a pot or utensils with a Nochri (or sending hides to a Nochri for processing)? The Halachah with regard to sending other items is that if one pays the Nochri, then he may send the item before Shabbos. If one does not pay the Nochri, then he may send the item only if there is enough time to reach the destination (or to process the hides) before Shabbos arrives. Only with regard to sending mail is there a separate condition (the 'Davar' or addressee must be known to be in the city). What is the reason for this difference?
</p><p>
The answer is that with regard to deliver all other items, there is no concern that something will delay the Nochri from performing his mission on Friday and cause him to do it on Shabbos -- this concern exists only when it comes to delivering mail. If the letter is found in the hands of the Nochri on Shabbos, it will be clear to all that the letter was sent by a Jew, since it is written in the Jew's handwriting. In contrast, a pot or other item has no recognizable feature that would reveal who owns it, and therefore even if the Nochri ends up delivering it on Shabbos, there is no concern that it will be apparent that he is performing a job on behalf of a Jew. (<b>MAGEN AVRAHAM</b>, cited by <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> OC 247:1).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Shabbos 6:20, according to the first explanation of the Kesef Mishneh) explains that if the 'Davar' is not known to be in the city (and the Jew did not offer payment to the Nochri), then the Nochri may not bring the letter even if he is able to reach the house closest to the boundary before Shabbos (as Rashi explains). The Rambam, though, explains that a 'Davar' is the official mail-courier, and he is in the same city as the Jew who <i>sends</i> the letter. The Nochri must be able to reach the farthest house in <i>that</i> town (the town from which the mail was sent), because it is not known exactly where the mailman lives. The Nochri must have time to reach the farthest possible house in case that is where the mailman lives. When the mailman is not known to be in town, then the Nochri must have enough time to reach the addressee himself (and not just the 'Davar') before Shabbos in order for the Jew to be permitted to send the letter with him.
</p><p>
Again, only with regard to delivering a letter are we concerned that the mailman will not be in town. We are not concerned when sending other items (because of the reasoning of the Magen Avraham, as mentioned above).
</p><p>
(c) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> explains that a 'Davar' is a mailman who is in the same city as the sender (as the Rambam explains). However, Rabeinu Chananel says that when the mailman is <i>not</i> in the city, one is permitted to send a letter with a Nochri if there is enough time for the Nochri to reach the house closest to the boundary of the city of the <i>addressee</i>. If there <i>is</i> a mailman in town, then the letter may be sent with the Nochri even if he will <i>not</i> be able reach the house closest to the boundary of the addressee's town before Shabbos. If there is a mailman in town, one may give the letter to the Nochri to deliver <i>immediately</i> before Shabbos, since the Nochri is <i>already</i> within the borders of the town of his destination (i.e. the 'Davar' to whom the Nochri is bringing the letter).
</p><p>
According to Rabeinu Chananel, the presence of a mailman in the sender's city makes the Halachah more <i>lenient</i> (and not that the absence of a mailman in the city makes the Halachah more stringent). (It seems that Rabeinu Chananel had a different text in his Gemara, because his explanation is difficult to reconcile with the text of our Gemara. -M. Kornfeld.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) HALACHAH: EMBARKING ON A JOURNEY BEFORE SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara cites a Beraisa which states that one may not embark on a sea voyage within three days prior to Shabbos. One may, however, embark on such a journey if it is for the sake of performing a Mitzvah.
</p><p>
The Rishonim give at least five different reasons for this prohibition (see <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b>, introduction to OC 248):
</p><p>
(a) The <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> explains that it is forbidden to embark on a sea voyage before Shabbos because such travels are fraught with danger and one may have to desecrate Shabbos for the sake of Piku'ach Nefesh, saving his life. Even though Piku'ach Nefesh overrides the laws of Shabbos, nevertheless one may not purposefully enter a situation which may lead to the necessity to desecrate Shabbos.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> (<b>MILCHAMOS</b>) argues with the Ba'al Ha'Me'or and maintains that it is not forbidden to enter a situation which may necessitate desecrating Shabbos for Piku'ach Nefesh. Rather, the reason why one may not embark on a journey prior to Shabbos is because the Nochri captain will be doing Melachah for the Jew on Shabbos when he ties up the sails, drops the anchor, etc.
</p><p>
(c) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> writes that the Rabanan forbid traveling on a boat during Shabbos because of the prohibition of Techumin, traveling beyond one's 2000-Amah limit in any direction. (This decree applies only when the bottom of the boat is within ten Tefachim of the surface of the ground beneath the water. One is permitted to travel on the sea as far as he wants on Shabbos as long as he remains more than ten Tefachim above the ground.) 
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RIF</b> says that the reason is because of the Mitzvah of Oneg Shabbos, experiencing pleasure on Shabbos, which one will lose when he goes on a sea voyage (due to the swaying of the boat and the different climate at sea). Embarking at least three days prior to Shabbos is permissible because it takes three days to become accustomed to the swaying of the boat and to the stale air at sea.
<br> 
<br>(e) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Ein Mafligin) explains that traveling on a boat on Shabbos is forbidden for the same reason that swimming is forbidden -- we fear that one might make a flotation device.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> Is it prohibited today to embark on a ship (such as a cruise ship) within three days prior to Shabbos?
</p><p>
Logically, all of the above reasons apply today, except for that of the Rabeinu Chananel (c). Therefore, it should be prohibited to embark on a sea voyage close to Shabbos. (See Insights to Nidah 38:5.)
</p><p>


<font><b>3) BEIS SHAMAI 'MADE A DECREE'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (17b) says that Beis Shamai agrees with Beis Hillel that on Friday, close to Shabbos, one may place the beams of the olive press and winepress atop the crushed fruits in order for the juice to be squeezed out on Shabbos. The Gemara asks why Beis Shamai 'made a decree' to prohibit doing the other actions on Friday, while he did not make a decree to prohibit this one.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara say that Beis Shamai 'made a decree' to prohibit the other activities? The Gemara earlier (18a) says that those activities are forbidden <i>mid'Oraisa</i> because of the law of Shevisas Kelim!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b>, based on <b>TOSFOS</b> (18a, DH Leima), answers that the Gemara here is following the opinion of Rabah, who said (18a) that it is prohibited to put wheat in a watermill on Friday and let the mill operate on Shabbos, because the mill makes excessive noise which is disrespectful to Shabbos. Beis Shamai prohibits the other activities because of the concern that one may perform the activities on Shabbos itself, and not because of Shevisas Kelim.
</p><p>
(b) The Ritva rejects this explanation and offers a different one. When the Gemara says that they 'made a decree,' it does not mean that <i>Beis Shamai</i> made a decree, but that the <i>Torah</i> made a decree (of Shevisas Kelim) to prevent people from desecrating Shabbos. It is justified to call an act that is forbidden by the Torah a 'decree.'
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (R. Elazar):</font></b> It is [the Tana] R. Elazar:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> If cakes of honey were crushed before 
               Shabbos and the honey flowed out on Shabbos, it is 
               forbidden;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar permits.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why didn't R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina answer like 
          R. Elazar?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We cannot learn from there, for the honey was a 
          [solid] food from the beginning - here, we permit even a 
          liquid squeezed from a solid.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> R. Elazar:</font></b> We know that R. Elazar permits even juice 
               that exudes from grapes and olives!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (R. Hoshaya - Beraisa):</font></b> If one crushed grapes or 
               olives before Shabbos and juice flowed out by itself 
               on Shabbos, it is forbidden;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar and R. Shimon permit it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina had not heard this Beraisa.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why didn't R. Elazar answer like R. Yosi?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yochanan taught [regarding R. Yosi's Beraisa] 
          that R. Yishmael and R. Akiva agree that if the garlic, 
          Boser or Melilos were not crushed, what exudes is 
          forbidden;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> They argue about they were crushed, they only need 
               to be squeezed;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> In our Mishnah, the grapes and olives need to be 
               crushed more!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina ruled like R. Yishmael.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> Shemen of Badadim (Tosfos - oil that exudes on 
          Shabbos; Rashi - oil left in the corners if the 
          olivepress, it is given to the one who makes the oil) and 
          mats used to cover the olives are forbidden (they are 
          Muktzeh or Nolad) on Shabbos;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> They are permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> Double-mats used to cover merchandise are 
          forbidden (Muktzeh) on Shabbos;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> They are permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Rav forbids the following, Shmuel permits 
          them:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A goat [raised] for [the sake of] milk, a sheep for 
               wool, a hen for eggs, oxen for plowing, and dates 
               one intends to sell.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Rav holds like R. Yehudah [who is stringent about 
               Muktzeh], Shmuel holds like R. Shimon [who permits 
               almost all categories of Muktzeh].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b></b>  A certain Talmid in the city of Charta ruled like R. 
          Shimon; Rav Hamnuna excommunicated him.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Halachah follows R. Shimon!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Charta is in Rav's region, one should not rule 
          against Rav there.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(t)</font></b></b>  There were two Talmidim, one saved [food and drink] from 
          a fire in one vessel, the other saved in four or five 
          vessels;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> They argue like Rabah bar Zavda and Rav Huna argue 
               (120A).
<br>
<b><font>4) 'MELACHOS' THAT MUST BEGIN BEFORE SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not leave meat, onions or eggs to 
          roast unless there is time for them to get roasted before 
          Shabbos;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  One may not put bread in an oven just before Shabbos or a 
          cake on top of coals unless there is time for the faces 
          to form a crust before Shabbos;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer requires time for the bottom face to form a 
          crust.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  We may lower the Korban Pesach into an oven just before 
          Shabbos;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  It suffices to make the bonfire in the Beis ha'Mokad (a 
          chamber in the Mikdash) to catch a little [before 
          Shabbos];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Outside the Mikdash, most of the wood must catch fire 
          [before Shabbos, lest one will stoke it on Shabbos to 
          help the fire catch];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, if coals are used, any amount may catch 
          beforehand (they do not need to be stoked).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>4) THE OIL OF THE OLIVE PRESS WORKERS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Rav and Shmuel argue whether the 'oil of the olive press workers' is Muktzah on Shabbos. What is the 'oil of the olive press workers'?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that this is the oil that is left in the crevices or corners of the olive press. This leftover oil is usually given to the workers. Since the owner of the press has no intention to take the oil for himself because it is assumed that his workers will take it, it is Muktzah and may not be moved on Shabbos.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> argues that the fact that the oil does not belong to the owner (and he has no intention of taking it) does not cause the oil to become Muktzah.
</p><p>
Tosfos explains that the oil that Rav and Shmuel argue about is the oil that flows from olives that were placed under the press before Shabbos (in the case of the Mishnah). Since the oil was not accessible when Shabbos arrived (because it was underneath the heavy wooden press), when the oil flows out from the press on Shabbos it is prohibited because of Nolad. That is, it is considered something that came into existence on Shabbos.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) HOW MUCH MUST FOOD COOK BEFORE SHABBOS?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> How much must the food roast before 
          Shabbos?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Elazar):</font></b> It must be roasted k'Ma'achal Ben 
          Drusai (like a certain thief used to eat, a third or half 
          cooked).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rav Asi):</font></b> The decree against Bishul Akum (food cooked by 
          Nochrim) does not apply to anything cooked [by a Yisrael] 
          k'Ma'achal Ben Drusai (a Nochri may finish cooking it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - Chananya):</font></b> Anything cooked k'Ma'achal Ben 
          Drusai may be left on a stovetop on Shabbos, even if the 
          stove was not Garuf or Katum (the coals were not swept 
          out, ashes were not put on them - since it is edible, we 
          are not concerned lest he stoke the coals).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not put bread...[R. Eliezer requires 
          time for the bottom face to form a crust].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Does 'the bottom face' mean the one stuck to 
          the oven (but Chachamim permit once any face crusts), or 
          the one facing the fire (in the bottom of the oven - but 
          Chachamim require all the faces to crust)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> There must be time for the 
          bottom face stuck to the oven to form a crust.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We may lower the Korban Pesach...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is this permitted?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The group that will eat it are zealous.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> If they would not be zealous, it would be 
          forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But we learned (18B) that one may leave kid 
          meat even in an unsealed oven (according to everyone 
          (Version #2), or at least according to Rav Ashi in 
          Version #1)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is permitted there when the kid is cut into 
          pieces (wind is bad for it) - Korban Pesach is roasted 
          whole (wind does not harm it).
<br>
<b><font>2) HOW MUCH MUST FIRE BURN BEFORE SHABBOS?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> It suffices for the bonfire [in the Beis 
          ha'Mokad to catch a little].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source of this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Huna):</font></b> 'Lo Seva'aru Esh b'Chol 
          Moshvoseichem' - you may not kindle in your dwellings, it 
          is permitted in Beis ha'Mokad (a chamber in the Mikdash 
          in which a fire burned).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Chisda):</font></b> If so, it should be permitted 
          even on Shabbos! Rather, the verse permits burning limbs 
          [of Olos] and Chelev on the Mizbe'ach [on Shabbos].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Chisda):</font></b> It is permitted because Kohanim 
          are zealous.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Outside the Mikdash, [most of the wood must 
          catch].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What majority is required?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav):</font></b> The majority of each stick must catch 
          fire.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Shmuel):</font></b> [The majority of the wood must catch 
          fire,] in order that people will not say 'Bring twigs to 
          put under the logs [to help them catch]'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Support (for Shmuel - Rav Chiya - Beraisa):</font></b> [When 
          lighting a bonfire before Shabbos (alternatively - the 
          Menorah in the Mikdash),] the flame must go up by itself 
          without anything to help it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (Rav):</font></b> If one burns a single log, the majority 
          of its thickness must catch before Shabbos;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (Rav):</font></b> The majority of its circumference must 
          catch.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Rav Papa):</font></b> Since we are unsure which Rav said, both 
          majorities are required.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  Tana'im argue like the two versions of Rav:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Chiya):</font></b> The log must be so burnt that 
               a craftsman cannot use it (most of its thickness);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah ben Beseira says, the fire must catch on 
               both sides (most of its circumference).
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> There is a hint to this, not a proof - 'Es Shnei 
               Ketzosav Ochlah ha'Esh v'Socho Nochar ha'Yitzlach 
               li'Mlachah'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> 'V'Es ha'Ach Lefanav Mevo'ares' - what is this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav):</font></b> It is a willow branch.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Shmuel):</font></b> They are logs that caught fire from 
          the willow.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b></b>  A certain man was saying 'Who wants Achvana' - he was 
          found to be selling willow.
<br>
<b><font>3) THINGS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE A MAJORITY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> In a bonfire of reeds, one need not ignite 
          the majority before Shabbos (for they do not extinguish);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he bound them, the majority is required.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> In a fire of pits, the majority is not required; if 
               they are in a Kli made from Lulavim, the majority is 
               required (for the flame does not get inside).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Chisda):</font></b> Just the contrary! Loose reeds or 
          seeds will come apart (they will not ignite each other, 
          so the majority is needed); bound reeds or seeds in a Kli 
          will not come apart (the majority is not needed).
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WHEN DOES BREAD BECOME BROWN</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah (19b) says that one may bake bread in an oven on Friday only if its surface will become brown (crusted) while it is still day, before the arrival of Shabbos. Rebbi Eliezer requires that the bottom side of the bread become brown. The Gemara asks whether the 'bottom side' refers to the part of the bread that is affixed to the side of the oven, or to the part that faces the fire underneath. The Gemara concludes that the part of the bread that is affixed to the side of the oven is considered the bottom of the bread.
</p><p>
What difference does it make whether the bottom is the side affixed to the oven, or the side facing the fire?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b>, according to the simple understanding of his words, explains that the side of the bread facing the fire becomes brown quicker than the side affixed to the oven. The Gemara concludes that one may not bake bread on Friday unless there is enough time left for <i>even</i> the side that is affixed to the oven to become brown. The Rabanan argue and maintain that it suffices for one side to become brown -- that is, the side facing the fire (which browns first). The Rabanan are more lenient than Rebbi Eliezer.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Iba'i Lehu) does not accept Rashi's explanation. Tosfos bases his argument on the Yerushalmi that states that with regard to the Lechem ha'Panim, Rebbi Eliezer agrees with the Rabanan that a significant amount of the bread must become brown. This implies that with regard to Shabbos, Rebbi Eliezer maintains that only a <i>small</i> part needs to become brown (and Rebbi Eliezer is more lenient than the Rabanan). According to Rashi's explanation, the Yerushalmi is saying the opposite of what it should have said! It should have said that the Rabanan (who require, with regard to Shabbos, that only one side become brown -- the side facing the fire) agree with Rebbi Eliezer with regard to the Lechem ha'Panim (that a more significant amount of browning is required). 
</p><p>
Therefore, the <b>RIVA</b> (cited by Tosfos) explains that the side facing the oven browns <i>first</i>. The Rabanan require that both sides become brown in order to be considered baked, while Rebbi Eliezer requires only one side to become brown before Shabbos. According to Rebbi Eliezer, it suffices if only the side facing the oven becomes brown.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>PRI MEGADIM</b> (in <b>ROSH YOSEF</b>) is bothered by the question that the Yerushalmi poses to Rashi's explanation. The Pri Megadim suggests that even according to Rashi, the opinion of the Rabanan is <i>more</i> stringent than the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer. The Rabanan require not only the side of the bread stuck to the oven and the side facing the fire to become brown, but all of the <i>other</i> sides also must become brown in order to permit this bread to continue baking on Shabbos. The Gemara's only doubt is in the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer, who argues with the Rabanan and is more lenient. The Gemara is unsure exactly how lenient he is. Does he require that only the side facing the fire be crusted, or that the side stuck to the oven be crusted as well (but not the other sides, which may crust later)?
</p><p>
We now understand the Yerushalmi's statement that Rebbi Eliezer agrees with the Rabanan that with regard to the Lechem ha'Panim we require a significant part of its surface to be brown. With regard to Shabbos, Rebbi Eliezer requires that only one (or two) side(s) be brown, while the Rabanan require all six sides to be brown. Regarding the Lechem ha'Panim, Rebbi Eliezer agrees with the Rabanan that all six sides must be brown.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Rav Kahana taught like Rav Chisda.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yosef - Beraisa):</font></b> Four kinds of bonfire do not 
          require the majority - of pitch, sulfur, wax, and Revav 
          (anything that melts, e.g. wax or fat).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Also fires of straw or stubble do not require 
          the majority.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Trees of Bavel do not require the 
          majority.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Yosef):</font></b> What does R. Yochanan refer to?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> He refers to finely cut wood.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> Ula taught that even a wick (made from worn 
          clothing and dipped in oil, it catches easily) requires 
          the majority, all the more so finely cut wood!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> He refers to cedar branches.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rami bar Aba):</font></b> He refers to moss.
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>*****<b>PEREK BA'MEH MADLIKIN</b> *****
</b></font></center><p>
<br><br><b><font>4) FORBIDDEN WICKS AND OILS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah) Question:</font></b> What may be used to light [a lamp 
          that will burn on Shabbos], which are forbidden [because 
          they do not burn nicely, one may come to help it burn]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We may not use the following - Leches, Chosen, 
          Chalach, Idan wick, wilderness wick or 'yellow on the 
          water';
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  We may not use pitch, wax, Kik oil, oil that must be 
          burned (e.g. Tamei Terumah), the fat tail (of a sheep), 
          or Chelev;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Nachum ha'Midi permits cooked Chelev;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim forbid it, whether or not it is cooked.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Gemara):</font></b> Leches is a cedar branch.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> Obviously, this is not fit for a wick!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah forbids a material like wool between 
          the bark and the wood.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Not with Chosen.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> This is Ne'ores (chaff) of flax.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> 'V'Hayah he'Chason li'N'ores' (this 
          implies that Chosen is not Ne'ores)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> Rather, it is flax that was beaten but not 
          unraveled.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Not with Chalach.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> Seafarers told me that it is called Chulcha.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yitzchak bar Ze'ira):</font></b> This is waste silk.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  Ravin and Abaye were sitting in front of Ravna Nechemyah, 
          the brother of the Reish Galusa; they saw that he was 
          wearing a silk garment.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Ravin):</font></b> That is Chalach of the Mishnah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Version #1 - Ri - (Abaye):</font></b> We (in Bavel) call this Pranda 
          silk (but Chalach is inferior silk).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Question (against Ravin - Beraisa):</font></b> Tzitzis must be put 
          on garments of the following materials - silk, Chalach 
          and Serikin (frayed silk). (This shows that Chalach is 
          not silk!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b></b>  Ravin is refuted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Version #2 - R. Tam - (Abaye):</font></b> We call it (Chalach) 
          Pranda silk (Ravna is wearing inferior silk). 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(t)</font></b><font>  Question (against Abaye - Beraisa):</font></b> Tzitzis must be put 
          on garments of the following materials - silk, Chalach 
          and Serikin. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(u)</font></b></b>  Abaye is refuted. (end of Version #2) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(v)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Alternatively, Pranda silk is not regular silk.
<br>
<b><font>5) OTHER FORBIDDEN WICKS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Not with Idan wick.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  This is [a wick made from] a material like wool between 
          the bark and the wood of willow.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Ravin and Abaye were walking in a certain valley and saw 
          willow.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Ravin:</font></b> This is Idan of the Mishnah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Abaye:</font></b> It is a mere tree (it cannot be used for a wick)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Ravin peeled it and showed him the 'wool' under the bark.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Wilderness wick.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  This is nettles.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Yellow on the water.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is this?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> It is seaweed.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> Seaweed crumbles, one could not make a 
               wick from it!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> It is moss that grows on boats.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> They also forbade wicks of wool and hair.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  Our Tana did not bother to list these, for they do not 
          work at all - wool shrivels up, hair gets burned.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) BURNING REEDS OR SEEDS, SEPARATE AND BUNDLED</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara discusses the permissibility of lighting a fire of reeds or seeds before Shabbos that will remain lit on Shabbos. There is an argument in the Gemara whether -- in order to permit lighting the fire before Shabbos -- a majority of the reeds or seeds must be aflame before Shabbos or not. What is Rav Kahana's conclusion?
</p><p>
(a) The text of our Gemara (which is also the text of <b>RASHI</b>) differentiates between reeds and seeds. Reed-sticks burn better when they are not bundled together, and therefore when they are not bundled we do not require that a majority be aflame prior to Shabbos. Seeds, on the other hand, burn better when they are bundled together in a container, and therefore when they are not bundled we <i>do</i> require that a majority be aflame prior to Shabbos.
</p><p>
(b) According to the text of the <b>ROSH</b>, the Gemara concludes that according to Rav Kahana reeds and seeds are the same. When they are bundled together they burn better, and there is no requirement for a majority to be aflame.
</p><p>
(c) According to the text of the <b>RIF</b>, the Gemara concludes that according to Rav Kahana, both reeds and seeds burn better when they are <i>not</i> bundled together. Hence, when they are not bundled together there is no need for a majority to be aflame. When they <i>are</i> bundled together, a majority must be burning before Shabbos.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 255:3) cites both the opinion of the Rif (c) and the opinion of the Rosh (b). The Shulchan Aruch apparently maintains that one should take into account both opinions and not light a fire with reeds or seeds prior to Shabbos unless a majority is aflame, whether or not they are bundled together.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) FORBIDDEN OILS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We may not use pitch. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Before pitch the Mishnah lists Pasul wicks, 
          afterwards Pasul oils are listed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This is obvious!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (Rashi) Answer:</font></b> Wax was not obvious - one 
          might have thought that it is Pasul even if it is [like] 
          a wick (surrounds a wick, like our candles) - the Beraisa 
          teaches, it is Pasul only when used like oil.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  Version #2 (Chachamim of Narvona, cited by Tosfos) 
          Answer: Wax was not obvious - one might have thought that 
          it is Pasul even for a wick - the Beraisa teaches, it is 
          Pasul only for oil. (end of Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rami bar Avin):</font></b> Itran (tar, mentioned in the next 
          Mishnah) is the waste of pitch (when pitch is heated, tar 
          exudes); wax is the waste of [cakes of] honey.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What difference does it make?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This is relevant to commerce (if one sold tar or 
          wax, this is what he must give).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> The oils that may not be left burning in a 
          lamp over Shabbos may be used for a big fire, for heat or 
          for light;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is permitted whether it is on the ground or in 
               a lamp.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> They are forbidden only to be put in a lamp with a 
               wick.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Kik oil.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> Seafarers told me that there is a bird overseas 
          called Kik.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Yitzchak brei d'Rav Yehudah):</font></b> It is 
          cottonseed oil.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Reish Lakish):</font></b> It comes from a Kikayon (the 
          tree Hash-m made grow for Yonah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> I saw the Kikayon of Yonah - it 
          was like the plant from which yields castor oil; it grows 
          in swamps, storekeepers hang it over the openings of 
          their shops for shade and a good smell;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Oil is made from its seeds, in Eretz Yisrael, all 
               sick people rest in the shade of its branches.
<br>
<b><font>2) FIXING BAD OILS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rabah):</font></b> Chachamim forbade the wicks [in our Mishnah] 
          because they flicker; they forbade the oils because they 
          are not drawn up the wick.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> May one put a drop of [good] oil into a 
          Pasul oil and light with them?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> (It will cause the oil to be drawn up the wick - 
               but) do we decree lest one use the Pasul oil by 
               itself, or not?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah):</font></b> We may not light with it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah):</font></b> This is because we may not light with it 
          (it is a decree).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye - Beraisa):</font></b> If one wound a good wick 
          around something we may not light with, one may not light 
          with it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, in my father's house 
               they would wind a wick around a nut and light with 
               it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rabah:</font></b> Why do you ask from R. Shimon, the first Tana 
               supports me!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Abaye:</font></b> We rely on R. Shimon' opinion, for it was 
               followed in practice.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Summation of question - suggestion:</font></b> They would light 
               the wick and the nut!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, the nut was merely to make the wick float 
          [above the oil].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why does the first Tana forbid?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The entire Beraisa is R. Shimon, it is 
          abbreviated, it means as follows:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If one wound a good wick around something we may not 
               light with, one may not light with it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This is if he lights both wicks - but if he does so 
               to make the wick float, it is permitted;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, in my father's house 
               they would wind a wick around a nut.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Rav Beruna permits to put a drop of [good] oil 
          into melted Chelev or fish innards and light with it!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rabah forbids regarding oils that [by themselves] 
          are not drawn up the wick;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Melted Chelev or dissolved fish innards themselves 
               are drawn up the wick, it is only a decree not to 
               use them by themselves, lest one will use solid 
               Chelev or fish innards that are not dissolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We should decree not to use melted Chelev or 
          fish innards with a drop of oil, lest one use them 
          without a drop of oil!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is only a decree not to use them by themselves 
          - we do not make a decree on account of a decree!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Rami bar Chama - Beraisa):</font></b> The oils and wicks forbidden 
          to use on Shabbos may not be used in the Mikdash - 
          'Leha'alos Ner Tamid'. (Cheshek Shlomo deletes 'oils' 
          from the text, for the Torah explicitly requires olive 
          oil for the Menorah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Implied question:</font></b> How do we learn this from the verse? 
          Answer) (Rami bar Chama): This teaches that the flame 
          must go up by itself without anything to help it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> Worn out Michnesayim (pants) and 
          belts (Avnetim) of Kohanim were used to make wicks for 
          lamps at the Simchas Beis ha'Sho'evah (celebrations in 
          the Mikdash on Sukos.) (The Avnet is mostly of wool!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Simchas Beis ha'Sho'evah is different 
          ('Leha'alos Ner Tamid' applies only to the Menorah). 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> Worn out Bigdei Kehunah were used to 
          make wicks used in the Mikdash.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Even Bigdei Kehunah with Kil'ayim (wool 
               and linen) were used (even though wool is Pasul)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, only linen Bigdei Kehunah were used.
<br>
<b><font>3) WHAT MAY BE USED FOR 'NEROS CHANUKAH'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> The oils and wicks forbidden to use on 
          Shabbos may not be used for Ner Chanukah, not during the 
          week nor on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> Rav Huna holds that if the Ner extinguished, one 
          must relight it (he forbids Pesulim on weekdays, perhaps 
          the Ner will go out and he will neglect to relight it);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He permits using the light (he forbids Pesulim on 
               Shabbos, perhaps he will use the light and come to 
               fix the flame).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> They may be used during the week, but not 
          on Shabbos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He holds that if it extinguished, one need not 
               relight it; he permits using the light.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LARGE FIRE AND A SMALL ONE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah lists the types of wicks and oils which may not be used for the Shabbos lights. Since those wicks and oils do not burn well, we fear that one might be tempted to improve the flame and thereby transgress the Melachah of kindling. The Gemara cites a Beraisa that states that one is permitted, however, to make a <i>large</i> fire out of these wicks and oils (for example, to heat one's home on Shabbos or to use its light). Since there is a large amount of fuel for the fire, there is no fear that the flame will dwindle and that one might attempt to fix it.
</p><p>
According to this distinction between a large fire and a small one, why does the Gemara earlier (20b) reject Rebbi Yochanan's statement? Rebbi Yochanan said that when lighting a fire with the 'kindling wood of Bavel' prior to Shabbos, one is not required to wait until most of the wood is aflame. The Gemara asks that if, in order to light even a <i>wick</i> before Shabbos, most of it must be aflame, then certainly when lighting a bonfire with the 'wood of Bavel' it is necessary that most of it be aflame.
</p><p>
According to the Gemara here, though, a large fire burns <i>better</i> than a small one. Since there is a difference between a large fire and a small one, why does the Gemara challenge Rebbi Yochanan with the assumption that one must be more careful when kindling a large bonfire before Shabbos than when kindling a small flame? (<b>SEFAS EMES</b>, 20b)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> When the Gemara here differentiates between a large fire and a small one, it refers to the quality of the flame once it is lit. The flame burns better when it is powered by a large amount of fuel, and therefore one is permitted to light such a fire on Friday to burn during Shabbos. However, it does not <i>catch fire</i> better, and therefore one may only light it on Friday if he ensures that a majority of the fuel will catch fire before Shabbos. (Ibid.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) USING BAD WICKS OR OILS FOR THE CHANUKAH LIGHTS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Huna rules that one may not kindle the Chanukah lights with the inferior wicks and oils mentioned in the Mishnah (20b), either on weeknights or on Shabbos. The Gemara explains that the reason why they may not be used on weeknights is because of the rule that if the Chanukah lights go out, one is obligated to rekindle them. Since these inferior wicks and oils are likely to go out, we are concerned that one may neglect to relight them (<b>RASHI</b>). The reason why they may not be used on Shabbos is because Rav Huna maintains that one is permitted to derive benefit from the light of the Chanukah flames, and therefore we are concerned that he might tilt the lamp on Shabbos in order to improve its flame.
</p><p>
How does the Gemara know that Rav Huna maintains that one is permitted to derive benefit from the light of the Chanukah flames? Perhaps he maintains that it is <i>forbidden</i> to use their light, and the reason why these wicks and oils may not be used for the Chanukah lights on Shabbos is for the same reason they may not be used on weeknights! Since one is obligated to rekindle the lights if they go out, we are concerned that the flames made from the inferior wicks and oils will go out, and on Shabbos it is forbidden to rekindle them!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH u'Mutar) answers that since Rav Huna specifically mentions Shabbos as well as weeknights, he implies that the reason to prohibit the use of these wicks and oils on Shabbos is separate from the reason to prohibit them on weeknights. That reason is that since it is permissible to use the light of the Chanukah flames, we are concerned that he will tilt the lamp in order to increase the quality of the flame.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> explains that in truth we <i>cannot</i> infer from Rav Huna's statement that he permits the use of the Chanukah lights. Nevertheless, the Gemara says that according to Rav Huna one is permitted to use the Chanukah lights because it assumes that Rav Huna probably agrees with his Rebbi, Rav Chisda, who clearly says that one is permitted to use the Chanukah lights.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAN</b> points out that <b>RASHI</b> seems to suggest another answer to this question. Rashi says that the concern created by the rule that one is obligated to rekindle the Chanukah lights if they are extinguished is that one will <i>forget to rekindle them</i>. The 'wrongdoing,' so to speak, is not at the moment that he lights with these inferior wicks and oils. Rather, the 'wrongdoing' occurs later, when the flames go out and the person neglects to rekindle them (or to fix them, see next Insight). Therefore, on Shabbos -- when there is no obligation to rekindle the Chanukah lights -- one may light with these wicks and oils l'Chatchilah. (The problem with bad wicks is not that the lights will go out, but that <i>if</i> they go out one may forget to rekindle them. Since one is not allowed to rekindle the wicks on Shabbos, he will be considered an 'Ones' if the lights go out, and he has not done anything wrong by using the poor wicks.)
</p><p>


<font><b>3) THE FEAR THAT THE CHANUKAH LIGHTS WILL GO OUT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Huna rules that one may not kindle the Chanukah light with inferior wicks and oils because 'if it goes out, one is beholden to [fix] it,' and there is a concern that he will neglect rekindling it. However, in the previous Gemara, no mention was made of any concern that the flame of these wicks and oils tends to <i>go out</i>, but only that the flame flickers and does not glow smoothly. Indeed, the Gemara says that the reason why one may not light with these wicks and oils for Shabbos is because the flame flickers and we fear that he might try to fix it. It is not because the flame will go out, leaving the person in the dark on Shabbos! Why, then, is Rav Huna concerned that the flame will go out? (<b>RAV YAAKOV</b> D. HOMNICK, in <b>NACHALAS YAKOV</b> on Maseches Shabbos 1:1)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>BEIS HA'LEVI</b> asks a different question on the words of Rashi. Why are we so concerned that a person will neglect his obligation to relight the Chanukah candles, such that the Rabanan had to forbid lighting them with these wicks and oils? Moreover, why does Rashi write, 'Perhaps he will neglect to <i>fix</i> it,' and not simply, 'Perhaps he will neglect to <i>rekindle</i> it'?
</p><p>
The Beis ha'Levi answers that there really is no fear that the flame will go out and one will neglect to relight it. Rather, since this type of flame tends to flicker, we are concerned that it may dwindle to the point that it does not provide the large flame necessary to publicize the miracle of Chanukah (Pirsum Nes). Since it is still burning, a person will not bother to fix it to make it large, because he will assume that this flame is good enough.
</p><p>
This is why Rashi says that 'perhaps he will neglect to <i>fix</i> it,' and not 'to <i>rekindle</i> it.' There is no fear that he will not rekindle it if it goes out entirely.
</p><p>
Rav Homnick suggests that this answers our original question as well. We see from the words of the Beis ha'Levi that the problem with using these wicks and oils on Chanukah is identical to the problem with using them for Shabbos. We are afraid that the flames will flicker, but not that they will go out.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> They may be used during the week and on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (R. Yirmeyah):</font></b> He holds that if it extinguished, one need 
          not relight it; he forbids using the light.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Abaye heard this in the name of R. Yirmeyah, but did not 
          accept it; he later heard that R. Yochanan said so, and 
          accepted it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Abaye:</font></b> Had I merited, I would have accepted it the first 
          time!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why was Abaye upset - he accepted the teaching 
          in the end!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One remembers better what he learns in his youth.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Said in the name of Rav Chisda and Rav):</font></b> If it 
          extinguished, one need not relight it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> The Mitzvah is for Ner Chanukah to 
          burn from sunset until the last people cease from the 
          market.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> If it was extinguished, one must relight it!
	   <br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> No, this teaches that if one did not light at sunset, he may still light until this time.
 <b>    <b><font> <br>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> No, this teaches that one must put enough oil to 
          burn until then.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> ...Until the last people cease from the 
          market.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Who are these people?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> They are Tarmudim (a 
          nation, they gather twigs from the market after everyone 
          else leaves).
<br>
<b><font>4) HOW TO LIGHT 'NEROS CHANUKAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> The Mitzvah is for Ner Chanukah is for a man 
          to burn one Ner for his household [on each night];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Mehadrin (people who beautify Mitzvos) light a Ner 
               for every member of the household;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Beis Shamai say, Mehadrin Min ha'Mehadrin (who 
               exceedingly beautify Mitzvos) light eight Neros the 
               first night (Tosfos - on behalf of the entire 
               household; Rama (671:2) - every member of the 
               household does so), and one less every succeeding 
               night.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Beis Hillel say, they light one Ner the first night, 
               and add one every night.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Yosi bar Avin or R. Yosi bar Zevida):</font></b> Beis Shamai 
          light according to the number of days remaining, Beis 
          Hillel light according to the number of days that have 
          passed;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (The other of R. Yosi bar Avin and R. Yosi bar Zevida):</font></b> 
          Beis Shamai learn from the bulls offered on Sukos (13 the 
          first day, and one less every succeeding day), Beis 
          Hillel apply the principal 'We ascend in Kedushah, we do 
          not descend.'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> There were two elders in Tzidon; 
          one did like Beis Shamai, the other like Beis Hillel - 
          their reasoning was like the latter explanation.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> The Mitzvah is to leave Ner Chanukah outside 
          the door of one's house; one who lives in an upper story 
          should leave it near a window near Reshus ha'Rabim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  At a time of danger (from Nochrim), it suffices to leave 
          it on one's table (people outside will not see it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> One must light an extra Ner to use its light (so 
          he will not benefit from Neros Chanukah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  If there is a big fire [in the house], he does not need 
          an extra Ner;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  A distinguished person [normally does not use a bonfire, 
          he] must light an extra Ner even if there is a big fire.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why was Chanukah enacted?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> The eight nights of Chanukah begin on 
          the 25th of Kislev; 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  It is forbidden to eulogize or fast on these days, for 
          the Yevanim entered the Heichal and were Metamei all the 
          oil there; when Malchus Beis Chashmonai overpowered them, 
          they checked and found only one flask of oil with the 
          seal of the Kohen Gadol. (Tosfos - if Chachamim had 
          already decreed Tum'ah on Nochri Zavim, we must say that 
          the flask was in the ground, the seal showed that it had 
          not been moved.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  The flask had the amount of oil needed for one night - 
          miraculously, it lasted for eight nights. (Beis Yosef 670 
          (veha'Ta'am) discusses how they apportioned the oil.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  The following year, they fixed these days to be Yomim 
          Tovim, to say Hallel and Hoda'ah (Al ha'Nisim in Shemoneh 
          Esre). 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a spark flew out from a man's hammer and 
          damaged, he is liable;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b></b>  If Reuven's camel, laden with flax, was walking in Reshus 
          ha'Rabim, and the flax entered Shimon's store, caught 
          fire from Shimon's lamp, and burned the building - Reuven 
          is liable;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If the lamp was outside, Shimon is liable.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, if it was Ner Chanukah, he is 
               exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Ravina):</font></b> From R. Yehudah, we learn that Neros Chanukah 
          must be placed within 10 Tefachim of the ground.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If it was permitted to place them higher, Shimon 
               should be liable, he should have put it higher than 
               a camel and its rider, to avoid damage!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> (Really, one may put them above 10;) Chachamim 
          did not obligate one to place it so high, lest he refrain 
          from the Mitzvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  (Rav Kahana):</font></b> If the lights of Chanukah were placed above 
          20 Amos, this does not fulfill the Mitzvah, just as a 
          Sukah or Korah (a beam to permit carrying in an alleyway) 
          more than 20 Amos high is invalid.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>4) 'MEHADRIN MIN HA'MEHADRIN'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara gives three levels for the performance of the Mitzvah of kindling the Chanukah lights. The third and highest level is 'Mehardin Min ha'Mehadrin,' or the best way to beautify the Mitzvah, where one lights an additional candle each night (either in progressive order according to Beis Hillel, or in regressive order according to Beis Shamai).
</p><p>
The <b>BRISKER RAV</b> (Chidushei ha'Griz, Hilchos Chanukah) asks how could the Chachamim make an enactment of Hidur Mitzvah, beautifying a Mitzvah, by lighting an additional flame each day? The Gemara in Bava Kama (9b) says that one is obligated to perform Hidur Mitzvah up to a maximum expense of one-third of the cost of the Mitzvah itself. Here, though, the Hidur Mitzvah is much more than one-third of the Mitzvah itself (a total of 36 lights instead of 8)!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that 'Mehadrin' does not mean 'Hidur' (beautifying). Rather, it refers to those who 'pursue' Mitzvos, from the Aramaic root 'Hadar' (which is equivalent to the Hebrew 'Chozer'). The Chachamim established that there are <i>three</i> distinct ways to fulfill the Mitzvah, and not that the second and third ways are merely embellished ways of performing the Mitzvah.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b>, however, compares this Hidur Mitzvah to the one discussed in Bava Kama. The Brisker Rav in Hilchos Chanukah says that the Hidur Mitzvah in Bava Kama refers to the <i>obligation</i> (that the Chachamim enacted) to spend money for the sake of beautifying a Mitzvah. The Chachamim obligated one to spend only up to a third of the total cost of the Mitzvah. Here, though, there is no <i>obligation</i> to spend more money to do the Mitzvah in a nicer way. Rather, the Chachamim established that if one <i>desires</i> to do the Mitzvah in a nicer way, this is how he should do it.
</p><p>
Why, though, should there be such a large (albeit voluntary) Hidur Mitzvah for this particular Mitzvah, when normally Hidur Mitzvah involves only up to one-third of the cost of the Mitzvah?
</p><p>
The <b>BEIS HA'LEVI</b> suggests the following answer. The Beis Yosef asks the well known question, why do we celebrate eight days of Chanukah if the miracle was for only seven days, since there was enough oil in the jar to last for one day? One answer is that the miracle indeed occurred each day for eight days, because on each day only <i>1/8th</i> of the jar of oil was poured into the Menorah, and yet it lasted for the entire night.
</p><p>
However, since they were required to pour in enough oil to kindle the Menorah for the entire night, how could they pour in only 1/8th of the normal amount? The answer is that they also made the wicks thinner -- 1/8th of their normal size.
</p><p>
If, however, the wicks were 1/8th of their normal thickness, then what was the miracle that 1/8th of the oil was able to make the Menorah burn the entire night? If the wick was 1/8th of its usual size, and the oil was 1/8th of the usual quantity, it is no miracle that it burned for the normal amount of time! The Beis ha'Levi explains that the miracle was that even though the quantity of oil was less, and the size of the wicks were decreased, the flame that burned was as large and beautiful as always.
</p><p>
Since the miracle involved a <i>beautification</i> of the flame of the Menorah rather than the existence of the flame itself, the Chachamim established a special Hidur Mitzvah in their enactment to kindle Chanukah lights, to commemorate the miracle that occurred!
</p><p>


<font><b>5) ADDING A CANDLE EVERY DAY</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Beis Hillel maintains that the 'Medahrin Min ha'Mehadrin' way to perform the Mitzvah of kindling the Chanukah lights is to 'add progressively' ('Mosif v'Holech'). What exactly does this mean?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Chanukah 4:1) writes that one who conducts himself according to the Mehadrin Min ha'Mehadrin way of lighting kindles an additional candle for <i>each person</i> in the house each night (for example, if there are ten people in the house, on the second night of Chanukah the head of the house lights 20 candles).
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH veha'Mehadrin) asks that the entire purpose of adding an extra candle is to show that an additional day of miracle occurred. When one sees 20 candles in someone's house, and 30 candles in someone else's house, he does not recognize that there was an additional day of miracle! Therefore, Tosfos understands that Mehadrin Min ha'Mehadrin means that the head of the house lights <i>one</i> candle for each day of Chanukah that has already passed (according to Beis Hillel), and not one for each person in the household.
</p><p>
How can we answer Tosfos' question on the Rambam's ruling?
</p><p>
The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (OC 671) points out an oddity in the words of the <b>RIF</b> here. The Rif's style is to write only Halachic conclusions and rulings. Here, however, the Rif records the story in the Gemara of the two elders of Sidon, one of whom conducted himself like Beis Hillel, and one of whom conducted himself Beis Shamai, who gave reasons for the rulings of Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai. Why does the Rif record this story when it does not seem to have anything to do with the Halachah (it merely expresses the <i>reasons</i> for the Halachah, and it is not the style of the Rif to record reasons)? 
</p><p>
The Vilna Ga'on explains that Tosfos' proof for adding only one candle per day per household is based on the <i>first</i> of the two reasons suggested by the Gemara for Mehadrin Min ha'Mehadrin: it is in order to create a feature in the lighting that shows that an additional day of miracle occurred. According to the second reason suggested by the Gemara (Ma'alin b'Kodesh...), there is absolutely no reason to limit the addition to one candle per day per household.
</p><p>
The Rif understands that the two reasons for Mehadrin Min ha'Mehadrin disagree in practice about how to light the extra lights. Should Mehadrin Min ha'Mehadrin be done as Tosfos says (one candle per day per household), or as the Rambam says (one candle for <i>each</i> member of the household per day per household). The Gemara's conclusion can be inferred from the story of the elders of Sidon, which is a 'Ma'aseh Rav' (an actual incident in which a certain Halachah was practiced, which carries more weight than a theoretical argument). Since the elder in Sidon ruled that the additional candle is because of Ma'alin b'Kodesh, we should rule like the Rambam and add another candle for each member of the household each day. 
</p><p>
This explains why the Rif quotes the story of the two elders (since it affects the Halachic practice), and why the Rambam was not bothered by Tosfos' question (since we rule like the elder of Sidon)!
</p><p>


<font><b>6) CHANUKAH AND SUKOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that the reason for Beis Shamai's opinion that one lights Chanukah candles in regressive order (eight on the first night, seven on the second night, and so on) is because the number of cows that were brought as a Korban Musaf each day of Sukos were also brought in descending numbers (thirteen the first day, twelve the second day, and so on). What do the lights of Chanukah have to do with the Korbanos of Sukos?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RABEINU YEHONASAN M'LUNIL</b> explains that on Chanukah, the Chashmona'im felt that the miracle of their triumph was greater than the miracle of Pesach. On Pesach, the physical existence of the Jews was threatened, but during the time of Chanukah, the <i>spiritual</i> existence of the Jews was threatened as well, because the Greeks wanted to obliterate all traces of Jewish practice. As a result, the Chachamim decided to make the festival of Chanukah longer than that of Pesach. They therefore made it as long as the longest festival in the Torah, which is Sukos (8 days).
</p><p>
(b) According to <b>SEFER CHASHMONA'IM</b> (one of the Apocrypha, or non-sacred Kesuvim), the Chashmona'im were unable to observe Sukos properly because of the war. Therefore, they made the Chanukah festival eight days long to compensate for the lost days of Sukos.
</p><p>


<font><b>7) THE DURATION OF THE MIRACLE OF CHANUKAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that the jar of oil contained enough oil for one day. Why, then, do we celebrate <i>eight</i> days of Chanukah? We should celebrate only <i>seven</i> days of Chanukah, because the first day was not a miracle! (<b>BEIS YOSEF</b>, OC 670; this is the famous 'question of the Beis Yosef.')
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> The <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> offers three answers to his question:
</p><p>
(a) They divided the oil into eight parts, so that a miracle indeed occurred every day, when 1/8th of the oil lasted for the entire night.
</p><p>
(b) When they poured out the oil from the jar it remained full, so the miracle was noticeable even on the first night.
</p><p>
(c) After the first night, although they poured all the oil into the Menorah, none of it burned and the Menorah remained full of oil for all eight days.
</p><p>
The Acharonim challenge each of these three answers:
</p><p>
(a) How could they divide the oil into eight parts and use only 1/8th every night? We are required to put enough oil into the Menorah to last the <i>entire</i> night! (They did not know that a miracle was going to occur, and even if they expected one to occur, they would not have been permitted to rely on a miracle.)
</p><p>
(b) If the jar remained full when they poured out the oil, then on the eighth night there was no miracle, because on the eighth night they emptied the jar!
</p><p>
(c) If the oil that had lasted miraculously for seven nights was finally consumed on the eighth night, then on the eighth night there was no miracle!
</p><p>
The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> asks the question of the Beis Yosef and gives the same answers, but he makes slight additions in order to avoid the questions of the Acharonim:
</p><p>
(a) The requirement to put in enough oil to burn the entire night applies only when one has enough oil. If one does not have enough oil, it is preferable to put in a little each night and not use up all the oil in one night.
</p><p>
(b) The miracle is that the oil which burned in the Menorah was 'miracle oil.' Consequently, there was a miracle on the eighth night as well, since the oil that burned on the eighth night was oil that existed only as a result of a miracle. Although on the first night there was no miracle with the oil itself, because the oil itself burned, nevertheless the fact that the oil did not disappear made the miracle-to-be <i>apparent</i> already on the first night.
</p><p>
(c) Even though they filled up the Menorah, only a small amount of the oil (1/8th) burned each night. The Menorah remained lit for the entire night, yet the rest of the oil was not consumed. Accordingly, on the eighth night as well a miracle was experienced, since the Menorah was aflame the entire night even though only 1/8th of the required amount of oil was left.
</p><p>
Other Rishonim suggest other answers to question of the Beis Yosef:
</p><p>
(d) The <b>ME'IRI</b> says that the first day of Chanukah was established to celebrate the redemption from our enemies, and to celebrate the miracle that a jar of oil was found in the first place.
</p><p>
(e) The <b>SHE'ILTOS</b> (Parshas Vayishlach) and <b>SEFER HA'ESHKOL</b> (Hilchos Chanukah) answer that the amount of oil that was found was not even enough for <i>one</i> day. Their text of the Gemara contained the word 'Afilu' ('even') instead of 'Ela' ('except') in the sentence, 'There was not [oil] in it <i>even</i> to light for one day.'
</p><p>
(The Acharonim present literally hundreds of other answers to the Beis Yosef's question.)
</p><p>


<font><b>8) A SEALED JAR OF OIL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates that the jar of oil that the Chashmona'im found was sealed. What difference does it make if the jar of oil was sealed? If a Nochri touches the jar or carries it, it still becomes Tamei!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> Although various answers are given by the Rishonim, it could be simply that when the Gemara says that they found 'a jar... that was resting in the seal of the Kohen Gadol,' it does not mean that the <i>jar itself</i> was sealed, but that the jar was resting in a <i>sealed place</i>, such as an underground safe, so that the Nochrim had no access to it. This is the intention of <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH she'Hayah). This may also be what <b>RASHI</b> (DH b'Chosmo) means when he says, '[The jar of oil was] <i>hidden away, and sealed</i> with his seal, and [therefore] they knew that no one had touched it.' (<b>RAV</b> Y.D. HOMNICK in <b>SEFER NACHALAS YAKOV</b>)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) HONORING THE 'MITZVOS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Kahana) Question:</font></b> 'Veha'Bor Rek Ein Bo Mayim' - 
          obviously, if the pit is empty it does not have water!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This implies that it did not have water, but it 
          had snakes and scorpions (it was a Nes that Yosef 
          survived).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> The Mitzvah is to leave Ner Chanukah [in the 
          Chatzer or Reshus ha'Rabim] within a Tefach of the 
          opening [to his house].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Where (on which side) does he leave it?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Acha brei d'Rava):</font></b> He leaves it on the 
          right side (of one who enters).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Shmuel mi'Difti):</font></b> He leaves it on the 
          left.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  The Halachah is, he leaves it on the left, in order that 
          [he will be surrounded by Mitzvos,] Ner Chanukah will be 
          on his left and the Mezuzah on his right.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> It is forbidden to count coins near 
          (using) the light of Ner Chanukah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Objection (Shmuel):</font></b> Does Ner Chanukah have Kedushah (that 
          it is forbidden to benefit from it)?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Objection (to the objection - Rav Yosef):</font></b> Blood does not 
          have Kedushah [yet the Mitzvah to cover it must be done 
          honorably]!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> 'V'Shafach...v'Chisahu' - he must cover 
               with the same limb he used to slaughter, i.e. his 
               hand.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> He may not cover with his foot, lest Mitzvos would 
               be disgraceful in his eyes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  Here also, one may not count coins near the Ner, lest 
          Mitzvos would be disgraceful in his eyes!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> May one use Noyei (decorations of a) Sukah 
          during the seven days [of Sukos]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> It is forbidden to 
          count coins near Ner Chanukah (likewise, Noyei Sukah are 
          forbidden).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Yosef):</font></b> A Beraisa explicitly teaches about 
          Noyei Sukah, why does he learn this from Ner Chanukah, 
          which was not taught (by Tana'im)?!
       <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 do 
               not become forbidden).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> We learn all Mitzvos (that one may 
          not disgrace them) from [covering] blood.
<br>
<b><font>2) NOT DISGRACING 'MITZVOS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> One may not light a Ner Chanukah from another Ner 
          Chanukah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> It is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> One may not remove Tzitzis from a garment to 
          attach them to another garment.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> It is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> The Halachah does not follow R. Shimon regarding 
          dragging (this will be explained);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Shimon.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> Wherever Rav and Shmuel argue, my Rebbi (Rabah) 
          always followed [the stringencies of] Rav, except for 
          these three Halachos:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Shimon):</font></b> It is permitted to drag a 
               bed, chair or bench [on a dirt floor], as long as he 
               does not intend to make a furrow.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (A Chacham):</font></b> Rav forbids lighting one Ner from another 
          Ner on account of disgrace to the Mitzvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rav Ada bar Ahavah):</font></b> Do not heed him - Rav forbids 
          because it looks like he weakens the Mitzvah (detracts 
          from its light).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the difference between these opinions?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They argue about lighting a Ner Chanukah directly 
          from another:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Chacham who said that Rav forbids on account of 
               disgrace to the Mitzvah would permit, since he uses 
               the Ner only for the sake of another Mitzvah (Rav 
               only forbids lighting [something else, e.g.] a chip 
               from a Ner in order that light another);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Rav Ada forbids, for in any case it looks like he 
               weakens the Mitzvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question (against Rav Ada - Rav Avya - Beraisa):</font></b> One may 
          not weigh gold Dinarim against coins of Ma'aser Sheni, 
          even for the sake of redeeming Ma'aser Sheni on them.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) COUNTING MONEY BY THE LIGHT OF THE CHANUKAH CANDLES</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Asi states that it is forbidden to count money by the light of the Chanukah candles. The Gemara earlier (21a-b) cites an argument whether or not it is permitted to derive benefit from the light of the Chanukah candles. Why does the Gemara here mention only that counting money is forbidden?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>ROSH</b> and <b>TOSFOS</b> (21a, DH u'Mutar) explain that Rav Asi is teaching that <i>even</i> counting money, which is a momentary activity and does not require much light, is forbidden to do by the lights of Chanukah. We might have thought that only using the lights for ongoing and involved activities is forbidden, but counting money is permitted. Rav Asi therefore teaches that there is a concept of <i>Bizuy Mitzvah</i> ('disgracing the Mitzvah') which prohibits doing any mundane activity by the light of the Chanukah candles. Rav Asi is more stringent than the earlier opinion that said it is forbidden to use the light of the Chanukah candles (for involved activities).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> explains that Rav Asi is actually more lenient than the earlier opinion. The earlier opinion that said it is forbidden to use the light meant that it may not be used for <i>anything</i>, even for a holy purpose, such as to perform another Mitzvah. Rav Asi maintains that it is forbidden to use the light only for mundane activities, but the might may be used for holy purposes, because there is no Bizuy Mitzvah in such a case.
</p><p>
The reason why the earlier opinion forbids the light to be used even for a holy purpose is because the Chanukah lights were instituted as a commemoration of the lights of the Menorah in the Beis ha'Mikdash. The lights of the Menorah were forbidden to be used for any other purpose, including purposes of holiness. Therefore, the Rabanan instituted a similar level of Kedushah for the lights of Chanukah and prohibited using them for any purpose.
</p><p>
(<b>RASHI</b> (21b, DH v'Asur) explains that the reason it is forbidden to use the lights is because there must be an indication that these lights were kindled for the sake of a Mitzvah, and by not using them one shows that they were kindled only for the sake of a Mitzvah. Rashi may understand, like the Ba'al ha'Me'or, that this opinion prohibits using the lights of Chanukah for <i>any</i> purpose. Rav Asi, on the other hand, does not require such an indication; he prohibits using the lights only because of Bizuy Mitzvah, and therefore using them for a holy purpose is permitted.)
</p><p>
<br><font size='+1' color='darkblue'></font></p><font size='+1' color='darkblue'><center><b>22b----------------------------------------22b </b></center></font>
<p>
<font><b>2) HALACHAH: IS THE 'KINDLING' THE MITZVAH, OR IS THE 'PLACING' THE MITZVAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that if a person lights his Chanukah Menorah inside his home and then he brings it outside, he does not fulfill the Mitzvah. The reason is either because the kindling is the Mitzvah ('Hadlakah Oseh Mitzvah'), and since he kindled it in a place that is not fit for the Mitzvah of lighting (inside his house), he does not fulfill the Mitzvah, or because the placing of the Chanukah Menorah is the Mitzvah ('Hanachah Oseh Mitzvah'), but someone who sees him bring the Menorah outside will think that he lit it inside for his own personal use and not for the sake of a Mitzvah.
</p><p>
The <b>RIF</b>, <b>ROSH</b> (2:7) and <b>TUR</b> (OC 675) rule that the <i>kindling</i> is the Mitzvah. They also rule that if one lights it inside and brings it outside, he does not fulfill the Mitzvah 'because someone who sees him will think that he lit it for his own personal use.'
</p><p>
Why do they give the reason of 'someone who sees'? If they rule that the kindling is the Mitzvah, it is not necessary to give this reason! The kindling itself must be done in a place that is fit for the performance of the Mitzvah!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>BACH</b> answers that although the reason of 'someone who sees' is not really necessary, the Rif, Rosh, and Tur mention it because sometimes the first reason for why he does not fulfill his obligation (that the kindling must be done in a place that is fit for the Mitzvah) does not apply. For example, nowadays the accepted practice is to light indoors, and one thereby fulfills the Mitzvah. Accordingly, when one lights the Menorah inside and brings it outside, he <i>has</i> lit it in a place that is fit for the Mitzvah, and thus he should indeed fulfill his obligation even though he takes it outside. Therefore, they quote the second reason mentioned in the Gemara, that someone who sees might think that he lit the candles for his own personal use.
</p><p>
The authorities rule in accordance with the answer of the Bach; see <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> (OC 675:5). The Mishnah Berurah (apparently based on the words of the Vilna Ga'on there) adds that this Halachah also applies when a person lights the Chanukah Menorah <i>outside</i> and then brings it <i>inside</i>; the concern of 'someone who sees' still applies (even though people do not usually kindle lights for personal use outside), and one does not fulfill the Mitzvah.
</p><p>


