# dafyomi

lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> He casts Yir'as Shamayim off 
          himself - 'V'Yir'as Shakai Ya'azov'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  A pregnant woman entered a man's house to [borrow his 
          oven] to bake bread; his dog barked at her - the fetus 
          was uprooted from its place.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> The man:</font></b> Don't worry, his incisors and claws were 
               removed!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> The woman:</font></b> That does not help - the fetus was 
               already uprooted (aborted).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Huna):</font></b> How do we explain 'Semach Bachur 
          b'Yaldusecha vi'Tivcha Libcha bi'Mei Vechurosecha 
          v'Halech b'Darchei Libcha uv'Mar'ei Einecha v'Da Ki Al 
          Kol Elah Yevi'acha Elokim ba'Mishpat'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Huna):</font></b> The Reisha (until 'v'Da') is the 
          enticement of the Yetzer ha'Ra [to indulge in every 
          desire] - afterwards are the words of the Yetzer Tov 
          [that one will be judged for everything];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Reish Lakish):</font></b> The Reisha discusses Divrei 
          Torah (one should learn whatever he desires) - afterwards 
          it discusses good deeds (Rashi - one will be judged about 
          how well he fulfilled what he learned; Maharsha - he is 
          also judged about his learning - 'V'Halech...' discusses 
          deeds, '... Yevi'acha Elokim ba'Mishpat' applies to 
          learning and deeds).
<br>
<b><font>5) BIRIS AND KEVALIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A Biris is Tahor...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> This is a bracelet.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Yosef - Mishnah):</font></b> A Biris is Tahor, one may 
          go out with it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A bracelet is Tamei (it is listed among Kelim taken 
               from [the war with] Midyan!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rav Yehudah means, Biris corresponds to a 
          bracelet (but it is worn on the leg to hold up socks).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Ravin):</font></b> Biris is a single [leg bracelet], Kevalim are a 
          pair.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> Both of these are pairs - one connects them 
          by a chain to make them Kevalim. (R. Yirmeyah was dozing 
          during this dialogue.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Does the chain make them a Kli [to Mekabel 
          Tum'ah]?!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps they are Mekabel Tum'ah on 
               account of R. Shmuel's teaching (because they make 
               noise)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani):</font></b> What is the 
               source that a metal Kli that makes noise is Mekabel 
               Tum'ah?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> 'Kol <i>Davar</i> Asher Yavo ba'Esh...' - even 
               Dibur is included.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> That is when the noise accomplishes something 
          - here, it serves no purpose!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Kevalim serve a purpose!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> There was a family in 
               Yerushalayim, the women used to take large steps, 
               causing their Besulim to fall out. They made Kevalim 
               for them to limit the size of their steps - this 
               solved the problem.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  R. Yirmeyah woke up and approved of this answer, for R. 
          Yochanan also said so.
<br>
<b><font>6) TUM'AH OF ARIG AND TACHSHITIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Dimi citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> Arig (a woven garment) of 
          any size is Tamei (Mekabel Tum'ah) - we learn from the 
          Tzitz.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> (Abaye): The Tzitz was not woven!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> The Tzitz was a golden plate two fingers 
               wide; it went [across the forehead] from ear to ear;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> 'Kodesh la'Shem' was written on it in two lines - 
               'Hashem' was written on top [on the left], 'Kodesh' 
               and the letter 'Lamed' were written on bottom [on 
               the right. R. Tam, cited by Rishonim - 'Kodesh' and 
               'Lamed' were on top [on the left], 'Hashem' was on 
               bottom, on the right]. 
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer b'Rebbi Yosi says, I saw it in the 
               treasure-house of Romi - 'Kodesh la'Shem' was 
               written in one line. (Rambam - Chachamim agree that 
               it is Kosher in one line; Me'iri - Chachamim did not 
               accept R. Eliezer's testimony.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rav Dimi):</font></b> I erred - rather, R. Yochanan taught that a 
          Tachshit of any size is Tamei - we learn from the Tzitz;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Arig of any size is Tamei - we learn from 'O Beged'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Arig or a Tachshit of any size is Tamei; 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (Rashi):</font></b> Something half-Arig and half-Tachshit 
          of any size is Tamei;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (Tosfos ha'Rosh):</font></b> Arig or Tachshit to any 
          degree (it is barely decorative) is Tamei; (end of 
          Version #2) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Sak (sackcloth, made out of goat's hair) has an advantage 
          over Beged (fabric) - it is Tamei on account of Arig 
          (this will be explained). 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> Arig of any size is Tamei - we learn from 'O 
          Veged';
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A Tachshit of any size is Tamei - we learn from the 
               Tzitz;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Arig and Tachshit of any size is Tamei - we learn 
               from 'Kol Kli Ma'aseh'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question (a Chacham):</font></b> The verse refers to Kelim taken 
          from Midyan (Tosfos - it does not discuss Tum'ah at all)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> Indeed, we learn about Tum'ah from a 
          Gezerah Shavah 'Kli-Kli'.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) 'KODESH LA'HASHEM'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara says, according to one opinion, that the words 'Kodesh la'Hashem' were written on the Tzitz on two lines, with 'Hash-m' written above and 'Kodesh La' written below. According to this opinion, how exactly was 'Kodesh la'Hashem' written on the Tzitz?
</p><p>
(a) According to <b>RASHI's</b> first explanation, 'Kodesh La' was on the center of the bottom line, and 'Hash-m' was on the center of the top line (see diagram below).
</p><p>
(b) According to <b>RASHI's</b> second explanation and the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 9:1), 'Kodesh' was on the center of the bottom line, and 'la'Hashem' was on the center of the top line. In order to explain why the Tzitz found in Rome did not look like that, the Rambam adds that it is acceptable, b'Di'eved, to write both words in one line, 'and sometimes they <i>did</i> write it in one line.'
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> says that 'Kodesh La' was on the <i>beginning</i> of the bottom line, and 'Hash-m' was inscribed on the <i>end</i> of the top line.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RASHBA</b>, in the name of <b>RABEINU TAM</b>, explains that Tosfos' explanation is not acceptable, because it is not the manner of people to read the second (bottom) line first. He says that 'Kodesh La' was written on the <i>end</i> of the <i>top</i> line, and 'Hash-m' was written on the <i>beginning</i> of the bottom line. He explains that when the Gemara says that 'Hash-m' was written 'above,' it means that it was written on the first vertical column. 'Below' means that 'Kodesh La' was written on the second vertical column.
</p><p>
(Diagram best viewed when converted to Courier 10pt. font)
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (1):
<br>------------------
<br>-     <b>HASH-M</b>     -
<br>-    <b>KODESH <b><b>LA</b></b></b>   -
<br>------------------
</p><p>

(b) <b>RASHI</b> (2); <b>RAMBAM</b>:
<br>------------------
<br>-    <b>LA'HASHEM</b>   -
<br>-     <b>KODESH</b>     -
<br>------------------
</p><p>

(c) <b>TOSFOS</b>:
<br>------------------
<br>-          <b>HASH-M</b>-
<br>-<b>KODESH <b><b>LA</b></b></b>       -
<br>------------------
</p><p>

(d) <b>RABEINU TAM</b>:
<br>------------------
<br>-       <b>KODESH <b><b>LA</b></b></b>-
<br>-<b>HASH-M</b>          -
<br>------------------
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) TUM'AH OF SAK</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Sak has an advantage over Beged - it is Tamei 
          on account of Arig.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Beged is also Arig (what is the advantage of 
          Sak)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Sak is Tamei even if it is not Arig.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is it useful for?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> A poor person braids three strands 
          and hangs it on his daughter's neck.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> 'Sak' - this only teaches that Sak is Mekabel 
          Tum'ah [from a Sheretz];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the source to include a harness 
               strap or band [made from goats' hair]?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> 'O Sak' includes these.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps we include even ropes and 
               strings (they are braided, not spun)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> 'Sak' - we include only what is like Sak, 
               i.e. it is spun and woven.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Regarding Tum'as Mes it says 'V'Chol Kli Or v'Chol Ma'ase 
          Izim,,,Tischata'u' - this includes a harness strap and 
          band.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps we include even ropes and 
               strings!
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  Support:</font></b> Regarding Tum'as Sheretz we include 
                    only what is spun and woven - the same should 
                    apply to Tum'as Mes!
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> Tum'as Sheretz is lenient, therefore 
                    it applies only to what is spun and woven - but 
                    Tum'as Mes is more stringent (it makes an Av 
                    ha'Tum'ah, which requires seven days and 
                    sprinkling of Mei Chatas to become Tahor), 
                    perhaps it applies to more things!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> We learn from a Gezerah Shavah 'Beged 
               v'Or' between Tum'as Sheratzim and Tum'as Mes, also 
               the latter applies only to what is spun and woven;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Also, [the Gezerah Shavah teaches that] just like 
               everything made from goats is Mekabel Tum'as Mes, it 
               is Mekabel Tum'as Sheretz. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source for [Tum'as Sheratzim of] 
          something made from horse hair or a cow's tail?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'O Sak' includes these.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We used 'O Sak' to include a harness strap or 
          band!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That was before we knew the Gezerah Shavah - now 
          that we know the Gezerah Shavah, we learn these from 
          Tum'as Mes, 'O Sak' teaches about horse hair and a cow's 
          tail.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source that these Mekabel Tum'as 
          Mes?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> Since they are Mekabel Tum'as Sheratzim, just 
          like Kelim from goats, they are like Kelim from goats to 
          Mekabel Tum'as Mes!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> There are many sources of Tum'as Erev 
          (Sheratzim, Nevelah, semen...) - we cannot learn to 
          Tum'as Shivah, which only comes from a Mes!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> We learn from a Gezerah Shavah 'Beged v'Or' 
          between Tum'as Sheratzim and Tum'as Mes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> We must say that the Gezerah Shavah is Mufneh 
          (the word(s) we learn from are extra, we do not challenge 
          such a Gezerah Shavah), otherwise we could challenge it - 
          k'Adashah (the size of a lentil) of a Sheretz is Metamei, 
          but only k'Zayis (a bigger Shi'ur) of a Mes is Metamei! 
          (Tosfos ha'Rosh - this is a real challenge, the above 
          challenge [that Tum'as Erev is more prevalent] was not.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Affirmation:</font></b> Yes, the Gezerah Shavah is Mufneh;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Sheratzim are equated to semen - 'Ish Asher Teztei 
               Mimenu Shichvas Zera; O Ish Asher Yiga b'Chol 
               Sheretz';
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> It says regarding semen 'V'Chol Beged 
               v'Chol Or Asher Yihyeh Alav Shichvas Zera' [is 
               Tamei] - we could learn about Sheratzim from the 
               Hekesh to semen, why does it say 'Beged v'Or' 
               regarding Sheratzim?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> 'Beged v'Or' regarding Sheratzim is extra, 
               for the Gezerah Shavah [to Tum'as Mes].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> It is Mufneh from one side (one of the sources 
          we learn from is extra) - this is like the opinion that 
          we learn from a Gezerah Shavah Mufneh from one side, but 
          do not challenge it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> According to the opinion that we challenge such a 
               Gezerah Shavah, how can we answer?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is Mufneh from both sides;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Mes is [also] equated to Shichvas Zera - 
               'Veha'Noge'a b'Chol Temei Nefesh O Ish Asher Teztei 
               Mimenu Shichvas Zera', therefore 'Beged v'Or' 
               regarding Mes is [likewise] extra.
<br>
<b><font>2) INNER TACHSHITIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> 'Va'Nakrev Es Korban Hash-m...Cheli Zahav 
          Etz'adah v'Tzamid Taba'as Agil v'Chumaz Lechaper Al 
          Nafshoseinu' - Agil is a bra; Chumaz is a girdle;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Support #1 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> The Targum [of Chumaz] is Mechuch 
          - something that leads to Gichuch (frivolity).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Support #2 (Rabah):</font></b> Chumaz is an acronym for 'Kan Makom 
          Zimah (this is the place of illicit relations).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> 'Va'Yiktzof Moshe Al Pekudei ha'Chayil' - 
          Moshe suspected that the soldiers [who defeated Midyan] 
          had sinned [in Zenus, like at Shitim].
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> The soldiers:</font></b> 'Lo Nifkad Mimenu Ish' (everyone acted 
               like Yisrael)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Moshe:</font></b> If so, why are you bringing an atonement?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> The soldiers:</font></b> We did not do a sinful action, but 
               perhaps we had sinful thoughts (Tosfos - there are 
               limits on the Heter to take a woman in war).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Tana d'vei R. Yishmael):</font></b> The soldiers needed [to bring 
          the Kelim for] an atonement for getting pleasure from 
          seeing forbidden women.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'TUM'AS SHERETZ' IS 'MERUBAH'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara says that Tum'as Erev (Tum'as Sheretz) should apply to additional objects to which Tum'as Mes does not apply because it is 'Merubah' -- it is 'more.' What does this mean?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that there are 'many' ('Merubah') <i>types of Tum'os</i> that last until the evening (Sheretz, Shichvas Zera, Maga Tum'as Mes, etc.), whereas only Tum'as Mes lasts seven days.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> says that there are 'many' -- i.e. eight -- <i>types of Sheratzim</i> to which Tum'as Sheretz applies, while there is only one type of Mes.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RASHBA</b> cites <b>RAV HAI GA'ON</b> who says that Tum'as Sheretz is simply <i>more common</i>, since it is much more common for an object to become Tamei from a Sheretz than from a Mes.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) TUM'AH AND HORSETAIL HAIRS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that not only can wool become Tamei, but even horsetail hairs can become Tamei. The Gemara points out, however, that the verse from which we learn that horsetail hairs can become Tamei is written with regard to <i>Tum'as Sheretz</i>. We cannot learn that horsetail hairs can become Tamei with <i>Tum'as Mes</i> from the fact that they can become Tamei with Tum'as Sheretz, because Tum'as Sheretz is Metamei more objects since its Tum'ah is 'Merubah' (see previous Insight).
</p><p>
The Gemara then teaches that there is a Gezeirah Shavah that compares Tum'as Mes to Tum'as Sheretz in order to teach that a Mes will also be Metamei horsetail hairs. The Gemara adds that this Gezeirah Shavah is 'Mufneh' ('open'; when the two similar words teach no other law, they may be used unconditionally for the inference of a Gezeirah Shavah between the two topics). If it were not Mufneh, we would not be able to derive that a Mes is Metamai horsetail hairs, because Tum'as Sheretz is more severe in that it is Metamei with the size of a k'Adashah (even a small amount of Sheretz, the size of a lentil, can be Metamei). 
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara give a new reason for why Tum'as Sheretz is more severe than Tum'as Mes? The Gemara earlier said that Tum'as Sheretz is 'Merubah,' and that is why Tum'as Mes cannot be learned from Tum'as Sheretz. Now, however, the Gemara says that Tum'as Mes cannot be learned from Tum'as Sheretz because Tum'as Sheretz is Metamai b'k'Adashah. Why does the Gemara give two different reasons for why Tum'as Sheretz is more severe than Tum'as Mes?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> explains that there is a difference between the two reasons that the Gemara gives for why the Halachos of Tum'as Mes cannot be learned from Tum'as Sheretz. The reason of Metamei b'k'Adashah is stronger than the reason of 'Merubah,' because the reason of Metamei b'k'Adashah shows both that Tum'as Sheretz is more <i>common</i>, and that it is more <i>severe</i>. The Gemara uses this stronger reason at this stage in order to refute a Gezeirah Shavah, which is a strong Limud (as opposed to a Binyan Av, which is weaker).
</p><p>
However, according to the Maharsha's answer, why does the Gemara earlier ask a weaker question (that Tum'as Sheretz is 'Merubah') and not the stronger question (that Tum'as Sheretz is Metamei b'k'Adashah)? Moreover, the Gemara has not yet concluded that the Limud is a Gezeirah Shavah that is Mufneh, and thus the Limud at this stage should be no stronger than a Binyan Av!
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> explains that when the Gemara earlier says that Tum'as Mes cannot be learned from Tum'as Sheretz because Tum'as Sheretz is Merubah, it is not expressing the real reason for why Tum'as Mes cannot be learned from Tum'as Sheretz. The real reason is because Tum'as Sheretz is Metamai b'k'Adashah (as the Gemara itself says on 28a). The Gemara earlier was relying on the reason that it would express later. (A Beraisa does not always reveal its true reasoning, but it keeps it hidden. The Gemara that explains the Beraisa tells us the true reasoning of the Beraisa.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> The Torah lists external Tachshitim (e.g. 
          rings) with inner Tachshitim (girdles) to teach that one 
          who looks [for pleasure] at a woman's pinky needs 
          atonement like one who looks at her Ervah.
<br>
<b><font>3) WHAT WOMEN MAY GO OUT WITH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A woman may go out with strands of hair [used 
          to braid her hair], whether the strands are from her own 
          [detached] hair, or from another woman, or from an 
          animal;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  She may go out with Totefes or Sarbitin (head ornaments) 
          if they are sewn [into her headdress];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  She may go out with Kavul (a wool cap under her 
          headdress; Tosfos - Shmuel (58A) holds that it is a 
          signet of slavery) or with a wig [used to make it look 
          like she has much hair] in a Chatzer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  She may go out with tufts in her ear [to absorb wax], in 
          her sandal [for comfort] or to absorb Dam Nidah [in that 
          place].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  She may go out with a pepper [to counter odors], a salt 
          crystal [to heal teeth] or anything in her mouth [from 
          before Shabbos];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> She may not put it in on Shabbos; if it fell out, 
               she may not return it [because cures are forbidden 
               on Shabbos; alternatively, it looks like a scheme to 
               permit taking it out].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (our text):</font></b> R. Meir permits her to go out with 
          an artificial tooth or a golden [cap for a] tooth;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (text of Rosh):</font></b> R. Meir permits her to go out 
          with an artificial golden tooth;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Version #3 (brought in Rashi):</font></b> She may go out with an 
          artificial tooth;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  R. Meir permits her to go out with a golden tooth; (end 
          of Version #3)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  Chachamim forbid.
<br>
<b><font>4) GOING OUT WITH DETACHED HAIR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Gemara):</font></b> We must teach all three cases of strands of 
          hair:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If we only taught about strands from her own hair, 
               one might have thought that this is permitted for it 
               does not entail disgrace, but hair from another 
               woman is forbidden [lest others will mock her and 
               she will take it off and carry it in Reshus 
               ha'Rabim];
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If we only taught about strands from [her or] 
               another woman's hair, one might have thought that 
               this is permitted for it is human hair, but hair 
               from an animal is forbidden (it is more 
               disgraceful).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (our text) (Beraisa):</font></b> A girl may not go out 
          with hair of an old woman, nor an old woman with a girl's 
          hair.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Version #1A (Tosfos - Rav Pores) Question:</font></b> We understand 
          why an old woman would [want to] go out with a girl's 
          hair - it looks better than her own hair;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Why would a girl [want to] go out with hair of an 
               old woman?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, she would not - the Tana merely taught 
          this for parallel structure with the law of an old woman 
          with a girl's hair.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Version #1B (Rashi) Question:</font></b> We understand why an old 
          woman may not go out with a girl's hair - it looks nicer 
          (perhaps she will remove it to show to others);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Why can't a girl go out with hair of an old woman?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, she may - this clause was included with 
          the law of an old woman with a girl's hair (even though 
          the law does not apply here).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (Tosfos' preferred text) (Beraisa):</font></b> An old 
          woman may not go out with a girl's hair, nor a girl with 
          an old woman's hair.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We understand the Chidush that an old woman may 
          not go out with a girl's hair - even though it looks 
          better, we are concerned lest she will be mocked and 
          remove it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> But there is no need to forbid a girl to go out with 
               hair of an old woman (all the more so, she will be 
               mocked and might remove it)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, there is no Chidush - it was taught for 
          parallel structure with the Reisha. (end of Version #2) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> She may go out with Kavul or with a wig in a 
          Chatzer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> Everything that Chachamim forbade to wear in 
          Reshus ha'Rabim is forbidden in a Chatzer, except for 
          Kavul and a wig.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Rav Anani bar Sason citing R. Yishmael [b'Rebbi Yosi]):</font></b> 
          Everything is [permitted in a Chatzer,] like Kavul and a 
          wig.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> She may go out with Kavul or with a 
          wig in a Chatzer.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is like Rav - but according to Rav Anani, why 
               are these specified?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rav Anani cites the opinion of R. Yishmael 
          b'Rebbi Yosi, a Tana - he argues with our Mishnah. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> According to Rav, what is special about these, 
          that only they are permitted in a Chatzer?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer (Ula):</font></b> Chachamim permitted these, lest a husband 
          be repulsed by his wife. (Rashba - they cover up a bald 
          spot or a lack of hair. Tosfos - Shmuel explains, a 
          signet of slavery assures a master that his slave does 
          not intend to rebel.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> 'Veha'Davah b'Nidasah' - early Chachamim 
               forbade a Nidah to paint her eyes, apply rouge or 
               adorn herself with colored clothing;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva permitted these, lest a husband be repulsed 
               by his wife; 'Veha'Davah b'Nidasah' teaches that she 
               is Nidah until she immerses.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Anything forbidden on account of Mar'is 
          ha'Ayin (suspicion) is forbidden even in private.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> [A donkey] may not go out with a 
          bell, even if the clapper is plugged (because it looks 
          like the owner takes it to sell it in the market).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> One may plug up the clapper and take it 
               in the Chatzer (we are concerned for Mar'is ha'Ayin 
               only in Reshus ha'Rabim)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Tana'im argue about this (Rav holds like R. 
          Eliezer and R. Shimon):
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> [If one's clothes became wet in the 
               rain,] one may spread them to dry in the sun, but 
               not in public view;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer and R. Shimon forbid.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) HALACHAH: WOMEN AND WIGS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah says that a woman may go out on into Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos with hair tied around her hair, whether it is her own hair that is tied on or whether it is hair from someone else or from an animal. Similarly, says the Mishnah, a woman may go into a Chatzer (but not into Reshus ha'Rabim) with a Pe'ah Nochris (a wig). <b>RASHI</b> (here and in Erchin 7b) explains that the purpose of this wig is to give the appearance that the woman has a lot of hair.
</p><p>
(a) The <b>SHILTEI GIBORIM</b> proves from here that a woman is normally allowed to wear a wig in public, and that the Torah only requires her to cover the hair that is attached to her head. He explains that the Mishnah must be referring to married women, because the Gemara says that the reason she may wear certain articles (such as a wig) in a Chatzer is in order that she not become loathsome to her husband. This statement of the Mishnah also implies that the wig itself may be worn without a covering (because otherwise her husband would not be able to see it).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>BE'ER SHEVA</b> (Teshuvah #18) quotes <b>RAV YEHUDAH KATZENELENBOGEN</b> who explains that according to Rashi, who says that the purpose of a wig is to give the appearance that she has more hair, it is clear that the Mishnah maintains that a woman who wears a wig must wear it the same way other women wear their natural hair -- that is, covered.
</p><p>
We may ask, however, what is the point of wearing a wig that is covered if even her husband cannot see her hair? The answer is that the wig gives her hair a fuller look from beneath the kerchief. However, if the purpose of the wig is to stuff the kerchief, then why does the woman not simply stuff her kerchief with wool? The Rav Yehudah Katzenelenbogen answers that sometimes the kerchief slips from its place and the hair under it is visible, and it would be very embarrassing for wool to show up there instead of hair.
</p><p>
Second, Rav Yehudah Katzenelenbogen says that even if the Shiltei Giborim is correct that the wig is worn uncovered, perhaps it is worn uncovered only in a Chatzer (which is what the Mishnah is discussing) which very few people enter. In such a Chatzer where people do not commonly walk, a woman is permitted to go even with her natural hair uncovered, m'Ikar ha'Din. (This explanation seems a bit forced, for the Rishonim make it clear that a Pe'ah Nochris may not be worn in Reshus ha'Rabim <i>only</i> because of the Isur of Tiltul, and not because of the Isur of going out with uncovered hair; see Tosfos and Rishonim to 57b, DH Iy. -M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
Third, even if the Mishnah is discussing a Chatzer where many people commonly walk, it is discussing only the laws of Shabbos and not the laws of modesty and Das Yehudis. That is, from the perspective of the laws of Shabbos, a woman may go into a Chatzer with an uncovered wig (while from the perspective of the laws of Das Yehudis, she may not). He points out that this is similar to what the Rosh writes at the beginning of Shabbos (end of 1:1) with regard to 'Lifnei Iver.' (This proof also seems forced, since the <i>Rabanan</i> permitted the woman to wear the Pe'ah Nochris in order that she should not appear loathsome to her husband, which implies that it is a proper thing for a woman to do.)
</p><p>
We may suggest another reason why a woman covers the hair of her Pe'ah Nochris. The main purpose of the Pe'ah Nochris may be to appeal to her husband when in the house, where a woman is permitted to leave her hair uncovered. However, since it was complicated to put on and remove a wig in the times of the Gemara, the woman would often leave the wig on even when she went into Reshus ha'Rabim, and she would cover it in accordance with the requirement to cover her hair.
</p><p>
In any case, Rav Katzenelenbogen concludes that it is forbidden to wear a wig without covering the wig's hair.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>MAGEN AVRAHAM</b> (OC 75:5) sides with the Shiltei Giborim and permits a woman to wear a wig without covering the wig's hair. In practice, there are various customs among different communities, and one should follow the custom of her community or consult with a competent rabbinical authority..
</p><p>


<font><b>4) HALACHAH: WOMEN WEARING JEWELRY AND OTHER ORNAMENTS ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah here (and on 57a and 62a) lists a number of decorative objects with which a woman may not go into Reshus ha'Rabim (or, in the case of most of the objects mentioned, even into a Chatzer) on Shabbos out of concern that she might carry them four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim.
</p><p>
The Gemara quotes Rav, who rules in accordance with the Mishnah. The Gemara then cites another Tana in a Beraisa, Rebbi Anani bar Sason in the name of Rebbi Yishmael bar Rebbi Yosi, who permits a woman to go into a Chatzer with all of the things listed in the Mishnah. What is the Halachah?
</p><p>
There are five opinions among the Rishonim.
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>RASHBA</b> rule that a woman may not wear these items into a Chatzer, as the Mishnah says. They add that a house is no different than a Chatzer, and thus a woman is prohibited to wear these items even inside of her house. However, she may *carry* these items in a house or Chatzer, as long as she does not wear them.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Shabbos 19:8) also rules like Rav, that one is prohibited to wear these items in a Chatzer. However, he adds that the prohibition applies only to a Chatzer she'Eino Me'ureves, a Chatzer that needs an Eruv but does not have one. In a Chatzer Me'ureves (that has an Eruv) or in a house, a woman <i>may</i> wear these items.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>TUR</b> (OC 303) quotes <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who says that the Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Anani, and a woman is permitted to wear these items even in a Chatzer that has no Eruv.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>SEFER HA'TERUMAH</b> (<b>RABEINU BARUCH</b>) cited by Tosfos and the Tur rules like Rebbi Anani and permits a woman to wear these items not only in a Chatzer that has no Eruv, but even in a Karmelis. Although Rebbi Anani does not mention a Karmelis (which implies that he prohibits wearing these items in a Karmelis), his view applies only in those days, when there were places which had the status of an actual Reshus ha'Rabim. In our times, though, there is no area that is an actual Reshus ha'Rabim, and therefore a woman is permitted to wear jewelry even into a Karmelis. (An object that does not have the status of an ornament, but the status of a load that one carries, may not be taken into a Karmelis, of course. The Sefer ha'Terumah permits going out only with those items that a woman wears but might take off to show to her friends.) Therefore, nowadays a woman may wear these items on Shabbos anywhere.
</p><p>
(e) <b>RABEINU SHIMSHON</b>, as cited by Tosfos and the Tur, suggests another reason for why a woman may walk out while wearing jewelry on Shabbos in our times. In the days of the Mishnah and Gemara, women used to show off their jewelry. Nowadays (when women wear jewelry both on Shabbos and during the week), women do not usually take off their jewelry to show off to each other, and thus women are permitted to wear jewelry anywhere.
</p><p>
The <b>ARUCH HA'SHULCHAN</b> (OC 303:22) adds that in our times, all women are considered distinguished ('Chashuvos') and they consider it beneath their dignity to remove their jewelry to show it off. Furthermore, in those days, the women did not go out often, and on the rare occasion that they went out, they would wear all of their jewelry to show to their friends. Since women did not go to the synagogue, there was a serious concern that they would take off their jewelry in Reshus ha'Rabim to show to each other. In our times, women go out often and meet each other in their homes or in the synagogues, and thus there is no fear that they will remove their jewelry in Reshus ha'Rabim to show to each other.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 303:18) cites the first four opinions, and the <b>REMA</b> cites the fifth. The Shulchan Aruch also mentions the conclusion of <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Rebbi Anani) and the <b>ROSH</b> (6:10), who say that it is better <i>not</i> to stop the women from wearing these items outside on Shabbos even when it is prohibited, because it is unlikely that they will listen and it is better that they transgress unknowingly than willfully.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) A TUFT IN THE EAR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> She may go out with a tuft in her ear.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rami bar Yechezkeil - Beraisa):</font></b> It must be tied in. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> She may go out with a tuft in her sandal.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Rami bar Yechezkeil - Beraisa):</font></b> It must be tied in.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> She may go out with a tuft to absorb Dam 
          Nidah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rami bar Chama):</font></b> It must be tied between her thighs.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Rejection (Rava):</font></b> It need not be tied - since it is 
          repulsive, we are not concerned lest she remove it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Yirmeyah):</font></b> If it has a handle, what is the 
          law? (Rashi - he asks about the tuft for Dam Nidah, she 
          can remove it without touching it. Rashba - he asks about 
          tufts in the ear or shoe, the handle keeps them in 
          place.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Aba):</font></b> It is permitted [even if it is not 
          tied].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan also permitted this.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan went to the Beis Medrash [on Shabbos], with a 
          tuft in his ear (it was not tied) - his colleagues 
          objected (Rashi - he passed through Reshus 
          ha'Rabim;Tosfos ha'Rosh - he passed through a Chatzer).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  R. Yanai went in Karmelis with a tuft in his ear (it was 
          not tied) - his entire generation objected.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question (against both of them):</font></b> But Rami bar 
          Yechezkeil's Beraisa requires it to be tied!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That is if it does not fit tightly - their tufts 
          fit snugly.
<br>
<b><font>2) CARRYING THINGS IN THE MOUTH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> She may go out with a pepper or salt 
          crystal...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  A pepper is to counter bad breath, a salt crystal is to 
          heal teeth.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Or anything in her mouth [is permitted].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  [This includes] ginger or cinnamon.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> R. Meir permits to go out with an artificial 
          [or] golden tooth; Chachamim forbid.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (R. Zeira):</font></b> They argue only about a golden tooth. 
          (Chachamim forbid, lest she will show it to others, or 
          she will remove it to avoid ridicule, or it will fall and 
          she will carry it), but all permit a silver tooth (it is 
          not so special that she will show it off, or carry it if 
          it falls; it is inconspicuous, people will not mock her.) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> All permit a silver tooth;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rebbi permits a golden tooth, Chachamim forbid.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> The following Tana'im are not concerned lest a 
          woman remove something that will cause shame to herself - 
          Rebbi (regarding a gold tooth), R. Eliezer and R. Shimon 
          ben Elazar;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah - R. Eliezer):</font></b> She is exempt if she went 
               out with Koveles (spices bound together) or a flask 
               of balsam oil (it is even permitted - she will not 
               show it off, for it is worn to cover up body odor.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> The general rule 
               is - she may go out with anything under the 
               headdress (she would not remove it, lest she expose 
               her hair or lack of hair), not with something over 
               the headdress.
<br>
<b><font>3) GOING OUT WITH A COIN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> She may go out with a coin on Tzinis (this 
          will be explained).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Young girls may go out with strings [through holes 
          pierced in their ears], or even with chips of wood;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Benos Yisrael in Arab lands may go out with their faces 
          totally covered, except for their eyes; Benos Yisrael in 
          Madai may go out with a cloak buttoned [closed];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Women anywhere may go out this way - Chachamim 
               merely discuss the normal practice.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  She may button on a stone, nut or coin, but she may not 
          button on Shabbos (this will be explained).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What is Tzinis?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is a wound on the sole of the foot.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is a coin good for this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> It is hard (it protects the wound, in case she 
          will walk on thorns or pegs).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> If so, a piece of earthenware could be used 
          (this would be better, for it would be permanently 
          designated for this - but a coin is normally Muktzeh!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> Moisture exudes from coins, it helps cure 
          Tzinis.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> If so, any piece of silver could be used (it 
          need not be a coin)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer #3:</font></b> The image jutting out of the coin helps cure 
          it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> If so, one could make an image on a piece of 
          wood and use it!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Conclusion (Abaye):</font></b> We must say that all of these 
          properties of coins are beneficial.
<br>
<b><font>4) STRINGENCIES OF SHMUEL'S FATHER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Young girls may go out with strings...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Shmuel's father forbade his daughters to go out with 
          strings [on Shabbos], nor to lie together [before they 
          got married]; 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  He made Mikva'os for them in springtime, and put mats for 
          them in fall (Rashi - lest mud be a Chatzizah in their 
          feet; Tosfos - the mats were for privacy).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Our Mishnah permits going out with strings - 
          why did he forbid?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> His daughters had colored strings (perhaps they 
          will show them off).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> He did not let them lie on each other because 
          he holds like Rav Huna.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Huna):</font></b> If women rub [the Ervah of] each other, 
               they are disqualified from Kehunah (Tosfos - they 
               are Zonos; Rashi - they are not full virgins, they 
               may not marry a Kohen Gadol - this shows that it is 
               improper to do so, even when there is no Kohen 
               Gadol.)
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'RE'ULOS'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah says that Jewish women may go out on Shabbos while 'Re'ulos.' What does 'Re'ulos' mean?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> here explains that it refers to a woman whose entire head is completely covered, except for her two eyes. This is what the word means in Yeshayah (3:19).
</p><p>
(b) Rashi in Yeshayah, however, explains that the women used to cover their entire head except for <i>one</i> eye (such attire is considered provocative, because it entices men to want to see more of her face. This is why it is called 'Re'ulos,' from 'Ra'al' -- poison).
</p><p>
(c) Rashi in Yeshayah gives another explanation. 'Re'ulos' refers to thick coats that women wrapped around themselves.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RAMBAM</b> here writes that 'Re'ulos' refers to bells that hang from their garments.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> No - he stopped them lest this arouse their 
          desire for men.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  He made Mikva'os for them in springtime, for he was 
          concerned lest the river is mostly rainwater. (Rashi - 
          rainwater is Metaher only if it is gathered, not if it is 
          flowing - only Zochlim (flowing spring water) is Metaher 
          when flowing. Ran - perhaps rainwater widened the river, 
          immersion is valid only where it normally flows.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  This is like Rav, who says that an increase in the water 
          level of the Peras River shows that there was much rain 
          in Eretz Yisrael.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  It is unlike Shmuel, who says that most of a river's 
          water comes from its [banks and] source.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Contradiction:</font></b> Shmuel also said that the only time one 
          may immerse in a river is the Peras in springtime 
          (otherwise, we are concerned that it is mostly 
          rainwater)!
<br>
<b><font>5) BUTTONING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> She may button on a stone, nut or coin, but 
          she may not button on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Mishnah contradicts itself! (Since it 
          already taught that Mediyos may go out with a buttoned 
          cloak, surely 'She may button on a stone...' comes to 
          permit on Shabbos!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> The Seifa forbids to button on a coin on 
          Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> May a woman scheme and use a nut to 
          button on, in order to take it out to her son [to eat]?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He asks according to the opinion that permits 
               scheming [to wear multiple garments at once to save 
               them from a fire], and also according to the opinion 
               that forbids;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Perhaps [R. Meir] permits only regarding a fire, for 
               if we would be stringent, perhaps he will extinguish 
               - but if we forbid here, she will not carry the nut!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Perhaps [R. Yosi] forbids only there, for that is 
               how some people (clothing salesmen) normally carry 
               garments, but he permits here, for no one normally 
               carries a nut by using it for a button!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  This question is not resolved.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) HALACHAH: IMMERSION IN A RIVER</b></font><b>
<br></b>Shmuel states that a river's waters increase from the river's own subterranean sources, and therefore one may immerse in a river throughout the entire year. 
<br><b>TOSFOS</b> (DH d'Amar Shmuel, and in Bechoros 55b, DH Ein) cites <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who rules in accordance with Shmuel.
</p><p>
Rabeinu Tam in Bechoros adds that even those who prohibit Tevilah in rivers during certain seasons (based on the rulings of Shmuel's father and the other Amora'im) agree with Shmuel's ruling in several cases:
</p><p>
(a) All the rivers in Eretz Yisrael are fit for Tevilah. Since Eretz Yisrael is higher than all other lands (Zevachim 54b), the land sheds its rainwater and its rivers flow from subterranean sources alone. (See Mikva'os 8:1, 'Eretz Yisrael is Tahor and its Mikva'os are Tahor,' -M. Kornfeld.)
</p><p>
(b) The same may apply to all other rivers on mountains.
</p><p>
(c) Rabeinu Tam adds that all Amora'im agree that according to Torah law, one may immerse in a river even during the rainy season. It was the Rabanan who prohibited Tevilah in a river due to Mar'is Ayin (that is, it <i>looks as if</i> the person is immersing in rainwater). He offers two logical grounds for this assertion. First, rainwater trickles into the river drop by drop and is therefore Batel (annulled) by the river water. Second, all rivers join with the sea at some point (Koheles 1:4), and since the sea is valid for Tevilah, so are the rivers.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (YD 201:2) rules that if there is more rainwater then river water in a river, one may immerse only if the water is kept stationary. Although the <b>REMA</b> recommends following this ruling, he adds that there is an opinion (that of Rabeinu Tam) that one <i>may</i> immerse in a river with more rainwater than river water. The <b>REMA</b> concludes that the custom is to immerse in rivers throughout the entire year in places where there are no Mikva'os.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) A COIN AFFIXED TO ONE'S FOOT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that a woman may go into Reshus ha'Rabim with a stone, nut, or coin wrapped in her shawl serving as a button. The Gemara explains that all three are permitted when wrapped in the shawl prior to Shabbos. She is forbidden, though, to place a coin in her garment on Shabbos itself, because a coin is Muktzah. She may place a stone in her garment, as long as she planned to use it on Friday, prior to Shabbos (<b>RASHI</b>).
</p><p>
Why is the stone different from a coin? If she planned before Shabbos to use the coin on Shabbos, then it should also be permitted!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> and <b>TUR</b> (OC 303) explain that planning on Friday to use a coin on Shabbos does not work, because most people do not use a coin as a button, and thus her desire to do so is thus negated ('Batlah Da'atah'). If she actually <i>uses</i> the coin as a button before Shabbos, then its usage is redefined as that of a button and it is not Muktzah on Shabbos. In order to use a stone on Shabbos as a button, on the other hand, it suffices to <i>plan</i> to use it, because a stone is commonly used as a button.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>SHILTEI GIBORIM</b> cites the <b>SEMAG</b> who says that when a woman wraps a coin in her shawl as a button, it appears like she is just trying to carry the coin into Reshus ha'Rabim in a permitted manner, by circumventing the prohibition of Hotza'ah, because it is very uncommon to wear a coin as a button. However, when she uses the coin as a button before Shabbos, it becomes designated as a button and she may go out with it on Shabbos.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) SPECIAL KINDS OF SHOES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Meir):</font></b> One who is missing a foot may go out 
          with a Kav (false foot; it houses what remains of his 
          leg, it is a shoe for him);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi forbids (it is not a Tachshit).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  If it has a receptacle for tufts (for his leg to rest on) 
          it is Tamei.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  [If he is missing both feet and walks on his knees,] his 
          Semuchos (leather he puts under his knees) are Mekabel 
          Tum'as Medras, he may go out with them on Shabbos (it is 
          a Tachshit), he may enter the Mikdash with them (they are 
          not considered shoes);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  [If he is missing both feet and cannot walk on his 
          knees,] his chair and its Semuchos are Mekabel Tum'as 
          Medras, he may not go out with them on Shabbos, he may 
          not enter the Mikdash with them (they are like shoes for 
          him).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Luktamin (this will be explained) is Tahor, one may not 
          go out with it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Rava) Question:</font></b> What is the text of our Mishnah 
          (I know that R. Meir is first and R. Yosi argues - does 
          R. Meir permit or forbid), and what is the Halachah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Rav Nachman did not know either of these.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Shmuel and Rav Huna):</font></b> The text is, [R. Meir] 
          forbids.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Rav Yosef:</font></b> Since both say 'forbids', we will adopt this 
          text.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rabah bar Ula):</font></b> You did not hear that Rav 
          Chanan bar Rava was teaching Rav's son that R. Meir 
          forbids and R. Yosi permits, and Rav gestured to him to 
          switch the opinions!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> A way to remember who says 
          what is Samech - Samech (R. Yosi, who has a Samech in his 
          name, is Oser (forbids - this word also contains a 
          Samech)).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  Shmuel retracted!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> If one did Chalitzah with a sandal which 
               is not his, or of wood, or a left sandal on his 
               right foot, it is Kosher; 
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana that considers a wooden 
               shoe to be a shoe?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer (Shmuel):</font></b> it is R. Meir.
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Meir):</font></b> One who is missing a foot 
                    may go out with a Kav;
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> R. Yosi forbids.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  Also Rav Huna retracted!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa #1 - R. Akiva):</font></b> The following apply to a 
               sandal of plasterers (Tosfos - it is a plastering 
               tool with room to insert one's hand, and it can also 
               be worn like a sandal; alternatively, it is used to 
               cover his shoes. Rashi - it is a sandal made of 
               straw, for plaster ruins leather; Rashi's Rebbi'im - 
               it is of wood):
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  It is Mekabel Tum'as Medras, it is Kosher for 
                    Chalitzah, and one may go out with it on 
                    Shabbos;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> Chachamim agreed with him [regarding 
               Tum'ah].
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa #2):</font></b> Chachamim disagreed with him.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> (Rav Huna):</font></b> Chachamim that agreed with him hold like 
               R. Meir [in our Mishnah, who considers something to 
               be a shoe even it is not made of leather], those 
               that disagreed hold like R. Yosi.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> (Rav Yosef):</font></b> No - the Chachamim that disagreed hold 
               like R. Yochanan ben Nuri:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Akiva):</font></b> A straw chest or a tube 
                    of reeds is Mekabel Tum'ah;
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> R. Yochanan ben Nuri is Metaher (because it is 
                    not normal to make them from these materials; 
                    alternatively, these materials are not included 
                    in the category of wooden Kelim that are 
                    Mekabel Tum'ah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why does R. Akiva say that a sandal of 
          plasterers is Mekabel Tum'as Medras - it is not made for 
          walking!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Acha bar Rav Ula):</font></b> A plasterer walks home in 
          it.
<br>
<b><font>2) SOMETHING ONE OCCASIONALLY LEANS ON </font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If [a Kav] has a receptacle for tufts it is 
          Tamei.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> It is Mekabel Tum'as Mes (and Tum'os of 
          touching), but not Tum'as Medras (he does not usually 
          lean on it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> It is even Mekabel Tum'as Medras.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Support (Rava, for himself - Mishnah):</font></b> A child's wagon is 
          Mekabel Tum'as Medras (it is primarily for play, 
          occasionally he sits or leans on it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Rejection (Abaye):</font></b> It is made to lean on (the child 
          practices walking with it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Support (Abaye, for himself - Beraisa):</font></b> A walking stick 
          for an elder is totally Tahor [even though he leans on it 
          sometimes].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Rejection (Rava):</font></b> The stick is merely to straighten his 
          steps (he does not lean on it at all);
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE WOODEN FOOT OF AN AMPUTEE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Abaye and Rava argue whether or not the wooden foot of an amputee can become Tamei with Tum'as Midras. Tum'as Midras is conveyed by sitting, standing, or leaning upon an article that is made for sitting, standing, or leaning upon. Abaye and Rav disagree as to whether the wooden leg is made for one of those uses.
</p><p>
What is the basis of their argument? If an amputee stands on the wooden foot which is affixed to his leg, it certainly is an object made for standing upon. Why should it not be Mekabel Tum'as Midras?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> (65b, DH ha'Kite'a), the <b>RITVA</b>, and other Rishonim answer that the amputee does not walk on the wooden stump. The wooden stump is there primarily for cosmetic purposes. It is leaned upon only occasionally, such as when the amputee is seated. In order to walk, the amputee uses crutches. He does not lean on the leg enough for it to be considered an object made for leaning upon. Alternatively, a wooden rod is tied to the bent knee of the amputee, and it is on that rod that he walks. The wooden foot is intended merely to cover the stump which protrudes as he walks.
</p><p>



<font><b>2) HALACHAH: WALKING IN 'RESHUS HA'RABIM' WITH CRUTCHES ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (65b-66a) discusses what objects an amputee may go out with on Shabbos to assist his mobility. Rebbi Meir permits him to go out with a wooden foot, while Rebbi Yosi prohibits him to go out with it. <b>TOSFOS</b> (65b, DH ha'Kite'a) explains that the wooden foot of an amputee is not used for walking on or for leaning on; rather, the amputee walked with a stick, or with a prosthesis attached to his knee, and the wooden foot is worn at the end of the artificial leg. Only occasionally does the amputee rest the wooden foot on the floor and lean on it (<b>RASHI</b> DH Teme'ah Midras). The argument between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yosi revolves around whether or not we consider footgear worn by a limited few to be a 'shoe' and permit it to be worn in Reshus ha'Rabim.
</p><p>
Tosfos infers from the Mishnah that the amputee is permitted to carry the stick with which he walks in Reshus ha'Rabim, and the only question is whether he may wear his artificial foot in Reshus ha'Rabim. Tosfos cites additional proof that one may carry his walking stick into Reshus ha'Rabim from the end of the Mishnah, which prohibits the amputee from going out with his 'Semuchos' that go with his 'Kisei.' He is permitted to go out with the 'Kisei' itself, as well as the 'Safsalim' (the two small boxes which he holds in his hands to enable him to propel himself forward).
</p><p>
What is the Halachah with regard to crutches on Shabbos? May a person walk in Reshus ha'Rabim with crutches on Shabbos? Are crutches considered instruments that a person <i>carries</i>, and thus they are prohibited, or are they considered apparel, and thus they are permitted to be taken into Reshus ha'Rabim?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 301:17) distinguishes between two categories:
</p><p>
1. A person who cannot walk without crutches is permitted to use crutches in Reshus ha'Rabim, since they are considered apparel, like shoes (see <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> 301:63).
</p><p>

2. A person who is able to walk without crutches but uses crutches to assist his walking is not permitted to use his crutches in Reshus ha'Rabim. They are considered a Masuy, a load that he carries.
</p><p>
The Mishnah Berurah (301:64) writes that if a person walks without a cane when at home and uses a cane only when he walks outside, he is included in the second category above. However, the Mishnah Berurah (301:65) quotes the <b>TAZ</b> who rules that if a person has difficulty walking and must use a cane in wet or icy conditions, he is included in the first category above, and he may use a cane in Reshus ha'Rabim. The Mishnah Berurah himself argues and cites several Acharonim who disagree with the Taz and are stringent in this situation. The <b>ARUCH HA'SHULCHAN</b> (OC 301:70) agrees with the Taz and permits the use of a cane in icy conditions for a person who would otherwise have difficulty walking.
</p><p>
The Shulchan Aruch (301:18) adds that a blind person may not go out with his cane. The Mishnah Berurah explains that since the blind person can walk unaided and the cane is used only to steady himself, he is included in the second category above. The Aruch ha'Shulchan (302:72) limits the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch to a blind person who walks in a familiar area. When the blind himself is in a foreign place, he presumably is unable to walk unless he has his cane to feel around for obstacles, and thus he is included in the first category above and is permitted to carry a cane.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Kav is made to lean on, and he leans on it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> [His chair and its Semuchos] are Mekabel 
          Tum'as Medras; he may not go out with them, and he may 
          not enter the Mikdash with them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (A reciter of Beraisos):</font></b> He may enter the Azarah with 
          them (Semuchos).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Objection (R. Yochanan):</font></b> I learn [in a Beraisa] that they 
          are Kosher for Chalitzah (they are considered shoes), you 
          cannot say that he may enter the Azarah with them!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rather, your Beraisa should say 'He may <i>not</i> enter 
               the Azarah with them.'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Luktamin is Tahor, one may not go out with it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is Luktamin?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Avahu):</font></b> It is a jester's donkey (he carries 
          it, and it looks like he rides on it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava bar Papa):</font></b> They are (Aruch - jester's) 
          stilts.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Rabah bar Rav Huna):</font></b> It is a mask (Rashi; R. 
          Chananel - it is a cloth on the mouth for drool).
<br>
<b><font>3) PERMITTED CURES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Boys may go out with Kesharim (this will be 
          explained), princes may go out with bells;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Everyone is permitted, Chachamim discussed the usual 
               cases.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What are Kesharim?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Nachman bar Baruch):</font></b> It is Pu'ah (a plant 
          used to make dye) wrapped up.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Abaye's mother:</font></b> Three of them hold [a certain 
               sickness] in check, five of them cure, and seven of 
               them help even against witchcraft!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Rav Acha bar Yakov):</font></b> This is only if it was not 
               exposed to the sun, moon, or rain, nor the sound of 
               iron, roosters or footsteps.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> This renders the cure 
               futile (no one can be careful about all this)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This applies to girls as well as boys, to 
          adults as well as children - why does the Mishnah say 
          that it is usually worn by boys?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> It is like Avin bar Huna taught:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Avin bar Huna):</font></b> If a son longs for his [R. Chananel 
               - deceased] father, we tie a strap from the father's 
               right shoe on the child's left [hand]. (Girls are 
               not as attached to their fathers as boys.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> A way to remember this 
               is Tefilin (the right hand ties on the left).
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> If this is reversed (a left shoe strap on the 
               child's right hand), this is dangerous (he will long 
               even more for him)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Avin bar Huna):</font></b> One may put a Sechufei cup over the 
          stomach (R. Chananel - to stop it from bursting; Rashi - 
          one spills out hot water from the cup beforehand - the 
          air inside cools down, decreasing the air pressure; the 
          stomach is sucked outwards, helping the intestines return 
          to their proper position).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Avin bar Huna):</font></b> One may anoint [hands and feet] with oil 
          and salt.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> When great Talmidim were drunk, e.g. Rav Huna [when 
               he learned] in Rav's academy, Rav in R. Chiya's 
               academy, and R. Chiya in Rebbi's academy, to sober 
               them up they would anoint their palms and feet with 
               oil, and say 'Just like the oil is clearing up [on 
               account of his body heat], the wine should clear up 
               from Ploni the son of Plonis'.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If not, one should soak a cork [of a wine barrel] in 
               water, and say 'Just like the cork is clearing up 
               [from the wine absorbed], the wine should clear up 
               from Ploni the son of Plonis.'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Avin bar Huna):</font></b> [If a ring of the neck bone was 
          dislocated and fell into the throat,] one may hang him 
          from the head [to fix it].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Avin bar Huna):</font></b> [If a baby's joints were dislocated 
          through birth,] one may wrap him in garments to fix them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  Rav Papa taught both teachings about children (Kesharim 
          and fixing joints) in the name of Avin bar Huna;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  Rav Zevid taught the first of them in Avin's name, and 
          the latter in the name of Rabah bar bar Chanah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> One may wrap a baby in 
               garments to straighten his joints.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Abaye's mother:</font></b> In any cure which requires repetition [of 
          words], we use the name of [the patient and] his mother.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Abaye's mother:</font></b> If a cure specifies a number of 
          repetitions, we follow it - if not, we repeat it 41 
          times.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One may go out with a Tekumah stone [to 
          prevent miscarriage];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  R. Meir permits to go out with something which [was put 
          on a balance scale and] equaled the weight of a Tekumah 
          stone.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is not only for a woman who already miscarried, 
               it is even for one who never miscarried;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> It is not only for a [Vadai] pregnant woman, it is 
               even for one who might [have] become pregnant.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yemar bar Shalmiya):</font></b> This is only if the object 
          naturally equaled the weight of a Tekumah stone [but not 
          if it one added to or detracted from it to make it even].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> What is the law of something weighed 
          [equally] against something weighed [equally] against of 
          a Tekumah stone?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b></b>  This question is not resolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Abaye's mother:</font></b> For a fever on the first day 
          (alternatively - that afflicts one every day), one should 
          take a new coin of pure silver to the place where they 
          evaporate water to make salt, take salt equal to its 
          weight and wrap it and hang it next to the throat by a 
          hair;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If not, he should go to a fork in the road, find a 
               big ant carrying a load, put it in a copper tube, 
               seal it well, shake it up, take the ant and say 
               'Your load is on me, and my load (sickness) is on 
               you.'
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Objection (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Huna):</font></b> If someone 
               else did so to this ant, he invites that person's 
               sickness on himself!
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Rather, he should say 'Your load and my load 
                    are on you.'
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> If not, he should take a new cup to the river, say 
               'I am borrowing a cup of water for my journey', wave 
               it seven times around his head, throw it in back of 
               himself and say 'Take back your water - my journey 
               started and ended today.'
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) 'LUKTEMIN'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah says that Luktemin are Tahor. In the Gemara, Rava (or Rafram) bar Papa says that Luktemin are 'Keshiri.' <b>RASHI</b> explains that Keshiri are 'stilts used for walking through mud to keep one's feet clean.' As Rashi asks, why should these stilts be Tahor if they are used for walking upon? They should be Tamei with Tum'as Midras!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Keshiri) cites the <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> who says that they are not Tamei with Tum'as Midras because they are not used for normal walking, but only for walking through mud. The Ri seems to be consistent with his opinion elsewhere (see Tosfos to 66a, DH v'Ha and DH Tamei), where he says that something worn only to protect the feet or to protect the shoes is not considered something that is walked or stood upon. In order to be Mekabel Tum'as Midras, it must be made for the purpose of normal walking, standing, or sitting upon, and not for 'special purpose' walking, standing, or sitting.
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> explains that the Ri means that if an object is made for <i>walking</i> upon (rather than standing or sitting upon), it is not Mekabel Tum'as Midras -- unless it is in the form of a shoe (such as a Sandal Shel Sayadin, see 66a).
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> cites the <b>ARUCH</b> who explains that Keshiri are tall stilts made for entertainment purposes. Since the person is able to walk without the stilts, and the purpose of the stilts is only to entertain onlookers and not to enhance his ability to walk, they are not Mekabel Tum'as Midras.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) OTHER CURES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> For a fever on the third day (alternatively - 
          that comes every third day), one should take seven small 
          branches of a date tree..., wrap them and hang them next 
          to the throat by a hair;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> For an intense fever, take an iron knife, 
          go to a bush, and tie a hair onto the bush;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The first day, he should make a small notch [in the 
               bush] and say 'Va'Yera Mal'ach Hash-m Elav...'; the 
               second day, he makes a notch and says 'Asura Na 
               v'Er'eh [...Madu'a Lo Yiv'ar ha'Sneh]'; the third 
               day, he makes a notch and says 'Va'Yar Hash-m Ki Sar 
               Lir'os' (a sign that the sickness should Sar, i.e. 
               leave).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Acha brei d'Rava):</font></b> It would be better to 
          say 'Al Tikrav Halom' (it should not return)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Rav Acha):</font></b> Rather, the first day, he says 'Va'Yera 
          Mal'ach...' and '...Asura Na...'; the second day, he says 
          ' Va'Yar Hash-m..'; the third day, he says 'Al Tikrav 
          Halom'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  When he cuts the bush, he should bend down and say 
          'Hashem did not put his Shechinah on you because you are 
          tallest of the trees, rather, because you are the lowest;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Just like fire saw Chananyah, Misha'el and Azaryah 
               and fled from them, so may it (my fever) flee from 
               me.'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  For boils, one should say 'Baz Bazyei...' (a text 
          containing names of angels).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  For blisters (alternatively - one possessed by a Shed) 
          one should say 'A drawn sword...'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  For [warding off] a Shed one should say 'Havis 
          d'Pakik...'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  For the Shed that inhabits the Beis ha'Kisei one should 
          say 'On the head of a lion...'
<br>
<b><font>2) EVERYONE MAY GO WITH BELLS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Princes may go out with bells [everyone is 
          permitted...]
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana of the Mishnah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Oshaya):</font></b> It is R. Shimon ben Gamliel, who 
          says that Benei Yisrael are Benei Melachim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> All agree with our Mishnah - the bells 
          are woven into the garment (so there is no concern that 
          one will remove it to avoid appearing haughty).
<br>
<b><font>3) WHAT IS DARCHEI HA'EMORI?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Meir):</font></b> One may go out [on Shabbos] with a 
          locust egg, the tooth of a fox, or a nail from a crucifix 
          for the sake of a cure;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Chachamim forbid these even during the week on account of 
          Darchei ha'Emori (following Nochri superstitions).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Gemara):</font></b> The locust egg is [hung in the ear] for an ear 
          ache;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  The tooth of a fox is for sleep - a tooth from a live fox 
          helps one who sleeps too much, a tooth from a dead fox 
          helps one to sleep.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  A nail from a crucifix helps for swelling [due to a blow 
          from iron].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Meir):</font></b> [These are permitted] for the sake 
          of a cure.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Abaye and Rava):</font></b> Anything done to heal is not [forbidden 
          on account of] Darchei ha'Emori; 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  If it does not [have a logical or medical reason why it 
          should] heal, it is Darchei ha'Emori.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa #1):</font></b> If a tree's produce falls off, one 
          ties a ribbon around the tree and puts stones on it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> We understand putting stones on it (this will weaken 
               it, so it will not cast down its produce), but there 
               is no sound reason for the ribbon!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The ribbon informs people to pray that the tree 
          should improve.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> 'V'Tamei Tamei Yikra' - a Metzora 
               announces his plight to many people, so they will 
               pray for him.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Ravina):</font></b> There is a practice to hang a cluster of dates 
          on a tree whose dates fall down - this is like the Tana 
          of Beraisa #1.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  A Chacham recited Perakim seven and eight of the Tosefta 
          of Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (R. Chiya bar Avin):</font></b> All of these are Darchei ha'Emori, 
          except for two:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If a bone is caught in a person's throat, we put a 
               bone of the same species on his forehead and say 
               'Chad Chad Nachis Bala Bala Nachis Chad Chad'; (R. 
               Akiva Eiger (Y.D. 336:1 - a Cherem forbids using any 
               cure in the Gemara (lest it be done wrong, and 
               people will doubt its validity), except for this 
               one.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If a fishbone is stuck in the foodpipe, we say 
               'Ninatzta k'Machat...'
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HEALING WITH VERSES FROM THE TORAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses the verses that one should says in order to heal himself from certain ailments. How can the Gemara here permit one to use verses from the Torah for healing? The Gemara in Shevuos (15b) states that it is forbidden to use verses for healing!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) When one's intention is to heal a spiritual ailment with verses, it is permitted. (<b>MAHARSHA</b>; see <b>RAMBAM</b>, Hilchos Avodas Kochavim 11:12.)
</p><p>

(b) If the illness poses a risk of mortal danger, one may use verses for healing. (<b>TOSFOS</b> to Shevuos 15b and Pesachim 111a)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) 'DARCHEI HA'EMORI' IN AN ACT DONE FOR 'REFU'AH'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Abaye and Rava rule that any act that is done for Refu'ah does not constitute Darchei Emori, while any act that is not done for Refu'ah constitutes Darchei Emori. What is considered an act done for Refu'ah?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> in Chulin (77b, DH Yesh) says that the category of Refu'ah includes any liquid, potion, or incantation which one uses for a wound. Rashi (ibid.) explains that an act that is not done for Refu'ah refers to any act that is not done 'on a sick area,' such as burying a Shilya at a junction. The <b>PANIM ME'IROS</b> (1:36) understands that Rashi means that one is allowed to do an act over the body of the sick person, but not from a distance. For this reason, he prohibits making a amulet to be hung in a tree to help a baby sleep better.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> here (DH she'Yesh) defines Refu'ah as an act that has curative effects from a medical standpoint. This would seem to exclude an incantation whispered over a wound. 
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAM</b> (in Moreh Nevuchim) also says that the act must have some medical quality to its healing ability. The <b>RASHBA</b> (Teshuvos 1:413) questions the Rambam's opinion from the case of the fox-tooth, which the Rambam himself rules (Hilchos Shabbos 19:13) is permitted.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAN</b> in Chulin (77b) quotes Rashi in Shabbos and asks, as the Rashba asks, that the Gemara permits one to wear a fox-tooth as a sleeping potion even though its properties cannot be understood from a medical perspective. The Ran therefore defines an act for the sake of Refu'ah as any act which we know works to heal -- even if it works metaphysically. An 'act done not for the sake of Refu'ah' is an act which has no known results.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  Saying 'Gad Gedi...(I should have good Mazel...)' is 
          Darchei ha'Emori;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, Gad is [forbidden for another reason, it 
          is] the name of idolatry - 'Ha'Orchim la'Gad Shulchan'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b></b>  If [at night] a man calls his wife by his name and 
          vice-versa, this is Darchei ha'Emori;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b></b>  Saying 'Doni Dani (my barrels should be strong)' is 
          Darchei ha'Emori;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, Dan is the name of idolatry - '...Chei 
          Elohecha Dan'.
<br>
<b><font>4) WHAT IS DARCHEI HA'EMORI? (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Telling a male raven 'Chirp' or a female raven 'Whistle, 
          and turn your tail to me for good' is Darchei ha'Emori.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Saying 'Slaughter this rooster because it crowed like a 
          raven (alternatively - later than the others)' or 
          'Slaughter this hen because it crowed like a rooster' is 
          Darchei ha'Emori.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Saying 'I will drink and leave over, I will drink and 
          leave over' (in order that my wine will be blessed) is 
          Darchei ha'Emori;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Fixing the shell from which a chick emerged on the wall 
          in front of it [so it will not die] is Darchei ha'Emori;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  Stirring in front of a chick is Darchei ha'Emori;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Dancing and counting 71 chicks in order that they will 
          not die is Darchei ha'Emori;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Dancing in front of Kutach (a dip, to strengthen it) or 
          insisting that lentils cook in silence or that beans cook 
          amidst noise is Darchei ha'Emori;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Urinating in front of a pot in order that it will cook 
          quickly is Darchei ha'Emori;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It is permitted to put a chip of mulberry wood or 
               broken glass in to make it cook quickly;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim forbid broken glass on account of danger.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One may put a handful of salt into a Ner [to 
          make the oil clear,] so it will burn nicely;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  One may put mud or earthenware under a Ner, [to cool it] 
          so it will burn longer.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Zutra):</font></b> If one covers an oil lamp or leaves a 
               kerosene lamp exposed, he transgresses 'Bal 
               Tashchis' (it is wasteful, it causes them to burn 
               faster than necessary).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  Saying 'Wine and life for Rabanan' when mixing wine is 
          not Darchei ha'Emori;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A case occurred, R. Akiva made a [wedding] feast for 
               his son - on every cup of wine he said 'Wine and 
               life according to [the guidelines of] Rabanan, wine 
               and life according to Rabanan and their Talmidim'.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) SLAUGHTERING A HEN THAT CROWED LIKE A ROOSTER</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that one is prohibited to say, 'Slaughter this hen which crowed like a rooster!' because it is Darchei Emori. In <b>TZAVA'AS RABEINU YEHUDAH HA'CHASID</b> (printed at the beginning of <b>SEFER CHASIDIM</b>, #50), the Chasid writes that if a hen crowed like a rooster, one should slaughter it immediately. Similarly, any other strange object should be removed from one's house.
</p><p>
How can he command that such a hen be slaughtered when the Gemara here says that it is prohibited to do so because of Darchei Emori?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARIL</b> (Teshuvos #111) says that he asked this question to the Vienna Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Avraham [Klausner], who answered that one is permitted to slaughter the hen as long as he does not <i>say</i> the reason why he is doing so ('because it crowed like a rooster'). A similar answer is given by the <b>MAHARSHA</b> in Chulin (95b) and the <b>SHILTEI GIBORIM</b> in Avodah Zarah (9a of the pages of the Rif). This is cited as the Halachah by the <b>REMA</b> (YD 179:3).
</p><p>
<b>RAV REUVEN MARGOLIYOS</b> (in <b>HAGAHOS MEKOR CHESED</b> on Tzava'as Rabeinu Yehudah ha'Chasid) points out that this approach may be inferred from the words of the Gemara itself. The Gemara does not say that 'one who <i>slaughters</i> a hen' transgresses the prohibition of Darchei Emori, but rather 'one who <i>says</i>, 'Slaughter this hen...'' transgresses. This implies that only <i>saying</i> the reason for slaughtering the bird is forbidden, but not the actual act of slaughtering.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (YD 179) disputes this explanation. He argues that, on the contrary, one who slaughters the hen without saying the reason shows that he is trying to fool Hash-m, as it were. His silence makes his act worse, and not better. The Vilna Ga'on, therefore, sides with the Maharil's own answer, which is that Rabeinu Yehudah ha'Chasid had a different text in his Gemara. His Gemara read, '<i>Ein</i> Bo Mishum Darchei ha'Emori' -- 'there is <i>no</i> Darchei Emori involved with this act.' This reading is also cited by the <b>RASHBA</b> (Teshuvos 1:413), and the <b>KESEF MISHNEH</b> cites it in the name of the <b>RAMACH</b>. It is evident from Rashi, too, that there was such a reading, which he precludes in his comments here.
</p><p>
(c) <b>RABEINU YEHUDAH HA'CHASID</b> himself explains in <b>SEFER HA'KAVOD</b> (a manuscript which included the Tzava'os, which was lost until recently, cited by Hagahos Mekor Chesed and by the new Teshuvos Maharil) explains that even though the Gemara says that it is Darchei Emori, nevertheless anything strange that happens is meant to arouse a person to do Teshuvah and serve as a warning sign that he should do Teshuvah lest something bad happen to him.
</p><p>
It is not clear how this statement answers the question. <b>RAV REUVEN MARGOLIYOS</b> (ibid.) explains that this means that if a person slaughters the hen for no reason other than the fact that it crowed like a rooster, this is Darchei Emori. If, however, he slaughters the hen for an entirely different reason, then it is not Darchei Emori. In this case, if he slaughters the hen to arouse himself to do Teshuvah by reminding himself of the day of death, and he recognizes that the hen's crowing is a sign from Hash-m that he must do Teshuvah, then it is permitted.
</p><p>
(d) <b>RAV YOSEF ENGEL</b> (in <b>TESHUVOS BEN PORAS</b>) suggests another answer based on similar logic. He says that Darchei Emori is prohibited only when a person's intention is to slaughter the hen because that is what the Nochrim do. Rabeinu Yehudah ha'Chasid saw that many Jews slaughtered hens because the Nochrim did so, and they thereby transgressed the prohibition of Darchei Emori (see Sefer Chasidim, #59). In order to spare them from transgressing, Rabeinu Yehudah ha'Chasid commanded that people slaughter hens that crow like a rooster, so that they would then do so because <i>he</i> commanded it and not because the Nochrim were doing it. In this manner it would no longer be Darchei Emori!
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) GREAT GENERAL RULES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> (We discuss liability for Melachah on Shabbos 
          b'Shogeg, i.e. he forgot that it is Shabbos, or that this 
          Melachah is forbidden, or both of these.) There is a 
          great general rule of Shabbos - anyone who forgot Shabbos 
          entirely and did many Melachos on many Shabbosos is 
          liable only one Korban;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he knew about Shabbos, and did many Melachos on 
               many Shabbosos (each time he forgot that it is 
               Shabbos), he is liable one Korban for every Shabbos;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If he remembered that the day is Shabbos, and did 
               many Melachos on many Shabbosos (he forgot that 
               these Melachos are forbidden), he is liable only one 
               Korban for every Av Melachah;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> One who does many Melachos resembling one Melachah 
               (they are Toldos (derivatives) of it) is liable only 
               one Korban.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Why is this called a <i>great</i> general 
          rule?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> This is because another Mishnah (75B) teaches 
          another general rule;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Likewise, in Maseches Shevi'is a general rule is 
               called great for this reason.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> There are two general rules of Ma'aser, 
          neither is called great (Tosfos ha'Rosh - even though one 
          of them is more encompassing than the other)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (R. Yosi bar Avin):</font></b> Shabbos and Shevi'is both 
          have Avos and Toldos, therefore the general rule is 
          called great; Ma'aser does not have Avos and Toldos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> Bar Kapara taught a great general rule 
          regarding Ma'aser [in his version of Tosefta], even 
          though it does not have Avos and Toldos!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #3:</font></b> [We say that a general rule is great if the 
          Mitzvah is more stringent than another Mitzvah for which 
          a general rule was taught.] The punishment for Shabbos is 
          greater than that for Shevi'is - [the Isur Melachah of] 
          Shabbos applies both to attached and detached [produce], 
          but that of Shevi'is applies only to attached (Tosfos; 
          Rashi - Shabbos applies both to what was attached or 
          detached at the start of Shabbos, but [Kedushas] Shevi'is 
          applies only to what was attached at the start of 
          Shevi'is);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The punishment for Shevi'is is greater than that for 
               Ma'aser - Shevi'is applies both to produce eaten by 
               people and by animals, but Ma'aser applies only to 
               produce eaten by people.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  According to Bar Kapara, the punishment for Ma'aser is 
          greater than that for Pe'ah - Ma'aser applies (most 
          Meforshim - mid'Rabanan) to dates and vegetables, but 
          Pe'ah does not.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> Pe'ah must be left from any food with the 
               following properties - people guard it, it grows 
               from the ground, it is harvested at once, it may be 
               stored for a long time.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> It says 'food' to exclude Sefichim (things that grew 
               by themselves, e.g. from seeds which fell) of 
               safflower or woad (a dye);
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> 'People guard it' excludes Hefker; 'it grows from 
               the ground' excludes mushrooms and truffles; 'it is 
               harvested at once' excludes figs; 'it may be stored 
               for a long time' excludes vegetables.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> Ma'aser must be taken from any food that 
               grows from the ground and is guarded.
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  We do not require that it is harvested at once, 
                    or that it may be stored for a long time!
<br>
<b><font>2) ONE WHO NEVER KNEW ABOUT SHABBOS </font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (Rav and Shmuel):</font></b> Our Mishnah discusses 
          someone who [never learned about Shabbos, e.g.] a baby 
          captured by Nochrim [and he grew up among them], or a 
          convert who converted [in front of three Yisraelim, but 
          continued to live] among Nochrim - but one who knew about 
          Shabbos and forgot it is liable for every Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> Anyone who forgot Shabbos entirely...
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This implies that he once knew about Shabbos!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, it means that Shabbos was entirely forgotten 
          from him (he never knew about it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> This implies that one who once knew about 
          Shabbos and later forgot is liable for every Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If so, why does it say 'If he knew about 
          Shabbos, and did many Melachos on many Shabbosos, he is 
          liable for each Shabbos' - it should teach 'This is if he 
          never knew about Shabbos, but if he once knew about 
          Shabbos and later forgot, he is liable for each', and all 
          the more so if he did not forget!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, when it says 'If he knew about Shabbos 
          [and did many Melachos..]', it means, he once knew about 
          Shabbos and later forgot.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'KLAL GADOL'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara asks why the Mishnah at the beginning of this Perek, as well as the Mishnah in the seventh Perek of Shevi'is, introduce their teachings with the words 'Klal Gadol.' The Gemara says that if it is because each of these Mishnayos precedes another Mishnah relating a less-detailed Klal than the first Mishnah, then the Mishnah in the first Perek of Ma'aseros should also say 'Klal Gadol,' because it, too, precedes a less-detailed Klal.
</p><p>
The Gemara then suggests that the Mishnayos in Shabbos and Shevi'is say 'Klal Gadol' because these two categories of Halachah include the unique concept of Avos and Toldos. The Gemara asks that according this answer, why does Bar Kapara's version of the Mishnah in Ma'aseros say 'Klal Gadol'?
</p><p>
The Gemara concludes that the Mishnah says 'Klal Gadol' whenever a certain category of Halachah is more inclusive than another category (Shabbos is more inclusive than Shevi'is, as the Gemara explains, and Shevi'is is more inclusive than Ma'aser, and Ma'aser is more inclusive than Pe'ah).
</p><p>
(a) What was the Gemara's initial question on Bar Kapara (why, according to him, does it say 'Klal Gadol' in Ma'aseros)? The Gemara itself suggested that when a less-detailed Mishnah follows a more-detailed Mishnah, it says 'Klal Gadol' in the more-detailed Mishnah (as is the case in Ma'aseros)! Although this answer was rejected because of the wording of a Mishnah in Ma'aseros, there is no need to reject it according to Bar Kapara's version of that Mishnah. Why, then, does the Gemara need to find another reason for why it says 'Klal Gadol' in Ma'aseros according to Bar Kapara?
</p><p>
(b) The Gemara says that the Klal of Ma'aser is more inclusive than that of Pe'ah, and that is why the Mishnah says 'Klal Gadol' in Ma'aseros according to Bar Kapara. Why, then, does it not say 'Klal Gadol' in our version of the Mishnah in Ma'aseros?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHBA</b> and <b>RAN</b> answer that the Gemara certainly could have remained with its original answer, that the reason it says 'Klal Gadol' in Ma'aseros according to Bar Kapara is because there is another, less-detailed Klal that follows. However, the Gemara preferred to give an explanation that for both Bar Kapara and those who argue with him, who do not have the words 'Klal Gadol' in the Mishnah in Ma'aseros.
</p><p>
(b) According to the Gemara's conclusion, the reason why the Mishnah says 'Klal Gadol' in Ma'aseros according to Bar Kapara is because Ma'aser is more inclusive than Pe'ah. Our version of Mishnah there leaves out the word 'Gadol' because only the <i>d'Rabanan</i> laws of Ma'aser include more than Pe'ah, but the <i>d'Oraisa</i> laws of Ma'aser are the same as the d'Oraisa laws of Pe'ah: both Ma'aser and Pe'ah include only Dagan, Tirosh, v'Yitzhar (wheat, grapes, and olives). According to the <b>DIKDUKEI SOFRIM's</b> text of the Gemara, the Gemara itself says this answer.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) 'THE PUNISHMENT OF SHABBOS IS GREATER THAN THAT OF SHEVI'IS'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that 'the punishment of Shabbos is greater than that of Shevi'is,' because the laws of Shabbos apply even to objects that are detached from the ground, while Shevi'is applies only to objects that are attached to the ground. 
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara not give a much more basic reason for why Shabbos is more severe than Shevi'is? Shabbos is punishable with Sekilah (stoning) while Shevi'is is only a Lav, punishable with Malkus!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARAM</b> answers that the Gemara also wants to explain that Ma'aser is greater than Pe'ah, and in that case, the punishment of Ma'aser is <i>not</i> greater than the punishment of Pe'ah. Rather, the category of Ma'aser is broader and applies to more situations than Pe'ah. Therefore, the Gemara gives a similar answer to differentiate between Shabbos and Shevi'is.
</p><p>
(b) The Gemara wants to find a reason why the <i>Klal</i> is Gadol -- why the rule itself is greater. The Gemara therefore explains how the rule of Shabbos is greater (broader) than the rule of Shevi'is, and thus it does not explain how the <i>punishment</i> is greater. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (in Perush ha'Mishnayos) writes that the Mishnah in Shabbos says 'Klal Gadol' because, indeed, Shabbos is punishable with Sekilah.
</p><p>
The <b>MAHARSHA</b> explains that the Rambam understands the Gemara here to be making two different statements when it says, 'Gadol Onsho Shel Shabbos Yoser m'Shel Shevi'is, d'Ilu Shabbos Isa Bein b'Talush Bein b'Mechubar...' ('The punishment of Shabbos is greater than that of Shevi'is, for Shabbos applies both to detached and to attached objects...'). That is, Shabbos is greater than Shevi'is for two reasons. First, it entails a greater punishment, Sekilah. Second, it is more inclusive, for it applies to both detached and attached objects.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> Had he not forgotten, he would be liable for 
          every Melachah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> If so, why does it say 'If he remembered that 
          the day is Shabbos, and did many Melachos on many 
          Shabbosos, he is liable once for every Av Melachah' - it 
          should teach about one who knows about Shabbos [and 
          forgot], all the more so this case!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Retraction:</font></b> Indeed, we must say that the Mishnah 
          discusses one who knew about Shabbos and forgot, and the 
          case of Rav and Shmuel has the same law as this;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (Rav and Shmuel):</font></b> Even a baby captured by 
          Nochrim or one who converted among Nochrim is like one 
          who knew about Shabbos and forgot, he is liable. (end of 
          Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish):</font></b> One who knew about 
          Shabbos and forgot is liable - but a baby captured by 
          Nochrim or one who converted among Nochrim is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> There is a great general rule of 
          Shabbos - anyone who forgot Shabbos entirely and did many 
          Melachos on many Shabbosos is liable only one Korban:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The case is, a baby was captured by Nochrim or a 
               convert converted among Nochrim; he is also liable 
               one Korban for eating blood, and one for Chelev, and 
               one for idolatry [and for every other Chiyuv Chatas 
               he transgressed].
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Munvaz exempts.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Munvaz:</font></b> [Regarding Shevu'as ha'Edus, one who 
               transgresses] b'Mezid is called Chotei, just like 
               Shogeg - just like Mezid knew [that he sinned], also 
               Shogeg [is liable only if he once] knew.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> R. Akiva:</font></b> If so, you should say that just like Mezid 
               knew at the time he sinned, also Shogeg who knows at 
               the time he sins [is liable]!
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Munvaz:</font></b> Answer: Indeed, I say this! (This will be 
               explained.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> R. Akiva:</font></b> If so, he is Mezid, not Shogeg!
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Summation of question:</font></b> The Beraisa says that a baby 
               captured by Nochrim is liable - this is like Rav and 
               Shmuel, it opposes R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish hold like Munvaz.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is Munvaz' reason? (Rashi - why does he 
          exempt one who never knew - he cannot simply learn Shogeg 
          from Mezid, they are opposites! Ramban - why does he 
          obligate one who knew at the time he sinned?)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> After 'Torah Achas Yihyeh Lachem la'Oseh 
          bi'Shgagah' it says 'Veha'Nefesh Asher Ta'aseh b'Yad 
          Ramah' - this equates Shogeg to Mezid;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Just like Mezid knew, also Shogeg [is liable only if 
               he] knew (Rashi; Ramban - just like Mezid knew, also 
               Shogeg [is liable even though he] knew).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How do Chachamim expound 'Torah Achas...'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They expound like R. Yehoshua ben Levi taught to 
          his son:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Yehoshua be Levi):</font></b> It says 'Torah Achas Yihyeh 
               Lachem la'Oseh bi'Shgagah' - this refers to 
               idolatry, whose severity is like '...Kol 
               ha'Mitzvos';
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Right after 'Torah Achas...' it says 'Veha'Nefesh 
               Asher Ta'aseh b'Yad Ramah' - this equates the entire 
               Torah to idolatry;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Just like idolatry is punishable by Kares 
                    b'Mezid and one brings a Chatas b'Shogeg, 
                    Chatas is brought for all such Mitzvos 
                    (transgressed through action).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) THE CASES IN THE MISHNAH ACCORDING TO RAV AND SHMUEL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav and Shmuel maintain that a Tinok she'Nishbah is Chayav to bring only one Korban Chatas for all of the Shabbosim that he desecrated (case 1), and they interpret the first case in the Mishnah accordingly. As a result, they interpret the second case in the Mishnah to be a case in which one who knew about the concept of Shabbos but forgot it must bring a separate Chatas for every Shabbos that he desecrated (case 2).
</p><p>
The Gemara asks that if the person in the second case in the Mishnah (who forgot the concept of Shabbos) is Chayav to bring a separate Chatas for each Shabbos that he desecrated, then it follows that a person who <i>knew</i> about the concept of Shabbos but forgot that <i>today</i> was Shabbos (case 3) must bring a Chatas for each and every Melachah that he performed on Shabbos.
</p><p>
How does the Gemara make that inference? <b>RASHI</b> (DH Chayav) explains that the Gemara's logic is as follows. If one who knew about Shabbos but forgot that today was Shabbos (case 3) would be Chayav to bring only one Chatas for every Melachah that he committed, then that case should have been written in the Mishnah together with the case of one who forgot about the concept of Shabbos (case 2), who is also Chayav to bring one Chatas for every Shabbos that he desecrated. Since the Mishnah does <i>not</i> include case 3 with case 2, it must be that his Chiyuv is different and he is Chayav to bring a Chatas for every Melachah that he does.
</p><p>
How, though, can the Gemara make such an inference? The Gemara just a few lines earlier says that if the Mishnah would have taught that case 2 (one forgot the concept of Shabbos) is Chayav to bring a Chatas for each Shabbos that he desecrated, then <i>certainly</i> ('Kol she'Ken') we would know that case 3 (one who knew the concept of Shabbos but forgot that today was Shabbos) must bring a Chatas for each Melachah that he committed! That is, the Gemara implies that case 3 is included in case 2 from a Kal v'Chomer. Why, then, does the Gemara now say that case 3 should have been listed explicitly?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Aval Lo) explains that the inference is not as Rashi explains it (that the Mishnah should have mentioned case 3 together with case 2). Rather, the inference is that the Mishnah should have mentioned case 3 <i>separately</i> and said <i>not</i> that 'he is Chayav to bring one Chatas for every Shabbos' (as a positive requirement), but rather that 'he is <i>not</i> Chayav <i>more</i> than one Korban for each Shabbos' (as a negative statement). Since it does not say that, it implies that he <i>is</i> Chayav more than one Korban for each Shabbos -- he is Chayav one Chatas for each Melachah that he did.
</p><p>
(b) How, though, are we to understand the words of Rashi? Perhaps we may suggest that the when the Gemara initially says that case 3 would have been learned from case 2 through a Kal v'Chomer, it means that there would have been a Kal v'Chomer <i>had the Mishnah used the words</i> 'Tinok she'Nishbah' in the first case, and 'one who forgot the concept of Shabbos' in the second case. However, now that the Gemara says that the words 'Shoche'ach Ikar Shabbos' in the Mishnah also refer to Tinok she'Nishbah, the Gemara assumes that the Mishnah would <i>not</i> rely on a Kal v'Chomer to teach case 3, because it would have been easy to include that case in the category of someone who forgot the concept of Shabbos by merely adding one more word (without having to add a whole new case -- cf. Tosfos to Beitzah 2b, DH v'Niflog). Therefore, the Gemara assumes now that if the Mishnah does not explicitly mention one who forgets that today is Shabbos (case 3), it must be because it has a different Halachah (and not because it is learned from a Kal v'Chomer). (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) WHAT SHEGEGAH DOES MUNVAZ REQUIRE?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> [Munvaz obligates Shogeg even though he knew -] 
          in what sense was he Shogeg?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He did not know that one must bring a Korban for 
          it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Chachamim argue - they hold that Shigegas Korban is not 
          considered Shogeg.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What kind of Shegagah do Chachamim require?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> It suffices if he was Shogeg 
          about Kares, even if he know that it is forbidden by a 
          Lav;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Reish Lakish):</font></b> He must be Shogeg about Kares 
          and the Lav.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> Reish Lakish learns from 'Asher <i>Lo</i> Se'asenah 
          bi'Shgagah v'Ashem' - he must be Shogeg about Kares and 
          the Lav.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does R. Yochanan learn from this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> 'Me'Am ha'Aretz' - this excludes a 
          Mumar;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon bar Yosi says, 'Asher Lo Se'asenah 
               bi'Shgagah v'Ashem' - one brings a Korban only if he 
               would have refrained had he known that it is 
               forbidden.
<br>
<b><font>2) A KORBAN FOR EACH MELACHAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> There are 39 Avos Melachos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why do we need to know the number?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</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>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> In what case is he liable for each Melachah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He knew that it was Shabbos, he forgot the 
          Melachos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  According to R. Yochanan, we can say that he remembered 
          that a Lav forbids Melachah, he forgot that there is 
          Kares.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> According to Reish Lakish, he must be Shogeg 
          even about the Lav [to bring a Korban] - if he forgot all 
          of the Melachos, in what way did he remember Shabbos?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He remembered that it is forbidden to leave the 
          Techum (2,000 Amos from the city) - our Mishnah is like 
          R. Akiva, who forbids this mid'Oraisa. (Ritva - we could 
          have given other answers, e.g. he remembered the Toldos 
          but forgot Avos - we prefer to teach a Chidush according 
          to R. Akiva, since our Mishnah is like him.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</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> If he was Shogeg about both [Shabbos and 
               the Melachos], this is [the ultimate] Shogeg; if he 
               was Mezid about both, this is [the ultimate] Mezid;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If he was Shogeg about Shabbos and Mezid about the 
               Melachos, or vice-versa, or if he knew that the 
               Melachah is forbidden but he thought that he is not 
               Chayav Korban for it, he brings a Korban.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is like Munvaz.
<br>
<b><font>3) THE SHEGEGAH FOR OTHER CHIYUVIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> All agree that one is not Chayav Korban for 
          Shevu'as Bituy (an oath to do or not to do something, or 
          that he did or did not do it) unless he was Shogeg about 
          the Lav.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  [There is no reason to say that Munvaz would say so -] 
          Abaye means, R. Yochanan agrees [according to Chachamim].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This is obvious - R. Yochanan only said that 
          he can be Mezid about the Lav regarding Chayavei Kerisus, 
          when he was Shogeg about Kares - here, there is no Kares, 
          he must be Shogeg about the Lav!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Normally, one is not Chayav Korban for a Lav, 
          Shevu'as Bituy is an exception - one might have thought 
          that one is likewise liable even though he was Mezid 
          about the Lav! Abaye teaches, this is not so.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) ONE WHO REMEMBERS SHABBOS BUT FORGETS ALL THE MELACHOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that it is not possible to forget every Melachah of Shabbos and still know that it is Shabbos. Why is it not possible? One can remember the Mitzvah to recite Kidush and Havdalah, or the Mitzvah of Oneg Shabbos, or he can remember the Mitzvas Aseh to rest on Shabbos ('Shabason,' see end of 24b). In that way, he remembers Shabbos but forgets the Melachos.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> explains that the Mitzvos of Oneg and the recitation of Kidush and Havdalah are not the essence of Shabbos. Rather, the purpose of those Mitzvos is to remind us of the prohibition of Melachah on Shabbos. Therefore, when one remembers those Mitzvos but does not remember the Melachos, he is not considered to have remembered Shabbos at all.
</p><p>
This explanation does not answer why one who remembers the Mitzvas Aseh to rest on Shabbos is not considered to have remembered Shabbos. (<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH d'Yada) leaves this question unanswered.)
</p><p>
(b) The Ritva answers further that Reish Lakish maintains that just as one's transgression of Shabbos is not considered b'Shogeg (unintentional) when he has knowledge that Melachah on Shabbos is prohibited by a Lav (even though he does not know that it is also prohibited because of Kares), so, too, when a person knows that there is an Isur Aseh not to do Melachah on Shabbos (a Mitzvas Aseh which manifests itself as a prohibition), he is also considered as one who transgresses willfully. Since the Gemara is looking for a case which even Reish Lakish will consider a case of Shogeg, it must be that the person does not know that there is <i>any</i> prohibition of Melachah on Shabbos, even a Mitzvas Aseh.
</p><p>
(Tosfos and the other Rishonim who do not suggest this answer apparently disagree with the Ritva's assumptions.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa) Question:</font></b> When is a sacrifice brought 
          for Shevu'as Bituy about the past? (We cannot say that he 
          intended to swear truthfully but erred, this is not 
          considered transgressing at all.) 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> He swore falsely, knowing that this is 
               forbidden, but he did not know whether a sacrifice 
               is brought for this.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Version #1 - Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa is like Munvaz [who does 
          not require Shigegas Kares]. (Rashi deletes Version #2 
          from the text.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Version #2 - Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps this is like Munvaz.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> Regarding other Mitzvos, there is no Chidush, 
          Munvaz does not require Shigegas Kares - Shevu'as ha'Edus 
          is a Chidush, he would not need to teach that Shigegas 
          Lav is not required!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Conclusion:</font></b> We must say that the Beraisa is like 
          Chachamim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  Abaye is refuted. (end of Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> All agree that a Zar need not add a Chomesh for 
          eating Terumah b'Shogeg unless he was Shogeg about the 
          Lav.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  He means, R. Yochanan agrees.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This is obvious - R. Yochanan only discussed 
          Chayavei Kerisus, when he was Shogeg about Kares - here, 
          there is no Kares, he must be Shogeg about the Lav!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that the Chiyuv Misah 
          bi'Dei Shamayim of Terumah is in place of Kares, he is 
          liable if he was Shogeg about Misah even though he was 
          Mezid about the Lav! Abaye teaches, this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> R. Yochanan obligates adding a Chomesh even if he 
          was Mezid about the Lav;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Misah is in place of Kares, the Chomesh is in place 
               of the Korban.
<br>
<b><font>4) ONE WHO FORGOT WHICH DAY IS SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> If one is lost in the wilderness and does not 
          know which day is Shabbos, he counts six days and guards 
          the seventh [like Shabbos, and every seventh day after 
          this];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Chiya bar Rav):</font></b> He guards one day (the morrow - it is 
          improper to consider today Shabbos, since he was not 
          guarding it until now) and counts six.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What do they argue about?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rav Huna learns from creation (the seventh day 
          was Shabbos), Chiya bar Rav learns from Adam ha'Rishon 
          (his first complete day was Shabbos).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question #1 (against Chiya bar Rav - Beraisa):</font></b> If one is 
          on the road and does not know which day is Shabbos, he 
          guards one day l'Shishah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> This means, he guards one day after 
               counting six!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, it means he guards one day and counts six.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> If so, it should say so [instead of 'one day 
          l'Shishah']!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question #2 (Beraisa):</font></b> If one is on the road or in the 
          wilderness and does not know which day is Shabbos, he 
          counts six days and guards the seventh.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  Chiya bar Rav is refuted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> Every day other than 'his Shabbos' [is really 
          Safek Shabbos, so] he does only Melachah [e.g. obtaining 
          food] necessary to live that day.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> If he may not do even Melachah necessary to 
          live on his Shabbos, he will die!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> On his Erev Shabbos, he prepares extra food for 
          his Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> Perhaps his Erev Shabbos is really Shabbos [he 
          is liable for preparing food for Motzei Shabbos]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Correction:</font></b> Rather every day including his Shabbos he 
          does only Melachah necessary to live that day.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If so, how is his Shabbos different than the 
          other days?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He makes Kidush at the start of the day, and 
          Havdalah when it ends (Mishnah Berurah - if possible, 
          with wine or bread; if not, in Shemoneh Esre).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> If he knows how many days it has been since he 
          began his journey, [surely it was not Shabbos,] he may do 
          unlimited Melachah every seventh day from then.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This is obvious!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that we may also assume 
          that he did not leave on Erev Shabbos, and that day 
          should also be permitted every week - Rava teaches, this 
          is not so, sometimes one finds a caravan leaving on Erev 
          Shabbos and goes with it.
<br>
<b><font>5) THE SOURCE FOR THE DISTINCTION</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he knew about Shabbos...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source [that he is liable for each 
          Shabbos]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> It says 'V'Shomru Venei Yisrael Es 
          ha'*Shabbos*', implying one Shemirah (observance) for 
          many Shabbosos (Shabbos in the singular, even if he 
          transgressed many Shabbosos, it is as if he transgressed 
          one, he brings only one Korban);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It also says 'V'Es <i>Shabsosai</i> Tishmoru', connoting 
               one Shemirah [and Chiyuv Korban] for each Shabbos! 
               (It is reasonable that he is liable only once when 
               he totally forgot Shabbos, for this is one Shegegah; 
               liability for each Shabbos is for remembering 
               Shabbos but forgetting that today is Shabbos, for 
               then each Shabbos is a separate Shegagah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> Just the contrary! 
          (He agrees with the Halachah, he just argues about the 
          connotations of the verses.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'V'Shomru Venei Yisrael Es ha'Shabbos' implies that 
               each Shabbos has its own Shemirah; 'V'Es Shabsosai 
               Tishmoru', connotes one [collective] Shemirah for 
               many Shabbosos!
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) STRANDED IN THE DESERT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara concludes that a person who loses track of the days of the week while wandering in the desert must count six days and observe the seventh as Shabbos. However, since every day of the seven days that he counts might be Shabbos, on each day he is permitted to perform only Melachos that are necessary to keep himself alive. The seventh day of his count is unique only in that he recites Kidush and Havdalah on that day.
</p><p>
The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> finds a hint to this Halachah in the verses of the Aseres ha'Dibros regarding the Mitzvah to observe Shabbos. The verses state, 'Six days you shall work, and you shall do <i>all</i> of your work, and on the seventh day you shall rest for Hash-m your G-d; you shall not do <i>any</i> work...' (Shemos 20:9-10).
</p><p>
The Vilna Ga'on asks three questions on these verses:
</p><p>
Why does the Torah need to tell us not only to rest on the seventh day, but also to <i>work</i> on six days?
</p><p>
Why does the Torah stress that during the week we must do 'all' of our work?
</p><p>
Why does the Torah stress that on Shabbos we must not do 'any' work?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The Vilna Ga'on explains that these verses teach more than the commandment to 'observe' Shabbos. They also command us to remember ('Zachor') what day is Shabbos.
</p><p>
Accordingly, when we remember what day is Shabbos, we will be able to perform <i>all</i> of our work, and not just the bare minimum necessary for life.
</p><p>
Similarly, when we remember what day is Shabbos, on that day we will be able to rest from <i>all</i> forms of work and will not have to do <i>any</i> work, not even work necessary for life. (<b>KOL ELIYAHU</b>, Parshas Yisro, #63)
</p><p>


<font><b>3) RECITING BLESSINGS ON A DAY WHICH IS IN DOUBT</b></font><b>
<br></b>
</p><p>
<b>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that a person who does not know what day is Shabbos should not do any Melachah on any day, except for Melachah which is absolutely necessary for his survival. He should count six days, and on every seventh day, he should recite Kidush and Havdalah in order to remind himself of the concept of a seventh day being designated unique as Shabbos.
</p><p>
However, if that day is not really Shabbos, why is he permitted to recite the blessings of Kidush and Havdalah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> first explains that when the Gemara says that one should recite these blessings, it means that one should recite them without Hashem's name.
</p><p>
(b) In his second answer, the Ritva says that since the Isur of Berachah l'Vatalah, reciting a blessing in vain, is prohibited mid'Rabanan, in this situation the Rabanan permitted it for Kavod Shabbos.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RADVAZ</b> (1:76) says that when the Torah commands us to observe Shabbos, the Torah requires only that we observe one day out of seven as Shabbos. That day does not necessarily have to be 'Saturday.' However, since the people in any given area have accepted upon themselves a certain day to be observed as Shabbos, that day becomes Shabbos in that place, and thus a person who does not observe Shabbos on that day would be Chayav Sekilah. In a desert, no day has been established as Shabbos, and thus one who forgets what day is Shabbos may keep <i>his</i> seventh day (with certain conditions, as the Radvaz there explains).
</p><p>
According to the Radvaz, the prohibition for such a person to do Melachah on the other six days is only a stringency that the Rabanan enacted (and not a result of a real doubt when Shabbos is), and the seventh day that he chooses to observe is the genuine day of Shabbos for him. (The Radvaz proposes this novel approach in response to the question of what day to observe as Shabbos past the International Dateline. See Parasha Page, Emor 5756.)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) WHEN ONE BRINGS A KORBAN FOR EACH MELACHAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he remembered that the day is Shabbos...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the difference between the Reisha 
          (Shigegas Shabbos and Zadon Melachos, he is only liable 
          once) and the Seifa (Shigegas Melachos and Zadon Shabbos, 
          he is liable for each Melachah)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Safra):</font></b> In the Reisha, had he been told 
          that it is Shabbos he would have refrained; in the Seifa, 
          had he been told that he is doing a Melachah he would 
          have refrained.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Nachman):</font></b> He would refrain upon hearing 
          that it is Shabbos only because he knows that he is doing 
          a Melachah; he would refrain upon hearing that he is 
          doing a Melachah only because he knows that it is 
          Shabbos!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> The Torah obligates a Korban on 
          account of Shegegah - forgetting that today is Shabbos is 
          one Shegagah, forgetting the Melachos is many Shegagos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> ...He is liable one Korban for every Av 
          Melachah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source for Chiluk Melachos (that 
          one is Chayav a Korban for each)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (Shmuel):</font></b> 'Mechalaleha <i>Mos Yumas</i>' - the Torah 
          obligates many deaths for one desecration (this will be 
          explained).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The verse discusses Mezid transgression!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Since we do not need it to teach about Mezid (we 
          know this from 'Kol ha'Oseh Vo Melachah Yumas'), we use 
          it to teach about Shogeg;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'Mos Yumas' refers to [Korbanos, which cost] money.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Shmuel should learn from R. Noson's source for 
          Chiluk Melachos!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Noson) Question:</font></b> What do we learn from 
               'Lo Seva'aru Esh b'Chol Moshvoseichem b'Yom 
               ha'Shabbos'?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It says 'Eleh ha'Devarim...Sheshes Yomim 
               Te'aseh Melachah' - this alludes to 39 Melachos told 
               to Moshe on Sinai (Devarim (plural) teaches two, the 
               'Hei' teaches one more, the Gematri'a of Eleh is 
               36);
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps if one did all of them in one 
               Helam he brings only one Korban!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Rejection #1:</font></b> 'Be'Charish uva'Katzir Tishbos' (it is 
               as if there are separate commands to cease from 
               plowing and from reaping).
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Objection:</font></b> Perhaps one who plowed and reaped brings 
               two Korbanos, but one does not bring separate 
               Korbanos for other Melachos!
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Rejection #2 - Question:</font></b> 'Lo Seva'aru Esh...' - why 
               is this needed (all Melachos are forbidden)?
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It was taught by itself to teach about 
                    the other Melachos - burning is an Av Melachah, 
                    one is liable for it by itself, the same 
                    applies to all Avos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Shmuel holds like R. Yosi, who says that the 
          verse teaches that burning is only a Lav:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Yosi):</font></b> Burning was taught by itself to 
               teach that it is only a Lav (without Misah or 
               Kares);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Noson says, it was taught by itself to Mechalek.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Shmuel should learn from R. Yosi's source for 
          Chiluk Melachos!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Yosi):</font></b> 'V'Asah me'Achas me'Henah' - 
               sometimes one is liable Achas (one Chatas) for many 
               transgressions, sometimes he is liable Henah, a 
               Chatas for each transgression. (This does not 
               explain why it says '*Me*'Achas <i>me</i>'Henah'.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina):</font></b> He also expounds the 
               'Mem' in 'me'Achas' and the 'Mem' in 'me'Henah' 
               (this will be explained in (ii) - (iii)): 
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Achas is sometimes Henah (he is liable many 
                    times for one transgression), Henah is 
                    sometimes Achas (he is liable once for many 
                    transgressions);
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> Achas alludes to [a full Melachah, e.g. 
                    writing] 'Shimon'; me'Achas alludes to [a 
                    partial Melachah, e.g. writing] 'Shem' (the 
                    first two letters of Shimon; Rashi - he is 
                    liable because this is also a name or word 
                    Me'iri - he would be liable even if it was not 
                    a word);
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) TWO DEATHS OR TWO KORBANOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that Shmuel derives the concept of Chiluk Melachos (one who performs multiple Melachos on a single Shabbos is obligated to bring multiple Korbanos) from the verse 'Mechaleleha <i>Mos Yumas</i>' -- 'He who desecrates Shabbos <i>shall die, he shall die</i>' (Shemos 31:14), which implies that one who desecrates Shabbos is Chayav more than one death. According to Shmuel, this means that one is Chayav to bring more than one <i>Korban</i> for desecrating Shabbos inadvertently with multiple Melachos. The Gemara points out that even though the simple meaning of the verse is that he is Chayav more than one <i>death</i> for <i>intentional</i> desecration of Shabbos, we nevertheless learn about unintentional desecration of Shabbos from this verse, because there is another verse that teaches us the Chiyuv for intentional desecration of Shabbos.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara need to prove that the verse does not refer to death for intentional desecration of Shabbos from the fact that there is another verse that teaches the same thing? Even without that proof, it logically cannot refer to intentional desecration of Shabbos, because a person cannot be punished with two deaths!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Im Eino) answers that if not for the other verse that teaches the punishment for one who intentionally transgresses, we would have thought that this verse teaches that one who intentionally transgresses a Melachah of Shabbos is punished with death, and it uses the expression 'Mos Yumas' merely because that is the way that people speak (and it does not mean that one is punished with two deaths). The Gemara proves from the fact that another verse already teaches the Chiyuv Misah for intentional desecration of Shabbos that this verse refers to one who transgresses inadvertently, and the words 'Mos Yumas' teach that there are multiple obligations for one who transgresses inadvertently (because it <i>is</i> possible to be Chayav to bring more than one Korban Chatas).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> explains as follows. The Gemara in Sanhedrin teaches that when one has been sentenced to death by Sekilah and he flees when Beis Din attempts to execute him, Beis Din has the right to kill him in whatever way they can (for example, they may shoot arrows at him). Accordingly, we would have thought that the phrase 'Mos Yumas' means that when one is Chayav Sekilah for intentionally desecrating Shabbos, he is punishable with <i>two</i> types of death. He is sentenced to die with Sekilah, but if he escapes, Beis Din may kill him in any other way. (Shmuel, who uses this verse to teach Chiluk Melachos, learns the Halachah in Sanhedrin from a different verse. See <b>RASHASH</b> and <b>RAV ELAZAR MOSHE HA'LEVI HOROWITZ</b>, who add that the verse cited by the Gemara here should be '*Kol ha'Oseh Melachah*... Mos Yumas' (Shemos 31:15) instead of '<i>Mechaleleha</i> Mos Yumas' (Shemos 31:14); see also <b>RITVA</b>.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>             <b>  <b><font>iii. </font></b></b>Henah alludes to Avos Melachah, me'Henah 
                    alludes to Toldos.
             <br><b>  <b><font>iv. </font></b></b> Achas is sometimes Henah (many Korbanos for one 
                    transgression, e.g. Chilul Shabbos) - Zadon 
                    Shabbos and Shigegas Melachos; Henah is 
                    sometimes Achas (one Korban for many 
                    transgressions) - Zadon Melachos and Shigegas 
                    Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Shmuel holds that 'me'Achas me'Henah' does not 
          justify expounding like R. Yosi.
<br>
<b><font>2) ONE WHO FORGOT BOTH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (Rava):</font></b> If one was Shogeg about both (Shabbos 
          and the Melachos), what is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Because he was Shogeg about 
          Shabbos, he is only liable once.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> [It is just as reasonable to say that] 
          he was Shogeg about the Melachos, he should be liable for 
          each Melachah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> If he ceased [to do the Melachah, 
          and now seeks atonement] because he found out that it is 
          Shabbos, this is Shigegas Shabbos, he is liable only 
          once;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he ceased because he found out that the Melachah 
               is forbidden, this is Shigegas Melachos, he is 
               liable for each.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Objection (Ravina):</font></b> He ceased upon hearing that it is 
          Shabbos only because he also remembers that the Melachah 
          is forbidden; he ceased upon hearing that the Melachah is 
          forbidden only because he remembers that it is Shabbos!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rather, it makes no difference why he ceased.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Mishnah):</font></b> There are 39 Avos Melachos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Why do we need to know the number?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </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> Question:</font></b> In what case is he liable for each 
               Melachah?
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer #1:</font></b> If he is liable for each when he forgot 
               both, we can say that he forgot both;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  But if he is liable only once when he forgot 
                    both, how can we answer?
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer #2:</font></b> It was Zadon Shabbos and Shigegas 
               Melachos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> R. Yochanan obligates a Korban for one who 
               remembered the Lav but forgot that there is Kares - 
               he could say, this was the case;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  But Reish Lakish obligates only when he was 
                    Shogeg even about the Lav - if he forgot all 
                    the Melachos, how did he remember Shabbos?! 
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> (Summation of answer:</font></b> We must say that Reish Lakish 
               learns like Answer #1; we have no source that R. 
               Yochanan argues about forgetting both!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Rejection (and Answer #3 to Question (f:</font></b>3)): He 
          remembered that it is forbidden to leave the Techum - the 
          Mishnah is like R. Akiva, who forbids this mid'Oraisa.
<br>
<b><font>3) GREIRAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> If one reaped and grinded k'Grogeres (a date's 
          worth of food, the Shi'ur to be liable for Melachah 
          involving food) amidst Zadon Melachos and Shigegas 
          Shabbos, and later reaped and grinded k'Grogeres amidst 
          Zadon Shabbos and Shigegas Melachos, and then found out 
          about [one or both of] his first transgressions (amidst 
          Shigegas Shabbos), and separated a Korban (it atones for 
          both Melachos):
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he later found out about his latter 
               transgressions (Shigegas Melachah, before offering 
               the Korban), the first reaping is <i>Gorer</i> the second 
               (causes it to get atonement along with its 
               atonement); the first grinding is Gorer the second.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) IF ONE FORGETS BOTH SHABBOS AND MELACHOS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Rav Nachman and Rav Ashi argue about a case in which a person forgets both that it is Shabbos and that this act is forbidden on Shabbos. Rav Nachman says that he is Chayav to bring only one Korban, because it was his Ha'alamah (forgetting) of Shabbos that caused him to sin. Rav Ashi says that we must determine what his Ha'alamah was; if, when we tell him that today is Shabbos, he stops doing the Melachah, then he is Chayav to bring only one Korban (because his transgression was done due to He'elem Shabbos). If, when we tell him that the act he is doing is a Melachah, he stops doing the Melachah, then he is Chayav to bring a Korban for each Melachah that he did (He'elem Melachos).
</p><p>
In what manner does this determine what the person's Ha'alamah was?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Iy) explains that if he stops doing Melachah when we tell him that it is Shabbos, that shows that he was doing the Melachah with He'elem Shabbos, and thus he is Chayav to bring only one Korban. Similarly, if he stops doing the Melachah when we tell him that the Melachah is forbidden on Shabbos, that shows that he was doing the Melachah with He'elem Melachah, and thus he is Chayav to bring multiple Korbanos (a Korban for every Melachah that he performed).
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Chazinan) quotes the <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> and <b>RASHBA</b> who explain that the fact that the person stops doing Melachah when we tell him that today is Shabbos is not sufficient proof that he transgressed with He'elem Shabbos. Perhaps he also would have stopped had he told him that the act he is doing is a Melachah.
</p><p>
Rather, we must ask him, 'Had we told you about the other aspect of your Ha'alamah (either Shabbos or Melachos), would you have stopped doing the Melachah?' If he says that 'this factor caused me to stop doing the Melachah, but the other factor would not have caused me to stop,' that is acceptable proof to determine what his Ha'alamah was, and, consequently, whether he is Chayav to bring one Korban or two.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) 'GREIRAH' (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  But if he first found out about his latter reaping 
          (Shigegas Melachah), and separated a Korban for it, it 
          will Gorer the first reaping, and the first reaping will 
          Gorer the first grinding (both were in the same Shigegas 
          Shabbos), but the latter grinding will need its own 
          Korban.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> Also the first grinding is Gorer the latter 
          grinding - all grinding is one.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Rava argues with the principle of Greirah!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rava):</font></b> If one ate two k'Zeisim of Chelev in one 
               Helam, and found out about one of them, and ate a 
               third k'Zayis in the same Helam with (i.e. before 
               finding out about) the second [and later finding out 
               about the last two):
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  If he brought a Korban [and said that it is] 
                    for the first, it atones for the first two, but 
                    not for the third.
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> If he brought a Korban for the third, it atones 
                    for the last two, but not for the first.
             <br><b>  <b><font>iii. </font></b></b>If he brought a Korban for the second, it 
                    atones for all three.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Abaye):</font></b> In any case, the Korban atones for all 
               three.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Once Rava heard about Greirah from Abaye, he 
          agreed to it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> If so, grinding should also Gorer grinding 
          [when he separated a Korban for the latter reaping]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He agreed to Greirah (the latter reaping is Gorer 
          the first reaping), but not Greirah of Greirah (the first 
          grinding only gets atonement through Greirah, it cannot 
          Gorer something else).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Abaye and Rava had no doubt that a Korban for Zadon 
          Shabbos and Shigegas Melachos also atones for Zadon 
          Melachos and Shigegas Shabbos - R. Zeira was unsure about 
          this.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Zeira):</font></b> If one reaped [or grinded] half a 
          k'Zayis amidst Zadon Melachos and Shigegas Shabbos, and 
          later reaped [or grinded] half a k'Zayis amidst Zadon 
          Shabbos and Shigegas Melachos, do they join [together to 
          obligate a Korban]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Asi):</font></b> They require separate Chata'os (a Korban 
          for Zadon Shabbos and Shigegas Melachos does not atone 
          for Zadon Melachos and Shigegas Shabbos), [therefore] 
          they do not join.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Zeira):</font></b> It is not true that whenever 
          separate Chata'os are required, they do not join!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> If one ate Chelev twice in one Helam, he 
               is liable only once;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If he ate Chelev, blood, Pigul, and Nosar in one 
               Helam, he is liable for each one - this is a 
               stringency of different Minim (Isurim) over 
               [multiple transgressions of] one Min.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> A stringency of one Min over different Minim - if 
               one ate half a k'Zayis, and then another half a 
               k'Zayis in one Helam:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  If they were both the same Min, he is liable; 
                    if they were different Minim, he is exempt.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Objection:</font></b> Obviously, he is liable regarding one 
               Min!
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer (Reish Lakish):</font></b> The case is, he ate it in two 
               plates (Rashi - cooked two different ways) - it is 
               like R. Yehoshua who says that plates Mechalek;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  One might have thought that he says this both 
                    to be lenient and to be stringent - we learn 
                    that, this is not so, he says this only to be 
                    stringent (i.e. only when being Mechalek will 
                    obligate more Korbanos).
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Summation of question:</font></b> Even though separate Chata'os 
               are required, they join!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Asi):</font></b> You ask because you assume that Reish 
          Lakish discusses the Reisha - we learn that he discusses 
          the Seifa, it is not difficult;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question (regarding the Seifa):</font></b> Obviously, he is 
               exempt regarding two Minim!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer (Reish Lakish):</font></b> Really, it is one Min - it is 
               called two Minim because it was eaten in two plates;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  It is like R. Yehoshua who says that plates 
                    Mechalek - we learn that he says this both to 
                    be lenient and to be stringent.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If the Seifa discusses one Min and two plates, 
          the Reisha must discuss one Min and one plate - this is 
          obvious (that in such a case he is Chayav)!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) REBBI ZEIRA'S DOUBT</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> According to Abaye and Rava, if a person commits one sin twice, in two different Ha'alamos, the two acts are considered to be one even if the Ha'alamos are not identical types of Ha'alamah (for example, one was He'elem Shabbos, and one was He'elem Melachos). The Gemara says that Rebbi Zeira (or Rebbi Yirmeyah) was in doubt with regard to this Halachah. Rebbi Zeira asked whether a person is Chayav to bring a Korban when he performed half of a Shi'ur of a Melachah while he forgot that it was Shabbos, and then he did another half of a Shi'ur of Melachah when he remembered that the Melachah is forbidden. Do two half-Melachos join to make one full Melachah?
</p><p>
What exactly was Rebbi Zeira in doubt about?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Milsa d'Peshita, DH Chalukin) explains that Rebbi Zeira was in doubt about two cases. He was in doubt whether two acts that are done in two types of Ha'alamos can combine in a case in which a person did half a Shi'ur of Melachah in each Ha'alamah, and in a case in which a person did a <i>whole</i> Melachah in each Ha'alamah. Even though the case Rebbi Zeira asked about was a case in which the person did half a Shi'ur of Melachah, he could have asked the same question about a case in which the person did a full Shi'ur of Melachah. In that case, does the sinner need to bring two Korbanos, or does he need to bring only one Korban? (See <b>RAN</b>.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b>, in the name of 'Yesh Mefarshim,' explains that Rebbi Zeira knew for certain that one is Chayav to bring two Korbanos if he does a full Shi'ur of the transgression in each Ha'alamah. That is why he did not ask what the Halachah is in that case. Instead, he asked about a case in which one does half a Shi'ur of Melachah in each Ha'alamah. In such a case, which involves two half-Melachos, it may be necessary to have a stronger division between the acts to exempt one from a Korban. Two half-Melachos naturally attract and join to each other to form one complete Melachah, and therefore a strong division may be needed to keep them separated.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Huna):</font></b> The case is, he found out in between;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah is like R. Gamliel, who says that 
               Yedi'ah (finding out) after eating half a Shi'ur has 
               no effect (if he eats another half-Shi'ur b'Shogeg, 
               they join).
<br>
<b><font>2) DOES 'HAFRASHAH' OR 'KAPARAH' MAKE 'CHILUK CHATA'OS'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> If one ate two k'Zeisim of Chelev in one 
          Helam, and found out about one of them, and later found 
          out about the other, he brings two Chata'os;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Reish Lakish):</font></b> He is liable only one Korban.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan learns from 'Al Chataso v'Hevi' (one must 
          bring for each transgression);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Reish Lakish learns from '*Me*'Chataso v'Nislach Lo' 
          (even if he brought a Korban for part of his Chet, it 
          atones for all of it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How does Reish Lakish explain 'Al Chataso 
          v'Hevi'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That teaches about [finding out about another 
          transgression] after Kaparah (then, another Korban is 
          required).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How does R. Yochanan explain 'Me'Chataso 
          v'Nislach Lo'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, he ate one and a half k'Zeisim, he 
          found out about a k'Zayis, then ate another half k'Zayis 
          in the same Helam with the remaining half k'Zayis;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One might have thought that the half-k'Zeisim join - 
               the verse teaches, this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question (Ravina):</font></b> Do they argue about when he found out 
          before Hafrashah (being Makdish a Chatas) - R. Yochanan 
          holds that Yedi'os Mechalek, Reish Lakish holds that 
          Hafrashos Mechalek;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Reish Lakish agrees that if he found out after 
               Hafrashah he brings two Korbanos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Or, do they argue about when he found out after 
               Hafrashah - R. Yochanan holds that Hafrashos 
               Mechalek, Reish Lakish holds that Kaparos Mechalek?
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  R. Yochanan agrees that if he found out before 
                    Hafrashah he brings one Korban.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Or, do they argue in both cases, whether he found 
               out before or after Hafrashah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Presumably, they argue in both cases:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If Reish Lakish agreed that if he found out after 
               Hafrashah he brings two Korbanos, he could have 
               established 'Al Chataso v'Hevi' in this case, 
               instead of after Kaparah;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If R. Yochanan agreed that if he found out before 
               Hafrashah he brings one Korban, he could have 
               established 'Me'Chataso v'Nislach Lo' in this case, 
               instead of a case of one and a half k'Zeisim 
               [followed by another half k'Zayis]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> Perhaps the above answers for how each of them 
          would explain the other's verse were given because the 
          Gemara was unsure in which case they argue (therefore it 
          covered all possibilities):
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If you will say that they argue before Hafrashah, R. 
               Yochanan can establish 'Me'Chataso v'Nislach Lo' in 
               a case of one and a half k'Zeisim;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If you will say that they argue after Hafrashah, 
               Reish Lakish can establish 'Al Chataso v'Hevi' to 
               discuss after Kaparah.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) A 'YEDI'AH' THAT SEPARATES TWO 'HALF-SINS'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Raban Gamliel states, 'Ein Yedi'ah l'Chatzi Shi'ur.' This means that if a person inadvertently eats half a Shi'ur of Chelev (half a k'Zayis), finds out about it, forgets and eats another half-Shi'ur, he is Chayav to bring a Korban. The <b>RITVA</b> explains that a Yedi'ah (the realization that one committed a sin) is not significant and does not serve to separate two acts of a sin from each other unless it follows a complete transgression. If it does not follow a complete transgression (but only a transgression with half a Shi'ur), it is insignificant.
</p><p>
However, the Gemara later says that Rebbi Yochanan maintains that a Yedi'ah <i>does</i> serve to separate between two halves of a transgression. Rebbi Yochanan says that if a person sins by eating one and a half k'Zeisim of Chelev, and then he realizes that he ate one k'Zayis of Chelev (but he does not yet realize that he ate an additional half k'Zayis), and then he forgets and eats another half k'Zayis, the Yedi'ah that he had serves to divide the first half k'Zayis from the second, and he is <i>not</i> Chayav to bring an additional Chatas for the additional two half k'Zeisim that he ate. That is, even though there was no full Yedi'ah of the first half k'Zayis to separate it from the second, nevertheless the Korban from the first k'Zayis separates this half k'Zayis (for which the Korban was <i>not</i> brought) from the next. It seems from here that it is <i>easier</i> to separate two half k'Zeisim from each other than to separate two k'Zeisim, which is diametrically opposite the reasoning of Raban Gamliel! Why does the Korban serve to separate one half k'Zayis from the other in this case?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) In Rebbi Yochanan's case, a person sinned initially by eating one and a half k'Zeisim. When he designates a Korban for the k'Zayis, even though he does not remember the other half k'Zayis that he ate, that half k'Zayis <i>is covered by the Korban</i> that he brings on the full k'Zayis, since it is drawn after the Zayis that accompanied it. Since the half k'Zayis was already forgiven, it cannot be combined with the later half k'Zayis.
</p><p>
(b) Rebbi Yochanan's ruling is consistent with Raban Gamliel's opinion. In the case of Raban Gamliel, the person discovered that he ate half a k'Zayis of Chelev. That knowledge does not qualify as a Yedi'ah, because it is not a Yedi'ah of a <i>full</i> sin. In Rebbi Yochanan's case, though, the Yedi'ah came after a complete sin (of one and a half k'Zeisim of Chelev), and therefore it is considered a Yedi'ah. It separates his first consumption of Chelev -- including the additional half k'Zayis -- from the second half k'Zayis that he ate. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) 'CHILUK ASHAMOS' FOR 'SHIFCHAH CHARUFAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Ula):</font></b> According to the opinion that one can bring an 
          Asham Vadai without Yedi'ah (he is not yet sure that he 
          sinned), if one had five acts of relations with a 
          Shifchah Charufah (a [half] slave designated for an Eved 
          Ivri, even if he found out in between each Bi'ah, the 
          Yedi'os are unimportant and hence do not Mechalek), he 
          brings only one
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Hamnuna):</font></b> If Reuven had relations with a 
          Shifchah Charufah, was Makdish an Asham and said 'Do not 
          offer it until I have relations again [so it will atone 
          for both]', will you say that he is liable only once?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Ula):</font></b> I never said that a Korban atones for a 
          transgression after Hafrashah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Rav Dimi):</font></b> According to the opinion that Asham Vadai 
          requires Yedi'ah, if one had five acts of relations with 
          a Shifchah Charufah (and found out in between each Bi'ah, 
          the Yedi'os Mechalek), he brings five Ashamos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> [Hakravas] Chatas requires Yedi'ah, yet 
          R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about it! (Reish 
          Lakish surely holds that Yedi'os do not Mechalek, they 
          are not like Kaparos; R. Yochanan could agree.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Rav Dimi could not answer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Abaye:</font></b> Perhaps you mean, each Bi'ah after Hafrashah 
          requires another Korban, like Rav Hamnuna taught!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Rav Dimi:</font></b> Yes!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Ravin):</font></b> All agree about Shifchah Charufah, all agree 
          about [another law of] Shifchah Charufah, there is an 
          argument about [a third law of] Shifchah Charufah:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> All agree that one is liable only once for many 
               Bi'os [before Hafrashah], like Ula taught [according 
               to the opinion that Asham Vadai does not require 
               Yedi'ah];
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> All agree that one is liable for each Bi'ah [after 
               Hafrashah], like Rav Hamnuna taught;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> According to the opinion that Asham Vadai requires 
               Yedi'ah, R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue [about 
               whether or not Yedi'os are Mechalek].
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A 'KORBAN' FOR A 'SAFEK SHIFCHAH CHARUFAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that if a man may bring the Asham Vadai for the sin of Shifchah Charufah without a Yedi'ah (that is, he does not know for sure that he sinned), then a Yedi'ah is not Mechalek between five sins with a Shifchah Charufah. (Accordingly, even though he found out that he sinned immediately after each time he committed the act, the sins are all considered to have been done b'He'elem Echad and he is Chayav to bring only one Korban.) The logic for this ruling is that since a Yedi'ah is not necessary for the Asham Vadai to be effective, Yedi'os are not significant as far as this Korban is concerned, and Yedi'os do not serve to divide between two such sins. Therefore, one Korban suffices for all five sins that he committed with the Shifchah Charufah.
</p><p>
(This can be understood logically as follows. A Yedi'ah serves as a separation between two sins when the Chiyuv Korban takes effect only as a result of the Yedi'ah. When the Chiyuv Korban takes effect even without the Yedi'ah, such as in the case of Shifchah Charufah, the Yedi'ah is rendered meaningless. One might ask that since the sin itself makes the Chiyuv Korban take effect, the sin itself should differentiate it from a second sin. The answer is that an act of a sin alone can never separate one act from a later act, even if it creates a Chiyuv Korban.)
</p><p>
The Rishonim ask that even if we say that one does not need definite knowledge that he sinned with a Shifchah Charufah in order to bring a Korban, he still must have at least a <i>doubt</i> that he sinned. If he has a doubt whether or not he is obligated to bring the Korban, he may bring the Korban conditionally ('Al Tenai...'), as Rashi explains earlier (end of 71b, DH l'Man d'Amar Asham Vadai). 
</p><p>
How can one bring a Korban conditionally for the sin of Shifchah Charufah when he is in doubt if he sinned? In the case of Shifchah Charufah, he cannot make a Tenai (condition)! (In the case of Me'ilah, cited by Rashi earlier (loc cit.), one can make a Tenai, because if he <i>did</i> sin with Me'ilah, he must bring an Asham Vadai, and even if he is not sure that he sinned, he must still bring an Asham Taluy because of his doubt. However, in the case of Shifchah Charufah one does not bring <i>any</i> Korban for a doubtful sin (since it is not punishable with Kares when done intentionally)! One may not make a condition that if he sinned, the Korban is an Asham Vadai, and if he did not sin, it is a Nedavah, because an Asham and a Nedavah are two completely different types of Korbanos with different Halachos.) One needs definite knowledge that he sinned with a Shifchah Charufah in order to be Chayav to bring a Korban. (The only time when Yedi'ah is not necessary is when the Korban may be brought Al Tenai. In this case, though, it cannot be brought Al Tenai, and thus a Yedi'ah is necessary in order to be able to bring the Korban.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Ba'al) answers that even though it is true that one may not designate an animal as a Korban with the stipulation that it should be either an Asham Shifchah Charufah (if he sinned) or a Nedavah (if he did not sin), nevertheless if one does make such a Tenai it is effective b'Di'eved. Therefore, it can be said that a Yedi'ah is not necessary in order to bring the Korban.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> explains that if two men lived with two women, one of whom was a Shifchah Charufah, but it was not known which one, the two men may make a Tenai and bring a Korban Asham Al Tenai, since one of the two is certainly obligated to bring the Korban. That case shows that a Yedi'ah is not necessary to be Chayav to bring the Korban Asham, and therefore a Yedi'ah is also not Mechalek between sins.
</p><p>
(c) <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> in Gilyon ha'Shas explains that it is true that after the first doubtful sin with a Shifchah Charufah that he commits, he may not bring a Korban because he needs a Yedi'ah Vadai (that is, it is not possible to bring a Korban Asham for Shifchah Charufah conditionally, as we stated in our question). However, once he finds out for sure that he sinned the first time, from then on he does not need a Yedi'ah for any subsequent sins with a Shifchah Charufah in order to bring a Korban for those sins. Once he is Chayav to bring that first Korban, every subsequent act of Be'ilah does not need a Yedi'ah, because when he later brings the Korban for the <i>first</i> sin, it covers all the subsequent Be'ilos about which he has no definite knowledge.
</p><p>
This seems to be a straightforward solution. It could be that the Rishonim disagreed on this point and understood that if a person designates an animal to be brought as an Asham specifically for one act of Be'ilah, it cannot cover any other Be'ilah which he did not have in mind at the time that he designated the Korban.
</p><p>
(d) It seems that there is an obvious answer to this question. It is true that a person cannot designate a Korban for a doubtful sin of Shifchah Charufah through a Tenai, and he may designate a Korban only once he knows for certain that he sinned. However, if a person has absolutely no knowledge that he sinned with a Shifchah Charufah, if he designates an animal as a Korban and says, 'If I ever happened to have sinned with a Shifchah Charufah, then this animal is hereby a Korban Asham,' it will be an Asham when he finds out that he sinned. This shows that Yed'iah is not necessary for the Korban to be effective, and thus it will not be Mechalek between sins!
</p><p>
The Rishonim apparently rejected this answer because there is no such thing as designating a Korban for a sin which one does not know that he committed. One may designate a Korban only for something that he knows about (or at least something which he is in doubt about). (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<b><font>2) ONE WHO INTENDED TO PERFORM A PERMITTED ACTION</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  If one intended to pick up something detached, and picked 
          up something attached (Tosfos - he did not realize that 
          it was attached; Rashi - he was trying to pick up 
          something else), detaching it, he is exempt;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> If he intended to cut something detached, and he 
          cut something attached, he is exempt;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> He is Chayav.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Rava exempts, for he did not intend to cut something that 
          may not be cut;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  Abaye obligates, for he intended to cut in any case.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Support (Rava, for himself - Beraisa):</font></b> There is a 
          stringency of Shabbos over other Mitzvos, and there is a 
          stringency of other Mitzvos over Shabbos:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The stringency of Shabbos - if two Melachos were 
               done in one Helam, he is liable for each one, this 
               is not so regarding other Mitzvos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The stringency of other Mitzvos - if someone 
               transgressed b'Shogeg without intention he is 
               liable, this is not so regarding Shabbos. (We seek 
               to explain the Reisha, the support for Rava comes at 
               the end (73A).)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Reisha):</font></b> The stringency of Shabbos over other Mitzvos is 
          that if two Melachos were done in one Helam, he is liable 
          for each.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the case?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he reaped and grinded - the corresponding case of 
               other Mitzvos is eating Chelev and blood, also there 
               he is liable for each!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> We must say, regarding other Mitzvos he ate 
          Chelev twice [in one Helam].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> Also regarding Shabbos, if he reaped twice [in 
          one Helam] he is liable only once!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> Really, he reaped and grinded - the 
          corresponding case of other Mitzvos is idolatry, as R. 
          Ami taught!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Ami):</font></b> If someone slaughtered, burned and poured 
               libations to idolatry in one Helam, he is liable 
               only one Korban.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> We cannot establish it regarding idolatry on 
          account of the Seifa!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Seifa):</font></b> The stringency of other Mitzvos - if 
               someone transgressed b'Shogeg without intention he 
               is liable, this is not so regarding Shabbos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> How could someone transgress idolatry 
               b'Shogeg without intention?
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  If he thought he was bowing to a synagogue, and 
                    it really was idolatry, he intended to serve 
                    Hash-m (this is not idolatry)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer #1:</font></b> Rather, he bowed to a statue.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> If he accepted it to be his god, he was 
               Mezid; if not, he did not serve idolatry!
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, he served idolatry on account of 
               love or fear [of a person].
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> This is like Abaye, who obligates for 
               serving on account of love or fear - according to 
               Rava, who exempts, how can we answer?
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Answer #3:</font></b> He thought that idolatry is permitted.
       <br><b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> If so, in such a case regarding Shabbos, 
               he is exempt;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Rava only asked whether a person who forgot 
                    that it was Shabbos and forgot Melachos brings 
                    one Chatas, or for each Melachah - there was no 
                    side to say that he is totally exempt!
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) MIS'ASEK</b></font><b>
<br></b>(See Chart #16 for a detailed description of the argument between Rashi and Tosfos as to what is considered Mis'asek.)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) ONE WHO DID NOT INTEND TO PERFORM A FULL 'MELACHAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Answer #3:</font></b> The Reisha (other Mitzvos are more lenient) 
          refers to idolatry, the Seifa (other Mitzvos are more 
          stringent) refers to other Mitzvos!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the case of Shogeg without intention 
          regarding other Mitzvos?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> He thought that he was eating permitted fat, 
          and it was really Chelev.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The corresponding case regarding Shabbos - he 
               intended to cut something detached, and cut 
               something attached, he is exempt. (This culminates 
               Rava's support for himself.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Abaye cannot explain like this (he obligates) - 
          how will he explain Shogeg without intention?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (and Answer #2 to Question (b)):</font></b> He thought that 
          saliva was on his tongue and he swallowed it (and it was 
          really Chelev);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The corresponding case regarding Shabbos - he 
               intended to pick up something detached, and cut 
               something attached, he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> If one intended to throw two Amos and it went 
          four Amos, he is exempt;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> He is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Rava exempts, for he did not intend to throw four Amos; 
          Abaye obligates, for he intended to throw in any case.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> If one thought that he was in Reshus ha'Yachid 
          [and threw four Amos], and it was really Reshus ha'Rabim, 
          he is exempt;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> He is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  Rava exempts, for he did not intend to throw where it is 
          forbidden; Abaye obligates, for he intended to throw in 
          any case.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  We must teach all three arguments:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If we only taught the first, we would have thought 
               that there Rava exempts, for he did not intend for a 
               forbidden cutting, but he would obligate when he 
               intended to throw two Amos, for throwing two Amos is 
               a requisite for throwing four Amos;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If we only taught the second, we would have thought 
               that there Rava exempts, for he did not intend to 
               throw four Amos, but he would obligate when he erred 
               about the Reshus, for he intended to throw four 
               Amos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> There are 39 Avos Melachos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why do we need to know the number?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> This teaches that if one did all of 
          them in one Helam, he is liable for each.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> According to Abaye, we understand how this can 
          be - he knew about Shabbos and the Melachos, he erred 
          about Shi'urim (e.g. he intended to do half a Shi'ur);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rava exempts in such a case - how can he explain?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He knew that it was Shabbos, he forgot the 
          Melachos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> According to R. Yochanan, we can say that he 
          remembered that a Lav forbids Melachah, he forgot that 
          there is Kares;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> But according to Reish Lakish, he must be Shogeg 
               even about the Lav [to bring a Korban] - if he 
               forgot all of the Melachos, in what way did he 
               remember Shabbos?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He remembered that it is forbidden to leave the 
          Techum, according to R. Akiva.
<br>
<b><font>2) THE 39 'MELACHOS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> There are 39 Melachos (they will be explained 
          in this and coming Perakim) - seeding, plowing, reaping, 
          making piles, threshing, winnowing, Borer (selecting), 
          grinding, sifting, kneading, baking;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Shearing wool, laundering, Menapetz (banging wool to 
          crush and remove impurities; alternatively, separating 
          clumps into fibers; alternatively, brushing and combing 
          it), dying, spinning, Meisach (arranging the warp threads 
          on a loom), making two Batei Nirin (passing two warp 
          threads through holes in a frame that lifts and lowers 
          warp threads on a loom), weaving two threads, Potze'a two 
          [warp] threads (cutting off excess if they are frayed; 
          alternatively, cutting them off the loom, tying, untying, 
          sewing two stitches, tearing in order to sew two 
          stitches;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Hunting a deer, slaughtering, flaying, salting (the 
          hide), tanning the hide, Memachek (scraping the skin), 
          cutting [it into strips];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Writing two letters, erasing in order to write two 
          letters, building, destroying, extinguishing, burning, 
          Makeh b'Patish (finishing a Kli), and Hotza'ah from 
          Reshus to Reshus - these are 39 Melachos.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'FORTY MINUS ONE'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah says that the number of Melachos are 'forty minus one.' Why does the Mishnah not say simply that there are 'thirty-nine' Melachos?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>TOSFOS YOM TOV</b> suggests that since the maximum number of lashes that a person can receive is called 'forty minus one' (Makos 22a), the Melachos are also called 'forty minus one.' (The Mishnah refers to lashes as 'forty minus one' and not 'thirty-nine' because the Torah uses the word 'forty' to refer to them.)
</p><p>
(b) The son of the <b>TOSFOS YOM TOV</b> suggests an answer based on the Gemara earlier (49b). The Gemara there says that the number of Melachos prohibited on Shabbos is derived from the number of times that the word 'Melachah' appears in the Torah. The Gemara asks that the word 'Melachah' actually appears forty times, and the Gemara answers that one of them is not counted. The Mishnah alludes to this by saying that there are 'forty minus one' Melachos.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>TOSFOS YOM TOV</b> suggests another answer. The Gemara says later (74b; see <b>RASHI</b> there, DH v'Iy Chayetei) that one is Chayav for the Melachah of Tofer (sewing) only if he ties a knot at the end of the stitching so that it does not unravel. Therefore, practically speaking, it is not possible to transgress the Melachah of sewing without also transgressing the Melachah of tying, in which case he has done forty Melachos (all 39, plus an extra one of tying in order to complete the Melachah of sewing). The Mishnah alludes to this by saying that there are 'forty minus one' Melachos. (One might ask that it is indeed possible to limit one's transgressions to 39, if one <i>first</i> sews a stitch, and <i>then</i> ties a knot to hold the stitch in -- without tying any other knots. In that case one does only 39 Melachos, and not 40! The Tosfos Yom Tov must mean that the Melachos cannot be done <i>in the order of the Mishnah</i> unless one does a total of forty Melachos.)
</p><p>
(d) The <b>MAYIM CHAYIM</b> answers based on the Gemara (73b) which notes that the Melachah of plowing that is mentioned in the Mishnah is done <i>after</i> the Melachah of sowing. Although a person usually plows the land <i>before</i> sowing as well as after sowing, the Mishnah refers only to the <i>second</i> plowing, which is done when the soil is hard <i>after</i> the seeds have been sown. Accordingly, when one does all of the Melachos mentioned in the Mishnah, he does forty Melachos (that is, two plowings, one before sowing and one afterwards). The Mishnah alludes to this by saying that there are 'forty minus one' Melachos.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) AN 'AV MELACHAH'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah teaches that there are thirty-nine Avos Melachos. What makes an act an Av Melachah?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Ofeh) says that anything that was done for the construction of the Mishkan is an Av Melachah. 
</p><p>
We may ask that the verse says that all of the materials necessary for the construction of the Mishkan were collected within two days after the people were commanded to build the Mishkan. How, though, could they have prepared the herbs and plants used for the dyes in just two days, if they needed to plow, sow, reap, and so on? The <b>IGLEI TAL</b> (Introduction, #2) infers from Rashi that any act that was necessary to perform in order to obtain a material needed for the Mishkan is a Melachah even though it was <i>not done</i> for the Mishkan when it was actually constructed (but rather they used materials that they had brought with them from Mitzrayim, or had acquired in the Midbar).
</p><p>
(b) However, the <b>RAMBAN</b> (74a) writes that only labors that were performed by the Jews explicitly for the sake of the Mishkan are considered Melachos. This is supported by the wording of the Gemara earlier (49b), '*Hem Zar'u* v'Atem Lo Tizre'u' -- 'Since they sowed, you shall not sow.' How did they sow and reap in just two days? The <b>AVNEI NEZER</b> explains, based on the Midrash Rabah, that just as Yakov Avinu planted Arazim trees in Mitzrayim for the Mishkan and bid his children to take them out in order to build the Mishkan, so, too, he told them to plant and take out other materials <i>for the Mishkan</i>. Since the act of planting and other acts of preparation were done <i>for the Mishkan</i> (albeit in Mitzrayim), one is Chayav for doing such acts on Shabbos.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Teshuvos #134) cites <b>RAV HAI GA'ON</b> who explains that any Melachah done for the purpose of baking (i.e., any of the first eleven Melachos listed in the Mishnah) that was done in order to prepare for <i>offering the Korbanos and Menachos</i> in the Mishkan is considered a Melachah -- even though it was not related to the <i>construction</i> of the Mishkan in any way. This is what the Gemara means by '*Hem Zar'u* v'Atem Lo Tizre'u,' and by 'Tana Sidura d'Pas Nakat' (Daf 74b). The <b>AVNEI NEZER</b> points out that Rashi later (92a, DH she'Ken Masa) also cites Rav Hai's opinion. Rashi records in the name of Rav Hai Ga'on a Yerushalmi that appears to lead to the same conclusion.
</p><p>
However, it is not clear why Rav Hai Ga'on learns only the Melachos of baking bread from the Korbanos of the Mishkan, and not the other Melachos (such as ha'Shochet, etc.). Perhaps Rav Hai Ga'on means merely to explain why the Mishnah <i>lists</i> Melachos of baking instead of Melachos of cooking (see Rashi in the Mishnah), and he does not mean that an activity can become a Melachah <i>because</i> it was done for the Menachos or Korbanos. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Why do we need to know the number?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> This teaches that if one did all of 
          them in one Helam, he is liable for each.
<br>
<b><font>3) SOWING AND PLOWING ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Seeding and plowing.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Tana should have taught plowing first (it 
          precedes seeding)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Tana is from Eretz Yisrael, where people plow 
          also after seeding [to cover the seeds, for the land is 
          hard - the Tana teaches that also the second plowing is a 
          Melachah].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Seeding, pruning, planting [saplings], Mavrich 
          (sticking roots into the ground to grow) and grafting are 
          all the same Melachah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the Chidush?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This teaches that one who does many Melachos that 
          are variants of one Melachah is liable only once.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rav Acha):</font></b> Pruning is liable for planting (if one was 
          warned not to plant and he pruned, he is killed); 
          planting, pruning, Mavrich and grafting are liable for 
          seeding.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> Are they liable for seeding, but not for 
          planting?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He means, they are liable even for seeding.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Rav Kahana):</font></b> If one pruned and needed the wood, he is 
          liable twice - for reaping and for planting.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> One who cut fodder is liable twice, for 
          reaping and for planting (it causes more to grow).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> One who harvests beets is liable twice, for 
          reaping and for planting (it causes more to grow).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Plowing.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Plowing, digging and making furrows are all 
          one Melachah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> If someone removed a small mound of dirt 
          in a house, he is liable for [leveling the floor for] 
          building;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he did so in a field, he is liable for plowing 
               (this softens the ground).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> If someone filled a small pit in a house with 
          dirt, he is liable for building;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he did so in a field, he is liable for plowing 
               (this makes it fit to be seeded).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (R. Aba):</font></b> If someone dug a pit on Shabbos and only needed 
          the dirt, he is exempt, even according to R. Yehudah who 
          is Mechayev Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah is Mechayev only for improvements - this 
               is destructive.
<br>
<b><font>4) 'MELACHOS' INVOLVING PRODUCE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Reaping.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Reaping, reaping grapes, reaping dates, 
          reaping olives, and reaping figs are all one Melachah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rav Papa):</font></b> If someone threw a clump of dirt at a date 
          tree and knocked down dates, he is liable twice, for 
          uprooting (a Toldah of reaping) and for Mefarek (a Toldah 
          of threshing. Rashi - he removes the dates from the tree; 
          Tosfos - he knocked the shells off the dates.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Rav Ashi):</font></b> [He is exempt -] this is not the normal way 
          to uproot or to Mefarek.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Making piles.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> If one gathers salt from the place where they 
          evaporate seawater to make salt, he is liable for making 
          piles.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> [He is exempt -] making piles applies only to 
          Gidulei Karka (things that grow from the ground).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Threshing.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Threshing, Menapetz (beating stems to remove 
          the flax) and Menapet (beating cotton to remove the 
          seeds) are all one Melachah.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) DIFFERENT FORMS OF 'ZORE'A'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara concludes that 'Zomer Chayav Mishum Note'a' (pruning is Chayav because of planting), and 'Note'a, Markiv, and Mavrich Chayav Af Mishum Zore'a' (even planting, grafting, and bending a vine branch and planting it are Chayav because of sowing). <b>RASHI</b> explains that since those three (Note'a, Markiv, and Mavrich) are all forms of the Melachah of Zore'a, if one does all of them together with Zore'a, he is Chayav to bring only one Chatas.
</p><p>
This implies that if one does Zomer, which is Chayav only because of Note'a, together with Zore'a, he is Chayav to bring <i>two</i> Chata'os. However, the Gemara just stated that one who does all of these together is Chayav to bring only one Chatas!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> explains that according to Rashi, one is indeed Chayav to bring two Chata'os, one for Zomer (which is Chayav because of Note'a) and one for Zore'a. However, if he does Zomer and Zore'a together with Note'a as well, he will be Chayav to bring only one Chatas, because Zomer is part of Note'a, while Note'a is identical to Zore'a (the only difference is that it is done with a sapling instead of a seed). Since Note'a and Zore'a are covered by one Chatas, Zomer -- which is a Toldah of Note'a -- is also covered by that Chatas.
</p><p>
(b) Rashi's words can be understood differently. When the Gemara says that Note'a, Markiv, and Mavrich are Chayav 'Af Mishum Zore'a' (lit. 'even because of Zore'a'), it does not mean that they are Chayav for <i>both</i> Note'a and Zore'a. Rather, they are Chayav <i>only</i> for Zore'a. 'Af Mishhum Zore'a' means that <i>even all of these</i> are Chayav <i>only</i> for Zore'a (for we might have thought that they are their own independent Av Melachos and are Chayav for both themselves and for Zore'a; see Background to the Daf).
</p><p>
The Chidush of Zomer, on the other hand, is the exact opposite. It is obvious that Zomer is not an independent Av Melachah. We might have thought that Zomer is not Chayav <i>at all</i> because it does not resemble any form of planting (since when one prunes a tree, he does not place any object into the ground in order to grow). Therefore, Rav Ami teaches that Zomer is indeed Chayav for Note'a.
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b>, as quoted by the <b>RITVA</b>, disagrees with Rashi and says that the Gemara is discussing Hasra'ah (the warning given to someone before he commits a sin), and not the obligation to bring a Korban or multiple Korbanos. The Gemara teaches that one can be Chayav for Zomer only if he was warned with 'Note'a' (i.e., the witnesses warned him and said, 'You will be Chayav if you do that act because it is an act of Note'a!'). To be Chayav for Note'a, Markiv, and Mavrich, though, one can be warned for either Note'a or Zore'a (but one will always be Chayav to bring only one Korban, regardless of the act for which he was warned).
</p><p>


<font><b>4) ONE WHO KNOCKS A DATE OFF A TREE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Papa says that one who throws a rock or clod of earth at a date palm and knocks a date off is Chayav for two Melachos -- Tolesh (picking fruit off a tree) and Mefarek. <b>RASHI</b> explains that Mefarek in this context refers to taking the date out of its cluster. However, if this is true, then why is one not Chayav for Mefarek every time he removes a grape from a cluster (even if the cluster of grapes is not attached to the tree)? (<b>SEFAS EMES</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH v'Achas) and other Rishonim had a different text of Rashi. In their text, Rashi says that Mefarek refers to 'unburdening' the tree from its burden (the dates).
</p><p>
However, the Rishonim reject this explanation, because we do not find that a person is Chayav for Mefarek every time he picks any type of fruit from a tree. He is Chayav only for Kotzer (Tolesh). According to this version of Rashi, since he unburdens the tree of its fruit, he should be Chayav for Mefarek as well.
</p><p>
(b) Tosfos explains in the name of the <b>RASHBAM</b> that the dates have an outer skin that comes off when they are knocked from the tree. Taking the dates out of their outer skin is the same action as Mefarek, taking a grain out of its sheath.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAN</b> learns that pulling a date off of its cluster <i>after</i> it falls from the tree is called Mefarek. The Ramban seems to understand that the normal manner was to cut off the clusters of dates from the tree and then afterwards to separate dates from the cluster prior to selling them (in this respect it differs from grapes, because it is normal to sell grapes with their cluster). This may also be the intention of Rashi according to our version.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) 'MELACHOS' THAT ARE SIMILAR TO EACH OTHER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Winnowing, Borer, grinding, sifting.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Winnowing, Borer and sifting are all the same 
          (removing the undesired part)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye and Rava):</font></b> Every labor done to build the 
          Mishkan is listed [as an Av Melachah by itself], even if 
          some of them are very similar.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Also pounding should be listed (even though it 
          is like threshing, for spices were pounded)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> [The Tana begins by listing the 
          Melachos used to make bread -] because an Oni does not 
          pound [to make high quantity flour], it was excluded.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> Our Mishnah is Rebbi, who expounds that 
          there are 39 Melachos - if we would include pounding, 
          there would be 40.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> If so, he should include pounding (with 
          threshing) and exclude winnowing, Borer or sifting [to 
          teach two of each grouping of similar Melachos, instead 
          of one of these and all three of those]!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Conclusion:</font></b> We must answer like Abaye.
<br>
<b><font>2) WHEN IS SELECTING PERMITTED ON SHABBOS?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If one had several kinds of food in front of 
          himself, he selects and eats, he selects and leaves over, 
          he may not select; if he selected, he is Chayav Chatas.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does this mean?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Ula):</font></b> He selects [for himself] to eat today; 
          he selects and leaves over, [for others to eat] today; he 
          may not select for tomorrow - if he did, he is Chayav 
          Chatas.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Chisda):</font></b> It is forbidden to bake or cook 
          [or do any other Melachah, including Borer] to eat that 
          day!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Chisda):</font></b> He selects less than a Shi'ur 
          (k'Grogeres), and eats; he selects less than a Shi'ur and 
          leaves over; he may not select a Shi'ur - if he did, he 
          is Chayav Chatas.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Yosef):</font></b> It is forbidden to bake [or do any 
          other Melachah, including Borer] less than a Shi'ur!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> He selects by hand, and eats; he 
          selects by hand, and leaves over; he may not select using 
          a funnel or plate - if he did, he is exempt [for these 
          are not special for Breirah]; he may not select using a 
          sieve; - if he did, he is Chayav Chatas.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Hamnuna):</font></b> The Beraisa does not mention a 
          funnel or plate!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #4 (Rav Hamnuna):</font></b> He selects the food from the 
          Pesoles (waste, what he does not desire), and eats; he 
          selects food from the Pesoles, and leaves over; he may 
          not select Pesoles from the food - if he did, he is 
          Chayav Chatas.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> The Beraisa does not mention selecting 
          food from the Pesoles!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #5 (Abaye):</font></b> He selects [for himself] to eat 
          immediately; he selects and leaves over, [for others to 
          eat] immediately; he may not select for later in the day; 
          if he did, this is like selecting to store up, he is 
          Chayav Chatas.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rava approved of Abaye's answer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Rav Ashi - Beraisa #1):</font></b> If there were two kinds of food, 
          and one selected one of them [for himself] to eat or to 
          leave [for others to eat], he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (R. Yirmeyah mi'Difti):</font></b> The text says 'He is liable.'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question (against Rav Ashi - Beraisa #2):</font></b> He is liable. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Beraisa #1 discusses selecting with a funnel or 
          plate, Beraisa #2 discusses selecting with a sieve. 
          (Rashi - Beraisa #2 is the above Beraisa (a); Tosfos - it 
          must be another Beraisa, since Beraisa (a) permits in one 
          case, and Breirah is never permitted with a sieve.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Rav Dimi:</font></b> Rav Bivi was serving the Talmidim on Shabbos - 
          he dumped out a basket of fruit in front of R. Ami and R. 
          Asi;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> I do not know if he did so because he holds that it 
               is forbidden to select food from Pesoles (the fruits 
               from the leaves - dumping out the basket caused them 
               to separate by themselves), or if he did so just to 
               be generous.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Chizkiyah):</font></b> If one selects lupines from their Pesoles, 
          he is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> He holds that it is forbidden to select food 
          from Pesoles!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> No, lupines are different, for one cooks them 
          seven times;
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE MELACHAH OF 'KOTESH' (POUNDING)</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS: RASHI</b> (DH she'Ken Ani) explains that the Melachah of Kotesh, pounding, was done in the Mishkan and it is an Av Melachah. However, it is not counted in the Mishnah, because the Mishnah counts only labors involved in 'Sidura d'Pas' (making bread), and pounding is not considered an established part of Sidura d'Pas because poor people do not do it when they make their bread. Nevertheless, 'it is an Av Melachah, included in the Melachah of Dash (threshing).'
</p><p>
(a) Rashi contradicts himself. He first writes that Kotesh is an Av Melachah, and then he writes that it is included in Dash, clearly implying that it is a <i>Toldah</i> of Dash!
</p><p>
(b) Rashi implies that there are <i>forty</i> Av Melachos. How can this be, when the Mishnah clearly states that there are no more than thirty-nine Melachos? (The Gemara (75b) proves that there are only thirty-nine Melachos according to the Mishnah.)
</p><p>
(c) Why does Rashi need to mention 'Sidura d'Pas' at all? The Gemara says that a poor person does not pound his bread, and therefore Kotesh is not in the Mishnah either because it is not considered a significant labor, or because it was not done in the Mishkan. Why does Rashi have to mention that it is not part of 'Sidura d'Pas'? (<b>MAHARSHA</b>, <b>MAHARAM</b>)
</p><p>
(d) Why does Rashi need to say that Kotesh <i>is</i> an Av Melachah but is not <i>counted</i> in the Mishnah? He should have said that since a poor person does not do Ketishah, it is not an Av Melachah altogether!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>RAMBAN</b> writes in the name of Rashi that Kotesh is not considered a significant labor since a poor person does not do it, and it is included in Dash (as we suggested in (d) above). Perhaps this is what Rashi intends to say, even in the text of our version of Rashi. When Rashi says that Kotesh is an Av Melachah, he means only that it is in the category of forbidden Melachah on Shabbos for which one will be Chayav, but not that it is its own primary category of Melachah. (This is consistent with Rashi's opinion elsewhere. It is evident in numerous places that Rashi uses the term 'Av Melachah' to refer not to a primary category, but to <i>any</i> form of labor for which one is Chayav on Shabbos, including a Toldah. See Insights to Shabbos 18:1.) This answer questions (a), (b), and (d).
</p><p>
Concerning the third question (c), why Rashi mentions 'Sidura d'Pas,' it must be that Rashi understands the Gemara like the Ramban: since a poor person does not do Ketishah, it is not considered a significant Melachah. Rashi, however, was bothered by Tosfos' question. Tosfos asks that Ketishah was performed in the Mishkan for the preparation of the <i>dyes</i>, and not merely to make bread. Why is it not considered an Av due to the fact that it was needed for dye-production? Tosfos answers that a poor person even makes his <i>dyes</i> without pounding them. Rashi was bothered why the Gemara specifically mentions the <i>bread</i> of a poor person, and not his <i>dyes</i>.
</p><p>
To answer that question, Rashi, says that since all of the Melachos listed in the first part of the Mishnah refer to 'Sidura d'Pas,' and the Gemara is now discussing Kotesh in the context of Borer and other bread-related Melachos, it must be that the Kotesh under discussion is that which is used in 'Sidura d'Pas.' 'Sidura d'Pas' has nothing to do with the reason why Kotesh is not mentioned in the Mishnah. Rashi is merely explaining why the Gemara focuses on bread ('since a poor person eats his <i>bread</i> without Ketishah') and does not mention the dyes. (M. Kornfeld; see <b>SEFAS EMES</b> for a different explanation.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) HALACHAH: THE MELACHAH OF 'BORER'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara cites a Beraisa that first states that Borer is permitted on Shabbos and then states that Borer is forbidden and one is Chayav to bring a Chatas for it. Five different resolutions are suggested in the Gemara to explain what the Beraisa means when it says that it is permitted to do Borer:
</p><p>
(a) It is permitted when done for use <i>on that day</i>.
</p><p>
(b) It is permitted when only <i>half the Shi'ur</i> is separated.
</p><p>
(c) It is permitted when done <i>by hand</i> ('b'Yad').
</p><p>
(d) It is permitted when one separates a <i>food</i> item from a <i>non-edible</i> item ('Ochel mi'Toch Pesoles').
</p><p>
(e) It is permitted when done for immediate use ('l'Altar').
</p><p>
The Gemara unconditionally rejects the first two answers. Doing Borer for that day is forbidden and one is Chayav a Chatas, and 'Chatzi Shi'ur' is also forbidden mid'Oraisa (although one is not Chayav a Chatas). Which of the other answers are accepted? What is the Halachah? 
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH v'ha'Tanya) and the <b>ROSH</b> cite <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b>, who says that all three of the latter conditions must be fulfilled in order for it to be permissible to do Borer on Shabbos (or more exactly, in order for this act not to be one of Borer).
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> (DH v'ha'Tanya) appears to say that if it is done <i>immediately</i>, it is permissible, even when done with an instrument made for separating (such as Napah u'Kevarah).
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The Halachah follows the opinion of Rabeinu Chananel, as the <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 319) writes, and three conditions are required -- b'Yad, l'Altar, and Ochel mi'Toch Pesoles. 
</p><p>
The <b>REMA</b> cites Rabeinu Chananel and explains that 'l'Altar' refers to any food that is prepared for the meal that is about to come (even if it is not going to be consumed immediately).
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Version #1 (Rashi):</font></b> If the Pesoles is not removed 
               (some texts - if they are not cooked), they will 
               spoil, therefore we [are stringent to] consider the 
               lupines themselves like Pesoles, it is like Pesoles 
               from food.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Version #2 (Mishnah Berurah):</font></b> Before they have been 
               cooked seven times, they are bitterer than the 
               Pesoles, therefore it is like Pesoles from food.
<br>
<b><font>3) EXAMPLES OF 'CHIYUVIM' FOR 'MELACHOS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Grinding.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rav Papa):</font></b> If one dices beets, he is liable for 
          grinding. (R. Chananel explains, he cut very finely, as 
          if they were mashed; Aruch - some say, even if he cuts 
          into large pieces. Rashba - it was not for immediate 
          consumption; Tosfos - other vegetables are permitted; 
          Rosh - Rav Papa discusses wood, but grinding a food [that 
          is ready to be eaten] is permitted.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rav Menasheh):</font></b> If one chops wood finely for kindling, he 
          is liable for grinding.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Rav Ashi):</font></b> If he is particular about their length, he is 
          liable for cutting.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Kneading and baking.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rav Papa):</font></b> Our Tana lists baking, and not cooking, even 
          though they cooked spices for the Mishkan - he lists the 
          Melachos used to make bread. (In any case, one who cooks 
          is liable for baking. Rashi - baking was not done <i>to 
          build</i> the Mishkan (kneading is an Av because ingredients 
          were kneaded with water in order to make dye). R. Tam (in 
          Tosfos ha'Rosh 74A she'Chen) - they baked bread for the 
          sake of testing Techeiles, cooking was far more 
          important; Rav Hai Gaon - we learn Avos also from 
          Melachos done for the sake of Menachos - see Rashi on the 
          Mishnah 92A.) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rav Acha bar Rav Avira):</font></b> One who puts a wet peg into an 
          oven to dry is liable for cooking.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This is obvious!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that he intends only to 
          harden it - Rav Acha teaches, this is not so, he intends 
          to soften it first [and one is liable for this], then it 
          hardens.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Rabah bar Rav Huna):</font></b> If one melts pitch he is liable for 
          cooking,
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This is obvious!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that he is exempt because 
          it hardens later - Rabah teaches, he is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> If one makes a barrel, he is liable seven 
          Chata'os (for grinding clumps of dirt very finely, Borer 
          (removing the big pebbles), sifting the dirt in a sifter, 
          kneading it, smoothing it (Memachek), burning [to heat 
          the furnace] and solidifying it (cooking));
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  He is liable eight Chata'os for making an oven (the above 
          seven, and Makeh b'Patish, i.e. smearing plaster on it so 
          it will hold the heat).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> If one makes a chest of reeds, he is liable 11 
          Chata'os (two for pruning the reeds (reaping and 
          planting), for gathering, selecting the nice ones, 
          smoothing them, cutting each into two or three thin 
          slices (grinding), cutting them to size (Mechatech), 
          Meisach of the warp reeds (arranging them so the woof can 
          be intertwined), intertwining a woof reed over and under 
          the warp, so it will stay - this is like making two Batei 
          Nirin, weaving, cutting off the excess after weaving 
          (Makeh b'Patish);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b></b>  Shearing wool, laundering, Menapetz (banging wool to 
          crush and remove impurities; alternatively, separating 
          clumps into fibers; alternatively, brushing and combing 
          it), dying, spinning, Meisach (arranging the warp threads 
          on a loom), making two Batei Nirin (passing two warp 
          threads through holes in a frame that lifts and lowers 
          warp threads on a loom), weaving two threads, Potze'a two 
          [warp] threads (cutting off excess if they are frayed; 
          alternatively, cutting them off the loom, tying, untying, 
          sewing two stitches, tearing in order to sew two 
          stitches;
(q) 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he sewed an opening, he is liable another two 
               (Rashi - he must tie it; Tosfos - he is liable for 
               building a Kli).
<br>
<b><font>4) PLUCKING HAIR OR FEATHERS FROM ANIMALS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Shearing wool and laundering it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> One who spins wool [still] on a 
          sheep on Shabbos is Chayav three Chata'os - for shearing, 
          Menapetz and spinning.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rav Kahana):</font></b> He is exempt - this is not the normal way 
          to do any of these!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa - R. Nechemyah):</font></b> They washed [the hair 
          while it was still] on the goats and they spun on the 
          goats.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This shows that it is normal (and thus within the 
               category of spinning)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No - it was done through extra Chachmah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If one plucked a feather from a bird's wing, 
          cut off the [soft] end, then cut the hair off the other 
          end, he must bring three Chata'os.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Reish Lakish):</font></b> Plucking is liable for shearing, cutting 
          off the end is liable for Mechatech, cutting the hair is 
          liable for Memachek (smoothing).
<br>
<b><font>5) 'MELACHOS' INVOLVING ROPES AND THREADS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Tying, untying...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What did they tie for the Mishkan?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rava):</font></b> They would tie [the curtains] to pegs.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> That tying was with intent to untie (one is 
          liable only for a permanent knot)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> If a thread [for the curtains] broke, 
          they would tie it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question (Rava):</font></b> That explains tying - what did they 
          untie for the Mishkan?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> If a thread tore [and was tied] in two 
               places [near each other], they would untie the knots 
               and [pull the ends together and] make one knot 
               (Tosfos (73A); Rashi - if two threads near each 
               other tore [and were tied], they would untie one of 
               them [after weaving, to avoid two bulges near each 
               other. According to this (but not according to 
               Tosfos), one is liable for untying even without 
               intent to tie.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> This is unfit even for a mortal king, all 
               the more so for Hash-m! (Rashi - the threads were 
               six-fold, hence very thick, so the hole would be 
               conspicuous - rather, on one torn thread they would 
               tear a fair distance above and below the knot, and 
               tie a thread to each torn end - this way, no two 
               knots were near each other.) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer (and Answer #3 to Question (i) - Rava):</font></b> They would 
          tie and untie knots in nets to trap the Chilazon (the 
          fish whose blood is used to make Techeiles).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Sewing two stitches.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Two stitches will come apart (anything that 
          will not last is not a Melachah)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> He is liable only if he 
          tied them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Tearing in order to sew.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Did they tear for the Mishkan?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah and R. Zeira):</font></b> If worms made a hole in a 
          curtain, they would tear around the hole and sew it up 
          (Rashi; Tosfos - they would tear off the whole curtain 
          [which was sewn to other curtains] and replace it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Mar Zutra bar Tuvya citing Rav):</font></b> If parts of a garment 
          are joined by a sewn thread which is not taut, and one 
          pulls it taut [making the ends of the garment come 
          together], he is liable for sewing;
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) OTHER TEACHINGS OF MAR ZUTRA BAR TUVYA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mar Zutra bar Tuvya citing Rav):</font></b> If one learns anything 
          from an Amgushi (this will be explained), he is Chayav 
          Misah [bi'Dei Shomayim].
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If one knows how to calculate [the times of] Tekufos 
               and Mazalos, but does not do so, others may not talk 
               with (Ben Yehoyada - highly about) him. (Tekufos are 
               solstices (when the sun reaches its northernmost and 
               southernmost extremes) and equinoxes (when the noon 
               sun is directly over the equator); Mazalos refers to 
               the 12 constellations - the constellations have a 
               fixed rotation, the same constellation is the first 
               to 'rise' each night for about 30 consecutive days.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rav or Shmuel):</font></b> Amgushi [discussed by earlier Chachamim] 
          is a witch;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (The other of Rav and Shmuel):</font></b> It is a blasphemer [who 
          constantly entices people to serve idolatry].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Conclusion:</font></b> We must say that Rav holds that it is a 
          blasphemer, for he said that one learns anything from an 
          Amgushi is Chayav Misah;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This cannot refer to a witch - 'Lo Silmad La'asos', 
               but it is permitted to learn [witchcraft] in order 
               to understand it and give Halachic rulings about it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (R. Shimon ben Pazi):</font></b> It says about one who knows how to 
          calculate Tekufos and Mazalos, but does not, 'V'Es Po'al 
          Hash-m Lo Yabitu u'Ma'ase Yadav Lo Ra'u'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani):</font></b> It is a Mitzvah to calculate 
          Tekufos and Mazalos - 'U'Shmartem va'Asisem Ki Hi 
          Chachmaschem u'Vinaschem l'Einei ha'Amim' - Tekufos and 
          Mazalos is the Chachmah that can be shown to Nochrim 
          (through them, one can predict the overall weather for 
          the coming year).
<br>
<b><font>2) HUNTING AND KILLING ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Hunting a deer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If one hunts a Chilazon and bruises [or 
          presses] it with his hands to extract its blood, he is 
          liable only once.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah is Mechayev twice;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> R. Yehudah:</font></b> Extracting the blood is included in 
               threshing.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Chachamim:</font></b> It is not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> Chachamim hold that threshing applies only to 
          Gidulei Karka (things that grow from the ground).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> He should also be liable for killing!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The case is, he bruises it after 
          it died.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> We can even say that he bruises it 
          while it was alive - he is Mis'asek regarding killing it 
          (he is engaged in something else).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But Abaye and Rava both say that R. Shimon 
          agrees about a Pesik Reisha (it is as if he intended)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Here is different, he prefers that it stay alive, 
          for then the blood makes a clearer dye.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Slaughtering.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is one liable for slaughtering?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav):</font></b> He is liable for dying (the blood colors 
          the skin).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Shmuel):</font></b> He is liable for killing.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE 'CHILAZON'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> According to the Tana Kama in the Beraisa, one who traps ('Tzad') and smashes ('Potze'a') a Chilazon transgresses only one Melachah, the Melachah of trapping. According to Rebbi Yehudah, he transgresses two Melachos, trapping and Potze'a (a Toldah of Dash). One is not Chayav, though, for killing the Chilazon.
</p><p>
Many Acharonim point out that we can infer from the Sugya here a number of distinguishing features of the Chilazon. In addition to these features, there are a number of other distinguishing characteristics of the Chilazon mentioned in the Gemara, Rashi, and Tosfos elsewhere. Based on these Sugyos, is it possible to identify the Chilazon, and thus the Techeles dye? (For a more comprehensive survey of this topic, see Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld's 'Torah from the Internet,' Shelach 5755, and see the special <b>TECHELES SECTION</b> of the Dafyomi Advancement Forum.)
</p><p>
(a) To address this question, we shall first list the characteristics of the Chilazon mentioned in the Gemara here and in other Sugyos.
</p><p>
The species: The first group of features describe the species of the Chilazon.
</p><p>
1. The Beraisa in Menachos (44a) says that 'its creature is like a fish.'
</p><p>
2. The Gemara earlier (74b) says that the Chilazon is captured with nets lowered into the water.
</p><p>
3. The Gemara here (75a) says that one is Chayav for Tzad (trapping) when he captures the Chilazon on Shabbos. This implies that the Chilazon is not a creature that is easy to catch, but rather it is a creature that runs away when one tries to catch it. We know that the Melachah of trapping applies only when one captures an animal that is able to flee and that tries to run away when it is being hunted (Beitzah 24a).
</p><p>
4. <b>TOSFOS</b> here (DH ha'Tzad) infers from the Gemara that one who removes a Chilazon from the sea on Shabbos is not held liable for killing it ('Netilas Neshamah') even if he allows the Chilazon to become partially dry (this is because the Chilazon does not die immediately upon being removed from the water, but it jumps around a bit. This is in contrast to the Halachah that one who removes a fish from water is considered to have killed it as soon as it becomes partially dry, since it will certainly die (Shabbos 107b). Apparently, there is some difference between the Chilazon and other sea creatures in this regard.
</p><p>
5. The Gemara discusses one who 'smashes' ('Potze'a') a Chilazon to extract its dye. The word 'Potze'a' implies cracking or pounding a hard surface, such as a person's bones or skull (Shemos 21:25, Sanhedrin 82a), or a nutshell or branch (Beitzah 34a), as opposed to 'Kore'a' (ripping). From the use of this word to describe what is done to the Chilazon to extract its blood, it seems that the Chilazon has some sort of hard shell which needs to be 'cracked open.'
</p><p>
The details of the Chilazon: The next group of features describe specific traits of the Chilazon.
</p><p>
6. The Beraisa in Menachos (44a) says that that the Chilazon's body is like the sea (according to the text of the Beraisa in Maseches Tzitzis, its body is like the sky). This implies that the body of the actual creature has a bluish hue.
</p><p>
7. The Beraisa there says that 'it comes up once every seventy years,' or, according to the text in Maseches Tzitzis, once every seven years. The Beraisa mentions that the dye of the Chilazon is very expensive due to the infrequent availability of the Chilazon.
</p><p>
8. The Gemara earlier in Shabbos (26a) and in Megilah (6a) limits the locale in which the Chilazon is found to the seashores of the tribe of Zevulun, 'from the cliffs of Tzur (Rosh ha'Nikrah) to Haifa.'
</p><p>
The Chilazon's ink: The final group of features relate to the ink that the Chilazon produces.
</p><p>
9. <b>RABEINU TAM</b>, cited by <b>TOSFOS</b> in Kesuvos (5b, DH Dam), proves that taking blood out of a creature is forbidden on Shabbos because of Netilas Neshamah (killing). Tosfos asks that according to Rabeinu Tam, why is one not Chayav for the Melachah of Netilas Neshamah when one takes blood out of the Chilazon? Tosfos answers that the blood of the Chilazon is gathered in a separate sack in the Chilazon and is ready to be extracted, and therefore its removal does not diminish the Chilazon's life in any way.
</p><p>
10. The Gemara here says that if the dye is extracted from the Chilazon while it is alive, it is of a better quality. 
</p><p>
11. The Gemara in Bava Metzia (61b) says that the color of Techeles that comes from the Chilazon is indistinguishable from that of indigo ('Kala Ilan').
</p><p>
12. The Gemara in Menachos (43b) says that Techeles is steadfast. It does not fade with time nor wash out of the wool dyed with it.
</p><p>
(b) Now that we have reviewed the characteristics of the Chilazon that can be derived from the Gemara's statements about it, we shall analyze the various opinions of the identity of the Techeles and examine whether these opinions are consistent with the characteristics enumerated above.
</p><p>
1. Is it a Kosher fish?
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> here (75a, DH ha'Tzad and DH v'Lichayev) implies that the Chilazon is a type of fish that squirms around in the net after it is caught, making it difficult to extract its dye. This, Tosfos explains, is the difference between the Chilazon and the other fish of the sea with regard to the prohibition of Netilas Neshamah on Shabbos (#4 above). Since the Chilazon squirms about after it is removed from the water, one is not considered to have killed it, and one has not transgressed the Melachah of Netilas Neshamah at the moment that he takes it out of the water. Rather, it kills <i>itself</i> by wriggling about.
</p><p>
It seems that the view of Tosfos, that the Chilazon is a fish, is based on the Gemara here (#2 above) which implies that the Chilazon is a fish like any other, and it must be captured with nets. The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Tzitzis 2:2) also writes that the Chilazon is a fish. They do not discuss, however, the exact identity of this fish, or whether it is a Kosher or non-Kosher fish. The view that the Chilazon is a fish also conforms with features #1 and #3 enumerated above. Although it seems to contradict feature #5 since it does not have a hard shell and the word 'Potze'a' does not seem appropriate, Rashi here avoids this contradiction by explaining that the word 'Potze'a' in this context is used differently. It does not mean to 'smash,' but rather to 'squeeze out' the dye-blood from the fish.
</p><p>
<b>RABEINU BACHYE</b> (Shemos 25:3) discusses the three dyes used in the construction of the Mishkan -- Techeles, Argaman, and Tola'as Shani. The last of these three dyes is generally understood to mean 'scarlet from a worm.' Rabeinu Bachye asks how this is possible, since the Gemara in Shabbos (28b) says that only products that are permitted to be eaten were used in the Mishkan. Worms and their secretions are not Kosher! He therefore explains that the scarlet dye of the Tola'as Shani was not actually taken from worms, but from some sort of berry in which the worms tend to live. According to the approach of Rabeinu Bachye, we may conclude that the Chilazon, which is a sea creature, must be a normal fish with fins and scales, for this type of fish is the only Kosher sea creature.
</p><p>
The approach of Rabeinu Bachye, however, is problematic. It seems clear from the Yerushalmi (Kil'ayim 9:1) that the scarlet dye of Tola'as Shani indeed was extracted from a worm (the Kermococcus vermilis, an insect that breeds on a certain species of oak), and not from a berry. This has also been verified from other historical and scientific sources.
</p><p>
Regarding how a non-Kosher creature could be used in the manufacture of an item for use in the Mishkan, we must say that it was only the actual materials used in the Mishkan which were subject to this rule, and not the dyes that were used to color them. The dyes, which are not tangible objects in the finished product, were not included in this prohibition. Accordingly, we are not bound to assume that the Chilazon was a Kosher creature. (See <b>NODA B'YEHUDAH</b>, Mahadura Tinyana OC 3.)
</p><p>
2. Is it a squid?
</p><p>
As we mentioned above, Tosfos maintains that the Chilazon is a fish. While Rabeinu Bachye asserts that it had to be a Kosher fish in order to be used in the Mishkan, other authorities assert that it did not need to be a Kosher fish; a dye obtained from a non-Kosher fish was also permitted to be used in the Mishkan.
</p><p>
In the late nineteenth century, Ludwig Lewysohn proposed in his book, 'Talmudic Zoology' ('Die Zoalogie des Talmuds,' Frankfurt 1858, pp. 284-5), that the Chilazon is a type of squid, known as the cuttlefish. Lewysohn based his conclusion on an inference from a statement of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Tzitzis 2:2). Shortly afterwards (circa 1888), the brilliant and dynamic Rebbe of Radzin, Rav Gershon Henoch Leiner, came to the same conclusion. He carried the conclusion one step further by actually developing a process whereby the sepia (inky secretion) of the cuttlefish, which normally produces a dark brown dye, was transformed into a blue dye. The Radziner Rebbe authored three large volumes intended to prove that he had indeed re-discovered the lost Techeles (<b>SEFUNEI TEMUNEI CHOL</b>, <b>PESIL TECHELES</b>, and <b>EIN TECHELES</b>), and he set up a factory where the dye was produced.
</p><p>
(It is interesting to note that the method used by the Radziner Rebbe to produce Techeles consisted of boiling the sepia together with iron filings and potash at extremely high temperatures to produce the pigment ferric ferrocyanide. Dye chemists are quick to point out, however, that this process does not make any unique use of the squid's inky secretion. In fact, the sepia itself disintegrates and never makes it to the final product, leaving behind only its nitrogen atoms. Any compound that contains nitrogen will produce the same result when boiled with iron. In fact, a similar process is used by organic chemistry students to test for nitrogen in compounds.)
</p><p>
The approach of the Radziner conforms with #2, #3, and #4, since he maintains that the Chilazon was a fish, as we pointed out earlier (b:1). (It conforms with #5 as well, because squids indeed have a hard, shell-like 'bone' under their skin.) It also conforms with #9, because the ink (sepia) of the squid is contained in a separate sack. The ink is the blood that the Gemara mentions. It might conform with characteristic #10 as well. As for characteristic #6, perhaps the body can be described as 'looking like the sea' since the cuttlefish is somewhat transparent, and changes color according to its environment.
</p><p>
However, there are a number of difficulties with the Radziner Rebbe's opinion. First, Techeles is described as absolutely indelible (#12 above), but the Radziner's Techeles can fade (a process called 'bleeding') when scrubbed with common detergents. Second, the blue color that he produced was not the blue of the sea, the shade of indigo (#11), but rather a more metallic blue. Also, the squid he used is of a species that is relatively abundant and equally common in all oceans, and thus it does not correspond to the statements #7 and #8 about the rarity and limited habitat of the Chilazon.
</p><p>
3. Is it a snail?
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> in Sanhedrin (91a) writes that the Chilazon is a type of slug ('Tola'as'), which allows for the possibility of identifying it as a mollusk. Similarly, the <b>RA'AVAD</b> (Toras Kohanim Metzora 1:14) calls the Chilazon a type of worm or slug that lives in the sea.
</p><p>
This is also implied by the statement of the Beraisa in Menachos (#1 above). The Beraisa says that the body of the Chilazon looks 'similar' to that of a fish, implying that the Chilazon itself is not a fish. The Beraisa also says that its 'creature' is like that of a fish, which might refer to the slug inside of the shell, while 'its body is like the sea' may refer to the color of the shell itself.
</p><p>
The <b>YAD RAMAH</b> in Sanhedrin (91a) implies that the word 'Chilazon' refers to snails in general, and the Chilazon of the Techeles is a particular type of snail (see also <b>ARUCH</b>). This seems to be the way the <b>RA'AVAD</b> (at the end of his introduction to Sefer Yetzirah) uses the word Chilazon as well. Indeed, the word 'Chilazon' is used in numerous places as a general term meaning a snail or a snail-like object. The Chilazon mentioned in Shir ha'Shirim Rabah (4:11) is clearly a creature that lives inside a shell. The Mishnah in Bechoros (6:2) and in Kelim (12:1) calls an object with a spiral or twisted snail-shell appearance a 'Chilazon.' In Sanhedrin (91a) we are told that Chilazons appear on the surface of the earth after a rain. It seems clear from all of these sources that the word 'Chilazon' is used in the context of 'snail,' and it is therefore logical to assume that the Chilazon that produces Techeles is also a particular type of snail.
</p><p>
This is a very strong objection to the Radziner's identification of the Chilazon as a squid, as a squid does not live inside a shell. (The Radziner Rebbe's attempts to resolve this difficulty are recorded in 'Ha'Techeles,' p. 174.)
</p><p>
Identifying the Chilazon as a snail is consistent with characteristics #5 and #9. It also provides a simple explanation for why one is not obligated for Netilas Neshamah when he removes a Chilazon from the water. Removing a snail from water does not kill it, even if its shell dries out, since it can remain moist within the shell for a long period of time. 
</p><p>
The problems with the snail hypothesis are characteristics #2 and #3 (as we mentioned before, b:1). The snail does not seem to require a net to be captured (#2), and it is not difficult to catch, as it does not run away (#3).
</p><p>
One answer for the characteristic that nets are used to catch the Chilazon (#2) is that historically and until today, the Greeks have hunted for snails by lowering baited nets into the water, into which the snails crawl to eat the bait. The nets are then lifted with the snails inside of them. However, this answer is not entirely satisfactory, since strings would serve this purpose just as well. From the Gemara it seems that the knots of the nets were important for the capture of the Chilazon.
</p><p>
Concerning the characteristic of trapping (#3), the Yerushalmi indeed states that one who captures the Chilazon is <i>not</i> Chayav for trapping. This makes sense only according to those who explain that the Chilazon is a snail (which does not flee when one catches it). Tosfos here (DH ha'Tzad) indeed grapples with the Yerushalmi's ruling.
</p><p>
To explain why the Bavli <i>does</i> obligate a person for trapping the Chilazon (if it is a snail), it has been suggested that since the snail hides itself in the sand and is difficult to find, capturing it is indeed considered to be the Melachah of trapping, even though it does not flee when found.
</p><p>
Perhaps a more plausible approach to these two questions is that the Bavli and Yerushalmi disagree with regard to the identity of the Chilazon. The Yerushalmi, which noticeably avoids the Bavli's suggestion that the Chilazon is caught in a net (Yerushalmi Shabbos 7:2), maintains that it is a snail. Therefore, one is not Chayav for Tzad if he captures a Chilazon. The Amora'im of the Bavli understand that the Chilazon is a fish, which is why they suggest that it is caught in nets and that one is Chayav for transgressing the Melachah of Tzad when one captures it. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
It is interesting to note that Rashi in Menachos (44a, DH v'Olah) says that the Chilazon comes up 'from the land.' This does not fit the description of an aquatic snail. Indeed, Rashi himself in many other places (Sanhedrin 91a, DH Chilazon; Megilah 6a, DH Al Yedei; Bava Metzia 61b, DH Kala; Chulin 89a, DH she'ha'Techeles) says that the Chilazon comes up from the ocean.
</p><p>
The <b>TAHARAS HA'KODESH</b> explains that Rashi does not contradict himself. Rashi in Megilah states that the Chilazon comes up 'from the ocean to the mountains.' This means that Rashi understands that it originates in the sea, and from there it finds its way to the land. The <b>YA'AVETZ</b> explains that Rashi in Sanhedrin means that the Chilazon comes from the <i>ocean floor</i>, and thus when Rashi says 'land,' he means the land of the ocean.
<br> 
<br>4. Is it the Janthina snail?
</p><p>
Can we identify which of the many species of snails is the one that produces the Techeles dye?
</p><p>
The theory that the Chilazon is a snail was researched in depth by Rav Yitzchak Isaac ha'Levi Herzog zt'l, who laid the foundation for research into the identity of the Chilazon. The Chilazon was the topic of his doctoral thesis (at age 24), in which he combined his tremendous erudition in Torah with his exceptional scholarship in eight different disciplines and twelve languages. To this day, his thesis remains the most basic and authoritative work on the subject, from both a Talmudic and a scientific perspective. The Hebrew version of his thesis was reprinted in full in the book 'Ha'Techeles' (by Rav Menachem Burstein, Jerusalem, 1988, pp. 352-437), an excellent work which summarizes all of the Techeles research done until that date. The longer, English version of Rav Herzog's thesis was printed in 'The Royal Purple and the Biblical Blue' (Keter, 1987) along with other works on the subject.
</p><p>
Rav Herzog proposed that the snail from which Techeles was derived was the Janthina Pallida Harvey. It is found in the Mediterranean Sea, and has a beautiful violet-blue shell. When excited, it discharges a secretion of the same color. It is quite rare and lives in colonies that experience population explosions every four to seven years, when large numbers of them are washed ashore. This fits perfectly with characteristics #6 and #7, that the Chilazon looks like the sea and is rare.
</p><p>
In recent years, research has been done to determine whether a blue dye can be made from the Janthina's secretion. So far, the efforts have not met with much success. The secretion can produce a reddish-bluish color on a fabric, but within a matter of hours the color turns black. In addition, the dye washes right out of the fabric when brought into contact with water. The most advanced modern testing has not been able to even reduce the secretion in any chemical solution (the most basic requirement of any known dye). Instead of dissolving in liquid, the Janthina's ink forms a suspension. In this state, it cannot be induced to bind to a fabric. More research into the chemical makeup of the secretion is necessary.
</p><p>
There are other problems with identifying the Chilazon as the Janthina snail. First, like the cuttlefish, it is no more common along the shores of Zevulun than anywhere else in the Mediterranean (#8). Second, as Rav Herzog himself points out, no Janthina shells have ever been discovered in any archaeological site, nor is this snail mentioned anywhere in the Greek or Roman literature that discuss blue dye, indicating that it was not used in the ancient world.
</p><p>
5. Is it the Murex snail?
</p><p>
In the mid-1800's, archaeologists uncovered numerous ancient dye-producing factories along the Mediterranean coast, mostly in the north-eastern area, between Haifa and Lebanon, with large heaps of snail shells alongside them. This is consistent with the Gemara's statement (#8) that the only place in Eretz Yisrael where Techeles can be found is in the territory of Zevulun, which runs along the Mediterranean coast from Haifa northward. These shells have been identified as belonging to three distinct species of snails: Purpura Haemastoma, Murex Brandaris, and Murex Trunculus. It is now accepted that these snails were the source of Tyrian purple, the 'Argaman' mentioned in the Torah.
</p><p>
Rav Herzog points out that it is clear from a number of Torah sources and historical sources that the Jews and the non-Jews extracted their blue dyes from the same creature ('Ha'Techeles,' pp. 426-427; see also Shabbos 26a, and Rashi there, DH ul'Yogvim). Nevertheless, he rejects the suggestion that one or all of these species may be the true source of the Techeles for several reasons. First, the color of their shells is white, which contradicts the Gemara's description (#6 above) that the Chilazon's body is like the sea (a bluish hue). Furthermore, and more importantly, the dye extracted from these creatures is purple and not indigo (#11). The above-mentioned snails were clearly the source of Argaman, or 'purpura' in Latin. Techeles, which is referred to in Latin by Josephus and Philo as 'hyakinthos,' may have been produced from another snail altogether -- perhaps the Janthina that he suggested (above, b:4).
</p><p>
Others (such as Alexander Dedekind in 'Archeological Zoology,' Vienna, 1898, p. 467) suggest that the blue dye of Techeles did come from the snails found near the ancient dye vats. Two of the species were used to produce Argaman, while the Murex Trunculus was used to produce Techeles. This distinction is based on the fact that not far from Sidon an ancient dyeing site was discovered, with two separate piles of shells near it. One huge pile contained a mix of shells of Purpura Haemastoma and Murex Brandaris, while the other contained only shells of Murex Trunculus ('Ha'Techeles, p. 421). Moreover, the Murex Trunculus produces a blue dye slightly more readily than the other two. 
</p><p>
Although he personally favored his Janthina theory, Rav Herzog himself reluctantly admitted that, 'The logical conclusion would certainly appear to be that the blue pigment produced by the Chilazon was obtained using the Murex Trunculus dye... it is highly unlikely that the Techeles Chilazon was not the Murex Trunculus' ('Ha'Techeles,' p. 421).
</p><p>
Rav Herzog's main objection to this position was that the shells of Murex Trunculus are white and not similar to the sea (#6). Others explain that the Gemara which compares the Chilazon to the sea does not refer to the <i>color</i> of the snail, but to the wave-like contours on the snail's shell. Yet others explain that the Gemara's intention is to compare the snail's shell to the sea <i>bed</i>. The shell is covered by sea-fouling and perfectly matches the rocks to which it attaches itself. (However, neither of these explanations satisfies the version of the Beraisa that is quoted in Maseches Tzitzis, according to which the Chilazon is 'similar to the sky.' Another possibility is that when the Beraisa describes the 'Guf' of the Chilazon, it is describing the ink which is used to produce its dye, and not its shell (-M. Kornfeld).)
</p><p>
Another objection Rav Herzog raised was that the secretion of the Murex Trunculus turns purple and not blue (#11). Rav Herzog himself raised the possibility that 'there might have been some scheme known to the ancients for obtaining a blue dye out of this secretion' ('Ha'Techeles,' p. 423). Recent research has shown that when the secretion is exposed to sunlight after being chemically reduced (a step in the dyeing process), the sunlight breaks down certain chemical bonds in the resulting liquid and it subsequently forms a blue dye. In fact, the resulting dye consists mostly of components bearing the exact same chemical composition as indigo.
</p><p>
One major difficulty remains. What is the once-in-seventy-years cycle of 'coming up' mentioned by the Beraisa (#7)? Does the Murex Trunculus snail show any unusual prominence every seventy (or seven) years? So far, no such behavior has been observed in the Murex. Various explanations have been offered (for example, the Beraisa uses the number 'seventy' merely to emphasize the infrequency of the appearance of the Chilazon, as the Mishnah in Makos (7a) uses that number to emphasize the infrequency of Beis Din's application of capital punishment), but no answer has yet been offered that is entirely satisfactory.
</p><p>
Today, there are two Techeles-producing factories. One, located in Bnei Brak, produces the Radziner Techeles, worn only by Radziner and Breslover Chasidim. The other, located in the Jericho area, produces Techeles from the Murex Trunculus (see <b>TECHELES SECTION</b>).
</p><p>
<b>RAV CHAIM VITAL</b> (in Sha'ar ha'Kavanos, Tzitzis, Derush 4) writes that Techeles represents Hashem's presence as clearly felt in the world. This is why Techeles was widely accessible only during, and close to, the era when the Beis ha'Mikdash stood. At that time, Hashem's presence was manifest in the world for all to see. After the exile, and subsequent hardships, when Hashem's presence among His people has become less evident, Techeles has become 'hidden' as well. The 'return' of Techeles may be an indication that the manifestation of Hashem's presence in this world, too, will soon return to its former state. (See also 'Ha'Techeles,' p. 186, note 21, and Likutei Tefilos 1:49). (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(See also Insights to Menachos 44:1. Regarding the practical, Halachic implications of wearing Techeles today, see Insights to Menachos 44:2.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) 'MEKALKEL' WHILE KILLING</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara asks that when one captures a Chilazon, he should be Chayav not only for 'Tzad' (trapping), but also for 'Netilas Neshamah' (killing), since the Chilazon dies when it is caught. Rava answers that one is not Chayav for Netilas Neshamah when the Chilazon dies as a result of being caught, because his act is merely one of 'Mis'asek' (he did one action, and another action occurred, unintended). The Gemara asks why the death of the Chilazon is not a 'Pesik Reshei' (something which is definitely going to occur and thus is forbidden even if one had no intention for it to occur)? The Gemara answers that since one does not want the creature to die (because its blood makes a finer dye when extracted while the creature is alive), it is not a Meleches Machsheves and it is permitted.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara not answer that one is exempt for killing the Chilazon because the act is 'Mekalkel'? Since the act of killing is not done for a constructive purpose (such as to use the dead body of the Chilazon), even if it is a Pesik Reshei one should not be Chayav for it.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> (DH v'l'Chayev) points out that Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah argue whether 'Mekalkel b'Chaburah' ('destructive' killing) is Chayav or Patur. Rebbi Shimon says that one is Chayav for an act of Mekalkel of Netilas Neshamah, and Rebbi Yehudah says that one is exempt, just as he is exempt in every other case of Mekalkel.
</p><p>
According to Rebbi Shimon, we can understand why the Gemara here does not simply answer that this act of Netilas Neshamah is Mekalkel and therefore one is exempt. Rebbi Shimon maintains that an act of Mekalkel of Netilas Neshamah is always Chayav. Tosfos explains that even according to Rebbi Yehudah, this act of Mekalkel would have been Chayav (had it been a Meleches Machsheves), because one accomplishes a slightly constructive purpose with the death of the Chilazon -- the extraction of its blood, which is more easily accomplished when the Chilazon is dead.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Does Rav holds that he is liable only for 
          dying, but not for killing?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He means, he is liable even for dying.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Rav:</font></b> If I do not explain myself, later generations will 
          mock my words!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> [One is not liable unless he desired the outcome -] 
               he wants the place of slaughter to be bloodstained, 
               so people will see [that it was slaughtered today] 
               and come to buy.
<br>
<b><font>3) TANNING, SMOOTHING AND 'MAKEH B'PATISH' ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Salting and tanning [the hide].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Salting is [a step in] tanning!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish):</font></b> Indeed, we must 
          delete one of these, and replace it by Sirtut (scratching 
          a line where one wants to cut).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Rabah bar Rav Huna):</font></b> If one salted meat, he is liable 
          for tanning.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> [He is exempt -] tanning does not apply to food.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Even Rabah bar Rav Huna is Mechayev only 
               if he salted [very heavily,] for a journey [so it 
               will last a long time], not if he salted it 
               [normally] for the house, for then one does not salt 
               so heavily to make food as hard as wood.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Memachek (scraping the skin) and cutting [it 
          into strips].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rav Acha bar Chanina):</font></b> If one scrapes skin against a 
          pillar (Tosfos; Rashi - he smoothes the ground between 
          pillars), he is liable for Memachek.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> If one scrapes the ends of poles [to 
          make them smooth and sharp], he is liable for cutting;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If one smears a bandage on a wound, he is liable for 
               Memachek;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If one smoothes a rock [that was quarried from a 
               mountain], he is liable for Makeh b'Patish.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (R. Shimon ben Kisma):</font></b> If one makes a picture on a Kli or 
          blows glass, he is liable for Makeh b'Patish.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> If one cuts off excess strands from a 
          curtain, he is liable for Makeh b'Patish;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is only if he is insistent to remove them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Writing two letters.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If one wrote a big letter in the space needed 
          to write two [normal] letters, he is exempt;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If one erased a letter big enough to write two 
               letters in its place, he is liable;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  R. Menachem b'Rebbi Yosi says, this is a stringency of 
          erasing over writing.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Building,...Makeh b'Patish.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Rabah and R. Zeira):</font></b> One who finishes any Melachah is 
          liable for Makeh b'Patish.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> These are 39 Melachos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b></b>  'These' teaches unlike R. Eliezer, who is Mechayev [a 
          second Chatas] for a Toldah done with its Av.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Thirty-nine.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b></b>  This teaches unlike R. Yehudah:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> R. Yehudah also obligates for Shovet 
               (evening the warp threads) and Medakdek (hitting the 
               woof so it will not be too taut);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, Shovet is included in Meisach, and 
               Medakdek is included in weaving.
<br>
<b><font>4) FOR WHAT ITEMS IS ONE LIABLE FOR 'HOTZA'AH'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Another great general rule of Shabbos:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If an item is fitting to store away, if one was 
               Motzi a quantity that people [normally] save, he is 
               Chayav Chatas;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If an item is not fitting to save, or if it was less 
               than a Shi'ur that people save, only one who saves 
               it is liable if he was Motzi it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What does 'If an item is fitting to 
          store' come to exclude?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Papa):</font></b> It excludes Dam Nidah;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Mar Ukva):</font></b> It excludes wood from an Asherah 
          (it is despised and forbidden to benefit from it, on 
          account of idolatry).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  Rav Papa excludes Dam Nidah - all the more so he excludes 
          Etzei Asherah;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Mar Ukva excludes Etzei Asherah - he would not exclude 
          Dam Nidah, for people save it to feed to a cat.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Papa disagrees - since one [who feeds human 
               blood to a cat] becomes weak, people do not save it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (R. Yosi bar Chanina):</font></b> Our Mishnah is unlike R. Shimon - 
          he says that the Shi'urim are for one who saves them (but 
          one who does not save them is always exempt).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If an item is not fitting to save...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> Our Mishnah is unlike R. Shimon ben Elazar:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> The general rule 
               is - if an item is not fitting to save, or if it is 
               less than people save, and Reuven decided to save 
               it, and Shimon was Motzi it, he is liable on account 
               of Reuven's intent.
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) 'SHI'URIM' OF 'HOTZA'AH' FOR ANIMAL FOOD</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one was Motzi any of the following [he is 
          liable]:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Enough Teven (hard straw that remains in the ground 
               when harvesting) to fill a cow's mouth, a camel's 
               mouth full of Etzah (this will be explained), a 
               lamb's mouth full of Amir (Kash, soft straw that is 
               harvested with the grain), a kid's mouth full of 
               grass, a k'Grogeres of moist leaves of garlic and 
               onions (people eat them), or a kid's mouth of them 
               if they are dry.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Different foods do not join with each other because the 
          Shi'urim are different.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What is Etzah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> It is straw of legumes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (Rav Dimi):</font></b> At night, R. Yochanan said that if 
          one was Motzi a cow's mouth full of straw for a camel, he 
          is liable; Reish Lakish exempts;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> In the morning, R. Yochanan retracted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Rav Yosef:</font></b> It was proper that he retracted - camels do 
          not eat straw!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Abaye:</font></b> No, his first ruling was better - it is fitting 
          for a cow (intent to feed to a camel does not exempt)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (Ravin):</font></b> All agree that if one was Motzi a 
          cow's mouth full of straw for a camel, he is liable; 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  They argue about a cow's mouth full of Etzah for a cow, 
          but unlike Rav Dimi said - R. Yochanan exempts, Reish 
          Lakish is Mechayev.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan exempts - he holds that eating 
               [something eaten only] on account of pressed 
               circumstances is not considered eating;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Reish Lakish obligates - he holds that eating due to 
               pressed circumstances is considered eating.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A lamb's mouth full of Amir.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Contradiction (Beraisa):</font></b> One is liable for a k'Grogeres 
          of Amir.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Resolution:</font></b> Both of these are the same amount.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> K'Grogeres of moist leaves of garlic and 
          onions, or a kid's mouth of them if they are dry; 
          different foods do not join because the Shi'urim are 
          different.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina):</font></b> They do not join to the 
          smaller Shi'ur, but they join to the larger Shi'ur.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Things with different Shi'urim do not join!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'urim [to receive Tum'as Medras] 
               for fabric, sackcloth, leather and matting are, 
               respectively, three Tefachim by three [Tefachim], 
               four by four [Tefachim], five by five and six by 
               six.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> The following join [for the Shi'ur] - 
               fabric and sackcloth, sackcloth and leather, leather 
               and matting. (Tosfos - only the pairs listed join, 
               for they connect well. Bartenura (Me'ilah) - all the 
               materials join to comprise the largest Shi'ur among 
               them.) 
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon says, they join because a common Shi'ur of 
               Moshav applies to all of them. (If one cut from any 
               one (Tosfos; Rashi - two) of them and made a patch 
               [for a saddle] at least one Tefach, it is Mekabel 
               Tum'as Moshav.)
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'MIPNEI SHE'HEN RE'UYIN LI'TAMEI B'MOSHAV'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara quotes the Mishnah in Me'ilah (18a) which teaches that various types of material can combine to make a Shi'ur for Tum'ah (l'Chumra; the total size must be equal to or greater than the Shi'ur of the material that requires the <i>largest</i> Shi'ur of the blend), because 'they are [all] fit to become Tamei with Tum'as Moshav.' Similarly, the various types of fodder mentioned in the Mishnah here combine to create a Shi'ur for Hotza'ah, because they are 'fit for a sample.' What is the logic of these reasons for why different types of things combine to make a Shi'ur?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> here and in Me'ilah explains that different types of material may combine to create a Shi'ur for Tum'ah, because they are occasionally sewn together into one usable item, such as a quilted donkey-saddle.
</p><p>
Rashi's logic seems to be as follows. It is obvious that there is a sufficient <i>amount</i> to be Mekabel Tum'ah, since there is enough material in the combination to satisfy the largest Shi'ur involved. However, it is not clear that different materials may be combined to make a Shi'ur in the first place; perhaps the materials stand to be separated from each other shortly, and therefore they should already be viewed as <i>separate</i> from each other (and thus do not combine to make a Shi'ur for Tum'ah).
</p><p>
Therefore, in order to combine different materials, we must first prove that the combination is indeed tolerated. Since people sew different materials together in a donkey-saddle, and, likewise, since different types of fodder are mixed together when put on display for sale, the mixture is viewed as a lasting combination and the various amounts combine to create a Shi'ur.
</p><p>
(b) The rule is that when different types of objects become Tamei or spread Tum'ah, they may combine with each other to make a Shi'ur for Tum'ah when the minimum Shi'ur of each one is the same (for example, they both spread Tum'ah when they are the size of a k'Zayis; see Me'ilah 17a). There is one case (as will be described below) where the size necessary to cause Tum'ah is the same for all of the types of material and types of fodder mentioned in the Mishnah, they combine to cause Tum'ah (as long as the combination is equal to or greater than the largest of the Shi'urim involved).
</p><p>
In what case is the size for Tum'ah of all of the different materials the same? The size is the same in a case in which the materials were specifically touched up to be used for a donkey-saddle. In such a case, every type of material is Metamei when it is one by one Tefach in size (<b>RASHI</b> to Sukah 17b, DH Ho'il; <b>TOSFOS</b> here, DH Ho'il). Similarly, the amount of fodder for which one is Chayav for Hotza'ah is the same for all types of fodder when it was specifically set aside to be used as a salesman's sample (Mishnah, 90b).
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Here also, all can be used [together] for a 
          sample.  
<br>
<b><font>2) WHICH THINGS COMBINE TO COMPLETE A 'SHI'UR' FOR 'HOTZA'AH'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b>  If one was Motzi k'Grogeres of [human] food, 
          he is liable; different foods join with each other 
          because they have the same Shi'ur.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Shells, pits, stems, bran and coarse bran do not help 
          comprise the Shi'ur;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, [inner] shells of lentil that are cooked 
          with the lentils join.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Bran and coarse bran do help comprise 
          a Shi'ur!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> [If a dough was made with] more than a 
               Kav and a quarter of flour, Chalah must be taken;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The bran and coarse bran are included for the 
               Shi'ur.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> They are included regarding Chalah 
          because an Oni does not remove them when making [flour to 
          make] bread (but they do not join for Shabbos, since 
          normally they are not eaten).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> Lentil shells join, for they are 
          cooked with them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> Lentil shells join, but not bean shells.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Contradiction (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> ...Except for 
          shells of lentils and beans.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Resolution:</font></b> Shells of fresh beans join, shells of old 
          beans do not join.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why don't shells of old beans join?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Avahu):</font></b> This is because they [are black, they] 
          looks like flies in the bowl [so people usually remove 
          the shells].
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>***** <b>PEREK HA'MOTZI YAYIN</b> *****
</b></font></center><p>
<br><br><b><font>3) THE 'SHI'URIM' OF 'HOTZA'AH' FOR LIQUIDS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one was Motzi any of the following [he is 
          liable]:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Enough [raw, i.e. undiluted] wine to mix [with 
               water] to comprise a cup (these Shi'urim will be 
               explained), Kedai Gemi'ah (a gulp; alternatively, 
               Malei Lugmav, the amount that one can hold in his 
               mouth when one cheek sticks out) of milk, enough 
               honey to put on Kasis (a wound on an animal's back 
               or leg; Ritva - a wound on a person), enough oil to 
               anoint a small limb, enough water to dissolve into 
               Kilor (an ointment for the eye);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The Shi'ur for all other liquids, including waste water, 
          is a Revi'is. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon says, the Shi'ur for <i>all</i> liquids is a Revi'is 
          [for most people] - all the [smaller] Shi'urim are for 
          one who saves them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Beraisa):</font></b> The Mishnah refers to the amount of 
          wine to mix a nice cup.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is the Kos of Berachah (over which we say 
          Birkas ha'Mazon).
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE 'SHI'UR' OF 'HOTZA'AH' FOR WINE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> One must put a quarter Revi'is of [raw] 
          wine in the Kos of Berachah, so that after it is mixed 
          there will be a Revi'is.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Support (Rava - Mishnah):</font></b> Enough wine to mix to comprise 
          a cup;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> This refers to the amount of wine to mix 
               a nice cup.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Seifa of Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'ur for all other liquids 
               is a Revi'is. (This shows that a Revi'is of raw wine 
               is not required - it does not show that the proper 
               mixing is three parts water for one part of raw 
               wine.) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  This is as Rava holds elsewhere:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rava):</font></b> If one measure of [raw] wine cannot be mixed 
               with three measures of water (for then it will be 
               too weak), it is not [proper] wine. (Some explain, 
               if it has not been diluted with three parts of 
               water, it is not wine, i.e. it is too strong to 
               drink. However, Rava's teaching is brought (Bava 
               Basra 96B) to show that wine made from dregs is 
               considered wine if there are <i>at most</i> three parts 
               water for each part of wine - if it is more 
               concentrated, all the more so it is considered wine! 
               Most people drink it stronger (see Tosfos) - it is 
               unreasonable to base Halachah on a Diyuk from an 
               individual (which the Gemara never spoke out), i.e. 
               because Rava holds that less than three parts water 
               per part of wine is too strong, anything weaker is 
               not wine at all!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection #1 (Abaye - Mishnah):</font></b> [Dam Nidah is Tamei if it 
          is the color of] two measures of water mixed with one 
          measure of Sharoni wine.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Objection #2 (Abaye):</font></b> It is unreasonable that one should 
          be liable for [Hotza'ah of raw] wine on account of water 
          in a jug [which could be mixed with it, but he was not 
          Motzi it]! (Rashi - Abaye agrees that the Shi'ur is a 
          quarter Revi'is, but he does not require a Kos Shel 
          Berachah to be a Revi'is after it is mixed. Ri - he holds 
          that the Shi'ur for raw wine is a Revi'is, both for Kos 
          Shel Berachah and for Hotza'ah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (to Objection #1 - Rava):</font></b> Sharoni wine is 
          weaker than regular wine.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (to Objection #1 - Rava):</font></b> For drinking it is 
          proper to mix wine with three measures of water - but 
          this is not the right color to compare to Dam Nidah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (to Objection #2 - Rava):</font></b> One is liable for 
          Hotza'ah of something important - the wine is important 
          [because it can be mixed to make a Revi'is]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Noson):</font></b> The Shi'ur for congealed wine is a 
          k'Zayis.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> R. Noson and R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah say the 
          same thing:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> The following [is one of] 
               six places in which Beis Shamai are more lenient 
               than Beis Hillel - Beis Shamai Metaher Dam Neveilah, 
               Beis Hillel Metamei.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, Beis Hillel Metamei 
               only when there is a Revi'is, since it can congeal 
               to a k'Zayis.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Rejection (Abaye):</font></b> They could argue with each other!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Perhaps R. Noson is Mechayev for a k'Zayis regarding 
               wine [which is not thick], for a Revi'is congeals to 
               a k'Zayis - but [perhaps he would Metamei] less than 
               a Revi'is of blood [for it] congeals to a k'Zayis!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps R. Yosi is Metamei a Revi'is of blood 
               because it congeals to a k'Zayis - but wine is 
               thinner, perhaps he would Mechayev for less than a 
               k'Zayis, for it comes from a Revi'is!
<br>
<b><font>2) QUESTIONS OF SPELLING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Kedai Gemi'ah of milk.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Is Gemi'ah spelled with an Aleph, or with an 
          Ayin?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> It is spelled with an 
          Aleph, like 'Hagmi'ini Na Me'at Mayim mi'Kadech'.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE ETYMOLOGY OF ARAMAIC WORDS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Yehudah explains the etymology of a number of Aramaic words. However, he explains that they derive from contractions of <i>Hebrew</i> words (for example, he explains that 'Dasha' (door in Aramaic) comes from the Hebrew words, 'Derech Sham'). How can words in Aramaic be contractions of words in a different language, Hebrew?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> explains that many Aramaic words have their roots in Hebrew. In general, Aramaic is very similar to Hebrew, and many of its words are corruptions of Hebrew words. (The son of the Vilna Ga'on, in <b>TIRGEM AVRAHAM</b>, shows that every word of Targum Onkeles stems from a Hebrew root.) Rav Yehudah teaches that these words, too, have Hebrew roots.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TIFERES YISRAEL</b> (in 'Boaz' to Pesachim 10:3) explains that the Aramaic and Greek words that are commonly found in the Gemara were not used by the Sages in the way that they were used in their original languages. Rather, the Sages Hebraicized the words and altered them from their original form. The Gemara here explains that the Sages pronounced certain Aramaic words in specific ways in order to make them sound like their Hebrew counterparts. (<b>RAV YAKOV EMDEN</b>, in Hagahos ha'Ya'avetz to Megilah 7a, offers a similar explanation for the Gemara's statements about the meaning of the name 'Teveryah,' even though it is known that the city was named in honor of the Roman emperor Tiberias.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) GOATS BEFORE SHEEP; CAMEL AND OX TAILS</b></font><b>
<br>AGADAH:</b> Rebbi Zeira asked Rav Yehudah a number of questions about worldly matters.
</p><p>
(a) First he asked why, when the flock walks along, the goats go before the sheep. Rav Yehudah answered that since goats are dark-colored and sheep are white, it is appropriate for them to go first, because darkness preceded light at the time of the creation of the world.
</p><p>
(b) Second, Rebbi Zeira asked why the tails of sheep cover their private parts, while the tails of goats do not. Rav Yehudah answered that since the wool of sheep is made into clothing to cover man, it is appropriate that the sheep themselves be covered.
</p><p>
(c) Third, he asked why camels have short tails, while oxen have long ones. Rav Yehudah answered that camels have short tails because they eat thorns, and oxen have long tails because they frequent the swamps and they need a long tail to swap away the bothersome flies.
</p><p>
The <b>MAHARSHA</b> explains that these observations are more than physical explanations for natural phenomena. They allude to spiritual realities which the Sages wisely disguised in worldly terms.
</p><p>
(a) In the first question, the goats allude to the nation of Yavan (as in Daniel 8:8). The sheep allude to the Jews (Yirmeyahu 50:17). Rebbi Zeira asked why did the Yevanim rule for many years in the times of the second Beis ha'Mikdash, first under the reign of Alexander the Great and then under the reign of other Greek kings, before any Jewish kings came to power?
</p><p>
Rav Yehudah answered that this historical progression was already hinted to in the account of Creation. The Torah tells us that darkness preceded light ('v'Chosech Al Penei ha'Tehom' precedes 'va'Yehi Or') when the world was created. The Midrash teaches that 'v'Chosech Al Penei ha'Tehom' ('darkness was on the face of the depths') refers to the Yevanim, who 'darkened' the eyes of the Jews with their persecution, and 'va'Yehi Or' ('there was light') refers to the Chashmona'im, who took power at the time of the miracle of light (Chanukah).
</p><p>
(b) Next, Rebbi Zeira asked why the generation that was exiled at the time of the destruction of the first Beis ha'Mikdash merited to be informed when the end of their exile would come, while the generation that was exiled at the time of the second Beis ha'Mikdash -- and all subsequent generations until the present day -- have not merited to be informed when the end of the present exile will come. Why was the end to the present exile not revealed?
</p><p>
Rav Yehudah answered that since the first generation did not attempt to hide their sins but sinned openly, they merited that the end of their Galus was revealed to them and was not hidden. During the time of the second Beis ha'Mikdash, though, the people attempted to hide their sins. Therefore, the end of this Galus is kept hidden from us, as the Gemara in Yoma (9b) says.
</p><p>
(c) Third, Rebbi Zeira asked why the tail of the camel is small. The Midrash says that the camel, 'Gamal,' alludes to the kingdom of Bavel. The ox (or cow) is a symbol of the Jewish people ('Bechor Shoro Hadar Lo...' (Devarim 33:17)). Rebbi Zeira wanted to know why the downfall and end (tail) of Bavel came abruptly as they were punished at once for all of their sins, while the punishment of the Jews comes slowly, little by little (the tail represents lowliness and being humbled by punishment).
</p><p>
Rav Yehudah answered that since Bavel ate the thorns -- that is, they consumed the Tzadikim who are referred to as 'thorns' (Eruvin 101a), Hash-m punished them at once with completely obliteration. The Jewish people, on the other hand, are never punished at once for all of their sins. Rather, Hash-m has mercy on us and He punishes each sin -- represented by the fly, which is a symbol of the Yetzer ha'Ra -- individually. Thus, the tail of the ox is long; the punishments for the sins of the Jewish people occurs over an extended period of time in order to enable the Jewish people to maintain their existence.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Is Gar'inin (pits) spelled with an Aleph, or 
          with an Ayin?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah bar Ula):</font></b> 'V'Nigra (will be reduced, just 
          like pits are removed from food) me'Erkecha' (it is 
          spelled with an Ayin).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Is Omemos (dimming) spelled with an Aleph, or 
          with an Ayin?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yitzchak bar Avodimi):</font></b> 'Arazim Lo Amemahu (it 
          is not dimmed (outshined) by nicer cedars) b'Gan Elokim' 
          (it is spelled with an Ayin).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Is Me'amtzim (to close the eyes) spelled with 
          an Aleph, or with an Ayin?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> 'V'Otzem Einav me'Re'os b'Ra' 
          (it is spelled with an Ayin).
<br>
<b><font>3) SHI'URIM OF 'HOTZA'AH' FOR LIQUIDS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If one was Motzi Kedai Gemi'ah of animal milk 
          he is liable;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The Shi'ur for human milk or egg white is to put on the 
          brush used to apply Kilor;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The Shi'ur for Kilor is enough to rub water into it [and 
          apply to two eyes (Rashi; Me'iri - one eye)].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Is this including the amount that 
          sticks to one's finger, or not?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  This question is not resolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Enough honey to put on Kasis.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> This means enough to put on the surface of the 
          wound.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Does it mean, to put on the entire 
          surface - or just on the mouth (where a scab forms), but 
          not the surrounding area?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  This question is not resolved.
<br>
<b><font>4) HASHEM'S REASONS FOR CREATING CERTAIN THINGS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Hash-m did not create anything for naught!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A snail (or slug) was created for Kasis, the fly was 
               created for [healing a sting of] a hornet [one 
               grinds the fly and puts it on the wound], the 
               mosquito was created for [healing a bite of] a 
               snake, the snake was created for [healing] boils, 
               Samamis (a particular spider) was created for 
               [healing the bite of a] scorpion. (Maharsha - 
               surely, damagers were created for punishment - Rav 
               Yehudah teaches about things without an apparent 
               reason.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How is the snake cure done?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One cooks together a black and white snake, and 
          rubs it on the wound.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> There are five cases where the weak strong the 
          weak:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The lion fears the Mafgi'a (a small animal that 
               makes noise like a large animal), the elephant fears 
               the mosquito (lest it enter its nose), the scorpion 
               fears the Semamis (lest it enter its ear), the eagle 
               fears the swallow (lest it enter under its wing), 
               the Livyasan fears the Kilbis (a small Sheretz, lest 
               it enter its ear).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> The Tana learns from 'Ha'Mavlig Shod Al 
          Az' (Hash-m strengthens the weak to overcome the strong).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Zeira found Rav Yehudah very jovial, he was sure that 
          he would answer any question.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Zeira):</font></b> Why do goats go at the front of the 
          herd, and sheep afterwards? (Maharsha - goats represent 
          the Yevanim, their kings ruled in Bayis Sheni before 
          those of Yisrael (represented by sheep).) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> This is like the creation of the 
          world - darkness preceded light (usually, goats are black 
          and sheep are white).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Zeira):</font></b> Why is [the Ervah of] a sheep 
          covered [by its tail], whereas goats are exposed?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> People are covered [clothed] 
          through sheep, therefore they are covered; people are not 
          covered through goats, therefore they are not covered. 
          (Maharsha - why was the [length of the] exile following 
          Churban Bayis Sheni hidden, whereas the exile following 
          Churban Bayis Rishon was known (through prophecy, it 
          would be 70 years? The sin of [the people in] Bayis Sheni 
          was hidden [Sin'as Chinam], therefore their Galus was 
          hidden; the sins of Bayis Rishon were open (idolatry, 
          Arayos and murder) therefore their Galus was revealed.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Zeira):</font></b> Why do camels have short tails?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> They eat foliage with thorns (if 
          they had long tails, they would get caught in thorns. 
          Maharsha - he asked why Bavel fell suddenly, the way one 
          punishes an enemy; he answered, because they ravished 
          Yisrael.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Zeira):</font></b> Why do oxen have long tails?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> They live in swamps, so they need 
          long tails to chase away mosquitoes. (Maharsha - why was 
          the fall of Malchus Yisrael so slow (over 200 years, even 
          though all the kings served idolatry)? This is because 
          Hash-m punishes them bit by bit.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Zeira):</font></b> Why do ants have soft antennae?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> They live in the wilderness among 
          willows - if their antennae were hard, they would get 
          dislocated, blinding them. (Maharsha - why is the 
          autonomy of Yisrael during Galus (the Reish Galusa in 
          Bavel and the Nasi in Eretz Yisrael) submissive? Because 
          they are among a harsh kingdom, if they displayed 
          eminence Yisrael would lose their sagacious leadership.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Shmuel):</font></b> If the antennae of an ant are removed, it 
               becomes blind.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Zeira):</font></b> When a hen closes its eye, why does 
          the bottom lid (normally, the top lid goes down)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> They live on [high] boards - if the 
          bottom lid did not go up to keep out smoke, they would be 
          blinded. (Maharsha - why do Yisrael look up in prayer - 
          the Shechinah descended, to the Beis ha'Mikdash! After 
          the Churban, the Shechinah went back to Shomayim, Yisrael 
          look up and request salvation lest the Galus cloud their 
          wisdom.)
<br>
<b><font>5) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF WORDS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  [In Arame'ic] door is called Dasha - this is an acronym 
          for Derech Sham (the way is through there);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A ladder is called Darga - Derech Gag (the way to 
               the roof);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  A dip is called Maskulisa - Matai Tichleh Da (when will 
          this be finished? - dips are consumed very slowly);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  A house is called Beisa - Bo v'Eisiv Bah (come and sit in 
          it);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A tiny hut is called Biksa - Bei Aksa (a narrow 
               house);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  A mortar (alternatively - a measure of wheat, or a wooden 
          seat) is called Kufsa - Kof v'Siv (turn it over and sit 
          on it);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  Bricks are called Livnei - li'Vnei Bani (they endure for 
          generations);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  A fence of thorny shrubs is called Hotza - Chatzitzah (a 
          blockage);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  A jug is called Chatzva - something used to Chotzev 
          (draw) water from the river;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  A small cup is called Kuza - ka'Zeh (all I request is 
          that you fill this tiny cup with wine)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  Myrtle (held while dancing in front of a bride) is called 
          Shutisa - Shetusa (the dancer looks like a fool);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  A big bucket is called Mashichla - Mashi Kula (everyone 
          washes their hands and feet from it);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A small elegant bucket is called Mashchilta - Mashya 
               Kalata (a bride or distinguished person washes from 
               it);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  A mortar is called Asisa - Chaserta (it is missing the 
          part that was hollowed out, into which one pounds; Aruch 
          - it is Chasidta, it receives blows like a Chasid that is 
          shamed [and does not respond]).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  A pestle is called Buchna - Bo v'Akenah (come and I will 
          hit it);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  An outer garment is called Levushah - Lo Bushah (it 
          averts shame, i.e. if the inner garments are torn);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A cloak is called Glima - it makes one like a Golem 
               (without delineation of limbs; alternatively, he 
               sits idly like one who does not know how to do 
               anything);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> A nice mantle is called Gulsa - Gali v'Siv (one 
               exposes himself before sitting - he does not want to 
               sit on top of it, lest it get soiled or ruined);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  A bed is called Purya - Peru u'Revu (procreation) is done 
          on it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  A pit [for water] that dried up is called Bor Zinka - Bor 
          Zeh Naki (this pit is empty);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b></b>  A hat (worn by Chachamim) is called Sudra - Sod Hash-m 
          li'Re'av (Hashem's secrets are to those who fear Him);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b></b>  A palace is called Afdana - a'Pischa Dein (everyone comes 
          through this opening).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> There are three that keep getting stronger as 
          they age - a fish, a snake and a pig.
<br>
<b><font>6) THE 'SHI'UR' OF 'HOTZA'AH' FOR OIL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'ur for oil is to anoint Ever Katan (a 
          small limb).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (D'vei R. Yanai):</font></b> This is to anoint a small limb (Rashi - 
          a bone of the pinky; Rambam - the small toe) of a newborn 
          baby.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> The Shi'ur for oil is to anoint a 
          small limb [or] a limb of a newborn.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> This means, to anoint a small limb of an 
               adult, or a big limb of a newborn!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, it means to anoint a small limb of a newborn.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> Tana'im argue about D'vei R. Yanai's 
          teaching:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> The Shi'ur for oil 
               is to anoint a small limb [or] a limb of a newborn;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Noson says, it is to anoint Ever Katan.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Assumption:</font></b> R. Shimon means, to anoint a small limb 
               of a newborn; R. Noson means, to anoint a small limb 
               of an adult or a big limb of a newborn, but not to 
               anoint a small limb of a newborn!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> No, both disagree with D'vei R. Yanai;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon holds that a small limb of an adult equals 
               a big limb of a newborn; R. Noson is Mechayev for a 
               small limb of an adult, but not for a big limb of a 
               newborn.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What was the conclusion?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> The Shi'ur for 
          oil is to anoint a small limb of a newborn (like D'vei R. 
          Yanai, and R. Noson argues).
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE 'SHI'URIM' OF 'HOTZA'AH' FOR WATER AND BLOOD</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Enough water to dissolve into Kilor.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> Whenever something has a common use and 
          a rare use, Chachamim follow the common use, [even] to be 
          lenient (the larger Shi'ur);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If both uses are common, Chachamim are stringent.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> It is common to drink wine and milk, it is uncommon 
               to use them to heal - we follow the Shi'ur for 
               drinking, even though this is a leniency;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> It is common to eat honey, it is also common to use 
               it to heal - we follow the Shi'ur for healing, this 
               is a stringency;
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> It is common to drink water, it is uncommon to use 
               it to heal - why do Chachamim follow the stringent 
               Shi'ur for healing?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> The Mishnah refers to Galil (healing 
          with water is common there, for people are poor and do 
          not use honey or milk to heal).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> It applies everywhere, like Shmuel 
          taught:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Shmuel):</font></b> All liquids heal [the eye] and coat it 
               [diminishing vision], except for water, which heals 
               and does not coat.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'ur for all liquids is a Revi'is.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> The Shi'ur for blood and all liquids is a 
          Revi'is;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Elazar says, the Shi'ur for blood is to 
          paint an eye, for this is done for Barkis (a white 
          protrusion from the eye).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Which blood is used for this?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Blood of a wild hen is used.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, the Shi'ur for blood is to 
          paint an eye, for this is done for Yarod (dots in the 
          eye).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Which blood is used for this?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Blood of a bat is used.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> A way to remember which is for which - inside is for 
               inside (bats are found in settled areas, Yarod is 
               recessed into the eye), outside is for outside (wild 
               hens are found outside, Barkis protrudes from the 
               eye).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  This refers to one who was Motzi - but one who stored is 
          liable for any Shi'ur [if he was Motzi - this will be 
          explained];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon says, this refers to one who stored - if one 
          did not store, the Shi'ur for all liquids is a Revi'is.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  Chachamim agree that the Shi'ur for Hotza'ah of waste 
          water is a Revi'is.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa said 'This refers to one who was 
          Motzi - but one who stored is liable for any Shi'ur';
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Version #1 (Rashi):</font></b> Also one who stored is liable 
               because he was Motzi!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Version #2 (Tosfos):</font></b> It does not say that the one 
               who stored is the one who was Motzi (but only R. 
               Shimon ben Elazar is Mechayev on account of 
               another's intent - is our Stam Beraisa like him, 
               unlike the Stam Mishnah (75B))?! (end of Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> The Beraisa discusses an apprentice whose 
          teacher told him to make room for a meal:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If the Talmid was Motzi something that is important 
               for everyone, he is liable;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If he was Motzi something not important for 
               everyone, he is liable only if his teacher saves it. 
               (Rashi - this is like R. Shimon ben Elazar, he is 
               liable for his teacher's intent; Tosfos - all agree 
               with the Beraisa - since he acts on behalf of his 
               teacher, it is as if the teacher himself was Motzi.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Chachamim agree that the Shi'ur for waste 
          water is a Revi'is.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What use is there for waste water?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yirmeyah):</font></b> It can be used to knead mud.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> The Shi'ur for mud is to make an 
          opening [for a bellows] in a furnace. (Surely, this does 
          not require a Revi'is of water!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One is not liable for less than a Revi'is because 
          people do not bother to knead [less than this, e.g.] the 
          amount needed for a furnace opening.
<br>
<b><font>2) VARIOUS 'SHI'URIM' OF 'HOTZA'AH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'ur for a rope is in order to make a 
          handle for a basket;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The Shi'ur for Gemi is to make a handle for hanging a 
          sieve.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, it is in order to measure a child's foot 
          for the sake of making shoes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  The Shi'ur for paper [made from leaves] is to write a 
          receipt for the tax [levied by the master of the river on 
          all who cross]
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If one was Motzi a tax receipt, he is liable.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE SMALLEST 'PARSHAH' IN 'TEFILIN'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah says that one is Chayav for carrying a piece of parchment from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim when the parchment is large enough to write on it the smallest Parshah in Tefilin, which is the Parshah of 'Shema Yisrael.' This is the smallest complete Parshah that is normally written alone on a piece of parchment. (The <b>TOSFOS YOM TOV</b> explains that people used to write this Parshah for themselves on a small piece of parchment to read Keri'as Shema from it at bedtime).
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> in Sotah (17a) asks that we find an even smaller Parshah that was written on a piece of parchment. The Mishnah in Sotah describes that when a woman drank the Sotah waters, the Parshah of Sotah would be written on a piece of parchment by itself and it would be dipped into the water and erased (see Bamidbar 5:23).
</p><p>
Tosfos asks why the Mishnah here says that the minimum size of a piece of parchment is based on the size of the smallest Parshah in Tefilin, when the Parshah of Sotah is even smaller. Why is the minimum size of a piece of parchment only the size of the paragraph of Shema Yisrael, and not the smaller size of the paragraph of Sotah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> there (Sotah 17a) answers that since the Parshah of Sotah is not written as frequently as the Parshah of Shema, it is not used to establish the minimum size of a piece of parchment with regard to Hotza'ah.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RAV REUVEN MARGOLIYOS</b> (in <b>HA'MIKRA VEHA'MESORAH</b>, ch. 12, fn. 1) explains that if one carefully counts the <i>letters</i> of the Parshah of Shema and those of the Parshah of Sotah, one will notice that Shema is longer in letter-count than Sotah. However, if one counts the <i>words</i> of each Parshah, one will notice that Sotah has more words than Shema! This is possible because the words in the Parshah of Sotah are shorter than the words in Shema. 
</p><p>
When one writes a Parshah on parchment, he must take into account the blank spaces between words. Consequently, if one counts the number of blank spaces (which are equal to one letter's width) between the words in each Parshah and add it to the letter-count of each Parshah, the total letter-count of Parshas Sotah will come to 254, and the total letter-count of Parshas Shema will come to only 252. Therefore, when one writes Shema on a piece of parchment, one actually writes <i>less</i> than when he writes the Parshah of Sotah on parchment! That is why the Parshah of Shema determines the minimum Shi'ur for Hotza'ah of a piece of parchment.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) 'MODEH B'SHTAR SHE'KASVO, TZARICH L'KAIMO'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> Abaye says that the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yehudah argue about 'Modeh b'Shtar she'Kasvo, Tzarich l'Kaimo' -- 'when the borrower admits to the authenticity of the contract, the contract must be validated.' The Tana Kama maintains that the contract must be validated even though the borrower admits that he wrote it. Rebbi Yehudah maintains that it does not need further validation.
</p><p>
(a) In all of the various Sugyos in Shas in which this concept appears, Rashi explains that this concept means that even though the borrower admits to the authenticity of the contract, the <i>lender</i> must still validate it. That is, if a person says, 'It is true that I borrowed money from you and wrote that contract, but I already paid you back,' whereby he admits that the contract is valid but he claims that he paid the debt already, the lender must bring witnesses (Edei Kiyum) to authenticate the contract. (Otherwise, the borrower has the upper hand, since he is the one who validated the contract, and he himself also said that it has been paid).
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> here, however, explains differently. He explains that 'Tzarich l'Kaimo' refers to the <i>borrower</i>. What does it mean that the borrower must 'validate the contract'? It means that he must admit that 'I did not pay back the debt' in order for the contract to be valid for the lender to collect with it.
</p><p>
Why does Rashi here give this entirely different explanation for this concept? Why does he not explain simply that 'Tzarich l'Kaimo' refers to the lender, and it means that the lender must validate the contract by bringing witnesses? (<b>MAHARAM</b>)
</p><p>
(b) Second, according to Rashi's explanation, why does the Gemara say that the contract is considered a significant and usable object (so that if the lender walks out with it on Shabbos, he is Chayav for Hotza'ah) when the borrower did <i>not</i> say that he already paid and did not admit or deny the claim? (See Rashi to 79a, DH Ad she'Yomar.) The borrower's silence is not what makes the contract usable! The contract is usable only when the borrower says explicitly, 'I did not pay' and admits to the claim.
</p><p>
(The Gemara is discussing a case in which the lender cannot find witnesses to authenticate the contract, as Tosfos points out. Therefore, the contract should be worthless as long as the borrower can simply say, 'I paid.' If the borrower is honest and says, 'I did not pay,' then of what use is the contract? The borrower's <i>admission</i> is what creates his obligation! Why does the Gemara consider the contract valuable as long as the borrower does not deny the charges by saying, 'I paid'?)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(b) Why is the contract worth anything? It must be that borrower said that the contract was valid, and he said no more. Then, <i>later</i>, the lender came back to him with the contract and demanded to be paid. The Tana Kama maintains that since the borrower was honest when he admitted to the contract, he will probably be honest and admit that he did not pay back. The lender will therefore be able to collect with the contract, and thus the contract is valuable to him.
</p><p>
Normally, 'Modeh b'Shtar she'Kasvo' means that the borrower says both that he wrote the contract, and that he paid back the debt already. Here, however, it means that he said <i>only</i> that it is a valid contract, and he said nothing about whether he had paid it back. Here, 'Tzarich l'Kaimo' means that saying that the contract is valid is still not sufficient; he must also say (later, at the time of collection) that he did not pay it back yet. (This implies that a 'Migu l'Mafre'a' is a valid claim in court, as <b>TOSFOS</b> in Bava Basra (30a, DH Lav) indeed says is Rashi's opinion.) This answers the second question.
</p><p>
(a) The aforementioned approach answers the first question as well. Rashi wants to make it clear that according to this Sugya, the borrower did <i>not yet</i> deny the charges when he said that he paid. The one who says 'Lo Tzarich l'Kaimo' maintains that the contract is valid by default (since the borrower will probably not deny the charges and say that he paid), while the other opinion maintains that the contract is invalid by default, even before the borrower insists that he paid. That is why Rashi explains that the <i>borrower</i> must admit that he did not pay (later, when brought to court) for the contract to be valid. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  The Shi'ur for paper that has been erased (one cannot 
          write on it again) is in order to wrap [as a cork] around 
          a small bottle of fragrance.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  The Shi'ur for hide is to make a Kemi'a;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  The Shi'ur for parchment is to write the smallest Parshah 
          in Tefilin, i.e. Shma;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  The Shi'ur for ink is to write two letters;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  The Shi'ur for mascara is to paint one eye;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  The Shi'ur for glue is to put at the end of Shifshef 
          (this will be explained);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  The Shi'ur for pitch or sulfur is to seal a hole [in a 
          Kli for mercury - one removes the mercury by puncturing 
          the seal];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  The Shi'ur for wax is to put on a seal of a small hole;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  The Shi'ur for a ground brick is to make an opening [for 
          a bellows] in a furnace for refining gold;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, it is in order to make a leg of a 
          tripod.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  The Shi'ur for bran is to fire a furnace for refining 
          gold (one who lacks coals uses bran; Bartenura - 
          alternatively, one puts bran over the opening when 
          melting gold to keep the heat in).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b></b>  The Shi'ur for plaster is to put on the smallest of girls 
          [to remove hair];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, it is to plaster Kilkul (this and the 
          next opinion will be explained);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b></b>  R. Nechemyah says, it is to plaster Andifi.
<br>
<b><font>3) VARIOUS 'SHI'URIM' OF 'HOTZA'AH' (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> One should also be liable for a rope 
          big enough for a handle to hang a sieve [just like for 
          Gemi - rope is also suitable for this]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This would grate the wood, therefore people do 
          not hang it by a rope.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #1):</font></b> The Shi'ur for leaves (of Lulavim) is to 
          make a handle for a wicker basket;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Others say, the Shi'ur for shoots (that grow around date 
          trees) is to put at the end of a funnel to filter wine.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  The Shi'ur for fat is to smear [on the oven wall] under 
          [dough that will become] a small wafer.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> How much is this?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It is the size of a Sela (a coin; it weighs 
               about four ounces).
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Contradiction (Beraisa #2):</font></b> It is the size of 
               k'Grogeres.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Resolution:</font></b> Both of these are the same.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  The Shi'ur for tufts is to make a small ball.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How much is this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is the size of a nut.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'ur for paper is to write a tax 
          receipt;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa A) Question:</font></b> How big is a tax receipt?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is two letters.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Contradiction (Beraisa B):</font></b> If one was Motzi blank paper 
          big enough to write two [regular, small] letters, he is 
          liable; if not, he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Resolution #1 (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> Beraisa B requires two big 
          letters like those on a tax receipt (Rashi; Ran - in 
          addition to a margin);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Resolution #2 (Rava):</font></b> Beraisa B obligates for two regular 
          letters <i>and</i> a margin - this equals the size of a tax 
          receipt (a tax receipt does not need a margin, it can be 
          written and held in the hand).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa C):</font></b> If one was Motzi erased paper or a 
          loan document that was paid up:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If the margin is big enough to write two letters, or 
               if the whole paper is big enough to wrap around a 
               small bottle of fragrance, he is liable; if not, he 
               is exempt.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Rav Sheshes could say that Beraisa C also requires 
               letters the size of those on a tax receipt - but 
               according to Rava, no margin is needed here (the 
               erased part can serve as a margin)! (Rashi - Rava 
               holds that whenever a Beraisa discusses 'two 
               letters', this is in addition to a margin.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b></b>  This is left difficult for Rava. (Ritva - he is not 
          refuted - perhaps Chachamim do not distinguish, and 
          always require a margin.)
<br>
<b><font>4) 'HOTZA'AH' OF USED RECEIPTS AND DOCUMENTS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If one was Motzi a tax receipt before he 
          showed it to the tax collector, he is liable; if this was 
          after showing it, he is exempt;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah obligates even after showing it, for he still 
          needs it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does the argument center around?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> It centers around runners of the 
          collector [who accuse people of not paying - R. Yehudah 
          says that people need receipts even after showing them, 
          lest runners will claim from them; the first Tana says 
          that people need not keep them - if accused, they will go 
          to the tax collector, who remembers that they paid].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> It centers around a primary collector 
          who appoints minor collectors [for when he is not there - 
          R. Yehudah says that people need shown receipts, lest 
          they will need to cross the river when a minor collector 
          is there who never saw his receipt; the first Tana says 
          that people need not keep them - the primary collector 
          gives them code words to say to the minor collectors to 
          show that they paid].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> It centers around a second 
          collector [for a different bridge - even though other 
          receipts do not exempt, R. Yehudah says that people keep 
          receipts to show other collectors that they pay the 
          taxes, to find favor in his eyes, so he will allow them 
          to pay later, or at least will not accuse them later; the 
          first Tana says that people do not need them for this].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If one was Motzi a loan document that was not 
          yet paid, he is liable; if it was already paid, he is 
          exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah obligates even after paying it, for he still 
          needs it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does the argument center around?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> It centers around whether or not 
          one may keep a paid loan document - Chachamim forbid this 
          [lest it will be used to claim the debt again], R. 
          Yehudah permits it [until the borrower pays the scribe's 
          fee];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> All forbid keeping a paid document - 
          they argue about whether or not the lender must validate 
          [the signatures on] the document when the borrower agrees 
          that he authorized it [but claims that he paid it. This 
          is the standard explanation - Penei Yehoshua discusses 
          why here Rashi explains differently];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The first Tana requires validation (without this, 
               Migo (since) the borrower could have said that it 
               was forged, he is believed to say that he paid - 
               therefore, the document is worthless if the lender 
               cannot validate it);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah does not requires validation (once the 
               borrower admits that it was written properly, it is 
               as if the signatures testify that the money is owed, 
               a Migo is not believed against testimony - 
               therefore, the document has worth).
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Why does it say that they argue about 
               after it was paid - according to Abaye, they argue 
               about whether or not we believe that it was paid!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Indeed, the first Tana distinguishes whether 
               or not the borrower <i>says that</i> he paid
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE ARGUMENT ABOUT KEEPING A PAID LOAN DOCUMENT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Rava):</font></b> All agree that a lender must validate 
          the document even when the borrower agrees that he 
          authorized it - they argue about whether or not we write 
          a receipt [and force the borrower to pay when he admits 
          that he owes and the lender claims that he lost the loan 
          document]:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The first Tana holds that we write a receipt (and 
               then the paid document is useless for the lender, 
               since he may not keep it; presumably, the borrower 
               does not want it for a cork, lest he lose the 
               receipt and the loan document will end up in the 
               hands of the lender);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah holds that we do not write a receipt 
               [lest the borrower lose the receipt and the lender 
               will collect again. If the lender paid and 
               <i>temporarily</i> accepted a receipt, the lender needs 
               the loan document - if he will not return it, he 
               must return the money.]
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer #4 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> R. Yehudah says that borrowers keep 
          paid loan documents to show [potential lenders] that they 
          pay their debts.
<br>
<b><font>2) THE 'SHI'UR' OF 'HOTZA'AH' FOR HIDE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'ur for hide is to make...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (Rava):</font></b> What is the Shi'ur to be liable for 
          Hotza'ah of hide?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Nachman - Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'ur for hide is to 
          make a Kemi'a.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (Rava):</font></b> What is the Shi'ur to be liable for 
          tanning hide?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> It is the same Shi'ur.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source of this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer (Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'ur for the following is a 
          double Sit (as far as one can separate his thumb and 
          index finger, this is twice as much as he can separate 
          his middle and index fingers) - laundering, Menapetz, 
          dying and spinning;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Shi'ur for weaving two threads is a Sit.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> Because laundering, Menapetz and dying 
               are preparations for spinning, their Shi'ur is the 
               same as for spinning - likewise, because hide will 
               be tanned, the Shi'ur for Hotza'ah is the same as 
               for tanning.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question (Rava):</font></b> What is the Shi'ur for hide that will 
          not be tanned?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> It is the same - also the Shi'ur 
          for tanned hide is the same.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> If one was Motzi soaked ingredients 
          [for dye], the Shi'ur is to dye a sample [to show 
          potential buyers of dyed wool] the same size as an Ira (a 
          ball that seals the shuttle holding the woof thread).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is less than the Shi'ur for ingredients that 
               were not soaked!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'ur for nutshells, pomegranate 
               peels, Satis and Pu'ah (plants used to make dye) is 
               enough to dye a small garment in the middle of the 
               headdress.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> This is because people do not 
          bother to soak [less than this, e.g.] the amount needed 
          for a sample.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Shi'ur for unplanted garden seeds is unlike 
          the Shi'ur for planted seeds [used to determine the 
          Shi'ur for other things for their sake]!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> One is liable for Hotza'ah of less than 
               k'Grogeres of garden seeds;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah ben Beseira is Mechayev for five seeds.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah - R. Akiva):</font></b> The Shi'ur for manure or fine 
               sand is enough to fertilize a stalk of cabbage;
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, it is enough to fertilize a leek 
               stalk.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> This is because people do not bother 
          to take out a single seed to plant.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Shi'ur for mud before kneading is unlike 
          the Shi'ur after kneading!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> Chachamim agree that the Shi'ur for 
               Hotza'ah of waste water is a Revi'is.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What use is there for waste water?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer (R. Yirmeyah):</font></b> It can be used to knead mud.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> The Shi'ur for mud is to make an opening 
               [for a bellows] in a furnace.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One is not liable for less than a Revi'is because 
          people do not bother to knead [less than this, e.g.] the 
          amount needed for a furnace opening.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> R. Chiya bar Asi taught that there are three 
          hides - Matzah, Cheifah and Diftara;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Matzah is a hide that was not salted or treated with 
               flour or gallnuts.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the Shi'ur for [Hotza'ah of] 
               Matzah?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah):</font></b> It is enough to 
               wrap a small weight.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the size of this weight?
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer (Abaye):</font></b> It is a quarter Litra of Pumbadisa.
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> Cheifah is a hide that was salted but not treated 
               with flour or gallnuts.
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is its Shi'ur? 
       <br><b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b><font> Answer (Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'ur for [Cheifah] hide is 
               enough to write a Kemi'a.
       <br><b>   <b><font>9.  </font></b></b> Diftara is a hide that has been salted and treated 
               with flour, but not with gallnuts; its Shi'ur is the 
               size to write a Get.
        <br><b>  <b><font>10. </font></b><font> Summation of question:</font></b> We said that the Shi'ur for 
               Matzah is enough to wrap a small weight; Abaye 
               explained, this is the quarter Litra of Pumbadisa 
               (this is larger than for tanned hide)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Matzah referred to is moist, freshly flayed 
          hide (it is not ready to be tanned).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'urim to receive Tum'as Medras 
          for fabric is three by three [Tefachim]; the Shi'urim for 
          sackcloth, leather and matting to receive Tum'as Medras 
          or Tum'as Mes are, respectively, four by four, five by 
          five and six by six.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> For cloth, Sak and hide, the Shi'urim for 
               Tum'ah and Hotza'ah are the same (The Shi'ur for 
               hide is five Tefachim - we must say because it was 
               not tanned, the Shi'ur is bigger!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That refers to cooked, hardened leather for a 
          seat, bed or table.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE BORROWER'S CONCERN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> According to Rava, the argument between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yehudah is whether or not we write a Shover (receipt of payment of debt) for the borrower. According to the Tana Kama, a contract is not valid and has no use after it was paid back, because the borrower has a Shover that renders the contract useless. 
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that the contract is no longer of value because the borrower has no interest in keeping it, even as a bottle-stopper, because he is afraid that he might lose it and the lender will find it and attempt to claim the debt a second time. Furthermore, even if the lender does not give the contract back to the borrower after he pays back the debt, the borrower does not care about it because he has in his possession a Shover that proves that he paid.
</p><p>
Rashi contradicts himself. Rashi first says that the borrower will go out of his way to ensure that the lender does not get the contract back (he gets rid of it completely and does not even keep it for use as a bottle-stopper). Rashi then says that even if the lender has the contract, the borrower is <i>not</i> concerned, because the lender is obligated to get rid of it. How can Rashi say that the borrower is not concerned when the lender has the contract, when he just said that the borrower is afraid that if the lender has the contract, he will try to claim the debt from him a second time? If the borrower is concerned that the lender will get hold of the contract, then certainly he should be concerned when the lender already has it! (<b>MAHARSHA</b> and Acharonim)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> explains that the borrower does not care if the lender has the contract, because he knows that the lender is forbidden to keep it and thus he will burn it.
</p><p>
(b) This answer is difficult to understand. Why, according to the Maharsha, is the borrower so concerned that the contract not get into the hands of the lender, when it is presently in the borrower's hands? It must be that he is afraid that the lender is dishonest and will try to collect with it again. If he is afraid that the lender is dishonest, then he should have the same concern when the lender himself is holding the contract!
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (end of DH v'Hacha b'Chosvin) explains that according to Rebbi Yehudah, who maintains that we do not write a Shover for the borrower, the borrower has a <i>legal claim</i> against the lender to give him back the contract (and if the lender refuses, he must return the money to the borrower). Accordingly, when Rashi explains the Tana Kama's opinion (that we do write a Shover for the borrower), he means that the borrower has <i>no</i> <i>legal claim</i> in court to get the contract away from the lender. If the borrower argues that he wants it as a bottle-stopper, the lender can retort that the borrower does not really want to use it, but wants to destroy it. Since the contract is of no monetary value to the borrower there is no reason to require the lender to give it back to the borrower. If the borrower says that it is of value to him because he wants to avoid having to pay a second time, then Beis Din retorts that if he wants to avoid having to pay a second time it is his responsibili!
<br>ty to
<br> guard his Shover. He has no right to say that he does not want to guard the Shover but wants to instead destroy the original contract (since the Tana Kama's opinion is that we write a Shover and give the borrower such responsibilities).
</p><p>
This is what Rashi means when he says that the borrower does not care if the lender does not return the contract to him. Granted, he <i>does</i> care emotionally, so to speak, but from a <i>legal</i> perspective, he has no claim in court to force the lender to return the contract to him. The <i>court</i> has no concern or need to give the contract back to the borrower. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<b><font>3) THE 'SHI'UR' OF 'HOTZA'AH' FOR PARCHMENT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'ur for Klaf (parchment) is to write 
          the smallest Parshah [in Tefilin, i.e. Shma]. (Hide has 
          two layers, they are peeled apart; the outer layer is 
          Klaf, the inner layer is Duchsustus.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Contradiction (Beraisa):</font></b> The Shi'ur for Klaf and 
          Duchsustus is to write a Mezuzah (Parshas. Shma and 
          'V'Hayah Im Shamo'a').
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Resolution:</font></b> The Beraisa means, to write a Mezuzah 
          (parchment) of Tefilin (each of the four Parshiyos in 
          head Tefilin is on its own parchment).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question #1:</font></b> Would the Tana call Tefilin 'Mezuzah'?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Yes!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> Tefilin straps on Tefilin Metamei hands, 
               the straps by themselves do not Metamei hands;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Yehudah says, R. Shimon is Metaher 
               hands that touch the straps, unless they touched the 
               boxes;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Zakai says, R. Shimon is Metaher, unless they 
               touched the Mezuzah itself.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question #2 (Seifa [*of the Beraisa*]):</font></b> The Shi'ur for 
          Klaf is to write the smallest Parshah in Tefilin, i.e. 
          Shma.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This implies that the Reisha truly discusses a 
               Mezuzah! (Tosfos - the Beraisa contradicts itself 
               regarding Klaf - the Gemara prefers to ask the 
               contradiction between the Mishnah and Beraisa.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Resolution #2:</font></b> The Beraisa means, what is the Shi'ur for 
          Klaf and Duchsustus? The Shi'ur for Duchsustus is to 
          write a Mezuzah; the Shi'ur for Klaf is to write the 
          smallest Parshah in Tefilin, i.e. Shma.
<br>
<b><font>4) MAY 'DUCHSUSTUS' BE USED FOR WRITING 'TEFILIN'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> Duchsustus is like Klaf - one may write Tefilin on 
          it, just like on Klaf.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'ur for Klaf is to write the 
          smallest Parshah in Tefilin, i.e. Shma.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> This is the Shi'ur for Klaf, but not for 
               Duchsustus!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> L'Chatchilah, one should write Tefilin on Klaf 
          (therefore, Duchsustus is not normally used for Tefilin).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> A tradition from Moshe from Sinai teaches that 
          Tefilin are written on Klaf, Mezuzos are written on 
          Duchsustus.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> On Klaf, we write on the inner side (that faced the 
               animal's flesh), on Duchsustus, we write on the 
               outer side (that faced the hair).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That is l'Chatchilah (b'Diavad, Tefilin on 
          Duchsustus is Kosher).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> If one deviated, it is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That refers only to writing Mezuzah on Klaf (but 
          Tefilin on Duchsustus is Kosher).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> If one deviated in either of these, 
          it is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> This refers to writing Mezuzah on the wrong 
          side of either parchment, i.e. on the outer side of Klaf 
          or on the inner side of Duchsustus.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> Tana'im argue about this (Rav holds like R. 
          Acha):
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> If one deviated in either of these, it is 
               Pasul;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Acha is Machshir.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Rav Papa):</font></b> Rav holds like Tana d'vei Menasheh:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Tana d'vei Menasheh):</font></b> If one wrote on paper or a 
               rag, it is Pasul; on Klaf, Gevil (the full double 
               layer of hide) or Duchsustus, it is Kosher.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What did he write?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer #1:</font></b> He wrote a Mezuzah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> Mezuzah may not be on Klaf!
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> (Implied answer #2:</font></b> Rather, he wrote Tefilin.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Rejection (of Answer #3 and implied Answer #2):</font></b> Tefilin 
          may not be on Gevil!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Answer #3 (to Question r:</font></b>2): He wrote a Sefer Torah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Support (for Rav - Beraisa #1):</font></b> (The Reisha taught that 
          hand Tefilin may be used for head Tefilin, but not 
          vice-versa, because [head Tefilin are more Kodesh -] we 
          ascend in Kedushah, we do not descend.) Similarly, if 
          (parchments of) a Sefer Torah or Tefilin became worn, 
          they may not be used for a Mezuzah, for we do not descend 
          in Kedushah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> If it was permitted to descend in 
               Kedushah, they could be used for a Mezuzah!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> They [are Kosher for Mezuzah because 
               they] were written on Duchsustus (this shows that 
               Duchsustus is Kosher for Tefilin)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> No, they were written on Klaf.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> May one write a Mezuzah on Klaf?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Yes (according to R. Shimon ben Elazar, Beraisa 
          #1 is like him)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> If one wrote [a Mezuzah] on Klaf, paper 
               or a rag, it is Pasul; 
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Elazar says, R. Meir used to write on 
               Klaf, because it lasts.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Retraction:</font></b> Rav did not say that Duchsustus is like Klaf, 
          rather, that Klaf is like Duchsustus - one may write 
          Mezuzah on Klaf, just like on Duchsustus. (Tosfos - Rav 
          merely said that Klaf and Duchsustus are the same - the 
          Gemara <i>thought that</i> he meant that Duchsustus is like 
          Klaf, to Machshir Tefilin on it.)
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) COMBINING TO COMPLETE A 'SHI'UR' FOR 'HOTZA'AH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'ur for ink is to write two letters.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> [He is liable for] Hotza'ah of ink to write 
          two letters whether the ink was dry, or on a quill, or in 
          an inkwell.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (Rava):</font></b> If one was Motzi one letter's worth of 
          dry ink and one letter's worth of ink on a quill, what is 
          the law? (Rashi - he is not liable for the quill, it is 
          Batul to ink less than a Shi'ur.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  This question is not resolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> If one was Motzi two letters [worth of ink] and 
          wrote two letters while walking, he is liable [even if he 
          did not stop walking] - writing them is considered 
          Hanachah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> If one was Motzi one letter, wrote it, then was 
          Motzi another letter [in the same Helam] and wrote it, he 
          is exempt.
<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> He never had a Shi'ur [of ink that can be used to 
          write] outside.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> If one was Motzi a half-k'Grogeres [of food], did 
          Hanachah, then was Motzi another half-k'Grogeres and did 
          Hanachah, it is as if the first was eaten by a dog or 
          burned, he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This is unreasonable - the first piece is 
          there!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He means, if he picked up the first piece before 
          Hanachah of the second, it is as if the first was eaten 
          or burned, he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> If one was Motzi a half-k'Grogeres, did Hanachah, 
          then was Motzi another half-k'Grogeres to the same place, 
          he is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is he liable - the second piece was not 
          Nach!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, he brought it within three Tefachim 
          of the ground (it is considered Nach).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But Rava taught that Chachamim [who do not 
          consider something in the air to be at rest] say that 
          [even] if something within three Tefachim of the ground 
          must be placed in something [to be considered Nach]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Chachamim say this concerning something thrown - 
          Rava discusses something a person carries.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If Reuven was Motzi a half-k'Grogeres, and 
          then was Motzi another half-k'Grogeres:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If both were in one Helam, he is liable; if they 
               were in two Ha'alamos, he is exempt.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi says, in one Helam, if he took both to the 
               same Reshus [ha'Rabim] he is liable; if he took them 
               to different Reshuyos, he is exempt.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (Rabah):</font></b> This is only if the different Reshuyos 
               [ha'Rabim] are separated by a Reshus [ha'Yachid] in 
               which one is liable for transferring to them, but 
               not if a Karmelis separates them.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> (Abaye):</font></b> This is even if they are separated by a 
               Karmelis, not if a piece of wood separates them.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> (Rava):</font></b> This is even if a piece of wood separates 
               them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b></b>  This is as Rava taught elsewhere:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rava):</font></b> Reshuyos have the same law regarding [R. 
               Yosi's law of] Shabbos as they do regarding Gitin. 
               (If before Reuven threw a Get to his wife he lent 
               her a place in his Chatzer to receive it, and it 
               landed on a piece of wood, she is not divorced, for 
               it is considered a Reshus unto itself - he only lent 
               one place to her.)
<br>
<b><font>2) OTHER 'SHI'URIM' OF 'HOTZA'AH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'ur for mascara is to paint one eye.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> People do not paint only one eye!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Huna):</font></b> Tzenu'os (women who dress very 
          modestly and leave only one eye exposed) paint only one 
          eye.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> The Shi'ur for 
          mascara for healing is to paint one eye; the Shi'ur for 
          adornment is to paint two eyes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (Hilel brei d'Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani):</font></b> That is 
          for villagers (people are not so frivolous there, there 
          is no need for such modesty - our Mishnah discusses city 
          women).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'ur for wax is to put on a seal of a 
          small hole.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> This refers to a seal for [a Kli of] wine (it 
          is smaller than the hole for oil or honey, which are 
          thicker).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'ur for glue is to put at the end of 
          Shifshef.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> The glue is put on the little plank at the end 
          of a bird hunter's stick (birds gets stuck to it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'ur for pitch or sulfur is to seal a 
          hole [in a Kli for mercury].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> This refers to a small hole.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'ur for a ground brick is to make an 
          opening in a furnace...[R. Yehudah says, to make a leg of 
          a tripod].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Observation:</font></b> R. Yehudah's Shi'ur is bigger. (Ramban - 
          this shows that R. Yehudah obligates only for a 
          widespread usage, Chachamim Mechayev even for uses that 
          are not so common.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Elsewhere, Chachamim's Shi'ur is bigger!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> [The Shi'ur for Gemi (a soft reed) is to 
               make a handle for hanging a sieve;] R. Yehudah says, 
               it is in order to measure a child's foot for the 
               sake of making shoes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yehudah refers to a leg of a tripod for a 
          small oven, it is less than Chachamim's Shi'ur.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) TWO COMMON USES FOR ONE OBJECT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that just as Rebbi Yehudah maintains the stricter opinion with regard to the size of a Gemi (reed-grass), he must also maintain the stricter opinion with regard to the size of a Charasis (piece of clay). 
</p><p>
What is the connection between these two objects? Why does the Gemara assume that Rebbi Yehudah's opinion must be strict in both cases?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>RITVA</b> explains that Rebbi Yehudah and the Chachamim argue about a general principle. When an object has a prevailing use and purpose, the size of the object used for that purpose is what determines the amount necessary to be Chayav for Hotza'ah of that object. When there is another common use for the object, but it is <i>less</i> common than the other use, and the size used for that less common use is smaller than the size used for the more common use, is the amount for Hotza'ah established by the more common use (and the larger size), or is it established by the less common use (and the smaller size)? Rebbi Yehudah maintains that the size for Hotza'ah is established based on the smaller size (l'Chumra), even though it is based on the less common use. Consequently, he should also maintain the stricter opinion with regard to Charasis.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> The Shi'ur for hair is enough to knead mud 
          (the Shi'ur made with a Revi'is of water, the least a 
          person bothers to knead at a time; alternatively, the 
          coming Shi'ur for Hotza'ah of mud - it is no bother to 
          add hair to kneaded mud);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Shi'ur for mud is enough to make an opening for 
               a furnace for refining gold.
<br>
<b><font>3) THE 'SHI'UR' OF 'HOTZA'AH' FOR PLASTER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'ur for plaster is to put [on the 
          smallest of girls].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> It is to put on the smallest finger of a girl.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Benos Yisrael who bring hairs while they 
          are still minors [and are embarrassed about this]:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Poor girls put on plaster to remove them, rich girls 
               use fine flour, princesses use Mor oil - 'Shishah 
               Chodoshim b'Shemen ha'Mor'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is Mor oil?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Huna bar Chiya):</font></b> It is scented oil.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (R. Yirmeyah bar Aba):</font></b> It is oil of olives that 
          did not reach a third of their [normal] growth.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> Anfiknon is oil of olives that 
          did not reach a third of their growth; one anoints with 
          it to remove hair and soften skin.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Rav Bivi put plaster on his daughter, one limb at a time 
          [beautifying her; many wanted to marry her,] Rav Bivi 
          received 400 Zuz (about three years of a standard income) 
          Kidushin money for her.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He had a Nochri neighbor who plastered his daughter 
               all at once - she died [because she could not 
               sweat], he complained that Rav Bivi caused her 
               death.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Rav Nachman:</font></b> Rav Bivi drinks beer, therefore his daughter 
          [was dark and] needed plaster; we do not drink beer, our 
          daughters do not need it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> It is to plaster Kilkul [R. 
          Nechemyah says, it is to plaster Andifi].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What are Kilkul and Andifi?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav):</font></b> They are the temple and the area 
          underneath (or a strip to the side of) it, respectively.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> R. Yehudah's Shi'ur is bigger [than R. 
               Nechemyah's] - elsewhere, Chachamim's Shi'ur is 
               bigger (we assume that R. Nechemyah holds like 
               Chachamim, who normally require a widespread use)! 
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> R. Yehudah's Shi'ur is less than that of 
               Chachamim, it is bigger than that of R. Nechemyah 
               (he is concerned for uses even less common than R. 
               Yehudah is concerned for).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Rejection (regarding Andifi - Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> I agree 
          with R. Yehudah's opinion regarding Chavot (plaster 
          dissolved in much water), and with R. Nechemyah's opinion 
          regarding clumps of kneaded plaster.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Chavot is used both for the temple and the area 
               underneath it (but not clumps)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Version #1 - Answer #2 (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> Andifi is a Kli 
          with one opening above and one below (they are sealed 
          with plaster; the plaster is removed when one wants to 
          put in or take out wine).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> This would be wasteful (the wine would 
          dissolve the plaster, and leak out)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Version #2 - Answer #2 (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> Andifi is plaster 
          put on other parts of the body to redden them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> One does not spend money to kill his daughter 
          [like the Nochri killed his daughter]! (end of Version 
          #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Rav Kahana):</font></b> Andifi are notches:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> There were notches in the [Kli Shares 
               that held a] Hin, to show how much [oil or wine] is 
               needed for [Nesachim of a] bull, of a ram, and of a 
               lamb (a half, third or quarter Hin, respectively).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Answer #4:</font></b> Andifi is plaster put on the forehead:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A Galilean came to Bavel; he was asked to expound 
               about [Yechezkeil's vision of] the Merkavah 
               (Hashem's chariot). He repeated what R. Nechemyah 
               taught to his colleague - a wasp emerged from the 
               wall and stung him on the Andifi (forehead), killing 
               him.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> People said that he caused his own death (Chagigah 
               11B - one may expound about the Merkavah only to one 
               Chacham [at a time who need not hear details, i.e. 
               one] who understands [mostly] by himself).
<br>
<b><font>4) THE 'SHI'UR' OF 'HOTZA'AH' FOR SAND</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Akiva):</font></b> The Shi'ur for clay is to make a 
          signet on a big merchandise sack;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, it is to make a signet on a letter.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Akiva says, the Shi'ur for manure or fine sand is 
          enough to fertilize a stalk of cabbage;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, it is enough to fertilize a leek stalk.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  The Shi'ur for coarse sand is to put on a spoon of 
          plaster (this will be explained);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  The Shi'ur for a reed is to make a quill;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If it was thick or cracked [and not fit for a 
               quill], the Shi'ur is [to be fuel] to cook a light 
               egg, mixed in a frying pan (this will be explained).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Gemara):</font></b> ...On a spoon of plaster.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> This means, on a plasterer's trowel.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Who is our Tana, who says that sand is good for 
          plaster?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Chisda):</font></b> It is R. Yehudah:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> [On account of mourning over the Churban] 
               one may not plaster his house unless he mixed in 
               sand or straw.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, if he mixed in straw, it is 
               permitted; if he mixed in sand, this is Trachsid 
               (cement, it is better than regular plaster), it is 
               forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> It is even like Chachamim - because 
          they hold that it is bad for (darkens) plaster, this 
          permits [one to plaster his house with it].
<br>
<b><font>5) THE 'SHI'UR' OF 'HOTZA'AH' FOR A REED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'ur for a reed is to make a quill.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> It must reach to the knuckles [to be suitable 
          for writing].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Does this refer to the top knuckles 
          or the knuckles below them?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  This question is not resolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If it was thick...[the Shi'ur is to cook a 
          light egg, mixed in a frying pan].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> It is mixed with oil (this speeds cooking) in 
          a frying pan.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question (Mar brei d'Rav Ashi):</font></b> Did you hear what is 'a 
          light egg'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (His son):</font></b> It is the egg of Tziltzalta (a small 
          bird, in the Tor (pigeon) family).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Objection (Mar brei d'Rav Ashi):</font></b> Presumably, this is 
          because it is small - if so, you should say a hummingbird 
          (it is even smaller)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> His son could not answer; he asked his father if he 
               had heard an answer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Mar brei d'Rav Ashi citing Rav Sheshes):</font></b> It is 
          a hen's egg.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is it called a light egg?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It cooks the fastest of all eggs.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question (his son):</font></b> Every other Shi'ur for food for 
          Shabbos is k'Grogeres - why is this different?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer (Mar brei d'Rav Ashi citing Rav Nachman):</font></b> Also 
          here, the Shi'ur is k'Grogeres of a light egg.
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) 'SHI'URIM' FOR 'HOTZA'AH' OF GLASS AND STONES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'ur for a bone is to make a spoon;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, it is to make a key.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The Shi'ur for glass is to scrape the end of the spindle;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  The Shi'ur for a pebble or stone is to throw at a bird 
          [to chase it away];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, it is to throw at an animal.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> R. Yehudah's Shi'ur is bigger than 
          Chachamim's - elsewhere, Chachamim's Shi'ur is bigger!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer (Ula):</font></b> R. Yehudah means, to make teeth of a key 
          (it is less than Chachamim's Shi'ur).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Teeth (Rashi - of bone; Tosfos - of metal) of 
          a key are Tehorim; if they were fixed in a key, they are 
          Mekabel Tum'ah;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Teeth of a lock (big protrusions corresponding to 
               small protrusions on the key, and vice-versa) are 
               Tehorim even if they were nailed in, for anything 
               attached to the ground is like the ground.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'ur for glass is to scrape...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> The Shi'ur for glass is to cut two threads at 
          once (this is the same as to scrape the end of the 
          weaving rod).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'ur for a pebble or stone is to throw 
          at a bird; R. Eliezer ben Yakov [says, to throw at an 
          animal].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> It must be big enough so that the bird or 
          animal will feel it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How much is this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer (Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov):</font></b> This is 10 Zuz 
          (about 10 ounces).
<br>
<b><font>2) STONES THAT MAY BE USED FOR 'KINU'ACH' ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (Zunin):</font></b> How big are rocks used for (Kinu'ach, 
          i.e. cleaning oneself after using) the Beis ha'Kisei? 
          (Such rocks are not Muktzeh; also, they are useful, one 
          who is Motzi them is liable.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabanan):</font></b> One is the size of an olive, one is the 
          size of a nut, one is the size of an egg.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Objection (Zunin):</font></b> Must one take in a scale [to ensure 
          that the rocks are the right sizes}?! (Presumably, 
          Rabanan held that one prepares the rocks beforehand; 
          Zunin objects, for sometimes one does not have rocks 
          prepared.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Retraction (Rabanan):</font></b> Rather, one takes in a handful 
          [even if there are four or five].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Yosi):</font></b> One may take in three rocks, the 
          sizes are that of an olive, a nut, and an egg;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon b'Rebbi Yosi says in the name of R. Yosi, one 
          takes in a handful.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One may take three pointy rocks into a Beis 
          ha'Kisei;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What size rocks are permitted?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Meir):</font></b> Each is a k'Zayis;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (R. Yehudah):</font></b> Each is a k'Beitzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Rafram bar Papa):</font></b> They argue about the size of an Esrog 
          just like they argue about Kinu'ach.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The argument about Esrog is a Mishnah, the 
          argument about Kinu'ach is only a Beraisa! (Rafram's 
          teaching is useless - anyone who knows the argument about 
          Kinu'ach surely knows the argument about Esrog!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, Rafram teaches that they argue about 
          Kinu'ach just like they argue about the size of an Esrog.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Payis is forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is Payis?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Zeira):</font></b> It is vetch of Bavel (clods of earth, 
          they are not good for Kinu'ach.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> On Shabbos it is forbidden to use a rock [to help 
          oneself excrete] the way he does on a weekday (it may 
          detach hairs)..
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Objection (Mar Zutra):</font></b> If so, he will be in danger [if he 
          needs to excrete but cannot]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He uses it awkwardly (e.g. he holds it with only 
          two fingers).
<br>
<b><font>3) STONES THAT MAY BE USED FOR 'KINU'ACH' ON SHABBOS (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Yanai):</font></b> If there is a fixed place for the Beis 
          ha'Kisei, he may take a handful of rocks; 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Version #1 (Rashi):</font></b> If not, he may take [a rock] 
               k'Hechra (the amount in the middle, a nut - it is 
               between k'Zayis and k'Beitzah).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Version #2:</font></b> If not, he may take k'Hechra (Tosfos - 
               like a leg; Rif - like the head) of a spice pounder. 
               (end of Version #2) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> If there is an Ed (sign that it was used 
          for Kinu'ach) on it (Rashi - on a spice pounder - 
          otherwise, it is Muktzeh; Tosfos - on rocks of any size 
          and quantity), it is permitted. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> Ten things lead to hemorrhoids - 
          eating leaves of reeds or of vines, or vine tendrils (the 
          part that clings to supporting poles), meat that is not 
          smooth, the spine of a fish, salted fish that was not 
          cooked enough, drinking dregs of wine, cleaning oneself 
          with one of three things that someone else used to clean 
          himself, i.e. plaster, a shard of Cheres (earthenware), 
          or a rock. (This shows that one should not clean with 
          something that was already used!)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Some say, even suspending oneself [on his knees] too 
               much in the Beis ha'Kisei causes hemorrhoids.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> It is no good if it is wet, it is fine if it 
          is dry.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> It is no good if it was used from both sides, 
          it is fine if it was used from only one side (one will 
          use the other side).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #3:</font></b> One may use something he used before to clean 
          himself, one should not use something that someone else 
          used.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> If rain washed away the Ed, what is the 
          law?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> If a trace of the Ed remains, it is 
          permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question (Rabah bar Rav Shila):</font></b> May one take Kinu'ach 
          rocks up to the roof (Rashi - is it forbidden on account 
          of exertion; Tosfos - is it forbidden because he should 
          have prepared them before Shabbos)?
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A LOCK MADE OF BONE</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Beraisa says that Chafei Posachas (teeth of a lock which are made of bone) are Tahor until they are placed into a lock. Why are they Tahor until they are placed into a lock? If they are considered a Kli, then they should be able to become Tamei even before they are not placed into a lock. If they are not considered a Kli, then they should remain Tahor even when they are placed into a lock.
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> says that a Chaf is Tahor before it is placed into a lock because it is not usable at all by itself. Once it is placed in the lock, it becomes useful and therefore can become Tamei. Rashi explains that it becomes Tamei because Peshutei Kli <i>Etzem</i> (utensils made of bone which do not have receptacles) are like Peshutei Kli <i>Matchos</i> (metal) and are Mekabel Tum'ah. Even though it is attached to the lock, and a Kli that is attached to an object that is Tahor is itself Tahor, the lock itself has a receptacle (for the key) and is Mekabel Tum'ah. (This itself is a reason for why the Chaf can be Mekabel Tum'ah, since anything that is attached to an object that is Mekabel Tum'ah is also Mekabel Tum'ah; see 48b.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Chafei) disagrees and says that Peshutei Kli Etzem are <i>Tahor</i>, as the Mishnah states in Kelim (2:1). Furthermore, the Chaf is the main part of the lock, and therefore it does <i>not</i> become Tamei as a result of being attached to the lock, which <i>is</i> Mekabel Tum'ah. On the contrary, the lock itself should not become Tamei because it is attached to the Chaf and is subordinate to it.
</p><p>
Tosfos also questions the first statement of Rashi. Rashi says that since the Chaf is not usable when it is not attached, it is Tahor. This, however, is obvious, and the Beraisa is teaching nothing new!
</p><p>
Rather, Tosfos explains that the Chaf alone does not become Tamei because it is a metal Chaf which has not yet been completed ('Golmei Kli Matchos'). Even though it is still fit for some uses even when it is not connected to the lock, it is Tahor because it is an unfinished metal utensil. Once it is attached to the lock, though, it becomes finished, and even though it has no receptacle, it is Mekabel Tum'ah because it is a finished metal utensil.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) TAKING A SMALL SPICE MORTAR TO THE BATHROOM</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses the amounts and types of rocks that one may bring with him into the bathroom on Shabbos. Why does the Gemara interrupt this discussion to ask whether one is permitted to move a spice mortar on Shabbos?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that because of its shape, a spice mortar is fit for use for Kinu'ach (cleaning oneself) in the bathroom.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH v'Im and v'Amar), says that the Gemara's mention of a spice mortar is unrelated to the topic of Kinu'ach. Rather, the Gemara is giving the maximum amount of stones that one may take with him into the bathroom. When one enters a temporary bathroom ('Beis ha'Kisei she'Eino Kavu'a'), one may take the amount of rocks equal in size to the 'leg of a Meduchah Ketanah.'
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Chisda):</font></b> Kavod ha'Briyos (avoiding disgrace) 
          overrides a Lav (a Chacham may ignore a lost object if it 
          is below his dignity to carry it around - likewise, it 
          overrides [Muktzeh and] all mid'Rabanan laws, which are 
          based on 'Lo Sasur' (do not veer from Chachamim's 
          words)).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question (Ravina - Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> One may take a 
          chip of wood to remove food between his teeth;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim permit only chips (Tosfos - fitting to go) 
               in the feeding trough (animals can eat them - but 
               one may not use Muktzeh, even if pieces of meat can 
               be seen between his teeth)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> A person plans where he will eat (he should 
          prepare chips before Shabbos) - but he cannot always plan 
          where he will eliminate (perhaps his intended place will 
          be occupied)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> On Shabbos, one may not eliminate in a plowed 
          field (that is ready to be planted).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> He may not eliminate in [*another's*] 
               plowed field because he tramples on the dirt 
               (hardening it).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> If so, it should be forbidden even during 
               the week!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> This is because grass grows on the rocks (for 
          Kinu'ach, he will detach it when he uses them).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> Reish Lakish taught that one may Mekane'ach 
          with rocks with grass on them (the Halachah follows R. 
          Shimon, who permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven); one who 
          intentionally detaches the grass is Chayav Chatas.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> We are concerned lest he take from a high 
          place and return it to a depression - Rabah taught that 
          one is liable for this!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rabah):</font></b> If someone filled a small pit in a house 
               with dirt, he is liable for building; if he did so 
               in a field, he is liable for [a Toladah of] plowing.
<br>
<b><font>4) DETACHING FROM THE GROUND ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Reish Lakish):</font></b> One may Mekane'ach with rocks with grass 
          on them; one who intentionally detaches is Chayav Chatas.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rav Papi):</font></b> [This is not considered detaching -] 
          therefore, one may likewise move Parfisa (a flowerpot 
          with a hole (or basket filled with dirt) with something 
          growing inside).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Kahana):</font></b> It is permitted for a need (Kavod 
          ha'Briyos, i.e. Kinu'ach) - perhaps it is forbidden 
          without a need!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> If Parfisa was on the ground and one put it on 
          pegs, he is liable for detaching (Rashi, Tosfos - he is 
          lashed mid'Rabanan - mid'Oraisa, it is still attached and 
          nurtures from the ground through the air; Rambam - he is 
          Chayav mid'Oraisa; R. Chayim - the Rambam holds that even 
          though it still nurtures [and is considered to be 
          growing] from the ground, it is not considered attached).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If it was on pegs and one put it on the ground, he 
               is liable (Rashi, Tosfos -mid'Rabanan) for planting.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> It is forbidden to use Cheres for Kinu'ach 
          on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If it is dangerous [lest it uproot the anal 
               'teeth'], it would be forbidden even during the 
               week!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> It is forbidden on account of witchcraft (this 
          will be explained).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> If so, it would be forbidden even during the 
          week!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> It is forbidden because it may detach hairs.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This is Davar she'Eino Miskaven (we know that 
          R. Yochanan permits this)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Rav Noson bar Oshaya):</font></b> R. Yochanan teaches, 
          not only it is forbidden during the week [on account of 
          danger or witchcraft] - rather, even on Shabbos, when one 
          might have thought that [in spite of this] it is 
          permitted because it has Toras Kli (it is better than 
          rocks, which are Muktzeh) - he teaches, this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  Rava learned like Answer #3.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Contradiction (Rava):</font></b> Here, R. Yochanan forbids Davar 
          she'Eino Miskaven - elsewhere, he permits!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The Halachah follows a Stam 
               (anonymous) Mishnah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> A Nazir may smooth his hair and separate 
               the hairs [even though he might pull out hairs], but 
               he may not comb his hair (Rashi - this surely pulls 
               out hairs; Rashba - one who combs intends to remove 
               dangling hairs).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Conclusion:</font></b> We must answer like Rav Noson bar Oshaya.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the concern for witchcraft?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna were going in a 
          boat; a woman wanted to sit near them - they refused.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> She said something, causing the boat to stop; they 
               said something which allowed it to move.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> The woman:</font></b> I cannot overcome you [through 
               witchcraft], for you do not use Cheres for Kinu'ach, 
               you do not kill lice on your clothing, and you do 
               not eat vegetables from the bundle [without untying 
               it - this shows that all of these make people 
               vulnerable to witchcraft].
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) USING THE HOLY NAME</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna said 'something' in order to undo the witchcraft of the woman who cast a spell on their ship. What was it that they said?
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> in Chulin (105b, DH Amrei) offers two explanations. The first explanation is that they countered her spell by using their knowledge of black magic. The second explanation is that they uttered the Holy Name. Rashi here, too, understands that they uttered the Holy Name.
</p><p>
With regard to the second explanation, Rashi comments, 'it cannot be proven' ('v'Lo Muchecha Milsa'; see Rosh Yosef). Rashi implies that the second suggestion needs strong backing in order to be considered valid. Why is that?
</p><p>
(a) In <b>AVOS D'REBBI NASAN</b> (12:13), we are taught that the expression, 'd'Ishtamesh b'Taga Chalaf' (Avos 1:13), means that one who uses the Holy Name (for mundane purposes) will have no part in the World to Come. This interpretation is quoted by the <b>REMA</b> (YD 246:21). (Although we find in Sanhedrin (67b) that when Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish learned Sefer Yetzirah, a calf was created, Rashi there explains that the calf came about by itself and they did not intentionally create it.)
</p><p>
(b) Rashi here, however, explains that the Amora'im used a 'Shem Taharah' (Holy Name) to move the boat. This conforms to the opinion of the <b>REMA</b> (in YD 179:15), who permits the use of the Holy Name to perform miracles. In fact, 'one who performs miracles with Hashem's Holy Name demonstrates the greatness and mightiness of the Creator (<b>LEVUSH</b>, ibid.).' According to the Rema, the statement of Avos d'Rebbi Nasan apparently pertains only to those who are not on the proper level of holiness when they use the Holy Name. (It is possible that the words 'Shem Taharah' that Rashi here uses, as opposed to the words 'Shem Kodesh,' are a euphemism for Shem Tum'ah, and Rashi's opinion here is consistent with his words in Chulin.)
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHACH</b> (YD 179:18) quotes the <b>LEVUSH</b> who states that since it is almost impossible for one to be on the proper level of Kedushah and Taharah in order to use the Holy Name, one should refrain from using it except under dire circumstances.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) WHAT SHOULD BE USED FOR 'KINU'ACH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Rav Huna (to his son Rabah):</font></b> You should learn from Rav 
          Chisda, his teachings are very sharp!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Rabah:</font></b> When I go to him, he discusses secular 
               matters, e.g. when one goes to the Beis ha'Kisei, he 
               should not make too fast nor press too hard, for the 
               rectum rests on three 'teeth', either of these could 
               uproot the teeth and endanger him!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rav Huna:</font></b> This is essential for life, and you call 
               it secular matters?! All the more so you should 
               learn from him!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> [On Shabbos] if one has a pebble and Cheres, 
          he should Mekane'ach with the pebble, not with the Cheres 
          [lest it uproot the teeth];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> He should Mekane'ach with the Cheres, not 
          with the pebble [it is not a Kli].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (against Rav Huna - Beraisa):</font></b> If one has a 
          pebble and Cheres, he should Mekane'ach with the Cheres, 
          not with the pebble.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  Rav Huna is refuted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer (for Rav Huna - Rafram bar Papa):</font></b> The Beraisa 
          discusses the brim of a Kli (it is smooth, it will not 
          uproot the teeth).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda or Rav Hamnuna):</font></b> [On Shabbos] if one has a 
          pebble and [attached] grass, he should Mekane'ach with 
          the pebble, not with the grass [lest it cut him; 
          alternatively, lest he detach the grass];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (The other of Rav Chisda and Rav Hamnuna):</font></b> He should 
          Mekane'ach with the grass (this is not considered moving 
          Muktzeh, for it is attached), not with the pebble [it is 
          not a Kli].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question (against the latter opinion - Beraisa):</font></b> Doing 
          Kinu'ach with something that can burn causes the anal 
          teeth to fall out.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The latter opinion discusses wet grass, it does 
          not burn.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda or Ravina):</font></b> If one needs to eliminate but 
          does not, he will get bad breath;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (The other of Rav Chisda and Ravina):</font></b> He will be sweaty 
          and smelly:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> One who eats when he needs to move his 
               bowels is like an oven ignited with the old ashes 
               inside - this will lead to a persistent odor of 
               sweat;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> If one needs to eliminate but cannot, he 
          should stand and sit and stand and sit.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chanan of Neharda'a):</font></b> He should move to the side.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Rav Hamnuna):</font></b> He should use a pebble in the anus.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Rabanan):</font></b> He should divert his mind.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rava):</font></b> If so, all the more so, 
          he will not eliminate!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> They mean, he should divert his mind 
          from other things.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  (R. Yirmeyah mi'Difti):</font></b> I saw a Yishmaeli stand and sit 
          and stand and sit, until the waste flowed out like from a 
          pot.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(t)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Before beginning a proper meal, one should 
          walk four Amos 10 times, or 10 Amos four times, and 
          relieve himself. (It is a disgrace to have to leave in 
          the middle for one's bowels.)
<br>
<b><font>2) THE 'SHI'UR' FOR 'HOTZA'AH' FOR EARTHENWARE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> The Shi'ur for Cheres is to put 
          between pillars [so they will not lean];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Meir says, it must be big enough to stoke coals;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi says, it must hold a Revi'is.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  R. Meir:</font></b> There is a hint, not a proof for my opinion - 
          'V'Lo Yimatzei vi'Mchitaso Cheres Lachtos Esh mi'Yakod'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  R. Yosi:</font></b> That is not a proof (the verse says that even my 
          Shi'ur is important) - 'V'Lachsof Mayim mi'Geve'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Whose Shi'ur is bigger, R. Meir's or 
          R. Yosi's?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Reasoning dictates that R. Yosi's Shi'ur is bigger 
               (even a tiny piece can be used to stoke) - but the 
               verse suggests that R. Meir's Shi'ur is bigger!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> It is unreasonable to curse that he will not find 
               [even] a small Kli, and then to curse that he will 
               not find a big Kli!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> R. Meir's Shi'ur is bigger - he discusses 
          stoking a big fire (a big piece is needed).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Yosi):</font></b> That is not a proof...!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How does R. Meir answer this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He says, the Seifa increases the curse:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Not only will he not find something important to 
               people, he will not even find something unimportant 
               to people!
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>***** <b>PEREK AMAR</b> R.</b></font></center><p> <b>AKIVA</b> *****
<br>
<b><font>3) THE 'TUM'AH' OF IDOLS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  (Mishnah - R. Akiva) (The first Mishnayos of our Perek 
          are unrelated to Shabbos, there were taught because they 
          resemble the Mishnah (86A) which discusses the source to 
          Mechalel Shabbos for a recently circumcised baby.) 
          Question: What is the source that an idol has Tum'as Masa 
          (one who moves it becomes Tamei)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'Tizrem Kemo Davah Tzei Tomar Lo' - just like a 
          Nidah has Tum'as Masa, also an idol.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Mishnah):</font></b> If a wall of Reuven's house separated 
          his house from a house of an idol, and the wall fell, he 
          may not rebuild it (for this would benefit the 
          idolaters);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rather, he retreats four Amos into his own property, 
               and rebuilds it. (He fills the vacated space with 
               thorns, so the idolaters will not benefit from it.)
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: USING A FLAMMABLE MATERIAL FOR HYGIENIC PURPOSES</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara (81b) says that a person should not use a piece of Cheres (potsherd) for Kinu'ach in the bathroom because of Sakanah (because of its sharpness, it can cause damage to the rectal musculature orifice), and because of Keshafim (sorcery; sorcerers are able to cast spells on those who use it). The Gemara (82a) then says that one should not use a material that is flammable, like grass, because it can cause damage to the rectal musculature.
</p><p>
The <b>REMA</b> (OC 3:11) mentions that it is the prevalent practice today to use paper for Kinu'ach. Why are we not concerned for the danger that the Gemara depicts?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>REMA</b> in <b>DARCHEI MOSHE</b> and in the Shulchan Aruch cites the <b>AGUDAH</b> who says that 'since our bathrooms are not in the fields, we are not concerned about using a material that is flammable.' The Rema in Darchei Moshe declares that he does not understand the Agudah's reasoning: Why does the fact that our bathrooms are not in the fields permit the use of a flammable material for Kinu'ach? Nevertheless, the Rema concludes that since people commonly use paper for Kinu'ach, it falls into the category of 'Shomer Pesa'im Hash-m' -- 'Hash-m protects the fools' (Tehilim 116:6).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MAGEN AVRAHAM</b> explains that the Agudah means that the reason a flammable material is dangerous is because of Keshafim (it enables sorcerers to cast spells on those who use it); it is not physically dangerous by itself. (This is not the simple meaning of the Gemara on 81b that seems to distinguish between the two reasons of Sakanah and Keshafim.) Since there is no fear of Keshafim nowadays, one is permitted to use paper.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>PERISHAH</b> explains that the Rabanan prohibited using a certain object for Kinu'ach only when there are <i>two</i> reasons not to use it (such as Sakanah and Keshafim). Nowadays, there is only one reason (Sakanah, and not Keshafim), and therefore one is not prohibited to use a flammable material.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> (81b) explains that we rule in accordance with Rava, who says that one is prohibited to use Cheres only because it may tear off hairs on Shabbos, and not because of Sakanah or Keshafim. Although the Gemara refutes Rava when it cites a teaching of Rebbi Yochanan in which he is not concerned for a Davar she'Eino Miskaven, the Halachah apparently follows Rava. (With regard to Rebbi Yochanan's statement, we find in many places that there were two opinions as to whether or not Rebbi Yochanan ruled like every 'Stam Mishnah,' and therefore it is not clear that he ruled that Davar she'Ein Miskaven is permitted.) Accordingly, the only reason one is prohibited to use Cheres is because it rips off hairs. Since Rava maintains that there is no concern for Sakanah and Keshafim with regard to Cheres, perhaps there is also no concern for Sakanah and Keshafim with regard to all other items, and that is why we may use flammable paper for Kinu'ach. (See <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> there.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) PEREK 'AMAR REBBI AKIVA'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The previous chapter concludes with a Mishnah that deals with the minimum size of a clay potsherd for which one is Chayav for Hotza'ah when he carries it into Reshus ha'Rabim. The new chapter begins by discussing the Tum'ah that the Rabanan enacted for objects of idolatry. What is the connection between this chapter and the previous one?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> says that the Mishnah here is unrelated to Shabbos. It is included here only because the Mishnah <i>later</i> (86a) teaches that a certain law of Shabbos is derived from an allusion in a verse, and therefore the Mishnah teaches other laws that are inferred from verses. All of the Mishnayos that ask 'Minayin' -- 'from where [do we learn this law]' and answer with a verse are included here because of the one Mishnah that is relevant to Shabbos, in which it asks 'Minayin' and answers with a verse.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> says that the end of the <i>previous</i> Mishnah cites a verse as an Asmachta for a Halachah mid'Rabanan. This chapter continues with Asmachtos from verses for Halachos mid'Rabanan.
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> gives the answer of Rabeinu Chananel and adds that the source for the Asmachta in this Mishnah is a verse in the <i>same</i> place in Yeshayah as the source for the Asmachta in the previous Mishnah.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  If he and the idolaters jointly owned the wall [and its 
          place], half of its place counts towards four Amos;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Its stones and dirt are Teme'im like a Sheretz - 
               'Shaketz Teshaktzenu'.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva says, they are Teme'im like a Nidah - 
               'Tizrem Kemo Davah' - just like a Nidah has Tum'as 
               Masa, also idols.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rabah):</font></b> [Chachamim say,] 'TiZRem' teaches one to make 
          idols foreign to himself, like a Zar;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'Tzei Tomar Lo' - do not tell it to come.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rabah):</font></b> All agree that it has Tum'as Masa, on account of 
          the Hekesh; they argue about Even Misma. (If a Nidah sits 
          on a rock she is Metamei garments underneath it, even if 
          she does not weigh down on the garments [because the rock 
          is very heavy or is supported on pegs]; alternatively, 
          even though the rock is too big to be moved; 
          alternatively, if her Mishkav is under a rock, it is 
          Metamei a Tahor who sits on the rock.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva equates idols to Nidah - just like a Nidah 
               has Tum'as Even Misma, also idols;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim equate idols to Sheretz - just like a 
               Sheretz lacks Tum'as Even Misma, also idols.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does R. Akiva learn from the Hekesh to 
          Sheretz?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This teaches about Meshamsheha (Kelim used for 
          idol worship, they have only Tum'as Maga).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What do Chachamim learn from the Hekesh to 
          Nidah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This teaches about Tum'as Masa.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> It should have equated it to Nevelah (then we 
          would not need the Hekesh to Sheretz to teach that there 
          is no Tum'ah Even Misma)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is equated to Nidah to teach that just like 
          Tum'as Nidah does not apply to a limb [that separated 
          from a Nidah], the Tum'ah of idols does not apply to a 
          'limb' (a component part of an idol).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> R. Chama bar Gurya asked whether or not [the 
          Tum'ah] of idols applies to limbs - he should learn from 
          here that it does not!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rav Chama asks according to R. Akiva.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> All agree that idols do not have Tum'as Even 
          Misma;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva equates idols to Nidah - just like a Nidah 
               has Tum'as Masa, also idols;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim equate idols to Sheretz - just like a 
               Sheretz lacks Tum'as Masa, also idols.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does R. Akiva learn from the Hekesh to 
          Sheretz?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This teaches about Kelim used for idolatry (they 
          have only Tum'as Maga).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) 'EVEN MESAMA'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Rebbi Akiva and the Rabanan argue about the extent of the Tum'ah of Avodah Zarah. Rabah and Rebbi Elazar argue about the exact point of dispute between Rebbi Akiva and the Rabanan. According to Rabah, Rebbi Akiva and the Rabanan argue whether Avodah Zarah is compared to Nidah with regard to being Metamei with Even Mesama. Rebbi Elazar maintains that neither Rebbi Akiva nor the Rabanan maintain that Avodah Zarah is Metamei with Even Mesama.
</p><p>
What is the difference between being Metamei with Even Mesama, and being Metamei with Maga and Masa? It seems that Even Mesama and Masa are the same type of transmission of Tum'ah.
</p><p>
(a) According to <b>RASHI</b> in Nidah (55a, DH Even Mesama), Even Mesama is an extension of Tum'as Masa (and applies even to objects which are not suited for sitting upon). It differs from the normal Tum'as Masa, since generally only something which is fit to be <i>moved</i> by the Nidah becomes Tamei through Masa, while something which lies on a very heavy stone which is above the Nidah cannot be moved by her (since the stone is too heavy to carry).
</p><p>
(b) According to <b>RASHI</b> here (DH b'Even Mesama), Even Mesama refers to a large stone which was suspended on poles, on which a Nidah or Zav sits, while utensils are underneath the stone. The utensils are Tamei even though no pressure is put on them by the stone on which the Nidah or Zav sits. This seems to apply even to objects that are not made for sitting upon (see Tosfos), and it is a completely new type of Tum'ah.
</p><p>
(c) According to <b>RABEINU TAM</b> (cited by Tosfos here and in Eruvin 27a, DH Kol), an Even Mesama is such a heavy stone that the weight of the Nidah above it in no way adds any noticeable pressure to any of the objects beneath it. Objects beneath the stone become Tamei with Rishon l'Tum'ah. It is not the same as Tum'as Masa, since Masa requires <i>moving</i> the object and not just holding it (as Rashi explains in Chulin 21b).
</p><p>
(d) <b>TOSFOS</b> (here and in Eruvin 27a, DH Kol, and Nidah 55a, DH Even Mesama) cites Rabeinu Tam's definition of the Even Mesama, but explains that any objects that are <i>fit for sitting upon</i> that lie below the stone will become Tamei. (That is, Even Mesama is an extension of Mishkav u'Moshav.) (See also Insights to Nidah 55:1.)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE TUM'AH OF IDOLS (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What do Chachamim learn from the Hekesh to 
          Nidah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Just like Tum'as Nidah does not apply to a limb, 
          also the Tum'ah of idols.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> According to R. Akiva, why is it equated to 
          Nidah - it could have been equated to Nevelah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This is to teach that the Tum'ah of idols does 
          not apply to a limb.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> R. Chama bar Gurya asked whether or not [the 
          Tum'ah] of idols applies to limbs - he should learn from 
          here all agree that it does not!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rav Chama learns like Rabah and asks according to 
          R. Akiva.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> Idolatry and Meshamsheha are 
          [Metamei] like a Sheretz;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva says, Idolatry is like a Nidah, Meshamsheha 
               are like a Sheretz.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This is like R. Elazar, it is unlike Rabah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (on behalf of Rabah):</font></b> Also a Mishnah <i>seems to</i> 
          refute me - but just like I can explain the Mishnah, I 
          can explain the Beraisa!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question (Mishnah):</font></b> The wood, stones and dirt of 
               idols are Metamei like a Sheretz.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rabah):</font></b> This means that they are not Metamei 
               b'Even Misma (but they have Tum'as Masa).
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Also the Beraisa says that idols are Metamei like a 
               Sheretz to teach that it is not Metamei b'Even 
               Misma!
<br>
<b><font>2) WHAT HAS 'TUM'AS HESET'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> A Nochri, Nochris, idols and 
          Meshamsheha are Teme'im, but not Heseitan (what moves 
          them, i.e. they lack Tum'as Masa);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva says, they and Heseitan [are Teme'im].
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This is like R. Elazar, it is unlike Rabah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Counter-question (Rabah):</font></b> Our text of the Beraisa is 
          Metaher Nochrim from Tum'as Masa - this is wrong!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> 'Dabru El Benei Yisrael... Ki Yihyeh Zav' 
               - mid'Oraisa, Zivah (of a man or woman) only applies 
               to Benei Yisrael, but Chachamim decreed that Nochrim 
               are like Zavim (or Zavos) in all respects.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rabah):</font></b> Rather, it should say, a Nochri and 
          Nochris - they and Heseitan and their Even Misma (i.e. an 
          Even Misma that they sat on) are Teme'im; 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Idolatry and its Heset are Teme'im, their Even Misma 
               is not;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva says, idols and their Even Misma are 
               Teme'im.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (R. Elazar):</font></b> It should say, a Nochri and 
          Nochris - they and Heseitan and their Even Misma are 
          Teme'im; 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Idolatry is Tamei, its Heset is not;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva says, idols and their Heset are Teme'im.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Ashi):</font></b> If you say that 'Heseitan' means 
          'what move them', there would be no need to teach '*They 
          and* Heseitan...are Teme'im' - if Heseitan is Tamei, 
          surely they are Teme'im!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> It means, a Nochri and Nochris, 
          [what] they [moved] and Heseitan (what moved them) are 
          Teme'im;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> What idols moved is Tahor, what moved idols is 
               Tamei;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> What Meshamsheha moved and what moved Meshamsheha 
               are Tehorim.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva says, a Nochri and Nochris and idols, what 
               they moved and what moved them are Teme'im;
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> What Meshamsheha moved and what moved Meshamsheha 
               are Tehorim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We understand 'What moved idols' - but what is 
          'What idols moved'?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rami brei d'Rav Yeiva - Mishnah):</font></b> If a Zav was on 
          a pan of a balance scale, and food and drink were on the 
          other pan:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If the Zav outweighed them, they are Teme'im; if 
               they outweighed the Zav, they are Tehorim. 
               (Likewise, if idols outweighs something, it is as if 
               it moves it.)
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE LIMBS OF A NIDAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that a Nidah is not Metamei l'Evarim; her limbs do not cause other things to become Tamei. This principle is difficult to understand. If the woman is alive and she loses a limb, the limb is Metamei because of Ever Min ha'Chai (a severed limb of a living person), which has the same Tum'ah as Tum'as Mes which is Metamei b'Maga, Masa, and Ohel. Accordingly, what difference does it make if it is not Metamei because of Nidah? If, on the other hand, the limb is still attached to her, then it certainly is Metamei whatever it touches, because the limb is part of the body of a Nidah!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> (82b) explains that the limb is severed, and even though it is Metamei because of Tum'as Mes, Tum'as Mes is <i>not</i> Metamei through Even Mesama, whereas Nidah <i>is</i> Metamei through Even Mesama. If this limb is not Metamei because of Nidah, it will not be Metamai through Even Mesama.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav 8:4) says that the limb is not severed but is still attached to the woman's body. It makes a difference that it is not Metamei like a Nidah in a case where a Nidah puts her arm into a Kli Cheres (an earthenware vessel) without touching the sides. A Tamei object which enters the airspace of a Kli Cheres is Metamei the Kli Cheres. However, a Kli Cheres into which a Nidah enters becomes Tamei only when the Nidah enters a Kli Cheres with her entire body. If only her hand goes into a Kli Cheres but her body is not within the vessel's airspace, then the vessel's status of Tahor or Tamei depends on whether the limb of a Nidah is Metamei.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RA'AVAD</b> (ibid.) explains 'Einah Metam'ah l'Evarim' means that a limb of a Nidah cannot cause Tum'as Mishkav or Moshav by resting upon an object. A Nidah cannot make an object Tamei with Tum'as Mishkav u'Moshav unless <i>most</i> of her weight rests on it. Those who maintain that a limb of a Nidah is Metamei independently are of the opinion that a limb of a Nidah <i>can</i> be Metamei Mishkav or Moshav by resting upon an object even if most of the weight of the Nidah is not resting upon it.
</p><p>
<br>


