# dafyomi

lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) MOVING FRAGMENTS ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Bar Hameduri):</font></b> On Shabbos, one may move strands that 
          came off a mattress.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> The mattress itself is made to cover dirt 
          - similarly, the strands are fitting to cover filth!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (R. Zeira):</font></b> One may not move a worn out Talis on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> He refers to rags less than three by three 
          fingers, since they are not fit for rich or poor people.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> Shards of an oven are like regular 
          Kelim, they may be moved in a Chatzer;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, they may not be moved.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi testified in the name of R. Eliezer ben Yakov 
          that shards of an oven may be moved on Shabbos, and that 
          the cover of an oven does not need a handle [to be 
          permitted to be moved].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What do they argue about?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> They argue like they argue in our 
          Mishnah, about whether or not we require that the shards 
          perform a use similar to the original Kli - R. Yehudah 
          requires this, R. Meir does not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> If so, they should discuss fragments of 
          a [any] Kli - why did the Beraisa specify an oven?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> (A normal oven is a box open on bottom 
          and attached to the ground; it is heated by a fire 
          below.) They argue about shards of the following oven:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> If an oven was placed over 
               the opening of a pit or cistern, and a rock was 
               wedged between it and the wall [to hold it up]:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  If a fire below will heat the oven [enough to 
                    bake], it is Tamei; if not, it is Tahor;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, since there is a way to heat it (from 
               inside itself if it would be put on the ground) it 
               is Tamei.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> They argue about 'Tanur v'Chirayim <i>Yutatz</i> Teme'im 
               Hem u'Tme'im Yihyu Lachem':
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, it is Tamei only if it 
                    requires Nesitzah (demolition) - since this 
                    oven must be razed [to put it elsewhere], it is 
                    Tahor;
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> Chachamim expound 'U'Tme'im Yihyu Lachem' - in 
                    any case.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> How do Chachamim expound 'Yutatz'?
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that a proper oven, 
               which is attached to the ground, is [Tahor] like the 
               ground - the verse teaches that this is not so.
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> How does R. Yehudah expound 'U'Tme'im 
               Yihyu Lachem'?
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> He expounds it like Rav Yehudah:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> They argue about the first time 
                    it is heated - but once it was heated [while 
                    attached to the ground] it is Mekabel Tum'ah on 
                    any subsequent heating, even if it hangs from a 
                    camel's neck.
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b><font> (Ula):</font></b> Chachamim Metamei the first time it is 
                    heated, even if it hangs from a camel's neck.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Ashi):</font></b> If so, they should argue about an 
          intact [detached] oven - since R. Yehudah does not 
          consider it a Kli (he is Metaher), all the more so 
          regarding shards!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Support of Answer #1 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Really, they argue about 
          whether or not a use similar to the original Kli is 
          required - the case is, the shards are [heated externally 
          and] used for cooking like tiles; R. Meir addresses R. 
          Yehudah according to R. Yehudah's reasoning:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> I say that any use suffices for it to be Mekabel 
               Tum'ah - granted, you require a use similar to the 
               original Kli - you should agree that this is similar 
               to an oven!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> R. Yehudah:</font></b> This is different - an oven is heated 
               from its inside, these are heated externally; an 
               oven stands upright [and bread is stuck to its 
               walls], these are not upright (they rest on their 
               width)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> R. Yosi testified in the name of R. Eliezer 
          ben Yakov that shards of an oven may be moved on Shabbos, 
          and that the cover of an oven does not need a handle.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question (Ravina):</font></b> We move covers of ovens of Masa 
          Machsiya, which do not have handles - like which Tana is 
          this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is like R. Eliezer ben Yakov.
<br>
<b><font>2) PREPARATION OF AN OBJECT FOR USE ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a rock in a dry hollow pumpkin (used to 
          weigh it down, in order to draw water from a well) does 
          not fall out, we may use it to draw water; if not, not;
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THROWING AN ITEM INTO THE GARBAGE BEFORE SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa says that if a person throws the top of a broken barrel into the garbage, it becomes Muktzah and forbidden to be handled. It loses its status as a usable utensil by virtue of having been discarded. The Gemara questions this statement from the fact that 'a cloak that is thrown into the garbage on Shabbos certainly does not lose its status of a usable cloak.' The Gemara answers that the Beraisa refers to a case in which the barrel lid is thrown away <i>before</i> Shabbos. In such a case, the barrel lid loses its status of a usable utensil and may not be handled when Shabbos enters.
</p><p>
Does this imply that a cloak that is thrown into the garbage before Shabbos is Muktzah on Shabbos?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> and the <b>RITVA</b> explain that an article of clothing does not lose its status as a utensil ('Kli') even when it is thrown into the garbage before Shabbos. Rather, when the Gemara compares a broken vessel to a cloak, it is giving merely a loose comparison in order to prove its point.
</p><p>
If a broken vessel is thrown into the garbage on Shabbos, it is not logical that it should be worse than a cloak thrown into the garbage on Shabbos, because both items were fully usable utensils at the onset of Shabbos. If, however, it is thrown away <i>before</i> Shabbos, it is logical that the broken vessel should lose its status as a usable item, because it had a low level of significant use to begin with. A cloak, on the other hand, has a high level of significant use, and therefore it does not lose its status of a usable utensil even when it is thrown into the garbage before Shabbos.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE BROKEN PIECES OF AN OLD OVEN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites a Tosefta in which Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah argue whether or not the broken pieces of an old oven are considered Muktzah on Shabbos. Rava says that the argument is based on another argument between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah, concerning whether or not an oven that was fired while resting over a pit and not fully attached to the ground surrounding the pit can become Tamei. The issue there is whether an oven which is not attached to the ground is called an 'oven' with regard to the ability to become Tamei or not. Similarly, Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah argue whether broken pieces of an oven, which are no longer attached to the ground, retain their status of a 'usable utensil.'
</p><p>
Why does Rava compare the laws of Muktzah on Shabbos with the laws of Tum'ah? A specific verse teaches that an oven must be attached to the ground in order to become Tamei. The ability to become Tamei is unrelated to Shabbos. In order to be considered Muktzah on Shabbos, it must have <i>no common usage</i>. If this oven (or each of its shards) is still usable, it should not be Muktzah!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RAMBAN</b> says that the normal manner of usage of this type of oven is only when it is attached to the ground. Since that is the normal manner of usage of the oven, when it is not attached it is not considered a usable utensil with regard to Shabbos.
</p><p>
The verse in the Torah teaches that since the normal manner is never to use the oven when it is not attached, it is not considered a utensil in that state and cannot become Tamei. Similarly, with regard to Shabbos, it is not considered a utensil when it is not attached. (It seems that the reasoning behind this is that since a person intends to attach the oven to the ground after Shabbos, he has no intention to use it for any other purpose on Shabbos, and thus it is not considered a usable utensil.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>RASHBA</b> offer a second answer. The argument with regard to the broken pieces of an oven does not involve a whole oven which is not attached, but rather a <i>piece</i> that broke off from such an oven. Since the whole oven itself is <i>less valuable</i> than an ordinary, attached oven (as we see from the argument with regard to whether a detached oven can become Tamei), a broken piece from such an oven is not considered a significant utensil at all.
</p><p>
Rava compares the Tum'ah-status of a detached oven with the utensil-status of a broken piece from such an oven. (Rav Ashi, who challenges Rava's comparison, does not agree with the reasoning of Rava in this matter. According to Rav Ashi, if the oven is considered a utensil, then a broken piece from such an oven is also considered a utensil.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If a vine branch is tied to a flask used to draw water, 
          one may draw with it on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  ('Window' refers to a hole in the wall.) R. Eliezer says, 
          if a window stopper (a board or curtain used to cover the 
          opening) is tied [to the wall] and hangs (does not drag 
          on the ground), one may use it to close a window; if not, 
          not;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, in either case one may use it to close.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Mishnah):</font></b> If a rock is on top of a barrel, one 
          tilts the barrel and the rock falls.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rabah citing R. Ami citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> This is only if 
          he forgot it - if he intentionally left it on, the barrel 
          is a Bosis for Isur.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yosef citing R. Asi citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> This is 
          only if he forgot it - if he intentionally left it on, 
          the rock is a cover (it may be moved normally).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question (Rabah, against himself - Mishnah):</font></b> If a rock in 
          a dry hollow pumpkin does not fall out, we may use it to 
          draw water.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah):</font></b> There, since it fits tightly, it is like 
          a wall of the pumpkin.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Yosef, against himself - Mishnah):</font></b> If the 
          rock falls out, we may not use it to draw.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> There, since he did not make it fit 
          tightly, he shows that he was Mevatel it (he does not 
          consider it to be a wall).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What do they argue about?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rabah requires an action to be done [to make it a 
          Kli], Rav Yosef does not require an action
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  This is like R. Ami and R. Asi taught elsewhere:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Chanina):</font></b> A case occurred, Rebbi came upon a row 
               of rocks and told his Talmidim to have intent to sit 
               on them tomorrow [Shabbos] - he did not require an 
               action;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> He required an action.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What did he do?
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer #1 (R. Ami):</font></b> He told them to arrange them 
               (because they may not move them on Shabbos); 
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer #2 (R. Asi):</font></b> He told them to clean the mud 
               off them (this permits to move them on Shabbos).
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> (R. Yosi ben Sha'ul):</font></b> It was a row of beams (not 
               rocks);
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> (R. Yochanan ben Sha'ul):</font></b> It was a pole used by 
               ships [to feel if the water is too shallow].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  The opinion that it was a ship pole agrees that this 
          would suffice for beams - but the opinion that it was 
          beams would not permit a ship pole so easily, since 
          people are adamant that it not get ruined [they fix a 
          place for it]. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a vine branch is tied...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> If it is not tied, one may not draw with it on 
          Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> Our Mishnah is unlike R. Shimon ben Gamliel:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> If one cut Chariyos (hard, leafless Lulav 
               branches) for the sake of [fire] wood, and then 
               decided to use them to sit on, he must tie them;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, he need not tie them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> It is even like R. Shimon ben 
          Gamliel - the case is the vine branches are connected to 
          the vine.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> It is forbidden to use something attached 
               to the ground!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> He uses them within three Tefachim of the 
               ground (this is permitted).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(t)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> The vine branches are detached - if 
          they are not tied, it is forbidden lest one cut them to 
          size.
<br>
<b><font>3) ADDING TO AN 'OHEL' ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a window stopper...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> All agree that one may not make a 
          new temporary Ohel (roof) on Yom Tov, there is no need to 
          say it is forbidden on Shabbos - they argue about adding 
          to an Ohel:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer forbids adding on Yom Tov, there is no 
               need to say that he forbids on Shabbos;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim permit adding on Shabbos, there is no need 
               to say that they permit on Yom Tov.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) 'MUKTZAH' WITH REGARD TO OBJECTS THAT ARE ATTACHED TO THE GROUND</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> According to the Mishnah, one may draw water with a jug while it hangs from the end of a branch only when the jug was tied there before Shabbos. If the jug was not tied to the branch before Shabbos, the branch is Muktzah. Rav Sheshes asserts that the Mishnah discusses a branch that is still attached to the ground (and is lower than three Tefachim off the ground). If a jug is tied to it before Shabbos it is not Muktzah, since it was 'prepared' for drawing water before Shabbos.
</p><p>
It seems clear from the Gemara that even vegetation that is attached to the ground can be considered Muktzah. Why, then, is one permitted to walk on grass on Shabbos? Since the grass is Muktzah (since it is attached and cannot be used on Shabbos; see Shabbos 121a), when a person walks on it he moves an object of Muktzah!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> 
<br>(a) The <b>PRI MEGADIM</b> (Mishbetzos Zahav OC 336:4) explains that one is permitted to walk on grass since one may move Muktzah objects with one's feet (see Insights to Shabbos 127a and 141a, where we discuss the various opinions on this matter).
</p><p>
(b) <b>HA'GA'ON RAV SHLOMO ZALMAN AUERBACH</b> zt'l (Minchas Shlomo 10:1, fn. 2) explains that since grass returns to its former position by itself after one walks on it, it is not comparable to moving Muktzah.
</p><p>
(c) According to some opinions, moving <i>part</i> of an item that is Muktzah is not prohibited (as ha'Gaon Rav Yisrael Zev Gustman zt'l explained to me; see also Insights to Shabbos 120:3:a). Accordingly, it cannot be prohibited to move Muktzah which is attached to the ground, because one moves only part of the entire Muktzah object (since the ground itself is not being moved). 
</p><p>
Why, then, should one be prohibited to move the branch in order to draw water from the well when the branch was not prepared before Shabbos?
</p><p>
The Gemara explains that one not only <i>moves</i> the branch, but he also <i>uses</i> it (to draw water). Perhaps one is prohibited only to <i>use</i> Muktzah that is attached to the ground. One is permitted to trample grass while he walks, since he does not <i>use</i> the grass, but rather he walks upon it. (See Rashba to Shabbos 29a, cited in Insights to Shabbos 28:3:a, who discusses the possibility that using Muktzah while one touches it is worse than merely touching it). (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) COVERS AND BOLTS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - Chachamim):</font></b> In either case one may use it to 
          close.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does it mean 'in either case'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Aba):</font></b> It means, whether or not it is tied - 
          but it must be prepared from before Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Yirmiyah):</font></b> You should say 'whether or not it 
          hangs - but it must be tied'!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> They argue here just like 
               they argue about a dragging bolt (this will be 
               defined).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> One may use a dragging bolt to lock in 
               the Mikdash, but not outside the Mikdash;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> If it is [not tied, rather,] resting [on the ground] 
               it is forbidden everywhere.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, if it is resting it is permitted in 
               the Mikdash, if it drags it is permitted [even] 
               outside the Mikdash.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa) Question:</font></b> What is the 'dragging' bolt 
               permitted in the Mikdash and forbidden outside?
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Answer #1:</font></b> It is tied to the wall, hangs down and 
               reaches the ground.
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says this is permitted even outside the 
               Mikdash!
       <br><b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b><font> Answer #2 (R. Yehudah):</font></b> The bolt permitted only in 
               the Mikdash is neither tied nor hanging; one removes 
               it and leaves it in a corner.
       <br><b>   <b><font>9.  </font></b><font> (R. Yehoshua bar Aba):</font></b> The Tana of Answer #1 is R. 
               Eliezer [in our Mishnah - it follows that Chachamim 
               of our Mishnah hold like R. Yehudah, who requires it 
               to be tied to permit outside the Mikdash].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Aba):</font></b> I hold like the following Tana:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> If a commoner designated a stick to use 
               to open and to lock, he may do so [on Shabbos] only 
               if it is tied and hanging;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if it is prepared [it is 
               permitted], even if it is not tied and hanging.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah bar Shilas citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> The Halachah 
          follows R. Shimon ben Gamliel.
<br>
<b><font>2) MOVING COVERS ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> R. Yochanan contradicts himself!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> Any cover that has a handle may be moved 
               on Shabbos.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'TERUMAH TEME'AH' IS MUKTZAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that Terumah Tehorah may be moved on Shabbos. Terumah Teme'ah, in contrast, is Muktzah and may not be moved on Shabbos. 
</p><p>
Why is Terumah Teme'ah Muktzah? It has a useful purpose on Shabbos -- it is fit to be fed to dogs. The Gemara in Pesachim (32a) states that one may feed Terumah Teme'ah which is Chametz to a dog.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that on Yom Tov, a person may not give Terumah Teme'ah to a dog, because such an act is considered a fulfillment of the Mitzvah to destroy Terumah Teme'ah, which one may not do on Yom Tov.
</p><p>
Why, though, is one not permitted to destroy Terumah Teme'ah on Yom Tov? The Gemara earlier in Shabbos (24b) says that one may not burn Kodshim Teme'im on Yom Tov. The Mitzvah to burn Kodshim Teme'im does not override the prohibition of kindling a fire on Yom Tov (when the fire is not made for the sake of food preparation). However, that applies only when there is an Isur d'Oraisa that would be transgressed by burning the Kodshim (such as kindling a fire). What Isur d'Oraisa is there in feeding something to a dog on Shabbos? Why should it be forbidden to give a dog Terumah Teme'ah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> in Beitzah (27b) explains that the fact that it is a Mitzvah to burn Kodshim makes the act of burning a 'significant act,' which is considered a Melachah on Yom Tov ('Ach'shevei l'Melachah'). Since the Torah gives this act a high level of significance, it is included in the category of 'Melachah' and in the prohibition against performing Melachah on Yom Tov.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Beitzah disagrees with Rashi. The reason why one may not give Terumah Teme'ah to his dog on Yom Tov is because there is a specific Mitzvah to <i>burn</i> Terumah Teme'ah. (Even though the verse does not specify that the Terumah must be burned, it does mention burning with regard to Kodshim, and Terumah is learned from Kodshim.) Therefore, Terumah Teme'ah is Muktzah because it may not even be fed to a dog, but it must be burned. (Only Terumah Teme'ah which is Chametz, and which must be destroyed, may be fed to a dog.)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Rav Yehudah bar Shilas citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> This is 
               only if it is like a Kli (Rashi - it is fit for use 
               by itself; Tosfos - it was prepared for use).
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps R. Shimon ben Gamliel also 
               requires the bolt to be like a Kli!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Rejection (Beraisa):</font></b> If one cut Chariyos (hard, 
               leafless Lulav branches) for the sake of [fire] 
               wood, and then decided to use them to sit on, he 
               must tie them;
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, he need not tie them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yochanan holds like R. Shimon ben Gamliel in 
          one respect (if it is prepared, it need not be tied or 
          hanging), he argues with him regarding whether or not it 
          must be like a Kli.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (R. Yitzchak Nafcha):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Eliezer 
          (who requires that it be tied).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Amram - Mishnah):</font></b> From their words (an 
          episode in the days of R. Tzadok's father) we learn that 
          one may close [a window with something that is not tied 
          and hanging], measure [a Mikvah or rag] and tie [a 
          non-permanent knot] on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Counter-question (Abaye):</font></b> Do you ask because that is a 
          Stam Mishnah [like Chachamim]? There is also a Stam 
          Mishnah like R. Eliezer, that of the bolt (Amud A)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Amram):</font></b> My Stam is preferable, because an act 
          was done [to be lenient, they must have been sure that 
          this is the Halachah].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Any cover that has a handle may be moved on 
          Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi says, this applies to a cover of land [e.g. a 
          pit] - covers of Kelim may be moved in any case.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Rav Yehudah bar Shilas):</font></b> This is only if it is 
          like a Kli.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  All agree that a cover of land may be moved only if it 
          has a handle handle (otherwise, it is like building);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  All agree that covers of Kelim may be moved even if they 
          have no handle;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Version #1:</font></b> They argue about Kelim that were attached to 
          the ground - the first Tana decrees on account of covers 
          of land, R. Yosi does not decree.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Version #2:</font></b> They argue about covers of ovens - the first 
          Tana considers them like covers of land, R. Yosi 
          considers them like covers of Kelim.
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>***** <b>PEREK MEFANIN</b> *****
</b></font></center><p>
<br><br><b><font>3) MOVING FOOD TO MAKE ROOM TO SIT ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We may clear out even four or five boxes of 
          straw or grain, to make room for guests or Talmidim in 
          the Beis Medrash, but one may not clear out a storehouse;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  We may clear out Tahor Terumah, Demai (doubtfully tithed 
          produce), Ma'aser Rishon from which Terumah was taken, 
          Ma'aser Sheni and Hekdesh that were redeemed and dry 
          lupines, for goats [alternatively - poor people] eat it;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  We may not clear out Tevel, Ma'aser Rishon from which 
          Terumah was not taken, Ma'aser Sheni and Hekdesh that 
          were not redeemed, Luf (arum, a type of legume) or 
          mustard;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon permits mustard, for ravens eat it;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  If bundles of straw, wood and soft pruned reeds were 
          prepared for animals to eat, one may move them; if not, 
          not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> If we may clear out five boxes, there 
          is no need to say that four are permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Chisda):</font></b> We may clear out four out of five 
          boxes (but not everything), or five out of a big 
          storehouse.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does it mean 'but one may not clear out a 
          storehouse'? (The Reisha forbids totally clearing it 
          out!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One may not begin to clear out a storehouse 
          [because the contents are Muktzeh];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is like R. Yehudah, who forbids Muktzeh.
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) HOW MUCH MAY WE CLEAR OUT ON SHABBOS?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Shmuel):</font></b> The Tana speaks like people - he says 
          four or five, the same applies to more.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does it mean 'but one may not clear out a 
          storehouse'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One may not totally clear it out, lest one even 
          out nooks in the floor.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> One may begin to clear out a storehouse - this 
          is like R. Shimon, who permits Muktzeh.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One may not begin to clear out a storehouse, 
          but one may make a path in order to get in and out.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If one may not begin to clear it, how may one 
          make a path?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One may make a path with his legs when he enters 
          and leaves (Muktzeh may not be moved normally, i.e. with 
          the hands).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Shimon):</font></b> If one started to use a pile of 
          grain before Shabbos, he may use it on Shabbos [to feed 
          his animals]; if not, not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  R. Acha permits.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> R. Shimon is the most lenient regarding 
          Muktzeh!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, the first Tana is R. Acha; R. Shimon 
          permits.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> The Shi'ur of a pile of grain is 15 Sa'im.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Nechumi bar Zecharyah):</font></b> What is the Shi'ur 
          of a pile of grain?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> We learned that it is 15 Sa'im!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> [According to Rav Chisda] the Mishnah permits 
          four or five boxes [of straw or grain] - must it be in at 
          most four or five boxes, because it is best to minimize 
          walking?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Or, is it best to minimize the load (so one may 
               carry this quantity in many small Kelim)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer (Beraisa #1):</font></b> We may clear out four or five boxes 
          of jugs of wine and oil;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa #2):</font></b> We may clear out 10 or 15.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Tana #1 holds that it is best to 
               minimize walking. Tana #2 holds that it is best to 
               minimize the load.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> No, all agree that it is best to minimize 
          walking,
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Beraisa #2 does not permit 10 or 15 boxes, rather, 
               10 or 15 jugs;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Beraisa #1 discusses large jugs, only one fits in 
               each box; Beraisa #2 discusses small jugs, two fit 
               in each box, or three, like jugs of Herpanya.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Question #1:</font></b> [According to Rav Chisda] the Mishnah 
          permits four or five boxes - is this even if there are 
          many guests, or is it proportional to the amount of 
          guests?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question #2:</font></b> If you will say that it is proportional 
               to the amount of guests - does one person clear all 
               of them, or does everyone clear for himself?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Answer (to Question #1):</font></b> Rava said that Rebbi once went 
          to a place and found that the Talmidim were too crowded - 
          Rebbi went to a field full of stacks, Rebbi piled them 
          all up [to make room];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Yosef reported a similar episode with R. Chiya.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This shows that it is proportional to the amount of 
               guests, but we did not resolve whether one person 
               clears all of them, or if everyone clears for 
               himself.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> It also answers Question #2 - it says 
               that Rebbi piled them all up!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(t)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> Surely, Rebbi did not do so himself (he was 
          too dignified - the same applies to R. Chiya), rather, he 
          commanded to clear them - perhaps he commanded everyone 
          to clear room for himself.
<br>
<b><font>2) HOSTING GUESTS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> To make room for guests.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Hosting guests is as great as coming early 
          to the Beis Medrash - the Mishnah says, to make room for 
          guests or Talmidim in the Beis Medrash.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rav Dimi of Neharda'a):</font></b> Hosting guests is greater than 
          coming early to the Beis Medrash - making room for guests 
          is taught before making room for Talmidim!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Hosting guests is greater than receiving 
          the Shechinah - (Avraham was talking with Hash-m, and 
          interrupted in order to host guests,) 'Im Na Motzosi Chen 
          b'Einecha Al Na Sa'avor me'Al Avdecha'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> This shows [another way] that Hash-m is 
          unlike people - a less important person cannot tell a 
          more important person to wait for him, yet Avraham could 
          say so to Hash-m!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> There are six things for which a person 
          receives dividends [of his reward] in this world, and the 
          principal is intact for him in the world to come - 
          hosting guests, investigating the needs of the sick, 
          concentration in prayer, coming early to the Beis 
          Medrash, raising one's children to learn Torah, and 
          judging one's fellow man favorably.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> Regarding the following, a person 
          receives dividends in this world, and the principal is 
          intact for him in the world to come - honoring parents; 
          bestowing Chesed; and making peace between people; 
          learning Torah is equivalent to all of them.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> These are the only ones!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: MOVING MUKTZAH WITH DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE BODY</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara says that, according to Rebbi Yehudah, even though one is not permitted to move the barrels of straw and grain in a storehouse if they were not prepared for use before Shabbos, one may nevertheless move the barrels with his feet as he walks in order to enter and exit.
</p><p>
The implies that one is permitted to move Muktzah with parts of his body other than his hands. Is this the Halachah? Is one permitted to move Muktzah with parts of his body in order to get it out of his way?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 311:8) rules like the <b>ROSH</b> (43b) who quotes the Mishnah (141a) that teaches that one may move straw on a bed with his elbow (or some other part of his body that he usually does not use to move such items) in order to lie down, even though the straw is Muktzah. From that Mishnah, the Rosh deduces that one is permitted to move Muktzah with a part of the body other than the hands. The <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> (OC 308:13) rules like this as well.
</p><p>
(b) However, the <b>CHAZON ISH</b> (OC 47:13) cites proof from the Gemara here to the contrary. A person may move Muktzah objects in a storehouse with his feet while he walks in order to enter and exit. <b>RASHI</b> (DH b'Raglo) explains that 'he moves it with his foot... <i>while he walks</i>.' This implies that he may not move the Muktzah in a <i>clearly intentional</i> act, even if he does so with his foot.
</p><p>
How does the Chazon Ish explain the Mishnah later with regard to the bed of straw? The Chazon Ish explains, based on his interpretation of the <b>RAMBAN</b> (in Milchamos there) and the <b>RAN</b> (43b), that the Sugya there refers to moving the straw <i>indirectly</i>, by lying on the bed. The Mishnah there is similar to the Gemara here, which permits one to move Muktzah while he ostensibly performs another act. The Chazon Ish asserts that this is also the intention of the Rosh. (See Insights to Shabbos 141:1 for more on this subject.)
</p><p>
(It is not clear why the Chazon Ish mentions that he argues only with the Mishnah Berurah, when the Shulchan Aruch himself seems to rule the same way as the Mishnah Berurah.)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Shabbos 26:15) appears to have an entirely different understanding of the Gemara. According to his understanding, the Gemara does not refer to moving the Muktzah with one's foot, but rather to smoothing the inconsistencies in the floor with one's foot. Accordingly, there is no proof from here that one may move Muktzah with one's foot in any manner.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rav Yehudah's six are included in the four of the 
          Mishnah (hosting guests, Bikur Cholim and concentration 
          in prayer are Chasadim; coming early to the Beis Medrash 
          and raising one's children to learn Torah are included in 
          learning Torah; judging favorably makes peace between 
          people).
<br>
<b><font>3) JUDGING ONE'S FELLOW MAN FAVORABLY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If one judges his fellow man favorably, he is 
          judged favorably;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  It happened that a man from the north hired himself out 
          to someone in the south for three years; at the end on 
          Erev Yom Kipur, he requested his wages so he could feed 
          his wife and children.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The employer said that he had no money. The worker 
          requested produce; the employer said that he had none. 
          The worker successively requested land, animals, pillows 
          and blankets; and received the same answer each time. The 
          worker went home dejected.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  After Sukos, the employer brought the wages to him along 
          with three donkeys, one full of food, one with drink, and 
          one with delicacies. After they ate and drank, he asked 
          'What did you suspect when I denied having everything you 
          requested?'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  The worker:</font></b> When you denied having money, I thought, 
          perhaps you found merchandise at a bargain price and 
          spent all your money; regarding animals and land, perhaps 
          they are rented out to others; regarding produce, perhaps 
          it is not tithed yet; regarding pillows and blankets, 
          perhaps you were Makdish all your possessions.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  The employer:</font></b> You were right! I was Makdish them on 
          account of my son Hurkenus, who did not engage in Torah - 
          afterwards, my colleagues in the south permitted my vows;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Just like you judged me favorably, Hash-m should 
               judge you favorably!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> A case occurred, a Chasid redeemed a Bas 
          Yisrael; at the inn, he had her sleep at the foot of his 
          bed. The next morning he immersed and taught his 
          Talmidim.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> The Chasid:</font></b> When I had her sleep at the foot of my 
               bed, what did you suspect?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> The Talmidim:</font></b> Perhaps you are unsure about one of us 
               [so you must guard her];
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> The Chasid:</font></b> When I immersed, what did you suspect?
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> The Talmidim:</font></b> Perhaps you had an emission on account 
               of exertion of travelling.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> The Chasid:</font></b> You were right! Just like you judged me 
               favorably, Hash-m should judge you favorably!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> There was a Nochris that all the important men 
          of Romi were frequent with; once, Chachamim needed 
          something from her - R. Yehoshua volunteered to go.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  His Talmidim escorted him. He removed his Tefilin four 
          Amos from her house, entered and locked the door. After 
          he left, he immersed and taught his Talmidim.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> R. Yehoshua:</font></b> When I removed my Tefilin, what did you 
               suspect?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> The Talmidim:</font></b> Kedushah should not enter a place of 
               Tum'ah!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> R. Yehoshua:</font></b> When I locked the door, what did you 
               suspect?
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> The Talmidim:</font></b> Perhaps you must tell her something 
               about the kingdom that must be kept secret.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> R. Yehoshua:</font></b> When I immersed, what did you suspect?
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> The Talmidim:</font></b> Perhaps spit from her mouth came on 
               your clothing (mid'Rabanan, a Nochri is like a 
               Nidah, one who carries her spit becomes Tamei).
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> R. Yehoshua:</font></b> You were right! Just like you judged me 
               favorably, Hash-m should judge you favorably!
<br>
<b><font>4) FOODS THAT MAY BE MOVED ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We may clear out Tahor Terumah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This is obvious (it is edible)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, a Yisrael has it; one might have 
          thought, since he may not eat it he may not move it - the 
          Mishnah teaches that this is not so, since Kohanim may 
          eat it anyone may move it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Demai.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> He may not eat it!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Since if he would make his property Hefker, he 
          would be [an Oni and] permitted to eat it, he may move 
          it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> We may feed Demai to an Oni or a guest.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Rav Huna - Beraisa - Beis Shamai):</font></b> We may not feed 
               Demai to an Oni or a guest;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Beis Hillel permit Demai to an Oni or a guest.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Ma'aser Rishon from which Terumah was taken.
<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> The case is, the Levi received Ma'aser Rishon 
          from sheaves and separated Terumas Ma'aser from it, but 
          Terumah Gedolah was not taken, like R. Avahu taught:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Avahu):</font></b> If a Levi received Ma'aser Rishon from 
               sheaves, it is exempt from Terumah Gedolah - 
               'Va'Haremosem Mimenu Terumas Hash-m Ma'aser Min 
               ha'Ma'aser' - a Levi must give [only Terumas] 
               Ma'aser from Ma'aser, not Terumah Gedolah and 
               Terumas Ma'aser from Ma'aser.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question (Rav Papa):</font></b> If so, the verse should exempt 
               even if he received Ma'aser Rishon from a Kri (pile 
               of grain)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer (Abaye):</font></b> In this case we apply 'Mi'Kol 
               Matnoseichem Tarimu'.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Why not exempt Ma'aser from a Kri and 
               obligate Ma'aser from sheaves?
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> We obligate Ma'aser from a Kri because it is 
               considered Degen (processed grain, from which 
               Terumah must be given), sheaves are not considered 
               Degen.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Ma'aser Sheni and Hekdesh that were redeemed, 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This is obvious!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, the principal was given, the added 
          Chomesh was not given;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah teaches that giving the extra Chomesh is 
               not Me'akev the Pidyon.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> And dry lupines.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  Only dry lupines are permitted, but not wet, for wet ones 
          are bitter, they are not eaten.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE IDENTITY OF 'A CERTAIN CHASID'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates an incident involving 'a certain Chasid' ('Ma'aseh b'Chasid Echad') who redeemed a girl from captivity. When he and his students traveled back with the redeemed girl, they lodged at an inn and the Chasid slept with the girl at his feet. In the morning, he immersed himself in a Mikvah. His students accurately judged him favorably when they assumed that he had immersed in order to purify himself from Keri that occurred to him as a result of the stress of traveling. <b>RASHI</b> points out that wherever the Gemara mentions 'a certain Chasid,' it refers to either Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava or Rebbi Yehudah b'Rebbi Ila'i, as the Gemara elsewhere states (Bava Kama 103b, Temurah 15b). 
</p><p>
Why does Rashi mention this fact here, and not in the other places in the Gemara where 'a certain Chasid' is mentioned (such as in Berachos 18b)?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH</b> (cited by the Gilyon ha'Shas) quotes an answer he heard from the <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b>. In the incident in the Gemara here, the Chasid immersed himself in a Mikvah because of Keri. Rashi was bothered by the fact that we rule like Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah, who states that there is no obligation to immerse for Keri, because 'Divrei Torah cannot become Tamei' (Berachos 22a). Rashi answers that this Chasid was Rebbi Yehudah b'Rebbi Ila'i, who maintains that one must immerse for Keri (ibid.).
</p><p>
The <b>RASHASH</b> challenges this answer. In the next incident recorded in the Gemara, Rebbi Yehoshua immersed himself before he taught Torah to his students, because he had become Tamei by the spit of a Nochri woman, which has the status of the spit of a Zavah. Why did he find it necessary to go to the Mikvah? Even a Zav himself is permitted to learn Torah, according to all opinions! Only a Ba'al Keri is prohibited from learning Torah, according to some. It is obvious, therefore, that he must have immersed as a stringency, beyond the letter of the law. It is logical to assume that in the previous case as well, the Chasid immersed as a stringency, in which case that Chasid could have been Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah!
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) FOODS PEOPLE DO NOT NORMALLY EAT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We may not clear out Tevel. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This is obvious!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah teaches that even Tevel mid'Rabanan 
          may not be moved, e.g. it grew in a flowerpot without a 
          hole (it does not nurture from the ground).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Nor Ma'aser Rishon from which Terumah was not 
          taken.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This is obvious!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, a Levi received Ma'aser Rishon from 
          a Kri; Terumas Ma'aser was taken but Terumah Gedolah was 
          not;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One might have thought [that it is exempt from 
               Terumah Gedolah] like Rav Papa's question - the 
               Mishnah teaches, this is not so, like Abaye's 
               answer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Nor Ma'aser Sheni or Hekdesh that was not 
          redeemed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This is obvious!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, they were redeemed, but improperly;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Ma'aser Sheni was redeemed on an Asimon (a slug), 
               the Torah requires 'V'<i>Tzar</i>ta ha'Kesef b'Yadecha', 
               a [minted] coin with a Tzurah (form).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Hekdesh was redeemed onto land, not money;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  It says that one will give the money 'V'Kam Lo' 
                    (then the Hekdesh will be [redeemed, and hence] 
                    his).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> And not Luf.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One may move Chatzav (squill) because deer eat 
          it, and mustard because doves eat it;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, one may even move broken 
          glass, because ostriches eat it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Objection (R. Noson):</font></b> If so, you should also permit 
          moving bundles of twigs, because elephants eat them!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> Ostriches are common, 
          elephants are rare.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Ameimar):</font></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel permits broken glass 
          only if he has an ostrich.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Ashi):</font></b> If so, why did R. Noson ask about 
          bundles of twigs - if he has an elephant, indeed he may 
          move them! 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rather, R. Shimon ben Gamliel permits broken glass 
               to everyone, for it is fitting to have an ostrich - 
               R. Noson asks the same should apply to bundles of 
               twigs, it is fitting to have an elephant!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> The following Tana'im hold that all of Benei 
          Yisrael are princes - R. Shimon ben Gamliel, R. Shimon, 
          R. Yishmael and R. Akiva:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> We already discussed R. Shimon ben Gamliel (he 
               permits Luf and broken glass, since it is fitting 
               for princes to have ravens and ostriches).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> R. Shimon - (Mishnah):</font></b> Princes may rub rose oil on 
               their wounds on Shabbos, for they anoint themselves 
               with it even when they have no wound;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  R. Shimon says all Benei Yisrael are princes.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> R. Yishmael and R. Akiva - (Beraisa):</font></b> If Shimon owed 
               1000 Zuz, and was wearing a garment worth 10,000, we 
               make him sell it and buy something fitting for 
               himself;
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Yishmael and R. Akiva):</font></b> Any Yisrael is 
               fitting for such a garment (he need not sell it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Bundles of straw, wood...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If bundles of straw, wood and soft pruned 
          reeds were prepared for animals to eat, one may move 
          them; if not, not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(t)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if a bundle can be moved with 
          one hand, he may move it; if it requires two hands, he 
          may not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(u)</font></b></b>  Bundles of Se'ah, Ezov and Koranis (these will be 
          explained):
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If one gathered them for fuel, he may not eat them 
               on Shabbos;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If he gathered them for (animal - Gra deletes this 
               from the text) food, he may eat them on Shabbos, but 
               he must cut them by hand, not with a Kli.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> He rolls them between his fingertips [to crush 
               them], but he may not roll a lot, as he does on a 
               weekday.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> The same applies to mint, rue and all spices.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Se'ah is pennyroyal (a kind of mint);
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> Ezov is hyssop, and Koranis is thyme.
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Objection:</font></b> But a man announced that he was selling 
               Koranis, and he was found to be selling savory!
       <br><b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b><font> Correction:</font></b> Rather, Se'ah is pennyroyal, Ezov is 
               hyssop, and Koranis is savory. 
<br>
<b><font>2) MOVING FOODS WE DO NOT EAT ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  One may move salted meat;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> One may move unsalted meat;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> One may not move it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But Rav Huna was a Talmid of Rav, and Rav holds 
          like R. Yehudah, who forbids Muktzeh!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rav forbids eating Muktzeh like R. Yehudah, but 
          he permits moving it like R. Shimon.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Rav Chisda forbids moving unsalted meat - but 
          Rav Yitzchak bar Ami visited Rav Chisda's house, and Rav 
          Chisda commanded to move a [slaughtered] goose from the 
          sun to the shade, lest it spoil!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> An unsalted goose is different, for it is fitting 
          to eat it raw.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One may move salted fish, but not unsalted 
          fish (people cannot eat it at all, and one would not feed 
          it to an animal);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  One may move meat whether or not it is salted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa is R. Shimon, who permits Muktzeh.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One may move bones, for dogs eat them;
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: HANDLING ANIMAL FODDER ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>HALACHAH:</b> The Beraisa teaches that one may handle objects that can be fed to animals on Shabbos, such as mustard seeds that are fed to doves, and pieces of glass that are fed to ostriches. Ameimar says that one may handle pieces of glass only if he personally owns ostriches. Rav Ashi says that he may handle glass even though he does not own ostriches, because he is fit to own ostriches. (The Halachic consensus follows the ruling of Ameimar. One must own, or have access to, ostriches in order to be permitted to move glass on Shabbos.)
</p><p>
This Beraisa appears to contradict the Mishnah earlier (126b). First, the Beraisa states that mustard seeds may be handled because they can be used as feed for doves. The Mishnah, though, states that one may <i>not</i> handle mustard seeds. Second, the Beraisa states that items may be handled if they are fit to be fed to animals. The Mishnah, though, states that bundles of straw -- which are fit to be fed to animals -- may be handled only if they were <i>prepared</i> before Shabbos as food for animals.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHBA</b> says that the Beraisa and the Mishnah indeed argue with each other. Both agree with the general principle that one is permitted to handle objects only when the <i>normal usage</i> of that object is a permitted one. Hence, mustard seeds may be handled only if the normal usage of mustard seeds is to feed them to doves. The Beraisa and Mishnah dispute what the normal use of mustard seeds is. According to the Mishnah, the normal use of mustard is for man, and not for birds. The Beraisa maintains that it is also normally used as food for birds. (Alternatively, the Beraisa and Mishnah agree about the frequency at which mustard is fed to birds. They argue whether this degree of frequency is considered a normal use or not.)
</p><p>
Bundles of straw are normally used for <i>burning</i>, and not fodder. Therefore, the Mishnah states that it must be prepared before Shabbos as animal fodder in order to be permitted to be handled on Shabbos. The Beraisa does not argue with this point.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RIF</b> and <b>RAMBAM</b>, according to the <b>RAN</b>, explain that the Beraisa and Mishnah are not arguing. Rather, the permissibility to use these objects depends on the practice in the place. In a place where it is common to raise doves, mustard seeds may be handled. The Mishnah, though, refers to a place where people do not raise doves, and therefore mustard seeds may not be handled.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The Rishonim conclude that anything that is commonly fed to an animal that is either commonly owned in this place or owned by the person in question, is permitted to be moved on Shabbos (OC 308:29).
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN UNPREPARED FISH AND UNPREPARED MEAT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites a Beraisa that states that unsalted fish is Muktzah and may not be handled on Shabbos, and that unsalted meat is not Muktzah and may be handled on Shabbos. <b>RASHI</b> explains that unsalted fish is Muktzah because it is not fit for use today, since people do not throw unsalted fish to dogs. (Presumably, they intend to cook it and eat it themselves after Shabbos.)
</p><p>
Why is unsalted meat different? Unsalted meat should also be Muktzah for the same reason; it will be cooked and eaten after Shabbos rather than fed to dogs!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> (142b) and <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Dag) explain that this Beraisa follows the opinion of Rebbi Shimon (Beitzah 27b), who maintains that something that is prepared for human consumption after Shabbos is <i>not</i> Muktzah on Shabbos and may be fed to dogs. Therefore, even though one plans to cook and eat the meat after Shabbos, it is permitted because it is fit for dogs. Fish is Muktzah <i>not</i> because one plans to eat it himself after Shabbos, but because it is not normally fed to dogs. Since unsalted fish is not even fit for dogs, it is Muktzah.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> suggest a second answer. One throws neither fish nor meat to dogs, because dogs are able to fend for themselves. Meat, though, is not Muktzah, because it is common to throw meat to a domesticated wild animal (Chayah), which is unable to fend well for itself. Unsalted fish is not thrown even to a wild animal.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  One may move rotten meat, for Chayos eat it;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  One may move water that was left exposed (perhaps a snake 
          drank from it and inserted poison), for one can give it 
          to cats (it does not harm them);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel forbids leaving around exposed 
          water, lest a person drink it.
<br>
<b><font>3) MOVING ANIMALS ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may tilt a basket on its side in front of 
          chicks to enable them to climb or descend on it;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If a hen fled, one may push it [with his hands] until it 
          enters [the coop];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  One may Medadeh calves and colts (hold them and make them 
          to walk);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  A woman may Medadeh her son;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, this is if he picks up his feet and 
          steps - but if he drags his feet, it is forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Rav Yehudah):</font></b> If an animal fell into an 
          irrigation ditch, one puts pillows and blankets under it 
          - if it climbs out, fine (but one may not take it out).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> If an animal fell into an irrigation 
          ditch, one brings food to it so it will not die.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> One brings food to it, not pillows and 
               blankets!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One may put pillows and blankets only if it is 
          impossible to bring food to it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This will make the pillows and blankets Muktzeh 
          (they may not be moved when the animal is on them - one 
          may not make a Kli Muktzeh, for this is like breaking it 
          or plastering it in place)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He holds that the Isur to make a Kli Muktzeh is 
          only mid'Rabanan, and mid'Oraisa we are concerned for 
          pain to animals - the mid'Oraisa concern overrides the 
          mid'Rabanan.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a hen fled [one may push it].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> One may push it, one may not Medadeh it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  Our Mishnah teaches like the following Beraisa:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> One may Medadeh Chayos, Behemos and birds 
               in a Chatzer, but not in Reshus ha'Rabim, but not a 
               hen.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Why is a hen forbidden?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer (Abaye):</font></b> It lifts itself off the ground 
               (then, the person is really carrying it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #1):</font></b> One may Medadeh Chayos, Behemos and birds 
          in a Chatzer, but not in Reshus ha'Rabim; a woman may 
          Medadeh her son in Reshus ha'Rabim, there is no need to 
          say it is permitted in a Chatzer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #2):</font></b> One may not Oker (lift off the ground) 
          Chayos, Behemos or birds in a Chatzer, but one may push 
          them, until they enter.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> It says one may not Oker - implying that one 
          may Medadeh; then it says one may push them - implying 
          that one may not Medadeh!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> The Seifa applies to a hen.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> If one slaughters a hen, he should bend its feet 
          against the ground or lift it totally off the ground 
          (lest it dig its feet into the ground, and the Simanim 
          will be uprooted).
<br>
<b><font>4) HELPING ANIMALS GIVE BIRTH ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not pull the fetus from an animal on 
          Yom Tov, but he may help it give birth (this will be 
          explained);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  One may pull the fetus from a woman on Shabbos, call a 
          midwife from another place, Mechalel Shabbos for her (the 
          mother), and tie the umbilical cord;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi says, one may even cut it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  One may do all needs of Milah (circumcision) on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> How may one help an animal give birth?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> One holds the baby so it does 
          not fall to the ground.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> One presses on the mother to 
          help push the fetus out.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Support (for Rav Yehudah - Beraisa):</font></b> To help an animal 
          give birth, one holds the baby so it does not fall to the 
          ground, and blows into its nose (it is clogged with 
          mucus), and puts the udder into its mouth so it will 
          nurse.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, on Yom Tov we would make a 
          Tahor mother love her calf.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What would they do?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> They put a handful of salt in the womb, 
          so it will remember its pain of birth, and sprinkle on 
          the calf water in which the placenta was soaked, so it 
          will smell it and love it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> We do this for Tehorim, not for Teme'im.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> A Teme'ah does not normally distance her child - 
          if she does, she will not love it afterwards.
<br>
<b><font>5) 'CHILUL SHABBOS' FOR A 'YOLEDES'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may pull the fetus from a woman... on 
          Shabbos, call a midwife from another place, Mechalel 
          Shabbos for the mother, and tie the umbilical cord;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Mishnah permits to extract the fetus and 
          call a midwife from another place - what is added by 
          saying 'We may Mechalel Shabbos for her'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> If she needs a lamp, others may light a 
          lamp for her; if she needs oil, they may bring oil for 
          her in the palm (a Shinuy (deviation) from the normal way 
          (in a Kli));
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If they cannot bring enough oil in the palm, they 
               bring in their hair (they anoint their hair with 
               oil, the Yoledes will wipe herself on their hair); 
               if this will not suffice, they may bring in a Kli.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa permits lighting a lamp for her if 
          she needs it - this is obvious!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The case is she is blind;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One might have thought, since she cannot see it is 
               forbidden - the Mishnah teaches that this is not so, 
               it calms her to know that it is light and others can 
               see her needs.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If she needs oil [...if not, they bring in 
          their hair].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> [Why is this better than bringing in a Kli -] 
          this is also Chilul Shabbos, i.e. squeezing!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rabah and Rav Yosef):</font></b> Squeezing does not apply 
          to hair.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Even if squeezing applies to hair, 
          she brings a Kli in her hair - whenever possible, we use 
          a Shinuy.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) HALACHAH: DOING 'MELACHAH' ON SHABBOS FOR A WOMAN GIVING BIRTH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa says that if a woman in childbirth needs a certain item such as oil, her friend may carry it to her through Reshus ha'Rabim, but she must carry it with a deviation from the normal way of carrying. She should perform the Melachah with a Shinuy, wherever possible, in order to minimize the desecration of Shabbos.
</p><p>
This implies that the laws of Shabbos are not suspended and permitted ('Hutrah') for the sake of Piku'ach Nefesh, but rather they are still in force but merely overridden ('Dechuyah') for the sake of Piku'ach Nefesh. Had they been completely suspended, it would be permitted to do a Melachah for the sake of Piku'ach Nefesh without any Shinuy. Why, then, do the Poskim rule that Shabbos is 'Hutrah' for the sake of Piku'ach Nefesh (see <b>BI'UR HALACHAH</b> OC 328 who cites the <b>ROSH</b> and <b>MAHARAM MI'ROTENBURG</b> who ascribe to this view)?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> (OC 330:5) explains that a woman in labor is considered to be in a lesser degree of danger than someone who is in mortal danger due to another cause, because birth is a natural and common situation which normally does not result in death, even though it is dangerous. Therefore, when Shabbos must be desecrated for a woman in childbirth, if it is possible to be Mechalel Shabbos with a Shinuy, then one should use a Shinuy. In other cases of Piku'ach Nefesh, however, no effort should be made to do the Melachah with a Shinuy. (See Insights to Nidah 38:5.)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) 'CHILUL SHABBOS' FOR A 'YOLEDES' (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (Rav Ashi - Rav Yehudah):</font></b> As long as the womb 
          is open, we Mechalel Shabbos for her, whether or not she 
          says that she needs;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> After the womb is closed, we do not Mechalel Shabbos 
               for her, even if (Rosh's text - unless) she says 
               that she needs.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (Mar Zutra - Rav Yehudah):</font></b> As long as the womb 
          is open, we Mechalel Shabbos for her, whether or not she 
          says that she needs;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> After the womb is closed, we Mechalel Shabbos for 
               her if she says that she needs, not if she says that 
               she does not need (Rosh's text - we Mechalel unless 
               she says that she does not need).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (Ravina):</font></b> Mar Zutra's version is more lenient 
          than Rav Ashi's - whom does the Halachah follow?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (Mereimar):</font></b> We follow Mar Zutra's - we are lenient 
          regarding Safek Piku'ach Nefesh.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> From when is the womb open?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> It is open from when she sits on the 
          birthing stool.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> It is from when 
          blood exudes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #3:</font></b> It is from when she [cannot walk and] needs to 
          be carried.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Until when is the womb open?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> It is open for three days.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> It is open for seven days.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer #3:</font></b> It is for 30 days.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Chachamim of Neharda'a):</font></b> The Halachos of a Yoledes 
          depend on whether she is in the first three days, or 
          seven days, or 30 days:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Within three days, we Mechalel Shabbos for her, 
               whether or not she says that she needs;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Within seven days, we Mechalel if she says that she 
               needs, but not if she says that she does not need;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Within 30 days, we do not Mechalel for her, but we 
               get a Nochri to do her needs.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> (Rav Ula brei d'Rav Ilai):</font></b> All needs of a Choleh may 
               be done through a Nochri on Shabbos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> (Rav Hamnuna):</font></b> One may tell a Nochri to do something 
               for a Choleh who is not in mortal danger.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> For a Yoledes, 30 days (this will be 
          explained).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does this mean?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer (Chachamim of Neharda'a):</font></b> She should not immerse 
          before this (the chill could harm her. Seemingly, she 
          should be able to immerse in a heated Mikvah in a heated 
          house, or in summer. A Beraisa (Nidah 29B) discusses a 
          woman immersing many times within 30 days on account of 
          Safek, before she is permitted to have relations - this 
          is not a real proof, perhaps it merely teaches that it 
          <i>would</i> be a Mitzvah to immerse, if not for the danger - 
          <b><b><b>PF</b></b></b>.) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> This is only if her husband is not with her - if 
          he is there, he will warm her.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Chisda's daughter (Rava's wife) immersed before 
               30 days and got sick - they carried her in her bed 
               to Rava in Pumbadisa.
<br>
<b><font>2) RECOVERY AFTER BLOODLETTING </font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> We may make a bonfire for a Yoledes on 
          Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Assumption:</font></b> This is permitted for a Yoledes, not for a 
          Choleh; it is permitted only in winter, not in summer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> This is permitted for a Yoledes or Choleh; it 
          is permitted in winter and summer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (R. Chiya bar Avin):</font></b> If someone let blood and got 
          chilled, we may make a bonfire for him, even in summer 
          [on Shabbos].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  They burned a chair of precious wood for Shmuel [after he 
          let blood, for they could not find other wood], a 
          precious table for Rav Yehudah, and a bench for Rabah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Abaye (to Rabah):</font></b> Isn't this Bal Tashchis (being 
          wasteful)? (Maharsha - if we make a fire on Shabbos for 
          Piku'ach Nefesh, surely it is not Bal Tashchis! Rather, 
          we discuss making a fire on a weekday - he deletes 'and 
          got chilled' from the text of R. Chiya bar Avin's 
          teaching.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Rabah:</font></b> It is preferable not to be wasteful with my 
          health!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> One should have shoes, even if he must 
          sell the rafters of his house (Rashi - going barefoot is 
          disgraceful; Maharsha - it is better to suffer heat of 
          the sun than the cold of the ground);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  If someone let blood and does not have what to eat, he 
          should sell his shoes to buy the needs of the 
          [post-bloodletting] meal.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What are the needs of this meal?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav):</font></b> He must eat meat, to replace the lost 
          blood - meat and blood are both [called] Nefesh;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Shmuel):</font></b> He must drink wine - redness replaces 
          redness.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  Shmuel would have a dish with a [whole] cooked spleen on 
          the day he had a bloodletting;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan would drink until the scent of wine would 
          come out of his ears; Rav Nachman would drink until his 
          spleen floated in wine, Rav Yosef would drink until wine 
          left the bloodletting wound.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  Rava would seek to drink wine three years after the 
          grapes were picked and the vine grew three new leaves.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b></b>  Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak told his Talmidim, when you let 
          blood, tell your wives that I am coming [so they will 
          prepare a great meal]. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b></b>  All schemes are forbidden except for one - if someone let 
          blood and cannot afford wine, take a bad coin (which 
          people do not accept) and go to seven wine salesmen and 
          taste the wine before buying it (the seller will cancel 
          the deal when he sees the coin), until tasting a Revi'is 
          in all;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If not, he should eat seven black dates, rub oil on 
               his temples and sleep in the sun.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Avlet (to Shmuel, who was sleeping in the sun):</font></b> Chacham 
          of the Yehudim! Good will not come from bad (this harms 
          the body)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Shmuel:</font></b> I let blood today.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This was not true - rather, there is one day a year 
               when it is good to be in the sun, i.e. the summer 
               (some texts - winter) solstice - Shmuel did not want 
               to reveal this.
<br>
<b><font>3) GUIDELINES FOR BLOODLETTING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav and Shmuel):</font></b> If one is lenient about eating well 
          after bloodletting, Hash-m will provide less food for him 
          - he is not concerned for himself, why should Hash-m be 
          concerned for him?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rav and Shmuel):</font></b> If one let blood, he should not sit in 
          a windy room, lest the doctor left only a Revi'is of 
          blood (the minimum with which one can survive), and a 
          wind will draw some out of him, and he will be in danger!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Shmuel would let blood in a house with [thick] walls of 
          seven and a half layers of bricks (no wind enters).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Once, he felt some wind - he found that the wall was 
               a half-brick less thick than it should be.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Rav and Shmuel):</font></b> If one let blood, he should taste 
          something before leaving [the house] - if not, if he 
          encounters a Mes, his face will turn yellow; if he 
          encounters a murderer, he will die; if he encounters a 
          pig, he is prone to get Tzara'as.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) MONDAYS AND THURSDAYS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that one should not perform blood-letting on Mondays or Thursdays, because those are the days on which the heavenly court of justice convenes, and a person's merits and transgressions are likely to be reviewed. <b>RASHI</b> (DH she'Beis Din) adds that Mondays and Thursdays are also the days on which the earthly courts convene, as instituted by Ezra (Bava Kama 82a).
</p><p>
A Midrash derives this from the verse, 'Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof' -- 'You shall pursue righteousness' (Devarim 16:20). The Midrash says that the verse teaches that Jewish courts should convene on Mondays and Thursdays. Where in this verse is there any allusion to Mondays and Thursdays?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (Kol Eliyahu, Parshas Shoftim, #119) gives an explanation based on the words of <b>RASHI</b> here (DH d'Kaima Lei). Rashi explains that among the hourly rotations of seven Mazalos which rotate hourly (see Graphics), the only time the Mazal of Tzedek begins a night is on Monday, and the only time Tzedek begins a day is on Thursday. Thus, 'Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof' means that one should pursue justice when the Mazal of 'Tzedek' begins the day or night, which is on Mondays and Thursdays!
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE IDOLATROUS NAMES OF THE DAYS OF THE WEEK</b></font><b>
<br></b>Rashi explains how the heavenly bodies rotate hourly throughout the hours of the day. His explanation is based on the perspective of a geocentric earth. (See Graphics.)
</p><p>
An interesting outcome of this ancient astrological science is the source for the names of the days of the week in several languages. The common onomastic system for the days of the week has its source in pagan mythology (see following Insight concerning the permissibility to pronounce the names of the days). Each of the seven days corresponds to one of the seven motile bodies to which Rashi here refers. However, the way they are used as names of the week is in the wrong order; they are not arranged from the innermost to the outermost, nor from the outermost to the innermost. Instead, they are mixed in no logical order: Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, and Saturn. Is there any basis for this apparent lack of order?
</p><p>
A look at our Chart reveals that they indeed follow a clear pattern. Apparently, the idolaters who established the current naming system believed in the hourly rotation of the Mazalos. A look at line #13 of our Chart shows that the order of the pagan names for the days follows exactly the order of the Mazalos that 'rule' at the <i>first hour of the day</i> each day. (The secular day begins at daybreak, and not at nightfall.)
</p><p>
The pagan sources for the names of the days of the week are as follows:
</p><p>
1. On the first day of the week, at the first hour of the day, the sun 'rules' the heavenly hosts. The nations of the world, whose day starts at sunrise, call the first day of the week Sunday (or, in Old English, sunnandoeg, day of the sun).
</p><p>
2. At the first hour of the day of the second day of the week, the moon 'rules' the heavenly hosts. The nations of the world call the second day of the week Monday (Old English: monandoeg, day of the moon; French: lundi, from the word 'lunar'; Spanish: lunes).
</p><p>
3. At the first hour of the day of the third day of the week, Mars 'rules' the heavenly hosts. The nations of the world call the third day of the week Tuesday (Old English: tiwesdoeg, or 'Tiw's day,' after the Norse god of <i>war</i> (i.e., Ma'adim) -- Tiu, or Tyr)). (In other languages, the name of the day is more clearly related to Mars -- French: mardi; Spanish: martes; Italian: martedi.)
</p><p>
4. At the first hour of the day of the fourth day of the week, Mercury 'rules' the heavenly hosts. The nations of the world call the fourth day of the week Wednesday (Old English: wodnesdoeg, day of Wodin, the Norse god Wodin). (In languages of Latin origin its relationship to Mercury is more clearly preserved -- Latin: dies Mercurii; French: mercredi; Spanish: miercoles; Italian: mercoledi.)
</p><p>
5. At the first hour of the day of the fifth day of the week, Jupiter 'rules' the heavenly hosts. The nations of the world call the fifth day of the week Thursday (Old English: thunresdoeg, Thor's day. Jupiter, Jove, Thor and Zeus (the latter is related to the word Tzedek) are all names for the mythical god of thunder, who was also the king of the idolatrous gods in different mythologies). (French: jeudi; Spanish: jueves; Italian: giovedi. In German it is called donnerstag, or 'thunder day.')
</p><p>
6. At the first hour of the day of the sixth day of the week, Venus 'rules' the heavenly hosts. The nations of the world call the sixth day of the week Friday (Old English: frigedoeg, day of the goddess Frigga, Norse goddess of love and wife of Wodin (#4 above), apparently the equivalent of Venus.) (French: vandredi; Spanish: viernes; Italian: venerdi.)
</p><p>
7. At the first hour of the day of the seventh day of the week, Saturn 'rules' the heavenly hosts. The nations of the world call the seventh day of the week Saturday (Old English: soeterndoeg, the day of Saturn; French: samedi; Spanish: sabado, similar to the word Sabbath).
</p><p>
(For a comprehensive overview of this topic, see <b>BINAH L'ITIM</b> on Talmudic astronomy by Rav Yosef Ginzburg, 1889, Warsaw.)
</p><p>


<font><b>3) USING THE SECULAR NAMES OF DAYS AND DATES</b></font><b>
<br></b>We have seen how the days of the week are derived from the names of gods in Greek and Norse mythology (see previous Insight). This raises the question of whether it is permissible for a Jew to refer to the days of the week by such names. This question is related to the broader question of whether a Jew may refer to the months of the year by their Julian names, four of which are named after Roman gods (January, named after Janus, known as the god of the doorway; March, named after Mars, the god of war; May, named after Maia, the goddess of plant growth; June, from junius, Latin for Juno, the queen goddess and wife of Jupiter).
</p><p>
Similarly, is one permitted to refer to the year by the number used by the Gregorian calendar, which refers to the year of the death of the god of the Nazarenes?
</p><p>
Furthermore, is one permitted to refer to the hours of the day (e.g., 6:00 in the morning), which begin their count from midnight? The count of hours from midnight is based on a foreign belief that maintains that their god was born at midnight.
</p><p>
I. <b>MONTHS AND DAYS</b>
<br><b>QUESTION:</b> There are two reasons to prohibit using the secular names of months and days, as follows. Based on these reasons, are we permitted to use such names?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>MAHARAM SHIK</b> (#117) writes that one should not use the secular names of months, and certainly not the secular count of the months (counting January as the first month). The reason is because the secular system does not make Nisan the first month, and the Torah commands us, with a Mitzvas Aseh, to count the months from Nisan, and to count Nisan as the first month, in order to always remember the redemption from Mitzrayim (<b>RAMBAN</b> to Shemos 12:1). The same logic applies to the days of the week. The Gemara in Beitzah (16a) says that we should refer to the days of the week in reference to Shabbos ('the first day from Shabbos' and 'the second day from Shabbos,' etc.) as a way of honoring Shabbos. Consequently, we should not be permitted to use the secular names of the days of the week.
</p><p>
(b) The names of the months and the days of the week are based on names of gods that were used in idol worship. 
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RAMBAN</b> (in Parshas Bo) addresses these questions. With regard to the months, he points out that when the Jewish people returned from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael, they referred to the months with their Babylonian names (which are the names that we now use -- Nisan, Iyar, Sivan, etc.) as a way of commemorating the redemption from Bavel (see <b>TOSFOS</b> to Rosh Hashanah 7a), just as, until then, they counted the months from Nisan in order to remember the redemption from Mitzrayim.
</p><p>
The <b>SEFER HA'IKARIM</b> (3:16) understands that since the exile to Bavel effectively ended the liberty the Jews had enjoyed as a result of the redemption from Mitzrayim (890 years earlier), there was no longer a necessity to count the months from Nisan in order to commemorate the redemption from Mitzrayim (see also <b>CHASAM SOFER</b>, Choshen Mishpat 1, DH Nachzir).
</p><p>
However, the <b>PERUSH HA'KOSEV</b> in the Ein Yakov at the beginning of Megilah (3a) strongly opposes this view and explains that when the Jews left Bavel, they only <i>added names</i> to the months; they did <i>not</i> change the numbering system. They continued to count the months from Nisan. One is permitted to refer to each month by its name, but when one gives each month a number, he must count the month based on the original system, with Nisan as the first month. This opinion is supported by the <b>GET PASHUT</b> (127:35), <b>MINCHAS CHINUCH</b> (311:3), and <b>RAV OVADYAH YOSEF</b> (in <b>YABI'A OMER</b> 6:9:4). (It is interesting to note that even according to the Perush ha'Kosev, in practice the Sefer ha'Ikarim's conclusion appears to be correct, since once the months were named, it was rare for anyone to refer to a month by its number; see Teshuvos v'Hanhagos 1:830.)
</p><p>
Rav Ovadyah Yosef concludes, therefore, that one should refrain from referring to the months by the secular numbering system (with January as month '1' and so on). (It should be noted that the months of September, October, November, and December are named according to their numbers ('septem,' or seven, 'octo,' or eight, 'novem,' or nine, and 'decem,' or ten). However, these numbers are not in reference to January, since two months were added at a later point in time. It happens that they conform to the count from the time of the year which usually corresponds to Nisan.) 
</p><p>
<b>RAV MOSHE STERNBUCH</b> shlit'a (in Teshuvos v'Hanhagos 1:830) takes issue with Rav Ovadyah Yosef's ruling. He asserts that the Mitzvah to count the months from Nisan has no bearing on the months of the <i>solar</i> year. The Mitzvah applies only to the months of the <i>lunar</i> year. Therefore, one is permitted to use even the secular numbering system. (Rav Sternbuch cites support for his approach from the practice of the Brisker Rav and Rav Chaim Soloveitchik.)
</p><p>
Based on a similar line of reasoning, it seems that according to all opinions, one who uses the names of the days of the week names and not their numbers does not transgress a Mitzvas Aseh. However, it might be prohibited to refer to the days of the week by a different <i>numbering</i> system (for example, to call Monday the first day of the week).
</p><p>
(b) With regard to mentioning the names of idols, since these idols are no longer known or worshipped in the civilized world, one should be permitted to mention their names, since he has no intention to refer to the idols when he says the name of the day or month.
</p><p>
II. <b>YEARS AND HOURS</b>
<br><b>QUESTION:</b> There are also two reasons to prohibit using the secular number of the year and hour. Based on these reasons, are we permitted to use such names?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>MAHARAM SHIK</b> (#171) writes that one should not refer to the secular year, because by doing so he reminds himself of the god that they worship, and he transgresses the Torah prohibition of 'v'Shem Elohim Acherim Lo Tazkiru' -- 'You shall not mention the names of other gods' (Shemos 23:13).
</p><p>
(b) Referring to the secular year and hour should be prohibited because of 'b'Chukoseihem Lo Selechu' -- 'You shall not follow their ordinances' (Vayikra 18:3).
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) With regard to the first problem, Rav Ovadyah Yosef and others permit one to use the secular numbering system, because the <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (YD 147:2) rules that the prohibited against using the name of a foreign god applies <i>only</i> when one gives importance to it when he uses its name.
</p><p>
However, the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch should be the basis for the opposite ruling. When one mentions the secular number of the year, he thereby gives importance to the event that it commemorates, and thus one should be prohibited from using the secular count of years.
</p><p>
Perhaps Rav Ovadyah Yosef means that since one has no intention to refer to their god when he mentions their count of years, he does not give it any importance, and therefore he is permitted to mention it.
</p><p>
(b) With regard to the verse of 'b'Chukoseihem,' Rav Ovadyah Yosef (in Yabi'a Omer 6:9:2) proves that this prohibition does not apply in this case. He cites the <b>MAHARIK</b> (quoted by the <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> and <b>REMA</b> in YD 178) who states that the prohibition against following the ways of the Nochrim applies only when at least one of two conditions is fulfilled. The first condition is that this particular mode of conduct is an inexplicable custom that does not make any sense (and is thus related to idol worship). The second condition is that it is a form of promiscuous conduct. When one refers to the year and hour by the secular system, neither condition is met, and therefore it should be permitted.
</p><p>
In conclusion, Rav Ovadyah Yosef demonstrates that many of the great Torah sages signed their letters with the non-Jewish months and years. Although most of them (including the Chasam Sofer and the Shach) signed as such only in letters to government officials, some also signed letters to other Jews in this manner (such as the Rema (Teshuvos #51) and Maharam Padava (Teshuvos #36 and #77)). If doing so is forbidden, they would not have used the non-Jewish dates even in letters to Nochrim. However, the <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> in <b>TORAS MOSHE</b> (Parshas Bo) writes that one who uses such a system instead of using the Jewish system when he is able to 'abominates the ways of Hashem's Torah,' and therefore it is best to avoid using the non-Jewish system whenever possible, and use only the Jewish months and years.
</p><p>
When one writes for business purposes, the widespread practice is that even devout, G-d-fearing Jews are not strict to use only the Jewish dates. According to Rav Ovadyah Yosef, one should use the <i>names</i> of the secular months when possible, and not the <i>numbers</i> of those months. (Rav Moshe Sternbuch, however, asserts that there is no such requirement, since the numbers of the secular months refer to the months of the solar, and not lunar, year). Some also have the custom to abbreviate the names of the month (e.g. 'Jan.' instead of 'January') and to write an abbreviated form of the secular year (e.g. '05' instead of '2005').
</p><p>


<font><b>4) ADJUSTING BODILY PARTS ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav teaches that one may wrap up a baby who was born on Shabbos in order to promote the straightening of her limbs and joints. Earlier (66b), Rav Chama bar Gurya taught the same ruling ('Lefufi Yenuka').
</p><p>
However, we have learned that there is a dispute (123a) whether one is permitted to straighten the limbs of a child on Shabbos ('Asuvei Yenuka,' according to Rashi's explanation, see Insights there). Furthermore, the Mishnah later (147a) says 'Ein Me'atzvin Es ha'Katan' -- one is <i>not</i> permitted to make adjustments to a child's bones and joints in order to straighten them. How do we resolve these seemingly contradictory rulings?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: RASHI</b> here (DH Melafefin) and later (147b, DH b'Chomrei) addresses this question. It appears from Rashi that there are four different ways to adjust the limbs and joints of a baby:
</p><p>
(a) On the day that the baby is born, one may straighten her limbs by <i>wrapping her in a cloth</i>, even if the spinal column is thereby straightened as well (66b, 129b).
</p><p>
(b) On the day the baby is born, <i>manual manipulation</i> (with one's hands) of the bones and joints is subject to dispute ('Asuvei Yenuka'; 123a).
</p><p>
(c) <i>Wrapping the baby in a cloth</i> in order to straighten the limbs on a day <i>after</i> the day of birth is the subject of the Gemara later (147b), which differentiates between adjusting the vertebrae in such a manner (which is prohibited) and adjusting other limbs of the body (which is permitted).
</p><p>
(d) To <i>manually manipulate</i> the limbs of the baby on a day <i>after the day of birth</i> is the subject of the Mishnah later (147a), which prohibits doing so even for limbs other than the spinal column.
</p><p>
(e) It is interesting to note that <b>TESHUVOS ADMAS HA'KODESH</b> (OC 7, cited by the Gilyon ha'Shas here) discusses at length whether one is permitted to crack one's knuckles on Shabbos. Is such an action comparable to a manual adjustment of the bones or joints, which is prohibited (as in (d) above)? He concludes that cracking knuckles is permitted, because the act does not involve actual adjustment of the joints.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rav and Shmuel):</font></b> If one let blood, he should wait before 
          getting up;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It was taught, if one does any of five things and 
               immediately stands up, he is closer to death than 
               life - eating, drinking, sleeping, letting blood, 
               and relations.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> The proper interval for letting blood is once 
          in 30 days;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  One should cut down Bein ha'Perakim (after 40 years, only 
          half as often), and cut down again Bein ha'Perakim (after 
          60 years, only once in three months).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> The proper days for bloodletting are Sunday, 
          Wednesday and Friday;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Monday and Thursday are bad, unless he wants to rely 
               on merits of his ancestors, for earthly and Heavenly 
               Batei Din both judge then (Midas haDin is great in 
               the world);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Why is Tuesday bad?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> (Damaging spiritual forces have more power 
               at times or over things that are even numbers. The 
               five closest planets, sun and moon are called 
               Kochvei Lechet; every hour, one of them dominates 
               (has a supernatural influence on earth), according 
               to a fixed rotation.) On Tuesday, Mars (which is 
               appointed over the sword) is dominant in [the 
               eighth,] an even hour (Rashi - of the daytime, when 
               people normally let blood; R. Chananel - it 
               dominates in two even hours, eight and 22).
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Also on Friday it is dominant in the sixth 
               (R. Chananel - and 20th) hour(s)! (Tosfos - even 
               though it is dominant in the 12th hour on Wednesday, 
               people do not let blood so close to night.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Since many people regularly let blood then, 
               'Shomer Pesa'im Hash-m' (He guards people who do not 
               know to guard themselves).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> Wednesday is dangerous if it is the fourth, 
          14th or 24th of the month, or if it is the last Wednesday 
          of the month.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  If one lets blood on Rosh Chodesh or the next day, he is 
          prone to get (extra) weak; on the third of the month, it 
          is dangerous.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  Chachamim decreed not to let blood on any Erev Yom Tov on 
          account of Erev Shavu'os, for then blows a wind called 
          Tavu'ach which would have slaughtered everyone had 
          Yisrael not accepted the Torah (and it is dangerous for 
          one who let blood).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> Bloodletting after eating wheat only removes 
          the heaviness caused by eating wheat.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  It is futile only if he lets blood then to be cured - but 
          if he lets to lighten himself, it is fine.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  It is good to drink immediately after bloodletting, and 
          to eat after [the time to walk] half a Mil (nine or 11 
          minutes).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If one drinks later, is this bad, or just 
          ineffective?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b></b>  This question is not resolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If one eats more or less than the given time 
          afterwards, is this bad, or just ineffective?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b></b>  This question is not resolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> One should not spend more than one Zuz for 100 
          gourds or 100 heads of animals (they are not healthy); 
          one should not pay anything for Shefam (the flesh between 
          the mouth and nose) of an animal.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Rav Yosef:</font></b> In Rav Huna's academy, if Rabanan did not 
               come to learn they would call it 'a day of Shifmi' - 
               I did not understand this [until now].
<br>
<b><font>4) THINGS ALLOWED ON SHABBOS FOR A BIRTH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We may tie the umbilical cord. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> We may tie the umbilical cord;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi says, we may even cut and wrap the placenta - 
          this warms the baby;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, princesses wrap it in flasks 
          of oil; rich girls wrap it in [Menupatz] wool, poor girls 
          wrap it in tufts.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yosi.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Chachamim agree that if twins are tied 
          together by their umbilical cords, we cut them.
<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> The twins might separate, and it will be 
          dangerous for them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Everything said in the Tochachah 
          (Yechezkeil's rebuke of Yisrael, a recount of Hashem's 
          Chasadim for them) may be done for a birth on Shabbos:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'U'Moldosayich b'Yom Huledes' permits taking the 
               fetus out;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> 'Lo Choras Sharech' permits cutting the umbilical 
               cord;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> 'Uv'Mayim Lo Ruchatzt l'Mish'i' permits washing the 
               baby (to smooth its skin);
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> 'V'Hamle'ach Lo Humlachat' permits salting (to 
               harden his skin);
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> 'V'Hachtel Lo Chutalt' permits wrapping him.
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) WHAT IS PERMITTED FOR 'MILAH' ON SHABBOS?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Eliezer):</font></b> If one did not bring the knife 
          for Milah before Shabbos, one brings it openly on 
          Shabbos;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  At a time of danger (Nochri decrees against Milah), one 
          brings it covered, with witnesses (so people will not 
          suspect that he carries b'Isur).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer even said that we cut trees to make coals to 
          make a knife (if needed);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Akiva says, the general rule is - a Melachah [for the 
          sake of Milah] overrides Shabbos only if it cannot be 
          done before Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Does R. Eliezer say that one brings 
          the knife openly to show the dearness of the Mitzvah, or 
          to avoid suspicion?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What difference does it make?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> If it is to avoid suspicion, one may bring 
               it covered with witnesses; if it is to show the 
               dearness of the Mitzvah, one may not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Levi):</font></b> It is to show the dearness of the 
          Mitzvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Support (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> One brings the knife 
          openly, not covered.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Support (Rav Ashi - Mishnah):</font></b> At a time of danger, one 
          brings it covered, with witnesses.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> This is done only at a time of danger.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This shows that it is to endear the Mitzvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> One brings the knife openly, not 
          covered;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says in the name of R. Eliezer, at times of 
          danger, one brings it covered, with witnesses.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Do the two witnesses include the one bringing 
          it, or must they be two people in addition to him?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer (Mishnah):</font></b> At a time of danger, one brings it 
          covered, with witnesses.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> We understand if there must be two people in 
               addition to him - but if only one other witness is 
               needed, why does it say witnesses (a person is not 
               considered a witness regarding himself)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> 'Witnesses' means, people qualified to testify 
          elsewhere.
<br>
<b><font>2) FOLLOWING THE LOCAL 'CHACHAM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> R. Eliezer even said that we cut trees to make 
          coals to make a knife.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> In R. Eliezer's region, they would cut trees 
          to make coals to make a knife;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> In R. Yosi ha'Galili's region, they would eat fowl 
               cooked with milk.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Levi visited the house of Yosef the bird-trapper; they 
          served peacock with milk - he did not comment.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Rebbi:</font></b> Why didn't you excommunicate them?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Levi:</font></b> That is the region of R. Yehudah ben Beseira - 
               perhaps he taught them like R. Yosi ha'Galili.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah - R. Yosi ha'Galili):</font></b> It says 'Lo Sochlu 
               Chol Nevelah', and it says 'Lo Sevashel Gedi 
               ba'Chalev Imo' - the Isur of meat and milk applies 
               to species to which Nevelah applies.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Since Nevelah applies to birds, Basar 
               v'Chalav should apply to birds!
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> 'Ba'Chalev Imo' excludes birds, which do 
               not have milk.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> There was a city in R. Eliezer's area 
          which conducted like him - people did not die 
          prematurely;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Moreover, Romi once decreed that Yisrael should not 
               circumcise, but they did not decree on that city.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> Every Mitzvah that 
          Yisrael accepted joyfully, like Milah - 'Sas Anochi Al 
          Imrasecha k'Motzei Shalal Rav' - they still fulfill 
          joyfully;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Every Mitzvah that Yisrael accepted amidst strife, 
               like Arayos - 'Va'Yishma Moshe Es ha'Am Bocheh 
               l'Mishpechosav', they were crying about family 
               matters (relations that were forbidden) - it is 
               still performed amidst strife, i.e. there are 
               quarrels about every Kesuvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> Every Mitzvah that 
          Yisraelim were willing to die for when kingdoms decreed 
          against it, like idolatry and Milah, they still solidly 
          observe it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Every Mitzvah that they were not willing to die for 
               at the time of decrees, like Tefilin, their 
               observance of it is weak.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (R. Yanai):</font></b> One must [be able to] guard his body to 
               wear Tefilin, like Elisha 'of the wings'. (Rashi - 
               most people are unlike Elisha, and cannot wear 
               Tefilin - this is because only he was willing to die 
               for it, as follows. Rashba - we bring R. Yanai's 
               teaching only to show that most of Yisrael were not 
               willing to die for it (Tosfos - even Elisha did not 
               admit that he was wearing Tefilin)- it was known 
               that most people do not wear Tefilin (perhaps this 
               means, all day long - <b><b><b>PF</b></b></b>).) 
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What does this mean?
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> He must be able to guard himself 
               from passing gas [while wearing Tefilin].
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Version #1 (Rashi) Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> He need [only] 
               be able to guard himself from sleeping [while 
               wearing Tefilin, lest he pass gas - when awake, 
               anyone can guard himself. 
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Version #2 (Tosfos) Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> He must [also] 
               be able to guard himself from sleeping (one must be 
               conscious of them the entire time he wears them; 
               also, lest he pass gas. 
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Why is he called Elisha 'of the wings'?
       <br><b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Romi decreed to puncture the skull of anyone 
               who will wear Tefilin; Elisha wore Tefilin in the 
               market. An officer appointed to enforce the decree 
               saw him and chased him; when he caught him, Elisha 
               took the Tefilin from his head and put it in his 
               hand.
       <br><b>   <b><font>9.  </font></b></b> The officer asked what he is holding; Elisha said 
               that it is dove's wings - a miracle was done, he 
               opened his hand and revealed dove's wings. (Maharsha 
               - the name also alludes to [a body clean like] 
               angels, which have wings.)
        <br><b>  <b><font>10. </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Why did he say dove's wings, and not those 
               of other birds? (Maharsha - he did not need to 
               specify any species!)
        <br><b>  <b><font>11. </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Keneses Yisrael is compared to a dove - 
               'Kanfei Yonah Nechpah va'Kesef';
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Just like a dove's wings protect it [from cold, 
                    and it uses them to fight off attackers], 
                    Yisrael's Mitzvos protect them.
<br>
<b><font>3) CARRYING WITHOUT AN 'EIRUV' ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Aba bar Rav Ada):</font></b> Once, they forgot to bring a Milah 
          knife from before Shabbos, and they brought it on Shabbos 
          via roofs and Chatzeros - R. Eliezer was displeased.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) TEFILIN AND THE WINGS OF THE DOVE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates how the Tefilin of a man named Elisha miraculously turned into the wings of a dove when he was accosted by a Roman official during a period of persecution. (Some point out that the miracle was that his Tefilin <i>appeared</i> in the eyes of the Roman official to be the wings of a dove; see Machatzis ha'Shekel OC 28:4.) The Gemara explains that they became wings of a dove, because just as the wings of a dove protect the dove, so do the Mitzvos protect the Jewish people. 
</p><p>
Why is the concept that the Mitzvos protect the Jewish people mentioned specifically with regard to the Mitzvah of Tefilin?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The Gemara in Berachos (6a) says that the verse, 'All the nations of the world will see that the name of Hash-m is called upon you, and they will be in awe of you' (Devarim 28:10), refers to the Tefilin Shel Rosh. We learn from there that the Tefilin protect us by causing the nations to fear us.
</p><p>
The mechanism for this effect may be as follows. One may not take his attention away from the holiness of Hashem's name (which is written in the Tefilin) while he wears Tefilin (Yoma 6b). Therefore, one constantly focuses on Hashem's Presence while he wears Tefilin. We learn from the Mishnah in Rosh Hashanah (29a) that when a person focuses on Hashem's Presence, he can conquer all enemies and merit Hashem's salvation ('v'Chi Yadav Shel Moshe...'). Similarly, when one wears Tefilin and focuses on Hash-m, he merits Hashem's protection. (M. Kornfeld; see also Insights to Sotah 44:3, and Parasha Page, Lech Lecha 5757.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (49a, DH Kanfeha) explains the Gemara differently. According to Tosfos, the dove does not fight with its wings, but rather its wings protect it in the following way. Birds may be overcome by predators when they are at rest, but not while in flight. The dove is able to rest one wing at a time while it stays airborne with the other wing; it does not need to rest on the ground. In that way, its wings protect it. Similarly, when the Jews are not performing one Mitzvah, they are performing another Mitzvah. (See Menachos 29b, with regard to David ha'Melech, who, when in the bathhouse, was distressed that he was bereft of Mitzvos, until he noticed his Milah...').
</p><p>
This concept may be related specifically to Tefilin as follows. The Gemara and Rishonim state that Elisha removed only his Tefilin Shel Rosh. Apparently, he did not remove his Tefilin Shel Yad because the official could not see that he was wearing Tefilin on his arm, since the Tefilin Shel Yad are worn <i>under</i> the garment, and are not exposed like the Tefilin Shel Rosh. In this sense, the analogy to the wings of a dove is accurate; Elisha was still 'flying' with one wing, so to speak, while resting the other, since he was still wearing the Tefilin Shel Yad even when he was forced to remove the Tefilin Shel Rosh!
</p><p>
It should be noted that the <b>RITVA</b> (49a) writes that this Gemara is the source for the manner in which we wrap our Tefilin Shel Rosh. We wrap the straps of the Shel Rosh around either side of the Tefilin, so that they form the shape of 'wings of a dove.' (This custom is also cited by the <b>MAGEN AVRAHAM</b> (OC 28:4) in the name of the <b>MATEH MOSHE</b>; see also <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> (OC 28:9).)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) MITZVOS THAT THE JEWISH PEOPLE 'STILL' ACCEPT WITH SIMCHAH </b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara states that any Mitzvah which the Jewish people originally accepted with Simchah, such as the Mitzvah of Milah, they still accept with Simchah. 
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara emphasize that they <i>still</i> accept it with Simchah? Why should they <i>not</i> accept it with Simchah? Similarly, why does the Gemara emphasize that any Mitzvah which the Jewish people accepted with strife, they <i>still</i> accept with strife?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (Divrei Eliyahu) explains that according to the Gemara in Nidah (31b), the reason the Torah commands that a son be circumcised on the eighth day is because on that day the parents experience a great increase in their joy, since the seven days of Tum'as Leidah have passed and they can once again be together. Nowadays, the practice is not to observe the days of Dam Tohar, but rather to wait until any flow of Dam has ceased and then to count seven clean days. Accordingly, a husband and wife can never be together on the eighth day after birth. Nevertheless, the Gemara tells us that they <i>still</i> perform the Mitzvah of Milah with Simchah!
</p><p>
Similarly, the Jewish people initially accepted the laws governing immoral relations with relatives with dispute and strife, because at that time people had a strong Yetzer ha'Ra for marital relations with their relatives (see Insights to Yoma 75:1). The Gemara tells us (Yoma 69b), however, that this Yetzer ha'Ra was eradicated by the Anshei Keneses ha'Gedolah. Nevertheless, the Jewish people <i>still</i> accept the laws of marriage only with dispute.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Just the contrary - R. Eliezer 
          permits!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps R. Eliezer was displeased, for 
               he permits via Reshus ha'Rabim (and prefers this, to 
               show the dearness of Milah), but Chachamim were 
               pleased, for they forbid via Reshus ha'Rabim and 
               permit via roofs, Chatzeros and Karfifos (enclosed 
               areas without a roof).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> Chachamim forbid this!
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Just like one may not bring it via 
                    Reshus ha'Rabim, it is forbidden via roofs, 
                    Chatzeros and Karfifos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> R. Eliezer and Chachamim that argue 
          with him were displeased - R. Shimon was pleased:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah - R. Shimon):</font></b> Roofs, Chatzeros and Karfifos 
               are considered one Reshus (one may transfer between 
               them) for Kelim that were Shoves (at the start of 
               Shabbos) in them, but not for Kelim that were Shoves 
               in the house.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Zeira):</font></b> (Shituf Mavoyos, i.e. jointly owned 
          food, permits transferring between a Mavuy (alleyway) and 
          [houses or] Chatzeros that open into it.) If Shituf was 
          not left in a Mavuy, may one carry in all of it?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Perhaps it is like a Chatzer - even if Eiruv 
               Chatzeros was not left in a Chatzer, [one may not 
               transfer between houses and the Chatzer, but] one 
               may carry in the entire Chatzer;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps it is unlike a Chatzer, for a Chatzer 
               has four walls, a Mavuy does not!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Alternatively, perhaps it is unlike a Chatzer, for a 
               Chatzer is used constantly, a Mavuy is not!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Asi could not answer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Another time, R. Asi said in the name of Rebbi that once 
          they forgot to bring a Milah knife from before Shabbos, 
          and they brought it on Shabbos - Chachamim were upset 
          that they acted like R. Eliezer against Chachamim:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Firstly, he is Shemuti (from Beis Shamai; Rashi - he 
               was excommunicated);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Secondly, the Halachah follows the majority against 
               an individual!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (R. Oshaya):</font></b> The case was, Shituf was not left in a 
               Mavuy; they carried from one end to the other 
               (therefore, it was permitted. Tosfos - the knife was 
               Shoves in the Mavuy. Rashi - it was Shoves in a 
               house - since onlookers who see a knife carried in 
               the Mavuy do not know if it was taken from a house, 
               we are not stringent to postpone Milah in this 
               case.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  R. Zeira (to R. Asi):</font></b> Does this mean if Shituf was not 
          left in a Mavuy, one may carry in all of it?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  R. Asi:</font></b> Yes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  R. Zeira:</font></b> Why didn't you answer me when I asked? Perhaps 
          amidst your plethora of teachings, you overlooked it 
          (Rashi's text - perhaps when you later reviewed your 
          plethora of teachings, you came across it)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  R. Asi:</font></b> Yes, that is the case.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (R. Zeira citing Rav):</font></b> If Shituf was not left in a Mavuy, 
          one may carry only within four Amos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Abaye:</font></b> R. Zeira said this, but it was not explained until 
          Rabah bar Avuha came:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rabah bar Avuha):</font></b> If Shituf was not left in a 
               Mavuy:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  If houses made Eiruvei Chatzeros with the 
                    Chatzeros [that they are open to], one may 
                    carry [in the Mavuy] only within four Amos 
                    [even things that were Shoves in the Mavuy];
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> If houses did not make Eiruvei Chatzeros with 
                    the Chatzeros, one may carry in the entire 
                    Mavuy (this will be explained).
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) WHY THE 'EIRUVIN' FORBID CARRYING IN THE 'MAVUY'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Chanina Chuza'ah):</font></b> If houses made Eiruvei 
          Chatzeros with the Chatzeros, one may carry only within 
          four Amos - presumably, this is because each Chatzer is 
          like a house;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is like Rav taught elsewhere, that a Lechi or 
               Korah permits a Mavuy only if houses <i>and</i> Chatzeros 
               are open to the Mavuy - it is as if there are only 
               houses.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Also when the houses did not make Eiruvei Chatzeros 
               with the Chatzeros it should be forbidden - since 
               one may not transfer from the houses to the 
               Chatzeros, it is as if the houses are sealed, and 
               only Chatzeros open to the Mavuy!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rava):</font></b> All the houses in each Chatzer can 
          Mevatel (pardon) their share in the Chatzer to one house, 
          permitting that house to transfer to the Chatzer (it is 
          as if the Chatzer belongs exclusively to that house).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Still, it is as if there is only one house 
               in each Chatzer (Rav requires house*s* and Chatzeros 
               open to the Mavuy)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> They can Mevatel their share in the Chatzer 
               to one house in the morning, and to a different 
               house in the afternoon.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Objection:</font></b> Still, at any time it is as if there is 
               only one house in each Chatzer (Rav requires 
               house*s* and Chatzeros open to the Mavuy)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> (Rav holds like R. Shimon, who 
          permits transferring from one Chatzer to another -) the 
          only reason to forbid transferring from Chatzeros to the 
          Mavuy is the houses, if the houses cannot transfer to the 
          Chatzeros it is as if there are no houses.
<br>
<b><font>2) 'MACHSHIRIM' THAT OVERRIDE SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> R. Eliezer does not say that all 
          Machshirei (preparations for) Mitzvos override Shabbos - 
          Shtei ha'Lechem must be brought on Shavu'os, yet R. 
          Eliezer needed a Gezerah Shavah to permit baking them on 
          Shabbos!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Eliezer) Question:</font></b> What is the source 
               that Machshirei Shtei ha'Lechem override Shabbos?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It says 'Hava'ah' (bringing) regarding both 
               the Omer and Shtei ha'Lechem - just like Machshirei 
               ha'Omer override Shabbos, also Machshirei Shtei 
               ha'Lechem.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</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) - if not, we could challenge it!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Machshirei ha'Omer override Shabbos, because [it 
               must be harvested on Motzei Pesach Lishmah,] one 
               cannot use barley that was already cut - but we can 
               use wheat that was already cut for Shtei ha'Lechem!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Affirmation:</font></b> Yes, it is Mufneh;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> It says 'Va'Haveisem Es Omer Reishis 
               Ketzirchem El ha'Kohen' - why do we also need 
               'Mi'Yom Havi'achem'?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> This is extra, for the Gezerah Shavah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This shows that it is Mufneh from one side (one 
          of the words we learn from is extra) - R. Eliezer holds 
          that we learn from such a Gezerah Shavah only if there is 
          no challenge against it!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> (It is Mufneh from both sides -) 'Tavi'u' is 
          extra (it already says 'V'Hikravtem Lechem Tenufah').
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> [R. Chiya bar Aba taught that R. Eliezer does 
          not say that all Machshirei Mitzvos override Shabbos -] 
          what does he exclude?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> He excludes Lulav (we explain below what 
               Melachah is needed for this and the following 
               Mitzvos).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> Lulav and all its 
               Machshirim override Shabbos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> He excludes Sukah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Rejection (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> Sukah and all its 
               Machshirim override Shabbos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> He excludes Matzah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Rejection (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> Matzah and all its 
               Machshirim override Shabbos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> He excludes Shofar.
       <br><b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b><font> Rejection (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> Shofar and all its 
               Machshirim override Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Ada bar Ahavah):</font></b> He excludes Tzitzis for 
          one's garment and Mezuzah for one's doorway.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> All agree that if one put Tzitzis on 
          his garment or fixed a Mezuzah in his doorway he is 
          Chayav.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> There is no fixed time for these 
          Mitzvos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> (Abaye): Just the contrary! Since there is no 
          fixed time for them, they apply at all times!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) DERIVING A HALACHAH FROM A 'MEH HA'TZAD'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that Rebbi Eliezer needs a separate verse to teach that the <i>preparations</i> for each of various Mitzvos are permitted to be done on Shabbos, even though they involve a Melachah. The Gemara explains why <i>one</i> verse does not suffice to serve as the source to permit the preparations for all Mitzvos on Shabbos.
</p><p>
Normally, when two verses teach that a certain law applies to two different categories of Halachah, we derive that it applies to all other categories through the method of 'Meh ha'Tzad.' Why, then, does the Gemara not suggest that we derive Rebbi Eliezer's law (that the preparations of a Mitzvah override Shabbos) from two verses through a Meh ha'Tzad?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Iy m'Omer), cites <b>RABEINU PORAS</b> who answers that the Gemara must have known that there was some question (Pircha) that prevented the Halachah from being derived through a Meh ha'Tzad. Had the Gemara suggested a Meh ha'Tzad, it would have countered that each of the cases mentioned has some unique feature that distinguishes it from all other cases, rendering it invalid as a source for a Meh ha'Tzad.
</p><p>
(b) Tosfos suggests a second answer. It is true that he Gemara could have derived Rebbi Eliezer's law from a Meh ha'Tzad. Nevertheless, it is possible that the Torah writes an additional verse to teach a law that could have been deduced through a Meh ha'Tzad in order to make it more clear. (This is known as 'Tarach v'Kasav Lah Kra'; the Gemara itself actually applies this principle only to what is learned from a Kal v'Chomer; see Pesachim 18b.) Therefore, the Gemara does not find it necessary to show that the Halachos in question could not have been learned from a Meh ha'Tzad.
</p><p>
However, if the Halachah could have been derived from <i>one</i> verse through a Binyan Av, there would have been no need for the verse to mention it explicitly. A Binyan Av is just as clear as an explicit teaching. (See end of Insights to Chulin 117:2.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) DERIVING A HALACHAH FROM SUKAH TO LULAV</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that according to Rebbi Eliezer, the Halachah that preparations for the Mitzvah of Lulav override Shabbos is derived from the word 'ba'Yom' which appears in a verse that discusses the Mitzvah of Lulav. The Rabanan who argue with Rebbi Eliezer maintain that the phrase 'ba'Yom' is needed to teach that the Mitzvah of Lulav is performed only during the day and not at night; we might have compared Lulav to Sukah through a Gezeirah Shavah (from the words 'Shiv'as Yamim') and assumed that just as the Mitzvah of Sukah applies at night, so, too, the Mitzvah of Lulav applies at night.
</p><p>
Rebbi Eliezer does not need a second phrase to teach that the Mitzvah of Lulav is not performed at night. It seems that according to Rebbi Eliezer, there is no reason to compare Sukah to Lulav, because he maintains that there is no Gezeirah Shavah of 'Shiv'as Yamim.' However, in the following lines of the Gemara, Rebbi Eliezer says that the reason why the preparations for the Mitzvah of Sukah override Shabbos is because of the Gezeirah Shavah that compares Sukah to Lulav! 
</p><p>
If Rebbi Eliezer accepts the Gezeirah Shavah between Lulav and Sukah, then why does he not require another verse to teach that the Mitzvah of Lulav is performed only during the day (and not at night as well, like Sukah)?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Shiv'as) answers that although Rebbi Eliezer agrees that there is a Gezeirah Shavah, he maintains that it cannot be applied when the meaning of the words that are used for the Gezeirah Shavah -- 'Shiv'as Yamim' ('seven days') -- <i>preclude</i> the law derived from them! The word 'days' cannot teach that just as the Mitzvah of Sukah is performed at <i>night</i>, so, too, the Mitzvah of Lulav is performed at <i>night</i>, because such a teaching would contradict the simple meaning of the words used for the Gezeirah Shavah -- 'seven <i>days</i>.'
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RE'AH</b> and <b>RITVA</b> answer that Rebbi Eliezer maintains that Sukah and Lulav cannot be compared as far as night is concerned for another reason. With regard to Sukah, the Halachah is that the Mitzvah applies <i>all</i> day and <i>all</i> night. This Halachah cannot be applied to Lulav, because the Torah certainly does not require that the Lulav be held all day and all night. On the other hand, it is unacceptable to suggest that the Gezeirah Shavah teaches that one must pick up the Lulav <i>once</i> at night, because in that case the Halachah with regard to Lulav would not be similar to the Halachah with regard to Sukah, from which the Halachah is derived.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RASHBA</b> explains that Rebbi Eliezer indeed learns from a verse that the Mitzvah of Lulav does not apply at night. He learns this from the verse 'Shiv'as <i>Yamim</i>' (which, incidentally, is the verse used for the Gezeirah Shavah). However, the Rabanan maintain that <i>two</i> verses ('Shiv'as Yamim' and 'ba'Yom') are necessary to teach that the Lulav is not taken at night, since there are two different Halachos with regard to the Mitzvah of Lulav that are done only during the day.
</p><p>
The first Halachah is that in the <i>Beis ha'Mikdash</i>, the Mitzvah is to hold the Lulav for seven days. The second Halachah is that <i>outside</i> of the Beis ha'Mikdash, the Lulav is held only the first day. Consequently, one verse is needed to teach that the Lulav is not held at night in the Beis ha'Mikdash, and another verse is needed to teach that it is not held at night outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash. Rebbi Eliezer, though, maintains that the Halachah that the Lulav is not held at night <i>outside</i> of the Beis ha'Mikdash is derived from the Halachah with regard to <i>inside</i> the Beis ha'Mikdash, and thus only one verse is needed to teach that it is not held at night.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> It is because he could make his 
          garment or house Hefker (therefore, the Mitzvah is not 
          obligatory, it does not override Shabbos).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> Lulav and all its Machshirim 
          override Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is his source?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> He learns from the Omer and Shtei 
               ha'Lechem.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> Those are Tzorech Gavoha (needed for 
               Avodas ha'Mikdash, we cannot learn to regular 
               Mitzvos)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It says 'Ba'Yom' - even on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does this permit?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> It permits Tiltul (moving it).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> We do not need a verse to permit Tiltul 
               (Muktzeh is forbidden only mid'Rabanan)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It permits Machshirav (cutting it off a tree).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim (who forbid Machshirav) expound 'Ba'Yom' - 
               not at night.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> How does R. Eliezer learn this?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It says 'U'Smachtem...Shiv'as Yomim' - days, 
               not nights.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, we also need 'Ba'Yom' otherwise we 
               would have learned a Gezerah Shavah 'Shiv'as 
               Yomim-Shiv'as Yomim' from Sukah, which applies even 
               at night!
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> (Why are other verses needed to teach that 
               Machshirei Omer and Shtei ha'Lechem override Shabbos 
               -) we should learn them from Lulav!
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> We could not learn from Lulav, for it must 
               be taken with three other species.
<br>
<b><font>3) 'MACHSHIRIM' THAT OVERRIDE SHABBOS (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> Sukah and all its Machshirim 
          override Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is his source?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> He learns from the Omer and Shtei 
               ha'Lechem.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> Those are Tzorech Gavoha!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> He learns from [a Mah Motzinu 
               (precedent) from] Lulav.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> We cannot learn from Lulav, for it must 
               be taken with three other species!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He learns from a Gezerah Shavah 'Shiv'as 
          Yomim-Shiv'as Yomim' from Lulav.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We should learn other Machshirim from Sukah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We cannot learn from Sukah, it applies even at 
          night.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> Matzah and all its Machshirim 
          override Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is his source?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He cannot learn from the Omer and Shtei ha'Lechem - 
               they are Tzorech Gavoha!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> He cannot learn from Lulav, for it must be taken 
               with three other species!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> He cannot learn from [a Mah Motzinu from] Sukah, it 
               applies even at night!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He learns from a Gezerah Shavah 'Chamishah 
          Asar-Chamishah Asar' from Sukah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We should learn other Machshirim from Matzah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We cannot learn from Matzah, for even women are 
          obligated.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> Shofar and all its Machshirim 
          override Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is his source?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He cannot learn from the Omer and Shtei ha'Lechem - 
               they are Tzorech Gavoha!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> He cannot learn from Lulav, for it must be taken 
               with three other species!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> He cannot learn from Sukah, it applies even at 
               night!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> He cannot learn from Matzah, for even women are 
               obligated!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It says 'Yom Teru'ah Yihyeh Lachem' - on that 
          day, even on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does this permit?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> It permits blowing it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection (Beraisa - Tana d'vei R. Yishmael):</font></b> 'Lo 
               Sa'aseh Chol <i>Melachah</i>' - the Isur to work on 
               Shabbos does not apply to blowing a Shofar and 
               unsticking bread, for these are Chachmos, not 
               Melachos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It permits Machshirav (detaching it from an 
          animal).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim expound 'Ba'Yom' - not at night.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer learns this from 'B'Yom ha'Kipurim 
               Ta'aviru Shofar b'Chol Artzechem' - we learn the 
               Teki'os of Rosh Hashanah and of Yom Kipur [of Yovel] 
               from each other.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We should learn other Machshirim from Shofar!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We cannot learn from Shofar of Rosh Hashanah, for 
          it brings the merits of Yisrael up to Hash-m;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> We cannot learn from Shofar of Yovel, for it was 
               taught that once the Shofar is blown, [Ivri] slaves 
               are free and fields return to the sellers.
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) 'MILAH' OVERRIDES SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Eliezer):</font></b> (Beraisa - R. Eliezer): Milah and all its 
          Machshirim override Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is his source?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He cannot learn from all the Machshirim discussed 
               above, for the reasons given above!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Further, the other Mitzvos apply only for a limited 
               time (but if Milah is postponed, it can be done the 
               next day)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He learns from 'Uva'Yom ha'Shmini Yimol Besar 
          Arlaso' - even on Shabbos. (We will learn Milah itself 
          from another source, so the verse teaches about 
          Machshirim.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> We should learn other Machshirim from 
               Milah!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> We cannot learn from Milah, for 13 covenants 
               were made on it (it says 'Bris' 13 times when Hash-m 
               commanded Avraham about it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Chachamim only argue about Machshirei Milah, 
          they agree that Milah itself overrides Shabbos - what is 
          the source?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Ula and R. Yitzchak):</font></b> This is a tradition from 
          Moshe from Sinai.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> [Beraisa #2 below teaches that] we cannot 
          learn a Kal va'Chomer from a tradition from Sinai (yet a 
          Tana learns a Kal va'Chomer from the fact that Milah 
          overrides Shabbos)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa #1) Question:</font></b> What is the source that 
               Piku'ach Nefesh overrides Shabbos?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer (R. Elazar ben Azaryah):</font></b> Milah involves just 
               one limb of a person, yet it overrides Shabbos - all 
               the more so, saving the whole body!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa #2):</font></b> R. Eliezer told R. Akiva, [the Tum'ah 
               of] a bone the size of a barley seed is a tradition 
               from Sinai - you cannot learn a Kal va'Chomer to a 
               Revi'is of blood (to obligate a Nazir to Megale'ach 
               and start Nezirus again) from a tradition!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (R. Elazar):</font></b> We learn from a Gezerah Shavah 
          'Os-Os' from Shabbos ('U'Nmaltem...l'Os Bris'; Shabbos is 
          'Os Hi Beini u'Veineichem').
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> It also says Os regarding Tefilin ('V'Hayah 
          Lecha l'Os Al Yadcha') - we should say that Tefilin 
          overrides Shabbos!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #3:</font></b> We learn from a Gezerah Shavah 'Bris-Bris' 
          ('U'Nmaltem...l'Os Bris'; 'La'asos Es ha'Shabos l'Dorosam 
          Bris Olam').
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> If so, Milah of an adult should override 
          Shabbos (it says 'Es Brisi Hefar')!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #4:</font></b> We learn from a Gezerah Shavah 'Doros-Doros' 
          ('L'Doroseichem Bris Olam'; 'U'Ven Shemonas 
          Yomim...l'Doroseichem').
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> If so, Tzitzis should override Shabbos ('V'Asu 
          Lahem Tzitzis...l'Dorosam')!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #5 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> We learn Milah [on 
          day eight] from Shabbos, for regarding both of these it 
          says Bris, Os <i>and</i> Doros - it says only one of these 
          regarding each of the other three (Tefilin, Milah of an 
          adult, and Tzitzis).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer #6 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> We learn from 'Uva'Yom 
          [ha'Shmini]'- even on Shabbos. (This is like Chachamim; 
          R. Eliezer learns from a tradition from Sinai, he does 
          not learn Piku'ach Nefesh from Milah like R. Elazar ben 
          Azaryah does.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question (Reish Lakish):</font></b> Regarding Mechusar Kipurim 
               (one who was Tamei and must bring a Korban to 
               complete his Taharah) it says 'Uva'Yom ha'Shmini' - 
               will you say that this overrides Shabbos?!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> 'Uva'Yom' comes to exclude 
               night.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Also regarding Milah, we should say that 
               'Ba'Yom' comes to exclude night!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Regarding Milah it already says 'U'Ven 
               Shemonas Yomim'.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Regarding Korbanos it already says 'B'Yom 
               Tzavoso'!
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Even though it says 'B'Yom Tzavoso', we need 
               'Uva'Yom ha'Shmini' - since the Torah allows 
               bringing Mechusar Kipurim b'Dalos (an Oni brings a 
               cheaper Korban), one might have thought it is also 
               lenient to allow bringing at night - 'Uva'Yom 
               ha'Shmini' teaches, this is not so.
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Question (Ravina):</font></b> If so (the leniency to bring 
               b'Dalos is Machshir what is normally Pasul), a 
               non-Kohen or Onen (one who lost a relative today) 
               should be Kosher to offer Mechusar Kipurim!
       <br><b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> 'Uva'Yom ha'Shmini' teaches that night and 
               all other Pesulim apply to Mechusar Kipurim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer #7 (Rav Acha bar Yakov):</font></b> We learn from 
          'Ha'Shmini'- even on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This is needed to teach that it cannot be on 
          day seven!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We already know this from 'U'Ven Shemonas Yomim'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> We need two verses, to exclude day seven and 
          day nine!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If we only had one verse, one might have thought 
               that before day eight is not the time for Milah, but 
               anything afterwards is the time [and overrides 
               Shabbos]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Conclusion:</font></b> We must learn like R. Yochanan. (There was no 
          objection to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's answer - however, 
          the following Beraisa supports R. Yochanan.)
<br>
<b><font>2) 'MILAH' OVERRIDES SHABBOS (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Support (for R. Yochanan, and question against Rav Acha - 
          Beraisa): '[Uva'Yom Ha']Shmini Yimol' - even on Shabbos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But it says 'Mechalaleha Mos Yumas'!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> That refers to Melachos other than Milah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps it refers even to Milah!
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If so, how would we explain 
                    'Ha'Shmini Yimol'?
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> That is when the eighth day is not 
                    Shabbos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> 'Uva'Yom'- even on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (Rava):</font></b> Why did the Tana initially hold that the 
          verse permits Milah on Shabbos, and later suggest that it 
          does not?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> First he thought that 'Ha'Shmini Yimol' - is even 
          on Shabbos, and 'Mechalaleha Mos Yumas' refers to 
          Melachos other than Milah, but Milah overrides Shabbos. 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> We learn a Kal va'Chomer from [cutting off] 
               Tzara'as - Tzara'as overrides Avodah (we do not cut 
               off Tzara'as to Machshir someone for Avodah), and 
               Avodah (e.g. Temidim and Musafim) overrides Shabbos;
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) FORFEITING THE MITZVAH OF MILAH</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Torah commands every Jewish male to be circumcised, with a penalty of Kares for failure to fulfill this Mitzvas Aseh. 
</p><p>
If a person was not given a Milah when he was a baby, and when he reaches adulthood he remains uncircumcised, does he transgress the Mitzvah every day that passes that he is not circumcised?
</p><p>
(a) The Gemara teaches that Milah is the type of Mitzvah that, if performed after its prescribed time, is not forfeited, as opposed to Mitzvos such as Sukah, Lulav, and Shofar, which are forfeited if they are not performed at their prescribed time. It is clear from the Gemara that if a man does not become circumcised until he is older, he is not considered to have forfeited the Mitzvah each day that passed while he was uncircumcised. Rather, since he finally fulfilled the Mitzvah of Milah, he never forfeited the Mitzvah. This also seems to be the intention of Tosfos (131a, DH v'Shavin). Only if he dies uncircumcised is he considered to have forfeited the Mitzvah and is Chayav Kares.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Milah 1:3) writes that a person who does not circumcise himself transgresses the Mitzvas Aseh <i>every day</i> that passes. However, he is Chayav Kares only if he dies without a Milah.
</p><p>
The fact that he is Chayav Kares only if he dies without a Milah is consistent with the Gemara here, which says that he does not forfeit the Mitzvah as long as it is still possible to perform it. Why, though, does the Rambam write that he transgresses a Mitzvas Aseh <i>every day</i> that he delays his Milah?
</p><p>
The <b>RA'AVAD</b> apparently understands that the Rambam means to say that a person transgresses the Mitzvas Aseh every day <i>mi'Safek</i>, out of doubt, because of the possibility that he <i>might</i> die without a Milah. He only transgresses the Mitzvas Aseh every day when he has intention <i>never</i> to fulfill the Mitzvah of Milah at all. Accordingly, if a person has intention to have a Milah at any time later in his life, he does not transgress the Mitzvas Aseh as each day passes, as the Gemara here says.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) A NON-KOHEN WHO PERFORMS THE 'AVODAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> After the Gemara says that the Torah is more lenient with regard to the Korban of a Mechusar Kaparah than with other Korbanos, the Gemara asks that 'if so, a non-Kohen (Zar) and a Kohen in mourning (Onen) should also be able' to perform the Avodah of offering the Korban of a Mechusar Kaparah, and it should not be limited to a Kohen.
</p><p>
How can the Gemara suggest that a non-Kohen may perform the Avodah for a Mechusar Kaparah? The Torah explicitly states that such Korbanos must be offered by a <i>Kohen</i> (Vayikra 12:6, 14:25, 15:15, 15:30)!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Ela) and the <b>RASHBA</b> (in his first answer) explain that the Gemara does not really mean to suggest that a non-Kohen should be able to perform the Avodah. It is asking only that a Kohen who is in mourning should qualify. The word 'Zar' was added for emphasis.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> suggests further that the Gemara is asking <i>why</i> the Torah requires a Kohen for this Korban, if the Korban of Mechusrei Kaparah is more lenient than other Korbanos.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RASHBA</b> and the <b>RITVA</b> give another answer. The Gemara assumed that when the Torah says that a Kohen must offer the Korban, that requirement applies only when there is a Kohen available to do the Avodah. When <i>no</i> Kohen is available, then perhaps a non-Kohen is able to perform the Avodah.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RITVA</b> adds that perhaps the Gemara means to suggest only that a non-Kohen should be permitted to <i>eat</i> the meat of the Korban.
</p><p>
(e) The <b>RITVA</b> answers further that when the Gemara uses the word 'Zar' (non-Kohen), it refers not to someone who is not a Kohen at all. Rather, it refers to a Kohen who is not wearing the necessary <i>attire</i> of Bigdei Kehunah, who is equivalent to a 'non-Kohen' (see Zevachim 17b, Sanhedrin 83b).
</p><p>
(f) The <b>MITZPEH EISAN</b> points out that although the Shechitah of Kodshim may be performed by a Zar, Melikah (slaughter of a bird) may not. The Gemara in Zevachim (65a) derives this from a verse written with regard to Olas Nedavah. Perhaps the Gemara is suggesting that a Zar should be permitted to perform <i>Melikah</i> on the Korban of a Mechusar Kaparah when it is a bird!
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Milah overrides Tzara'as (if there is Tzara'as on 
               the foreskin, one cuts it off) which overrides 
               Avodah which overrides Shabbos, all the more so 
               Milah overrides Shabbos! (Tzara'as on the end of the 
               Ever is not Tamei (Nega'im 6:7) - nevertheless, one 
               may not cut Tzara'as even if it is Tahor (Bo'az 
               Nega'im 7:5 - see below 3:p:2); alternatively, if 
               the Nega spread to there from somewhere else, it is 
               Tamei. Alternatively - Tzara'as is Tamei even on 
               extremal limbs if there is a flat area the size of a 
               Gris (Rambam Tzara'as 3:9) - we may learn from the 
               law in such a case, even if [in practice] we never 
               find foreskin like this - <b><b><b>PF</b></b></b>.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why did he later doubt this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Perhaps Shabbos is more stringent than Tzara'as, 
          for it has many punishments and prohibitions - Tzara'as 
          does not override Avodah, rather, we may not cut off the 
          Tzara'as, for the person would still be Pasul for Avodah 
          (this will be explained)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  The Tana continues, if so, we would have to say that 
          'Ha'Shmini Yimol' applies when the eighth day is not 
          Shabbos - 'Uva'Yom' teaches, even on Shabbos.
<br>
<b><font>3) 'MILAH' OVERRIDES 'TZARA'AS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Milah overrides Tzara'as, whether or not it is 
          in its time (day eight); Milah overrides Yom Tov only in 
          its time.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source of this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> 'Yimol Besar Arlaso' - even if there is 
          Tzara'as there, he cuts it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But it says 'Hishamer b'Nega ha'Tzara'as'!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> This applies to other parts of the body.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps it applies even to the foreskin!
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But it says 'Yimol Besar Arlaso'!
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> That would apply when there is no 
                    Tzara'as there.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> 'Besar' (this is extra) - even if there 
               is Tzara'as there.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (Rava):</font></b> Why did the Tana initially hold that 
          Milah overrides Tzara'as, and later suggest that it does 
          not?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Version #1 - Answer:</font></b> First he thought that 'Yimol Besar 
          Arlaso' is even if there is Tzara'as there; 'Hishamer 
          b'Nega ha'Tzara'as' applies to other parts of the body, 
          but Milah overrides Tzara'as.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> We learn a Kal va'Chomer - even though 
               Shabbos is stringent, Milah overrides it - Tzara'as 
               is more lenient, all the more so Milah overrides it!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why did he later doubt this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Perhaps Tzara'as is more stringent than Shabbos, 
          for Tzara'as overrides Avodah, and Avodah overrides 
          Shabbos - therefore, we need 'Besar' to permit Milah in 
          the place of Tzara'as.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Version #2 - Answer:</font></b> First he thought that Milah 
          overrides Tzara'as because an Ase overrides a Lav;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why did he later doubt this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Perhaps an Ase overrides a Lav alone - but there 
          is also an Ase not to cut Tzara'as ('V'La'asos k'Chol 
          Asher Yoru Eschem')!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But it says 'Yimol Besar Arlaso'!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> That would apply when there is no Tzara'as 
               there.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  Therefore, we need 'Besar' to permit even if there is 
          Tzara'as there.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> It says 'Besar' regarding an adult ('Asher Lo 
          Yimol Es Besar Arlaso') and an eight-day old ('Yimol 
          Besar Arlaso') - what is the source that Milah of a minor 
          above eight days overrides Tzara'as?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> We learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah of an 
          adult and eight-day old:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> We cannot learn [just] from an adult, for he is 
               Chayav Kares if he does not circumcise himself;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> We cannot learn [just] from an eight-day old, for 
               this is its time;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> The Tzad ha'Shavah is that they must be circumcised, 
               and this overrides Tzara'as - the same applies to 
               everyone that must be circumcised.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> No verse is needed to teach that Milah 
          in its time overrides Tzara'as, a Kal va'Chomer teaches 
          this! (Since we do not need 'Besar' to teach about Milah 
          in its time, we use it to teach about Milah after eight 
          days.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Milah overrides Shabbos, which is stringent - all 
               the more so it overrides Tzara'as!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Safra):</font></b> Perhaps Tzara'as is more stringent 
          than Shabbos, for Tzara'as overrides Avodah, and Avodah 
          overrides Shabbos!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rava):</font></b> Tzara'as does not override Avodah - we 
          may not cut off the Tzara'as for the person would still 
          be Pasul for Avodah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> After the Tzara'as is cut off, he should 
               be Kosher for Avodah!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> He must immerse first (and afterwards he is 
               Tevul Yom until evening - we do not override 
               Tzara'as to Machshir him to serve tomorrow).
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Objection:</font></b> This applies to Tamei Nega'im - how can 
               we answer regarding Tahor Nega'im? (Tosfos Shevu'os 
               4A - they were declared Teme'im, but got weaker; the 
               Metzora already immersed.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> An Ase overrides a Lav only in 
          cases like Milah where there is Tzara'as, or wearing 
          Tzitzis with Kil'ayim, for he fulfills the Ase at the 
          time he transgresses the Lav - but we may not cut off 
          Tzara'as to Machshir someone for Avodah, since he could 
          not do Avodah until after we transgress!
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) ONE WHO CUTS OFF A LEPROUS 'NEGA' WHILE HE PERFORMS MILAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses one who performs Milah when there is a Nega of Tzara'as on the Orlah, which will be cut off when the Orlah is cut off. The Gemara discusses whether one is permitted to cut off the Nega in order to cut off the Orlah, since one is normally prohibited from cutting off a Nega which is Tamei.
</p><p>
The Mishnah in Nega'im (6:6) states that the tops of small limbs that slope down to a point, like the tips of the fingers and the top of the Orlah, are <i>not</i> Metamei with a leprous Nega. Why, then, does the Gemara discuss one who cuts off a Nega from the top of the Orlah, if a Nega in such a place is not Tamei? The Torah prohibits only cutting off a Nega which is Tamei in order to make oneself Tahor. (<b>YA'AVETZ</b>, <b>LECHEM SHAMAYIM</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MELECHES SHLOMO</b> (Nega'im 7:5) cites an answer in the name of <b>RABEINU SULEIMAN</b>. When the Mishnah discusses a Nega (Baheres) on the Orlah, it does not mean that there was a Nega on the Orlah itself. Rather, it means that the person's <i>entire body</i> was afflicted with the white Nega and the Orlah was <i>healthy</i>. The Mishnah in Nega'im (8:1) teaches that a healthy spot is Metamei a person when the rest of his body is white, because that spot is considered a Michyah (recession), which is a sign of Tum'ah. The Mishnah clearly adds that in the case of a person whose body is almost completely covered by a Nega, even if the healthy skin is on the top of a small limb, it is considered a Michyah and is Metamei.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MELECHES SHLOMO</b> and <b>TIFERES YISRAEL</b> (Nega'im 6:6, in the name of his father) give another answer. Perhaps the Nega is not on the top of the Orlah, but rather the Pisyon (spread) of the Nega spread to the top of the Orlah. If the Nega (from an adjacent part of the body) <i>spread</i> to the top of the Orlah, it can be Metamei, and thus when one cuts off the Orlah he removes a Siman of Tum'ah (as the <b>BARTENURA</b> rules in Nega'im 8:5).
</p><p>
(c) The <b>MELECHES SHLOMO</b> and <b>TIFERES YISRAEL</b> (ibid., in the name of his son) also suggest that in the case of the Gemara here, the baby has a Nega the size of a Gris on the <i>flat</i> side of the Orlah, and not at the tip. In such a case it will be Metamei (as is clear from Rashi in Vayikra 13:14; it is Tahor only when it cannot be seen in one glance by a Kohen).
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Nega'im 10:1) writes that although a person will be punished with Malkus for cutting off a Nega only when his act serves to make himself Tahor (that is, he cuts off a Siman Tum'ah), nevertheless the Torah prohibits one from cutting off <i>any</i> Nega, even though he does not thereby become Tahor (for example, he cut off only a small part of a large Nega). Accordingly, the Gemara here may be referring to the <i>prohibition</i>, and not to the Chiyuv of Malkus. Mid'Oraisa, there may be a prohibition against cutting off a Nega even at the tops of small limbs, even though cutting off those forms of Nega does not change his status from Tamei to Tahor. (For example, there is a full-size Nega on the side of his limb adjacent to the Orlah, and this Nega extends to and covers the Orlah. By cutting off the Orlah he does not make himself Tahor, but it is nevertheless forbidden.)
</p><p>
Similarly, Rashi here (DH Nega'im Tehorin) writes in the name of the Sifri that the Torah prohibits cutting off even Nega'im that are Tahor.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) PERMITTING 'DAVAR SHE'EINO MISKAVEN'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Tana'im argue like Rava and Rav Safra:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Yoshiyah):</font></b> 'Besar' - even if there is 
               Tzara'as there, 'Yimol';
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yonason says, we do not need the verse [to teach 
               about Milah in its time] - since it overrides 
               Shabbos, all the more so it overrides Tzara'as!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (Beraisa - R. Yoshiyah):</font></b> 'Besar' - even if 
          there is Tzara'as there, 'Yimol'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why do we need a verse - he does not intend to 
          cut the Tzara'as (just to circumcise), Davar she'Eino 
          Miskaven is permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> He holds like R. Yehudah, who forbids 
          Davar she'Eino Miskaven.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> The verse is needed even according to 
          R. Shimon - R. Shimon agrees regarding a Pesik Reisha (it 
          is as if he intends).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Abaye agrees with this! (Why did he say that it 
          is only like R. Yehudah?)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Abaye and Rava):</font></b> R. Shimon agrees regarding a Pesik 
               Reisha.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> After he heard this from Rava, he agreed with it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (Beraisa):</font></b> 'Hishamer b'Nega ha'Tzara'as 
          Lishmor Me'od v'La'asos' - La'asos (to overtly cut) is 
          forbidden, but one may work with a date shoot wrapped 
          around his foot or carrying a load on a pole on his 
          shoulder (as long as he does not intend to cut) - if the 
          Tzara'as comes off, he is Tahor.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why do we need a verse - Davar she'Eino 
          Miskaven is permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> He holds like R. Yehudah, who 
          [elsewhere] forbids Davar she'Eino Miskaven.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> The verse is needed even according to 
          R. Shimon - R. Shimon agrees regarding a Pesik Reisha.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Abaye agrees with this!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Abaye and Rava):</font></b> R. Shimon agrees regarding a Pesik 
               Reisha.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> After he heard this from Rava, he agreed with it. 
          (end of Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> According to Abaye [before he retracted], what 
          does R. Shimon learn from 'Besar'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Amram):</font></b> This permits one who intends to cut 
          his Tzara'as.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This applies to 'Besar' written regarding an 
          adult - how can we answer for 'Besar' written regarding 
          an eight-day old?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Mesharshiya):</font></b> This permits a father who 
          intends to cut his son's Tzara'as.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If someone else [who is not concerned about the 
          Tzara'as] can circumcise, the father should not be 
          allowed! (The Rosh (Chulin 6:8) holds that Milah is 
          primarily incumbent on the father, he cannot make a 
          Shali'ach for this. Our Gemara seems to say someone else 
          can do the Mitzvah! Shach (C.M. 372) - anyone can do the 
          primary Mitzvah - there is an additional Mitzvah for the 
          father himself to circumcise, to which Shlichus does not 
          apply. The primary Mitzvah overrides the Lav and Ase of 
          Tzara'as, the additional Mitzvah does not. Beis ha'Levi 
          (1:10) - if one does not want to circumcise his son, 
          everyone has a Mitzvah to circumcise him, therefore 
          Shlichus does not apply, just like it does not apply to 
          Milah of converts (Ramban).)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Reish Lakish):</font></b> If one can fulfill an Ase without 
               transgressing a Lav, he must; if not, the Ase 
               overrides the Lav.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, there is no one else to circumcise.
<br>
<b><font>2) THINGS THAT DO NOT OVERRIDE SHABBOS AND YOM TOV</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Milah overrides Yom Tov only in its time.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source of this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Chizkiyah) Question:</font></b> It already says 'V'Lo 
          Sosiru Mimenu Ad Boker' (do not leave meat of the Korban 
          Pesach until morning) - why does it repeat '[Veha'Nosar 
          Mimenu] Ad Boker [ba'Esh Tisrofu]'?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> This teaches that it is burned on the second 
               morning (the 16th, it does not override Yom Tov - 
               likewise, Milah after its time does not override Yom 
               Tov.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> 'Olas Shabas b'Shabato' - one may not 
          offer an Olah of Chol on Shabbos or Yom Tov (e.g. if a 
          Korban was slaughtered on Erev Shabbos or Erev Yom Tov, 
          we may not offer its Eimurim at night - this is like 
          Milah not in its time).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Rava):</font></b> 'Hu Levado Ye'aseh Lachem' (only 
          Melachas Ochel Nefesh is permitted on Yom Tov), not 
          Machshirav (e.g. to build an oven) - all the more so, 
          Milah after its time is forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #4 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> 'Shabason' is an Ase [in addition 
          to the Lav] forbidding Melachah on Yom Tov - an Ase 
          (circumcision) does not override a Lav and an Ase.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Akiva):</font></b> The general rule is [a Melachah 
          [for the sake of Milah] overrides Shabbos only if it 
          cannot be done before Shabbos].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Akiva.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  R. Akiva taught similarly regarding Korban Pesach:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah - R. Akiva):</font></b> The general rule is - a 
               Melachah [for Korban Pesach] overrides Shabbos only 
               if it cannot be done before Shabbos, e.g. slaughter.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Akiva.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  Rav Yehudah needed to say this about both Mishnayos:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he only taught regarding Milah, one might have 
               thought that this is because there is no Kares (for 
               not circumcising on day eight), but since there is 
               Kares for not bringing Pesach, even Machshirim are 
               permitted;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If he only taught regarding Pesach, one might have 
               thought that Machshirim of Milah are permitted, for 
               13 covenants were made over Milah.
<br>
<b><font>3) WHAT MAY BE DONE FOR 'MILAH' ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may do all needs of Milah on Shabbos - 
          cutting the foreskin, Pri'ah (pulling back the skin that 
          covers the end of the Ever), sucking out the blood 
          (without antiseptics, it is dangerous not to do so), 
          putting on a bandage and cumin;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If one did not grind the cumin before Shabbos, one chews 
          it with his teeth and puts it on (Tosfos - even though 
          one may Mechalel Shabbos for the baby, we use a Shinuy 
          when possible);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  If one did not mix wine and oil (this was used to heal) 
          before Shabbos, each is put by itself;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  One may not make a 'cloak' for the Ever (a piece of cloth 
          with a hole for the crown to go through, the cloth covers 
          the Ever and prevents the skin pulled back from 
          returning), but one may wrap a rag around it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If one did not prepare it before Shabbos, one may 
               wrap it on his finger and bring it, even from a 
               different Chatzer.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'DAVAR SHE'EINO MISKAVEN' AND CUTTING OFF A LEPROUS 'NEGA'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that according to Rebbi Yehudah, the Torah forbids performing Milah when there is a leprous Nega that is Tamei on the place of the Milah. Even though one does not have intention (Eino Miskaven) to cut off the Nega, a Davar she'Eino Miskaven is forbidden mid'Oraisa according to Rebbi Yehudah. (The Gemara concludes that even according to Rebbi Shimon it is prohibited, because it is a Pesik Reishei).
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara say that according to Rebbi Yehudah it is forbidden <i>mid'Oraisa</i> to perform a Davar she'Eino Miskaven and cut off the Nega? We find that Rebbi Yehudah normally prohibits a Davar she'Eino Miskaven only <i>mid'Rabanan</i> and not mid'Oraisa. (See Rashi 121b, DH l'Fi Tumo; Tosfos 41b, DH Meicham.) 
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>MAHARSHAL</b> explains that only with regard to the laws of Shabbos does Rebbi Yehudah say that a Davar she'Eino Miskaven is forbidden mid'Rabanan. As <b>TOSFOS</b> (41b) explains, with regard to Shabbos the Torah requires explicit intent to perform the Melachah (Meleches Machsheves) in order to be Chayav. With regard to other prohibitions of the Torah (such as the case here of cutting off a Nega) which are not regulated by the condition of Meleches Machsheves, a Davar she'Eino Miskaven is forbidden mid'Oraisa.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) A MOHEL WHO REMOVES A LEPROUS 'NEGA' WITHOUT INTENT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION: RASHI</b> (DH b'Omer la'Kotz) writes that if an uncircumcised, adult Jewish man had a leprous Nega in the place of his Milah and he appointed someone else to perform Milah (and thereby to cut off the Nega as well), the appointed Mohel is Chayav for cutting off a Nega Tamei. The Mohel is considered as though he had intention to cut the Nega off, since the man who appointed him certainly had an interest in getting rid of the Nega (because he wanted to become Tahor). Similarly, if a father appoints a Mohel to perform Milah on his child and the father is present during the Milah, since the father certainly intends to remove the Nega from his son while the Milah is performed, the Mohel is Chayav as if he himself intended to transgress the Isur of removing a Nega Tamei (Rashi, DH v'Iy Ika Acher).
</p><p>
Why, when one person has in mind to remove a Nega and he asks a Mohel to perform Milah for him, is the Mohel's act considered an intentional removal of a Nega Tamei? The Mohel who <i>performs</i> the Milah does <i>not</i> intend to remove the Nega, and the person who <i>does</i> intend to remove the Nega does <i>not</i> perform any action! The Mohel should not be Chayav because he does not have intention to cut off the Nega, and the person who appointed him should not be Chayav because a Shali'ach cannot be appointed to commit a transgression ('Ein Shali'ach l'Devar Aveirah') on his behalf. Only when the Mohel intends to cut off the Nega should he be Chayav.
</p><p>
Also, Rashi (DH v'Iy Ika Acher) implies that when a father appoints a Mohel to perform Milah on his child, the Mohel is Chayav if 'the father is standing there.' What difference does it make if the father is present or not at the time that the Mohel performs Milah on his son?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>MISHNEH L'MELECH</b> (10:1) and <b>MINCHAS CHINUCH</b> (#584) explain that as long as the father (or, in the first case of the Gemara, the person upon whom the Milah is performed) is present at the time of the Milah, the Mohel cannot avoid having in mind to satisfy whatever intentions the father has at the time the Milah is performed. Since the Mohel knows that the father will be pleased by the removal of the Nega, he inevitably intends to remove the Nega as well. Only if the father is not there at all does the Mohel perform the Milah exclusively in order to remove the Orlah, without intention to remove the Nega.
</p><p>
Rashi derives this point from the Gemara's statement that when a person has a Nega on his <i>own</i> Orlah, he inevitably intends to remove the Nega at the moment he performs the Milah. It is clear from the Gemara that even if someone <i>else</i> performs Milah on him, he does it with intent to remove the Nega. Apparently, the Mohel's intentions are controlled by the person who orders the Milah. However, if Milah is performed on a person's <i>son</i> and there is a Nega on the Orlah, the Gemara says that it <i>is</i> possible for the Mohel to perform the Milah exclusively for the sake of the Mitzvah of Milah. Apparently, his intentions are <i>not</i> controlled by the client in that case.
</p><p>
To resolve this apparent contradiction, Rashi concludes that as long as the person who orders the Milah is present at the time, his will determines the Mohel's intentions. When the Milah is performed on his own body, he is obviously present, but when it is performed on his son, he does not necessarily need to be present.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) REMOVING A LEPROUS 'NEGA' INDIRECTLY</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Even though one is prohibited from removing a Nega Tamei from one's body intentionally, the Gemara concludes that one is permitted to cause a Nega to be removed from his skin <i>indirectly</i>, such as by carrying an object on one's shoulder that rubs against and removes a Nega there. This is permitted even if it is a Pesik Reishei that the object on the shoulder will remove the Nega.
</p><p>
If one is permitted to remove the Nega indirectly even when doing so is a Pesik Reishei, then why does the Gemara need to find a source (at the beginning of this Daf) to teach us that one is permitted to cut off an Orlah that has a Nega on it? According to both Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah, one should be permitted to cut off the Orlah that has a Nega on it because one does not have intention to remove the Nega, even though it is a Pesik Reshei.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RAMBAN</b> answers that, indeed, now that we know that one is permitted to remove a Nega indirectly even though the act is a Pesik Reishei, the source that teaches that Milah may be done even when there is a Nega applies when one <i>intends</i> to remove the Nega -- such as when a father performs Milah on his son. Even though the father has intention to remove the Nega so that his son will be Tahor, he is permitted to do so since there is no one else available to do the Milah. (If someone else <i>is</i> available, the father must appoint the other person to perform the Milah rather than do it himself, since it is possible to avoid intentionally cutting off a Nega, just as the Gemara concludes according to Abaye.) Similarly, when a person needs to perform Milah on himself, he may do so even though he has intention to remove the Nega.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> explains that one is permitted to remove a Nega with a Pesik Reishei only when he has no intention to perform an act of cutting. He simply places a burden on his shoulder. In the case of Milah, however, the person has intention to do an act of cutting; he just does not have intention to do an act of cutting off the <i>Nega</i> but only to cut off the Orlah (in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Milah). In such a case, since the person has intention to <i>cut</i>, the removal of the Nega with a Pesik Reishei is forbidden. Therefore, a verse is needed to teach that when there is a Mitzvah of Milah to perform, one is permitted to cut off a Nega on the Orlah even though he has intention to perform an act of cutting.
</p><p>
(According to the Rashba, it makes no difference whether someone else is available to perform the Milah or not, since in any case the prohibition of cutting off a Nega through a Pesik Reishei cannot be avoided.)
</p><p>


<font><b>4) DOING 'MELACHAH' FOR A BABY WHOSE MILAH IS ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that all actions necessary to perform the Milah are permitted on Shabbos. If the medicine for the child was not prepared and ground before Shabbos, one should chew it with his teeth in order to prepare it with a Shinuy.
</p><p>
Why must one do a Shinuy? Normally, in a situation of Piku'ach Nefesh, one is permitted to do a Melachah on Shabbos (Shabbos is 'Hutrah') and there is no need to perform a Melachah through the use of a Shinuy!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> (133b, DH Lo'es) emphasizes that even though this is a situation of Piku'ach Nefesh, one must try to do a Shinuy if possible when one must perform a Melachah. The <b>SHACH</b> (YD 266:3) explains that since a person knows <i>in advance</i> that the child will be in a state of Piku'ach Nefesh, the allowance to perform Melachah on Shabbos is not as absolute as it is in a normal case of Piku'ach Nefesh, and therefore one must do the Melachah with a Shinuy. (The <b>SEFAS EMES</b> here offers the same explanation. See Insights to Shabbos 128:3 and Nidah 38:5 with regard to doing Melachah on Shabbos with a Shinuy for a woman in labor.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> The Mishnah lists all needs of Milah - 
          what is included by 'One may do all needs of Milah'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer (Beraisa):</font></b>  [On Shabbos,] as long as one is 
          circumcising, he may cut strands whether or not they are 
          Me'akev (invalidate the Milah);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Once he removes his hand, he may go back to cut 
               strands only if they are Me'akev.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana of the Beraisa, who forbids 
          going back to cut strands that are not are Me'akev?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> It is R. Yishmael, son 
          of R. Yochanan ben Brokah:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Yishmael):</font></b> If Erev Pesach is on 
               Shabbos, we flay Korban Pesach until the chest (then 
               stop to remove and deal with the Eimurim), we flay 
               the rest at night;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, it is flayed entirely on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> R. Yishmael does not allow flaying it entirely 
          because 'Zeh Keli v'Anvehu' does not apply [after the 
          Eimurim were removed], but it applies to the Mitzvah of 
          Milah, he would permit non-essential strands!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> 'Zeh Keli v'Anvehu' - be beautiful in 
               front of Hash-m with Mitzvos - make a beautiful 
               Sukah, Lulav, Tzitzis, and a beautiful Sefer Torah 
               written Lishmo in nice ink with a nice quill by a 
               professional scribe, and wrap it in nice silk!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Aba Sha'ul says, 'V'Anvehu' [is like 'Ani v'Hu'] - 
               resemble Him - just like He is gracious and 
               merciful, you should be!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> It is R. Yosi:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> If the new moon was seen on Shabbos, 
               whether or not it was clearly seen by everyone, 
               witnesses desecrate Shabbos in any way necessary in 
               order to come to Yerushalayim to testify;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi says, if it was clearly seen by everyone, 
               they may not desecrate Shabbos (presumably, Beis Din 
               or others nearby saw it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> R. Yosi forbids Chilul Shabbos when there is 
          no need to override Shabbos at all - but when we must 
          override Shabbos in any case [for Milah], he agrees that 
          we may do the Mitzvah in its entirety.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Chachamim of Neharda'a):</font></b> It is Chachamim that 
          argue with R. Yosi:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> Four Kohanim enter, two are holding 
               Lechem ha'Panim (each holds a stack of six loaves), 
               each of the other two holds a spoon of Levonah;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Four Kohanim enter before them, two of them remove 
               [last week's] Lechem ha'Panim from the Shulchan, the 
               other two remove the two spoons of Levonah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> As the removers pull the old bread off the Shulchan, 
               those opposite them put the new bread on the 
               Shulchan, immediately filling the void, to fulfill 
               'Lefanai Tamid'.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi says, even if the latter put the new bread 
               on after the old bread is totally off the Shulchan, 
               this fulfills 'Tamid'. (He would similarly say that 
               even if the Mohel removed his hand, he is 'Tamid' 
               (constantly) engaged in circumcising - Chachamim 
               would say he has stopped, and may go back only if 
               the strands are Me'akev.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> We cut strands [that are Me'akev] - if not, he 
          is Chayav Kares.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Who is Chayav Kares?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Kahana):</font></b> The Mohel is Chayav Kares.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Papa):</font></b> He can say, I did half the job, you 
          (others) can finish!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Papa):</font></b> An adult [who left strands when 
          circumcising himself] is Chayav Kares.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Ashi):</font></b> The Beraisa need not teach about an 
          adult - it explicitly says 'V'Arel Zachar Asher Lo Yimol 
          [...v'Nichresah]'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Defense of Answer #1 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Really, the Mohel is 
          Chayav Kares;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The case is, he began to circumcise at the very end 
               of Shabbos - he was warned that he would not have 
               enough time to circumcise fully, nevertheless he 
               began - he is Chayav Kares for wounding [without 
               fulfilling the Mitzvah].
<br>
<b><font>4) HEALING THE 'MILAH' WOUND</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Sucking out the blood.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rav Papa):</font></b> If a Mohel did not suck, this is dangerous 
          [without antiseptics used today], we do not let him 
          circumcise again.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This is obvious - since we Mechalel Shabbos to 
          suck (extracting the blood is wounding), surely it is 
          dangerous not to!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that a pocket of blood is 
          stored there [so sucking it is not wounding - if so, this 
          could be permitted even if there was no danger] - Rav 
          Papa teaches that this is not so, it is 'attached' [to 
          the flesh, like regular blood];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It was taught with a bandage and cumin, it is like 
               them - if they are not done, it is dangerous.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Putting on a bandage.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Abaye's mother:</font></b> The [ointment to put on a] bandage for 
          all pains consists of seven parts of Chelev and one part 
          of wax;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> It is wax and pitch of trees.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Rava taught this in Mechuza - the sons of Minyomi the 
          doctor broke their Kelim (for now people could make this 
          ointment themselves).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Rava (to Benei Minyomi):</font></b> There is one matter I did not 
          reveal - Shmuel taught that if one washes his face and 
          does not dry it well, his face will develop boils 
          (alternatively - crack or form a crust).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If someone did so, what remedy is there?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He should wash it liberally in water in which 
          beets were cooked.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>5) 'ZEH KELI V'ANVEIHU' -- THE CONCEPT OF BEAUTIFYING A MITZVAH</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara cites a Beraisa that says that when a Milah is performed on Shabbos, after the Milah itself the Mohel must go back and cut off the Tzitzin ha'Me'akvin, any pieces of skin that remain that cover a majority of the Atarah after the Orlah was cut off (the Milah is not valid if such Tzitzin remain). This requirement applies whether or not the Mohel is still involved in the Milah. In contrast, the Mohel does not go back and cut off the Tzitzin she'Einan Me'akvin (that is, those Tzitzin that do not invalidate the Milah) if he is no longer involved in the Milah.
</p><p>
The Gemara explains that this depends on a dispute between Rebbi Yosi and the Chachamim with regard to the removal and replacement of the Lechem ha'Panim in the Beis ha'Mikdash. According to the Chachamim, the Kohanim who bring in the new Lechem ha'Panim must replace the old Lechem ha'Panim immediately when the old Lechem ha'Panim are removed in order for it to be considered 'Tamid.' This is because the Torah requires that there be Lechem ha'Panim on the Shulchan at all times ('Tamid'). According to Rebbi Yosi, the new Lechem ha'Panim may be placed on the Shulchan later on the same day, and this also fulfills the requirement of 'Tamid.'
</p><p>
According to Rebbi Yosi, acts done at different times are still considered to be parts of one act, and that is why the Lechem ha'Panim are considered to be on the Shulchan 'Tamid.' In contrast, the Chachamim maintain that two acts are considered to be parts of one long act only when they are done in immediate succession, with no delay between them.
</p><p>
In what way does this argument relate to cutting off the Tzitzin she'Einan Me'akvin on Shabbos?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> and most Rishonim explain that the reason the Mohel must go back to remove Tzitzin she'Einan Me'akvin is because of the requirement to beautify the performance of Mitzvos, which is derived from the verse, 'Zeh Keli v'Anveihu,' as the Gemara mentions. On Shabbos, though, since the presence of these Tzitzin does not invalidate the Milah, one may not do a Melachah merely to fulfill the concept of beautifying the Mitzvah. However, if it is done as part of one long action of performing the Milah, then it may also be done on Shabbos, because it is considered part of the Milah.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Milah 2:4 and 6) rules that a Mohel is not required to go back and cut off the Tzitzin she'Einan Me'akvin even during the week. (This interpretation of the Rambam's words is according to the conclusion of the Kesef Mishneh.)
</p><p>
The <b>BRISKER RAV</b> (Hilchos Chanukah 4:1) and the <b>BEIS HA'LEVI</b> (2:47) explain that the Rambam learns the Gemara the same way as <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b>. Rabeinu Chananel writes that one who stops performing a Mitzvah is no longer required to beautify that Mitzvah. This means that beautifying a Mitzvah is meaningful only when it is done as part of the performance of the Mitzvah. After the Mitzvah has been performed, there is no point in beautifying it. The beautification is in the <i>performance</i>, or the act, of the Mitzvah, and not in the <i>object</i>, or the result, of the Mitzvah that remains when the performance of the Mitzvah is completed. Therefore, after the Milah is performed, there is no point in making the Milah look nice because of the requirement to beautify Mitzvos. Only during the act of Milah itself is there a requirement to make it look nice.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) FOOD PREPARATION ON YOM TOV</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one did not grind the cumin before 
          Shabbos...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Things which may not be done for Milah on 
          Shabbos may be done on Yom Tov, i.e. grinding cumin and 
          mixing wine and oil.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> Presumably, one may grind cumin on Yom 
          Tov because it is fit to add to a Tavshil [to spice it] - 
          wine and oil are also fitting on Shabbos for a Choleh 
          (one who is mildly sick)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> One may not mix wine and oil for a Choleh 
               on Shabbos;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Elazar says that R. Meir permits.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> R. Shimon ben Elazar:</font></b> Once R. Meir had intestinal 
               pain, we wanted to mix wine and oil for him - he did 
               not allow us.
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  His Talmidim:</font></b> If you do not rely on your 
                    opinion, it will become Batul (everyone will 
                    follow Chachamim)!
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b><font> R. Meir:</font></b> Even though I say one way and my 
                    colleagues argue, I never dared transgress 
                    their words.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Summation of question:</font></b> This was R. Meir's 
               stringency, but he permits others! (Presumably, our 
               Stam Mishnah is like R. Meir.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They are not mixed thoroughly for a Choleh - they 
          must be mixed thoroughly for the sake of Milah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> [For Milah, the Mishnah only allows putting 
          them on separately -] we should be allowed to mix them 
          like for a Choleh!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, this is what the Mishnah means when it 
          says 'He puts the wine on by itself and the oil on by 
          itself'! (If they are not mixed well, almost all the oil 
          will be on top, it is like putting them on separately.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> [On Yom Tov] one may not strain mustard in a 
          mustard strainer; one may not sweeten it with a coal (by 
          extinguishing the coal in it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> Why is this different than putting an 
          egg in a mustard strainer, which a Mishnah permits?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> That does not look like Borer (all of 
          the egg passes through) - this looks like Borer (it is 
          not really Borer, since also the Pesoles is edible).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #1):</font></b> One may not sweeten it with a coal.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Contradiction (Beraisa #2):</font></b> One may sweeten it with a 
          coal.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is permitted with a metal coal (one is never 
          liable for extinguishing it), it is forbidden with a coal 
          from wood.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> Why is this different than roasting 
          meat over coals (even though this extinguishes them, it 
          is permitted for the sake of Ochel Nefesh)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> There, there is no alternative; here, 
          there is. (Meat roasted from before Yom Tov is not as 
          tasty - mustard sweetened before Yom Tov does not lose 
          its taste.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> May one make cheese?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> It is forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> Why is this different than kneading?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> There, there is no alternative; here, 
          there is (a freshly baked dough is tastier - cheese made 
          before Yom Tov is no worse than cheese made on Yom Tov);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim of Neharda'a say that cheese is good on 
               the day it was made - they mean, it is good <i>even</i> 
               on the day it was made (it is even better if made 
               before)!
<br>
<b><font>2) TEACHINGS OF ABAYE'S MOTHER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not make a 'cloak' for the Ever.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Abaye's mother:</font></b> One should fold up the hem of the 'cloak' 
          near the opening so it will not touch the Ever, lest 
          strands stick to the wound and castrate the baby when it 
          is removed).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Abaye's [surrogate] mother made a pouch to go inside 
               the cloak, reaching to half the cloak, to shield the 
               wound from the strands of the hem.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> If there is no cloak for a Milah, one should 
          bring a worn out garment with a hem (this helps it cling 
          to the Ever) and turn it inside out (lest strands stick 
          to the wound).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Abaye's mother:</font></b> If one cannot find a baby's anus, one 
          should anoint him with oil and put him in the sun - [the 
          hole is] where the oil is as clear as glass, he should 
          tear it lengthwise and widthwise with the end of a 
          barley;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He should not use a metal Kli, it would swell it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Abaye's mother:</font></b> If a baby cannot nurse, this is because 
          his lips are too cold.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the remedy for this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One should put coals on a Kli, and put it by his 
          mouth - his mouth will get warm and he will nurse.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Abaye's mother:</font></b> If a baby's chest does not move when he 
          breathes (Rashi; Aruch - he does not urinate), one fans 
          him, this will solve the problem.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Abaye's mother:</font></b> If a baby is not breathing well, one 
          should bring the placenta born with him and smooth it on 
          his skin.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Abaye's mother:</font></b> If a baby is too thin, one should bring 
          the placenta born with him and smooth it on his skin from 
          the thin side to the thick, and vice-versa if he is 
          bloated.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Abaye's mother:</font></b> If a baby is red, this shows that his 
          blood has not been absorbed (it is still between his skin 
          and flesh) - one should delay Milah until his blood is 
          absorbed [lest it all come out].
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he is yellow, this shows that he does not have 
               enough blood yet - one should delay Milah until he 
               has enough blood.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Noson):</font></b> I met two women, each had lost two 
          sons through circumcision. The third babies were red and 
          yellow, respectively. I counseled them to postpone the 
          Milah until the blood was absorbed/came in - both babies 
          survived, and were given my name.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'CHILUL SHABBOS' FOR THE SAKE OF 'PIKU'ACH NEFESH'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah (133a) states that if the post-operative medications which are administered after the Milah were not prepared before Shabbos, then one may prepare them on Shabbos with a Shinuy (he should chew them, and not ground them in the normal fashion).
</p><p>
What is the Halachah when there is no way to do the Melachah with a Shinuy, and the Milah on Shabbos necessitates that a Melachah be done for the sake of the baby? (For example, hot water for washing the baby after the Milah was not prepared before Shabbos.) May the Milah be performed on Shabbos, thus putting the baby in a state of danger so that a Melachah must be done for him, or should the Milah be delayed until the next day in order to avoid Chilul Shabbos?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> says that in such a situation, the Milah should <i>not</i> be performed on Shabbos. It is better to delay the Milah than to enter a situation which will certainly result in a Melachah d'Oraisa being performed on Shabbos, even though it would be for Piku'ach Nefesh.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> (in Milchamos) says that one is permitted to perform the Milah on Shabbos, even though it will necessitate Chilul Shabbos for the sake of Piku'ach Nefesh, because at this moment (before the Milah has been done) there is no need for a Melachah to be performed, and there is an obligation to do the Mitzvah. We do not have to be concerned prior to the Milah that it will necessitate the desecration of Shabbos after the Milah for the sake of Piku'ach Nefesh.
</p><p>
The Acharonim (<b>KEHILAS YAKOV</b> #15, and others) point out that the Ramban and Ba'al ha'Me'or are consistent with their respective opinions elsewhere (Shabbos 19a). The Ba'al ha'Me'or maintains that one may not embark on a sea-voyage within three days before Shabbos, because it is common for sea-travel to create a situation of Piku'ach Nefesh. Traveling by sea on Shabbos might <i>possibly</i> necessitate the desecration of Shabbos (see Insights to Shabbos 19:2), and therefore it is forbidden. The Ramban (in Milchamos to Shabbos 19a) maintains that we are not concerned with the desecration of Shabbos that might result, because at this moment there is no Melachah being done and when it does become necessary to desecrate the Shabbos, it will be permitted because of Piku'ach Nefesh.
</p><p>
The commentaries (see Mishnah Berurah OC 328:39) suggest that this argument depends on the nature of the reason why one may desecrate Shabbos for the sake of Piku'ach Nefesh. If Shabbos is only 'Dechuyah' in the event of Piku'ach Nefesh (literally, it is 'pushed off'; the prohibition against Shabbos desecration is still in force, but it the necessity to do a Melachah for Piku'ach Nefesh <i>overrides</i> the laws of Shabbos; see Rambam, Hilchos Shabbos 2:1), it is logical to accept the Ba'al ha'Meor's assertion. Chilul Shabbos even for Piku'ach Nefesh must be avoided wherever possible. On the other hand, if Shabbos is 'Hutrah' in the event of Piku'ach Nefesh (it is 'permitted'; that is, the laws of Shabbos were <i>never prescribed</i> for situations of Piku'ach Nefesh, and, therefore, there is no desecration of Shabbos when a Melachah is performed for Piku'ach Nefesh; see Bi'ur Halachah, ad loc., who cites the <b>ROSH</b> and <b>MAHARAM MI'ROTENBURG</b> who ascribe to this view), then the Ramban's ruling is logical. (See Insights to Shabbos 30:1, Shabbos 128:3, Shabbos 133:4, and Nidah 38:5. See also Kehilos Yakov, ibid. and Mishmeres Chaim, vol. 1, who discuss the comparison between the Ba'al ha'Me'or's statements here and earlier in Shabbos.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) PREPARING FOOD ON YOM TOV THAT COULD HAVE BEEN PREPARED BEFORE YOM TOV</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Although one is permitted to roast steak on hot coals on Yom Tov, one is not permitted to sweeten mustard on hot coals. The Gemara explains that the reason is because the mustard could have been sweetened before Shabbos without losing any taste when Yom Tov arrives. In contrast, meat does not taste as good when it is roasted a day earlier, and therefore it may be roasted on Yom Tov. Why is it forbidden to sweeten the mustard on Yom Tov just because it could be done before Yom Tov? After all, the Gemara in Beitzah (28b) says that Melachah for the sake of food preparation may be done on Yom Tov even if it could have been done before Yom Tov!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RAMBAN</b> and other Rishonim explain that the prohibition against sweetening mustard on hot coals is only a rabbinical stringency. Mid'Oraisa, one may prepare food on Yom Tov even though it could have been prepared before Yom Tov. The Rabanan enacted that one avoid doing Melachah on Yom Tov whenever possible, and thus food that can be prepared before Yom Tov may not be prepared on Yom Tov.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> in Beitzah (23b) implies that doing Melachah on Yom Tov for the sake of food preparation is permitted only when it could not have been done before Yom Tov (contrary to the apparent ruling of the Gemara in Beitzah cited above; see Tosfos to Beitzah 3a).
</p><p>


<font><b>3) AND THEY CALLED HIM 'NASAN HA'BAVLI'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> A woman came to Rebbi Nasan with her third son and asked him what to do. Her first two sons had died as a result of their Milah. Rebbi Nasan looked at the baby and saw that he was very red. He told the woman, 'Wait until his body absorbs his blood.' She waited as directed, and the son indeed survived after his Milah. They called the child 'Nasan ha'Bavli' in honor of Rebbi Nasan.
</p><p>
On another occasion, a woman in the same situation came to Rebbi Nasan with her third son. He looked at the baby and saw that he was very pale. He examined the baby further and did not find any Dam Bris. He directed the woman to wait until the baby develops more blood. She followed his advice and the baby lived after his Milah. The Gemara relates that 'they called his name 'Nasan ha'Bavli'' in honor of Rebbi Nasan.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara say in the second case that they 'called his name' Nasan ha'Bavli, while in the first case it mentions only that they 'called him' Nasan ha'Bavli?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: RAV YAAKOV</b> D. HOMNICK (in <b>SEFER NACHALAS YAKOV</b>) points out that according to Rashi, in the second case there were two problems. First, the baby boy was in mortal danger if a Milah would be performed while he was pale. Second, even if Milah was performed no blood would ooze from the cut. Since Dam Bris is necessary for the proper fulfillment of the Mitzvah of Milah, the lack of Dam Bris would render the Mitzvah of Milah invalid. Rashi derived this from the fact that in the second case, Rebbi Nasan added that he did not see any Dam Bris. In the first case, though, the only problem was the mortal danger that the baby faced.
</p><p>
Therefore, in the first case, the people were relieved and expressed their gratitude to Rebbi Nasan only days or weeks after the Milah was performed, when it became evident that the baby would live. At the time of the Milah, though, it was not clear yet that he would survive. They gave the baby his own name at the time of the Milah and Keri'as Shem, and only <i>later</i>, when they saw that he would survive, did they begin to 'call him' by the name 'Nasan ha'Bavli' in appreciation.
</p><p>
In the second case, the people were grateful to Rebbi Nasan at the very moment that Dam Bris flowed from the Milah (which apparently did not occur when the child's older brothers were circumcised). They therefore <i>called the name</i> of the child by the name of 'Nasan ha'Bavli,' when he was named during the Milah at the Keri'as Shem, in appreciation for Rebbi Nasan's advice that led to the proper fulfillment of the Mitzvah.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<b><font>3) WASHING THE BABY FOR THE 'MILAH' ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We may wash a baby before and after Milah; we 
          sprinkle on him by hand, not from a Kli;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar ben Azaryah says, one may wash a baby on the 
          third day from Milah - 'Va'Yhi va'Yom ha'Shelishi 
          bi'Hyosam Ko'avim' (one is very weak on the third day).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  We do not Mechalel Shabbos for [Milah of] a Safek [Nefel 
          (stillborn baby)] or Androginus (one with male and female 
          genitals);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah permits for an Androginus.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> 'We may wash' connotes normally (why 
          does the Seifa forbid from a Kli)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah and Rabah bar Avuha):</font></b> The Seifa 
          explains the Reisha:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> We may wash a baby before and after Milah - we 
               sprinkle by hand, not from a Kli.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> (Rava): 'We may wash' connotes normally!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> We may wash a baby before and after 
          Milah - on the day of Milah we wash normally; on the 
          third day, if it is Shabbos, we sprinkle by hand, not 
          from a Kli.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar ben Azaryah permits washing [normally] on 
               the third day - 'Va'Yhi va'Yom ha'Shelishi...'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Support (for Rava - Beraisa):</font></b> We may wash a baby before 
          and after Milah - on the day of Milah we wash normally; 
          on the third day, if it is Shabbos, we sprinkle by hand;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar ben Azaryah permits washing [normally] on 
               the third day if it is Shabbos - even though there 
               is no proof, there is a hint - 'Va'Yhi va'Yom 
               ha'Shelishi...'
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> We sprinkle by hand, not with a cup, bowl or Kli.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> This clause is according to the first Tana.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does it mean 'Even though there is no 
          proof, there is a hint'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is not a proof because a baby's wound heals 
          faster than an adult's.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  A case occurred, and Rava permitted a man to wash 
          normally on the first day. Rava became weak - he assumed 
          that this was for ruling against Chachamim of the 
          previous generation (Rav Yehudah and Rabah bar Avuha).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  His Talmidim:</font></b> A Beraisa supports you!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Rava:</font></b> Our Mishnah supports them (Rashba - and the Beraisa 
          is errant)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah - R. Elazar ben Azaryah):</font></b> One may wash on 
               the third day...
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If the first Tana permits only sprinkling, this is 
               good (Maharsha - according to Rashi below (d'I Salka 
               Da'atach, without Maharshal's correction) he permits 
               even this only on the first two days - nevertheless, 
               R. Elazar does not say '*even* on the third day', 
               because the first Tana did not explicitly discuss 
               the third day);
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> But if the first Tana permits washing on the first 
               day and sprinkling on the third, R. Elazar should 
               have said 'We may <i>even</i> wash'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Rav Dimi):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Elazar ben Azaryah.
<br>
<b><font>4) WHAT IS PERMITTED FOR THE WOUND OF 'MILAH' ON SHABBOS?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael):</font></b> Is it permitted to 
          wash the entire body, or just the wound?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yakov):</font></b> One may put hot water on any wound - 
          the Heter for Milah must be to wash the entire body.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav):</font></b> We do not refrain from putting hot water and 
               oil on a wound on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Yosef):</font></b> For a regular wound we may only 
          use water heated from before Shabbos - for Milah, we may 
          use water heated on Shabbos!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection to objection (Rav Dimi):</font></b> What is your source to 
          say that they argue about using water heated on Shabbos - 
          perhaps they discuss water heated from before Shabbos!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Abaye:</font></b> Rav Yosef answered this before I had the chance!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> There is mortal danger, surely we may 
          use water heated on Shabbos!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Ravin):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Elazar ben Azaryah - it 
          is permitted even if the water was heated on Shabbos, 
          even to wash the entire body, for there is mortal danger.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> We do not refrain from putting hot water and oil 
          on a wound on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> One puts next to the wound, it drips down into 
          the wound.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question (against Rav - Beraisa):</font></b> One may not put oil or 
          hot water on a tuft to put on a wound on Shabbos (the 
          decree against cures on Shabbos applies).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, it is forbidden on account of squeezing.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question (against Rav - Beraisa):</font></b> One may not put oil or 
          hot water on a tuft on a wound on Shabbos. (We should not 
          be concerned for squeezing, since he need not move the 
          tuft!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Also that is forbidden on account of squeezing.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Support (for Shmuel - Beraisa):</font></b> One may not put oil or 
          hot water on a tuft on a wound on Shabbos; one puts next 
          to the wound, it drips down into the wound.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One may put a dry tuft or sponge on a wound 
          (so it will not get scratched), but not a dry Gemi (soft 
          reed) or bits of garments (these heal).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa contradicts itself regarding bits 
          of garments (these are tufts)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> New tufts (that were never on a wound) are 
          forbidden, old ones are permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> This teaches that [new] tufts heal.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>4) THE THIRD DAY AFTER 'MILAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara explains that the Tana Kama and Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah argue whether one is permitted to wash a baby on Shabbos, when that day is the third day after the Milah. Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah cites a verse to support his opinion that one may wash the baby on Shabbos without a Shinuy. When the wicked men of Shechem were in pain from their Milah, Shimon and Levi attacked the city and killed all of the male inhabitants (Bereishis 34:25). From there we see that a person is in pain on the third day after the Milah, and therefore his needs may be fulfilled without a Shinuy. The Tana Kama argues and maintains that the child may be washed only on the first two days after the Milah, but not on the third day (see Rashi, DH Ela Iy Amrit), because by the third day he is no longer in so much danger and it is not necessary to do a Melachah in order to wash him.
</p><p>
It seems clear from the Gemara that one who has undergone Milah is in more pain during the first two days, while on the third day it is questionable whether Melachah may be done in order to wash him. Why, then, did the sons of Yakov Avinu wait until the <i>third</i> day to attack the people of Shechem? They should have attacked right away, on the first or second day after the Milah, when the people would certainly be ill and weak from their Milah!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The Rishonim explain that according to Rashi's understanding of the Sugya, the following distinction must be made. With regard to a person's physical health, he is in greater danger on the first two days after the Milah than on the third day. However, with regard to a person's <i>strength</i>, he is weaker on the third day than on the first two days (because he has already suffered from his wound for two days).
</p><p>
The sons of Yakov Avinu, who wanted to attack the men of Shechem when they were at their weakest state after their Milah, waited until the third day to attack them. During the first two days, even though the men of Shechem were in more physical pain, they were stronger and would have been able to flee or to fight back. The Gemara here refers to one's state of health, which is certainly worse on the first two days after the Milah than it is on the third.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RIF</b> and <b>RAMBAM</b> understand the Gemara differently than Rashi. Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah permits washing the child <i>only</i> on the third day, and not on the second day. The Tana Kama does not permit washing the child on the second or third day. Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah permits washing the child on the third day, because on that day in particular the child is in greater danger. When the Gemara says that the Tana Kama agrees that the baby may be washed on the first day, it refers to the time <i>immediately</i> after the Milah, when the child is certainly in a state of danger. The sons of Yakov Avinu waited until the third day to attack Shechem because that is when a person is in the greatest danger as a result of his Milah. 
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) A 'SAFEK' DOES NOT OVERRIDE SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We do not Mechalel Shabbos for a Safek or 
          Androginus.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> '[Uva'Yom ha'Shmini Yimol Besar] Arlaso' - a 
          Vadai overrides Shabbos, a Safek does not (this will be 
          explained);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A Vadai [male] overrides Shabbos, Androginus does 
               not;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, Androginus overrides Shabbos, he is 
               Chayav Kares (if he grows up and does not circumcise 
               himself);
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b>A Vadai [eight day old] overrides Shabbos, a baby 
               born Bein ha'Shemashos does not (we do not know 
               which is his eighth day);
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> A Vadai overrides Shabbos, a baby born Mahul 
               (without foreskin) does not:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Beis Shamai obligate Hatafas Dam Bris (drawing 
                    a drop of blood from the end of the Ever, but 
                    this does not override Shabbos);
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> Beis Hillel exempt.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Elazar says, all require Hatafas Dam 
               Bris from a baby born Mahul, in case there is there 
               is foreskin there that is covered;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  They argue about one who converted after he was 
                    already circumcised - Beis Shamai require 
                    Hatafas Dam Bris, Beis Hillel do not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa says 'A Safek does not override 
          Shabbos' - what does this mean?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> We are Mechalel Shabbos for a baby born 
          after seven months of pregnancy, not for an eight month 
          baby (if its hair and nails are not properly developed, 
          it is a Nefel);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If we are unsure if a baby is seven or eight months, 
               we do not Mechalel Shabbos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> An eighth month baby [even if he appears to be 
               alive, he is dead, he] is [Muktzeh] like a stone; 
               one may not move him on Shabbos. However, his mother 
               may bend over to let him nurse, on account of danger 
               (if she is too full of milk; Rashi in Yevamos - also 
               for danger to him).
<br>
<b><font>2) 'HATAFAS DAM BRIS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> The Halachah follows the first Tana [regarding 
          Hatafas Dam Bris];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Shimon ben Elazar.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Rav Ada bar Ahavah had a son born Mahul - he requested 13 
          Mohalim [to do Hatafas Dam Bris on Shabbos - all refused, 
          so] he did so himself, and accidentally castrated him.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Rav Ada:</font></b> I deserved to be punished for transgressing 
          Rav's opinion!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Rav Nachman:</font></b> You also transgressed Shmuel's opinion!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Shmuel holds that Hatafas Dam Bris is done on a 
               weekday, but not on Shabbos!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Rav Ada holds that Shmuel obligates Hatafas Dam Bris 
               even on Shabbos, for there is definitely covered 
               foreskin:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Rabah):</font></b> [Shmuel holds that] there <i>might</i> be 
                    covered foreskin (therefore, it does not 
                    override Shabbos);
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b><font> (Rav Yosef):</font></b> [He holds that] there is 
                    definitely covered foreskin (therefore, it 
                    overrides Shabbos).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Support (Rav Yosef, for himself - Beraisa - R. Eliezer 
          ha'Kapar): Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel do not argue about 
          a baby born Mahul, all require Hatafas Dam Bris;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> They argue about whether or not it overrides Shabbos 
               - Beis Shamai say that it does, Beis Hillel say that 
               it does not.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> The first Tana [that R. Eliezer responds 
               to; Tosfos - it is R. Shimon ben Elazar] holds that 
               they do not argue about this, i.e. all agree that it 
               overrides Shabbos!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> Perhaps the first Tana holds that all agree 
          that it does not override Shabbos!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This is unreasonable, for then R. Eliezer comes 
          to teach about Beis Shamai, that they say it overrides 
          Shabbos!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> Perhaps he [primarily] comes to teach what 
          Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree about (i.e. even Beis 
          Hillel require Hatafas Dam Bris, unlike the first Tana)!
<br>
<b><font>3) WHICH BABIES ARE CIRCUMCISED BEFORE THE EIGHTH DAY?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Asi):</font></b> Whenever the mother has Tum'as Yoledes, the 
          baby is circumcised on the eighth day; whenever there is 
          no Tum'as Leidah, he is not circumcised on day eight - 
          '...V'Yoldah Zachar v'Tom'ah... uva'Yom ha'Shmini Yimol'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> The Halachah before the Torah was given 
          disproves this - there was no Tum'as Leidah, yet Milah 
          was on day eight!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Asi):</font></b> My rule applies from after Matan Torah.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: AN 'EIGHTH-MONTH' BABY</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa states that a baby born after eight months of gestation is not considered to be viable, and therefore it is Muktzah and forbidden to be handled on Shabbos. Does this Halachah apply today?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> (DH Ben Shemonah) writes that this Halachah does not apply today for two reasons. First, we are not knowledgeable enough to know whether the baby was born after eight months or after nine months of gestation. The Halachah is that when we are in doubt whether a baby was born after eight months or nine months, we treat him like a ninth-month baby.
</p><p>
Second, even if we would know for certain that the baby was born after eight months, the Gemara in Yevamos (80b) teaches that the baby is not considered viable only when its hair and fingernails are not completely developed (a sign that the baby is not physically complete). If the baby is clearly fully developed, even if it is born after eight months it is considered to be alive. It is viewed as 'a seventh-month baby that was born in the eighth month' after tarrying a few days inside the womb. Therefore, a baby born even in the eighth month is considered to be alive unless it is obviously not fully developed.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> This is the ruling of the <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 330:7-8). Only when a baby born after eight months has obvious signs of incomplete development is it forbidden to be handled on Shabbos. (See Mishnah Berurah 330:30, who cites a different view in the name of the Vilna Ga'on.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) HALACHAH: A CONVERT WHO WAS ALREADY CIRCUMCISED AND A BABY BORN CIRCUMCISED</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara discusses the requirement to perform Hatafas Dam Bris for a person who was circumcised while he was a Nochri, before he converted, and for a baby who was born with no Orlah.
</p><p>
What is the Halachah in these cases?
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Lo Nechleku) writes that it appears logical that in both cases, Hatafas Dam Bris is not necessary. He bases this ruling on the words of Rav, who argues with Shmuel and says that the Halachah follows the Tana Kama's version of Beis Hillel's opinion. According to the Tana Kama, Beis Hillel says that a baby born circumcised does not need Hatafas Dam Bris. Consequently, a convert certainly does not need Hatafas Dam Bris, because the requirement of Hatafah for a baby is more strict than the requirement of Hatafah for a convert. (This hierarchy is evident from the Gemara, which says that even according to the opinion that maintains that a baby born circumcised <i>needs</i> Hatafah, a convert does <i>not</i> need Hatafah.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>BEHAG</b> writes that a baby born with no Orlah does not need Hatafas Dam Bris, as Tosfos says, because we follow the ruling of Rav. However, a convert who was already circumcised <i>does</i> require Hatafah. The Behag bases his ruling on the Gemara in Yevamos (46b). This ruling seems to contradict the logic of the Gemara here, which implies that a convert needs Hatafah to a <i>lesser</i> degree than a baby born with no Orlah.
</p><p>
Tosfos, in the name of Rabeinu Shimshon, explains that logically, Hatafas Dam Bris should be necessary for both a circumcised Nochri who converts and a baby born with no Orlah. However, the Tana Kama derives from the word 'Orlaso' in the verse that not only is Hatafas Dam Bris <i>not</i> performed on Shabbos (as the Gemara earlier says), but it is not required at all for a baby with no Orlah. However, that verse refers only to a baby, and not to a convert. Therefore, with regard to a convert, the logic that Hatafah is required remains.
</p><p>
The logic behind this distinction between a baby and a convert may be as follows. The convert may need Hatafah because he was born with an Orlah. The Torah considers someone who was born with an Orlah to be someone to whom Milah can be performed. Therefore, even if he decides to become Jewish after he cut off the Orlah, he is obligated to do some action of Bris Milah, just as the person who still has an Orlah must do. This obligation is fulfilled by Hatafas Dam Bris (<b>ROSH</b>).
</p><p>
Another suggestion (<b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> to Yevamos 46b, #4) is that the convert must perform some sort of action to show that he is entering Hashem's covenant, while a baby born with no Orlah is already a full-fledged Jew, even without the fulfillment of an act of Milah. Since he has no Orlah, he does not need to perform an act of circumcision.
</p><p>
(c) Tosfos here and in Yevamos (46b, DH d'Rebbi Yosi) cites <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> who proposes the opposite ruling to that of the Behag. He rules that a Jewish baby born with no Orlah must have Hatafas Dam Bris, but a convert who is already circumcised does not need Hatafas Dam Bris.
</p><p>
From the that Tosfos quotes his words, it seems that Rabeinu Chananel maintains that such a convert becomes a full-fledged Jew with Tevilah and acceptance of the Mitzvos alone (like a woman convert). Indeed, Tosfos in Yevamos (ibid.) mentions that it is logical that a convert who physically cannot perform Milah (because his body is maimed, for example) is accepted as a full-fledged convert without Milah. However, according to the words of Rabeinu Chananel as they appear in our text of his commentary (on 135b; a few words seem to be missing in the version printed in the Vilna Shas), and as cited by the <b>RAMBAN</b> and other Rishonim (see also <b>TUR</b> YD 268), Rabeinu Chananel maintains that because there is no Hatafas Dam Bris for a convert, a Nochri who is already circumcised <i>cannot become a convert</i> at all. (Rabeinu Chananel enigmatically adds that although his conversion does not entitle him to become accepted as a Jew, nevertheless children born to him afterwards are Jews.) None of the Rishonim concur with him in this regard.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RIF</b> and <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Milah 1:7) rule that <i>both</i> a Nochri who was circumcised and a baby born with no Orlah need Hatafas Dam Bris. The <b>KESEF MISHNEH</b> explains that this ruling is based on the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer ha'Kafar who says that Beis Hillel maintains that both need Hatafas Dam Bris.
</p><p>
However, the Rambam (Hilchos Milah 3:6) rules that no blessing is recited when Hatafah is performed to the convert. If the Rambam rules like Rebbi Eliezer ha'Kafar, why should one not recite a blessing? 
</p><p>
The <b>RAN</b> (on the Rif) explains that the Rambam does not categorically rule like Rebbi Eliezer ha'Kafar. Rather, the Rambam is in doubt whom the Halachah follows. Therefore, he rules that a convert needs Hatafah out of doubt, but no blessing is recited.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (YD 266:4) rules that a baby born with no Orlah needs Hatafas Dam Bris. The <b>SHACH</b> writes that no blessing is recited unless there seems to be some tightly pressed Orlah that is difficult to discern. Similarly, with regard to a convert, the Shulchan Aruch (YD 268:1) rules like the Rambam that a convert needs Hatafah but no blessing is recited.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This is unlike Rav Huna and R. Chiya bar Aba:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Huna or R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> We Mechalel Shabbos 
               for [circumcision of] Yotzei Dofen (one born through 
               Caesarian section) and a baby with two foreskins 
               [one on top of the other; Me'iri - this cannot be, 
               surely both must be cut, all would agree that we 
               Mechalel Shabbos for this - rather, he has an extra 
               Ever];
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (The other of Rav Huna and R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> We do 
               not Mechalel Shabbos for them. (We do not Mechalel 
               for a baby with two foreskins, perhaps Milah of only 
               one of them overrides Shabbos, and we do not know 
               which!)
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> [Regarding Yotzei Dofen] they argue only about 
               Chilul Shabbos, but all agree that he is circumcised 
               on day eight [even though there is no Tum'as 
               Leidah]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, their argument is about this - the latter 
          opinion says that it does not override Shabbos because he 
          is not circumcised on day eight!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Tana'im argue as R. Asi and Abaye argue (*R.* Chama is a 
          Tana in the coming Beraisa):
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> (It says 'U'Ven Shemonas Yomim Yimol <i>Lachem</i>' 
          - a slave is circumcised on day eight only if his master 
          also had a full Kinyan (ha'Guf) in the mother.) Sometimes 
          Yelid Bayis (a baby born to a Shifchah Kena'anis of a 
          Yisrael) is circumcised on day one, sometimes he is 
          circumcised on day eight; sometimes Miknas Kesef (a 
          Nochri bought by a Yisrael to be an Eved Kena'ani) is 
          circumcised on day one, sometimes he is circumcised on 
          day eight.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If one bought a pregnant Shifchah and she gave birth 
               afterwards, this is Miknas Kesef that is circumcised 
               on day eight;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If one bought a Shifchah with her baby, this is 
               Miknas Kesef that is circumcised on day one.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> If one bought a Shifchah and she became pregnant 
               afterwards, her son is Yelid Bayis that is 
               circumcised on day eight;
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> R. Chama says, if she gave birth and then immersed 
               [l'Shem Shifchus], her son is Yelid Bayis that is 
               circumcised on day one; if she gave birth after 
               immersing, her son is Yelid Bayis that is 
               circumcised on day eight;
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> The first Tana holds that even if she gave birth 
               first, and is not Teme'ah Leidah, he is circumcised 
               on day eight.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Indeed, according to R. Chama, Yelid Bayis is 
          sometimes circumcised on day one, sometimes on day eight, 
          and likewise regarding Miknas Kesef;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa explained when Yelid Bayis is 
               circumcised on day one and when on day eight (she 
               gave birth before or after immersing, respectively);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If one bought a pregnant Shifchah, and she immersed 
               and gave birth afterwards, this is Miknas Kesef 
               circumcised on day eight;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> If Reuven bought a pregnant Shifchah and Shimon 
               bought her fetus, even if she gave birth after 
               immersing, this is Miknas Kesef circumcised on day 
               one.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> But according to the first Tana, we find three of 
               these - how do we find Yelid Bayis circumcised on 
               day one?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Yirmiyah):</font></b> The case is, Reuven bought a 
          Shifchah [solely] for her fetus.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This is like the opinion that Kinyan Peiros 
          (rights of usage) is unlike Kinyan ha'Guf;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> But according to the opinion that Kinyan Peiros is 
               like Kinyan ha'Guf, how can we answer?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Mesharshiya):</font></b> The case is, he bought a 
          Shifchah without intent to immerse her (the Mitzvos of 
          slaves do not apply to her).
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) 'SAFEK NEFEL'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Shimon Ben Gamliel):</font></b> Any child that lives 
          30 days is viable (even if he was born in the eighth 
          month, we say that he was a seven month baby that came 
          out late) - 'U'Fduyav mi'Ben Chodesh Tifdeh';
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Any animal that lives eight days is viable - 
               'Umi'Yom ha'Shemini va'Hal'ah Yeratzeh l'Korban';
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> Before these times, it is a Safek.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How may we circumcise [any child] on Shabbos if 
          he is [always] Safek Nefel?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Ada bar Ahavah):</font></b> We may circumcise in any 
          case:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If the baby is viable, Milah overrides Shabbos;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If it is a Nefel, it is like cutting dead flesh.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> If we are unsure if a baby is seven 
          or eight months, we do not Mechalel Shabbos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> We should be allowed to circumcise in any case - 
               either it is a proper Milah, or like cutting dead 
               flesh!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer (Mar brei d'Ravina and Rav Nechumi):</font></b> Indeed, he 
          may be circumcised on Shabbos - the Beraisa forbids 
          Machshirei Milah, it is like R. Eliezer [who normally 
          permits them].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> Tana'im argue about this (whether or not a Nefel 
          is considered dead):
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'V'Chi Yamus Min ha'Behemah Asher Hi Lachem 
               l'Ochlah' - this includes an eight month animal, 
               slaughter does not Metaher it [from Tum'as Nevelah. 
               'Eight month' refers to a premature birth - really, 
               the full term of pregnancy for small Tahor animals 
               is only five months (Bechoros 8A).]
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah and R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon 
               say, slaughter is Metaher it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Chachamim (the first Tana) consider a 
               Nefel to be alive, R. Yosi and R. Eliezer consider 
               it to be dead.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Rejection (Rava):</font></b> If so, instead of arguing about Tum'ah, 
          they should argue about eating it!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rather, all agree that it is dead; R. Yosi and R. 
               Elazar consider it like a Treifah - even though it 
               is dead, slaughter is Metaher it - the same applies 
               to a Nefel;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim do not consider it like a Treifah - a 
               Treifah was once fit to live, a Nefel was never fit 
               to live.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> An animal born Treifah was never fit to 
               live [yet slaughter is Metaher it]!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Slaughter applies to the category of 
               Treifos, but not to the category of Nefalim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question #1:</font></b> Do Chachamim argue with R. Shimon ben 
          Gamliel?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question #2:</font></b> If you will say that Chachamim argue with 
          him - does the Halachah follow him? (The following two 
          answers are to Question #1, i.e. there is a Tana who is 
          not concerned for a Nefel within eight days, unlike R. 
          Shimon.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Beraisa):</font></b> A calf born on Yom Tov may be 
          slaughtered that same day.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> The case is, we know that it had a full term 
          pregnancy.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Beraisa):</font></b> All agree that if a Bechor was born 
          blemished [on Yom Tov], it is Muchan (it may be 
          slaughtered that day).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> Here also, we know that it had a full term 
          pregnancy.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (to both questions):</font></b> Rav Yehudah taught that 
          the Halachah follows R. Shimon.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This implies that they argue!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> If a baby (within 30 days) fell from the roof or 
          was eaten by a lion, all agree that he was [Muchzak to 
          be] alive (most babies are not Nefalim);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> They argue about when he yawned and died [soon after 
               birth, before showing any sign of strength].
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What difference does it make whether or 
               not he was a Nefel?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> If he was alive (and his father died before 
               him without other descendants), he exempts his 
               mother from Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> They argue about a baby who fell from the roof 
          or was eaten by a lion!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Papa and Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua visited 
               Rav Idi bar Avin; he prepared for them a third-born 
               calf (it is healthiest) on its seventh day; they 
               told him, had you waited until evening (its eighth 
               day) to slaughter it, we would have eaten it - since 
               you slaughtered it now, we will not eat it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, if he yawned and died [soon after 
          birth], all assume that he was a Nefel;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> They argue about a baby (within 30 days) who fell 
               from the roof or was eaten by a lion - R. Shimon 
               assumes that he was a Nefel, Chachamim assume that 
               he was alive.
<br>
<b><font>2) 'SAFEK NEFEL' (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Rav Dimi bar Yosef's son had a son that died within 30 
          days - the father was mourning over him.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Rav Dimi:</font></b> Do you seek to eat the nice foods brought to 
          mourners?! (We do not mourn over Nefalim!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  His son:</font></b> I know that he was a nine month baby (not a 
          Nefel).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Rav Ashi visited the house of Rav Kahana; Rav Kahana's 
          son had died within 30 days, he was mourning over him.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Rav Ashi:</font></b> Rav Yehudah taught that the Halachah follows R. 
          Shimon!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Rav Kahana:</font></b> I know that he was a nine month baby.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Ravina citing Rava):</font></b> If [a man died leaving only one 
          child, and] the child died within 30 days, and the widow 
          became Mekudeshes (if the baby was a Nefel, Yibum or 
          Chalitzah is required):
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'IGLA TILSA'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara tells the story of two Amora'im who refused to eat from the 'Igla Tilsa' (a type of choice calf) that Rav Idi bar Avin prepared for them, since it was slaughtered on the seventh day of its life. 'Had you merely waited to slaughter it until this evening,' the Amora'im complained, 'we would have eaten it' -- since it would been clear that it was not a Nefel but a viable fetus. (These Amora'im maintained that only after an animal lives for eight days are we certain that it is viable.)
</p><p>
What exactly is an 'Igla Tilsa'?
</p><p>
(a) Earlier in Shabbos (11a) and in Pesachim (68b) <b>RASHI</b> explains that an 'Igla Tilsa' is a cow's third offspring. Such a calf is well developed, fat, and tasty.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> in Bechoros (19a, DH d'Hach) questions the assertion that the third born animal is healthier than the first born. The Gemara in Bechoros states that a <i>firstborn</i> sheep is usually stronger and healthier-looking.
</p><p>
Rashi (Shabbos 11a) avoids this apparent contradiction by explaining that a cow normally bears its first young when it is still weak and relatively immature. By the time it bears its third calf, it is mature enough to bear strong offspring. (The Gemara in Bechoros discusses a <i>mature</i> sheep that has not yet given birth.)
</p><p>
However, Rashi himself in Eruvin (63a) rejects this explanation based on the Gemara in Sanhedrin (65b) that says that every Erev Shabbos, Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish would use the Sefer Yetzirah to create an 'Igla Tilsa.' How can one 'create' a calf that is the <i>third</i> to it mother? (Rashi in Sanhedrin suggests that it just 'tasted like' a healthy, third-born calf.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> in Eruvin (63a) explains that 'Igla Tilsa' is a third-grown calf (one that has reached one-third of its full growth), which is particularly tasty. (See also Rashi to Bava Metzia 68a, DH l'ch'she'Yiheyu Meshulashim.)
</p><p>
However, as <b>TOSFOS</b> in Gitin (56a) points out, this clearly does not seem to be the case with the 'Igla Tilsa' mentioned here, which was only seven days old. A calf certainly does not reach one-third of its full size after only seven days!
</p><p>
(c) In a similar explanation, <b>RASHI</b> in Sanhedrin (65b) explains that an 'Igla Tilsa' is a calf that has reached one-third of its expected <i>lifespan</i>, at which time it has reached its <i>full</i> growth. This explanation is also problematic in the context of the Gemara here, for how can a seven-day old calf have reached one-third of its expected lifespan?
</p><p>
(d) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Gitin (56a) and Bechoros (19a) therefore concludes that 'Igla Tilsa' refers to a calf that is healthy and tasty. The word 'Tilsa' is not related to the root 'Telasa,' meaning 'three,' but to the root 'Shalish,' which means 'an appointee' (i.e., one who is worthy of being appointed over others due to his competence). Tosfos cites examples of this usage from the verse, 'v'Shalishim Al Kulo' (Shemos 14:7, see Targum Onkeles there), and 'Eglah Meshuleshes' (Bereishis 15:9; Tosfos' understanding is an original interpretation of that verse; see also Chizkuni there).
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If a Yisrael (who may marry a Chalutzah) was 
               Mekadesh her, she does Chalitzah;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If a Kohen was Mekadesh her, she does not do 
               Chalitzah (Tosfos - regarding Eshes Kohen the 
               Halachah follows Chachamim, we assume that the baby 
               was viable).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rav Sharbiya citing Rava):</font></b> In either case, she does 
          Chalitzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Ravina:</font></b> Rava said so at night, but the next morning he 
          retracted [and said like I reported]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Rav Sharbiya:</font></b> If only you would permit Chelev!
<br>
<b><font>3) 'ANDROGINUS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> We may circumcise an Androginus 
          on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rav Shizbi):</font></b> R. Yehudah does not consider an Androginus 
          to be male in every respect - if so, he would have an 
          Erech! (If one says 'Erech Ploni Alai', this obligates 
          him to give to Hekdesh a certain amount based on Ploni's 
          age and gender.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How do we know that an Androginus has no Erech?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> '[V'Hayah Erkecha] ha'Zachar' - this 
          excludes a Tumtum or Androginus.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps this teaches that Erech of a 
               male does not apply to them, rather, Erech Nekevah!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> 'V'Hayah Erkecha ha'Zachar...v'Im Nekevah 
               Hi' - Erchin applies to a Vadai male or female, not 
               to a Tumtum or Androginus.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> A Stam (anonymous) Sifra (Beraisa that expounds a 
               verse in Vayikra) is R. Yehudah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Support (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak - Mishnah):</font></b> Everyone is 
          Kosher to Mekadesh (mix ashes of the Parah Adumah with 
          the water), except for a child, lunatic or deaf person;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah is Machshir a child, he is Posel a woman 
               and Androginus.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This shows that he does not consider an Androginus a 
               male for other laws.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is Milah different?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'Himol Lachem <i>Kol</i> Zachar' includes an 
          Androginus.
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) IS ONE LIABLE FOR 'MILAH' PERFORMED WRONGLY ON SHABBOS?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven had two babies to circumcise, one on 
          Shabbos and one the next day, and he mistakenly 
          circumcised the latter on Shabbos, he is Chayav [Chatas];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer says, if one baby should have been circumcised 
          on Erev Shabbos and the other on Shabbos, and he 
          mistakenly circumcised the former on Shabbos, he is 
          liable;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yehoshua exempts.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Rav Huna):</font></b> The text in the Reisha is 'Chayav' 
          (like our text).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> The text is 'exempt'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Support (for Rav Huna - Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> 
          R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua agree that if one mistakenly 
          circumcised on Shabbos a [seven day old] baby due to be 
          circumcised the next day, instead of the [eight day old] 
          baby due to be circumcised on Shabbos, he is liable (he 
          circumcised too early, this is not a Mitzvah);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> They argue about one who mistakenly circumcised a 
               nine day old [who should have been circumcised on 
               Erev Shabbos] instead of the eight day old - R. 
               Eliezer is Mechayev, R. Yehoshua exempts; 
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Both learn from idolatry (all Chayavei Chatas are 
               equated to it).
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer holds, just like idolatry is a Lav [with 
               Kares], and one who transgresses b'Shogeg is Chayav 
               Chatas, the same applies to every such Lav;
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> R. Yehoshua holds, our case is unlike idolatry - 
               there, he transgressed without doing a Mitzvah - 
               here, he did a Mitzvah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Support (for Rav Yehudah - Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> R. Eliezer 
          and R. Yehoshua agree that if one mistakenly circumcised 
          on Shabbos a nine day old instead of the eight day old, 
          he is exempt (he did a Mitzvah);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> They argue about one who mistakenly circumcised a 
               seven day old instead of the eight day old - R. 
               Eliezer is Mechayev, R. Yehoshua exempts;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Both learn from idolatry.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer holds, just like idolatry is a Lav [with 
               Kares], and one who transgresses b'Shogeg is Chayav 
               Chatas, the same applies to every such Lav;
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> R. Yehoshua holds, our case is unlike idolatry - 
               there, he was not obsessed with doing a Mitzvah - 
               here, he was obsessed with a Mitzvah (he needed to 
               circumcise the eight day old)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Chiya):</font></b> R. Meir taught that R. Eliezer and 
          R. Yehoshua agree that if one mistakenly circumcised on 
          Shabbos a nine day old instead of the eight day old, he 
          is <i>liable</i>;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> They argue about one who mistakenly circumcised a 
               seven day old instead of the eight day old - R. 
               Eliezer is Mechayev, R. Yehoshua exempts.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If R. Yehoshua exempts in the Seifa, when he 
          did not do a Mitzvah, all the more so he should exempt in 
          the Reisha, when he did a Mitzvah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer (D'vei R. Yanai):</font></b> The case [in the Reisha] is, he 
          circumcised the baby due to be circumcised on Shabbos on 
          Erev Shabbos - he had no Heter to circumcise on Shabbos;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> In the Seifa, he had a Heter to circumcise on 
               Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Also in the Reisha, there is a Heter 
          to circumcise other eight day babies in the world!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Kahana):</font></b> [They are not the responsibility of 
          this man,] he has no Heter to override Shabbos. (Rosh (5) 
          - some learn from here that Hatafas Dam Bris is not 
          needed for a baby without foreskin; Rif - the Halachah 
          follows Rabah, Hatafas Dam Bris is on account of Safek 
          covered foreskin, we do not override Shabbos on account 
          of the doubt.)
<br>
<b><font>2) THE EARLIEST AND LATEST WE MAY CIRCUMCISE A CHILD</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A [healthy] baby is circumcised on day eight, 
          nine, 10, 11 or 12, not earlier or later.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Normally, he is circumcised on day eight;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  If he was born Bein ha'Shemashos (Safek day, Safek night 
          - we will call the morning before the birth day one), we 
          must wait until day nine to circumcise (if he was really 
          born at night, day nine is his eighth day, we cannot 
          circumcise before this; if he was born during the day, 
          day nine is his ninth day);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  If he was born Bein ha'Shemashos of Erev Shabbos, day 
          nine is Shabbos, we cannot circumcise on Shabbos (only a 
          Vadai eighth day Milah overrides Shabbos), we must wait 
          until day 10;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If the day after Shabbos is Yom Tov, we must wait 
               until day 11;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> We must wait until day 12 if the two days of Rosh 
               Hashanah follow Shabbos. (Rambam - both days are 
               like one long Kedushah - but we may circumcise on 
               the second day of other Yomim Tovim; Rosh - it is 
               forbidden on any Yom Tov Sheni.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  We do not circumcise a sick baby until it gets healthy.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Shmuel):</font></b> If a baby had a fever, we wait seven 
          days after he recovers before circumcising.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Must we wait seven full (24-hour) days [or may 
          we circumcise on the eighth Halachic day, even if less 
          than 168 hours have elapsed]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Ludah taught, the day of recovery is like the day 
          of birth.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Just like we need not wait seven full 
               days from the time of birth [before circumcising - a 
               baby born in the afternoon may be circumcised on the 
               morning of day eight], we need not wait seven full 
               days from the time of recovery!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> No - [the similarity is that both require 
          waiting seven days, but] the day of recovery is more 
          severe than the day of birth - the [wait after the] day 
          of birth does not require full days, but [that of] the 
          day of recovery does.
<br>
<b><font>3) WHEN MORE OF THE FORESKIN MUST BE CUT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The following strands invalidate Milah - flesh 
          which covers the majority of the crown;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  [A Kohen with such strands is an Arel,] he may not eat 
          Terumah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  If his Ever is thick [and it looks like foreskin 
          remains,] we trim it so he will not look like an Arel.
<br>
<font size='+1' color='#3300CC'><center><b>137b----------137</b></center></font>
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  If he circumcised but [left foreskin and] did not expose 
          the Milah, it is as if he did not circumcise.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - R. Avina):</font></b> [Rashi - even; Rambam - only] flesh 
          which covers the majority of the height of the crown 
          [invalidates Milah].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If his Ever is thick...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> If a child is fleshy [and the Milah appears to 
          be covered]:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If during erection he appears circumcised, this is 
               fine; if not, [mid'Rabanan] we must cut away the 
               flesh.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> If a child is fleshy - 
          if during erection he appears uncircumcised, we must cut 
          the flesh; if not, not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the difference between Shmuel and R. 
          Shimon ben Gamliel?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They argue about if [during erection] he appears 
          partially circumcised [some of the crown is covered - 
          Shmuel requires cutting more, R. Shimon does not].
<br>
<b><font>4) 'BERACHOS' ON 'MILAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he circumcised but did not expose the 
          Milah...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One who circumcises blesses 'Asher Kidshanu 
          b'Mitzvosav v'Tzivanu Al ha'Milah'; the baby's father 
          blesses '...v'Tzivanu Lehachniso bi'Vriso Shel Avraham 
          Avinu';
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Everyone present says 'Just like he entered the Bris, he 
          should progress to Torah, marriage and good deeds!'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Someone (it need not be the Mohel or father) blesses 
          'Asher Kidesh Yedid mi'Beten...Baruch Atah Hash-m Kores 
          ha'Bris.''
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  One who circumcises a convert blesses 'Asher Kidshanu 
          b'Mitzvosav v'Tzivanu Al ha'Milah'; someone blesses 
          '...v'Tzivanu Lamul Es ha'Gerim u'Lehatif Mehem Dam 
          Bris'; if not for Dam Bris, Shomayim and Aretz would not 
          endure - 'Im Lo Vrisi Yomam va'Laylah Chukos Shomayim 
          va'Aretz Lo Samti'; Baruch Atah Hash-m Kores ha'Bris.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  One who circumcises a slave blesses '...v'Tzivanu Al 
          ha'Milah'; someone blesses '...v'Tzivanu Lamul Es 
          ha'Avadim u'Lehatif Mehem Dam Bris'; if not for Dam 
          Bris...; Baruch Atah Hash-m Kores ha'Bris.'
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>***** <b>PEREK TOLIN</b> *****
</b></font></center><p>
<br><br><b><font>5) HANGING A 'MESHAMERES' ON SHABBOS AND YOM TOV</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Eliezer):</font></b> One may hang a Meshameres (a 
          cloth through which wine is strained) on Yom Tov; one may 
          strain wine through a hanging Meshameres on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Chachamim forbid both of these - however, one may strain 
          wine through a hanging Meshameres on Yom Tov.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> R. Eliezer does not even allow adding 
          onto a temporary Ohel (roof) - how can he permit [hanging 
          a Meshameres, and] making an Ohel from the beginning?!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Where do we find that R. Eliezer forbids 
               adding onto a temporary Ohel?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer (Mishnah - R. Eliezer):</font></b> If a window stopper 
               is tied and hangs [above the ground], one may use it 
               to close a window; if not, not
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, in either case one may use it to 
               close.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> All agree that one may not 
               make a new temporary Ohel on Yom Tov, there is no 
               need to say it is forbidden on Shabbos - they argue 
               about adding to an Ohel:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  R. Eliezer forbids adding on Yom Tov, there is 
                    no need to say that he forbids on Shabbos;
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> Chachamim permit adding on Shabbos, there is no 
                    need to say that they permit on Yom Tov.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Eliezer holds like R. Yehudah:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> The only difference between Yom Tov and 
               Shabbos is preparation of food;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, also Machshirei Ochel Nefesh (even 
               though they are forbidden on Shabbos, they are 
               permitted on Yom Tov).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> R. Yehudah permits only Machshirim that cannot 
          be done before Yom Tov - the Meshameres could be hung 
          beforehand!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Eliezer is more lenient than R. Yehudah (he 
          permits even Machshirim that could be done beforehand)!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) MILAH PERFORMED ON SHABBOS EARLIER THAN THE EIGHTH DAY </b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses a case in which a person has two babies that need Milah. One baby's Milah is to be performed on Shabbos and the other baby's Milah is to be performed on Sunday. The Mohel mistakenly circumcises on Shabbos the baby whose Milah was supposed to be on Sunday. The Mishnah says that he is Chayav for performing a Melachah on Shabbos.
</p><p>
Why is he Chayav? Since he performed the Milah before the eighth day, he did not fulfill the Mitzvah of Milah, and thus his act is Mekalkel, a destructive act and not a productive one (see Shabbos 106a). One is normally exempt from a Korban if he performs a destructive Melachah (Mekalkel) on Shabbos!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> cites the <b>ROSH</b> (#5) who proves that if Milah is done to a baby before the eighth day, the baby does not need any further Milah or Hatafas Dam Bris when the eighth day arrives. Although the Mitzvah of Milah was not fulfilled, the baby is considered fully circumcised. Accordingly, the act of Milah was indeed a constructive one.
</p><p>
(b) Rebbi Akiva Eiger further explains that from the Gemara in Kerisus (19b) it is evident that the Mishnah here follows the opinion of Rebbi Shimon, who maintains that one is Chayav for the Melachah of Chovel (making a wound) even when his act is Mekalkel.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) MILAH ON 'YOM TOV SHENI SHEL GALUYOS'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah says that it is possible for the time for a baby's Milah to occur twelve days after he is born.
</p><p>
If he was born Bein ha'Shemashos, we wait until the ninth day (out of doubt that Bein ha'Shemashos is considered night) to perform the Milah. If he was born during Bein ha'Shemashos of Erev Shabbos, the ninth day is Shabbos and we cannot perform the Milah on Shabbos when there is a doubt if that day is the eighth day. If the day after Shabbos is the first day of Rosh Hashanah, we must wait until after the two days of Rosh Hashanah to perform the Milah, and thus the Milah is performed on the twelfth day.
</p><p>
Why does the Mishnah say that Shabbos was followed by two days of <i>Rosh Hashanah</i>, and not by any two-day Yom Tov (of Yom Tov Sheni Shel Galuyos)?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Milah 1:15) infers from the Mishnah that a Milah that is not performed at its proper time (on the eighth day) <i>does</i> override the second day of a normal Yom Tov. If that day is a Yom Tov other than Rosh Hashanah, indeed the Milah <i>is</i> performed on the second day of Yom Tov.
</p><p>
The Rambam's reasoning is that the second day of Yom Tov is a rabbinical enactment, while the Mitzvah of Milah is mid'Oraisa. A Mitzvah mid'Oraisa overrides a Mitzvah d'Rabanan. The second day of Rosh Hashanah, however, is not merely a Yom Tov because of the rabbinical enactment. Rather, it is a Safek Yom Tov mid'Oraisa, and therefore one is not permitted to perform Milah on the second day of Rosh Hashanah when that Milah cannot be performed on Shabbos.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b>, <b>TESHUVOS HA'ROSH</b>, and <b>TUR</b> dispute the Rambam's ruling. They maintain that Milah (when not performed on the eighth day) may not be performed on the second day of <i>any</i> Yom Tov. The reason why the Mishnah specifically mentions Rosh Hashanah is because the Mishnah was written in Eretz Yisrael, where there was no other Yom Tov that was two days long. This also seems to be the opinion of Rashi in Pesachim (47a).
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) LIABILITY FOR VARIOUS ACTIONS ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - Chachamim):</font></b> [Both of these are forbidden...]
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If one hung it, what is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> He is Chayav Chatas.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> If so, if someone hung a flask on a 
          peg, is he [also] Chayav?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> It is forbidden mid'Rabanan, lest one 
          behave as if it is a weekday.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Abaye consolidated laws from several Beraisos:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The following are forbidden, but if one did them he 
               is exempt - stretching out a leather pouch on pegs 
               (this is like making an Ohel), hanging a Meshameres, 
               spreading Kilah (a canopy over a bed), and 
               assembling a chair that comes apart;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If one made a permanent Ohel, he is Chayav Chatas;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> The following are permitted - putting a bed (that 
               was on its side) on its legs, and opening a folding 
               chair or toilet seat.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not put wine in a hanging Meshameres 
          on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If one strained wine through it, what is the 
          law?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Kahana):</font></b> He is Chayav Chatas.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> It is unreasonable that R. 
          Eliezer permits something for which Chachamim Mechayev 
          Chatas!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Counter-objection (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Why is this unreasonable? 
          R. Meir is Mechayev Chatas for wearing Ir Shel Zahav [in 
          Reshus ha'Rabim], and R. Eliezer permits!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> A woman may not go out wearing 
               Ir Shel Zahav - if she did [in Reshus ha'Rabim], she 
               is Chayeves Chatas;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, she may not go out with it; if she 
               did, she is exempt;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer permits going out with it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> R. Eliezer does not respond to R. Meir, 
          rather, to Chachamim, who forbid and exempt. (Tosfos 
          ha'Rosh - there is a 'Tana Kama' who forbids; Chachamim 
          argue with him. R. Eliezer and R. Meir argue about the 
          argument - R. Meir says that the Tana Kama is Mechayev 
          Chatas, and Chachamim forbid but exempt; R. Eliezer says 
          that the Tana Kama forbids but exempts, and Chachamim 
          permit. If both R. Meir and R. Eliezer themselves forbid 
          but exempt, there is not really a wide argument, just one 
          holds that there is a Tana who is Mechayev, the other 
          holds that there is a Tana who permits - <b><b><b>PF</b></b></b>. 
          Alternatively, perhaps Chachamim forbid even in a Chatzer 
          (like Rav and the Stam Mishnayos 57A and 64B), and R. 
          Eliezer permits (like R. Yishmael, 64B). Rashash - it is 
          not a wide argument - R. Meir holds that because it is 
          forbidden l'Chatchilah, it is no longer a Tachshit, 
          therefore one is liable.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> For which [Av] Melachah do we warn him [for 
          straining? Surely, if he was warned incorrectly he is not 
          killed; Tosfos (Bava Kama 2A ul'R. Eliezer) is unsure 
          whether or not one must be warned for the Av.] 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rabah):</font></b> We warn him for Borer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (R. Zeira):</font></b> We warn him for Meraked (sifting 
          out Pesoles).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Support (Rabah, for himself):</font></b> Straining resembles Borer, 
          to take the food and leave the Pesoles (the wine comes 
          through, the dregs are left in the Meshameres. Tosfos - 
          it is the way to take the food only when there is more 
          Pesoles.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Support (R. Zeira, for himself):</font></b> Straining resembles 
          Meraked, the food goes to the bottom, the Pesoles is left 
          on top. (Rambam rules that he is liable for Meraked <i>or</i> 
          Borer.)
<br>
<b><font>2) PROHIBITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF MAKING AN 'OHEL'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rami bar Yechezkeil - Beraisa):</font></b> One may not spread a 
          Talis on four pegs - if he did, he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If it was wrapped on a pole by a thread or string from 
          before Shabbos, one may spread it on Shabbos (he adds to 
          a temporary Ohel).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Kahana):</font></b> What is the law concerning Kilah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav):</font></b> Even [some] beds are forbidden (this will 
          be explained).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question (Rav Kahana):</font></b> What is the law concerning a 
               bed?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rav):</font></b> Even [some] Kilos are permitted.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question (Rav Kahana):</font></b> What are the laws concerning 
               Kilah and a bed?
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rav):</font></b> Kilah is forbidden, a bed is 
               permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Resolution:</font></b> Rav forbade even beds regarding assembling a 
          bed that comes apart; he permitted even Kilos like Rami 
          bar Yechezkeil (they are on strings, he merely extends 
          them); he forbade Kilah and permitted a bed in the usual 
          case (Kilah without a string, and standing a bed on its 
          legs).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> I saw the Kilos of Rav Huna's house - on 
          Shabbos night they were spread, on Shabbos morning they 
          were [dismantled] on the floor.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rav citing R. Chiya):</font></b> It is permitted to spread a 
          curtain [in a doorway] and to take it down.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel citing R. Chiya):</font></b> It is permitted to spread Kilas 
          Chasanim (a canopy spread over a pole running lengthwise 
          above the middle of the bed, it slopes down on both 
          sides) and to take it down.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: AN UMBRELLA ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara says that a person is permitted to unfold a folding chair ('Kisei Traskal') on Shabbos even though he thereby creates a shelter over the space underneath the chair. 
</p><p>
(a) What is the Halachah with regard to opening an umbrella on Shabbos? Is it the same as a folding chair?
</p><p>
(b) Furthermore, if an umbrella is opened before Shabbos, may one carry it over his head on Shabbos? Is it the same as standing a bed upright that was on its side, which the Gemara permits?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>NODA B'YEHUDAH</b> (OC 1:30) says that one is not permitted to open an umbrella on Shabbos, because one thereby creates an Ohel. The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> (OC 72) also prohibits opening an umbrella. (See <b>CHAZON ISH</b>, OC 52:6.)
</p><p>
The <b>BI'UR HALACHAH</b> (OC 315:7) explains that an umbrella is not similar to a folding chair, because such a chair unfolds right into position. An umbrella, however, is different, because the metal rods keep the umbrella locked in the open position, and these must be clicked into place when unfolding the umbrella. Because of this, opening an umbrella is deemed constructing an Ohel, and not merely putting an object in a different position.
</p><p>
(b) Regarding an umbrella that was opened prior to Shabbos, the Bi'ur Halachah writes that one is prohibited to carry it on Shabbos because wherever a person walks while he carries the umbrella, he makes a new Ohel in that place (since he is holding the umbrella for the sake of using it as an Ohel, which protects the space underneath it). 
</p><p>
Of course, in a place where there is no Eruv, one is prohibited to carry an umbrella because doing so constitutes Hotza'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rav Sheshes brei d'Rav Idi):</font></b> This is only if the top is 
          not a Tefach wide - otherwise, it is forbidden [on 
          account of making an Ohel];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Even if the top is not a Tefach wide, if within 
               three Tefachim of the top the width [between sides] 
               is a Tefach, it is forbidden;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> It is permitted only if [at the bottom] the sides 
               are not a Tefach from the middle - if there is, it 
               is forbidden, for a slanted Ohel is considered an 
               Ohel. (Rashi - the total width is at most two 
               Tefachim, it is not made to sleep under. Tosfos - 
               perhaps the canopy rests on several poles, the width 
               between any two must be less than a Tefach; 
               alternatively, perhaps we are concerned only if 10 
               Tefachim above the bed it is a Tefach wide. Rashbam 
               deletes this clause from the text, for a slanted 
               Ohel is not considered an Ohel (Sukah 19B).)
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> It is permitted only if it does not hang a Tefach 
               below [the sides of] the bed - if it does, it is 
               forbidden (it makes the bed a roof with walls on two 
               sides).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Rav Sheshes brei d'Rav Idi):</font></b> It is permitted to wear a 
          felt hat on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> It was taught that it is forbidden!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> It is forbidden [on account of an Ohel] only 
          if it spreads out a Tefach from his head.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> Is one liable if he (Rosh' text - is it 
          forbidden to) spread a Talis a Tefach over his head?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (R. Chananel) Answer:</font></b> A hat is tight (it is 
          like an Ohel), a Talis is not tight.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (Rashi) Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, it is forbidden if 
          it does not fit well (Rashi - lest it will blow off and 
          he will carry it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One may spread a leather pouch with straps in 
          its normal place.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> Two people may spread it, one may not (Rashi - he 
          stretches it out well; Rashba - he ties one end at a 
          time, the way Ohalim are made).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> Kilah is forbidden even with 10 people, for it 
          will surely be stretched.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If one leg of an oven came off, the oven may 
          be moved; if two came off, it is forbidden;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(t)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> Even if one came off it is forbidden - this is a 
          decree lest he bang it in.
<br>
<b><font>3) WILL TORAH BE FORGOTTEN?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> In the future Torah will be forgotten from Yisrael 
          - it says '*V'Hifla* Hash-m Es Makosecha', just like 
          'Hineni Yosef Lehafli Es ha'Am ha'Zeh Haflei va'Fele 
          [...v'Ovda Chachmas Chachamav]', which refers to Torah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> In Yavneh they taught that in the future Torah 
          will be forgotten from Yisrael - it says 'Hinei Yomim 
          Ba'im...v'Hishlachti Ra'av ba'Aretz...Lishmo'a Es Divrei 
          Hash-m', and '...Yeshotetu Levakesh Es Devar Hash-m v'Lo 
          Yimtza'u';
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'Devar Hash-m' refers to Halachah, the Ketz (latest 
               possible time for Moshi'ach to come), and prophecy.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does it mean 'Yeshotetu Levakesh Es Devar 
          Hash-m'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> A woman will take a loaf of Terumah to synagogues 
          and Batei Medrash to find out if it is Tahor or Tamei. 
          (In the name of Noda bi'Yhudah - she will take the loaf 
          [and not just tell what happened], because people will 
          not know the Halachah, they will need to look for 'clouds 
          of Tum'ah' over it.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Even if they forgot, this is explicitly written 
          [that all foods Mekabel Tum'ah] - 'Mi'Kol ha'Ochel Asher 
          Ye'achel'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, she will ask if it is a Rishon [l'Tum'ah] 
          or a Sheni.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Also this is explicit [Maharshal - in the 
          Torah], like a Mishnah teaches!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> If a [dead] Sheretz was found in a 
               [Cheres] oven, the bread inside is a Sheni, for the 
               oven is a Rishon.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They will be unsure about Rav Ada bar Ahavah's 
          question:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question (Rav Ada):</font></b> We should view the entire oven 
               as if it was full of Tum'ah [because the Sheretz is 
               Metamei the entire contents], and the loaf should be 
               a Rishon!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rava):</font></b> We do not view it like this:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Beraisa) Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps all Kelim are 
                    Mekabel Tum'ah from the airspace of a Kli 
                    Cheres!
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> 'Kol Asher b'Socho Yitma...; Mi'Kol 
                    ha'Ochel Asher Ye'achel' - food is Mekabel 
                    Tum'ah from the airspace of a Kli Cheres, Kelim 
                    are not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Shimon):</font></b> Heaven forbid that Torah would be 
          forgotten from Yisrael - 'Ki Lo Sishakach mi'Pi Zar'o'. 
          (Maharsha - the others explain that this refers only to 
          Shiras Ha'azinu.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How do we explain 'Yeshotetu Levakesh Es Devar 
          Hash-m'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They will not find the Halachah and Mishnah clear 
          [even] in one place (there will be many different 
          opinions).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) HALACHAH: WEARING A WIDE-BRIMMED HAT ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara discusses the conditions under which one may wear a 'Siyana' on Shabbos. What is a Siyana, and under what conditions may one wear it on Shabbos?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that a Siyana is a wide-brimmed hat. If it is not worn <i>tightly</i> (Mehudak) on the head, there is a concern that the wind might blow it off and one will pick it up and carry it in Reshus ha'Rabim. (According to Rashi, 'Mehudak' means 'tight' and is the condition that <i>permits</i> a wide-brimmed hat to be worn on Shabbos.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> cites <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> who says that a Siyana is a hat or head covering. If the brim is made from a hard material that does not bend, the hat may not be worn on Shabbos, because it is considered an Ohel. When the brim is soft and pliable, the hat may be worn on Shabbos. (According to Rabeinu Chananel, 'Mehudak' means that it 'does not bend' and is the condition that <i>prohibits</i> a hat to be worn on Shabbos.)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAM</b> writes that a Siyana refers to any Talis or overgarment which a person drapes over his head and which protrudes in front of him or to the sides. If it is tightly bound to his head <i>and</i> it is stiff and does not bend, it is like an Ohel and may not be worn. (Apparently, according to the Rambam, 'Mehudak' means both that it is 'tight' and that it 'does not bend,' and it is the condition that <i>prohibits</i> a hat to be worn. See <b>TESHUVOS RADVAZ</b> in Leshonos ha'Rambam.)
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> Is one permitted to go outside with a hat with a wide, stiff brim on Shabbos? According to Rabeinu Chananel, to wear such a hat should be prohibited, because it is like an Ohel. According to Rashi, it should be prohibited only if it is not worn tightly on one's head.
</p><p>
The <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> (OC 301:152) lists a number of reasons to permit one to wear a hat on Shabbos:
</p><p>
First, the <b>MAGEN AVRAHAM</b> rules that if the brim of a hat is sloped downward, it is not considered an Ohel and may be worn.
</p><p>
Second, one may rely on Rashi's opinion that it is prohibited only when it is worn loosely.
</p><p>
Third, the hats commonly worn today are not worn in order to provide shade, and thus they do not serve the purpose of an Ohel.
</p><p>
Finally, if the brim is not stiff, the hat certainly is permitted.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) SETTING UP A 'GUD B'KISNA' ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Rav says that a 'Gud b'Kisna' may be spread by two people on Shabbos but not by one person. Abaye adds that a 'Kilah' may not be spread even by ten people. What are these objects and why are they forbidden to be spread?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> cites the explanation of his teachers who say that a 'Gud b'Kisna' refers to a removable leather pouch (used for storing liquids) that is attached by its straps to its normal resting place. Two people may set it up on its normal resting place because they are unable to stretch it properly. One person, though, is able to set it up properly by stretching one side around one peg and tying it, and then stretching the other side around the other peg and tying it. Rashi concludes that he does not know what this is (that is, why two cannot tie it tightly, or why it is prohibited if it is done tightly).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RA'AVAD</b> (Hilchos Shabbos 22:32) explains that 'Gud b'Kisna' refers to a horizontal curtain hung from rings that protrude from the walls on either side. If the curtain can be hung without stretching out the creases, it is permitted, because it does not appear that an Ohel is being made, or that the creases are being stretched out and the curtain 'fixed.' (Apparently, the Gemara refers to a curtain that was already spread one Tefach before Shabbos, and thus it may be spread the rest of its length on Shabbos.) If the creases are stretched, however, it appears as though a new Ohel is being made (since the change in creases makes it appear like a new fabric) or as though the curtain is being fixed.
</p><p>
One person may not set up the curtain because he is unable to line up the rings properly and he has no choice but to stretch out the creases. Similarly, when ten people put up a large curtain (a 'Kilah'), they are unable to line up the rings properly and they will have to change the creases.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Shabbos 22:32) says that a 'Gud b'Kisna' is a hanging curtain. It may not be hung by one person, because it is not possible for him to hang it without it draping over and forming a roof (Ohel) at some point. Two people, though, are able to hang it without it draping over and forming a roof. However, a canopy with a horizontal roof built into it may not be set up vertically to be used as a divider even by ten people, because it is inevitable that at some point its roof will lift up slightly and form an Ohel over the ground.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RASHBA</b> in the name of <b>RABEINU YONAH</b> also says that Gud b'Kisna is a curtain. If this curtain is set up all at once (by two people), it is not similar to Binyan (which is done in progressive stages) and it is permitted. However, if one part is placed into position first and then the next part, it looks like an act of Binyan and is prohibited.
</p><p>
Since one person can set up a 'Gud' only part by part, it is prohibited. A large curtain cannot be set up all at once even by ten people, and therefore it is prohibited.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) PUNISHMENTS FOR EVIL JUDGES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Yosi bar Elisha):</font></b> If you see many 
          afflictions coming on the generation, check the judges - 
          every punishment that comes to the world is on account of 
          judges of Yisrael - 'Shim'u Na...u'Ktzinei Beis Yisrael 
          ha'Masa'avim Mishpat v'Es Kol ha'Ysharah Ye'akshu; 
          ...Rosheha b'Shochad Yishpotu v'Chohaneha bi'Mchir Yoru 
          u'Nvi'eha b'Chesef Yiksomu v'Al Hash-m Yisha'enu';
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> They were Resha'im, but they relied on Hash-m - 
               therefore, they will get three punishments 
               corresponding to their three sins (Maharsha - they 
               will not be judged with fire, which destroys 
               everything) - 'Lachen Biglalchem Tziyon Sadeh 
               Secharesh  vi'Yrushalayim Iyin Tihyeh v'Har ha'Bayis 
               l'Vamos Ya'ar'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Hash-m will not rest His Shechinah on Yisrael until evil 
          judges and enforcers cease - 'V'Ashivah Yadi Alayich 
          v'Etzrof ka'Bor Sigayich...v'Ashivah Shoftayich 
          keva'Rishonah...[Acharei Chen Yikarei Lach Ir 
          ha'Tzedek]'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Ula):</font></b> Yerushalayim (Rambam's text - Yisrael) will be 
          redeemed only through Tzedakah - 'Tziyon b'Mishpat 
          Tipadeh v'Shaveha bi'Tzdakah'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Rav Papa):</font></b> If haughty people cease, the Amugushi 
          (enticers, avid idolaters that constantly blaspheme; 
          alternatively, Parsi witches that afflict Yisrael) will 
          cease - 'V'Etzrof ka'Bor Sigayich [v'Asirah Kol 
          Bedilayich]';
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If judges [of Yisrael that pervert the law] cease, 
               oppressors of Yisrael will cease - 'Hesir Hash-m 
               Mishpatayich Pinah Oyvayech'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (R. Mal'ai):</font></b> 'Shovar Hash-m Mate Resha'im' - these are 
          judges that became a staff [of support] for their clerks 
          [to demand more for their duties than they are entitled 
          to];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'Shevet Moshlim' are Chachamim that defend crooked 
               judgments of judges in their families.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Mar Zutra):</font></b> They are Chachamim that train unlearned 
               people to be judges.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (R. Eliezer ben Mal'ai):</font></b> 'Ki Chapeichem Nego'alu va'Dam' 
          - this refers to judges [who take bribes]; 
          'V'Etzbe'oseichem be'Avon' are scribes [that write 
          fraudulent documents]; 'Sifsoseichem Dibru Sheker' are 
          lawyers [that teach people which claims will win]; 
          'Leshonchem Avlah Sehgeh' are the parties in the case.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (R. Mal'ai):</font></b> Yosef did not taste wine from the day he was 
          sold [until his brothers came to Mitzrayim] - 'Ul'Kadkod 
          Nezir Echav';
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina):</font></b> Also his brothers did not 
          drink [until then] - 'Va'Yishtu va'Yishkeru <i>Imo</i>', 
          implying that they did not drink in his absence.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Mil'ai says, they did not get drunk in his 
               absence, but they drank.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (R. Mal'ai):</font></b> Aharon's reward for 'V'Ra'acha v'Somach 
          b'Libo' (he truly delighted in Moshe's greatness) was to 
          [be Kohen Gadol and] wear the Choshen Mishpat on his 
          heart.
<br>
<b><font>2) ANSWERS SENT TO THE 'BENEI BASHKAR'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  People of Bashkar sent to Levi to ask about Kilah [on 
          Shabbos], hops in a vineyard, and a Mes on Yom Tov; Levi 
          died before receiving the questions. Shmuel told Rav 
          Menasiyah 'If you are a Chacham, answer them'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Menasiyah):</font></b> We investigated Kilah, and did 
          not find any way to permit it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> He should have answered like Rami bar 
          Yechezkeil taught (if it is on a string, one may extend 
          it)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Benei Bashkar are not Benei Torah (they are prone 
          to extrapolate and permit more).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Menasiyah):</font></b> Hops in a vineyard are 
          Kil'ayim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> He should have answered like R. Tarfon!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Tarfon):</font></b> Hops in a vineyard are not 
               Kil'ayim;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, they are Kil'ayim.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> [Whenever there is an argument about an agricultural 
               law in Eretz Yisrael,] in Chutz la'Aretz the 
               Halachah follows the lenient opinion!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Benei Bashkar are not Benei Torah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Rav announced that one who wants to plant hops in a 
          vineyard may do so;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  Rav Amram Chasida lashed people who did so. (Tosfos - 
          even though the Halachah follows R. Tarfon in Chutz 
          la'Aretz, he needed to be stringent in his area, for they 
          were not Benei Torah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  Rav Mesharshiya gave a Perutah to a Nochri child to plant 
          them for him. (He holds that it is permitted, but it is 
          better to distance oneself from doing so, lest others 
          learn to be lenient.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why didn't he give a Perutah to a Yisrael child 
          to do so?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He was concerned lest the Yisrael continue to do 
          so when he matures.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why didn't he give a Perutah to a Nochri adult?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He could be confused with a Yisrael [adult].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Rav Menasiyah):</font></b> Neither Yisraelim nor Nochrim 
          should be involved with [burial of] a Mes on Yom Tov, 
          even on Yom Tov Sheni (the second day observed in Chutz 
          la'Aretz).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But Rav Yehudah bar Shilas taught about a case 
          in the synagogue of Ma'on of a Mes on Yom Tov that was 
          before or after Shabbos (he did not remember which), and 
          R. Yochanan permitted to bury it through Nochrim!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: BURIAL OF A 'MES' ON THE SECOND DAY OF YOM TOV</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara relates that the people of Bashkar sent three questions to Levi (who passed away before the questions reached him). The third question was what to do with the body of a person who died on Yom Tov. Rav Menashya responded that neither a Jew nor a Nochri may be involved with the body on either day of Yom Tov. The Gemara concludes that Rav Menashya was being strict with the people of Bashkar, because they were not Bnei Torah and he feared that they might be overly lenient if he told them the letter of the law. In truth, though, the Halachah is that on the first day of Yom Tov, a Nochri may bury the body, and on the second day of Yom Tov even a Jew may take care of the needs of the Mes.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (139b, DH Yom Tov Sheni) relates that the Jews of the town of Melun (France) buried a Mes on the second day of Yom Tov. When Rabeinu Tam heard about it, he reprimanded them and sent to them the following message: 'The people of Bashkar were not Bnei Torah -- are the people of Melun Bnei Torah?!'
</p><p>
Why exactly did Rabeinu Tam object to the conduct of the people of Melun? Were they acting contrary to the Halachah with regard to the burial of a Mes on the second day of Yom Tov?
</p><p>
There are two different explanations concerning what was inappropriate about the conduct of the people of Melun, and for each explanation, there are various opinions why Rabeinu Tam objected.
</p><p>
(a) According to some, Rabeinu Tam objected to having <i>Jews</i> bury the dead on the second day of Yom Tov, for one of the following reasons:
</p><p>
1. <b>TOSFOS</b> here explains that in Beitzah (6a), Ravina concludes that even though it was initially permitted for Jews to bury a Mes on the second day of Yom Tov, nowadays it is prohibited because the Nochrim might see the Jews doing Melachah for the Mes and they will force the Jews to do Melachah for them, too, on Yom Tov. Even though this concern does not exist today in most places (since the Jews are not so oppressed by the Nochrim), the Halachah remains the same.
</p><p>
2. <b>TOSFOS</b> in Beitzah (6a) and other Rishonim write that Ravina's reasoning still applies today. Even though today, most Jews are not oppressed by their Nochri neighbors, we are still concerned that the officials of the king or governing body will see Jews doing Melachah for a Mes on Yom Tov and they will draft the Jews to do Melachah on Yom Tov. This is the reason why Rabeinu Tam objected to the Jews of Melun when they buried a Mes on the second day of Yom Tov.
</p><p>
3. <b>RASHI</b> here says that it is only permitted to bury a Mes if the body has been waiting for at least a day (that is, it died the day before Yom Tov Sheni). The people of Melun buried a Mes that died on that day. Rabeinu Tam ruled like his grandfather, Rashi, that it is not permitted to bury a Mes on Yom Tov if it died on that day. (This is also the ruling of the <b><b><b>OR</b></b> ZARU'A</b>.)
</p><p>
4. Rabeinu Tam was upset that the Jews of Melun buried the Mes <i>themselves</i> and did not commission Nochrim to do it. Since it was possible to have Nochrim do the work for them, they should not have buried the Mes themselves. This is the ruling of the <b>SHE'ILTOS</b>.
</p><p>
5. Rabeinu Tam may have been of the opinion that today we should be stringent not to permit Jews to bury a Mes on the second day of Yom Tov, because we are like the people of Bashkar and are not considered to be Bnei Torah (<b>HAGAHOS MAIMONI</b>, Hilchos Yom Tov 1:70). However, we are permitted to ask <i>Nochrim</i> to bury the Mes for us even though Rebbi Menashya did not permit the people of Bashkar to do so, because the people of Bashkar were even less of Bnei Torah than we.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> (Teshuvos ha'Ramban, cited by <b>ORCHOS CHAIM</b>, Hilchos Yom Tov 25) and <b>TOSFOS RABEINU PERETZ</b> in Beitzah (6a) explain that Rabeinu Tam was not upset that Jews buried the Mes on the second day of Yom Tov. Rather, he objected because a <i>large crowd</i> of the people of Melun were involved in the funeral, and he ruled that only the exact number of people necessary for the burial may participate. The reasoning for this is as follows:
</p><p>
1. A large crowd may not participate in the burial on Yom Tov, because a large crowd would bring attention to the event and make it well-known. If the event becomes public, we are afraid that people will be lax in their observance of Yom Tov Sheni, since we are not considered Bnei Torah (Tosfos to Beitzah 6a).
</p><p>
2. The <b>RAMBAN</b> (Toras ha'Adam, end of Inyan ha'Hotza'ah) explains that the Rabanan permitted only the bare minimum of Melachah necessary to bury a Mes on Yom Tov Sheni. Since it is not necessary for a large crowd to go out with the Mes, it is prohibited. (The Ramban points out that we find this type of enactment with regard to the law of desecrating Shabbos in order to give testimony for Edus ha'Chodesh; see Rosh Hashanah 21b.)
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 526:27) follows the last opinion (b:2) and maintains that it is permitted only to do for the Mes what is necessary but not more than what is necessary. The <b>REMA</b> (OC 526:4), though, rules that it is not permitted for Jews to bury a Mes if it is possible to have Nochrim do the work (like (a:4) above). (See also Insights to Beitzah 6:2.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rava):</font></b> If a Mes could not be buried yesterday [or 
               may not be buried tomorrow, e.g. on account of 
               Shabbos], it may be buried through Nochrim on Yom 
               Tov Rishon, and through Yisraelim on Yom Tov Sheni;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This applies even on the second day of Rosh Hashanah 
               - but not regarding an egg [laid on the first day, 
               it is forbidden on the second day, for both days of 
               Rosh Hashanah are considered like one Kedushah in 
               all other respects].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Benei Bashkar are not Benei Torah. (R. Tam - 
          today, we are not Benei Torah.)
<br>
<b><font>3) SCHEMING TO AVOID RABBINIC PROHIBITIONS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Avin bar Rav Huna):</font></b> One may cloak himself in a Kilah 
          and walk in Reshus ha'Rabim, without concern for the 
          straps (which are for hanging it, they are not considered 
          a load).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is this different than Rav Huna's law?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Huna):</font></b> If one walks in Reshus ha'Rabim on 
               Shabbos with Tzitzis that do not fulfill the 
               Mitzvah, he is Chayav Chatas (they are like a load)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> [Even invalid] Tzitzis are important, they are 
          not Batul to the garment - straps are Batul to the Kilah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Rabah bar Rav Huna):</font></b> (Chachamim forbid hanging a 
          Meshameres only because this is a weekday act.) One may 
          scheme and hang it in order to put pomegranates in it, 
          and [later] strain wine through it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rav Ashi):</font></b> He may strain only after using it for 
          pomegranates.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is this different than the following?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> One may brew beer of dates or barley on 
               Chol ha'Mo'ed for the sake of the festival, but not 
               for after the festival.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Even if one has old beer, he may brew and drink new 
               beer [he brews <i>before</i> there is any indication that 
               it is for the festival]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> There, nothing suggests that he brews b'Isur - 
          here, a Meshameres is normally used for straining.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Rabanan (to Rav Ashi):</font></b> Rav Huna bar Rav Chivan is a 
          Chacham that schemes! He put a [clove of] garlic in a 
          barrel of wine to seal the opening (Rashi - to stop the 
          wine from coming out) - he said that he did so to store 
          away the garlic (Rashi - this looks like he fixes the 
          barrel; Rambam - it is like building onto a Kli);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Also, he went to sleep in a [Nochri's] ferry 
               (knowing that the Nochri will cross the river) in 
               order to guard his fruit on the other side - he 
               said, I intended to sleep!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Rav Ashi:</font></b> He schemes about mid'Rabanan laws - he is a 
          Chacham, he will not come to overtly transgress.
<br>
<b><font>4) STRAINING WINE ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> On Shabbos, one may put water over dregs in 
          order to make them clear, to allow the wine [inside them] 
          to flow out;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  One may strain wine through a garment or a wicker basket, 
          and put an egg in a mustard strainer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  One may make Anomalin (a drink composed of wine, honey 
          and peppers);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, one may make Anomalin in a cup on 
          Shabbos, in a flask [it is larger] on Yom Tov, and in a 
          barrel on Chol ha'Mo'ed;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Tzadok says, he may make according to the number of 
          guests he has.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Ze'iri):</font></b> One may put clear wine or clear water 
          in a Meshameres on Shabbos without concern, but not if 
          they are cloudy.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> One may mix 
          up a barrel of wine with its dregs and pour it into a 
          Meshameres on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (Ze'iri):</font></b> This applies when wine is being made in 
          the winepress (people drink it with the dregs, so it is 
          permitted to strain it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may strain wine through a garment.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (R. Simi bar Chiya):</font></b> He may not make a depression in the 
          garment (this is a weekday action; alternatively, he will 
          come to squeeze).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Or a wicker basket.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (R. Chiya bar Ashi):</font></b> The basket may not be a Tefach above 
          the Kli [underneath that catches the wine, for then it 
          makes an Ohel].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> It is permitted to stretch a garment across half 
          the opening of a barrel to cover it (this is not an 
          Ohel), but not over the entire opening.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Rav Papa):</font></b> One may not stick straw and twigs into the 
          mouth of a flask of wine, for this looks like a 
          Meshameres.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  In Rav Papa's house they would gently pour beer from Kli 
          to Kli, in order that the Pesoles remain at the bottom.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Acha mi'Difti):</font></b> The last drops are 
          separated from the Pesoles - this is like Borer!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer (Ravina):</font></b> Drops are not important in Rav Papa's 
          house (he made and sold beer, he would discard the 
          Pesoles with the remaining drops).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) COVERING A POT ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that one is permitted to spread a cloth cover over half of a vessel on Shabbos, but he may not spread a cover over the entire vessel.
</p><p>
According to the Gemara, why is one permitted to cover a pot or container on Shabbos? The Mishnah (126b) clearly states that one may cover vessels on Shabbos.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Beitzah (33a) explains that the Gemara here refers to a very wide vessel. When its cover is placed on top, it appears as though an Ohel is being made.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RA'AVAD</b>, as cited by the <b>RASHBA</b> and <b>RITVA</b>, answers that the only reason one is not permitted to spread the cloth cover on the vessel is because it looks like a Meshameres (a strainer), since that is the normal manner in which people strain their liquids during the week. One when covers half of the vessel, he does not appear as though he is making a Meshameres, because people do not strain their liquids in such a manner. Accordingly, covering a pot with a solid cover is permitted, since it does not resemble a strainer at all.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) FOODS THAT REQUIRE A 'SHINUY'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We may put an egg in a mustard strainer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Yakov Korchah - Beraisa):</font></b> This is permitted because it 
          is done only for color (one desires the yolk for its 
          color, but the white is not Pesoles).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> If mustard was kneaded before Shabbos, one may 
          dissolve it [in water or wine] on Shabbos with a Kli 
          (this is a Shinuy), but not with his hand.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection (Shmuel):</font></b> People normally use a Kli!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rather, on Shabbos, one may use his hand, but not a 
               Kli.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> Both of these are forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Both of these are permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Abaye and Rava):</font></b> The Halachah does not follow R. 
          Yochanan.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan retracted and adopted R. Elazar's opinion; R. 
          Elazar retracted and adopted Shmuel's opinion.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Abaye and Rava):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yochanan [after 
          he retracted].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  Abaye's mother did this for him - he did not eat it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  Ze'iri's wife did this for R. Chiya bar Ashi - he did not 
          eat it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Ze'iri's wife:</font></b> I do this for your Rebbi (Ze'iri) and he 
          eats it - you will not?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Rava bar Sheva:</font></b> They mixed mustard for Ravina using the 
          middle of a garlic; he ate it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Mar Zutra):</font></b> The Halachah does not follow any of these 
          teachings, rather, like the following:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If mustard was kneaded before Shabbos, one may 
               dissolve it on Shabbos with his hand or a Kli; he 
               may put in honey;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> He may not beat it, he just mixes it [gently].
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> If cress was beaten before Shabbos, on Shabbos one 
               may add oil and vinegar and Amisa (this will be 
               defined);
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> He may not beat it, he just mixes it [gently].
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> If garlic was diced before Shabbos, on Shabbos one 
               may add beans and grits;
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> He may not crush it, but he mixes it [gently] and 
               adds Amisa.
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is Amisa?
       <br><b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It is mint.
       <br><b>   <b><font>9.  </font></b><font> (Abaye):</font></b> This teaches that mint improves cress.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may make Anomalin on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One may make Anomalin on Shabbos (it is a 
          normal beverage), but not Aluntis;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Anomalin is a drink composed of wine, honey and 
               peppers; Aluntis is composed of old wine, clear 
               water and balsam [oil] - people drink it after a 
               steambath, to cool off (this is like for a cure, 
               therefore it is forbidden on Shabbos).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Rav Yosef:</font></b> I once entered the bathhouse after Mar Ukva; 
          after we left, they gave us a cup of Aluntis to drink, I 
          was chilled from head to toe;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Had I drank another, (Rashi - I would have needed a 
               miracle to survive; Maharshal - I would have enjoyed 
               it so much) it could have reduced my merits for the 
               world to come!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But Mar Ukva drinks this every day!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Since he is used to it, it does not affect him so 
          much.
<br>
<b><font>2) 'CHILTIS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> [On Shabbos] we may not soak Chiltis (a plant 
          whose leaves are used as a spice, it is soaked and used 
          for medicinal purposes) in lukewarm water, but we may put 
          it in vinegar;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  We do not put water on vetch (it is usually used for 
          animal food) to remove the Pesoles, nor do we rub it, but 
          we may put it in a sieve or basket.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  We do not sift straw in a sieve, nor do we put it in a 
          high place in order that the chaff will fall - but one 
          may take it in a sieve to put in the feeding trough.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> If one soaked Chiltis, what is the 
          law?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Ada Narsha'ah):</font></b> He is Chayav Chatas.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> If so, also one who soaked meat should 
          be Chayav Chatas!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> It is forbidden only mid'Rabanan, for 
          this is like one does on a weekday.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Yochanan):</font></b> May one soak Chiltis in cold 
          water?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yanai):</font></b> It is forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The Mishnah forbids in lukewarm 
          water - this implies that it is permitted in cold water!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yanai):</font></b> If we simply follow the Mishnah, there 
          is no difference between me (the Rebbi) and you (the 
          Talmid)! Our Mishnah is an individual's opinion:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> One may not soak Chiltis in hot or cold 
               water;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi forbids in hot water and permits in cold 
               water.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is soaked Chiltis used for?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is for one whose heart is heavy (heartburn?).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  Rav Acha bar Yosef's heart was heavy; Mar Ukva told him 
          to drink the weight of three gold coins of Chiltis for 
          three days.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  He drank on Thursday and Erev Shabbos; on Shabbos he went 
          to the Beis Medrash to ask [if it is permitted on 
          Shabbos].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer (Tana d'vei Rav Ada - Beraisa):</font></b> One may drink a 
          Kav (about two liters) or two [of Chiltis on Shabbos], 
          this is no problem.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Rav Acha:</font></b> I know that one may drink it - my question is 
          whether or not one may soak it!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Chiya bar Avin):</font></b> A case occurred - Rav Ada bar 
          Ahavah did not know, Rav Huna permitted to soak in cold 
          water and put it in the sun.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Is this like the opinion (R. Yosi) who 
               permits?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> No - even Chachamim permit when he already 
               drank it the previous two days, for it would be 
               dangerous not to drink it on the third day.
<br>
<b><font>3) TAKING CARE OF GARMENTS ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Acha bar Yosef):</font></b> May one rub a [hard, 
          laundered] linen garment (to soften it; this also makes 
          it whiter)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Safra):</font></b> It is permitted, because he intends 
          to soften it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak:</font></b> Why didn't you ask about a 
          turban?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Rav Acha:</font></b> I already asked Rav Huna (he permitted it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak:</font></b> You should have been able to 
          derive that also a linen garment is permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Rav Acha:</font></b> A linen garment gets whiter, a turban does not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> [On Shabbos] one may take a linen garment 
          off a rod on which it was hanging [to dry], but one may 
          not remove the rod (it is Muktzeh).
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: TAKING ANTIBIOTICS ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Acha bar Yosef became ill and went to Mar Ukva for advice. Mar Ukva advised that he drink soaked Chiltis for three consecutive days. 
</p><p>
Rav Acha bar Yosef prepared and drank the medicinal solution on Thursday and on Friday, and then on Shabbos he inquired whether he was permitted to soak the Chiltis and drink it on Shabbos. Rav Huna permitted him to prepare the solution on Shabbos. Since he had already taken the medicine for two days, he would be in danger if he would not take the medicine on the third day as prescribed.
</p><p>
The <b>SHITAH L'RAN</b> points out that the Gemara does not mean that he was in mortal danger, because then certainly he would have been permitted to do whatever is necessary to save his life. Rather, the Gemara means that one is permitted to do acts that are necessary for Refu'ah, healing, even when one is not in danger, but merely in considerable discomfort. The Gemara means that Rav Acha bar Yosef would have been in considerable discomfort, but not in danger, had he not prepared the medicine on Shabbos. This is also the <b>RAMBAM's</b> understanding of the Gemara (Hilchos Shabbos 22:7) -- Rav Acha bar Yosef would have become sick without the medicine, but he would not have been in mortal danger.
</p><p>
Is the case in the Gemara comparable to the contemporary question of taking antibiotics on Shabbos? If a person must take antibiotics for a number of consecutive days in order for the medicine to be effective, may he take them on Shabbos?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN</b> zt'l in <b>IGROS MOSHE</b> (OC 3:53) writes that one is permitted to take antibiotics on Shabbos only if he experiences considerable mental anguish as a result of worrying that he will not get better without the medication, to the point that he is on the verge of having a nervous breakdown. A normal person, though, should not take antibiotics on Shabbos.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RAV SHLOMO ZALMAN AUERBACH</b> zt'l and others, as cited in <b>SHEMIRAS SHABBOS K'HILCHASAH</b> (34:17), permit one to take antibiotics on Shabbos. However, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach says that it cannot be compared to the case of the Gemara here, because here Rav Acha bar Yosef would have become <i>more</i> ill had he not taken the medicine on Shabbos, whereas one who misses a day of antibiotics will not necessarily become more ill; he just will not be cured as fast.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> If it was hanging on a weaver's rod, one may even 
          remove the rod (it is a Kli).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> If a bundle of vegetables (Aruch - palm 
          leaves) is fitting for an animal to eat, one may move it; 
          if not, not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (R. Chiya bar Ashi):</font></b> One may move salted meat hanging to 
          dry, but not salted fish.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Rav Katina):</font></b> If one stands in the middle of a bed [that 
          a man and his wife normally sleep on,] this is [prone to 
          arouse lust,] like standing on her stomach.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  This is not true.
<br>
<b><font>4) RAV CHISDA'S ECONOMICAL TIPS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> When a Talmid buys a bundle of vegetables, 
          he should buy a long bundle, since all cost the same, he 
          gains the extra length.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> When a Talmid buys a bundle of sticks, he 
          should buy a long bundle, since all cost the same.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> A Talmid [that has a meager amount of bread 
          - some delete this from the text] should not eat [raw] 
          vegetables, for this arouses appetite.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Rav Chisda:</font></b> I did not eat vegetables when I was poor, for 
          this arouses appetite;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> I do not eat after I became rich, for it is better 
               to eat meat and fish.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> A Talmid that has a meager amount of bread 
          should not eat a little at a time, for this does not 
          satiate (rather, he should gather enough and eat a proper 
          meal).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> A Talmid that has a meager amount of bread 
          should not [bless ha'Motzi and] cut the bread [and 
          distribute pieces to everyone else], for he will not give 
          generously.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Rav Chisda:</font></b> Before I became rich, I would not cut 
               the bread until I felt around the bread basket and 
               knew that there was enough for me.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Rav Chisda:</font></b> If someone could eat barley bread and eats 
          wheat bread [it is more expensive], he transgresses 'Bal 
          Tashchis (wasting money)'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Rav Papa:</font></b> If someone could drink beer and drinks wine, he 
          transgresses Bal Tashchis.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  This is wrong - it is more important not to harm one's 
          body (wheat and wine are healthier).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> If a Talmid lacks oil, he should wash his 
          hands [before Birkas ha'Mazon], in a pond in which algae 
          grows (it is a good substitute). 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> When a Talmid buys meat, he should buy the 
          neck, for it contains three kinds of meat - fatty, lean 
          and sinew.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> When a Talmid buys flax, he should buy from 
          the Aba river and soak it for 30 days - I will be a 
          guarantor that it will last 12 months.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The word Kitunisa (linen garment) is like Kisa Na'eh 
               (it puts its owner in an elite Kas (caste)).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> A Talmid should not sit on a new mattress 
          of moist reeds, for this is bad for his clothes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> A Talmid should not ask his innkeeper to 
          launder his clothes, lest she will see semen, and he will 
          be disgraced in her eyes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Rav Chisda (to his daughters):</font></b> Act modestly in front of 
          your husbands - do not eat bread in front of them (lest 
          you will eat a lot), do not eat vegetables at night (it 
          causes bad breath), do not eat dates or drink beer at 
          night (they cause gas), do not relieve yourselves in the 
          same place as your husbands;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> When someone is at the door, ask <i>in the feminine</i> 
               'Who is it', not in the masculine (minimize speaking 
               with men);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> When with your husband, delay relations until his 
               desire is great.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We do not put water on vetch [but we may put 
          it in a sieve].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b></b>  Our Mishnah is unlike the following Tana:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov):</font></b> One may not use a 
               sieve at all [on Shabbos].
<br>
<b><font>5) FEEDING ANIMALS ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Dosa):</font></b> One may sweep in front of a Petem 
          (an animal being fattened, so its food will not get mixed 
          with dirt) and remove [extra] food to the side so it will 
          not get sullied with excrement;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Chachamim forbid.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  One may take food from in front of one animal and put it 
          in front of another animal on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Do Chachamim argue with the first law 
          (sweeping in front of a Petem, for he evens out holes in 
          the floor) or with the latter (removing extra food, since 
          it was already trampled and animals will not eat it)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (Beraisa - Chachamim):</font></b> The law of both of these is 
          the same - one may not clear the food to the side (they 
          argue about both laws).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> They argue about a feeding trough with a 
          dirt floor - if it is a Kli, all permit sweeping.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> No one would permit sweeping a dirt floor - he 
          evens out holes!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Correction (Rav Chisda):</font></b> They argue about a Kli - if it 
          is a dirt floor, all forbid.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may take food from in front of one 
          animal...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #1):</font></b> One may take food from in front of an 
          animal with a good mouth and put it in front of an animal 
          with a bad mouth (this will be explained);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Contradiction (Beraisa #2):</font></b> One may take food from an 
          animal with a bad mouth and put it by one with a good 
          mouth.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Resolution (Abaye):</font></b> Both of them permit taking from a 
          donkey to an ox, and forbid vice-versa;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Beraisa #1 calls a donkey 'good mouthed' because it 
               does not drool into its food, a cow is 'bad mouthed' 
               because it drools into its food;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Beraisa #2 calls a donkey 'bad mouthed' because it 
               is not picky about its food, a cow is 'good mouthed' 
               because it is picky.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) 'TALYA D'BISRA'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara says that one is permitted to move a 'Talya d'Bisra' on Shabbos, but one is not permitted to move a 'Talya d'Kivri' on Shabbos. What are these items?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that 'Talya d'Bisra' refers to raw meat that is hanging after being salted, which is fit to be eaten in its present state ('Umtza'). In contrast, raw fish that is hanging ('Talya d'Kivri') may not be moved because it is not fit to be eaten raw.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (129b) disagrees with Rashi, because raw salted fish is also fit to be eaten in its present state. Tosfos, as well as the <b>ARUCH</b> and <b>RAMBAM</b>, therefore explain that 'Talya d'Bisra' refers to the actual peg from which the meat hangs. That peg is permitted to be handled on Shabbos. The peg from which the fish hangs, though, becomes disgusting and unfit for any other use due to the fluids from the fish, and therefore it is Muktzah (Machmas Mi'us).
</p><p>
(c) Tosfos suggests another explanation. According to this explanation, 'Talya d'Bisra' also refers to the item from which the meat hangs. Since that item was designated as a utensil prior to Shabbos, it is not Muktzah. The item from which fish hangs, though, was never designated as a utensil for that purpose, and therefore it is Muktzah. (The <b>CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN</b> explains that the item used for hanging fish is used only once, because it becomes disgusting, as mentioned above (b). Since it is disposable, it is not normally designated as a utensil and thus it is Muktzah on Shabbos.)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THINGS DONE INDIRECTLY ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not use his hand to move straw on a 
          bed, but he may move it with his body;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If the straw was food for animals, or if a sheet or 
               blanket was spread over it (Rashi - and he slept on 
               it; Rambam - it is as if he slept on it; Me'iri - 
               the Mishnah discusses a normal case, normally one 
               would not sleep directly on straw - the Heter 
               depends only on sleeping) before Shabbos, he may 
               move it with his hand.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  One may open a commoner's press (a pair of boards between 
          which clothes are pressed), he may not close it [on 
          clothes];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  One may not touch a launderer's press.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Version #1 (our text) R. Yehudah says, if it was 
          [slightly] open from before Shabbos, he may open it 
          entirely and remove the garment.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (Rosh' text):</font></b> R. Yehudah says, if it was open 
          from before Shabbos, one may recognize his garment and 
          remove it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Rav Nachman):</font></b> One may remove a radish [that is 
          partially in the ground] only if it is upside down (the 
          bottom is wider, he does not move dirt when taking it), 
          not if it is right side up.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rav Ada bar Aba):</font></b> Our Mishnah opposes Rav Nachman!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not use his hand to move straw on 
               a bed, but he may move it with his body; if it was 
               food for animals, or if a sheet or blanket was 
               spread over it before Shabbos, he may move it with 
               his hand.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This teaches that Tiltul Min ha'Tzad (moving 
               something indirectly) Lo Shmei Tiltul (is not 
               considered moving it, it is permitted regarding 
               Muktzeh. Surely, Rav Nachman knew the Mishnah - he 
               held like Chachamim in a Beraisa (123 A).)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> One may crush peppers (Tosfos - on 
          Shabbos; R. Chananel - on Yom Tov) one at a time using a 
          knife handle; it is forbidden to crush two at a time.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> Since he uses a Shinuy (a knife handle); he may 
          crush many at a time.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> If one bathes in water (e.g. a river), he 
          must dry himself well before returning, lest he carry 
          water on his body four Amos in a Karmelis.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If so, it should be forbidden to descend into 
          the water, for his Ko'ach (impetus) moves water four Amos 
          in a Karmelis!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Chachamim did not forbid [movement caused by] 
          Ko'ach in a Karmelis.
<br>
<b><font>2) CLEANING SHOES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> One may clean mud off his shoe [by rubbing it] 
          on the ground, but not on a wall.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> Do you forbid on a wall because it 
          looks like building - this is pitiful building!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> Rather, one may clean his shoe on a wall, but not 
          on the ground, lest he even out holes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Mar brei d'Ravina):</font></b> Both of these are forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rav Papa):</font></b> Both of them are permitted (one does not 
          intend to build nor to even out holes - the Halachah 
          follows R. Shimon regarding Davar she'Eino Miskaven. 
          Tosfos - Rava forbids, lest one forget that it is Shabbos 
          and intend to even out holes.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> According to Mar brei d'Ravina, how may one 
          clean his shoe?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He may clean them on a beam [lying on the 
          ground].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> One may not sit even with the Lechi (vertical 
          post at the end of a Mavuy that permits carrying in the 
          Mavuy), lest something fall from him and roll [outside 
          the Mavuy], and he will retrieve it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> One may not tilt a [full] barrel to stand it up 
          evenly, lest he even out holes in the ground.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> One may not tightly pack tufts in the opening of 
          a flask [with liquid], lest he come to squeeze.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Rav Kahana):</font></b> If there is mud on one's garment, one may 
          rub it from the inside, but not from the outside (it 
          looks like laundering - it is not actual laundering, for 
          there is no water).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> If there is mud on one's shoe, one 
          scrape it off with the back of a knife; if there is mud 
          on one's garment, one may scrape it with his fingernail, 
          as long as he does not rub it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> He may not rub it from the inside or 
               outside!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, he may not rub it from the outside, only from 
          the inside.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (R. Avahu citing R. Yanai):</font></b> One may scrape a new shoe, 
          but not an old shoe (he would scrape the leather, this is 
          Memachek). 
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) MOVING 'MUKTZAH' WITH ONE'S BODY</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah states that one may use his body, but not his hands, to move straw that is on a bed, even though the straw is Muktzah because it is designated as fuel for fire (Rashi DH ha'Kash). Why is one permitted to move straw with one's body if the straw is Muktzah?
</p><p>
(a) According to <b>RASHI</b>, the person is permitted to move the straw with his body in order to arrange the straw such a way that he will be comfortable when he reclines on it. Perhaps Rashi rules like the <b>ROSH</b> (3:19), who permits one to move Muktzah with his body as long as he does not move it with his hands. (It is possible, however, that Rashi permits one to move Muktzah only with the trunk of his body, but not with his feet, which he sometimes uses to move objects.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> (44a) explains that one is permitted to move straw that is Muktzah in this case because the person does so in order to rest on Shabbos. For one's Shabbos pleasure, he is permitted to move Muktzah with his body.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAN</b>, <b>RAMBAN</b> (44a), and the <b>RITVA</b> later (154a) explain that the Mishnah refers to one who wants to lie down on the bed but the straw is in his way. He may knock the straw off of the bed, because he moves it for the sake of something which is permissible (the bed). (This understanding of the words of the Ramban is printed at the end of Shemiras Shabbos k'Hilchasah in the name of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt'l.)
</p><p>
(d) The <b>CHAZON ISH</b> interprets the <b>RAMBAN's</b> words differently. According to his understanding, the Ramban means that one may move the straw because he is not doing an obvious, visible act of moving the straw. Rather, while in the process of the act of lying down he moves the straw out of the way. (See also Insights to Shabbos 127:1.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) HALACHAH: WIPING MUD OFF OF ONE'S SHOES</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara records a four-way dispute with regard to wiping mud off of one's shoes on Shabbos. Abaye permits one to rub the shoe against the ground in order to remove the mud, but not against a wall. Rava gives the opposite ruling: one is permitted to rub the shoe against a wall, but not on the ground. Mar brei d'Ravina prohibits both, and Rav Papa permits both. What is the Halachah?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RIF</b> rules that rubbing one's shoes on the ground and on a wall is prohibited (like Mar brei d'Ravina).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> rules that one may not rub one's shoes on the ground, but one may rub them on a wall (like Rava).
</p><p>
(c) The <b>ROSH</b> rules that both are permitted, because this is a Safek d'Rabanan in which case we are always lenient.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 302:6) cites the first two opinions (those of the Rif and the Rambam), and the <b>REMA</b> cites the third opinion (that of the Rosh). The <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> rules (for Ashkenazim) that one should be stringent and favor the compromise opinion of the Rambam, that one may not rub one's shoes on the ground but one may rub them on a wall.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What may he use to scrape it?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Avahu):</font></b> He may use the back of a knife.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Objection (an elder):</font></b> A Beraisa refutes you!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Chiya - Beraisa):</font></b> One may not scrape a new or 
               old shoe; one may not anoint his foot with oil while 
               it is in a shoe or sandal;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> One may anoint his foot with oil and then put it in 
               a shoe or sandal.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> One may anoint his entire body with oil and roll 
               himself on cooked hide [which will be used to cover 
               a table or bed].
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> (Rav Chisda):</font></b> This is permitted only if he intends 
               to polish [the shoe or hide], not if he intends to 
               tan it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Objection #1:</font></b> Obviously, he may not intend to tan!
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Objection #2:</font></b> No one would permit intending to 
               polish it [lest one intend to tan it]!
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Correction (Rav Chisda):</font></b> It is permitted if there is 
               an amount of oil to polish, not if there is enough 
               to tan.
<br>
<b><font>3) RESTRICTIONS CONCERNING SHOES ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> A small person may not go out with a big shoe 
          (lest it fall and he will carry it), but he may go out 
          with a big cloak;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  A woman may not go out with a torn shoe (lest people mock 
          her and she will carry it), it may not be used for 
          Chalitzah - if it was used, the Chalitzah is Kosher.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  One may not may go out with a new shoe;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is forbidden for a woman (lest she carry it if 
               it does not fit very well).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Bar Kapara - Beraisa):</font></b> It is forbidden only if she did 
          not go out with it before Shabbos - if she did, it is 
          permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #1):</font></b> One may take a shoe off the mold [around 
          which it is shaped];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Contradiction (Beraisa #2):</font></b> One may not take it off.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Resolution:</font></b> Beraisa #1 is Chachamim, Beraisa #2 is R. 
          Eliezer:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah - R. Eliezer):</font></b> A shoe on a mold is Tahor 
               (it is not a finished Kli);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, it is Mekabel Tum'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This is like Rava, who permits moving Kli 
          she'Melachto l'Isur (the mold is used for making shoes) 
          for [a permitted] use or for the sake of its place (he 
          wants his foot to be where the mold is);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> But Abaye permits moving it to use it, but not for 
               its place!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, it is loose (one need not move the 
          mold to remove the shoe):
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> If it is loose, it is 
               permitted.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> If it is not loose, it is forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This is like Abaye - but Rava permits moving 
          Kli she'Melachto l'Isur even for its place, it should be 
          permitted in either case!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yehudah explains R. Eliezer's opinion (he 
          holds that a shoe on the mold is not a finished Kli):
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Yehudah citing R. Eliezer):</font></b> If it is 
               loose, it is permitted.
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>***** <b>PEREK NOTEL</b> *****
</b></font></center><p>
<br><br><b><font>4) CARRYING 'ISUR' TOGETHER WITH 'HETER' ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may carry a child holding a rock, or a 
          basket with a rock inside;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  One may move Tamei Terumah with Tahor Terumah or with 
          Chulin;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  (Meduma is a mixture of Terumah and Chulin. If there is 
          least 100 times as much Chulin as Terumah, we Ma'aleh 
          (remove) an amount equal to the Terumah, consider it to 
          be Terumah, and the rest is permitted like Chulin.) R. 
          Yehudah says, we may even Ma'aleh Meduma if there is at 
          least 101 [volumes of mixture per volume of Terumah].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Rava):</font></b> If one was Motzi a live child with a 
          wallet around his neck, he is liable for [Hotza'ah of] 
          the wallet;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he was Motzi a dead child with a wallet around 
               his neck, he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> In the first case, he should also be liable for 
          the [live] child!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rava holds like R. Noson, who says ha'Chai Nosei 
          Es Atzmo (carrying a living being is not a Melachah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The wallet should be Batul to the child!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> If he was Motzi a live person in a bed, 
               he is exempt even for the bed, for it is Batul to 
               the person.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> People are Mevatel a bed to a live person (he 
          needs it), but not a wallet to a child.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is he exempt for a dead child?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rava holds like R. Shimon, who exempts Melachah 
          she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah. (The wallet is Batul to the 
          Mes - at such a time, amidst grief, one does not plan to 
          remove the wallet.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may carry a child holding a rock.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (D'vei R. Yanai):</font></b> The case is, the child is lovesick for 
          his father (he will get sick if his father does not pick 
          him up, but he is not in danger).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If so, it should be permitted even if the child 
          is holding a coin - but this is not so!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rava):</font></b> It is permitted only if he is holding a 
               rock, not if he is holding a coin.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> If he drops a rock, the father will not pick it 
          up; if he drops a coin, we are concerned lest the father 
          pick it up.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) REMOVING TERUMAH FROM A MIXTURE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah discusses moving items that are Muktzah, such as a stone and Terumah Teme'ah. The Mishnah continues with a statement of Rebbi Yehudah, who says that a person may remove produce from a mixture of Terumah which fell into Chulin, and, if the Terumah became Batel, one need not worry that he is performing an act of Tikun on Shabbos ('fixing' the Chulin by removing the prohibited Terumah that fell into it). 
</p><p>
In what way is Rebbi Yehudah's statement related to the rest of the Mishnah, which discusses the laws of moving Muktzah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>SEFAS EMES</b> suggests that perhaps Rebbi Yehudah's statement refers to Terumah <i>Teme'ah</i> that fell into Chulin and became Batel. Since the portion of produce that one removes is considered to take the place of the Terumah that fell in, it must be burned like any Terumah Teme'ah. Perhaps Rebbi Yehudah is teaching that even though the portion that one removes is considered Terumah Teme'ah <i>after</i> one lifts it out of the mixture and it is Muktzah, nevertheless one is permitted to take it out because at the moment that he lifts it up it is not Terumah Teme'ah. (The Sefas Emes remains in doubt whether or not this approach is Halachically accurate.)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) CARRYING 'ISUR' TOGETHER WITH 'HETER' (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Support (for Rava, regarding the child with a wallet - 
          Beraisa): If one was Motzi his garments folded on his 
          shoulder and his sandals and rings in his hand, he is 
          liable;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he was wearing them, he is exempt.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If one was Motzi a clothed person with sandals on 
               his feet and rings on his fingers, he is exempt;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> If he was Motzi the clothes, sandals and rings by 
               themselves, he would be liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> [One may carry] a basket with a rock inside.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The basket should be a Bosis for something 
          forbidden (the rock)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> The case is, the basket is 
          full of produce (it is primarily a Bosis for Heter).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> [Why may he carry it with the rock -] he should 
          spill out the produce and rock, and return the produce to 
          the basket!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We answer like R. Ilai answered [a different 
          question, below] - the case is, the produce would get 
          dirty.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> He should shake the basket [to separate the 
          rock from the produce, then shake the rock out]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Chiya bar Ashi):</font></b> The case is, the rock plugs 
          up a hole in the basket. (Tosfos Yeshanim is unsure 
          whether or not we must still say that the basket holds 
          produce that would get dirty.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may move Tamei Terumah [with Tahor...]
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> This is only if the Tahor Terumah is on 
          bottom and the Tamei is on top - if the Tahor is on top, 
          one must remove it and leave the Tamei in its place.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Even when the Tahor is on bottom, he should 
          spill everything out and return the Tahor to the basket!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Ilai):</font></b> The case is, the produce would get 
          dirty.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> One may move Tamei Terumah with Tahor 
          Terumah or Chulin, whether the Tahor is on top and the 
          Tamei on bottom, or vice-versa.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  Rav Chisda is refuted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Chisda):</font></b> The Mishnah discusses when one needs 
          the Tahor Terumah itself (to eat it), the Beraisa 
          discusses when he needs its place.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What forced Rav Chisda to establish the Mishnah 
          when he needs the Tahor Terumah itself?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> The Seifa (coming Mishnah) shows that Rav 
          Chisda is correct!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Seifa):</font></b> If coins are on a pillow, he shakes the 
               pillow and they fall off.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> This is only if he needs the 
               pillow itself  - if he needs its place, he may move 
               it with the coins on it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Just as in the Seifa he needs the Heter itself, also 
               in the Reisha!
<br>
<b><font>2) FIXING 'MEDUMA' ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> We may even Ma'aleh Meduma...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is this permitted - he fixes (permits) the 
          Meduma!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> R. Yehudah holds like R. Eliezer, who 
          considers the Terumah to be by itself (not mixed in, 
          whatever is removed is the Terumah):
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah - R. Eliezer):</font></b> If one Se'ah of Terumah fell 
               into less than 100 Sa'im of Chulin, and some of the 
               mixture fell into other Chulin, it forbids like pure 
               Terumah;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, it forbids only according to the 
               proportion of Terumah in the first mixture (we 
               assume that it mixed uniformly).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> This shows that R. Eliezer is stringent to 
          assume that what was removed was the Terumah itself - 
          this is no source to say that he assumes this to be 
          lenient!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> R. Yehudah holds like R. Shimon (who assumes 
          this to be lenient):
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> If one Se'ah of Terumah fell into 100 
               Sa'im of Chulin, and before a Se'ah was removed 
               another Se'ah of Terumah fell in, the mixture is 
               forbidden (there are two Sa'im of Terumah and 100 of 
               Chulin);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon permits (it is as if the first Terumah 
               that fell was not mixed in).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> No, perhaps this is the argument - the first 
          Tana considers it as if both fell at the same time, the 
          Chulin is only 50 times the Terumah; R. Shimon says that 
          each is Batul the moment it falls in, each fell into 100 
          or (regarding the latter) 101 Chulin.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #3:</font></b> R. Yehudah holds like R. Shimon ben Elazar:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> One may intend to 
               Ma'aleh Meduma from one area of the mixture and eat 
               from the rest of it (before physically separating 
               it. Since it is permitted without separating, 
               separating is not considered Tikun.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> R. Yehudah does not hold like R. Shimon ben 
          Elazar!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A BARREL WITH A STONE ON TOP AND WINE INSIDE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that one may lift a barrel and shake off a stone that rests on top of it. The Gemara explains that this is permitted only if the stone was mistakenly left on top of the barrel. If the stone was purposely left there, the barrel is a Basis l'Davar ha'Asur and may not be moved.
</p><p>
<b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> cites the <b>MEKOR BARUCH</b> (#3) who questions why the barrel should be considered a Basis l'Davar ha'Asur. The Gemara makes it clear that the barrel contains wine. Accordingly, it should not become a Basis l'Davar ha'Asur, since it is a Basis for a permissible item (the wine) as well! (One of the conditions required in order for an object to be a Basis l'Davar ha'Asur is that it serves only the Muktzah item and not a permitted item (142a; see Background).
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> 
<br>(a) The <b>MEKOR BARUCH</b> answers that, apparently, the Gemara maintains that we view the opening on the top of the barrel (where the stone rests) as separate from the bottom of the barrel. The permissible item (the wine) is in the bottom part, while the Muktzah item (the stone) is on the top. Since the top of the barrel is considered a Basis l'Davar ha'Asur, the barrel may not be moved.
</p><p>
This answer does not seem to conform with the opinion of the <b>RITVA</b> earlier in Shabbos (44b; see Insights there) who writes that if an item of Muktzah is resting on a Muchni (wheel) attached to a wagon, one <i>may</i> move the Muchni, since the Muchni and the wagon are all considered <i>one</i> object, and not two separate objects.
</p><p>
(b) It could be that the reason why the barrel cannot be considered a Basis for a permitted item is because the wine is not accessible at the present moment; in order to access the wine, the stone on top of the barrel must be removed. (That is, the wine is secondary to the stone, and thus the barrel is considered to presently serve only the stone and not the wine.) (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) COOKED HIS GOOSE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> On Yom Tov, Rava told his servant to roast a goose and throw its intestines to a cat. The Gemara understands from Rava's words that he rules in accordance with Rebbi Shimon, who maintains that one is permitted to move an object on Yom Tov for the sake of animals, even though the object was designated for human use before Yom Tov.
</p><p>
How can this be inferred from Rava's ruling? Perhaps Rava agrees with Rebbi Yehudah and not with Rebbi Shimon; Rebbi Yehudah prohibits giving animals an object designated for humans <i>only</i> when the object is <i>no longer fit</i> to be used by a person. (Because the object is no longer fit for its originally designated use as human food, it is considered Nolad and is Muktzah.) If the object can <i>still</i> be used by a person (that is, it is fit for its designated use), even Rebbi Yehudah agrees that it is not Muktzah and it may be given to animals. Why, then, does the Gemara say that Rava's action shows that he rules like Rebbi Shimon? The goose intestines were still fit for humans!
</p><p>
(The type of Muktzah that the Gemara here discusses is usually referred to as 'Muchan l'Adam Eino Muchan l'Behemah.' It is important to note that there are two distinct types of Muktzah which are included in this expression.
</p><p>
1. An object is Muktzah when the laws of Shabbos or Yom Tov prevent man from using the object. For example, on Shabbos a live animal is Muktzah, because the laws of Shabbos forbid the slaughter of an animal. Even though live animals are sometimes fed to dogs, since this animal is not fit for humans at present it is Muktzah (according to Rebbi Shimon) and may not be fed to dogs.
</p><p>
2. If something happens to an object on Shabbos that makes it unfit for man, it may not be fed even to dogs. (This is a form of Nolad.) For example, if the animal was alive before Yom Tov (and was fit for man, since he could slaughter and eat it on Yom Tov) and then it died on Yom Tov, it becomes unfit for man and is Muktzah and may not be fed to dogs.
</p><p>
In Rava's case, the intestines of the animal fit into <i>neither</i> category! There is no law of Yom Tov that prevents the intestines from being used by man, and nothing happened to the intestines that made them unfit for human use.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that goose intestines are unfit for man <i>not</i> because any change occurred to them, but because it is Yom Tov, and it is not the manner to eat goose intestines on Yom Tov. Therefore, it is considered as though the laws of Yom Tov prohibit this item from human use (the first category mentioned above). That is why Rebbi Yehudah would prohibit giving them to animals.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (Shabbos 29a, DH Achlan, and Beitzah 33a, DH v'Shadi) challenges Rashi's explanation from the Gemara earlier (128a) which states that one is permitted to move raw meat on Shabbos because it is possible for people to eat the meat in such a state. Certainly it is not the normal manner to eat raw meat on Shabbos, and yet the raw meat is not considered Muktzah! Tosfos therefore explains that goose intestines are edible as soon as the goose is slaughtered (<i>before</i> Yom Tov). However, shortly thereafter (<i>on</i> Yom Tov) the intestines spoil and become inedible. Since the intestines are no longer fit for man, they become Muktzah according to Rebbi Yehudah. (Tosfos understands that they fall into the second category mentioned above.)
</p><p>
Perhaps Rashi maintains that goose intestines cannot be compared to raw meat for the following reason. Rava slaughtered the goose because he intended to eat its meat, and the intestines were secondary to the meat. Relative to the meat, the intestines are not fit for use on Yom Tov. Raw meat, though, stands by itself and is not secondary to anything else, and therefore it is not Muktzah. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> We may Ma'aleh Meduma if 
               there is 101 [in the mixture];
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Elazar says, he intends to Ma'aleh 
               from one area and eats from the rest.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, R. Yehudah is more lenient than R. Shimon 
          ben Elazar
<br>
<b><font>3) REMOVING 'ISUR' FROM 'HETER' ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a rock is on a barrel, one tilts the barrel 
          and the rock falls;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If [he cannot do so because] it is between other barrels, 
          he picks it up and tilts it and the rock falls.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  If coins are on a pillow, he shakes the pillow and they 
          fall off.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  If there was filth on the pillow, he may clean it with a 
          rag;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If it is of leather, he may pour water on it until 
               it is clean (but does not properly wash it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Rav):</font></b> This is only if he forgot the rock - if 
          he intentionally left it on, the barrel is a Bosis for 
          Isur.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Who is our Tana, who says that whenever there 
          is Heter and Isur we deal with the Heter, not with the 
          Isur?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> It is R. Shimon ben 
          Gamliel:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah - Beis Shamai):</font></b> If one selects pulse (a 
               legume) on Yom Tov, he selects the food and eats it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Beis Hillel say, he selects normally (Pesoles from 
               the food,) but using his garment or a bowl;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> This is when 
               there is more food than Pesoles - if there is more 
               Pesoles, all agree that he selects the food and eats 
               it (Rashi - for this is less exertion; R. Tam - in 
               this case the Pesoles is Batul to the food).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> In our Mishnah, there is more Heter (the 
          barrel) than Pesoles - R. Shimon should permit to take 
          the rock!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Since he cannot take the barrel until removing 
          the rock, it is as if there is more Pesoles.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If it is between other barrels, he picks it 
          up...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Yosi):</font></b> If the barrel was in a storehouse, 
          or if there were glass Kelim nearby, he lifts the barrel 
          and takes it elsewhere, then tilts it and the rock falls, 
          then he takes what he needs and returns it to its place. 
          (The final clause teaches that the barrel is not a Bosis 
          at all, he may return it even if he has no further need 
          for it.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If coins are on a pillow...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (R. Chiya bar Ashi):</font></b> This is only if he forgot it - if he 
          intentionally left it on, the pillow is a Bosis for Isur.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> This is only if he needs the 
          pillow itself  - if he needs its place, he may move it 
          with the coins on it.
<br>
<b><font>4) CARRYING WITH A LOAF OR CHILD ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If coins are on a pillow, he shakes...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Oshaya):</font></b> If one forgot a wallet in a Chatzer, he puts 
          a loaf or child on top of it and moves the wallet (with 
          the loaf or child).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yitzchak):</font></b> If one forgot a brick in a Chatzer, he 
          puts a loaf or child on top of it and moves them 
          together.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah bar Shila):</font></b> Once, a sack of coins was 
          forgotten in Reshus ha'Rabim; R. Yochanan told them to 
          put a loaf or child on top and move it [less than four 
          Amos at a time; alternatively, they would make a wall of 
          people around to permit carrying more than four Amos at a 
          time]. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Mar Zutra):</font></b> The Halachah follows all of these teachings 
          when the Muktzeh was forgotten.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rav Ashi):</font></b> It is forbidden even when it was forgotten - 
          the leniency to put a loaf or child on top and carry 
          applies only to a Mes [that might decay in the sun, on 
          account of Kavod ha'Briyos].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Abaye would put a spoon on top of sheaves [to permit 
          carrying them]; Rava would put a knife on top of a [raw, 
          unsalted] dove.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Rav Yosef:</font></b> Chachamim only permitted for one who forgot, 
          not to intend to move this way!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Abaye:</font></b> Really, I could move the sheaves by themselves, 
          they are fitting to lie on - I am important, therefore I 
          am stringent to put a spoon on top (lest people learn 
          from me to be lenient).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Rava:</font></b> Really, I could move the dove by itself, it could 
          be eaten raw - I am important, therefore I put a knife on 
          top.
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) RAVA FORBIDS 'MUKTZEH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> If it could be eaten raw, Rava would forbid - 
          this shows that he forbids Muktzeh, like R. Yehudah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But [on Yom Tov] Rava asked his servant to 
          roast a goose and throw its intestines to a cat!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Since the intestines would spoil before 
          nightfall, from before Yom Tov he intended to feed them 
          to a cat. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Support:</font></b> The following shows that Rava holds like R. 
          Yehudah:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rava):</font></b> [On Yom Tov] a woman may not enter a 
               storehouse of wood to take a stick for a roasting 
               spit (the wood is set aside for burning); 
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If a spit broke, one may not burn it, for we may 
               burn Kelim on Yom Tov, but not broken Kelim.
<br>
<b><font>2) SOMETHING THAT USED TO BE PART OF A FOOD</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - Beis Shamai):</font></b> We may remove bones and peels 
          from the table;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Beis Hillel say, we take the entire Tavla (a board placed 
          over the table), and shake it (casting them off).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  We remove from the table crumbs less than a k'Zayis, and 
          the pods (Aruch - and chaff and sprigs) of peas and of 
          lentils, for animals eat them. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  If a sponge has a leather handle, one may clean with it; 
          if not, not (he would surely squeeze between his 
          fingers);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Version #1:</font></b> In either case one may take it on Shabbos; it 
          is not Mekabel Tum'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Version #2:</font></b> Chachamim say, in either case one may use and 
          take it on Shabbos; it is not Mekabel Tum'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Rav Nachman):</font></b> The opinions in our Mishnah must 
          be switched - Beis Shamai forbid Muktzeh like R. Yehudah, 
          Beis Hillel permit like R. Shimon.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We may remove crumbs [less than a k'Zayis] 
          from the table.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  Our Mishnah supports R. Yochanan:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Version #1 (our text, Rashi) (R. Yochanan):</font></b> One may 
               not ruin crumbs less than a k'Zayis (the Mishnah 
               says that we remove them, it does not permit to 
               throw them).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Version #2 (Tosfos) (R. Yochanan):</font></b> One may ruin 
               crumbs less than a k'Zayis (the Mishnah calls them 
               animal food).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Pods of peas...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  Our Mishnah is like R. Shimon, who permits Muktzeh (at 
          the start of Shabbos they were a useful part of food for 
          people, now they are only fit for animals).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question (Seifa):</font></b> If a sponge has a leather handle, one 
          may clean with it; if not, not (lest he squeeze).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is like R. Yehudah, who forbids Davar she'Eino 
               Miskaven!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Seifa is even like R. Shimon;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Abaye and Rava):</font></b> R. Shimon agrees regarding a Pesik 
               Reisha.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  One may cast pits of bad dates to animals, by way of the 
          date itself (Rashi - people feed bad dates to animals; 
          Rashi (29A) - some of the fruit sticks to them, they are 
          still fit for people; rch - the pits are soft, people can 
          be eat them with the date);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One may not cast pits of good dates to animals.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Shmuel would move them via bread. (Tosfos - even he 
               holds like R. Shimon, he was stringent, because he 
               was important.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  This is like Shmuel taught elsewhere:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Shmuel):</font></b> One may use bread for anything [that will 
               not make it repulsive].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b></b>  Rabah would move them via a flask of water.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b></b>  Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua piled them up in front of 
          himself (so they would repulse him), making them like 
          Geraf Shel Re'i (which may be removed).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Ashi):</font></b> One may not make Geraf Shel Re'i 
          l'Chatchilah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b></b>  Rav Sheshes would throw them [across the table] with his 
          tongue.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Papa would throw them in back of his bed [on 
               which he ate].
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Zecharyah ben Avkulas would turn away and spit 
               them out in back of his bed.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) DRY BONES</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> In the Mishnah, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue about how to remove bones and shells from the table on Shabbos. <b>RASHI</b> explains that the Mishnah refers to 'hard bones <i>that are not fit</i> for a dog.'
</p><p>
According to Rashi, why does Beis Shamai permit moving these items if they are not fit for any use at all? Everyone (even Rebbi Shimon) agrees that something that is totally unfit for use on Shabbos (like a rock) is Muktzah and may not be moved (Shabbos 46a)!
</p><p>
Furthermore, the Gemara here says explicitly that the Tana who permits moving bones and shells follows the view of Rebbi Shimon. However, Rebbi Shimon only permits moving such items when they are fit for animals (Shabbos 29a and elsewhere)! (<b>TOSFOS</b> DH Atzamos)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) Because of this problem, <b>TOSFOS</b> (and all other Rishonim) argue with Rashi and say that the Mishnah refers to soft bones that <i>are</i> fit for dogs.
</p><p>
(b) In an earlier manuscript of Rashi's commentary (cited by the <b>DIKDUKEI SOFRIM</b>), and in Rashi's commentary that appears on the Rif, the text of Rashi's wording is, 'Hard bones that <i>are</i> fit for a dog.'
</p><p>
Tosfos' version of Rashi obviously read 'that are not fit for dogs.' It seems that originally, Rashi wrote one explanation, and later he changed his mind (as we find in a number of places in Maseches Shabbos; see, for example, Rashi on 112b, DH Aval Tamei Maga, and Tosfos there, DH Sandal). The text of Rashi as it appears in the Gemara here is apparently from Rashi's first edition. Rashi changed his mind, though, and later wrote that the bones are indeed fit for dogs, as Tosfos explains.
</p><p>
(c) What did Rashi have in mind when he originally wrote that the bones are not fit for dogs? Why would Beis Shamai permit moving them if they are totally unfit?
</p><p>
It seems that Rashi was bothered by the fact that in the Gemara, Rav Nachman reverses the opinions of Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai from the way they appear in the Mishnah. Rav Nachman says that Beis Hillel is lenient and permits moving the bones, while Beis Shamai prohibits it. Perhaps Rashi questioned why Rav Nachman was justified in totally reversing the Mishnah and consequently changing Beis Hillel's ruling and the Halachic conclusion.
</p><p>
Rashi therefore understood the Mishnah differently. Beis Hillel certainly rules in accordance with Rebbi Shimon, even according to the original version of the Mishnah. Why, then, does he say that it is prohibited to move the bones directly? He must be referring to <i>hard</i> bones that are totally unfit for use, which Rebbi Shimon agrees is Muktzah. Beis Shamai, in contrast, permits moving such bones. Beis Shamai's opinion is an entirely new opinion (since both Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon would prohibit moving such bones) that maintains that there is no Isur of Muktzah at all. Consequently, when Rav Nachman modifies the opinions in the Mishnah, he changes only the opinion of Beis <i>Shamai</i>. Beis Shamai is now Machmir and rules like Rebbi Yehudah, and the Mishnah refers to bones that <i>are</i> fit for animals. Beis Hillel's opinion remains the same (that is, Beis Hillel rules like Rebbi Shimon). When Rashi explained that the bones are hard, he was explaining the Mishnah according to the original text of the Mishnah (before Rav Nachman's revision).
</p><p>
(According to this approach, Rashi's comment on the Mishnah that Beis Hillel rules 'like Rebbi Yehudah' is part of the <i>second</i> edition of Rashi's commentary. That is, it is consistent with what Rashi on the Rif says. We find a similar confusion of editions in Rashi on 112b, where the first and second editions of Rashi were combined; see Insights to 112:4:b.) (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) CARRYING A 'MUKTZAH' ITEM TOGETHER WITH A PERMITTED ITEM</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara teaches that date pits with no flesh on them are Muktzah and may not be moved. Shmuel would move them by placing them on top of bread and carrying them on the bread. 
</p><p>
However, earlier (142b) Rav Yosef, Abaye, and Rava taught that one is not permitted to carry Muktzah on top of a permissible item. Does Shmuel argue with all of those Amora'im?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Rava, and in Beitzah 21b, DH Oseh Adam) explains that one is permitted to carry Muktzah on top of bread only when that Muktzah came into existence (Nolad) on Shabbos and was not in existence before Shabbos. The Gemara earlier refers to Muktzah that was in existence before Shabbos and could have been moved before the onset of Shabbos.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>RASHBA</b> explain that the case of Shmuel differs from the case earlier. Earlier, the Gemara refers to carrying <i>Muktzah</i> which has a permissible item on top of it (that is, one actually grasps the Muktzah item). Here, though, Shmuel carried the <i>permissible</i> item with the Muktzah on top of it.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>ROSH</b> says that one may not carry a Muktzah item by placing it on bread. Only when the item is not really Muktzah, but one wants to be stringent, is he permitted to carry the item by placing it on top of a permissible item. The date pits in this case were not really Muktzah (because we rule like Rebbi Shimon who maintains that Nolad is not prohibited). However, since Shmuel was a prominent figure, he was stringent in this matter (as we saw earlier on 142b).
</p><p>
(This is similar to the Rosh's view elsewhere (Teshuvos 22:9), where the Rosh writes that a Kli she'Melachto l'Isur may be carried by placing bread on top of it. The Kli is not intrinsically forbidden to be moved since it may be moved l'Tzorech Gufo u'Mekomo; it is prohibited only to be moved for no purpose or for a forbidden purpose. Therefore, it may be carried on top of bread.)
</p><p>
(d) The <b>ROSH</b> in Beitzah (21b) explains that Shmuel did not place the date pits on top of bread. Rather, he spit them out into a basket that also contained bread, and then he carried the basket (which was a Basis l'Davar ha'Asur veha'Mutar).
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 308:5) cites the Rosh (c) with regard to moving a Kli she'Melachto l'Isur on top of bread, but the <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> (308:26) points out that many Rishonim do not agree with this ruling and prohibit moving a Kli she'Melachto l'Isur in such a way.
</p><p>
With regard to date pits, however, the <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (308:30) and <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> (308:124) explain that a prominent person is required to be stringent and move the pits only with a Shinuy, such as by placing them on top of bread, so that onlookers do not mistakenly think that they are permitted to carry similar items which are Muktzah.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
</p><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>***** <b>PEREK CHAVIS</b> *****
</b></font></center><p>
<b><font>3) SQUEEZING FRUIT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a barrel broke, one may save food for three 
          meals; he may tell others to save for themselves, as long 
          as he does not soak up.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  We may not squeeze fruit to extract the juice; if the 
          juice came out by itself, it is forbidden [on Shabbos];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, if the owner planned to eat the fruit, 
          the juice is permitted; if he planned to extract the 
          juice, it is forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  If cakes of honey were crushed before Shabbos and the 
          honey flowed out on Shabbos, it is forbidden;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar permits.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Beraisa):</font></b> One may not soak up wine, one may not 
          wet his hand in oil [and scrape the oil into a Kli], for 
          this is like one does on a weekday.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If produce scattered in a Chatzer, he gathers 
          it bit by bit and eats; he may not gather into a basket 
          or box, for this is like one does on a weekday.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We may not squeeze fruit.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> R. Yehudah agrees regarding olives and 
          grapes [that what flows from them is forbidden, even if 
          he planned to eat them].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> People normally squeeze them - even if he planned 
          to eat them, he is pleased with the liquid that flowed 
          from them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Ula):</font></b> R. Yehudah argues even regarding olives and 
          grapes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yehudah regarding 
          other fruits, the Halachah follows Chachamim regarding 
          olives and grapes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Rabah):</font></b> R. Yehudah agrees to Chachamim regarding olives 
          and grapes; Chachamim agree to R. Yehudah regarding other 
          fruits.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Yirmiyah):</font></b> If so, what do they argue about?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  R. Aba:</font></b> Think about it, you will find the answer!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> Presumably, they argue 
          about strawberries and pomegranates:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Version #1 (Ri) (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> If oil and 
               wine were extracted from olives and grapes, and one 
               stored them, whether to eat them or to get more 
               juice from them, what exudes is forbidden [on 
               Shabbos];
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Version #2 (Rashi) (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> If oil 
               and wine flowed from olives and grapes, whether one 
               [initially] stored them to eat them or to get more 
               juice from them, what exudes is forbidden; (end of 
               Version #2)
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> If juice and wine were extracted (Rashi - flowed) 
               from strawberries and pomegranates, and one stored 
               them to eat them, what exudes is permitted;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  If he stored them for juice or Stam (without 
                    specific intent), what exudes is forbidden.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, in either case what exudes is 
               forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> R. Yehudah does not forbid Stam!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> Human milk is Tamei whether it came out 
               l'Ratzon (willingly) or Lo l'Ratzon; an animal's 
               milk is Tamei only if it came out l'Ratzon.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> R. Akiva:</font></b> We learn from a Kal va'Chomer - human milk 
               is only for babies, it is Tamei l'Ratzon and Lo 
               l'Ratzon - an animal's milk is even for adults, all 
               the more so it is Tamei l'Ratzon and Lo l'Ratzon!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Chachamim:</font></b> No - a woman's milk is Tamei even Lo 
               l'Ratzon, for blood of her wounds is [Lo l'Ratzon 
               yet] Tamei (Rashi - a woman's milk is produced from 
               her blood; Tosfos (Nidah 19B Kesiv) - we merely 
               prove from her blood that some of her fluids are 
               Tamei Lo l'Ratzon);
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  You cannot learn to milk of animals, blood of 
                    their wounds is Tahor! 
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> R. Akiva:</font></b> Milk is more stringent than blood, for 
               milk milked for a cure is Tamei, but if one lets 
               blood to heal, it is Tahor!
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Chachamim:</font></b> Baskets of olives and grapes disprove 
               this - liquid that comes out l'Ratzon is Tamei, Lo 
               l'Ratzon is Tahor!
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Assumption:</font></b> 'L'Ratzon' means, he wanted it to exude, 
               'Lo l'Ratzon' means, Stam;
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Summation of question:</font></b> Even though olives and grapes 
               are normally squeezed, liquid that comes out Stam is 
               Tahor - all the more so regarding strawberries and 
               pomegranates, which are not normally squeezed! (If 
               Chachamim of this Mishnah hold like R. Yehudah, this 
               is a direct question; if these Chachamim hold like 
               the Chachamim that argue with R. Yehudah, all the 
               more so he is Metaher Stam, for they consider it a 
               liquid, and he does not!) 
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) HALACHAH: GATHERING FRUIT THAT FELL OUT OF A CONTAINER ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa teaches that if fruit falls out of a basket in a Chatzer, one may pick up the fruit one at a time and eat it, but he may not gather all the fruit into the basket the way he would do on a weekday.
</p><p>
The Gemara earlier (142a) teaches that if one has a basket with fruit and a stone in it and he wants to move the basket, he should spill out the fruit and stone from the basket, if possible, and then put the fruit back into the basket and carry it. However, once he shakes out the fruit, it should be forbidden for him to put it back into the basket! How are we to reconcile the Gemara earlier with the Gemara here?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RAMBAN</b> explains that one is prohibited from putting fruit back into the basket only when they fall out in a Chatzer, because in a Chatzer they become mixed with dirt and pebbles, and while one gathers the fruit he will perform the Melachah of Borer. The Gemara earlier refers to shaking out the basket in a clean area inside of one's home.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU YONAH</b>, cited by the Ramban, explains that one is prohibited from gathering the fruit only when they fall over a large area. If they fall in one, concentrated area, one is permitted to pick them up (since it is not a weekday-type of activity).
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Shabbos 21:12) writes that the 'weekday activity' here is that one might inadvertently do an act of Imur. According to the Rambam, Imur is defined as <i>pressing</i> together sheaves or fruit in a basket. Here, there is a concern that one might press the fruit together in the basket. Accordingly, this applies only to soft fruit which can be pressed into one large body. Perhaps the Gemara earlier refers to hard fruit, and thus there is no concern in that case that one might do Imur.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 335:5) rules in accordance with the stringent points of both the Ramban and Rabeinu Yonah. That is, a person may not gather fruit that is spread out over a large area (like Rabeinu Yonah), and he also may not gather fruit that is spread out in a small area which is dirty and rocky (like the Ramban).
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE ARGUMENT OF REBBI YEHUDAH AND THE CHACHAMIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> No, 'l'Ratzon' means Stam, 'Lo l'Ratzon' 
          means, he explicitly said that he regrets that it exuded.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> Baskets of strawberries and pomegranates are 
          different - since the liquid [drips out and] goes to 
          waste, from the beginning he makes it Hefker.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Indeed, this shows that R. Yehudah agrees to 
          Chachamim regarding olives and grapes;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> What is the source (for Rabah (143B)) that Chachamim 
               agree to R. Yehudah regarding other fruits?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> We may squeeze plums, quinces and 
          crabapples, but not pomegranates;'
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE MILK OF A WOMAN IS 'METAMEI' EVEN WITHOUT INTENT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Akiva maintains that the milk of both a woman and an animal are Machshir for Tum'ah, even though nobody planned to drink them. The Chachamim maintain that the milk of a woman is Machshir without intent, but the milk of an animal is Machshir only when one intends to drink it.
</p><p>
The Chachamim prove that liquids from an animal are less able to be Machshir from the fact that the blood of an animal cannot be Machshir (except for Dam Shechitah), while the blood of a person is Machshir. Rebbi Akiva rejoins that no proof can be adduced from blood, because milk -- even animal milk -- has a greater ability to be Machshir than blood. He proves this from the Halachah that when one milks an animal for a curative purpose (Refu'ah), the milk is Tamei, but if one lets out blood from an animal for the same purpose, the blood is Tahor.
</p><p>
Rashi and the Rishonim explain that Rebbi Akiva means to say that milk of an animal is Machshir while blood of an animal is not. Why, then, does Rebbi Akiva need to mention that milk 'that is drawn out for Refu'ah' is Machshir? Animal milk <i>in general</i> is Machshir, while animal blood is not. What difference does it make whether or not it was drawn for the sake of Refu'ah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Machmir) says that, indeed, Rebbi Akiva does not need to mention that the milk was drawn for Refu'ah. Any milk will be Machshir for Tum'ah.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TOSFOS YOM TOV</b> (cited by the Bach #1) explains that the Gemara here apparently supports the opinion of the <b>RASH</b> (end of Machshirin, and as recorded by the <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> in his comments to Mishnayos Machshirin 6:5 (in the end of the Vilna Shas)) who writes that when a person specifically intends to drink (or otherwise use) animal's blood, the blood is Machshir. Accordingly, Rebbi Akiva needs to mention that animal's milk is capable of being Machshir when the animal is <i>not</i> milked in order to use its milk but rather in order to make the animal comfortable, while blood of an animal that was <i>not</i> earmarked for drinking (such as blood that was let from an animal to improve its health) is not Machshir. Both blood <i>and</i> milk are Machshir if they were set aside for drinking.
</p><p>
(It is not clear why, according to the Rash, milk will be Machshir even when it was taken from the animal to relieve its pain.)
</p><p>
(c) Others suggest that Rebbi Akiva mentions milk that is extracted for curative purposes in order to emphasize his point. <i>Even</i> such milk can be Machshir, even though milk is normally not used for such a purpose. In contrast, animal blood is not Machshir <i>even</i> when it is let in order to be used for curative purposes, even though blood is normally used <i>only</i> for such a purpose. (<b>CHAZON NACHUM</b>, see also <b>MISHNAH ACHARONAH</b>.)
</p><p>
<br>


