# dafyomi

lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Like which Tana is the following?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> If any Tum'ah moved an object, the object 
               is Tahor - the only exception is a Zav, there is no 
               other such Tum'ah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> It is unlike R. Akiva, for he is Metamei 
               its Heset!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is even like R. Akiva - it means, a Zav and 
          all similar Tum'os.
<br>
<b><font>3) LENIENCIES AND STRINGENCIES OF THE 'TUM'AH' OF IDOLS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Chama bar Gurya):</font></b> Does [the Tum'as] of idols 
          apply to limbs? (Tosfos - he discusses an idol of big 
          parts, it is not Batul (permitted) even if a commoner 
          cannot reassemble it, the only question is about Tum'ah; 
          R. Akiva Eiger - he discusses a Yisrael's idol, which is 
          never Batul - we need not say that the parts are big [or 
          that the size of the parts affects Bitul].) 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Version #1:</font></b> He need not ask about a case where a 
               commoner can reassemble it -.surely, it is as if it 
               is connected;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> He asks about when only a craftsman can reassemble 
               it:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Since a commoner cannot reassemble it, it is 
                    considered broken (it is Tahor);
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> Or, since it is not missing anything, it is 
                    Tamei!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Version #2:</font></b> He need not ask about a case where a 
               commoner cannot reassemble it -.surely, it is as if 
               it is broken;
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> He asks about when a commoners can reassemble it:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Since a commoner can reassemble it, it is 
                    considered connected (it is Tamei);
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> Or, since it is now disconnected, it is Tahor!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  This question is not resolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Achdevoy bar Ami):</font></b> What is the law of idols 
          less than a k'Zayis?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question (Rav Yosef):</font></b> What does he ask about?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer #1:</font></b> He asks whether or not it is forbidden.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> Surely it is forbidden, like the fly of 
               Ekron!
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  'Va'Yasimu Lahem Ba'al Bris Leilohim' - this is 
                    the fly of Ekron, this teaches that everyone 
                    made an image of his god and kept it in his 
                    pocket;
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> When he would think of it, he would take it out 
                    and hug and kiss it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer #2:</font></b> He asks whether or not it is Tamei:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Since idols are equated to Sheratzim, just like 
                    ka'Adashah (the size of a lentil) of a Sheretz 
                    is Tamei, also ka'Adashah of idols;
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> Or, since idols are equated to Mes, just like 
                    the Shi'ur for Tum'as Mes is k'Zayis, also for 
                    idols!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Avya - Beraisa):</font></b> Idolatry less than a k'Zayis 
          has no Tum'ah at all - 'Va'Yashlech Es Afarah El Kever 
          Benei ha'Am' - just like the Shi'ur Tum'as of Mes is 
          k'Zayis, also of idols.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why do Chachamim expound all the Hekeshim for 
          leniencies?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> They say that idols are equated to Sheratzim to 
               teach that it is not Metamei b'Masa, it is equated 
               to Nidah to Metaher limbs, it is equated to Mes to 
               teach that ka'Adashah is not Metamei;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> All of these could be expounded for stringencies! 
               The Hekesh to Sheratzim could teach that ka'Adashah 
               is Metamei, the Hekesh to Nidah could Metamei Even 
               Misma, the Hekesh to Mes could teach Tum'as Ohel!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Since the Tum'ah of idols is mid'Rabanan, they 
          expound to be lenient.
<br>
<b><font>4) A BOAT IS 'TAHOR'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah) Question:</font></b> What is the source that a boat is 
          Tahor?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It says 'Derech Aniyah v'Lev Yam' (this will be 
          explained).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Obviously, a boat goes in the sea - 
          what does the verse teach?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This equates a boat to the sea - just like the 
          sea is Tahor, also a boat.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - Chananyah):</font></b> We learn from Sak - just like Sak 
          [is Mekabel Tum'ah only if it] can be moved when empty 
          and full, the same applies to everything [of wood], but 
          not a boat, it cannot be moved when full.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the difference between the first answer 
          and Chananyah's?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> They argue about a boat of Cheres - if we 
          learn from 'Aniyah v'Lev Yam' it is Tahor, if we learn 
          from [the Hekesh to] Sak it is Tamei (the Hekesh does not 
          apply to Klei Cheres).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> They argue about a [small] boat that goes on 
          the Yarden - if we learn from 'Aniyah v'Lev Yam' it is 
          Tahor, if we learn from Sak it is Tamei (it can be moved 
          when empty and full).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Chanina ben Akiva):</font></b> Sefinas ha'Yarden is Tamei 
               because they load it on the dry land and take it to 
               the water.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> One should never be absent from the Beis 
          Medrash, even for a moment - this Mishnah was learned for 
          many years, but the reason was not known until R. Chanina 
          ben Akiva explained it!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (R. Yonason):</font></b> One should never abstain from the Beis 
          Medrash and words of Torah, even at the time of death - 
          'Zos ha'Torah Adam Ki Yamus b'Ohel'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Reish Lakish):</font></b> 'Zos ha'Torah Adam Ki Yamus b'Ohel' - 
          Divrei Torah last only in someone who kills himself [has 
          nothing to do with the world, except] for Torah.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) A BOAT THAT BECOMES 'TAMEI'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara gives two reasons for why a boat is not Mekabel Tum'as Mes. First, the Tana of the Mishnah says that a boat is not Mekabel Tum'ah because the verse compares it to the sea (which cannot become Tamei). Second, Chananyah, in the Beraisa, says that a boat is not a vessel which can be carried both while empty and while full (it is a 'Kli she'Eino Metaltel Malei v'Reikan').
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> asks that a boat <i>should</i> become Tamei with Tum'as <i>Midras</i>, because it is made for sitting and lying upon. Tum'as Midras does not depend on the ability of the vessel to be carried both while full and empty. (That type of Tum'ah is not juxtaposed with sackcloth in the verse that teaches the conditions for Tum'as Maga (Bechoros 38a). Similarly, Tum'as Midras applies even to objects that are flat and do not have receptacles.) Since a boat should become Tamei with Tum'as Midras, it should also be able to become Tamei with Tum'as <i>Mes</i>, because the Gemara (84b) says that anything that is Mekabel Tum'as Midras is also Mekabel Tum'as Mes! Why, then, is a boat not Mekabel Tum'ah according to Chananyah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Nilmedah mi'Sak) says that even though people sit on the boat, the main purpose of a boat is to carry loads. A person on the boat can be told to leave in order to make room for loads. Since Tum'as Midras applies only to objects that are designated for people sit upon, it does not apply to a boat.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> explains that people sleep on <i>beds</i> or sit on <i>chairs</i> on the boat. The boat itself, though, is like the ground, upon which people do not sleep without a covering of some sort.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RE'AH</b> (cited by the Chidushei ha'Ran here and on 44b) says that the only time the juxtaposition to sackcloth is <i>not</i> made is with regard to a <i>wooden vessel which has no receptacle</i> (Peshutei Kli Etz). Even though it has no receptacle, a vessel stills becomes Tamei with Tum'as Midras. However, with regard to all <i>other</i> conditions the juxtaposition <i>is</i> made, and thus the conditions taught for sackcloth apply also to Tum'as Midras. (For example, the utensil must be Metaltel Malei v'Reikan in order to be Mekabel Tum'as Midras.) Anything that is not Metaltel Malei v'Rekan is not Mekabel any Tum'ah at all, neither Tum'as Midras not Tum'as Mes. (The <b>RAMBAN</b> here also mentions this idea, but he remains in doubt whether it is correct.)
</p><p>
(d) <b>RAV MOSHE SHAPIRO</b> shlit'a explains that the <b>RAMBAM</b> seems to have a different approach to this question. The Mishnah in Ohalos (8:1) teaches that a <i>Kli</i> that is held above a Mes does not prevent Tum'ah from spreading above it, even if the Kli is made of stone (which is not Mekabel Tum'ah itself). The Rambam (Hilchos Tum'as Mes 13:3) writes that if the stone Kli is so large ('ha'Ba b'Midah') that it cannot be carried, it <i>does</i> stop Tum'ah from spreading above it. What is the difference between a small stone or a large stone? If a small stone Kli does not stop Tum'ah from spreading above it even though it itself is not Mekabel Tum'ah, why should a large stone Kli stop Tum'ah from spreading above it? Apparently, the Rambam maintains that when it is so large, it is no longer called a Kli, but an <i>Ohel</i>, and therefore it is able to stop Tum'ah from spreading above it. Similarly, the <b>RASH</b> in Yadayim says that although a person may use a stone Kli for Netilas Yadayim (even though it is not Mekabel Tum'ah), one may <i>not</i> use a very large Kli (ha'Ba b'Midah). What is the difference between the two, if they are both Tahor? It must be that a large stone Kli is not considered a Kli at all, but an Ohel. Consequently, its Taharah has nothing to do with being compared to sackcloth. (Support for this can be drawn from the Gemara earlier, 35a.) 
</p><p>
Therefore, in the case of the Gemara here, the Rambam learns that the boat is not Mekabel even Tum'as Midras, because it is not a Kli at all. (The <b>RITVA</b> (44b) mentions such an opinion and rejects it.)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) LARGE UTENSILS THAT ARE 'TAMEI'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> According to Chananyah, if a boat can be moved 
          empty and full through oxen, it is considered movable 
          empty and full:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> There are three kinds of wagons 
               [regarding Tum'ah]:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  If it is [short] like a chair, it is Tamei 
                    Medras;
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> If it is like a bed, it is Tamei Mes (and all 
                    Tum'os except for Medras);
             <br><b>  <b><font>iii. </font></b></b>If it is made to carry rocks, it is absolutely 
                    Tahor (there are big holes in the bottom - a 
                    wooden Kli which cannot hold pomegranates is 
                    Tahor),
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> If it can hold pomegranates, it is 
               Tamei Mes [even though only oxen can move it when 
               full].
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> There are three kinds of boxes:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  If it opens from the side, it is Tamei Medras 
                    (it can be used even when one sits on it);
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> If it opens from the top, it is Tamei Mes;
             <br><b>  <b><font>iii. </font></b></b>If it is too big to carry empty and full, it is 
                    absolutely Tahor.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Medras of Klei Cheres is Tahor;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi says, even a boat.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does this mean?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Zevid):</font></b> The first Tana teaches that Klei 
          Cheres are not Mekabel Tum'as Medras, they are Mekabel 
          Tum'as Maga; a Cheres boat is Tamei, like Chananyah;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi is Metaher a boat, like our Tana (i.e. of 
               our Mishnah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Papa):</font></b> If so, R. Yosi should not say have 
          said '*even* [a boat]'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Papa):</font></b> The first Tana teaches that Klei 
          Cheres are not Mekabel Tum'as Medras, they are Mekabel 
          Tum'as Maga; Klei Etz are Mekabel Tum'as Medras and Maga;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Sefinas ha'Yarden is Tahor, like our Tana;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi says, even a boat is Tamei, like Chananyah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source that Klei Cheres are not 
          Mekabel Tum'as Medras?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Chizkiyah):</font></b> 'V'Ish Asher Yiga b'Mishkavo' - 
          this equates a Mishkav to a Zav;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Just like a Zav can become Tahor through immersion, 
               also the Mishkav [that becomes an Av ha'Tum'ah] must 
               have Taharah through immersion (Klei Cheres do not).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (D'vei R. Yishmael - Beraisa):</font></b> 'K'Mishkav 
          Nidasah Yihyeh Lah' - this equates a Mishkav to a Zavah;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Just like a Zavah can become Tehorah through 
               immersion, also the Mishkav;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This excludes Klei Cheres, immersion is not Metaher 
               them (their only Taharah is to be broken).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Ila'a - Beraisa):</font></b> A Kal va'Chomer teaches 
          that a reed mat is Mekabel Tum'as Mes:
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) PLANTING MULTIPLE TYPES OF SEEDS IN A GARDEN PATCH</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah says that one may plant up to five types of seeds in an Arugah (garden patch) which is six Tefachim long and six Tefachim wide, and one does not transgress the prohibition of Kil'ayim. In what formation are the seeds planted in this small area?
</p><p>
(a) Both <b>RASHI</b> and <b>TOSFOS</b> write that each plant draws nourishment from the ground from an area of 1 1/2 Tefachim around it. It is prohibited by the Rabanan for two plants of different species to draw nourishment from the same area, because it appears as though the two plants were planted together. Therefore, the plants must be separated from each other by a distance of at least <i>three</i> Tefachim.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that this is accomplished by planting one seed in the center of the six by six Tefachim of the Arugah, and four lines of seeds on the four sides, leaving the corners unsown. A space of three Tefachim separate each outer row of seeds from the inner seed, while the outer sides -- which run perpendicular to each other (such as the north and east sides) -- are separated from each other by the empty space. Even though there are not three Tefachim that separate the two types of seeds near the corners, the fact that each row is sown in a different direction and a small gap separates them is sufficient indication to any onlooker that these two rows of seeds are separate from each other. (This type of indication is referred to as 'Rosh Tor' -- literally, 'the top of a triangle' which, due to the contrast that it creates, serves to indicate that the rows of seeds are indeed separate from each other.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> maintains that the Mishnah does <i>not</i> use the Heter of 'Rosh Tor.' If 'Rosh Tor' is not utilized in the Mishnah's case, the only way to permit the five types of seeds to be planted in the Arugah is to have a space of three Tefachim that separates between the five types of seeds. Tosfos says that this is accomplished by sowing one seed in the middle of the Arugah (as Rashi says), and sowing a line of 1 5/7 (approximately 1.714) Tefachim of seeds in the middle of each outer side. This leaves 2 1/7 Tefachim on each side of the row of seeds (for a total length of six Tefachim). The end of the row of seeds of one side is now three Tefachim away from the closest end of the row of seeds of any adjacent side. (This is based on the calculation of the hypotenuse of the triangle formed by the two spaces of 2 1/7 Tefachim left fallow, using the approximated 1.4:1 ratio of the hypotenuse to the side of a right triangle that the Rishonim use, as opposed to the actual 1.414:1 ratio. See the inside of the picture in <b>TOSFOS</b> 85a; note that the diagonal sections at each corner of the Arugah are not part of this Tosfos' explanation, but are relevant to Tosfos' explanation of the Gemara later on 85b. Also note that the seeds are actually sown in one line, taking up almost no width, and not half a Tefach, as it appears in the picture on the Daf. See Graphic #2, and Girsa section of the Background to Daf 85a.)
</p><p>
According to the explanations of both Rashi and Tosfos, there seems to be a difficulty. Since a separation of three Tefachim between each type of seed is required, why is it permissible to plant on the sides of the Arugah? Since the Arugah is exactly six Tefachim wide, the space that each row of seeds occupies diminishes the distance between the middle seed and those rows, so that it is less than three Tefachim!
</p><p>
1. <b>RABEINU TAM</b> answers that the measurement of the Arugah as expressed by the Mishnah (six by six Tefachim) refers to 'Tefachim Sochakos,' or broad Tefachim (the length of one's fist held loosely closed), which are a little larger than normal Tefachim. Hence, the Arugah is actually larger in width and length than six normal Tefachim, allowing for a distance of three normal Tefachim between each type of seed.
</p><p>
2. The <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> in Tosfos answers that the Mishnah does not require exactly three Tefachim between each type of seed. It means three Tefachim <i>including</i> the space that the seed itself takes up.
</p><p>
3. The <b>RAMBAN</b> answers, based on the Yerushalmi, that the row of seeds sown on the outer sides is sown <i>outside</i> the borders of the Arugah, and not inside.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Small flasks do not receive Tum'ah from a Zav (the 
               opening is too small to stick his finger inside - we 
               expound that anything that cannot Mekabel Tum'ah 
               from his flesh does not Mekabel Tum'ah from his hair 
               or if he moves it), yet they receive Tum'as Mes - a 
               mat is Mekabel Tum'ah from a Zav, all the more so it 
               is Mekabel Tum'as Mes! 
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> It says that a mat is Mekabel Tum'ah (Medras) from a 
               Zav, even though it lacks Taharah [through immersion 
               - when the Torah discusses immersion of Kelim, 
               Peshutei Klei Etz (that do not hold anything) are 
               not mentioned]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Chanina):</font></b> A mat is Mekabel Tum'as Medras 
          because other Kelim of its kind (Klei Etz that hold 
          things) become Tehorim though immersion.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  R. Ila'a:</font></b> May Hash-m save us from such reasoning!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  R. Chanina:</font></b> No, may Hash-m save us from your reasoning!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is R. Chanina's reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer - Question:</font></b> It says 'V'Ish Asher Yiga b'Mishkavo' 
          (implying only Kelim that can be immersed), and it says 
          'V'Chol ha'Mishkav Asher Yishkav Alav Yitma' (it does not 
          say b'Mishkavo - this implies, even if it cannot be 
          immersed)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> If other Kelim of its kind can be immersed, 
               it is Mekabel Tum'as Medras, even if it itself 
               cannot be immersed; if no Kli of its kind can be 
               immersed, it is not Mekabel Tum'as Medras.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (to Question (h) - Rava):</font></b> We learn that Klei 
          Cheres are not Mekabel Tum'as Medras from 'V'Chol Kli 
          Fasu'ach Asher Ein Tzamid Pasil Alav' (a Kli Cheres that 
          is not fully sealed becomes Tamei in Ohel ha'Mes);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> If it has a Tzamid Pasil, it is Tahor 
               (nothing can touch its inside - Klei Cheres Mekabel 
               Tum'ah only from their inside)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The Torah is Metaher in every case, even if it was 
               designated for a Nidah to sit on. (Ri -if it <i>could</i> 
               Mekabel Tum'as Medras, it would not block Tum'as 
               Ohel even if it was Tahor; R. Tam - it is Mekabel 
               Tum'ah if a Nidah moves it, that is like touching it 
               internally - it is not Mekabel any Tum'ah from the 
               outside.)
<br>
<b><font>2) DIVERSE SEEDS IN A PATCH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Question: What is the source to permit 
          planting five kinds of seeds in a patch six by six 
          Tefachim, i.e. one on each other the four sides, and one 
          in the middle? (Rashi - a single seed is sown in the 
          middle, it is three Tefachim from each of the sides; even 
          though there is no separation between species on adjacent 
          sides, since it is Nikar (evident) that they are not 
          growing together, it is permitted.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'Ki Cha'Aretz Totzi Tzimchah uch'Ginah <i>Zeru'eha</i> 
          Satzmi'ach' - Zeru'eha is plural (this will be 
          explained).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> How do we learn this from the verse?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> 'Totzi' alludes to one, 'Tzimchah' 
          alludes to one, 'Zeru'eha' alludes to two, and 
          'Satzmi'ach' alludes to one;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> We know that six by six Tefachim is the area needed 
               in order that they will not nurture from each other 
               [when there is no Heker, i.e. the middle and a side. 
               The verse does not teach this Shi'ur; Tosfos - a 
               verse in Shir ha'Shirim alludes to it.]
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE SIZE OF THE PATCH AND ITS BORDERS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source that Chachamim can rely on 
          this Yedi'ah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> 'Lo Sasig Gevul Re'echa Asher 
          Govlu Rishonim' - one may not impinge on a Gevul (limit) 
          that the early ones set.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does it mean 'Asher Govlu Rishonim'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani) Question:</font></b> Why does it say 
          'Eleh Venei Se'ir ha'Chori <i>Yoshvei ha'Aretz</i>' - does 
          everyone else live in Shamayim?!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> They were experts in Yishuv ha'Aretz 
               (agriculture) - they could tell which stretch of 
               land is good for olives, which for vines, which for 
               figs;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> 'Chori' (we reverse the word to expound it) - they 
               would Meri'ach (smell) the land;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rav Papa):</font></b> 'Chivi' (one of the seven Kana'ani nations) - 
          they would taste the land like a Chavya (snake - it eats 
          dirt).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rav Acha bar Yakov):</font></b> 'Chori' - they became Benei Chorin 
          (freed) of their possessions (they lost their land and 
          the responsibility to work it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rav Asi):</font></b> The patch is six by six, excluding the borders 
          (a walkway around the perimeter for irrigation).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> The interior of the patch is six [by 
          six].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How wide are the borders?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> The width is the width of 
          a foot.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (R. Zeira):</font></b> R. Yehudah learns from 'V'Hishkisa v'Raglecha 
          k'Gan ha'Yarak' - just like a foot is a Tefach wide, also 
          the borders are a Tefach wide.
<br>
<b><font>2) WHAT SURROUNDS THE PATCH?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> The Mishnah discusses a patch in a Churbah 
          (uncultivated area - therefore, we are not concerned for 
          distance from anything outside the patch).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why did Rav need to say that the patch is in a 
          Churbah - it could be among other seeded patches, the 
          corners separate between species in different patches! 
          (Rashi - he could have established the case to be that he 
          sows less than half of each side (like in Rashi's 
          picture); Tosfos - presumably, he sowed only [about] the 
          middle two Tefachim on each side, in order to distance 
          each side three Tefachim from the seeds on the adjacent 
          sides. See diagram #1 in graphics section, graphic 1b.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Bei Rav):</font></b> The case is, he filled the 'corners' 
          (really, two opposite edges; he also sowed three tiny 
          areas in between these two edges)- therefore, the patch 
          must be in a Churbah). (See diagram #1 in graphics 
          section, graphic 3a.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> It would be better to seed the surrounding 
          patches, and leave the corners of this patch empty!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) PLANTING MULTIPLE SEEDS IN ONE 'ARUGAH'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah says that one may plant up to five types of seeds in an Arugah (garden patch) which is six Tefachim long and six Tefachim wide, and one does not transgress the prohibition of Kil'ayim. How far apart must the different types of seeds be planted in one Arugah in order to be permissible? Since a discernible division is necessary between each type of seed, what distance serves to create this visible difference?
</p><p>
Moreover, does 'Rosh Tor' ('the top of a triangle' which serves to indicate that the rows of seeds are indeed separate from each other, as a result of the contrast that it creates through the angle which appears when it runs into a row of seeds planted in a different direction) serve as an effective discernible division?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> maintains that since the seeds draw nourishment from the ground up to 1 1/2 Tefachim away, and since one plant's nourishment must be kept away from the nourishment of another type of plant, they must therefore be a total of <i>three</i> Tefachim away from each other. If, however, they are planted at angles to each other, the angle serves as a recognizable differentiation (because of 'Rosh Tor') and one is permitted to sow two rows close to each other, even if the distance between them is less than three Tefachim.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> agrees that plants draw nourishment from the ground up to 1 1/2 Tefachim away, and that different types of plants must be kept three Tefachim away from each other. Tosfos argues with Rashi and maintains that the distinction of 'Rosh Tor' is not utilized for rows of seeds within an Arugah (see Gemara, beginning of 85b). Tosfos therefore draws the original five-seed Arugah differently (see previous Insight, and Graphic #2).
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAM</b> in Perush ha'Mishnayos to Kil'ayim (3:1) and the <b>BARTENURA</b> explain, too, that the seeds draw nourishment from the ground 1 1/2 Tefachim away. However, they argue with Rashi and Tosfos and maintain that it is not necessary to keep two different types of plants from drawing nourishment from the same ground. It is necessary only to keep one plant from drawing nourishment from the <i>other plant</i>. Thus, they need to be separated by only 1 1/2 Tefachim. They also permit 'Rosh Tor' within an Arugah (like Rashi, and not like Tosfos), and therefore they draw the Arugah differently (see Graphic #2).
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RASH</b> in Kil'ayim (3:1) also explains that the plant draws nourishment from 1 1/2 Tefachim away and that it must be distanced only from the other plant itself. However, he does not permit 'Rosh Tor' within an Arugah (see Grahpic #2).
</p><p>
(e) The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> says that whenever an Arugah is <i>filled</i> with one type of seed (that covers the entire six-by-six-Tefach area of the Arugah), it is permitted to plant other types of seeds on the outer sides of the Arugah (leaving the corners fallow). A fully-planted Arugah is in itself a distinguishing indication that this patch was planted separate from the rows of seeds around it (because a six-by-six-Tefach tract of land is a separate piece of land that is normally planted by itself). (See Graphic #2)
</p><p>
(<b>NOTE</b>: All of the pictures printed in our edition of the Gemara are slightly in error. See Girsa section of Background to the Daf, and Graphics #2 and #3.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Chachamim decreed not to do so, lest one fill the 
          corners.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This should be permitted, like a patch of 
          vegetables shaped like a triangle!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> If a triangle of vegetables enters a 
               field [seeded with something else] it is permitted, 
               for it is clear that it is the end of another field 
               (i.e. they are not growing together).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The leniency of a triangle does not apply to 
          [two] patches [rather, only when at least one of the 
          species is a whole field].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> The Mishnah discusses a patch among other 
          seeded patches.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If so, the [leaves of] species on the sides 
          will mix with other species in the neighboring patches 
          (they are separated only by two borders, i.e. two 
          Tefachim)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, he sows only part [less than half 
          of] each side [if he sowed in the northern half of the 
          east edge of this patch, he sows in the southern half of 
          the west edge of the patch neighboring on the east, to 
          avoid the above problem].
<br>
<b><font>3) FILLING A GARDEN WITH DIFFERENT SPECIES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (Rashi) Question:</font></b> If one made a furrow from 
          [the middle of] one side of the patch to the other [and 
          sowed one of the five species or a sixth in it], what is 
          the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> This forbids [sowing any other 
          species in the whole patch].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Asi):</font></b> This does not forbid.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (against Rav Sheshes - Ravina - Mishnah):</font></b> If one 
          planted two rows of gourds, [and next to them] two rows 
          of pumpkin, and two rows of Mitzri beans, it is permitted 
          (it is as if each of these is a field by itself);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If one planted one row of each of these, it is 
               forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> There is different, for they have long 
          branches that intermingle (the different species 
          blatantly appear to be mixed together).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> If one wants to fill his entire 
          garden with vegetables, he makes patches of six by six 
          and makes a circle inside the five by five square in the 
          middle - he may sow [five different species,] in the 
          circle and in the four corners (Tosfos - of the inner 
          square; Rashi - the 'corners' are the four half-Tefach 
          strips surrounding the inner square. Diverse species may 
          grow without separation, from the shape it is Nikar that 
          they are not growing together. Rambam - he sows in 
          circles in the four corners - see diagram #2 in graphics 
          section ).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If he [indeed fills the entire garden and also] 
          sows the borders [surrounding each patch], different 
          species mix [without Heker]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (D'vei R. Yanai):</font></b> He does not sow the borders 
          (R. Yochanan did not mean that he literally fills the 
          entire garden).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> If this patch was sown 
          horizontally, he sows the adjacent one vertically, and 
          vice-versa.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (Rambam) (R. Yochanan):</font></b> If one wants to fill 
          his entire garden with vegetables, he makes five circles 
          in a patch of six by six (one in the middle and four in 
          the corners - he may sow a different species in each 
          circle) and may sow (other species) in the four corners.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> [He cannot fill the entire garden like this,] 
          he must leave the area between the circles fallow!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (D'vei R. Yanai):</font></b> Indeed, he does not fill the 
          entire garden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> If the circles were sown 
          horizontally, he sows the area between them vertically, 
          and vice-versa. (end of Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question (Ravina - Beraisa):</font></b> The space that must be left 
          between different vegetables for tending them is [five 
          species within] six Tefachim (like our Mishnah); we view 
          them as if they were a square.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> This is permitted only if they are like a 
               square, not if they are like a circle!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> The Beraisa requires them to be like a 
          square for a different leniency, for a triangle to emerge 
          from it [and reach to another species].
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) A FURROW IN THE GARDEN</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara asks that if one digs a 'Telem' through the Arugah and thereby covers the length of the entire Arugah, is it 'Mevatel the Shurah' or not? The answer to the question is left as a dispute between Rav Sheshes and Rav Ashi.
</p><p>
What is a 'Telem,' and what does it mean to be 'Mevatel Shurah'?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that a furrow ('Telem') was dug straight through the middle of the Arugah, from one edge to the other. The question of the Gemara is whether this furrow is 'Mevatel the Shurah,' meaning <i>the laws of Arugah</i>, so that it will no longer be considered an Arugah in order to be permitted to plant five species of seeds there. 
</p><p>
Rashi adds that seeds are planted in that furrow. This is problematic. If the furrow is being planted it is certainly forbidden to make the furrow in the first place, because it is forbidden to plant more than five types of seeds in the Arugah! It must be that Rashi understands that the furrow was dug deeply into the ground, and since the seeds there grow on the bottom of the furrow, below the level of the other seeds in the Arugah, it is considered to be apparent that those seeds were planted separately from the other seeds in the Arugah. 
</p><p>
A field is land in which furrows are dug, while an Arugah is land which is sown directly, without the need to dig furrows. The question of the Gemara is whether the digging of this furrow converts this piece of land from a garden patch into a field. (It is not clear exactly what it is about the furrow that turns this Arugah into a field. The reason why the Arugah is now considered a field seems to be because the seeds are now placed into a deep cut in the ground, and they are not simply planted in the level ground from one end of the Arugah to the other.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> explains that the discussion of the Gemara is unrelated to a furrow that is dug and sown <i>in</i> the Arugah. Rather, the question of the Gemara involves a furrow that is dug <i>around</i> the Arugah and is a Tefach deep. Does that furrow create a significant distinction to permit planting another Arugah next to this Arugah, without the need for any additional space between the two?
</p><p>
The 'Shurah' refers to the 'Telem,' or the ditch itself. The Gemara asks whether that Shurah is Batel (as if it does not exist) because of the Arugah, or if that Shurah is not Batel and therefore serves to separate the Arugah from an adjacent Arugah.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) UNTIL WHEN DOES 'SHICHVAS ZERA' REMAIN 'TAMEI'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  (Mishnah) (After a woman has relations, the semen may 
          drip out over the course of several days; when it does, 
          it touches her externally and is Metamei her, unless it 
          already putrefied.) Question: What is the source that if 
          a woman emits semen [within] three days [after 
          relations], she becomes Teme'ah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'Heyu Nechonim li'Shloshes Yomim' (Benei Yisrael 
          abstained from relations three days before Matan Torah, 
          in order that no woman would become Tamei on account of 
          emitting semen).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source that one may [Mechalel 
          Shabbos, if necessary to] wash [a baby, even (Rashi)] on 
          the third day from circumcision?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'Va'Yhi va'Yom ha'Shelishi bi'Hyosam Ko'avim' 
          (this shows that one is very weak on the third day).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source to tie a red thread on the 
          head of the Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach (the goat sent to 
          Azazel on Yom Kipur)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'Im Yihyu Chata'eichem ka'Shanim ka'Sheleg 
          Yalbinu'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source that anointing is 
          [forbidden] like drinking on Yom Kipur?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'Va'Tavo cha'Mayim b'Kirbo vecha'Shemen 
          b'Atzmosav'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> The Reisha is unlike R. Elazar ben 
          Azaryah, the Seifa is like him!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar holds that semen is Tahor on the third 
               day.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> The opinion that prefers establishing a 
          Mishnah like one Tana [even if this causes a difficulty, 
          e.g. one must alter the text or give different reasons 
          for the Reisha and Seifa] establishes it like R. Elazar 
          ben Azaryah - the text of the Reisha must say 'Tahor'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> The opinion that prefers establishing the 
          Reisha and Seifa like different Tana'im [rather than 
          enduring a difficulty] says that the Reisha is Chachamim, 
          the Seifa is R. Elazar.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Elazar ben Azaryah):</font></b> If a woman emits semen 
          on the third day, she is Tehorah;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  (An Onah is a day or night.) R. Yishmael says, [an 
          expulsion on day three is Tamei, on day four is Tahor -] 
          sometimes the Tum'ah lasts for four Onos (if her last 
          relations were at the end of the day), sometimes for five 
          (if her last relations were at dawn), sometimes for six 
          (if her last relations were just after nightfall);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  R. Akiva says, it is always Tamei for five Onos;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If she had relations after some of the Onah already 
               elapsed, we add that amount of time to the beginning 
               of the sixth Onah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question (Rabanan):</font></b> (All agree that Matan Torah was on 
          Shabbos.) We understand R. Elazar ben Azaryah - he holds 
          like the Chachamim who say that abstention [from 
          relations] began on Thursday [evening, so any expulsion 
          of semen on Shabbos would be [at least] the third day 
          from relations and hence Tahor];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> We understand R. Yishmael - he holds like R. Yosi, 
               who says that abstention began on Wednesday 
               [evening, Shabbos was [at least] the fourth day from 
               relations];
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> But which Tana does R. Akiva hold like [and what is 
               his source that it depends on Onos]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> He holds like R. Yosi, like Rav Ada 
          bar Ahavah taught, that Moshe always ascended on Har 
          Sinai at daybreak and descended right away (he told them 
          at dawn on Wednesday, so there were five Onos before 
          Shabbos);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'Va'Yashkem Moshe ba'Boker va'Ya'al El Har Sinai' 
               teaches that he ascended at dawn;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> 'Lech Red v'Alisa' equates descending to ascending - 
               just like he ascended at dawn, he descended at dawn.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why did Moshe need to tell them in the morning? 
          (Any time before evening would have sufficed!)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Huna):</font></b> Yisraelim are Kedoshim, they do not have 
               relations during the day.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rava taught that in a dark house, it is 
          permitted; also, a Chacham is always permitted, he will 
          cover with his garment in order that it will be dark.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) ALL AGREE THAT THE TORAH WAS GIVEN ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>AGADAH:</b> The Gemara explains that while the day of the month on which the Torah was given may be subject to dispute, everyone agrees that the Torah was given on Shabbos.
</p><p>
What is the significance of the fact that the Torah was given on Shabbos?
</p><p>
Shabbos is the day dedicated to the pursuit and achievement of holiness and purity through the study of Torah and the Mitzvos. We find this theme in a number of places. David ha'Melech declares, 'How I love Your Torah, it is my speech all of the day' (Tehilim 119:97). The words that he uses are not, 'It is my speech all day,' but rather, 'it is my speech all <i>the</i> day.' '<i>The</i> day' refers to the unique day, the day of Shabbos. On Shabbos, David ha'Melech would dedicate himself completely to the joy of the study of the Torah. (See <b>RABEINU BACHYE</b>, Shemos 20:8.)
</p><p>
Similarly, there is only one section of the Torah that begins with the convening of an assembly. At the beginning of Parshas Vayakhel, the Torah relates that 'Moshe assembled the Jewish people,' and it continues with the commandment to observe the Shabbos. The Midrash relates that Hash-m told Moshe, 'Make large assemblies [on Shabbos] and expound the laws of Shabbos publicly before the people, in order that future generations will learn from you to do the same' (Yalkut Shimoni #408).
</p><p>
We also find this theme in the Midrash that relates that the Torah complained before Hash-m and said, 'When the Jewish people enter Eretz Yisrael, everyone will become preoccupied with their agricultural pursuits; what will become of me then?' Hash-m answered, 'I have an excellent partner for you: the Shabbos. On that day, the Jews are not busy with their work, and they will be free to occupy themselves in the study of Torah.' (<b>TUR</b> OC 290; see also Tana D'vei Eliyahu Rabah, ch. 1). (For more on this subject, see Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld's 'Torah from the Internet,' Parshas Vayakhel.) 
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<b><font>2) THE 'TAHARAH' REQUIRED TO RECEIVE THE TORAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> [All agree that an expulsion up until Shabbos 
          could be Tamei, some women could not immerse until 
          Shabbos night -] if so, they were Tevulos Yom (they were 
          not totally Tehoros)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye bar Ravin and Rav Chanina bar Avin):</font></b> 
          Indeed, this teaches that the Torah was given to Tevulos 
          Yom!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (Ravina):</font></b> Was the Torah given to Tevulos Yom 
          (some did not immerse until Shabbos), or was it merely 
          fitting to be given to Tevulos Yom?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (Mereimar):</font></b> It was fitting to be given to Tevulos 
          Yom. (But actually, everyone immersed before Shabbos, and 
          no one had to immerse again on Shabbos due to a 
          subsequent expulsion of semen.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question #1:</font></b> Since Torah was fitting to be given to 
          Tevulos Yom, they could have immersed on Shabbos night 
          and the Torah could have been given that same night! 
          (Rashi - we ask against R. Akiva - it seems that Matan 
          Torah was delayed until morning, because six Onos are 
          required! Tosfos - we also ask against R. Elazar and R. 
          Yishmael, who say that it depends on the number of days - 
          the delay teaches that it depends on Onos, and another 
          Onah was needed!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> 'Lo mi'Rosh ba'Seser Dibarti' 
          (Hash-m did not [want to] speak covertly with Yisrael).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question #2 (against R. Akiva):</font></b> [Why did they have to 
          abstain from Wednesday morning?] They could have [had 
          relations on Wednesday during the day, and] immersed on 
          Shabbos morning, before Matan Torah
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> It would be improper that while 
          [most of] Benei Yisrael are heading to receive the Torah, 
          others are going to immerse.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  Answer #2 (to Questions (e) and (g) - R. Chiya b'Rebbi 
          Aba): Chachamim argue with R. Yishmael and R. Akiva - 
          they say that semen is always Tamei for six full Onos 
          (therefore 72 hours of abstention were required, from 
          Wednesday morning until Shabbos morning).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> The argument is about semen emitted by a 
          woman, but all agree that semen emitted by a man (that 
          never entered a woman) is Tamei as long as it is moist 
          (it is still capable of being Mazri'a (impregnanting).).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Sheshes - Beraisa):</font></b> 'V'Chol Beged v'Chol Or 
          Asher Yihyeh Alav Shichvas <i>Zera</i>' - this excludes 
          putrefied semen (it cannot Mazri'a).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> It came from a man (and it is Tamei if 
               it is moist, even if it putrefied)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, came from a woman.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question #1 (Rav Papa):</font></b> If semen of a Yisrael is inside a 
          Nochris, for how long is it Tamei?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Perhaps semen putrefies in a Yisraelis after three 
               days, for the bodies of Yisraelim are warm, for they 
               are fearful about Mitzvos - but a Nochris is cool, 
               it does not putrefy so quickly;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps bodies of Nochrim are equally warm, for 
               they eat Shekatzim u'Rmashim (insects and swarming 
               creatures)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question #2:</font></b> If also in a Nochris it putrefies after 
          three days because they eat Shekatzim u'Rmashim, if it is 
          in an animal, what is the law?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> There is a corridor before a woman's womb, the semen 
               is insulated and stays warm - animals have no 
               corridor, the semen will not putrefy so quickly;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps this does not make a difference!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  This question is not resolved.
<br>
<b><font>3) WHEN WAS THE TORAH GIVEN?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> The Aseres ha'Dibros were given on the sixth 
          of Sivan;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi says, they were given on the seventh.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> All agree that Benei Yisrael came to Midbar Sinai 
          on Rosh Chodesh Sivan:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It says 'Ba'Yom <i>ha'Zeh</i> Ba'u Midbar Sinai', like it 
               says 'Ha'Chodesh <i>ha'Zeh</i> Lachem Rosh Chodoshim' - 
               just like the latter refers to Rosh Chodesh, also 
               the former.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  All agree that Matan Torah was on Shabbos - it says 
          'Zachor Es Yom ha'Shabbos Lekadsho', like it says 
          '...Zachor Es Yom ha'Zeh' - just like the latter refers 
          to the day itself [that it was said], also the former;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  They argue about which day [of the week] was Rosh 
          Chodesh.
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) WHEN WAS THE TORAH GIVEN (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi holds that Sunday was Rosh Chodesh:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> On Sunday Moshe did not address Benei Yisrael, 
               because they were weary from travelling;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> On Monday he told them 'V'Atem Tihyu Li Mamleches 
               Kohanim';
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> On Tuesday he told them the Mitzvah of Hagbalah 
               (fencing off Har Sinai);
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> On Wednesday he told them to abstain from relations.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Chachamim hold that Monday was Rosh Chodesh:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> On Monday Moshe did not address Benei Yisrael, 
               because they were weary from travelling;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> On Tuesday he told them 'V'Atem...';
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> On Wednesday he told them about Hagbalah;
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> On Thursday he told them to abstain from relations.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (against R. Yosi):</font></b> 'V'Kidashtem ha'Yom u'Machar' 
          (there were only two days of abstention)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (for R. Yosi):</font></b> Moshe himself decided to add a 
          third day (so all of Yisrael would be Tehorim).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Yosi):</font></b> Moshe himself decided to do 
               three things, and Hash-m agreed to all of them - he 
               added a day of abstention, he separated from his 
               wife, and he broke the Luchos. (Tosfos - even though 
               the Gemara brings Moshe's 'source' for each, in 
               every case it is not a real Drashah or Kal 
               va'Chomer, for we say that Moshe himself decided.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What did he expound to justify adding a day? 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It says 'Ha'Yom u'Machar' - today should be like 
          tomorrow, i.e. a full day, including the night;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Hash-m said this during the day, so 'Ha'Yom' could 
               not mean today (Wednesday, according to R. Yosi) - 
               rather, it means Thursday (in addition to the rest 
               of today), and 'Machar' refers to Friday).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source that Hash-m agreed?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Shechinah did not descend until Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What did he expound to justify separating from 
          his wife?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He made a Kal va'Chomer - Hash-m spoke with Benei 
          Yisrael only once, and he fixed a time, yet He required 
          them to abstain from relations - 'V'Hayu Nechonim...Al 
          Tigshu [El Ishah]';
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Hash-m speaks with me at all times, without fixing a 
               time - all the more so I should abstain!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source that Hash-m agreed?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It says 'Lech Emor Lahem Shuvu Lachem 
          l'Ohaleichem' (Benei Yisrael should return to their 
          wives) 'V'Atah Po Amod Imadi' (but you should remain with 
          Me. Tosfos - surely, Moshe intended to separate before 
          Hash-m said this - otherwise, Miryam and Aharon would not 
          have disapproved).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Some learn from 'Peh El Peh Adaber Bo' (this 
               rebutted the disapproval of Moshe's separation).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What did he expound to justify breaking the 
          Luchos?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Korban Pesach is just one of 613 Mitzvos, it says 
          'V'Chol Ben Nechar Lo Yochal Bo' (one estranged from 
          Hash-m may not eat it) - all the more so, the entire 
          Torah should not be given to Benei Yisrael, for they are 
          Mumarim (on account of the Egel)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source that Hash-m agreed?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Reish Lakish expounded '*Asher* Shibarta' - 
          Yeishar Kochacha (your strength should be increased) for 
          having broken them.
<br>
<b><font>2) WHEN THE TORAH WAS GIVEN - QUESTIONS ON THE VARIOUS OPINIONS
</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (against R. Yosi):</font></b> 'V'Hayu Nechonim la'Yom 
          ha'Shelishi'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We already said that Moshe added a day!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (against Chachamim - Beraisa):</font></b> It was the third 
          (this will be explained), it was the third of the month, 
          it was Yom ha'Shelishi (Tuesday - this shows that Rosh 
          Chodesh was on Sunday. Tosfos - really, this question 
          [like many to follow] is against Rava, who says that they 
          argue about which day was Rosh Chodesh - R. Yosi and 
          Chachamim only [explicitly] discussed which day of Sivan 
          was Matan Torah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa is like R. Yosi.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the significance of [the first time it 
          says] 'It was the third'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> (It was the third day from [Rosh Chodesh,] when 
          he began discussing the reward and punishment of Torah 
          with Yisrael, like Rebbi in the coming Beraisa. Maharsha 
          - this could be discussed even though Yisrael were weary 
          from travelling, only new commands had to be postponed.) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa) Question:</font></b> It says 'Va'Yashev Moshe Es Divrei 
          ha'Am El Hash-m' and 'Va'Yaged Moshe Es Divrei ha'Am El 
          Hash-m' - what did Hash-m tell Moshe, what did Moshe tell 
          Benei Yisrael, what did Benei Yisrael reply to Moshe, 
          what did Moshe reply to Hash-m?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah):</font></b> They discussed 
          Mitzvas Hagbalah (even though it is not explicitly 
          mentioned until later, there is nothing else to which to 
          attribute this dialogue).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Version #1 - Answer #2 (Rebbi):</font></b> First, he told them the 
          punishment [for transgressing Torah] - 'Va'YaSHeV Moshe', 
          words that MeSHoVev the mind (cause one to refuse);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Afterwards, he told them its reward - 'Va'YaGeD 
               Moshe', things that interest a person, like AGaDa 
               (non-Halachic teachings).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Version #2 - Answer #2 (Rebbi):</font></b> First, he told them the 
          reward - 'Va'Yashev Moshe', words that Meshiv (revive) 
          the mind;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Afterwards, he told them the punishment - 'Va'Yaged 
               Moshe', words as bitter as Gidin (wormwood).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question (against Chachamim - Beraisa):</font></b> It was the sixth, 
          it was the sixth of the month, it was Yom ha'Shishi 
          (Friday, i.e. Rosh Chodesh was on Sunday).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Also this Beraisa is like R. Yosi.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the significance of [the first time it 
          says] 'It was the sixth'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rava):</font></b> It was the sixth day from [Sunday,] 
          when they camped [in Midbar Sinai].
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) SPEAKING TO THE JEWISH PEOPLE ON THE DAY OF THEIR ARRIVAL AT HAR SINAI</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that when the Beraisa mentions that the 'third day' was also the third of the month (3 Sivan) and the third day of the week (Tuesday), it refers to the third day on which Moshe Rabeinu spoke to the Jewish people in preparation for Kabalas ha'Torah, when he told them of the punishments and rewards that awaited them. Since that day was the third of the month, the first day, on which he began to tell them of the punishments and rewards, must have been the first of Sivan, the day they arrived at Har Sinai.
</p><p>
This seems to contradict the Gemara earlier (86b) which states that on the day of their arrival at Har Sinai, Moshe did <i>not</i> speak to them at all because they were exhausted from traveling. How are we to reconcile these two statements of the Gemara?
</p><p>

<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>MAHARSHA</b> answers that on the first day at Har Sinai, Moshe did not tell the people anything that <i>Hash-m</i> had told him. This is what the Gemara earlier means. Rather, he merely spoke to them <i>his own words</i> of preparation for receiving the Torah.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Acha bar Yakov):</font></b> It was the sixth day from 
          when they left [Refidim].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b></b>  They argue about the Mitzvah of Shabbos given at Marah:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> '(You must observe Shabbos) Ka'Asher 
               Tzivcha Hash-m Elokecha' - like you were commanded 
               at Marah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Rava holds that in Marah we were commanded about 
               [most laws of] Shabbos, but not about Techumim 
               (therefore, we could travel on Shabbos - perhaps 
               they left Refidim on or before Shabbos. Tosfos - 
               here 'Techumim' refers to Hotza'ah - Chachamim say 
               that the Isur Techumim is only mid'Rabanan. Even 
               though 'Al Yetzei...' is written earlier, and it is 
               expounded to forbid Hotza'ah, Rava must say that it 
               was commanded after Matan Torah and written in in 
               the most appropriate place, i.e. Parshas Man.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Rav Acha holds that we were also commanded about 
               Techumim (since they camped on Sunday, they must 
               have left that same day).
<br>
<b><font>3) WHAT DAY OF THE WEEK WAS 'ROSH CHODESH SIVAN' THAT YEAR?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (against Chachamim - Beraisa):</font></b> In Nisan of 
          Yetzi'as Miztrayim, Benei Yisrael slaughtered Korban 
          Pesach on the 14th, they left on the 15th, at night the 
          Bechoros were stricken...
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Interjection:</font></b> Makas Bechoros was before Benei 
               Yisrael left!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Correction:</font></b> Rather, they were stricken the previous 
               night.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Continuation of Beraisa:</font></b> The 15th was on Thursday.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> (Normally, Nisan is full (has 30 days) 
               and Iyar is Chaser (has 29).) This implies that Iyar 
               began (i.e. Rosh Chodesh was) on Shabbos, and Sivan 
               began on Sunday (like R. Yosi)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Chachamim say that Iyar was full that year (so 
          Iyar began on Monday. Magen Avraham (494:1) asks why 
          Shavu'os is the 50th day after Pesach - all agree that 
          Pesach was on Thursday, and Matan Torah on Shabbos, the 
          51st day after Pesach! Maharsha (Avodah Zarah 3A) - day 
          50 completed the Taharah of Benei Yisrael necessary for 
          Matan Torah. Ravina (86B) was unsure whether or not some 
          people had to immerse on Shabbos - he must have had an 
          answer to this question unlike the Maharsha - <b><b><b>PF</b></b></b>.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (against Chachamim):</font></b> Iyar was Chaser that year!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> In Nisan of Yetzi'as Miztrayim, Shechitas 
               Pesach on the 14th, Benei Yisrael left on the 15th, 
               the Bechoros were stricken the previous night; the 
               15th was on Thursday;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Iyar began on Shabbos; Iyar was Chaser, so Sivan 
               began on Sunday.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This Beraisa is like R. Yosi.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question (against Chachamim - Rav Papa - Beraisa):</font></b> 
          'Va'Yis'u me'Elim... ba'Chamishah Asar Yom la'Chodesh 
          ha'Sheni' - it was Shabbos, for it says 'U'Voker 
          u'Re'isem Es Kavod Hash-m ' and 'Sheshes Yomim Tilketuhu' 
          (i.e. manna will fall for six days, starting tomorrow 
          morning).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Since Iyar 15 was Shabbos, Sivan began on Sunday.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Chachamim say that Iyar was full.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Chavivi of Chuzna'ah - Beraisa):</font></b> 'Va'Yhi 
          ba'Chodesh ha'Rishon ba'Shanah ha'Shenis be'Echad 
          la'Chodesh Hukam ha'Mishkan' - there were 10 special 
          things about that day:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It was the first day of creation [Sunday], the first 
               day the Nesi'im offered Korbanos [for Chanukas 
               ha'Mishkan], the first day of Kehunah, the first day 
               of Avodah, the first day fire descended from 
               Shamayim, the first day Kodshim were eaten, the 
               first day of Shechinah [Bach - among Yisrael], the 
               first day of Birkas Kohanim, the first day that 
               Bamos were forbidden, and [Nisan is] the first month 
               [for Yisrael].
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> If Rosh Chodesh Nisan [in the second 
               year] was Sunday, the previous year it was 
               Wednesday;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Beraisa - Acherim):</font></b> Shavu'os is always four 
                    days later in the week than the previous 
                    Shavu'os (the months always alternate 
                    full-Chaser, a year is 354 days, 50 weeks and 
                    four days); Rosh Hashanah is always four days 
                    later than the previous Rosh Hashanah;
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> In a leap year [we add a month of 29 days, i.e. 
                    four weeks and one day], they are separated by 
                    five days.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> This implies that Iyar [of Yetzi'as Miztrayim] began 
               on Friday, and Sivan began on Shabbos - this is 
               unlike both Tana'im!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> [Acherim say that always, six months between 
          Nisan and Nisan are Chaserim - our Tana'im argue,] R. 
          Yosi says that seven months were Chaserim, so three days 
          separated Nisan and Nisan (not four), so Nisan [of 
          Yetzi'as Miztrayim] began on Thursday, Sivan began on 
          Sunday (even though Acherim agree that sometimes we must 
          have an extra (i.e. seventh) full month in a year (Erchin 
          9B), because a lunar month is slightly more than 29 and a 
          half days, they would never agree to an extra Chaser 
          month);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say that eight months were Chaserim, so 
               the previous Nisan began on Friday, Sivan began on 
               Monday. (Tosfos - they could agree that seven were 
               Chaserim and that Nisan began on Thursday, just Iyar 
               was full, so Sivan began on Monday.)
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE JEWS TRAVELING ON SHABBOS IN THE DESERT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rava and Rav Acha bar Yakov argue whether the Jewish people arrived at Har Sinai the <i>same</i> day they left Refidim or on a <i>different</i> day. The Gemara explains their argument. According to Rava, although the Jews were commanded at Marah to fulfill the Mitzvah of Shabbos, the prohibition of Techumin (traveling beyond a certain distance on Shabbos) was <i>not</i> included in that commandment, and thus the Jews were permitted to travel on Shabbos. Since they traveled on Shabbos, they were able to leave Refidim earlier in order to arrive at Har Sinai on Sunday. According to Rav Acha bar Yakov, all of the Mitzvos of Shabbos were included in the commandment at Marah, including the prohibition of Techumin. Consequently, the Jews were unable to travel on Shabbos, so they must have left after Shabbos, on Sunday. Consequently, they arrived at Har Sinai on the same day (Sunday) that they left Refidim.
</p><p>
However, it should have been forbidden for them to travel on Shabbos for other reasons, such as Hotza'ah (carrying into Reshus ha'Rabim) and Mechamer (making their animals carry)! How could they travel if they were transgressing other Mitzvos of Shabbos which <i>were</i> commanded at Marah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH a'Techumin) says that the Gemara does not mean that the only Mitzvah of Shabbos that the Jews did not receive at Marah was Techumin. The prohibition of Hotza'ah was also not commanded at that time.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> explains that they did not have to carry anything because they placed it all on animals to carry. Even though Mechamer (having an animal do Melachah) is also forbidden, the Ritva explains that they had not yet been taught the laws of Mechamer, just as they had not yet been taught the laws of Techumin. When the Gemara says that the prohibition of Techumin was not included in the commandment at Marah, it means that any prohibition <i>like</i> Techumin was not included. That is, any prohibition which is a Lav (and not a Chiyuv Misah) like Techumin, such as Mechamer, was not included in the commandment at Marah.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> explains that even though Hotza'ah was forbidden, they put their belongings on animals (as the Ritva explains). This did not necessitate transgression of the Melachah of Mechamer, because their animals could have started to walk before the onset of Shabbos without stopping (and making a Hanachah) until after Shabbos departed (see Shabbos 153b).
</p><p>
Others ask, however, how did they take down their tents on Shabbos? Taking down a tent involves the Melachah of Setiras Ohel? The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> suggests that they could have taken down their tents with a Shinuy, such as by having two people take down one tent.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) QUESTIONS ON THE OPINION OF REBBI YOSI</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (against R. Yosi - Beraisa in Seder Olam):</font></b> In 
          Nisan of Yetzi'as Miztrayim - Benei Yisrael slaughtered 
          Korban Pesach on the 14th, they left on the 15th, that 
          day was Erev Shabbos;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> Since Nisan began on Friday, Iyar began 
               on Sunday, and Sivan began on Monday!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That Beraisa is like Chachamim. (Rashash - R. 
          Yosi merely compiled Seder Olam, he does not agree with 
          everything in it.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa - R. Yosi):</font></b> On the second Moshe went up 
          [on Har Sinai] and descended, and also on the third, on 
          the fourth he descended and did not ascend again.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Interjection:</font></b> If he did not ascend on the fourth, 
               how did he descend?!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Correction:</font></b> On the fourth he ascended and descended 
               [and did not ascend again];
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Continuation of Beraisa:</font></b> On the fifth he built a 
               Mizbe'ach and offered a Korban on it; on the sixth 
               he did not have time [to ascend].
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> He did not have time because the Torah 
               was given! (But R. Yosi said (85B) that Matan Torah 
               was on Shabbos!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, he did not have time on account of 
          preparations for Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (A Chacham of Galil):</font></b> Blessed is Hash-m, who gave a 
          three-fold Torah (Torah, Nevi'im and Kesuvim (the 
          Writings) - all were given on Sinai) to a three-fold 
          nation (Kohanim, Leviyim and Yisraelim) through a third 
          born (Moshe was born after Miryam and Aharon) on the 
          third day (of abstention) in the third month! (Maharsha - 
          in each case, the second has an attribute not found in 
          the first, and the third is greater than the first two.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  This is like Chachamim (but R. Yosi says that it was on 
          the fourth day of abstention).
<br>
<b><font>2) 'KABALAS HA'TORAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Avdimi bar Chama):</font></b> 'Va'Yisyatzvu b'Sachtis ha'Har' - 
          this teaches that Hash-m bent Har Sinai over Yisrael like 
          a bowl; (Aruch - like a wicker basket with holes - if we 
          say that Hash-m let Yisrael see outside, i.e. [the 
          emptiness of] life without Torah, this explains the 
          continuation '...If not, you will be buried <i>there</i> - <b><b><b>PF</b></b></b>)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He told them, if you accept the Torah, good - if 
               not, you will be buried there. (Maharal, Netzach 
               Yisrael 11 - even though Benei Yisrael previously 
               said 'Na'aseh v'Nishma', Hash-m wanted Kabalas 
               ha'Torah through coercion, lest Yisrael think that 
               transgression of Torah nullifies the acceptance. 
               Medrash - Hash-m acted like a rapist, who must marry 
               the girl and may never divorce her.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rav Acha bar Yakov):</font></b> This is a great <i>Moda'ah</i> for 
          Kabalas ha'Torah! (Someone forced to do something against 
          his will tells witnesses that he is coerced and does not 
          intend for his deed to take effect - we can say that we 
          never intended to accept Torah! Maharal - the Moda'ah 
          shows that Yisrael were not worthy of Torah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> That is true - however, at the time of the 
          miracle of Purim, 'Kiymu v'Kiblu ha'Yehudim', Yisrael 
          [willingly] affirmed what they already accepted [through 
          coercion]. (Tosfos - the covenants and oaths Moshe 
          imposed on Yisrael were also through coercion; Yisrael 
          willingly made a Bris with Yehoshua, but it was limited 
          to the Isur of idolatry.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (Chizkiyah):</font></b> 'Mi'Shomayim Hishmata Din Eretz 
          Yor'ah v'Shokotah' - if the land was afraid, why was it 
          quiet?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> At first it was afraid; after Yisrael accepted 
          the Torah, it was quiet.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why was it afraid at first?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Reish Lakish taught, 'Yom ha'Shishi' - Hash-m 
          created the world on condition that Yisrael will accept 
          His Torah on the sixth of Sivan; if they will not, the 
          world will revert to emptiness. (Tosfos Avodah Zarah 3A - 
          R. Yosi can explain, this refers to the sixth day from 
          the second of Sivan, when Hash-m began discussing Matan 
          Torah with Yisrael; alternatively, Moshe added a day to 
          enable receiving the Torah in greater Taharah, this is 
          like acceptance.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (R. Simai):</font></b> When Yisrael said 'Na'aseh' before 'Nishma' 
          (agreeing to observe before hearing the Mitzvos), 600,000 
          angels came, they tied two crowns [of radiance of the 
          Shechinah] on every Yisrael, one for Na'aseh and one for 
          Nishma;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> When Yisrael sinned [with the golden calf], twice 
               this number of damaging angels came, each removed 
               one crown - 'Va'Yisnatzlu Venei Yisrael Es Edyam 
               me'Har Chorev'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chama bar Chanina):</font></b> They put on the crowns at Chorev 
          (Sinai), they removed them at Sinai;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> They put them on at Sinai, like R. Simlai taught; 
               they removed them at Sinai - 'Va'Yisnatzlu...'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Moshe merited to receive all of them - 
          right after this it says 'U'Moshe Yikach Es ha'Ohel' (he 
          took the crowns; alternatively, Ohel is like 'B'Hilo Nero 
          Alei Roshi', the radiance went to Moshe's head. Maharsha 
          - Na'aseh represents Mitzvos Ase, the crown of Kehunah 
          (from Midas ha'Chesed); Nishma represents Lavim, the 
          crown of Malchus (from Midas ha'Din) - Hash-m made 
          Yisrael 'Mamleches Kohanim v'Goy Kadosh'; Moshe received 
          the crowns (he was Melech, and Kohen Gadol during 
          Chaunkas ha'Mishkan) on account of learning in the Ohel, 
          i.e, the crown of Torah. The crowns were removed at 
          Chorev, the two Churbanos ended the Malchus and [Avodah 
          of] Kehunah of Yisrael.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Reish Lakish):</font></b> In the future, Hash-m will return them to 
          Yisrael - 'U'Fduyei Hash-m Yeshuvun...v'Simchas Olam Al 
          Rosham', the joy that used to be on their heads.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> When Yisrael put 'Na'aseh' before 'Nishma', 
          a Bas Kol (voice from Heaven) said 'Who revealed to My 
          children this secret that the angels use' - 'Borachu 
          Hash-m Mal'achav Giburei Cho'ach Osei Devaro Lishmo'a 
          b'Kol Devaro', first Osei (they accept to do) his word, 
          afterwards they hear it. (Maharsha - usually, people are 
          not so resolute to do His will, for the Yetzer ha'Ra 
          incites - Yisrael overcame this.)  
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Chama bar Chanina):</font></b> What do we learn from 
          K'Sapu'ach ba'Atzei ha'Ya'ar...'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Yisrael are compared to an apple tree - just like 
          its fruit precedes its leaves, Yisrael put Na'aseh before 
          Nishma.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  A Tzeduki (heretic) saw Rava engrossed in learning; 
          Rava's fingers were under his leg, he was pressing on 
          them [without realizing], they were bleeding.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> The Tzeduki:</font></b> You are a hasty nation! You put your 
               mouths before your ears, and you persist in your 
               haste! You should have heard [the Mitzvos] first - 
               then, you can accept if you see that you can keep 
               them!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rava:</font></b> We go with a pure heart (We knew that Hash-m 
               would not demand more than we are capable of) - it 
               says about us 'Tumas (from the root 'Tam', pure) 
               Yesharim Tanchem';
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) ON WHAT DAY DO WE CELEBRATE SHAVUOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The <b>TUR</b> and <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 494:1) write that Shavuos is celebrated on the sixth of Sivan, fifty days after the day of on which the Omer offering was brought (the second day of Pesach). This implies that the month of Iyar in the year that the Torah was given was not a full (Malei) month, but was 29 days long. If Iyar of that year had been 30 days long, then Matan Torah would have been on the fifty-first day after the day of the Omer offering, and not on the fiftieth.
</p><p>
The Gemara seems to conclude that according to the Rabanan, who maintain that the Torah was given on the <i>sixth</i> of Sivan, there indeed were 51 days between Pesach and Shavuos (since the Gemara (87b) resolves the Beraisa which conflicts with the opinion of the Rabanan by saying that Iyar of that year had thirty days). How, then, can it be that Shavuos is on the sixth of Sivan and yet it is only <i>fifty</i> days after the day of the Omer offering?
</p><p>
Moreover, it seems that according to both Rebbi Yosi and the Rabanan, the Torah was given on the fifty-first day after Pesach. According to the Rabanan, Iyar was thirty days long, as we explained above, and according to Rebbi Yosi, Iyar was 29 days long, but the Torah was given on the <i>seventh</i> of Sivan, 51 days after the day of the Omer offering.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MACHTZIS HA'SHEKEL</b> explains that this question applies only if the Jewish people left Egypt on a Thursday. If they left on a Thursday, then there indeed were 51 days between the second day of Pesach (Friday) and the day they received the Torah (Shabbos). The Seder Olam, however, says that they left Egypt on a <i>Friday</i>, and thus the Torah, which was given on a Shabbos, was given <i>fifty</i> days later. (The Seder Olam also states that the Man started to fall on a Monday. Even though the Gemara derives from verses that the Man started to fall on a Sunday, this inference is not explicit in the verses, and the simple understanding of the verses does not imply that the Man started to fall on a Sunday). We rule like the Seder Olam, and not like the Gemara.
</p><p>
It should be noted that according to the Seder Olam, the tenth of Nisan (the day on which animals were designated for the Korban Pesach) was not Shabbos but Sunday, contrary to what the <b>TUR</b> (OC 430) quotes in the name of the Seder Olam (since the Jews left Egypt on a Friday, five days before that day was Sunday, as the <b>PERISHAH</b> points out).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>SEFAS EMES</b> explains that according to the <b>TUR</b>, the Jewish people left Egypt on a <i>Thursday</i> (as he says in OC 430), and that the Torah was given on a <i>Friday</i> and not on Shabbos, as the Pirkei d'Rebbi Eliezer (ch. 46) maintains.
</p><p>
The Sefas Emes points out, however, that the Tur himself (OC 292) states that the Torah was given on Shabbos.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RIVASH</b> (#96) writes that the festival of Shavuos has nothing to do with the day on which the Torah was given. Shavuos comes fifty days after the day of the Omer offering, whether or not it falls on the day that the Torah was given. The reason why we call Shavuos, 'Zeman Matan Toraseinu,' is because according to our calendar system (in which Iyar has 29 days), the festival occurs on the sixth of Sivan, which is the day of the month on which the Torah was given (according to the Rabanan, whose opinion we follow). Unlike the actual day on which the Torah was given , our sixth of Sivan occurs <i>fifty</i> days after the Omer offering, while the original day of Matan Torah was 51 days after the Omer offering (because they left Egypt on a Thursday and received the Torah on Shabbos, as the Gemara here states).
</p><p>
(d) The <b>MAGEN AVRAHAM</b> (OC 494) says in the name of <b>SEFER ASARAH MA'AMAROS</b> that by adding a day on his own, Moshe Rabeinu alluded to the second day of Yom Tov which is observed outside of Eretz Yisrael. Thus, the Torah was actually <i>supposed</i> to have been given on the fiftieth day after the Omer of that first year, which is why our holiday begins on the fiftieth day after the Omer. The Torah was actually given on the fifty-first day to symbolize that the fifty-first day after the Omer would also be observed as Yom Tov (when the Jews would go into exile). Just as Moshe Rabeinu made that day into the day of Kabalas ha'Torah, the Rabanan would later make that day into Yom Tov.
</p><p>
The <b>BEIS HA'LEVI</b> (Parshas Yisro) expands on this idea. He explains that even though the Jewish people <i>received</i> the Torah on the fifty-first day, the Torah was <i>given</i> on the fiftieth day. The explanation for this is as follows.
</p><p>
The Gemara (88b) says that the Mal'achim did not want the Torah to be given to Moshe Rabeinu. What was their argument? What did they intend to do with the Torah themselves? As Moshe Rabeinu argued, none of the Mitzvos of the Torah are relevant to heavenly entities; they are relevant only for humans!
</p><p>
The Gemara in Bava Metzia (61a) states that the verse, 'Lo ba'Shamayim Hi' -- 'the Torah is not in the heavens' (Devarim 30:12), means that the authority to expound and elucidate the Torah is not in the heavens, but was given to the Sages. The Mal'achim argued that this <i>authority</i> should not be given to man, because they did not think that it was appropriate for man to have the power to legislate in Torah matters.
</p><p>
Moshe Rabeinu's decision to delay the giving of the Torah by one day was based on a Hekesh, as the Gemara explains ('just as the second day of Perishah was a day that follows a night, so, too, the first day must be a day that follows a night'). By his application of a Hekesh to derive a Torah law (i.e., the day on which the Torah should be given), Moshe Rabeinu asserted that the Torah was given to man to expound. The Gemara adds that indeed, Hash-m agreed to Moshe's action.
</p><p>
Therefore, even if the Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Yosi who says that we received the Torah on the seventh day of Sivan, that day was the day of <i>Kabalas ha'Torah</i>, when the Jews <i>received</i> the Torah. The day before, though, was the day of <i>Matan</i> Torah, when Hash-m <i>gave</i> man the ability to make decisions that affect Torah law. (The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> in Toras Moshe (Shavuos) offers a similar explanation.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) FORCED TO ACCEPT THE TORAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates that at Har Sinai, Hash-m held the mountain above the heads of the Jewish people, and the people accepted the Torah under duress. The Gemara explains that because of this involuntary acceptance of the Torah, the Jewish people had a 'Moda'a Rabah l'Oraisa' -- a claim of immunity for any transgressions that they might commit. This 'Moda'ah Rabah' lasted until the Jewish people willingly accepted the Torah during the time of Purim, nearly a thousand years later.
</p><p>
If the Jewish people had this claim of immunity due to their forced acceptance of the Torah, why were they punished during the interim years for their sins, before they accepted the Torah willingly?
</p><p>
In addition, what does the Gemara mean when it says that they were forced to accept the Torah? The Torah itself relates that the Jewish people exclaimed, 'Na'aseh v'Nishma,' which implies that they willingly accepted the Torah!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Moda'a) answers that although the 'Moda'ah Rabah' vindicated them from punishments for most sins, they <i>were</i> punished for the sin of Avodah Zarah. This because the Jewish people <i>did</i> accept upon themselves, willingly, the prohibition against idolatry.
</p><p>
Why, though, does the Gemara say that their acceptance of the Torah was involuntary when the Torah teaches that they said, 'Na'aseh v'Nishma'? Tosfos explains that initially, before they stood at Har Sinai, they said 'Na'aseh v'Nishma' and expressed their intention to accept the Torah willingly. However, when they stood at Har Sinai, Hash-m had to hold the mountain over their heads lest they change their minds out of fright when they saw the mountain afire and the full awe of the Divine presence (which caused their souls to leave their bodies).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MIDRASH TANCHUMA</b> (Parshas Noach) explains that they willingly accepted Torah she'Bichtav, the Written Torah. The punishments that they received until the time of Purim were given for laws of Torah she'Bichtav that they transgressed. The 'Moda'a' was for Torah she'Ba'al Peh, the Oral Torah, which they were forced to accept. They did not accept it willingly due to the considerable difficulty involved in fulfilling all of its laws.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>RASHBA</b> explain that when they accepted the Torah, they accepted to observe the Mitzvos only in Eretz Yisrael. Eretz Yisrael was given to them only on the condition that they fulfill the Mitzvos (see Tehilim 105:24). The 'Moda'a' went into effect only after they were exiled from the land (see Sanhedrin 105a), as they did not willingly accept to keep the Torah outside of Eretz Yisrael.
</p><p>
On Purim, they accepted the Torah out of love even in Galus. They wanted to express their desire to never again be distanced from Hash-m, and thus they accepted the Torah in such a way that even if they must go into exile again, they will still remain loyal to the Torah. Thus, the 'Moda'a' was no longer in force.
</p><p>
The explanation of the Ramban is consistent with his explanation (Vayikra 18:25, Bereishis 26:5) that the primary goals of the Mitzvos are fulfilled only in Eretz Yisrael. Although we must observe the Mitzvos outside of Israel as well, nevertheless the fulfillment of the Torah does not accomplish as much in the spiritual realms when done outside of Eretz Yisrael as it accomplishes when done in Eretz Yisrael.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) AGADAH: A NATION THAT PUTS ITS MOUTH BEFORE ITS EARS</b></font><b>
<br></b>The Gemara relates that a Nochri said to Rava, 'You are a hasty nation, who put its mouth before its ears [when you said 'Na'aseh v'Nishma' and accepted to do the Mitzvos even before you heard what those Mitzvos are].' The <b>PIRCHEI NISAN</b> (in Koheles Yitzchak, Parshas Yisro) uses this Gemara to explain a Gemara earlier.
</p><p>
In the Gemara earlier (77b), Rebbi Zeira asked Rav Yehudah why, when the flock walks along, the goats go before the sheep. The commentators explain that the Jewish people are compared to sheep, and the Nochrim are compared to goats (sheep are white, which represents purity and holiness, while goats are dark, which represents impurity and depravity). The Pirchei Nisan suggests another explanation for the metaphor.
</p><p>
The Gemara in Bechoros (35a) states that a person is permitted to make a blemish in a Bechor before its head emerges from the womb, so that when it is born it will not have the Kedushah of a Bechor (see Insights to Bechoros 3b). The Gemara describes how one makes such a blemish. For a goat, one should blemish its ear, because its ear is the first part of its body to emerge at the time of birth. For sheep, one should make the blemish on its lips, because the lips are the first part of the sheep to emerge.
</p><p>
The Jewish people are compared to sheep because they put their mouths first, before their ears, when they said 'Na'aseh v'Nishma.' The other nations, in contrast, put their ears first; they wanted to hear what was written in the Torah before they accepted it. Therefore, they are compared to a goat, whose ear emerges first at birth.
</p><p>


<font><b>4) THE JEWISH PEOPLE ARE LIKE AN APPLE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites the verse, '[He is] like an apple tree ('Tapu'ach') among the trees of the forest...' (Shir ha'Shirim 2:3). They Gemara asks, why are the Jews compared to an apple tree? The Gemara answers that just as an apple tree reverses the natural order and produces its fruit before its leaves, so, too, the Jews reversed the natural order at Har Sinai when they said 'we will do' before 'we will hear.'
</p><p>
The implication of the Gemara is that the apple tree is different from all other trees. While other trees produce leaves before fruit, the apple tree produces apples before it sprouts its leaves. As <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Piryo Kodem) points out, however, this claim seems to have no basis in reality. The apple tree produces its fruit no differently than any other tree!
</p><p>
<b>RABEINU TAM</b> therefore suggests that the word 'Tapu'ach' here does not refer to an apple tree, but rather to an Esrog tree, as the word 'Tapu'ach' indeed is sometimes used. Rabeinu Tam explains that the Gemara in Sukah (35a) teaches that the fruit of the Esrog remains on its tree from year to year. The Gemara here, then, means that <i>last</i> year's Tapu'ach (i.e. Esrog) precedes <i>this</i> year's leaves.
</p><p>
Why, though, is this considered a change in the order of nature? When last year's fruit first began to grow, it indeed followed last year's leaves, just like the fruit of all other trees! How can this be compared to the Jews' declaration of 'we will do' before 'we will hear'?
</p><p>

<b>ANSWER:</b> The Gemara in Bava Kama (35a) states that the Jewish people merited to receive the Torah because they had meticulously kept the seven Noahide Laws that preceded the Torah. Perhaps this is why they said the words 'we will do' before 'we will hear.' How can one 'do' a request that he has not yet heard? The Jewish people meant to say, 'Hash-m, see that we continue to <i>do</i> what You have commanded us in the past. This demonstrates that we are prepared to <i>hear</i> more Mitzvos!'
</p><p>
According to this approach, we can understand why the Jews who reacted in such a manner are compared to the Esrog tree. The fruit of the Esrog tree from the previous year remains on the tree when it sprouts the following year's leaves. Similarly, at the time Hash-m asked them to fulfill more Mitzvos, the Jewish people still faithfully fulfilled the old Mitzvos that they had been given earlier. Just like the Esrog tree, they proudly showed their old 'fruit' (actions) when new 'leaves' (Mitzvos) were presented. This was what the Jews meant when they declared 'we will do' the Mitzvos before they said 'we will hear' the Mitzvos. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> It says about people [like you] who are full of 
               accusations 'V'Selef Bogdim Yeshadem' (Maharsha - 
               those who seek to be straight receive Hashem's help, 
               those who seek to be crooked are given the 
               opportunity).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani):</font></b> What do we learn from 
          'Libavtini Achosi Chalah Libavtini b'Achas me'Einayich'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> At first [when Yisrael accepted Torah], we drew 
          close to Hash-m with one eye; later [through keeping 
          Torah] we drew close with both. (Maharsha - Na'aseh 
          v'Nishma corresponds to an intellectual vision, 
          fulfillment in practice corresponds to physical vision.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  (Ula):</font></b> A bride that had Zenus (extramarital relations) at 
          the Chupah is Aluva (audacious).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  (Rav Mari, son of Shmuel's daughter):</font></b> He learns from 'Ad 
          sheha'Melech bi'Msivo Nirdi [Nosan Reicho]' (Yisrael made 
          the golden calf while still at Har Sinai);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rava):</font></b> Yisrael retains its dearness to Hash-m - it 
               says, 'Nosan Reicho' (gave its scent), it does not 
               say 'stank'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(t)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> 'V'Ohavav k'Tzeis ha'Shemesh bi'Gvuraso' - 
          this is one who is disgraced and does not disgrace; he 
          hears [others recounting] his shame and does not answer, 
          he serves Hash-m from love and happily accepts 
          afflictions. (While the moon was suggesting that it 
          should be supreme, the sun was silent - as a result, the 
          sun became supreme.)
<br>
<b><font>3) HASHEM'S UTTERANCES AT 'KABALAS HA'TORAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Yochanan):</font></b> What do we learn from 'Hash-m 
          Yiten Omer ha'Mevasros Tzava Rav'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Every utterance of Hash-m splits into 70 
          languages [and 70 meanings - Sanhedrin 34A].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Tana d'vei R. Yishmael):</font></b> 'Uch'Patish Yefotzetz Sala' - 
          just as a hammer is broken by (R. Tam; Rashi - breaks) a 
          rock into many pieces, one verse has many meanings.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Chananel bar Papa):</font></b> What do we learn from 
          'Shim'u Ki Negidim Adaber'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> Divrei Torah are compared to governors - just 
          like governors can kill or keep alive, also Divrei Torah;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rava):</font></b> For Maiminim (those who engage in Torah 
               Lishmah) it is an elixir of life; for Masme'ilim it 
               is poison.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> They are called Negidim (plural) because 
          Hash-m tied two crowns to every word He uttered (the 
          words were tangible - 'Ro'im Es ha'Kolos').
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> What does it mean 
          'Tzeror ha'Mor Dodi Li Bein Shodai Yalin'? 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Keneses Yisrael says, even though my Beloved 
          pains me and retracts (from the crowns He gave to me, on 
          account of the Egel), He dwells in my bosom (He commanded 
          to build the Mishkan right away).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  'Eshkol ha'Kofer Dodi Li b'Charmi Ein Gedi' - the One who 
          owns Kol (everything) is Mechaper for my sin of Gedi 
          (this is like a calf - alternatively, it refers to 
          idolatry, ('Ha'Orchim la'Gad Shulchan') that I Charamti 
          (gathered [lust for many gods]).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source that Charamti refers to 
          gathering?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer (Mar Zutra brei d'Rav Nachman - Mishnah):</font></b> A 
          launderer's chair that Chormim (one gathers) clothes on 
          it (to scent them).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> What do we learn from 
          'Lechayav ka'Arugas ha'Bosem'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Every utterance that left Hashem's 'mouth' filled 
          the entire world with fragrant spices [Maharsha - to help 
          revive them].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> After the first utterance [filled the world], 
          there was no room for others!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> After each word, He took the wind out of its 
          storehouse and cleared the spices [to Gan Eden] - 
          'Sifsosav Shoshanim Notfos Mor Over' - we read Shoshanim 
          like 'she'Shonim' (that repeat). 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> After every utterance of Hash-m, 
          Yisrael's souls left them - 'Nafshi Yotz'ah v'Dabro'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> After the first utterance, they were not alive 
          to hear the others!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Hash-m revived them with dew that will be used 
          for the ultimate Techiyas ha'Mesim - 'Geshem Nedavos 
          Tanif Elokim Nachalascha v'Nil'ah Ata Chonantah'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> After every utterance of Hash-m, 
          Yisrael retreated 12 Mil, angels nudged them back - 
          'Mal'achei Tzevakos Yidodun Yidodun' - we read this 
          'Yedadun'.
<br>
<b><font>4) MOSHE REFUTES THE ANGELS AT 'KABALAS HA'TORAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> When Moshe ascended, the angels 
          asked 'Why is there a person among us?'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Hash-m:</font></b> He came to receive the Torah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  The angels:</font></b> Will You give Your treasure, which You stored 
          away 974 generations before creation, to flesh and 
          blood?! 'Mah Enosh Ki Sizkerenu u'Ven Adam Ki Sifkedenu; 
          Hash-m Adoneinu...Tenah Hodcha Al ha'Shomayim' (give it 
          to us instead! Maharsha - they claimed that physical man 
          is not fitting for the secrets of Torah, which are 
          spiritual. Most of the explanations in this Agadata are 
          based on Maharsha.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Hash-m (to Moshe):</font></b> Answer them!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Moshe:</font></b> I fear lest the breath of their mouths burn me 
          (they are purely spiritual, and do not sin)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Hash-m:</font></b> Hold onto my Kisei ha'Kavod and answer them! (The 
          Neshamah is connected to the Kisei, this enables man to 
          attain spirituality.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Nachum):</font></b> 'Me'Achez Penei Kisei <i>Parshez</i> Alav 
               Anano' - this is an acronym for PiResh SHakai mi'Ziv 
               [Shechinaso], Hash-m spread His radiance and cloud 
               over him.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Moshe:</font></b> Hash-m, what is written in the Torah You give to 
          me? 'Anochi Hash-m Elokecha Asher Hotzeisicha me'Eretz 
          Miztrayim'!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Moshe (to the angels:</font></b>): Did you descend to 
               Mitzrayim?! Did Paro enslave you?! (Both parts of 
               Torah are suitable for man - you have no connection 
               at all to the revealed part, i.e. Mitzvos!) 
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> It says 'Lo Yihyeh Lecha Elohim Acherim Al Panai' - 
               do you live among other nations that serve 
               idolatry?!
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) MOSHE REFUTES THE ANGELS AT 'KABALAS HA'TORAH' (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Moshe:</font></b> It says 'Zachor Es Yom ha'Shabbos Lekadsho' - do 
          you do Melachah from which you must cease?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  It says 'Lo Sisa [Es Shem Hash-m Elokecha la'Shav]' - do 
          you do business [and have need for oaths]?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  It says 'Kaved Es Avicha v'Es Imkecha' - do you have 
          parents?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  It says 'Lo Sirtzach Lo Sin'af Lo Signov' - do you have 
          envy and a Yetzer ha'Ra [which brings one to do these]?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  The angels admitted to Hash-m [that the [entire] Torah 
          should be given to man] - 'Hash-m Adoneinu Mah Adir 
          Shimcha b'Chol ha'Aretz' - this latter verse does not say 
          'Tenah Hocha Al ha'Shomayim'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Immediately, every angel loved Moshe, and gave him [a 
          secret of Torah] - 'Alisa la'Marom Shavisa Shevi Lakachas 
          Matanos ba'Adam', to compensate for having contemptuously 
          called you 'Adam'.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Even the Satan (angel of death) gave a secret - (in 
               the plague following Korach's rebellion, Moshe told 
               Aharon) 'Va'Yiten Es ha'Ketores va'Ychaper Al ha'Am; 
               Va'Ya'amod Bein ha'Mesim u'Vein ha'Chayim' - had the 
               Satan not told Moshe, how would he know that Ketores 
               stops a plague?!
<br>
<b><font>2) WHERE THE SATAN DID AT 'KABALAS HA'TORAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> When Moshe descended from 
          Shomayim, the Satan asked Hash-m where is [the secret 
          part of] Torah; He said that He gave Torah to the land.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Satan asked [the angel appointed over] the land 
               - [it claimed ignorance,] 'Elokim Hevin Darkah...'
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> He asked the sea and the depth - they denied having 
               it, 'Tehom Omer Lo Vi v'Yam Amar Ein Imadi; Avadon 
               v'Maves Amru b'Azneinu Shomanu Shim'ah (destruction 
               and death said that they heard that Torah was given, 
               but they did not know where)'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  He told Hash-m that he did not find it anywhere in the 
          land; Hash-m told him to go to Moshe.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Satan (to Moshe):</font></b> Where is the Torah that Hash-m gave to 
          you?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Moshe:</font></b> Who am I that Hash-m should give to me His Torah?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Hash-m:</font></b> Moshe, do you lie?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Moshe:</font></b> Your hidden treasure, which You delight in every 
          day, can I say that I have it?! (I was not worthy of its 
          secrets, just You spread Your Shechinah over me!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Hash-m:</font></b> Since you lowered yourself, it will be called by 
          your name - 'Zichru Toras Moshe Avdi'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> When Moshe ascended, he found 
          Hash-m tying crowns to the letters.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Hash-m:</font></b> You don't give Shalom (greetings)?!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Moshe:</font></b> Does a slave give Shalom to his master?!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Hash-m:</font></b> You should 'help' me (give me a Berachah)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Moshe:</font></b> 'V'Ata Yigdal Na Ko'ach Hash-m ka'Asher 
               Dibarta' (this verse is written after the Meraglim - 
               R. Yehoshua ben Levi must have had a tradition that 
               Moshe said it when he ascended).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> 'Va'Yar ha'Am Ki Boshesh Moshe' - 
          we read this Ba Shesh (the sixth hour came);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Before Moshe ascended, he told Yisrael that he will 
               return after 40 days in the sixth hour. [Rashi - he 
               meant 40 full days, not including the day he 
               ascended.] On the 40th day [counting the day of 
               ascent] the Satan confused the world.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Satan:</font></b> Where is Moshe?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Yisrael:</font></b> He ascended to Shomayim.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> The Satan told them that the sixth hour came; they 
               ignored him. He told them that Moshe died; they 
               ignored him. He showed them an image of Moshe [dead] 
               on a bed - Yisrael said to Aharon 'Ki Zeh Moshe 
               ha'Ish...(we don't know what happened to him)'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question (a Chacham):</font></b> Why is it called Har <i>Sinai</i>?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Kahana):</font></b> It is the mount on which Nisim 
          (miracles) were done for Yisrael.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Objection (the Chacham):</font></b> If so, it should be called 
          Nisai!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Kahana):</font></b> Rather, it is the mount on which 
          good Simanim (omens) were done for Yisrael.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Objection (the Chacham):</font></b> If so, it should be called 
          Simnai!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  The Chacham:</font></b> You should learn from Rav Papa and Rav Huna 
          brei d'Rav Yehoshua, who delve into the Agadic 
          (non-Halachic) teachings of Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav 
          Huna!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna):</font></b> It is the 
          mount from which caused [Hash-m to have] Sin'ah (hatred) 
          for Nochrim [for refusing Torah].
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina):</font></b> Sinai has five names 
               (Tosfos - there are five names for the large 
               wilderness surrounding it, Maharsha - they are 
               different places where Mitzvos were given to 
               Yisrael, e.g. the Ohel Mo'ed and Arvos Mo'av - R. 
               Yosi teaches that all these Mitzvos were already 
               given on Sinai):
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> It is called Midbar Tzin, because Yisrael were 
               Nitztavu (commanded) there;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> It is called Midbar Kadesh, because Yisrael were 
               Niskadshu (sanctified) there;
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> It (Arvos Mo'av) is called Midbar Kedmus, because 
               Kedumah (the Torah, which was already given at 
               Sinani) was given [again] there;
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> It is called Midbar Paran, because Yisrael 
               reproduced there (every wife became pregnant with a 
               boy after Matan Torah). 
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WHERE IS THE TORAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Satan wanted to know where the Torah had gone. Hash-m told him to ask Moshe. When the Satan asked Moshe for the whereabouts of the Torah that Hash-m had given to him, Moshe responded that he did not have the Torah. Hash-m said to Moshe, 'Are you a liar?' Moshe replied, 'The [Torah, which is the] beloved hidden treasure in which You take pleasure every day -- how can I be so audacious to keep it for myself?'
</p><p>
What exactly occurred in this interaction? What did Moshe Rabeinu answer to the Satan's inquiry, and how did he defend himself when Hash-m asked him if he was lying?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> says that the discussion revolved around Sodos ha'Torah, the deep secrets of the Torah. The Satan asked Moshe Rabeinu how he could keep the Torah, when he is a mere human who has a limited capacity for understanding and cannot fully comprehend the Torah. Moshe Rabeinu replied that the Satan is correct, for he, Moshe, understands only the revealed parts of Torah (Niglah) and not the hidden parts (Nistar). Hash-m then asked Moshe, 'Are you lying? You also know the hidden parts of Torah!' Moshe replied than were it for his own ability, he would never have been able to understand the hidden parts of Torah; it is only because Hash-m spread his presence upon Moshe that he understood it.
</p><p>
(b) The Gemara in Nedarim (38a) says that Hash-m gave the ability to elucidate the Torah (Pilpul ha'Torah) to Moshe Rabeinu and his descendants, but in his generosity Moshe Rabeinu shared it with all of the Jewish people (see 'Torah from the Internet,' Parshas Ki Tisa). This is the subject of the discussion recorded here in the Gemara. The Satan wanted to take back the Torah by taking away the Neshamah of Moshe Rabeinu, thereby removing any trace of the Torah from this world. Moshe Rabeinu said that it was no longer in his hands (because he had given it to all of the Jewish people). When Moshe said to Hash-m, 'Who am I to keep the Torah to myself,' it was true that it was given to him, but he in turn gave it to the Jewish people. That is why Hash-m said that the Torah will be called by the name of Moshe -- because it was Moshe's decision to share the Torah with the Jewish people. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> It is called Midbar Sinai, for Sin'ah came to 
               Nochrim on account of it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b></b> It real name is Chorev.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b></b>  This is unlike R. Avahu:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Avahu):</font></b> It real name is Sinai - it is called 
               Chorev because Churvah (destruction) came to Nochrim 
               on account of it.
<br>
<b><font>3) THE MERCY OF THE 'AVOS' ON THEIR CHILDREN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah) Question:</font></b> What is the source to tie a red 
          thread... ['Im Yihyu Chata'eichem ka'Shanim...']
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> It should say 'ka'Shani' (singular, just like 
          'ka'Sheleg Yalbinu' is singular)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> Hash-m tells Yisrael - [even] if 
          your sins will be [numerous] like the years from creation 
          until now, they will become white like snow.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Questions (Rava):</font></b> Why does it say 'Lechu Na (go)' - it 
          should say Bo'u Na (come)! Why does it say 'Yomar Hash-m' 
          (in the future) - it should say Amar (past)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> In the future, Hash-m will tell Yisrael 'Go to 
          the Avos, they will rebuke you';
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Yisrael:</font></b> To whom should we go to? Should we go to 
               Avraham, who was told 'Yado'a Teda' (your 
               descendants will be enslaved because you said 
               'Ba'Mah Eda') and did not request mercy for us?! 
               (Maharsha - Hashem's Midah is to overlook the first 
               transgression - Avraham did not request this, for he 
               preferred that his sin be atoned for in this world.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Should we go to Yitzchak, who blessed Esav 'V'Hayah 
               ka'Asher Tarid (when Yakov declines, Esav will be 
               master over him)'?!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Should we go to Yakov, who was told 'Anochi Ered 
               Imcha Mitzraymah [v'Anochi A'alcha Gam Alo]' 
               (alluding to four exiles), and did not request mercy 
               for us?!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> At this point Hash-m will say 'Since you desire My 
               mercy, 'Im Yihyu Chata'eichem ka'Shanim ka'Sheleg 
               Yalbinu'.'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani):</font></b> Why does it say 'Ki 
          Ata Avinu Ki Avraham Lo Yodanu v'Yisrael Lo Yakirenu Ata 
          Hash-m Avinu Go'alenu me'Olam Shemecha'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> In the future Hash-m will tell Avraham 'Your 
          children sinned' -he will say, 'They should be wiped out 
          for the sake of Kidush Hashem'; (Maharsha - he meant that 
          their sins should be wiped out [pardoned] for the sake of 
          Kidush Hash-m - however, he was unclear, 'They should be 
          wiped out' could refer to Yisrael, therefore Hash-m 
          sought another reply).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Hash-m:</font></b> I will ask Yakov, who had great pain raising 
               children - perhaps he will pray for them!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Yakov responded like Avraham.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Hash-m:</font></b> The elder [Av] lacks reasoning, the younger 
               lacks [good] counsel - I will ask Yitzchak.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Yitzchak:</font></b> Did <i>my</i> children sin - aren't they also 
               Your children?! When Yisrael put Na'aseh before 
               Nishma, didn't You call them 'Beni Vechori' - why do 
               you call them my sons now?! (Hash-m already called 
               Yisrael 'Beni Vechori' when he sent Moshe to Paro 
               because they would later say Na'aseh v'Nishma; they 
               received crowns of Kehunah and Malchus, which are 
               appropriate for the firstborn.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> Further, how much did they sin? Most people live 
               only 70 years - deduct the first 20, for which You 
               (Beis Din of Shomayim) do not punish; half of the 
               remaining 50 are night (even people who are awake 
               then do not sin much), only 25 years remain;
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> Half the daytime is occupied with prayer, eating, 
               and the Beis ha'Kisei - only 12 and a half years 
               remain;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  If You will bear their sin alone, good; if You 
                    prefer, each of us will bear half; if You do 
                    not agree to this, I will bear all of it - I 
                    offered my soul for You [at the Akedah]!
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b></b> Yisrael will then say 'Ata Avinu'; Yitzchak will 
               tell them to direct their praise to Hash-m, and 
               point to Hash-m;
       <br><b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b></b> Yisrael will look up to Shomayim and say 'Ata Hash-m 
               Avinu Go'alenu me'Olam Shemecha'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> It was fitting that Yakov descend to 
          Mitzrayim in iron chains [to fulfill the decree of exile] 
          - his merit caused that he descended honorably - 
          'B'Chavlei Adam Emshachem b'Avosos Ahavah (in chains of 
          love, not of iron) va'Ehyeh Lahem k'Merimei Ol (I will 
          lift the yoke to reduce their burden) v'At Elav Ochil (I 
          will give them strength to endure the harsh labor)'. 
<br>
<b><font>4) WHICH SPICES COMBINE FOR A 'SHI'UR' OF 'HOTZA'AH' ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'ur for Hotza'ah of wood is to cook a 
          light egg (this always refers to k'Grogeres of a hen's 
          egg);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The Shi'ur for spices is to season a light egg - all 
          different spices join with each other;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The Shi'ur for nutshells, pomegranate peels, Istis and 
          Pu'ah (plants used to make dye) is enough to dye a small 
          garment in the middle of the headdress.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  The Shi'ur for urine, niter, Boris, Kemulia and Ashleg 
          (these will be explained) is enough to launder a small 
          garment in the middle of the headdress;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, it is to pass over a Kesem (a 
          bloodstain, to determine whether or not it is Dam Nidah 
          or to remove it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> We already learned [the Shi'ur for 
          wood] in another Mishnah!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b>  The Shi'ur for a reed is to make a 
               quill; if it was thick or cracked [and not fit for a 
               quill], the Shi'ur is to cook a light egg, mixed in 
               a frying pan.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that that applies to a 
          reed, which has no other use - but wood can be used for a 
          tooth of a key, one is liable even for a tiny amount - 
          the Mishnah teaches, this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'ur for spices is to season a light 
          egg.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Contradiction (Mishnah):</font></b> A mixture of spices of two or 
          three names (Tosfos - prohibitions) from the same 
          species, or from three different species, join to forbid 
          the food (b'Nosen Ta'am).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (Tosfos) Contradiction (Mishnah):</font></b> If spices of 
          two or three different prohibitions that are all from the 
          same species, or from three different species, were mixed 
          together, they forbid the food (b'Nosen Ta'am); if they 
          were mixed with a dry food, they join to comprise the 
          quantity which does not become Batul (e.g. for Terumah, 
          one in 100). (End of Version #2)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Chizkiyah):</font></b> The case is, all the spices sweeten.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> If they did not all sweeten, they would 
               not join (but our Mishnah did not distinguish 
               whether or not all sweeten)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Resolution:</font></b> Also in our Mishnah, all of the spices 
          sweeten.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) AGADAH: YITZCHAK'S DEAL WITH G-D</b></font><b>
<br></b>The Gemara relates that Yitzchak Avinu defended the Jewish people when Hash-m wanted to punish them for their sins. Yitzchak Avinu argued that a man's life span is seventy years. For twenty of those years, man is not liable to heavenly punishment (because one is not liable until he reaches the age of twenty). Of the remaining years, half are nighttime, which leaves twenty-five years, of which half are spent in prayer, eating, and taking care of one's needs. Yitzchak Avinu said, 'Either You forgive them for those remaining twelve and a half years of sin, or I will take half and You take half!'
</p><p>
The <b>KOCHVEI <b><b>OR</b></b></b> in the name of <b>RAV YISRAEL SALANTER</b> explains the Gemara here as follows. The Gemara in Berachos (17a) says that there are two things that prevent the Jewish people from doing the will of Hash-m -- the subjugation of the nations ('Shi'abud Malchus') and the Yetzer ha'Ra ('Se'or sheb'Isah'). When the Gemara says that Yitzchak Avinu suggested to take half of the responsibility for the sins of the Jews and let Hash-m take the other half, it means that Yitzchak Avinu was willing to accept responsibility for the sins of the Jews that were due to the Shi'abud Malchus, one of the two things that cause them to sin. When Yitzchak blessed Esav, he gave the descendants of Esav the power to rule over the Jewish people. Hash-m, however, is responsible for the other element that causes the Jews to sin -- the Yetzer ha'Ra (as the Gemara says in Berachos 32a), and therefore He should take responsibility for the other half of their sins.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) LIABILITY FOR HEAVENLY PUNISHMENT UNDER THE AGE OF 20</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that a person under the age of twenty is exempt from punishments b'Yedei Shamayim. This implies that a person under the age of twenty cannot be punished with Kares. However, there are other Gemaros that imply that a person <i>is</i> liable before the age of twenty (see, for example, Pesachim 93a)! In addition, if a person under the age of twenty is exempt from Kares, then he should also be exempt from the obligation to bring a Korban Chatas for an inadvertent transgression. Why does no one mention that he is exempt from a Korban Chatas?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>CHACHAM ZVI</b> (#49) gives four explanations for the Gemara's statement here.
</p><p>
(a) The Gemara is Agadic in nature, and we cannot apply a teaching of Agadah to Halachah. Therefore, a person is Chayav to bring a Korban Chatas, even though he is under the age of twenty and is not Chayav Kares for a willful transgression.
</p><p>
(b) A person under the age of twenty <i>is</i> sometimes punished by Shamayim. The Gemara here means that <i>sometimes</i> he is not punished. In contrast, a person above the age of twenty is always punished by Shamayim.
</p><p>
(c) It could be that a person under twenty is punished for his sins in <i>Olam ha'Ba</i>, but not in this world. This is in contrast to a person under the age of thirteen, who is not punished for his sins even in Olam ha'Ba.
</p><p>
(d) A person under twenty <i>is</i> punished, but only if he does not do Teshuvah upon reaching the age of twenty. A child under the age of thirteen is not punished, even if he does not do Teshuvah (see <b>REMA</b> OC 343).
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE 'SHI'UR HOTZA'AH' FOR INGREDIENTS USED FOR LAUNDERING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'ur for nutshells, pomegranate peels, 
          Istis and Pu'ah is enough to dye a small garment.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Contradiction (Beraisa):</font></b> If one was Motzi soaked 
          ingredients [for dye], the Shi'ur is to dye a sample the 
          size of Ira (a small ball placed in the shuttle to hold 
          the woof).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> The Shi'ur in our Mishnah is bigger 
          because people do not bother to soak the amount needed 
          for a sample.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'ur for urine...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> The urine must be at most 40 days old (after 
          that it not good for laundering or removing Dam Nidah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Niter.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> The niter is of Alexandria, not of Anfanterin.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Boris.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> This is sand. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> Boris and sand... 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Retraction:</font></b> Rather, Boris is sulfur.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> Chachamim added the following (they 
          also have Kedushas Shemitah) - Chelbeitzin 
          (ornithogalum), Le'inon (wormwood), Boris and aloe.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Shemitah does not apply to sulfur!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> Shemitah applies to things that have 
               roots [in the ground], and to nothing else.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Retraction:</font></b> Rather, Boris is aloe.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa listed Boris <i>and</i> aloe!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> These are two kinds of aloe.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Kemulia.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> This is a type of grass which is dried and 
          ground, and used for washing hands.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Ashleg.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel citing seafarers):</font></b> This is found in holes in 
          pearls, it is extracted using iron prongs.
<br>
<b><font>2) ONE CAN BE LIABLE FOR ANY AMOUNT </font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'ur for the following is any amount 
          (the reasons will be explained) - pepper, Itran (oil from 
          a pine tree), fragrant spices, and kinds of metals.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The Shi'ur for the following is any amount that people 
          store - stones or dirt of the Mizbe'ach, Mekek 
          (worm-eaten) Seforim or Mekek of their covers;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, also the Shi'ur for idolatry is any 
          amount - 'Lo Yidbak b'Yadcha Me'umah Min ha'Cherem'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What is a tiny pepper good for?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It covers up bad breath.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Any amount of Itran.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  This helps for an ache of half the head.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Any amount of fragrant spices.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One is liable for any amount of something 
          odorous (people fumigate Chulin or children with a bad 
          smell to keep away Mazikim), good [fragrant] oil, purple 
          wool (it can be smelled), or one young rose leaf (Rashi; 
          Aruch - a rose colored cotton wick).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Any amount of kinds of metals.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is a tiny amount good for?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> Any amount of 
          metal can be used to make a small Darban (end of a plow).
<br>
<b><font>3) DONATIONS TO HEKDESH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (Beraisa - Others):</font></b> If one said 'Alai (I vow 
          to give to Hekdesh) iron', he must bring one Amah by one 
          Amah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What use is there for this [in the Mikdash]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> It is enough for Kalyah Orev (it 
          prevents ravens from resting on the Heichal; Rashi - 
          these are spikes, or an iron plate with a sharp edge 
          pointing up; Aruch - it is a scarecrow).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (Beraisa - Others):</font></b> He must bring enough for 
          Kalyah Orev.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How much is this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> It is one Amah by one Amah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  [If one vowed to give] copper, he must bring the value of 
          a silver Ma'ah (a sixth of a Dinar);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> He must bring the size of a small 
          fork.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What use is there for this [in the Mikdash]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> It is used to trim the end of wicks and 
          clean out the Neros.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Mekak of Seforim or their covers.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Different worms have different names - 
          Mekak eats Seforim, Tachech eats silk, Ila eats grapes, 
          Peh eats figs, Hah eats pomegranates - it is dangerous to 
          eat any of them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  A Talmid was eating figs in front of R. Yochanan; he felt 
          something prick his throat, and cried out 'There are 
          thorns in these figs!'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  R. Yochanan:</font></b> Peh killed this Talmid.
<br>
<b><font>4) SHI'URIM OF SEEDS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one was Motzi a peddler's box (it has many 
          compartments), even though there are many species in it, 
          he brings only one Chatas;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  One is liable for [Hotza'ah of] less than k'Grogeres of 
          garden seeds;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah ben Beseira is Mechayev for five seeds.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) PREVENTING A CHILD FROM SINNING</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rashi says that Beis Din is not required to stop a child from eating Neveilos, but one may not actively give him something forbidden to eat. How can it be that one is not required to stop the child from eating something forbidden? We know that the Mitzvah of Chinuch obligates him to teach the child to fulfill and obey the Mitzvos of the Torah.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RAMBAM</b> explains that the Mitzvah of Chinuch applies only to the father of the child. His father <i>is</i> required to stop him from eating something forbidden. No one else, though, is required to stop him.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> in Yevamos (114a) and <b>TOSFOS</b> in Shabbos (121a) explain that the Gemara here refers only to a child who has not yet reached the age of Chinuch. A child who has reached the age of Chinuch, though, must be stopped from eating forbidden food.
</p><p>
(c) The Rashba adds that one must train the child to <i>do</i> actions of Mitzvos. One is not required to enjoin the child to <i>stop</i> doing actions.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 343) cites the Rambam's opinion that only the father is commanded to stop the child from sinning. The <b>REMA</b> cites both opinions, with the Rambam's opinion as a 'Yesh Omrim.'
</p><p>


<font><b>2) STORING A SEED AND THEN TAKING IT OUT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah teaches that the quantity of an item (such as seeds) that a person considers significant is considered to be the measure for which he will be Chayav for Hotza'ah on Shabbos. The Gemara asks why the Mishnah teaches this Halachah by saying that the person first stored it away ('ha'Matzni'a') and then took it out into Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos. The Mishnah should have simply said that he took it out with intention to plant it, and that intention alone makes the object significant and makes the person Chayav for Hotza'ah. Why does the Mishnah say that he first stored it away?
</p><p>
Abaye answers that the Mishnah refers to a case where the person forgot that he stored it (or why he had stored it). Nevertheless, he is Chayav when he brings it into Reshus ha'Rabim. Rashi adds that in addition to explaining why the Mishnah says 'ha'Matzni'a,' Abaye is answering a second question: why the Mishnah bothers at all to teach that the significance a person attaches to an object determines its measure for Hotza'ah, when the Mishnah earlier (75b) already teaches that.
</p><p>
What is Rashi's inference from the Gemara that the Gemara is bothered by this second question?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> Rashi's inference is based on a problem with the words of the Gemara. Why does Abaye answer that the person <i>did not remember</i> why he had stored away the object? Abaye should have answered simply that the person who carried the object out did so without any explicit intention (as Rashi explains in DH Leisnei).
</p><p>
Rashi understands, therefore, that had the Gemara said that he took out the object with no intention to plant it, the question from the Mishnah earlier (75b) would still apply. Abaye answers that the Mishnah here is adding that even if he <i>forgot</i> that he was Matzni'a it for a purpose, he is still Chayav.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  One is liable for two seeds of cucumbers, gourds, or 
          Mitzri beans.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  One is liable for a live Tahor grasshopper of any size; 
          if it is dead, the Shi'ur is k'Grogeres.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  One is liable for Tzipores Keramim (this will be defined) 
          of any size, dead or alive, for people save it for cures.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, even one who is Motzi a live Tamei 
          grasshopper is liable, for people save it for children to 
          play with.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Contradiction (Mishnah - R. Akiva):</font></b> The Shi'ur 
          for manure or fine sand is enough to fertilize a stalk of 
          cabbage;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, it is enough to fertilize a leek 
               stalk. (This shows that even what comes from one 
               seed is important!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> A seed that already grew is different, 
          for people do not bother to take out a single seed to 
          plant.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Cucumber seeds. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If one was Motzi date pits to plant, the 
          Shi'ur is two; if he was Motzi them to eat, the Shi'ur is 
          enough to fill a pig's mouth.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> How much is this?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It is one. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  If he was Motzi them for fuel, the Shi'ur is enough to 
          cook a light egg; if he was Motzi them for [markers for] 
          calculating, the Shi'ur is two;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  Others say, the Shi'ur [for calculating] is five.
<br>
<b><font>5) THE 'SHI'UR HOTZA'AH' FOR SMALL ITEMS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If one was Motzi two hairs from the tail of a 
          horse or cow, he is liable, for people use these for nets 
          to trap birds;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The Shi'ur for hard hairs over a pig's spine is one, the 
          Shi'ur for peeled palm leaves is two; the Shi'ur for 
          fibers (that grow around date trees) is one.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One is liable for Tzipores Keramim of any 
          size, dead or alive.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav):</font></b> It is Palya Bi'ari (a Tahor 
          grasshopper).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> It is found in date trees surrounded by only one 
          ring of shoots; it is used to open the heart [to 
          understand].
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One eats the right half and puts the left half in a 
               reed, seals it with 60 (i.e. many) seals, and hangs 
               it on his left arm.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> A way to remember this - 'Lev Chacham li'Mino v'Lev 
               Kesil li'Smolo'.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> After he becomes sufficiently wise, and learned 
               enough, he may eat the left half;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  If he will not (rather, he will discard it), he 
                    will forget his learning.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> Even one who is Motzi a live 
          Tamei grasshopper is liable, for people save it for 
          children to play with.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  The first Tana holds that people do not save it for 
          children to play with.
<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:</font></b> They are afraid that the child will eat it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> If so, they should also be concerned about 
          Tahor grasshoppers!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Kahana was in front of Rav, he put a Tahor 
               grasshopper in front of his mouth.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rav:</font></b> Remove it, lest people will say that you ate it 
               and transgressed Bal Teshaktzu (doing something 
               disgusting)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> They are afraid that it will die and then the 
          child will eat it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah is not concerned for this - if it died, a 
          child would eulogize it [and not eat it].
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>***** <b>PEREK HA'MATZNI'A</b> *****
</b></font></center><p>
<br><br><b><font>6) ONE WHO IS 'MATZNI'A' IS LIABLE FOR 'HOTZA'AH' OF ANY AMOUNT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> if one was Matzni'a (stored away) for 
          planting, a sample or for a cure and was Motzi on 
          Shabbos, he is liable for any amount;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Anyone else is not liable unless if he was Motzi a 
          Shi'ur;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  If he (the Matzni'a who was Motzi) later decided not to 
          plant it and took it back into his house, he is liable 
          [for Hachnasah to Reshus ha'Yachid] only for a Shi'ur.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Why does it say that he was Matzni'a - 
          it should say that one who was Motzi for planting, a 
          sample or a cure is liable for any amount (since it is 
          important for him)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> The case is, he was Matzni'a and later 
          forgot why he was Matzni'a, and was Motzi Stam (without 
          intent):
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One might have thought that he nullified his 
               original intent - the Mishnah teaches, this is not 
               so, one always acts according to his original 
               intent.
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) LIABILITY FOR LESS THAN K'GROGERES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> R. Meir is Mechayev if one was Motzi even 
          one wheat kernel for planting.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This is obvious, the Mishnah says 'any 
          amount'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that it says this because 
          he is liable for less than k'Grogeres, but it must be a 
          k'Zayis - Rav Yehudah teaches, this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Yitzchak brei d'Rav Yehudah):</font></b> If everything 
          depends on the intent of the Motzi, if one intended to 
          Motzi his whole house [at once], is he exempt until he is 
          Motzi it all [at once]?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> There, we are not concerned for his intent, the 
          Halachah is based on normal people. (Ritva - one can 
          Machshiv (consider important) something others do not 
          Machshiv, for really all Machshiv it, just others do not 
          toil on account of it - but one cannot say that anything 
          less than his whole house is unimportant, for others 
          Machshiv it.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Anyone else is not liable unless if he was 
          Motzi a Shi'ur.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Our Mishnah is unlike R. Shimon ben Elazar:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> The general rule 
               is - if an item is not fitting to save, or if it is 
               less than people save, and Reuven decided to save 
               it, and Shimon was Motzi it, he is liable on account 
               of Reuven's intent.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> If one was Motzi k'Grogeres to eat it, and 
          [before putting it down] decided to plant it, or 
          vice-versa, he is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This is obvious - this is [at least] the 
          Shi'ur for either of these!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that he is not liable 
          unless the Akirah and Hanachah were with the same intent 
          - Rava teaches, this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question #1 (Rava):</font></b> If one was Motzi half a k'Grogeres to 
          plant, and it inflated [to k'Grogeres], then he decided 
          to eat it, what is the law?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Perhaps above [when he reconsidered in the middle] 
               he is liable because there is a Shi'ur for either 
               intent - but here, he was not Motzi a Shi'ur for 
               eating!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps since he would have been Chayav for his 
               original intent had he not reconsidered, he is 
               liable even if he reconsidered!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question #2 (Rava):</font></b> If you will say the latter way - what 
          is the law if he was Motzi a k'Grogeres to eat, and it 
          shriveled, then he decided to plant it?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Had he not reconsidered, he would have been exempt - 
               therefore, even though he reconsidered, he is 
               exempt;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps we follow his intent now [at the time of 
               Hanachah], he is liable!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question #3 (Rava):</font></b> If you will say that we follow his 
          intent now, what is the law if he was Motzi a k'Grogeres 
          to eat, and it shriveled, then it inflated again to 
          k'Grogeres?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Regarding Shabbos, do we apply to the principle of 
               Dichuy (if something became disqualified, it will 
               never become qualified again - do we say, since when 
               it shriveled he could not have been liable for 
               Hanachah, he cannot be liable [for this Hotza'ah] 
               even if it inflated again)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  These questions are not resolved (Rambam - each of the 
          first two questions is resolved like the presumption of 
          the following question).
<br>
<b><font>2) RECEIVING AND LOSING IMPORTANCE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (Rava):</font></b> If one threw a k'Zayis of Terumah into a 
          Tamei house, what is the law?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What does he ask about?
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  He does not ask about Shabbos, its Shi'ur is 
                    k'Grogeres!
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> He does not ask about Kabalas Tum'ah, its 
                    Shi'ur [for food] is k'Beitzah!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Really, he asks about Shabbos - the case is, 
               less than k'Beitzah was in the house, the k'Zayis 
               landed on it and completed the Shi'ur of k'Beitzah;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Since it completes the Shi'ur for Tum'ah [it 
                    has importance like k'Grogeres], so he is 
                    liable for Hotza'ah;
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> Or, perhaps a proper k'Grogeres is required?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Nachman - Beraisa - Aba Sha'ul):</font></b> The Shi'ur 
          [regarding Hotza'ah] for Shtei ha'Lechem and Lechem 
          ha'Panim is k'Grogeres;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> We do not say that since the Shi'ur for [lashes for 
               eating] Yotzei (if either leaves the Azarah it 
               becomes Pasul) is k'Zayis, also the Shi'ur for 
               Shabbos is k'Zayis!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WHAT AMOUNT OF FOOD IS 'MEKABEL TUM'AH'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Rava asked Rav Nachman, 'What is the Halachah in a case in which a person threw a k'Zayis of Terumah into a house which is Tamei?' The Gemara attempts to determine the law that Rava's question involved. His question could not have involved the laws of Shabbos, because the Shi'ur for Hotza'ah on Shabbos is a Grogeres (dried fig), and not a k'Zayis. Similarly, his question could not have involved the laws of Tum'ah, because the size of a k'Beitzah (egg) is necessary.
</p><p>
To what form of Tum'ah does the Gemara refer when it says that the Shi'ur of Tum'ah for food is a k'Beitzah?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> in Pesachim (33b, DH b'k'Beitzah) quotes the Toras Kohanim that implies that even the smallest piece of food is Mekabel Tum'ah mid'Oraisa. The Gemara here refers to the ability of one food to make <i>other</i> foods Tamei, as Rashi here explains (DH Iy l'Inyan Tum'ah).
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> here (DH Iy l'Inyan Tum'ah) and in Pesachim (33b, DH l'Eimas) maintains that a piece of food that is less than a k'Beitzah is Mekabel Tum'ah mid'Rabanan, and the Toras Kohanim that Rashi cites is only an 'Asmachta.' Only food the size of a k'Beitzah is Mekabel Tum'ah mid'Oraisa, and this is how Tosfos explains the Gemara here. Tosfos points out that Rashi in Chulin (82a, DH v'Amar) retracted his opinion.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RASHBA</b> maintains that food that is less than a k'Beitzah is not Mekabel Tum'ah at all, even mid'Rabanan.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) ANALYZING RAVA'S QUESTION</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara concludes that Rava's question to Rav Nachman involved a case in which a person throws a k'Zayis of Terumah into a house which is Tamei, and it falls onto another piece of food which is less than the size of a k'Beitzah. The question was whether the food, which becomes a Shi'ur with regard to Tum'ah, also becomes a Shi'ur with regard to Shabbos (so that the thrower is Chayav for transferring it from Reshus ha'Rabim to Reshus ha'Yachid).
</p><p>
There are a number of questions that we may ask on the words of the Gemara.
</p><p>
First, the Gemara earlier says that if a person carries out a piece of food that is <i>less</i> than the size of a Grogeres, and by the time he puts it down in another Reshus it has swelled to the size of a Grogeres, he is exempt from punishment. He is exempt because at the time that he carried it into Reshus ha'Rabim it was less than the minimum Shi'ur. Why, then, should a person be Chayav in the case of the Gemara here, if the object -- at the time of the Akirah (when he threw it) -- was less than the minimum Shi'ur (it was only a k'Zayis, and not a Grogeres)?
</p><p>

Second, why does the Gemara mention that a <i>k'Zayis</i> of Terumah was thrown into the Tamei house? <i>Any</i> Shi'ur of food that joins with the food in the house will be Tamei if the total size (after it lands) is a k'Beitzah!
</p><p>

Third, why does the food that was thrown have to be Terumah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHBA</b> and <b>RITVA</b> explain that even though the food was not actually a k'Beitzah at the time that he threw it, it is considered to have been a k'Beitzah at that time, because the act of throwing itself -- the Akirah -- caused the food to become bigger (that is, without the Akirah, it would not have become bigger). In the earlier case of the Gemara, when the food expanded to the size of a 'Grogeres,' its larger size was not at all related to the act of Akirah (it would have expanded no matter where it was). This answers the first question.
</p><p>
However, since the food that he threw was not in reality a k'Beitzah at the time of Akirah, it needs to have some additional significance at the time of the Akirah in order to be considered fully significant retroactively. For this reason it must be a <i>k'Zayis</i> of <i>Terumah</i>. By virtue of its size, and by virtue of being Terumah, it has significance (because a non-Kohen who eats it is Chayav Misah b'Yedei Shamayim). This factor, combined with the factor that it later becomes a k'Beitzah, makes it significant for Shabbos as well. This answers the second and third questions. (See also <b>TOSFOS</b> 91b, DH Pachos.)
</p><p>
(b) The Rishonim cite the <b>RASHBAM</b> who answers these three questions as follows. The reason the object was considered significant at the time it was thrown is not because at the end of its flight it landed on other food. Rather, it was considered significant at the time it was thrown for a different reason, independent of what happened later. (This answers the first question.) It was considered significant because it was a k'Zayis of Terumah Tehorah which is fit for a Kohen, and a non-Kohen who eats it is Chayav Misah b'Yedei Shamayim. This factor makes it significant enough to make one Chayav for Hotza'ah on Shabbos.
</p><p>
Why, then, does it need to join with other food to form a k'Beitzah? The Rashbam explains that the reason is because once it enters the house, it becomes Tamei and is no longer fit for a Kohen to eat, nor is a non-Kohen Chayav Misah for eating Terumah Teme'ah. Since it loses its importance as it enters the house, it needs another form of significance (i.e., it becomes a k'Beitzah in size) in order to be considered a significant Hanachah.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> There, it is Pasul once it left the Azarah, 
          one is not liable regarding Shabbos until it enters 
          Reshus ha'Rabim (therefore, a Shi'ur for Yotzei does not 
          make one liable for Hotza'ah) - but here, the Hotza'ah 
          and the Tum'ah occur at the same time (when it lands)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he later decided not to plant it and took 
          it back into his house, he is liable only for a Shi'ur.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This is obvious (he no longer considers it 
          important, he is like anyone else)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> The case is, he threw it into a 
          storehouse, it is recognizable (it did not get mixed 
          everything else there):
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One might have thought, since it is recognizable, it 
               is as if he stored it by itself - the Mishnah 
               teaches, this is not so, he nullified his original 
               intent.
<br>
<b><font>3) PARTIAL HOTZA'AH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one was Motzi food and put it on a ledge 
          (this will be explained), he or anyone else who later was 
          Motzi it is exempt, for the Melachah was not done at 
          once.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If one put a basket full of produce on an outer ledge, 
          even if most of the produce is outside, he is exempt 
          unless he was Motzi the entire basket.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What kind of ledge is discussed?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If it is Reshus ha'Rabim (it is nine Tefachim, 
               people unload on it), he should be liable for 
               putting it there;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> It is Reshus ha'Yachid (it is 10 Tefachim tall 
          and four by four wide).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> The Mishnah exempts he or anyone else who 
          later was Motzi it to Reshus ha'Rabim!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> It is Karmelis (it is between three and nine 
          Tefachim);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah teaches that he is exempt only because 
               it rested in the middle - otherwise, he is liable - 
               it is unlike Ben Azai.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> If one was Motzi from a store (Reshus 
               ha'Yachid) to the market (a Reshus ha'Rabim) via a 
               Stav (a Karmelis), he is liable;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Ben Azai exempts.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one put a basket full of produce...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Chizkiyah):</font></b> This applies only to a basket full of 
          cucumbers and gourds (they are long, part of each is 
          still in Reshus ha'Yachid) - but if it is full of mustard 
          [seeds], he is liable (some of them are totally outside).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> He holds that Eged Kli Lo Shmei Eged (if an 
          object in one Reshus is in a Kli which is partially in a 
          different Reshus, we do not consider the object to be 
          partially in the Reshus of the Kli).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The Mishnah applies even to a basket full 
          of mustard.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> He holds that Eged Kli Shmei Eged (it is as if 
          the object is partially in the Reshus of the Kli).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (R. Zeira):</font></b> The text of the Mishnah suggests unlike 
          either of them!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It says 'He is exempt unless he was Motzi the entire 
               basket' - this implies that even if he was Motzi all 
               the produce, he is exempt [if part of the basket is 
               inside], i.e. Eged Kli Shmei Eged, unlike Chizkiyah!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> It says 'Even if most of the produce is outside' - 
               this implies that if all the produce was outside, he 
               would be liable, even if part of the basket is 
               inside, i.e. Eged Kli Lo Shmei Eged, unlike R. 
               Yochanan!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How will Chizkiyah and R. Yochanan answer these 
          questions?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer - part 1:</font></b> Chizkiyah explains, 'Unless he was Motzi 
          the entire basket' refers to a basket full of cucumbers 
          and gourds - but if it is full of mustard, it is as if he 
          was Motzi the entire basket, he is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer - part 2:</font></b> R. Yochanan explains, 'Even if most of 
          the produce is outside' - not only most, rather, even if 
          all is outside, he is exempt, unless he was Motzi the 
          entire basket.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question (against Chizkiyah - Beraisa):</font></b> If one was Motzi 
          a peddler's box and put it on an outer ledge, even if 
          most of the varieties are outside, he is exempt unless he 
          was Motzi the entire box.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> The box contains small bundles of 
               wrapped fragrances, most of the varieties are 
               totally outside.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> No, it contains long roots or cinnamon sticks, 
          no variety is totally outside.
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) EGED KLI AND EGED YAD</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Bivi bar Abaye - Mishnah):</font></b> If one stole a 
          wallet on Shabbos he must pay, because the theft was 
          [once he picked it up,] before the Chilul Shabbos (taking 
          it outside);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he dragged the wallet [from Reshus ha'Yachid to a 
               shoulder of Reshus ha'Rabim], he is exempt, because 
               he acquires the theft at the same moment that he is 
               Mechalel Shabbos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If Eged Kli Shmei Eged, even if he dragged it the 
               theft comes first (once the money is outside, for 
               can remove it through the opening of the wallet; 
               Chilul Shabbos is not until the entire wallet is 
               outside)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That assumes he was dragging it with the opening 
          facing forward - however, the case is, he dragged it 
          backwards (the opening is the last part to enter Reshus 
          ha'Rabim, even if Lo Shmei Eged the theft and Chilul 
          Shabbos occur at once).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> He can (Tosfos - easily) tear the wallet by the 
          seams [and remove the money before the opening leaves]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, the wallet contains long ingots 
          (pieces of silver; he acquires only after they are 
          totally outside).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Since there are laces, once the opening is 
          outside he acquires, Chilul Shabbos is not until the 
          laces are outside [if Eged Kli Lo Shmei Eged]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> The case is, there are no laces.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> The laces are wrapped around it (they are 
          outside by the time the opening is outside).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> The Mishnah applies only to a basket full of 
          cucumbers and gourds, but if it is full of mustard, he is 
          liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> He holds that Eged Kli Lo Shmei Eged [like 
          Chizkiyah].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> The Mishnah applies even to a basket full of 
          mustard.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> He holds that Eged Kli Shmei Eged [like R. 
          Yochanan].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  Abaye and Rava both retracted and switched their 
          opinions, contradicting what they taught [previously] 
          elsewhere (Tosfos - the Gemara has a tradition that the 
          above teaching was last):
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Abaye):</font></b> If one was Motzi produce to Reshus ha'Rabim 
               in his hand [but part of his body is still in Reshus 
               ha'Yachid] he is liable (Eged Yad Lo Shmei Eged); if 
               he was Motzi in a Kli [and part of the Kli is still 
               inside] he is exempt (Eged Kli Shmei Eged);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Rava):</font></b> If he was Motzi in his hand he is exempt; if 
               he was Motzi in a Kli he is liable.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Resolution:</font></b> The opinions must be switched - Rava is 
               Mechayev if he was Motzi in his hand.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> If the Ba'al ha'Bayis takes an object 
          [from inside] and sticks it outside, and the Oni takes it 
          from his hand, or if the Oni puts an object in the Ba'al 
          ha'Bayis' hand (outside) and the Ba'al ha'Bayis withdraws 
          his hand, both are exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> There, his hand is three Tefachim above the 
          ground (he is exempt because the object is not considered 
          at rest, not on account of Eged Yad), here it is within 
          three.
<br>
<b><font>2) WAYS OF CARRYING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One is liable for Hotza'ah whether he was 
          Motzi in his right or left hand, his bosom or on his 
          shoulder, because this is how Benei Kehas carried (Rashi 
          - from Kehas we learn carrying on the shoulder - we need 
          not find sources for the others, they are normal ways of 
          carrying; Rav Hai Gaon, citing Yerushalmi - Elazar used 
          to carry four things at once in these four ways).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  One is exempt if he was Motzi on the back of his hand 
          (Tosfos' text; our text - awkwardly, i.e.) on his foot, 
          in his mouth, elbow, ear, or hair, in his moneybelt when 
          the opening faced down, between his belt and cloak, in 
          the hem (Aruch - sleeve) of his cloak, in his shoe or 
          sandal, because he was not Motzi normally. (We do not 
          discuss Hotza'ah of food in the mouth, that is normal.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - R. Elazar):</font></b> If one was Motzi something more 
          than 10 Tefachim above the ground he is liable, for this 
          is how Benei Kehas carried. (Rambam - he teaches about 
          carrying on the shoulder, like Benei Kehas, lest one 
          [assume that since Reshus ha'Rabim only extends 10 
          Tefachim off the ground, one is exempt for a load within 
          10, and] limit the Mishnah to discuss one whose shoulder 
          is within 10 of the ground (i.e. a midget) or a load that 
          hangs within 10. Rashi - he teaches about carrying by 
          hand - the Mishnah already teaches about carrying on the 
          shoulder [even if the load is totally above 10; Ritva - 
          one is obviously liable for this, since it rests on his 
          shoulder and he is on the ground].)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source of this? (Me'iri - we ask 
          the Tana's source to obligate above 10 on the shoulder - 
          all the more so one is liable for in the hand, it is the 
          primary way to carry.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> 'Al ha'Mishkan v'Al ha'Mizbe'ach Soviv' - this 
          equates the Mizbe'ach to the Mishkan:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Just like the Mishkan was 10 Amos tall - 'Eser Amos 
               Orech ha'Karesh' - also the Mizbe'ach was 10 tall;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Rav):</font></b> 'Va'Yifros Es ha'Ohel Al ha'Mishkan' - Moshe 
               spread the curtains over the Mishkan - this teaches 
               that Leviyim were 10 Amos tall. (We assume that all 
               Leviyim were like Moshe. Rav Hai Gaon's text, 
               brought in Rashba - the Leviyim had to be 10 Amos 
               tall to cover the Mizbe'ach - 'U'Forsu Alav Kesuy Or 
               Tachash' (Bamidbar 4:14), we do not learn from 
               Moshe.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> We have a tradition - when something is carried on 
               poles, a third is above [the poles], two thirds are 
               below.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> Since they carried the Mizbe'ach on their shoulders 
               (about nine Amos above the ground), and only two 
               thirds of it (less than seven Amos) were below, the 
               bottom was more than two Amos, i.e. more than 10 
               Tefachim above the ground.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> We learn from the Aron (even if the Leviyim 
          were our height, i.e. three Amos (18 Tefachim) up to the 
          shoulder. Rashi - in any case, we must say that the 
          Leviyim who carried the Mizbe'ach were about seven Amos, 
          for this much was below the poles - nevertheless, we 
          assume that Nos'ei ha'Aron were our height. 
          Alternatively, one could say that Answer #2 is according 
          to the opinion that the Mizbe'ach was only three Amos 
          tall (like the simple understanding of Shemos 27:1), and 
          Leviyim (except for Moshe) were our height - <b><b><b>PF</b></b></b>.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Aron was nine Tefachim tall, the Kapores (its 
               cover) was one Tefach; When something is carried on 
               poles, two thirds are below (in this case less than 
               seven Tefachim, therefore, the bottom was more than 
               10 Tefachim high).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why doesn't Answer #2 learn from Moshe that 
          Leviyim were 10 Amos tall?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> There was a special reason why he was tall:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Shechinah only rests on a Chacham who is mighty, 
               wealthy, and tall.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> If one was Motzi on his head [without holding it] 
          he is liable, for this is how people in Hutzal carry 
          [jugs of water].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> Do people in Hutzal comprise the majority of 
          the world, that they determine what is normal?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, if someone from Hutzal was Motzi on 
          his head he is liable, for this is how people in his city 
          carry.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> We should not be concerned for his conduct, 
          the Halachah is based on normal people!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, if someone was Motzi on his head he 
          is exempt;
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE HEIGHT OF THE RINGS ON THE 'MIZBE'ACH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara explains that the Leviyim, who were ten Amos tall, carried the Mizbe'ach, which was ten Amos high, with 3 1/3 Amos of it above the height of their shoulders, and 6 2/3 Amos of it below the height of their shoulders (which left about twenty Tefachim between the ground and the bottom of the Mizbe'ach). Consequently, the rings in which the poles were inserted must have been 6 2/3 Amos from the bottom of the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
However, <b>RASHI</b> (to Shemos 27:7) explains that the rings were on the one-Amah-wide <i>Michbar</i> (the netting around the Mizbe'ach), and the Michbar reached until <i>half</i> of the height of the Mizbe'ach (Shemos 27:4). Since the Michbar was one Amah wide, the rings must have been only <i>six</i> Amos from the bottom of the Mizbe'ach, and not 6 2/3 Amos!
</p><p>
Second, why does the Gemara need to say that things that are carried with poles are customarily carried with one third of the height of the object above the poles and two-thirds below the poles? The verse itself teaches that six Amos were below the poles! (<b>CHASAM SOFER <b><b>AL</b></b> HA'TORAH</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> answers that perhaps the rings were elongated (oval shaped) so that the poles were two-thirds of an Amah (or more) above the level of the Michbar.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But this is how people in Hutzal carry!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We are not concerned for them, the Halachah is 
          based on normal people.
<br>
<b><font>3) INFERIOR WAYS OF CARRYING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If someone intended to carry something in 
          front of himself and it swung around to his back, he is 
          exempt; 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If he intended to carry it in back and it swung around to 
          his front, he is liable (this will be explained).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  In truth, they said that a woman wearing [and carrying 
          something in] a Sinar (short pants under her garment) is 
          liable in either case, because it normally goes back and 
          forth.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, also letter carriers are liable in this 
          <br>way
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> When he intended for in front and it 
          went in back he is exempt, for his intent was not 
          fulfilled - the same should apply when he intended for in 
          back and it went in front!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Elazar):</font></b> We must say that different Tana'im 
          taught these clauses.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> This is not difficult - when he 
          intended for in front and it went in back he is exempt, 
          for he intended to guard it well and he guarded it poorly 
          - the other way around he is liable, for he intended to 
          guard it poorly and he guarded it well!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question (Rava):</font></b> The inferences contradict each other!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Reisha exempts when he intended for in front and 
               it went in back - but had he intended for in back 
               and it went in back, he would be liable;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The Seifa is Mechayev when he intended for in back 
               and it went in front - but had he intended for in 
               back and it went in back, he would be exempt!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Elazar):</font></b> We must say that different Tana'im 
          taught these clauses.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> This is not difficult - the Seifa 
          teaches a bigger Chidush:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> [The inference from] the Reisha is Mechayev when he 
               intended for in back and it went in back - his 
               intent was fulfilled;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> In the Seifa he intended for in back and it went in 
               front - one might have thought he is exempt because 
               his intent was not fulfilled - the Seifa teaches 
               unlike this, he is liable because he intended to 
               guard it poorly and he guarded it well!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  Tana'im argue about when he intended for in back and it 
          went in back:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> If one was Motzi coins in his moneybelt 
               when the opening faced up, he is liable;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If the opening faced down, R. Yehudah is Mechayev, 
               Chachamim exempt.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> R. Yehoshua:</font></b> Don't you agree that if he intended for 
               in back and it went in back, he is liable!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Chachamim:</font></b> Don't you agree that if he was Motzi in 
               back of his hand (alternatively - awkwardly) [or] on 
               his foot, he is exempt!
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> R. Yehudah:</font></b> I had one proof for myself, Chachamim 
               had one proof for themselves - neither of us could 
               answer the other's proof.
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Since he said 'Don't you agree [that if 
               he intended for in back and it went in back, he is 
               liable]', this implies that Chachamim exempt!
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> If so, since they said 'Don't you agree 
               that if he was Motzi in back of his hand or on his 
               foot, he is exempt', you must say that R. Yehudah is 
               Mechayev - but this is not so!
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If he was Motzi in back of his hand 
                    or on his foot, all agree that he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Retraction:</font></b> Rather, all agree that if he intended for in 
          back and it went in back, he is liable; all agree that if 
          he was Motzi in back of his hand or on his foot, he is 
          exempt;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> They argue about if one was Motzi coins in his 
               moneybelt when the opening faced down - R. Yehudah 
               equates this intent for in back and it went in back; 
               Chachamim equate this to Hotza'ah in back of his 
               hand or on his foot.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> In truth, they said that a woman...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Whenever it says 'In truth, they said', this 
          is a tradition [from Moshe from Sinai].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, also letter carriers are liable in this 
          way.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> This is because the king's couriers also carry 
          this way (Tosfos - the letter goes back and forth; Rashi 
          - their intent is not fulfilled, i.e. they must give 
          letters to [other] couriers to whom they did not 
          originally intend to give).
<br>
<b><font>4) MELACHAH DONE BY TWO PEOPLE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one was Motzi a loaf to Reshus ha'Rabim he 
          is liable;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If two people were Motzi it, they are exempt;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  If one person could not Motzi it and two people were 
          Motzi it, they are liable;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon exempts.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Rav Yehudah):</font></b> If two people did a Melachah 
          together, and either one of them could have done it 
          himself, R. Meir is Mechayev, R. Yehudah and R. Shimon 
          exempt;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  If neither of them could have done it himself, R. Yehudah 
          and R. Meir Mechayev, R. Shimon exempts;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  If one of them could have done it himself but not the 
          other, all agree that he is liable (this will be 
          explained).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> If one was Motzi a loaf to Reshus 
          ha'Rabim, he is liable;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  R. Meir says, if two people were Motzi it, they are 
          liable;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, if one person could not Motzi it and two 
          were Motzi it, they are liable; if not, they are exempt;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon exempts.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source of this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer (Beraisa):</font></b>  'Ba'Asosah' - one who does the entire 
          [transgression], not one who does part;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps two who did Melachah together 
               are liable, e.g. they held a pitchfork and turned 
               over grain (made piles), or held a pointed Kli and 
               evened the warp threads, or held a quill and wrote, 
               or held a reed and were Motzi it to Reshus ha'Rabim!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> 'Ba'Asosah' - one who does it all, not 
               one who does part.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) TWO PEOPLE WHO PERFORM A MELACHAH TOGETHER</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that according to Rebbi Shimon, two people who perform a Melachah together are exempt, whether or not each one was able to perform the Melachah alone. Rebbi Shimon's source is the verse, 'ba'Asosah' (Vayikra 4:27). Rebbi Yehudah argues and maintains that they are exempt only when each one is able to do the Melachah alone, but when each one is unable to do the Melachah alone, they are both Chayav. Rebbi Yehudah derives his opinion from the same verse, 'ba'Asosah.' 
</p><p>
Why does Rebbi Yehudah limit the exclusion of 'ba'Asosah' to a case in which each individual is able to do the Melachah by himself? Rebbi Shimon's way of understanding the verse -- that whenever more than one person does a Melachah, no one is Chayav -- seems more straightforward.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> 
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Rebbi Yehudah) explains that the Torah's intention is to broaden the category of <i>k'l'Achar Yad</i>. When two people do a Melachah together when each one is fully capable of doing the Melachah alone, that is considered an unusual manner of doing the Melachah, and they are exempt. When neither one is able to do the Melachah alone, doing it together is considered the normal manner of performing the Melachah, and they are Chayav.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> later (93a, DH Mipnei she'Yecholah) explains that Rebbi Yehudah maintains that each person is considered to be <i>Mesaye'a</i> if he is able to do the Melachah alone. When neither one is capable of doing the Melachah by himself, each one's contribution to the act of Melachah is not considered Mesaye'a, but is considered a full act of Melachah.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RITVA</b> cites <b>RABEINU MOSHE BEN RABEINU YITZCHAK</b> who explains that when each person is unable to do the Melachah by himself, he is Chayav for the share of the Melachah that he does, because each one is doing <i>as much as he can</i>. When each one is able to do the entire act of Melachah alone, he is exempt, because neither one puts all of his strength into the act.
</p><p>
(d) The Ritva offers a second explanation. When the two people who do the Melachah are each unable to do the Melachah alone, the Torah considers the Melachah that was accomplished to be a significant Melachah based on the principle of 'Ach'shevei,' because the Melachah could not have been accomplished without the participation of each person.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) SINNING AS A PAIR</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara discusses the principle that 'when two people perform a Melachah together, they are exempt.' Does this principle also apply to other Isurim besides Shabbos?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> in here maintains that this principle applies only to Shabbos. The Gemara in Zevachim (108b) teaches that when two people offer a Korban outside of the Azarah together, they are both Chayav to bring a Korban for their sin, in contrast to the law with regard to two people who perform a Melachah together.
</p><p>
The Pnei Yehoshua points out that the Gemara here cites proof for the principle from the laws of Zavim, which are unrelated to Shabbos, and thus the principle <i>does</i> seem to apply to laws other than Shabbos. The <b>RASHBA</b> (Teshuvos 1:28) addresses this question and writes that the exemption from a Korban for two people who sinned together applies only to 'Zav and Shabbos' (it applies to Zav because of the unique rule that a Zav makes an object Tamei with Tum'as Midras only when it supports <i>most</i> of his weight).
</p><p>
(b) However, the Gemara says that two people who do a Melachah together are exempt because of the verse, 'ba'Asosah.' That verse is written with regard to the obligation to bring a Korban Chatas. It is not written in the specific context of Shabbos. It appears, therefore, that the limitation of accountability derived from 'ba'Asosah' should apply to all transgression, and not only to Shabbos. Similarly, the Gemara in Zevachim (108b) derives from a verse that two people who offer a Korban outside of the Azarah are Chayav. The fact that a separate verse is required to teach that two who transgressed that Aveirah together are Chayav implies that without such a verse, they would be exempt because of the verse of 'ba'Asosah.'
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> in Kidushin (43a) indeed writes that this exemption applies to every transgression, except for a case in which two people carried a limb of a sanctified animal outside the Azarah (as derived from the verse cited in Zevachim). It is likely that the Rashba quoted above does not argue with the Ritva. A close examination of his words shows that he may intend to say only that 'Shenayim she'Asa'uha' does not apply to <i>carrying a Mes</i>, but it <i>does</i> apply to <i>Isurim</i>, as the Ritva says.
</p><p>
(c) <b>HA'GAON RAV YISRAEL ZEV GUSTMAN</b> zt'l in <b>KUNTRESEI SHI'URIM</b> (Bava Kama 13:11-12) cites the <b>MEKOR CHAYIM</b> (OC 266) who adds that this exemption applies only to Chiyuvei <i>Chatas</i>, but not to Chiyuvei Lav. This is logical, considering that the verse 'ba'Asosah' is written with regard to Korban Chatas. <b>HA'RAV HILLEL RUVEL</b> shlit'a pointed out to me that <b>RASHI</b> clearly makes such a distinction in Pesachim (85b, DH d'Avad Lei). It is probable that the Ritva and Rashba cited above agree with this distinction as well. The Mekor Chayim therefore concludes that two people who perform the Melachah of Mechamer (which is only a Lav) together are <i>Chayav</i>. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) A MELACHAH DONE BY TWO PEOPLE (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Continuation of Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> If two held a 
          ring of figs or a beam and were Motzi it to Reshus 
          ha'Rabim, if one could not Motzi it and two were Motzi 
          it, they are liable; if not, they are exempt;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon says, even if one person could not Motzi it and 
          two were Motzi it, they are exempt;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is why it says 'Ba'Asosah' - an individual who 
               transgressed is liable, two who transgressed are 
               exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What do they argue about?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They argue about 'V'Im Nefesh Achas Techeta 
          bi'Shgagah me'Am ha'Aretz ba'Asosah':
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon says that there are three exclusions - it 
               is as if says 'Nefesh Techeta Achas Techeta 
               ba'Asosah Techeta', one excludes if one did Akirah 
               and another did Hanachah, one excludes when either 
               person could do the Melachah, one excludes when 
               neither person could do the Melachah;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, one excludes if one did Akirah and 
               another did Hanachah, one excludes when either 
               person could do the Melachah, one excludes an 
               individual who followed a [mistaken] Hora'ah 
               (ruling) of the Great Sanhedrin.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon is Mechayev one who followed a Hora'ah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> R. Meir:</font></b> It does not say 'Nefesh Techeta Achas 
               Techeta ba'Asosah Techeta' - there are only two 
               exclusions ('Nefesh Achas' is only one, it is normal 
               to speak this way):
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  One excludes if one did Akirah and another did 
                    Hanachah, the other excludes one who followed a 
                    Hora'ah.
<br>
<b><font>2) INSIGNIFICANT HELP</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> If one of them could have done it himself 
          but not the other, all agree that he is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Which one is liable?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Chisda):</font></b> The one who could have done it is 
          liable - the other did not do anything!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Hamnuna):</font></b> The other one helped!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Chisda):</font></b> His help was insignificant.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Support #1 (Rav Zevid - Mishnah):</font></b> (If a garment supports 
          a Zav, it receives Tum'as Medras.) If a Zav was sitting 
          on a bed and each of the four legs had a garment 
          underneath it, all of them are Tamei, because [each helps 
          to support him,] the bed cannot stand on only three legs.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon is Metaher [because none supports most of 
               his weight]. 
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If a Zav was riding on an animal, there was a 
               garment under each leg, all are Tehorim, because it 
               can stand on three legs.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> The fourth leg helps to support him!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Since he could be supported without it, its 
               help is insignificant!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Rejection (Rav Yehudah of Diskarta):</font></b> Help is significant 
          [even if the helper could have done it himself but the 
          other could not have] - here is different, for sometimes 
          the animal lifts its leg off the ground [and it does not 
          help at all].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Rejection of rejection:</font></b> Since the animal alternates 
          lifting different legs [and when it stands on three, its 
          weight could be mostly on one leg], the law should be 
          [Tamei,] like the case of a Zav who [might have] rolled 
          over!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Zav was lying lengthwise on five 
               [narrow] benches or five long pouches (all were 
               north-south, side by side; his head was at the north 
               and his feet at the south), each is [Safek] Tamei 
               (perhaps it bore most of his weight at one point);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If he was lying widthwise (his head was on the 
               easternmost, his feet were on the westernmost), they 
               are Tehorim (Rashi - for none bears the majority of 
               his weight, the Mishnah is like R. Shimon; Ri - it 
               is even like Chachamim, the help of each is 
               insignificant);
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> If he slept [widthwise], each is [Safek] Tamei, 
               perhaps he rolled (and rotated) in his sleep and was 
               at one point lying [lengthwise] on it alone.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Conclusion:</font></b> Rav Zevid was correct - the garments are 
          Tehorim because the help of each leg is insignificant.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  Support #2 (for Rav Chisda - Rav Papa - Mishnah - R. 
          Yosi): [A Zav on] a horse is Metamei [garments under] its 
          forelegs, for it supports itself [mostly] on them; 
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'YACHOL' AND 'EINO YACHOL'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara inquires what the law is in a case of 'Yachol' and 'Eino Yachol,' where two people do a Melachah together, and one of them is able to do the Melachah by himself and the other is unable to do it by himself. The Gemara suggests that perhaps the 'Yachol' is Chayav.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Ein Bo) implies that one possibility is that the 'Yachol' is exempt and the 'Eino Yachol' is Chayav. Why, though, is that a possibility? Since the Melachah is done primarily by the 'Yachol,' why should he not be Chayav?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> follows the logic that there is more reason for the 'Yachol' to be Chayav than for the 'Eino Yachol' to be Chayav, and therefore he understands the Gemara's question differently. According to Tosfos, the Gemara's question is whether the 'Yachol' <i>alone</i> is Chayav, or whether <i>both</i> of them are Chayav.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b>, however, is consistent with his reasoning earlier (92b). Rashi there explains that when the Melachah is performed by two people who are each able to do the Melachah alone, they are exempt, because it is not the normal manner to do a Melachah with someone else. In this case, too, it is logical to suggest that the 'Yachol' is exempt because he is doing the Melachah in an unusual manner (that is, with someone else).
</p><p>
The Ritva suggests another way to understand the comment of Rashi, based on the words of Rabeinu Moshe ben Rabeinu Yitzchak that he quotes earlier (see Insights to 92:2:c). The Ritva explains that perhaps the 'Yachol' is exempt because he could have done the Melachah with all of his strength had he done the Melachah alone, but now that he did the Melachah with a second person, he did it with only part of his strength. Since he did not use all of his strength, he is exempt.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) 'MESAYE'A'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that when a horse stands on four garments, with one garment under each leg, each garment is Tahor because the horse could stand on three legs while the fourth leg is only Mesaye'a. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Mipnei she'Yecholah) points out that this ruling follows the view of Rebbi Yehudah, who says that in a case of 'Yachol' and 'Yachol,' where both individuals are able to do the Melachah by themselves, they are exempt because of Mesaye'a.
</p><p>
Why does Rashi equate 'Yachol' and 'Yachol' with 'Yachol' and 'Eino Yachol,' and say that the Gemara's ruling follows Rebbi Yehudah? Even Rebbi Meir agrees that in the case of 'Yachol' and 'Eino Yachol,' the 'Eino Yachol' is exempt, and thus even Rebbi Meir agrees that Mesaye'a is exempt.
</p><p>
Furthermore, why does Rashi say that according to Rebbi Yehudah, 'Yachol' and 'Yachol' are exempt because they are both <i>Mesaye'a</i>? Earlier (92b), Rashi explains that the reason why 'Yachol' and 'Yachol' are exempt is because when two capable people perform a Melachah together, they do not perform the Melachah in the <i>normal manner</i>!
</p><p>
Finally, if Rebbi Yehudah maintains that they are exempt because 'Mesaye'a Ein Bo Mamash' (one who is unable to do the Melachah by himself and merely assists someone else who is able to do it by himself is not considered to have done any Melachah), then why does the Gemara need to search for proofs from cases of Zavim to show that 'Mesaye'a Ein Bo Mamash'? The Gemara should simply prove it from Rebbi Yehudah's opinion!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> explains that the Gemara is in doubt whether one who is Mesaye'a is considered as though he performs the Melachah or not. The Gemara initially questions which participant in the Melachah, in a case of 'Yachol' and 'Eino Yachol,' is exempt. One option, according to Rashi, is that the 'Yachol' is exempt, and the 'Eino Yachol' is Chayav. What, though, is the logic to suggest such a thing? The logic is that since a 'Yachol' who does a Melachah with someone else is not doing it in the manner in which he normally does the Melachah, he is exempt. In contrast, the 'Eino Yachol' who performs the Melachah with someone else <i>is</i> doing the Melachah in his normal manner (see previous Insight). If this logic is correct, however, then what is the logic to suggest the other possibility -- that the 'Eino Yachol' is exempt and the 'Yachol' is Chayav? The logic is that 'Mesaye'a Ein Bo Mamash,' and thus the 'Eino Yachol' is exempt.
</p><p>
It follows that the question of whether one who is Mesaye'a is considered as though he does a significant act or not depends on Rebbi Yehudah's reasoning to exempt the two parties in the case of 'Yachol' and 'Yachol.' If his reasoning is -- as Rashi initially explained -- that they are doing a Melachah in an abnormal manner, then in the case of 'Yachol' and 'Eino Yachol,' the 'Eino Yachol' will be Chayav, because he is doing the Melachah in his normal manner (that is, with someone else). If Rebbi Yehudah's reasoning to exempt 'Yachol' and 'Yachol' is because they are both considered Mesaye'a, then the 'Eino Yachol' will be exempt because of Mesaye'a.
</p><p>
Rashi earlier explains the reasoning of Rebbi Yehudah in the first way (that the exemption is based on the fact that the two people are doing the Melachah in an abnormal manner), because there Rashi addresses the initial assumption of the Gemara (before the Gemara proposed that Mesaye'a is not significant). In the conclusion, when the Gemara teaches that the act of one who is Mesaye'a is not significant, Rashi writes this is also the actual reasoning of Rebbi Yehudah. (See also <b>MAHARSHA</b>.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A donkey is Metamei [garments under] its hind legs, 
               for it puts its weight on them;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> The legs which do not bear the majority of 
               the weight also help - why don't they Metamei 
               garments underneath them?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Their help is insignificant.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Support #3 (Rav Ashi - Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> If a Kohen 
          did Avodah with one foot on the floor [of the Azarah] and 
          the other on a Kli or rock:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If the Kli or rock could be removed and he could 
               stand on the other foot, the Avodah is Kosher, if 
               not, it is Pasul.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> The foot on the Kli or rock also helps - 
               why is the Avodah Kosher (he must be standing on the 
               floor)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The help [of that foot] is insignificant.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Support #4 (Ravina - Beraisa):</font></b> If a Kohen did Avodah with 
          his right hand and the left hand helped, the Avodah is 
          Kosher.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> The left hand helps - why is the Avodah 
               Kosher (it must be with the right hand)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The help is insignificant.
<br>
<b><font>3) ARE TWO LIABLE FOR ONE SHI'UR?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> ...If either one of them could have done 
          it himself, R. Meir is Mechayev. (R. Chananel's text - we 
          ask when <i>neither</i> could have done it himself, for then 
          he is Chayav - the Halachah follows R. Yehudah. Rashba - 
          we ask according to R. Meir, from him we learn to R. 
          Yehudah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Is this only if they did [together a double 
          Shi'ur, i.e.] a Shi'ur of Melachah for each, or even if 
          they did only one Shi'ur?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Chisda or Rav Hamnuna):</font></b> It is only they 
          did a Shi'ur for each;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (The other of Rav Chisda and Rav Hamnuna):</font></b> It 
          is even if they did only one Shi'ur.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Support #1 (for Answer #2 - Rav Papa - Mishnah):</font></b> If a Zav 
          was on a bed and a garment was under each leg, all of 
          them are Tamei, because the bed cannot stand on only 
          three legs.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This shows that we do not require a Shi'ur Zivah for 
               each!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Support #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak - Mishnah):</font></b> If a 
          deer entered a house and one locked the door, he is 
          liable (for trapping it);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If two people locked the door, they are exempt;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If one could not lock it and two people locked it, 
               they are liable.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> This shows that one Shi'ur suffices for both!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Support #3 (Ravina - Mishnah):</font></b> If partners stole [a Seh 
          or ox] and slaughtered it, they are liable [four or five 
          times its value].
<br>
<b><font>4) We do not require a Shi'ur of slaughter for each! (Here they share the payment - Ravina proves from here that if two did a Melachah together, each brings a Chatas by himself! Presumably, it suffices to prove that it is as if each transgressed by himself, for we know that a Chatas cannot be brought by partners - PF)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Support #4 (Rav Ashi - Beraisa):</font></b> If two people were Motzi 
          a weaver's rod (it goes along the width of the loom), 
          they are liable.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> We do not require a Shi'ur Hotza'ah for each!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rava):</font></b> Perhaps it is a double 
          Shi'ur, it suffices to cook two [k'Grogeros of] light 
          eggs!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> If so, the Beraisa would not have specified a 
          weaver's rod! (Rather, it specifies to teach that it is 
          [not for fuel, rather,] for weaving, i.e. there is only 
          one Shi'ur!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> Perhaps it can be used to weave a napkin for 
          each (side by side at the same time, i.e. its length is 
          twice the width of a napkin)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Conclusion:</font></b> Rav Ashi's Beraisa does not support Answer 
          #2.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (A reciter of Beraisos):</font></b> If two people were Motzi a 
          weaver's rod, they are exempt; 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon is Mechayev.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Just the contrary - R. Shimon 
          exempts two who did a Melachah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Correction (Beraisa):</font></b> Rather, if two were Motzi a 
          weaver's rod, they are liable; 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon exempts.
<br>
<b><font>5) HOTZA'AH OF FOOD IN A KLI</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one was Motzi less than a Shi'ur of food in 
          a Kli, he is exempt even for the Kli, for it is Batul to 
          the food;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If one was Motzi a live person on a bed, he is exempt 
          even for the bed, for it is Batul to the person (we will 
          explain why he is not liable for the person);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  If one was Motzi a Mes in a bed, he is liable;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Similarly, if one was Motzi k'Zayis of a Mes or Nevelah, 
          or ka'Adashah of a Sheretz, he is liable;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon exempts.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Beraisa):</font></b> If one was Motzi a Shi'ur of food:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If it was in a Kli, he is liable for the food and 
               exempt for the Kli;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If he needed the Kli (for something else), he is 
               liable even for the Kli.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> [He was Motzi both in the same Helam -] this 
          implies that if one ate two k'Zeisim of Chelev in one 
          Helam, he is liable twice (but surely, this is wrong)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> The case is, he was Shogeg about 
          the food and Mezid about the Kli (he is Chayav Misah for 
          the Kli).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Ashi):</font></b> It says, 'He is liable <i>even</i> for 
          the Kli' (implying that the two Chiyuvim are the same)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> He was Shogeg about both of them - 
          the case is, he found out about one of them, and later 
          found out about the other:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Version #1 (Tosfos):</font></b> According to Reish Lakish 
               (71B), we must say that he found out about the other 
               after offering [or at least designating] a Korban 
               for one; according to R. Yochanan, he is liable 
               twice even if he found out about the other before 
               offering (perhaps this is only if he already 
               designated) a Korban for the other. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (Rashi):</font></b> Rav Sheshes and Rav Ashi argue like 
          R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish. (Rav Sheshes holds like 
          Reish Lakish, that Yedi'os do not Mechalek, therefore he 
          did not say that he was Shogeg about both of them; Rav 
          Ashi holds like R. Yochanan, that Yedi'os Mechalek.)
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) 'MELACHAH SHE'EINAH TZERICHAH L'GUFAH'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> A fundamental argument with regard to the liability for performing Melachah on Shabbos concerns a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, 'a Melachah that is not needed for itself.' Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon argue whether one is Chayav for performing such a Melachah 'that is not needed for itself.' Rebbi Yehudah says that one is Chayav, and Rebbi Shimon says that one is Patur. What exactly is the definition of a Melachah 'that is not needed for itself'?
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (94a, DH Rebbi Shimon Poter) understands that Rashi's intention is to say that a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah refers to any Melachah that one does in order to <i>prevent</i> something else from happening, or in order to <i>rectify</i> something that was already done wrong. For example, a person who carries a dead body out of a house is interested in correcting an uncomfortable situation (the dead body's presence in his house), and he would have preferred that the dead body not have been brought into his house in the first place. However, Tosfos refutes this explanation. When a curtain has a wormhole and one tears some of the curtain above and below the hole in order to mend it neatly, he is Chayav (this is the Melachah of Kore'a, Shabbos 75a). Tosfos asks that according to Rashi, the one who tears the curtain should be Patur, because he tore the curtain only to prevent further damage, and he would have preferred that the wormhole not have been there in the first place!
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (94a, DH Rebbi Shimon) defines a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah as any Melachah that is not performed for the same reason that that Melachah was performed <i>in the Mishkan</i>.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAN</b> (94b) and <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> (106a) write that a Melachah must be performed with the objective for which that activity is <i>normally performed</i>. If one does the Melachah for a purpose other than its normal objective, it is a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah. For example, digging a pit in order to use the dirt is a Melachah that is not needed for itself, because, normally, the objective of digging is in order to have a pit, and not to use the dirt, which is a secondary outcome of the digging. Also, a Melachah performed in order to prevent damage from happening, such as capturing a snake, is considered a Melachah that is not needed for itself because the normal objective of capturing is to use the animal. The same applies to carrying an object to Reshus ha'Rabim in order to keep one's body from becoming soiled (as in the case of the Kis of the Zav (11b)).
</p><p>
This may be Rashi's opinion as well, unlike Tosfos' understanding of Rashi (as in (b) above). This is why ripping the garment to repair a wormhole is considered a genuine Melachah -- the person ripping the garment is presently interested in having the garment ripped apart (the primary effect of the Melachah) and not in a secondary outcome of the ripping.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) HOTZA'AH OF THE LIVING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one was Motzi a live person on a bed, he is 
          exempt even for the bed, for it is Batul to the person.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> Our Mishnah is like R. Noson, it is unlike 
          Chachamim:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> If one was Motzi to Reshus ha'Rabim an 
               animal or bird, alive or slaughtered, he is liable;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Noson says, he is liable if it was slaughtered 
               and exempt if it was alive, for ha'Chai Nosei Es 
               Atzmo (Rashi - it makes itself lighter; Ri - they 
               did not carry living beings for the sake of the 
               Mishkan. We do not say ha'Chai Nosei Es Atzmo if he 
               or it is sick or tied up and cannot walk - perhaps 
               transporting one who can walk is not significant 
               enough to be a Melachah - <b><b><b>PF</b></b></b>).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> Our Mishnah is even like Chachamim - they 
          argue only regarding carrying animals and birds, which 
          resist being moved, they agree about carrying people.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Ada bar Ahavah - Mishnah):</font></b> (It is forbidden 
          to sell animals to a Nochri, lest one will come to rent 
          or lend, and the Yisrael will transgress letting his 
          animal rest on Shabbos.) Ben Beseira permits [selling] a 
          horse.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> Ben Beseira permits a horse because it is 
               normally used for [carrying people,] a Melachah for 
               which one is not Chayav Chatas.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Ben Beseira and R. Noson say the same 
               thing.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Summation of question:</font></b> If Chachamim only argue with 
               R. Noson about carrying animals and birds, because 
               they resist being moved, Ben Beseira's law has 
               nothing to do with the argument of R. Noson and 
               Chachamim!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yochanan refers to a horse special for 
          carrying birds (the Chachamim who argue with R. Noson 
          obligate for this).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Is there a horse special for carrying birds?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Yes - bird hunters take live birds on horses to 
          hunt other birds.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> R. Noson agrees about a living being that 
          was tied up (we do not say ha'Chai Nosei Es Atzmo).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Ada bar Masnah):</font></b> But Persians are [wrapped 
          in wide garments and are too delicate to walk,] as if 
          they are tied up, and R. Yochanan taught that Ben Beseira 
          (who permits selling horses to any Nochri), holds like R. 
          Noson (this shows that he exempts even for a tied being)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Persians can walk, they are just haughty - the 
          king got angry at a certain sergeant, he ran 12 Mil on 
          foot!
<br>
<b><font>2) HOTZA'AH SHE'EINAH TZERICHAH L'GUFAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one was Motzi a Mes in a bed, he is liable; 
          similarly, if one was Motzi k'Zayis of a Mes [or 
          Nevelah...R. Shimon exempts].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> R. Shimon exempts even one who 
          was Motzi a Mes to bury it (even though this is a need of 
          the Mes, it is Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah with respect to 
          the [one who was] Motzi).
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A HORSE THAT CARRIES BIRDS ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Nasan and the Rabanan argue whether an animal or bird is considered to 'carry itself' ('Nosei Es Atzmo') when it is carried by a person or another animal. Rebbi Nasan maintains that an animal is Nosei Es Atzmo. The Rabanan maintain that it is not Nosei Es Atzmo, because it stiffens itself when carried and weighs itself down. Rebbi Yochanan says that Ben Beseira agrees with Rebbi Nasan that an animal is Nosei Es Atzmo. Ben Beseira states that one may sell a horse, that is used as a bird-carrier, to a Nochri on Friday before Shabbos, because there is no fear that the horse will do Melachah when Shabbos enters while still owned by the Jew. Since the horse is a bird-carrier, even if it carries birds on Shabbos for the Jew, it has not done a Melachah, because the birds that it carries are Nosei Es Atzmo.
</p><p>
Rashi explains that birds that ride on the back of an animal while they are not tied do not weigh themselves down. Therefore, the horse is not considered to be carrying the birds.
</p><p>
Rashi implies that Ben Beseira's ruling applies only with regard to birds that ride on the back of a horse; such birds do not weigh themselves down. However, the Gemara earlier says that the Rabanan (who disagree with Rebbi Nasan and Ben Beseira) maintain that an animal is not Nosei Es Atzmo because it weighs itself down. Why, then, do the Rabanan argue here (and maintain that a horse <i>is</i> considered to be carrying the birds on its back), if the birds are not tied and do not weigh themselves down?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>MAHARSHA</b> answers that the Gemara later explains that Rebbi Nasan agrees that when the animal is tied up, it is not Nosei Es Atzmo and one (or one's animal) is prohibited to carry it on Shabbos. Rashi understands that even Rebbi Nasan agrees that when an animal is bound, it <i>weighs itself down</i>. That is, the dispute between Rebbi Nasan and the Rabanan involves exactly <i>when</i> the animal is considered to weigh itself down. According to Rebbi Nasan, only when it is bound does it weigh itself down, while the Rabanan maintain that it always ways itself down. According to this understanding, the question on Rashi is answered. When Rashi says that birds that ride on the back of a horse on their own volition do not weigh themselves down, he refers <i>only</i> to the view of Rebbi Nasan. The Rabanan, however, indeed maintain that birds atop a horse are not Nosei Es Atzmo and do weigh themselves down. (See <b>MAHARSHAL</b> for another approach to the words of Rashi.)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> R. Shimon agrees that if one was Motzi a shovel 
          to dig with or a Sefer Torah to read, he is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This is obvious - if even these were Melachah 
          she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, what would be Tzerichah 
          l'Gufah according to R. Shimon?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that the Hotza'ah must be 
          for the sake of the one who was Motzi <i>and</i> the object, 
          e.g. a shovel to be fixed and to dig with it, or a Sefer 
          Torah to proofread and read it - Rava teaches, this is 
          not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  A case occurred in Derukara, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak 
          permitted Hotza'ah of a Mes to a Karmelis.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  R. Yochanan, brother of Mar brei d'Ravina:</font></b> Is your ruling 
          like R. Shimon? Granted, R. Shimon exempts from Chatas, 
          but he agrees that it is forbidden mid'Rabanan!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Rav Nachman:</font></b> It is even like R. Yehudah - I only 
          permitted Karmelis, not Reshus ha'Rabim - Kavod ha'Briyos 
          (avoiding disgrace to the Mes) overrides a Lav ('Lo 
          Sasur', the basis of all mid'Rabanan laws, but it does 
          not override Shabbos).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Metzora tore off Simanei Tum'ah (e.g. two 
          white hairs that make one a Muchlat), or scalded healthy 
          skin (it is also a Siman Tum'ah) in the middle of a Nega, 
          he transgressed a Lav.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  If he tore off one of two white hairs, he is liable;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> If he tore off one of three white hairs, 
          he is liable;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> He is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  Rav Nachman is Mechayev, because his action helped - if 
          one of the remaining hairs will fall out, he will not 
          have Simanei Tum'ah;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  Rav Sheshes exempts because it did not help now - he 
          still has Simanei Tum'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Support (Rav Sheshes, for himself - Mishnah):</font></b> Similarly, 
          if one was Motzi k'Zayis of a Mes or of a Nevelah he is 
          liable.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> He is exempt for half a k'Zayis!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Contradiction (Beraisa):</font></b> He is liable for half a 
               k'Zayis.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Resolution:</font></b> The Beraisa is Mechayev when there was 
               one k'Zayis from the beginning (he did not leave a 
               Shi'ur of Tum'ah), our Mishnah exempts when there 
               was one and a half k'Zeisim from the beginning (he 
               leaves a Shi'ur of Tum'ah)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Rejection (Rav Nachman):</font></b> In either case he is liable;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Our Mishnah exempts when he was Motzi half a k'Zayis 
               from a large Mes (it does not help at all, a Shi'ur 
               will remain unless someone removes the whole Mes).
<br>
<b><font>3) CUTTING HAIR AND FINGERNAILS </font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Eliezer):</font></b> One is liable for the following 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Cutting his fingernails one on the other or with his 
               teeth; tearing out [by hand] hair from his head, 
               mustache, or beard; braiding hair; coloring eyes; 
               Pokeses (fixing the hair with a comb of fingers; 
               alternatively, applying a mudpack).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, these are forbidden only mid'Rabanan.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - R. Elazar):</font></b> They argue about cutting by hand, 
          all are Mechayev for cutting with a Kli.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This is obvious - the Mishnah says, cutting 
          fingernails one on the other!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that Chachamim exempt even 
          with a Kli, and the Mishnah teaches the extremity of R. 
          Eliezer, who is Mechayev even by hand - R. Elazar 
          teaches, this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> They argue about cutting one's own nails, 
          all exempt for cutting another's.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This is obvious - it says, cutting <i>his</i> 
          fingernails!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that R. Eliezer obligates 
          even for cutting another's, and the Mishnah teaches the 
          extremity of Chachamim, who exempt even for his own - R. 
          Elazar teaches, this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Similarly regarding his hair...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If one cuts Malei Pi ha'Zug (the length of the 
          end of a scissors), he is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How much is this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> It is two hairs.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> ...And the Shi'ur for Korachah (the 
          Isur to tear out hair out of grief over a Mes) is two 
          hairs (implying that the Shi'ur for Shabbos is 
          different)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It means, and similarly the Shi'ur for Korachah 
          is two hairs.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> If one cuts Malei Pi ha'Zug on 
          Shabbos, he is liable;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> How much is this?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer #1:</font></b> It is two hairs.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer #2 (R. Eliezer):</font></b> It is one hair.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b></b>  Chachamim agree that one is liable for removing one white 
          hair among black hairs (for he is insistent to remove 
          it);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is forbidden [for a man] even during the week 
               on account of 'Lo Yilbash Gever Simlas Ishah' 
               (adorning oneself like women do).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> If a fingernail or 
          surrounding strands of skin are mostly detached (they 
          will fall off soon, it is as if they are already 
          detached), it is permitted to remove them by hand; if one 
          removed them with a Kli, he is Chayav Chatas;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Objection:</font></b> If one is Chayav Chatas for removing 
               something with a Kli, surely it is not permitted by 
               hand (Chachamim would forbid this, lest one remove 
               it with a Kli)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Correction:</font></b> He means, if they are mostly detached, 
               it is permitted to remove them by hand; it is 
               forbidden with a Kli, one is exempt if he did;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> If the majority is not detached, it is forbidden to 
               remove them by hand; if one removed them with a Kli 
               he is Chayav Chatas.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Shimon ben Elazar.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> It is permitted [by hand] only if 
          they separated upwards (Rashi - away from the finger; R. 
          Tam - towards the finger; Shulchan Aruch - we are 
          concerned for both of these opinions, therefore it is 
          never permitted) and pain him.
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) COSMETIC EFFECTS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Similarly, braiding hair...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> [According to R. Eliezer,] for which Melachos 
          is one liable for braiding, coloring eyes and Pokeses?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Avin citing R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina):</font></b> One 
          is liable for braiding on account of weaving, one is 
          liable for coloring eyes on account of writing, one is 
          liable for Pokeses on account of spinning.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rabanan):</font></b> This is not the normal way to weave, 
          write, or spin!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (R. Avahu citing R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina):</font></b> One 
          is liable for coloring eyes on account of dying, one is 
          liable for braiding and Pokeses on account of building.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rabanan):</font></b> Is this the normal way to build?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Yes!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Shimon ben Menasiyah):</font></b> 'Va'Yiven Hash-m Elokim 
               Es ha'Tzela' - Hash-m braided Chavah's hair and 
               brought her to Adam;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Braiding is called 'building' in the language of 
               certain islands.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> If a woman braided or 
          colored her own hair or eyes or was Pokeses herself, she 
          is exempt; if she did so for another woman, she is 
          liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Elazar cited R. Eliezer to forbid a woman 
          to put rouge on her face, on account of dying.
<br>
<b><font>2) STRINGENCIES OF R. ELIEZER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> If one milked, curdled milk or 
          made cheese the Shi'ur of k'Grogeres, swept or Ribetz 
          (sprinkled water to prevent dust from rising) or removed 
          cakes of honey from a hive:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he did so on Shabbos b'Shogeg, he is Chayav 
               Chatas; if he did so on Yom Tov b'Mezid, he gets 40 
               lashes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, these are forbidden only mid'Rabanan.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Questions:</font></b> [According to R. Eliezer,] for which Melachah 
          is one liable for milking, curdling milk or making 
          cheese?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Nachman bar Gurya):</font></b> He is liable for 
          milking, curdling and making cheese.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  The questioners:</font></b> Your Rebbi did not know how to teach!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rabanan of the Beis Medrash):</font></b> One who milks is 
          liable for Mefarek (Rashi - removing a food from where it 
          was covered, it is a Toladah of threshing); one who 
          curdles is liable for Borer (he removes the whey), one 
          who makes cheese is liable for building.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> R. Eliezer learns [to Mechayev for removing 
          honey] from 'Va'Yitbol Osah b'Ya'aros ha'Devash':
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the connection of the forest to 
               honey (why was it mentioned)?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Just like one who detaches from a forest [on 
               Shabbos] is Chayav Chatas, also one who takes honey 
               from a hive.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Ameimar permitted Lerabetz (to sprinkle in the house) in 
          Mechuza (all the houses had stone floors).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Ameimar):</font></b> Chachamim forbade this lest one even out 
               hollows [in a dirt floor] - in this city, there are 
               no hollows.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  Ravina was suffering from the heat (caused by rising 
          dust).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Rava Tosfa'ah:</font></b> Why don't you rely on the Beraisa?!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> If one wants to Merabetz his house [on 
               Shabbos], he takes a bowl of water, washes his face 
               in one corner, his hands in another corner, his feet 
               in another corner - in this way, he is Merabetz the 
               entire house.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Ravina:</font></b> I didn't think of it (alternatively - I hold that 
          the Halachah is not like this Beraisa). 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> A Chachamah (the wife or daughter of a 
          Chacham) may Merabetz the house on Shabbos (she can wash 
          different utensils in different parts of the house).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Nowadays, we hold like R. Shimon (who permits Davar 
               she'Eino Miskaven), one may directly Merabetz.
<br>
<b><font>3) A FLOWERPOT WITH A HOLE </font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one detaches something that was growing in 
          a flowerpot with a hole, he is liable; if the flowerpot 
          does not have a hole, he is exempt;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon exempts in both cases.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Abaye) Question:</font></b> In our Mishnah, R. Shimon 
          exempts in both cases - this shows that he equates a 
          flowerpot with a hole to one without a hole;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Contradiction (Beraisa - R. Shimon):</font></b> The only 
               difference between a flowerpot with a hole and one 
               without a hole is to Machshir seeds (if the 
               flowerpot has a hole, it is as if the contents are 
               growing in the ground, they cannot become Huchshar 
               to Mekabel Tum'ah).
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) IS SWEEPING THE FLOOR ON SHABBOS A 'DAVAR SHE'EIN MISKAVEN'?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Eliezer maintains that one who sweeps the floor on Shabbos is Chayav to bring a Korban Chatas. The Gemara concludes that since the Halachah follows the opinion of Rebbi Shimon, who says that a Davar she'Ein Miskaven is permitted, one may sweep the floor on Shabbos. This implies that Rebbi Eliezer prohibits it because he maintains that a Davar she'Ein Miskaven is forbidden.
</p><p>
This is difficult to understand. Even if sweeping the floor is a Davar she'Ein Miskaven, and even according to the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah who says that a Davar she'Ein Miskaven is prohibited, a Davar she'Ein Miskaven is prohibited only mid'Rabanan and <i>l'Chatchilah</i>; it is not Asur mid'Oraisa and it does not obligate a person to bring a Korban Chatas. How, then, can Rebbi Eliezer say that one is Chayav to bring a Korban?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> (DH Mechabed) answers that the Gemara means to say that when Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabanan argue with regard to sweeping, their argument is based on whether sweeping is a 'Pesik Reshei.' Rebbi Eliezer maintains that it is a 'Pesik Reshei,' and therefore it is forbidden whether or not a Davar she'Eino Miskaven is prohibited. The Halachah follows the view that it is not a 'Pesik Reshei,' and thus according to Rebbi Yehudah it is forbidden, but one is not Chayav to bring a Korban, and according to Rebbi Shimon it is permitted. Since the Halachah follows Rebbi Shimon with regard to a Davar she'Eino Miskaven, one is permitted to sweep the floor on Shabbos (see following Insight).
</p><p>


<font><b>2) HALACHAH: MAY ONE SWEEP THE FLOOR ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara discusses whether one may sweep the floor with a broom on Shabbos. What is the Halachah in practice?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>BEHAG</b> (cited by Tosfos DH v'Ha'idna), <b>RIF</b>, and <b>RAN</b> permit one to sweep any type of floor, because the Gemara concludes that it is a Davar she'Ein Miskaven, and the Halachah follows Rebbi Shimon who permits a Davar she'Ein Miskaven. 
</p><p>
However, there seems to be another problem that should prohibit one to sweep the floor on Shabbos. The dust which one moves around as he sweeps is Muktzah, because it has no use on Shabbos. The Rishonim suggest either that the dust has the status of a Geraf Shel Re'i (Rashba to Shabbos 143a), or that the Rabanan were lenient for the sake of the enjoyment of Shabbos (Ran), and they therefore permitted one to move Muktzah indirectly (Tiltul Min ha'Tzad) in order to clean the house.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Shabbos 21:3) permits one to sweep only a tiled floor, as the Gemara here states. If the floor is not tiled, one may not sweep it because a person inevitably smoothes grooves in the dirt floor as he sweeps (and thereby transgresses the Melachah of Boneh), and the act of Melachah is a 'Pesik Reshei.' The <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> (OC 337) infers that this is also the opinion of Rashi (124b, DH Shel Temarah).
</p><p>
(c) The <b>SEFER HA'TERUMAH</b> prohibits one to sweep even a tiled floor. He maintains that it is prohibited either because the Rabanan prohibited sweeping a tiled floor lest one mistakenly assume that he is also permitted to sweep a dirt floor, or because even when the floor is tiled, there are cracks between the tiles, and when one sweeps he makes the floor even by filling in those cracks (<b>HAGAHOS MAIMONIYOS</b>, Hilchos Shabbos 21).
</p><p>
(d) <b>TOSFOS</b> and the <b>ROSH</b> prohibit one to sweep even a tiled floor because of the problem of Tiltul Muktzah, since one moves the dust when he sweeps. When the Gemara says that one is permitted to clean the floor, it refers only to <i>sprinkling</i> the floor but not to sweeping.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 337:2) first cites the opinion of the <b>RAMBAM</b> and <b>RIF</b> (who permit one to sweep only tiled floors). He cites the <b>BEHAG's</b> opinion (that one may sweep even a dirt floor) as 'Yesh Matirin.' The <b>REMA</b> cites the <b>SEFER HA'TERUMAH</b> who is stringent and prohibits one to sweep even tiled floors. However, the Rema permits one to sweep a dirt floor with a soft cloth, because a soft cloth does not smooth the grooves in the floor.
</p><p>
The Rema concludes that one should be stringent in this matter and not sweep even tiled floors, as the Sefer ha'Terumah rules. The <b>BI'UR HALACHAH</b>, however, points out that the Sefer ha'Terumah prohibits one to sweep only because of a Gezeirah, as mentioned above, or because one might fill in the cracks between the tiles. Consequently, in a town where most of the floors have no cracks, such as floors made of wooden or cement (and not tiles), the Gezeirah does not apply and one is permitted to sweep. Nevertheless, one should be careful not to use a broom which has bristles that break easily, lest he break them on Shabbos (Rema ibid.).
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> Regarding everything [else] he considers 
          the contents detached - Tum'ah is different, the Torah 
          was Metaher seeds liberally - 'Al Kol Zera Zeru'a Asher 
          Yizare'a'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question (an elder):</font></b> What is R. Shimon's opinion if the 
          root is directly over a hole (is this considered like 
          growing in the ground)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Zeira could not answer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (R. Zeira (on another occasion)):</font></b> R. Shimon agrees [that 
          it is considered attached] if there is a hole in the pot 
          big enough to Metaher it (enough for an olive to fall 
          through).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  The elder:</font></b> You could not determine R. Shimon's opinion 
          about a root directly over a hole - all the more so you 
          should be unsure about a hole in the pot big enough to 
          Metaher it!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> R. Zeira actually taught, R. Shimon agrees about 
          a pot that does not hold a Revi'is [on account of a hole 
          near the bottom, it is not considered a Kli].
<br>
<b><font>4) SHI'URIM OF KLEI CHERES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> There are five Shi'urim regarding Klei Cheres 
          [with holes]:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If it is Motzi Mashkeh (if water is inside, it will 
               drip out), a shard (piece that breaks off) is Tahor, 
               it still is Kosher to Mekadesh Mei Chatas (one may 
               put ashes of Parah Adumah on water [drawn or] in 
               such a Kli, all the more so it is a Kli in other 
               respects);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If it is Kones Mashkeh (water will enter if it is 
               put in water) it is Pasul for Kidush Mei Chatas, it 
               is still a Kli to Machshir seeds (seeds growing in 
               it are not Mekabel Hechsher);
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> If the hole is big enough for a small root to pass 
               through, it is not Machshir seeds, it is still a Kli 
               to [Mekabel Tum'ah because it can] hold olives.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> If it is Motzi Zeisim (olives can fall through, if 
               it was Tamei) it becomes Tahor, it is still a Kli to 
               [Mekabel Tum'ah if one will designate it to] hold 
               pomegranates;
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> If it is Motzi Rimonim (pomegranates can fall 
               through), it is totally Tahor.
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> If it is surrounded by a Tzamid Pasil (it is totally 
               sealed), it is not Mekabel Tum'ah in Ohel ha'Mes 
               unless the majority [of the side] is open (or there 
               is a hole of any size in the top - Ri; R. Tam - it 
               is Mekabel Tum'as Ohel if it has any hole that was 
               not sealed, or if the majority was broken, even if 
               it was sealed).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Rav Asi:</font></b> I heard that the Shi'ur for Klei Cheres is Motzi 
          Rimonim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Rava:</font></b> Perhaps you heard regarding a Kli with a Tzamid 
          Pasil in Ohel ha'Mes! (Tosfos - Rava did not suggest that 
          Rav Asi heard about the Shi'ur to totally Metaher, for he 
          did not hear that it was designated to hold pomegranates, 
          therefore the Shi'ur is Motzi Zeisim.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Rava himself taught that if it has a Tzamid 
          Pasil, it is not Mekabel Tum'ah unless most of it is 
          open!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rava taught about big Kelim, Rav Asi heard about 
          small Kelim.
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) 'SHI'URIM' OF 'HOTZA'AH' FOR EARTHENWARE (cont.)  </font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Asi - Beraisa):</font></b> The smallest hole that disqualifies 
          an [intact] Kli Shares is Kones Mashkeh - the Shi'ur of 
          Motzi Mashkeh pertains only to shards.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why does a hole that is Motzi Mashkeh 
          disqualify a shard?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Mar Zutra brei d'Rav Nachman):</font></b> [Shards are used 
          only to catch what drips from a Kli] - people will not 
          use a shard if they will need another shard to catch what 
          drips from it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Ula):</font></b> R. Yosi b'Rebbi Avin and R. Yosi bar Zavda argued 
          [about the Shi'ur to prevent Hechsher of seeds] - one 
          says that it is k'Motzi Rimon, the other says that it is 
          enough for a small root to pass through;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A way to remember the opinions - 'Whether one does a 
               lot or a little...' (the two Shi'urim are the 
               biggest and smallest of Rava's [three biggest] 
               Shi'urim; surely, the Shi'urim of Motzi Mashkeh and 
               Kones Mashkeh have no connection to seeds).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chinena bar Kahana citing R. Eliezer):</font></b> The Shi'ur 
          for [Taharas] Klei Cheres is k'Motzi Zeisim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Mar Kashisha brei d'Rabah citing R. Eliezer):</font></b> ...If they 
          have such a hole they are like Kelim of manure, rocks or 
          dirt, which do not Mekabel Tum'ah mid'Oraisa nor 
          mid'Rabanan;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  If it has a Tzamid Pasil, it is not Mekabel Tum'ah unless 
          most of it is open.
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>***** <b>PEREK HA'ZOREK</b> *****
</b></font></center><p>
<br><br><b><font>2) THE 'TOLDOS' OF 'HOTZA'AH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one threw from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus 
          ha'Rabim or vice-versa, he is liable;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Akiva says, if he threw from Reshus ha'Yachid to 
          Reshus ha'Yachid and Reshus ha'Rabim is in the middle, he 
          is liable;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Chachamim exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the case?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> If two ledges jut out from houses on opposite 
          sides of Reshus ha'Rabim and he was Moshit (passed an 
          object) or threw from one to the other, he is exempt;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  If both ledges were on the same side, one is in front 
          (further along in Reshus ha'Rabim) of the other, if he 
          was Moshit from one to the other, he is liable, if he 
          threw he is exempt;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  This was the Avodah of the Leviyim - there were two 
          wagons, one in front of the other, they would pass 
          Kerashim (boards of the Mishkan) from one to the other, 
          they would not throw them [because they were very heavy].
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) MOVING THE WAGONS OF THE MISHKAN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah says that one is forbidden to pass an object from a Reshus ha'Yachid to another Reshus ha'Yachid via Reshus ha'Rabim ('Moshit'). <b>RASHI</b> explains that this is derived from the way in which the wagons were loaded when the Mishkan was dismantled in preparation for the Jewish people to continue their travels in the desert. Two wagons were stationed next to each other, and in front of them was another pair of wagons. The Leviyim would pass the pillars (Kerashim) of the Mishkan to the first pair of wagons, and Leviyim on those wagons would take the pillars and pass them on to the second pair of wagons to be loaded there.
</p><p>
Why did they load the wagons in such an unusual way? It is logical that they loaded only two wagons at a time, since they traveled in the desert with two wagons next to each other (99a). However, they should have simply filled up the first two wagons and then moved them out of the way, brought the other two wagons into position and loaded them with pillars. Why did they pass the pillars to the first wagon and then to the second?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) Perhaps it was not respectful to require the second set of pillars to wait while the wagons moved out of the way with the first set.
</p><p>
(b) Whenever the Mishkan and the Jewish people traveled, they had to follow the lead of the Ananei ha'Kavod, the Clouds of Glory, and the call of the Shofaros. If the first set of wagons would be loaded with pillars and then moved in order to bring the second set of wagons into the loading position, then when they would start to move it out of the way, that movement would be considered the start of their journey. Since it was forbidden to begin traveling until the Ananei ha'Kavod started to move and the Shofaros sounded, they could not move the wagons. They had to pass the pillars over the first wagon and into the second. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Throwing is a Toladah of Hotza'ah - 
          where does the Torah forbid Hotza'ah? (Tosfos - it is 
          known that Hotza'ah is a subordinate Melachah, if there 
          was not a verse for it, it would not be considered an 
          Av.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> '...Va'Ya'aviru Kol ba'Machaneh' - 
          Moshe was in Machaneh Levi, a Reshus ha'Rabim, and he 
          told Yisrael not to take out [more donations for the 
          Mishkan] from Reshus ha'Yachid (their tents) to Reshus 
          ha'Rabim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source that this was on Shabbos, 
          and he stopped them from bringing because it is a 
          Melachah? Perhaps it was on a weekday, he told them that 
          no more donations were needed - 'Veha'Melachah Haysah 
          Dayam...'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We learn from a Gezerah Shavah 
          'Ha'avarah-Ha'avarah' from Yom Kipur: 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It says there 'V'Ha'avarta Shofar Teru'ah' - just as 
               there it refers to a day (Yom Kipur) when Melachah 
               is forbidden, also Ha'avarah written regarding 
               donations for the Mishkan.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This shows that Hotza'ah is forbidden - what is 
          the source for Hachnasah (from Reshus ha'Rabim to Reshus 
          ha'Yachid)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Logic dictates, there is no difference between 
          taking out and talking in - however, Hotza'ah is an Av, 
          Hachnasah is a Toladah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> One is liable for both of them - why is one 
          called an Av and the other a Toladah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> The difference is, if two [different] Avos or 
          two Toldos [of different Avos] were done together [in one 
          Helam of Zadon Shabbos and Shigegas Melachos], he is 
          liable for each;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he did an Av and its Toladah, he is liable only 
               once.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> According to R. Eliezer, who is Mechayev two 
          Chata'os for an Av and its Toladah, how can we answer?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> Melachos that were in the Mishkan are 
          important, they (some texts - important Melachos in the 
          Mishkan) are called Avos, those that were not (some texts 
          - important) in the Mishkan are Toldos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer #3:</font></b> [Regarding transferring Reshuyos,] what is 
          written (Hotza'ah) is an Av, what is not written (e.g. 
          Hachnasah) is a Toladah. 
<br>
<b><font>3) THE SOURCE FOR THE 'MELACHAH' OF THROWING ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one threw something four Amos [in Reshus 
          ha'Rabim] at a wall [and it stuck to it]:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If this was above 10 Tefachim it is as if he threw 
               in the air [and it never landed, he is exempt];
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If this was below 10 Tefachim, it is as if he threw 
               on the ground - one who throws four Amos on the 
               ground is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source to Mechayev one who throws 
          four Amos on the ground?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Yoshiyah):</font></b> People who wove curtains would 
          throw needles to each other.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> Weavers do not use needles!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Correction:</font></b> People who sewed curtains (Rashi - they sewed 
          designs; Rashash - they sewed curtains together, or 
          repaired torn curtains) would throw needles to each 
          other.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps the sewers were right next to each 
          other (there was no need to throw)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They would not do so, lest they prick each other 
          with the needles [when pulling the thread tight].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> Perhaps they were four Amos away from each 
          other (they would not prick each other, and there would 
          be no need to throw)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Chisda):</font></b> People who wove curtains throw 
          the shuttle (holding the woof) across (between the warp 
          threads).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Even after throwing it, it is Agud b'Yado (he 
          is connected to it, he holds onto the woof)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The last time he throws it, he lets go.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> He throws it in a Makom Patur (between the 
          warp threads)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #3:</font></b> Rather, people who wove curtains throw [spare] 
          shuttles to people [weaving a different curtain] who ask 
          to borrow it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps they were right next to each other!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They would not do so, lest they hit each other 
          when pulling the warp tight at the end of the curtain.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Objection #1:</font></b> Perhaps they were staggered (they were not 
          in line with each other - even though they were close, 
          they would not hit each other)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Objection #2:</font></b> They did not borrow from each other!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'Ish Ish mi'Melachto Asher Hemah Osim' - everyone 
               had his own Kelim, he did not use another's.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Objection #3:</font></b> We still have no source to Mechayev Moshit 
          four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Answer #4:</font></b> A tradition from Moshe from Sinai teaches all 
          the Chiyuvim for four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim.
<br>
<b><font>4) THE 'MEKOSHESH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> The [man executed for] Mekoshesh 
          (gathering wood, Bamidbar 15:32) carried four Amos in 
          Reshus ha'Rabim;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> He detached wood [from trees].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rav Acha b'Rebbi Yakov):</font></b> He made piles.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What difference does it make why he was killed?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We need to know on account of Rav's teaching:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav):</font></b> I found a hidden scroll, in which Isi ben 
               Yehudah says that there are 39 Melachos, a person 
               [who does all of them] is liable only once. (Even 
               before the Oral Torah was written, one was permitted 
               to write Halachos to help <i>himself</i> remember - 
               Rambam, introduction to Mishnah Torah.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Objection (Mishnah):</font></b> There are 39 Avos Melachos.
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why do we need to know the number?
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b><font> Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> This teaches that is one 
                    did all of them in one Helam, he is liable for 
                    each. (Surely, Isi agrees with this!)
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Correction:</font></b> Rather, there is one for which he is not 
               Chayav [Misah - but Isi agrees that he is Chayav 
               Chatas for all 39 - Tosfos 6B].
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> Rav Yehudah is sure that one is Chayav [Misah] for 
               carrying in Reshus ha'Rabim, the Beraisa is sure 
               that one is Chayav for detaching, Rav Acha is sure 
               that one is Chayav for making piles.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Akiva):</font></b> Tzelafchad was the Mekoshesh - it 
          says 'Va'Yihyu Venei Yisrael <i>ba'Midbar</i> va'Yimtze'u 
          Ish...', and it says 'Avinu Mes <i>ba'Midbar</i>' - just like 
          the latter refers to Tzelafchad, also the former.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  R. Yehudah ben Beseira:</font></b> In any case, you should not say 
          this!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If you are right, the Torah covered up his identity, 
               and you reveal it!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If you are wrong, you malign a Tzadik!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But R. Akiva learns from a Gezerah Shavah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, he had no tradition for such a Gezerah 
          Shavah.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE SOURCE FOR THE MELACHAH OF 'HOTZA'AH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara asks where the Melachah of Hotza'ah is mentioned in the Torah. Why does the Gemara search for a verse for the Melachah of Hotza'ah? The Gemara earlier (49b) states that Hotza'ah was done in the Mishkan, and any Melachah that was done in the Mishkan is prohibited to do on Shabbos.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> (DH Hotza'ah) explains that Hotza'ah is a Melachah Geru'ah, a 'weaker' Melachah. (This is because Hotza'ah does not change the object upon which it is done. Alternatively, it is because the domains of Shabbos are Halachic and not physical entities. See Insights to Shabbos 1:1.) Therefore, a verse is necessary to teach that Hotza'ah indeed is prohibited on Shabbos.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) A 'TOLDAH' OF 'HOTZA'AH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara teaches that Ma'avir and Zerikah (carrying and throwing an object four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim) are Toldos of the Melachah of Hotza'ah. Why are they Toldos of Hotza'ah? In what way is transporting an object a distance of four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim similar to taking an object from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> (see also <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b>) explains that a 'person's place' is four Amos. That is, the area of four Amos around the point where a person stands is considered to be 'his' area (Bava Metzia 10a). When one carries the object from the place in which he stands, he thereby takes it into a 'new' Reshus, so to speak. Accordingly, when one carries four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim, it is as if he carries from one Reshus to another Reshus.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) MISJUDGING 'TZADIKIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> [It says, 'V'Chet'o Mes' - according to R. 
          Yehudah ben Beseira,] for which sin did Tzelafchad die?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He was among [those who went to fight after 
          Hash-m said not to, after the Meraglim -]  'Va'Yapilu...'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Similarly - R. Akiva says, [after Miryam spoke Lashon 
          ha'Ra about Moshe it says] 'Va'Yichar Af Hash-m <i>Bam</i> 
          va'Yelach' - this teaches that also Aharon got Tzara'as;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  R. Yehudah ben Beseira:</font></b> In any case, you should not say 
          this!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If you are right, the Torah covered up [his 
               Tzara'as], and you reveal it!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If you are wrong, you malign a Tzadik!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But it says '*Bam*' (plural)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That merely alludes to anger (but Aharon did not 
          deserve to get Tzara'as).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  A Beraisa says that Aharon got Tzara'as:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b>  '*Va'Yifen* Aharon El Miryam v'Hinei 
               Metzora'as' - he turned away from his Tzara'as [to 
               see Miryam's].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Reish Lakish):</font></b> One who [wrongly] suspects a Tzadik is 
          stricken bodily:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Moshe said 'V'Hen Lo Ya'aminu Li' (Benei Yisrael 
               will not believe that You sent me to redeem them) - 
               Hash-m knew that they would believe;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Hash-m:</font></b> They are believers that descend from 
               believers (Maharsha - they will believe on account 
               of a tradition from their Avos) - in the end, you 
               will not believe!
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  They are believers - 'Va'Ya'amen ha'Am'; they 
                    descend from believers - 'V'He'emin (Avraham) 
                    ba'Shem'; in the end (when I will tell you to 
                    speak to the rock), you will not believe 'Ya'an 
                    Lo He'emantem Bi'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source that Moshe was stricken for 
          suspecting Benei Yisrael?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'Havei Na Yadcha b'Cheikecha...' (Tzara'as came 
          on his hand).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> Hashem's attribute of bestowing good acts faster 
          than His attribute of punishment:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Regarding punishment it says 'Va'Yotzi'ah v'Hine 
               Yado Metzora'as ka'Shaleg' (after he finished 
               removing his hand it was stricken); when He healed 
               it, it says 'Va'Yotzi'ah <i>me'Cheiko</i> v'Hine Shavah 
               ki'Vsaro' (it was healed the moment it left).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> 'Va'Yivla Mate Aharon Es Matosam' - it was a 
          double miracle (Aharon's rod had become a snake - after 
          it returned to be a rod again, it swallowed the rods of 
          the Mitzriyim).
<br>
<b><font>2) THE ARGUMENT IN THE MISHNAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he threw from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus 
          ha'Yachid [and Reshus ha'Rabim was in the middle...], he 
          is liable;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (Rabah):</font></b> In what case do they argue?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Perhaps they argue within 10 Tefachim, about whether 
               or not Kelutah k'Mi she'Hunchah (something in the 
               air is considered to be at rest) - Chachamim do not 
               say Kelutah - but all exempt above 10, for we do not 
               learn throwing from Moshit;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Or, they argue above 10 Tefachim, R. Akiva learns 
               throwing from Moshit, Chachamim do not - but all 
               Mechayev below 10, for Kelutah k'Mi she'Hunchah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Rav Chisda asked this question, and 
          Rav Hamnuna answered it from a Beraisa:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Akiva):</font></b> If one transferred from Reshus 
               ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Yachid, going through Reshus 
               ha'Rabim itself, he is liable;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim exempt.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> Since it says 'going through Reshus 
               ha'Rabim <i>itself</i>', this implies that they argue 
               about within 10 (Reshus ha'Rabim extends only up to 
               10).
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What do they discuss?
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> They discuss Ma'avir (carrying).
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> They argue about within 10, but all 
                    exempt above 10.
             <br><b>  <b><font>iii. </font></b><font>Rejection:</font></b> R. Elazar taught that if one was 
                    Motzi something more than 10 Tefachim above the 
                    ground he is liable, for this is how Benei 
                    Kehas carried!
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> They discuss throwing.
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> They argue about within 10, but all 
               exempt above 10.
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b></b> They argue about whether or not Kelutah k'Mi 
               she'Hunchah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  This answer of Rav Hamnuna argues with R. Elazar:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Elazar):</font></b> R. Akiva is Mechayev even above 10 - 
               the Beraisa says 'Reshus ha'Rabim itself', which 
               denotes within 10, to teach the extremity of 
               Chachamim's opinion, they exempt even within 10.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar argues with R. Chilkiya bar Tuvya:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Chilkiya bar Tuvya):</font></b> Within three Tefachim, all 
               Mechayev; above 10, all exempt; R. Akiva and 
               Chachamim argue about between three and 10.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Support (Beraisa):</font></b> Within three Tefachim, all 
               Mechayev; above 10 is forbidden only mid'Rabanan 
               [because he transfers to a different Reshus 
               ha'Yachid] - if both Reshuyos ha'Yachid are owned by 
               the same person, it is permitted;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Between three and 10, R. Akiva is Mechayev, 
               Chachamim exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If both Reshuyos ha'Yachid are owned by the 
          same person, it is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> This refutes Rav!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav):</font></b> If there are two houses on opposite sides of 
               Reshus ha'Rabim, it is forbidden to throw from one 
               to the other;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Shmuel):</font></b> It is permitted. (Since Shmuel permits, 
               surely the same person owns both!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> We already established [in Eiruvin] that they 
          discuss when one of the houses is higher than the other - 
          [it is difficult to reach the destination, therefore] Rav 
          forbids lest the object fall in Reshus ha'Rabim and he 
          will come to take it.
<br>
<b><font>3) THE SOURCE FOR DERIVING THE LAWS OF 'LAVUD'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Chisda or Rav Hamnuna):</font></b> What is the source 
          that anything within three Tefachim is Lavud (Batul to 
          the ground)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (The other of Rav Chisda and Rav Hamnuna):</font></b> It 
          is impossible for Reshus ha'Rabim to be paved perfectly 
          flat with a carpenter's plane (it is Reshus ha'Rabim even 
          if there are small bumps).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question #1:</font></b> If so, even something three Tefachim should 
          be Lavud!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question #2 - (Mishnah):</font></b> If walls [of a Sukah] hang down 
          from above, if they are three Tefachim off the ground, 
          they are Pesulim.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> If they are within three Tefachim they 
               are Kesherim [even though reason (b) does not 
               apply]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (to Question #2):</font></b> A wall three Tefachim off the 
          ground is Pasul because a kid can stick its head through.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Granted, that explains Lavud to the ground - 
          but Lavud applies even high above the ground (e.g. in 
          walls or in Sechach...)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (to Question (i)):</font></b> Rather, a tradition from 
          Moshe from Sinai teaches that any gap of less than three 
          Tefachim is Lavud.
<br>
<b><font>4) TWO 'CHIYUVIM' FOR ONE THROWING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> If one threw something from Reshus 
          ha'Rabim to Reshus ha'Rabim and it passed through Reshus 
          ha'Yachid, he is liable;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rav and Shmuel):</font></b> Rebbi is Mechayev only in a Reshus 
          ha'Yachid with a ceiling over it, we consider it to be 
          filled (with articles, therefore it is as if the thrown 
          object rests on an extension of the floor), he exempts if 
          there is no ceiling.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Rebbi is Mechayev two Chata'os [if he was 
          Shogeg], for Hotza'ah and Hachnasah 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Chana):</font></b> This implies that Rebbi is Mechayev 
          [twice] for an Av and its Toladah;
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'MOSHIT' ABOVE TEN TEFACHIM</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS: RASHI</b> on the Mishnah (96a, DH veha'Moshit) writes that one is Chayav for an act of Moshit (handing an object to another person a distance of four Amos away in Reshus ha'Rabim) when the object is transferred at a height of at least ten Tefachim above the ground of Reshus ha'Rabim, because in the Mishkan it was done above ten Tefachim (when the pillars were passed from one wagon to another). Does Rashi mean that Moshit is Chayav <i>only</i> when it is done above ten Tefachim, or that Moshit is Chayav <i>even</i> when it is done above ten Tefachim, but one is also Chayav when it is down below ten Tefachim?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH v'Lo Yalfinan) states that according to the opinion that says that the laws of Zorek (throwing in Reshus ha'Rabim) are not derived from the laws of Moshit, both Rebbi Akiva and the Rabanan agree that one is not Chayav for Zorek, as the end of the Mishnah states. However, if they agree that one is not Chayav for Zorek, then why does the Mishnah say 'Keitzad,' which implies that the Mishnah is explaining the argument between Rebbi Akiva and the Rabanan that appears immediately before it in the Mishnah (<b>TOSFOS</b>)? Why does Rashi not explain simply that the Mishnah refers to Zorek <i>below</i> ten Tefachim, which is the case in which Rebbi Akiva and the Rabanan argue? If that is what the Mishnah means, then the word 'Keitzad' indeed refers to the argument between Rebbi Akiva and the Rabanan!
</p><p>
It must be that Rashi maintains that if the Mishnah is discussing a case of one who throws <i>below</i> ten Tefachim, then one would be exempt even for Moshit (<b>TOSFOS</b> 96a, DH Moshit). We see that according to Rashi, one who does an act of Moshit below ten Tefachim is exempt. The <b>TOTZA'OS CHAYIM</b> (#4) cites <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> (97a) who also says that Moshit does not apply below ten Tefachim.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (4a, DH Aval) is in doubt with regard to this question.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>TOTZA'OS CHAYIM</b> (#4) infers from the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Shabbos 13:18) that one is Chayav for an act of Moshit below ten Tefachim as well.
</p><p>
<br><font size='+1' color='darkblue'></font></p><font size='+1' color='darkblue'><center><b>97b----------------------------------------97b </b></center></font>
<p>
<font><b>2) 'SHOVET' AND 'MEDAKDEK'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara proves that Rebbi Yehudah maintains that one is Chayav for a Toldah even when he does it together with its Av, because he says that one is Chayav when he does the two acts of Shovet and Medakdek together. 
</p><p>
If Rebbi Yehudah maintains that one is Chayav for doing a Toldah together with an Av, why does he specifically mention the two Melachos of Shovet and Medakdek? Furthermore, when the Rabanan argue with Rebbi Yehudah and say that one is not Chayav for a Toldah with its Av, why do they mention that Shovet and Medakdek are included in the Melachos of Meisach and Oreg?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Lo) answers that at this stage, when the Gemara asserts that Rebbi Yehudah maintains that one is Chayav for a Toldah even when he does it with its Av, the Gemara assumes that the Rabanan do not argue with Rebbi Yehudah. Even the Rabanan agree that one is Chayav when he performs a Toldah with its Av. They argue only in the case of one who does Shovet and Medakdek, because they maintain that these two Melachos are not Toldos at all, but rather they are the actual Av Melachos of Meisach and Oreg.
</p><p>
(b) Tosfos suggests another answer. The Rabanan mention Shovet and Medakdek only in response to Rebbi Yehudah. Their intention is to say that <i>even</i> if one maintains that one is Chayav for a Toldah with its Av, the acts of Shovet and Medakdek are different. Rebbi Yehudah mentions Shovet and Medakdek in order to teach that even in a case of these two Melachos, one will be Chayav for both the Toldah and the Av. (Based on the <b>MAHARAM's</b> understanding of Tosfos.)
</p><p>


<font><b>3) ONE WHO INTENDED TO THROW FOUR 'AMOS' AND INSTEAD THREW EIGHT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara concludes that if a person intended to throw an object four Amos and instead he threw eight Amos, he is exempt, because he did not intend for the object to fall there. How are we to reconcile this Gemara with the Gemara earlier (73a) in which Abaye and Rava argue with regard to a case in which one intended to throw two Amos and instead threw four Amos? According to the Gemara there, Abaye says that one is <i>Chayav</i> when he throws four Amos when he intended to throw only two!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The Gemara earlier refers to a case in which the thrower wanted the object to rest 'wherever it happened to fall' ('Kol Makom she'Tirtzeh, Tanu'ach'), as the Gemara earlier describes. (This appears to be the proper approach according to Rashi's understanding of the Sugya on 72b. See Chart #16.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> (73a) asks this question and answers, in the name of <b>RABEINU TAM</b>, that we must explain the Gemara there differently. It does not mean that he intended to throw the object two Amos but instead he threw it four Amos. Rather, the Gemara there means that he <i>miscalculated</i> the distance between him and the place where he wanted the object to rest, and he thought that the target area was two Amos away when it was really four Amos away. (This is consistent with Tosfos' understanding of the Sugya there. See Chart #16.)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Contradiction (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> It says 'Eleh 
               ha'Devarim [...Sheshes Yomim Te'aseh Melachah]' - 
               this alludes to 39 Melachos told to Moshe on Sinai 
               (Devarim (plural) teaches two, the 'Hei' teaches one 
               more, the Gematri'a of Eleh is 36. Surely, Rebbi 
               taught this to teach that one who does all the 
               Melachos (b'Zadon Shabbos and Shigegas Melachos) 
               brings 39 Chata'os - if he obligates for an Av and 
               its Toldah, one can be liable even more!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> You have a difficulty because you 
          think that Rav Yehudah discusses Rebbi's opinion - we say 
          that he discusses R. Yehudah's opinion [in a different 
          Beraisa]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> If one threw something from 
          Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim and [before landing] 
          it passed four Amos through Reshus ha'Rabim, he is 
          liable;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Chachamim exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> R. Yehudah is Mechayev two Chata'os, for 
          Hotza'ah and for Ma'avir in Reshus ha'Rabim;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> We cannot say that he is Mechayev only once, for 
               then Chachamim would totally exempt - but he was 
               Motzi from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> Perhaps indeed, R. Yehudah is Mechayev only 
          once - the case is, he wanted the object to rest before 
          reaching Reshus ha'Rabim:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah holds that Kelutah k'Mi she'Hunchah, it 
               is as if it rested [in midair], and his intent was 
               fulfilled; 
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim do not say Kelutah k'Mi she'Hunchah, so 
               his intent was not fulfilled.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah does not Mechayev [twice] for an Av and 
               its Toldah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> R. Yehudah adds [to the list of Avos 
          Melachos] Shovet (evening the warp threads) and Medakdek 
          (hitting the woof so it will not be too taut);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, Shovet is included in Meisach, and 
               Medakdek is included in weaving.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> The case is, he did both [Shovet and 
               Meisach, or Medakdek and weaving, in one Helam] - R. 
               Yehudah is Mechayev for an Av and its Toldah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> [No, he did them separately - Bach deletes this 
          from the text, Ri does not]; R. Yehudah is not Mechayev 
          for an Av and its Toldah - he holds that they are Avos, 
          Chachamim hold that they are Toldos. (Ri - they argue 
          about the warning necessary to kill a Mezid transgressor 
          - one must be warned for the right Av.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Support:</font></b> It says 'R. Yehudah adds' - we understand 
               this if he says that they are Avos - but if he is 
               Mechayev for an Av and its Toldah, he does not add!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Rabah and Rav Yosef):</font></b> R. Yehudah obligates only once.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question (Ravina):</font></b> Rav Yehudah said that R. Yehudah is 
          Mechayev twice [for Hotza'ah and for Ma'avir] - if he 
          wants the object [to rest] 'here' (where it actually 
          rested, he is not liable for Hotza'ah until it gets 
          there, for) he does not need it 'there' (where it first 
          entered Reshus ha'Rabim - therefore, he should be exempt 
          for Ma'avir);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he wants the object 'there', he does not want it 
               'here' (surely he is exempt for Ma'avir, he did not 
               intend for it at all)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> The case is, he was not particular 
          where it lands (as long as it is in Reshus ha'Rabim).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  The following is obvious - if one intended to throw eight 
          Amos and it went four, this is like one who wanted to 
          write 'Shimon', and wrote only 'Shem' (he is liable - 
          103A);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If he intended to throw four Amos and it went 
          eight, what is the law?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Do we say, [he is liable because] he moved it [like 
               he wanted - the extra distance it went does not 
               exempt him];
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Or, [is he exempt because] it did not land where he 
               wanted?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer (and rejection of (o)):</font></b> This is like Ravina's 
          question [above] - Rav Ashi answered, the case is, he was 
          not particular where it lands (if not, he would be 
          exempt)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Above, we equated throwing four Amos when he 
               intended for eight Amos to writing 'Shem' when he 
               intended for 'Shimon' - but they are different!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> One is liable for writing Shem because one must do 
               so in order to write Shimon - but one need not throw 
               four Amos [and have it rest after four, which is a 
               condition to be liable] in order to throw eight!
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE AREA UNDER THE WAGONS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If one threw from Reshus ha'Rabim to Reshus 
          ha'Rabim, and Reshus ha'Yachid was in the middle - if it 
          went four Amos in the two Reshuyos ha'Rabim (combined), 
          he is liable; if not, he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the Chidush?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This teaches that Reshuyos join; and that we do 
          not say Kelutah k'Mi she'Hunchah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> One who carries four Amos in a Reshus ha'Rabim 
          with a ceiling is exempt, for this is not like the 
          encampment in the Midbar.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Rav also taught that the following were Reshus 
          ha'Rabim - the wagons [of the Leviyim, which carried the 
          Kerashim], underneath them, between them and to their 
          sides [even though the area between and underneath the 
          wagons was covered with boards! Rows of boards went along 
          the length of the wagons. Tosfos - the wagons were 
          coupled together side by side, each wagon held one end of 
          each board, the middle was between the wagons; Rashi - 
          the middle of each board balanced on a wagon, the ends 
          stuck out on the two sides.]
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rav taught about the area between rows [of 
          boards, it was uncovered; Tosfos - he taught about the 
          bottom layer, before others layers were placed on top and 
          filled in the spaces].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> (Tosfos - the first layer itself was a 
          covering!) Each wagon was five Amos long, and each board 
          was one and a half Amos wide - three [rows of] boards fit 
          on a wagon, half an Amah is left;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> When we divide the half Amah among the two spaces 
               between rows, only a quarter Amah (one and a half 
               Tefachim) is between adjacent rows - they are 
               considered connected on account of Lavud! (Really, 
               there was more space at the bottom Amah of each 
               board, which consisted of two pegs fitting into 
               Adanim - a Tefach of space around the peg on each 
               side would make the total distance more than three 
               Tefachim! This question may also be asked below (i:1 
               and j:1). Nevertheless, the last Amah was always on 
               (Tosfos; Rashi - between or to the side of) a wagon, 
               we can still ask why Rav said that both underneath 
               and in between were Reshus ha'Rabim.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The question assumed that the boards lay on their 
          width - really, they lay on their thickness [to enable 
          fitting more boards in each layer - if the piles were too 
          high, they might topple]. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Still, each board was one Amah wide - four 
          [rows of] boards fit on a wagon, one Amah remains (we 
          cannot squeeze in five rows to fill the entire length - 
          also, space between boards was needed for the rings, as 
          we will explain);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> When we divide the Amah among the three spaces 
               between rows, only a third of an Amah (two Tefachim) 
               is between each two rows, they are Lavud!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> This is not difficult according to the opinion 
          that each board was one Amah thick at the bottom, but it 
          narrowed, and was only a finger thick at the top, there 
          was more room between rows (towards the top of each 
          board, almost the entire Amah allotted for the thickness 
          was hollow. If the tops of the boards in one row faced 
          right, and those of the next row faced left, they would 
          fit into a rectangle of width one Amah and a finger, four 
          such rectangles (eight rows of boards) would fit in the 
          wagon, the separations would be less than a third of an 
          Amah! Tosfos - we must say that all the tops faced the 
          same way (alternatively, the entire bottom half of each 
          board was an Amah thick, only the top half thinned out to 
          a finger, so the middle of every board was an Amah 
          thick), therefore there was room only for four rows.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> But according to the opinion that the Kerashim were 
               an Amah thick from top to bottom, how can we answer?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (Rashi) Answer #2 (Rav Kahana):</font></b> [That opinion 
          says that the rows were not evenly spaced, rather, two 
          piles of boards on each side of the wagon were adjacent 
          without any separation, the full Amah of space separated 
          the two double piles.] This allowed wooden clamps to hold 
          the double piles together, so they would not fall down. 
          (Rashi's Rebbi'im - the rows were placed this way on 
          account of the rings through the boards which held the 
          Berichim; the rings of each board pointed away from the 
          board with which it was flush.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> The boards were on the top of the wagons - the 
          bottom of the wagons were solid, the area underneath had 
          a roof over it!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer (Shmuel):</font></b> The bottom of the wagons [were not 
          solid, rather,] merely had pegs to hold up the boards.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (Tosfos) Answer #2 (Rav Kahana):</font></b> When Rav said 
          'under the wagons', he discussed the space under the 
          clamps (placed on top of the boards to prevent them from 
          falling).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The rings were on the top of the boards - when 
          the clamps were placed, the area underneath the wagons 
          already had a roof over it!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) ONE WHO THROWS FROM ONE RESHUS HA'RABIM TO ANOTHER VIA RESHUS HA'YACHID</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Beraisa says that if one throws an object from one Reshus ha'Rabim to another Reshus ha'Rabim and the object passes through a Reshus ha'Yachid, he is Chayav if the object travels at least four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim. If it travels less than four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim, he is Patur. 
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that when the object travels less than four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim in this case, he is not Chayav for Hotza'ah (for transferring an object from Reshus ha'Rabim to the Reshus ha'Yachid through which it passed), because the Tana of the Beraisa does not agree to the concept of 'Kelutah k'Mi she'Hunchah.'
</p><p>
Why does Rashi explain that the Tana of the Beraisa maintains that an object that passes through the airspace of a certain domain is <i>not</i> considered as though it has rested there? In this case, the thrower did not <i>want</i> the object to land in Reshus ha'Yachid. Since his intention was not fulfilled, he should be exempt even if we rule that 'Kelutah k'Mi she'Hunchah'!
</p><p>
Furthermore, why does Rashi write that we see from the <i>end</i> of the Beraisa that this Tana does not agree to the concept of 'Kelutah k'Mi she'Hunchah'? We see this from the <i>beginning</i> of the Beraisa! If the Tana would agree to the concept of 'Kelutah,' the thrower would be exempt, because the object that he threw is considered to have landed in Reshus ha'Yachid before it traveled four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> asks these questions on Rashi's explanation. As a result of these questions, the Ritva explains that the inference that the Tana does not agree to the concept of 'Kelutah' is from the <i>beginning</i> of the Beraisa. The beginning of the Beraisa says that the thrower is Chayav. However, if the object is considered as though it rested in the Reshus ha'Yachid through which it passed, then he should <i>not</i> be Chayav. In the case of the <i>end</i> of the Beraisa, though, he would be exempt even if the Tana does not maintain 'Kelutah k'Mi she'Hunchah,' because the thrower did not have any intention for the object to land in Reshus ha'Yachid. Only from the beginning of the Beraisa do we see that the Tana does not maintain 'Kelutah.' (That is, if the Tana maintains 'Kelutah k'Mi she'Hunchah,' then the thrower would be Chayav even though the thrower did <i>not</i> want the object to land in Reshus ha'Yachid, because, in practice, it did rest there. In the end of the Beraisa, though, 'Kelutah' would not make a person Chayav, because he had no intention for the object to land in Reshus ha'Yachid.)
</p><p>
(b) Rashi clearly disagrees with the Ritva (see DH v'Iy l'Hacha). Rashi maintains that if the thrower did not want the object to land in a particular Reshus, then it would not be considered 'Kalut' (contained) there. 'Kelutah' does not apply when the person does not want it to rest in that domain (see Rashi to 97b, DH ul'Mai). How, then, can the Gemara infer that the Tana of the Beraisa does not maintain 'Kelutah k'Mi she'Hunchah,' if 'Kelutah' does not apply when the person did not want the object to land in that domain? It must be that the Beraisa is discussing a case of 'Kol Makom she'Tirtzeh, Tanu'ach,' where he wanted it to rest wherever it happened to land, and, therefore, the object that is 'Kalut' in the airspace of that domain <i>is</i> considered to have landed there. That is why we can infer that the Tana does not agree to 'Kelutah' from the fact that the Tana rules that the person is Patur for Hotza'ah.
</p><p>
Our second question, however, remains unanswered. We should be able to infer from the beginning of the Beraisa that the Tana does not agree to 'Kelutah.' If the thrower wanted it to land wherever it landed, then 'Kelutah k'Mi she'Hunchah' should make him exempt. From the fact that he is Chayav for carrying four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim, it is evident that the Tana does not hold of 'Kelutah'. Why, then, does Rashi still infer this only from the end of the Beraisa?
</p><p>
It must be that Rashi maintains that 'Kelutah' applies only as a <i>Chumra</i>, and not as a Kula (as the <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> writes on 4b). 'Kelutah' cannot work to exempt a person from liability for Hotza'ah (a 'Kula,' leniency). Rather, it can only work to make a person Chayav. Thus, in the first case of the Beraisa, 'Kelutah' cannot make the thrower exempt, even if the Tana normally maintains 'Kelutah k'Mi she'Hunchah.' Consequently, it is only from the case of the end of the Beraisa (where 'Kelutah' would serve to make him <i>Chayav</i> for Hotza'ah) that we can infer that the Tana does not maintain 'Kelutah.' (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) A ROOF OVER PART OF RESHUS HA'RABIM</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav says that 'Reshus ha'Rabim Mekurah,' a Reshus ha'Rabim that has a roof over it, is not considered Reshus ha'Rabim. The Gemara attempts to disprove this from the wagons that were used for transporting the pillars of the Mishkan. The areas underneath, between, and to the sides of the wagons were considered Reshus ha'Rabim even though those areas were roofed (the pillars on the wagons extended over the sides of the wagons). The Gemara concludes that we cannot prove from the wagons that Reshus ha'Rabim Mekurah is considered Reshus ha'Rabim, because the wagons still had some areas that were not covered (such as the gaps between the pillars that extended over the sides of the wagons), and perhaps it is only those areas that are called Reshus ha'Rabim.
</p><p>
However, this does not answer the question of the Gemara. While there were areas that were not covered that constituted areas of Reshus ha'Rabim, the wagons also had areas that <i>were</i> covered, and they are still called Reshus ha'Rabim!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> (DH Hanicha) answers in the name of the <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> that we do not derive the concept of Reshus ha'Rabim from the wagons. Rather, we derive the concept of Reshus ha'Rabim from the encampment of the Leviyim, as the Gemara describes earlier (96b). The wagons merely reveal to us the <i>measurements</i> of Reshus ha'Rabim (16 Amos wide; 99a). As long as some part of the area around the wagons was uncovered, that area is considered Reshus ha'Rabim; the areas that were covered, though, do not need to have the status of Reshus ha'Rabim.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) 'ATABA'I'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara says that it is possible for more than three Tefachim to separate between the pillars that were placed on the wagons, if they were arranged 'b'Ataba'i.' What does 'Ataba'i' mean?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> quotes his teachers who explain that 'Ataba'i' refers to the <i>rings</i> that were on the pillars (on the inner side of the pillars, one on the upper section and one on the lower section). The Gemara refers to when the pillars were stacked in two pairs of stacks (one pair in the front of the wagon and one in the back), and each pair was comprised of two stacks of pillars laid back to back so that the rings of each pillar faced the other direction. Even though the rings of the two inner stacks of pillars (the one at the front of the wagon and the one at the back) both faced inwards towards each other, there was enough room between the pillars (two Amos) so that they did not rub against each other.
</p><p>
(b) Rashi himself explains that 'Ataba'i' refers to wooden clips used to hold paper, which were fashioned by cutting lengthwise through the middle of a splinter of wood (much like old fashioned wooden clothespins). The meaning of the Gemara, though, is the same as Rashi's teachers explain.
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> explains that 'Ataba'i' refers to support rails on the wagon. The wagons were outfitted with guard rails that were attached to the sides (or to each end of the wagon, as the Gemara concludes) to keep the pillars from slipping off. The Gemara means that before the pillars were loaded on to the wagons, when only the guard rails were affixed, the area below the wagon is considered Reshus ha'Rabim.
</p><p>

<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer (Shmuel):</font></b> Rav Kahana discusses clamps <i>under</i> the 
          boards to hold them above the wheels.
<br>
<b><font>2) THE 'KERASHIM' OF THE 'MISHKAN'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> The boards were one Amah thick at 
          the bottom; they narrowed, and were only a finger thick 
          at the top - it says 'Yihyu Samim Al Rosho', just like 
          'Tamu Nichrasu' (they were finished off);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Nechemyah says, just like they were one Amah thick at 
          the bottom, also at the top - it says 'Yachdav' (they are 
          even).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does he learn from 'Samim'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This teaches that we must use whole boards, we 
          may not make them from pieces.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does R. Yehudah learn from 'Yachdav'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This teaches that the boards must be even in a 
          line.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> According to R. Nechemyah, we understand 
          'Ul'Yarkesei ha'Mishkan Yamah Ta'aseh Shishah Kerashim; 
          U'Shnei Kerashim Ta'aseh li'Mkutza'os' - the boards in 
          the corners fill the corners [totally] (see diagram #1 in 
          graphics section);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> But according to R. Yehudah, the boards were only a 
               finger wide at the top - on top, the western boards 
               will stick out past the boards on the north and 
               south sides (see diagram #2 in graphics section)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yehudah holds that the corner boards came to a 
          peak, like mountains (they were only a finger thick on 
          top and a half-Amah and a finger wide on top, in order to 
          be even with the tops of the northern and southern boards 
          - see diagram #3 in graphics section).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> 'Veha'Bri'ach ha'Tichon b'Soch ha'Kerashim' - 
          it stood miraculously. (There were Berichim (poles) to 
          keep the boards together; the top and bottom poles went 
          through rings, there were different poles for the north, 
          west and southern sides. The middle pole went through the 
          Kerashim themselves, on all three directions - it was a 
          miracle that the wood bent.)
<br>
<b><font>3) WHAT THE CURTAINS OF THE 'MISHKAN' COVERED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  '...Eser Yeri'os...; Orech ha'Yeri'ah ha'Achas Shemoneh 
          v'Esrim ba'Amah' - the length of the [first, i.e. lowest] 
          curtains went along the width of the Mishkan (the excess 
          covered the northern and southern sides);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> They were 28 Amos long; 10 Amos covered the interior 
               of the Mishkan, nine Amos remained on each side;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> According to R. Yehudah [each board was only a 
               finger thick on top], the excess on each side 
               covered the top nine Amos of each board], only the 
               Adanim (sockets, into which the bottom Amah of the 
               Kerashim were inserted) were exposed [before the 
               second curtains were put on; see the comment after 
               (c:1)];
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> According to R. Nechemyah [one Amah of the excess on 
               each side covered the thickness of the boards on 
               top, the other eight Amos covered the boards on the 
               side], an Amah of each board above the Adanim was 
               also exposed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  [Each curtain was four Amos wide; 10 were joined 
          together,] in all they were 40 Amos wide. The width 
          covered the 30 Amos (length) of the Mishkan; according to 
          R. Yehudah, [the extra 10 Amos covered the entire western 
          side], even the Adanim were covered;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> According to R. Nechemyah [one Amah covered the 
               thickness of the western boards on top], the Adanim 
               were exposed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  'V'Asisa Yeri'os Izim; Orech ha'Yeri'ah ha'Achas 
          Sheloshim ba'Amah' - the second curtains were 30 Amos 
          long; 10 Amos covered the interior of the Mishkan, 10 
          Amos remained on each side;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  According to R. Yehudah, the entire sides were covered, 
          even the Adanim. (We ignore the thickness of the boards 
          on top (a finger), the thickness of the first curtains 
          (this adds to the height) and the fact that the curtains 
          cover the slanted hypotenuse of the boards, whose length 
          is really about 10 Amos and a third of a Tefach. It was a 
          miracle that the curtains rested straight - they did not 
          sag in the middle (even though they were very heavy and 
          covered a large opening), they fit flush in the corners 
          (unlike a tablecloth which is longer and wider than the 
          table it covers, the excess sticks out) - perhaps it was 
          also a miracle that the curtains totally covered the 
          sides or reached until the Adanim, even though they 
          should have been a few fingers short - <b><b><b>PF</b></b></b>.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> According to R. Nechemyah [one Amah of the 10 
               covered the thickness of the boards on top], the 
               Adanim were also exposed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Support (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> 'Veha'Amah mi'Zeh 
          veha'Amah mi'Zeh ba'Odef' (the second curtains exceeded 
          the first ones by one Amah on each side,) this was to 
          cover the Adanim;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Nechemyah says, it was to cover the Amah of the boards 
          [above the Adanim that was not covered by the first 
          curtains].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  [Each of these curtains was four Amos wide; 11 were 
          joined together,] in all they were 44 Amos wide. The 
          width covered the 30 Amos of the Mishkan's length; 14 
          Amos remained.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Two Amos hung down over the opening [in the east] - 
               'V'Chofalta Es ha'Yeri'ah ha'Shishis El Mul Penei 
               ha'Ohel'; 12 Amos remained in back.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> According to R. Yehudah [10 Amos covered the 
          western side, two Amos were on the ground], we understand 
          'Chatzi ha'Yeri'ah ha'Odefes Tisrach';
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> But according to R. Nechemyah [only one Amah was on 
               the ground, this is not half a curtain], why does it 
               say 'Tisrach'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is Seruchah (sticks out) from the other 
          curtains.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - Tana d'vei R. Yishmael):</font></b> The Mishkan resembled 
          a woman walking in the market whose garment drags in back 
          of her.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>4) THE 'YERI'OS HA'IZIM' THAT COVERED THE MISHKAN</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara discusses two opinions of how the Yeri'os ha'Izim (goat-hair coverings), which were 44 Amos long, were draped over the Mishkan. Everyone agrees that two Amos hung over the eastern side (like a 'Kalah Tzenu'ah,' a modest bride). The question is what the back of the Mishkan looked like. How did the Yeri'os hang there?
</p><p>
(a) According to Rebbi Nechemyah, in the back of the Mishkan (the western side) one Amah dragged along the ground. (Rebbi Nechemyah maintains that the pillars were one Amah thick on top as they were on bottom, and thus an extra Amah of the Yeri'os was used up to cover the one-Amah thickness of the pillars of the western side. Accordingly, the length of the Yeri'os covered the following: 30 Amos (the length of the Mishkan), 10 Amos (the height of the pillars), 2 (the length the Yeri'os hung on the eastern side), 1 (the thickness of the pillars of the western side, plus 1 (the Amah that the Yeri'os dragged on the ground on the western side).)
</p><p>
(b) Rebbi Yehudah, in contrast, maintains that the pillars were pointed at their tops (and were only one Etzba thick). According to Rebbi Yehudah, two Amos of the Yeri'os dragged on the ground.
</p><p>
(c) Rashi in Parshas Terumah cites a third opinion. According to the 'Beraisa Meleches ha'Mishkan,' the pillars on the eastern side of the Mishkan stood <i>outside</i> of the Mishkan, and the Yeri'os hung over them as well. They therefore added one Amah to the area which the Yeri'os covered, and thus, according to Rebbi Nechemyah's opinion that the pillars were one Amah wide at their tops, the Yeri'os did not drag on the ground on the western side <i>at all</i>. (The Gemara here argues and maintains that the pillars on the eastern side of the Mishkan stood inside the 30-Amah length of the Mishkan, and therefore they did not add an Amah to the length of the Mishkan's roof.)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE 'CHOCHMAH' USED TO MAKE THE CURTAINS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> The Kerashim were grooved (most of the bottom 
          Amah was cut out, only two pegs stuck out, which fit into 
          the Adanim); the Adanim were hollow (each had a hole for 
          a peg of a Keresh); the clasps joining the loops [at the 
          end of each set of five lower curtains] could be seen, 
          like stars.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> The lower curtains were of [dyed wool of three 
          colors,] Techeiles, Argamon (purple), Tola'as Shani 
          (crimson) and linen;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The upper curtains were of goats' hair;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  The Chachmah used to make the upper curtains exceeded 
          that used for the lower curtains:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Regarding the lower curtains it says 'V'Chol Ishah 
               Chachmas Lev b'Yadeha Tavu';
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Regarding the upper curtains it says 'V'Chol 
               ha'Nashim Asher Nasa Liban Osana b'Chachmah Tavu Es 
               ha'Izim';
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Nechemyah):</font></b> They washed [the hair 
               while it was still] on the goats and they spun on 
               the goats.
<br>
<b><font>2) THE WIDTH OF THE WAGONS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If two ledges...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> The wagons, underneath them, between them and to 
          the sides of them were Reshus ha'Rabim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> The distance between wagons (side by side) was 
          equal to the length of the wagons.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What was the length of the wagons?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It was five Amos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Four and a half Amos would have sufficed! 
          (Tosfos - the boards lay on their thickness (one Amah); 
          only four fit across, for we must allow room for the 
          rings, which point to the side - still, four and a half 
          Amos would suffice. Rashi - alternatively, if they lie on 
          their width (one and a half Amos), three fit across; they 
          occupy only four and a half Amos (the rings point up or 
          down).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We do not want to force the boards to fit exactly 
          (Rashi - i.e. lay them on their width; Tosfos - we want 
          to leave extra room, so they will not press on each 
          other).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> The sides of the wagons (the thickness of the 
          wheel and the distance of the wheel from the interior of 
          the wagon; Rashi - and the thickness of the wall) was 
          equal to the width of the wagons. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What was the width of the wagons?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It was two and a half Amos. (Rashi - both sides 
          together equaled two and a half; Tosfos - each side was 
          two and a half.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> One and a half Amos would have sufficed (to 
          hold the ends (Tosfos; Rashi - middle) of the boards, and 
          they could have balanced)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They were two and a half in order that the boards 
          would not tilt to the side.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We learn from the Mishkan that Reshus ha'Rabim 
          is 16 Amos wide - the wagons occupied only 15 Amos 
          across! (There were five Amos between wagons, each wagon 
          was five Amos including its two sides (Rashi; Tosfos - 
          including its outer side - the two inner sides comprised 
          the five Amos between wagons).)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> There was an extra Amah for a Levi to walk to the 
          side, to fix the boards if they were about to fall into 
          the Amah between the piles. (Rashi - there was a 
          half-Amah for a Levi on each side; Tosfos - there was a 
          full Amah for one Levi on one side.)
<br>
<b><font>3) PUTTING SOMETHING ON 'CHULYAS HA'BOR'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Chulyas ha'Bor (a ring of dirt dug out 
          from a pit) or a rock around a pit is 10 tall and four 
          wide [it is Reshus ha'Yachid], and one takes an object 
          from it or puts on it, he is liable;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If it is less than 10 by four, he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> [We learn about taking from an 
          elevated place from the case of the rock, surely, Chulyas 
          ha'Bor teaches about a pit -] why didn't the Tana 
          directly say, a pit or a rock...?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This [teaches like, and thereby] supports R. 
          Yochanan:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> 1.	(R. Yochanan):</font></b> [The depression of] a pit and [the 
               height of] its Chulyah join with each other to 
               complete the Shi'ur of 10 [to make the pit a Reshus 
               ha'Yachid].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> If a pit in Reshus ha'Rabim is 10 deep 
          and four wide, one may not fill a jug with water from it 
          on Shabbos, unless there is a wall around it 10 tall;
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE WALLS OF A PIT</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Mishnah teaches that the height of the walls above and surrounding a pit join with the height of the pit itself to make a ten Tefachim height (so that the pit has a status of Reshus ha'Yachid). 
</p><p>
Does the <i>thickness</i> of the walls join with the internal diameter of the pit to make a combined width of four Tefachim so that the pit will be a Reshus ha'Yachid if the internal diameter of the pit itself is less than four Tefachim? 
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> here (DH Mitztarfin) says that the walls join to make a height of ten Tefachim, so that if someone took an object <i>from within</i> the pit and placed it outside the pit, he would be Chayav for Hotza'ah. This implies that if someone would take an object from atop the walls of the pit, he would <i>not</i> be Chayav. It seems, then, that Rashi maintains that the thickness of the walls does not join the width of the pit.
</p><p>
However, <b>RASHI</b> in Eruvin (78a, DH Mitztarefes) says that just like the height of the walls joins to make ten Tefachim, so, too, the width joins to make four Tefachim.
</p><p>
Perhaps Rashi learns like <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Mesayei'a) in our Sugya, who says that a pit joins with its walls to make a width of four Tefachim only if the wall itself is ten Tefachim high without the pit.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> says that the walls join to make a width of four Tefachim no matter how tall the walls are. (See also Rosh in Eruvin.)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAM</b> says that the walls of a pit do not join at all to make a width of four Tefachim. (See <b>RAV CHAIM HA'LEVI</b>, Hilchos Shabbos 14, who explains that the Rambam accepts the Yerushalmi's ruling that the walls join only if they are <i>wider than</i> the diameter of the pit. In such a case, the width of walls join to make the area on top into a Reshus ha'Yachid, because it is a usable area. The area between the walls themselves, though, is not considered to be Reshus ha'Yachid.) 
</p><p>
<br><font size='+1' color='darkblue'></font></p><font size='+1' color='darkblue'><center><b>99b----------------------------------------99b </b></center></font>
<p>
<font><b>2) THE AIRSPACE ABOVE A PILLAR IN 'RESHUS HA'RABIM'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara asks what the Halachah is in the following case. A person throws an object from Reshus ha'Rabim to the top of a pillar which is ten Tefachim high and four Tefachim wide (and thus has the status of a Reshus ha'Yachid). However, in order to land on the surface of the pillar, the object must travel through a Makom Petur. Is the person Chayav for such an act of Hotza'ah or not?
</p><p>
In the Gemara's case, at which point does the object travel through a Makom Petur?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that the object travels through a Makom Petur when it goes above ten Tefachim in Reshus ha'Rabim before it reaches the top of the pillar. The airspace higher than ten Tefachim above Reshus ha'Rabim is a Makom Petur. The airspace above of the pillar itself, though, is considered Reshus ha'Yachid until the sky. 
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> and <b>RITVA</b> explain that the top of the pillar itself is a Makom Petur. They explain that a pillar is a weaker type of Reshus ha'Yachid than other types because it does not have Mechitzos around its surface to make it distinguishable as a Reshus ha'Yachid.
</p><p>
<b>RABEINU CHAIM HA'LEVI</b> (Hilchos Sukah) points out that with regard to a Sukah (4b), Rashi explains that 'Mechitzos she'Einan Nikaros' (walls that are not recognizable; i.e., they exist only theoretically, as a result of a Halachic concept such as 'Gud Achis') are not sufficient as walls for a Sukah. A Sukah needs actual walls and not just theoretical ones. The Ritva and Rashba perhaps maintain that even with regard to the laws of domains on <i>Shabbos</i>, theoretical walls are not sufficient, and Gud Achis does not work to make the top surface of the pillar considered surrounded by four walls. Although the thickness of the pillar is four Tefachim, only the top of the pillar itself is considered a Reshus ha'Yachid and not the air above it, unless there are walls which can be viewed to extend up until the sky so that the area between them is considered Reshus ha'Rabim.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) AN OPEN VALLEY</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION: RASHI</b> (DH Mukaf l'Karmelis) implies that a Karpaf (open valley) that is larger than Beis Se'asayim becomes a Reshus ha'Yachid when it is fenced-in for the purpose of residential occupancy. If the Karpaf is smaller than Beis Se'asayim, it becomes a Reshus ha'Yachid when it is fenced-in even not for residential purposes. Rashi's words imply that a Karpaf that is larger than Beis Se'asayim and that was not fenced-in for residential purposes is considered a <i>Karmelis</i>. Rashi earlier (7a, 80a) reiterates his opinion that it is a Karmelis. However, this seems to contradict the Gemara earlier (7a), which says that such a Karpaf has the status of a <i>Reshus ha'Yachid</i> with the stringencies of a Karmelis. (<b>GILYON HA'SHAS</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The Acharonim (see <b>CHASAM SOFER</b>) explain that Rashi (7a, DH Kegon) emphasizes that a Karpaf that was not fenced-in for residential purposes is considered a Reshus ha'Yachid only <i>when it did not have any houses in it before the wall was erected around it</i>. These words imply that a house <i>was</i> built in the Karpaf <i>after</i> the wall was erected. Perhaps Rashi maintains that a fenced-in Karpaf is considered a Reshus ha'Yachid only when a house is later built inside the walls. If, however, no house is ever built inside the walls, the Karpaf remains a full-fledged Karmelis.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  One may not drink from it unless he sticks in his head 
          and majority [of his body into the pit];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  A pit and its Chulyah join for the Shi'ur of 10.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Mordechai):</font></b> If a pillar in Reshus ha'Rabim 
          is 10 tall and four wide, and one threw something and it 
          landed on it, what is the law?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Since Akirah and Hanachah were both from Makom Isur 
               (a place where Hotza'ah or Hachnasah is forbidden, 
               e.g. Reshus ha'Rabim or Reshus ha'Yachid), he is 
               liable;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Or, since it passed through Makom Patur (it was 
               above 10 before it landed), he is exempt?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah):</font></b> We learn from our Mishnah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  Rav Mordechai asked Rav Yosef, and then Abaye; both gave 
          him the same answer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Rav Mordechai:</font></b> You all give the same inadequate answer!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Abaye:</font></b> Surely you agree - the Mishnah says, if one takes 
          an object from it or puts on it, he is liable [even 
          though it passed through Makom Patur]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Rejection (Rav Mordechai):</font></b> Perhaps the Mishnah discusses 
          a needle (it was never above 10).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Even a needle [has some thickness, hence it] 
          had to be a bit above 10!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> The rock has a small hole [below 10] into 
          which the needle was inserted (a small hole in Reshus 
          ha'Yachid is like Reshus ha'Yachid).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> The rock has a crack [at the top] into which 
          the needle was inserted.
<br>
<b><font>4) SOMETHING THAT CHANGED STATUS ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Meisha citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> If there was a 
          Karmelis in Reshus ha'Rabim, and one surrounded it with a 
          wall 10 tall but less than four wide, making it Reshus 
          ha'Yachid, and one threw something and it landed on the 
          wall, what is the law?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Since it is not four wide, it is Makom Patur;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Or, since it made a Reshus ha'Yachid, it is as if 
               the interior is full [up to 10 Tefachim, so the wall 
               is also Reshus ha'Yachid]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (Ula):</font></b> Since it is a Mechitzah [by itself], and it 
          makes something else Reshus ha'Yachid, all the more so it 
          itself is Reshus ha'Yachid!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Ula's Halachah was also taught by Rav, and by R. Yitzchak 
          in the name of R. Yochanan.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question #1 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> If there was a pit in Reshus 
          ha'Rabim nine deep, and one removed dirt, completing it 
          to 10, and deposited the dirt in Reshus ha'Rabim, what is 
          the law?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If it becomes Reshus ha'Yachid at the very moment he 
               uproots the dirt, he is liable;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps [it is not Reshus ha'Yachid until after 
               the dirt is removed, so] he is exempt?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question #2 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> If you will say that since it 
          was not Reshus ha'Yachid from the beginning he is exempt, 
          what if the pit was 10 deep, and he threw in dirt, making 
          it less than 10?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It ceases to be Reshus ha'Yachid at the time of 
               Hanachah - is he liable in such a case?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> We can answer this from another teaching of 
          R. Yochanan!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> If one threw something four Amos at a 
               wall - if this was above 10, it is as if he threw in 
               the air; if this was below 10, it is as if he threw 
               on the ground. 
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> When it was below 10, why is he liable - 
               there was no Hanachah [outside of four Amos, for it 
               bounces back]!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The case is, he threw a fat 
               fig-cake [it stuck to the wall].
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Version #1 (Rashi) Question:</font></b> The thickness of the 
               fig-cake itself should be deducted from four Amos! 
               (Rather, we must say that he is liable because at 
               the beginning [when he threw] there were four Amos 
               until the wall, even though they were diminished at 
               the time of Hanachah.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Version #2 (Tosfos) Question:</font></b> The thickness of the 
               cake itself is Batul to the wall, that place loses 
               the law of [Reshus ha'Rabim, to Mechayev one who 
               throws at it] four Amos! (Rather, even though at the 
               end it is not Reshus ha'Rabim, he is liable because 
               when he threw it was Reshus ha'Rabim; (end of 
               Version #2)
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Likewise, regarding the pit he should be 
                    liable!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> No - here, he will not leave the cake there, 
          therefore it is not Batul;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Regarding the pit he will Mevatel the dirt 
               (therefore, perhaps he is exempt).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question (Rava):</font></b> If one threw a board and it landed on 
          pegs, what is the law? (Tosfos - there are already two 
          walls, after it lands it is considered as if there is 
          another Mechitzah on account of Pi Tikra Yored v'Sosem 
          (it is as if the edge of the board extends down to the 
          ground to make a Mechitzah).)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What does he ask about?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer #1:</font></b> He asks about when a Mechitzah is made at 
               the time of Hanachah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Objection:</font></b> That was R. Yochanan's question!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer #2:</font></b> Rava asks about throwing a board with an 
               object on it. (If you will say that in R. Yochanan's 
               case he is exempt because the Mechitzah was not 
               there from the beginning, likewise here he is exempt 
               for the board - is he liable for the object?)
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Since the Mechitzah is made at the time of 
                    Hanachah, he is exempt;
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> Or, since the board lands a bit before the 
                    object, the Mechitzah preceded Hanachah, he is 
                    liable!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  This question is not resolved.
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) WHAT IS CONSIDERED TO BE AT REST?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> The following is obvious to me - water on top of 
          water is considered Nach (if one takes some of the water 
          resting in a Kli or another place, this is considered 
          Akirah);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If a nut is floating on water, it is not Nach;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (Rava):</font></b> If a nut is in a vessel floating on 
          water, what is the law?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Do we focus on the nut in the vessel, and consider 
               it Munach?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Or, do we focus on the vessel in the water, and say 
               that it is not Munach, for it moves?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  This question is not resolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan ben Nuri and Chachamim argue about oil 
          floating on top of wine:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> If [Terumah] oil is floating on top of 
               [Terumah]wine and a Tevul Yom touched the oil, only 
               it is Nifsal (they are not considered connected, we 
               do not consider it as if he touched the wine; the 
               oil is only a Shelishi l'Tumah, it cannot Posel the 
               wine);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan ben Nuri says, they are connected (both 
               are Nifsalim).
<br>
<b><font>2) WHAT IS 'MEVATEL' A 'RESHUS'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> If a pit 10 deep and eight Tefachim wide is in 
          Reshus ha'Rabim, and one threw a mattress inside, he is 
          liable;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If the mattress divided it into two halves, he is 
               exempt [because each half is less than four wide. 
               (Me'iri - in this case he intended to leave the 
               mattress there to divide it; in the previous case, 
               even though 10 Tefachim do not remain above the 
               mattress, he had no intent for Bitul. Others explain 
               that really, the pit was deeper than 10, 10 Tefachim 
               remain above the mattress.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Abaye holds that a mattress is Mevatel a Reshus [even 
          though people usually do not leave it there] - all the 
          more so a Chulyah is Mevatel;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan asked whether or not a Chulyah is Mevatel - 
          surely, he holds that a mattress is not Mevatel!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> If a pit was 10 deep and four wide and one threw 
          something inside:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If the pit was full of water, he is liable; if it 
               was full of produce, he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Water is not Mevatel a Reshus (Rav Hai Gaon - the 
          Mechitzos are still noticeable), produce is Mevatel.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> If one threw from the sea into an 
          intercity road (from Karmelis to Reshus ha'Rabim) or 
          vice-versa, he is exempt;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon says, if there is a ditch 10 deep and four wide  
          [in the sea floor] in the place to or from which he 
          threw, he is liable (water is not Mevatel Reshus 
          ha'Yachid).
<br>
<b><font>3) 'CHIYUVIM' FOR THROWING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one threw something four Amos at a wall - 
          if this was above 10, it is as if he threw in the air (he 
          is exempt);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If this was below 10, it is as if he threw on the ground;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If one threw four Amos on the ground he is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> When it was below 10, why is he liable 
          - there was no Hanachah [outside of four Amos, for it 
          bounces back]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The case is, he threw a fat 
          fig-cake [it stuck to the wall].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> If one threw above 10 and it landed in a 
          small hole [less than four by four], R. Meir and 
          Chachamim argue about whether or not he is liable:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Meir says [regarding Mezuzah, and would also say 
               here] Chokekim Lehashlim (if there is a small hole 
               in something thick, we consider it as if the entire 
               thickness was carved out - therefore, if the wall is 
               four by four, it is as if the hole is four by four);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim do not say Chokekim Lehashlim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Support (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> If one threw above 10 and it 
          landed in a small hole, he is liable;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Chachamim exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> If the sides of a mound rise 10 Tefachim 
          over the course of four [horizontal] Amos (they are too 
          steep to walk up, they are considered Mechitzos), and one 
          threw something [in Reshus ha'Rabim] and it landed on 
          top, he is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> If a Mavuy is level but the opening to 
          Reshus ha'Rabim is sloped, or if it is sloped but the 
          opening to Reshus ha'Rabim is level, it does not require 
          a Lechi (vertical post) and Korah (horizontal beam) to 
          permit carrying inside it;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  R. Chanina ben Gamliel says, if the sides of a mound rise 
          10 Tefachim over the course of four Amos, and one threw 
          something and it landed on top, he is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one threw within four Amos and it Nisgalgel 
          (rolled; Rashi - was blown) outside of four Amos he is 
          exempt;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  If he threw outside of four Amos and it Nisgalgel inside 
          of four Amos, he is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> [In the Seifa,] why is he liable - 
          there was no Hanachah [outside four Amos]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The case is, it rested on something 
          [outside four Amos, then rolled back].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> If one threw outside of four Amos and 
          the wind blew it back inside four Amos, even if it later 
          took it outside four Amos, he is exempt;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b></b>  If the wind held it stationary for a moment, even if it 
          later blew it back inside four Amos, he is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> According to Chachamim (who do not say Kelutah 
          k'Mi she'Hunchah, they exempt one who threw from Reshus 
          ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Yachid through Reshus ha'Rabim), 
          if one threw within three Tefachim on the ground he is 
          exempt unless it landed on top of something.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Question (Ravina):</font></b> We already know this from our Mishnah! 
          R. Yochanan established that it rested on something 
          [outside four Amos, then rolled back - he did not simply 
          say that it was within three]!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THROWING AN OBJECT INTO A PIT TEN TEFACHIM DEEP</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Abaye says that one is Chayav when he throws a mat (from Reshus ha'Rabim) into a pit which is ten Tefachim deep and eight Tefachim wide, if the mat lands on the bottom of the pit. If the mat lands vertically in such a way that it divides the width of the pit and effectively divides it into two pits, each less than four Tefachim wide, then he is Patur. Rebbi Yochanan, though, is in doubt whether one is Patur in such a case, since the act of transferring from Reshus ha'Rabim to Reshus ha'Yachid occurred simultaneously with the obliteration of the Reshus ha'Yachid.
</p><p>
Why does Abaye say that one is Chayav in the first case? There, too, the thrower obliterated the Reshus ha'Yachid -- by diminishing the depth of the pit -- at the same time that he threw the mat into the pit!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> (see also <b>MAHARAM</b>) explains that when one throws the mat into a pit, he <i>uses</i> the pit in the normal manner in which it is meant to be used. In such a case, only when the pit is filled completely does it lose its status as a Reshus ha'Yachid. In contrast, when a person throws the mat into the pit and it becomes a vertical divider, his use of the pit is not the normal manner of use (storage), and therefore it effectively diminishes the dimensions of the pit.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> explains that, normally, in both cases -- when the mat lands horizontally and when it lands vertically -- the use of the pit is considered to be the normal manner of use, and in neither case should the pit lose its status. The second case (when the mat lands vertically) refers to a case in which the thrower <i>explicitly</i> expressed his intent to diminish the dimensions of the pit by leaving the mat there. Consequently, if he did <i>not</i> express his intent, then the pit does <i>not</i> become nullified, even if the mat lands vertically.
</p><p>
(c) <b>RASHI</b> does not explicitly discuss why Abaye says that one is Chayav in the first case. Rashi merely says that it is obvious that one is Chayav, and Abaye mentions it only because of the second case. Rashi clearly does not learn the Gemara in the same way as the Ritva and Rashba (who learn that there is a Chidush even in the first case). Rashi seems to understand that the depth of the pit was actually greater than ten Tefachim, and Abaye mentions 'ten' only because that is the measurement that is needed to make a Reshus ha'Yachid. The eight Tefachim in the width, though, is exact.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) A PIT FULL OF WATER</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Abaye states that one is Chayav when he throws an object from Reshus ha'Rabim into a pit that is ten Tefachim deep and four Tefachim wide and is full of water, because water does not 'nullify the walls' of the pit. The Gemara cites proof for Abaye's ruling from a Beraisa. In the Beraisa, the Rabanan rule that when one throws an object from Reshus ha'Rabim into the sea, he is Patur. Rebbi Shimon says that if the object falls into an area in the sea which is ten Tefachim deep and four Tefachim wide, he is Chayav. We see from Rebbi Shimon's opinion that water inside a pit does not nullify the pit.
</p><p>
What is the Gemara's proof for Abaye's opinion? While Rebbi Shimon's ruling may support Abaye's ruling, the Rabanan argue with it! The Rabanan apparently maintain that water <i>does</i> nullify the walls of the pit so that it is no longer considered a Reshus ha'Yachid.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> explains that Rebbi Shimon does not argue with the Rabanan; rather he adds to their ruling. The Rabanan refer to a case in which there was no pit in the sea, and Rebbi Shimon adds that if there was a pit in the sea into which the object fell, the thrower would be Chayav (even according to the Rabanan).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RA'AVAD</b> (Hilchos Shabbos 14:6) explains that the Rabanan argue with Rebbi Shimon only in the case in which a <i>sea</i> covers the pit, and the water is not only inside the pit but above it as well. The water, therefore, serves to eliminate the presence of the pit. When the pit is on dry land, though, the Rabanan agree with Rebbi Shimon that the water inside of the pit does not nullify it.
</p><p>
There are a number of ways to understand the Ra'avad's explanation:
</p><p>
1. The most straightforward interpretation of the Ra'avad's words is that the water that covers the walls of the pit obliterate its Mechitzos, since they are no longer on the surface.
</p><p>
2. Some Rishonim (<b>RASHBA</b>, <b>RAMBAN</b>) apparently understand that the reason why water does not nullify the walls of a pit is because the walls are still visible. When a pit is filled with objects, such as fruit, the objects nullify the walls of the pit because the walls are no longer visible (<b>MAGID MISHNEH</b>). Perhaps this is also the intention of the Ra'avad. The Rabanan maintain that a pit in the sea is not considered a Reshus ha'Yachid because the walls are not visible, due to the abundance of water on top of it. They agree, however, that a pit full of water on dry land <i>is</i> considered a Reshus ha'Yachid, because its walls are visible.
</p><p>
3. The <b>RAN</b> explains that since the sea that covers the pit is a Karmelis, the object first landed in a Karmelis before it entered the pit, and therefore the thrower is exempt.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Shabbos 14:6) explains that the argument in the Beraisa involves a pit that is in the sea. Since the sea is a Karmelis, the Rabanan maintain that the pit in the Karmelis is also considered a Karmelis, even though it has the dimensions of a Reshus ha'Yachid. Rebbi Shimon maintains that even though the pit is located in a Karmelis, it still retains its status of a Reshus ha'Yachid. The Rabanan agree that on dry land, a pit filled with water is still considered a Reshus ha'Yachid.
</p><p>
The Rishonim (see Ra'avad) argue with the Rambam's assertion that a pit in a Karmelis is not considered a Reshus ha'Yachid. It seems that the Rambam himself retracts his opinion as well (and thus his answer to our question is also retracted). The <b>RASHBA</b> cites a letter written by the Rambam to the scholars of Lunil in which he writes that a mistake was made in the reproduction of the Mishneh Torah. Instead of saying that a pit that is ten Tefachim deep and four Tefachim wide is not a Reshus ha'Yachid if it is in a Karmelis, it should read that a pit that is ten Tefachim deep and <i>not</i> four Tefachim wide is not a Reshus ha'Yachid in a Karmelis. 
</p><p>


<font><b>3) A PIT FULL OF FRUIT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Abaye states that when one fills a pit with fruit, the fruit serves to annul the walls of the pit ('Mevatel Mechitzos'), and the pit is no longer considered Reshus ha'Yachid. This ruling seems to contradict the Gemara earlier (99b) that says that if a person throws a fig that sticks to a wall four Amos away, he is Chayav, because the fig does not become part of the wall to which it is affixed and does not diminish the four-Amah distance between the thrower and the wall. Here, however, the fruit is considered to become part of the pit so that it fills the pit and eliminates it. Why is the fig on the wall different than the fruit in the pit in this respect?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Peiros) answers that when one throws a fig onto the side of a wall, he does not leave the fig to become subordinate to the wall the way that one leaves fruit to become subordinate to a pit. Perhaps Tosfos' intention is, as the <b>RAMBAN</b> maintains, that since the fig eventually will fall off of the wall, it does not become part of the wall. The fruit, however, will remain in the pit indefinitely until someone removes it.
</p><p>
(b) Tosfos suggests further that a small amount of fruit (such as the fig stuck to the wall) does not become part of the wall. However, when a lot of fruit is placed in a pit, the fruit becomes part of the pit and nullifies the walls of the pit.
</p><p>
It seems that <b>RASHI</b> (DH Chayav) agrees with this approach. He adds, however, that only when the pit is <i>entirely</i> filled with fruit does that fruit serve to annul the walls of the pit. If the pit is not completely filled with fruit, then the pit is still considered to be in existence and is a Reshus ha'Yachid.
</p><p>
(c) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> and the <b>RAMBAN</b> explain that the Gemara earlier does not mean that the fig does not become part of the wall. Rather, it becomes part of the wall (like the fruit becomes part of the pit) only <i>after</i> it lands on the wall. After it has landed, the distance from the wall to the person is measured from the end of the fruit (and thus it will be less than four Amos). At the time that he threw the fig, though, there were exactly four Amos between him and the point on the wall where the fig landed. The Gemara here, too, refers to a case in which one threw an object into a pit that was already filled with fruit. The fruit diminishes the measurements of the pit so that when the person throws another object into the pit, he has not thrown into a Reshus ha'Yachid.
</p><p>
(d) The Ramban cites an answer in the name of <b>TOSFOS</b> who says that when the Gemara says that fruit serves to nullify the walls of the pit, it refers to fruit of Tevel. Since one may not move Tevel on Shabbos, the fruit must remain in the pit and thus the pit is considered to be nullified. The fig, though, is not Tevel, and since it may be moved on Shabbos it does not become part of the wall.
</p><p>
(e) The <b>TOSFOS RID</b> explains that the two Sugyos indeed argue which each other. The Gemara here maintains that fruit does serve to annul the walls of the pit, while the earlier Gemara maintains that fruit does not serve to annul the walls of the pit.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Answer (Mereimar):</font></b> Our Mishnah is when it Nisgalgel - 
          then, it will not stop (therefore he is exempt unless it 
          rested on something);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rava teaches about when it is not Misgalgel - since 
               it will stop, he is liable even if it did not rest 
               on something!
<br>
<b><font>4) INCONVENIENT PLACES TO WALK</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one throws four Amos at sea, he is exempt;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If many people walk through [gravel covered by] a puddle, 
          one who throws four Amos in it is Chayav.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The puddle discussed is less than 10 Tefachim (Ritva - if 
          it is deeper than 10 it is a Reshus ha'Yachid; Rashi - it 
          is Karmelis; Mishnah Berurah (345 48) - perhaps Rashi 
          agrees that mid'Oraisa it is Reshus ha'Yachid);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  If one throws into a puddle that many people walk 
          through, he is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> We understand why the Mishnah mentions 
          'walking' twice - this teaches that walking with 
          difficulty is considered walking, but usage with 
          difficulty is not considered usage;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> But why does it mention 'puddle' twice?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rava):</font></b> This is to teach that this applies in 
          summer and winter:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Had it only taught about summer, we would have 
               thought that that is because people often go there 
               to cool off (but in winter it is not Reshus 
               ha'Rabim);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Had it only taught about winter, we would have 
               thought that that is because people's garments are 
               dirty anyway, so people often go there (but in 
               summer it is not Reshus ha'Rabim).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> This is to teach that this is even if 
          it is four Amos:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One might have thought that it is Reshus ha'Rabim 
               only if it is less than four Amos, but if it is four 
               Amos, people go around it and do not go through it - 
               the repetition teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> This is to teach that this is even 
          if it is less than four (Rashi - Amos; Rambam - 
          Tefachim):
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One might have thought that it is Reshus ha'Rabim 
               only if it is four, but if it is less, people step 
               over it and do not go through it - the repetition 
               teaches that this is not so. (Rashash questions 
               Rashi, for even three Amos is too big to step over. 
               Rashi himself (113B) says that the size of a normal 
               step is one Amah. This is not difficult for the 
               Rambam - since a person's foot is about half an 
               Amah, if the puddle is four Tefachim, if one takes 
               normal steps, part of his foot will be in the 
               puddle.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  This is like Rav Ashi taught elsewhere:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Ashi):</font></b> If one threw something and it landed on 
               a plank of a bridge that is not in line with the 
               others, [even though some people skip over it, since 
               others walk on it] he is liable.
<br>
<b><font>5) TRANSFERRING BETWEEN A SHIP AND THE SEA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one throws from the sea to the land or 
          vice-versa, or from the sea to a ship or vice-versa, or 
          from one ship to another, he is exempt;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If ships are tied to each other, one may carry from one 
          to the other; if they are not tied, even if they are near 
          each other, one may not carry from one to the other.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Rav Huna):</font></b> If one extends a ledge of any size 
          out of a Sefinah (ship), he may draw water from the sea 
          (this will be explained);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna):</font></b> He must extend an 
          area four by four [Tefachim, surrounded by short walls] 
          to permit drawing water.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  (All agree that Karmelis extends up to 10 Tefachim, above 
          this is Makom Patur.) Rav Huna says that a ledge of any 
          size suffices - he holds that Karmelis begins at the sea 
          floor, the air above the water is Makom Patur;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Letter of the law, he does not need any ledge to 
               draw water - it is required for a mere Heker (so 
               people will not take from a proper Karmelis).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Rav Chisda and Rabah require an area four by four - they 
          hold that Karmelis begins at the surface of the water, 
          all the water is like a thick floor;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he will not make an area four by four, he takes 
               from Karmelis to Reshus ha'Yachid!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Rav Huna says that a ledge of any 
          size suffices - sometimes the water is shallow, i.e. less 
          than 10 Tefachim above the sea floor, and he takes from 
          Karmelis to Reshus ha'Yachid!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah bar Avuha):</font></b> We have a tradition - 'Sefinah' 
          refers to a big ship that does not go in water less than 
          10 Tefachim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The prow (front) of the ship is above the 
          water, there the water can be less than 10 (perhaps one 
          will draw from there)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Safra):</font></b> People at the prow hold poles in the 
          water and feel for the ground to ensure that the ship 
          will not go into water less than 10 [lest it get stuck].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> Rav Chisda and Rabah 
          require an area four by four - according to them, how may 
          one dump wastewater out of a ship?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps they spill it out of the four by 
               four area for drawing water!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> If so, he would despise that place (he 
               would not draw water from there any more)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He pours the water on the side of the ship, it 
          descends to the sea by itself.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Even though he does not pour it directly into 
          the sea, his Ko'ach (impetus) causes it to go to the sea!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Chachamim did not forbid Ko'ach regarding 
          Karmelis.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>4) THE SEA IS A 'KARMELIS'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that a sea is considered a Karmelis. The <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> (345:49) points out that it seems that a sea should be considered a Reshus ha'Yachid. After all, it is more than four by four Tefachim wide, and at any side it has a slope that descends so that the floor of the sea is at least ten Tefachim deep. Why, then, is the sea not considered a Reshus ha'Yachid, with the slope at its sides considered its Mechitzos?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAGEN AVRAHAM</b> (345:13) answers that the slope that descends to the seabed is considered a Mechitzah only when it slopes to a depth of ten Tefachim <i>within</i> a distance of four Amos (as the Gemara says on 100a). The sea under discussion is one that does not have such a steep slope.
</p><p>


(b) The <b>ME'IRI</b> and <b>RITVA</b> (in Eruvin 22a) explain that even if the walls of the sea do descend steeply, the sea cannot be considered a Reshus ha'Yachid because its walls are so far apart from each other.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) KO'ACH IS PERMITTED REGARDING KARMELIS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source [that Chachamim did not 
          forbid Ko'ach regarding Karmelis]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> One may not transfer from a ship to the 
          sea or vice-versa;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, if the ship is 10 deep (it is 
               Reshus ha'Yachid) but the deck is not 10 above the 
               water, one may transfer from it to the sea but not 
               vice-versa.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Surely, one may not transfer from the sea 
               to it for this is from a Karmelis to a Reshus 
               ha'Yachid - also the other direction should be 
               forbidden!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> We must say that R. Yehudah permits pouring 
               on the side of the ship because it descends to the 
               sea by itself.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> This shows that Ko'ach is permitted regarding 
               aKarmelis.
<br>
<b><font>2) GUD ACHIS MECHITZTA </font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> In a small boat of Meishan (the sides slope 
          and meet at the bottom, like a 'V' shape), one may carry 
          only within four Amos;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is only if it is not four wide within three 
               Tefachim of the bottom [for then its walls are like 
               hanging Mechitzos, which are invalid] - but if it is 
               this wide, one may carry on the whole boat (it is as 
               if the Mechitzos extend to the bottom).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> [Even if it is not four wide near the bottom,] if 
               the bottom [until it is four wide] was filled with 
               reeds and thin willow branches, one may carry on the 
               whole boat.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Nachman):</font></b> We should say Gud Achis Mechitzta 
          (it is as if the wall extends downward, from where it is 
          four wide)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah):</font></b> If one inserted 
               a pole in Reshus ha'Rabim with a basket (four by 
               four) on top, and one threw something (from Reshus 
               ha'Rabim) and it landed on the basket, he is liable.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The basket is Reshus ha'Yachid on account of Gud 
               Achis - likewise here we should say Gud Achis!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Rav Yehudah taught that Chachamim 
          [argue with R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, and] exempt!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> Surely, you agree with Gud Achis!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> If a pillar in Reshus ha'Yachid is 10 
               tall and four wide, but at the bottom it is less 
               than four wide, [even] if the narrow part is three 
               Tefachim tall [so Lavud does not apply], if one 
               threw [from Reshus ha'Rabim] and it landed on top of 
               it, he is liable.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This shows that we say Gud Achis!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Regarding the basket Chachamim do not say Gud Achis 
               because goats can stick their heads through [the 
               projected extension of the walls] - this does not 
               apply to the pole (goats are not wont to come close 
               to scratch themselves on it) or the boat!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Acha):</font></b> Regarding the boat, 
          fish can break through [the projected extension of the 
          walls]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> We are concerned for penetration of 
          goats, not of fish (for they are covered by the water).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source of this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer - Question (R. Tavla):</font></b> Does a hanging Mechitzah 
          permit carrying in a ruined house?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Answer (Ravin):</font></b> Chachamim gave this leniency only in 
               water.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE SMALL BOATS ON THE MEISHAN RIVER</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara states that one may not carry an object more than four Amos in small boats (canoes, according to <b>RASHI</b>) on Shabbos, because the boat becomes four Tefachim wide only <i>above</i> a height of three Tefachim from the floor of the boat, and thus the boat is not considered a Reshus ha'Yachid.
</p><p>
Even though the boat is not a Reshus ha'Yachid, it should also not be considered a Karmelis, because a Karmelis also must be four Tefachim wide. Rather, the boat should be considered a Makom Petur, and it should not be forbidden to carry within it! (<b>TOSFOS</b> DH Hani)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> answers that the Rabanan consider an area a Karmelis even if it does not have walls that are four Tefachim apart that <i>reach the ground</i>, even though the walls must reach the ground in order to be defined as a Reshus ha'Yachid. The <b>SEFAS EMES</b> adds that although a Karmelis must have an <i>area</i> of four by four Tefachim, it does not need <i>Mechitzos</i> that enclose the area in order for it to be a Karmelis.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> quotes his Rebbi, the <b>RE'AH</b>, who says that, indeed, even in a Makom Petur one is forbidden to carry an object four Amos! Even though we find that one is permitted to carry from a Makom Petur to a Reshus ha'Yachid or to a Reshus ha'Rabim, and from those domains to a Makom Petur, one is permitted only to <i>transfer</i> an object between domains. Within the Makom Petur itself, though, one is forbidden to carry four Amos.
</p><p>
(c) Since the boat constantly moves, it is not considered to be a Reshus of its own (a Makom Petur). Rather, it is subordinate to the sea on which it floats, which is a Karmelis. Hence, the boat is a Karmelis and one may not carry four Amos in a Karmelis. However, if the boat would have the proper dimensions to be considered a Reshus ha'Yachid, it would not be subordinate to the sea, because a Reshus ha'Yachid is always significant unto itself. (M. Kornfeld, based on the <b>RASHBA</b> to 5a)
</p><p>
(d) <b>TOSFOS</b> argues with Rashi and gives a completely different explanation for the Gemara. The Gemara is not discussing a canoe, but rather a floatation device that looks like an open raft or dinghy. The middle of the raft is open and has no floor. It is partially submerged, and people sit partially submerged on the bench-like perimeter of the raft. The raft itself is more than four by four Tefachim wide. (In accordance with his definition of the small boat, Tosfos understands many points in the Gemara completely differently).
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Fish can penetrate!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> This shows that we are not concerned for 
               penetration of fish.
<br>
<b><font>3) SHIPS TIED TOGETHER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If ships are tied to each other [one may carry 
          from one to the other].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This is obvious!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rava):</font></b> The Chidush is, one may even carry from 
          one to a small boat in between them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Safra):</font></b> It says, one may carry from <i>one 
          to the other</i> [implying that there are only two]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Safra):</font></b> It teaches that [even if different 
          people own the ships,] they may make an Eiruv and carry 
          from one to the other:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> If ships are tied to each other, one may 
               make an Eiruv and carry from one to the other;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If they became separate, it is forbidden;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> If they were tied to each other again, they are 
               permitted like before, whether they were tied 
               b'Shogeg (he forgot that it is Shabbos or that tying 
               is forbidden), b'Mezid, through Ones, or Misasek 
               (engaged in tying something else).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  The same applies to mats spread [for Mechitzos] in Reshus 
          ha'Rabim, one may make an Eiruv and carry from one 
          [resulting Reshus ha'Yachid] to the other;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If the mats were rolled up (they are no longer 
               Mechitzos), one may not carry;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If they were spread again, they are permitted like 
               before, whether they were spread b'Shogeg, b'Mezid, 
               b'Ones, or Misasek (l'Chatchilah, one may not make a 
               Mechitzah on Shabbos to permit something);
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Any Mechitzah made on Shabbos, whether Shogeg or 
               Mezid, is considered a Mechitzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But Rav Nachman taught that they are Mechitzos 
          only regarding throwing (to obligate one who throws to 
          there from Reshus ha'Rabim, for mid'Oraisa they are 
          Mechitzos), but they do not permit carrying inside!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He refers only to Mezid (this is a fine. Above, 
          we said 'whether Shogeg, Mezid, Ones...' - really, all of 
          these are Mechitzos for throwing, but Mezid does not 
          permit carrying. Tosfos - the fine is only when the 
          Mechitzah makes Reshus ha'Yachid - if it was already 
          Reshus ha'Yachid, and the Mechitzah is required 
          mid'Rabanan, it is valid even if made b'Mezid.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> [It is permitted] even if the ships are tied 
          with a drawstring of a cloak.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the case?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If the string can hold them together, this is 
               obvious!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If it cannot hold them together, it should be 
               forbidden!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Really, it can hold them together - Shmuel 
          teaches that another of his teachings does not apply 
          here:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Version #1 (our text) (Mishnah):</font></b> If a ship was tied 
               with something that can hold it [and one end was in 
               Ohel ha'Mes], it brings Tum'ah to the whole boat.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Shmuel):</font></b> This is if it was tied with an iron chain.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Shmuel requires an iron chain only regarding Tum'ah, 
               for it says 'Ba'Chalal Cherev' - a sword [or any 
               metal Kli exposed to Tum'as Mes] is like a corpse 
               (it is Avi Avos ha'Tum'ah, it makes an Av ha'Tum'ah) 
               - but regarding Shabbos, anything that holds them 
               together suffices, even a drawstring.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Version #2 (Tosfos) (Mishnah):</font></b> If a ship was tied 
               with something that can hold it [and Tum'as Mes was 
               underneath it], it brings Tum'ah to [underneath] the 
               whole boat. 
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> (Shmuel):</font></b> This is if it was tied with an iron chain.
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> Shmuel requires a solid chain only regarding Tum'ah, 
               so it will not be a moving Ohel, which does not 
               bring Tum'ah - but regarding Shabbos, anything that 
               keeps them together suffices, even a drawstring.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE BREACH OF FISH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara explains that the presence of fish that swim under a wall that hangs over a body of water is not considered to breach that wall. Even the area under the wall is still considered to be an extension of the wall ('Gud Achis'). The Gemara cites proof for this from a statement of Rav, who says that a 'hanging Mechitzah' (a wall that does not reach the ground) is not considered to extend downward except when it is over water, and this is a 'leniency with regard to water which the Chachamim permitted.' It must be that the fact that fish swim under the wall does not invalidate the presence of the Halachic extension of the wall. 
</p><p>
If the presence of fish is not considered a breach in the Halachic wall, then why does Rav call this a '<i>leniency</i> with regard to water'? It is not a leniency, but rather it is m'Ikar ha'Din!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>RITVA</b> answers that, in truth, the presence of fish should be considered a breach in the Halachic wall, for two reasons. First, the presence of fish should be no different than the presence of any other animal (such as goats, and 'Gediyim Bok'in Bah' does create a breach in a Mechitzah (Eruvin 14a). Second, fish swim under the hanging wall more frequently and with greater ease than animals that crawl under a wall that hangs over land. Nevertheless, the Chachamim were lenient and applied the rule of Gud Achis because fish are not visible, as Rashi mentions here.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) ONE WHO REMEMBERED IN THE MIDDLE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one threw [something b'Shogeg] and 
          remembered [that it was Shabbos] after it left his hand, 
          and someone else or a dog caught it, or it burned in the 
          air, he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If one threw to wound a person or animal, and remembered 
          [the Isur Shabbos] before it made the wound, he is 
          exempt;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The general rule is, one is not Chayav Chatas unless he 
          was Shogeg at the beginning and at the end;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he was Shogeg at the beginning and Mezid at the 
               end, or Mezid at the beginning and Shogeg at the 
               end, he is not liable unless he was Shogeg at the 
               beginning and the end.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Inference:</font></b> Had it [not been caught or burned, 
          rather,] landed, he would be liable, even though he 
          remembered before it landed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question (Seifa):</font></b> One is not Chayav Chatas unless he was 
          Shogeg at the beginning and at the end.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Kahana):</font></b> The Seifa discusses throwing a 
          clasp on a rope (he holds the rope and could stop the 
          clasp - therefore, if he remembers before it lands, it is 
          as if he threw [partially] b'Mezid).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> If he threw a clasp on a rope [and holds the 
          rope] it is Agud b'Yado (he is exempt in any case)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, he intended to wound (Agud b'Yado 
          exempts only regarding Hotza'ah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> The Mishnah already teaches that explicitly!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> If one threw to wound, and remembered 
               before it made the wound, he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> The Seifa discusses Ma'avir (carrying).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> Surely, the general rule of the Seifa refers 
          to throwing (for the entire Mishnah discussed throwing)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Rava):</font></b> The Reisha discusses two cases:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If one threw and remembered after it left his hand, 
               or even if he did not remember, and someone else or 
               a dog caught it, or it burned in the air, he is 
               exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #4 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> The Mishnah is abbreviated, it 
          means as follows 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If one threw and remembered after it left his hand, 
               and someone else or a dog caught it, or it burned in 
               the air, he is exempt;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Had it landed, he would be liable.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> This is if he later forgot again - but if he did not 
               forget again he is exempt, for one is not Chayav 
               Chatas unless he was Shogeg at the beginning and at 
               the end.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The general rule is, one is not Chayav 
          Chatas...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Rabah):</font></b> If he was Shogeg while the object went two Amos, 
          was Mezid during the next two Amos, and Shogeg during two 
          Amos after that, he is exempt;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> He is liable.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rabah):</font></b> Even R. Gamliel, who says that Yedi'ah 
               (finding out) after half a Shi'ur has no effect, 
               would exempt here - he obligates only when one 
               completes the Shi'ur b'Shogeg, here he was Mezid at 
               the end!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What case does Rabah discuss?
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  He cannot discuss throwing - there, he is 
                    considered Shogeg (since even when he 
                    remembered in the middle, he could not stop 
                    it)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> He discusses Ma'avir.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> Even Chachamim, who say that Yedi'ah after half a 
          Shi'ur exempts, would Mechayev here - they exempt only 
          when one can refrain from completing the Shi'ur, he 
          cannot!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What case does Rava discuss? 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He cannot discuss Ma'avir - there, also, he could 
               refrain from completing the Shi'ur!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He discusses throwing.
<br>
<b><font>2) SOMETHING CAUGHT IN MIDAIR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> If one threw and it landed in the mouth of a dog 
          or in an oven, he is liable. (He was Shogeg the entire 
          time, or Mezid the entire time.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> ...If someone else or a dog caught 
          it, or it burned in the air, he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That is when he did not intend for it to be 
          caught or burned - Rava obligates when he intended for 
          this.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Support (Rav Bivi bar Abaye - Mishnah):</font></b> One can be liable 
          four Chata'os and an Asham for one eating [slightly more 
          than a k'Zayis] - a Tamei person who ate on Yom Kipur 
          Chelev that was Nosar from Kodshim;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Meir says, if it was also Shabbos and he was 
               Motzi the food in his mouth, he is also liable for 
               Hotza'ah!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Chachamim:</font></b> That Chatas is not for eating.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> It is not normal to be Motzi in the mouth!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Since he intends to eat, he makes the mouth 
               a proper way to be Motzi
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> (Culmination of the support):</font></b> Here also, since he 
               intended for it to be caught or burned, he makes the 
               recipient a proper place for Hanachah!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) FORGETTING AND REMEMBERING IN THE MIDST OF A SIN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah says that if a person forgets that it is Shabbos and throws or carries an object from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim, and before the object lands he remembers that it is Shabbos, he is exempt. This is because he did not begin and end the Melachah while he was unaware that it was Shabbos. Rather, he only began the Melachah unaware that it was Shabbos. When the Melachah was completed, though, he was aware that it was Shabbos.
</p><p>
In the Gemara, Rava explains that the Mishnah is teaching two cases. First, if a person <i>throws</i> an object from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim and he remembers in mid-flight that it is Shabbos, he is exempt. Second, if a person <i>carries</i> from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim and remembers that it is Shabbos before he comes to a stop in Reshus ha'Rabim, he is exempt (this is the case that the Mishnah expresses with the words, 'Zeh ha'Klal...').
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Ela Amar Rava) explains that according to Rava, the Mishnah teaches that one is exempt in a case in which he throws an object (when he remembers in mid-flight that it is Shabbos), and the Mishnah adds that one is also exempt in a case in which he <i>carries</i> an object. The Mishnah needs to add the case of carrying, because we would not have known that one is exempt in that case.
</p><p>
This is difficult to understand, because it seems that the opposite should be true. Once the Mishnah teaches that one is exempt from the obligation to bring a Korban Chatas when he <i>throws</i> an object and remembers in mid-flight that it is Shabbos, it is obvious that he is exempt when he <i>carries</i> the object and then remembers that it is Shabbos. Since he is able to stop the action and avoid the Melachah when he remembers that it is Shabbos, but nevertheless he continues and does the Melachah anyway, his act is considered intentional and he is certainly exempt from a Korban Chatas, as the Gemara says. In contrast, when he <i>throws</i> an object into Reshus ha'Rabim, he is unable to retract his act, and thus we would have thought that even though he remembers that it is Shabbos, his act is still considered to have been done fully unknowingly, since he cannot retract it. Why, then, does the Mishnah need to add that one is exempt when he remembers in the middle of carrying, if the Mishnah already teaches that one is exempt when he remembers in the middle of throwing?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>MAHARSHA</b> (to Tosfos DH Ela) asks this question and offers the following answer. If the Mishnah had not added, 'Zeh ha'Klal,' we might have thought that one who inadvertently throws an object on Shabbos and then, before the object lands, remembers that it is Shabbos is <i>Chayav</i>. When the Mishnah says that one is exempt when he throws the object and then remembers that it is Shabbos, we might have thought that it refers to a case in which the person remembered, after he threw the object, that it was Shabbos <i>and</i> the object was caught by a dog (that is, the Mishnah is teaching <i>one</i> case and not several different cases). The reason why he is exempt is because the dog caught the object and it never came to rest where the thrower intended.
</p><p>
The second case in the Mishnah, in which one threw an object with intention to inflict a wound, refers to an object that was attached to one end of a rope, while the thrower is still holding the other end. Since he is able to pull back the object in mid-flight and prevent himself from doing the act of Melachah, if he remembers that it is Shabbos he is exempt.
</p><p>
However, we still would not have known that one who throws an object on Shabbos which he <i>cannot</i> retract is exempt if he remembers that it is Shabbos before the object lands. We would have assumed that it is like any other act of Shogeg, and he is Chayav to bring a Chatas. Accordingly, once the end of the Mishnah ('Zeh ha'Klal') reiterates that one is exempt when he remembers that it is Shabbos while he carries an object, we are forced to re-examine our interpretation of the Mishnah. Why does the Mishnah need to repeat this law? It must be that the beginning of the Mishnah indeed discusses a case in which one threw an object and remembered the prohibition while it was in mid-flight, and it teaches that he is exempt even when the object is <i>not</i> caught by a dog. (That is, the first part of the Mishnah discusses <i>two</i> distinct cases, and not one case.) The Mishnah's additional teaching of 'Zeh ka'Klal' refers to a case of <i>carrying</i>, which was not discussed separately in the Mishnah.
</p><p>
In summary, had the Mishnah not taught 'Zeh ha'Klal,' we might have thought that one who <i>throws</i> is Chayav, and that the Mishnah does not discuss such a case. The 'Zeh ha'Klal' teaches that one who throws is exempt. The first case of the Mishnah refers to an ordinary case of throwing and remembering, while the 'Zeh ha'Klal' refers to walking with an object and remembering the prohibition while walking.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
</p><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>***** <b>PEREK HA'BONEH</b> *****
</b></font></center><p>
<b><font>3) BUILDING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah) Question:</font></b> How much must one build to be liable?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One is liable for any amount of building, 
          smoothing rocks, making a final blow with a hammer 
          (Tosfos - to finish a Kli; Rashi - to quarry a rock) or 
          hatchet, or drilling;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The general rule is - on Shabbos, one is liable for any 
          Melachah that lasts (i.e. sometimes one does not do more 
          than this).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, even one who bangs a hammer 
          on an anvil [and not on the Kli being made] while making 
          the Kli is liable, for this improves the final product 
          (this will be explained).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> [If one builds] a tiny amount, what 
          use does it have?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Yirmiyah):</font></b> A poor person digs a tiny hole 
          to hide his Perutos (small coins);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Correspondingly in the Mishkan, people who sewed 
               curtains dug tiny holes to hide needles.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> They would not do so, lest the needles 
          rust!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> A poor person makes legs (e.g. a 
          tripod) for a small oven on which he rests a pot;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Correspondingly, if they needed to dye a bit more 
               wool for curtains, they would make legs for a small 
               oven on which to rest a small pot.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Acha bar Yakov):</font></b> In the place of wealth 
          (Hekdesh), we do not conduct like paupers (from the 
          beginning they prepared all materials in abundance)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Rav Acha bar Yakov):</font></b> If one has a small hole 
          in his house, he fills it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Correspondingly, if a worm ate a hole in a board, 
               they melted lead into it to fill it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> If one sets a rock [in a foundation for a 
          building] he is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> If Reuven put a rock down and Shimon 
          put the mud [to cement it in place], Shimon is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Counter-question:</font></b> [Sometimes] one is liable even without 
          setting it!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Seifa - R. Yosi):</font></b> Even if he lifted it and put it 
               on a row of rocks [to make a wall], he is liable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Resolution:</font></b> There are three levels of rocks:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Foundation rocks must be set and need dirt (one is 
               not liable without this); intermediate rocks also 
               need mud; upper rocks merely need to be placed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Smoothing rocks.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> For which Av is he liable?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav):</font></b> He is liable for building.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Shmuel):</font></b> He is liable for Makeh b'Patish.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> If one makes a hole in a chicken coop, he is 
          liable for building;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(t)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> He is liable for Makeh b'Patish.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(u)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> If one drives a peg into the handle of a hoe (so 
          the blade will not fall off), he is liable for building;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(v)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> He is liable for Makeh b'Patish.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(w)</font></b></b>  The argument had to be taught in all three cases:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If we only taught about smoothing rocks, one might 
               have thought that there Rav is Mechayev for 
               building, for it is the normal way of building, but 
               not for making a hole in a chicken coop;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If we only taught about a hole in a chicken coop, 
               one might have thought that there Rav is Mechayev 
               for building, for it is made for air and resembles 
               building, but not for driving a peg into a handle;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> If we only taught regarding driving in a peg, one 
               might have thought that Shmuel would agree in the 
               other cases, for they are [or resemble] the normal 
               way of building.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) A MELACHAH THAT ENDURES</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah states that 'one is Chayav for performing a Melachah that endures on Shabbos.' What does this mean?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that the Mishnah means that 'one is Chayav for <i>performing a Melachah on Shabbos</i> that endures.' That is, 'Shabbos' refers to when the Melachah is performed, and one is Chayav only if the Melachah endures for a long time.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> explains that the Mishnah means that 'one is Chayav for performing a Melachah <i>that endures on Shabbos</i>.' That is, 'Shabbos' refers to how long the Melachah must endure for one to be Chayav. As long as it endures for the duration of that Shabbos, one is Chayav. The <b>SHA'AR HA'TZIYON</b> (OC 303:68 and <b>BI'UR HALACHAH</b>) infers that the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Shabbos 9:13) also understands that the Mishnah means that one is Chayav for a Melachah that endures for <i>that</i> Shabbos.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) THE FINAL HAMMER BLOW</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Among the Melachos that the Mishnah here lists is the Melachah of 'Makeh b'Patish.' <b>RASHI</b> explains that Makeh b'Patish refers to the final blow that a person gives to a rock which he chisels it out of a mountain, in order to break it off of the mountain. Rashi earlier (73a), however, explains that Makeh b'Patish refers to when the artisan strikes the hammer against the anvil after he flattens a metal strip, in order to smooth the surface of the hammer. Why does Rashi give two different explanations for the act of Makeh b'Patish?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> In the Mishnah earlier (73a), Rashi describes the Melachos as they were performed in the Mishkan. Therefore, Rashi explains there that 'Makeh b'Patish' means the strike of the artisan's hammer on the anvil when his work is completed. There were no rocks that were chiseled for the construction of the Mishkan.
</p><p>
Here, though, Rashi does not give the same explanation for 'Makeh b'Patish,' because that explanation is the same as the act that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel adds at the end of the Mishnah. The Makeh b'Patish of the beginning of the Mishnah must be a different form of Makeh b'Patish (which the Mishnah mentions in order to teach the present-day applications of the Melachah).
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) DRILLING AND BANGING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Noson bar Oshaya):</font></b> If one smoothes rocks, 
          for which Av is he liable?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan gestured to show Makeh b'Patish.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Mishnah is Mechayev smoothing rocks 
          <i>and</i> Makeh b'Patish!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It means 'Smoothing rocks, which is liable for 
          Makeh b'Patish.'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> If one drills any amount he is 
          liable.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> We understand this according to Rav - it looks like 
               he drills for the sake of building. (Gilyonei 
               ha'Shas - 'looks' is imprecise, it is actual 
               building. <b><b><b>PF</b></b></b> - perhaps because it looks like it is 
               for building, he is liable even without this intent, 
               for it is Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah - but 
               something that does not look like it is done with 
               intent for a Melachah is not Melachah she'Einah 
               Tzerichah l'Gufah. A Mishnah (cited on 107A) is 
               Mechayev for puncturing an abcess to make an opening 
               (that will be permanent, or to also let in air) - 
               nevertheless, Shmuel, who is Mechayev Melachah 
               she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah (42A), permits 
               puncturing just to let out pus.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> But according to Shmuel, this is not the end of the 
               Melachah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, he drilled with an iron nail and 
          left it inside [to hang things on] - this is a final 
          Melachah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The general rule is...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does this come to include?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It includes one who hollowed out a receptacle to 
          hold three Lugim in a block big enough to a make a 
          receptacle for four Lugim (even though he will enlarge 
          the hole later, he is liable because some people leave it 
          like this).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> Even one who bangs a 
          hammer on an anvil...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is he liable?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah and Rav Yosef):</font></b> He trains his hand [to hit 
          with the proper force].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Objection (Benei Rachbah):</font></b> If someone saw a craftsman on 
          Shabbos and learned [from him], is he liable?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Abaye and Rava):</font></b> People that beat [gold 
          thinly] to make the plating for the Kerashim did so 
          (after every few hits on the gold they would hit the 
          anvil to smooth the hammer, lest it tear the gold).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Support (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> Even one who 
          bangs a hammer on an anvil while making the Kli is 
          liable, for people that beat the plating for the Mishkan 
          did so.
<br>
<b><font>2) PLOWING AND PRUNING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Shi'ur to be liable for plowing, weeding, 
          pruning [dry branches] or pruning wet branches is any 
          amount;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If one gathered [detached] wood:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If this was to improve [the tree or ground], he is 
               liable for any amount;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If it was for fuel, the Shi'ur is to cook a light 
               egg.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  If one gathered [detached] grass:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If this was to improve [the ground], he is liable 
               for any amount;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If it was for animals to eat, the Shi'ur is enough 
               to fill a kid's mouth.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What use is a tiny plowed area?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One can plant a gourd seed. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Weeding, pruning dry or wet branches.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If one detached endives or pruned [moist, 
          edible] reeds:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If it was for people to eat, the Shi'ur is 
               k'Grogeres; if it was for animals to eat, the Shi'ur 
               is enough to fill a kid's mouth;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If it was for fuel, the Shi'ur is to cook a light 
               egg;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> If it was to improve [the ground], he is liable for 
               any amount.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> In every case, he improves the ground!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rabah and Rav Yosef):</font></b> The Reisha discusses a 
          swamp (there is no benefit from the improvement).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> It discusses even a field - the case 
          is, he does not intend to improve it (therefore, he is 
          not liable for improving).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But Abaye and Rava both say that R. Shimon 
          agrees about a Pesik Reisha (an inevitable consequence, 
          it is as if he intended)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It discusses another's field (the one who pruned 
          does not benefit. Tosfos - perhaps this is permitted only 
          regarding a small improvement.)
<br>
<b><font>3) WRITING TWO LETTERS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one writes two letters of any language he 
          is liable, whether he used his right or left hand, 
          whether he wrote the same letter twice or two different 
          letters, even if he wrote two symbols (Rashba - e.g. an 
          inverted 'Nun'; Rashi - even if he used two different 
          inks).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi says, one is liable for two letters on account of 
          marking - they would write letters on the Kerashim to 
          know how to pair them up.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, we find [liability for] writing a small 
          name when he intended to write a big name, e.g. he needed 
          to write 'Shimon' or 'Shmuel' and he wrote 'Shem', or he 
          wrote 'No'ach' in place of 'Nachor', or 'Dan' in place of 
          'Daniel', or 'Gad' in place of 'Gadiel'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> We understand why he is liable for 
          writing with the right hand, it is the normal way to 
          write;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Why is he liable for writing with the left hand - 
               this is abnormal!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Yirmiyah):</font></b> The Mishnah discusses a 
          left-handed person.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> His left hand is like a regular person's right 
          hand - he should be liable for [writing with] his left 
          hand, and exempt for his right!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> The Mishnah discusses an ambidextrous 
          person.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Rav Yakov brah d'Vas Yakov):</font></b> Our Mishnah is 
          like R. Yosi, who is Mechayev for two letters on account 
          of marking (the left hand is fine for this).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Since the Seifa is R. Yosi, the Reisha is not 
          R. Yosi!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, the Reisha and Seifa are both R. Yosi.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> We find...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> [Why did R. Yehudah give only examples of 
          different letters -] he holds that one is liable for the 
          same letter twice!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa) Suggestion:</font></b> 'V'Asah Achas' - perhaps one 
               is not liable until he writes the entire word, 
               weaves the entire garment or makes the entire sieve 
               [for which he intended]!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> 'V'Asah <i>me</i>'Achas' (he is liable even 
               for part).
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps he is liable even for writing 
               one letter, weaving one thread or making one Bayis 
               (wrap around the lengthwise reeds) in a sieve!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) ONE WHO WRITES TWO LETTERS IN ANY LANGUAGE ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah states that one who writes two of the same letters or two different letters 'in any language' is Chayav. Does this mean that one is Chayav if he writes two letters of literally <i>any</i> language?
</p><p>
(a) The <b><b><b>OR</b></b> ZARU'A</b> (2:76, 85) cites in the name of the Yerushalmi that the two letters discussed in the Mishnah are letters such as 'Alef' and 'Alpha.' The Or Zaru'a infers from this statement that one is Chayav only for writing two letters in either Hebrew or in Yevanis, Greek (the two languages in which a Sefer Torah may be written according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel -- see Megilah 8b). If one writes two letters in any other language, he is not Chayav.
</p><p>
The <b>REMA</b> (OC 306:11) cites the ruling of the Or Zaru'a with regard to the Halachah of buying land in Eretz Yisrael from a Nochri on Shabbos. Because of the importance of settling the Eretz Yisrael, a person is permitted to buy land from a Nochri on Shabbos and have the Nochri write the contract (Gitin 8b). The Or Zaru'a states that the contract should not be written in Hebrew or Yevanis but in another language. Since writing in another language is prohibited only mid'Rabanan, and asking a Nochri to do a Melachah (writing) is also prohibited only mid'Rabanan, asking a Nochri to write in another language on Shabbos is a 'Shevus d'Shevus' and is permitted for the sake of settling the land of Israel.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>BI'UR HALACHAH</b> discusses the ruling of the Or Zaru'a at length. He concludes that there is no basis for the Or Zaru'a's conclusion. The Bi'ur Halachah raises three basic objections. First, the Mishnah clearly says 'in <i>any</i> language.' Second, the Yerushalmi <i>cannot</i> mean that one is Chayav for writing only in two languages. When the Yerushalmi says that one is Chayav for writing 'Alef Alpha,' it is in the context of a discussion of the opinion of Rebbi Yosi, who maintains that one is Chayav even for Roshem (making any recognizable mark, and certainly for making letters of any language). Third, all of the Rishonim disagree with the Or Zaru'a and rule that writing two letters of any language is forbidden.
</p><p>
Therefore, the Bi'ur Halachah concludes that the explanation of the Yerushalmi is different than that proposed by the Or Zaru'a. Even the Rema, who cites the Or Zaru'a, cites him only as an added <i>stringency</i>, for he does not permit a contract to be written on Shabbos in Hebrew or Yevanis. However, with regard to a leniency, we do not rely on the minority opinion of the Or Zaru'a.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> 'Achas' (a full Melachah) - he is liable 
               for part of a big word only if it is a small word, 
               e.g. Shem in place of Shimon ...
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, even if he wrote two identical 
               letters and they are a word he is liable, e.g. 
               Shesh, Tes, Rar, Gag, Chach.
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi says, he is not liable for writing, rather, 
               for marking, for they would write letters on the 
               Kerashim to know how to pair them up!
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Therefore, if he made one scratch on two 
                    planks, or two scratches on one plank he is 
                    liable.
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Suggestion (R. Shimon):</font></b> 'V'Asah Achas' - perhaps one 
               is liable only for the entire word, garment, or 
               sieve!
       <br><b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> 'V'Asah <i>me</i>'Achas'.
       <br><b>   <b><font>9.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps he is liable even for one 
               letter, thread or Bayis!
        <br><b>  <b><font>10. </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> 'Achas' - he is liable only for a 
               permanent Melachah.
        <br><b>  <b><font>11. </font></b></b> R. Yosi says, [we expound as if said] 'V'Asah Achas 
               v'Asah Henah' - sometimes one is liable Achas (one 
               Chatas) for many transgressions, sometimes he is 
               liable Henah, a Chatas for each transgression.
        <br><b>  <b><font>12. </font></b><font> Summation of question:</font></b> R. Yehudah is Mechayev even 
               for two identical letters!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yehudah himself is Mechayev only for different 
          letters, in the Beraisa he teaches the opinion of his 
          Rebbi:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Yehudah citing R. Gamliel):</font></b> Even if he 
               wrote two identical letters and they are a word he 
               is liable, e.g. Shesh, Tes, Rar, Gag, Chach.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> R. Shimon does not argue with the first Tana!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps they argue about writing 
               'Aleph-Aleph' (which is not a word) from 'A'azercha' 
               - the first Tana exempts, and R. Shimon obligates, 
               for it is used in Kemi'os!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> That assumes that R. Shimon is more 
               stringent [to Mechayev for less than the intended 
               Melachah] - this is not so!
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One is liable for any amount of 
                    drilling, scraping, tanning, or making any 
                    design on a Kli;
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> R. Shimon says, he is not liable unless he 
                    drills, scrapes, tans, or draws as much as he 
                    intended.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, R. Shimon teaches that he is not liable 
          unless he writes the full word [intended].
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question (Beraisa - R. Shimon) Suggestion:</font></b> 'V'Asah 
               Achas' - perhaps one is liable only for the entire 
               word, garment, or sieve!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> 'V'Asah <i>me</i>'Achas'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Really, the suggestion was to exempt until he 
          writes the entire <i>verse</i> - 'V'Asah me'Achas' teaches he 
          is liable even for one word.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Yosi):</font></b> 'V'Asah Achas v'Asah Henah' - 
          sometimes one is liable Achas (once) for many 
          transgressions, sometimes he is liable Henah, a Chatas 
          for each transgression.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina):</font></b> He also expounds the 'Mem' in 
          'me'Achas' and the 'Mem' in 'me'Henah':
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Achas is sometimes Henah (many Chata'os for one 
               transgression), Henah is sometimes Achas (one Chatas 
               for many transgressions);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Achas alludes to [a full Melachah, e.g. writing] 
               'Shimon'; me'Achas alludes to writing Shem when he 
               intended to write Shimon;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Henah alludes to Avos Melachah, me'Henah alludes to 
               [what come from Avos, i.e.] Toldos.
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Achas is sometimes Henah - Zadon Shabbos and 
                    Shigegas Melachos; Henah is sometimes Achas - 
                    Zadon Melachos and Shigegas Shabbos.
<br>
<b><font>4) INTERCHANGING FINAL AND REGULAR LETTERS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> We find [liability for] a small 
          name from a big name...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If he intended to write 'Shimon', he made an 
          open (regular) 'Mem' - 'Shem' should have a closed 
          (final) 'Mem'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Chisda):</font></b> This teaches that if an open Mem was 
          written in place of a closed Mem, it is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> 'U'Chsavtam' - the writing [of a 
          Sefer Torah, Tefilin or Mezuzah] must be Tam (flawless); 
          if any of the following were interchanged, it requires 
          Genizah (Rashba - until it is fixed; Rivash (7) - 
          l'Chatchilah, one may not fix a Sefer Torah with four 
          errors on every Daf (Menachos 29b). We list pairs prone 
          to be confused because they look (Rashi - or sound) 
          similar):
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Aleph and Ayin, Beis and Kaf, Gimel and Tzadi, Dalet 
               and Reish, Hei and Ches, Vov and Yud, Zayin and 
               (final) Nun, Tes and Pe, bent (regular) letters 
               (Chaf, Nun, Pe or Tzadi) and the straight (final) 
               forms of these, (final) Mem and Samech, closed Mem 
               and open Mem; 
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If an open Parashah was written closed, or 
               vice-versa; (An open Parashah is denoted by a Pe in 
               printed Chumashim - in Seforim, the next Parashah 
               begins on the next line; a closed Parashah is 
               denoted by a Samech, spaces are left before the next 
               Parashah.) 
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> If [regular text] was written like Shirah (parts of 
               the lines were left blank), or if [text that should 
               be written] Shirah was written normally;
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> If it was not written in ink, or if names of Hash-m 
               were written in gold (all of these are Posel). 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rav Chisda holds like the following Tana:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Yehudah ben Beseira):</font></b> (In Musaf of 
               most days of Sukos, it says 'V'Niskah' and 
               'Ka'Mishpat'.) On the second day it says 
               'V'Niskeihem' (with an extra Mem), on day six it 
               says 'U'Nsacheha' (with an extra Yud), on day seven 
               it says 'K'Mishpatam';
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  The extra letters Mem, Yud, Mem spell Mayim, a 
                    hint to the Mitzvah to pour water on the 
                    Mizbe'ach on Sukos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> He uses a final Mem (of 'V'Niskeihem') in place of a 
               regular Mem (in Mayim) - surely, he likewise holds 
               that a regular Mem in place of a closed Mem is 
               valid.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) WRITING TWO MEANINGFUL LETTERS ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara seems to conclude that in order to be Chayav for writing two letters on Shabbos, one must write two letters that spell out a word. If a person writes only two Alefs (from the word 'A'azarcha'), he is <i>not</i> Chayav, because two Alefs do not comprise a word.
</p><p>
When the Mishnah earlier (103a) states that one who writes two letters is Chayav, Rashi explains, 'For example, two Alefs.' Why does Rashi explain that the Mishnah there refers to two letters that do not comprise a word? Rashi should explain that it refers to two letters like 'Gimel Gimel' that make a word ('Gag,' roof)! (<b>TOSFOS REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> on the Mishnayos)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHASH</b> explains that one Amora in the Gemara maintains that when the Mishnah says that one is Chayav for writing with either his right hand or his left hand, the Mishnah follows the opinion of Rebbi Yosi, who says that any two recognizable marks constitute 'writing' (even if the marks are not letters, and certainly even if they do not spell out a word). Rashi explains the Mishnah earlier based on this interpretation of the Mishnah, and that is why he says that one would be Chayav for writing two Alefs.
</p><p>
(b) <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> answers that perhaps Rashi infers that when the Mishnah says that one is Chayav for writing 'two letters,' it implies any two letters, and they do not need to spell out a word. Rashi understands that the Mishnah teaches a new opinion, unparalleled in the Beraisa which the Gemara later cites (see Chart #18).
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RASHASH</b> and the <b>BI'UR HALACHAH</b> (OC 340) suggest another answer. Although the Tana'im maintain that one must write an actual word in order to be Chayav, their opinion applies only when one initially intended to write a complete word and ended up writing only two letters. Since there must be some similarity between what one intended to do and what he actually did (and he initially intended to write a complete word), the two letters that he writes must also be a complete word. However, when one's initial intention was to write only two letters, he is Chayav even though they do not spell out any word.
</p><p>


