# dafyomi

lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> In the house of Menasiya bar Menachem they would 
               squeeze pomegranates [on weekdays; this shows that 
               it is common to squeeze them].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How do we know that this is like Chachamim - 
          perhaps it is like R. Yehudah!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Counter-question:</font></b> Even R. Yehudah only [explicitly] 
               permitted what flows from fruits, he did not permit 
               squeezing [on Shabbos]!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> You must say that because these other 
               species are not normally squeezed, one may squeeze 
               l'Chatchilah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Presumably also Chachamim permit l'Chatchilah 
          (since one is never liable for squeezing these fruits, 
          there is no reason to forbid! Rashi - Rav Nachman (143B) 
          only said 'presumably', for it is possible that the 
          Beraisa is only R. Yehudah's opinion.) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Conclusion:</font></b> The Beraisa is [even] like Chachamim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> In the house of Menasiya bar Menachem they 
          would squeeze pomegranates.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> The Halachah follows the house of 
          Menasiya.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> [It is not fitting to say that the 
          Halachah follows <i>him</i> -] he is not a Tana (a Tana merely 
          supported himself by citing Menasiya's practice)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps you mean, the Halachah follows 
               the Tana who [forbids squeezing pomegranates, for 
               he] holds like Menasiya (that it is normal to 
               squeeze them).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Objection:</font></b> This is no reason to say that the 
               Halachah follows him - does the majority of the 
               world hold like Menasiya?!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Indeed, we find that practices in one region 
               determine the Halachah everywhere!
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Elazar):</font></b> If one lets cactus grow 
                    in a vineyard, this is Kil'ayim, the cactus and 
                    nearby vines are forbidden;
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> Chachamim say, only something that people 
                    normally grow is Kil'ayim.
             <br><b>  <b><font>iii. </font></b><font>(R. Chanina):</font></b> R. Elazar forbids growing cactus 
                    because in Araviya people grow cactus for their 
                    camels.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> Araviya is a whole region - Menasiya is 
               an individual, his opinion is Batul to that of 
               normal people.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> Rav Nachman holds like Rav Chisda:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Chisda):</font></b> If one squeezed spinach and put the 
               juice in a Mikveh, if it changes the appearance of 
               the water the Mikveh is Pasul.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> People do not normally squeeze spinach!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer #1:</font></b> We must say that because he [squeezed it, 
               showing that he] considers it important, it is 
               considered a liquid. (We must say that the Tana of 
               the Beraisa permits squeezing only to sweeten the 
               fruit.)
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  The same applies to squeezing pomegranates!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Rejection (and Answer #2 to Question (2) - Rav Papa):</font></b> 
          Spinach juice is Posel a Mikveh because one may not make 
          a Mikveh from it (anything Pasul to make a Mikveh is 
          Posel if it changes the appearance).
<br>
<b><font>2) IS 'MOCHEL' CONSIDERED TO BE A LIQUID?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If wine, vinegar or Mochel [juice from olives] 
          fell into a Mikveh and changed its appearance, it is 
          Posel.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Who is this Tana, who considers Mochel to be a 
          liquid?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> It is R. Yakov:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Yakov):</font></b> Mochel is a liquid;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  It was taught that the first Mochel to leave 
                    [the olives] is Tahor - this is because he does 
                    not want it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon says, Mochel is not a liquid;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  The reason that Mochel that leaves [at the end, 
                    before or after oil was squeezed out of olives 
                    in] Ekel Beis ha'Bad (a basket in which olives 
                    are pressed) is Tamei is because it surely 
                    contains drops of oil.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> [Both Metaher the first Mochel, and 
               Metamei what leaves the Ekel -] what do they argue 
               about?
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> They argue about [the intermediate] Mochel 
               that exudes after the olives became warm and pressed 
               on each other.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> All agree that Mochel is Posel a 
          Mikveh, because one may not make a Mikveh from it, it is 
          Posel if it changes the appearance.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> One may squeeze a cluster of grapes into a 
          pot [with food in it - surely, it is for the sake of the 
          Tavshil, not for drinking], but not into an [empty] bowl.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> This teaches that one may milk a goat into 
          a pot, but not into a bowl.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> He holds that if a liquid goes into a solid, 
          it is considered a solid (therefore, it is not forbidden 
          on account of threshing).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question (Rami bar Chama - Mishnah):</font></b> If a Zav milked a 
          goat, the milk is Tamei [because he caused it to flow].
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> [The Mishnah applies does not distinguish, it 
               applies even if he milked into a solid] - if the 
               milk is considered a solid, it is not Mekabel Tum'ah 
               until it is Huchshar [through a liquid]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Elsewhere, R. Yochanan answered, milk receives 
          Hechsher because it passes over a drop smeared on the 
          nipple - here also, it is Huchshar through a drop smeared 
          on the tip of the udder!
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) SQUEEZING POMEGRANATES ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa says that one may squeeze the juice out of prunes, quinces and crab-apples, but not out of pomegranates, because the people of the house of Menashya ben Menachem squeeze pomegranates for the use of their juice. The Gemara wonders how the conduct of just a few individuals can establish for everyone that pomegranates are normally squeezed for their juice? Rav Chisda explains that when a person intends to use the pomegranate juice, he lends significance to the juice and thus he is Chayav.
</p><p>
According to Rav Chisda's answer, one should also be prohibited from squeezing out the juice of prunes and the other fruits mentioned in the Beraisa! Moreover, how does Rav Chisda's answer explain how the family of Menashya ben Menachem was able to establish a prohibition against squeezing pomegranates?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> and <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Hachi Garsinan) explain that Rav Chisda understands the Beraisa differently from the way it was originally understood. The Beraisa refers to squeezing fruits not for their juices, but in order to sweeten the fruits. The types of fruits that are <i>never</i> squeezed for their juices may be crushed in order to sweeten them on Shabbos. The Rabanan were not concerned that if one is allowed to squeeze the fruit to sweeten it, he might come to squeeze it for its juice, since nobody normally squeezes it for its juice. Pomegranates, however, may not be squeezed to sweeten the fruit. Since there are a few individuals who squeeze it for its juice, the Rabanan were afraid that if would be permitted to squeeze the pomegranate in order to sweeten it, one might squeeze it for its juice as well.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> questions Rashi's explanation. According to Rashi, the Gemara should have specified that the Beraisa refers to squeezing the fruits in order to sweeten them.
</p><p>
The Ritva therefore explains that the Beraisa indeed is discussing squeezing fruits for their juice. However, since <i>nobody</i> normally squeezes prunes, quinces, and crab-apples for their juices, even if one does so, we rule that his intention cannot give those juices significance. Rather, the rule of 'Batlah Da'ato Etzel Kol Adam' applies. In contrast, with regard to squeezing pomegranates, since there are at least <i>some</i> individuals who do squeeze pomegranates for their juice, Rav Chisda asserts that anyone who does so gives significance to the juice of the pomegranate. Therefore, squeezing them for their juice on Shabbos is forbidden.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) MILKING A GOAT ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that one is permitted to milk a goat's milk directly into food on Shabbos. This act is not considered to be the Melachah of Mefarek, because milk is considered Ochel (food) when it is in the goat (since it is part of the goat which can be eaten), and it remains Ochel when it mixes with the food and becomes part of the food. The Melachah of Mefarek applies only to taking an item that was initially Ochel and making it a <i>Mashkeh</i> (liquid).
</p><p>
Why is one permitted to use goat's milk on Shabbos? Even though there is no problem of Mefarek, it should be prohibited because of another reason -- the milk is Nolad (an item that came into being on Shabbos, which is Muktzah)! A goat is Muktzah on Shabbos because it cannot be slaughtered. Its milk should also be Muktzah as well, since its state has changed on Shabbos!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Cholev) in the name of <b>RABEINU TAM</b> says that, indeed, the milk is not permitted on Shabbos because it is Nolad. The Gemara refers to milking a goat on <i>Yom Tov</i>, when the goat is not Muktzah because it may be slaughtered (if it was designated for consumption before Yom Tov).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> says that the ruling that the milk of a goat is permitted is only in accordance with the opinion of Rebbi Shimon, who permits Nolad.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RITVA</b> suggests another answer. Even Rebbi Yehudah would permit this type of Nolad. Before Shabbos, the person intended to milk the goat on Shabbos. An object which a person <i>expects</i> to arrive on Shabbos is not forbidden as Nolad. (See Tosfos 44a, DH sheb'Ner, who discusses whether such a stipulation works according to Rebbi Yehudah. See also Insights to Beitzah 2:5, in the name of the Ba'al ha'Me'or.)
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RAN</b> in Beitzah (2a) explains that the milk is not considered Nolad and is not Muktzah. Even though the goat was Muktzah, the milk that comes from it is not considered to be a new object just because it went from being forbidden (because the goat cannot be slaughtered on Shabbos) to being permitted. Only its <i>Halachic</i> status changed, and not its <i>physical</i> status; a change in Halachic status does not make an item Nolad. Since the milk was physically in existence when Shabbos entered, it is not Nolad. (See Insights, ibid.)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) SQUEEZING JUICE INTO FOOD ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (Ravina - Mishnah):</font></b> If one who is Tamei Mes 
          squeezed exactly k'Beitzah of olives or grapes, they are 
          Tehorim (they are not Huchshar until there is liquid - at 
          that time, there is less than k'Beitzah of solid food, it 
          is too small to Metamei the liquid (Rashi; alternatively, 
          k'Beitzah is needed to Mekabel Hechsher or Tum'ah - 
          Tosfos 91A)).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> If he squeezed more than k'Beitzah, they 
               are Teme'im.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> (The Mishnah did not specify, presumably it applies 
               even if he squeezed into food.) If a liquid that 
               comes to a solid is a solid, what is Machshir?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (Ravina):</font></b> The case is, he squeezed into a bowl.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (R. Yirmiyah):</font></b> Tana'im argue about this:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> If one squeezes grapes onto loaves, the 
               loaves are not Huchshar;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, they are Huchshar.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Chachamim hold that liquid that comes to 
               a solid is a solid (therefore it is not Machshir), 
               R. Yehudah holds that it is a liquid.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Rejection (Rav Papa):</font></b> No, all agree that it is a liquid;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> They argue about a liquid that goes to waste - R. 
               Yehudah holds that it is a liquid, Chachamim hold 
               that it is not.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> These same Tana'im argue similarly in another 
               Beraisa:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If one bruises olives [to soften 
                    them] with Tamei hands, they are Huchshar (the 
                    liquid is beneficial); if he does so to salt 
                    them, they are not Huchshar (he does not want 
                    the liquid).
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> If he checks to see if it is time to harvest 
                    them, they are not Huchshar;
             <br><b>  <b><font>iii. </font></b></b>R. Yehudah says, they are Huchshar.
             <br><b>  <b><font>iv. </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> They argue about a liquid that goes 
                    to waste - R. Yehudah holds that it is a 
                    liquid, Chachamim hold that it is not.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> Indeed, the Tana'im in this Beraisa argue 
               about a liquid that goes to waste - but the argument 
               in the above Mishnah is about a liquid used to 
               lubricate a food.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (R. Zeira citing Rav):</font></b> One may squeeze a cluster of 
          grapes into a pot, but not into a bowl;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One may squeeze brine out of fish even into a bowl.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Rav Dimi repeated this teaching.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Abaye:</font></b> We learned this in the name of Shmuel - this poses 
          a difficulty!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav):</font></b> One may squeeze pickled vegetables for their 
               sake [to remove excess liquid]; 
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  One may not squeeze for the liquid; b'Diavad 
                    (if he did), he is exempt;
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> One may squeeze cooked vegetables even for the 
                    liquid. 
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Shmuel):</font></b> Whether they are pickled or cooked, one 
               may squeeze for their sake, but not for the liquid; 
               b'Diavad, he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Rav Dimi:</font></b> I heard from R. Yirmiyah, who heard from R. 
          Zeira, who heard from R. Chiya bar Ashi, who heard from 
          Rav!
<br>
<b><font>2) SQUEEZING VEGETABLES ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> One may squeeze pickled vegetables for their sake, 
          not for the liquid; b'Diavad, he is exempt (this is not 
          Mefarek, because the liquid did not originate in the 
          vegetables);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One may squeeze cooked vegetables even for the 
               liquid.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> Whether they are pickled or cooked, one may 
          squeeze for their sake, but not for the liquid; b'Diavad, 
          he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Whether they are pickled or cooked, one 
          may squeeze for their sake, but not for the liquid; 
          b'Diavad, he is Chayav Chatas.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (against all of them - Beraisa):</font></b> One may squeeze 
          pickled vegetables needed for Shabbos, not for Motzei 
          Shabbos;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One may not squeeze olives and grapes; b'Diavad, he 
               is Chayav Chatas.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (for Rav):</font></b> It means, one may squeeze pickled 
          vegetables needed for Shabbos, not for Motzei Shabbos;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is for their sake, not for the liquid; 
               b'Diavad, he is exempt;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> One may squeeze cooked vegetables even for the 
               liquid (it is considered a food).
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> One may not squeeze olives and grapes; b'Diavad, he 
               is Chayav Chatas.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (for Shmuel):</font></b> It means, one may squeeze pickled 
          vegetables needed for Shabbos, not for Motzei Shabbos - 
          the same applies to cooked vegetables;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is for their sake, not for the liquid; 
               b'Diavad, he is exempt;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> One may not squeeze olives and grapes; b'Diavad, he 
               is Chayav Chatas.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (for R. Yochanan):</font></b> It means, one may squeeze 
          pickled vegetables needed for Shabbos, not for Motzei 
          Shabbos - the same applies to cooked vegetables;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is for their sake, not for the liquid, 
               b'Diavad, it is as if he squeezed olives and grapes, 
               he is Chayav Chatas.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (R. Chiya bar Ashi):</font></b> Mid'Oraisa, one is liable [for 
          squeezing] only for olives and grapes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Support (D'vei Menasheh - Beraisa):</font></b> Mid'Oraisa, one is 
          liable only for olives and grapes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  Ed mi'Pi Ed (a witness who testifies about what he heard 
          from another witness) is Kosher only for Edus Ishah 
          (testimony that a man died to permit his widow to remarry 
          - Chachamim enacted leniencies regarding Edus Ishah to 
          avoid Igun (inability to remarry)).
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) BOILING PRE-COOKED CHICKEN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> According to the Mishnah, a food that is already fully cooked may be soaked in hot water on Shabbos. The Gemara wonders what sort of food is put into hot water after it is already fully cooked. The Gemara answers that the chicken of Rebbi Aba was treated in such a manner.
</p><p>
Why indeed was the chicken of Rebbi Aba soaked in hot water if it was already fully cooked?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> seems to say that in Rebbi Aba's recipe, the chicken needed to be cooked in this manner in order to give it prophylactic properties. The chicken was soaked in hot water not to cook it, but so that it would fully dissolve in the water, making a healthy, thick chicken soup.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>PISKEI RID</b> explains that since Rebbi Aba's chicken was fed to sick people, it had to be made extremely soft. Therefore, it was soaked in hot water even though it was already fully cooked.
</p><p>
(c) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> explains that Rebbi Aba's cooked chicken was very salty. It was soaked in water in order to wash off some of the salt.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) AGADAH: 'KULYAS HA'ISPENIN'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Yochanan says that all of the fish that were exiled from Eretz Yisrael to Bavel returned to Eretz Yisrael, except for tuna the Kulyas ha'Ispenin. Rav explains that underground inclines of Bavel bring water to Ein Eitam, but since this fish lacks a strong spine, it was unable to return through these inclines.
</p><p>
What is the significance of the fact that the 'Kulyas ha'Ispenin' did not return to Eretz Yisrael?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b>
<br>(a) The Musar masters explain that in Galus, a Jew must be stubborn in his commitment to Torah and Mitzvos in order to survive the scorn of the nations. One who is not able to 'swim against the current' is vulnerable to being washed away from the destiny of his brethren.
</p><p>
(b) On a deeper level, the <b>ARUCH</b> (noted in the margin of the Vilna Shas) explains that 'Kulyas ha'Ispenin' is another name for the Shivuta fish (see 110b, 119a). The Gemara in Chulin (109b) relates that the marrow of a fish called 'Shivuta' tastes exactly like Chazir (pork). The Shivuta, then, is an allegorical reference to Jews who, like the Chazir, 'show off their split hooves' but are not committed to Torah in their hearts. Their marrow (i.e., what is hidden deep inside of their hearts) is likened to a Chazir. (The word 'Kulyas' may be related to the word 'Kulis' (with the letter 'Tav'), which means 'a bone that contains marrow.')
</p><p>
If a Jew in Galus is not committed to Torah in his heart, even though he practices the Mitzvos as he should, his family will not be able to resist the perilous currents of the world around him. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Is Ed mi'Pi Ed Kosher for testimony that a 
          Bechor became blemished by itself [to permit slaughtering 
          it outside the Mikdash? Kohanim were suspected of making 
          a Mum, therefore Chachamim required testimony.]
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Ami):</font></b> It is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Asi):</font></b> It is Kosher.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Ami - Beraisa):</font></b> Ed mi'Pi Ed is Kosher only 
          for Edus Ishah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Asi):</font></b> It means, Ed mi'Pi Ed is Kosher only 
          for Edus for which an Ishah is Kosher (i.e. anything that 
          requires only one Ed, e.g. Sotah, Eglah Arufah...; R. 
          Akiva Eiger - this rule does not always apply - if Leah 
          was captured, Rachel is believed to say that she was not 
          defiled, but the Rosh does not Machshir Ed mi'Pi Ed for 
          this).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b></b>  Rav Yemar permitted Ed mi'Pi Ed regarding Bechor - 
          Mereimar called him 'Yemar who permits Bechoros.'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b></b>  The Halachah is, Ed mi'Pi Ed is Kosher for Bechor.
<br>
<b><font>3) FOOD PREPARATION THAT IS COMPLETED ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Cakes of honey.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Hoshaya of Neharda'a - Beraisa):</font></b> If one crushed 
          olives and grapes before Shabbos, what exudes from them 
          on Shabbos is forbidden;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer and R. Shimon permit it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Rav Yosef:</font></b> [This is just like the argument of R. Eliezer 
          and Chachamim in our Mishnah, regarding honey -] does he 
          come to merely add another opinion that permits?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Abaye:</font></b> He teaches an important Chidush! If we only knew 
          the Mishnah, we would have thought that they argue about 
          when it was initially a food and also now - but here, it 
          was initially a food and now it is a liquid, one might 
          have thought that all forbid - he teaches that this is 
          not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If any food was soaked [and fully cooked] in 
          hot water [in a Kli Rishon] before Shabbos, one may soak 
          it in hot water on Shabbos;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  If it was not soaked in hot water before Shabbos, one may 
          pour hot water over it (Rashbam - from a Kli Rishon; R. 
          Tam - from a Kli Sheni) on Shabbos, except for old salted 
          fish or tuna fish, for rinsing them is their final 
          Melachah (preparation).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What is an example [of a food that is 
          soaked and soaked again]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Safra):</font></b> R. Aba's chicken is an example [it is 
          soaked many days, for healing].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Rav Safra:</font></b> I was once served chicken in R. Aba's house - 
          had he not given me three-year old wine, I would have 
          become dangerously sick (Rashi - vomited from nausea)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan would spit when reminded of Kutach of Bavel 
          (it is made with moldy bread).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Rav Yosef:</font></b> [People of Eretz Yisrael should not spit on 
          account of our food -] if they do, we may spit on account 
          of the chicken of R. Aba [of Eretz Yisrael]!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Further, Rav Gaza visited Eretz Yisrael and made 
               Kutach, and all the sick people requested it!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If it was not soaked...[it may be rinsed, 
          except for old salted fish or tuna].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If one rinsed these in hot water on Shabbos, 
          what is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> He is Chayav Chatas.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Support (Mar brei d'Ravina - Seifa):</font></b> ...Except for old 
          salted fish or tuna, for rinsing them is their final 
          Melachah.
<br>
<b><font>4) HOW BAVEL IS DIFFERENT FROM OTHER LANDS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> Why are birds of Bavel fat?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  R. Asi:</font></b> There are fatter birds in Midbar Aza [in Eretz 
          Yisrael]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> Why are people in Bavel so 
          happy on festivals?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Asi):</font></b> This is because they are poor (this 
          is the only time they cease working and enjoy good food).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> Why do Chachamim of Bavel 
          wear special clothing?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Asi):</font></b> This is because they are not so great 
          in Torah (like Chachmei Eretz Yisrael, who are honored 
          for their Chachmah. Ben Yehoyada - when three consecutive 
          generations in a family are Chachamim, they become known 
          - this was found in Eretz Yisrael, not in Bavel.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> Why do Nochrim reek?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (R. Asi):</font></b> This is because they eat Shekatzim 
          u'Rmashim (vermin).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  R. Yochanan (he had been dozing at the time):</font></b> Children! 
          'Emor la'Chachmah Achosi At' - if [a matter of Chachmah] 
          is as clear to you as [the Isur to marry] your sister, 
          say it; if not, not!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (to Question (a) - R. Yochanan):</font></b> Birds of Bavel 
          are fat because they were not exiled - 'Sha'anan Mo'av 
          mi'Ne'urav...uva'Goleh Lo Holach Al Ken Omad Tamo Vo'. 
          (Ya'avetz - Galus was not decreed on people or birds of 
          Aza, because Plishtim lived there, it was not settled by 
          Yisrael.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> How do we know that birds of Eretz Yisrael 
               were exiled?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> For 52 years, no man 
               passed through Yehudah - 'Al he'Harim Esa Bechi 
               [...Nitzetzu mib'Li Ish Over ... Mikneh] me'Of 
               ha'Shomayim v'Ad Behemah' - the Gematri'a of 
               'Behemah' is 52. (Maharsha - we expound 'Behemah', 
               because it already says 'Mikneh'. Rashi - we can 
               calculate the years even without the Gematri'a. )
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> [Even the fish were exiled;] all of 
               them returned, except for tuna:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> [Underground] inclines of Bavel return 
                    water to Ein Eitam (a spring that supplies 
                    water to the Mikdash).
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> Since tuna lack a strong spine, they cannot 
                    return [through these inclines].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (to Question (c) - R. Yochanan):</font></b> Festivals are 
          very happy in Bavel because it was not subject to the 
          curse 'V'Hishbata Kol Mesosah Chagah Chodshah Shabatah 
          v'Chol Mo'adah'.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What does it mean 'Chodsheichem 
               u'Mo'adeichem Son'ah Nafshi Hayu Alai la'Torach'?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer (R. Elazar):</font></b> Hash-m said, not only do they 
               sin, they even bother Me to decide (Ben Yehoyada - 
               inform them) what decrees I will put on them!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> Every festival, plundering troops 
               come to Tzipori (fulfilling the curse).
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> (R. Chanina):</font></b> Every festival, governors, lords and 
               whipping officers come to Tiverya.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (to Question (e) - R. Yochanan):</font></b> Chachamim of 
          Bavel wear special clothing because they are not in their 
          place (Eretz Yisrael, therefore they need such clothing 
          to be distinguished);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is like people say - 'In my place I am 
               distinguished by my name, elsewhere I am 
               distinguished by my clothing.'
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Rav Yosef):</font></b> 'Ha'Ba'im Yashresh Yakov Yatzitz 
               u'Forach Yisrael' - these are Chachamim of Bavel, 
               who make Torah [flourish] like plants and flowers.
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) WHEN THE FILTH DEPARTED FROM YISRAEL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (to Question (4:</font></b>g) - R. Yochanan): Nochrim reek 
          because they did not stand on Har Sinai;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Nachash had relations with Chavah, and cast 
               filth (Nefesh ha'Chayim, brought in Etz Yosef - a 
               mixture of evil into her deeds) into her; Yisrael 
               was cleansed of the filth [and all blemishes] on 
               Sinai.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rava):</font></b> Why don't converts reek?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Even though they did not stand on 
          Sinai, their Mazel stood on Sinai - 'Es Asher Yeshno Po 
          Imanu ha'Yom Lifnei Hash-m Elokeinu v'Es Asher Einenu Po 
          Imanu ha'Yom'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  He argues with R. Aba bar Kahana:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Aba bar Kahana):</font></b> The filth did not leave our 
               ancestors until three generations - Avraham fathered 
               Yishmael, and Yitzchak fathered Esav, Yakov fathered 
               12 flawless Shevatim.
<br>
<b><font>2) OPENING A BARREL ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may break a barrel to eat the dry figs 
          inside, as long as he does not intend to make a Kli (i.e. 
          a nice opening);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, one may not puncture the cork of a 
          barrel;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Chachamim permit.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  One may not puncture it from the side (this will be 
          explained);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, a case occurred - R. Yochanan ben Zakai 
          said that he suspects that he is Chayav Chatas.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - R. Oshaya):</font></b> One may break the barrel only if 
          the figs are pressed into a ring (since he needs a sword 
          to cut the figs, he may also use it to break the barrel), 
          not if the figs are loose.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> One may bring 
          a barrel of wine, slice off the top with a sword and 
          leave it in front of guests on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Shimon hold like Chachamim, our Mishnah is 
          like R. Nechemyah [who permits moving a Kli only for its 
          intended purpose].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What forced R. Oshaya to establish our Mishnah 
          to discuss a ring, like R. Nechemyah - he should say that 
          it [even] discusses loose figs, like Chachamim!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava) Question:</font></b> The Mishnah should have said that 
          there is fruit inside - why did it specify dry figs?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> We must say that the figs are pressed into a 
               ring.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #1):</font></b> One may open (untie the rope sealing) a 
          basket of figs or dates, or unravel [the rope with a Kli] 
          or cut it;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Contradiction (Beraisa #2):</font></b> One may open, one may not 
          unravel or cut.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Resolution:</font></b> Beraisa #1 is Chachamim, Beraisa #2 is R. 
          Nechemyah:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Nechemyah):</font></b> Even a ladle, Talis or 
               knife may be moved only for its intended purpose.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> May one pierce [the side of] a barrel with a 
          spear on Shabbos?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Perhaps he intends to make a [nice] opening - if so, 
               it is forbidden;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps he intends to be generous (so much will 
               flow out) - if so, it is permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> He intends for an opening, so it is 
          forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> One may bring 
          a barrel of wine, slice off the top with a sword and 
          leave it in front of guests on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> There, surely he intends to be generous; here, if 
          he wanted to be generous, he would have opened it 
          (removed the cork)!
<br>
<b><font>3) PUNCTURING A CORK OR BARREL ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> One may not puncture the cork...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> They argue about puncturing the top of the 
          cork (this is abnormal) - but all forbid puncturing the 
          side;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Seifa):</font></b> One may not puncture <i>it</i> from the side.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This refers to the cork (all agree to this).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> They argue about puncturing the side of the 
          cork, but all permit puncturing the top.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Seifa forbids puncturing <i>the barrel</i> from the 
               side.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One may not make a new hole [in a Kli] on 
          Shabbos; he may widen a hole.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  Some forbid to widen.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  All agree that he may open an old hole that was sealed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Presumably, the first Tana forbids making a new 
          hole because this is Tikun (the final Melachah) - also 
          widening a hole is Metaken it!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah):</font></b> Mid'Oraisa, one is not liable for a hole 
          unless it is made for entrance <i>and</i> exit;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim decreed to forbid [a hole made for one of 
               these] on account of a hole in a chicken coop, which 
               lets in air and lets out heat.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> He may widen a hole.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  We are not concerned lest one widen a hole in a chicken 
          coop - he would not, lest a Sheretz enter [and kill 
          chickens].
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: BREAKING A UTENSIL TO GET AT THE FOOD INSIDE</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah states that one may break a barrel on Shabbos in order to eat the figs that are inside of it. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Shover) explains that this is permissible because one performs a destructive act (Mekalkel) when he breaks the barrel, 'and it is not forbidden whatsoever to be Mekalkel on Shabbos.'
</p><p>
We know that Stirah (demolishing) for the sake of building is a Melachah d'Oraisa, and Stirah not for the sake of building is prohibited mid'Rabanan. Why should one be permitted l'Chatchilah to break open a barrel on Shabbos? The act should be prohibited mid'Rabanan.
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RASHBA</b> explains that Rashi follows his opinion elsewhere (47a, DH Chayav Chatas), where he says that the Melachos of Binyan and Stirah (building and demolishing) do not apply to utensils. They apply only to structures that are attached to the ground. Therefore, if a person makes a utensil on Shabbos, he is not Chayav for Binyan. Rather, he is Chayav for Makeh b'Patish ('the final hammer-blow'). <i>Breaking</i> a utensil, therefore, is not forbidden, because Makeh b'Patish has no destructive counterpart.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Shover) argues and maintains that the Melachos of Binyan and Stirah apply to utensils. The only time that one is permitted to make or break a utensil, according to Tosfos (102b, DH Hai), is when that utensil is <i>made</i> to be assembled and disassembled. Why, then, is one permitted to break the barrel in the case of the Mishnah here?
</p><p>
Tosfos explains, based on the Gemara in Beitzah (33b), that the Gemara here refers to a barrel that was once broken, and one fixed it by gluing together the broken parts. The repaired barrel is no longer considered a complete utensil, and therefore one is permitted to break it open to obtain its contents. Any other barrel, though, may not be broken on Shabbos.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RITVA</b> explains that breaking a barrel indeed should be prohibited mid'Rabanan, because it is an act of Stirah without intent to build. The only reason the Mishnah here says one is permitted to break the barrel is because the Rabanan permitted it for the sake of Oneg Shabbos (since one wants to use the food inside the barrel to enhance his Shabbos pleasure). However, they only permitted this in the case of breaking a barrel, but not other types of vessels. A barrel is usually not put back together again and therefore it is uncommon for such a Stirah to be 'Al Menas Livnos,' in order to eventually use the materials to rebuild something.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>YERUSHALMI</b> here, cited by the <b>SHITAH L'RAN</b>, explains that opening a barrel to get the food inside is comparable to opening the shell of a nut to remove the nut inside. Since the barrel is the normal container for the food inside, opening it is not considered Stirah. Rather, it is considered as though one is merely taking food out of its container.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The Halachah (<b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> OC 314:1) follows the opinion of Tosfos (b), that Binyan and Stirah <i>do</i> apply to utensils and the only type of barrel that one may break open on Shabbos is one that was broken and glued together. A complete, unbroken barrel may not be broken in order to get the food inside of it.
</p><p>
However, one is permitted to open plastic bags and containers that contain food, because those containers are made for temporary use and thus they are comparable to a broken barrel that was repaired with glue, which is not considered a real utensil. (See Insights to Beitzah 32:1 for a comprehensive discussion of the topic of opening food containers on Shabbos.)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Some forbid to widen.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  This is because sometimes it was made too small, and he 
          needs to widen it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> The Halachah follows the opinion that 
          forbids.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> All agree that he may open an old hole that 
          was sealed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> This is permitted only if it was sealed 
          [in a place] where this preserves [the smell of] the 
          wine, it is forbidden in a place that strengthens the 
          barrel.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Which place preserves, and which strengthens?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Chisda):</font></b> Above the level of the wine 
          preserves, below this strengthens.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> Also below the level of the wine 
          preserves;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Below the level of the dregs preserves.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Support (for Rava - Abaye - Beraisa):</font></b> (When dividing a 
          Chatzer, the four Amos outside every opening of a house 
          [to the Chatzer] are given to its owner, the rest is 
          divided equally. Even) if a house (i.e. its opening) was 
          sealed, it receives four Amos;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If the doorposts were removed [and then it was 
               sealed], it does not receive four Amos. (This [and 
               also the following law of Tum'ah] shows that until 
               an opening is utterly sealed, it is still considered 
               an opening.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Version #1 (Rashi):</font></b> If Tum'as Mes is inside a sealed 
               house, it is not Metamei outside [the surrounding 
               four Amos];
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> If the doorposts were removed [before sealing it, it 
               is like a sealed coffin, mid'Rabanan] it is Metamei 
               outside.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Version #2 (R. Shimshon):</font></b> If Tum'as Mes is inside a 
               sealed house, it is not Metamei outside [under 
               ledges that protrude, for we assume that [they will 
               break the opening and] the Mes will leave through 
               the opening, and not under the ledges];
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> If the doorposts were removed it is Metamei outside 
               (the Mes might leave anywhere, including under the 
               ledges).
<br>
<b><font>4) STRINGENCIES OF RAV</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> It is forbidden to insert a hollow reed into a 
          hole in a barrel [so wine will leave through it];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> It is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  All forbid to cut the reed [to the right size] on 
          Shabbos; if a reed fell out, all permit to return it; 
          they argue about a reed that was cut, but was not placed 
          in the hole [to see if it is the right size];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rav forbids, lest he will cut it to size; Shmuel 
               does not decree.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Tana'im argue as Rav and Shmuel argue:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> One may not cut a [reed to make a] tube 
               on Yom Tov, there is no need to say it is forbidden 
               on Shabbos;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If it fell out, one may return it on Shabbos, there 
               is no need to say it is permitted on Yom Tov;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yoshiyah is lenient.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Does R. Yoshiyah argue with the Reisha or 
               the Seifa?
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Surely he does not permit in the Reisha - he 
                    makes a Kli!
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> He argues in the Seifa.
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> The first Tana also permits in the Seifa!
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> They argue about a tube that was cut, but 
               was not placed in the hole [to see if it is the 
               right size] - the first Tana forbids, lest he will 
               cut it to size; R. Yoshiyah does not decree.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. 
          Yoshiyah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If it was punctured [one may not put wax on 
          it...]
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> It is forbidden to put oil on it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> It is permitted.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rav decrees to forbid oil, lest one put wax; Shmuel 
               does not decree.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Rav Shmuel bar Rav Chanah (to Rav Yosef):</font></b> You explicitly 
          said that Rav permits oil!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Tavos Rishba):</font></b> One may not put a myrtle leaf in a hole 
          in a barrel in order that the wine flow through it (like 
          a spout).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Yemar mi'Difti):</font></b> This is a decree lest one 
          make a gutter pipe (Rashi; Tosfos - lest one attach it to 
          the roof);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> It is a decree lest he cut [a leaf 
          off the branch, making a Kli].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the difference between these answers?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> If the leaf is already cut [Rav Ashi permits, Rav 
          Yemar forbids].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> One may not go in Reshus ha'Rabim 'wearing' felt 
          pillows or blankets;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> It is permitted.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> All permit if they are soft (they are clothing); all 
               forbid if they are hard;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> They argue when they are intermediate - Rav holds 
               that it looks like a load, Shmuel says that it does 
               not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b></b>  Rav did not explicitly forbid, it was inferred from the 
          following episode:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rav visited a certain place, there was not enough 
               room for the Talmidim. He went to a Karmelis; 
               someone brought felt pillows or blankets to him by 
               wearing it - Rav did not sit on it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The one who saw this assumed that this is because 
               Rav forbids.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Retraction:</font></b> The onlooker erred - Rav announced that it is 
          permitted! He did not sit on them on account of the honor 
          of Rav Kahana and Rav Asi (Talmidei Chaverim of Rav who 
          had to sit on the ground). 
<br>
<b><font>5) THINGS WE DO NOT DECREE AGAINST ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may put a Tavshil in a pit [on Shabbos] so 
          it will not spoil [in the sun].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  One may put good (drinkable) water [in a Kli] in bad 
          water to cool the good water;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  One may put cold water in the sun to warm up.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  If one's clothes became soaked in water on the road, he 
          may continue, this is no problem;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> When he reaches the outer gate [of the entrance to 
               the city, a guarded place], he spreads them out to 
               dry in the sun, but not in front of people.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Objection:</font></b> Obviously, one may put a Tavshil in a 
          pit!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that it is forbidden lest 
          he even out holes in the ground - the Mishnah teaches 
          that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may put good water in bad water 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This is obvious!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Chidush is the Seifa - one may put cold water 
          in the sun.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> Also this is obvious!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that we decree to forbid, 
          lest he store it in hot coals - the Mishnah teaches that 
          this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one's clothes became soaked...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Anything forbidden on account of Mar'is 
          ha'Ayin (suspicion) is forbidden even in private.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> He spreads them out to dry in the 
          sun, but not in front of people.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Tana'im argue about this (Rav holds like R. 
          Eliezer and R. Shimon):
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> One may spread them to dry in the sun, 
               but not in public view;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer and R. Shimon forbid.
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) WAYS OF CARING FOR AND WEARING CLOTHING ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> If one shook out [Rashi - the dirt from; 
          Tosfos - dew from] his Talis on Shabbos, he is Chayav 
          Chatas [for laundering].
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is only if it is new - if it is old, it is 
               permitted;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> [Even if it is new,] this is only if it is black - 
               if it is white or red, it is permitted;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> [Even if it is black,] this is only if he is 
               insistent [not to wear it without shaking it out] - 
               if he is not insistent, it is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Ula came to Pumbadisa and saw Rabanan shaking out their 
          garments - he said, 'They are Mechalel Shabbos!' 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Rav Yehudah:</font></b> You may shake out right in front of him - we 
          are not insistent.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Rav Yosef asked [his Talmid] Abaye to bring his hat; 
          Abaye saw dew on it, and was hesitant.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Rav Yosef:</font></b> Shake it out - we are not insistent!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (R. Yitzchak bar Yosef):</font></b> If one walks in Reshus ha'Rabim 
          on Shabbos with his garment folded onto his shoulder 
          (this is not the way to wear it, it is a load), he is 
          Chayav Chatas.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> If a clothes salesman walks in Reshus 
          ha'Rabim on Shabbos with a garment folded onto his 
          shoulder, he is Chayav Chatas;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The same applies to anyone, just clothes salesmen 
               normally go like this.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  If a grocer walks in Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos with 
          money in his cloak, he is Chayav Chatas;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The same applies to anyone, just grocers normally go 
               like this.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  Couriers (Aruch; Rashi - people of a certain place) may 
          go out with turbans folded on their shoulders;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The same applies to anyone, just it is normal for 
               these people to go like this.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  R. Yehudah:</font></b> A case occurred, Hurkenus the son of R. 
          Eliezer went out with a turban folded on his shoulder - a 
          thread from it was wrapped on his finger [to ensure that 
          it not fall];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim said, it is permitted even without a 
               thread wrapped on his finger.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda):</font></b> The Halachah is, it is 
          permitted even without a thread wrapped on his finger.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question (Bei Rav Asi bar Hini):</font></b> May one make Marzev on 
          Shabbos (this will be explained)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer (Ula):</font></b> R. Ilai forbids.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is Marzev?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Zeira):</font></b> People of Bavel make folds (Rashi - 
          and support them with threads) in garments that are too 
          long. (It is forbidden, for it is like fixing the 
          garment.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yirmiyah demonstrated and asked about different 
               ways of doing this; R. Zeira forbade all of them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Rav Papa):</font></b> The general rule is - if it is meant to stay 
          folded permanently, it is forbidden; 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If it is temporary, it is permitted, like Rav Shisha 
               brei d'Rav Idi straightens out his cloak [on a 
               weekday].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Rav Dimi):</font></b> Once, Rebbi entered a field, the two sides of 
          his Talis were on his shoulders;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Yehoshua ben Ziruz (the brother-in-law of R. Meir):</font></b> 
               R. Meir was Mechayev Chatas for this (it is like a 
               load)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rebbi:</font></b> Is he Mechayev for this? (Only the sides are 
               on the shoulders, the rest hangs down!)
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Rebbi lowered his Talis (he accepted Yehoshua's 
               words).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  (Ravin):</font></b> No, Yehoshua ben Kefusai, the son-in-law of R. 
          Akiva told Rebbi that R. Akiva is Mechayev Chatas for 
          this; Rebbi was surprised, but accepted his words.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehudah:</font></b> Rebbi was not wearing a Talis 
          this way - rather, he was asked, and was about to permit 
          until he heard that R. Meir or R. Akiva is Mechayev.
<br>
<b><font>2) LAWS RELATED TO BATHING ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one bathed in a cave or in the springs of 
          Tiverya and wiped himself, even if he used 10 towels, he 
          may not take them [with him, even if there is an Eiruv, 
          lest he squeeze them];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  However, even 10 people may use the same towel to wipe 
          their hands, feet and face (or even their whole bodies, 
          just this is uncommon, for it would be too wet), and take 
          the towel.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  We may anoint and massage [for pleasure], but one may not 
          rub hard or scratch himself with Magredes (a comb used 
          for horses, for this is a weekday act).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  One may not descend to Kordima (a certain river) or make 
          Afiktizin [to make himself vomit];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  One may not straighten limbs or vertebrae of a baby, or 
          reset a broken bone;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  If the hand or leg bone was dislocated, he may not shake 
          (alternatively - rub, or shower) it in water, but he may 
          wash normally; if it heals, this is no problem.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Gemara):</font></b> The Mishnah discusses a cave and springs of 
          Tiverya to equate them - just like the springs are hot, 
          also the cave water;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'If one bathed' connotes b'Diavad - but to shower is 
               l'Chatchilah!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) CARRYING A WET TOWEL ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (147a) states that two or more people may carry a wet towel together. One person, though, may not carry a wet towel, due to the concern that he will forget that it is Shabbos and wring out the towel, since there is no one there to remind him that it is Shabbos.
</p><p>
Rebbi Shimon (in the Beraisa) argues and permits even one person to carry a wet towel. To demonstrate that Rebbi also maintains that one person may carry a wet towel, the Gemara records an incident in which Rebbi states that when he was a Talmid of Rebbi Shimon, 'We used to carry the towel to a spring where we would wash (and carry the towel back afterwards.'
</p><p>
How does this statement prove that Rebbi maintains that one person may carry a towel? Rebbi said, '<i>We</i> used to carry the towel...'! Rebbi's statement seems to demonstrate that one may carry a towel only when he carries it with someone else, contrary to the point that the Gemara attempts to prove.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> (DH d'Tanya) explains that when Rebbi said, ''We' used to carry back the towel,' he meant that <i>each Talmid</i> took a turn accompanying Rebbi Shimon to the spring, and when the turn of each Talmid came, that individual would carry back the towel by himself. (It certainly would not have been respectful to carry it together <i>with</i> the Rebbi.) 'We' means that all of the Talmidim carried back the towel at one point -- each one by himself when his turn came. (It seems from the words of Tosfos that those who argue with Rebbi Shimon maintain that it is not sufficient for one person to carry the towel <i>accompanied</i> by someone else. Instead, <i>both</i> people must hold the towel together.) 
</p><p>
How does the Gemara know to interpret Rebbi's statement of 'we' to mean 'when each one's turn came'?
</p><p>

1. Tosfos explains that it was not proper etiquette for more than one Talmid to go with the master when he went to wash.
</p><p>
2. The <b>RITVA</b> explains that if two or more Talmidim would have carried back the towel together, it would have been a disgrace to Rebbi Shimon (who ruled that one person may carry it by himself).
</p><p>
3. The <b>RITVA</b> adds that since Rebbi made a point of relating this conduct of the Talmidim, he must be teaching something with it. It must be that he meant to say that they carried the towel individually, and he is teaching that he agrees with the ruling of Rebbi Shimon.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana of the Mishnah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is R. Shimon:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> [On Shabbos] one may not shower 
               his entire body in hot or cold water;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon permits;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah forbids in hot water, he permits in cold 
               water.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> And wiped himself, even if he used 10 
          towels...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  The Reisha and Seifa each teach a Chidush:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Reisha teaches, even though each towel is barely 
               wet, since only one person wiped himself, he may not 
               take them back lest he [forget, and] squeeze them;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The Seifa teaches, even though the towel is very 
               wet, since there are many people, they may take it 
               back - they will remind each other not to squeeze 
               it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One may wipe himself with a towel and leave it 
          in the window; he may not give it to a bathhouse 
          attendant, for they are suspected of this matter 
          (squeezing them, to give to another bather).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon says, one may wipe himself with one towel and 
          take it back home.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> What is the Halachah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> R. Shimon permits [here], and also 
          Rebbi, Shmuel, and R. Yochanan:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> When we learned from R. Shimon in 
               Tako'a, we would bring to him [on Shabbos] oil and a 
               towel, transferring them from Chatzer to roof, from 
               roof to Karfef, from Karfef to Karfef, until we 
               reached the bathing spring. (Presumably, they 
               returned the towel and did not leave it Hefker. 
               Tosfos - a Talmid may not bathe with his Rebbi, 
               unless the Rebbi needs him - presumably, one Talmid 
               sufficed, and he would return the towel himself, for 
               R. Shimon permits this.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Shmuel):</font></b> One may wipe himself with a towel and take 
               it back home.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (R. Chiya bar Aba citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> One may wipe 
               himself with a towel and take it back home.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But R. Yochanan said that the Halachah 
               follows an anonymous Mishnah - and our Mishnah says, 
               even if he used 10 towels, he may not take them 
               back!
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> [He holds that it is not a Stam Mishnah -] 
               his text says 'these are the words of Ben 
               Chachinai':
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> A bathhouse attendant may bring 
          towels for women to the bathhouse [through Reshus 
          ha'Rabim, by wearing them], on condition that he covers 
          the majority of his head and body with it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b></b>  To wear Sachnisa (a large (Rashi; Rambam - small) turban; 
          Tosfos - a very thin garment) in Reshus ha'Rabim, one 
          must tie the ends at the bottom (lest it fall down or 
          blow off).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> One must tie it below the shoulders.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Rava (to the people of his city):</font></b> When [Nochri] soldiers 
          force you to take their clothes to the bathhouse [on 
          Shabbos], let them down from your shoulders [so it will 
          be the way of wearing them].
<br>
<b><font>3) RUBBING AND SCRATCHING ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We may anoint and massage.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> We may anoint and massage the intestines, on 
          Shabbos, as long as it is unlike one does on a weekday.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How does one deviate?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Chama bar Chanina):</font></b> He anoints before 
          massaging.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> He anoints and massages at the 
          same time.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> But one may not rub hard.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (R. Chiya bar Aba):</font></b> It is forbidden to stand on the floor 
          of the Deyumeses river (it is salty), for this heats a 
          person and cures.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> There are 21 days during which it heals, 
          including Shavu'os.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Is Shavu'os the first or last day?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Shmuel taught that anything drunk for a cure 
          works from Pesach until Shavu'os. (Here also, Shavu'os is 
          the last day it helps!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> Perhaps drinks help when the world is cold, 
          but this works on account of heat, it is better after 
          Shavu'os!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (R. Chelbo):</font></b> [Superb] wine of Prugaisa (a place) and 
          water of the Deyumeses severed the 10 Shevatim from 
          Yisrael (they pursued these pleasures and neglected 
          learning);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar ben Arach went there - he was drawn after them, 
          and forgot his learning.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> When he returned, he tried to resume learning; he 
               wanted to read 'Ha'Chodesh ha'Zeh Lachem...' - the 
               words came out 'Ha'Cheres Hayah Libam' (Ya'avetz - 
               to hint to him that these pleasures made the 10 
               Shevatim lose Yir'as Shomayim, and their hearts 
               became hard like earthenware. Formerly, his heart 
               was a 'gushing spring', he outweighed all other 
               Chachamim [regarding his power of reasoning - Avos 
               2:8]);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Rabanan prayed for him, he recovered his learning.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah - R. Nehurai):</font></b> Exile yourself to a place of 
               Torah (go to where Chachamim are, do not say that 
               they are Talmidim, so they should follow you); do 
               not say that Torah will follow you - rather, your 
               colleagues will cause you to retain it (when you 
               learn one tractate, they learn others, this helps 
               you to remember them); and do not rely on your 
               understanding (even if you are very sharp, you will 
               retain your learning only if you learn with others).
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> R. Nehurai's real name was R. Nechemyah;
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> Some say, he was R. Elazar ben Arach;
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> He is called R. Nehurai because he was Manhir 
               (enlightened) Chachamim's eyes in Halachah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not scratch himself.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One may not scratch himself with Magredes on 
          Shabbos;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if his feet were dirty with 
          mud and excrement, he may scrape them normally.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b></b>  Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah's mother made a silver Magredes 
          for him [for Shabbos, so it should be unlike a weekday 
          act].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not descend to Kordima.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b></b>  This is because the mud there is slippery; he is prone to 
          fall in, and might come to squeeze his garments.
<br>
<b><font>4) THINGS FORBIDDEN ON ACCOUNT OF HEALING ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not make Afiktizin.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> It is forbidden to induce 
          vomiting through a potion, but by hand (sticking it down 
          the throat) is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Nechemyah):</font></b> It is forbidden [to induce 
          vomiting in order to eat more] even on a weekday, for 
          this wastes food.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not straighten limbs or vertebrae of a 
          baby.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> One may wrap limbs of a baby (to 
          straighten them, so they will not get bent).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Mishnah forbids this!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah forbids straightening a vertebra that 
          fell out of line [after the day of birth], for it is like 
          building.
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) FIXING A BROKEN OR DISLOCATED BONE ON SHABBOS
</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not reset a broken bone.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chana Bagdata'ah citing Shmuel):</font></b> [The correct text 
          of the Mishnah, and] the Halachah is, one may return a 
          broken bone.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Rabah bar bar Chanah visited Pumbadisa; he did not go to 
          the lecture of Rav Yehudah. Rav Yehudah told an officer 
          to grab him by the clothes until he comes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Rabah found Rav Yehudah teaching 'One may not return a 
          broken bone.'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rabah):</font></b> Rav Chana cited Shmuel to say that the Halachah 
          is, one may return it!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Rav Yehudah:</font></b> Rav Chana and Shmuel are both from Bavel, 
          yet I (in Bavel) did not hear this until you (from Eretz 
          Yisrael) told us - it is good that I forced you to come!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If the hand or leg bone was dislocated...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Rav Avya's hand became dislocated; he was asking Rav 
          Yosef about possible ways to return it - Rav Yosef 
          forbade all of them. Amidst this, it snapped back into 
          place.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Rav Yosef:</font></b> Why were you asking - the Mishnah says, if the 
          hand or leg bone was dislocated, he may not shake it in 
          water, but he may wash normally - if it heals, this is no 
          problem.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Rav Avya:</font></b> It also forbids to reset a broken bone, yet 
          Shmuel taught that the Halachah is, it is permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Rav Yosef:</font></b> Not everything is the same - we change the 
          text only where it was taught to do so.
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>***** <b>PEREK SHO'EL</b> *****
</b></font></center><p>
<br><br><b><font>2) 'SHINUYIM' TO PREVENT PERFORMING A 'MELACHAH' ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Reuven may Sho'el (borrow) barrels of wine or 
          oil from his friend, as long as he does not say 
          'Halveni';
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Similarly, a woman may Sho'el loaves from her friend [but 
          may not say 'Halveni'].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  If the lender does not trust Reuven, Reuven leaves his 
          Talis with him, and they calculate [the value of what was 
          lent] after Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Similarly, when Erev Pesach is on Shabbos one [who needs 
          to buy Korban Pesach] leaves his Talis with the seller, 
          and they make a calculation after Yom Tov.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Rava bar Rav Chanan) Question:</font></b> What is the 
          difference whether he says 'Hash'ileni' or 'Halveni'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> If he says 'Halveni', the lender is prone 
          to write [details of the loan; Tosfos - this connotes a 
          loan (usually food or money) in which the same item will 
          not be returned; Rashi it is normally a 30 day loan];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he says 'Hash'ileni', we are not concerned lest 
               he write (normally the same item lent (usually a 
               Kli) is returned, or it is for less than 30 days).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question (Rava):</font></b> Since during the week people are not 
          particular, and sometimes say Hash'ileni in place of 
          Halveni, and the lender writes, also on Shabbos we should 
          be concerned, even if he says Hash'ileni the lender might 
          write!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> Since on Shabbos Hash'ileni is permitted 
          and Halveni is forbidden, his intent is clear, the lender 
          will not write.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question (Rava bar Rav Chanan):</font></b> On Yom Tov, we do 
          everything using the biggest Shinuy possible - why do 
          women fill jugs [with water] normally?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> There is no feasible Shinuy!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If we will say that those who use big jugs [during 
               the week] should use small ones [on Yom Tov], this 
               will cause extra walking [to and from the well]!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If we will say that those who normally use small 
               jugs should use big ones, this will cause them to 
               carry a larger load!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) BORROWING OBJECTS ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that if a person borrows an item on Shabbos, he should ask to borrow it by saying, 'Hash'ileini' and not 'Halveini.' The difference between these two terms is that 'Hash'ileini' refers to borrowing an object that will be returned exactly as it was lent. 'Halveini' refers to borrowing an object that will not be returned itself, but something else of equal value will be returned in its place (for example, when one borrows money, he never returns the same coins and bills that he borrowed, but he returns other coins and bills). 
</p><p>
Why difference does it make what term one uses to borrow an item on Shabbos?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that one must use only a term that shows that he intends to borrow the item for a short period of time. The Rabanan were concerned that if he uses a term which shows that he intends to borrow the item for a long period of time, the lender might make a written record of the loan on Shabbos. The <b>RITVA</b> adds that one is not permitted even to state, 'Halveini, for a short period of time.'
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> explains that the only reason why one must say 'Hash'ileini' is in order to make a noticeable difference in the way that he normally acts (as the Gemara concludes). When one borrows wine or bread on Shabbos and says 'Hash'ileini,' a term not usually used in such a manner, he remembers that it is Shabbos and he will not write a record of the loan.
</p><p>
The <b>RAN</b> adds that in foreign languages in which only one term is used for the word 'lend' (such as English), a person must still make some sort of change from his usual mode of expression (for example, he should say, 'Please <i>give</i> it to me,' instead of, 'Please <i>lend</i> it to me').
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RITVA</b> and <b>TOSFOS RID</b> explain that one is not permitted to say even 'Hash'ileini,' since most people do not know the difference between 'Hash'ileini' and 'Halveini.' Moreover, in the case of the Mishnah here, the person is not actually borrowing the item. Rather, he is buying it, and he intends to pay money in return for it.
</p><p>
When the Mishnah says that he should say, 'Hash'ileini,' it means that he may keep the item only for a <i>short</i> time before paying. That is, it does not mean that he must only <i>say</i> 'Hash'ileini,' but rather that he must specify that he is taking the object for a short period of time.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 307:11) records the opinion of Rashi (a). He also quotes the opinion of the Ran, who says that when the common language does not differentiate between 'Hash'ileini' and 'Halveini,' one should make some change in the normal way in which he asks to borrow an item.
</p><p>
The <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> (307:43) cites the <b>PRI MEGADIM</b> who adds that even when one borrows an item of a Mitzvah, such as a Sefer, one should not use the same term that one normally uses to borrow an item.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> If we will require to cover the jug with a garment, 
               [it may get wet and] they might come to squeeze!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> If we will require to cover it with a lid, [people 
               will tie it on,] perhaps the rope will snap and they 
               might come to tie!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question (Rava bar Rav Chanan - Mishnah):</font></b> On Yom Tov we 
          may not clap hands on each other or over the heart (Rashi 
          - on account of mourning; Tosfos - out of joy) or dance 
          (lest one fix a musical instrument);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> People do this, and we do not protest!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Counter-question (Abaye):</font></b> Rava taught that one 
               should not sit even with the Lechi, lest something 
               roll away, and he will retrieve it - people set jugs 
               down and sit there, and we do not protest!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer to both questions (Abaye):</font></b> You must say that we 
          are silent because [they will not listen, and] it is 
          better that Yisraelim transgress b'Shogeg than b'Mezid!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Assumption:</font></b> This only applies to a transgression 
          mid'Rabanan, but regarding mid'Oraisa, we protest even if 
          they will not listen.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> Mid'Oraisa, one must add to Yom Kipur (begin 
          fasting before nightfall), yet some eat until night, and 
          we do not protest! (Most say that the addition to the 
          Isur Melachah of Yom Kipur [and Shabbos and Yom Tov] is 
          also mid'Oraisa - Bi'ur Halachah 261 (Yesh Omrim). Rama - 
          if the Torah explicitly forbids something, we protest 
          even if they will not listen.)
<br>
<b><font>3) COLLECTING A LOAN GIVEN ON YOM TOV</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Similarly, a woman may Sho'el loaves from her 
          friend.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> This is forbidden on Shabbos, it is permitted 
          on a weekday.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> Our Mishnah is unlike Hillel!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah - Hillel):</font></b> A woman may not lend a loaf to 
               her neighbor until she sets a price for it, lest 
               wheat will rise in price and she will [return a loaf 
               worth more, and] transgress usury!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> It is even like Hillel - he discusses a place 
          where they do not fix the price of bread, our Mishnah 
          discusses a place where they do.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If the lender does not trust him...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> One cannot demand payment of a loan given on 
          Yom Tov.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rabah):</font></b> One can demand payment.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> One cannot demand payment - if he could, 
          people would come to write it down!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rabah):</font></b> One can demand payment - if he could not, people 
          would not lend, and others [who need to borrow] will not 
          fulfill Simchas Yom Tov!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If the lender does not trust Reuven, Reuven 
          leaves his Talis with him.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If one cannot demand payment, we understand why 
          he leaves his Talis with him and makes a calculation 
          after Shabbos;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> But if one can demand payment, there is no need for 
               Reuven to leave his Talis!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The lender prefers to have collateral to avoid 
          the bother of claiming from him in Beis Din.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Idi bar Avin - Mishnah):</font></b> (Shemitah is 
          Meshamet (cancels) debts owed at the end of the Shemitah 
          year.) If Levi slaughtered a cow and divided the meat 
          [among several buyers] on [the 30th day of Elul of 
          Shemitah, which is usually Mekudash to be] Rosh Hashanah:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If Elul was made full (the day was not Mekudash, it 
               was Erev Rosh Hashanah, the debt was owed at the end 
               of Shemitah), it is Meshamet;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If not (the day was Rosh Hashanah, the debt began 
               after Shemitah), it is not Meshamet.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> If one cannot demand payment, it is meaningless to 
               say [in the Reisha] 'Meshamet'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> [Even though we may not do Melachah on Elul 30, 
          lest it be Mekudash to be Rosh Hashanah,] retroactively 
          it was not Mekudash, so the law of a loan on Yom Tov does 
          not apply.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question (Seifa):</font></b> If not (the day was Rosh Hashanah), it 
          is not Meshamet.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This implies that one can demand payment!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, it means that if the buyer wants to pay, the 
          seller may accept.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This implies that in the Reisha, the seller may 
          not accept!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> In the Reisha, he must say 'I Meshamet!'; in the 
          Seifa, he need not say this;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven returns a debt from before 
               Shemitah to Shimon, Shimon must say 'I Meshamet!'
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If Reuven says, 'Even so [I want to repay]', Shimon 
               may take the money, for it says 'V'Zeh <i>Devar</i> 
               ha'Shemitah' (one must declare that he is Meshamet).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b></b>  Rav Avya would take a security (when lending on Yom Tov); 
          Rabah bar Ula would scheme [and take a security after Yom 
          Tov - Rashi; R. Chananel - he would request a loan 
          afterwards, then say 'I will keep this as payment for the 
          loan of Yom Tov'].
<br>
<b><font>4) MAY ONE BE 'MAKDISH' ON SHABBOS AND YOM TOV?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Similarly, when Erev Pesach...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> One may Makdish his Korban Pesach on 
          Shabbos and his Chagigah (a Shelamim every man must offer 
          on each festival) on Yom Tov.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Support (Mishnah):</font></b> Similarly, when Erev Pesach is on 
          Shabbos one [who needs to buy an animal for Korban 
          Pesach] leaves his Talis with the seller, and they make a 
          calculation after Yom Tov.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> The case is, the Korban was Hukdash before 
          Shabbos, the buyer was merely Nimneh (bought a share of 
          the meat; all the owners fulfill their obligation to 
          offer Korban Pesach through this animal) on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> On Yom Tov, one may not buy the 
          rights to eat part of an animal.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Here, [the case is] the buyer is regularly Nimneh 
          on this seller's Pesach, therefore it is as if he was 
          Nimneh from before Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Hoshaya's Beraisa):</font></b> One may go to a shepherd 
          he knows well, take a lamb, Makdish it and offer it for 
          Korban Pesach.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Also there, the buyer regularly buys from the 
          shepherd, the shepherd was Makdish the Pesach before 
          Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa says that he (the buyer) is Makdish 
          it!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is a Mid'Rabanan virtue for the buyer to 
          declare it Hekdesh (but mid'Oraisa, this does nothing).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But R. Yochanan says that the Halachah follows 
          a Stam Mishnah!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> On Yom Tov, one may not Makdish, Ma'arich 
               (pledge to Hekdesh a person's Erech, an amount based 
               on his age and gender), make Cherem (it is Hekdesh 
               until it is given to a Kohen), or separate Terumos 
               and Ma'aseros; all the more so these are forbidden 
               on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah refers to Korbanos without a fixed 
          time, R. Yochanan discusses Korbanos with a fixed time.
<br>
<b><font>5) MAKING LOTTERIES ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may count his guests and courses by heart, 
          but he may not read [from a list].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  One may make a lottery [to determine who gets which 
          portion] with his sons and household at the table, as 
          long as he does not intend to make some portions bigger 
          than others.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  We may make a lottery [among Kohanim] regarding Kodshim, 
          but not regarding the portions (this will be explained).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) HALACHAH: REBUKING A WRONGDOER</b></font><b>
<br></b>The Gemara says that when one sees someone else transgress a rabbinical prohibition without knowing that the act is prohibited, he should not rebuke the wrongdoer if he knows that the wrongdoer will continue to sin ('Mutav she'Yehu Shogegin v'Al Yehu Mezidin'). This principle does not apply to prohibitions written explicitly in the Torah, in which case one must rebuke the wrongdoer even if he knows that the wrongdoer will continue to sin.
</p><p>
The Poskim (OC 608:2) set forth the practical details of this Halachah:
</p><p>
(a) A person must rebuke someone who <i>willfully</i> sins, even if he feels certain that the sinner will not heed the rebuke. If the wrongdoer is transgressing a prohibition that is written <i>explicitly</i> in the Torah, it is assumed that he knows that it is forbidden and that he is sinning intentionally, and therefore one must rebuke him and tell him to stop.
</p><p>
(b) If one sees that the wrongdoer does not accept the rebuke, then one should continue to rebuke him until the wrongdoer gets upset and yells at him. However, this rebuke should be administered in private and not in public. (One rebukes a sinner in public only once.) Also, if the sin was committed in private, one should rebuke the sinner only in private.
</p><p>
The <b>BI'UR HALACHAH</b> (OC 608, DH Chayav) writes in the name of the <b>SEFER CHASIDIM</b> (#413) that one is <i>not</i> required to rebuke a wrongdoer until the wrongdoer yells at him, unless he feels close to the person (that is, they know each other well and there is a chance that the rebuke will be accepted).
</p><p>
(It is important to remember that the purpose of rebuke is <i>exclusively</i> to help the wrongdoer correct his ways and follow the will of Hash-m and His Mitzvos, and it is not for the sake of mere reprimand. Rebuke must be administered in different ways, depending on the level of scholarship and maturity of the person who sinned, in order to be effective.)
</p><p>
(c) However, if the wrongdoer's sinful act is not stated explicitly in the Torah, or it is prohibited mid'Rabanan (and it is not evident that he knows that the act is prohibited), then if one knows for certain that the wrongdoer will not heed the rebuke, he is not required to tell the wrongdoer to stop. In such a case, the rebuke will only make his sin worse by changing it from an unintentional sin to an intentional one.
</p><p>
If there is a <i>possibility</i> that he will listen to the rebuke, then one is obligated to rebuke him (as the Gemara says on 55a).
</p><p>


<font><b>3) BORROWING BREAD 'WITH INTEREST'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> From the fact that the Mishnah says that one may <i>not</i> borrow bread on <i>Shabbos</i> by using the term 'Halveini,' the Gemara infers that one is <i>permitted</i> to borrow bread during the rest of the week even without assessing the value of the bread. The Gemara asserts that the Mishnah does not agree with the opinion of Hillel, who maintains that one must first assess the value of the bread in order to avoid any question of paying back with interest (lest one return a loaf of bread of greater value than the one he borrowed).
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara merely <i>infer</i> that the Mishnah maintains that one is permitted to borrow bread during the week without assessing its value? The Mishnah states <i>explicitly</i> that one is permitted to borrow bread on Shabbos when he uses the term 'Hash'ileini,' and no assessment of its value is necessary. 
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHBA</b> answers that even Hillel agrees that one may borrow bread on Shabbos by saying 'Hash'ileini' without assessing its value, because 'Hash'ileini' implies a short-term loan and there is no fear that the price of wheat will rise in such a short amount of time.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RAV MOSHE MORDECHAI KARP</b>, in his notes to the Rashba (Oraisa edition), suggests two other answers. The <b>MAGEN AVRAHAM</b> (OC 242:2) rules that for the sake of giving honor to Shabbos, one is permitted to borrow money with a form of interest that is prohibited mid'Rabanan (such as the type that Hillel discusses). Therefore, the fact that one may borrow a loaf of bread on Shabbos (and pay back a loaf of greater value) does not show that one is also permitted to do so during the week.
</p><p>
(c) Rav Karp adds that <b>TOSFOS</b> (149b, DH Bnei) says that Hillel himself would permit one to borrow bread with the term 'Hash'ileini.' He only prohibits using the term 'Halveini,' because that term makes it look like a real loan, to which the laws of interest apply. This may also be Rashi's intent here (in DH Ha b'Chol).
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) READING FROM LISTS ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Why is it forbidden [to read from a 
          list]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Bivi):</font></b> This is a decree lest he [decide 
          not to invite someone and] erase [a name].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> This is a decree lest people read 
          secular (business) documents.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the difference between these answers?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> The list is written high on a wall - there is 
          no concern for erasing, but the concern for reading 
          secular documents applies.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Objection #1:</font></b> Also Rav Bivi should be concerned for 
          reading secular documents [in general, including this 
          case]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Objection #2:</font></b> [Surely,] we are concerned lest one erase 
          even if it is high [just like we are concerned lest one 
          adjust a lamp]!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not read by light of a lamp.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Rabah):</font></b> This is forbidden even if it is twice the 
               height of an [average] person above the floor (he is 
               unlikely to tilt it to make it burn better), or two 
               plowshare lengths above the floor, even the height 
               of 10 houses!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, the list is written low on a wall - 
          there is concern for erasing, but not for reading 
          [secular documents], for people do not confuse a wall 
          with a document.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> Also Abaye should be concerned lest he erase 
          [in general, including this case]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #3:</font></b> Rather, the list is etched into a tablet or 
          ledger - there is no concern for erasing (it is difficult 
          to erase, one would remember it is Shabbos before 
          erasing), there is concern for reading.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> Also Rav Bivi should be concerned for reading!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps people do not confuse a tablet 
               or ledger with a document!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection (Beraisa):</font></b> One may count which guests he 
               will seat inside and which outside, and which 
               courses have not yet been served, reading from 
               [writing on] a wall, but not from a tablet or 
               ledger.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the case?
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  If it is written in ink, what is the difference 
                    between them?! (Both should be forbidden, lest 
                    he erase!)
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> They are etched.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Summation of objection:</font></b> One may read from a wall but 
               not from a tablet or ledger (this shows that even on 
               a tablet we are concerned for reading secular 
               documents)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Defense of Answer #1:</font></b> Really, it is high on a wall - 
          Tana'im argue about Rabah's concern (lest one adjust a 
          high lamp):
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> One may count his guests and courses by 
               heart, but he may not read them;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Acha permits to read from a list on the wall.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the case?
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  If it is low, we should be concerned lest he 
                    erase!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It is written very high.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> The first Tana holds like Rabah, R. Acha argues.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  The Tana'im argue like the following:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> One may not look in a mirror on Shabbos 
               (lest he cut uneven hairs);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Meir permits to look in a mirror fixed on the 
               wall.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Surely, R. Meir permits a fixed mirror 
               because [by the time he gets a scissors] he will 
               remember that it is Shabbos - the same applies if it 
               is not fixed!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> They argue about a metal mirror:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> One may not look in a metal 
                    mirror lest one [use its edge to] cut dangling 
                    hairs (he need not delay to get a scissors. 
                    Tosfos (Avodah Zarah 29A ha'Mistaper) - this 
                    refers to women, men may never look in a mirror 
                    on account of 'Lo Yilbash Gever Simlas Ishah', 
                    adorning oneself like a woman. Rama (Y.D. 
                    156:2) - nowadays, men look in mirrors, this is 
                    not considered Simlas Ishah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One may not read a caption under a picture or 
          portrait on Shabbos (Rashi - lest he come to read secular 
          documents (reading captions is more stringent than 
          reading regular writing on a wall); R. Chananel - it is 
          no better than secular documents);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  Even during the week it is forbidden to look at a 
          portrait (Tosfos - that was made for idolatry) - 'Al 
          Tifnu El ha'Elilim'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How do we learn this from the verse?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Chanin):</font></b> Do not turn to what you make from the 
          depths of your heart (Rashi - Elilim is like Chalalim; 
          Aruch - do not clear Hash-m from your thoughts).
<br>
<b><font>2) CASTING LOTS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may make a lottery with his sons...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> It is permitted with his sons and household, 
          but not with others.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Shmuel taught that if a group of people lend to 
          each other and are insistent to get back no less than 
          they gave, they transgress [on Shabbos and Yom Tov] 
          measuring, weighing and counting, lending and repaying on 
          Yom Tov, and according to Hillel, also usury.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE WRITING ON THE WALL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION: RASHI</b> (DH Asur l'Kroso b'Shabbos) writes that on Shabbos a person may not read the caption below a picture drawn on the wall. Reading the caption of a picture is prohibited because of a rabbinical decree, lest one read contracts (Shetarei Hedyotos) on Shabbos.
</p><p>
Why should reading captions under pictures be prohibited because of Shetarei Hedyotos? The Gemara earlier says that one will <i>not</i> confuse reading something that is written on the wall with reading Shetarei Hedyotos!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RAV SIMCHAH MI'DESVI</b> (in his comments printed in the back of the Vilna Shas) suggests that since such a picture may not viewed altogether during the week, the Rabanan prohibited reading the caption under such a picture on Shabbos.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ME'IRI</b> implies that reading the caption is not prohibited because <i>one might come</i> to read Shetarei Hedyotos, but because the caption itself <i>is</i> Shetarei Hedyotos. Contracts may not be read because they have nothing to do with Shabbos (<b>SHITAH L'RAN</b>), and this caption, too, may not be read because it has nothing to do with Shabbos.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) HALACHAH: LOOKING AT DRAWINGS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara says that one may not look at drawings during the week. To what type of drawing does this prohibition apply, and why is one prohibited from looking at it?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH El mi'Da'atchem) and <b>TOSFOS</b> in Avodah Zarah (50a) explain that looking at pictures is forbidden because one who gazes at such drawings wastes time with an invented, imaginary reality.
</p><p>
There are several ways to understand Rashi's words. 
</p><p>
1. The <b>ME'IRI</b> explains that a person who looks at such drawings wastes time and draws himself away from serving Hash-m.
</p><p>
2. The <b>RITVA</b> adds that a person should give his attention only to Hashem's creations in order to be awed by Hashem's wonders, rather than to manmade creations.
</p><p>
3. Rashi mentions that a person should not look at drawings of 'strange creatures or pictures of events of the past.' <b>RAV YAAKOV</b> D. HOMNICK (<b>MARBEH SHALOM</b> #22) points out that Rashi's words imply that one is prohibited from looking only at the type of picture that is based on human imagination -- pictures that depict objects or events of fantasy which a person otherwise would not conceive. In contrast, pictures of real objects, natural scenery, and multicolored frescos, are permissible to draw and to view (as is clear from the Gemara in Bava Metzia 115a), because a person either knows what these things look like without using his imagination, or because they do not represent any particular object at all. (See Marbeh Shalom there for a deeper explanation for why pictures based on human imagination are prohibited.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> and the <b>ROSH</b> explain that looking at drawings is forbidden only when the drawing was made specifically for Avodah Zarah (even if it was not actually worshipped as such). Since it was made for the purpose of Avodah Zarah, one may not look at it. 
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>MAGEN AVRAHAM</b> (OC 307:23, cited by the Bi'ur Halachah) writes that the custom is to be lenient and allow the viewing of drawings, unless they were made for Avodah Zarah. He adds that it one certainly is permitted to look at them casually, without gazing intently at them.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If so, it should be forbidden even with one's 
          household!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rav taught that one may lend to his household and 
          take usury, to give them a taste of usury (so they will 
          know how terrible it is. Since he feeds them, it is all 
          his money, it is not really usury; similarly, since there 
          is no concern of overcharging (they measure merely to 
          avoid jealousy), they do not transgress measuring, 
          weighing...]
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If so, it should be permitted to intend to make 
          some portions bigger than others!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, it is - the Mishnah is abbreviated, it 
          means as follows:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One may make a lottery with his sons and household 
               at the table, even if some portions are bigger than 
               others;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Why is this permitted?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It is permitted like Rav taught.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> It is permitted with his sons and household, but not 
               with others.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Why is it forbidden with others?
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> It is forbidden like Shmuel taught.
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b></b> With others, one may not make some portions bigger 
               than others, even during the week.
       <br><b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
       <br><b>   <b><font>9.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> This is like gambling, (It is Asmachta - 
               even though everyone agrees that the winner will 
               profit, if the losers would know the outcome 
               beforehand they would not agree; they lack 
               sufficient intent to transfer ownership, hence the 
               winner steals.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We may make a lottery [regarding Kodshim, but 
          not regarding the portions].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does it mean 'But not regarding the 
          portions'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yakov brah d'Bas Yakov):</font></b> One may not make a 
          lottery on Yom Tov to divide portions from a weekday 
          Korban.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This is obvious!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought, since Kohanim are 
          quarrelsome - 'V'Amcha ki'Mrivei Chohen' - it should be 
          permitted even to divide weekday portions [to avoid 
          strife] - the Mishnah teaches that this is not so.
<br>
<b><font>3) THE EVIL OF NEBUCHADNETZAR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Yakov brah d'Bas Yakov):</font></b> If someone is punished on 
          account of Ploni (Iyun Yakov - and Ploni desires this), 
          Ploni does not enter Hashem's Mechitzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How do we know this?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> We learn from 'Va'Yomer Hash-m Mi 
               Yefateh Es Ach'av...; Va'Yetzei ha'Ru'ach...Ani 
               Afatenu...; V'Hayisi Ru'ach Sheker... 
               Va'Yomer...Tzei';
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What was this Ru'ach?
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b><font> Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> It was the Ru'ach of 
                    Navos (whom Ach'av framed and killed).
             <br><b>  <b><font>iii. </font></b><font>Question:</font></b> Why did Hash-m say 'Tzei'?
             <br><b>  <b><font>iv. </font></b><font> Answer (Rav):</font></b> Hash-m told him 'Leave My 
                    Presence' (because Ach'av will be punished 
                    through him).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> Perhaps He told him to leave because he 
               offered to lie - 'Dover Shekarim Lo Yikon l'Neged 
               Einai'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> We learn from 'Sovata Kalon...'
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'Sovata Kalon mi'Kavod' alludes to Nebuchadnetzar 
               (he intended to sodomize Tzidkiyahu, Hash-m made his 
               Orlah grow tremendously, an awesome disgrace);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> 'Shese Gam Atah veha'Arel' refers to Tzidkiyahu (he 
               was punished because Nebuchadnetzar was being 
               punished on account of him).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Objection #1:</font></b> The entire verse refers to Nebuchadnetzar!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Objection #2:</font></b> Tzidkiyahu was a Tzadik - he did not do 
          anything wrong (surely, he is not accountable)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> When that Rasha intended to do so to 
               that Tzadik...(he calls Tzidkiyahu a Tzadik).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> We learn from 'Gam Anosh la'Tzadik Lo Tov' - 
          Lo Tov is Ra;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It says 'Ki Lo Kel Chofetz Rasha Atah Lo Yegurcha 
               Ra' - Hash-m is a Tzadik, Ra will not dwell in His 
               dwelling.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Mishnah discusses casting 'Chalashim' on 
          Kodshim - what is the source that this means 'lotteries'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It says 'Eich Nofalta mi'Shomayim...Cholesh Al 
          Goyim';
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rabah bar Rav Huna):</font></b> He (Nebuchadnetzar) used to 
               cast lots on the great kings, to decide who to 
               sodomize each day;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> [When Nebuchadnetzar died 'Nachah 
               Shoktah Kol ha'Aretz...] Kol Malchei Goyim' - the 
               kings had respite from forced homosexual relations.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> As long as Nebuchadnetzar was alive, no 
          one laughed - 'Nachah Shoktah Kol ha'Aretz Potzchu Rinah' 
          - this implies that during his life, no one rejoiced.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> It is forbidden to stand in 
          Nebuchadnetzar's house - 'U'S'irim Yerakdu Sham' (Rashi - 
          only Mazikim should be there - when people enter, they 
          leave; Maharsha - it is forbidden to enter on account of 
          danger).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> When that Rasha intended to do so to that 
          Tzadik, his foreskin stretched 300 Amos, the size of the 
          entire assemblage - 'Sovata Kalon mi'Kavod Shese Gam Atah 
          veha'*Arel*' - the Gematri'a of Arel is 300.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> When that Rasha descended to Gehinom, 
          everyone there clamored, unsure if he came to rule over 
          them (it is better to punished directly by Hash-m than 
          through people) or to be punished with them - 'Gam Atah 
          Chulesa Chamonu Eleinu <i>Nimshalta</i>' (this is like 
          Memshalah, kingship);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  A Bas Kol announced 'Mi'Mi <i>No'omta</i> Redah v'Hashkevah Es 
          Arelim' (it will not be more Na'im (pleasant) for you 
          than for them).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> 'Eich Shovas Nogesh Shovsah <i>Madhevah</i>' - 
          this nation (Bavel) that said Medod v'Havei (measure out 
          and give [gold] - how did it cease)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Alternatively, it said Me'od Me'od Havi (bring very 
               much) without measure.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> 'U'Rvu Yatirah Husfas Li' - this teaches 
          that [after being an animal for seven years, he returned 
          to his kingship and] he rode on a lion and tied a snake 
          to its (Maharsha - his) head, to fulfill 'V'Gam Es Chayas 
          ha'Sadeh Nosati Lo Le'ovdo'.
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) DISCUSSING BUSINESS ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not hire workers on Shabbos;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  [On Shabbos,] one may not ask his friend to hire workers 
          for him;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  One may not Machshich on the Techum (towards the end of 
          Shabbos go to the end of the Techum, i.e. as far from the 
          city as is permitted) to hire workers or to bring produce 
          [from outside the Techum];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  One may Machshich [on the Techum] to guard produce - he 
          may return with produce.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  Aba Sha'ul says, the general rule is - if [on Shabbos] 
          one may ask someone to do something [after Shabbos], he 
          may Machshich for it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> [Why must it forbid hiring workers and 
          asking a friend to hire workers -] surely the law is the 
          same for him and his friend!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Papa):</font></b> The Mishnah forbids asking a Nochri 
          friend.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Objection (Rav Ashi):</font></b> It is Shevus (forbidden 
          mid'Rabanan) to ask a Nochri to do things forbidden on 
          Shabbos! (Another Mishnah (121A) already teaches this. 
          Mid'Rabanan, we are stringent to consider him a 
          Shali'ach; alternatively, it is forbidden on account of 
          'Daber Davar', discussing things that are forbidden on 
          Shabbos.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> It even discusses asking a Yisrael 
          friend - we infer that one may not ask him to hire 
          workers, but one may tell him to meet at night (he 
          understands, for the sake of work);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  Our Mishnah is like R. Yehoshua ben Korchah:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> Reuven may not tell Shimon 'Come to me at 
               night' [so I can hire you];
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehoshua ben Korchah permits.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yehoshua 
          ben Korchah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> R. Yehoshua ben Korchah expounds 'Mi'Mtzo 
          Cheftzecha v'Daber Davar' - speech [that explicitly 
          discusses Melachah] is forbidden, thoughts are permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Acha bar Rav Huna):</font></b> R. Yochanan cannot hold 
          that speech is forbidden and thoughts are permitted, for 
          this implies that thoughts are not considered speech;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> But R. Yochanan taught that one may think about 
               Torah anywhere except for a bathhouse or bathroom, 
               for this is not 'V'Hayah Machanecha Kodesh';
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Regarding this it says 'V'Lo Yir'eh Vecha Ervas 
               Davar' (he should likewise expound, speech is 
               forbidden, thoughts are permitted)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'Ervas Davar' is expounded to teach Rav Yehudah's 
          law:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One may not recite Shma facing a naked Nochri.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> It is forbidden even facing a naked 
               Yisrael!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> He teaches that it is forbidden not only 
               facing a naked Yisrael, rather, even facing a naked 
               Nochri;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  One might have thought, since it says 'Asher 
                    Besar Chamorim Besaram' it is [like facing 
                    Ervah of an animal and] permitted - he teaches 
                    that this is not so.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps it is indeed permitted!
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> 'V'Ervas Avihem Lo Ra'u' (Ervah of a 
               Nochri is called Ervah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Speech is not forbidden!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Chisda and Rav Hamnuna):</font></b> One may make 
               calculations of a Mitzvah on Shabbos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (R. Elazar):</font></b> We may pledge to give Tzedakah to the 
               poor on Shabbos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (R. Yakov Bar Idi):</font></b> We attend to issues of mortal 
               danger on Shabbos, and go to synagogues and Batei 
               Medrash to attend to communal concerns on Shabbos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> (R. Shmuel Bar Nachmani):</font></b> We go to theaters and 
               stadiums to attend to communal concerns on Shabbos 
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> (Tana d'vei Menasheh):</font></b> We may arrange engagements 
               for girls, and contract teachers to teach Torah or a 
               trade to boys.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'Mi'Mtzo Cheftzecha v'Daber Davar' - your 
          (business) desires are forbidden, those of Shomayim 
          (Mitzvos) are permitted.
<br>
<b><font>2) MAKING CALCULATIONS ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Calculations that pertain to the king [not 
          to the one doing them], or that have no importance for 
          anyone may be made on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Support (Beraisa #1):</font></b> [On Shabbos] one may not make 
          calculations that were once relevant or will be relevant 
          to him;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  [A commoner] may make calculations relevant to the king 
          or that have no relevance to anyone.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'AMIRAH L'NOCHRI SHEVUS' -- TELLING A NOCHRI TO DO MELACHAH ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that on Shabbos one may not tell his friend to hire workers for him. The Gemara says that the Mishnah does not refer to a Jewish friend, because it goes without saying that one may not tell a Jew to do work for him on Shabbos. Rather, the Mishnah refers to a non-Jewish friend. (For a discussion of the prohibition of Amirah l'Nochri, see Insights to Bava Kama 80:3.)
</p><p>
The Gemara asks that we already know that Amirah l'Nochri is forbidden because of Shevus (Shevus refers to actions that the Rabanan prohibited on Shabbos). Why does the Mishnah need to teach it again? <b>RASHI</b> explains that the Mishnah earlier (121a) already teaches that Amirah l'Nochri is forbidden when it says that one may not tell a Nochri to extinguish a fire on Shabbos.
</p><p>
What is the Gemara's question? The law of the Mishnah earlier is not comparable to the law of the Mishnah here. The Mishnah earlier says that one may not tell a Nochri to do an act which is forbidden mid'Oraisa (such as extinguishing a fire). We cannot derive from that law that one may not tell a Nochri to do an act which is only prohibited mid'Rabanan. Accordingly, the teaching of the Mishnah here is necessary! (Tosfos (121a, DH Ein Omrim Lo) explicitly says that the only source for the prohibition against telling a Nochri to do an Isur d'Rabanan is from <i>this</i> Mishnah.) (<b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b>, <b>SEFAS EMES</b>, <b>YA'AVETZ</b>, and others)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>YA'AVETZ</b> explains that it is Asur <i>mid'Oraisa</i> to tell a Nochri to do an act that is Asur <i>mid'Oraisa</i> for a Jew to do on Shabbos; Amirah l'Nochri in such a case is not merely Asur mid'Rabanan (see <b>TOSFOS</b> DH v'Dibur). It is logical to assume that to tell a Nochri to do an Isur d'Rabanan should be forbidden mid'Rabanan, and it is not necessary for the Mishnah to tell us this. (See also Rebbi Akiva Eiger.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> cites the <b>RAMBAN</b> (Vayikra 23:24) who says that it is forbidden <i>mid'Oraisa</i> to treat Shabbos like a weekday, as we learn from the term 'Shabason.' This term commands us to rest on Shabbos and not to treat the day like a normal weekday. Telling a Nochri to hire a worker is a weekday activity and thus is prohibited by the Torah to do on Shabbos.
</p><p>
(c) Perhaps the Gemara does not mean to ask that we already know that Amirah l'Nochri is prohibited. Rather, the Gemara means to ask that if the Mishnah's intention is to teach that this type of Amirah l'Nochri is prohibited, then this law should have been included in the earlier Mishnah (121a) which discusses what one may tell a Nochri to do on Shabbos. This may be what Rashi means as well. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(d) The <b>SHITAH L'RAN</b> quotes an opinion that presents a different understanding of the Sugya, which the <b>SEFAS EMES</b> also discusses. When the Gemara asks that Amirah l'Nochri is prohibited because of Shevus, it means that telling a Nochri to do an Isur d'Oraisa is prohibited. Telling him to do an Isur d'Rabanan, such as hiring a worker, should be <i>permitted</i>. The Gemara asks why the Mishnah prohibits such a form of Amirah l'Nochri.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Contradiction (Beraisa #2):</font></b> One may make unnecessary 
          calculations, but not those that are needed;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> For example, one may say 'I hired this many workers 
               for this field, I spent this amount of money for 
               this house' (Beraisa #1 forbids this);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> One may not say 'I spent this much so far, I still 
               need to spend this much more.'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Counter-question:</font></b> Beraisa #1 contradicts itself! (It 
          forbids calculations that were once relevant, even if 
          they are no longer relevant [to him or anyone else] - the 
          Seifa of Beraisa #1 permits them!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer to both questions:</font></b> It is permitted if he finished 
          paying the workers; if not, not.
<br>
<b><font>3) WAITING BY THE 'TECHUM' ('MACHSHICH') ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not Machshich...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> A case occurred, a Chasid's fence was 
          breached; he decided to fix the fence, then remembered 
          that it is Shabbos - he refrained from fencing it 
          afterwards;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  A miracle occurred, a caper bush grew there to close the 
          opening; its fruits financed him and his household.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> On Shabbos, one may say 'I will go to city 
          Ploni' [even if it is outside the Techum], because if 
          there were shacks [every 70 Amos along the way to extend 
          the city], it would be within the Techum (going there is 
          not inherently forbidden).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not Machshich to hire workers or to 
          bring produce.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Granted, hiring workers is inherently forbidden 
          - but it would be permitted to bring produce if there 
          were Mechitzos (on the sides of the path from here to 
          there, Rav Yehudah should permit this)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, the fruits are attached.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Oshaya's Beraisa):</font></b> One may not Machshich to 
          bring Teven or Kash (straw that is harvested with the 
          grain or remains attached, respectively);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Granted, Kash is attached, but Teven is not!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It discusses rotten Teven (it is Muktzeh).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> One may Machshich to attend to the 
          needs of a bride or a Mes.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> It is permitted for needs of a bride or a 
               Mes, not for others.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Granted, there are needs of others resembling needs 
               of a bride that are inherently forbidden, e.g. 
               detaching myrtle;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> But needs of a Mes are to bring a coffin and shrouds 
               [like the Mishnah says] - one may Machshich for 
               similar needs of a live person [since it would be 
               permitted if there were Mechitzos]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One may Machshich to fix shrouds, this is 
          forbidden for a garment for a live person.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may Machshich [to guard produce].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> [This is to save time, i.e. immediately after 
          Shabbos] he will leave the Techum for this, even before 
          making Havdalah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> R. Elazar ben Antignous taught that one may not 
          pursue his desires before making Havdalah!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps he will make Havdalah in prayer.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> Rav Yehudah taught that one who makes 
               Havdalah in prayer must also make Havdalah over a 
               cup [of wine]!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps he will make Havdalah over a 
               cup.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Objection:</font></b> Where will he find a cup [of wine at the 
               end of the Techum, i.e.] in the field?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Noson bar Ami):</font></b> The Mishnah discusses when 
          people are making wine (it is available in the field).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (R. Aba):</font></b> In Eretz Yisrael, they say 'Ha'Mavdil Bein 
          Kodesh l'Chol', then do their needs.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Rav Ashi):</font></b> In Rav Kahana's house, they would say 
          'Ha'Mavdil Bein Kodesh l'Chol', then cut wood.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE CHASID WHO WANTED TO FIX HIS FENCE ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates that there was a certain Chasid (see following Insight) who wanted to fix a breach in his fence on Shabbos. He remembered that it was Shabbos and refrained from fixing his fence. Hash-m rewarded him with a Tzelaf plant that grew in the place of the breach and provided sustenance for him and his family.
</p><p>
What was so great about this Chasid's act of refraining from accidental desecration of Shabbos that merited such a miracle as reward?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>YERUSHALMI</b> (Shabbos 5:3) relates that the Chasid thought on Shabbos about fixing the fence <i>after</i> Shabbos. Thinking about such a thing on Shabbos is permissible, as the Gemara here teaches. However, since he was a Chasid, he regretted thinking, on Shabbos, about doing a Melachah after Shabbos. He decided not to act on his thoughts and <i>never</i> to fix his fence. As reward for his concern for the honor of Shabbos, Hash-m fixed the breach by making a Tzelaf plant grow there.
</p><p>
The Yerushalmi's explanation provides a basis for a deeper understanding of the identity of this Chasid. 
</p><p>
According to the <b>RAMA MI'PANO</b> (Sefer ha'Gilgulim), this Chasid bore the soul of Tzelofchad. 
</p><p>
It appears that this Chasid rectified the sin of Chilul Shabbos with which Tzelofchad had tainted his soul. The Gemara earlier in Shabbos (96b) relates that Tzelofchad was the 'Mekoshesh' described in the Torah who was killed for desecrating Shabbos. His act involved either plucking or gathering twigs from the ground, or carrying them more than four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim (see Gemara there). All of these acts are involved in repairing a fence. The Chasid rectified the sin of Tzelofchad by deciding never to fix the fence because he had thought about fixing it on Shabbos.
</p><p>
His reward was a Tzelaf plant, or a 'Tzelaf Chad' (a sharp, thorned Tzelaf). The Tzelaf provides three types of edible fruit (as Rashi describes in Berachos 37a). These three types of fruit may correspond to the three portions in Eretz Yisrael that Tzelofchad passed on to his daughters (his own, his rights to his father's portion, and his Bechorah rights to his father's portion; see Bava Basra 116b).
</p><p>


<font><b>3) DOING MELACHAH BEFORE HAVDALAH</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara says that a person may not do Melachah before he recites Havdalah on Motza'i Shabbos. What is the reason for this Halachah?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that Melachah is prohibited before Havdalah because one must first do an act that represents <i>escorting the Shabbos out</i>. The <b>CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN</b> adds that the Rabanan wanted to make a sign to show that Shabbos has ended.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Shabbos 29:5) says that one is prohibited to 'eat, do work, or taste anything' before he recited Havdalah. The <b>BRISKER RAV</b> (stenograph) infers from the fact that the Rambam places working between eating and tasting that all three of those activities are prohibited for the same reason. A person may not eat because he is obligated first to fulfill the Mitzvah of Havdalah that is incumbent upon him to perform. Similarly, a person may not do Melachah because it will <i>distract</i> him from his obligation to recite Havdalah.
</p><p>
The Brisker Rav adds that there are a number of Halachic differences between the explanations of the Rambam and of Rashi.
</p><p>
1. The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 299:10) says that a person may not do any Melachah before Havdalah. The <b>REMA</b> says in the name of <b>RABEINU YERUCHAM</b> that one may do Melachah, but one may not do 'Melachah Gemurah' (a 'total,' very involved Melachah) before Havdalah.
</p><p>
The Brisker Rav explains that the Shulchan Aruch follows the explanation of Rashi, who says that one may not do Melachah before he makes a sign that Shabbos has ended. Rabeinu Yerucham, in contrast, agrees with the Rambam, who says that one may not do Melachah because it will distract him from the Mitzvah of Havdalah that he is obligated to do. Only an <i>involved</i> Melachah (such as sewing) will distract him, and therefore he may do a Melachah which does not distract him (such as kindling a flame) before Havdalah.
</p><p>
2. There is an argument whether one who says 'ha'Mavdil Bein Kodesh l'Chol' may both do Melachah <i>and</i> eat, or whether he may only do Melachah (since he has not yet recited the full Havdalah). According to the <b>RIF</b> in Pesachim (104a), a person who says 'ha'Mavdil...' may not only do Melachah, but he may eat as well before Havdalah. The <b>RAN</b> there argues and says that when one says 'ha'Mavdil...' he is permitted only to perform Melachah before Havdalah.
</p><p>
The Brisker Rav explains that the Rif agrees with the Rambam; since eating and doing Melachah are prohibited for the same reason, whatever permits one will also permit the other. The Ran, on the other hand, agrees with Rashi, who says that eating and doing Melachah before Havdalah are prohibited for two separate reasons (Melachah is prohibited because it is necessary to show that Shabbos has ended, and eating is prohibited because one is obligated to do the Mitzvah of Havdalah). Therefore, saying 'ha'Mavdil' is a sufficient indication that Shabbos has ended and it permits Melachah to be done. It cannot permit eating, though, because the Mitzvah to recite Havdalah is still incumbent upon the person.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) FOR WHAT MAY ONE 'MACHSHICH'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - Aba Sha'ul):</font></b> The general rule is [if one may 
          discuss doing something, he may Machshich for it].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Regarding which part of the Mishnah does he say 
          this?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> He says this about the Reisha (one may 
               not Machshich to hire workers or bring produce).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> If so, he should have said [his rule 
               regarding Isur,] 'If one may <i>not</i> discuss doing 
               something, he may not Machshich for it'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He says this about the Seifa, one may Machshich 
          to guard produce.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If so, instead of saying 'If one may discuss 
          doing something, he may Machshich for it', he should 
          [begin with the law already taught, and learn to 
          something new, i.e.] say 'If one may Machshich for 
          something, he may discuss it'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, he discusses the Seifa - he comes to 
          learn from the following law:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Reuven may tell Shimon 'Guard my 
               produce in your Techum, and I will guard your 
               produce in my Techum'.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Aba Sha'ul says to the first Tana, you agree that 
               one may say 'Guard my produce in your Techum, and I 
               will guard your produce in my Techum' [so you should 
               agree that he may Machshich for it, for if one may 
               discuss...]
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Aba Sha'ul could have said just this - why did 
          he say 'the general rule is'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It includes the following law (going to attend to 
          the needs of a bride or Mes):
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> One may not Machshich to bring an animal;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If one's animal was outside the Techum, he calls to 
               it and it comes;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Aba Sha'ul says, the general rule is - if one may 
               discuss doing something, he may Machshich for it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> One may Machshich to attend to the needs of a bride 
               or a Mes, to bring a coffin or shrouds;
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> One may say [to a Shali'ach who will buy things for 
               the bride or Mes] 'Go to place Ploni to buy; if you 
               cannot find it there, go to Almoni; spend 100 - if 
               you cannot buy it for 100, spend 200'.
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, one may not mention a 
               price.
<br>
<b><font>2) 'MELACHOS' THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DONE FOR A JEW</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may Machshich to attend to the needs of a 
          bride or a Mes, to bring a coffin or shrouds;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If a Nochri brought flutes on Shabbos, one may not 
          eulogize with them unless they came from a nearby place 
          (inside the Techum).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  If [Nochrim] made a coffin or dug a grave [for a Nochri 
          or to sell], a Yisrael may be buried in it;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  If they made it for a Yisrael, no Yisrael may ever be 
          buried in it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What does it mean '[they came from] a 
          nearby place'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (Rashi) Answer #1 (Rav):</font></b> [We know that] it 
          came from nearby (inside the Techum);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Shmuel):</font></b> [Even if we know that they came from 
          outside the city,] we are lenient to assume that it came 
          from inside the Techum.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Version #1A - Support (for Shmuel - Mishnah):</font></b> If they 
          made a coffin or dug a grave, a Yisrael may be buried in 
          it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Even though we do not know whether or not it was for 
               a Yisrael, it is permitted mi'Safek - the same 
               applies to if we do not know if it came from outside 
               the Techum!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  Another Mishnah supports Rav:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> If Yisraelim and Nochrim are in a city, 
               and there was a bathhouse open on Shabbos - if the 
               majority [of the residents] are Nochrim, one may 
               bathe in it immediately [on Motzei Shabbos];
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If the majority are Yisraelim, one must wait the 
               time needed to heat the water [after Shabbos].
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> If it is half-half, one must wait the time needed to 
               heat the water;
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, regarding a small bath, if there is 
               'Reshus', one may bathe immediately.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is 'Reshus'?
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> It is an important official 
               who has 10 servants that simultaneously heat up hot 
               water for him for a small bath (we assume that it 
               was heated after Shabbos).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Version #1B - Support (for Shmuel - Mishnah):</font></b> If 
          Yisraelim and Nochrim....R. Yehudah says, regarding a 
          small bath, if there is Reshus, one may bathe 
          immediately. (The first Tana does not support Rav - when 
          it is half-half, the water is heated for both.) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (Rif) Answer #1 (Rav):</font></b> [We know that today] it 
          came from nearby (inside the Techum);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Shmuel):</font></b> We are concerned [that they came from 
          outside the Techum at night, even if it was inside the 
          Techum in the morning; 'unless they came from a near 
          place' means, one must wait on Motzei Shabbos until they 
          could come from a near place].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Support (for Shmuel - Mishnah):</font></b> If Yisraelim and Nochrim 
          are in a city...if the majority are Nochrim, one may 
          bathe in it immediately; if the majority are Yisraelim, 
          or if it is half-half, one must wait the time needed to 
          heat the water (we are not lenient to assume that it was 
          heated for Nochrim, or from Erev Shabbos);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, regarding a small bath, if there is 
               Reshus, one may bathe immediately (for the time 
               needed to heat it after Shabbos is negligible). (end 
               of Version #2) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If they made a coffin or grave [for a Nochri 
          or to sell, a Yisrael may be buried in it]. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We should have to wait the time needed to make 
          it [after Shabbos]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer - part 1 (Ula):</font></b> The case is, the grave was dug on 
          a major road (Yisraelim do not bury there, surely it was 
          for the sake of Nochrim). 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> That answers regarding a grave - how can we 
          answer regarding a coffin?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer - part 2 (R. Avahu):</font></b> The coffin is on the grave on 
          a major road (surely, it is for the Nochri who will be 
          burned in the grave).
<br>
<b><font>3) TENDING TO A DEAD BODY ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> [On Shabbos] we may do all needs of a Mes, 
          e.g. anointing and rinsing, as long as we do not move a 
          limb;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  One may remove the pillow from underneath it, so it will 
          be on the [cold] sand [and not decay so quickly].
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: MELACHAH DONE ON SHABBOS BY A NOCHRI</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> If a Nochri does Melachah on Shabbos for a Jew, may the Jew benefit from that Melachah? If he may benefit from it, <i>when</i> may he benefit from it?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (in the Mishnah, DH Lo Yispod, and in the Gemara, DH Tanya) appears to maintain that if a Nochri does Melachah for a specific Jew, that Jew may <i>never</i> benefit from the Melachah. 
</p><p>
Other Jews, however, may benefit from it after Shabbos, after the time has passed in which they would have been able to do the Melachah themselves ('bi'Chedei she'Ya'asu'). Similarly, if the Melachah was not done for any specific Jew, then anyone may benefit from it after Shabbos 'bi'Chedei she'Ya'asu.'
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAN</b> and other Rishonim argue. They say that the results of a Melachah normally do not become forbidden forever, even if the Melachah was done for a specific Jew. Only when a Nochri does a Melachah openly, <i>in public</i>, for a Jew, may the Jew not benefit from it forever. If the Melachah is done in a normal manner (not in public), even the specific Jew for whom it was done may benefit from it after Shabbos 'bi'Chedei she'Ya'asu' like everyone else.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAN</b> cites an opinion that maintains that a Jew may benefit from Melachah that was not done specifically for him <i>immediately</i>, even on Shabbos (provided that it is something that may be used on Shabbos).
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 325:14-15) rules like the <b>RAN</b> (b) that benefit from the Melachah is forbidden forever for the Jew for whom the Melachah was done, when it was done for him in public. If it was not done in public, then it is forbidden (for everyone) only until after Shabbos 'bi'Chedei she'Ya'asu.' The <b>TUR</b> adds that if the Jew <i>asks</i> the Nochri to do the Melachah for him, it is forbidden for that Jew forever. The <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> (325:74), however, is lenient in this regard and writes that it is only forbidden until after Shabbos 'bi'Chedei she'Ya'asu.'
</p><p>
If the Melachah that the Nochri did involved bringing an object from outside of the Techum (Shabbos boundary), then it is forbidden only for the person for whom it was brought, but everyone else may use it <i>immediately</i>, even on Shabbos.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) HALACHAH: A DOUBT WHETHER A NOCHRI DID A MELACHAH FOR A JEW ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Rav and Shmuel dispute whether a Jew may derive benefit from a Melachah done by a Nochri when there is a doubt whether the Nochri did the Melachah on Shabbos or before Shabbos, and when there is a doubt whether he did it for other Nochrim or for Jews. The Gemara (according to the text of most Rishonim) adduces proof for Shmuel from a Beraisa. What is the Halachah?
</p><p>
The Rishonim rule in accordance with Shmuel. However, there are two ways to interpret Shmuel's opinion.
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> says that Shmuel is more <i>lenient</i> than Rav and allows one to benefit from an act done by a Nochri on Shabbos even when there is a possibility that the act involved a Melachah.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RIF</b> and <b>RAMBAM</b> understand Shmuel to be more <i>stringent</i> than Rav, since he uses the word 'Chaishinan' ('we are concerned'), which is almost always used to describe a stringency. Shmuel maintains that we must know for certain that Melachah was not done in order to permit a Jew to benefit from the Nochri's act. The Gemara cites a Beraisa that proves the more stringent opinion (the proof is from the Tana Kama).
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 325:16) follows the stringent opinion and rules that one is permitted to benefit from an act done by a Nochri on Shabbos only when it is known for certain that he did not do a Melachah specifically for a Jew.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) A SMALL BATH HEATED BY NOCHRIM</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> In the Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah says that a Jew is permitted to bathe in the hot water of a small tub immediately after Shabbos, if there is a non-Jewish figure of authority in the town who has many servants who can heat up a tub of water for him. <b>RASHI</b> (DH b'Ambati, DH Rochetz) explains that one may bathe in a small tub because it can be assumed that the hot water inside of it was heated after Shabbos by one of the many servants of the figure of authority, and therefore a Jew may wash in it after Shabbos.
</p><p>
(a) In an earlier comment, Rashi (DH Tanya Kevasei d'Rav) explains that this Beraisa follows the opinion of Rav, who maintains that when there is a doubt whether the Melachah was done for a Jew or not, one is not permitted to benefit from it. According to Rashi, why does the Beraisa permit one to bathe in the tub even where there is a non-Jewish figure of authority? It is not <i>certain</i> that the tub was heated for him!
</p><p>
(b) Second, why does Rashi say that when there is a ruler, perhaps the bath was heated after Shabbos? What difference does it make when the bath was heated? Even if it was heated <i>on</i> Shabbos, since it was heated for a Nochri it is permissible for a Jew to bathe in it after Shabbos!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The Beraisa's ruling with regard to a small tub is a continuation of the case that it previously presented -- if a Nochri heated a bathhouse in a place where half the residents are Jews and half are Nochrim, a Jew may not benefit from that Melachah until after Shabbos 'bi'Chedei she'Ya'asu' (see above, Insight #1), because it might have been heated for the Jews.
</p><p>
The Beraisa continues and says that where there is a non-Jewish figure of authority, there is a new point of uncertainty -- perhaps the bath was heated <i>after</i> Shabbos. Consequently, there are <i>two</i> doubts: perhaps it was heated <i>after</i> Shabbos, and even if it was heated on Shabbos, perhaps it was heated for the <i>Nochri</i>.
</p><p>
This answers both of our questions. Even Rav permits one to benefit from the Nochri's Melachah immediately after Shabbos in such a situation, since it is a Sfek Sfeika. (This is known as a 'Sfek Sfeika she'Einah Mis'hapech.') Rashi emphasizes that the figure of authority is a Nochri in order to provide the second Safek. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(According to Rashi's second explanation, the Beraisa expresses the opinion of Shmuel: when there is a doubt for whom the Melachah was done, one is <i>permitted</i> to wash there immediately after Shabbos. According to that opinion, in a place where there is a non-Jewish figure of authority, no other doubt is necessary. Even if the bath was <i>certainly</i> heated on Shabbos, a Jew is permitted to bathe there immediately after Shabbos, since it is possible that it was heated for the Nochri ruler.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  We may tie the jaw to prevent the mouth from opening 
          more, but not to close it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Similarly, if a beam [supporting the ceiling] broke, we 
          may put a bench or bed board (Kelim that one may move) 
          there to prevent the ceiling from falling more, but not 
          to raise it [for this would be building].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Rav Yehudah taught that a Talmid once 
          followed R. Meir into a bathhouse and wanted to wash the 
          floor and anoint (apply scented water to) it - R. Meir 
          forbade both of them [because one may not anoint 
          something that we may not move]!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No - [he forbade anointing lest one even out 
          holes in a dirt floor], floors can be confused with each 
          other, but no one would confuse a floor with a Mes (and 
          anoint a floor because they saw a Mes anointed).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> It says 'We may do <i>all</i> needs of a Mes' - what 
          does this come to include?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> One may bring Kelim (e.g. glass) that 
          cool and metal Kelim to put on a Mes' stomach, lest it 
          burst; one may plug up the openings, lest wind enter;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'Ad Asher Lo Yerasek Chevel ha'Kesef' - this refers 
               to the spinal cord; 'V'Sarutz Gulas ha'Zahav' - this 
               is the Ever; 'V'Sishaber Kad Al ha'Mabu'a' - this is 
               the stomach (it is prone to burst); 'V'Narotz 
               ha'Galgal El ha'Bor' - this is the excrement.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> 'V'Zireisi Peresh Al Peneichem Peresh 
          Chageichem' - this refers to people who abandon Torah and 
          make all their days like festivals [for feasting].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (R. Levi):</font></b> Three days [after death], the stomach bursts 
          and falls to the face, as if to say 'Take back what you 
          gave to me'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We may not close the eyes of a Mes;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  Even on a weekday one may not close the eyes of one about 
          to die - one who does so murders (it hastens death).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Beraisa):</font></b> If one closes the eyes just before 
          death, he murders;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is like a lamp that is going out - if one puts 
               his finger on it, it will extinguish immediately.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> If one wants to close 
          the eyes of a Mes, he should blow wine into the nostrils, 
          put oil between the eyelids, and hold the two big toes - 
          the eyes will close by themselves.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> One may Mechalel 
          Shabbos for a live newborn baby, but not for David 
          ha'Melech (the most prestigious) Mes;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> We may Mechalel for a newborn - we desecrate one 
               Shabbos to enable the baby to later observe many 
               Shabbosos; (Me'iri (Yoma) - we Mechalel even to 
               extend life for a few moments, to enable him to 
               repent in his heart; Bi'ur Halachah (329:4 Ela) - R. 
               Shimon merely gives a reason to distinguish Chai 
               from Mes - he agrees with Shmuel (below), that we 
               Mechalel for any Yisrael, even a baby that will not 
               live to do Mitzvos.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> One may not Mechalel for David ha'Melech Mes - once 
               a person dies, he is Batul from the Mitzvos.
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> 'Ba'Mesim Chofshi' - once 
                    someone dies, he is exempt from Torah and 
                    Mitzvos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> One need not guard a 
          live newborn baby from weasels and mice, one needs to 
          guard Og Melech ha'Bashan (the biggest) Mes from weasels 
          and mice - 'U'Mora'achem <i>v'Chitchem</i> Yihyeh [Al Kol 
          Chayas ha'Aretz...]' - as long as a man has Chiyus (is 
          alive), animals fear him; once he dies, they do not.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Papa):</font></b> We have a tradition - lions do not 
               attack two people who are together. (The above 
               verse, 'U'Mora'achem...', applies to at least two 
               people together.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Objection:</font></b> We see that lions do attach them!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> That is like Rami bar Chama taught:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Rami bar Chama):</font></b> Chayos rule over a man only 
                    if he appears to them like an animal - 'V'Adam 
                    Bikar Bal Yalin Nimshal ka'Behemos Yidmu'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (R. Chanina):</font></b> One may not sleep alone in a house - if he 
          does, he is possessed by Lilis (a Shed).
<br>
<b><font>4) POVERTY IS PRONE TO COME</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> Do [Tzedakah] while you 
          find [who to give to] and have [what to give] and while 
          it is in your power (Rashi - while you are alive; 
          Maharsha - before old age);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'U'Zchor Es Bor'echa bi'Mei Bechurosecha Ad Asher Lo 
               Yavo'u <i>Yemei ha'Ra'ah</i>' - this is old age; 
               'V'Higi'u Shanim Asher Tomar Ein Li Vahem Chefetz' - 
               these are Yemos ha'Moshi'ach, when there will not be 
               merit or sin (Rashi - for giving or refusing to give 
               Tzedakah, for everyone will be rich; alternatively, 
               there will be no desire to sin - Meforshim on 
               Koheles Rabah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  He argues with Shmuel:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Shmuel):</font></b> The only difference between this world and 
               Yemos ha'Moshi'ach is that the kingdoms will cease 
               to rule over Yisrael - 'Ki Lo Yechdal Evyon mi'Kerev 
               ha'Aretz'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Eliezer ha'Kapar):</font></b> One should pray that 
          poverty not strike him - [usually], if it does not strike 
          him, it will strike his son or grandson;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Tana d'vei R. Yishmael):</font></b> 'Ki <i>Biglal</i> ha'Davar 
               ha'Zeh' - a Galgal (wheel) spins in the world (the 
               fortunes of people go up and down. Maharsha - wealth 
               is determined by the Galgal of Mazalos - through 
               prayer and merits, one who had Mazel to be poor can 
               escape it, but it will return to his children; 
               through great prayer and merits, he can spare even 
               his descendants.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> We have a tradition - a Chacham will not 
          become poor.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> We see that this happens!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Chachamim become poor, but they do not go 
          [begging] from door to door. (Maharsha - they make do 
          with a small amount; alternatively, people bring to 
          them.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  R. Chiya (to his wife):</font></b> When an Oni comes begging, give 
          bread to him quickly, in order that your children will be 
          given quickly.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  His wife:</font></b> Do you curse our children [that they will beg 
          for bread]?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  R. Chiya:</font></b> A verse teaches this - 'Ki Biglal ha'Davar 
          ha'Zeh' - Tana d'vei R. Yishmael taught, a Galgal spins 
          in the world.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (R. Gamliel b'Ribi):</font></b> 'V'Nosan Lecha Rachamim v'Richamcha 
          v'Hirbecha' - only one who has mercy on people (this 
          Midah itself came from Hash-m) will receive mercy from 
          Shomayim.
<br>
<b><font>5) TEARS DIMINISH SIGHT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  'Ad Asher Lo Sechshach ha'Shemesh veha'Or' - this is the 
          forehead and nose; 'Veha'Yare'ach' - this is the 
          Neshamah; 'Veha'Kochavim' - these are the jaws; 'V'Shovu 
          he'Avim Achar ha'Geshem' - this is sight, which 
          deteriorates on account of crying [over a person's waning 
          faculties as he ages].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> [The loss on account of] tears return only if 
          the person is less than 40 years old;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Mascara helps sight only for one less than 
          40 years old - afterwards, even if he puts it on with 
          [tremendous] sticks like warp beams, it will merely 
          prevent deterioration, it will not improve sight.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What do we learn from this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> A thicker mascara stick helps more.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Chanina's daughter died; he did not cry over her.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  His wife:</font></b> Did you [merely] lose a chicken?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  R. Chanina:</font></b> Why should I suffer loss of a child and 
          blindness?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  He holds like R. Yochanan:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> There are six kinds of tears - three 
               are good, three are bad;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Tears on account of smoke, crying and [pain in] the 
               Beis ha'Kisei are bad;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Those on account of a salve, joy and [the smell of] 
               nice produce are good.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>4) POVERTY IS CYCLICAL</b></font><b>
<br>AGADAH:</b> The Gemara says that poverty is cyclical, and that it strikes everyone at some point. 
</p><p>
(a) The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> finds an allusion to this in the beginning of Parshas Ki Sisa. The verse states, 'v'Nasnu Ish Kofer Nafsho' -- 'Every man shall give [a half-Shekel]...' (Shemos 30:12). The Hebrew word 'v'Nasnu' ('and he shall give') is a palindrome (a word that can be read the same in both directions, forward and backward). This demonstrates that giving Tzedakah can go both ways. Now it is one person who gives the Tzedakah, but he should be aware that later it might he who is the recipient of the Tzedakah. 
</p><p>
Furthermore, the cantillation marks above the word 'v'Nasnu' are 'Kadma' and 'Azla.' The names of these cantillation marks literally mean 'be early' ('Kadma') and 'go' ('Azla'). This, too, alludes to the message of the Gemara here, which tells a person to act soon and early and give his money to Tzedakah while he still has it, <i>before</i> the time comes that he will have to take Tzedakah from others.
</p><p>
(b) Others (see <b>RAMA MI'PANO</b>) point out another allusion to this Gemara from the word 'Tzedakah' in that word's '<b>A'T</b> Ba'SH' equivalent. The term '<b>A'T</b> Ba'SH' refers to a method of linguistic extrapolation whereby each letter at one end of the alphabet is replaced with its corresponding letter at the other end of the alphabet (e.g. Alef with Tav, Beis with Shin, and so on).
</p><p>
When the letters that comprise the word 'Tzedakah' are exchanged for their '<b>A'T</b> Ba'SH' equivalent, the word 'Tzedakah' itself is spelled out backwards! This shows that if a person gives Tzedakah when he prospers, then when circumstances later become reversed and he is in need, Tzedakah comes back to him.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE EFFECTS OF AGING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  'Ba'Yom she'Yazu'u Shomrei ha'Bayis' - these are the 
          flanks and ribs; 'V'His'avsu Anshei heChayil' - these are 
          the thighs; 'U'Votlu ha'Tochanos' - these are the teeth; 
          'V'Choshchu ha'Ro'os ba'Arubis' - these are the eyes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Kaiser (to R. Yehoshua):</font></b> Why don't you go to the debates 
          between Chachamim and Tzedukim?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  R. Yehoshua:</font></b> The mountain turned to snow, it is 
          surrounded by frost (my hair and beard are white, i.e. I 
          am old), my dogs (voice) do not bark, my grinders (teeth) 
          do not grind.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Bei Rav):</font></b> [In old age, I look for lost objects that I 
          did not lose (Rashi - I am bent, as if I seek a lost 
          object; Etz Yosef - I look for things, mistakenly 
          thinking that they are lost).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Yosi bar Kisna):</font></b> [Walking on] two [legs, in 
          youth] is better than three [needing to walk with a cane 
          in old age] - woe to the one who was lost and does not 
          return!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Chisda):</font></b> It is youth.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rav Dimi):</font></b> Youth is like a crown of roses; old age is 
          like a crown of thorns (or nettles, which are painful to 
          touch).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (A Tana citing R. Meir):</font></b> Chew well (eat much), and it 
          will strengthen your steps - 'V'Nisba Lechem va'Nihyeh 
          Tovim v'Ra'ah Lo Ra'inu'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Shmuel (to Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Eat [much] bread until age 40, 
          until then food is beneficial; after this, drinking is 
          beneficial.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  A Tzeduki eunuch (to R. Yehoshua ben Korchah):</font></b> How far is 
          it from here to Korchina? (He said this to mock R. 
          Yehoshua, who was Kore'ach (bald).)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> R. Yehoshua:</font></b> It is like from here to Gozniya (like 
               Guza (eunuch), alluding to his Mum).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> The Tzeduki:</font></b> Goats are bald (have no wool), they 
               sell for four (Zuzim).
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> R. Yehoshua:</font></b> People pay eight for a castrated ram 
               (R. Chananel - for its skin, it is good for a wine 
               pouch)!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> The Tzeduki noticed that R. Yehoshua was barefoot 
               (it was Tisha b'Av or Yom Kipur, or his foot was 
               wounded).
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> The Tzeduki:</font></b> A king rides on a horse, free men ride 
               on donkeys, [regular] people walk with shoes - one 
               who has none of these is worse than one who is 
               buried!
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> R. Yehoshua:</font></b> Eunuch! You insulted me three times - 
               you will hear three rebukes;
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  The radiance of a man's face is a beard; a wife 
                    gladdens a man's heart; having children is like 
                    an inheritance from Hash-m (Etz Yosef - <i>to</i> 
                    Hash-m, to continue serving Him after one dies) 
                    - blessed is Hash-m who withheld all three from 
                    you!
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> The Tzeduki:</font></b> A bald one quarrels with me?!
       <br><b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b><font> R. Yehoshua:</font></b> You, a castrated ram, initiated the 
               quarrel!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Rebbi (to R. Shimon ben Chalifta):</font></b> Why didn't I see you 
          during the festival, like your ancestors came to see 
          mine?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  R. Shimon ben Chalifta:</font></b> The rocks (Anaf Yosef - simple 
          questions) became tall (difficult for me, I am old), what 
          is close became far (Anaf Yosef - I forget what I learned 
          recently, as if it was from long ago - you would not 
          benefit from my Torah), two [legs that used to suffice to 
          walk] became three.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  'V'Sugru Delasayim ba'Shuk' - these are the bowels; 
          'Bi'Shfal Kol ha'Tachanah' - on account of the stomach, 
          which does not grind; 'Va'Yakam l'Kol ha'Tzipor' - even a 
          bird wakes him; 'V'Yishachu Kol Benos ha'Shir' - even 
          singing voices depress him.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  Barzilai ha'Gil'adi said 'Ben Shemonim Shanah Anochi 
          ha'Yom ha'Eda Bein Tov l'Ra' - this teaches that [very] 
          old people's minds fade;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'Im Yit'am Avdecha Es Asher Ochal v'Es Asher Eshteh' 
               - this teaches that old people's lips crack;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> 'Im Eshma Od b'Kol Sharim v'Sharos' - this teaches 
               that their hearing deteriorates;
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (Rav):</font></b> Barzilai lied! Rebbi had a 93 year old 
               Shifchah who would taste the food!
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> (Rava):</font></b> Barzilai lusted for relations, this causes 
               old age to come prematurely.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi):</font></b> When Chachamim get 
          old, they become wiser - 'Bi'Shishim Chachmah v'Orech 
          Yomim Tevunah';
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> When Amei ha'Aretz get old, they become foolish - 
               'Mesir Safah l'Ne'emanim v'Ta'am Zekenim Yikach'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b></b>  'Gam mi'Gavo'ah Yira'u' - even a small mound seems like a 
          mountain; 'V'Chaschatim ba'Derech' - when he travels, he 
          is fretful; 'V'Yaneitz ha'Shaked' - this is the hip, it 
          juts out in old age; 'Va'Yistabel he'Chagav' - these are 
          the buttocks (they feel like a heavy load); 'V'Safer 
          ha'Aviyonah' - this is lust (it ceases).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Kahana was learning in front of Rav. When he 
               reached this verse Rav sighed; Rav Kahana concluded 
               that Rav lost his desire.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  (Rav Kahana):</font></b> 'Ki Hu Omar va'Yehi' - this is [desire for] 
          a woman (Hash-m decreed it - it defies logic); 'Hu Tzivah 
          va'Ya'amod' - these are children (Maharsha - Hash-m gave 
          men desire for women, so that a man will satisfy his 
          wife's desire for him and so he will have children);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> A woman is a pouch full of excrement, brimming 
          with blood [Nidah] at its mouth, yet everyone pursues 
          her!
<br>
<b><font>2) REWARD AND PUNISHMENT AFTER DEATH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> 'Ki Holech ha'Adam El Beis <i>Olamo</i>' - this 
          teaches that [in the world to come] every Tzadik has a 
          dwelling according to his honor. 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A parable - a king entered a city with his servants 
               - all enter through the same gate, but each lodges 
               in accommodations according to his honor.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> What does it mean 'Ki ha'Yaldus 
          veha'Shacharus Hevel'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Things that a person does in his youth (excessive 
          relations) blacken his face (weaken him) in his old age.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> 'Ach Besaro Alav Yich'av v'Nafsho Alav 
          Te'eval' - worms (consuming a Mes) hurt it like a needle 
          hurts live flesh.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> A person's Nefesh mourns [over his death] 
          all seven days - it says 'V'Nafsho Alav Te'eval', and it 
          says 'Va'Ya'as l'Aviv Evel Shiv'as Yomim'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> If there are no mourners over a Mes, 10 
          men go to where he died.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  A man died in Rav Yehudah's neighborhood; there were no 
          mourners. Each day (of the seven days of mourning) Rav 
          Yehudah led 10 men to where he died.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: ONLY HASH-M OPENS GRAVES</b></font><b>
<br></b>The Gemara records a conversation between Rav Nachman and Rav Achai bar Yoshiyah, which occurred after Rav Achai bar Yoshiyah died and was buried. When Rav Nachman reached into the grave and felt the body of Rav Achai and saw that his body had not deteriorated, he suggested that Rav Achai leave the grave and go home, since he was able to talk and move. Rav Achai responded that only Hash-m can open graves, as the verse says, 'You will know that I am Hash-m when I open your graves' (Yechezkel 37:13).
<br> 
<br>The commentators explain a cryptic conversation that we find in Sefer Melachim based on this Gemara. In Melachim II (4:18-23), the Navi relates the story of the Shunamite woman whose son died and was revived by the prophet Elisha. When her husband returned from the fields, the woman did not tell him what had happened to their son. Rather, she said that she was going to the prophet. When her husband asked her why she was going to visit the prophet, all she said was, 'Shalom.' Why was she so secretive about the boy's death? Why did she refrain from telling her husband about it?
</p><p>
The answer may be that if she would have told him, then the father would have become an Onen and would have been obligated to bury his son. Once the son was buried, the prophet would not have been able to revive him -- only Hash-m can open graves, as the Gemara here says. She did not tell her husband that their son had died, so that the father would not be obligated to bury him and the prophet would be able to revive him!
</p><p>


<font><b>2) WHAT THE DEAD KNOW</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara records a conversation between Rav Nachman and Rav Achai bar Yoshiyah, which occurred after Rav Achai bar Yoshiyah died and was buried (see previous Insight). How was Rav Achai able to answer the questions of Rav Nachman? The Gemara in Berachos (18b) says that dead people are not aware of anything in this world once they are dead. Even the Avos do not know anything about this world.
</p><p>
Similarly, the Gemara in Bava Basra (58a) describes the conversation that Rebbi Bena'a had with Eliezer, the servant of Avraham, when he entered the burial chamber of Avraham Avinu. Rebbi Bena'a asked Eliezer what Avraham was doing at that time. How could he have a conversation with Eliezer, who was dead, if the dead do not know what is happening?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The Gemara in Berachos (18b) says that although the dead are not aware of what is happening in this world, they are aware of matters that pertain to themselves. When they are questioned about their own matters, they hear the question and can reply to it.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  After the seven days, he appeared to Rav Yehudah in a 
          dream and said 'You gave me serenity, you should have 
          serenity.'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (R. Avahu):</font></b> A Mes knows everything that is said in front 
          of him until the Golel (Rashi - the coffin cover; Tosfos 
          - a rock left on the coffin cover) is sealed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (R. Chiya or R. Shimon b'Ribi):</font></b> A Mes knows what is said 
          in front of him until Stimas ha'Golel;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (The other of R. Chiya and R. Shimon b'Ribi):</font></b> He knows 
          until the flesh is consumed.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The latter opinion learns from 'Ach Besaro Alav 
               Yich'av v'Nafsho Alav Te'eval' (as long as there is 
               flesh, the Nefesh is alive enough to understand);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The first opinion learns from 'V'Yashov he'Afar El 
               ha'Aretz keshe'Hayah [veha'Ru'ach Tashuv El 
               Elokim]'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> 'Veha'Ru'ach Tashuv El Elokim Asher Nesanah' - 
          just like it was Tahor when it was given to you, return 
          it Tahor!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is like a king who distributed royal clothing 
               to his servants. The smart ones folded it and put it 
               in a box (Maharsha - it was given for working - they 
               only used it for clean jobs, and put it away 
               immediately afterwards); the foolish ones wore it 
               while doing [dirty] work. Later, the king asked for 
               the clothing - the smart ones returned it in nice 
               condition, the foolish ones returned it dirty. The 
               king was pleased with the smart ones - he put their 
               clothing in the treasury, and let them go. He was 
               angry at the foolish ones - he sent their clothing 
               to be laundered, and imprisoned them.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Similarly, Hash-m says about the bodies of Tzadikim 
               'Yavo Shalom Yanuchu Al Mishkavosam', and about 
               their Neshamos 'V'Haysah Nefesh Adoni Tzerurah 
               bi'Tzror ha'Chayim' (under Kisei ha'Kavod, the 
               'treasury').
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> He says about the bodies of Resha'im 'Ein Shalom 
               Omar Hash-m la'Resha'im', and about their Neshamos 
               'V'Es Nefesh Oyvecha Yekal'enah b'Soch Kaf ha'Kela' 
               (they must be cleansed through punishments).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> The Neshamos of Tzadikim are 
          stored under Kisei ha'Kavod - 'V'Haysah Nefesh Adoni 
          Tzerurah bi'Tzror ha'Chayim [Es Hash-m Elokecha]';
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Neshamos of Resha'im are fettered - two angels are 
               at opposite ends of the world, they repeatedly sling 
               the Neshamah to each other - 'V'Es Nefesh Oyvecha 
               Yekal'enah b'Soch Kaf ha'Kela'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question (Rabah):</font></b> What happens to Neshamos of Beinonim 
          (intermediate people)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Rav Nachman:</font></b> Had I died [before you asked this], there 
          would be no one to tell you!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Nachman citing Shmuel):</font></b> Neshamos of Beinonim 
          and Resha'im are both handed over to Dumah (an angel) - 
          Beinonim get a rest, Resha'im do not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (Rav Mari):</font></b> In the future Tzadikim will be dirt - 
          'V'Yashov he'Afar El ha'Aretz keshe'Hayah'.
<br>
<b><font>3) A DEAD BODY THAT DID NOT ROT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Some diggers were digging in the area of Rav Nachman; 
          someone who was buried there snorted at them; they told 
          Rav Nachman, who came to talk to him. The buried man 
          identified himself to be Rav Achai bar Oshaya.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Rav Nachman:</font></b> But Rav Mari taught that in the future 
          Tzadikim will be dirt!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Rav Achai:</font></b> I do not recognize Rav Mari (I am not 
          concerned for his opinion).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Rav Nachman:</font></b> A verse supports him!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Rav Achai:</font></b> The teacher who taught you Koheles did not 
          teach you Mishlei! It says 'U'Rkav Atzamos Kin'ah' - 
          bones rot only if the person was jealous.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Rav Nachman felt Rav Achai - he was tangible. Rav Nachman 
          suggested that he go to his house.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Rav Achai:</font></b> You haven't learned Nevi'im - 'Vi'Datem Ki Ani 
          Hash-m b'Fischi Es Kivroseichem [uv'Ha'alosi Eschem 
          mi'Kivroseichem]' (we must wait for Hash-m to take us 
          out).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Rav Nachman:</font></b> But it says 'Ki Afar Atah v'El Afar Tashuv'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Rav Achai:</font></b> That will be fulfilled shortly before revival 
          of the dead.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question (a Tzeduki):</font></b> You say that Neshamos of Tzadikim 
          are stored under Kisei ha'Kavod - if so, how did the 
          Ba'alas Ov conjure up Shmuel [to speak with Sha'ul 
          (Shmuel 1:28)]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Avahu):</font></b> That was within 12 months of his 
          death;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> For 12 months after death, the body 
               exists and the Neshamah goes up and down; after 
               this, the Guf is Batul, and the Neshamah goes up and 
               does not come down [unless it wants to - Tosfos].
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) PREPARING FOR THE WORLD TO COME</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah brei d'Rav Shmuel):</font></b> The eulogy indicates 
          whether or not the Mes is a Ben Olam ha'Ba (it is tearful 
          and laudatory for a Ben Olam ha'Ba).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If so, why did Rav tell Rav Shmuel bar Shilas 
          'When I die, strive to eulogize me to arouse people to 
          cry'? (Surely Rav is a Ben Olam ha'Ba, they will cry in 
          any case!)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Rav Yehudah meant, if people cry when aroused, this shows 
          that the Mes is a Ben Olam ha'Ba; if not, he is not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Abaye (to Rabah):</font></b> [Almost] all of Pumbadisa hates you 
          [because you rebuke them for deceit in money matters] - 
          who will be aroused when you are eulogized?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Rabah:</font></b> It suffices that you and Rabah bar Rav Chanan will 
          be aroused.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Elazar):</font></b> Who is a Ben Olam ha'Ba?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav):</font></b> 'V'Oznecha Tishmanah Davar me'Acharecha 
          Leimor Zeh ha'Derech Lechu Vo...' (if after he dies, 
          people say that we should follow in his path, he is a Ben 
          Olam ha'Ba).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (R. Chanina):</font></b> It is one who pleases his 
          Rebbi'im.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (People of Galil):</font></b> 'V'Sovevu va'Shuk ha'Sofdim' - do 
          things that people will retell before your casket (at 
          your eulogy).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (People of Yehudah):</font></b> 'V'Sovevu va'Shuk ha'Sofdim' - do 
          things that people will retell after your casket.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  They do not argue - in Galil they eulogize before the 
          casket, in Yehudah, after it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah - R. Eliezer):</font></b> Repent one day before your death.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question (Talmidim):</font></b> One does not know when he will die!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Eliezer):</font></b> Therefore one should repent today, 
          lest he die tomorrow - this way, he repents every day - 
          'B'Chol Es Yihyu Vegadecha Levanim v'Shemen Al Roshcha Al 
          Yechsar'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan ben Zakai):</font></b> This is like a king who invited 
          his servants to a feast, but he did not fix a time. The 
          smart ones put on nice clothing and sat at the entrance 
          to the palace, for the king does not lack anything (the 
          feast may be at any moment). The foolish did their 
          chores, thinking that it will take much time before a 
          feast can be prepared. 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Suddenly, the king asked them to come to the feast. 
               The smart ones entered adorned nicely, the foolish 
               ones entered with dirty clothing. The king was 
               pleased by the smart ones - he let them eat and 
               drink at the feast. He was angry at the foolish ones 
               - he ordered that they stand and watch those 
               enjoying the feast.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Objection (R. Meir):</font></b> If so, [the foolish ones would not 
          be ashamed in front of the invitees -] it appears that 
          they are serving at the feast! (But a verse teaches that 
          Resha'im will be embarrassed!)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rather, both of them sit at the feast - the smart 
               ones eat and drink, the foolish ones sit hungry and 
               thirsty - 'Hine Avadai Yochelu v'Atem Tir'avu Hine 
               Avadai Yishtu v'Atem Titzma'u...; Hine Avadai Yaronu 
               mi'Tuv Lev v'Atem Titz'aku mi'Ke'ev Lev'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b></b>  Alternatively - 'B'Chol Es Yihyu Vegadecha Levanim' 
          refers to Tzitzis, 'V'Shemen Al Roshcha Al Yechsar' 
          refers to Tefilin.
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>***** <b>PEREK <b><b>MI</b></b> SHE'HECHSHICH</b> *****
</b></font></center><p>
<br><br><b><font>2) HAVING A 'NOCHRI' TO CARRY ONE'S ITEMS ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one was on the road when Shabbos was about 
          to come, he may give his wallet to a Nochri [before 
          Shabbos, to take it home for him];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If no Nochri is around, he puts it on his donkey; when he 
          reaches the outer gate [of the city], he removes from the 
          donkey Kelim which may be moved on Shabbos, and unties 
          the ropes [holding up sacks with Muktzeh], the sacks fall 
          by themselves.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> [Normally, mid'Rabanan, one may not 
          ask a Nochri to do Melachah on Shabbos -] why did 
          Chachamim allow one to give his wallet to a Nochri [to 
          take it home for him]?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Chachamim know that a person cannot control 
          himself if he stands to lose much money - if we do not 
          allow him a way to save it, he might carry it four Amos 
          in Reshus ha'Rabim!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> This is permitted only for his wallet, not for a 
          found object.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This is obvious - the Mishnah permits a 
          wallet!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought, the same applies to a 
          found object - the Mishnah discusses a wallet, for this 
          is the usual case - Rava teaches that this is not so. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Version #1:</font></b> A found object is forbidden only if he did 
          not yet pick it up - but if he already picked it up, it 
          is permitted like his wallet;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Version #2 - Question (Rava):</font></b> What is the law regarding a 
          found object that he already picked up?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Since he already picked it up, it is like his 
               wallet;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Or, since he did not toil to acquire it, it is 
               unlike his wallet (he is not frantic about losing 
               it; he must leave it there, we are not concerned 
               lest he carry it in Reshus ha'Rabim)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  This question is not resolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If no Nochri is around [he puts it on his 
          donkey].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> If a Nochri is around he must give it to him 
          [he may not put it on his own donkey].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He is commanded that his donkey rest, he is not 
          commanded that the Nochri rest.
<br>
<b><font>3) WHO SHOULD ONE GIVE ONE'S ITEMS TO CARRY ON SHABBOS?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  If a donkey, minor, lunatic and Cheresh (deaf person) are 
          all available, he should put it on the donkey, not one of 
          the others.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They are people (they can be confused with 
          healthy adults, perhaps people will come to give to 
          healthy adults), the donkey is not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  If only a minor, lunatic and Cheresh are available, he 
          should give it to the lunatic (he has no understanding, 
          not to one of the others).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If only a minor and Cheresh are available, to 
          whom should he give it?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> We do not ask according to R. Eliezer (he never 
               permits to give to a Cheresh);
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Elazar):</font></b> [If a Cheresh was Torem 
                    (separated Terumah) to Metaken (permit) Tevel, 
                    one may not eat the Tevel until a healthy 
                    person is Metaken it; nevertheless,] the 
                    Chereh's Terumah may not be eaten like Chulin, 
                    because he is a Safek (doubtfully obligated in 
                    Mitzvos).
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: ONE WHO WAS TRAVELING WHEN SHABBOS ARRIVED</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah states that one who is traveling on Friday when the sun begins to set should give his wallet to a Nochri in order not to transgress the Melachah of carrying an object in Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos. When exactly should he give his wallet to the Nochri?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Mi she'Hechshich) says that he must give the wallet to the Nochri <i>while it is still day</i>, before Shabbos enters.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ROSH</b> says that one may give his wallet to the Nochri after Shabbos enters. This is evident from the Gemara which asks why one is permitted to give his wallet to a Nochri. According to Rashi's explanation, there is no reason why one should <i>not</i> be permitted to give his wallet to the Nochri, since he gives it to the Nochri before Shabbos!
</p><p>
The Rosh suggests two additional proofs from the Gemara that Rashi's explanation is not correct. First, the Gemara says that this Halachah applies only to one's wallet (or any other object that he owns), but not to an object that he <i>finds</i>, since he has not yet acquired ownership of that object. If the Mishnah refers to the time before Shabbos enters, then the person should simply acquire the object before Shabbos by lifting it, and the Gemara's discussion of an object which he found is not relevant. Second, when the Gemara says that if there is no Nochri available, one may place his wallet on his donkey, the Gemara rejoins that if one places his wallet on his donkey, he transgresses the Melachah of Mechamer. The Mishnah must be referring to <i>after</i> Shabbos has already entered, because before Shabbos enters one does not do the Melachah of Mechamer when he places his wallet on the donkey.
</p><p>
The <b>BACH</b> and the <b>KORBAN NESANEL</b> explain that Rashi's intention is to say what one must do <i>l'Chatchilah</i> -- he must give his wallet to a Nochri before Shabbos enters. However, b'Di'eved, if he did not give his wallet to a Nochri until after nightfall, he may still give his wallet to a Nochri to watch and he does not have to abandon it there.
</p><p>
The Bach explains that the reason why Rashi understands that the Mishnah is teaching what one should do l'Chatchilah is because the Mishnah says, 'If it became dark while one was traveling, he <i>should give</i> his wallet to a Nochri.' This implies that the Mishnah is instructing what one <i>should</i> do to avoid a transgression (such as carrying on Shabbos, or holding Muktzah). If the Mishnah means to teach what one should do when Shabbos has already entered, then it should say, 'If it became dark while one was traveling, one <i>is permitted</i> to give his wallet to a Nochri,' and thereby teach what one <i>may</i> or <i>may not</i> do on Shabbos.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 266:1) rules that if nightfall arrived while one was traveling, he may give his wallet to a Nochri (as the <b>ROSH</b> rules, or even as <b>RASHI</b> rules, according to the explanation of the Bach and Korban Nesanel). The <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> adds that one preferably should give the wallet to the Nochri <i>before</i> Shabbos in order to avoid handling Muktzah.
</p><p>
The Shulchan Aruch (266:8) adds that if one intentionally embarked on a trip close to Shabbos, and he should have known that it is possible that Shabbos will arrive while he is traveling, he may <i>not</i> give his wallet to a Nochri, but he must abandon it on the road.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> We ask according to Chachamim:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Five types of people cannot Torem, 
                    even b'Diavad it is not Terumah - a Cheresh (he 
                    is definitely exempt from Mitzvos), lunatic, 
                    minor, one who does not own the produce, and a 
                    Nochri who is Torem to Metaken produce of a 
                    Yisrael, even with permission.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Perhaps we give to the Cheresh, [but not the minor,] 
               because the minor will later be commanded to keep 
               Mitzvos;
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps we must give to the minor, for the 
               Cheresh can be confused with a healthy adult!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Version #1 - Answer:</font></b> We give to the Cheresh.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Version #2 - Answer:</font></b> We give to the minor.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If no Nochri, donkey, minor, lunatic and 
          Cheresh is available, what should he do?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> Chachamim had another Heter, they 
          did not want to reveal it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is it?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He carries it less than four Amos at a time.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why didn't they want to reveal it?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'Kevod Elokim Hester Davar (one may cover up 
          Halachos l'Shem Shomayim) u'Chvod Melachim Chakur Davar' 
          (one should not cover up things on account of a person's 
          honor or wealth).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How does covering up this Halachah honor 
          Hash-m?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> [If one intends to carry less than four Amos at a 
          time], he might [accidentally] carry four Amos at once in 
          Reshus ha'Rabim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> (Chachamim sought to bury Sefer 
          Yechezkeil, for it [seemingly] contradicts the Torah; 
          Chachamim gathered in the attic of Chananyah ben 
          Chizkiyah and resolved the difficulties.) That day, [18 
          decrees were made - one was to forbid carrying less than 
          four Amos at a time if a Nochri is around -] Chachamim 
          made an ample fence for Torah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b></b>  R. Yehoshua says, that day Chachamim were too restrictive 
          (people cannot abide by this decree, e.g. if they do not 
          trust the Nochri, they may come to transgress Torah)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa):</font></b> A parable for R. Eliezer's opinion - there was 
          a box full of gourds; if one puts in mustard seeds, the 
          box can hold them (they fall into the spaces - likewise, 
          the additional decree was sound).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b></b>  A parable for R. Yehoshua's opinion - there was a tub 
          full of honey; if one puts in pomegranates and nuts, they 
          will make the honey spill out (the loss far outweighs the 
          anticipated gain).
<br>
<b><font>4) HOW THE DONKEY CARRIES ONE'S ITEMS HOME ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If no Nochri is around [he puts it on his 
          donkey].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This is Machemer [making an animal work] - but 
          it says 'Lo Sa'aseh Chol Melachah [...u'Vhemtecha]'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Ada bar Ahavah):</font></b> One puts the wallet on while 
          the donkey is walking (there was not an Akirah, it does 
          not do a Melachah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Surely, it will stop to urinate or eliminate 
          (when it resumes to walk, this is Akirah - there will be 
          Hanachah the next time it stops, or at the end)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One puts the wallet on while the donkey is 
          walking, and removes it when it stops (and does not 
          return it until it starts again - Rashi; Rambam - one 
          senses when it is preparing to stop and removes it before 
          it stops, so it will not even do Hanachah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> It should be permitted even to put it on a 
          Yisrael to carry this way! (We have no source to permit 
          Reuven to carry Shimon's Muktzeh out of concern lest 
          Shimon do a Melachah! Perhaps we ask why the Mishnah does 
          not permit saving valuables that are not Muktzeh (e.g. a 
          silver cup) in this way, or to carry Muktzeh in his mouth 
          - <b><b><b>PF</b></b></b>.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> Anything for which one is liable (if 
          he does it entirely himself), if he does it with another 
          person he is exempt, but it is forbidden;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Anything which one may not do with another person, 
               but he is exempt for it, it is permitted to do so 
               with a donkey.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rav Ada bar Ahavah):</font></b> If one was carrying a load on his 
          shoulder [from before Shabbos], he may run to his house 
          [on Shabbos];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It is permitted only if he runs - he may not walk 
               slowly.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> [If he walks,] since he has no reminder [not 
               to stop], he may inadvertently [stop, and thereby] 
               do Akirah and Hanachah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> When he reaches his house, he must stop 
          momentarily to open the door - he is Machnis from Reshus 
          ha'Rabim to Reshus ha'Yachid!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He throws it into the house in an awkward way 
          [one is exempt for this; in this case it is permitted].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (Rami bar Chama):</font></b> If one is Mechamer (causes 
          an animal to work) on Shabbos b'Shogeg, he is Chayav 
          Chatas; b'Mezid he is stoned.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rabah):</font></b> 'Lo Sa'aseh Chol Melachah Ata 
          ...u'Vhemtecha' - the Torah equates his animal to him;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Just like he is Chayav Chatas or stoning [if he does 
               Melachah], the same applies to Mechamer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Objection #1 (Rava):</font></b> 'Torah Achas Yihyeh Lachem la'Oseh 
          bi'Shgagah' - the entire Torah is equated to idolatry;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Just like one is liable for idolatry for doing an 
               act himself, the same applies to other Aveiros.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Objection #2 (Rava - Mishnah):</font></b> If one was Mechalel 
          Shabbos, and did something which is Chayav Chatas 
          b'Shogeg [he is Chayav Skilah b'Mezid; Rashash - these 
          last words are Rava's explanation of the Mishnah];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> There is Chilul Shabbos for which one is 
               not Chayav Chatas or Skilah!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> This is Mechamer!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> No - it is the Isur to leave the Techum - our 
          Mishnah is like R. Akiva, who forbids this mid'Oraisa.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> No - it is burning - our Mishnah is R. Yosi, 
          who says that burning is only a Lav.
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) IS ONE 'CHAYAV' A 'KORBAN' FOR 'MECHAMER'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (Rav Zevid - Rami bar Chama):</font></b> If one is 
          Mechamer on Shabbos b'Shogeg, he is not Chayav Chatas; 
          b'Mezid he is stoned.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (Rava - Mishnah):</font></b> If one was Mechalel Shabbos, 
          and did something which is Chayav Chatas b'Shogeg [he is 
          Chayav Skilah b'Mezid].
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> If one is not Chayav Chatas b'Shogeg, he 
               is not stoned b'Mezid!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah does not say that explicitly - we can 
          explain differently:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If one is Chayav Chatas b'Shogeg, he is stoned 
               b'Mezid; there is something which is not Chayav 
               Chatas b'Shogeg, nevertheless it is Chayav Skilah 
               b'Mezid, i.e. Mechamer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Version #3 - (Rava, brother of Rav Mari bar Rachel - R. 
          Yochanan): Mechamer on Shabbos is exempt: (We follow the 
          texts of Rashi and Tosfos.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> B'Shogeg he is not Chayav Chatas, for the entire 
               Torah is equated to idolatry (one is liable only for 
               doing an act himself);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> B'Mezid he is not stoned, for a Mishnah says, if one 
               was Mechalel Shabbos, and did something which is 
               Chayav Chatas b'Shogeg [he is Chayav Skilah 
               b'Mezid];
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> If one is not Chayav Chatas 
                    b'Shogeg, he is not stoned b'Mezid!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  He is not even lashed for the Lav, because it warns for 
          Misas Beis Din (for one who did Melachah himself), one is 
          not lashed for such a Lav;
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE UTENSILS OF A BLOOD-LETTER</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Huna rules that if one's animal is laden with glass utensils, one may place pillows underneath the animal on Shabbos and untie the straps so that the glass items fall down onto the pillows and do not break. The Gemara questions Rav Huna's ruling from the Mishnah, which states clearly that one may move utensils on Shabbos. The Gemara answers that Rav Huna refers to utensils that are Muktzah -- 'Karnei d'Umna,' the instruments of a blood-letter -- which may not be handled on Shabbos. <b>RASHI</b> explains that they are not fit for use on Shabbos because they are loathsome (Muktzah Machmas Mi'us).
</p><p>
Later (157a), the Gemara explains that the Halachah follows the opinion of Rebbi Shimon. Rebbi Shimon maintains that there is no such thing as Muktzah Machmas Mi'us. Why, then, does the Gemara suggest that Karnei d'Umna are Muktzah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHBA</b> explains that the instruments of a blood-letter are more repulsive than utensils that are Muktzah Machmas Mi'us. An old oil lamp, for example, which is dirty and disgusting, still has some useful purpose, for it can be used to cover a barrel if not for lighting. The instruments of a blood-letter, though, are so disgusting that no one would use them even to cover a barrel. This appears to be Rashi's intention here as well (DH d'Umni, 'they are not fit for <i>anything</i>').
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> and <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> answer that the Karnei d'Umna are Muktzah because of <i>Chisaron Kis</i> (they are very delicate items), and not because of Mi'us. Rebbi Shimon agrees with the concept of Muktzah Machmas Chisaron Kis (157a).
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RASHBA</b> suggests that the Karnei d'Umna fall into the category of Kli she'Melachto l'Isur, a utensil whose primary usage is forbidden (since it is forbidden to draw blood on Shabbos), and therefore they may not be moved on Shabbos merely to save them from damage (124a).
</p><p>
(According to the Rashba, we may deduce that an item that supports a Kli she'Melachto l'Isur is considered a Basis l'Davar ha'Asur, since the Gemara says that the pillows onto which the Karnei d'Umna fall become unusable when they support Muktzah items).
</p><p>


<font><b>2) A TREE THAT SUPPORTS A SUKAH</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara cites a Beraisa that states that a Sukah comprised of two walls that were built by man and the third wall is a tree, it is a valid Sukah, but one may not enter it on Yom Tov, because he is not permitted to use a tree on Yom Tov. The Gemara attempts to prove from here that 'Tzedadin' (the sides of a tree or animal) may not be used on Shabbos or Yom Tov.
</p><p>
In what way is the tree being used in this case?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that the Beraisa refers to a case in which the roof (Sechach) of the Sukah is supported by the tree on one side. In what way does one use the tree when he goes into the Sukah? Perhaps sitting under the Sechach is considered usage of the tree, since the Sechach is partially supported by the tree.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> argues and says that sitting under the shade of the Sechach is not called usage of the tree, because one certainly is permitted to sit in the shade of a tree on Shabbos and Yom Tov. Rather, the reason why one is considered to be using the tree in this case is because it was the normal manner for people to place their belongings on top of the Sukah when they entered.
</p><p>
This actually appears to be the intention of Rashi here (DH Shetayim) as well. <b>TOSFOS</b> here (DH Shetayim, in his first explanation) and in Sukah (22b) offers a similar explanation.
</p><p>
However, according to this explanation, the prohibition to use the Sukah on Yom Tov seems to be a Gezeirah l'Gezeirah. It is prohibited mid'Rabanan to use this Sukah on Yom Tov, lest one place his belongings on the Sechach, which itself is forbidden only because of a Gezeirah d'Rabanan. Apparently, it was very common for people to place belongings on top of a Sukah, and therefore the Chachamim considered this to be one Gezeirah ('Kula Chada Gezeirah Hi'). (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> suggests a third explanation. He explains that the bottom of the Sukah is built on and supported by the top of a tree. Therefore, when one walks into the Sukah and walks on its <i>floor</i>, one uses the tree.
</p><p>
Tosfos in Sukah (22b), however, rejects this explanation and accepts Rashi's explanation instead, because it is implicit in the Gemara here that the roof (Sechach) of the Sukah, and not the floor of the Sukah, is part of the tree. What does Tosfos mean? How is this implied in the Gemara here? 
</p><p>
1. Perhaps Tosfos infers this from the Gemara's conclusion that the tree that serves the Sukah is a bushy tree that does not touch the Sukah. If the tree is supporting the <i>floor</i>, what purpose does it serve if it does not touch it? If the tree serves as a <i>wall</i>, however, it can serve as a wall even if it does not touch any part of the Sukah or Sechach.
</p><p>
2. Second, the Gemara later concludes that the Tosefta, in which Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar argues with the Mishnah and permits one to go into a Sukah supported by a tree, refers to 'Tzidei Tzedadin' (the sides of the sides of a tree) and not 'Tzedadin.' If the Mishnah refers to a tree that supports the <i>roof</i> of the Sukah, then the case in which the tree, which we considered until now to be Tzedadin, is considered Tzidei Tzedadin is easy to understand. For example, the tree supports a wall which, in turn, supports the roof (as Rashi writes in DH Amar Abaye). However, if the Mishnah refers to a tree that supports the <i>floor</i> of a Sukah, the tree is clearly an immediate support, 'Tzedadin' and not 'Tzidei Tzedadin.' The Gemara cannot assert that the tree is only Tzidei Tzedadin without redefining the case of the Mishnah. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Even the opinion (R. Yishmael) that obligates lashes for 
          such a Lav exempts here:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> The Torah could have said 'Lo Sa'aseh Chol 
               Melachah...u'Vhemtecha' - why does it say 'Ata 
               ...u'Vhemtecha'?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> This teaches that he is liable for his own 
               Melachah, not for that of his animal.
<br>
<b><font>2) REMOVING SACKS FROM THE ANIMAL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> When he reaches the outer gate... [he unties 
          the ropes, the sacks fall by themselves].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> If it was carrying glass Kelim, he puts 
          pillows and blankets underneath before untying the ropes 
          to make the sacks fall.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Mishnah permits taking Kelim which may be 
          moved on Shabbos!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rav Huna discusses Kelim for bloodletting (they 
          are Muktzeh).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If so, he is Mevatel Kli me'Heichano (the 
          pillows and blankets may not be moved after the Muktzeh 
          falls on them)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He discusses small loads (afterwards one can 
          remove the pillows and blankets one by one, and the Kelim 
          will not break).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> If it was carrying Tevel or Asasiyos 
          (glass lanterns), he unties the ropes, even though they 
          will break. (Tosfos 43A - there is no concern for Mevatel 
          Kli regarding Tevel, since if one was Metaken it, it is 
          permitted - indeed, one may put pillows and blankets to 
          catch Tevel; 'even though they will break' refers only to 
          the Asasiyos.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Asasiyos are thick pieces of glass (they are 
          not Kelim - since they need to be broken anyway, we do 
          not permit putting pillows and blankets underneath).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Support:</font></b> It teaches about Asasiyos together with Tevel - 
          just like Tevel has no use [on Shabbos], also the 
          Asasiyos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> [If there is no loss] why does it say 'even 
          though they will break'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> [Surely, chips will break off, there is a small 
          loss -] one might have thought, we are concerned even for 
          a small loss [and allow pillows and blankets] - the 
          Beraisa teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa - R. Shimon):</font></b> If his animal was loaded with a 
          load of [Tevel] grain, he puts his head underneath the 
          load, moves it to the side and it falls;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  R. Gamliel's donkey was loaded with honey; he did not 
          want to unload it until Motzei Shabbos - it died on 
          Motzei Shabbos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> The Mishnah permits unloading Kelim which 
               may be moved on Shabbos!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The honey had spoiled.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> If so, what use is it?
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It is used to put on wounds of a camel.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> He could have untied the ropes, the sacks 
               would fall by themselves!
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The pouches would break from the fall.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> He could have put pillows and blankets 
          underneath!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They would have gotten dirty; also, one may not 
          Mevatel Kli me'Heichano.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But leaving the sacks on is Tza'ar Ba'alei 
          Chayim (pain to an animal, this overrides Mevatel Kli 
          which is mid'Rabanan)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He holds that Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim is forbidden 
          only mid'Rabanan.
<br>
<b><font>3) USING 'TZEDADIM' OF AN ANIMAL ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Abaye found Rabah rubbing his son on a donkey's back (for 
          the son's enjoyment, on Shabbos).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Abaye:</font></b> You are using a living animal (this is forbidden 
          on Shabbos)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Rabah:</font></b> I use Tzedadim (the sides) - Chachamim did not 
          forbid this.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> What is your source?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah - Mishnah):</font></b> One unties the ropes, the sacks 
          fall by themselves.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Assumption:</font></b> The sacks are Gavalki (on opposite 
               sides, tied together by ropes on top - to untie 
               them, one must push them [up and/or] against the 
               side of the animal to reduce the tension in the 
               ropes) - this shows that Chachamim did not decree 
               about Tzedadim!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Rejection #1:</font></b> No, they are Agalvaki (a ring with a nail 
          holds the ropes together, one removes the nail and they 
          fall - one need not use the sides of the animal).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Rejection #2:</font></b> No, they are Lechta (rings with a pin holds 
          the ropes together, one removes the pin and they fall).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> If two walls of a Sukah were manmade 
          and a tree was the third wall, it is Kosher, but on Yom 
          Tov one may not use it (the Sukah, for one may not use 
          trees).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> The boards of one wall fit into holes 
               carved into the tree, the Sechach rests on the wall 
               - this is only Tzedadim, nevertheless it is 
               forbidden!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, the case is, he bent the tree (tied it to 
          another tree) and put Sechach on top of the tree itself - 
          the Sukah makes use of the tree itself.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question (Seifa):</font></b> If three walls were manmade and a tree 
          was the fourth, it is Kosher, one may use it on Yom Tov.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he bent the tree [and put Sechach on top], this 
               should be forbidden!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, it is a tree whose branches go out 
          horizontally, it is just a wall (it does not support the 
          Sechach. We could have answered like above, that he 
          carved the wall into the tree, just it is unlikely that 
          one would bother to do so, since it is Kosher without the 
          fourth wall.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Support (Mishnah):</font></b> The general rule is - whenever the 
          Sukah could stand even if the tree was removed, one may 
          use it on Yom Tov;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> Tana'im argue about Tzedadim:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> [If a tree makes the third wall of a 
               Sukah,] one may not use it on Yom Tov;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Elazar permits. 
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Assumption:</font></b> They argue about Tzedadim - the first 
               Tana forbids them, R. Shimon permits them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Rejection (Abaye):</font></b> No, all forbid Tzedadim;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> They argue about Tzidei Tzedadim (beams are held in 
               holes in the trees, and the Sechach rests on the 
               beams) - the first Tana forbids them, R. Shimon 
               permits them.
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) 'TZEDADIM' AND 'TZIDEI TZEDADIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> The opinion that forbids Tzedadim also forbids 
          Tzidei Tzedadim; the opinion that permits Tzidei Tzedadim 
          also permits Tzedadim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Mesharshiya - Beraisa):</font></b> If a peg was 
          inserted into a tree and one hung a basket (four by four 
          Tefachim wide) above 10 Tefachim [and put food inside for 
          an Eiruv], the Eiruv is Pasul (it is in Reshus ha'Yachid, 
          the person is in Reshus ha'Yachid, he may not take it 
          Bein ha'Shemashos);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If it is below 10, the Eiruv is Kosher.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> Below 10 it is Kosher because the basket 
               rests on a peg in the tree - if it hung on the tree 
               itself, it would be Pasul in any case!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Summation of question:</font></b> The Tana forbids Tzedadim (on 
               the tree itself) and permits Tzidei Tzedadim (on a 
               peg in the tree)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> The case is, the basket has a narrow 
          opening - if it would be attached to the tree itself, he 
          could not remove the food without moving the tree.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  The Halachah is, Tzedadim are forbidden, and Tzidei 
          Tzedadim are permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Since Tzedadim are forbidden, one may not 
          rest a ladder against a date tree [and go up] - rather, 
          he should insert a peg, and rest the ladder against it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> When going up, one may not step on the peg, only on 
               rungs of the ladder.
<br>
<b><font>2) MAKING AND IMPROVING FOOD ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may untie Peki'ei (bundles of) straw in 
          front of an animal and spread out Kipin, but not Zirin 
          (these will be explained);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  One may not [finely] cut fodder or carobs for a Gasah or 
          Dakah (big (work) animal or small animal);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah permits cutting carobs for a small animal.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Rav Huna):</font></b> Peki'in and Kipin are the same - 
          Peki'in are two, Kipin are three; Zirin are cedar 
          branches;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah teaches, one may untie Peki'im of straw 
               and spread them out, the same applies to Kipin;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Both of these are forbidden regarding Zirin.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> Rav Huna holds that Tirchah (exertion) for 
          [improving] food is permitted, but not Shivuy Ochel (to 
          make something inedible into a food).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Peki'in and Zirin are the same - Peki'in 
          are two, Zirin are three; Kipin are cedar branches;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah teaches, one may untie Peki'im of straw 
               but may not spread them out, one may untie Peki'im 
               and spread out Kipin;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> One may untie Zirin, but may not spread them out.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> Rav Yehudah permits Shivuy Ochel, but forbids 
          Tirchah [for food].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not cut fodder or carobs for 
          a big or small animal.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> The Mishnah discusses carobs like 
               fodder, i.e. they are soft (edible), nevertheless we 
               may not cut them, for this is Tirchah - this refutes 
               Rav Huna!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, it discusses fodder like carobs, it is hard.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is a case of hard fodder?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Fodder is too hard for young donkeys to eat.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> One may cut carobs for a 
          small animal.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> It is permitted for a small animal, not 
               for a big animal.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If the first Tana forbids Tirchah and permits Shivuy 
               Ochel, we understand this - R. Yehudah comes to say 
               that cutting carobs for a small animal is also 
               Shivuy Ochel [and is permitted].
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> But if the first Tana forbids Shivuy Ochel and 
               permits Tirchah, since R. Yehudah permits cutting 
               carobs for a small animal (he holds that it is not 
               Shivuy Ochel, the animal could eat it without this), 
               all the more so it is permitted for a big animal!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yehudah permits for a 'Dakah' - this does not 
          mean a small animal, rather, a big animal;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He calls it Dakah because it is Daika (fussy) about 
               what it eats.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Objection:</font></b> The Reisha says 'for a Gasah or Dakah', 
               there 'Dakah' means the opposite of big - surely 
               also R. Yehudah uses it to refer to a small animal!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> This is left difficult.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> One may cut gourds in front of a 
          Behemah and a Nevelah in front of dogs.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE BASKET CASE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites a Beraisa that states that when one attempts to make an Eruv Techumin by hanging a basket of food above ten Tefachim on a peg that protrudes from a tree, his Eruv is not valid because he cannot take the food from that basket on Shabbos without transgressing the prohibition of Hotza'ah (carrying from the basket, which is a Reshus ha'Yachid, to Reshus ha'Rabim). If he hangs the basket of food on the tree <i>below</i> ten Tefachim, the Eruv is valid because he can take the food out of the basket without transferring from one Reshus to another (since everything below ten Tefachim in Reshus ha'Rabim is considered to be part of Reshus ha'Rabim).
</p><p>
Why is his Eruv valid in the second case? The dimensions of the basket itself are four Tefachim by four Tefachim. (This is evident from the first case, where the Beraisa considers the basket to be a Reshus ha'Yachid. A Reshus ha'Yachid must be at least four by four Tefachim.) The basket should be considered a Karmelis, like any object that is four by four Tefachim and less than ten Tefachim high), and one is prohibited mid'Rabanan to carry from a Karmelis into another Reshus on Shabbos. The Eruv should be invalid.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that a usable <i>vessel</i>, such as a basket, cannot become a Karmelis (Tosfos 5a, DH Kan; Rashi 8a, DH Pachos). Rather, it becomes subordinate to the Reshus in which it rests. Therefore, in this case the basket becomes part of Reshus ha'Rabim.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> suggests another answer. The Beraisa follows the opinion of Rebbi, who maintains that when the Rabanan enacted Isurim d'Rabanan for Shabbos, they did not apply those Isurim during Bein ha'Shemashos (Shabbos 8b, Eruvin 32b). Since the food in the basket can be accessed during Bein ha'Shemashos (because carrying from a Karmelis to a Reshus ha'Rabim is Asur only mid'Rabanan), the Eruv is valid.
</p><p>
This answer is problematic. The Gemara explains that the Beraisa permits one to take food from a basket that is hanging from a tree at a point lower than ten Tefachim only because one does not thereby use the tree. He uses only 'Tzidei Tzedadin,' since the basket is hanging from a peg in the tree and not from the tree itself. According to Tosfos, however, even if the basket is hanging from the tree itself, only an Isur d'Rabanan is involved (the Isur of 'Mishtamesh b'Ilan,' using the tree). Since it is only an Isur d'Rabanan, it should be permitted during Bein ha'Shemashos, and the Eruv should be valid even if the basket is hanging from the tree itself (and not just from Tzidei Tzedadin)! (<b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> in Gilyon Hashas; <b>SEFER HA'KOVETZ</b> to the Rambam, Hilchos Shabbos 24:10; and others)
</p><p>
<b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> (in Tosfos Rebbi Akiva, Eruvin 3:3) answers based on the words of the <b>BARTENURA</b> in Eruvin (3:3). The Bartenura there explains that an act which involves only <i>one</i> Isur d'Rabanan is permitted Bein ha'Shemashos, but not an act which involves <i>two</i> Isurim d'Rabanan. Hence, according to Tosfos one is permitted to take food from the basket that hangs on a peg into Reshus ha'Rabim during Bein ha'Shemashos, because that act involves only one Isur d'Rabanan (carrying from a Karmelis into a Reshus ha'Rabim). One is <i>not</i> permitted to take the food from the basket when the basket hangs directly from the tree, because that act involves <i>two</i> Isurim d'Rabanan (carrying from a Karmelis into Reshus ha'Rabim, and using the tree). (See Rebbi Akiva Eiger, ibid., who strongly questions the Bartenura's rule from the Gemara in Eruvin 32b.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> The gourds are like the Nevelah, they 
               are soft!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This shows that Tirchah is permitted - this refutes 
               Rav Yehudah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, the Nevelah is like the gourds, it is hard.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is a case of a hard Nevelah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> It is elephant meat. (Elsewhere (Chulin 112A) 
          Pili refers to cracks in meat, but there is no reason why 
          such meat should be hard - <b><b><b>PF</b></b></b>.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> Any Nevelah is too hard for young puppies.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  (Rav Chanan - Beraisa):</font></b> We may crush straw and fodder and 
          mix them together (the animal will eat the mixture on 
          account of the fodder).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This shows that Tirchah is permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(t)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> No - the case is, the straw is spoiled, the 
          fodder is for young donkeys.
<br>
<b><font>3) FORCE FEEDING ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We may not Oves a camel [force food down its 
          throat] or press food into its throat, but Mal'itim (this 
          and the coming terms will be defined);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  We may not Ma'amir calves, but Mal'itim and Mehalketim 
          chickens, and we may put water in their bran, but we may 
          not knead it;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  We may not put water in front of bees or doves in a 
          dovecote, but we may put in front of geese, chickens and 
          domestic doves.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Question: What does it mean 'We may 
          not Oves'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> We may not make an Avus (feeding 
          trough) in its innards.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Is it really possible to fatten it so 
               much?!
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Yes! R. Yirmeyah mi'Difti saw an Aravi load 
               his camel with 30 Sa'im of food [to eat on the way] 
               in addition to a load of 30 Sa'im (Tosfos Bava 
               Metzi'a).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We may not Ma'amir...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What are Ma'amirim and Mal'itim?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Ma'amirim is putting food in the 
          throat to a place where the animal cannot spit it out; 
          Mal'itim is putting in the throat to a place where it can 
          spit it out.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Chisda):</font></b> Both of these are to a place 
          where it cannot spit it out;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Ma'amirim is using a Kli, Mal'itim is by hand.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Yosef - Beraisa):</font></b> Mehalketim chickens, 
          there is no need to say Malkitim;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One may not Malkit doves in a dovecote or upper 
               story, there is no need to say we may not Mehalket.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What are Malkitim and Mehalketim?
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  Suggestion:</font></b> Malkitim is putting food in its 
                    mouth, and Mehalketim is putting food in front 
                    of it.
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> Surely, one may put food in front of 
                    doves in a dovecote or upper story!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Rather, Mehalketim is putting food where the 
               animal cannot spit it out; Malkitim is in a place 
               where it can spit it out.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Inference:</font></b> If so, [we cannot say that Ma'amirim and 
               Mal'itim are the same, rather,] we must say [like 
               Rav Chisda] that Ma'amirim is using a Kli - this 
               refutes Rav Yehudah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Really, Malkitim is putting food in its mouth, 
          and Mehalketim is putting in front of it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Above, we asserted that surely one may put food in 
               front of doves in a dovecote or upper story - this 
               is wrong, he is not responsible to feed them (they 
               can find food in the Midbar);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> One may put food in front of dogs, but 
               not in front of pigs.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the difference between them?
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> One is responsible to feed his dogs, but not 
               to feed pigs (it is forbidden to raise them).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Support (Rav Ashi - Mishnah):</font></b> We may not put water in 
          front of bees or doves in a dovecote, but we may put in 
          front of geese, chickens and domestic doves.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> One may feed only what he is responsible to 
               feed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> Why does the Mishnah forbid water - it is 
          forbidden even to put wheat and barley!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is forbidden to put water, because they can 
          find water themselves in the swamp (but food is not 
          readily available, one may feed them).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (R. Yonah):</font></b> 'Yode'a Tzadik Din Dalim' - Hash-m knows that 
          dogs do not find food in abundance, therefore He caused 
          that its food stays in its system for three days:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah) Question:</font></b> If an animal ate Tum'as Mes [and 
               died], for how long [between eating and dying] is 
               the Tum'ah [still inside, and] Metamei? (While the 
               animal is alive, the Tum'ah is Balu'ah (swallowed), 
               it is not Metamei.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> For a dog, it is Metamei for three full (24 
               hour) days; for birds and fish, it is the time it 
               takes for them to burn after falling into a fire.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Rav Hamnuna):</font></b> [Since Hash-m is concerned for a dog's 
          food,] this teaches that it is proper to throw meat to 
          dogs [even not your own].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How much should one throw?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Mari):</font></b> An ear's worth [a small amount,] then 
          immediately hit it [so it will not regularly seek food 
          from you];
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is in the field - do not do so in the city, 
               lest it will regularly seek food from you.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  (Rav Papa):</font></b> A dog is the poorest creature, a pig is the 
          wealthiest (it eats anything, and is well fed).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(t)</font></b><font>  Support (for Rav Yehudah - Beraisa):</font></b> Ma'amirim is making 
          it crouch and propping is mouth open [with a hook] and 
          feeding it vetch and water together (it cannot avoid 
          swallowing the vetch with the water);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Mal'itim is making it eat and drink while standing 
               (one cannot put in so much), to a place where it can 
               spit it out.
<br>
<b><font>4) LIABILITY FOR KNEADING ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Mehalketim chickens...[we may put water in 
          their bran, but we may not knead it]. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> Question: Who is our Tana [who holds 
          that putting water into bran is not considered kneading]? 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rabah):</font></b> It is R. Yosi bar Yehudah:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> If Reuven put flour [into a 
               trough] and Shimon put water, Shimon is liable [for 
               kneading];
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah exempts, unless he [overtly] 
               kneaded.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps R. Yosi exempts only regarding flour, 
          for it is Bar Givul (must be kneaded), but he is Mechayev 
          regarding bran, for it suffices to add water (it mixes by 
          itself)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This is wrong:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> We may not put water in their 
               bran;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah permits.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #1):</font></b> One may not knead Kali (parched flour);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Some permit this.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Who is the latter Tana?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Chisda):</font></b> It is R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah - but 
          he permits only with a Shinuy.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What Shinuy does he do?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Chisda):</font></b> He kneads a small amount at a time.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) AGADAH: LASHON HA'RA AND THE DOG</b></font><b>
<br></b>Rav Papa said that there is no one poorer than the dog and no one richer than the swine. <b>RASHI</b> explains that this refers to the ease with which those animals are able to find food.
</p><p>
The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (Divrei Eliyahu, Shabbos 155b) adds an allegorical explanation to this Gemara. The dog alludes to those who speak Lashon ha'Ra (see Makos 23a), since such people bark senselessly like a dog and scare people with their mouths. The swine alludes to the prohibitions of forbidden foods. Rav Papa is saying that there is no prohibition poorer than Lashon ha'Ra, meaning that there is no prohibition which is neglected as much as Lashon ha'Ra (see Bava Basra 165a). There is no one richer than the swine means that there is no prohibition that is observed as scrupulously as the prohibitions of forbidden foods. Even though both are of equal importance (and both are done with the mouth), people respect one more than the other.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) LIABILITY FOR KNEADING (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Beraisa #2):</font></b> All agree that one may mix Shasis (Kali and 
          vinegar) on Shabbos, and one may drink Zeisum ha'Mitzri 
          (a drink which overcomes constipation or diarrhea).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The first Tana of Beraisa #1 forbids!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He forbids a thick mixture, all permit a thin 
          mixture.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  It is permitted only using a Shinuy.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What Shinuy does he do?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> He puts vinegar into Kali, whereas on 
          a weekday he puts Kali into vinegar.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Levi brei d'Rav Huna found the caretaker of his father's 
          animals kneading [bran with a Shinuy] and feeding the 
          cattle (the Mishnah forbids this) - he kicked him.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Rav Huna:</font></b> Your grandfather (R. Yirmeyah bar Aba) said in 
          the name of Rav that we may knead [with a Shinuy], but we 
          may not force feed;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If a calf does not take with its tongue (it is not 
               used to eating), we may Mehalket with a Shinuy.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What Shinuy does he do?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #1 (Rav Yemar bar Shalmiya):</font></b> He mixes [once] 
          north-south, and [once] east-west.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Objection:</font></b> This will not mix it enough!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer #2 (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> He pours it into another Kli.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  On Ze'iri's ledger it was written 'I asked my Rebbi (R. 
          Chiya) whether or not one may knead - he forbade; I asked 
          whether or not one may Mefarek (Rashi - take food from in 
          front of animal and put it in front of another animal; <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> 
          - pour it into another Kli, to mix it well) - he 
          permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Rav Menasiya):</font></b> One may put one [normal portion of food] 
          in front of one animal, and two in front of two; three in 
          front of two is forbidden (it is extra Tirchah);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> One may put a Kav (about two liters), even 
          two Kavim (even though this is more than usual);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (Ula):</font></b> One may put a Kor (over 300 liters), even two 
          Korim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b></b>  On Levi's ledger it was written 'I asked Rebbi about 
          people that knead Shasis - he vehemently wanted to 
          forbid, but people do not heed him; he lacked power to 
          forbid against R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah [who permits with 
          a Shinuy].
<br>
<b><font>2) 'MAZAL' OF DAYS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  On R. Yehoshua ben Levi's ledger it was written 'If one 
          was born on Sunday, he will be complete in one [Midah], 
          and he will not have another [trait]'. (Ha'Kosev in Ein 
          Yakov - the prohibitions of Nichush (saying that certain 
          times are good or bad for certain things) and astrology 
          only apply to senseless things - everything our Gemara 
          will discuss has a basis in Chachmah or nature, it is 
          permitted.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What does it mean 'He will not have another'?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Suggestion:</font></b> It means, he will not have a good Midah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rejection:</font></b> Rav Ashi was born on Sunday! 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> He will not have a bad Midah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Rejection:</font></b> Rav Ashi said, I and Dimi bar Kakuzta were 
          born on Sunday - I became Rosh Yeshivah, he became head 
          of the thieves! (It is the first day, the Mazal is 
          conducive to becoming a leader.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> He will be completely good or totally bad.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is because light and dark were created on this 
               day.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Continuation of the ledger):</font></b> If one was born on Monday, 
          he will be irritable.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is because the upper and lower waters were 
               divided on day two (likewise, the Mazal causes one 
               to be isolated from people).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  If one was born on Tuesday, he will be rich and 
          adulterous.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is because grass was created on day three (it 
               multiplies greatly and mixes with other species).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  If one was born on Wednesday, he will be Chacham and 
          Nahir (have a good memory).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is because the Me'oros (sun and moon) were 
               created on day four.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  If one was born on Thursday, he will bestow Chesed.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is because fish and birds were created on day 
               five (Rashi - people do not feed them, only Hash-m; 
               Maharsha - they are hunted, so Hash-m bestowed a 
               special Berachah on them lest they be diminished).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  If one was born on Friday, he will pursue.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> He will pursue Mitzvos (Rashi 
          - this is when people are busy preparing for Shabbos; 
          Maharsha - on Erev Shabbos, Hash-m gave Mitzvos to Adam).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  If one was born on Shabbos, he will die on Shabbos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is because his birth caused Chilul Shabbos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Rava bar Rav Shila):</font></b> He will be called 'a great 
               Kadosh person' (because Hash-m was Mekadesh Shabbos; 
               Maharsha - we see that many people born on Shabbos 
               do not die on Shabbos - it is only for great 
               Tzadikim, just like Hash-m completes their years 
               (they die on their birthday), He completes their 
               days of the week).
<br>
<b><font>3) 'MAZAL' OF HOURS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  R. Chanina:</font></b> Tell R. Yehoshua ben Levi that a person's 
          Mazal (dispositions) do not depend on which day he was 
          born, rather, on which hour he was born (the five closest 
          planets, sun and moon alternate being 'dominant' for one 
          hour, according to a fixed rotation).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If one was born when the sun is dominant, he will 
          illuminate like the sun;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He will eat and drink his own food and drink (Rashi 
               - like the sun, which does not overstep its boundary 
               to rule at night, which was given to the moon; Etz 
               Yosef - it radiates light, it does not receive light 
               from another luminary);
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> His affairs will be exposed (like daylight) - he 
               cannot succeed to be a thief.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  If one was born under Mazal Venus, he will be rich and 
          adulterous;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is because fire [the Yetzer ha'Ra for Arayos] 
               hangs from Venus. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  If one was born under Mazal Mercury, he will be radiant 
          and a Chacham;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is because it is the scribe of the sun.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  If one was born under the moon, he will bear afflictions; 
          he will constantly build and destroy (like the moon, 
          which periodically wanes and gets bigger);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He will eat and drink from others (like the moon, 
               which tries to overstep its boundary and rule by 
               day; alternatively - all its light is from the sun. 
               Even though the planets' light is also from the sun, 
               they do not give us much light, they themselves do 
               not appear to be luminaries - <b><b><b>PF</b></b></b>)
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> His affairs will be covered - if he will be a thief, 
               he will succeed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  If one was born under Shavtai (Saturn), his thoughts will 
          be Shovsim (annulled; Maharsha - it is first to dominate 
          on Shabbos);
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Some say, other's thoughts about him will be 
               annulled.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  If one was born under Tzedek (Jupiter), he will be a 
          <br>Tzadik 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> He will be a Tzadik in 
               Mitzvos (giving Tzedakah. <b><b><b>PF</b></b></b> - in addition to its 
               name, perhaps this is hinted at by the many moons 
               that surround this (the largest) planet, like Aniyim 
               that accompany a generous Ashir. (Saturn also has 
               many moons, but powerful telescopes are needed to 
               see them).)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  If one was born under Mazal Mars, he will spill blood;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav Ashi):</font></b> He will be a bloodletter, bandit, 
               slaughterer or Mohel. (He can channel his 
               disposition for something neutral, for Aveiros, or 
               for Mitzvos.)
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Rabah:</font></b> I was born under Mars.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Abaye:</font></b> Indeed, you punish and kill [people who 
               transgress your words! Perhaps this means, they die 
               for transgressing Divrei Chachamim - <b><b><b>PF</b></b></b>. Etz Yosef - 
               Rabah ruled over and properly channeled his 
               disposition to spill blood - but when he got drunk 
               on Purim, his disposition was released, and he 
               slaughtered R. Zeira (Megilah 7B).) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (R. Chanina):</font></b> Mazal causes people to be Chacham or 
          wealthy - Mazal applies to Yisrael;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Mazal does not apply to Yisrael. (Maharsha 
          - they only argue about individuals - all agree that Klal 
          Yisrael is not governed by Mazal.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  This is like R. Yochanan taught elsewhere:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> We learn that Mazal does not apply to 
               Yisrael from '...El Derech ha'Goyim Al Tilmadu 
               ume'Osos ha'Shomayim Al Tachotu Ki Yechatu ha'Goyim 
               me'Hemah';
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> We learn that Mazal does not apply to Yisrael from 
          'Va'Yotze Oso ha'Chutzah';
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Avraham had told Hash-m 'Ven Beisi Yoresh Osi' (I 
               have no children, Eliezer will inherit me); Hash-m 
               answered '[Lo Yirashcha Zeh] Ki Im Asher Yetzei 
               mi'Me'echa'.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Avraham:</font></b> I see in my Itztagninus (the Chachmah of 
               reading the stars) that I am not fitting to father a 
               son!
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Hash-m:</font></b> Leave your Itztagninus - Mazal does not 
               apply to Yisrael! You are concerned because Tzedek 
               (your Mazal) is in the west (which is too cold to 
               beget) - I will put it in the east!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) FOLLOWING ASTROLOGICAL PREDICTIONS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Tana'im and Amora'im discuss the effects of the Mazalos (constellations) on human behavior and destiny. The Gemara describes how certain Tana'im and Amora'im were concerned about the effects of the Mazalos.
</p><p>
This Gemara seems difficult in light of the Gemara in Pesachim (113b). The Gemara there says that it is forbidden to ask a 'Kalda'ei' for advice, because the verse says 'Tamim Tiheyeh Im Hash-m Elokecha' -- 'You shall be completely faithful to Hash-m your G-d' (Devarim 18:13). The Gemara here describes a 'Kalda'ei' as a Nochri astrologer who gazes at the constellations and predicts future events based on them. Why does the Gemara here describe this discipline as something which is trustworthy, when the Gemara in Pesachim says that we are not allowed to have any trust or faith in it at all?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> in Pesachim translates 'Kalda'ei' as 'Ba'alei Ovos,' those who divine with bones and commune with dead people.
</p><p>
However, everywhere else in Shas where the word 'Kalda'ei' is mentioned, Rashi says that it means astrologers. Apparently, Rashi understands that the Gemara in Pesachim cannot refer to astrologers, because -- as the Gemara here states -- there is nothing wrong with consulting astrologers. (<b>TOSFOS</b> and the <b>RASHBAM</b> there take issue with Rashi's definition of 'Kalda'ei' as 'Ba'alei Ovos.')
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> (in Teshuvos ha'Meyuchasos #243) and the <b>NIMUKEI YOSEF</b> (Sanhedrin 65b) write that the Gemara in Pesachim does not mean that there is an Isur d'Oraisa to consult astrologers. If there would be such an Isur d'Oraisa, the Gemara would cite as the source the negative commandment (Devarim 18:10) not to be involved in any type of divination. It must be that consulting astrologers is not included in that prohibition. Rather, there indeed is some veracity to the science of astrological prediction. Consequently, if a person is told his astrological forecast, he must not attempt to defy it because he might thereby be placing himself in danger (see, for example, the story of Rav Yosef in Berachos 64a). Rather, he should heed the warning and avoid the situation which his forecast says is dangerous for him. 
</p><p>
When the Gemara in Pesachim says that one may not consult with astrologers, it means that the Chachamim <i>advise</i> that one not look into astrology in the first place. Instead, one should place his trust fully in Hash-m and acknowledge that his prayers to Hash-m can be effective in altering his fate. The reason why the Tana'im and Amora'im of the Gemara were concerned about their astrological forecasts was not because they went to <i>consult</i> with astrologers, but because they <i>happened</i> to find out about their forecasts. In order to defy what they heard in such a manner, they would have to rely on a miracle to save them, and one may not rely on a miracle.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Avodah Zarah 11:8) rules that an Isur d'Oraisa forbids one to look into his astrological horoscope. How, then, does the Rambam understand the Gemara here?
</p><p>
When the Gemara lists each Mazal and its effects on the person born in it, that information does not tell the person anything about how he should <i>act</i> in the future (for example, what day will be a good one and what day will be a bad one). Rather, that information merely tells the facts about what that person's tendency will be. Apparently, accepting such information is not included in the prohibition against divining. Similarly, when Rebbi Akiva was concerned for the astrological prediction that was said about the fate of his daughter, he was merely worried, but he did not <i>act</i> on the prediction of the astrologer.
</p><p>
However, the Rambam writes later (11:16) that anyone who believes that there is any truth in such predictions is foolish and childish. How, then, could Rebbi Akiva and the Amora'im be concerned for the predictions of astrologers?
</p><p>
The Rambam, in his Introduction to Perush ha'Mishnayos, implies that the predictions of astrologers contain truth, but they are not <i>exact</i> in their predictions. He may mean that a person's fate, as seen by astrological prediction, is liable to change based on the performance of good deeds, exactly as the Gemara here concludes. In Hilchos Avodah Zarah, when he writes that anyone who believes in astrological predictions is foolish, he means that one must put his faith only in Hash-m and acknowledge that Tefilah and Yir'as Shamayim can change one's fate entirely, and that, therefore, it is futile to place one's trust in the Mazalos, as the Gemara concludes.
</p><p>
When Rebbi Akiva was worried about the prediction of the astrologer, he was worried for someone else (his daughter), since <i>she</i> might not be G-d-fearing enough to merit a good future. Similarly, the mother of Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak was worried for the prediction said about Rav Nachman, because she was worried that <i>her son</i> might not have enough merit to save him from the fate that the astrologer predicted. About one's self, though, a person need not fear; he simply must place his trust in Hash-m and perform Mitzvos, and the dreaded outcome will not come to pass. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> This explains 'Mi He'ir mi'Mizrach Tzedek Yikra'ehu 
               l'Raglo'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  Shmuel also holds that Mazal does not apply to Yisrael:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Some people heading to a swamp passed in front of 
               Shmuel and Avlet (a Nochri astrologer); Avlet said 
               that one of them will not return, he will be bitten 
               by a snake and die.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Shmuel:</font></b> If he is a Yisrael, he will return (I will 
               pray that he overcome his Mazal).
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> The man returned; Avlet threw down the man's load 
               and found a snake cut in two (the man unknowingly 
               killed it while cutting reeds).
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Shmuel:</font></b> What happened?
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> The man:</font></b> Every day we pool our bread and eat 
               together - today, one of them did not have bread, he 
               was embarrassed; I told them, I will collect - when 
               I reached him, I put in my bread as if it was his, 
               to spare him shame.
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Shmuel:</font></b> You did a [great] Mitzvah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> 'U'Tzdakah Tatzil mi'Maves' - not only does it 
          save from a harsh death [and cause one to die in a nicer 
          way], it literally adds life! (Maharsha - the snake 
          brought death to [and was empowered to kill] man by 
          causing him to eat b'Isur - he gave up his food to do a 
          Mitzvah, therefore he was saved from this death.) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  R. Akiva also holds that Mazal does not apply to Yisrael:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Astrologers told R. Akiva him that the day his 
               daughter gets married, she will be bitten by a snake 
               and die - he was very worried.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The day of her Chupah she inserted a decorative pin 
               in the wall - it struck a snake in its eye. In the 
               morning, she took it - the dead snake came out after 
               it.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> R. Akiva:</font></b> What had you done?
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> His daughter:</font></b> In the morning, an Oni came to the 
               door - everyone else was busy with the meal, no one 
               heard him - I took the portion you gave me, and gave 
               it to him.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> R. Akiva:</font></b> You did a Mitzvah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (R. Akiva):</font></b> 'U'Tzdakah Tatzil mi'Maves' - not only does 
          it save from a harsh death, it literally adds life!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b></b>  Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak also holds that Mazal does not 
          apply to Yisrael:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Astrologers had told his mother that her son will be 
               a thief; she told him to always cover his head 
               [well, the way Chachamim do - Maharsha], in order 
               that fear of Shomayim will be upon him, and to 
               request mercy [to be saved from the Yetzer ha'Ra] - 
               he did not understand why.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> One day he was learning under a date tree; his 
               garment fell from his head. He looked up and saw the 
               date tree - his Yetzer ha'Ra overpowered him, he cut 
               a cluster of dates with his teeth (the tree was not 
               his. This was his 'normal' disposition, his mother's 
               advice enabled him to overcome it, except for this 
               occasion.)
<br>
<b><font>4) THE HALACHAH REGARDING 'MUKTZEH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We may cut gourds in front of animals, and a 
          carcass in front of dogs [on Shabbos];
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, if it was not dead when Shabbos began, 
          we may not cut it, since it was not prepared.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Gemara - Ula):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yehudah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  The following shows that also Rav holds like R. Yehudah:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rav):</font></b> Double-mats used to cover merchandise are 
               forbidden [on Shabbos];
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Shmuel):</font></b> They are permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  Also Levi holds like R. Yehudah:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Levi would not look at a Safek Treifah on Yom Tov 
               until they brought it to the wasteheap - he said 
               that if it will be found to be Treifah, they must 
               leave it there, one may not even give it to dogs.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Shmuel):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Shimon.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Also Ze'iri holds like R. Shimon:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> If an animal died [on Yom Tov], one may 
               not move it;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Ze'iri):</font></b> This refers to a Korban (one must wait to 
               bury or redeem it after Yom Tov), but one may move a 
               Chulin Nevelah [to feed it to dogs].
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) CUTTING GOURDS FOR ONE'S ANIMAL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah teaches that one is permitted to cut gourds on Shabbos for one's animal to eat.
</p><p>
Why is it necessary for the Mishnah to permit one to cut gourds? Why would we have thought that one is <i>not</i> permitted to cut them?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that a person cannot eat a gourd unless he first <i>cooks</i> it. Consequently, gourds are fit for man to eat, but they are not fit for him on Shabbos. Therefore, they are considered 'Muchan l'Adam' (fit for man), which makes them unfit for animals.
</p><p>
According to this explanation, the statement of the Mishnah here is subject to the dispute between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon, and it is only Rebbi Shimon who permits one to cut gourds. Rebbi Yehudah prohibits it because he maintains that something which is fit for man is considered unfit for animals.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> also explains that cutting gourds for one's animal is subject to the dispute between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon whether something which is fit for man is fit for animals. The Ritva explains, however, that before Shabbos, the gourds were <i>soft</i> and thus suitable to be eaten by man, but on Shabbos they became <i>hard</i> and unfit for man. Since they are not fit for man now, we do not permit them even for animals (see following Insight).
</p><p>
(c) <b>RABEINU TAM</b> in Chulin (14a) explains that the Mishnah refers to gourds that were cut from the ground on Shabbos. This law is subject to the general dispute between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon with regard to Muktzah. While Rebbi Shimon normally agrees that an item that was cut from the ground on Shabbos is prohibited (because a person had no intention whatsoever to use those items on Shabbos and thus they are Muktzah; Beitzah 24b and Rashi there), in this case Rebbi Shimon permits gourds that were cut from the ground on Shabbos when the person had in mind to use the gourds whenever they would become detached from the ground. 
</p><p>
(Although the Rabanan prohibited one from using fruits that were detached from their source on Shabbos ('Peros ha'Noshrin,' Beitzah 3a), this prohibition applies only to fruits that can be picked and eaten immediately. It does not apply to gourds, which must be cooked before they can be eaten.)
</p><p>
(d) <b>TOSFOS</b> and <b>RASHI</b> in Beitzah (2a) explain that the Mishnah teaches merely that cutting gourds for animals is not considered an act of creating a new food item (according to Rav Huna on 155a) or making a food item easier for an animal to eat (according to Rav Yehudah on 155a). (Even though the case of cutting gourds is <i>not</i> related to the case of cutting up a Neveilah for one's animal on Shabbos, nevertheless it was placed in this Mishnah because this Mishnah discusses acts that involve cutting.)
</p><p>
According to this explanation, both Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon agree that one may cut gourds for one's animal on Shabbos.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) 'MUCHAN L'ADAM MUCHAN L'KELAVIM'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah explains that Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon argue whether one may feed to dogs an animal that died on Shabbos. The Gemara says that they argue whether or not something that was fit for man at the beginning of Shabbos is considered fit for dogs as well.
</p><p>
Rebbi Yehudah maintains that something that was fit for man is considered unfit for animals, or Muktzah. When does this prohibition apply? It is obvious that bread, for example, which is fit for man, may be handled in order to give it to animals, and it is not considered Muktzah with regard to giving it to animals.
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that any item that will be fit for man to eat <i>after</i> Shabbos but is not fit for man to eat on Shabbos is considered Muktzah with regard to giving it to animals, since it cannot be used for man at present. However, if it can be eaten <i>on</i> Shabbos by man and is not Muktzah for him, it may be moved for either man or animal. For this reason, a live chicken or cow or similar animal which cannot be eaten on Shabbos (because it cannot be slaughtered on Shabbos), but will be slaughtered the next day, is Muktzah. Even if it dies on Shabbos, its corpse may not be given to dogs, according to Rebbi Yehudah (see previous Insight).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> (142b) and the <b>RITVA</b> explain that something which is, or will be, fit to be eaten by man is <i>not</i> considered Muktzah with regard to giving it to animals, even if it cannot be eaten on Shabbos (for example, it needs to be cooked). Only if it became <i>unfit</i> for man at some point during Shabbos does it become Muktzah with regard to giving it to animals, because it is considered Nolad, since before Shabbos it was fit even for man and on Shabbos it became unfit for him. Even though it is still fit for dogs, it is considered to be a new entity which came into existence on Shabbos, and is Muktzah for both man and animals. (According to Rashi, this may not be considered 'Muchan l'Adam...,' but rather simply 'Nolad.' See Rashi to 29a, DH Achlan.)
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) AMORA'IM THAT HOLD LIKE R. SHIMON</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Also R. Yochanan said that the Halachah follows R. 
          Shimon.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Questions:</font></b> But R. Yochanan said that the Halachah follows 
          a Stam Mishnah (and there are Stam Mishnayos like R. 
          Yehudah)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question #1 (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not chop wood [even for 
          the sake of cooking] from beams (designated for building) 
          or from a beam that broke on Yom Tov.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yochanan says that that [is not Stam, rather, 
          it] is the opinion of R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question #2 (Mishnah):</font></b> One may begin [to burn] straw from 
          a pile (it is unfit for animals (it is spoiled or mixed 
          with thorns), it is destined to be burned), but not from 
          wood in a storage area (it is saved for winter).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That refers to cedar wood - even R. Shimon 
          forbids, for it is Muktzeh on account of Chisaron Kis (it 
          is valuable [for building], people do not use it for 
          anything else. Now that we establish the Mishnah like R. 
          Shimon, the straw can even be fit for animals.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question #3 (Mishnah):</font></b> One may not give to drink (to 
          facilitate flaying, or to clear the lungs) and slaughter 
          Midbariyos (wilderness animals); one may give to drink 
          and slaughter Baisos (domestic animals):
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yochanan relies on another Stam Mishnah which 
          is like R. Shimon:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah - Beis Shamai):</font></b> We may remove bones and 
               peels from the table;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Beis Hillel say, we take the entire tabletop, and 
               shake it (casting them off).
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (Rav Nachman):</font></b> [The opinions in our Mishnah must be 
               switched -] Beis Shamai forbid Muktzeh like R. 
               Yehudah, Beis Hillel permit like R. Shimon. (The 
               Halachah always follows Beis Hillel, this is like 
               (Tosfos Bechoros 32B - better than) a Stam Mishnah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rav Acha or Ravina):</font></b> Regarding all laws of Shabbos 
          (Ramban - including Muktzeh, Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah 
          l'Gufah, Davar she'Eino Miskaven, and destructively 
          wounding), the Halachah follows R. Shimon, except for 
          Muktzeh on account of Mi'us (something that disgusts a 
          person), e.g. a used [earthenware] lamp (and all the more 
          so the Halachah is not like him regarding Muktzeh on 
          account of Isur);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (The other of Rav Acha and Ravina):</font></b> The Halachah follows 
          R. Shimon even regarding Muktzeh on account of Mi'us, but 
          not regarding Muktzeh on account of Isur (if he showed 
          that he will not use it on Shabbos), e.g. a lamp in which 
          a fire was burning at the start of Shabbos;
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Even R. Shimon agrees about Muktzeh on account of 
               Chisaron Kis:
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Mishnah):</font></b> Any Kli may be moved, except for a big 
               saw or the blade of a plow. (Tosfos (Sanhedrin 85A) 
               - it was understood that all agree with the Stam 
               Mishnah, for we do not find anyone that argues. Our 
               text of the Mishnah (123B) attributes it to R. Yosi 
               - perhaps, since he permits everything else but 
               forbids Chisaron Kis, it is reasonable that R. 
               Shimon does also - <b><b><b>PF</b></b></b>.)
<br>
<b><font>2) PERMITTING VOWS ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Mefirim (a husband or father may annul) vows 
          on Shabbos, and Nish'alim on vows (we request a Chacham 
          or Beis Din to permit them), if they are for the need of 
          Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  One may plug up a Ma'or (a hole in a wall for light);
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  One may measure a rag or Mikveh;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  A case occurred in the days of R. Tzadok's father and Aba 
          Sha'ul ben Bitnis, they plugged a Ma'or with a flask, and 
          tied a jug with a reed to determine whether or not there 
          was a Tefach in [a crack in] a basket - we learn from 
          this that it is permitted to plug, measure and tie on 
          Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Is Mefirim whether or not 
          it is a need of Shabbos (because the Tana holds that 
          Hafarah is only [during the day he heard the vow] until 
          nightfall, it cannot be done after Shabbos), but 
          Nish'alim is only if needed for Shabbos?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If so, we understand why Mefirim and Nish'alim were 
               taught separately;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps even Mefirim is only if needed for 
               Shabbos - they were taught separately because 
               Hafarah does not require [a Chacham or] Beis Din, 
               but Hatarah does!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer (Zuti d'vei Rav Papa's Beraisa):</font></b> Mefirim for the 
          need of Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Inference:</font></b> If it is not for the need of Shabbos, it is 
          forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Version #2 - Question:</font></b> Does 'for the need of Shabbos' 
          refer to both Mefirim and Nish'alim, because the Tana 
          holds that one has 24 hours to Mefer, he can Mefer after 
          Shabbos?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps it refers only to Nish'alim, but Mefirim 
               even not for the need of Shabbos, for it is only 
               until nightfall! (Ramban - even if one has 24 hours 
               to Mefer, one can Mefer a vow heard Erev Shabbos 
               even not for the sake of Shabbos, since he cannot 
               Mefer after Shabbos; alternatively, it is forbidden, 
               since most existing vows on Shabbos [were heard in 
               Shabbos, hence] have Hafarah after Shabbos (normally 
               a person is Mefer right away.) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (Zuti d'vei Rav Papa - Beraisa):</font></b> Mefirim for the 
          need of Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  This teaches that one has 24 hours to Mefer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question (Rav Ashi - Mishnah):</font></b> Hafarah is all day [until 
          nightfall] - sometimes this is lenient, sometimes it is 
          stringent:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If she vowed (really, it does not depend on when she 
               vowed, only on when he heard the vow - perhaps the 
               Tana discusses one who vows in front of her husband) 
               on Shabbos night, he may annul it Shabbos night or 
               Shabbos morning, until nightfall;
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If she vowed on Shabbos shortly before dark, he may 
               annul it until dark.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> If he did not annul it before dark, he can never 
               annul it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Tana'im argue about this:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Beraisa):</font></b> Hafarah is all day [until nightfall];
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah and R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon 
               say, it is for 24 hours. (end of Version #2) 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Nish'alim on vows.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Is this only if he did not have a chance before 
          Shabbos - or is it even if he had a chance before 
          Shabbos?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rabanan permitted a vow for Rav Zutra brei d'Rav 
          Zeira even though he had time before Shabbos.
<br>
<b><font>3) ONE MAY PLUG, MEASURE AND TIE ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> They plugged a Ma'or with a flask, and tied a 
          jug...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Version #1 (Rashi) (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> There was a Mes on a 
          small path between two houses; overhead was a cracked 
          basket. (If the crack is less than a Tefach, the Tum'ah 
          spreads to the sides if there is an opening.).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Version #2 (R. Chananel) (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> There was a Mes 
          in a house; there was a mound between it and another 
          house, with a cracked basket on it that reached up to the 
          roof. It was not known whether or not the crack was a 
          Tefach, which would allow Tum'ah to pass to the other 
          house. (end of Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  They plugged the Ma'or before they knew the size of the 
          crack (lest the house become Tamei); they tied a jug [a 
          Tefach wide] to see [if it fits in the crack, i.e.] 
          whether or not the crack is a Tefach.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: MUKTZAH ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>SUMMARY</b>: The Gemara discusses the final ruling with regard to Muktzah, and it teaches the Halachah with regard to several basic categories of Muktzah.
</p><p>
(a) Muktzah Machmas Mi'us (the object is repulsive): The Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Shimon that such objects are permitted and are not Muktzah.
</p><p>
(b) Muktzah Machmas Isur (the object could not be handled during Bein ha'Shemashos without the person transgressing a prohibition of Shabbos): <b>TOSFOS</b> (here, and 19b) says that we are also lenient like Rebbi Shimon with regard to this type of object, unless the person <i>actively</i> put the object in a situation in which it could not be handled during Bein ha'Shemashos.
</p><p>
The <b>ROSH</b> and <b>TUR</b>, however, do not mention such a condition, and they rule simply that Muktzah Machmas Isur is prohibited in accordance with the view of Rebbi Yehudah.
</p><p>
(c) Muktzah Machmas Chisaron Kis, and Grogeros v'Tzimukin (objects that a person actively put into a situation where they would be unfit to be used for Shabbos): Even Rebbi Shimon agrees that these objects are Muktzah, and this is the Halachah.
</p><p>
Although this is the Halachah with regard to Shabbos, some Rishonim maintain that with regard to Yom Tov the Halachah differs (see Insights to Beitzah 2:2). (For a comprehensive summary of the various types of Muktzah and the opinions regarding them, see Insights to Beitzah 2:1.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We learn from this that it is permitted to 
          plug, measure and tie on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Ula saw Rabah bar Rav Huna measuring a barrel of water.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Ula):</font></b> The Mishnah permits measuring only for the sake of 
          a Mitzvah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Rabah:</font></b> I measure without intent.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) 'HILKETI'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah relates an incident in which a certain type of pitcher was tied to a type of reed-string in order to measure the opening of a barrel on Shabbos. The Gemara explains that the Mishnah refers to a case in which a small 'Hilketi' separated between two houses and the Tum'ah of a Mes was present.
</p><p>
What exactly is a 'Hilketi,' and what measurements were made with regard to the Tum'ah in this case?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that a Hilketi is an alley between two houses. A cracked barrel rested above the alley, supported by the walls of the two houses on each side of the alley. The barrel formed the ceiling of the alley. A Mes (or, more specifically, a piece from a Mes the size of a k'Zayis) was lying in the alley directly under the cracked barrel.
</p><p>
The crack was measured in order to determine whether its width was one Tefach, which would allow the Tum'ah of the Mes to go straight up, and out, without conveying Tum'ah to the houses on each side of the alley through their windows. If the hole in the barrel was less than a Tefach, the Tum'ah would be prevented from exiting and it would spread throughout the entire area in the alley underneath the barrel, and it would enter the houses through the windows.
</p><p>
However, Rashi asks that this explanation does not seem to be consistent with the Mishnah in Ohalos that states that even if the crack above the Tum'as Mes is less than a Tefach wide, the Tum'ah exits through the crack and does not spread beneath the Ohel.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> explains that the Mes in the alley was lying under the solid part of the barrel and not under the crack in the barrel. The question was whether or not the crack, which extended across the entire length of the barrel, prevented the Tum'ah from passing to the other side of the barrel, from where it would continue through the windows into the houses. 
</p><p>
This is consistent with the Mishnah in Ohalos that says that if there is a one- Tefach-wide break in the ceiling, Tum'ah does not spread from one side to the other across the break, but if the crack is less than a Tefach, the Tum'ah does spread to the other side of the crack.
</p><p>
(c) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> and the <b>ARUCH</b> explain that a Hilketi is a natural mound which forms the wall between two houses. It is not an alley at all. A Mes was in one house and there was a cracked barrel in a window in the Hilketi (the mound that served as a dividing wall) between the two houses. The barrel was measured in order to determine whether the barrel's opening was as large as a Tefach, in which case the Tum'ah would spread to the other house, or whether it was less than a Tefach and the Tum'ah was confined.
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
sjt:
<p>
<font><b>4) WHAT MAKES A KAMEI'A 'MUMCHEH' AND A DOCTOR 'MUMCHEH' ACCORDING TO RASHI</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara discusses what makes a Kamei'a (an amulet for healing) into a Kamei'a Mumcheh (one that has been proven to be effective), which one may wear in Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos regardless of the level of expertise of the doctor who wrote it. The Gemara also discusses what makes a doctor into a Rofeh Mumcheh (who has been proven to be an expert healer with his amulets), such that any amulet written by him may be worn in Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> says that a doctor who writes the same Kamei'a three times does <i>not</i> become a Mumcheh to write other Kamei'as (this is Rav Papa's third case, 'Chad Kamei'a l'Telasa Gavri'). Why, then, does Rashi write elsewhere (61a, DH d'Mumcheh; 61b, DH v'Ha) that the doctor who writes one Kamei'a three times <i>is</i> a Mumcheh?
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH v'Itmachi) is discussing the case in which a doctor wrote nine Kamei'as, three different charms for each of three different people, and they were all successful in healing the illnesses for which they were written. Rashi asks two questions. First, why does this make the Kamei'a Mumcheh? We should say that the Kamei'a is <i>not</i> Mumcheh, and the success of the cure is due instead to the Mazal of the doctor! Rashi answers that a doctor does not have Mazal; he has wisdom, and it must be his wisdom which made these Kamei'as successful. Therefore, the Kamei'as themselves become Mumcheh.
</p><p>
Second, Rashi asks that perhaps it was the patient's Mazal that caused him to be cured, and not the doctor's expertise nor the Kamei'a's potency. Rashi answers that it cannot be the patient's Mazal, because this Kamei'a was successful in curing three <i>different</i> patients, and not the same person three times. 
</p><p>
There are four points in this Rashi which need clarification:
</p><p>
(a) Rashi says that if we could attribute the Kamei'a's success to the Mazal of the doctor, we would not give the Kamei'a the status of Mumcheh. However, Rashi himself states (DH Mazlei) that we attribute the success of a cure to the Kamei'a and not to the doctor or patient! (His reason is because the Kamei'a is the primary curing agent, more so than the doctor or the patient. See (c) of Insight #2 above.)
</p><p>
(b) Rashi concludes that the doctor is not successful due to his Mazal, but because of his ability to write the Kamei'a. This contradicts what Rashi writes later (in DH Mazlei), where he says that the doctor's success could be due to his Mazal.
</p><p>
(c) Rashi asks that perhaps we should not attribute the successful cure to the Kamei'a, but rather to the patient's Mazal. However, later (in DH Mazlei) Rashi says that the Kamei'a overrides the patient's Mazal!
</p><p>
(d) Rashi answers his second question by saying that three different patients were healed (by each Kamei'a). However, Rashi himself writes (in DH Telasa Telasa) that each Kamei'a worked for only <i>one</i> person, and not for three people!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) There are two basic answers to the first question on Rashi.
</p><p>
1. The first answer is evident in Rashi's words elsewhere (on 61b, DH Gavra). It is true that the doctor <i>does</i> become Mumcheh through writing one Kamei'a three times. Rav Papa simply means that the doctor becomes an expert only for writing <i>this</i> Kamei'a, and not for writing other Kamei'as. 
</p><p>
We may ask, though, why does it matter that he is Mumcheh to write this Kamei'a? Anyone can write this Kamei'a, because the Kamei'a itself has become Mumcheh! What does this doctor's expertise add to this Kamei'a if even a non-Mumcheh doctor can write this Kamei'a?
</p><p>
We may suggest an answer based on the words of <b>TOSFOS</b> (61a, DH Af Al Gav). Tosfos explains that if a Kamei'a is a Mumcheh or if a doctor is a Mumcheh, and the Kamei'a or doctor then fails to cure three consecutive times, he loses his Mumcheh status. Accordingly, we may suggest that if this Kamei'a -- which became Mumcheh by being written and used successfully three times by this doctor -- <i>fails</i> three times when written by other doctors, it loses its Mumcheh status and may not be carried on Shabbos if written by any other doctor. However, the doctor who is a Mumcheh to write this Kamei'a retains his Mumcheh status and he may still write this Kamei'a (to be worn outside on Shabbos). Rashi teaches that even though the Kamei'a lost its Mumcheh status with regard to other doctors, this doctor is still a Mumcheh for the writing of this Kamei'a.
</p><p>
2. The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> suggests another answer to the first question, and his resolves the other questions on Rashi as well. Rashi (DH Mazlei) means that the success of the cure is attributed to the charm rather than to either the Mazal of the doctor <i>or</i> the Mazal of the patient. However, when there is a possibility that <i>both</i> the Mazal of the doctor and the Mazal of the patient are working together, then the possibility that the cure is a result of the combination of the two Mazalos outweighs the possibility that the cure is a result of the potency of the Kamei'a. Therefore, when <i>one</i> doctor used the Kamei'a three times on <i>one</i> patient, we do not assume that the Kamei'a is a successful one, but that the cure was a result of the doctor's and patient's combined Mazal. 
</p><p>
This answers the first question -- why does Rashi say that perhaps it is the Mazal of the doctor that effects the cure? Rashi is referring to the case of Rav Papa, in which one doctor used the same Kamei'a to heal the same person three times. In that case, it is true that we attribute the success to the Mazal of the doctor (in combination with the Mazal of the patient).
</p><p>
The words of the Tosfos ha'Rosh also answer the other three questions, as follows.
</p><p>
(b) When Rashi answers that it is not the doctor's Mazal but his wisdom that effects the cure, Rashi is referring to the case where the doctor was successful in using nine Kamei'as to heal three people, each with three illnesses, which makes him a Mumcheh. Since he succeeded with three different Kamei'as, we no longer attribute his success to his Mazal, but rather to his wisdom. However, until he becomes a Mumcheh, we do <i>not</i> say that it is his wisdom that cures, but rather his Mazal, as Rashi says (in DH Mazlei).
</p><p>
(c) The answer to the third question is that when Rashi says that perhaps the cure is due to the patient's Mazal, he does not mean that the patient's Mazal prevents us from determining that the <i>Kamei'a</i> is a Mumcheh. Rather, he means that the patient's Mazal prevents us from determining that the <i>doctor</i> is a Mumcheh to heal other illnesses. Accordingly, Rashi's statement that perhaps we should attribute the successful cure to the patient's Mazal (as opposed to the <i>doctor's</i> expertise), he does not contradict his words later (in DH Mazlei) when he says that the <i>Kamei'a</i> overrides the patient's Mazal.
</p><p>
(d) This also answers the fourth question. Rashi means that three different people were healed by this <i>doctor</i> (and not by each Kamei'a).
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) A 'CHES' THAT TURNED INTO TWO 'ZAYINS'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that if one intended to write the letter Ches and instead wrote two Zayins, he is exempt. The Gemara (beginning of 105a) explains that he is exempt because he did not write the three Tagin on top of each Zayin, and thus his Zayins are not complete letters. It seems from the Gemara that if he <i>did</i> write the Tagin, he would be Chayav.
</p><p>
Why would he be Chayav? The Gemara earlier (73a) says that if one intended to throw an object a distance of two Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim but instead threw four Amos, he is exempt. Here, too, he should be exempt even if he writes the letters <i>with</i> the Tagin, because he intended to do something that was not forbidden (write a single Ches), which is equivalent to throwing a distance of two Amos!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> (DH Niskaven) explains that the Mishnah refers to a case in which one intended to write two letters, the first of which was meant to be a Ches. Since he intended to write two letters, he is Chayav when he writes the two Zayins properly.
</p><p>


<font><b>4) HOW TO WRITE A 'CHES'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah says that it is possible for a person to intend to write a Ches and to end up writing two Zayins instead. The Gemara explains that the Zayins must have 'Tagin,' three small 'crowns,' in order for one to be Chayav for writing them, since a Zayin is written with Tagin in a Sefer Torah.
</p><p>
How is a Ches written?
</p><p>
(a) In <b>K'SAV BEIS YOSEF</b>, a Ches is comprised of two Zayins with an upwards, pointed angle that attaches them. The Mishnah here that discusses one who intended to write a Ches but accidentally wrote two Zayins seems to be a proof for this opinion.
</p><p>
(b) According to the <b>ARIZAL</b>, a Ches is comprised of one Zayin and one Vav, with an upwards, pointed angle that attaches them. If one skips the angle, a Vav and a Zayin should remain. According to this opinion, why does the Gemara here call the Vav a Zayin and insist that one must add Tagin to it in order to be Chayav?
</p><p>
(c) In <b>KESAV VELLISH</b>, the Ches looks like an ordinary Ches that is in printed in Sefarim. This seems to be the opinion of <b>RASHI</b> in Menachos (29b). <b>RASHI</b> here (DH Niskaven) also follows this view, when he implies that the person did not write <i>any</i> part of the roof of the Ches. Why, then, does the Mishnah discuss one who writes two Zayins, and not two Vavs?
</p><p>


Perhaps when one intends to write a Ches, which is a letter of significance, in order to be Chayav he must write two other letters of <i>significance</i>. This excludes Vavs and Yuds, which are not considered significant because they are only a scratch and a dot. For this reason, the Mishnah says that two legs of the Ches must have crowns on top, to make them Zayins, because otherwise one has not written letters of significance. This approach also explains why the Mishnah says two Zayins (and not two Vavs) according to the Arizal (for one will be Chayav only for writing two Zayins, but not two Vavs).
</p><p>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) HALACHAH: THE 'ATARAH'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara says that Tzitzin ha'Me'akvin are strips of skin that cover 'most of the height of the Atarah.' What exactly is the Atarah?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> (YD 264) quotes a response written by 'a Chacham from Spain' who writes that the Atarah is the entire upper section that is covered by the Orlah-skin before the Milah. The strips of skin that cover 'most of the height of the Atarah' refer to long pieces of skin that cover the top of the organ until past the tip.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b>, however, seems to understand the definition of the Atarah differently, as the <b>BECHOR SHOR</b> here points out. Rashi on the Mishnah (DH Atarah) implies that the Atarah is the ring of skin just below the Orlah that encircles the organ. The circumference of skin there is the Atarah. Accordingly, strips of skin that 'cover most of the height of the Atarah' are strips that cover most of the height of that narrow ring of skin (that is, even very small strips of skin). The Bechor Shor supports Rashi's opinion with a Gemara in Yevamos (75a).
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The Beis Yosef writes that one should be stringent like the second opinion and make sure to cut off even small strips of skin that remain, if they cover most of the height of the circular ridge of skin.
</p><p>


