Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Sheshes forbids sitting on the root of a tree that is lower than three Tefachim if it is the extension of a root which, nearer to the tree, has grown to more than three Tefachim - since it comes from what is Asur.

(b) 'Meshunisa' is a root that grows diagonally from the foot of a tree, and from which other roots jut out. Those that jut out above three Tefachim are forbidden; those that jut out from below three Tefachim are permitted, and those that jut out from above three Tefachim, but which grow downwards to less than three Tefachim are equivalent to the case over which Rabah and Rav Sheshes argue.

(c) 'Anigra' - is a tree that grows out of a ditch which covers it on *two* sides, and 'Keren Zavis' is a tree that grows out of the corner of a wall, which covers it on *three*. Both are subject to the Machlokes between Rabah and Rav Sheshes: according to Rabah, we reckon the three Tefachim from the point where it grows above the wall; whereas according to Rav Sheshes, we reckon them from where the tree emerges from the ground.

(a) Rav Yosef permitted sitting on the date-palm that grew through Abaye's roof which had not yet grown to a height of three Tefachim from the roof - because he held like Rabah, who reckons the three Tefachim from where one sees it, and not from its source.

(b) We might have thought that even Rav Sheshes will agree with that ruling - because of the Sevara 'Beisa Kema'an de'Malya Damya', which might have caused us to consider the inside of the house as being below ground level.

(c) Our Mishnah, which prohibits sitting on roots that are three Tefachim high speaks ...

1. ... according to Rav Sheshes - with regard to sitting on the lower section of a root that is more than three Tefachim high closer to the tree.
2. ... according to Rabah - when one side of the root grows beside a raised level, but whose other three sides are higher than three Tefachim from the foot of the tree, then we reckon the three Tefachim from the foot of the tree. Here Rabah agrees, since it is only covered by the level o ground on *one* side.

(a) Climbing, leaning or swinging on a tree or an animal is forbidden, not because of the strain - but because one may break off a twig or a branch (in order to facilitate the climb, or to hit the animal), neither of which will apply to a wall or a pit. Clambering on them or into them is therefore permitted.

(b) In the second answer, both Beraisos speak about someone who climbed the tree *on* Shabbos; the Beraisa which forbids him to descend speaks when he climbed it on purpose, the Beraisa which permits him to descend, speaks when he climbed it by mistake.

(c) According to the third answer - both Beraisos speak when he climbed the tree be'Shogeg; the one maintains that Chazal *penalized* a Shogeg because of a Meizid, the other, that they did *not*.

(a) If the blood of ...

1. ... a Bechor which got mixed up with the blood of another Bechor - one sprinkles from it just once (towards the Yesod of the Mizbei'ach), and that one sprinkling will cover both Korbanos Bechor.
2. ... a Chatas which got mixed up with the blood of another Chatas - one sprinkles from it one set of four (one on each corner of the Mizbei'ach) to cover both Chata'os.

(b) If the blood of a Chatas got mixed up with the blood of a Bechor, Rebbi Eliezer holds that it must be sprinkled four times - because if one were to sprinkle only once, he would be transgressing the La'av of 'Bal Tigra'. There is no 'Bal Tosif', he says, unless it is on its own (when he is not definitely fulfilling a Mitzvah, as he is here).

(c) Rebbi Yehoshua disagrees; firstly, because of the La'av of Bal Tosif (according to him, it is Bal Tigra that one transgresses only when it is on its own); secondly, because it is better to transgress Bal Tigra through an *inaction* that is forbidden, than Bal Tosif through a forbidden *action* ('Shev ve'Al Tosif Adif'). Note: Rebbi Yehoshua also relies on the fact that if a Kohen sprinkles the blood of any Korban whose blood requires sprinkling, on the outer Mizbei'ach, just once (even if it really required four sprinklings) he is Yotze Bedieved - Rashi and Tosfos.

(a) The Gemara initially thought that Rebbi Eliezer, who holds that, when action and non-action clash, it is better to act than to refrain, will also hold that since the Mitzvah of descending the tree and the prohibition of using it (in order to descend) clash, it is better that he performs the positive Mitzvah (de'Rabbanan) of descending; whereas according to Rebbi Yehoshua, in whose opinion one should rather refrain from acting, the same will apply here, and the person who climbed the tree, should remain there.

(b) Rebbi Eliezer may well agree that he should rather remain in the tree, because descending is not really a Mitzvah (like sprinkling the blood is), but rather withdrawing from an Isur.

(c) And Rebbi Yehoshua may well agree that here, it is better that he descends immediately, in order to avoid the sin of using a tree, whereas by the case of sprinkling the blood, one is not transgressing any La'av by not sprinkling the blood.

6)

(a) It is forbidden to climb a tree that has dried up - i.e. that has no moist and is therefore considered detached, and one that will not re-grow - because one may break off a twig or a branch, should they interfere with one's climbing progress.

(b) One may climb a dried-up tree in the summer-time - provided no fruit remains on the tree from last year, and provided there are *no* twigs left to break off. If there *are*, it is forbidden, because people will not know that the twigs or the fruit are from last year, and it will be Asur because of 'Mar'is ha'Ayin'.

(c) Chazal did not decree climbing a dried-up tree because of a fresh one - due to the fact that there is no Mar'is ha'Ayin, since the difference between them is easily discernible. They nevertheless forbade it in the winter - because in the winter, the difference between a moist tree and a dried-up one is unclear, and Mar'is ha'Ayin therefore applies.

(d) Rav forbade climbing even a bare dried-up tree in Afsatya because they were not B'nei Torah, and would in all likelihood, come to extend the concession even to a tree that had branches and fruit.

(a) Walking on *dry* grass is one of the many possible leniencies brought in our Sugya with regard to the general Isur of walking on grass.

(b) If one pulls out grass one is involved with the Isur of Tolesh, which is in turn, a Toldah of Kotzer.

(c) Nowadays, the Gemara concludes, walking on grass is permitted in all cases - since we rule like Rebbi Shimon, who holds 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven, Mutar'.

(a) We also learn from the Pasuk "ve'Atz be'Raglav Chotei" - the prohibition of forcing one's wife to have relations.

(b) Someone who does this will have unworthy children.

(c) The rewards of having relations *twice* - is sons. Why is that?
Because the first time increases the woman's desire for the second time, and when the woman 'sows' first, the result is a son.

(a) A woman who approaches her husband for a D'var Mitzvah will have children who are 'Nevonim' (a level beyond Chachamim).

(b) The prime example of this is Leah, who said to Ya'akov 'Elai Tavo', and who subsequently bore to Ya'akov, Yisachar, about whom the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim writes "u'mi'B'nei Yisachar Yod'ei Binah la'Itim".

(c) When Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi included women approaching their husbands among the curses of Chavah - he meant that they should not *ask outright*, but not that they should not *hint* (which is what Leah did, since she said '*Elai* Tavo' [which has various connotations], and not '*Alai* Tavo' - which would have been specific).

(a) The curse of ...

1. + 2. ... "Harbah Arbeh" - refers to the blood of Nidah and the blood of virginity;
3. ... "Itzvonech" - to the pain of bringing up children;
4. ... "ve'Heronech" - to the pain of pregnancy;
5. ... "be'Etzev Teldi Banim" - to the pain of childbirth;
6. ... "ve'El Ishech Teshukasech" - to the longing that she experiences when her husband goes away on a journey;
7. ... "ve'Hu Yimshol Bach" - refers to the fact that it is the man who approaches his wife, but never vice-versa.

(b)

1. 'Atufah ke'Avel' means - that a married woman is embarrassed to go out with her hair uncovered;
2. 'u'Menudah mi'Kol Adam' - that she is forbidden to all men besides her husband (whereas he may have as many wives as he pleases);
3. 'va'Chavushah be'Veis ha'Asurin' - that a woman really belongs in the home ("Kol Kevudah Bas Melech Penimah" - Tehilim).

(c) The third curse listed by the Beraisa is that she becomes her husband's cushion i.e. he lies on top and she underneath.

(d) Rav Dimi does not list these, because he considers them praiseworthy, like the Pasuk in Iyov, which writes that the mule teaches us to bend when urinating, and the rooster to cover its mate while mating. Note: The Gemara does not bring any source why growing a lot of hair is praiseworthy (perhaps it is obvious, because this is a known beauty feature of a woman - as the Mishnah in Sotah explains).

(a) If the Torah had not taught us all the good Midos, we would have learnt ...

1. ... modesty from the cat;
2. ... honesty (eating only what is one's own, and not anyone else's) from the ant;
3. .... loyalty to one's mate from the dove.

(b) 'Derech Eretz from a rooster' - refers to when the rooster appeases the hen before they mate.

(c) He subsequently says to her 'I will buy you a coat that goes down to your feet'. However, after the mating, he says to her 'When I have (money), I will buy it for you'. But of course, he never has any money!