Previous daf

1)

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Leromem es Beis Elokeinu" that a town where the houses are higher than the Shul, will eventually be destroyed.

(b) This does not apply to buildings which are primarily built for beauty and not for habitation.

(c) Rav Ashi claimed that, by ensuring that nobody built his house higher than the Shul, he prevented the town from being destroyed - at least, it would not be destroyed due to *that* sin.

(a) Any time an Arab, rather than a Nochri (which according to Rashi, means a Roman); A Roman, rather a Chaver (a nation connected with the Persians); A Chaver rather, than a Talmid Chacham, whose punishment when crossed can be devastating (see Pirkei Avos 2:10).

(b) But the worst of all, are the widows and the orphans, whose tears immediately evoke the Divine mercy. (The wife of someone who hurts a widow or orphans will become a widow, and his children, orphans see Sh'mos 22:21-23.)

(c) The worst of all the illnesses is stomach sickness, the worst of all the acute pains is heart pains and the worst of all the mild pains is a headache.

(d) If all the seas were ink, and all the marshes, quills, the skies parchment and all the people, scribes, that would not suffice to transcribe all the affairs of the ruling power (such as the taxation of vassal states, wars and judgements).

(a) The first two calves are born before the cow has attained its full strength, and are therefore not so strong; the third calf, which is born after the mother has attained its full strength, is the healthiest and the strongest of all.

(b) Rebbi Yehoshua B'rei de'Rav Idi refused to partake of the calf, because he was fasting.

(c) Rav Ashi suggested to him Rav Yehudah's Heter of 'borrowing his fast and paying it back (eating that day, and fasting another day instead.

(d) Rebbi Yehoshua however, rejected this on the grounds that Rav Yehudah's Heter did not apply to a Ta'anis Chalom (which was the fast that he was fasting), which is effective only if one fasts immediately on the day following the fast.

(a) Why does the Mishnah need to repeat the Din of 'Ein Mafsikin li'Tefilah', when we have just learnt (in the same Mishnah) 've'Im Hischilu, Ein Mafsikin'?

(b) The Gemara answers that the Seifa of the Mishnah is speaking, not about interrupting one's meal etc., but about interrupting one's Torah-study (where the Din is the same as in the Reisha - for Keri'as Shema, yes, for Tefilah, no.

(c) This Din is restricted however, to people of the caliber of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai, whose Torah-study was literally full-time.

(d) The Beraisa, which writes 'Kach Ein Mafsikin li'Keri'as Shema', is referring neither to interrupting one's meal, nor one's Torah-study; it refers to interrupting during the deliberations of making a leap-year or not.

(a) A tailor or a scribe may not go with the needle stuck in the lapel or the quill stuck behind the ear (respectively)on Friday afternoon, a short time before nightfall, because they might forget and carry them on Shabbos.

(b) The Mishnah forbids one to read or to delouse one's clothes on Friday night, by the glow of a lamp. This is because one may come to turn up the wick (and therefore applies to any occupation which requires scrutiny).

(a) The Chazen ha'Kenesses is the equivalent of a Ba'al Korei, who is going to Lein in Shul in the morning, and who sometimes does not know where the Leining is. He therefore looks to see where the children are up to in their Chumash Shiur, to take his cue from them.

Alternatively, the Chazen is the children's Rebbi, who looks at the Chumash to see where the children are up to, in preparation for tomorrow's Shiur.

(b) A Zav may not eat together with a Zavah, in case this leads to his being Bo'el her, and Bi'ah with a Zavah carries with it a CHiyuv Kares.

(c) If a Zav (for whom it is in any case difficult to have relations) is forbidden to eat with a Zavah, then how much more so will it be forbidden for a man who is not a Zav to eat with a Zavah.

7)

(a) It is permitted to drink from one Reshus to the other, provided one places one's head and most of his body in the Reshus where he is drinking.

(b) To carry from a Karmelis to a major Reshus is only an Isur de'Rabbanan. Since when do the Rabbanan decree a Gezeirah li'Gezeirah?

(c) Why does the Beraisa add 've'Chen be'Gas? If it is speaking about a wine-press which is a Reshus ha'Yachid or a Reshus ha'Rabim, we know that already from the Reisha, so what has the Tana added?
Consequently, Abaye concludes, it must be referring to a wine-press which is a Karmelis, to tell us that the prohibition extends even to a Karmelis (even though it is a question of a Gezeirah li'Gezeirah).

(d) According to Rava, 've'Chein be'Gas' does not refer to the Din of carrying on Shabbos at all, but to Ma'aser. Normally, if someone takes wine from a wine-press, and drinks it on the spot, he is Patur from Ma'asros, since he intends to pour back whatever he does not drink (which renders that session casual, and is Patur from Ma'aser - since the wine has not yet flown down to the pit, which is the final stage for Ma'asros).
If however, he takes the wine into another Reshus, his intention is not to pour back any of the wine, and the session is therefore considered a fixture, which requires Ma'aser to be taken, before one is permitted to drink.

The Beraisa teaches us, that if he leans his head and most of his body into the Reshus where the wine-press is, he is Patur from Ma'asering (like the Din of drinking on Shabbos).

9)

(a) If, as the Gemara believes, the tailor is carrying the needle stuck in his lapel, then that is surely no more than an Isur de'Rabbanan; yet we see, that Chazal forbade the tailor to carry it on Erev Shabbos - a Gezeirah li'Gezeirah?

(b) According to Rava, the author of the Beraisa, which speaks when the needle is stuck in the tailor's lapel, must be Rebbi Yehudah, in whose opinion, a tailor who carries a needle in his lapel, is Chayav, since that is the way tailors often carry their needles (whenever they want to advertise their profession).

(c) An ordinary person does not tend to walk around with a needle in his lapel (since he does not need to advertise anything). Consequently, it is never the norm for him to carry a needle that way, so he is always Patur.

(d) The above Din will apply to any professional, who needs to advertise his profession (e.g. a carpenter with a small splinter of wood stuck in his ear, or a dyer with a small piece of dyed cloth hung around his neck as a sample).

(a) Rav Yosef attempts to answer the Beraisos by establishing the Beraisa which is Mechayev a Zav for going out with his bag tied to him, according to the Rebbi Yehudah that we quoted in the previous question, and the Beraisa which renders him Patur according to Rebbi Meir.

(b) Abaye however, queries this, on the grounds that Rebbi Meir only exempts a professional, because even *he* does not usually walk around with his sample stuck in lapel, or in his ear or around his neck, as we explained. But when it comes to the bag of a Zav, which is the only way he carries it, even Rebbi Meir will agree that he is Chayav. And he proves this from a non-professional who carves out a hole in a block of wood. Will Rebbi Meir say that he is Patur, because he is a non-professional, who does not usually do this sort of thing? That would mean that only professionals are ever Chayav for doing a Melachah.
Therefore, we have to say that if that is the way that he always performs the Melachah, he is Chayav (even though he does not usually perform that particular Melachah).

Similarly, a Zav may well not spend the vast majority of his days wearing his bag. Nevertheless, when he is a Zav, that is the way he carries his bag, so he will be Chayav.

(c) The Beraisa which rules that he is Patur, speaks by a Zav who saw three times, and who is Patur because he does not need his bag to establish that he is Chayav a Korban, like a Zav who saw only twice is.

(a) The Beraisa which exempts the Zav who saw three times, speaks on the day when he had his third sighting, when there is absolutely no need for him to wear his bag, since, on that day, there is no checking that needs to be made.

(b) This Tana holds that any act that is performed in order to save something from becoming dirty is not considered an act, and one would therefore be Patur for its performance.

(c) The Gemara tries to prove this from the Mishnah in Machshirin, which rules, that if someone overturns a dish on a wall, in order to prevent that part of the wall from becoming wet, the water is not included in the Din of 'Be'chi Yutan'. This means that the water is not considered 'wanted', so to speak, and if it then falls (unintentionally) onto fruit, the fruit does not become Tamei.

(d) This proof however, is not acceptable, because, whereas he does not want the water at all, the Zav definitely wants the bag. So why should he not be Chayav?

(e) The Gemara finally concludes that the author of the Beraisa, which renders Patur the Zav who saw three times, and who only needs the bag in order to protect his clothes from becoming dirty, is Rebbi Shimon, according to whom a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah' is Patur, because he does not want the outcome of what he has achieved (like in our case, where he wants the bag in order to receive the Zivus, only because he wants to throw it away - according to Tosfos 94a d.h. 'Rebbi Shimon', he is Patur because it is not similar to the work in the Mishkan, where all the tasks were performed for their positive achievements).