Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Yehudah quoting Rav says, that whatever Chazal forbade because of Mar'is ha'Ayin, is forbidden even in a private room, where nobody is there to see him.

(b) Even though our Mishnah disagrees with Rav, he is unconcerned, because he has found a Machlokes Tana'im, and he holds like the Tana who is strict.

(c) The Tana Kama permits one to hang up clothes to dry, when they became wet in the rain, provided that they are not in full view of the people (conforming with the opinion of the Beraisa on Daf 54); whereas Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon forbid it (and it is *their* opinion that Rav follows).

(a) Rami bar Yechezkel says that both the cotton-wool in the ears and the soft pad in the shoe - which the Mishnah permits - are permitted, only if they have been tied.

(b) This does not however, apply to the cotton-wool which she uses, to prevent the blood of Nidus from dripping on her clothes. Why not? Because that cotton -wool is disgusting, and she is hardly likely to carry it in the street ...

(c) ... even if a handle is attached to it.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan went with cotton-wool tied in his ears, even though it was not tied, because he had placed it firmly in his ear, and it was unlikely to fall out. The Beraisa of Rami bar Yechezkel, which requires it to be tied, speaks when it was not fitted tightly.

(a) A woman would keep in her mouth ...

1. ... a long pepper - if she suffered from bad breath.
2. ...a grain of salt - if she suffered from tooth-ache.

(b) She might also keep ginger or cinnamon in her mouth (if she suffered from bad breath).

(c) A woman is permitted to go out with a silver tooth, either because it resembles the other teeth sufficiently for people not to laugh at her, or because it is not so valuable that she is likely to carry it home, even if the people's mocking should cause her to take it out of her mouth.

(d) According to Rebbi, she may go out even with a gold tooth.

5)

(a) A Sela she'Al ha'Tzinis is a Sela coin that one ties to a sore foot to heal it.

(b) One may go out with it on Shabbos.

(c) They would pierce a young girl's ears before she was due to wear ear-rings. In the interim, they placed threads or twigs (Kismin) in the hole, to prevent the hole from closing.

(d) The suggestion that young girls do not need to Tovel, Rashi claims, is a fallacy. They too, had to Tovel, because in those days, people were particular about Taharos - and unless a young girl Toveled, she would render Tamei, any Taharos that she touched (and Rashi also proves that Nidus was common by young girls). In addition, it is more correct - for grammatical reasons - to explain that the threads (in our Mishnah), like the twigs, were worn in the ear, and not in the hair (like his Rebbes contended). Why is that?
Because the Mishnah writes 'va'Afilu be'Kismin', which implies that the twigs were merely an extension of the Din of threads, not something new. That is why, explains Rashi, the threads in the Mishnah, are spaeking about threds in the ears and not in the hair.

(a)

1. 'Arabi'os Yotz'os Re'ulos' means that the Jewish women living in Arabia were permitted to go out with a type of Kafiyah which covered the entire face, except for the eyes.
2. And likewise 'Modi'os Yotz'os Perufos' means that the Jewish women living in Medes were permitted to go out with a type of Kafiyah to which they attached a stone or a nut to one end, and around which they wound the other end.

(b) In fact, any Jewish woman is permitted to go out with these - the Mishnah only mentions women from Arabia and from Medes, because that was the norm there.

(c) If it (the Sela she'Al ha'Tzinis) was a question of ...

1. ... hardness, they could have used a piece of clay;
2. ... moistness, they could have used a piece of silver;
3. ... the shape minted on it, they could have carved a shape on any piece of wood and used that.

(d) The truth of the matter is, that it was the combination of all three that made the coin so useful, and consequently, nothing else but a minted coin would do.

(a) Shmuel's daughters wanted to go out *colored* threads in their ears, whereas our Mishnah permits only *plain* ones. That is why Shmuel stopped them.

(b) Shmuel's father forbade his daughters to sleep together, not necessarily because he held that *that* might render them Pasul to marry a Kohen Gadol (like Rav Huna), but because he did not want to let them get used to having contact with other bodies, something which might instill into them the desire to sleep with men.

(c) There was no Kehunah Gedolah in the time of Rav Huna, so the suspicion was not a practical one. It was just that, since Chazal considered that sort of behavior immoral, he considered it improper.

8)

(a) When it rains in Eretz Yisrael ('Mitra be'Ma'arva'), the River Peras is witness to this ('Sahada Raba Peras'), because its waters swell, and when it flows from Eretz Yisrael to Bavel, it is fuller than usual.

(b) That being the case, Peras could, on those occasions, comprise more rain water that natural water. What is wrong with that?
Rain water, unlike natural spring water, is only Kasher for Tevilah, when it is gathered, but not when it is flowing, in which case, the River Peras would then be Pasul for Tevilah. And that, in turn, explains why Shmuel's father would make Mikva'os for his daughters in Nisan.

(c) Shmuel maintains that the River Peras generates its own growth, and is not affected by the heavy rains.

(d) But Shmuel also said that one is not permitted to Tovel in rivers other than the River Peras in the month of Tishri, by which time the rain water has long stopped and diminished, and the natural water will, once again, have become the majority. So we see, that Shmuel holds like his father - that the rain water *does* affect the waters of Peras! - As a matter of fact, he appears to be even more stringent than his father, who only forbade use of the River in Nissan, whereas *he* forbade it all the months until Tishri.

(a) The Reisha of the Mishnah: 'Porefes' etc. Lechatchilah, pertains to any nut, and to a stone which one designated for that purpose; whereas the Seifa 'u'Vileved' etc., which forbids the woman to do Perifah, unless she began already before Shabbos, speaks about making Perifah with a coin, which is Muktzah - even if one designated it for that specific purpose, unless one actually used it in that capacity before Shabbos, which is a stronger form of designation.

(b) Even Rebbi Meir, who permits wearing as many clothes - even of the same kind, which he would not normally do - only does so because, if he would not permitted to save his clothes in this way, he would put out the fire; whereas a woman would not carry out the nut directly, just because she was not permitted to carry it out using Perifah.

(c) On the other hand, even Rebbi Yossi, who forbids wearing many of the same kind of clothes, is strict *there* only because, since one does not usually wear two of the same kind of clothing, he is actually carrying when he does; whereas here, the woman - who is using the stone as a fastener (irrespective of her intention), is not carrying it.

(a) 'ha'Kitei'a Yotze be'Kav she'lo' means that a man whose leg from the calf down, was amputated, may walk in the street with a stump.

(b) Rebbi Yossi forbids it, since it is neither a garment, nor a Tachshit. Why not?
Because he does not really need it - since he actually walks with sticks. The stump is dispensable. (See also, answer to 1d, and see Rabeinu Chananel, whose explanation appears to conform with the Sugya in Yuma - see also Korban Nesan'el Si'man 17, note 80)

(c) If the stump is hollowed, to make room to receive soft cloths, to bear the brunt of the stump of his leg, then it will become fit to receive Tum'ah (otherwise not, because it is like a flat piece of wood, which cannot receive Tum'ah).

(d) Nor will the stump receive Tum'ah, unless one prepares the stump in the manner described in the previous answer - because it has a hollow to receive the lame man's leg - since the stump is not meant to carry his leg.

(a) The Semuchos are the leather covers that are made to support the stumps of a man who has had both legs amputated.

(b) Since they are actually intended to support his stumps, they are Tamei Medras - during the times that he is a Zav. And as far is Shabbos is concerned, he may go out with them on Shabbos, since they are considered a Tachshit - because they are indispensable to him.

(c) He is permitted to enter the Azarah with his Semuchos, because they are not worn at the end of his leg, but in the middle, to protect as much of the leg as remains, as he moves it across the ground.

(a) The lame man whose stumps of his calves have dried up, and who drags himself along on his chair, is not permitted to go out with his Semuchos, either because, like the stump of the man who has only one leg missing, they are not indispensable; or because they are more prone to fall off, and we suspect that he may carry them in the street.