Previous daf

1)

(a) Yes! The author of Mishnah could well be the Rabbanan of Rebbi Nasan. They maintain that, although a live animal does not carry itself, a live person *does*.

(b) Ben Beseira permits the sale of a horse, because the Melachah which the gentile will perform with it is riding, and riding a horse, in his opinion, is not a Melachah, since - like Rebbi Nasan holds by all animals - a horse carries its own weight.

(c) Why does Rebbi Yochanan equate only the opinions of Ben Beseira and Rebbi Nasan? But did we not just say that the Rabbanan too, agree, that a person carries himself, which means that they too, will permit the sale of a horse (on which a Melachah is not performed), just like Rebbi Nasan and Ben Beseira. So why did Rebbi Yochanan not include the Rabbanan?

(d) Rebbi Yochanan, answers the Gemara, is talking about a horse which was specifically designated for hunting-birds, but not for riding. So it is Rebbi Nasan and Ben Beseira who will not consider its use a Melachah, but not the Rabbanan.

(a) Rebbi Nasan concedes that a *tied* animal does not carry its own weight.

(b) The Persians were extremely spoilt (elsewhere the Gemara describes them as very fat), and were virtually unable to walk. So why does Ben Beseira permit the sale of a horse to any gentile, even to a Persian, who cannot carry his own weight?

(c) The Persians may well have been spoilt, and they may have given the impression that they were too fat to walk (in which case, they would certainly not have been able to carry themselves). However, that was no more than an illusion. In fact, they were perfectly capable of moving around swiftly, and the impression of being too cumbersome to walk, was the result of pride, and not of weight.

(d) We see that from the officer who incurred the king's wrath, and who subsequently ran three Parsah (twelve Mil - Kilometers) on foot to escape.

(a) The Chidush is that although, unlike someone who carries out a corpse out in order to remove the Tum'ah, someone who carries it out in order to bury it - is transporting it for the sake of the corpse; even *he* is Patur according to Rebbi Shimon, since he personally derives no benefit from the Melachah.
Note: It appears that the fact that he has performed a Mitzvah alone, is not sufficient reason to be called a 'Melachah she'Tzerichah le'Gufah'.

(b) If not for Rava - who informs us that Rebbi Shimon concedes that someone who carries out a spade to dig or a Sefer-Torah to read from, is Chayav - we might have thought that Rebbi Shimon only concedes that one is Chayav for a Melachah which is both for his need and for the need of the article - i.e. he carries out a spade to dig and to repair, or a Sefer-Torah to correct and to read from.

4)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan, brother of Mar Brei de'Ravana objected to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's removal of a corpse to a Karmelis, on the grounds that, even according to Rebbi Shimon, who holds that a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah is not Chayav, agrees that it is Asur mi'de'Rabbanan?

(b) But Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak replied that he permitted it even according to Rebbi Yehudah. Why is that?
Because carrying in a Karmelis is only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan, and the Rabbanan did not decree in face of Kavod ha'Beri'os (it was Kavod ha'Beri'os in this case, because it speaks when the corpse had been lying in the line of a fire or in the sun).

(c) No! The Isur Muktzah does not become permitted in face of Kavod ha'Beri'os (like carrying in a Karmelis does), and he is obligated to place a loaf of bread or a child on top of the corpse, before carrying it out.

(d) Kavod ha'Beri'os takes precedence over the La'av of "Lo Sasur" (Shoftim) - and over no other La'av.

(a) The La'av of "Hishamer be'Nega ha'Tzara'as" incorporates removing one of the signs of Tzara'as and burning the healthy flesh that appears in the middle of a mark of Tzara'as - also a sign of Tum'ah.

(b) According to Rav Nachman, one is Chayav for removing one of three hairs of Tzara'as - despite the fact that two hairs remain - because of the possibility of one of the other two hairs falling out, in which case he would still have been Tamei, but now, due to his action, will render him Tahor.

(c) Rav Sheshes holds that, as long as two hairs remain, he will be Patur for removing any excess hairs.

(d)

1. Rav Sheshes will learn that our Mishnah, which obligates only someone who carries out a full Kezayis into the street, but not a half, speaks in a case when there are one and a half Kezeisim, and he will be Patur because one full Kezayis remains. Whereas the Beraisa, which obligates him for carrying out even half a Kezayis, speaks when there is only *one* Kezayis, in which case carrying out the half-Kezayis is factually effective in breaking the Shiur Tum'ah.
2. Rav Nachman will learn that the Beraisa speaks even when there are one and a half Kezeisim; whereas our Mishnah speaks when there is an entire corpse there, besides the half Kezayis, in which case, carrying out the half Kezayis will not achieve anything at all.

(a) Pokeses means either combing her hair, or making a face-pack of twined strands of dough (see Tosfos DH 'Pokeses' - who rejects the first explanation).

(b) Rebbi Eliezer holds that all the above cases are Chayav.

(a) Rebbi Elazar says that even according to the Rabbanan, someone who cuts their nails or hair in the conventional manner is Chayav.

(b) Had Rebbi Elazar not told us this, we might have thought that the Mishnah only says 'with the hands or with the teeth', to show us the extent of Rebbi Eliezer's opinion - that even there, he holds Chayav (but the Rabbanan will perhaps, not differentiate - and absolve from Chiyuv in all cases).

(c) Likewise, we might have thought that the Mishnah only uses the expression 'Tzipornav', to demonstrate how far the Rabbanan go - that even in that case, they hold Patur (but Rebbi Eliezer perhaps, will not differentiate - to be Mechayev in all cases). Therefore, Rebbi Elazar needed to inform us that Rebbi Eliezer will concedes here, that she is Patur.

(a) We have to amend the Beraisa to read 've'Chen le'Korchah, Shetayim', thereby concurring - rather than clashing - with the Shiur of two hairs given by the first Beraisa.

(b) 'u'le'Korchah Shetayim' means that someone who cuts two hairs as a sign of mourning for a dead person, has transgressed the La'av of "ve'Lo Sosimu Korchah Bein Einechem le'Mes" (Re'ei).

(c) The Shiur for cutting hair on Shabbos according to Rebbi Eliezer, is one hair.

(d)

1. From "Lo Yilbash Gever Simlas Ishah", we learn that it is forbidden for a man to cut even *one* white hair that is growing among the black hairs - since that is something that women tend to do;
2. Since there is an Isur of cutting even *one* white hair because of "Lo Yilbash", the same Shiur will apply to Shabbos, too (because of 'Migu').

(a) How can Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar say, on the one hand, that one is *Chayav* for cutting off a nail or a strand of flesh that is mostly detached, with scissors, and that on the other, to do so using one's hands is permitted. It is taken for granted, that anything for which one is Chayav Kares using an implement, is at least Asur mi'de'Rabbanan, if performed with the hands?

(b) We amend the Beraisa to read 'Parshu Ruban, be'Yad Muter, bi'Kli, Patur Aval Asur'.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan confines Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar's statement to when the mostly detached skin is on top of the finger - towards the nail (see Tosfos DH 've'Hu'), because there, it is more painful.

(a) The Chiyuv of ...

1. ... Kocheles is - Tzovei'a;
2. ... Godeles and Pokeses - Binyan.

(b) The Gemara rejects the initial explanation of Godeles because of weaving, Kocheles because of writing and Pokeses because of spinning - on the grounds that this is not the way that one normally weaves, writes and spins, so they might well be Patur Aval Asur, but not Chayav.

(c) We learn from "va'Yiven Hashem es ha'Tzela" - that building up a person is called 'Binyan', which explains why Godeles and Pokeses are Chayav because of Binyan, as we wrote in a.