Previous daf

1)

(a) The amount of produce that constitutes a pile with regard to Muktzah is a Lesech (half a Kur- or fifteen Sa'ah).

(b) The Gemara asks that, if, as Rav Chisda explains, four or five Sa'ah is specific, does this mean that one may only carry the permitted amount in four five boxes, but not more - because it is preferable to minimize the distance that one walks; or maybe the Mishnah is only giving the maximum quantity that may be cleared, but that it is better to clear it out in as many boxes as possible, in order to minimize the amount that one carries - even if it means having to walk further.

(c) No! The two Beraisos both agree that it is preferable to minimize the distance that one walks on Shabbos, and the 'ten' and 'fifteen' mentioned in the two Beraisos are referring, not to the number of *boxes*, but to the number of *jars*: the Beraisa which permits four or five boxes, is speaking about clearing one large jar in each box. Whereas the Beraisa which permits ten or fifteen jars - is speaking about clearing medium-size jars (ten - in five boxes) or small ones (fifteen).

(a) The episode with Rebbi (when Rebbi -or Rebbi Chiya -, after discovering that there was no room for the Talmidim, went into the field, and cleared all the sheaves for them - proves that, when there are a lot of guests, one may clear even more than four or five boxes.

(b) There is however, no proof from there that one person is permitted to clear the space for all the guests - because, despite the Lashon 've'Imar Rebbi es Kol ha'Sadeh', it is highly unlikely that Rebbi carried out the entire operation on his own. So 've'Imar Rebbi' must mean that he gave orders for the field to be cleared, leaving no indication who did the actual clearing.

(a) The Gemara proves from the Lashon 'because of the guests' (first, and only then) 'because of 'Bitul Beis ha'Medrash' - that the Mitzvah of receiving guests is equal to that of going early to study Torah in the Beis Hamedrash.

(b) From the fact that Avraham asked the Shechinah to wait for him whilst he went to attend to his guests - we can learn that the Mitzvah of receiving guests is even greater than receiving the Shechinah.

(c) Hachnasas Orchim, Bikur Cholim and Iyun Tefilah - are included in the general term of Gemilus Chasadim, Hashkamas Beis-ha'Medrash and Gidul Banim le'Talmud Torah, in Talmud-Torah; and Dan es Chavero le'Chaf Zechus, in Hava'as Shalom Bein Adam la'Chavero.

4)

(a) When the man from Gelil ha'Elyon came to his employer on Erev Yom Kipur, and asked him for three years' remuneration - he replied that he had no money.

(b) When he said he had ...

1. ... no land, he thought (correctly) that it was probably in the possession of tenant farmers.
2. ... no fruit, that it was not yet Ma'asered.
3. ... no movables, that he had probably sanctified all of his possessions.

(c) When he heard his employee's answer, the employer responded with 'Ke'shem she'Dantani li'Zechus, ha'Makom Yadin Oscha li'Zechus'!

(a) When, after they arrived at the inn, the Chasid arranged the girl's bed at the foot of his own - the Chasid's Talmidim thought (correctly), that he did this because there was one Talmid among his Talmidim whom he did not know intimately enough to trust, so he personally undertook to safeguard her.

(b) And when, on the following morning, he went to Tovel in the Mikvah - they thought that probably, due to the travails of the long journey, he had seen Keri.

(c) When Rebbi Yehoshua first removed his Tefilin, and then closed the door behind him (when he went to speak with the aristocratic woman), his Talmidim thought (correctly) that he probably did not want to take his Tefilin into a Makom Tum'ah, and that he closed the door behind him because he had secret matters - of national significance - to discuss with her.

(d) And when he subsequently Toveled, they assumed that, as the woman was speaking with him, some of her spittle fell on him (and Chazal decreed that gentiles are Metamei like Zavin).

(a) Had the Mishnah not taught us that Terumah Tehorah is not Muktzah, we would have thought that it is, because it is not fit for a Yisrael to eat. The reason that it is not Muktzah, is because it is fit for a Kohen.

(b) 'be'Shibolin' means when the corn (the five kinds of grain) are still called 'Shibolin' i.e. before it becomes Chayav Ma'asros (the stage of Miru'ach, flattening the pile after the winnowing). 'Idgan' means after that stage, when the corn adopts the name 'Dagan'. If the Levi appears at the barn, and asks for and receives his Ma'aser Rishon when the corn is still Shibolin, then although he has pre-empted the Kohen, who really ought to have received his Terumah Gedolah - i.e. two per-cent of the tenth - first, the Levi is not obligated to give the Kohen that amount. However, if the Levi claims his Ma'aser Rishon after it has become Dagan, he *is* obligated to give the Kohen that two percent of what he received.

(a) If someone redeems the Ma'aser Sheni or Hekdesh that he had himself been Makdish, without adding the required fifth - the redemption is nevertheless valid.

(b) No! This does not mean that he is now exempt from paying the extra fifth. It remains a debt that has to be paid in due course.

(c) A wet Turmus-bean is not normally eaten, due to its extreme bitterness; therefore it is Muktzah. A dry Turmus-bean is edible, so it is not.