ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) Our Mishnah permits moving stubble lying on a bed on which one now wishes to sleep - in order to soften it and make it more comfortable to lie on.
(b) One is not permitted to move it conventionally - because it is generally designated for firewood, and is therefore Muktzeh
(c) The Tana permits moving it with one's body however - because that is included in 'Tiltul min ha'Tzad' (handling it indirectly), which is permitted on Shabbos.
(d) One may move it even with one's hands - if it was either fit for animal fodder or if there was also a cushion or a sheet on the bed (indicating that he has now designated it to use as a mattress and no longer as firewood).
(e) And he is moving it - to make room on the bed in order to lie down on it.
(a) The Tana permits opening an amateur clothes press on Shabbos to remove the clothes - since this does not constitute a Melachah, but forbids closing it - because it is 'Uvdin de'Chol'.
(b) He forbids opening a professional press, however, because it is pressed tightly shut - and therefore resembles Setirah (demolishing a building).
(a) Rav Nachman permits pulling a detached radish out of the ground - only if the wide end is showing above the ground (otherwise, it is forbidden, seeing as he will inevitably move some earth).
(b) Rav Ada bar Aba proves him wrong from our Mishnah - which permits moving Muktzeh with one's body because 'Tiltul min ha'Tzad' is permitted, in which case there is no reason to forbid removing the radish either way.
(c) Rav Yehudah permits grinding peppers with the back of a knife - provided one grinds them one at a time.
(d) Rava argues that - since one is making a Shinuy (by using the back of a knife, instead of a regular grinder) one may grinds as many as one wishes.
(a) Rav Yehudah rules that someone who swims in a river on Shabbos - should take care to dry himself before leaving the water, because otherwise, he will come to carry (the water on his body) four Amos in a Karmelis.
(b) He nevertheless permits entering the water on Shabbos, even though he moves the water in the river with his body - because he is not actually carrying it, only causing it to move through the force of his body ('Kocho'), and Chazal did not decree on Kocho in a Karmelis.
(a) Abaye (or Rav Yehudah) rules that rubbing the mud off one's foot ...
1. ... on the ground - is permitted, but rubbing it against ...
2. ... against the wall - constitutes Binyan.
(b) Rava objects to that - on the grounds that wiping mud on a wall is not considered building (it is a farmer's building); if anything, he contends, it is wiping it on the ground that will be forbidden, because one may come to fill in the grooves in the ground.
(c) He therefore concludes the exact opposite of Abaye - permitting wiping the mud on the wall, but forbidding wiping it on the
(d) Mar Brei de'Ravina forbids both of the above. According to him, someone with muddy shoes - should wipe them clean on a loose beam.
(e) The final opinion is that of Rav Papa - who permits both.
(a) Rava forbids - sitting or occupying oneself by the 'mouth of the Lechi' (of a Mavoy) on Shabbos ...
(b) ... because - since there is nothing there to remind him not to carry into the street, we are afraid that something of his may roll into the street, and he will go and fetch it.
(c) He prohibits ...
1. ... arranging on Shabbos a barrel on the ground, to sit on - in case he comes to fill in grooves, in order to make the ground flat.
2. ... stopping up the mouth of a jug with cloths - in case one comes to wring them out on Shabbos.
(a) Rav Kahana permits the removal of mud from a garment on Shabbos - either by removing it with one's nail (and certainly with the back of a knife) or by rubbing the two sections of garment together from the outside ...
(b) ... because it does not even resemble Libun, as the mud is not visible from the outside, as it is from the inside.
(c) Nor does it constitute real Libun - since no water is used.
(d) We query Rav Kahana however, from a Beraisa which permits the removal of wet mud from a shoe on Shabbos by using the back of a knife. We query Rav Kahana however, from a Beraisa which permits the removal of wet mud from a shoe on Shabbos by using the back of a knife. The Tana - forbids however, rubbing the garment (and we initially think that he forbids it completely).
(e) We refute the Kashya - by confining the Beraisa's ruling to the inside of the garment, where the mud is (but that rubbing it on the outside is permitted, as Rav Kahana rules).
(a) Rebbi Avahu ... Amar Rebbi Yanai - permits scraping a new shoe but forbids scraping an old one ...
(b) ... because he removes a layer, which involves the Melachah of Memachek.
(c) Rebbi Avahu permits him to scrape a new one - with the back of a knife.
(d) That old man preferred the Beraisa of Rebbi Chiya - which forbids removing wet mud from a new shoe as well as an old one.
(a) The Beraisa rules that rubbing oil ...
1. ... on one's foot whilst wearing a shoe - is forbidden (because some of the oil is bound to drip onto the shoe, and one will have transgressed the Melachah of Me'abed).
2. ... on one's foot and then putting on the shoe - is permitted.
3. ... on one's entire body and then rolling on a leather mat - is permitted.
(b) Rav Chisda qualifies the Heter to rub oil on one's foot and then put on one's shoes - there where one's intention is to shine it, but not if one tends to tan it.
(c) The problem with ...
1. ... Rav Chisda's latter statement is - that it is obvious that one is forbidden to tan it (since it is Asur mi'de'Rabbanan).
2. ... the Beraisa's basic ruling is - that if having in mind to tan it entails an Isur d'Oraysa, how can anyone permit doing it even in order to shine it?
(d) We therefore amend the Beraisa to read - that it is only permitted if there is only sufficient oil to shine the shoe, but not if there is enough to tan it.
(a) The Beraisa forbids a small man to wear a larger man's shoes - because they are likely to fall off; but it is permitted to wear his undershirt a. which is not; b. neither is he likely to remove it in the street and carry it when people laugh at him - because an undershirt is not visible, so it is unlikely that others will laugh at him.
(b) He may not, however, wear his coat - because people are liable to laugh at him, in which case he will take it off and carry it in the street.
(c) A woman is forbidden to go out with ...
1. ... a torn shoe - for the same reason as a man is forbidden to go out with a larger man's jacket.
2. ...new shoes - which she did not wear even for a short while before Shabbos (as the Beraisa cited by bar Kapara explains) - because, should they turn out to be the wrong size, she will feel self-conscious, and come to carry them in the street.
(d) A man however, is permitted to wear new shoes on Shabbos - because he is not as fussy as a woman, and will not come to carry even if it is not quite the right size.
(e) The Tana forbids performing Chalitzah with a torn shoe Lechatchilah - but declares the Chalitzah Kasher Bedieved, if one did.
(a) The problem with the Beraisa which permits the removal of a shoe from a shoe-form (used for shoe repairs) is - that it clashes with another Beraisa, which forbids it.
(b) We resolve it by establishing the first Beraisa like the Rabbanan (in a Mishnah in Kelim) - who consider a completed shoe subject to Tum'ah even before it has been removed from the shoe-form, and the second one like Rebbi Eliezer - who considers it Tahor. In his opinion, it is not considered a Kli (and is therefore Muktzeh) until it has been removed from the shoe-form.
(c) We readily accept this explanation according to Rava - who permits in 'Kol ha'Kelim' moving a Kli she'Melachto le'Isur (the shoe-form in this case) if one needs its location ('le'Tzorech Mekomo' [the shoe in this case]).
(d) The problem according to Abaye, who forbids moving a Davar she'Melachto le'Isur le'Tzorech Mekomo, is - how can the Tana permit taking the shoe from the shoe-form even though one will inevitably move it in the process?
1. Abaye therefore establishes the Beraisa where the shoe is loose, can be removed without handling the shoe-form.
2. ... Rava, on the other hand, will explain that Rebbi Yehudah, who, in a Beraisa, specifically establishes the Beraisa to a case where the shoe is loose (like Abaye), is merely explaining saying this according to Rebbi Eliezer, according to whom the shoe would otherwise be Muktzeh, as we explained.
Hadran Alach 'Tolin'!
Perek Notel ****
(a) Our Mishnah rules - that one is permitted to carry a child on Shabbos who is holding a stone, or a basket with a stone inside.
(b) The Tana permits moving Terumah Temei'ah - together with Terumah Tehorah or with Chulin.
(c) Rebbi Yehudah - permits being Mevatel one Sa'ah of Terumah in a hundred Sa'ah of Chulin.
(a) Rava declares someone who carries a child who is wearing a purse around his neck, Chayav for carrying the purse, but not for the child - because he holds like Rebbi Nasan, who holds 'Chai Nosei es Atzmo' (a human being bears part of his own weight [as we already learned in 'ha'Matzni'a']).
(b) The purse is not Batel to the child, like a bed is Batel to the corpse which is carries out on it - because it is the way to be Mevatel the bed to the corpse; whereas it is not the way to be Mevatel the purse to the child.
(c) Rava rules in the equivalent case, but where the child is dead, that one is Patur - because carrying out a corpse is a 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufa', and Rava holds like Rebbi Shimon who rules 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufa, Patur'.
(a) We query Rava's earlier ruling (regarding carrying a child with a purse around his neck ... ) from our Mishnah, which permits a father to carry his son who is holding a purse in his hand, in the courtyard. The Beraisa implies - that even though one is carrying the child, it is not considered as if he was carrying the purse (whereas from it seems that it is).
(b) Rava answers - that even though the father is considered as if he was carrying the child, the Tana permits him to carry him together with the stone, because our Mishnah speaks when the child is particularly close to his father, and has a deep longing for him. Consequently, we are afraid that, if we do not allow his father to carry him, he will become sick.
(c) Nevertheless, if the child is holding instead of a stone, a coin - Chazal forbade carrying the child at all, since we are now afraid that, should this happen, the father, worried about losing the money, will pick up the coin and carry it home (a fear which overrides even the health of his son).
(a) We cite a Beraisa that bears out Rava's Din. The Tana rules that someone who carries his clothes in the street is Chayav, whereas if he wears them he is Patur. He rules that someone who carries in the street a person who is wearing his clothes and his rings - is Patur.
(b) He is Patur on the person because we hold like Rebbi Nasan, and on the clothes and the rings - because they are Batel to the person.
(c) If the person was holding the clothes or the ring in his hands - he would be Chayav for carrying them (since they are not Batel to the person) ...
(d) ... bearing out Rava's initial ruling.