(a)Rabah permits sitting on the root of a tree that is lower than three Tefachim - even it is the extension of a root which is more than three Tefachim nearer to the tree. What does Rav Sheshes say about this, and why?
(b)What are the three cases of 'Meshunisa', and what are their three respective Dinim?
(c)What is the difference between 'Anigra' and 'Keren Zavis' and what Din do they have? (See Tosfos DH 've'Chen b'Keren Zavis)?
(a)Rav Sheshes forbids sitting on the root of a tree that is lower than three Tefachim if it is the extension of a root which, nearer to the tree, has grown to more than three Tefachim - since it comes from what is Asur.
(b)'Meshunisa' is a root that grows diagonally from the foot of a tree, and from which other roots jut out. Those that jut out above three Tefachim are forbidden; those that jut out from below three Tefachim are permitted, and those that jut out from above three Tefachim, but which grow downwards to less than three Tefachim are equivalent to the case over which Rabah and Rav Sheshes argue.
(c)'Anigra' - is a tree that grows out of a ditch which covers it on two sides, and 'Keren Zavis' is a tree that grows out of the corner of a wall, which covers it on three. Both are subject to the Machlokes between Rabah and Rav Sheshes: according to Rabah, we reckon the three Tefachim from the point where it grows above the wall; whereas according to Rav Sheshes, we reckon them from where the tree emerges from the ground.
(a)Rav Yosef permitted sitting on the date-palm that grew through Abaye's roof, which had not yet grown to a height of three Tefachim from the roof. Like whom must he have held to issue such a ruling?
(b)Why might we have thought that even Rav Sheshes will agree with that ruling?
(c)Our Mishnah prohibits sitting on roots that are three Tefachim high. That is obvious. So what is the Chidush ...
1. ... according to Rav Sheshes?
2. ... according to Rabah? Why will he agree here that it is forbidden?
(a)Rav Yosef permitted sitting on the date-palm that grew through Abaye's roof which had not yet grown to a height of three Tefachim from the roof - because he held like Rabah, who reckons the three Tefachim from where one sees it, and not from its source.
(b)We might have thought that even Rav Sheshes will agree with that ruling - because of the Svara 'Beisa Kema'an d'Malya Damya', which might have caused us to consider the inside of the house as being below ground level.
(c)Our Mishnah, which prohibits sitting on roots that are three Tefachim high speaks ...
1. ... according to Rav Sheshes - with regard to sitting on the lower section of a root that is more than three Tefachim high closer to the tree.
2. ... according to Rabah - when one side of the root grows beside a raised level, but whose other three sides are higher than three Tefachim from the foot of the tree, then we reckon the three Tefachim from the foot of the tree. Here Rabah agrees, since it is only covered by the level o ground on one side.
(a)Why is climbing, leaning or swinging on a tree or an animal forbidden, whereas clambering on to a wall or into a pit is permitted? Is the former more strenuous than the latter?
(b)To reconcile one Beraisa, which permits descending from a tree, with another which forbids it, we establish the former when he climbed the tree before Shabbos, and the latter, on Shabbos. In the second answer, the Beraisa permits even someone who climbed it on Shabbos to descend. What is then the difference between the two Beraisos?
(c)According to the third answer, the two Beraisos actually do argue. What is their Machlokes?
(a)Climbing, leaning or swinging on a tree or an animal is forbidden, not because of the strain - but because one may break off a twig or a branch (in order to facilitate the climb, or to hit the animal), neither of which will apply to a wall or a pit. Clambering on them or into them is therefore permitted.
(b)In the second answer, both Beraisos speak about someone who climbed the tree on Shabbos; the Beraisa which forbids him to descend speaks when he climbed it on purpose, the Beraisa which permits him to descend, speaks when he climbed it by mistake.
(c)According to the third answer - both Beraisos speak when he climbed the tree b'Shogeg; the one maintains that Chazal penalized a Shogeg because of a Meizid, the other, that they did not.
(a)What does one do with the blood of ...
1. ... one Bechor which got mixed up with the blood of another Bechor?
2. ... one Chatas which got mixed up with the blood of another Chatas?
(b)If the blood of a Chatas got mixed up with the blood of a Bechor, Rebbi Eliezer holds that it must be sprinkled four times. Why is that?
(c)Rebbi Yehoshua disagrees with Rebbi Eliezer for two reasons. What are they?
(a)If the blood of ...
1. ... a Bechor which got mixed up with the blood of another Bechor - one sprinkles from it just once (towards the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach), and that one sprinkling will cover both Korbanos Bechor.
2. ... a Chatas which got mixed up with the blood of another Chatas - one sprinkles from it one set of four (one on each corner of the Mizbe'ach) to cover both Chata'os.
(b)If the blood of a Chatas got mixed up with the blood of a Bechor, Rebbi Eliezer holds that it must be sprinkled four times - because if one were to sprinkle only once, he would be transgressing the La'av of 'Bal Tigra'. There is no 'Bal Tosif', he says, unless it is on its own (when he is not definitely fulfilling a Mitzvah, as he is here).
(c)Rebbi Yehoshua disagrees; firstly, because of the La'av of Bal Tosif (according to him, it is Bal Tigra that one transgresses only when it is on its own); secondly, because it is better to transgress Bal Tigra through an inaction that is forbidden, than Bal Tosif through a forbidden action ('Shev v'Al Tosif Adif'). Note: Rebbi Yehoshua also relies on the fact that if a Kohen sprinkles the blood of any Korban whose blood requires sprinkling, on the outer Mizbe'ach, just once (even if it really required four sprinklings) he is Yotzei b'di'Eved- Rashi and Tosfos.
(a)How does the Gemara attempt to connect the above Machlokes with the She'eilah of whether someone who climbed a tree is obligated to descend or not?
(b)Why might even Rebbi Eliezer agree that it is preferable for him to remain in the tree?
(c)And why might even Rebbi Yehoshua agree that it is better that he descends?
(a)The Gemara initially thought that Rebbi Eliezer, who holds that, when action and non-action clash, it is better to act than to refrain, will also hold that since the Mitzvah of descending the tree and the prohibition of using it (in order to descend) clash, it is better that he performs the positive Mitzvah (de'Rabanan) of descending; whereas according to Rebbi Yehoshua, in whose opinion one should rather refrain from acting, the same will apply here, and the person who climbed the tree, should remain there.
(b)Rebbi Eliezer may well agree that he should rather remain in the tree, because descending is not really a Mitzvah (like sprinkling the blood is), but rather withdrawing from an Isur.
(c)And Rebbi Yehoshua may well agree that here, it is better that he descends immediately, in order to avoid the sin of using a tree, whereas by the case of sprinkling the blood, one is not transgressing any La'av by not sprinkling the blood.
(a)Why is it forbidden to climb a tree that has dried up? What constitutes a dried-up tree?
(b)Under which conditions may one climb a dried-up tree in the summer-time, and why is this?
(c)Then why did they forbid the same case in winter?
(d)Why did Rav forbid climbing a dried-up tree in Afsatya - even though there was no fruit on it?
(a)It is forbidden to climb a tree that has dried up - i.e. that has no moist and is therefore considered detached, and one that will not re-grow - because one may break off a twig or a branch, should they interfere with one's climbing progress.
(b)One may climb a dried-up tree in the summer-time - provided no fruit remains on the tree from last year, and provided there are no twigs left to break off. If there are, it is forbidden, because people will not know that the twigs or the fruit are from last year, and it will be Asur because of 'Mar'is ha'Ayin'.
(c)Chazal did not decree climbing a dried-up tree because of a fresh one - due to the fact that there is no Mar'is ha'Ayin, since the difference between them is easily discernible. They nevertheless forbade it in the winter - because in the winter, the difference between a moist tree and a dried-up one is unclear, and Mar'is ha'Ayin therefore applies.
(d)Rav forbade climbing even a bare dried-up tree in Afsatya because they were not Bnei Torah, and would in all likelihood, come to extend the concession even to a tree that had branches and fruit.
(a)Rav Asi is quoted as forbidding walking on grass on Shabbos. Does this apply to dry grass?
(b)Why should walking on grass be prohibited?
(c)Even fresh grass is only Asur under certain conditions. Why does the Gemara conclude that nowadays, walking on grass is permitted in all cases?
(a)Walking on dry grass is one of the many possible leniencies brought in our Sugya with regard to the general Isur of walking on grass.
(b)If one pulls out grass one is involved with the Isur of Tolesh, which is in turn, a Toldah of Kotzer.
(c)Nowadays, the Gemara concludes, walking on grass is permitted in all cases - since we rule like Rebbi Shimon, who holds 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven, Mutar'.
(a)Rav Asi bases his initial prohibition on the Pasuk in Mishlei "v'Atz b'Raglav Chote". What else do we learn from this Pasuk?
(b)What will happen to someone who forces his wife to have relations with him?
(c)The Pasuk also incorporates forcing one's wife to have relations twice. What are the rewards of doing this with her consent, and why is that?
(a)We also learn from the Pasuk "v'Atz b'Raglav Chotei" - the prohibition of forcing one's wife to have relations.
(b)Someone who does this will have unworthy children.
(c)The rewards of having relations twice - is sons. Why is that? Because the first time increases the woman's desire for the second time, and when the woman 'sows' first, the result is a son.
(a)What advantage does 'a woman who approaches her husband for a Devar Mitzvah have over the generation of Moshe (the knowledgeable generation)?
(b)Who is the prime example of this?
(c)How do we reconcile this with Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi, who says that one of the curses of Chavah was that women should not approach their husbands?
(a)A woman who approaches her husband for a Devar Mitzvah will have children who are 'Nevonim' (a level beyond Chachamim).
(b)The prime example of this is Leah, who said to Yakov 'Elai Tavo', and who subsequently bore to Yakov, Yisachar, about whom the Pasuk in Divrei ha'Yamim writes "u'mi'Bnei Yisachar Yod'ei Binah la'Itim".
(c)When Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi included women approaching their husbands among the curses of Chavah - he meant that they should not ask outright, but not that they should not hint (which is what Leah did, since she said 'Elai Tavo' [which has various connotations], and not 'Alai Tavo' - which would have been specific).
(a)Chavah was punished with ten curses. Which curse is hinted in ...
1. ... "Harbah Arbeh";
2. ... "Harbah Arbeh";
3. ... "Itzvonech";
4. ... "v'Heronech";
5. ... "b'Etzev Teldi Banim";
6. ... "v'El Ishech Teshukasech";
7. ... "v'Hu Yimshol Bach"?
(b)Rav Dimi describes the remaining three as
1. 'Atufah k'Avel';
2. 'u'Menudah mi'Kol Adam';
3. 'va'Chavushah b'Veis ha'Asurin'. What do they mean?
(c)The Beraisa lists three different curses: That she grows hair long like Lilis (Queen of the Demons), that she sits whilst urinating. What is the third?
(d)Why did Rav Dimi not list these?
(a)The curse of ...
1. ... "Harbah Arbeh" - refers to the blood of Nidah and the blood of virginity;
2. ... "Harbah Arbeh" - refers to the blood of Nidah and the blood of virginity;
3. ... "Itzvonech" - to the pain of bringing up children;
4. ... "v'Heronech" - to the pain of pregnancy;
5. ... "b'Etzev Teldi Banim" - to the pain of childbirth;
6. ... "v'El Ishech Teshukasech" - to the longing that she experiences when her husband goes away on a journey;
7. ... "v'Hu Yimshol Bach" - refers to the fact that it is the man who approaches his wife, but never vice-versa.
1. 'Atufah k'Avel' means - that a married woman is embarrassed to go out with her hair uncovered;
2. 'u'Menudah mi'Kol Adam' - that she is forbidden to all men besides her husband (whereas he may have as many wives as he pleases);
3. 'va'Chavushah b'Veis ha'Asurin' - that a woman really belongs in the home ("Kol Kevudah Bas Melech Penimah" - Tehilim).
(c)The third curse listed by the Beraisa is that she becomes her husband's cushion i.e. he lies on top and she underneath.
(d)Rav Dimi does not list these, because he considers them praiseworthy, like the Pasuk in Iyov, which writes that the mule teaches us to bend when urinating, and the rooster to cover its mate while mating. Note: The Gemara does not bring any source why growing a lot of hair is praiseworthy (perhaps it is obvious, because this is a known beauty feature of a woman - as the Mishnah in Sotah explains).
(a)Had the Torah not taught us good character-traits, we would have learnt them from the animals ('mi'Kol Melamdai Hiskalti' - One can [and should] learn good things from all). What would we have learnt from ...
1. ... a cat?
2. ... an ant?
3. ... a dove?
(b)We would also learn 'Derech Eretz from a rooster'. What does this mean?
(c)What does the rooster subsequently say to the hen?
(a)If the Torah had not taught us all the good Midos, we would have learnt ...
1. ... modesty from the cat;
2. ... honesty (eating only what is one's own, and not anyone else's) from the ant;
3. ... loyalty to one's mate from the dove.
(b)'Derech Eretz from a rooster' - refers to when the rooster appeases the hen before they mate.
(c)He subsequently says to her 'I will buy you a coat that goes down to your feet'. However, after the mating, he says to her 'When I have (money), I will buy it for you'. But of course, he never has any money!