(a)'Bozkin Melach Al-gabei Kevesh'. Why was this necessary?
(b)Why is this forbidden on Shabbos outside the Beis -Hamikdash?
(c)Then why does the Beraisa permit scattering straw in one's yard after a heavy rainfall?
(a)Scattering salt on the ramp of the Mizbe'ach was necessary, because the rains made its smooth surface slippery, and a layer of salt gave them a firmer foot-hold.
(b)This is forbidden on Shabbos outside the Beis -Hamikdash - because of 'Ashvuyei Gumos' (filling in the holes), which is a Toldah of Boneh.
(c)The Beraisa nevertheless permits scattering straw in one's yard after a heavy rainfall - because straw retains its usefulness even after it has been scattered on the ramp, and one therefore tends not to be Mevatel it there. Consequently, it does not fall under the category of 'Ashvuyei Gumos'.
(a)Why must our Mishnah (of 'Bozkin Melach') speak specifically when they were not Mevatel the salt on the ramp?
(b)What would they do with salt that had been trodden on? Use it to salt the Korbanos!?
(c)Why was the salt not a Chatzitzah?
(d)On what grounds does the Gemara reject the suggestion that we are dealing with carrying the limbs on to the Mizbe'ach, which is not an Avodah?
(a)If they were Mevatel the salt on the ramp of the Mizbe'ach, it would be like adding a layer to the ramp, and it is forbidden (even during the week) to add to the dimensions of those laid down by David Hamelech and Shmuel, and subsequently used by Shlomo.
(b)Salt that had been trodden on - was subsequently used to salt the skins of Kodshim.
(c)The salt was not a Chatzitzah - because we are talking about carrying wood on to the Mizbe'ach, which is not an Avodah, and was therefore not subject to disqualification by means of a Chatzitzah.
(d)The Gemara rejects the suggestion that we are dealing with carrying the limbs on to the Mizbe'ach, which is not an Avodah - on the grounds that the very contention is fallacious; because we learn from the Pasuk Vayikra "v'Hikriv ha'Kohen es ha'Kol v'Hiktir ha'Mizbeichah' - that carrying the limbs on to the Mizbe'ach is an Avodah.
(a)Ula was annoyed that someone desecrated the Shabbos by knocking on the door with his fist. What did Rabah (or Rava) point out to him?
(b)What is the meaning of
1. ... 'Ma'alin bi'Deyufi (b'Shabbos)'?
2. ... 'Mi'arak l'Choleh b'Shabbos'?
(c)The purpose of the latter was to enable the sick person to go to sleep. Why must this be the case? What is the technical difference between putting a person to sleep in this way, and waking him up?
(d)If creating a noise other than for musical motives is permitted, why is it forbidden to clap one's hands to scare away birds and wild animals from one's field?
(a)Rabah (or Rava) point out to Ula that it is only a noise that is made for musical purposes that Chazal forbade.
1. ... 'Ma'alin bi'Deyufi (b'Shabbos)' - means one is permitted to transfer wine from one barrel to another using two connected straws. This was done by placing one of the straws inside the barrel with the wine and sucking once on the other straw, to cause the wine to begin flowing.
2. ... 'Mi'arak l'Choleh b'Shabbos' - means to make a noise in front of a sick person, by means of a sprinkler, which sprinkles water into a metal receptacle. This is done by putter a stopper in a hole on top of the sprinkler, and removing it when one wishes the water to begin dripping.
(c)We can infer that this is only permitted for a sick person, but not for someone who is healthy. Now if we are speaking about 'Mi'arak' to awaken the sick person, then the noise would be a loud, unmusical one, and didn't Raba just say that an unmusical noise is generally permitted on Shabbos!? Consequently, we must be speaking about putting the sick person to sleep, which requires a gentle musical rhythm, and it is there that we can infer that for a healthy person, this would be forbidden.
(d)Clapping one's hands to scare away birds and wild animals from one's field is forbidden - because we are afraid that he may pick up a clod of earth and throw it at the animal in the street (which is an Isur d'Oraysa), but not because of the noise.
(a)Rav Yehudah quoting Rav, forbids women to play with nuts by rolling them down a board and along the ground (in the course of which they would knock them together to create a cracking effect)? What is the reason for this prohibition? Is it because of the cracking noise that they make in the process?
(b)How does the Gemara prove that this was not prohibited because of the noise?
(c)And if not because of the noise involved, then why did the Tana of our Mishnah permit drawing water from the wells in Lishkas ha'Azarah - but not anywhere else? Why should it be forbidden elsewhere?
(d)Ameimar permitting drawing water from a well in Mechoza, on the grounds that they had neither gardens nor wood-stores at the back of their houses - for which they might draw water. What made him change his mind?
(a)The reason that Rav forbids women to play with nuts by rolling them down a board and along the ground (in the course of which they would knock them together to create a cracking effect) - is not because of the noise (which is not emitted for musical purposes), but because they might, in the process, come to fill in any holes that prevent the nuts from rolling properly.
(b)The reason for this prohibition cannot possibly have been because of the noise of the nuts cracking together - because if so, why did Rav Yehudah extend the prohibition to apples, which do not make a cracking noise?
(c)The Tana of our Mishnah forbids drawing water from wells - before one is likely to draw a lot of water to water one's garden or store-yard. Note: This prohibition is confined to wells with big wheels to which one can attach many buckets.
(d)Ameimar changed his mind, forbidding the residents of Mechoza to draw water from their well, despite the fact that they had neither gardens nor wood-stores at the back of their houses - because they began to soak flax in the water that they drew.
(a)What was 'Bor ha'Kar', and what meaning did they initially ascribe to that name?
(b)What made them reject that reason?
(c)Why then, is it called by that name?
(d)The Beraisa concludes that it was not the prophets among them who permitted them to draw from that particular well. Which prophets are referred to here, and what then was the source of the concession?
(a)'Bor ha'Kar' was a well that returnees from Galus Bavel desperately needed upon their return; so they discussed the matter and read out a proclamation regarding permitting the Shevus on wells because of the urgency of the situation. 'Bor ha'Kor' means the well which they read out.
(b)If that was why they called it 'Bor ha'Kor', then how can the Beraisa say 'Lo Kol ha'Boros ha'Koros Hitiru Ela Zu Bilevad'? How many wells were about which such a proclamation was made?
(c)The real reason that they gave it that name is because it was a spring (from the word 'Mekor' - source). It was the only spring that the returnees permitted.
(d)The prophets referred to in the Beraisa are Chagai Zechari'ah and Malachi. The actual source of the concession was the Minhag of their fathers.
(a)What is one permitted to do with a dead (Muktzah) Sheretz in one's home on Shabbos?
(b)In the Beis Hamikdash they permitted its removal in order to not to leave Tum'ah there for one moment longer than necessary. Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah prescribed carrying it out with the Kohen's belt. Why is it not preferable to take it out with a pair of wooden tongs?
(c)Why does the person carrying it out not become Tamei Masa?
(d)Why does he not become a Sheni l'Tum'ah through contact with the belt, which became a Rishon through contact with the Sheretz itself?
(a)Someone who finds a dead Sheretz in his home - should cover it, if need be with an overturned receptacle.
(b)Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah prescribes carrying it out with the Kohen's belt rather than with a pair of wooden tongs - because the latter method entails a delay whilst one goes to look for a pair of tongs, and it is essential to get rid of the Tum'ah as quickly as possible.
(c)Carrying out a Sheretz in this way does not render the person carrying it Tamei Masa - because a Sheretz is not Metamei b'Masa, only b'Maga.
(d)Nor does he become a Sheni l'Tum'ah through contact with the belt, which became a Rishon through contact with the Sheretz itself - because a Rishon has the power to transmit Tum'ah to food and drink, but not to people or vessels.
(a)Why does Rebbi Yehudah prefer removing the Sheretz with a pair of wooden tongs? What is the advantage of that?
(b)Rebbi Shimon ben Nanes lists the locations included in the Heter as the Heichal, the Ulam and between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach. Rebbi Akiva says from wherever one is Chayav Kares or Chatas (for entering in a state of Tum'ah). Which area are they disputing.
(c)Which area does Rebbi Akiva concede to ben Nanes?
(a)Rebbi Yehudah prefers removing the Sheretz with a pair of wooden tongs - because, in his opinion, it is better to delay removing the Tum'ah than rendering Tamei the Kohen's garments.
(b)Rebbi Shimon ben Nanes, (who lists the locations included in the Heter as the Heichal, the Ulam and between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach..) and Rebbi Akiva (who says from wherever one is Chayav Kares or Chatas - for entering in a state of Tum'ah) argue over the rest of the Azarah: Ben Nanes forbids carrying the Sheretz out from there on Shabbos, Rebbi Akiva permits it.
(c)Rebbi Akiva concedes - that the rooms leading off from the Azarah are not included in the concession.
(a)Shmuel is quoted as saying that someone who carries a dead Sheretz into the Beis Hamikdash is not Chayav Kares or Chatas. Why should he not be Chayav, Kal va'Chomer from someone who enters when he is only a Tamei Sheretz (a Rishon l'Tum'ah)?
(b)Why is there no proof for Shmuel from a Beraisa, which renders earthenware vessels Patur. If the reason there is not because they have no Taharah in the Mikveh, then what is?
(c)How does the Gemara attempt to connect Shmuel's Din to the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah (who prescribes taking the Sheretz out as quickly as possible) and Rebbi Yehudah (who does not mind delaying in order to minimize the Tum'ah)?
(d)We conclude that, in fact, both Tana'im hold that he is Chayav (not like Shmuel). What then, is the basis of their Machlokes?
(a)Shmuel exempts someone who carries a dead Sheretz into the Beis Hamikdash from a Chiyuv Kares or Chatas (despite the Kal va'Chomer from a Tamei Sheretz) - because the Torah writes in Naso "mi'Zachar ad Nekeivah Teshaleichu", from which he learns that it is for bringing someone or something that can become Tahor though Tevilah into the Mikdash that one is Chayav Chatas, but not a Sheretz, which cannot become Tahor.
(b)There is no proof for Shmuel from a Beraisa, which renders earthenware vessels Patur - because that may well be because earthenware vessels cannot become an Av ha'Tum'ah (similar to "mi'Zachar v'Ad Nekeivah Teshalechu"), and not necessarily because they cannot become Tahor in a Mikveh.
(c)The Gemara at first thought that Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah (who prescribes taking the Sheretz out as quickly as possible) holds that one is Chayav for bringing a Sheretz into the Mikdash (not like Shmuel); whereas Rebbi Yehudah (who does not mind delaying in order to minimize the Tum'ah) - holds like Shmuel, that someone who brings a Sheretz into the Mikdash is Patur (like Shmuel).
(d)We conclude that, in fact, both Tana'im hold that he is Chayav (not like Shmuel) and this is the basis of their Machlokes - Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah holds that delaying Tum'ah is worse, and Rebbi Yehudah holds that extending Tum'ah is worse.
(a)The Gemara then tries to connect Shmuel's Din with the Machlokes between ben Nanes (who does not require the removal of the Sheretz from the Azarah) and Rebbi Akiva (who does). Rebbi Yochanan however, explains that here too, neither Tana holds like Shmuel, and that their Machlokes lies in the interpretation of the Pasuk in Divrei ha'Yamim "Vayavo'u ha'Kohanim li'Penimah Beis Hash-m Letaher, Vayotzi'u es Kol ha'Tum'ah ... l'Chatzar Beis Hash-m, Vayekablu ha'Leviyim Lehotzi l'Nachal Kidron Chutzah". What is the basis of this Machlokes?
(a)We see that although the Torah permitted the Kohanim to remove the Tum'ah from inside and to place it in the Azarah, but from there it is the Leviyim who removed it to the Valley of Kidron. According to ben Azai we learn from here that (even though one is Chayav for bringing a Sheretz into the Azarah), when it comes to removing it, it is a little less stringent. Consequently, we will not permit any Shevus with regard to removing a Sheretz from the Azarah. Whereas according to Rebbi Akiva, we only require the Kohanim to remove the Sheratzim from the Heichal, because the Leviyim are totally forbidden to enter there. Once however, the Sheretz is in the Azarah, where the Leviyim are permitted to enter. Therefore the obligation to remove the Tum'ah is now transferred to them - but not because the Kedushah there is any weaker than the Heichal etc. Consequently, the Shevus of not moving the Sheretz does not apply there either.