1)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah permits trapping pests from a tree-field in the normal manner, and from a corn-field with a Shinuy (in an unusual manner). Why the difference?

(b)What constitutes ...

1. ... 'in the normal manner'?

2. ... with a Shinuy?

(c)When is it permitted to trap pests in the normal manner even in a corn-field?

1)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah permits trapping pests from a field of trees in the normal manner, and from a corn-field with a Shinuy (in an unusual manner) - because the former entails a tremendous loss, whereas in the case of the latter, the loss is relatively small (as we have already explained).

(b)

1. 'In the normal manner' entails - digging a shaft in their habitat, and suspending a trap inside it.

2. with a Shinuy - entails piercing a spit-rod into the ground, and banging on it with a hammer until the earth loosens, falls on top of them and squashes them.

(c)It will be permitted to trap pests in the normal manner even in a corn-field - if it is adjacent to a field of trees, so that they have easy access from the one to the other.

2)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that one is permitted to effect amateur repairs to a breach in a wall on Chol ha'Mo'ed. According to Rav Yosef, this constitutes a wall made of laurel branches interwoven with Lulav-leaves. How does the Tana of the Beraisa define it?

(b)How does Rav Chisda (explaining our Mishnah) differentiate between the wall of a garden and that of a courtyard?

(c)Why ...

1. ... on the one hand, is there no proof (that one should be permitted to reconstruct the wall of a courtyard in the normal manner) from the Beraisa, which permits a wall that is leaning over the street to be pulled down and reconstructed?

2. ... on the other hand, can we not deduce from there (seeing as the Beraisa actually concludes 'Mipnei ha'Sakanah'), that if not for the danger aspect, it would be forbidden to reconstruct it normally, a Kashya on Rav Chisda?

(d)In that case, why does the Tana permit the reconstruction of the wall at all? Let the owner demolish it to remove the danger, and not re-build it?

2)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that one is permitted to effect amateur repairs to a breach in a wall on Chol ha'Mo'ed. According to Rav Yosef, this constitutes a wall made of laurel branches interwoven with Lulav-leaves. The Tana of the Beraisa defines it - as making a wall of stones, without cementing them.

(b)Rav Chisda (explaining our Mishnah) establishes our Mishnah by the wall of a garden - but if the wall of a courtyard caves in, one may repair it professionally (because of the likelihood of robbers taking advantage of the breach).

(c)On the ...

1. ... one hand, there is no proof (for the previous ruling) from the Beraisa, which permits a wall that is leaning over the street to be pulled down and re-built - because the Tana only permits it because of the danger involved (as he specifically writes).

2. ... other, we cannot deduce from there (seeing as the Beraisa actually concludes 'Mipnei ha'Sakanah'), that if not for the danger aspect, it would be forbidden to rebuild it normally (a Kashya on Rav Chisda) - because that refers to the demolition of the wall, but not to its reconstruction.

(d)The reason that the Tana permits the reconstruction of the wall - is because, if Chazal would not have allowed it, the owner would not demolish it.

3)

(a)Our Mishnah permits repairing a breach in a wall professionally during the Shemitah year. What sort of wall is the Tana referring to?

(b)Why might we otherwise have thought that it is forbidden to do so?

(c)How does Rav Ashi use the Halachah by Shemitah, to prove Rav Chisda right?

3)

(a)Our Mishnah permits repairing a breach in a wall in the normal manner in the Shemitah year. The Tana - must be referring to the wall of a garden (because there is no reason to forbid repairing the wall of a courtyard in the Shemitah).

(b)Had the Tana not permitted repairing a breach in the wall of a garden in the Shemitah, we would have thought that it is forbidden to do so - because it looks as if he is building it in order to guard the fruit (which would be forbidden).

(c)Rav Ashi proves Rav Chisda right from here - because as we just proved, the Tana is referring to the wall of a garden, and not to that of a courtyard (just as Rav Chisda explained).

4)

(a)The Chachamim in our Mishnah forbid the Kohanim to examine Nega'im at all on Chol ha'Mo'ed. What does Rebbi Meir say?

(b)What is his source?

(c)The Chachamim is Rebbi Yosi. What does he say?

(d)Rebbi makes a compromise. When does he rule like Rebbi Meir and when, like Rebbi Yosi?

4)

(a)The Chachamim in our Mishnah forbid the Kohanim to examine Nega'im at all on Chol ha'Mo'ed - Rebbi Meir permits the actual examination, but allows them only to declare the 'Metzora' Tahor, but not, Tamei ...

(b)... because of the Pasuk in Re'eh "v'Samachta b'Chagecha".

(c)The Chachamim is Rebbi Yosi - who maintains that once the Kohen examines a Metzora, he is obligated to finalize his status, one way or the other.

(d)Rebbi makes a compromise. He rules like Rebbi Meir - by a Musgar (who is forbidden to be with his wife - see Tosfos DH 'Amar' - and who can only therefore benefit from the Kohen's examination - seeing as a Muchlat is permitted to be with his wife); and he rules like Rebbi Yosi - by a Muchlat (who is permitted to be with his wife anyway - until his seven days of Taharah).

5)

(a)Rava restricts the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yosi to only one out of three possibilities. What will be the Din, according to him, by a 'Metzora' ...

1. ... who is still Tahor and who arrives at the Kohen for the first time?

2. ... Musgar Rishon, whom the Kohen is seeing for the second time?

(b)Then in which case do they argue?

(c)On what grounds does Rebbi Yosi disagree with Rebbi Meir? Why can the Kohen not just remain silent if he thinks that the man is Tamei?

5)

(a)Rava restricts the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yosi to only one out of three possibilities. According to him, if a 'Metzora' ...

1. ... who is still Tahor arrives at the Kohen for the first time on Chol ha'Mo'ed - even Rebbi Meir will agree that the Kohen is not permitted to examine him (because there is nothing to be gained by doing so).

2. ... Musgar Rishon, whom the Kohen is seeing for the second time - arrives by the Kohen on Chol ha'Mo'ed - then he is permitted to examine him (because if he declares him Tahor, then he will certainly make him happy, and if he does not, then it makes no difference, because he will simply continue being a Musgar for another seven days - see Tosfos DH 'b'Hesger').

(b)They argue therefore, in the case of a Musgar Sheni, who stands either to become Tahor, or a Muchlat.

(c)Rebbi Yosi disagrees with Rebbi Meir, forbidding the Kohen to just remain silent if he considers the man Tamei - on account of the Pasuk in Tazri'a "l'Taharo O l'Tam'o" (implying that he has to rule either one way or the other).

7b----------------------------------------7b

6)

(a)We just learned that Rebbi accepts Rebbi Yosi's ruling by a Muchlat and Rebbi Meir's by a Musgar. Why is that? What advantage can a Muchlat possibly have over one who is declared Tahor?

(b)Then why do others invert Rebbi's ruling (that he accepts Rebbi Meir's opinion by a Muchlat and Rebbi Yosi's by a Musgar)?

(c)What do we learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Tazri'a "v'Yashav mi'Chutz l'Ohalo Shiv'as Yamim"?

2. ... in Va'eschanan "Lech Emor Lahem, 'Shuvu Lachem l'Oholeichem!' "?

(d)What does ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah learn from the Pasuk in Yechezkel "Shiv'as Yamim Yisperu Lo"?

2. ... his son Rebbi Yosi say about that?

6)

(a)We learned earlier that Rebbi accepts Rebbi Yosi's ruling by a Muchlat and Rebbi Meir's by a Musgar (Sheni) - because, he maintains, a Muchlat, who is permitted to his wife, is happier both than a Musgar Sheni and than a Muchlat who becomes Tahor, both of whom are forbidden to their wives.

(b)Others invert Rebbi's ruling (that he accepts Rebbi Meir's opinion by a Muchlat and Rebbi Yosi's by a Musgar) - because a Muchlat who becomes Tahor has the advantage of being permitted to live among people, whereas as a Muchlat, he is forbidden to enter the town.

(c)We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Tazri'a "v'Yashav mi'Chutz l'Ohalo Shiv'as Yamim" - that a Muchlat (before he begins with the Taharah process) is permitted to be with his wife.

2. ... in Va'eschanan "Lech Emor Lahem, 'Shuvu Lachem l'Oholeichem!' - that "Ohel" means a wife.

(d)Rebbi

1. ... Yehudah learns from the Pasuk "Shiv'as Yamim Yisperu Lo" - the same as the Tana Kama learns from "v'Yashav mi'Chutz l'Ohalo Shiv'as Yamim" (that it is only during the days of Taharah that he is forbidden to be with his wife, but not as not as long as he is a Muchlat.

2. ...Yosi his son maintains - that if he is forbidden to be his wife during the days of Taharah, then how much more so whilst he is a Muchlat.

7)

(a)What did Rebbi Chiya declare in front of Rebbi (regarding the conception of Yosam, the son of Uziyah, who was a Metzora)? With which Tana will this concur?

(b)What did Rebbi comment on Rebbi Chiya's statement?

(c)Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah (in the previous question) Darshens a Kal va'Chomer (from Musgar to Muchlat). What is Rebbi Yehudah (and Rebbi)'s reason?

7)

(a)Rebbi Chiya declared in front of Rebbi - that Yosam, the son of Uziyah, who was a Metzora, can only have been conceived during the period that Uziyah was a Muchlat (a proof for the Tana Kama or Rebbi Yehudah).

(b)Rebbi replied that Rebbi Chiya was merely echoing his own thoughts.

(c)Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah (in the previous question) Darshens a Kal va'Chomer (from Musgar to Muchlat). Rebbi Yehudah (and Rebbi) says that, since the Torah writes the Isur of being with his wife specifically by the days of Taharah, it is clear that during the days that he is a Muchlat, he is permitted (see also Tosfos DH 'Mai').

8)

(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Tazri'a "uv'Yom Heira'os Bo ... "? To which two occasions does this refer?

(b)Rebbi learns this from another source by Tum'as Batim. Which source?

(c)According to Abaye, the Machlokes has no ramifications. Each one has his source, but they do not argue Halachically. Rava however disagrees. What are the ramifications of their Machlokes, according to him?

8)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk "uv'Yom Heira'os Bo ... " - that there are certain days on which the Kohen may not examine Tzara'as (i.e. a Chasan during the seven days of Sheva Berachos, and on any of the Yamim-Tovim).

(b)Rebbi learns this from another source by Tum'as Batim - where the Kohen has to wait for the owner to clear all his vessels out of the house before he may examine it. And if he has to wait on account of monetary considerations, says Rebbi, then how much more so for a Mitzvah.

(c)According to Abaye, the Machlokes has no ramifications. Each one has his source, but they do not argue Halachically. But Rava disagrees. According to him - Rebbi Yehudah (who says that the Kohen must wait for a Chasan and on Yom Tov), will not extend this ruling to matters that are not a Mitzvah; whereas according to Rebbi, who learns it from Tum'as Batim, the Kohen will even have to wait for a reason that is not a Mitzvah.

9)

(a)Why does Rebbi Yehudah decline to learn the Din of waiting from "v'Tzivah ha'Kohen u'Finu es ha'Bayis"?

(b)Rebbi in fact, learns it from both Pesukim. Seeing as he learns it from ...

1. ... "uv'Yom Heira'os Bo ... ", why does he also need the Pasuk "v'Tzivah ha'Kohen u'Finu es ha'Bayis"?

2. ... "v'Tzivah ha'Kohen u'Finu es ha'Bayis" - why does the Torah need to write "uvYom Heira'os Bo ... "?

9)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah declines to learn the Din of waiting from "v'Tzivah ha'Kohen u'Finu es ha'Bayis" - because the entire Din there (i.e. that plain wood and stones are Metamei at all), is a Chidush, and we cannot learn from something that is a Chidush.

(b)Rebbi in fact, learns it from both Pesukim. Despite the fact that he learns it from ...

1. ... "uv'Yom Heira'os Bo ... ", why does he also need the Pasuk "v'Tzivah ha'Kohen u'Finu es ha'Bayis", to teach us - that it is not only a Devar Mitzvah that is deferred, but even a Devar ha'ha'Reshus (as we explained).

2. ... "v'Tzivah ha'Kohen u'Finu es ha'Bayis", the Torah still needs to write "uv'Yom Heira'os Bo ... ", to teach us - that it is not only Tum'ah that does not come from the body that we defer when necessary, but even Tum'ah (which is more stringent than Tum'ah which does not).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF