(a)Why does our Mishnah write 'Lo Yochal ha'Zav Im ha'Zavah', and not 'Lo Yochal ha'Tahor Im ha'Temei'ah'?
(b)Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar says that a Zav who is a Parush should not eat with a Zav who is an Am ha'Aretz, either because he may tempt him into joining his group of friends, or because he may feed him food that is Tamei. What is the problem with those two versions of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar's statement?
(c)According to Abaye, it is a decree that perhaps the Zav who is an Am ha'Aretz will feed the Zav who is a Parush, food that is not Ma'asered properly. What is Rava's objection to that?
(d)So how does Rava interpret the decree quoted by Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar?
(a)The reason that the Tana wrote 'Lo Yochal ha'Zav Im ha'Zavah', and not 'Lo Yochal ha'Tahor Im ha'Temei'ah' is, not because a Tahor is permitted to eat with a Zavah (as one might have inferred), but - because he did not find it necessary to state 'Lo Yochal ha'Tahor Im ha'Temei'ah', seeing as, so prevalent was Taharah in Yisrael, that no Tahor person would dream of eating together with a woman who was Temei'ah (even his own wife).
(b)Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar says that a Zav who is a Parush should not eat with a Zav who is an Am ha'Aretz, either because he may tempt him into joining his group of friends, or because he may feed him food that is Tamei. THe problem with these reasons is - that there is nothing wrong with a Zav who is a Parush being in the company of a Zav who is an Am ha'Aretz, or even with eating the Tamei food that he gives him. So why should anyone issue a prohibition, because he may come to do either of them?
(c)According to Abaye, it is a decree that perhaps the Zav who is an Am ha'Aretz will feed the Zav who is a Parush, food that is not Ma'asered properly, to which Rava objects - because most Amei-ha'Aretz do Ma'aser properly, in which case such a decree would be a Gezeirah li'Gezeirah.
(d)Rava therefore explains Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar's reason to be that the Zav Am ha'Aretz may prevail upon the Parush to come and eat by him even when he is Tahor, and he will then feed him Tamei food.
(a)The Gemara tries to prove from Beis Hillel, who forbids one to place chicken together with cheese on the same table, that a Zav is forbidden to sleep next to a Zavah, when they are both fully dressed. How do we refute this proof?
(b)We then try to prove this distinction from the Seifa of the Beraisa, which permits two guests at a hotel to eat together, the one meat, the other cheese, at the same table. On what grounds does the Gemara refute that proof?
(c)We seem to have proved from its latest contention, that where the two people know each other, we are strict, forbidding even the least contact. Why does this stringency not prove that a Zav and a Zavah may not sleep in the same bed fully clothed?
(d)How does Rav Yosef resolve our She'eilah from the Pasuk in Yechezkel, which compares the relationship between a Nidah and a married woman?
(a)The Gemara tries to prove from Beis Hillel, who forbids one to place chicken together with cheese on the same table, that a Zav is forbidden to sleep next to a Zavah, when they are both fully dressed. We refute this proof on the grounds that - the chicken and the cheese will not protest if one comes to eat them together. A Zav and a Zavah on the other hand, are human, and, knowing that sleeping together is forbidden, the Zavah will have the common-sense to protest, should the Zav attempt to sin with her.
(b)We then try to prove this distinction from the Seifa of the Beraisa, which permits two guests at a hotel to eat together, the one meat, the other cheese, at the same table. We reject this proof however. The reason there is not because the other guest will protest, but - because Shmuel established the Beraisa in a case where the two guest are not acquainted, and are therefore unlikely to eat from each other's food. But if they were, then it would be forbidden to eat at the same table (in spite of the likelihood of the second guest's ability to protest).
(c)We seem to have proved from its latest contention, that where the two people know each other, we are strict, forbidding even the least contact. This does not prove however, that a Zav and a Zavah are forbidden to sleep together in the same bed fully-clothed, since in they have the advantage of having made a 'Shinuy' (a sign which will remind them not to sin) - inasmuch as they are fully-clothed. If the two guests in a hotel were to make a 'Shinuy (such as eating on different tablecloths), they too, would be permitted to eat together.
(d)Rav Yosef ultimately resolves our Sha'aleh from the Pasuk in Yechezkel, which compares a woman who is a Nidah (or a Zavah) to the wife of another man. Just as it is forbidden to sleep with a married woman, even when they are both fully-clothed (seeing as the Torah forbids even Yichud with a married woman, how much more so sleeping together in the same bed), so too, is it forbidden to sleep with one's own wife who is a Nidah or a Zavah in the same bed.
(a)Rav Pedas disagrees with Rav Yosef. What does he learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Ish Ish El Kol She'er Besaro Lo Sikrevu Le'galos Ervah"?
(b)What is the basis of the Machlokes between Rav Yosef and Rav Pedas?
(c)When Ula returned from the Yeshivah, he would kiss his sisters. What statement did he make, that contradicts his actions?
(a)Rav Pedas disagrees with Rav Yosef. According to him, we learn from "Ish Ish el Kol She'er Besaro Lo Sikrevu Legalos Ervah" that with regard to incest (which incorporates one's own wife when she is a Nidah), the Torah confines the prohibition to the actual act of adultery - (everything else is permitted, in his opinion).
(b)Min ha'Torah Rav Pedas permits all physical contact (besides the actual act itself), and it is the Rabbanan who forbade it. Consequently, sleeping together fully clothed, would be a Gezeira li'Gezeira, which the Rabbanan do not normally issue; whereas according to Rav Yosef, physical contact by incest is Asur mi'd'Oraysa, in which case, sleeping together fully-clothed is Asur mi'de'Rabbanan.
(c)When Ula returned from the Yeshivah, he would kiss his sisters - clashing with the statement that he himself made, forbidding that all physical contact with forbidden women is prohibited, (mi'de'Rabbanan) just as one tells a Nazir to go round the vineyard (rather than through it) in order that he should not even be tempted to sin.
(a)How did the grief-stricken and perplexed wife of the Talmid-Chacham react, when her husband died very young? What was her problem?
(b)What did they answer her?
(c)How did Eliyahu ha'Navi eventually explain to her why this happened, and what did he mean when he said 'Baruch ha'Makom she'Hargo, she'Lo Nasa Panim la'Torah'?
(d)Rav Dimi added that, in fact, they were lying on a large bed, and he did not even touch her. How did they minimize his sin in Eretz Yisrael?
(a)When her husband died very young - the he grief-stricken and perplexed wife of the Talmid-Chacham reacted by taking her husband's Tefilin, and going round the Batei-Medrash, to establish why (considering that the Torah writes in Devarim "Ki Hu Chayecha ve'Orech Yamecha") a man who had learnt so much Torah, should die so young, considering that the Torah writes in Devarim "Ki Hu Chayecha ve'Orech Yamecha"!
(b)The Talmidei-Chachamim were unable to answer her.
(c)Eliyahu ha'Navi explained to her that the calamity occurred - because during her seven clean days they had slept together in the same bed (without even taking care that bodies should not touch). By 'Baruch ha'Makom she'Hargo' Eliyahu meant: 'Blessed be Hash-m who shows a Talmid-Chacham no favouratism (the Torah writes in Vayikra "ve'El Ishah be'Nidas Tum'asah Lo Sikrav". Until she has immersed in a Mikveh and become Tehorah, all physical contact is forbidden, and if a Talmid-Chacham contravenes this, then he will have to pay for his sin).
(d)Rav Dimi added that, in fact, they were lying on a large bed, and he did not even touch her. In Eretz Yisrael they explained that she was wearing long undergarments, so that their bodies did not actually touch.
(a)The Chachamim went up to visit Chananya ben Chizkiyah ben Gurion when he was ill. How many decrees did they issue on that day?
(b)In the previous Mishnah, we learnt that one is forbidden to de-louse or to read, by the light of a lamp on Shabbos. What does that have to do with the She'eileh regarding our current Mishnah 'Eilu Tenan, O 've'Eilu Tenan'?
(c)What is our conclusion?
(a)On the day that the Chachamim went to visit Chananya ben Chizkiyah ben Gurion in his attic - they issued eighteen decrees.
(b)In the previous Mishnah, we learnt that one is forbidden to de-louse or to read, by the light of a lamp on Shabbos. We now want to know whether, in our current Mishnah 'Eilu Tenan' - the Halachos that have yet to be mentioned, are included in the decrees (but not the two above-mentioned ones; or whether 've'Eilu Tenan', referring to the two above-mentioned Halachos, which means that they too, are included.
(c)We conclude by quoting a Beraisa, which specifically writes 've'Eilu ... ', and goes on to list 'Ein Polin ... ve'Ein Korin, le'Or ha'Ner'.
(a)What was Megilas Ta'anis?
(b)The Gemara explains that Chananya ben Chizkiyah and his associates wrote it, because they were particularly fond of Tzaros. What does that mean?
(c)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel gave three possible reasons for not writing a similar Megilah (although he 'loved Tzaros' no less than Chananya). What did he mean by ...
1. ... 'Ein Anu Maspikin'?
2. ... 'Ein Shoteh Nifga'?
(a)Megilas Ta'anis was the only book apart from Tenach, to be written - since it was forbidden to transcribe any section of 'Torah she'be'Al Peh'. It contained a list of all the days on which minor miracles and minor acts of salvation had occurred, and on which Chazal had therefore prohibited fasting - the only two 'days' which remain with us are Chanukah and Purim.
(b)It was not the Tzaros of which Chananya ben Chizkiyah and his associates were fond, but the miracles that were associated with their salvation, in order to thank and praise Hash-m. Therefore they recorded them and called the book 'Megilas Ta'anis'.
(c)Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel did not write another Megilas Ta'anis either because ...
1. ... 'Ein Anu Maspikin' - so many miracles occur daily that life would turn into one long stream of minor Yamim-Tovim;
2. ... 'Ein Shoteh Nifga' - just like the fool remains oblivious to things that happen to him, so too, were they unaware of many of the miracles that occurred.
(a)The third reason the Gemara gives (for Raban Gamliel not writing a second Megilas Ta'anis) is because 'Ein Basar ha'Meis Margish be'Izmal'. How do we initially interpret this maxim?
(b)What do Chazal learn from the Pasuk in Iyov "Ach Besaro Yich'av Alav" ... which contradicts that?
(c)How do we therefore amend the maxim?
(a)The third reason for Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel not writing such a book is because 'Ein Basar ha'Mes Margish be'Izmal' - which we take to mean, that just like a corpse is oblivious to pain, so too, had they become oblivious to all the miracles that occurred daily.
(b)However, the Pasuk writes "Ach Besaro Yich'av Alav", meaning that a corpse does feel pain - 'the bite of a worm hurts like a needle being jabbed into a live body'.
(c)Therefore the Gemara amends Rabban Shimon's statement to read 'Ein Basar ha'Meis she'be'Chai Margish be'Izmal', which means - that in the same way as, when a surgeon cuts away dead flesh from a live person's body, he does not feel the pain, so too, they had become insensitive to all the Tzaros that occurred daily. (And if they were insensitive to the pain, there was no point in decreeing a Yom-Tov).
(a)Why did they add to Chananya ben Chizkiyah ben Gurion's name - 'Zachur Oso ha'Ish le'Tov'?
(b)Why did Yechezkel need to write "Neveilah Lo Yochlu ha'Kohanim, implying that Yisraelim are permitted to eat Neveilah? The Sugya of the 18 decrees (two of which we have already discussed earlier on the Amud):
(a)They added the title 'Zachur Oso ha'Ish le'Tov' to Chananya's name, because were it not for his efforts, they would have put the book of Yechezkel into Genizah (due to the apparent disparities with Torah-law, that they found there).
(b)Despite the fact that Yisraelim too, are forbidden to eat Neveilah, Yechezkel nevertheless found it necessary to write "Neveilah Lo Yochlu ha'Kohanim" - because the Kohanim were permitted to eat the Korbanos, which were not Shechted, but killed through Melikah (a way of killing which, by Chulin, would render the animal a Neveilah). It is to ensure that the Kohanim do not extend this concession to Chulin, that he wrote "Neveilah Lo Yochlu ha'Kohanim". The Sugya of the 18 decrees (two of which we have already discussed earlier on the Amud):
(a)Decrees 3,4 & 5: Someone who eats a food which is a Rishon or a Sheini le'Tum'ah, or someone who drinks Tamei drinks (which are always a Rishon). There is only one possible way for a person to become Tamei min ha'Torah through eating Tamei food. What is it?
(b)What is the Shiur of these Tum'os de'Rabbanan? How much does one have to eat to become Tamei? What are its effects and exactly when does he become Tahor again?
(c)Decree 6: Someone whose head and most of him enters water that has been drawn (e.g. a bath-tub full of water). Does this mean, that whenever someone takes a bath, he is Tamei?
(d)Decree 7: A Tahor person upon whose head and most of him there fell three Lugin (1 Lug = 6 egg-volumes) of drawn water.
(a)Decrees 3,4 & 5: Someone who eats a food which is a Rishon or a Sheni le'Tum'ah, or someone who drinks Tamei drinks (which are always a Rishon). The only possible way to become Tamei d'Oraysa, through eating Tamei food, is by eating the Neveilah of a Tahor bird - and this is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv.
(b)Someone who eats a food which is a Rishon or a Sheini le'Tum'ah, or who drinks a Tamei beverage, becomes Tamei if he eats half a P'ras (the equivalent of two egg-volumes). It renders the person who eats it Pasul (which means that he does not transmit the Tum'ah any further). He becomes Tahor as soon as he Tovels in a Mikvah, and does not need to wait for nightfall, even if he is a Kohen, who wants to eat Terumah.
(c)Decree 6: Someone whose head and most of him enters water that has been drawn (e.g. a bath-tub full of water) - only after he has Toveled in a Mikveh (because people were saying that it is the bath which purifies, not the Mikveh). Otherwise, taking a bath, does not render a person Tamei.
(d)Decree 7: A Tahor person upon whose head and most of him there fell three Lugin (1 Lug = 6 egg-volumes) of drawn water.
(a)Decrees 8 & 9 are: A Seifer and unguarded hands are automatically Tamei. What is meant by a Seifer, and what are the ramifications of this Tum'ah?
(b)What is Decree 10?
(c)What are Decrees 11 & 12?
(a)Decrees 8 & 9 are: A Seifer and unguarded hands are automatically Tamei. By Seifer - Chazal mean that all Sifrei Kodesh - i.e. the twenty-four that comprise Tenach, are automatically Tamei, and render Terumah, Tamei through contact.
(b)Decree 10 is: A Tevul-Yom (which will eventually be erased).
(c)Decrees 11 & 12 are: Food and vessels that become Tamei through Tamei liquids.