(a)If one is permitted to place one kettle of hot water on top of another, why should one not also be able to place a pitcher of cold water on top of a kettle of hot water?
(b)Rabbah scolded a servant from the household of the exilarch, who draped a head-cloth over a large jug of water, and then put the jug with which he would normally draw wine from the barrel on top of it. What is the difference between placing a head-cloth on top of a water-jug, on the one hand, and a cloth designated for the wine on the other?
(c)How did Rabbah prove this to Rebbi Zeira?
(a)It is permitted to place one kettle of hot water on top of another, not a pitcher of cold water on top of a kettle of hot water - because, whereas the former does no more than retain its heat (which, as long as it is neither on the flame, not in the form of Hatmanah, is permitted), a jug of cold water will increase its heat when placed on top of a jug of hot water.
(b)Rabbah scolded a servant from the household of the exilarch, who draped a head-cloth over a large jug of water, and then put the jug with which he would normally draw wine from the barrel on top of it The difference placing a head-cloth on top of a water-jug, on the one hand, and a cloth designated for the wine on the other - is that, in the case of the former, we are afraid that, because he would prefer that it remained dry, we suspect that he will probably wring it; whereas in the case of the latter,because it does not bother him that it is wet, there is no reason to suspect that he may wring it out.
(c)Rabbah proved this to Rebbi Zeira - by telling him to watch the servant (who evidently paid no attention to him). And sure enough, the servant went on to do squeeze out the head-cloth.
(a)If someone places his pot inside a box of commercial furs (which are Muktzah) to keep it hot, may he then use them on Shabbos? Have they changed their identity to become an article which is no longer designated for commercial use?
(b)'Tomnin be'Gizei Tzemer, Tzipei Tzemer, u'Leshonos shel Argaman, u've'Mukin, ve'Ein Metaltelin Osan'. What are ...
1. ... 'Gizei Tzemer'?
2. ... 'Tzipei Tzemer'?
3. ... 'Leshonos shel Argaman'?
(c)Why is there no proof for the previous Halachah from the fact that the Tana concludes 've'Ein Metaltelin Osan'?
(d)What then, is the Chidush of the Seifa? Is it not obvious that the raw shearings are Muktzah?
(a)If someone places his pot inside a box of commercial furs (which are Muktzah) to keep it hot, he may not then use them on Shabbos. Furs are precious, and it requires more than just one casual use to change their status.
1. 'Gizei Tzemer' are wool shearings that come off a sheep's back.
2. 'Tzipei Tzemer' are the same shearings after they have been split and spread out like carpets to dry.
3. 'Leshonos shel Argaman' are the same shearings again after they have been dyed purple and combed, and are ready for spinning.
(c)There is no proof for the previous Halachah from the fact that the Tana concludes 've'Ein Metaltelin Osan' - because the Tana could mean to say that they are Muktzah as long as they were not used for wrapping, (but in the Reisha, were they were, they are no longer Muktzah).
(d)The Chidush of the Seifa is - that they are Muktzah, even though one may have thought that they are fit to be used as mats (to lean on them).
(a)When is it permitted to place the stuffing into a cushion on Shabbos, and when is it forbidden?
(b)Will this Halachah apply on Yom-Tov too?
(c)What does 'Matirin Beis ha'Tzav'ar be'Shabbos' mean?
(a)It is permitted to replace the stuffing in a cushion from which they fell out - but not to put them in for the first time, since this constitutes making a K'li (a Toldah of Makeh ba'Patish).
(b)This Halachah applies on Yom-Tov too.
(c)'Matirin Beis ha'Tzavar' means - to untie the neck of a garment, after the laundry-man tied the edges together.
(a)What is the Din regarding cutting an opening in a garment for the head?
(b)Why is this any different than chopping off the lid that is firmly fixed to a barrel?
(a)Cutting an opening in a garment for the head - constitutes making it into a K'li, for which one is Chayav Chatas.
(b)Chopping of the lid of a barrel, on the other hand, is permitted - because, however firmly the lid is sealed, it was sealed with the intention of re-opening it afterwards. In fact, there is little difference between that and opening a locked door. (See Tosfos D.H. 've'Chi'.)
(a)What is a 'Sh'lal shel Kovsin'?
(b)What does it have in common with a bunch of loose keys sewn together and two pieces of woolen cloth that have been sewn together with linen thread?
(c)What is the significance of the pieces of cloth sewn together with a linen thread? Why does the Tana include it here?
(d)From which point on, are the above not considered joined?
(a)A 'Sh'lal shel Kovsin' is - a number of articles of clothing which the laundry-men would sew together so that they should not get lost.
(b)What it has on common with a buch of loose keys and pieces of woolen cloth that were sewn together with a woolen thread is - that just as they are considered joined as regards Tum'ah, and if Tum'ah touches one of them, they all become Tamei, so too, will be the Din as regards the 'Sh'lal shel Kovsin'.
(c)The Tana inserted the case of the pieces of woolen cloth sewn together with a linen thread - to teach us that even there, where we would have thought that, since (due to the Isur of Kil'ayim) they are bound to be separated, they are not considered joined, they nevertheless are.
(d)They are no longer considered joined - from the moment one begins to separate them (because as long as one only intended to separate them (irrespective of how firm or obvious that intention was), the thought (of sparating them) does not have the power to detract from the action (of having actually sewn them together). The moment however, he begins to perform an action to counter what he originally did, 'one action can detract from another'.
(a)How does the above Beraisa clash with the Beraisa which considers a stick that one is using as a handle for a spade, to be part of the spade - 'whilst it is being used'?
(b)How do we reconcile the two Beraisos?
(a)The Beraisa considers the stick that is atached to the spade to be part of it as regards Tum'ah - only whilst he is actually using the spade, but not whilst he is not, seemingly clashing with the above Beraisa, which considers the pieces oc cloth and the keys to be joined - even when they are not being used?
(b)The difference between the two cases is - in the case of the spade, once the spade had been used, one tended to remove the make-shift handle and throw it among the other pieces of wood, to be used as fire-wood; whereas the laundry-aman wanted the pieces of cloth or garment were sewn together as long as they were in his possession, in order that they should not get lost.
(a)According to Rebbi Shimon, if an Av ha'Tum'ah were to touch the inside a movable earthenware oven containing small earthenware attachments (such as a lamp or an oil holder, or a receptacle for spices), the attachments would not become Tamei (and vice-versa). The one does not transmit Tum'ah to the other. What does Rebbi Meir say?
(b)Rebbi Shimon simply holds that the two are not considered joined, but how do we understand the distinction made by Rebbi Meir? What does he really hold vis-a-vis the joining of two vessels?
(c)Like whom does the previous Sugya hold?
(a)According to Rebbi Shimon, if an Av ha'Tum'ah (such as a dead Sheretz) were to touch the inside a movable earthenware oven containing small earthenware attachments (such as a lamp or an oil holder, or a receptacle for spices), the attachments would not become Tamei (and vice-versa). The one does not transmit Tum'ah to the other. Rebbi Meir holds - that it does, but only as concerns touching, but not regarding the Din of earthenware vessels transmitting Tum'ah via the air to whatever is inside them. Note: The reason that the accessories do not become Tamei anyway (even if they are not considered joined to the oven - like vessels inside an earthenware oven) is because they are joined to the ground (see Tif'eres Yisrael, Bo'az).
(b)Vis-a-vis the joining of two vessels - Rebbi Meir holds that they are considered joined. However, this is only mi'de'Rabbanan. Consequently, as a reminder that the Tum'ah is only mi'de'Rabbanan, and that one should not burn Terumah and Kodshim that became Tamei in this way, the Rabbanan restricted the Tuma'h to touching, but not via the air.
(c)The previous Sugya which holds that joining two things together renders them one entity as far as Tum'ah is concerned - holds like Rebbi Meir.
(a)Implements made of parts that fit together when in use, but which are taken apart when they are not being used (such as scissors and a plane), are considered joined regarding Tum'ah, but not regarding sprinkling with the ashes of the Parah Adumah. What are the ramifications of the latter part of the statement?
(b)Why, if they are considered joined regarding Tum'ah, are they not considered joined regarding sprinkling?
(a)Implements made of parts that fit together when in use, but which are taken apart when they are not being used (such as scissors and a plane), are considered joined regarding Tum'ah, but not regarding sprinkling with the ashes of the Parah Adumah - meaning that if one were to sprinkle the one of the two sections of a pair of scissors, for example, with the ashes of the Parah Adumah, the other section would still need to be sprinkled.
(b)They are considered joined regarding Tum'ah, but not regarding sprinkling - because as long as the scissors are being used, the two sections are considered one vessel min ha'Torah. However, when it is not actually in use, they are only considered one mi'de'Rabbanan. , the Rabbanan restricted the union to the Din of Tum'ah, and not to the Din of Haza'ah, to remind people not to burn Terumah and Kodshim which became Tamei through this Tum'ah de'Rabbanan (like we just explained according to Rebbi Meir).