(a)We learnt in the Mishnah that wet straw ... . increase the heat, and may therefore not be used for wrapping hot foods even on Erev Shabbos. We ask whether there might be a difference between straw etc., that was wet naturally, and straw that became wet artificially?
(b)How do we attempt to resolve the Sha'aleh from 'Mukin' in our Mishnah?
(c)And how do we reject this proof?
(d)What is the implication of the word 'mi'*Marta* de'Beini Atma'?
(a)We learnt in the Mishnah that wet straw ... increase the heat, and may therefore not be used for wrapping hot foods even on Erev Shabbos. We ask whether this might be confined to naturally-wet straw ... , but not to straw ... that became wet artificially - since it is not quite as hot as those that are wet naturally.
(b)We attempt to resolve the She'eilah from 'Mukin', which the Tana includes in his list of things which are 'Mosif Hevel', even though 'Mukin'usually refers to sheep's wool (or one of its derivatives), which is naturally dry.
(c)We reject this proof - by confining Mukin to wool from between the thighs, which is naturally wet.
(d)'mi'*Marta* de'Beini Atma' - means from the wool that is plucked from between the thighs. The wool there is so wet that it cannot be shorn, only plucked - which is why the word 'Marta' is used.
(a)What do the following have in common with regard to Hatmanah: Clothes, fruit - i.e. wheat and legumes, pigeons' feathers, saw-dust and flax-shavings?
(b)What does Rebbi Yehudah say about the shavings?
(c)Is he referring to the shavings of wood, or of flax?
(a)Clothes, fruit (wheat and legumes) pigeons' feathers, saw-dust and flax-shavings - are all not 'Mosif Hevel', in which case, one is permitted to wrap a pot of hot food with them on Erev Shabbos.
(b)Rebbi Yehudah precludes fine flax-shavings from this list - because he considers them to be 'Mosif Hevel'.
(c)Although we are at first not sure whether Rebbi Yehudah is referring to the shavings of wood (saw-dust) or of flax - based on a Beraisa, we conclude that the latter is in fact, the case.
(a)Rebbi Yanai teaches that a person's body must be clean when he lays Tefilin - like Elisha Ba'al Kenafayim. Abaye explains this to mean that ne may not emit a smell whilst wearing Tefilin. (Someone who is unable to do this should not wear Tefilin). How does Rava explain this statement?
(b)What is the basis of their Machlokes?
(c)Why was Elisha Ba'al Kenafayim called by that name?
(d)Why did Elisha compare the Mitzvah of Tefilin to the wings of a dove?
(a)Rebbi Yanai teaches that a person's body must be clean when he lays Tefilin - like Elisha Ba'al Kenafayim. Abaye explains this to mean that ne may not emit a smell whilst wearing Tefilin. (Someone who is unable to do this should not wear Tefilin). According to Rava - we assume everyone to be able to keep a clean body as long as they are awake; what Rebbi Yanai means is that he should not fall asleep whilst wearing Tefilin, in case he makes a smell or has an emission.
(b)The basis of their Machlokes is - whether a person who will remain awake needs to assume that he will not be able to refrain from emitting a smell. According to Abaye, before donning Tefilin, one needs to assess whether he will be able to keep his body clean; whilst according to Rava, this is automatically presumed to be the case.
(c)Elisha Ba'al Kenafayim was so called - because of the episode of the Roman officer, who, at the time when the decree prohibiting the wearing of Tefilin was in force, chased Elisha, when he discovered him wearing Tefilin. When the officer caught up with him, Elisha removed his Tefilin and held them in his hand. When the officer asked him what he was holding, he replied 'pigeons' wings (hence his title - 'Ba'al Kenafayim'). He opened his hands, and sure enough, that was what he was holding.
(d)Elisha referred to his Tefilin, because Mitzvos, like Tefilin, protect Yisrael from their enemies and from other punishments.
(a)It is permitted to wrap a pot (on Erev Shabbos) with both animals' skins and shearings of wool. What is the Halachic difference between them?
(b)How does one then remove a pot which has been wrapped with shearings of wool?
(c)On what grounds does Rebbi Elazar ben Azarya forbid removing the pot from the shearings?
(d)How does one take the food from a pot which was placed, before Shabbos, in a box of wool-shearings according to him?
(a)It is permitted to wrap a pot (on Erev Shabbos) with both animals' skins and shearings of wool. The difference between them is - that whereas the former (which are fit to lean on) are not Muktzah, the latter are.
(b)One removes a pot which has been wrapped with shearings of wool - by seeing to it that the lid protrudes from the shearings, in which case one may lift up the lid, allowing the shearings to fall off. Then he may take the pot.
(c)Rebbi Elazar ben Azarya forbids one to remove the pot from the shearings - in case the shearings in which the pot is lying cave in, and he inadvertently moves them in order to re-place the pot).
(d)Consequently, the only way to take food from the pot on Shabbos is - by tipping the pot on its side and helping oneself when the shearings slip off the top.
(a)Our Mishnah permits the handling of animal-skins. Under which circumstanses might this not apply?
(b)What do we prove from the Tana, Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi?
(c)Then how will we explain the Beraisa which forbids the moving of beams designated for selling, on Shabbos?
(d)Under which circumstances will they become permitted?
(a)The concession to handle animal-skins - may well not apply to skins designated for commercial use.
(b)We prove from the Tana, Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi, who gave testimony that his father, Rebbi Yossi, who was a tanner, had skins brought from his store-house on Shabbos to sit on them - from which we see that even animal-skins that have been designated for commercial use are permitted.
(c)Beams that have been designated for commercial use have a stricter Din than skins, because one tends to be more particular about them (due to the fact that they become easily spoilt - see Rabeinu Chananel). Consequently, they will remain Muktzah until one prepares them more substantially for one's own use.
(d)They will become permitted - if one designates them 'to put bread on them for the guests'.
(a)In which realm of Halachos is there a difference between tanned skins and un-tanned ones?
(b)If the Beraisa holds (not like Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi) that skins desigated for selling are Muktzah, then why did it differentiate between Muktzah on Shabbos and Tum'ah? Why did it not differentiate (in the Din of Muktzah itself) between private skins and commercial ones?
(c)What is our final comment on commercial skins - regarding Muktzah?
(a)Tanned skins are subject to Tum'ah, untanned skins are not.
(b)Despite the fact that the Beraisa holds (not like Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi) that skins desigated for selling are Muktzah, it nevertheless chose differentiate between Muktzah on Shabbos and Tum'ah (rather than between private skins and commercial ones - regarding Muktzah itself) - because the Tana is only concerned with the category of private skins.
(c)Our final comment on commercial skins is - that it is a Machlokes Tana'im. Rebbi Yossi permits commercial skins as well as private ones (as we learnt above); whereas the Tana Kama holds that commercial skins are indeed Muktzah.
(a)Rebbi Chanina bar Chama connects the thirty-nine Melachos on Shabbos to the thirty-nine Melachos with which the Mishkan was constructed. What is the source for this connection?
(b)What is the source of the thirty-nine Melachos, according to Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi Yossi ben Lekunyah? What is the second hint in the Torah for the thirty-nine Melachos?
(c)Why might we not include in the thirty-nine times 'Melachah' of which we are speaking, the Pasuk ...
1. ... in Mikeitz (in conection with Yosef) "va'Yavo ha'Baysah La'asos Melachto"?
2. ... in Sh'mos "ve'ha'Melachah Haysah Dayam"?
(a)Rebbi Chanina bar Chama connects the thirty-nine Melachos on Shabbos to the thirty-nine Melachos with which the Mishkan was constructed. The source for this connection is - the justaposition of the Parshah of Shabbos to that of the construction of the Mishkan in Parshas Veyakhel (and it is based on the fact that they constructed the Mishkan using the 39 Melachos of Shabbos - exclusively).
(b)According to Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi Yossi ben Lekunyah - the source of the thirty-nine Melachos is - the thirty-nine times the word 'Melachah' (or a derivative of it ) appears in the Torah.
(c)We might not include in the thirty-nine times 'Melachah' of which we are speaking, the Pasuk ...
1. ... (in conection with Yosef) "va'Yavo ha'Baysah La'asos Melachto" - because it might refer to the sin to which Yosef was about to succumb (and not to Melachah in the literal sense at all).
2. ... in Sh'mos "ve'ha'Melachah Haysah Dayam" - because it might be coming to teach us that Yisrael had donated more raw materials than were needed for the construction of the Mishkan (in which then the word "ve'ha'Melachah" does not have the connotation of work).
(a)If "ve'ha'Melachah Haysah Dayam" does refer to the thirty-ninth "Melachah", then what does the phrase mean?
(b)And if the Pasuk "va'Yavo ha'Baysah La'asos Melachto" is telling us that Yosef went into the house in order to sin with the wife of Potifera, what stopped him from going ahead with his plan?
(a)If "ve'ha'Melachah Haysah Dayam" does refer to the thirty-ninth "Melachah", then the phrase is dealing with the work that was performed with the raw materials after they were donated - before they actually began with the construction, such as beating out the golden plates to make the golden threads and spinning the various threads for the curtains.
(b)If the Pasuk "va'Yavo ha'Baysah La'asos Melachto" is telling us that Yosef went into the house in order to sin with the wife of Potifera - it was the image of his father, Ya'akov, asking him whether he would like his name to be removed from the stones of the Efod, whilst the names of his eleven brothers would remain, which held him back from sinning.
(a)The Beraisa which supports the opinion of those who connect the thirty-nine Melachos to the building of the Mishkan, quotes the Melachos of sowing, reaping and carrying. What purpose did these three Melachos serve in the Mishkan?
(b)The Beraisa writes that one is Chayav for carrying from one Reshus ha'Yachid to another. How is this possible? To which case is the Beraisa referring?
(a)The Beraisa which supports the opinion of those who connect the thirty-nine Melachos to the building of the Mishkan, quotes the Melachos of sowing, reaping and carrying. Sowing and reaping were needed - to obtain the dark-blue, purple and crimson dyes for the curtains (though this was probably done already in Egypt prior to the Exodus). And transporting the planks from one domain to the other, was performed with the planks (when they took down the Mishkan - and reconstructed it at its new site). These were handed from the men at the old site to the men in the wagons, and from the men in the wagons to the men at the new site (as well as handing them from one wagon to another - which will explain the case in the next answer).
(b)The Beraisa writes that one is Chayav for carrying from one Reshus ha'Yachid to another. The Tana is speaking about carrying from one Reshus ha'Yachid to another via the Reshus ha'Rabim.(Incidentally, Hotza'ah and Hachnasah are not two separate Avos Melachos, as would appear from the Beraisa - See Tosfos DH 've'Atem'.)