(a)Rava thought that shearings of wool were no longer Muktzah once they had been used to wrap food. How did Hahu Rabbanan bar Yomei refute that statement from our Mishnah itself?
(b)Why do we refer to that Talmid like that?
(c)How do we amend Rava's statement?
(d)Ravina accepts Rava's original statement as it is. How does he then explain our Mishnah, which considers the shearings Muktzah, even after he has used them for wrapping?
(a)Rava thought that shearings of wool were no longer Muktzah once they had been used to wrap food. Hahu Rabbanan bar Yomei however, refuted that statement from our Mishnah itself - which writes 'Tomnin be'Gizei Tzemer, ve'Ein Metaltelin Osan Keitzad Hu Oseh ... ?'. Clearly, the shearings remain Muktzah even after they have been used to wrap food.
(b)We refer to that Talmid as 'Hahu mi'Rabbanan bar Yomei' - because it was the first day that he appeared in Rava's Beis ha'Medrash.
(c)We amend Rava's statement to read - that the shearings remain Muktzah only as long as he did not designate them for that purpose.
(d)Ravina, who accepts Rava's original statement as it is - establishes our Mishnah specifically by shearings which were placed in the storehouse for commercial use, which everyone agrees requires a stronger designation to remove it from the realm of Muktzah.
(a)If someone cuts date-palms from the palm-tree to use as fire-wood, they are Muktzah, and may not be moved. What must one do, according to the Tana Kama, to remove the Muktzah-status?
(b)Rav holds like the Tana Kama, Shmuel holds like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who is lenient. What does he say one must do - before Shabbos - to change the Muktzah-status of the palm branches.
(c)Rav Asi holds like a third Tana, who is even more lenient. Which third option does he leave us with - besides tying them or designating them (even in one's mind) for sitting on on Shabbos - to permit the palm-branches to be moved?
(a)If someone cuts date-palms from the palm-tree to use as fire-wood, they are Muktzah, and may not be moved. In order to remove their Muktzah-status, according to the Tana Kama - they must be tied together before Shabbos, to demonstrate that one now intends to use them for seating.
(b)Rav holds like the Tana Kama, Shmuel holds like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who is lenient. In his opinion - all one needs to do is, to decide, before Shabbos, to sit on the palm-branches on Shabbos.
(c)Rav Asi holds like a third Tana, who is even more lenient. According to him, it is sufficient to sit on them once, before Shabbos (even without any specific intention), to remove the status of Muktzah.
(a)Under which circumstances may one go out into the street with a plaster of combed linen or split strands of wool on one's wound? How would one need to treat them?
(b)Is there any way that this would be permitted, even if they were not treated at all?
(c)How is this proven from the Mishnah in 'Tolin': 'ha'Kash she'Al Gabei Mitah'?
(d)Why was straw Muktzah?
(a)One is permitted to go out into the street with plasters of combed linen or of split strands of wool on one's wounds (and even to handle them - see Tosfos DH 'Aval') - when they have been dyed and tied on to the wound. (This demonstrates that he is not wearing the plaster as a cure, but rather to protect his clothes).
(b)This would be permitted, even if they were not treated at all - if he went out with them just once before Shabbos, since it is then considered as if he had designated them for that purpose, and they are no longer Muktzah (like Rav Asi).
(c)This is proven from the Mishnah in 'Tolin' - which permits the direct removal of straw on a bed, provided that one either designated it as animal-food, or left a sheet or a cushion on it (a sign that he slept on the bed before Shabbos).
(d)Straw was Muktzah - because it was usually used for cement-making.
(a)Is there any way of clearing a bed of Muktzah straw, even without the above preparations?
(b)Rebbi Chanina ben Akiva is the Tana who requires the palm branches to be tied in order for them to be permitted on Shabbos. How do we know that?
(c)Why would the Din have been more lenient by a Beis ha'Mishteh or a Beis Avel?
(a)It is permitted to remove straw from a bed by pushing it off with one's body, provided one did not touch it with one's hands - just as all Muktzah is permitted in this way.
(b)Rebbi Chanina ben Akiva is the Tana who requires the palm branches to be tied in order for them to be permitted on Shabbos. We know this - because Rebbi Chanina once followed Rebbi Chanina ben Akiva to a certain place, where he found palm branches which had been tied together to be used as fire-wood. He then instructed his disciples before Shabbos, to have in mind to use them to sit on on Shabbos, and Rebbi Chanina was not certain whether this was due to a wedding, or in order to comfort a mourner. Apparently, Rebbi Chanina knew that, if not for the wedding or the Beis Avel, Rebbi Chanina ben Akiva would not have permitted the palm-branches with designation alone. So we see that Rebbi Chanina ben Akiva requires things that have been designated for a use that renders them Muktzah, to be tied
(c)It appears that Rebbi Chanina ben Akiva was more lenient by a wedding and a Beis Avel (to permit the palm-branches even without tying) because it was for a Mitzvah).
(a)Under which condition may one bring a box of earth into the house to use for all one's needs?
(b)Why could even the Rabbanan, who require palm-branches to be tied (for them to be no longer Muktzah), agree with this ruling - despite the fact that nothing is done with the earth to prepare it?
(c)One Beraisa permits scrubbing vessels with chalk and sand, another Beraisa forbids it. One of the two possible reasons of the Beraisa that forbids it, is because, not having prepared them, they are Muktzah. What is the other reason? Who will then be the author of the Beraisa?
(d)How does the Beraisa which forbids the scrubbing of silver vessels with 'Gartekun' fit into this?
(a)One may bring a box of earth into the house to use for all one's needs - provided he designates a specific corner for it.
(b)The Rabbanan require an act of preparation only when it is possible - by earth, where it is not, it is not necessary.
(c)It is forbidden to use chalk or sand for scrubbing vessels, either because, not having prepared them, they are Muktzah, or - because one may come to scrape off some of the silver in the process (in which case the author of the Beraisa will be Rebbi Yehudah, who forbids a 'Davar she'Eino Miskaven').
(d)The Beraisa which forbids the scrubbing of silver vessels with 'Gartekun' - goes even like Rebbi Shimon, who holds that a 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven' is permitted. This is because 'Gartekun' will inevitably remove some of the silver, and Rebbi Shimon concedes that something which will inevitably occur ('P'sik Reisha ve'Lo Yamus?') is forbidden.
(a)The same Beraisa that permits the scrubbing of vessels with chalk and sand adds 'Aval Lo Yachof Bahem Sa'aro'. Why can the author of the Beraisa then not be Rebbi Shimon?
(b)How do we then reconcile this Beraisa with the second Beraisa, which forbids chalk and sand, and whose author is also Rebbi Yehudah?
(a)The same Beraisa that permits the scrubbing of vessels with chalk and sand adds 'Aval Lo Yachof Bahem Sa'aro', in which case, the author cannot be Rebbi Shimon - because the Mishnah in Nazir (which can only go like Rebbi Shimon Rebbi Shimon - who permits a 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven'), specifically permits a Nazir (who is not permitted to remove his hair) to wash his hair with chalk and sand, because a 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven is Mutar'. It is therefore clear that chalk and sand do not inevitably remove hair, and are therefore permitted according to Rebbi Shimon.
(b)We then reconcile this Beraisa with the second Beraisa, which forbids chalk and sand, and whose author is also Rebbi Yehudah - by making this a Machlokes Tana'im in the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah. According to one Tana, chalk and sand are likely to remove hair, aking it a Davar'she'Eino Miskavein'; whereas in the opinion of the other Tana, it is unlikely to do so, and is therefore permitted, even according to Rebbi Yehudah.
(a)If, as we just concluded, the author of the Beraisa which permits washing vessels with chalk or sand is Rebbi Yehudah, how can the Tana also permit washing one's face with them? Why does Rebbi Yehudah not suspect that they might remove hair from the beard (three possible cases)?
(b)May a person with a beard use brick-dust, Kuspa de'Yasmin or ground peppers, to wash his face - according to Rebbi Yehudah?
(c)What is 'Kuspa de'Yasmin'?
(d)Barda (a mixture made of a plant called Ohel, myrtle and violets) too, is permitted. When does Rav Nechemyah bar Yosef forbid washing one's face with Barda - In which point does Rav Yosef disagree with him?
(a)Despite our having conclused that the author of the Beraisa which permits washing vessels with chalk or sand is Rebbi Yehudah, the Tana permits even washing one's face with chalk and with sand - because he is speaking about either a child, or a woman or a eunuch, all of whom have no beard.
(b)Even Rebbi Yehudah permits a person with a beard use brick-dust, Kuspa de'Yasmin or ground peppers, to wash his face - because they are unlikely to remove hairs from the beard, and it is not even considered a 'Davar she'Eino Miskaven'..
(c)'Kuspa de'Yasmin' is - sesame (or sunflower) seeds which have been left to stand in violet-water, before being dried and ground. It is normally used to clean grimy hands.
(d)Washing one's face with Barda (a mixture made of a plant called Ohel, myrtle and violets) too, is permitted on Shabbos - though Rav Nechemya bar Yosef forbids using it if the majority of its three ingredients constitute 'Ohel'. According to Rav Yosef, it should not contain more than one third 'Ohel'.
(a)Olives are naturally bitter. Why may beating them against a tree (to sweeten them) be prohibited, even during the week?
(b)Why should this be worse than putting bread to one's own personal use, which Shmuel permits?
(c)Assuming that beating olives against a tree is permitted during the week, why might it still be forbidden on Shabbos?
(a)Olives are naturally bitter. Beating them against a tree (to sweeten them) may be prohibited, even during the week - because olives are primarily meant for their oil - as the Gemara explains in Berachos - so that to render the olives unappetizing in this way, is considered a waste .it renders the olives unappetizing and is a waste of good food (See also Tosfos DH 'Mahu')?
(b)This is worse than putting bread to one's own personal use, which Shmuel permits - because Shmuel permits putting bread to one's own personal use, only because bread does not spoil so easily, and only in a way that will not render it disgusting.
(c)Assuming that beating olives against a tree is permitted during the week, why might it still be forbidden on Shabbos - because beating olives in this way is in any case, forbidden on Shabbos, renders the fruit fit to eat, for which one is Chayav because of 'Tikun Manah' (a Toldah of Makeh ba'Patish).
(a)On what grounds did Mar Zutra decline to wash his face with Barda?
(b)Why did his colleagues disagree with him?
(a)Mar Zutra declined to wash his face with Barda - on account of the Beraisa, which permits a man to remove crusts of dirt or of a wound from one's skin, if it is to alleviate pain, but not to enhance one's appearance (which is forbidden because of the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Lo Yilbash Gever Simlas Ishah").
(b)His colleagues disagreed with him - because of the Pasuk in Mishlei "Kol Po'al Hash-m Lema'anehu"("Everything that Hash-m created, He created for the sake of His glory"), obligating us to treat our bodies with the respect that a 'Tzelem Elokim' deserves, and that over-rides the Isur of "Lo Yilbash".
(a)Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah forbids one to remove a pot from the box of wool- shearings, where it was placed before Shabbos, because they may cave in, in which case, he is likely to return the pot, which in turn, will cause him to reposition the Muktzah shearings. Does this mean that, according to the Tana Kama, it is permitted to return the pot, if the shearings do cave in?
(b)Then what does the Mishnah mean, when it writes 'Notel u'Machzir'? If the Mishnah is speaking when the shearings did not cave in, what is the Chidush?
(a)Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah forbids one to remove a pot from the box of wool- shearings, where it was placed before Shabbos, because they may cave in, in which case, he is likely to return the pot, which in turn, will cause him to reposition the Muktzah shearings. This does not mean that the Tana Kama permits it. WHat it does mean is - that he is not concerned that one might come to do so.
(b)When the Tana Kama writes 'Notel u'Machzir', he is indeed speaking when the shearings did not cave in - and the Chidush is that he does not decree taking the pot in the first place for fear that the shearings might cave in and he will nevertheless return it (contravening the laws of Muktzah) - as Rebbi Elazar ben Azarya does.
(a)On what condition does Rav Huna permit pulling out a plant (which has not taken root) from the earth of a plant-pot?
(b)What similar Halachah does Shmuel teach us regarding a knife?
(c)How do we refute Rav Huna's statement, from the Mishnah in Kil'ayim: 'ha'Tomen Lefes u'Tzenon ... '.
(d)We also permit sticking a knife into a clump of tightly-packed palm-spikes that protrude from the root of the tree. What is the Chidush there?
(a)Rav Huna permits the withdrawal of a plant from the earth of a plant-pot - provided it was pulled out and returned before Shabbos, so that, when one subsequently withdraws it on Shabbos, he will not move the earth (according to Tosfos - referred to by the Gilyon ha'Shas - the Isur here is not that of moving the earth, but of enlarging the hole).
(b)Similarly - Shmuel requires the same condition with regard to sticking a knife between the rows of bricks of a building.
(c)We refute Rav Huna's statement however, from the Mishnah in Kil'ayim - which specifically permits the withdrawal of a turnip from the ground, provided part of it is showing, so that it is not necessary to touch the Muktzah earth with one's hands. So we see that 'Tiltul min ha'Tzad' - moving Muktzah indirectly (in order to take what is not Muktzah) is permitted. And the Tana permits this even if one had not pulled it out and re-placed it before Shabbos, disproving Rav Huna.
(d)We also permit sticking a knife into a clump of tightly-packed palm-spikes that protrude from the root of the tree - despite the possibility that one might come to peel off some of the bark - which would constitute 'Memachek' (smoothening).
(a)Why does the Mishnah in Kil'ayim require some of the leaves of the turnip to be protruding?
(b)Which three Isurim, besides that of Shabbos, does the Mishnah in Kil'ayim come to permit, due to the fact that the turnip (or the radish) did not take root?
(a)The Mishnah in Kil'ayim requires some of the leaves of the turnip to be protruding - in order to avoid touching the earth directly (as we already explained in earlier).
(b)Besides the Isur of Shabbos - the Mishnah in Kil'ayim comes to permit the Isurim of Kil'ayim, Shevi'is and Tevel (all due to the fact that it did not yet take root).