(a)Why did Chazal forbid covering one's hot pot on Shabbos - even with something that does not increase the heat?
(b)May one re-place on Shabbos, the cover of a pot that slipped off?
(c)What would one be permitted to do on a hot summer's day on Shabbos, to prevent a flask of cold water from becoming heated by the sun?
(d)Considering that we already know this Din from the Mishnah, why did Rav Yehudah deem it necessary to quote Shmuel to the same effect?
(a)Chazal forbade covering a pot on Shabbos, even with a cover that does not increase the heat - fof fear that, a person who discovers that his food has become cold, may then come to put the pot on the fire, to heat it up.
(b)If the cover off a pot slipped off on Shabbos - one is not permitted re-cover it.
(c)To prevent a flask of cold water from becoming heated by the sun - one may place it under a cover.
(d)Despite the fact that that we already know this Din from the Mishnah, Rav Yehudah nevertheless deems it necessary to quote Shmuel to the same effect - because our Mishnah mentions water, which one does not commonly cover in order to heat it in this way. Consequently, there is no reason to prohibit cooling it (because Chazal did not issuue prohibitiond in istances that are uncommon. So we need Rav Yehudah to permit this even with regard to a food dish, which it is common to cover in this way, in order to heat it (and we may have thought that it would be forbidden - even when one is covering it in order to keep it cool);
(a)Rebbi initially forbade the wrapping of cold pots, to keep them cool. What caused him to change his mind?
(b)In what context did Rebbi say 'K'var Horeh Zakein'?
(c)What did Rav Papa comment on that statement of Rebbi's?
(a)Rebbi initially forbade the wrapping of cold pots, to keep them cool. He retracted from his original opinion, when he heard from Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi that his father permitted it.
(b)'Kevar Horeh Zaken' means that the elder (in this case, Rebbi Yossi) has already ruled ('and who am I to rule differently')?
(c)Rav Papa commented on the love that the Talmidei-Chachamim bore each other. Had Rebbi Yossi been alive, he would (in spite of his greatness - Rashi, see also Tosfos DH 'Ilu'), have submitted himself to Rebbi, who was the Prince and the head of the Sanhedrin. Nevertheless, Rebbi submitted to his opinion,
(a)Rav Nachman followed the ruling of his Rebbe Shmuel, in the above matter. What else did he do to conform with the opinion of his other Rebbe, Rav?
(b)Why was Rebbi Ami cross with Rav Nachman?
(a)Rav Nachman followed the ruling of his Rebbe Shmuel, in the above matter - he also instructed Daro his slave, to fetch him hot water that had been heated by a non-Jewish baker because, according to Rav, 'Bishul Akum' does not apply to any food that can be eaten or drunk uncooked.
(b)Rav Ami was cross with Rav Nachman because, in his opinion, he should have taken a more stringent view, since he was an important person, from whom others may learn to be adopt other unwarranted leniencies.
(a)The Tana Kama permits adding covers to a boiling pot on Shabbos. Rabban Gamliel is even more lenient (see Tosfos DH 'Keitzad'). What does he say?
(b)What second lenient ruling does Rabban Gamliel issue with regard to Hatmanah?
(c)Under which circumstances is it forbidden to take a pot from its wrapping on Shabbos?
(d)If the wrapping at the side of the pot is not Muktzah, why can he not remove it, pick up the pot and tilt it on its side - to allow the Muktzah cover to slide off? Is there any way in which he will be able to have his Cholent, despite the Muktzah cover?
(a)The Tana Kama permits adding covers to a boiling pot on Shabbos.Rabban Gamliel goes even further. He permits not only to add covers to the boiling pot - but even to change one cover for another, even a better cover to re-place an inferior one.
(b)Rabban Gamliel permits even covering with a new cover, if the food was emptied into a second pot - because now that he is taking steps to cool the food down (by pouring it into a K'li Sheni), he is most unlikely to go and heat it the reason for the prohibition of Hatmanah!
(c)It is forbidden to take the pot from its wrapping - if it is covered with a Muktzah cover and the top of the lid does not protrude from it.
(d)Even if the wrapping at the side of the pot is not Muktzah, he cannot remove it, pick up the pot and tilt it on its side to allow the Muktzah cover to slide off - because, having placed the cover there deliberately, the pot has become a 'Basis le'Davar he'Asur', (See also Tosfos DH 'O'). He wills be able to have his Cholent however, if some of the lid protrudes from the cover however, in which case he will be able to tilt the pot, in spite of the fact that it is still a Basis (See Ba'al ha'Ma'or end of this Perek).
(a)What is a Meicham, and what is a Kedeirah?
(b)If one has a hot Meicham and a hot Kedeirah, what is the Din as regards placing one on top of the other (See Bach and Rabeinu Chananel)?
(c)Under which condition is it permitted to cement its opening shut with dough on Shabbos?
(d)In which case will both placing the Meicham on top of the Kedeirah and vice-versa be prohibited?
(a)A 'Meicham' is a copper kettle, and a 'Kedeirah', an earthenware pot.
(b)Any combination of placing one of these hot containers on top of the other is permitted - because one is only preserving the heat, not increasing it. Neither is this considered Hatmanah, which Chazal forbade on Shabbos even if it is only to preserve the heat (because he is not wrapping the one with the other).
(c)One is permitted to cement the opening of the kettle or pot - provided the dough was kneaded before Shabbos.
(d)Place one on top of the other will be forbidden to - if the bottom one is hot and the top one, cold (because then one increases the heat of the top one).
(a)The Tana Kama forbids Hatmanah even of cold things. What does Rebbi Say about that?
(b)What is the Isur of rubbing snow or ice on Shabbos, to turn it into water?
(c)Then why is it permitted to put ice into wine to cool the wine, or to place it in a cup in the sun to melt?
(a)The Tana Kama forbids Hatmanah even of cold things. Rebbi permits it (provided one's intention is merely to keep them cool). (This is what he conceded to Rebbi Yossi - as we learnt on the previous Amud).
(b)Rubbing snow or ice to transform it into water, is forbidden (mi'de'Rabbanan) - because it is creating something new, which resembles a Melachah.
(c)The Rabbanan forbade this only because of its similarity to a Melachah. Consequently, placing ice into wine to cool the wine, or into a cup in the sun to melt them, is permitted - since, seeing as the act occurs by itself, one did not do anything, and it does not resemble a Melachah.
HADRAN ALACH 'BAMSEH TOMNIN'
PEREK BAMEH BEHEIMAH
(a)Which Isur does one transgress by allowing one's animal to go out into the street carrying loads? (See Tosfos DH 'Bameh').
(b)Then why may one allow one's camel to walk in the street with reins, or a dromedary with a nose-ring, or a horse with a ring around its neck - to which a rope is attached, with which to pull them?
(c)Which four animals may one allow to go out with rings around their necks?
(d)What does the Tana say about sprinkling those rings with the ashes of the Parah Adumah - should they become Tamei Mes, and about Toveling them?
(a)The Isur that one transgresses by allowing one's animal to go out into the street carrying loads - is that of "Lema'an Yanu'ach Shorcha va'Chamorcha" (Va'eschanan), which prohibits allowing one's animal to perform any of the thirty-nine Melachos (which is not for its own pleasure - such as plucking grass to eat) on Shabbos.
(b)One may nevertheless allow one's camel to walk in the street with reins, or a dromedary with a nose-ring, or a horse with a ring around its neck to which a rope is attached, with which to pull them - because whatever is needed to guard an animal, is permitted for the animal to carry. It is considered an ornament, and, like a human being is permitted (min ha'Torah) to wear ornaments in the street, so too is an animal.
(c)One may allow a horse, a mule, a camel and a donkey to go out into the street with rings around their necks.
(d)Should those rings become Tamei, the Tana permits them to be sprinkled with the ashes of the Parah Adumah, and to be Toveled as they are - even whilst the animal is actually wearing them.
(a)The 'Na'akah be'Chatam' mentioned in our Mishnah is described as a 'Na'aksa Chivr'sa bi'Zemama de'Parzela'. What does this mean?
(b)When Levi sent money to the people of Mechuza to buy him a Lubian (alias Egyption - see Tosfos DH 'Chamra') donkey, why did they send him back barley together with his money?
(c)What does 'Nigri de'Chamra, Sa'ari,' mean?
(a)A 'Na'akasa Chivr'sa bi'Zemama de'Parzela' means that a white dromedary is permitted to go out with a metal nose-ring.
(b)The people of Mechuza sent Levi barley together with his money, as a hint that he was better off bying a local donkey and feeding it constantly with barley, than going for a Lubian donkey - since, travelling alone would take them half a year there, and half a year back.
(c)'Nigri de'Chamra, Sa'ari' means that the footsteps of a donkey depends upon the amount of barley that one feeds it.
(a)They asked Rebbi what the Din will be if they switched the methods - to allow a dromedary to go out with reins, and a camel with a nose-ring. Why is the former case too obvious to even ask?
(b)What is the She'eilah in the latter case?
(c)Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi, quoting his father, permits four animals to go out with reins: a horse, a mule, a camel and a donkey. Which one of two things might this come to exclude?
(d)Which fifth animal is mentioned (together with a camel) in the Beraisa?
(a)They asked Rebbi what the Din will be if they switched the methods - to allow a dromedary to go out with reins, and a camel with a nose-ring. Why is the former case too obvious to even ask - since, seeing as a dromedary is not guarded with reins, it is obvious that it may not go out with them.
(b)The She'eilah in the case of a camel with a nose-ring, is whether excessive guarding is called carrying and is forbidden, or whether it remains within the realm of guarding, and is therefore permitted.
(c)Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi, quoting his father, permits four animals to go out with reins: a horse, a mule, a camel and a donkey. The fact that the Beraisa gives a number ('four') comes to preclude one case (because it is excessive): either a camel with a nose-ring or a dromedary with reins.
(d)The Beraisa permits a camel and a Lubian donkey to go out with reins.
(a)How do we connect the above She'eileh with the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Chananya, regarding whether a Chayah may go out with a rope or not. What sort of Chayah is the Beraisa talking about, and what exactly is the Machlokes?
(b)How do we know that the Beraisa is speaking about that type of Chayah specifically, and not about a larger or a smaller one?
(c)Why was Rabah bar Rav Huna upset with Levi?
(d)What did Levi ask him, in order to pacify him, and how did he answer the She'eileh?
(a)We establishes the Machlokes between the Tana Kama (who forbids a Chayah to go out with a 'collar', and Chananya, who permits it, by a cat, for which a collar is an excessive form of guarding. In that case, the point under discussion (whether or nor, excessive guarding is called carrying or not), is a Machlokes Tana'im - which the Tana Kama will forbid, and Chananya permit.
(b)We know that the Beraisa is speaking about that type of Chayah specifically, and not about a larger or a smaller one - because for a larger Chayah (like a lion), a collar would obviously be useless (so why would Chananya permit it?); whereas as far as a smaller Chayah is concerned, (such as a stoat or a weasel), a collar is ideal (so why would the Tana Kama forbid it?)
(c)Rabbah bar Rav Huna (who was greater than Levi) was upset with Levi - for allowing his donkey to go ahead of his own.
(d)Levi asked Rabbah bar Rav Huna whether a donkey such as the one he was riding (an unruly one that was difficult to control) was permitted to go out with a bit on Shabbos. And he answered the She'eileh by quoting Rabah bar Rav Huna's own father, who ruled in the name of Shmuel like Chananya, who permitted it.