(a)What is 'Sak' made of?
(b)What does the Beraisa mean, when it writes 'Mosaf Sak al ha'Beged, she'Tamei Mishum Arig'? Is a garment not also woven?
(c)Who generally wore clothes made of goats' hair?
(a)Sak is made of - goat's hair.
(b)When the Beraisa writes 'Mosaf Sak al ha'Beged, she'Tamei Mishum Arig' - it is referring to three strands of Sak which a man twines together - without weaving them, to use as ribbons in his daughter's hair. The Tana is in fact, informing us that, although they have not been woven, they are considered as if they had been, and are subject to Tum'ah.
(c)It is the shepherds who generally wore clothes made of goat's hair (as we learnt earlier with regard to a shepherd's head-gear).
(a)What do we learn from "O Sak" written in Vayikra - in connection with Tum'as Sheretz?
(b)Why are ropes and cords made of goats' hair not subject to Tum'ah - like Kilkeli and Chavak?
(a)Initially, we learn from "O Sak" - that even accessories of a horse's saddle which are made out of goat's hair are subject to Tum'ah, provided they are spun and woven,.
(b)Ropes and cords made of goat's hair are not subject to Tum'ah like Kilkeli and Chavak - because, unlike them, they are not even spun.
(a)Why do we need the 'Gezeirah Shavah' of "Beged ve'Or" "Beged ve'Or" from Tum'as Sheretz, to teach us that ropes and cords made of goats' hair are not subject to Tum'as Meis? Why can we not learn this from a 'Binyan Av' from Tum'as Sheretz?
(b)In what way is Tum'as Meis more stringent than Tum'as Sheretz?
(c)Since we just used "O Sak" to include Kilkeli and Chavak in the Din of Tum'as Sheretz, how can we then go on to use the same word to include in the Din of Tum'ah, things made of a horse's or a cow's tail?
(d)Why can we not apply this Chumra to Tum'as Mes with a 'Kal va'Chomer' or a 'Binyan Av' from Tum'as Sheretz? Why do we need the 'Gezeirah Shavah' of "Beged ve'Or"?
(a)We need the 'Gezeirah Shavah' of "Beged ve'Or" "Beged ve'Or" from Tum'as Sheretz, to teach us that ropes and cords made of goats' hair are not subject to Tum'as Mes. We cannot learn it from a Binyan Av from Tum'as Meis - because Tum'as Meis is inherently more stringent than Tum'as Sheretz.
(b)Tum'as Meis is more stringent than Tum'as Sheretz - inasmuch as its Tum'ah lasts for seven days, while Tum'as Sheretz lasts for only one.
(c)Now that we have the Gezeirah Shavah of 'Beged ve'Or'(which is open to work both ways), we can learn Kilkeli and Chavak by Tum'as Sheratzim from Tum'as Meis, where the Torah writes "ve'*Chol* Ma'aseh Izim". Consequently, "O Sak" becomes available to include things made from the tail of a horse or a cow in the Din of Tum'as Sheratzim.
(d)We cannot even learn this Chumra from Tum'as Sheratzim to Tum'as Meis with a Binyan Av - because' although we said earlier that Tum'as Meis is more stringent because its Tum'ah lasts for seven days, we have the counter-argument - that Tum'ah that lasts for only one day is more common (i.e. Sheretz, Neveilah, Shichvas Zera, Maga ha'Zav and Maga Tamei Meis), whereas only a minority of Tum'os last for seven days.
(a)Why must "Beged ve'Or" be Mufneh (superfluous)? Why could we not otherwise learn Tum'as Mes from the Chumros of Tum'as Sheretz?
(b)Why indeed, is "Beged ve'Or" by Sheretz superfluous?
(c)And according to the Tana who requires both sides of a Gezeirah Shavah to be superfluous, how is "Beged ve'Or" superfluous by Tum'as Mes?
(a)"Beged ve'Or" must be Mufneh. We could not otherwise learn Tum'as Meis from the Chumros of Tum'as Sheretz - because Sheretz has a Chumra over Meis, inasmuch as it is Metamei already when it is the size of a 'k'Adashah', wherea a Meis requires a 'k'Zayis'.
(b)"Beged ve'Or" by Sheretz is superfluous - because we learn Sheretz from Shichvas Zera through the medium of 'S'muchin' (since they are juxtaposed in Shemini), and the Torah has written by Shichvas Zera "ve'Chol Beged ve'Chol Or" - leaving us with an extra "Beged ve'Or" (which is now available for the Gezeirah Shavah).
(c)According to the Tana who requires both sides of a Gezeirah Shavah to be superfluous, "Beged ve'Or" is superfluous by Tum'as Meis - because we already learn Tamei Meis from Shichvas Zera, by means of a Hekesh (since they are both mentioned in the same Pasuk in Shemini).
(a)Among the booty brought back by the soldiers from the battle with Midyan, were the Agil and the Kumaz. What was the 'Kumaz', and why does Unkelus translate it as 'Gichuch'?
(b)Why was Moshe initially angry with the officers (see Agados Maharsha), and what did he ask them after they replied that none of the soldiers had sinned?
(c)Why did they need a Kaparah"?
(d)What do we learn from the fact that the Torah lists the outer ornaments together with the inner ones?
(a)Among the booty brought back by the soldiers from the battle with Midyan, were the Agil and the Kumaz - an ornament shaped like a womb and worn there. This explains why Unkelus translates it as 'Gichuch', meaning frivolity.
(b)Moshe was originally angry with the officers - for bringing back the women whom they had captured. He accused them of the same sin as that which caused the plague (which in turn, claimed twenty-four thousand lives, and) which resulted in their having to go to war with Midyan, to avenge Klal Yisrael's humiliation. When they replied that none of the men were guilty of sinning with the women - he asked them why they then brought back an atonement in the form of the Kumaz.
(c)The officers pointed out that, although the soldiers were not guilty of actually sinning with the Midionite women, they were not however, completely clear of bad thoughts. And it was on account of those thoughts that this atonement was necessary.
(d)The Torah lists the outer ornaments together with the inner ones - to teach us that gazing at just the little finger of a woman (where the ring is worn), is just as bad as gazing at the rest of her body.
(a)Why does the Mishnah need to inform us that a woman may go out even with strands of hair taken ...
1. ... from her friend?
2. ... from an animal?
(b)Why may an old woman not go out with strands of hair taken from a young one?
(c)Why does the Mishnah then need to inform us that a young woman is also not permitted to go out with the strands of an old one? Is that not obvious?
(a)The Mishnah needs to inform us that a woman is permitted to go out with strands of hair taken ...
1. ... from her friend - because we might have thought that somebody else's hair looks comical on her, causing others to laugh at her. And she will react by taking it off and carrying it (in spite of the fact that this will entail uncovering her hair).
2. ... from an animal - because even if another woman's hair is not so different than her own, and people might not notice the difference, this is certainly not the case with a wig made of animal's hair, which is bound to catch their attention. Therefore, we need the Mishnah to teach us that even that is permitted (because a woman will not uncover her hair in public even under such circumstances).
(b)An old woman may not go out with strands of hair taken from a young one - because black hair on white looks ugly, and people are likely to laugh at her, in which case she will remove it and carry it in the street.
(c)The Mishnah does not really need to inform us that a young woman is forbidden to go out with hair taken from an old one - which in fact appears even more ugly than the other way round. Only, since the Mishnah mentioned the one, it sees fitting to mention the other.
(a)A woman is permitted to go out wearing a head-band or a head-scarf, provided they are tied to a Kevul or to a Pei'ah Nochris. What is ...
1. ... a Kevul?
2. ... a Pei'ah Nochris?
(b)Is she permitted to wear them ...
1. ... in the street?
2. ... in the courtyard?
(c)Under certain circumstances, a woman is permitted to go out with a pepper or a grain of salt in her mouth. May she return it, if it falls out?
(d)Everyone agrees that a woman is permitted to go out with a detachable false tooth taken from someone else. Rebbi even permits her to go out with a golden tooth. What do the Rabbanan say?
(a)A woman is permitted to go out wearing a head-band or a head-scarf, provided they are tied to a K'vul or to a Pei'ah Nochris.
1. A K'vul is - unanimously translated as a woolen hat (even though there are two opinions regarding the 'K'vul' mentioned in the first Mishnah in the Perek).
2. A Pei'ah Nochris is - a Sheitel (a wig).
(b)She is ...
1. ... not permitted to wear them in the street.
2. ... however, permitted to wear them in the courtyard.
(c)A woman is permitted to go in the street with a pepper or a grain of salt in her mouth - provided she put it there before Shabbos (see Tosfos, DH 'u'Vilevad').
(d)Everyone agrees that a woman is permitted to go out with a detachable false tooth taken from someone else. Rebbi even permits her to go out with a golden tooth. The Rabbanan forbid it (because people will laugh at her, causing her to remove it and carry it and carry it in the street).
(a)According to Rav, how do we reconcile the fact that a woman is forbidden to wear her ornaments in the courtyard, with the fact that they are not Muktzah, and she is permitted to walk around with them in her hand?
(b)What are the two exceptions, and why is that?
(c)What is the opinion of Rav Anani bar Sason in this matter?
(d)What does Rav Anani bar Sason do with our Mishnah, which permits only a Kevul and a Pei'ah Nochris to be worn in the Chatzer?
(a)According to Rav, a woman's ornaments are not Muktzah, and she may walk around the house or the courtyard with them. Chazal however, forbade her to wear them - because we are afraid that she may go out with them into the street.
(b)The two exceptions are - the K'vul and the Pei'ah Nochris. These, Chazal precluded from the decree, because a woman without any ornaments might lose her attraction to her husband. So Chazal permitted her to wear them even in the courtyard.
(c)Rav Anani bar Sason - permits a woman to wear all her ornaments in the courtyard.
(d)Rav Anani bar Sason has no problem with our Mishnah, which confines this concession to a K'vul and a Pei'ah Nochris - since he quotes his opinion in the name of Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi, who is a Tana, and has the authority to argue with a Mishnah.
(a)How did the early Zekeinim interpret the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'ha'Davah be'Nidasah"?
(b)On what grounds did Rebbi Akiva reject that explanation?
(c)So how does he interpret it?
(a)The early Zekeinim explained the Pasuk "ve'ha'Davah be'Nidasah" - to mean that a woman may not adorn herself or even put on make-up during her period of Nidus.
(b)Rebbi Akiva objected to this explanation - on the grounds that make-up endears a woman to her husband; without it, she will lose her attraction to him, a situation which the Torah would never encourage.
(c)So he interprets the Pasuk to mean - that a woman remains a Nidah - even after the initial seven days have passed (and she is no longer seeing blood) until she Tovels in a Mikveh.