(a)What does Rav Yehudah quoting Rav say about 'Mar'is ha'Ayin'?
(b)What does Rav do with the Beraisa, which, commenting on the Mishnah in the previous Perek, permits one to stop up the bell around the animal's neck, and to go with it in the courtyard - despite the fact that, in the street, it would be forbidden because of 'Mar'is ha'Ayin'?
(c)In fact, Rav holds like Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon, who forbid hanging up clothes that became wet in the rain, to dry. What does the Tana Kama say?
(a)Rav Yehudah quoting Rav says - that whatever Chazal forbade because of Mar'is ha'Ayin, is forbidden even in a private room, where nobody is there to see him.
(b)Even though our Mishnah disagrees with Rav, he holds like one of two opinions in a Beraisa.
(c)In fact, Rav holds like Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon, who forbid hanging up clothes that became wet in the rain, to dry. The Tana Kama - permits it, provided they are not in full view of the people.
(a)What does Rami bar Yechezkel (quoting a Beraisa) say about both the cotton-wool in the ear and the soft pad in the shoe - both of which the Mishnah permits a woman to go out with?
(b)Why does this qualification not also apply to the cotton-wool which she uses, to prevent the blood of Nidus from dripping on her clothes?
(c)Will it make any difference if she attaches a handle to it?
(d)In view of Rami bar Yechezkel's Beraisa, why did Rebbi Yochanan go out with cotton-wool in his ears - even though it was not tied?
(a)Rami bar Yechezkel (quoting a Beraisa) says that both the cotton-wool in the ears and the soft pad in the shoe, which the Mishnah permits - are permitted only if they have been tied.
(b)This does not however, apply to the cotton-wool which a woman uses to prevent the blood of Nidus from dripping on her clothes - because it is disgusting, and she is hardly likely to carry it in the street.
(c)And that is the case even if a handle is attached to it.
(d)Rebbi Yochanan went with cotton-wool tied in his ears, even though it was not tied - because he had placed it firmly in his ear, and it was unlikely to fall out. The Beraisa of Rami bar Yechezkel, which requires it to be tied, speaks when it has not not been fitted tightly.
(a)Why would a woman keep in her mouth ...
1. ... a long pepper?
2. ... a grain of salt?
(b)What else might she put in her mouth (presumably to counter bad breath)?
(c)Why is a woman permitted to go out with a silver tooth?
(d)What does Rebbi say about a woman going out with a gold tooth?
(a)A woman would keep in her mouth ...
1. ... a long pepper - if she suffered from bad breath.
2. ...a grain of salt - if she suffered from tooth-ache.
(b)She might also keep ginger or cinnamon in her mouth (presumably if she suffered from bad breath).
(c)A woman is permitted to go out with a silver tooth - either because it resembles the other teeth sufficiently for people not to laugh at her, or because it is not so valuable that she is likely to carry it home, even if the people's mocking should cause her to take it out of her mouth.
(d)According to Rebbi - she may go out even with a gold tooth.
(a)What do the following Tana'im have in common: Rebbi (whom we just quoted); Rebbi Eliezer, who permits a woman to go out with a Koveles and a Tzeluchis shel Pelaiton; Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, who permits a woman to go out with anything which is worn underneath her golden head-dress?
(a)Rebbi (whom we just quoted); Rebbi Eliezer, who permits a woman to go out with a Koveles and a Tzeluchis shel Pelaiton; Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, who permits a woman to go out with anything which is worn underneath the golden head-dress - all hold that a woman will not show her friends something whose removal will put her to shame. Consequently, the prohibition of going in the street wearing ornaments will not apply to them.
(a)What is a Sela she'Al ha'Tzinis?
(b)May one go out with it on Shabbos?
(c)What were the 'Kismin' which young girls would wear in their ears?
(d)Why would it incorrect to establish the threads mentioned here as threads worn in the hair, which the Mishnah forbade above with regard to women, and permits here by girls, because they do not need to Tovel?
(a)A Sela she'Al ha'Tzinis is - a Sela coin that one ties to a sore foot to heal it.
(b)One may go out with it on Shabbos.
(c)They would pierce a young girl's ears before she was due to wear ear-rings. 'Kismin' - were the threads or twigs that would place in the hole in the interim, to prevent the hole from closing.
(d)would it incorrect to establish the threads mentioned here as threads worn in the hair, which the Mishnah forbade above with regard to women, and permits here by girls, because they do not need to Tovel - because the contention that young girls do not need to Tovel, is a fallacy a. because Nidus was common among young girls too, and b. because people in those days were particular about Taharos, in which case, unless a young girl Toveled, she would render Tamei, any Taharos that she touched. In addition, it is more correct (for grammatical reasons) to explain that the threads (in our Mishnah), like the twigs, were worn in the ear, and not in the hair (like Rashi's Rebbes maintain) - because the Mishnah writes 'va'Afilu be'Kismin', which implies that the twigs were merely an extension of the Din of threads, not something new.
(a)What is the meaning of ...
1. ... 'Arabi'os Yotz'os Re'ulos?
2. ... 'Modi'os Perufos'?
(b)Are women who do not live in Arabia or Medes permitted to go out like that?
(c)What else could one have used as an alternative, had the healing-power of the coin (regarding the wound on one's foot) been due to ...
1. ... its hardness?
2. ... its moistness?
3. ... the shape minted on it?
(d)If it is not one of these three things that enables the Sela to cure the wound, then what is it?
1. 'Arabi'os Yotz'os Re'ulos' means - that Jewish women living in Arabia were permitted to go out with a type of Kafiyah which covered the entire face, except for the eyes.
2. And likewise 'Modi'os Yotz'os Perufos' means - that the Jewish women living in Medes were permitted to go out with a type of Kafiyah to which they attached a stone or a nut to one end, and around which they wound the other end.
(b)In fact - any Jewish woman is permitted to go out with these, and the Mishnah only mentions women from Arabia and from Medes, because that was the norm there.
(c)Assuming the healing-power of the coin (regarding the wound on one's foot) to be due to ...
1. ... its hardness - they could have used a piece of clay;
2. ... its moistness - they could have used a piece of silver;
3. ... the shape minted on it - they could have carved a shape on any piece of wood and used that.
(d)The truth of the matter is - that it is the combination of all three that made the coin so useful, and consequently, nothing else but a minted coin would do.
(a)Since our Mishnah permits young girls to go out with threads in their ears, why did Shmuel's father forbid his daughters to go out with them?
(b)He also forbade them to sleep next to each other. Is this a proof for Rav Huna, who says that women who rub their bodies together, are Pasul to marry a Kohen Gadol?
(c)Seeing as there was no Kohen Gadol in the time of Rav Huna, what does he mean? Why should they then be Pasul?
(a)Despite the fact that our Mishnah permits young girls to go out with threads in their ears, Shmuel's father nevertheless forbade his daughters to go out with them - because they wanted to go out with colored threads in their ears, whereas our Mishnah permits only plain ones.
(b)Shmuel's father forbade his daughters to sleep together, not necessarily because he held that this might render them Pasul to marry a Kohen Gadol (like Rav Huna) - but because he did not want to let them get used to having contact with other bodies, something which might instill a desire to sleep with men.
(c)Seeing as there was no Kohen Gadol in the time of Rav Huna, what does he meant was - that Chazal in their time considered that sort of behavior immoral, he considered it improper in his time.
(a)What does 'Mitra be'Ma'arva, Sahada Raba P'ras' mean?
(b)What does that have to do with the fact that Shmuel's father would make Mikva'os for his daughters in Nisan?
(c)Shmuel disagrees with his father. What does he say?
(d)But Shmuel also said 'Ein ha'Mayim Metaharin be'Zochlin Ela P'ras be'Yomei Tishri Bil'vad'. How does this statement clash with his previous one?
(a)'Mitra be'Ma'arva, Sahada Raba P'ras' means - that when it rains in Eretz Yisrael ('Mitra be'Ma'arva'), the River P'ras is witness to this ('Sahada Raba P'ras'), because its waters swell, and when it flows from Eretz Yisrael to Bavel, it is fuller than usual.
(b)As a result, the P'ras would often comprise more rain water that natural water, rendering it Pasul for Tevilah, since rain water is only Kasher for Tevilah when it is gathered, but not when it is flowing. And that exlains why - Shmuel's father would arranged Mikva'os for his daughters in Nisan.
(c)Shmuel disagrees with his father. He maintains that the River P'ras generated its own growth, and was not affected by the heavy rains.
(d)But Shmuel also said 'Ein ha'Mayim Metaharin be'Zochlin Ela P'ras be'Yomei Tishri Bil'vad' (one is not permitted to Tovel in rivers other than the River P'ras in the month of Tishri), by which time the rain water has long stopped and diminished, and the natural water will, once again, have become predominant. According to this statement - Shmuel holds like his father, that the rain water does affect the waters of P'ras. As a matter of fact, he appears to be even more stringent than his father, who only forbade use of the River in Nisan, whereas he forbade it all the months of the year except Tishri.
(a)How do we reconcile the Seifa of our Mishnah, which forbids 'Perifah' Lechatchilah, with the Reisha 'Porefes Al ha'Even, ve'Al ha'Egoz, ve'Al ha'Matbe'a' - even Lechatchilah?
(b)Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yossi argue over whether one is allowed to 'diddle' (legally, by pretending) - to wear as many clothes as one can possibly wear, in order to move them from the scene of a fire. Why might carrying out a nut in the form of a fastener, with the inention of giving it to one's son to eat ...
1. ... be worse than the case of the clothes according to Rebbi Meir, who is lenient there?
2. ... be better than the case of the clothes, according to Rebbi Yossi, who is strict there)?
(a)We reconcile the Seifa of our Mishnah, which forbids 'P'rifah' Lechatchilah, with the Reisha 'Porefes Al ha'Even, ve'Al ha'Egoz, ve'Al ha'Matbei'a', even Lechatchilah - by establishing the Seifa by a nut that is tied to the stone, which is permitted even Lechatchilah, provided they were previously designated for that purpose; whereas the Reisha is speaking when the stone is tied to a coin (which is Muktzah even if it was designated for that specific purpose), unless one actually used it in that capacity before Shabbos, which is what the Tana by Bedieved.
(b)Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yossi argue over whether one is allowed to 'diddle' (legally, by pretending) - to wear as many clothes as one can possibly wear, in order to move them from the scene of a fire. Carrying out a nut in the form of a fastener - in order to give it to one's son to eat might be ...
1. ... worse than the case of the clothes according to Rebbi Meir, who is lenient there - because the reason that he is lenient is because if we would not permit him to save his clothes in this way, he would put out the fire directly; whereas a woman will not carry out the nut directly, just because she was not permitted to carry it out using Perifah.
2. ... better than the case of the clothes, according to Rebbi Yossi, who is strict there) - because Rebbi Yossi's reasoning there, based on the fact that people do not usually wear two of the same kind of clothing, and doing so, constitutes carrying; whereas a woman who uses a stone as a fastener (irrespective of her intention), is not carrying it.
(a)'ha'Kitei'a Yotzei be'Kav she'Lo'. What does this mean? Why is it permitted?
(b)Why does Rebbi Yossi forbid it?
(c)What will render the Kav fit to receive Tum'ah?
(d)Why is the wooden stump not fit to receive Tum'ah anyway, because it has a hollow to receive the stump of the lame man's leg?
(a)'ha'Kitei'a Yotze be'Kav she'Lo' means - that a man whose leg from the calf down has been amputated, may walk in the street with a stump.
(b)Rebbi Yossi forbids it, since it is neither a garment, nor a Tachshit - because he does not really need it (seeing as he already uses sticks to help him walk. Consequently, the stump is dispensable).
(c)If the stump is hollow, so as to hold soft cloths (which serve to bear the brunt of the stump) - it will become fit to receive Tum'ah (otherwise not, because flat pieces of wood cannot receive Tum'ah).
(d)The fact that it is has a hollow to receive the lame man's leg is not sufficient to render it fit to receive Tum'ah - because the stump is not meant to actually carry his leg.
(a)What are a lame man's 'Semuchos'?(Note: the lame man in the previous case only has one leg missing, whereas the lame man here is missing two, so he shuffles about on his knees and calves.
(b) What Din do these Semuchos have with regard to Tum'ah and Shabbos?
(c)Considering the prohibition to enter the Azarah with shoes, why is he permitted to enter the Azarah withs Semuchos?
(a)A lame man's 'Semuchos' - are the leather covers that are made to support the stumps of a man who has had both legs amputated (and who therefore shuffles about on his knees and calves.
(b)Since they are actually intended to support his stumps, the Semuchos are Tamei Medras - during the time that he is a Zav, and he is permitted to go out with them on Shabbos, since they are considered a Tachshit (because they are indispensable to him, and whatever is indispensible is considered a Tachshit).
(c)Despite the prohibition to enter the Azarah with shoes, he is permitted to enter the Azarah with his Semuchos - because they are not worn at the end of his leg, but in the middle, to protect that of his leg as he drags it across the ground. Consequently, it does not fall under the category of a shoe.
(a)We are now speaking about a lame man who cannot even shuffle about on his knees and calves, but sits on a chair and drags himself along - using his arms and the stumps of his legs to which Semuchos are tied, pulling the chair with him. Why are his Semuchos forbidden on Shabbos?
(b)And why is he not permitted to enter the Azarah with them? Why is he worse than the lame man whom we just discussed?
(a)The Semuchos of a lame man who cannot even shuffle about on his knees and calves, but sits on a chair and drags himself along (using the arms and the stumps of his legs to which Semuchos are attached), pulling the chair with him are forbidden on Shabbos - because, like the stump of the man who has only one leg missing, they are not indispensable - or else because they are more prone to fall off, and we suspect that he may carry them in the street.
(b)Nor is he permitted to enter the Azarah with them - because they are attached o the end of his leg and therefore fall under the category of shoes.