(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Ezra "Leromem es Beis Elokeinu, u'Le'ha'amid es Chorvosav"?
(b)To which kind of buildings will this not apply?
(c)What did Rav Ashi claim to have achieved in Masa Machsaya?
(a)We learn from the Pasuk "Leromem es Beis Elokeinu" - that a town where the houses are higher than the Shul, will eventually be destroyed.
(b)This does not apply to buildings which are primarily built for beauty and not for habitation.
(c)Rav Ashi claimed that, by ensuring that nobody built his house higher than the Shul - he prevented the town from being destroyed.
(a)What is the significance of the following list: an Arab, a Nochri (who is meant by a Nochri?), a Chaver (who were the Chaveirim?), and a Talmid Chacham (all stated by Rava bar Machsaya quoting Rav Chama bar Gurya Amar Rav - the author of all the current sayings in this Sugya)?
(b)With whom should one be even more careful not to cross swords?
(c)Which is the worst ...
1. ... of all the illnesses?
2. ... of all the acute pains?
3. ... of all the mild pains?
(d)What does Rava bar Machsaya bar Rav Chama bar Gurya in the name of Rav say about a situation where all the seas would be ink, the marshes, quills, the skies, parchment and all the people, scribes?
(a)Rava bar Machsaya quoting Rav Chama bar Gurya Amar Rav said - any time an Arab, rather than a Nochri (which according to Rashi, means a Roman); a Roman, rather a Chaver (a nation connected with the Persians); A Chaver rather than a Talmid Chacham (whose punishment when crossed can be devastating - see Pirkei Avos 2:10).
(b)One should be even more careful not to cross swords with widows and orphans, whose tears immediately evoke the Divine mercy. (The wife of someone who hurts a widow or orphans will become a widow, and his children, orphans - see Sh'mos 22:21-23.)
(c)The worst ...
1. ... of all the illnesses is stomach sickness.
2. ... of all the acute pains is heart pains.
3. ... of all the mild pains is a headache.
(d)If all the seas were ink, says Rava bar Machsaya bar Rav Chama bar Gurya in the name of Rav, and all the marshes, quills, the skies parchment and all the people, scribes - that would not suffice to transcribe all the affairs of the ruling power (such as the taxation of vassal states, wars and judgements).
(a)When Rebbi Yehoshua B'rei de'Rav Idi arrived at Rav Ashi's house, they prepared him a 'third calf'. What is the significance of a third calf?
(b)Why did he refuse to partake of it?
(c)What suggestion did Rav Ashi make?
(d)Why did Rebbi Yehoshua not take up his suggestion?
(a)The first two calves are born before the cow has attained its full strength, and are therefore not so strong - the third calf, which is born after the mother has attained its full strength, is the healthiest and the strongest of all.
(b)When Rebbi Yehoshua B'rei de'Rav Idi arrived at Rav Ashi's house, they prepared him a 'third calf' of which he refused to partake - because he was fasting.
(c)Rav Ashi suggested that he should make use of Rav Yehudah's Heter of 'borrowing his fast and paying it back' (eating that day, and fasting another day instead.
(d)Rebbi Yehoshua did not take up his suggestion - because he was fasting a Ta'anis Chalom, to which Rav Yehudah's Heter does not apply (seeing as it is effective only if one fasts immediately on the day following the dream.
(a)The Mishnah writes 'Ein Mafsikin li'Tefilah'. What problem do we have with this statement?
(b)What do we answer?
(c)To whom does this Din apply?
(d)'Keshem she'Ein Mafsikin li'Tefilah, Kach Ein Mafsikin li'Keri'as Shema'. How do we reconcile this Beraisa with what we just wrote to explain our Mishnah?
(a)The Mishnah writes 'Ein Mafsikin li'Tefilah'. The problem with this is - why the Tana should see fit to repeat this Halachah, when we have just learnt (in the same Mishnah) 've'Im Hischilu, Ein Mafsikin'?
(b)We answer - that the Seifa of the Mishnah is speaking, not about interrupting one's meal etc., but about interrupting one's Torah-study (where the Din is the same as in the Reisha (for Keri'as Shema, yes, for Tefilah, no).
(c)This Din is restricted however - to people of the caliber of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai, whose Torah-study was literally full-time.
(d)The Beraisa, which writes 'Kach Ein Mafsikin li'Keri'as Shema', is referring neither to interrupting one's meal, nor one's Torah-study; it refers to interrupting during the deliberations of whether to institute a leap-year or not.
(a)Why may a tailor not go out with his needle stuck in his lapel, or a scribe with his quill stuck behind his ear on Friday afternoon shortly before Shabbos?
(b)Which two things does the Mishnah expressly forbid one to do by the light of a lamp on Shabbos?
(a)A tailor or a scribe may not go with the needle stuck in the lapel or the quill stuck behind the ear (respectively) on Friday afternoon shortly before Shabbos - because they might inadvertently come to carry them on Shabbos.
(b)The Mishnah forbids one to read or to delouse one's clothes on Friday night, by the glow of a lamp - because one may come to turn up the wick (it therefore applies equally to any occupation which requires scrutiny).
(a)The Chazen is not permitted to read by the light of a lamp on Shabbos, but he may watch the children reading. According to one explanation, he is the Gabai who calls people up to the Torah (and in those days the person who was called up also used to Lein). What is he then watching?
(b)Who is 'the Chazan' according to the second explanation? What is he watching?
(c)Why is a Zav forbidden to eat together with a Zavah?
(d)Would it be permitted if the man was not a Zav?
(a)The Chazen is not permitted to read by the light of a lamp on Shabbos, but he may watch the children reading. According to one explanation, he is the Gabai who calls people up to the Torah (and in those days the person who was called up also used to Lein) - and he is watching where in the Parshah, the children will make the stops with which he is not always conversant.
(b)Alternatively - the Chazen is the children's Rebbi, who is looking at the Chumash to see where the children are up to, in preparation for tomorrow's Shiur.
(c)A Zav may not eat together with a Zavah - in case this leads to his being Bo'el her (for which one is Chayav Chatas.
(d)If a Zav (for whom it is in any case difficult to have relations) is forbidden to eat with a Zavah - then how much more so a man who is not a Zav.
(a)It is forbidden to stand in a Reshus ha'Yachid and drink in a Reshus ha'Rabim or vice-versa. Under which circumstances is it permitted to do so?
(b)Abaye claims that the same prohibition will apply to standing in one of the two main Reshuyos and drinking from a Karmelis or vice-versa. What is Rava's objection to this?
(c)What is Abaye's proof from the Beraisa's words 've'Chein be'Gas'?
(d)Rava refutes this by applying the Seifa to Ma'aser. What is the Beraisa saying, according to Rava?
(a)It is permitted to drink from one Reshus to the other - provided one places one's head and most of his body in the Reshus where he is drinking.
(b)Abaye claims that the same prohibition will apply to standing in one of the two main Reshuyos and drinking from a Karmelis or vice-versa. Rava objects to this on the grounds that - carrying from a Karmelis to a major Reshus is only an Isur de'Rabbanan, and the Rabbanan do not decree a Gezeirah li'Gezeirah.
(c)Abaye's proves his point from the Beraisa's words 've'Chein be'Gas' - which must be coming to incorporate a Kirmelis in the Isur. Otherwise, what is the Tana adding to the Reisha?
(d)According to Rava, 've'Chein be'Gas' does not refer to the Din of carrying on Shabbos at all, but to Ma'aser. Normally, if someone takes wine from a wine-press, and drinks it on the spot, he is Patur from Ma'asros, since he intends to pour back whatever he does not drink (which renders that session casual, and is Patur from Ma'aser - since the wine has not yet flown into the pit, which is the final stage for Ma'asros). Once however, he takes the wine into another Reshus, he will not pour back any of the wine, in which case, the session is considered a fixture (which requires Ma'aser to be taken, before one is permitted to drink). The Tana of the Beraisa is teaching us, that if he leans his head and most of his body into the Reshus where the wine-press is, he is Patur from Ma'asering (like the Din of drinking on Shabbos).
(a)Rebbi Meir permits drinking from the wine-press without giving Ma'aser, and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok forbids it - neither differentiates between whether one dilutes the wine with hot or cold water. The Chachamim do. What do the Chachamim say? What is their reason?
(a)Rebbi Meir permits drinking from the wine-press without giving Ma'aser, and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok forbids it (neither differentiates between whether one dilutes the wine with hot or cold water). The Chachamim say - that if one dilutes the wine with cold water, then it is Patur from Ma'aser (because he may decide to pour some of the wine back into the wine-press - as we just explained); whereas if he dilutes it with hot water (in which case, he is unlikely to pour back the excess wine - because it will turn the rest of the wine sour), he is Chayav to Ma'aser the wine first.
(a)We learned above that, according to Rava, Chazal do not make a decree on what is only an Isur de'Rabbanan. What is the problem with that from our Mishnah, which forbids a tailor to go out with his needle close to Shabbos? How do we initially think that he is carrying it?
(b)After establishing our Mishnah when he is holding the needle in his hand, the Gemara quotes a Beraisa which forbids even if the tailor has the needle stuck in his lapel, so the question returns. Like whom do we establish the Beraisa in order to answer the question on Rava?
(c)Why does the Mishnah mention specifically a tailor? Why not anybody?
(d)Is this Din confined to a tailor and a scribe?
(a)We learned above that, according to Rava, Chazal do not make a decree on what is only an Isur de'Rabbanan. The problem with that from our Mishnah, which forbids a tailor to go out with his needle close to Shabbos is - that if, as we initially believe, the tailor is carrying the needle stuck in his lapel, then that is surely no more than an Isur de'Rabbanan; yet we see, that Chazal forbade the tailor to carry it on Erev Shabbos - a Gezeirah li'Gezeirah.
(b)After establishing our Mishnah when he is holding the needle in his hand, the Gemara quotes a Beraisa which forbids even if the tailor has the needle stuck in his lapel, so the question returns. According to Rava - the author of the Beraisa must be Rebbi Yehudah, in whose opinion, a tailor who carries a needle in his lapel is Chayav, since that is the way tailors often carry their needles (whenever they want to advertise their profession).
(c)The Mishnah mention specifically a tailor - because an ordinary person does not tend to walk around with a needle in his lapel (since he does not need to advertise anything). Consequently, it is never the norm. for him to carry a needle that way, so he will never be Chayav for doing so.
(d)The above Din will apply to any professional, who needs to advertise his profession (e.g. a carpenter with a small splinter of wood stuck in his ear, or a dyer with a small piece of dyed cloth hung around his neck as a sample ... ).
(a)One Beraisa rules that, although a Zav is forbidden to go out with his bag tied on, he is Patur if he does so. A second Beraisa rules that he is Chayav if he does. How does Rav Yosef attempt to reconcile the two Beraisos?
(b)On what grounds does Abaye's object to Rav Yosef's explanation? What is his proof from 'Hedyot she'Chakak Kav be'Bik'as', that he must he be Chayav?
(c)The Gemara concludes that, in principle, even Rebbi Meir will agree here that he is Chayav. In that case, how will we establish the Beraisa which rules that the Zav is Patur? Why is he Patur?
(a)One Beraisa rules that, although a Zav is forbidden to go out with his bag tied on, he is Patur if he does so. A second Beraisa rules that he is Chayav if he does. Rav Yosef attempts to reconcile the two Beraisos by establishing the Beraisa which declares a Zav for going out with his bag tied to him, guilty, according to Rebbi Yehudah (in whose opinion, a tailor who carries a needle in his lapel is Chayav, since that is the way tailors often carry their needles, as we quoted in the previous question), and the Beraisa which renders him Patur, according to Rebbi Meir.
(b)Abaye however, queries this, on the grounds that Rebbi Meir only exempts a professional, because even he does not usually walk around with his sample stuck in lapel, or in his ear or around his neck, as we explained. But when it comes to the bag of a Zav, which is the only way he carries it, even Rebbi Meir will agree that he is Chayav. And he proves this from a non-professional who carves out a hole in a block of wood. Will Rebbi Meir say that he is Patur, because he is a non-professional, who does not usually do this sort of thing? That would mean that only professionals are ever Chayav for doing a Melachah. Therefore, we have to say that if that is the way that he always performs the Melachah, he is Chayav (even though he does not usually perform that particular Melachah). Similarly, a Zav may well not normally wear his bag. Nevertheless, when he is a Zav, that is the way he carries his bag, so he will be Chayav, even according to Rebbi Meir.
(c)The Gemara concludes that, in principle, even Rebbi Meir will agree here that he is Chayav, and the Beraisa which rules that the Zav is Patur - speaks by a Zav who saw three times, who is Patur because he does not need his bag to establish that he is Chayav a Korban, like a Zav who saw only twice is.
(a)We established the Beraisa which says Patur, by a Zav who saw three times. But surely, he also needs the bag to count seven clean days?
(b)Does he not nevertheless need it in order to keep his clothes clean?
(c)What is the proof from the upturned dish (regarding the Din of 'be'Chi Yutan')? On what grounds, do we reject this proof?
(d)What is the Gemara's final answer - According to which Tana is the Zav who saw three times, Patur?
(a)The Beraisa which exempts the Zav who saw three times, speaks on the day when he had his third sighting, when there is absolutely no need for him to wear his bag, since, on that day, there is no checking that needs to be made (since he cannot begin counting seven clean days until the following day).
(b)Even though he needs the bag to keep his clothes clean - this Tana holds that any act that is performed in order to save something from becoming dirty is not considered an act, and one would therefore be Patur for its performance.
(c)We try to prove this from the Mishnah in Machshirin, which rules, that if someone overturns a dish on a wall, in order to prevent that part of the wall from becoming wet, the water is not included in the Din of 'Be'chi Yutan'. This means that the water is not considered 'wanted', so to speak, and if it then falls (unintentionally) onto fruit, the fruit does not become Tamei. We reject this, however - on the grounds that whereas in that case, he does not want the water at all, the Zav definitely wants the bag. So why should he not be Chayav?
(d)The Gemara finally concludes - that the author of the Beraisa, which renders Patur the Zav who saw three times, and who only needs the bag in order to protect his clothes from becoming dirty, is Rebbi Shimon, according to whom a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah' is Patur, because he does not want the outcome of what he has achieved (like in our case, where he wants the bag in order to receive the Zivus, only because he wants to throw it away - according to Tosfos 94a. DH 'Rebbi Shimon', he is Patur because it is not similar to the work in the Mishkan, where all the tasks were performed for their positive achievements).