(a)What is the Din regarding a woman who carries a needle with an eye or wearing a signet-ring, in the street?
(b)Ula says that the opposite is true of a man. To what is he referring and what does he mean?
(c)How will Ula (who just differentiated between the 'Tachshit' of a man and that of a woman) explain the Beraisa, which permits anyone to wear soft sack as a protection against rain - because that is what shepherds do? In that case, why is a woman not Patur from going out with with a signet-ring, since it is the 'Tachshit' of a man?
(d)How will Ula explain the Beraisa which permits a woman who finds Tefilin lying in the street, to put them on and take them home, because they are considered a Tachshit for a man?
(a)A woman who carries a needle with an eye or who wears a signet-ring is Chayev Chatas.
(b)Ula says that the opposite is true of a man. He refers only to the Din of a ring; if a man goes out with a signet-ring he is Patur, whereas with a plain ring he will be Chayav.
(c)A shepherd is a man like any other man. Therefore, what he wears is considered a garment for all men. Women, on the other hand, Ula considers 'an Am bi'Fnei Atzman', so what is a Tachshit for a man, is not necessarily a Tachshit for a woman, and the same vice-versa.
(d)Ula establishes the Beraisa which permits a woman to wear Tefilin and carry them home - like Rebbi Meir, who holds that both night-time and Shabbos are considered Z'man Tefilin, in which case, women are Chayav Tefilin, too.
(a)What should someone do if he finds many pairs of Tefilin lying in the street?
(b)According to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Meir, would a woman who found Tefilin lying in the street, be permitted to put them on and take them home?
(a)Someone who finds many pairs of Tefilin lying in the street, should put them on one pair at a time, and take them home or into another house, for protection.
(b)According to Ula, the Rabbanan of Rebbi Meir, who hold that night-time or Shabbos is Z'man Tefilin - exempt women from wearing Tefilin. In that case, they will not be permitted to wear them on Shabbos - even if it is to save them from disgrace, since they are a man's Tachshit, and not a woman's.
(a)Why should a man be Chayav for wearing a plain ring, and a woman, a signet-ring, since in both cases, it is unusual to carry them in this way? Why is it not considered 'Hotza'ah Ke'le'achar Yad'?
(b)We first suggested that the Mishnah is speaking about an 'Ishah Gizbaris' (a treasurer). How would that answer the question?
(a)A man is Chayav for wearing a plain ring - because it sometimes happens that a woman gives her (plain) ring to her husband to take to the gold-smith to repair, and, on the way, he wears it on his finger. And a woman is Chayav for wearing a signet-ring - because sometimes, a man gives his wife his signet-ring to put away, and she puts it on her finger as she takes it to his box. Consequently, neither can be considered 'ke'le'Achar Yad'.
(b)To answer the Kashya, we initially established our Mishnah by an 'Ishah Gizbaris' (a treasurer), who sometimes tended to wear the signet-ring, because she needed to stamp the orders that she was sending to her subordinates. That would not make the signet-ring a Tachshit as far as she was concerned (since most women did not wear signet-rings); it would however, make it normal for her to wear a signet-ring, and on Shabbos, it would no longer be considered 'ke'le'Achar Yad'.
(a)Our Mishnah also forbids a woman to wear a 'Kuliar', a 'Koveles' and a 'Tzeluchis shel P'laiton' in the street. What is ...
1. ... a 'Kuliar'?
2. ... a 'Koveles'?
3. ... a 'Tzeluchis shel P'laiton'?
(b)Rebbi Meir renders a woman who wears any of the above Chayav because he considers them to be a burden. What do the Rabbanan say?
(c)Rebbi Eliezer permits her to wear a 'Koveles' Lechatchilah. Why is that?
(d)Rebbi Eliezer Says Mutar'. In another Beraisa, he says 'Patur'. What does this mean?
(a)Our Mishnah also forbids a woman to wear a 'Kuliar', a 'Koveles' and a 'Tzeluchis shel P'laitan' in the street.
1. A Kuliar is a clasp in the form of a brooch;
2. A Koveles is a type of charm;
3. A Tzeluchis shel P'laiton is a bottle of balsam.
(b)Rebbi Meir renders a woman who wears any of the above Chayav, because he considers them to be a burden - whereas according to the Chachamim, she will not be Chayav, because they are a Tachshit. Chazal however, forbade her to wear them, like they forbade most other Tachshitim, because she may take them off to show her friends.
(c)Rebbi Eliezer permits a woman to go out with a Koveles - since it is usually a woman with bad breath who wears it, and she is unlikely to remove it to show her friends, because, far from being a Tachshit, it is a source of disgrace to her.
(d)When Rebbi Eliezer was arguing with Rebbi Meir alone (who says that she is Chayav), he said Patur (the opposite of Chayav) - whereas when he was arguing with the Chachamim (who say that she is Patur), he says Mutar.
(a)Does Rebbi Eliezer also permit a woman to go out with a Tz'luchis shel P'laiton on Shabbos?
(b)What does he say about a Koveles from which the balsam has been removed?
(c)Will she still be Chayav Chatas if the aroma of the balsam remains?
(d)Does this mean that Rebbi Eliezer disagrees with the S'tam Mishnah in ha'Matzni'a, which rules that someone who carries half a ki'Gerogeres in a box, is Patur even for carrying the box? Why should he Patur on the box there, but not on the bottle here?
(a)In the second Beraisa, where Rebbi Eliezer argues with Rebbi Meir exclusively - he mentions a Tzeluchis shel P'laiton together with the Koveles, which suggests that he permits both of them Lechatchilah.
(b)He concedes however - that a Koveles without balsam inside is a burden, and that a woman who goes out with it will be Chayav Chatas.
(c)Even if the bottle still contains the aroma of balsam - she will nevertheless be Chayav.
(d)This does not mean that Rebbi Eliezer disagrees with the S'tam Mishnah in ha'Matzni'a, which absolves someone who carries out less than a ki'Gerogeres of food, even on the box that contains it - because there, there is at least half a Shiur (something tangible), for the box to become Bateil to; whereas here, the aroma is not tangible, and therefore, the bottle cannot become Batel to it, and the woman will be Chayav, even according to the Tana in ha'Matzni'a.
(a)Shmuel established the Pasuk in Amos "ve'Reishis Shemanim Yimshachu", by 'P'laiton' oil. In that case, what is the Navi referring to?
(b)What problem do we now have with Shmuel's statement from the Beraisa: 'Af al P'laiton Gazar Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava, ve'Lo Hodu Lo'?
(c)What is 'K'nishkanin' (which the Navi there refers to, according to one interpretation, with the words "ha'Shosim be'Mizrekei Yayin")?
(d)How does Abaye use 'K'nishkanin' to answer the Kashya that we just posed?
(a)Shmuel establishes the Pasuk in Amos "ve'Reishis Sh'manim Yimshachu", by 'P'laiton' oil. According to him - Amos is complaining how Yisrael did not pay heed to his warnings not to indulge in the pleasures of this world, such as anointing themselves with the choicest oils.
(b)If the oil referred to in the Pasuk is balsam oil (as Shmuel claims it is - and the Navi is complaining etc., as we just explained), then why did the Chachamim not agree with Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava, who decreed on balsam oil after the Churban.
(c)K'nishkanin (referred to, according to one interpretation - in the words "ha'Shosim be'Mizrekei Yayin", and which is written in the same context in Amos) - was a type of long wine-glass with two mouths, which enabled experts to throw wine from one mouth to the other.
(d)According to one opinion, Abaye points out, there is no doubt that they used to drink from the K'nishkanin, in which case, according to the questioner, Chazal should have decreed on it too after the Churban, yet we know that they did not, because on one occasion, the leader of the Galus drank from such a cup - in the presence of Rabah bar Rav Huna, who did not protest! Consequently, we are forced to say - that according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava, Chazal only decreed on those things that entail both pleasure and joy (such as music), but not on balsam oil or drinking from K'nishkanin, which entail pleasure, but not joy.
(a)The Navi Amos writes "ha'Shochvim al Mitos Shen, u'Seruchin al Arusosam". How does Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina interpret this Pasuk, which comes to explain why the ten tribes went into Galus before the Kingdom of Yehudah?
(b)On what grounds does Rebbi Avahu object to this explanation?
(c)So how does he explain the Pasuk?
(a)According to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, the Pasuk ("ha'Shochvim al Arusosam" etc.) refers to the people of the Kingdom of Yisrael, who went into Galus before the Kingdom of Yehudah- because they used to urinate in front of their beds.
(b)Rebbi Avahu objects - because he fails to see why such a weak sin should cause an early exile.
(c)Consequently - he interprets the Pasuk to refer to the sin of mixed parties, during which they would indulge in wife-swapping.
(a)One of the three things that lead to poverty is urinating in front of one's bed. What are the other two?
(b)Which two conditions are necessary, before urinating in front of one's bed will result in poverty? Does it make any difference whether one is clothed or not?
(c)How do we know that not only will eating bread without washing at all result in poverty, but even washing for with a minimum amount of water? What constitutes a minimum amount of water?
(d)What does 'Ishto Mekaleles Oso be'Fanav' refer to?
(a)One of the three things that lead to poverty is urinating in front of one's bed. The other two - are lack of respect for the Mitzvah of 'Netilas Yadayim' (before eating bread) and a wife who (with justification, as we shall see) curses her husband into his face.
(b)The two condition attached to urinating before one's bed are - that one does so facing the bed, and directly on to the floor, but not if he either urinates in the other direction or into a vessel. It makes no difference - whether he is wearing clothes or not (because the reason the Tana uses the word 'Arum', is because someone who is dressed will probably go outside to urinate).
(c)Rav Chisda said that he received a lot of blessings, because he used to wash with a lot of water; conversely, someone who uses the minimum amount of water - a Revi'is (i.e. one and a half egg-volumes), will receive minimal blessings, even curses (if more water is available).
(d)'Ishto Mekaleles Oso be'Fanav' refers to a woman who curses her husband for not buying her sufficient ornaments - when he has the means to do so.
(a)Yeshayah ha'Navi accused the B'nos Tzi'on of immoral and conspicuous conduct. What made their behaviour particularly immoral?
(b)What is the connection between "Netuyos Garon" and walking 'Eikev be'Tzad Gudal'?
(c)What else did their immoral conduct comprise?
(d)What are the ramifications of the word "u've'Ragleihen Te'akasnah"?
(a)Yeshayah ha'Navi accused the B'nos Tzi'on of immoral and conspicuous conduct. What made their behaviour particularly immoral - was the fact that they were already married, which renders their behavior particularly obnoxious.
(b)The connection between "Netuyos Garon" and walking 'Eikev be'Tzad Gudal' is - that these women walked deliberately slowly, to attract the attention of the young men; and that is what is meant by 'Eikev be'Tzad Gudal' (like goose-steps). This goes hand in hand with 'Netuyos Garon', because someone who walks with his head in the air, cannot see where he is going, and is forced to walk slowly.
(c)In addition - the women would also walk in pairs, a tall woman beside a small one, so that the tall woman should stand out, and attract even more attention. Their eyes were painted, and they had arranged myrrh and balsam (two potent spices) in their shoes, which became activated by kicking their feet into the ground. They would walk the streets of Yerushalayim until they came level with the young men - when they would kick into the ground, and activate the spices, which worked on the young men like poison, which is what the Pasuk means by "u've'Ragleihen Te'akasnah".
(d)The ramifications of the word "Te'akasnah" - is that the spices would arouse the Yetzer ha'Ra in them like the venom of a snake. The reason that the word 'Te'akasna' (from 'Ka'as' - anger) is used, is because a snake only releases its venom, when it is angry.
(a)How did Hash-m punish the women of Tzi'on - 'Midah ke'Neged Midah'? What is meant in the subsequent Pasuk ...
1. "ve'Hayah Tachas Bosem, Mak Yihye"
2. ve'Sachas Chagorah, Nikpah?
3. ve'Sachas Ma'aseh Miksheh, Korchah?
4. ve'Sachas P'sigayil, Machgores Sak".
(b)What does "Ki Sachas Yofi" mean?
(c)What is the meaning of ...
1. ... "ve'Sipach Hash-m es b'nos Tzi'on"?
2. ... "va'Hashem Pas'hen Ya'areh" (two interpretations)?
(d)What did Rav mean with the statement 'Anshei Yerushalayim Anshei Shachatz Hayu'?
(a)Hash-m punished the women of Tzi'on - 'Midah ke'Neged Midah', as is hinted in the Pasuk ...
1. "ve'Hayah Tachas Bosem, Mak Yihye" - the part of their bodies where they had placed perfume, will disintegrate;
2. "ve'Sachas Chagorah, Nikpah" - and where they had worn their girdles, will become covered with wounds.
3. "ve'Sachas Ma'aseh Miksheh, Korchah" - the hair, which they used to groom, will fall out, leaving bald patches;
4. "ve'Sachas Pesigayil, Machgores Sak" - and by the womb (Pesigayil is the acronym of 'Pesach Gil' - the opening of joy), they will wear sack-cloth.
(b)"Ki Sachas Yofi" means - 'Because all of these will come on you, instead of beauty'.
(c)The meaning of ...
1. ... "ve'Sipach Hash-m es B'nos Tzi'on" is - that He will strike them with Tzara'as (like "Se'es ve'*Sapachas*");
2. ... "va'Hashem Pas'hen Ya'areh" - is that He will cause their wombs to pour with blood.
(d)When Rav made the statement 'Anshei Yerushalayim Anshei Shachatz Hayu' he meant - that the men of Yerushalayim spoke with vanity, and lewdly. They would ask each other whether they had been with well-worked bread or un-worked bread (a married woman or a virgin), and similarly indecent questions.
(a)What was special about the wood of Yerushalayim?
(b)What happened to it at the time of the Churban?
(a)The wood of Yerushalayim - was cinnamon wood, which would fill the entire land with a beautiful aroma whenever they kindled it.
(b)At the time of the Churban, like many other things listed in Sotah - it was hidden, and only a small fraction remained.