1)
What does the Beraisa say about detached grass, grass that is still growing, or pieces of cloth that are less than three by three finger-breadths that stop up part of a window which divides between two rooms, one of which contains a corpse (if the gap that remains is less than a Tefach)?
What is the significance of ...
... the Shi'ur of a piece of cloth which the Tana mentions that is less than three by three finger-breadths?
... the loose limb of an animal or a beast which the Tana adds to the list and which stops up the window? Why is it not subject to Tum'ah?
The Tana also adds a bird, a Nochri and a still-born baby. But are these items not subject to Tum'ah?
The last three items in the list are salt, an earthenware vessel and a Sefer-Torah. Why is ...
... salt not considered a food (in which case it would be subject to Tum'ah)?
... an earthenware vessel not subject to Tum'ah? How must the Beraisa be speaking?
1)
The Beraisa rules that detached grass, grass that is still growing, or a piece of cloth that is less than three by three finger-breadths that stops up part of a window which divides between two rooms, one of which contains a corpse (if the gap that remains is less than a Tefach) - prevent the Tum'ah from passing into the second room.
The significance of ...
... the Shi'ur of a piece of cloth that the Tana mentions is - that 'less than three by three finger-breadths' is not considered a garment (and is therefore not subject to Tum'ah).
... the loose limb of an animal or a beast, which the Tana adds to the list and which stops up the window is - that since it is completely loose, it is considered food (for a Nochri), and is subject to Tum'ah, but not before it has had contact with one of the seven liquids.
The Tana also adds a bird, a Nochri and a still-born baby - none of which is subject to Tum'ah (since the only live 'creature' in the world that is subject to Tum'ah min ha'Torah is a Yisrael), and a still-born baby is considered like a stone.
The last three in the list are salt, an earthenware vessel and a Sefer-Torah. The reason that ...
... salt is not considered a food (in which case it would be subject to Tum'ah) is - because it cannot be eaten on its own.
... an earthenware vessel is not subject to Tum'ah is - because the Tana is speaking where its back end is facing the Tum'ah (and its opening, the other room), as we explained earlier.
2)
Why are snow, hail, ice, frost and water precluded from the above list?
Why is the detached grass mentioned in the list not fit to use as animal fodder?
How do we establish the Beraisa to answer the Kashya why the grass that is still growing does not stand to be picked (seeing as it damages the wall)?
Rav Papa establishes it even by a wall still in use. Then why is the owner not worried that it will damage his wall?
And why are the pieces of cloth not fit to use ...
... as patches in a torn garment?
... for bloodletting?
2)
Snow, hail, ice, frost and water are precluded from the above list - because they will soon melt or just flow away.
The detached grass mentioned in the list is not fit to use as animal fodder - because the Tana is speaking about a plant that is poisonous to animals.
To answer the Kashya why the grass that is still growing does not stand to be picked (seeing as it damages the wall), we establish the Beraisa - by the window of a ruin.
Rav Papa establishes it even by a wall still in use, and the owner is not worried that it will damage his wall - because the Tana is speaking in a case where it is actually growing more than three Tefachim away from the wall that contains the window, and it is only the ends that reach the window and stop-up part of the window.
Neither are the pieces of cloth fit to use ...
... as patches in a torn garment - because the Tana is speaking about thick pieces.
... for bloodletting - because they are made from goat's fluff, which scratches.
3)
With regard to the case of a loose limb or flesh of an animal ... , why are we not afraid that the animal will walk away?
Why are we not then afraid that the owner will ...
... Shecht the animal?
... sell it to a Nochri?
... cut off the loose limb and feed it to his dog?
And with regard to the case of the bird, why are we not afraid that the owner will ...
... Shecht it?
... sell it to a Nochri?
... give it to a child to play with?
But surely a Kalnisa does not scratch?
3)
With regard to the case of a loose limb or flesh of an animal ... , we are not afraid that the animal will walk away - because the Tana is speaking when it is securely bound.
Neither are we afraid that the owner will ...
... will Shecht the animal - because it is a non-Kasher species.
... sell it to a Nochri - because it is weak.
... cut off the loose limb and feed it to his dog - because that would constitute 'Tza'ar Ba'alei-Chayim' (causing an animal pain), which is forbidden.
And with regard to the case of the bird, we are not afraid that the owner will ...
... Shecht it - because here too, he is speaking about a non-Kasher species.
... sell it to a Nochri - because he is talking about a Kalnisa, which is a very weak bird.
... give it to a child to play with - because it might scratch him.
A Kalnisa does indeed not scratch, but the Tana is talking about a bird that is weak like a Kalnisa, though unlike a Kalnisa, it scratches.
4)
The Tana also includes in his list a Nochri and a stillborn baby who stop up the window. What stops ...
... the Nochri from getting up and walking away?
... his friend from untying him and setting him free?
... his co-Metzora from doing so?
Concerning a stillborn (eighth-month) baby (who is still ostensibly alive), why do we not contend with the possibility that his mother will come and carry him away?
The same Beraisa which forbids his mother to pick him up, permits her to feed him (even though, other than to feed her baby, this constitutes an Isur de'Rabanan). Why is that?
4)
The Tana also includes in his list a Nochri and a stillborn baby who stop up the window. It is not possible ...
... for him to get up and walk away - because he is securely bound.
... for his friend to untie him and set him free - because he is a Metzora.
... his co-Metzora come and set him free - because he is a national prisoner.
Concerning a stillborn (eighth-month) baby (who is still ostensibly alive), we do not contend with the possibility that his mother will come and carry him away - because the Beraisa is speaking on Shabbos, when he is Muktzah.
The same Beraisa which forbids his mother to pick him up, permits her to feed him (even though, other than to feed her baby, this constitutes an Isur de'Rabbanan). The reason for this is - because the accumulation of milk endangers the mother.
5)
And the Tana also includes salt. Why does he not contend with the possibility that the owner might take it away ...
... to salt his food?
... to salt skins?
... to save his wall from becoming damaged (as we learned in the previous Mishnah)?
The piece of clay itself does not prevent the Tum'ah from passing into the next room, because it doesn't have the Shiur to render it significant. What Shiur would that be?
He also includes an earthenware vessel. Why are we not afraid that the owner will ...
... come and take it away to use?
... use it for bloodletting?
And finally, he inserts a Sefer-Torah in his list. Why might they not take it away ...
... to Lein from it?
... to place it in Genizah (Sheimos)?
5)
And the Tana also includes salt. He does not contend with the possibility that the owner might take it away ...
... to salt his food - because he is talking about salt that is exceptionally bitter.
... to salt skins - because it also has thorns in it.
... to save his wall from becoming damaged (as we learned in the previous Mishnah) - because he is speaking where the salt is lying on a piece of clay.
The piece of clay itself does not prevent the Tum'ah from passing into the next room, because it doesn't have the Shi'ur to render it significant. That Shi'ur is - a sufficiently large piece to place between two boards that are piled one on top of the other, if one of them is warped.
He also includes an earthenware vessel. We are not afraid that the owner will ...
... come and take it away to use - because the Tana is talking about a dirty vessel.
... use it for bloodletting - because it also has a hole in it.
And finally, he inserts a Sefer-Torah in his list. They will not take it away ...
... to Lein from it - because the Tana is speaking where it is Pasul.
... to place it in Genizah (Sheimos) - because there where it is, it is already Ganuz.
20b----------------------------------------20b
6)
Rav validates a Mechitzah made of anything except for two commodities. One of them is salt. What is the other? What is the reason for this?
What area of Halachah is Rav referring to?
Shmuel validates even a Mechitzah of salt, yet Rav Papa explains that they do not argue. What does he mean by that (See Gilyon ha'Shas)?
6)
Rav validates a Mechitzah made of anything except for two commodities. One of them is salt - the other, wax; the former, because it falls apart, the latter, because it melts.
Rav is referring to Hilchos Shabbos.
Shmuel validates even a Mechitzah of salt, yet Rav Papa explains that they do not argue - because Rav is talking about (Melach Sedomis), which is soft, and Shmuel, about ordinary salt (Melach Isteruknis), which is hard.
7)
What area of Halachah is Rabah referring to, when he permits placing two poles of salt with a beam on top?
Is he referring to Melach Sedomis or other salt?
How might we now re-learn the difference between Rav and Shmuel?
7)
When Rabah permits placing two poles of salt with a beam on top, he is referring to - the Din of Eruv, regarding the entrance to a Mavoy, permitting the members of that Mavoy to carry there.
He is referring to Melach Sedomis - which is normally soft, as we just explained, but which becomes compact when it is compressed by a weight.
In that case - both Rav and Shmuel might be referring to Melach Sedomis, only Shmuel is speaking about a Mechitzah which has a beam on top, and Rav about one which does not.
8)
We learned in our Mishnah that Reuven must place his lower mill-stone three Tefachim away from Shimon's wall, and his upper mill-stone, four. If he is working a small, donkey drawn mill, how close may he place ...
... the base of the mill (Istrubel)?
... the top of the funnel through which the grain is channeled (the Ke'les)?
Why can the stringency in this instance not be due to the vibrations?
Then to what is it due?
We also learned in our Mishnah that the base of a Tanur is one Tefach wider at the bottom than it is at the top. What is the significance of this information in connection with Dinei Mamonos?
8)
We learned in our Mishnah that Reuven must place his lower mill-stone three Tefachim away from Shimon's wall, and his upper mill-stone, four. If he is working a small, donkey drawn mill, the Shiurim are the same ...
... the base of the mill ('Istrubel') - three Tefachim ...
... the top of the funnel through which the grain is channeled ('Ke'les') - four.
The stringency in this instance cannot be due to the vibrations - because the mill is small and does not cause vibrations.
In fact, it is due to the noise of the donkey (or the mill) (see Tosfos 18a DH 'de'Tiraya').
We also learned in our Mishnah that the base of a Tanur is one Tefach wider at the bottom than it is at the top, in which case - that is what somebody who buys a Tanur can expect to receive.
9)
When building a Tanur into the ground of his ground-floor apartment, how much space is Reuven obligated to leave between its top and the ceiling?
And how thick must the cement that serves as the base of Shimon (the owner of the upstairs apartment)'s oven be if he is building ...
... a Tanur (a single trapezoid-shaped oven)?
... a Kirayim (a double oven, rectangular shaped)?
The Tana Kama holds that even if Reuven adheres to these specifications he is liable, should the oven cause damage. What does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel say?
What will be the Din if, according to the Tana Kama, Reuven wants to build an oven according to the above specifications and Shimon objects?
9)
When building a Tanur into the ground of his ground-floor apartment, Reuven is obligated to leave a space of - four Amos.
The cement that serves as the base of Shimon (the owner of the upstairs apartment)'s oven, if he is building ...
... a Tanur (a single trapezoid-shaped oven), has to be three Tefachim thick.
... a Kirayim (a double oven, rectangular shaped) - has to be one Tefach thick.
The Tana Kama holds that even if Reuven adheres to these specifications he is liable, should the oven cause damage. According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, when Chazal gave these Shi'urim, they did so on the understanding - that whoever adheres to them is exempt from damages.
If, according to the Tana Kama, Reuven wants to build an oven according to the above specifications and Shimon objects - the Din is with Shimon, because he is justifiably afraid that, when it comes to the crunch, Reuven will not have the money to pay.
10)
The Tana also forbids Reuven to open a bakery, a dyeing shop or a stable underneath Shimon's storehouse (of wheat [as we have already discussed]). What is the reason for this?
A bakery and a dyeing-shop are permitted underneath a winery, but not a stable. Why is that?
How do we reconcile our Mishnah with the Beraisa, which gives the Shi'ur of cement for a Tanur in an attic as three Tefachim, with the Beraisa 'be'Tanur Arba'ah, u've'Kirah, Sheloshah'?
10)
The Tana also forbids Reuven to open a bakery, a dyeing shop or a stable underneath Shimon's storehouse (of wheat [as we have already discussed]) - because the heat (in the case of the bakery and the dyeing shop) and the smell (in the case of the stable) are harmful to Shimon's crops.
A bakery and a dyeing-shop are permitted underneath a winery, but not a stable - because, whereas heat and smoke improve the quality of the wine, smell is harmful.
To reconcile our Mishnah with the Beraisa, which gives the Shi'ur of cement for a Tanur in an attic as three Tefachim with the Beraisa 'be'Tanur Arba'ah, u've'Kirah, Sheloshah' - we establish our Mishnah by a baker's oven, and the Beraisa by a private one. In fact, a private Tanur is comparable to a baker's Kirayim (a fact that has ramifications with regard to Hilchos Shabbos, too).
11)
What does the Beraisa rule in a case where the stable was there first?
And what will be the Din if Shimon has already swept the roof and cleared it of dust in preparation for turning it into a storehouse? May Reuven open a bakery ... ?
We ask the same She'eilah if Shimon added windows for that purpose (where the indication of his intentions is even more marked than in the previous case). What third She'eilah do we ask along these lines, assuming that in the previous two cases, the answer is positive?
What does Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua mean to ask when he says 'Tamri ve'Rimoni Mahu'?
What is the outcome of these She'eilos?
11)
In a case where the stable was there first - the Beraisa permits Reuven to leave it standing.
Whether, if Shimon has already swept the roof and cleared it of dust in preparation for turning it into a storehouse, Reuven may open a bakery ... or not - is the first in a series of She'eilos.
We ask the same She'eilah if Shimon added windows for that purpose (where the indication of his intentions is even more marked than in the previous case). And assuming that in the previous two cases, the answer is positive, we ask - whether if he actually built an entire structure on the roof, leaving not the least doubt of his intentions, Reuven might not be forbidden to open a bakery ... .
When Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua asks 'Tamri ve'Rimoni Mahu', he means to ask - whether, if Shimon initially stocked his storehouse with dates or pomegranates (which are not damaged by the heat or by the smell), it is an indication that he will at some time, use it to store grain, or not.
The outcome of these She'eilos is - Teiku ('Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos ve'Ibayos').
12)
Our Mishnah permits opening a bakery and a dyeing shop underneath a winery, because smoke and heat enhance the wine. What does Rav Yosef comment about today's wines?
And what does Rav Sheshes say about Aspasta (the stubble of produce)?
12)
Our Mishnah permits opening a bakery and a dyeing shop underneath a winery, because smoke and heat enhance the wine. Rav Yosef comments however - that the today's wines cannot even take the smoke of a candle.
And Rav Sheishes says - that Aspasta (the stubble of produce), which emits excessive heat and smell, is as harmful to a storehouse as a stable.
13)
On what grounds does our Mishnah permit any resident of a Chatzer to protest if someone wants to open a store in the Chatzer?
What if someone makes vessels in the Chatzer to sell in the market and they protest that they cannot sleep because of the noise of the worker's hammer or the mill or the voice of the children? Will his protest also be upheld?
Assuming that the noise of the children refers to children who come to buy in the man's store, how does Abaye resolve the discrepancy between this ruling and the Reisha (see Tosfos DH 'Mai Sh'na')?
Rava disagrees, on the grounds that the Tana should then have said 'Chatzer Acheres Mutar'. So how does Rava explain 'the voice of children' in the Seifa? Why can the residents of the Chatzer not complain?
13)
Our Mishnah permits any resident of a Chatzer to protest if someone wants to open a store in the Chatzer, due to the fact - that he cannot sleep because of the noise made by his customers coming and going.
However, if someone makes vessels in the Chatzer to sell in the market - there are no grounds for protest. His claim that he cannot sleep because of the noise of the worker's hammer or the mill or the voice of the children - will not be upheld.
Assuming that the noise of the children refers to children who come to buy in the man's store, Abaye resolves the discrepancy between this ruling and the Reisha (see Tosfos DH 'Mai Sh'na') - by establishing the Seifa by a store in a neighboring Chatzer, where he has no right to object.
Rava disagrees, on the grounds that the Tana should then have said 'Chatzer Acheres Mutar'. So he explains 'the voice of children' in the Seifa to mean - the voice of children learning Torah ('Tinokos shel Beis Raban'), because of the Takanah of Yehoshua ben Gamla (which we are about to discuss).