1)
(a)The poor would use lime to remove premature hair from their young daughters, the wealthy, flour. What did kings used to use, and what is the precedent for this in Tanach?
(b)Some translate Shemen ha'Mor as 'Sateches'. What is the better-known explanation?
(c)What other use does it have besides a hair-remover?
1)
(a)Kings would use Shemen ha'Mor to remove premature hair from their young daughters - just like the women used for six months in Shushan, before appearing before Achashveirosh.
(b)The better-known explanation of Shemen ha'Mor - is oil made from olives that have grown less then a third of their full growth.
(c)It would also improve the complexion of the skin.
2)
(a)Having said 'Kol she'Hu mi'Min Dagan', why does the Tana find it necessary to list the various mixtures in our Mishnah?
(b)The Gemara illustrates this with a story. What was the story?
2)
(a)Having said 'Kol she'Hu mi'Min Dagan', the Tana nevertheless found it necessary to list the various mixtures in our Mishnah - in order that people should become acquainted with their names, to save them from sinning.
(b)Like that story of that Israeli, who once arrived in Bavel on Pesach with his own meat. by the (presumably non-Jewish) inn where he was staying, he asked them for a condiment with which to eat his meat, and, when he heard them mention 'Kutach', he knew that it was not for him.
3)
(a)The first four cases listed in our Mishnah comprise one type of Chametz, the last three, another. What are the two types respectively?
(b)According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, who is the author of our Mishnah, which concludes 'Harei Elu b'Azharah'?
(c)'Si'ur Yisaref, v'Nosno l'Kalbo, v'ha'Ochlo b'Arba'im'. How do we reconcile the first two statements, which appear to clash?
(d)Who is the author of the third statement?
3)
(a)The first four cases listed in our Mishnah comprise Ta'aroves Chametz, the last three, Chametz Nukshah.
(b)According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, the author of our Mishnah, which forbids the deriving of benefit from Chametz Nukshah - is Rebbi Meir (who holds 'Si'ur Yisaref').
(c)'Si'ur Yisaref' refers to that of Rebbi Meir according to Rebbi Meir, and that of Rebbi Yehudah according to Rebbi Yehudah; 've'Nosno l'Kalbo' - refers to the Si'ur of Rebbi Yehudah (Panav Machsifin, which is Chametz Nukshah) according to Rebbi Meir.
(d)The author of the third statement ('ve'ha'Ochlo b'Arba'im') - is Rebbi Meir.
4)
(a)Rebbi Meir only talks about Chametz Nukshah, but not Ta'aroves Chametz. What is the definition of 'Chametz Nukshah'?
(b)How do we know that someone who eats Ta'aroves Chametz also transgresses a Lav - according to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav?
(c)Rav Nachman establishes our Mishnah like Rebbi Eliezer, who says that there is a Lav on eating Ta'aroves Chametz. How do we then know his opinion by Chametz Nukshah?
(d)Why does Rav Yehudah Amar Rav decline to learn like Rav Nachman and vice-versa?
4)
(a)'Chametz Nukshah' is dough for example, that is not fit to eat, because it has begun to rise, but has not yet risen fully. Nor is it fit to make other doughs rise, like yeast. It is a pure semi-Chametz, that is neither edible nor fit to be Machmitz other doughs.
(b)We know that someone who eats Ta'aroves Chametz also transgresses a Lav - according to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav - because he maintains that this is a Kal va'Chomer from Chametz Nukshah (which is not real Chametz, whereas Ta'aroves Chametz is).
(c)According to Rav Nachman - if Rebbi Eliezer holds that there is a Lav on eating Ta'aroves Chametz (which is not pure Chametz), then Kal va'Chomer Chametz Nukshah (which is).
(d)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav disagrees with Rav Nachman: according to him, Rebbi Eliezer may well hold that there is a Lav by Ta'aroves Chametz, but that does not mean that there is also a Lav by Chametz Nukshah? Whereas according to Rav Nachman, Rebbi Meir may well hold of a Lav by Chametz Nukshah, but who says that he also holds of one by Ta'aroves Chametz?
5)
(a)The Gemara supports Rav Yehudah with a Beraisa. What does the Beraisa say, and how does that prove him right?
(b)Rebbi Eliezer derives a Lav by Ta'aroves Chametz (but not Kares) from the Pasuk in Bo "Kol Machmetzes Lo Sochelu". In that case, how does he explain the Pasuk "Ki Kol Ochel Machmetzes v'Nichresah" (also in Bo)?
(c)Then how does he know that the Pasuk "Kol Machmetzes Lo Sochelu" does not come as a warning for dough that turned Chametz through an external agent ?
(d)What does Rebbi Eliezer learn from the word "Ki Kol Ochel Machmetzes v'Nichresah"?
5)
(a)The Beraisa reads - "Kol Machmetzes Lo Sochelu", 'Lerabos Kutach ha'Bavli, v'Shechar ha'Madi' ... and goes on to preclude them from Kares. This Beraisa serves as a proof for Rav Yehudah, since it is Rebbi Eliezer who maintains that Ta'aroves Chametz carries with it a Lav, and not Chametz Nukshah, which is preciesely what the Beraisa says.
(b)Rebbi Eliezer learns from the Pasuk "Ki Kol Ochel Machmetzes v'Nichresah" - that even dough that became Chametz through external means (e.g. through dried wine-dregs) is included in the Kares of eating Chametz.
(c)In fact, the Gemara concludes, it is not from the Pasuk "Kol Machmetzes Lo Sochelu" that Rebbi Eliezer learns the previous Derashah (which would justify the Kashya - then why not learn from "Ki Kol Ochel Machmetzes v'Nichresah" that Chametz which became Chametz through an external agent should be included in Kares) - but from the superfluous word "Kol Machmetzes".
(d)Rebbi Eliezer learns from the word "Ki Kol Ochel Machmetzes v'Nichresah" - that women are also included in the Kares of eating Chametz.
43b----------------------------------------43b
6)
(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Naso "Ish O Ishah Ki Ya'asu mi'Kol Chat'os ha'Adam" ... ?
(b)Then why do we need the Derashah of "Kol Machmetzes Lo Sochelu" to include women?
(c)Now that women are included in the Isur of eating Chametz from "Kol", how do we apply the Hekesh of not eating Chametz to eating Matzah?
6)
(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Naso "Ish O Ishah Ki Ya'asu mi'Kol Chatos ha'Adam" ... - that women are included in all of the Torah's punishments.
(b)We nevertheless need the Derashah of "Kol Machmetzes Lo Sochelu" to include women - because the Torah writes "Lo Sochal Alav Chametz, Shiv'as Yamim Tochal Alav Matzos", which compares not eating Chametz to eating Matzah; and since women are initially Patur from eating Matzah (which is a time-related Mitzvah), they should also be Patur from the Lav of eating Chametz - were it not for the word "Kol" which includes them.
(c)Now however, that women are included in the Lav of not eating Chametz, we use the Hekesh of Achilas Matzah to not eating Chametz to teach us that, just as they are Chayav in the latter, so too, are they Chayav in the former.
7)
(a)On what grounds does Rebbi Eliezer include women in the Kares of eating Chametz (from "Ki Kol Ochel Chametz v'Nichresah") rather than Ta'aroves Chametz (for men)?
(b)Then how will he explain the Derashah from "Ki Kol Ochel Chelev v'Nichresah", where we include the Chelev of blemished animals (which are eaten, even though the Pasuk is speaking about those who eat, and not those that are eaten)?
7)
(a)Rebbi Eliezer prefers to include women in the Kares of eating Chametz (from "Ki Kol Ochel Chametz v'Nichresah") rather than Ta'aroves Chametz (for men) - because the Pasuk is speaking about eaters and not food, so it makes more sense to include eaters rather than another type of food.
(b)The Pasuk of "Ki Kol Ochel Chelev v'Nichresah" is different, since, even though it too, is speaking about eaters (and not food) there are no eaters there that need to be included, in which case we can include another type of food (the Chelev of blemished animals).
8)
(a)Since the Rabanan do not Darshen "Kol", from where do they learn that women are included in the Mitzvah of Matzah on Pesach and the Lav of eating Chametz?
(b)With regard to Matzah on Pesach, let Rebbi Eliezer learn women from "Kol", and Ta'aroves Chametz from "Ki", asks the Gemara? What is wrong with saying that Rebbi Eliezer does not Darshen "Ki Kol" at all?
(c)Rebbi Eliezer learns from the Pasuk in Tzav "Ki Kol Se'or ... Lo Saktiru" ... that one is Chayav for burning even less than a k'Zayis on the Mizbe'ach. What does he learn from "Ki"?
(d)How does the Gemara resolve the Kashya quoted in b.?
8)
(a)The Rabanan, who do not Darshen "Kol", learn that women are included in the Mitzvah of Matzah on Pesach and the Lav of eating Chametz - from "Ki Kol" (from which they also Darshen).
(b)The suggestion that Rebbi Eliezer does not Darshen "Ki Kol" is unacceptable - since with regard to the Lav of burning yeast on the Mizbe'ach, he includes (in a Beraisa) half a k'Zayis from "Kol" and Ta'aroves from "Ki Kol".
(c)See b.
(d)In fact, the Gemara has no answer to the Kashya raised in b. (i.e. let Rebbi Eliezer learn women from "Kol", and Ta'aroves Chametz from "Ki"?)
9)
(a)Rebbi Avahu quoting Rebbi Yochanan, says that by most Isurim, the Heter does not combine with the Isur. What does this mean?
(b)Why then, does it combine by Nazir?
(c)Is there any difference whether the two are eaten separately, or whether the wine, shall we say, is absorbed in the bread?
(d)Ze'iri adds Se'or to the list of Heter Mitztaref l'Isur. On what basis does he do this? Like whom does he hold?
9)
(a)When Rebbi Avahu quoting Rebbi Yochanan, says that by most Isurim, the Heter does not combine with the Isur - he means to say that if one eats less than a Shi'ur of Isur complementing the Shi'ur with food that is Heter, he will not be Chayav.
(b)The Heter combines with the Isur by the Lav of drinking wine by a Nazir - because of the superfluous word in Naso "Mishras".
(c)From Rashi here it appears that there is no difference whether the two are eaten separately, or whether the wine, shall we say, is absorbed in the bread. That too, is called 'Heter Mitztaref l'Isur', though in reality, this ought to fall under the category of 'Ta'am k'Ikar' - see Daf 44b 5a - see also Rashi there DH 'mi'Pas u'mi Yayin').
(d)Ze'iri, who adds Se'or to the list of Heter Mitztaref l'Isur - holds like Rebbi Eliezer, who includes half a Shi'ur by Se'or from "Kol" (Ze'iri teaches us that Rebbi Eliezer is only Mechayev Malkus for burning half a k'Zayis of yeast on the Mizbe'ach, if he also burns half a k'Zayis of yeast together with it to complement the Shi'ur (see Daf, 44 1b.), but not if he burns it on its own.