1)

(a)Rav Huna - permits writing Tefilin on the skin of a Kasher bird.

(b)Assuming that he is coming to teach us that the skin of a bird is called 'Or', Rav Yosef query this from our Mishnah - which has already intimated this by virtue of its ruling 've'ha'Chovel Bahen (Chayah ve'Of she'bi'Reshuso) Chayav'.

(c)Abaye refutes Rav Yosef's Kashya - by establishing the Chidush of Rav Huna as being - that it is Kasher in spite of the fact that it is perforated, and Klaf with holes in it is Pasul (because it is not 'Kesivah Tamah' [a perfect writing).

(d)And he cites the b'nei Ma'arva (the men of Eretz Yisrael), who explain - that as long as the holes are so small, that the ink passes over it, without leaving a hole in the writing (as is the case here), the Tefilin are Kasher.

2)

(a)Rebbi Zeira queries Rav Huna however, from a Beraisa, which learns from the Pasuk "ve'Shisa Oso bi'Chenafav" - that one brings the Olas ha'Of on the Mizbe'ach together with its skin.

(b)This creates a problem with Rav Huna - because the skin of a Korban Beheimah is never brought on the Mizbe'ach (and we assume that the same applies to a Korban Of).

(c)Abaye replies - that even though it is considered skin, the Torah validates it.

(d)In a second Lashon, Rebbi Zeira tries to support Rav Huna from the Beraisa - inasmuch as the bird's skin was not considered skin, then the Torah would not have seen fit to include it.

(e)Abaye refutes Rebbi Zeira's proof however - by again referring to the holes in the bird's skin, which we might have invalidated, if the Torah had not specifically permitted it.

3)

(a)When Mar b'rei de'Ravina asked Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak whether the skin of a fish is eligible for writing Tefilin, he replied - that when Eliyahu will come he will clarify the issue.

(b)Logically, Mar b'rei de'Ravina could not have been asking whether a fish has skin or not - because everybody can see for himself that it has.

(c)We also know that it has from a Mishnah in Keilim - which rules that the bones and skin of fish an serve as an Ohel to prevent Tum'as Meis from entering a room via an opening between two rooms or from entering an earthenware vessel which it seals.

(d)They save from Tum'ah - on the basis of the fact that they are not subject to Tum'ah.

4)

(a)We need a Pasuk to teach us that bones and skin of fish are not subject to Tum'ah, because of the bones and skin of animals - which are.

(b)Even though we know that a fish has skin, we still need Eliyahu to resolve the She'eilah whether Tefilin may be written on the skin of a Tahor fish or not - because we are not certain whether the filth attached to skin during its lifetime (perhaps this refers to the slime in the water) has been removed.

5)

(a)When Shmuel saw the River Malka, which flowed from Eretz Yisrael to Bavel, looking turbid and bringing up high waves of black water, he understood - that the river was sending up its waves to cover the body of a great man (Rav) who was arriving in Bavel from Eretz Yisrael (or for him to clean himself) and who was suffering from a stomach malaise; the water was black, to reflect the man's pain.

(b)When Shmuel told Karna 'Zil T'hi Bei be'Kankanei', he meant - that he should go and test him to see whether he was indeed a genuine Talmid-Chacham.

(c)The first of the three questions that he asked Rav was from where we know that Tefilin must be written on the skin of a Kasher animal. Rav replied - by citing the Pasuk in Sh'mos "Lema'an Tih'yeh Toras Hash-m be'Ficha".

(d)To the second question, Rav replied with the Pasuk in Melachim "va'Yir'u Mo'av Mineged es ha'Mayim ke'Dam", in answer to Karna's question, from where we know that blood is red (in connection with the Din of Dam Nidus [which is not Tamei if it is any other color]).

6)

(a)Karna's third question concerned the Mitzvah of B'ris Milah. Rav learns that the Mitzvah of Milah is performed on the Eiver ha'Milah from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah "Orlaso" "Orlaso" (from the fruit of the third year of the tree's growth) - from the Gezeirah Shavah "Orlaso" "Orlaso" (in connection with the fruit of the third year of the tree's growth) - since the latter is something that produces fruit.

(b)The Torah also writes "Orlas" by the heart and by the tongue, yet Rav knew not to learn the 'Gezeirah Shavah' from there - because he prefers to learn "Orlaso" from "Orlaso" than from "Orlas Levavchem" or "Orlas Oznam" (which is construct) and not similar to 'Orlaso'.

(c)Rav's opinion is also that of the Tana, Rebbi Yashiyah. Rebbi Nasan learns it from the Pasuk "ve'Areil Zachar Asher Lo Yimol ... " - which clearly indicates the part of the body which distinguishes between the body of a man and that of a woman.

7)

(a)Rav was angry that they were testing him, and he wished Karna that a piece of flesh (called a Karna, which means a horn) should grow from his eye.

(b)Shmuel (who was a great doctor) took Rav to his house, where he deliberately ...

1. ... served him barley-bread and small fish fried in flour, and gave him beer to drink (to give him diarrhea), in order to cure his stomach ailment.

2. ... failed to direct him to the bathroom (to make the food inside his stomach churn).

(c)Rav (whom he had not even told of his stomach ailment, and whom he probably did not to be a doctor) reacted to that - by cursing him that he would never have children.

(d)Rav's curse came true.

8)

(a)The Beraisa permits writing Tefilin on the skin of ...

1. ... a Kasher Chayah.

2. ... the Neveilah or T'reifah of a Kasher animal.

(b)When the Tana says ...

1. ... 've'Nikrachos be'Sa'aran he means - that the Parshiyos of the Tefilin must be wrapped and tied with hair made from a Kasher animal.

2. ... ve'Nitfaros be'Gidan' he means - that the Batim must be sewn with them too.

(c)The source for this is - 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.

9)

(a)Rebbi Yehoshua ha'Garsi quoted the Pasuk in Shemos "Lema'an Tih'yeh Toras Hash-m be'Ficha" to a Baitusi (member of the sister sect of the Tzedokim) - in answer to his request for a source as to why Tefilin may not be written on the skin of non-Kasher species of animals.

(b)When the Baitusi asked him why one is then permitted to write Tefilin on Neveilos and T'reifos, he compared it to two people condemned to death for treason, one of whom was killed by the king, the other, by the chief executioner. Surely, the former must have been a more importance. Here too, if an animal is killed (directly or indirectly) by Hash-m, it is preferable to being slaughtered by a human being (see first Pasuk in Tachanun "Vayomer David el Gad ... ").

(c)And he justified the fact that, by the same token, one is not allowed to eat them - by virtue of the fact that the Torah forbids eating Neveilah (period).

(d)The Baitusi's final comment was - that his answer was indeed praiseworthy.

10)

(a)The Tana Kama prohibits the preparation of Hilmi on Shabbos, but permits Mei Melach, into which one dips one's bread or adds it to a cooked dish. Rav Yehudah (Amar Shmuel) explains - that both mean (salt-water), only the former refers to a large quantity, the latter, to a small quantity.

(b)Hilmi is used - for pickling vegetables, which the Chachamim forbade because of Me'abed (tanning, mi'de'Rabanan, since min ha'Torah, Ibud does not apply by food).

(c)Rebbi Yossi disagrees - in that he does not draw a distinction between a lot of salt-water and a little (either they are both permitted or they are both forbidden). He does however, state that Mei Melach is permitted if one first adds oil, either into the water or into the salt.

(d)The problem Rabah has with Rav Yehudah's suggestion that, since the Mishnah does not specifically say 'Rebbi Yossi Oser', Rebbi Yossi is obviously coming to be lenient is - that his concluding words 've'Eilu Hein Mei Melach ha'Mutarin ... ' clearly indicates quite the opposite, that he is coming to be more strict than the Tana Kama, to qualify his Heter.

(e)We therefore establish Rebbi Yossi (supported by a Beraisa) to mean - that it is impossible to differentiate between a lot and a little regarding Meleches Shabbos, is which case even a little salt-water is forbidden, unless one first pours in oil.

11)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah bar Chaviva cites a Beraisa which forbids preparing 'Mei Melach Azin', which Rabah and Rav Yosef bar Aba define as - salt-water that is thick enough for an egg to float in it ...

(b)... which, in more practical terms Abaye explains as - two-thirds salt and one third, water.

(c)It is used - to pickle fish.

12)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah bar Chaviva quotes another Beraisa, which forbids salting a radish or an egg on Shabbos. Rav Chizkiyah quoting Abaye is more lenient - conceding that a radish is forbidden, but permitting the salting of an egg.

(b)Rav Nachman used to salt radishes - because of a statement of Shmuel, that the salt actually spoils the radishes, by neutralizing their naturally sharp flavor.

(c)Then, when Ula arrived in Bavel, and related how - in Eretz Yisrael, they used to salt huge piles of them, he changed his mind.

(d)From then on - he would only salt them one at a time and eat them.

(e)The Beraisa cited by Rebbi Yehudah bar Chaviva states - that were it not for the outer peel of an Esrog and a radish, and the white of the egg, they would all remain in the stomach , and cause piles.

13)

(a)When Rav Dimi arrived in Bavel, he stated - that nobody has ever drowned in the Yam-ha'Melach.

(b)Rav Yosef asked him why he mentioned specifically people (as if beams did sink in the Yam ha'Melach), to which he replied - that beams never sink in any river or sea; but people drown in all seas and rivers - with the sole exception of the Yam ha'Melach (which explains why Rav Dimi saw fit to mention specifically people).

(c)We learn from Rav Dimi's statement - that the water of the Yam ha'Melach have great healing powers, and that one is therefore prohibited from using them as a cure on Shabbos, as we shall now see.

(d)When Ravin, who was walking behind Rebbi Yirmiyah on the bank of the Yam ha'Melach, asked the latter whether one is permitted to wash with the water of the Yam ha'Melach on Shabbos - he replied in the affirmative (since it is not evident that he is doing so as a cure).

14)

(a)When he asked him whether one is permitted to close and open his eyes in the process, he could only cite him a similar case where Rebbi Zeira in the name of either Rav Masna or of Mar Ukva, who in turn, cited Shmuel's father and Levi - who both prohibited placing wine in one's eye (since it is obviously being done as a cure).

(b)One of them permits placing it above the eye. The other one forbids Rok Tapal - (the spit of a person who has not yet eaten on that day), which is more stringent than wine, because (unlike wine) one would not use it as an eye-wash, because it is disgusting.

(c)Shmuel - permits someone to soak his wine in bread, leading us to believe that his father must be the one to permit placing wine above one's eye.

(d)We reject this proof however, from a second statement of Shmuel, forbidding Rok Tapal. If Shmuel heard that from his father too - then Levi will have made neither of the two statements cited by Rebbi Zeira, but Rebbi Zeira said that he did!

(e)We therefore conclude - that Shmuel heard one of the rulings cited by Rebbi Zeira from his father, and the other, from Levi, and we do not know which is which.

15)

(a)Mar Ukva Amar Shmuel permits placing a salve above a sore eye on Shabbos. Mar Ukva, who often came before Shmuel, was Av Beis-Din in his time.

(b)Shmuel permits placing a salve above a sore eye on Shabbos - provided it was soaked before Shabbos, a reminder not to grind the ingredients on Shabbos (the reason for the prohibition of taking medicines on Shabbos). And as far as others are concerned, they will assume that the 'salve' is only wine (which, as we learned, is certainly permitted).

(c)When Mar Ukva saw bar Livai closing and opening his eyes when applying this salve - he objected on the grounds that this was something that Shmuel would certainly not have approved.

16)

(a)When Rebbi Yanai asked Mar Ukva to send him some of (the famous doctor) Shmuel's eye-salves, the latter replied that Shmuel himself had stated that he would gain more - by ...

1. ... applying a drop of cold water to the eye each morning, and ...

2. ... bathing one's hands and feet each evening in warm water.

(b)Rebbi Muna in the name of Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa - corroborates Shmuel's two statements.

(c)Mar Ukva condescended to send Rebbi Yanai the salves - so that he should not accuse him of refusing out of miserliness.

17)

(a)The same Tana states that a hand that touches one's eyes, one's nose, one's mouth one's ears and the open wound where one let blood - deserves to be cut off ...

(b)... provided it did so before washing one's hands in the morning (known as 'Negel-Vasser').

(c)The Tana adds to the list 'Yad le'Amah (the Makom ha'Milah)', 'Yad le'Fi Taba'as (the rectum)' and 'Yad le'Gigis (meaning that he touched the wine in the barrel)', of which ...

1. ... the latter exclusively belongs to the previous list ...

2. ... whereas the first two are learned independently - one because it leads to Tum'as Keri, the other because it leads to piles.

(d)Placing one's hand before washing 'Negel-Vasser' in one's ...

1. ... eye - causes blindness.

2. ... ear - causes deafness.

3. ... mouth or nose - causes a foul smell.

18)

(a)The 'bas Chorin' to which Rebbi Nasan refers in a Beraisa is - an evil spirit ...

(b)... which is fussy about - washing one's hands three times consecutively after waking up in the morning, failing which, he strikes.

(c)Rebbi Yochanan suggests that, should the bas Chorin strike one's eyes after not washing the best remedy is - eye-paint.

(d)Besides stopping excessive tears, the eye-paint also - stimulates the growth of the eye-lids.

(e)Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa - simply supports Rebbi Yochanan observations concerning eye-paint.