ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShabbos 116
(a) According to Rebbi, the Nunin are there to indicate that that those two
Pesukim constitute an independent Parshah (not because they do not belong
there). In that case, Bamidbar has been divided into three Sefarim, and the
Torah consists of seven Sefarim, rather than *five* - presenting us with a
distinct interpretation of the Pasuk "Chatzvah Amudeha Shiv'ah".
(b) The Tana Kama, who claims that the Parshah is out of place, is Raban
Shimon ben Gamliel. In his opinion, the Parshah is placed *here*, in order
to break between two Parshiyos of punishments: their desire for meat (see
Tosfos, DH 'Pur'anus'), and their grumbling over the need to travel.
(c) It really belongs in Naso (*fifty* Parshiyos earlier), where the Torah
describes how they traveled in the desert.
(a) There is no proof from the Beraisa (which rules that a Sefer that does
not contain eighty-five letters cannot be saved) - that one may not save
the margins, because, since the Beraisa is speaking about a Sefer where the
letters faded, presumably, the parchment of the margins wore out; too.
1. The spaces between the words and between the lines - are not included in
the Sha'aleh of margins (but clearly have the Kedushah of the words
themselves) - as is evident from the whole Sugya.
(c) What *is* called GIlyon in this regard - is the margin (top, bottom and
sides) of a Sefer whose letters have been erased.
2. The blank spaces that remain, after the letters have been erased - are
not included in the Gemara's Sha'aleh (as the Gemara concludes), because,
when the letters were erased, their Kedushah departed.
3. Neither is the margin of a written Sefer, which is sanctified together
with the letters.
(d) The Beraisa, which writes 'ha'Gilyonim, ve'Sifrei ha'Minim' - means
'ha'Gilyonim *shel* Sifrei ha'Minim'.
(a) According to Rebbi Yossi, the names of Hashem that one cuts out from
the Sefer-Torah of a heretic, must be placed into Genizah.
(b) Rebbi Tarfon maintains that a Sefer-Torah written by a heretic should
be burnt together with the Names of Hashem. As for someone who is being
chased by an assailaint or by a snake - he should rather escape into the
house of a gentile idolater than of a heretic. Why is that? Because,
whereas the former blasphemes out of ignorance, the latter does so with
full knowledge of what he is doing.
(c) Rebbi Yishmael says that if one erases Hashem's Holy Name in order to
make peace between man and wife, how much more so a Name written by
heretics (and which is *not* Holy), should be destroyed.
(d) The Chidush in saying that one may even save them from water or from
other dangers - is that, even during the week, when the suspicion that one
may come to extinguish the fire (the reason that it is prohibited on
Shabbos) does not aply, it is still forbidden to save them (see also Tosfos
(a) Bei Avidan - is where the heretics used to stage religious disputations
with the Jews.
(b) In ve'La'av, ve'Rafya Biydei - means that Rebbi Avahu was not sure what
the Din was; one day he said 'Yes'! and the next day he said 'No'!
(c) Nitzrefo - is the name of an idol, and Bei Nitzrefo, its place of
(a) Shmuel would attend the Bei Avidan, but not the Bei Nitzrefo.
1. Rava used to avoid attending the Bei Avidan (although attending was
apparently, compulsory), and would then offer excuses for his absence -
such as there was a tree in the way, and he was unable to uproot it, or
because he could not bear its smell.
2. Mar bar Rav Yosef claimed that was not afraid to attend that Bei Avidan,
because he had well-placed friends there. On one occasion however, they
attempted to kill him - in spite of his well-placed friends.
(a) Eima Shalom was the sister of Raban Gamliel, and the wife of Rebbi
(b) She and her brother Raban Gamliel decided to test that philosopher who
was purported not to take bribes. They set out to prove that this was
(c) So she brought him a golden lamp (as a bribe), and told him that she
wanted to share her father's inheritance with her brother. He took the lamp
and told her that she was indeed entitled to half the inheritance. To her
query that the Torah writes otherwise, he replied that since Yisrael went
into exile, a new Torah was handed to them (the New Testament), in which it
is written that a son and a daughter inherit equally.
(d) The following day, Raban Gamliel brought him a Lubian donkey, and
presented *his* case, to which the philosopher replied that he had no
intention of detracting from the words of the Torah of Moshe or of adding
to it, and that at a later point it was written in the New Testament that a
daughter does not inherit when there is a son. 'May you shine like a lamp',
Eima Shalom said. To this, Raban Gamliel replied 'Came the donkey and
kicked the lamp'.
(a) Shmuel could not possibly have forbidden the reading of Kesuvim outside
the time of the Derashah - because in Neherda'a, which was Shmuel's town,
they used to read the Haftarah from Kesuvim at Minchah on Shabbos
(b) The time of the Derashah was *before* the Se'udah, since afterwards,
the people might have been drunk.
(c) Rav and Shmuel's dispute concerns learning Kesuvim outside the Beis
ha'Medrash (where there is no Derashah) - but during the time of the
Derashah: Rav holds that one may, Shmuel, that one may not.
(d) Rav Ashi establishes Shmuel's initial ruling (forbidding learning
Kesuvim outside the time of the Derashah) according to Rebbi Nechemyah.
Rebbi Nechemyah says that one may never learn Kesuvim on Shabbos, so that
people will say, that if learning Kesuvim is forbidden, how much more so
financial documents and letters. Shmuel however, does not follow Rebbi
Nechemyah's opinion, and that is why they used to read the Haftarah from
Kesuvim at Shabbos Minchah.
(a) Yes! It is permitted to save the bag in which the Sefer-Torah is kept,
or a Tefilin-bag, even where there is money in it.
(b) According to Ben Beseira, even saving them by carrying them to an
alley-way which opens at both ends into a street, is permitted.
(a) According to Rebbi Yishmael, the son of Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, one
was permitted to strip the Pesach (starting from the hind-legs) only as far
as the chest - because that is as much as was necessary to remove the
innards, which would otherwise go bad, if left inside the animal's body.
Beyond that, Mafshit is a Melachah and is forbidden.
(b) The Rabbanan permit the completion of the stripping process.
(c) According to Rava, the Rabanan's reason is so that Kodshei Shamayim
should not be left lying like carcasses.
(d) Although the South-wind is also cool, Yoma de'Istana means a day on
which the *North-wind blows, and the animal can be left out without going
bad. In this case, Rav Yosef will agree that, even according to the
Rabbanan, stripping the animal will be forbidden.
(e) The other difference between Rav Yosef and Rava will be in a case when
the Pesach is lying on a golden table: according to Rav Yosef, stripping it
will still remain permitted, since a golden table will not prevent the
animal from going putrid. Whereas according to Rava, the Rabbanan will
agree with Rebbi Yishmael and forbid one to strip it completely - since it
is not now lying like a carcass.
(a) According to Rebbi Yishmael, "Kol Po'al Hashem Lama'anehu" teaches us
that one should not remove the innards before the animal has been stripped,
because otherwise, some of the hairs of the skin might become stuck to the
(b) How can one derive that one may strip the Pesach (a Melachah) - from
the fact that one may save the bag of the Sefer together with the Sefer
(which is merely Tiltul)?
(c) The Gemara means to say that, besides arguing about stripping the
Pesach, Rebbi Yishmael and the Rabbanan also argue about carrying the skin
together with the flesh; and it is with regard to the latter Din that the
Rabbanan prove their point - from the Heter of saving the bag of the Sefer
together with the Sefer - since both are Tiltul, and both a matter of Kavod