ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShabbos 121
1. What the Tum'ah of a Zav and a Zavah, a Metzorah and a Metzora'as, a
Bo'el Nidah and a Tamei Mes all have in common - is that they all last for
(b) 'Nidah ve'Yoledes, Tevilasan ba'Laylah' - means that these two, unlike
the previous group, are obligated to wait for the eighth night before
Toveling. Both of these groups are permitted to Tovel even on Yom Kipur:
the former, if their seventh day fell on Yom Kipur, the latter (may Tovel
on Kol Nidrei night), if their seventh day fell on Erev Yom Kipur.
2. When the Beraisa states 'Tevilasan ba'Yom' - it means that they are
permitted to Tovel during the course of the seventh day. They are not
obligated to wait for the following night, like the next group are (as we
shall now see).
(c) A Ba'al Keri, may Tovel any time after he sees, even on the same day.
With regard to Yom Kipur: during the day, he needs to Tovel in order to be
able to Daven - Shachris, Musaf and Minchah. However, even after Minchah
(when he could wait until *after* nightfall to Tovel before Davening
Ne'ilah), he is permitted to Tovel, even *before* nightfall, because
'Tevilah bi'Zemanah Mitzvah'.
(d) The Rebbi Yossi who says (regarding a Ba'al Keri) 'min ha'Minchah
u'Lema'alah, Eino Yachol li'Tevol' (because he holds 'Tevilah bi'Zemanah
La'av Mitzvah') is not the same Rebbi Yossi as the one quoted above, but
Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah (whereas the Rebbi Yossi quoted above, who
holds 'Tevilah bi'Zemanah Mitzvah' is Rebbi Yossi bar Chalafta - the Rebbi
Yossi mentioned Stam throughout Shas).
(a) The middle case, which is not clear from our Mishnah (whether a gentile
may put out the flames or not) - is where one announces 'Kol ha'Mechabeh
(b) Rebbi Ami rules that he may.
(c) We are not obligated to stop non-Jews (who are not our slaves) from
working on Shabbos, whereas we are obligated to stop our children from
working for us. (This is not clear, because non-Jews too, are forbidden to
work for us - albeit mi'de'Rabbanan. The difference would seem to be, that
whereas the non-Jew is extinguishing the fire for his own benefit, the
child is doing so for his father).
(a) The mayor's fire-brigade came to put out the fire in Yosef ben Simai's
courtyard - because he was the King's financial agent.
(b) When he stopped them, a miracle occurred: it began to rain and the rain
extinguished the flames.
(c) After Shabbos, Yosef sent them all gifts.
(d) What he did was halachically unnecessary, as we learnt in our Mishnah
('Nochri ha'Ba Lechabos, Ein Omrin Lo "Al Techabeh"'). What he did was
(a) There is no proof from our Mishnah that one is obligated to stop
children from transgressing a La'av, even if they do so of their own accord
- because our Mishnah is speaking when the child comes to extinguish the
fire on behalf of *his father* (which the Torah explicitly forbids, when it
writes in Yisro "Lo Sa'aseh Kol Melachah, Atah, *u'Vincha"*etc.). The
Sha'aleh whether it is necessary to stop a child from transgressing a La'av
or not, refers to a child who transgresses for his *own* benefit.
(b) One is not required (mi'de'Rabbanan) to stop non-Jews from performing a
Melachah - because generally, a non-Jew performs the Melachah on his own
behalf, and not on behalf of the Jew.
(a) With regard to trapping a scorpion, Rebbi Yehudah quoted Rebbi Yochanan
ben Zakai, who said 'Chosheshani Lo me'Chatas'!
(b) There is no Chidush at all in telling us that one may cover the mess
made by a child - since it is not even Muktzah. One would even be permitted
to move it, if necessary, since it is fit for use as dog's food. So why
should one not be permitted to cover it with a dish?
(c) Our Mishnah therefore, must be speaking, not about a child's mess, but
the mess left by roosters, and which one is permitted to cover, to prevent
children playing in the vicinity, from dirtying themselves in it.
(a) Yes! one may move a dead mouse by its tail from one's living-room, on
(b) Were it not to prevent the child from getting dirty, the chicken's dirt
would not be a Graf shel Re'i, because the Mishnah is speaking about a
trash-heap in the courtyard - and a Graf shel Re'i does not apply in a
trash-heap - only in a place where it is naturally disturbing.
(a) According to Rebbi Shimon, it is permitted to kill an Egyptian fly, a
hornet from Ninveh, a scorpion from Chadiav, an Israeli snake and a mad dog
anywhere, even if he is not being chased by them; whereas all other wild
animals are only permitted if he *is*.
(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah, one is not even permitted to kill *these*
animals, unless they are actually chasing him, since a 'Melachah she'Einah
Tzerichah le'Gufah' is Asur d'Oraysa.
(c) This is because the Rabbanan do not have the right to permit an Isur
d'Oraysa, unless one's life is actually threatened - whereas according to
Rebbi Shimon, who holds that a 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah' is
only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan, and the Rabbanan *do* have the right to waive
their own decrees in face of any animal which is potentially dangerous.
(d) When Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi said 'Kol ha'Mazikin Neheragin be'Shabbos'
- he meant only if they are chasing him.
(a) When the Beraisa expert quoted the Beraisa: 'ha'Horeg Nechashim
ve'Akrabim be'Shabbos, Ein Ru'ach Chasidim Nochah Heimenu' - Rava bar Rav
Huna said to him 've'Osan Chasidim, Ein Ru'ach Chachamim Nochah Mehem',
because he holds that one is permitted to kill all potential killers on
(b) Rav Huna said to the man he saw kill a wasp (that was not threatening
him): 'Have you now killed them all'? (In other words, what is the point of
killing potentially dangerous animals, unless they are actually threatening
(c) The Beraisa says that: if he kills the snake, then it is clear that
Hashem brought them to him to be killed; but if he does not, then it is
equally clear, that Hashem brought them to him to kill him, and he only
survived through a miracle.
(a) When that Talmid killed the snake that fell into the Beis Hamedrash on
Shabbos - Rebbi commented 'Paga Bo ke'Yotze Bo'!
(b) There is no proof at all from Rebbi Yanai (who said that he would even
kill a hornet, how much more a snake or a scorpion) that Rebbi was praising
the Talmid for killing the snake, and that 'Harag Zeh ke'Yotze Bo' is a
compliment. Why not? Because Rebbi Yanai was speaking not about killing
them directly, which is prohibited, but about treading on them in his
stride, which is considered a 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven', which is permitted.
(c) The Resh Galusa changed his mind, and took a more tolerant line on Aba
bar Morsa, when, quoting Rav Yehudah, Aba ben Morsa told him that it was
not necessary to place a vessel over the spittle lying in his path, but was
permitted to walk on it. Seeing that he was a Talmid-Chacham, he told his
men to stop pressing him for the money.
(a) Rebbi Chanina allowed a small lamp (which did not have grooves carved
on it) to be moved on Shabbos.
(b) Keronos shel Beis Rebbi - were a sort of wagon (something like a
sedan-chair), that was carried by *one* person, but not by *two*. A large
lamp and a large wagon were Muktzah because the owner would designate a
specific location for them, and not use them for anything else.
(c) Rebbi Chanina permitted non-Jewish wine with one seal, either because
he held like Rebbi Eliezer, who always permits wine with one seal, or
because he reckoned that the gentile who had transported the wine, would
have been afraid to tamper with it, because he was afraid of the
consequences, should the Nasi, who was a royal appointee, might do, should
he find out (and even the Rabbanan agree that, whenever an element of fear
is present, wine does not require more than one seal..