(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Shabbos 28


(a) Having learnt from a Gezeirah Shavah ("Ohel" "Ohel") that flax is Mitamei be'Ohel ha'Mes, why do we not (apply the principle of 'Ein Gezeirah Shavah le'Mechtzah' and) learn from the "Ohel" of the Mishkan to restrict this to flax material which has been woven from fibres twined from six strands?

(b) Why do we not include *all other types of material* from the extra "Ohel", and not just flax that is not made from six twined strands?

(c) Planks are not included in "Ohel", because of the Pasuk "ve'Asisa Kerashim la'Mishkan", from which we infer that planks are not called "Mishkan" (which, is synonymous with "Ohel" - in our Sugya at least - see Tosfos d.h. 'va'Yifros').
What problem do we then have with Rebbi Elazar's Sha'aleh - 'whether the skin of Kasher animals is Mitamei be'Ohel ha'Mes' in view of the Pasuk "Michseh la'Ohel"?

(d) How does the Gemara resolve this problem from the Pasuk in Sh'mos "ve'Nas'u es Yeri'os ha'Mishkan ve'es Ohel Mo'ed, Michsehu" etc.?

(a) How does the Gemara define Rebbi Elazar's Sha'aleh (quoted in 1c)? Upon what does the Sha'aleh depend?

(b) How does Rav Yosef (quoting a Beraisa) resolve it?

(c) In the Mishkan, there was a covering of ram's skin dyed red, and a covering of Tachash skin. Did this consist of one covering comprising two, or two separate ones?

(d) According to Rebbi Nechemyah, the covering consisted of one covering comprising the two, and it resembled a (creature called a) Talah Ilan. Why does this present Rav Yosef (quoted in b) with a problem?

(e) How does the Gemara resolve the problem? What is the connection with 'Sasgona' - the Targum for 'Tachash'?

(a) The Beraisa learns Tum'as Ohel by the skin of a non-Kasher animal from (the Pasuk written by Nega'im - in Vayikra) "O *be*'Or" (as well as a skin which was stricken with Tzara'as only after it was shown to the Kohen); and "O be'Chol Meleches Or" comes to include a piece of material stitched from different pieces (all of which are subject to Nega'im) by the laws of Nega'im.
What is wrong with the first Derashah? Why can we not learn Tum'as Ohel ha'Mes with regard to the skins of non-Kasher animals, from Tum'as Nega'im?

(b) The Gemara then attempts to learn it from "O Or" (written by Tum'as Sheretz).
Why can we not learn the skins of non-Kasher animals by Tuma'as Ohel ha'Mes, from Tum'as Sheretz?

(c) Why is there even a problem with learning it from with a 'Binyan Av mi'Shenei Kesuvim' from Tum'as Nega'im and Tum'as Sheretz?

Answers to questions



(a) We ultimately learn that the skin of a Tamei animal is Mitamei be'Ohel ha'Mes, from the hair of goats.
How do we learn it from there?

(b) What problem does the above Derashah create in connection with the Beraisa of Rav Yosef, who says, that when it comes to the work of Heaven, only the skin of Kasher animals is acceptable?

(c) How does the Gemara resolve this problem? What *is* the Tana referring to?

(d) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Sh'mos "Le'ma'an Tihyeh Toras Hashem be'Ficha"?

(a) We now know the Din with regard to the parchment of Tefilin from the above Pasuk, and four other aspects of Tefilin from Halachah le'Mosheh mi'Sinai.
Which four?

(b) If *the skin* of the Batim is not included in the Pasuk of "Lema'an Tihye" etc., why does the Gemara at first think that *the Shin* of the Batim *is*?

(c) Then what is Rav Yosef's Tana coming to tell us?

6) How is Hashem's name 'Shakai' formed by the Tefilin?


(a) How does Rebbi Meir describe the Tachash?

(b) How does the Gemara now know that it must have been a Kasher animal?

(c) How do we know that the bull that Adam sacrificed to Hashem had only one horn, considering that the Pasuk in Tehilim which refers to it, writes "ve'Sitav la'Hashem mi'Shor Par *Makrin* Mafris", implying that it had *two* horns ?

(d) Why do we not then learn from this Pasuk that the Tachash (which seemingly has no other animal to which it can be compared), must be a Beheimah, and not a Chayah?

(a) According to Rebbi Eliezer, if one folds a small piece of cloth, thereby transforming it into a wick, it nevertheless remains subject to Tum'as Begadim, whereas according to Rebbi Akiva, it does not. What is the basis of their Machlokes?

(b) Given the following facts, what is the basis of their second Machlokes: whether one may kindle the Shabbos lights with it or not?

1. We are speaking about a piece of cloth that is precisely three by three finger-breadths;
2. We are speaking about a Yom-Tov, which falls on Erev Shabbos;
3. Both Tana'im agree with Rav Yehudah's principle: that one is permitted to use a complete vessel for the Yom-Tov lights, but not a vessel that broke on Yom-Tov;
4. Both Tana'im also agree with Ula, who says that one is obligated to kindle the majority of the wick that protrudes from the lamp-holder.
(a) According to Rebbi Akiva, when must he have folded the piece of cloth?

(b) Why may one not light a broken vessel on Yom-Tov?

(c) How does the Din of 'Nochri she'Chakak Kav be'Vik'as, Yisrael Masikah be'Yadayim be'Yom-Tov' clash with Rav Yehudah's principle above in 3.?

(d) How does the Gemara answer the contradiction in Rav Ada bar Ahavah's two statements?

(a) According to Rava, Rebbi Eliezer forbids the folded wick on *any* Erev Shabbos, not specifically on one on which Yom-Tov happened to fall. What reason does Rava give for Rebbi Eliezer's ruling?

(b) How then, does Rava explain the Tana of the above Beraisa, who says 'Shalosh al Shalosh Metzumtzamos'?
In what connection did he say it?

Answers to questions
Next daf

For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,