Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) MUST THE DAMAGER DISTANCE HIMSELF?

(a) (Mishnah): A laundry ditch ...
(b) Version #1 (Rav Nachman): Three Tefachim only suffices for the ditch in which the laundry is soaked; the ditch in which one rubs the clothes must be distanced four Amos.

1. Support (Beraisa): A laundry ditch must be distanced four Amos.
2. Question: But the Mishnah says, three Tefachim!
3. Answer: The Mishnah and Beraisa speak of different types of laundry ditches, as Rav Nachman.

(c) Version #2 - Contradiction: The Mishnah says, a laundry ditch must be distanced three Tefachim;

1. (Beraisa): A laundry ditch must be distanced four Amos.

(d) Answer (Rav Nachman): Three Tefachim suffices for the ditch in which the laundry is soaked; the ditch in which one rubs the clothes must be distanced four Amos. (End of Version #2)
(e) (R. Chiya, son of Rav Avya): The text of the Mishnah explicitly says, he must distance the edge of the soaking ditch three Tefachim from the wall.
(f) (Mishnah): And he plasters the wall of the pit.
(g) Question: Is the correct text 'And he plasters', or 'Or he plasters'?
(h) Answer #1: Clearly, it must be And - otherwise, the clauses of the Mishnah would have been taught together!
(i) Rejection: No, we can say, the Tana teaches separately damage from water and damage from heat.
(j) Answer #2 (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): Land in which the dirt is brittle - each neighbor may dig (a pit) in his own property, but must distance himself three Tefachim and plaster it.

1. We infer - only because the dirt is brittle must he distance and plaster!

(k) Rejection: No - even if the dirt is not brittle, he must distance and plaster.

1. The Beraisa taught the case of brittle dirt, for one might have thought that more than three Tefachim are required - we hear, this is not so.

(a) (Mishnah): One must distance the refuse of olives, manure, salt, lime, and rocks ...
(b) (Mishnah): We may not store food (to keep it warm on Shabbos) in refuse of olives, manure, salt, lime, or sand, whether they are wet or dry.
(c) Question: Why does our Mishnah teach about rocks and not sand, and the other Mishnah teaches about sand, not rocks?
(d) Answer #1 (Rav Yosef): The Mishnah of storing does not teach about rocks, for people do not normally store food in rocks.

1. Objection (Abaye): It is not the way to store in tufts of wool, or strips of purple wool, but a Beraisa teaches these!

i. (Beraisa): We may store in tufts of wool, or pieces of combed wool, or in strips of purple wool, and in soft wads, but we may not move them (on Shabbos).

(e) Answer #2 (Abaye): The two Mishnayos reveal about each other.

1. Our Mishnah teaches about rocks - the same law applies to sand;
2. That Mishnah teaches about sand - the same law applies to rocks.
3. Objection (Rava): If so, why were the other things listed in both Mishnayos - each should only have been taught in one, and we would know that it applies to the other, also!

(f) Answer #3 (Rava): That Mishnah does not teach about rocks for they would make the pots rust or break (so they are never used for storing).

1. Sand is not taught in our Mishnah, for it only heats what is hot, and cools what is cold (hence, it does not harm walls, which are cold).

(g) Objection: But R. Oshiya taught that sand must be distanced from a wall!
(h) Answer: That refers to wet sand.
(i) Question: Our Tana should teach the case of wet sand!
(j) Answer: He already taught the case of an irrigation channel (which damages as wet sand).
(k) Question: But he taught both an irrigation channel and a laundry ditch!
(l) Answer: It was necessary to teach both of those.

1. If only an irrigation channel was taught, one might have thought that this is because it is constantly used, but a laundry ditch need not be distanced!
2. If only a laundry ditch was taught, one might have thought that this is because its water is stagnant (and damages more), but an irrigation channel need not be distanced!

(a) (Mishnah): He cannot plant seeds or plow (unless he distances ...).
(b) Question: Since the Mishnah says, he must distance his plowing - why must it also teach, he must distance his plants?
(c) Answer: It is possible to sow seeds by hand, without plowing.
(d) Question: Since the Mishnah says, he must distance his plants - why must it also teach, he must distance his plowing (things only grow where he seeds!)?
(e) Answer: He may want to plow to improve his trees (which were properly planted long ago).
(f) Question: Why must the Mishnah teach, he must distance his plants - we know, he cannot bring water close to the wall!
(g) Answer: The Tana is in Eretz Yisrael, where the rain suffices for the plants.

(h) Suggestion: He must distance plants because roots do not grow straight down, rather to the sides.

1. Objection (Mishnah): One who plants the top of a growing vine into the ground - if it is less than three Tefachim deep, he may not plants seeds on top of it (because the area is considered a vineyard);

i. (Beraisa): He may plant seeds to the sides.

(i) Answer: (Really, the roots grow straight down); plants must be distanced because they cause the surrounding dirt to soften.
(j) (Mishnah): He must distance urine three Tefachim from his neighbor's wall ...
(k) (Rabah Bar Bar Chanah): One may urinate by his neighbor's wall - "I will cut off from (the seed of Achav) one that urinates at the wall ..."
(l) Question: But our Mishnah teaches, he may not urinate within three Tefachim of his neighbor's wall!
(m) Answer: No - the Mishnah prohibits pouring out urine near the wall.
(n) (Beraisa): One may not urinate within three Tefachim of his neighbor's wall - this applies to a brick wall;

1. Regarding a stone wall, it suffices to distance one Tefach, for this will not harm the wall;
2. If the stone wall is built on a rock, one need not distance himself at all.

(o) Rabah Bar Bar Chanah is refuted.
(p) Question: But he brought a verse as support!
(q) Answer: The prophecy was that there will not remain to Achav's house even what normally urinates at the wall, namely, a dog.

(a) (We know that Tum'ah passes from one room to another if the wall between them has an opening of a square Tefach.)
(b) (Shmuel): When measuring the size of the opening, if there is a thin wafer in the hole there, the space it occupies is considered part of the opening.
(c) Question: Even a thick loaf does not diminish the gap!
(d) Answer: He teaches a bigger Chidush.

1. A loaf does not diminish, since he may want to eat it, he does not abandon it to be considered part of the wall;
2. One might have thought, a wafer (which gets ruined quickly, so he plans on leaving it there) is considered part of the wall and diminishes the gap - we hear, this is not so.

(e) Question: We already know that it cannot shield from Tum'ah, since it itself can become Tamei!
(f) Answer: The wafer was kneaded with fruit juice (water never came upon the flour, so the cake cannot become Tamei).
(g) Question (Mishnah): A box full of straw or a jug full of dried figs that are in a window - if the straw or figs could stand there even if the box or jug was removed, the straw or figs block Tum'ah from passing through the opening; if they cannot stand by themselves, they do not block Tum'ah.

1. Even though straw is fit for an animal, we see that it blocks Tum'ah!

(h) Answer: The case is, the straw is spoiled.

1. Question: Still, it is fit for making mud!
2. Answer: The case is, there are thorns in it (so it is not fitting).
3. Question: It is fitting to burn!
4. Answer: No, the case is, it is wet.
5. Question: It is fitting to burn in a big fire!
6. Answer: Big fires are uncommon.

(i) Question: Even though dried figs are fit to eat, we see that they block Tum'ah!
(j) Answer (Shmuel and Rabah Bar Avuha): The case is, they are wormy.