Previous daf

1)

(a) To grind spices and salt - one normally uses a stone pestle.

(b) Beis Shamai require changing to a wooden pestle to grind spices, and to an earthenware jar or a wooden ladle to grind salt - Beis Hillel require no change at all, to grind spices, whereas for salt, they require the use of a wooden pestle.

(c) Rav Huna and Rav Chisda argue as to why everyone agrees that salt requires a change. According to one of them, it is because everyone knows in advance that his pot requires salt (so he should have ground it in advance); whereas not everyone knows which spices he will decide to use on Yom-Tov (therefore it is not possible to grind them in advance) - the other says that it is because, whereas spices tend to *deteriorate* when they are ground in advance, salt does *not*.

(d) One of the differences between the two opinions is with regard to a spice that one knew in advance one was going to use - the other difference is with regard to saffron, which, unlike most spices, does not deteriorate: Consequently, according to the second opinion, one will not be permitted to grind saffron on Yom-Tov, whereas it will be permitted, according to the first opinion.

(a) Rav Yehudah quoting Shmuel, permits grinding even salt without a change, like Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa. According to Rebbi Meir however, Beis Shamai require two Chumros over Beis Hillel - one, that it requires a Shinuy (to grind it using an earthenware jar or a wooden ladle; the other, that one may only grind salt if it is for roasting (when only small quantities are required), but not for cooking.

(b) Beis Shamai agree that no change is necessary - if one wishes to grind salt together with spices.

(c) According to the initial text in the Beraisa, Beis Hillel permit grinding salt with everything - implying that one may use even objects that are Muktzah in order to grind salt - which is obviously incorrect. We therefore amend it to read, not '*be*'Chol Davar', but '*le'Chol Davar', meaning that one may salt *for* anything, even for cooking.

(d) It would be incorrect to say that Shmuel does not require any change at all - because the Amora'im agree that even Shmuel requires a slight change, such as tilting the mortar on its side.

(a) When Rav Sheshes heard the sound of grinding in his vicinity - he declared that it did emanate from his house.

(b) He was certain that whoever was grinding ...

1. ... was not holding the mortar on its side - because there was a ring to the grinding tone, which would not have been present had it been lying flat on the table.
2. ... was grinding salt and not spices - because of the barking sound that was typical of salt but not of spices.

(a) 'Tisni' means grinding wheat into four.

(b) The Beraisa forbids grinding Tisni (because it is undue exertion), implying that using a mortar to break wheat into two or three (which require less exertion than Tisni) are permitted. In that cases, how can the Tana go on to forbid using a mortar at all?

(c) Initially, we attempt to reconcile the two statements - by establishing that the prohibition by Tisni (which is obviously completely forbidden) comes to demonstrate that the prohibition in the Seifa is also absolute (otherwise, we would have established the Seifa by a small mortar, which is considered a change, seeing as it is only fit for spices).

(d) But when we discover a second Beraisa which permits a small mortar - Abaye explains the Beraisa to mean that - one may not grind Tisni at all, (even using a small grinder - because of the exertion involved); otherwise, one may not use a *large* grinder, but a small one is permitted.

5)

(a) Rava reestablishes the initial interpretation forbidding even the use of a small mortar (as we learned above, in 4c.), which Chazal forbade in Eretz Yisrael, because they had slaves, who would grind using a large grinder and say then say that they had used a small one - whereas the Beraisa which permits a small mortar, refers to the B'nei Bavel, who did not have slaves.

(b) Rav Papi refused to eat porridge in Mar Shmuel's house, presuming that had been ground in a large mortar on Yom-Tov.
Rav Papi knew that ...

1. ... it had been ground in a large mortar - because it was too well ground to have been ground in a small one.
2. ... it had been ground on Yom-Tov, and not on the day before - because it looked peeled and white, which it would not have done had it been ground before Yom-Tov.

(c) Alternatively, Rav Papi was strict in Mar Shmuel's house, even as concerns a small mortar - because Mar Shmuel had slaves like they did in Eretz Yisrael.

(a) Beis Hillel permit selecting in the regular way. According to Beis Shamai - one may only select the food from the waste, and not the waste from the food.

(b) Beis Hillel permit selecting in one's lap, or using a cone-shaped funnel (some say, a reed-basket) or a dish - but not on a table, a sifter or a sieve.

(c) Raban Gamliel permits selecting by placing in water, and allowing the waste to float to the top.

(a) Beis Hillel permit even removing the waste - Raban Gamliel restricts this to where the food is more than the waste, but when the waste is more than the food, one is only permitted to take the food, and not the waste.

(b) If Raban Gamliel really meant what he said, then even taking the *food* would be prohibited - because it would be Muktzah.

(c) What Raban Gamliel is really referring to therefore - is not when the waste is quantitatively in excess of the food, but when (due to its small size) it is more difficult to remove it than it is to remove the food.

(d) The basis of the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel is when it is more difficult to remove the food - Beis Shamai holds that one must always take the food and not the waste; whereas according to Beis Hillel, one should rather minimize the bother and take the waste.

9)

(a) Beis Shamai *permit* sending food that is ready to eat now (such as pieces of meat that one tends to eat immediately and not leave over until tomorrow) on Yom-Tov.

(b) Beis Hillel are far more liberal - they permit all foods except raw grain which cannot be prepared at all on Yom-Tov, since it is forbidden to grind it into flour on Yom-Tov.

(c) Rebbi Shimon is more lenient still - he permits even to send raw grain - because it is possible to make a dish which entails cooking the grains first and grinding them in a small grinder afterwards.

(d) The Tana Kama disagrees with him - on the grounds that most do not eat grain that way.

(a) Rav Yechiel quotes a Beraisa forbidding the sending of a gift 'be'Shurah' - meaning together with a delegation of three people, because it looks as if they are taking it to market to sell.

(b) The Gemara is in doubt whether three people carrying three gifts has the Din of *one* person carrying *one* gift, which is permitted, or whether it is like *three* people carrying *one* gift, which is permitted - and remains undecided.

(c) Rebbi Shimon's concession extends to barley - from which one can prepare animal food, and lentils - from which can prepare a type of food called Resisin (both of them in a small grinder).

(a) The Mishnah permits sending garments that have not yet been stitched - which are fit to cover oneself (like a blanket).

(b) The Tana of our Mishnah forbids sending 1. a Sandal ha'Mesumar (a wooden shoe covered with leather, into which many nails have been hammered), and 2. a shoe that has not yet been stitched together.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah adds a white shoe - meaning one that has not yet been painted black (a job which requires an expert craftsmen). One is not permitted to send it, because it was not fit to be worn in that unfinished state.

(d) The Tana permits sending on Yom-Tov - any category of article which is fit to be used on Yom-Tov.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "u'Veged Kil'ayim Sha'atnez Lo Ya'aleh Alecha" - that even articles of clothing that are forbidden to wear because they are Sha'atnez, are permitted to spread out underneath oneself as sheets.

(b) Nevertheless, one may not lie ...

1. ... directly on top of Sha'atnez garments - because we have learned in a Beraisa that Chazal prohibited doing so in case a thread inadvertently wraps itself around one's finger or around another part of his body.
2. ... on top of Sha'atnez garments, even if one places other sheets in between the Sha'atnez and oneself - because the Kehila Kadisha of Yerushalayim are quoted as saying that one may not even sleep on top of ten sheets, of which the bottom one is Sha'atnez.

(c) Nor is one permitted to use a curtain that contains Sha'atnez - because, due to the fact that the servant would sometimes warm himself by wrapping it round himself, Chazal gave it the Din of a garment (with regard to its susceptibility to receive Tum'ah), and not of the wall of a house, which is not subject to Tum'ah. By the same token - it has the Din of a garment regarding Sha'atnez, and is forbidden.

(d) The Tana of our Mishnah, who permits sending even garments that contain Sha'atnez - are speaking about hard materials, which one may sit on, and are therefore usable.