Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai used to sit in the shade of the Heichal and Darshen all day - because the walls of the Heichal were made to protect the *inside* of the Heichal, not the *outside*, which is where he sat. Consequently, he was deriving benefit in an unusual way. To intentionally derive benefit in the regular manner may well be forbidden, even when it is unavoidable - even according to Rebbi Yehudah (not like Abaye).

(b) Bar Kapara said that there is no Me'ilah by 'sound, vision and smell' in the Beis Hamikdash.

(c) They effected repairs in the Kodesh Kodshim - by lowering repair-men in cages which enclosed them in front and at the sides, so that they should not derive benefit from the beautifully-adorned Kodesh Kodshim by gazing at them.

(d) There is no proof from Rava from here, that even 'Lo Efshar ve'ka'Michaven is forbidden (even according to Rebbi Yehudah) - because they were particularly strict with regard to the Kodesh Kodshim. Perhaps by other Isurei Hana'ah, they were less strict. perhaps there, they did not decree.

(a) The Gemara refutes the proof from the Isur by sound, vision and smell. Who says that Bar Kapara is referring to the Kohanim who are serving inside the Heichal or the Azarah, who cannot possibly avoid being there? Perhaps he is talking about the people who are standing outside, who have the option of going away? And by *Efshar* ve'Kamechaven, even Rebbi Yehudah agrees is Asur, as we learnt above.

(b) Someone who makes a replica of the Ketores for himself to smell is Chayav (Kares or Chatas), whereas someone who smells the actual Ketores is Patur. He is however, Mo'el.

(c) We omit 'smell' from Bar Kapara's statement, which now reads 'Kol u'Mar'eh Ein Bahen Mishum Me'ilah'.

(d) There is no Me'ilah by sound and vision - because they are totally abstract, whereas smell, which consists of particles of Ketores, is not. Consequently, Me'ilah is applicable to it.

(a) One is Patur from Me'ilah for smelling the Ketores - after the Mitzvah has been fulfilled (i.e. after the pillar of smoke has ascended).

(b) The only two cases where Me'ilah applies even after their Mitzvah has been completed, according to the Rabbanan - are Terumas ha'Deshen (to take a shovelful of ashes and deposit it beside the Mizbei'ach - the first Mitzvah each morning), and the garments of the Kohen Gadol after Yom Kipur.

(c) Rebbi Dosa explains the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "ve'Hinicham Sham" - to mean that he is not permitted to use them again on a subsequent Yom-Kipur

(d) Instead of the Kohen Gadol's clothes, Rebbi Dosa inserts Eglah Arufah, which remains Asur be'Hana'ah even after the Mitzvah has been completed.

5)

(a) They used to tie four cows to the beams of the threshing-floor, and those cows would walk round the barn threshing the corn. That is what the Beraisa means by 'Hichnisah le'Rivkah'.

(b) Now 'Hichnisah le'Rivkah, ve'Dashah, Kesheirah; Bishevil she'Teinak ve'Tadush' - is surely a case of 'Lo Efshar ve'ka'Michaven', yet the Beraisa concludes 'Pesulah', presenting Abaye with a Kashya?

(c) The Mishnah in Parah validates a Parah Adumah on which a bird rested - because the owner derives no benefit from this, and is therefore indifferent to it; but invalidates one upon which a male came - since the owner is obviously pleased with that (and the cow therefore becomes Pasul due to the Pasuk "Asher Lo Alah Aleha Ol"). This distinction is derived from the word "Asher Lo *Ubad* Bah" (which is written without a 'Kubutz', to read 'Avad') (Note: this phrase is the one that precedes "Asher Lo Alah Aleha Ol"). Now 'Ubad' means worked with - automatically, whereas 'Avad' means that he actually worked with it. To reconcile the apparent contradiction between the reading of the word and the way it is written, we make a compromise, and say that it doesn't matter whether or not he actually worked with it (or placed the yoke on it). What matters is that it was done with his consent i.e. he was pleased that it happened.

(d) True, "Asher Lo *Ubad* Bah" is indeed written by the Eglah Arufah, and not by the Parah Adumah. However, we learn one from the other with a 'Gezeirah Shavah' of "Ol" "Ol".

6)

(a) Someone who spreads out to air, an article of clothing that he found - must take care not to do so for his own benefit.

(b) The fact that he is forbidden to spread out the clothes because he has guests, is a proof that Lo Efshar u'Michaven is forbidden (even according to Rebbi Yehudah, since no-one argues with this Beraisa); so how can Abaye say otherwise?

(c) This is not however, a Kashya, because the reason that it is forbidden is because spreading out the clothes is tantamount to destroying them; either because of Ayin ha'Ra (the result of too many admiring eyes), or because he is inviting thieves.

(a) It is forbidden to warm oneself with clothes made of wool and linen, but other kinds of benefits are permitted.

(b) Salesmen who are permitted to wear clothes which contain Sha'atnez, if their intention is to demonstrate them to non-Jewish purchasers - is a case of Efshar ve'Eino Michaven (since they have the option of doing like the Tzenu'im, who slung the clothes behind them (without actually wearing them) to demonstrate. This disproves Rava in the first Lashon, who maintains that even Rebbi Shimon only permits Eino Mechaven when it is *I Efshar*, but not when it is *Efshar*.

(c) The Mishnah in Nidah, which forbids the sale of Kil'ayim to non-Jews, speaks when the location of the Kil'ayim is *unknown* (because we are afraid that the non-Jew will then re-sell it to a Jew, who, not finding Sha'atnez in the garment, will subsequently wear it); whereas the above Mishnah in Kil'ayim speaks when the location of the Sha'atnez is *known*.

(a) The Din of Kelai ha'Kerem applies to straw - because the Torah does not writes P'ri with regard to it.

(b) A new oven that was lit with Orlah or Kelai ha'Kerem must be broken - because its production was concluded through Isurei Hana'ah; an old one need not, because it was not.

(c) All one needs to do with an old oven - is to allow it to cool down, when it will once again be permitted.

(a) Rebbi forbids bread that was baked with Orlah produce in an old oven - because he holds 'Yesh Shevach Eitzim be'Pas' (meaning that some of the forbidden wood - in the form of the heat - is impregnated into the bread. The Rabbanan do not hold of this. In their opinion, since none of the wood really enters the bread, the bread is permitted.

(b) Rebbi agrees that if the bread was baked on the coals of Orlah, it is permitted - because then, it is only *after* the wood has turned into coal that its heat enters the bread. He forbids it however, when it was baked over the wood while it is still emitting flames.

(c) Even though Rebbi is strict by bread that was baked with Orlah produce in an old oven - because he holds 'Yesh Shevach Eitzim be'Pas', we have no proof that he also holds 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem, Asur'. In other words, seeing as the new oven will bake subsequent batches of bread together with permitted wood, it is both the Isur and the Heter which bakes it, and maybe there, Rebbi concedes that this is permitted.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer says that if a yeast comprising both Chulin and Terumah falls into a dough (and neither on its own could have caused the dough to rise), causing it to rise - we go after the last one to fall in.

(b) Abaye explains Rebbi Eliezer to mean that we go after the last one (i.e. to permit the dough if the Chulin-yeast fell in), only if the first one (the Terumah-yeast) had already been removed before it fell in. But if the Terumah-yeast was still in the dough when the Chulin-yeast fell in, then the dough will be Asur to Zarim, because 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem, Asur'.

(c) So (according to Abaye) we see, that Rebbi Eliezer is the Tana who holds 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem, Asur' - Consequently, we are able to establish the Beraisa 'Chadash Yutatz' like *him*.

(d) 'Who says that Abaye's interpretation of Rebbi Eliezer is correct', asks the Gemara? Perhaps Rebbi Eliezer means that we go after the last one yeast to fall in, even if the first one had *not* yet been removed, in which case he will actually hold 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem, Mutar'. If that is so, Rebbi Eliezer cannot possibly be the aithor of the Beraisa?