ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShabbos 65
(a) Rav Yehudah quoting Rav says, that whatever Chazal forbade because of
Mar'is ha'Ayin, is forbidden even in a private room, where nobody is there
to see him.
(b) Even though our Mishnah disagrees with Rav, he is unconcerned, because
he has found a Machlokes Tana'im, and he holds like the Tana who is strict.
(c) The Tana Kama permits one to hang up clothes to dry, when they became
wet in the rain, provided that they are not in full view of the people
(conforming with the opinion of the Beraisa on Daf 54); whereas Rebbi
Elazar and Rebbi Shimon forbid it (and it is *their* opinion that Rav
(a) Rami bar Yechezkel says that both the cotton-wool in the ears and the
soft pad in the shoe - which the Mishnah permits - are permitted, only if
they have been tied.
(b) This does not however, apply to the cotton-wool which she uses, to
prevent the blood of Nidus from dripping on her clothes. Why not?
Because that cotton -wool is disgusting, and she is hardly likely to carry
it in the street ...
(c) ... even if a handle is attached to it.
(d) Rebbi Yochanan went with cotton-wool tied in his ears, even though it
was not tied, because he had placed it firmly in his ear, and it was
unlikely to fall out. The Beraisa of Rami bar Yechezkel, which requires it
to be tied, speaks when it was not fitted tightly.
(a) A woman would keep in her mouth ...
Rebbi (whom we just quoted); Rebbi Eliezer, who permits a woman to go out
with a Koveles and a Tzeluchis shel Pelaiton; Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, who
permits a woman to go out with anything which is worn underneath the golden
head-dress, all hold that a woman will not show her friends something whose
removal will put her to shame.
1. ... a long pepper - if she suffered from bad breath.
(b) She might also keep ginger or cinnamon in her mouth (if she suffered
from bad breath).
2. ...a grain of salt - if she suffered from tooth-ache.
(c) A woman is permitted to go out with a silver tooth, either because it
resembles the other teeth sufficiently for people not to laugh at her, or
because it is not so valuable that she is likely to carry it home, even if
the people's mocking should cause her to take it out of her mouth.
(d) According to Rebbi, she may go out even with a gold tooth.
(a) A Sela she'Al ha'Tzinis is a Sela coin that one ties to a sore foot to
(b) One may go out with it on Shabbos.
(c) They would pierce a young girl's ears before she was due to wear
ear-rings. In the interim, they placed threads or twigs (Kismin) in the
hole, to prevent the hole from closing.
(d) The suggestion that young girls do not need to Tovel, Rashi claims, is
a fallacy. They too, had to Tovel, because in those days, people were
particular about Taharos - and unless a young girl Toveled, she would
render Tamei, any Taharos that she touched (and Rashi also proves that
Nidus was common by young girls). In addition, it is more correct - for
grammatical reasons - to explain that the threads (in our Mishnah), like
the twigs, were worn in the ear, and not in the hair (like his Rebbes
contended). Why is that?
Because the Mishnah writes 'va'Afilu be'Kismin', which implies that the
twigs were merely an extension of the Din of threads, not something new.
That is why, explains Rashi, the threads in the Mishnah, are spaeking about
threds in the ears and not in the hair.
1. 'Arabi'os Yotz'os Re'ulos' means that the Jewish women living in Arabia
were permitted to go out with a type of Kafiyah which covered the entire
face, except for the eyes.
(b) In fact, any Jewish woman is permitted to go out with these - the
Mishnah only mentions women from Arabia and from Medes, because that was the norm there.
2. And likewise 'Modi'os Yotz'os Perufos' means that the Jewish women
living in Medes were permitted to go out with a type of Kafiyah to which
they attached a stone or a nut to one end, and around which they wound the
(c) If it (the Sela she'Al ha'Tzinis) was a question of ...
1. ... hardness, they could have used a piece of clay;
(d) The truth of the matter is, that it was the combination of all three
that made the coin so useful, and consequently, nothing else but a minted
coin would do.
2. ... moistness, they could have used a piece of silver;
3. ... the shape minted on it, they could have carved a shape on any piece
of wood and used that.
(a) Shmuel's daughters wanted to go out *colored* threads in their ears,
whereas our Mishnah permits only *plain* ones. That is why Shmuel stopped
(b) Shmuel's father forbade his daughters to sleep together, not
necessarily because he held that *that* might render them Pasul to marry a
Kohen Gadol (like Rav Huna), but because he did not want to let them get
used to having contact with other bodies, something which might instill
into them the desire to sleep with men.
(c) There was no Kehunah Gedolah in the time of Rav Huna, so the suspicion
was not a practical one. It was just that, since Chazal considered that
sort of behavior immoral, he considered it improper.
(a) When it rains in Eretz Yisrael ('Mitra be'Ma'arva'), the River Peras is
witness to this ('Sahada Raba Peras'), because its waters swell, and when
it flows from Eretz Yisrael to Bavel, it is fuller than usual.
(b) That being the case, Peras could, on those occasions, comprise more
rain water that natural water. What is wrong with that?
Rain water, unlike natural spring water, is only Kasher for Tevilah, when
it is gathered, but not when it is flowing, in which case, the River Peras
would then be Pasul for Tevilah. And that, in turn, explains why Shmuel's
father would make Mikva'os for his daughters in Nisan.
(c) Shmuel maintains that the River Peras generates its own growth, and is
not affected by the heavy rains.
(d) But Shmuel also said that one is not permitted to Tovel in rivers other
than the River Peras in the month of Tishri, by which time the rain water
has long stopped and diminished, and the natural water will, once again,
have become the majority. So we see, that Shmuel holds like his father -
that the rain water *does* affect the waters of Peras! - As a matter of
fact, he appears to be even more stringent than his father, who only
forbade use of the River in Nissan, whereas *he* forbade it all the months
(a) The Reisha of the Mishnah: 'Porefes' etc. Lechatchilah, pertains to any
nut, and to a stone which one designated for that purpose; whereas the
Seifa 'u'Vileved' etc., which forbids the woman to do Perifah, unless she
began already before Shabbos, speaks about making Perifah with a coin,
which is Muktzah - even if one designated it for that specific purpose,
unless one actually used it in that capacity before Shabbos, which is a
stronger form of designation.
(b) Even Rebbi Meir, who permits wearing as many clothes - even of the same
kind, which he would not normally do - only does so because, if he would
not permitted to save his clothes in this way, he would put out the fire;
whereas a woman would not carry out the nut directly, just because she was
not permitted to carry it out using Perifah.
(c) On the other hand, even Rebbi Yossi, who forbids wearing many of the
same kind of clothes, is strict *there* only because, since one does not
usually wear two of the same kind of clothing, he is actually carrying when
he does; whereas here, the woman - who is using the stone as a fastener
(irrespective of her intention), is not carrying it.
(a) 'ha'Kitei'a Yotze be'Kav she'lo' means that a man whose leg from the
calf down, was amputated, may walk in the street with a stump.
(b) Rebbi Yossi forbids it, since it is neither a garment, nor a Tachshit.
Because he does not really need it - since he actually walks with sticks.
The stump is dispensable. (See also, answer to 1d, and see Rabeinu
Chananel, whose explanation appears to conform with the Sugya in Yuma - see
also Korban Nesan'el Si'man 17, note 80)
(c) If the stump is hollowed, to make room to receive soft cloths, to bear
the brunt of the stump of his leg, then it will become fit to receive
Tum'ah (otherwise not, because it is like a flat piece of wood, which
cannot receive Tum'ah).
(d) Nor will the stump receive Tum'ah, unless one prepares the stump in the
manner described in the previous answer - because it has a hollow to
receive the lame man's leg - since the stump is not meant to carry his leg.
(a) The Semuchos are the leather covers that are made to support the stumps
of a man who has had both legs amputated.
(b) Since they are actually intended to support his stumps, they are Tamei
Medras - during the times that he is a Zav. And as far is Shabbos is
concerned, he may go out with them on Shabbos, since they are considered a
Tachshit - because they are indispensable to him.
(c) He is permitted to enter the Azarah with his Semuchos, because they are
not worn at the end of his leg, but in the middle, to protect as much of
the leg as remains, as he moves it across the ground.
(a) The lame man whose stumps of his calves have dried up, and who drags
himself along on his chair, is not permitted to go out with his Semuchos,
either because, like the stump of the man who has only one leg missing,
they are not indispensable; or because they are more prone to fall off, and
we suspect that he may carry them in the street.