Previous daf

1)

(a) If someone enters a house stricken with Tzara'as *carrying* clothes, shoes or rings - they become Tamei immediately, just like *he* does; whereas if he is *wearing* them - they become Tamei only after he has been in the house for a period of time lasting 'Kedei Achilas Peras' (i.e. the length of time that it takes to eat half a loaf comprising eight egg-volumes).

(b) This refers to *wheat*-bread, eaten in a state of reclining with a condiment (all of which curtail the time period involved).

(c) The Shiur Tum'ah for a bone from a dead man...

1. ... regarding *touching* - is 'ki'Se'orah' (the size of a barley).
2. ... regarding being under the same *Ohel* - is either the complete spinal cord, or the skull, or the majority of bones from the corpse.

(a) The Shiur Revi'is for a Nazir does not refer to the amount of wine that a Nazir needs to drink to be Chayav - but to the pits, the shoots or the leaves of the vine, which combine to make up a Shiur Revi'is (see Rambam). This is measured by placing them into a full cup-full of wine - the amount for which one is Chayav is the amount that will displace a Revi'is.

(b) The displacement Shiur is given as a Revi'is of *wine*, rather than of *water* - because wine, which is more dense than water, will float on top of the cup and take longer to overflow than water; the Shiur is therefore a slightly larger one.

(c) The Shiur of "Te'einah" (i.e. a 'ki'Gerogeres') is said with regard to carrying and other Melachos to do with food on Shabbos.

(d) Rav Chanin Darshened "Rimon" in connection with Tum'as Keilim. Private vessels continue to be Metamei, even after they have been holed, unless the hole is as large as a pomegranate - because people tend to retain their vessels with holes of that size. Whereas merchants tend to throw them away even with holes that are smaller than that. Therefore, they are no longer Metamei if they have even small holes.

(a) Rav Chanin Darshen "Eretz Zeis-Shemen" - as a land of which most Shiurim are a k'Zayis (Meis, Neveilah, Pigul, Nosar Tamei ...).

(b) And he Darshened "u'Devash"(meaning date-honey) - in connection with 'Koseves ha'Gasah', the Shiur for which one is Chayav for eating on Yom Kipur.

(c) These Shiurim can only be an Asmachta - because, if we actually had to learn the shiur of the respective Shiurim from there, how would we know for example, that 'Se'orah' refers to the bone of a corpse (and so with all of them)?

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Rachatz ba'Mayim es *Kol Besaro*" - that all of one's body must be in the water when one Tovels (i.e. that nothing may be Chotzetz between it and the water).

(b) Rav, who said that Chatzitzin are Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai - is referring to the hair, whereas the Pasuk is referring to the skin.

(c) From "*es* Kol Besaro" - we learn that Chatzitzah applies even to what is Tafel (secondary) to the skin (i.e. the hair).

(d) The Pasuk "*es* Kol Besaro" teaches us that Chatzitzah applies to hair, too. The Halachah comes to restrict the Din of Chatzitzah to when the Chatzitzah obstructs the majority of hair, and then, only in an area when one tends to be fussy about it (others extend the Halachah to one's body, too - see Tosfos DH 'D'var Torah').

(a) According to (the undisputed opinion of) Rav Yitzchak, a knot in *one* hair is a Chatzitzah - because it becomes very tight.

(b) When ...

1. ... *three* hairs are tied together it is not considered a knot at all - because it is very loose.
2. ... it is only *two* hairs - he himself is uncertain whether they constitute a Chatzitzah or not.

6)

(a) The Rabbanan were strict by ...

1. ... both 'Rubo she'Eino Makpid ...
2. ... and 'Mi'ut she'Makpid' - because of 'Rubo ha'Makpid'.

(b) They might have also decreed on 'Mi'ut she'Eino Makpid' - because of 'Mi'ut ha'Makpid' or 'Rubo she'Eino Makpid'.

(c) They did not do so - because that would be a Gezeirah li'Gezeirah, which they generally avoid.

8)

(a) According to the Tana Kama, a Sukah may comprise *two* regular walls and the *third* one may even consist of only one Tefach. Rebbi Shimon says that a Sukah requires *three* Kasher walls and the *fourth* one, of one Tefach.

(b) The Tana Kama learns this from "ba'Sukos" "ba'Sukos" "ba'Sukos" only one of which has a 'Vav' (to make it plural - because he follows the way the word in the Torah is written ('Yesh Eim li'Mesores') and not the way it is read ('Yesh Eim le'Mikra'). Consequently, the three words between them, hint to *four* walls, the first of which is needed for itself, leaving us with three (Note: even though the word 'Sukah' implies the *S'chach*, we are learning the number of *walls* here, because it is not the *meaning* of the words that we are explaining, but because they are *superfuous*). The Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai comes to diminish the third wall from a full wall to one of a Tefach.

(c) Rebbi Shimon learns from the same Pasuk that a Sukah must have three full walls, and a fourth wall of a Tefach - because he holds 'Yesh Eim le'Mikra'. Consequently, the Torah hints here, to *six* walls, two (contained in the first "ba'Sukos") for itself, leaving us with four full walls. The Halachah diminishes the fourth wall to a Tefach.

(a) The Tana Kama might even agree with Rebbi Shimon that 'Yesh Eim le'Mikra' - nevertheless he will hold that a Sukah of two walls and a Tefach will suffice, if he holds that the S'chach too, requires a Pasuk. In that case, one of the four walls hinted in "ba'Sukos", will be needed for the S'chach; whereas Rebbi Shimon holds that the S'chach does not require a Pasuk - since, without the S'chach, it is not called a Sukah.

(b) And Rebbi Shimon could learn three walls and a Tefach, even if he were to hold 'Yesh Eim li'Mesores' - if he would learn that the Halachah comes, not to *detract* one wall, but to *add* to it.

(c) And he might even hold a. that the 'Halachah' comes to detract and b. 'Yesh Eim li'Mesores', yet still require three walls plus one of a Tefach - if he would maintain 'Dorshin Techilos' (i.e. that we even Darshen the first word as well), because until now we assumed 'Ein Dorshin Techilos'.

(d) According to Rav Masna, Rebbi Shimon's reasoning is from a Pasuk in Yeshayah - which writes "ve'Sukah Tiheyeh le'Tzeil Yomam, me'Chorev ... u'mi'Matar". To achieve this sort of protection, one would require four walls.

(a) According to Rav, the wall of a Tefach is placed adjacent to either of the two ends - at an angle of ninety degrees.

(b) Rav Kahana and Rav Asi asked Rav why the third Tefach wall should not have to be placed 'Keneged Rosh Tor' - meaning at at an angle, like the third side of a triangle, facing the opposite corner. This partially encloses the Sukah, conveying the impression of there being *four* walls.

(c) Rav did not know what to reply - so he remained silent.