(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Shabbos 28



(a) We would indeed learn from the Gezeirah Shavah of "Ohel" "Ohel" from the Mishkan that only flax material made of fibers twined from fibers of six strands is subject to Ohel ha'Mes, were it not for the extra "Ohel", which teaches us that materials made of any kind of flax fibers are also included.

(b) We cannot include *all* other materials in the Din of Ohel, because then, what purpose would the Gezeirah Shavah of "Ohel" "Ohel" (one of which is written specifically by *flax*) serve.

(c) What is Rebbi Elazar's Sha'aleh whether the skin of Kasher animals is Mitamei be'Ohel? Now if planks are precluded because they are referred to as "Kerashim la'Mishkan" (and not 'Mishkan' or 'Ohel'), then by the same token (even) the skins of *Kasher* animals are referred to as "Michseh la'Ohel" (but not 'Ohel'), and how much more so the skins of animals that are not Kasher?

(d) By comparing the top covering of the Mishkan to the bottom ones, the Pasuk "ve'Nas'u es Yeri'os ha'Mishkan" etc. is in effect, saying that, just as the bottom coverings are called Ohel, so too, are the top ones.

(a) Rebbi Elazar's Sha'aleh is whether the Tachash (from whose skin one of the top coverings was made, was a Kasher animal, or a non-Kasher one. If the Tachash was not Kasher, then even the skins of non-Kasher animals would be subject to Tum'as Ohel.

(b) Rav Yosef quotes a Beraisa which holds that only the skins of Kasher animals were eligible for 'Meleches Shamayim'.

(c) Whether the ram skin covering and that of the Tachash was one covering or two is a Machlokes Tana'im - Rebbi Yehudah holds two, and Rebbi Nechemyah, one.

(d) According to Rebbi Nechemyah, the Tachash was a Talah Ilan, and a Talah Ilan was a non-Kasher animal. How does Rav Yosef's Tana, according to whom only the skins of Kasher animals were eligible, go along with Rebbi Nechemyah,

(e) When Rebbi Nechemyah compared the Tachash to the Talah Ilan, he did not mean that they were synonymous, only that, like the Talah Ilan, the Tachash had a beautiful multi-colored skin - which is why the Targum translates it 'Sasgonah' (the acronym of 'Sas' - boasts '[bi]'Gevanim [shelah]' - with its colors).

(a) We cannot learn Tum'as Ohel by the skins of non-Kasher animals from Nega'im, because the Tum'ah of Nega'im applies even to the woof or to the warp, which is not the case by Tum'as Mes (or by any other Tum'ah, for that matter).

(b) Nor can we learn it from Tum'as Sheretz, because a Sheretz is Metamei with the small Shiur of a 'ke'Adashah' (the size of a lentil).

(c) And we cannot even learn Tum'as Mes by the skin of a non-Kasher animal from a combination of Nega'im and Sheretz, because they are both Metamei with a Shiur which is smaller than the Kezayis of Tum'as Mes (Nega'im - a 'ki'Geris', Sheretz - a 'ke'Adashah').




(a) If goats'-hair, which is not subject to Tum'as Nega'im, is Mitamei be'Ohel ha'Mes (since the "Ohel" mentioned by Mishkan - of which we spoke above - really refers to the goats'-hair covering more than it does to the top coverings of ram and Tachash skins); so skin of Tamei animals, which *is* subject to Tum'as Nega'im, should certainly be subject to Tum'as Ohel!

(b) In which connection then, does Rav Yosef's Beraisa (which learnt above, that for Meleches Shamayim is confined to the skin of *Tahor* animals) speak - since it can hardly be coming merely to inform us what sort of skins were used to build the Mishkan - that being of the past and no longer of any practical use to us)?

(c) Rav Yosef's Beraisa is coming to teach us that Tefilin must be made from the skin of a Kasher animal.

(d) We learn from "Lema'an Tihye Toras Hashem be'Ficha" that Tefilin must be made from the skin of a Kasher animal (leaving the Derashah of Rav Yosef's Tana redundant once again).

(a) The Batim of Tefilin together with the Shin; tying the parchments that contain the Parshiyos and stitching them together; that the Tefilin must be square and that the straps must be black, are all 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.

(b) The skin is not included in the Pasuk of "Lema'an Tihye Toras Hashem be'Ficha", because the word "Toras" implies *words of Torah*; the 'Shin' on the skin of the Bayis however, does fall into that cartegory, and could therefore be included in the Pasuk.

(c) Rav Yosef's Tana comes to teach us that also the straps of Tefilin must be made from the skin of a Kasher animal.

6) The 'Shin', as we have already mentioned earlier, is formed (twice) on the sides of the 'shel Rosh', the straps of the 'shel Rosh' are tied to form a 'Daled', and the 'Yud' is formed by the knot of the 'shel Yad'.


(a) Rebbi Meir described the Tachash as a unique species, but the Chachamim were unable to clarify whether it was a Beheimah or a Chayah. It had one horn on its forehead, and it appeared to Moshe for its skin to be used in the construction of the Mishkan, after which, it became extinct.

(b) We know that it must have been a Kasher animal, because Rav Yehudah has taught us that any species of animal with only one horn, is Kasher.

(c) The word "Makrin" is written without a 'Yud', which can be read like 'mi'Keren', which is singular.

(d) There is also an animal called 'Keresh', a species of Kasher *Chayah* that has only one horn. Consequently, it cannot be taken for granted that the Tachash was a Beheimah (like Adam's bull), when it could equally have been a Chayah (like the Keresh).

(a) According to Rebbi Eliezer, folding a piece of cloth (to use as a wick) does not negate it from its original status (i.e. it remains a piece of cloth); consequently, a folded wick is still a considered the cloth that it originally was, and is therefore still subject to Tum'a Begadim; whereas, according to Rebbi Akiva, folding a piece of cloth to use as a wick *does* negate its previous use; it is no longer a piece of cloth, but a wick - which is not considered a vessel.

(b) When one comes to kindle this wick on Yom-Tov which falls on Erev Shabbos, he is obligated (like on every Erev Shabbos) to kindle the majority of the wick that is protruding from the lamp-holder. Now, since the piece of cloth was exactly three by three finger-breadths, Rebbi Eliezer still considers it to be a cloth (as we have just explained). Consequently, by the time he has lit a small part of the cloth, it will have lost its identity (of a vessel known as a cloth), to become a broken vessel, to which he is no longer permitted to apply the flame, because it is Muktzah (Nolad), when really, he should be lighting the wick until a majority is burning.
But according to Rebbi Akiva, the cloth was already nullified from its status - to necome a wick - when he folded it before Yom-Tov (as we explained above), so it is not Muktzeh.

(a) According to Rebbi Akiva, he must have folded the wick before Yom-Tov, as we just stated, because it is forbidden to make wicks on Yom-Tov.

(b) It is forbidden to light with a vessel that broke on Yom-Tov, because it is Nolad.

(c) 'Nochri she'Chakak Kav be'Vik'as' (which Rav Ada bar Ahavah permits to use for firewood on Yom-Tov) should also be forbidden as Nolad, since previously, the block of wood was *not* a receptacle, and now it *is*, and, according to Rav Yehudah (whom Rav Ada bar Ahavah quoted to explain the Tana'im in our Mishnah), it ought to be forbidden?

(d) Rav Ada bar Ahavah himself holds like he said with 'Nochri she'Chakak' etc. - because he holds like Rebbi Shimon regarding Muktzah. He only quoted Rav Yehudah, who forbids Muktzah, in order to resolve the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Akiva, who apparently follow the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah in this regard.

(a) Rava explains Rebbi Eliezer's reason to be because he did not singe the wick first; and the Rabbanan forbade the use of a wick which does burn properly.

(b) According to Rebbi Shimon, it was the way of tailors to fold in the edge of garments of three by three finger- breadths, in order to reinforce them. Consequently, the piece of cloth from which the garment was to be stitched, had to be a little more than the minimum of three by three, to allow for the folding.
The Chachamim did not necessitate an allowance for the folding, even though, as a result, the finished garment would turn out to be slightly less than three by three finger-breadths. And it is to uphold *their* opinion, that the Beraisa writes 'exactly three by three (finger breadths)' - and no more.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,