ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShabbos 59
(a) Rebbi Yochanan maintains that a bell retains its Tum'ah, since it is
still fit to be used - to feed water to a child. Rava and Rebbi Yossi
b'Rebbi Chanina require the bell to still be usable for the original
purpose for which it was originally made; whereas according to Rebbi
Yochanan, this is not necessary - as long as it is fit to be used in some
way, it remains Tamei.
(b) No! the Amora'im are only discussing why the original Tum'ah remains,
not whether the bell can now become Tamei or not; as far as becoming Tamei
is concerned, we have already learned that, once the striker has been
removed, it is no longer subject to Tum'ah.
(a) We learn from the future tense used with regard to Tum'as Mishkav and
Moshav, that these Tum'os only become effective if the bed and the chair
etc. are used exclusively for lying or sitting on, but not if they have
other uses, and one 'borrows' them (as it were) to use for lying or sitting
on. In that case, the owner will say to him 'Amod ve'Na'aseh Melachtenu!'
Wherever such a scenario is possible, Tum'as Mishkav and Moshav do not
apply. And this also applies to the Din of retaining its Tum'ah, once it
breaks. It will only remain Tamei Medras (Mishkav or Moshav) as long as it
is still fit to be used for its original use (sitting or lying on), but not
if it now has a new use, and the owner will say to whoever is lying or
sitting on it 'Amod ve'Na'aseh Melachtenu!'
(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the principle of 'Amod ve'Na'aseh
Melachtenu' (with regard to retaining Tum'ah) applies equally to Tum'as Mes
- i.e. a vessel only remains Tamei Mes as long as it is still fit to be
used in a way that is similar to its original use.
(c) This contradicts what Rebbi Yochanan said earlier; namely, that even if
the bell is fit for a child to drink from, it retains its Tum'ah. In fact,
it conforms with Rava and Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who required the
bell to be used for ringing - similar to its original use.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan explains that the horse-shoe is subject to Tum'ah only
because it is fit for a soldier to put on his own feet - to help him to
escape from the battle-front (a use that is similar to its original one).
He disagrees with the other Amora'im, who do not require a similar use to
the original one.
This forces us to switch the opinions of Rebbi Yochanan and of Rava and
Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina in 1a, rather than Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi
Elazar in 2b.
(b) The reason for this Tuma'h cannot be because it can be replaced on the
horse's foot, since there is no Din of ornament by an animal (and we have
already learnt - 52a&b - that whatever serves the animal exclusively, is
not subject to Tum'ah).
(c) If the shoe is disgusting to use for drinking, it will remain Tahor,
according to the first opinion.
(d) And Rebbi Yochanan's reason will not apply to a *heavy* horse-shoe,
which would only impede anyone wearing it, in his attempt to run away.
Consequently, according to *him*, such a horse-shoe will not be subject to
(a) Rebbi Meir holds that an Ir shel Zahav is considered a burden, and not
an ornament (perhaps because, due to its immense value, it is not usually
worn) - Consequently, a woman who goes out with one on Shabbos, is
Chayeves; according to the Chachamim, it is an ornament, which Chazal
forbade her to go out with - because she may take it off to show her
friends, and subsequently carry; so if she does, she is Peturah. Whilst
Rebbi Eliezer maintains that, since it is usually an aristocratic woman who
wears an Ir shel Zahav, and aristocratic women do not usually take off
their ornaments to show them off, she is permitted to go with them in the
(b) According to the first Lashon, Rav and Shmuel argue over whether a
woman may go out with a head-band made of a strap, but set with gold and precious stones. Shmuel permits it, because a woman will not show off a
head-band which consists basically of a strap; whereas according to Rav,
the most prominent part of the band is the gold and the precious stones, so
the woman *will* take it off, in order to show it to her friends.
(c) According to the second Lashon, their argument concerns a silver
head-band (which they both agreed was forbidden - in the first Lashon),
which Shmuel permits because (like Rebbi Eliezer by an Ir shel Zahav), it
is an aristocratic woman who wears a silver head-band, and aristocratic
women do not tend to take off their ornaments to show their friends. (This
concession does not extend to other ornaments - see Tosfos DH 'Ma'n').
(d) If Rav permitted a woman to go out with a head-band, it is a proof for
the second Lashon, that their Machlokes is by a silver head-band, but that,
by a strap head-band, Rav agrees with Shmuel. Why?
Because according to the first Lashon, Rav forbids both types of head-band.
(a) The name of the great, tall lame man who arrived in Neherda'a from
Eretz Yisrael was Levi.
(b) Rav understand that Rebbi Efes, the Rosh Yeshivah, must have died, to
be succeeded by Rebbi Chanina. This meant that Levi, who was Rebbi
Chanina's superior, had nobody to learn from; and that was why he arrived
(c) Until now, Levi had remained in Eretz Yisrael only in order to keep
Rebbi Chanina company. Rebbi Chanina had been appointed by Rebbi as his
successor, but had declined to accept the post in deference to Rebbi Efes,
who was over two years his senior. Nevertheless, on account of his
prominence, Rebbi Chanina sat outside the Beis ha'Medrash, where Levi
joined him, to keep him company.
(d) Had Rebbi Chanina died, Levi would have remained in Eretz Yisrael,
under Rebbi Efes, who was older than him. So it must have been Rebbi Efes
who died. And besides, Rebbi Chanina could not possibly have died before
having taken over the position of Rosh Yeshivah - in order to fulfill the
words of the Tzadik, Rebbi, who had said that he would become the Rosh
Yeshivah, and the Pasuk says in Iyov "ve'Sigzar Omer ve'Yakum Lach".
(a) We are not afraid that one may come to take off the Kamra to show to
one's friends, because a belt is one article of clothing that, however
beautiful it looks, one does not remove it, since that will result in one's
clothes falling down.
(b) According to the second Lashon, a Kamra is made of silver, and is
permitted 'like a belt of Kings'. Most ordinary people did not wear such a
precious belt - so for them, it was not considered an article of clothing.
The Chidush is that 'all of Yisrael are like princes'.
(a) The Gemara merely said 'Trei Hemyanei Ka'amrat'!, without saying
whether two belts are obviously permitted or whether they are obviously
forbidden. Rashi point out that the Gemara later (Daf 120a) enumerates the
eighteen garments that Rebbi Yossi permits to wear, in order to save them
from a fire, and only one belt is included in the list. Had two belts been
permitted, then the Gemara should have listed nineteen garments - including
(b) 'That wide strip of cloak (something like a scarf), is permitted, only
if it has straps with which to tie it; if not, it is forbidden' - since it
may fall off, and he will come to carry it.
(c) A 'Katla' was a sort of a napkin that a woman tied around her neck by
means of straps that were threaded through loops sewn on its top. It was
set with gold and was very precious. It hung below her neck to prevent the
food that she ate from falling on to her clothes.
Alternatively, it was a sort of clasp in the shape of a crescent, which
held the top ends of her dress together.
(a) A 'Nezem' is a nose-ring, and a 'Taba'as', a finger-ring.
(b) Rebbi Zeira connects the Mishnah and Beraisa with the Machlokes between
Rebbi Nechemyah and the Rabbanan. Our Mishnah, which renders a woman
Chayeves for going out with a signet-ring, holds like Rebbi Nechemyah, who
considers the signet the main part of the ring; whereas the Beraisa, which
lists a signet-ring among a woman's ornaments, holds like the Chachamim,
who go after the ring, and not after the signet.
(c) Rebbi Nechemyah says that a corral ring with a metal signet is subject
to Tum'ah, because he goes after the signet.
1. According to Rebbi Nechemyah, a wooden yoke with metal yoke-pins is
subject to Tumah, because he goes after the yoke-pin;
2. a wooden
sales-stand with metal nails
and 3. a large wooden scales with metal
chains - are subject to Tum'ah, because in all these cases, Rebbi Nechemyah
goes after the metal accessories (If the accessories were made of wood and
the yoke, the sales-stand and the scales of wood, then they would all be
Tahor (see Tosfos DH 'Rebbi Nechemyah').
(b) In all of these cases, the Rabbanan go after the main object, and not
the accessories. Consequently, if the yoke etc., is made of metal, it is
Tamei, and if it is made of wood, it is Tahor.
(a) According to Rava, the author of the Beraisa too, is Rebbi Nechemyah.
When the Beraisa says 'Bein she'Yesh Aleha Chosem, Bein she'Ein Aleha
Chosem' it is not referring entirely to women's ornaments. What the Tana
means, is that if the ring *has* a signet, then it is a man's ornament, and
if it does *not*, then it is a woman's ornament.
(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak too, establishes the Beraisa, as well as our
Mishnah, like Rebbi Nechemyah. When the Beraisa says 'Bein she'Yesh Aleha
Chosem' etc. it does not relate to the Reisha, which discusses women's
ornaments, but to the Din of Tum'ah, to tell us that, even though a
signet-ring is not a woman's ornament, it is nevertheless subject to
Tum'ah, since it is a functional vessel (and the Torah writes in Bamidbar
"Kol K'li Ma'aseh"). 'Tachshitei Nashim' mentioned in the Reisha of the
Beraisa refers to 'she'Ein Aleha Chosem' only.