ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShabbos 64
(a) Sak is made of goat's hair.
(b) When the Beraisa rules that Sak is Tamei because it is woven, it is
fact, referring to three strands of Sak which a man twines together -
without weaving them - to use as ribbons in his daughter's hair; and it is
telling us that, although they have not been woven, they are considered as
if they had been, and are subject to Tum'ah.
(c) It is the shepherds who used to wear clothes made of goat's hair, as we
learnt earlier with regard to his head-gear.
(a) Initially, we learn from "O Sak" that even accessories of a horse's
saddle which are made out of goat's hair are subject to Tum'ah, provided
they are spun and woven,.
(b) Ropes and cords made of goat's hair are not subject to Tum'ah, because,
unlike Kilkeli and Chavak, they are not even spun.
(a) We cannot learn any Binyan Av to be lenient by Tum'as Mes (e.g. that
ropes and cords made of goat's hair should not be subject to Tum'ah) from
Tum'as Sheretz, because Tum'as Mes is inherently more stringent than Tum'as
(b) Tum'as Mes is more stringent than Tum'as Sheretz, inasmuch as its
Tum'ah lasts for seven days, while Tum'as Sheretz lasts for only *one*.
(c) Now that we have the Gezeirah Shavah of 'Beged ve'Or'(which is open to
work both ways), we can learn Kilkeli and Chavak by Tum'as Sheratzim from
Tum'as Mes, where the Torah writes "ve'*Chol* Ma'aseh Izim". Consequently,
we can use "O Sak" to include things made of a horse's or a cow's tail in
the Din of Tum'as Sheratzim.
(d) We cannot even learn this Chumra from Tum'as Sheratzim to Tum'as Mes
with a Binyan Av, because' although we said earlier that Tum'as Mes is more
stringent because its Tum'ah lasts for seven days, we have the
counter-argument that most kinds of Tum'ah last for only one day - i.e.
Sheretz, Neveilah, Shichvas Zera, Maga ha'Zav and Maga Tamei Mes, whereas
only a few Tum'os last for seven days.
(a) We would not learn Tum'as Mes from the Chumros of Tum'as Sheretz,
because Sheretz has a Chumra over Mes: namely, whereas Sheretz is Metamei
already when it is the size of a 'Ke'adashah', Mes requires a 'Kezayis'.
(b) "Beged ve'Or" is not needed by Sheretz, because we learn Sheretz from
Shichvas Zera through the medium of 'Semuchin' (since they follow one
another in Vayikra), and the Torah has written by Shichvas Zera " "ve'Chol
Beged ve'Chol Or" - leaving us with an extra "Beged ve'Or" available for
the Gezeirah Shavah.
(c) Tamei Mes too, is derived from Shichvas Zera, by means of a Hekesh,
since both are mentioned in the same Pasuk in Vayikra. Here too, "Beged
ve'Or" remain superfluous.
(a) The Kumaz was an ornament worn on the womb and shaped like it. That
explains why Unkelus translates it as 'Gichuch', meaning frivolity.
(b) Moshe was originally angry with the officers for bringing back the
women whom they had captured. He accused them of the same sin as that which
caused the plague which took twenty-four thousand lives, and which resulted
in their having to go to war with Midyan, to avenge Klal Yisrael's
humiliation. When they replied that none of the men were guilty of sinning
with the women, he asked them why they then found it necessary to bring an
atonement - consisting of the ornaments which they were donating.
(c) The officers pointed out that, although the soldiers were not guilty of
actually sinning with the Midionite women, they were not however, absolved
of bad thoughts, for which the ornaments were largely responsible.
(d) The Torah lists the outer ornaments together with the inner ones, to
teach us that gazing at just the little finger of a woman (where the ring
is worn), is just as bad as gazing at the rest of her body.
(a) The Mishnah needs to inform us that a woman is permitted to go out ...
1. ...with another woman's hair, because we might otherwise have thought
that only hair taken from herself is permitted, but not hair taken from
another woman. Why not?
Because somebody else's hair is somewhat disgusting, and we would therefore
suspect that other people will laugh at her, and she will remove it - in
spite of the fact that *that* will mean uncovering her hair.
(b) An old woman is not permitted to go out with strands of hair taken from
a young one, because black hair on white looks ugly, and people are likely
to laugh at her, in which case she will remove it and carry it in the
2. ... with animal's hair, because, even to the extent that another woman's
hair is not *so* disgusting, animal's hair is, so that she would certainly
be forbidden to go out with it. Therefore, we need the Mishnah to teach us
that even *that* is permitted.
(c) The Mishnah does not really need to tell us that a young woman is
forbidden to go out with hair taken from an old one - that looks even more
weird than the other way round, and the suspicion that people will laugh at
her etc. is even stronger. Only, since the Mishnah mentioned the one, it
sees fit to mention the other.
1. Although there were two opinions regarding 'Kevul' mentioned in the
first Mishnah in the Perek, the Kevul here, is unanimously translated as a
(b) No! she is not permitted to go out with them in the street. She is
however, permitted to wear them in the courtyard.
2. A Pei'ah Nochris is a Sheitel.
(c) A woman is permitted to go in the street with a pepper or a grain of
salt provided she put it there before Shabbos (Tosfos DH 'u'Vilevad she'Lo
Tetzei' discusses why that is).
1. A woman *is* permitted to go in the street with a detachable false tooth
on Shabbos, but ...
2. ... she is *not* permitted to go out with a gold one.
(a) According to Rav, her ornaments are not Muktzah, and she may walk
around the house or the courtyard with them - but Chazal forbade her to
wear them, in case she goes out with them in the street.
(b) The two exceptions (besides the various ornaments where we suspect that
she may take them off in the street, to show them to her friends, and
subsequently carry them), are the Kevul and the Pei'ah Nochris. These
Chazal kept outside the decree, because a woman without any ornaments might
become despised by her husband. Consequently, Chazal permitted her to wear
them in the courtyard.
(c) According to Rav Anani bar Sason, a woman may wear all her ornaments in
(d) Rav Anani quoted this concession in the name of Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi
Yossi, who was a Tana, and has the authority to argue with a Mishnah.
(a) The early Zekeinim explained the Pasuk "ve'ha'Davah be'Nidasah" to mean
that a woman may not adorn herself or even put on make-up during her period
(b) Rebbi Akiva objected to this explanation on the grounds that make-up
helps endear a woman to her husband; without it, she will come to be
despised by him - and that is something which the Torah would never
(c) So he interprets the Pasuk to mean that a woman remains a Nidah - even
after the initial seven days have passed (and she is no longer seeing
blood) until she Tovels in a Mikveh.