(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 82



(a) Rav Huna thought that his son Rabah should go and learn by Rav Chisda, because he was exceptionally sharp.

(b) Rabah bar Rav Huna did not initially accept his father's advice, claiming that, instead of Torah, Rav Chisda taught him worldly matters, such as not to sit down quickly and forcefully, and not to push too hard - when relieving oneself , in order not to damage the glands of the rectum.

(c) 'He is dealing with life itself, and you complain that he teaches you worldly matters!', Rav Huna told his son. 'You should most certainly go and learn by him!'

(a) The Beraisa, which advocates using a piece of clay to clean oneself, is referring to a handle of a vessel, which is smooth, and is not dangerous to use. That is preferable to use than a rock, which is Muktzah. Rav Huna and Rebbi Yochanan, who forbid it, are referring to a rough piece of clay. (The Beraisa does not appear to concern itself with the fear of witchcraft - see previous Amud 9c.)

(b) The Beraisa, which forbids grass - in the form of something which the fire burns, is referring to dry grass, whereas the Amora'im who permit it, are speaking about wet grass, which is not subject to burning.

(c) A Ru'ach Zuhama is when the whole body smells from sweat, which comes as a result of not relieving oneself.

(d) Others say that the failure to relieve oneself results in a bad smell.

(a) When the Rabbanan say that someone who is constipated should 'take his mind away', they mean take his mind away from everything else, and concentrate on relieving himself exclusively.

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba saw that Arab stand up and sit down, stand up and sit down, until he poured like a pot - concurring with the opinion of Rav Chisda.

(c) Rav Chanan from Neherda'a suggested that, after trying unsuccessfully to relieve oneself in one corner, he should move to another corner and try again. And according to Rav Hamnuna, he should try opening his bowels with a piece of rock.

(d) Before entering a banqueting hall, the Beraisa suggests that, in order to loosen one's bowels, a person should walk ten times four Amos, or four times ten Amos - to avoid the embarrassing situation of needing to go out in the middle of the banquet.

(a) The Shiur Rebbi Yehudah gives for carrying out a piece of clay, is one that is sufficiently large to place between two boards in a pile, that are not lying flush one on top of the other - to prevent them from warping.

(b) Rebbi Meir argues that, since the Navi warns that there will not even remain a piece of clay to stoke a fire, it appears that the smallest Shiur for a piece of clay to be considered Chashuv - is one that is large enough to stoke a fire.

(c) Rebbi Yossi counters this with the continuation of the Pasuk, which concludes "nor to draw water from a pit".

(a) If it appears from the Mishnah that Rebbi Yossi's measure is larger (because *he* gives a specific Shiur; whereas Rebbi Meir does not), then from the Pasuk it appears that the Shiur of Rebbi Meir (large enough to stoke a fire) is larger. Why is that?
Since the Pasuk first mentions "to stoke a fire", and then, "to draw water from a pit", implying that not a piece will remain to stoke a fire, and not even to draw water from a pit" (the statement would make no sense, if the latter was larger than the former).

(b) The Gemara therefore, interprets Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah, to mean, not a minimal fire (which would imply that *his* Shiur is smaller than Rebbi Yossi's), but to stoke a *large* fire - in which case, his Shiur will be *larger* than that of Rebbi Yossi (like it is in the Pasuk).

(c) According to Rebbi Meir, the Pasuk is saying that, not only will they not be able to find a piece of clay large enough to stoke a fire (which *is* Chashuv), but they will not even find one with which to draw water (which is *not*).

Hadran Alach, 'ha'Motzi Yayin'!

Perek Rebbi Akiva


(a) From the comparison of Avodah Zarah to a Nidah (Davah), Rebbi Akiva learns that Avodah Zarah is Metamei someone who carries it, just like a Nidah is.

(b) The Rabbanan, appear to derive from "Shaketz Teshaktzenu" (which has connotations of 'Sheretz') that Avodah Zarah, like a Sheretz, is only Metamei by touching (Tum'as Maga), but not by carrying (Tum'as Masa).

(c) Someone whose wall (the one that divides between his house and Avodah Zarah) collapses, then he is forbidden to re-build it in its original position (since by doing so, he benefits the Avodah Zarah). He must therefore move four Amos into his own domain (the four Amos include the original location of the wall), and then re-build it.

(d) If the wall was jointly owned, then he may only reckon half of the thickness of the original wall in the four Amos, when he moves back four Amos into his own domain).
Note: In the latter case, *all* the stones are Metamei like a Sheretz (according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Akiva) - even though half of them were his own. This is because we rule 'Ein Bereirah'.




(a) According to Rabah, Rebbi Akiva and the Rabbanan argue over Even Mesama: Rebbi Akiva maintains that Even Mesama by Avodah Zarah is Metamei, the Rabbanan hold that it is not.

(b) Even Mesama is a form of Moshav. It is when a Zav or a Nidah sits on a large stone which is placed on top of vessels, but there are pegs supporting the stone, preventing the vessels from carrying the weight of the stone and the Zav.

(c) Rebbi Akiva will explain the Torah's comparison of Avodah Zarah to Sheretz, to teach us that the serving vessels of the Avodah Zarah are not subject to Tum'as Even Mesama, or even to Masa (like Tum'as Sheretz).

(d) And the Rabbanan learn that, because the Torah compares Avodah Zarah to Nidah (and not to Neveilah), we learn 1. that it is Metamei be'Masa (like Neveilah), and 2. that, a piece of Avodah Zarah (e.g. that came apart, as we shall see later), is not Metamei (just like a Nidah).

8) No! A limb of a Nidah is not Metamei because of Nidah, but it is Metamei because of Ever Min ha'Chai - the difference between them being Even Mesama, to which Ever Min ha'Chai is not subject.


(a) Rav Chama bar Guri'ah asks what the Din will be, regarding pieces of Avodah Zarah being Metamei (and did not learn this from the Rabbanan), because he holds like Rebbi Akiva - who does not mention this Din at all.

(b) Since we have compared Avodah Zarah to a Nidah (regarding Even Mesama), perhaps we will also say that, just as a Nidah is not Metamei le'Evarim, neither is Avodah Zarah; or perhaps we will only compare Avodah Zarah to a Nidah *le'Chumra*, but not le'Kula?

(c)We are therefore forced to say that Rav Chama bar Guri'ah learns the Sugya like Rabah, and that his Sha'aleh is according to Rebbi Akiva, as we explained a little earlier.

Next daf


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