ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShabbos 114
(a) When Rebbi Yochanan said that it is a degrading for a Talmid-Chacham to
walk in the street with torn shoes - he meant with a patch on a patch.
(b) We learn from the Pasuk "Kol Mesan'ai Ahevu Maves" - that a
Talmid-Chacham who walks around with a stain on his (white) clothes is
guilty of the death-penalty.
(c) Revav - a fat stain - refers to outer garments, where even a fat stain
is a Chilul Hashem; Revad - a Zera stain - refers to the undergarments,
where a fat stain is not a Chilul Hashem, but Zera is.
(d) When the Pasuk refers to Yeshayah going 'naked and barefoot' - it meant
with tattered clothes and torn shoes.
(a) According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, the minimum size of a wax-stain
on a saddle-cloth to be considered a Chatzitzah - is the size of an Italian
(b) Rebbi Yishmael is quoted as saying that a stain on an article of
clothing is considered a Chatzitzah, even if it only shows on *one* side.
(c) Resh Lakish asks whether Rebbi Yishmael, will perhaps agree that, in
order to be a Chatzitzah on a saddle-cloth, the stain must be visible on
*both* sides. Why? Because people are more particular about clothes that
they are about saddle-cloths, and the Din of Chatzitzah depends largely on
whether one is particular or not?
(d) Rebbi Yossi rules that stains of the clothes of builder (i.e.
Talmidei-Chachamim - 'Al Tikri Banayich, Ela Bonayich') are considered a
Chatzitzah on one side, and of an Am ha'Aretz, only on both sides. Now
surely, argues Rebbi Chanina, a saddle-cloth is not more Chashuv than the
clothes of an Am ha'Aretz! So we see that a stain on a saddle-cloth is
indeed considered a Chatzitzah only if it is visible on both sides.
(a) A Talmid-Chacham ...
1. ... who is careful not to wear his clothes inside-out, with the stitches
showing - is entitled to claim his lost articles through mere recognition
(even without proper identification);
(b) By Maseches Kalah, Rebbi Yochanan is saying that he is even conversant
with a Maseches that is little known (See also Tosfos D.H. 'va'Afilu').
2. ... who is able to state a Halachah anywhere, even in Maseches Kalah, is
eligible for the position of head of his community;
3. ... who gives up all his business affairs and spends all his time
studying Torah - earns the right to be sustained by the community.
(c) We learn that everyone is obligated to help sustain (the latter level
of) a Talmid-Chacham - from the Torah, which writes (with regard to the
original Aron that Moshe made) "ve'*Asisa* Aron" etc.; whereas with regard
to Betzalel's Aron, it writes "ve'*Asu* Aron" etc. - to teach us that when
it comes to the Talmid-Chacham (symbolized by Betzalel's golden Aron),
everyone should participate.
(d) If the Talmid-Chacham is conversant with the Masechta he is learning,
then he is fit to be appointed head of the community, whereas if he is able
to answer questions in other Masechtos too, he deserves to become the Rosh
(a) Bath-attendants were more particular about keeping their robes clean
than most other people. That is why stains on their robes were considered a
Chatzitzah - even if they were visible only on *one* side.
(b) Rebbi Yanai instructed his sons - that when he died, they should not
bury him in white clothes, in case he will not merit to go to Gan Eden, and
he would look out of place wearing white shrouds among the mourners (in
Gehinom, who would be wearing black). Nor should they bury him in black
shrouds, in case he *will* merit to go to Gan Eden, and he will appear
equally strange wearing black among those who will be wearing white. What
they *should* bury him in, was the red robes of the bath-attendants. So we
see that bath-attendants wore red robes, not white ones?
(c) The top garments of the bath-attendants were white, the undergarments,
(a) Rebbi Yishmael learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Olas Shabbos be'Shabbat(o)" - that the (Chalavim of the) Olah of
one Shabbos (Shabbos Bereishis) is brought on another Shabbos (Yom Kipur).
(b) Rebbi Akiva uses the same two Derashos to learn that the Olah of
Shabbos is brought on *Yom-Tov*, but not vice-versa.
2. ... and from "(be'Shabba)to" - he learns that the Olah can only brought
on *its* Shabbos, but not on another Shabbos; to teach us that the Chalavim
of Yom Kipur cannot be brought on Shabbos.
(c) According to Rebbi Yishmael, 'Nedarim and Nedavos Kereivim be'Yom-Tov'.
Consequently, we do not need the first Derashah to permit the Olah of
Shabbos on Yom-Tov, which is obviously permitted; so he uses the Pasuk to
derive that 'Chelvei Shabbos Kereivin be'Yom'ha'Kipurim'. Whereas Rebbi
Akiva holds 'Nedarim u'Nedavos Ein Kereivim be'Yom-Tov', in which case, he
needs the Pasuk to teach us that Chelvei Shabbos Kereivim be'Yom-Tov' (but
not on Yom-Kipur).
(a) One does not blow the six Teki'os on Friday afternoon - since work on
the outgoing Yom Kipur is forbidden, just like it is on the incoming
Shabbos. So what point is there in blowing - seeing as the objective of
blowing - i.e. to remind the people to stop work, does not apply here.
Similarly, what point is there in making Havdalah from Shabbos to Yom
Kipur, since nothing becomes permitted - and the sole objective of Havdalah
is to permit Melachah)?
(b) According to Yehudah Brei de'Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi, the author of this
Beraisa must be Rebbi Akiva. Why is that? Because according to Rebbi
Yishmael, Yom Kipur is indeed more lenient than Shabbos, inasmuch as one
brings the Chalavim of Shabbos on Yom Kipur. In that case, they ought to
blow the Shofar on Yom Kipur which falls on Friday, in order to publicise
this fact. Then in subsequent years, when Yom Kipur falls on Sunday, and
they do not blow the Shofar on Motza'ei Shabbos, the Kohanim will realize
that Yom Kipur is more lenient than Shabbos, and remember to bring the
Shabbos Chalavim on Yom Kipur.
(c) According to Yehudah Brei de'Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi, blowing the Shofar
on Yom Kipur was necessary only in order to remind the Kohanim to bring the
Chalavim of Shabbos on Yom Kipur. But this is unnecessary, Rebbi Zeira
maintains, because of the accepted fact that Kohanim are keen, and
therefore require no reminder.
(a) Since most of the Teki'os in the Mikdash were blown in connection
withto the Avodah, it is hardly surprising that the Gemara at first thought
that also the three that were to remind the people to stop work, were for
the exclusive benefit of the Kohanim.
(b) According to Rav Shisha Brei de'Rav Idi, the reason that one does not
blow on Yom Kipur which falls on Friday, is because this leniency is not
required that year. Why not? Because since Yom Kipur is followed by
Shabbos, they will anyway not be able to cook the vegetables, so why should
they need to cut them? And Chazal only permitted a Shvus if its benefits
were felt immediately, not if it was only for subsequent years.
(c) According to Rav Shisha, why does the Mishnah in Chulin rule that one
does not blow on a Yom-Tov which falls on Motza'ei Shabbos. One ought to
blow in order to remind people that they are permitted to Shecht (and to
(d) So we see, that one does not blow to permit work, only to forbid it.
1.When Yom-tov falls on Friday - Havdalah is not recited, since Havdalah
comes Lehakel (when it is mi'Kodesh le'Chol) and not Lehachmir (when it is
(b) When Yom-Tov falls on Friday - one does blow the Shofar, to stop people
from performimg Melachos that are permitted on Yom-Tov.
2. When Yom-Tov falls on Motza'ei Shabbos - Havdalah *is* recited, because
it is me'Kodesh le'Chol.
(a) We initially think that "Shabason" - written in connection with
Shabbos, must be referring to cutting detached vegetables, and not to
Melachah - since we already have a Pasuk in Yisro prohibiting Melachah "Lo
Sa'aseh Kol Melachah".
Hadran Alach, 've'Eilu Kesharim'!
(b) The Gemara concludes that "Shabason" is an Asei for Melachah (so that
Melachos on Shabbos now have an Asei, as well as a Lo Sa'aseh).
(c) Chazal permitted cutting vegetables, cracking nuts and peeling
pomegranates on Yom Kipur from Minchah-time and onwards - because, since it
is close to the termination of the fast, to prepare food and not be able to
eat it, is an affliction.
(d) When the Amora'im saw that their families were cutting the vegetables
*before* Minchah-time, when it is *not* an affliction, they told them that
they had received a letter from Eretz Yisrael forbidding the cutting of
vegetables on Yom Kipur - in order, that they would take their instructions