(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 59


(a) Rava and Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina finally attribute the bell retaining its Tum'ah (even after the striker has been removed) to the fact that it can still be used - by striking it with a piece of clay. Rebbi Yochanan has a different explanation.
What is it, and what is the basic difference between the two explanations?

(b) Does this mean that a child's bell will be Mekabel Tum'ah Lechatchilah, when the striker has been removed?

(a) What do we learn from the future tense used with regard to Tum'as Mishkav u'Moshav, when the Torah writes in Vayikra "ve'Chol Asher *Yishkav* Alav", and "*Yeshev* Alav" - using the past tense?

(b) Rebbi Elazar confines this Din to Tum'as Mishkav and Moshav.
What does Rebbi Yochanan say about this?

(c) What problem does this present with regard to Rebbi Yochanan's opinion in 1a?

(a) The Beraisa states that a metal horse-shoe is subject to Tum'ah. The Amora'im ascribe various possible uses to a metal horse-shoe, all in war: Because it can be used 1. as a drinking-cup; 2. to anoint with; Rebbi Yochanan gives a third possible use, to explain why it is subject to Tum'ah.
What is it, and why does that reason force us to switch the opinions in 1a, rather than in 2b?

(b) Why can we not simply say that the shoe is subject to Tum'ah because it is fit to replace on the horse's foot?

(c) When would the first reason (in 1a) not apply (which would mean that, according to that Amora, the horse-shoe would remain Tahor), even though the other two reasons *would* (and it will therefore still be subject to Tum'ah)?

(d) When would Rebbi Yochanan's reason not be applicable (so that, according to *him*, the horse-shoe would not be subject to Tum'ah)?

Answers to questions



(a) According to Rebbi Meir, a woman who goes out with an 'Ir shel Zahav' is Chayav Chatas; the Chachamim say she is Patur, whilst Rebbi Eliezer permits it even Lechatchilah.
What is the basis of their Machlokes?

(b) Rav forbids a woman to go out with a 'Kelila' - a head-band worn across the forehead - whereas Shmuel permits it. According to the first Lashon, they both agree that a silver or golden 'Kelila' is Asur.
Then what exactly is their Machlokes?

(c) And what is the basis of their Machlokes according to the second Lashon?

(d) Rav Shmuel bar bar Chanah reminded Rav Yosef (who became ill and forgot his learning) that he had taught them in the name of Rav that a woman is permitted a woman to go out with a 'Kelila'.
What can we learn from this statement with regard to the two Leshonos cited above?

(a) What was the name of the great, tall lame man who arrived in Neherda'a (from Eretz Yisrael)?

(b) What did Rav deduce must have happened, for him to have left Eretz Yisrael and come to Bavel?

(c) Why did Levi remain in Eretz Yisrael until now? Why did he not come to Bavel earlier?

(d) How did Rav know that it was not Rebbi Chanina who died (and not Rebbi Efes), leaving Levi without a companion (two reasons)?

(a) Shmuel is quoted as permitting a 'Kamra' (an exquisite belt) on Shabbos, which, which, according to the first explanation, is made of leather and is permitted 'like a golden cloak'.
Why are we not afraid that the owner may take it off to show it to his friends?

(b) What is the second explanation of 'Kamra', and what is then the Chidush?

(a) How does Rashi prove that two belts, one on top of the other, must be forbidden on Shabbos?

(b) 'Hai Risuki, I Is Lei Mefarchiyasa, Shari, I Lo, Asur'.
What does this mean?

(c) A woman is forbidden to go out with 'Katla'.
What is a 'Katla' (two explanations)?

(a) What is the difference between a 'Nezem' and a 'Taba'as'?

(b) How does Rebbi Zeira reconcile our Mishnah, which implies that a ring with a signet renders a woman who goes out with it on Shabbos, Chayav Chatas, with the Beraisa, which lists a ring - with or without a signet - among a woman's ornaments (in which case, she would not be Chayav?

(c) In which context does Rebbi Nechemyah hold that we go after the seal and not after the ring?

(a) According to Rebbi Nechemyah, what is the criterion for the Tum'ah of ...
  1. ... the wooden yoke of an ox, with metal yoke-pins?
  2. ... a wooden sales-stand which has metal nails;
  3. ... a large wooden scales with metal chains?
(b) What do the Rabbanan hold - in all the cases?
(a) How does Rava answer the above Kashya in 9b (li'Tzedadin Katani)? How does he explain the Beraisa - 'Bein she'Yesh Aleha Chosem, Bein she'Ein Aleha Chosem'?

(b) Rebbi Nachman bar Yitzchak differentiates between Shabbos and Tum'ah. How does *he* explain the Beraisa, and how does he reconcile it with our Mishnah?

Answers to questions
Next daf

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