ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShabbos 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
(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?
Hadran Alach, 'ha'Motzi Yayin'!
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*).
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
(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.
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.
(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).
(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.