Daf Yomi שבת פג פד פה הודפס מאתר אוצר החכמה tablet.otzar.org עמוד 177 הודפס מאתר אוצר החכמה tablet.otzar.org עמוד 178 הודפס מאתר אוצר החכמה tablet.otzar.org עמוד 179 הודפס מאתר אוצר החכמה tablet.otzar.org עמוד 180 הודפס מאתר אוצר החכמה tablet.otzar.org עמוד 181 הודפס מאתר אוצר החכמה tablet.otzar.org עמוד 182 ה' סיון תשפ“ Thurs, May 28 2020 

OVERVIEW of the Daf Distinctive INSIGHT 1) Developing the disagreement concerning the tum’ah status Ritual Impurity of a Boat לאפוקי ספיה שאיה מיטלטלת מליאה (.of idolatry (cont The Gemara finishes developing the differing opinions of Rabbah and R’ Elazar regarding the dispute between R’ Akiva T he author of our Mishnah as well as Chananya both agree and Rabanan. According to Rabbah, the point of dispute is that a boat does not contract ritual impurity. Our Mishnah determines this law from the association we אבן ”whether idolatry transmits the tum’ah of a “placed rock .According to R’ Elazar the point of dispute is whether find in the verse (Mishlei 30:19) between a boat and the ocean . מסמא idolatry transmits “carrying tum’ah.” Chananya learns this law from the fact that ritual impurity for sack” in the verse in— שק “ Two unsuccessful challenges are presented against Rabbah’s utensils is learned from the listing of understanding of the dispute. the Torah (Vayikra 11:32). The second Baraisa quoted to challenge Rabbah was inter- According to the first explanation of the Gemara, there is a preted by Rabbah and R’ Elazar in a way consistent with their disagreement between our Mishnah and Chananya regarding an opinions. R’ Ashi challenges both of their interpretations and earthenware boat. Chachamim hold that it is pure, because the offers his own instead. verse associates it to the sea. Chananya holds that a wooden 2) The limbs of an idol utensil needs to be able to be carried whether empty or full to be R’ Chama bar Gurya asked whether the detached limbs of susceptible to ritual impurity. This is a feature shared in com- an idol transmit tum’ah. According to the Gemara’s first under- mon with a sack. This is why he agrees that a wooden boat is not However, an earthenware boat is not compared to a sack . טמא standing, the question applies to a detached limb that requires a professional to reattach it. Alternatively, the question applies to in this regard, and can contract tum’ah according to Chananya. a case where even a layman is able to reassemble the idol. The Earthenware never was associated to a sack to be subject to this question is left unresolved. limitation of being able to be carried while loaded. points out that even an earthenware ( ד"ה לאפוקי ) An idol less than the size of a k’zayis Tosafos (3 R’ Achdavoi bar Ami questioned the legal status of an idol boat is able to be moved or “carried” while full, as long as it is in smaller than a k’zayis, specifically whether an idol smaller than a the water. Nevertheless, Tosafos explains that such movement is k’zayis will transmit tum’ah. mainly the result of the water propelling the boat along. This is An answer is deduced from a Baraisa that equates an idol to not movement which is induced by man, and it is therefore in- a corpse indicating that an idol does not transmit tum’ah if it is consequential to our discussion. less than a k’zayis. As the discussion continues on 84a, Rava provides another 4) Clarifying the earlier quoted opinion of R’ Elazar insight into Chananya. Rava explains that requirement that The Gemara questions why R’ Elazar used the three quoted something be able to be moved in order to be eligible for ritual analogies to reach lenient conclusions regarding the tum’ah sta- impurity allows for a wooden cart, which can be moved while tus of an idol, why not use the analogies to draw strict conclu- full, to be capable of becoming tam’ei. Even if the cart is filled sions? with large boulders, and the only way to move it is by having it Since the tum’ah of idols is Rabbinic in origin, answers the pulled by oxen, this is still considered as being moved while full. Gemara, when given the choice the analogies will be utilized for A proof to show that being able to be moved by oxen is adequate . כלים פרק י"ט leniencies rather than stringencies. is brought from a Mishnah in 5) MISHNAH: The Mishnah rules that boats are not suscepti- ble to tum’ah. 6) The source of the halacha in the Mishnah REVIEW and Remember The drasha quoted in the Mishnah is explained. A Baraisa records an alternative source in the name of 1. To what degree are idolatrous service items tamei? Chananya regarding a boat’s insusceptibility to tum’ah. Two differences that emerge from the different sources are 2. Why did Chazal declare idolaters tamei? identified. 7) Torah study 3. Does an idol smaller than a kazayis transmit tumah? R’ Yehudah in the name of Rav states that a person should never miss a day from studying in the Beis Midrash because this halacha was studied but not understood until Chananya ben 4. What are the two possible reasons a boat does not be- Akavya came and explained it. come tamei? Additional statements regarding the importance of Torah study are cited.  שבת פ ג“ —Number 145 study until the expire; however, the statement does not propose that a person die in the study house, as that is not possible. Rav Yosef HALACHAH Highlight Chaim 9 of Baghdad adds that even in regards to application of the The obligation to study Torah until the very end directive as the Maharsha conceives it is difficult, being that it is un- common for one to be fully focused at the time of death such that אמר רבי יותן: לעולם אל ימע אדם את עצמו מבית המדרש ומדברי תורה, -he be able to concentrate on Torah study. As such, different non ואפילו בשעת מיתה שאמר (במדבר יט,יד) זאת התורה אדם כי ימות באהל, אפילו בשעת מיתה תהא עוסק בתורה. literal interpretations are offered to explain this passage. Rav Yosef Rebbi Yonasan said that a person should never refrain from attending the Chaim 10 of Baghdad proposes that the passage is allegorical, and study hall and from studying Torah, even at the moment of death. The urges that even in afflictive life situations that are analogous to source for this is the verse that states: “This is the Torah (law) of a person death, such as excruciating poverty, one not abstain themselves nei- who dies in tent”, which informs us that even at the moment of death a per- ther from the study of Torah, nor from attending the study hall. The son should be occupied with the study of Torah. Panim Mi’eros 11 extracts a different lesson from our passage. If a person fully applies himself to the study of Torah during his lifetime, here are two points in our passage: that a person study even until T than even in death his teachings and instruction will continue to his dying moment, and that even in death one should not be absent reverberate in the house of study, thus even in his moment of death from the study hall. The practical application of these points is dis- he will still figuratively be in the house of study. Others 12 explain this cussed in the Rabbinic literature. The Rambam 1 examines the limits passage based upon the concept 13 that whichever place a scholar of Torah study and writes: “Until which point is a person obligated to studies in has the status of a study hall. Thus, if a person studies dili- study Torah? Until the day that he dies.” This is codified as well in the gently while alive, then wherever they are when they die, that place Shulchan Aruch 2. Some commentators 3 identify our passage as the will have the status of a house of study when they are learning at the source for this statement. The Sefer HaChinuch 4 expands upon the moment of their death.  .1 רמב"ם (פ"א מהל' תלמוד תורה הל' י). וכן ראה שם (ה"ח). וכן ראה לרבי יעקב חזן -words of the Rambam by adding that our Sages emphasized the neces מלודרס בס' עץ חיים (הל' ת"ת פ"א, עמ' טו). -sity for the indefatigable study of Torah along the line of ethical teach .2 שו"ע (יו"ד סי' רמו ס"ג) .3 ביאור הגר"א לשו"ע (שם אות י'), וכן בס' עבודת המלך על הרמב"ם (שם, דף לו ע"ב) ings and in order to imbue values by stating that even at the moment וכ"כ הגר"ח קיבסקי שליט"א בס' קרית מלך שם. ועי' בשו"ת אגרות משה (ח"א of death a person is obligated to study Torah. Rav Moshe Shmuel מחיו"ד סי' קמא ד"ה ולפי זה) שביאר מקור אחר לדברי הרמב"ם. [וכן ראה צייו של הגר"א על המשה באבות (פ"ה מ"כ) הפוך בה ... ובלה בה "כמ"ש בפ"ט דשבת Shapiro 5 explains that this may be the source for the custom of saying פ"ג ע"ב אדם כי ימות באהל." ע"ש.] והגר"א ודעמיה צייו מקור זה גם לדברי הרמב"ם שם (ה"ח) והשו"ע (שם ס"א). אמם עי' בזה להגרי"ח סופר שליט"א בס' Shema at the moment of death. The first words of Torah that a child דרופתקי דאורייתא ח"א (סי' יז, עמ א). and תורה צוה לו משה is taught when he begins to speak is the verse 6 of .4 ספר החיוך (מצוה תיט). וכן כתב רבי דוד מלידא בס' עיר מקלט (מצוה תכ, דף ו 7 ע"א בדפוס אוגוואר תרל"א). the first verse of the Shema , therefore the words of Shema Yisrael .5 בקובץ הבאר (כסלו תשל"ד) והוב"ד בס' בתורתו יהגה ח"א (פרק י' הערה 3 , עמ' קפד) should be his last words as well, and as such he fulfills the learning of .6 דברים (לג,ד) .7 סוכה (מב ע"א) וברמב"ם (פ"א מהל' ת"ת ה"ו) ובשו"ע (יו"ד סי' רמה ס"ה). ועי' .Torah even at the moment of death רש"י עה"ת (דברים יא,יט). .8 בחידושי אגדות כאן. ,The commentators reflect upon the second point of the passage .9 בבן יהוידע כאן. namely that a person not absent themselves from the study hall even .10 שם .1 בקדמה לשו"ת פים מאירות ח"א (ד"ה ובזה יובן) -at the time of death, and its possible practical application. The Ma .2 בס' דף על הדף כאן (דף לג סוע"א בדפה"ס) harsha 8 remarks that possibly the statement “even at the moment of .3 ציין שם בזה: דרשות הר"ן (דרוש ח) וכעין זה ברמב"ן (דברים יא,כב) ובספורו (ויקרא כו,יב). death” only refers to the studying of Torah, that is that a person  es (Devarim 4:9): “...lest you remove them the words of Rambam, that a person should from your heart all the days of your life.” Ram- study Torah until the very day of his death, as Distinctive INSIGHT bam then concludes, “Whenever a person is is indicated from the verse in Devarim. Then Perfect Attendance in the Beis Midrash not learning, he is forgetting.” The Vilna the Chinuch expounds further: “Our sages Gaon (Yoreh De’ah 246:10) cites our Gemara have emphasized that Torah study is essential אמר רבי יוחן לעולם אל ימע אדם את עצמו מבית in Shabbos as the source for this ruling of for each person, as they pointed out that one המדרש ומדברי תורה ואפי' בשעת מיתה שאמר זאת התורה אדם כי ימות באהל אפילו בשעת -Rambam, where the Gemara tells us that a must be prepared to be immersed in its pur מיתה תהא עוסק בתורה person should learn even until the moment of suit even at the moment of one’s death, as the R abbi Yochanan said: A person should his death. Gemara in Shabbos discusses.” never refrain from attending the beis midrash It seems peculiar, though, for the Vilna Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Shapiro points out or from words of Torah, even at the moment Gaon to refer to our Gemara, and the insight that the custom to declare “Shema Yisrael” at of death. For it is stated (Bamidbar 19:14): of Rabbi Yochanan who brings the verse in the time of one’s death may have developed “This is the Torah - a man who dies in a Bamidbar, when Rambam himself already based upon this halacha. The “Shema” is the tent.” Even at the moment of death a person cited a different verse from Devarim as his first piece of Torah which is taught to infants should be involved in Torah. source. as they learn to speak. When it is also the Rambam (Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:10) The Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 419) final words a person utters as he departs from states that a person has the obligation to learn understands the two verses as conveying a this world, he has fulfilled the directive to be Torah until the day he dies, as the verse teach- single, comprehensive picture of the primacy learning Torah until the moment of death of the study of Torah. He first quotes from itself. 

Daf Digest is published by the Chicago Center, under the leadership of HaRav Yehoshua Eichenstein, shlit”a HaRav Pinchas Eichenstein, Nasi; HaRav Zalmen L. Eichenstein, Rosh Kollel; Rabbi Tzvi Bider, Executive Director, edited by Rabbi Ben-Zion Rand. Daf Yomi Digest has been made possible through the generosity of Mr. & Mrs. Dennis Ruben. 12 Teves 5773 Shabbos Daf 83 Dec. 25, 2012

Daf Notes is currently being dedicated to the neshamah of Tzvi Gershon Ben Yoel (Harvey Felsen) o”h May the studying of the Daf Notes be a zechus for his neshamah and may his soul find peace in Gan Eden and be bound up in the Bond of life

Tumah of an Idol by carrying). Rabbi Akiva maintained: They (are tamei) and their hesset (that which carries them is tamei). Now,

according to Rabbi Elozar, it is well (for he maintains that The Gemora asks on Rabbah from a braisa: An idol is like the Rabbis and R’ Aviva dispute if an idol is subject to the a sheretz and its service utensils are like a sheretz. Rabbi tumah of carrying); but according to Rabbah’s view, there Akiva said: An idol is like a niddah, and its service utensils is a difficulty (for according to him, both the Rabbis and R’ are like a sheretz. [Seemingly, the Rabbis maintain that an Akiva agree that an idol is subject to the tumah of idol is not subject to the tumah of carrying – just as a carrying)? sheretz.] Now, according to Rabbi Elozar, it is well (for it is only R’ Aviva who maintains that an idol is subject to the The Gemora answers: Rabbah can say to you: And even tumah of carrying); but according to Rabbah’s view, there according to your view (is it any better); can you say of an is a difficulty (for according to him, both the Rabbis and R’ idolater and an idolatress that they are tamei but not Akiva agree that an idol is subject to the tumah of their hesset? Surely it was taught in a braisa: Speak to the carrying)? Children of Israel and say to them: when a man has a

discharge. A braisa taught that only the Children of Israel The Gemora answers: Rabbah can say to you: Is it convey tumah by zivah and idolaters do not convey stronger than the Mishna (mentioned on the previous tumah by zivah, but a decree has been enacted against Daf) which states: Its stones, wood, and earth cause them that they should be regarded as zavim in all tumah like a sheretz, and I explained that when it states respects (even when they did not experience any ‘like a sheretz,’ it means that it does not render tamei discharge). [Accordingly, they should also be subject to through a ‘placed stone’ [‘Even mesama’ - a stone set up the laws of tumah through carrying – the same way that upon supports, and under it lay garments or utensils; the a zav is!?] stone does not come into contact with these things. The issue is whether these utensils are rendered tamei when Rather, Rabbah answers the difficulty according to his an idol is placed upon the stone.]; here too it means that reasoning, as follows: An idolater and an idolatress - they it does not render tamei through a ‘placed stone.’ themselves, their hesset, and their ‘placed stone’ are all

tamei; an idol - it and its hesset are tamei, but not its The Gemora asks on Rabbah from another braisa: An ‘placed stone.’ Rabbi Akiva says: An idol - it, its hesset and idolater, an idolatress, an idol and its service utensils, its ‘placed stone’ are all tamei. Rabbi Elozar, however they themselves are tamei, but not their hesset (i.e., if interprets it in accordance with his view: An idolater and they are carried by a tahor person, and that person did an idolatress – they themselves, their hesset, and their not come into actual contact with them, the person ‘placed stone’ are all tamei; an idol - it is tamei, but not remains tahor; he is not rendered tamei through tumah - 1 -

Visit us on the web at dafnotes.com or email us at [email protected] to subscribe © Rabbi Avrohom Adler L’zecher Nishmas HaRav Raphael Dov ben HaRav Yosef Yechezkel Marcus O”H l

its hesset. Rabbi Akiva says: An idol - it and its hesset are teaching proves to us that tumas hesset is not only for tamei. carrying objects, but also for supporting them, and therefore, an idol, although incapable of ‘carrying’ Rav Ashi asked on this explanation: If so, what is the something, for it is inanimate, it can in fact ‘support’ meaning of ‘they themselves’? [If ‘hesset’ means through something.] carrying, what is meant by ‘they’? It cannot mean that they themselves are tamei, since that is obvious from the The Gemora asks: With whom does that which was fact that they generate tumah through being carried!] taught in this braisa agree: As for all tamei things which carry others (e.g., through a scale), they (the things Rather, said Rav Ashi: This is the meaning: In the case of carried) are tahor, except in the case of hesset by a zav, an idolater and an idolatress, whether they carry others for which no companion is found in the whole Torah. (what is known as tumas hesset) or others carry them Shall we say that this is not according to Rabbi Akiva, for (the regular tumas masa), these others are tamei. If an if it is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, there is an idol as idol carries others, they are tahor (for the analogy well? between idols and sheretz excludes idols from the laws of hesset); if others carry it, they are tamei (through tumas The Gemora answers: You may even say that it agrees masa, derived from the analogy between idols and with Rabbi Akiva, for the braisa states zav and all that is niddah). As for its service utensils, whether they carry similar to him (and since idols are analogous to a zav, others or others carry them, these others are tahor. they too can generate tumas hesset). Rabbi Akiva said: In the case of an idolater and an idolatress (where there is an analogy to the tumah of a Rav Chama bar Gurya inquired: Does the law of (tumah zav), and an idol (where there is an analogy to the tumah from) an idol operate in respect of its limbs or not? of a niddah), whether they carry others or others carry them, these others are tamei; as for its service utensils, The Gemora elaborates: Now, where an unskilled person whether they carry others or others carry them, they are can reassemble it (the limb in the idol), there is no tahor. question, for it is as though it is already joined. When does the question arise? If an unskilled person cannot The Gemora asks: In the case of an idol, as for others reassemble it, what then? Since an unskilled person carrying it, that is well, for it is possible; but how is it cannot reassemble it, it is as if it is broken (and therefore conceivable for it (an inanimate object) to carry others? cannot generate tumah), or perhaps, it is actually not diminished (and therefore, it can still generate tumah)? Rami the son of Rav Yeva said: It is as we learned in the following Mishna: If a zav is in one pan of the scales, and The Gemora notes: There were some who put the inquiry food or liquids are in the other pan, and the zav in the reverse direction: Where an unskilled person outweighs them, they are tamei (for the zav is supporting cannot reassemble it, there is no question, for it is as if it them; this is tumas hesset); if they outweigh him, they are was broken. When does the question apply? It is where tahor (for tumas midras – the tumah of couch and seat, an unskilled person can reassemble it; what then? Since only applies to objects which are designated to support an unskilled person can reassemble it, it is as though it is the weight of a human; this excludes food and liquids; already joined; or perhaps, now it is nevertheless they also will not be tamei through masa, for a person disjoined and dismantled? The Gemora leaves this that carries a zav will be tamei, not objects). [This question unresolved (as a teiku).

- 2 -

Visit us on the web at dafnotes.com or email us at [email protected] to subscribe © Rabbi Avrohom Adler L’zecher Nishmas HaRav Raphael Dov ben HaRav Yosef Yechezkel Marcus O”H

[The Gemora notices that each of these three analogies Rav Achadvoi bar Ami inquired: What of an idol less than all teaches a leniency.] The Gemora asks: Why? Interpret an olive in size? it rather stringently, as follows: In respect of what law is it (an idol) analogous to a sheretz? It is that it generates Rav Yosef asked: Regarding what law is he asking? Shall tumah by the size of a lentil. And in respect of what law we say it is in respect of the prohibition (to benefit from is it (an idol) analogous to a niddah? It is that it generates an idol); let it be no more than Zevuv the idol of Ekron tumah through a placed stone. And in respect of what (which was smaller than the size of an olive, and law is it (an idol) analogous to a corpse? It is that it nevertheless, it was forbidden for benefit), for it was generates tumah through tumas ohel (if the tumah source taught in the following braisa: And they made Baal-beris and a person or object is under the same roof)? their God; this refers to Zevuv the idol of Ekron. It teaches us that everyone made a likeness of that which he feared The Gemora answers: The tumah of an idol is only by (Zevuv), and put it in his purse; whenever he thought of Rabbinical law, and consequently, where there are it, he took it out of his purse and embraced and kissed it! lenient and stringent analogies (i.e., there is a choice as to which analogy to draw), we draw a lenient analogy, but Rather, the question is in respect of tumah; what is the do not draw a stringent analogy. (83a – 83b) law? Since it is analogous to sheretz, then just as sheretz generates tumah by the size of a lentil, so too an idol generates tumah by the size of a lentil; or perhaps it is also analogous to a corpse: just as a corpse generates tumah by the size of an olive, so too does an idol generates tumah by the size of an olive?

Rav Avya, and others state, Rabbah bar Ulla, said: Come and hear a proof from the following braisa: An idol less than an olive in size has no tumah at all, for it is written: And he (King Yoshiyahu) cast its dust (of the idol) upon the graves of the people (who worshipped it): just as a corpse generates tumah by the size of an olive, so too does an idol generates tumah by the size of an olive.

[The Gemora returns to R’ Elozar’s explanation of the Tannaic dispute, and asks:] Now, according to the Rabbis, in respect of what law is it (an idol) analogous to a sheretz? It is that it does not generate tumah. And in respect of what law is it (an idol) analogous to a niddah? It is that it is not a source of tumah through its severed limbs. And in respect of what law is it (an idol) analogous to a corpse? It is that it does not generate tumah by the size of a lentil.

- 3 -

Visit us on the web at dafnotes.com or email us at [email protected] to subscribe © Rabbi Avrohom Adler L’zecher Nishmas HaRav Raphael Dov ben HaRav Yosef Yechezkel Marcus O”H ו' סיון תשפ“ Fri, May 29 2020 

OVERVIEW of the Daf Distinctive INSIGHT 1) Chananyah’s opinion Mishnah Mentioning Mobility שלש תיבות הן...והבאה במדה טהורה מכלום Rava states that according to Chananya, who maintains that a boat that is carried when full is susceptible to tum’ah, even if the boat is carried by oxen it is still susceptible to T he Mishnah (Keylim 24:2) is brought to teach that a wag- Although it can still be .טהורה tum’ah. A Mishnah is cited as proof. on which has large holes in it is used to transport large boulders, it is not considered a utensil 2) Earthenware utensils which is capable of carrying regular commodities. Such a wag- A Baraisa is quoted that teaches about the susceptibility on is not susceptible to ritual impurity. Rabbi Yochanan ex- of earthenware utensils to tum’ah, although the language of plains that once the holes are small enough that pomegranates the Baraisa is vague. will be retained in the wagon, the holding capacity of the wag- R’ Pappa explains: An earthenware utensil is not subject on is intact, and the wagon is eligible for tum’ah. to tumas midras but is subject to the tum’ah of touching. At this point, the source of this halacha has been cited, Wooden utensils are subject even to tumas midras and boats and the statement of Rabbi Yochanan has clarified the case. are never susceptible to tum’ah like the author of our Mish- The Gemara continues and cites the latter part of the Mish- nah. R’ Yosi rules that even boats are susceptible to tum’ah nah as well. This Mishnah brings three categories of boxes or following the opinion of Chanaya. cabinets, and the appropriate law of tum’ah which applies by Two sources are presented that exclude earthenware each. wonders why the Gemara ( “דה שלש תיבות הן ) utensils from tumas midras. Tosafos Both sources share a common reason, namely, tumas brings this later Mishnah into our discussion. And, Tosafos midras applies only to those items that can be purified in a notes, if it is simply to continue the Mishnah that was in pro- mikveh. This assumption is unsuccessfully challenged. gress, we have to realize that the Mishnah quoted above was Rava presents a third source that excludes earthenware from Keylim 24:2, while this is actually not the following utensils from tumas midras. Mishnah, but rather Mishnah 4. Why is Mishnah 24:3

3) MISHNAH: The Mishnah teaches how a field measuring skipped? six by six tefachim can be planted with five different varieties In our Gemara, Rava was trying to prove that a utensil is of seeds and the prohibition against kilayim will not be vio- considered “movable” even if it is so heavy that it can only be lated. moved by oxen which draw it. Ramban points out that this proof is only conclusive once we are taught the law in Mish- 4) Clarifying the Mishnah nah 4. In Mishnah 2, we are taught that there are three types The Gemara explains how the verse quoted in the Mish- of wagons, one of them being a type which can carry stones. nah indicates that five different types of seeds are planted in Rabbi Yochanan had said that if the holes are small enough one garden patch.  to contain pomegranates, the wagon can become tam’ei. We might think, says Ramban, that this can still be dragged by people, and this would be the definition of “movable”. REVIEW and Remember Therefore, the Gemara brings Mishnah 4, where we are taught the law of the three cabinets or boxes. One of them is 1. For a vessel to qualify as movable full and empty, must it notably wide,” which is–באה במדה “ the type which is be movable by a person? categorically tahor. Being that this category was not men- tioned in Mishnah 2 by the wagons, this suggests that a very 2. Is an earthenware utensil susceptible to midras tumah? large wagon is still capable of being tam’ei. Certainly, such a large wagon would only be able to be moved by oxen. This, 3. Why is a reed mat susceptible to midras tumah if it can then, is where the definition of “movable” is determined, and not be made tahor through immersion in a mikveh? this is why the Gemara had to bring the law in Mishnah 4. 

4. How many different varieties of seeds can be planted in a Today’s Daf Digest is dedicated garden patch six by six tefachim without violating the By Mr. and Mrs. Marc Brown prohibition against kilayim? In loving memory of their mother Helene Hannah Basha Brown o’b’m שבת פ ד“ —Number 146 Teshuvos HaRashba (cited in Rema ad loc.) adds that this is even the case where the wooden steps are built into the mik- HALACHAH Highlight veh. Immersion while standing on a wooden plank In cases in which some sort of flooring must be made, and ,.it is not feasible to use cement, such as the case of a lake, etc ושל עץ בין מדרסו ובין מגעו טמא But [a boat] of wood, both its midras and its contact are tamei. Sidrei Taharah, cited in Pischei Teshuvah, 2 suggests that nar- row planks, each of which in itself is too narrow to sustain the A bove (83), we learned that only wooden vessels that can be weight of a person, should be placed side by side to form a categorized as receptacles are susceptible to tumas sheretz [or to flooring. other sorts of contact-generated tum’ah], and that flat wooden What about the walls of a mikveh? Teshuvos Minchas objects are not susceptible to contact-tum’ah. Here, however, we Yitzchak 3 notes that all the sources that discuss the issue focus are taught that a wooden plank that sustains the weight of a on the floor of a mikveh, not its walls. Citing Ran, he proves person is susceptible to the tum’ah of midras - i.e., tum’ah im- from a Gemara that appears in several places in Shas (most re- parted by certain categories of people who are tamei to the ob- cently on Shabbos 65a), that the walls may be made of wood jects that support them. Moreover, since the rule is that whatev- boards. The Gemara in question relates that the father of er is susceptible to midras is also susceptible to contact-tum’ah, Shmuel would place mats in the river around the area in which such a wooden plank is also susceptible to contact-tum’ah. his daughters immersed themselves, so as to hide them from The law is that a woman may not immerse herself in a mik- onlookers. 4 Mats are susceptible to tumas midras. Hence, were veh that is a vessel distinct from the ground. The Rabbi extend- it forbidden to line a mikveh with material that is susceptible ed that decree to include immersion in a mikveh, even if it is to tumas midras, in erecting these mats Shmuel’s father would connected to the ground, if the woman stands atop something have been rendering the enclosure unsuitable for immersion! that is susceptible to tum’ah. From our Gemara it is derived Perforce, the concern is only with the flooring of a mikveh, not that a woman may not stand on a plank in a mikveh (even if with its walls.  .1 שו"ע יורה דעה סימן קצ"ח סעיף ל"א: ועי' היטב בביאור הגר"א שם ס"ק the mikveh is an unlined lake or pond, and hence, were it not ל"א. -for the plank, she would be standing in the mud), and Shul .2 פת"ש שם ס"ק י"ט. 1 .3 שו"ת מחת יצחק חלק ג' סימן צ' אות ט': chan Aruch rules accordingly. Moreover, if a mikveh has .4 מסכת שבת דף ס"ה ע"א: אבוה דשמואל … ועביד להו מקואות ביומי יסן .wooden steps, she may not immerse herself on the steps ומפצי ביומי תשרי.  clearly teaches that this law is based up- a baby which was captured and raised by -gentiles, thus never knowing about Shab ואיש אשר יגע ) Gemara GEM on scriptural sources this type of tum’ah only applies bos. In explaining the opinion of Rabbi – במשכבו The Verse is First—Then Use Sense to something that can become tahor in a Yochanan and Reish Lakish who hold ,mikveh, which excludes earthenware). that this person is completely exempt ומדרס כלי חרס מלן דטהור... אומר “Why does Rashi present a logical ra- Rashi says it is because in this case one who believes that – מותר אוס הוא W hat is the source for the law that tionale to explain the source to a law earthenware vessels are not susceptible to that is derived from a verse? what he is doing is permitted is acting as ד"ה אבל ) lists many places if coerced.” There, Tosafos יוסף דעת sits upon it)? The sefer זב where a) מדרס tum’ah of points out that this law is actually (תיוק -In Gilyon Hashas, Rabbi Akiva Eiger where Rashi consistently uses this tech so ,מובז nique. For example, we learned earlier based upon a verse brought by ד"ה ) refers us to Rashi in Eiruvin 104a There, Rashi explains the rationale (67b) that if many weeks pass and a per- why should Rashi resort to explaining .(לא behind this law. Generally, an earthen- son forgot about the law of Shabbos, he the reasoning behind this law? ware jug will not support the weight of a is liable for multiple offerings, a chatas It seems that Rashi does not mean to person who sits upon it. Because this for each Shabbos. The multiple obliga- suggest that the rationale he provides is would result in the utensil becoming tions for one extended lapse are based the actual source for the particular law in Yet, Rashi each case. Certainly, the verse suffices in .(מחלליה – smashed, people do not sit upon them. upon a verse (70a Therefore, the “tum’ah of sitting” does provides an explanation for this law, in each case as the basis for the halacha. not apply to these items. (Meiri also gives that it is impossible for the person to go Yet, Rashi is merely providing a logical this explanation in our Gemara). through an entire week and not realize approach to understand and relate to the for ten יוסף דעת Rabbi Akiva Eiger questions this, that Shabbos must have come and gone. law in each case. (See because our Gemara here in Shabbos Another example is on 68b regarding more examples of this in Shas). 

Daf Digest is published by the Chicago Center, under the leadership of HaRav Yehoshua Eichenstein, shlit”a HaRav Pinchas Eichenstein, Nasi; HaRav Zalmen L. Eichenstein, Rosh Kollel; Rabbi Tzvi Bider, Executive Director, edited by Rabbi Ben-Zion Rand. Daf Yomi Digest has been made possible through the generosity of Mr. & Mrs. Dennis Ruben. 13 Teves 5773 Shabbos Daf 84 Dec. 26, 2012

Daf Notes is currently being dedicated to the neshamah of Tzvi Gershon Ben Yoel (Harvey Felsen) o”h May the studying of the Daf Notes be a zechus for his neshamah and may his soul find peace in Gan Eden and be bound up in the Bond of life

Tumah of a Ship and More applies only to those utensils that are mentioned (in the verse) in conjunction with a sack – then, if they can

be carried both full and empty, they are susceptible to How do we know that a ship is tahor (and is not tumah, and if not, they are not susceptible; but an susceptible to tumah)? It is because it is written: the earthenware ship, even if it cannot be carried full and way of a ship in the heart of the sea. [This verse empty, is still susceptible to tumah. teaches us that a ship is likened to the sea, and the sea is not susceptible to tumah.] Alternatively, they differ in respect to a boat of the

Jordan River (which due to its narrowness and The Gemora explains: Now, it is obvious that a ship is shallowness, only small boats, which can be carried in the heart of the sea, but the verse is informing us even while full, travel there): he who derives the law that just as the sea is tahor (for it is connected to the from ‘a ship in the heart of the sea’ holds that this too ground), so too, a ship is tahor. (a boat in the Jordan) is a ship in the heart of the sea;

but as for the one who requires that it should be It was taught in a braisa: Chananya said: We may carried full and empty, this too is carried full and derive it (that a ship is not susceptible to tumah) from a empty (and will therefore be susceptible to tumah), for sack (a ship is a wooden vessel, and only those wooden Rabbi Chanina the son of Akavya said: Why was it ruled vessels which are like a sack can become tamei, since that a Jordan boat is tamei? It is because it is loaded they are likened to a sack): just as a sack is carried both (with cargo) on dry land and then lowered into the full and empty, so too everything that is carried both water. full and empty is susceptible to tumah; this excludes a ship, seeing that it cannot be carried full and empty. Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: One should

never abstain from attending the study hall even for a The Gemora asks: What is the difference between single moment, for behold there were many years that them? this Mishna was learned in the study hall without its

reason being revealed, until Rabbi Chanina the son of The Gemora answers: They differ in respect to an Akavya came and elucidated it. earthenware ship: he who derives the law from ‘a ship in the heart of the sea’ holds that this too (an Rabbi Yonasan said: One should never abstain from earthenware ship) is in the heart of the sea, but as for attending the study hall and from Torah, even in the the one who maintains that it must be like a sack; this moment of death, for it is written: This is the Torah - - 1 -

Visit us on the web at dafnotes.com or email us at [email protected] to subscribe © Rabbi Avrohom Adler L’zecher Nishmas HaRav Raphael Dov ben HaRav Yosef Yechezkel Marcus O”H l when a man dies in a tent; even in the moment of top without being told to ‘get up and let us do our death, one should be engaged in the study of the work,’ as things can be put in or taken out from the Torah. side); an opening at the top is susceptible to tumah through corpse tumah (or any other contact - Rish Lakish said: The words of Torah are firmly held generated tumah, for it is a utensil; it is not, however, only by one who kills himself for it, for it is written: This susceptible to tumas midras, for it cannot be used as is the Torah, when a man shall die in the tent. ‘sitting’ without hindering its intended usage); an extremely large one is completely tahor. [It is unfit for Rava said: Now according to Chananya (who maintains lying or sitting upon on account of the opening at the that a ship that is carried laden is susceptible to top, and therefore it is not susceptible to midras, and tumah), carrying (even) by means of oxen (for since it cannot be moved when full due to its size (for otherwise, they could not be lifted) is regarded as the chest will break if it is dragged), it is free from other carrying (and it will be susceptible to tumah). tumah as well.] [Now, the previous Mishna did not make a distinction about an extremely large wagon; Proof to this is from what we have learned in a Mishna: evidently, it is susceptible to tumah, for even it was There are three (types of) wagons: That which is built completely laden, it still can be pulled by animals.] like a chair (narrow and three sided, like an armchair) is susceptible to tumah as midras (if a zav or a niddah The Gemora cites a braisa: The midras of an rest their weight on something, it contracts tumah; this earthenware vessel is tahor (and if a zav sits on it, it applies here for the wagon is designated for sitting); will remain tahor, as long as he does not infringe upon that which is like a bed (long, its purpose being for its airspace). Rabbi Yosi said: A ship as well. transporting freight) is susceptible to corpse tumah (or any other contact - generated tumah, for it is a The Gemora asks: What does he mean (for a ship is container; it is not, however, susceptible to tumas excluded from any type of tumah, and midras does not midras, for it was not meant to support the weight of a apply by it at all, for it is not designated for sitting)? person); that of (transporting) stones (which had large holes between the floor boards) is completely tahor Rav Zevid answers: He means as follows: The midras of (for it is not regarded as a container). And Rabbi an earthenware vessel is tahor, but contact (with its Yochanan said: But if it has a receptacle for interior) will render it tamei, while an earthenware ship pomegranates, it is susceptible to tumah through is susceptible to tumah. This, the Gemora interjects, is corpse tumah. [Although the same wagon cannot be in accordance with Chananya (who maintains that an moved when laden except by oxen, and although it is a earthenware ship is susceptible to tumah, even if it wooden vessel, and therefore must be capable of being cannot be carried when full). Rabbi Yosi ruled: An moved full or empty, the fact that it can be moved by earthenware ship as well is tahor. This would be in oxen is sufficient.] agreement with our Tanna (who disagrees with Chananya, and excludes a ship from tumah, based And we learned in a different Mishna: There are three upon a Scriptural verse). (types of) chests: a chest with an opening at the side is liable to tumah as midras (because a zav can sit on its Rav Pappa asked: If so, why say, ‘A ship as well’? [He is

- 2 -

Visit us on the web at dafnotes.com or email us at [email protected] to subscribe © Rabbi Avrohom Adler L’zecher Nishmas HaRav Raphael Dov ben HaRav Yosef Yechezkel Marcus O”H not adding anything!] susceptible to corpse tumah, does it not follow that mats, which even in the case of zav become tamei Rather, said Rav Pappa, The following is its meaning: (with midras tumah), should certainly become tamei The midras of an earthenware vessel is tahor, but with corpse tumah! Now (R’ Ila’i asks), why is this (that contact (with its interior) will render it tamei, whereas a mat is susceptible to midras of a zav) so, seeing that a wooden vessel, both its midras and its contact are it (a mat) cannot be purified in a mikvah (for all utensils tamei; while a boat of the Jordan is tahor. This, the without a receptacle cannot be purified in a mikvah)? Gemora interjects, is in accordance with our Tanna (who maintains that all boats are excluded from Rabbi Chanina said to him: There it is different, since tumah, even small ones that can be carried when full). some of its kind (of the same material) are (capable of Rabbi Yosi said: A ship (of the Jordan) is tamei as well. being cleansed in a mikvah, for wooden utensils with This would be in agreement with Chananya (who holds receptacles can be purified in a mikvah). that a boat of the Jordan is susceptible to tumah). He said to him: May the Merciful One save us from The Gemora asks: How do we know that the midras of such a thought! an earthenware vessel is tahor? Rabbi Chanina retorted: May the Merciful One save us

from your thinking! Chizkiyah said: It is because it is written: And whoever touches his couch (is tamei until evening). This (the The Gemora asks: And what is the reason (of R’ word ‘his’) compares ‘his couch’ to himself: just as he Chanina)? (the zav) can be purified in a mikvah, so too can ‘his couch’ be purified in a mikvah. [This excludes an The Gemora answers: Two verses are written earthenware utensil, for it cannot be purified in a (regarding the tumah of a zav’s couch, and they mikvah; when it becomes tamei, it must be broken.] seemingly contradict each other): [1] and whoever

touches his couch (from here we can derive that the The academy of Rabbi Yishmael taught a braisa, as couch will only be susceptible to midras tumah if it can follows: It (a couch upon which a zavah lies) shall be to be purified in a mikvah); and [2] every couch that the her as the couch of her niddah: This compares ‘her zav will lie upon shall be tamei (and from here it would couch’ to herself: just as she can be purified in a seem that the couch will be susceptible to midras mikvah, so too can ‘her couch’ be purified in a mikvah; tumah even if it cannot be purified in a mikvah). How this excludes earthenware vessels, which cannot be are these to be reconciled? It is as follows: [The verse purified in a mikvah. which does not compare couch to zav teaches us the

following:] If something of its kind (can be purified in a Rabbi Ila’i asked from a braisa: From where do we mikvah), even if that itself cannot be purified in a know that (reed) mats can become tamei with corpse mikvah (it is susceptible to midras). [The verse which tumah (even though it is not a receptacle)? It can be compares his couch to zav teaches us the following:] derived through the following kal vachomer: If tiny However, if nothing of its kind (can be purified in a earthenware jugs (a finger cannot fit through its mikvah), his couch is compared to himself (and if it opening) that remain tahor by a zav, and yet they are cannot be purified in a mikvah, it will not be susceptible - 3 -

Visit us on the web at dafnotes.com or email us at [email protected] to subscribe © Rabbi Avrohom Adler L’zecher Nishmas HaRav Raphael Dov ben HaRav Yosef Yechezkel Marcus O”H to midras tumah). obvious to the Chasam Sofer.

Rava said: That the midras (of a zav) of an earthenware “The Torah seems to flower in the mind of the vessel is tahor may be derived from the following: and Pressburg Rav!” he said. every open vessel, which has no covering fastened onto it (and is under the same roof as a corpse) [is tamei]. “No, there are no miracles here,” protested the The implication is that if it has a covering fastened onto Chasam Sofer. “I will tell you my secret. For fourteen it, it is tahor. [The tumah must penetrate into the years I have not slept in a bed, so great was my interior of the vessel, which it is unable to do on dedication to Torah study.” account of the covering which interposes a barrier. This indicates that the reference is to an earthenware vessel, where the tumah must enter its air space.] Now, isn’t the verse dealing with a case where he had designated it as a seat for his wife, who is a niddah (and she subsequently sat on it, which would result in it being rendered tamei; this would prevent the surface of the vessel to form an interposition, for the law is that only something tahor can prevent tumah from entering), yet the Torah states that it is tahor. [This proves to us that an earthenware vessel cannot become tamei with midras tumah.] (83b – 84b)

DAILY MASHAL

How to Achieve Success in Torah Study

The Gemora tells us that Torah can only be mastered by a person who “kills himself” in dedication to its study. Neither natural intelligence, nor any other gift can take the place of hard work. To illustrate this point, we take for example the Chasam Sofer, the Rav of Pressburg and author of chiddushim and teshuvos that span across all of Shas and Poskim, and countless drashos on Chumsash.

Once, a Torah scholar visited the Chasam Sofer to discuss his own chiddushim. To his amazement, he found that every one of his insights was already

- 4 -

Visit us on the web at dafnotes.com or email us at [email protected] to subscribe © Rabbi Avrohom Adler L’zecher Nishmas HaRav Raphael Dov ben HaRav Yosef Yechezkel Marcus O”H ז' סיון תשפ“ Shabbos, May 30 2020 

OVERVIEW of the Daf Distinctive INSIGHT 1) Clarifying the Mishnah (cont.) Mixed Vegetables—Not Too Kosher וקים להו לרבן דחמשא בשיתא לא יקי In addition to the exposition that indicated that the verse quoted in the Mishnah refers to five varieties of seeds planted in one garden patch the Sages determined that this could be accom- O ur Gemara cites the Mishnah in Kilayim (3:1) among the Our sages taught that five different .”מין “ plished in a garden six by six tefachim. series of Mishnayos of The Gemara demonstrates how we know that the determina- species can be planted within a garden patch of six by six tefachim. tions of the Sages are reliable. The precise arrangement of how the rows and seeds can be planted R’ Asi clarifies that the six tefachim square does not include is understood differently by the various Rishonim. Rashi explains the borders. A Baraisa supports R’ Asi’s comment and the Gemara that the entire edge along the perimeter of the box is planted, one determines the width of the border to be a tefach. species along each edge. The middle of the garden is then planted Rav asserts that the Mishnah refers to a case of an isolated gar- with a single seed. Rashi clearly addresses the issue of having the den patch. If it was surrounded by other gardens, a kilayim issue perimeter plantings meeting at the corner, which is within the would arise between the seeds of one garden and the next. three-tefach range of prohibited overlap, and he explains that as noticeable alignment change”, the closeness–היכר “ Shmuel disagrees and maintains that the Mishnah can even long as we have refer to a garden patch surrounded by others and it would be per- of the planting in and of itself is not a problem. The seed in the so ,(היכר ) mitted to plant five varieties in each of the gardens as long as the middle does not benefit from this aspect of standing out seeds in parallel rows are staggered. it must be a full three tefachim distance from the rest of the plants, 2) Maximizing the use of a garden patch as it is. See Picture 1. Rabeinu Tam in Tosafos understands that ,הוה אמיא Ulla quotes the scholars from Eretz Yisroel as inquiring about In the the consequence of plowing a furrow down the center of the gar- we never allow any of the plantings to be within three tefachim den patch. Will it still be permitted to plant five species in that from each other in the first place. The original suggestion of the field or not? Mishnah itself was only to allow planting along the center of each R’ Sheshes ruled it prohibited whereas R’ Asi ruled it permit- perimeter edge, for a distance of 1.75 tefachim. This will allow an ted. empty linear distance of 2.12 tefachim along the perimeter edge to R’ Yochanan is quoted as ruling that one who wants to maxim- the corner, and therefore a full three tefachim distance (along the ize the use of his garden should make a patch six by six tefachim, hypotenus) between rows of the different species. See Picture 2. plant one variety in a five tefach diameter circle in the center and In his commentary to the Mishnah here and in Kilayim, Ram- fill each row of the perimeter with another variety. bam writes that the plantings are within the minimum three tefach Following a clarification of R’ Yochanan’s suggestion the Ge- necessary for independent nurturing, but the reason this is allowed mara unsuccessfully challenges his ruling.  is due to the noticeable difference between the various species. In is enough of a reason to היכר ,other words, according to Rambam allow planting different seeds, even when they are adjacent to one Daf DIAGRAM another. See Picture 3, where this approach allows a large planting to serve as ראש תור in the center, because it utilizes the leniency of .a distinction between species. See Daf Diagram ראש תור ירק כס לתוך שדה אחר מותר of the Vilna Gaon and the Chazon Ish each ask שות אליהו If the arrangement in planting the row is clearly the extension of a near- about the Rambam’s interpretation from our Gemara. The imme- by field, this is noticeable, and it is diate conclusion our Gemara makes from this Mishnah is that our permitted. sages obviously knew that the range of nutrients needed by a plant is three tefachim. But, according to Rambam, this is not at all a relevant point of our Gemara, because it could very well be that the REVIEW and Remember plants are near each other, but the reason it is allowed is due to the alignment of the patches of planting. See Picture 3. 1. Why are Bnei Seir called “inhabitants of the land”? We do find, however, that Rambam does acknowledge that distance and nourishing radius is a factor, as he explains in Hilchos 2. Does the measurement of six by six tefachim include the border? Kilayim 4:9. See Chazon Ish, Kilayim 8:1. 

? ראש תור What is a .3

4. How should a person plant his garden to maximize the availa- ble space? Picture 1 Picture 2 Picture 3 שבת פ“ה—Number 147 friend’s field, as this saps his neighbor’s land’s strength. Does this prohibition relate to retention in one’s own field? HALACHAH Highlight We see that Tosafos are of the opinion that although the verse Grafted trees focuses on assailing the boundary of one’s neighbor, it also pertains to the planting of kilayim within one’s own field. Otherwise, Tosafos וקים להו לרבן דחמשא בשיתא לא יקי מהדדי ומלן דהא דקים להו לרבן might have answered that the Gemara in Chullin concerns planting (דחמשא בשיתא) מילתא היא דאמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחן מאי דכתיב לא תסיג גבול רעך [אשר גבלו ראשוים] גבול שגבלו ראשוים לא kilayim in one’s own field, while the prohibition of “assailing the תסיג And the Rabbis ascertained that five [vegetable types] planted in [a patch of] boundary” pertains only to a case in which the planting caused a six [tefachim] are not nourished from each other. And from where do we kilayim problem to affect one’s neighbor’s field. know that what the Rabbis ascertain is significant? As R' Chiya bar Abba But how does one “assail” one’s own field? On the basis of said in the name of R' Yochanan: What is that which is written: Do not Rashi’s interpretation, Maharsham explains that in planting kilayim assail the boundary of your friend [which the ancient ones set out]? Do not in one’s own field, and causing different species to deprive each oth- assail the boundary that the ancient ones established. er of nourishment, one is literally “assailing” one’s own field (and just as in the case in which you assail your friend’s field by “stealing” T eshuvos Maharsham 1 cites a question concerning a Jew who his property you must make restitution, here too you must make bought an orchard full of fruit trees from a non-Jew that was grafted “restitution” to your own field by uprooting the kilayim). in manners that rendered them kilayim. Is the Jew obligated to up- On the basis of this definition of the prohibition, Maharsham root these trees? suggests a distinction between planted kilayim and grafted kilayim: Maharsham first notes that some Rishonim permit a Jew to re- From a botanic perspective, two species planted as kilayim deprive tain kilayim that he has acquired, but the consensus is that it is for- each other of nourishment, but two species grafted together enhance bidden to retain kilayim. 2 However, we do not find that a person each other’s nourishment. Thus, in retaining grafted trees one is not who does retain kilayim is flogged. Why not? “assailing” one’s field. On the contrary, one is “supporting” one’s based upon field. Hence, the prohibition to retain kilayim derived from the , מלקות Maharsham explains why there is no Tosafos 3 here, who ask why a person who plants kilayim is only verse: “Do not assail the boundary of your friend” is not applicable 5 flogged once (see Chullin 82b). Why is he not flogged twice, once to grafted kilayim. for the prohibition of planting kilayim itself and another for On the basis of this premise, and additional analysis and consid- “assailing the boundary?” Tosafos give two reasons: 1) The prohibi- eration of the issues involved, Maharsham concludes that the Jew tion of “assailing the boundary” is primarily directed against theft of who purchased the orchard need not uproot the grafted trees - but 6 one’s neighbor’s land. As such, it is a prohibition that is subject to that he should sell them to a non-Jew.  .1 שו"ת מהרש"ם חלק א' סימן קע"ט. .2 עיי"ש במהרש"ם: בשו"ת מהר"י אסאד חיו"ד סימן ש" ושם הביא דעת הכלבו דסובר (restitution (return of the land), for which lashes are not imposed; 2 דמותר לקיים כלאים וכ"ה דעת הריטב"א קידושין ל"ט. אך דיש לומר דהריטב"א מודה The prohibition of “assailing the boundary” refers to more than one דמדרבן אסור אבל הכלבו מתיר לגמרי. וע' מהרש"א סוטה מ"ג ב' דס"ל דליכא שום איסור form of forbidden activity. As such, it is a generic prohibition, for במקיים כלאים. .3 ד"ה לא תסיג גבול. .which lashes are not imposed either .4 ד"ה גבול רעך - ליטע סמוך למיצר, להכחיש קרקעו כשיעור אשר גבלו הראשוים. -But Tosafos only considers the law of a person who plants kila .5 עיי"ש במהרש"ם: ולפ"ז ראה דבהרכבת אילן שידוע שאין ההרכבה מכחיש האילן אדרבא גורם הטבתו ושיהם עשים אילן א' וייקתם רק כשיעור אילן א' פשיטא yim. What of a person who retains kilayim? We have seen that most דל"ש בזה השגת גבול ולכן מותר לקיימם מן התורה. -Rishonim forbid the retention of kilayim. The source of this prohibi .6 עיי"ש במסקת מהרש"ם: ועל כל פים לדיא שחורות ולבות ופירות גרועים שבאותו מין tion is this verse: “Do not assail the boundary of your friend.” Yet, as עם היפים שבהם לאו כלאים יהו ואם כן בהרכבות כאלו יש להקל גם לכתחלה. ואם 4 ההרכבות גם במבשא"מ אז יש לעשות על ידי מכירה לעכו"ם שאיו מרכיב בעצמו וכמ"ש -explained here by Rashi, “Do not assail the boundary of your neigh רו"מ. bor” means that it is forbidden for a person to plant adjacent to his  .but it is the laws of mixed seeds ,כלאים prohibited due to the laws of also a violation of infringing upon the border Minchas Chinuch (Mitzvah 245) under- Gemara GEM of one’s neighbor. In fact, Tosafos wonders stands Rashi in this manner, and he analyzes Stay Clear, Not too Near why there is not a second set of lashes for one Rambam and Chinuch to be of this opinion, should be as well. Because Rambam does not list this מלקות who does this. One set of לא תסיג גבול רעיך כו' גבול שגבלו ראשוים לא -and another set should be law among the halachos of kilayim, he obvi ,כלאים applied for תסיג Tosafos ously holds that it is associated to regular .לא תסיג administered for violation of T osafos explains that this directive which gives two answers in response to this question property rights issues, as Rashi explains. Min- prohibits planting a species of seed next to (see Halacha Highlight ). chas Chinuch points out that Rambam com- one’s neighbor is referring to the laws of Rashi learns that it is generally prohibit- monly lists all negative commandments con- mixed breeds of seeds ( Accordingly, ed to plant next to one’s neighbor, for it nected with a particular act, whether or not .(כלאים this restriction is in effect when one’s neigh- are applicable. The omission of this מלקות weakens the ground near the border as it bor has already planted one species, and the depletes the nutrients from it up until a radi- law in Rambam’s listing indicates that he second neighbor is considering planting an- us of a tefach and a half. According to learns as Rashi does in our Gemara, and not other species near the fence. This is not only Rashi, this has nothing to do directly with like Tosafos. 

Daf Digest is published by the Chicago Center, under the leadership of HaRav Yehoshua Eichenstein, shlit”a HaRav Pinchas Eichenstein, Nasi; HaRav Zalmen L. Eichenstein, Rosh Kollel; Rabbi Tzvi Bider, Executive Director, edited by Rabbi Ben-Zion Rand. Daf Yomi Digest has been made possible through the generosity of Mr. & Mrs. Dennis Ruben. 14 Teves 5773 Shabbos Daf 85 Dec. 27, 2012

Daf Notes is currently being dedicated to the neshamah of Tzvi Gershon Ben Yoel (Harvey Felsen) o”h May the studying of the Daf Notes be a zechus for his neshamah and may his soul find peace in Gan Eden and be bound up in the Bond of life

Intermingled Vegetables The Gemora asks: How is this implied?

Rav Yehudah said: For as the earth brings forth its plant: [Biblically, it is forbidden to plant kilayim of the vineyard – ‘brings forth’ denotes one, and ‘its plant’ denotes one, that is planting different species with grapevines. The Rabbis which gives two; ‘its seeds’ denotes two, making four; prohibited even kilayim of different seeds. The primary ‘causes to sprout’ denotes one, making five (in total), and concern is that the species should not appear intermingled. the Rabbis ascertained that five (species planted) in six They were also concerned that the species should not draw (tefachim square) do not draw nourishment from each nourishment from common ground. There is, however, other. nothing inherently wrong with this. Generally, there must be a distance of at least three tefachim – handbreadths, The Gemora asks: And how do we know that that which the between different species, for the roots of the seeds spread Rabbis ascertain is of consequence? out and draw nourishment from an area of one and a half tefachim in each direction. The Mishna in Kilayim states that The Gemora answers: For Rabbi Chiya bar Abba said in the it is possible to plant five different species of vegetable in a name of Rabbi Yochanan: What is meant by that which is six-tefachim square garden patch. This is possible by written: You shall not move your neighbor’s landmark planting four of the species on the perimeter of the patch [which the earlier ones have set]? It means: The landmark and one seed of a different species in the middle. This allows which the earlier ones have set you shall not encroach upon a space of three tefachim between each row of seeds on the (by planting so near to your neighbor’s border that the roots perimeter and the one in the middle. The rows of seeds on will draw nourishment from his land, thus weakening it). each side do not need to be separated from the row of seeds perpendicular to it, for the very position of each strip, The Gemora explains: What landmarks did the earlier ones relative to the other, shows that they are separate strips.] set? Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini said in the name of Rabbi

Yochanan: As it is written: These are the sons of Seir the The Mishna asks: From where do we know that in a Chorite, the inhabitants of the land. Are then the rest of the vegetable patch, measuring six tefachim by six tefachim, it is world inhabitants of heaven? Rather, it means that they permissible to plant five (rows of different) vegetable seeds, were experts in the cultivation of the earth. [They knew namely; four species, one on (each of) the four sides of the through smelling the soil, tasting, and other tests – as to patch (leaving the corners open), and one (a single seed) in which plant a certain piece of land was most hospitable for; the center? It is because it is written: for as the earth brings they knew how to divide up the land for cultivation, and as a forth its plant, and as the garden causes its seeds to sprout. corollary they must have known how much earth each ‘Its seed,’ is not stated, but ‘its seeds’ is stated. [The Gemora species required for its nourishment. It was from them that will explain how this is derived.] the Rabbis acquired this knowledge, whose correctness is

vouched for by this verse.] For they used to say: This - 1 -

Visit us on the web at dafnotes.com or email us at [email protected] to subscribe © Rabbi Avrohom Adler L’zecher Nishmas HaRav Raphael Dov ben HaRav Yosef Yechezkel Marcus O”H l

(measuring) rod’s length (of land) is fit for olives, this rod’s between two rows of different plants.] length (of land) is fit for vines, this complete rod’s length (of land) is fit for figs. And Chorite implies that they smelled the The Gemora asks: But there is the corner space (which can soil. And Chivite, said Rav Pappa, teaches us that they tasted be left unplanted; it is then possible to have the patch the earth like a snake. surrounded by others)?

Rav Acha bar Yaakov said: Chorite implies that they became free from their property (for Esav’s descendants dispossessed them).

Rav Assi said: The internal area of the patch (discussed in the Mishna) must be six (tefachim square), apart from its borders. [Fallow borders were left around vegetable patches for a walkway – used by those who would water the plants; the area stated in the Mishna does not include these one- tefach borders, for if it would, there would only be two tefachim space between the seeds on the perimeter and the seed in the center.]

The Gemora cites a supporting braisa: The internal area of the patch must be six (tefachim square), apart from its borders.

The Gemora asks: How wide must its borders be (in order for [Every box represents one tefach of space. There are two it to regarded as a full-fledged vegetable patch, and then, tefachim of empty space between each vegetable patch – the lenient laws appertaining to it (as will be explained one tefach border for each patch. The Gemora is asking that below) will apply to it)? while it’s true that if the entire row is filled up with seeds, the row parallel to it from an adjacent patch is two tefachim The Gemora answers: It is as we learned in a Mishna: Rabbi away, and that would be subject to the kilayim prohibition; Yehudah said: Its width must be the full width of the sole of but there is a way that all four sides can be planted – even if a foot. it is not in a barren plot. That can be accomplished as follows: Seeds can be planted on the side for a length of two Rabbi Zeira said, and others say, Rabbi Chanina bar Pappa and a half tefachim. In the adjacent patch, they will also be said: What is Rabbi Yehudah’s reason? It is because it is planted for a length of two and a half tefachim, but they will written: and water it with your foot like a vegetable garden: begin from the opposite end. In this manner, and as can be just as the sole of the foot is a tefach, so must the border as seen in the diagram, all the rows of seeds parallel to each well be a tefach. other are three tefachim apart! This is because there is a two-tefach fallow space in between the patches, plus the Rav said: We learned (our Mishna) of a vegetable patch in a fact that each of the rows end one tefach before the parallel barren plot. [If, however, it was surrounded by other patches seed of the adjacent patch begins. The fact that a row of planted with different seeds, there is only the two tefachim seeds running perpendicular to a row of seeds in an adjacent space occupied by the borders of the two contiguous patches patch are within three tefachim of each other does not between them, whereas three tefachim space is required concern us at all, for the very position of each strip, relative

- 2 -

Visit us on the web at dafnotes.com or email us at [email protected] to subscribe © Rabbi Avrohom Adler L’zecher Nishmas HaRav Raphael Dov ben HaRav Yosef Yechezkel Marcus O”H

to the other, shows that they are separate strips.] rows are distinct).

The school of Rav answered in the name of Rav: The Mishna The Gemora cites a dissenting opinion: Shmuel maintained: refers to one who fills up the corners (with seed, and We learned of a vegetable patch in the midst of other therefore, there is no way to plant a parallel row of seeds in vegetable patches. an adjacent patch). The Gemora asks: But they (the parallel rows) intermingle (with the rows in the adjacent patches)?

The Gemora answers: He inclines one row in one direction and one row in another direction. [This is the same way that was described above in the question to Rav; Shmuel disagrees with the preventive measure, mentioned above, that he will fill up the corners.]

Ulla said: They inquired in the West (Eretz Yisroel): What if a person draws one furrow (and plants in it) across the entire

patch? [He plants from north to south one row across the The Gemora asks: Yet let one plant on the outside (in the entire patch, crossing the middle seeds, this furrow being adjacent patches), and not fill up the (corners of the) inside either of one of the five seeds or of a sixth. Is this kilayim (patch; and Rav would not have to limit the Mishna’s ruling with the parallel rows, for there is not three tefachim of to one specific (far-fetched) case)? space between them, or perhaps, since it was deepened by a

tefach - that constitutes a distinguishing mark, so that it The Gemora answers: It is a preventive measure, lest he fill shall be permitted?] up the corners (and then it would be kilayim with the rows in the adjacent patches). Rav Sheishes said: The intermingling comes and annuls the

rows (and the entire patch is forbidden). The Gemora asks: Yet (even if he does fill up the corners), let it not be other than a corner furrow of a vegetable patch Rav Assi said: The intermingling does not annul the rows. (which is permitted)? Did we not learn in a Mishna: If a corner furrow of a vegetable patch enters into another field, Ravina asked to Rav Ashi from the following Mishna: If one this is permitted, because it is evidently the end of a field? plants two rows of cucumbers, two rows of gourds, and two [As was mentioned above, there is no inherent prohibition rows of Egyptian beans, it is permissible (since two rows of for one species of seeds to draw nourishment from another; each of these species present the appearance of a complete the prohibition is that the seeds should not appear and separate field), but planting one row of intermingled. Accordingly, in these cases as well, it is cucumbers, one row of gourds, and one row of Egyptian evident – due to the position of the rows, or on account of beans is prohibited. [We see that one row of a different the walkways in between that they are two different rows, species is regarded as kilayim with the others.] and that each row is distinct from the other, and it should be permitted!?] The Gemora answers that here it is different, because there

is entanglement (for their leaves become entangled above The Gemora answers: The permissibility of the tip of the as they grow high; on this account they are forbidden). field does not apply to a vegetable patch (for in the proposed case, there is nothing to show that the different - 3 -

Visit us on the web at dafnotes.com or email us at [email protected] to subscribe © Rabbi Avrohom Adler L’zecher Nishmas HaRav Raphael Dov ben HaRav Yosef Yechezkel Marcus O”H

Rav Kahana said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: If one Gemara discusses the leniencies applicable to an “aruga,” a desires to fill his whole garden with vegetables (of various garden patch of six square tefachim. species), he can divide it into patches of six (tefachim) square, describe in each a circle five (tefachim in diameter), Before we address the particulars of this sugya, let us first and fill its corners with whatever he pleases (for planting in examine the six basic categories that fall under the general this way shows that there has been no indiscriminate heading of kelayim. The first three pertain to the laws of intermingling). agriculture: kelai zera’im – mixing seeds; kelai kerem – planting certain grains in a vineyard (this category is unique, The Gemora asks: But there is the space between the in that the plantings become forbidden); and harkavas ilan – patches? [The walkway cannot be planted, for then, there grafting trees (one may plant grains together with tree would be no division of fields! If so, how could he say that saplings). The other three categories are shatnez - wearing a the whole garden can be filled?] mixture wool and linen; plowing with two different animals together; and mating two species of animals together. In the school of Rabbi Yannai they said: He leaves the spaces in between (the patches) fallow (for he did not mean that This article will focus on the first of these categories, the the entire garden ‘literally’ can be filled up). prohibition of kelai zera’im. We find here a golden opportunity to investigate what is perhaps the most central Rav Ashi answers: If the patches are planted in the length machlokes Rishonim in all of hilchos kelayim. (vertically), he plants them (the interspaces) in the width (horizontally), and vice versa. In Rashi’s explanation of aruga, he states that one may plant different seeds in close proximity, as long as they are Ravina objected to Rav Ashi from the following braisa: The grouped in distinctly separate rows, since in essence the work area (for the farmer) for one vegetable planted with prohibition of kelayim is “disorder.” Rashi continues to another requires six tefachim square, and they are regarded explain that this leniency is true in regard to kelai kerem, as a square board. Thus, it is only permitted as a square which is forbidden medeoraisa, and it is certainly true in board, but otherwise, it is forbidden? regard to kelai zera’im, which is only forbidden mederabanan. Elsewhere in Meseches Bechoros, Rashi The Gemora answers: There, (it desires to) teach another repeats his assumption that kelai zera’im is only leniency in respect of the permission to plant the tip of the mederabanan. field which is extending into another field. (84b – 86a) Tosafos is known to often argue with Rashi, presenting alternate explanations or halachic conclusions. In this case INSIGHTS TO THE DAF Tosafos is so adamantly opposed to Rashi’s assumption that he is forced to conclude that the version of Rashi before us Kelayim – Mixing Separate Species contains a misprint. The Torah explicitly states, “You shall not seed your field with kelayim.” Rashi himself rules in

Meseches Kiddushin that kelai zera’im is medeoraisa. By: Meoros HaDaf HaYomi Therefore, Tosafos finds no other resolution, than to

attribute Rashi’s statement to a simple printing error. The Talmud Bavli did not devote an entire mesechta to kelayim. As such, the sugyos presented here offer us a The Aruch HaShulchan defends Rashi, by introducing a unique opportunity to become acquainted with these fundamental machlokes Rishonim into the discussion. Some important, yet unfamiliar halachos. In particular, the Rishonim learn that the Torah’s prohibition against kelai

- 4 -

Visit us on the web at dafnotes.com or email us at [email protected] to subscribe © Rabbi Avrohom Adler L’zecher Nishmas HaRav Raphael Dov ben HaRav Yosef Yechezkel Marcus O”H

zera’im focuses on the action; one may not plant two species together. Others interpret the prohibition to focus on the result; one may not cause two species to grow side by side. According to the first opinion, if one species was already planted, the Torah permits planting a different species alongside it. According to the second opinion, although one did not plant the different seeds together, he caused them to grow together, thereby transgressing a Torah prohibition.

Rashi follows the first opinion. Our sugya discusses a case in which the first species had already been planted. Therefore, Rashi rules that it is only a Rabbinic prohibition to plant the other species alongside it. In Kiddushin, Rashi refers to sewing two different species at once. Therefore, Rashi regards it as an issur deoraisa. (In regard to kelai kerem, mixing seeds in a vineyard, the Talmud Yerushalmi explicitly rules that the Torah only prohibits planting different seeds together at once. Rashi apparently applied this ruling to kelai zera’im, as well).

To further explain Rashi’s opinion, that the Torah only prohibits planting two species at once, we cite the following ruling of the Chazon Ish. As long as the first species has not taken root, it is forbidden medeoraisa to plant the other species alongside it. This is still considered planting two species at once. Generally, it takes three days for a seed to take root. Only afterward does it become an issur derabanan to plant the second species. (The Chazon Ish suggests a condition to this rule, that it is only an issur deoraisah if one planted the first species with intention to add the second species afterward.

According to Rashi, it is only an issur deoraisah for one person to plant two species at once. If two people were to combine their efforts, each planting a different species, it would only be an issur derabanan, since the seeds were not planted with one action.

- 5 -

Visit us on the web at dafnotes.com or email us at [email protected] to subscribe © Rabbi Avrohom Adler L’zecher Nishmas HaRav Raphael Dov ben HaRav Yosef Yechezkel Marcus O”H