Subscribe
Daily Daf Dose
1. Rabbi Yehudah and the Chachamim debate whether an ohel not made by man is deemed to be an ohel regarding tumah or not. Rabbi Yehudah derives from a gezeirah shavah regarding the Mishkan that only an ohel that is made by man is susceptible to tumah, whereas the Chachamim maintain that the word ohel that is repeated regarding the mishkan comes to include even an ohel that was not man-made. (21a1)
2. There is a dispute regarding the children who were brought to the Shiloach spring to fill up water for the purpose of sprinkling on the sequestered Kohen who would perform the service of the Parah Adumah. The Tanana Kamma maintains that the children would descend into the water to fill up the cups whereas Rabbi Yose maintains that the children would remain sitting on the doors that had been placed on top of oxen and they would lower the cup by using a rope. (21a1-21a2)
3. Rabbi Yehudah agrees that an ohel that is not made by man but is as large as a fist is deemed to be an ohel regarding tumah. (21a2)
4. Rabbi Yehudah maintains that that they did not place doors on the oxen because a child would then be over-confident and he would stick his head or one of his limbs beyond the door and then he would become tamei from the kever hatehom, the grave in the deep. Rather, the child would ride directly on top of the ox and he would be afraid to lean over and thus he would not stick his head or limb out. (21a3-21b1)
5. The thesis that Rabbi Yehudah agrees that an ohel that is non man-made will be deemed to be an ohel if it is the size of a fist is challenged from our Mishna regarding sleeping under the bed in the Sukkah. The Mishnah implies that Rabbi Yehudah did not deem the bed to be an ohel because one who sleeps under the bed has fulfilled his obligation of dwelling in a Sukkah. Yet, if Rabbi Yehudah maintains that an ohel that is the size of a fist or more is an ohel, the one who sleeps under the bed should not be able to fulfill his obligation. The Gemara offers several answers to solve this difficulty. (21b1-21b2)
6. Rabbi Shimon maintains that a temporary ohel can negate a permanent ohel, whereas Rabbi Yehudah maintains that a temporary ohel cannot negate a permanent ohel. (21b2)Rabbi Shimon said that from the sichah of Rabban Gamliel we learn two things. The Gemara infers from the fact that Rabbi Shimon used the word sichah, casual conversation, and not the word dibbur, which means his words, that one must study even the casual conversation of Torah scholars. Proof to this is from the verse that states valeihu lo yibol, whose leaves do not wither, which can be interpreted to mean that even the leaves, i.e. the speech of a Torah scholar, do not wither, but his words contain teachings. (21b2)
2. There is a dispute regarding the children who were brought to the Shiloach spring to fill up water for the purpose of sprinkling on the sequestered Kohen who would perform the service of the Parah Adumah. The Tanana Kamma maintains that the children would descend into the water to fill up the cups whereas Rabbi Yose maintains that the children would remain sitting on the doors that had been placed on top of oxen and they would lower the cup by using a rope. (21a1-21a2)
3. Rabbi Yehudah agrees that an ohel that is not made by man but is as large as a fist is deemed to be an ohel regarding tumah. (21a2)
4. Rabbi Yehudah maintains that that they did not place doors on the oxen because a child would then be over-confident and he would stick his head or one of his limbs beyond the door and then he would become tamei from the kever hatehom, the grave in the deep. Rather, the child would ride directly on top of the ox and he would be afraid to lean over and thus he would not stick his head or limb out. (21a3-21b1)
5. The thesis that Rabbi Yehudah agrees that an ohel that is non man-made will be deemed to be an ohel if it is the size of a fist is challenged from our Mishna regarding sleeping under the bed in the Sukkah. The Mishnah implies that Rabbi Yehudah did not deem the bed to be an ohel because one who sleeps under the bed has fulfilled his obligation of dwelling in a Sukkah. Yet, if Rabbi Yehudah maintains that an ohel that is the size of a fist or more is an ohel, the one who sleeps under the bed should not be able to fulfill his obligation. The Gemara offers several answers to solve this difficulty. (21b1-21b2)
6. Rabbi Shimon maintains that a temporary ohel can negate a permanent ohel, whereas Rabbi Yehudah maintains that a temporary ohel cannot negate a permanent ohel. (21b2)Rabbi Shimon said that from the sichah of Rabban Gamliel we learn two things. The Gemara infers from the fact that Rabbi Shimon used the word sichah, casual conversation, and not the word dibbur, which means his words, that one must study even the casual conversation of Torah scholars. Proof to this is from the verse that states valeihu lo yibol, whose leaves do not wither, which can be interpreted to mean that even the leaves, i.e. the speech of a Torah scholar, do not wither, but his words contain teachings. (21b2)
0 comments:
Post a Comment