Learn the end of the משנה מס’ תענית דף כו: “אמר רשב”ג לא היו ימים טובים
And the גמרא תענית דף לו: “אמר רשב”ג until”אלא טו באב
Questions:
What is the connection between סליחה וכפרה on Yom Kippur and the fact that it is the day that the second luchins were given?
What is the connection between Yom Kippur and Tu BAv?
Why did they make the shidduch event specifically on these two days?
Why did they dance in circles?
Why did they wear white dresses?
Learn משנה יומא דף פה עמ’ ב
Questions:
What is the connection of the end of the Mishna of “אמר ר’ עקיבא אשריכם to the beginning of the mishna which discusses what is needed to effect a kaparah?
Rebbe Akiva brings two pesukim that proves Hashem is מטהר the Jewish nation. Why the need for both pesukim? What’s the difference between the two of them?
Learn ספר שפתי חיים מועדים א page 266-268
Learn ספר אור ישראל (from Rabbi Yisrael Salanter) אגרת ז starting from paragraph “יום הכיפורים
The אפיקי ים חלק ב ס’ יט (first two paragraphs) explains the source is “והכינו” an item has to be prepared for use for Shabbos. If it was not prepared before Shabbos than it is Muktzah
2. Why does ר”ש not hold of – מיגו דאתקצאי?
The אפיקי ים חלק ב ס’ יט – (page רד bottom of the right column “והנה”) gave two explanations
A) Either ר”ש does not agree to the requirement that an item needs to be prepared for Shabbos
B) He agrees to והכינו however in a case where the person is anticipating using it on Shabbos although it might be off limits at the beginning of Shabbos it is considered prepared.
3. Why does ר”ש agree that a large container of oil is muktza even after the flame goes out?
The אפיקי ים חלק ב ס’ יט – (page רד – left column) explained as the lantern and oil were not prepared for use for Shabbos/
4. There is a machlokes about what the position of ר”ש is in regards to an animal that died on Shabbos whether it is Muktzah.
What is the reasoning behind this machlokes?
This is a matter of dispute between the אפיקי ים and the Chazon Ish.
Based on what we learnt from the אפיקי ים and the Chazon Ish how can we explain the logic that only when there is a combination of מוקצה מחמת איסור and מוקצה מחמת מיאוס will we say מיגו דאתקצאי ?
We learnt the אפיקי ים חלק ב ס’ יט (first two paragraphs) the source is “והכינו” an item has to be prepared for use for Shabbos. If it was not prepared before Shabbos than it is Muktzah
(See Monday email for the attachment of the copy of the אפיקי ים)
Why does ר”ש not hold of – מיגו דאתקצאי?
We learnt the אפיקי ים חלק ב ס’ יט – (page רד bottom of the right column “והנה” for an incredible explanation) who gives two options
1. Either ר”ש does not agree to the requirement that an item needs to be prepared for Shabbos
2. He agrees to והכינו however in a case where the person is anticipating using it on Shabbos although it might be off limits at the beginning of Shabbos it is considered prepared.
The Gemara brought two opinions in regards to a large container of oil if ר”ש agrees that it is muktza even after the flame goes out.
What is the explanation for their argument?
Learn אפיקי ים חלק ב ס’ יט – (page רד bottom of the left column “ומה נעים” for an incredible explanation.
What is the point of dispute between ר”ש & רבי אליעזר בן רבי שמעון in regards to the oil that drips out of the lantern while the flame is still burning?
