Professional Documents
Culture Documents
02-Shabath Volume 1 PDF
02-Shabath Volume 1 PDF
02-Shabath Volume 1 PDF
שבת א
Shabbat · Part One
Commentary by
Rabbi Adin Even-Israel
(Steinsaltz)
Editor-in-chief
Rabbi Dr Tzvi Hersh Weinreb
senior content editor
Rabbi Dr Shalom Z Berger
Managing editor
Rabbi Joshua Schreier
·
Shefa foundation
koren publishers jerusalem
Supported by the Matanel Foundation
Images
Rabbi Eliahu Misgav, Illustration
Yehudit Cohen, Image Acquisition
Digital Edition
Raphaël Freeman, Team Leader
Eliyahu Skoczylas, Senior Architect
Tani Bayer, User Interface Design
Dena Landowne Bailey, Concept
Rabbi Hanan Benayahu, Concept
Laura Messinger, Commercial Liaison
vi acknowledgements
Contents
Haskamotviii
Message from Rabbi Adin Even-Israel (Steinsaltz)xii
Introduction by the Editor-in-Chiefxiii
Preface by the Managing Editorxv
Introduction by the Publisherxvii
Introduction to Shabbat 1
Shabbat, Part i 7
Index of Background 403
Index of Language 405
Index of Personalities 407
Image Credits 407
Haskama
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein
I have seen one tractate from the Talmud to which the great scholar Rabbi Adin
Steinsaltz שליט״אhas added nikkud (vowels) and illustrations to explain that which is
unknown to many people; he has also added interpretations and innovations, and is
evidently a talmid hakham. Talmidei hakhamim and yeshiva students ought to study
these volumes, and synagogues and batei midrash would do well to purchase them,
as they may find them useful.
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein
New York, Adar 5730
viii This haskama refers to the original Hebrew edition of the steinsaltz Talmud, upon which this volume is based
Haskama
Rabbi Menachem
Mendel Schneerson
…I have just had the pleasant surprise of receiving tractate Shabbat (part one), which
has been published by [Rabbi Steinsaltz] along with his explanations, etc. Happy
is the man who sees good fruits from his labors. May he continue in this path and
increase light, for in the matters of holiness there is always room to add – and we
have been commanded to add – for they are linked to the Holy One, Blessed be He,
Who is infinite. And may the Holy One grant him success to improve and enhance
this work, since the greater good strengthens his hand…
Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson
The Lubavitcher Rebbe
Brooklyn, 5 Marĥeshvan, 5729
This haskama refers to the original Hebrew edition of the steinsaltz Talmud, upon which this volume is based ix
Haskama
Rabbi Moshe Zvi Neria
The translation of the books of our past into the language of the present – this was
the task of the sages of every generation. And in Israel, where the command to “teach
them repeatedly to your children” applies to all parts of the nation, it was certainly
the task of every era. This is true for every generation, and in our time – when many
of those who have strayed far are once again drawing near – all the more so. For many
today say, “Who will let us drink from the well” of Talmud, and few are those who
offer up the waters to drink.
We must, therefore, particularly commend the blessed endeavor of Rabbi Adin Stein-
saltz to explain the chapters of the Talmud in this extensive yet succinct commentary,
which, in addition to its literal interpretation of the text, also explicates the latter’s
underlying logic and translates it into the language of our generation.
It appears that all those who seek to study Talmud – the diligent student and the
learned adult – will have no difficulty understanding when using this commentary.
Moreover, we may hope that the logical explanation will reveal to them the beauty
of the talmudic page, and they will be drawn deeper and deeper into the intellectual
pursuit which has engaged the best Jewish minds, and which serves as the corner-
stone of our very lives…
Rabbi Moshe Zvi Neria
x This haskama refers to the original Hebrew edition of the steinsaltz Talmud, upon which this volume is based
Haskama
Rabbi Mordechai
Eliyahu
The Talmud in Eruvin 21b states: “Rava continued to interpret verses homiletically. What is
the meaning of the verse: ‘And besides being wise, Kohelet also taught the people knowledge;
and he weighed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs’? (Ecclesiastes 12:9). He
explains: He taught the people knowledge; he taught it with the accentuation marks in the
Torah, and explained each matter by means of another matter similar to it. And he weighed
[izen], and sought out, and set in order many proverbs; Ulla said that Rabbi Eliezer said: At
first the Torah was like a basket without handles [oznayim] until Solomon came and made
handles for it.” And as Rashi there explains: “And thus were Israel able to grasp the mitzvot
and distance themselves from transgressions – just as a vessel with handles is easily held, etc.”
Such things may be said of this beloved and eminent man, a great sage of Torah and of virtue.
And far more than he has done with the Oral Torah, he does with the Written Torah – teaching
the people knowledge. And beyond that, he also affixes handles to the Torah, i.e., to the Talmud,
which is obscure and difficult for many. Only the intellectual elite, which are a precious few,
and those who study in yeshiva, can today learn the Talmud and understand what it says – and
even though we have Rashi, still not everyone uses him. But now the great scholar Rabbi Adin
Steinsaltz שליט״אhas come and affixed handles to the Torah, allowing the Talmud to be held
and studied, even by simple men. And he has composed a commentary alongside the text, a
fine commentary in clear, comprehensible language, “a word fitly spoken” with explanations
and illustrations, so that all those who seek to study the work of God can do so.
Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu
Former Chief Rabbi of Israel, 7 Tishrei, 5754
This haskama refers to the original Hebrew edition of the steinsaltz Talmud, upon which this volume is based xi
Message from Rabbi Adin Even-Israel (Steinsaltz)
The Talmud is the cornerstone of Jewish culture. True, our culture originated in the
Bible and has branched out in directions besides the Talmud, yet the latter’s influ-
ence on Jewish culture is fundamental. Perhaps because it was composed not by a
single individual, but rather by hundreds and thousands of Sages in batei midrash in
an ongoing, millennium-long process, the Talmud expresses not only the deepest
themes and values of the Jewish people, but also of the Jewish spirit. As the basic
study text for young and old, laymen and learned, the Talmud may be said to embody
the historical trajectory of the Jewish soul. It is, therefore, best studied interactively,
its subject matter coming together with the student’s questions, perplexities, and in-
novations to form a single intricate weave. In the entire scope of Jewish culture, there
is not one area that does not draw from or converse with the Talmud. The study of
Talmud is thus the gate through which a Jew enters his life’s path.
The Koren Talmud Bavli seeks to render the Talmud accessible to the millions of Jews
whose mother tongue is English, allowing them to study it, approach it, and perhaps
even become one with it.
This project has been carried out and assisted by several people, all of whom have
worked tirelessly to turn this vision into an actual set of books to be studied. It is a
joyful duty to thank the many partners in this enterprise for their various contribu-
tions. Thanks to Koren Publishers Jerusalem, both for the publication of this set and
for the design of its very complex graphic layout. Thanks of a different sort are owed
to the Shefa Foundation and its director, Rabbi Menachem Even-Israel, for their de-
termination and persistence in setting this goal and reaching it. Many thanks to the
translators, editors, and proofreaders for their hard and meticulous work. Thanks to
the individuals and organizations that supported this project, chief among them the
Matanel Foundation. And thanks in advance to all those who will invest their time,
hearts, and minds in studying these volumes – to learn, to teach, and to practice.
Rabbi Adin Even-Israel (Steinsaltz)
Jerusalem 5772
In both tractate Berakhot and in the first volume of tractate Shabbat, parallel disputes
on the subject of educational philosophy are presented. In Berakhot (28a), Rabban
Gamliel’s exacting admission standards are defined: Any student whose inside is
not like his outside, i.e., his thoughts and feelings are different from his conduct and
character traits, will not enter the study hall. This approach is contrasted with the
open approach of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. When Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya replaced
Rabban Gamliel as the head of the yeshiva, the Gemara relates: They dismissed the
guard at the door and permission was granted to the students to enter. As a result,
Abba Yosef ben Dostai and the Rabbis disputed this matter. One said: Four hundred
benches were added to the study hall. And one said: Seven hundred benches were
added to the study hall.
In Shabbat (31a), the Gemara contrasts the approach of Shammai with the approach
of Hillel. On more than one occasion, Shammai pushed away potential converts who
raised problematic requests with the builder’s cubit in his hand. Hillel, through his
forbearance, was able to see the person behind the problematic request and guide
him into the world of Judaism. Three such converts gathered together and stated:
Shammai’s impatience sought to drive us from the world; Hillel’s patience brought
us under the wings of the Divine Presence.
The Koren Talmud Bavli seeks to follow in the paths of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya
and Hillel. Its user-friendly layout, together with its accessible translation, takes the
Steinsaltz commentary on the Talmud one step further. It opens the doors to even
more students who might have previously felt excluded from the exciting give and
take of the study hall, enabling them to take their place as full-fledged participants
in the world of Talmud study.
My involvement in the production of the Koren Talmud Bavli has been both a privi-
lege and a pleasure. The Shefa Foundation, headed by Rabbi Menachem Even-Israel
and devoted to the dissemination of the wide-ranging, monumental works of Rabbi
Adin Even-Israel (Steinsaltz), constitutes the Steinsaltz side of this partnership;
Koren Publishers Jerusalem, headed by Matthew Miller, with the day-to-day man-
agement in the able hands of Raphaël Freeman, constitutes the publishing side of
this partnership. The combination of the inspiration, which is the hallmark of Shefa,
with the creativity and professionalism for which Koren is renowned and which I
experience on a daily basis, has lent the Koren Talmud Bavli its outstanding quality
in terms of both content and form.
I would like to express my appreciation for Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, the Editor-
in-Chief, whose insight and guidance have been invaluable. The contribution of my
friend and colleague, Rabbi Dr. Shalom Z. Berger, the Senior Content Editor, cannot
be overstated; his title does not begin to convey the excellent direction he has pro-
vided in all aspects of this project. The erudite and articulate men and women who
serve as translators, editors and proofreaders have ensured that this project adheres
to the highest standards.
preface by the managing editor xv
There are several others whose contributions to this project cannot be overlooked.
On the Steinsaltz side: Meir HaNegbi, Yacov Elbert, Tsipora Ifrah, and Oria Tubul.
On the Koren side, my colleagues at Koren: Rabbi David Fuchs, Rabbi Hanan
Benayahu, Efrat Gross, Rachel Hanstater Meghnagi, Eliyahu Misgav, Rabbi Yinon
Chen, and Rabbi Carmiel Cohen. Their assistance in all matters, large and small, is
appreciated.
At the risk of being repetitious, I would like to thank Rabbi Dr. Berger for introduc-
ing me to the world of Steinsaltz. Finally, I would like to thank Rabbi Menachem
Even-Israel, with whom it continues to be a pleasure to move forward in this great
enterprise.
Rabbi Joshua Schreier
Jerusalem 5772
The Talmud has sustained and inspired Jews for thousands of years. Throughout Jewish history,
an elite cadre of scholars has absorbed its learning and passed it on to succeeding generations.
The Talmud has been the fundamental text of our people.
Beginning in the 1960s, Rabbi Adin Even-Israel (Steinsaltz) שליט״אcreated a revolution in the
history of Talmud study. His translation of the Talmud, first into modern Hebrew and then
into other languages, as well the practical learning aids he added to the text, have enabled
millions of people around the world to access and master the complexity and context of the
world of Talmud.
It is thus a privilege to present the Koren Talmud Bavli, an English translation of the talmudic
text with the brilliant elucidation of Rabbi Steinsaltz. The depth and breadth of his knowledge
are unique in our time. His rootedness in the tradition and his reach into the world beyond
it are inspirational.
Working with Rabbi Steinsaltz on this remarkable project has been not only an honor, but a
great pleasure. Never shy to express an opinion, with wisdom and humor, Rabbi Steinsaltz
sparkles in conversation, demonstrating his knowledge (both sacred and worldly), sharing his
wide-ranging interests, and, above all, radiating his passion. I am grateful for the unique op-
portunity to work closely with him, and I wish him many more years of writing and teaching.
Our intentions in publishing this new edition of the Talmud are threefold. First, we seek to
fully clarify the talmudic page to the reader – textually, intellectually, and graphically. Second,
we seek to utilize today’s most sophisticated technologies, both in print and electronic formats,
to provide the reader with a comprehensive set of study tools. And third, we seek to help read-
ers advance in their process of Talmud study.
To achieve these goals, the Koren Talmud Bavli is unique in a number of ways:
• The classic tzurat hadaf of Vilna, used by scholars since the 1800s, has been reset for great
clarity, and opens from the Hebrew “front” of the book. Full nikkud has been added to
both the talmudic text and Rashi’s commentary, allowing for a more fluent reading with
the correct pronunciation; the commentaries of Tosafot have been punctuated. Upon the
advice of many English-speaking teachers of Talmud, we have separated these core pages
from the translation, thereby enabling the advanced student to approach the text without
the distraction of the translation. This also reduces the number of volumes in the set. At
bottom of each daf, there is a reference to the corresponding English pages. In addition,
the Vilna edition was read against other manuscripts and older print editions, so that texts
which had been removed by non-Jewish censors have been restored to their rightful place.
• The English translation, which starts on the English “front” of the book, reproduces the
menukad Talmud text alongside the English translation (in bold) and commentary and ex-
planation (in a lighter font). The Hebrew and Aramaic text is presented in logical paragraphs.
This allows for a fluent reading of the text for the non-Hebrew or non-Aramaic reader. It
also allows for the Hebrew reader to refer easily to the text alongside. Where the original
text features dialogue or poetry, the English text is laid out in a manner appropriate to the
genre. Each page refers to the relevant daf.
And God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it because on it He rested
from all His work that God in creating had made.
(Genesis 2:3)
Six days shall you labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is
Shabbat unto the Lord your God; you shall not do any manner of work,
you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your
maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is
in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the
Shabbat day and hallowed it.
(Exodus 20:9–11)
Therefore, you shall keep the Shabbat, for it is holy unto you; every one
that profanes it shall surely be put to death, for whoever does any work
on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
(Exodus 31:14)
If you turn away your foot because of the Shabbat, from pursuing your
business on My holy day, and call the Shabbat a delight, the holy of the
Lord honorable; and shall honor it, not doing your wonted ways, nor
pursuing your business, nor speaking thereof. Then shall you delight
yourself in the Lord, and I will make you to ride upon the high places
of the earth, and I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father;
for the mouth of the Lord has spoken it.
(Isaiah 58:13–14)
Thus said the Lord: Take heed for the sake of your souls, and bear no
burden on the Shabbat day, nor bring it into the gates of Jerusalem.
( Jeremiah 17:21)
And if the peoples of the land bring ware or any food on the Shabbat day
to sell, we would not buy from them on the Shabbat or on a holy day.
(Nehemiah 10:32)
Tractate Shabbat is the first and the largest tractate in the order of Moed. It deals with
the halakhot of the most sacred day of all,1 Shabbat.
Numerous halakhot, veritable mountains of halakhot,2 are found among the mitzvot
of Shabbat, both positive mitzvot and prohibitions. Included in these are mitzvot
of biblical origin, those established by the Prophets, and many rabbinic decrees and
ordinances. Shabbat has even been adorned with the aura of legend; it is a day of rest
and sanctity, God’s gift to a treasured nation.
There are numerous facets to Shabbat in halakha and aggada. However, one aspect
is fundamental and central: Abstention from creative labor. The only way to achieve
a proper grasp of Shabbat and its halakhot, ranging from Torah statutes to rabbinic
ordinances and decrees issued throughout the generations, is by means of gaining
an understanding of this fundamental principle.
2 introduction to Shabbat
unique to Shabbat, unlike the definition of public and private domains in other areas
of halakha, i.e., property law and the halakhot of ritual impurity. It is both prohibited
to carry objects from one domain to another and to carry objects within the confines
of the public domain.
The subcategories and complex details of the prohibited labor of carrying out on
Shabbat, along with the ordinances and decrees issued by the Sages to foster its obser-
vance, constitute a significant portion of the halakhot contained in tractate Shabbat.
Although the essence of Shabbat lies in the observance of its restfulness, which is
manifested in the prohibitions against creative labor and carrying out from one do-
main to another, there are also positive commandments involved in the observance
of Shabbat, beyond the mitzva to sacrifice additional offerings in the Temple. These
positive commandments are alluded to in the verse: “Remember the day of Shabbat
to keep it holy.”5 The practical fulfillment of this mitzva is multifaceted. It begins
with the essential commandment of kiddush, sanctification of Shabbat over a cup of
wine, along with the special liturgy and customs unique to Shabbat; and it extends
to the reference to each weekday in terms of its relative distance from Shabbat. This
mitzva also includes the ordinance of taking delight in Shabbat, consistent with the
words of the prophet Isaiah. This is accomplished by the enjoyment that is added
to the Shabbat meal, the kindling of the Shabbat lights, and all means of celebration
that do not conflict with the basic tenets of Shabbat observance.
According to the oral tradition transmitted through the generations, an entire frame-
work of ordinances and safeguards, categorized under the rubric of shevut, was
instituted in the days of the earliest Prophets to ensure proper Shabbat observance.
Included in this framework is the decree against engaging in commerce on Shab-
bat, already mentioned in the Bible. The institution of additional Shabbat domains
originated long ago, along with the designation of additional areas in which the
movement and transfer of objects is prohibited. The details of these ordinances are
specified in the tractate Eruvin.
Among the activities that fall into the category of shevut are both those prohibited
due to their similarity to the prohibited acts of creative labor and those prohibited
due to the concern that they might lead to the performance of a prohibited labor.
The halakhot of set-aside [muktze], which prohibit the use of materials or utensils
typically utilized in the performance of creative labor, fall into the category of shevut
as well. The Sages also prohibited typical weekday activities, as it is inappropriate
to engage in them on this sacred day. Therefore, tractate Shabbat is distinctive in its
terminology. It distinguishes between liability and exemption by Torah law, between
actions for whose performance one is exempt by Torah law but whose performance
is prohibited by the Prophets and Sages, and actions that are expressly permitted.
The halakhot of Shabbat in general, their fundamental principles and their details,
and the elucidation of those halakhot that deviate from those principles, e.g., matters
of life and death or circumcision on Shabbat, are all explained in the twenty-four
chapters of tractate Shabbat. These twenty-four chapters are not arranged systemati-
cally by subject matter, but rather are ordered based on association between similar
matters and the chronology of the activities performed on Shabbat eve leading up
to Shabbat and those performed on Shabbat.
Chapter One, excluding its opening section, is mostly occupied with those matters
with which a person must concern himself before Shabbat begins. The opening
introduction to Shabbat 3
section deals with carrying in and between the various Shabbat domains. There is
also an extensive treatment of eighteen decrees issued by Beit Shammai and Beit
Hillel with regard to matters of ritual impurity.
Chapter Two discusses the kindling of the Shabbat lights and other preparations that
must be performed just before Shabbat begins.
Chapter Three deals with food items that may be left upon the fire as Shabbat begins
and with the prohibited labor of cooking in general. That discussion concludes in
the next chapter.
Chapter Four is concerned with the laws of insulating hot liquids and foods on
Shabbat.
Chapter Five lists the harnesses and other gear that may or may not be left upon a
domesticated animal, due to the concern that the animal may carry it out on Shabbat.
Chapter Six continues that discussion by enumerating articles of clothing, acces-
sories, and other items that people customarily carry upon their persons and the
manner in which one may wear them on Shabbat.
Chapter Seven includes the basis for the entire tractate. In it, the legal force of the
various Shabbat prohibitions is explained, along with the list of the prohibited labors.
Chapter Eight and subsequent chapters provide details about carrying out on Shab-
bat, including discussions of the measures that determine liability for carrying out
various substances and materials.
Chapter Nine continues that discussion to a certain extent. However, most of the
chapter is devoted to topics related conceptually, albeit not directly, to the rest of
tractate Shabbat.
Chapter Ten concludes the treatment of measures that determine liability for car-
rying out.
Chapter Eleven includes an exposition of the general principles of carrying out and
two closely related activities, throwing and extending.
Chapter Twelve elucidates the prohibited labors of building, plowing, and writing.
Chapter Thirteen deals with the prohibited labors of weaving and sewing, as well as
the other prohibited labors involved in the production of garments. In it, the pro-
hibited labor of hunting is also discussed.
Chapter Fourteen concludes the discussion of the creative labor of hunting and
discusses additional actions prohibited by rabbinic decree.
Chapter Fifteen discusses the prohibited labors of tying and untying knots, as well
as similar actions that are permitted.
Chapter Sixteen provides an explanation of what is permitted and what is prohibited
to do in the case of a fire on Shabbat: Which objects may be carried out and which
may be moved, and who can be enlisted to assist in these rescue activities? This
discussion reaches general conclusions.
Chapter Seventeen contains the primary analysis of the various categories of set-
aside [muktze] objects.
Chapter Eighteen deals with an issue that emerges from the analysis of the principle
of set-aside. It elucidates actions that superficially resemble prohibited labors but
4 introduction to shabbat
are nonetheless permitted due to necessity engendered by the arrival of guests, the
suffering of living creatures, or considerations of human health.
Chapter Nineteen presents a comprehensive discussion of one specific example of
a prohibited labor permitted on Shabbat, circumcision. In the process, it discusses
all of the halakhot of circumcision.
Chapter Twenty addresses prohibitions due to deference to Shabbat or due to rab-
binic decree, as well as actions that resemble prohibited labor but are permitted
because they are essential or significant. In this chapter, certain actions similar to
the prohibited labor of building are discussed, along with some prohibitions against
moving certain objects.
Chapter Twenty-one deals mainly with objects which may be moved on Shabbat.
Chapter Twenty-two discusses actions that are not explicitly delineated as prohibited
labor; some are subcategories of primary categories of prohibited labor, and some
are permitted on Shabbat.
Chapter Twenty-three clarifies halakhot associated with the prohibition against con-
ducting commercial transactions on Shabbat and defines their parameters.
Chapter Twenty-four deals with the principles governing the requirement to prevent
one’s animals from engaging in prohibited labor, along with several diverse halakhot
related to actions that the Sages permitted on Shabbat.
Notes
1. See tractate Shabbat 113a.
2. See tractate Ĥagiga 10a.
3. Tractate Beitza 13b.
4. Tractate Shabbat 105b.
5. Exodus 20:8.
introduction to Shabbat 5
Let every man remain where he is; let no man leave his place
on the seventh day.
(Exodus 16:29) Introduction to
Perek I
Neither shall you carry out a burden from your houses on the
Shabbat day, nor do any work, but you shall hallow the Shab-
bat day, as I commanded your fathers.
( Jeremiah 17:22)
The primary focus of this chapter is on the various details of the prohibitions of car-
rying out and moving objects on the Shabbat.
The prohibited labor to carry out a burden on Shabbat is alluded to in the Torah and
explicitly stated in the Prophets. Although it appears in the list of prohibited labors
in the mishna, it constitutes its own discrete unit, and its parameters are significantly
different from those of the other prohibited labors.
There are two fundamental aspects to the prohibited labor of carrying out. The most
significant of these is the prohibition to carry an object from one domain to another,
e.g., from the private to the public domain. The definitions of these domains with
regard to Shabbat are distinctive, and their parameters are by no means identical
to the definitions of domains in other aspects of halakha, neither in terms of their
ownership nor in terms of their use.
There are four Shabbat domains: The private domain, the public domain, an interme-
diate domain [karmelit] whose precise definition will follow, and an exempt domain,
which is a neutral domain within which carrying objects is not prohibited at all.
Any area that is four handbreadths by four handbreadths and separated from its sur-
roundings by ten handbreadths, either by a partition of that height that delimits it or
because it stands on ground ten handbreadths higher or lower than its surroundings,
is a private domain, even if legally it is publicly owned. The airspace of the private
domain extends to the sky.
An area that is a minimum of sixteen cubits wide and which the public, some say
at least 600,000 people, use regularly is a public domain. The airspace of the public
domain extends only ten handbreadths off the ground.
To these domains, whose basis is in Torah law, the Sages added a third domain, the
karmelit. A karmelit is defined as any place that is fit to be a private domain in terms
of its area, but is not surrounded by an enclosure or is not sufficiently removed from
its surrounding area to be an actual private domain. In addition, an area that is large
enough to be a public domain but is not frequented by the public, e.g., a field or a
body of water, is also a karmelit. The Sages decreed that those areas have the legal
status of a public domain by rabbinic law.
An exempt domain is defined as a place that is set apart from its surroundings, has
an area of less than four handbreadths by four handbreadths, and has airspace more
than ten handbreadths above the public domain or karmelit. There is absolutely no
prohibition against carrying or moving objects in that domain on Shabbat.
7
The other fundamental aspect of the prohibition to carry out is the prohibition to
carry an object four cubits within a public domain. Carrying an object four cubits
in a karmelit is prohibited by rabbinic law.
One only violates the Torah prohibition to carry out on Shabbat if he lifts the object
from one place and places it in another place. As is the case with regard to the other
prohibited labors, one who performs this action intentionally is liable for the punish-
ment of karet. If he does so unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.
Based upon these principles, the Mishna and Gemara discuss the prohibitions of
carrying out on Shabbat, its parameters, and the safeguards decreed by the Sages.
8
Perek I
Daf 2 Amud a
notes
The tractate opens with a discussion of the biblical prohibition of car- The acts of carrying out on Shabbat – יְ צִ יאֹות ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת:
n1
rying out on Shabbat, a topic that is somewhat unexpected, in order Several reasons were given for the fact that the trac-
to pique the interest of the reader. In terms of the overall framework tate opens specifically with the prohibited labor of
of the tractate, it would have been more appropriate to begin with carrying out from domain to domain (see Tosafot).
Some explained that the reason is because the
later mishnayot. Carrying an object from a public domain to a private
tractate, in general, is ordered chronologically and
domain, or vice versa, violates a biblical prohibition. When the entire begins with a discussion of matters prohibited im-
act is performed by a single individual, it is punishable by karet. The mediately when Shabbat begins. One of the matters
prohibited act consists of lifting an object in one domain and placing that requires immediate attention is the prohibition
it in another. of carrying out, and therefore it was necessary to
cite this halakha first (Rabbeinu Tam; Ran; Rashba).
Others explained that since the matter of carrying
MISHNA
out is derived from the verse, “A man should not go
יְ צִ יאֹות ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם ׁ ֶש ֵהן ַא ְר ַ ּבע The acts of carrying out from a public domain into out of his place” (Exodus 16:29), which is mentioned
,ִ ּב ְפנִים ו ׁ ְּש ַּתיִ ם ׁ ֶש ֵהן ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַ ּבחוּץ a private domain or vice versa, which are prohib- in the Torah prior to the rest of the prohibited labors
ited on Shabbat,nh are primarily two basic actions that comprise four
1 1
cases, because the poor person performed the prohibited labor in its The acts of carrying out on Shabbat, etc. – יְ צִ יאֹות
h1
Perek I
Daf 2 Amud b
notes
, יְ ִדיעֹות ַה ּטו ְּמ ָאה ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם ׁ ֶש ֵהן ַא ְר ַ ּבעSimilarly, with regard to awareness of ritual impurity, there are two
The mishna teaches the primary categories and it teaches
n2
, ַמ ְראֹות נְ גָ ִעים ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ׁ ֶש ֵהן ַא ְר ַ ּבעSigns of affliction by leprosy are two that comprise four. The
Torah (Leviticus 13) mentions two types of signs of affliction with
regard to leprosy, baheret and se’et. Two additional, secondary signs
of affliction were added. They are not as white as those delineated
in the Torah. Consequently, there are derivatives of both baheret
and se’et.
. יְ צִ יאֹות ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם ׁ ֶש ֵהן ַא ְר ַ ּבעThe mishna in Shevuot also mentions that the acts of carrying out
on Shabbat are two basic actions that comprise four.
יקר ׁ ַש ָ ּבת הוּא – ָּתנֵי ָאבֹות ּ ַ ָה ָכא דְּ ִע The Gemara answers: Here, in tractate Shabbat, which contains the
ּ ַ ָה ָתם דְּ ָלאו ִע,וְ ָתנֵי ּת ָֹולדֹות
יקר ׁ ַש ָ ּבת primary discussion of the halakhot of Shabbat, the mishna teaches
ּת ָֹולדֹות – ָלא, ָאבֹות – ָּתנֵי,הוּא the primary categories of labor that are prohibited on Shabbat,
including carrying out from the private to the public domain, and
.ָּתנֵי
it teaches the subcategoriesn of labor that are prohibited on Shab-
2
bat, including carrying from the public into the private domain. But
there, in tractate Shevuot, which does not contain the primary
discussion of the halakhot of Shabbat, the mishna teaches the
primary categories of labor prohibited on Shabbat but does not
teach the subcategories of labor.
וִ יצִ יאֹות, ָאבֹות ַמאי נִיה ּו – יְ צִ יאֹותThe Gemara asks: What are the primary categories of labor prohib-
! ְּת ֵרי ָהוְ יָ יןited on Shabbat? They are acts of carrying out from the private
domain to the public domain. However, the Gemara objects: The
acts of carrying out are only two in number: There is the case of
the homeowner who takes an object out of the private domain and
places it in the hand of the poor person in the public domain and
the case of a poor person who takes an object from the homeowner’s
hand in the private domain and takes it out into the public domain.
What are the two additional cases referred to by the phrase: Two
that comprise four, in tractate Shevuot?
10 Perek I . 2b . ב ףד: קרפ ׳א
notes
,ימא ֵמ ֶהן ְל ִחּיוּב ו ֵּמ ֶהן ִל ְפטוּר ָ וְ ִכי ֵּת And if you say that the mishna in tractate Shevuot enumerates all four
cases of carrying out, among them those for which there is liability Rather, Rav Pappa said, etc. – א ָּלא ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא וכו׳:ֶ Ap-
,וְ ָהא דּ ו ְּמיָ א דְּ ַמ ְראֹות נְ גָ ִעים ָק ָתנֵי
n3
ְמ ַעּיֵ יל ֵמ ְר ׁש ּות ָה ַר ִ ּבים ִל ְר ׁש ּות liable. Are we not also dealing with a case where he is carrying it in
from the public domain to the private domain, and nevertheless the
.ַהּיָ ִחיד – וְ ָקא ָק ֵרי ָל ּה הֹוצָ ָאה
mishna characterizes it as carrying out?
וְ ַט ְע ָמא ַמאי – ָּכל ֲע ִק ַירת ֵח ֶפץAnd what is the reason that the term carrying out is used to refer to
. ַּת ָּנא ‘הֹוצָ ָאה׳ ָק ֵרי ָל ּה, ִמ ְּמקֹומֹוan act of carrying in? The tanna characterizes any act that involves
lifting of an object from its place and transferring it to another do-
main as carrying out. Carrying out does not refer only to carrying an
object out from one’s house. Rather, it is a general depiction of moving
an object from the domain in which it is located into another domain.
,נִיתין נַ ִמי דַּ יְ ָקא
ִ ַמ ְת: ָא ַמר ָר ִבינָ אRavina said: Our mishna is also precise, and its language leads us to
ָ דְּ ָק ָתנֵי ‘יְ צִ יאֹות׳ וְ ָקא ְמ ָפ ֵר ׁש ַה ְכthe same conclusion, as the expression: Acts of carrying out on Shab-
נָסה
. ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה. ְל ַא ְל ַּתרbat, was taught in our mishna, yet immediately a case of carrying in
is articulated. The first case listed in our mishna involves the poor
person placing an object into the hand of the homeowner, which is a
case of carrying in from the public to the private domain. The Ge-
mara notes: Indeed, conclude from this that the term carrying out
also refers to carrying in.
ְר ׁשוּּיֹות, ְר ׁשוּּיֹות ָק ָתנֵי: ָר ָבא ָא ַמרRava said: The language of the mishnayot poses no difficulty. The
. ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ׁ ְש ַּתיִ םtanna in both of these mishnayot did not teach: Acts of carrying out on
Shabbat. Rather, he taught: Domainsn of Shabbat. The correct version
5
of the mishna is: The domains of Shabbat are two that comprise four,
and, according to this tanna, there are four instances of prohibited
labor in these two domains, inside and outside.
ָהא ְּת ָמנֵי: ָא ַמר ֵליה ַרב ַמ ָּתנָ ה ְל ַא ַ ּביֵ יRav Mattana said to Abaye: The mishna speaks of two that comprise
! ָהוְ יָ ין? ַּת ְר ֵּתי ְס ֵרי ָהוְ יָ יןfour inside and two that comprise four outside, for a total of eight. Yet
there is a difficulty: Are these eight cases? They are twelve. Upon
closer inspection, in the four cases in the latter part of the mishna, the
homeowner and the poor person each performs an individual action
contributing to the overall prohibited labor of carrying in or carrying
out. Consequently, there are four actions in the first part of the mish-
na and eight actions in the second part.
ב ףד: ׳א קרפ. Perek I . 2b 11
!ית ְס ֵרי ָהוְ יָ ין
ְ יט ְע ִמיךְ ׁ ִש
ַ וְ ִלAbaye responded: According to your reasoning, they are six-
teen actions, as even in the first part of our mishna, the one who
receives the object and the one who places the object each
participates in the performance of a prohibited action. Therefore,
there are a total of sixteen actions.
ָהא ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א; ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא: ָא ַמר ֵליהRav Mattana said to Abaye: That is not difficult, as granted,
Perek I
Daf 3 Amud a
notes
ישא – ּ ָפט ּור ּומו ָּּתר ָלא ָ ׁ ָ ּב ָבא דְּ ֵרthe first section of the mishna speaks of cases in which the one
Exempt in the halakhot of Shabbat – פטוּר ְ ּב ִדינֵי ׁ ַש ָ ּבת:ָ ּ The com-
ֶא ָּלא ָ ּב ָבא דְּ ֵס ָיפא דְּ ָפטוּר ֲא ָבל, ָק ָתנֵיperforming the actions is exempt from punishment by Torah
n1
n1
יה ִל ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל – ּ ְפטו ֵּריּ ִּכי ִאיצְ ְט ִריךְ ֵלThe Gemara answers: In these cases, too, the ruling is: Exempt
ּ ְפטו ֵּרי דְּ ָלא ָקא, דְּ ָקא ָע ֵביד ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשהand permitted. When, though, was it necessary for Shmuel to
.יכא טו ָּבא ָּ ָע ֵביד ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה – ִאcite specific cases as exempt and permitted? It was necessary in
exempt cases where he performs a defined action. However,
there are many exempt cases where he does not perform an
action, which are completely permitted.
ַּת ְר ֵּתי ְס ֵרי ָהוְ יָ ין! ּ ְפטו ֵּרי,ִמ ָּכל ָמקֹום The Gemara returns to Rav Mattana’s question: In any case,
דְּ ָא ֵתי ְ ּבה ּו ִל ֵידי ִחּיוּב ַח ָּטאת – ָקא there are twelve actions that should have been enumerated in
דְּ ָלא ָא ֵתי ְ ּבה ּו ִל ֵידי ִחּיוּב,ָח ׁ ֵשיב the mishna. The Gemara answers: The mishna took into con-
sideration cases of exempt acts where the one who performed
.ַח ָּטאת – ָלא ָקא ָח ׁ ֵשיב
them could come, through their performance, to incur liabil-
ity to bring a sin-offering. The mishna did not take into con-
sideration cases of exempt acts where the one who performed
them could not come, through their performance, to incur li-
ability to bring a sin-offering.n Here, only the instances where
2
one lifts an object from its place are taken into consideration.
Having lifted an object, if he continued, he could potentially
incur liability to bring a sin-offering. Under no circumstances
can one who merely places an object come to violate a more
serious prohibition.
12 Perek I . 3a . ג ףד. קרפ ׳א
notes
וְ ָהא ִא ְת ֲע ִב ָידא.נֵיהן ּ ְפט ּו ִרין״ ֶ “ש ְׁ The Gemara asks about the mishna itself: In the latter section of the
mishna, instances in which they are both exempt are enumerated. It emanated from the group – נִזְ ְר ָקה ִמ ּ ִפי ֲחבו ָּרה: The rea-
:אֹומר ֵ ַר ִ ּבי,אכה ִמ ֵ ּבינַיְ יהוּ! ַּתנְיָא ָ ְמ ָל
n3
place in the private domain considered like lifting the object itself
from its place? In that case, he would be liable. Or, perhaps it is not
considered like lifting the object from its place, and therefore he
would not be liable. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: He is liable,
and it is not similar to the halakha of one who had an object placed
in his hand and carried it out to the public domain, with regard to
which we learned in the mishna that he is not liable by Torah law.
What is the reason for the distinction between these two apparently
similar cases? His body is at rest, in a defined place. However, his
hand is not at rest.n Since a hand is not generally fixed in one place,
4
Perek I
Daf 3 Amud b
halakha
! ַ ּבר ּ ַפ ֲח ֵתי:ָא ַמר ֵליה ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ְל ַרב Rabbi Ĥiyya said to Rav, his sister’s son: Son of great men, didn’t I
When Rabbi is involved in this tractate do not ask him
ִּכי ָק ֵאי ַר ִ ּבי ְ ּב ָהא:ָלא ָא ִמינָ א ָל ְך tell you that when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is involved in this tractate h1
questions in another tractate – ִּכי ָק ֵאי ַר ִ ּבי ְ ּב ָהא ַמ ֶּס ְכ ָּתא ָלא
יה ְ ּב ַמ ֶּס ְכ ָּתא
ּ יל ֵ ְַמ ֶּס ְכ ָּתא ָלא ְּת ׁ ַשּי do not ask him questions in another tractate,h as perhaps it will not
1
background
An answer that is not an appropriate answer – ׁ ִשינּ וּיָ א דְּ ָלאו
b1 that difficulty. If that is the case, even if the attempt to stave off
שינּ וּיָא הוּא:
ִ ׁ The answer [shinuya] is one of the common forms of the difficulty is successful, it is not viewed as a definitive explana-
talmudic discourse. In general, a shinuya distinguishes between tion of the matter at hand. Consequently, at times the Gemara
the case under discussion and the case upon which the question emphasizes that a certain answer is not merely an attempt to
is based. Many times the answer is merely an attempt to stave off deflect the question but an actual explanation.
If someone in the private domain extended his ֵאינָ ה ל ֹא ִּכ ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים וְ ל ֹא ִּכ ְר ׁשוּת when he moves it out of the domain where he is located, is considered to
hand filled with objects out to the public domain,
– ִּכ ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים ָלא דָּ ְמיָ א.ַהּיָ ִחיד be neither like the public domain nor like the private domain, even if it
within ten handbreadths of the ground, he may is the hand of someone standing in one of those domains. Proof that the
not bring his hand back to the private domain. If – ּיָחיד ָלא דָּ ְמיָא ִ ִּכ ְר ׁשוּת ַה,ִמּיָ דֹו דְּ ָענִי
hand is not considered like the public domain can be derived from the
he extended his hand unwittingly, he is permit- .ִמּיָ דֹו דְּ ַ ּב ַעל ַה ַ ּביִ ת ruling of the mishna with regard to the hand of the poor person. As we
ted to bring his hand back to the private domain.
This is in accordance with the final explanation
learned with regard to the poor person who brought his hand carrying an
suggested by the Gemara, which is apparently object that he lifted from the public domain into the private domain and
the conclusion. Others explained that if he did the homeowner took the object from his hand; the homeowner is not liable.
so intentionally, the Sages, nevertheless, permit- Apparently, the hand of the poor person is not considered part of the public
ted him to bring the object back. They did so in domain, even though he himself is located in the public domain. Proof that
order to avoid placing him in a situation where it is not considered like the private domain can be derived from the ruling
he will come to throw the objects from his hand
of the mishna with regard to the hand of the homeowner. As we learned
and thereby violate a prohibition punishable by
stoning. According to that opinion, only in a case with regard to the homeowner who moved his hand carrying an object that
where he took the object out into the public do- he lifted from the private domain into the public domain and the poor
main while it was still day and kept it there until person took the object from his hand; the poor person is not liable for car-
after dark did the Sages penalize him and prohibit rying out from a private domain.
him from bringing it back. Others explained that
this is not a concern in modern times (Shulĥan יָ דֹו ׁ ֶשל ָא ָדם ַמה ּו ׁ ֶש ֵּת ָע ֶ ׂשה: ָ ּב ֵעי ַא ַ ּביֵ יHowever, Abaye raised a dilemma: What is the ruling with regard to the
Arukh HaRav). If he extended his hand with an
ֵ ִמי ְקנַסו ּּה ַר ָ ּבנַן ְל ַא ֲה, ְּכ ַכ ְר ְמ ִליתhand of a person with an object in it, when that person reached his hand
דֹורי
object in it out into a karmelit, whether he did so
intentionally or unwittingly, it is permitted to bring ?יה אֹו ָלא ּ ְלגַ ֵ ּבinto a different domain? Does it assume karmelit status? A karmelit is an
intermediate domain established by the Sages that is neither a private nor a
it back (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat
13:20; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 348). public domain. This dilemma is based on the fact that his hand left one
domain and did not yet enter a second domain. In terms of practical halakha,
notes
the two sides of this dilemma are: Did the Sages penalize him and issue a
Here below ten and there above ten – ָּכאן ְל ַמ ָּטה
rabbinic decree prohibiting him from bringing his hand with the object
back to the domain where he is standing or not?
n1
Some explain that the phrase: Here above ten, :ַמאי ָלאו ְ ּב ָהא ָק ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י; דְּ ָמר ָס ַבר
raita that it is prohibited for him to bring it back into his house, and it was
means that one who took the object into the ָלאו: ּו ָמר ָס ַבר,ְּכ ַכ ְר ְמ ִלית דָּ ְמיָ א taught in another baraita that it is permitted for him to bring it back. Is it
public domain below ten handbreadths is even
?ְּכ ַכ ְר ְמ ִלית דָּ ְמיָ א not with regard to this that they disagree; that the Sage in one baraita
permitted to raise it above ten handbreadths and
take it back inside. Even if the halakha is that his holds that his hand is like a karmelit, and the Sage in the other baraita
hand is considered like a karmelit, it is permissible holds that it is not like a karmelit?
to take an object from a karmelit to an exempt
domain and from an exempt domain to a private , דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ְּכ ַכ ְר ְמ ִלית דָּ ְמיָ א, ָלאThe Gemara rejects this explanation: No, everyone agrees that it is like a
domain (Ritva). , וְ ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א; ָּכאן – ְל ַמ ָּטה ֵמ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרהkarmelit, and yet, this is not difficult, as the difference between the baraitot
. ָּכאן – ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ֵמ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרהcan be explained in the following manner: Here, the baraita prohibiting him
from bringing his hand back, is referring to a case where he took it out at a
height below ten handbreadths off the ground, within the airspace of the
public domain. And there, the baraita permitting him to bring his hand
back, is referring to a case where he took it out at a height above tenn hand- 1
breadths off the ground, outside the airspace of the public domain. Conse-
quently, the object is considered to be neither in the public domain nor in
a karmelit.
ִא ֵידי וְ ִא ֵידי ְל ַמ ָּטה:ימא ָ יב ֵעית ֵא ּ ָ וְ ִא And if you wish, say instead that this baraita and that baraita are both refer-
וְ ָלא, וְ ָלאו ְּכ ַכ ְר ְמ ִלית דָּ ְמיָ א,ֵמ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ring to a case where he took his hand out to the public domain at a height
– ָּכאן, ָּכאן – ִמ ְ ּבעֹוד יֹום:ַק ׁ ְשיָ א below ten handbreadths, and his hand is not considered a karmelit. And
yet, this is not difficult. As here, the baraita permitting him to bring it back,
ִמ ְ ּבעֹוד יֹום – ָלא ְקנַסו ּּה,יכה ָ ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ָח ׁ ֵש
is referring to a case where he took it out while it was still day on Shabbat
.יכה – ְקנַסו ּּה ַר ָ ּבנַן ָ ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ָח ׁ ֵש,ַר ָ ּבנַן eve. Since he extended his hand before Shabbat and, in doing so, did nothing
wrong, the Sages did not penalize him and permitted him to bring his hand
back on Shabbat itself. However, there, the baraita prohibiting him from
bringing it back, is referring to a case where he took it out after dark, and
Shabbat had already begun. Since there is an element of prohibition involved,
the Sages penalized him and prohibited him from bringing it back.
14 Perek I . 3b . ג ףד: קרפ ׳א
background
ִמ ְ ּבעֹוד: ִא ּ ְיפ ָכא ִמ ְס ַּת ְ ּב ָרא,ַאדְּ ַר ָ ּבה The Gemara comments that this explanation is difficult. On the contrary,
the opposite is reasonable. In the case where he extended his hand while Resolve the dilemma raised by Rav Beivai bar
יה ָלא ָא ֵתי ִל ֵידי ִחּיוּב ּ דְּ ִאי ׁ ָש ֵדי ֵל,יֹום
b3
Abaye – ת ְפ ׁשֹוט דְּ ַרב ֵ ּב ָיבי ַ ּבר ַא ַ ּביֵ י:ִּ The challenge
,יכה ָ ַח ָּטאת – ִל ְיקנְסו ָּּה ַר ָ ּבנַן; ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ָח ׁ ֵש it was still day, when even were he to throw the object from his hand into presented by the phrase: Resolve the dilemma, etc.,
the public domain, he would not incur liability to bring a sin-offering can be explained as follows. It does not seem likely
יה ָא ֵתי ְ ּבה ּו ִל ֵידי ִחּיוּב ּ דְּ ִאי ׁ ָש ֵדי ֵל because the object was lifted from its place on a weekday, let the Sages that a specific dilemma that the Sages attempted
!ַח ָּטאת – ָלא ִל ְיקנְסו ָּּה ַר ָ ּבנַן penalize him. However, in the case where he extended his hand after dark, and were unable to resolve should have so simple
where were he to throw the object from his hand into the public domain, a resolution. Therefore, the existence of this solution
he would thereby incur liability to bring a sin-offering, let the Sages not either constitutes a challenge to the Sage who was
originally unsuccessful in resolving this dilemma
penalize him. Were the Sages to penalize him by prohibiting him from
or proof that the proposed resolution is not viable.
bringing his hand back, he is liable to drop the object in the public domain,
and by doing so he would violate a Torah prohibition.
Notes
One who unwittingly stuck bread in the oven –
ִּת ְפ ׁשֹוט,ּו ִמדְּ ָלא ָקא ְמ ׁ ַש ּנִינַ ן ָה ִכי And from the fact that we did not explain it that way, but preferred the n2
ה ְד ִ ּביק ּ ַפת ַ ּב ַּתנּ וּר:ִ The ovens in those days were made
דְּ ָב ֵעי ַרב ֵ ּב ָיבי.דְּ ַרב ֵ ּב ָיבי ַ ּבר ַא ַ ּביֵ י contrary distinction, resolve the dilemma raised by Rav Beivai bar of earthenware. The oven was ignited from below.
ִה ִּתיר ּו, ִה ְד ִ ּביק ּ ַפת ַ ּב ַּתנּ וּר:ַ ּבר ַא ַ ּביֵ י Abaye,b whose dilemma is predicated on the same fundamental issue. As
3
, ִּת ְפ ׁשֹוט דְּ ל ֹא ִה ִּתירוּ! ָהא ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ אBased on the above, resolve that the Sages did not permit one to do so. In
. וְ ִת ְפ ׁשֹוטresolving Abaye’s dilemma, the concern that one would likely throw the
object from his hand, and thereby violate a Torah prohibition, was not
taken into consideration. The one who extended his hand into the public
domain was penalized by the Sages and prohibited to bring his hand back.
Here too, resolve the dilemma and say that he may not remove the bread,
even though he will thereby violate a Torah prohibition. The dilemma of
Rav Beivai bar Abaye, which was thought to be unresolved, is thereby re-
solved. As a result, there is room for uncertainty whether or not the reso-
lution of the previous dilemma, through which Rav Beivai’s dilemma
would also be resolved, is valid. The Gemara rejects this difficulty: That is
not difficult. It is possible that even though a resolution had not been
previously found for the dilemma of Rav Beivai bar Abaye, that does not
mean that it cannot be resolved And, indeed, as proof can be brought from
the resolution of the other dilemma, resolve this dilemma as well.
עֹול ם ל ֹא ָ ְל:ימ א ָ יב ֵעית ֵא ּ ָ וְ ִא And if you wish, say instead: Actually, do not resolve the dilemma, but,
, וְ ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א; ָּכאן – ְ ּב ׁשֹוגֵ ג,ִּת ְפ ׁשֹוט nevertheless, resolve the contradiction between the baraitot in the follow-
ְ ּב ׁשֹוגֵ ג – ָלא ְקנַסו ּּה.ָּכאן – ְ ּב ֵמזִ יד ing manner. Here, the baraita that taught that it is permitted to bring one’s
hand back is referring to a case where he extended it unwittingly. There,
. ְ ּב ֵמזִ יד – ְקנַסו ּּה ַר ָ ּבנַן,ַר ָ ּבנַן
the baraita that taught that it is prohibited for one to bring it back is refer-
ring to a case where he took it out intentionally. When he took it out
unwittingly, the Sages did not penalize him. When he took it out inten-
tionally, the Sages penalized him and prohibited him from bringing it
back.
It is prohibited.
ו ַּמאי ׁ ְשנָ א? ְל ִכי ֵתיכֹול ֲע ָל ּה ּכ ָֹורא Rava asked about this: And in what way is one case different
ית ֲע ִב ָידא
ְ דְּ ִמ ְיל ָחא; ָה ָתם – ָלא ִא from the other? By definition, both courtyards are private
Adjacent courtyards ית ֲע ִב ָיד א
ְ ָה ָכא – ִא,ַמ ֲח ׁ ַש ְב ּתֹו domains, and there is no apparent halakhic difference be-
tween them in terms of Shabbat. Rav Naĥman answered
Kor – כֹור:ּ The kor is the largest measurement of volume mentioned in .ַמ ֲח ׁ ַש ְב ּתֹו
b2
our sources. The kor contains thirty se’a, and in modern measurements
equals 240–480 ℓ. That significant disparity is due to a fundamental
you will know the answer. Actually, the answer is simple:
dispute with regard to halakhic measurements. There, the baraita that taught that it is permitted to bring it
back to the same courtyard, said so because his planned
halakha
objective was not realized. Since he sought to take an object
One who stuck bread in the oven – ה ְד ִ ּביק ּ ַפת ַ ּב ַּתנּ וּר:ִ If one inten-
out of his courtyard, requiring him to bring the object back
to its original place is a penalty of sorts. However, here, the
h1
unwitting and the end was unwitting – אֹות…ת ִח ָּל ָתן ׁ ְשגָ גָ ה ְּ ַחּיָ ֵיבי ַח ָּט
סֹופן ׁ ְשגָ גָ ה וְ ַח ָּטאת
ָ ְו: One is liable to bring a sin-offering for an unwitting ׁ ֶשּיָ בֹוא ִל ֵידי ִחּיוּב ַח ָּטאת אֹו ל ֹא Rav Beivai bar Abaye raised a dilemma: One who erred
act only if the act was unwitting from beginning to end, as per the and stuck bread in the ovenh on Shabbat, did they permit
1
?ִּה ִּתירו
mishna cited here (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 1:19 and him to override a rabbinic prohibition and remove it before
Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Shegagot 2:1). it bakes, i.e., before he incurs liability to bring a sin-offering
for baking bread on Shabbat, or did they not permit him to
notes do so?
All those who are liable to bring sin-offerings…the beginning was
: ָא ַמר ֵליה ַרב ַא ָחא ַ ּבר ַא ַ ּביֵ י ְל ָר ִבינָ אRav Aĥa bar Abaye said to Ravina: What are the circum-
n1
unwitting and the end was unwitting – אֹות…ת ִח ָּל ָתן ׁ ְשגָ גָ הְּ ַחּיָ ֵיבי ַח ָּט
סֹופן ׁ ְשגָ גָ ה וְ ַח ָּטאת
ָ ְו: In most of the halakhot with regard to punishment ימא ְ ּב ׁשֹוגֵ ג וְ ָלא ָ יל
ֵ ִא,יכי דָּ ֵמיִ ֵהstances? If you say that he stuck the bread to the oven unwit-
in the Torah, as well as those with regard to atonement, the general ?ּיה – ְל ַמאן ִה ִּתירו ּ ִא ְיד ַּכר ֵלtingly and did not remember either that today was Shabbat
principle is that one’s intention must be consistent from the begin- or that it is prohibited to do so on Shabbat, to whom did they
ning of the action through the end, and the action is evaluated based permit to remove it? If he remains unaware that a prohibition
on that intention. Any deviation from the original intention, whether is involved, it will not occur to him to ask whether or not he
in the direction of leniency or stringency, changes the assessment of
is permitted to remove the bread before it bakes.
the act. The action can no longer be categorized in any existing frame-
work; neither in terms of punishment nor in terms of atonement. יה ַדר וְ ִא ְיד ַּכר – ִמי ֲ וְ ֶא ָּלא ָלאו – דְּ ִא But rather, is it not a case where he then, before it baked,
n2 Prohibition punishable by stoning – יסוּר ְס ִק ָילה ּ א:
ִ The accurate יבי ַח ָּטאֹות ֵ ָ ָּכל ַחּי:ְמ ַחּיֵ יב? וְ ָה ְתנַ ן remembered that it is prohibited? In that case, is he liable
phrase here is: Before he comes to violate a prohibition punishable
ֵאינָן ַחיּ ִָיבין ַעד ׁ ֶש ְּת ֵהא ְּת ִח ָּל ָתן ׁ ְשגָ גָ ה to bring a sin-offering? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: All
by stoning, and not: Before he incurs a liability of stoning. Since he those who sin unwittingly and are therefore liable to bring
regretted his action in the middle of its performance, he is no longer !סֹופן ׁ ְשגָ גָ ה
ָ ְו
sin-offerings are only liable if the beginning of their action
liable to be stoned for his action.
was unwitting and the end of their action was unwit-
ting.hn This means that throughout the entire action until its
2 1
ע ִק ָירה וְ ַה ָּנ ָחה ֵמ ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ְמקֹום ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ַעל ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה:ֲ The Gemara as-
sumes that liability exists only in a case where an object is
,עֹולם ְ ּב ֵמזִ יד ָ ְל:ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי Rather, Rav Ashi said: Actually, it is referring to a case where he lifted from an area that measures at least four by four hand-
יסוּר ּ “קֹודם ׁ ֶשּיָ בֹא ִל ֵידי ִא ֶ ימא
ָ וְ ֵא stuck the bread in the oven intentionally. And say, emend the text breadths. The commentaries seek a source for that assumption.
as follows: Before he comes to violate a prohibition punishable Some explained that one does not generally place objects on
יה דְּ ָר ָבא ַמ ְתנֵי ּ ַרב ַא ָחא ְ ּב ֵר.ְס ִק ָילה״ a smaller surface due to concern that they might fall. In all
by stoning. Indeed, Rav Aĥa, son of Rava, would teach it explic-
: ָא ַמר ַרב ֵ ּב ָיבי ַ ּבר ַא ַ ּביֵ י:ָל ּה ְ ּב ֶה ְדיָ א of the prohibited labors of Shabbat, the standard manner in
itly in that manner;b not as a dilemma, but rather, as a halakhic
3
liable to bring a sin-offering. The Gemara asks: Why is he liable? similar phrases is common in the Talmud. After the Gemara
cites various theoretical considerations and reaches the con-
Don’t we require that halakhic lifting and placing be performed clusion that there is a need to emend the text of the baraita,
from and onto the surface of an area that is four by fournh hand- 4 3
Rabba said: Whose opinion is it in this mishna? It is the opinion four – ע ִק ָירה וְ ַה ָּנ ָחה ֵמ ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ְמקֹום ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ַעל ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה:ֲ A place
דְּ ָא ַמר ָלא ָ ּב ֵעינַ ן ְמקֹום ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה of Rabbi Akiva who said that we do not require a place of four that is smaller than four by four handbreadths is not considered
ּזֹורק ֵמ ְר ׁשוּתֵ ַה: דִּ ְתנַ ן.ַעל ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה by four handbreadths. According to his opinion, even a smaller a defined area in terms of the halakhot of Shabbat. One who
area is considered a significant place in terms of carrying out on lifts an object from it or places an object on it does not incur
ַהּיָ ִחיד ִל ְר ׁשוּת ַהּיָ ִחיד ו ְּר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים liability to bring a sin-offering (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot
Shabbat. As we learned in a mishna: One who throws an object
,יבא ְמ ַח ּיֵ יב ָ ָ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע – ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק Shabbat 13:1 and 14:7; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 345:19).
from the private domain to the other private domain and there
.ֹוט ִרים
ְ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים ּפ is the public domain in the middle, Rabbi Akiva deems him
liable for carrying out into the public domain, and the Rabbis
deem him exempt because the object merely passed through the
public domain and did not come to rest in it.
“קלו ָּטה ְ ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן:ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ָס ַבר This dispute can be explained as follows: Rabbi Akiva holds that
: וְ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ָס ְב ִרי,ְּכ ִמי ׁ ֶשהוּנְ ָחה דָּ ְמיָ א״ we say that an object in airspace is considered at rest. In his
“קלו ָּטה ְּכ ִמי ׁ ֶשהוּנְ ָחה ְ ָלא ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן opinion, an object that passed, even briefly, through the airspace
of the public domain is considered as if it came to rest in that
.דָּ ְמיָ א״
domain. Therefore, one who threw the object has, for all intents
and purposes, lifted the object from the private domain and
placed it in the public domain, and he is liable. And the Rabbis
hold that we do not say that an object in airspace is considered
at rest. In their opinion, although he lifted the object from the
private domain, it never came to rest in the public domain. Since
he never placed it in the public domain, he is not liable. Regardless,
according to Rabbi Akiva’s opinion, placing does not require a
defined area. The mere presence of an object in the public domain
accords it the legal status of having been placed there. Apparently,
there is no requirement that an object be placed on a surface with
an area of four by four handbreadths.
יה ְל ַר ָ ּבהּ יט א ֵּל ָ ימ ָרא דִּ ְפ ׁ ִשְ ְל ֵמInitially, the Gemara wonders about the substance of Rabba’s
ְ דְּ ִבopinion: Is that to say that it is obvious to Rabba that, with re-
,״קלו ָּטה ְּכ ִמי ׁ ֶשהוּנְ ָחה דָּ ְמיָ א״
gard to whether or not an object in airspace is considered at rest,
ד ףד. ׳א קרפ. Perek I . 4a 17
Perek I
Daf 4 Amud b
background
ו ְּבתֹוךְ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ּ ְפ ִליגִ י? וְ ָהא ִמ ְיב ֲעיָ א ָ ּב ֵעי and it is in a case where the object passed within ten handbreadths of
And wasn’t it raised as a dilemma – וְ ָהא ִמ ְיב ֲעיָא ָ ּב ֵעי the ground that they disagree? And wasn’t it raised as a dilemmab by
ְל ַמ ָּטה ֵמ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה:ָל ּה ַר ָ ּבה! דְּ ָב ֵעי ַר ָ ּבה
b1
1
כ ִמי ׁ ֶשהוּנְ ָחה דָּ ְמיָ א:ְּ It is possible to identify two fun- airspace is considered at rest? However, if the object passed more than
damental approaches in clarifying the essence of this ten handbreadths above the public domain, everyone agrees that he is
halakhic principle. According to Rashi and Rabbeinu
exempt and everyone agrees that we do not derive the halakha of
Ĥananel, an object passing through airspace of a
certain domain is considered as if it were placed on throwing from the halakha of passing. There is a special halakha with
the ground of that domain. In the Jerusalem Talmud, regard to passing objects: One standing in a private domain who passes
on the other hand, this phrase was understood to an object through a public domain to another private domain, even
mean that all the airspace in a certain domain is though the object did not come to rest in the public domain, his action
considered as if it were solid matter upon which is considered to have carried out. However, the halakha with regard to
the objects rest. The principle was formulated: The throwing is different.
air within the partitions is like its substance, i.e., the
ground beneath it. , ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ֵמ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ּ ְפ ִליגִ י:יל ָמא ְ ִּאֹו ד Or, perhaps they disagree with regard to a case where the object
Perhaps placing does not require, but lifting does
n2
דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ָס ַבר – יָ ְל ִפינַן:ו ְּב ָהא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י passed ten handbreadths above the ground, and this is the point over
require – ָהא ֲע ִק ָירה, ַה ָּנ ָחה הוּא דְּ ָלא ַ ּב ְעיָ א:וְ ִד ְיל ָמא which they disagree: Rabbi Akiva holds that we derive the halakha of
ב ְעיָא:ּ ַ Some explain that the fact that lifting would
וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן ָס ְב ִרי – ָלא יָ ְל ִפינַן,ֹושיטִ ׁ זֹורק ִמ ּמֵ
throwing from the halakha of passing and considers them details of
require an area of four by four handbreadths, while – ֲא ָבל ְל ַמ ָּטה ֵמ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה.ֹושיט ִ ׁ זֹורק ִמ ּמ ֵ
one halakha. And the Rabbis hold that we do not derive throwing
placing would not, is derived from the Torah. Lifting ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא – ָא ְמ ִרינַן. ַחּיָ יב,דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל
an object from its place is alluded to in the verse:
from passing, and, although one who passes the object in that case is
“A man should not go out [yetze] from his place”
?“קלו ָּטה ְּכ ִמי ׁ ֶשהוּנְ ָחה דָּ ְמיָ א״ ְ liable, one who throws it is not. The halakha with regard to passing is a
(Exodus 16:29). This verse can be interpreted: “A man unique halakha, a Torah decree, and other cases cannot be derived from
should not carry out [yotzi ] from his place.” There is it. However, with regard to one who throws from one private domain
no biblical allusion to placing (Tosafot). to another via a public domain, if the object passed below ten hand-
n3 Projection of any size – זִ יז ָּכל ֶׁשהוּא: The ge’onim breadths off the ground, everyone agrees that he is liable. What is the
define ziz as anything that projects from the wall of a reason for this? Everyone agrees that an object in airspace is consid-
house; both the house and the projection are consid- ered at rest. Since Rabba himself is uncertain as to the point of the
ered private property. A projection of any size means dispute in that mishna with regard to one who throws an object, how
that it can be less than four by four handbreadths.
can he determine Rabbi Akiva’s opinion in the matter of our mishna?
ָ ּב ַתר דְּ ִא ְיב ִעי – ֲה ַדר, ָהא ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ אThe Gemara answers: That is not difficult. It can be explained that, after
יבא ָ דְּ ָס ַבר ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק,יה
ּ יטא ֵל ְ ִאhe raised the dilemma, it was later resolved for him that the correct
ָ יפ ׁ ִש
. ְקלו ָּטה ְּכ ִמי ׁ ֶשהוּנְ ָחה דָּ ְמיָ אunderstanding is that Rabbi Akiva alone holds that an object in air-
space is considered at rest.
ָהא, ַה ָּנ ָחה הוּא דְּ ָלא ַ ּב ְעיָ א: וְ ִד ְיל ָמאHowever, there is room to question the parallel between Rabbi Akiva’s
! ֲע ִק ָירה ַ ּב ְעיָ אopinion and the case in our mishna. Perhaps placing alone does not
require an area of four by four in order to be considered halakhic plac-
ing, but lifting does requiren a minimum of four by four handbreadths
2
deems him liable, and the Rabbis deem him exempt. Apparently, this
proves that, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, there is no minimum
area required for lifting and placing. This is the halakha to which Rav
Yosef referred.
18 Perek I . 4b . ד ףד: קרפ ׳א
background
,ימר ְל ַק ָּמן ַ ָה ָתם – ִּכ ְד ָב ֵעינַ ן ְל ֵמ The Gemara rejects this: There, the explanation is according to what we will need
to say later in accordance with the statement of Abaye, as Abaye said: Here, the Tree and its boughs – ִא ָילן…וְ נֹופֹו
ָה ָכא ְ ּב ִא ָילן: דְּ ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י.ִּכ ְד ַא ַ ּביֵ י
b2
נֹוטהֶ עֹומד ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת ַהּיָ ִחיד וְ נֹופֹו ֵ ָה baraita is not dealing with just any situation. Rather, it is dealing with a special
case where there is a tree standing in the private domain and its boughsb lean 2
Perek I
Daf 5 Amud a
Notes
ל ֹא ְמ ַחּיֵ יב ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ָּלא ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת ַהּיָ ִחיד Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi only deemed him liable in the covered private domain,
The banners of the desert – דִּ גְ ֵלי ִּמ ְד ָ ּבר:
יתא ְּכ ַמאן ָ ״ב ּ ֵ : דְּ ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן,קֹור ּה ָ ְמ with a roof, as we say: The house is considered as one that is full? The entire n1
ָהא,וְ ִד ְיל ָמא ַה ָּנ ָחה הוּא דְּ ָלא ָ ּב ֵעינַן The Gemara rejects this: This is not a proof, and one could say:
דִּ ְיל ָמא,ֲע ִק ָירה ָ ּב ֵעינַ ן! וְ ַה ָּנ ָחה נַ ִמי Perhaps it is specifically for placing that we do not require an area
יכא נַ ִמי
ָּ יב ָל ּה; דְּ ִא
ּ ְ יה וְ ִק
ּ דְּ ָפ ׁ ֵשיט ַּכנְ ֵפ of four by four; however, for lifting we require an area of four by
four in order to consider it significant. And with regard to placing
!ַה ָּנ ָחה
as well, one could say: Perhaps it was performed in a manner in
which he extended the corners of his coat and received it, so in
that case there is also placing upon an area of four by four. There-
fore, there is no proof from here.
(ש ִק ֵ ּבל
ֶ ׁ נִיתין ְּכגֹון
ִ ַמ ְת:ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא Rabbi Abba said: Our mishna is speaking about a special case
, וְ ִה ּנ ִַיח ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ְט ַר ְס ָקל,)ִ ּב ְט ַר ְס ָקל where he received, i.e., lifted, the object that was in a basket [ter-
! וְ ָהא ‘יָ דֹו’ ָק ָתנֵי.יכא נַ ִמי ַה ָּנ ָחה ָּ דְּ ִא askal]lb and he placed it atop a basket. In that case, there is also
1 1
ֶא ָּלא, ָה ִתינַ ח ְט ַר ְס ָקל ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת ַהּיָ ִחידThe Gemara asks about this matter: Granted, when the basket was
ְט ַר ְס ָקל ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים ְר ׁשוּתin the private domain, but if it was a basket that was placed in the
! ַהּיָ ִחיד הוּאpublic domain, doesn’t it immediately become the private do-
main? Presumably, the basket is ten handbreadths above the ground,
and its surface is the requisite size for creating a private domain.
ing midget.
. ֵמ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרהwhere we learned that a basket is considered like a private domain,
was in a case in which the basket was above ten handbreadths off
background
the ground. Here, in our mishna, the basket was below ten hand-
Did the tanna go to all that trouble in an effort to teach us
breadths off the ground. Even according to the opinion of Rabbi b2
all of these cases – א ְיכ ּ ַפל ַּת ּנָא ְל ַא ׁ ְש ְמ ִעינַן ָּכל ָהנֵי:ִ Although the
Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, in a case where it is below ten hand- Gemara at times explains the mishna by depicting special
breadths it is not considered a private domain, rather it is part of the and rare cases, a fundamental principle or a description
public domain. Therefore, it is considered carrying out and he is with wide-ranging application is not usually articulated by
liable. means of extraordinary situations. In situations of that sort,
the Gemara asks: Did the tanna go to all that trouble…?
ִמי ָק ָתנֵי:יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבה ּו ּ ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ֵל The Gemara comments: Nevertheless, this explanation is difficult
!‘ט ַר ְס ָקל ׁ ֶש ְ ּביָ דֹו’? וְ ָהא ‘יָ דֹו’ ָק ָתנֵי ְ for Rabbi Abbahu: Was the language taught in the mishna: A halakha
ְּכגוֹן ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ִש ְל ׁ ֵשל:ֶּא ָּלא ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבהו basket in his hand? His hand, was taught. There is no reason to A person’s hand is considered like four by four – יָ דֹו ׁ ֶשל ָא ָדם
h1
emend the mishna in that way. Rather, Rabbi Abbahu said: The ח ׁשו ָּבה לֹו ְּכ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ַעל ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה:ֲ In the halakhot of Shabbat, the
.יָ דֹו ְל ַמ ָּטה ִמ ׁ ּ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה וְ ִק ְ ּב ָלה hand of a person is considered as if it were an area of four
mishna here is referring to a case where the poor person lowered
by four handbreadths. Therefore, one who lifts an object on
his hand below three handbreadths off the ground and received Shabbat from one domain and places it in the hand of a
that object in his hand. Below three handbreadths is considered, in person standing in another domain, or one who lifts it from
all respects, to be appended to the ground and, therefore, a place of the hand of a person who is in one domain and places it in
four by four handbreadths. a different domain, is liable (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot
Shabbat 13:2; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 347:1).
יב ֵעית
ּ ָ וְ ִא.ֹוחה
ֶ ‘עֹומד’ ָק ָתנֵי! ְ ּב ׁש
ֵ וְ ָהאThe Gemara asks: Didn’t the mishna teach: The poor person stands
:ימאָ יב ֵעית ֵא ָ ֵאoutside? If he is standing, how is it possible that his hand is within
ּ ָ וְ ִא. ְ ּב ג ּו ָמא:ימא
. ְ ּבנַ ּנָסthree handbreadths of the ground? Rabbi Abbahu answered: It is
describing a case where he is bending down. In that case, his hand
could be adjacent to the ground even though he is standing. And if
you wish, say instead that it is possible in a case where the poor
person is standing in a hole and his hand is adjacent to the ground.
And if you wish, say instead a different depiction of the situation:
The mishna is speaking about a case involving a midget [nanas],l 2
יכ ּ ַפל ַּת ָּנא ְל ַא ׁ ְש ְמ ִעינַןְ ִא:ָא ַמר ָר ָבא About all of these Rava said: Did the tanna go to all that trouble in
יָ דֹו ׁ ֶשל:ָּכל ָהנֵי?! ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ָר ָבא an effort to teach us all of these cases?b It is difficult to accept that
2
ָא ָדם ֲח ׁשו ָּבה לֹו ְּכ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ַעל the tanna could not find a more conventional manner to explain the
halakha. Rather, Rava said: The problem must be resolved by es-
ִּכי ֲא ָתא ָר ִבין ָא ַמר, וְ ֵכן.ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה
tablishing the principle: A person’s hand is considered like four
יָ דֹו ׁ ֶשל ָא ָדם ֲח ׁשו ָּבה לֹו:יֹוחנָ ן ָ ַר ִ ּבי by fourhn handbreadths for him. It is true that lifting and placing
1 2
.ְּכ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ַעל ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה upon a significant place are required. However, even though a sig-
nificant place is normally no less than four handbreadths, the hand
of a person is significant enough for it to be considered a significant
place as far as the halakhot of Shabbat are concerned. And, so too,
when Ravinp came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that
1
notes
A person’s hand is considered like four by four – יָ דֹו ׁ ֶשל ָא ָדם
n2 significant place, the measure of a significant area for placing
ח ׁשו ָּבה לֹו ְּכ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ַעל ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה:ֲ Apparently, this is because a being four by four handbreadths. However, the hand, regardless
hand is the standard conduit for placing and lifting objects in of its size, is also a significant area in the sense of carrying and
a specific place. The hand does not have the requisite area of a has the legal status of an area of four by four handbreadths.
Personalities
Ravin – ר ִבין:ָ An abbreviation of Rabbi Avin, who is called Rabbi
p1 Dimi was the emissary from Eretz Yisrael before Ravin. How-
Bon in the Jerusalem Talmud. ever, Ravin transmitted new and revised formulations of the
He was the most important of “those who descended to,” i.e., halakhot. Therefore, Ravin is considered an authority and,
who went from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, in the third to fourth as a rule, the halakha was decided in accordance with his
generation of the Babylonian amora’im. opinion.
Rabbi Avin was born in Babylonia and emigrated to Eretz Yis- Ravin returned to Eretz Yisrael several times. There he served
rael at an early age. There he was able to study Torah from Rabbi as the transmitter of the Torah studied in Babylonia. His state-
Yoĥanan, who lived to a very old age. After Rabbi Yoĥanan’s ments are often cited in the Jerusalem Talmud. We know little
death, Ravin studied from his many students. Rabbi Avin about his family and the rest of his life. It is known that his father
was appointed to be one of “those who descended,” namely, died even before he was born, and that his mother died when
those Sages who were sent to Babylonia to disseminate in- he was born. Some say that his father’s name was also Rabbi
novative Torah insights from Eretz Yisrael, as well as various Avin and that he was named after him. Some believe that the
Eretz Yisrael traditions that were unknown in other lands. Rav Eretz Yisrael amora Rabbi Yosei bar Bon was his son.
ing to Rabbeinu Ĥananel’s variant text, some explain: Are object, the one who threw it is exempt. That was also taught in a
two forces in one person considered like two people, in ָע ַקר ִמ ְּמקֹומֹו,יבל – ַחּיָ יב ּ ֵ ִ ּב ְמקֹומֹו וְ ִק baraita. Aĥerim say: If he stood in his place and received in his hand
the sense that it is considered as if one threw it so the
.יבל – ּ ָפטוּר ּ ֵ וְ ִק the object that was thrown from another domain, the one who threw
other would catch it, and he is liable? Or, perhaps it is
considered like one person performed each half of the it is liable. And if he moved from his place and received it, he is
prohibited labor independent of the other half and he exempt.
would be exempt (Ramban).
יה? ָא ַמר ַרב ַאדָּ א ַ ּבר ּ ַמאי ָק ִמ ָ ּב ֲעיָא ֵל To clarify the matter, the Gemara asks: What is his dilemma?b Didn’t
3
ׁ ְשנֵי ּכֹחֹות ְ ּב ָא ָדם ֶא ָחד ָקא:ַא ֲה ָבה one person perform a complete act of lifting and placing? Rav Adda
– ׁ ְשנֵי ּכֹחֹות ְ ּב ָא ָדם ֶא ָחד.ִמ ָ ּב ֲעיָא ֵל ּיה bar Ahava said: His dilemma was with regard to two forces in one
person.n Rabbi Yoĥanan raised a dilemma with regard to one who
3
אֹו דִּ ְיל ָמא, וְ ַחּיָ יב,ְּכ ָא ָדם ֶא ָחד דָּ ֵמי
performs two separate actions rather than one continuous action. Are
.ּ ו ָּפטוּר? ֵּתיקו,ִּכ ׁ ְשנֵי ְ ּבנֵי ָא ָדם דָּ ֵמי two forces in one person considered like one person, and he is li-
able? Or, perhaps they are considered like two people, and he is
exempt? This dilemma remains unresolved and therefore, let it stand.
ִה ְכנִיס:יֹוחנָן ָ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ָא ִבין ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי Rabbi Avin said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: If he brought his hand
יבל ֵמי ּ ֵ וְ ִק,תֹוך ֲחצַ ר ֲח ֵבירֹו ְ יָ דֹו ְל into the courtyard of another and received rainwater that fell at that
ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה.ְ ּג ׁ ָש ִמים וְ הֹוצִ יא – ַחּיָ יב time into his hand and carried it out to another domain, he is liable.
Rabbi Zeira objects to this: What is the difference to me if his friend
ַמה, ַמה ִּלי ִה ְט ִעינֹו ֲח ֵבירֹו:ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא
loaded him with an object, i.e., his friend placed an object in his hand,
ִאיה ּו ָלא ָע ֵביד,ִּלי ִה ְט ִעינֹו ׁ ָש ַמיִ ם and what is the difference to me if Heaven loaded him with rainwa-
יבל״ ֶא ָּלא ּ ֵ “ק
ִ ימא ָ ֲע ִק ָירה! ָלא ֵּת ter? In neither case did he perform an act of lifting. Why then should
וְ ָהא ָ ּב ֵעינַן ֲע ִק ָירה ֵמ ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי.“ק ַלט״ ָ he be liable for carrying out from domain to domain? The Gemara
!יכָא
ּ וְ ֵל,ְמקֹום ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה answers: Do not say: He received rainwater, indicating that he pas-
sively received the rainwater in his hand. Rather, read: He actively
gathered rainwater in his hand from the air, which is tantamount to
lifting. The Gemara asks: In order to become liable, don’t we require
lifting from atop an area of four handbreadths, and in this case there
is none? How, therefore, would he be liable?
:יה דְּ ַרב הוּנָ א ּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ְ ּב ֵר Rabbi Ĥiyya, son of Rav Huna, said: It is a case where he gathered
ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי.ֹותל
ֶ ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ָ ּק ַלט ֵמ ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַה ּכ the rainwater from atop and on the side of the wall, so he lifted it from
: וְ ָהא ָלא נָ ח! ִּכ ְד ָא ַמר ָר ָבא,ּכ ֶֹותל נַ ִמי a significant place. Therefore, it is considered an act of lifting, and he
is liable. The Gemara questions: Atop a wall, too, the rain did not
כֹותל ֶ ָה ָכא נַ ִמי – ְ ּב,כֹותל ְמ ׁשו ּ ָּפע ֶ ְ ּב
come to rest. Rather, it immediately and continuously flowed. If so,
, וְ ֵה ָיכא ִא ְּית ַמר דְּ ָר ָבא? ַא ָהא.ְמ ׁשו ּ ָּפע the lifting was not from the wall at all. The Gemara answers: As Rava
:דִּ ְתנַן said in another context that the case involves an inclined wall, here
too the case involves an inclined wall. The Gemara asks: And where
was this statement of Rava stated? It was stated with regard to that
which we learned in a mishna:
22 Perek I . 5a . ה ףד. קרפ ׳א
Perek I
Daf 5 Amud b
background
יסקו ּ ָּפה ְ קֹורא ְ ּב ֵס ֶפר ַעל ָה ִא ֵ ָהיָ ה One who was reading a sacred book in scroll form on Shabbat on an
elevated, wide threshold and the book rolled from his handh outside Book on top of the roof – ֹאש ַה ַ ּגג
ׁ ס ֶפר ְ ּבר:ֵ
.וְ נִ ְת ַ ּג ְל ֵ ּגל ַה ֵּס ֶפר ִמּיָ דֹו – גּ ְֹוללֹו ֶאצְ לֹו
b1
1
ֹאש ַה ַ ּג ג וְ נִ ְת ַ ּג ְל ֵ ּגל
ׁ קֹורא ְ ּברֵ ָהיָ ה and into the public domain, he may roll it back to himself, since one
of its ends is still in his hand. However, if he was reading on top the
ַעד ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִה ִ ּג ַיע ְל ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה,ַה ֵּס ֶפר ִמּיָ דֹו
roof ,b which is a full-fledged private domain, and the book rolled from
1
ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ִה ִ ּג ַיע,ֹוללֹו ֶאצְ לֹוְ ְּט ָפ ִחים – ג his hand,h as long as the edge of the book did not reach ten hand-
2
,הֹופכֹו ַעל ַה ְּכ ָתב ְ – ְל ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ְט ָפ ִחים breadths above the public domain, the book is still in its own area, and
?הֹופכֹו ַעל ַה ְּכ ָתב ְ ַא ַּמאי:וְ ָהוֵ ינַן ָ ּב ּה he may roll it back to himself. However, once the book has reached
!ָהא ל ֹא נָ ח within ten handbreadths above the public domain, he is prohibited to
roll it back to himself. In that case, he may only turn it over onto the
side with writing,n so that the writing of the book should face down
1
and should not be exposed and degraded. And we discussed this ha-
lakha: Why must he turn it over onto the side with writing, and he is
prohibited to bring the book back to himself? Didn’t the book not yet
come to rest upon a defined area in the public domain? Even if he Book that rolled when read on top of a roof
brought it back it would not constitute lifting.
notes
ֵאימֹור.כֹותל ְמ ׁשו ּ ָּפע ֶ ְ ּב: וְ ָא ַמר ָר ָבאAnd Rava said: It is referring to the case of an inclined wall. Because He may only turn it over onto the side with writing –
n1
, דְּ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא ְ ּב ֵס ֶפר – דַּ ֲע ִביד דְּ נָ יֵיחit is inclined, the scroll is resting upon it to some degree. However, that הֹופכֹו ַעל ַה ְּכ ָתב:
ְ One reason given is that this prevents
!?יחיִ ְ ַמיִ ם ִמי ֲע ִב ִידי ְדנָיanswer is not effective in explaining the case of gathering water. Say that dust from accumulating on the uncovered letters. An-
Rava said that the legal status of the slanted wall is different, specifi- other is that when the writing is exposed, there is an
cally with regard to a book, as it is wont to come to rest upon an in- element of disrespect for the sacred text (Rashi).
clined wall. In contrast, is water wont to come to rest upon an inclined
wall? It continues flowing. Consequently, the question with regard to
water remains.
ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ָ ּק ַלט ֵמ ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי:ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ָר ָבא Rather, Rava said: Here, it is referring to a case where he gathered the
:ימא ָ יטא! ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת ָ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש, גּ ו ָּּמא.ּגו ָּּמא rainwater from on top of a holeh filled with water. The Gemara asks: If
3
,ַמיִ ם ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַמיִ ם – ָלאו ַה ָּנ ָחה הוּא he gathered it from on top of a hole, it is obvious that it is considered
like lifting from a significant place. The Gemara answers: Lest you say
.ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן
that since the water that comes down from the roof into the hole it is
water on top of water and, perhaps, it is not considered placing. There-
fore, he taught us that collecting water from on top of a hole filled with
water is considered an act of lifting an object from its placement.
: דְּ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא,יה ּ וְ ָאזְ ָדא ָר ָבא ְל ַט ֲע ֵמ The Gemara comments: And Rava follows his standard line of reason-
ֱאגֹוז,ַמיִ ם ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַמיִ ם – ַהיְ ינ ּו ַה ָּנ ָח ָתן ing, as Rava already said: It is obvious to me that water on top of water,
ָ ּב ֵעי.ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַמיִ ם – ָלאו ַהיְ ינ ּו ַה ָּנ ָחתֹו that is its placement, and lifting the water from there is an act of lifting
in every sense. It is also obvious that if a nut is floating on top of water,
ו ְּכ ִלי צָ ף ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי, ֱאגֹוז ִ ּב ְכ ִלי:ָר ָבא
that is not considered its placement, and therefore lifting it from there
, ָ ּב ַתר ֱאגֹוז ָאזְ ִלינַ ן – וְ ָהא נָ יֵיח,ַמיִ ם is not considered an act of lifting. However, Rava raised a dilemma: In
אֹו דִּ ְיל ָמא ָ ּב ַתר ְּכ ִלי ָאזְ ִלינַ ן – וְ ָהא a case where a nut is in a vessel, and that vessel is floating on top of
.ּ דְּ נָ יֵיד? ֵּתיקו,ָלא נָ יֵיח water,h and one lifted the nut from the vessel, is that considered an act
4
halakha
One who was reading a sacred book on a threshold and
h1 who was reading a book on Shabbat on top of the roof of a another domain and takes water from on top of a hole filled
the book rolled from his hand – יסקו ּ ָּפה ְ קֹורא ְ ּב ֵס ֶפר ַעל ָה ִא
ֵ ָהיָ ה private domain, and the book rolled from his hand into the with water and brings it back to him, is liable, since all of the
וְ נִ ְת ַ ּג ְל ֵ ּגל ַה ֵּס ֶפר ִמּיָ דֹו: In the case of a person on a threshold who public domain, if one end of the scroll did not yet reach within water is considered as if it were placed on the ground. Therefore,
was reading a sacred text written on a scroll and that scroll ten handbreadths of the ground of the public domain and the it conforms to the typical manner of lifting and placing, as
unrolled and landed on a karmelit (Mishna Berura), if one end other edge of the scroll is still in his hand, he is permitted to roll per the conclusion of Rava (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot
of the scroll remained in his hand, he may roll it back to him. it back to where he is sitting. However, if it reached within ten Shabbat 13:4).
That is the ruling even if the threshold was a private domain, i.e., handbreadths of the ground of the public domain, if the wall A nut in a vessel and that vessel is floating on top of water –
h4
four by four handbreadths and ten handbreadths high, and the was slanted and the scroll was somewhat resting upon it, and it ו ְּכ ִלי צָ ף ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַמיִם וכו׳,אגֹוז ִ ּב ְכ ִלי:
ֱ One who lifts a fruit that was
scroll unrolled into a public domain. This was permitted in order was a place frequented by the general public (Magen Avraham), placed in a vessel floating on water is exempt because a floating
to prevent disrespect for the sacred text, as explained in tractate it is prohibited to roll the book back to where he is sitting. This object is not considered to be at rest and picking it up does not
Eiruvin. However, if the book fell from his hand completely, is in accordance with the explanation of Rava and according to constitute halakhic lifting. This is all the more true if he lifted the
he is permitted to roll it back only if it rolled into a karmelit Tosafot (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 15:21; Shulĥan vessel which itself was floating on the water. Although the matter
(Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 15:21; Shulĥan Arukh, Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 352:2). remained unresolved, in a situation of uncertainty like this one,
Oraĥ Ĥayyim 352:1). He gathered from on top of a hole – ש ָ ּק ַלט ֵמ ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ּגו ָּּמא:
h3 ֶ ׁ One the practical ruling is that he is exempt (Rambam Sefer Zemanim,
h2 And the book rolled from his hand – וְ נִ ְת ַ ּג ְל ֵ ּגל ַה ֵּס ֶפר ִמּיָ דֹו: One who is standing in one domain and extends his hand into Hilkhot Shabbat 13:4).
himself during the day touched the oil – ׁ ֶש ֶמן ׁ ֶש ָ ּצף ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי יַ יִ ן he disqualified only the oil alone and not the wine, as he only
וְ נָ גַ ע ְטבוּל יֹום ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֶש ֶמן: The central problem with regard to oil atop touched the oil and the oil does not render the wine impure. And
wine is: Are these two liquids connected to the extent that Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Nuri says: They both are considered con-
they are considered one entity? Or, are they considered two nected to each other, and therefore they are both rendered im-
separate entities, one atop the other? In every case of contact
pure through the same contact. The consideration of whether the
with impurity there is room, in principle, to raise this question.
However, the halakha is that a liquid that becomes impure oil and the wine are considered connected is the determining
through any means immediately assumes first-degree ritual factor with regard to the laws of Shabbat as well.
impurity status and renders other liquids that come into con-
tact with it impure. As a result, one who immersed himself dur- ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ָא ִבין ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְיל ַעאי ָא ַמר Rabbi Avin said that Rabbi Elai said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said:
ing the day was mentioned because it is an exceptional case, One who was standing in the private domain or the public domain
as liquids that he touches do not generate further impurity. אֹוכ ִלים ו ַּמ ׁ ְש ִקין
ָ ָהיָ ה ָטעוּן:יֹוחנָן ָ ַר ִ ּבי
וְ נִ ְכנָ ס וְ יֹוצֵ א ָּכל ַהּיֹום ּכו ּּלֹו – ֵאינֹו laden with food and drinks on Shabbat, and his intention was to
carry them to another corner of the same domain, if once he be-
.ַחּיָ יב ַעד ׁ ֶשּיַ ֲעמֹוד
gan walking he changed his mind and exited that domain, and he
enters and exits from domain to domain, even if he does so all
day long,h he is exempt by Torah law for carrying out on Shabbat
6
. וְ הוּא ׁ ֶש ָע ַמד ָלפ ּו ׁש:ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י Abaye added and said: And that is specifically if he stopped to
ּתֹוךְ ַא ְר ָ ּבע ַא ּמֹות:ִמ ַּמאי – ִמדְּ ָא ַמר ָמר rest; then it is considered placement. However, if he stopped to
חוּץ. ְל ַכ ֵּתף – ַחּיָ יב,ָע ַמד ָלפו ּׁש ּ ָפטוּר adjust his burden, it is not considered placement. The Gemara
comments: From where did Abaye arrive at this conclusion?
, ָע ַמד ָלפו ּׁש – ַחּיָ יב,ְל ַא ְר ָ ּבע ַא ּמֹות
From that which the Master said with regard to the laws of car-
.ְל ַכ ֵּתף – ּ ָפטוּר rying in the public domain: Although, by Torah law, one who
transfers an object four cubits in the public domain is liable, if
while transferring the object he stopped to rest within four cu-
bits, he is exempt. By stopping to rest, he performed an act of
placement in the middle of the transfer. As a result, he did not
carry the object four complete cubits. However, if he stopped to
adjust the burden on his shoulders, he is liable,h as stopping in 7
halakha
Oil that was floating on top of wine – ש ֶמן ׁ ֶש ָ ּצף ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי יַ יִ ן:
h5 ֶ ׁ If domain to domain is only liable if he comes to a stop and, liable – ְל ַכ ֵּתף ַחּיָ יב,ֹוך ַא ְר ָ ּבע ַא ּמֹות ָע ַמד ָלפו ּׁש ּ ָפטוּר
ְ ת:ּ One who
one who immersed himself during the day touched oil float- thereby, performs an act of placing. Even when he stops, he is lifted an object in the public domain and carried it there, if
ing on top of wine, he did not, thereby, disqualify the wine, as only liable if he stopped to rest. But, if he stopped to adjust his he stopped to rest within four cubits of the place where he
per the opinion of the Rabbis (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot burden, he is exempt, as per the statement of Rabbi Yoĥanan lifted the object, he is exempt, since he did not carry the object
Tumat Okhlin 8:3). and the explanation of Abaye (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot four complete cubits. If he stopped to adjust his burden, he is
Shabbat 13:8). considered to still be walking. Therefore, if he subsequently
One who was laden with food and drinks and he enters
h6 continued to walk and came to a stop beyond four cubits
and exits all day long – אֹוכ ִלים ו ַּמ ׁ ְש ִקין וְ נִ ְכנָס וְ יֹוצֵ א
ָ ָהיָ ה ָטעוּן h7 If he stopped to rest within four cubits, he is exempt, if in order to rest, he is liable (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot
כל ַהּיֹום ּכו ּּלֹו:ָּ One who was carrying objects on his body from he stopped to adjust the burden on his shoulders, he is Shabbat 13:10).
ָמר ָא ַמר ָל ּה ְ ּב ַהאי,ּמֹור ֵאי נִינְ הו ָ ָא said: One who transfers objects from corner to cornerh in a pri-
8
vate domain, and, while carrying them, he changed his mind about halakha
.ישנָ אָ ׁ ו ַּמר ָא ַמר ָל ּה ְ ּב ַהאי ִל,ישנָ א ָ ׁ ִל
them and took them out to the public domain, he is exempt be- One who transfers objects from corner to corner – ַה ַּמ ֲע ִביר
h8
cause the lifting at the first moment was not for that purpose of ח ָפצִ ים ִמּזָ וִ ית ְלזָ וִ ית:ֲ One who was transferring an object within
his house and, while carrying it, reconsidered and carried
carrying out to another domain. Why, then, was it necessary to re-
it out to the public domain, is exempt. Since his original
peat the same halakha? The Gemara answers: They are different intention was not to lift the object in order to carry it out,
amora’imb who transmitted this matter. One Sage said it in this
4
and the public domain and whose legal status is that of a karmelit,
is liable, as he carried out from the private domain to the public
domain. And ben Azzai deems him exempt.
ְמ ַה ֵּל ְך:ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ֶ ּבן ַעּזַ אי – ָק ָס ַבר The Gemara clarifies the opinions. Granted, the opinion of ben
נְ ִהי נַ ִמי, ֶא ָּלא ַר ָ ּבנַ ן.עֹומד ָד ֵמי
ֵ ְּכ Azzai makes sense, as he holds that walking is considered like
,עֹומד דָּ ֵמיֵ דְּ ָק ָס ְב ִרי ְמ ַה ֵּל ְך ָלאו ְּכ standing. In other words, with each step, he is considered as if he
came to a complete stop. Therefore, as he walked through the colon-
יכא ַא ׁ ְש ַּכ ְח נָ א ְּכ ַה אי ַ ּג וְ ונָ א ָ ֵה
nade, which is neither a public domain nor a private domain, he
?דְּ ַחּיָ יב came to rest there. Consequently, he did not carry from a private
domain to a public domain; he carried into and out of a karmelit.
However, the Rabbis, although they hold that walking is not
considered like standing, their opinion is difficult. Where do we
background
find a comparable case where one is liable? There is no direct
Didn’t Rabbi Yoĥanan say it once – יֹוחנָן ֲח ָדא
ָ ָהא ֲא ַמ ָר ּה ַר ִ ּבי
transfer from domain to domain. The transfer is via a domain where
b3
ימנָ א
ְ ִז: This common expression: Didn’t he say it once, ques-
there is no Torah prohibition. Where do we find that the Torah tions why it was necessary for a Sage to repeat a statement.
deemed one who carried out in that manner liable? Obviously, a Sage can repeat the same idea several times.
However, that is only when this repetition is intentional.
That is not the case when the same idea appears in two
ָא ַמר ַרב ָס ְפ ָרא ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי ָא ַמרRav Safra said that Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: That different formulations. Then the impression is that the Sage
:יֹוחנָן
ָ ַר ִ ּביis not an exceptional case, was unaware of his other statement and repeated himself
unconsciously.
b4 They are different amora’im – מֹור ֵאי נִינְ ה ּו
ָ א:ָ This expression
usually, though not always, indicates that two Sages trans-
mitted one idea in two different forms. Usually, this appears
in response to the question: Didn’t he say it once?
b5 Plaza – פ ַל ְטיָ א:ְ ּ The pelatia is the city square through which
the public passes and in which it gathers. It is a prominent
example of a full-fledged public domain, in which all the
conditions of the public domain are met.
The sides of a public domain are narrow strips located adjacent to the
וְ ִכי,יה ַא ִ ּצדֵּ י ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים– ּ ָפטוּרּ ֵל houses where the multitudes do not congregate. There, is it not the case
ָה ָכא,ַמ ַּנח ֵל ּיה ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים – ַחּיָ יב that, even though if one were to place an object on the sides of the
.נַ ִמי ָלא ׁ ְשנָ א public domain, he is exempt and, nevertheless, when he places it in the
public domain he is liable? If so, here too, it is no different.
נִיחא ְל ַר ָ ּבנַ ן
ָ ָה:ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא Rav Pappa strongly objects to this explanation: Granted, according to
ְד ָא ְמ ִרי “צִ דֵּ י ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים ָלאו the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that the sides of the public domain
ֶא ָּלא ְל ַר ִ ּבי,ִּכ ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים דָּ ֵמי״ are a type of independent domain and not considered the public do-
main, that precedent is similar to our case. However, according to the
(בן יַ ֲעקֹב) דְּ ָא ַמר “צִ דֵּ י ְר ׁשוּת
ּ ֶ יעזֶ ר
ֶ ֱא ִל
opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who said that the sides of the
ָה ַר ִ ּבים ִּכ ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים דָּ ֵמי״ – ַמאי public domain are considered a full-fledged public domain, what is
?ימר ַ יכא ְל ֵמ ָּ ִא there to say?
:יה דְּ ַרב ִא ָיקא ּ יה ַרב ַא ָחא ְ ּב ֵר ּ ָא ַמר ֵל Rav Aĥa, son of Rav Ika, said to him: Say that you heard that Rabbi
(בן
ּ ֶ יעזֶ ר ֶ ֵאימֹור דִּ ׁ ְש ַמ ַע ְּת ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל Eliezer ben Ya’akov said that the sides of the public domain are con-
יַ ֲעקֹב) דַּ ֲא ַמר “צִ דֵּ י ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים sidered a public domain in a place where there are no stakes [ĥipufei]b 1
separating the houses and the courtyards from the actual public domain
יכא ָּ יכא דְּ ֵל ָ ִּכ ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים דָּ ֵמי״ – ֵה
to prevent the public from damaging the walls of the houses. However,
יכא ִח ּיפו ֵּפי ָּ יכא דְּ ִא ָ ֲא ָבל ֵה,ִח ּיפו ֵּפי in a place where there are stakes, did you hear him say that the legal
.יה? ִה ְל ָּכךְ ְל ָהא דָּ ְמיָ א ּ ִמי ׁ ְש ַמ ַע ְּת ֵל status of the sides is that of the public domain itself? Therefore, it is
similar to that case of the colonnade, and consequently it serves as a
precedent for liability when carrying through an exempt domain.
26 Perek I . 6a . ו ףד. קרפ ׳א
notes
.זֹורק
ֵ ּמֹודה ֶ ּבן ַעּזַ אי ְ ּב
ֶ ו:יֹוחנָן ָ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Ben Azzai disagreed with regard to carrying
out the object while walking through the colonnade. In his opin- Four domains for Shabbat – א ְר ָ ּבע ְר ׁשוּּיֹות ַל ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת:
ַ In fact,
ַה ּמֹוצִ יא ֵמ ֲחנוּת ַל ּ ְפ ַל ְטיָא:ַּתנְיָא נַ ִמי ָה ִכי
n2
there are only three domains: The public domain and the
ֶא ָחד ַה ּמֹוצִ יא וְ ֶא ָחד,ֶד ֶרךְ ְס ָטיו – ַחּיָ יב ion one who carries it out is exempt. Yet, he agrees with the Rab- private domain, which are Torah domains, and the karmelit,
bis that in a case where one throws an object from the private which is a rabbinic domain. Anything that does not enter
.ֹושיטִ ׁ ּזֹורק וְ ֶא ָחד ַה ּמֵ ַה ַּמ ְכנִיס וְ ֶא ָחד ַה
domain to the public domain through a colonnade he is liable, as into the parameters of these domains is by definition an
– ַה ּמֹוצִ יא וְ ַה ַּמ ְכנִיס:אֹומר ֵ ֶ ּבן ַעּזַ אי it is tantamount to carrying out directly from domain to domain. exempt domain. In any case, the emphasis is on domains for
.ּזֹורק – ַחּיָ יב
ֵ ֹושיט וְ ַה ִ ׁ ַה ּמ,ּ ָפטוּר That opinion was also taught in a baraita: One who carries out Shabbat. These parameters are only relevant in defining do-
an object on Shabbat from a store to a plaza via a colonnadeh is 1 mains in terms of the halakhot of Shabbat. These definitions
are irrelevant as far as other areas of halakha are concerned,
liable. The halakha is identical with regard to all means of transfer-
e.g., halakhot of acquisitions.
ring an object from domain to domain via a colonnade. The same
is true for one who carries out, and one who carries in, and one n3 Ditch which is ten handbreadths deep and four hand-
who throws, and one who extends his hand from domain to breadths wide – ח ִריץ ׁ ֶשהוּא ָעמֹוק ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה וְ ָר ָחב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה:ָ
domain. Ben Azzai says: One who walks and carries out and one
who walks and carries in are exempt, as he is considered to have
come to rest in the colonnade. On the other hand, one who ex-
tends his hand with the object and one who throws the object,
whose actions are uninterrupted, are liable.
ְר ׁשוּת: ַא ְר ָ ּבע ְר ׁשוּּיֹות ַל ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת, ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַןIn order to explain the essence of the laws of domains on Shabbat,
ו ְּמקֹום, וְ ַכ ְר ְמ ִלית, ו ְּר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים,ּיָחיד ִ ַהthe Gemara cites what the Sages taught in the Tosefta, that there Ditch that is a private domain
. ּ ְפטוּרare four domains for the halakhot of Shabbat: The private
nh 2 2
domain, and the public domain, and two additional domains: language
The karmelit, which is like neither the public domain nor the l1 Main street [seratia] – ס ַר ְטיָ א:ְ The origin of the word is
private domain, and an exempt domain, which does not fall into in the Latin strata, meaning street or thoroughfare for the
the category of domains. multitudes.
וְ ֵאיזֹו ִהיא ְר ׁשוּת ַהּיָ ִחיד – ָח ִריץ ׁ ֶשהוּא The Gemara elaborates: And what is the private domain?h A 3
וְ ֵכן ָ ּג ֵדר,ָעמֹוק ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה וְ ָר ָחב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ditch which is ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths
בֹוה ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה וְ ָר ָחב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה – זֹו ַּ ׁ ֶשהוּא ָ ּג wide,N as well as a fence which is ten handbreadths high and four
3
ו ְּמבֹואֹות ַה ְּמפו ָּּל ׁ ִשין,דֹולה ָ ו ְּפ ַל ְטיָ א ְ ּג large plaza as well as alleyways [mevo’ot],b which are open on 2
ֵאין.זֹו ִהיא ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים ְ ּגמ ּו ָרה both ends to the public domain, connecting between main streets; Ruins of a main street in Pompeii, from the time of the Mishna
that is a full-fledged public domain. With regard to those do-
יאין ְר ׁשוּת ַהּיָ ִחיד זֹו ִל ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּביםִ ִמֹוצ
mains: One may not carry out from the private domain of this background
נִיסין ֵמ ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים זֹו ִ וְ ֵאין ַמ ְכ,זֹו kind to the public domain of this kind, and one may not carry Alleyways [mevo’ot] – מבֹואֹות:ְ
,ִל ְר ׁשוּת ַהּיָ ִחיד זֹו; וְ ִאם הֹוצִ יא וְ ִה ְכנִיס
b2
.נִס ָקל
ְ ְ ו,ָּכ ֵרת offering. If he did so intentionally, and there were no witnesses
to his act, and he was not forewarned, he is liable to receive the
punishment of excision [karet]. If he was forewarned and there
were witnesses to his transgression, he is punished with the court-
imposed capital punishment and stoned.
halakha
One who carries out from a store to a plaza via a colon-
h1 And what is the public domain – וְ ֵאיזֹו ִהיא ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים: The
h4
nade – ה ּמֹוצִ יא ֵמ ֲחנוּת ַל ּ ְפ ַל ְטיָ א דֶּ ֶר ְך ְס ָטיו:ַ One who carries out criteria of a public domain are: (1) Streets, marketplaces, and
from a private domain to a public domain through an exempt other places frequented by the multitudes; (2) at least sixteen
domain, if he did not come to a stop in the exempt domain, cubits wide; (3) not roofed; and (4) without a wall. If there is
Open and closed alleyways
is liable as if he transferred it directly, in accordance with the a wall, it is a public domain only if the streets run from gate
opinion of the Rabbis (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat to gate and the gates are not locked at night (Rema). Tosafot
14:15; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 346:1). and others say that there must be at least 600,000 people that
pass through it each day to be considered a public domain.
Four domains for Shabbat – א ְר ָ ּבע ְר ׁשוּּיֹות ַל ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת:ַ There are four
The custom is to be lenient in accordance with that opinion
h2
And the karmelit – וְ ַה ַּכ ְר ְמ ִלית: A karmelit is a place not enter into the general category of karmelit,h which is neither like
וְ ַה ַּכ ְר ְמ ִלית – ֵאינָ ּה ל ֹא ִּכ ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים
h6
7
ש ֵּתי ְר ׁשוּּיֹות:
ְ ׁ Not every threshold is built in a manner that
would enable it to be ascribed to two domains. Only cer- ,נֹותן לֹו ֵ ְנֹוטל ֵמ ָענִי ו ֵ ,נֹותן לֹו ֵ ְַה ַ ּביִ ת ו domain is: A person standing on the threshold may take an object
tain cases fit this definition, as will be clarified later in ֵ ְו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא יִ ּטֹול ִמ ַ ּב ַעל ַה ַ ּביִ ת ו
נֹותן from the homeowner standing in the private domain and may give
the discourse. an object to him. Similarly, while standing there, he may take an
נָטלַ וְ ִאם,נֹותן ְל ַ ּב ַעל ַה ַ ּביִ ת
ֵ ְ ֵמ ָענִי ו,ֶל ָענִי
object from a poor person standing in the public domain and may
.וְ נָ ַתן – ׁ ְש ָל ׁ ְֹש ָּתן ּ ְפטו ִּרים give an object to him because there is no element of prohibition or
liability in carrying and carrying out in an exempt domain on Shab-
bat. There is no prohibition as long as he does not take the object
from the homeowner in the private domain and give it to a poor
person in the public domain, or from a poor person and give to
the homeowner, as by doing so he facilitated transfer from domain
to domain. And, however, if he took an object from one and gave
it to the other, certainly no labor prohibited by Torah law was per-
formed, and all three of them are exempt.
עֹוטי
ֵ ְל ַמ. זֹו ִהיא ְר ׁשוּת ַהּיָ ִחיד:ָא ַמר ָמר It was taught in the Tosefta with regard to the definition of a private
;עֹוטי ָהא ְד ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ֵ ַמאי? – ְל ַמ domain that the Master said, with added emphasis: This is the
: יָ ֵתר ַעל ֵּכן ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה,דְּ ַתנְ יָ א private domain. The Gemara asks: What was this emphasis added
to exclude? The Gemara answers: To exclude this halakha of Rab-
ִמי ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש לֹו ׁ ְשנֵי ָ ּב ִּתים ִ ּב ׁ ְשנֵי צִ דֵּ י ְר ׁשוּת
bi Yehuda, as it was taught in a baraita: Furthermore, Rabbi Ye-
עֹושהׂ ֶ ,ָה ַר ִ ּבים huda said: One who has two houses opposite each other on two
sides of the public domain,h if he chooses, he may create a private
9
public domain. This creates a symbolic wall which, in the halakhot Post – ל ִחי:ֶ
נֹותן
ֵ ְנֹושא ו ׂ ֵ ְ ו,קֹורה ִמ ָּכאן ָ ְִמ ָּכאן ו
b1
ֵאין ְמ ָע ְר ִבין ְר ׁשוּת: ָא ְמר ּו לֹו.ָ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע of alleyways, has the legal status of a wall. And, he may place an
additional post from here, on the other side, and that has the
. ְָה ַר ִ ּבים ְ ּב ָכך
same legal status as if he closed the public domain on all of its sides.
Or, he can implement a different solution appropriate for alley-
ways by placing a beamn extending from here, from one end of
1
one house, to the end of the house opposite it. This creates a
symbolic partition across the width of the street. And, he may
place a beam extending from here, from the other side of the
house. According to Rabbi Yehuda, in that way, one is permitted
to carry objects and place them in the area between the sym-
bolic partitions, as he would in a private domain. The Rabbis said
to him: One may not place an eiruv in the public domain in that
way. One who seeks to transform a public domain into a private Alleyway and post
domain must erect actual partitions. b2 Since he taught – אּיְ ֵידי דִּ ְתנָא:ַ This expression is used to explain
unnecessary phrases or words in the mishna. In the interest
“גמ ּו ָרה״? ַמה ּו ּ ְ יה ּ וְ ַא ַּמאי ָקר ּו ֵל The Gemara questions the language of the Tosefta: This is a full- of uniformity, the tanna often employs the same expression
יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי
ּ ִּכי ּ ְפ ִליגִ י ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ֲע ֵל:ימא ָ דְּ ֵת fledged private domain. And why did they call it full-fledged? several times, even if it was not necessary each time.
יְ הו ָּדה דְּ ָלא ָהוֵ י ְר ׁשוּת ַהּיָ ִחיד – ָהנֵי The Gemara answers: Lest you say: When do the Rabbis dis-
agree with Rabbi Yehuda and say that it is not the private do- notes
,יהּ ֲא ָבל ִלזְ רֹוק מֹוד ּו ֵל,ִמ ֵּילי ְל ַט ְל ֵטל main? This applies only with regard to the prohibition to carry Post…Beam – י…קֹורהָ ל ִח:ֶ The post and the beam are relevant
.ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ָמע ָלן
n1
there on Shabbat. By means of these partitions, it was not ren- to the laws of eiruv. Usually one places a post or a beam to
dered a full-fledged private domain to the point that one is permit- create a symbolic partition in a place that is a private domain
ted to carry there. However, conceivably, with regard to the pro- by Torah law but requires an additional partition by rabbinic
law. The Sages disputed the effectiveness of the post and the
hibition of throwing from the public domain to this place, the beam in transforming a public domain into a private domain.
Rabbis agree with Rabbi Yehuda that the area between the parti- According to some Sages, the post and the beam are par-
tions would be considered a private domain by Torah law and it titions with absolute legal validity and are tantamount to a
would be prohibited. Therefore, the tanna taught us that accord- full-fledged partition. According to others, although they are
ing to the Rabbis it is not a private domain at all. effective in certain cases, their status is not equal to that of
full-fledged partitions.
, “זֹו ִהיא ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים״:ָא ַמר ָמר It was also taught in the Tosefta with regard to the definition of a n2 Rabbi Yehuda says – אֹומר ֵ ר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה:ַ The fact that the two
עֹוטי ִא ָיד ְך דְּ ַר ִ ּבי
ֵ עֹוטי ַמאי? ְל ַמ ֵ ְל ַמ public domain that the Master said, with added emphasis: This statements of Rabbi Yehuda apparently contradict each other
ִאם:אֹומר ֵ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה,יְ הו ָּדה; דִּ ְתנַן is the public domain. The Gemara asks: What was this emphasis was already discussed in tractate Eiruvin. Although he permits
added to exclude? The Gemara answers: Here, the Tosefta came placing an eiruv on the street of the public domain, he does not
– ָהיְ ָתה דֶּ ֶרךְ ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים ַמ ְפ ַס ְק ָּתן permit doing so with the posts around the well. The Gemara
to exclude another halakha of Rabbi Yehuda. As we learned in
;אֹומ ִרים ְ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים,יְ ַס ְּל ֶק ָּנה ִלצְ ָד ִדין a mishna: The Sages permitted those ascending to Jerusalem on there explains that there is a dispute with regard to which
is preferable in creating a private domain: Two full-fledged
. ְֵאינֹו צָ ִריך the Festival pilgrimage to place posts serving as symbolic bound- partitions, e.g., houses on the two sides of the street, which is
aries around the wells, in order to render the wells and their sur- the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, or four symbolic boundaries, like
roundings a private domain. That way, the pilgrims could draw the posts of the well.
water from the wells even on Shabbat, as they became private If the path of the public domain obstructs them – ִאם ָהיְ ָתה
domains. Rabbi Yehuda says:n If the path of the public domain
n3
דֶּ ֶרךְ ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים ַמ ְפ ַס ְק ָּתן: In certain cases, when there are public
2
passes through the area of the wells and the posts and obstructs wells that provide water for people on a Festival pilgrimage,
them,nh he must divert it to the sides, so that the passersby will
3 1
“גמ ּו ָרה״? ַאּיְ ֵידיּ ְ יהּ וְ ַא ַּמאי ָקר ּו ֵלThe Gemara asks: And why do they call it full-fledged? The
ָ ׁ דִּ ְתנָא ֵרGemara answers: This emphasis was unnecessary. But, since he
ְּתנָא נַ ִמי ֵס ָיפא,ישא “ ְ ּגמו ָּרה״
ּ ְ taught the first clause of the Tosefta employing the term full-
b
.“גמו ָּרה״
2
halakha
If the path of the public domain obstructs them – ִאם ָהיְ ָתהthoroughfare passes through, the wells do not lose their status
h1
דֶּ ֶר ְך ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים ַמ ְפ ַס ְק ָּתן: Festival pilgrims were permitted to as private domains, as per the opinion of the Rabbis (Rambam
use wells on Shabbat by virtue of their posts. Even if a public Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 17:33).
background .ָּכאן – ַ ּבּזְ ַמן ַהּזֶ ה and it was an area frequented by the multitudes. And here, where the desert
b3 Hidden scroll – מגִ ַּלת ְס ָת ִרים:ְ For many genera- was not enumerated among the public domains, refers to this time, when
tions, it was prohibited to write the contents of multitudes do not congregate there.
the Oral Torah. Due to the exigencies of the time,
it was decided to redact the Mishna and write it
“א ם הֹוצִ יא וְ ִה ְכנִ יס ִ :ָא ַמ ר ָמ ר It was also taught in the Tosefta that the Master said: If he carried out an
down. Nevertheless, even when it was prohib-
ְ ּב ֵמזִ יד ָענ ּו ׁש,ְ ּב ׁשֹוגֵ ג ַחּיָ יב ַח ָּטאת object on Shabbat from the private domain to the public domain or vice versa,
ited, Sages would summarize important matters
in brief notes to help them remember. These , ְ ּב ׁשֹוגֵ ג ַחּיָ יב ַח ָּטאת.ָּכ ֵרת וְ נִ ְס ָקל״ if he carried in, if he did so unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.
scrolls were not published and were, therefore, If he did so intentionally and there were no witnesses to his act and he was
נִס ָקל״ְ ְ“ב ֵמזִ יד ָענו ּׁש ָּכ ֵרת ו
ּ ְ !יטא ָ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש
referred to as hidden scrolls. According to the not forewarned, he is punishable from the hand of Heaven with the
ge’onim, these scrolls were known as hidden .יהּ יכא ֵל ָ ִאצְ ְט ִר punishment of karet. If he was forewarned and there were witnesses to his
because they were anthologies of halakhot that transgression, he is punished by the court and stoned. The Gemara asks:
were not universally known, even though they Unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering; it is obvious that one who
were not concealed intentionally.
violates the serious transgression of desecrating the Shabbat unwittingly is
liable to bring a sin-offering. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the
tanna to teach that if he did so intentionally he is punishable with karet and
stoned. Since he needed to cite those cases because they involve a novel
element, he also cited the case where he performed the transgression
unwittingly, in order to complete the picture.
יטא! ָהא ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ָמע ָ ָהא נַ ִמי ּ ְפ ׁ ִש The Gemara asks: That is also obvious, as the Torah states explicitly that one
אתי ְמגִ ַּלת ִ ָ ָמצ: דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב. ִּכ ְד ַרב,ָלן who desecrates Shabbat intentionally without witnesses and forewarning is
ִא ִיסי,ְס ָת ִרים ֵ ּבי ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא; וְ ָכתוּב ָ ּב ּה punishable by karet, and that when there are witnesses and forewarning he is
executed by stoning. The Gemara answers: This came to teach us in accor-
ֲאבֹות ְמ ָלאכֹות:אֹומר ֵ ֶ ּבן יְ הו ָּדה
dance with the statement of Rav, as Rav said: I found a hidden scrollb in 3
וְ ֵאינֹו ַחּיָ יב,ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים ָח ֵסר ַא ַחת the house of Rabbi Ĥiyya in which matters of Oral Torah were briefly sum-
.ֶא ָּלא ַא ַחת marized, and in it was written: Isi ben Yehuda says: The primary categories
of prohibited labor on Shabbat are forty-less-one, and he is liable only for
one. This expression is unclear, and it would seem that it means that one who
performs all of the prohibited labors is only liable to bring one sin-offering.
ִא ינִ י?! וְ ָה ְתנַ ן? ֲאבֹות ְמ ָלאכֹות The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t we learn in the mishna: The primary
: וְ ָהוֵ ינַ ן ָ ּב ּה.ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים ָח ֵסר ַא ַחת categories of prohibited labor are forty-less-one? The mishna proceeded
ׁ ֶש ִאם:יֹוחנָןָ ִמנְיָנָא ָל ָמה ִלי? וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי to enumerate those labors. And we discussed it: Why do I need this tally of
forty-less-one? It would have been sufficient for the mishna to merely list the
ֲע ָ ׂש ָאן ּכו ָּּלן ְ ּב ֶה ְע ֵלם ַא ַחת – ַחּיָ יב ַעל
prohibited labors. And Rabbi Yoĥanan said: The number is also significant,
!ָּכל ַא ַחת וְ ַא ַחת in order to teach us that if he performed all of the prohibited labors within
one lapse of awareness, during which he remained unaware of the prohibi-
tion involved, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for each and every one of
the prohibited labors separately. Consequently, the statement of Isi ben Ye-
huda cannot be understood as suggested above.
. ֵאינֹו ַחּיָ יב ַעל ַא ַחת ֵמ ֶהן:ימא ָ ֶא ָּלא ֵאRather, say as follows: There are forty prohibited labors less one, and he is
ָהא ֵמ ָהנָ ךְ דְּ ָלא: וְ ָהא ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ָמע ָלןnot liable for one of them. Among those labors, there is one unspecified
. ְמ ַס ּ ְפ ָקןexception for which one is not liable to be executed by stoning and merely
violates a negative prohibition. That which the Tosefta mentioned with regard
to one carrying out on Shabbat being liable for karet and stoning, teaches us:
This labor of carrying out from domain to domain, is among those prohib-
ited labors with regard to which there is no uncertainty and it is clear that
one is liable for karet and stoning for its violation.
notes
n4 In the desert – ב ִּמ ְד ָ ּבר:
ּ ַ Rabbi Avraham, son of the Rambam, status was that of a karmelit. On the other hand, when the discussing the legal status of the desert when Israel lived there?
explains that, according to the Rambam, the answer of the desert is desolate, and only caravans pass through it, it assumes The commentaries explain that if a situation would arise where
Gemara is to be understood in this manner: When Israel lived the legal status of other public thoroughfares (Kesef Mishne). a significant number of people were in the desert, its legal
in the desert, it was like a field for them, and therefore its legal In general, there is room to ask what purpose is served by status would revert to the way it was then (Mitzpe Eitan).
לטו ְּמ ָאה:ְ Halakhically, with regard to uncertain impurity, there is a distinc-
ֵאינָ ן ל ֹא ִּכ ְר ׁשוּת ַהּיָ ִחיד enter into the general category of karmelit, which is neither like tion between the private domain and the public domain. When there is
the public domain nor like the private domain. The Gemara uncertainty whether or not something in the public domain became ritually
,וְ ל ֹא ִּכ ְר ׁש ּו ת ָה ַר ִ ּבים
asks: And is a valley neither like the private domain nor like impure, it is deemed ritually pure. On the other hand, in the private domain,
“ו ִּב ְק ָעה ֵאינֹו ל ֹא ִּכ ְר ׁשוּת the public domain? Didn’t we learn in a mishna in tractate it is deemed ritually impure. There is no logical explanation for this halakha,
ַה ּיָ ִח יד וְ ל ֹא ִּכ ְר ׁש ּו ת Teharot: The valley, in the days of summer, which is a time when and its source is a Torah decree derived from the halakhot of sota.
, ַה ִ ּב ְק ָעה:ָה ַר ִ ּבים ? וְ ָהא ְּתנַן the multitudes frequent it, nevertheless, it is considered the
ִ ּבימֹות ַה ַח ָּמה – ְר ׁשוּת private domain with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, as ac- halakha
ּו ְר ׁש ּות,ַה ּיָ ִח יד ְל ׁ ַש ָ ּב ת cording to the parameters of domains of Shabbat it remains in And a valley…with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity – …ו ִּב ְק ָעה
h3
the realm of a private domain. And, still, it is considered like the לטו ְּמ ָאה:ְ Whether or not it is surrounded by a fence, during the rainy season
ִ ּבימֹות.ָה ַר ִ ּבים ְלטו ְּמ ָאה that begins with the period of the second rainfall, a valley has the legal sta-
public domain with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity,nh 5 3
ַה ְ ּג ׁ ָש ִמים – ְר ׁשוּת ַהּיָ ִחיד where there is a distinction between a place frequented by the tus of a private domain as far as the halakhot of ritual impurity are concerned.
In the summer, when no grain grows there, if it is not surrounded by a fence,
! )ְ(ל ָכאן ו ְּל ָכאן multitudes and a place that the multitudes do not frequent. its legal status is that of a public domain with regard to the halakhot of ritual
While in the rainy season, the winter, when multitudes do not impurity. If it is surrounded by a fence, it is considered a private domain
frequent the fields, the valley is considered like the private do- even in the summer (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTuma 20:6).
main for this, Shabbat, and for that, ritual purity. A valley is a
private domain and not a karmelit.
Perek I
Daf 7 Amud a
halakha
,יצֹות ּ ְּכגֹון דְּ ִאית ָל ּה ְמ ִח The valley discussed in the mishna in Teharot is unusual, as it
Case where it has partitions – כגֹון דְּ ִאית ָל ּה ְמ ִחיצּ ֹות:ְּ A valley that is sur-
וְ ִכי ָהא ְד ָא ַמר עו ָּּלא ָא ַמר refers to a case where it has partitionsh that are ten hand-
1
h1
Enclosure greater than two se’a that was not surrounded for residence –
h2
.ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ְּמחו ֶּּס ֶרת דִּ יו ִּרין a partition to protect his belongings, and even if it is as large as אתיִ ם ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא הו ַ ּּקף ְל ִד ָירה
ַ יֹותר ִמ ֵ ּבית ָס
ֵ ק ְר ּ ֵפף:ַ A courtyard larger than two se’a
a field that produces a crop of one kor, thirty times the size of a which is not surrounded for residence, i.e., no one lives there, a house does
se’a, and even two kor, it is still considered a private domain. And, not open into it, and it is not adjacent to a house, even though it is consid-
ered a full-fledged private domain by Torah law, the Sages only permitted
consequently, one who throws an object into it from the public
carrying there within four cubits, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi
domain on Shabbat is liable. What is the reason for this? It is a Yoĥanan (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 16:1; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ
partition that surrounds the enclosure and its legal status is like Ĥayyim 346:3 and 358:1).
that of a partition in every sense, except that it is lacking resi-
dents. Even though the Rabbis were stringent with regard to this notes
enclosure because of the lack of residents and prohibited carry- Enclosure greater than two se’a – אתיִ ם
n1 ַ יֹותר ִמ ֵ ּבית ָס
ֵ ק ְר ּ ֵפף:ַ The Sages esti-
ing in it as if it were a karmelit, that does not negate its primary mated that a field of two se’a is the size of the courtyard of the Tabernacle.
legal status; by Torah law it is a full-fledged private domain. The Apparently, that is the source for the determination that a courtyard larger
than two se’a is no longer considered a courtyard. Rather, it is accorded the
same is true with regard to the aforementioned valley. The valley legal status of a field and the Sages were stringent and applied the halakhot
is a large area surrounded by partitions erected for the purpose of karmelit to it.
of protection and thereby assumes private domain status.
Granted, Rav Ashi did not say in accordance with the opinion of Ulla –
n2
ב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ל ֹא ָא ַמר ִּכ ְדעו ָּּלא:ּ ִ According to Rashi, apparently, the passage:
ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ל ֹא ָא ַמר The Gemara asks: Granted, in explanation of the mishna, Rav
Granted, Rav Ashi did not say in accordance with the opinion of Ulla, is to be
ֶא ָּל א ע ּו ָּל א,ִּכ ְד ע ּו ָּל א Ashi did not say in accordance with the opinion of Ulla,n as he
2
understood as if it said: Granted, Rav Ashi did not say in accordance with the
ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא ל ֹא ָא ַמ ר provided a reason for it. However, what is the reason that Ulla opinion of Ulla, based on the opinion of Ulla himself, i.e., Rav Ashi relied on
did not say in accordance with his own halakha that he cited Ulla’s other statement with regard to the matter of an enclosure in arriving
ִאי:יה? ָא ַמר ָל ְך ּ ִּכ ׁ ְש ַמ ֲע ֵת in the name of Rabbi Yoĥanan? The Gemara answers: Ulla could at his understanding of this statement of Ulla.
יצֹות ִ ּב ְק ָעה
ּ דְּ ִאית ָל ּה ְמ ִח have said to you: If the mishna is referring to a case where it has
ָק ֵרי ָל ּה?! ַק ְר ּ ֵפף ִהיא! וְ ַרב background
partitions, would it call that place a valley? It is an enclosure.
Field that produces two se’a – אתיִ ם
ַ בית ָס:ּ ֵ A field of two se’a is an area in
. ְר ׁשוּת ַהּיָ ִחיד ָק ָתנֵי:ַא ׁ ִשי The implication of the word valley is that there are no partitions b1
which two se’a of wheat are generally grown. Translating a se’a into modern
at all. And Rav Ashi defends his opinion by saying: The language measurements is subject to debate. It is approximately 8–14 ℓ. However, the
taught in the mishna is: The private domain and not a karmelit. Sages determined that the area of two se’a is the equivalent of the area of the
Therefore, his explanation more closely approximates the Tabernacle courtyard, which was 5,000 square cubits. In modern measures,
language of the mishna. it is 1,250–1,800 sq m.
It is a small thorny bush whose height is 25–70 cm considered a karmelit. However, according to the one who said that a
and is commonly found in fields and riverbeds. The ,יה
ּ יש ֵּתְ ׁ נִיחא ַּת ׁ ְש ִמ
ָ ִאיצְ ַט ָ ּבא הוּא דְּ ָלא
bench is a karmelit, one could say that that is so specifically with regard
leaves of the plant are usually clover-shaped, and – יש ֵּת ּיה ְ ׁ נִיחא ַּת ׁ ְש ִמ
ָ ְֲּא ָבל ֵ ּבין ָה ַע ּמו ִּדים ד
to a bench because its use is inconvenient. However, the space be-
its side branches are thorny and tend to branch out. , ֲא ָבל ֵ ּבין ָה ַע ּמו ִּדין:ישנָ א ַא ֲח ִרינָ א ְ ׁ ִל.ָלא tween the pillars, whose use is convenient, would not be considered
יה ַר ִ ּבים – ִּכ ְר ׁשוּת ּ לֵ י סִ רְ דָ ְּד ימנִיןְ ִדְּ ז a karmelit. Another version of that statement: However, between the
.ָה ַר ִ ּבים דָּ ְמיָ א pillars where, at times, the multitudes stride there is considered like
the public domain.
: ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ׁ ֵש ָילא ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ אWith regard to the question to what degree does the use of the multi-
וְ זָ ַרק וְ ָטח, ְל ֵבינָ ּה זְ קו ָּפה ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּביםtudes determine whether a specific place is considered a public domain,
ָ ְ ּב ָפthe Gemara cites the halakha
. ַעל ַ ּג ָ ּב ּה ּ ָפטוּר,נֶיה – ַחּיָ יב that Rabba bar Sheila said that Rav Ĥisda
said: If an upright brickn was placed in the public domain and one
4
threw an object from a distance of four cubits and he stuck the object
Young thorn bush to its side, he is liable for throwing in the public domain. But if the
b3 Shrubs – היגֵ י:ִ The common shrub in the Papiliona- object landed atop the brick, he is not liable. Because the multitudes
ceae family, Alhagi maurorum Medik is a thorny bush do not step on the brick, it is not a full-fledged public domain.
with smooth non-serrated leaves. It usually grows
to a height of approximately 30 cm and can grow
וְ הוּא:ַא ַ ּביֵ י וְ ָר ָבא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי ַּת ְרוַ יְ יה ּו It was Abaye and Rava, who both said: And that is specifically when
to a height of 1 m. It is commonly found in fields
. דְּ ָלא דָּ ְר ִסי ָל ּה ַר ִ ּבים,בֹוה ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ַּ ׁ ֶש ָ ּג that brick is at least three handbreadths high, as then the multitudes
and salt marshes.
יהיִ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ָלא ְ ּג ִב,ֲא ָבל ִהיזְ ֵמי וְ ִהיגֵ י do not step on it, and, therefore, even though the brick is standing in
the public domain, it is considered an independent domain. However,
ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִהיזְ ֵמי: וְ ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַרב ָא ַמר.ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה
thornsb and shrubs,b even though they are not three handbreadths
2 3
: וְ ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ָא ַמר.צֹואה ל ֹא ָ ֲא ָבל,וְ ִהיגֵ י high, are not considered part of the public domain. Since people do not
.צֹואהָ ֲא ִפילּ ּו walk on thorns, those areas cannot be considered part of the public
domain. And Ĥiyya bar Rav said: Even the place where there are
thorns and shrubs in the public domain, if they were low, the place is
considered part of the public domain. However, a place in the public
domain where there are fecesh is not considered part of the public
5
domain, as people do not walk there. And Rav Ashi said: Even a place
Shrubs
in the public domain where there are feces is considered part of the
public domain, since ultimately people who are rushing to work do not
take care to avoid it and will step on it.
halakha
A bench that is before the pillars – איצְ ַט ָ ּבא ׁ ֶש ִּל ְפנֵי ָה ַע ּמו ִּדים:ִ When
h3 (Rambam and Tosafot). The Rosh and the Rashba disagree (Magen
a fixed bench in a public domain is situated before the pillars, if it is Avraham; Shulĥan Arukh HaRav; Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot
wider than four handbreadths and between three and ten hand- Shabbat 4:4; see Mishna Berura on Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim
breadths high, its legal status is that of a karmelit, as Rabbi Zeira also 345:14).
agreed with that opinion (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat
Thorns and shrubs…feces – י…צֹואה ָ ֵהיזְ ֵמי וְ ִהיג:ִ Anything that is
14:4,6; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 345:14).
h5
ַמ ׁ ְש ִלימֹו ַל ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה – ַעל ַ ּגגּ ֹו מו ָּּתר ְל ַט ְל ֵטל Didn’t Rav Giddel say that Rav Ĥiyya bar Yosef said that Rav said: Keen scholar [shinnana] – ש ָּיננָ א:
l1 ִ ׁ According to many
A house that does not have walls inside it that are ten handbreadths commentaries, Rashi among them, shinnana means
ְ ּבתֹוכֹו ֵאין ְמ ַּט ְל ְט ִלין ּבֹו ֶא ָּלא ַא ְר ַ ּבע,ְ ּבכוּלּ ֹו sharp and it is an honorific that Shmuel conferred upon
high, and with its roofing it reaches a height of ten handbreadths
!ַא ּמֹות above the ground; on its roof, one may carry on all of it, as its roof his most prominent student. However, the ge’onim ex-
plain, based on old Aramaic vernacular, that shinnana
is a private domain in every sense, and inside it, one may only
means the one with the large teeth, and that was Rav
carry four cubits, as inside, the height is insufficient to render it a Yehuda’s nickname.
private domain, and it retains karmelit status? Apparently, even an
area less than ten handbreadths high has the legal status of a karmelit.
notes
תֹופ ֶסת ַעד ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה״ – דְּ ַעד ֶ ְֶא ָּלא ַמאי “ו Rather, what is the meaning of Rav Sheshet’s formulation: And One who stuck a stick in the private domain and
n5
extends up to ten? Apparently, up to ten handbreadths is that threw an object and it landed atop it – נָעץ ָקנֶ ה ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת ַ
ְל ַמ ְע ָלה,ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ה ּוא דְּ ָהוְ יָ א ַּכ ְר ְמ ִלית
which is within the parameters of a karmelit, and above ten hand- ּיָחיד וְ זָ ַרק וְ נָ ח ַעל ַ ּג ָ ּביו
ִ ה:ַ This is difficult. Why would it be
וְ ִכי.ֵמ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ְט ָפ ִחים – ָלא ָהוֵ י ַּכ ְר ְמ ִלית considered as if an act of placing was performed when
breadths is not a karmelit. And as Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda:
, ׁ ִש ָּיננָ א:יה ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ְל ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ּ ָהא ְד ֲא ַמר ֵל it did not come to rest on a surface of four by four
Keen scholar [shinnana],l do not be involved with questions in
1
Perek I
Daf 7 Amud b
halakha
– ֶא ָּלא דְּ ֵאין ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ֵמ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה Rather, suggest that Shmuel meant that there is no public domain
A house that does not have inside it walls that are
ּזֹורק ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות ֵ ַה:נִיתין ִהיא! דִּ ְתנַ ן ִ ַמ ְת above ten handbreadths. It is a mishna, and why would he repeat h1
public domain. The Gemara elaborates: Some leniencies of the handbreadths high, etc. – ביִ ת ׁ ֶש ֵאין ְ ּבתֹוכֹו ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה וכו׳:ּ ַ
וְ ִאי ָלא – ְמקֹום ּ ְפטוּר,דְּ ָהוְ יָ א ַּכ ְר ְמ ִלית private domain: That if there is an area of four handbreadths, In this image, the halakha of Abaye in a case where
דְּ ַעד: ִמ ּקו ֵּּלי ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים.ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא הוּא then it is a karmelit, and if there is not an area of four handbreadths, one dug out an area of four handbreadths inside is
illustrated.
ְל ַמ ְע ָלה,ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ְט ָפ ִחים הוּא דְּ ָהוְ יָא ַּכ ְר ְמ ִלית it is merely an exempt domain. Some leniencies of the public
.ֵמ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ְט ָפ ִחים – ָלא ָהוְ יָ א ַּכ ְר ְמ ִלית domain: That until a height of ten handbreadths, it is a karmelit,
above ten handbreadths is not a karmelit.
partitions, based on the halakha of a curved wall, which main. And Rava says: They are not considered to be like the public
encloses both the private domain and the holes of the
domain; they are either a karmelit or an exempt domain.
private domain (Rosh).
halakha ְל ִד ָידךְ דְּ ָא ַמ ְר ְּת:ֲא ַמר ֵל ּיה ָר ָבא ְל ַא ַ ּביֵ י Rava said to Abaye: According to you, who said that the holes of
The holes of the private domain – ּיָחיד
ִ חֹורי ְר ׁשוּת ַה:
ֵ Holes חֹורי ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים ִּכ ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים ֵ the public domain are considered like the public domain, in what
way is it different from this halakha? As when Rav Dimi came from
h2
that are in the walls of the private domain and whose ַמאי ׁ ְשנָ א ֵמ ָהא דְּ ִכי ֲא ָתא ַרב,ּדָּ מו
openings face the private domain have the legal status Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: This
ל ֹא נִצְ ְר ָכה ֶא ָּלא:יֹוחנָן ָ ימי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִ ִּד
of the private domain (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot addition of karmelit to the Tosefta was only necessary to teach the
Shabbat 14:10; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 345:4). ,ְל ֶק ֶרן זָ וִ ית ַה ְּסמו ָּכה ִל ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים case of a corner adjacent to the public domain. And, according to
The holes of the public domain – חֹורי ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים:
h3 ֵ Holes חֹורי ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים! ָה ָתם ֵ יהוֵ י ְּכ ֱ וְ ֶת your opinion, let this corner be like the holes of the public domain,
in the walls of the public domain whose openings face נִיחאָ – ָה ָכא,יה ּ יש ֵּת ְ ׁ נִיחא ַּת ׁ ְש ִמָ ָלא and its legal status should be that of a public domain itself and not
the public domain and are three handbreadths or higher .יה ּ יש ֵּת
ְ ׁ ַּת ׁ ְש ִמ that of a karmelit. Abaye answered: There is a distinction between the
above the ground are not considered part of the public cases. There, the corner, its use is not convenient; here, the holes of
domain. Their legal status is dependent on their height the public domain, their use is convenient. Since it is convenient to
off the ground and the size of their area. If their area is
four by four handbreadths and they are up to ten hand-
utilize the holes of the public domain, and they are in fact utilized,
breadths high, they are considered a karmelit. If they are they are a public domain in every sense.
higher than ten handbreadths, they are considered the
private domain, in accordance with Rava’s opinion, as ֹותל
ֶ ּזֹורק ַא ְר ָ ּבע ַא ּמֹות ַ ּב ּכ ֵ ַה:ְּתנַ ן The Gemara raised an additional difficulty for Abaye’s opinion: We
the halakha is ruled in his favor in disputes with Abaye learned in a mishna with regard to one who throws an object four
(Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 14:10; Shulĥan
,זֹורק ָ ּב ֲאוִ יר
ֵ ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ֵמ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה – ְּכ
ֵ ְל ַמ ָּטה ֵמ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ְט ָפ ִחים – ְּכ
זֹורק cubits in the public domain, and the object came to rest on a wall
Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 345:13).
standing in the public domain above ten handbreadths from the
?זֹורק ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ
ֵ ַמאי ְּכ: וְ ָהוֵ ינַן ָ ּב ּה,ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ
ground, it is as if he were throwing an object in the air and it never
!וְ ָהא ָלא נָ ח landed. If it came to rest below ten handbreadths off the ground, it
is as if he were throwing an object to the ground, and he is liable.
And we discussed this halakha: What is the reason that when the wall
is not ten handbreadths high it is as if he threw it to the ground? The
object did not come to rest on the wall, as presumably the object hit
the wall and then fell to the ground. Since there was no act of place-
ment, he did not perform the prohibited labor of carrying in the
public domain.
ׁ ָשאנֵי צְ רֹור וְ ֵח ֶפץ:ימנִין ְמ ׁ ַש ּנֵי ָל ּה ְ ִז Sometimes Abaye would answer the question by saying that a stone
:ימנִין ְמ ׁ ַש ּנֵי ָל ּה ְ ִ ז.יה ַדר וְ ָא ֵתי ֲ דְּ ִמ or object is different from a juicy fig in that they come back when
– ִמ ַּמאי.יה חֹור ּ כֹותל דְּ ֵלית ֵ ּב ֶ ְ ּב they are thrown and do not come to rest in the hole. Therefore, it was
simpler to establish the mishna in the case of a fig. And sometimes
זָ ַרק ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ֵמ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה:ישא ָ ׁ ִמדְּ ָק ָתנֵי ֵר
he would answer it by saying that the mishna is referring to a wall
וְ ִאי ָס ְל ָקא.זֹורק ָ ּב ֲאוִ יר ֵ ְט ָפ ִחים ְּכ that has no hole. And from where does he find support for this ex-
ַא ַּמאי,יה חֹור ּ כֹותל דְּ ִאית ֵ ּבֶ דַּ ֲע ָתךְ ְ ּב planation? From that which we learned in the first clause of the
!זֹורק ָ ּב ֲאוִ יר״ ָהא נָ ח ַ ּבחֹור ֵ “כְּ mishna: One who throws above ten handbreadths from the ground,
it is as if he is throwing in the air and it never landed. And if it should
enter your mind to say that we are speaking here about a wall that
has a hole in it, why should it be as if he threw it in the air and it
never landed? It rested in a hole, and that hole is a private domain, as
it is above ten handbreadths, and in that way the prohibited labor of
carrying in was performed.
34 Perek I . 7b . ז ףד: קרפ ׳א
halakha
נִיתין דְּ ֵלית ְ ּבה ּו
ִ ַמ ְת:ימא ָ וְ ִכי ֵּת And if you say that the mishna is referring to a case where
holes do not have an area of at least four by four handbreadths, One carves out to complete it – חֹוק ִקין ְל ַה ׁ ְש ִלים:
ְ One does not carve
וְ ָה ָא ַמר,ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ַעל ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה
h4
out an imaginary area in order to increase the size of the space and
:ַרב יְ ה ּו ָדה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִח ּיָ יא which is common for holes in the wall, and therefore the holes thereby alter its legal status. Rather, each space is assessed according to
have exempt domain status, didn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rab- its actual size, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis (Rambam
זָ ַרק ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ֵמ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ְט ָפ ִחים
bi Ĥiyya said: One who threw an object above ten hand- Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 14:18; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 345:10).
,וְ ָה ְל ָכה וְ נָ ָחה ְ ּבחֹור ָּכל ׁ ֶשהוּא breadths and the object went and came to rest in a hole of
One who stuck a stick…because the private domain rises up to the
לֹוקת ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִא יר ֶ ָ ּבאנ ּו ְל ַמ ֲח any size, we have arrived in this matter at the dispute be-
h5
sky – יע
ַ עֹולה ַעד ָל ָר ִק
ָ ּיָחיד
ִ ה…מ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ְר ׁשוּת ַה
ִ ֶנָעץ ָקנ:
ַ Every part of the private
חֹוק ִקיןְ : דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ָס ַבר.וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן tween Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis? The decision whether or domain reaches up to the sky. Therefore, if one stuck a stick in the private
ֵא ין: וְ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ָס ְב ִרי,ְל ַה ׁ ְש ִל ים not there is a prohibition here depends on an analysis of that domain, and threw an object from the public domain that came to rest
ֶא ָּלא ָלאו.חֹוק ִקין ְל ַה ׁ ְש ִלים ְ dispute. Rabbi Meir holds that in all cases where a certain on top of it, even if the area of the stick’s surface is less than four by four
minimum area is required for a specific halakha to take effect handbreadths, it has the legal status of a full-fledged private domain,
יה ּ כֹותל דְּ ֵלית ֵ ּב
ֶ ְ ּב:ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה and he is liable, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ĥisda (Rambam
and the existing area is smaller, if, theoretically, circumstances
. ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה,חֹור would allow to carve out and create an area of the requisite size,
Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 14:17; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 345:5).
background
i.e., the space has the legal status as if it was actually enlarged.
One carves out to complete it – חֹוק ִקין ְל ַה ׁ ְש ִלים:
ְ According to Rabbi
And the Rabbis hold that one does not carve out the space b3
Meir, since it is possible to complete the opening in the wall and make
to complete it.n Rather, the legal status of the area corresponds
2
it square, its legal status is as if it were already carved out in that shape.
to its actual size. Consequently, according to Rabbi Meir, if an That is also his opinion in other cases. A space is considered to have ap-
object landed in a small hole, one considers the area as if it were propriate measurements, as long as there is room for it to be completed.
carved out to complete the hole to four by four handbreadths,
and its legal status is like that of a private domain in every sense.
Rather, can we not conclude from the mishna that maintains
that one who throws an object onto a wall above ten hand-
breadths it is as if he threw it in the air, that it is referring to a
wall that has no hole in it, and the possibility of carving out
the space was never raised? The Gemara concludes: Indeed,
conclude from it.
נָעץ ָקנֶ ה ַ : ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א,גּ ו ָּפא The Gemara again returns to the matter that was mentioned
,ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת ַהּיָ ִחיד וְ זָ ַרק וְ נָ ח ַעל ַ ּג ָ ּביו above in passing itself [gufa].b Rav Ĥisda said: One who
4
,בֹוה ֵמ ָאה ַא ָּמה – ַחּיָ יב ַּ ֲא ִפיל ּו ָ ּג stuck a stick in the ground of the private domain, and an
object that he himself threw from the public domain rested Wall whose area is calculated as if its opening were along the dotted lines
עֹולה ַעד ָ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ְר ׁשוּת ַהּיָ ִחיד
atop it, even if that stick was a hundred cubits high, he is li-
ימא ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א דְּ ָא ַמר ָ ֵל.ָל ָר ִק ַיע The matter itself [gufa] – גּ ו ָּפא: When a certain matter is cited inciden-
able. The reason for this is because the private domain rises
b4
later discusses that incidental topic more extensively. The term used to
וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים, ַר ִ ּבי ְמ ַחּיֵ יב,ָּכל ׁ ֶשהוּא Ĥisda said his statement, it was in accordance with the opin- introduce that discussion is gufa. As a rule, gufa introduces a subject that
(א ְל ָמא ָלא ָ ּב ֵעינַן ְמקֹום ַ .ֹוט ִרים ְ ּפ ion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The tanna’im disagreed with is unrelated to the main topic of the tractate or chapter.
.)ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ַעל ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה regard to a similar issue, as it was taught in a baraita: One who
threw an object on Shabbat in the public domain, and the notes
object rested on a projection of any size, Rabbi Yehuda Ha- That Rabbi Meir holds one carves out to complete it and the Rabbis
n2
Nasi deems him liable and the Rabbis deem him exempt. hold one does not carve out to complete it – חֹוק ִקין ְ :דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ָס ַבר
Consequently, only according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is חֹוק ִקין ְל ַה ׁ ְש ִלים
ְ ֵאין: וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן ָס ְב ִרי,ל ַה ׁ ְש ִלים:ְ The basic dispute in this matter
there no need for the object to come to rest on an area of a is with regard to a gate built like an arch: Can it be considered as if it
were square in its upper part as well? According to Rabbi Meir, who
specific size, and therefore the statement of Rav Ĥisda with
says that one carves it out to complete it, the space is considered as if
regard to the stick can only be in accordance with Rabbi it were square-shaped, notwithstanding the archway. Apparently, the
Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion. dispute here revolves around the question: To what degree is the space
evaluated as it is and to what degree is it possible to say that as long as
it serves a specific purpose, it is considered to have a shape appropriate
for that purpose?
Perek I
Daf 8 Amud a
halakha
– ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת ַהּיָ ִחיד:ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י Regarding this assertion, Abaye said: In the private domain,
Boughs and the trunk – יקר ּ ַ נוׂף וְ ִע: If a tree is standing in the private
דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י ִּכ ְד ַרב everyone agrees that the halakha is in accordance with the h1
domain and its boughs extend into the public domain, its boughs
ָ ֶא ָּל א ָה ָכא ְ ּב ִא.ִח ְסדָּ א
יל ן opinion of Rav Ĥisda, i.e., that the private domain is consid- are not considered part of the trunk, and they constitute a domain
ered one entity filled from the ground to the sky. However, unto themselves, an exempt domain (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot
עֹומד ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת ַהּיָ ִחיד וְ נֹופֹו ֵ ָה
here this baraita is referring to a special case involving a tree Shabbat 14:17).
וְ זָ ַרק וְ נָ ח,נֹוטה ִל ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים ֶ standing in the private domain and its boughs lean into the
“ש ִדיְ ׁ ָא ְמ ִרינַן: דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ָס ַבר,ַאנּ ֹופֹו public domain, and one threw an object from the public do-
ָלא:נֹופֹו ָ ּב ַתר ִע ָ ּיקרֹו״ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן ָס ְב ִרי main and it rested upon the boughs of the tree. Rabbi Yehuda
.יקרֹו״ ּ ָ “ש ִדי נֹופֹו ָ ּב ַתר ִע ְ ׁ ָא ְמ ִרינַן HaNasi holds that we say: Cast its boughs after its trunk.h 1
area is less than the area of four handbreadths squared. Therefore, this barrel is
considered an object, and if he threw it from the private domain to the public
domain he is liable. However, if the diameter of the barrel was six handbreadths
wide, he is exempt. Since the area of the barrel is greater than the area of four
handbreadths squared, it is considered an independent private domain, and he
did not perform an act of throwing an object from one domain to another
domain.
ֲא ִפיל ּו ֵא ינָ ה ְר ָח ָבה:ָר ָבא ָא ַמר Rava said: Even if it was not six handbreadths wide he is exempt. What is the
ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא – ִאי.ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה – ּ ָפט ּור reason for this? He is exempt because it is impossible that the ends of the
ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ִל ְקרו ִּמּיֹות ׁ ֶשל ָקנֶ ה ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא יַ ֲעל ּו reeds protruding from the weave of the barrel will not extend above ten
handbreadths. Consequently, the entire barrel never entered the public domain,
.ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ֵמ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה
as part of it remains in a non-liable place, i.e., ten handbreadths off the ground
of the public domain.
Illustration of a Roman reed barrel from talmudic times
, ׁ ִש ְב ָעה ו ַּמ ׁ ּ ֶשה ּו – ַחּיָ יב, ְּכ ָפ ָא ּה ַעל ּ ִפ ָיהIf he turned the barrel that is less than six handbreadths wide over on its
. ׁ ִש ְב ָעה ו ֶּמ ֱחצָ ה – ּ ָפטוּרmouth, i.e., if he threw it with its mouth facing down, even if the barrel was
hn
halakha
4 2
h2 One who threw a round barrel into the only seven handbreadths and a bitn high, he is still liable, as the legal status of
3
public domain – זָ ַרק ַּכ ֶּו ֶורת ִל ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים: Any this barrel is equivalent to that of any other object that lands there. However, if
vessel that has an area of four by four hand- the height of this barrel was seven and a half handbreadths, he is exempt.
breadths and is ten handbreadths high, i.e., Within three handbreadths of the ground, the principle of lavud takes effect: An
the measurements of a private domain, and
object within three handbreadths of the ground has the legal status of being
is placed in the public domain, is considered
a private domain, for example, a cabinet, connected to the ground. The sides of the barrel extend to the ground and then
dresser, or barrel. As a result, if that vessel was it is considered as if the barrel already touched the ground of the public domain,
thrown from the private domain to the public even though it is actually still three handbreadths away, while its upper part
domain the thrower is exempt. Since its legal remains an exempt domain. It is as if this was a barrel higher than ten hand-
status is like that of a private domain, hala- breadths.
khically, the object was actually thrown from a
private domain and remained in a private do- ֲא ִפיל ּו ׁ ִש ְב ָעה ו ֶּמ ֱחצָ ה: ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ָא ַמרRav Ashi said: Even if the height of the barrel was seven and a half hand-
main (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shab- תֹוכן
ָ יצֹות ְל ּ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא – ְמ ִח, ַחּיָ יבbreadths, he is liable, as the sides of the barrel are not considered to be higher
bat 14:19; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 345:6).
. ֲע ׂשוּיֹותthan they are in reality. What is the reason for this? The reason is because
Barrel…ten high – בֹוהה ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה
h3 ּ ְ כ ֶּו ֶור:ַּ Any
ָ ת…ג partitions are made exclusively for the inside of the barrel. The sides of the
object thrown into the public domain whose barrel play no role beyond the barrel itself, and therefore there is no room to
upper edge is above ten handbreadths, as extend the sides by means of the principle of lavud. Therefore, if the barrel itself
long as its length and width are four by is not higher than ten handbreadths, it is merely an object.
four handbreadths for a height of ten hand-
breadths, is considered to be in its own ַע ּמוּד ִּת ׁ ְש ָעה ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת:ָא ַמר עו ָּּלא Ulla said: A pillar that is ninen handbreadths high, standing in the public
4
domain. Consequently, one who threw it is וְ זָ ַרק,ָה ַר ִ ּבים וְ ַר ִ ּבים ְמ ַכ ְּת ִפין ָע ָליו domain,h and many people adjust the burden on their shoulders upon it, and
5
exempt as per the opinion of Rava (Rambam one threw an object from the private domain and it rested atop the pillar, he
Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 14:19). ? ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא.וְ נָ ח ַעל ַ ּג ָ ּביו – ַחּיָ יב
is liable. What is the reason for this? It is based on this principle: Anything
ּ ּ ָפחֹות ִמ ׁ ּ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה – ִמ ְד ָרס דָּ ְר ִסי ֵל
יה
protruding from the public domain: If it is less than three handbreadths off
He turned it over on its mouth – ְּכ ָפ ָאה ַעל
ִמ ׁ ּ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה וְ ַעד ִּת ׁ ְש ָעה – ָלא,ַר ִ ּבים
h4
יה
ָ פ:ִ ּ Apparently, the halakha is in accordance the ground, and the multitudes step on it, it is considered to be part of the
with the opinion of Rav Ashi that a ves- ,יה וְ ָלא ַּכ ּת ֵֹופי ְמ ַכ ְּת ִפי ּ ִמ ְד ָרס דָּ ְר ִסי ֵל ground. If it is from three to nine handbreadths, they, the multitudes, neither
sel, even if it is turned over on its mouth, is
.יהּ ִֵּת ׁ ְש ָעה – וַ דַּ אי ְמ ַכ ְּת ִפין ִע ָּילו step on it nor adjust the burden on their shoulders on it, and it is not consid-
judged according to the actual length of its
sides. The principle of lavud is not applied to
ered part of the public domain. However, a protrusion nine handbreadths high,
consider them longer than they are (Ramban; certainly the multitudes adjust the burden on their shoulders on it. Since the
Rashbam). multitudes utilize it, it is considered a public domain, despite its height.
Pillar that is nine handbreadths in the public
h5
barrel need to be six handbreadths wide? For its top to have an area this minimal measure, is possible (Tosafot).
If it is between three and nine handbreadths
of four by four handbreadths, it is sufficient if its diameter is a bit more
high, with an area of four by four hand- Pillar that is nine – ע ּמוּד ִּת ׁ ְש ָעה:ַ There are many different opinions
than five and a half handbreadths, 5.656 handbreadths to be exact.
n4
breadths, its legal status is that of a karmelit. among the Sages with regard to the conditions relevant to this pillar.
Some explain that this calculation is of the area within the barrel. Includ-
If it is less than four by four handbreadths, it Some say that the pillar in question is one whose height is precisely
ing the thickness of the sides of the barrel, it is six handbreadths wide
is an exempt domain. A pillar that is exactly nine handbreadths (Rashi and others). Others say that any pillar be-
on the outside (Rabbeinu Ĥananel). According to Rashi and Tosafot,
nine handbreadths high, and others say be- tween nine and ten handbreadths high is included in this halakha
the Gemara rounded off the number slightly upward to be stringent.
tween nine and ten handbreadths (Rosh), if (Rosh; Me’iri; and others). There are also differing opinions with regard
Rambam explains that numbers are rounded off because there is no
the multitudes adjust the burden son their to the width of the pillar. Some say that this only applies if it is four by
way to achieve complete precision in numbers that denote the smallest
shoulders upon it, its legal status is that of four handbreadths (Ra’avad). Others say that the halakha is the same
fractions of the whole (Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishna).
the public domain. If the pillar was ten hand- even if it is less than four by four (Rashi; Rambam). They also differ with
breadths or higher, with an area of four by four n2 He turned it over on its mouth – יהָ כ ָפ ָא ּה ַעל ּ ִפ:ְּ The Ra’avad reads here: regard to adjusting the burden on one’s shoulders. Some say that this
handbreadths, it is a private domain. If it has He bent it over on its mouth. He explains that the reference here is to applies specifically to a case where the multitudes actually adjust the
an area of less than four by four, it is an exempt a barrel that is ten handbreadths high, however, he folded the upper burden on their shoulders upon it (Rashi in tractate Eiruvin; Ra’avad
domain, as per Ulla’s opinion and according to sides of the barrel down into it. The folded sides are considered as if according to Rashba and Maggid Mishne), but if they do not actually
the consensus among the different opinions they were upright. do so, the halakha does not apply. Others say that if it is the appropri-
of the various commentaries (Rambam Sefer ate size for adjusting one’s burden that is sufficient (Rambam). There
Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 14:8; Shulĥan Arukh, n3 And a bit – ו ַּמ ׁ ּ ֶשה ּו: A bit is not quantifiable. However, it too has a are other opinions that combine these views (see the corresponding
Oraĥ Ĥayyim 345:10). certain minimum measure, although it is smaller than the standard note in the Halakha section).
בֹוהה ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ו ְּר ָח ָבה ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה – ֵאין ָ ְ ּג domain and it was ten handbreadths high and four wide, one may neither In a hole – בגו ָּמא:ּ ְ A pit in the public domain that
h6
move an object from it to the public domain nor from the public domain is less than three handbreadths deep is part of
ְמ ַּט ְל ְט ִלין ל ֹא ִמ ּת ָֹוכ ּה ִל ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים the public domain. A hole between three and
to it, since its legal status is that of a private domain. If it were less than that
ּ ָפחֹות,תֹוכ ּה
ָ וְ ל ֹא ֵמ ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים ְל height, one may carry from it to the public domain and vice versa. The nine handbreadths deep with an area of four by
four handbreadths is a karmelit. If it is not four by
ַמאי. וְ ֵכן ְ ּבגו ָּמא.ִמ ֵּכן – ְמ ַּט ְל ְט ִלין baraita adds: And the same is true for a hole. Is this statement not referring four handbreadths, it is an exempt domain. If it is
.ישא ָ ׁ ַא ֵר,ָלאו ַא ֵּס ָיפא? ָלא to the latter clause of the baraita: One may carry from a pit which is less ten or more handbreadths deep and four by four
than ten handbreadths deep to the public domain? This supports the opin- handbreadths, it is a private domain. In that case
ion of Rav Yosef, that a hole is subsumed within the public domain. Rava as well, if it is less than four by four, it is an exempt
rejected this: This statement is not referring to the latter clause of the barai- domain, as per the statement of Rava (Shulĥan
ta, but rather to the first clause of the baraita: It is like a basket in that one Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 345:11).
may not carry from a hole ten handbreadths deep to the public domain
because it is a full-fledged private domain. However, no conclusion may be
drawn with regard to a hole less than ten handbreadths deep.
:יה
ּ ית ֵיב
ִ ֵאRav Adda bar Mattana raised another objection to Rava’s opinion from
what was taught in a different baraita, which deals with the laws of joining
of borders:
Perek I
Daf 8 Amud b
background
נִ ְת ַּכ ֵּוון ִל ׁ ְש ּב ֹות ִ ּב ְר ׁש ּות ָה ַר ִ ּבים One who intended to establish his Shabbat abode in the public domain
Above and below ten – ל ַמ ְע ָלה ו ְּל ַמ ָּטה ֵמ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה:ְ In
ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ֵמ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה,וְ ִה ּנ ִַיח ֵעירוּבֹו ַ ּב ּבֹור at a specific site must place food sufficient for two meals for that site to be b1
notes
He intended to establish his Shabbat…and placed his eiruv, etc. –
n1 during the day, before Shabbat. One thereby establishes that place
נִ ְת ַּכ ֵּוון ִל ׁ ְש ּבֹות…וְ ִה ּנ ִַיח ֵעירוּבֹו וכו׳: The eiruv mentioned here is the join- as his residence and, consequently, is permitted to walk within a
ing of borders [eiruv teĥumin]. The Sages decreed that one may not 2,000 cubit radius of that place. Although there is no obligation to eat
go more than two thousand cubits beyond the limits of the city in the eiruv, the food set aside for the eiruv must be fit for consumption
which one is located on Shabbat. However, in special circumstances, when Shabbat begins because that is the moment when one’s place
primarily for the sake of a mitzva, they allowed one to place food of residence is determined. It is then that he must have the possibility
sufficient for two meals within two thousand cubits of the city limits to take it and eat it if he so desires.
note any decree that they issued with regard to quently, at the time that the eiruv was placed in the karmelit it was permis-
Shabbat. Some explain that during twilight there sible for him to carry it to the public domain. Since an eiruv takes effect
is uncertainty whether it is day or night and since
even if it is fit for use just one moment during twilight on Shabbat eve, his
the shevut is a decree by rabbinic law, the guiding
principle should be: An uncertainty with regard to a eiruv is effective.
case involving rabbinic law should be resolved with
leniency. Consequently, decrees would not apply at ,ימא דַּ חוּיֵ י ָקא ְמ ַד ֵחינָ א ָל ְך ָ וְ ָלא ֵּת And Rava said to Rav Adda bar Mattana: Do not say that I am just put-
that time (Rashi). ִאם: דִּ ְתנַן. ְֶא ָּלא דַּ וְ ָקא ָק ָא ִמינָ א ָלך ting you off with these answers. Rather, what I am saying to you is ac-
ָהיָה ְר ָקק ַמיִ ם ו ְּר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים ְמ ַה ֶּל ֶכת curate. The opinion that usage under duress is not considered usage is a
Passage under duress…usage under duress,
bona fide opinion and the suggested answers are appropriate explanations
n3
?ימנֵי ָל ָּמה ִלי ְ ִילו ְּך ְּת ֵרי זּ ֶא ָּלא ִה However, why do I need the mishna to state twice that the public domain
ילו ְּך ַעל ּ ִה:ֶא ָּלא ָלאו ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה passes through that swamp? Rather, shouldn’t one conclude from this
ַּת ׁ ְש ִמ ׁיש, ְיה ִהילּ וּך
ּ יְ ֵדי ַהדְּ ָחק – ׁ ְש ֵמ that passage, even when it is under duress, and not free and easy, is
considered passage, but usage under duressn is not considered usage?
3
,יה ַּת ׁ ְש ִמ ׁישּ ַעל יְ ֵדי ַהדְּ ָחק – ָלא ׁ ְש ֵמ It was necessary to emphasize that the public domain actually passes
.ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה through it. If the multitudes do not pass through it and it was only used
under duress, it would not have been considered a public domain. The
Gemara concludes: Indeed conclude from this.
38 Perek I . 8b . ח ףד: קרפ ׳א
halakha
ְר ָמא, ַהאי זִ ְירזָ א דְּ ָקנֵי: ֲא ַמר ַרב יְהו ָּדהSomewhat related to the case of the barrel discussed earlier which was
That bundle of reeds that he stood upright and threw
יחּיַ יב ַעד
ַ יה – ָלא ִמ ּ וּזְ ַק ֵפa case of moving an object without liability, the Gemara cites that Rav
ּ יה ְר ָמא וּזְ ַק ֵפ
h4
down, stood upright and threw down – ַהאי זִ ְירזָ א דְּ ָקנֵי
ּ דְּ ָע ַקר ֵלYehuda said: That bundle of reeds thathhe stood upright and threw
.יה יה
ּ יה ְר ָמא וּזְ ַק ֵפ
ּ ר ָמא וּזְ ַק ֵפ:ְ If he stood an object, e.g., a bundle
down, stood upright and threw down repeatedly, he is not liable
4
“ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא יִ ּטֹול ִמ ַ ּב ַעל:ָא ַמר ָמר The Master also said in the Tosefta: A person standing on the thresh-
נֹותן ְל ַב ַעל ֵ ְ ֵמ ָענִי ו,נֹותן ְל ָענִיֵ ְַה ַ ּביִ ת ו old may take an object from the homeowner and give an object to him,
וְ ִאם נָ ַטל וְ נָ ַתן – ׁ ְש ָל ׁ ְש ָּתן,ַה ַ ּביִ ת and he may take an object from the poor person or give an object to
him, as long as he does not take the object from the homeowner and
,ימא ֶּת ֱיהוֵ י ְּתיו ְּב ָתא דְּ ָר ָבא ָ ֵל.ּ ְפטו ִּרין״
give it to a poor person or from a poor person and give it to the
ַה ַּמ ֲע ִביר ֵח ֶפץ ִמ ְּת ִח ַּילת:דְּ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא homeowner. And, however, if he took an object from one and gave
,ַא ְר ָ ּבע ְלסֹוף ַא ְר ָ ּבע ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים it to the other, certainly no labor prohibited by Torah law was per-
ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֶה ֱע ִבירֹו formed in that case, and all three of them are exempt. The Gemara
asks: Say that this will be a conclusive refutation of Rava’s opinion,
as Rava said: One who transfers an object from the beginning of
four cubits to the end of four cubits in the public domain, even
though he transferred it above the upper boundary of the public
domain
ח ףד: ׳א קרפ. Perek I . 8b 39
Perek I
Daf 9 Amud a
halakha
, דֶּ ֶר ְך ָע ָליו – ַחּיָ יב! ָה ָתם ל ֹא נָ חvia the airspace above it,hn i.e., he raised the object more
1 1
Though he transferred it via the airspace above it – ְַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֶה ֱע ִבירֹו דֶּ ֶרך
. ָה ָכא – נָ חthan ten handbreadths above the ground of the public
h1
ע ָליו:ָ One who transfers an object four cubits in the public domain, even
though he transferred it while holding it above his head, is liable. The Ra’avad
domain, which is an exempt domain, still he is liable for
explains the phrase: Via the airspace above it, in accordance with the explana- carrying in the public domain. On the other hand, in the
tion of Rabbeinu Ĥananel as referring to one standing in the public domain Tosefta it says that if the object passed through an exempt
and passed an object from his right side four cubits to his left side. When the domain, he is exempt by Torah law from punishment for
object is directly opposite him, it is as if the object was placed in an exempt passing it from domain to domain. The Gemara rejects
domain. Nevertheless, since he did not actually place it there, he is liable. Ap- that refutation as there is room to distinguish between
parently, the Rambam also agrees with this halakha (Maggid Mishne; Rambam
the cases: There, in the halakha stated by Rava, the ob-
Sefer Zemanim Hilkhot Shabbat 12:14).
ject did not come to rest in an exempt domain; it mere-
ly passed through its airspace. However, here, when
background
transferred via the threshold, the object came to rest in
Post within the entrance – ל ִחי ְ ּבתֹוךְ ַה ּ ֶפ ַתח:ֶ Since there is an area within the
b1
ִא ְס ק ּו ּ ָפה:אֹומ ִר יםְ “א ֵח ִר ים ֲ Later in the Tosefta, Aĥerim say: Depending on the
ִ ּבזְ ַמן,ְמ ׁ ַש ֶּמ ׁ ֶשת ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְר ׁש ּו ּיֹות circumstances, a threshold serves two domains: When
ּ ֶפ ַתח,ׁ ֶש ַה ּ ֶפ ַתח ּ ָפתו ַּח – ְּכ ִל ְפנִים the entrance is open, the threshold is subsumed within
the house and it is considered to be a private domain
.נָעוּל – ְּכ ַלחוּץ״
like the inside of the house. And when the entrance is
locked, the threshold is not subsumed within the house,
and it is considered to be a public domain like the
outside.
Post on the left side of the entrance יה ֶל ִחי?! וְ ָה ָא ַמרּ וְ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ֵלית ֵלThe Gemara wonders: When the entrance is open the
ְ ּתֹוך: ַרב ָח ָמא ַ ּבר גּ ו ְּריָ א ָא ַמר ַרבthreshold is considered to be like a private domain, and
! ַה ּ ֶפ ַתח צָ ִריךְ ֶל ִחי ַא ֵחר ְל ַה ִּתירֹוis this so even though it does not have a post on its
side? Didn’t Rav Ĥama bar Gurya say that Rav said:
The opening in the wall, i.e., the doorway, requires an-
other post in order to permit carrying there? A sym-
bolic partition must be established at the side of the
opening for that doorway to be considered closed and
render carrying within it permissible like a full-fledged
private domain. In the Tosefta, no mention was made of
the need for a post of that kind.B1n 2
יה ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ַעל ּ דְּ ֵלית ֵ ּב:ימא ָ וְ ִכי ֵּת And if you say that the Tosefta is referring to a threshold
ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה – וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַרב ָח ָמא ַ ּבר that does not have an area of four by four handbreadths,
ַאף ַעל, ּתֹוךְ ַה ּ ֶפ ַתח:ּגו ְּריָ א ָא ַמר ַרב which is not considered an independent area and there-
fore does not require a post, didn’t Rav Ĥama bar Gu-
– ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּבֹו ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ַעל ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה
rya say that Rav said explicitly: The opening, even
!צָ ִריךְ ֶל ִחי ַא ֵחר ְל ַה ִּתירֹו though it does not have an area of four by four hand-
breadths, requires another post in order to permit
carrying there?
notes
Though he transferred it via the airspace above it –
n1 principles in this matter are complex, detailed halakhot
אף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֶה ֱע ִבירֹו דֶּ ֶר ְך ָע ָליו:
ַ Some explain that this is
transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The principle of lavud
referring to a case where he transferred the object from establishes that a space less than three handbreadths
his right hand to his left and he passed it over his head wide is considered sealed. The principle of gode, which
(Rabbeinu Ĥananel). means extend, states that certain boundaries are con-
n2 The laws of partitions – דִּ ינֵי ְמ ִחיצּ ֹות: The halakhot sidered to be extended and lowered or extended and
of Shabbat and many other halakhot are dependent raised. Another principle that applies here is: The edge
upon the existence of partitions. A solid, high parti- of the roof descends and seals, which states that the
tion that seals a certain opening is a definite bound- outer edge of the roof over a house or an alleyway is
ary. However, in reality, boundaries of that kind are considered as if it descends and creates a partition that
not present in every case. Thus, the question arises: reaches the ground. However, the principle is relevant
What constitutes a full-fledged boundary and what only when the roof has an edge of some sort, and
constitutes a symbolic boundary? The determining when its area is more than four by four handbreadths.
יסקו ּ ַּפת ְ עֹולם ְ ּב ִא ָ ְל:ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ָא ַמר Rav Ashi said: Actually, we can say that we are dealing with
ו ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ֵ ּק ָיר ּה ִ ּב ׁ ְש ֵּתי,ַ ּביִ ת ָע ְס ִקינַ ן the threshold of a house, and in a special circumstance, a Partially covered alleyway
קֹורֹות ׁ ֶש ֵאין ְ ּבזֹו ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה וְ ֵאין ְ ּבזֹו case where he covered the threshold with two beams.b 3
Furthermore, neither this beam is four handbreadths wide, b3 Threshold with two beams – יסקו ּ ָּפה ִ ּב ׁ ְש ֵּתי קֹורֹות
ְ א:ִ When the door is
וְ ֶד ֶלת, וְ ֵאין ֵ ּבין זֹו ְלזֹו ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה,ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה open, as in the image below, the two beams are considered attached,
nor is that beam four handbreadths wide, and there is not based upon the principle of lavud. The threshold, even under the outer
ּ ֶפ ַתח,ָ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע; ּ ֶפ ַתח ּ ָפתו ַּח – ְּכ ִל ְפנִים a gap of three handbreadths between this one and that one, beam, is a private domain, based upon the principle: The edge of the
.נָעוּל – ְּכ ַלחוּץ and there is a door between the two beams. In this case, roof descends and seals. However, when the door is locked, there is
when the entrance is open, since there is a space of less than only one beam less than four handbreadths wide outside, and the
three handbreadths between the beams and, based on the threshold under it does not have the legal status of a private domain.
principle of lavud, any space less than three handbreadths is
considered non-existent, the two beams are considered to
be one wide beam. It is considered as if there were a parti-
tion extending from the edge of the roofing above to below,
based on the halakhic principle: Lower the partition. The
threshold is thereby sealed and considered a full-fledged
private domain like the inside. However, when the en-
trance is locked, the two beams do not join together to
become one anymore. Since the door creates a separation
between them and the outer beam is less than four hand-
breadths wide, it is not considered a roof from which a par-
tition extends to the ground, and the area under this beam
is considered to be a public domain like the outside.
domains, i.e., two places, each of which is sufficiently dis- Some explain that Rabbi Meir only established this principle in a do-
ְּכגֹון ַע ּמוּד ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת,וְ ֵהן ְר ׁשוּת ַא ַחת tinct to be an independent domain, and even though they main that belongs to different people and is a private domain only
are halakhically one domain,n i.e., in a case where a pillar as far as Shabbat is concerned; it constitutes two domains as far as
– בֹוה ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה וְ ָר ָחב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ַּ ַהּיָ ִחיד ָ ּג
3
ל ְפנֵי ַה ַּס ּ ָפר:ִ This mishna does not discuss the halakhot of Shab-
מתני׳ ל ֹא יֵ ׁ ֵשב ָא ָדם ִל ְפנֵי ַה ַּס ּ ָפר
ל ֹא יִ ָּכנֵס,ָסמוּךְ ַל ִּמנְ ָחה ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ ְת ּ ַפ ֵּלל
MISHNA After having dealt with the limited and
defined topic of the halakhot of carrying
out on Shabbat, the mishna begins to deal with the halakhot of
bat at all, as these activities are prohibited on weekdays as well. ָא ָדם ַל ֶּמ ְר ָחץ וְ ל ֹא ַל ּב ּו ְר ְס ִקי וְ ל ֹא Shabbat chronologically, beginning with activities that one may
The commentaries explained its relevance here in various ways.
Some explained that since the next mishna deals specifically with
וְ ִאם ִה ְת ִחיל ּו – ֵאין.ֶל ֱאכֹול וְ ל ֹא ָל ִדין not perform prior to the onset of Shabbat. With regard to one’s
prohibitions in effect before Shabbat, as a prelude, this mishna יאת ַ יקין ִל ְקרֹות ְק ִר ִ ַמ ְפ ִס.יקיןִ ַמ ְפ ִס daily conduct, the mishna says: A person may not sit before
enumerates actions prohibited throughout the afternoon on .ׁ ְש ַמע וְ ֵאין ַמ ְפ ִס ִיקין ִל ְת ִפ ָּלה the barbernh adjacent to the time of minĥa until he recites the
1 1
Shabbat eve (Me’iri). Others explain that the prohibitions here afternoon prayer. And a person may not enter the bathhouse
are among the eighteen decrees issued that day, enumerated
and may not enter to work in a tannery [burseki].hl And he 2 1
evenings [bein ha’arbayim]. One is slightly after noon, when the Amida prayer.
sun begins to tend westward. The second is when the sun is al-
ready clearly in the west, at approximately the midpoint between
the time that the sun begins to set, slightly after noon, and sunset. ימא
יכא
ָ “סמו ְּך ְל ִמנְ ָחה״? ִא ֵיל
ָּ דֹולה – ַא ַּמאי ל ֹא? ָה ִא
ָ גמ׳ ֵהי
ָ ְל ִמנְ ָחה ְ ּג
GEMARA First, the Gemara seeks to clarify:
Which “adjacent to minĥa,” in other
words, adjacent to which minĥa is the mishna referring? There
language ׁ ָשהוּת ַ ּבּיֹום טו ָּבא! ֶא ָּלא ָסמ ּו ְךis a difference between the time of greater minĥa [minĥa gedola],
Tannery [burseki] – בו ְּר ְס ִקי:ּ The fundamental origin of the word
l1
. ְל ִמנְ ָחה ְק ַט ָּנהwhich begins approximately a half hour after noon, and the time
is from the Greek βυρσεύς, byrseus, meaning one who processes
hides. The word burseki developed to mean a place where animal of lesser minĥa [minĥa ketana],n which begins approximately 2
hides are tanned, as bursikos is the term for matters relating to two and a half hours before sunset. The Gemara elaborates: If
tanning hides. you say that it is prohibited to perform all of these activities
adjacent to minĥa gedola, why not? Isn’t there still much time
remaining in the day? Rather, the mishna means adjacent to
minĥa ketana.
נֵימא ָ .יקין״ ִ “אם ִה ְת ִחיל ּו ֵאין ַמ ְפ ִס ִ The Gemara asks: In that case, if they started, they need not
,הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י ֻ ׁ ְיהוֵ י ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא ְד ַר ִ ּבי י ֱ ֶּת stop. Let us say that this will be a conclusive refutation of the
ֵּכיוָ ן ׁ ֶש ִה ִ ּג ַיע:הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י
ֻ ׁ ְדְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי י opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben
Levi said: Once the time of the afternoon prayer has arrived,
זְ ַמן ְּת ִפ ַּלת ַה ִּמנְ ָחה – ָאסוּר ְל ָא ָדם
it is prohibited for a person to taste anything before he recites
קֹודם ׁ ֶשּיִ ְת ּ ַפ ֵּלל ְּת ִפ ַּלת ֶ ׁ ֶשּיִ ְטעֹום ְּכלוּם the afternoon prayer. The implication is that even if one began
!ַה ִּמנְ ָחה to eat he must stop.
halakha
A person may not sit before the barber, etc. – ל ֹא יֵ ׁ ֵשב ָא ָדם
h1 to minĥa gedola (Tur in the name of Rabbeinu Tam). Accord- claims of the litigants. The reason is that, conceivably, even at
ל ְפנֵי ַה ַּס ּ ָפר:ִ One may not begin even a standard haircut or un- ing to that opinion, the halakha is in accordance with the first, that stage, he could adopt a different approach and reconsider
complicated work adjacent, i.e., a half-hour prior, to the time unattributed version of the Gemara, with regard to which there his decision. Meanwhile, the time of the afternoon prayer will
of minĥa gedola, as there is room for concern that unforeseen was a consensus (Beit Yosef ). Others say that even a big meal pass (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Tefilla 6:5; Shulĥan Arukh,
circumstances may arise, causing the activity to extend until the is permitted adjacent to minĥa gedola, as the opinion of Rabbi Oraĥ Ĥayyim 232:2, Ĥoshen Mishpat 5:4).
evening, as per the opinion of Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov (Rambam Yehoshua ben Levi was not accepted as halakha (tractate Be-
And if they already began they need not stop – וְ ִאם ִה ְת ִחיל ּו
Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Tefilla 6:5; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 232:2 rakhot 28b, p. 185). Consequently, the halakha in the mishna is
h5
אין ַמ ְפ ִס ִיקין:
ֵ The halakha was established in accordance with
and see Magen Avraham). relevant only with regard to minĥa ketana and applies even
our mishna. One who began any of the activities that were
to a small meal (Ran and Rashba in the name of Rabbeinu
A person may not enter the bathhouse and may not enter to enumerated, i.e., work, meal or judgment, even if he started
Zeraĥya HaLevi; Beit Yosef ). Some say that even adjacent to
h2
work in a tannery, etc. – ל ֹא יִ ָּכנֵס ָא ָדם ַל ֶּמ ְר ָחץ וְ ל ֹא ַל ּבו ְּר ְס ִקי וכו׳: A after minĥa gedola, is not obligated to interrupt the activity to
minĥa ketana, a small meal is permitted (Tur in the name of
person may neither enter a bathhouse, even if he enters merely recite the afternoon prayer. However, that is the halakha only if
Rabbeinu Yitzĥak; Rosh in the name of Rabbeinu Tam). Accord-
to sweat (Magen Avraham), nor a tannery adjacent to the time sufficient time would remain for him to recite the prayer after
ing to that opinion, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s statement was
of minĥa gedola, as there is room for concern that unforeseen he completed the activity. If not, he must stop immediately
rejected and the opinion that maintains that one need not be
circumstances may arise, causing the activity to extend until (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Tefilla 6:5; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ
concerned if matters continue longer than usual was accepted
the evening (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Tefilla 6:5; Shulĥan Ĥayyim 235:2 and Ĥoshen Mishpat 5:4).
(Beit Yosef ). The Rema rules that the custom is in accordance
Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 232:2).
with the most lenient opinion, although it is proper for one h6 One stops to recite Shema – יאת ׁ ְש ַמע
ַ מ ְפ ִס ִיקין ִל ְקרֹות ְק ִר:ַ Half an
And he may neither enter to eat – וְ ל ֹא ֶל ֱאכֹול: There are several to be stringent and refrain from partaking of a big meal even
h3 hour prior to the time that the obligation to recite Shema begins,
opinions with regard to the practical halakhic ramifications of adjacent to minĥa gedola (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Tefilla it is prohibited to eat, sleep, or engage in any of the activities
the talmudic discussion here. Some ruled that even a small 6:5; Tur, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 232; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 232:2). prohibited adjacent to minĥa (Mishna Berura). If he began, he
meal is prohibited adjacent to minĥa gedola, in accordance must interrupt his meal to recite Shema, but he need not inter-
with the opinion of Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov (Rif; Rambam; Shulĥan Nor to sit in judgment – וְ ל ֹא ָל ִדין: A person may not sit in judg-
h4 rupt his meal to recite the Amida prayer (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ
Arukh). Others ruled that only a big meal is prohibited adjacent ment adjacent to minĥa gedola, even if he already heard the Ĥayyim 232:2 and in the comment of the Rema).
long time. And he may not enter to sit in judgment, refers to a judge
who enters at the beginning of the trial, and, generally, it will take
a long time until a verdict is reached.
עֹולם ָ ְל:ַרב ַא ָחא ַ ּבר יַ ֲעקֹב ָא ַמר Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov said: Indeed the mishna can be explained as
ילה ַא ַּמאי ָּ ְל ַכ ְּת ִח,ְ ּב ִת ְס ּפ ֶֹורת דִּ ַידן referring to minĥa gedola and actually, even our ordinary haircut is
.ל ֹא יֵ ׁ ֵשב – ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ֶש ָּמא יִ ׁ ָש ֵבר ַהּזוּג
ּ prohibited. Ab initio, why may he not sit before the barber adjacent
to the time of minĥa? Due to a decree lest the scissors break, and
,“וְ ל ֹא ַל ֶּמ ְר ָחץ״ – ְל ָהזִ ַיע ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא Roman statue
considerable time pass until they repair the scissors or obtain others.
ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּלה ַא ַּמאי ל ֹא – ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ֶש ָּמא When the mishna said: A person may not enter the bathhouse notes
“וְ ל ֹא ַל ּבו ְּר ְס ִקי״ – ְל ַעּיֹונֵי.יִ ְת ַע ְּל ֶפה adjacent to minĥa, it is prohibited even if he is entering just to sweat.
The reference is to a big meal – דֹולהָ ב ְסעוּדָּ ה ְ ּג:
ּ ִ Some ex-
– ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּלה ַא ַּמאי ל ֹא.ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא Ab initio, why may he not enter? Due to a decree issued by the
n3
restore what was ruined. And he may not enter to eat a meal adja- explain that the residents of Eretz Yisrael would close their
.ַט ְע ָמא וְ ָס ַתר דִּ ינָ א cent to the time of minĥa is referring even to a small meal. Ab initio, belts tightly, and the residents of Babylonia would eat with-
why may he not enter? There is concern that perhaps he will come out loosening their belts (Rabbeinu Ĥananel). The rationale
for that explanation is that Rabbi Ĥanina, who mentioned
to extend his meal for a long time. And he may not enter to sit in
loosening the belt, lived in Eretz Yisrael and Rav lived in
judgment adjacent to the time of minĥa, the mishna is referring Babylonia.
even at the conclusion of the trial. Ab initio, why may he not enter?
Due to concern that perhaps he will find a reason, contrary to what halakha
he originally thought, and will overturn the verdict completely, From when is it considered the beginning of the haircut –
necessitating the restart of the trial from the beginning.
h7
.ּ וְ ָהא – ְלהו, ָהא – ָלן. וְ ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ יThe Gemara comments: And they do not disagree. Rather this, the
statement of Rabbi Ĥanina, who said that the beginning of the meal
is considered from when he loosens his belt, is for us, for the people
of Babylonia, who are accustomed to close their belts tightly, and
therefore the beginning of the meal is when one loosens his belt.
And that, the statement of Rav, who said that the beginning of the
meal is considered from when he ritually washes his hands, is for
them,n the people of Eretz Yisrael who did not close their belts
4
tightly, and therefore only when one washes his hands does the meal
begin.
ט ףד: ׳א קרפ. Perek I . 9b 43
ְל ַמאן, ָהנֵי ַח ְב ִרין ַ ּב ְב ָל ֵאי:ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י Similarly, Abaye said: Those Babylonian Torah scholars, accord-
ֵּכיוָ ן,“ת ִפ ַּלת ַע ְר ִבית ְר ׁשוּת״ ְּ :דְּ ָא ַמר ing to the opinion of the one who said: The evening prayer is
ינֵיה – ָלא ַמ ְט ְר ִחינַן
ּ ָיה ֶה ְמי ּ דִּ ׁ ְש ָרא ֵל voluntary, once one of them loosens his belt, we do not impose
upon him to stop his meal and pray. And the Gemara wonders: And
‘חֹובה׳ – ַמ ְט ְר ִחינַן
ָ ו ְּל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר.יה ּ ֵל according to the opinion of the one who said that the evening
דִּ ְלכו ֵּּלי,יה? וְ ָהא ְּת ִפ ַּלת ִמנְ ָחה ּ ֵל prayer is obligatory, we do impose upon him? Doesn’t everyone
“אם ִה ְת ִחיל ּו ִ : ו ְּתנַן,חֹובה ִהיא ָ ָע ְל ָמא agree that the afternoon prayer is obligatory? And we learned in
: וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א.יקין״ ִ ֵאין ַמ ְפ ִס our mishna that if they started eating, they need not stop. And
!ִמ ׁ ּ ֶשּיַ ִּתיר ֲחגֹורֹו with regard to that halakha, Rabbi Ĥanina said: The beginning of
the meal is from when he loosens his belt.
Perek I
Daf 10 Amud a
halakha
– ָה ָכא,יחא ׁ ִש ְכרוּת ָ ָה ָתם ָלא ׁ ְש ִכ The Gemara responds that there is a difference between the cases.
The obligation to wear a belt during prayer – חֹובת ֲחגִ ַירת ַ
h1
ְ ּב ִמנְ ָחה ֵּכיוָ ן: ִאי נַ ִמי.יחא ׁ ִש ְכרוּת ָ ׁ ְש ִכ There, at the time of the afternoon prayer, drunkenness is uncom-
א ְבנֵט ַ ּב ְּת ִפ ָילה:
ַ One should wear a belt during prayer even
if he has an additional barrier between his heart and his ימנָ א – ֵמ ְיר ַתת וְ ָלא ְ ִיעא ָל ּה ז ָ דִּ ְק ִב mon, as it is unusual to drink excessively during the day. However,
nakedness due to the verse: “Prepare to greet your God, Israel” here, in the case of the evening prayer, drunkenness is common,
ַע ְר ִבית ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ כו ָּּלא,ָא ֵתי ְל ִמ ְפ ׁ ַשע
(Amos 4:12). This is also the custom of those with kabbalistic and therefore there was room to issue a decree requiring one to
tendencies. Others (Magen Avraham) say that one who does יליָ א זְ ַמן ַע ְר ִבית – ָלא ֵמ ְיר ַתת ְ ֵל interrupt his meal to recite the evening prayer. Alternatively, it is
not wear a belt all day is not required to do so. That is the : ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת.וְ ָא ֵתי ְל ִמ ְפ ׁ ַשע possible to explain that with regard to the afternoon prayer, since
Ashkenazic custom (Beit Yosef; Rabbeinu Yeruĥam; Shulĥan :ינֵיה?! וְ עֹוד ּ ָיסר ֶה ְמי ַ ְט ִריחו ָּתא ְל ֵמ its time is fixed, he is anxious, and he won’t come to be negligent
Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 91:2).
:יצ ֵּלי! ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר ּ ַ ֵליק ּו ָה ִכי וְ ִל and forget to pray. However, with regard to the evening prayer,
Don expensive socks and pray – ר ֵמי ּפוּזְ ְמ ֵקי ו ְּמצַ ֵּלי:ָ In a place since all night is the time for the evening prayer, he is not anxious,
.“ה ּכֹון ִל ְק ַראת ֱאל ֶֹהיךָ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל״ ִ
h2
where it is customary to stand before an important person and he will come to be negligent. Rav Sheshet strongly objects
while wearing socks, one must wear socks during prayer. In
to this: Is it a burden to tie his belt? In addition, if it is a burden,
a place where it is customary to stand barefoot even before
great people, one is permitted to do so even in prayer, as per
let him stand that way, without a belt, and pray.h The Gemara an-
1
the custom of Rabba bar Rav Huna (Rambam Sefer Ahava, swers: It is necessary to wear a belt while praying, since it is stated:
Hilkhot Tefilla 5:5; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 91:5). “Prepare to greet your God, Israel” (Amos 4:12). One must prepare
And would clasp his hands – ו ָּפ ַכר יָ ָדיו: It is proper to recite
h3
and adorn himself when standing before God.
the Amida prayer with one hand placed over the other while
standing in awe and reverence before God. In general, one
must conduct himself in accordance with the local customs ,ָר ָבא ַ ּבר ַרב הוּנָ א ָר ֵמי ּפוּזְ ְמ ֵקי ו ְּמצַ ֵּלי Since the verse: “Prepare to greet your God, Israel,” was cited with
for one standing before his master (Magen Avraham). One ָר ָבא ׁ ָש ֵדי.“ה ּכֹון ִל ְק ַראת וגו׳״ ִ :ָא ַמר regard to the obligation to prepare and adorn oneself before prayer,
holds his hands in this manner to show his deference to the Gemara cites that indeed Rava bar Rav Huna would don ex-
God (Taz). Some say that one should hold his hands in that : ָא ַמר. ּו ְמצַ ֵּלי,יה ּ יה ו ָּפ ַכר יְ ֵד ֵ ְ ּג ִל
ּ ימ
pensive socks and prayh and he said he would do this as it is written:
2
way only during a time of suffering. However, during peace- : ֲא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי.יה ּ יה ָמ ֵר ּ ְּכ ַע ְבדָּ א ַק ֵּמ
ful times, he should adorn himself, in accordance with the
“Prepare to greet your God, Israel.” On the other hand, Rava would
יכא ָּ יה ְל ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א – ִּכי ִא ּ ָחזֵ ינָ א ֵל not do so; rather, in his prayer he would remove his cloak and clasp
custom of Rav Kahana (Rema; Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot
Tefilla 5:5; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 95:3). יה ו ָּפ ַכר ּ ימ
ֵ לִ גּ ְ י דֵ ש ָ ׁ – א מָ לְ צַ ֲע ָרא ְ ּב ָע his handsh and pray. He said that he would do so as a slave before
3
And wrap himself and pray – ו ִּמ ְת ַע ֵּטף ו ְּמצַ ֵּלי: The custom of
. ְּכ ַע ְבדָּ א ַק ֵּמי ָמ ֵר ּיה: ֲא ַמר,יְ ֵד ּיה ו ְּמצַ ֵּלי his master, who appears before him with extreme submission. Rav
יכא ׁ ְש ָל ָמא – ָל ֵב ׁיש ו ִּמ ְת ַּכ ֵּסי ָּ ִּכי ִא Ashi said: I saw that Rav Kahana, when there is suffering in the
h4
בדִּ ין:ּ ַ A court is in session until the end of the fifth hour
ַרב ַא ִמי וְ ַרב ַא ִסי ֲהו ּו יָ ְת ִבי וְ גָ ְר ִסי Speaking of judgment, the Gemara relates that Rav Ami and Rav Asi of the day. Others hold that court is in session until
would sit and study between the pillars beneath the study hall. And each just before the end of the sixth hour (Sefer Me’irat Ein-
ֵ ּבינֵי ַע ּמו ֵּדי וְ ָכל ׁ ָש ֲע ָתא וְ ׁ ָש ֲע ָתא ayim; Baĥ). They are not obligated to sit in judgment
:יב ָרא דְּ ַד ׁ ּ ָשא וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ּ ְ ֲהו ּו ָט ְפ ִחי ַא ִע and every hour they would knock on the bolt of the doorn and say: If
2
ָּכל דַּ ּיָ ין: ָלֹומר ְלך ַ נַע ֵ ׂשית?! ֶא ָּלא ֲ ment only one hour, the verse ascribes to him as if he became a partner notes
ׁ ֶשדָּ ן דִּ ין ֱא ֶמת ַל ֲא ִמ ּיתֹו ֲא ִפילּ ּו ׁ ָש ָעה to the Holy One, Blessed be He, in the act of Creation, as by means of Knock on the bolt of the door – יב ָרא דְּ ַד ׁ ּ ָשא
n2 ּ ְ ט ְפ ִחי ַא ִע:ָ
They were the permanent judges in their city of Tiberias
ַא ַחת – ַמ ֲע ֶלה ָע ָליו ַה ָּכתוּב ְּכ ִאילּ ּו a true judgment he upholds the world (Me’iri). This conclusion is derived
and they announced that they were prepared to sit in
דֹוש ָ ּברו ְּך הוּא ׁ נַע ָ ׂשה ׁשו ָּּתף ְל ַה ָ ּק ֲ by means of a verbal analogy [gezera shava]: It is written here: “And the judgment if necessary (Iyyun Ya’akov). Others explain
people stood over Moses from the morning until the evening.” And it that after concluding the study of one topic, before
: ְּכ ִתיב ָה ָכא.אשית ִ ׁ ְ ּב ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה ְ ּב ֵר
is written there, in the act of Creation: “And it was evening and it was they proceeded to the next topic, they would grant
“וַ ּיַ ֲעמֹד ָה ָעם ַעל מ ׁ ֶֹשה ִמן ַה ּב ֶֹקר morning, one day” (Genesis 1:5). The evening and part of the morning permission to the litigants to come before them (Oraĥ
“וַ יְ ִהי ֶע ֶרב:ַעד ָה ָע ֶרב״ ו ְּכ ִתיב ָה ָתם are considered a whole day. With regard to this issue as well, it is sufficient Eliyahu).
.וַ יְ ִהי ב ֶֹקר יֹום ֶא ָחד״ for the judges to sit in judgment for only part of the day and there is no Their hearts would grow weak – קא ֲח ִל ׁיש ִל ַ ּביְ יה ּו:ָ
n3
need for them to starve themselves by sitting in judgment all day. Some understand Rashi’s first explanation as follows:
Since, ostensibly, Torah study takes precedence over sit-
יֹוש ִבין ַ ּבדִּ ין? ָא ַמר ַרב ְ ׁ ַעד ָמ ַתי The Gemara questions further: Until when do they sit in judgment?h 6
hour is the time of eating for Torah scholars as, until then, court is in indigenous to a land in Asia Minor called Ludiya whose
זֹורק ֶא ֶבן ֵ ִמ ָּכאן וְ ֵא ָילךְ – ְּכ.ֲח ָכ ִמים session. The Gemara adds: One who eats from then on is as if he is residents were both ravenous and pampered. However,
ָלא ֲא ַמ ַרן ֶא ָּלא: ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י.ְל ֵח ֶמת throwing a stone into a barrel,n meaning that by then it does not con-
5
from other sources it seems that the word Ludim re-
ferred to Ludadim, from the Latin ludarii, gladiators who
ֲא ָבל ָט ֵעים,דְּ ָלא ָט ֵעים ִמ ֵידי ְ ּבצַ ְפ ָרא tribute to the body’s health. Abaye said: We only said that eating from fought each other as well as wild animals in the Roman
.ִמ ֵידי ְ ּבצַ ְפ ָרא – ֵלית ָלן ָ ּב ּה the sixth hour on is not beneficial, when he did not taste anything in circus. Because of their need for frequent training and
the morning; however, if he tasted something in the morning, we have their desire to enjoy life until their inevitable demise
no problem with it. in the arena, they would eat early and eat ravenously.
ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ְ ּבנֵי,ַה ִּנ ְכנָ ס ְל ֵבית ַה ֶּמ ְר ָחץ from what was taught in the Tosefta: One who enters the bath-
house, in the first room, a place where all people stand dressed,
עֹומ ִדין ְלבו ׁ ִּשין – יֵ ׁש ׁ ָשם ִמ ְק ָראְ ָא ָדם
it is like any other place and reading the Torah and prayer are
ילת ַ לֹומר ׁ ְש ִא
ַ יך ְ וְ ֵאין צָ ִר,ו ְּת ִפ ָּלה permitted there, and, needless to say, in that room greeting
ַ ְ ו ַּמ ּנ ִַיח ְּת ִפ ִּילין וְ ֵאין צָ ִריך,ׁ ָשלֹום
לֹומר [shalom] others is permitted. And he may don phylacteries
.חֹולץ
ֵ ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו there, and, needless to say, if he was already donning phylacter-
ies that he need not remove them.
עֹומ ִדים ֲערו ִּמים ְ ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ְ ּבנֵי ָא ָדם In the next room, a place where people dress and undress and
,ו ְּלבו ׁ ִּשין – יֵ ׁש ׁ ָשם ׁ ְש ִא ַילת ׁ ָשלֹום they stand both naked and dressed, greeting others is permit-
חֹולץ
ֵ וְ ֵאינֹו,וְ ֵאין ׁ ָשם ִמ ְק ָרא ו ְּת ִפ ָלה ted there. However, reading the Torah and prayer are not
permitted there. And if one was already donning phylacteries
. וְ ֵאינֹו ַמ ּנ ִַיח ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּלה,ילין
ִּ ְּת ִפ
there, he need not remove the phylacteries. However, he may
not don phylacteries there ab initio.
– עֹומ ִדין ֲערו ִּמים ְ ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ְ ּבנֵי ָא ָדם In the innermost room, which is a place where people stand
יך
ְ וְ ֵאין צָ ִר,ֵאין ׁ ָשם ׁ ְש ִא ַילת ׁ ָשלֹום naked, greeting others is not permitted there, and, needless
ִּ חֹולץ ְּת ִפ
ילין ֵ ְ ו,לֹומר ִמ ְק ָרא ו ְּת ִפ ָלה
ַ to say, reading the Torah and prayer are prohibited there. And
if he is donning phylacteries there, he must remove the phylac-
!ִיחן
ָ לֹומר ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ַמ ּנ
ַ ְוְ ֵאין צָ ִריך
teries, and, needless to say, he may not don them there ab
initio. Apparently, the Tosefta contradicts the statement of Rav
Adda bar Ahava as he was, no doubt, referring to the innermost
room in the bathhouse, which alone is referred to simply as a
bathhouse, and, according to him, one may pray there ab initio.h 8
– ִּכי ָק ָא ַמר ַרב ַאדָּ א ַ ּבר ַא ֲה ָבה The Gemara answers: When Rav Adda bar Ahava said his ha-
Diagram of the rooms of the bathhouse at Masada וְ ָהא ָא ַמר.ְ ּב ֶמ ְר ָחץ ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּבֹו ָא ָדם lakha, he was referring to an empty bathhouse in which there
– ֶמ ְר ָחץ ׁ ֶש ָא ְמר ּו:יֹוסי ַ ּבר ֲחנִינָ א
ֵ ַר ִ ּבי are no people. The Gemara asks: Didn’t Rabbi Yosei bar
halakha Ĥanina say: With regard to the bathhouse in which they said
ֵ ּבית ַה ִּכ ֵּסא,ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּבֹו ָא ָדם
Reciting sacred matters in the bathhouse – ֲא ִמ ַירת ִ ּד ְב ֵרי ְקדו ׁ ּ ָּשה that it is prohibited to pray, the prohibition exists even though
!צֹואה ָ ׁ ֶש ָא ְמר ּו – ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּבֹו
h8
ב ֶמ ְר ָחץ:ּ ַ The room in the bathhouse in which everyone is dressed there are no people in it? With regard to the bathroom in
does not have the legal status of a bathhouse. Therefore, it is which they said that it is prohibited to pray, the prohibition
permitted to recite sacred matters there. In the room where, gen- exists even though there are no feces in it. Certainly, since the
erally, some are dressed and some are not, it is permitted to greet place serves a repugnanth purpose, it is inappropriate to pray
9
per the Tosefta (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Keriat Shema 3:3;
ימוּן אֹו ֵאין ּ ְִל ֵבית ַה ִּכ ֵּסא ַמהוּ? יֵ ׁש ז been used for bathing. The Gemara asks: Didn’t Ravina raise a
Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 84:1).
dilemma before Rav Adda with regard to this matter: A place
A place that is repugnant – מקֹום ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ְמכו ָ ּּבד:ָ With regard to יה; ָלאו הוּא ּ יטא ֵל ָ ימוּן? וְ ָלא ִא ְיפ ׁ ִש
ּ ִז
h9
Perek I
Daf 10 Amud b
. ׁ ָשאנֵי ֵ ּבית ַה ִּכ ֵּסא דִּ ְמ ִאיסthe bathroom is different, as it is disgusting. Once a place is
called a bathroom it is disgusting and no longer fit for prayer.
However, until he actually bathes in a bathhouse it remains fit
for prayer.
יהּ “אין ׁ ָשם ׁ ְש ִא ַילת ׁ ָשלֹום״ ְמ ַסּיֵ ַיע ֵל ֵ It was taught in the Tosefta: There is no greeting [shalom] oth-
: דְּ ָא ַמר,יה דְּ עו ָּּלאּ ְל ַרב ַה ְמנוּנָ א ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ ers permitted in the bathhouse. The Gemara comments that this
ָאסוּר ְל ָא ָדם ׁ ֶשּיִ ֵּתן ׁ ָשלֹום ַל ֲח ֵבירֹו statement supports the opinion of Rav Hamnuna in the name
of Ulla, who said: It is forbidden for a person to greet [sha-
: ִמ ׁ ּש ּו ם ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,ְ ּב ֵבית ַה ֶּמ ְר ָח ץ
lom] his friend in the bathhouse because Shalom is one of the
.“וַ ּיִ ְק ָרא לֹו ה׳ ׁ ָשלֹום״ names of God, as it is stated: “And Gideon built there an altar
for God and he called Him Lord Shalom” ( Judges 6:24).
Therefore, it is prohibited to utter the word shalom in a dishonor-
able place.
46 Perek I . 10b . י ףד: קרפ ׳א
halakha
ימר ְ ּב ֵבית ַ ימנו ָּתא נַ ִמי ָאסוּר ְל ֵמ ָ ֵה,ֶא ָּלא ֵמ ַע ָּתה The Gemara asks: But if so, words connoting faithfulness are also
forbidden to say in the bathroom, as it is written “The faithful It is permitted to say faithfulness in the bath-
:ימא ָ “ה ֵאל ַה ֶּנ ֱא ָמן״! וְ ִכי ֵּת ָ : דִּ ְכ ִתיב,ַה ִּכ ֵּסא
h1
,הֹודיעֹו ִ ַהנּ ֵֹותן ַּמ ָּתנָ ה ַל ֲח ֵבירֹו – צָ ִריךְ ְל:ָא ַמר ַרב cites another statement that Rava bar Meĥasseya said that Rav ּ גּ ו ֵּפ: In terms of the meaning of the
יה ִא ְיק ִרי ׁ ָשלֹום
ַּתנְיָא.“ל ַד ַעת ִּכי ֲאנִי ה׳ ְמ ַקדִּ ׁ ְש ֶכם״ ָ :ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר Ĥama bar Gurya said that Rav said: One who gives a gift to an- verses themselves, it is not that obvious that God’s
other must inform himn that he is giving it to him. As it is stated:
2 name is Shalom. The Gemara explains that the
ָא ַמר.“ל ַד ַעת ִּכי ֲאנִי ה׳ ְמ ַקדִּ ׁ ְש ֶכם״ ָ :נַ ִמי ָה ִכי other good traits, e.g., faithful, compassionate,
“Only keep My Shabbatot for it is a sign between Me and you for your
טֹובה
ָ ַמ ָּתנָ ה:דֹוש ָ ּברו ְּך הוּא ְלמ ׁ ֶֹשה ׁ לֹו ַה ָ ּק and merciful, which are used as appellations for
generations to know that I am God Who sanctifies you” (Exodus God, are appellations of greatness, and can also
וַ ֲאנִי ְמ ַב ֵ ּק ׁש,יֵ ׁש ִלי ְ ּב ֵבית ְ ּגנָ זַ י וְ ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ׁ ְש ָמ ּה 31:13). When the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave Shabbat to Israel, be used with regard to people. That is not the
ִמ ָּכאן ָא ַמר.יעם ֵ הֹודִ ְיתנָ ּה ְליִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל – ֵל ְך ו ְּ ִל He told Moses to inform them about it. That was also taught in a case with regard to Shalom, as Shalom transcends
ֹותן ּ ַפת ְל ִתינֹוק ֵ ּ ַהנ:יאל ֵ ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל baraita: The verse states: “For I am God Who sanctifies you,” the capabilities of man and describes God alone
meaning that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: I have (Maharsha).
יה? ָא ַמר ּ ַמאי ָע ֵביד ֵל.הֹוד ַיע ְל ִא ּמֹו ִ יך ְל ְ צָ ִר
a good gift in My treasure house and Shabbat is its name, and I One who gives a gift to another must inform
.ֹוח ָלא ֲ יה ּכ
ּ יה ִמ ׁ ְש ָחא ו ָּמ ֵלי ֵל ּ ׁ ָש ֵאיף ֵל:ַא ַ ּביֵ י n2
seek to give it to Israel. Go inform them about it. From here Rab- him – הֹודיעֹו
ִ יך ְל
ְ הנּ ֵֹותן ַּמ ָּתנָ ה ַל ֲח ֵבירֹו צָ ִר:ַ The reason
ישינַ ן ִל ְכ ׁ ָש ִפים ַמאי? ָא ַמר ַרב ִ ׁ ְוְ ָה ִא ָידנָ א דְּ ָחי ban Shimon ben Gamliel said: One who gives a gift of bread to a that one giving a gift must inform the recipient is
.יה ֵמאֹותֹו ַה ִּמין ּ ׁ ָש ֵאיף ֵל:ּ ַפ ּ ָפא child needs to inform his mother that he gave it to him. The Ge- explained in various ways. First, the commentaries
emphasize that this applies only to a case where
mara asks: What does he do to the child, so that his mother will
the recipient is wealthy and he gave it to him as a
know that he gave him a gift? Abaye said: He should smear him gift. However, one who gives a charitable gift must
with oil or place blue shadow around his eye in an obvious manner. be certain to give it anonymously (Rosh). Others
When the mother of the child notices and asks him about it, he will explain that the reason that he must inform him
tell her that so-and-so gave him a piece of bread. The Gemara asks: is because otherwise the recipient will wonder
And now that we are concerned about witchcraft involving oil or who gave it to him (Rashi). With regard to the
eye shadow, what should one who gives a gift do? Rav Pappa said: matter of informing the child’s mother, some say
that the reason is so that people will be aware of
He should smear him with food of the same type that he gave
each other’s affection, and thereby their love will
him to eat. grow (Rashi). Others explain that since, in general,
there is a requirement to inform the recipient of a
ֹותןֵ ּ ַהנ:(בר) ֲחנִינָ א ּ ַ ִאינִי?! וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַרב ָח ָמא With regard to the halakha itself, the Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t gift and a child would not take notice, his mother
Rav Ĥama bar Ĥanina say: One who gives a gift to his friend need becomes aware of the gift by means of the con-
: ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,הֹודיעֹוִ ַמ ָּתנָ ה ַל ֲח ֵבירֹו – ֵאין צָ ִריךְ ְל spicuous sign (Adderet Eliyahu).
!“ ּומ ׁ ֶֹשה ל ֹא יָ ַדע ִּכי ָק ַרן עֹור ּ ָפנָיו ְ ּב ַד ְ ּברֹו ִא ּתֹו״ not inform him, as God made Moses’ face glow, and nevertheless
it is stated with regard to Moses: “And Moses did not know that He would take in his hand two gifts of an
, ָהא – ְ ּב ִמ ְּיל ָתא דַּ ֲע ִב ָידא ְל ִאגְ לוּיֵ י,ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א
n3
the skin of his face shone when He spoke with him” (Exodus ox – תֹורא
ָ ְּיה ַּת ְר ֵּתי ַמ ְּתנָ ָתא ד
ּ נָ ֵקיט ִ ּב ֵיד: By Torah law
וְ ָהא.יל ָתא דְּ ָלא ֲע ִב ָידא ְל ִאגְ לוּיֵ י ְּ ָהא – ְ ּב ִמ 34:29)? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. When Rav Ĥama (Deuteronomy 18:3), portions from every animal
ׁ ַש ָ ּבת דַּ ֲע ִב ָידא ִלגְ לוּיֵ י! ַמ ַּתן ְ ׂש ָכ ָר ּה ָלא ָע ֵביד slaughtered, are given to the priest, i.e., the fore-
bar Ĥanina said that he need not inform him, he was referring to a
leg, the jaw, and the maw, as gifts. These gifts do
.ִלגְ לוּיֵ י matter that is likely to be revealed. When Rabban Shimon ben not have consecrated status and are the property
Gamliel said that he needs to inform him, he was referring to a mat- of the priest. Consequently, he can give them to
ter that is not likely to be revealed. The Gemara asked: If so, isn’t whomever he pleases. Rav Ĥisda, as a priest, held
Shabbat likely to be revealed, as it will be necessary to inform them in his hand gifts of priesthood that he received
of Shabbat together with the other mitzvot? Why was Moses asked and sought to give them to anyone who would
to inform them about Shabbat separately? The Gemara answers: The provide him with a new insight. However, several
generations later, the practice of giving gifts of
giving of its reward is not likely to be revealed, and it was neces- the priesthood from the meat of animals outside
sary to inform them about so extraordinary a gift. Eretz Yisrael, for all intents and purposes, ceased.
Fine wool [meilta] is precious to those who
יה ַּת ְר ֵּתי ַמ ְּתנָ ָתא ּ ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א ֲהוָ ה נָ ֵקיט ִ ּב ֵיד The Gemara relates that Rav Ĥisda would take in his hand two gifts
n4
the other sons – עֹולם ַאל יְ ׁ ַש ֶּנה ָא ָדם ְ ּבנֹו ֵ ּבין ַה ָ ּבנִים
ָ ל:ְ In order to
avoid inciting strife among one’s sons, he should not treat one son ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל,יְ ׁ ַש ֶּנה ָא ָדם ְ ּבנֹו ֵ ּבין ַה ָ ּבנִים sons from among the other sonsh by giving him preferential
2
differently, even slightly, from his other children (Rambam Sefer treatment. As, due to the weight of two sela of fine wool [mei-
ִמ ׁ ְש ַקל ׁ ְשנֵי ְס ָל ִעים ֵמ ָילת ׁ ֶש ָּנ ַתן יַ ֲעקֹב
Kinyan, Hilkhot Naĥalot 6:13; Tur, Ĥoshen Mishpat 282). lat]l that Jacob gave to Joseph, beyond what he gave the rest
1
יֹותר ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ָאר ָ ּבנָיו – נִ ְת ַקנְ א ּו ּבֹוֵ ּיֹוסף ֵ ְל of his sons, in making him the striped coat, his brothers be-
language ֵ וְ נִ ְת ַ ּג ְל ֵ ּגל ַהדָּ ָבר וְ יָ ְרד ּו ֲא,ֶא ָחיו
בֹותינ ּו came jealous of him and the matter unfolded and our forefa-
Fine wool [meilat] – מ ָילת:ֵ Apparently the origin of this word is
l1
.ְל ִמצְ ַריִ ם thers descended to Egypt.n 5
purpose. was recently established, as due to the fact that its settling is
רֹובה ָ ֹוך ׁ ֶשּיְ ׁ ִש ָיב ָת ּה ְק ְ ׁ ֶש ִּמ ּת.רֹובה ָ ְק
recent its sins are few, as its residents have not yet had the op-
notes
“ה ֵּנה ִ : ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר.יה מ ּו ָע ִטין ָ �ֹונֹות
ֶ ֲע portunity to commit many sins there. As it is stated that Lot
And our forefathers descended to Egypt – בֹותינ ּו ְל ִמצְ ַריִ ם
n5 ֵ וְ יָ ְרד ּו ֲא: רֹובה ָלנוּס ׁ ָש ָּמה ָ נָ א ָה ִעיר ַהּזֹאת ְק said to the angel: “Behold, here is this city that is close to run
The emphasis is specifically on the fact that they descended to ימא ָ רֹובה׳? ִא ֵיל ָ ַמאי ְ‘ק.וְ ִהיא ִמצְ ָער״ away to and it is small” (Genesis 19:20). What is the meaning
Egypt. It had already been decreed to Abraham that his descen- of the word close? If you say: That it is close in distance and
יק ְר ָבא וְ זו ָּטא – וְ ָהא ּ ָ רֹובה׳ דְּ ִמ ָ ְ‘ק
dants would be enslaved in a foreign land. However, the fact truly small, why did he need to say that to the angel? Didn’t
that the enslavement took place in that particularly distant and ִמ ּתֹוךְ ׁ ֶשּיְ ׁ ִש ָיב ָת ּה:ָקא ָחז ּו ָל ּה! ֶא ָּלא
they see it? Rather, the meaning of the word close must be
difficult land came about due to Joseph and his brothers (Panim ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי.יה מוּצְ ָע ִרין ָ �ֹונֹות
ֶ רֹובה – ֲע ָ ְק
Masbirot, Iyyun Ya’akov). because its settling was close, that it had been recently settled,
“א ָּמ ְל ָטה ִ : ַמאי ְק ָרא? – דִּ ְכ ִתיב:ָא ִבין and therefore its sins were few. Rabbi Avin said: What is the
In a city whose settling is recent – רֹובה ָ ב ִעיר ׁ ֶשּיְ ׁ ִש ָיב ָת ּה ְק:ּ ְ Since ימ ְט ִרּיָ א ַח ְמ ׁ ִשין ַ ִ נ״א ְ ּבג,נָ א ׁ ָש ָּמה״
n6
verse that teaches us that Zoar was newer than the other cities?
the people of the city have not grown accustomed to sinning and
set in their evil ways, repentance is still possible (Me’iri). ישים ִּ ׁ וְ ׁ ֶשל ְסדֹום ֲח ִמ,וְ ַא ַחת ָהוֵ י As it is written: “I will escape there please [na]” (Genesis
ו ׁ ְּש ַּתיִ ם וְ ׁ ַש ְלוָ ָת ּה 19:20); the numerological value of nun alef, the letters of the
word na, is fifty-one, while Sodom was fifty-two years old. And
Sodom’s tranquil period
Perek I
Daf 11 Amud a
notes
“ש ֵּתים ֶע ְ ׂש ֵרהְ ׁ : דִּ ְכ ִתיב,ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים וְ ֵׁש ׁש during which they committed their sins was altogether twenty-
Any city whose roofs are higher than the synagogue – ִעיר
n1
Poles [kashkushei] – ק ׁ ְשקו ׁ ֵּשי:ַ There are some whose version of shown the synagogue. Allusion to this is from that which is
רֹומם ֶאת ֵ ּבית ֱאל ֵֹהינ ּו ֵ “ל ְ :ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר
l1
the text is kushki (Arukh and others). Apparently, the word is from stated: “To uplift the house of our God and restore its ruins”
the Persian kōšk, meaning palace or villa. Perhaps this word was – וְ ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי.בֹותיו״ָ ו ְּל ַה ֲע ִמיד ֶאת ָח ְר (Ezra 9:9). The house that is devoted to God needs to be elevat-
also assimilated into the Arabic (ge’onim). – ְ ּב ָב ִּתים ֲא ָבל ְ ּב ַק ׁ ְשקו ׁ ֵּשי וְ ַא ְ ּברו ֵּרי ed above the other houses of the city. The Gemara adds: And
Towers [abrurei] – א ְ ּברו ֵּרי:
l2 ַ Apparently, the word is Persian ֲאנָ א ָע ְב ִדי: ֲא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי.ֵלית ָלן ָ ּב ּה this applies only to the height of the houses themselves. How-
(ge’onim). Modern scholars believe it is from the Middle Persian, וְ ָהא.ִל ְמ ָתא ְמ ַח ְּסיָ א דְּ ָלא ָח ְר ָבה ever, if the poles [kashkushei]l and the towers [abrurei]l that
1 2
perhaps from the word parwār, meaning towers. extend from the house are higher than the synagogue, we have
.ָח ְר ָבה! ֵמאֹותֹו ָע�ֹון ל ֹא ָח ְר ָבה
no problem with it. Rav Ashi said: I caused the city of Mata
Meĥasseya to not be destroyed by building the synagogue
higher than the other houses. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t Mata
Meĥasseya ultimately destroyed? The Gemara answers: It was
not destroyed because of that sin; other sins caused its
destruction.
halakha
Any city whose roofs are higher than the synagogue –
h1 where the Jews fear the gentile authorities, who prohibit
נֶסת ִ יה ְ ּג
ֶ בֹוהין ִמ ֵ ּבית ַה ְּכ ֶ ּעיר ׁ ֶש ַ ּגג:ִ When a synagogue is con-
ָ ֹות constructing synagogues higher than their houses, Jews
structed, it should be constructed higher than the other need not construct their dwellings lower than the syna-
dwellings in the city. Constructing the houses of the city gogue. Since the houses of the gentiles are higher than the
higher than the synagogue is prohibited. One who did so synagogue, the primacy of the synagogue would not, in any
must diminish the height of his building. However, towers case, be noticeable even if it were higher than Jewish homes
and other building adornments, which are not dwellings, (Magen Avraham; Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Tefilla 1:2;
may be constructed higher than the synagogue. In places Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 150: 1–2).
עֹומק וְ ֵלב
ֶ “ש ַמיִ ם ָלרוּם וָ ָא ֶרץ ָל ָ ׁ :ְמ ׁ ַש ְר ׁ ִשּיָא all the considerations with which a government must concern Third-born calf – עיגְ ָלא ִּת ְיל ָּתא:ִ Some explain that tilta refers
n5
to a calf that reached only a third of its size, which has the
.ְמ ָל ִכים ֵאין ֵח ֶקר״ itself and deal. Rav Mesharshiya said: What is the verse that choicest meat (Rashi). Others say that meshulash in the Bible
alludes to this? “The Heavens on High and the land to the and tilta here means the best, similar to the term in the verse:
depth and the heart of kings are unsearchable” (Proverbs 25:3). “And captains [shalishim] over them all” (Exodus 14:7), which
refers to the highest ranking soldiers (Tosafot).
וְ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא ַ ּבר ְמ ַח ְּסיָ א ָא ַמר ַרב ָח ָמא ַ ּבר And Rava bar Meĥasseya said that Rav Ĥama bar Gurya said
יָ ָפה ַּת ֲענִית ַל ֲחלֹום ְּכ ֵא ׁש:גּ ו ְּריָ א ָא ַמר ַרב that Rav said: A fast is effective to neutralize a bad dream like
וְ ָא ַמר. דוּבֹו ַ ּבּיֹום: ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א.נְעֹורת ֶ ִל fire burns chaff. Rav Ĥisda said: And a fast is effective specifi-
cally on that dayh that he dreamed. And Rav Yosef said: One
2
. ֲא ִפיל ּו ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת:יֹוסף
ֵ ַרב
suffering from a bad dream that he dreamed is permitted to fast
even on Shabbat.nh 4 3
halakha
A fast is effective to neutralize a bad dream…on that day –
h2 for it another day (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Ta’aniyot 1:12;
יָ ָפה ַּת ֲענִית ַל ֲחלֹום…וּבֹו ַבּיֹום: One who experiences a bad dream Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 220:2 and 568:2).
and is disturbed by it, should fast to allay his concern. Some A fast is effective to neutralize a dream…even on Shabbat –
h3
say that there is no obligation to do so (Magen Avraham in the לֹום…א ִפיל ּו ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת
ֲ יָ ָפה ַּת ֲענִית ַל ֲח: It is permitted to fast on Shabbat
name of the Rashba). Although fasting is as effective in neutral- to counteract a bad dream. In modern times, it is undertaken
izing a bad dream as fire is in burning chaff, one who experi- only for rare dreams, which are a source of concern. Even then,
ences a bad dream is not obligated to fast, as the Sages quoted a fast is only undertaken if the emotional discomfort caused
the verse: “And the dreams speak falsely” (Zechariah 10:2). One by the dream is more painful than the fast (Magen Avraham;
fasts specifically on the day following the night of the dream. If Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Ta’aniyot 1:12; Shulĥan Arukh,
he interrupted the fast for some reason, he cannot compensate Oraĥ Ĥayyim 220:2 and in the comment of the Rema, 288:4–5).
lowing language: They stop, etc., which appears clause of the mishna already teach that they need not stop? Why does the
ֲח ֵב ִרים: דְּ ַתנְיָא.תֹורה ָ ֲא ָתאן ְל ִד ְב ֵרי
to be introducing a new case and not continuing mishna repeat it? The Gemara answers: In the latter clause of the mishna, we
to discuss the previous matters (Rashash). Others יקין ִ עֹוס ִקין ַ ּב ּת ָֹורה – ַמ ְפ ִס ְ ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו came to discuss matters of Torah. With regard to those engaged in Torah
understand that, according to the Gemara’s con- יקין ִ וְ ֵאין ַמ ְפ ִס,יאת ׁ ְש ַמע ַ ִל ְק ִר study, they need not stop for prayer, but they are required to stop to recite
clusion, when the mishna said: They stop for prayer, ָ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי.ִל ְת ִפ ָּלה
ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו:יֹוחנָ ן Shema. As it was taught in a baraita: Torah scholars, who were engaged in
in our mishna, it is referring to when there is insuf-
ַ ֶא ָּלא ְּכגֹון ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן
יֹוחי the study of Torah, stop their Torah study for Shema, and they do not stop
ficient time remaining in the day to pray. When
the mishna said: They do not stop, it is referring to ֲא ָבל. ׁ ֶש ּת ָֹור ָתן או ָּּמנו ָּתן,וַ ֲח ֵב ָיריו for prayer.h Rabbi Yoĥanan said a caveat to this statement: They only taught
4
when there is sufficient time left in the day. In fact, that they need not stop for prayer with regard to the likes of Rabbi Shimon
יאת ׁ ְש ַמע ַ ְּכגֹון ָאנ ּו – ַמ ְפ ִס ִיקין ִל ְק ִר
the mishna is not dealing with the case of Rabbi ben Yoĥai and his colleagues, whose Torah is their vocation and they
Shimon bar Yoĥai and his friends (Korban Netanel ). .וְ ִל ְת ִפ ָּלה never interrupt their Torah study. However, for the likes of us, who also
The attendant sees – רֹואה
n6 ֶ ה ַחּזָ ן:ַ In the Jerusalem engage in other activities, we stop both for Shema and for prayer.
Talmud, it is explained that there is no concern that
the children will adjust the wick. As far as they are יקין ִ ְּכ ׁ ֵשם ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַמ ְפ ִס:וְ ָה ַתנְ יָ א With regard to the essence of the statement the Gemara asks: Didn’t we learn
concerned, they would prefer that the light extin- יאת ַ ִל ְת ִפ ָּלה ָּכךְ ֵאין ַמ ְפ ִס ִיקין ִל ְק ִר in a different baraita: Just as they do not stop for prayer, they do not stop
guish faster so as not to read. Others explain that
.יבוּר ׁ ָשנָ ה ּ ׁ ְש ַמע! ִּכי ָּתנֵי ַה ִהיא – ְ ּב ִע for Shema? The Gemara answers: When that baraita was taught, it was
the attendant sees only the beginning of the sec- taught with regard to those engaged in the intercalation of the year.h Since 5
tion, opens to it for his students, and shows them וְ ֵכן ָּתנ ּו,דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב ַאדָּ א ַ ּבר ַא ֲה ָבה
their activity is crucial and all the Festivals of the year are determined through
where they need to read, but he himself does not ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר,ָס ֵבי דְּ ַהגְ רֹונְ יָ א that activity, the Sages allowed them to continue and not stop to recite Shema.
read at all (Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishna).
יבוּר ּ עֹוס ִקין ְ ּב ִע
ְ ְּכ ׁ ֶש ָהיִ ינ ּו:ַ ּבר צָ דֹוק As Rav Adda bar Ahava said, and the Elders of the city of Hagronya also
יקין ִ ַה ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה ְ ּב ְיַבנֶ ה ל ֹא ָהיִ ינ ּו ַמ ְפ ִס taught that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, said: When we were en-
language
.יאת ׁ ְש ַמע וְ ל ֹא ִל ְת ִפ ָּלה ַ ל ֹא ִל ְק ִר gaged in the intercalation of the year in Yavne, we would stop neither for
Scribe [lavlar] – ל ְב ָלר:ַ This word was borrowed
Shema nor for prayer.
l3
ֹאכל ַהּזָ ב ַ ל ֹא י: ַּכּיֹוצֵ א ּבֹו.יִ ְק ָרא mos]lh for the same reason. And one may not shake his clothes on Shabbat
b2
4 6
mitted to Moses from Sinai (Jerusalem Talmud, established halakha: The attendant seesn where in the book the children 6
Shabbat 1:2). Others emphasize that every use of under his supervision are reading in the Torah, even by candlelight on Shab-
this phrase denotes a practical halakha (ge’onim). bat. However, he himself may not read. Similarly, the Sages issued a similar
decree with regard to other halakhot, as they said: The zav may not eat even
with his wife the zava, despite the fact that they are both ritually impure,
because, by eating together, they will come to excessive intimacy and become
accustomed to sin.
ֲא ָבל ִאם ִה ְכנִיס.ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת ַהּיָ ִחיד public domain and drink water located in the private domain, lest he trans-
– ֹאשֹו וְ רו ּּבֹו ַל ָּמקֹום ׁ ֶשהוּא ׁש ֶֹותה ׁ ר fer the vessel from which he is drinking the water to the place where he is
מו ָּּתר standing and become liable to bring a sin-offering. However, if he introduced
his head and most of his body into the place where the water that he is
drinking is located, there is no longer room for concern, and it is permitted,
halakha
They stop for Shema and they do not stop for prayer – ַמ ְפ ִס ִיקין
h4 his lecture to recite Shema and pray, he need not pause at all for the scribe to go out with his quill on Shabbat eve just prior
וְ ֵאין ַמ ְפ ִס ִיקין ִל ְת ִפ ָּלה,יאת ׁ ְש ַמע
ַ ל ְק ִר:ִ A Torah scholar, whose Torah (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Keriat Shema 2:5; Hilkhot Tefilla to nightfall. However, if it is stuck in his clothing, it is permitted
is his vocation, like Rabbi Shimon bar Yoĥai and his colleagues, 6:8; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 106:3 and in the comment according to Rabbi Meir, as per the conclusion of the Gemara
interrupts his Torah study to recite Shema but not to recite the of the Rema). (Magen Avraham). Others dispute this leniency and hold that
Amida prayer, even if the time designated to recite the Amida the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda in this case as
In the intercalation of the year – יבוּר ׁ ָשנָ ה
ּ ב ִע:ּ ְ Those engaged well (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 19:26; Shulĥan
prayer will consequently pass. We, who are not on that level,
h5
in seeing to the needs of the community, e.g., intercalating the Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 252:6; Vilna Gaon).
interrupt our Torah study both to recite Shema and to pray. If
year, do not stop to recite Shema, as their legal status is like
one is teaching Torah to others, he does not stop, even to recite A person may not stand in the private domain and drink in
that of those studying Torah (Jerusalem Talmud). They should h7
Shema. Nevertheless, he must pause to recite the opening the public domain – יִש ֶּתה ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת
ְ ׁ ְּיָחיד ו
ִ ל ֹא יַ ֲעמֹוד ָא ָדם ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת ַה
complete their task and, if time remains, recite Shema thereafter
verse of Shema (Rema) in order to accept the yoke of Heaven ה ַר ִ ּבים:ָ By Torah law, a person may only stand in one domain
(Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Keriat Shema 2:5).
upon himself. In addition, he should seek to include a halakha and drink from a different domain if he put his head and most
relating to the exodus from Egypt in his lecture, so that he will h6 The tailor may not go out with his needle…the scribe not of his body into the domain from which he is drinking (Ram-
mention the Exodus during the time designated to recite She- with his quill – טֹו…ה ַּל ְב ָלר ְ ּבקו ְּלמֹוסֹו
ַ ל ֹא יֵ צֵ א ַה ַחּיָ יט ְ ּב ַמ ְח: It is pro- bam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 15:2; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ
ma (Mishna Berura). If he is certain that time will remain after hibited for the tailor to go out with his needle in his hand and Ĥayyim 350:1).
Sages prohibited doing so in one of the domains by Torah law, i.e., the pub- to the matter of tithes – וְ ֵכן ַ ּב ַ ּגת ְל ִענְיַ ן ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר: One
lic and the private domains, a similar decree was not issued in a karmelit, may drink the wine in a wine press if the drinking
which is a domain by rabbinic law. is near the wine press and incidental. If he put the
wine into a hot dish of food, even if he did so near
: ְמנָ א ָא ִמינָ א ָל ּה – דְּ ָק ָתנֵי:ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י Abaye said: From where do I say that halakha, i.e., that the decree applies the wine press, it is considered a fixed meal and
to a karmelit? From that which we learned at the end of the mishna in trac- he may not eat it until he tithes (Rambam Sefer
ַמאי ַ ּגת? ִאי ְר ׁשוּת.“וְ ֵכן ַ ּב ַ ּגת״
tate Eiruvin: And the same is true in the wine press. The question arises: Zera’im, Hilkhot Ma’aser 5:16).
– ִאי ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים,ַהּיָ ִחיד – ָּתנֵינָ א
What is the status of the wine press in terms of the domains of Shabbat? If
. ֶא ָּלא ָלאו – ַּכ ְר ְמ ִלית,ָּתנֵינָ א notes
you say that it is the private domain, we already learned that in the mishna.
If it is the public domain, we already learned that as well. Rather, isn’t this Decree to prevent violation of another decree –
n1
press a karmelit? Apparently, a karmelit was also prohibited in the mishna. ְ ּגזֵ ָרה ִלגְ זֵ ָרה: The principle that a decree is not issued
upon a decree is accepted in the Gemara and has
. “וְ ֵכן ַ ּב ַ ּגת״ – ְל ִענְיַ ן ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר:ָר ָבא ָא ַמר Rava said: That which we learned in the mishna: And the same is true in support from the Torah. Although there is a direc-
the wine press, is not relevant to the halakhot of Shabbat. It refers to the tive to establish protection for mitzvot, protection
“וְ ֵכן ַ ּב ַ ּגת״ – ְל ִענְיַ ן:וְ ֵכן ָא ַמר ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת for that protection is not established. Of course, if
ֹותין ַעל ַה ַ ּגת ֵ ּבין ַעל ִ ׁש: דִּ ְתנַן,ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר matter of the halakhot of tithes.n And Rav Sheshet also said: That which
2
.ֹותר
ָ ֶאת ַה ּמ the juice was diluted with cold water, in which case he could return the Establishing the obligation for tithes – יעה
n2 ָ ְק ִב
leftover wine without ruining the rest, and he is exempt. Drinking that way ל ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר:ְ There is a principle with regard to the
is considered incidental drinking, and anything that is not a fixed meal is halakhot of tithes that, as a rule, there is only an
exempt from tithing. That is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Elazar, obligation to tithe produce on which work has
been completed and not produce that is still be-
son of Rabbi Tzadok, obligates one to separate the tithe in both cases. And ing processed. Therefore, one who eats and drinks
the Rabbis say: There is a distinction between these two cases; when the in an incidental manner from fruit that has not
wine was diluted with hot water, since he cannot return what is left of the been completely processed is not required to
wine to the press, he is obligated to tithe, as it is like fixed drinking for which tithe it. Some explain that here, in a winery, the
one is obligated to tithe. However, when the wine was diluted with cold reason for the distinction between hot and cold
water, he is exempt, because he returns the leftover wine to the press, and water is not between wine mixed with hot water
that cannot be returned to the wine press and
it is incidental drinking, which is exempt from tithing. Our mishna, which
wine that can be returned. Rather, the reason
says: And the same is true in the press, means that only if his head and most is that wine mixed with hot water is already a
of his body was in the press is he permitted to drink without separating the drink whose processing has been completed and
tithe, and that halakha is not at all related to matters of Shabbat (Rabbeinu nothing more need be done. Therefore, one is
Ĥananel). obligated to tithe it (Rambam’s Commentary on
the Mishna).
ל ֹא יֵ צֵ א ַה ַחּיָ יט ְ ּב ַמ ְחטֹו ָסמו ְּך:ְּתנַ ן As proof for Abaye’s opinion, the Gemara states that which we learned in
ַמאי ָלאו,יִש ַּכח וְ יֵ צֵ אְ ׁ ַל ֲח ׁ ֵש ָיכה ׁ ֶש ָּמא our mishna: The tailor may not go out with his needle adjacent to nightfall
יה
ּ דְּ נָ ֵקיט ֵל,דִּ ְתחו ָּבה לֹו ְ ּב ִבגְ דֹו? ָלא on Shabbat eve, lest he forget that he is carrying the needle and go out with
it to the public domain even after Shabbat begins. Is it not speaking here in
.יה ּ ִ ּב ֵיד a case where the needle was stuck in his clothing? In that case, even if he
was to go out into the public domain with the needle, he would not be liable
by Torah law, since that is not the typical manner of carrying out; carrying
out an object in that manner is prohibited only by rabbinic decree [shevut].
Nevertheless, not only did the Rabbis issue a decree to prohibit going out
with the needle on Shabbat, they issued a decree to prevent violation of
another decree and prohibited the tailor from going out with his needle
adjacent to nightfall. Apparently, the Sages institute a decree to prevent vio-
lation of another decree with regard to the halakhot of carrying out on
Shabbat (Tosafot). Consequently, with regard to the halakhot of karmelit, the
Sages issued a decree as well, and this is proof for Abaye’s opinion. The
Gemara rejects this: No, the mishna is referring to a case where he is hold-
ing the needle in his hand, which constitutes performance of the full-fledged
prohibited labor of carrying out.
אי ףד: ׳א קרפ. Perek I . 11b 51
halakha
ל ֹא יֵ צֵ א ַה ַח ּיָ יט:ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע Come and hear another proof from that which was taught explicitly in the ba-
The tailor may not go out with his needle stuck raita: The tailor may not go out with his needle stuck in his clothing.h Is it
,ְ ּב ַמ ְחטֹו ַה ְּתח ו ָּבה לֹו ְ ּב ִב גְ דֹו
h3
3
וְ ל ֹא צַ ָ ּבע,ְ ּב ִא ָירא ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ָאזְ נֹו wool [ira]l that is on his ear which he uses for the purpose of his work, and the
2
וְ ל ֹא ׁשו ְּל ָחנִי,ְ ּבדוּגְ ָמא ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ַצ ָּוארֹו painter may not go out with the sample of dyed wool that is on his neck, and
ἄωτος, aoton or aotos, meaning wool. The weaver
displays a small swatch of wool for work purposes. וְ ִאם יָ צָ א – ּ ָפטוּר,ְ ּב ִדינָ ר ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ָאזְ נֹו a money changer may not go out with the dinar that is in his ear. In all of these
. ִד ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר,ֲא ָבל ָאס ּור cases the halakha is that if he went out, he is exempt by Torah law, but it is
Layman [hedyot] – ה ְדיֹוט:ֶ From the Greek ἰδιώτης,
prohibited for him to do so by rabbinic decree. This is the statement of Rabbi
l3
idiotes, and it has various meanings such as private, א ּו ָמן דֶּ ֶר ְך:אֹומר ֵ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה
a private man, or a simple man. Several of them Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: A craftsman who carries out an object in the manner
ּו ׁ ְש ָא ר ָּכל,א ּו ָּמנֻ תֹו – ַח ּיָ יב
are used in the language of the Sages. common to his craft on Shabbat is liable by Torah law; any other person who
Other meanings of the word are also in use, .ָא ָדם – ּ ָפטוּר carries it out in that manner is exempt, but it is prohibited for him to do so.
for example, one who does not occupy a special
position, e.g., a common priest. , ל ֹא יֵ צֵ א ַהּזָ ב ְ ּב ִכיסֹו:ָּתנֵי ֲח ָדא Since the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the
.וְ ִאם יָ צָ א – ּ ָפטוּר ֲא ָבל ָאסוּר legal status of one who carries out an object in an atypical manner was men-
notes
וְ ִאם, ל ֹא יֵ צֵ א:וְ ַתנְ יָ א ִא ָיד ְך tioned, the Gemara discusses a contradiction between two related baraitot. It
A layman who carved out a vessel the size of a was taught in one baraita: The zav may not go out on Shabbat with his pouchh 4
kav in a piece of wood on Shabbat – ֶה ְדיֹוט ׁ ֶש ָח ַקק that he ties to his organ in order to absorb his emission. And if he went out, he
קב ִ ּב ְב ַק ַעת ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת:ַ Some explain that he carved is exempt by Torah law but it is prohibited for him to do so by rabbinic law.
the shape of a kav from the piece of wood, which
And it was taught in another baraita: The zav may not go out on Shabbat with
is a type of prosthetic for leg amputees (Arukh).
his pouch. And if he went out unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.
The halakhot of emissions of a zav – דִּ ינֵי זִ ָיבה:
n4
The portion dealing with of the halakhot of the – ָהא, ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א:יֹוסףֵ ֲא ַמר ַרבRav Yosef said: This is not difficult. There is no contradiction between the
emissions of a zav is written in the Torah (Leviticus
15:1–15). From those verses, the Sages derived a . ָהא – ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה, ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאירbaraitot, as this baraita, which deems him exempt, is in accordance with the
distinction between one who sees an emission opinion of Rabbi Meir; that, the other baraita, which deems him liable, is in
once, twice, and three times. One who sees an accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
emission once, although he is ritually impure, he
does not have the ritual impurity of a zav at all. If ֵאימוּר דְּ ׁ ָש ְמ ַע ְּת:יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י
ּ ֲא ַמר ֵל Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Say that you heard that Rabbi Meir deems him exempt
one sees an emission twice, all the laws of the im- יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר – ְ ּב ִמ ֵידי דְּ ָלאו ּ ֵל with regard to an object that is not carried out in its typical manner. However,
purity of a zav apply to him but he is not required with regard to a matter that is carried out in its typical manner, did you hear
to bring a sacrifice with his purification. After one ְ ּב ִמ ֵידי דְּ ַהיְ ינ ּו,יהּ אֹור ֵחְ ַהיְ ינ ּו
that he deems him exempt? In general, one carries out a needle in his hand.
who sees an emission three times completes יה?! דְּ ִאי ּ יה ִמי ׁ ָש ְמ ַע ְּת ֵל ּ אֹור ֵח
ְ
counting seven clean days without an emission,
Rabbi Meir exempts one who carries it out in his clothing, even if he is a crafts-
,ימא ָה ִכי – ֶא ָּלא ֵמ ַע ָּתה ָ ָלא ֵּת man. However, this pouch of a zav, even though it is not held in his hand, is
he is obligated to bring a sacrifice of purification.
ֶה ְד יֹוט ׁ ֶש ָח ַק ק ַקב ִ ּב ְב ַק ַעת always carried out in that manner, and, even according to Rabbi Meir, that
ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ָה ִכי נַ ִמי ְד ָלא constitutes a bona fide act of carrying out. As, if you do not say so, that the
!?ִמ ַחּיַ יב specifics of various prohibited labors can be performed in different manners, in
the case of a layman [hedyot],l who carved out a vessel the size of a kav in a
3
piece of wood on Shabbat,n would you say that Rabbi Meir also does not deem
3
ָלא:ֶא ָּלא ֲא ַמר ַרב ַה ְמנ ּונָ א Rather, Rav Hamnuna said: This is not difficult, as the two baraitot are refer-
ָּכאן – ְ ּבזָ ב ַ ּב ַעל ׁ ְש ֵּתי,ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ring to two different cases. Here, in the baraita that deemed him liable by Torah
ָּכאן – ְ ּבזָ ב ַ ּב ַעל ׁ ָשל ֹׁש,ְר ִאּיֹות law, it is referring to a zav who experienced two sightings of an emission. Liabil-
ity to bring an offering as part of the purification process is only after he sees
.ְר ִאּיֹות
three emissions. Therefore, the zav requires the pouch in order to ascertain
whether or not he experienced a third emission. However, there, in the baraita
that deems him exempt, it is referring to a zav who already experienced three
sightings.n For him there is no significance whether or not he experiences an
4
Perek I
Daf 12 Amud a
halakha
״כיִ ֹותל – ֵאינֹו ְ ּב ֶ ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא יִ ְל ֶקה ַה ּכ that the wall will not be damaged, it is not under the rubric of the
A bowl that the drip dropped into it – ֲע ֵר ָיבה ׁ ֶשּיָ ַרד דֶּ ֶלף
ִמי דָּ ֵמי?! ָה ָתם – ָלא ָקא ָ ּב ֵעי.יו ַּּתן״ verse: “If water be placed.” The water does not have the legal status h1
תֹוכ ּה
ָ ל:ְ Water that splashed into a bowl that one placed to
ָה ָכא – ָקא,ְלה ּו ְל ָהנֵי ַמ ׁ ְש ִקין ְּכ ָלל of water poured for that purpose. This tanna does not consider pro- receive a drip renders foods susceptible to impurity. If it then
tecting the wall from dirt as a significant usage. Similarly, protecting splashed out of that bowl, the water outside the bowl does
יה
ּ ָ ּב ֵעי ְלה ּו ְל ַהאי ִּכיס ְל ַק ּב ֵֹולי ֵ ּב the zav from being soiled by the emission would not be considered a not render foods susceptible to impurity, as per the mishna
!זִ ָיבה significant usage and the pouch used for that purpose would not be (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Okhlin 12:8).
considered a significant vessel. The Gemara rejects this: Are these
cases comparable? There, he does not need those liquids at all, and notes
therefore the vessel is not considered to have been placed to receive Water is not under the rubric of the verse: “If water be
n1
them. However, here he needs this pouch to absorb the emission, placed”…is under the rubric of the verse: “If water be
to ascertain whether or not he experienced an emission. Although on placed” – ״כי יו ַּּתן״
ִ ן״…ה ֵרי זֶ ה ְ ּב
ֲ ״כי יו ַּּת
ִ אינָ ן ְ ּב:
ֵ As previously
that particular day he does not require the pouch, the zav typically mentioned, the halakhot of rendering food susceptible to
ritual impurity are dependent on the question of whether
requires his pouch for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not or not the water that is on the food was placed there will-
there is another emission. fully. However, there is no simple definition of will for this
matter, as there is no requirement that a person specifically
:יפא ָ ָהא ָלא דָּ ְמיָ א ֶא ָּלא ְל ֵס Rather, this halakha with regard to the zav is comparable only to the
intend to moisten the fruit with water. Nevertheless, if a
ַמיִ ם,תֹוכ ּהָ יבה ׁ ֶשּיָ ַרד דֶּ ֶלף ְל ָ ֲע ֵר latter clause of the mishna dealing with rainwater, in which we person wanted this water to be in a specific place, that is
,״כי יו ַּּתן״ִ ִיתזִ ין וְ ַה ּנ ָ ִּצ ִפין – ֵאינָן ְ ּב
ָּ ַה ּנ learned: A bowl that the drip of rain from the roof dropped into it,h 1
tally, one has no interest in the drip of water, once the water already
dripped, he wants it to remain in the bowl and not dirty the house.
That desire is sufficient to accord the water in the bowl the legal status
of water placed there willfully. The same is true with regard to the
pouch of the zav. In the current situation of the zav, he is interested
in keeping the emission in its place, and therefore the original diffi-
culty posed by the contradiction between the two baraitot remains
intact.
בי ףד. ׳א קרפ. Perek I . 12a 53
halakha
ָלא:ּ ֶא ָּלא ַא ַ ּביֵ י וְ ָר ָבא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי ַּת ְרוַ יְ יהוRather, it is Abaye and Rava, who both said that this is not difficult.
A person may go out donning phylacteries on
וְ ָהא – ַר ִ ּבי, ָהא – ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה, ַק ׁ ְשיָ אThere is no contradiction between the baraitot. This baraita, which deems
h2
Hilkhot Tefillin 4:14; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 28:1). ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא – ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר Although one does not don phylacteries on Shabbat and going out don-
ning them involves an element of carrying, there is no concern lest he
A person is required to feel his clothing Shabbat ַח ּיָ יב ָא ָדם ְל ַמ ׁ ְש ֵמ ׁש:ַרב ה ּונָ א
forget and remove them on Shabbat. What is the reason for this? Be-
h4
eve at nightfall – ַחּיָ יב ָא ָדם ְל ַמ ׁ ְש ֵמ ׁש ְ ּב ִבגְ דּ ֹו ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ִעם ַקל וָ ח ֶֹמר,ילין ָּכל ׁ ָש ָעה וְ ׁ ָש ָעה ִּ ַ ּב ְּת ִפ
ח ׁ ֵש ָכה:ֲ A person is obligated to examine his clothes cause Rabba bar Rav Huna said: A person is obligated to touch his
Shabbat eve at nightfall to determine whether there ַמה ִ ּציץ ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּבֹו ֶא ָּלא ַאזְ ָּכ ָרה:ִמ ִ ּציץ phylacteries at all timesh that he is donning them. This is derived from
3
is an object there set aside from use on Shabbat (Ma- “וְ ָהיָה ַעל ִמצְ חֹו:ַא ַחת – ָא ְמ ָרה ּת ָֹורה an a fortiori inference [kal vaĥomer] from the frontplate [tzitz] of the
gen Avraham) or an object that, due to the fact that he ,ָּּת ִמיד״ – ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא יַ ִּס ַיח דַּ ְע ּתֹו ִמ ֶּמנּ ו High Priest. Just as with regard to the frontplate, which has only one
is unaware that it is in his pocket, he will come to carry mention of God’s name, the Torah said: “And it should be always upon
it out on Shabbat (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot – ילין ׁ ֶשיֵ ׁש ָ ּב ֶהן ַאזְ ָּכרֹות ַה ְר ֵ ּבה ִּ ְּת ִפ
his forehead” (Exodus 28:38), which means that the High Priest must
Shabbat 19:26; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 252:7). ִמ ְיד ַּכר: ְַעל ַא ַחת ַּכ ָּמה וְ ַכ ָּמה! ִה ְל ָּכך
always be aware that the tzitz is placed on his head and that he should
One may not shake by the light of the lamp – ֵאין
h5
ַחּיָ יב:אֹומר ֵ ֲחנַ נְיָא, ַּתנְיָא.ּדְּ ִכיר ְלהו not be distracted from it;n phylacteries that have numerous mentions
2
פ ִֹולין ְלאֹור ַה ֵּנר:ּ One does not use the light of the lamp ָא ָדם ְל ַמ ׁ ְש ֵמ ׁש ְ ּב ִבגְ דּ ֹו ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ִעם of God’s name, all the more so one should always be aware of them.
on Shabbat for anything that requires scrutiny and
examination (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shab-
ִה ְל ְכ ָתא ַר ָ ּב ִתי:יֹוסף
ֵ ָא ַמר ַרב.ֲח ׁ ֵש ָכה Therefore, he remembers that the phylacteries are on his head and is not
bat 5:16; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 275:1). .ְל ׁ ַש ָ ּבת likely to come to carry them on Shabbat.N On a related note, the Gemara
3
קֹורין ְלאֹור
ִ ֵאין ּפ ִֹולין וְ ֵאין: ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמעCome and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which was taught
?נִיתין
ִ ימא ִמ ַּמ ְת ָ ִמי ַא ִּל. ַה ֵּנרin a baraita: One may not shake clothing and one may not read a book
Phylacteries of the head by candlelight on Shabbat. The style of the baraita indicates that both
actions are prohibited for the same reason. The Gemara rejects this: Is
this proof from the baraita a stronger proof than our mishna? In our
mishna, both halakhot are also cited together, and that was insufficient
proof that they share a common rationale.
וְ ֵאין, ֵאין ּפ ִֹולין ְלאֹור ַה ֵּנר:ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which was taught
ֵא ּל ּו ִמן ַה ֲה ָלכֹות,קֹורין ְלאֹור ַה ֵּנר ִ in another baraita: One may not shake clothing by the light of the
ׁ ֶש ָא ְמר ּו ַ ּב ֲע ִלּיַ ית ֲחנַ נְיָה ֶ ּבן ִחזְ ִקּיָ ה ֶ ּבן lamph and one may not read by the light of the lamp. These two decrees
5
are among the halakhot that the Sages said in the upper story of
, דְּ ַת ְרוַ יְ יה ּו ׁ ֶש ָּמא יַ ֶּטה: ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה.ָ ּגרֹון
Ĥananya ben Ĥizkiya ben Garon. Learn from this that both of the
.ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה decrees are due to the concern lest he adjust the wick. In both decrees,
the prohibition of doing so by the light of the lamp, lest he come to adjust
the wick, was mentioned. Indeed, learn from this.
54 Perek I . 12a . בי ףד. קרפ ׳א
halakha
ּ ֲא ִפ:ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל
יל ּו Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is prohibited to use candle-
light even to distinguish between his garments and the garments Even to distinguish between his garments and the gar-
ֲא ַמר.ְל ַה ְב ִחין ֵ ּבין ִ ּבגְ דֹו ְל ִבגְ ֵדי ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו
h6
ments of his wife – א ִפ ּיל ּו ְל ַה ְב ִחין ֵ ּבין ִ ּבגְ דֹו ְל ִבגְ ֵדי ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו:ֲ It
ֲא ָבל, ָלא ֲא ַמ ַרן ֶא ָּלא דִּ ְבנֵי ְמחֹוזָ א:ָר ָבא of his wife.h Because that requires a certain degree of scrutiny, there
6
mai; and Beit Hillel permit doing so. In their opinion, a louse is
unlike the other creatures for which one is liable for killing them on
Shabbat.
background
אֹומר
ֵ וְ ֵכן ָהיָ ה ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר And Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would also say in the name of Combs – סנְ וָ ֵותי:ַ
b2
ֵאין:יאל ֵ ִמ ׁ ּש ּום ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: One may not make matches [me-
וְ ל ֹא ֶאת,ְמ ׁ ַשדְּ ִכין ֶאת ַה ִּתינֹוקֹות ֵל ָא ֵרס shaddekhin]l for the children, to betroth them on Shabbat, and
3
one may not enter into an agreement to take the child and teach
,ַה ִּתינֹוק ְל ַל ְּמדֹו ֵס ֶפר ו ְּל ַל ְּמדֹו או ָּּמנוּת
him to read a sacred book or to teach him a trade, and one may
ִ וְ ֵאין ְמ ַב ְּק ִרין,וְ ֵאין ְמנַ ֲח ִמין ֲא ֵב ִלים
חֹולין not comfort mourners on Shabbat, and one may not visit the sick
ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל, דִּ ְב ֵרי ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי,ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת on Shabbat, this is the statement of Beit Shammai, as in their
.ַמ ִּת ִירין opinion, those are weekday activities and not appropriate on Shab-
bat. And Beit Hillel permit performing all of these activities on
Shabbat, as they each include an aspect of mitzva.h 8
כֹולה
ָ ְ “י:אֹומרֵ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר,רֹובה ָלבֹא״ ָ ְק the week; rather, he says: It is on Shabbat that it is prohibited to
cry out and ask for compassion, and healing is soon to come. And
.ִהיא ׁ ֶש ְּת ַר ֵחם״
Rabbi Meir says that it is appropriate to add: The merit of Shabbat
is capable of engendering compassion. Ancient comb from the era of the Judges, found in Megiddo
lective. Therefore, halakhot and stringencies relevant ,“ש ָ ּבת ִהיא ִמ ִּלזְ עֹוק ַ ׁ :אֹומרֵ יאתֹו ָ ִו ִּביצ Israel. When Shevna of Jerusalem would visit a sick person on Shab-
to individuals do not apply to the nation as a whole. , וְ ַר ֲח ָמיו ְמרו ִ ּּבין,רֹובה ָלבֹא ָ ּו ְרפו ָּאה ְק bat, upon entering, he would say shalom. And when he exited he
Anyone who requests that his needs be met in
n2
ְּכ ַמאן ָאזְ ָלא ָהא דְּ ָא ַמר.וְ ׁ ִש ְבת ּו ְ ּב ׁ ָשלֹום״ would say: It is Shabbat when one is prohibited to cry out, and
the Aramaic language, the ministering angels do חֹולה ְ ּבתֹוךְ ֵ ּביתֹו ֶ ִמי ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש לֹו:ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א healing is soon to come, and His compassion is abundant, and rest
not attend to him – ֹואל צְ ָר ָכיו ִ ּב ְל ׁשֹון ֲא ַר ִמי ֵאין ֵ ָּכל ַה ׁ ּש
.חֹולי יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל
ֵ תֹוך
ְ יך ׁ ֶשּיְ ָע ְר ֶבנּ ּו ְ ּב ְ צָ ִר on Shabbat in peace. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose
מ ְל ֲא ֵכי ַה ׁ ּ ָש ֵרת נִזְ ָק ִקין לֹו:ַ The statements of the Sages in opinion is the halakha that Rabbi Ĥanina said: One who has a sick
this matter are difficult in every sense. With regard to .יֹוסי
ֵ ְּכ ַמאן – ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי
person in his house must include him among the sick people of
the essence of the matter that the ministering angels
are not familiar [makkirin] with the Aramaic language,
Israelh in his prayer? In accordance with whose opinion? In accor-
2
some explained that makkirin here means to hold dance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.
close or to endear, as in the verse: “May those who
hold you close [makkirekh] be blessed” (Ruth 2:19; קֹושי ִה ִּתיר ּו ְלנַ ֵחם ִ ׁ ְ ּב:וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א And Rabbi Ĥanina said: It was only with great difficulty that the
see Kaftor VaFeraĥ). Others explained that this state- Sages permitted to comfort the mourners and visit the sick on
ֲא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה.חֹולים ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ִ ֲא ֵב ִלים ו ְּל ַב ֵ ּקר
ment was said specifically with regard to the Aramaic Shabbat, as both the visitor and the comforter experience suffering
language, which is despicable, but requests in other יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי
ּ ִּכי ֲהוָ ה ָאזְ ִלינַן ַ ּב ְת ֵר:ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה
on Shabbat. They permitted it only due to the mitzva involved in these
languages are permitted (Rosh). The matter itself :ימנִין ֲא ַמר ְ ִ ז.יחה ָ ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ְל ׁ ַשּיו ֵּלי ִ ּב ְת ִפ
is astonishing because it is forbidden to pray to an activities. Rabba bar bar Ĥana said: When we would follow Rabbi
ימנִין ֲא ַמר ְ ִ“ה ָּמקֹום יִ ְפ ָק ְדךָ ְל ׁ ָשלֹום״ וְ ז ַ Elazar to inquire about the health of a sick person; sometimes he
emissary or interlocutor. What, then, do angels have
to do with our prayers? Some explained that this יכי ִ ֵה. ַ“ר ֲח ָמנָ א יִ ְד ְּכ ִרינָ ְך ִל ׁ ְש ָלם״:)יה ּ ֵ(ל would say in Hebrew: May the Omnipresent remember you for
teaches us that one should not pray in the Aramaic עֹולם ָ ְל:ָע ֵביד ָה ִכי? וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה peace, and sometimes he would say to him in Aramaic: May the
language because it is the language of common all-Merciful remember you for peace. He would say it in Aramaic
!ַאל יִ ׁ ְש ַאל ָא ָדם צְ ָר ָכיו ִ ּב ְל ׁשֹון ֲא ַר ִמי
speech. A person would come to treat his prayer like when the sick person did not understand Hebrew (Rav Elazar Moshe
he does common speech and fail to have appropriate ֹואל צְ ָר ָכיו ִ ּב ְל ׁשֹון ֵ ָּכל ַה ׁ ּש:יֹוחנָןָ וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי
Horovitz). The Gemara asks: How did he do this, pray in Aramaic?
intent. However, when praying in Hebrew, where the ,ֲא ַר ִמי – ֵאין ַמ ְל ֲא ֵכי ַה ׁ ּ ָש ֵרת נִ זְ ָק ִקין לֹו
formula of the prayers is of the highest quality, he will Didn’t Rav Yehuda say: A person should never request that his
have the proper intent. The matter of the ministering
!ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַמ ְל ֲא ֵכי ַה ׁ ּ ָש ֵרת ַמ ִּכ ִירין ִ ּב ְל ׁשֹון ֲא ַר ִמי needs be met in the Aramaic language?h And, similarly, Rabbi
3
angels was only said as a platitude. If he does not . דִּ ׁ ְש ִכינָ ה ִע ּמֹו,חֹולה ֶ ׁ ָשאנֵי Yoĥanan said: Anyone who requests that his needs be met in the
have intention in his prayer, even ministering angels Aramaic language, the ministering angels do not attend to himn to 2
cannot invest his prayer with meaning (HaKotev). bring his prayer before God, as the ministering angels are not famil-
iar with the Aramaic language, but only with the sacred tongue,
Hebrew, exclusively. The Gemara responds: A sick person is different.
He does not need the angels to bring his prayer before God because
the Divine Presence is with him.h 4
ִמ ּנַיִ ן ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש ִכינָ ה:דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב ָענָ ן ָא ַמר ַרב As Rav Anan said that Rav said: From where is it derived that the
“ה׳ יִ ְס ָע ֶדנּ ּו:חֹולה – ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר ֶ סֹועד ֶאת ַה ֵ Divine Presence cares for and aids the sick person? As it is stated:
ַה ִּנ ְכנָס ְל ַב ֵ ּקר: ַּתנְיָא נַ ִמי ָה ִכי.ַעל ֶע ֶרשׂ דְּ וָ י״ “God will support him on the bed of illness” (Psalms 41:4). The
Gemara comments: That was also taught in a baraita: One who en-
חֹולה ל ֹא יֵ ׁ ֵשב ל ֹא ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ִמ ָּטה ֶ ֶאת ַה
ters to visit the sick person should sit neither on the bed nor on a
יֹושב ֵ ׁ ְ ֶא ָּלא ִמ ְת ַע ֵּטף ו,וְ ל ֹא ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ִּכ ֵּסא chair; rather, he should wrap himself in his prayer shawl with trepi-
ֹותיו ָ אש ׁ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש ִכינָ ה ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ְמ ָר,ְל ָפנָיו dation and awe, and sit before the sick person below him, as the
“ה׳ יִ ְס ָע ֶדנּ ּו ַעל ֶע ֶר ׂש: ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,חֹולה ֶ ׁ ֶשל Divine Presence is above the head of the sick person, as it is stated:
דֹוש ׁ ִמ ּנַיִ ן ׁ ֶש ַה ָ ּק: וְ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא ָא ַמר ָר ִבין.דְּ וָ י״ “God will support him on the bed of illness,” and he must treat the
“ה׳:חֹולה – ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר ֶ ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא זָ ן ֶאת ַה Divine Presence with deference. On a similar note, Rava said that
Ravin said: From where is it derived that the Holy One, Blessed be
.יִ ְס ָע ֶדנּ ּו ַעל ֶע ֶר ׂש דְּ וָ י״
He, feeds the sick person during his illness? As it is stated: “God
will support him on the bed of illness.”
halakha
Visiting the sick on Shabbat – חֹולים ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת
h1 ִ ביקוּר:
ּ ִ One who יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל: One who visits the sick must include him in his prayers in any language; however, personal requests must be exclu-
visits a sick person on Shabbat says: It is Shabbat when it is among all the sick people of Israel, as per the statement of Rabbi sively in Hebrew (the Sages of France). Yet others ruled that
prohibited to cry out, and healing is soon to come, and His Yosei (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 335:6). one is permitted to make even personal requests in any lan-
compassion is abundant, and rest on Shabbat in peace. That guage other than Aramaic (Rosh; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim
A person should never request that his needs be met in the
is in accordance with the statement of Shevna of Jerusalem, 101:4).
h3
of the authorities were also divided. Some say that communal with him – דִּ ׁ ְש ִכינָ ה ִע ּמֹו,חֹולה
ֶ שאנֵי:
ָ ׁ When a person is praying
others who say that it is not necessary to say: His compassion
prayer may be recited in any language that the community for a sick person in the presence of the sick person, he may
is abundant (Rema; Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat
understands, unless it is in Hebrew, in which case they fulfill pray in any language because the Divine Presence rests upon
24:5; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 287:1 and Yoreh De’a 335:6).
their obligation even without understanding (Magen Avra- the sick person. If one is praying for the sick person when the
h2 One who has a sick person…must include him among the ham), while the prayer of the individual may be recited only sick person is not present, he should pray only in Hebrew in
sick people of Israel – חֹולי
ֵ ְיך ׁ ֶשּיְ ָע ְר ֶבנּ ּו ְ ּבתֹוך
ְ חֹולה…צָ ִר
ֶ ִמי ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש לֹו in Hebrew (Rif ). Others say that even an individual may pray order to satisfy all opinions (Taz; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 335:5).
from adjusting the wick. There, where two were prohibited to read
by candlelight it is referring to a case where they are engaged in two
different matters. Since each is preoccupied with a different text, they
will not pay attention and remind each other. Rav Huna said: And
with regard to a bonfire,h where everyone is sitting around it and not
7
– ִאם ָא ָדם ָח ׁשוּב הוּא:ָא ַמר ָר ָבא Rava said: Even though they prohibited reading by candlelight due
ל ֹא יִ ְק ָרא ְלאֹור ַה ֵּנר:ית ֵיבי ִ ֵמ.מו ָּּתר to a decree lest they adjust the wick, if he is an important person, it
ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ֶ ּבן.ׁ ֶש ָּמא יַ ֶּטה is permitted,h as even on weekdays he is not accustomed to adjust a
8
תֹורה ָ הֹואיל ו ֵּמ ִ ׂשים ַעצְ מֹו ַעל דִּ ְב ֵרי ִ a lamp on Shabbat. When the Temple will be rebuilt I will bring a
.ְּכ ֶה ְדיֹוט fat sin-offering as atonement for this sin. This proves that even an
important person like Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha is liable to adjust
the wick. Rabbi Abba said: Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha is different,
since with regard to the study of Torah, he comports himself like
a simple man with no air of importance, but generally, an important
person would not dirty his hands and adjust the wick.
halakha
One may not read a book by candlelight…even if the lamp
h5 book, but two books, even if it is one matter, are prohibited. One
was two statures high – בֹוה ׁ ְש ֵּתי ּ ר…א ִפ
ּ יל ּו ָ ּג ֲ וְ ל ֹא יִ ְק ָרא ְלאֹור ַה ֵּנ of the commentaries holds that one matter is permitted even
קֹומֹות: When the Sages prohibited reading on Shabbat by can- with two books (Magen Avraham). Others say that the leniency
dlelight, they prohibited doing so even if the lamp is placed so with regard to one matter and two people applies only with
high that there is no room for concern that one might adjust it. regard to fulfilling a mitzva (Magen Avraham; Rambam Sefer
The ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba. For types Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 5:14; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 275:2).
of lights with regard to which there is no significant concern
that one might adjust them, e.g., wax candles, some permitted h7 And with regard to a bonfire – ו ִּב ְמדו ָּרה: One may not read by
reading by their light to fulfill a mitzva (Maharshal). Others per- the light of a bonfire on Shabbat, even if ten people are seated
mit reading by the light of a lantern locked with a key (Magen around it, as per the opinion of Rav Huna (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ
Avraham; Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 5:14; Shulĥan Ĥayyim 275:5).
Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 275:1).
If he is an important person, it is permitted – ִאם ָא ָדם ָח ׁשוּב הוּא
h8
h6 Here, in one matter – כאן ְ ּב ִענְיָ ן ֶא ָחד:ָּ Two are permitted to read מו ָּּתר: An important person, who generally would not adjust a
by candlelight on Shabbat if they are reading one matter. The lamp even on weekdays, is permitted to read by candlelight on
Rema wrote that this applies only if they are reading from one Shabbat, as per the Tosefta (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 275:4).
employed to examine the cups because he is unfamiliar with was taught in another baraita that he may not examine them. The
וְ ִאי.ָּכאן – ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָּמ ׁש ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָקב ּוע
them and will examine them more carefully. A regularly Gemara explains: This is not difficult. Rather, here, the baraita that
employed servant who is familiar with them will examine . ָהא וְ ָהא ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָּמ ׁש ָקבוּע:ימא ָ ָ ּב ֵעית ֵא prohibited examining the cups, is referring to a regularly employed
them only minimally (Ran). According to this opinion and וְ ָהא, ָהא – ִ ּב ְד ִמ ׁ ְש ָחא:וְ ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א servant who fears his master and examines the dishes meticulously.
reading, the story of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba’s servant is .ִ ּב ְדנַ ְפ ָטא Therefore, there is concern lest he come to adjust the wick. While
cited because he was not regularly employed in the house
there, the baraita that permitted examining the cups, is referring to
of Rav Asi. Another opinion explains that a servant who is not
regularly employed may not examine the cups because he is
a servant who is not regularly employed, does not fear his master,
concerned that the master might not hire him if he does not and therefore will not check meticulously. There is no concern lest
check them carefully; however, a regularly employed servant he come to adjust the wick. And if you wish, say instead that this
with job security does not share that concern, and may, baraita and that baraita are both referring to a regularly employed
therefore, examine the cups. According to this approach, the servant. And this is not difficult, as they are not referring to the
question was asked with regard to a regular servant and an same kind of lamp. This baraita, which prohibited examining the
oil lamp, and Rabbi Yirmeya’s servant was a regular servant
dishes, is referring to an oil lamp, where there is room for concern
(Tosafot). Some explain the final question as also referring
to a regular servant according to the opinion that he exam- lest he adjust it. And that baraita, which permitted examining the
ines them only minimally. However, the Gemara repeats the dishes, is referring to a naphtha [nafta]l lamp. Since the naphtha
1
question in order to clarify which of these variant readings is lamp is dirty, the servant certainly will not touch it while checking
the basis for the accepted halakha (Rambam). the cups and dishes.
language
Naphtha [nafta] – נַ ְפ ָטא: This word reached the Hebrew lan-
l1
ׁ ַש ָּמ ׁש ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָקב ּו ַע:ּיב ֲעיָ א ְלהו ּ ַ ִא A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the ruling with
guage from the Greek νάφθας or νάφθα, naftha or nafthas, ֲה ָל ָכה וְ ֵאין:ִ ּב ְד ִמ ׁ ְש ָחא ַמהוּ? ָא ַמר ַרב regard to a servant who is not regularly employed in terms of ex-
and the Greeks borrowed it from the Persian naft, meaning
: וְ ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא ָא ַמר.מֹורין ֵּכן ִ amining cups and dishes by the light of an oil lamp? Is he permitted
mineral oil. Some believe that the word has a Semitic root, to examine the cups by candlelight, or not? From the perspective
from the Akkadian naptu, meaning to inflame. ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא.ּמֹורין ֵּכן
ִ ֲה ָל ָכה ו
of his being a servant not regularly employed, it should be permitted.
l2 Lamp [sheraga] – ש ָרגָ א:ְ ׁ This word was borrowed from יה ָקא ּ ָקם ׁ ַש ָּמ ֵע,ִא ְיק ַלע ִל ֵבי ַרב ַא ִסי On the other hand, because it is an oil lamp it should be prohibited.
the Iranian in several Aramaic dialects. In Modern Persian, the יה
ּ הֹורא דִּ ׁ ְש ָרגָ א ֲא ַמ ָרה ֵל ָ ְָ ּב ֵדיק ִלנ Rav said: The halakha is that it is permitted, and, however, ab initio
form of the word is chirāgh, which means lamp or cande : ו ָּמר ָלא ָע ֵביד ָה ִכי! ֲא ַמר ָל ּה:ּדְּ ֵב ְיתהו a public ruling is not issued to that effectb so that they will not
3
labrum. come to sin. However, one who knows the halakha that it is permit-
.יה ְס ִב ָירא ֵליה ּ ְּכ ַר ֵ ּב,יה
ּ ׁ ְש ַב ֵק
ted may practice accordingly. Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: That
background
halakha is that it is permitted and a public ruling is issued to that
Halakha and a public ruling is not issued to that effect –
b3
effect. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba happened
מֹורין ֵּכן
ִ ה ָל ָכה וְ ֵאין:ֲ This principle is applied to several matters
to come to the house of Rav Asi on Shabbat. Rabbi Yirmeya’s
in the Torah. There are actions that are permitted, and a Torah
scholar, who is aware that they are permitted, may act ac- servant stood and examined the cups by the light of a lamp
cordingly. Nevertheless, a public ruling on the matter is not [sheraga],l as he was not a regularly employed servant in the house
2
issued, as that is liable to lead the less educated masses to sin. of Rav Asi. Rav Asi’s wife said to Rav Asi: But the Master, you, does
not do so. You prohibit doing so. Why is the servant of Rabbi
Yirmeya examining the cups? He said to her: Leave him, he holds
in accordance with the opinion of his master.
וְ ָה ָא ְמ ַר ְּת.“ב ֱא ֶמת ָא ְמר ּו ַה ַחּזָ ן כו׳״ ֶּ We learned in the mishna that in truth they said that the attendant
,‘רֹואה׳ ַמאי ָלאו ִל ְקרֹות? ל ֹא ֶ ישא ָ ׁ ֵר sees where in the book the children under his supervision are read-
וְ ֵכן ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה.יֹותיו
ָ אשי ּ ָפ ָר ׁ ִש ֵ ׁ ְל ַסדֵּ ר ָר ing, but he himself should not read. The Gemara asked: Didn’t you
say in the first clause of the mishna that the attendant sees? Doesn’t
אשי ֵ ׁ ֲא ָבל ְמ ַסדֵּ ר הוּא ָר:ַ ּבר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל
that mean that he sees in order to read? How can that part of the
? וְ כו ָּּל ּה ּ ָפ ָר ׁ ָשה ל ֹא.יֹותיו
ָ ּ ָפ ָר ׁ ִש mishna conclude by saying that he may not read? The Gemara an-
swers: No, it does not mean that the attendant is permitted to actu-
ally read; rather, he is only permitted to look and arrange the begin-
ning of his sectionsh of the Torah that he must read the next day.
10
halakha
h9 A servant may examine cups – ש ָּמ ׁש ּב ֵֹודק ּכֹוסֹות:
ַ ׁ Due to the the opinion of Rav. Others say that even a servant who is not may also arrange the beginning of the sections by reading
alternative readings of this passage, there are various expla- a regular employee is permitted to examine the cups by the them from the book, but may only read the entire section
nations resulting in varying halakhic rulings. The authorities light of a naphtha lamp, since it is disgusting (Rema, based on orally. The same is true with regard to anyone who does not
ruled that it is prohibited for a servant who is not a regular Tur and Beit Yosef; Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 5:16; want to actually read by candlelight but only to look at some-
employee is to examine cups by candlelight on Shabbat alto- Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 275:12). thing that he already knows. It is permitted to look at it even
gether (Rambam). It is permitted for a regular servant to do so by candlelight, as his legal status is equivalent to that of the
with a naphtha lamp whose light is substantial. However, with To arrange the beginning of his sections – אשי
h10 ֵ ׁ ְל ַסדֵּ ר ָרteacher arranging the beginning of the sections (Rambam Sefer
regard to an oil lamp, examination is permitted de jure, but a יֹותיו
ָ פ ָר ׁ ִש:ָ ּ A teacher teaching his students may find the place Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 5:15; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim
public ruling is not issued to that effect, in accordance with where the students are to begin reading by candlelight. He 275:10).
ה ֵּנר:ַ The Sages differ in explaining this matter. Some say that
Apparently, it is permitted to read by candlelight on Shabbat. The children are permitted to read only in their teacher’s pres-
וְ ִאי ָ ּב ֵעית,יֹותיו ָ אשי ּ ָפ ָר ׁ ִש ֵ ׁ ימא – ָר ָ ֵא
Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the Tosefta is only referring ence because they fear him (Rambam). Others explain that
הֹואיל ִ ,ימא – ׁ ָשאנֵי ִּתינֹוקֹות ָ ֵא to the beginning of the sections. And if you wish, say instead that children are permitted to read even without their teacher
.ימת ַר ָ ּבן ֲע ֵל ֶיהן ָלא ָא ֵתי ְל ַאצְ לוּיֵ י ַ וְ ֵא children are different in this regard. Since the fear of their teacher present. Because they fear their teacher, even when he is
is upon them, they will not come to adjust the wick. Even on a not there they dare not reach out their hand to adjust the
wick (Rashba).
weekday, fear of their teacher will prevent them from tending to the
lamp during their study. n2 Lest he feed him impure items – יַא ִכ ֶילנּ ּו דְּ ָב ִרים ְט ֵמ ִאין
ֲ ש ָּמא:
ֶׁ
It is important to remember that eating impure food items
ַר ִ ּבי,תנְיָא.ב״
ַּ ָֹאכל ַהּז ַ “כּיֹוצֵ א ּבֹו ל ֹא י ַּ We learned in the mishna: Similar to this decree of Shabbat, the that came into contact with a source of impurity is not
ּבֹוא ו ְּר ֵאה:אֹומר ֵ ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר Sages issued a decree that the zav may not eat with his wife, the zava, prohibited by Torah law. The prohibitions related to ritual
,יכן ּ ָפ ְרצָ ה ָט ֳה ָרה ְ ּביִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ָ ַעד ֵה even though they are both ritually impure, because by eating to- impurity apply only to distancing impurity from teruma,
gether they will come to excessive intimacy and become accustomed consecrated items, and the Temple. Nevertheless, over the
ֹאכל ַה ָּטהֹור ִעם ַ “ל ֹא י:ּׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ׁ ָשנִינו generations there was a custom to eat even non-sacred
to sin. It was taught in a Tosefta that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:
ֹאכל ַהּזָ ב ִעם ַ ל ֹא י:ַה ְּט ֵמ ָאה״ ֶא ָּלא Come and see to what extent ritual purity was widespread in Is-
food in purity. That custom originated among those who
were especially vigilant in the fulfillment of mitzvot, e.g.,
, ַּכּיֹוצֵ א ּבֹו.ַהּזָ ָבה ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ֶה ְר ֵ ּגל ֲע ֵב ָירה rael, as we did not learn: The ritually pure may not eat with the perushim and ĥaverim, who accepted this additional sanc-
ֹאכל זָ ב ּ ָפרו ּׁש ִעם זָ ב ַעם ָה ָא ֶרץ ַ ל ֹא י ritually impure woman; but rather, the zav may not eat with the tity upon themselves.
.ׁ ֶש ָּמא יַ ְר ִ ּג ֶילנּ ּו ֶאצְ לֹו zava,h although they are both ritually impure, lest he become ac-
2
to ritual purity. On a similar note, the Sages said: A zav who gener- read by candlelight – קֹורין ְלאֹור
ִ ְינֹוקֹות…מ ַסדְּ ִרין ּ ָפ ָר ׁ ִשּיֹות ו
ְ ַה ִּת
ally distances himself from ritual impurity, eats ritually pure food, ה ֵּנר:ַ Children are permitted to read by the light of a lamp
and is careful about separating tithes, may not eat with a zav who on Shabbat. We are not concerned lest they adjust the wick
is an am ha’aretz, who does not distance himself from ritual impu- since the fear of their teacher is upon them (Rambam Sefer
Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 5:15; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim
rity and is not careful about separating tithes, due to the concern lest
275:6).
the am ha’aretz accustom him to frequently spend time with him,
by means of a shared meal. The zav may not eat with the zava – ֹאכל ַהּזָ ב ִעם ַהּזָ ָבה
h2 ַ ל ֹא י:
Even when a man is impure, he is only permitted to eat
וְ ִכי ַמ ְר ִ ּגילֹו ֶאצְ לֹו ַמאי ָהוֵ י?! ֶא ָּלא The Gemara wonders: And if he accustoms him to be with him, with his impure, menstruating wife if they make notice-
. ׁ ֶש ָּמא יַ ֲא ִכ ֶילנּ ּו דְּ ָב ִרים ְט ֵמ ִאין:ימא ָ ֵא what of it, what is the problem? Rather, say: Lest he feed him im- able changes to ensure awareness of their condition and
pure items.n The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the zav who separation (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Issurei Bia 11:18
ַא ּט ּו זָ ב ּ ָפר ּו ׁש ָלאו דְּ ָב ִרים ְט ֵמ ִאין
2
generally distances himself from ritual impurity does not eat im- and Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Okhlin 16:11; Shulĥan Arukh,
ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ֶש ָּמא:ָא ֵכיל?! ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י Yoreh De’a 195:3).
pure things? In his impure state, everything he touches automati-
וְ ָר ָבא.יַא ִכ ֶילנּ ּו דְּ ָב ִרים ׁ ֶש ֵאינָן ְמתו ָ ּּקנִין
ֲ cally becomes impure, so why would he be concerned with regard
, רֹוב ַע ֵּמי ָה ָא ֶרץ ְמ ַע ּ ְ ׂש ִרין ֵהן:ָא ַמר to impure items? Abaye said: This prohibition is due to a decree
ֲ ְ ו, ׁ ֶש ָּמא ֵיְהא ָרגִ יל ֶאצְ לֹו:ֶא ָּלא
יַא ִכ ֶילנּ ּו issued by the Sages lest the am ha’aretz feed him food items that are
.ימי ָט ָה ָרתֹו ֵ דְּ ָב ִרים ְט ֵמ ִאין ִ ּב not tithed. Rava said: He needn’t worry about items that are not
tithed. Even if his friend was an am ha’aretz, there is a general prin-
ciple in effect that most amei ha’aretz tithe their fruits. Rather, the
Sages were concerned lest he become accustomed to spending time
with the am ha’aretz even after the period of his impurity and he
feed him impure items even during the days of his purity.
ישן ִעם ָ ׁ ַמה ּו ׁ ֶש ִּת, נִ דָּ ה:ּיב ֲעיָ א ְלהו ּ ַ ִא An additional dilemma was raised before the Sages with regard to
?ַ ּב ְע ָל ּה ִהיא ְ ּב ִבגְ ָד ּה וְ הוּא ְ ּב ִבגְ דֹו the requirement to distance oneself from prohibition and impurity:
עֹולה
ֶ “העֹוף ָ : ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע,יֹוסף ֵ ָא ַמר ַרב What is the halakha with regard to a menstruating woman? May
she sleep with her husband in one bed while she is in her clothes
,ִעם ַה ְ ּג ִבינָ ה ַעל ַה ׁ ּ ֻש ְל ָחן וְ ֵאינֹו נֶ ֱא ָכל
and he is in his clothes? Rav Yosef said: Come and hear a resolu-
ֵ ֵ ּבית ִה ֵּלל.דִּ ְב ֵרי ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי
:אֹומר tion to this dilemma from what we learned in a mishna: The fowl is
ׁ ָשאנֵי ָה ָתם.עֹולה וְ ל ֹא נֶ ֱא ָכל״ ֶ ל ֹא permitted to be placed together with the cheese on the table, al-
.יכא דֵּ יעֹות ָּ דְּ ֵל though it may not be eaten with cheese. This is the statement of
Beit Shammai. Beit Hillel say: The fowl is neither permitted to be
placed together with the cheese on the table, nor may it be eaten
with it. According to the opinion of Beit Hillel, which is the halakha,
not only must one distance himself from the sin itself, but one must
also make certain that items that are prohibited together are not
placed together. The Gemara rejects this: There it is different as
there are not several consciousnesses. When the fowl and the
cheese are on one person’s table, he is liable to err and eat them both,
as there is only one consciousness there, his. That is not the case
when there are two people in one bed. In that case, there are two
consciousnesses and there is no concern that they will both forget
the prohibition.
גי ףד. ׳א קרפ. Perek I . 13a 59
halakha
יכא ָּ יכא דְּ ִא ָ דְּ ֵה,ָה ִכי נַ ִמי ִמ ְס ַּת ְ ּב ָרא The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable to say that where there are two
So too, his wife when menstruating, even when or more consciousnesses it is different, as it was taught in the latter
ַר ָ ּבן,יפא ָ דְּ ָק ָתנֵי ֵס,דֵּ יעֹות ׁ ָשאנֵי
h3
ֹאכל ַהּזָ ב ִעם ַהּזָ ָבה ַ ל ֹא י: ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמעCome and hear a resolution to the dilemma from what we learned in our
: ָה ָכא נַ ִמי. ִמ ׁ ּש ּו ם ֶה ְר ֵ ּגל ֲע ֵב ָירהmishna: The zav may not eat with the zava due to concern that excessive
.יכא ָּ דֵּ יעֹות – ִאintimacy will lead them to become accustomed to sin. Even eating to-
ָּ ׁ ִשינּ וּי ֵל,יכא
gether is prohibited. The Gemara answers: Here, too, although there are
two consciousnesses, there is no noticeable change.
“אל ֶה ָה ִרים ל ֹא ָא ָכל וְ ֵעינָיו ֶ :ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע Come and hear a different resolution from that which was taught in a
נָשא ֶאל ִ ּגלּ ו ֵּלי ֵ ּבית יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל וְ ֶאת ׂ ָ ל ֹא baraita: It is stated: “And he has not eaten upon the mountains, neither
ֵא ׁ ֶשת ֵר ֵעה ּו ל ֹא ִט ֵּמא וְ ֶאל ִא ׁ ּ ָשה נִ דָּ ה has he lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither has he
defiled his neighbor’s wife, neither has he come near to a woman in her
ַמ ִּק ׁיש ִא ׁ ּ ָשה נִ דָּ ה ְל ֵא ׁ ֶשת,ל ֹא יִ ְק ָרב״
impurity” (Ezekiel 18:6). This verse juxtaposes a menstruating woman
ָמה ֵא ׁ ֶשת ֵר ֵעה ּו – הוּא ְ ּב ִבגְ דֹו.ֵּר ֵעהו to his neighbor’s wife. Just as lying together with his neighbor’s wife,
ַא ף ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו,וְ ִהיא ְ ּב ִב גְ ָד ּה ָא ס ּור even when he is in his clothes and she is in her clothes, is prohibited,
נִ דָּ ה – הוּא ְ ּב ִבגְ דֹו וְ ִהיא ְ ּב ִב גְ ָד ּה so too, lying with his wife when she is menstruating, even when he is in
. ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה.ָאסוּר his clothes and she is in her clothes, is prohibited.h 3
: דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ּ ְפ ָדת,ו ְּפ ִליגָ א דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ּ ְפ ָדת The Gemara comments: And this conclusion disagrees with the opinion
ל ֹא ָא ְס ָרה ּת ָֹורה ֶא ָּלא קו ְּר ָבה ׁ ֶשל of Rabbi Pedat, as Rabbi Pedat said: The Torah only prohibited inti-
“א ׁיש ִ : ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,ִ ּג ּלוּי ֲע ָריֹות ִ ּב ְל ַבד macy that involves engaging in prohibited sexual relations,n as it is3
stated: “None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him,
ִא ׁיש ֶאל ָּכל ׁ ְש ֵאר ְ ּב ָ ׂשרֹו ל ֹא ִת ְק ְרב ּו
to uncover their nakedness” (Leviticus 18:6). The prohibition of inti-
.ְלגַ לּ ֹות ֶע ְרוָ ה״ macy in the Torah applies exclusively to relations, and all other kinds of
intimacy that do not include actual relations are not included in the pro-
hibition. When there is separation, they did not issue a decree.
60 Perek I . 13a . גי ףד. קרפ ׳א
halakha
עו ָּּלא ִּכי ָהוֵ י ָא ֵתי ִמ ֵ ּבי ַרב ֲהוָ ה The Gemara relates that Ulla, when he would come from the
house of his teacher, would kiss his sisters on their chests. Even any intimacy is prohibited – א ִפיל ּו ׁשוּם קו ְּר ָבה ָאסוּר:ֲ One may
,ּיה ַא ֵ ּבי ֲח ַדיְ יהו ֵ ּ ׁ ְמ
ּ נַשק ְלה ּו ְל ַא ְחוָ ֵות
h4
not have any physical intimacy, i.e., hugging or kissing, with women
ו ְּפ ִליגָ א.וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה ַא ֵ ּבי יְ ַדיְ יה ּו And some say: On their hands. Ulla was not concerned about with whom sexual relations is forbidden, with the exception of his
violating the prohibition of displaying affection toward a rela- mother or daughter. This prohibition applies even if he derives no
: דְּ ָא ַמר ע ּו ָּלא,יה ּ יה ַאדִּ ֵיד ּ דִּ ֵיד tive forbidden to him, as his intention was not to have rela- pleasure and his evil inclination is not stimulated, as per the statement
ִמ ׁ ּשוּם,ֲא ִפיל ּו ׁשוּם קו ְּר ָבה ָאסוּר tions with them. The Gemara adds that his action was in of Ulla (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Issurei Bia 21:6; Shulĥan Arukh,
,“לךְ ֵלךְ ָא ְמ ִרי נְ זִ ָירא ְסחֹור ְסחֹור ֵ contradiction to a saying of his, as Ulla said: Even any inti- Even HaEzer 21:7).
.ְל ַכ ְר ָמא ָלא ִּת ְק ַרב״ macy is prohibitedh with a woman with whom he is forbid-
4
vineyard, they say to the nazirite. They advise the nazirite, the Prophet appears to people, especially to the Sages, and resolves
who is forbidden to consume any product of a vine, that he their dilemmas. As it is stated in the Prophets (II Kings 2:11), Elijah did
not die and he continues to serve as an emissary of God. On the one
should not even approach the vineyard. The same is true with
hand, he is the angel of the covenant. On the other hand, he is a person
regard to the prohibition of forbidden relations. According to who alleviates problems in the world.
Ulla, one must distance himself from them to whatever degree The midrash named Tanna Devei Eliyahu or Seder Eliyahu Rabba and
possible. Seder Eliyahu Zuta is an independent entity. It is said in the Talmud
(Ketubot 110a) that Elijah revealed halakha and aggada in these books
to Rav Anan.
However, there are those who believe that Tanna Devei Eliyahu and
ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּב ַת ְל ִמיד:ָּּתנֵי דְּ ֵבי ֵא ִלּיָ הו The Sage in the school of Eliyahup taught a baraita that deals
1
the school of Eliyahu are not references to Elijah the Prophet; rather,
,ֶא ָחד ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה ַה ְר ֵ ּבה וְ ָק ָרא ַה ְר ֵ ּבה with this halakha: There was an incident involving one stu- they are named for one of the tanna’im who lived during the Second
,ימ ׁש ַּת ְל ִמ ֵידי ֲח ָכ ִמים ַה ְר ֵ ּבה ֵּ וְ ׁ ִש dentn who studied much Mishna and read much Bible, and
4
Temple period (Sefer Be’er Sheva). One could possibly draw the same
served Torah scholars extensively, studying Torah from them, conclusion from one of the variant readings in the Rambam. According
וְ ָהיְ ָתה ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו.ּו ֵמת ַ ּב ֲחצִ י יָ ָמיו to that opinion, Tanna Devei Eliyahu, especially those sections where
and, nevertheless, died at half his days, half his life expec-
יליו ו ְּמ ַחּזַ ְר ָּתם ְ ּב ָב ֵּתי ָּ נֹוט ֶלת ְּת ִפ ֶ tancy. His wife in her bitterness would take his phylacteries Eliyahu tells of his work and conversations with others, are merely
וְ ָא ְמ ָרה,נֵסּיֹות ו ְּב ָב ֵּתי ִמ ְד ָר ׁשֹות ִ ְּכ statements of that tanna.
and go around with them to synagogues and study halls,
ָ“כי הוּא ַחּיֶ יך ִּ ְּכ ִתיב ַ ּב ּת ָֹורה:ָל ֶהם and she said to the Sages: It is written in the Torah: “For it
notes
ַ ּב ֲע ִלי ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה ַה ְר ֵ ּבה,אֹורךְ יָ ֶמיךָ ״ ֶ ְו is your life and the length of your days” (Deuteronomy
30:20). If so, my husband who studied much Mishna, and An incident involving one student, etc. – מ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּב ַת ְל ִמיד ֶא ָחד וכו׳:ַ The
,וְ ָק ָרא ַה ְר ֵ ּבה
n4
Perek I
Daf 13 Amud b
halakha
– ימ ׁש ַּת ְל ִמ ֵידי ֲח ָכ ִמים ַה ְר ֵ ּבה ֵּ וְ ׁ ִש and served Torah scholars extensively, why did he die at
During the period of your menstruation, how did he act toward
ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ָמה ֵמת ַ ּב ֲחצִ י יָ ָמיו? וְ ל ֹא ָהיָ ה half his days? Where is the length of days promised him in h1
ּנֵיך
ְ ימי ִל ּבו ֵ ִ ּב.][בי ּ ִ ְק ַט ָּנה ל ֹא נָ גַ ע little finger. And I asked her: In the days of your white gar- then – ְימי ִל ּבוּנֵיךְ ַמה ּו ֶאצְ ֵלך
ֵ ב:ּ ִ Even in the days following the menstrual
, וְ ׁ ָש ָתה ִע ִּמי,ַמה ּו ֶאצְ ֵלךְ ? ָא ַכל ִע ִּמי ments, after the menstrual flow ended, and you were just flow, known as the days of white garments, all of the prohibitions
counting clean days, how did he act toward you then?h She 2 and separations of the menstruation period apply until she immerses
וְ ל ֹא ָע ְל ָתה,וְ יָ ׁ ַשן ִע ִּמי ְ ּב ֵקירוּב ָ ּב ָ ׂשר herself (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Issurei Bia 11:18; Shulĥan Arukh,
said to me: He ate with me, and drank with me, and slept
: וְ ָא ַמ ְר ִּתי ָל ּה.דַּ ְע ּתֹו ַעל דָּ ָבר ַא ֵחר Yoreh De’a 195:14).
with me with bodily contact and, however, it did not enter
נָשא ׂ ָ ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא,ָ ּברו ְּך ַה ָּמקֹום ׁ ֶש ֲה ָרגֹו his mind about something else, i.e., conjugal relations. And
notes
: ׁ ֶש ֲה ֵרי ָא ְמ ָרה ּת ָֹורה,ּ ָפנִים ַל ּת ָֹורה I said to her: Blessed is the Omnipresent who killed him for
ׂ ָ ש ּל ֹא:
As he did not show respect to the Torah – נָשא ּ ָפנִים ַל ּת ָֹורה ֶׁ
“וְ ֶאל ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ְ ּבנִ דַּ ת טו ְּמ ָא ָת ּה ל ֹא this sin, as your husband did not show respect to the Torah.n 1
n1
Some explain that this means that the Holy One, Blessed be He, did
:ימי ֲא ַמר ִ ִּ ִּכי ֲא ָתא ַרב ד.ִת ְק ַרב״ The Torah said: “And to a woman in the separation of her not accord the Torah student preferential treatment. Although he was
impurity you should not approach” (Leviticus 18:19), even a Torah scholar, God would not overlook his sin. Because he violated
, ְ ּב ַמ ַע ְר ָבא ָא ְמ ִרי.ִמ ָּטה ֲח ָדא ֲהוַ אי
mere affectionate contact is prohibited. The Gemara relates a rabbinic decree, he was punished (Megillat Esther).
ִסינָ ר:יֹוסף ֵ ָא ַמר ַרב יִ צְ ָחק ַ ּבר that when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,
.ַמ ְפ ִסיק ֵ ּבינֹו ְל ֵבינָ ּה he said: That student did not actually sleep with her with language
bodily contact; rather, it was in one bed that they slept with- l1 Belt [sinar] – סינָ ר:ִ The origin of this word is not clear. Apparently it was
out contact. In the West, in Eretz Yisrael, they say that Rav borrowed from the Greek ζωνάριον, zonarion, which means a kind of
Yitzĥak bar Yosef said: When they would sleep together in long belt that women wear on their flesh.
one bed, she wore a belt [sinar]l from the waist down that
1
ently, Ĥananya ben Ĥizkiya lived in the days of the students of Garon. The precise nature of these halakhot will be explained
.וְ ׁ ְשמֹונָ ה ָע ָ ׂשר דְּ ָב ִרים ָ ּגזְ ר ּו ּבֹו ַ ּבּיֹום
Shammai and Hillel, although he himself was not among them. in the Gemara. These halakhot are considered one unit be-
His greatest accomplishment, for which he is praised in several cause they share a distinctive element. Since many Sages were
places in the Talmud, was his defense of the book of Ezekiel. There there, among them most of the generation’s Torah scholars in
are apparent contradictions between the Torah and the book of Eretz Yisrael, they engaged in discussion of various halakhot
Ezekiel. In addition, the book of Ezekiel contains the description
of the Torah. It turned out that when the people expressing
of God’s chariot and other mysteries. As a result, the Sages sought
to suppress it. Only thanks to Ĥananya ben Ĥizkiya was the book
opinions were counted, the students of Beit Shammai out-
preserved as part of the canon. numberedn the students of Beit Hillel, and they issued de-
2
Apparently, his son, Rabbi Eliezer, who is mentioned several crees with regard to eighteen matters on that day in accor-
times in the sources, assisted him in authoring Megillat Ta’anit and dance with the opinion of Beit Shammai.b 1
notes
Were counted, and Beit Shammai outnumbered – נִ ְמנ ּו וְ ַר ּב ּו: The
, ֵ‘אלּ וּ׳ ְּתנַן:יֹוסף ֵ יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י ְל ַרבּ גמ׳ ֲא ַמר ֵל
,אֹו “וְ ֵאלּ וּ״ ְּתנַן? “וְ ֵאלּ וּ״ ְּתנַן? ָהנֵי דַּ ֲא ַמ ַרן
GEMARA With regard to the language that in-
troduces our mishna, Abaye said to
n2
ימר ַק ַּמן? ָּתא ַ אֹו ֵאלּ ּו ְּתנַן – דְּ ָב ֵעינַן ְל ֵמ Rav Yosef: Did we learn in our mishna: These are among the
decisions of the Sages were usually reached in a meeting place halakhot, or did we learn in our mishna: And these are among
where the most prominent Sages would gather. They would קֹורין
ִ וְ ֵאין, ֵאין ּפ ִֹולין ְלאֹור ַה ֵּנר:ׁ ְש ַמע
the halakhot? The difference is significant. Did we learn: And
determine the halakha according to a majority vote. This incident וְ ֵא ּל ּו ִמן ַה ֲה ָלכֹות ׁ ֶש ָא ְמר ּו,ְלאֹור ַה ֵּנר
was an unofficial gathering of Sages in an attic. In a departure these, and if so the reference would be to those that we said
from routine, the majority ruled in favor of Beit Shammai. Many ׁ ְש ַמע.ַ ּב ֲע ִלּיַ ית ֲחנַ נְיָה ֶ ּבן ִחזְ ִקּיָ ה ֶ ּבן ָ ּגרֹון earlier, i.e., that those halakhot are included in the decrees? Or
reactions to this incident were noted, among them the expres- . ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה, “וְ ֵאלּ וּ״ ְּתנַן:ִמ ָּינ ּה did we learn: These, and if so the reference would be to those
sion: And that day was as difficult for Israel as the day the Golden that we seek to mention below? Come and hear a solution
Calf was made. Apparently, the dispute between the parties was to this dilemma from the fact that these matters were taught
very intense, and Beit Shammai’s majority was an unexpected together in a baraita: One may not shake garments to rid
development. The arguments with regard to assessment of these
decrees continued during the subsequent generations. Neverthe-
them of lice by the light of the lamp and one may not read
less, due to the intensity of the arguments, the Sages decided not by the light of the lamp; and these are among the halakhot
to abrogate the decrees. that the Sages said in the attic of Ĥananya ben Ĥizkiya ben
Garon. Conclude from this that we learned: And these in
the mishna, and the reference is to the decrees mentioned
earlier.
background
b1 Table of the levels of impurity
In the context of this chapter, in the midst of the discussion of the eighteen decrees, many halakhot of ritual purity and impurity are discussed. In this chart, the primary framework of these ha-
lakhot is delineated. It is important to remember that numerous details are not included in these general principles.
Certain principles relating to the details of ritual purity and which is of elevated sanctity, is disqualified even when it There were even those who were careful to eat their non-
impurity must be added to this general outline. The term dis- has third degree status. Consecrated items, which have an sacred foods according to the purity standards of consecrated
qualify appears in this chart. In the context of the halakhot of even higher level of sanctity, are disqualified when they have items.
impurity, it means: It causes other items to become ritually fourth degree status. There are additional levels of impurity, Another principle in the halakhot of impurity is that food
impure; however, those items cannot render other items im- though they are not enumerated with the standard levels. can only render other food ritually impure by means of liquids,
pure. In contrast, an item that is ritually impure is impure itself During certain periods in Jewish history, there were groups which serve as conductors of ritual impurity. An additional
and can transmit that impurity to other items. who were especially vigilant in the fulfillment of mitzvot and rabbinic decree was added to this halakha: All impure liquids,
The standard halakha is that non-sacred foods are ritually were careful to eat their non-sacred foods according to the regardless of their degree of impurity, will always have first
impure when they have first degree ritual impurity status and purity standards of teruma, i.e., they avoided having their degree ritual impurity status. There are very few cases where
disqualified when they have second degree status. Teruma, food come in contact with second degree ritual impurity. this decree does not apply.
that we no longer feel the pains and troubles. With regard to the last It means a knife for cutting and carving, a surgeon’s
,ימה ַל ֵּמת ְּכ ַמ ַחט ִ ּב ְב ַ ׂשר ַה ַחי ָּ ָק ׁ ֶשה ִר knife, or a knife for cutting leaves.
analogy, the Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rav Yitzĥak say: The
“אךְ ְ ּב ָ ׂשרֹו ָע ָליו יִ ְכ ָאב וְ נַ ְפ ׁשֹו
ַ :ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר
gnawing of maggots is as excruciating to the dead as the stab of a
ֵאין ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ַה ֵּמת:ימא ָ ָע ָליו ֶּת ֱא ָבל״! ֵא needle is to the flesh of the living, as it is stated with regard to the notes
ֹותה ַמ ׁ ְש ִקין ֶ וְ ַה ׁ ּש,אֹוכל ׁ ֵשנִיֶ אֹוכל ֵ וְ ָה contradictions between the book of Ezekiel and the
The Gemara answers: As we learned in a mishna, a list of the decrees Torah, primarily with regard to halakhot pertaining
ֹאשֹו וְ רו ּּבֹו ְ ּב ַמיִ ם ׁ וְ ַה ָ ּבא ר,ְט ֵמ ִאין that the Sages issued with regard to items whose level of impurity is to priests and the Temple. In parallel texts, several mi-
ֹאשֹו וְ רו ּּבֹו
ׁ וְ ָטהֹור ׁ ֶש ָּנ ְפל ּו ַעל ר,ׁ ְשאו ִּבין such that if they come into contact with teruma they disqualify it. By drashic statements appear which address this issue.
, וְ ַה ֵּס ֶפר,ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה לו ִ ּּגין ַמיִ ם ׁ ְשאו ִּבין means of that contact, the teruma itself becomes impure, but it does The mention of three hundred jugs of oil is hyperbole.
not transmit impurity to other items. These disqualify teruma: One That is the case everywhere that this number appears
ָ וְ ָה,וְ ַהּיָ ַדיִ ם וְ ַה ְּטבוּל יֹום
אֹוכ ִלים וְ ַה ֵּכ ִלים
who eats food with first degree ritual impurity status acquired as a in rabbinic literature (Maharsha).
.ׁ ֶש ּנ ְִט ְמא ּו ְ ּב ַמ ׁ ְש ִקין
result of contact with a primary source of ritual impurity, e.g., a creep-
ing animal; and one who eats food with second degree ritual impu-
rity status acquired as a result of contact with an item with first degree
ritual impurity status; and one who drinks impure liquids of any
degree of impurity; and one whose head and most of his body come
into drawn water after he immersed himself in a ritual bath to purify
himself; and a ritually pure person that three log of drawn water fell
on his head and most of his body; and a Torah scroll; and the hands
of any person who did not purify himself for the purpose of handling
teruma; and one who immersed himself during the day, i.e., one who
was impure and immersed himself, and until evening he is not consid-
ered completely pure; and foods and vessels that became impure by
coming into contact with impure liquids. Contact with any of these
disqualifies the teruma. The Gemara seeks to clarify these matters.
אֹוכל
ֵ אשֹון וְ ָה ׁ אֹוכל ִרֶ אֹוכל ֵ ַמאן ְּתנָ א ָהThe Gemara asks first: Who is the tanna who holds that one who eats
ַט ּמֹויֵ י,אֹוכל ׁ ֵשנִי – ִמ ְפ ַסל ּ ָפ ְס ִלי
ֶ food with first degree ritual impurity status, and one who eats food
with second degree ritual impurity status, disqualify the teruma, but
גי ףד: ׳א קרפ. Perek I . 13b 63
Perek I
Daf 14 Amud a
notes
:ָלא ְמ ַט ּמוּ? ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה do not render it impure; in other words, they do not render the
The opinions of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua – יטת ַ ׁ ִש teruma capable of transmitting impurity to other items? Rabba bar
יעזֶ ר ֶ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל, דִּ ְתנַן.הֹוש ַע ִהיא ֻ ׁ ְַר ִ ּבי י
n1
הֹוש ַע
ֻ ׁ ְיעזֶ ר וְ ַר ִ ּבי י
ֶ ר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל:ַ The dispute between Rabbi Eliezer
and Rabbi Yehoshua here with regard the laws of impurity ,אשֹון ׁ אשֹון – ִר ׁ אֹוכל ִרֶ אֹוכל ֵ ָה:אֹומר ֵ bar Ĥana said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. As we learned
is explained in greater detail elsewhere. Apparently, Rabbi in a mishna: Rabbi Eliezern says: One who eats food with first
1
אֹוכל
ֶ ,אֹוכל ׁ ֵשנִי – ׁ ֵשנִי ֶ אֹוכל ֵ ְו
Eliezer sought consistency (Rashi, Tosafot) and therefore degree ritual impurity status assumes first degree ritual impurity
decreed that one who eats food with any degree of ritual :אֹומרֵ הֹוש ַע ֻ ׁ ְ ַר ִ ּבי י.ישי
ִ ׁ ישי – ׁ ְש ִל ִ ׁ ׁ ְש ִל status, and anything with first degree ritual impurity status renders
impurity will assume ritual impurity status to that same – אֹוכל ׁ ֵשנִי ֵ ְאשֹון ו ׁ אֹוכל ִר ֶ אֹוכל ֵ ָה teruma impure. And one who eats food with second degree ritual
degree. On the other hand, Rabbi Yehoshua contended קֹוד ׁש וְ ֵאין ׁ ֵשנִי ֶ ישי – ׁ ֵשנִי ְל ִ ׁ ׁ ְש ִל,ׁ ֵשנִי impurity statush assumes second degree ritual impurity status. One
1
halakha
ׁש ֶֹותה ַמ ׁ ְש ִקין ְט ֵמ ִאין ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא ְ ּגזַ ר ּו Similarly, the Gemara asks: One who drinks impure liquids; what
ימנִין דְּ ׁ ָש ָתה ְ ִיה ַר ָ ּבנַ ן טו ְּמ ָאה? דְּ ז ּ ֵ ּב is the reason the Sages decreed impurity upon him? The Gemara
One who eats food with first…and one who eats food
answers: Because at times one drinks impure liquids, and takes
h1
ֹאשֹו וְ רו ּּבֹו ְ ּב ַמיִ ם ׁ ְשאו ִּבין״ ׁ “וְ ַה ָ ּבא ר Among the eighteen decrees that the Sages issued on that day, we
?יה ַר ָ ּבנַן טו ְּמ ָאה ּ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא ְ ּגזַ ר ּו ֵ ּב also learned: And one whose head and most of his body come into
:יבי ָא ַמ ר ַרב ַא ִסי ָ ָא ַמ ר ַרב ֵ ּב drawn waterh is impure by rabbinic decree. The Gemara asks: What
2
is the reason the Sages decreed impurity upon him? Rav Beivai
טֹוב ִלין ְ ּב ֵמי ְמ ָערֹותְ ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ְּת ִח ָּלה ָהי ּו
said that Rav Asi said: The reason for this is that originally they
יהן
ֶ נֹותנִין ֲע ֵל
ְ וְ ָהי ּו,ְמכו ּּנ ִָסין ו ְּסרו ִּחין would immerse to become purified in cave water that was col-
ִה ְת ִחיל ּו וַ ֲע ָ ׂשא ּום,ַמיִ ם ׁ ְשא ו ִּבין lected, still, and foul. Although this water purified them, due to its
.יהם טו ְּמ ָאה ֶ ֶק ַבע – ָ ּגזְ ר ּו ֲע ֵל stench, the people immersing themselves would pour on them-
selves drawn water in order to clean themselves. Once they began
this custom and transformed it into an established part of the
ritual, the Sages issued a decree on the drawn water, rendering it
impure, to prevent them from washing with it after immersion.
64 Perek I . 14a . די ףד. קרפ ׳א
notes
:אֹומ ִרים ְ ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו:ַמאי ֶק ַבע? ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of this, that they transformed it
into an established part of the ritual? Abaye said that they would say: And a ritually pure person that three log of drawn
ל ֹא ֵא ּל ּו ְמ ַט ֲה ִרין – ֶא ָּלא ֵא ּל ּו וְ ֵא ּל ּו
n3
water fell on his head and most of his body – וְ ָטהֹור
ַמאי נָ ְפ ָקא:יה ָר ָבא ּ ָא ַמר ֵל.ְמ ַט ֲה ִרין The cave water is not what purifies; rather this, the cave water, and that, ֹאשֹו וְ רו ּּבֹו ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה לו ִ ּּגין ַמיִ ם ׁ ְשאו ִּבין
ׁ ש ָּנ ְפל ּו ַעל ר:
ֶ ׁ The Gemara
the drawn water, together purify. Rava said to him: What difference distinguishes between one who immersed himself dur-
ִמ ָּינ ּה? ָהא ָקא ָט ְב ִלי ְ ּב ָהנָ ְך! ֶא ָּלא
does it make if they say that? Ultimately, aren’t they immersing in the ing the day [tevul yom] and then proceeded to bathe in
אֹומ ִרים ל ֹא ֵא ּל ּו ְ ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו:ָא ַמר ָר ָבא cave water? As long as they immersed themselves properly, it matters drawn water, who is decreed impure, and a ritually pure
.ְמ ַט ֲה ִרין – ֶא ָּלא ֵאלּ ּו ְמ ַט ֲה ִרין not if they misunderstand the reason. Rather, Rava said: The problem person, who becomes impure only when drawn water
is that eventually they would say: This, the cave water, is not what falls on him. The reason for this distinction is that, fun-
damentally, the decree was initially issued with regard
purifies; rather, that, the drawn water, purifies. Therefore, the Sages
to one who immersed himself during the day, due to
issued a decree prohibiting the use of drawn water after purification. the concern that he would view pouring drawn water
upon himself for cleanliness as the primary element in
ֹאשֹו וְ רו ּּבֹו
ׁ “וְ ָטהֹור ׁ ֶש ָּנ ְפל ּו ַעל ר And the Sages decreed impurity upon a ritually pure person that three
the purification process. Since the primary concern was
ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה לו ִ ּּגין ַמיִ ם ׁ ְשאו ִּבין״ ַמאי log of drawn water fell on his head and most of his body.n The Ge-
3
method of storage: This is sacred and that is sacred, and it is appropri- whether or not hands are ritually pure, they are ac-
ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ָק ָחז ּו.ַהאי ק ֶֹד ׁש וְ ַהאי ק ֶֹד ׁש ate that they be stored together. Since the Sages saw that they were corded second degree ritual impurity status. Therefore,
יה ַר ָ ּבנַןּ ְ ּגזַ ר ּו ֵ ּב,דְּ ָק ָאת ּו ִל ֵידי ּ ְפ ֵס ָידא coming to ruin, as the mice who were attracted to the teruma foods it is necessary to ritually wash one’s hands before eat-
ing teruma. The Sages instituted an ordinance to wash
.טו ְּמ ָאה would also gnaw at the Torah scrolls, the Sages decreed impurity upon
one’s hands before eating non-sacred food as well. If
it. Once they issued the decree of impurity on the Torah scroll, the
one touched teruma without washing his hands, it is
priests no longer placed teruma near it. disqualified and burned (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot
She’ar Avot HaTuma 8:8).
‘וְ ַהּיָ ַדיִ ם׳ – ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ַהּיָ ַדיִ ם ַע ְס ָקנִּיֹות The Gemara explains the next case in the mishna: And the hands;h the 4
ַאף יָ ַדיִ ם ַה ָ ּבאֹות ֵמ ֲח ַמת: ָּתנָ א.ֵהן reason that the Sages decreed impurity upon them is because hands One who holds a Torah scroll exposed – אֹוחז ֵס ֶפר
h5 ֵ ָה
are busy. A person’s hands tend to touch dirty or impure objects. Since ת ָֹורה ָערֹום:ּ In deference to the Torah scroll, it is pro-
ִמ ׁ ּשוּם,ֹוסלֹות ֶאת ַה ְּתרו ָּמה ְ ֵס ֶפר ּפ hibited to touch a scroll directly, in accordance with
one does not always pay attention to what his hands touch, and it is
דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ּ ַפ ְרנָ ךְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי. ְדְּ ַר ִ ּבי ּ ַפ ְרנָ ך the statement of Rabbi Parnakh (Rambam Sefer Ahava,
inappropriate for holy food to be touched by dirty hands, the Sages Hilkhot Tefillin UMezuza VeSefer Torah 10:6; Shulĥan
נִק ַ ּברְ – אֹוחז ֵס ֶפר ּת ָֹורה ָערֹום ֵ ָה:יֹוחנָן ָ decreed impurity. It was taught in a baraita: Even hands that come to Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 147:1 and Yoreh De’a 282:4).
ָ‘ערֹום׳ ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָת ְך?! ֶא ָּלא.ָערֹום be impure due to contact with a Torah scroll disqualify the teruma.
. ָערֹום ְ ּבל ֹא ִמצְ �ֹות:ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא The reason for this decree is because of the statement of Rabbi Parnakh,
ְ ּבל ֹא ִמצְ �ֹות ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָת ְך?! ֶא ָּלא as Rabbi Parnakh said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: One who holds a
.אֹות ּה ִמצְ וָ הָ ָערֹום ְ ּבל ֹא:ימא ָ ֵא Torah scroll in a manner that the scroll is exposedh without a covering;
5
Perek I
Daf 14 Amud b
ישא ָהא ּת ּו ָל ָּמה ָ ׁ ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ַה ְך ַ ּגזוּר ְ ּב ֵרonce they decreed that first, why do I need that decree of impurity
ָ ׁ ַהךְ ַ ּגזוּר ְ ּב ֵר, ִלי? ֶא ָּלאon hands that touch a sacred scroll as well? Once the Sages decreed
וַ ֲה ַדר ַ ּגזוּר,ישא
. ְ ּבכו ְּּלה ּו יָ ַדיִ םimpurity on hands in general, there is no longer a necessity to decree
impurity on hands that touched a Torah scroll, as hands are impure in
any case. Rather, certainly the Sages decreed impurity on this, hands
that touched a Torah scroll, first. And then they decreed impurity on
all hands.
די ףד: ׳א קרפ. Perek I . 14b 65
notes
יתאָ ְאֹורי
ַ ְּ ְטבוּל יֹום ד. “ו ְּטבוּל יֹום״Among the decrees listed in the mishna, there is the decree that contact with
Shimon ben Shataĥ instituted a woman’s mar-
! “ו ָּבא ַה ׁ ּ ֶש ֶמ ׁש וְ ָט ֵהר״: דִּ ְכ ִתיב, הוּאone who immersed himself during the day disqualifies teruma. The Ge-
n1
tuted important amendments to enhance its au- until evening. He should not eat of the consecrated items and he must wash
thority. Before his amendment, a certain amount his flesh with water. And the sun sets and it is purified. Afterward, he may
of money was set aside for the marriage contract, eat from the teruma, for it is his bread” (Leviticus 22:6–7). Consequently,
which could easily be misplaced or appropriated until sunset he is prohibited by Torah law from touching consecrated items,
by heirs. After the amendments of Shimon ben
and the same is true for teruma. The Gemara answers: Delete from here,
Shataĥ, all of the husband’s assets were mort-
gaged to pay the monetary obligations included
from the list of decrees in the mishna, one who immersed himself during
in the marriage contract. the day.
ְ ּב ַמ ׁ ְש ִקין ַה ָ ּב ִא ין:יִ ׁ ּ ָש ֶתה״! ֶא ָּלא they are impure by Torah law, as it is written with regard to the impurity
וּגְ זֵ ָירה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַמ ׁ ְש ִקין,ֵמ ֲח ַמת יָ ַדיִ ם of creeping animals: “And every liquid that is drunk in any vessel, will be
.ַה ָ ּב ִאין ֵמ ֲח ַמת ׁ ֶש ֶרץ impure” (Leviticus 11:34). Rather, the mishna is referring to liquids that
come to be impure due to contact with impure hands.h The Sages issued 3
this decree due to liquids that come to be impure through contact with a
creeping animal.
.“וְ ַה ֵּכ ִל ים ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְט ְמ א ּו ְ ּב ַמ ׁ ְש ִק ין״ And among the decrees that were listed, there is also the decree concerning
?יט ְמא ּו ְ ּב ַמ ׁ ְש ִקין דְּ ַמאי ַּ ֵּכ ִלים דְּ ִא the vessels that became impure through contact with liquids. The Ge-
יתא ָ ְאֹורי
ַ ְּימא ְ ּב ַמ ׁ ְש ִקין דְּ זָ ב – ד ָ ִא ֵיל mara asks: Vessels that became impure due to contact with liquids that
became impure due to contact with what source of impurity? If you say
“וְ ִכי יָ רֹוק ַהּזָ ב: דִּ ְכ ִתיב, נִ ינְ ה ּו
that they become impure due to contact with liquids secreted by a zav, e.g.,
ִ –מה ׁ ּ ֶש ְ ּביַ ד ָטהֹור ִט ֵּמ
אתי ַ ַ ּב ָּטהֹור״ spittle, urine, etc., they are impure by Torah law, as it is written: “And if a
ְ ּב ַמ ׁ ְש ִקין ַה ָ ּב ִאין ֵמ ֲח ַמת:ְלךָ ! ֶא ָּלא zav spits on a pure person and he should wash his clothes and wash in
Ancient glass vessels
.ׁ ֶש ֶרץ וּגְ זֵ ָירה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַמ ׁ ְש ִקין דְּ זָ ב water and he is impure until the evening” (Leviticus 15:8). The Sages inter-
preted homiletically: Whatever is in the hand of the pure person I made
impure for you. Not only did the person who came into contact with the
liquids of the zav become impure, but the objects in his hand did as well.
Rather, here it is referring to liquids that come to be impure due to contact
with a creeping animal, which by Torah law do not transmit impurity to
vessels. And the Sages issued a decree with regard to those liquids due to
their similarity to the liquids of a zav.
?וְ יָ ַדיִ ם ַּת ְל ִמ ֵידי ׁ ַש ַּמאי וְ ִה ֵּלל ַ ּגז ּור Among the list of items in the mishna with regard to which the disciples of
יֹוסי ֶ ּבן ֵ :ׁ ַש ַּמאי וְ ִה ֵּלל ַ ּגזוּר! דְּ ַתנְ יָ א Shammai and Hillel instituted decrees, were the hands of any person who
יֹוחנָ ן
ָ יֹוסי ֶ ּבן ֵ ְיֹועזֶ ר ִא ׁיש צְ ֵר ָידה ו ֶ did not purify himself for the sake of purity of teruma. If he came into con-
tact with teruma, the Sages decreed it impure. The Gemara asks: And with
ִא ׁיש יְ רו ׁ ָּש ַליִ ם ָ ּגזְ ר ּו טו ְּמ ָאה ַעל ֶא ֶרץ
regard to hands, was it the disciples of Shammai and Hillel who issued
ׁ ִש ְמעֹון.ָה ַע ִּמים וְ ַעל ְּכ ֵלי זְ כו ִּכית the decree of impurity? Shammai and Hillel themselves issued the decree.
וְ גָ זַ ר,יקן ְּכתו ָ ּּבה ָל ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ּ ֵ ֶ ּבן ׁ ָש ָטח ִּת As it was taught in a baraita: Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida and Yosei ben
ׁ ַש ַּמאי וְ ִה ֵּלל.טו ְּמ ָאה ַעל ְּכ ֵלי ַמ ָּתכֹות Yoĥanan of Jerusalem decreed impurity on the land of the nations, that
.ָ ּגזְ ר ּו טו ְּמ ָאה ַעל ַהּיָ ַדיִ ם the land outside Eretz Yisrael transmits impurity; and they decreed impu-
rity on glass vessels,b even though glass is not listed in the Torah among
1
the vessels that can become impure. Shimon ben Shataĥ instituted the
formula of a woman’s marriage contractn and also decreed special impu-
1
rity on metal vessels. Shammai and Hillel decreed impurity on the hands.
halakha
One who immersed himself during the day transmits impurity
h1 ה ָ ּב ִאין ֵמ ֲח ַמת ׁ ֶש ֶרץ:ַ Liquids that became impure due to contact with
by Torah law – אֹוריְ ָיתא הוּא
ַ ְּטבוּל יֹום ד:ְ One who became impure a creeping animal render even vessels impure by rabbinic decree
through contact with one of the primary sources of ritual impurity, (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTuma 7:2).
and then immersed himself to become ritually pure, remains impure
Liquids that come to be impure due to hands – ְ ּב ַמ ׁ ְש ִקין ַה ָ ּב ִאין
by Torah law until the evening (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar
h3
מ ֲח ַמת יָ ַדיִ ם:ֵ Liquids that became impure due to contact with hands
Avot HaTuma 10:1).
assume first degree ritual impurity status, as per the decree of the
h2 Liquids that come to be impure due to a creeping animal – ְ ּב ַמ ׁ ְש ִקין Sages (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTuma 8:10).
clear, especially items that may not be destroyed, i.e., teruma and
,ּ ׁ ְשמֹנָ ה ָע ָ ׂשר דָּ ָבר ָ ּגזְ רו:ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל Shmuel said: With regard to eighteen matters they issued consecrated items, are, on the one hand, not burned like items that
decrees that day, and with regard to those eighteen matters are certainly impure; on the other hand, they may not be eaten. They
וְ ִא ּיל ּו ִה ֵּלל.ּו ִּב ׁ ְשמֹנָ ה ָע ָ ׂשר נֶ ְח ְלקו
they disagreed prior to that? The eighteen disputes were only are in abeyance. The implication is that they are impure, but no ac-
וְ ׁ ַש ַּמאי ל ֹא נֶ ְח ְלק ּו ֶא ָּלא ִ ּב ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה between the disciples of Shammai and Hillel, whereas Hillel tion is taken to destroy them. Once the uncertainty is resolved and a
ִ ּב ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה: דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א,ְמקֹומֹות and Shammai themselves argued only in three places. Clear- particular item is determined to be ritually impure, even by rabbinic
וְ ת ּו ָלא! וְ ִכי,ְמקֹומֹות נֶ ְח ְל ק ּו ly they were neither party to the disputes nor the decrees. As decree, it is immediately burned.
, ָאת ּו ִאינְ ה ּו – ַ ּגזוּר ִל ְתלֹות:ימא ָ ֵּת Rav Huna said: Shammai and Hillel disagreed in only three And the people did not accept from them – וְ ָלא ִק ְ ּבל ּו ִמ ּינַיְ יה ּו: Since
n3
;וְ ָאת ּו ַּת ְל ִמ ַידיְ יה ּו – וּגְ זַ ר ּו ִל ְ ׂשרֹוף places and no more. And if you say that Hillel and Shammai the Sages determined that a decree not accepted by most of the
came and decreed that teruma that came into contact with people is null and void, there were many instances where the decrees
יָ ַד יִ ם ְּת ִח ַּל ת:יל ָפא ְ וְ ָה ָא ַמ ר ִא of earlier Sages were not accepted. Only many years later did other
hands would be in abeyance,n and their students came and
2
ּ
,ּ ָאת ּו ִאינְ הו:ְ ּגזֵ ָיר ָתן ִל ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה! ֶא ָלא decreed to burn teruma that came into contact with hands,
Sages issue the same decree or explicitly declare its nullification.
וְ ָאת ּו,ַ ּגז ּור וְ ָלא ִק ְ ּבל ּו ִמ ּינַיְ יה ּו then the following difficulty arises. Didn’t Ilfa,p one of the 2
At the time that Solomon instituted eiruv and washing hands –
n4
today, soldiers are not vigilant with regard to eiruv and the ritual
ma that came into contact with definite impurity is burned. washing of hands. In Solomon’s reign, when the Temple was built,
Teruma that is in abeyance may not be destroyed. One must he thought the time had come to be more vigilant in keeping the
wait until it becomes definitely impure or decomposes on its halakhot of ritual purity and impurity. In addition, due to the respite
own. Rather, the explanation is that they came and issued a from wars and the stability of life at home, he decided to discuss
decree and the people did not accept the decree from them,n 3
a fixed ordinance governing carrying in and out on Shabbat (Rav
Hai Gaon).
and their disciples came and issued a decree and they ac-
cepted it from them.
Personalities
Ilfa – א ְיל ָפא:ִ In the Jerusalem Talmud, this amora appears as Ĥilfei.
ׁ ְשלֹמֹה ָ ּגזַ ר! דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב,וְ ַא ַּכ ִּתי The Gemara asks further: Still, the matter is not clear, as the p2
Rabbi Yoĥanan, although Rabbi Yoĥanan was older. Still later, due to
“בנִי
ּ ְ : יָ צְ ָתה ַ ּבת קֹול וְ ָא ְמ ָרה,יָ ַדיִ ם
from their impurity, a Divine Voice emerged and said in his dire economic straits, he was forced to leave Eretz Yisrael and travel
.ִאם ָח ַכם ִל ֶ ּבךָ יִ ׁ ְש ַמח ִל ִ ּבי ַ ּגם ָאנִי״ praise: “My son, if your heart is wise my heart will be glad, overseas on business. During his absence, Rabbi Yoĥanan was chosen
יבה ָ “ח ַכם ְ ּבנִי וְ ַ ׂש ַּמח ִל ִ ּבי וְ ָא ׁ ִש ֲ even mine” (Proverbs 23:15), and so too: “My son, be wise and to head the yeshiva in Eretz Yisrael.
Ilfa was famous for his sharp intelligence and the depth of his un-
ֲא ָתא.חֹור ִפי ָד ָבר״ ְ make my heart glad, that I may respond to those who taunt derstanding both in Mishna and in the various collections of baraitot
me” (Proverbs 27: 11). The Gemara responds: Came attributed to the students of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Yoĥanan
treated him with great respect and even cited Torah statements in
his name. The Gemara also relates stories of his righteousness and
great piety.
halakha
Hands, from the beginning, their decree was to be burned – יָ ַדיִ ם
h4
ת ִח ַּלת ְ ּגזֵ ָיר ָתן ִל ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה:ְּ In the original decree with regard to the impurity
of hands, the Sages decreed that teruma or consecrated items that
Perek I came into contact with one’s hands are burned immediately, like
food that is definitely impure (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar
Daf 15 Amud a Avot HaTuma 8:8).
וְ ָאת ּו, ׁ ְשלֹמֹה – ָ ּגזַ ר ְל ָק ָד ׁ ִשיםSolomon and decreed impurity on hands to prohibit contact
. ִאינְ ה ּו – וְ גַ זוּר ַאף ִל ְתרו ָּמהwith consecrated items, and Shammai, Hillel, and their dis-
ciples came and decreed impurity on hands even to prohibit
contact with teruma.
ָא ַמ ר ַרב יְ ה ּו ָדה ָא ַמ ר,גּ ּו ָפא As to the matter itself that was mentioned above in passing,
ו ִּב ׁ ְשמֹנָ ה,ּ ׁ ְשמֹנָ ה ָע ָ ׂשר ָ ּגזְ רו:ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to eighteen
הו ׁ ְּשווּ! ּבֹו: וְ ָה ַתנְ יָ א.ָּע ָ ׂשר נֶ ְח ְלקו matters they issued decrees that day, and with regard to those
eighteen matters they disagreed prior to that.n The Gemara 1
egg-bulks measured in their shells, is obligated in the portion of the dough given to a priest. From any less than that measure
ֵ וְ ִה ֵּלל
וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים, ִמ ַ ּק ַ ּביִ ים:אֹומר
ĥalla, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis there is no obligation to separate ĥalla, as that is not the measure alluded to in
as interpreted by Rabbi Yosei (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, ל ֹא ְּכ ִד ְב ֵרי זֶ ה וְ ל ֹא:אֹומ ִרים ְ the verse: “The first of your dough” (Numbers 15:20), written with regard to
Hilkhot Bikkurim 6:15; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 456:1 ַקב ו ֶּמ ֱחצָ ה, ֶא ָּלא,ְּכ ִד ְב ֵרי זֶ ה the mitzva of separating ĥalla. And Hillel says: One must separate ĥalla only
and Yoreh De’a 324:1). ִמ ׁ ֶש ִה גְ דִּ יל ּו.ַח ּיָ יב ְ ּב ַח ָּל ה from two kav. And the Rabbis say: The halakha is neither in accordance with
That three log of drawn water disqualify the ritual
h2
ֲח ֵמ ׁ ֶשת ְר ָב ִעים:ַּה ִּמדּ ֹות ָא ְמרו the statement of this one, who is stringent, nor in accordance with the state-
ְ ש ׁ ּ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה לו ִ ּּגין ַמיִ ם ׁ ְשאו ִּבין ּפ:
bath – ֹוס ִלים ֶאת ַה ִּמ ְקוֶ ה ֶׁ
ֵ ַר ִ ּבי.ֶק ַמח ַחּיָ ִיבין ְ ּב ַח ָּלה
יֹוסי ment of that one, who is lenient. Rather, one and a half kav is the measure
Three log of drawn water that falls into a ritual bath from which one is obligated to separate ĥalla.n Once the measuresb increasedb
2 1 2
that has less than forty se’a disqualifies the ritual bath, , ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה – ּ ְפט ּו ִרין:אֹומ ר ֵ
and the Sages recalculated the volume of a kav to be greater, they said that
as per the testimony of the weavers (Rambam Sefer ּ
.ֲח ִמ ׁ ָשה וְ עֹוד – ַחּיָ ִיבין based on the measure of the new kav, five quarters of a kav of flour is the
Tahara, Hilkhot Mikvaot 4:2; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a
201:15). measure from which one is obligated to separate ĥalla. Rabbi Yosei says: Five
quarters are exempt; only from dough the size of five quarters and a bit more
When does a menstruating woman become
h3
The measure of a log in our days is 240–480 ml. ׁ ְש ַמ ְעיָ ה וְ ַא ְב ַט ְליֹון ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה
water disqualifying a ritual bath until two weavers came from the Dung Gateb 3
Sages: The desert measures, mentioned in the Torah, .יהםֶ דִּ ְב ֵר statement against the opinions of the great Sages of Israel, Hillel and Shammai.
were used by the children of Israel in the desert. Je-
The Gemara emphasized their occupation and the place that they lived to un-
rusalem measures were employed in the days of the
Second Temple, when the national center was in Je-
derscore that, despite the fact that their occupation was despised and their place
rusalem. Tzippori measures were established after the was contemptible, there is no preferential treatment when it comes to Torah.
destruction of the Second Temple, when the national
center moved to the Galilean city of Tzippori.
ָּכל:אֹומר ֵ ׁ ַש ַּמאי, וְ ִא ָיד ְך And another dispute between Hillel and Shammai is that Shammai says: All
In all of these systems the names of the various וְ ִה ֵּלל,ַה ּנ ׁ ִָשים דַּ ּיָ ין ׁ ְש ָע ָתן women, their time is sufficient, i.e., a woman who notices that she saw blood
measures were preserved, as were the ratios between , ִמ ּ ְפ ִק ָידה ִל ְפ ִק ָידה:אֹומר ֵ of menstruation but did not feel the flow beforehand, need not worry that
them. However, from time to time, the size of the perhaps the flow of blood began before she saw it, and it is sufficient if she as-
.יל ּו ְל יָ ִמ ים ַה ְר ֵ ּב ה ּ וַ ֲא ִפ
measures were increased by one-sixth. As a result, the sumes ritual impurity status beginning at that moment. Hillel says: From
measures written in the Torah are all desert measures, ל ֹא ְּכ ִד ְב ֵרי:אֹומ ִרים
ְ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים examination to examination, i.e., a woman who saw blood, if she does not
the ones in the early mishnayot are Jerusalem mea- ֵמ ֵעת: ֶא ָּלא,זֶ ה וְ ל ֹא ְּכ ִד ְב ֵרי זֶ ה know when the menstrual flow began, she is considered impure retroactive to
sures, and those in the halakhot of the later tanna’im
and the amora’im are Tzippori measures. The desert ְל ֵעת – ְמ ַמ ֵעט ַעל יַ ד ִמ ּ ְפ ִק ָידה the last time she examined herself and found herself to be ritually pure, and
measure was 0.833 of the Jerusalem measure and – ו ִּמ ּ ְפ ִק ָידה ִל ְפ ִק ָידה,ִל ְפ ִק ָידה even if the examination took place several days earlier. Anything that she
0.694 of the Tzippori measure. .ְמ ַמ ֵעט ַעל יַ ד ֵמ ֵעת ְל ֵעת touched in the interim becomes ritually impure. And the Rabbis say: The
halakha is neither in accordance with the statement of this one nor in ac-
From the Dung Gate – מ ׁ ּ ַש ַער ָה ַא ׁ ְש ּ ָפה:ִ Some say that
cordance with the statement of that one; rather, the principle is: A full day,
b3
notes
One and a half kav is obligated in ĥalla – קב ו ֶּמ ֱחצָ ה ַחּיָ יב ְ ּב ַח ָּלה:ַ
n2 case the dough must be at least a kav, which is equal to twenty- lenient and not invalidate a ritual bath if less than that measure
The law of ĥalla is explained in the Torah (Numbers 15:17–21). four egg-bulks, or one forty-eighth of the dough, in which case of drawn water was poured into it, as the disqualification of a
One is required to separate a small part of the dough as a gift the dough must be at least two kav (Rashba in the name of ritual bath due to drawn water is by rabbinic law (Ra’avad). Ac-
for the priest. However, the Torah neither specified the measure Rabbeinu Tam). cording to an ancient tradition, Hillel was careful to pronounce
of the dough from which a gift must be separated nor the size the word in instead of hin. That was the way he heard it from
A person must speak employing the language of his teacher –
his teacher, who was unable to pronounce the guttural letters
n3
of that gift. As a rule, the measure of dough from which ĥalla לֹומר ִ ּב ְל ׁשֹון ַר ּבֹו
ַ ש ַחּיָ יב ָא ָדם:
ֶ ׁ It was necessary to explain why Hillel
must be separated is dependent on the measure of the omer, properly (Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishna).
used the measure of a hin, which was not used by the Sages,
the daily ration of the manna in the desert, which is a tenth of instead of a log or a kav, which were the standard measures of Neither in accordance with the statement of this one nor
n4
an eipha. However, there is a dispute with regard to determining the Sages. Therefore, the Gemara explained that he employed in accordance with the statement of that one – ל ֹא ְּכ ִד ְב ֵרי זֶ ה
that measure (Tosafot). Some explain that the dispute between the language of his teacher. Others explain the expression em- וְ ל ֹא ְּכ ִד ְב ֵרי זֶ ה: Apparently, the Sages recalled that Shemaya and
Shammai and Hillel stems from reliance on the determination ploying the language of his teacher as referring to the teacher Avtalyon, the teachers of Hillel and Shammai, agreed on one
that there is no gift smaller than an egg-bulk. They disagreed of Israel, Moses our teacher. Hillel said: Since the measure of hin measure. They forgot what that measure was until the weavers
whether the gift is one twenty-fourth of the dough, in which is the largest liquid measure in the Torah, there is room to be came and reminded them (see Ra’avad).
יֹוסי ֶ ּבןֵ ְיֹועזֶ ר ִא ׁיש צְ ֵר ָידה ו ֶ “יֹוסי ֶ ּבןֵ Earlier it was mentioned that Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida and Yosei
יֹוחנָ ן ִא ׁיש יְ רו ׁ ָּש ַליִ ם ָ ּגזְ ר ּו טו ְּמ ָאה ַעל ָ ben Yoĥanan of Jerusalem decreed impurity upon the land of the na-
ֶא ֶרץ ָה ַע ִּמים וְ ַעל ְּכ ֵלי זְ כו ִּכית״ וְ ָהא ַר ָ ּבנַן tions and upon glass vessels. The Gemara asks: Was it these two Sages,
who were among the first Sages in the era of the pairs, who issued these
:דִּ ׁ ְשמֹנִים ׁ ָשנָ ה ַ ּגזוּר! דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א
decrees? Wasn’t it the Sages who lived in the final eighty years of the
יֹוסי ׁ ָש ְלח ּו
ֵ ְּכ ׁ ֶש ָח ָלה ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי Second Temple period who issued these decrees? As Rav Kahana said:
לֹושה דְּ ָב ִרים ָ ׁ ֱאמֹור ָלנ ּו ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ו ְּׁש, ַר ִ ּבי:לֹו When Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, fell ill, the Sages sent to him:
! ָׁ ֶש ָא ַמ ְר ָּת ָ(לנוּ) ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ָא ִביך Rabbi, tell us two or three statements that you once told us in the name
of your father.
ֵמ ָאה: ָּכ ְך ָא ַמר ַא ָ ּבא,ׁ ָש ַלח ָל ֶהם He sent to them: This is what my father said: One hundred and eighty
ּו ׁ ְשמֹנִים ׁ ָשנָ ה ַעד ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ָח ַרב ַה ַ ּביִ ת years before the Temple was destroyed, the evil kingdom of Rome
.ּ ָפ ׁ ְש ָטה ַמ ְלכוּת ָה ְר ׁ ָש ָעה ַעל יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל invaded Israel. Eighty years before the Temple was destroyed, they
decreed impurity on the land of the nations and on glass vessels. For-
ׁ ְשמֹנִים ׁ ָשנָ ה ַעד ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ָח ַרב ַה ַ ּביִ ת
ty years before the Temple was destroyed, the Sanhedrin was exiledb 6
ָ ּגזְ ר ּו טו ְּמ ָאה ַעל ֶא ֶרץ ָה ַע ִּמים וְ ַעל ְּכ ֵלי from the Chamber of Hewn Stones and sat in the storesn on the Temple
5
ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים ׁ ָשנָ ה ַעד ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ָח ַרב.זְ כו ִּכית Mount. With regard to the last statement, the Gemara asks: What are the
ַה ַ ּביִ ת ָ ּג ְל ָתה ָל ּה ַסנְ ֶה ְד ִרין וְ יָ ׁ ְש ָבה ָל ּה halakhic ramifications of this statement? Rabbi Yitzĥak bar Avdimi said:
ְל ַמאי ִה ְיל ְכ ָתא? ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי.ַ ּב ֲחנוּיֹות To say that they no longer judged cases of fines. The Gemara wonders:
לֹומר ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא דָּ נ ּו דִּ ינֵי
ַ :ימי ִ ִּיִ צְ ָחק ַ ּבר ַא ְבד Does it enter your mind that they no longer judged cases of fines? Even
several generations after the Temple was destroyed they continued to
!? דִּ ינֵי ְקנָ סֹות ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָת ְך.ְקנָ סֹות
judge cases of fines in Eretz Yisrael. Rather, emend and say: That they
. ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא דָּ נ ּו דִּ ינֵי נְ ָפ ׁשֹות:ימא ָ ֶא ָּלא ֵא no longer judged capital cases. The authority to impose the death pen-
alty was stripped from the Sanhedrin, and therefore they willingly left the
Chamber of Hewn Stone. Since the Sanhedrin no longer convenes in its
designated place, the halakha is that it no longer has the authority to judge
capital cases (Tosafot).B
5
background
b6 The order of the generations – ס ְד ֵרי ַהדּ ֹורֹות:ִ The conclusion of that statement of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, about the order of
the generations and events in the days before the destruction of the Second Temple is the following:
Perek I
Daf 15 Amud b
notes
ָאת ּו ִאינְ ה ּו ַ ּגזוּר ַאגּ ו ׁ ָּשא:ֶא ָּלא Rather, this decree was issued in stages. First, Yosei ben Yo’ezer and Yosei ben
The impurity of the land of the nations –
n1
, וְ ַא ַא ִּו ָירא וְ ל ֹא ְכל ּום,ִל ְ ׂשרֹוף Yoĥanan came and issued a decree that teruma that comes into contact with a
טו ְּמ ַאת ֶא ֶרץ ָה ַע ִּמים: The impurity of the land of
the nations was already alluded to in the Proph- וְ ָאת ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן דִּ ׁ ְשמֹנִים ׁ ָשנָ ה ַ ּגזוּר clump of earth of the land of the nationsnh is to be burned, and they decreed
1 1
ets: “On impure land you will die” (Amos 7:17). nothing with regard to teruma that enters into the air space of the land of the
.ַא ַאוִ ָירא ִל ְתלֹות
However, in the mishna, this impurity is listed nations. The Sages of the final eighty years prior to the destruction of the Tem-
as one of the cases of uncertain impurity based ple came and issued a decree with regard to teruma that enters into the air space
on the assumption that a dead person may of the land of the nations that its legal status is in abeyance, and it is not burned.
be buried there. Since graves were not always
marked and since cemeteries for burial were not ימ ָרא דַּ ֲח ָדא ְ ּגזֵ ָיר ָתא ֲהוָ ה ְ ְל ֵמ The Gemara asks: Is that to say that there was one decree issued immediately
set aside everywhere, there is concern that any יָ ַדיִ ם:ִל ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה? וְ ָה ָא ַמר ִא ְיל ָפא to subject teruma to burning? Didn’t Ilfa say: With regard to hands, from the
clod of dirt could be from a decaying corpse beginning their decree was that teruma that comes into contact with them is to
or could have come in contact with the flesh יָ ַדיִ ם.יפה ָ ְּת ִח ַּלת ְ ּגזֵ ָיר ָתן ִל ְ ׂש ֵר
be burned? The Gemara infers from this that, with regard to hands alone, the
of a corpse. ,יפה ָ הוּא דִּ ְת ִח ַּלת ְ ּגזֵ ָיר ָתן ִל ְ ׂש ֵר
beginning of their decree was to render teruma that came into contact with them
!ָהא ִמידֵּ י ַא ֲח ִרינָ א – ָלא impure to the point of burning; however, with regard to other matters, they did
halakha
not immediately issue so severe a decree.
The impurity of the land of the nations –
h1
טו ְּמ ַאת ֶא ֶרץ ָה ַע ִּמים: Their first decree was with – ָאת ּו ִאינְ ה ּו ַ ּגזוּר ַא ּגו ׁ ָּשא:ֶא ָּלא Rather, the stages of the decree were as follows: Yosei ben Yo’ezer and Yosei ben
regard to the soil of the land of the nations. The Yoĥanan came and decreed that any item that came into contact with a clump
. וְ ַא ַא ִּו ָירא – וְ ל ֹא ְּכלוּם,ִל ְתלֹות
Sages decreed that anything, person or vessel, of earth is to be in abeyance, and they decreed nothing with regard to teruma
that comes in contact with or carries that soil ,וְ ָאת ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן דִּ ׁ ְשמֹנִים ׁ ָשנָ ה ַ ּגזוּר
that enters into the air space of the land of the nations. The Sages of the last
becomes impure for seven days, like the impuri- וְ ַא ַא ִּו ָירא,ַאגּ ּו ׁ ָשא – ִל ְ ׂשרֹוף
ty of one who comes into contact with a corpse. eighty years came and were stringent by one more level; they decreed that
.ִל ְתלֹות teruma that came into contact with a clump of earth of the land of the nations is
Water of a purification offering must be sprin-
kled on him on the third and seventh days of his to be burned, and, with regard to teruma that enters into the air space of the land
impurity, and teruma that he touches is burned. of the nations, its legal status is in abeyance.
Afterward, the Sages issued an additional de-
cree that one who enters the airspace of the : ְ ּבא ּו ׁ ָשא ַ ּגז ּור! דִּ ְתנַ ן,וְ ַא ַּכ ִּתי The Gemara asked further: And still is the matter clear? Didn’t the Sages issue
land of the nations is impure and is required to ַעל ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה ְס ֵפקֹות ׂש ְֹור ִפין ֶאת this decree in Usha, many years after the destruction of the Temple? As we
wait until sunset to purify himself. Teruma that
, ַעל ָס ֵפק ֵ ּבית ַה ּ ְפ ָרס:ַה ְּתרו ָּמה learned in a mishna: For six cases of uncertain impurity one burns the
entered this airspace is in abeyance, i.e., neither terumah which came into contact with them:
2
eaten nor burned (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot וְ ַעל ָס ֵפק ָע ָפר ַה ָ ּבא ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ
For the uncertain case of beit haperas, meaning teruma that entered a field where
Tumat Met 11:1-2). וְ ַעל ָס ֵפק ִ ּב גְ ֵדי ַעם,ָה ַע ִּמים a grave was plowed and the location of the bones of the corpse is unknown,
For six cases of uncertain impurity one burns
h2
, וְ ַעל ָס ֵפק ֵּכ ִלים ַה ִּנ ְמצָ ִאין,ָה ָא ֶרץ and it is uncertain whether or not the teruma became impure;
the teruma – על ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה ְס ֵפקֹות ׂש ְֹור ִפין ֶאת ַה ְּתרו ָּמה:ַ
וְ ַעל ָס ֵפק,וְ ַעל ָס ֵפק ָהר ּו ִּקין And for the uncertain case of earth that comes from the land of the nations,
The six cases are: (1) Beit haperas; (2) the earth of
the land of the nations; (3) the clothes of an am ֵמי ַרגְ ֵלי ָא ָדם ׁ ֶש ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ֵמי ַרגְ ֵלי whose impurity itself has the status of uncertain impurity. Therefore, teruma
ha’aretz; (4) vessels that were found; (5) saliva ַעל וַ דַּ אי ַמ ָ ּג ָען (וְ ַעל) ָס ֵפק.ְב ֵה ָמה that came into contact with it also has the status of uncertain impurity;
that was found; and (6) urine, even if it is mixed And for the uncertain case of the clothes of an am ha’aretz. Since an am ha’aretz
.טו ְּמ ָא ָתן ׂש ְֹור ִפין ֶאת ַה ְּתרו ָּמה
with animal urine. Although in all cases the im- is not careful with regard to purity, we are concerned lest a menstruating
purity transmitted is based on uncertainty, if woman touch his clothes. Due to that uncertainty, his clothes are considered
teruma came into contact with the above items, impure with a severe degree of impurity. If teruma came into contact with
it is burned. When there is uncertainty whether
them there is uncertainty with regard to whether or not they became impure;
or not it came into contact with one of these
items, it remains in abeyance and is not burned
And for the uncertain case of vessels that are not his that are found. Since he
(Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot Ha- does not know whether or not those vessels are impure, if teruma came into
Tuma 13:13). contact with them, there is uncertainty whether or not they are impure;
And for the uncertain case of spittle, as perhaps it is the spittle of a zav and
transmits impurity by Torah law. If teruma came into contact with it there is
uncertainty whether or not it is impure;
And for the uncertain case of a person’s urine, even though it was adjacent to
the urine of an animal, there is room for concern that perhaps it is the urine
of a zav, and impure by Torah law. If teruma came into contact with it, there is
uncertainty whether or not it is impure.
In all of these cases, the Sages established that for their definite contact, when
it is clear that these came into contact with teruma, and although there is un-
certainty with regard to their essential impurity, i.e., it is uncertain whether
or not these items are impure, one burns the teruma that came into contact
with them.
70 Perek I . 15b . וט ףד: קרפ ׳א
background
ַאף ַעל ָס ֵפק ַמ ָ ּג ָען:אֹומר
ֵ יֹוסי ֵ ַר ִ ּבי Rabbi Yosei says: Even in a case of uncertain contact; if it
was in the private domain one burns teruma that came into The ordinances of Usha – ת ָקנֹות או ׁ ָּשא:ַּ The town of Usha in the
וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים.ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת ַהּיָ ִחיד ׂש ְֹור ִפין
b1
Galilee was, for a time, the seat of the Sanhedrin. Many ordinances
, ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת ַהּיָ ִחיד – ּת ִֹולין:אֹומ ִרים
ְ contact with it, as with regard to impurity by Torah law an were instituted there relating to various areas of halakha, including
uncertainty that developed in a private domain is also ruled halakhot of ritual purity and impurity and monetary laws. The Sages
.הֹורין
ִ ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים – ְט
impure. According to Rabbi Yosei, these decrees, even though disagreed with regard to the exact date of the Usha regulations,
they are fundamentally cases of uncertainty, are sufficiently since the Sanhedrin’s stay there was interrupted. Nevertheless, ap-
stringent that the Sages applied Torah law to them. And the parently these ordinances were instituted after the failure of the bar
Rabbis say: Since these cases are only impure by rabbinic Kokheva rebellion, approximately seventy years after the destruc-
tion of the Temple.
decree, in a case of uncertain contact in the private domain,
According to Rosh HaShana (31a), during the period of the de-
one does not burn the teruma but rather places it in abeyance. struction of the second Temple God began to withdraw His Divine
While in the public domain, they are ritually pure. Presence from the Temple. In parallel, the Sanhedrin removed it-
self as well, first within the city of Jerusalem, and ultimately to
– ֵא ּל ּו ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה ְס ֵפיקֹות:וְ ָא ַמר עו ָּּלא And Ulla said with regard to these six uncertain cases: In the Galilee. It was first transplanted to Yavne, from there to Usha,
Ushab they instituted how one must act in terms of practical Shefaram, Beit She’arim, Tzippori, and Tiberias.
ָאת ּו ִאינְ ה ּו:ְ ּבאו ׁ ָּשא ִה ְת ִקינוּ! ֶא ָּלא
1
ַ ּגזוּר ַאגּ ו ׁ ָּשא ִל ְתלֹות וְ ַא ַא ִּו ָירא וְ ל ֹא halakha. If so, a clump of earth from the land of the nations
transmits impurity from the time of the Usha ordinances and
: וְ ָאת ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן דִּ ׁ ְשמֹנִים ׁ ָשנָ ה ַ ּגזוּר,ְכלוּם
not from eighty years prior to the destruction of the Temple.
וְ ָאת ּו ְ ּבאו ׁ ָּשא.ִא ִידי וְ ִא ִידי ִל ְתלֹות Rather, Yosei ben Yo’ezer and Yosei ben Yoĥanan came and
– וְ ַא ַא ִּו ָירא,ַ ּגזוּר ַאגּ ו ׁ ָּשא – ִל ְ ׂשרֹוף decreed that if teruma came into contact with a clump of earth
.ִּכ ְד ָק ֵאי ָק ֵאי from the land of the nations, its legal status is in abeyance and
one does not burn it, and upon teruma that entered the air
space of the land of the nations they decreed nothing. And
the Sages of the last eighty years of the Temple came along
and issued a decree upon this, earth, and upon that, air, that
in both cases the teruma is in abeyance. And the Sages of the
city of Usha came along and decreed that teruma that came
into contact with a clump of earth from the land of the nations
is burned. And teruma that entered the air space of the land
of the nations, as it stood, it continues to stand in abeyance.
They did not impose any greater stringency in this matter.
ְּכ ֵלי זְ כו ִּכית ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא ַ ּגזוּר ְ ּבה ּו One of the matters mentioned above was the decree of impu-
יֹוחנָ ן ָא ַמר ָ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן טו ְּמ ָאה? ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי rity on glass vessels. With regard to glass vessels,nh what is
2 3
khot of immersing vessels: And these materials interpose in n2 Glass vessels – כ ֵלי זְ כו ִּכית:ְּ Various types of vessels are listed in
the Torah along with the methods by which they become impure
vessels, i.e., if they were stuck to the vessel when it was im-
and pure. These include metal vessels, earthenware vessels, leather
mersed the vessel is not purified: The pitch and the myrrh vessels, and even woven items and strings. However, among those
that were stuck on glass vessels obstruct their immersion. items not listed are those that are completely ritually pure even by
Apparently, glass vessels are purified in a ritual bath. rabbinic law and those that the Sages deemed impure due to their
similarity to vessels impure by Torah law.
ְּ ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַ ן – ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ּנ
ִיקב ּו The Gemara answers that glass cannot usually be purified in a
, וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ִהיא.תֹוכן ֲא ָבר ָ וְ ִה ִּטיף ְל ritual bath. However, with what are we dealing here? With a halakha
.הֹול ְך ַא ַחר ַה ַּמ ֲע ִמיד ֵ ַה ּכֹל:דְּ ָא ַמר special case where the glass vessels were perforated and he Glass vessels – כ ֵלי זְ כו ִּכית:ְּ Although glass vessels do not become
h3
dripped molten lead into them to seal the hole. This halakha impure by Torah law, the Sages decreed that they become impure.
ְּכ ֵלי זְ כו ִּכית ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְּקב ּו וְ ִה ִּטיף,דְּ ַתנְ יָ א The rationale for the decree is as follows: Since glass is produced
is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said:
ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן,תֹוכן ֲא ָבר ָ ְל Everything follows the nature of the facilitator, i.e., if an
from sand, like earthenware vessels, the Sages decreed that it should
become impure like them. However, unlike earthenware vessels,
ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ְמ ַט ֵּמא וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים:יאל ֵ ַ ּג ְמ ִל object that is not fit for use on its own is reinforced with a glass vessels become impure from both their airspace and their
.ְמ ַט ֲה ִרין different material that facilitates its use, the entire object as- outer side. Although the Sages decreed ritual impurity on glass
sumes the legal status of the that material. Therefore, since the vessels, it was not to the extent that teruma and consecrated items
substance that sealed the holes in these glass vessels is lead, that came into contact with them are burned; rather, they are placed
which can be purified through immersion like other metals, in abeyance (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 1:5).
these glass vessels can also be purified in a ritual bath. As it
was taught in a baraita: Glass vessels that were perforated
and one dripped lead into them; Rabban Shimon ben Gam-
liel said that Rabbi Meir deems them ritually impure and
the Rabbis deem them ritually pure.
ֶא ָּלא ֵמ ַע ָּתהThe Gemara asks further: But if that is so, and glass vessels are
equated with earthenware vessels,
וט ףד: ׳א קרפ. Perek I . 15b 71
Perek I
Daf 16 Amud a
background
ְּכ ֵלי ֶח ֶרס: ַא ָּל ָּמה ְּתנַן,יטמ ּו ִמ ַ ּג ָ ּבן
ְ ָלא ִל they should not become impure from their outer side. Why, then,
Vessels made from natron – כ ֵלי נֶ ֶתר:ְּ The natron men- did we learn this in a mishna? With regard to earthenware vessels
יט ְּמ ִאין ַּ ו ְּכ ֵלי נֶ ֶתר טו ְּמ ָא ָתן ׁ ָשוָ ה; ִמ
b1
sels were formed from these crystals. These vessels could rity are equal in that they become impure if a primary source of
,יהןֶ יט ְּמ ִאין ִמ ַ ּג ֵ ּבַּ יהן וְ ֵאין ִמ ֶ חֹור
ֵ ֵמ ֲא
not be used to hold liquids; however, in a dry climate, it impurity enters their airspace, and, once impure, they render food
is conceivable that they could do so for a limited period ְּכ ֵלי נֶ ֶתר ו ְּכ ֵלי.ּו ׁ ְש ִב ָיר ָתן ְמ ַט ַה ְר ָּתן that enters their airspace impure from their air space. And they be-
of time. ֲא ָבל,ֶח ֶרס הוּא דְּ ט ּו ְמ ָא ָתן ׁ ָשוָ ה come impure from behind, i.e., if a primary source of impurity enters
The back of the vessels and their outer side – ַ ּגב ֵּכ ִלים
b2
ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ִכי:ִמידֵּ י ַא ֲח ִרינָ א – ָלא! ָא ְמ ִרי into the bottom of the vessel, where there is an empty space and a
יהם
ֶ חֹור
ֵ וַ ֲא: נִש ַּת ְ ּבר ּו ּיֵ ׁש ָל ֶהם ַּת ָ ּקנָ ה – ׁ ַש ִּוינְ ה ּו
ְׁ receptacle, the vessel becomes impure. However, earthenware vessels
.ִּכ ְכ ֵלי ַמ ָּתכֹות do not become impure from their outer side,bn i.e., if a primary 2 1
source of impurity came into contact with the outer side of the vessel,
the inside of the vessel does not become impure. And the breaking
of earthenware vessels renders them pure. By inference, specifically
natron vessels and earthenware vessels are those whose halakhot
of impurity are equal, as is their status. However, with regard to
other matters that is not the case.n Why, then, were glass vessels not
2
listed together with those vessels? The Gemara answers: Since if the
glass vessels broke they have the capacity to be repaired, as the glass
can be liquefied and recast into a new vessel, the Sages equated them
to metal vessels that can also be liquefied and recast.
,ֶא ָּלא ֵמ ַע ָּתה – יַ ְחזְ ר ּו ְלטו ְּמ ָא ָתן יְ ׁ ָשנָ ה The Gemara asks: But if so, if glass vessels were truly equated with
, ְּכ ֵלי ַמ ָּתכֹות: דִּ ְתנַ ן.ִּכ ְכ ֵלי ַמ ָּתכֹות metal vessels, then broken glass vessels that were liquefied and recast
,יה ן – ְט ֵמ ִא ין ֶ יה ן ּו ְמ ַק ְ ּב ֵל ֶ ּ ְפ ׁש ּו ֵט should reassume their previous impurity,h like metal vessels. As 1
Illustration based on a vessel found at Megiddo. The hollow under the base we learned in a mishna: Metal vessels, both their flat vessels,n which 3
וְ טו ְּמ ָאה,טו ְּמ ַאת ְּכ ֵלי זְ כו ִּכית דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן The Gemara answers: The entire impurity of glass vessels is by rab-
– יתא ָ ְאֹורי
ַ ְּ ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה ד,יְ ׁ ָשנָ ה דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן binic decree, and previous impurity, which takes effect on recast
ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה,ַא ִחית ּו ָ ּב ּה ַר ָ ּבנַ ן טו ְּמ ָאה metal vessels, is by rabbinic decree. With regard to impurity by
Torah law, the Sages imposed a decree of previous impurity. With
.דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן – ָלא ַא ִחית ּו ָל ּה ַר ָ ּבנַן טו ְּמ ָאה
regard to impurity by rabbinic law, the Sages did not impose a de-
cree of previous impurity. The Sages did not impose the decree of
previous impurity, which is by rabbinic decree, on glass vessels whose
fundamental impurity is itself only by rabbinic decree.
notes
They become impure, and they render food impure from their
n1 earthenware vessels. However, the Gemara did not seek to detail
airspace, and they become impure from behind; however, all the differences. It sufficed with showing this difference, both
they do not become impure from their outer side – יט ְּמ ִאין ַּ ִמ in terms of impurity from their outer side and in terms of impurity
ַּ יהן וְ ֵאין ִמ
ֶ יט ְּמ ִאין ִמ ַ ּג ֵ ּב
יהן ֶ חֹור ַּ ו ִּמ,יהן
ֵ יט ְּמ ִאין ֵמ ֲא ֶ ו ְּמ ַט ְּמ ִאין ֵמ ֲאוִ ֵיר: There is from behind (Tziyyun LeNefesh Ĥayya).
a variant reading: They become impure and make foods impure
Metal vessels, both their flat vessels, etc. – יהן
ֶ ּ ְפ ׁשו ֵּט,ְּכ ֵלי ַמ ָּתכֹות
from their airspace, and they make others impure from behind.
n3
וכו׳: Some explain that the impurity of flat metal vessels is de-
According to this version and this explanation, the term from
rived from the language of the verse: “Anything that comes in
behind means from their outer side (Ramban).
the fire” (Numbers 31:23), with no distinction between vessels
However, with regard to other matters that is not the case – (Rambam). Others explain that the principle that only a recep-
n2
א ָבל ִמידֵּ י ַא ֲח ִרינָ א ָלא:ֲ By means of a precise reading of the mishna, tacle can become ritually impure is derived from the juxtaposi-
it is also possible to explain that glass vessels do not become tion of wood and leather to a sack, which is a receptacle. With
impure from their airspace. That ruling is in fact the halakha. In regard to metal vessels, there is no such juxtaposition (Rabbeinu
that case, there is another distinction between glass vessels and Shimshon; Rosh).
יט ָמא
ְ יהא ִל
ָ מ:ִ Glass vessels become impure only when they are
יכי דְּ ל ֹא ִ ִּכי ֵה,ְ ּבה ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ֶה ֵּכ ָירא Torah law, isn’t it appropriate, therefore, to decree this impurity receptacles; flat glass objects do not become impure (Rambam
on flat glass vessels by rabbinic decree? The Gemara answers: Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 1:5).
.ִל ְ ׂשרֹוף ֲע ַליְ יה ּו ְּתרו ָּמה וְ ָק ָד ׁ ִשים
The Sages made a distinction with regard to glass vessels,n in 4
ע ְב ִדי ְ ּבה ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן ֶה ֵּכ ָירא:ָ We find that these distinctions are especially
that the impurity of glass vessels is not by Torah law. They will common with regard to halakhot of ritual impurity. With regard to
not come to burn teruma and consecrated items that came into other decrees, the Sages strictly observed the principle: The Sages
contact with impure glass vessels; rather, their legal status will modeled their ordinances after comparable Torah laws. Here,
remain in abeyance. because imposing stringencies with regard to glass vessels could
create a situation where one might come to burn consecrated
items, the obvious distinction was necessary. This is the rationale
in other places where the Sages introduced distinctions as well.
Perek I
Daf 16 Amud b
halakha
.ּעֹולם ִל ְכ ֵלי ֶח ֶרס דָּ מו ָ ְל: ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ָא ַמרRav Ashi said: There was never a need to equate glass vessels
Since its inner side looks like its outer side – הֹואיל וְ נִ ְר ֶאה ּתֹוכֹו
ִ
– יטמ ּו ִמ ַ ּג ָ ּבן ְ ו ְּד ָקא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ָלךְ ָלא ִלand metal vessels. Actually, glass vessels are likened to earth-
h1
“ש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ׁ ָש ָטח ִּת ֵ ּיקן ְּכתו ָ ּּבה ָל ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ִׁ We learned that Shimon ben Shataĥ instituted the formula of
ְּכ ֵלי.וְ גָ זַ ר טו ְּמ ָאה ַעל ְּכ ֵלי ַמ ָּתכֹות״ the marriage contract for a woman and decreed impurity
:יתא נִינְ הוּ! דִּ ְכ ִתיב ָ ְאֹורי
ַ ְַּמ ָּתכֹות – ד upon metal vessels. The Gemara asks: Aren’t metal vessels
impure by Torah law, as it is written: “But the gold, and silver,
!“א ְך ֶאת ַהּזָ ָהב וְ ֶאת ַה ֶּכ ֶסף״ וגו׳ ַ
and the bronze, and the iron, and the tin, and the lead. Anything
.ל ֹא נִצְ ְר ָכה ֶא ָּלא ְלט ּו ְמ ָאה יְ ׁ ָשנָ ה that came in fire, make it pass through fire and it will be pure,
ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה:דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ַרב but with the water of sprinkling it will be purified and anything
ְ ּב ׁ ֶשל צִ ּיֹון ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה ׁ ֶש ָע ְ ׂש ָתה ִמ ׁ ְש ֶּתה that did not come in fire make it pass through water” (Numbers
ּו ׁ ְש ָב ָר ַתן,יה ָ וְ נִ ְט ְמא ּו ָּכל ֵּכ ֶל,ִל ְבנָ ּה 31:22–23)? The Gemara answers: This ordinance of Shimon ben
ית ָכן וְ ָע ָ ׂשה ֵמ ֶהן ְּ וּנְ ָתנָ ַתן ַל ּצ ֵֹורף וְ ִר Shataĥ with regard to the impurity of metal vessels in general
was only needed with regard to previous impurity reassumed
יַ ְחזְ ר ּו: וְ ָא ְמר ּו ֲח ָכ ִמים,ֵּכ ִלים ֲח ָד ׁ ִשים
by metal vessels after they are recast. As Rav Yehuda said that
.ְלטו ְּמ ָא ָתן יְ ׁ ָשנָ ה Rav said: There was an incident involving Shimon ben Shataĥ’s
sister, Shel Tziyyon the queen,p who made a wedding feast for
1
her son. All of her vessels became impure, and she broke
them and gave them to the smith, and he welded the broken
vessels together and made new vessels. And the Sages said:
What she did was ineffective, as all the vessels will reassume
their previous impurity.
Personalities
Shel Tziyyon the queen – של צִ ּיֹון ַה ַּמ ְל ָּכה:
p1 ֶ ׁ She was a queen Queen Shlomtziyyon followed the Pharisees, and even dur-
of the Hasmonean dynasty, the wife of King Alexander Yan- ing her husband’s reign she labored to achieve unity. After
nai, and the sister of Shimon ben Shataĥ. Shel Tziyyon, or the death of Alexander Yannai, she continued to rule over
Shlomtziyyon, and in some sources Shalminon or Shlomit, Israel for nine years. Those years, in which she served as the
was originally the wife of the Hasmonean king Aristobo- political leader, and her brother Shimon ben Shataĥ guided
los. After his death, his brother Yannai performed an act of daily life and religious life, were considered the happiest
levirate marriage with her. Although the Hasmonean kings, years for the people of Israel during the Second Temple
and specifically Alexander Yannai, had Sadducee tendencies, period.
mixed with the ashes of the Red Heifer, which was used to
purify people and objects that had contracted ritual impurity
metal vessels? The Gemara answers: Due to a fence constructed to
imparted by a corpse. Specifically, potable, running spring maintain the integrity of the water of a purification offering,b the 1
water was placed in a container, and a small amount of ashes Sages touched upon it. In order to purify a vessel that came into
from the Red Heifer was added. The resulting mixture, called contact with a corpse, one is required to have the water of a purifica-
water of a purification offering, or water of separation, was tion offering sprinkled on the vessel on the third day and the seventh
sprinkled on the people or objects to be purified. The process day after it became impure, as it is written: “He should be purified
of mixing the ashes with water is called sanctification of the
with it on the third day and on the seventh day he will become pure,
waters of a purification offering. This may be performed by
anyone except a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor. Even
and if he is not purified with it on the third day and on the seventh
though these waters purify those who are ritually impure, a day he will not become pure” (Numbers 19:20). This involves a
ritually pure person who touches or carries them becomes significant inconvenience. If people will prefer to break or damage
ritually impure for one day. The ceremony of purification impure metal vessels in order to purify them more easily, the use of
involves taking a bundle of three hyssop branches and using water of a purification offering will become obsolete. As a result, the
it to sprinkle the purification waters on the ritually impure Sages decreed that metal vessels will remain impure until they un-
person on the third and the seventh day after he became
dergo the purification process.
ritually impure.
יח א ְל ַמ אן דְּ ָא ַמ ר ל ֹא ְל ָכל ָ ִ ָה נThe Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that they
ַה ּטו ְּמאֹות ָא ְמר ּו ֶא ָּלא ְלטו ְּמ ַאת ַה ֵּמתdid not say the decree of previous impurity on metal vessels with
. ִ ּב ְל ַבד ָא ְמר ּו – ׁ ַש ּ ִפירregard to all forms of impurity; rather, they only said the decree
with regard to the impurity caused by contact with a corpse, it
works out well. In the case of impurity caused by contact with a
corpse, the Sages issued this decree because its purification process
is demanding. It requires immersion and sprinkling of the water of
a purification offering on the third and the seventh days. However,
with regard to other forms of impurity, whose purification is ac-
complished by means of immersion alone, a person will not break
a vessel in order to avoid immersion. Consequently, there is no need
to institute a decree in those cases.
“ל ָכל ַה ּטו ְּמאֹות ְ ֶא ָּלא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר However, according to the one who said that they said the decree
ימר? ָא ַמר ַ יכא ְל ֵמ ָּ ָא ְמרוּ״ ַמאי ִא of previous impurity in metal vessels with regard to all forms of
ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ֶש ָּמא ל ֹא יִ ְּק ֶבנּ ּו ִ ּב ְכ ֵדי:ַא ַ ּביֵ י impurity, which includes those forms of impurity that do not re-
quire sprinkling of the water of a purification offering for their pu-
.ָט ָה ָרתֹו
rification, what is there to say as a rationale for the decree? Abaye
said: Shimon ben Shataĥ instituted a decree due to the concern
that perhaps he would not perforate that vessel with a hole large
enough to render it ritually pure. To purify a vessel by breaking it,
one must make a hole large enough to ensure that the vessel will no
longer be able to hold the contents that it was designed to hold.
Abaye explained that Shimon ben Shataĥ’s concern was that one
who values the vessel will not break it sufficiently to render it ritu-
ally pure.
ְ ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ֶש ָּמא י: ָר ָבא ָא ַמרRava said: It is a decree lest they say that immersion on the same
ֹאמר ּו ְט ִב ָילה
ָ ַ ּבתday is sufficient for this vessel to be purified. People will be un-
h
?ּ ַמאי ֵ ּבינַיְ יהו.עֹולה ָל ּה ָ יֹומא
2
ָּ ִאaware of the manner in which the metal vessel became pure, and
.יכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יה ּו דִּ ְרצַ ִפינְ ה ּו ִמ ְרצַ ף
they will assume that its purity was achieved by means of immersion
and not by means of breaking. That will lead them to the conclusion
that any vessel becomes pure immediately upon immersion, and
there is no need to wait for sunset, contrary to Torah law. Therefore,
the Sages decreed that repaired vessels retain previous impurity. The
Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the reasons
of Abaye and Rava? The Gemara answers: The difference between
them is found in a case where he broke the vessel completely. If
there was concern that perhaps he will not perforate it sufficiently,
there is no longer room for concern. However, if there was concern
lest people say that immersion is effective on that day, there remains
room for concern.
halakha
h2 Decree lest they say that immersion on the same day is lows: If others see one using such a vessel on the same day that
sufficient – עֹולה ָל ּה
ָ יֹומא ְ גזֵ ָירה ׁ ֶש ָּמא י:ּ ְ Any metal
ָ ֹאמר ּו ְט ִב ָילה ַ ּבת it became impure, they will conclude that immersion is effective
vessel that is impure, even if it was liquefied and recast, retains its immediately, even before sunset (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot
previous impurity by rabbinic decree. The reason for his is as fol- Kelim 12:2).
כ ִלים ַּת ַחת ַה ִ ּצינֹור וכו׳:ֵּ Since the Sages prohibited adding
דֹולים וְ ֶא ָחד ֵּכ ִלים ִ ֶא ָחד ֵּכ ִלים ְ ּג answers: As we learned in a mishna in tractate Mikvaot: One who drawn water to a ritual bath, and they set the measure
places vessels under the drain pipenh in order to collect rainwater, the
1 3
to rain, then the water in the vessels is impure, unfit, as he certainly ת ַחת ַה ִ ּצינֹור:ַּ If vessels of any kind are placed under a
ל ֹא נֶ ְח ְלק ּו,הֹורין ִ ָע ִבים – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ְט pipe draining rainwater, the water in the vessels is
intended that the water fill the vessels. If one placed the vessels at the
,ישוּר ָע ִבים ּ ׁ ִיחם ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ִקָ ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ִה ּנ deemed drawn water and disqualified for use in a ritual
time of the dispersal of the clouds,h and then the clouds massed to-
5
ע ִבים:ָ If one forgot the vessels while the clouds were dis-
fulfillment. persing, and then the clouds massed anew and rain fell
and filled them, everyone agrees that the water does
לֹוקת ֲע ַדיִ ין ֶ ַמ ֲח:יֹוסי דְּ ָא ַמרֵ ו ְּל ַר ִ ּבי The Gemara wonders: Indeed, according to Rabbi Meir, another decree not have the status of drawn water, since they were not
ָ ּבצְ ִרי ְלהוּ! ָא ַמר,עֹומ ֶדת ֶ קֹומ ּה ָ ִ ּב ְמ was added to the total. However, according to Rabbi Yosei, who said filled in accordance with his will. If one placed them at
ַאף ְ ּבנֹות ּכו ִּתים:ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק that in this case the dispute still remains in place, the tally of eighteen the time of the massing of clouds and then the clouds
decrees is lacking. Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said: The decree that the dispersed, massed again, rain fell, and the vessels were
.ּיס ָתן – ּבֹו ַ ּבּיֹום ָ ּגזְ רו
ָ נִ דּ ֹות ֵמ ֲע ִר filled, the water is likewise not considered drawn water.
daughters of the Samaritans [kutim] are considered to already have
Even in that case it is not considered that the vessels
the status of menstruating women from their cradle,n their birth, they
2
ָּכל: וְ ִא ָיד ְך ַמ אי ִה יא? דִּ ְתנַ ןThe Gemara asks: And what is the other decree? The Gemara answers
יאין ֶאת ַה ּטו ְּמ ָאה ִ ַה ִּמ ַּט ְל ְט ִלין ְמ ִבthat another decree is as we learned a halakhic tradition in a mishna
ִ ְ ּבthat all movable objects with the width of an ox goad, a long stick for
: ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַט ְרפֹון.עֹובי ַה ַּמ ְר ֵד ַע
prodding and directing a plowing animal, transmit impurity. If one side
of the object was over a corpse and the other side of the object was over
vessels, the vessels become impure due to the impurity of a tent over a
corpse. Rabbi Tarfon said:
זט ףד: ׳א קרפ. Perek I . 16b 75
Perek I
Daf 17 Amud a
notes
,ֲא ַק ּ ַפח ֶאת ָ ּבנַי ׁ ֶשּזֹו ֲה ָל ָכה ְמקו ּ ַּפ ַחת I will bury my sonsn if this is not a truncated halakha, i.e., that
1
I will bury my sons – א ַק ּ ַפח ֶאת ָ ּבנַי:ֲ Some explain that it was so the one who heard it, heard a halakhic ruling concerning a dif-
יכרָּ ָה ִא:ֹומ ַע וְ ָט ָעה ֵ ׁ ֶש ׁ ָש ַמע ַה ׁ ּש
n1
clear to Rabbi Tarfon that the halakha was wrong that he swore
on the life of his children (see Tosafot; Rav Tzvi Hirsch Ĥayyot). יהל ֵ וְ ִא,עֹובר ו ַּמ ְרדְּ עֹו ַעל ְּכ ֵתפֹו ֵ ferent situation and erred. He thought this halakha was estab-
lished with regard to the following: Movable objects with the
The tent of the dead – א ֶֹהל ַה ֵּמת: The laws of the impurity im- ימא ּו אֹותֹו ְּ צִ דּ ֹו ַא ַחת ַעל ַה ֶ ּק ֶבר – ִט
n2
becomes completely impure and renders everything in that place shoulder and one side of the ox goad coveredh the grave, the
1
impure. The Torah refers to a complete tent in which the corpse Sages deemed the ox goad itself impure due to the impurity of
is located. However, the Sages concluded that even the smallest vessels that cover a corpse.n Any object located over a grave
2
area that can be deemed a tent, an object with the width of a cubic becomes impure. However, just because the ox goad itself became
handbreadth, also falls under the same rubric of law: The covering
itself and what is under it become impure with impurity imparted
impure, this does not necessarily mean that it transmits impurity
by the corpse. The decree with regard to the ox goad was issued to other objects.
to expand this halakha somewhat, so that in certain cases even
a covering less than a handbreadth wide has the legal status of ֲאנִי ֲא ַת ֵ ּקן ׁ ֶשּיְ ה ּו:ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא Rabbi Akiva said: I will correct and explain the halakha so that
a tent and renders an object impure. Some commentaries said ימים; ׁ ֶשּיְ ה ּו ָּכל ִ ָדִּ ְב ֵרי ֲח ָכ ִמים ַקּי the statements of the Sages will be upheld as they were origi-
that this decree was not originally based on the halakhot of a tent
יאין ֶאת ַה ּטו ְּמ ָאה ִ ַה ִמ ַּט ְל ְט ִלים ְמ ִב nally said, and this halakha will be explained as follows: All mov-
over a corpse but was issued for a different reason. Only later was able objects transmit impurity to the person carrying them if
it associated with the halakhot of tents (Tosafot). עֹובי
ִ אֹותן ְ ּב ָ ֹושא ׂ ֵ ַּעל ָה ָא ָדם ׁ ֶשנ
the objects are at least as thick as an ox goad. As will be explained
וְ ַעל, וְ ַעל ַעצְ ָמן – ְ ּב ָכל ׁ ֶש ֵהן,ַה ַּמ ְר ֵד ַע below, there is room to decree that a round object with the cir-
background .פֹות ַח ֶט ַפח ֵ ׁ ְש ָאר ָא ָדם וְ ֵכ ִלים – ְ ּב cumference of an ox goad should have the legal status of a tent
b1 Farmer and his ox goad – א ָּכר ו ַּמ ְרדְּ עֹו:ִ over a corpse. Something that serves as a covering over a corpse
not only becomes impure itself, but also transmits impurity, as it
is written: “Anything that is in the tent will become impure for
seven days” (Numbers 19:14). Therefore, even the person carry-
ing the ox goad becomes impure due to the ox goad. And, how-
ever, movable objects that covered the corpse bring impurity
upon themselves by means of this makeshift tent at any size, and
there is no minimum measure. And, however, those objects that
cover the corpse do not transmit impurity to other people who
are not carrying them. And the same is true with regard to vessels,
unless the width of these vessels is at least one handbreadth.
ו ַּמ ְרדֵּ ַע ׁ ֶש ָא ְמר ּו: וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יַ ַּנאיAnd Rabbi Yannai said: And the ox goad that they mentioned
Farmer uses his ox goad as he walks with his cattle
,יקפֹו ֶט ַפח ּ ֵ ֵאין ְ ּב ָע ְביֹו ֶט ַפח וְ יֵ ׁש ְ ּב ֶהis specifically one in which its width is not a handbreadth and,
halakha .יקפֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ָע ְביֹו ּ ֵ וְ גָ זְ ר ּו ַעל ֶהhowever, its circumference is a handbreadth, and they, the
Sages, issued a decree on its circumference due to its width. If
And his ox goad was on his shoulder, and it covered, etc. –
h1
If one gathers grapes in order to squeeze the liquid out of them tans are considered to already have the status of menstruating
in a wine press and juice seeps out of them, the juice renders the יה ּ ל ֵ אירָ ו ְּב ִא ָיד ְך – ְס ִב.ַּ ּבּיֹום ָ ּגזְ רו women from their cradle, they issued on that day. And in the
grapes susceptible to ritual impurity. The reason for the stringency .ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר other matter of drawn water, he holds in accordance with the
is that people squeeze these grapes for various needs and have
opinion of Rabbi Meir, and thereby the tally of the decrees is
an interest that the emerging liquids will not spill. Since he wants
these liquids, they render the grapes susceptible to impurity (Ram- complete.
bam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Okhlin 11:1).
ֵ ׁ ַש ַּמאי, ַה ּבֹוצֵ ר ַל ַ ּגת: ְוְ ִא ָידך
:אֹומר And another of those decrees is the matter of one who harvests
ֵ ִה ֵּלל,הו ְּכ ׁ ַשר
. ל ֹא הו ְּכ ׁ ַשר:אֹומר grapes in order to take them to the press.h Shammai says: It has
2
ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ָמה:ָא ַמר לֹו ִה ֵּלל ְל ׁ ַש ַּמאי become susceptible, and Hillel says: It has not become suscep-
tible. Hillel said to Shammai: If so, for what purpose do they
מֹוס ִקין
ְ וְ ֵא ין,ּב ֹוצְ ִרין ְ ּב ָט ֳה ָרה
harvest grapes in purity, i.e., utilizing pure vessels, as in your
?ְ ּב ָט ֳה ָרה opinion, since the grapes are susceptible to impurity by means of
the juice that seeps from them, care must be taken to avoid im-
purity while gathering; and, however, they do not harvest olives
in purity? According to your opinion that liquid that seeps out
renders the fruit susceptible to impurity, why is there not a simi-
lar concern with regard to the liquid that seeps out of olives?
76 Perek I . 17a . זי ףד. קרפ ׳א
notes
יט נִ י – גּ ֹוזְ ַרנִ י ֵ ִ ִא ם ַּת ְקנ:ָא ַמר לֹו Shammai said to him: If you provoke men and insist that there is no dif-
3
ference between gathering olives and grapes, then, in order not to contra- If you provoke me – נִיטנִי
ֵ אם ַּת ְק:ִ This expression, said
נָעצ ּו ֶח ֶרב ֲ .טו ְּמ ָאה ַאף ַעל ַה ְּמ ִס ָיקה
n3
וְ ָאת ּו,ּוְ ִה ֵּלל – וְ ָלא ִק ְ ּבל ּו ִמ ּינַיְ יהו Gemara said: And that day was as difficult for Israel as the day the They stuck a sword in the study hall – נָעצ ּו ֶח ֶרב
n4 ֲ
.ַּּת ְל ִמ ַידיְ יה ּו ַ ּגזוּר וְ ִק ְ ּבל ּו ִמ ּינַיְ יהו Golden Calf was made, as Hillel, who was the Nasi, was forced to sit in ב ֵבית ַה ִּמ ְד ָר ׁש:ּ ְ It is not clear exactly what took place
submission before Shammai, and the opinion of Beit Shammai prevailed in the study hall then. According to the tradition cited
in the vote conducted that day. And Shammai and Hillel issued the in a similar matter in the Jerusalem Talmud, there
was a harsh dispute in the study hall to the point of
decree, and the people did not accept it from them. And their students bloodshed. Some explain that Hillel sat bowed be-
came and issued the decree, and the people accepted it from them. fore Shammai trying to convince Shammai through
a discussion of the issues like a student deliberating
ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? – ָא ַמר ַ(ר ִ ּבי) זְ ִע ִיריAs to the essence of the matter, the Gemara asks: What is the reason they before his teacher. However, at that point the stu-
ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ֶש ָּמא ְיִבצְ ֶרנּ ּו: ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ אdecreed that liquids that seeped from the grapes unintentionally render dents of Beit Shammai outnumbered the students
. ְ ּבקו ּּפֹות ְט ֵמאֹותthe grapes susceptible to impurity? Rabbi Ze’iri said that Rabbi Ĥanina
of Beit Hillel and the halakha was established in ac-
said: The Sages issued a decree due to concern lest he gather the grapes cordance with Shammai’s opinion (ge’onim).
in impure baskets. The impurity of the vessel would accord the liquid in Due to the grapes that were stuck together –
n5
it the status of a liquid that renders food items susceptible to impurity. ְ ׁ ּמ ׁ ּשוּם ַהנ:ִ Some explain that when grapes are
ֹושכֹות
attached, the liquid that seeps out does not drip to
“כ ִלי ָט ֵמא ְּ :נִיחא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ָ ָה The Gemara asks: This works out well, according to the one who said the ground but remains in the cluster (ge’onim). Oth-
that an impure vessel accords liquids in it the halakhic status as if they ers explain that people tend to bite the cluster, and
ּ
ֶא ָלא,חֹושב ַמ ׁ ְש ִקין״ – ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר ֵׁ therefore the juice that drips out renders the grapes
חֹושב
ֵ ׁ “אין ְּכ ִלי ָט ֵמא ֵ :ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר were placed there willfully, and they render foods susceptible to impurity
susceptible to impurity (Rabbeinu Ĥananel).
even if he did not want the liquids in the vessel. However, according to
ימר? ֶא ָּלא ַ יכא ְל ֵמ ָּ ַמ ׁ ְש ִקין״ – ַמאי ִא the one who said that an impure vessel does not accord liquids that
ְ ּגזֵ ָירה:ָא ַמר זְ ִע ִירי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א status, what can be said in explanation of the decree? Rather, Rabbi
background
.ׁ ֶש ָּמא ְיִבצְ ֶרנּ ּו ְ ּבקו ּּפֹות ְמזו ּ ָּפפֹות Like one of the students – כ ֶא ָחד ִמן ַה ַּת ְל ִמ ִידים:ְּ In the
Ze’iri said that Rabbi Ĥanina said the following: The reason is not as we b2
וְ ִא ָידךְ ? ָא ַמרSince all eighteen decrees decreed that day have not yet been enumerated,
the Gemara asks: And what is the other? Said
Perek I
Daf 17 Amud b
language
ַאף ִ ּגידּ ו ֵּלי:יש ָ ּבא ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ְ ׁ ָט ִבי ִר Tavi the bird hunter [rishba]l that Shmuel said: The decree that growths
1
tithe, which the Levite gives to the priest from the first tithe ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ְּתרו ָּמה ְט ֵמ ָאה ְ ּביַ ד:ֶא ָּלא opinion of Shmuel, who said that by Torah law there is no
that he receives: One tenth of the tithe. As mentioned above, יה וְ ָא ֵתי ִל ֵידי ּ דִּ ְיל ָמא ַמ ׁ ְש ֵהי ָל ּה ַ ּג ֵ ּב,ּכ ֵֹהן fixed measure for teruma. By separating one grain of wheat as
the teruma of the Israelite neither has a fixed measure by Torah .ַּת ָ ּק ָלה teruma for all the wheat on the threshing floor, one fulfills his
law nor by rabbinic law. It remained dependent on the gen-
obligation. Since he nevertheless did not take advantage of
erosity of the giver and ranged from one-fortieth of the crop,
which was considered generous, to as little as one-sixtieth of
that possibility to exempt himself from the obligation of sepa-
the crop, which was considered miserly. Shmuel, on the other rating teruma, he is trustworthy, and there is no reason to
hand, held that even separating one grain from the entire pile suspect that he will seek to avoid giving teruma to the priest by
of grain was sufficient to rid that produce of the prohibition of planting it. Rather, the reason for the decree is due to impure
untithed produce [tevel ]. teruma in the hand of a priest.h A priest is forbidden to eat
1
ּ וְ ִא ָידךְ ? ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַא ִמי ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמWith regard to the total of eighteen decrees, the Gemara asks:
יה
ֵ ְ ַאף ִמי ׁ ֶש ֶה ְח ׁ ִשיךְ לֹו ַ ּבדֶּ ֶרך: דְּ עו ָּּלאAnd what is the other decree? Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Ami said in
נֹותן
.ּ ִּכיסֹו ְלגֹוי – ּבֹו ַ ּבּיֹום ָ ּגזְ רוthe name of Ulla: In a case of one who was carrying a purse
with money in it on Shabbat eve, and it got dark for him on
the way, the Torah law permitted him to carry the purse in
increments, each of which is less than four cubits. However,
the Sages issued the following decree: It is prohibited to carry
in increments; he should give his purse to a gentile accompa-
nying him. This decree was also issued on that day.
:ימי ַסנְ וָ ָות ָאה ִ אלי ָא ַמר ֲא ִב ִ וְ ִא ָידךְ ָא ַמר ַ ּב And the other decree: The Sage Bali said that Avimi of San-
יהן – ּכו ָּּלן ִמ ׁ ְשמֹונָ ה ֶ נֹות
ֵ ּ ִפ ָּתן וְ ׁ ַש ְמנָן וְ יֵ ינָן ו ְּב vata said: The decrees with regard to gentiles that prohibit
ֶא ָּלא,נִיחא ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ָ ָה.ָע ָ ׂשר דָּ ָבר ֵהן their bread, and their oil, and their wine, and their daugh-
ters are all one decree of the eighteen matters. The Gemara
יכא ָהא דְּ ַרב ָּ יֹוסי ׁ ַש ְב ְס ֵרי ָהוְ יָ ין! ִא ֵ ְל ַר ִ ּבי
asks: This works out well according to Rabbi Meir, as accord-
דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ָחא ַ ּבר ַאדָּ א,ַא ָחא ַ ּבר ַאדָּ א ing to his opinion the Gemara already enumerated eighteen
, ָ ּגזְ ר ּו ַעל ּ ִפ ָּתן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ַש ְמנָן:ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק decrees. However, according to Rabbi Yosei, who holds that
.וְ ַעל ׁ ַש ְמנָן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם יֵ ינָן the dispute remains with regard to the matter of vessels in the
courtyard, they are only seventeen. The Gemara answers:
There is also that statement of Rav Aĥa bar Adda, as Rav Aĥa
bar Adda said that Rabbi Yitzĥak said: The Sages issued a
decree prohibiting eating their breadh due to their oil. And
2
halakha
Growths of teruma…due to impure teruma in the hand of
h1 millet is permitted. Some places where there is no Jewish baker
ִ גידּ ו ֵּלי ְתרו ָּמ:ּ ִ Produce
a priest – ה…מ ׁ ּשוּם ְּתרו ָּמה ְט ֵמ ָאה ְ ּביַ ד ּכ ֵֹהן the authorities are lenient and they buy bread from a gentile
that grows from seeds of teruma is fundamentally not sacred baker. Some authorities are lenient even where Jewish-baked
at all. However, the Sages decreed that it should be prohib- bread is available (Mordekhai, Sefer Mitzvot Katan, Terumat Ha-
ited to non-priests, like teruma. The reason for the decree is Deshen). However, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to buy
concern for the problems that could ensue if the priest keeps bread that a gentile homeowner baked for his own personal
impure teruma in his possession in order to sow it and render use (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Asurot 17:9 and
it non-sacred, as per the opinion of Rava (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, 12; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 112:1–2).
Hilkhot Terumot 11:21).
The Sages issued a decree on their bread – גזְ ר ּו ַעל ּ ִפ ָּתן:ּ ָ The
h2 And their oil due to their wine – וְ ַעל ׁ ַש ְמנָן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם יֵ ינָן: Oil of
h3
Sages decreed a prohibition on eating bread baked by gentiles gentiles is permitted. Although at first it was prohibited, Sages
due to concern that the goodwill engendered might lead to of a later generation rescinded the decree and permitted it
marriage between the families. The Rema wrote that even in (Rabbi Yehuda Nesia). One who deems it prohibited is guilty
a case where that concern is not relevant the bread is prohib- of flouting the authority of the court that permitted it, a seri-
ited. This prohibition is restricted to bread baked from the five ous transgression (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot
species of grain. However, bread baked from legumes, rice, or Asurot 17:22; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 114:7).
ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא יְ ֵהא ִּתינֹוק יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ָרגִ יל,ְ ּבזִ ָיבה thing else. The Gemara asks: What is the something else alluded to mits impurity with the legal status of a great zav –
ִאי ָה ִכי ְל ַר ִ ּבי.ֶאצְ לֹו ְ ּב ִמ ׁ ְש ַּכב זָ כוּר here? Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said: They issued a decree on a gentile גזְ ר ּו ַעל ִּתינֹוק גּ ֹוי ׁ ֶש ְּמ ַט ֵּמא ְ ּבזִ ָיבה:ּ ָ By Torah law, there is no
baby, according him the legal status that he transmits impurity as one impurity for gentiles, and all halakhot of impurity apply
אֹוכ ִליןָ – ! ְּת ׁ ַש ְס ֵרי ָהוְ יָ ין,ֵמ ִאיר נַ ִמי specifically to Jews. However, for various reasons the
with the legal status of a great zav,nh who experienced three emissions,
4 6
וְ ֵכ ִלים ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְט ְמא ּו ְ ּב ַמ ׁ ְש ִקין ַ ּב ֲח ָדא even though he did not experience an emission. This was in order to
Sages added several decrees of impurity on gentiles for
the purpose of separation. The decree on a gentile baby
.ָּח ׁ ֵשיב ְלהו distance Jewish children from gentile children so that a Jewish boy is twofold: First, the very perception of the gentile as im-
should not be accustomed to be with a gentile in homosexual rela- pure; second, that a baby has the status of the impurity
tions. The Gemara asks: If so, according to Rabbi Meir it is difficult as of the emission of a zav, even if he saw no emission.
well, as they are now nineteen decrees. The Gemara answers: Rabbi For them to be trapped while it is still day – ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשּיִ צּ ֹוד ּו
n5
Meir counts the decrees of food items and vessels that became impure מ ְ ּבעֹוד יֹום:ִ In the Jerusalem Talmud, it is explained that
through contact with liquids as one. Consequently, according to Rab- the Gemara is referring to a case where he lays the traps
bi Meir, too, there are only eighteen decrees. in a place where many animals are found, and it is clear
MISHNA
to him that they will be trapped quickly. Otherwise,
ֵאין:אֹומ ִרים ְ מתני׳ ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי In this mishna there is a fundamental dispute there is no way to determine the measure for them to
ׁש ִֹורין דְּ יֹו וְ ַס ָּמנִים וְ ַכ ְר ׁ ִשינִין ֶא ָּלא between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai: Must be trapped while it is still day.
one begin refraining from actions prohibited on Shabbat on Shabbat background
ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל,ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשּיִ ׁ ּשֹור ּו ִמ ְ ּבעֹוד יֹום eve? Or, may one initiate an action prior to Shabbat, even if he knows Vetch [karshinin] – כ ְר ׁ ִשינִין:ַּ The karshina or bikit karshi-
ֵאין:אֹומ ִרים ְ ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי.ַמ ִּת ִירין
b1
that it will continue on its own on Shabbat itself? These are the details na, Vicia ervilia, is an annual plant of the legume family.
נֹותנִין אוּנִין ׁ ֶשל ּ ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתן ְלתֹוךְ ַה ַּתנּ וּרְ of that dispute: Beit Shammai say: One may only soak dry ink in It reaches a height of 10–50 cm. The karshina is a winter
וְ ל ֹא,ֶא ָּלא ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשּיַ ְה ִ ּביל ּו ִמ ְ ּבעֹוד יֹום water and dry plants, which produce dyes, in water and vetchb for ani- 1
even if there is not sufficient time remaining in the day. Beit Shammai
ֵאין:אֹומ ִרים ְ ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי.ַמ ִּת ִירין
say: One may only sell an item to a gentile on Shabbat eve, and one
וְ ֵאין,טֹוענִין ִע ּמֹו ֲ וְ ֵאין,מֹוכ ִרין ְלגֹוי ְ may only load a burden on his donkey with him, and one may only lift
ַמגְ ִ ּב ִיהין ָע ָליו ֶא ָּלא ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשּיַ ִ ּג ַיע ְל ָמקֹום a burden on him if there remains sufficient time for the gentile to ar-
ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי. ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל ַמ ִּת ִירין,ָקרֹוב rive to a near place prior to Shabbat, and the Jew will play no role in
,נֹותנִין עֹורֹות ְל ַע ְ ּב ָדן ְ ֵאין:אֹומ ִרים ְ the performance of a prohibited labor by the gentile on Shabbat. And
כֹובס גּ ֹוי ֶא ָּלא ְּכ ֵדי ֵ וְ ל ֹא ֵּכ ִלים ְל Beit Hillel permit doing so. Beit Shammai say: One may not give
skins to a gentile tanner, nor clothes to a gentile launderer, unless
ו ְּבכו ָּּלן ֵ ּבית ִה ֵּלל,ׁ ֶשּיֵ ָע ׂש ּו ִמ ְ ּבעֹוד יֹום
there is sufficient time for work on them to be completed while it is
ַמ ִּת ִירין ִעם still day, before Shabbat begins. And in all of them Beit Hillel permith 8
doing so with
Vetch plant
halakha
And they issued a decree prohibiting their wine – וְ ַעל יֵ ינָן: riage. The Sages, however, prohibited all such contact. A man
h4 יכה ָ ע ּׂ ִשיַ ית ְמ ָל:ַ It is permitted to initiate a
ָ אכה ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ִעם ֲח ׁ ֵש
A Jew is forbidden to drink the wine of gentiles, even if there is forbidden to be alone with gentile women. They have the prohibited labor prior to Shabbat, even if it continues on its
is no concern that it might have been poured as libation for status of a menstruating woman at all times as far as separation own and is completed on Shabbat, as per the opinion of Beit
idolatry. This ruling is in order to discourage familiarity with is concerned (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Issurei Bia 12:1-2; Hillel (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 3:1; Shulĥan
gentiles. This applies specifically to wine fit for use as a libation Shulĥan Arukh, Even HaEzer 16:1). Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 252:1).
for idolatry. Since there is no element of idolatry connected to
They issued a decree on a gentile baby that he transmits
other alcoholic beverages, they were not included in the decree One may not give skins to a tanner…and in all of them Beit
h6
impurity with the legal status of a great zav – ָ ּגזְ ר ּו ַעל ִּתינֹוק גּ ֹוי
h8
(Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Asurot 11:3; Shulĥan Hillel permit – נֹותנִין עֹורֹות ְל ַע ְ ּב ָדן…ו ְּבכו ָּּלן ֵ ּבית ִה ֵּלל ַמ ִּת ִירין
ְ אין:
ֵ
ש ְּמ ַט ֵּמא ְ ּבזִ ָיבה:
ֶ ׁ The Sages decreed that all gentile children, male,
Arukh, Yoreh De’a 123:1). On Shabbat eve, while it is still day, it is permissible for a Jew to
from the age of nine, and female, from the age of three, have
give an item to a gentile so that the gentile will perform one of
the legal status of a zav and a zava respectively and transmit
And they issued a decree prohibiting their daughters – וְ ַעל the labors prohibited on Shabbat on his behalf, in accordance
ritual impurity. The rationale for the decree is to distance Jew-
h5
יהן
ֶ נֹות
ֵ ב:ּ ְ The prohibition against marrying a gentile is explicitly with the opinion of Beit Hillel. However, the Jew may not insist
ish children from them (Rambam Sefer Kedushha, Hilkhot Issurei
stated in the Torah, along with its rationale: To distance Jews that he perform the labor specifically on Shabbat. In addition,
Bia 4:4; Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Met 1:14 and Hilkhot Metamei
from idolatry. Nevertheless, in this case the Sages instituted if the gentile is a regular employee of the Jew it is prohibited
Mishkav UMoshav 2:10).
an additional stringency: By Torah law, sexual relations with (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 6:19; Shulĥan Arukh,
gentiles is prohibited exclusively within the framework of mar- Performing prohibited labor on Shabbat eve at nightfall –
h7 Oraĥ Ĥayyim 244:1).
are related by members of the house of the Nasi or by those give its white clothes to a gentile launderer no fewer than three
ֹוענִין ֲ וְ ׁ ָשוִ ין ֵא ּל ּו וָ ֵא ּל ּו ׁ ֶש ּט.ַל ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת
closely affiliated with them, e.g., Rabbi Eliezer, son of Tzadok. days before Shabbat. And, however, these, Beit Shammai, and
Most of the time, the customs called for stringency. Although .קֹורת ֵ ּבית ַה ַ ּבד וְ ִעגּ ו ֵּלי ַה ַ ּגת ַ those, Beit Hillel, agree that, ab initio, one may load the beam
the members of the house of the Nasi were descendants of of the olive press on the olives on Shabbat eve while it is still day,
Hillel the Elder, they would at times accept the stringencies of so that the oil will continue to be squeezed out of the olives on
Beit Shammai upon themselves alone.
Shabbat. So too, one may load the circular wine press to acceler-
ate the process of producing wine from the grapes.
halakha
Soil which can be kneaded – יבוּל הוּא
h1 ּ ע ָפר דְּ ַבר ִ ּג:ָ Everyone
GEMARA
agrees that soil can be kneaded and that one who kneads
it on Shabbat is liable. As for ashes, the opinions are divided. גמ׳ ַמאן ַּתנָ א נְ ִתינַ ת ַמיִ ם ַלדְּ יֹו זֹו Before clarifying the matters themselves,
Some say that ashes cannot be kneaded, and even if they are , ַר ִ ּבי ִהיא:יֹוסף ֵ ִהיא ׁ ְש ִרּיָ ָיתן? ָא ַמר ַרב the Gemara seeks to determine: Who is
kneaded, there is no liability, as per the Gemara on this matter the tanna who holds that merely adding water to ink without any
(Shabbat 155b, and in Beitza; Rambam). Others say that because נֹותן ֶאת ַה ֶ ּק ַמח וְ ֶא ָחד ֵ “א ָחד ֶ :דְּ ַתנְיָא additional action constitutes its soaking, and one is liable for
it does not require kneading, its kneading is accomplished דִּ ְב ֵרי,נֹותן ֶאת ַה ַּמיִ ם – ָה ַא ֲחרֹון ַחּיָ יב ֵ doing so on Shabbat, as he performed an act of kneading, one of
simply by adding water without mixing (Ra’avad in accordance ֵאינֹו ַחּיָ יב ַעד:אֹומר ֵ יֹוסי ֵ ַר ִ ּבי.ַר ִ ּבי the primary categories of labor? Rav Yosef said: It is the opinion
with the opinion of Abaye; Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot
Shabbat 8:16). .ׁ ֶשּיְ גַ ֵ ּבל״ of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. As it was taught in a baraita: In a case
where one person adds the flour and another one adds the water
background
into one vessel, the latter one is liable for kneading the dough,
which is a prohibited labor on Shabbat, even though he did not
Were they taught next to each other – מ ֵידי ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ֲה ָד ֵדי ַּתנְיָא:ִ This
actually knead the dough; that is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda
b1
ּ דְּ ַבר ִ ּג, ַמאי ֵא ֶפר – ָע ָפר: וְ ִד ְיל ָמאThe Gemara asks: And perhaps, what is the meaning of ashes
יבוּל
! ָע ָפר: וְ ָה ַתנְ יָ א, ֵא ֶפר: וְ ָה ַתנְ יָ א.[ הוּאefer] mentioned here? Perhaps it is soil [afar], which can be
!? ִמ ֵידי ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ֲה ָד ֵדי ַּתנְיָאkneaded. In that case he is not liable until he actually kneads the
h 1
sulfur was used to beautify silver vessels. Since silver is a light hue and engrav-
ִיחין ִ ו ַּמ ּנ.הֹול ֶכת ָּכל ַהּיֹום ּכוּלּ ֹו ֶ ְו so that water will flow into a gardenh and the garden
2
ings are not easily visible, one manner to accentuate the inscriptions was by
continuously fills with water all day long on Shabbat. means of sulfur. The silver vessels were exposed to sulfur fumes and oxidized
(ע ֶרב ֶ מ וּגְ ָמ ר ַּת ַח ת ַה ֵּכ ִל ים
Similarly, one may place incense, perfumed herbs placed sulfur, creating a thin layer of black silver sulfate on the vessel. After the vessel
הֹול ִכין ָּכל ְ ְׁ ַש ָ ּבת) ּו ִמ ְת ַ ּג ְּמ ִרין ו on coals to produce a fragrance, on coals beneath the was treated with sulfur, it was thoroughly cleaned, restoring all of the surfaces
יח ין ָ ּג ְפ ִר ית ִ ַה ּיֹום ּכ ּו ּל ֹו ּו ַמ ִּנ clothes on Shabbat eve and the clothes may be continu- to their original silver sheen while the recesses and sunken areas remained
(ע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ִעם ֶ ַּת ַחת ַה ֵּכ ִלים ously perfumed all day long. And, similarly, one may black. In modern times, similar methods are employed.
הֹול ִכין ָּכל ְ ְיכה) ו ִּמ ְת ַ ּג ּ ְפ ִרין ו ָ ֲח ׁ ֵש place sulfur beneath the silver vessels on Shabbat eve at Fish hook – ל ִחי:ֶ
nightfall for the purpose of coloring the vessels, and they
b3
)יכה ָ (ע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ִעם ֲח ׁ ֵש ֶ ַמ ָּכה a bandage [ispelanit]l smeared with cream on a wound
2
הֹול ֶכת ָּכל ַהּיֹום ֶ ְּו ִמ ְת ַר ּ ֵפאת ו on Shabbat eve at nightfall, and the wound may con-
ְנֹותנִין ִח ִּטין ְלתֹוך ְ ֲא ָבל ֵאין.ּכוּלּ ֹו tinuously heal all day long on Shabbat. However, one
יחיִ ם ׁ ֶשל ַמיִ ם ֶא ָּלא ִ ּב ְכ ֵדי ַ ָה ֵר may not place wheat kernels into the water mill unless
.ׁ ֶשּיִ ָּט ֲחנ ּו ִמ ְ ּבעֹוד יֹום he does so in a way so that they will be ground while it
is still day on Friday and not on Shabbat.h 3
ִמ ּ ְפנֵי:ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the baraita
יה ַרב ּ ָא ַמר ֵל.ׁ ֶש ַּמ ׁ ְש ַמ ַעת קֹול prohibited a mill and permitted other prohibited labor?
Rabba said: Because it makes noise and the public will Reproduction of a fish hook from the First Temple period, found in Etzyon Gaver
יתת ַ ימא ָמר ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְש ִב ָ וְ ֵל:יֹוסף
ֵ
hear the mill grinding on Shabbat. Although no prohib-
“ ו ְּבכֹל ֲא ׁ ֶשר:ֵּכ ִלים! דְּ ַתנְ יָ א
ited labor is being performed, doing so displays contempt language
– יכם ִּת ׁ ּ ָש ֵמ ר ּו ״ ֶ ָא ַמ ְר ִּתי ֲא ֵל for Shabbat. Therefore, the Sages prohibited it. Rav Yosef Eye salve [kilor] – קילֹור:ִ From the Greek κολλύριον, kollyrion, meaning a
ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר.ְל ַר ּבֹות ׁ ְש ִב ַיתת ֵּכ ִלים
l1
said to Rabba: And let the Master say a better reason, due salve for the eyes.
.יתת ֵּכ ִלים ַ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְש ִב:יֹוסףֵ ַרב to the obligation to ensure the resting of utensils.n Even 2
the utensils of a Jewish person may not be used for pro- l2 Bandage [ispelanit] – א ְיס ּ ְפ ָלנִית:ִ From the Greek σπληνίον, splenion, meaning
a piece of cloth placed on a wound.
hibited labor on Shabbat. As it was taught in halakhic
midrash, the Mekhilta: That which is stated: “And in all l3 Nets [kokrei] – קֹוק ֵרי:
ְ The fisherman’s utensil like the nets in the Gemara. The
that I said to you, take heed” (Exodus 23:13), is an allu- utensil is made like a basket with one wide end and one narrow end. The fish
sion to matters mentioned in the Oral Torah. It comes to enter the wide end but are unable to exit the narrow end. The origin of the
include the resting of utensils on Shabbat. Rather, Rav word kokrei is unclear. It may be from the Greek κροκύς or κροκίς, krokys or
Yosef said: The reason for the prohibition of the mill on krokis, meaning a a fly trap. Alternatively, according to the ge’onim, kokrei is a
stone tablet resting on pieces of wood or on bait. When the animals pull the
Shabbat is due to the resting of utensils. bait, they are crushed or trapped under the stone. According to this interpre-
וְ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא דְּ ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ְל ֵבית ִה ֵּלל ִאית Since the obligation of resting utensils on Shabbat was tation, the word is derived from the Greek κρόκη, kroke, meaning a pebble.
– יתא ָ ְאֹורי
ַ ְּיתת ֵּכ ִלים ד ַ ְלה ּו ׁ ְש ִב mentioned, the Gemara says: Now that you said that Beit
?ּ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא ׁ ָשרו,ָ ּג ְפ ִרית וּמוּגְ ָמר Hillel also hold that resting utensils on Shabbat is re-
quired by Torah law, with regard to sulfur and incense
אוּנִין.ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָלא ָק ָע ֵביד ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה
on coals that are placed under silver vessels and clothes,
?ׁ ֶשל ּ ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתן ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא ׁ ָשר ּו respectively, what is the reason that the Sages permitted
ו ֵּמינַ ח,ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָלא ָע ֵביד ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה this on Shabbat? Isn’t that performed on Shabbat in uten-
, ְמצ ּודֹת ַחּיָ ה וְ עֹוף וְ ָדגִ ים.יחא ָ ְנַי sils? The Gemara answers: Because the utensil itself does
ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא,דְּ ָקא ָע ֵביד ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה not perform an action when the incense or sulfur is burn-
ְ ְ ַ ּב ֶּל ִחי ו,ׁ ָשרוּ? ָה ָתם נַ ִמי
,קֹוק ֵרי ing. With regard to the bundles of flax, what is the reason
that they permitted placing them in the oven on Shabbat
.דְּ ָלא ָק ָע ֵביד ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה
eve at nightfall to dry, even though the oven is performing
a prohibited labor on Shabbat? Because it does not per-
form an action; rather, on the contrary, it sits idle in its Ancient Egyptian picture of fishing in Egypt. The fishermen are holding nets similar to the kokrei.
place and the prohibited labor occurs on its own. How-
ever, with regard to traps of an animal, and a bird, and a
fish, which perform a bona fide action of trapping, what notes
is the reason that they permitted spreading them on n2 The resting of utensils – יתת ֵּכ ִליםַ ש ִב:
ְ ׁ The reason that the Gemara spoke
specifically of a water mill is because a mill powered by an animal is certainly
Shabbat eve at nightfall? The Gemara explains: There too,
prohibited on Shabbat, due to the mitzva explicitly stated in the Torah to rest
it is referring to a fish hookb and nets [kokrei],l which
3 3
one’s animal. Since the Gemara’s conclusion is that the obligation to rest one’s
perform no action. They stand in place, and the fish utensils is according to Beit Shammai’s opinion, the baraita, which derives
comes to them and is trapped. Indeed, a trap that performs the law of resting utensils from the verse, comes only to prohibit Jews from
an action is prohibited. performing labor with their utensils (ge’onim).
halakha
One may open a canal so that water will flow into a garden –
h2 in accordance with the baraita (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot monetary loss (Rema; Magen Avraham; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ
ֹות ִקין ַמיִ ם ְלגִ ָּינה
ְ פ:ּ One may open a water canal into a garden Shabbat 3:2; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 252:5). Ĥayyim 252:5). Therefore, a Jew is permitted to lend or rent his
on Shabbat eve so that the water will continue to irrigate the utensils to a gentile, even if it is clear that they will be utilized to
garden on Shabbat. Similarly, one may place an eye salve [kilor] Placing wheat kernels in the water mill – תֹוך
h3 ְ נֹותנִין ִח ִּטין ְל
ְ perform labor on Shabbat. By renting the mill, a Jew’s utensils
on his eye on Shabbat eve so that it will continuously cure the יחיִ ם ׁ ֶשל ַמיִ ם
ַ ה ֵר:ָ One may place wheat kernels in a water mill will not be involved in labor on Shabbat. Some say that utensils
eye during Shabbat, even though it is prohibited to adminis- while it is still day so that they will be ground on their own utilized in the performance of labor prohibited by Torah law,
ter the remedy on Shabbat itself. It is also permitted to place on Shabbat. Some prohibited doing so because it is noisy and e.g., a plow or a mill (Rosh), may not be rented to a gentile on
incense on coals beneath clothing on Shabbat eve so that the dishonors Shabbat (Taz). The custom was to permit this in a Shabbat eve (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 6:16;
clothes become perfumed on their own throughout Shabbat, situation of monetary loss, or even in a case where there is no Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 246:1).
Shammai, etc. – וְ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא דְּ ָא ְמ ַר ְּת דִּ ְּל ֵבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי וכו׳:
Earlier, the Gemara cited this baraita to pose a dif- יתא – ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי ִהיא וְ ל ֹא ֵ ּבית ָ ְאֹורי
ַ ְּד law? The tanna is Beit Shammai and not Beit Hillel. Consequently,
ficulty to the opinion of Beit Hillel. Subsequently, according to Beit Shammai, whether the utensil performs an action or
ֵ ּבין ָק ָע ֵביד ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה, ְל ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי.ִה ֵּלל
it cited the same baraita to pose a difficulty to the whether it does not perform an action, it is prohibited. And according
opinion of Beit Shammai. However, one could say ְל ֵבית.ֵ ּבין דְּ ָלא ָק ָע ֵביד ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה – ָאסוּר to Beit Hillel, even though it performs an action, it is nevertheless
that since in the first clause of this baraita, there . ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ָק ָע ֵביד ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה – ׁ ָש ֵרי,ִה ֵּלל permitted. The Gemara asks: And now that you said that according to
is a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, דִּ ְל ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי ַאף ַעל:וְ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא ְד ָא ְמ ַר ְּת Beit Shammain even though the utensil does not perform an action it
3
Perek I
Daf 18 Amud b
language
מוּגְ ָמר וְ גָ ְפ ִרית ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא ׁ ָשר ּו ֵ ּבית with regard to placing incense and sulfur beneath clothes and silver ves-
Spit [shapud] – ש ּפוּד:
ַ ׁ The origin of the word is ap-
l1
ִ ּג ִ ּיגית וְ נֵ ר.ׁ ַש ַּמאי? ָה ָתם ַמ ַּנח ַא ַא ְר ָעא sels, respectively, what is the reason Beit Shammai permitted this? The
parently the Greek εἰσπυτίζειν, eispytizein, mean-
ing to spit into frequently. In the language of the ו ְּק ֵד ָרה וְ ׁ ַש ּפוּד ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא ׁ ָשר ּו ֵ ּבית Gemara answers: The case under discussion was not one where the in-
Mishna, as well as in Syrian, the word means a pole cense was placed in a vessel; rather, there, the incense was placed on the
.קֹורי
ֵ ׁ ַש ַּמאי? דְּ ַמ ְפ ַקר ְלה ּו ַא ְפ
stuck through meat to facilitate its roasting. ground, and therefore there was no utensil that was obligated to rest. The
Gemara asks further: A tub in which fruit or grains are placed to ferment
halakha into beer, and where they stay for an extended period; and a Shabbat
A woman may not fill up a pot with pounded
h1
lamp; and a pot in which food is being cooked, which they place on the
wheat…a baker may not fill a barrel of water – fire while it is still day; and a spit [shapud]l on which they placed food
1
ל ֹא ְּת ַמ ֵּלא ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ְק ֵד ָרה ֲע ָס ִסּיֹות…ל ֹא יְ ַמ ֵּלא נַ ְח ּתֹום ָח ִבית to roast while it is still day; what is the reason Beit Shammai permitted
ַמיִ םש:
ֶ ׁ A person may not fill a pot with pounded placing them on Shabbat eve while it is still day even though the prohib-
wheat or lupines and place it in an oven whose ited labor continues over time, including on Shabbat? The Gemara an-
coals were not swept or covered with ashes (Ma-
gen Avraham) on Shabbat eve at nightfall, due to
swers: These are cases where he declares the utensils ownerless.n Ac- 1
the concern that he might stoke the coals. Similarly, cording to Beit Shammai, the utensils must be declared ownerless while
he may not fill a barrel with water and place it it is still day. Once the utensils are declared ownerless, they no longer
in the oven on Shabbat eve at nightfall. In all of belong to a Jew and, consequently, there is no obligation to let them rest.
these cases, if he did so, the items are prohibited
at the conclusion of Shabbat for a time sufficient ל ֹא ְּת ַמ ֵּלא: דְּ ָתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן,ַמאן ְּתנָ א ְל ָהא The Gemara asks: Based on these conclusions, who is the tanna who
for them to be prepared (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, taught this Tosefta that the Sages taught: A woman may not fill up a pot
Hilkhot Shabbat 3:12; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim
ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ְק ֵד ָרה ֲע ָס ִסּיֹות וְ תו ְּר ְמ ִסין וְ ַת ּנ ִַיח
.תֹוך ַה ַּתנּ וּר ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ִעם ֲח ׁ ֵש ָכה ְ ְל with pounded wheat and lupines,n a type of legume, and place them in
2
254:8–9).
the oven to cook on Shabbat eve at nightfall. And if she placed them in
וְ ִאם נְ ָתנָן – ְלמֹוצָ ֵאי ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ֲאסו ִּרין ִ ּב ְכ ֵדי
the oven, not only may they not be eaten on Shabbat itself, but even at
ל ֹא יְ ַמ ֵּלא נַ ְח ּתֹום, ַּכּיֹוצֵ א ּבֹו.ּׁ ֶשּיֵ ָע ׂשו the conclusion of Shabbat they are forbidden for a period of time that
תֹוך ַה ַּתנּ ּור ְ ָח ִבית ׁ ֶשל ַמיִ ם וְ יַ ּנ ִַיח ְל would be sufficient for them to be prepared, i.e., the time it takes to cook
– וְ ִאם ָע ָ ׂשה ֵּכן,ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ִעם ֲח ׁ ֵש ָכה the dish from the beginning, so that he will derive no benefit from a
.ְּלמֹוצָ ֵאי ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ֲאסו ִּרין ִ ּב ְכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשּיֵ ָע ׂשו prohibited labor performed on Shabbat. Similarly, the Tosefta said: A
!ימא ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי ִהיא וְ ל ֹא ֵ ּבית ִה ֵּלל ָ ֵל baker may not fill a barrel of waterh and place it in the oven on Shabbat
1
eve at nightfall to boil the water that is in the barrel, and if he did so, even
ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ֶש ָּמא,ימא ֵ ּבית ִה ֵּלל ָ יל ּו ֵּת ּ ֲא ִפ
at the conclusion of Shabbat it is forbidden for the period of time that
.יַ ְח ֶּתה ַ ּב ֶ ּג ָח ִלים would be sufficient for it to be prepared from the beginning. Let us say
that this Tosefta is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai and
not in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. The Gemara answers:
Even if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, in
those cases the Sages issued a decree due to concern lest the one cooking
stoke the coalsn on Shabbat in order to accelerate the cooking.
3
notes
Where he declares the utensils ownerless – קֹורי
n1 ֵ דְּ ַמ ְפ ַקר ְלה ּו ַא ְפ: wheat and lupines take a long time to cook, leading to concern that
Tosafot wondered: How could he declare the utensils ownerless one may seek to accelerate their cooking by stoking the coals. Others
when the Sages clearly stated a halakha that in order to declare say, to the contrary, that these items were prohibited because they
possessions ownerless, one must relinquish ownership in front of cook very quickly, and as a result he will constantly have them in
three people? From the Gemara it is apparent that since everyone mind and will come to tend to them on Shabbat (Rambam).
relinquishes ownership of his pots on Shabbat, everyone is aware
Decree lest the one cooking stoke the coals – ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ֶש ָּמא יַ ְח ֶּתה
that this obviates the need for a specific declaration rendering them
n3
ב ֶ ּג ָח ִלים:
ּ ַ Although this decree is accepted halakha, nevertheless
ownerless. Others say that this is a relinquishing of ownership de-
the questioner asked: Why did they apply it to pounded wheat and
clared by the court, since the court stipulates that all pots and bowls
water? It did not seem reasonable to him that, due to concern lest
are ownerless on Shabbat.
one stoke the coals, he would be forced to wait at the conclusion of
n2 Pounded wheat and lupines – ע ָס ִסּיֹות וְ תו ְּר ְמ ִסין:ֲ The common ex- Shabbat for a period of time that would be sufficient for them to be
planation is that the Gemara cited this example because pounded prepared before consuming them (Derush VeĤiddush).
וְ נֵיחו ּׁש ׁ ֶש ָּמא ֵמגִ יס.יֹורה ֲעקו ָּרה ָ ְ ּב issue a decree. The Gemara answers: There, since wind is damaging for
.ָ ּב ּה! ַ ּב ֲעקו ָּרה וְ טו ָּחה them, he does not expose them, and he will not come to stoke the coals.
The Gemara asks further: With regard to wool placed in the dyer’s kettle,h 3
the Sages should also issue a decree. Shmuel said: The mishna is referring
to a pot that is removed from the fire, where there is no concern lest he
stoke the coals. The Gemara still asks: Let us be concerned lest he stir that
same pot, thereby accelerating the cooking, which is prohibited by Torah
law. Rather, the mishna is referring to a pot that is removed from the fire
and sealed with clay spread around its cover to prevent it from opening.
יַח ֶּתה ְ ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ֶש ָּמא:וְ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא דְּ ָא ַמר ָמר The Gemara comments: And now that the Master said that in these cases
יתא – ׁ ָש ֵרי ָ ְ ַהאי ְק ֵד ָרה ַחי,ַ ּב ֶ ּג ָח ִלים the prohibition of placing the pot on the fire is due to a decree issued by
יכה ָ ְל ַאנּ ו ָּח ּה ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ִעם ֲח ׁ ֵש the Sages lest he stoke the coals; with regard to this pot of raw meat,h it 4
ָּכל ִמ ֵידי דְּ ָק ׁ ֵשי:וְ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא דְּ ָא ַמר ָמר And now that the Master said that anything for which wind is damaging
ַהאי ִ ּב ְ ׂש ָרא,ֵל ּיה זִ ָיקא – ָלא ְמגַ לּ ּו ֵל ּיה one does not expose, one could say that with regard to meat of a kid and
דְּ ַב ְר ָחא,דְּ ַ ּג ְדיָ א ו ׁ ְּש ִריק – ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר דָּ ֵמי an oven whose opening is sealed with clay, he may well place it there on
Shabbat eve at nightfall. Since the meat of the kid cooks quickly and the
, דְּ ַ ּג ְדיָא וְ ָלא ׁ ְש ִריק,וְ ָלא ׁ ְש ִריק – ָאסוּר
opening of the oven is sealed, there is no concern lest he come to stoke the
וְ ַרב, ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי – ׁ ָש ֵרי,דְּ ַב ְר ָחא ו ׁ ְּש ִריק coals. If it is the meat of a ram [barĥa]lh and the opening of the oven is not
2 5
ו ְּל ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי.יפ ִּתי – ָא ֵסיר ְ ִּיִ ְר ְמיָ ה ִמד sealed with clay, it is prohibited to place it there on Shabbat eve at nightfall.
צֹולין ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ָ ּבצָ ל
ִ ) ֵאין: (וְ ָה ַתנְיָא,דְּ ׁ ָש ֵרי The above are cases where the ruling is clear. However, with regard to the
!ו ֵּביצָ ה ֶא ָּלא ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשּיִ ּצֹול ּו ִמ ְ ּבעֹוד יֹום case of the meat of a kid and the opening of the oven is not sealed with
.ָה ָתם דְּ ַב ְר ָחא וְ ָלא ׁ ְש ִריק clay, or the case of a ram and the opening of the oven is sealed, there is a
dispute. Rav Ashi permitted placing it in the oven on Shabbat eve at night-
fall, and Rav Yirmeya from Difti prohibited doing so. The Gemara asks:
And according to the opinion of Rav Ashi, who permitted placing it there
on Shabbat eve at nightfall, wasn’t it taught in a baraita that one may not
roast meat, an onion, and an egg on Shabbat eve unless there is sufficient
time for them to be roasted while it is still day? Apparently, one may not
place meat that is not sufficiently roasted in an oven on Shabbat eve. The
Gemara answers: There, the baraita is referring to the meat of a ram and
the opening of the oven is not sealed with clay. However, in other cases it
is permitted.
halakha
Bundles of flax – אוּנִין ׁ ֶשל ּ ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתן: It is permitted to place bun-
h2 adjacent to nightfall. The same is true with regard to meat that that is cut into pieces, both covered and uncovered, is permit-
dles of flax in the oven on Shabbat eve. Since the wind harms is completely cooked, if additional cooking does not enhance ted; there is no concern that one might stoke the coals, because
them, there is no room for concern lest he open the oven and its taste. It is forbidden to do so with meat that is not yet cooked this would cause such meat to be overcooked and ruined. That
stoke the coals (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 3:14; completely, or even with meat that is completely cooked if is the ruling because the discussion here is conducted based
Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 254:1). additional cooking enhances its taste. However, if he placed a on the opinion of Rav Yirmeya (Rif ), as is the later discussion
raw bone into the pot, it is permitted (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, with regard to the Paschal lamb (Ran). Others disagreed. In their
Wool in the kettle – יֹורה
ָ צֶ ֶמר ְל: Even if the wool already ab- Hilkhot Shabbat 3:8; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 253:1).
opinion, the meat of a young goat and fowl is permitted only
h3
sorbed the dye, one may only place wool in a boiling kettle on
when it is roasted in an oven whose opening is covered, even
Shabbat eve if the kettle were removed from the fire and its Meat of a kid…of a ram – ב ְ ׂש ָרא דְּ ַ ּג ְדיָ א…דְּ ַב ְר ָחא:ּ ִ According to
h5
to stoke the coals. Ravina said: With regard to that raw gourd,N one 4
may well place it in a pot on the fire on Shabbat eve at nightfall. The
Gourd reason for this is that since the wind is damaging for it, it is con-
sidered like the meat of a kid.
For him to reach a house adjacent to the wall – ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶש ִ ּיַג ַיע
n4
חֹומה
ָ ל ַביִ ת ַה ָּסמו ְּך ַל:ְ If the gentile reaches the house adja-
cent to the wall of the city, he could place the object there.
Consequently, he will have performed no prohibited labor מֹוכ ִרין״ ָּתנ ּו
ְ אֹומ ִרים ֵאין ְ “בית ׁ ַש ַּמאי ֵּ The full text of the baraita is: Beit Shammai say: One may only sell
on Shabbat. Although there is no way to predict whether ל ֹא יִ ְמ ּכֹור:אֹומ ִרים ְ ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי,ַר ָ ּבנַן an item to a gentile on Shabbat eve, and one may only load a burden
or not the gentile will, in fact, place the object there, it is
וְ ל ֹא יַ ׁ ְש ִא ֶילנּ ּו וְ ל ֹא,ָא ָדם ֶח ְפצֹו ְלגֹוי onto his donkey with him, and one may only lift a burden onto him
necessary to provide him with sufficient time to do so. There if the destination of the gentile is near enough that there remains
is certainly no prohibition for a gentile to perform prohibited ֶא ָּלא ְּכ ֵדי,יַ ְלוֶ נּ ּו וְ ל ֹא יִ ֵּתן לֹו ְ ּב ַמ ָּתנָ ה
sufficient time for the gentile to arrive at a place near there prior to
labor on Shabbat. However, if the Jew fails to provide him :אֹומ ִרים ְ ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל.ׁ ֶשיַ ִ ּג ַיע ְל ֵביתֹו Shabbat. The Sages taught in a baraita that elaborated upon this
with sufficient time to place the object prior to Shabbat, the
.חֹומה ָ ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשיַ ִ ּג ַיע ְל ַביִ ת ַה ָּסמו ְּך ַל dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel with regard to selling
impression is that he sent the gentile to perform a prohibited
labor for him on Shabbat. ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשּיֵ צֵ א ִמ ּ ֶפ ַתח:אֹומר
ֵ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא to a gentile on Shabbat eve: Beit Shammai say: A person may not
ֵהן:יֹוסי ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה
ֵ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי.ֵ ּביתֹו sell his object to a gentile,h and lend it to him, and loan him
7
ment of Beit Hillel – ֵהן ֵהן דִּ ְב ֵרי ֵ ּבית,ֵהן ֵהן דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ֵהן ֵהן דִּ ְב ֵרי ֵ ּבית,ֵהן דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא
ה ֵּלל:ִ At times, the most prominent tanna’im, Rabbi Akiva is sufficient time for him, the gentile, to reach his house while it
ל ֹא ָ ּבא ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ֶא ָּלא ְל ָפ ֵר ׁש,ִה ֵּלל
among them, disputed the opinion of Beit Hillel. However, still day. And Beit Hillel say: He is permitted to do this if there is
it is difficult to say that Rabbi Akiva would disagree with .דִּ ְב ֵרי ֵ ּבית ִה ֵּלל sufficient time for him to reach a house adjacent to the walln of 5
the Sages of early generations. Therefore, Rabbi Yosei son of the place where he is going. Rabbi Akiva says: It is permitted to
Rabbi Yehuda, the student of Rabbi Akiva’s student, came give an object to a gentile on Shabbat eve if there is sufficient time
to explain that Rabbi Akiva did not state his own opinion.
for him to exit the entrance of the Jewish person’s house. What
Rather, he stated a tradition that he received with regard to
the opinion of Beit Hillel. the gentile does afterward is irrelevant. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi
Yehuda, said: That is the statement of Rabbi Akiva; that is the
statement of Beit Hillel.n Rabbi Akiva came only to explain the
6
ל ֹא:אֹומ ִרים ְ ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי,ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן The Sages taught a similar principle in a baraita with regard to an-
יִ ְמ ּכֹור ָא ָדם ֲח ֵמצֹו ְלגֹוי ֶא ָּלא ִאם ֵּכן other tannaitic dispute. Beit Shammai say: A person may not sell
דִּ ְב ֵרי,קֹודם ַה ּ ֶפ ַסח
ֶ יֹוד ַע ּבֹו ׁ ֶשּיִ ְכ ֶלה
ֵ his leaven to a gentileh on Passover eve unless he knows that the
8
halakha
h6 Meat roasted directly on the coals – ב ִב ְ ׂש ָרא ַאגּ ו ְּמ ֵרי:
ּ ְ Meat, in a prohibited manner, they are prohibited at the conclusion Rabbi Akiva. In a walled city, it is permitted in times of need
even that of a young goat, onions, and eggs, as well as all other of Shabbat for a time sufficient for them to be roasted (Ram- even if sufficient time does not remain (Taz; Magen Avraham;
foods that are not eaten raw (Mishna Berura), may not be left on bam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 3:9,16; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 6:19; Shulĥan Arukh,
coals on Shabbat eve at nightfall as there is concern lest one Ĥayyim 254:2–3). Oraĥ Ĥayyim 246:2).
stoke the coals. This is true unless he placed them on the coals A person may not sell his object to a gentile, etc. – ל ֹא יִ ְמ ּכֹור
h7 A person may not sell his leaven to a gentile, etc. – ל ֹא יִ ְמ ּכֹור
h8
long enough before Shabbat to enable them to be roasted like א ָדם ֶח ְפצֹו ְלגֹוי וכו׳:ָ One may only lend, sell, or make a gift of an א ָדם ֲח ֵמצֹו ְלגֹוי וכו׳:ָ As long as one is permitted to eat leaven, he
the food of ben Drosai, which is half-cooked, while it is still day, object to a gentile on Shabbat eve at nightfall if there remains may certainly sell it to a gentile, as per the opinion of Beit Hillel
in accordance with the answer of Rav Ashi. Others say that the sufficient time for the gentile to carry it out of the Jew’s house (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Ĥametz UMatza 3:11; Shulĥan
food of ben Drosai was one-third cooked. If he roasted them while it is still day, as per the opinion of Beit Hillel according to Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 443:1).
milk, water, salt, and bread crumbs and was very sour.
thirty days before Passover. Because kutaĥ is used exclusively as a spice, Because of its sharp taste, kutaĥ was used mainly as a
it lasts longer than other foods. condiment. As a result, it kept for a long time. Kutaĥ
was a typical Babylonian food, and many of the people
נֹותנִין ְמזֹונֹות ִל ְפנֵי ַה ֶּכ ֶלב
ְ : ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַןThe Sages taught in a different baraita: One may, ab initio, put food of Eretz Yisrael could not accustom themselves to its
ָ , ֶ ּב ָחצֵ רbefore the dog in the courtyard on Shabbat, and we are not concerned
n
.נְטלֹו וְ יָ צָ א – ֵאין נִ זְ ָק ִקין לֹו taste. Even those who did continued to call it Baby-
1
that the dog may lift it and carry it out to the public domain. If the dog lonian kutaĥ.
lifted it and exited the courtyard, one need not attend to him, as he is
not required to ensure that the dog will eat it specifically in that court- notes
yard. One may put food before the dog – נֹותנִין ְמזֹונֹות ִל ְפנֵי
n1 ְ
ה ֶּכ ֶלב:ַ Some say that one may give food even to a dog
נֹותנִין ְמזֹונֹות ִל ְפנֵי ַהגּ ֹויְ ,ַּכּיֹוצֵ א ּבֹו On a similar note, the baraita continued: One may place food before that does not belong to the homeowner, as it was al-
. נְ ָטלֹו וְ יָ צָ א – ֵאין נִ זְ ָק ִקין לֹו,ֶ ּב ָחצֵ ר the gentileh in the courtyard on Shabbat. If the gentile lifted it and
1
ready stated: “To the dog you should throw it” (Exodus
ָהא ּת ּו ָל ָּמה ִלי? ַהיְ ינ ּו ַה ְך! ַמה ּו exited, one need not attend to him. The Gemara asks: Why do I need 22:30). The Sages said that this is a reward for: “No dog
this as well? This case is the same as that case. The halakhot with regard shall whet its tongue” (Exodus 11:7; Me’iri) during the
וְ ַהאי ָלא,יה ּ ַהאי – ְר ִמי ֲע ֵל:ימא ָ דְּ ֵת Plague of the Firstborn. The Gemara explains why the
to the dog and the gentile are identical, as Shabbat prohibitions do not
. ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ָמע ָלן,יה
ּ ְר ִמי ֲע ֵל apply to either of them. The Gemara answers: There is a distinction. statement with regard to the gentile was necessary, but
does not explain why it would not have been sufficient
Lest you say that in this case, the case of the dog, responsibility for its to state the halakha with regard to the gentile and
food is incumbent upon the owner of the courtyard who owns the dog. derive from it the ruling with regard to the dog. The
And in this case, the case of the gentile, responsibility for his food is not explanation is that since the dog belongs to him, there
incumbent upon the owner of the courtyard. Therefore, in a situation was room to conjecture that he must prevent it from
where there is concern that Shabbat will be desecrated, there is room performing prohibited labor on Shabbat based on the
to say that one may not give the gentile his food. Therefore, the baraita obligation to rest one’s animals, which does not apply
to a gentile (Rav Elazar Moshe Horovitz).
teaches us that in that case, it is also permitted.
ל ֹא יַ ְ ׂש ִּכיר ָא ָדם ֵּכ ָליו ְלגֹוי:ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן The Sages taught in a Tosefta: A person may not rent his utensils to a halakha
.ישי מו ָּּתר ִ ׁ יעי ו ְּב ֲח ִמ ִ ִ ּב ְר ִב,ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת gentile on Shabbat eve, as it appears that the Jew is receiving payment One may put food before the dog in the courtyard…
h1
ֵאין ְמ ׁ ַש ְּל ִחין ִא ְ ּיגרֹות ְ ּביַ ד,ַּכּיֹוצֵ א ּבֹו for work performed on Shabbat. However, on the fourth and on the before the gentile – ר…ל ְפנֵי
ִ ֵנֹותנִין ְמזֹונֹות ִל ְפנֵי ַה ֶּכ ֶלב ֶ ּב ָחצ
ְ
fifth days of the week it is permitted. On a similar note, one may not הגּ ֹוי:ַ One may place food in the courtyard on Shabbat
ישיִ ׁ יעי ו ְּב ֲח ִמִ ִ ּב ְר ִב,גּ ֹוי ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת for a gentile or for a dog to eat. If the gentile picks up
send letters in the hand of a gentile on Shabbat eve. However, on the
,יֹוסי ַה ּכ ֵֹהן
ֵ ָא ְמר ּו ָע ָליו ַעל ַר ִ ּבי.מו ָּּתר fourth and on the fifth days of the week it is permitted. Nevertheless, the food and leaves the courtyard, the Jew need not
react. However, one may not give the gentile objects,
ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא,יֹוסי ֶה ָח ִסיד ֵ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה ַעל ַר ִ ּבי they said about Rabbi Yosei the priest, and some say that they said as that would appear to be a business transaction. This
ָ נִ ְמצָ א ְּכ ָתב יָ דֹו ְ ּביַ ד גּ ֹוי ֵמ
.עֹולם this about Rabbi Yosei the Ĥasid, that a document in his handwriting is only permitted in exigent circumstances or for the
was never found in the hand of a gentile, so that a gentile would not purpose of fulfilling a mitzva (Be’er Heitev, Shulĥan Arukh
carry his letter on Shabbat. HaRav; Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 6:21;
Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 325:1).
ֵאין ְמ ׁ ַש ְּל ִחין ִא ֶ ּיג ֶרת ְ ּביַ ד:ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן The Sages taught in a baraita: One may not send a letter in the hand
One may not send a letter in the hand of a gentile –
ֶא ָּלא ִאם ֵּכן קֹוצֵ ץ,גּ ֹוי ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת of a gentileh on Shabbat eve unless he stipulates a set sum of money
2
h2
אין ְמ ׁ ַש ְּל ִחין ִא ֶ ּיג ֶרת ְ ּביַ ד גּ ֹוי:ֵ If a Jew set a price in advance
ְּכ ֵדי:אֹומ ִרים ְ ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי.לֹו דָּ ִמים for him. In that case, anything the gentile does with this letter is not in for a gentile to deliver a letter, the Jew may give the
service of the Jew, but rather on his own, since his payment is stipulated letter to the gentile on Shabbat eve at nightfall. In a
ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשּיַ ִ ּג ַיע: ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל,ׁ ֶשּיַ ִ ּג ַיע ְל ֵביתֹו
in advance. Beit Shammai say: One may only give a letter to a gentile case where he did not set a price in advance, if the
.חֹומה
ָ ַל ַ ּביִ ת ַה ָּסמו ְּך ַל on Shabbat eve if there is sufficient time for the gentile to reach his house of the mail carrier is permanently located in the
house before dark. And Beit Hillel say: If there is sufficient time for city, the Jew may give him a letter even just before
him to reach the house adjacent to the wall of the city to which he was dark. However, when the house of the mail carrier is
not permanently located in the city, he may not send a
sent. letter with the gentile even on Sunday. There are those
ָה ִכי,וַ ֲהל ֹא ָקצַ ץ! ָא ַמר ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת The Gemara asks: Didn’t he stipulate a set price? What difference does who permit doing so when the letter’s destination is
it make whether he reaches the city on Shabbat eve or on Shabbat? Rav nearby (Magen Avraham). This halakha is in accordance
ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי, וְ ִאם ל ֹא ָקצַ ץ:ָק ָא ַמר with the version of the text that completely prohibits
ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל, ַעד ׁ ֶשּיַ ִ ּג ַיע ְל ֵביתֹו:אֹומ ִרים
ְ Sheshet said, the baraita is saying as follows: And if he did not stipu- sending a letter. Others permit sending a letter with a
late a set price for the task, Beit Shammai say: One may only give a gentile on Wednesday and Thursday, based on our ver-
ַעד ׁ ֶשּיַ ִ ּג ַיע ַל ַ ּביִ ת ַה ָּסמו ְּך:אֹומ ִרים
ְ
letter to a gentile on Shabbat eve if there is sufficient time for the gentile sion of the Gemara (Rema; Magen Avraham). In exigent
.חֹומה
ָ ַל to reach his house before dark. And Beit Hillel say: If there is sufficient circumstances, one may rely on that opinion and send
time for him to reach the house adjacent to the wall of the city to a letter with a gentile (Rema; Shulĥan Arukh HaRav;
which he was sent. Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 6:20; Shulĥan
Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 247:1).
ישא ֵאין ְמ ׁ ַש ְּל ִחין! ָלא ָ ׁ וְ ָה ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ֵרThe Gemara asks: Didn’t you say in the first clause of the baraita, that
ַ ּ ָהא – דִּ ְק ִב ַיע ֵ ּבי ד, ַק ׁ ְשיָאone may not send a letter unless he stipulated a set price? Without
,ֹואר ְ ּב ָמ ָתא language
.ֹואר ְ ּב ָמ ָתאַ ּ וְ ָהא – דְּ ָלא ְק ִב ַיע ֵ ּבי דstipulating a set price, one may not send a letter at all. The Gemara an- l1 House of the mail carrier [bei doar] – ֹואר ַ ּבי ד:
ּ ֵ The
swers: This is not difficult, as it is possible to explain that this, where origin of the word do’ar, mail, is from the Semitic root
we learned that one is permitted to give a letter to a gentile on Shabbat dvr, which incidentally appears in Arabic as dawr, دور.
eve even if he did not stipulate a set price, is in a case where the house
of the mail carrier [bei doar]l is permanently located in the city. And
1
One may not set sail on a ship – אין ַמ ְפ ִליגִ ין ִ ּב ְס ִפינָ ה:ֵ Many days before Shabbat,h to avoid appearances that the Jew is perform-
ַ ּב ֶּמה.קֹודם ַל ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ֶ ִמ ׁ ְּשל ׁ ָֹשה יָ ִמים
n2
3
save a life. Therefore, the Sages prohibited sailing three days וְ ֵכן ָהיָ ה.וְ ִאם ִה ְת ִחיל ּו – ֵאין ַמ ְפ ִס ִיקין to desecrate Shabbat in establishing the siege. And if they already
before Shabbat for any purpose other than performing a began establishing the siege fewer than three days before Shabbat,
“עד ִר ְד ָּת ּה״ – ֲא ִפיל ּו ַ :אֹומרֵ ׁ ַש ַּמאי
mitzva (Ra’avad; Ran). Others explained that this is because they need not stop all war-related actions even on Shabbat. And so
traveling at sea is difficult, and one who boarded a ship .ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת Shammai would say: From that which is written: “And you should
fewer than three days before Shabbat suffers from motion build a siege against the city that is waging war with you until it falls”
sickness and will not experience the enjoyment of Shabbat
(Deuteronomy 20:20), it is derived that the siege should be sus-
at all. Therefore, he must leave earlier (Rif; Rosh).
tained “until it falls.” Consequently, the siege must continue even
He must stipulate with the gentile ship captain on the
n3
on Shabbat.
condition that he rests, and he does not rest – ּפֹוסק ִע ּמֹו ֵ ו
וְ ֵאינֹו ׁש ֵֹובת,על ְמנָ ת ִל ׁ ְש ּבֹות:ַ The Sages already established נֹוהגִ יןֲ יאל ֵ “א ַמר ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִלָ We learned in the mishna that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said:
that a Jew need not even attempt to have a ship captained The ancestral house of my father, the dynasty of Nesi’im from the
ְ ָּכך: ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי צָ דֹוק, ַּתנְיָא.ָהי ּו וכו׳״
by a gentile rest on Shabbat. The reason for the stipulation house of Hillel, was accustomed to give its white clothes to a gentile
is due to deference toward Heaven, so that the gentile will יאל ֵ ָהיָ ה ִמנְ ָהגֹו ׁ ֶשל ֵ ּבית ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל
launderer no fewer than three days before Shabbat. It was taught in
not think that Jews are indifferent to the sanctity of Shab- נֹותנִין ְּכ ֵלי ָל ָבן ַל ּכ ֵֹובס ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְ ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו
bat (ge’onim). the Tosefta that Rabbi Tzadok said: This was the custom of the
וּצְ בו ִּעים ֲא ִפילּ ּו,קֹודם ַל ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ֶ יָ ִמים house of Rabban Gamliel: They would give white clothes to the
The Sages already preceded you – כ ָבר ְק ָדמוּךָ ַר ָ ּבנַן:ְּ With this יה ם ָל ַמ ְדנ ּו ֶ ּו ִמדִּ ְב ֵר.ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת
n4
gentile launderer three days before Shabbat, and they would give
story, the Talmud sought to underscore that Torah scholars,
who do not normally deal with mundane matters and are יֹותר ִמן ֵ ׁ ּ ֶש ַה ְּל ָבנִים ָק ׁ ִשים ְל ַכ ְ ּב ָסן him colored clothes even on Shabbat eve. The Gemara comments:
steeped in their studies, are able to derive from the Torah .ַה ְ ּצבו ִּעין And from their statement we learned that white garments are
how to conduct themselves in worldly matters like all men more difficult to launder than colored ones, as in white garments
of action (HaBoneh). every stain is more conspicuous.
background
יה ַההוּא ָמנָ א ּ ַא ַ ּביֵ י ֲהוָ ה יָ ֵהיב ֵל On a related note, the Gemara relates that Abaye gave this dyed
ַּכ ָּמה:יה ּ ֲא ַמר ֵל,יעא ְל ָקצְ ָרא ָ דִּ צְ ִב garment to the launderer. Abaye said to the launderer: How much
Beams of the olive press – קֹורֹות ֵ ּבית ַה ַ ּבד: In this picture, the
do you want as payment to wash it? The launderer said to Abaye:
b2
olives, in baskets, are placed on a slightly elevated surface. . ִּכ ְד ִחיוָ ָרא:יה ּ יה? ָא ַמר ֵל ּ ֵָ ּב ֵעית ִע ָּילו
A long beam, one end of which is set in a hole in the wall, is Same as for a white garment. Abaye said to him: You cannot de-
ֲא ַמר. ְּכ ָבר ְק ָדמוּךָ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן:יה ּ ֲא ַמר ֵל
placed on the baskets. Weights or large rocks are attached ceive me in this matter, as the Sages already preceded you,n as it 4
to the end of the beam placed on the baskets, weighing it – ַהאי ַמאן דְּ ֵיָהיב ָמנָ א ְל ָקצְ ָרא:ַא ַ ּביֵ י was taught in the baraita which garment is more difficult to wash.
down and pressing the olives. In this way, oil was squeezed נִשקֹול ְ ׁ ו ְּב ִמ ׁ ְש ָחא,יה
ּ נֵיתיב ֵל ִ ְ ּב ִמ ׁ ְש ָחא On this topic, Abaye said: One who gives clothing to the laun-
into containers prepared for this purpose.
,יה
ּ דִּ ְמ ַת ֵח,יה ּ דְּ ִאי ְט ֵפי – ַא ְפ ַס ֵד.ֵיה ּ ִמ ּינ derer, he should give it to him by measure and he should take it
.יה
ּ ֵ דִּ ְכוַ וצ,יה
ּ וְ ִאי ְ ּבצִ יר – ַא ְפ ַס ֵד back from him by measure. In that way, if it is longer, it is an indi-
cation that the launderer caused him a loss because he stretched
the garment. And if it is shorter, he certainly caused him a loss
because he shrunk it.
ַמאי.ֹוענִין כו׳״ ֲ “וְ ׁ ָשוִ ין ֵאלּ ּו וָ ֵאלּ ּו ׁ ֶש ּט We learned in the mishna that these, Beit Shammai, and those, Beit
,ׁ ְשנָ א ּכו ְּּלה ּו דִּ גְ זַ ר ּו ְ ּבה ּו ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי Hillel, agree that one may load the beam of the olive press and the
ו ַּמאי ׁ ְשנָ א קֹורֹות ֵ ּבית ַה ַ ּבד וְ ִעיגּ ו ֵּלי circular wine press. The Gemara asks: What is different about all
of the cases in the mishna, where Beit Shammai issued a decree
ַה ַ ּגת דְּ ָלא ְ ּגזַ רוּ? ָהנַ ךְ דְּ ִאי ָע ֵביד ְלה ּו
prohibiting them, and what is different about the beams of the
יחּיַ יב ַח ָּטאת – ְ ּגזַ ר ּו ְ ּבה ּו ַ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת – ִמ olive pressb and the circular wine press that Beit Shammai did not
2
,ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ִעם ֲח ׁ ֵש ָכה issue a decree prohibiting them? The Gemara answers: Those
Ancient olive press in Tel Hatzor
קֹורֹות ֵ ּבית ַה ַ ּבד וְ ִעיגּ ו ֵּלי ַה ַ ּגת דְּ ִאי cases, where if he performed them on Shabbat he is rendered li-
יח ּיַ יב ַ ָע ֵביד ְל ה ּו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ָלא ִמ able to bring a sin-offering, Beit Shammai issued a decree prohib-
.ַּח ָּטאת – ָלא ְ ּגזַ רו iting them on Shabbat eve at nightfall. However, in the cases of the
beams of the olive press and the circular wine press, where even
if he performed them on Shabbat he is not rendered liable to
bring a sin-offering, Beit Shammai did not issue a decree.
halakha
One may not set sail on a ship fewer than three days before Zeraĥya HaLevi; Magen Avraham; Taz). For the purpose of a
h3 עיָ ירֹות ׁ ֶשל גּ ֹויִ ם וכו׳:ֲ When initiating an optional war with a siege
Shabbat – קֹודם ַל ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת
ֶ אין ַמ ְפ ִליגִ ין ִ ּב ְס ִפינָ ה ּ ָפחֹות ִמ ׁ ְּשל ׁ ָֹשה יָ ִמים:
ֵ mitzva, he may even depart right before Shabbat. For a brief of cities of gentiles, it must be initiated three days before Shab-
One who sails for a non-mitzva matter is not permitted to set journey of up to one day, one is permitted to sail even on Friday bat. Once the siege has begun, it is not suspended on Shabbat
out on his voyage fewer than three days before Shabbat. The morning, but no later, as per the baraita (Rambam Sefer Ze- even in an optional war and, needless to say, in a mandatory
Sages disagreed with regard to Wednesday. Some ruled that it is manim, Hilkhot Shabbat 24:6; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 248:1). war. In a mandatory war, one may even initiate the siege on
permitted (Jerusalem Talmud; Rabbeinu Ĥananel; Rosh; Tosafot; Shabbat (Tur based on the Jerusalem Talmud; Rambam Sefer
Vilna Gaon) and some ruled that it is prohibited (Ran; Rabbeinu One may not lay siege to cities of gentiles, etc. – ֵאין צָ ִרין ַעל
h4 Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 2:25, 30:13; Tur, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 249).
crushed while it was still day – ֹוסר וְ ַה ְּמ ִלילֹות ֶ ַה ׁ ּשוּם וְ ַה ּב
ַה ׁ ּש ּום: דִּ ְתנַ ן.ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ִהיא done on Shabbat? Rabbi Yosei bar Ĥanina said: It is the opinion ש ִר ְּס ָקן ִמ ְ ּבעֹוד יֹום:
ֶ ׁ If the weighted beam of the olive press
of Rabbi Yishmael, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to the was placed on the olives on Shabbat eve while it is still day, it
ֹוסר וְ ַה ְּמ ִלילֹות ׁ ֶש ִר ְּס ָקן ִמ ְ ּבעֹוד ֶ וְ ַה ּב
garlic and the unripe grapes, and the stalks of wheat that he is permitted to leave the olives in the press on Shabbat, and
יִ גְ מֹור:אֹומר ֵ ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל,יֹום crushed while it was still day,h Rabbi Yishmael says: He may
5
after Shabbat he may use the oil that was squeezed from
ֵ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא, ְִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ֶּת ְח ׁ ַשך
:אֹומר continue tending to them and finish after it gets dark, as after the them on Shabbat. Similarly, in the case of garlic and unripe
crushing is completed these items are placed beneath a weight, so grapes that were crushed while it is still day, the liquids that
continue to seep out of them on Shabbat are permitted, as
that the liquids will continue to seep out. And Rabbi Akiva says:
per the Gemara, which ruled in accordance with the opinion
of Rabbi Yishmael (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat
21:16; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 252:5).
Perek I
Daf 19 Amud b
notes
ַר ִ ּבי: וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ָא ַמר.ל ֹא יִ גְ מֹור He may not finish. And the amora Rabbi Elazar said: Our mishna
Honeycombs that he crushed on Shabbat eve – ַחלּ ֹות דְּ ַב ׁש
ַח ּל ֹות דְּ ַב ׁש: דִּ ְתנַ ן.ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ִה יא is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazarp the tanna. As1
n1
Honeycomb
Did not know this baraita – יְיתא ָלא ׁ ְש ִמ ַיע ֵל ּיה
ָ ב ַר:ּ ָ Since there
וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא ל ֹא ָא ַמר On the other hand, the Gemara asks: And Rabbi Elazar, what is n2
יֹוסי
ֵ הֹורה ַר ִ ּביָ .ּיכה דָּ מו ָ ִִּּכ ְמחו ָּּס ִרין ד ground in a pestle at all, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to place halakha
.ַ ּבר ֲחנִינָ א ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל them in a manner that causes their liquids to come out on their own Items that lack grinding – יכה
h1 ָ ִּב ְמחו ָּּס ִרין ד:
ּ ִ Garlic, unripe
on Shabbat. The case where they disagreed was where they were grapes, and the like that were crushed on Shabbat eve, if
already completely ground, but they were still lacking additional they were not ground sufficiently to cause the liquids to seep
out, it is prohibited to grind them on Shabbat. If they are
pounding; and these cases in our mishna are also considered as
sufficiently ground but still lack pounding, it is permitted to
if they were lacking grinding. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yosei grind them, in accordance with the ruling of Rabbi Yosei son
bar Ĥanina issued a practical ruling in accordance with the opin- of Rabbi Ĥanina and according to Rabbi Yoĥanan (Rambam
ion of Rabbi Yishmael, and permitted a person to finish tending to Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 21:13; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ
them even after dark. Ĥayyim 321:19).
Personalities
Rabbi Elazar – ר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר:ַ This is Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua, a
p1 many students studied with him. Among his main students was of the early Sages were like the entrance hall to the Sanctuary.
tanna in the generation prior to the redaction of the Mishna. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the redactor of the Mishna. In the Mishna and in baraitot, he is called simply Rabbi Elazar.
Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua, a priest, was among the greatest of Not many of Rabbi Elazar’s halakhot are cited in the Mishna; Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua lived a long life, and according
Rabbi Akiva’s students. In the years following the persecution in however, he was very significant in the eyes of the Sages of the to one tradition he was a hundred and five years old when
the wake of the failure of bar Kokheva’s rebellion, Rabbi Elazar was following generations. The amora Rav referred to him as the he was killed. He is listed among the ten martyrs murdered
among the leaders of the generation. Despite the dire situation, happiest of the Sages, and Rabbi Yoĥanan said of him: The hearts by the Romans.
for plowing, all of which are designated for purposes other than eating,
In the place of Rav – יה דְּ ַרב
n4 ּ ב ַא ְת ֵר:
ּ ְ In general, all of as well as dates used for commerce; in all of these Rav prohibited
Jewish Babylonia was divided into the place of Rav, un-
using them for food, or slaughtering them even on a Festival due to the
der Rav’s jurisdiction, and the place of Shmuel, under
Shmuel’s jurisdiction. This division remained intact, de-
prohibition of set-aside. The reason for this is that during the day, before
spite many changes affecting different aspects of the Shabbat, he had no intention of eating them, as he set them aside for a
situation, until the period of the ge’onim. As long as the different purpose. And Shmuel said: They are permitted, as in his
yeshiva of Sura and the yeshiva of Pumbedita were in opinion there is no prohibition of set-aside. The Gemara comments that
existence, each had a defined sphere of authority and they disagree in the dispute of the tanna’im Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi
influence. With regard to halakhic rulings, in an area Shimon with regard to the issue of muktze.
where a certain custom prevailed by the authority of
the Sage who instituted that custom, it was inappro- אֹורי ְ ּב ַח ְר ָּתא ֵ ְַּהה ּוא ַּת ְל ִמ ָידא ד The Gemara relates: There was this student who issued a ruling in the
priate to publicize an opinion that was contrary to that city of Ĥarta De’argiz that items that are set aside are permitted, in
יה ַרב ּ ׁ ַש ְמ ֵּת,דְּ ַא ְרגִ יז ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון
Sage’s opinion. That was the case even if his halakhic accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and Rav Hamnuna
opinion in the matter was not the accepted one. Resi- וְ ָהא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ְס ִב ָירא.ַה ְמנוּנָ א
excommunicated him. The Gemara asks: Don’t we hold that the ha-
dents in that Sage’s sphere of influence were obligated יב ֵעי ֵל ּיה ּ ָ ָלא ִא,ָלן! ְ ּב ַא ְת ֵר ּיה דְּ ַרב ֲהוָ ה
to follow him in all matters, even if his halakhic opinion
lakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? Why, then,
ַחד, ָהנֵי ְּת ֵרי ַּת ְל ִמ ֵידי.יע ַבד ָה ִכי ֱ ְל ֶמ did Rav Hamnuna excommunicate him? The Gemara answers: This
was not universally accepted by the other Sages.
ַמ ִ ּציל ְ ּב ַחד ָמנָ א וְ ַחד ַמ ִ ּציל ְ ּב ַא ְר ַ ּבע incident was in the place of Ravn and the student should not have done
4
יפ ְלגִ י ִ ּב ְפלוּגְ ָתא ַ ּ וְ ָק ִמ.וְ ָח ֵמ ׁש ָמאנֵי this; even if the accepted ruling is lenient, the city was under Rav’s ju-
Chamber of the Hearth – ו ַּמ ֲא ִחיזִ ין ֶאת ָהאוּר ִ ּב ְמדו ַּרת risdiction, and the student’s public ruling, contrary to Rav’s opinion,
בית ַה ּמ ֵֹוקד:ּ ֵ The Chamber of the Hearth was one of the
.דְּ ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר זַ ְב ָדא וְ ַרב הוּנָ א
was a blatant display of disrespect. Incidentally, the Gemara relates a
chambers of the Temple in which there was a bonfire
to warm the priests. Since the priests worked barefoot,
story involving these two students: One would rescue from a fire with
wore light clothing, no additional layers of clothing one vessel and one would rescue with four and five vessels, as it is
could be added, and the Temple was mostly without a permitted to rescue one’s belongings from a fire on Shabbat. They dis-
roof, leaving them exposed to rain and wind, the priests agreed with regard to whether it is preferable to carry just one vessel
would avail themselves of this chamber to warm them- and go back and forth several times, or to carry several vessels and go
selves. Although this was not part of the Temple service, back and forth fewer times. And they disagree with regard to the same
it was part of the arrangements for the benefit of the
issue that was the subject of the dispute of Rabba bar Zavda and Rav
priests. At the same time, there is the principle that
rabbinic decrees were not implemented in the Temple, Huna elsewhere.
and the Temple area was governed exclusively by Torah
law, without additional rabbinic restrictions and fences.
צֹולין ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ָ ּבצָ ל ו ֵּביצָ הִ מתני׳ ֵאין
ֵאין.ֶא ָּלא ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשּיִ ּצֹול ּו ִמ ְ ּבעֹוד יֹום
MISHNA This mishna enumerates actions that may only
be performed on Shabbat eve if the prohibited
labor will be totally or mostly completed while it is still day. One may
background נֹותנִין ּ ַפת ַל ַּתנּ וּר ִעם ֲח ׁ ֵש ָכה וְ ל ֹא ְ
only roast meat, an onion, or an egg if there remains sufficient time
The Chamber of the Hearth – בית ַה ּמ ֵֹוקד:ּ ֵ The Chamber
b2 ֲח ָר ָרה ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ֶ ּג ָח ִלים ֶא ָּלא ְּכ ֵדי so that they could be roasted while it is still day. One may only place
of the Hearth was a large room along the northern wall ַר ִ ּבי,יה ִמ ְ ּבעֹוד יֹום ָ ֶׁ ֶשּיִ ְק ְרמ ּו ּ ָפ נ dough to bake into bread in the oven on Shabbat eve at nightfall,h and 5
chamber each night. bat eve, adjacent to the start of Shabbat, and allow the fire to spread
afterward throughout all the wood in the bonfire.
halakha
Oil of olive pressers – ש ֶמן ׁ ֶשל ַ ּבדָּ דִּ ין:
h2 ֶ ׁ Oil that emerges from to financial loss, as per the ruling of Rav (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ on Shabbat eve at nightfall – נֹותנִין ּ ַפת ַל ַּתנּ וּר ִעם ֲח ׁ ֵש ָכה
ְ אין:ֵ One
under the beam of the olive press on Shabbat is permitted, as Ĥayyim 308:1). may only place bread in the oven on Shabbat eve at nightfall
per the explanation of the Rif. The halakha is in accordance with A goat for its milk, and a ewe for shearing its wool, and
h4
if the side of the loaf stuck to the oven forms a crust. Once the
the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the Gemara (Rambam Sefer a chicken for its egg, etc. – גֹולת ֶ ְ וְ ָר ֵחל ְלגִ יזָ ָת ּה וְ ַת ְרנ,ֵעז ַל ֲח ָל ָב ּה crust was formed, he may leave it there, even after Shabbat
Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 26:14). ל ֵביצָ ָת ּה וכו׳:ְ Any detached food that is fit for consumption does begins. The later commentaries agreed that it does not matter
not have set-aside status on Shabbat, even if it were set aside on which side the crust is formed, and it is permitted even if it
Carrying vessels that he is careful about – ִט ְלטוּל ֵּכ ִלים ׁ ֶש ַמ ְק ּ ִפידfor sale, as per the opinions of Rabbi Shimon and Shmuel and
h3
formed on the side facing the fire. The bread is considered to
ֶ ע ֵל:ֲ It is prohibited to move a vessel or tool that one values the conclusion of the Gemara (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot
יהם have formed a crust when strings of dough no longer protrude
to the extent that he is careful not to damage it through use. Shabbat 26:14; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 310:2). from the loaf (see tractate Menaĥot 78b; Rambam Sefer Ze-
This is similar to the legal status of items that are set-aside due One may only place dough to bake into bread in the oven
h5 manim, Hilkhot Shabbat 3:18; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 254:5).
GEMARA
of this halakha is in tractate Avoda Zara. The essence of the halakha
גמ׳ וְ ַכ ָּמה? ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ָא ַמר We learned in the mishna that one is the prohibition of eating food that was cooked by a gentile. The
ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשּיִ ּצֹול ּו ִמ ְ ּבעֹוד יֹום ְּכ ַמ ֲא ַכל:ַרב may only roast meat and other food reason for this prohibition is the concern that one may eat prohib-
items if there remains sufficient time so that they could be ited foods, as well as the desire to separate Jews from gentiles. This
ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ִסי, ִא ְּית ַמר נַ ִמי.רֹוסאי ַ ְֶּ ּבן ד roasted while it is still day. The Gemara asks: And how much does not apply to all foods; cooked foods that could be eaten un-
ָּכל ׁ ֶשהוּא ְּכ ַמ ֲא ַכל:יֹוחנָ ן ָ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי do they need to be roasted in order to be considered sufficient, cooked and insignificant foods were not included in this prohibition.
ּ ׁ רֹוסאי – ֵאין ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ִ ּב
ישו ֵּלי ַ ְֶּ ּבן ד so that it will be permitted to complete their cooking after-
ָּכל ׁ ֶשהוּא:אֹומר ֵ ֲחנַ נְיָא, ַּתנְיָא.ּגֹויִ ם ward? Rabbi Elazar said that Rav said: So that they will be background
roasted while it is still day like the food of ben Drosai,ph Bread in the oven – פת ַ ּב ַּתנּ וּר:ַ ּ The ovens in those days were made
רֹוסאי מו ָּּתר ְל ַה ׁ ְשהֹותֹו ַ ְְּּכ ַמ ֲא ַכל ֶ ּבן ד
1 2
b1
which was partially roasted. Ben Drosai was a robber and of earthenware. The oven was ignited from below and through a
וְ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ְ ּגרו ָּפה,ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ִּכ ָירה special opening they would stick the dough to the sides of the oven
pursued by all. He could not wait for his food to roast com-
.ו ְּקטו ָּמה pletely, so he sufficed with a partial roasting. It was also stated
for baking. In this method of baking, it is difficult to define which
side is considered the bottom of the bread.
by another of the Sages, as Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yoĥanan
said: Anything that is already cooked like the food of ben
Drosai by a Jew, no longer has a problem of the cooking of
gentiles.nh If a gentile completed cooking this food, it is, nev-
1 3
?“ת ְח ּתֹון״ ָה ֵאיךְ דְּ גַ ֵ ּבי ָהאוּר ַּ :דִּ ְיל ָמא time for its surface to form a crust while it is still day. Accord-
ing to Rabbi Eliezer, it is permitted to place bread in the oven
ְּכ ֵדי:אֹומרֵ יעזֶ ר ֶ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל,ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע
on Shabbat eve while it is still day if there remains enough time
.נֶיה ַה ְמדו ָ ּּב ִקין ַ ּב ַּתנּ וּר
ָ ׁ ֶשּיִ ְק ְרמ ּו ּ ָפ for a crust to form on its bottom side. A dilemma was raised
before them: With regard to the bottom mentioned in the
mishna, is it that side close to the oven, or perhaps is it the
bottom that is close to the fire? Come and hear a resolution
to this dilemma from what was taught in a baraita that Rabbi
Eliezer says explicitly: So that its surface that is stuck to the
Oven with bread stuck to its sides
oven will form a crust.h 4
halakha
With coals of any amount – ב ֶפ ָח ִמין ָּכל ׁ ֶשהוּא:ּ ְ Some authori-
h1 ing is stringent in accordance with the opinion of the Rambam completed the cooking. If it had not been cooked to that extent,
ties ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that (Magen Avraham; Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 3:16, the food is prohibited (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 113:8).
there is no need to ignite most of the coals before Shabbat 9:5; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 254:2).
So that its surface…will form a crust – נֶיה
ָ שּיִ ְק ְרמ ּו ּ ָפ:
ֶ ׁ One may
while it is still day, as they held that he did not disagree with
h4
One may lower the Paschal lamb – ְמ ׁ ַש ְּל ׁ ְש ִלין ֶאת the oven on Shabbat eve at nightfall. The Gemara explains: What is the
ָהא ָלאו.ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דִּ ְבנֵי ֲחבו ָּרה זְ ִריזִ ין ֵהן
h5
pieces. However, here, with regard to the Paschal lamb, the goat is not
permitted to leave a bonfire to burn on its own on
Shabbat when most of its fuel was already ignited cut into pieces. It is roasted whole, in accordance with the halakhot of
on Shabbat eve at nightfall, in accordance with the the Paschal lamb. Consequently, it does not roast quickly, and there is
opinion of Shmuel, as there is a baraita that supports room for concern lest he stoke the coals in order to accelerate the roast-
his opinion (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat ing. However, since the members of the group are vigilant, the Sages
3:19; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 255:1; Vilna Gaon). permitted it.
“ו ַּמ ֲא ִחיזִ ין ֶאת ָהאוּר וכו’” ְמנָ ָהנֵי We learned the following in the mishna: And one may light the fireh in 6
“ל ֹא ְת ַב ֲער ּו:ילי? ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א ֵּ ִמ the bonfire of the Chamber of the Hearth in the Temple on Shabbat eve
ְ ּב ָכל,”יכם ֶ בֹות
ֵ מֹוש ְ ֵא ׁש ְ ּב כֹל adjacent to nightfall and allow the fire to spread afterward throughout the
entire bonfire. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters that
,יכם – ִאי ַא ָּתה ַמ ְב ִעיר ֶ בֹות
ֵ מֹושְ
doing so is permitted, derived? Rav Huna said, as it is stated: “You shall
ֲא ָבל ַא ָּתה ַמ ְב ִעיר ִ ּב ְמד ּו ַרת ֵ ּבית kindle no fire in all of your habitations on the day of Shabbat” (Exodus
ִאי: ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א.ַה ּמ ֵֹוקד 35:3). The Gemara infers: “In all of your habitations,” the dwelling plac-
ָה ִכי – ֲא ִפילּ ּו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת נַ ִמי! ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר es of the Jewish people, you may not kindle fire, but you may kindle fire
יש ֵריְ ׁ ְק ָרא ִּכי ֲא ָתא – ְל ִמ:ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א on Shabbat in the bonfire of the Chamber of the Hearth, which is in the
וְ כ ֲֹהנִים,ֵא ָב ִרים ו ְּפ ָד ִרים הוּא דַּ ֲא ָתא Temple. Rav Ĥisda objects: If so, if that is the source for the fact that
kindling the fire is permitted on Shabbat eve at nightfall, it should also be
.זְ ִריזִ ין ֵהן
permitted to kindle it even on Shabbat itself. Why kindle the fire while
it is still day? Rather, Rav Ĥisda said, it should be understood as follows:
When the verse came, it came to permit burning the limbs and fatsn of 2
the sacrifices on the altar, even on Shabbat. Lighting the bonfire of the
Chamber of the Hearth was not permitted on Shabbat itself, since it is not
part of the Temple service. It was kindled merely for the benefit of the
priests. The fact that there was no concern about lighting the bonfire on
Shabbat eve at nightfall is because the priests are vigilant with regard to
mitzvot, and they will certainly not come to stoke the coals.
ַמאי.“ו ַּב ְ ּגבו ִּלין ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶש ֶּת ֱאחֹוז כו׳״ We also learned in the mishna that in the outlying areash one may not 7
. רֹוב ָּכל ֶא ָחד וְ ֶא ָחד:רו ָ ּּבן? ָא ַמר ַרב light a bonfire on Shabbat eve at nightfall unless there is sufficient time
ְ ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא י:ּו ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ָא ַמר
ֹאמר ּו for the fire to take hold in most of the bonfire. The Gemara asks about
this: What is meant by the measure of most of it? Rav said: Most of each
ְּתנָ א ַרב.יהן ֶ ָה ֵבא ֵעצִ ים וְ נַ ּנ ִַיח ַּת ְח ֵּת
and every one of the branches. And Shmuel said: It is sufficient if the
ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶש ְּת ֵהא:יה ִל ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ּ ּיעֵ ִחּיָ יא ְל ַס branches are sufficiently lit so that they will not say to each other: Bring
וְ ל ֹא ׁ ֶש ְּת ֵהא,יה ָ עֹולה ֵמ ֵא ֶיל ָ ׁ ַש ְל ֶה ֶבת thinner branches,n which are easier to kindle, and we will place them
3
.עֹולה ַעל יְ ֵדי דָּ ָבר ַא ֵחר ָ ׁ ַש ְל ֶה ֶבת beneath the existing branches to accelerate their burning. Rav Ĥiyya
taught a baraita to support Shmuel, from a halakha that was stated with
regard to the Temple candelabrum. The baraita said that it must be lit to
the point that the flame will ascend on its own and not that the flame
will ascend due to something else. In a place where kindling is required,
it is sufficient to ensure that the fire burns on its own (Tosafot).
notes
It came to permit limbs and fats – יש ֵרי ֵא ָב ִרים ו ְּפ ָד ִרים
n2 ְ ׁ ְל ִמ prior to Shabbat. Since these limbs remained on the altar, a ה ֵבא ֵעצִ ים וכו׳:ָ Rav’s interpretation of the mishna is clear.
הוּא דַּ ֲא ָתא: It is clear from the Torah that there are offerings verse was necessary to explicitly permit their burning even on He says that the phrase: For the fire to take hold in most of
sacrificed on Shabbat itself to which the prohibitions of Shabbat, since the burning of the limbs on the altar was also the bonfire, refers to each individual branch. On the other
Shabbat, i.e., slaughtering the offering, preparing it for sacrifice, part of the service of the Temple. However, with regard to other hand, Shmuel’s opinion requires an explanation. He ex-
and kindling the fire on the altar, do not apply at all. How- parts of the Temple service, only rabbinic decrees did not apply. plains that the term most of the bonfire does not mean a
ever, there were tasks in the Temple that were not part of the Torah prohibitions were in effect. majority here, but it means “a lot [rov],” as in the verse: “Ac-
daily service and could be postponed. A primary example is cording to the multitude [rov] of the years” (Leviticus 25:16).
the burning of the limbs and fats. Frequently, there was not n3 Most of each and every one…so that they will not say: A large fire is one that burns untended (Rav Elazar Moshe
enough time to burn the limbs and fats of the Friday sacrifices ְ ד…כ ֵדי ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא י
Bring branches, etc. – ֹאמר ּו ְּ רֹוב ָּכל ֶא ָחד וְ ֶא ָח Horovitz).
Shabbat must light most of the width and most of the circumfer-
ו ָּב ֵעינָ ן רֹוב,ִה ְל ָּכ ְך ָ ּב ֵעינָ ן רֹוב ָע ְביֹו branchh that one kindles on Shabbat eve? Rav said: Most of
8
יכיןִ ָקנִים ֵאין צְ ִר:ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א Rav Huna said: Reeds with which he lights a bonfire on Shab-
ַ ּג ְר ִעינִין ֵאין.יכין רֹוב ִ ֲאגָ ָדן – צְ ִר,רֹוב bat eve do not require that most of the reeds ignite prior to
יכין
ִ חֹותלֹות – צְ ִר ָ נְ ָתנָן ְ ּב,יכין רֹוב ִ צְ ִר Shabbat, because they burn easily. However, if he tied them
together into a bundle, the reeds assume the legal status of a
, ַאדְּ ַר ָ ּבה: ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א.רֹוב
wooden beam and most of the reeds need to catch fire before
, ָקנִים – ִמ ַ ּב ְד ָרן.יפ ָכא ִמ ְס ַּת ְ ּב ָרא ְ ּ ִא Shabbat. The same is true with regard to date seeds that he
, ַ ּג ְר ִעינִין – ִמ ַ ּב ְד ָרן:ֲאגָ ָדן – ָלא ִמ ַ ּב ְד ָרן kindles. They do not require that most of them catch fire before
ִא ְּית ַמר.חֹותלֹות – ָלא ִמ ַ ּב ְד ָרן ָ נְ ָתנָן ְ ּב Shabbat, because they burn easily. However, if he placed them
,נַ ִמי in woven baskets [ĥotalot],b most of the seeds need to ignite
3
Perek I
halakha
Daf 20 Amud b
h1 ַּ
Reeds…seeds, etc. – נִים…ג ְר ִעינִין וכו׳ק:ָ If reeds and seeds were
bundled and connected and one wants to light them Shabbat
– ָקנִים ׁ ֶש ֲאגָ ָדן:ָא ַמר ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א on a similar note, Rav Kahana said: Reeds that one tied them eve before nightfall, he must light them in a manner that most
into a bundle, require that most of them ignite. If one did not of them will burn on their own before Shabbat begins. If they
.יכין רֹוב
ִ ל ֹא ֲאגָ ָדן ֵאין צְ ִר,יכין רֹוב ִ צְ ִר are not connected, there is no requirement that most of them
ָ נְ ָתנָן ְ ּב,ַ ּג ְר ִעינִין – צְ ִר ִיכין רֹוב
– חֹותלֹות tie them into a bundle, they do not require that most of them
burn before Shabbat. This is based on the variant reading of Rav
ignite, in accordance with the statement of Rav Huna. How-
.יכין רֹוב ִ ֵאין צְ ִר Kahana’s statement in the Rif and the Rambam. Others rule the
ever, seedsh require that most of them ignite. And if he placed
1
Bonfires – מדוּרֹות:ְ It is sufficient to ignite even the slightest most of the flammable materials catch fire, as their materials burn
וְ ׁ ֶשל, וְ ׁ ֶשל ָ ּג ְפ ִרית, ׁ ֶשל זֶ ֶפת:צְ ִר ִיכין רֹוב
h2
Middle Persian zāz, meaning grass. According to the ge’onim, ֵעצִ ים ׁ ֶשל ָ ּב ֶבל ֵאין:יֹוחנָן ָ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Babylonian wood does not require that
zaza means the branch of a tree used for burning. ַמאי:יֹוסף ֵ ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ַרב.יכין רֹוב ִ צְ ִר most of it catch fire. Rav Yosef the Babylonian objects: What is
ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא ּ ְפ ִת ָילה,ימא ִס ְיל ֵתיָ ִהיא? ִא ֵיל that wood that they use in Babylonia that burns so well? If you say
that it refers to wood slivers used for burning and light, now that
ַה ַּמ ְד ִליק צָ ִריךְ ׁ ֶשּיַ ְד ִליק:ָא ַמר עו ָּּלא
with regard to a wick, Ulla said that one who lights it for a Shabbat
ִס ְיל ֵתי ִמ ָ ּב ֲעיָ א! ֶא ָּלא,ְ ּברֹוב ַהּיֹוצֵ א lamp must light most of what emerges from the vessel; is it neces-
ָר ִמי ַ ּבר. ׁש ָֹוכא דְּ ַא ְרזָ א:יֹוסף
ֵ ָא ַמר ַרב sary to mention with regard to wood slivers that most of them must
. זַ אזָ א:ַא ָ ּבא ָא ַמר be lit? Rather, Rav Yosef said: Certainly the reference is to the
branch of a cedar tree. And Rami bar Abba said: The reference
here is to a hyssop [zaza].l1
The talmudic discussions in this chapter encompassed a wide variety of topics, some
of which were not related to the laws of Shabbat. The main focus of this chapter was
the explication of two major topics: The halakhot of carrying from one domain to
another on Shabbat and activities that are permitted or prohibited on Shabbat eve.
Although the discussion of a significant portion of the halakhot of carrying out will
not be completed until Chapters 7–10 of this tractate, several select issues were ana-
lyzed exhaustively in this chapter: The various Shabbat domains and many of the
rulings and details that pertain to them; halakhic rulings with regard to intermediate
domains and areas, e.g., holes in a wall adjacent to the public domain; and even expla-
nations of some of the fundamental principles upon which these halakhot are based.
Similarly, in this chapter, the parameters of lifting and placing were clearly defined;
the question of lifting from and placing upon a significant surface was addressed; and
the definition of what constitutes a significant surface in this regard was discussed.
Another series of halakhot discussed primarily in this chapter are those governing
activities from which one must refrain on Shabbat eve. Among these halakhot are
those that were decreed as safeguards by the Sages, who prohibited performance of
certain actions on Shabbat eve lest one forget and come to perform a prohibited labor
on Shabbat itself, e.g., the tailor may not go out with his needle.
This chapter also contained a significant, fundamental discussion of whether or not
one is permitted to take action on Shabbat eve that will cause a prohibited labor to
be performed on Shabbat on its own or by a gentile. In those cases, it is the opinion
of Beit Shammai that gave extremely limited license to perform those actions, as they
extended the prohibition to perform a prohibited labor to one’s utensils as well. On
the other hand, Beit Hillel, whose opinion in this case is the accepted halakha, are
of the opinion that the prohibitions of Shabbat apply to the person and not to the
utensils with which the labor is performed. Based upon that principle, automatic
processes initiated before Shabbat that continue to function on Shabbat itself are
permitted. In practice, there are many exceptions to this principle, but the basic
halakha is based upon this foundation.
Delighting in Shabbat is not a mitzva by Torah law, but is first mentioned in the book
of Isaiah. However, many of the halakhot and customs of Shabbat are based upon
this mitzva.
Kindling the Shabbat lights in deference to Shabbat is based on the mitzva of
delighting in Shabbat, as there can be no delight or enjoyment, even in a festive
meal, in a house that is dark and bereft of illumination. With the lighting of the Shab-
bat lights, there is thus an element of delight, as well as deference to Shabbat day.
However, since there is a strict prohibition against kindling fire or extinguishing it on
the Shabbat day, special care must be taken to ensure that the kindling of the lights
on Shabbat eve will not lead to kindling or extinguishing fire once Shabbat begins.
Therefore, the Sages instituted safeguards and precautions with regard to the various
substances that may be used in kindling the Shabbat lights as well as with regard to
the manner in which their light may be utilized on Shabbat eve and on Shabbat day.
The primary focus of this chapter is the elucidation of the parameters of the prohib-
ited labors of kindling and extinguishing, along with a discussion of precautionary
measures enacted to enable use of the light of an oil lamp on Shabbat.
Other related topics, including the mitzva of the Hanukkah lights, are discussed in
this chapter.
95
Perek II
Daf 20 Amud b
notes
This mishna cites a list of fuels and wicks that one may With what may one light and with what may one not light,
not use in kindling the Shabbat lights, either because etc. – יקין וכו׳ִ יקין ו ַּב ָּמה ֵאין ַמ ְד ִל
ִ ב ֶּמה ַמ ְד ִל:
ּ ַ Lighting the Shabbat
their use might induce one to perform a prohibited labor lamp with inferior wicks and oils, where the wick does not draw
on Shabbat or because they are not in keeping with the the oil properly, is prohibited because the purpose of this mitzva
is to utilize the light. If the light emitted by inferior wicks and oils
deference due Shabbat. The mishna begins by listing the
is weak and dim, the concern is that the person will abandon the
materials that one may not use as wicks. That is followed Shabbat lights, defeating their purpose, which is to enjoy their
by a list of the substances that one may not use as fuel. light (see Rambam).
Tow of combed flax – נְעֹורת ׁ ֶשל ּ ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתן:
ֶ According to the Gemara,
יקין ו ַּב ָּמ ה ֵא ין ִ מתני׳ ַ ּב ֶּמ ה ַמ ְד ִל
וְ ל ֹא,ַמ ְד ִל ִיקין? ֵאין ַמ ְד ִל ִיקין ל ֹא ְ ּב ֶל ֶכ ׁש
MISHNA With what may one light the Shab-
bat lamp, and with what may one
the verse from Isaiah: “And the strong [ĥason] shall be as tow
[ne’oret],” refers to processing the flax. In the course of that pro-
cess, the raw flax is combed to break down the fibrous core and
not light n it? With regard to types of prohibited wicks,h one
, וְ ל ֹא ִ ּב ְפ ִת ַילת ָה ִא ָידן, ְ וְ ל ֹא ְ ּב ָכ ָלך,חֹוסן
ֶ ְ ּב may light neither with cedar bast [lekhesh], nor with un- remove impurities. This is a metaphor for the wicked, who will
ירֹוקה ׁ ֶש ַעל
ָ וְ ל ֹא ִ ּב,וְ ל ֹא ִ ּב ְפ ִת ַילת ַה ִּמ ְד ָ ּבר undergo the same process and will ultimately be broken and
combed flax [ĥosen], nor with raw silk [kalakh],lb nor crushed (Jerusalem Talmud).
וְ ל ֹא, וְ ל ֹא ְ ּב ׁ ַש ֲעוָ ה, וְ ל ֹא ְ ּבזֶ ֶפת.ּ ְפנֵי ַה ַּמיִ ם with willow bast [petilat ha’idan], nor with desert weed
וְ ל ֹא,יפה ָ וְ ל ֹא ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶמן ְ ׂש ֵר,ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶמן ִקיק [petilat hamidbar], nor with green moss that is on the halakha
:אֹומר
ֵ נַ חוּם ַה ָּמ ִדי. וְ ל ֹא ְ ּב ֵח ֶלב,ְ ּב ַא ְליָ ה surface of the water. With regard to types of prohibited Disqualifications of wicks – פסו ֵּלי ּ ְפ ִתילֹות:ְ ּ One may not make
ְ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים,ַמ ְד ִל ִיקין ְ ּב ֵח ֶלב ְמבו ׁ ּ ָּשל
:אֹומ ִרים oils,h one may light neither with pitch [zefet], nor with wax wicks for Shabbat lamps from material that will cause the flames
[sha’ava], nor with castor oil [shemen kik], nor with burnt to jump and flicker, as explained in the mishna and Gemara, re-
ֶא ָחד ְמבו ׁ ּ ָּשל וְ ֶא ָחד ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ְמבו ׁ ּ ָּשל – ֵאין oil [shemen sereifa], nor with fat from a sheep’s tail [alya], gardless of where in the house they are lit. Even if the alterna-
.ַמ ְד ִל ִיקין ּבֹו nor with tallow [ĥelev]. Naĥum the Mede says: One may tive is not fulfilling the mitzva at all, one may not light with the
light with boiled tallow. And the Rabbis say: Both tallow wicks listed in the mishna (Peri Megadim; Rambam Sefer Zemanim,
Hilkhot Shabbat 5:5; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 264:1).
that was boiled and tallow that was not boiled, one may
not light with them. Disqualification of oils – פסוּל ׁ ְש ָמנִים:ְ ּ It is only permitted to light
Shabbat lamps using oil that is drawn easily by the wick, as per the
ֹוכא
ָ ׁש.ֹוכא דְּ ַא ְרזָ א
נִיתא
ָ “ל ֶכ ׁש״ – ׁש ֶ גמ׳
ָ דְּ ַא ְרזָ א ֵעץ ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא הוּא! ְ ּב ַע ְמ ָר
GEMARA
Most of the terms used in the mish-
na were not understood in Babylo-
list in the mishna. Even if the alternative is not fulfilling the mitzva
at all, one may not light with the oils listed in the mishna (Peri
Megadim; Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 5:8; Shulĥan
nia. Therefore, the Gemara translated and clarified them. We
.יה
ּ דְּ ִאית ֵ ּבlearned in the mishna that one may not light with lekhesh. Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 264:3).
– ׁ ַש ֲעוָ ה,יפ ָּתא ְ ִ זֶ ֶפת – ז.“וְ ל ֹא ְ ּבזֶ ֶפת״ And we learned in the mishna that one may not use zefet or
, ַעד ָּכאן – ּ ְפסוּל ּ ְפ ִתילֹות: ָּתנָ א.ִקירו ָּתא sha’ava as fuel in lighting the Shabbat lamp. The Gemara
יטא! ׁ ַש ֲעוָ ה
ָ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש.ִמ ָּכאן וְ ֵא ָילךְ – ּ ְפסוּל ׁ ְש ָמנִים explains that zefet is pitch, and sha’ava is wax. It was taught
in a baraita: Until this point, the word zefet, the mishna is
ִל ְפ ִתילֹות נַ ִמי:ימא ָ ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת,יה ּ ִאיצְ ְט ִר ָיכא ֵל dealing with disqualification of materials unfit for use as
. ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ָמע ָלן,ָלא ַחזְ יָ א wicks, and from this point on it is dealing with disqualifica-
tion of substances unfit for use as oils. The Gemara asks:
Obviously, a wick cannot be made from pitch and similar
materials. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the
mishna to mention wax, lest you say that it is also unfit for
use as a coating for wicks,h in the manner that wicks are
usually made. Therefore, it teaches us that even though wax
is unfit for use as oil, it is fit for use as coating for wicks.
סֹול ָתא
ְ ִע ְט ָרנָ א – ּ ְפ: ֲא ַמר ָר ִמי ַ ּבר ָא ִביןRami bar Avin said: Tar [itran] is the by-product of pitch.b
ְ ׁ ַש ֲעוָ ה – ּ ְפ, דְּ זִ ְיפ ָתאWhen wood is burned to extract pitch, a clearer liquid ooz-
.סֹול ָתא דְּ דו ְּב ׁ ָשא
es out after the pitch, and that is tar. Similarly, wax is the
by-product of honey.
Perek II
Daf 21 Amud a
halakha
. ְל ַמאי נָ ְפ ָקא ִמ ָּינ ּה? ְל ִמ ָ ּקח ו ִּמ ְמ ָּכרThe Gemara asks: What is the practical difference that
However, one may use them to make a bonfire – עֹושה ׂ ֶ ֲא ָבל
emerges from that which Rami bar Avin taught? The Ge-
מ ֶהן ְמדו ָּרה:ֵ It is permitted to light a bonfire for Shabbat using
all the materials that may not be used for making wicks for a
mara explains: Its significance is with regard to buying and
Shabbat lamp (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 3:19; selling. One who buys tar can insist upon receiving the
Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 255:1). by-product of pitch and no other material. The same is true
with regard to wax and honey.
יקין ִ “אין ַמ ְד ִל ֵ ָּכל ֵא ּל ּו ׁ ֶש ָא ְמר ּו:ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן The Sages taught in the Tosefta: With regard to all of those
ֵ ּבין,עֹושין ֵמ ֶהן ְמדו ָּרה ׂ ִ ָ ּב ֶהן ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת״ ֲא ָבל materials about which they said that one may not light the
,אֹורה ָ ְל ִה ְת ַח ֵּמם ְּכנֶ גְ ָד ּה ֵ ּבין ְל ִה ׁ ְש ַּת ֵּמ ׁש ְל lamp with them on Shabbat; however, one may use them
ab initio to make a bonfire.h One may do so both to warm
וְ ל ֹא,ֵ ּבין ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַק ְר ַקע ֵ ּבין ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ִּכ ָירה
himself opposite it and to utilize its light, and he may ig-
.ָא ְסר ּו ֶא ָּלא ַל ֲעשׂ ֹות ֵמ ֶהן ּ ְפ ִת ָילה ַל ֵּנר ִ ּב ְל ַבד nite it both on the ground and on a stove. They prohibited
using them only to make a wick for an oil lamp.
98 Perek II . 21a . אכ ףד. קרפ ׳ב
background
? ַמאי ׁ ֶש ֶמן ִקיק.“וְ ל ֹא ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶמן ִקיק וכו׳״ And we learned in the mishna that one may not light the Shabbat
lamp with kik oil. The Gemara asks: What is kik oil? Shmuel Castor plant – ק ָיקיֹון:ִ The castor plant, Ricinus communis
ׁ ְש ֵא ְיל ִּתינְ ה ּו ְל ָכל נְ חו ֵּתי:ֲא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל L., is a plant of diverse shapes. It can be an annual plant,
עֹוף ֶא ָחד יֵ ׁש ִ ּב ְכ ַר ֵּכי ַהּיָ ם:יַ ָּמא וַ ֲא ַמר ּו ִלי said: I asked all the seafarers, and they said to me that there is bush or tree. Its height ranges from 1–4 m. Its stalks are
a bird in the cities on the sea coast, and kik is its name. Kik oil erect and branch out at the top, with large leaves that are
יה דְּ ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ּ ַרב יִ צְ ָחק ְ ּב ֵר.וְ ִקיק ׁ ְשמֹו is produced from that bird. Rav Yitzĥak, son of Rav Yehuda, divided into finger-like lobes. Castor oil, used for medicinal
: ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש ָא ַמר. ִמ ׁ ְש ָחא דְּ ָקאזָ א:ָא ַמר said: This is referring to cotton oil. Reish Lakish said: It is the purposes, is produced from the seeds of the plant, which is
: ֲא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה.ִק ָיקיֹון דְּ יֹונָ ה oil made from the seed of a plant like the castor plant [kikayon]b cultivated for that purpose. The castor plant grew in many
לֹול ָיבא
ִ ְ וְ ִלצ,ְל ִד ִידי ֲחזִ י ִלי ִק ָיקיֹון דְּ יֹונָ ה of Jonah. Rabba bar bar Ĥana said: I have seen the species of countries, including Babylonia and Eretz Yisrael. In Aramaic,
it is called tzeloliva.
וְ ַעל ּפוּם ָחנו ָּתא, ו ִּמדִּ ְפ ׁ ְש ֵקי ָר ֵבי,דָּ ֵמי the castor plant of Jonah, and it is similar to the ricinus tree
,ידֹוהי ָע ְב ִדי ִמ ׁ ְש ָחא ִ ִ ו ִּמ ּ ַפ ְרצ,יה
ּ ַמ ְד ָלן יָ ֵת and it grows in swamps, and they place it at the entrance of
shops for shade, and they produce oil from its seeds, and all the
.יחי דְּ ַמ ַע ְר ָבא ֵ יחן ָּכל ְ ּב ִר
ָ ְפֹוהי נַי
ִ ְו ְּב ַענ
sick people of the West, Eretz Yisrael, rest beneath its branches.
“איןֵ ּ ְפ ִתילֹות ׁ ֶש ָא ְמר ּו ֲח ָכ ִמים:ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה Rabba said: Those wicks about which the Sages said one may
יקין ָ ּב ֶהן ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת״ – ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ָהאוּר ִ ַמ ְד ִל not light with them on Shabbat, the reason is: Because the fire
ׁ ְש ָמנִים ׁ ֶש ָא ְמר ּו ֲח ָכ ִמים,ְמ ַס ְכ ֶס ֶכת ָ ּב ֶהן flickers on them. It sputters on the wick and does not burn well.
Those oils with which the Sages said that one may not light on
“אין ַמ ְד ִל ִיקין ָ ּב ֶהן״ – ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ֵאין נִ ְמ ׁ ָש ִכיןֵ
Shabbat, the reason is: Because they are not drawn effectively
.ַא ַחר ַה ּ ְפ ִת ָילה by the wick.
ׁ ְש ָמנִים ׁ ֶש ָא ְמר ּו:ֵיה ַא ַ ּביֵ י ֵמ ַר ָ ּבה
ּ ְ ּב ָעא ִמ ּינ Abaye raised a dilemma before Rabba: Those oils with which
ַמה ּו,ֲח ָכ ִמים ֵאין ַמ ְד ִל ִיקין ָ ּב ֶהן ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת the Sages said one may not light on Shabbat, what is the ruling?
תֹוכן ׁ ֶש ֶמן ָּכל ׁ ֶשהוּא וְ יַ ְד ִליק? ִמי ָ ׁ ֶשּיִ ֵּתן ְל May one, ab initio, add to them any amount of oilh with which
it is permissible to light and light with that mixture? The sides of
,ּלֹוקי ְ ּב ֵעינַיְ יהו ֵ ָ ּגזְ ִרינַן דִּ ְיל ָמא ָא ֵתי ְל ַא ְד
the dilemma are: Do we issue a decree lest one come to light
ַמאי.יקין ִ ֵאין ַמ ְד ִל:יה ּ אֹו ל ֹא? ָא ַמר ֵל these oils in their natural form, without mixing them with per-
.ַט ְע ָמא; ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַמ ְד ִל ִיקין missible oils? Or no, that possibility is not a source of concern?
Rabba said to him: One may not light that mixture. What is the
reason for this? The reason is because the halakha is that one
may not light (Arukh).n Castor plant
ִיח ּה
ָ נֵ ר ֲחנו ָּּכה ִמצְ וָ ה ְל ַה ּנ:ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן The Sages taught in a baraita: It is a mitzva to place the Hanuk-
ִאם ָהיָ ה דָּ ר.ַעל ּ ֶפ ַתח ֵ ּביתֹו ִמ ַ ּבחוּץ kah lamp at the entrance to one’s househ on the outside, so
ִיח ּה ַ ּב ַח ּלֹון ַה ְּסמו ָּכה ָ ַ ּב ֲע ִלּיָ יה – ַמ ּנ that all can see it. If he lived upstairs, he places it at the window
adjacent to the public domain. And in a time of danger,b when
– ו ִּב ׁ ְש ַעת ַה ַּס ָּכנָ ה.ִל ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים
the gentiles issued decrees to prohibit kindling lights, he places
. וְ ַדּיֹו,ִיח ּה ַעל ׁ ֻש ְל ָחנֹו
ָ ַמ ּנ it on the table and that is sufficient to fulfill his obligation.
צָ ִריךְ נֵ ר ַא ֶח ֶרת ְל ִה ׁ ְש ַּת ֵּמ ׁש:ָא ַמר ָר ָבא Rava said: One must kindle another light in addition to the
, ְ וְ ִאי ִא ָּיכא ְמדו ָּרה – ָלא צְ ִריך.אֹורה ָ ְל Hanukkah lights in order to use its light,h as it is prohibited to
ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב,וְ ִאי ָא ָדם ָח ׁשוּב הוּא use the light of the Hanukkah lights. And if there is a bonfire,
he need not light an additional light, as he can use the light of
.יכא ְמדו ָּרה – צָ ִריךְ נֵ ר ַא ֶח ֶרת ָּ דְּ ִא the bonfire. However, if he is an important person, who is
unaccustomed to using the light of a bonfire, even though there
is a bonfire, he must kindle another light.
background
In a time of danger – ב ׁ ְש ַעת ַה ַּס ָּכנָ ה:
ּ ִ Dangerous times are fire from their temples to the homes of their worshippers.
defined as periods of religious persecution, when it is de- At those times, they prohibited lighting fires anywhere out-
creed that the Jewish people may not observe the mitzvot. side the temples (Tosafot). Since the ĥabarim had significant
However, some commentaries explain that the dangerous influence on the authorities and the violators whom they
times in this context are the occasions when the Zoroastrian reported were severely punished, the Jews dared not kindle
priests of the Persian fire religion, the ĥabarim, passed the lights that could be seen from the street.
נַע ָ ׂשהֲ ,ָהיָ ה ּבֹו ֶא ָּלא ְל ַה ְד ִליק יֹום ֶא ָחד crusen of oil that was placed with the seal of the High Priest, un- And found only one cruse – וְ ל ֹא ָמצְ א ּו ֶא ָּלא ּ ַפ ְך ֶא ָחד:
ְל ׁ ָשנָ ה.ּבֹו נֵס וְ ִה ְד ִליק ּו ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ׁ ְשמֹונָ ה יָ ִמים disturbed by the Greeks. And there was sufficient oil there to light According to the fundamental halakha, kindling the
the candelabrum for only one day. A miracle occurred and they Temple candelabrum with impure oil is permitted. In-
טֹובים ִ ַא ֶח ֶרת ְק ָבע ּום וַ ֲע ָ ׂשא ּום יָ ִמים deed, if the majority of the Jews are impure, Temple
lit the candelabrum from it eight days.n The next year the Sages
ָ ְְ ּב ַה ֵּלל ו
.הֹוד ָאה instituted those days and made them holidaysn with recitation of
service may be performed in a state of ritual impurity.
Furthermore, impure oil may be used in the offering of
hallel and special thanksgiving in prayer and blessings. the daily sacrifices. Therefore, the miracle, which made
it unnecessary to use impure oil, demonstrates the great
ֵ ּגץ ַהּיֹוצֵ א ִמ ַּת ַחת ַה ּ ַפ ִּט ׁיש וְ יָ צָ א:ְּתנַן ָה ָתם We learned there in a mishna with regard to damages: In the case love that God has for His people, Israel (Penei Yehoshua).
וְ הוּא, ָ ּג ָמל ׁ ֶש ָּטעוּן ּ ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתן.וְ ִהּזִ יק – ַחּיָ יב of a spark that emerges from under a hammer, and went out of
Eight days – שמֹונָ ה יָ ִמים:
ְ ׁ Some commentaries ask:
וְ נִ ְכנְ ָסה ּ ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתנֹו,עֹובר ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים
ֵ the artisan’s workshop, and caused damage, the one who struck the Why couldn’t a supply of pure oil have been procured
hammer is liable. Similarly, in the case of a camel that is laden with sooner? They answer that the pure oil came from Tekoa,
,תֹוך ַה ֲחנוּת וְ ָד ְל ָקה ְ ּבנֵ רֹו ׁ ֶשל ֶחנְ וָ נִי ְ ְל
flaxh and it passed through the public domain, and its flax entered in the tribal territory of Asher, in the upper Galilee, and
.וְ ִה ְד ִליק ֶאת ַה ִ ּב ָירה – ַ ּב ַעל ַה ָ ּג ָמל ַחּיָ יב into a store, and caught fire from the storekeeper’s lamp, and set the round trip from Jerusalem took eight days (ge’onim).
.ִה ּנ ִַיח ֶחנְ וָ נִי ֶאת נֵ רֹו ִמ ַ ּבחוּץ – ֶחנְ וָ נִי ַחּיָ יב fire to the building, the camel owner is liable. Since his flax en- Others say that all the Jews were ritually impure from
tered into another’s domain, which he had no permission to enter, contact with corpses, and therefore they were required
to wait seven days to complete the purification process
all the damages were caused due to his negligence. However, if the (Rabbi Eliyahu Mizraĥi).
storekeeper placed his lamp outside the store and it set fire to the
flax, the storekeeper is liable, as he placed the lamp outside his The next year the Sages instituted it and made those
days holidays – טֹובים ִ ל ׁ ָשנָ ה ַא ֶח ֶרת ְק ָבעוּם וַ ֲע ָ ׂשאוּם יָ ִמים:ְ
domain where he had no right to place it.
Since there was sufficient oil to burn for one day, the
miracle lasted only seven days. Why, then, is Hanukkah
ָא ַמר. ְ ּבנֵ ר ֲחנו ָּּכה ּ ָפטוּר:אֹומר ֵ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה Rabbi Yehuda says: If the flax was set on fire by the storekeeper’s celebrated for eight days? Many answers have been
ֶ זֹאת,)(מ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ַר ָ ּבה
נֵ ר:אֹומ ֶרת ִ ָר ִבינָ א Hanukkah lamp that he placed outside the entrance to his store, he suggested. Rabbi Yosef Karo maintained that only one-
דְּ ִאי.נִיח ּה ְ ּבתֹוךְ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה
ָ ֲחנו ָּּכה ִמצְ וָ ה ַל ֲה is not liable, as in that case, it is permitted for the storekeeper to eighth of the oil burned on the first day, so it was imme-
place his lamp outside. Ravina said in the name of Rabba: That is diately clear that a miracle had been performed (Beit Yo-
ימא ָ ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָת ְך ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ֵמ ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה – ֵל sef ). Others explained that, from the outset, the priests
to say that it is a mitzva to place the Hanukkah lamp within tenh
ְ ְ ָהיָה ְלךָ ְל ַה ּנ ִַיח ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ִמ ָ ּג ָמל ו:יה
!רֹוכבֹו ּ ֵל handbreadths of the ground. As if it should enter your mind to say placed only one-eighth of the oil from the cruse in the
candelabrum, and it miraculously burned all day (Me’iri).
יה טו ָּבא ָא ֵתי ּ יט ְר ָחא ֵל ְ ִאי ִמ:וְ ִד ְיל ָמא that he may place it above ten handbreadths, why is the store- Yet others suggested that Hanukkah commemorates
.נֹועי ִמ ִּמצְ וָ ה
ֵ ימ ְ ְל ִא keeper exempt? Let the camel owner say to the storekeeper: You two miracles; first, the discovery of the cruse of pure
should have placed the lamp above the height of a camel and its oil on the first day, and second, the fact that it lasted
rider, and then no damage would have been caused. By failing to seven additional days (She’erit Kenesset HaGedola). There
do so, the storekeeper caused the damage, and the camel owner is also an opinion that the eight days commemorate the
should not be liable. The Gemara rejects this: And perhaps one is reinstitution of the mitzva of circumcision, banned by
the Greeks, which is performed on the eighth day after
also permitted to place the Hanukkah lamp above ten handbreadths,
birth (Sefer HaItim).
and the reason Rabbi Yehuda exempted the storekeeper was due to
concern for the observance of the mitzva of kindling Hanukkah
lights. He held that if you burden one excessively, he will come to
refrain from performing the mitzva of kindling Hanukkah lights.
Since the storekeeper placed the Hanukkah lamp outside at the
behest of the Sages, the storekeeper should not be required to take
extra precautions.
דָּ ַר ׁש ַרב נָ ָתן ַ ּבר ַמנְיו ִּמי, ָא ַמר ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ אWith regard to the essence of the matter Rav Kahana said that Rav
ּ ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמNatan bar Manyumi taught in the name of Rabbi Tanĥum:
:יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ַּתנְ חוּם
halakha
The days of Hanukkah…one may not eulogize on them, etc. – store, as the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of
יֹומי דַּ ֲחנו ָּּכה…דְּ ָלא ְל ִמ ְס ּ ַפד ְ ּבהֹון וכו׳:
ֵ Hanukkah is a time of joy and Rabbi Yehuda, who said that the storekeeper is exempt in the case
celebration, as well as a time for offering praise and thanks to God. of a Hanukkah lamp (Rambam Sefer Nezikin, Hilkhot Nizkei Mamon
Therefore, it is prohibited to eulogize the deceased and to fast 14:13; Shulĥan Arukh, Ĥoshen Mishpat 418:12).
on Hanukkah (Megillat Ta’anit). However, performing labors that
are prohibited on Shabbat is permitted on Hanukkah (Rambam
It is a mitzva to place the Hanukkah lamp within ten – נֵ ר ֲחנו ָּּכה
Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Megilla VaĤanukka 3:3; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ
תֹוך ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה
ְ נִיח ּה ְ ּב
ָ מצְ וָ ה ַל ֲה:ִ It is a mitzva to place the Hanukkah
Ĥayyim 670:1).
lamp within ten handbreadths of the ground, in accordance with
Camel laden with flax – ָ ּג ָמל ׁ ֶש ָּטעוּן ּ ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתן: If a camel walks down the opinion of Rava. Although no support was cited for his state-
a street with a load of flax that is so wide that it protrudes into ment, his opinion is reasonable. If one placed the lamp above ten
a store and catches fire from the storekeeper’s lamp and causes handbreadths, he fulfilled the mitzva, as long as he did not place
damage, the owner of the camel is liable. If the lamp is in the street it above twenty cubits. One who lives on the second floor may
in front of the store, then the storekeeper is liable for the damage, place the Hanukkah lamp in a window ab initio, even though it is
including the damage to the flax on the camel’s back. This ruling above ten handbreadths (Magen Avraham; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ
also applies to a Hanukkah lamp adjacent to the entrance of the Ĥayyim 671:6).
ִיח ּה ְל ַמ ֲע ָלה ֵמ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים ָ נֵ ר ׁ ֶשל ֲחנו ָּּכה ׁ ֶש ִה ּנ A Hanukkah lamp that one placed above twenty cubitsh is invalid,
וְ ָא ַמר ַרב. ְּכסו ָּּכה ו ְּכ ָמבֹוי,ַא ָּמה – ּ ְפסו ָּלה just as a sukka whose roofing is more than twenty cubits high, and just
יה דְּ ַרב ּ דָּ ַר ׁש ַרב נָ ָתן ַ ּבר ַמנְיו ִּמי ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ,ָּכ ֲהנָ א as an alleyway whose beam, its symbolic fourth partition in order to
place an eiruv, is more than twenty cubits high, are invalid. The reason
. “וְ ַה ּבֹור ֵרק ֵאין ּבֹו ָמיִ ם״: ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב,ַּתנְ חוּם
is the same in all three cases: People do not usually raise their heads and
יֹוד ַע ׁ ֶש ֵאין
ֵ “וְ ַה ּבֹור ֵרק״ ֵאינִי:ִמ ַּמ ׁ ְש ַמע ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר see objects at a height above twenty cubits. As there is a requirement to
“אין ּבֹו ֵ :לֹומר ַ ּבֹו ַמיִ ם? ֶא ָּלא ַמה ַּת ְלמוּד see all of these, they are deemed invalid when placed above that height.
ֲא ָבל נְ ָח ׁ ִשים וְ ַע ְק ַר ִ ּבים,ָמיִ ם״ – ַמיִ ם ֵאין ּבֹו And the Gemara cites another statement that Rav Kahana said that Rav
.יֵ ׁש ּבֹו Natan bar Manyumi taught in the name of Rav Tanĥum: What is the
meaning of the verse that is written with regard to Joseph: “And they
took him, and cast him into the pit; and the pit was empty, there was
no water in it” (Genesis 37:24)? By inference from that which is
stated: And the pit was empty, don’t I know that there was no water
in it? Rather, why does the verse say: There was no water in it? The
verse comes to emphasize and teach that there was no water in it, but
there were snakes and scorpions in it.
נִיח ּה ְ ּב ֶט ַפח
ָ נֵ ר ֲחנו ָּּכה ִמצְ וָ ה ַל ֲה:ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה Rabba said: It is a mitzva to place the Hanukkah lamp within the
יה? ַרב ַא ָחא ּ יכא ַמ ַּנח ֵל ָ וְ ֵה.ַה ְּסמו ָּכה ַל ּ ֶפ ַתח handbreadth adjacent to the entrance. The Gemara asks: And where,
ַרב ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ִמדִּ ְפ ִּתי, ִמּיָ ִמין:יה דְּ ָר ָבא ָא ַמר ּ ְ ּב ֵר on which side, does he place it? There is a difference of opinion: Rav
Aĥa, son of Rava, said: On the right side of the entrance. Rav Shmuel
ְּכ ֵדי, וְ ִה ְיל ְכ ָתא – ִמ ּ ְ ׂשמֹאל. ִמ ּ ְ ׂשמֹאל:ָא ַמר
from Difti said: On the left.h And the halakha is to place it on the left
.ׁ ֶש ְּת ֵהא נֵ ר ֲחנו ָּּכה ִמ ּ ְ ׂשמֹאל ו ְּמזוּזָ ה ִמּיָ ִמין so that the Hanukkah lamp will be on the leftn and the mezuza on
the right. One who enters the house will be surrounded by mitzvot
(ge’onim).
ָאסוּר:ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ִסי ָא ַמר ַרב Rav Yehuda said that Rav Asi said that Rav said: It is prohibited to
ית ּה ָ ִּכי ָא ְמ ִר.ְל ַה ְרצֹות ָמעֹות ְּכנֶ גֶ ד נֵ ר ֲחנו ָּּכה count moneyn opposite a Hanukkah light.h Rav Yehuda relates: When
וְ ִכי נֵ ר ְקדו ׁ ּ ָּשה יֵ ׁש: ֲא ַמר ִלי,יה דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ּ ַק ֵּמ I said this halakha before Shmuel, he said to me: Does the Hanukkah
light have sanctityn that would prohibit one from using its light? Rav
וְ ִכי ָדם ְקדו ׁ ּ ָּשה יֵ ׁש:יֹוסף ֵ ָ ּב ּה! ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ַרב
Yosef strongly objected to this question: What kind of question is that;
“וְ ׁ ָש ַפ ְך וְ ִכ ָּסה״ – ַ ּב ֶּמה ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ַפ ְך:ּבֹו? דְּ ַתנְ יָ א does the blood of a slaughtered undomesticated animal or fowl have
ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא יְ ה ּו ִמצְ וֹת, ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא יְ ַכ ֶּסנּ ּו ָ ּב ֶרגֶ ל,יְ ַכ ֶּסה sanctity? As it was taught in a baraita that the Sages interpreted the
ָה ָכא נַ ִמי – ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא יְ ה ּו ִמצְ �ֹות.ְ ּבזוּיֹות ָע ָליו verse: “He shall spill its blood and cover it with dust” (Leviticus 17:13):
.ְ ּבזוּיֹות ָע ָליו With that which he spilled, he shall cover. Just as a person spills the
blood of a slaughtered animal with his hand, so too, he is obligated to
cover the blood with this hand and not cover it with his foot. The
reason is so that mitzvot will not be contemptible to him. Here too,
one should treat the Hanukkah lights as if they were sacred and refrain
from utilizing them for other purposes, so that mitzvot will not be
contemptible to him.
halakha
Hanukkah lamp that one placed above twenty cubits – נֵ ר ׁ ֶשל ֲחנו ָּּכה left side of the door. In the synagogue, the Hanukkah lamp is placed
ִיח ּה ְל ַמ ֲע ָלה ִמ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים ַא ָּמה
ָ ש ִה ּנ:
ֶ ׁ One who places the Hanukkah lamp more along the southern wall or on a table adjacent to that wall (Rambam
than twenty cubits, 9–12 m, off the ground does not fulfill the mitzva Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Megilla VaĤanukka 4:7; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ
(Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Megilla VaĤanukka 4:7; Shulĥan Arukh, Ĥayyim 671:7).
Oraĥ Ĥayyim 671:6).
It is prohibited to count money opposite a Hanukkah light – ָאסוּר
It is a mitzva to place the Hanukkah lamp in the handbreadth ל ַה ְרצֹות ָמעֹות ְּכנֶ גֶ ד נֵ ר ֲחנו ָּּכה:ְ One may not use the light emanating from
adjacent to the entrance…on the left – נִיח ּה ְ ּב ֶט ַפח ָ נֵ ר ֲחנו ָּּכה ִמצְ וָ ה ַל ֲה the Hanukkah lights for any purpose, even for an inconsequential
ח…מ ּ ְ ׂשמֹאל
ִ ה ְּסמו ָּכה ַל ּ ֶפ ַת:ַ When lighting the Hanukkah lamp outside the one like counting money (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Megilla
house, it is a mitzva to place it within one handbreadth adjacent to the VaĤanukka 4:6; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 673:1).
notes
The Hanukkah lamp will be on the left – נֵ ר ֲחנו ָּּכה ִמ ּ ְ ׂשמֹאל: Since phylacteries, and the like, have inherent sanctity, unlike items used to
the Temple candelabrum was on the left side of the Sanctuary, the perform a mitzva. The principle is as follows: Sanctified items no longer
Hanukkah lamp is placed on the left side as well (Rabbi Elazar Moshe in use maintain their sanctity and must be buried. However, items
Horowitz). used to perform a mitzva may be discarded. On that basis, Shmuel
expressed surprise when the Gemara insists that Hanukkah lights be
To count money – ל ַה ְרצֹות ָמעֹות:ְ The Gemara cites this example be-
treated with the level of respect usually reserved for sacred items. Rav
cause it is a negligible use of the Hanukkah lights that does not dimin-
Yosef answered that while a mitzva is still being fulfilled, one must
ish their sanctity. Nevertheless, it is prohibited (Ran).
treat the items used for the mitzva with added deference, despite the
Does the Hanukkah light have sanctity – וְ ִכי נֵ ר ְקדו ׁ ּ ָּשה ׁיֵש ָ ּב ּה: In prin- fact that they do not retain their sanctity after the fulfillment of the
ciple, the sanctity of the vessels used in the Temple, i.e., a Torah scroll, mitzva (Ramban).
,יט ָר ּה ִ ּב ְק ָר ִמים ו ִּב ְס ִדינִין ַה ְמצוּּיָ ִיריןְּ וְ ִע baraita, and the prohibition to enjoy use of the Hanukkah lights was not
taught in a baraita at all. As it was taught in a Tosefta in tractate Sukka: With halakha
וְ ָת ָלה ָ ּב ּה ֱאגֹוזִ ים ֲא ַפ ְר ְס ִקין ׁ ְש ֵק ִדים
regard to one who roofed the sukka in accordance with its halakhic require- One who roofed the sukka in accordance
וַ ֲע ָטרֹות ׁ ֶשל,וְ ִר ּמֹונִים ו ַּפ ְר ִּכ ֵילי ֲענָ ִבים with its halakhic requirements and decorat-
ments, and decorated it with colorful curtainsh and sheets, and hung in it
– (של) ׁ ְש ָמנִים ו ְּס ָלתֹות ֶ ׁ יֵ ינֹות,ׁ ִש ֳ ּב ִלים ornamental nuts, peaches, almonds, and pomegranates, and grape branch- ed it with colorful curtains – ,ִס ְּכ ָכ ּה ְּכ ִה ְל ָכ ָת ּה
ְּ וְ ִע: No sukka decorations may be
יט ָר ּה ִ ּב ְק ָר ִמים
ָאסוּר ְל ִה ְס ַּת ּ ֵפק ֵמ ֶהן ַעד מֹוצָ ֵאי יֹום es [parkilei],l and wreaths of stalks of grain, wines, oils, and vessels full of used for any other purpose during the festival
וְ ִאם ִה ְתנָ ה,טֹוב ָה ַא ֲחרֹון ׁ ֶשל ָח ג flour, it is prohibited to use them until the conclusion of the last day of the of Sukkot. If one explicitly stipulated prior to
ֶא ָּלא ֲא ַמר.יהן – ַה ּכֹל ְל ִפי ְּתנָ אֹו ֶ ֲע ֵל Festival. And, if before he hung the decorations he stipulated with regard to the beginning of the Festival that he will use
. ֲאבוּהֹון דְּ כו ְּּלה ּו דָּ ם:יֹוסף ֵ ַרב them that he will be permitted to use them even during the Festival, every- the decorations for a different purpose dur-
thing is according to his stipulation, and he is permitted to use them. In any ing the Festival (Rema), that use is permitted.
case, since the prohibition to benefit from the Hanukkah light is not explic- Later commentaries wrote that the custom
today is to refrain from making such stipula-
itly taught, a proof should not be cited from there to resolve the dilemma with tions (Magen Avraham). In general, the custom
regard to sukka decorations. Rather, Rav Yosef said: There is no need to bring is to refrain from using the decorations hang-
a proof for the halakhot of sukka from the Hanukkah light. Rather, the para- ing from the roofing of the sukka; however,
digm of them all is blood. The verse with regard to the covering of the blood ornaments hanging on the sukka walls may be
of slaughter is the original source from which the prohibition to treat mitzvot used without prior stipulation. Nevertheless, it
with contempt is derived. is preferable to stipulate with regard to those
decorations as well (Rema), as per the baraita
ֵאין ַמ ְד ִל ִיקין ִמ ֵּנר: ַרב ָא ַמר,ית ַמר ְּ ִא It was stated in a dispute between amora’im that Rav said: One may not light (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Sukka 6:16;
from one Hanukkah lamp to another lamp. And Shmuel said: One may light Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 638:2).
ַרב.יקין ִ ַמ ְד ִל: ּו ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ָא ַמר,ְל ֵּנר
, ֵאין ַמ ִּת ִירין צִ יצִ ית ִמ ֶ ּבגֶ ד ְל ֶבגֶ ד:ָא ַמר in that manner. The Gemara cites additional disputes between Rav and Shmu- One may light from lamp to lamp – ַמ ְד ִל ִיקין
el. Rav said: One may not untie ritual fringes from one garment in order to מ ֵּנר ְל ֵּנר:ִ Lighting one Hanukkah lamp directly
. ַמ ִּת ִירין ִמ ֶ ּבגֶ ד ְל ֶבגֶ ד:ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל ָא ַמר from another is permitted. However, one may
affix them to another garment. And Shmuel said: One may untie them from
ֵאין ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון:ַרב ָא ַמר one garment and affix them to another garment. And Rav said: The halakha not kindle one Hanukkah lamp from another
by means of a non-Hanukkah lamp, as Shmuel
ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי: ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל ָא ַמר,ִ ּבגְ ִר ָירה is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the case of drag- agrees that when there is an action that dis-
.ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ִ ּבגְ ִר ָירה ging, as Rabbi Shimon permitted dragging objects on Shabbat, even if, as a plays contempt for the mitzva, it is prohibited.
result, a furrow would be dug in the ground, as it was not the person’s intent Others hold that Shmuel would permit lighting
to dig that hole. Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with the from one lamp to another even under those cir-
opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the case of dragging. cumstances, as he rejected both explanations
of Rav’s opinion (Taz). Currently, the custom is
,ילי דְּ ָמר ָע ֵביד ְּכ ַרב ֵּ ָּכל ִמ:ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י Abaye said: In all halakhic matters of the Master, Rabba, he conducted to be stringent with Hanukkah lights and to
himself in accordance with the opinion of Rav, except these three where refrain from lighting one lamp from another
:ְל ַבר ֵמ ָהנֵי ְּת ָלת דְּ ָע ֵביד ִּכ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל
he conducted himself in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. He ruled: because the basic mitzva is to light just one
ו ַּמ ִּת ִירין ִמ ֶ ּבגֶ ד,יקין ִמ ֵּנר ַל ֵּנר ִ ַמ ְד ִל light, while the rest of the lights serve merely
One may light from one Hanukkah lamp to another lamp,h and one may
. וַ ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ִ ּבגְ ִר ָירה,ְל ֶבגֶ ד to enhance the mitzva. Therefore, lighting one
untie ritual fringes from garment to garment,h and the halakha is in ac- lamp from another involves contempt for the
גּ ֵֹורר ָא ָדם:אֹומרֵ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון:דְּ ַתנְיָא cordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the case of dragging.h As it mitzva (Rema; Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot
ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא,ִמ ָּטה ִּכ ֵּסא וְ ַס ְפ ָסל was taught in a baraita, Rabbi Shimon says: A person may drag a bed, chair, Megilla VaĤanukka 4:9; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ
.יִ ְת ַּכ ֵּוין ַל ֲע ׂשֹות ָח ִריץ and bench on the ground, as long as he does not intend to make a furrow Ĥayyim 674:1).
in the ground. Even if a furrow is formed inadvertently, one need not be One may untie from garment to garment –
concerned. מ ִּת ִירין ִמ ֶ ּבגֶ ד ְל ֶבגֶ ד:ַ It is permitted to remove rit-
ual fringes from one garment only in order to
יה דְּ ַרב ַאדָּ א ּ יְ ֵתיב ַההוּא ֵמ ַר ָ ּבנַן ַק ֵּמ One of the Sages sat before Rav Adda bar Ahava, and he sat and said: The attach them to a different garment (Magen
ַט ְע ָמא: וְ יָ ֵתיב וְ ָק ָא ַמר,ַ ּבר ַא ֲה ָבה reason for the opinion of Rav, who prohibited lighting from one Hanukkah Avraham), as per Shmuel’s statement and Rab-
:ּ ֲא ַמר ְלהו.דְּ ַרב – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ִ ּביּזוּי ִמצְ וָ ה lamp to another, is due to contempt for the mitzva. Using the light for a ba’s custom (Rambam Sefer Ahava Hilkhot Tzitzit
purpose other than illumination demeans the mitzva of Hanukkah lights. Rav 1:13; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 15:1).
יה דְּ ַרב – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ּ ַט ְע ֵמ,יה ּ ָלא ַּתצִ ית ּו ֵל Adda bar Ahava said to his students: Do not listen to him, as the reason for The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi
?ּ ַמאי ֵ ּבינַיְ יהו.דְּ ָקא ַמ ְכ ִח ׁיש ִמצְ וָ ה Rav’s opinion is due to the fact that he thereby weakens the mitzva. By light- Shimon in the case of dragging – ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי
דְּ ָקא ַמ ְד ִליק ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ָרגָ א:ּיכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יהו ָּ ִא ing from lamp to lamp he slightly diminishes the oil and wick designated for ש ְמעֹון ִ ּבגְ ִר ָירה:
ִ ׁ It is permitted to drag even
ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ִמ ׁ ּש ּום ִ ּביּז ּוי.ִל ׁ ְש ָרגָ א the purpose of the mitzva. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference large objects, e.g., a bed or a bench, across
the ground on Shabbat so long as he does
,ִמצְ וָ ה – ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ָרגָ א ִל ׁ ְש ָר ָ ּגא ַמ ְד ִליק between them? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them
not intend thereby to create a furrow in the
– חֹושי ִמצְ וָ ה ֵ ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַא ְכ is in a case where he lights directly from lamp to lamp, without using a wood ground. If creation of a furrow is an inevitable
chip or another lamp to light the second lamp. According to the one who said consequence [pesik reishei] of his action, it is
.ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ָרגָ א ִל ׁ ְש ָר ָ ּגא נַ ִמי ָאסוּר
that Rav’s reason is due to contempt for the mitzva, directly from lamp to prohibited to drag that object (Magen Avraham;
lamp he may even light ab initio, as, by lighting another Hanukkah lamp, he Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 1:5;
does not thereby demean the sanctity of the mitzva because the second lamp Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 337:1).
is also a mitzva. According to the one who said that Rav’s reason is because
he weakens the mitzva, lighting directly from lamp to lamp is also prohib- language
ited, as ultimately he utilizes the mitzva lamp for a task that he could have Branches [ parkilei ] – ילי
ֵ פ ְר ִּכ:ַ ּ The origin
accomplished with a non-sacred lamp. of this word appears to be from the Greek
φραγέλλιον, phragellion, from the Latin fla-
ֶס ַלע ׁ ֶשל: ֵמ ִתיב ַרב ָאוְ יָ אRav Avya raised an objection from that which was taught in a Tosefta: A sela of gellum, meaning young, soft branches
. ִּת ְר ְ ּג ָמא ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא ִ ּב ְפ ִתילֹות ֲארו ּּכֹותRav Pappa explained that it need not necessarily be understood that
ֵ ׁ ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַא ְכ, סֹוף סֹוףway. Rather, there were long wicks in the candelabrum, which made
חֹושי
. ִמצְ וָ ה ַק ׁ ְשיָ א! ַק ׁ ְשיָ אit possible to reach and light directly from one lamp to another. How-
h
ever, ultimately, according to the one who said that one may not light
from lamp to lamp due to weakening the mitzva, it is difficult. The
Gemara concludes: Indeed, the question remains difficult.
halakha
The second tithe, one may not weigh gold dinars with it – Lighting the Temple candelabrum – נֹורת ַה ִמ ְקדָּ ש
ַ ה ְד ָל ָקה ִ ּב ְמ:ַ
מ ֲע ֵ ׂשר ׁ ֵשנִי ֵאין ׁש ְֹוק ִלין ְּכנֶ גְ דֹו דִּ נְ ֵרי זָ ָהב:ַ The coins used to redeem the The priests kindle the lamps in the Temple candelabrum from
second tithe may not be utilized as weights to ascertain the the westernmost lamp by pulling the wick of the unlit lamp to
weight of other coins, even if one plans to use those coins to re- the burning westernmost lamp, kindling it, and restoring the
deem other second-tithe produce (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot wick to its place (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Temidin UMusafin
Temple candelabrum Ma’aser Sheni VeNeta Revai 3:19). 3:14).
Perek II
Daf 23 Amud a
halakha
הֹול ֶכת ֶ ְֹול ֶקת ו ֶ ֲּע ׁ ָש ׁ ִשית ׁ ֶש ָה יְ ָתה ד A lantern that continued to burnh the entire day of Shabbat, at the conclu-
Lantern that continued to burn, etc. – ֲע ׁ ָש ׁ ִשית
ְלמֹוצָ ֵאי ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ְמ ַכ ָ ּבה,ָּכל ַהּיֹום ּכו ּּלֹו sion of Shabbat one extinguishes it and lights it again as a Hanukkah light.
הֹול ֶכת וכו׳
ֶ ְש ָהיְ ָתה דּ ֶֹול ֶקת ו:
ֶ ׁ One who wants to ful-
ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ַה ְד ָל ָקה.ו ַּמ ְד ִל ָיק ּה Granted, if you say that lighting accomplishes the mitzva, the requirement fill his obligation with a lantern or lamp that was
to extinguish the lantern and relight it in order to fulfill the mitzva of kin- burning during the day must first extinguish it
ֶא ָּלא ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת.עֹושה ִמצְ וָ ה – ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר ָׂ
dling the Hanukkah light works out well. However, if you say that placing and then relight it as a Hanukkah light. The rul-
“מ ַכ ָ ּב ּה ְ ַהאי,עֹושה ִמצְ וָ ה ָׂ ַה ָּנ ָחה accomplishes the mitzva, this statement, which stated that one extin- ing in the dispute in the Gemara is: The mitzva
ִיח ּה ָ יה ּה ו ַּמ ּנ ָ “מ ַכ ָ ּב ּה ו ַּמגְ ִ ּב ְ ?ו ַּמ ְד ִל ָיק ּה״ guishes it and lights it, is imprecise. According to this opinion, it needed is accomplished by lighting the lights, as per the
ִמדְּ ָקא,יה! וְ עֹוד ּ יב ֵעי ֵל ּ ָ ו ַּמ ְד ִל ָיק ּה״ ִמ to say: One extinguishes it and lifts it from its place and sets it down and opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi (Rambam
Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Megilla VaĤanukka 4:9;
“א ׁ ֶשר ִק ְד ׁ ָשנ ּו ְ ּב ִמצְ ו ָֹתיו וְ צִ ָּונ ּו ֲ ְמ ָב ְר ִכינַן lights it, as only by placing the lamp in an appropriate place could one
Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 675:1).
:ְל ַה ְד ִליק נֵ ר ׁ ֶשל ֲחנו ָּּכה״ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה fulfill the mitzva of the Hanukkah light. Furthermore, there is additional
proof that lighting accomplishes the mitzva. From the fact that we recite
. ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה,עֹושה ִמצְ וָ ה ׂ ָ ַה ְד ָל ָקה
the following blessing over the mitzva of kindling the Hanukkah light: Who
has made us holy through His commandments and has commanded us
to light the Hanukkah light, the Gemara suggests: Conclude from this
that lighting accomplishes the mitzva, as it is over lighting that one recites
the blessing. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from this.
גכ ףד. ׳ב קרפ. Perek II . 23a 107
notes
,עֹושה ִמצְ וָ ה ׂ ָ וְ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן ַה ְד ָל ָקה And, the Gemara remarks, now that we say that lighting ac-
A deaf-mute – ח ֵר ׁש:ֵ When the Sages employ the unmodi- complishes the mitzva, there are practical ramifications. If a
fied term ĥeresh the reference is to one who can neither ֹוטה וְ ָק ָטן – ל ֹא ָע ָ ׂשה וְ ל ֹא
ֶ ִהדְּ ִל ָיק ּה ֵח ֵר ׁש ׁש
דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי, ִא ׁ ּ ָשה וַ דַּ אי ַמ ְד ִל ָיקה.ְּכלוּם deaf-mute,n an imbecile, or a minor, all of whom are of limited
hear nor speak. In the talmudic era, one with those dis-
abilities did not, as a rule, have full mental capacity and intellectual capacity and not obligated in mitzvot, kindled the
,נָשים ַחּיָ יבֹות ְ ּבנֵ ר ֲחנו ָּּכה ִ ׁ :הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י
ֻ ׁ ְי
was consequently exempt from all mitzvot in the Torah. Hanukkah light, he did nothing in terms of fulfilling the mitzva,
However, if he has full mental capacity, he is considered .ׁ ֶש ַאף ֵהן ָהי ּו ְ ּבאֹותֹו ַה ּנֵס even if an adult obligated in mitzvot subsequently set it down in
like anyone else and is obligated (see Tosefot Rabbeinu its appropriate place. That is because placing a lit lamp does not
Yehuda HaĤasid ). constitute fulfillment of the mitzva. The lighting must be per-
As they too were included in that miracle – ׁ ֶש ַאף ֵהן ָהי ּו formed by a person with full intellectual capacity, obligated in
באֹותֹו ַה ּנֵס:ּ ְ The Torah principle is that women are exempt mitzvot. However, a womanh certainly may light, as Rabbi
from time-bound positive mitzvot. There are exceptions, Yehoshua ben Levi said: Women are obligated in lighting the
and lighting the Hanukkah lights is among them. Hanukkah light, as they too were included in that miraclen of
The phrase: They too were included in that miracle, can
being saved from the decree of persecution.
be understood in another way. The miracle was caused
due to the merit of women (Tosafot). Various commentaries . ַא ְכ ְסנַ אי ַחּיָ יב ְ ּבנֵ ר ֲחנו ָּּכה:ָא ַמר ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת Rav Sheshet said: A guest is obligated in lighting the Hanuk-
connect the episode of Judith and Holofernes, as well as kah lighth in the place where he is being hosted. The Gemara
ֵמ ֵר ׁיש ִּכי ָהוֵ ינָ א ֵ ּבי ַרב:ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא
the story of Hannah and her seven sons, to the miracle of relates that Rabbi Zeira said: At first, when I was studying in
Hanukkah. It is thanks to these righteous women that the ָ ּב ַתר.יטי ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי או ׁ ְּש ּ ִפיזָ א
ֵ ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ַּת ְפנָ א ִ ּב ְפ ִר
the yeshiva, I would participate with perutot, copper coins,
miracle of Hanukkah transpired. ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא וַ דַּ אי ָלא:נְס ִיבי ִא ְּית ָתא ָא ִמינָ א ִ ִּד
Reading the Megilla on Purim and drinking the four cups together with the host [ushpiza],l so that I would be a partner
.יתאי ַ דְּ ָקא ַמ ְד ִל ִיקי ֲע ַלי ְ ּבגֹו ֵ ּב,יכנָ א ְ צְ ִר in the light that he kindled. After I married my wife, I said: Now
of wine at the Passover seder are other exceptions to the ex-
emption from time-bound positive mitzvot. Esther was the I certainly need not do so because they light on my behalf in
catalyst for the miracle of Purim. Similarly, the Sages said: my house.
Due to the merit of righteous women, Israel was redeemed
from Egypt (Yalkut Shimoni Psalms 68). ָּכל ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמנִים ּכו ָּּלן:הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י
ֻ ׁ ְָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי י Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: All the oils are suitable for the
: ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י. וְ ׁ ֶש ֶמן זַ יִ ת ִמן ַה ּמו ְּב ָחר,יָ ִפין ַל ֵּנר Hanukkah lamp, and olive oil is the most selecth of the oils.
,ֵמ ֵר ׁיש ֲהוָ ה ְמ ַהדַּ ר ָמר ַא ִּמ ׁ ְש ָחא דְּ ׁשו ְּמ ׁ ְש ֵמי Abaye said: At first, my Master, Rabba, would seek sesame oil,
halakha
as he said: The light of sesame oil lasts longer and does not burn
If a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor kindles it…a ֵּכיוָ ן דִּ ׁ ְש ַמע ָל ּה.הֹורי ְט ֵפי
ֵ ְ ַהאי ָמ ׁ ַשךְ נ:ֲא ַמר
as quickly as olive oil. Once he heard that statement of Rabbi
woman – ן…א ׁ ּ ָשה
ִ ֹוטה וְ ָק ָט
ֶ הדְּ ִל ָיק ּה ֵח ֵר ׁש ׁש:ִ A woman’s obliga- הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י ְמ ַהדַּ ר ַא ִּמ ׁ ְש ָחאֻ ׁ ְְל ָהא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי י
tion to kindle the Hanukkah lights is the same as a man’s. Yehoshua ben Levi, he sought olive oil because he said: Its
Indeed, a woman may recite the blessings on his behalf .יה ְט ֵפי
ּ הֹורֵ ְ ַהאי צְ ִליל נ: ֲא ַמר,יתא ָ ֵדְּ ז light is clearer.
(Magen Avraham). A deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor
ָּכל ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמנִים:הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י ֻ ׁ ְוְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי י On a similar note, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: All the oils
who kindled the Hanukkah lights accomplished nothing.
יב ֲעיָ א ּ ַ ִא. וְ ׁ ֶש ֶמן זַ יִ ת ִמן ַה ּמו ְּב ָחר,יָ ִפין ִלדְּ יֹו are suitable for making ink,hb and olive oil is the most select.
Some rule that a minor who reached the age of training is
permitted to kindle Hanukkah lights. However, according דְּ ָתנֵי, ְלגַ ֵ ּבל אֹו ְל ֲע ׁ ּ ֵשן? ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע:ְּלהו A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What was Rabbi Ye-
to our custom, where each family member lights Hanuk- hoshua ben Levi’s intention: Did he mean that olive oil is the
ָּכל ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמנִים יָ ִפין:ַרב ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר זו ְּּט ֵרי
kah lights, a minor who has reached the age of training is most select in terms of being the best for use to mix and knead
obligated to light (Rema; Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot ֵ ּבין ְלגַ ֵ ּבל ֵ ּבין.ִלדְּ יֹו וְ ׁ ֶש ֶמן זַ יִ ת ִמן ַה ּמו ְּב ָחר with the soot produced from a fire in manufacturing ink; or did
Megilla VaĤanukka 4:9; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 675:3). ָּכל: ַרב ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר זו ְּט ָרא ַמ ְתנֵי ָה ִכי,ְל ֲע ׁ ּ ֵשן he mean for use to smoke, i.e., burning olive oil to produce
A guest is obligated in lighting the Hanukkah light – .ָה ֲע ׁ ָשנִים יָ ִפין ִלדְּ יֹו וְ ׁ ֶש ֶמן זַ יִ ת ִמן ַה ּמו ְּב ָחר smoke is the most select method of producing the soot used in
א ְכ ְסנַ אי ַחּיָ יב ְ ּבנֵ ר ֲחנו ָּּכה:ַ A guest whose family is not lighting ּש ָרף ׂ ְ ו, ָּכל ַה ּ ְ ׂש ָר ִפין יָ ִפין ִלדְּ יֹו:ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א manufacturing ink? Come and hear a resolution to this from that
for him at home is obligated to kindle Hanukkah lights which Rav Shmuel bar Zutrei taught: All oils are suitable for
where he is sleeping, assuming he has a lamp and a sepa- .ְק ָטף יָ ֶפה ִמ ּכו ָּּלם
ink, and olive oil is the most select, both to knead and to
rate entrance where he could light (Mishna Berura). Alter-
smoke. Rav Shmuel bar Zutra taught it this way: All types of
natively, he could contribute a peruta to defray the cost
of the light and have the host include him in his lighting smoke are good for ink, and olive oil is the most select. Simi-
(Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Megilla VaĤanukka 4:11; larly, Rav Huna said: All saps are good for strengthening the
Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 677:1). ink compound, and balsam sap is the best of all.
And olive oil is the most select – וְ ׁ ֶש ֶמן זַ יִ ת ִמן ַה ּמו ְּב ָחר: Olive ַה ַּמ ְד ִליק:ָא ַמר ַרב ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַא ׁ ִשי ָא ַמר ַרב Rav Ĥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: One who lights a Ha-
oil is the preferred oil for kindling lights, especially Hanuk- nukkah light must recite a blessing. And Rabbi Yirmeya said:
: וְ ַרב יִ ְר ְמיָה ָא ַמר. ְנֵ ר ׁ ֶשל ֲחנו ָּּכה צָ ִריךְ ְל ָב ֵרך
kah lights (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 5:11; One who sees a burning Hanukkah light must recite a blessing
Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 264:6, 673:1). ָא ַמר ַרב. ְרֹואה נֵ ר ׁ ֶשל ֲחנו ָּּכה צָ ִריךְ ְל ָב ֵרך ֶ ָה
because the mitzva is not only to kindle the light but to see the
All the oils are suitable for making ink – ָּכל ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמנִים יָ ִפין
,רֹואה ְמ ָב ֵרךְ ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם
ֶ אשֹון – ָה ׁ יֹום ִר:יְ הו ָּדה
light as well. Therefore, there is room to recite a blessing even
לדְּ יֹו:ִ Ab initio, sacred texts are written with ink made from – יל ְך ָ ּו ַמ ְד ִליק ְמ ָב ֵר ְך ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ִמ ָּכאן וְ ֵא when seeing them. Rav Yehuda said: On the first day of Hanuk-
either the soot from the smoke of burnt wood or from oils .רֹואה ְמ ָב ֵרךְ ַא ַחת ֶ ְ ו,ַמ ְד ִליק ְמ ָב ֵרךְ ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם kah, the one who sees burning lights recites two blessings, and
soaked in gallnut juice (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Tefillin
UMezuza VeSefer Torah 1:4; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 32:3). נִימעֹוט נֵס! נֵס ְ ְ ו.ַמאי ְמ ַמ ֵעט? ְמ ַמ ֵעט זְ ַמן the one who lights recites three blessings.h From there on, from
.יה ּ ית
ֵ יֹומי ִאֵ ָּכל the second day of Hanukkah, the one who lights recites two
The blessings over the Hanukkah light – ב ְר ּכֹות ַהנֵ ר:ּ ִ On blessings, and the one who sees recites one blessing. The Ge-
the first evening of Hanukkah, three blessings are recited:
mara asks: What blessing does he omit on the other days? The
To light the Hanukkah light, and: Who performed miracles,
and: Who has given us life. On the second night, one recites Gemara answers: He omits the blessing of time: Who has given
the first two blessings. If one did not light, does not plan to us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time. The Gemara asks:
light, and on whose behalf no one is lighting in his home And let us omit the blessing of the miracle: Who has performed
sees a burning Hanukkah light, he recites: Who performed miracles. The Gemara answers: The miracle is relevant on all of
miracles, and: Who has given us life, on the first night. On the days, whereas the blessing: Who has given us life, is only
all succeeding nights, he recites: Who performed miracles pertinent to the first time he performs the mitzva each year.
(Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Megilla VaĤanukka 3:4;
Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 676:1–3).
background
Making ink – ע ִ ׂשיַ ית דְּ יֹו:ֲ In talmudic times, various writing the smoke of burnt wood or oil. The soot was collected and
language utensils and colored inks were used for writing on parchment mixed with the appropriate quantity of oil. Sometimes sap was
Host [ushpiza] – או ׁ ְּש ּ ִפיזָ א: From the Middle Persian aspinj, and paper. Black was the most common color of ink. This ink also added to the ink so that it would better adhere to the
meaning hotel or hospitality. was similar to India ink, a thick ink made from the soot of writing surface.
,יהם הוּא ֶ דְּ ָס ֵפק דִּ ְב ֵר,וְ ָהא יֹום טֹוב ׁ ֵשנִי The Gemara asks: Isn’t the second day of a Festival in the Diaspora a
ו ָּב ֵעי ְ ּב ָר ָכה! ָה ָתם ִּכי ֵה ִיכי דְּ ָלא ְלזִ ְילזו ֵּלי rabbinic ordinance instituted due to uncertainty whether the first day
רֹוב ַע ֵּמי ָה ָא ֶרץ ְמ ַע ּ ְ ׂש ִרין: ָר ָבא ָא ַמר.ָ ּב ּה or the second is the actual Festival, and nevertheless a blessing is re-
quired? On the second day of the Festival one recites the same blessings
.ֵהן
as he does on the first. The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the
second day of the Festival, the reason that blessings are required is so
that people will not treat it with contempt. If Festival blessings were
not required on the second day of the Festival, people would take its
sanctity lightly. Rava said another reason: Demai is not considered to
be an ordinance instituted by the Sages due to uncertainty. In fact, in
most cases, an am ha’aretz tithes. The concern lest they do not tithe is
not a full-fledged case of uncertainty. It is merely a case of suspicion for
which the Sages did not institute a blessing. That is not the case with
regard to the second day of a Festival. Even though it was instituted due
to uncertainty, one must recite the Festival blessings. Since it was insti-
tuted by the Sages, one is obligated to recite a blessing just as he recites
blessings for other rabbinic ordinances.
notes
And where did He command us – יכן צִ ָּונ ּו
ָ וְ ֵה: This question is often Demai refers to crops or fruit that were acquired from an am ha’aretz.
asked with regard to blessings recited over mitzvot of rabbinic ori- Even though the separation of tithes is a mitzva by Torah law, bless-
gin. Here, the Gemara cites two sources. The first, “You shall not turn ings are only by rabbinic law. Therefore, the question whether or not
aside,” which is both simple and accepted halakha, was sufficient. to recite a blessing when tithing demai, produce acquired from a am
The Gemara preferred a source from a positive rather than a nega- ha’aretz, is a case involving uncertainty with regard to rabbinic law
tive mitzva and therefore cited the verse: “Ask your father” (Rabbi (Ritva). Others say that since by Torah law the buyer is exempt from
Elazar Moshe Horowitz).
tithing, demai is always a case of a rabbinic ordinance instituted due
Rabbinic ordinance instituted due to uncertainty – יהם
ֶ ס ֵפק דְּ ִד ְב ֵר:ָ to uncertainty (Penei Yehoshua).
,ישינַ ן ַל ֲח ׁ ָשד – דְּ ַתנְ יָ א ִ ׁ ְימ ָרא דְּ ָחי ְ ו ְּמנָ א ֵּת And from where do you say that we are concerned about suspicion?
ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה דְּ ָב ִרים:ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון As it was taught in a Tosefta that Rabbi Shimon said: On account of four
ִמ ּ ְפנֵי:ּיאה ְ ּבסֹוף ָ ׂש ֵדהו ָ ָא ְמ ָרה ּת ָֹורה ְל ַה ּנ ִַיח ּ ֵפ things the Torah said that one should leave pe’a,n crops for the poor in
the corner of his field, specifically at the end of his field.h Only after one
, ו ִּמ ּ ְפנֵי ַה ֲח ׁ ָשד, ו ִּמ ּ ְפנֵי ִ ּב ּיטוּל ֲענִּיִ ים,ֶ ּגזֶ ל ֲענִּיִ ים
has cut virtually the entire field should he leave an uncut corner for the
ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ֶ ּגזֶ ל ֲענִּיִ ים – ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא.“בל ְּת ַכ ֶּלה״ ּ ַ ו ִּמ ׁ ּשוּם poor. He should not designate an area for pe’a in the middle of the field
ֹאמרַ וְ י,יִ ְר ֶאה ַ ּב ַעל ַה ַ ּביִ ת ׁ ָש ָעה ּ ְפנ ּויָ יה in the course of cutting the field. The reasons for this ruling are: Due to
. ֲה ֵרי זֹו ּ ֵפ ָאה:ִל ְקרֹובֹו ָענִי robbing the poor, and due to causing the poor to be idle, and due to
suspicion, and due to the verse: “You shall not wholly reap the corner
of your field” (Leviticus 23:22). The Gemara explains: Due to robbing
the poor; so that the owner of the house will not see a time when the
field is unoccupied and there are no poor people in the area. If he could
designate pe’a as he wished, there is room to suspect that he might say to
his poor relative: This is pe’a, in the place and at the time that he choos-
es. He would thereby conceal the fact that there is pe’a in his field from
other poor people. The result would be that, for all intents and purposes,
he robbed pe’a from those with whom he did not share the information.
halakha
Courtyard that has two entrances, etc. – חצֵ ר ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ָל ּה ׁ ְשנֵי ּ ְפ ָת ִחים וכו׳:ָ
יאה ְ ּבסֹוף ָ ׂש ֵדה ּו
ָ ל ַה ּנ ִַיח ּ ֵפ:ְ The pe’a is separated only at the end of a field
One whose house or courtyard has two entrances facing in different because of the reasons cited by Rabbi Shimon. If one separates pe’a in
directions is obligated to light Hanukkah lamps at both entrances, so the middle of his field, the produce that he separated goes to the poor,
that he will not be suspected of failing to fulfill the mitzva. Some say and he is nevertheless required to separate the requisite amount of pe’a
that one who owns two houses, even if they face a single direction, is at the end of the field. The calculation is based on what remained in
obligated to light in both houses (Rema in the name of Kolbo). In any the field after he separated the first pe’a from the middle. The manner
case, one who lights in two entrances recites the blessings only once of fulfilling the halakha ab initio was established in accordance with
(Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Megilla VaĤanukka 4:10; Shulĥan the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and, apparently, there is no dispute
Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 671:8).
with regard to that aspect of the halakha (Kesef Mishne; Rambam Sefer
The Torah said to leave pe’a at the end of his field – ָא ְמ ָרה ּת ָֹורהZera’im, Hilkhot Mattenot Aniyyim 2:12).
notes
And Rava said: We only said this in a case where the two entrances your land, you shall not wholly reap the corner of your field, neither
face two different directions, etc. – ָלא ֲא ַמ ַרן ֶא ָּלא ִמ ׁ ְש ֵּתי:וְ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא shall you gather the gleaning of your harvest. And you shall not glean
רוּחֹות וכו׳: Most commentaries explain that Rava disagrees with Abaye your vineyard, neither shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard;
and does not accept the distinction between cases of certainty and you shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger: I am the Lord
uncertainty with regard to rabbinic law. However, others say that Rava your God” (Leviticus 19:9–10). Based on their understanding of these
is merely offering a simpler explanation for not reciting a blessing on verses, the Sages established the halakhot of the mitzva of pe’a col-
demai, and he does not disagree with Abaye with regard to the second lected in tractate Pe’a. They even determined the percentage of the
day of a Festival and other cases (Ramban; Rashba). Apparently, the field that must be left as pe’a. Legally, pe’a is the property of all poor
Rambam leans toward that explanation as well.
people, and the owner of the property is not allowed to give the pe’a
The mitzva of pe’a – מצְ וָ ות ּ ֵפ ָאה:ִ “And when you reap the harvest of to specific poor people whom he seeks to aid.
יֹוסף ֲה וַ ת ְמ ַא ֲח ָרה ֵ יתה ּו דְּ ַרב ְ דְּ ֵב The Gemara relates that Rav Yosef ’s wife would kindle the Shabbat lights
: ַּתנְיָא,יֹוסףֵ ָא ַמר ָל ּה ַרב,ו ַּמ ְד ְל ָקת ָל ּה late. Rav Yosef said to her: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to the
יֹומם וְ ַע ּמוּד ָ “ל ֹא יָ ִמ ׁיש ַע ּמוּד ֶה ָענָ ן verse: “The pillar of cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night, departed
not from before the people” (Exodus 13:22), this teaches that the pillar of
ָה ֵא ׁש ָליְ ָלה״ ְמ ַל ֵּמד ׁ ֶש ַע ּמוּד ָענָן ַמ ׁ ְש ִלים
cloud would overlap with the pillar of fire? The pillar of fire would appear
וְ ַע ּמוּד ָה ֵא ׁש ַמ ׁ ְש ִלים,ְל ַעמוּד ָה ֵא ׁש slightly before nightfall. And the pillar of fire would overlap with the pillar
ֲא ַמר,דֹומ ּהָ ְס ַב ָרה ְל ַא ְק.ְל ַעמוּד ֶה ָענָ ן of cloud, as well. The pillar of cloud would appear slightly before daybreak.
ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא, ָּתנֵינָ א:ָל ּה ַההוּא ָס ָבא Therefore, in lighting the Shabbat lights it is also appropriate to light earlier,
.יַ ְקדִּ ים וְ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא יְ ַא ֵחר beginning Shabbat slightly before dark on Shabbat eve. She thought to
kindle the lights much earlier, on Shabbat eve, long before nightfall. An
Elder said to her, we learned: As long as he neither lights too early nor
too late.h
יה ְ ּבנִיןּ דְּ ָר ֵחים ַר ָ ּבנַן – ָהו ּו ֵל:ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא Similar to the reward due one who kindles the Shabbat lights, Rava said:
ותא ָ ָיה ֲח ָתנְ ו ּ מֹוקיר ַר ָ ּבנַן – ָהו ּו ֵל
ִ ְּ ד,ַר ָ ּבנַן One who loves Sages will have children who are Sages. One who honors
יה ָהוֵ י ּ דְּ ָד ֵחיל ֵמ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן – הוּא גּ ו ֵּפ,ַר ָ ּבנַ ן Sages will have sons-in-law who are Sages. One who stands in awe of the
Sagesn will himself become a Torah scholar. And if he is not capable and
– וְ ִאי ָלאו ַ ּבר ָה ִכי הוּא,צו ְּר ָבא ֵמ ַר ָ ּבנַן
lacks the talent to become a Torah scholar, his statements will be received
.יה ְּכצו ְּר ָבא ֵמ ַר ָ ּבנַן ּ ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ְמ ָען ִמ ֵּיל like the statements of a Torah scholar.
ַמאי ׁ ֶש ֶמן.יפה״ וכו׳ ָ “וְ ל ֹא ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶמן ְ ׂש ֵר We learned in the mishna that one may not light with burnt oil on Shabbat.
ׁ ֶש ֶמן ׁ ֶשל ְּתרו ָּמה:יפה? ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ָ ְ ׂש ֵר The Gemara asks: What is burnt oil? Rabba said: It is oil of teruma that
– וְ ַא ַּמאי ָקר ּו ָל ּה ׁ ֶש ֶמן ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה.ׁ ֶש ּנ ְִט ְמ ָאה became ritually impure. And why did they call it burnt oil? Because its
burning is imminent, as it is prohibited to eat this oil and one is obligated
ו ַּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ַמאי.עֹומד ֵ יפה ָ הֹואיל וְ ִל ְ ׂש ֵר
ִ
to burn it. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that one may not light
,ַט ְע ָמא ָלא – ִמ ּתֹוךְ ׁ ֶש ִּמצְ וָ ה ָע ָליו ְל ַב ֲערֹו with it on Shabbat? The Gemara explains: Because it is a mitzva to burn
ֶא ָּלא:יה ַא ַ ּביֵ יּ ָא ַמר ֵל.ְ ּגזֵ ָרה ׁ ֶש ָּמא יַ ֶּטה it, the Sages issued a decree lest, in doing so, he come to adjust the wick
:יש ְּת ִרי! ַא ָּל ָּמה ְּתנַן ְ ׁ ְ ּביֹום טֹוב ִל,ֵמ ַע ָּתה in order to hasten its burning. Abaye said to him: But if what you say is so,
!ֵאין ַמ ְד ִל ִיקין ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶמן ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה ְ ּביֹום טֹוב that the reason for the prohibition is a concern lest he adjust it, then, on a
.ְ ּגזֵ ָרה יֹום טֹוב ַא ּט ּו ׁ ַש ָ ּבת Festival, when adjusting a wick is permitted, it should be permitted to light
with burnt oil. Why then did we learn in the mishna: One may not light
with burnt oil even on a Festival? The Gemara answers: It is a decree is-
sued by the Sages prohibiting burning it even on a Festival, due to the
prohibition to burn it on Shabbat.
notes
One who is accustomed to kindle lights – ה ָרגִ יל ְ ּבנֵ ר:ָ Some of the Gemara in the Rif and Tosafot, the first story uses the measure. One who loves the Sages will merit having children
commentaries explain that this statement refers to the Hanuk- plural: Were accustomed, meaning that both the husband who will be loved both as children and as scholars. One who
kah lights that were discussed previously, while others hold and wife were accustomed to kindling lights. The second honors the Sages will have sons-in-law who will honor their
that it refers to the Shabbat lights. Rashi indicates that it refers story uses the singular: Was accustomed, meaning that in-laws and be honored by them. One who stands in awe of
to both. Some interpret the phrase as referring to one who only one of them would kindle the lights. Other authorities the Sages will merit the honor and awe of others, either as a
regularly lights lamps at home at night and uses the light for point out that Rav Avin, the carpenter, was accustomed and Torah scholar or in other ways.
himself and his family to study Torah (Panim Masbirot, Iyyun careful to light both Hanukkah and Shabbat lights. In Rav Some commentaries wonder: Ostensibly, love is more sig-
Ya’akov). Sheizvi’s family, they were only accustomed to light one of nificant than awe. Why then is the reward here greater for awe
them (Me’iri). than for love? The Vilna Gaon emended the text accordingly.
Lights and their reward – ּש ָכ ָרם
ׂ ְ הנֵ רֹות ו:ַ Various commentar- Others explained that there is no mitzva to love the Sages be-
ies attempt to explain what led Rav Huna to say two great One who loves the Sages…one who honors the Sages… yond the mitzva to love all Jews. However, there is a mitzva to
people would emerge from that home, while Rav Ĥisda spoke one who stands in awe of the Sages – מֹוקיר ִ ְּ דְּ ָר ֵחים ַר ָ ּבנַן…דstand in awe of the Sages. Therefore, one who fulfills that mitzva
of only one great person. According to the variant reading ר ָ ּבנַן…דְּ ָד ֵחיל ֵמ ַר ָ ּבנַן:ַ Each reward mentioned here is measure for merits a greater reward (Rabbi Ya’akov of Korvil).
Perek II
Daf 24 Amud a
ָּכל ֵאלּ ּו ׁ ֶש ָא ְמר ּו:יה דְּ ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א ּ ַּתנְיָא ְּכוָ ֵות It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav
ֵאין ַמ ְד ִל ִיקין ָ ּב ֶהן ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת – ַמ ְד ִל ִיקין ָ ּב ֶהן Ĥisda. All of these oils with which the Sages said that one may not
ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין, חוּץ ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ֶמן ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה,ְ ּביֹום טֹוב light on Shabbat, one may light with them on a Festival, with the
exception of burnt oil, because one may not burn consecrated
.ׂש ְֹור ִפין ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ְ ּביֹום טֹוב
items on a Festival.
ַמה ּו ְל ַהזְ ִּכיר ׁ ֶשל ֲחנו ָּּכה:ּיב ֲעיָ א ְלהו ּ ַ ִא A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the ruling with
ְ ּב ִב ְר ַּכת ַה ָּמזֹון? ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ִמדְּ ַר ָ ּבנָן הוּא – ָלא regard to the obligation to mention Hanukkahn in Grace after
נִיסא ָ סֹומי ֵ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ּ ַפ ְר: אֹו דִּ ְיל ָמא,ַמ ְד ַּכ ִרינַן Meals?n The dilemma is: Since it is merely an obligation by rab-
binic law, do we not mention it? Or, perhaps due to publicity of
חֹורה ָ ַמ ְד ַּכ ִרינַ ן? ָא ַמר ָר ָבא ָא ַמר ַרב ְס
the miracle, we mention it. Rava said that Rav Seĥora said that
וְ ִאם ָ ּבא, ֵאינֹו ַמזְ ִּכיר:ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א Rav Huna said: One does not mention it. And if, nevertheless, he
ַרב הוּנָ א ַ ּבר.הֹוד ָאה ָ ְל ַהזְ ִּכיר – ַמזְ ִּכיר ְ ּב comes to mention it, he mentions it in the blessing of thanksgiv-
ָס ַבר ְל ַא ְד ּכו ֵּרי,יְ הו ָּדה ִא ְיק ַלע ְל ֵבי ָר ָבא ing. The Gemara relates that Rav Huna bar Yehuda happened by
: ֲא ַמר ְלה ּו ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת.״בֹונֵ ה יְ רו ׁ ָּש ַליִ ם״ ּ ְ ּב Rava’s house on Hanukkah. When, after eating, he came to recite
ָ ַמה ְּת ִפ ָּלה – ְ ּב,ִּכ ְת ִפ ָּלה
ַאף ִ ּב ְר ַּכת,הֹוד ָאה Grace after Meals, he thought to mention Hanukkah in the bless-
ing: Who builds Jerusalem. Rav Sheshet said to the yeshiva stu-
.הֹוד ָאה
ָ ַה ָּמזֹון – ְ ּב
dents: One mentions Hanukkah in Grace after Meals just as he does
in the Amida prayer. Just as in the Amida prayer one mentions
Hanukkah in the blessing of thanksgiving, so too, in Grace after
Meals one mentions Hanukkah in the blessing of thanksgiving.h
notes
The topic of Hanukkah – ענְיַ ן ֲחנו ָּּכה:ִ Tosafot wondered why the What is the ruling with regard to the obligation to mention
halakhot of Hanukkah were not discussed consecutively and are Hanukkah in Grace after Meals – ַמה ּו ְל ַהזְ ִּכיר ׁ ֶשל ֲחנו ָּּכה ְ ּב ִב ְר ַּכת
instead interrupted by unrelated matters. Some commentaries ה ָּמזֹון:ַ Since the essence of the holiday is publicizing the mira-
explain that based on Rabba’s reasoning, the Sages were espe- cle, all authorities agree that Hanukkah should be mentioned
cially concerned that one might come to adjust the flame when during the prayers that are conducted in public. However, the
using burnt oil. Since the same prohibition applies to Hanukkah Sages were uncertain as to whether or not Hanukkah must
lights kindled just before Shabbat, it is a Hanukkah related issue be mentioned in Grace after Meals, which is an individual
as well (Ritva). matter (Ritva).
halakha
Just as in prayer one mentions Hanukkah in the blessing of repeat either of them because the additional paragraph was not
thanksgiving, so too, in Grace after Meals one mentions Ha- instituted as a full-fledged obligation. One who reached the end
nukkah in the blessing of thanksgiving – ַאף,הֹוד ָאה ָ ַמה ְּת ִפ ָּלה ְ ּב of the blessing into which: For the miracles, was inserted and did
הֹוד ָאה
ָ ב ְר ַּכת ַה ָּמזֹון ְ ּב:ּ ִ Throughout the eight days of Hanukkah, the not yet recite the words: Blessed are You, Lord, repeats the bless-
paragraph: For the miracles, is added to the Amida prayer in the ing and includes the addition for Hanukkah. Once one recited the
blessing of thanksgiving. The same paragraph is added to Grace words: Blesssed are You, even if he did not yet recite the word Lord,
after Meals in the blessing of the land. One who forgot to recite he does not repeat the blessing (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot
it and concluded the Amida prayer or Grace after Meals need not Tefilla 2:13, Hilkhot Berakhot 2:6; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 682:1).
background
Non-priestly watches [ma’amadot] – מ ֲע ָמדֹות:ַ In the Temple sponding non-priestly watch were dispatched to Jerusalem
era, priests and Levites were divided into twenty-four watch- to serve in the Temple, and others would assemble in various
es. Each watch served in the Temple for one week, twice or cities throughout the land. The representatives of the non-
three times a year. The entire nation was also divided into priestly watch would perform certain rituals, such as reading
twenty-four watches, with each watch attached to a specific special portions of the Torah and fasting several days that
group of priests. During the week when the priestly watch week. Vestiges of the customs of the non-priestly watch are
was on duty in the Temple, some members of the corre- found in various prayer books.
ֹאש ח ֶֹד ׁש ׁ ִמי דָּ ֵמי?! ָה ָתם – נָ ִביא ִ ּב ְדר The Gemara rejects this comparison. Is this comparable? There,
יה ְ ּב ַע ְר ִבית
ּ יתֵ ָה ָכא – ִא,יכא ְּכ ָלל ָּ ֵל reading from the Prophets is not at all part of the service on
: ְל ָהא דָּ ְמיָ א,וְ ׁ ַש ֲח ִרית ו ִּמנְ ָחה! ֶא ָּלא the New Moon. Here, there is mention of Hanukkah in the
evening, morning, and afternoon prayers. Rather, it is com-
דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ַח ְדבֹוי ָא ַמר ַרב ַמ ָּתנָ ה
parable to this: As Rav Aĥadvoi said that Rav Mattana said
יֹום טֹוב ׁ ֶש ָחל ִל ְהיֹות:ָא ַמר ַרב that Rav said: On a Festival that occurs on Shabbat, one who
ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת – ַה ַּמ ְפ ִטיר ַ ּב ָּנ ִביא ְ ּב ִמנְ ָחה recites the portion from the Prophets during the afternoon
יך ְל ַהזְ ִּכיר ׁ ֶשל יֹום ְ ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ֵאינֹו צָ ִר serviceb on Shabbat need not mention the Festival, as, if it
ׁ ֶש ִא ְיל ָמ ֵלא ׁ ַש ָ ּבת – ֵאין נָ ִביא,טֹוב were not Shabbat, there would be no reading from the Proph-
.ְ ּב ִמנְ ָחה ְ ּביֹום טֹוב ets during the afternoon service on a Festival. If so, even
though there is a haftara during the morning service on a Festi-
val, since they do not read from the Prophets in the afternoon,
the reading is considered totally unrelated to the Festival and
one does not mention the Festival. The same is true with regard
to Hanukkah. One does not mention Hanukkah in the addi-
tional prayer.
Perek II
Daf 24 Amud b
halakha
,וְ ֵלית ִה ְיל ְכ ָתא ְּכ ָכל ָהנֵי ׁ ְש ַמ ֲע ָת ָתא The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is not in accordance
And the halakha is not in accordance with any of these
ֻ ׁ ְֶא ָּלא ִּכי ָהא דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי י
הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן with any of these halakhot;h rather, it is in accordance with
halakhot – וְ ֵלית ִה ְיל ְכ ָתא ְּכ ָכל ָהנֵי ׁ ְש ַמ ֲע ָת ָתא: It is not clear to which
יֹום ַה ִּכ ּפו ִּרים ׁ ֶש ָחל ִל ְהיֹות ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת:ֵלוִ י that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: On Yom Kippur of the aforementioned halakhot this statement is referring. Cer-
that falls on Shabbat, one who recites the day’s closing prayer tainly, those halakhot with regard to prayers are rejected. How-
יך ְל ַהזְ ִּכיר ׁ ֶשל ְ נְע ָילה צָ ִרִ ַה ִּמ ְת ּ ַפ ֵּלל
[ne’ila]h must mention Shabbat even in that prayer, although ever, some authorities rule that mention of the New Moon in the
יֹום הוּא ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַחּיֵ יב ְ ּב ַא ְר ַ ּבע,ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ne’ila is not recited every Shabbat. The reason for this is that on blessings recited after the portion read from the Prophets on
.ְּת ִפלּ ֹות Yom Kippur, the day itself is obligated in four prayers, i.e., Shabbat is not required because Rav Giddel’s statement was not
morning, additional, afternoon, and closing. When it occurs on categorically rejected. Other commentaries explain that although
one need not mention the New Moon at the conclusion of the
Shabbat, one must mention Shabbat in each of the prayers. Ap-
blessing, the phrase: This day of rest and this day of the New
parently, on a day that has a unique character, that character is Moon, is mentioned in the body of the blessing. The halakha is
manifest in all sacred aspects of the day; those engendered by in accordance with the first opinion (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot
the day itself as well as those engendered by other factors. Tefilla 12:15; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 284:2).
:ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ִה ְיל ְכ ָתא ַא ִה ְיל ְכ ָתא! ָא ְמ ַר ְּת The Gemara challenges this: It is difficult, as there is a contradic- On Yom Kippur that falls on Shabbat, one who recites the clos-
tion between one halakha and another halakha. On the one ing prayer [ne’ila], etc. – יֹום ַה ִּכ ּפו ִּרים ׁ ֶש ָחל ִל ְהיֹות ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ַה ִּמ ְת ּ ַפ ֵּלל
ימא ָ ְ וְ ַקּי,יְהֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י
ֻ ׁ ִה ְיל ְכ ָתא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי נְע ָילה וכו׳:
ִ When Yom Kippur occurs on Shabbat, Shabbat is men-
: דְּ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא.יל ְכ ָתא ְּכ ָר ָבא ְ ִה:ָלן hand, you said that the halakha is in accordance with the
tioned even in the closing prayer. If either an individual or the
opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. And, on the other hand, prayer leader neglected to mention Shabbat, the closing prayer
ׁ ְש ִל ַיח,יֹום טֹוב ׁ ֶש ָחל ִל ְהיֹות ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת
we hold that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of must be repeated. In the confession that follows the Amida prayer,
יבה ַע ְר ִבית ָ ּיֹורד ִל ְפנֵי ַה ֵּת
ֵ יבוּר ַה ּ ִצ Rava, which contradicts the first halakha, as Rava said: On a the prayer leader, not the individual, mentions Shabbat. If the
,יך ְל ַהזְ ִּכיר ׁ ֶשל יֹום טֹוב ְ ֵאינֹו צָ ִר Festival that occurs on Shabbat,h the prayer leader who de- prayer leader forgot to mention Shabbat during the confession,
ׁ ֶש ִא ְיל ָמ ֵלא ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ֵאין ׁ ְש ִל ַיח צִ ּבוּר scends before the ark to recite the prayer abridged from the he need not repeat the prayer (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot
seven blessings of the Shabbat evening Amida prayer need not Tefilla 2:7; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 623:3).
.יֹורד ַע ְר ִבית ְ ּביֹום טֹוב ֵ
mention the Festival, as, if it were not also Shabbat, the prayer
Festival that occurs on Shabbat – יֹום טֹוב ׁ ֶש ָחל ִל ְהיֹות ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת: In
leader would not descend before the ark to recite this prayer
the blessing abridged from the seven blessings of the Shabbat
during the evening prayer on a Festival. The Gemara reverts Amida prayer, recited by the prayer leader after the silent evening
to the previous assumption that an element that does not arise prayer, there is neither mention of a Festival nor of Yom Kippur
from the essential halakhot of the day is considered foreign to it (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Tefilla 9:12; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ
and is not mentioned. Ĥayyim 268:9, 619:3).
ֲח ָכ ִמים ַהיְ ינ ּו ַּת ָּנא. “וְ ל ֹא ְ ּב ַא ְליָ ה כו׳״And we learned in the mishna that one may not light with the
ַק ָּמא! ִא ָּיכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יה ּו דְּ ַרב ְ ּברוּנָ א ָא ַמרsheep’s tail or with fat. Naĥum the Mede says that one may light
b
.ימיִ ְ וְ ָלא ְמ ַסּי,ַרב using cooked fat. And the Rabbis say that one may not light with it
whether or not it is cooked. The Gemara asks: Isn’t the opinion of
the Rabbis identical to the unattributed opinion of the first tanna
in the mishna? The Gemara answers: The practical difference be-
tween them is with regard to what Rav Beruna said that Rav said
Sheep
that one may light with cooked fat to which oil was added. One of
And the opinions are not defined – ימי ִ ְוְ ָלא ְמ ַסּי: This expres- the tanna’im accepts this opinion as halakha and permits lighting
sion describes a situation where two opinions are discussed with it, and the other prohibits it, and the opinions are not defined.b
and it is unclear which Sage holds which opinion, although Although it seems from the formulation of the mishna that they
there is clearly a dispute. At times, the Gemara seeks to de-
termine which of the Sages stated which opinion.
differ on this point, it is unclear what the opinion of each tanna is.
Naphtha [neft] – נֵ ְפ ְט: Naphtha, crude oil extracted from
the ground, was a common fuel in several countries in the
ancient world. During the Middle Ages it was not used and
מתני׳ ֵאין ַמ ְד ִל ִיקין ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶמן ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה
ֵאין:אֹומר ֵ ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל.ְ ּביֹום טֹוב
MISHNA In continuation of the previous mishna, this
mishna adds that one may not light with
burnt oil on a Festival, as the Gemara will explain below. With
it was virtually unknown in Europe (see Rashi here). It is ap- . ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ְּכבֹוד ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת,ַמ ְד ִל ִיקין ְ ּב ִע ְט ָרן regard to lighting Shabbat lamps, there were Sages who prohibited
parent from the description in the Gemara that not only did
וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים ַמ ִּת ִירין ְ ּב ָכל ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמנִים; ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶמן the use of specific oils. Rabbi Yishmael says that one may not light
they use crude oil that burst from the ground, like the people
of Cappadocia that have nothing but naphtha, as described ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶמן, ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶמן ֱאגֹוזִ ים,ׁש ּו ְמ ׁ ְש ִמין with tar [itran]h in deference to Shabbat because tar smells bad
below on 26a, p. 122, they even successfully refined it. The , ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶמן ּ ַפ ּקוּעֹות, ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶמן דָּ גִ ים,צְ נֹונֹות and disturbs those in the house. And the Rabbis permit lighting
Gemara is apparently the first historical source that describes with all oilsh for lamps as long as they burn properly; with sesame
ֵאין:אֹומר ֵ ַר ִ ּבי ַט ְרפֹון.ְ ּב ִע ְט ָרן ו ְּבנֵ ְפ ְט
the production of white naphtha, which is one of the prod- oil, with nut oil, with turnip oil, with fish oil, with gourd oil, with
ucts of refining crude oil. Since white naphtha was refined, it .ַמ ְד ִל ִיקין ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶמן זַ יִ ת ִ ּב ְל ַבד
would vaporize and burn more quickly, as the Gemara said:
tar, and even with naphtha [neft].b Rabbi Tarfon says: One may
White naphtha is volatile. The techniques of refining crude light only with olive oil in deference to Shabbat, as it is the choicest
oil first appear in other sources approximately five hundred and most pleasant of the oils.
years after the talmudic era.
גמ׳ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ׂש ְֹור ִפין
ְמנָ ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי? ָא ַמר.ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ְ ּביֹום טֹוב
GEMARA With regard to the statement of the mishna
that one may not light with burnt oil on a
halakha
Festival, the Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Ge-
ָא ַמר, וְ ֵכן ָּתנָ א דְּ ֵבי ִחזְ ִקּיָ ה,ִחזְ ִקּיָ ה mara answers: Because, in general, one may not burn consecrated
One may not light with tar [itran] – אין ַמ ְד ִל ִיקין ְ ּב ִע ְט ָרן:ֵ One
תֹותיר ּו ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ַעד ּב ֶֹקר
ִ “וְ ל ֹא:ְק ָרא items on a Festival.h With regard to the fundamental principle that
may not use tar as fuel for lighting the Shabbat lamp be-
cause it has a foul odor. Consequently, there is concern that ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַּת ְלמוּד,וְ ַהנּ ָֹותר ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ַעד ּב ֶֹקר״ one may not burn consecrated items on a Festival, the Gemara asks:
one might light the lamp and leave without fulfilling the לֹומר ַ‘עד ַ לֹומר ַ‘עד ּב ֶֹקר׳ ַמה ַּת ְלמוּד ַ From where are these matters derived?n Ĥizkiya said, and one of
obligation to eat by the light of the Shabbat lights (Tosafot), the Sages from the school of Ĥizkiya taught the same, that which
יתן לֹו ּב ֶֹקר ׁ ֵשנִיֵּ ּב ֶֹקר׳ – ָ ּבא ַה ָּכתוּב ִל
as per the explanation of Rava (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot the verse said: “And you shall let nothing of it remain until morn-
Tefilla 5:10; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 264:3). .ִל ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפתֹו
ing; but that which remains of it until morning you shall burn
With all oils – ב ָכל ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמנִים:
ּ ְ One is permitted to light the with fire” (Exodus 12:10), requires explanation. As the Torah did
Shabbat lamp with any oil. However, everyone agrees that not need to state until morning the second time. It would have
olive oil is preferred (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Tefilla 5:11;
been sufficient to state: But that which remains of it you shall burn
Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 264:6).
with fire. Rather, why does the Torah state until morning? The
Burning consecrated items on a Festival – ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפת ֳ ּק ָד ׁ ִשים verse comes to provide him with the second morning for burning.
ביֹום טֹוב:ּ ְ On a Festival, one may not burn ritually impure con- Leftover meat of the Paschal lamb is not burned on the following
secrated items (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Yom Tov 3:8).
morning, which is a Festival, but rather on the following day, the
first of the intermediate days of the Festival. From there it is derived
that burning consecrated items on a Festival is prohibited.
notes
From where are these matters derived – ילי ֵּ מנָ ָהנֵי ִמ:ְ It “עֹולת ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ַ : ָא ַמר ְק ָרא, ַא ַ ּביֵ י ָא ַמרAbaye said: This is derived from another verse, as the verse said:
would have been appropriate to ask, why is burning conse-
crated items and specifically burning teruma prohibited on
ַ “ ְ ּב ׁ ַש ַ ּב ּתֹו״ – וְ ל ֹאThis is the burnt-offering of each Shabbat on its Shabbat” (Num-
,עֹולת חֹול ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת
a Festival? First of all, there is a positive mitzva to burn con- ַ וְ ל ֹאbers 28:10). Only the burnt-offering of Shabbat is sacrificed on
.עֹולת חֹול ְ ּביֹום טֹוב
secrated items, which should override the negative mitzva
Shabbat, and not a weekday burnt-offering on Shabbat, and not
of the Festival. Second, since lighting a fire is permitted on a weekday burnt-offering on a Festival. Apparently, performing
Festivals, burning consecrated items should have been per- this mitzva is prohibited even on a Festival, since it was not explic-
mitted as well (Rashba). itly enumerated among the actions permitted on a Festival.
116 Perek II . 24b . דכ ףד: קרפ ׳ב
notes
“הוּא ְל ַבדּ ֹו: ָא ַמר ְק ָרא,ָר ָבא ָא ַמר Rava said: This is derived from a different verse, as the verse said
with regard to the laws of a Festival: “No manner of work shall be Derived by means of an a fortiori inference – דְּ ָא ְתיָ א ְ ּב ַקל
, ‘הוּא׳ – וְ ל ֹא ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ִירין,יֵ ָע ֶ ׂשה ָל ֶכם״ חֹומר
ֶ ָו: Many commentaries discussed the essence of this a
,ְ‘ל ַבדּ ֹו׳ – וְ ל ֹא ִמ ָילה ׁ ֶשל ֹא ִ ּבזְ ַמ ָּנ ּה done in them, save that which every man must eat, that alone may fortiori inference (see Tosafot). Contrary to the majority of the
be done by you” (Exodus 12:16). From the word that, it is derived commentaries, who explained that the Gemara means that,
.חֹומר
ֶ ָדְּ ָא ְתיָ א ְ ּב ַקל ו
that for sustenance, one is permitted to perform prohibited labor if not for the verse, circumcision would have been derived by
on a Festival, but not for facilitators of sustenance. Although cook- means of an a fortiori inference, there is another explanation.
ing is permitted, actions that involve prohibited labors for the pur- The prohibition of burning consecrated items on a Festival is
pose of facilitating cooking are prohibited. From the word alone, it derived by means of an a fortiori inference from circumcision.
The mitzva of circumcision is so significant a mitzva that it
is derived: And not circumcision performed not at its appointed
overrides Shabbat. Nevertheless, when its appropriate time
time, i.e., a circumcision may be performed on a Festival only if it has passed, it no longer overrides the prohibition of Shabbat
is on the eighth day. A circumcision that was postponed may not be or even that of a Festival. All the more so the obligation to
performed on a Festival. It is possible that license to perform the burn consecrated items, which, unlike circumcision, lacks a
postponed circumcision on a Festival could have been derived by definite time, and the thirteen covenants of circumcision
means of an a fortiori inference.n Therefore, the verse explicitly do not apply to it, is prohibited on a Festival (Rav Hai Gaon).
prohibited doing so. The same is true with regard to burning con-
secrated items. Although the Torah commands burning conse-
crated items, it was not permitted on a Festival since there is no
obligation to do so specifically on that day.
– ‘ש ָ ּבתֹון׳
ַ ׁ )(‘ש ָ ּבת׳
ַ ׁ : ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ָא ַמרRav Ashi said: It is derived from a different source. In the verses
that speak of the Festivals, as opposed to the term Shabbat, the term
shabbaton (Leviticus 23:24) appears.
Perek II
Daf 25 Amud a
notes
יה יֹום טֹוב ֲע ֵ ׂשה וְ ל ֹא ּ וַ ֲהוָ ה ֵל, ֲע ֵ ׂשהThe latter term is a positive mitzva to rest. And, if so, observance of
Positive mitzva and a prohibition – ע ֵ ׂשה וְ ל ֹא ַת ֲע ֶ ׂשה:ֲ The
ֹוחה ֶאת ל ֹא ֶ ּ וְ ֵאין ֲע ֵ ׂשה ד, ַת ֲע ֶ ׂשהa Festival is a mitzva that was commanded with both a positive Gemara in tractate Yevamot arrives at a conclusion accepted
. ַת ֲע ֶ ׂשה וַ ֲע ֵ ׂשהmitzva to rest and a prohibition: “You shall do no manner of
n
throughout the Talmud that a positive mitzva overrides a
servile work” (Leviticus 23:8). And there is a principle that a posi- negative mitzva in a case where both are in effect simul-
tive mitzva, e.g., burning consecrated items whose time has expired, taneously. However, as a rule, a positive mitzva does not
does not override a mitzva that was commanded with both a pro- override another positive mitzva, unless explicitly stated
hibition and a positive mitzva, e.g., observance of the Festival. otherwise in the Torah. All the more so, a positive mitzva
does not override both a positive mitzva and a prohibition.
Therefore, it was important in this context to emphasize that
– ָהא ַ ּבחֹול,ְ ּביֹום טֹוב הוּא דַּ ֲא ִסיר By inference, the conclusion is that, specifically on a Festival, light- on a Festival there is the positive mitzva to rest and refrain
: ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? ָא ַמר ַרב,ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר דָּ ֵמי ing with burnt oil is prohibited. During the week one may well do from performing labor in addition to the prohibition against
ְּכ ׁ ֵשם ׁ ֶש ִּמצְ וָ ה ִל ְ ׂשרֹוף ַה ֳ ּק ָד ׁ ִשים so. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this distinction? It performing labor.
would be reasonable to say that it is prohibited to derive any benefit
ָּכ ְך ִמצְ וָ ה ִל ְ ׂשרֹוף ֶאת,ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְט ְמא ּו
from teruma that became ritually impure. Rav said: Just as there is
: וְ ָא ְמ ָרה ּת ָֹורה.ַה ְּתרו ָּמה ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְט ֵמאת a mitzva to burn consecrated items that became ritually impure,
יכן
ָ ֵה.יהנֵי ִמ ֶּמ ָּנה ֱ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ִ ּביעו ָּר ּה ֶּת so too, there is a mitzva to burn teruma that became ritually im-
דְּ ָא ַמר.ָא ְמ ָרה ּת ָֹורה? ִמדְּ ַרב נַ ְח ָמן pure, and the Torah said: While it is being destroyed, derive
: ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ֲאב ו ּּה benefit from it. The Gemara asks: Where did the Torah say this?
ָא ַמר ְק ָרא “וַ ֲאנִי ִה ֵּנה נָ ַת ִּתי ְלךָ ֶאת Where is there an allusion to this in the Bible? The Gemara answers:
It can be derived from the statement of Rav Naĥman, as Rav
ּמֹותי״ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְּתרוּמֹות
ָ ִמ ׁ ְש ֶמ ֶרת ְּתרו
Naĥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: The verse said: “And I,
הֹורה ָ ַא ַחת ְּתרו ָּמה ְט,ַה ָּכתוּב ְמ ַד ֵ ּבר behold, I have given you the charge of My terumot” (Numbers
וְ ָא ַמר ַר ֲח ָמנָ א.וְ ַא ַחת ְּתרו ָּמה ְט ֵמ ָאה 18:8). From the amplification of the plural: My terumot, it is derived
ְל ַה ִּס ָיק ּה ַּת ַחת,ְ‘לךָ ׳ – ׁ ֶש ְּלךָ ְּת ֵהא that the verse is speaking of two terumot, one teruma that is ritu-
. ַָּת ְב ׁ ִש ְילך ally pure and one teruma that is ritually impure. And God said:
“I have given you,” i.e., it shall be yours, and you may derive benefit
from it.h Since there is a stringent prohibition against eating it, the
benefit permitted is to burn it beneath your cooked dish. Similar
forms of benefit may also be derived from burning teruma.
halakha
Benefiting from teruma that is ritually impure – ַהנָ ָאה ִ ּב ְתרו ָּמה benefit along with him. Therefore, in the Jerusalem Talmud,
ט ֵמ ָאה:ְ Although eating ritually impure teruma is prohibited, a the Sages permitted burning ritually impure teruma for certain
priest is permitted to benefit from burning it. It is prohibited for communal purposes with the permission of the priests (Ram-
all other Jews to derive benefit from burning teruma. However, bam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Terumot 2:14; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh
if a priest is benefitting from burning teruma, a non-priest may De’a 331:19, and in the comment of the Rema).
ק ֶֹד ׁש ָלא,ית ? ִמ ְס ַּת ְ ּב ָרא ָ ּו ָמ ה ָר ִא The Gemara asks: And what did you seeb that led you to conclude
:ימן פנ״ק עכ״ס ָ יטנָ א ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ִס ְ ְמ ַמ ֵע that “from it” comes to exclude teruma? Perhaps “from it” comes
ָ ,ּ ִפי ּגוּל
ָאסוּר, וְ ָכ ֵרת, ָק ְר ַ ּבן ְמ ִע ָילה,נֹותר to exclude consecrated items. The Gemara replies: It is reasonable
that I do not exclude consecrated items from the prohibition
.ְלאֹונֵן
against benefiting from its burning, as with regard to consecrated
items there are many stringent elements. Their Hebrew acronym
is peh, nun, kuf, ayin, kaf, samekh, which is a mnemonicbn for the
following terms. Piggul: With regard to an offering, if, during one
of the services involved in its sacrifice, i.e., slaughter, receiving the
blood, bringing it to the altar, sprinkling it on the altar, the priest
or the one bringing the offering entertains the thought of eating
the sacrifice at a time that is unfit for eating, it is thereby invali-
dated. Notar: Meat of a sacrifice that remained beyond its allotted
time may not be eaten and must be burned. Korban me’ila: One
who unwittingly derives benefit from consecrated items is required
to bring a guilt-offering for misuse of consecrated items.
Karet:The punishment of one who eats consecrated items while
ritually impure is karet. Asur le’onen: An acute mourner, i.e., one
whose relative died that same day and has not yet been buried, is
prohibited to eat consecrated items. None of these halakhot ap-
plies to teruma. Therefore, consecrated items are more stringent
than teruma, and therefore it is consecrated items that are not ex-
cluded from the prohibition against deriving benefit while ritually
impure.
notes
The Talmud’s approach to the matter of “from it” – יטת ַ ׁ ִש as teruma and sacrifices, may be derived from it a fortiori.
״מ ֶּמנּ וּ״
ִ ה ַּת ְלמוּד ְ ּב ִענְיָ ן:ַ The fundamental difficulty in this deri- Therefore, with regard to burning ritually impure consecrated
vation is to find a middle ground between two conclusions items, there is, on the one hand, a tendency to prohibit doing
derived from a single verse. From the verse in the confession of so by means of an a fortiori inference from second tithe. On
the tithes, one could derive that use of ritually impure secondֹֹ- the other hand, one could permit doing so because of the
tithe produce for any purpose is prohibited and that one may exclusionary phrase, “from it,” which restricts the prohibition
not even derive benefit from burning it. At the same time, the to a case of second tithe. Since there is room both to expand
verse does not establish a general halakha. On the contrary, the and restrict the prohibition, one must consider what elements
prohibition is apparently restricted to second-tithe as derived are included and what elements are not included within
from the emphasis on the word “from” in the expression: “Nei- that prohibition.
ther did I destroy from it”, as opposed to: And I did not destroy,
or: I did not destroy it. Mnemonic – ימן ָ ס:ִ There are different methods used to
On the other hand, it is well-known that Torah law can create these mnemonics: Here the acronym peh, nun,
be derived by means of an a fortiori inference. The second kuf, ayin, kaf, and samekh is formed from the first or
tithe is the most lenient of all types of consecrated items other significant letters of the words piggul, notar, kor-
and teruma because it lacks intrinsic sanctity and is not pro- ban, me’ila, karet, and asur. The other mnemonic, mem,
hibited to non-priests. Its only restriction is that it must be ĥet, peh, and zayin, is an acronym for mita, ĥomesh, pidyon,
eaten in Jerusalem. More stringent consecrated items, such and zarim.
Perek II
Daf 25 Amud b
notes
ְ ָהנַ ך. וַ ֲאסו ָּרה ְלזָ ִרים, וְ ֵאין ָל ּה ּ ִפ ְדיֹוןAnd, teruma does not have the possibility of pidyon: redemption,
Karet and death at the hand of Heaven – ָּכ ֵרת ו ִּמ ָיתה ִ ּב ֵידי
ָ ׁ נְ ִפas, once it is sanctified, it may not be redeemed and rendered non-
.ישן ש ַמיִ ם:
ָ ׁ There are significantly diverse definitions for karet
sacred. And it is prohibited to zarim: non-priests may not eat it. and death at the hand of Heaven (see Tosafot on 25a, s.v.
These stringencies do not apply to consecrated items. The Gemara karet). Nevertheless, it is clear from the Torah that karet is the
answers: Nevertheless, those stringencies that apply to consecrated more severe punishment, and consequently a transgression
items are more numerous than those that apply to teruma. There- punishable by karet is egregious.
fore, it is appropriate to be more stringent with consecrated items
and exclude impure teruma from the prohibition against deriving
benefit when burning it.
ׁ ֶש ֵּכן, ק ֶֹד ׁש ָחמוּר:ימא ָ יב ֵעית ֵא ּ ָ וְ ִא And if you wish, say instead a different reason, without counting
: ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק ָא ַמר.ָענו ּׁש ָּכ ֵרת the number of stringencies: Consecrated items are more stringent
, ‘לֹו׳ וְ ל ֹא ְלאוּרֹו,“ת ֵּתן לֹו״
ִּ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא because one who eats them while ritually impure is punishable by
karet, while in the case of teruma the punishment is death at the
.ִמ ְּכ ָלל דְּ ַבת אוּרֹו הוּא
hand of Heaven.n In this regard, the Torah is more stringent vis-à-vis
consecrated items than it is vis-à-vis teruma. Rav Naĥman bar
Yitzĥak said that there is a different proof that one is permitted to
benefit from teruma while it is burning. As the verse said: “The first
fruits of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the first of the
fleece of your sheep shall you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4). The
Sages derived from this verse: Give the priest teruma that is ritually
pure, that is fit for him to consume, and do not give the priest
teruma that is suitable only for his fire, to be burned. By inference,
ritually impure teruma is suitable for his fire, i.e., a priest may derive
benefit from it.
ַמאי.אֹומר כו׳״ ֵ ַ“ר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yishmael says that kindling a
ֹוך ׁ ֶש ֵריחֹו ְ ִמ ּת:ַט ְע ָמא? ָא ַמר ָר ָבא lamp on Shabbath with tar is prohibited. The Gemara asks: What is
ֲא ַמר.ִיח ָּנ ּה וְ יֵ צֵ אֶ ְ ּגזֵ ָרה ׁ ֶש ָּמא יַ ּנ,ַרע the reason for this? Rava said: Because its odor is bad the Sages
issued a decree prohibiting the use of tar, lest one forsake the light
ׁ ֶש ֲאנִי,יהּ לֵ ר מַ אֲ ! וְ יֵ צֵ א:יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י ּ ֵל and leave. Abaye said to him: And let him leave. What obligation
,חֹובהָ – ַה ְד ָל ַקת נֵ ר ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת:אֹומר ֵ is there to sit next to the light? Rava said to him: Because I say that
וְ ָא ְמ ִרי,דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר ַרב זַ ְב ָדא kindling Shabbat lights is an obligation, and one is required to eat
:ָל ּה ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר ָר ָבא ָא ַמר ַרב specifically by that light in deference to Shabbat. As Rav Naĥman
ְר ִחיצַ ת,חֹובה ָ – ַה ְד ָל ַקת נֵ ר ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת bar Rav Zavda said, and others say that it was Rav Naĥman bar
,יָ ַדיִ ם וְ ַרגְ ַליִ ם ְ ּב ַח ִּמין ַע ְר ִבית – ְר ׁשוּת Rava who said that Rav said: Kindling the Shabbat lamps is an
obligation, whereas washing one’s hands and feet with hot waterh
. ִמצְ וָ ה:אֹומר
ֵ וַ ֲאנִי
in the evening prior to Shabbat is merely optional. And I say:
Washing is not merely optional; it is a mitzva even though it is not
an obligation.
halakha
Kindling a lamp on Shabbat – ה ְד ָל ַקת נֵ ר ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת:ַ Kindling the (Mishna Berura). Other foods do not take precedence over the water before Shabbat as preparation for fulfillment of the mitzva
lights is one of the obligations of Shabbat and it takes prece- Shabbat lights because light is one of the essential components to enjoy Shabbat. If one does not have the opportunity to wash
dence even over wine for kiddush. One who only has the means of the mitzva to enjoy Shabbat (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot his entire body, he should at least wash his face, hands, and feet
to purchase either wine for kiddush or oil for the lamp should Shabbat 5:1; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 263:2). in that order (Sha’arei Teshuva in the name of the Rabbi Yitzĥak
purchase oil. However, if the choice is between bread for the Washing one’s hands and feet with hot water – ְר ִחיצַ ת יָ ַדיִ ם Luria; Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 30:2; Shulĥan
Shabbat meal and oil for the lamp, one should purchase bread וְ ַרגְ ַליִ ם ְ ּב ַח ִּמין: It is a mitzva to wash one’s entire body with hot Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 260:1 and in the comment of the Rema).
ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון,יקין ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶמן דָּ גִ ים ו ְּב ִע ְט ָרן ִ ו ַּמ ְד ִל And one may light with fish oil and tar. Rabbi Shi-
, ַמ ְד ִל ִיקין ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶמן ּ ַפ ּקוּעֹות ו ְּבנֵ ְפ ְט:אֹומר ֵ ׁ ְשזו ִּרי mon Shezuri says: One may light with gourd oilb
ּכֹל ַהּיֹוצֵ א ִמן ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ֵאין:אֹומר ֵ ס ּו ָמכֹוס and naphtha. Sumakhos says: Among the sub-
stances that emerge from the flesh of living beings,
סו ָּמכֹוס ַהיְ ינ ּו. ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶמן דָּ גִ ים,ַמ ְד ִל ִיקין ּבֹו
one may light only with fish oil. The Gemara asks:
יכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יה ּו דְּ ַרב ְ ּברוּנָ א ָא ַמר ָּ ַּת ָּנא ַק ָּמא! ִא The opinion of Sumakhos is identical to the opinion
.ימיִ ְ וְ ָלא ְמ ַסּי,ַרב of the first tanna, who also permits lighting with fish
oil. The Gemara answers: There is a practical differ-
ence between them with regard to what Rav Beru-
na said that Rav said: One is permitted to use mol-
ten fat to which oil was added for lighting. They
disagree with regard to this halakha; however, their
opinions are not defined and it is unclear which of
them permits using it and which prohibits using it.
ּכֹל ַהּיֹוצֵ א:אֹומר ֵ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר, ַּתנְיָאIt was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben
, ִמן ָה ֵעץ – ֵאין ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ַעל ׁ ָשל ֹׁשElazar says: Anything that emerges from the tree
: ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י. חוּץ ִמ ּ ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתן, ו ְּמ ַס ְּכ ִכין ּבֹוdoes not have the legalh status of an area of three by
three fingerbreadths. Even if it is three by three
fingerbreadths, it is not considered sufficiently large
to become ritually impure. And, therefore, one may
roof his sukkah with it, as the roofing of his sukka
may not be made from any material that can become
ritually impure. This is the case for everything that
originates from a tree with the exception of linen,
background
which has a unique legal status. Abaye said:
Radish oil – ש ֶמן צְ נֹונֹות:
ֶ ׁ This oil is produced from radish seeds, prob-
ably from the radish species Raphunus sativus, whose seeds contain a
high concentration of oil. Ancient writers indicate that radish oil was
prevalent in Egypt during the talmudic period.
Gourd oil – ש ֶמן ּ ַפ ּקוּעֹות:
ֶ ׁ The gourds mentioned in the Bible and the
Mishna have been identified with the plant known as the bitter apple,
the Citrullus colocynthis L. of the gourd family.
This plant is similar to a watermelon and is found along the coastal
plain and the other sandy regions of Israel. The plant has finger-like
leaves that are somewhat similar to grape leaves and round fruits
that are approximately 10 cm in diameter with a thick rind. The fruit is
spongy, filled with seeds, and has a bitter taste.
It is possible to extract oil from the seeds, generally as much as
15 percent of the weight of the seeds. The oil can be used for food
or light.
halakha
You have only those which the Sages said – ֵאין ְלךָ ֶא ָּלא three by three handbreadths. This rule also applies to torn
מה ׁ ּ ֶש ָא ְמר ּו ֲח ָכ ִמים:ַ The halakha is in accordance with the garments. However, if one weaves a complete garment,
Sages and with Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Nuri, who stated with regardless of its size, the garment can become ritually
regard to the laws of wicks and oils on Shabbat that the ha- impure with all forms of ritual impurity, except for the ritual
lakha is no more stringent than the guidelines established impurity imparted by treading. The Gemara elaborates in a
by the Sages. This is according to the unattributed mishna later discussion (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 22:1).
and the discussion in the Gemara (Rambam Sefer Zemanim,
Anything that emerges from the tree with regard to
Hilkhot Shabbat 5:11; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 264:6).
roofing for the sukka – הּיֹוצֵ א ִמן ָה ֵעץ ְל ִסיכוּך:ַ Anything
Anything that emerges from the tree with regard to that comes from a tree may be used as roofing for the
ritual impurity – הּיֹוצֵ א ִמן ָה ֵעץ ְל ִענְיַ ן טו ְּמ ָאה:ַ Anything that sukka unless it has been crafted into a vessel, as per the
comes from a tree, with the exception of flax, cannot be- opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ
Bitter apple come ritually impure unless it measures a minimum of Ĥayyim 629:1).
notes
The verse states: “And the garment” – לֹומר וְ ַה ֶ ּבגֶ ד
ַ ת ְלמוּד:ַּ Al- handbreadths is considered a garment requires no derivation. Since
though, in the study hall of Rabbi Yishmael the general practice it is fit for use by both wealthy and poor people, a garment of three
was not to derive halakhot from unclear amplifications in the To- by three handbreadths is indeed an article of clothing. There is no
rah text, e.g., an extra letter vav, the Gemara already stated that reason to enlarge the minimum measure of a garment beyond a
the students of Rabbi Yishmael would derive halakhot from the reasonable size (Ramban; Rashba).
addition of vav and heh, meaning: And the (Yevamot 72b). In this Now that the warp and the woof can become ritually impure…
case, the text could have simply read: Garment. Therefore, the a cloth that is three by three – א…של ׁ ָֹשה ַעל ַּ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא ׁ ְש ִתי וָ ֵע ֶרב ִמ
ְ ׁ יט ֵּמ
prefix meaning: And the, is an uncommon linguistic form whose של ׁ ָֹשה:
ְ ׁ Some commentaries say that it is not self-evident that the
purpose is to teach that garment should be understood in its criterion for becoming ritually impure in the case of the warp and
broadest sense. woof is the same with regard to a garment. From the additional lan-
Three by three – של ׁ ָֹשה ַעל ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה:
ְ ׁ It is apparent from the discus- guage in the verse, apparently, each case is derived independently
sion in the Gemara that the fact that a cloth that is three by three (Tziyyun LeNefesh Ĥayya).
ְל ַר ּבֹות ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ַעל ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה:ימא ָ וְ ֵא The Gemara also asks: Indeed, there is amplification in the Torah,
“ב גֶ דּ ֶ :ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָאר ְ ּב גָ ִדים! ֲא ַמר ְק ָרא derived from the term: And the garment, which is a generalization
– ֶ ּבגֶ ד צֶ ֶמר ו ִּפ ׁ ְש ִּתים,צֶ ֶמר ו ִּפ ׁ ְש ִּתים״ that comes to expand upon the details that follow. And say that it
comes to include the ruling that cloth that is three by three hand-
ִּכי:ימא ָ וְ ֵא. ִמידֵּ י ַא ֲח ִרינֵי – ָלא,ִאין
breadths in garments made of materials other than wool or linen
ֲא ָבל,ימעוּט – ִמ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ַעל ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ְ ִא can become ritually impure. The Gemara answers: That is inconceiv-
יט ֵּמא! ְּת ֵרי ַּ ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ַעל ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה – ִמ able. The verse said: A garment of wool or linen, indicating that a
][ב ֶבגֶ ד ּ ְ “בגֶ ד צֶ ֶמר אֹו
ּ ֶ :ִמיעו ֵּטי ְּכ ִת ִיבי garment made of wool or linen, yes, it becomes ritually impure; a
ַחד – ְל ַמעו ֵּטי ִמ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ַעל,ּ ִפ ׁ ְש ִּתים״ garment made of other materials, no, it does not become ritually
וְ ַחד – ְל ַמעו ֵּטי ִמ ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ַעל,ׁ ָשל ֹׁש impure. The Gemara asks: And say that when the verse excluded,
it excluded specifically a garment that is three by three finger-
,ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה
breadths; however, a garment that is three by three handbreadths
can become ritually impure. The Gemara replies: Two exclusions
are written; once it is stated: “A garment of wool or linen” (Leviticus
13:59), and it is also stated: “Whether it be a woolen garment, or a
linen garment” (Leviticus 13:47). One verse comes to exclude
cloth of three by three fingerbreadths, and one verse comes to
exclude cloth of three by three handbreadths, to emphasize that a
garment made of a material that is neither wool nor linen cannot
become ritually impure at all. This corresponds to Abaye’s opinion
that garments not made of wool or linen cannot become ritually
impure.
ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ַעל ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה: דְּ ָא ַמר,ו ְּל ָר ָבא The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rava, who said
ְל ַר ִ ּבי,ּיכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יהו ָּ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָאר ְ ּבגָ ִדים ִא that the practical difference between the two opinions is with regard
ְל ַת ָּנא,יה ּ ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר – ִאית ֵל to cloth three by three handbreadths in other garments, that
Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is of the opinion that they can become
ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה,יה ּ דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל – ֵלית ֵל ritually impure, whereas the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael
ַעל ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָאר ְ ּבגָ ִדים is not of the opinion that they can become ritually impure, in the
case of a cloth that is three by three handbreadths in other
garments,
Perek II
Daf 27 Amud a
: דְּ ַתנְיָא,יה? נָ ְפ ָקא ֵמ׳אֹו ֶבגֶ ד׳ ּ ְמנָ א ֵל from where does Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar derive that it can be-
ּ
ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ַעל,ֶ‘בגֶ ד׳ – ֵאין ִלי ֶא ָלא ֶ ּבגֶ ד come ritually impure? The Gemara answers: In his opinion, it is
ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָאר ְ ּבגָ ִדים ִמ ּנַּיִ ין? ַּת ְלמוּד derived from the verse that speaks of the ritual impurity of creeping
animals: “Or a garment, or skin, or sack” (Leviticus 11:32). The ad-
. ‘אֹו ֶבגֶ ד׳:לֹומר ַ
ditional “or” comes to include items that are not generally included
in the definition of garment. As it was taught in a baraita: From the
fact that it says garment, I have derived nothing other than a whole
garment; however, a swatch that is three by three handbreadths in
other garments, from where is it derived that it can become ritu-
ally impure? The verse states: Or a garment.
124 Perek II . 27a . זכ ףד. קרפ ׳ב
halakha
?יה ּ ַהאי ‘אֹו ֶבגֶ ד׳ ַמאי ָע ֵביד ֵל, וְ ַא ַ ּביֵ יThe Gemara asks: And Abaye, who says that everyone agrees that other
The size for a garment to become ritually im-
יה ְל ַר ּבֹות ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ַעל ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ּ יב ֵעי ֵל ּ ָ ִמgarments do not become ritually impure at all, this phrase: Or a gar- pure – שיעוּר טו ְּמ ַאת ְ ּבגָ ִדים:
ִ ׁ All garments, other than
. ְ ּבצֶ ֶמר ו ִּפ ׁ ְש ִּתים דִּ ְמ ַט ֵּמא ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָרצִ יםment, what does he do with it and what does it come to add? The those made of wool and linen, can become ritually
Gemara answers: He needs it to include a small swatch of fabric that is impure only if they are at least three by three hand-
three by three fingerbreadths made of wool or linen. Despite its size, breadths, as per the baraita cited in the Gemara. Appar-
it can become ritually impureh from contact with creeping animals. ently, Abaye’s rejection of the proof was only according
to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar (Rambam
וְ הוּא, ָ ּג ֵלי ַר ֲח ָמנָ ּא גַ ֵ ּבי נְ גָ ִעים: וְ ָר ָבאAnd Rava holds that there is no need for the verse to discuss that matter Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 22:1 and 23:2).
. ַהדִּ ין ִל ׁ ְש ָרצִ יםexplicitly, as the Torah revealed in the case of leprosy that it is consid- From where is it derived to include garments made
ered to be a garment, and the same is true with regard to the ritual of camels’ hair, etc. – מ ּנַיִ ין ְל ַר ּבֹות צֶ ֶמר ְ ּג ַמ ִּלים וכו׳:ִ Gar-
impurity of creeping animals. ments woven from anything that grows on land, i.e.,
from both plants and animals, are considered garments
– יכא ְל ִמ ְיפ ַרךְ ; ַמה ִּלנְ גָ ִעיםָּ ִא: וְ ַא ַ ּביֵ יAnd Abaye holds that one cannot derive the halakhot of creeping ani- in terms of ritual impurity, as per the tanna of the school
of Rabbi Yishmael (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim
. ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ׁ ְש ִתי וָ ֵע ֶרב ִמ ַּט ֵּמא ָ ּב ֶהםmals from the halakhot of leprosy, as there is room to refute that com-
parison in the following manner: What comparison is there to leprosy, 1:11).
which has more stringent halakhot of ritual impurity, as even the warp
and woof threads alone can become ritually impure from it, which is notes
not the case with regard to ritual impurity from creeping animals? Makes one ritually impure even in a case where it is
Therefore, even small scraps can become ritually impure from leprosy. a lentil-bulk – מ ַּט ֵּמא ְ ּב ַכ ֲע ָד ׁ ָשה:ְ With regard to creeping
animals, the size of a lentil is the smallest measure of
any item that can make another item ritually impure.
ִאי ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָת ְך נְ גָ ִעים: וְ ִא ָיד ְךThe other amora, Rava, says: If it should enter your mind to say that In all other types of ritual impurity, e.g., a corpse, or an
– ִל ְכ ּתֹוב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ׁ ְש ָרצִ ים, ֲח ִמ ִיריleprosy is more stringent, then the Torah should have written the animal carcass, the minimum size capable of making
.ּ וְ ַליְ ת ּו נְ גָ ִעים ִמ ּינַיְ יהוhalakha with regard to creeping animals, and let leprosy be derived another item ritually impure is larger. The rationale for
from them. Ultimately, the two halakhot are paralleled to one another this rule is that the smallest creeping animal capable
in the Torah. It would have been simpler to explicitly write the laws of of making another item ritually impure is a lentil-bulk
creeping animals and to derive leprosy from them. Since that is not the at birth.
case, it is proof that the halakhot of creeping animals can be derived Rav Pappa said this – רב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא ֲא ַמ ָר ּה:ַ This phrase ap-
from leprosy. pears several times in the Gemara. Rav Pappa was the
preeminent student of Rava and, after his death, he
, נְ גָ ִעים ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ָרצִ ים ָלא ָאת ּו: וְ ִא ָיד ְךThe other amora, Abaye, said that this contention is fundamentally even succeeded him as the head of the yeshiva. When
Rav Pappa cited a statement without attribution, the
ַמה ִּל ׁ ְש ָרצִ ים ׁ ֶש ֵּכן:יפ ַר ְך
ְ יכא ְל ִמ ָּ דְּ ִאunsound, as leprosy could not be derived from creeping animals
students attributed it to Rava (see Rashi).
. ְמ ַּט ֵּמא ְ ּב ַכ ֲע ָד ׁ ָשהbecause there is room to refute this idea and challenge: What is the
comparison to the ritual impurity of creeping animals, which is more
stringent than the ritual impurity of leprosy, as the creeping animal background
makes one ritually impure even in a case where it is a lentil-bulk,n Goats’ hair – נֹוצָ ה ׁ ֶשל ִעּזִ ים: The Torah and the Sages do
which is not true of other types of ritual impurity? Therefore, verses not refer to the material sheared from goats as wool.
Rather, it is called either hair or feathers. Goats’ hair
were necessary to teach about the ritual impurity of both creeping ani- is also called feathers because it is not soft like other
mals and leprosy. types of wool. Rather, it is stiff like bird feathers (Rashi).
ַהאי ַּת ָּנא דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי:ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י Abaye said: This statement of the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yish-
יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ַמ ּ ֵפיק ֵמ ִא ָידךְ ַּת ָּנא דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי mael diverges from another statement of the tanna of the school of
: דְּ ָתנֵי דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל.יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל Rabbi Yishmael, as the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:
From the fact that the verse says garment, I have derived nothing
,ֶ‘בגֶ ד׳ ֵאין ִלי ֶא ָּלא ֶ ּבגֶ ד צֶ ֶמר ו ִּפ ׁ ְש ִּתים
other than the halakha that a garment of wool or linen can become
ִמ ּנַיִ ין ְל ַר ּב ֹות צֶ ֶמר ְ ּג ַמ ִּלים וְ צֶ ֶמר ritually impure. However, from where is it derived to include garments
ַא ְרנָ ִבים נֹוצָ ה ׁ ֶשל ִעּזִ ים וְ ַה ׁ ּ ִש ָיריִ ן made of camels’ hairh and rabbits’ wool, goats’ hairb or the types of
לֹומר ַ יקין – ַּת ְלמוּד ִ וְ ַה ָּכ ָל ְך וְ ַה ְּס ִר silk, the shirayin, the kalakh, and the serikin among the fabrics that can
.“אֹו ֶבגֶ ד״ become ritually impure? The verse states: Or a garment. The word “or”
serves as an amplification to include all types of fabric.
וְ ָהא ָר ָבא הוּא דַּ ֲא ַמר ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ַעל The Gemara asks: Isn’t Rava the one who said above that, in the case
ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָאר ְ ּבגָ ִדים ְל ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון of three by three handbreadths in other garments, Rabbi Shimon ben
ְל ַת ָּנא דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי,יה
ּ ֶ ּבן ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר – ִאית ֵל Elazar is of the opinion that they can become ritually impure, whereas
the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael is not of the opinion that
יה ָר ָבא ּ יה! ֲה ַדר ֵ ּב ּ יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל – ֵלית ֵל they become ritually impure? The Gemara answers: Rava retracted that
ָהא – ַרב:ימא ָ וְ ִאי ָ ּב ֵעית ֵא.ֵמ ַה ִהיא opinion in order to reconcile the opinions of the tanna’im of the school
.ּ ַפ ּ ָפא ֲא ַמ ָר ּה of Rabbi Yishmael. And if you wish, say instead a different answer: Rav
Pappa said thisn statement and not Rava. Since Rav Pappa was the
primary disciple of Rava, the Gemara attributed his statement to Rava.
זכ ףד. ׳ב קרפ. Perek II . 27a 125
halakha
ַאף ּכֹל – ְל ַא ּתֹויֵ י:ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא ָא ַמר Rav Pappa himself understood the first statement of the tanna of the
To include diverse kinds – ל ַא ּתֹויֵ י ִּכ ְל ַאיִ ם:ְ The prohibition of a school of Rabbi Yishmael and stated it in a completely different man-
mixture of diverse kinds applies only to sheep’s wool and linen ְ ּב ֶה ְדיָ א ְּכ ִת ִיבי, ִּכ ְל ַאיִ ם.ִּכ ְל ַאיִ ם
and not to any other materials (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot יה “ל ֹא ִת ְל ַ ּב ׁש ׁ ַש ַע ְטנֵ ז צֶ ֶמר ּ ֵ ּב ner. In his opinion, the derivation from the halakhot of leprosy, which
Kil’ayim 10:1; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 298:1). concluded that even all nonspecific mentions of garments in the
ו ִּפ ׁ ְש ִּתים יַ ְחדָּ יו״! ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָת ְך
Torah refer to wool or linen, came to include the halakhot of diverse
,ישה ָ ׁ ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי – דֶּ ֶרךְ ְל ִב:ָא ִמינָ א kinds,h the Torah prohibition to wear clothing made from a mixture
notes
ֲא ָבל ְ ּב ַה ֲע ָל ָאה – ָּכל ְּת ֵרי ִמינֵי of wool and linen threads. He sought to prove that the halakhot of
Is a mistake – בדו ָּתא ִהיא:ּ ְ There is a variant reading in several
sources: It is external [berota hi]. According to this reading, .ָאסוּר prohibited mixtures of threads apply only to wool and linen. The
when the Sages wanted to suggest that a certain opinion was Gemara asks: Why does he require this derivation with regard to the
without basis, they would do so in a respectful manner, saying: prohibition of diverse kinds? The fact that the prohibition is limited
It is external, indicating that it is an outside opinion and should to wool and linen is explicitly written, as it is stated: “You shall not
not be introduced into the study hall (Arukh). wear diverse kinds, wool and linen together” (Deuteronomy 22:11).
The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, an additional derivation was
necessary, as it would have entered your mind to say that this, the
restriction of the prohibition of diverse kinds to wool and linen, ap-
plies specifically to a case when one uses them together in the man-
ner of wearing them; however, in merely placing the garments upon
oneself, any two kinds are prohibited. Therefore, it was necessary to
derive that the garment mentioned is restricted to wool and linen.
חֹומר ה ּוא? ּו ַמ ה ֶ ָוְ ָלאו ַקל ו This claim is rejected: And is it not an a fortiori inference? Just as in
ּ דְּ ָקא ִמ ְית ַה ּנֵי ּכו ֵּּלי ּגו ֵּפ,ישה
יה ָ ׁ ְל ִב the case of wearing the garment, where one’s entire body derives
– צֶ ֶמר ו ִּפ ׁ ְש ִּתים: ָא ְמ ַר ְּת,ִמ ִּכ ְל ַאיִ ם benefit from the diverse kinds, you said that wool and linen, yes,
are included in the prohibition, other materials, no, are not included;
ַה ֲע ָל ָאה, ִמ ֵידי ַא ֲח ִרינָא – ָלא,ִאין
in the case of merely placing the garment upon himself, all the more
דְּ ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא,ל ֹא ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן! ֶא ָּלא so that the halakha should not be more stringent. Rather, certainly
.ְ ּבדו ָּתא ִהיא the halakha that was attributed to Rav Pappa is a mistake,n and he
did not say it.
ַאף: ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק ָא ַמרRav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak also said that those statements of the tanna
– ּכֹלof the school of Rabbi Yishmael do not refer to the halakhot of ritual
impurity. They refer to another topic. In his opinion, the tanna of the
school of Rabbi Yishmael came to say that just as the halakhot of
leprosy are limited to garments made from wool or linen, so too, all
Perek II
Daf 27 Amud b
halakha
ְ ּב ֶה ְדיָ א, צִ יצִ ית.ְל ַא ּתֹויֵ י צִ יצִ ית garments mentioned in the Torah are made from wool and linen. This
To include ritual fringes – ל ַא ּתֹויֵ י צִ יצִ ית:ְ Dating back to the
“ל ֹא ִת ְל ַ ּב ׁש ׁ ַש ַע ְטנֵ ז צֶ ֶמר:ְּכ ִתיב comes to include the law of ritual fringes;h the obligation of ritual
ge’onim, there is a halakhic dispute whether or not one is ob-
ligated by Torah law to place ritual fringes on garments made “ ְ ּג ִד ִילים ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה:ו ִּפ ׁ ְש ִּתים״ ו ְּכ ִתיב fringes applies only to those materials. The Gemara asks: Why is that
from materials other than wool or linen. Some authorities ruled derivation necessary? With regard to ritual fringes it is written ex-
ָל ְך ״! ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָת ְך ָא ִמינָ א
in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak plicitly: “You shall not wear diverse kinds, wool and linen together”
that the mitzva by Torah law applies only to garments made ְּכ ִתיב: דְּ ָר ָבא ָר ֵמ י,ִּכ ְד ָר ָבא (Deuteronomy 22:11); and juxtaposed to it, it is written: “You shall
of wool or linen. This is the ruling of the Shulĥan Arukh. The ו ְּכ ִתיב “צֶ ֶמר,ַ‘ה ָּכנָ ף׳ – ִמין ָּכנָ ף make for you twisted fringes upon the four corners of your covering,
Rema rules in accordance with the opinion of Rava, who says ו ִּפ ׁ ְש ִּתים יַ ְחדָּ יו״ ָהא ֵּכיצַ ד? צֶ ֶמר with which you cover yourself ” (Deuteronomy 22:12). From the
that one is obligated by Torah law to place ritual fringes on all
ֹוט ִרין ֵ ּבין ְ ּב ִמ ָּינן ֵ ּבין
ְ ו ִּפ ׁ ְש ִּתים ּפ juxtaposition of these two verses it is derived that the mitzva of ritual
garments. However, they require ritual fringes made either of
wool or linen or of the same material as the garment (Rambam – ְ ּב ִמ ּינָן,ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ְ ּב ִמ ּינָן; ׁ ְש ָאר ִמינִין fringes applies only to garments to which the laws of diverse kinds
Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Tzitzit 3:1; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 9:1). apply. Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak responded that the matter is not so
ְ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ְ ּב ִמ ּינָן – ֵאין ּפ,ֹוט ִרין
.ֹוט ִרין ְ ּפ
clear, as it could have entered your mind to say in accordance with
Wool and linen exempt whether it is of their own type, ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָת ְך ִּכ ְד ָר ָבא – ָקא
whether it is not of their own type – ֹוט ִרין ֵ ּבין ְ צֶ ֶמר ו ִּפ ׁ ְש ִּתים ּפ
the statement of Rava. As Rava raised a contradiction: On the one
ב ִמ ּינָן ֵ ּבין ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ְ ּב ִמ ּינָן:ּ ְ Ritual fringes made from wool or linen may
.ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן hand, it is written: “And that they put with the fringe of each corner
be placed on all garments. The exceptions are wool fringes on a thread of sky blue” (Numbers 15:39); apparently, the threads of the
a linen garment or linen fringes on a wool garment. Since there ritual fringes must be of the same type of fabric as the corner of the
is no universally accepted sky blue dye today, these combina- garment. However, in Deuteronomy, in the laws of ritual fringes, it is
tions violate the prohibition of diverse kinds. Others say that written in juxtaposition to the laws of diverse kinds: Wool and linen
one may never attach linen fringes to any garment, even one
together. The ritual fringes may only be made of those materials. How
made of linen, because of the appearance of wrongdoing
(Rema; Magen Avraham; Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Tzitzit can that contradiction be resolved? Rather, Rava says: Ritual fringes
3:3, 5–6; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 9:2). made of wool and linen exempt the garment and fulfill the obligation
of ritual fringes whether the garment is of their own type, wool or
Other types, a garment of their own type, they exempt –
ֹוט ִרין
ְ ְ ּב ִמ ּינָן ּפ,ש ָאר ִמינִין:
ְ ׁ All authorities agree that ritual fringes
linen, whether it is noth of their own type. Whereas with regard to
made from materials other than wool or linen may be attached other types, a garment of their own type, they exempt;h a garment
only to garments made from the same material as the ritual not of their own type, they do not exempt. It would have entered
fringes and not to garments made from other materials, as your mind to explain this in accordance with the approach of Rava.
per the opinion of Rava (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Tzitzit Therefore, the tanna taught us that the obligation of ritual fringes
3:5; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 9:3). applies only to wool and linen and not to other materials.
126 Perek II . 27b . זכ ףד: קרפ ׳ב
halakha
:יה דְּ ָר ָבא ְל ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ּ ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ָחא ְ ּב ֵר Rav Aĥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: According to the
tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, what is different about The garment of a blind person – כסוּת סו ָּמא:ְּ A blind man is
ְל ַת ָּנא דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ַמאי ׁ ְשנָ א ְל ִענְיַ ן obligated by Torah law in the mitzva of ritual fringes. This rul-
טו ְּמ ָאה דִּ ְמ ַר ֵ ּבי ׁ ְש ָאר ְ ּבגָ ִדים – דִּ ְכ ִתיב ritual impurity that he includes other garments not made of ing is based on the baraita, which was apparently accepted
wool and linen because it is written: Or a garment, which is a throughout the Talmud (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Tzitzit
ְל ַר ּבֹות ׁ ְש ָאר:ימא ָ ‘אֹו ֶבגֶ ד׳ ָה ָכא נַ ִמי ֵל
term of amplification? Here too, in the matter of ritual fringes, 3:7; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 17:1).
״א ׁ ֶשר ְּת ַכ ֶּסה ָ ּב ּה״ – ַההוּא ֲ ְ ּב גָ ִדים ֵמ say that it comes to include other garments from the phrase:
Sukka that he roofed with spun thread – ס ְּיכ ָכ ּה ְ ּב ָטווּי:ִ Spun
,ְל ַא ּתֹויֵ י ְּכס ּות ס ּו ָמא ה ּוא דַּ ֲא ָתא Of your covering, with which you cover yourself. Rav Ashi flax may not be used for the roofing of a sukka because it
יתם אֹותֹו״ – ּ ְפ ָרט ִל ְכסוּת ֶ “ו ְּר ִא:דְּ ַתנְיָא answered: That amplification is necessary to include the gar- can become ritually impure. The same is true with regard to
אֹו,אֹומר ּ ְפ ָרט ִל ְכסוּת ַליְ ָלה ֵ ַא ָּתה.ַליְ ָלה ment of a blind personh in the obligation of ritual fringes. As it half-processed flax because it no longer looks like something
ֵאינֹו ֶא ָּלא ּ ְפ ָרט ִל ְכסוּת סו ָּמא? ְּכ ׁ ֶשהוּא was taught in a baraita, with regard to ritual fringes it is stated: that grows in the ground (Rambam) and is suitable for stuff-
“And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that you may look upon it ing for a pillow. Therefore, it can become ritually impure
“א ׁ ֶשר ְּת ַכ ֶּסה ָ ּב ּה״ – ֲה ֵרי ְּכסוּת ֲ :אֹומר ֵ (Ra’avad) and is disqualified for use in the roofing of a sukka
and remember all the mitzvot of the Lord” (Numbers 15:39).
ָהא ָמה ֲאנִי ְמ ַקּיֵ ים “ו ְּר ִא ֶיתם,סו ָּמא ָאמוּר The phrase: That you may look, comes to exclude a night gar-
(Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Sukka 5:4; Shulĥan Arukh,
Oraĥ Ĥayyim 629:4).
.אֹותֹו״ – ּ ְפ ָרט ִל ְכסוּת ַליְ ָלה ment, which cannot be seen and is therefore exempt from the
mitzva of ritual fringes. The tanna continues: Do you sayb that Warp and woof can become ritually impure from leprosy –
ש ִתי וָ ֵע ֶרב ִמ ַּט ֵּמא ִ ּבנְ גָ ִעים:
ְ ׁ Immediately after being spun, the
the verse comes to exclude a night garment? Or is it only to
warp and woof threads from either wool or linen can be-
exclude the garment of a blind person who is also unable to come ritually impure from leprosy, as per the unattributed
fulfill the verse: That you may look upon it? The tanna explains: mishna. How large must a skein of spun thread be for it to
When it says in Deuteronomy: Of your covering, with which become impure with the ritual impurity of leprosy? There
you cover yourself, the garment of a blind person is men- must be enough thread in the skein to weave a swatch of
tioned, as he too covers himself with a covering. If so, then how cloth that is at least three by three fingerbreadths in size, as
do I fulfill the exclusion: That you may look upon it? It comes per the opinions of several tanna’im (Rambam Sefer Tahara,
Hilkhot Tumat Tzara’at 13:8).
to exclude a night garment.
background
ית ְל ַר ּבֹות סו ָּמא ו ְּלהֹוצִ יא ְּכסוּת ָ ו ָּמה ָר ִא The Gemara asks: Since there is one verse that includes and Do you say, etc. – אֹומר וכו׳
ֵ א ָּתה:ַ This didactic method of
ַליְ ָלה? ְמ ַר ֶ ּבה ֲאנִי ְּכסוּת סו ָּמא – ׁ ֶשּיֶ ׁ ְשנָ ּה another verse that excludes, what did you see that led you to clarifying issues is commonly found in the halakhic midrash.
וּמֹוצִ יא ֲאנִי ְּכסוּת,ִ ּב ְר ִאּיָ יה ֵאצֶ ל ֲא ֵח ִרים include a blind person and to exclude a night garment in the It involves one of the Sages challenging his own statements
obligation of ritual fringes? The Gemara answers: I include the and answering his own questions. In this way, the issues
.ַליְ ָלה – ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ה ִ ּב ְר ִאּיָ יה ֵאצֶ ל ֲא ֵח ִרים under discussion as well as the connection between the
garment of a blind person because it is, at least, visible to
verses and the halakha are effectively clarified.
others, and I exclude a night garment because it is not even
visible to others. They said the same thing – א ְמר ּו דָּ ָבר ֶא ָחד:ָ This phrase refers
to the consolidation of several opinions into a single view,
which the Talmud calls a shita, a halakhic position. There
:ימא ְל ַר ּבֹות ׁ ְש ָאר ְ ּבגָ ִדים! ִמ ְס ַּת ְ ּב ָראָ וְ ֵא The Gemara asks: And say that this amplification does not come is an ancient, controversial, and not universally accepted
ָק ֵא י ְ ּבצֶ ֶמר ּו ִפ ׁ ְש ִּתים – ְמ ַר ֶ ּבה צֶ ֶמר to include a blind person’s garments, but rather, as Rava said, to tradition that asserts: The halakha is not established in ac-
include other garments not made from wool or linen in the cordance with a shita. According to that tradition, when
ְמ ַר ֶ ּבה- ָק ֵאי ְ ּבצֶ ֶמר ו ִּפ ׁ ְש ִּתים,ו ִּפ ׁ ְש ִּתים several opinions are consolidated into a shita, the purpose
obligation of ritual fringes. The Gemara answers: It is logical to
!?ׁ ְש ָאר ְ ּבגָ ִדים is to highlight those Sages whose statements were not ac-
say that since the Torah is standing and discussing a garment
cepted. As mentioned above, the validity of that principle is
made of wool or linen, it is certainly including another garment not universally accepted and many commentaries partially
made of wool or linen. Therefore, an amplification with regard or completely dispute it.
to the garment of a blind person made of wool or linen is derived.
However, when the Torah is standing and discussing a garment
made from wool or linen, is it reasonable to say that it is includ-
ing other garments with them? Rather, other garments are
certainly not derived from there.
ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר וְ סו ָּמכֹוס:ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י The Gemara returns to discuss the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben
– ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר.ָא ְמר ּו דָּ ָבר ֶא ָחד Elazar, who disqualified even small cloths from being used as
סו ָּמכֹוס, דְּ ַתנְ יָ א, סו ָּמכֹוס,ָהא דַּ ֲא ַמ ַרן roofing in the sukka because they can become ritually impure.
Abaye said: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and Sumakhos said the
ִמ ּ ְפנֵי,יכ ָכ ּה ְ ּב ָטו ּוי – ּ ְפסו ָּלה ְּ ִס:אֹומר ֵ
same thing.b The Gemara specifies: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar;
.ׁ ֶש ִּמ ַּט ְּמ ָאה ִ ּבנְ גָ ִעים that which we stated above. Sumakhos; as it was taught in a
baraita: Sumakhos says: A sukka that he roofed with roofing
made from spun threadh is disqualified because spun thread
can become ritually impure from leprosy.
ׁ ְש ִתי וָ ֵע ֶרב: דִּ ְתנַ ן,ְּכ ַמאן – ִּכי ַהאי ַּת ָּנא In accordance with whose opinion is Sumakhos’ statement? It
וְ ַר ִ ּבי. דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר,ִמ ַּט ֵּמא ִ ּבנְ גָ ִעים ִמּיָ ד is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as we learned
וְ ָה ֵע ֶרב, ַה ׁ ּ ְש ִתי ִמ ׁ ּ ֶשּיִ ׁ ּ ָש ֶלה:אֹומר ֵ יְ הו ָּדה in a mishna: Warp and woof can become ritually impure from
leprosy h immediately after they are spun; this is the statement
.ּ וְ ָהאֹונִין ׁ ֶשל ּ ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתן ִמ ׁ ּ ֶשּיִ ְת ַל ְ ּבנו,ִמּיָ ד
of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: The warp can become ritu-
ally impure only after it is removed from the cauldron in which
it is boiled, and it is only the woof that can become ritually
impure immediately. However, the bundles of unprocessed
flax can become ritually impure after they are bleached in the
oven and their processing is at least half-completed. Sumakhos,
the student of Rabbi Meir, adheres to his position.
זכ ףד: ׳ב קרפ. Perek II . 27b 127
background
Flax – פ ׁ ְש ָּתן:ִ ּ Cultivated flax, Linum usitatissimum, is an annual
plant that grows erect to a height of 40–120 cm. Its flowers
– מתני׳ ָּכל ַהּיֹוצֵ א ִמן ָה ֵעץ
. ֶא ָּלא ּ ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתן,יקין ּבֹו ִ ֵאין ַמ ְד ִל
MISHNA Of all substances that emerge from the tree, one
may light only with flaxb on Shabbat (Tosafot)
because the other substances do not burn well. And of all substances
are blue or white. Its stiff stalks contain flax fibers, and oil is וְ ָכל ַהּיֹוצֵ א ִמן ָה ֵעץ ֵאינֹו ִמ ַּט ֵּמאthat emerge from the tree, the only substance that becomes ritually
extracted from its seeds.
After the plant is cut, the stalks are soaked in water, called
. טו ְּמ ַאת א ָֹה ִלים ֶא ָּלא ּ ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתןimpure with impurity transmitted by tents over a corpse is flax.h If
mei mishra in the language of the Sages, for several days. there is a dead body inside a house or a tent that is made from any
Various bacteria cause the materials that attach the fibers to materials that originate from a tree, everything in the house becomes
the stalks to decompose. Afterward the shell is beaten and ritually impure. However, only in the case of flax does the tent itself
opened and the fibers are extracted to be used in weaving
become impure.
linen, bad or shesh in the language of the Torah.
The flax plant has been cultivated since ancient times,
especially in ancient Egypt.
?יק ִרי ֵעץ ְ גמ׳ ְמ ַנָלן דְּ ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתן ִא
: דְּ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא,ָא ַמר ָמר זו ְּט ָרא
GEMARA The mishna mentioned flax as a material that
comes from a tree. The Gemara asks: From
where do we derive that flax is called a tree? Based on appearance, it
“וְ ִהיא ֶה ֱע ָל ַתם ַה ָ ּגגָ ה וַ ִּת ְט ְמנֵ םdoes not resemble a tree at all. Mar Zutra said: It is derived from that
. ְ ּב ִפ ׁ ְש ֵּתי ָה ֵעץ״which the verse said: “And she had taken them up to the roof and
hidden them under the trees of flax” ( Joshua 2:6).
“וְ ַהּיֹוצֵ א ִמן ָה ֵעץ ֵאינֹו ִמ ַּט ֵּמא And we also learned in the mishna that with regard to any substance
.טו ְּמ ַאת א ָֹה ִלים ֶא ָּלא ּ ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתן״ that emerges from the tree, the only substance that becomes ritually
ָ ּג ַמר:נָלן? ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר
ַ ְמ impure with impurity transmitted by tents over a corpse is flax. The
Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rabbi Elazar said: The
‘א ֶֹהל׳ ‘א ֶֹהל׳
tanna learned a verbal analogy [gezera shava] between the word tent,
written in the context of ritual impurity, and the word tent,
halakha
And of all substances that emerge from the tree, the only
substance that becomes ritually impure with impurity
transmitted by tents over a corpse, etc. – ָּכל ַהּיֹוצֵ א ִמן ָה ֵעץ
אינֹו ִמ ַּט ֵּמא טו ְּמ ַאת א ָֹה ִלים וכו׳:ֵ The only material made from
plant fibers that is suspended over a dead body that be-
comes ritually impure is linen. Some commentaries say that
this law applies specifically to a permanent tent (Tosafot;
Ra’avad; Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Met 5:12).
Perek II
Daf 28 Amud a
halakha
“ זֹאת:ִמ ִּמ ׁ ְש ָּכן; ְּכ ִתיב ָה ָכא written in the context of the Tabernacle. It is written here, in the dis-
What is considered a tent – מה ּו ַה ָקרוּי א ֶֹהל:ַ With regard to
ַה ּת ָֹורה ָא ָדם ִּכי יָ מוּת ְ ּבא ֶֹהל״ cussion of the laws of ritual impurity: “This is the law: When a man
the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, a tent
is limited to a roof fashioned out of a garment, a sack, a רֹוש ֶאת ָהא ֶֹהל ׁ “וַ יִ ְפ:ו ְּכ ִתיב ָה ָתם dies in a tent, every one that comes into the tent, and everything that
wooden vessel, or leather, either from a kosher or non-kosher is in the tent, shall be impure seven days” (Numbers 19:14), and it is
ַמה ְּל ַה ָּלן – ׁ ֶשל.ַעל ַה ִּמ ׁ ְש ָּכן״
animal. Roofing made of bone or metal does not constitute written there: “And he spread the tent over the Tabernacle, and put
a tent and does not become ritually impure when it extends ַאף ָּכאן – ׁ ֶשל,ּ ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתן ָקרוּי א ֶֹהל the covering of the tent above upon it; as the Lord commanded Moses”
over a corpse (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Met 5:12). – ִאי ַמה ְּל ַה ָּלן.ּ ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתן ָקרוּי א ֶֹהל (Exodus 40:19). Just as below, with regard to the Tabernacle, the tent
ַאף,ׁ ְשזו ִּרין וְ חו ָּטן ָּכפוּל ִׁש ׁ ּ ָשה was made of linen and is considered a tent, so too, here, with regard
notes
?ָּכאן ׁ ְשזו ִּרין וְ חו ָּטן ָּכפוּל ִׁש ׁ ּ ָשה to the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, only a tent made
Twisted and the threads were folded – שזו ִּרין וְ חו ָּטן ָּכפוּל:
ְׁ
‘א ֶֹהל׳, ‘א ֶֹהל׳:לֹומר ַ ַּת ְלמ ּוד of linen is considered a tent.h The Gemara asks: If so, derive the fol-
The key discussion of this issue appears elsewhere in the lowing from that same verbal analogy: Just as below the linen threads
Talmud. There, the Sages derive that everywhere the term ,יבה ּ ָ ִאי א ֶֹהל א ֶֹהל ִר.יבה ּ ָ ִר
in the Tabernacle were specifically threads that were twisted and the
shesh is employed in the Torah, it is referring to a linen cloth ,ילי נַ ִמי! ִאם ֵּכן ֵּ יל ּו ָּכל ִמ ּ ֲא ִפ threads were foldedn six times, so too, here, in all of the halakhot
fashioned from a special thread composed of six threads
spun into one. This is based on various derivations, including
?יה ּ ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ָשוָ ה ַמאי ַא ֲהנִי ֵל pertaining to a tent over a corpse, the threads must be twisted and their
a verbal analogy and the juxtaposition of verses. threads folded six times. The verse states the word tent, tent several
times to amplify and include even a tent made of linen not identical to
the Tabernacle. The Gemara asks: If the repetition of the word tent, tent
several times amplifies, even all things should be included among
those items that can receive ritual impurity as a tent. The Gemara an-
swers: This amplification cannot be that far-reaching, as, if so, the verbal
analogy of tent, tent, that teaches us to derive the tent over a corpse
from the Tabernacle, what purpose does it serve if everything is in-
cluded? Rather, certainly the amplification is not absolute. Through the
combination of the verbal analogy and the amplification, it is derived
that this halakha applies specifically to linen.
128 Perek II . 28a . חכ ףד. קרפ ׳ב
notes
ַאף ָּכאן, ַמה ְּל ַה ָּלן ְק ָר ׁ ִשים:ימא ָ וְ ֵא And perhaps say: Just as below, in the Tabernacle, there were beams support-
ing the tent, so too, here, in the laws of ritual impurity, a tent made of beams The hides of teĥashim – עֹורֹות ְּת ָח ׁ ִשים: In
ית ְק ָר ׁ ִשים ָ “וְ ָע ִ ׂש:ְק ָר ׁ ִשים! ָא ַמר ְק ָרא the Jerusalem Talmud, the Sages disputed
וְ ֵאין, ִמ ׁ ְש ָּכן – ָקר ּוי ִמ ׁ ְש ָּכן,ַל ִּמ ׁ ְש ָּכן״ should also be considered a tent. The Gemara responds that the verse said: whether or not the taĥash was a kosher or a
“And you shall make the beams for the Tabernacle of acacia wood, standing non-kosher animal. The resolution to Rabbi
ֶא ָּלא ֵמ ַע ָּתה.ְק ָר ׁ ִשים ְקר ּויִ ין ִמ ׁ ְש ָּכן
up” (Exodus 26:15). From the language of the verse, it is derived that the Elazar’s dilemma here depends on the reso-
ִמ ְכ ֶסה,ית ִמ ְכ ֶסה ָלא ֶֹהל״ ָה ִכי נַ ִמי ָ “וְ ָע ִ ׂש Tabernacle, i.e., the curtains alone, is called Tabernacle, and the beams are lution of that tannaitic dispute.
יק ִרי א ֶֹהל! ֶא ָּלא ָהא דְּ ָב ֵעי ַר ִ ּבי ְּ ָלא ִא not called Tabernacle, because they merely facilitate the Tabernacle. The
עֹור ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְט ֵמ ָאה ַמה ּו ׁ ֶשּיִ ָּט ֵמא:ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר Gemara rejects this: But if that is so, based on an analysis of the language of background
הֹורה ָ ְ ּבא ֶֹהל ַה ֵּמת? ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא עֹור ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְט the verse, it says there: “And you shall make a covering for the tent of rams’ Tela ilan – ת ָלא ִא ָילן:ְּ There are divergent
!?יב ֲעיָא ּ ָ עֹור ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְט ֵמ ָאה ִמ,ָלא ִמ ַּט ֵּמא skins dyed red and a covering of teĥashimn above” (Exodus 26:14), then in opinions as to the identity of this creature.
that case, too, say that the covering is not considered a tent. If so, however, According to the ge’onim, the tela ilan be-
: דִּ ְכ ִתיב,ׁ ָשאנֵי ָה ָתם דַּ ֲה ַדר ֲא ַה ְד ֵר ּיה ְק ָרא longs to the Genetta species, and it is pos-
what of the dilemma raised by Rabbi Elazar: With regard to the hide of a
נָשא ּו ֶאת יְ ִריעֹות ַה ִּמ ׁ ְש ָּכן וְ ֶאת א ֶֹהל ׂ ְ ְ“ו non-kosher animal over a corpse, what is the ruling? Can it become ritu- sibly the Genetta terrasanctae, unique to Eretz
Yisrael. The tela is approximately the size of
מֹועד ִמ ְכ ֵסה ּו ּו ִמ ְכ ֵסה ַה ַּת ַח ׁש ֲא ׁ ֶשר ֵ ally impure as a tent over a corpse? If the covering of the Tabernacle is not a cat, with yellow or light-orange skin and
ַמה ַּת ְח ּתֹון,ָע ָליו״ ַמ ִּק ׁיש ֶע ְליֹון ַל ַּת ְח ּתֹון considered a tent, now, the hide of a kosher animal that covered the black stripes. This creature is a quick predator
.ָקרוּי א ֶֹהל – ַאף ֶע ְליֹון ָקרוּי א ֶֹהל Tabernacle cannot become ritually impure. If that is so, is it necessary to that also climbs trees. The ancient Egyptians
mention that the hide of a non-kosher animal cannot become ritually domesticated them and used them to hunt
impure? The Gemara answers: The cases are not comparable because it is mice.
different there, in the case of the covering of animal hides, because the verse
subsequently restored its status as a tent by uniting the tent and its covering,
as it is written: “They shall bear the curtains of the Tabernacle, and the
Tent of Meeting, its covering, and the covering of taĥash that is upon it”
(Numbers 4:25). The verse juxtaposes the upper to the lower covering; just
as the lower covering is considered a tent, so too, the upper covering is
considered a tent.
Spotted genet
עֹור ְ ּב ֵה ָמה: ָ ּב ֵעי ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר,גּ ו ָּפא Rabbi Elazar’s dilemma was mentioned above, and now the Gemara dis-
? ַמה ּו ׁ ֶשּיִ ָּט ֵמא טו ְּמ ַאת א ָֹה ִלין,ְט ֵמ ָאה cusses the matter itself. Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma: With regard to the
hide of a non-kosher animal over a corpse, what is the ruling? Can it be- language
יה? – ָא ַמר ַרב ַאדָּ א ּ יב ֲעיָ א ֵלּ ָ ַמאי ָק ִמ Sasgona – ס ְס ּגֹונָ א:ַ It is assumed that the ori-
come ritually impure as a tent over a corpse? The Gemara clarifies: What is
ימי מ ֶֹׁשה ֵ ַּת ַח ׁש ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ִ ּב:ַ ּבר ַא ֲה ָבה gin of this word, which is the Aramaic transla-
the essence of his dilemma? Rav Adda bar Ahava said: The taĥash that
? ָט ֵמא ָהיָה אֹו ָטהֹור ָהיָה,יה ּ יב ֲעיָא ֵל ּ ָ ָק ִמ tion of the biblical taĥash, is from the Persian
existed in the time of Moses is at the crux of Rabbi Elazar’s dilemma. Was word gōn, meaning color. The word sasgona
:יה? ָּתנֵינָ אּ יב ֵעי ֵל
ּ ָ ַמאי ִּת:יֹוסף ֵ ָא ַמר ַרב it non-kosher or was it kosher? Rav Yosef said: What is his dilemma? is conceivably a form of the word shast-gon,
אכת ׁ ָש ַמיִ ם ֶא ָּלא עֹור ֶ ל ֹא הו ְּכ ׁ ְשר ּו ִל ְמ ֶל Didn’t we learn explicitly: Only the hide of a kosher animal was deemed meaning possessing sixty colors, or in other
!הֹורה ִ ּב ְל ַבד
ָ ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְט suitable for heavenly service? Certainly, the taĥash was a kosher species. words, multicolored.
ׁ ְשנֵי:אֹומר ֵ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה,ְמ ִתיב ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא Rabbi Abba raised an objection. Rabbi Yehuda says: There were two cover- halakha
ֶא ָחד ׁ ֶשל עֹורֹות ֵא ִילים,ִּמ ְכ ָסאֹות ָהיו ings for the Tabernacle, one made of the reddened hides of rams and one of That was afflicted in the hands of a priest –
ַר ִ ּבי.ְמ ָאדָּ ִמים וְ ֶא ָחד ׁ ֶשל עֹורֹות ְּת ָח ׁ ִשים the hides of teĥashim. Rabbi Neĥemya says: There was only one covering וְ ׁ ֶש ָּל ָקה ְ ּביַ ד ּכ ֵֹהן: The Torah teaches that a gar-
for the Tabernacle, half of which was made of rams’ hides and half from the ment with a leprous-like growth is brought
דֹומה ֶ ְ ו, ִמ ְכ ֶסה ֶא ָחד ָהיָ ה:אֹומר ֵ נְ ֶח ְמיָ ה before a priest. Upon inspection, the priest
hides of teĥashim. And teĥashim were similar to the species of undomesti-
וְ ָהא ְּת ָלא ִא ָילן ָט ֵמא.ְּכ ִמין ְּת ָלא ִא ָילן cated animals called tela ilan.b The Gemara asks: But isn’t a tela ilan a non- could quarantine it. However, if clear signs of
, ְּכ ִמין ְּת ָלא ִא ָילן הוּא:הוּא! ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר ritual impurity appear on the garment before
kosher creature? The Gemara emends this statement: This is what Rabbi
he quarantines it, he confirms the leprosy
, וְ ל ֹא ְּת ָלא ִא ָילן,ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ּבֹו ְ ּגוָ ונִין ַה ְר ֵ ּבה Neĥemya intended to say: It was like a tela ilan in that it was multicolored; immediately. The garment need not have
. וְ ָה ָכא – ָטהֹור,יל ּו ָה ָתם – ָט ֵמא ּ דְּ ִא however, it was not an actual tela ilan. There, the tela ilan is non-kosher, and been leprous before it was brought to the
ִאי ָה ִכי ַהיְ ינ ּו דִּ ְמ ַת ְר ְ ּג ִמינַן:יֹוסף ֵ ָא ַמר ַרב here, the covering of the tent was made from kosher animals. Rav Yosef said: priest (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat
If so, that is the reason that we translate the word taĥash as sasgona,l which Tzara’at 6:7).
.“ס ְסגּ ֹונָ א״ – ׁ ֶש ּ ָ ׂש ׂש ִ ּבגְ וָ ונִין ַה ְר ֵ ּבה
ַ
means that it rejoices [sas] in many colors [gevanim]. One cut and made of them a single
cloth – קצַ ץ ִמ ּכו ָּּלן וְ ָע ָ ׂשה ַא ַחת ֵמ ֶהן:ָ If one
עֹור ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְט ֵמ ָאה דְּ ִמ ַּט ֵּמא:ָר ָבא ָא ַמר Rava said that the proof that the hide of a non-kosher animal becomes takes swatches of various materials, none of
‘עֹור׳: דְּ ַתנְ יָ א,ְ ּבא ֶֹהל ַה ֵּמת ֵמ ָה ָכא ritually impure in a tent over a corpse is derived from here, as it was taught which is three by three fingerbreadths, and
,יבה עֹור ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְט ֵמ ָאה ּ ָ ‘אֹו ָבעֹור׳ – ִר in a baraita that it is stated in the halakhot of ritual impurity of leprosy that sews them together, the resulting fabric can
the leprosy could be: “Either in the warp, or in the woof, whether they be of become ritually impure because a sewn gar-
ָקצַ ץ ִמ ּכו ָּּלן וְ ָע ָ ׂשה.וְ ׁ ֶש ָּל ָקה ְ ּביַ ד ּכ ֵֹהן ment has the same legal status as a woven
linen, or of wool; or in a hide, or in any thing made of hide” (Leviticus 13:48).
‘אֹו ְ ּב ָכל:לֹומר ַ ַא ַחת ֵמ ֶהן ִמ ּנַיִ ן? ַּת ְלמוּד garment (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tu-
The verse could have simply stated: Or hide, and it said instead: Or in a hide. mat Tzara’at 12:12).
ַמה:יפ ַר ְך ְ יכא ְל ִמ ָּ וְ ִא.אכת עֹור׳ ֶ ְמ ֶל The Sages said: These words, or in a hide, amplify to include the hide of a
!ִּלנְ גָ ִעים – ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ׁ ְש ִתי וָ ֵע ֶרב ָט ֵמא ָ ּב ֶהן non-kosher animal as well as hide that was afflicted in the hands of a priest,h
i.e., before the owner showed it to the priest there was no leprosy but it be-
came leprous while in the hands of the priest, that they too become ritually
impure. If one cut pieces from each of these types and made of them a single
cloth,h from where is it derived that it can become ritually impure? The verse
states from the broader amplification: Or in anything made of hide. The
Gemara remarks: There is room to refute this parallel, rendering it impos-
sible to derive the laws of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse from the laws
of leprosy. What is the comparison to leprosy with regard to which the Torah
is stringent, as even the warp and woof that have not been woven into a gar-
ment can become ritually impure from it, which is not the case in impurity
imparted by a corpse?
חכ ףד. ׳ב קרפ. Perek II . 28a 129
‘עֹור׳ ֵאין ִלי ֶא ָּלא: דְּ ַתנְיָא, ָ ּג ַמר ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ָרצִ ים:ֶא ָּלא Rather, one could say that he derived it from the laws of the ritual
– עֹור ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְט ֵמ ָאה ִמ ּנַיִ ן,הֹורה ָ עֹור ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְט impurity of creeping animals, as it is stated with regard to them: “And
ַמה:יפ ַר ְך ְ יכא ְל ִמ ָּ וְ ִא. ‘אֹו עֹור׳:לֹומר ַ ַּת ְלמוּד upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, does fall, it shall
be impure; whether it be any vessel of wood, or garment, or hide, or
ִּל ׁ ְש ָרצִ ים – ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ְמ ַט ְּמ ִאין ְ ּב ַכ ֲע ָד ׁ ָשה – נְ גָ ִעים
sack, whatsoever vessel it be, with which any work is done” (Leviticus
וְ ל ֹא, ל ֹא ְר ִאי זֶ ה ִּכ ְר ִאי זֶ ה, וְ ָחזַ ר ַהדִּ ין.ּיֹוכיחו ִ 11:32). As it was taught in a baraita: From the use of the word hide, I
ַה ַ ּצד ַה ׁ ּ ָשוֶ ה ׁ ֶש ָ ּב ֶהן – ׁ ֶשעֹור,ְר ִאי זֶ ה ִּכ ְר ִאי זֶ ה have derived nothing other than the fact that the hide of a kosher
וְ ָע ָ ׂשה עֹור ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְט ֵמ ָאה ְּכעֹור ְ ּב ֵה ָמה,ָט ֵמא ָ ּב ֶהן animal becomes ritually impure from contact with a creeping animal;
ׁ ֶשעֹור ָט ֵמא, ַאף ֲאנִי ָא ִביא א ֶֹהל ַה ֵּמת,הֹורה ָ ְט however, from where is it derived that the hide of a non-kosher
נַע ָ ׂשה ּבֹו עֹור ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְט ֵמ ָאה ְּכעֹור ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ֲ ְ ו,ּבֹו animal can become ritually impure? This is derived from the ampli-
fication, as the verse states: Or hide. Since, with regard to the ritual
.הֹורהָ ְט
impurity of creeping animals the laws of the hides of kosher and non-
kosher animals are identical, it is derived that this is also true with
regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. Once
again, the Gemara says: There is room to refute this derivation and
say: What is the comparison to creeping animals, as their legal status
is stringent because they become ritually impure even if they are as
small as a lentil-bulk, which is not true in the case of a corpse? In
order for a corpse to transmit ritual impurity, it must be larger, an
olive-bulk. Therefore, the Gemara says: If so, the case of leprosy can
prove that the fact that creeping animals that are a lentil-bulk transmit
impurity is not a factor in whether or not a non-kosher animal hide
can become ritually impure. Leprosy that is a lentil-bulk does not
transmit impurity and, nevertheless, the hide of a non-kosher animal
becomes ritually impure from it. And the derivation has reverted to
its starting point. The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that
case and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case, as
each case has its own unique stringencies. However, their common
denominator is that hide, in general, is ritually impure in both
cases, and the Torah rendered the hide of a non-kosher animal
equal to the hide of a kosher animal in that it becomes ritually im-
pure. I will also bring the additional halakha of a tent over a corpse
made of the hide of a non-kosher animal, and in that case as well,
the hide of a non-kosher animal will be rendered equal to the hide
of a kosher animal.
יכא ָּ ִא:נִיש ְל ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ׁ יה ָר ָבא ִמ ַ ּב ְר ּ ֲא ַמר ֵל Rava from Barnish said to Rav Ashi: There is still room to refute
ַמה ְּל ַה ַ ּצד ַה ׁ ּ ָשוֶ ה ׁ ֶש ָ ּב ֶהן – ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ְט ֵמ ִאין, ְְל ִמ ְיפ ַרך this statement and say: What is the comparison to leprosy and creep-
ֹאמר ְ ּב ֵמת ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ְמ ַט ֵּמא ֶא ָּלא ַ ּת,ְ ּב ָפחֹות ִמ ַּכּזַ יִ ת ing animals? Their common denominator is that they both transmit
ritual impurity when smaller than an olive-bulk. Can you say the
!ְ ּב ַכּזַ יִ ת
same in the case of a corpse, which only transmits ritual impurity
when it is at least an olive-bulk? Therefore, despite the differences
between them, these two halakhot are both more stringent than the
laws of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, and the status of a non-
kosher animal hide cannot be derived from them.
ׁ ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ָר ָבא ִמ ַ ּב ְרRather, Rava from Barnish said it can be derived in the following
:נִיש
manner:
Perek II
Daf 28 Amud b
teries, which must be crafted from the hide of a kosher animal. It verse in the Torah and not from the Tabernacle?
was not referring to the parchment on which the portions of the
Torah inserted into the phylacteries are written. The Gemara asks: background
Didn’t Abaye say: The obligation to make a letter shin protruding Phylacteries – ת ִפ ִּילין:ְּ The boxes housing the phylacter-
on the phylacteriesh of one’s head is a halakha transmitted to Mo- ies are sewn using the sinews of animals. The parch-
ments with the Torah portions that are rolled up and
ses from Sinai? Since Torah law addresses the boxes of the phylac-
inserted into the phylacteries of both the head and the
teries, presumably their legal status is parallel to that of the parch- arm are tied using the hair of a kosher animal.
ment and the prohibition against preparing them from the hide of
a non-kosher animal is by Torah law as well.
halakha
With regard to phylacteries – ל ְת ִפ ִּילין:ִ The Torah portions of side. The shin on the right side of the box has three heads, like an ox. The hair must first be washed. The ends of the hair must
the phylacteries, a Torah scroll, and other sacred writings that the standard letter shin, while the one on the left side has four be visible outside the box, customarily, in a specific place (Be’er
contain the names of God may be written only on parchment heads (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Tefillin UMezuza VeSefer Hetev; Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Tefillin UMezuza VeSefer
made from the hides of kosher animals. However, one is permit- Torah 3:1; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 32:42). Torah 3:1; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 32:44).
ted to use the hides of kosher animals that were not slaugh-
Phylacteries must be square – ת ִפ ִּילין ְמרו ָ ּּבעֹות:ְּ The boxes of
tered properly or the hides of animals with a life expectancy
the phylacteries must be a perfect square, whose sides are of Sewn with their sinews – וְ נִ ְת ּ ָפרֹות ְ ּבגִ ָידן: The boxes of the phy-
of less than a year, as per the Gemara (Rambam Sefer Ahava,
equal length and width and form a right angle. The base of the lacteries are sewn shut using the sinews of a kosher domesticat-
Hilkhot Tefillin UMezuza VeSefer Torah 1:10, 10:1; Shulĥan Arukh,
phylacteries must also be square. Some say that the height ed or non-domesticated animal, even those of kosher animals
Oraĥ Ĥayyim 32:12 and Yoreh De’a 271:1).
of the box need not be equal to the length and width of the that were not slaughtered properly or with a life expectancy of
With regard to their leather – עֹורן
ָ ל:ְ The leather of the boxes box (Beit Yosef; Rema). However, others insist that the height less than a year. Ab initio it is preferable to use the sinews of an
of the phylacteries may be made only from the hides of kosher of the box must also equal its length and its width (Rambam ox (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Tefillin UMezuza VeSefer Torah
animals. However, here too, one is permitted to use the hides of Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Tefillin UMezuza VeSefer Torah 3:1–4; Shulĥan 3:9; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 32:49).
kosher animals that were not slaughtered properly or the hides Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 32:39).
of animals with a life expectancy of less than a year (Rambam
Tied with their hair – נִ ְכ ָרכֹות ִ ּב ְ ׂש ָע ָרן: Each Torah portion placed Straps of the phylacteries must be black – ִרצוּעֹות ׁ ְשחֹורֹות:ְ The
Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Tefillin UMezuza VeSefer Torah 3:15; Shulĥan
in the phylacteries is rolled in a small piece of parchment and leather straps of the phylacteries are made from the hides of
Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 32:37).
tied with the hair of a kosher animal. It is customary to tie the kosher animals, as per the statement of Rav Yosef. It is a halakha
The shin on the phylacteries – שי”ן ׁ ֶשל ְּת ִפ ִּילין: It is a halakha Torah portion itself and then roll it in a piece of parchment and transmitted to Moses from Sinai that the straps must be colored
transmitted to Moses from Sinai that the box of the phylacter- tie it again. It is also customary to use the hair of a calf. If one black on the outside (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Tefillin UM-
ies of the head must have an embossed letter shin on either does not have calf’s hair, one may tie it with the hair of a cow or ezuza VeSefer Torah 3:14–15; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 33:3).
Giraffe halakha
Keresh – ק ֶר ׁש:ֶ Apparently, from the Greek word κέρας, Since there is the keresh – יכא ֶק ֶר ׁש
ָּ דְּ ִא: Although the keresh only to light the wick and extinguish it immediately to splay it so
keras, which means horn. Similarly, the Greek word has a single horn, it is considered a non-domesticated animal that it will hold the flame well. The mishna is interpreted
μονόκερως, monokeros, refers to a one-horned animal. (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Asurot 1:12; Shulĥan in accordance with the opinion of Rava, who explained
It may also be a reference to a wild ox, especially in the Arukh, Yoreh De’a 80:4). that the dispute is whether or not one is required to singe
Septuagint. The identity of the keresh is unclear. Some the wick. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion
say that the keresh is an imaginary animal, a unicorn, and The wick of a garment, that one folded it, but did not yet of Rabbi Akiva, who says that one need not singe the wick
some think that it refers to a single-horned rhinoceros. singe it – פ ִת ַילת ַה ֶ ּבגֶ ד ׁ ֶש ִּק ּ ְיפ ָל ּה וְ ל ֹא ִה ְב ֲה ָב ּה:ְ ּ One is not required (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 264:9 and in the comment of
to singe the wick before lighting it. However, it is customary Rema).
notes
The ox of Adam, the first man – אשֹוןׁ שֹורֹו ֶשל ָא ָדם ָה ִר:ׁ The ox that ter his banishment from the Garden of Eden, Adam reestablished
Adam sacrificed is explained metaphorically. The horn is a general his world on the basis of one fundamental principle, symbolized
symbol of strength and basic faith. This statement teaches that af- by the single horn, namely, the belief in God (Rashba).
: ַהיְ ינ ּו דְּ ָתנֵינָ א,יֹוסףֵ ָא ַמר ַרבRav Yosef said, that is what I learned: Three by three exactly.
“של ֹׁש ַעל ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ְמצו ְּמצָ מֹות״ וְ ָלא ָ ׁ And I did not know to what halakha this was relevant. Rav
. יָ ַד ֲענָ א ְל ַמאי ִה ְל ְכ ָתאYosef received from his teachers that the baraita is referring to
a case of three by three exactly, and he did not know why it was
significant to establish the baraita in a case of exactly three by
three and no more.
ו ִּמדְּ ָקא ְמ ָת ֵרץ ַרב ַאדָּ א ַ ּבר ַא ֲה ָבה The Gemara adds incidentally: And from the fact that Rav
ּ ָ ַא ִּל
יבא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה – ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה Adda bar Ahava interpretedn this mishna in accordance with
יה; ו ִּמי ָא ַמר ּ ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ְס ִב ָירא ֵל the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, conclude from this that he
holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Did
ַרב ַאדָּ א ַ ּבר ַא ֲה ָבה ָה ִכי? וְ ָה ָא ַמר
Rav Adda bar Ahava actually say this? Didn’t Rav Adda bar
:ַרב ַאדָּ א ַ ּבר ַא ֲה ָבה Ahava himself say:
Perek II
Daf 29 Amud a
יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל,גּ ֹוי ׁ ֶש ָח ַקק ַקב ִ ּב ְב ַק ַעת When a gentile carved out a vessel the size of a kav from a
נֹולד
ָ ? וְ ַא ַּמאי.ַמ ִּס ָיק ּה ְ ּביֹום טֹוב piece of wood on a Festival and thereby rendered it a new ves-
יעזֶ ר
ֶ יהם דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל ֶ הוּא! ְל ִד ְב ֵר sel, a Jew may burn the vessel on a Festival ab initio. And why
may he do so? This new vessel that was made from the wood is
יה ָלא ּ וְ ֵל,יה
ּ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ָק ָא ַמר ֵל an object that came into being [nolad] on a Festival, and is
.יהּ ְס ִב ָירא ֵל set-aside [muktze]. Since Rav Adda bar Ahava permitted doing
so, apparently he holds that the laws of set-aside do not apply
on a Festival, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The
Gemara answers: Rav Adda bar Ahava said this statement in
explanation of the statements of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi
Akiva in the mishna; however, he himself does not hold that
way. Although he explained the opinions in the mishna in ac-
cordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, he himself does
not hold that that is the halakha.
טכ ףד. ׳ב קרפ. Perek II . 29a 133
halakha
ַה יְ ינ ּו ַט ְע ָמ א דְּ ַר ִ ּבי:ָר ָבא ָא ַמ ר Rava said, this is the reasoning behind Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion with
Three by three exactly – של ֹׁש ַעל ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ְמכ ּו ָּונֹות:
ָ ׁ Ac- regard to lighting the wick: Because he holds that one may neither
cording to the laws of ritual impurity, a garment can יעזֶ ר – ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַמ ְד ִל ִיקין ִ ּב ְפ ִת ָילה
ֶ ֱא ִל
become ritually impure if it is a minimum of three by וְ ל ֹא ִ ּב ְס ַמ ְרטו ִּטין,חֹור ֶכת ֶ ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ה ְמ light on Shabbat using a wick that is not slightly singed and prepared
three fingerbreadths. This applies to both linen and for lighting nor light with rags that were not singed before Shabbat. If
ֶא ָּלא ָהא דְּ ָתנֵי ַרב.חֹור ִכין ָ ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ן ְמ
wool and includes the hem, as per the opinion of the a person singes the wick slightly before lighting it, it will burn well. A
Rabbis (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 22:1). “של ֹׁש ַעל ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ְמצו ְּמצָ מֹות״ ָ ׁ :יֹוסף
ֵ wick that has not been singed does not burn well and will not show the
One may only kindle a fire with whole vessels
: דִּ ְתנַן,ְל ַמאי ִה ְל ְכ ָתא? ְל ִענְיַ ן טו ְּמ ָאה appropriate deference to Shabbat. The Gemara asks: If so, that which
and one may not kindle a fire using broken ves- ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ַעל ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ׁ ֶש ָא ְמר ּו – ח ּוץ ִמן Rav Yosef taught: Three by three exactly,h to what halakha is it rele-
sels – מ ִּס ִיקין ְ ּב ֵכ ִלים וְ ֵאין ַמ ִּס ִיקין ְ ּב ׁ ִש ְב ֵרי ֵכ ִלים:ַ A vessel וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים. דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון,ַה ְּמ ָלל vant? According to Rava’s explanation, the precise size of the garment
that broke on a Festival may not be used to feed a fire
. ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ַעל ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ְמכ ּו ָּונֹות:אֹומ ִריםְ used in making the wick is irrelevant. The Gemara responds: Rav Yosef ’s
because it is considered to be something that came statement was with regard to another matter, the halakhot of ritual
into being on a Festival; it is set-aside, and one may impurity. As we learned in a mishna in tractate Kelim: Three by three
not move it. However, one may feed a fire with whole
vessels or vessels that broke before the Festival, as per
fingerbreadths that they stated as the smallest sized garment that can
the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, become ritually impure, excludes the portion used for the hem,bn i.e.,
Hilkhot Yom Tov 2:12; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 501:6). those threads that emerge at the edge of the garment and are sewn into
a hem; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. And the Rabbis say:
One may kindle a fire with dates – יקין ִ ּב ְת ָמ ִרין
ִ מ ִּס:ַ
One may burn the shells of almonds and walnuts and Three by three exactly, even including the hem. That is the context of
the pits of dates that he ate before a Festival (Mishna Rav Yosef ’s statement: Three by three exactly.
Berura). If he ate them on the Festival itself, he may
not use their shells and pits to feed a fire. Similarly, יקין ִ ַמ ִּס:ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ַרב With regard to the statement cited above, Rav Yehuda said that Rav
because nuts are primarily for eating, not burning, said that there is a dispute between the tanna’im on this issue: One may
,יקין ְ ּב ׁ ִש ְב ֵרי ֵכ ִלים ִ ְ ּב ֵכ ִלים וְ ֵאין ַמ ִּס
one may only burn the nuts themselves on a Festival only kindle a fire with whole vessels and one may not kindle a fire
when still in their shells, if there is no other material . וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ַמ ִּתיר,דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה
with broken vessels;h this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And
to burn. Otherwise, doing so would be in violation ֲא ָכ ָלן – ֵאין ַמ ִּס ִיקין,ַמ ִּס ִיקין ִ ּב ְת ָמ ִרין
of the prohibition against wanton destruction. This Rabbi Shimon permits kindling a fire even with broken vessels. An
וְ ַר ִ ּבי, דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה,ינֵיהן
ֶ ְ ּב גַ ְר ִע additional halakha: One may kindle a fire with whole datesh on a Fes-
is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda
(Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Yom Tov 2:12; Shulĥan ,יקין ֶ ּב ֳאגֹוזִ ים ִ ַמ ִּס.ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ַמ ִּתיר tival, and if he ate them, he may not kindle a fire with their pits as they
Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 501:7). ,יהן ֶ ֹותֵ יקין ִ ּב ְק ִל ּיפ ִ ֲא ָכ ָלן – ֵאין ַמ ִּס are set-aside; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Shi-
. וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ַמ ִּתיר,דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה mon permits kindling a fire with the pits. Furthermore, one may kindle
background a fire with whole nuts on a Festival, and if he ate them, he may not
The hem – ה ְּמ ָלל:ַ When the edge of the fabric, where kindle a fire with their shells; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
the threads stick out, is hemmed, as shown here, And Rabbi Shimon permits doing so.
the size of the garment decreases. The folded and
hemmed portion of the fabric is not calculated in the
– יתא ָ ָ דְּ ִאי ַא ׁ ְש ַמ ִעינַ ן ַק ַּמּי,יכא ָ ּוצְ ִר The Gemara comments: And it was necessary to cite all three of these
area of a sewn garment. However, the Rabbis argue
that the hem is calculated in the area of the fabric ְ ּב ַה ִהיא ָק ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם cases because each teaches a novel idea. As, had Rav taught us only the
before it is sewn. ,יק ָרא ְּכ ִלי וְ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא ׁ ֶש ֶבר ְּכ ִלי ּ ָ דְּ ֵמ ִע first halakha, we would have thought that it is specifically in that case,
with regard to burning broken vessels, that Rabbi Yehuda said that it is
ֲא ָבל.נֹולד – וְ ָא ס ּו ר ָ יה ּ וַ ֲה וָ ה ֵל prohibited, as initially it was a vessel and now it is a broken vessel, and
יק ָרא ַ ּג ְר ִעינִין וְ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא ּ ָ דְּ ֵמ ִע,ְּת ָמ ִרים therefore it is considered an object that came into being [nolad] and
וְ ִאי.ימא ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר דָּ ֵמי ָ ַ ּג ְר ִעינִין – ֵא prohibited; however, dates, initially there were pits in the dates and
:ַא ׁ ְש ַמ ִעינַ ן ַ ּג ְר ִעינִין – ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א now they remain pits, say that one may well do so. And had Rav taught
. וְ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא ִמיגְ ַליָ ין,יק ָרא ִמ ְכ ְסיָ ין ּ ָ דְּ ֵמ ִע us only with regard to date pits I would have said that they are prohib-
יק ָרא ִמיגְ ל ּו ּ ָ דְּ ֵמ ִע,יפי ֱאגֹוזִ ין ֵ ּ ֲא ָבל ְק ִל ited because initially they were concealed within the fruit and now
they are exposed, it is a case of an object that came into being and
,ימא ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר דָּ ֵמי ָ וְ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא ִמיגְ ל ּו – ֵא
prohibited. However, nutshells, which initially were exposed and now
.יכא ָ צְ ִר are exposed, as they were before, say that one may well do so. Therefore,
it was necessary to teach all of these cases.
,ית ַמר ְּ וְ ָהא דְּ ַרב – ָלאו ְ ּב ֵפיר ּו ׁש ִא And the Gemara adds: This halakha of Rav was not stated explicitly;
דְּ ַרב ֲא ַכל.ית ַמר ְּ ֶא ָּלא ִמ ְּכ ָל ָלא ִא rather, it was stated by inference based on conclusions drawn from
ָא ַמר,יתא ְלבו ְּכיָ א ָ ְַּת ְמ ֵרי ו ׁ ְּש ָדא ַק ׁ ַשי Rav’s actions and not from his explicit statements. There was an instance
where Rav ate dates on a weekday and threw the pits into the oven.
Piece of fabric and its hem ְּכנֶ גְ דֹו ְ ּביֹום, ַ ּבר ּ ַפ ֲח ֵּתי:יה ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ּ ֵל Rabbi Ĥiyya said to him: Son of noblemen, the corresponding action,
ֵיה אֹו ל ֹא ּ יב ָל ּה ִמ ּינ ּ ְ ִק.טֹוב – ָאסוּר throwing pits into an oven, is prohibited on a Festival. The Gemara
?ֵיה
ּ יב ָל ּה ִמ ּינ
ּ ְ ִק asks: Did Rav accept this halakha from himn or did he not accept it
from him?
notes
Excludes the hem – חוּץ ִמן ַה ְּמ ָלל: According to Rabbi Shimon, Did he accept it from him – ֵיהּ יב ָל ּה ִמ ּינ
ּ ְ ק:ִ Since the fundamen- have been sufficient to determine Rav’s position. However, Rav’s
one must assess each object in terms of its practical use. Since tal assertion was that Rav did not explicitly prohibit the use of opinion was only stated by inference, resulting in the dilemma:
this piece of cloth has a hem that will be folded when the date pits on a Festival due to set-aside, the Gemara cites as Did Rav accept Rabbi Ĥiyya’s opinion or did he not? This ques-
garment is worn, the hem cannot be considered part of the proof, the action of Rav and that which his uncle and teacher, tion is compounded by a different incident involving Rav on a
garment. The Rabbis disagree. Since at present, the garment Rabbi Ĥiyya, said to him. Had that been the extent of it, together Festival, which seems contradictory. Although based on the
is the requisite, minimum size, that is sufficient to render it with the added information that Rav generally rules in accor- explanation of the Gemara there is no contradiction, the con-
capable of becoming ritually impure. dance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda (see Tosafot), it would clusion is that neither is there any proof (see Penei Yehoshua).
יה ַרב ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה ְל ַרב ּ ָא ַמר ֵל Rav Shmuel bar bar Ĥana said to Rav Yosef: According to the opinion
יקין ְ ּב ֵכ ִלים ִ “מ ִּס
ַ ְל ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה דְּ ָא ַמר:יֹוסףֵ of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that one may kindle a fire with whole vessels,
יקין ְ ּב ׁ ִש ְב ֵרי ֵכ ִלים״ ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ַא ְד ֵליק ִ וְ ֵאין ַמ ִּס and one may not kindle a fire with broken vessels, how it is possible to
use whole vessels? Once they are ignited a bit, they become broken
וְ ִכי,יה ׁ ִש ְב ֵרי ֵכ ִלים ּ ְ ּבה ּו ּפו ְּר ָּתא – ֲהוָ ה ֵל vessels, and when one turns the wood over to accelerate their ignition,
ָקא ְמ ַה ּ ֵפ ְך – ְ ּב ִא ּיסו ָּרא ָקא ְמ ַה ּ ֵפ ְך! דַּ ֲע ַבד he turns them over in a prohibited manner,h as it is prohibited to light
: דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב ַמ ָּתנָ ה ָא ַמר ַרב,ִּכ ְד ַרב ַמ ָּתנָ ה with broken vessels. The Gemara answers: This is a case where he acted
ֵעצִ ים ׁ ֶש ּנ ׁ ְָשר ּו ִמן ַהדֶּ ֶקל ַל ַּתנּ וּר ְ ּביֹום טֹוב in accordance with the statement of Rav Mattana. As Rav Mattana said
. ו ַּמ ִּס ָיקן,ַמ ְר ֶ ּבה ֵעצִ ים מו ָּכנִין that Rav said: Branches that fell from a palm tree into an oven on a
Festival,h since these branches were attached to the tree at the onset of Remnants of dates and pits found in Qumran
the Festival, they are set-aside and it is prohibited to move them. Never- Millstone – ר ַחיִ ים:ֵ Millstones are stones used
theless, he can remedy the situation if he adds wood that was prepared for grinding wheat and other grains.
for burning prior to the Festival, until the majority of the wood in the
oven is not set-aside, and then kindles them. Since the majority of the
wood is permitted, he need not concern himself with the minority. One
may do the same when burning vessels by adding wood that is not set-
aside.
ָה ָכא ְ ּב ָפחֹות ִמ ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ַעל: ַרב ַה ְמנוּנָ א ָא ַמרRav Hamnuna said a different explanation of the dispute in the mishna.
. ִמ ּקו ֵּּלי ַמ ְט ָלנִּיֹות ׁ ָשנ ּו ָּכאן, ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ָע ְס ִקינַןIn his opinion, here we are dealing with a garment that is smaller than
three by three handbreadths, and they taught here halakhot established
by the Sages with regard to insignificant small cloths.
halakha
Once they are ignited a bit…he turns them over in a prohibited ש ּנ ׁ ְָשר ּו ִמן ַהדֶּ ֶקל ַל ַּתנּ וּר ְ ּביֹום טֹוב:
ֶ ׁ When palm branches fall from a tree into
manner – א…ב ִא ּיסו ָּרא ָקא ְמ ַה ּ ֵפ ְך
ּ ְ כיוָ ן דְּ ַא ְד ֵליק ְ ּבה ּו ּפו ְּר ָּת:ֵּ One who placed an oven on a Festival, one may add branches that were designated for
whole vessels into a fire on a Festival may not stoke the fire after burning prior to the Festival so that they obscure the palm branches
they catch fire, unless he adds wood already designated to be burnt (Rema). The palm branches are thereby nullified and he may burn the
(Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 501:6 and the comment of the Rema). wood. That is permitted as long as he does not move the prohibited
palm branches while adding the other branches (Rambam Sefer Ze-
Branches that fell from a palm tree into an oven on a Festival – ֵעצִ ים manim, Hilkhot Yom Tov 2:11; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 507:2).
notes
A person may not pierce an eggshell, etc. – פֹופ ֶרת ֶ ל ֹא יִ ּקֹוב ָא ָדם ְש with a wick can one claim that the burning of each and every drop
של ֵ ּביצָ ה וכו׳:
ֶ ׁ In the Babylonian Talmud, the rationale for this ha- of oil began before Shabbat and is merely continuing on Shab-
lakha is the concern lest one come to use the additional oil. How- bat. However, oil added from an eggshell or from an additional
ever, in the Jerusalem Talmud, the Sages questioned this reason vessel will only reach the wick on Shabbat itself. It will only begin
Oil lamp with a receptacle attached to supply it with additional oil and offer a different one in its place. Only in the case of an oil lamp burning then, which is tantamount to having been lit on Shabbat.
“וְ ִאם ִח ְ ּב ָר ּה ַהּיֹוצֵ ר ִמ ְּת ִח ָּלה מו ָּּתר And we also learned in our mishna that if the craftsman attached the tube to the
ִא ם ִח ְ ּב ָר ּה ְ ּב ִסיד: ָּתנָ א.וכו׳״ lamp from the outset, it is permitted to fill it with oil and use it. It was taught in
! וְ ָה ֲאנַן ‘יֹוצֵ ר׳ ְּתנַן,ו ְּב ַח ְר ִסית – מו ָּּתר a baraita that even if a homeowner attached it to the vessel before Shabbat by
means of plaster or with dry potter’s clay, it is permitted. The Gemara asks:
.ַמאי יֹוצֵ ר – ְּכ ֵעין יֹוצֵ ר
Didn’t we specifically learn in the mishna: If the craftsman attached it from the
outset, not a layman? The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of craftsman in
the mishna? It refers to any attachment similar to the attachment of the craftsman.
ּ ַפ ַעם ַא ַחת: ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה,ַּתנְיָא With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, it was taught
ׁ ַש ָ ּב ֵתינ ּו ַ ּב ֲע ִלּיַ ית ֵ ּבית נִ ְתזָ ה ְ ּבלֹוד in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said to the Rabbis: One time we spent our Shab-
פֹופ ֶרת ׁ ֶשל ֵ ּביצָ ה ֶ וְ ֵה ִביא ּו ָלנ ּו ׁ ְש bat in the upper story of the house of Nit’za in the city of Lod. And they
brought us an eggshell, and we filled it with oil, and pierced it, and left it over
ו ִּמ ֵּלאנו ָּה ׁ ֶש ֶמן וּנְ ַק ְבנו ָּה וְ ִה ַּנ ְחנו ָּה ַעל
the lamp in order to extend its burning. And Rabbi Tarfon and other Elders
ּ ִפי ַה ֵּנר וְ ָהיָ ה ׁ ָשם ַר ִ ּבי ַט ְרפֹון וּזְ ֵקנִים were there and they did not say anything to us. Apparently, there is no prohibi-
ִמ ׁ ּ ָשם: ָא ְמר ּו לֹו.וְ ל ֹא ָא ְמר ּו ָלנ ּו דָּ ָבר tion. The Rabbis said to him: Do you bring proof from there?b The legal status
.ְר ָאיָ ה?! ׁ ָשאנֵי ֵ ּבית נִ ְתזָ ה דִּ זְ ִריזִ ין ֵהן of the Elders who were sitting in the house of Nit’za is different. They are vigilant.
There is no room for concern lest they use the oil in the eggshell and accelerate
the extinguishing of the lamp. However, in every other circumstance, doing so is
prohibited.
יפ ָֹור ָא ה גְ ַר ר ַס ְפ ָס ָל א ּ ִָא ִבין צ The Gemara relates: Avin from the city of Tzippori dragged a bench in an upper
ילא ֵמ ַר ִ ּבי ָ ישא ְל ֵע ָ ׁ יתא דְּ ׁ ֵש ָ יל ִּ ְ ּב ִע story, whose floor was made of marble, before Rabbi Yitzĥak ben Elazar. Rab-
ִאי:יה ּ ָא ַמר ֵל,יִ צְ ָחק ֶ ּבן ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר bi Yitzĥak ben Elazar said to him: If I remain silent and say nothing to you, as
Rabbi Tarfon and the members of the group of Elders were silent and said
יה ַח ְב ַרּיָ א ּ תֹוקי ָל ְך ְּכ ִד ׁ ְש ִתיק ּו ֵל ִ ׁ ְש
nothing to Rabbi Yehuda, damage will result, as it will lead to unfounded leni-
:ֵיה ח ּו ְר ָ ּבא ינ
ּ ּ מִ יק פֵ ָנ ה ּדָ ו ה ְי ְל ַר ִ ּבי ency in the future. Had they told Rabbi Yehuda at that time that it is prohibited
background
יתא ָ ישא ַא ּט ּו ִע ִּל ָ ׁ יתא דְּ ׁ ֵש ָ ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ִע ִּל to puncture the eggshell, he would not have disagreed with the Rabbis. He would
Do you bring proof from there – ִמ ׁ ּ ָשם
.דְּ ָע ְל ָמא not have mistakenly derived a general leniency. So too, here the Sages issued a ר ָאיָ ה:ְ This common phrase is employed
decree on a marble-floored upper story due to a standard upper story with an when one seeks to reject a proof from a
earth floor. One who drags a bench on an earth floor will create a furrow. certain source. It indicates that there is a
significant difference between the case un-
נִיש ָּתא דְּ ָבצְ ָרה גְ ַרר ַס ְפ ָס ָלא ְ ׁ ֵר ׁיש ְּכ On the topic of dragging, the Gemara relates that the Head of the Kenessetb of der discussion and the source cited as proof.
:יה
ּ ָא ַמר ֵל,ְל ֵע ָילא ֵמ ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה ַר ָ ּבה Batzra dragged a bench before Rabbi Yirmeya the Great on Shabbat. Rabbi The Head of the Kenesset – נִיש ָּתא
ְ ׁ ר ׁיש ְּכ:ֵ
ימר דַּ ֲא ַמר ַ ְּכ ַמאן – ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון? ֵא Yirmeya said to him: In accordance with whose opinion do you permit yourself The Head of the Kenesset was the title given
to drag a bench on Shabbat? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shi- to a significant leader in the Jewish com-
, דְּ ָלא ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר,דֹולים ִ ְַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ִ ּבג
mon? Say that Rabbi Shimon said his statement specifically with regard to large munity. The Head of the Kenesset was in
,ִ ּב ְק ַט ּנִים ִמי ֲא ַמר?! ו ְּפ ִליגָ א דְּ עו ָּּלא benches that are impossible to move from place to place in any other way, but in charge of all synagogue matters, honors,
,לֹוקת – ִ ּב ְק ַט ּנִים ֶ ַמ ֲח:דְּ ָא ַמר עו ָּּלא and appointments. In Jewish communities
the case of small benches did he say that one is permitted to drag them? And this
in the Diaspora, the Head of the Kenesset
.דֹולים – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל מו ָּּתר ִ ְֲא ָבל ִ ּבג disagrees with the opinion of Ulla, as Ulla said: The dispute with regard to was apparently the head of the local Jewish
dragging is in the case of small benches; however, in the case of large benches, community. There was a Head of the Kenes-
everyone agrees that one is permitted to drag them, as there is no other way to set in the Temple, who was subject to the
move them. authority of the Deputy High Priest.
notes
Clothing merchants may sell them as they normally would, etc. – general, a person’s intent plays a significant role in the halakhot of
מֹוכ ִרין ְּכ ַד ְר ָּכן וכו׳
ְ מֹוכ ֵרי ְּכסוּת:
ְ Some question Rabbi Shimon’s opinion: Shabbat. Indeed, a prohibited labor performed without intent is
Doesn’t the one wearing a garment fashioned from a prohibited not considered a labor by Torah law. Rabbi Shimon’s opinion, with
mixture of the diverse kinds of wool and linen benefit from wearing regard to all cases of Torah law, is that one’s intention is the decisive
it? This is, then, an inevitable consequence [ pesik reishei ] and Rabbi factor in determining whether or not the action is prohibited. In
Shimon holds that one is liable in that case. The Gemara was sensi- his opinion, one who does not intend to perform an action, and it
tive to that problem and that is why it limited Rabbi Shimon’s ruling ensued unintended, is not responsible for that action and he is even
to a case where the merchant was wearing other clothing to protect permitted to perform the action ab initio. However, there is one
himself from the elements. In that case, he derives no benefit from caveat to this approach: The prohibited consequence of his action
the additional, prohibited garment (Rashba). must be only one of several possible results and not an inevitable
consequence. If it were inevitable, he would not be able to claim
As long as he does not intend, etc. – ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא יִ ְת ַּכ ֵּוין וכו׳: In that it was not his intention to perform the action.
ילא ֵמ ַר ִ ּבי ַּתנְ ח ּום דְּ ִמן ָ ילה זֹו ְל ֵע ָ ׁ ַשאוּל ׁ ְש ֵא The Gemara relates: This question was asked before Rabbi Tanĥumn
ישא ָ ׁ ַמה ּו ְל ַכ ּבֹות ּבוּצִ ינָ א דְּ נו ָּרא ִמ ַ ּק ֵּמי ְ ּב ִא:נֵ וִ י from the village of Nevi: What is the ruling with regard to extinguishing
ְ ָאן ָח ְכ ָמ ָתך, ַאנְ ְּת ׁ ְשלֹמֹה:ְ ּב ׁ ַש ְ ּב ָתא? ּ ְפ ַתח וַ ֲא ַמר a burning lamp before a sick person on Shabbat? The Gemara relates
that Rabbi Tanĥum delivered an entire homilyb touching upon both ag-
סֹות ִרין דִּ ְב ֵרי
ְ ָָאן סו ְּכ ְל ָתנו ָּתךְ ! ל ֹא דַּ ּיֶ יךָ ׁ ֶשדְּ ָב ֶריך
gadic and halakhic materials surrounding this question. He began and
!סֹות ִרין זֶ ה ֶאת זֶ ה ְ ָָדוִ ד ָא ִביךָ ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶשדְּ ָב ֶריך said: You, King Solomon, where is your wisdom, where is your under-
“ל ֹא ַה ֵּמ ִתים יְ ַה ְּלל ּו יָ ּה״ וְ ַא ְּת:דָּ וִ ד ָא ִביךָ ָא ַמר standing? Not only do your statements contradict the statements of
, “וְ ׁ ַש ֵ ּב ַח ֲאנִי ֶאת ַה ֵּמ ִתים ׁ ֶש ְּכ ָבר ֵמתוּ״:ָא ַמ ְר ְּת your father David, but your statements even contradict each other. Your
“כי ְל ֶכ ֶלב ַחי הוּא טֹוב ִמן ָה ַא ְריֵ ה ִּ :וְ ָחזַ ְר ָּת וְ ָא ַמ ְר ָּת father David said: “The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go
!ַה ֵּמת״ down into silence” (Psalms 115:17); and you said: “And I praised the dead
that are already dead more than the living that are yet alive” (Ecclesiastes
4:2). And then again you said: “For a living dog is better than a dead
lion” (Ecclesiastes 9:4). These are different assessments of life and death.
“ל ֹא ַה ֵּמ ִתים יְ ַה ְּלל ּו: ָהא דְּ ָק ָא ַמר דָּ וִ ד,ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א He resolved the contradictions in the following manner: This is not dif-
תֹורה ָ עֹולם יַ ֲעסֹוק ָא ָדם ְ ּב ָ ְל:יָ ּה״ ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר ficult. That which David said: “The dead praise not the Lord,” this is
ׁ ֶש ֵּכיוָ ן ׁ ֶש ֵּמת – ָ ּב ֵטל ִמן,קֹודם ׁ ֶשּיָ מוּת ֶ ו ְּב ִמצְ �ֹות what he is saying: A person should always engage in Torah and mitzvot
before he dies, as once he is dead he is idle from Torah and mitzvot and
דֹוש ָ ּברו ְּך הוּא ׁ וְ ֵאין ְל ַה ָ ּק,ַה ּת ָֹורה ו ִּמן ַה ִּמצְ �ֹות
there is no praise for the Holy One, Blessed be He, from him. And that
: ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב,יֹוחנָן ָ וְ ַהיְ ינ ּו דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי,ׁ ֶש ַבח ּבֹו is what Rabbi Yoĥanan said: What is the meaning of that which is writ-
נַע ָ ׂשה ָח ְפ ׁ ִשי
ֲ “ב ֵמ ִתים ָח ְפ ׁ ִשי״ – ֵּכיוָ ן ׁ ֶש ֵּמת ָא ָדם ַּ ten: “Set free among the dead, like the slain that lie in the grave, whom
.ִמן ַה ּת ָֹורה ו ִּמן ַה ִּמצְ �ֹות You remember no more” (Psalms 88:6)? When a person dies he then
becomes free of Torah and mitzvot.
background
The teaching of Rabbi Tanĥum – ד ָר ׁ ַשת ַר ִ ּבי ַּתנְ חוּם:ּ ְ This style of a Sage with all the external trappings, including the surpris- opens with the words: Teach us, our Rabbi [ yelamdenu rab-
teaching, which opens with a halakhic question and proceeds ing question to King Solomon: Where is your wisdom, where beinu], switches to an aggadic discussion, and ultimately returns
to deal extensively with aggada and ethical teachings, only is your understanding? This style was especially common in to a halakhic conclusion. The She’iltot of Rav Aĥai Gaon was
to conclude with a halakha, is typical of the teachings of the Eretz Yisrael and in the aggadic midrash Yelamdenu, as well also influenced by this style of presentation. This tradition was
Sages beginning with the generation of Rabbi Tanĥum. Here, as Midrash Tanĥuma, which is attributed to Rabbi Tanĥum. also preserved in the teachings of the Sages in many Jewish
the Gemara presents a complete homiletic interpretation of In those two anthologies of midrash, the halakhic question communities.
יק ׁש ּ ֵ ְּכ ׁ ֶש ָ ּבנָ ה ׁ ְשלֹמֹה ֶאת ֵ ּבית ַה ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש ִ ּב When Solomon built the Temple and sought to bring the Ark into the Holy
דָּ ְבק ּו,ְל ַה ְכנִיס ָארֹון ְל ֵבית ָק ְד ׁ ֵשי ַה ֳ ּק ָד ׁ ִשים of Holies, the gatesn clung together and could not be opened. Solomon
ָא ַמר ׁ ְשלֹמֹה ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים וְ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה.ׁ ְש ָע ִרים זֶ ה ָ ּבזֶ ה uttered twenty-four songs of praise,n as in his prayer there are twenty-four
expressions of prayer, song, etc. (I Kings 8), and his prayer was not answered.
“שא ּו ׁ ְש ָע ִרים ׂ ְ : ּ ָפ ַתח וְ ָא ַמר.נַענָ ה ֲ ְרנָ נֹות וְ ל ֹא
He began and said: “Lift up your heads, O you gates, and be you lifted up,
עֹולם וְ יָ בֹא ֶמ ֶל ְך ָ ָשא ּו ּ ִפ ְת ֵחי ׂ ְ יכם וְ ִה ּנֶ אש ֵ ׁ ָר you everlasting doors; that the King of glory may come in” (Psalms 24:7).
“מיִ :ּ ָא ְמרו,יה ּ יה ְל ִמ ְיב ְל ֵעּ ַה ָּכבֹוד״ ְר ַהט ּו ַ ּב ְת ֵר Immediately, the gates ran after him to swallow him, as they thought that in
“ה׳ ִעּזוּז:ּהוּא זֶ ה ֶמ ֶל ְך ַה ָּכבֹוד?״ ָא ַמר ְלהו the words: “King of glory” he was referring to himself, and they said to him:
יכם ֶ אש ֵ ׁ “שא ּו ׁ ְש ָע ִרים ָר ׂ ְ : ָחזַ ר וְ ָא ַמר.וְ גִ ּבֹור״ “Who is the King of glory?” (Psalms 24:8). He said to them: “The Lord
ִמי הוּא.עֹולם וְ יָ בֹא ֶמ ֶלךְ ַה ָּכבֹוד ָ ּשא ּו ּ ִפ ְת ֵחי ְׂ ו strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle” (Psalms 24:8). And he said
again: “Lift up your heads, O you gates, yea, lift them up, you everlasting
זֶ ה ֶמ ֶלךְ ַה ָּכבֹוד ה׳ צְ ָבאֹות הוּא ֶמ ֶלךְ ַה ָּכבֹוד
doors; that the King of glory may come in. Who then is the King of glory?
“ה׳ ֱאל ִֹהים ַאל: ֵּכיוָ ן ׁ ֶש ָא ַמר.נַענָ ה ֲ ֶס ָלה״ וְ ל ֹא The Lord of hosts; He is the King of glory. Selah” (Psalms 24:9–10), and he
– יחךָ זָ ְכ ָרה ְל ַח ְס ֵדי דָּ וִ ד ַע ְבדֶּ ךָ ״ ֶ ָּת ׁ ֵשב ּ ְפנֵי ְמ ׁ ִש was not answered. When he said: “O Lord God, turn not away the face of
אֹות ּה ׁ ָש ָעה נֶ ֶה ְפכ ּו ּ ְפנֵי ָּכל ׂשֹונְ ֵאי ָ ְ ּב.נַענָ ה ֲ ִמּיָ ד Your anointed; remember the good deeds of David Your servant”
וְ יָ ְדע ּו ָּכל ָה ָעם וְ ָכל יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל,ָדוִ ד ְּכ ׁשו ֵּלי ְק ֵד ָירה (II Chronicles 6:42), he was immediately answered, and a fire descended
.דֹוש ָ ּברו ְּך הוּא ַעל אֹותֹו ָע�ֹון ׁ ׁ ֶש ָּמ ַחל לֹו ַה ָ ּק from Heaven (II Chronicles 7:1). At that moment, the faces of all of David’s
enemies turned dark like the charred bottom of a pot. And all of Israel knew
“וְ ׁ ַש ֵ ּב ַח ֲאנִי ֶאת ַה ֵּמ ִתים:וְ ל ֹא יָ ֶפה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשלֹמֹה
that the Holy One, Blessed be He, forgave him for that sin. And if so, is it
!?ׁ ֶש ְּכ ָבר ֵמתוּ״ not appropriate what Solomon said: “And I praised the dead that are al-
ready dead,” David, more than the living, Solomon, to whose request to open
the gates of the Temple God did not respond?
“בּיֹום ַה ׁ ּ ְש ִמינִי ׁ ִש ַּלח ֶאת ָה ָעם ּ ַ :וְ ַהיְ ינ ּו דִּ ְכ ִתיב And that is what is written: “On the eighth day he sent the people away,
יהם ְ ׂש ֵמ ִחים ֶ וַ ָיְב ֲרכ ּו ֶאת ַה ֶּמ ֶל ְך וַ ּיֵ ְלכ ּו ְל ָא ֳה ֵל and they blessed the king, and went unto their tents joyful and glad of
טֹובי ֵלב ַעל ָּכל ַה ּט ָֹובה ֲא ׁ ֶשר ָע ָ ׂשה ה׳ ְל ָדוִ ד ֵ ְו heart for all the goodness that the Lord had shown unto David His servant
and to Israel His people” (I Kings 8:66). The Gemara explains: And went
– יהם׳ ֶ ‘וַ ּיֵ ְלכ ּו ְל ָא ֳה ֵל:ַע ְבדּ ֹו ו ְּליִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ַע ּמֹו״
unto their tents, in accordance with the common expression: One’s house
‘ש ֵמ ִחים׳ – ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱהנ ּו ׂ ְ .יהן ְ ּב ָט ֳה ָרה ֶ ֹות ֵ ׁ ֶש ָּמצְ א ּו ׁנְש is his wife. It is explained that when they returned home they found their
טֹובי ֵלב׳ – ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַע ְ ּבר ּו ׁנְש ֵֹות ֶיהןֵ ְ ‘ו.ִמּזִ יו ַה ׁ ּ ְש ִכינָ ה wives ritually pure from the ritual impurity of menstruation. Joyful means
“על ָּכל ַ .ׁ ֶשל ָּכל ֶא ָחד וְ ֶא ָחד וְ יָ ְל ָדה זָ ָכר that they enjoyed the aura of the Divine Presence at the dedication of the
ַה ּט ָֹובה ֲא ׁ ֶשר ָע ָ ׂשה ה׳ ְל ָדוִ ד ַע ְבדּ ֹו (ו ְּליִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל Temple. And glad of heart means that the wife of each and every one of
ְ‘ל ָדוִ ד ַע ְבדּ ֹו׳) – ׁ ֶש ָּמ ַחל לֹו ַעל אֹותֹו,ַע ּמֹו״ them was impregnated and gave birth to a male. The verse continues: For
all the goodness that the Lord had shown unto David His servant and to
‘ו ְּליִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ַע ּמֹו׳ – דְּ ַא ֵחיל ְלה ּו ָע�ֹון דְּ יֹום,ָע�ֹון
Israel His people. Unto David His servant means that at that opportunity
.ַה ִּכ ּפו ִּרים they all saw that God forgave him for that sin. And to Israel His people
means that He forgave them for the sin of Yom Kippur, as they did not fast
that year (see I Kings 8:65).
140 Perek II . 30a . ל ףד. קרפ ׳ב
“כי ְל ֶכ ֶלב ַחי הוּא טֹוב ִמן ָה ַא ְריֵ ה ִּ :ו ְּד ָק ָא ַמר ׁ ְשלֹמֹה The Gemara continues: And that which Solomon said: “For a living dog is
דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר,ַה ֵּמת״ – ִּכ ְד ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ַרב better than a dead lion” (Ecclesiastes 9:4), is in accordance with that which
יענִי ה׳ ִק ִ ּצי ו ִּמדַּ ת יָ ַמי ַמה ִהיא ֵ “הֹוד
ִ : ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב:ַרב Rav Yehuda said that Rav said. As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: What is
the meaning of that verse which David said: “Lord, make me to know my
דֹוש ָ ּברו ְּך ׁ ָא ַמר דָּ וִ ד ִל ְפנֵי ַה ָ ּק,ֵא ְד ָעה ֶמה ָח ֵדל ָאנִי״
end, and the measure of my days, what it is; let me know how short-lived
:יענִי ה׳ ִק ִ ּצי״! ָא ַמר לֹו ֵ “הֹוד
ִ ,עֹולם
ָ ִר ּבֹונֹו ׁ ֶשל:הוּא I am” (Psalms 39:5)? It means that David said before the Holy One, Blessed
.יעין ִק ּצֹו ׁ ֶשל ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וָ ָדם ִ מֹודִ ְ ּגזֵ ָרה ִהיא ִמ ְּל ָפנַי ׁ ֶש ֵאין be He: Master of the Universe, Lord, make me to know my end; in how
יעין ִ “ו ִּמדַּ ת יָ ַמי ַמה ִהיא״? ְ ּגזֵ ָרה ִהיא ִמ ְּל ָפנַי ׁ ֶש ֵאין
ִ מֹוד long will I die? God said to him: It is decreed before Me that I do not reveal
: ָא ַמר לֹו, “וְ ֵא ְד ָעה ֶמה ָח ֵדל ָאנִי״.ִמדַּ ת יָ ָמיו ׁ ֶשל ָא ָדם the end of the life of flesh and blood. He asked further: And the measure
ְּכ ָבר: ָאמוּת ְ ּב ֶא ָחד ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת! ָא ַמר לֹו.ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ָּתמוּת of my days; on what day of the year will I die? He said to him: It is decreed
before Me not to reveal the measure of a person’s days. Again he requested:
וְ ֵאין ַמ ְלכוּת נֹוגַ ַעת ַ ּב ֲח ֶב ְר ָּת ּה, ִָה ִ ּג ַיע ַמ ְלכוּת ׁ ְשלֹמֹה ִ ּבנְ ך
Let me know how short-lived I am; on what day of the week will I die? He
“כי ִּ : ָאמוּת ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת! ָא ַמר לֹו.נִימא ָ ֲא ִפיל ּו ִּכ ְמל ֹא said to him: You will die on Shabbat. David requested of God: Let me die
טֹוב יֹום ַ ּב ֲח ֵצ ֶריךָ ֵמ ָא ֶלף״ טֹוב ִלי יֹום ֶא ָחד ׁ ֶש ַא ָּתה on the first day of the week so that the honor of Shabbat will not be tarnished
ָעֹוסק ַ ּב ּת ָֹורה ֵמ ֵא ֶלף עֹולֹות ׁ ֶש ָע ִתיד ׁ ְשלֹמֹה ִ ּבנְ ך ֵ ְיֹושב וֵׁ by the pain of death. He said to him: On that day the time of the kingdom
.ְל ַה ְק ִריב ְל ָפנַי ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַה ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח of your son Solomon has already arrived, and one kingdom does not
overlap with another and subtract from the time allotted to another even a
hairbreadth. He said to him: I will cede a day of my life and die on Shabbat
eve. God said to him: “For a day in your courts is better than a thousand”
(Psalms 84:11); a single day in which you sit and engage in Torah is prefer-
able to Me than the thousand burnt-offerings that your son Solomon will
offer before Me on the altar (see I Kings 3:4).
Perek II
Daf 30 Amud b
language
ַההוּא,יֹומא ָ יֹומא דְּ ׁ ַש ְ ּב ָּתא ֲהוָ ה יָ ֵתיב וְ גָ ֵריס ּכו ֵּּלי ָ ָּכל What did David do? Every Shabbat he would sit and learn all day long to
Garden [bustana] – בו ְּס ָּתנָ א:ּ
יה וְ ָלאּ יה ָקם ַמ ְל ַאךְ ַה ָּמוֶ ת ַק ֵּמ ּ יֹומא דְּ ָב ֵעי ְל ֵמינַ ח נַ ְפ ׁ ֵש ָ protect himself from the Angel of Death. On that day on which the Angel of
From the Iranian bōstān,
ַמאי: ֲא ַמר.יה ִמ ִ ּג ְיר ָסא ּ ּמ
ֵ ו פּ ק סַ פָ ּ ה ָו ה
ֲ א לָ ְּד , יה
ּ ל ֵ יל יָ ֵכ Death was supposed to put his soul to rest, the day on which David was meaning a fragrant place,
supposed to die, the Angel of Death stood before him and was unable to i.e., a garden or orchard.
ֲא ָתא,יה ּ ית ֵ חֹורי ֵ ּב
ֵ יה ּבו ְּס ָּתנָ א ֲא ּ יה? ֲהוָ ה ֵל ּ ַא ֲע ֵביד ֵל overcome him because his mouth did not pause from study. The Angel of
ֲהוָ ה.יחזֵ י
ֱ נְ ַפק ְל ֶמ,ַמ ְל ַאךְ ַה ָּמוֶ ת ָס ֵליק ו ָּב ֵח ׁיש ְ ּב ִא ָילנֵי Death said: What shall I do to him? David had a garden [bustana]l behind Notes
יש ֵּתיק וְ נָ חְ ׁ ִא,יה ֵ ִא ְיפ ִחית דַּ ְר ָ ּגא ִמ ּת.ָס ֵליק ְ ּב ַד ְר ָ ּגא
ּ ֹות his house; the Angel of Death came, climbed, and shook the trees. David A lamp is called ner and a
.יה
ּ נַ ְפ ׁ ֵש went out to see. As he climbed the stair, the stair broke beneath him. He person’s soul is also called
was startled and was silent, interrupted his studies for a moment, and died. ner – ונִש ָמתֹו ְ ׁ נֵ ר ְקרוּיָה ָא ָדם ׁ ֶשל
נֵ ר ְקרוּיָ ה נֵ ר: According to the
, ַא ָ ּבא ֵמת וּמו ָּּטל ַ ּב ַח ָּמה:ׁ ָש ַלח ׁ ְשלֹמֹה ְל ֵבי ִמ ְד ָר ׁ ָשא Since David died in the garden, Solomon sent the following question to the Gemara in tractate Yoma
ָמה ֶא ֱע ֶ ׂשה? ׁ ָש ְלח ּו,ו ְּכ ָל ִבים ׁ ֶשל ֵ ּבית ַא ָ ּבא ְר ֵע ִבים study hall: Father died and is lying in the sun, and the dogs of father’s (85b), the halakha that re-
וְ ָא ִביךָ – ַה ַּנח, ֲחתֹוךְ נְ ֵב ָלה וְ ַה ַּנח ִל ְפנֵי ַה ְּכ ָל ִבים:יה ּ ֵל house are hungry. There is room for concern lest the dogs come and harm quires one to perform pro-
his body. What shall I do? They sent an answer to him: Cut up an animal hibited labors on Shabbat
“כיִּ : וְ ל ֹא יָ ֶפה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשלֹמֹה.ָע ָליו ִּכ ָּכר אֹו ִּתינֹוק וְ ַט ְל ְטלֹו in order to save human life
carcass and place it before the dogs.h Since the dogs are hungry, handling
ְל ֶכ ֶלב ַחי הוּא טֹוב ִמן ָה ַא ְריֵ ה ַה ֵּמת״? ו ְּל ִענְיַ ן ׁ ְש ֵא ָילה the animal carcass to feed them is permitted. And with regard to your father, is not based on this homily.
נִש ָמתֹו ׁ ֶשל ָא ָדם ְ ׁ ְ ו, נֵ ר ְקרוּיָ ה נֵ ר:דִּ ׁ ְש ִא ְילנָ א ֳק ָד ֵמיכֹון The actual source is the verse
it is prohibited to move his body directly. Place a loaf of bread or an infant
that states that the mitzvot
מו ָּטב ִּת ְכ ֶ ּבה נֵ ר ׁ ֶשל ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וָ ָדם ִמ ּ ְפנֵי נֵ רֹו ׁ ֶשל,ְקרוּיָ ה נֵ ר on top of him, and you can move himh into the shade due to the bread or of the Torah were given so
.דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּאׁ ַה ָ ּק the infant. And is it not appropriate what Solomon said: “For a living dog that one should “live by
is better than a dead lion.” The ultimate conclusion of this discussion is that them” (Leviticus 18:4–5), from
life is preferable to death. And now, with regard to the question that I asked which it is inferred that, as a
before you; Rav Tanĥum spoke modestly, as, actually, they had asked him rule, one is not commanded
the question. A lamp is called ner and a person’s soul is also called ner,n as to give his life in order to
fulfill a positive mitzva or to
it is written: “The spirit of man is the lamp [ner] of the Lord” (Proverbs 20:27). avoid violating a prohibition.
It is preferable that the lamp of a being of flesh and blood, an actual lamp, Since this teaching was pre-
will be extinguished in favor of the lamp of the Holy One, Blessed be He, sented before an unlearned
a person’s soul. Therefore, one is permitted to extinguish a flame for the sake crowd, it was expounded in
of a sick person. a manner that would appeal
to a wide audience (Rashi).
halakha
Cut up a carcass and place it before the dogs – חתֹוךְ נְ ֵב ָלה וְ ַה ַּנח ִל ְפנֵי ַה ְּכ ָל ִבים:ֲ available, but one has two beds available, he may move the corpse by continu-
On Shabbat, it is permitted to cut up an animal carcass that is difficult for dogs ously rolling it from one bed to the other until he moves it to a more suitable
to eat whole, even if the animal died on Shabbat. However, it is prohibited to place. If neither of those options is available, he may simply move the corpse.
do so if the dogs are able to eat the carcass uncut (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, All of the above applies to moving the corpse within a single domain. How-
Hilkhot Shabbat 21:18; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 324:7). ever, moving a corpse from one domain to another is not permitted under any
circumstances (Shulĥan Arukh). According to many of the later commentaries,
And with regard to your father, place a loaf of bread or an infant on top one is permitted to move a corpse into a karmelit or even into another domain
of him and move him – וְ ָא ִביךָ ַה ַּנח ָע ָליו ִּכ ָּכר אֹו ִּתינֹוק וְ ַט ְל ְטלֹו: On Shabbat, it is to prevent dishonoring the dead. Some commentaries add that it is preferable
permitted to move a corpse that is lying in a place where it might be disgraced to move the corpse without bread or an infant to minimize that which is be-
by placing upon it a loaf of bread, or an infant, or any other object that may ing carried from one domain to another on Shabbat (Rambam Sefer Zemanim,
be moved on Shabbat (Mishna Berura). If there is neither bread nor an infant Hilkhot Shabbat 26:21; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 311:1).
ָּכל ַּת ְל ִמיד:ִאינִי?! וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַרב ִ ּגידֵּ ל ָא ַמר ַרב The Gemara asks: Is that so, that one should introduce matters of halakha joy-
תֹותיוָ ּיֹושב ִל ְפנֵי ַר ּבֹו וְ ֵאין ִ ׂש ְפ ֵ ׁ ָח ָכם ׁ ֶש fully? Didn’t Rav Giddel say that Rav said: Any Torah scholar who sits before
תֹותיו
ָ “ש ְפ ׂ ִ : ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,נֹוטפֹות מֹר – ִּת ָּכוֶ ינָ ה ְ his teacher and his lips are not dripping with myrrh due to fear of his teacher,
those lips shall be burnt, as it is stated: “His lips are as lilies, dripping with
ַאל ִּת ְק ִרי ‘מֹור,עֹובר״ ֵ נֹוטפֹות מֹור ְ ֹוש ּנִיםַ ׁ ׁש
flowing myrrh [shoshanim notefot mor over]” (Song of Songs 5:13)? He inter-
ֹוש ּנִים׳ ַ ׁ ַאל ִּת ְק ִרי ׁ‘ש,עֹובר׳ ֵ ֶא ָּלא ַ‘מר,עֹובר׳ ֵ preted homiletically: Do not read mor over, flowing myrrh; rather, read mar
ָהא – ְ ּב ַר ָ ּבה,‘ש ׁ ּשֹונִים׳! ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ֶ ׁ ֶא ָּלא over, flowing bitterness. Likewise, do not read shoshanim, lilies; rather, read
ָהא וְ ָהא:ימא ָ יב ֵעית ֵא ּ ָ וְ ִא.וְ ָהא – ְ ּב ַת ְל ִמיד sheshonim, that are studying, meaning that lips that are studying Torah must be
, ָהא – ִמ ַ ּק ֵּמי דְּ ִל ְפ ַּתח, וְ ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א,ְ ּב ַר ָ ּבה full of bitterness. The Gemara explains: This is not difficult, there is no contradic-
ִמ ַ ּק ֵּמי, ִּכי ָהא דְּ ַר ָ ּבה.ָהא – ְל ָב ַתר דִּ ְפ ַתח tion here, as this, where it was taught that one should introduce matters of ha-
lakha joyfully, is referring to a rabbi, and that, where it was taught that one must
,דִּ ְפ ַתח ְלה ּו ְל ַר ָ ּבנַן ֲא ַמר ִמ ְּיל ָתא דִּ ְב ִדיחו ָּתא
be filled with bitterness, is referring to a student, who must listen to his teacher
ימ ָתא ו ָּפ ַתח ְ ְלסֹוף יָ ֵתיב ְ ּב ֵא.ו ָּב ְד ִחי ַר ָ ּבנַ ן with trepidation. And if you wish, say instead that this and that are referring to
.ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַמ ֲע ָתא a rabbi, and it is not difficult. This, where it was taught that he must be joyful,
is before he begins teaching, whereas that, where it was taught that he must be
filled with bitterness and trepidation, is after he already began teaching halakha.
That explanation is like that which Rabba did. Before he began teaching halakha
to the Sages, he would say something humorous and the Sages would be
cheered. Ultimately, he sat in trepidation and began teaching the halakha.
142 Perek II . 30b . ל ףד: קרפ ׳ב
notes
ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו דְּ ָב ָריו,וְ ַאף ֵס ֶפר ִמ ׁ ְש ֵלי ִ ּב ְק ׁש ּו ִלגְ נֹוז And, the Gemara continues, the Sages sought to suppress the book
of Proverbs as well because its statements contradict each other. Your wife is my wife – א ׁ ְש ְּתךָ ִא ׁ ְש ִּתי:ִ The man who
– ו ִּמ ּ ְפנֵי ָמה ל ֹא ְ ּגנָ זוּה ּו.סֹות ִרין זֶ ה ֶאת זֶ ה ְ came to Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi claimed in the course
ֵס ֶפר ק ֶֹה ֶלת ָלאו ַעּיְ ינִינַ ן וְ ַא ׁ ְש ְּכ ִחינַ ן:ָא ְמ ִרי And why did they not suppress it? They said: In the case of the of a confession that Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi’s wife had
book of Ecclesiastes, didn’t we analyze it and find an explanation been unfaithful, and that Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi was
ּו ַמאי דְּ ָב ָריו.יעּיְ ינַ ן ַ ַט ְע ָמא? ָה ָכא נַ ִמי ִל
that its statements were not contradictory? Here too, let us analyze not the father of her children. The man who came
“אל ַּת ַען ְּכ ִסיל ַ :סֹות ִרים זֶ ה ֶאת זֶ ה – ְּכ ִתיב ְ it. And what is the meaning of: Its statements contradict each before Rabbi Ĥiyya made a similar claim. Although
“ענֵ ה ְכ ִסיל ְּכ ִא ַּו ְל ּתֹו״ ֲ :ְּכ ִא ַּו ְל ּתֹו״ ו ְּכ ִתיב other? On the one hand, it is written: “Answer not a fool accord- these are very serious charges, the Sages did not
ָהא ְ ּב ִמ ֵּילי,תֹורה ָ ָהא – ְ ּב ִד ְב ֵרי,ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ing to his folly, lest you also be like him” (Proverbs 26:4), and on consider it proper to argue with those who brought
them. Therefore, they found a way to discreetly be
.ְד ָע ְל ָמא the other hand, it is written: “Answer a fool according to his folly,
rid of these people.
lest he be wise in his own eyes” (Proverbs 26:5). The Gemara re-
solves this apparent contradiction: This is not difficult, as this, From impudent people and from insolence – ֵמ ַעּזֵ י
where one should answer a fool, is referring to a case where the fool פנִים ו ֵּמ ַעּזוּת ּ ָפנִים:ָ In tractate Kiddushin ( 70b), the Sages
state that impudence is an indication of tarnished
is making claims about Torah matters; whereas that, where one lineage, as one of distinguished lineage is shy and
should not answer him, is referring to a case where the fool is mak- modest. Therefore, impudence became known as a
ing claims about mundane matters. characteristic of a mamzer.
Rabban Gamliel and the student – יאל ֵ ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל
ֲא ַמר,יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ּ ִּכי ָהא דְּ ַההוּא דַּ ֲא ָתא ְל ַק ֵּמ The Gemara relates how Sages conducted themselves in both of וְ ַה ַּת ְל ִמיד: Rabban Gamliel spoke metaphorically
:יה ּ ֲא ַמר ֵל. ִא ׁ ְש ְּתךָ ִא ׁ ְש ִּתי ו ָּבנֶיךָ ָ ּבנַי:יה ּ ֵל those circumstances. As in the case of that man who came before when he explained that in messianic times there
.ְרצֹונְ ךָ ׁ ֶש ִּת ׁ ְש ֶּתה ּכֹוס ׁ ֶשל יַ יִ ן? ׁ ָש ָתה ו ָּפ ַקע Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and said to him: Your wife is my wifen and will be plenty in the world and life will be much easier
your children are my children, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: and more comfortable. However, the student did not
:יהּ ֲא ַמר ֵל,יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ּ ַההוּא דַּ ֲא ָתא ְל ַק ֵּמ Would you like to drink a cup of wine? He drank and burst and understand his metaphors and thought they were to
ָ ְרצֹונְ ך:יה ּ ֲא ַמר ֵל.ִא ְּמךָ ִא ׁ ְש ִּתי וְ ַא ָּתה ְ ּבנִי died. Similarly, the Gemara relates: There was that man who came be taken literally. This led the student to challenge
ָא ַמר.ׁ ֶש ִּת ׁ ְש ֶּתה ּכֹוס ׁ ֶשל יַ יִ ן? ׁ ָש ָתה ו ָּפ ַקע Rabban Gamliel with a verse from the Bible. There-
before Rabbi Ĥiyya and said to him: Your mother is my wife, and
fore, the Sages said that Rabban Gamliel acted in
יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי דְּ ָלא ּ לֹות
ֵ ְיה צ ּ ַא ַהנְיָא ֵל:ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא you are my son. He said to him: Would you like to drink a cup of accordance with the maxim: Answer a fool according
, דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ִּכי ֲהוָ ה ְמצַ ֵּלי.ייה ְ ּבנֵי ַמ ְמזֵ ֵירי ּ ְֵל ׁ ַשוְ ו wine? He drank and burst and died. Rabbi Ĥiyya said with regard to his folly. Since that student was a fool and asked
“יְ ִהי ָרצֹון ִמ ְּל ָפנֶיךָ ה׳ ֱאל ֵֹהינ ּו ׁ ֶש ַּת ִ ּצ ֵילנִי:ָא ַמר to the incident involving Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Rabbi Yehuda questions that indicated his lack of understanding,
HaNasi’s prayer that his children will not be rendered mamzerim, the response was in kind (Rambam’s Commentary
.ַהּיֹום ֵמ ַעּזֵ י ָפנִים ו ֵּמ ַעּזוּת ּ ָפנִים״ on the Mishna).
children of illicit relations, was effective for him. As when Rabbi
Yehuda HaNasi would pray, he said after his prayer: May it be Your
will, O Lord, my God, that You will deliver me today from impu-
dent people and from insolence.n Insolence, in this case, refers to
mamzerut. It was due to his prayer that that man burst and was un-
successful in disparaging Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s children.
תֹורה ַמאי ִהיא? ִּכי ָהא דְּ יָ ֵתיב ָ ְ ּב ִד ְב ֵרי In matters of Torah, what is the case with regard to which the verse
background
ֲע ִת ָידה ִא ׁ ּ ָשה:יאל וְ ָקא דָּ ֵר ׁיש ֵ ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל said that one should respond to a fool’s folly? As in the case where
Caper bush – צְ ָלף: The most common species of
יֹול ֶדתֶ ְ“ה ָרה וָ : ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,ֶש ֵּת ֵלד ְ ּב ָכל יֹום Rabban Gamliel was sitting and he interpreted a verse homileti-
caper bush in Israel is the thorny caper bush, Cap-
cally: In the future, in the World-to-Come, a woman will give
: ָא ַמר, ִליגְ ֵלג ָע ָליו אֹותֹו ַּת ְל ִמיד.יַ ְחדָּ יו״ paris spinosa, a thorny, deciduous bush that grows
birth every day, as it says: “The woman with child and her that to a height of 1.5 m. Its rounded leaves range in color
:יה ּ “אין ָּכל ָח ָד ׁש ַּת ַחת ַה ׁ ּ ָש ֶמ ׁש״! ָא ַמר ֵל ֵ gives birth together” ( Jeremiah 31:7), explaining that birth will from purple to green and alongside each leaf there
נְ ַפק ַא ֲחוֵ י,עֹולם ַהּזֶ ה
ָ ּבֹא וְ ַא ְר ֲאךָ דּ וּגְ ָמ ָתן ָ ּב occur on the same day as conception. A certain studentn scoffed is a pair of thorns. The caper has large white flowers,
.גֹולת ֶ ְיה ַּת ְרנ ּ ֵל at him and said: That cannot be, as it has already been stated: approximately 6 cm in diameter, with purple stamens.
“There is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Rabban The buds of the caper bush, the kaprisin, from
the Greek κάππαρις, kapparis, meaning caper bush
Gamliel said to him: Come and I will show you an example of this
or fruit of the caper bush, are the buds of flowers
in this world. He took him outside and showed him a chicken that have not yet bloomed. Nowadays, in Provence,
that lays eggs every day. Greece, and other Mediterranean countries, the
caper-bush is grown primarily for its buds, which
ֲע ִת ִידים:יאל וְ ָקא דָּ ֵר ׁיש ֵ וְ ת ּו יָ ֵתיב ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל And furthermore: Rabban Gamliel sat and interpreted a verse are pickled and eaten.
: ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,יאין ּ ֵפירֹות ְ ּב ָכל יֹום ִ ִִא ָילנֹות ׁ ֶש ּמֹוצ homiletically: In the future, in the World-to-Come, trees will If not harvested, these buds open into new flow-
produce fruits every day, as it is stated: “And it shall bring forth ers on a daily basis and are then pollinated and wither
– ֶמה ָענָ ף ְ ּב ָכל יֹום,נָשא ָענָ ף וְ ָע ָ ׂשה ֶפ ִרי״ ׂ ָ ְ“ו on that same day. The evyona, the ripe berry of the
branches and bear fruit” (Ezekiel 17:23); just as a branch grows
, ִליגְ ֵלג ָע ָליו אֹותֹו ַּת ְל ִמיד.ַאף ּ ְפ ִרי ְ ּב ָכל יֹום caper bush, is similar in shape to a date or small
every day, so too, fruit will be produced every day. A certain stu-
!“אין ָּכל ָח ָד ׁש ַּת ַחת ַה ׁ ּ ָש ֶמ ׁש״ ֵ וְ ָה ְכ ִתיב:ָא ַמר squash and grows to 6 cm.
dent scoffed at him and said: Isn’t it written: There is nothing new The young fronds are apparently the caper bush’s
,עֹולם ַהּזֶ ה ָ ּבֹא וְ ַא ְר ֲאךָ דּ וּגְ ָמ ָתם ָ ּב:יה ּ ָא ַמר ֵל under the sun? He said to him: Come and I will show you an young, purple-green branches and their leaves,
.יה צְ ָלף ּ נְ ַפק ַא ֲחוֵ י ֵל example of this in this world. He went outside and showed him which in ancient times were pickled and eaten. They
a caper bush,b part of which is edible during each season of the year. are called shuta in Aramaic.
Botanically, the fruit of the caper bush is the berry,
ֲע ִת ָידה:יאל וְ ָקא דָּ ֵר ׁיש ֵ וְ ת ּו יָ ֵתיב ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל And furthermore: Rabban Gamliel sat and interpreted a verse which even today is generally eaten pickled.
ֶא ֶרץ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ׁ ֶש ּתֹוצִ יא ְ ּגלו ְּס ָקאֹות ו ְּכ ֵלי homiletically: In the future, the World-to-Come, Eretz Yisrael
. ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר “יְ ִהי ִפ ַּסת ַ ּבר ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ״,ילת ָ ֵמ will produce cakes and fine wool garments that will grow in the
ground, as it is stated: “Let abundant grain be in the land.” A
“אין ָּכל ֵ : וְ ָא ַמר,ִליגְ ֵלג ָע ָליו אֹותֹו ַּת ְל ִמיד
certain student scoffed at him and said: There is nothing new
ּ ָח ָד ׁש ַּת ַחת ַה ׁ ּ ָש ֶמ ׁש״! ָא ַמר ֵל
ָ ּבֹא וְ ַא ְר ֲאך:יה under the sun. He said to him: Come and I will show you an ex-
יהיןִ יה ְּכ ֵמּ נְ ַפק ַא ֲחוֵ י ֵל,עֹולם ַהּזֶ הָ דּ וּגְ ָמ ָתן ָ ּב ample in this world. He went outside and showed him truffles
. וְ ַא ְּכ ֵלי ֵמ ָילת – נַ ְב ָרא ַ ּבר קו ָּרא,ו ִּפ ְט ִרּיֹות and mushrooms, which emerge from the earth over the course of
a single night and are shaped like a loaf of bread. And with regard
to wool garments, he showed him the covering of a heart of palm,
a young palm branch, which is wrapped in a thin net-like covering. Flower of the caper bush
Perek II
Daf 31 Amud a
notes
ָּכל ִמי ׁ ֶשּיֵ ֵל ְך:ּ ָא ְמרו,ׁ ֶש ִה ְמר ּו זֶ ה ֶאת זֶ ה who wagered with each other and said: Anyone who will
They said that anyone who will go and aggravate Hillel
.וְ יַ ְקנִיט ֶאת ִה ֵּלל – יִ ּטֹול ַא ְר ָ ּבע ֵמאֹות זוּז go and aggravate Hillel to the point that he reprimands him,
will take, etc. – א ְמר ּו ָּכל ִמי ׁ ֶשּיֵ ֵל ְך וְ יַ ְקנִיט ֶאת ִה ֵּלל יִ ּטֹול וכו׳:
ָ The
attempt to provoke Hillel combined several factors, each of אֹותֹו ַהּיֹום.ּנִיטנּ ו ֶ ֲאנִי ַא ְק:ָא ַמר ֶא ָחד ֵמ ֶהם will taken four-hundred zuz. One of them said: I will ag-
which was aggravating. The first was the choice of the day and gravate him. That day that he chose to bother Hillel was
ְ ָה ַלך.ֹאשֹוׁ וְ ִה ֵּלל ָח ַפף ֶאת ר,ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ָהיָ ה
time. Shabbat eve is a busy time, in general, and the person Shabbat eve, and Hillel was washing the hair on his head.
chose to disturb Hillel while he was washing his hair. Hillel ִמי ָּכאן ִה ֵּלל? ִמי: ָא ַמר,וְ ָע ַבר ַעל ּ ֶפ ַתח ֵ ּביתֹו He went and passed the entrance to Hillel’s house and in
was forced to interrupt his shampoo in order to respond. The : ָא ַמר לֹו.ָּכאן ִה ֵּלל? נִ ְת ַע ֵּטף וְ יָ צָ א ִל ְק ָראתֹו a demeaning manner said: Who here is Hillel, who here is
second factor was the contemptuous manner in which he ad- ׁ ְש ֵא ָלה יֵ ׁש: ָמה ַא ָּתה ְמ ַב ֵ ּק ׁש? ָא ַמר לֹו,ְ ּבנִי Hillel? Hillel wrapped himself in a dignified garment and
dressed Hillel, as if he did not know who Hillel was. Finally, the
ׁ ְש ַאל! ִמ ּ ְפנֵי, ׁ ְש ַאל ְ ּבנִי: ָא ַמר לֹו.ִלי ִל ׁ ְשאֹול went out to greet him. He said to him: My son, what do
series of ridiculous questions with inflammatory implications
was particularly irritating (Maharsha). יהן ׁ ֶשל ַ ּב ְב ִלּיִ ים ְסגַ ְל ַ ּג ּלֹות? ָא ַמרֶ אשֵ ׁ ָמה ָר you seek? He said to him: I have a question to ask. Hillel
said to him: Ask, my son, ask. The man asked him: Why
ָ ש ֵא ָלה ְ ּג:
You have asked a significant question – דֹולה ׁ ָש ַא ְל ָּת ְׁ ָ ׁ ְש ֵא ָלה ְ ּג, ְ ּבנִי:לֹו
דֹולה ׁ ָש ַא ְל ָּת – ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ֵאין
are the heads of Babylonians oval? He was alluding to and
Hillel’s approach was to respond seriously and deliberately to .ָל ֶהם ֲא ָחיֹות ּ ִפ ְּקחֹות
anyone who asked him a question. If the questioner was turned
attempting to insult Hillel, who was Babylonian. He said to
away and embarrassed when asking a frivolous question, he him: My son, you have asked a significant question.n The
would not return to ask significant questions that required reason is because they do not have clever midwives. They
meaningful answers (Iyyun Ya’akov). do not know how to shape the child’s head at birth.
language ִמי ָּכאן: ָחזַ ר וְ ָא ַמר,ָה ַלךְ וְ ִה ְמ ִּתין ׁ ָש ָעה ַא ַחת That man went and waited one hour, a short while, re-
Bleary [terutot] – תרוּטֹות:ְּ There are several opinions as to the .ִה ֵּלל? ִמי ָּכאן ִה ֵּלל? נִ ְת ַע ֵּטף וְ יָ צָ א ִל ְק ָראתֹו turned to look for Hillel, and said: Who here is Hillel, who
origin of this word and its meaning. One possibility is that it
: ָמה ַא ָּתה ְמ ַב ֵ ּק ׁש? ָא ַמר לֹו, ְ ּבנִי:ָא ַמר לֹו here is Hillel? Again, Hillel wrapped himself and went out
is a derivative of the Greek verb δρύπτειν, to tear. Another to greet him. Hillel said to him: My son, what do you seek?
possibility is the Latin teres, genitive teretis, meaning round. ׁ ְש ַאל: ָא ַמר לֹו.ׁ ְש ֵא ָלה יֵ ׁש ִלי ִל ׁ ְשאֹול
The man said to him: I have a question to ask. He said to
מֹודּיִ ין
ִ ינֵיהן ׁ ֶשל ַּת ְר
ֶ ׁ ְש ַאל! ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ָמה ֵע,ְ ּבנִי him: Ask, my son, ask. The man asked: Why are the eyes
background דֹולה ָ ׁ ְש ֵא ָלה ְ ּג, ְ ּבנִי:ְּתר ּוטֹות? ָא ַמר לֹו of the residents of Tadmor bleary [terutot]?l Hillel said to
Tadmorians and Africans – מֹודּיִ ים וְ ַא ְפ ְר ִקּיִ ים
ִ ת ְר:ַּ The Tadmo- .ׁ ָש ַא ְל ָּת – ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶשדָּ ִרין ֵ ּבין ַהחֹולֹות him: My son, you have asked a significant question. The
rians are the residents of Tadmor, Palmyra, a city located in
reason is because they live among the sands and the sand
the heart of the Syrian desert and visited by sandstorms from
time to time. gets into their eyes.
The Africans mentioned here are apparently the inhabitants
of the southern Nile Valley, the swampy regions adjacent to ִמי ָּכאן: ָחזַ ר וְ ָא ַמר,ָה ַלךְ וְ ִה ְמ ִּתין ׁ ָש ָעה ַא ַחת Once again the man went, waited one hour, returned, and
southern Sudan. .ִה ֵּלל? ִמי ָּכאן ִה ֵּלל? נִ ְת ַע ֵּטף וְ יָ צָ א ִל ְק ָראתֹו said: Who here is Hillel, who here is Hillel? Again, he,
Four hundred zuz – א ְר ָ ּבע ֵמאֹות זוּז:ַ The easiest way to appreci- : ָמה ַא ָּתה ְמ ַב ֵ ּק ׁש? ָא ַמר לֹו, ְ ּבנִי:ָא ַמר לֹו Hillel, wrapped himself and went out to greet him. He said
ate the value of this sum is by quantifying its buying power. to him: My son, what do you seek? He said to him: I have
, ׁ ְש ַאל ְ ּבנִי: ָא ַמר לֹו.ׁ ְש ֵא ָלה יֵ ׁש ִלי ִל ׁ ְשאֹול
Four hundred zuz was approximately four months’ salary. a question to ask. He said to him: Ask, my son, ask. The
יהם ׁ ֶשל ַא ְפ ְר ִקּיִ ים ֶ ׁ ְש ַאל! ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ָמה ַרגְ ֵל man asked: Why do Africansb have wide feet? Hillel said
ָ ׁ ְש ֵא ָלה ְ ּג, ְ ּבנִי:ְר ָחבֹות? ָא ַמר לֹו
דֹולה to him: You have asked a significant question. The reason
.ׁ ָש ַא ְל ָּת – ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶשדָּ ִרין ֵ ּבין ִ ּבצְ ֵעי ַה ַּמיִ ם is because they live in marshlands and their feet widened
to enable them to walk through those swampy areas.
, ׁ ְש ֵאלֹות ַה ְר ֵ ּבה יֵ ׁש ִלי ִל ׁ ְשאֹול:ָא ַמר לֹו That man said to him: I have many more questions to ask,
נִ ְת ַע ֵּטף וְ יָ ׁ ַשב.ו ִּמ ְתיָ ֵרא ֲאנִי ׁ ֶש ָּמא ִּת ְכעֹוס but I am afraid lest you get angry. Hillel wrapped himself
ָ ָּכל ׁ ְש ֵאלֹות ׁ ֶשיֵ ׁש ְלך: ָא ַמר לֹו,ְל ָפנָיו and sat before him, and he said to him: All of the ques-
tions that you have to ask, ask them. The man got angry
ַא ָּתה הוּא ִה ֵּלל: ָא ַמר לֹו.ִל ׁ ְשאֹול – ׁ ְש ַאל
and said to him: Are you Hillel whom they call the Nasi
. ֵהן:נְשיא יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל? ָא ַמר לֹו ׂ ִ ָאֹותךְ ׁ ֶש ּק ִֹורין of Israel? He said to him: Yes. He said to him: If it is you,
ְ ִאם ַא ָּתה הוּא – לּ ֹא יִ ְר ּב ּו ְּכ:ָא ַמר לֹו
ָמֹותך then may there not be many like you in Israel. Hillel said
: ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ָמה? ָא ַמר לֹו, ְ ּבנִי: ָא ַמר לֹו.ְ ּביִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל to him: My son, for what reason do you say this? The man
.ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ִא ַ ּב ְד ִּתי ַעל יָ ְדךָ ַא ְר ָ ּבע ֵמאֹות זוּז said to him: Because I lost four hundred zuzb because of
ְּכ ַדי הוּא ִה ֵּלל, ָ ֱהוֵ י זָ ִהיר ְ ּברו ֲּחך:ָא ַמר לֹו you. Hillel said to him: Be vigilant of your spirit and avoid
situations of this sort. Hillel is worthy of having you lose
ׁ ֶש ְּת ַא ֵ ּבד ַעל יָ דֹו ַא ְר ָ ּבע ֵמאֹות זוּז וְ ַא ְר ָ ּבע
four hundred zuz and another four hundred zuz on his
.ֵמאֹות זוּז – וְ ִה ֵּלל ל ֹא יַ ְק ּ ִפיד account, and Hillel will not get upset.
144 Perek II . 31a . אל ףד. קרפ ׳ב
notes
ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּבגֹוי ֶא ָחד ׁ ֶש ָ ּבא ִל ְפנֵי:ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן The Sages taught: There was an incident involving one gentile
who came before Shammai. The gentile said to Shammai: How On one foot – על ֶרגֶ ל ַא ַחת:ַ Apparently, his intention
ַּכ ָּמה ּתֹורֹות יֵ ׁש ָל ֶכם? ָא ַמר: ָא ַמר לֹו,ׁ ַש ַּמאי was to ask the Sage for a single fundamental principle,
.תֹורה ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ַעל ּ ֶפה ָ ְ ּת ָֹורה ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ְכ ָתב ו, ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם:לֹו many Torahs do you have? He said to him: Two, the Written one foot, upon which all of Judaism is based. Indeed,
Torah and the Oral Torah. The gentile said to him: With regard just as Hillel based the Torah upon this single principle,
וְ ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ַעל, ָ ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ְכ ָתב – ֲאנִי ַמ ֲא ִמינְ ך:ָא ַמר לֹו
to the Written Torah, I believe you, but with regard to the Oral so too Rabbi Akiva and ben Azzai later attempted to
ַ ּגּיְ ֵירנִי ַעל ְמנָ ת ׁ ֶש ְּת ַל ְּמ ֵדנִי. ָּ ֶפה – ֵאינִי ַמ ֲא ִמינְ ך Torah, I do not believe you. Convert me on condition that you formulate the same concept in different, broader terms
ָ ּבא. ָ ּג ַער ּבֹו וְ הֹוצִ יאֹו ִ ּבנְזִ ָיפה.ּת ָֹורה ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ְכ ָתב will teach me only the Written Torah. Shammai scolded him and (Maharsha).
:יהּ יֹומא ַק ָּמא ָא ַמר ֵל ָ ,יה ּ ִל ְפנֵי ִה ֵּלל – ַ ּגּיְ ֵיר cast him out with reprimand. The same gentile came before That which is hateful to you do not do to another –
וְ ָהא:יה ּ ל ֵ ר מַ א ָ . יה
ּ לֵ ְיך פ ֵ ּ ְל ָמ ָחר ַא,א״ב ג״ד Hillel, who converted him and began teaching him Torah. On דַּ ֲע ָל ְך ְסנֵי ְל ַח ְב ָר ְך ָלא ַּת ֲע ֵביד: This phrase appears in the
ָלאו:יה ּ ֶא ְתמֹול ָלא ֲא ַמ ְר ְּת ִלי ָה ִכי?! ָא ַמר ֵל the first day, he showed him the letters of the alphabet and said Aramaic translation, Targum Yonatan, of the Torah verse :
to him: Alef, bet, gimmel, dalet. The next day he reversed the “And you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus
מֹוך
ְ ֲע ַלי דִּ ִידי ָקא ָס ְמ ַכ ְּת? דְּ ַעל ּ ֶפה נַ ִמי ְס 19:18). It is not a precise translation; rather, it is a limited
order of the letters and told him that an alef is a tav and so on. The
.ֲע ַלי convert said to him: But yesterday you did not tell me that. Hil-
interpretation. It does not express the positive mitzva
to love another, but the prohibition, proscribing actions
lel said to him: You see that it is impossible to learn what is writ- harmful to others. Apparently, Hillel sought to express
ten without relying on an oral tradition. Didn’t you rely on me? through this principle that at the basis of the Torah are
Therefore, you should also rely on me with regard to the matter those mitzvot, which are fundamental principles that
of the Oral Torah, and accept the interpretations that it contains. may be universally applied (Maharsha).
Accepting converts – ק ָ ּב ָלת ֵ ּג ִרים:ַ In practice, people
,ׁשוּב ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּבגֹוי ֶא ָחד ׁ ֶש ָ ּבא ִל ְפנֵי ׁ ַש ַּמאי There was another incident involving one gentile who came like the ones Hillel converted are not accepted as con-
before Shammai and said to Shammai: Convert me on condi- verts because the halakha insists that a convert accept
ַ ּגּיְ ֵירנִי ַעל ְמנָ ת ׁ ֶש ְּת ַל ְּמ ֵדנִי ָּכל ַה ּת ָֹורה:ָא ַמר לֹו
tion that you teach me the entire Torah while I am standing on upon himself the entire Torah without intention to ac-
דְּ ָחפֹו.עֹומד ַעל ֶרגֶ ל ַא ַחת ֵ ּכו ָּּל ּה ְּכ ׁ ֶש ֲאנִי crue personal benefit. However, Hillel apparently relied
one foot.n Shammai pushed him away with the builder’s cubit
.יהּ ַ ּגּיְ ֵיר, ָ ּבא ִל ְפנֵי ִה ֵּלל.ְ ּב ַא ַּמת ַה ִ ּבנְיָ ן ׁ ֶש ְ ּביָ דֹו in his hand. This was a common measuring stick and Shammai
on the fact that these converts could eventually accept
Judaism in its entirety at a later time.
דַּ ֲע ָלךְ ְסנֵי ְל ַח ְב ָרךְ ָלא ַּת ֲע ֵביד – זֹו:ָא ַמר לֹו was a builder by trade. The same gentile came before Hillel. He
וְ ִא ָיד ְך – ּ ֵפירו ׁ ָּש ּה,ִהיא ָּכל ַה ּת ָֹורה ּכו ָּּל ּה converted him and said to him: That which is hateful to you do Background
. זִ יל ְ ּגמֹור,הוּא not do to another;n that is the entire Torah, and the rest is its And these are the garments, etc. – וְ ֵא ֶּלה ַה ְ ּבגָ ִדים וכו׳:
interpretation. Go study. These are the priestly garments worn by the High Priest,
also referred to as the golden garments (Exodus 28).
חֹורי
ֵ עֹובר ֲא ֵ ׁשוּב ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּבגֹוי ֶא ָחד ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה There was another incident involving one gentile who was pass- Four of them, the breastplate, the efod, the robe, and
ing behind the study hall and heard the voice of a teacher who the frontplate, were unique to the High Priest. Four
:אֹומר
ֵ סֹופר ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ֵ וְ ׁ ָש ַמע קֹול,ֵ ּבית ַה ִּמ ְד ָר ׁש other garments, the trousers, the tunic, the sash, and
.חֹושן וְ ֵאפֹוד״ ֶ ׁ “וְ ֵא ֶּלה ַה ְ ּבגָ ִדים ֲא ׁ ֶשר יַ ֲע ׂש ּו was teaching Torah to his students and saying the verse: “And
the miter, resembled those worn by common priests.
these are the garmentsb which they shall make: A breastplate, There was a debate among the Sages whether the sash
ָא ַמר, ְלכ ֵֹהן ָ ּגדֹול: ַה ָּלל ּו ְל ִמי? ָא ְמר ּו לֹו:ָא ַמר
and an efod, and a robe, and a tunic of checkered work, a mitre, worn by the High Priest was identical to that worn by
ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל, ֵא ֵל ְך וְ ֶא ְת ַ ּגּיֵ יר:אֹותֹו גּ ֹוי ְ ּב ַעצְ מֹו and a girdle” (Exodus 28:4). The gentile said: These garments, the common priests. It appears that the miters differed,
ָא ַמר, ָ ּבא ִל ְפנֵי ׁ ַש ַּמאי.ׁ ֶשּיְ ִ ׂשימוּנִי ּכ ֵֹהן ָ ּגדֹול for whom are they designated? The students said to him: For the at least in the way they were worn.
.ימנִי ּכ ֵֹהן ָ ּגדֹול ֵ ַ ּגּיְ ֵירנִי ַעל ְמנָ ת ׁ ֶש ְּת ִ ׂש:יהּ ֵל High Priest. The gentile said to himself: I will go and convert
– ָ ּבא ִל ְפנֵי ִה ֵּלל.דְּ ָחפֹו ְ ּב ַא ַּמת ַה ִ ּבנְיָ ן ׁ ֶש ְ ּביָ דֹו so that they will install me as High Priest. He came before
.יהּ ַ ּגּיְ ֵיר Shammai and said to him: Convert me on condition that you
install me as High Priest. Shammai pushed him with the build-
er’s cubit in his hand. He came before Hillel; he converted him.
ְּכלוּם ָראוּי ֲאנִי: ָא ַמר לֹו,ָ ּבא ִל ְפנֵי ׁ ַש ַּמאי The convert came before Shammai and told him that he retracts
“וְ ַהּזָ ר:ִל ְהיֹות ּכ ֵֹהן גָ דֹול? וַ ֲהל ֹא ְּכ ִתיב ַ ּב ּת ָֹורה his demand to appoint him High Priest, saying: Am I at all worthy
ַענְ וְ ָותן: ָא ַמר לֹו,ַה ָ ּק ֵרב יו ָּמת״! ָ ּבא ִל ְפנֵי ִה ֵּלל to be High Priest? Is it not written in the Torah: And the com-
mon man that draws near shall be put to death? He came before
ֹאשךָ ׁ ֶש ִה ְק ַר ְב ַּתנִי ְ ׁ יָ נוּח ּו ְלךָ ְ ּב ָרכֹות ַעל ר,ִה ֵּלל
Hillel and said to him: Hillel the patient, may blessings rest
ְליָ ִמים נִ זְ דַּ ְּווג ּו ׁ ְש ָל ׁ ְֹש ָּתן.ַּת ַחת ַּכנְ ֵפי ַה ׁ ּ ְש ִכינָ ה upon your head as you brought me under the wings of the Di-
ַק ּ ְפ ָדנוּתֹו ׁ ֶשל ׁ ַש ַּמאי:ּ ָא ְמרו,ְל ָמקֹום ֶא ָחד vine Presence. The Gemara relates: Eventually, the three con-
ותנוּתֹו ׁ ֶשל ָ ְ ַענְ ו,עֹולם ָ טֹור ֵדנ ּו ִמן ָה ְ ִ ּב ְק ׁ ָשה ְל verts gathered together in one place, and they said: Shammai’s
.ִה ֵּלל ֵק ְר ָבנ ּו ַּת ַחת ַּכנְ ֵפי ַה ׁ ּ ְש ִכינָ ה impatience sought to drive us from the world; Hillel’s patience
brought us beneath the wings of the Divine Presence.n
אל ףד. ׳ב קרפ. Perek II . 31a 145
notes
“וְ ָהיָ ה: ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב,ָא ַמר ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש The Gemara continues discussing the conduct of the Sages, cit-
Strength, that is the order of Nashim – נָשים
ִ ׁ ׳חֹוסן׳ זֶ ה ֵס ֶדר:
ֶ The ing that Reish Lakish said: What is the meaning of that which
order of Nashim in the Mishna, which deals with the halakhot חֹוסן יְ ׁש ּועֹות ָח ְכ ַמת ֶ ֱָאמוּנַ ת ִע ֶּתיך
pertaining to women and marriage, is called strength because ,‘אמוּנַ ת׳ זֶ ה ֵס ֶדר זְ ָר ִעים ֱ – וָ ָד ַעת וגו׳״ is written: “And the faith of your times shall be a strength of
a man who lives without a wife, lives without a protective wall salvation, wisdom, and knowledge, the fear of the Lord is his
‘חֹוסן׳ – זֶ הֶ ,מֹועד
ֵ ִ‘ע ֶּתיךָ ׳ – זֶ ה ֵס ֶדר
(Yevamot 62b). treasure” (Isaiah 33:6)? Faith; that is the order of Zera’im,
, ‘יְ ׁשוּעֹות׳ – זֶ ה ֵס ֶדר נְ זִ ִיקין,נָשים ִ ׁ ֵס ֶדר Seeds, in the Mishna, because a person has faith in God and
halakha – ‘וָ ָד ַעת׳,ָ‘ח ְכ ַמת׳ – זֶ ה ֵס ֶדר ָק ָד ׁ ִשים plants his seeds ( Jerusalem Talmud). Your times; that is the
Did you conduct business faithfully – את וְ נָ ַת ָּת ֶ ּב ֱאמוּנָ ה
ָ נָש:
ָׂ וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ָה ִכי “יִ ְר ַאת ה׳.זֶ ה ֵס ֶדר ְט ָהרֹות order of Moed, Festival, which deals with the various occasions
From the outset, a person engaging in business should conduct .ִהיא אֹוצָ רֹו״ and Festivals that occur throughout the year. Strength; that is
himself honestly and faithfully. There should be no theft or the order of Nashim,n Women. Salvations; that is the order of
deceit in one’s business affairs. Indeed, that is one of the ques- Nezikin, Damages, as one who is being pursued is rescued from
tions that a person is asked when standing before the heavenly the hands of his pursuer. Wisdom; that is the order of Ko-
court: Did you conduct your business honestly and faithfully?
dashim, Consecrated Items. And knowledge; that is the order
(Mishna Berura; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 156).
of Teharot, Purity, which is particularly difficult to master. And
Did you designate times for Torah study– ק ַב ְע ָּת ִע ִּתים ַל ּת ָֹורה:ָ even if a person studies and masters all of these, “the fear of the
Every person must designate specific times for Torah study
Lord is his treasure,” it is preeminent.
on a regular basis. Optimally, one should study Torah after
prayer. If one does not have the skills to study classic texts, he
should nevertheless study material that he does understand. נִיסין ָא ָדם ַלדִּ ין ִ ְ ּב ׁ ָש ָעה ׁ ֶש ַּמ ְכ:ָא ַמר ָר ָבא With regard to the same verse, Rava said: After departing from
For example, focusing one’s attention and assessing his actions ,את וְ נָ ַת ָּת ֶ ּב ֱאמוּנָ ה ָ נָשׂ ָ :אֹומ ִרים לֹו ְ this world, when a person is brought to judgment for the life
to ascertain whether or not he sinned, and then resolving to ָע ַס ְק ָּת ִ ּב ְפ ִרּיָ ה,ָק ַב ְע ָּת ִע ִּתים ַל ּת ָֹורה he lived in this world, they say to him in the order of that verse:
change his conduct falls under the rubric of Torah study. Did you conduct business faithfully?h Did you designate
To ensure that no day will pass without Torah study, the , ּ ִפ ְל ּ ַפ ְל ָּת ְ ּב ָח ְכ ָמה, צִ ּ ִפ ָית ִל ׁישו ָּעה,ו ְּר ִבּיָה
times for Torah study?h Did you engage in procreation? Did
Sages introduced several paragraphs of Torah study at the ִאי:ֵה ַבנְ ָּת דָּ ָבר ִמ ּתֹוךְ דָּ ָבר? וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ָה ִכי you await salvation? Did you engage in the dialectics of wis-
conclusion of the prayer service, following the Amida prayer . ִאי ָלא – ָלא,יִ ְר ַאת ה׳ ִהיא אֹוצָ רֹו – ִאין dom or understand one matter from another? And, neverthe-
(Be’er Heitev). This too is one of the questions that a person is
asked when standing before the heavenly court: Did you des- ַה ֲע ֵלה ִלי:ָמ ׁ ָשל ְל ָא ָדם ׁ ֶש ָא ַמר ִל ׁ ְשלוּחֹו less, beyond all these, if the fear of the Lord is his treasure, yes,
ignate times for Torah? (Mishna Berura; Rambam Sefer HaMadda, ָא ַמר. ָה ַלךְ וְ ֶה ֱע ָלה לֹו.יטין ָל ֲע ִלּיָ יה ִּ ּכֹור ִח he is worthy, and if not, no, none of these accomplishments
Hilkhot Talmud Torah 1:8; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 155:1). :חֹומטֹון? ָא ַמר לֹו ְ ֵע ַיר ְב ָּת ִלי ָ ּב ֶהן ַקב:לֹו have any value. There is a parable that illustrates this. A person
who said to his emissary: Bring a kor of wheat up to the attic
. מו ָּטב ִאם ל ֹא ֶה ֱע ֵל ָית ּה: ָא ַמר לֹו.ָלאו
language for me to store there. The messenger went and brought it up
Ĥomton – חֹומטֹון:
ְ Some commentaries state that the proper for him. He said to the emissary: Did you mix a kav of
reading should be ĥomoton, from the Greek word ἄμαθος, ĥomton,l a preservative to keep away worms, into it for me? He
amathos, meaning sand or sandy earth. It also refers to the said to him: No. He said to him: If so, it would have been pref-
sand and salts near the sea. erable had you not brought it up. Of what use is worm-infest-
ed wheat? Likewise, Torah and mitzvot without the fear of God
background are of no value.
A kav into a kor – קב ְ ּבכֹור:ַ There are 180 kav in a kor. Therefore,
one is only permitted to mix a small percentage, a little more ְמ ָע ֵרב ָא ָדם: ָּתנָ א דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאלOn a related note, the Gemara cites a halakha that was taught
than one half of one percent, of ĥomton into a kor of wheat.
וְ ֵאינֹו,חֹומטֹון ְ ּבכֹור ׁ ֶשל ְּתבו ָּאה ְ ַקבin the school of Rabbi Yishmael: A person who sells wheat
.חֹוש ׁש
ֵׁ may, ab initio, mix a kav of ĥomton into a korb of grain and need
not be concerned that by selling it all at the price of grain he
will be guilty of theft, as the kav of ĥomton is essential for the
preservation of the wheat.
ָּכל ָא ָדם ׁ ֶשיֵ ׁש: ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַרב הוּנָ אRabba bar Rav Huna said: Any person who has Torah in him
ּבֹו ּת ָֹורה וְ ֵאין ּבֹוbut does not have
Perek II
Daf 31 Amud b
language
ֹומה ְלגִ זְ ָ ּבר ׁ ֶש ָּמ ְסר ּו ֶ ּ ד,יִ ְר ַאת ׁ ָש ַמיִ ם fear of Heaven is like a treasurer [gizbar]l to whom they gave
Treasurer [gizbar] – ּזְבר
ּ ָ ג:ִ This word, which appears in the Bible
נִימּיֹות ּו ַמ ְפ ְּתחֹות ִ לֹו ַמ ְפ ְּתחֹות ַה ּ ְפ keys to the inner doors of the treasury but they did not give
(Ezra 1:8), was apparently borrowed from the Old Persian word
? ְ ּב ֵהי ָעיֵ יל.יצֹונֹות ל ֹא ָמ ְסר ּו לֹו keys to the outer door. With what key will he enter? Although
ganzabara, referring to the one in charge of the treasury. Ganz ּ ַה ִח
means treasury and bara means carrier. the Torah is the inner key, without fear of Heaven one cannot
יה ּ ֲח ָבל ַעל דְּ ֵלית ֵל:ַמ ְכ ִריז ַר ִ ּבי יַ ַּנאי gain access to the genuine Torah. Similarly, Rabbi Yannai would
ָא ַמר ַרב. וְ ַת ְר ָעא ְל ַד ְר ָּתא ָע ֵביד,דַּ ְר ָּתא proclaim: Woe unto one who does not have a courtyard, and
דֹוש ָ ּברו ְּך הוּא ׁ ל ֹא ָ ּב ָרא ַה ָ ּק:יְ הו ָּדה who makes a fence for the courtyard, i.e., a person who lacks
,עֹולמֹו ֶא ָּלא ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשּיִ ְירא ּו ִמ ְּל ָפנָיו
ָ ֶאת fear of Heaven and is nevertheless involved in Torah study. Rav
“וְ ָה ֱאל ִֹהים ָע ָ ׂשה ׁ ֶשּיִ ְירא ּו:ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר Yehuda said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, only created His
.ִמ ְּל ָפנָיו״ world so that people would fear before Him, as it is stated:
“And God has so made it that men should fear before Him”
(Ecclesiastes 3:14).
146 Perek II . 31b . אל ףד: קרפ ׳ב
notes
ָח ֵליף וְ ָאזֵ יל,ַר ִ ּבי ִסימֹון וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֲהו ּו יָ ְת ִבי The Gemara also related that Rabbi Simon and Rabbi Elazar were
sitting. Rabbi Ya’akov bar Aĥa passed and went adjacent to them. One Fear and wisdom – היִ ְר ָאה וְ ַה ָח ְכ ָמה:ַ There is a
:יה
ּ יה ַחד ְל ַח ְב ֵר ּ ָא ַמר ֵל.ַר ִ ּבי יַ ֲעקֹב ַ ּבר ַא ָחא distinction between the statements of Rabba
ָא ַמר, דִּ גְ ַבר דָּ ֵחיל ֲח ָט ִאין הוּא,יה ּ נֵיק ּו ִמ ַ ּק ֵּמ said to the other: Let us stand before him as he is a man who fears bar Rav Huna and Rabbi Yannai. Rabbi Yannai
sin. The other said to him in response: Let us stand before him, as he praises fear more because, in his opinion, fear
: ָא ַמר. נֵיק ּו ִמ ַ ּק ֵּמ ּיה; דִּ גְ ַבר ַ ּבר או ְּריָ ין הוּא: ְִא ָידך
is a man of Torah study. He said to him: I said to you that he is a man is more sublime and more intrinsic than wis-
– ָא ִמינָ א ָל ְך ֲאנָ א דִּ גְ ַבר דָּ ֵחיל ֲח ָט ִאין הוּא who fears sin, and you said me that he is a man of Torah study?n The dom. Torah is nothing more than the gateway
!?“בר או ְּריָ ין הוּא״ ּ ַ וְ ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ִלי ַא ְּת former is much greater praise than the latter. to fear. Others explained that there are vari-
ous levels of fear. There is fear that serves as a
ִּת ְס ַּתּיֵ ים דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר הוּא דַּ ֲא ַמר “דִּ גְ ַבר דָּ ֵחיל The Gemara remarks: Conclude that Rabbi Elazar is the one who said prelude to acquiring the wisdom of the Torah,
that he is praiseworthy because he is a man who fears sin, as elsewhere and Torah serves as a prelude to a higher level
יֹוחנָ ן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי
ָ דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי,ֲח ָט ִאין הוּא״
he also spoke in praise of fear. As Rabbi Yoĥanan said in the name of of fear (Shenei Luĥot HaBerit; Maharsha).
עֹולמֹוָ דֹוש ָ ּברו ְּך הוּא ְ ּב ׁ ֵאין לֹו ְל ַה ָ ּק:ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר
Rabbi Elazar: The Holy One, Blessed be He, has in His world only Be not overmuch wicked – אל ִּת ְר ׁ ַשע ַה ְר ֵ ּבה:ַ
“וְ ַע ָּתה: ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,ֶא ָּלא יִ ְר ַאת ׁ ָש ַמיִ ם ִ ּב ְל ַבד
fear of Heaven alone, as it is stated: “And now, Israel, what does the The commentaries explain that this quota-
ֹואל ֵמ ִע ָּמ ְך ִּכי ִאם ֵ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ָמה ה׳ ֱאל ֶֹהיךָ ׁש Lord your God ask of you, but to fear the Lord your God” (Deuter- tion was introduced at this point because the
ֹאמר ָל ָא ָדם ֵהן יִ ְר ַאת ֶ “וַ ּי:ְליִ ְר ָאה וגו׳״ ו ְּכ ִתיב onomy 10:12). And it is written: “And unto man He said: Behold [hen], Gemara had previously discussed Ecclesiastes
and its internal contradictions. Therefore, the
קֹוריןִ ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ִ ּב ְל ׁשֹון יְ וָ נִי,ה׳ ִהיא ָח ְכ ָמה וגו׳״ the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is under- Gemara cited another verse that seems self-
. ִּת ְס ַּתּיֵ ים.ְל ַא ַחת ֵהן standing” ( Job 28:28), as in the Greek language they call one hen.l contradictory, since it warns against both
Apparently, fear of God is of primary importance. The Gemara con- righteousness and wickedness. The Gemara
cludes: Indeed, conclude that Rabbi Elazar is the one who said so. answers that there are indeed wicked people
who gradually exacerbate their wickedness
ַ : ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב,דָּ ַר ׁש ַרב עו ָּּלא
“אל ִּת ְר ׁ ַשע Rav Ulla taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Be (Maharsha; Iyyun Ya’akov).
ָהא ְמ ַעט, ַה ְר ֵ ּבה הוּא דְּ ָלא ִל ְיר ׁ ַשע,ַה ְר ֵ ּבה וגו׳״ not overmuch wicked”n (Ecclesiastes 7:17)? This appears difficult, as, Prohibited labor performed on Shabbat not
ֵ ִמי ׁ ֶש ָא ַכל ׁשוּם וְ ֵריחֹו:ִל ְיר ׁ ַשע? ֶא ָּלא
,נֹודף is that to say that only overmuch one should not be wicked; a little, for its own sake – יכה ְלגו ָּפ ּה
ָ אכה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ה צְ ִר
ָ מ ָל:ְ
one should be wicked? Rather, this can be understood based on the The parameters of a prohibited labor by To-
!?נֹודףֵ יהא ֵריחֹו ֵ ִֹאכל ׁשוּם ַא ֵחר ו ַ יַ ֲחזֹור וְ י
following adage: One who ate a clove of garlic and its odor spreads, rah law incorporate myriad details, including
should he again eat another clove of garlic so that its odor will spread the intention to perform a complete action.
further? If you were somewhat wicked, do not think that it is legitimate As a result, there are differing opinions with
regard to a prohibited labor performed not
to continue and be very wicked.
for its own sake, i.e., the labor was indeed
“כיִּ : ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב,דָּ ַר ׁש ָר ָבא ַ ּבר ַרב עו ָּּלא Rava bar Rav Ulla taught: What is the meaning of that which is writ- performed, but the one performing the la-
bor has no interest in its performance. If one
מֹותם ו ָּב ִריא או ָּלם״ – ָא ַמר ָ ֵאין ַח ְרצֻ ּבֹות ְל ten: “For there are no pangs [ĥartzubot] at their death and their body
needs dirt and digs a hole for that purpose,
ׁ ַה ָ ּק
ל ֹא דַּ ּיָ ין ָל ְר ׁ ָש ִעים ׁ ֶש ֵאינָן:דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא is sound” (Psalms 73:4)? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Is it not creating a pit is not part of his objective. The
enough for wicked people that they are not anxious [ĥared] or sad labor of extinguishing a flame is rarely per-
ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ִּל ָ ּבם,יתה ָ ֲח ֵר ִדין וַ ֲעצֵ ִבין ִמּיֹום ַה ִּמ
[atzuv], ĥartzubot is an acronym of ĥared and atzuv, in anticipation of formed for its own sake; rather, it is usually
ַמאי, וְ ַהיְ ינ ּו דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה.ָ ּב ִריא ָל ֶהן ְּכאו ָּלם the day of their death, but also, their heart is as unyielding for them extinguished to prevent light or danger. In
יֹוד ִעין ְר ׁ ָש ִעים
ְ – “זֶ ה דַּ ְר ָּכם ֶּכ ֶסל ָלמֹו״:דִּ ְכ ִתיב as the entrance to a hall is wide, and they devote no thought to it. And essence, the one extinguishing the flame is
. וְ יֵ ׁש ָל ֶהם ֵח ֶלב ַעל ִּכ ְס ָלם,יתה ָ ׁ ֶשדַּ ְר ָּכם ְל ִמ that is what Rabba said: What is the meaning of that which is written: indifferent to whether or not the flame itself
continues to burn.
:לֹומר
ַ ׁ ִש ְכ ָחה ִהיא ֵמ ֶהן – ַּת ְלמוּד:ֹאמר ַ ׁ ֶש ָּמא ּת “This is the way of them that are foolish and of those who after them
.יהם יִ ְרצ ּו ֶס ָלה״ ֶ יהם ְ ּב ִפ
ֶ “וְ ַא ֲח ֵר speak approvingly, Selah” (Psalms 49:14)? It means that the wicked
language
know that their path leads to eternal death, but they have fat on their
kidneys that prevents that realization from entering their hearts. Lest One [hen] – הן:ֵ The reference is to the Greek
word ἕν, hen, which means one.
you say that it is simply forgotten from them; therefore, the verse
states: “And of those who after them speak approvingly, Selah”
halakha
(Psalms 49:14). They are aware of their fate and speak of it, but it does
He dismantles in order to rebuild – סֹותר ֵ
not affect them.
על ְמנָ ת ִל ְבנֹות:ַ One who dismantles or ruins
?יֹוסי ְּכ ַמאן ְס ִב ָירא ֵל ּיה ֵ ַר ִ ּבי.“כ ָחס ַעל ַה ֵּנר כו׳״ ְּ We learned in the mishna that if one extinguished a flame on Shabbat a structure with the intent to repair it or to
rebuild it, even if the intent is to rebuild it else-
יה – ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְ ּב ָהנָ ךְ נַ ִמיּ ִאי ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ְס ִב ָירא ֵל because he sought to spare the lamp, the oil, or the wick, he is liable,
where, is liable. If his purpose in dismantling
יה – ּ ְפ ִת ָילה ּ וְ ִאי ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ְס ִב ָירא ֵל,יחּיֵ יב
ַ ִל but Rabbi Yosei exempts in all cases except in a case in which he extin- is destructive, he is exempt (Rambam Sefer
guished the flame to spare the wick. The Gemara asks with regard to Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 10:15).
עֹולם ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ָ ְל:נַ ִמי ִל ְיפ ַטר! ָא ַמר עו ָּּלא
Rabbi Yosei: In accordance with whose opinion does he hold with
סֹותר ַעל ְמנָ ת ֵ :יֹוסי ֵ וְ ָק ָס ַבר ַר ִ ּבי.יה ּ ְס ִב ָירא ֵל regard to prohibited labor performed on Shabbat not for its own sake?n
ַעל ְמנָ ת ִל ְבנֹות,סֹותר ֵ ִל ְבנֹות ִ ּב ְמקֹומֹו – ָהוֵ י If he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who
ֵ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִ ּב ְמקֹומֹו – ָלא ָהוֵ י
.סֹותר holds that one is liable for a prohibited labor performed on Shabbat not
for its own sake, then even in all those cases he should also deem him
liable. And if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shi-
mon, who holds that one is exempt for a prohibited labor performed
on Shabbat not for its own sake, then even in the case of a wick he
should also deem him exempt. Ulla said: Actually, Rabbi Yosei holds
in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. However, Rabbi
Yosei holds that with regard to every destructive action, if he disman-
tles in order to rebuildh in the same place, then it is considered to be
dismantling, and he is liable for having performed a prohibited labor
on Shabbat. However, one who demolishes in order to build elsewhere
it is not considered performance of the prohibited labor of disman-
tling. He merely performed a destructive act and is not liable. When
one extinguishes the flame to spare the lamp or the oil, he does not do
so in order to relight them. When he does so to spare the wick, he indi-
cates that he intends to relight the wick.
אל ףד: ׳ב קרפ. Perek II . 31b 147
notes
ָּכל ְמ ָלאכֹות, ִמ ְּכ ִדי:יה ַר ָ ּבה ּ ָא ַמר ֵל Rabba said to him: That reasoning is implausible. After all, all la-
And in lighting the Shabbat lamp – ו ְּב ַה ְד ָל ַקת ַה ֵּנר: Some bors prohibited on Shabbat, we derive them from the labors per-
commentaries explain that women are not punished for סֹותר ַעלֵ יַ ְּל ִפינַ ן ְלה ּו ִמ ִּמ ׁ ְש ָּכן וְ ָה ָתם
failure to kindle the Shabbat lights. Rather, lack of caution ְמנָ ת ִל ְבנֹות ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִ ּב ְמקֹומֹו הוּא! ָא ַמר formed in the Tabernacle, and there it was a case of dismantling in
results in their lighting after Shabbat has begun, and they order to build elsewhere. They would dismantle the Tabernacle
“עלַ : ֵּכיוָ ן דִּ ְכ ִתיב, ׁ ָשאנֵי ָה ָתם:יה ּ ֵל
are then punished for violating the Shabbat (Rashash). and reconstruct it at the next encampment. Ulla said to Rabba: That
סֹותר ַעל ְמנָ ת ִל ְבנֹות ֵ ּ ִפי ה׳ יַ ֲחנוּ״ – ְּכ is not a proof, as there, in the case of the Tabernacle, it is different.
halakha ,ִ ּב ְמקֹומֹו דָּ ֵמי Since it is written: “At the commandment of the Lord they en-
And in lighting the Shabbat lamp – ו ְּב ַה ְד ָל ַקת ַה ֵּנר: Al- camped” (Numbers 9:23). The time and place of their travels and
though both men and women are commanded to kindle their encampments were not determined by them but rather by the
the Shabbat lights, this mitzva has nevertheless become word of God. Consequently, when they took down the Tabernacle
the purview of women, and it is their responsibility be- it was tantamount to demolishing in order to build in the same
cause they are generally in charge of the home. Further- place. Since the demolition and the construction were both ac-
more, it comes as compensation for the fact that the first
complished at the command of God, there was never a case of de-
woman, Eve, extinguished the light of the world, as per
the mishna and Gemara (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot struction without a constructive purpose.
Shabbat 5:3; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 263:3).
עֹולם ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ָ ְל:יֹוחנָ ן ָא ַמר ָ וְ ַר ִ ּבי And Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Actually, Rabbi Yosei holds in accor-
– ילה ָ ּו ַמאי ׁ ְשנָ א ּ ְפ ִת,יה ּ ְס ִב ָירא ֵל dance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And as far as the ques-
background
ימא ַרב ַאדָּ א ָ ִּכ ְד ָא ַמר ַרב ַה ְמנוּנָ א וְ ִא ֵית tion, what is different about a wick, that can be answered as Rav
A quarter of a log of blood – יעית דָּ ם
ִ ר ִב:ְ A quarter of a log
Hamnuna said, and some say, Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Here, we
of blood, approximately 80–150 ml according to the vary- יך ְ ילה ׁ ֶש ָ ּצ ִר ָ ָה ָכא ִ ּב ְפ ִת:ַ ּבר ַא ֲה ָבה
ing opinions of the authorities, is halakhically considered are dealing with a wick that one must singe before lighting it in
יל ּוּ דִּ ְב ַה ִהיא ֲא ִפ,ְל ַה ְב ֲה ָב ּה ָע ְס ִקינַ ן order to facilitate its burning, as, in that case, even Rabbi Shimon
to be the minimum amount of blood required to sustain
a person. Apparently, the Sages arrived at this measure- .מֹודי דְּ ָקא ְמ ַת ֵ ּקן ָמנָ א ֵ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון agrees that extinguishing the flame is prohibited, as, by doing so, he
ment by checking the amount of blood in an embryo at a “שהוּא ֶ ׁ דַּ יְ ָקא נַ ִמי דְּ ָק ָתנֵי:ָא ַמר ָר ָבא prepares a vessel for use. Rava said: That interpretation is also
certain stage of its development. As a result, it is possible precise in the language of the mishna, as it was taught in the mish-
“מ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ּנ ֲַע ֵ ׂשית
ִ עֹושה ּ ֶפ ָחם״ וְ ָלא ָק ָתנֵי
ֶׂ
to call a quarter of a log of blood the blood of the soul na that one who extinguished a wick is liable because he makes the
because it is the amount required to sustain a person at .ּ ֶפ ָחם״ – ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה
the beginning of his life.
wick into charcoal intentionally, and it was not taught because
charcoal was made on its own. The Gemara concludes: Conclude
from it that the mishna is to be understood in that manner.
Perek II
Daf 32 Amud a
אתי ֶא ְת ֶכם – ַעל ִע ְס ֵקי ִ אשית ָק ָר ִ ׁ ֵר I called you first, as it is stated: “Israel is the Lord’s hallowed portion,
נְ ׁ ָש ָמ ה,אש ית ִה זְ ַה ְר ִּתי ֶא ְת ֶכ ם ִ ׁ ֵר His first fruits of the increase” ( Jeremiah 2:3) and I warned you
ׁ ֶש ָּנ ַת ִּתי ָ ּב ֶכם ְקרוּיָ ה נֵ ר – ַעל ִע ְס ֵקי נֵ ר about matters of the first: “Of the first of your dough you shall set
apart ĥalla for a gift” (Numbers 15:20). The soul that I have placed
ימים ִ ְ ִאם ַא ֶּתם ְמ ַקּי.ִהזְ ַה ְר ִּתי ֶא ְת ֶכם
in you is called ner: “The spirit of man is the lamp [ner] of the Lord”
נֹוטל
ֵ וְ ִאם ָלאו – ֲה ֵרינִי,אֹותם – מו ָּטב ָ (Proverbs 20:27), and I warned you about matters of the Shabbat
.נִש ַמ ְת ֶכם ְׁ lamp. If you fulfill these mitzvot, fine, and if not, then I will take
your soul.
148 Perek II . 32a . בל ףד. קרפ ׳ב
notes
:ו ַּמאי ׁ ְשנָ א ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ֵל ָיד ָתן? ָא ַמר ָר ָבא And, if so, what is different during childbirth?n Why does the divine
attribute of judgment punish them for dereliction in fulfillment of these During childbirth – ש ַעת ֵל ָיד ָתן:
ְ ׁ The fundamental
: ַא ַ ּביֵ י ָא ַמר.נְ ַפל ּת ָֹורא – ַחדֵּ ד ְל ַס ִּכינָא concept underlying all of these statements is that
ַּת ּ ֵפ ׁיש ֵּתירוּס ַא ְמ ָתא – ְ ּב ַחד ַמ ְח ְט ָרא mitzvot specifically then? The Gemara cites several folk sayings express- only rarely do divine punishments come with no
ing the concept that when a person is in danger, he is punished for his material foreshadowing. Nevertheless, the time for
יה
ּ ׁ ְש ַב ֵק: ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א ָא ַמר.יהוֵ י ֱ ֶל
sins. Rava said: If the ox fell, sharpen the knife to slaughter it. Abaye retribution is when one is in a dangerous situation
ָמר עו ְּק ָבא.יה נָ ֵפיל ּ דְּ ִמ ַּנ ְפ ׁ ֵש,ְל ַר ָּויָ א said: If the maidservant’s insolence abounds, she will be struck by a engendered by external factors. The folk expressions
ַא ַ ּבב,יה ָטן ֲ ָר ְעיָ א ִח ְ ּג ָרא וְ ִעיּזֵ י ִר:ָא ַמר single blow as punishment for all her sins. So too, when a woman is giv- cited here seek, in different ways and to varying
, וְ ַא ֵ ּבי דָּ ֵרי – חו ׁ ְּש ָ ּבנָ א,חו ְּט ָרא – ִמ ֵּילי ing birth and her suffering is great due to Eve’s sin of eating from the Tree degrees, to express the same concept: In times of
distress, all of one’s outstanding debts with God are
ישיִ ׁ אתא נְ ִפ ָ ָ ַא ַ ּבב ַחנְ ו:ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא ָא ַמר of Knowledge, all the punishments for her own sins are added to that
settled.
ַא ַ ּבב ִ ּבזְ יֹונֵי – ָלא ַא ֵחי,ַא ֵחי ו ְּמ ַר ֲח ֵמי suffering. Rav Ĥisda said: Leave the drunk, as he falls on his own.
Similarly, the time of birth is a time of danger, and if the Holy One, Blessed
.וְ ָלא ְמ ַר ֲח ִמי halakha
be He, does not come to her assistance at that time, that is sufficient to
A person should never stand in a place of danger –
cause her death. Mar Ukva said: The shepherd is crippled, and the goats
עֹולם ַאל יַ ֲעמֹוד ָא ָדם ִ ּב ְמקֹום ַס ָּכנָ ה
ָ ל:ְ One is required to
are running, and he cannot catch them. However, next to the gate, he distance himself from elements or places that are
speaks harsh words, and inside the pen he settles the account. Similarly, potentially dangerous and refrain from relying on
as long as a woman is in a healthy state, her sins are in abeyance, and she miracles. The Sages even said: One must treat danger
is not held accountable for them. However, when she is giving birth, with greater stringency than he treats prohibition.
which is a time of danger, she is held accountable for her sins and a cal- Therefore, one must be more vigilant in avoiding po-
culation is made whether or not she is worthy of a miracle. Rav Pappa tential danger than in avoiding potential prohibition
(Rambam Sefer Nezikin, Hilkhot Rotze’aĥ UShemirat
said: At the entrance to the stores, during a time of prosperity, brothers HaNefesh 12:6; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 116:5 and in
and loved ones abound. When a person is prospering financially, every- the comment of the Rema).
one acts like his brother or friend. However, at the gate of disgrace, dur-
ing a time of loss and poverty, he has no brothers and no loved ones; background
everyone abandons him. Southern wind – שו ָּתא:ׁ The Arukh explains that this
refers to a strong easterly wind that is apparently
יב ְד ִקי? ָא ַמר ֵר ׁיש ּ ַ יכא ִמ ָ וְ גַ ְב ֵרי ֵה And the Gemara asks: And where are men examined? When are men very hot and dry, causes food to spoil, and causes
vulnerable to judgment and held accountable for their actions? Reish discomfort and fatigue among the people.
.עֹוב ִרים ַעל ַה ֶ ּג ׁ ֶשר ְ ְ ּב ׁ ָש ָעה ׁ ֶש:ָל ִק ׁיש
ַרב. ְּכ ֵעין ֶ ּג ׁ ֶשר:ימא ָ ֶ ּג ׁ ֶשר וְ ת ּו ָלא?! ֵא Lakish said: When they are crossing a bridge. The Gemara wonders:
Only when they are crossing a bridge and at no other time? Rather, say:
,יה גּ ֹוי ּ ָלא ָע ַבר ְ ּב ַמ ְב ָרא דְּ יָ ֵתיב ֵ ּב Anything like a bridge, any place where danger is commonplace. On a
יה דִּ ינָ א ּ יפ ִקיד ֵל ְ יל ָמא ִמ ְ ִּ ד:ֲא ַמר similar note, the Gemara relates: Rav would not cross a river in a ferry
ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל.יה ּ יסנָ א ַ ּב ֲה ֵד ְ ו ִּמ ְּת ִפ,יה
ּ ֲע ֵל in which a gentile sat. He said to himself: Perhaps a judgment will be
,ָלא ָע ַבר ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ַמ ְב ָרא דְּ ִאית ֵ ּב ּיה גֹּוי reckoned with him, and I will be caught together with him when he is
. ִ ׂש ְטנָ א ִ ּב ְת ֵרי או ֵּּמי ָלא ׁ ַש ִּליט:ֲא ַמר punished. Whereas, Shmuel would only cross in a ferry if there was a
gentile in it. He said: Satan does not have dominion over two nations.
He settles his accounts with people from each nationality separately.
ַר ִ ּבי יַ ַּנאי.ַר ִ ּבי יַ ַּנאי ָ ּב ֵדיק וְ ָע ַבר Rabbi Yannai would examine the ferry and cross. The Gemara com-
עֹולם ַאל יַ ֲעמֹוד ָ ְל: דְּ ָא ַמר,יהּ ְל ַט ְע ֵמ ments that Rabbi Yannai acted in accordance with his reasoning stated
עֹושיןׂ ִ לֹומר ׁ ֶש ַ ָא ָדם ִ ּב ְמקֹום ַס ָּכנָ ה elsewhere, as he said: A person should never stand in a place of dangerh
saying that they on High will perform a miracle for him, lest in the end
וְ ִאם.עֹושין לֹו נֵס ׂ ִ לֹו נֵס – ׁ ֶש ָּמא ֵאין
they do not perform a miracle for him. And, moreover, even if they do
.ּיֹותיו ָ עֹושין לֹו נֵ ס – ְמנַ ִּכין לֹו ִמּזְ ֻכ
ִׂ perform a miracle for him, they will deduct it from his merits. Rabbi
“קטֹנְ ִּתי ָ – ַמאי ְק ָר ָא ּה:ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ָחנִין Ĥanin said: What is the verse that alludes to this? When Jacob said: “I
ַר ִ ּבי.ִמ ָּכל ַה ֲח ָס ִדים ו ִּמ ָּכל ָה ֱא ֶמת״ am not worthy of all the mercies, and of all the truth, which You have
יֹומא דְּ ׁשו ָּתא ָלא נָ ֵפיק ְל ֵבינֵי ָ זֵ ָירא ְ ּב shown unto Your servant” (Genesis 32:11), and he explains: Since You
.דִּ ְיק ָלא have bestowed upon me so much kindness and truth, my merits have been
diminished. Similarly, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Zeira would not go
out and walk among the palm trees on a day when there was a southern
windb blowing due to the fear that the trees might fall on him.
:יה דְּ ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ּ ָא ַמר ַרב יִ צְ ָחק ְ ּב ֵר In a similar vein, Rav Yitzĥak, son of Rav Yehuda, said: A person should
עֹולם יְ ַב ֵ ּק ׁש ָא ָדם ַר ֲח ִמים ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ָ ְל always pray that he will not become ill, as if he becomes ill they say to
:אֹומ ִרים לֹו ְ – ׁ ֶש ִאם יֶ ֱח ֶלה,יֶ ֱח ֶלה him: Bring proof of your virtue and exempt yourself. It is preferable for
a person not to be forced to prove that he merits staying alive, as he might
: ָא ַמר ָמר עו ְּק ָבא.ָה ֵבא זְ כוּת וְ ִה ּ ָפ ֵטר
not be able to prove it. Mar Ukva said: What is the verse that alludes to
“כי יִ ּפֹול ַהנּ ֵֹופל ִמ ֶּמנּ וּ״ ִּ – ַמאי ְק ָר ָא ּה this? As it says: “When you build a new house, then you shall make a
ָּתנָ א דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי.ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ְל ָה ִביא ְר ָאיָ ה parapet for your roof, that you bring not blood upon your house, if the
ֹופל ִמ ֶּמנּ וּ״ ֵ ּ“כי יִ ּפֹול ַהנ ִּ :יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל fallen falls mimenu” (Deuteronomy 22:8). He explains: Mimenu, from
(מ ֶּמנּ וּ) ָראוּי זֶ ה ִל ּיפֹול ִמ ׁ ּ ֵש ׁ ֶשת יְ ֵמי ִ him proof must be brought. When one falls from his previous situation,
וְ ַה ָּכתוּב, ׁ ֶש ֲה ֵרי ל ֹא נָ ַפל,אשית ִ ׁ ְב ֵר it is his own responsibility to prove his innocence and emerge unharmed.
The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: What is the meaning of the phrase:
ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ְּמגַ ְל ְ ּג ִלין זְ כוּת ַעל.נֹופל
ֵ ְק ָראֹו
If the fallen falls from it? This person was destined to fall from that roof
.חֹובה ַעל יְ ֵדי ַחּיָ יב ָ ְיְ ֵדי זַ ַּכאי ו from the six days of Creation, it was ingrained into nature. As, although
he did not yet fall, the verse calls him fallen. Nevertheless, the owner
of the house is indicted for this, as merit is engendered by means of the
innocent and guilt by means of the guilty.
בל ףד. ׳ב קרפ. Perek II . 32a 149
halakha
אֹומ ִרים
ְ , ִמי ׁ ֶש ָח ָלה וְ נָ ָטה ָלמוּת:ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן The Sages taught: One who became ill and tended toward death,
One who became ill and tended toward death, they they say to him: Confess,h as all those executed by the courts
say to him: Confess – אֹומ ִרים לֹו ְ ,נָטה ָלמוּת
ָ ְִמי ׁ ֶש ָח ָלה ו ָא ָדם. ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ָּכל ַה ּמו ָּמ ִתין ִמ ְתוַ דִּ ין, ִה ְתוַ דֵּ ה:לֹו
ה ְתוַ דֵּ ה:ִ They also say to him: Many people have con- ֶ ּיֹוצֵ א ַל ׁ ּשוּק – יְ ִהי ד
ֹומה ְ ּב ֵעינָיו ְּכ ִמי ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְמ ַסר confess. Even if he is dying of natural causes, it is worthwhile for
fessed and survived, and many have not confessed him to consider his death atonement for his sins. The Sages said:
ֹומה ְ ּב ֵעינָיו ֶ ֹּאשֹו – יְ ִהי דׁ ָח ׁש ְ ּבר,ִל ְס ַר ִדּיֹוט
and died. As a reward for confessing, you live, and When a person goes out to the marketplace where there are fights
anyone who confesses has a portion in the World-to- – ָע ָלה ַל ִּמ ָּטה וְ נָ ַפל,קֹולר ָ ְּכ ִמי ׁ ֶש ְּנ ָתנוּה ּו ְ ּב and disputes, he should consider himself as someone who has
Come. If one is unable to verbalize his confession, he ֹומה ְ ּב ֵעינָיו ְּכמֹו ׁ ֶש ֶה ֱעלוּה ּו ַל ַ ּג ְרדּ ֹום ֶ ּיְ ִהי ד been handed over to a soldier [seradiyot].l If his head hurt, he
may confess in his heart. If he does not know how to עֹולה ַל ַ ּג ְרדּ ֹום ִלידּ ֹון ִאם יֵ ׁש ֶ ִלידּ ֹון; ׁ ֶש ּכֹל ָה should consider it as if they placed him in a chain [kolar]l
confess, he is told to say: My death shall be atonement
– וְ ִאם ָלאו,נִיצֹול ּ – דֹולים ִ יטין ְ ּג ִ לֹו ּ ְפ ַר ְק ִל around his neck. If he climbed into bed and fell ill, he should
for my sins (Rambam Sefer HaMadda, Hilkhot Teshuva
.נִיצֹול consider himself as if they took him up to the gallows to be
1:1; Shulĥan Arukh Yoreh De’a 338:1). ּ ֵאינֹו
judged, as with regard to anyone who goes up to the gallows to
language
be judged, if he has great advocates [peraklitin],l he is spared,
and if not, he is not spared.
Soldier [seradiyot] – ס ַר ִדּיֹוט:ְ From the Greek
στρατιώτης, stratiotes, meaning soldier. Beginning יטין ׁ ֶשל ָא ָדם – ְּת ׁשו ָּבה ִ וְ ֵא ּל ּו ֵהן ּ ְפ ַר ְק ִל And with regard to divine judgment, these are a person’s advo-
in mishnaic times, it meant specifically a professional cates: Repentance and good deeds. The Gemara comments: And
soldier or mercenary.
וַ ֲא ִפיל ּו ְּת ׁ ַשע ֵמאֹות.טֹובים ִ ּו ַמ ֲע ִ ׂשים
,חֹובה
ָ וְ ִת ׁ ְש ִעים וְ ִת ׁ ְש ָעה ְמ ַל ְּמ ִדים ָע ָליו even if there are nine hundred ninety-nine asserting his guilt and
Chain [kolar] – קֹולר:
ָ From the Latin collare, meaning only one asserting his innocence, he is spared, as it is stated: “If
a chain around the neck of an animal or a prisoner. : ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,נִיצֹול
ּ – וְ ֶא ָחד ְמ ַל ֵּמד ָע ָליו זְ כוּת there be for him an angel, an advocate, one among a thousand,
“אם יֵ ׁש ָע ָליו ַמ ְל ָא ְך ֵמ ִליץ ֶא ָחד ִמ ּנִי ָא ֶלף ִ to vouch for a man’s uprightness; then He is gracious unto him,
ֹאמר ּ ְפ ָד ֵעה ּוֶ ְל ַה ִ ּגיד ְל ָא ָדם יָ ׁ ְשרֹו וַ יְ ֻח ֶּננּ ּו וַ ּי and says: Deliver him from going down to the pit, I have found
יעזֶ ר ְ ּבנֹו ׁ ֶשל ֶ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל.ֵמ ֶר ֶדת ׁ ַש ַחת וגו׳״ a ransom” ( Job 33:23–24). Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei
ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְּת ׁ ַשע ֵמאֹות:אֹומר ֵ יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל ִיליֵ ַר ִ ּבי HaGelili, says: Even if there are nine hundred ninety-nine por-
חֹובה
ָ וְ ִת ׁ ְש ִעים וְ ִת ׁ ְש ָעה ְ ּבאֹותֹו ַמ ְל ָא ְך ְל tions within that same angeln accusing him, and one portion
asserting his innocence, he is spared, as it stated: “An advocate,
“מ ִליץ ֶא ָחד ֵ : ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,נִיצֹול ּ – וְ ֶא ָחד ִלזְ כוּת one among a thousand.” Even when the advocate who asserts his
.ִמ ּנִי ָא ֶלף״ innocence finds only one-tenth of one percent of innocence in this
man, even then, he is gracious unto him, and says: Deliver him
from going down to the pit, I have found a ransom.
נָשים ֵמתֹות ִ ׁ ַעל ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ֲע ֵבירֹות:ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן The Sages taught in a baraita: For three transgressions women
Kolar
נָשים ֵמתֹות ִ ׁ :אֹומר ֵ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר,יֹולדֹות ְ die in childbirth [yoledot]. Rabbi Elazar has a different version
Advocates [peraklitin] – יטין
ִ פ ַר ְק ִל:ְ ּ from the Greek and says that women die when they are young [yeladot]. These
παράκλητος, parakletos, meaning one who pleads ְ ּב ָע�ֹון ׁ ֶש ְּמ ַכ ְ ּבסֹות:אֹומר
ֵ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָחא.יְ ָלדֹות
transgressions are those enumerated in the mishna: The halakhot
on another’s behalf or a lawyer. ַעל: אֹומ ִרים ְ וְ יֵ ׁש,נֵיהם ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ֶ צֹואת ְ ּב ַ
of a menstruating woman, ĥalla, and Shabbat lights. Rabbi Aĥa
.“א ְרנָ א״ַ ׁ ֶש ּק ִֹורין ַל ֲארֹון ַה ּק ֶֹוד ׁש says they are punished for the sin of laundering their children’s
notes
feces from clothing on Shabbat. And some say: Because they call
Nine hundred…within that same angel – ְּת ׁ ַשע ֵמאֹות the Holy Ark simply ark.b
ְ…באֹותֹו ַמ ְל ָאך:
ּ ְ Clearly, repentance and good deeds are
identified with the advocate angel, since a good deed ַ ּב ֲע�ֹון:אֹומרֵ ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ֶ ּבן ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר,ַּתנְיָא Similarly, we learned in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael ben Elazar
is itself an angel that advocates on one’s behalf. Rabbi says: On account of two sins, ignoramuses [amei ha’aretz] die
ׁ ְשנֵי דְּ ָב ִרים ַע ֵּמי ָה ֲא ָרצֹות ֵמ ִתים – ַעל ׁ ֶש ּק ִֹורין
Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, added that even young (Rav Ya’akov Emden): Because they call the Holy Ark
if the good deed contains other aspects that are not וְ ַעל ׁ ֶש ּק ִֹורין ְל ֵבית,“א ְרנָ א״ ַ ַל ֲארֹון ַה ּק ֶֹוד ׁש
simply ark, and because they call the synagogue the house of the
completely good, if there is just a kernel of good in the :אֹומרֵ יֹוסי ֵ ַר ִ ּבי, ַּתנְיָא.“בית ָעם״ ּ ֵ נֶסת
ֶ ַה ְּכ
action, that is sufficient.
people. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: Three
וְ ָא ְמ ִרי,יתה נִ ְב ְרא ּו ָ ּב ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ָ ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ִ ּב ְד ֵקי ִמ crucibles potentially leading to death were created in the woman,
נִדָּ ה וְ ַח ָּלה וְ ַה ְד ָל ַקת, ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה דִּ ְב ֵקי ִמ ָיתה:ָל ּה and some say: Three accelerants of death. They are: Menstrua-
background
They call it ark – ש ּק ִֹורין ַא ְרנָ א:
ֶ ׁ Medieval and modern
. וַ ֲח ָדא ְּכ ַר ָ ּבנַן, ֲח ָדא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר.ַה ֵּנר tion, ĥalla, and lighting the Shabbat lights. The Gemara explains
talmudic commentaries (see Tosafot) ask: What is the that one version, accelerants of death, is in accordance with the
sin in referring to the Holy Ark as simply ark [arna]? opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who said that women die young. And the
The Sages refer to it the same way [aron]. Perhaps other one, crucibles of death, is in accordance with the opinion
the distinction is that the proper Aramaic term for ark of the Rabbis, who said that women die in childbirth.
is arona, while arna also means wild goat. Therefore,
the use of that term is inappropriate when referring ִה ְלכֹות:אֹומר
ֵ יאל ֵ ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל, ַּתנְיָאSimilarly, it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Gam-
to the Holy Ark. ָ ֶה ְקדֵּ ׁש ְּתרוּמֹות ו ַּמ ַע ְ ׂשרֹות ֵהן ֵהן גו ֵּפיliel says: The halakhot of consecrated items, terumot, and tithes
,תֹורה
are themselves the essence of Torah and are extremely severe,
Perek II
Daf 32 Amud b
. וְ נִ ְמ ְסר ּו ְל ַע ֵּמי ָה ָא ֶרץand they were given, among others, to ignoramusesn to fulfill.
When they are negligent in the performance of these mitzvot, they
are punished for it.
notes
And they were given to ignoramuses – וְ נִ ְמ ְסר ּו ְל ַע ֵּמי ָה ָא ֶרץ: consecrated or teruma status, that is its status, not only for the
For all intents and purposes, observance of these mitzvot is in one who consecrated it but for everyone. Therefore, ignoramuses
the purview of all, including ignoramuses. These mitzvot were also determine the sanctity of items, even in these stringent areas
underscored in particular because once an item achieves of halakha.
.נֹותיו ׁ ֶשל ָא ָדם ָ ָ ּבנָיו ו ְּב:אֹומרֵ ֱהוֵ י work of your hands?” (Ecclesiastes 5:4–5). What is the work of a person’s
hands? You must say that it is a person’s sons and daughters.
ַ ּב ֲע�ֹון נְ ָד ִרים ָ ּבנִים ֵמ ִתים – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי,ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן In order to clarify which sins cause one’s young children to die, the Gemara cites
:אֹומרֵ ָשיא ׂ ִ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ַה ּנ,ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון what the Sages taught in a baraita: For the sin of vows, one’s children die, this
ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ַ ּב ֲע�ֹון.יטוּל ּת ָֹורה ּ ַ ּב ֲע�ֹון ִ ּב is the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yehuda Ha-
Nasi says: For the sin of dereliction in the study of Torah.n The Gemara asks:
יטוּל ּ ֶא ָּלא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ַ ּב ֲע�ֹון ִ ּב,נְ ָד ִרים – ְּכ ַד ֲא ַמ ַרן
Granted, according to the opinion of the one who said that one’s children die
יתי ֶאת ִ “ל ׁ ָשוְ א ִה ֵּכ
ַ :ּת ָֹורה – ַמאי ְק ָר ָא ּה? דִּ ְכ ִתיב due to the sin of vows, as we stated above. However, according to the opinion
: ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק ָא ַמר.נֵיכם מו ָּסר ל ֹא ָל ְקחוּ״ ֶ ְ ּב of the one who said that one’s children die due to sin of dereliction in the study
“ל ׁ ָשוְ א ַ – ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ַ ּב ֲע�ֹון נְ ָד ִרים נַ ִמי ֵמ ָה ָכא of Torah, what is the verse that supports this? The Gemara replies: As it is
ַר ִ ּבי, ִמ ְּכ ִדי.נֵיכם״ – ַעל ִע ְס ֵקי ׁ ָשוְ א ֶ יתי ֶאת ְ ּב ִ ִה ֵּכ written: “In vain have I smitten your children; they received no morality”
! וְ ַר ִ ּבי ַ ּב ֲע�ֹון נְ ָד ִרים ָק ָא ַמר,ָשיא ַהיְ ינ ּו ַר ִ ּבי ׂ ִ יְ הו ָּדה ַה ּנ ( Jeremiah 2:30). Children die because their fathers did not accept the morality,
the Torah. Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said: According to the one who said that
.ָ ּב ַתר דִּ ׁ ְש ַמ ָע ּה ֵמ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון
one’s children die because of the sin of vows, it can also be derived from here:
In vain have I smitten your children; on matters of vanity, i.e., when one vows
in vain and does not fulfill it. The Gemara asks: After all, Rabbi Yehuda Ha-
Nasi is Rabbi, and it was taught in a Tosefta that Rabbi said that one’s children
die because of the sin of vows. How then could it be that Rabbi Yehuda Ha-
Nasi said that it is due to the sin of dereliction in the study of Torah? The Ge-
mara answers: After he heard it from Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, he
reconsidered and taught in accordance with Rabbi Elazar’s opinion.
: ַחד ָא ַמר,יֹוסי ֵ ּ ְפ ִליגִ י ָ ּב ּה ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא וְ ַר ִ ּבי On the same topic, Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Abba and Rabbi Yosei disagree. One
ְל ַמאן.יטוּל ּת ָֹורה ּ ַ ּב ֲע�ֹון ִ ּב: וְ ַחד ָא ַמר,ַ ּב ֲע�ֹון ְמזוּזָ ה said that children die due to the sin of not affixing a mezuza to one’s doorpost.
“ב ֲע�ֹון ְמזוּזָ ה״ – ִמ ְק ָרא ְנִד ָר ׁש ְל ָפנָיו וְ ל ֹא ִל ְפנֵי ּ ַ דְּ ָא ַמר And one said children die due to the sin of dereliction in the study of Torah.
According to the one who said that children die because of the sin of not af-
יטוּל ּת ָֹורה״ ִמ ְק ָרא ּ “ב ֲע�ֹון ִ ּבּ ַ ו ְּל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר.ָפנָיו
fixing a mezuza, his opinion there is based on an exegetical principle, which
.נִ ְד ָר ׁש ְל ָפנָיו וְ ִל ְפנֵי ָפנָיו states that a verse is interpreted homiletically based on juxtaposition to the
verse immediately preceding it and not on juxtaposition to the verse before
the one preceding it. In this case, it says: “That your days may be multiplied,
and the days of your children” (Deuteronomy 11:21), and the preceding verse
says: “And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house, and upon
your gates” (Deuteronomy 11:20). And according to the one who said that
children die due to the sin of dereliction in the study of Torah, that is because
in his opinion the exegetical principle is that a verse is interpreted homileti-
cally based on juxtaposition to the verse immediately preceding it, as well as
to the verse before the one preceding it. In his opinion, the blessing of long
life also relates to the verse before the one immediately preceding it: “And you
shall teach them your children, talking of them” (Deuteronomy 11:19).
ַ ּב ֲע�ֹון:ּ ְפ ִליגִ י ָ ּב ּה ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה; ַחד ָא ַמר The tanna’im Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda also disagreed about this. One
ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְל ַמאן. ַ ּב ֲע�ֹון צִ יצִ ית: וְ ַחד ָא ַמר,ְמזוּזָ ה said: Children die due to the sin of mezuza, and one said children die due to
“ו ְּכ ַת ְב ָּתם ַעל ְמזוּזֹות:דְּ ָא ַמר ַ ּב ֲע�ֹון ְמזוּזָ ה – דִּ ְכ ִתיב the sin of not affixing ritual fringes. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to
the opinion of the one who said that children die due to the sin of mezuza, it
ימי ֵ ִיכם ו ֶ “ל ַמ ַען יִ ְר ּב ּו יְ ֵמ
ְ :יה ּ יתךָ ״ ו ְּכ ִתיב ַ ּב ְת ֵר ֶ ֵ ּב
is based on the juxtaposition of the verses, as it is written: “And you shall write
ַמאי, ֶא ָּלא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ַ ּב ֲע�ֹון צִ יצִ ית.נֵיכם״ ֶ ְב them upon the doorposts of your house, and upon your gates,” and it says
,ימא ׁ ֵש ָילא ָמ ִרי ָ ית ֵ ַט ְע ָמא? ָא ַמר ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א וְ ִא thereafter: “That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children.”
“גם ִ ּב ְכנָ ַפיִ ךְ נִ ְמצְ א ּו דַּ ם נַ ְפ ׁשֹות ֶא ְביֹונִים ּ ַ :דִּ ְכ ִתיב However, according to the one who said that children die because of the sin
ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר: ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק ָא ַמר.נְ ִקּיִ ים״ of ritual fringes, what is the reason? What is the connection between these
“ל ֹא ַב ַּמ ְח ֶּת ֶרת: דִּ ְכ ִתיב,ַ ּב ֲע�ֹון ְמזוּזָ ה נַ ִמי ֵמ ָה ָכא matters? Rav Kahana said, and some say that it was Sheila Mari: It is homi-
letically interpreted as is written: “Also in your corners is found the blood of
.אתים״ – ׁ ֶש ָע ׂש ּו ּ ְפ ָת ִחים ְּכ ַמ ְח ֶּת ֶרת ִ ְָמצ
the souls of the innocent poor” ( Jeremiah 2:34). Due to one’s failure to affix
ritual fringes to the corners of his garments, the innocent poor, young children,
who have not had opportunity to sin, die. Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said: Ac-
cording to the one who said that children die because of the sin of mezuza,
it is also derived from here, as it is written in the continuation of that verse:
“You did not find them breaking in; yet for all these things.” We see that this
punishment comes because they made entrances like a thief ’s breach in the
wall. They did not place mezuzot in their entrances.
בל ףד: ׳ב קרפ. Perek II . 32b 151
halakha
זֹוכה
ֶ ּכֹל ַהּזָ ִהיר ְ ּבצִ יצִ ית:ָא ַמר ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש Since the Gemara discussed the importance of the mitzva of rit-
Anyone who is vigilant in performing the mitzva of ual fringes, it cites that which Reish Lakish said: Anyone who is
ritual fringes, etc. – כֹל ַהּזָ ִהיר ְ ּבצִ יצִ ית וכו׳:ּ The mitzva of ו ְּמ ׁ ַש ְּמ ׁ ִשין לֹו ׁ ְשנֵי ֲא ָל ִפים ו ׁ ְּשמֹונֶ ה ֵמאֹות
ritual fringes is a significant one, as the Torah equated ]“כֹה ָא ַמר ה׳ [צְ ָבאֹות ּ : ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,ֲע ָב ִדים vigilant in performing the mitzva of ritual fringesh merits that
it to all the mitzvot, as it is stated: “That you may look two thousand eight hundred servants will serve him in the
נָשיםִ ׁ ַ ּבּיָ ִמים ָה ֵה ָּמה ֲא ׁ ֶשר יַ ֲחזִ יק ּו ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ֲא
upon it, and remember all the commandments of the World-to-Come. As it is stated: “Thus says the Lord of hosts: In
Lord” (Numbers 19:39). Therefore, one must be vigilant ִמ ּכֹל ְל ׁשֹונֹות ַהגּ ֹויִ ם [וְ ֶה ֱחזִ יקוּ] ִ ּב ְכנַ ף ִא ׁיש those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold,
with regard to this mitzva and perform it in a beautiful .יְ הו ִּדי ֵלאמֹר ְנֵל ָכה ִע ָּמ ֶכם וגו׳״ out of all the languages of the nations, shall even take hold of
manner (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Ttzitzit 3:12; Tur the corner of the garment of him that is a Jew, saying: We will
Oraĥ Ĥayyim 24).
go with you, for we have heard that God is with you” (Zechariah
8:23). On each corner of a Jewish person’s garment with ritual
notes
fringes, ten people from each of the seventy nations will take hold.
Mnemonic – ימן ָ ס:ִ This mnemonic includes all the cases That totals seven hundred people on each corner; 2,800 people
subsequently discussed, although the Gemara cited
altogether.
them with slight emendations. It is a mnemonic for
hate, for gratuitous hatred; ĥalla; teruma; theft; judg-
ment, for distortion and perversion of justice; oath, for ָ ׂשנֵא ַח ָּלה ְּתרו ָּמה נִ גְ זֶ ֶלת דִּ ינָא ׁ ְשבו ָּעה:ימן ָ ִס Together with these statements, the Gemara cites a mnemonicn
a vain oath; pouring, for murder; uncovering, for pro- ַר ִ ּבי, ַּתנְ יָ א.יל ּויָ א וְ נַ ְבלו ָּתא ּ ׁ ִשיפו ְּכ ָּתא ִ ּג for additional rabbinic adages with regard to punishments for
hibited sexual relations; and vulgarity, for vulgar speech. various sins: Hate, ĥalla, teruma, stolen, judgment, oath, pour-
ַ ּב ֲע�ֹון ִ ׂשנְ ַאת ִח ָּנם – ְמ ִר ָיבה:אֹומר ֵ נְ ֶח ְמיָ ה
Consume the snow waters – ימי ׁ ֶש ֶלג
ֵ יִגְ זְ ל ּו ֵמ: Apparently, ing, uncovering, and vulgarity. It was taught in a baraita, Rabbi
וְ ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו ַמ ּ ֶפ ֶלת,ַר ָ ּבה ְ ּבתֹוךְ ֵ ּביתֹו ׁ ֶשל ָא ָדם
the word consume applies to both the beginning and Neĥemya says: Due to the sin of gratuitous hatred that one has
the end of the verse. It should be interpreted as fol- נֹותיו ׁ ֶשל ָא ָדם ֵמ ִתים ְּכ ׁ ֶש ֵהן ָ ו ָּבנָיו ו ְּב,נְ ָפ ִלים for another, the punishment is great discord within a person’s
lows: As drought and heat will consume, i.e., if people :אֹומר ֵ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה.ְק ַט ּנִים home, and his wife miscarries, and his sons and daughters die
steal the gifts that they are meant to give to others in
the summer, then ultimately, that will cause the snow
ּו ְמ ֵא ָרה,ַ ּב ֲע�ֹון ַח ָּלה ֵאין ְ ּב ָר ָכה ַ ּב ְמכו ָּּנס when they are young. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said:
waters to be consumed. The verse itself can also mean זֹור ִעין זְ ָר ִעים וַ ֲא ֵח ִרים ְ ְ ו,ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ַּל ַחת ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ָע ִרים Due to the sin of failure to separate ĥalla from the dough, no
that when drought and heat consume the snow waters, “אף ֲאנִי ֶא ֱע ֶ ׂשה זֹאת ַ : ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,אֹוכ ִלין ְ blessing takes effect on the grain gathered in the storehouse and
it is a sign that: “So does the netherworld [consume] a curse spreads to the prices of crops, which increase, and they
יכם ֶ ּב ָה ָלה ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ַש ֶח ֶפת ֶ ָל ֶכם וְ ִה ְפ ַק ְד ִּתי ֲע ֵל
those that have sinned” (Rashi). plant seeds and others eat their yield, as it is stated: “I also will
וְ ֶאת ַה ַ ּקדַּ ַחת ְמ ַכלּ ֹות ֵעינַיִ ם ו ְּמ ִדיבֹות נָ ֶפ ׁש do this unto you: I will appoint terror [behala] over you, even
background ַאל,אֹויְב ֶיכם״ ֵ וּזְ ַר ְע ֶּתם ָל ִריק זַ ְר ֲע ֶכם וַ ֲא ָכ ֻלה ּו consumption and fever, that shall make the eyes to fail and the
Meĥoza – מחֹוזָ א:ְ Meĥoza was a large city on the banks – נֹותנִין ְ וְ ִאם.“ב ַח ָּלה״ ּ ְ “ב ָה ָלה״ ֶא ָּלא ּ ֶ ִּת ְק ִרי soul to languish; and you shall sow your seed in vain, for your
of the Tigris River, not far from the Malka River that con- enemies shall eat it” (Leviticus 26:16). Do not read it behala;
יכם ֶ יסֹות
ֵ אשית ֲע ִר ִ ׁ “[וְ ֵ]ר: ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,ִמ ְת ָ ּב ְר ִכין
nects the Tigris with the Euphrates River. Its location rather, read it as beĥalla. Due to negligence in the separation of
in the center of Babylonia led to its development as a .יתךָ ״
ֶ נִיח ְ ּב ָר ָכה ֶאל ֵ ּב ַ ִּת ְּתנ ּו ַל ּכ ֵֹהן ְל ָה
ĥalla from the dough, these punishments come. And if they give
wealthy commercial city. The people of Meĥoza were
known for their great wealth, to the extent that even ĥalla, they are blessed, as it is stated: “And the first of your
the male residents would wear special, ornamented dough you shall give unto the priest to cause a blessing to rest
clothing. A large portion of the city’s population was on your house” (Ezekiel 44:30).
Jewish, and included many converts. Rava was the head
of the yeshiva in Meĥoza, which later merged with the
נֶעצָ ִרין ֱ ַ ּב ֲע�ֹון ִ ּב ּיטוּל ְּתרוּמֹות ו ַּמ ַע ְ ׂשרֹות ׁ ָש ַמיִ ם They also said: Due to the sin of abrogation of terumot and tithes,
yeshiva of Neharde’a-Pumbedita. He regularly rebuked
the people of the city for their self-indulgence, dishon- וְ ַה ּ ָ ׂש ָכר,ּיֹוקר הֹוֶ ה
ֶ וְ ַה,הֹוריד ַטל ו ָּמ ָטר ִ ִמ ְּל the heavens are prevented from pouring down dew and rain,
esty, and lack of fear of God. ו ְּבנֵי ָא ָדם ָרצִ ין ַא ַחר ּ ַפ ְרנָ ָס ָתן וְ ֵאין,ָא ֵבד and expense prevails, and profit is lost, and people pursue their
livelihood but do not attain it, as it is stated: “Drought and heat
ימיֵ “צִ ּיָ ה ַ ּגם חֹום יִגְ זְ ל ּו ֵמ: ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,יעין ִ ַמ ִ ּג
consume the snow waters;n so does the netherworld those that
ַמאי ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע? ָּתנָ א דְּ ֵבי.ׁ ֶש ֶלג ׁ ְשאֹול ָח ָטאוּ״ have sinned” ( Job 24:19). The Gemara asks: What is the infer-
ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל דְּ ָב ִרים ׁ ֶש ִ ּצ ִּו ִיתי ֶא ְת ֶכם:יִש ָמ ֵעאל ְ ׁ ַר ִ ּבי ence? How is that concept derived from this verse? The school
יתם – יִגְ זְ ל ּו ִמ ֶּכם ֶ ִ ּבימֹות ַה ַח ָּמה וְ ל ֹא ֲע ִ ׂש of Rabbi Yishmael taught that it should be explained as follows:
– נֹותנִין ְ וְ ִאם.ימי ׁ ֶש ֶלג ִ ּבימֹות ַה ְ ּג ׁ ָש ִמים ֵ ֵמ Due to the things that I commanded you during the summer,
“ה ִביא ּו ֶאת ָּכל ַה ַּמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר ָ : ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,ִמ ְת ָ ּב ְר ִכין separating terumot and tithes from the summer crops, and you
did not do them, the snow waters will be robbed from you dur-
יהי ֶט ֶרף ְ ּב ֵב ִיתי ו ְּב ָחנוּנִי נָ א ִ ִֶאל ֵ ּבית ָהאֹוצָ ר ו
ing the rainy season. And if people give terumot and tithes, they
ָ ּבזֹאת ָא ַמר ה׳ צְ ָבאֹות ִאם ל ֹא ֶא ְפ ַּתח ָל ֶכם are blessed, as it is stated: “Bring you the whole tithe into the
יקֹותי ָל ֶכם ְ ּב ָר ָכה ִ ֵאת ֲארו ּּבוּת ַה ׁ ּ ָש ַמיִ ם וַ ֲה ִר storehouse, that there may be food in My house, and try Me
“עד ְ ּב ִלי ַדי״? ָא ַמר ָר ִמי ַ ַמאי,ַעד ְ ּב ִלי ַדי״ now with this, says the Lord of Hosts, if I will not open you the
יכם ֶ תֹות ֵ ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ ְבל ּו ִ ׂש ְפ:ַ ּבר ַ(רב) ָא ַמר ַרב windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall
.ֹומר דַּ י ַ ִּמל be more than sufficiency [ad bli dai]” (Malachi 3:10). The Ge-
mara asks: What is the meaning of: More than sufficiency [ad
bli dai]? Rami bar Rav said that Rav said: It means that the
abundance will be so great that your lips will be worn out [yivlu],
similar to the word beli, from saying enough [dai].
ו ְּבנֵי, וְ ָה ָר ָעב הֹווֶ ה,עֹולה ֶ ַ ּב ֲע�ֹון ָ ּגזֵ ל ַהגּ ַֹובאי Due to the sin of robbery, locusts emerge, and famine prevails,
: ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,נֹות ֶיהן
ֵ נֵיהן ו ְּב
ֶ אֹוכ ִלים ְ ּב ַ ׂשר ְ ּב
ְ ָא ָדם and people eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, as it is
“ש ְמע ּו ַהדָּ ָבר ַהּזֶ ה ּ ָפרֹות ַה ָ ּב ׁ ָשן ֲא ׁ ֶשר ְ ּב ַהר
ִׁ stated: “Hear this word, you cows of Bashan, that are in the
mountain of Samaria, that oppress the poor, that crush the
עֹושקֹות דַּ ִּלים ָהרֹוצְ צֹות ֶא ְביֹונִים״ ְ ׁ ֹומרֹון ָה
ְ ׁש
needy, that say unto their lords: Bring, that we may feast” (Amos
,נְשי דִּ ְמחֹוזָ א
ֵ ׁ ְּכגֹון ָהנֵי:ָא ַמר ָר ָבא 4:1). Afterward it says: “And I also have given you cleanness of
teeth in all your cities, and want of bread in all your places” (Amos
4:6), which refers to famine. Rava said: The cows of Bashan; like
those women of the city of Meĥoza,b
152 Perek II . 32b . בל ףד: קרפ ׳ב
Perek II
Daf 33 Amud a
notes
יתי
ִ “ה ֵּכ ִ : ו ְּכ ִתיב.דְּ ָא ְכ ָל ן וְ ָלא ָע ְב ָדן who eat and do nothing to support themselves, and cause their
husbands to commit the sin of theft. And it is written: “I have And distortion of justice and miscarriage of justice –
יכם ֶ ֹות ֵ ֶּא ְת ֶכם ַ ּב ׁ ּ ִשדָּ פֹון ו ַּבּיֵ ָרקֹון ַה ְר ּבֹות ַ ּגנ וְ ִעי ּווּת ַהדִּ ין וְ ִק ְלקוּל ַהדִּ ין: Apparently, distortion of justice,
.ֹאכל ַה ָ ּגזָ ם״ ַ יכם י ֶ נֵיכם וְ זֵ ֵית
ֶ יכם ו ְּת ֵא ֶ וְ ַכ ְר ֵמ smitten you with blight and mildew; the multitude of your does not refer to the judge himself, but to his attendants
gardens and your vineyards and your fig trees and your olive and aides who do not see to it that his rulings are imple-
“יֶ ֶתר ַה ָ ּגזָ ם ָא ַכל ָה ַא ְר ֶ ּבה וְ יֶ ֶתר:ו ְּכ ִתיב
trees has the palmerworm devoured” (Amos 4:9). And it is mented appropriately (Maharsha).
ָה ַא ְר ֶ ּבה ָא ַכל ַהּיֶ ֶלק וְ יֶ ֶתר ַהּיֶ ֶלק ָא ַכל written: “That which the palmerworm has left the locust has
“וַ ּיִ גְ זֹור ַעל יָ ִמין וְ ָר ֵעב: ו ְּכ ִתיב:ֶה ָח ִסיל״ eaten; and that which the locust has left the cankerworm has Background
ֹאכל ַעל ְ ׂשמֹאל וְ ל ֹא ָ ׂש ֵבע ּו ִא ׁיש ְ ּב ַ ׂשר ַ וַ ּי eaten; and that which the cankerworm has left the caterpillar An oath taken in vain – שבו ַּעת ׁ ָשוְ א:
ְ ׁ There is no halakhic
ַאל ִּת ְק ִרי ְ ּ‘ב ַ ׂשר זְ רֹועֹו׳ ֶא ָּלא,ֹאכלוּ״ ֵ זְ רֹועֹו י has eaten” ( Joel 1:4). And it is written: “And one snatches on difference between an oath taken in vain and a false oath.
.ְ ּ‘ב ַ ׂשר זַ ְרעֹו׳ the right hand, and is hungry; and he eats on the left hand, and Whenever someone swears to an untruth, it falls into
is not satisfied; they eat every man the flesh of his own arm this category. However, a vain oath refers specifically to
[besar zero’o]” (Isaiah 9:19). Do not read it: The flesh of his own an oath that is patently untrue, i.e., one who takes two
contradictory oaths and one of the two is a vain oath. If a
arm [besar zero’o]; rather, the flesh of his own offspring [besar
person intentionally takes a vain oath, he is punishable by
zaro]. All the punishments for theft listed above were explicitly lashes. If he does so unwittingly, there is no punishment
mentioned in the verses. unless the oath also violates another prohibition, e.g.,
taking the name of God in vain. In addition, if one takes
ַ ּב ֲע�ֹון ִעינּ ּוי ַהדִּ ין וְ ִעיוּות ַהדִּ ין וְ ִק ְלקוּל Furthermore, the Sages said that due to the sin of delay of justice, an oath that a known object is precisely what everyone
וְ ֶד ֶבר,יטוּל ּת ָֹורה ֶח ֶרב ו ִּביּזָ ה ַר ָ ּבה ּ ַהדִּ ין ו ִּב i.e., judges delay issuing their rulings due to personal consider- perceives it to be, e.g., if one swears that a particular man
אֹוכ ִלין וְ ֵאינָ ן ְ ו ְּבנֵי ָא ָדם,ו ַּב ּצ ֶֹורת ָ ּבא ations, and for distortion of justice, i.e., judges intentionally is indeed a man, that oath falls under the rubric of an
distort their verdicts, and for miscarriage of justicen that results oath taken in vain.
: דִּ ְכ ִתיב,אֹוכ ִלין ַל ְח ָמם ַ ּב ִּמ ׁ ְש ָקל ְ ְ ו,ְ ׂש ֵב ִעין
from negligence, and for dereliction in the study of Torah, vio-
נֹוק ֶמת נְ ַקם ְ ּב ִרית ֶ יכם ֶח ֶרב ֶ אתי ֲע ֵל ִ “וְ ֵה ֵב lence and looting abound in the world, and pestilence and fam-
: ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר, וְ ֵאין ְ ּב ִרית ֶא ָּלא ּת ָֹורה.וגו׳״ ine come, and people eat and are not sated, and they eat their
: ו ְּכ ִתיב.יֹומם וָ ָליְ ָלה וגו׳״ ָ יתי ִ “אם ל ֹא ְב ִר ִ bread measured by weight. As it is written: “And I will bring a
נָשים ִ ׁ “ב ׁ ִש ְב ִרי ָל ֶכם ַמ ֵּטה ֶל ֶחם וְ ָאפ ּו ֶע ֶ ׂשר ְּ sword upon you, that shall execute the vengeance of the cove-
. “יַ ַען ו ְּביַ ַען ְ ּב ִמ ׁ ְש ּ ָפ ַטי ָמ ָאסוּ״: ו ְּכ ִתיב.וגו׳״ nant; and you shall be gathered together within your cities; and
I will send the pestilence among you; and you shall be delivered
into the hand of the enemy” (Leviticus 26:25). And covenant
means nothing other than Torah, as it is stated: “If My covenant
be not with day and night, if I have not appointed the ordinanc-
es of heaven and earth” ( Jeremiah 33:25). The study of Torah is
the mitzva practiced both day and night. And it is written with
regard to this punishment: “When I break your staff of bread,
ten women shall bake your bread in one oven, and they shall
deliver your bread again by weight; and ye shall eat, and not be
satisfied” (Leviticus 26:26). And it is written: “Even because
they rejected My ordinances, and their soul abhorred My stat-
utes” (Leviticus 26:43). All of these punishments result from
breaching the covenant of the Torah and the perversion of justice.
ַ ּב ֲע �ֹון ׁ ְשב ּו ַע ת ׁ ָשוְ א ּו ׁ ְשב ּו ַע ת ׁ ֶש ֶקר Due to the sin of an oath taken in vainb and a false oath, and
ילוּל ׁ ַש ָ ּבת – ַחּיָ ה ָר ָעה ּ ילוּל ַה ׁ ּ ֵשם וְ ִח ּ וְ ִח desecration of God’s name, and desecration of Shabbat, wild
, ו ְּבנֵי ָא ָדם ִמ ְת ַמ ֲע ִטין, ו ְּב ֵה ָמה ָּכ ָלה,ַר ָ ּבה beasts abound in the world, and domesticated animals cease to
exist, and human beings decrease in number, and the roads
“וְ ִאם: ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,ֹומ ִמין ְ וְ ַהדְּ ָר ִכים ִמ ׁ ְש ּת
become desolate, as it is stated: “And if in spite of these [be’eleh]
ְ ּב ֵא ֶּלה ל ֹא ִת ָּו ְסר ּו ִלי״ ַאל ִּת ְק ִרי ְ ּב ֵא ֶּלה things you will not be corrected unto Me, but will walk contrary
“וְ ִה ׁ ְש ַל ְח ִּתי ָב ֶכם ֶאת: ו ְּכ ִתיב,ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ָא ָלה unto Me casually” (Leviticus 26:23). Do not read of these
: ו ְּכ ִתיב ִ ּב ׁ ְשבו ַּעת ׁ ֶש ֶקר.ַחּיַ ת ַה ּ ָ ׂש ֶדה וגו׳״ [be’eleh]; rather, due to a vain oath [be’ala]. And it is written
“וְ ל ֹא ִת ׁ ּ ָש ְבע ּו ִב ׁ ְש ִמי ַל ׁ ּ ָש ֶקר וְ ִח ַּל ְל ָּת ֶאת that the punishment for this is: “And I will send the beast of the
“וְ ל ֹא:ׁ ֵשם ֱאל ֶֹהיךָ ״ ו ְּב ִחלּ וּל ַה ׁ ּ ֵשם ְּכ ִתיב field among you, which shall rob you of your children, and de-
stroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your ways
ְת ַח ְּלל ּו ֶאת ׁ ֵשם ָק ְד ׁ ִשי״ ו ְּב ִח ּלוּל ׁ ַש ָ ּבת
shall become desolate” (Leviticus 26:22). And it is written with
וְ יָ ֵליף ִחילּ וּל,יה מֹות יו ָּמת״ ָ “מ ַח ְל ֶלְ :ְּכ ִתיב regard to a false oath: “And you shall not swear by My name
.ִחילּ וּל ִמ ׁ ּ ְשבו ַּעת ׁ ֶש ֶקר falsely, so that you desecrate [veĥillalta] the name of your God:
I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:12). And it is written with regard to
desecrating the name of God: “And you shall not desecrate
[teĥallelu] My Holy Name” (Leviticus 22:32). And it is written
with regard to desecrating Shabbat: “Every one that desecrates
it [meĥaleleha] shall surely be put to death” (Exodus 31:14). And
derive by means of a verbal analogy [gezera shava] desecration
[ĥillul] of Shabbat from desecration [ĥillul] of a false oath. Just
as punishment for a false oath is desolation and wild beasts, one
receives the same punishment for desecrating Shabbat and the
name of God.
גל ףד. ׳ב קרפ. Perek II . 33a 153
ו ׁ ְּש ִכינָ ה,ַ ּב ֲע�ֹון ׁ ְש ִפיכוּת דָּ ִמים ֵ ּבית ַה ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש ָח ֵרב Due to the sin of bloodshed, the Holy Temple is destroyed, and the
“וְ ל ֹא ַת ֲחנִיפ ּו וגו׳ וְ ל ֹא: ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,ִמ ְס ַּת ֶּל ֶקת ִמּיִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל Divine Presence leaves Israel, as it says: “So you shall not pollute the
יֹוש ִבים ָ ּב ּה ֲא ׁ ֶשר ֲאנִי
ְ ׁ ְת ַט ֵּמא ֶאת ָה ָא ֶרץ ֲא ׁ ֶשר ַא ֶּתם land wherein you are; for blood, it pollutes the land; and no expiation
can be made for the land for the blood that is shed therein, but by the
אֹות ּה – ֵאינְ ֶכם ָ ָהא ַא ֶּתם ְמ ַט ְּמ ִאים,תֹוכ ּה״ ָ ׁש ֵֹוכן ְ ּב
blood of him that shed it. And you shall not defile the land which you
.תֹוכ ּה
ָ וְ ֵאינִי ׁש ֵֹוכן ְ ּב,יֹוש ִבים ָ ּב ּה ְׁ inhabit, in the midst of which I dwell; for I the Lord dwell in the midst
of the children of Israel” (Numbers 35:33–34). However, if you defile
the land, you will not inhabit it, and I will not dwell in it.
יטיןִּ בֹודה זָ ָרה וְ ַה ׁ ְש ָמ ַטת ׁ ְש ִמָ ַ ּב ֲע�ֹון ִ ּג ּלוּי ֲע ָריֹות וַ ֲע Due to the sin of prohibited sexual relations, and idol worship, and
ו ָּב ִאין,אֹותן
ָ ו ַּמגְ ִלין,עֹולם ָ יֹובלֹות – ָ ּגלוּת ָ ּבא ָל ְ ְו failure to let the land lie fallow during the Sabbatical and Jubilee
“כי ֶאת ָּכל ִּ : ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,קֹומן ָ יֹוש ִבין ִ ּב ְמ
ְ ׁ ְֲא ֵח ִרים ו Years, exile comes to the world and they exile the Jewish people from
their land, and others come and settle in their place. As it is stated
:נְשי ָה ָא ֶרץ וגו׳״ ו ְּכ ִתיב ֵ ׁ ֹועבֹות ָה ֵאל ָע ׂש ּו ַא ֵ ַה ּת
with regard to illicit sexual relations: “For all these abominations have
:יה וגו׳״ ו ְּכ ִתיב ָ “וַ ִּת ְט ָמא ָה ָא ֶרץ וָ ֶא ְפקֹוד ֲע�ֹונָ ּה ָע ֶל the men of the land done, that were before you, and the land is defiled;
אֹות ּה״
ָ “וְ ל ֹא ָת ִקיא ָה ָא ֶרץ ֶא ְת ֶכם ְ ּב ַט ַּמ ֲא ֶכם that the land expel not you also, when you defile it, as it expelled the
nation that was before you” (Leviticus 18:27–28). And it is written:
“And the land was defiled, therefore I did visit the iniquity thereof
upon it, and the land expelled her inhabitants” (Leviticus 18:25). And
it is written: “That the land expel not you also, when you defile it, as
it expelled the nation that was before you.”
יכם וגו׳״ ֶ “וְ נָ ַת ִּתי ֶאת ּ ִפגְ ֵר:בֹודה זָ ָרה ְּכ ִתיב ָ ו ַּב ֲעAnd with regard to idol worship it is written: “And I will cast your
ֶ “וַ ֲה ׁ ִש ּמ ִֹותי ֶאת ִמ ְקדְּ ׁ ֵש: ו ְּכ ִתיבcarcasses upon the carcasses of your idols” (Leviticus 26:30). And it
יכם וגו׳ וְ ֶא ְת ֶכם ֱאזָ ֶרה
. ַבגּ ֹויִ ם״is written: “And I will bring your sanctuaries unto desolation, and
I will not smell the savor of your sweet odors” (Leviticus 26:31). “And
you will I scatter among the nations, and I will draw out the sword
after you; and your land shall be a desolation, and your cities shall be
a waste” (Leviticus 26:33).
“אז ִּת ְרצֶ ה ָה ָא ֶרץ ֶאת ָ :יֹובלֹות ְּכ ִתיב ִּ ַ ּב ׁ ְש ִמWith regard to the sin of failure to observe the Sabbatical and Jubilee
ְ יטין ו ַּב
יכם
ֶ אֹויְב
ֵ יה ּכֹל יְ ֵמי ָה ׁ ּ ַש ָּמה וְ ַא ֶּתם ְ ּב ֶא ֶרץ ֶ ׁ ַש ְ ּבYears it is written: “Then shall the land be paid her Sabbaths, as
ָ תֹות
.“כל יְ ֵמי ָה ׁ ּ ַש ָּמה ִּת ׁ ְש ּבֹות״ָּ : וגו׳״ ו ְּכ ִתיבlong as it lies desolate, and you are in your enemies’ land; even then
shall the land rest, and repay her Sabbaths” (Leviticus 26:34). And it
is written: “As long as it lies desolate it shall have rest; even the rest
which it had not in your Sabbaths, when you dwelt upon it” (Leviticus
26: 35).
וּגְ זֵ ירֹות ָק ׁשֹות,ַ ּב ֲע�ֹון נַ ְבלוּת ּ ֶפה צָ רֹות ַר ּבֹות Due to the sin of vulgar speech, troubles abound, and harsh decrees
תֹומים
ִ ְ י, ו ַּבחו ֵּרי ׂשֹונְ ֵאי יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ֵמ ִתים,ִמ ְת ַחדְּ ׁשֹות are renewed, and the youth among the enemies of Israel, a euphe-
“על ֵּכן ַעל ַ : ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,נַענִין
ֲ צֹוע ִקין וְ ֵאינָ ן ֲ וְ ַא ְל ָמנֹות mistic reference to Israel, die, and orphans and widows cry out for
help and are not answered, as it is stated: “Therefore the Lord shall
נֹותיו
ָ )א ְל ְמ ַ ְתֹומיו [וְ ֶאת] (וָ ְיִש ַמח ה׳ וְ ֶאת י ׂ ְ ַ ּבחו ָּריו ל ֹא
have no joy in their young men, neither shall He have compassion
ל ֹא יְ ַר ֵחם ִּכי ֻכלּ ֹו ָחנֵ ף ו ֵּמ ָרע וְ ָכל ּ ֶפה דּ ֵֹובר נְ ָב ָלה ְ ּב ָכל on their fatherless and widows; for everyone is ungodly and an
.זֹאת ל ֹא ׁ ָשב ַא ּפֹו וְ עֹוד יָ דֹו נְטוּיָ ה״ evildoer, and every mouth speaks wantonness. For all this His anger
is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still” (Isaiah 9:16).n
ַה ּכֹל:ַמאי וְ עֹוד יָ דֹו נְטוּיָ ה? ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ָחנָן ַ ּבר ָר ָבא The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the phrase: But His
ֶא ָּלא ּכֹל ַה ְמנַ ֵ ּבל,נְסה ַלחו ּ ָּפה ָ יֹוד ִעין ַּכ ָּלה ָל ָּמה נִ ְכ
ְ hand is stretched out still? Rabbi Ĥanan bar Rava said: Everybody
חֹות ִמין ָע ָליו ְ ּגזַ ר דִּ ין ׁ ֶשל ׁ ִש ְב ִעים ׁ ָשנָ ה
ְ ּ ִפיו ֲא ִפיל ּו knows why the bride enters the wedding canopy. There is no secret
revealed. Nevertheless, anyone who speaks vulgarly about it, even if
ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ׁ ֵש ָילא.הֹופ ִכין ָע ָליו ְל ָר ָעה ְ – טֹובה ָ ְל
they, on High, sealed for him a decree of seventy years of good for-
ָּכל ַה ְמנַ ֵ ּבל ֶאת ּ ִפיו – ַמ ֲע ִמ ִיקין לֹו:ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א tune, they will reverse it to bad fortune because of this sin. And
ַרב נַ ְח ָמן.“שו ָּחה ֲעמו ָ ּּקה ּ ִפי זָ רֹות״ ִ ֵ ּג
ׁ : ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,יה ָּנם Rabba bar Sheila said that Rav Ĥisda said: Anyone who speaks
“זְ עוּם: ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,ֹותק
ֵ ֹומ ַע וְ ׁשֵ ַאף ׁש:ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק ָא ַמר vulgarly, they deepen Gehenna for him, as it is stated: “The mouth
.ה׳ יִ ּפֹול ׁ ָשם״ that speaks perversity is a deep pit: he that is abhorred of the Lord
shall fall therein” (Proverbs 22:14), i.e., Gehenna is deepened for one
who speaks vulgarly. Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said: Even one who
hears vulgar speech and is silent is punished, as it is stated: “He that
is abhorred of the Lord shall fall therein,”n even if he himself does
not speak at all.
notes
But His hand is stretched out still [ve’od] – וְ עֹוד יָ דֹו נְטוּיָ ה: In this context, Shall fall therein, can be understood in two ways. The first is that one shall
ve’od is understood as va’ed, forever. In human terms, this refers to the fall therein, in Gehenna. The second is: He shall fall therein, in the sense
life expectancy of seventy years. When one commits this sin, the evil of the verse: “Over against all his brethren he did fall” (Genesis 25:18). One
decree is forever (Rashi). who is present and remains silent is sentenced to the same punishment
Shall fall therein – יִ ּפֹול ׁ ָשם: Some commentaries explain that the phrase: (Maharsha).
,עֹולם ָ ִר ּבֹונֹו ׁ ֶשל:יה ָא ַמר ּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַה ָ ּק ָטן ָח ׁש ֵ ּב The Gemara relates: Shmuel HaKatan fell ill with hidrokan. notes
: ָא ַמר ָר ָבא,יה ּ ַא ַ ּביֵ י ָח ׁש ֵ ּב.ית ֵסי ַּ ִמי ֵמ ִפיס? ִא He said: Master of the Universe, who will draw lots, mean- A sign of arrogance is poverty – ימן ְלגַ ּסוּת ָהרו ַּח ֲענִּיוּת
ָ ס:ִ In
ָר ָבא.יה ּ יה ְ ּבנַ ֲח ָמנִי דִּ ְמ ַכ ֵפין נַ ְפ ׁ ֵש ּ יָ ַד ֲענָ א ֵ ּב ing, who will be able to determine that this hidrokan is not the tractate Kiddushin, the Sages explain that poverty in this
consequence of sin? He was cured. Abaye also fell ill with context is not defined in terms of wealth; rather, it refers
ישי ְק ִט ֵילי ִ ׁ נְ ִפ: וְ ָהא ָר ָבא הוּא דַּ ֲא ַמר.יה ּ ָח ׁש ֵ ּב hidrokan. Rava testified and said about him: I know about to poverty in terms of Torah. In this sense, poverty results
יה ַר ָ ּבנַן
ּ נְסי ֵלִ דְּ ָא,יחי ָּכ ָפן! ׁ ָשאנֵי ָר ָבא ֵ ֵקדָּ ר ִמ ְּנ ִפ Naĥmani, Abaye, that he starves himself and that his hidro- from a person failing to take the opportunity to travel to a
.יה ּ נֵיה ְ ּב ַעל ּכ ְֹור ֵח
ּ ְָּ ּב ִעיד kan is the result of hunger. The Gemara relates that Rava fell place of Torah scholars to study with them. Due to his ar-
rogance, he is not even aware of his own ignorance (Rashi).
ill with hidrokan, and they asked: But Rava did not starve
himself, and there is no reason to suspect him of sin, and we
cannot say that he contracted hidrokan because he did not
relieve himself on time. Rava knew to relieve himself, as it is
he who said: More have been killed due to the chamber pot,
because they were not careful about relieving themselves in a
timely manner, than those swollen due to starvation. The
Gemara answers: Rava is different because the Sages compel
him to remain in place against his will while he lectures.
Since he could not relieve himself, he became sick with
hidrokan.
ימן ַל ֲע ֵב ָירה ָ ִס:ימנִין ֵהן ָ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ִס, ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ןOn a related note, the Sages taught in a baraita that there are
ימן ְלגַ ּסוּת
ָ ִס,ימן ְל ִ ׂשנְ ַאת ִח ָּנם יֵ ָרקֹוןָ ִס,רֹוקן ָ ִה ְדfour signs: A sign of sin is hidrokan, a sign of gratuitous
ָ ִס, ָהרו ַּח ֲענִּיוּתhatred is jaundice, a sign of arrogance is poverty, and a sign
n
.ימן ִל ְל ׁשֹון ָה ַרע ַא ְס ָּכ ָרה
of slander is askara.
עֹולם
ָ ַא ְס ָּכ ָרה ָ ּב ָאה ָל: ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַןThe Sages taught: Askara comes to the world as punishment
Perek II
Daf 33 Amud b
:אֹומרֵ יֹוסי ֵ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי,ַעל ַה ַּמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר for neglecting to separate tithes. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi
ימא ַר ִ ּבי ָ יתֵ וְ ִא, ָא ַמר ָר ָבא.ַעל ְל ׁשֹון ָה ַרע Yosei, says: Askarab comes as punishment for slander. Rava
ַמאי ְק ָר ָא ּה – “וְ ַה ֶּמ ֶלךְ יִ ְ ׂש ַמח:הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י ֻ ׁ ְי said, and some say that it was Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi who
said it: What is the verse that alludes to this? “But the king
ֵ ּבאל ִֹהים יִ ְת ַה ֵּלל ָּכל ַה ּנ ׁ ְִש ָ ּבע ּבֹו ִּכי יִ ָּס ֵכר ּ ִפי
shall rejoice in God; every one that swears by Him shall
.דֹוב ֵרי ׁ ָש ֶקר״
ְ glory; for the mouth of them that speak lies shall be
stopped” (Psalms 63:12). The punishment for lying is that the
mouth will be stopped. Askara affects the mouth along with
other parts of the body.
background
Askara – א ְס ָּכ ָרה:
ַ Askara is diphtheria, an infectious disease of period, members of the non-priestly watch would fast once a
the throat that causes the mucous membrane in the throat to week so that askara would not befall young children.
swell, causing a choking sensation. Diphtheria is very common Apparently, the description of the illness as beginning in
among children, and until the discovery of innovative medical the intestines comes from the symptoms that children display
treatments it was extremely deadly. Those who contracted the when contracting infectious diseases like this one, which include
illness would die of asphyxiation. During the Second Temple vomiting and stomachaches.
יֹוכיח ּו! ׁ ֶש ְּמ ַב ְּטלֹות ֶאת ִ נָשים ִ ׁ :ָא ְמר ּו לֹו They said to him: Women will prove that dereliction in the study
ּ
.יֹוכיחוּ! ׁ ֶש ְּמ ַב ְט ִלין ֶאת יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל
ִ גֹּויִ ם.ַ ּב ֲע ֵל ֶיהן of Torah is not the cause, as they are not obligated to study Torah
ֶ יֹוכיח ּו! ׁ ֶש ְּמ ַב ְּט ִלין ֶאת ֲא ִב
.יהן ִ ִּתינֹוקֹות and, nevertheless, they contract askara. He answered them: They
are punished because they cause their husbands to be idle from
!ּיֹוכיחוִ ִּתינֹוקֹות ׁ ֶשל ֵ ּבית ַר ָ ּבן
the study of Torah. They said to him: Gentiles will prove that this
is not the cause, as they also contract askara even though they are
not obligated to study Torah. He answered them: They are also
punished because they cause Israel to be idle from the study of
Torah. They said to him: Children will prove that this is not the
cause, for they are not at all obligated to study Torah and they also
suffer from askara. He answered them: They are punished because
they cause their fathers to be idle from the study of Torah. They
said to him: School children will prove that this is not the cause,
as they study Torah and, nevertheless, they suffer from askara.
, דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי גּ ּו ְריֹון,ָה ָתם ִּכ ְד ַר ִ ּבי גּ ּו ְריֹון The Gemara answers: There, it must be understood in accordance
ִ ּבזְ ַמן:יֹוסף ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ְש ַמ ְעיָ ה
ֵ ימא ַרב ָ ית ֵ וְ ִא with the statement of Rabbi Guryon, as Rabbi Guryon said, and
יקים נִ ְת ּ ָפ ִסים ַעל ִ ִּיקים ַ ּבדֹור – צַ ד ִ ִּׁ ֶש ַה ַ ּצד some say that it was Rav Yosef, son of Rabbi Shemaya, who said
it: At a time when there are righteous people in the generation,
יקים ַ ּבדּ ֹור – ִּתינֹוקֹות ׁ ֶשל ִ ִּ ֵאין צַ ד,ַהדּ ֹור
the righteous are seized, i.e., they die or suffer, for the sins of the
ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק.ֵ ּבית ַר ָ ּבן נִ ְת ּ ָפ ִסים ַעל ַהדּ ֹור generation.n If there are no righteous people in the generation,
ַ ּבר זְ ִע ִירי וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן school children, who are also without sin, are seized for the sins
“אם ל ֹא ֵת ְד ִעי ָלךְ ַהּיָ ָפה ִ – ַמאי ְק ָר ָא ּה:נְזִ ָירא of the generation. Rabbi Yitzĥak bar Ze’iri said, and some say that
:ַ ּב ּנ ׁ ִָשים צְ ִאי ָלךְ ְ ּב ִע ְק ֵבי ַה ּצֹאן וגו׳״ וְ ָא ְמ ִרינַן Rabbi Shimon ben Nezira said: What is the verse that alludes to
ִ ְ ּג ָדיִ ים ַה ְממו ׁ ְּש ָּכנִין ַעל ָה
: ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה.רֹועים this? “If you know not, you fairest among women, go your way
forth by the footsteps of the flock and feed your kids, beside the
. ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה,ַאף ַעל ְל ׁשֹון ָה ַרע נַ ִמי ָק ָא ַמר
shepherds’ tents [mishkenot]” (Song of Songs 1:8). And we say in
explanation of this verse: They are the lambs that are taken as
collateral [hamemushkanin], which is etymologically similar to the
word mishkenot, in place of the shepherds. If the shepherds and
leaders of the generation corrupt the multitudes, young children
die because of their sins. With regard to the dilemma, conclude
from it that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said that the illness
of askara also results from slander, as the baraita provides an
additional cause of the illness. The Gemara comments: Indeed,
conclude from it.
notes
The righteous are seized for the sins of the generation – צַ דִּ ִיקים multitudes. Furthermore, the wicked are punished by means of
נִ ְת ּ ָפ ִסים ַעל ַהדּ ֹור: Due to the general principle that all members a plague that afflicts everyone, while the punishment meted out
of the Jewish people are mutually responsible for each other, to the righteous is by God’s hand and they alone are punished
clearly, leaders and the righteous suffer for the sins of the (Sha’arei Ora).
notes
Women are easily impressionable – יהן ֶ נָשים דַּ ְע ָּתן ַק ָּלה ֲע ֵל:
ִ ׁ In other words, Elijah the Prophet came – א ָתא ֵא ִלּיָ ה ּו:ֲ Some commentaries explain that
women are more easily appeased and persuaded and are not always any bearer of good news is referred to as Elijah. In this case, a person
sensitive to the danger inherent in a given situation (Rashi). passed by and recounted what had happened in an incidental, uncon-
sidered remark (Beit Ya’akov).
They would dress, cover themselves, and pray – יכס ּו ו ְּמצַ ּל ּו
ְ ל ַב ׁש ּו ִמ:ְ Every place they directed their eyes was immediately burned – ָּכל
Although they were covered in sand, they still donned their clothing נִש ָרף
ׂ ְ ינֵיהן ִמּיָ ד
ֶ ֹותנִין ֵע
ְ ּמקֹום ׁ ֶשנ:ָ Some commentaries explain this incident
during prayer because of the verse: “Prepare to meet your God” (Amos homiletically. Rabbi Shimon and his son convinced people to abandon
4:12; see Maharsha). their business and engage in Torah study for its own sake (Beit Ya’akov).
Perek II
Daf 34 Amud a
notes
יכא ָּ ִא: ָא ַמר.וְ ִאית ְלה ּו צַ ֲע ָרא ְלכ ֲֹהנִים ְל ַא ּקו ֵּפי and the priests are troubled by being forced to circumvent it, as it is
Ben Yoĥai purified the cemetery – ִט ֵיהר
יה
ּ ית ְחזַ ק ָה ָכא ָט ֳה ָרה? ָא ַמר ֵל ַּ ינִיש דְּ יָ ַדע דְּ ִא
ׁ ִא prohibited for them to become ritually impure from contact with a
יֹוחי ֵ ּבית ַה ְּק ָברֹות
ַ בן:ּ ֶ It is explained in the
Jerusalem Talmud (Shevi’it 9:1) that Rabbi .יצץ ֶ ּבן זַ ַּכאי ּתו ְּר ְמ ֵסי ְתרו ָּמה ֵּ ָּכאן ִק:ַההוּא ָס ָבא corpse. There was suspicion, but no certainty, that a corpse was buried
Shimon bar Yoĥai accomplished this mi- there. Therefore, they were unable to definitively determine its status.
,יה
ּ ָּכל ֵה ָיכא דַּ ֲהוָ ה ָק ׁ ֵשי – ַט ֲה ֵר,ֲע ַבד ִאיה ּו נַ ִמי ָה ִכי
raculously. Everywhere that a corpse was Rabbi Shimon said: Is there a person who knows that there was a
buried, it would rise up from the earth. .ינֵיה
ּ ְיכא דַּ ֲהוָ ה ָר ֵפי – צַ ּי ָ וְ ָכל ֵה presumption of ritual purity here? Is there anyone who remembers a
Although the Samaritans attempted to time when this place was not considered ritually impure, or that at least
sabotage his effort, they were unsuc- part of it was considered to be ritually pure? An Elder said to him: Here
cessful. Here, it is explained that Rabbi
ben Zakkai planted and cut the teruma of lupines. In this marketplace
Shimon bar Yoĥai purified the ground
by examining the texture of the soil to Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Zakkai, who himself was a priest, once planted lu-
see whether or not the soil had been pines that were given to him as teruma. On that basis, the conclusion
overturned at some point in the past. can be drawn that it was definitely ritually pure. Rabbi Shimon, like
A pile of bones – ַ ּגל ׁ ֶשל ֲעצָ מֹות: The im-
Jacob, also did so and took steps to improve the city and examined the
plication is that he died, since with the ground (Tosafot). Everywhere that the ground was hard, he pro-
passage of time a corpse turns into a nounced it ritually pure as there was certainly no corpse there, and
mere pile of bones (Rashi). every place that the ground was soft, he marked it indicating that
perhaps a corpse was buried there. In that way, he purified the market-
Personalities place so that even priests could walk through it.
Yehuda, son of converts – יְ הו ָּדה ֶ ּבן
ג ִרים:ּ ֵ He was called son of converts be-
יֹוחי ֵ ּבית ַה ְּק ָברֹות! ָא ַמר ַ ִט ֵיהר ֶ ּבן:ֲא ַמר ַההוּא ָס ָבא A certain Elder said in ridicule and surprise: Ben Yoĥai purified the
cause his parents were indeed converts. ית ִע ָּמנ ּו ָ ִ וַ ֲא ִפיל ּו ָהי,ּית ִע ָּמנוָ ִ ִא ְיל ָמ ֵלי (ל ֹא) ָהי:יה ּ ֵל cemetery.n Rabbi Shimon got angry and said to him: Had you not
He is counted among the students of ַע ְכ ׁ ָשיו ׁ ֶש ָהיִ ָית.אֹומר
ֵ נֵית ִע ָּמנ ּו – יָ ֶפה ַא ָּתה ָ וְ ל ֹא נִ ְמ been with us, and even had you been with us and were not counted
Rabbi Shimon bar Yoĥai, who referred with us in rendering this ruling, what you say is fine. You could have
זֹונֹות ְמ ַפ ְר ְּכסֹות זֹו ֶאת:ֹּאמרו ְ י,ּנֵית ִע ָּמנו
ָ ִע ָּמנ ּו וְ נִ ְמ
to him as a man of stature and treated said that you were unaware of my intention or that you did not agree or
him with respect. The fact that he sat ,ינֵיה
ּ יה ֵע ּ ַּת ְל ִמ ֵידי ֲח ָכ ִמים ל ֹא ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן? יְ ַהב ֵ ּב,זֹו participate in this decision. Now that you were with us and were
in the company of the most prominent ,יה ִליהו ָּדה ֶ ּבן ֵ ּג ִרים ּ ֵ ַחזְ י, נְ ַפק ְל ׁשו ָּקא.יהּ וְ נָ ח נַ ְפ ׁ ֵש counted with us in rendering this ruling, you will cause people to say
Sages indicates his significance and
proves that they considered him loyal.
וְ ָע ָ ׂשה ּו,עֹולם? נָ ַתן ּבֹו ֵעינָיו ָ ֲע ַדיִ ין יֵ ׁש ָלזֶ ה ָ ּב:ֲא ַמר that Sages are unwilling to cooperate with one another. They will say:
However, Rabbi Shimon became angry .ַ ּגל ׁ ֶשל ֲעצָ מֹות If competing prostitutes still apply makeup to each other to help one
with him because he violated a basic another look beautiful, all the more so that Torah scholars should
principle: Matters discussed in the study cooperate with each other. He directed his eyes toward him and the
hall, whether statements about politics Elder died. Rabbi Shimon went out to the marketplace and he saw
or topics that warrant discretion, should Yehuda, son of converts,P who was the cause of this entire incident.
not to be discussed outside the study Rabbi Shimon, said: This one still has a place in the world? He di-
hall (see Tosafot).
rected his eyes toward him and turned him into a pile of bones.n
158 Perek II . 34a . דל ףד. קרפ ׳ב
מתני׳ ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה דְּ ָב ִרים צָ ִריךְ ָא ָדם
תֹוך ֵ ּביתֹו ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ִעם ְ לֹומר ְ ּב ַ
MISHNA There are three things a person must sayh in his home
on Shabbat eve at nightfall and not before. The mish-
לֹומר
ַ יך ָא ָדם
halakha
Three things a person must say – ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה דְּ ָב ִרים
ְ צָ ִר: A person should calmly ask the
na elaborates: He should ask the members of his household, have you tithed
ֵע ַר ְב ֶּתם? ַה ְד ִליק ּו, ִע ּ ַ ׂש ְר ֶּתם:ֲח ׁ ֵש ָכה the crop that required tithing? Have you placed the eiruv for joining the
members of his household three questions be-
fore Shabbat begins, just before twilight (Mishna
ָס ֵפק ֲח ׁ ֵש ָכה ָס ֵפק ֵאינֹו.ֶאת ַה ֵּנר courtyards and joining the Shabbat borders? If you have done so, light the Berura): Have you tithed the produce? Have you
,ֲח ׁ ֵש ָכה – ֵאין ְמ ַע ּ ְ ׂש ִרין ֶאת ַה ַּודַּ אי lamp in honor of Shabbat. The Sages stated a principle: If the time arrives on placed the eiruv? Have you separated ĥalla? After
וְ ֵאין,וְ ֵאין ַמ ְט ִ ּב ִילין ֶאת ַה ֵּכ ִלים Friday when there is uncertainty whether it is nightfall and uncertainty doing so, he says to them: Light the lamp, as per
whether it is not yet nightfall,nh one may not tithe the crop that has defi- the statement of Rabba bar Rav Huna. Nowadays,
ֲא ָבל ְמ ַע ּ ְ ׂש ִרין.ַמ ְד ִל ִיקין ֶאת ַה ֵּנרֹות when the joining of courtyards is placed for an en-
טֹומנִין ֶאת ְ ְ ו ְּמ ָע ְר ִבין ו,ֶאת ַהדְּ ַמאי nitely not been tithed, and one may not immerse ritually impure vessels in
tire year, or in a location where there is no mitzva
a ritual bath to render them ritually pure, and one may not light the Shabbat to tithe, one need not ask those questions (Rema;
.ַה ַח ִּמין lights. However, one may tithe demai, doubtfully tithed produce, which Be’er Heitev; Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shab-
must be tithed due to mere suspicion. And one may place an eiruv and in- bat 5:3; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 260:2).
sulate the hot water to be used on Shabbat. Uncertainty whether it is nightfall and un-
ילי? ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֵּ גמ׳ ְמנָ א ָהנֵי ִמ
“וְ יָ ַד ְע ָּת: ָא ַמר ְק ָרא,הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י ֻ ׁ ְי
GEMARA The Gemara attempts to clarify: From where are
these matters, that one must ask these questions in
certainty whether it is not yet nightfall – ָס ֵפק
ח ׁ ֵש ָכה ָס ֵפק ֵאינֹו ֲח ׁ ֵש ָכה:ֲ When there is uncertainty
whether or not night has fallen on Friday evening,
his home at nightfall of Shabbat, derived? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: As
ִּכי ׁ ָשלֹום ָא ֳה ֶלךָ ו ָּפ ַק ְד ָּת נָ וְ ךָ וְ ל ֹא the verse said: “And you shall know that your tent is in peace;n and you
one may not tithe produce that definitely has not
been tithed, including fruit, for which tithing is
: ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַרב הוּנָ א.ֱת ֱח ָטא״ shall visit your habitation, and shall not sin” ( Job 5:24). From here it is required by rabbinic law (Mishna Berura). One may
ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דַּ ֲאמוּר ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה derived that one should visit his habitation, i.e., ask in his home, so that he not immerse vessels in a ritual bath, one may not
,לֹומר וכו׳ ַ יך ָא ָדם ְ דְּ ָב ִרים צָ ִר will not come to sin. Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Although the Sages said light the lamp, and one may not place a joining of
that there are three things a person should, indeed he is required to, say in the Shabbat boundaries. However, one may tithe
ִּכי,ימ ִרינְ ה ּו ְ ּבנִיח ו ָּתא ְ יך ְל ֵמ ְ צָ ִר demai, insulate hot water in a manner that does
ָא ַמר ַרב.ֵיה ּ יכי דְּ ִל ַיק ְ ּב ִלינְ ה ּו ִמ ּינ ִ ֵה his home on Shabbat eve at nightfall, one must say them calmly so that the
not add heat (Mishna Berura), and place a joining
members of his household will accept them from him. If he says them
ֲאנָ א ָלא ׁ ְש ִמ ַיע ִלי ָהא דְּ ַר ָ ּבה:ַא ׁ ִשי harshly, his family members may mislead him and cause him to sin. Rav Ashi
of the courtyards (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot
Shabbat 4:4; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 261:1).
.ימ ִּתי ִמ ְּס ָב ָרא ְ ַ וְ ִקּי,ַ ּבר ַרב הוּנָ א said: I did not hear this halakha of Rabba bar Rav Huna, but I fulfilled it
based on my own reasoning.
ָהא גּ ו ָּפא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א; ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה The Gemara asks: This mishna itself is difficult, as it contains an internal
תֹוך
ְ לֹומר ְ ּב ַ יך ָא ָדם ְ דְּ ָב ִרים צָ ִר contradiction. On the one hand, you stated initially that there are three things
ִעם,ֵ ּביתֹו ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ִעם ֲח ׁ ֵש ָכה a person must say in his home before Shabbat at nightfall, and this means:
At nightfall, i.e., before nightfall, yes, he should say those things; when there
ָס ֵפק ֲח ׁ ֵש ָכה ָס ֵפק,ֲח ׁ ֵש ָכה – ִאין
is uncertainty whether it is nightfall and uncertainty whether it is not yet
ָס ֵפק: וַ ֲה ַדר ָּתנֵי.ֵאינֹו ֲח ׁ ֵש ָכה – ָלא nightfall, no, he should not say them. Even if one were to ask then, it is no
!ֲח ׁ ֵש ָכה ָס ֵפק ֵאינֹו ֲח ׁ ֵש ָכה ְמ ָע ֵרב longer permitted to correct these matters. And then it taught: When there
is uncertainty whether it is nightfall and uncertainty whether it is not yet
nightfall, one may place an eiruv. One may correct the situation even then.
Why did the mishna restrict asking these questions to an earlier time?
יפ ָרא
ָ ּ ִימ ָרא צ
ְ ִ ְ ּב ג ּו ְפיָ א ז:ימן ָ ִסIncidentally, prior to answering this question, the Gemara lists all of the
. ַ ּב ַח ְב ָלא דְּ ִמ ְּיל ָתאother halakhot in tractate Shabbat stated by the Sage who answers the ques-
tion, with the mnemonic: Self,n pruning, bird, cord, silk.
ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא ָא ַמר ַרב ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: This is not
– ָּכאן, ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א:ַא ׁ ִשי ָא ַמר ַרב difficult and there is no contradiction here. Here, at the beginning of the
ָּכאן – ְ ּב ֵעירו ֵּבי,ְ ּב ֵעירו ֵּבי ְתחו ִּמין mishna, where it indicates that the eiruv can only be placed while it is still day,
it is referring to the joining of Shabbat boundaries,n which is based on a
.ֲחצֵ רֹות
Torah law. Therefore, one must place this eiruv while it is definitely day. And
here, where the mishna said that it is permitted even when it is uncertain
whether or not it is already nighttime, it is referring to the joining of court-
yards, which is more lenient and based merely on a stringency.
notes
Uncertainty whether it is nightfall and uncertainty whether it is the halakhot that Rabbi Abba said in the name of Rabbi Ĥiyya bar
not yet nightfall – ס ֵפק ֲח ׁ ֵש ָכה ָס ֵפק ֵאינֹו ֲח ׁ ֵש ָכה:ָ Some commentar- Ashi in the name of Rav throughout tractate Shabbat. Self refers to
ies explain that this period is not definitely twilight. It is uncertain the solution to the question: This itself is difficult. Pruning refers to
twilight (Penei Yehoshua). Others explain that the phrase: Uncertainty his statement: One who prunes is liable for the labor of planting
whether it is nightfall, refers to the onset of Shabbat. Uncertainty (73b, p. 356). Bird refers to the halakha of a bird that flies under one’s
whether it is not yet nightfall, refers to the conclusion of Shabbat clothing (107a). Cord refers to the halakha that one may bring a rope
(Melo HaRo’im). from his house and tie it (113a). Silk refers to the issue of silk brooms
(124b; see Maharsha).
That your tent is in peace – ָכי ׁ ָשלֹום ָא ֳה ֶלך:ִּ The verse alludes to
the three actions mentioned in the mishna. “And you shall know Here, it is referring to the joining of Shabbat boundaries – ָּכאן
that your tent is in peace” refers to the Shabbat light, as mentioned ב ֵעירו ֵּבי ְתחו ִּמין:ּ ְ The stringency of the joining of Shabbat boundaries
above: “And my soul is removed far off from peace,” that is kindling [eiruv teĥumin] stems from the dispute whether or not the prohibi-
the Shabbat light. “And you shall visit your habitation” refers to the tion to travel beyond city limits on Shabbat is by Torah law. Some
eiruv, which is a stage in preparing the house for Shabbat. “And tanna’im are of the opinion that the halakha of Shabbat boundaries
you shall not sin” refers to the tithe, as it is written with regard to is by Torah law, as it is stated: “Abide you every man in his place, let
eating untithed produce: “And you shall bear no sin by reason of it” no man go out of his place” (Exodus 16:29). Even those who hold
(Numbers 18:32; see the Ran). that the twoֹ-thousand-cubit Shabbat boundary is by rabbinic law
understand that the essential Shabbat boundary, twelve mil beyond
The mnemonic: Self, etc. – ְ ּבגו ְּפיָ א וכו׳:ימן
ָ ס:ִ This is a mnemonic of city limits, is by Torah law (Rambam).
Perek II
Daf 34 Amud b
halakha
טֹומנִין ְ ּב ָד ָבר
ְ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ָמה ָא ְמר ּו ֵאין Why did the Sages say that one may not insulate hot water for Shabbat
One may not insulate in something that adds heat – ֵאין
– ֹוסיף ֶה ֶבל וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִמ ְ ּבעֹוד יֹום ִ ַה ּמ in something that adds heat,h even while it is still day? It is a decree
ֹוסיף ֶה ֶבל
ִ טֹומנִין ְ ּב ָד ָבר ַה ּמ:
ְ One may not insulate food in a
substance that adds heat, even while it is still day. If one did ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ֶש ָּמא יַ ְט ִמין ְ ּב ֶר ֶמץ ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ָ ּב ּה lest one come to cover it in hot ashes that contain a glowing ember.
so, even unintentionally (Magen Avraham), it is prohibited to People may not differentiate between addition of heat by means of hot
! וְ יַ ְט ִמין:יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י ּ ָא ַמר ֵל.ַ ּג ֶח ֶלת ashes and other additions of heat. Abaye said to him: Let him insulate
eat the food (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 4:2;
Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 257:1). .ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ֶש ָּמא יַ ְח ֶּתה ַ ּב ֶ ּג ָח ִלים it with hot ashes, what is the problem? Rava answered him: It is a
decree lest one come to stoke the coals in order to make them burn
on Shabbat and thereby violate a Torah prohibition.
ֵ ּבין ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות ָס ֵפק:ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן The Sages taught a baraita which discusses the range of problems that
ָס ֵפק ּכו ּּלֹו,ִמן ַהּיֹום ו ִּמן ַה ַּליְ ָלה arise with regard to the twilight period. Twilight is a period of uncer-
– ָס ֵפק ּכו ּּלֹו ִמן ַה ַּליְ ָלה,ִמן ַהּיֹום tainty. It is uncertain whether it consists of both day and night, it is
uncertain whether it is completely day, and it is uncertain whether
ֶ ַמ ִּט ִילין אֹותֹו ְל
.חֹומר ׁ ְשנֵי יָ ִמים
it is completely night. Therefore, the Sages impose the stringencies
of both days upon it. If there is a stringency that applies on either of
the days, one is obligated to adhere to it during the twilight period.
160 Perek II . 34b . דל ףד: קרפ ׳ב
halakha
וְ ֵאיזֶ ה ּו ֵ ּבין ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות – ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ִּת ׁ ְש ַקע ַה ַח ָּמה ָּכל Nevertheless, the definition of twilight is uncertain. And what is twi-
light? From when the sun sets, as long as the eastern face of the sky Saw two days during twilight – ָר ָאה ׁ ְשנֵי יָ ִמים
ִה ְכ ִסיף ַה ַּת ְח ּתֹון,ימין ִ זְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ּ ְפנֵי ִמזְ ָרח ַמ ֲא ִד בין ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות:ּ ֵ A zav who saw an emission during
ִה ְכ ִסיף,וְ ל ֹא ִה ְכ ִסיף ָה ֶע ְליֹון – ֵ ּבין ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות is reddened by the light of the sun. If the lower segment of the sky has twilight is considered ritually impure based on
lost its color, and the upper segment has not yet lost its color, that is an uncertainty. If a zav saw an emission on two
דִּ ְב ֵרי,ָה ֶע ְליֹון וְ ִה ׁ ְשוָ ה ַל ַּת ְח ּתֹון – זֶ ה ּו ַליְ ָלה
the twilight period. If the upper segment has lost its color, and its consecutive days during twilight, his status is
ְ ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשּיְ ַה ֵּלך:אֹומר
ֵ ַר ִ ּבי נְ ֶח ְמיָ ה.ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה color equals that of the lower one, it is night; this is the statement of uncertain with regard to both ritual impurity
ֵ ַר ִ ּבי.ָא ָדם ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ִּת ׁ ְש ַקע ַה ַח ָּמה ֲחצִ י ִמיל
יֹוסי Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Neĥemya says: The duration of the twilight and the sacrifice. Consequently, the sacrifice
זֶ ה נִ ְכנָס וְ זֶ ה, ֵ ּבין ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות ְּכ ֶה ֶרף ַעיִ ן:אֹומר ֵ period is the time it takes for a person to walk half a mil after the sun may not be eaten, as per the mishna (Rambam
Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Meĥusrei Kappara 2:12–14).
. וְ ִאי ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ַל ֲעמֹוד ָע ָליו,יֹוצֵ א sets. Rabbi Yosei says: Twilight does not last for a quantifiable period
of time; rather, it is like the blink of an eye: This, night, enters and that, What is twilight – איזֶ ה ּו ֵ ּבין ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות:ֵ The dura-
day, leaves, and it is impossible to calculate it due to its brevity. tion of twilight lasts as long as it takes to walk
three-quarters of a mil before nightfall. The
,חֹומר ׁ ְשנֵי יָ ִמים״ֶ “מ ִּט ִילין אֹותֹו ְל ַ :ָא ַמר ָמר It was taught in the baraita that the Master said: The Sages impose the halakha was decided in accordance with the
יה
ּ ְל ַמאי ִה ְל ְכ ָתא? ָא ַמר ַרב ה ּונָ א ְ ּב ֵר stringencies of both days upon twilight. The Gemara asks: With re- opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, the ruling of Rabbi
gard to what halakha was this stated? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, Yoĥanan, below, and the opinion of Rabba, in
ָר ָאה: ְּכ ִד ְתנַ ן, ְל ִענְ יַ ן טו ְּמ ָאה:הֹוש ַע
ֻ ׁ ְדְּ ַרב י accordance with whose opinion the halakha is
said: With regard to the matter of ritual impurity, as we learned in a
ׁ ְשנֵי יָ ִמים ֵ ּבין ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות – ָס ֵפק ְלטו ְּמ ָאה established in disputes with Rav Yosef (Rambam
mishna: With regard to a zav who saw an emission for two consecutive Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 5:4; Shulĥan
ָר ָאה יֹום ֶא ָחד ֵ ּבין ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות ָס ֵפק,ו ְּל ָק ְר ָ ּבן days during twilight,h it is unclear whether it should be considered as Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 261:2).
.ְלטו ְּמ ָאה if he only saw the emission for a single day, as perhaps twilight of the
first day was part of the following day, and twilight of the second day notes
was part of the previous day; or, whether it should be considered as two Three parts of a mil – של ׁ ָֹשה ֶח ְל ֵקי ִמיל:
ְ ׁ The as-
days, attributing each twilight to either the previous or the following sumption in establishing the duration of twilight
day; or, whether it should be considered three days, as it is possible to is that as simple a number as possible was cho-
view the twilight period as two days. By Torah law, a zav who saw two sen to quantify it. The possibility that Shmuel
emissions is ritually impure, and all of the stringencies of a zav apply to was referring to three-fifths or three-sevenths
him. If he sees a third emission, he is liable to bring an offering as part of a mil was not considered (Rashash).
of his purification ritual. Therefore, this zav, with regard to whom there
is uncertainty whether he saw emissions for one day, two days, or three
days, has uncertain status with regard to both ritual impurity and to
sacrifice. If he saw an emission one day during twilight, he has uncer-
tain status with regard to ritual impurity because it may be considered
two days.
ֵא יזֶ ה ּו ֵ ּבין: ָה א גּ ּו ָפ ּה ַק ׁ ְשיָ א; ָא ְמ ַר ְּת The Gemara comments on the baraita cited by the Gemara. This baraita
ָּכל,ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות – ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ִּת ׁ ְש ַק ע ַה ַח ָּמ ה is itself difficult, self-contradictory. Initially you said, what is twilight?h
ָהא ִה ְכ ִסיף.ימין ִ זְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ּ ְפנֵי ִמזְ ָרח ַמ ֲא ִד From when the sun sets, as long as the eastern face of the sky is
reddened by the light of the sun. By inference, if the bottom segment
.ַה ַּת ְח ּתֹון וְ ל ֹא ִה ְכ ִסיף ָה ֶע ְליֹון – ַליְ ָלה הוּא
lost its color, and the upper one has not lost its color, it is night. And
ִה ְכ ִסיף ַה ַּת ְח ּתֹון וְ ל ֹא ִה ְכ ִסיף:וַ ֲה ַדר ְּתנָ א then the baraita taught: If the lower segment of the sky has lost its
ָה ֶע ְליֹון – ֵ ּבין ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות! ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ָא ַמר color, and the upper segment has not yet lost its color, that is the
ֵאיזֶ ה ּו, ְּכרֹוךְ ו ְּתנִי:ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל twilight period. There is an apparent internal contradiction in the
ֵ ּבין ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות – ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ִּת ׁ ְש ַקע ַה ַח ָּמה ָּכל זְ ַמן baraita. Rabba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: In order
וְ ִה ְכ ִסיף ַה ַּת ְח ּתֹון,ימין ִ ׁ ֶש ּ ְפנֵי ִמזְ ָרח ַמ ֲא ִד to resolve the contradiction, unify the two statements and teach it as
follows: What is twilight? From when the sun sets, as long as the
,וְ ל ֹא ִה ְכ ִסיף ָה ֶע ְליֹון – נַ ִמי ֵ ּבין ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות
eastern face of the sky is reddened by the light of the sun. If the lower
.ִה ְכ ִסיף ָה ֶע ְליֹון וְ ִה ׁ ְשוָ ה ַל ַּת ְח ּתֹון – ַליְ ָלה segment of the sky has lost its color and the upper segment has not yet
:יֹוסף ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ֵ וְ ַרב lost its color, that is also the twilight period. Only if the upper segment
ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ִּת ׁ ְש ַקע ַה ַח ָּמה ָּכל זְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ּ ְפנֵי:ָה ִכי ָק ָתנֵי lost its color, and it equals that of the lower one, is it night. And Rav
ִה ְכ ִסיף ַה ַּת ְח ּתֹון וְ ל ֹא,ימין – יֹום ִ ִמזְ ָרח ַמ ֲא ִד Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said otherwise: From
ִה ְכ ִסיף,ִה ְכ ִסיף ָה ֶע ְליֹון – ֵ ּבין ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות when the sun sets, as long as the eastern face of the sky is reddened
by the light of the sun, it is day. If the lower segment of the sky has lost
.ָה ֶע ְליֹון וְ ִה ׁ ְשוָ ה ַל ַּת ְח ּתֹון – ַליְ ָלה
its color, and the upper segment has not yet lost its color, that is the
twilight period. If the upper segment lost its color and it equals that
of the lower one, it is night.
ׁ ִשיע ּור ֵ ּבין:ית ַמר ְּ דְּ ִא,וַ ֲאזַ דּ ּו ְל ַט ְע ַמיְ יה ּו And the Gemara remarks: In this dispute over the precise definition of
ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות ְ ּב ַכ ָּמה? ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ָא ַמר ַרב twilight both Rabba and Rav Yosef follow their line of reasoning
. ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ֶח ְל ֵקי ִמיל:יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל stated elsewhere. As it was stated: What is the measure of the duration
of twilight? Rabba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The
ימא ְּת ָל ָתא ָ ַמאי ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ֶח ְל ֵקי ִמיל? ִא ֵיל
time it takes to walk three parts of a mil.n The Gemara asks: What is
נֵימא ִמיל ו ֶּמ ֱחצָ ה! ֶא ָּלא ְּת ָל ָתאָ – ּ ַפ ְלגֵ י ִמ ָילא the meaning of three parts of a mil? If you say that it refers to three
ְּת ָל ָתא:נֵימא ִמיל! ֶא ָּלא ָ – ִּת ְיל ֵּתי ִמ ָילא halves of a mil, let him say a mil and a half. Rather, if you say that it
יֹוסף ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ֵ וְ ַרב.ִר ְיב ֵעי ִמ ָילא means three-thirds of a mil, let him simply say one mil. Rather, it
? ַמאי ׁ ְשנֵי ֶח ְל ֵקי ִמיל. ׁ ְשנֵי ֶח ְל ֵקי ִמיל:ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל means three-quarters of a mil. And Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda
ימא ִמיל! וְ ֶא ָּלא ָ ימא ְּת ֵרי ּ ַפ ְלגֵ י ִמ ָילא – ֵלָ ִא ֵיל said that Shmuel said: The duration of twilight is two parts of a mil.
Again the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of two parts of a mil? If
:ימא ֲחצִ י ִמיל! ֶא ָּלא ָ ְּת ֵרי ִר ְב ֵעי ִמ ָילא – ֵל
you say that it means two halves of a mil, let him simply say one mil.
Rather, if you say that it means two-quarters of a mil, let him say in-
stead: Half of a mil. Rather,
דל ףד: ׳ב קרפ. Perek II . 34b 161
Perek II
Daf 35 Amud a
language
יכא
ָּ ַמאי ֵ ּבינַיְ יהוּ? ִא. ְּת ֵרי ִּת ְיל ֵּתי ִמילit means two-thirds of a mil. The Gemara explains: What is the
One-sixth [danka] – דַּ נְ ָקא: Danka is the name of a Persian
coin. In Middle Persian, the word dāng means a tiny particle. . ֵ ּבינַיְ יה ּו ּ ַפ ְל ָ ּגא דְּ ַדנְ ָקאpractical difference between them? The practical difference be-
Ma’a is the Aramaic equivalent of danka. Since the ma’a is
tween them is half of one-sixth [danka],l i.e., one-twelfth of a mil.
one-sixth of a dinar, the Sages used the word danka to refer Their disputes are consistent, as the duration of twilight according
to one-sixth in many contexts. to Rav Yosef is shorter than its duration according to Rabba.
: דַּ ֲא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה,יל ּו ָפ ּה ְ ּב ַח ְל ָּתא ּ וְ ִח The Gemara comments: And with regard to the legal status of a
notes
,ַח ְל ָּתא ַ ּבת ְּת ֵרי ּכ ֵֹורי ׁ ָש ֵרי ְל ַט ְלטו ָּל ּה wicker vessel their dispute is the opposite. In that case, the size of
A wicker vessel with a capacity of two kor…three kor,
.ו ַּבת ְּת ָל ָתא ּכ ֵֹורי ָאסוּר ְל ַט ְלטו ָּל ּה the vessel permitted by Rav Yosef is larger than the size of the vessel
etc. – י…ת ָל ָתא ּכ ֵֹורי וכו׳
ְּ ח ְל ָּתא ַ ּבת ְּת ֵרי ּכ ֵֹור:ַ In tractate Eiruvin,
where this statement of Abaye is mentioned, a biblical allu-
permitted by Rabba. As Rabba said with regard to a wicker vessel
ַ ּבת ְּת ָל ָתא ּכ ֵֹורי נַ ִמי:יֹוסף ֲא ַמר ֵ וְ ַרב
sion is cited. In the Bible, two contradictory measures were with a capacity of two kor, one is permitted to move it on Shabbat.
cited for the Sea of Solomon. One verse states: “It held two
. ַ ּבת ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ּכ ֵֹורי ָאסוּר,ׁ ָש ֵרי And one with a capacity of three kor,n one is prohibited to move
thousand baths” (I Kings 7:26), and another states: “It received it on Shabbat.h It is much larger than the dimensions of a vessel and
and held three thousand baths” (II Chronicles 4:5). Abaye one is only permitted to move vessels on Shabbat. And Rav Yosef
explains that the larger size is a dry measure and the smaller said: A vessel with a capacity of three kor, one is also permitted
size is a liquid measure.
to move it, and only one with a capacity of four kor, it is prohib-
Round straw barrel or a round barrel made of reeds, ited to move.
etc. – כ ֶּו ֶורת ַה ַ ּק ׁש וְ ַכ ֶּו ֶורת ַה ָ ּק ּנִים וכו׳:ַּ The halakhic principle is
as follows: In order for a vessel to be able to become ritually ֵיה דְּ ָמר ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ּ ְ ּב ֵעי ִמ ּינ:ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י Abaye said: I raised the dilemma before my Master, Rabba, when
impure, it must be similar to a sack that can be carried full or יל ּו ַ ּבת ְּת ֵרי ּכ ֵֹורי ָלא ּ וַ ֲא ִפ,ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה it was practical, when I actually needed to know what to do, and
empty. Therefore, any vessel that is so large that it cannot be he did not permit me to move even a vessel with a capacity of two
carried when it is full is not considered a vessel and cannot : דִּ ְתנַן, ְּכ ַמאן – ְּכ ַהאי ַּת ָּנא,ׁ ְש ָרא ִלי
kor. The Gemara explains: In accordance with whose opinion did
become ritually impure. ַּכ ֶּו ֶורת ַה ַ ּק ׁש וְ ַכ ֶּו ֶורת ַה ָ ּק ּנִים וּבֹור
Rabba issue his practical halakhic ruling? In accordance with the
And descend and immerse himself in the sea and ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש,ְס ִפינָ ה ֲא ֶל ְּכ ַסנְ דְּ ִרית opinion of this tanna that we learned in the mishna discussing the
emerge – וְ יֵ ֵרד וְ יִ ְט ּבֹול ַ ּבּיָ ם וְ יַ ֲע ֶלה: Some commentaries ex- ָל ֶהם ׁשו ַּליִ ם וְ ֵהן ַמ ֲחזִ יקֹות ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים laws of ritual purity: A round straw barrel, and a round barrel
plain that the reference is to a person standing at the peak
of Mount Carmel who descends and immerses himself in
– ְס ָאה ְ ּב ַלח ׁ ֶש ֵהן ּכ ַֹוריִ ים ְ ּביָ ֵב ׁש made of reeds,n and the cistern of an Alexandrian ship,b which is
the sea and then emerges and climbs back to the peak of – ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה: ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י.הֹורים ִ ְט a large vessel placed on a boat and filled with potable water, al-
the mountain (Rashba). .ַהאי גּ ו ְּד ׁ ָשא ִּת ְיל ָּתא ָהוֵ י though these vessels have bottoms, i.e., they are receptacles, since
they have a capacity of forty se’a of liquid, which is the equivalent
halakha of two kor of dry goods, they are ritually pure. Even if they come
Moving a large vessel on Shabbat – ט ְלטוּל ְּכ ִלי ָגּדֹול ְ ּב ַש ָ ּבת:ִ into contact with a source of ritual impurity, they do not become
Any vessel, even a very large one, does not lose its status as impure. Beyond a certain size, containers are no longer considered
a vessel and one is permitted to move it on Shabbat. This vessels and, consequently, cannot become ritually impure.h Rabba
ruling is in contrast to the statement of Rabba and Rav Yosef, held: Since with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity a vessel of
and in accordance with the conclusion reached in tractate two kor is not considered a vessel, it may not be moved on Shabbat.
Eiruvin (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 308:2).
With regard to this mishna, Abaye said: Learn from it that the
Large vessel in matters of ritual impurity – ְּכ ִלי ָגּדֹול ְל ִענְיָ ן surplus of dry goods in a vessel relative to liquids is one-third of
טו ְּמ ָאה: A vessel that is made to permanently remain in a the contents of the vessel. It says in the mishna that a vessel that can
single place and not to be moved cannot become ritually
hold forty se’a of liquid holds two kor of dry produce, which is the
impure if it holds forty se’a (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot
Kelim 3:2).
equivalent of sixty se’a.
,יה ְל ָר ָבא דְּ ָקא דָּ אוֵ י ְל ַמ ֲע ָרב ּ ֵַא ַ ּביֵ י ַחזְ י The Gemara relates: Abaye saw that Rava was gazing westward on
background Shabbat eve to determine whether or not the sky was red and wheth-
וְ ָה ַתנְיָא ָּכל זְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ּ ְפנֵי ִמזְ ָרח:יה
ּ ָא ַמר ֵל
The cistern of an Alexandrian ship – בֹור ְס ִפינָ ה ֲא ֶל ְּכ ַסנְדְּ ִרית:ּ er or not it was twilight. Abaye said to Rava: Wasn’t it taught in a
Given the need for large quantities of potable water on
ִמי ָס ְב ַר ְּת ּ ְפנֵי:יה ּ ימין! ָא ַמר ֵל ִ ַמ ֲא ִד
baraita that twilight is from when the sun sets, as long as the
long sea journeys, a very large receptacle fashioned from ימין ִ ּ ָפנִים ַה ַּמ ֲא ִד,ִמזְ ָרח ַמ ָּמ ׁש? ל ֹא
eastern face of the sky is reddened by the light of the sun? Why,
animal hides was placed on the deck of the ship and filled ָר ָבא,יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי ָּ ִא.ֶאת ַה ִּמזְ ָרח
with water. From time to time, they would even allow it to
then, are you looking westward? Rava said to him: Do you hold
be filled with the rain that fell at sea. The Alexandrian ship ,יה ְל ַא ַ ּביֵ י דְּ ָקא דָּ אוֵ י ְל ִמזְ ָרח ּ ֵַחזְ י that the reference is actually to the eastern face of the sky? No, it is
mentioned here refers to a large ship that not only sails in ? ִמי ָס ְב ַר ְּת ּ ְפנֵי ִמזְ ָרח ַמ ָּמ ׁש:יה ּ ָא ַמר ֵל referring to the face of the sky that causes the east to redden, i.e.,
rivers or along the shore but also travels longer distances, e.g., ְימנֵיךָ ימין ֶאת ַה ִּמזְ ָרח! וְ ִס ִ ּ ָפנִים ַה ַּמ ֲא ִד the west. Some say a different version of that incident. Rava saw
from Alexandria to Rome. that Abaye was gazing eastward. He said to him, do you hold that
.ותא ָ ְַּכו
the reference is to the actual eastern face of the sky? The reference
is to the face of the sky that causes the east to redden, i.e., the west.
And your mnemonic is a window, as it is on the wall opposite the
window that one can see how much sunlight is shining through.
ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשּיְ ַה ֵּלךְ ָא ָדם:אֹומרֵ ַר ִ ּבי נְ ֶח ְמיָ ה With regard to that which was taught in the baraita that Rabbi
ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ִּת ׁ ְש ַקע ַה ַח ָּמה ֲחצִ י ִמיל – ָא ַמר Neĥemya says: The duration of twilight is the time it takes for a
ָהרֹוצֶ ה ֵל ַידע ׁ ִשיעוּרֹו ׁ ֶשל:ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א person to walk half a mil after the sun sets. Rabbi Ĥanina said:
One who wants to know the precise measure of Rabbi Neĥemya’s
,ֹאש ַה ַּכ ְר ֶמל
ׁ ַר ִ ּבי נְ ֶח ְמיָ ה יַ ּנ ִַיח ַח ָּמה ְ ּבר
twilight should do the following: Leave the sun at the top of Mount
וְ זֶ ה ּו ׁ ִשיעוּרֹו,וְ יֵ ֵרד וְ יִ ְט ּבֹול ַ ּבּיָ ם וְ יַ ֲע ֶלה Carmel, as when one is standing on the seashore he can still see the
.ׁ ֶשל ַר ִ ּבי נְ ֶח ְמיָ ה top of Mount Carmel in sunlight, and descend and immerse him-
self in the sea, and emerge,n and that is Rabbi Neĥemya’s measure
of the duration of twilight.
162 Perek II . 35a . הל ףד. קרפ ׳ב
notes
, ָהרֹוצֶ ה ִל ְראֹות ְ ּב ֵא ָר ּה ׁ ֶשל ִמ ְריָ ם:ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא Because of its similarity to Rabbi Ĥanina’s statement, the Gemara
cites that which Rabbi Ĥiyya said: One who wants to see Miriam’s Miriam’s well – ב ֵא ָר ּה ׁ ֶשל ִמ ְריָ ם:ּ ְ Miriam’s well
ֹאש ַה ַּכ ְר ֶמל וְ יִ צְ ּ ֶפה וְ יִ ְר ֶאה ְּכ ִמין ְּכ ָב ָרה
ׁ יַ ֲע ֶלה ְלר was the source of water for the Jews in the
ַמ ְעיָ ן: ָא ַמר ַרב. וְ זֹו ִהיא ְ ּב ֵא ָר ּה ׁ ֶשל ִמ ְריָ ם,ַ ּבּיָ ם well,n which accompanied the Jewish people throughout their so- desert. It was attributed to Miriam because
journ in the desert, should do the following: He should climb to the verse relating her death (Numbers 20:1) is
ַּ ַה ִּמ
. וְ זֶ ה ּו ְ ּב ֵא ָר ּה ׁ ֶשל ִמ ְריָ ם,יט ְל ֵטל – ָטהֹור
the top of Mount Carmel and look out, and he will see a rock that followed immediately by the verse: “And there
looks like a sieve in the sea, and that is Miriam’s well. Rav said: A was no water for the congregation” (Numbers
spring that is portable, i.e., that moves from place to place, is ritu- 20:2). According to rabbinic tradition, the well
ally pure and is regarded as an actual spring and not as drawn water. was a rock that rolled and accompanied Is-
rael wherever they went in the desert. Other
And what is a movable spring? It is Miriam’s well.
sources state that Miriam’s well is now located
ֵ ּבין ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות דְּ ַר ִ ּבי:ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: During Rabbi Yehuda’s twi- in the center of the Sea of Galilee.
ימא ְל ַר ִ ּבי ָ ְל ַמאן? ִא ֵיל.טֹוב ִלין ּבֹו ְ יְ הו ָּדה ּכ ֲֹהנִים light, ritually impure priests who want to immerse themselves Lest you say that the twilight of Rabbi Yosei
יְ הו ָּדה – ְס ֵפ ָקא הוּא! ֶא ָּלא ֵ ּבין ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות דְּ ַר ִ ּבי during the day to become ritually pure, so that sunset will follow is subsumed within, etc. – ֵ ּבין:ימא ָ ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת
immersion and they will be permitted to eat teruma, can still im- יש ְך ׁ ָשיֵ יךְ וכו׳ ֵ ה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות דְּ ַר ִ ּבי:ַ There were
ַ ׁ יֹוסי ֵמ
.טֹוב ִלין ּבֹו
ְ יֹוסי ּכ ֲֹהנִים
ֵ יְ הו ָּדה ְל ַר ִ ּבי those who explained that even the amora’im
merse themselves during that period. According to this opinion,
twilight is still considered to be day. The Gemara asks: In accor- did not know clearly whether twilight as de-
fined by Rabbi Yosei was proximate to twilight
dance with whose opinion is that true? If you say that it is in ac-
as determined by Rabbi Yehuda, or whether
cordance with Rabbi Yehuda’s own opinion, his opinion cited it was considerably later than that. Conse-
above is that twilight is a period of uncertainty. Therefore, one who quently, it was necessary for Rabbi Yoĥanan
immerses at that time may not eat teruma until after the sunset of to rule that the halakha is in accordance with
the following day. Rather, the reference is to twilight of Rabbi Rabbi Yosei in certain cases (Rosh).
Yehuda, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Priests can
immerse then, as Rabbi Yosei considers that time to still be day, and
sunset will follow.
– יֹוסיֵ ֵ ּבין ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות דְּ ַר ִ ּבי:ימא
ָ יטא! ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת ָ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש The Gemara asks: It is obvious that according to Rabbi Yosei they
דְּ ׁ ָש ֵלים: ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן,ישךְ ׁ ָשיֵ יךְ ִ ּב ְד ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדהַ ׁ ֵמ are immersing themselves during the day. The Gemara answers:
וַ ֲה ַדר ַמ ְת ִחיל ֵ ּבין,ֵ ּבין ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה Lest you say that the twilight of Rabbi Yosei is subsumed withinn
and takes place at the end of the twilight of Rabbi Yehuda. When
ֵ ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות דְּ ַר ִ ּבי
.יֹוסי
the twilight of Rabbi Yehuda ends, Rabbi Yosei’s twilight is also over.
It is already night, sunset of that day has already passed, and there
is no sunset to enable them to eat teruma. Therefore, he teaches us
that Rabbi Yehuda’s twilight ends, and only thereafter does Rab-
bi Yosei’s twilight begin.
ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי:יֹוחנָן
ָ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי Rabba bar bar Ĥana said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: The halakha
.יֹוסי ְל ִענְיַ ן ְּתרו ָּמה
ֵ וַ ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי,יְ הו ָּדה ְל ִענְיַ ן ׁ ַש ָ ּבת is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to
,ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה ְל ִענְיַ ן ׁ ַש ָ ּבת – ְלחו ְּמ ָרא the matter of Shabbat, and the halakha is in accordance with the
opinion of Rabbi Yosei with regard to the matter of teruma. The
– ימא ִל ְט ִב ָילה ָ ֲא ָבל ְל ִענְיַ ן ְּתרו ָּמה ַמאי ִהיא? ִא ֵיל
Gemara asks: Granted, concerning the statement that the halakha
!ְס ֵפ ָקא ִהיא is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to
the matter of Shabbat, as like all other cases of uncertainty, the
ruling is stringent with regard to Torah prohibitions. However,
with regard to teruma, what is the case under discussion? If you
say that it is referring to the matter of immersion, immersion is also
a case of uncertainty with regard to a Torah law. Why would the
ruling be more lenient in that case than in the case of Shabbat?
Perek II
Daf 35 Amud b
notes
דְּ ָלא ָא ְכ ִלי ּכ ֲֹהנִים ְּתרו ָּמה, ֶא ָּלא ַל ֲא ִכ ַילת ְּתרו ָּמהRather, it must be that the reference is with regard to eating teruma.
One star it is still day, etc. – כ ָֹוכב ֶא ָחד יֹום וכו׳:ּ
ֵ ַעד דְּ ׁ ָש ֵלים ֵ ּבין ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות דְּ ַר ִ ּביPriests may not eat teruma until twilight is completed, which
.יֹוסי The determinations with regard to the stars
according to Rabbi Yosei’s opinion is slightly later than it is accord- rely on the basic Torah principle: Night be-
ing to Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion. gins with the emergence of the stars. Indeed,
there is an opinion, cited in tractate Berakhot
, ּכ ָֹוכב ֶא ָחד – יֹום:ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל With regard to the period of twilight, Rav Yehuda said that Shmu-
in the Jerusalem Talmud, that when one sees
ַּתנְיָא נַ ִמי. ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה – ַליְ ָלה,ׁ ְשנַיִ ם – ֵ ּבין ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות el said: When one can see one star in the evening sky, it is still day;n two stars it is already night because the word
, ׁ ְשנַיִ ם – ֵ ּבין ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות,ֹוכב ֶא ָחד – יֹום ָ ּכ:ָה ִכי two stars, twilight; threeh stars, night. That was also taught in a stars, in the plural, denotes a minimum of two.
baraita: When one can see one star in the evening sky, it is still day; When there are two stars in the sky, the stars
דֹוליםִ ל ֹא ּכ ָֹוכ ִבים ְ ּג:יֹוסי ֵ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי.ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה – ַליְ ָלה
two stars, twilight; three stars, night. Rabbi Yosei said: This is have emerged. As far as the practical halakha
וְ ל ֹא ּכ ָֹוכ ִבים ְק ַט ּנִים ׁ ֶש ֵאין נִ ְר ִאין ֶא ָּלא,ַה ִּנ ְר ִאין ַ ּבּיֹום neither referring to large stars that are visible even during the day, is concerned, there are numerous opinions.
. ֶא ָּלא ֵ ּבינֹונִים,ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה nor to small stars that are visible only late at night. Rather, it is In the Jerusalem Talmud there is a comment
that certain stars, such as Venus, are visible
referring to medium-sized stars.
even during the day. They are not taken into
halakha consideration in the tally of stars that deter-
One star…three, etc. – ד…ש ל ׁ ָֹשה וכו׳
ְ ׁ ֹוכ ב ֶא ָח
ָ כ:ּ In prac- stars (Taz; Magen Avraham). On a fast day, medium-sized stars are mine night.
tice, night begins when three small stars are visible, even if sufficient to constitute the end of the fast, so as not to impose on
they are dispersed in the sky (Mishna Berura) because we are the public (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 5:4; Sefer Zera’im,
not considered experts in the parameters of medium-sized Hilkhot Terumot 7:2; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 235:1).
ַמה ּנ ֲַע ֶ ׂשה ָל ֶהם:יאל ֵ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: What shall we do to the
ְיעין וְ ׁש ְֹוב ִתין – ִמ ּתֹוך
ִ ׁ ֶש ּת ְֹוק ִעין ו ְּמ ִר,ַל ַ ּב ְב ִלּיִ ים Babylonian Jews? They stray from the custom, as they sound a
background !יעין״?! ָהו ּו ְלה ּו ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ִ “ת ְֹוק ִעין ו ְּמ ִר ּ .יעין ִ ְמ ִר tekia and a terua, and they accept Shabbat during the terua, i.e.,
The plants [adanei ] – אדָּ אנֵי:ַ According to Rashi and upon hearing the blast of the terua. The Gemara asks about this:
יעין ִ ו ְּמ ִר,תֹוק ִעין
ְ ְ וְ חֹוזְ ִרין ו,ֹוק ִעין ְ ׁ ֶש ּת:ֶא ָּלא
other commentaries, the adanei mentioned here Do the Babylonians really sound only a tekia and a terua and no
are one of the mallow species. The mallow, Malva יהןֶ בֹותֵ יעין – ִמנְ ַהג ֲא ִ ֹוך ְמ ִר ְ וְ ׁש ְֹוב ִתין ִמ ּת more blasts? If so, there are only five blasts and not six, as it was
nicaeensis All., is a leafy annual plant, one variety of .יהן ֶ ִ ּב ֵיד taught in the baraita. Rather, the correct version is: They sound
which is indigenous to Israel. The mallow plant is
a tekia, and they again sound a tekia, and then they sound a
common on roadsides and in fields throughout the
Middle East. The round leaf of the mallow is slightly
terua, and they accept Shabbat during the terua. They do so
split, like the palm of a hand. The leaf adjusts its posi- because they continue the custom of their fathers that was
tion during daylight hours and, as a rule, its wider sur- handed down to them.
face faces in the direction of the sun. Apparently, this
phenomenon can also be observed on cloudy days. – ׁ ְשנִּיָה:יה
ּ יה ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ְל ַרב יִ צְ ָחק ְ ּב ֵר ּ ַמ ְתנֵי ֵל Rav Yehuda taught to Rav Yitzĥak, his son: The second blast
ְּכ ַמאן? ל ֹא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן וְ ל ֹא.ְל ַה ְד ִליק ֶאת ַה ֵּנר that is sounded before Shabbat is to inform people to light the
ישית ְל ַה ְד ִליק ִ ׁ ׁ ְש ִל:ָשיא! ֶא ָּלא ׂ ִ ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ַה ּנ light. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did
he say this? It is neither in accordance with the opinion of Rab-
. ְּכ ַמאן? ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן,ֶאת ַה ֵּנר
bi Natan nor in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda
HaNasi. Rather, certainly he told him that the third blast is in
order to inform people to light the light, and in accordance with
whose opinion did he say this? It is in accordance with the opinion
of Rabbi Natan.
notes
The third is to remove phylacteries – ישית ַל ֲחלֹוץ ְּת ִפ ִּילין
ִ ׁ ש ִל:
ְ ׁ To a to this opinion, which is the accepted halakha, even though one
certain extent, the emphasis on phylacteries is connected to the does not don phylacteries on Shabbat, there is no serious prohibi-
dispute between Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus and his son with re- tion against wearing them on Shabbat (Rav Nissim Gaon, based on
gard to the significance of removing phylacteries with the advent of the Jerusalem Talmud).
Shabbat. The opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and apparently that of Rabbi
Natan, is that there is no urgency to remove the phylacteries, and And he accepts Shabbat – וְ ׁש ֵֹובת: In other words, from that point
Common mallow whose leaves follow the direction of the sun one may begin Shabbat while still donning phylacteries. According on, Shabbat has begun for all (Ran).
ַּ ֹופר ִמ
יט ְל ֵטל וַ ֲחצֹוצְ רֹות ֵאינָ ם ָ ׁש:וְ ָה ַתנְ יָ א The Gemara asks with regard to this last halakha: Wasn’t it taught
, ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א:)(יֹוסי
ֵ יט ְל ְט ִלין! ָא ַמר ַרב ַּ ִמ in a baraita that the shofar may be moved on Shabbat, and the
יה
ּ ָא ַמר ֵל. ָּכאן – ְ ּבצִ ּבוּר,ָּכאן – ְ ּביָ ִחיד trumpets may not be moved? Rav Yosei said: This is not diffi-
cult, as one could say that here, where moving a shofar was permit-
הֹואיל וְ ָראוּי
ִ – ו ְּביָ ִחיד ְל ַמאי ֲחזֵ י:ַא ַ ּביֵ י
ted, it is referring to a shofar belonging to an individual. Because
ְלגַ ַּמע ּבֹו ַמיִ ם it has a use even on Shabbat, it may be moved. There, where
moving a shofar was prohibited, it is referring to a shofar that be-
longs to a community. Because it has no use on Shabbat, it is,
therefore, considered set-aside [muktze]. Abaye said to him: And
in the case of an individual, for what permitted action is a shofar
fit to be used on Shabbat? It is fit for use since it is suitable to give
water with it
background
You have rendered your statement subject to circumstances – room for leniency or stringency, the concern remains that if the
נָ ַת ָּת דְּ ָב ֶריךָ ְל ׁ ִשיעו ִּרין: This expression appears throughout the standards are subject to change, the authority of the halakhic
Talmud as a rationale for rejecting a halakha that does not determination will be undermined. Therefore, halakhot are
include fixed parameters. Although in certain cases it is pos- established with fixed parameters without reference to specific
sible that, due to the rationale for a specific halakha, there is circumstances.
ִּכ ְד ַרב,ֹופר – נַ ִמי ֲחצֹוצְ רֹות ָ ּו ַמאי ׁש However, this explanation raises a slight difficulty with regard to the state-
ָהנֵי ְּת ָלת: דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א.ִח ְסדָּ א ment that one may move neither a shofar nor a trumpet. There was no
יש ַּת ּנִי ׁ ְש ַמיְ יה ּו ִמ ִּכי ֲח ַרב ֵ ּבית ֵּ ִמ
ְ ׁ ילי ִא need to mention the trumpet. If one may not move a shofar, certainly he
may not move a trumpet. However, it can be explained as follows: What
ֹופ ָרא
ָ ׁש,ֹופ ָרא ָ ֲחצֹוצְ ָר ָתא ׁש:ַה ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש
is the shofar mentioned in this baraita? It refers to trumpets, in accor-
ְל ַמאי נָ ְפ ָקא ִמ ָּינ ּה – ְל ׁש ָֹופר.ֲחצֹוצְ ָר ָתא dance with the statement of Rav Ĥisda, as Rav Ĥisda said: These three
.ֹאש ַה ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה ׁ ׁ ֶשל ר objects, their names changed since the Holy Temple was destroyed.
background That which was called trumpet was called shofar in later generations, and
Willow and tzaftzafa – ע ָר ָבה וְ צַ ְפצָ ָפה:ֲ Even though that which was called shofar was called trumpet in later generations. The
the Talmud provides several distinguishing charac- baraita that was cited employed the style that switches trumpet and shofar,
teristics of both a willow and a tzaftzafa, scholars and they were mentioned in that order. Incidentally, the Gemara asks:
disagree with regard to their identity. Apparently, What is the practical halakhic difference whether a shofar is called shofar
both belong to the species of willow called Salix, or trumpet? The Gemara answers: It is significant with regard to the ha-
and they are both short trees that grow quickly.
lakhot of shofar of Rosh HaShana. On Rosh HaShana one fulfills his
Both come in many variations, and there are even
trees that are a hybrid of the two.
obligation only by sounding a shofar. If one comes today and asks what
instrument he should use to sound the requisite blasts, he should be told
to use a trumpet.
ְל ַמאי. צַ ְפצָ ָפה ֲע ָר ָבה, ֲע ָר ָבה צַ ְפצָ ָפהThe second object whose name was changed: That which was called wil-
. נָ ְפ ָקא ִמ ָּינ ּה – ְללו ָּלבlow [arava] was called in later generations tzaftzafa, and that which was
b
called tzaftzafa was called willow. Here too the Gemara asks: What is
the practical halakhic difference that emerges from the name change?
The Gemara answers: With regard to the mitzva of the four species, re-
ferred to by the name of one of the species, as taking the palm branch, as
Willow branch with pointed leaves, Salix acmophylla Boiss one of the four species is a willow branch, not a tzaftzafa.
notes
This is Rabbi Neĥemya – הא ַר ִ ּבי נְ ֶח ְמיָ ה:ָ Rabbi Neĥemya’s opin- ness and it is set aside from use on Shabbat. Apparently, Rabbi
ion, which is the most stringent with regard to the halakhot of Neĥemya’s position is based on an alternative understanding
set-aside, is very different from the mainstream understanding of set-aside. In his opinion, objects are set aside to reinforce
of this concept. Generally speaking, the category of set-aside the restriction against carrying out on Shabbat, so that one
applies to an object whose use is prohibited on Shabbat. Due will not come to carry objects from one domain to another
Tzaftzafa to that prohibition, one removes that object from his conscious- (Rambam).
Perek II
Daf 36 Amud b
notes
.נָשים ֵּ ִ ְל ַמאי נָ ְפ ָקא ִמ ָּינ ּה – ְלגWhat is the practical halakhic difference that emerges from this
ִ ׁ יטי
Of women’s bills of divorce – נָשים ִ ׁ יטי
ֵ ִלג:ְ When writing a bill
change of names? It is in the area of women’s bills of divorce.n
of divorce [get], the halakha requires that the names of the
With regard to bills of divorce, special care is devoted to ensuring people, their nicknames, and the name of the place where the
that the name of the place where the bill is written is not altered. divorce takes place be written as accurately as possible. This is
Therefore, it is important to be aware that Babylon underwent a to prevent any reason for invalidating the document. Therefore,
name change in later generations. it is vitally important to determine the precise name of that par-
הדרן עלך במה מדליקין ticular place. Consequently, many commentaries understand
that the discussion here is about the relationship of Bursif to
Babylon. Babylon was a center of Torah study, and the Babylo-
nian communities adopted the custom of Eretz Yisrael and did
not require a messenger who delivered a bill of divorce from
Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael to testify that he was present when
the bill of divorce was properly drafted. Below is a picture of
the archaeological remains of the city of Babylon, which, at its
height, extended over both banks of the Euphrates River. Over
the course of generations, the city center moved from the right
side of the river to Bursif on its left side.
The nature of the mitzva of kindling the Shabbat lights is the fundamental problem
that was addressed in this chapter. It was clearly resolved in one direction. The
conclusion was that the Shabbat lights essentially have a functional purpose: To
introduce light into the experience of delighting in Shabbat, to enhance the at-
mosphere, and to make partaking in the festive Shabbat meal more comfortable.
Therefore, it was concluded that the oil suitable for kindling the Shabbat lights must
provide a clear, consistent glow. Although there were Sages who sought to restrict
the use of certain oils in an attempt to further enhance the stature of the mitzva,
their opinions were not incorporated into the ultimate halakhic ruling. Certain oils
and wicks were ultimately prohibited either because they do not provide effective
illumination or because their use is liable to result in the desecration of Shabbat.
The comprehensive discussion of the Hanukkah lights found in this chapter, which,
in effect, included all the halakhot of Hanukkah, underscored the role of the Shabbat
lights. The conclusion was that, in virtually every matter, there is a contrast between
Hanukkah lights and Shabbat lights. The objective of the mitzva to kindle the Shabbat
lights is to illuminate. The mitzva of kindling the Hanukkah lights has no such practi-
cal objective; the mitzva is the act of kindling itself. The Shabbat lights are kindled so
that the entire family can derive benefit from them. It is prohibited to derive benefit
from the Hanukkah candles at all. Consequently, the Shabbat lamp must be equipped
with materials that burn clearly and consistently. There is no such requirement for the
Hanukkah candles. Their sole purpose is to publicize the miracle of Hanukkah.
Although the halakha has determined that the essence of the Shabbat lights lies in
their practical function, the Sages, in a series of aggadic statements, enhanced the
stature of the mitzva and its symbolic essence, transforming it into a manifestation
of the very sanctity of Shabbat.
169
And he [Moses] said to them: This is what the Lord
meant: Tomorrow is a day of rest, a holy Shabbat of
the Lord. Bake what you would bake and boil what
you would boil, and all that is left put aside to be kept
Introduction to
Perek III
until morning.
(Exodus 16:23)
Cooking on Shabbat is explicitly prohibited in the Torah, and this prohibited labor
is listed among the thirty-nine primary categories of labor prohibited on Shabbat.
Since cooking is generally completed as Shabbat begins, the discussion of the labor
of cooking precedes the discussion of the other prohibited labors in the sequence
of this tractate.
This chapter occupies itself primarily with the clarification and precise definition of
the prohibited labor of cooking. That undertaking carries with it numerous problems.
Unlike other categories of labor, there is an interval between the action and the
desired result. It is a process, and therefore the question arises: At what stage in the
process can it be said that an act of cooking has been performed? Shall we say that
one who undertakes any action in the course of the entire process is considered to
have engaged in that prohibited labor? Or perhaps, that is the case only with regard
to one who initiates the process? Moreover, since the cooking process, once initi-
ated, continues without the need for any additional action by the one cooking, the
question can be raised: Is the mere act of placing an item on the fire defined as labor,
or is it considered an incomplete segment of that labor?
There is a question as to whether the essence of the labor of cooking is transforming
inedible into edible, unusable into usable, or whether it is the act of cooking that is
prohibited, independent of the result. In practical terms, is it prohibited to further
cook a cooked item?
The fundamental definition of cooking requires clarification and precision. In a
very general sense, one could posit that cooking or baking are activities that render
substances fit for use by means of heat. However, that leaves open the question of
whether any activity that renders a substance usable is considered cooking, or per-
haps, the essence of cooking is merely the softening or hardening of that substance?
It is also important to clarify whether the prohibited labor of cooking applies to all
substances, or perhaps only to food, or perhaps only to specific types of food. An-
other related question is whether the halakhic definition of cooking depends upon
some specific level of heat, e.g., the boiling point, or the intensity of the heat, or
perhaps its effect is of no significance. Additionally, it must be ascertained whether
the definition of cooking is restricted to the use of fire or whether it extends to other
sources of heat. Similarly, is there a distinction between natural sources of heat and
artificial ones in this context?
Most of these problems are resolved in various manners in this chapter. Some are
discussed in Chapter Four and some in Chapter Seven, which discusses the primary
categories of prohibited labor.
171
Perek III
Daf 36 Amud b
:נִיתין
ִ ִמדְּ ָק ָתנֵי ְּת ֵרי ָ ּב ֵבי ְ ּב ַמ ְת,ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע In order to resolve this dilemma, the Gemara suggests: Come and hear a
ַח ִּמין ֲא ָבל ל ֹא:אֹומ ִרים ְ ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי resolution to this from the fact that two sections were taught in our
ַח ִּמין:אֹומ ִרים ְ ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל,ַּת ְב ׁ ִשיל mishna. In the first, Beit Shammai say: Hot water but not cooked food.
And Beit Hillel say: Both hot water and cooked food. And in the second,
נֹוט ִלין
ְ :אֹומ ִרים ְ ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי.וְ ַת ְב ׁ ִשיל
Beit Shammai say: One may remove it but may not return it. And Beit
:אֹומ ִרים ְ ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל,ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ַמ ֲחזִ ִירין Hillel say: One may even return it. Granted, if you say that when we
ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ַל ׁ ּ ְשהֹות.ַאף ַמ ֲחזִ ִירין learned in the mishna that one may not place it means that it is prohibited
ִּכ ָירה ׁ ֶש ִה ִּסיקו ָּה ַ ּב ַ ּק ׁש:ְּתנַן – ָה ִכי ָק ָתנֵי to leave it; in that case, the mishna is teaching as follows: With regard to
ַ ּב ֶ ּג ֶפת,יה ַּת ְב ׁ ִשיל ָ ו ַּב ְ ּג ָב ָבא – ַמ ׁ ְש ִהין ָע ֶל a stove that was lit with straw or with rakings, one may leave cooked
ו ָּב ֵעצִ ים – ל ֹא יַ ׁ ְש ֶהא ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ גְ רֹוף אֹו ַעד food on it. If it was lit with pomace or with wood, one may not leave the
cooked food on it until he sweeps the coals out while it is still day or
ו ָּמה ֵהן ַמ ׁ ְש ִהין? ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי,ׁ ֶשּיִ ֵּתן ֵא ֶפר
until he places ashes on it. And what may they leave? Beit Shammai say:
ו ֵּבית, ַח ִּמין ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ַּת ְב ׁ ִשיל:אֹומ ִרים ְ Hot water but not cooked food. And Beit Hillel say: One may leave both
יכי
ִ וְ ִכי ֵה. ַח ִּמין וְ ַת ְב ׁ ִשיל:אֹומ ִרים ְ ִה ֵּלל hot water and cooked food on it. And just as they disagree with regard
,דִּ ְפ ִליגִ י ְ ּב ַל ׁ ּ ְשהֹות – ּ ְפ ִליגִ י נַ ִמי ִ ּב ְל ַה ֲחזִ יר to leaving a pot on the stove, so too, they disagree with regard to wheth-
נֹוט ִלין ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ְ :אֹומ ִרים ְ ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי er or not it is permitted to return it to the stove. As Beit Shammai say:
. ַאף ַמ ֲחזִ ִירין:אֹומ ִרים ְ ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל,ַמ ֲחזִ ִירין One may take the pot from the stove on Shabbat but may not return it to
the stove at all. And Beit Hillel say: One may even return it.
halakha
Stove that was lit…with pomace and with wood – ִּכ ָירה any stove, even if it were lit with pomace or wood and even if the
…ב ֶ ּג ֶפת ו ָּב ֵעצִ ים
ּ ַ ש ִה ִּסיקו ָּה:
ֶ ׁ Before Shabbat, it is prohibited to place coals were neither swept nor covered with ashes before Shabbat,
a pot with food that would benefit from additional cooking on a as long as the food was cooked to the extent of the food of ben
stove that was lit with wood, pomace, sesame seed pulp, or olive- Drosai, which is half-cooked or, according to some, one-third cooked
pit pulp. One may do so if the coals were swept or if the coals were (see Mishna Berura). That is the accepted custom (Rema; Rambam
covered with ashes. This is according to Beit Hillel and Ĥananya. Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 3:4–5; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim
Some commentaries explain that it is permitted to place a pot on 253:1).
Perek III
Daf 37 Amud a
notes
,ימא ָל ְך ְל ַה ֲחזִ יר ְּתנַ ן ָ עֹול ם ֵא ָ ְל The Gemara rejects this proof. Actually, you can say that in the first
To return – ל ַה ֲחזִ יר:ְ Contrary to Rashi’s approach, some com-
ִּכ ָירה:יח ְּס ָרא וְ ָה ִכי ָק ָתנֵי ַ סֹורי ִמ
ֵ וְ ַח clause of the mishna we learned to returnn and the mishna is in-
mentaries emphasize that there is no concern lest one bury
the pot in the coals. However, the concern is that the inside ׁ ֶש ִה ִּסיקו ָּה ַ ּב ַ ּק ׁש ו ַּב ְ ּג ָב ָבא – ַמ ֲחזִ ִירין complete. A clause must be added to the mishna, and it teaches
of the stove will add heat even if the coals are swept or cov- the following: With regard to a stove that was lit with straw or
ַ ּב ֶ ּג ֶפת ו ָּב ֵעצִ ים – ל ֹא,יה ַּת ְב ׁ ִשיל ָ ָע ֶל
ered. In that case, placing a pot inside the oven on Shabbat rakings, one may return a pot of cooked food to it. If it was lit with
would be considered cooking on Shabbat. This would not יַ ֲחזִ יר ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ גְ רֹוף אֹו ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ ֵּתן ֶאת pomace or with wood, one may not return a pot to it until one
be the case if one places the pot atop the stove (Ramban). ַאף, ֲא ָבל ַל ׁ ּ ְשהֹות – ַמ ׁ ְש ִהין.ָה ֵא ֶפר sweeps the coals out while it is still day or until one covers the coals
ו ָּמה.ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָ ּגרוּף וְ ֵאינֹו ָקטוּם with ashes. However, to leave the pot on the flame on Shabbat, one
:אֹומ ִריםְ ֵהן ַמ ׁ ְש ִהין? ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי may leave it, even though it is not swept and not covered with
ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל,ַח ִּמין ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ַּת ְב ׁ ִשיל ashes. Through this addition, the continuation of the dispute can
be understood as follows: And what may they leave? Beit Shammai
וְ ַה ְך ֲחזָ ָרה. ַח ִּמין וְ ַת ְב ׁ ִשיל:אֹומ ִרים ְ
say: Hot water but not cooked food. And Beit Hillel say: Both
דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ְך – ָלאו דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ִהיא hot water and cooked food. Furthermore: And that return that I
לֹוקת ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי ו ֵּבית ֶ ֶא ָּלא ַמ ֲח said to you at the start of the mishna is not according to everyone.
נֹוט ִלין
ְ :אֹומ ִריםְ ִה ֵּלל; ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי Rather, it too is subject to a dispute between Beit Shammai and
ַאף:אֹומ ִריםְ ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל,וְ ל ֹא ַמ ֲחזִ ִירין Beit Hillel, as Beit Shammai say: One may remove but not return.
.ַמ ֲחזִ ִירין And Beit Hillel say: One may even return. The dilemma with re-
gard to the interpretation of the mishna has not been resolved.
דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶח ְל ּבֹו ָא ַמר ַרב,ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע Come and hear another resolution to this dilemma from that which
ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו:ָח ָמא ַ ּבר גּ ו ְּריָ א ָא ַמר ַרב Rabbi Ĥelbo said that Rav Ĥama bar Gurya said that Rav said:
.תֹוכ ּה – ָאסוּר ָ ֲא ָבל ְל,ֶא ָּלא ַעל ַ ּג ָ ּב ּה They only taught that placing is permitted with regard to a stove as
far as placing a pot atop it is concerned. However, placing a pot
– ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְל ַה ֲחזִ יר ְּתנַ ן
inside it is prohibited. Granted, if you say that we learned return-
ֶא ָּלא,ַהיְ ינ ּו דְּ ׁ ָשנֵי ֵ ּבין ּת ָֹוכ ּה ְל ַעל ַ ּג ָ ּב ּה ing in the mishna, that is why there is a halakhic difference be-
ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ַל ׁ ּ ְשהֹות ְּתנַן – ַמה ִּלי ּת ָֹוכ ּה tween placing a pot inside it and placing a pot atop it. If one returns
ַמה ִּלי ַעל ַ ּג ָ ּב ּה! ִמי ָס ְב ַר ְּת ַר ִ ּבי ֶח ְל ּבֹו it on Shabbat, placing it inside a stove that might have burning coals,
“ו ֵּבית:יפא ָק ֵאי ָ ישא ָק ֵאי? ַא ֵּס ָ ׁ ַא ֵר there is concern that Shabbat would be desecrated. Therefore, it was
וְ ָא ַמר.אֹומ ִרים ַאף ַמ ֲחזִ ִירין״ ְ ִה ֵּלל only permitted to place cooked food atop the stove. However, if
you say that we learned leaving in the mishna, what is the differ-
ַר ִ ּבי ֶח ְל ּבֹו ָא ַמר ַרב ָח ָמא ַ ּבר גּ ו ְּריָ א
ence to me whether it is inside the stove and what is the difference
ֲא ָבל, ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ַעל ַ ּג ָ ּב ּה:ָא ַמר ַרב to me whether it is atop it? Ultimately, he does nothing on Shabbat
.ּת ָֹוכ ּה – ָאסוּר with the hot ashes in the stove. The Gemara rejects this proof: Do
you think that Rabbi Ĥelbo is referring to the first clause of the
mishna? No, he is referring to the latter clause of the mishna,
which states: And Beit Hillel say that one may even return. And
with regard to this Rabbi Ĥelbo said that Rav Ĥama bar Gurya
said that Rav said: They only taught that one may return the
cooked food atop the stove; however, inside it is prohibited. If so,
there is still no resolution to the dilemma.
174 Perek III . 37a . זל ףד. קרפ ׳ג
halakha
, ׁ ְש ֵּתי ִּכירֹות ַה ַּמ ְת ִאימֹות:ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which was taught
in the Tosefta: In the case of two adjoining stoveshb that share a com- Two adjoining stoves – ש ֵּתי ִּכירֹות ַה ַּמ ְת ִאימֹות:
ְ ׁ If there
ַא ַחת ְ ּגרו ָּפה ו ְּקטו ָּמה וְ ַא ַחת ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ה are two adjoining stoves that share a common wall
ְ ּגרו ָּפה וְ ֵאינָ ּה ְקטו ָּמה – ַמ ׁ ְש ִהין ַעל mon wall, in one of them, the coals were swept or covered with ashes, and in one of them the coals are swept or covered
and in one the coals were not swept and not covered with ashes; the with ashes and in the other the coals are not swept or
וְ ֵאין ַמ ׁ ְש ִהין ַעל,ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ְ ּגרו ָּפה ו ְּקטו ָּמה
ruling with regard to leaving a pot atop them on Shabbat is as follows: covered with ashes, it is permitted to leave a pot atop
ו ָּמה.ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ה ְ ּגרו ָּפה וְ ֵאינָ ּה ְקטו ָּמה One may leave food atop the one that was swept or covered with the stove in which the coals are swept or covered with
וְ ל ֹא:אֹומ ִרים
ְ ֵהן ַמ ׁ ְש ִהין? ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי ashes, and one may not leave food atop the one that was not swept ashes, as per the baraita (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim
ַח ִּמין ֲא ָבל:אֹומ ִריםְ ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל,ְּכלוּם and not covered with ashes. And to the crux of the matter, what may 353:1, and in the comment of the Rema).
ָע ַקר – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ל ֹא.ל ֹא ַּת ְב ׁ ִשיל one leave? Beit Shammai say: Nothing at all. They dispute the halakha Taking and returning – נֹוט ִלין ו ַּמ ֲחזִ ִירין:
ְ On Shabbat,
ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה. דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר,יַ ֲחזִ יר cited above. And Beit Hillel say: One may leave hot water but not if one removed a pot of cooked food from a stove in
cooked food. However, if one removed the cooked dish from atop the which the coals were swept or covered with ashes or
ַח ִּמין:אֹומ ִרים ְ ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי,אֹומר ֵ a stove that was lit with straw and rakings, he is per-
stove, everyone, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, agrees that one may not
:אֹומ ִרים ּ
ְ ו ֵּבית ִה ֵלל,ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ַּת ְב ׁ ִשיל return it atop the stove; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. According
mitted to return the pot to the stove on Shabbat, as
long as the pot has not cooled off completely (Magen
:אֹומ ִריםְ ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי.ַח ִּמין וְ ַת ְב ׁ ִשיל to the tradition that he received, that is the issue disputed between Beit Avraham). This halakha is in accordance with Beit Hillel
ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל,נֹוט ִלין ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ַמ ֲחזִ ִירין ְ Shammai and Beit Hillel. Rabbi Yehuda says that the dispute is differ- and Ĥananya (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat
. ַאף ַמ ֲחזִ ִירין״:אֹומ ִרים ְ ent. Beit Shammai say: One may leave hot water on it but not cooked 3:10; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 353:2).
food. And Beit Hillel say: One may leave both hot water and cooked
food. Furthermore, Beit Shammai say: One may remove a pot from background
the stove on Shabbat but may not return it. And Beit Hillel say: One Two adjoining stoves – ש ֵּתי ִּכירֹות ַה ַּמ ְת ִאימֹות:
ְׁ
may even return it.h
;ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ַל ׁ ּ ְשהֹות ְּתנַ ן Granted, if you say that the case we learned in our mishna was with
ֶא ָּלא,נִיתין ַמ ּנִי – ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ִהיא ִ ַמ ְת regard to leaving the pot on the stove, in accordance with whose opin-
?נִיתין ַמ ּנִי
ִ ַמ ְת,ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ְל ַה ֲחזִ יר ְּתנַן ion is our mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ye-
huda. However, if you say that the case we learned in our mishna was
ִאי ַר ִ ּבי.ָלא ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה וְ ָלא ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר
with regard to returning the pot to the stove, in accordance with whose
,ֵמ ִאיר – ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ְל ֵבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי ַ ּב ֲח ָדא opinion is our mishna? It is neither in accordance with the opinion of
– ִאי ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה.ו ְּל ֵבית ִה ֵּלל ְ ּב ַת ְר ֵּתי Rabbi Yehuda nor with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. If you say that the Sketch of two adjoining stoves found on Masada, from the period of
!ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ְ ּגרו ָּפה ו ְּקטו ָּמה mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it is difficult the destruction of the Temple. On each one of the stoves there is room
for Beit Shammai in one respect. In our mishna, Beit Shammai permit for two pots.
some use of a stove on Shabbat; while according to Rabbi Meir in the
baraita, Beit Shammai prohibit any use. And for Beit Hillel it is difficult notes
in two respects. According to our understanding of the mishna, Beit He holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda in one
Hillel permit both hot water and cooked food, contrary to Rabbi Meir’s matter – ס ַבר ָל ּה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ַ ּב ֲח ָדא:ָ Even though this
version of their opinion as stated in the baraita. Similarly, in our mishna, phrasing appears often in the Talmud, it is not con-
Beit Hillel permit returning the pot to the stove, contrary to Rabbi sidered an optimal solution. It is only used when the
Meir’s version of their opinion. If you explain that our mishna is in ac- Gemara has no alternative. This solution does not an-
swer the question: In accordance with whose opinion
cordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the baraita, it is difficult is the mishna? The difficulty is that, without any basis,
with regard to the issue of sweeping the coals and covering them with the Gemara assumes the existence of a new opinion.
ashes. In the mishna, both Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai allow leaving There is another issue. The Gemara is certainly aware
it on a stove whose coals were not swept or covered with ashes. Accord- of a tanna who apparently shares this opinion, namely,
ing to Rabbi Yehuda in the baraita, apparently a stove whose coals are Ĥananya (see above 20a, p. 89, and 36b, p. 173). Why in
neither swept nor covered with ashes may not be used at all. Since this order to answer the question does the Gemara seek
other opinions? The rationale of the Gemara is that
interpretation leads to contradictions, it is preferable to explain the
Ĥananya’s opinion does not relate to the entire case in
mishna in accordance with the other approach, so that the mishna will the mishna but only to part of it. Therefore, the Gemara
at least correspond to one opinion. prefers the solution offered here (Rashba).
וְ ַת ָּנא, ְל ַה ֲחזִ יר ְּתנַן: ְימא ָלך ָ עֹולם ֵא ָ ְל This claim is rejected: Actually, you can say that the case we learned What is the halakha with regard to the allowance
to lean a cooked dish against it – מֹוך ָ ּב ּה
ְ מה ּו ִל ְס:ַ Ap-
,דִּ ַידן ָס ַבר ָל ּה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ַ ּב ֲח ָדא in our mishna was with regard to returning the pot to the stove, and
parently, this question was asked according to all opin-
ָס ַבר ָל ּה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי.יה ַ ּב ֲח ָדא ּ ו ָּפ ֵליג ֲע ֵל our tanna in the mishna holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda in ions. The question is relevant to each and every opinion
one matter,n and disagrees with him in one matter. He holds in ac- based on what each permits on Shabbat (Rashba).
,יְ הו ָּדה ַ ּב ֲח ָדא – ְ ּב ַח ִּמין וְ ַת ְב ׁ ִשיל
cordance with Rabbi Yehuda in one matter, with regard to the matter
– ו ָּפ ֵליג ֲע ֵל ּיה ַ ּב ֲח ָדא.נֹוט ִלין ו ַּמ ֲחזִ ִירין
ְ ְו of hot water and cooked food, and what may be taken from the stove
וְ ַאף, ַל ׁ ּ ְשהֹות:דְּ ִאילּ ּו ַּת ָּנא דִּ ַידן ָס ַבר and what may even be returned. And he disagrees with him in one
וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה,ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָ ּגרוּף וְ ָקטוּם matter: While our tanna in the mishna held that to leave a pot on a
– ָ ּגרוּף וְ ָקטוּם, ְ ּב ַל ׁ ּ ְשהֹות נַ ִמי:ָס ַבר stove is permitted even though it is not swept or covered with ashes,
. ִאי ָלא – ָלא,ִאין Rabbi Yehuda held: With regard to permitting one to leave a pot on
the stove as well, if the stove was swept or covered with ashes, yes,
it is permitted; if it was not swept or covered with ashes, no, it is
prohibited.
heated from the sides of the stove? The dilemma is: Was it only placing
a pot inside it and atop it that is prohibited, but to lean the pot against
it he may well do so? Or, perhaps, leaning is no different and it is
prohibited in every case.
זל ףד. ׳ג קרפ. Perek III . 37a 175
, ׁ ְש ֵּתי ִּכירֹות ַה ַּמ ְת ִאימֹות:ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which was taught
ַא ַחת ְ ּגרו ָּפה ו ְּקטו ָּמה וְ ַא ַחת ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ה in a baraita: If there are two adjoining stoves, one that was swept or
ְ ּגרו ָּפה ּו ְקט ּו ָמה – ַמ ׁ ְש ִהין ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי covered with ashes and one that was not swept and covered with ash-
es, one may leave cooked food atop the stove that is swept and covered
וְ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ָקא,ְ ּגרו ָּפה ו ְּקטו ָּמה
with ashes on Shabbat. Apparently, it is permitted to lean a pot on a stove
דִּ ְיל ָמא.יה ַה ְב ָלא ֵמ ִא ָיד ְך ּ ָס ֵליק ֵל that was not swept, even though heat rises to it from the other stove.
ׁ ָשאנֵי ָה ָתם – דְּ ֵכיוָ ן דְּ ִמידַּ ְליָ א ׁ ָש ֵּליט The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps that case of two adjoining stoves is dif-
.ָ ּב ּה ֲאוִ ָירא ferent. Since the pot is elevated, the air affects it and cools it. Therefore,
it is not comparable to actually leaning it against the stove.
דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב ָס ְפ ָרא ָא ַמר ַרב,ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע Come and hear another resolution to this dilemma from that which Rav
סֹומ ִכין
ְ – ְק ָט ָמ ּה וְ נִ ְת ַל ְ ּב ָתה:ִחּיָ יא Safra said that Rav Ĥiyya said: If there is a stove whose coals one cov-
,נֹוט ִלין ִמ ֶּמ ָּנה
ְ ְ ו,יה ָ ימין ָע ֶל
ִ ְ ו ְּמ ַקּי,ָל ּה ered with ashes on Shabbat eve and it subsequently reignited on Shabbat,
one may lean a pot against it, and leave cooked food on it, and remove
מֹוך
ְ ִל ְס: ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה.ו ַּמ ֲחזִ ִירין ָל ּה
food from it, and even return food to it. Conclude from this the follow-
. ל ֹא ְק ָט ָמ ּה – ָלא, ְק ָט ָמ ּה – ִאין,נַ ִמי ing with regard to leaning, as well: If he covered them with ashes, yes,
,‘נֹוט ִלין ִמ ֶּמ ָּנה׳ דְּ ָק ָתנֵי ְ יך
ְ ו ְּל ַט ֲע ִמ if he did not cover them with ashes, no, as the Gemara is speaking about
: ל ֹא ְק ָט ָמ ּה – ָלא?! ֶא ָּלא,ְק ָט ָמ ּה – ִאין a stove whose ashes were covered properly during the day. The Gemara
‘נֹוט ִלין׳ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַ‘מ ֲחזִ ִירין׳ ָה ָכאְ ,ְּתנָ א rejects this proof too. And according to your opinion, that which was
.ימין ִ ְסֹומ ִכין ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ְמ ַקּי
ְ ְּתנָ א:נַ ִמי taught: One may remove the food from it, would you say there too that
if he covered them, yes, and if he did not cover them, no? Everyone
agrees that it is permitted to take the pot off of the stove even if it is not
swept or covered with ashes. Rather, it must be understood that he taught
permission to remove the pot due to the fact that it taught permission to
return it. Here too, it taught permission to lean the pot due to the fact
that it taught permission to leave the pot on the stove. Consequently, a
conclusion cannot be drawn that leaning a pot on an unswept stove is
prohibited.
ִּכ ָירה:ַמאי ָהוֵ י ֲע ָל ּה? ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached with regard to this di-
סֹומ ִכיןְ – ׁ ֶש ִה ִּסיקו ָּה ַ ּב ֶ ּג ֶפת ו ָּב ֵעצִ ים lemma? Come and hear a resolution to this from that which was taught
ימין ֶא ָּלא ִאם ֵּכן ְ ּגרו ָּפה ִ ְ וְ ֵאין ְמ ַקּי,ָל ּה in the Tosefta: With regard to a stove that was lit with pomace or with
wood, one may lean a pot of cooked food against it;h however, one may
אֹו ׁ ֶש ָּנ ַתן,ּ ֶ ּג ָח ִלים ׁ ֶש ָע ְממו.ו ְּקטו ָּמה
not leave a pot inside it unless the stove is swept out or covered with
נְעֹורת ׁ ֶשל ּ ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתן דַּ ָ ּקה – ֲה ֵרי
ֶ יה ָ ָע ֶל ashes. Coals that dimmed or on which a strip of thinly beaten flax was
.ִהיא ִּכ ְקטו ָּמה placedh and the fire did not ignite, it is as if it were covered with ashes,
and one need not add more ashes to it. In any case, the conclusion is
drawn from here that one is permitted to lean a dish of cooked food
against a stove, even though it is not covered with ashes or swept out.
ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק ַ ּבר נַ ֲח ָמנִי ָא ַמר ַרב Rabbi Yitzĥak bar Naĥmani said that Rav Oshaya said: With regard to
ְק ָט ָמ ּה וְ הו ְּב ֲע ָרה ַמ ׁ ְש ִהין:אֹוש ְעיָ א ַׁ a stove that he covered with ashes and that reignited on Shabbat, one
,צֹור ָּכן
ְ יה ַח ִּמין ׁ ֶשהו ַּח ּמ ּו ָּכל ָ ָע ֶל may leave hot water that was already completely heated and cooked
food that was already completely cooked upon it. In that case, there is
.צֹור ּכֹו
ְ ישל ָּכל ֵ ּ ׁ וְ ַת ְב ׁ ִשיל ׁ ֶש ִ ּב
no need for additional cooking, and therefore there is no concern that
one might come to stoke the coals and ignite the fire.
halakha
Stove that was lit with pomace or with wood, one may lean a permitted (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 3:7; Shulĥan
pot of cooked food against it, etc. – ִּכ ָירה ׁ ֶש ִה ִּסיקו ָּה ַ ּב ֶ ּג ֶפת ו ָּב ֵעצִ ים Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 353:1).
סֹומ ִכין ָל ּה וכו׳:
ְ It is permitted to place a pot of cooked food against
the side of a stove that was lit with pomace and wood, even if the Coals that dimmed or on which a strip of thinly beaten flax
coals were not swept or covered with ashes. It is permitted to do was placed – נְעֹורת ׁ ֶשל ּ ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתן
ֶ יה ָ אֹו ׁ ֶש ָּנ ַתן ָע ֶל,ּג ָח ִלים ׁ ֶש ָע ְממו:ּ ֶ It is per-
so even on Shabbat itself (Rema). The Rambam and the Ramban mitted to leave a pot on a stove whose coals have dimmed or
prohibit doing so. In Shulĥan Arukh HaRav the ruling is that it is were covered by a strip of thinly beaten flax. This is the equivalent
appropriate to adopt the stringency of the second opinion. If the of being covered with ashes (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot
coals were swept or covered with ashes, everyone agrees that it is Shabbat 3:4).
ִּכ ָירה:יֹוחנָן
ָ ָא ַמר ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי Rav Sheshet said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: With regard to a stove
ׁ ֶש ִה ִּסיקו ָּה ַ ּב ֶ ּג ֶפת ו ָּב ֵעצִ ים ַמ ׁ ְש ִהין that was lit with pomace or with wood, one may leaveh hot water on
ְ יה ַח ִּמין ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא הו ַּח ּמ ּו ָּכל
צֹור ָּכן ָ ָע ֶל it even if the water has not yet been completely heated, and the same
is true for cooked food even if it was not yet completely cooked.
,צֹור ּכֹו
ְ ישל ָּכל ׂ ֵ ּ וְ ַת ְב ׁ ִשיל ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ִ ּב
However, if one removed the food from the stove, one may only re-
ָע ַקר – ל ֹא יַ ֲחזִ יר ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ גְ רֹוף אֹו ַעד turn it if he sweeps the coals out of the stove while it is still day, or if Broom branches in bloom
נִיתין ְל ַה ֲחזִ יר
ִ ַמ ְת: ָק ָס ַבר.ׁ ֶשּיִ ֵּתן ֵא ֶפר he places ashes on the coals. The reason for mentioning this halakha
ֲא ָבל ַל ׁ ּ ְשהֹות ַמ ׁ ְש ִהין ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי,ְּתנַן is because he holds that in our mishna we learned with regard to notes
.ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָ ּגרוּף וְ ֵאינֹו ָקטוּם returning the cooked food to the stove; however, with regard to leav- This case is identical to the previous one – ְהיְ ינ ּו ַהך:ַ This
ing a pot on top of the stove, if it was placed there while it was still day, statement is problematic. It is one thing to inquire about
one may leave it on the stove even if it is not swept and not covered a Sage who repeats himself, but where is the difficulty
with ashes. when one Sage says the exact same thing as another?
Perhaps the Gemara’s question is based on the fact that
ַל ׁ ּ ְשהֹות, ַּת ְרוַ ויְ יה ּו ְּתנָ נְ ִהי:ָא ַמר ָר ָבא Rava said: We already learnedn both aspects of Rav Sheshet’s halakha Rabba bar bar Ĥana failed to note in his statement that
and there is no need to teach us something that was already stated Rabbi Yoĥanan followed the approach of Rabbi Oshaya
תֹוך
ְ נֹותנִין ֶאת ַה ּ ַפת ְ ּב ְ ֵאין:ָּתנֵינָ א in this matter.
וְ ל ֹא ֲח ָר ָרה ַעל ַג ֵ ּּבי,ַה ַּתנּ וּר ִעם ֲח ׁ ֵש ָיכה explicitly in the mishna. We already learned that it is permitted to
leave a pot on the stove. One may not put bread into the oven at We already learned – תנָ נְ ִהי:ְּ This term challenges an
ָהא.נֶיה ָ ֶא ָּלא ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשּיִ ְק ְרמ ּו ּ ָפ,ֶ ּג ָח ִלים amora when he says something that apparently already
nightfall and may not place cake on top of coals unless there is
: ְל ַה ֲחזִ יר נַ ִמי ָּתנֵינָ א.נֶיה – ׁ ָש ֵרי ָ ָק ְרמ ּו ּ ָפ enough time before Shabbat that its surface will form a crust. How- appears in the mishna. It would have been more ap-
propriate for him to cite the mishna verbatim, thereby
. ַא ף ַמ ֲחזִ ִירין:אֹומ ִרים ְ ֵ ּבית ִה ֵּלל ever, if its surface already formed a crust before Shabbat, it is permit- establishing the halakha in accordance with the mishna.
וְ ַעד ָּכאן ָלא ָק ׁ ָשר ּו ֵ ּבית ִה ֵּלל ֶא ָּלא ted to leave it even in an oven that was not swept and not covered with In general, the Gemara answers by delineating the novel
ֲא ָבל ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה,ִ ּב גְ רו ָּפה ּו ְקט ּו ָמה coals. Likewise, we also already learned in our mishna the second element in the amora’s statement. Or, as in this instance,
– וְ ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת נַ ִמי.ְ ּגרו ָּפה ו ְּקטו ָּמה ל ֹא aspect of Rav Sheshet’s halakha that it is permitted to return the pot Rav Sheshet used deduction and logic to teach some-
to the fire, as Beit Hillel say: One may even return. And it is clear that thing that was not apparent from the mishna.
.נִיתין ָק ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן ִ דִּ ּיו ָּקא דְּ ַמ ְת
Beit Hillel only went so far as permitting the return of the pot in a
stove that is swept or covered with ashes; however, in one that is not
swept or covered with ashes, they did not permit doing so. If so, Rav
Sheshet’s statement is superfluous. The Gemara answers: Rav Shesh-
et also only came to teach us the inference from the mishna and not
to introduce new halakhot.
זל ףד: ׳ג קרפ. Perek III . 37b 177
background
ִּכ ָירה:יֹוחנָ ן ָ ָא ַמר ַרב ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: With regard
Fried fish [kasa deharsena]– ָּכ ָסא to a stove that was lit with pomace or with wood, on Shabbat eve
דְּ ַה ְר ְסנָ א: Fried fish was a popular dish יה ַּת ְב ׁ ִשיל ָ ׁ ֶש ִה ִּסיקו ָּה ַ ּב ֶ ּג ֶפת ו ָּב ֵעצִ ים ַמ ׁ ְש ִהין ָע ֶל
in Babylonia and was commonly eaten צֹור ָּכן וַ ֲא ִפיל ּו
ְ צֹור ּכֹו וְ ַח ִּמין ׁ ֶשהו ַּח ּמ ּו ָּכל
ְ ישל ָּכל ֵ ּ ׁ ׁ ֶש ִ ּב one may leave a cooked dish that was already completely cooked,
by the poor. This dish is made primar- as well as hot water that was already completely heated, upon it and
יה ַההוּא ִמדְּ ַר ָ ּבנָ ן ְל ַרב ּ ֲא ַמר ֵל.ִמצְ ַט ֵּמק וְ יָ ֶפה לֹו
ily from small, flour-coated salted fish, even if it is the type of food that when left for a prolonged period of
fried in oil with vinegar. The origin of the .ּ ָהא ַרב ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל ְ ּד ָא ְמ ִרי ַּת ְרוַ ויְ יהו:ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר יְ הו ָּדה time on the fire it shrivels and improves. There is no concern lest one
word harsana is not clear. It is probably !ִמצְ ַט ֵּמק וְ יָ ֶפה לֹו ָאסוּר come to stoke the coals. The Gemara relates that one of the Sages
connected to the Syrian word harsana, said to Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda: Isn’t it Rav and Shmuel who both
which is a type of fish that lives among
say, contrary to your opinion, that if food shrivels and improves
the rocks in the water.
when placed on the stove, leaving it on there on Shabbat is prohibited?
language
Dishes made of figs [lafda] – ל ְפ ָדא:ָ יֹוסף ָא ַמר ֵ ַא ּט ּו ֵלית ֲאנָ א יָ ַדע דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב:יה ּ ָא ַמר ֵל Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said to him: Is that to say that I do not know
This is the Greek word λοπάς, λοπάδος, ! ִמצְ ַט ֵּמק וְ יָ ֶפה לֹו ָאסוּר:ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל that Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If food
lopas, genitive lopados, a prepared dish.
יה
ּ ֲא ַמר ֵל.יֹוחנָ ן ָק ָא ִמינָ א ָ ִּכי ָק ָא ִמינָ א ָל ְך – ְל ַר ִ ּבי shrivels and improves when left on the fire for an extended period,
Others think the origin is λέπιδι, lapidi, it is prohibited to leave it there? When I said to you that it is permit-
which means a dish made of figs. ַא ּתוּן דִּ ְמ ָק ְר ִב ּית ּו ְל ַרב:ישן ְל ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי
ָ ׁ ַרב עו ְּק ָבא ִמ ֵּמ
ted to leave it, I said it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi
נַע ֵביד ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי
ֲ – ֲאנַן,ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל – ֲע ִביד ּו ְּכ ַרב ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל Yoĥanan. Rav Ukva from Meishan said to Rav Ashi: You, who are
.יֹוחנָן
ָ closen to the place where Rav and Shmuel lived, act in accordance
with the ruling of Rav and Shmuel; we will act in accordance with
the ruling of Rabbi Yoĥanan.
ָהא: ַמה ּו ַל ׁ ּ ְשהֹות? ָא ַמר ֵל ּיה:יֹוסף ֵ ָא ַמר ֵל ּיה ַא ַ ּביֵ י ְל ַרב Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What is the ruling with regard to leaving
ֵיה דְּ ַרב
ּ ּ ינמִ ר בּ ַ : יהּ ל ֵ רמ ַ אָ .ילכֵ א ָ ְיה ו
ּ ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ַמ ׁ ְשה ּו ֵל food on the stove from Shabbat eve? Rav Yosef said to him: Didn’t
דְּ ֵכיוָ ן דִּ ְמסו ָּּכן הוּא – ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת נַ ִמי ׁ ָש ֵרי,יְ הו ָּדה they leave food for Rav Yehuda and he ate it? Apparently, it is permit-
ted to do so. Abaye said to him: No proof can be brought from Rav
,ּ ְ ּבסו ָּרא ַמ ׁ ְשהו:יה ּ ִלי וְ ָלךְ ַמאי? ֲא ַמר ֵל,יה ּ ְל ֶמ ֱע ַבד ֵל Yehuda. Since he is in danger, as he is sick and needs hot food, even
עֹוב ָדא ֲהוָ ה ו ַּמ ׁ ְשה ּו ָ ְּדְּ ָהא ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק ָמ ֵרי ד on Shabbat as well, it is permitted to heat up food for him. How-
יה דְּ ַרב הוּנָ א ּ ימנָ א ַק ֵּמ ְ ָק ֵא: ֲא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי.יה וְ ָא ֵכיל ּ ֵל ever, for me and you as well as for all other people what is the ruling?
יה ָּכ ָסא דְּ ַה ְר ְסנָ א וַ ֲא ַכל וְ ָלא יָ ַד ֲענָ א ִאי ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ּ וְ ׁ ָש ִהין ֵל Rav Yosef said to Abaye: In Sura, they leave food on the stove from
ִאי ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ֵכיוָ ן דְּ ִאית,דְּ ָק ָס ַבר ִמצְ ַט ֵּמק וְ יָ ֶפה לֹו מו ָּּתר Shabbat eve, as Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak from Sura was a master of
.יחא ִמצְ ַט ֵּמק וְ ַרע לֹו הוּא ָ יה ִמ ּ ֵ ּב good deeds who was meticulous in his performance of mitzvot, and
they would leave food for him and he would eat it. Rav Ashi said: I
stood before Rav Huna and saw that they left fish fried in
oil [kasa deharsena]b for him atop the stove on Shabbat, and he ate
the fish on Shabbat. And I do not know if his reason for doing so is
because he holds that it is permitted to leave food that shrivels and
improves when left on the stove for a long time. Or, if it is because
this dish has flour in it, and therefore it shrivels and deteriorates.
Everyone agrees that it is permitted to leave food atop the stove that
shrivels and deteriorates.
ִמצְ ַט ֵּמק וְ ַרע, ִמצְ ַט ֵּמק וְ יָ ֶפה לֹו – ָאסוּר:ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן Rav Naĥman said: Food that shrivels and improves when left on the
– יחא ָ יה ִמּ ּכֹל דְּ ִאית ֵ ּב: ְּכ ָל ָלא דְּ ִמ ְּל ָתא.לֹו – מו ָּּתר stove, it is prohibited to leave it on the stove; if it shrivels and dete-
דְּ ַאף ַעל,יפ ָּתא ְ ְל ַבר ִמ ַּת ְב ׁ ִשיל דְּ ִל,ִמצְ ַט ֵּמק וְ ַרע לֹו riorates, it is permitted. The principle in this matter is as follows:
Any food that has flour in it shrivels and deteriorates, except for a
וְ ָהנֵי.יחא ִמצְ ַט ֵּמק וְ יָ ֶפה לֹו הוּא ָ יה ִמ ּ ַ ּגב דְּ ִאית ֵ ּב cooked turnip dish, which, even though it has flour, shrivels and
– יה ִ ּב ְ ׂש ָראּ ֲא ָבל ֵלית ֵ ּב,יה ִ ּב ְ ׂש ָרא ּ ִמ ֵּילי – דְּ ִאית ֵ ּב improves. And this applies only when there is meat in it, but when
יה ִ ּב ְ ׂש ָרא נַ ִמי ָלא ּ וְ ִכי ִאית ֵ ּב.ִמצְ ַט ֵּמק וְ ַרע לֹו הוּא there is no meat in it, it shrivels and deteriorates. And when there
ֲא ָבל ָק ָב ֵעי ָל ּה,אֹור ִחין ְ ֲא ַמ ַרן ֶא ָּלא דְּ ָלא ָק ָב ֵעי ָל ּה ְל is meat in it, too, we only said that it shrivels and improves when one
– יסא וְ ַת ְמ ֵרי ָ ְ ָל ְפ ָדא דַּ י.אֹור ִחין – ִמצְ ַט ֵּמק וְ ַרע לֹו ְ ְל does not need it for guests, but when one needs it for guests, it
.ִמצְ ַט ֵּמק וְ ַרע ָל ֶהן shrivels and deteriorates because it is not polite to serve guests
overcooked food, which is not aesthetic. Furthermore: Leaving dish-
es made of figs [lafda],l porridge, or dates on the stove causes them
to shrivel and deteriorate.
notes
You who are close – א ּתוּן דִּ ְמ ָק ְר ִב ּית ּו:ַ Rav Ukva is saying that, in fact, this with him. Nevertheless, for those who lived near the towns of Rav and
is permitted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan. Indeed, Shmuel, it was appropriate that they follow their custom for two reasons:
the Sages rule in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan, even First, because Rav and Shmuel’s opinion is stricter; and second, because
in disputes with Rav and Shmuel, especially when other Sages agree it was the local custom (Rabbeinu Ĥananel).
ישל ֵ ּ ׁ ַּת ְב ׁ ִשיל ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ִ ּב:יהא ָ ָק ָתנֵי ִמ In any event, it was taught in that baraita that in the case of cooked food background
ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְל ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר,צֹור ּכֹו ְ ָּכל that was not completely cooked, if it was cooked unwittingly, it is permit- Meat cut into small pieces – ב ָ ׂשר ָטרוּף:
ּ ָ Some
,קֹודם ְ ּגזֵ ָרהֶ – ָּכאן:יִ צְ ָחק ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ted. Granted, according to the opinion of Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak, this explain that the meat was chopped finely to be
is not difficult. Although there is an apparent contradiction, as he prohibits mixed into a soup or a stew. Therefore, the more
ֶא ָּלא ַר ָ ּבה וְ ַרב.ָּכאן – ְל ַא ַחר ְ ּגזֵ ָרה the meat is cooked, the better it mixes into the
eating from a pot that was unwittingly forgotten on the stove, and the ba-
קֹודם ֶ ִאי,ית ָירא ֵּ יֹוסף דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי ְל ֶהֵ raita prohibits it only when it was left intentionally, he could explain the dish (Arukh).
– ִאי ְל ַא ַחר ְ ּגזֵ ָרה,ְ ּגזֵ ָרה – ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ֵמזִ יד following: Here, the baraita, which permits eating it, was taught prior to
.ַק ׁ ְשיָ א נַ ִמי ׁשֹוגֵ ג! ַק ׁ ְשיָ א the decree that was issued lest a person act deceitfully, whereas there, the
halakha of Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak, was taught after the decree, which
prohibited eating food even if it was forgotten unwittingly. However, ac-
cording to the opinion of Rabba and Rav Yosef, who said to interpret the
phrase permissively, whether he left it on the stove unwittingly or he did
so intentionally, it is difficult. If this baraita was taught prior to the decree,n
the ruling with regard to when he did so intentionally is difficult, as Rabba
and Rav Yosef permit eating the food even in that case. If this baraita was
taught after the decree, the ruling with regard to when he did so unwit-
tingly is also difficult, as Rabba and Rav Yosef permit eating the food in
every case. No answer was found to this objection and the Gemara con-
cludes: It is indeed difficult.
חל ףד. ׳ג קרפ. Perek III . 38a 179
notes
ַמאי ְ ּגזֵ ָיר ָּתא? דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב יְ ה ּו ָדה With regard to the matter itself, the Gemara asks: What is the decree that
One who transgressed and left – ע ַבר וְ ׁ ִש ָהה:ָ Ac- was discussed above in terms of the distinction between before the decree
cording to this version of the text, the question itself ַ ּבר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא ָא ַמר
is the crux of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and ילה ָהי ּו ָּ ַ ּב ְּת ִח:ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א ָא ַמר ַרב and after the decree? The Gemara says: This is the decree that Rav Ye-
Rabbi Yehuda. Since the halakha had not been de- huda bar Shmuel said that Rabbi Abba said that Rav Kahana said that
– ְ ּב ׁשֹוגֵ ג,אֹומ ִרים ַה ְמ ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ְ
termined, the Sages raised the issue as a practical Rav said: Initially, they would say: With regard to one who cooks on
question (Ramban). וְ הוּא ַהדִּ ין,ֹאכל ַ ְ ּב ֵמזִ יד – ל ֹא י,ֹאכל ַ י Shabbat, if it was unwitting, one may eat it; if it was intentional, one
Like crab apples – כעוּזְ ָר ִדין:ְּ The ge’onim explained
ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ַר ּב ּו ַמ ׁ ְש ִה ין ְ ּב ֵמזִ יד. ֹוכ ַח ֵ ְל ׁש may not eat it. And the same is true with regard to one who forgets the
that the eggs turned red like crab apples from being ‘ש ֵכ ִחים ָאנוּ׳ – ָחזְ ר ּו וְ ָקנְס ּו ְ ׁ אֹומ ִרים ְ ְו pot atop the stove before Shabbat and it cooks on Shabbat. When the
cooked so long. However, in the Jerusalem Talmud, .ַעל ַה ׁ ּש ֵֹוכ ַח number of those who leave their pots intentionally and say we forgot to
there is an explanation that they shrunk to the size justify their actions, increased, the Sages then penalized those who
of crab apples. Rav Ĥama said there that the flavor forgot. Even one who forgets unwittingly may not eat it.
of those eggs is especially tasty.
,ַק ׁ ְשיָ א דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ַאדְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר In the Tosefta cited earlier, which deals with one who forgot a pot atop the
background !ַק ׁ ְשיָ א דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ַאדְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה stove and the food cooked on Shabbat, Rabbi Meir ruled leniently and
Crab apples – עוּזְ ָר ִדין: A crab apple comes from ;דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ַאדְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א permitted both hot water that was completely heated and cooked food
the Crataegus azarolus, the thorny crab apple plant that was completely cooked, even when it was left on the stove intention-
from the Rosaceae family. The plant reaches 2–4 m ֲ ִּ ָהא – ד,ָהא – ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּילה
דְּ ַר ִ ּבי.יע ַבד
ally. Rabbi Yehuda ruled stringently and distinguished between different
in height, and at times reaches the height of tall trees, :יְ הו ָּדה ַאדְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה נַ ִמי ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א cases. However, in the Tosefta cited at the beginning of the chapter, it was
up to 8 m. It grows wild in mountainous areas. In the – ָּכאן,ָּכאן – ִ ּב גְ רו ָּפה ּו ְקט ּו ָמה taught that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree with regard to the
spring the crab apple plant blossoms with bunches
of white flowers. The orange- or red-colored fruit of .ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְ ּגרו ָּפה ו ְּקטו ָּמה opinions of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai as far as leaving food on the
the crab apple tree resembles a small apple, with a stove on Shabbat is concerned. Rabbi Meir says that it is completely pro-
diameter of 1–1.5 cm. There are two or three pits in hibited to leave cooked food on the stove ab initio, even according to Beit
each. Its taste is also slightly sour like an apple. In Hillel who rule leniently. Rabbi Yehuda said that Beit Hillel ruled leni-
Mediterranean countries, like Greece and Italy, crab ently and permitted doing so. There is a contradiction between one
apples are cultivated. statement of Rabbi Meir and the other statement of Rabbi Meir, and
there is a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the
other statement of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara responds: Between one
statement of Rabbi Meir and the other statement of Rabbi Meir there is
no contradiction. That which we learned: Rabbi Meir prohibits leaving
cooked food under any circumstances, is speaking ab initio; whereas this,
where he permits eating the food even if it was left on the stove intention-
ally, is speaking after the fact. Between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda
and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda there is also no contradiction.
There, where he permitted leaving the food on the stove, it is referring to
the case of a stove that was swept and covered with ashes, whereas here,
where he prohibited doing so, is referring to the case of a stove that is not
Crab apples swept and covered with ashes.
ִמי, ָע ַבר וְ ׁ ִש ָהה ַמאי:ּיב ֲעיָ א ְלהו ּ ַ ִא A dilemma was raised before the Sages: One who transgressed and leftn
דְּ ָא ַמר,ְקנַסוּה ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן אֹו ָלא? ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע his pot on the fire on Shabbat, what is his legal status? Did the Sages
:ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר נָ ָתן ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א penalize him and prohibit him from eating the food, or did they not
penalize him? Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that
יֹוסי ְלצִ ּיפ ִֹורי ָמצָ א ַח ִּמין ֵ ְּכ ׁ ֶש ָה ַלךְ ַר ִ ּבי
which Shmuel bar Natan said that Rabbi Ĥanina said: When Rabbi
ׁ ֶש ּנ ׁ ְִש ַּתה ּו ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ִּכ ָירה – וְ ל ֹא ָא ַסר Yosei went to the city of Tzippori, he found hot water that was left on
ֵ ּביצִ ים ְמצו ָּּמקֹות ׁ ֶש ּנ ׁ ְִש ַּתה ּו ַעל,ָל ֶהן the stove, and he did not prohibit them from drinking it. He found eggs
– ַמאי ָלאו.ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ִּכ ָירה – וְ ָא ַסר ָל ֶהן shriveled from overcooking that were left on the stove on Shabbat and
. ַל ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ַה ָ ּב ָאה,ְלאֹותֹו ׁ ַש ָ ּבת? ל ֹא he prohibited them from eating them. Is this not referring to permitting
and prohibiting their consumption for that same Shabbat? If so, appar-
ently he prohibits eating cooked food that was intentionally left on the
stove on Shabbat. The Gemara immediately rejects this assumption: No.
Rather, he prohibited them from doing so ab initio the following Shabbat,
but he did not prohibit them from eating the eggs on that same Shabbat.
ִמ ְּכ ָלל דְּ ֵביצִ ים ְמצו ָּּמקֹות ִמצְ ַט ְּמקֹות The Gemara is surprised: From this statement it can be inferred that eggs
דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב ָח ָמא,וְ יָ ֶפה ָל ֶהן נִינְ הוּ?! ִאין shriveled from overcooking shrivel and improve when left on the fire for
ּ ַפ ַעם ַא ַחת נִ ְת ָא ַר ְח ִּתי ֲאנִי:ַ ּבר ֲחנִינָ א a long time, and that is the reason that Rabbi Yosei made a distinction
between hot water, which he permitted leaving on the stove, and eggs,
וְ ֵה ִביא ּו ְל ָפנֵינ ּו,וְ ַר ִ ּבי ְל ָמקֹום ֶא ָחד
which he prohibited leaving on the stove. The Gemara replies: Yes, over-
וְ ָא ַכ ְלנ ּו,ֵ ּביצִ ים ְמצו ָּּמקֹות ְּכעוּזְ ָר ִדין cooking improves the eggs. As Rav Ĥama bar Ĥanina said: One time
.ֵמ ֶהן ַה ְר ֵ ּבה Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and I were guests in the same place, and they
brought before us overcooked eggs that shriveled to the size of crab
apples [uzradin]nb and we ate many of them. Apparently, extended
cooking improves eggs. Therefore, when they are left on the fire on Shab-
bat there is room for concern lest one stoke the coals in order to shrivel
them more.
. ַאף ַמ ֲחזִ ִירין״:אֹומ ִרים ְ “בית ִה ֵּלל ּ ֵ We learned in the mishna: Beit Hillel say that one may even return a pot
אֹומרֵ ְל ִד ְב ֵרי ָה: ָא ַמר ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשתtaken off the stove to the stove on Shabbat. Rav Sheshet said: According
to the one who says
180 Perek III . 38a . חל ףד. קרפ ׳ג
Perek III
Daf 38 Amud b
notes
ַ ׁ וְ ַאף ַר ִ ּבי.ַמ ֲחזִ ִירין – ֲא ִפילּ ּו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת
אֹוש ְעיָ א that one may even return it, doing so is permitted even on Shab-
batnh and not only on Shabbat eve. And Rav Oshaya also holds: One may return it even on Shabbat – ַמ ֲחזִ ִירין ֲא ִפיל ּו
ַאף ַמ ֲחזִ ִירין – ֲא ִפיל ּו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת; דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי:ָס ַבר ב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת:ּ ַ According to the conclusion in the Jerusalem Tal-
עֹומ ִדים ְל ֵע ָילא ְ ּ ַפ ַעם ַא ַחת ָהיִ ינ ּו:אֹוש ְעיָ א ַׁ One may even return it even on Shabbat. As Rav Oshaya said: mud, it is permitted for one who removed a pot from
Once we were standing on Shabbat before Rabbi Ĥiyya the a stove on Shabbat to replace it. The discussion here is
וְ ֶה ֱע ֵלנ ּו לֹו קו ְּמ ְקמֹוס ׁ ֶשל,ֵמ ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ַר ָ ּבה
Great and we passed up to him a kettle [kumkemos]l of hot limited to the question whether or not one who removed
,יֹוטא ָה ֶע ְליֹונָ ה ָ יֹוטא ַה ַּת ְח ּתֹונָ ה ִל ְד ָ ְַּח ִּמין ִמד water from the bottom floor [deyota]L to the top floor, and we a pot before Shabbat is considered to have initiated an
וְ ל ֹא,ו ָּמזַ גְ נ ּו לֹו ֶאת ַה ּכֹוס וְ ֶה ֱחזַ ְרנוּה ּו ִל ְמקֹומֹו poured him a cup and returned the kettle to its place on top act of cooking on Shabbat if he returns it after nightfall?
.ָא ַמר ָלנ ּו דָּ ָבר of the stove, and he did not say anything to us. Apparently, he (See the Ran.) Based on this and similar cases, some com-
mentaries explain that when Rav Sheshet said: Even on
is of the opinion that even on Shabbat it is permitted to return
Shabbat, he meant even after nightfall and not only on
a pot to the stove. Friday before Shabbat (Tosafot; Ramban; Rosh).
ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זְ ִר ָיקא ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי Rabbi Zerika said that Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Tadai said: He did on his own – יה הוּא דַּ ֲע ַבד
ּ לגַ ְר ֵמ:ְ The Gemara chose
to employ this phrase even though the person did not
ֲא ָבל,עֹודן ְ ּביָ דֹו ָ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש:ַּתדַּ אי They only taught that it is permitted to return vessels with the
perform an action to which this phrase would apply.
: ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי.ִיחן ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַק ְר ַקע – ָאסוּר ָ ִה ּנ food inside them when they are still in his hand;h however, if Nonetheless, it is used as a colloquial expression to imply
he already placed them on the ground, he obviously regretted that Rabbi Tadai’s statement is not meant to teach practi-
,יה הוּא דַּ ֲע ַבד ּ ַר ִ ּבי ַּתדַּ אי דַּ ֲע ַבד – ְלגַ ְר ֵמ placing them on the fire and it is prohibited to replace them on cal halakha. He merely cited a stringent custom (Rashash).
ָ ֶא ָּלא ָה ִכי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי
:יֹוחנָ ן the stove. Rabbi Ami said: That which Rabbi Tadai did and
ָ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִה ּנ
.ִיח ּה ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַק ְר ַקע – מו ָּּתר said, he did on his own,n and not in accordance with the ac- language
cepted halakha. Rather, Rabbi Ĥiyya said that Rabbi Yoĥanan Kettle [kumkemos] – קו ְּמ ְקמֹוס: Kumkemos comes from the
said as follows: Even if one placed the pot on the ground, it Latin cucuma or cucumis, and it is reasonable to assume
is permitted to return it to the stove. that it was adopted from the Greek word κουκκούμιον,
koukkoumion, which means a kettle or a vessel for water.
,ימי וְ ַרב ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר יְ הו ָּדה ִ ִּּ ְפ ִליגִ י ָ ּב ּה ַרב ד The Gemara remarks that Rav Dimi and Rav Shmuel bar Ye- ָ ְּד: From the Greek word δίαιτα, di-
Floor [deyota] – יֹוטא
ַחד.יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ָא ְמ ִרי ּ וְ ַת ְרוַ יְ יה ּו ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ huda disagreed about this matter, and both stated their opin- aita, which means a room, or a dwelling.
– ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַק ְר ַקע,עֹודן ְ ּביָ דֹו – מו ָּּתר ָ :ָא ַמר ion in the name of Rabbi Elazar. One said that when they are
still in his hand, it is permitted to return them to the stove;
– ִיחן ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַק ְר ַקע ָ ִה ּנ: וְ ַחד ָא ַמר.ָאסוּר
when they were already placed on the ground, it is prohibited
ּ ָא ַמר ִחזְ ִקּיָ ה ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ.נַ ִמי מו ָּּתר
ָהא:יה דְּ ַא ַ ּביֵ י to do so. And one said that even if one placed them on the
עֹודן ְ ּביָ דֹו מו ָּּתר – ל ֹא ֲא ַמ ַרן ֶא ָּלא ָ דְּ ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ground, it is also permitted to return it to the stove. Ĥizkiya
– ֲא ָבל ֵאין דַּ ְע ּתֹו ְל ַה ֲחזִ יר,ׁ ֶשדַּ ְע ּתֹו ְל ַה ֲחזִ יר said in the name of Abaye: That which you said, that when it
ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי, ִמ ְּכ ָלל דְּ ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַק ְר ַקע.ָאסוּר is still in his hand, it is permitted to return it to the stove; we
.ׁ ֶשדַּ ְע ּתֹו ְל ַה ֲחזִ יר – ָאסוּר only said that halakha when his original intention was to re-
turn it to the stove. However, when it was not his original in-
tention to return it, and he reconsidered and decided to return
it, it is prohibited to return it. This proves by inference that if
one placed it on the ground, even if his intention was to return
it, it is prohibited.
halakha
One may return it even on Shabbat – מ ֲחזִ ִירין ֲא ִפיל ּו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת:ַ In
dilemmas are resolved stringently, in accordance with the Rosh,
a situation where it is permitted to replace a pot to a stove on it is prohibited to return the pot in each of the following cases:
Friday night, e.g., a stove in which the coals are swept or covered If one put it down onto a bed; if one transferred the water from
or a kupaĥ that was lit with straw or rakings, it is permitted to one kettle to another; or if one did not intend to return it from
replace the pot even on Shabbat day, as per the opinion of Rav the outset. In the Beit Yosef, where, according to the Rambam, the
Sheshet (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 253:2). ruling in cases of unresolved dilemmas is lenient, it is permitted
ָ If one placed a pot that was to replace the pot on the stove in all of those cases (Rambam
They are still in his hand – עֹודן ְ ּביָ דֹו:
on the fire onto the floor, it is prohibited to replace it on the stove. Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 3:10; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim
According to the Rema, who is of the opinion that unresolved 253:2; see the Vilna Gaon).
יה דְּ ָר ָבא ְל ַרב ּ יה ַרב ַא ָחא ְ ּב ֵר ּ ֲא ַמר ֵל Rav Aha, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: This kupaĥ, what are its cir-
יכי דָּ ֵמי? ִאי ַּכ ִּכ ָירה ִ ַהאי ּכו ּ ָּפח ֵה:ַא ׁ ִשי cumstances? If it is considered like a stove, even if it was lit with pomace
Kupaĥ ִאי ַּכ ַּתנּ וּר,דָּ ֵמי – ֲא ִפילּ ּו ַ ּב ֶ ּג ֶפת ו ָּב ֵעצִ ים נַ ִמי or with wood, it should also be permitted. And if it is considered like an
oven, even with straw or with rakings, it should also not be permitted.
דָּ ֵמי – ֲא ִפילּ ּו ַ ּב ַ ּק ׁש ו ַּב ְ ּג ָב ָבא נַ ִמי ָלא! ֲא ַמר
Rav Ashi said to him: From a halakhic perspective, a kupaĥ has interme-
יה
ּ וְ זו ָּטר ַה ְב ֵל,יה ִמדְּ ִכ ָירה ּ נָ ֵפ ׁיש ַה ְב ֵל:יה ּ ֵל diate status. Its heat is greater than that of a stove; however its heat is
.ִמדְּ ַתנּ וּר less than that of an oven.
יכי דָּ ֵמי ִּכ ָירה? ָא ַמר ִ ֵה,יכי דָּ ֵמי ּכו ּ ָּפח ִ ֵה The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a kupaĥ? What are the
ּכו ּ ָּפח – ְמקֹום ׁ ְש ִפ ַיתת:יֹוסי ַ ּבר ֲחנִינָ א ֵ ַר ִ ּבי circumstances of a stove in terms of the configuration of the vessels?
יתת ׁ ְש ֵּתי ַ ִּכ ָירה ְמקֹום ׁ ְש ִפ,ְק ֵד ָרה ַא ַחת Rabbi Yosei bar Ĥanina said: A kupaĥ is a small vessel that is similar to
a stove; however, it only has one hole with enough space to place a single
:ימא ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה
ָ ית
ֵ וְ ִא, ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י.ְק ֵדרֹות
pot. A stove is like a double kupaĥ with enough space to place two pots.
– ִּכ ָירה ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ְח ְל ָקה:ַאף ֲאנַ ן נַ ִמי ָּתנֵינָ א Abaye said, and some say that Rabbi Yirmeya said: We also learned this
ּכו ּ ָּפח. ְל ָר ְח ָ ּב ּה – ְט ֵמ ָאה,הֹורה ָ אֹור ָּכ ּה ְט
ְ ְל matter in a mishna dealing with the laws of ritual purity and impurity: An
.רֹוח ּבֹו – ָטהֹורְ אֹור ּכֹו ֵ ּבין ְלְ ֵ ּבין ְל impure stove that was divided lengthwise is pure because it can no
longer be considered a vessel. It is a broken vessel, and a broken vessel
cannot become ritually impure. However, if the stove was divided width-
wise, between the spaces for the pots, then it remains impure because it
became two small stoves. However, a kupaĥ, whether it was divided
lengthwise or whether it was divided widthwise, is pure because it can
no longer be used as there is no way to put even a single pot on it. That is
the difference between a kupaĥ and a stove.h
182 Perek III . 38b . חל ףד: קרפ ׳ג
נֹותנִין ֵ ּביצָ ה ְ ּבצַ ד ְ מתני׳ ֵאין
יח ם ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ׁ ֶש ִּת ְת ַ ּג ְל ֵ ּגל ַ ַה ֵּמ
MISHNA In addition to the halakhot
that deal with cooking on the
halakha
Cooking with derivatives of fire – תֹולדֹות ַה ֵא ׁש
ְ ב ׁישוּל ְ ּב:ּ ִ Just as it is prohibited to
cook with fire on Shabbat, so too, it is prohibited to cook with an object heated by
fire on Shabbat, several related halakhot are dis-
וְ ַר ִ ּבי,יע ָּנה ַ ּב ּסו ָּד ִריןֶ וְ ל ֹא יַ ְפ ִק cussed. The mishna says: One may not place a raw
fire. Therefore, one may not place an egg next to a kettle that was heated by fire, and
one may not wrap an egg in a cloth that was heated by fire. One who did so unwit-
וְ ל ֹא יַ ְט ִמינֶ ָּנה ַ ּבחֹול.יֹוסי ַמ ִּתיר ֵ egg next to an urnh full of hot water so that it will tingly is liable to bring a sin-offering (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 9:2;
.ו ַּב ֲא ַבק דְּ ָר ִכים ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ׁ ֶש ִּת ָ ּצ ֶלה roast slightly. And one may not even wrap it in Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 318:3).
cloths, i.e., one may not heat the egg inside cloths Derivatives of the sun – ת ְֹולדֹות ַח ָּמה:ּ The Sages issued a decree prohibiting cooking
that were heated in the sun. And Rabbi Yosei per- even with an item that was heated by the sun. For example, cooking food in sand or
mits doing so in that case. And, similarly, one may road dust that was heated by the sun or in the hot springs of Tiberias is prohibited lest
not insulate it in sand or in road dust that was one come to cook with derivatives of fire (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat
heated in the sun so that it will roast.h Although 9:3; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 318:3).
there is no actual cooking with fire here, it is similar And they ran a cold-water pipe, etc. – וְ ֵה ִביא ּו ִסילּ ֹון ׁ ֶשל צֹונֵן וכו׳: It is prohibited to run
to cooking and the Sages issued a decree to prohibit a cold water pipe through hot water, even on Friday before Shabbat, in order to heat
doing so. the water on Shabbat. If one did so, the water is prohibited for both drinking and
washing. On a Festival, one may not wash with it, but he may drink it (Rambam Sefer
Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 22:3; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 326:3).
נְשי ִט ֶ ּב ְריָ אֵ ׁ ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ׁ ֶש ָע ׂש ּו ַא The mishna relates a story about the people of the
תֹוך
ְ ילֹון ׁ ֶשל צֹונֵ ן ְל ּ וְ ֵה ִביא ּו ִס city of Tiberias,b and they ran a cold-water pipe
background
ָא ְמר ּו ָל ֶהם,ַא ָּמה ׁ ֶשל ַח ִּמין [silon]hl through a canal of hot water from the Ti-
berias hot springs. They thought that by doing so, ֵ ׁ סילּ ֹון ַא:ִ For many years, the people
The pipe of the people of Tiberias – נְשי ִט ֶ ּב ְריָ א
ִאם ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת – ְּכ ַח ִּמין:ֲח ָכ ִמים of Tiberias drew their water from springs adjacent to their city and not from the Sea
they could heat the cold potable water on Shabbat. of Galilee. However, the water from the Tiberias hot springs is not potable. Therefore,
וַ ֲא ס ּו ִר ין,ׁ ֶש ה ּו ַח ּמ ּו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּב ת The Rabbis said to them: If the water passed the people of Tiberias tried to use the hot springs to heat potable water, transported
ִאם ְ ּביֹום.ִ ּב ְר ִחיצָ ה ו ִּב ׁ ְש ִתּיָ ה through on Shabbat,n its legal status is like that of by means of aqueducts, by running a pipe through the hot springs.
טֹוב – ְּכ ַח ִּמין ׁ ֶשהו ַּח ּמ ּו ְ ּביֹום hot water that was heated on Shabbat, and the
וַ ֲאסו ִּרין ִ ּב ְר ִחיצָ ה וּמו ָּּת ִרין,טֹוב water is prohibited both for bathing and for drink- language
.ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִתּיָ ה ing. And if the water passed through on a Festival, Pipe [silon] – ס ּילֹון:ִ From the Greek σωλήν, solen, which means a pipe or channel.
then it is prohibited for bathing but permitted for
drinking. On Festivals, one is even permitted to boil notes
water on actual fire for the purposes of eating and If on Shabbat – אם ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת:
ִ That is to say, if the heated water passed through on
drinking. Shabbat (Rashi).
One who slightly roasted an egg, what is the ruling – ִ ּג ְל ֵ ּגל ַמאי: Rav Yosef’s dilemma
? ִ ּג ְל ֵ ּגל ַמאי:ּיב ֲעיָ א ְלהו
ִ ּג ְל ֵ ּגל – ַחּיָ יב:יֹוסף
ּ ַ גמ׳ ִא
ֵ ֲא ַמר ַרב
Gemara A dilemma was raised be-
fore the Sages: One who
is: Is it a Torah prohibition or is it merely prohibited by rabbinic decree to cook with
an item heated by fire but not with fire itself (Ritva)? Apparently, this dilemma can
be resolved by that which is stated in the mishna. Since the Sages issued a decree
violated the halakha in the mishna and slightly
ּ ֲא ַמר ָמר ְ ּב ֵר. ַח ָּטאתroasted an egg next to an urn, what is the ruling?n
:יה דְּ ָר ִבינָ א prohibiting derivatives of the sun due to derivatives of fire, apparently derivatives of
: ַאף ֲאנַן נַ ִמי ָּתנֵינָ אRav Yosef said: One who slightly cooked an egg is fire must be prohibited by Torah law as well. However, it is possible that the derivatives
of the sun were prohibited due to their similarity to actual fire, and the halakhot of
liable to bring a sin-offering, as he performed the the derivatives of fire are no more stringent than the halakhot of the derivatives of
act of cooking on Shabbat, which is prohibited by the sun (Tziyyun LeNefesh Ĥayyah).
Torah law. Mar, son of Ravina, said: We also
learned something similar in the mishna:
Perek III
Daf 39 Amud a
halakha
– ָּכל ׁ ֶש ָ ּבא ְ ּב ַח ִּמין ִמ ִּל ְפנֵי ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת Any salted food item that was already placed in hot
Any salted food item that was already placed in hot water – כל ׁ ֶש ָ ּבא ְ ּב ַח ִּמין:ָּ With
וְ ָכל,ׁש ִֹורין אֹותֹו ְ ּב ַח ִּמין ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת water,h i.e., cooked, before Shabbat one may soak
regard to soaking dry food that was completely cooked before Shabbat, it is permitted
– ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ָ ּבא ְ ּב ַח ִּמין ִמ ִּל ְפנֵי ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת it in hot water even on Shabbat. And anything that to soak it in hot water on Shabbat. It is permitted to pour hot water from a second-
was not placed in hot water before Shabbat, one ary vessel onto food that was not cooked before Shabbat. However, it is prohibited
חוּץ,יחין אֹותֹו ְ ּב ַח ִּמין ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ִ ְמ ִד
may rinse it in hot water on Shabbat, but may not to pour hot water from a primary vessel that was actually on the fire at one point
קֹוליַ יס ָה ִא ְיס ּ ַפנִיןְ ְיָשן ו ָ ׁ ִמן ַה ָּמ ִל ַיח soak it, with the exception of old salted fish or the (Magen Avraham). Rinsing old salted fish, known as kolyas of the Spaniards, and
.אכ ָּתן ְ ׁ ֶש ֲה ָד ָח ָתן זֹו ִהיא ְ ּג ָמר ְמ ַל colias of the Spaniards [kolyas ha’ispanin]l fish, for the like (Rema) in hot water completes its preparation because it cannot be eaten
.ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה which rinsing with hot water itself is completion without being rinsed. Therefore, it is prohibited to do so on Shabbat. It is permitted
to do so in cold water (Taz; Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 9:2; Shulĥan
of the prohibited labor of cooking. Once it is rinsed
Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 318:4).
in hot water, it does not require any additional cook-
ing. The same is true with regard to an egg that was
language
slightly cooked. Since it thereby becomes edible,
Colias of the Spaniards [kolyas ha’ispanin] – יס ּ ַפנִין
ְ קֹוליַ יס ָה ִא:
ְ The name of this fish is
one who brought it to that state has violated the from the Greek κολίας, kolias, meaning coly-mackerel, Scomber colias. The Gemara is
prohibition of cooking. The Gemara sums up: In- discussing a fish imported from Spain (Espania).
deed, conclude from it that this is its meaning.
טל ףד. ׳ג קרפ. Perek III . 39a 183
notes
“נֹותנִין
ְ :יע ָּנה ַ ּב ּסו ָּד ִרין״ וְ ָהא דִּ ְתנַן ֶ “וְ ל ֹא יַ ְפ ִק We also learned in the mishna according to the first tanna: And one
Let us say that this is in accordance with the opin- may not wrap an egg in cloths that were heated by the sun in order
ion of Rabbi Yosei – יֹוסי ִהיא
ֵ ימא ַר ִ ּבי
ָ ל:ֵ According to ,ַּת ְב ׁ ִשיל ְלתֹוךְ ַה ּבֹור ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ׁ ֶשּיְ ֵהא ׁ ָשמוּר
the explanation in the Jerusalem Talmud, Rabbi Yosei, ,ּוְ ֶאת ַה ַּמיִ ם ַהּיָ ִפים ָ ּב ָר ִעים ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ׁ ֶשּיִ ַ ּצ ְּננו to heat up the egg, and Rabbi Yosei permits doing so. And with
holds that only those matters that are unequivo- regard to that which we learned in a mishna that one may place
ימא ָ וְ ֶאת ַה ּצֹונֵ ן ַ ּב ַח ָּמה ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ׁ ֶשּיֵ ַח ּמוּ״ ֵל
cal cases of cooking are prohibited. Since utilizing cooked food into a pit on Shabbat to protect it from the heat; and
items heated by the sun in order to cook food is not !יֹוסי ִהיא וְ ָלא ַר ָ ּבנַן ֵ ַר ִ ּבי one may place good, potable water into bad, non-potable water so
a clear case of cooking, Rabbi Yosei does not prohibit that it will cool; and one may put cold water out in the sun to heat
doing so. it, the Gemara asks: Let us say that this mishna is in accordance
Derivatives of the sun – ת ְֹולדֹות ַה ַח ָּמה:ּ The Sages with the opinion of Rabbi Yosein in our mishna and not the opinion
of Eretz Yisrael in the Jerusalem Talmud hold that of the Rabbis as represented by the first tanna in the mishna. The
the derivatives of the sun are permitted on Shabbat, Rabbis prohibited heating food with the heat of the sun.
and the mishna’s prohibition against burying food in
sand and in dirt is for other reasons, like those cited
by Rabba and Rav Yosef. ַ ּב ַח ָּמה – דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ָלא:ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן Rav Naĥman said: With regard to heating food in the sun itself,
Loose earth – יחֹוח
ַ ע ָפר ִּתָ : Some commentaries ex- תֹולדֹות ָהאוּר – ּכו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ְ ְ ּב,ּ ְפ ִליגִ י דְּ ׁ ָש ֵרי everyone agrees that one is permittedh to place food in the sun to
plain this statement in a manner that completely תֹולדֹות ְ ִּכי ּ ְפ ִליגִ י – ְ ּב,ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י דַּ ֲא ִסיר heat it, as it is certainly neither fire nor a typical form of cooking.
changes its meaning. They say that the Sage who Likewise, with derivatives of fire, i.e., objects that were heated by
prohibits burying an egg in sand because a person ָ ּגזְ ִרינַן ּת ְֹולדֹות ַה ַח ָּמה ַא ּט ּו:ַה ַח ָּמה; ָמר ָס ַבר
fire, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to heat food with them,
will come to bury it in ashes permits burying an . ָלא ָ ּגזְ ִרינַן: ו ָּמר ָס ַבר,ּת ְֹולדֹות ָהאוּר as heating with them is tantamount to heating with fire itself. Where
egg in loose earth because it is not similar to ashes.
they argue is with regard to heating with derivatives of the sun,n
However, the one who prohibits burying it in sand
because he thereby displaces dirt prohibits doing i.e., objects heated with the heat of the sun. This Sage, who repre-
so in loose earth because in the process of burying sents the opinion of the Rabbis, holds that we issue a decree pro-
the egg loose earth is also displaced (Rav Hai Gaon). hibiting a person to heat with derivatives of the sun due to deriva-
tives of fire, which are prohibited. People have no way of knowing
halakha how the cooking vessel was heated. If the Sages permit the use of
Cooking in the sun and its derivatives – ִ ּב ׁישוּל ַ ּב ַח ָּמה objects heated in the sun, people will come to permit use of objects
יה
ָ דֹות
ֶ תֹול
ְ ו ְּב: Cooking and heating food in the heat of heated by fire as well. And this Sage, Rabbi Yosei, holds that we do
the sun itself are permitted on Shabbat. However, not issue a decree. Even though it is prohibited to heat with de-
cooking and heating food in a derivative of the sun, rivatives of fire, heating with derivatives of the sun is permitted.
e.g., a cloth, sand, or road dust heated in the sun is
prohibited. Even leaving food in a derivative of the
sun before Shabbat to be heated during Shabbat is יֹוסי
ֵ וְ ִל ְיפלֹוג נַ ִמי ַר ִ ּבי.“וְ ל ֹא יַ ְט ִמינֶ ָּנה ַ ּבחֹול״ We learned in the mishna: And one may not insulate it in sand or
prohibited by rabbinic decree, as per the opinion of in road dust that was heated in the sun. The Gemara asks: And let
the Rabbis (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat
. ְ ּגזֵ ָרה ׁ ֶש ָּמא יַ ְט ִמין ָ ּב ֶר ֶמץ:ְ ּב ָהא! ַר ָ ּבה ָא ַמר
. ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ֵּמזִ יז ָע ָפר ִמ ְּמקֹומֹו:יֹוסף ָא ַמר ֵ ַרב Rabbi Yosei disagree with this halakha as well. If he holds that one
9:3; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 318:3).
is permitted to cook on Shabbat using objects heated by the sun, the
.יחֹוח
ַ ָע ָפר ִּת:ּיכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יהו ָּ ַמאי ֵ ּבינַיְ יהוּ? ִא same should apply with regard to sand. The Gemara cites two an-
swers. Rabba said: Rabbi Yosei agrees with the opinion of the
Rabbis in this case. The Sages issued a decree in this case due to
concern lest one come to insulate it in hot ashes, which is cer-
tainly prohibited, if he is permitted to insulate food in sand or road
dust. Insulating in sand and insulating in hot ashes appear to be very
similar. Rav Yosef said: Rabbi Yosei prohibits it in this case because
when insulating it in the sand, he displaces dirt. It is as if he dug a
hole in the sand, which is prohibited. The Gemara asks: What is the
practical difference between the answers proposed by Rabba and
Rav Yosef? Apparently, the two answers lead to the same practical
conclusion. The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference
between them in the case of loose earth.n Loose earth does not
require digging a hole. According to Rav Yosef ’s explanation, there
is no reason to prohibit insulating food in loose earth, as displacing
loose earth involves no prohibition. However if the decree was is-
sued lest one insulate an egg in hot ashes, then it applies even in the
case of loose earth.
:אֹומר ֵ יאלֵ ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל,יבי ֵ ית ִ ֵמ The Gemara raises an objection from that which was taught in a
וְ ֵאין ְמגַ ְל ְ ּג ִלין,רֹות ַח
ֵ ְמגַ ְל ְ ּג ִלין ֵ ּביצָ ה ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַ ּגג baraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may slightly roast
ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְל ַמאן.רֹות ַח ֵ ֵ ּביצָ ה ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ִסיד an egg on a hot rooftop heated by the sun; however, one may not
slightly roast an egg on top of boiling limestone. Granted, this
יכא ָּ “גזֵ ָרה ׁ ֶש ָּמא יַ ְט ִמין ָ ּב ֶר ֶמץ״ – ֵל ּ ְ דְּ ָא ַמר
works out well according to the opinion of the one who said that
ִ ֶא ָּלא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר.ְל ִמיגְ זַ ר
“מ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ֵּמזִ יז ָע ָפר insulating an egg in sand is prohibited due to a decree lest he come
.יה ָע ָפר ּ ִמ ְּמקֹומֹו״ – ִליגְ זַ ר! ְס ָתם ַ ּגג ֵלית ֵ ּב insulate it in hot ashes. There is no reason to issue a decree on a
hot rooftop, as it is not at all similar to hot ashes. However, accord-
ing to the opinion of the one who said that the reason is because
he is displacing dirt, let him issue a decree and prohibit warming
an egg on the rooftop as well because there is sometimes dirt on the
roof. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult because, in general,
a rooftop does not have dirt, and there is no reason to issue a de-
cree in uncommon cases.
184 Perek III . 39a . טל ףד. קרפ ׳ג
notes
ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ׁ ֶש ָע ׂש ּו ַאנְ ׁ ֵשי:ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע Come and hear a different objection to the opinion of the amo-
ra from our mishna: The Sages prohibited the people of the city They pass over the entrance to Gehenna – ית ָחא ְ דְּ ָח ְל ִפי ַא ּ ִפ
ְִט ֶ ּב ְריָ א וְ ֵה ִביא ּו ִסילּ ֹון ׁ ֶשל צֹונֵן ְלתֹוך יה ָּנם
ִ ֵדְּ ג: The Sages who say that the hot springs of Tiberias are
ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְל ַמאן.ַא ָּמה ׁ ֶשל ַח ִּמין וכו׳ of Tiberias, who ran a cold-water pipe through a canal of hot heated by the sun mean that the water is not heated by fire. Any
water from the Tiberias hot springs, from using the water. source of heat other than fire is comparable to the sun in the
– “גזֵ ָרה ׁ ֶש ָּמא יַ ְט ִמין ָ ּב ֶר ֶמץ״ ּ ְ דְּ ָא ַמר
Granted, according to the opinion of the one who said that the sense that cooking with it is significantly different from cooking
ֶא ָּלא ְל ַמאן,ַהיְ ינ ּו דְּ ָד ְמיָ א ְל ַה ְט ָמנָ ה prohibition is due to a decree lest one insulate food in hot with fire and should be permitted. Rabbi Yosei, on the other hand,
– “מ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ֵּמזִ יז ָע ָפר ִמ ְּמקֹומֹו״ִ דְּ ָא ַמר ashes, that is the reason that this was prohibited, as it is similar believes that the hot springs are heated by the fire that arises
?ימר ַ יכא ְל ֵמ ָּ ַמאי ִא to insulating. The cold-water pipe was placed inside the hot from beneath the ground, called here hellfire. The legal status
of the hot springs is analogous to water heated by fire although
water and was surrounded by it. However, according to the
their fire was not lit by human hand.
opinion of the one who said that the reason is because one
displaces dirt, what is there to say to explain the prohibition?
?ִמי ָס ְב ַר ְּת ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה ִט ֶ ּב ְריָא ַא ֵּס ָיפא ָק ֵאי The Gemara answers: Do you think that the story about Tibe-
,יע ָּנה ַ ּב ּסו ָּד ִריןֶ ל ֹא יַ ְפ ִק:ישא ָק ֵאי ָ ׁ ַא ֵר rias refers to the latter clause of the mishna? No, it refers to
יה ַר ָ ּבנַןּ וְ ָה ִכי ָק ָא ְמ ִרי ֵל.יֹוסי ַמ ִּתיר
ֵ וְ ַר ִ ּבי the first clause of the mishna, and it should be understood as
follows: The Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei disagree with regard to
נְשי ִט ֶ ּב ְריָ אֵ ׁ ָהא ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה דְּ ַא:יֹוסי ֵ ְל ַר ִ ּבי
wrapping an egg in cloths. The Rabbis say: One may not wrap
! וְ ָא ְס ִרי ְלה ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן,תֹולדֹות ַח ָּמה הוּא ְ ְּד it in cloths and Rabbi Yosei permits doing so. And the Rabbis
, ַההוּא – ּת ְֹולדֹות אוּר הוּא:ֲּא ַמר ְלהו said the following to Rabbi Yosei: Wasn’t the incident involv-
.יה ָּנם
ִ ֵית ָחא דְּ ג
ְ דְּ ָח ְל ִפי ַא ּ ִפ ing the people of Tiberias with derivatives of the sun, as the
hot springs of Tiberias are not heated by fire, and nevertheless
the Sages prohibited them from using the water? Rabbi Yosei
said to them: That is not so. That incident involved derivatives
of fire, as the hot springs of Tiberias are hot because they pass
over the entrance to Gehenna.n They are heated by hellfire,
which is a bona fide underground fire. That is not the case with
derivatives of the sun, which are not heated by fire at all.
ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ אOn the same topic, Rav Hisda said:
Perek III
Daf 39 Amud b
notes
נְשי ִט ֶ ּב ְריָ א וְ ָא ְס ִרי
ֵ ׁ ִמ ַּמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ׁ ֶש ָע ׂש ּו ַא From this action performed by the people of Tiberias and the
Insulating a pot in something that increases the heat over the
ְלה ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן – ָ ּב ְט ָלה ַה ְט ָמנָ ה ְ ּב ָד ָבר fact that the Sages prohibited them from using the water, the
course of Shabbat was abolished – ֹוסיף ִ ָ ּב ְט ָלה ַה ְט ָמנָ ה ְ ּב ָד ָבר ַה ּמ
.יל ּו ִמ ְ ּבעֹוד יֹום ּ וַ ֲא ִפ,ֹוסיף ֶה ֶבל ִ ַה ּמ conclusion is that the practice of insulating a pot in something ה ֶבל:ֶ The early commentaries asked (see Tosafot): Why did the
that increases the heat over the course of Shabbat was abol- Gemara need to derive this halakha from a source from which it
ֵ ׁ ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַא:ָא ַמר עו ָּּלא
.נְשי ִט ֶ ּב ְריָ א
ishedn on Shabbat. And not only is i t prohibited to do so on it is derived tangentially? Isn’t there an explicit mishna that states
ְּכ ָבר ְּת ַב ִרינְ ה ּו:יה ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ּ ָא ַמר ֵל Shabbat itself, but it is also prohibited while it is still day before that one may not insulate food in something that increases the
.ּנְשי ִט ֶ ּב ְריָ א ְל ִסילֹונַיְ יהוֵ ׁ ַא Shabbat. Running pipes of cold water through hot water is heat? Some commentaries answer that the source for the ha-
similar to insulating water in something that adds heat. Ulla lakha that one may not insulate a pot of food in a substance that
adds heat is indeed the story of the people of Tiberias, and the
said: The halakha is in accordance with the people of
general halakha is derived from the ruling in that case (Rashba).
Tiberias.n Rav Naĥman said to him: The people of Tiberias
have already broken their pipes. Even they reconsidered their The halakha is in accordance with the people of Tiberias –
נְשי ִט ֶ ּב ְריָ א
ֵ ׁ ה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַא:ֲ Some commentaries believe that Ulla dis-
position.
agreed with the opinion of Rav Ĥisda, who held that the people
of Tiberias buried their pipe in the hot springs of Tiberias. There-
ַמאי.נְשי ִט ֶ ּב ְריָ א״ ֵ ׁ “מ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ׁ ֶש ָע ׂש ּו ַא
ַ We learned in the mishna with regard to the incident, which fore, the Gemara discussed the insulation of a pot. In fact, Ulla
related what the people of Tiberias did, that the legal status of held that the issue was raised because insulation is comparable
,ימא ְר ִחיצַ ת ָּכל גּ וּפֹו ָ ְר ִחיצָ ה? ִא ֵיל
water that was heated in the Tiberias hot springs is like that of to cooking. In this regard, the halakha is in accordance with the
ֶא ָּלא ַח ִּמין ׁ ֶשהו ַּח ּמ ּו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת – הוּא opinion of Rabbi Yosei (Penei Yehoshua).
water heated on Shabbat, and it is prohibited for use in bathing.
ָהא ַח ִּמין ׁ ֶשהו ַּח ּמ ּו ֵמ ֶע ֶרב,דַּ ֲאסו ִּרין If you say bathing one’s entire body – ר ִחיצַ ת ָּכל ּגוּפֹו:ְ It was not
The Gemara clarifies this matter: What type of bathing is this?
ַח ִּמין:ׁ ַש ָ ּבת – מו ָּּת ִרין?! וְ ָה ַתנְ יָ א If you say that it is referring to bathing one’s entire body,n that necessary for the Gemara to mention the prohibition to bathe
רֹוחץ
ֵ ְל ָמ ָחר,ׁ ֶשהו ַּח ּמ ּו ֵמ ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת one’s entire body. Obviously, since washing even part of the body
is difficult. That would indicate that only water heated on Shab-
is prohibited, all the more so washing one’s entire body would be
ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ָּכל,ָ ּב ֶהן ּ ָפנָיו יָ ָדיו וְ ַרגְ ָליו bat is prohibited for use in bathing one’s entire body; however, prohibited. The reason that the Gemara mentioned this was to
.גּ וּפֹו?! ֶא ָּלא – ּ ָפנָיו יָ ָדיו וְ ַרגְ ָליו bathing one’s entire body in hot water heated before Shabbat prevent drawing the following inference: If bathing one’s entire
is permitted. That cannot be. Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: With body was prohibited due to the prohibition of washing in water
regard to hot water that was heated on Shabbat eve, one may that was heated on Shabbat, the implication would be that had it
use it the next day to wash his face, his hands, and his feet been heated on Shabbat eve, it would have been permitted. That
incrementally; however, not to wash his entire body? Rather, is not the case, as bathing one’s entire body is prohibited even in
water heated prior to Shabbat (Ramban).
it must be that the bathing prohibited in the mishna with water
heated on Shabbat is, in fact, washing his face, his hands, and
his feet.
טל ףד: ׳ג קרפ. Perek III . 39b 185
halakha
ְ ּביֹום טֹוב – ְּכ ַח ִּמין:יפא ָ ימא ֵס ָ ֵא However, if so, say the latter clause of the mishna: On a Festival,
Like water that was heated on a Festival – ְּכ ַח ִּמין ׁ ֶשהו ַּח ּמ ּו the legal status of the water is like that of water that was heated by
ביֹום טֹוב:ּ ְ Heating water on a Festival for use in washing one’s וַ ֲאסו ִּרין ִ ּב ְר ִחיצָ ה,ׁ ֶשהו ַּח ּמ ּו ְ ּביֹום טֹוב
face, hands, and feet is permitted (see Mishna Berura). Heat- ימא ְּתנַ ן ְס ָת ָמא ָ ֵל.וּמו ָּּת ִרין ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִתּיָ ה fire on a Festival,h and it is prohibited for bathing and permitted
ing water to wash one’s entire body is prohibited, as per the for drinking. Even on a Festival, washing one’s face, hands, and feet
ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי,ְּכ ֵבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי; דִּ ְתנַ ן
opinion of Beit Hillel (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Yom is prohibited with this hot water. If so, let us say that we learned the
Tov 1:16; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 511:2). ל ֹא יָ ֵחם ָא ָדם ַח ִּמין ְל ַרגְ ָליו:אֹומ ִרים ְ unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Beit
To rinse one’s entire body on Shabbat – ְל ִה ׁ ְש ַּת ֵּטף ָ ּב ֶהן ָּכל
ו ֵּבית,ֶא ָּלא ִאם ֵּכן ְראוּיִ ין ִל ׁ ְש ִתּיָ ה Shammai. As we learned in a mishna, Beit Shammai say: A person
גּ וּפֹו: Rinsing one’s entire body with hot water on Shabbat !ִה ֵּלל ַמ ִּת ִירין may not heat water for his feet on a Festival unless it is also fit for
is prohibited whether the water was heated on Shabbat or drinking, and Beit Hillel permit doing so. According to Beit Hil-
before Shabbat. However, doing so in cold water is permit- lel, it is permitted to heat water on a Festival for the purpose of
ted, as per the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and the ruling of washing one’s feet. According to the proposed interpretation of the
Rabbi Yoĥanan (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat term bathing in the mishna, as referring to washing one’s face, hands,
22:3; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 326:1).
and feet, our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Sham-
Bathing on Shabbat – ר ִחיצָ ה ְ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת:ְ It is prohibited to bathe mai. This is problematic, as the halakhic opinion of Beit Shammai
in hot water on Shabbat, even if the water was heated on is rejected and only rarely cited in an unattributed mishna.
Friday. It is permitted to bathe in the hot springs of Tiberias
in water collected in the ground but not in water collected
in a vessel (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 326:1). ְל ִה ׁ ְש ַּת ֵּטף:ָא ַמר ַרב ִא ָיקא ַ ּבר ֲחנַ נְיָא Rav Ika bar Ĥananya said: In our mishna, we are dealing with
,ָ ּב ֶהן ָּכל ּגוּפֹו ָע ְס ִקינַן; וְ ַהאי ַּת ָּנא הוּא water that was heated in order to rinse one’s entire bodyh with it.
notes ֵ ּבין, ל ֹא יִ ׁ ְש ַּת ֵּטף ָא ָדם ָּכל ּגוּפֹו:דְּ ַתנְיָא Rinsing does not have the same legal status as bathing. And that
One may neither rinse – יִש ַּת ֵּטף
ְ ׁ ל ֹא: In this context, rinsing which we learned in the mishna: Water that was heated on Shabbat
,ְ ּב ַח ִּמין ו ֵּבין ְ ּבצֹונֵן – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר
means pouring water on one’s entire body. Since this was is prohibited for bathing, from which it can be inferred that water
not the usual method of bathing, it could conceivably have :אֹומרֵ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה,ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ַמ ִּתיר heated before Shabbat is permitted for bathing on Shabbat, is in
been permitted (Rashi). . ְ ּבצֹונֵן – מו ָּּתר,ְ ּב ַח ִּמין – ָאסוּר accordance with the opinion of this tanna, the opinion of Rabbi
In a vessel – ב ְכ ִלי:ּ ִ The implication here is that one is pouring Shimon in the Tosefta. As it was taught in a Tosefta: One may nei-
water from a vessel onto himself in the manner that one ther rinsen his entire body with hot water, even if it was heated
typically washes. Consequently, there is greater reason to before Shabbat, nor with cold water; this is the statement of Rab-
prohibit this, especially due to the potential of the appear- bi Meir. Rabbi Shimon permits doing so even with hot water be-
ance of transgression (ge’onim; Ritva).
cause it was heated before Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda says: With hot
The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the water, it is prohibited; with cold water, it is permitted. According
compromiser – ה ָל ָכה ְּכ ִד ְב ֵרי ַה ַּמ ְכ ִר ַיעֲ : The basic assumption to Rabbi Shimon, it is completely prohibited to rinse with water that
is that the halakha is established in accordance with the was heated on Shabbat itself. Consequently, our mishna, which does
majority opinion. Therefore, when two Sages argue and a
third Sage tends toward a certain aspect of the opinion of
not differentiate between hot and cold water, is in accordance with
one of the Sages, a majority of two is formed. The compro- the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.
mise opinion of a student in a dispute involving his teacher
does not determine the halakha because the student lacks ֲא ָבל,לֹוקת ִ ּב ְכ ִלי
ֶ ַמ ֲח:ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א Rav Ĥisda said: This dispute over washing with water heated be-
the authority to determine the halakha in accordance with fore Shabbat is specifically with regard to water in a vessel,n as one
or contrary to the opinion of his mentor.
וְ ָהא.ְ ּב ַק ְר ַקע – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל מו ָּּתר
,נְשי ִט ֶ ּב ְריָ א ְ ּב ַק ְר ַקע ֲהוָ ה
ֵ ׁ ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה דְּ ַא might mistakenly think that it was heated on Shabbat, and there is
then concern lest one permit the use of water heated with fire on
ית ַמר ְּ ִאי ִא,וְ ָא ְס ִרי ְלה ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן! ֶא ָּלא
Shabbat. However, when the water was collected in the ground,
,לֹוקת – ְ ּב ַק ְר ַקע ֶ ַמ ֲח:ית ַמר ְּ ָה ִכי ִא everyone agrees that it is permitted. The Gemara challenges this:
.ֲא ָבל ִ ּב ְכ ִלי – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ָאסוּר Wasn’t the incident involving the people of Tiberias with regard
to water in the ground, and nevertheless the Sages prohibited it?
Rather, if this was stated, this is what was stated, i.e., this is the
correct version of Rav Ĥisda’s statement: This dispute is specifi-
cally when the water is collected in the ground. However, when it
is in a vessel, everyone agrees that it is prohibited.h
:יֹוחנָןָ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי Rabba bar bar Ĥana said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: The halakha
יה ַרב ּ ָא ַמר ֵל.ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה in this dispute is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
אֹו ִמ ְּכ ָל ָלא, ְ ְ ּב ֵפירו ּׁש ׁ ְש ִמ ַיע ָלך:יֹוסף ֵ Rav Yosef said to him: Did you learn this from Rabbi Yoĥanan
explicitly, or did you learn it by inference from something else that
ׁ ְש ִמ ַיע ָל ְך? ַמאי ְּכ ָל ָלא? דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב
he said? The Gemara remarks: What was the statement of Rabbi
יֹוחנָ ן ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ָ ַּתנְ ח ּום ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי Yoĥanan from which this conclusion could be inferred? As Rav
ָּכל ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ַא ָּתה:)יַ ַּנאי ָא ַמר ַ(רב Tanĥum said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said that Rabbi Yannai said that
– מֹוצֵ א ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ֲחלו ִּקין וְ ֶא ָחד ַמ ְכ ִר ַיע Rav said: Every place that you find two who disagree and each
חוּץ ִמ ּקו ֵּּלי,ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ִד ְב ֵרי ַה ַּמ ְכ ִר ַיע one of them establishes his opinion in a series of cases, and one of
יעזֶ ר ֶ ׁ ֶש ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל,ַמ ְט ָלנִּיֹות the Sages, a third one, adopts a compromise opinion and says that
in some cases the halakha is in accordance with one, and in some
וְ ַר ִ ּבי,הֹוש ַע ֵמ ֵיקל ֻ ׁ ְַמ ְח ִמיר וְ ַר ִ ּבי י
cases the halakha is in accordance with the other, the halakha is in
ֲע ִק ָיבא ַמ ְכ ִר ַיע – ֵאין ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ִד ְב ֵרי accordance with the opinion of the compromiser.n This principle
דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ַּת ְל ִמיד: ֲח ָדא.ַה ַּמ ְכ ִר ַיע holds true except for the case of the ritual impurity of insignificant
ָהא: וְ עֹוד,הוּא strips of material. In that case, even though Rabbi Eliezer is strin-
gent, and Rabbi Yehoshua is lenient, and Rabbi Akiva compro-
mises, the halakha is not in accordance with the statement of the
compromiser: First, because Rabbi Akiva is a student of Rabbi
Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua and lacks the authority to decide be-
tween the opinions of his rabbis. And furthermore, didn’t
186 Perek III . 39b . טל ףד: קרפ ׳ג
Perek III
Daf 40 Amud a
notes
.הֹוש ַע ּ יה ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ְל ַ ּג ֵ ּב
ֻ ׁ ְיה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי י ּ ֲה ַדר ֵ ּב Rabbi Akiva reconsider and adopt Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion?
In the dispute over the laws of bathing as well, the ruling should Applies only in a mishna but in a baraita no – נִיתין ִ ְ ּב ַמ ְת
–ילי ֵּ ָהנֵי ִמ,יל ָמא ְ ִּוְ ִאי ִמ ְּכ ָל ָלא ַמאי? ד א ָבל ְ ּב ָב ַריְ ָיתא ָלא:ֲ Many of the principles used in deter-
:יה
ּ ָא ַמר ֵל.יתא – ָלא ָ ְ ֲא ָבל ְ ּב ָב ַרי,נִיתין
ִ ְ ּב ַמ ְת have been in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda mining the halakha in the Mishna are not applied to
because his is the compromise opinion. Therefore, Rav Yosef baraitot. The major reason is that the text of a baraita is
.ֲאנָ א ְ ּב ֵפירו ּׁש ׁ ְש ִמ ַיע ִלי
asked whether the ruling was based on that principle alone. The generally not as concisely crafted as the text of a mishna,
Gemara asks: And if the halakha was derived by inference, what and any conclusions based on the precise style of the
of it? It is legitimate to draw conclusions by inference. The text cannot be reached from the text of a baraita. It was
Gemara responds: Perhaps this principle, that the halakha is already established (Tosafot) that the halakha is in ac-
cordance with the compromise opinion only when the
established in accordance with the compromise opinion, applies
Sages disagree about precisely the same topic. There
only in a mishna; but in a baraita, no,n it does not apply. Perhaps is no way to ascertain whether or not that degree of
the baraita is not a sufficiently reliable source to establish the precision exists in a particular baraita.
halakha in accordance with the compromise opinion based on its
He did not hear – יה ּ יעא ֵל
ָ לא ׁ ְש ִמ:ָ In most instances,
formulation. Rabba bar bar Ĥana said to Rav Yosef: I heard it the talmudic phrase: He did not hear, is not to be taken
explicitly. literally. Rather, it means that one of the Sages did not
accept a specific idea. In this case, apparently Rabba ac-
ַח ִּמין ׁ ֶשהו ַּח ּמ ּו ֵמ ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת; ַרב:ִא ְּת ַמר An amoraic dispute was stated: With regard to hot water that cepted the principle: Rav has the status of a tanna and
,רֹוחץ ָ ּב ֶהן ָּכל גּ וּפֹו ֵא ֶבר ֵא ֶבר ֵ ְל ָמ ָחר:ָא ַמר was heated on Shabbat eveh before Shabbat, Rav said: The next has the authority to disagree with tanna’im. Therefore,
ל ֹא ִה ִּתיר ּו ִל ְרחֹוץ ֶא ָּלא ּ ָפנָיו:ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל ָא ַמר day, on Shabbat, one may wash his entire body with it; how- there is no proof from the challenge brought from the
ever, not all at once. Rather, he washes one limb at a time, in a baraita (Melo HaRo’im).
ַח ִּמין ׁ ֶשהו ַּח ּמ ּו ֵמ ֶע ֶרב:ית ֵיבי ִ ֵמ.יָ ָדיו וְ ַרגְ ָליו
departure from the standard practice, to remind him that it is
,רֹוחץ ָ ּב ֶהן ּ ָפנָיו יָ ָדיו וְ ַרגְ ָליו
ֵ ׁ ַש ָ ּבת – ְל ָמ ָחר Shabbat. And Shmuel said: They only permitted washing one’s halakha
ָ ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא דְּ ַרב! ָא ַמר ְלך,ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ָּכל גּ וּפֹו face, his hands, and his feet with hot water, even if it was heated Hot water that was heated on Shabbat eve – ַח ִּמין
ֶא ָּלא ֵא ֶבר, ל ֹא ָּכל גּ וּפֹו – ְ ּב ַבת ַא ַחת:ַרב on Shabbat eve; however, they did not permit washing his entire שהו ַּח ּמ ּו ֵמ ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת:
ֶ ׁ Hot water that was heated before
body, even in increments. The Gemara raises an objection from the beginning of Shabbat or a Festival may be used for
“פנָיו יָ ָדיו וְ ַרגְ ָליו״ ָק ָתנֵי! ְּכ ֵעין ּ ָפנָיו
ָ ּ וְ ָהא.ֵא ֶבר
what was taught in a baraita: Hot water that was heated on Shab- washing one’s face, hands, and feet but may not be used
.יָ ָדיו וְ ַרגְ ָליו to wash all or most of one’s body (Magen Avraham), even
bat eve, the next day one may wash his face, his hands, and his
if he washes one limb at a time (Rambam Sefer Zemanim,
feet with it but not his entire body. This is a conclusive refuta- Hilkhot Shabbat 22:2; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 326:1).
tion of Rav’s opinion. Rav could have said to you: When the
baraita says: Not one’s entire body, it means not his entire body
at once, but one limb and then another limb until he washes his
entire body is permitted. The Gemara asks: Doesn’t it say one’s
face, his hands, and his feet, and no more? Rav answers: It
means that one washes his body in a manner similar to the man-
ner that one washes his face, his hands, and his feet, i.e., each
limb separately, and they were cited as examples of washing one
limb at a time.
ל ֹא ִה ִּתיר ּו ִל ְרחֹוץ ְ ּב ַח ִּמין ׁ ֶשהו ַּח ּמ ּו: ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמעThe Gemara cites an additional proof. Come and hear from what
: ֶא ָּלא ּ ָפנָיו יָ ָדיו וְ ַרגְ ָליו! ָה ָכא נַ ִמי, ֵמ ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבתwas taught in a baraita: They only permitted to wash one’s face,
. ְּכ ֵעין ּ ָפנָיו יָ ָדיו וְ ַרגְ ָליוhis hands, and his feet with hot water that was heated before
Shabbat. This poses a difficulty to Rav. Rav answers: Here too,
this refers to washing one limb at a time, in a manner similar to
the way one washes his face, his hands, and his feet.
ַח ִּמין ׁ ֶשהו ַּח ּמ ּו:יה דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ּ ות
ֵ ַָּתנְ יָ א ְּכו The Gemara remarks: A baraita was taught in accordance with
רֹוחץ ָ ּב ֶהן ּ ָפנָיו יָ ָדיו ֵ ְל ָמ ָחר,ֵמ ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת the opinion of Shmuel: Hot water that was heated on Shabbat
וְ ֵאין, ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ָּכל גּ וּפֹו ֵא ֶבר ֵא ֶבר,וְ ַרגְ ָליו eve, the next day one may wash his face, his hands, and his feet
with it but not his entire body, even one limb at a time. And,
ַר ָ ּבה.לֹומר ַח ִּמין ׁ ֶשהו ַּח ּמ ּו ְ ּביֹום טֹוב ַ ְצָ ִריך
needless to say, this is the halakha with regard to hot water that
:ישנָ א ָ ׁ ַמ ְתנֵי ָל ּה ְל ָהא ׁ ְש ַמ ֲע ָתא דְּ ַרב ְ ּב ַהאי ִל was heated on a Festival. Rabba would teach this halakha of
ָא ַמר, ְל ָמ ָחר,ַח ִּמין ׁ ֶשהו ַּח ּמ ּו ֵמ ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת Rav in this language: Hot water that was heated on Shabbat eve,
. ו ְּמ ׁ ַשּיֵ יר ֵא ֶבר ֶא ָחד,רֹוחץ ָ ּב ֶהן ָּכל גּ וּפֹו ֵ :ַרב the next day, Rav said: One may bathe his entire body in it and
.יה ָּכל ָהנֵי ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא – ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא
ּ ית ֵיב
ִ ֵא exclude one limb to remind himself that today is Shabbat. They
raised all of these conclusive refutations, with which they ob-
jected to the previous version of Rav’s statement, against him and
the Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation.
ַר ָ ּבה ִמי ָקא ָע ֵביד:יֹוסף ְל ַא ַ ּביֵ י
ֵ יה ַרב ּ ָא ַמר ֵל Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Does Rabba act in accordance with
. ָלא יָ ַד ֲענָ א:יה
ּ יה דְּ ַרב? ָא ַמר ֵל ּ ִּכ ׁ ְש ַמ ֲע ֵת this halakha of Rav? He said to him: I do not know. The Gemara
דְּ ָהא,יטא דְּ ָלא ָע ֵביד ָ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש:יה
ּ יב ֵעי ֵל
ּ ָ ַמאי ִּת asks: What is his dilemma? It is obvious that Rabba did not act
in accordance with Rav’s statement, as Rav’s statement was
.יהּ יעא ֵל
ָ ֹותב! (דִּ ְיל ָמא) ָלא ׁ ְש ִמ ַ ִא ּית
conclusively refuted. The Gemara answers: Perhaps he did not
hear,n i.e., he did not know of the challenges or he did not
consider them substantial. Perhaps, in his opinion, it is still
reasonable to act in accordance with Rav’s statement.
מ ףד. ׳ג קרפ. Perek III . 40a 187
halakha
,יה – וַ דַּ אי ָע ֵביד ּ יעא ֵל ָ וְ ִאי ָלא ׁ ְש ִמ The Gemara says: If so, there is still no room for the dilemma. And
A bathhouse whose openings were sealed on Shabbat if Rabba did not hear this refutation, certainly he acted in accor-
eve – מ ְר ָחץ ׁ ֶש ּ ָפ ְקק ּו נְ ָק ָביו ֵמ ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת:ֶ Immediately after ,ילי דְּ ָמר ָע ֵביד ְּכ ַרב ֵּ ָּכל ִמ:דַּ ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י
Shabbat, it is permitted to bathe in a bathhouse whose ַמ ִּט ִילין:ַ ּבר ֵמ ָהנֵי ְּת ָלת דְּ ָע ֵביד ִּכ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל dance with Rav’s opinion, as Abaye said: In all halakhic matters
openings were sealed before Shabbat to prevent it from of the Master, Rabba, he conducted himself in accordance with
וַ ֲה ָל ָכה, ו ַּמ ְד ִל ִיקין ִמ ֵּנר ַל ֵּנר,ִמ ֶ ּבגֶ ד ְל ֶבגֶ ד
cooling. If the openings were not sealed, one must wait the opinion of Rav, except these three where he conducted him-
sufficient time after Shabbat for the water to be heated – ְּכחו ְּמ ֵרי דְּ ַרב.ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ִ ּבגְ ִר ָירה self in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. He ruled: One
(Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 326:11). . ְּכקו ֵּּלי דְּ ַרב – ָלא ָע ֵביד,ָע ֵביד may not light from one Hanukkah lamp to another lamp, and one
If its openings were sealed on the eve of a Festival – may untie ritual fringes from garment to garment, and the hala-
פ ְקק ּו נְ ָק ָביו ֵמ ֶע ֶרב יֹום טֹוב:ָ ּ One is permitted to sweat in a kha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the
bathhouse whose openings were sealed on the eve of case of dragging. According to Rabbi Shimon, it is permitted to
a Festival so that it would not cool off. Some authorities drag heavy objects, and there is no concern that, as a result, a ditch
rule that one is even permitted to bathe his entire body might be dug in the ground. In any case, it is certainly reasonable
in water that was heated before a Festival. However, he
may only use that water to wash himself outside the bath-
to say that he acted in accordance with the opinion of Rav in the
house. Using it even in the outer room is prohibited (Ma- case of bathing on Shabbat as well. The Gemara answers: His is not
gen Avraham). Other authorities prohibit washing even an absolute proof. Perhaps Rabba’s custom was that he acted in
outside the bathhouse (Tur), and that is the accepted accordance with the stringencies of Rav and he did not act in
halakha (Rema; Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Yom Tov accordance with the leniencies of Rav. Washing with hot water
1:16; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 511:2). on Shabbat is one of Rav’s leniencies. Therefore, it is not clear how
They permitted bathing in the hot springs of Tiberias – Rabba acted in practice.
ה ִּתיר ּו ָל ֶהן ַח ֵּמי ִט ֶ ּב ְריָ ה:ִ It is permitted to bathe in the water
that is in the ground of the hot springs of Tiberias on Shab- ֶמ ְר ָחץ ׁ ֶש ּ ָפ ְקק ּו נְ ָק ָביו ֵמ ֶע ֶרב:ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן The Sages taught in a Tosefta: A bathhouse whose openings were
bat. When the water is in a vessel, bathing is prohibited .רֹוחץ ּבֹו ִמּיָ ד
ֵ – ְלמֹוצָ ֵאי ׁ ַש ָ ּבת,ׁ ַש ָ ּבת sealed on Shabbat eveh so that the heat would not diminish, after
(Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 22:2; Shulĥan
ּ ָפ ְקק ּו נְ ָק ָביו ֵמיֹום טֹוב– ְל ָמ ָחר נִ ְכנָ ס Shabbat one may bathe in it immediately. If its openings were
Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 326:1). sealed on the eve of a Festival,h the next day, on the Festival itself,
.יצֹון ּ וְ יֹוצֵ א ו ִּמ ׁ ְש ַּת ֵּטף ַ ּב ַ ּביִ ת ַה ִח,ו ֵּמזִ ַיע one may enter and sweat in the heat produced by the hot water and
And the decree prohibiting sweating remained in
place – עֹומ ֶדת
ֶ קֹומ ּה
ָ יעה ִ ּב ְמ
ָ ֵוְ ז: Entering a bathhouse on emerge and rinse with cold water in the outer room of the bathhouse.
Shabbat in order to sweat there is prohibited. Some au-
thorities hold that even passing through a bathhouse in ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּב ֶמ ְר ָחץ ׁ ֶשל:ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident in the bathhouse of
a manner that will inevitably cause one to sweat, e.g., a ,ְ ּבנֵי ְב ַרק ׁ ֶש ּ ָפ ְקק ּו נְ ָק ָביו ֵמ ֶע ֶרב יֹום טֹוב Benei Berak, whose openings were sealed on the eve of a Festival.
small bathhouse where there is considerable heat, is pro- The next day, on the Festival itself, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya and
hibited (Mishna Berura; Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot ְל ָמ ָחר נִ ְכנַס ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֶ ּבן ֲעזַ ְריָ ה וְ ַר ִ ּבי
Rabbi Akiva entered and sweated there, and emerged and rinsed
Shabbat 22:2; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 326:12). נִש ַּת ְּטפ ּוְ ׁ ְ וְ ֵהזִ יע ּו ּבֹו וְ יָ צְ א ּו ו,יבא ָ ֲע ִק
themselves in the outer room. However, this bathhouse was
ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ַח ִּמין ׁ ֶש ּלֹו.יצֹון ּ ַ ּב ַ ּביִ ת ַה ִח unique because the hot water was covered by wooden boards and
language
ְּכ ׁ ֶש ָ ּבא ַהדָּ ָבר ִל ְפנֵי.ְמחו ּ ִּפין ִ ּבנְ ָס ִרים there was no concern lest a person bathe in the hot water. When
Bathhouses [ambatyaot] – א ְמ ַ ּב ְטיָ אֹות:
ַ The word am-
bati or ambatiya is from the Greek word ἐμβατή, embate,
ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַח ִּמין:ּ ָא ְמרו,ֲח ָכ ִמים this matter came before the Sages, they said: Even if its hot water
which means, among other things, a bath. ְ ו ִּמ ׁ ּ ֶש ַר ּב ּו.ׁ ֶש ּלֹו ְמחו ּ ִּפין ִ ּבנְ ָס ִרין
עֹוב ֵרי is not covered by boards, it is permitted to sweat from the heat in
ַא ְמ ַ ּב ְטיָ אֹות.ֲע ֵב ָירה ִה ְת ִחיל ּו ֶל ֱאסֹור the bathhouse. When the number of transgressors increased, the
Sages began to prohibit this. However, the large bathhouses [am-
.חֹוש ׁש ֵ ׁ ׁ ֶשל ְּכ ַר ִּכין – ְמ ַטּיֵ יל ָ ּב ֶהן וְ ֵאינֹו
batyaot]l in cities,b one may stroll through them as usual and need
not be concerned about the prohibitions of Shabbat, even if he
sweats while doing so.
“עֹוב ֵרי ֲע ֵב ָירה״? דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ְ ַמאי And the Gemara asks: What are these transgressors? The Gemara
הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַ ּבר ֻ ׁ ְֶ ּבן ּ ָפזִ י ָא ַמר י answers: Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben
רֹוחצִ ין ְ ּב ַח ִּמיןֲ ילה ָהי ּו ָּ ַ ּב ְּת ִח:ַק ּ ָפ ָרא Levi said in the name of bar Kappara: Initially, people would
bathe even on Shabbat in hot water that was heated before Shab-
ִה ְת ִחיל ּו ַה ַ ּב ָּלנִים,ׁ ֶשהו ַּח ּמ ּו ֵמ ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת
bat. The bathhouse attendants began to heat water on Shabbatn
ֵמ ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת:אֹומ ִרים ְ ְְל ָה ֵחם ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ו and say that it was heated before Shabbat. Therefore, the Sages
ָא ְסר ּו ֶאת ַה ַח ִּמין וְ ִה ִּתיר ּו ֶאת,ּהו ַּח ּמו prohibited bathing in hot water and permitted sweating. And they
,רֹוחצִ ין ְ ּב ַח ִּמין ֲ וַ ֲע ַדיִ ין ָהי ּו.יעה ָ ֵַהּז would still bathe in hot water and say: We are sweating, and that
יעין ֲאנַ ְחנ ּו״ – ָא ְסר ּו ִ ִ“מז ְ אֹומ ִרים ְ ְו is why we entered the bathhouse. Therefore, the Sages prohibited
background . וְ ִה ִּתיר ּו ַח ֵּמי ִט ֶ ּב ְריָ ה,יעה ָ ֵָל ֶהן ֶאת ַהּז sweating and permitted bathing in the hot springs of Tiberias.h
Large bathhouses in cities – א ְמ ַ ּב ְטיָ אֹות ׁ ֶשל ְּכ ַר ִּכין:
ַ The And people would still bathe in hot water heated by fire and say:
אֹומ ִרים
ְ ְ ו,רֹוחצִ ין ְ ּב ַח ֵּמי ָהאוּר ֲ וַ ֲע ַדיִ ין ָהי ּו
bathhouses in the big cities consisted of several large We bathed in the hot springs of Tiberias. Therefore, they prohib-
rooms. It was customary to walk through them for purpos- “ב ַח ֵּמי ִט ֶ ּב ְריָ ה ָר ַחצְ נוּ״ – ָא ְסר ּו ָל ֶהן ַח ֵּמי ְּ ited even the hot springs of Tiberias and permitted them to bathe
es other than bathing. The heating in most of these bath- ָרא ּו.ִט ֶ ּב ְריָ ה וְ ִה ִּתיר ּו ָל ֶהן ֶאת ַה ּצֹונֵ ן in cold water. When the Sages saw that their decrees were not
houses was under the floor, so simply walking through
עֹומד ָל ֶהן – ִה ִּתיר ּו ָל ֶהן ֵ ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַהדָּ ָבר upheldn by the people because of their stringency, they permitted
the bathhouse would cause one to sweat.
.עֹומ ֶדת ֶ קֹומ ּה ָ יעה ִ ּב ְמ ָ ֵ וְ ז,ַח ֵּמי ִט ֶ ּב ְריָ ה them to bathe in the hot springs of Tiberias, and the decree pro-
hibiting sweating remained in place.h
notes
The attendants began to heat water on Shabbat – ִה ְת ִחיל ּו come to stir the coals. This explanation is found in the Jerusalem
ה ַ ּב ָּלנִים ְל ָה ֵחם ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת:ַ This does not mean that the attendants Talmud (Ran).
actually heated the water on Shabbat by lighting a fire and
boiling it. Indeed, the general principle is that Jews are never The Sages saw that their decrees were not upheld – ָרא ּו ׁ ֶש ֵאין
suspected of willfully desecrating the Shabbat. Rather, the state- עֹומד ָל ֶהן
ֵ הדָּ ָבר:ַ It is stated in the Jerusalem Talmud that since
ment must be understood to mean that the attendants added the Sages saw that people began to restrain themselves and no
wood to the fire just before Shabbat and sealed the openings longer violated the decrees of the Sages, they reconsidered and
Hall of a Roman bathhouse in Pompeii, from the talmudic period of the bathhouse. This act was prohibited lest the attendants permitted certain activities that they had previously prohibited.
Perek III
Daf 40 Amud b
notes
. ִּכי ַהאי ַּת ָּנאRabba’s statement is according to this tanna in the baraita, who
As long as he does not rinse in cold water and warm
referred to those who violated a rabbinic decree as transgressors.
himself opposite the bonfire – יִש ַּת ֵּטף ְ ּבצֹונֵן ְ ׁ ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא
וְ יִ ְת ַח ֵּמם ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ַה ְּמדו ָּרה: The reason provided in the Ge-
“א ְמ ַ ּב ְטיָ אֹות ׁ ֶשל ְּכ ַר ִּכים ְמ ַטּיֵ יל ָ ּב ֶהן וְ ֵאינֹו
ַ It was taught in a Tosefta: In bathhouses in cities, one may stroll mara, that the water is warmed, is difficult since it is not
through them and, even if he sweats while doing so, need not be prohibited to make water lukewarm on Shabbat. Nev-
ֲא ָבל, דַּ וְ ָקא ְּכ ַר ִּכין: ָא ַמר ָר ָבא.חֹוש ׁש״ ֵׁ
concerned. Rava said: This applies specifically to bathhouses in ertheless, the Sages prohibited one who rinsed in cold
, ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ זו ְּט ִרין.דִּ ְכ ָפ ִרים – ל ֹא water to warm himself next to a bonfire, as that could
cities; but in villages, no, it does not apply. What is the reason
.ּנָ ֵפ ׁיש ַה ְב ַליְ יהו create the impression that he had been in a bathhouse,
for this distinction? Since the bathhouses in the villages are small, potentially leading people to conclude that bathing in
their heat is great, and even merely walking through them will a bathhouse is permitted (Ramban).
certainly cause one to sweat.
Not so that the water will heat up – ל ֹא ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ׁ ֶשּיֵ ַח ּמ ּו:
Some commentaries explain that one must be care-
ִמ ְת ַח ֵּמם ָא ָדם ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ַה ְּמדו ָּרה וְ יֹוצֵ א:ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן The Sages taught: One may warm himself opposite a bonfire on ful when tempering cold water. If the water is close
Shabbat and emerge and rinse in cold water as long as he does enough to the fire that it could become hotter than
ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא יִ ׁ ְש ַּת ֵּטף ְ ּבצֹונֵן,ו ִּמ ׁ ְש ַּת ֵּטף ְ ּבצֹונֵן
not first rinse in cold water and then warm himself h opposite lukewarm, it is prohibited. This is also the conclusion in
ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ַּמ ְפ ׁ ִשיר ַמיִ ם,וְ יִ ְת ַח ֵּמם ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ַה ְּמדו ָּרה the Jerusalem Talmud (Rosh and others).
the bonfire.n This is prohibited because he thereby warms the
יחם ָא ָדם ֲאלוּנְ ִטית ֵ ֵמ: ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן.ׁ ֶש ָע ָליו
water on his body and renders it lukewarm. The Sages also
ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא,ִיח ּה ַעל ְ ּבנֵי ֵמ ַעיִ ם ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ָ ו ַּמ ּנ taught: A person whose intestines are painful may heat up a language
ִיחנּ ּו ַעל
ֶ ִיָביא קו ְּמקוּמֹוס ׁ ֶשל ַמיִ ם ַח ִּמין וְ יַ ּנ towel [aluntit]l and place it on his intestines even on Shabbat. Towel [aluntit] – ּנְטית
ִ אלו:
ֲ From the Latin linteum, a
towel or napkin made of linen, probably by way of the
וְ ָד ָבר זֶ ה ֲא ִפיל ּו ַ ּבחֹול,ְ ּבנֵי ֵמ ַעיִ ם ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת This is permitted as long as one does not bring a kettleh of wa- Greek.
.ָאסוּר ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ַה ַּס ָּכנָ ה ter and place it on his intestines on Shabbat, lest the water spill
and he come to wring it out (Tosafot), which is a prohibited labor Jug [kiton] – ק ּיתֹון:ִ From the Greek κύαθος, kyathos,
meaning a cup for drawing wine from a mixing bowl.
on Shabbat. And placing a kettle directly on his intestines is pro-
hibited even on a weekday due to the danger involved. If the
water is extremely hot it could spill and scald him.
יתֹון ַמיִ ם ו ַּמ ּנִיחֹו ּ ֵמ ִביא ָא ָדם ִק:ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן Similarly, the Sages taught: One may bring a jug [kiton]l full of
ֶא ָּלא,ּ ל ֹא ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ׁ ֶשּיֵ ַח ּמו,ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ַה ְּמדו ָּרה cold water and place it opposite the bonfire on Shabbat; not so
:אֹומרֵ ָר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה.ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ׁ ֶש ָּת ִפיג צִ ָּינ ָתן that the water will heat up,n as it is prohibited to cook on Shabbat,
rather to temper the cold, as one is permitted to render water less
ָ יאה ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ּ ַפ ְך ׁ ֶשל ׁ ֶש ֶמן ו ַּמ ּנ
ִיחתֹו ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ָ ְמ ִב
cold on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda says: A woman may take a cruse
ל ֹא ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ׁ ֶשּיִ ְב ׁ ַשל ֶא ָּלא ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל,ַה ְּמדו ָּרה of oil and place it opposite the bonfire;h not so the oil will cook,
ִא ׁ ּ ָשה:אֹומר
ֵ יאל ֵ ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל.ׁ ֶשּיִ ְפ ׁ ַשר rather, so it will warm until it is lukewarm. Rabban Shimon ben
,ָס ָכה יָ ָד ּה ׁ ֶש ֶמן ו ְּמ ַח ַּמ ְמ ָּת ּה ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ַה ְּמדו ָּרה Gamliel says: A woman may smear her hand with oil, and heat
.חֹוש ׁ ֶשת
ֶ ׁ וְ ֵאינָ ּה,וְ ָס ָכה ִל ְבנָ ּה ָק ָטן it opposite the fire, and afterward smear her young son with the
heated oil, and she need not be concerned about cooking on
Shabbat.
halakha
Rinsing and warming – ל ִה ׁ ְש ַּת ֵטף ו ְּל ִה ְת ַח ֵמם:ְ It is prohibited to weekday it is prohibited because of the danger involved. However,
rinse oneself with cold water and then warm oneself by standing placing a hot garment on one’s stomach on Shabbat is permitted
next to the fire, as that is tantamount to heating water on Shabbat. (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 22:4; Shulĥan Arukh,
However, heating oneself next to a fire and then rinsing with cold Oraĥ Ĥayyim 326:6).
water is permitted (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 22:3;
Liquids opposite the bonfire – מ ׁ ְש ִקין ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ַה ְּמדו ָּרה:ַ Placing water,
Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 326:4).
oil, and other liquids near a fire is permitted as long as they will not
As long as one does not bring a kettle, etc. – ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִיָביא reach a temperature at which one’s hand spontaneously recoils
קו ְּמקוּמֹוס וכו׳: Placing a vessel containing hot water on one’s from them. This applies equally to water and oil, as per the opin-
stomach on Shabbat is prohibited, as per the baraita. Even on a ion of Shmuel (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 318:14).
ֶא ָחד ׁ ֶש ֶמן:ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said that the halakha is: With
ֵאין יָ ד,סֹול ֶדת ּבֹו – ָאסוּר ֶ יָ ד,וְ ֶא ָחד ַמיִ ם regard to both oil and water, heating either one to the point
?סֹול ֶדת ּבֹו
ֶ וְ ֵה ִיכי דָּ ֵמי יָ ד.סֹול ֶדת ּבֹו – מו ָּּתר
ֶ where the hand spontaneously recoils from it is prohibited.
Heating either one to the point where the hand does not spon-
. ּכֹל ׁ ֶש ְּכ ֵריסֹו ׁ ֶשל ִּתינֹוק נִ ְכוֵ ית:ָא ַמר ַר ֲח ָבא
taneously recoil from it is permitted. The Gemara asks: And
what are the circumstances in which a hand spontaneously
recoils from it? Not all hands are equal in their sensitivity to
heat. The Sage, Raĥava, said: Any water that could cause a ba-
by’s stomach to be scalded is considered water from which the
hand spontaneously recoils.
ּ ַפ ַעם ַא ַחת:ימי ִ ִָּא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק ַ ּבר ַא ְבד Rav Yitzĥak bar Avdimi said: One time I followed Rabbi Ye-
נַס ִּתי ַא ַחר ַר ִ ּבי ְל ֵבית ַה ֶּמ ְר ָחץ ו ִּב ַ ּק ׁ ְש ִּתי ְ נִ ְכ huda HaNasi into the bathhouse on Shabbat to assist him, and
: וְ ָא ַמר ִלי,ְל ַה ּנ ִַיח לֹו ּ ַפךְ ׁ ֶשל ׁ ֶש ֶמן ָ ּב ַא ְמ ַ ּב ֵטי I sought to place a jar of oil in the bathtub for him, to heat the
oil somewhat before rubbing it on him. And he said to me:
ׁ ְש ַמע, ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה ְּת ָלת.טֹול ִ ּב ְכ ִלי ׁ ֵשנִי וָ ֵתן
Take water from the bath in a secondary vesselh and place the
: ו ׁ ְּש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה, ׁ ֶש ֶמן יֵ ׁש ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ִ ּב ׁ ּשוּל:ִמ ָּינ ּה oil into it. The Gemara remarks: Learn from this comment of
ֶה ְפ ׁ ֵשרֹו: ו ׁ ְּש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה,ְּכ ִלי ׁ ֵשנִי ֵאינֹו ְמ ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi three halakhot: Learn from it that oil is
.זֶ ה ּו ִ ּב ׁ ּשוּלֹו subject to the prohibition of cooking. This explains why he
prohibited placing it in the bathtub. And learn from it that a
secondary vessel is not hot and does not cook.n And learn
from it with regard to oil that warming it is tantamount to
cooking it.
190 Perek III . 40b . מ ףד: קרפ ׳ג
halakha
יכי ָע ֵביד ָה ִכי? וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ִ ֵה The Gemara is astonished by this story: How did Rabbi Yehuda
HaNasi do this?n How did he teach his student halakha in the In all places, it is permitted to contemplate Torah mat-
ְ ּב ָכל ָמקֹום מו ָּּתר:יֹוחנָ ן ָ ָחנָ ה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ters except for the bathhouse and the bathroom – ָמקֹום
!ְל ַה ְר ֵהר – חוּץ ִמ ֵ ּבית ַה ֶּמ ְר ָחץ ו ֵּבית ַה ִּכ ֵּסא bathhouse? Didn’t Rabba bar bar Ĥana say that Rabbi Yoĥanan מו ָּּתר ְל ַה ְר ֵהר חוּץ ִמ ֵ ּבית ַה ֶּמ ְר ָחץ ו ֵּבית ַה ִּכ ֵּסא: It is prohibited to
said: In all places, it is permitted to contemplate Torah matters speak or even think of matters of Torah in a bathroom or
וְ ָה ָא ַמר,יה
ּ ימא ִ ּב ְל ׁשֹון חֹול ָא ַמר ֵל ָ וְ ִכי ֵּת
except for the bathhouse and the bathroom?h And if you say even within four cubits, 1.92–2.3 m, of a bathroom (Mishna
אֹומ ָרן
ְ דְּ ָב ִרים ׁ ֶשל חֹול – מו ָּּתר ְל:ַא ַ ּביֵ י that he spoke to him in a secular language, didn’t Abaye say: Berura). The same applies to a bathhouse. This is a corollary
אֹומ ָרן
ְ קֹוד ׁש – ָאסוּר ְל ֶ ׁ ֶשל,קֹוד ׁשֶ ִ ּב ְל ׁשֹון Secular matters are permitted to be spoken in the sacred lan- of the prohibition against speaking sacred matters in a
.ִ ּב ְל ׁשֹון חֹול! ַא ְפרו ׁ ֵּשי ֵמ ִא ּיסו ָּרא ׁ ָשאנֵי guage, Hebrew, even in the bathhouse, and sacred matters may bathroom or a bathhouse, even in a language other than
Hebrew. However, in the course of preventing oneself or
not be spoken in the bathhouse even in a secular language? The
someone else from violating a more severe prohibition, it
Gemara answers: It was permitted for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to is permitted to speak of Torah matters in a bathroom or
conduct himself in that manner because he was preventing an bathhouse, as per the conclusion of the Gemara (Rambam
individual from violating a prohibition,n which is different. Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Keriat Shema 3:4–5; Shulĥan Arukh,
Oraĥ Ĥayyim 85:2).
: דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל,ֵּת ַדע Know that this is so, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: There And sought to rinse the floor…to smear the floor with
ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּב ַת ְל ִמידֹו ׁ ֶשל ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְכנַס was an incident where a student of Rabbi Meir followed him ָ ו ִּב ֵ ּק ׁש ְל ָה ִד ַיח ַק ְר ַק: One may not oil
oil – ע…לסו ְּך לֹו ַק ְר ַקע
ו ִּב ֵ ּק ׁש ְל ָה ִד ַיח,ַא ֲח ָריו ְל ֵבית ַה ֶּמ ְר ָחץ into the bathhouse on Shabbat and sought to rinse the floor in or wash the floor of a bathhouse on Shabbat, even if the
order to clean it. And Rabbi Meir said to him: One may not rinse floor is made of stone tiles. Since there is no great need to
ָלסו ְּך לֹו.יחין ִ ֵאין ְמ ִד: וְ ָא ַמר לֹו.ַק ְר ַקע
the floor on Shabbat. The student asked if it was permitted to do so on Shabbat, the Sages were stringent in this regard
ַא ְפרו ׁ ֵּשי: ַא ְל ָמא. ֵאין ָס ִכין: ָא ַמר לֹו,ַק ְר ַקע smear the floor with oil.h He said to him: One may not smear (Magen Avraham; Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shab-
ְל ַא ְפרו ׁ ֵּשי: ָה ָכא נַ ִמי,ֵמ ִא ּיסו ָּרא – ׁ ָשאנֵי bat 21:3; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 337:3).
the floor with oil. Apparently, preventing one from violating a
.ֵמ ִא ּיסו ָּרא ׁ ָשאנֵי prohibition is different. Here too, in the incident involving Cooking in the hot springs of Tiberias – ִ ּב ׁישוּל ְ ּב ַח ֵּמי
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, preventing one from violating a prohibi- ט ֶ ּב ְריָ א:ִ One who cooks in the hot springs of Tiberias is not
tion is different and permitted. liable by Torah law; however, he violates a rabbinic decree.
Even though the water of the hot springs is not heated by
fire and it is unlike standard cases of cooking, neverthe-
ַה ְמ ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל ְ ּב ַח ֵּמי, ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה:ָא ַמר ָר ִבינָ א Ravina said: Learn from it that one who cooks in the hot
less the Sages issued a decree. Cooking in hot springs is
דְּ ָהא ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה.ִט ֶ ּב ְריָ א ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת – ַחּיָ יב springs of Tiberiash on Shabbat is liable, as the incident with punishable by lashes for rebelliousness (Maggid Mishne;
טֹול:יה ּ וַ ֲא ַמר ֵל,דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ְל ַא ַחר ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ֲהוָ ה Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was after the decree, and he said to his Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 9:3).
student: Take hot water in a secondary vessel and place the oil
: ִאינִי?! וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א.ִ ּב ְכ ִלי ׁ ֵשנִי וָ ֵתן A person may not float in a pool full of water, etc. – ל ֹא
into it. Had he cooked the oil in the hot water itself, he would have יכה ְמ ֵל ָאה ַמיִ ם וכו׳
ָ יָ ׁשוּט ָא ָדם ִ ּב ְב ֵר: It is prohibited to swim
!ַה ְמ ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל ְ ּב ַח ֵּמי ִט ֶ ּב ְריָ א ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת – ּ ָפטוּר violated a Torah prohibition. Since the incident with Rabbi Ye- on Shabbat, even in a pool in a courtyard. It is permitted,
.ַמאי ַ‘חּיָ יב׳ נַ ִמי דְּ ָק ָא ַמר – ַמ ַּכת ַמ ְרדּ וּת huda HaNasi took place after the Sages issued a decree to pro- though, to swim in a pool with an edge around it that
hibit bathing in hot water on Shabbat, it must have taken place in prevents the water from splashing outside the pool, as per
a bath in the hot springs of Tiberias. The Gemara challenges this: the conclusion of the Gemara (Rambam Sefer Zemanim,
Is that so? Didn’t Rav Ĥisda say that one who cooks in the Ti- Hilkhot Shabbat 23:5; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 339:2).
berias hot springs on Shabbat is not liable? The Gemara an-
swers: There is no contradiction. What, too, is the meaning of the
term liable that Ravina said? It does not mean that one who
cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias is liable to be stoned or to
bring a sin-offering like one who violates a Torah prohibition.
Rather, it means liable to receive lashes for rebelliousness, n
which one receives for intentionally violating rabbinic decrees.
notes
How did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi do this – יכי ָע ֵביד ָה ִכי
ִ ה:ֵ Why Although those Sages could have told the person to refrain depends solely on the assessment of the judges. According
did the Gemara challenge the custom of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi from his actions without citing the Torah source prohibiting to Rav Sa’adia Gaon, lashes for rebelliousness were thirteen in
from the statement of Rabbi Yoĥanan, who was his student? those actions, they cited the prohibition in order to distance number, one-third the number of lashes instituted by the Torah.
Rather, Rabbi Yoĥanan’s statement was based on a long-stand- him from transgression in the future as well (Rashba).
ing tradition; Rabbi Yoĥanan merely publicized it. Once it is
Lashes for rebelliousness – מ ַּכת ַמ ְרדּ וּת:ַ The violation of a Torah And I do not know if he lifted his feet or if he did not lift – וְ ָלא
widely accepted, it can be used to challenge even Rabbi Yehuda
prohibition is generally punishable by thirty-nine lashes. The יָ ַד ֲענָ א ִאי ֲע ַקר ִאי ָלא ֲע ַקר: Some commentaries explained the
HaNasi (Rabbeinu Ĥananel).
lashes were administered by a court based on the testimony of verb lifted in this context to mean splashed water outside the
Preventing an individual from violating a prohibition – witnesses only if the defendant was forewarned, as explained pool. The fundamental prohibition of swimming is based on
א ְפרו ׁ ֵּשי ֵמ ִא ּיסו ָּרא:
ַ Many actions that involve disdain for an in- in tractate Makkot. However, there were also lashes for rebel- the concern that one will splash water from the private domain
dividual’s honor, e.g., treating one’s rabbi without the requisite liousness that were administered to anyone who defiantly and to the public domain. This is contrary to Rashi’s opinion, which
deference, were permitted in order to prevent one from violat- intentionally violated a rabbinic ordinance or decree, even if it maintains that swimming is prohibited because one might tie
ing a prohibition. In that context, it is permitted to speak of was a relatively minor infraction. The lashes of rebelliousness wood or other objects to oneself as a flotation device to facili-
Torah matters in a place where doing so is generally prohibited. have neither an upper nor a lower limit. Rather, the number tate his swimming (Rabbeinu Zeraĥya HaLevi; Ran).
bronze vessel into which coals are placed in an outer compartment and
.ימ ָּנה
ֶ ֹותין ֵה
ִ ֵאין ׁשwater is placed into an adjacent inner compartment, whose coals were
swept, one may drink from it on Shabbat. With regard to an
antikhi,lbn which is a vessel with a different configuration, even if its coals
were swept, one may not drink from it on Shabbat.
ַ מתני׳ ַה ֵּמ
יחם ׁ ֶש ּ ִפ ָּינה ּו – ל ֹא יִ ֵּתן
ֲא ָבל,ְלתֹוכֹו צֹונֵ ן ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ׁ ֶשּיֵ ַח ּמ ּו
MISHNA The Sages added to the laws of leaving food on a
source of heat and cooking food on Shabbat: An Mulyar…antikhi – נְט ִיכי
ִ יָאר…א
ַ
notes
מו ְּל: There are various
explanations with regard to what is permitted and
urn that was emptied of its hot water on Shabbat, one may not place cold
תֹוך ַה ּכֹוס
ְ אֹו ְל,נֹותן הוּא ְלתֹוכֹו ֵ water into it so that the cold water will be heated. However, one may what is prohibited in this matter. Some explained
. ְּכ ֵדי ְל ַה ְפ ׁ ִש ָירןplace cold water into an urn or into a cup that were emptied of their hot that the reason for permitting a mulyar is because
the water is not above the coals. Therefore, it is not
water in order to warm it but not in order to heat it. considered a primary vessel. However, an antikhi is
Gemara
considered to be a primary vessel because the water
גמ׳ ַמאי ָק ָא ַמר? ָא ַמר ַרב ַאדָּ א ַ ּבר The mishna seems to contradict itself. The first is above the coals (Ran).
יחם ׁ ֶש ּ ִפ ָּינה ַ ַה ֵּמ: ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר,ַמ ָּתנָ א statement completely prohibits placing water into
an urn, and later it was partially permitted. The Gemara asks: What is the What is the mishna saying – מאי ָק ָא ַמר:ַ The Ritva
תֹוכן
ָ ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ַמיִ ם ַח ִּמין – ל ֹא יִ ֵּתן ְל mishna saying?n Rav Adda bar Mattana said that it said the following: explained that this question means: What is the pre-
נֹותן
ֵ ֲא ָבל,ַּמיִ ם מו ָּע ִטים ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשּיֵ ַח ּמו cise meaning of the word shepinahu in the mishna?
An urn that was emptied of its hot water,h one may not put a small Does it mean that the urn itself was removed from its
.ְלתֹוכֹו ַמיִ ם ְמרו ִ ּּבים – ְּכ ֵדי ְל ַה ְפ ׁ ִש ָירן amount of water into it so that it will become very hot. However, one place on the fire, or does it mean that the water was
may put a large quantity of water into it in order to warm it. A large removed from the urn, as subsequently interpreted
quantity of cold water will not be heated in those circumstances. in the Gemara?
דָּ ָבר: דְּ ָא ַמר,וַ ֲהל ֹא ְמ ָצ ֵרף! ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ִהיא The Gemara questions this leniency: By putting cold water into
ִמידֵּ י: ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ַא ַ ּביֵ י.ׁ ֶש ֵאין ִמ ְת ַּכ ֵּוין – מו ָּּתר the urn, doesn’t it harden the vessel?n Cold water poured into
יחם ַ “מ
ֵ ?יחם ׁ ֶש ּ ִפ ָּינה ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ַמיִ ם״ ָק ָתנֵי ַ “מֵ a heated metal vessel reinforces the vessel. It is one of the stages
in the labor of a blacksmith. How is it permitted to do something
!ׁ ֶש ּ ִפ ָּינהוּ״ ָק ָתנֵי
similar on Shabbat? The Gemara answers: This mishna is in
accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who stated a
principle with regard to the laws of Shabbat: An unintentional
act,n i.e., a permitted action from which a prohibited labor in-
advertently ensues, is permitted. Here too, his intention was to
warm the water, not to reinforce the vessel. Abaye strongly
objects to this explanation: Does it say in the mishna: An urn
from which water was emptied? That would indicate that he
sought to fill the vessel with other water and warm up that water.
Rather, an urn that was removedn was taught in the mishna,
meaning that the urn was removed from the fire, not that the
water was emptied from it.
יחם ַ ַה ֵּמ: ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר,ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י Rather, Abaye said this is what the mishna is saying: An urn
ׁ ֶש ּ ִפ ָּינה ּו וְ יֵ ׁש ּבֹו ַמיִ ם ַח ִּמין – ל ֹא יִ ֵּתן ְלתֹוכֹו that was removed from the fire and contains hot water, one
נֹותן
ֵ ֲא ָבל,ּחֹומו ּ ַָמיִ ם מ ּו ָע ִטין ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ׁ ֶשּי may not place a small quantity of water in it so that the water
will become hot; rather, one may place a large quantity of
יחם ַ ו ֵּמ.ְלתֹוכֹו ַמיִ ם ְמרו ִ ּּבים ְּכ ֵדי ְל ַה ְפ ׁ ִש ָירן
water in it so that the water will become warm. And with re-
ׁ ֶש ּ ִפ ָּינה ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ַמיִ ם – ל ֹא יִ ֵּתן ְלתֹוכֹו ַמיִ ם ָּכל gard to an urn from which water was removed; one may not
: דְּ ָא ַמר, וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה ִהיא. ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ְּמ ָצ ֵרף,ִע ָ ּיקר place any water into it because he hardens the vessel by placing
.דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ֵאין ִמ ְת ַּכ ֵּוין – ָאסוּר cold water into a hot vessel. And, according to this explanation,
our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda,
who said that an unintentional act from which a prohibited
labor inadvertently ensues is prohibited on Shabbat.
ֲא ָבל, ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ְל ַה ְפ ׁ ִשיר:ָא ַמר ַרב With regard to the matter itself, Rav said: They taught that one
ֲא ִפיל ּו ְל ָצ ֵרף: ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל ָא ַמר.ְל ָצ ֵרף – ָאסוּר is permitted to place cold water into an urn with hot water after
, ְל ָצ ֵרף ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּילה ִמי ׁ ָש ֵרי? ֶא ָּלא.נַ ִמי מו ָּּתר it was removed from the fire, when his intention is only to
warmn the cold water. However, if he did this in order to hard-
ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו: ָא ַמר ַרב,ית ַמר ְּ ית ַמר ָה ִכי ִא ְּ ִאי ִא
en the vessel, it is prohibited. And Shmuel said: Even if he
– ֲא ָבל ׁ ִשיעוּר ְל ָצ ֵרף,ֶא ָּלא ׁ ִשיעוּר ְל ַה ְפ ׁ ִשיר does so in order to harden the vessel, it is also permitted. The
ֲא ִפיל ּו ׁ ִשיעוּר ְל ָצ ֵרף: ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל ָא ַמר.ָאסוּר Gemara wonders: Is hardening permitted ab initio? Isn’t it a
full-fledged prohibited labor on Shabbat? Rather, if the dispute
between Rav and Shmuel was stated, it was stated as follows.
Rav said: They taught that it is permitted to add water only in
a measure that is sufficient to warm the water, i.e., to only par-
tially fill the vessel. However, filling it completely with a mea-
sure sufficient to harden the vessel is prohibited. And Shmuel
said: Even a measure sufficient to harden the vessel
notes
Doesn’t it harden the vessel – וַ ֲהל ֹא ְמ ָצ ֵרף: The process of hard- cut off its head will it not die, i.e., an inevitable consequence, is imperative to understand the word correctly in this context
ening a vessel falls in the general category of the prohibited in which case, even Rabbi Shimon agrees that the action is because the halakha depends on an unambiguous understand-
labor of “striking with a hammer,” which includes any act that prohibited. Therefore, the Gemara explains that Rabbi Shimon ing of the language (Rashba; Tosafot).
completes the crafting of a vessel. Any action that serves to does not consider this a case of hardening but only a case
complete the crafting of a vessel or its repair is prohibited. In where the potential of hardening exists (Ra’avad). ְ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּל: The state-
They taught only to warm – א…ל ַה ְפ ׁ ִשיר
this context, since the vessel is strengthened by the cold water, Urn that was removed – יחם ׁ ֶש ּ ִפ ָּינה ּו
ַ מ:ֵ Although in the Bible, ments of Rav and Shmuel can be interpreted according to the
that constitutes the final step in making the vessel. the word pina means to empty a vessel of its contents, rabbinic opinions of both Rav Adda bar Ahava and Abaye. However, each
Unintentional act – דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ֵאין ִמ ְת ַּכ ֵּוין: One might have thought Hebrew is not always consistent with biblical Hebrew. Since the interprets the matter according to the specific case with which
that hardening, even though it unintended, is a case of: If you word pina has two different meanings in talmudic literature, it he is dealing (Ritva).
נֹותן ָא ָדם ֵ : ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן.נֹותן כו׳״ ֵ “א ָבל ֲ We learned in the mishna: However, one may place water into an
ְ וְ ל ֹא ַה ּצֹונֵן ְלתֹוך,ַח ִּמין ְלתֹוךְ ַה ּצֹונֵן urn in order to warm it. The Sages taught in a baraita: A person
ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל. דִּ ְב ֵרי ֵבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי,ַה ַח ִּמין may place hot water into coldh water, but not cold into hot;hn this
is the statement of Beit Shammai. In their opinion the cold water
ו ֵּבין, ֵ ּבין ַח ִּמין ְלתֹוךְ ַה ּצֹונֵן:אֹומ ִרים ְ
becomes heated by the hot water beneath it. And Beit Hillel say:
ַ ּב ֶּמה דְּ ָב ִרים.צֹונֵן ְלתֹוךְ ַה ַח ִּמין מו ָּּתר Both hot into cold and cold into hot are permitted. However, Beit
– ֲא ָבל ָ ּב ַא ְמ ַ ּב ֵטי,ֲאמו ִּרים – ְ ּבכֹוס Hillel did not permit this in all cases. In what case is this said? It is
תֹוך
ְ וְ ל ֹא צֹונֵ ן ְל,תֹוך ַה ּצֹונֵ ן ְ ַח ִּמין ְל in the case of a cup. However, in a bath with a lot of water, it is
.אֹוסר
ֵ נַסיָ א ְ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ְמ.ַה ַח ִּמין permitted to pour hot into cold but not cold into hot. And Rabbi
ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון:ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן Shimon ben Menasya prohibits even putting hot into cold. Rav
Naĥman said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of
.נַסיָ א ְ ֶ ּבן ְמ
Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya in this matter.
notes
One may extinguish a piece of white-hot metal…however, dent. Indeed, there is a certain relationship between the two: performs the action but did not perform it in order to achieve
not a red-hot wood coal – ת…א ָבל ל ֹא ֲ ְמ ַכ ִ ּבין ַ ּג ֶח ֶלת ׁ ֶשל ַמ ֶּת ֶכ If an action is not necessary for its own sake, then, at the very the standard objective of that action.
ַ ּג ֶח ֶלת ׁ ֶשל ֵעץ: Some of the early commentaries explain that the least, the person did not intend to perform that aspect of the
difference between extinguishing burning wood and metal is action. Conversely, one who performs an unintentional action Hot water into cold, but not cold into hot – ַח ִּמין ְלתֹוךְ ַהצּ ֹונֵן
not in the severity of the prohibition but in the danger posed by clearly did not perform the prohibited labor for its own sake. תֹוך ַה ַח ִּמין
ְ וְ ל ֹא ַהצּ ֹונֵ ן ְל: According to Rashi, the difference in
each case. When a wooden coal is hot, it is red, which prompts Therefore, despite the resolution in the Gemara, apparently the halakha is based on the concept that the water below
people to avoid it. Metal can be hot enough to cause damage the Sages agree that those who exempt a person from labor prevails, as hot air or water is lighter and rises upward. There-
even when it is not red. That is dangerous, as people tend to that is not necessary for its own sake would certainly exempt fore, cold water poured into hot water is heated, while hot
be less careful to avoid it (Ba’al Halakhot Gedolot; Rabbeinu a person from an unintentional act. However, according to the water poured into cold water is cooled. Other commentaries
Ĥananel; Rav Hai Gaon). answer that rejects the close connection between these two explain that the reason for the prohibition was a decree based
actions, a distinction must be made between an unintentional on the prohibition against cooking. Since cooking, including
An unintentional act…labor not necessary for its own sake – act, where one had no intention at all of performing the action placing food in a primary vessel, is prohibited, pouring cold
יכה ְלגו ָּפ ּה
ָ אכה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ה צְ ִר
ָ ין…ב ְמ ָל
ּ ִ ב ָד ָבר ׁ ֶש ֵאין ִמ ְת ַּכ ֵּו:ּ ְ The Gemara is or the prohibition, even if it ensued as an unintended but not water into a vessel in which there is hot water, even if it is a
based on the assumption that an unintentional action and a inevitable consequence of a different action, and an action that secondary vessel, is tantamount to cooking the water and is
labor that is not necessary for its own sake are interdepen- is not necessary for its own sake where the person intentionally prohibited (Rashba).
MISHNA
taneously recoils from it (Mishna Berura; Rambam
Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 22:6; Shulĥan Arukh, מתני׳ ָה ִא ְיל ּ ָפס וְ ַה ְּק ֵד ָרה ׁ ֶש ֶה ֱע ִב ָירן In continuation of the discussion of vessels where
Oraĥ Ĥayyim 318:9). ,תֹוכן ְּת ָב ִלין
ָ ְמרו ָּּת ִחין – ל ֹא יִ ֵּתן ְל the prohibition of cooking applies even though
the vessels are not actually on the fire itself, the mishna establishes: A
stew pot [ilpas]l and a pot that were removed from the fire while they
were still boiling, even if they were removed before Shabbat, one may
not place spices into themh on Shabbat itself. Even though the pot is
not actually standing on the fire, the spices are still cooked in it because
the pot is a primary vessel, i.e., a vessel whose contents were cooked on
the fire.
Perek III
Daf 42 Amud b
background
תֹוך ַה ְּק ָע ָרה אֹו ְ נֹותן הוּא ְל ֵ ֲא ָבל However, one may place the spices into a bowl or into a tureen
Tureen [tamĥui ] – ת ְמחוּי:ַּ A tamĥui is a large, flat
:אֹומר
ֵ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה.תֹוך ַה ַּת ְמחוּיְ ְל [tamĥui],b which is a large bowl into which people pour the contents a
vessel used to hold food after it was removed from
a pot before it was distributed into bowls. In every חוּץ ִמדָּ ָבר ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ּבֹו,נֹותן
ֵ ַל ּכֹל הוּא stew pot or a pot. Bowls and tureens are both secondary vessels and food
city, the charity collectors would collect money to placed into them does not get cooked. Rabbi Yehuda says: One may
.חֹומץ וְ צִ יר
ֶ
be distributed to the poor for their needs, such as place spices into anything on Shabbat except for a vessel that has in it
clothing, shelter, and the like. The money was also something containing vinegar or brine of salted fish.
used to purchase food for the tamĥui, which was
a large tureen full of food that was apportioned to
the poor in need of a meal. Consequently, the place
where charity was distributed was named for this
ַר ִ ּבי יְ ה ּו ָדה: יב ֲעיָ א ְלה ּוּ ַ גמ׳ ִא
, אֹו דִּ ְיל ָמא, ו ְּלקו ָּּלא,ישא ָק ֵאי ָ ׁ ַא ֵר
Gemara A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is Rab-
bi Yehuda referring to the first clause of the
mishna and being lenient? According to that possibility, the mishna
vessel, a house of tamĥui. ? ַא ֵּס ָיפא ָק ֵאי ו ְּלחו ְּמ ָראprohibits placing spices into any boiling pot and Rabbi Yehuda holds that
this only applies if there is fish brine or vinegar inside the pot. Or perhaps
he is referring to the latter clause of the mishna and is being stringent?
The Rabbis said that one is permitted to place spices into a bowl or a tu-
reen, and Rabbi Yehuda came to add a stringency and say that if the bowl
or tureen contains vinegar or brine, it is prohibited to place spices into it.
196 Perek III . 42b . במ ףד: קרפ ׳ג
halakha
ְל ָכל:אֹומר
ֵ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה, דְּ ַתנְיָא: ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמעCome and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which was
Salt is not like a spice – מ ַלח ֵאינָ ה ִּכ ְת ָב ִלין:ֶ Sprinkling
ְ ְל ָכל ַה ְּק ֵדירֹות,נֹותן
רֹותחֹות ֵ ִא ְיל ּ ָפ ִסין הוּאtaught explicitly in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: Into all stew salt into a primary vessel after it was taken off the fire
.חֹומץ וְ צִ יר ֵ הוּאpots one may place spices on Shabbat; into all pots, even those
ֶ חוּץ ִמדָּ ָבר ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ּבֹו,נֹותן is permitted, as per the second version in the Gemara,
that are boiling, one may place spices, except for one that con- because halakha tends to be established according
tains vinegar or brine. The baraita clearly indicates that Rabbi to the second version. Moreover, in that version Rav
Yehuda disputes the first clause of the mishna and is being lenient. Naĥman and Abaye are in agreement. Other authori-
ties state that putting salt even into a secondary vessel
is prohibited (Rema). According to that approach, the
ֶמ ַלח ֲה ֵרי הוּא:ימר ַ יֹוסף ְל ֵמ ֵ ָס ַבר ַרב Rav Yosef thought to say that salt is like a spice whose legal status
first statement in the Gemara is accepted (Taz). It is
ו ִּב ְכ ִלי,אשֹון – ָ ּב ׁ ְש ָלה ׁ דְּ ִב ְכ ִלי ִר,ִּכ ְת ָב ִלין is: In a primary vessel that was on the fire, salt gets cooked and proper to be stringent in this matter (Rema; Rambam
ָּתנֵי ַר ִ ּבי,יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י
ּ ָא ַמר ֵל.ׁ ֵשנִי ל ֹא ָ ּב ׁ ְש ָלה therefore it is prohibited to place salt into it on Shabbat. And in a Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 22: 6; Shulĥan Arukh,
secondary vessel, into which the contents of a primary vessel were Oraĥ Ĥayyim 318:9).
דְּ ִב ְכ ִלי ׁ ֵשנִי נַ ִמי, ֶמ ַלח ֵאינָ ה ִּכ ְת ָב ִלין:ִחּיָ יא
poured, salt does not get cooked. Abaye said to him: Didn’t
: דַּ ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן, ו ְּפ ִליגָ א דְּ ַרב נַ ְח ָמן.ָ ּב ׁ ְש ָלה Vessel beneath the oil lamp – כ ִלי ַּת ַחת ַה ֵּנר:ְּ One may
Rabbi Ĥiyya already teach that salt is not like a spice?h Certainly not place a vessel beneath an oil lamp on Shabbat to
.תֹורא ָ ְּישו ָּלא ְּכ ִב ְ ׂש ָרא ד ּ ׁ יכא ִמ ְיל ָחא ִ ּב
ָ צְ ִר he meant that in a secondary vessel it also gets cooked. And the receive the oil. Placing a vessel beneath the oil lamp
Gemara remarks that this conclusion disputes the statement of before Shabbat begins is permitted; however, the oil
Rav Naĥman, as Rav Naĥman said: Salt requires cookingb for as may not be used on Shabbat, as per the mishna (Ram-
long as the meat of an ox does, i.e., it requires extensive cooking. bam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 25:23; Shulĥan
Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 265:3).
ֶמ ַלח:ימר ַ יֹוסף ְל ֵמֵ ָס ַבר ַרב,יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי ָּ וְ ִא And some say a very different version of this: Rav Yosef thought Overturning a vessel onto an egg – כ ִפיַ ּית ְּכ ִלי ַעל ֵ ּביצָ ה:ְּ
to say that salt is like a spice, i.e., in a primary vessel it gets Overturning a vessel onto an egg that was laid on
,אשֹון – ָ ּב ׁ ְש ָלה ׁ דְּ ִב ְכ ִלי ִר,ֲה ֵרי הוּא ִּכ ְת ָב ִלין Shabbat is permitted. This halakha applies to protect-
ָּתנֵי,יה ַא ַ ּביֵ יּ ָא ַמר ֵל.ִ ּב ְכ ִלי ׁ ֵשנִי ל ֹא ָ ּב ׁ ְש ָלה cooked, whereas in a secondary vessel it does not get cooked.n
ing other set-aside objects from damage, both on
Abaye said to him: Didn’t Rabbi Ĥiyya already teach that salt is Shabbat and on Festivals, as per the opinion of Rav
אשֹון ׁ דְּ ִב ְכ ִלי ִר, ֶמ ַלח ֵאינָ ה ִּכ ְת ָב ִלין:ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא
not like a spice, meaning that in a primary vessel, it also does not Ĥisda (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 25:23;
: וְ ַהיְ ינ ּו דַּ ֲא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן.נַ ִמי ל ֹא ָ ּב ׁ ְש ָלה get cooked? And that is precisely what Rav Naĥman said: Salt Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 310:6, 322:1, 513:4).
.תֹורא
ָ ְּיש ָרא ד ּ ׁ יכא ִמ ְיל ָחא ִ ּב
ׂ ְ ישו ָּלא ְּכ ִב ָ צְ ִר requires cooking for as long as the meat of an ox does.
background
נֹותנִין ְּכ ִלי ַּת ַחת ַה ֵּנר ְל ַק ֵ ּבל ּבֹוְ מתני׳ ֵאין
. וְ ִאם נְ ָתנו ָּה ִמ ְ ּבעֹוד יֹום – מו ָּּתר,ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ֶש ֶמן
MISHNA From a discussion of the halakhot of insula-
tion and preparation for Shabbat followed
Cooking salt – ישוּל ֶמ ַלחּ ׁ ב:ּ ִ It is difficult to articulate
a precise and unequivocal definition of cooking salt,
because the concept of cooking, in general, is not
by a brief tangent dealing with the prohibited labor of cooking on
. ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ִמן ַה ּמו ָּכן,ּנֵיאֹותין ִמ ֶּמנּ ו
ִ וְ ֵאיןShabbat, the mishna proceeds to briefly discuss prohibitions relat- clear in the Talmud. In any case, water with even a very
small quantity of salt requires a significantly higher
ing to set-aside [muktze] items in terms of Shabbat lamps. One temperature to reach boiling. Since salt boils only at a
may not place a vessel beneath the oil lamp,h the vessel contain- very high temperature or after cooking for a long time,
ing the oil and the wick, on Shabbat in order to receive the oil that its cooking is said to be like cooking the meat of an ox.
drips from the wick. And if one placed the vessel on Friday while
it was still day, it is permitted.n However, in any case, one may
not make use of the oil on Shabbat because it is not from the oil
prepared from Shabbat eve for use on Shabbat. The oil in the lamp
was already set aside and designated solely for the purpose of light-
ing the lamp.
notes
In a primary vessel it gets cooked, whereas in a secondary מ ְ ּבעֹוד יֹום מו ָּּתר:ִ This language is problematic, as apparently explain that the Sages did not permit an uncommon method
vessel it does not get cooked – ו ִּב ְכ ִלי,אשֹון ָ ּב ׁ ְש ָלה
ׁ דְּ ִב ְכ ִלי ִר permission is only granted after the fact. It should have said: of preservation, even for food suitable to be eaten on Shab-
שנִי ל ֹא ָ ּב ׁ ְש ָלה:
ֵ ׁ In the Jerusalem Talmud, the Sages discussed However, one may place it while it is still day (Tosafot). Some bat (Tosafot, but not according to Rashi). The rationale is that
whether the rationale for prohibiting placing food in a primary commentaries explain that the language is precise: Even on permitting an uncommon method of preservation might lead
vessel is because in most instances it is so hot that a hand will Friday it is prohibited ab initio to place a vessel under a candle to a person in desperation to perform an action that is actually
spontaneously recoil from it or because a primary vessel is, at receive the dripping oil, as people might assume that the bowl prohibited. That is the same reason that rescuing objects from
times, so hot that one could actually cook with it, which is not was placed there after Shabbat began (Tziyyun LeNefesh Ĥayya). a fire is prohibited. Nevertheless, the Sages permitted common
the case with a secondary vessel. methods of preservation because in standard situations, the
And in an uncommon case of preservation, they did not necessary preparations will be in place before Shabbat and one
If one placed it while it was still day, it is permitted – נְ ָתנו ָּה permit – וְ ַהצָ ָלה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ה ְמצוּיָ ה ל ֹא ִה ִּתיר ּו: Some commentaries will not come to desecrate the Shabbat (Rambam).
Perek III
Daf 43 Amud a
halakha
ּכ ִֹופין ְק ָע ָרה ַעל ַה ֵּנר ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא:יה ּ ית ֵיב ִ ֵאAbaye raised another objection to Rabba’s opinion from a baraita: One
He negates a vessel’s preparedness – דְּ ָקא ְמ ַב ֵּטל
יכנּ ֹו
ֶ כ ִלי ֵמ ֵה:ְּ It is prohibited to place a vessel that one ַ יmay overturn a bowl on the oil lamp so that the flame will not set fire
דִּ ׁ ְש ִכ ַיח,ֹאחז ַ ּב ּק ָֹורה! ְ ּב ָב ֵּתי ְ ּג ִחינֵי
is permitted to move, beneath an object whose use . ְ ּבה ּו דְּ ֵל ָיקהto the beam. Apparently, the Sages permitted moving a vessel, even
is prohibited on Shabbat. By doing so a person ne- though this is not a common case of preservation. Rabba answered him:
gates the vessel’s availability, as per the opinion of Rav This is a case of low-ceilinged houses in which fires are common.
Yosef (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 25:23;
Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 310:6). אֹות ּה
ָ סֹומ ִכין ְ קֹורה ׁ ֶש ּנ ׁ ְִש ְ ּב ָרה ָ וְ ֵכןAnd it is likewise difficult from a mishna: The beam of a roof that broke,
Barrel of untithed wine – ח ִבית ׁ ֶשל ֶט ֶבל:ָ It is permitted ְ ּב ַס ְפ ָסל ו ַּב ֲארוּכֹות ַה ִּמ ָטה! ְ ּב ִכ ׁ ּשו ֵּריone may support it with a bench and with the lengths of a bed frame
ּ
to place a vessel beneath a barrel of untithed produce . דַּ ֲע ִב ִידי דְּ ָפ ְק ִעי, ַח ְד ֵתיso that it will not fall. Even though this is an uncommon case of preser-
that broke on Shabbat in order to preserve its contents vation, it is permitted. Rabba answered: This is a case of new beams,
because although tithing untithed produce on Shabbat which commonly break. This too is a common case of preservation.
is prohibited ab initio, it is effective after the fact (Ram-
bam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 25:25). נֹותנִין ְּכ ִלי ַּת ַחת ַהדֶּ ֶלף ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת! ְ ּב ָב ֵּתי ְ And Abaye raised another objection from a mishna: One may place a
ִ ַח ְד ֵתי דִּ ׁ ְש ִכvessel beneath a leak in the ceiling on Shabbat. Apparently, even an
.יחי דְּ ָד ְל ִפי
notes
uncommon case of preservation is permitted. Rabba answered: This is
Barrel of untithed wine – ח ִבית ׁ ֶשל ֶט ֶבל:ָ There is no
a case of new houses, which frequently leak.
Torah prohibition against separating tithes on Shabbat
ַהיְ ינ ּו ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַרב:יֹוסף ָא ַמר ֵ ַרבRav Yosef said: This is the reasoning of Rav Ĥisda, who allowed cov-
because it entails no prohibited labor. However, the
Sages prohibited tithing because by doing so, one ren- ִח ְסדָּ א – ִמ ׁ ּש ּום דְּ ָקא ְמ ַב ֵּטל ְּכ ִליering a hen’s egg, but not placing a vessel underneath the hen, in order
ders the untithed produce edible, which is somewhat ֶ ֵמ ֵהto receive the egg when it is laid: Because byh receiving the egg in the
.יכנּ ֹו
comparable to repairing or completing a vessel, an act vessel, he negates a vessel’s preparedness. Initially, the vessel was
prohibited on Shabbat. available for any use. Since it now contains an egg that may neither be
The permission to move untithed produce when used nor moved, the vessel too may no longer be carried. It is tanta-
necessary is not based upon the assumption that with- mount to breaking the vessel.
out that permission a person will violate the law and
separate the tithes. If that were the case, that assump- ָח ִבית ׁ ֶשל ֶט ֶבל:יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י ּ יבֵ ית ִ ֵא Abaye raised an objection to Rav Ĥisda’s opinion, just as he had to
tion would apply to all set-aside objects, and would Rabba’s opinion, from the Tosefta: One whose barrel of untithed
undermine the very basis of the prohibition of set-aside
ׁ ֶש ּנ ׁ ְִש ְ ּב ָרה ֵמ ִביא ְּכ ִלי ַא ֵחר ּו ַמ ּנ ִַיח
ֶט ֶבל מו ָּכן הוּא:יה ּ יה! ָא ַמר ֵלָ ַּת ְח ֶּת produce,hn which may not be eaten until it is tithed, broke on Shabbat,
(Tosafot). Rather, since by Torah law, separating teruma
may bring another vessel and place it beneath the barrel so that the
and tithes from untithed produce on Shabbat is per- – ׁ ֶש ִאם ָע ַבר וְ ִת ְּקנֹו,ֵאצֶ ל ׁ ַש ָ ּבת
mitted, the prohibition of set-aside is not applied as untithed produce is not lost. Even though eating untithed produce is
stringently (Rashba).
.ְמתו ָ ּּקן prohibited on Shabbat, they permitted carrying a vessel to preserve it
even in the uncommon case of a barrel that breaks. Apparently, one is
permitted to negate the vessel’s preparedness. Rav Yosef said to him:
This is not difficult. Fundamentally, untithed produce is available for
use on Shabbat. As, if one sins and prepares it for use by tithing it on
Shabbat, it is prepared and may be eaten and carried.
!נֹותנִין ְּכ ִלי ַּת ַחת ַה ֵּנר ְל ַק ֵ ּבל נִיצֹוצֹות
ְ Abaye raised another objection from a mishna: One may place a vessel
:הֹוש ַע
ֻ ׁ ְיה דְּ ַרב י ּ ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א ְ ּב ֵרunderneath the oil lamp in order to receive the burning sparks of oil
. נִיצֹוצֹות ֵאין ָ ּב ֶהן ַמ ָּמ ׁשthat drip from the wick. Once the vessel is filled with the drops of oil, it
will no longer be available. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:
Sparks have no substance. They burn and dissolve as they fall into the
bowl and do not accumulate. Therefore, the vessel may still be used.
198 Perek III . 43a . גמ ףד. קרפ ׳ג
halakha
אֹות ּה ְ ּב ַס ְפ ָסל
ָ סֹומ ִכין ְ קֹורה ׁ ֶש ּנ ׁ ְִש ְ ּב ָרה
ָ וְ ֵכןAnd he also raised another objection from a mishna: A beam that
A beam that broke – קֹורה ׁ ֶש ּנ ׁ ְִש ְ ּב ָרה:
ָ It is permitted to sup-
– דְּ ִאי ָ ּב ֵעי, אֹו ַ ּב ֲארוּכֹות ַה ִּמ ָּטה! דְּ ָר ֵפיbroke, one may support it with a bench and with the lengths
h
port a ceiling beam that broke on Shabbat with the long
.יה ּ ׁ ָש ֵקיל ֵלof a bed frame so that it will not fall. By doing so, he negates the side of a bed frame, provided that it is loosely supported
preparedness of the bench or bed frame. He answered: This is a and that the beam is not thereby raised, but is merely
case in which the bench is loosely supporting the beam and not prevented from falling any further. This does not negate
supporting its entire weight. If one wants to do so, he can take the bed frame’s preparedness. Raising the beam, is pro-
the bench. Therefore, the preparedness of the bench is not negated. hibited as it constitutes the prohibited labor of building
(Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 25:25; Shulĥan
נֹותנִין ְּכ ִלי ַּת ַחת ַהדֶּ ֶלף ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת! ְ ּב ֶד ֶלף
ְ And he also raised another objection from a mishna: One may Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 313:7).
. ָה ָראוּיplace a vessel beneath a leak that is dripping from the ceiling on
h
A vessel underneath a leak – כ ִלי ַּת ַחת ַהדֶּ ֶלף:ְּ It is permit-
Shabbat. The dripping water has no use and is set-aside; therefore, ted to place a vessel beneath a leak on Shabbat, spe-
the water negates the vessel’s preparedness. He answered him: cifically when the water is at least minimally suitable for
This is a case of a leak that is suitable for drinking. Since it has a use, for example, for bathing. If it is unsuitable for use, it
use, one is permitted to carry the water that is in the vessel. Con- is prohibited (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat
25:24; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 338:8, 521:3).
sequently, he does not negate the vessel’s preparedness by placing
it beneath the leak. One may overturn a basket in front of chicks – ּכ ִֹופין ֶאת
רֹוחין
ִ ה ַּסל ִל ְפנֵי ָה ֶא ְפ:ַ One may overturn a basket in front on
רֹוחין ׁ ֶשּיַ ֲעל ּו
ִ ֹופין ֶאת ַה ַּסל ִל ְפנֵי ָה ֶא ְפ ִ ּכ And he also raised another objection from a Tosefta: One may chicks so that they may climb into it. Moving the basket
overturn a basket in front of chicksh so that they can climb on while they are inside it is prohibited. If the chicks were
: וְ ָה ַתנְ יָ א. מו ָּּתר ְל ַט ְל ְטלֹו:וְ יֵ ְרדוּ! ָק ָס ַבר
and climb off of it. By doing so, he negates the vessel’s prepared- atop the basket during twilight when Shabbat began, it is
ַאף: וְ ָה ַתנְיָא.עֹודן ָע ָליו ָ ָאסוּר ְל ַט ְל ְטלֹו! ְ ּב prohibited to move it, because an object that is set aside
ness due to the chicks, as moving them is prohibited on Shabbat.
עֹודן ָע ָליו ָאסוּר! ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ָ ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין at twilight remains set aside for the entire Shabbat (Magen
The Gemara answers: Rav Yosef holds that it is permitted to Avraham; Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 25:25;
ּ ִמיגֹו,עֹודן ָע ָליו ָּכל ֵ ּבין ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות
ָ ְ ּב:ַּא ָ ּבהו move the basket on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 308:39).
ית ְקצַ אי ְ ית ְקצַ אי ְל ֵבין ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות – ִא ְ דְּ ִא in a baraita that it is prohibited to move the basket? The Gemara
ָ ְלכו ֵּּלי
.יֹומא replies: This prohibition was stated when they are still on it; notes
however, once the chicks climbed off the basket, it may be carried Rabbi Yitzĥak said – א ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק:
ָ Many commentar-
immediately. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that ies agree that Rabbi Yitzĥak also holds that negating a
even though they are no longer on it, it is prohibited to move vessel’s preparedness is prohibited. However, he adds an
the basket? Consequently, the vessel’s preparedness is negated. additional prohibition: A person may not move a vessel
Rabbi Abbahu said: That baraita is referring to the unique case for the sake of some other object that may not be moved
on Shabbat (Rabbeinu Yona; Rashba; Ritva).
where the chicks remained on top of the basket for the entire
twilight period on Shabbat eve. This is in accordance with the Both an egg…one may neither move it to cover,
principle: Since it was set aside from use during twilight of Shab- etc. – ה…אין ְמ ַט ְל ְט ִלין ל ֹא ְל ַכ ּסֹות וכו׳
ֵ ָא ַחת ֵ ּביצ:
ַ Why does
the Gemara cite the halakha of the egg to challenge Rabbi
bat eve, it was set aside for the entire day of Shabbat. The status
Yitzĥak’s opinion? He already rebuffed similar challenges
of every vessel, i.e., whether or not it may be used on Shabbat, is by saying that it is referring to a case where the person
determined at twilight. requires the object’s location; there is no point in raising
it again. Based on the style of the baraita concerning the
נֹותנִין ְּכ ִליְ ְּכ ׁ ֵשם ׁ ֶש ֵאין:ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק With regard to the basic halakha of a hen that lays an egg on Shab- egg, one may overturn a vessel onto an egg for the sake
גֹולת ְל ַק ֵ ּבל ֵ ּביצָ ָת ּה – ָּכךְ ֵאין ֶ ְַּת ַחת ַּת ְרנ bat, Rabbi Yitzĥak said:n Just as one may not place a vessel of the egg, which emphasizes the challenge to Rabbi
.יה ְּכ ִלי ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ִּת ׁ ּ ָש ֵבר ָ ֹופין ָע ֶל
ִ ּכ beneath a hen on Shabbat in order to receive its egg, so too, one Yitzĥak (Rashba).
may not overturn a vessel onto the egg so that it will not break. Other commentaries explain that the case here is com-
ָּ נִיטל ֶא ָּלא ְל ָד ָבר ַה
נִיטל ָּ ֵאין ְּכ ִלי:ָק ָס ַבר pletely different. It is referring to a case where the person
The Gemara explains that he holds: A vessel may only be carried
: וְ ׁ ָשנֵי,ית ֵיבי ָּכל ָהנֵי ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא ִ ֵמ.ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת on Shabbat for the sake of an object that may be carried on Shab- seeks to sit in the place where the egg is located. Since
one cannot sit on the egg itself, he brings a vessel to pro-
.ְ ּבצָ ִריךְ ִל ְמקֹומֹו bat. Since the egg may not be carried on Shabbat, it is prohibited tect the egg and sits upon the vessel (Rabbeinu Ĥananel).
to carry a vessel for its sake. The Gemara raises all of these objec-
tions that were raised to Rav Hisda’s opinion, which permitted background
doing so. And he answered: All of those halakhot are referring to
An egg and the legs of a bed – ביצָ ה וְ ַכ ְר ֵעי ַה ִּמ ָּטה:ּ ֵ How is
cases where one needs to move the vessel that he is using for the it possible to support the leg of a bed with an egg? A va-
set-aside item, because he requires its location. This is in accor- riety of answers were suggested. According to Rashi, one
dance with the principle that once it is permitted, for whatever places the egg underneath the leg of the bed when the
reason, to move any vessel, one may place it anywhere he chooses. egg is standing vertically. An egg or any similarly shaped
object is very strong and difficult to break in that position.
, ַא ַחת ֵ ּביצָ ה ׁ ֶשנּ ְֹול ָדה ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת:ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע To clarify whether or not the opinion of Rabbi Yitzĥak is valid, Other commentaries explain that in talmudic times the
come and hear what was taught in a baraita: With regard to both legs of the beds were positioned atop small, overturned,
וְ ַא ַחת ֵ ּביצָ ה ׁ ֶשנּ ְֹול ָדה ְ ּביֹום טֹוב – ֵאין
an egg that was laid on Shabbat and an egg that was laid on a cup-like vessels. The egg was placed inside the overturned
,ְמ ַט ְל ְט ִלין ל ֹא ְל ַכ ּסֹות ָ ּב ּה ֶאת ַה ְּכ ִלי cup. In that way, it was positioned beneath the legs of the
Festival, one may neither move it to covern a vessel with it, nor
ֹופהֶ ֲא ָבל ּכ,מֹוך ָ ּב ּה ַּכ ְר ֵעי ַה ִּמ ָּטה ְ וְ ִל ְס bed. However, the Me’iri explains that mitta in this context
to support the legs of a bedb with it. However, one may cover it refers to a bowl-like vessel, placed on the table, that could
יה ְּכ ִלי ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ִּת ׁ ּ ָש ֵבר! ָה ָכא ָ ָע ֶל with a vessel so that it does not break. This is contrary to Rabbi be supported by an egg.
.נַ ִמי – ְ ּבצָ ִריךְ ִל ְמקֹומֹו Yitzĥak’s opinion. Here too, it is referring to a vessel that one Other authorities explain that it is indeed referring to
seeks to move because he requires its location. Since he was an actual bed. The egg was not used to support the bed.
permitted to move it from its place, he is also permitted to cover Rather, the egg was placed alongside the leg of the bed
an egg with it. as a talisman for fertility.
ּפ ְֹור ִסין ַמ ְחצָ לֹות ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ֲא ָבנִים: ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמעCome and hear an additional proof from that which we learned:
דְּ ַחזְ יָ ין ְל ֵבית, ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת! ַ ּב ֲא ָבנִים ְמקו ְּרזָ לֹותOne may spread mats on top of stones on Shabbat. Apparently,
. ַה ִּכ ֵּסאit is permissible to move a vessel for the sake of something that
may not be moved on Shabbat. The Gemara responds: This is a
case of rounded rocks that are suitable to be used in the bath-
room. Therefore, it is permitted to carry them on Shabbat.
גמ ףד. ׳ג קרפ. Perek III . 43a 199
halakha
ּפ ְֹור ִסין ַמ ְחצָ לֹות ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי: ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמעCome and hear another proof from that which we learned: One may
One may spread a mat over a beehive – ּפ ְֹור ִסין
ִ ְּמ ֲחצֶ ֶלת ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַּכ ֶּו ֶורת ד:ַ Covering a beehive with
בֹורים ְ ׁ ְל ֵבנִים ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת! דְּ ִאspread mats on top of bricks on Shabbat. Bricks may not be used on
,יש ַּתּי ּור ִמ ִ ּבנְ יָ נָ א
a mat to protect it from the sun or rain is permitted, .ּ דְּ ַחזְ יָ ין ְל ִמיזְ גָ א ֲע ַליְ יהוShabbat. Nevertheless, one is permitted to carry mats for the sake of
provided that one does not intend to trap the bees bricks that are prohibited for use on Shabbat. The Gemara replies: This
inside the hive. In addition, one is required to leave is referring to a case of bricks that are not set aside for construction, but
a small opening so that the bees will not be trapped are left over from a completed building and are suitable for people to
inside with no means of escape. In that case, trap- lean on them. Consequently, they are like other household vessels, and
ping the bees would be an inevitable consequence moving them and moving mats to protect them is permitted.
of his action and placing the mat would be prohib-
ited (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 25:25;
ּפ ְֹור ִסין ַמ ֲחצֶ ֶלת ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי:ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע Come and hear another proof for this from that which we learned: One
Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 316:4).
ַ ּב ַח ָּמה ִמ ּ ְפנֵי,בֹורים ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ִ ְַּּכ ֶּו ֶורת ד may spread a mat over a beehiveh on Shabbat in the sun due to the
, ו ַּב ְ ּג ׁ ָש ִמים ִמ ּ ְפ נֵ י ַה ְ ּג ׁ ָש ִמים,ַה ַח ָּמ ה need to protect it from the sun, and in the rain due to the need to
protect it from the rain, as long as he does not intend to trap the bees
ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא יִ ְת ַּכ ֵּוין ָלצוּד! ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי
by covering them. In any event, apparently it is permitted to move a mat
יה ַרב ּ ָא ַמר ֵל.יכא דְּ ַב ׁש ָּ ָע ְס ִקינַן – דְּ ִא for the sake of the beehive even though the beehive itself may not be
ֵּתינַ ח ִ ּבימֹות:ישן ְל ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ָ ׁ עו ְּק ָבא ִמ ֵּמ moved on Shabbat. The Gemara rejects this: With what are we dealing
– ַה ַח ָּמה here? With a case where there is honey in the beehive. He is permitted
to cover it for the sake of the honey. Rav Ukva from Meishan said to
Rav Ashi: Granted, you could say this in the summer,
Perek III
Daf 43 Amud b
background
יכאָּ ִ ּבימֹות ַה ְ ּג ׁ ָש ִמים דְּ ֵל,יכא דְּ ַב ׁש
ָּ דְּ ִא as there is honey in the beehive during the summer. However, during
Honeycombs in a beehive – חלּ ֹות ַ ּב ַכ ֶּו ֶורת:ַ In general,
ימר? ל ֹא נִצְ ְר ָכא ַ יכא ְל ֵמ
ָּ דְּ ַב ׁש – ַמאי ִא the rainy season in which there is not honey in the beehive, what can
bees do not leave their hives during the rainy season,
due to the rain and the lack of blossoming plants. וְ ָהא מו ְּקצֹות.אֹותן ׁ ְש ֵּתי ַחלּ ֹות ָ ֶא ָּלא ְל be said according to Rabbi Yitzĥak to explain why it is permitted to
Consequently, honeycombs are removed before the cover the beehive at that time? The Gemara answers: This halakha is
ָהא ָלא ָח ׁ ֵשיב.ּנִינְ הוּ! דְּ ָח ׁ ֵשיב ֲע ַליְ יהו
rainy season, at the end of the month of Tishrei. How- only applicable in order to permit covering the beehive for those two
ever, the bees require a few honeycombs to sustain ?ֲע ַליְ יה ּו ַמאי – ָאסוּר honeycombsb that remain in the hive even during the rainy season so
themselves through the winter. The number of hon- that the bees can feed off of them. The Gemara asks: Aren’t these hon-
eycombs necessary varies depending on the size of eycombs set aside for the bees alone? The Gemara responds: This is a
the beehive. During the talmudic period, beehives
case where one thought of them before Shabbat and, in his mind,
were very small and typically, two honeycombs were
sufficient to feed the bees during the rainy season. prepared them to be eaten. The Gemara asks: By inference, if one did
In springtime, during the month of Nisan, the bees not think about them, what would be the ruling? It would be prohib-
emerge to collect pollen from flowers and then there ited to cover the beehive.
is honey in the beehives again.
“ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא יִ ְת ַּכ ֵּוין: ָהא דְּ ָתנֵי,ִאי ָה ִכי If so, this tanna who taught in that same baraita: As long as he does
notes ַ ּב ֶּמה דְּ ָב ִרים,ָלצוּד״ ִל ְפלֹוג וְ ִל ְתנֵי ְ ּב ִד ָיד ּה not intend to trap the bees, let him distinguish and teach with regard
Let him distinguish and teach with regard to that ֲא ָבל ל ֹא,יהן ֶ ישב ֲע ֵל ֵ ּ ׁ ֲאמו ִּרים – ְּכ ׁ ֶש ִח to that same halakha itself:n In what case are these matters stated, that
same halakha itself – ל ְפלֹוג וְ ִל ְתנֵי ְ ּב ִד ָיד ּה:ִ The mishna one is permitted to cover the hive? It is in a case where he thought of
:יהן – ָאסוּר! ָהא ָק ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן ֶ ישב ֲע ֵל ֵ ּ ׁ ִח
and even the baraita are assumed to be as succinct them before Shabbat. However, if he did not think of them, it is pro-
and precise as possible in their formulation. Therefore, ישב ֲע ֵל ֶיהן – ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ֵ ּ ׁ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ִח hibited. The Gemara answers: This teaches us a novel understanding.
whenever the possibility of making a more subtle .יִ ְת ַּכ ֵּוין ָלצוּד Even though he thought of them before Shabbat, it is only permitted
distinction between cases that are more similar arises,
the question is, why did the mishna or baraita prefer
as long as he did not intend to trap them.
a more obvious distinction between clearly disparate
cases, when the more subtle distinction could have ,יה מו ְּקצֶ ה ּ ַמ ּנִי? ִאי ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון– ֵלית ֵל With regard to the matter itself, the Gemara asks: In accordance with
taught a novel lesson of greater value? ִאי ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה – ִּכי ל ֹא ִמ ְת ַּכ ֵּוין ַמאי whose opinion is this baraita? If it is in accordance with the opinion of
!ָהוֵ י? ָהא דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ֵאין ִמ ְת ַּכ ֵּוין ָאסוּר Rabbi Shimon, he does not hold that there is a prohibition of set-aside.
Consequently, there is no distinction between the different beehives. If
ַמאי “ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא,עֹולם ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ָ ְל
it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, when he does
,יִ ְת ַּכ ֵּוין ָלצוּד״ – ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא יַ ֲע ֶ ׂש ָּנה ִּכ ְמצו ָּדה not have intention to trap the bees, what of it? Doesn’t Rabbi Yehuda
יכי דְּ ָלאִ וחא ִּכי ֵה ָ ְיש ּבֹוק ְלה ּו ַרו ְ ׁ דְּ ִל hold that even an unintentional act is prohibited? The Gemara replies:
.יתצְ ד ּו ִמ ֵּמ ָילא
ְ ִל Actually, this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ye-
huda. What does: And as long as one does not intend to trap the bees,
mean? It means that one should not make the mat like a trap. He must
leave space so that the bees will not get trapped on their own.
ִמי ָק ָתנֵי ִ ּ‘בימֹות ַה ַח ָּמה׳:ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ָא ַמר Rav Ashi said that it can be resolved differently: Did the baraita teach:
ּ׳בימֹות ַה ְ ּג ׁ ָש ִמים׳? ַ ּ‘ב ַח ָּמה ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ַה ַח ָּמה ִּ ו In the summer and in the rainy season? Actually, it taught: In the sun
ֵ ו ַּב ְ ּג ׁ ָש ִמים ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ַה ְ ּג ׁ ָש ִמים׳ ָק ָתנֵי – ְ ּב
יֹומי due to the sun and in the rain due to the rain. That can be interpreted
as follows: In the days of Nisan and in the days of Tishrei, as then
דְּ ִא ָּיכא ַח ָּמה (וְ ִא ָּיכא,יֹומי ִּת ׁ ְש ֵרי ֵ נִיסן ו ְּב
ָ
there is sun shining and there is also cold weather; and there is rain
.יכא דְּ ַב ׁש ָּ וְ ִא,יכא ְ ּג ׁ ָש ִמיםָּ צִ ָּינה) וְ ִא and there is honey in the beehives.
200 Perek III . 43b . גמ ףד: קרפ ׳ג
notes
יה
ּ ּפֹוק ּו וְ ִא ְמר ּו ֵל:ָא ַמר ְלה ּו ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת Rav Sheshet said to the Sages: Go out and tell Rabbi Yitzĥak in
Eretz Yisrael: Rav Huna already explained your halakhan in Ba- Rav Huna already explained your halakha – ַּת ְר ְ ּג ָמא ַרב הוּנָ א
ְּכ ָבר ַּת ְר ְ ּג ָמא ַרב הוּנָ א:ְל ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק יך
ְ ל ׁ ְש ַמ ְע ֵּת:ִ For reasons related to a possible contradiction
: דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א.יך ְ ּב ָב ֶבל ְ ִל ׁ ְש ַמ ְע ֵּת bylonia. There is nothing novel in the principle that you established between Rav Huna’s statement here and his statements
that a vessel may only be moved for the sake of something that may elsewhere, some commentaries explain that Rav Sheshet
וְ ֵאין,יצה ַל ֵּמת ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ַחי ּ ָ עֹושין ְמ ִחִׂ
be moved, as Rav Huna said: One may make a partition for the meant to say that Rav Huna agrees with only part of Rav
.יצה ַל ֵּמת ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ֵמת ָּ עֹושין ְמ ִח ִׂ dead for the benefit of a living person, and one may not make a Yitzĥak’s ruling. Other commentaries explain that the phrase:
partition for the dead for the benefit of the dead person. It is Go out and tell Rav Yitzĥak, means that although there was
prohibited to move objects for the sake of a corpse because it is a Sage in Babylonia who agreed, the halakha is still not in
accordance with his ruling (Me’iri ).
prohibited to move the corpse itself on Shabbat.
Moving an object in an atypical manner – ט ְלטוּל ִמן ַה ַ ּצד:ִ
ַמאי ִה יא? דְּ ָא ַמ ר ַרב ׁ ְשמ ּו ֵא ל The Gemara asks: What is the practical application of this halakha? From the discussion here it appears that moving an object
As Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said, and likewise the Sage, Sheila in an atypical manner means moving it in any manner that
:ילא ָמ ִרי ָ וְ ֵכן ְּתנָ א ׁ ֵש,ַ ּבר יְ ה ּו ָדה
Mari taught in a baraita: A corpse that is laid out in the sunh and deviates from the norm, not necessarily limited to moving it
ֵמ ת ַה ּמ ּו ָּט ל ַ ּב ַח ָּמ ה ָ ּב ִא ים ׁ ְשנֵ י by means of another object, e.g., a bed (Ritva).
there is concern that it will putrefy and smell, what can be done?
ַחם ָל ֶהם,יֹוש ִבין ְ ּבצִ דּ ֹו ְ ׁ ְְ ּבנֵי ָא ָדם ו
Two people come and sit beside it. After a while, when they feel
,יֹושב ָע ֶל ָיהֵ ׁ ְִמ ְּל ַמ ָּטה – זֶ ה ֵמ ִביא ִמ ָּטה ו hot from beneath them, this one brings a bed and sits on it and halakha
ַחם ָל ֶהם.יֹושב ָע ֶל ָיה ֵ ׁ ְוְ זֶ ה ֵמ ִביא ִמ ָּטה ו that one brings a bed and sits on it on either side of the corpse, as A corpse that is laid out in the sun – מת ַה ּמו ָּּטל ַ ּב ַח ָּמה:ֵ If
a corpse was out in the sun on Shabbat and there was no
ּפֹור ִסין
ְ יאים ַמ ֲחצֶ ֶלת ו ִ ִמ ְּל ַמ ְע ָלה – ְמ ִב they are permitted to carry the beds for their own use. When they place to move it or, for some reason, they did not want to
ְהֹולך
ֵ ְנִש ַמט ו ְ ׁ ְזֹוקף ִמ ָּטתֹו ו ֵ זֶ ה.יהן
ֶ ֲע ֵל feel hot from above them, they bring a mat and spread it over their move it, two people should sit on either side of the corpse.
,הֹולךְ לֹו ֵ ְנִש ַמט ו ְ ׁ ְזֹוקף ִמ ָּטתֹו וֵ וְ זֶ ה,לֹו heads. Then, this one stands his bed up so the mat will remain When the ground feels hot, each brings a bed upon which
resting atop it and slips away and leaves, and that one stands his to sit. When the sun is hot, each spreads a mat over the bed
.יה
ָ יצה ֲע ׂשוּיָ ה ֵמ ֵא ֶל ּ ָ וְ נִ ְמצֵ את ְמ ִח to shield him from the sun. Then, each stands the bed on its
bed up and slips away and leaves, and a partition is then created
over the corpse as if on its own without erecting it directly for the side and leaves. The two beds and the two mats together
form an impromptu structure to protect the corpse from
sake of the corpse. Apparently, the Sages did not permit carrying a
the sun (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 25:6, 26:23;
mat to cover a corpse for the sake of the corpse. They only permitted Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 311:6).
doing so in an indirect manner for the benefit of the living.
A corpse in a fire – מת ִ ּב ְמקֹום דְּ ֵל ָיקה:ֵ When there is a corpse
in a place that caught fire on Shabbat, one places a loaf of
ַרב, ֵמת ַה ּמ ּו ָּטל ַ ּב ַח ָּמה,ית ַמר ְּ ִא Incidental to the mention of halakhot related to a corpse on Shabbat,
bread or an infant on top of the dead body or beside it on
הֹופכֹו ִמ ִּמ ָּטה ְ :יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל the Gemara cites an amoraic dispute in which it was stated: A
the bed and moves it out of the house. If there is no loaf
יהּ ַרב ֲחנִינָ א ַ ּבר ׁ ְש ָל ִמּיָ א ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ.ְל ִמ ָּטה corpse that was laid out in the sun, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel of bread or infant available, but there are two beds, then
said: One turns it over from bed to bed until it reaches the shade. one moves the corpse from one bed to the other until it is
ַמ ּנ ִַיח ָע ָליו ִּכ ָּכר אֹו ִּתינֹוק:דְּ ַרב ָא ַמר
Rav Hanina bar Shelamiyya said in the name of Rav: One places outside the house. If those options are unavailable, one may
יכא ִּכ ָּכר אֹו ָּ יכא דְּ ִא ָ ֵה.ו ְּמ ַט ְל ְטלֹו a loaf of bread or an infant on the corpse and moves it. The corpse lift the corpse and carry it outside (Rambam Sefer Zemanim,
,ִּתינֹוק – ּכו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י דְּ ׁ ָש ֵרי becomes a base for an object that one is permitted to move on Shab- Hilkhot Shabbat 26:21; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 311:1).
ִט ְלטוּל: ָמר ָס ַבר.יה ּ ִּכי ּ ְפ ִליגִ י – דְּ ֵלית ֵל bat and, consequently, one may move the corpse due to the permit-
: ו ָּמר ָס ַבר,יה ִט ְלטוּל ּ ִמן ַה ַ ּצד – ׁ ְש ֵמ ted object. The Gemara adds: In a case where there is a loaf or an
.יה ִט ְלטוּל ּ ָלא ׁ ְש ֵמ infant, everyone agrees that it is permitted to use that method to
move the corpse. Where they argue is in a case where he does not
have a loaf or an infant. One Sage, Rav, holds: Moving an object in
an atypical mannern is considered a bona fide act of moving.
Therefore, one may not move the corpse by passing it from bed to
bed. And the other Sage, Shmuel, holds that moving an object in
an atypical manner is not considered moving. Therefore, it is
permitted to move a corpse by passing it from bed to bed.
ֵאין ַמ ִ ּצ ִילין ֶאת ַה ֵּמת:ימא ְּכ ַת ָּנ ֵאי ָ ֵל With regard to this dispute between Rav and Shmuel, the Gemara
ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ֶ ּבן.ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ַהדְּ ֵל ָיקה remarks: Let us say that this dispute is parallel to a dispute between
ׁ ָש ַמ ְע ִּתי ׁ ֶש ַּמ ִ ּצ ִילין ֶאת ַה ֵּמת:ָל ִק ׁיש tanna’im in the Tosefta. The Rabbis said: One may not rescue a
corpse from a fire on Shabbat.h Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish said: I
יכא ָּ יכי ָד ֵמי? ִאי דְּ ִא ִ ֵה.ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ַהדְּ ֵל ָיקה
heard that one may rescue a corpse from a fire. The Gemara seeks
ִּכ ָּכר אֹו ִּתינֹוק – ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַת ָּנא to clarify the matter: What are the circumstances? If there is a loaf
יכא – ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ָּ ַק ָּמא? ִאי דְּ ֵל or an infant available, what is the rationale for the opinion of the
יְ הו ָּדה ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש? ֶא ָּלא ָלאו ְ ּב ִט ְלטוּל first tanna, who prohibited rescuing the corpse from the fire? If
ִט ְלטוּל ִמן: דְּ ָמר ָס ַבר:ִמן ַה ַ ּצד ּ ְפ ִליגִ י there is not a loaf or an infant, what is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda
ו ָּמר ָס ַבר ָלא.יה ִט ְלטוּל ּ ַה ַ ּצד – ׁ ְש ֵמ ben Lakish who permits rescuing the corpse from the fire? Rather,
is it not that they disagree over moving an object in an atypical
– דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא, ָלא.יה ִט ְלטוּל ּ ׁ ְש ֵמ manner? As this Sage, the first tanna, holds that moving an object
וְ ַהיְ ינ ּו,יה ִט ְלטוּל ּ ִט ְלטוּל ִמן ַה ַ ּצד ׁ ְש ֵמ in an atypical manner is considered moving. Therefore, it is pro-
ְ דְּ ִמ ּתֹוך:ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש hibited to rescue the corpse in that manner. And this Sage, Rabbi
,ׁ ֶש ָא ָדם ָ ּבהוּל ַעל ֵמתֹו Yehuda ben Lakish, holds that moving an object in an atypical
manner is not considered moving. Therefore, it is permitted to
rescue the corpse in this manner. The amoraic dispute deals with an
issue already disputed by the tanna’im. The Gemara rejects this: No,
everyone, both tanna’im, agrees that moving an object in an atyp-
ical manner is considered moving. Rather, this is the rationale
for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish: Since a person is
agitated about his deceased relative and is concerned about
maintaining the dignity of the dead,
גמ ףד: ׳ג קרפ. Perek III . 43b 201
Perek III
Daf 44 Amud a
notes
ָא ַמר.יה – ָא ֵתי ְל ַכ ּבוּיֵ י ּ ִאי ָלא ׁ ָש ֵרית ֵל if you do not permit him to move the corpse in an atypical manner,
He will come to extinguish – א ֵתי ְל ַכ ּבוּיֵ י:ָ This reasoning he will come to extinguishn the fire. The Sages permitted performing
is only stated with regard to rescuing a corpse from a ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ֶ ּבן ׁ ֵש ָילא ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ִסי ָא ַמר
fire and not with regard to salvaging other items from ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש:יֹוחנָן
ָ ַר ִ ּבי an act prohibited by rabbinic law so that one will not come to trans-
a fire. On the contrary, in the case of a fire where there gress a Torah prohibition. Rabbi Yehuda ben Sheila said that Rav
.ְ ּב ֵמת
is no corpse, several otherwise permitted acts were Asi said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with
prohibited because a person in panic over his belong- the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish with regard to the issue of
ings might extinguish the fire. However, when a corpse rescuing a corpse from a fire.
is present, it is paramount in the mourner’s mind. Fur-
thermore, there is the issue of human dignity in terms of ימנּ ּו ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ִמן ֶ נֵיאֹותין ֵה
ִ “אין ֵ We learned in the mishna that one may not make use of the oil that
both the living and the dead. The assumption is that a
person will transgress rabbinic prohibitions to preserve
ַ : ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן. ַה ּמו ָּכן״drips from the candle on Shabbat because it is not among the oil
מֹותר ַה ׁ ּ ֶש ֶמן ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ֵּנר
human dignity. In general, the Sages did not apply their . וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ַמ ִּתיר, וְ ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ְּק ָע ָרה – ָאסוּרprepared from Shabbat eve for use on Shabbat. With regard to this
decrees to situations which conflict with human dignity.
same issue, the Sages taught in a baraita: The remaining oil that is
in the lamph or in a bowl in which a wick was burning is prohibited
The opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon – for use on Shabbat. However, Rabbi Shimon permits using the re-
יעזֶ ר ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון
ֶ יטת ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל
ַ ש:
ִ ׁ In several places in the Tal-
maining oil as, according to his opinion, there is virtually nothing
mud, apparently, Rabbi Shimon himself agrees to a
significant number of the halakhot of set-aside with prohibited due to the prohibition of set-aside.
regard to objects whose use is prohibited on Shabbat.
On the other hand, his son, Rabbi Eliezer, adopts his
father’s fundamental ruling without exception both in
terms of rejecting the halakhic category of set-aside
מתני׳ ְמ ַט ְל ְט ִלין נֵ ר ָח ָד ׁש ֲא ָבל ל ֹא
ָּכל ַה ֵּנרֹות:אֹומר ֵ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון.יָ ׁ ָשן
Mishna The dispute in this mishna seems to be a local
one; however, it is the key to several halakhot
in the area of the prohibition of set-aside [muktze]. One may move
altogether, as well as in terms of the need for intent . חוּץ ִמן ַה ֵּנר ַהדּ ֵֹולק ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת, ְמ ַט ְל ְט ִליןa new oil lamp on Shabbat but not an old one that was already used.
in violating the prohibited labor of extinguishing. The
connection between these ideas is: Since Rabbi Eliezer, A lamp that was used is covered with soot and unsuitable for use. It is
son of Rabbi Shimon, permits making use of oil from an therefore considered set aside from use due to its disgusting nature.
oil lamp, all the more so does he permit moving the oil Rabbi Shimon says: All oil lamps may be moved on Shabbat except
lamp, even while it is burning (Penei Yehoshua). for an oil lamp that is burning on Shabbat, due to the concern that
it might be extinguished.
halakha
The remaining oil that is in the lamp – מֹותר ַה ׁ ּ ֶש ֶמן ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ֵּנר:
ַ lamp that they lit on that Shabbat – חוּץ ִמן,ָּכל ַה ֵּנרֹות ְמ ַט ְל ְט ִלין
It is prohibited to use the oil remaining in an oil lamp on Shabbat ה ֵּנר ׁ ֶש ִה ְד ִליק ּו ּבֹו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת:ַ It is prohibited to move an oil lamp that
because it was set aside from use when Shabbat began (Magen was burning on Shabbat, even after it is no longer burning and
Avraham according to the Ran; Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot no oil remains, because it was set aside while burning at twilight
Shabbat 5:12, 26:14; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 279:1, 265:3).
(Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 25:10; Shulĥan Arukh,
All oil lamps may be moved on Shabbat except for an oil Oraĥ Ĥayyim 279:1).
ּ ָפמֹוט ׁ ֶש ִה ְד ִליק ּו ּבֹו:ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא Rabbi Zeira said: A metal candlestick [pamot]l that was kindled
ְל ִד ְב ֵרי, ְל ִד ְב ֵרי ַה ַּמ ִּתיר ָאסוּר,ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת on Shabbat,n according to Rabbi Shimon, who permits moving
ימ ָרא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ְ ְל ֵמ.אֹוסר – מ ּו ָּתר ֵ ָה a lamp, it is prohibited because it is large. Whereas, according to
Rabbi Yehuda, who prohibits moving a lamp, a metal candlestick
יְ הו ָּדה מו ְּקצֶ ה ֵמ ֲח ַמת ִמיאוּס – ִאית
is permitted because it does not become disgusting (Rabbeinu
יס ּור – ֵלית ּ מ ּו ְקצֶ ה ֵמ ֲח ַמת ִא,יה ּ ֵל Ĥananel). The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabbi Yehuda is
ָּכל:אֹומר ֵ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה,יה? וְ ָה ַתנְ יָ א ּ ֵל of the opinion that an object that is set-aside [muktze] due to
חוּץ ִמן,ַה ֵּנרֹות ׁ ֶשל ַמ ֶּת ֶכת ְמ ַט ְל ְט ִלין repugnance may not be moved, and he is not of the opinion that
ִאי,ַה ֵּנר ׁ ֶש ִה ְד ִליק ּו ּבֹו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת! ֶא ָּלא an object that is set-aside due to prohibition may not be moved,
: ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא:ית ַמר ְּ ית ַמר – ָה ִכי ִא ְּ ִא and therefore permits moving the candlestick? Wasn’t it taught
in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: All metal candlesticks may
ּ ָפמֹוט ׁ ֶש ִה ְד ִליק ּו ָע ָליו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת – דִּ ְב ֵרי
be moved on Shabbat with the exception of a candlestick that
ל ֹא ִה ְד ִליק ּו ָע ָליו – דִּ ְב ֵרי,ַה ּכֹל ָאסוּר was kindled on Shabbat itself? Apparently, he prohibits moving
.ַה ּכֹל מו ָּּתר the metal candlestick, not because it is disgusting but because it
is set-aside due to prohibition. Rather, if it was stated, it was
stated as follows, Rabbi Zeira said: A metal candlestick that was
kindled on Shabbat, everyone agrees that it is prohibited. One
that was not kindled on Shabbat, everyone agrees that it is per-
mitted because it is neither set aside due to prohibition nor set
aside due to repugnance.
ִמ ָּטה ׁ ֶשּיִ ֲח ָד ּה:ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ַרב Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: A bed which one designated to
יה ַרב ּ ית ֵיב ִ ֵמ.ְל ָמעֹות – ָאסוּר ְל ַט ְל ְט ָל ּה place money upon it may not be moved on Shabbat because it is
ֲא ָבל, ְמ ַט ְל ְט ִלין נֵ ר ָח ָד ׁש:נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק set-aside. It is prohibited even though it no longer has money
upon it. Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak raised an objection to Rav
.ל ֹא יָ ׁ ָשן
Yehuda from our mishna: One may move a new oil lamp on Shab-
bat but not an old one.
notes
A candlestick that was lit on Shabbat – ּ ָפמֹוט ׁ ֶש ִה ְד ִליק ּו ּבֹו rule leniently with regard to the halakhot of set-aside, accept
ב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת:
ּ ַ The commentaries explain that since a candlestick is that a valuable object, which is set aside due to monetary loss,
made of metal and more valuable than a standard earthenware i.e., concern that the object may be ruined, is set aside from
oil lamp, one might assume that it has a fixed location and use. Therefore, it was necessary to emphasize the laws of a
people are very careful with it. Nevertheless, even those who candlestick (Ran).
ַאף,יה ָמעֹות – ׁ ַש ְריָ א ָ ָהא ֵאין ָע ֶל By inference: If there is not money on it, one is permitted to move the
background
ָ ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ָהו ּו ָע ֶל
!יה ֵ ּבין ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ׁשֹות wagon even though there was money on it at twilight. In this mishna,
A wagon and undercarriage – עגָ ָלה וּמו ְּכנִי:ֲ The wagon
יה
ּ דְּ ֵלית ֵל,ַה ִהיא ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ִהיא the prohibition is contingent exclusively on whether or not there is mon-
is the compartment in which objects are kept, while the
undercarriage is the wheel system, the axles and gears ey on the wagon at that time. The Gemara answers: That mishna is in
וְ ַרב ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ְס ִב ָירא,מו ְּקצֶ ה
that support the wagon. accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon,n who is not of the opin-
.יה ּ ֵל ion that there is a prohibition of set-aside. And Rav holds in accordance
with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Since according to Rabbi Yehuda
there is a prohibition of set-aside, the wagon became set aside from use
during the twilight period and remains prohibited for the entire Shabbat.
notes
A bed that one designated for money – מ ָּטה ׁ ֶשּיִ ֲח ָד ּה ְל ָמעֹות:ִ impure because it has a capacity of more than forty se’a and
There are several areas of halakha where significance is accorded does not, therefore, have the legal status of a vessel, preserves
to an act of designation for a specific purpose. By means of that the ritual purity of items inside it when it is closed on all sides. In
designation, the object assumes the legal status as if it had always the case at hand, if we understand the undercarriage to be the
been utilized for that purpose. However, in other areas of halakha, entire bottom part of the wagon and not just the wheels alone,
there is a dispute whether or not designation alone is sufficient as Rashi explains, then when there is an opening in the bottom
to accord that status to an object. of the wagon that is sealed by the undercarriage, the wagon is
not considered sealed and does not protect its contents from
And the undercarriage likewise does not protect together
ritual impurity in the case of a tent over a corpse.
with the wagon in a tent over the corpse – וְ ֵאין ַמ ֶ ּצ ֶלת ִע ָּמ ּה ְ ּבא ֶֹהל
ה ֵּמת:ַ Preventing objects from becoming ritually impure in a tent That mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi
over a corpse can be accomplished in any number of ways. In Shimon – ה ִהיא ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ִהיא:ַ At first, the Gemara held that this
this context, the discussion is with regard to an object covering mishna was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda
a corpse like a tent. The object itself remains ritually pure and because it mentions a halakha that has an element of set-aside,
the objects above that object also remain ritually pure. Objects as Rabbi Yehuda holds the prohibition of set-aside. Only after
beneath it become impure. With regard to a ceramic vessel in a analysis does the Gemara suggest that even Rabbi Shimon agrees
tent over a corpse there is a similar halakha. If it is sealed, it pro- that money, which is neither fit for any use on Shabbat nor is it
tects its contents from ritual impurity (Numbers 19:15). According a vessel, is completely prohibited because it is set-aside (Penei
Wagon obtained from the Pompeii ruins to Tosafot, a large wooden vessel, which cannot become ritually Yehoshua).
!?יה ה ּו ְקצָ ה ְל ִמצְ וָ תֹו ּ וְ ֵלית ֵל The Gemara asks: And does he not hold that the prohibition of set-aside Lamp atop a palm tree – נֵ ר ַעל ַג ֵ ּּבי דֶּ ֶקל: Placing an oil
lamp atop a palm tree on Shabbat eve with the intention
, יכ ָכ ּה ְּכ ִה ְל ָכ ָת ּה ְּ ִס:וְ ָה ַתנְ יָ א applies to an object set aside only for its mitzva without any prohibition?
of leaving it there over Shabbat is permitted. However,
יט ָר ּה ִ ּב ְק ָר ִמים ו ִּב ְס ִד ינִ ין ְּ וְ ִע Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: One who roofed the sukka in accordance doing so before a Festival is prohibited, as per the opin-
with its halakhic requirements and decorated it for aesthetic purposes ion of Rav (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 5:17
, וְ ָת ָלה ָ ּב ּה ֱאגֹוזִ ין,ַה ְמצ ּוּיָ ִירין
with colored hangings and tapestries, and hung as decorations nuts, and Hilkhot Yom Tov 4:5; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim
, ׁ ְש ֵק ִד ים וְ ִר ּמ ֹונִ ין,ֲא ַפ ְר ְס ִקין peaches, almonds and pomegranates, and grape branches, and wreaths 277:4, 514: 6).
וַ ֲע ָטרֹות,וְ ַא ּ ַפ ְר ְּכ ֵלי ׁ ֶשל ֲענָ ִבים made of stalks, wine, oils, and fine flour, it is prohibited to supply himself
ׁ ְש ָמנִ ים, יֵ ינֹות,ֹולין ִ ׁ ֶשל ׁ ִש ּב from them until the conclusion of the last day of the Festival. Since they Where he rejected it with his own hands – יה ּ ֵדְּ ַד ְחי
ביָ ַדיִ ם:ּ ְ An object that was set aside from use by means of
ו ְּס ָלתֹות – ָאסוּר ְל ִה ְס ַּת ּ ֵפק ֵמ ֶהן were all set aside for the mitzva of sukka, all other uses are prohibited. And
a specific action, e.g., wheat planted before Shabbat that
,ַעד מֹוצָ ֵאי יֹום טֹוב ָה ַא ֲחרֹון if one stipulated at the time that he hung them in the sukka that he is not has not yet taken root, is not set-aside and it is permitted
designating them exclusively for this purpose, but he intends to use them to move it according to Rabbi Shimon (Rambam Sefer
יהן ַה ּכֹל ְל ִפי ֶ וְ ִאם ִה ְתנָ ה ֲע ֵל
for other purposes as well, their use is entirely in accordance with his Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 26:14; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ
.ְּתנָ אֹו stipulation. He is permitted to use them as he chooses. Ĥayyim 310:2).
ֵאין מו ְּקצֶ ה:ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: There is only a prohibition of set-
ימו ִּקים ּ ְִל ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶא ָּלא ְ ּגרֹוגָ רֹות וְ צ aside according to Rabbi Shimon in the cases of dried figsb and raisins
ָהיָ ה: ו ִּמ ֵידי ַא ֲח ִרינָ א ָלא?! וְ ָה ַתנְיָא.ִ ּב ְל ַבד alone. The case of one who takes figs and raisins up to his roof in order
to dry them in the sun is the only situation in which Rabbi Shimon
הֹותיר וְ ֶה ֱע ָלן ַל ַ ּגג ַל ֲע ׂשֹות
ִ ְאֹוכל ִ ּב ְת ֵאנִים וֵ
holds that they are prohibited on Shabbat due to the prohibition of
הֹותיר וְ ֶה ֱע ָלן ִ ְ ַ ּב ֲענָ ִבים ו.ֵמ ֶהן ְ ּגרֹוגָ רֹות set-aside. Since in the initial stages of the process they emit a bad odor
ֹאכלַ ימו ִּקין – ל ֹא י ּ ִַל ַ ּגג ַל ֲע ׂשֹות ֵמ ֶהן צ and are unfit for consumption, one consciously sets them aside. The
אֹומר ַ ּב ֲא ַפ ְר ְס ִקין
ֵ וְ ֵכן ַא ָּתה.ַעד ׁ ֶשּיַ זְ ִמין Gemara challenges: And other items are not included in the prohibi-
. ו ִּב ׁ ְש ָאר ָּכל ִמינֵי ּ ֵפירֹות,וְ ַח ּבו ׁ ִּשין tion of set-aside? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: One who was eating figs
and left some over and took them up to the roof to make them into
dried figs, and likewise one who was eating grapes and left some over
and took them up to the roof to make them into raisins, one may not
eat them on Shabbat unless he designates them to be eaten before
Shabbat. Otherwise, they are prohibited as set-aside. And you would
say the same with regard to peaches, and quinces, and all other types
of fruit that one left out to dry. It is prohibited to eat them all on Shab-
bat due to set-aside.
יכא ָ ימא ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה – ו ָּמה ֵה ָ ַמ ּנִי? ִא ֵילThe Gemara seeks to clarify: Whose opinion is it in the baraita? If you
,יה מו ְּקצֶ ה ּ יה ְ ּביָ ַדיִ ם – ִאית ֵל ּ ֵ דְּ ָלא דַּ ְחיsay that it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, this baraita is superfluous.
?יה ְ ּביָ ַדיִ ם ל ֹא ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן
ּ ֵיכא דְּ ַד ְחיָ ֵהIf in a case where one did not reject it with his own hands, he holds
that there is a prohibition of set-aside, in a case where he rejected it by
his own hand, all the more so that it is prohibited. There is no need to
articulate the halakha in this unique case.
עֹולם – ַר ִ ּביָ ֶא ָּלא ָלאו – ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ִהיא! ְל Rather, isn’t this baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi
ָס ְל ָקא,יה ּ יכא ֵל ָ ״אֹוכל״ ִאצְ ְט ִרֵ ְ ו,יְ הו ָּדה Shimon? Apparently, he expands the halakhot of set-aside beyond dried
ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ָק ָא ֵכיל וְ ָאזֵ יל – ָלא:דַּ ֲע ָתךְ ָא ִמינָ א figs and raisins. The Gemara rejects this: Actually, this halakha is in
accordance with Rabbi Yehuda who holds that there is a prohibition
ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ֶה ֱע ָלן: ָק ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן,יב ֵעי ַהזְ ָמנָ ה ּ ָ ִל
of set-aside. And the case cited here, where he was eating figs, is neces-
.ּיה ִמ ּינַיְ יהוּ תֵ עֲ דַ לְ י ח
ִ ס
ְ ּ א
ַ י ּח
ֵ וסּ אַ – ג ַל ַ ּג sary in order to teach us a novel halakha. It may enter your mind to
say that since one was in the course of eating, he does not require
prior designation; and if he changed his mind he may immediately
retrieve the dried figs that he placed on the roof. Therefore, the baraita
teaches us that since he brought them up to the roof, he diverted his
attention from them and they are completely set-aside.
.יה
ּ יה ָלא ְס ִב ָירא ֵל ּ ָק ָא ַמר ֵלareas throughout the year are also considered like dried figs and
ּ וְ ֵל,יה
raisins. Even Rabbi Shimon would agree to this halakha. And if halakha
you wish, say instead: When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi told his son Set-aside according to Rabbi Shimon – מו ְּקצֶ ה ְל ַר ִ ּבי
that answer, he was saying it to him in accordance with the opin- ש ְמעֹון:
ִ ׁ Rabbi Shimon only applies the halakha of set-
ion of Rabbi Shimon, and he himself does not hold that way. aside to the specific case of dried figs and raisins. The
rationale is twofold: They are set aside from use by
means of a specific action, and they are not yet suit-
יהם דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ָק ָא ַמר ֶ ְל ִד ְב ֵר:ימא ָ יב ֵעית ֵא ּ ָ וְ ִא And if you wish, say instead: In that baraita, he spoke to them in able for consumption (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot
accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, and this is how his Shabbat 26:14; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 310:2).
– ְל ִד ְידכ ּו, ְל ִד ִידי – ֵלית ִלי מו ְּקצֶ ה ְּכ ָלל:ְּלהו
יכא דְּ יֹוצְ אֹות ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַסח ָ דְּ ֵה,יהת ַ אֹוד ּו ִלי ִמ statement must be understood: In my opinion I do not hold that One may neither give water to nor slaughter non-
there is a prohibition of set-aside at all. However, according to domesticated, desert animals, etc. – ֵאין ַמ ׁ ְש ִקין
וְ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן.ּ דְּ ַבּיָ יתֹות נִינְ הו,יעה ָ וְ נִ ְכנָ סֹות ָ ּב ְר ִב ֹוח ִטין ֶאת ַה ִּמ ְד ָ ּב ִרּיֹות וכו׳
ֲ וְ ׁש: With regard to animals that
your opinion, at least agree with me that animals that leave their
.ּ ִמ ְד ָ ּב ִרּיֹות נִינְ הו, ָלא:יה ּ ֲא ַמר ּו ֵל sheds on Passover and only enter their sheds with the advent of graze beyond the city limits and come back to sleep
inside the city, even if only on occasion (Mishna Berura),
the rainy season are domesticated. And the Rabbis said to him:
if they returned to the city on the Festival, they are
No, those are non-domesticated animals. considered prepared for use, since their owners have
them in mind, and one is permitted to slaughter them
ָא ְמר ּו:יֹוחנָן
ָ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי As to the essential dispute with regard to the laws of set-aside, on the Festival. However, if the animals graze and sleep
beyond the city limits, they are not considered pre-
יֹוחנָ ן
ָ ו ִּמי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי.“ה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון״ ֲ Rabba bar bar Ĥana said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: They said that
pared for use and it is prohibited to slaughter them on
,ֵיה ַההוּא ָס ָבא ְקרוּיָ א ּ ָה ִכי? וְ ָהא ְ ּב ָעא ִמ ּינ the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon a Festival because it never enters their owners’ minds
who holds that there is no prohibition of set-aside. The Gemara that these animals will return to sleep inside the city, as
ִקינָ ה ׁ ֶשל:יֹוחנָ ןָ ֵמ ַר ִ ּבי,וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה ְסרוּיָ א
asks: Did Rabbi Yoĥanan actually say this? Didn’t an Elder from per the unattributed mishna (Rambam Sefer Zemanim,
:יה ּ גֹולת ַמה ּו ְל ַט ְלטו ֵּלי ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת? ֲא ַמר ֵל
ֶ ְַּת ְרנ Keruya, and some say that he was from Seruya, raise a dilemma Hilkhot Yom Tov 2:2; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 497:2,
גֹולין? ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי ִ ְְּכלוּם ָע ׂשוּי ֶא ָּלא ְל ַת ְרנ before Rabbi Yoĥanan: With regard to a hen’s roost,n what is its 498:3).
.רֹוח ֵמת ַ יה ֶא ְפ ּ ָע ְס ִקינַן – דְּ ִאית ֵ ּב legal status as far as moving it on Shabbat is concerned? Rabbi
Yoĥanan said to him: Isn’t the roost made exclusively for hens to
be inside it? Since it is not designated for use by people, moving it
is prohibited. Apparently, he holds in accordance with the opinion
of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to set-aside. The Gemara answers:
With what are we dealing here? With a special case, when there
is a dead chick in the roost. Moving the roost is prohibited due to
the dead chick, which is set-aside.
המ ףד: ׳ג קרפ. Perek III . 45b 207
notes
)יה (דְּ ַרב ּ ימר ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמָ נִיחא ְל ָמר ַ ּבר ַא ֵמ ָ ָה The Gemara continues to ask: This works out well according to the
And a candelabrum fell onto Rabbi Asi’s cloak opinion of Mar bar Ameimar in the name of Rav, who said: Rabbi
and he did not move it – יה ֵ וְ נָ ַפל ְמנַ ְר ָּתא ַעל ְ ּג ִל
ּ ימ מֹודה ָהיָ ה ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ְ ּב ַב ֲע ֵלי ֶ :דַּ ָא ַמר
דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי וְ ל ֹא ִט ְיל ְט ָל ּה: Although the candelabrum ֶא ָּלא ְל ָמר,ַח ּיִ ים ׁ ֶש ֵּמ ת ּו ׁ ֶש ֲא ס ּו ִרין Shimon agreed in the case of animals that died on Shabbat, that they
was not intentionally placed on Rabbi Asi’s cloak are prohibited on Shabbat due to set-aside. However, according to the
:יה דְּ ָר ָבא דַּ ֲא ַמר ּ יֹוסף ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ
ֵ יה דְּ ַרב ּ ְ ּב ֵר opinion of Mar, son of Rav Yosef, in the name of Rava, who said:
and he could have shaken it off, apparently he
did not do so because he was concerned that he [א ִפילוּ] ְ ּב ַב ֲע ֵלי ֲ ָחלוּק ָהיָ ה ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון Rabbi Shimon was in disagreement even in the case of animals that
might break the candelabrum. He did not want יכא ָּ ַמאי ִא, ׁ ֶש ֵהן מו ָּּת ִרין,ַּחּיִ ים ׁ ֶש ֵּמתו died, and said that they are permitted and are not prohibited as set-aside,
to move the candelabrum itself because of the ימר? ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַן – ִ ּב ְד ִאית ַ ְל ֵמ what can be said? The Gemara responds: With what are we dealing
prohibition of set-aside (Ĥokhmat Mano’aĥ).
.יה ֵ ּביצָ ה ּ ֵ ּב here? With a case where there is an egg that was laid on Shabbat in the
Because Rabbi Asi was a student of Rabbi roost. Because it was laid on Shabbat it is considered set-aside, and using
Yoĥanan – יֹוחנָן ֲהוָ ה ּ מ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי ַּת ְל ִמ ֵיד:ִ
ָ יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי the egg is prohibited. The thought of using it never entered anyone’s mind
Although proof for the statement of one amora is before Shabbat.
not usually cited from the statement of another,
occasionally the opinion of a Sage is derived from
the statements or the customs of his preeminent יה
ּ ַמאן דְּ ִאית ֵל:וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן The Gemara asks: Didn’t Rav Naĥman say: One who is of the opinion
disciple. יה
ּ דְּ ֵלית ֵל,נֹולד
ָ יה ּ מו ְּקצֶ ה – ִאית ֵל that there is a prohibition of set-aside, is also of the opinion that there
In the case of an oil lamp and according to the יהּ נֹולד! דְּ ִאית ֵ ּב
ָ יה ּ מו ְּקצֶ ה – ֵלית ֵל is a prohibition of an object that came into being on Shabbat or on a
opinion of Rabbi Shimon – בנֵ ר ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון:ּ ְ There Festival; and one who is not of the opinion that there is a prohibition of
.רֹוח
ַ ֵ ּביצַ ת ֶא ְפ
is no proof from here that Rabbi Yoĥanan holds in set-aside, is also not of the opinion that there is a prohibition of an object
accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that that came into being. This case is no different than other cases of set-
it is permitted to move an oil lamp. Rather, Rabbi aside. The Gemara responds: This is referring to a case where the roost
Yoĥanan is stating that among all of the tanna’im, has an egg with a chick in it. Even Rabbi Shimon would agree that mov-
the only Sage who permits moving an oil lamp is
ing an egg of that sort is prohibited since it is fit for neither human nor
Rabbi Shimon, and even he did not permit mov-
ing a candelabrum (Ritva). animal consumption.
וְ ַא ְּת ָלא:יֹוסף ֵ יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י ְל ַרב ּ ָא ַמר ֵל Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And you yourself did not hold that Rabbi
יֹוחנָן ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה? ָהא ַר ִ ּביָ ִּת ְס ְ ּב ָרא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי Yoĥanan rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, even
ַא ָ ּבא וְ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי ִא ְיק ְלע ּו ְל ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא before Rav Yitzĥak came and cited this statement in his name? Didn’t
Rabbi Abba and Rabbi Asi happen to come to the house of Rabbi Abba
יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֵ וְ נָ ַפל ְמנַ ְר ָּתא ַעל ְ ּג ִל,דְּ ִמן ֵח ָיפא
ּ ימ who was from the city Haifa, and a candelabrum fell onto Rabbi Asi’s
ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? ָלאו.ַא ִסי וְ ל ֹא ִט ְיל ְט ָל ּה cloak and he did not move it?n What is the reason that he did not lift
יֹוחנָ ן
ָ יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ּ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי ַּת ְל ִמ ֵיד it? Is it not because Rabbi Asi was a student of Rabbi Yoĥanan,n and
יה
ּ יֹוחנָן ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ְס ִב ָירא ֵל ָ וְ ַר ִ ּבי,ֲהוָ ה Rabbi Yoĥanan holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda,
?יה מו ְּקצֶ ה ּ דְּ ִאית ֵל who holds that there is a prohibition of set-aside? Apparently, Rabbi
Yoĥanan holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
ְמנַ ְר ָּתא ָק ָא ְמ ַר ְּת? ְמנַ ְר ָּתא:יה ּ ָא ַמר ֵל Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Candelabrum you say; are you citing a proof
דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָחא ַ ּבר ֲחנִינָ א ָא ַמר.ׁ ָשאנֵי from the case of a candelabrum? A candelabrum is different because
נֹורה ָ ְמ:הֹורה ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש ְ ּבצִ ָידן ָ :ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי there is a unique halakha in that case. As Rabbi Aĥa bar Rabbi Ĥanina
said that Rabbi Asi said that Reish Lakish issued a ruling in the city of
,ִיט ֶלת ְ ּביָ דֹו ַא ַחת – מו ָּּתר ְל ַט ְל ְט ָל ּה ֶ ַה ּנ
Sidon: A candelabrum that can be moved in one of his hands, one is
יֹוחנָן
ָ וְ ַר ִ ּבי.ִ ּב ׁ ְש ֵּתי יָ ָדיו – ָאסוּר ְל ַט ְל ְט ָל ּה permitted to move it on Shabbat. However, if it is so heavy that one must
. ָאנ ּו ֵאין ָלנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ְ ּבנֵ ר ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון:ָא ַמר move it with his two hands, it is prohibited to move it. And Rabbi
נִיט ָלה ְ ּביָ דֹו ַא ַחת ֵ ּבין ְּ ֵ ּבין,נֹורה ָ ֲא ָבל ְמ Yoĥanan said: We have permission to carry only in the case of an oil
ְּ
.נִיט ָלה ִ ּב ׁ ְש ֵּתי יָ ָדיו – ָאסוּר ְל ַט ְל ְט ָל ּה lamp, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.n However, with regard
to a candelabrum, both one that is carried in one hand and one that is
carried in two hands, it is prohibited to move it.
יֹוסף ְ ּד ָא ְמ ִרי
ֵ וְ ַט ְע ָמא ַמאי? ַר ָ ּבה וְ ַרב The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that there is a unique prohibi-
.קֹוב ַע ָל ּה ָמקֹום ֵ הֹואיל וְ ָא ָדם ִ :ַּּת ְרוַ ויְ יהו tion in the case of a candelabrum? Rabba and Rav Yosef both said: Since
ילת ַּ וַ ֲה ֵרי ִּכ:יֹוסף
ֵ יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י ְל ַרב ּ ָא ַמר ֵל a person usually designates a fixed place for it due to its size and its use,
it is considered a built-in part of the house, and moving the candelabrum
וְ ָא ַמר,קֹוב ַע לֹו ָמקֹום ֵ דְּ ָא ָדם,ֲח ָתנִים
is like dismantling the house. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: A groom’s can-
ִּכ ַּילת ֲח ָתנִים:ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא opy is an object for which a person designates a set place, and, neverthe-
less, Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Ĥiyya: With regard to a groom’s
canopy,
208 Perek III . 45b . המ ףד: קרפ ׳ג
Perek III
Daf 46 Amud a
background
!נְטֹות ּה וּמו ָּּתר ְל ָפ ְר ָק ּה ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת
ָ מו ָּּתר ִל it is permitted to assemble it and it is permitted to dismantle it on
Shabbat. If a permanent object like that one may be assembled on A collapsible candelabrum – נֹורה ִמ ְת ּ ַפ ֶר ֶקת
ָ מ:ְ
ִאי. ְ ּב ׁ ֶשל חו ְּליֹות:ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י
ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן,ָה ִכי Shabbat and there is no concern for the prohibition of building, all
the more so it should not be considered building and dismantling in
?ָל ִק ׁיש דְּ ׁ ָש ֵרי
the case of a candelabrum. Rather, Abaye said: Here it is referring to
a special candelabrum made of joints,b removable parts, and there is
concern lest it fall and break into its component parts when it is
moved, and one may come to reassemble it, which would be tanta-
mount to crafting a vessel on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: If so, if it is
referring to that type of candelabrum, what is the reason for the
opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish who permits moving the can-
delabrum?
דְּ ִאית,ַמאי “חו ְּליֹות״ – ְּכ ֵעין חו ְּליֹות The Gemara replies: It is not referring to a candelabrum that can actu-
ח ו ְּליֹות – ֵ ּבין: ִה ְל ָּכ ְך.ָ ּב ּה ִח ְיד ֵקי ally be dismantled. Rather, what is the meaning of joints? Similar to
.ּדֹולה ֵ ּבין ְק ַט ָּנה ֲאסו ָּרה ְל ַט ְל ְט ָל ּה ָ ְג joints,n i.e., there are grooves in it and it appears as if it is made of
different components. Therefore, in summary: With regard to a can-
ּדֹולה נַ ִמי דְּ ִאית ָ ּב ּה ִח ְיד ֵקי – ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ָ ְג
delabrum made of actual joints, both one that is large and one that
– ִּכי ּ ְפ ִליגִ י.דֹולה דְּ חו ְּליֹות ָ ַא ּט ּו ְ ּג is small, it is prohibited to move it.h In addition, a large candela-
: ָמר ָס ַבר.ִ ּב ְק ַט ָּנה דְּ ִאית ָ ּב ּה ִח ְיד ֵקי brum that has grooves, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to move
. ָלא ָ ּגזְ ִרינַן: ו ָּמר ָס ַבר,ָ ּגזְ ִרינַן it by rabbinic decree, which was issued due to a large candelabrum
made of joints. Because it is common for a large candelabrum to be
made of joints, if one saw someone carrying a large, grooved candela-
brum, he would mistakenly assume that it had joints due to the simi-
larity between them, and would mistakenly permit carrying a large
candelabrum actually composed of joints. Where Rabbi Yoĥanan and
Reish Lakish disagree is in the case of a small candelabrum that has
Depiction of a mishnaic-era, collapsible candelabrum and its component
grooves. This Sage, Rabbi Yoĥanan, holds that we issue a decree parts found in Pompeii
prohibiting moving even a small, grooved candelabrum due to a large
one. And this Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that we do not issue a decree. halakha
Because a small candelabrum is not typically made of joints, everyone
With regard to a candelabrum made of actual joints,
realizes that the grooves are strictly decorative. both one that is large and one that is small, it is pro-
יֹוחנָן ָה ִכי? וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ָ ו ִּמי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי The Gemara questions: And did Rabbi Yoĥanan actually say thatn hibited to move it – דֹולה ֵ ּבין ְק ַט ָּנה ֲאסו ָּרה
ָ ְחו ְּליֹות ֵ ּבין ג
ל ַט ְל ְט ָל ּה:ְ It is prohibited to carry a candelabrum made
: ו ְּתנַ ן, ֲה ָל ָכה ִּכ ְס ָתם ִמ ׁ ְשנָ ה:יֹוחנָ ן ָ the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda?
of joints, whether large or small, on Shabbat, even if it is
– נִש ֶמ ֶטת ְ ׁ “מו ְּכנִי ׁ ֶש ָּל ּה ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ִהיא Didn’t Rabbi Yoĥanan state the following principle: The halakha is new (Mishna Berura). It is also prohibited by rabbinic de-
in accordance with an unattributed mishna? And we learned in the cree to carry a candelabrum on Shabbat that has grooves
, וְ ֵאין נִ ְמ ֶד ֶדת ִע ָּמ ּה,יבוּר ָל ּה ּ ֵאין ִח
mishna that discusses ritual impurity of a wagon with a detachable that create the impression that it is made of joints, as per
וְ ֵאין,וְ ֵאין ַמ ֶ ּצ ֶלת ִע ָּמ ּה ְ ּבא ֶֹהל ַה ֵּמת undercarriage: The wagon’s undercarriage, when it is detachable the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan (Rambam Sefer Zemanim,
יה ָ ּג ְֹור ִרין
ָ אֹות ּה ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ָע ֶל from the wagon, it is not considered connected to it and they are Hilkhot Shabbat 26:11; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 279:7).
.ָמעֹות״ considered independent units as far as the halakhot of ritual impurity
are concerned. And it is not measured with it. This refers to calculat-
ing the volume of forty se’a, as a vessel with a volume larger than forty
se’a does not have the legal status of a vessel and cannot become ritu-
ally impure. And the undercarriage likewise does not protect to-
gether with the wagon in a tent over the corpse. A large wagon is
considered a tent in and of itself, and the vessels inside the wagon do
not become impure if the wagon is over a dead body. However, the
undercarriage is not included with the wagon in this regard. If a hole
in the wagon is sealed by the undercarriage, it is not considered to be
sealed with regard to preventing ritual impurity. And, likewise, one
may not pull the wagon on Shabbat when there is money upon it.
notes
Similar to joints – כ ֵעין חו ְּליֹות:ְּ Some commentaries explain sources where the unattributed mishna is in accordance with the
that this type of candelabrum was initially made of separate opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Yoĥanan rules in accordance
components that were then attached with nails so that the can- with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. One explanation is that Rabbi
delabrum could no longer be dismantled (Me’iri). Yoĥanan does, in fact, rule in accordance with Rabbi Shimon’s
opinion with regard to most halakhot of Shabbat. However, with
Did Rabbi Yoĥanan actually say that – יֹוחנָן ָה ִכי
ָ ו ִּמי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי: regard to the prohibition of set-aside, which is the issue here, he
The commentaries questioned this based on several talmudic rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda (Rashba).
notes
Because the status of a vessel applies to it – יכא ּת ַֹורת ָּ הֹואיל וְ ִא
ִ tion of the Temple, the sanctity of the firstborn is still in ef- verse itself states: “Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict
יה
ּ כ ִלי ֲע ֵל:ְּ The rationale for this distinction is that raw material fect; however, using the animal is prohibited. If it develops a the soul, her husband may let it stand, or her husband may
is not a vessel and therefore is typically set aside from use on permanent blemish that would invalidate it as a sacrifice, the make it void” (Numbers 30:14), the statement of Rav Pineĥas
Shabbat for two reasons: It has no use in its present state, and animal is given to the priest and he may eat it. Great expertise is readily understood. From the time she takes the vow, she is
fashioning a vessel from raw material is prohibited. That is not is required to distinguish between the different blemishes, and aware that it is contingent upon her husband’s consent (see
the case with a vessel, which is complete and ready for use. It is the responsibility resting upon the shoulders of the one per- the Ran).
only due to Shabbat prohibitions or other external reasons that forming the examination is great, as it can result in the misuse of
One may request to dissolve his vows – נִש ָא ִלין ִלנְ ָד ִרים:ְ ׁ In
its use is prohibited for a certain period of time. consecrated property. Consequently, only a Sage who received
tractate Nedarim, it is explained at length that one may dissolve
special authorization has license to examine firstborn animals.
Permitting non-sacred slaughter of firstborn animals – ֶה ֵּיתר a vow that he made by consulting with a Sage. There are several
ַ בכֹורֹות ִל ׁ ּ ְש ִח:ּ ְ The Torah commands the giving of the
יטת חו ִּלין One may nullify vows – מ ִפ ִירין ָנְד ִרים:ְ The halakhot of vows and reasons that a Sage would agree to dissolve a vow. The simplest
firstborn male of all kosher animals to a priest (see Numbers their nullification are articulated in the Torah (Numbers 30), and reason is if the one who took the vow realizes afterward that it
18). When the Temple was standing, the unblemished firstborn the entire tractate of Nedarim is devoted to those halakhot. By is difficult for him to fulfill it, and, therefore, he regrets taking
of a kosher animal was offered as a sacrifice, and the priest Torah law, a husband may nullify his wife’s vows on the day the vow. Since regret is a valid reason to dissolve the vow, in
would eat the meat; a blemished firstborn animal was eaten that he hears them. The Gemara explains that this applies only exigent circumstances, even three common people who are
by the priest without it being sacrificed. After the destruc- to those vows that affect her husband in some way. Since the not experts can comprise a court to dissolve a vow.
צֹורךְ ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת
ֶ נִש ָא ִלין ִלנְ ָד ִרים ׁ ֶשל
ְ ׁ :ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע Moreover, the Gemara cites proof for this from that which was taught: Come
ימר דְּ ִמזְ דַּ ֵ ּקקַ ֵ ִמי י:ימא ָ וְ ַא ַּמאי? ֵל.ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת and hear: One may request that a Sage dissolve his vowsb for the purpose
יה ָח ָכם ּ יה ָח ָכם? ָה ָתם ִאי ָלא ִמיזְ דַּ ֵ ּקק ֵל ּ ֵל of Shabbat on Shabbat, i.e., one who vowed on Shabbat that eating on that
day is prohibited for him. And why is he permitted to eat something that
ימר
ַ ֵ ָה ָכא – ִמי י,יה ִ ּב ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ֶה ְדיֹוטֹות ּ ַסגְ יָ א ֵל was prohibited to him by his vow? Say again: Who says that the Sage will
ּ דְּ ִמיזְ דַּ ֵ ּקק ֵל
.יה ָח ָכם agree to engage in dissolution of his vow? Consequently, one has certainly
diverted his attention from the food, set it aside, and it should be prohibited
to eat it. The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, there is a difference, as there,
in the halakhot of vows, even if the Sage does not agree to engage in dis-
solution of his vow, he can suffice with renouncing the vow before three
common people. Even though it is preferable to have a Sage dissolve his
vow, in exigent circumstances one may turn to a court of three common
people to dissolve it. He will certainly find a way to dissolve his vow. How-
ever, here, in the case of the firstborn animal, who says that the Sage will
agree to engage in examination of the blemish? In the halakhot of firstborn
animals only an ordained Sage, who received special license to do so, is au-
thorized to verify that it is a permanent blemish and permit redemption and
slaughter of the animal as a non-sacred animal.
ִמי ָא ַמר ָר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון:יֹוסף ֵ יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י ְל ַרב ּ ָר ֵמי ֵל Abaye raised a contradiction before Rav Yosef: Did Rabbi Shimon actu-
ל ֹא, ָּכ ְב ָתה – ִאין,“כ ְב ָתה מו ָּּתר ְל ַט ְל ְט ָל ּה״ ָּ ally say that when a lamp is extinguished, it is permitted to move it on
ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא – דִּ ְיל ָמא ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי.ָּכ ְב ָתה – ָלא Shabbat? By inference: After it is extinguished, yes, moving it is permitted;
so long as it is not extinguished, no, moving it is prohibited. What is the
יה ְל ָר ִ ּבי
ּ ָהא ׁ ָש ְמ ִעינַ ן ֵל,דְּ נָ ֵקיט ָל ּה ָּכ ְב ָתה reason that it is prohibited to move a burning candle? It is due to concern
; דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ֵאין ִמ ְת ַּכ ֵּוין מו ָּּתר:ׁ ִש ְמעֹון דְּ ָא ַמר that perhaps, as he moves the lamp, the flame will be extinguished. How-
ג ֵֹּורר ָא ָדם ִּכ ֵּסא ִמ ָּטה:אֹומר ֵ ָר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון,דְּ ַתנְיָא ever, is Rabbi Shimon really concerned that a flame will be extinguished
! ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא יִ ְת ַּכ ֵּוין ַל ֲע ׂשֹות ָח ִריץ,וְ ַס ְפ ָסל under those circumstances? Didn’t we learn that Rabbi Shimon stated a
principle: An unintentional act, a permitted action from which an unin-
tended prohibited labor ensues on Shabbat, since he did not intend to per-
form the prohibited action, is permitted? As it was taught in a baraita,
Rabbi Shimon says: A person may drag a bed, chair, and bench on the
ground, as long as he does not intend to make a furrow in the ground. Even
if a furrow is formed inadvertently, one need not be concerned. Since that
was not his intention, there is no prohibition according to Rabbi Shimon.
Consequently, according to Rabbi Shimon there should be no prohibition
in moving a burning candle, even though it may be extinguished. Since that
is not the intention of the one moving it, no prohibition would be violated.
יס ּו ָרא
ּ יכא ִא ָּ יכ ֵּו ין ִא ַּ יכא דְּ ִכי ִמ ָ ָּכל ֵה The Gemara answers that there is a distinction between the cases: In every
יכ ֵּוין ָ ּגזַ ר ָר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון
ַּ יתא – ִּכי ָלא ִמ ָ ְאֹוריַ ְּד case where if he intends to perform the action, there is a prohibition by
יכא ִא ּיסו ָּרא ָּ יכ ֵּוין ִא
ַּ יכא דְּ ִכי ִמָ ָּכל ֵה,ִמדְּ ַר ָ ּבנָן Torah law, e.g. extinguishing a candle; even when he does not intend to do
so, Rabbi Shimon issued a decree prohibiting it by rabbinic law. However,
יכ ֵּוין ׁ ָש ֵרי ָר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ַּ דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן – ִּכי ָלא ִמ in every case where even if he intends to perform the action, there is
.ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּילה merely a prohibition by rabbinic law, e.g., digging a furrow which is not a
full-fledged act of plowing that is prohibited by Torah law, but is prohibited
only by rabbinic law, when he does not intend to perform the action, Rabbi
Shimon even permits performing this action ab initio.
Background
Vows – נְד ִרים:ָ This refers to a personal vow, i.e., a voluntary obligation to himself. The vows of a female minor, a young woman, or a wife may be
refrain from performing a certain action or from deriving benefit from annulled by her father or husband, respectively. Other individuals can
someone. This is, in effect, a type of reverse consecration. The person be released from their vows by a Torah scholar or a rabbinical court, if
pledges to regard the object or person as if it, or he, were consecrated to they can show that their vows were not taken with full knowledge and
the Temple. Any object can be forsworn, and one who fails to fulfill his intent. The Sages were very strongly opposed to the taking of vows and
vow violates the commandment: “He shall not profane his word” (Numbers encouraged people who had taken vows to have them dissolved. If one
30:3). It is also possible to prohibit one’s own property to another by means makes a statement worded in the form of a vow, and it is evident that the
of a vow; the other person must then treat that property as consecrated. intention was not to utter a vow but rather to make a point by means of
However, one cannot prohibit another’s property to anyone other than exaggeration or hyperbole, that vow is not considered binding.
: ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ָר ָבאRather, Rava said a different explanation for Rabbi Shimon’s pro-
hibition in the case of an oil lamp:
Perek III
Daf 47 Amud a
notes
הֹואיל
ִ – ילה ָ ַה ַּנח ְלנֵ ר ׁ ֶש ֶמן ו ְּפ ִתLeave the candle, oil, and wick, since they became a base for a
Leave the candle, oil, and wick, since they became a base
ֲ ְּ דprohibited object. Even Rabbi Shimon agrees that a flame burning
n
.נַע ָ ׂשה ָ ּב ִסיס ְל ָד ָבר ָה ָאסוּר for a prohibited object – נַע ָ ׂשה ֲ ְּהֹואיל ד
ִ ַה ַּנח ְלנֵ ר ׁ ֶש ֶמן ו ְּפ ִת ָילה
on Shabbat is set-aside. Since it is prohibited to move the flame, ב ִסיס ְל ָד ָבר ָה ָאסוּר:
ּ ָ The question was raised: Why does the
moving the lamp, oil, and wick is also prohibited. Gemara say that the wick is a base for a prohibited object?
It is a prohibited object itself (Tosafot). Some commentaries
ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי ָא ַמר Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said that explain that the discussion is with regard to a burning wick.
יֹוחנָ ן ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א ָא ַמר ָ ַר ִ ּבי Rabbi Ĥanina said that Rabbi Romanus said: Rabbi Yehuda Ha- Since it is serving its designated purpose, i.e., burning, it is
ִלי ִה ִּתיר ַר ִ ּבי ְל ַט ְל ֵטל:רֹומנוּס ָ ַר ִ ּבי Nasi permitted me to carry a coal pan with its ashes. Rabbi Zeira not set-aside. It is only prohibited to move the wick because
said to Rabbi Asi: Did Rabbi Yoĥanan actually say that? Didn’t it is a base for the flame (Derush VeĤiddush).
יה ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא ּ ָא ַמר ֵל.ַמ ְח ָּתה ְ ּב ֶא ְפ ָר ּה we learn in a mishna: A person may carry his son in his hands and Clothes of the poor for the rich – דַּ ֲענִּיִ ים ַל ֲע ׁ ִש ִירים: Some
?יֹוחנָ ן ָה ִכי ָ ִמי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי:ְל ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי even if the son has a stone, which is prohibited to carry, in his commentaries explain that for poor people, thick, coarse
,נֹוטל ָא ָדם ְ ּבנֹו וְ ָה ֶא ֶבן ְ ּביָ דֹוֵ :וְ ָה ְתנַן hands; or, one may carry a basket with a stone inside it? And clothes are measured as garments as far as ritual impurity
וְ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה.תֹוכ ּה
ָ אֹו ַּכ ְל ָּכ ָלה וְ ָה ֶא ֶבן ְ ּב Rabba bar bar Ĥana said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: We are dealing is concerned. For rich people, who do not wear coarse gar-
ments, a larger measure is required, and they are measured
ְ ּב ַכ ְל ָּכ ָלה:יֹוחנָן
ָ ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי with a basket that is full of fruit. Due to the fruit, carrying the stone
as a sack (Me’iri).
ַט ְע ָמא – דְּ ִאית.ְמ ֵל ָאה ּ ֵפירֹות ָע ְס ִקינַן is also permitted. The reason for the leniency is because there is
fruit inside the basket; however, if there is no fruit inside it, no,
! ָהא ֵלית ָ ּב ּה ּ ֵפ ֵירי – ָלא,ָ ּב ּה ּ ֵפ ֵירי
one may not move it. With regard to the coal pan that is filled with
ashes, how can moving it be permitted according to Rabbi Yoĥanan?
: וְ ָה ַתנְ יָ א,ימא – ֲחז ּו ַל ֲענִּיִ ים ָ וְ ִכי ֵּת And if you say: The bits are suitable for the poor. We will explain
– ִ ּבגְ ֵדי ֲע ׁ ִש ִירים,ִ ּבגְ ֵדי ֲענִּיִ ים – ַל ֲענִּיִ ים that the value of an object is determined not by its context, but by
– ֲא ָבל דַּ ֲענִּיִ ים ַל ֲע ׁ ִש ִירים,ַל ֲע ׁ ִש ִירים its intrinsic value. Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that there is a differ-
ence with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity between gar-
ִמידֵּ י דַּ ֲהוָ ה:ל ֹא! ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י
ments belonging to poor people, which can become ritually impure
.יעיִ ַא ְ ּג ָרף ׁ ֶשל ֵר even if they are very small, and garments belonging to the wealthy,
which are not considered significant unless they contain a larger
amount of fabric? Garments the size of poor people’s clothing are
for the poor, and garments the size of rich people’s clothing are
for the rich; however, clothes of the poor for the richn are not
significant. Apparently, the significance of an object is determined
by its context and its owner. Rather, Abaye said an alternative ex-
planation: The halakha here is just as it is in the case of a chamber
pot of feces. Since it is disgusting, removing it from the house is
permitted, even though clearly there is no use for it.
זמ ףד. ׳ג קרפ. Perek III . 47a 213
language
: ֲח ָדא: ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְּת ׁשוּבֹות ַ ּבדָּ ָבר:ָא ַמר ָר ָבא Rava said: There are two answers to reject this analogy: One, a
Coal pan [kanuna] – כנוּנָ א:ָּ This word is found in the chamber pot with feces is disgusting, and the coal pan is not
same form in Syriac and in Arabic, and it means a . וְ ַהאי – ָלא ְמ ִאיס,יעי – ְמ ִאיס ִ ְ ּג ָרף ׁ ֶשל ֵר
vessel in which coals are placed, i.e., a pan. !יכ ִסי ְ וְ ַהאי ִמ,יעי – ִמיגְ ִלי ִ ְ ּג ָרף ׁ ֶשל ֵר:וְ עֹוד disgusting. And furthermore: A chamber pot with feces is un-
covered and smells, and the coal pan is covered. Rather, Rava said
ִּכי ָהוֵ ינַן ֵ ּבי ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ֲהוָ ה:ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ָר ָבא
an alternative explanation: When we were at the house of Rav
notes יט ָמא וְ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב ְ ְמ ַט ְל ְט ִלינַן ָּכנוּנָ א ַא ַ ּגב ִק Naĥman we would move a coal pan [kanuna]l on account of the
They taught it in the Galilee – בגְ ִל ָילא ׁ ָשנ ּו:ּ ִ The com-
וְ ׁ ָשוִ ין:ית ֵיבי ִ ֵמ.יה ׁ ִש ְב ֵרי ֵעצִ ים ּ יכא ֲע ֵל ָּ דְּ ִא ashes, and we did this even though there were broken pieces of
mentaries explain that the legal status of the Galilee
was different not due to poverty or wealth. Rather, ילה – ׁ ֶש ָאס ּור ָ ׁ ֶש ִאם יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ּה ׁ ִש ְב ֵרי ְפ ִת wood on it. Since the ashes can be used to cover filth, it is not set-
the Galilee was not considered a place of Torah, and .ּ ִ ּבגְ ִל ָילא ׁ ָשנו:ְל ַט ְל ֵטל! ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י aside and the coal pan may be moved due to the ashes. Even if there
the Sages adopted a more stringent policy with re- were also broken sticks on the pan that are useless, nevertheless
gard to issuing decrees in places where there were they are nullified by the ashes. The Gemara raises an objection to
few Torah scholars (Rav Nissim Gaon). this last remark from that which was cited previously: And Rabbi
Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon agree that if there were fragments of
Weaver’s loom – מ ָּטה ׁ ֶשל ַט ְר ִסּיִ ים:ִ This halakha is
connected to the previous discussion with regard to a wick in the lamp, that it is prohibited to move it. Apparently,
moving a lamp. The conclusion was that a lamp that these fragments are not null and render the entire lamp set-aside.
can be disassembled may not be reassembled, as in Abaye said: No proof can be cited from that baraita because they
doing so one would perform the prohibited labor of taught it in the Galilee,nh where oil is abundant and inexpensive.
building on Shabbat (Penei Yehoshua). That is why broken wicks are not nullified relative to the oil (Rav
Nissim Gaon).
ֵלוִ י ַ ּבר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַא ׁ ְש ַּכ ִחינְ ה ּו ְל ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא ו ְּל ַרב The Gemara relates that Levi bar Shmuel found Rabbi Abba and
ית ָחא דְּ ֵבי ְ ימי ַא ּ ִפ ִ ְהוּנָ א ַ ּבר ִחּיָ יא דַּ ֲהו ּו ָקי Rav Huna bar Ĥiyya, who were standing at the entrance of Rav
ַמה ּו ְל ַה ֲחזִ יר ִמ ָּטה ׁ ֶשל:ּ ֲא ַמר ְלהו,ַרב הוּנָ א Huna’s house. Levi bar Shmuel said to them: What is the halakha
with regard to reassembling a weaver’s loom,nh which was typi-
. ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר דָּ ֵמי:יה ּ ַט ְר ִסּיִ ים ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת? ֲא ַמר ּו ֵל cally a collapsible frame, on Shabbat? He said to him: It may well
background
A rounded horn and a straight horn – ֶק ֶרן ֲעגו ָּּלה ָהא ַרב: ֲא ַמר,יה דְּ ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ּ ֲא ָתא ְל ַק ֵּמ be done. He came before Rav Yehuda, asking him the same ques-
וְ ֶק ֶרן ּ ְפ ׁשו ָּטה: ַה ַּמ ֲחזִ יר ִמ ָּטה ׁ ֶשל:ּו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי ַּת ְרוַ יְ יהו tion, and Rav Yehuda said to him that Rav and Shmuel both said:
.ַט ְר ִסּיִ ים ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת – ַחּיָ יב ַח ָּטאת One who reassembles a weaver’s loom on Shabbat is liable to
bring a sin-offering, as he performed a labor prohibited by Torah
law on Shabbat.
– נֹורה ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת
ָ ַה ַּמ ֲחזִ יר ְקנֵ ה ְמ:יבי ֵ ית ִ ֵמ The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Levi bar Shmu-
וְ ִאם, ְקנֵ ה ַסּיָ ִידין – ל ֹא יַ ֲחזִ יר,ַחּיָ יב ַח ָּטאת el from the Tosefta: One who reassembles the branch of a disas-
ימאי ַ ַר ִ ּבי ִס.ֶה ֱחזִ יר – ּ ָפט ּור ֲא ָבל ָאס ּור sembled candelabrum on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering.
With regard to the plasterer’s pole, which has several component
– ֶק ֶרן ּ ְפ ׁשו ָּטה, ֶק ֶרן ֲעגו ָּּלה – ַחּיָ יב:אֹומר ֵ
parts, one may not reassemble it ab initio, and if he reassembled
:ּ ָפטוּר! ִאינְ ה ּו דַּ ֲאמוּר ִּכי ַהאי ַּת ָּנא – דְּ ַתנְיָא it, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, although it is prohib-
וחים ׁ ֶשל ִ ָ ו ְּלו, וְ ַכ ְרעֹות ַה ִּמ ָּטה,ַמ ְל ְ ּבנֹות ַה ִּמ ָּטה ited. Rabbi Simai says: With regard to a rounded horn, which is a
וְ ִאם ֶה ֱחזִ יר – ּ ָפטוּר,יבס – ל ֹא יַ ֲחזִ יר ּ ָ ְס ִק trumpet that can be dismantled and whose assembly is complicated,
one who reassembled it is liable. However, a straight horn,b which
is easy to assemble, one who assembled it is exempt. Apparently,
assembling an object that consists of several components on Shab-
bat is prohibited by Torah law, and one is liable to bring a sin-offer-
ing for doing so. The Gemara answers: They said that it is permitted
in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it was taught in a
baraita: A bed frame, which is a wooden frame through which the
ropes of the bed were interlaced, and the legs of the bed, and the
archer’s tablets [skibas],lb which refers to the part of a bow upon
Round Roman horn which one pulls the arrow back, if they were detached from the bed
or from the bow, one may not reassemble them, and if he reas-
sembled them he is exempt.
ֲהוָ ה,נִיתא ָ ֵ ּבי ַרב ָח ָמא ֲהוָ ה ִמ ָּטה ָ ּג ְל ַל The Gemara relates: In the house of Rav Ĥama, Rava’s grand- In an atypical manner – מן ַה ַ ּצד:ִ In the context of Shabbat law,
father, there was a collapsible bed,b similar to a weaver’s loom, the Hebrew phrase, min hatzad, which literally means from the
יה
ּ ָא ַמר ֵל.יֹומא ָט ָבא ָ ְמ ַהדְּ ִרי ָל ּה ְ ּב side, is translated as: In an atypical manner. This phrase indicates
,יך ְ ַמאי דַּ ֲע ִת:ַההוּא ִמדְּ ַר ָ ּבנָ ן ְל ָר ָבא and they would reassemble it on a Festival. One of the Sages that the action is not performed in the manner that it is generally
said to Rava: What is your opinion? Do you hold that this is performed. One is not liable for performing a prohibited labor
יס ּו ָרא ּ נְ ִהי דְּ ִא,ִ ּבנְ יָ ן ִמן ַה ַ ּצד הוּא
allowed because it is building in an atypical manner?n In on Shabbat unless the action is performed in the appropriate
יסו ָּרא דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן
ּ ִא,יכא ָּ יתא – ֵל ָ ְאֹורי
ַ ְּד other words, one is not performing the prohibited labor of manner. In general, this phrase refers to the consequences of
ֲאנָ א ְּכ ַר ָ ּבן:יה ּ יכא! ֲא ַמר ֵל ָּ יהא ִא ָ ִמ building since it is was not performed in the standard manner? the action. The objective of a full-fledged prohibited labor was
: דְּ ָא ַמר,יאל ְס ִב ָירא ִלי ֵ ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל Although there is no Torah prohibition, there is, in any case, not achieved. This is as opposed to the phrase: In a backhanded
manner [kilaĥar yad ], which refers to a difference in the manner
.ִאם ָהיָ ה ָרפוּי – מו ָּּתר a rabbinic prohibition. Rava said to him: I hold in accordance
in which the action was performed, e.g., using the left hand, and
with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who said that not to the consequences of the action.
if it were loose, it is permitted even ab initio.
Causes extinguishing…he is hastening its extinguishing –
ְ מתני׳
נֹותנִין ְּכ ִלי ַּת ַחת ַה ֵּנר ְל ַק ֵ ּבל
וְ ל ֹא יִ ֵּתן ְלתֹוכֹו ַמיִ ם – ִמ ּ ְפנֵי.נִיצֹוצֹות
Mishna One may place a vessel beneath the oil
lamp in order to receive burning sparksh
יבוּיֹו
ּ ּי…ש ְּמ ָק ֵרב ֶאת ִּכ ּ גּ ֵֹורם ְל ִכ: Indirect extinguishing of a flame
ֶ ׁ יבו
is explained later in this tractate (Shabbat 120a) as positioning
a ceramic vessel full of water so that it will burst when the fire
of oil that fall from the lamp so that they will not cause a fire. reaches it and the water will extinguish the fire. The difference
. ׁ ֶשהוּא ְמ ַכ ֶ ּבהAnd he may not place water into the vessel because he thereby
between indirect extinguishing and hastening extinguishing is
extinguishes the sparks. extremely subtle. The conclusion in the Jerusalem Talmud is that
our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who
ֶ גמ׳ וְ ָהא ָק ְמ ַב ֵּטל ְּכ ִלי ֵמ ֵה
יכנּ ֹו! ָא ַמר
נִיצֹוצֹות:הֹוש ַע
ֻ ׁ ְיה דְּ ַרב י ּ ַרב הוּנָ א ְ ּב ֵר
Gemara The Gemara asks: How is it permitted
to position this vessel to receive the
prohibits indirectly causing a flame to extinguish. Nevertheless,
there is a distinction between the two. Indirectly extinguishing a
flame refers to a case where the fire has not yet reached a certain
sparks, doesn’t he thereby negate the vessel’s preparedness? It
. ֵאין ָ ּב ֶהן ַמ ָּמ ׁשis no longer prepared for any use on Shabbat as the sparks ac- place and an obstacle is placed to prevent it from spreading
further. That obstacle causes the flame to be extinguished. On
cord it set-aside status. The opinion that negating the prepared- the other hand, hastening extinguishing applies to a case where
ness of a vessel is prohibited has already been stated. Rav Huna, the fire is already there, as in the case of the sparks, but one takes
son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Sparks have no substance. They action that will extinguish it faster (Ritva). Other commentaries
burn immediately and do not leave behind any trace of oil in the explain that the rationale for the prohibition in the case of a
vessel. Therefore, the vessel remains suitable to be moved. vessel and sparks is that the vessel is empty, and there is room
for concern lest one come to pour water on the sparks burning
“וְ ל ֹא יִ ֵּתן ְלתֹוכֹו ַמיִ ם ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶשהוּאAnd we also learned in the mishna that one may not place there on Shabbat (Me’iri ).
,יֹוסי ָ ֵל. ְמ ַכ ֶ ּבה״water into the vessel situated beneath the candle because he
ֵ ימא ְּתנַן ְס ָת ָמא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי
ּ גּ ֵֹורם ְל ִכ: דְּ ָא ַמרthereby extinguishes the sparks. The Gemara remarks: Is that
background
!יבוּי – ָאסוּר
to say that we learned an unattributed mishna in accordance ָ מ ָּטה ָ ּג ְל ַל:ִ
Collapsible bed – נִיתא
with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that even an action
that causes extinguishing indirectly is prohibited? The extin-
guishing in this case, where water was placed into a vessel, was
not accomplished by means of a direct action. His action only
caused it to extinguish indirectly.
– יֹוסי ֵ וְ ִת ְס ְ ּב ָרא?! ֵאימוּר דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי The Gemara rejects this question in astonishment: And how can
ְ ּב ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ִמי ֲא ַמר? וְ ִכי,ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת you understand it in that manner? Say that Rabbi Yosei said
:ימא ָה ָכא נַ ִמי ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת – וְ ָה ַתנְיָ א ָ ֵּת that indirectly causing extinguishing is prohibited on Shabbat;
on Shabbat eve did he say this? And if you say that here, too, Collapsible bed in the style of the mishnaic era
נֹותנִין ְּכ ִלי ַּת ַחת ַה ֵּנר ְל ַק ֵ ּבל נִיצֹוצֹות ְ
it is referring to a case where he placed water in the vessel on
לֹומר ְ ּב ֶע ֶרבַ יך ְ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת – וְ ֵאין צָ ִר Shabbat, wasn’t it taught in a baraita: One may place a vessel halakha
וְ ל ֹא יִ ֵּתן ְלתֹוכֹו ַמיִ ם ִמ ּ ְפנֵי,ׁ ַש ָ ּבת underneath an oil lamp to receive sparks that fall from the A vessel beneath the oil lamp to receive sparks – ְּכ ִלי ַּת ַחת ַה ֵּנר
ְ וְ ֵאין צָ ִריך,ׁ ֶשהוּא ְמ ַכ ֶ ּבה ֵמ ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת lamp on Shabbat, and, needless to say, placing it there is per- ל ַק ֵ ּבל נִיצֹוצֹות:ְ It is permitted to position a vessel to receive sparks
mitted on Shabbat eve? And one may not put water into the from a lamp even on Shabbat (Mishna Berura). However, accord-
:לֹומר ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת! ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ַ
vessel because he will thereby extinguish the spark, even if he ing to all opinions, it is prohibited to place a vessel with water
ׁ ָשאנֵי ָה ָכא – ִמ ּ ְפנֵי,ימא ַר ָ ּבנַן ָ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ֵּת because it hastens the extinguishing of the sparks (Rambam Sefer
placed it there on Shabbat eve, and, needless to say, doing so
.יבוּיֹו
ּ ׁ ֶש ְּמ ָק ֵרב ֶאת ִּכ Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 5:13 ; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 265:4).
is prohibited on Shabbat itself. Apparently, the prohibition in
the mishna is not at all connected to Rabbi Yosei’s approach.
Rather, Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that this mishna is in
accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, it is different here
because, in this case, he is not only causing the spark to extin-
guish. He is hastening its extinguishing,n as the sparks are ex-
tinguished immediately when they fall into the water (Rabbeinu
Ĥananel). In this matter even the Rabbis would prohibit
הדרן עלך כירה doing so.
זמ ףד: ׳ג קרפ. Perek III . 47b 215
Summary of
Perek III
This chapter, whose primary focus was on the details of the labor of cooking on Shab-
bat, discussed the issue from a practical perspective. Matters relating to concluding
the cooking process on Shabbat were underscored.
First, the Gemara clarified the permitted and prohibited manners in which one may
leave cooked food on different types of stoves, so that the cooking process may be
completed, and the food will remain hot for Shabbat day. The Gemara concluded
that it is permitted to leave the item upon the stove if the item is sufficiently cooked
at the onset of Shabbat, i.e., it could be eaten in exigent circumstances, and if there
is no room for concern lest one come to stoke the coals, e.g., in a case where the
possibility of stoking the coals on Shabbat is physically precluded.
The fundamental discussion of the halakhot of cooking concluded with the ruling
that there is a distinction between cooking with fire, which is prohibited by Torah law,
and cooking with other heat sources, e.g., the heat of the sun, which, if it is prohibited,
the prohibition is only by rabbinic decree. It was also ruled that the prohibition of
cooking applies to all types of foods, solids and liquids, in accordance with the level
of heat that renders them cooked. There are also different substances that accelerate
or impede the cooking process and influence the degree of heat required for cooking.
Matters relating to moving utensils used for cooking and illuminating accompanied
the discussion of the laws of cooking. The questions were: To what extent are these
utensils that are designated for prohibited labor or objects that are unsuited for use
on Shabbat set aside from use on Shabbat? To what extent is moving them prohibited
on Shabbat?
217
Introduction to
Perek IV
In Chapter Three, the halakhot of cooking were discussed extensively. Although the
Torah prohibited cooking on Shabbat, it is permitted to leave food on the fire on
Shabbat eve so that its cooking will be completed on Shabbat, as explained in Chapter
One and Chapter Three of this tractate. A series of related halakhot about insulating
on Shabbat are discussed in Chapter Four.
It was customary to place hot food and liquids into various substances with the ca-
pacity to preserve and even add heat. This act of insulating is comparable to placing
a cooked dish in coals and embers, which is prohibited by rabbinic decree, lest one
come to stoke the coals and ignite them. In this case, although there is an explicit
principle that a decree is not issued due to concern lest one come to violate another
rabbinic decree, the Sages prohibited insulating food for Shabbat in those cases most
similar to placing a cooked dish in coals. In cases of this sort, the Gemara explains
that the different decrees were issued contemporaneously. Therefore, it is not a case
of a decree issued to prevent violation of another decree, as they are all one decree.
The general discussion in this chapter includes a list of substances with which it is
permitted and those with which it is prohibited to insulate hot food on Shabbat, as
well as explanations and rationales for this halakha.
219
Perek IV
Daf 47 Amud b
notes
When a pot is removed from the fire on Shabbat eve it may be In what may one insulate – טֹומנִין
ְ ב ֶּמה:ּ ַ Chapter Four of tractate
insulated in materials that preserve its heat, but not in materi- Shabbat is connected to the previous chapters. Since the mishna
als that increase its heat. Raising the temperature of a pot is in Chapter Two mentions the prohibition of insulating hot water
tantamount to cooking. The mishnayot that follow list those on Shabbat during the twilight period, and Chapter Three discuss-
es cooking and warming food for Shabbat, this chapter elaborates
materials in which such a pot may be insulated on Shabbat
on the laws of insulating food before Shabbat (Penei Yehoshua).
eve and those materials in which it may not be insulated.
background
וְ ל ֹא ַ ּב ֶּת ֶבן וְ ל ֹא ַ ּבּזָ גִ ין וְ ל ֹא ַ ּב ּמ ִֹוכין וְ ל ֹאAnd one may neither insulate a pot in straw, nor in the residue
ְ ֲא ָבל, ַ ּב ֲע ָ ׂש ִבין ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ֵהן ַל ִחיןof grapes that have been pressed for their juice, nor in soft
טֹומנִין
. ָ ּב ֶהן ְּכ ׁ ֶש ֵהן ֵיְב ׁ ִשיןmaterial, e.g., from tattered clothing, nor in grass, when these
materials are moist. However, one may insulate a pot in them
when they are dry.b
דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַחד,ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from what Rabbi
קו ּ ָּפה ׁ ֶש ָּט ַמן ָ ּב ּה ָאסוּר:דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי יַ ַּנאי Zeira said in the name of one of the Sages of the school of
ׁ ְש ַמע,יתים ִ ֵנִיח ּה ַעל ֶ ּג ֶפת ׁ ֶשל ז ָ ַל ֲה Rabbi Yannai: With regard to a basket in which one insulated
food in a permissible manner, e.g., in dry soft material or the like,
.יתים ְּתנַן ִ ֵ ׁ ֶשל ז:ִמ ָּינ ּה
it is prohibited to place it upon the residue of olives. Con-
clude from this that we learned with regard to the residue of
olives in our mishna; however, insulating food in the residue of
sesame is permitted.
– ְל ִענְ יַ ן ַה ְט ָמנָ ה:ימא ָל ְךָ עֹולם ֵא ָ ְלThe Gemara rejects this proof: Actually I can say to you that
ְל ִענְיַ ן, דְּ ׂשו ְּמ ְ ׂש ִמין נַ ִמי ָאסוּרwith regard to actual insulation, the residue of sesame is also
prohibited. However, with regard to
halakha
In what may one insulate – טֹומנִין ְ ב ֶּמה:ּ ַ It is prohibited to grass, as per the mishna. The later commentaries disagree
insulate a pot of food on Shabbat in order to retain the level whether the prohibition to use these materials is exclusively
of heat in the pot, even if insulating the pot does not in- when they are moist due to their own natural state or even if
crease the level of heat, and even if the food is completely their moisture originated from an external source (Rambam
cooked. Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 4:1–3; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ
If the insulation increases the heat, it is prohibited to in- Ĥayyim 257:3).
sulate the food before Shabbat as well. If one insulated the
pot in a substance that adds heat, the food is prohibited Residue of sesame – ג ֶפת ׁ ֶשל ׂשו ְּמ ְ ׂש ִמין:ּ ֶ Even though the
even after the fact. Gemara does not arrive at an explicit conclusion in the mat-
One may not insulate a pot of cooked food in the fol- ter, one may not insulate a pot of cooked food in the solid,
lowing substances, whether the materials are wet or dry: sesame residue because the talmudic discussion indicates
The solid residue of olives, the solid residue of sesame seeds, that this is the accepted position (Ran). However, according
manure, salt, plaster, or sand. The following substances, if dry, to the Gemara, it is permitted to place a pot of cooked food
may be used to insulate a pot before Shabbat because they atop sesame residue (Magen Avraham; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ
do not increase the heat: Straw, grape sediment, rags, and Ĥayyim 257:1, 3).
. ָהא – ְ ּב ַע ִּת ֵיקי, ָהא – ְ ּב ַח ְד ֵתי, ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ אThe Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This, the baraita is re- Permitted returning stuffing to the pillow – ׁ ְש ָרא
ל ַא ֲהדו ֵּרי או ְּד ָרא ְל ֵבי ַס ְדיָ א ְ ּב ׁ ַש ְ ּב ָתא:ְ It is prohibited to stuff
ferring to new pillows, whereas that, the statement of Rav Ĥisda
a pillow that had never been previously filled even on a
is referring to old pillows. Stuffing a pillow for the first time on Festival. It is permitted to refill a pillow even on Shabbat.
Shabbat is prohibited because by so doing one fashions a new However, one must make certain not to sew the pillow
utensil. However, if the stuffing fell out of the pillow, refilling the after replacing the old stuffing (Mishna Berura; Rambam
pillow is permitted even on Shabbat. Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 22:23; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ
Ĥayyim 340:8).
נֹותנִין ֶאת ַה ּמ ִֹוכין ל ֹא
ְ ֵאין:ַּתנְיָא נַ ִמי ָה ִכי The Gemara notes: That opinion was also taught in a baraita: One One who creates a new neck opening of a shirt on
may not place soft material as stuffing into a pillow or into a Shabbat – ה ּפ ֵֹות ַח ֵ ּבית ַה ַ ּצ ָּואר ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת:ַ It is prohibited to tear
,ְלתֹוךְ ַה ַּכר וְ ל ֹא ְלתֹוךְ ַה ֶּכ ֶסת ְ ּביֹום טֹוב
cushion on a Festival, and needless to say one may not do so on open the neck opening of a new shirt on Shabbat. One
ְ ׁ .לֹומר ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת
נָשר ּו – ַמ ֲחזִ ִירין ַ ְוְ ֵאין צָ ִריך who does so is liable to bring a sin-offering for performing
Shabbat. However, if the stuffing fell out, it may be replaced even
ַ ְ וְ ֵאין צָ ִריך,אֹותן ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת
.לֹומר ְ ּביֹום טֹוב ָ the primary category of labor of striking with a hammer,
on Shabbat, and needless to say that doing so is permitted on a i.e., completing production of a vessel. The same is true
Festival.h of a shirt in which there had once been a neck open-
ing, but it was later closed with a permanent knot, or
ֹות ַח ֵ ּבית
ֵ ַה ּפ: ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ַרבHaving raised the issue of opening a collar, the Gemara cites that sewn together professionally with quality stitching typi-
cally used by craftsmen (Rema; Rambam Sefer Zemanim,
. ַה ַ ּצ ָּואר ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ַחּיָ יב ַח ָּטאתRav Yehuda said that Rav said: One who opens a new neck Hilkhot Shabbat 10:10; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 317:3).
opening in a shirt on Shabbat,h by cutting through the fabric and
threads that kept it closed, is liable to bring a sin-offering. By
creating the opening, he renders the shirt fit to wear, thereby
fashioning a utensil on Shabbat.
Perek IV
Daf 48 Amud b
halakha
:יה ָר ָבא
ּ ַמה ֵ ּבין זֹו ִל ְמגו ַּפת ָח ִבית? ָא ַמר ֵלWhat is the difference between this and the stopper of a wine
Basting of launderers, etc. – ש ָלל ׁ ֶשל ּכ ְֹוב ִסין:
ְ ׁ Objects
.יבוּר ּ זֶ ה – ִחbarrel, which the Sages permitted piercing on Shabbat in order to
ּ וְ זֶ ה – ֵאינֹו ִח,יבוּר that are attached to each other, even temporarily, are
serve wine to guests? There, too, by piercing the stopper, he fash- considered joined with regard to ritual impurity, but not
ions a utensil. Rava said to him: The cases are not comparable: with regard to the sprinkling of purification waters. For
In this case, the neck opening of a shirt, it is considered a connec- example: Garments that a launderer sewed together with
tion, i.e., it is an organic part of the weave of the fabric; whereas loose, temporary stitches; a garment that was sewn with
in that case, the stopper of the barrel, it is not considered a con- thread fashioned from a prohibited mixture of wool and
nection. Even though the stopper is sealed in place in the barrel, linen, which must be removed; a temporary key chain; or
other objects that are attached to each other only tem-
it is a separate entity. When the stopper is pierced, no new vessel
porarily (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Para Aduma 12:6).
is fashioned.
ָלאו ְּכ ִכ ָירה:ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְל ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון – ָק ָס ַבר The Gemara analyzes this dispute: Granted, according to the
ִאי ְּכ ִכ ָירה דָּ מ ּו – ֲא ִפילּ ּו, ֶא ָּלא ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר,ּדָּ מו opinion of Rabbi Shimon; he holds that these receptacles are not
ִאי ַלאו ְּכ ִכ ָירה דָּ מ ּו – ֲא ִפילּ ּו,ּיטמו ְ ָ ּב ֲאוִ יר נַ ִמי ִל considered like the stove itself, and therefore they do not become
ritually impure when the stove becomes ritually impure. How-
!ּיטמוְ ְ ּב ַמ ָ ּגע נַ ִמי ָלא ִל
ever, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it is difficult. If he
holds that they are considered like the stove itself, then even if
the creeping animal was in the stove’s air space, the receptacles
should also become ritually impure. If he holds that they are
not considered like the stove itself, then even if the creeping
animal came into contact with the stove, the receptacles should
also not become ritually impure.
halakha
A stick that one made into an axe handle – ַמ ֵ ּקל ׁ ּ ֶש ָע ָ ׂשה יַ ד axe or the handle comes in contact with the primary source of rabbinic decree and they become ritually impure as well. How-
ל ּקו ְּרדּ ֹום:ַ If a piece of wood was fashioned into an axe handle, ritual impurity when not in use, they are not considered joined ever, if the stove became ritually impure through the creeping
then the wooden handle and the axe head are considered (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 20:13). animal entering its air space without coming in contact with
joined with regard to ritual impurity. Therefore, if the handle The receptacle for the cruse of oil – ְבית ַה ּ ַפך:ּ ֵ If a stove con- its walls, the receptacles on top of the stove remain ritually
comes into contact with a primary source of ritual impurity, tracted ritual impurity through contact with a creeping animal pure. The Sages introduced this distinction to underscore that
the axe head also becomes ritually impure, and vice versa. This or the like, the receptacles on the side of the stove for a cruse this ritual impurity is by rabbinic decree (Rambam Sefer Tahara,
applies only when one is working with the axe. However, if the of oil, spices, or a lamp are considered joined to the stove by Hilkhot Kelim 17:5).
יכי
ִ ִּכי ֵה,יכ ָראֵּ ֲע ַבד ּו ְ ּבה ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ֶהThe Gemara answers: The Sages made a conspicuous distinction,
ּ דְּ ָלא ָא ֵתי ְל ִמ ְ ׂש ַרף ֲע ֵלso that one will not come to burn his teruma and other conse-
יה ְּתרו ָּמה
. וְ ָק ָד ׁ ִשיםcrated items because of it. There is a severe prohibition to destroy
teruma or consecrated items. If teruma becomes ritually impure,
there is an obligation by Torah law to burn it; however, teruma that
is ritually impure only by rabbinic decree is still fit by Torah law and
may not be destroyed. Since there is concern that people will come
to burn teruma even when doing so is prohibited, the Sages made Sketch of scissors made of component parts from Pompeii, from the mishnaic era
a distinction, imposing ritual impurity on the receptacles only if
Carpenter’s plane – יטנִי
ְ ר ִה:ְ
the source of impurity came into physical contact with the walls of
the stove, and not if it merely entered the stove’s airspace. In that
way, it is clear that the ritual impurity is by rabbinic decree, and one
will not come to burn teruma and consecrated objects due to that
impurity.
ַמ ְס ּפ ֶֹורת ׁ ֶשל ּ ְפ ָר ִקים: ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ןThe Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to scissors made of
ְ וְ ִא יזְ ֵמל ׁ ֶשל ְר ִהcomponent parts that are made to come apart and the blade of a
hb
יב ּו ר
ּ יט נִ י – ִח
ּ ְלטו ְּמ ָאה וְ ֵאין ִחcarpenter’s plane, which can be removed from its handle, it is
b
.יבוּר ְל ַהּזָ ָאה
considered a connection between the components with regard to
contracting ritual impurity. If one part becomes ritually impure, the Carpenter’s plane resembling those from the mishnaic period
other part becomes ritually impure as well. However, it is not con-
sidered a connection with regard to the sprinklingn of the water notes
of a purification offering. When water of purification is sprinkled on Connection with regard to sprinkling – יבוּר ְל ַהּזָ ָאה
ּ ח:ִ When
these implements in order to purify them from ritual impurity con- a person or a vessel becomes ritually impure with ritual im-
tracted through contact with a corpse (see Numbers 19:17–19), the purity imparted by a corpse, the purification process includes
sprinkling the water of purification, i.e., water mixed with the
water must be sprinkled on each part individually.
ashes of the red heifer, cedar-wood, hyssop, and scarlet wool
on the person or the vessel. There is no fixed measure for the
יבוּר הוּא – ֲא ִפילּ ּו ּ ַמה ַּנ ְפ ׁ ָשךְ ? ִאי ִח The Gemara asks: Whichever way you look at it, there is a difficulty: purification water to be sprinkled, and purity is achieved with
– יבוּר הוּא ּ ִאי ָלאו ִח,ְל ַהּזָ ָאה נַ ִמי If it is considered a connection, it should be so considered even the sprinkling of any amount of the water of purification. Since
:ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְלטו ְּמ ָאה נַ ִמי ָל ֹא! ָא ַמר ָר ָבא with regard to sprinkling; and if it is not considered a connection, the water’s contact with any part of the impure vessel suffices
it should not be so considered even with regard to ritual impurity. for ritual purification, it is necessary to define precisely what
– אכה ָ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ְמ ָל,דְּ ַבר ּת ָֹורה
Rava said: By Torah law, when in use, it is considered a connection, is an essential component of the vessel and what is merely
,יבוּר ֵ ּבין ְלטו ְּמ ָאה ֵ ּבין ְל ַהּזָ ָאה ּ ִח both with regard to ritual impurity and with regard to sprinkling. appended to the vessel.
אכה – ֵאינֹו ָ וְ ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ְמ ָל And when not in use, even if the parts are now together, since they
.יבוּר ל ֹא ְלטו ְּמ ָאה וְ ל ֹא ְל ַהּזָ ָאה ּ ִח are made to eventually come apart and are typically dismantled, it
is neither considered a connection with regard to ritual impurity
nor with regard to sprinkling.
Perek IV
Daf 49 Amud a
halakha
וְ גָ זְ ר ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן ַעל טו ְּמ ָאה ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת And the Sages issued a decree that it should be considered a con-
When they are moist – בזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ֵהן ַל ִחין:
ּ ִ According to the Ram-
אכה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם טו ְּמ ָאה ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ָ ְמ ָל nection with regard to ritual impurity even when not in use, due
bam and the Tur, it is prohibited to insulate a pot of food in
וְ ַעל ַהּזָ ָאה ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת,אכה ָ ְמ ָל to ritual impurity when in use. If one component becomes ritu- grapeskins, soft materials, and grass, whether they were moist
ally impure, the other component becomes ritually impure as well. due to their own natural state or their moisture originated from
אכה – ִמ ׁ ּש ּום ַהּזָ ָאה ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ָ ְמ ָל
And, as a further stringency, they issued a decree that it is not con- an external source. According to the Rosh, if their moisture
.אכה ָ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ְמ ָל sidered a connection with regard to sprinkling even when in use, originated from an external source, it is permitted to insulate
due to sprinkling when not in use. The water of purification must food in them. That is based on the fact that the issue was not
be sprinkled on each part individually. resolved in the Gemara and in cases of uncertainty with regard
to matters of rabbinic law, the ruling is lenient (Rambam Sefer
Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 4:1; Beit Yosef, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 257).
:ּיב ֲעיָ א ְלהוּ ַ ִא.“בזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ֵהן ַל ִחין״
ּ ִ The mishna listed several materials in which food may not be insu-
ַל ִחין: אֹו דִּ ְיל ָמא, ַל ִחין ֵמ ֲח ַמת ַעצְ ָמןlated on Shabbat eve when those materials are moist. A dilemma
h
notes
?ֵמ ֲח ַמת דָּ ָבר ַא ֵחר was raised before the Sages: Is the mishna referring specifically to Moist due to their own natural state – ל ִחין ֵמ ֲח ַמת ַעצְ ָמן:ַ Appar-
materials that are moist due to their own natural state,n or is it refer- ently, the Rambam has a different understanding of the Gema-
ring perhaps even to materials that are now moist due to some- ra: Materials that are moist in their natural state generate less
thing else, e.g., because they were soaked by liquid? heat than materials that become moist from another source.
gemara
rized to conduct criminal investigations.
יכיןִ ילין צְ ִר ִּ ְּת ִפ:גמ׳ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יַ ַּנאי Since doves’ wings were mentioned in the
ַמאי.“ב ַעל ְּכנָ ַפיִ ם״ ּ ַ ישע ָ ׁ ּגוּף נָ ִקי ֶּכ ֱא ִל mishna, the Gemara cites a related story:
Rabbi Yannai said: Donning phylacteries requires a clean
. ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא יָ ִפ ַיח ָ ּב ֶהן: ִהיא? ַא ַ ּביֵ י ָא ַמרbody,hn like that of Elisha,n Man of Wings. The Gemara asks: What
.ישן ָ ּב ֶהןַ ׁ ִ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא י: ָר ָבא ָא ַמרis the meaning of the statement that donning phylacteries requires a
clean body? Abaye said: It means that one may not break wind while
donning them. Rava said: It means that one may not sleep in them.
?“ב ַעל ְּכנָ ַפיִ ם״ ּ ַ יה ּ וְ ַא ַּמאי ָק ֵרי ֵל The Gemara asks: And why did they call Elisha Man of Wings? Be-
ִ ׁ ֶש ּ ַפ ַעם ַא ַחת ְ ּגזֵ ָרה ַמ ְלכוּת
רֹומי cause on one occasion the evil kingdom of Rome issued a decree
ׁ ֶש ּכֹל,ָה ְר ׁ ָש ָעה ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ַעל יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל against Israel that, as punishment, they would pierce the brain of
anyone who dons phylacteries. Nevertheless, Elisha would don
וְ ָהיָ ה.ַה ַּמ ּנ ִַיח ְּת ִפ ִּילין יְ נַ ְּקר ּו ֶאת מֹוחֹו
them and defiantly go out to the marketplace. One day, an official
ָר ָאה ּו.ִיחם וְ יֹוצֵ א ַל ׁ ּשוּק ָ ישע ַמ ּנ ָ ׁ ֱא ִל [kasdor]l who was appointed to enforce the decree saw him; Elisha
. וְ ָרץ ַא ֲח ָריו,ַק ְסדּ ֹור ֶא ָחד – ָרץ ִמ ּ ָפנָיו ran away from him, and the official ran after him. When the official
ֹאשֹוׁ וְ ֵכיוָ ן ׁ ֶש ִה ִ ּג ַיע ֶאצְ לֹו נְ ָט ָלן ֵמר reached him, Elisha removed the phylacteries from his head and
? ָ ַמה ּזֶ ה ְ ּביָ ְדך: ָא ַמר לֹו,וַ ֲא ָחזָ ן ְ ּביָ דֹו held them in his hand. The officer asked him: What is that in your
ּ ָפ ׁ ַשט ֶאת יָ דֹו. ַּכנְ ֵפי יֹונָ ה:ָא ַמר לֹו hand? Elisha said to him: It is merely a dove’s wings. A miracle was
performed: He opened his hand, and, indeed, it was found to be a
קֹורין אֹותֹו ִ ְ ְל ִפ ָיכך.וְ נִ ְמצְ א ּו ַּכנְ ֵפי יֹונָ ה
dove’s wings. Therefore, in commemoration of this miracle, they
.“ב ַעל ְּכנָ ַפיִ ם״ּ ַ ישע ָ ׁ ֱא ִל would call him Elisha, Man of Wings.
?ו ַּמאי ׁ ְשנָ א ַּכנְ ֵפי יֹונָ ה ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ָאר עֹופֹות The Gemara asks: And what is different about doves’ wings from
ֶ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ִא ְמ ִּתיל ְּכ
,נֶסת יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ְליֹונָ ה those of other birds that led Elisha to say that he had doves’ wings in
“כנְ ֵפי יֹונָ ה נֶ ְח ּ ָפה ַב ֶּכ ֶסף וגו׳״
ַּ :ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר his hand? The Gemara answers: Because the congregation of Israel
is likened to a dove, as it is stated: “You shall shine as the wings of
יה – ַאף ָ יה ְמגִ ינֹות ָע ֶל ָ ַמה ּיֹונָ ה ְּכנָ ֶפ
a dove covered with silver and her pinions with yellow gold” (Psalms
.יהן
ֶ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ִמצְ �ֹות ְמגִ ינֹות ֲע ֵל 68:14). Just as this dove, only its wings protect it and it has no other
means of protection, so too the Jewish people, only mitzvot protect
them.
יב ֲעיָ א ּ ַ ִא.נְסֹורת ׁ ֶשל ָח ָר ׁ ִשין כו׳״ ֶ “ב ּ ִ We learned in the mishna: One may insulate food on Shabbat eve in
ְסֹורת ׁ ֶשל ָח ָר ׁ ִשין ֶ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ַא ּנ:ּ ְלהוa carpenter’s wood-shavings, and in the chaff of fine flax. Rabbi Ye-
ֶ אֹו ַא ּנ, ָק ֵאיhuda prohibits doing so when it is fine, and permits doing so when it
?ְעֹורת ׁ ֶשל ּ ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתן ָק ֵאי
is coarse. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the statement of
Rabbi Yehuda referring to the carpenter’s wood-shavings, or is it
referring to the chaff of flax?
226 Perek IV . 49a . טמ ףד. קרפ ׳ד
halakha
:אֹומר
ֵ ַ“ר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה: דְּ ַתנְיָא,ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע The Gemara answers: Come and hear proof as it was taught in a baraita:
Rabbi Yehuda says: The legal status of the chaff of fine flax is like that One may insulate in hides…in wool fleece – טֹומנִין ְ
נְעֹורת ׁ ֶשל ּ ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתן דַּ ָ ּקה – ֲה ֵרי הוּא
ֶ ּ ְ ב ׁ ּ ְש ָל ִח:ּ ַ One may insulate a pot of hot food
ין…בגִ יּזֵ י צֶ ֶמר
עֹורת ׁ ֶשל
ֶ ַא ְּנ: ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה.ַּכּזֶ ֶבל״ of manure, i.e., it adds heat. The Gemara comments: Conclude from it in hides or in fleece before Shabbat (Rambam Sefer
that Rabbi Yehuda is referring to the chaff of flax. The Gemara con- Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 4:1).
. ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה.ּ ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתן ָק ֵאי
cludes: Indeed, conclude from it.
In wool fleece and one may not move it…He
ְ מתני׳
טֹומנִין ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ָל ִחין – ו ִּמ ַּט ְל ְט ִלין
ְ ּבגִ יּזֵ י צֶ ֶמר – וְ ֵאין ְמ ַט ְל ְט ִלין,אֹותן ָ
mishna One may insulate cooked food on Shabbat eve in
animal hides and may move those hides on Shab-
lifts the cover – ן…נֹוטל
את ַה ִּכ ּסוּי:
ֵ אֹות
ָ ְ ּבגִ יּזֵ י צֶ ֶמר וְ ֵאין ְמ ַט ְל ְט ִלין
ֶ If one insulated a pot of cooked food in
fleece on Shabbat eve, even if he did not designate
bat. So too, one may insulate food in wool fleeceh and, in contrast to hides,
נֹוטל ֶאת ֵ ?עֹושה ׂ ֶ ֵּכיצַ ד הוּא.אֹותן ָ one may not move the fleece. How, then, does one act if he insulated it for that purpose, the fleece may be moved on
.נֹופלֹות ְ ַה ִּכ ּסוּי וְ ֵהןfood in fleece, and now wishes to remove the pot? He lifts the cover,h Shabbat. This applies only to fleece that was not for
sale. However, it is prohibited on Shabbat to move
which he is permitted to move, and the fleece falls by itself. He need not fleece designated for sale unless one designated it on
even touch it. Shabbat eve for insulating food. One who insulated
a pot of food in fleece without designating it for that
– קו ּ ָּפה:אֹומר ֵ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֶ ּבן ֲעזַ ְריָ ה Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: If he placed the pot in a basket filled with purpose, lifts the cover and allows the fleece to fall
ׁ ֶש ָּמא יִ ּטֹול וְ ֵאינֹו,נֹוטל
ֵ ְַמ ָּטה ַעל צִ דָּ ה ו fleece, he leans the basket on its side so that the fleece will fall to the side by itself. This is only permitted if the pot is at least
נֹוטל
ֵ :אֹומ ִרים ְ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים.יָ כֹול ְל ַה ֲחזִ יר and takes the pot. Otherwise, there is concern lest the wool collapse partially visible, in accordance with the opinion of
when he lifts the pot from the basket. And then, he will be unable to the Rabbis (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat
.ו ַּמ ֲחזִ יר 26:12; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 259:1).
replace the pot, as it is prohibited to move the wool to make room for the
pot, since the wool is set-aside. And the Rabbis disagree and say: He may
take the pot and afterward replace it.
גמ׳ יְ ֵתיב ַר ִ ּבי יֹונָ ָתן ֶ ּבן ֲע ִכינַ אי וְ ַר ִ ּבי
יתיב ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א ֵ ִ ו,יֹונָ ָתן ֶ ּבן ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר
gemara The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yonatan ben
Akhinai and Rabbi Yonatan ben Elazar sat, and
Rabbi Ĥanina bar Ĥama sat with them, and they raised the following
:ּיב ֲעיָ א ְלהו ּ ַ וְ ָקא ִמ,ּ ַ ּג ַ ּביְ יהו,ַ ּבר ָח ָמא dilemma: Did we learn the halakha in the mishna that only the hides of
ֲא ָבל,ׁ ְש ָל ִחין ׁ ֶשל ַ ּב ַעל ַה ַ ּביִ ת ְּתנַ ן a common homeowner may be moved; however, the hides of a crafts-
ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ָק ֵפיד ֲע ַליְ יה ּו – ָלא,ׁ ֶשל או ָּמן man, whose profession is processing hides, since he is particular that
ׁ ֶשל או ָּמן: אֹו דִּ ְיל ָמא,ְּמ ַט ְל ְט ִלינַן ְלהו they not be ruined because they are essential to his work, one may not
? וְ ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ׁ ֶשל ַ ּב ַעל ַה ַ ּביִ ת,ְּתנַן move them on Shabbat? Or, perhaps, we learned the halakha in the
mishna that even the hides of a craftsman may be moved, and all the
more so that hides of a common homeowner may be moved.
:ָא ַמר ְלה ּו ַר ִ ּבי יֹונָ ָתן ֶ ּבן ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר Rabbi Yonatan ben Elazar said to them: It stands to reason that we
ֲא ָבל, ׁ ֶשל ַ ּב ַעל ַה ַ ּביִ ת ְּתנַן,ִמ ְס ַּת ְ ּב ָרא learned the halakha in the mishna with regard to the hides of a common
ָא ַמר ְלה ּו.ּׁ ֶשל או ָּמן – ָק ֵפיד ֲע ַליְ יהו homeowner; however, hides of a craftsman may not be moved, since he
is particular about them. Rabbi Ĥanina bar Ĥama said to them that
ָּכ ְך ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי,ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א ַ ּבר ָח ָמא
Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said as follows:
:יֹוסי
ֵ יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי
Perek IV
Daf 49 Amud b
halakha
ָה ִביא ּו: וְ ָא ַמר, ַא ָ ּבא ׁ ַש ָּל ָחא ֲהוָ הMy father was a tanner, and one Shabbat he said: Bring me hides and
Bring hides that we may sit on them – ָה ִביא ּו ׁ ְש ָל ִחין
ֵ ׁ ְ ׁ ְש ָל ִחין וwe will sit on them (Rabbeinu Ĥananel). In other words, even the hides
h
.יהן
ֶ נֵשב ֲע ֵל נֵשב ֲע ֵל ֶיהן
ֵ ׁ ְו: It is permitted to move dry hides, whether
of a craftsman may be moved on Shabbat. they belong to a craftsman or to a homeowner, on
– נְ ָס ִרין ׁ ֶשל ַ ּב ַעל ַה ַ ּביִ ת:יבי ֵ ית ִ ֵמ The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to wooden Shabbat. Several commentaries explain that this rul-
boards belonging to a homeowner, one may move them on Shabbat; ing applies only to cattle hides that are suitable for
אֹותן וְ ׁ ֶשל או ָּמן ֵאין ְמ ַט ְל ְט ִליןָ ְמ ַט ְל ְט ִלין sitting; however, sheep hides may not be moved,
יהן ּ ַפת ֶ ישב ָל ֵתת ֲע ֵל ֵ ּ ׁ וְ ִאם ִח,אֹותן
ָ however, those belonging to a craftsman, one may not move them. And unless they were designated for sitting before Shab-
if, however, he thought to place bread upon them for guests, both these, bat (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 26:12;
.אֹור ִחין – ֵ ּבין ָּכךְ ו ֵּבין ָּכךְ ְמ ַט ְל ְט ִלין
ְ ְל
the boards of the homeowner, and those, the boards of the craftsman, Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 308:25).
.ּנְס ִרים דְּ ָק ֵפיד ֲע ַליְ יהו
ָ ׁ ָשאנֵי may be moved.h Apparently, the raw materials of a craftsman may not be
Moving boards – נְס ִרים
ָ ט ְלטוּל:ִ Wooden boards be-
moved on Shabbat. The Gemara answers: Wooden boards are different longing to a homeowner may be moved on Shabbat;
in that one is particular about them that they not be damaged. Hides, however, lumber owned by a craftsman may not,
on the other hand, are not damaged when one sits on them. unless prior to the onset of Shabbat he thought to
use them to serve bread to guests or for some other
ֵ ּבין ֲעבו ִּדין ו ֵּבין, עֹורֹות:ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע The Gemara cites another proof. Come and hear that which was taught purpose, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi
ׁ ֶש ֵא ין ֲע ב ּו ִד ין – מ ו ָּּתר ְל ַט ְל ְט ָל ן in a different baraita: With regard to hides, whether they are tanned or Yosei (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 308:26).
ל ֹא ָא ְמר ּו ֲעבו ִּדין – ֶא ָּלא,ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת whether they are not tanned, it is permitted to move them on Shabbat.
The Sages said that tanned hides have a unique legal status, distinct from
ל ֹא: ַמאי ָלאו.ְל ִענְיַ ן טו ְּמ ָאה ִ ּב ְל ַבד
the status of hides that have not been tanned only with regard to ritual
וְ ָלא ׁ ְשנָ א ׁ ֶשל,ׁ ְשנָ א ׁ ֶשל ַ ּב ַעל ַה ַ ּביִ ת impurity. Only tanned hides become ritually impure. What, is it not
. ׁ ֶשל ַ ּב ַעל ַה ַ ּביִ ת,או ָּמן! ל ֹא saying that there is no difference whether they are hides belonging to a
homeowner and there is no difference whether they are hides belonging
to a craftsman; in both cases they may be moved on Shabbat? The Ge-
mara rejects this argument: No, the baraita is referring exclusively to hides
belonging to a homeowner.
טמ ףד: ׳ד קרפ. Perek IV . 49b 227
notes
,ֲא ָבל ׁ ֶשל או ָּמן ַמאי – ֵאין ְמ ַט ְל ְט ִלין? ִאי ָה ִכי The Gemara asks: But with regard to hides belonging to a craftsman,
They correspond to labor, his labor, and the what is the halakha? Is it true that they may not be moved on Shabbat?
labor of – אכת׳ ֶ ּ׳מ ֶל
ְ אכ ּתֹו׳ ו
ְ אכה׳ ְ׳מ ַל
ָ כנֶ גֶ ד ְ׳מ ָל:ְּ “וְ ל ֹא ָא ְמר ּו ֲעבו ִּדין ֶא ָּלא ְל ִענְ יַ ן:ָהא דְּ ָתנֵי
The early commentaries point out that there ַ ּב ֶּמה:יתנֵי ְ ּב ִד ָיד ּהְ ִל ְפלֹוג וְ ִל- טו ְּמ ָאה ִ ּב ְל ַבד״ If so, that which was taught in the baraita: The Sages said that the legal
are far more than forty instances of the word status of tanned hides is distinct from the status of hides that have not
ֲא ָבל ְ ּב ׁ ֶשל,דְּ ָב ִרים ֲאמו ִּרים – ְ ּב ׁ ֶשל ַ ּב ַעל ַה ַ ּביִ ת
labor in the Torah. Rabbeinu Ĥananel subtracts been tanned only with regard to ritual impurity; let the tanna of the
from the total those instances where the term . ּכו ָּּל ּה ְ ּב ַב ַעל ַה ַ ּביִ ת ָק ַמיְ ִירי.או ָּמן – ל ֹא baraita distinguish and teach within the halakhot of Shabbat itself, and
appears in connection with the act of Creation, say: In what case is this statement, that there is no distinction between
where the term appears in conjunction with whether or not the hides were tanned, said? It was stated specifically
the verb “and He made [vaya’as],” and when
with regard to hides belonging to a homeowner. However, with re-
the term is used in the phrase “servile labor
[melekhet avoda],” which has a different hala-
gard to hides belonging to a craftsman, no, if they were tanned they
khic connotation from the word labor when it may not be moved. The Gemara answers: Since the entire baraita is
stands alone. The remaining total corresponds speaking with regard to hides of a homeowner, it would have been
to the tally cited in the Gemara. Support for forced to elaborate at greater length to introduce the distinction with
this approach appears in the Jerusalem Talmud. regard to the hides of a craftsman than it did to introduce the distinction
Some authorities cite a variant reading with regard to ritual impurity.
in which only the term “labor” and “his labor”
appear; the labor of is omitted. Here, too, the עֹורֹות ׁ ֶשל ַ ּב ַעל ַה ַ ּביִ ת – ְמ ַט ְל ְט ִלין:ְּכ ַת ָּנ ֵאי The Gemara notes that this issue is parallel to a dispute between
remaining total corresponds to the tally cited tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to hides belonging
in the Gemara (Sha’ar Efrayim). Another opin-
ַר ִ ּבי.אֹותן
ָ וְ ׁ ֶשל או ָּּמן – ֵאין ְמ ַט ְל ְט ִלין,אֹותן ָ
ֶא ָחד זֶ ה וְ ֶא ָחד זֶ ה – ְמ ַט ְל ְט ִלין:אֹומר ֵ יֹוסי ֵ to a homeowner, one may move them on Shabbat, and those of a
ion cited in the Jerusalem Talmud explains
that the number of primary categories of la- craftsman, one may not move them. Rabbi Yosei says: With regard
.אֹותןָ
bor corresponds to the number of times the to both these, the hides of a homeowner, and those, the hides of a
words avoda, work, and melakha, labor, are craftsman, one may move them.
mentioned in conjunction with construction
of the Tabernacle. “אבֹות
ֲ ָהא דִּ ְתנַן:ּיב ֲעיָ א ְלהו
ּ ָ ֲהדוּר יָ ְת ִבי וְ ָק ִמThe Gemara relates that those same Sages who sat and discussed the
They did not move from there until they ? ְמ ָלאכֹות ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים ָח ֵסר ַא ַחת״ ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ִמיissue of hides, sat again and they raised a dilemma: That which we
brought a Torah scroll and counted them –
learned in the mishna: The primary categories of labor, which are
ַעד ׁ ֶש ֵה ִביא ּו ֵס ֶפר ּת ָֹורה ו ְּמנָ אוּם,ל ֹא זָ ז ּו ִמ ׁ ּ ָשם: The un- prohibited by Torah law on Shabbat, are forty-less-one; to what does
certainty in this case stems from the concern this number correspond? That is to say, what is the source of this
that our Torah scrolls are imprecise and unreli- number?
able. Therefore, it was necessary to remove
all doubt and prove that although there are ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ֲעבֹודֹות:ָא ַמר ְלה ּו ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א ַ ּבר ָח ָמא Rabbi Ĥanina bar Ĥama said to them: They correspond to the labors
differences between Torah scrolls with regard ְ ָּכך, ָא ַמר ְלה ּו ַר ִ ּבי יֹונָ ָתן ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר.ַה ִּמ ׁ ְש ָּכן in the Tabernacle. All types of labor that were performed in the Tab-
to plene and deficient spelling, i.e., inclusion
ְּכנֶ גֶ ד:יֹוסי ֶ ּבן ָלקֹונְיָא ֵ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי ernacle are enumerated as primary categories of labor with respect to
or exclusion of the letters vav and yod, there is Shabbat. However, other labors, even if they are significant, are not
uniformity as far as entire words are concerned. – אכת׳ ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ּת ָֹורה ֶ ּ׳מ ֶל ְ אכ ּתֹו׳ ו ְ אכה׳ ְ‘מ ַל ָ ְ‘מ ָל
enumerated among the primary categories of labor since they were not
.ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים ָח ֵסר ַא ַחת performed in the Tabernacle. Rabbi Yonatan, son of Rabbi Elazar, said
to them that so said Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yosei ben Lakonya:
They correspond to the instances of the words labor, his labor, and
the labor of,n that appear in the Torah a total of forty-less-one times.
אכ ּתֹו״
ְ “וַ ּיָ בֹא ַה ַ ּביְ ָתה ַל ֲעשׂ ֹות ְמ ַל:יֹוסף ֵ ָ ּב ֵעי ַרב Rav Yosef raised a dilemma: The term his labor is written with regard
יתיֵ וְ ֵל:יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י
ּ לֵ ר מ ַ א ָ ?ֹא ל אֹו ,ּא ו ה ִמ ִּמנְיָ נָ א to Joseph: “And it came to pass about this time, that he came into the
ימנִי! ִמי ל ֹא ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ְ ֵס ֶפר ּת ָֹורה וְ ִל house to do his labor; and there was none of the men of the house
there within” (Genesis 39:11). Is it included in the count of the thirty-
ַעד ׁ ֶש ֵה ִביא ּו, ל ֹא זָ ז ּו ִמ ׁ ּ ָשם:יֹוחנָן
ָ ָחנָ ה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי
nine instances or not? Abaye said to him: And let us bring a Torah
.ֵס ֶפר ּת ָֹורה ו ְּמנָ אוּם scroll and count the instances of the word labor and thereby determine
whether or not there are thirty-nine instances without that one. Didn’t
Rabba bar bar Ĥana say that Rabbi Yoĥanan said in a case of similar
uncertainty: They did not move from there until they brought a To-
rah scroll and counted them?n
: ִּכי ָקא ְמ ַס ּ ְפ ָקא ִלי – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דִּ ְכ ִתיב:יה
ּ ָא ַמר ֵלRav Yosef said to Abaye: I cannot reach a conclusion relying solely on
– וְ ָהא,אכה ָהיְ ָתה ַדּיָ ם״ ִמ ִּמנְיָ נָ א הוּא ָ “וְ ַה ְּמ ָלa count because there is another instance of the term labor, whose
, ְּכ ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ַל ֲע ׂשֹות צְ ָר ָכיו נִ ְכנַסmeaning is not clear to me. The reason I am uncertain is because it is
written with regard to the Tabernacle: “For the labor they had was
sufficient for all the work to do it, and too much” (Genesis 36:7). The
question arises whether or not this mention of labor is included in the
count of thirty-nine instances, i.e., whether or not it refers to actual
labor. And if it does, that verse with regard to Joseph should be under-
stood in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that the
expression, to do his labor, is a euphemism. It means that it was to at-
tend to his needs and engage in relations with Potiphar’s wife that he
entered.
אכ ּתֹו״ְ “וַ ּיָ בֹא ַה ַ ּביְ ָתה ַל ֲע ׂשֹות ְמ ַל: אֹו דִּ ְיל ָמאOr, perhaps, the verse relating to Joseph: “He came into the house to
– אכה ָהיְ ָתה ַדּיָ ם״ ָ וְ ַהאי “וְ ַה ְּמ ָל, ִמ ִּמנְיָנָ א הוּאdo his labor,” is included in the count, and it refers to actual labor. And
.ּיה ֲע ִב ְיד ָּתא? ֵּתיקוּ דִּ ׁ ְש ִלים ֵל: ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמרthis verse: “The labor they had was sufficient,” is saying the following:
That they completed the preparatory labor, i.e., they brought all the
materials, not that they engaged in the actual labor. Let the uncertainty
stand unresolved.
228 Perek IV . 49b . טמ ףד: קרפ ׳ד
notes
“כנֶ גֶ ד ֲעבֹודֹות ְּ :ַּתנְ יָ א ְּכ ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר With regard to the matter itself, it was taught in a baraita in accor-
dance with the opinion of the one who said that the thirty-nine They sowed…they reaped – ּ…הם ָקצְ ר ּו ֵ הם זָ ְרעו:ֵ What
ֵאין ַחּיָ ִיבין ֶא ָּלא ַעל: דְּ ַתנְיָא,ַה ִּמ ׁ ְש ָּכן״ sowing and harvesting were performed in the Tabernacle?
,אכה ׁ ֶש ַּכּיֹוצֵ א ָ ּב ּה ָהיְ ָתה ַ ּב ִּמ ׁ ְש ָּכן
ָ ְמ ָל labors of Shabbat correspond to the labors performed in the Tab- There are two answers: (1) In the context of the sacrifi-
ernacle. As it was taught in a baraita: One is only liable for per- cial service, meal-offerings made from wheat flour were
– ֵהם ָקצְ ר ּו,ֵּהם זָ ְרע ּו – וְ ַא ֶּתם ל ֹא ִּתזְ ְרעו
forming a labor to which there was a corresponding labor in the offered. The entire sequence of agricultural labors was
,ּוְ ַא ֶּתם ל ֹא ִּת ְקצְ רו Tabernacle. They sowed in order to grow dyes for the Tabernacle, required to grow wheat. (2) The Gemara indicates that all
and therefore you may not sow on Shabbat. They reaped,n and these labors were necessary for the construction of the
therefore you may not reap on Shabbat. Tabernacle itself. All of the labors were necessary to grow
the plants used to dye the various components of the tent
ֵה ם ֶה ֱעל ּו ֶאת ַה ְּק ָר ׁ ִשים ִמ ַ ּק ְר ַקע They lifted the boards from the ground in the wilderness, which and the priestly vestments (ge’onim).
ָל ֲעגָ ָלה – וְ ַא ֶּתם ל ֹא ַּת ְכנִיס ּו ֵמ ְר ׁשוּת is a public domain, and placed them into the wagon, which is a A certain Sage for whom it was his first day – ַההוּא ֵמ ַר ָ ּבנַן
הֹוריד ּו ֶאת ִ ֵהם.ָה ַר ִ ּבים ִל ְר ׁשוּת ַהּיָ ִחיד private domain, and therefore you shall not carry objects in from יה
ּ יֹומ
ֵ בר:ּ ַ In similar fashion, the Gemara in tractate Zevaĥim
the public domain to the private domain on Shabbat. They (57a) records an important statement by a new student.
ַה ְּק ָר ׁ ִשים ֵמ ֲעגָ ָלה ַל ַ ּק ְר ַקע – וְ ַא ֶּתם ל ֹא Some commentaries suggest that the reference in this
lowered the boards from the wagon to the ground, and therefore
,ּתֹוצִ יא ּו ֵמ ְר ׁשוּת ַהּיָ ִחיד ִל ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים you shall not carry objects out from the private domain to the context is to Rav Idi, who was unable to visit the study
hall more than one day every three months because of his
ֵהם הֹוצִ יא ּו ֵמ ֲעגָ ָלה ַל ֲעגָ ָלה – וְ ַא ֶּתם ל ֹא public domain on Shabbat. They took boards and other objects out business concerns and he was called the “one-day student
.ּיָחיד ִל ְר ׁשוּת ַהּיָ ִחידִ ּתֹוצִ יא ּו ֵמ ְר ׁשוּת ַה and passed them from wagon to wagon, i.e., from one private of the study hall” (Ĥagiga 5a). Here, the Gemara sought to
domain to another private domain, and therefore you shall not take praise him (Arukh; Rav Nissim Gaon). The Gemara’s empha-
objects out from one private domain to another private domain sis on the fact that it was the questioner’s first day teaches
on Shabbat. that even though he lacked seniority in that study hall, he
was capable of asking significant questions.
ַמאי,ֵמ ְר ׁשוּת ַהּיָ ִחיד ִל ְר ׁשוּת ַהּיָ ִחיד The Gemara expresses astonishment with regard to the last clause
halakha
,ָּקא ָע ֵביד ַא ַ ּביֵ י וְ ָר ָבא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי ַּת ְרוַ ויְ הו of the baraita: One who takes an object out from one private
One may insulate food in wool fleece, and he may not
ֵמ ְר ׁשוּת:ימא ַרב ַאדָּ א ַ ּבר ַא ֲה ָבה ָ יתֵ וְ ִא domain to another private domain, what prohibited labor is he move it – בגִ יּזֵ י צֶ ֶמר וְ ֵאין ְמ ַט ְל ְט ִלין:ּ ְ If one insulated a pot of
thereby performing? The Gemara answers: It was Abaye and Rava food in fleece, the fleece may be moved on Shabbat even
ַה ּיָ ִח יד ִל ְר ׁשוּת ַה ּיָ ִח יד דֶּ ֶר ְך ְר ׁשוּת
who both said, and some say that it was Rav Adda bar Ahava who if it was not designated for that purpose, in accordance
.ָה ַר ִ ּבים said: This is referring to taking an object out from one private with the opinion of Rava. This applies only to fleece that
domain to another private domain via the public domain, as the is not for sale. However, fleece that is for sale must be des-
space between the two wagons in the wilderness was a public ignated for the purpose of insulating food prior to Shab-
bat. Only then may it be moved (Rambam Sefer Zemanim,
domain.
Hilkhot Shabbat 26:12; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 259:1).
ָ ָ ּב ֶהן – ְמ ַט ְל ְט ִליןnot be moved on Shabbat applies only to a case where one did not
.אֹותן
insulate food in it. Only in that case is it set-aside. However, if one
insulated cooked food in it, he may move it. By insulating food in
the fleece, he indicated that he intends to use it on Shabbat.
:יה ְל ָר ָבא
ּ יֹומ
ֵ יה ַההוּא ֵמ ַר ָ ּבנַן ַ ּבר ּ ֵא ִית ֵיבA certain Sage for whom it was his first dayn in that study hall raised
,אֹותן
ָ “טֹומנִין ְ ּבגִ יּזֵ י צֶ ֶמר וְ ֵאין ְמ ַט ְל ְט ִלין
ְ an objection to Rava from our mishna: One may insulate food in
?עֹושהׂ ֶ ֵּכיצַ ד הוּא wool fleece, and one may not move it. How, then, does he act if he
insulated food in wool fleece and now wishes to remove the pot?
Perek IV
Daf 50 Amud a
!נֹופלֹות״
ְ נֹוטל ֶאת ַה ִּכ ּיסוּי וְ ֵהן
ֵ He lifts the cover, which he is permitted to move, and the wool
fleece falls by itself. Contrary to Rava’s statement, even wool fleece
in which a person insulated food may not be moved on Shabbat.
ָא ַמר,ית ַמר ְּ ית ַמר ָה ִכי ִא ְּ ִאי ִא, ֶא ָּלאRather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows: Rava said: This
ֲ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא: ָר ָבאhalakha that wool fleece may not be moved on Shabbat applies only
,יִח ָדן ְל ַה ְט ָמנָ ה
ָ ֲא ָבל יִ ֲח ָדן ְל ַה ְט ָמנָ ה – ְמ ַט ְל ְט ִליןin a case where one did not designate it for insulating food. How-
.אֹותן
ever, if he designated it for insulating food, one may move it, as
in that case, it is no longer set-aside.
ִּכי ֲא ָתא ָר ִבין ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי,ית ַמר נַ ִמי ְּ ִא It was also stated that when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Ba-
:יַ ֲעקֹב ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי ֶ ּבן ׁ ָשאוּל ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי bylonia, he said that Rabbi Ya’akov said that Rabbi Asi ben Shaul
ֲא ָבל,יִח ָדן ְל ַה ְט ָמנָ הֲ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: This halakha that wool fleece
may not be moved on Shabbat applies only in a case where one did
.אֹותן
ָ יִ ֲח ָדן ְל ַה ְט ָמנָ ה – ְמ ַט ְל ְט ִלין
not designate it for insulating food. However, if one designated
it for insulating food, he may move it.
נ ףד. ׳ד קרפ. Perek IV . 50a 229
halakha
.ּ ְ ּב ׁ ֶשל ֶה ְפ ֵּתק ׁ ָשנו:אֹומר ֵ ָר ִבינָ א Ravina said: In fact, Rava’s statement can be understood as it was
They taught about woolen fleece from a merchant’s shelves – originally understood, i.e., one who insulated food in wool fleece
ב ׁ ֶשל ֶה ְפ ֵּתק ׁ ָשנ ּו:ּ ְ Fleece designated for storage may not be moved ִ ּגיּזֵ י צֶ ֶמר ׁ ֶשל:ַּתנְ יָ א נַ ִמי ָה ִכי
on Shabbat. However, it is permitted to move undesignated וְ ִאם,אֹותן ָ ֶה ְפ ֵּתק – ֵאין ְמ ַט ְל ְט ִלין may move it because it is considered designated for insulating
fleece, as the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ravina food. In the mishna that indicates otherwise they taught about
ִה ְת ִקינָ ן ַ ּב ַעל ַה ַ ּביִ ת ְל ִה ׁ ְש ַּת ֵּמ ׁש
(according to Tosafot and the Rosh, as opposed to Rif and Ram- wool fleece taken from a merchant’s shelves [heftek].nhl That wool
bam). This is based on the understanding that Ravina and Rava .אֹותן
ָ ָ ּב ֶהן – ְמ ַט ְל ְט ִלין was certainly not designated for insulating food. It will be returned
are of the same opinion, and because the halakha is in accor- to those shelves to be sold. Therefore, it is set-aside for that pur-
dance with the opinion of the later authority (Shulĥan Arukh, pose and may not be moved on Shabbat, even if it is used to insu-
Oraĥ Ĥayyim 259:1).
late food. That was also taught in a baraita: With regard to wool
He sits, even though he did not tie them and even though fleece taken from a merchant’s shelves, one may not move it on
he did not have that in mind – ישר וְ ַאף ַעל ֵ ּ ׁ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִק,יֹושב
ֵׁ Shabbat. And if a homeowner prepared the fleece to use it, one
ישבֵ ּ ׁ פי ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִח:ִ ּ The branches of a palm tree that were cut for the may move it.
sake of firewood are set-aside and may not be moved on Shabbat.
However, if one sat on them on Shabbat eve, their status changes
and it is then permitted to sit on them on Shabbat. All the more :יה דְּ ַרב ּ ְּתנָ א ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה ַק ֵּמ With regard to the question of what can be done to permit use of
so, it is permitted if one tied them together in order to sit on them, ֲח ָריֹות ׁ ֶשל דֶּ ֶקל ׁ ֶש ְ ּג ָד ָרן ְל ֵעצִ ים items ordinarily set-aside on Shabbat, Rabba bar bar Ĥana taught
or if one had in mind before Shabbat that he was going to sit on the following baraita before Rav: With regard to hard branches
them. It is also permitted to sit on them if his intention was to יך
ְ יבה – צָ ִר ָ יש
ִ ׁ יהן ִל ֶ וְ נִ ְמ ַל ְך ֲע ֵל
of a palm treeb that one cut for fire wood or for construction, and
sit on them during the week. This is based upon the opinion of יאל ֵ ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל,ְל ַק ׁ ּ ֵשר
Rav Asi, which is supported by the Tosefta (Rosh), as well as upon
then he reconsidered their designation and decided to use them
הוּא ָּתנֵי.יך ְל ַק ׁ ּ ֵשר ְ ֵאין צָ ִר:אֹומר ֵ for sitting, he must tie the branches together on Shabbat eve. This
the opinion of Rav Ashi, who is the latest authority to express an
opinion (Tosafot). In addition, his opinion can be reconciled with ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ָ ּבן:ָל ּה וְ הוּא ָא ַמר ָל ּה allows him to move them on Shabbat like any other household
that of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, .יאל ֵ ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל utensil. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He need not tie them
Hilkhot Shabbat 25:21; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 308:20). together and, nevertheless, he is permitted to move them. Rabba
bar bar Ĥana taught the baraita, and he said about it that the
language halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon
Merchant’s shelves [heftek] – ה ְפ ֵּתק:ֶ Apparently, this is a differ- ben Gamliel.
ent form of the Greek word ἀποθήκη, apoteke, which means
collateral or a surface upon which to place objects. Rav Hai Gaon
understands the word heftek in this context to mean a large, ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל,קֹושר
ֵ ׁ : ַרב ָא ַמר,ית ַמר ְּ ִא On that same topic, it was stated that Rav said: He ties the
basket-like utensil. ,יֹושבֵ ׁ : וְ ַרב ַא ִסי ָא ַמר,חֹושב ֵ ׁ :ָא ַמר branches together on Shabbat eve. And Shmuel said: If he mere-
ישר וְ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ֵ ּ ׁ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִק ly has in mind on Shabbat eve that he wishes to sit on them on
Shabbat, he need not tie them together. And Rav Asi said:n If he
.ישב ֵ ּ ׁ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִח
even briefly sitsn on them on Shabbat eve, sitting on the branches
is permitted the next day, even though he did not tie them to-
gether and even though he did not have that in mind.h
ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ַרב – הוּא דְּ ָא ַמר ְּכ ַּת ָּנא The Gemara comments: Granted, Rav, he stated his opinion in
ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל נַ ִמי – הוּא דְּ ָא ַמר,ַק ָּמא accordance with the unattributed opinion of the first tanna of
background ֶא ָּלא ַרב,יאל ֵ ְּכ ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל the baraita, and Shmuel, too, he stated his opinion in accordance
Hard branches of a palm tree – ח ָריֹות ׁ ֶשל דֶּ ֶקל:ֲ This is a reference with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. However, in
?ַא ִסי – דְּ ָא ַמר ְּכ ַמאן
to the dried branches of a palm tree. The young branches of the accordance with whose opinion did Rav Asi state his opinion?
palm extend upward at an angle with their leaves spread apart. Apparently, he disagrees with both tanna’im who expressed an
With the growth of new branches, the older branches begin to opinion on the issue.
face downward, and their leaves draw closer together. At this
stage, the older branches are usually cut for firewood or other
purposes.
notes
They taught about wool fleece from a merchant’s shelves – Rav Asi state his opinion? It is seeking an explicit source for
ב ׁ ֶשל ֶה ְפ ֵּתק ׁ ָשנ ּו:ּ ְ Apparently, Ravina’s statement explains the Rav Asi’s understanding because the statement of Rabban
mishna, which deals exclusively with a fleece designated for Shimon ben Gamliel can be interpreted in accordance with
sale. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to interpret Rava’s Shmuel’s opinion as well (Ritva).
statement as referring to a case where the fleece was not des-
If he has in mind…sits – ב…יֹושב
ֵׁ חֹוש:
ֵ ׁ Although, ostensibly,
ignated for insulating a pot of food. These two opinions ap-
sitting on branches before Shabbat is more significant prepa-
pear in the Jerusalem Talmud as well (Rosh; Ritva; see Tosafot).
ration than merely having them in mind, the Gemara seems
And Rav Asi said – וְ ַרב ַא ִסי ָא ַמר: The Ramban holds that to indicate otherwise. Since the issue at hand is preparing an
Rav Asi disagrees even with the opinion of Rabban Shimon object for Shabbat use and removing it from the category
ben Gamliel. Other commentaries explain that Rav Asi does of set-aside, using the object alone does not accomplish
not disagree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel; rather, he that objective. However, by having the object in mind, one
explains his opinion. According to that interpretation, when indicates that his intention is not to set the object aside from
the Gemara asks: But in accordance with whose opinion did use on Shabbat (Ran).
Palm tree
230 Perek IV . 50a . נ ףד. קרפ ׳ד
halakha
: דְּ ַתנְ יָ א,הוּא דְּ ָא ַמר ִּכי ַהאי ַּת ָּנא The Gemara explains: Rav Asi stated his opinion in accordance with the
opinion of this tanna, as it was taught in the Tosefta: One may go out One may go out with combed flax – קֹורין ִ יֹוצְ ִאין ְ ּב ָפ:
קֹורין ו ְּבצִ ּ ָיפא ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ְ ּצ ָב ָען
ִ יֹוצְ ִאין ְ ּב ָפ With regard to a bandage, if his intention before
ל ֹא צְ ָב ָען,יחה ָ ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶמן ו ְּכ ָר ָכן ִ ּב ְמ ׁ ִש into a public domain on Shabbat with combed flax [pakorin]hlb or Shabbat was to place it on a wound, he indicates
combed wool covering a wound, when he previously dipped them in oil that it is designated for use as a bandage if he places
יחה – ֵאין ָ ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶמן וְ ל ֹא ְּכ ָר ָכן ִ ּב ְמ ׁ ִש
and tied them to the wound with twine. If he did not dip them in oil or it on the wound for a brief period, immerses it in oil,
וְ ִאם יָ צָ א ָ ּב ֶהן ׁ ָש ָעה,יֹוצְ ִאין ָ ּב ֶהם tie them with twine, he may not go out into the public domain with or ties it in a manner that prepares it to be placed
ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא, ִמ ְ ּבעֹוד יֹום,ַא ַחת them. And if he went out with them for a brief period on Shabbat eve on a wound. Therefore, it is not set-aside and it is
יחה – מו ָּּתר ָ צָ ַבע וְ ל ֹא ְּכ ָר ָכן ִ ּב ְמ ׁ ִש while it was still day, even if he did not dip them in oil or tie them with permitted to move it on Shabbat, as per the barai-
ta. However, there are those who are stringent in
.ָלצֵ את ָ ּב ֶהן twine, he is permitted to go out with them on Shabbat. Apparently, there
this matter, based on the opinions of the Rif and the
is a tanna who maintains that using an item before Shabbat enables one Rambam (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat
to use it on Shabbat as well. No additional steps are necessary. 19:16; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 308:24).
, ַאף ֲאנַ ן נַ ִמי ָּתנֵינָ א:ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי Rav Ashi said: We too have also learned in a mishna: Straw that is piled A person may bring a basket full of earth into his
on a bed to be used for fuel or mixed with clay is set aside for that purpose house – מ ְכנִיס ָא ָדם ְמל ֹא קו ּ ָּפתֹו ָע ָפר:ַ A person may
נַענְעֹוְ ְַה ַ ּק ׁש ׁ ֶש ַעל גַ ֵ ּבי ַה ִּמ ָּטה – ל ֹא י bring a container full of earth into his house before
ֲא ָבל ִאם,נַענְעֹו ְ ּבגוּפֹו ְ ֲא ָבל ְמ,ְ ּביָ דֹו and may not be moved. Therefore, one who seeks to lie on the bed may Shabbat, pour it on the floor, and then use it for all of
not move the straw with his hand, but he may move it with his body, as his household needs on Shabbat, according to Rabbi
אֹו ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה,(ע ָליו) ַמ ֲא ַכל ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ָ ָהיָ ה
this is not the typical way of moving straw. However, if that straw had Yehuda. This halakha applies only if one designated
נַענְעֹו
ְ ָע ָליו ַּכר אֹו ָס ִדין ִמ ְ ּבעֹוד יֹום – ְמ been designated as animal feed, or if there was a pillow or sheet spread a specific place in the house for the earth, according
. ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה.ְ ּביָ דֹו over it on Shabbat eve while it was still day and he lay on it before Shab- to Mar Zutra (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shab-
bat, he may move it with his hand. Apparently, even brief use before bat 25:22; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 308:38, 498:17).
Shabbat suffices to permit use on Shabbat as well. The Gemara concludes:
Indeed, conclude from it that there is a tannaitic opinion in accordance
language
with which Rav Asi stated his opinion.
Combed flax [pakorin] – קֹורין
ִ פ:ָ ּ The word is a di-
יה דְּ ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹוןּ ו ַּמאן ַּת ָּנא דְּ ָפ ֵליג ֲע ֵל The Gemara asks: And who is the unnamed tanna who disagrees with minutive from the Greek word πόκος, pokos, mean-
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the baraita cited above? He holds that ing wool or fleece.
.יאל– ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א ֶ ּבן ֲע ִק ָיבא ֵ ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל
ימי ָא ַמר זְ ִע ִירי ָא ַמר ִ ִּדְּ ִכי ֲא ָתא ַרב ד in order to use palm branches for sitting, one must perform an action, e.g.,
tie them together, before Shabbat? The Gemara answers: It is Rabbi background
ּ ַפ ַעם ַא ַחת ָה ַלךְ ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָא:ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָא Combed flax – קֹורין ִ פ:ָ ּ According to Rav Hai Gaon,
Ĥanina ben Akiva, as when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Ba-
ו ָּמצָ א ֲח ָריֹות,ֶ ּבן ֲע ִק ָיבא ְל ָמקֹום ֶא ָחד bylonia, he said that Ze’iri said that Rabbi Ĥanina said: Rabbi Ĥanina pakorin refers to a hairpiece worn by men, fashioned
from a dyed woolen fleece. If it was not prepared
וְ ָא ַמר,ׁ ֶשל דֶּ ֶקל ׁ ֶש ְ ּג ָדרוּם ְל ׁשוּם ֵעצִ ים ben Akiva once went to a certain place on Shabbat eve and found there before Shabbat, it may not be worn on Shabbat be-
צְ א ּו וְ ַח ׁ ּ ְשב ּו ְּכ ֵדי:ָל ֶהם ְל ַת ְל ִמ ָידיו hard branches of a palm tree that they had cut for fire wood. And he cause it is set-aside.
וְ ָלא יָ ַד ֲענָ א ִאי.יהן ְל ָמ ָחר ֶ ׁ ֶש ּנ ׁ ֵֵשב ֲע ֵל said to his disciples: Go out and have in mind that you will use them so
ִאי ֵ ּבית ָה ֵא ֶבל,ֵ ּבית ַה ִּמ ׁ ְש ֶּתה ֲהוָ ה that we will be permitted to sit on them tomorrow, on Shabbat. And, notes
Ze’iri added, I do not know if the house where Rabbi Ĥanina ben Akiva The house of a feast and the house of mourning –
.ֲהוָ ה
went was the house of a wedding feast or if it was the house of בית ַה ִּמ ׁ ְש ֶּתה וְ ֵ ּבית ָה ֵא ֶבל:ּ ֵ The Ritva teaches that it was
mourning.n Rabbi Ĥanina ben Akiva who said that he does not
know whether it was the house of a wedding feast
“אי ֵ ּבית ַה ִּמ ׁ ְש ֶּתה ֲהוָ ה ִאי
ִ :ִמדְּ ָק ָא ַמר The Gemara explains: From the fact that Ze’iri said: I do not know wheth- or a house of mourning. From his explicit statement,
ֵ ּבית ָה ֵא ֶבל ֲהוָ ה״ – דַּ וְ ָקא ֵ ּבית ָה ֵא ֶבל er it was the house of a wedding feast or the house of mourning, it may it was understood that he permitted use of the palm
be inferred that this halakha applies specifically to the house of mourn- branches only in special circumstances. When there
: ֲא ָבל ָה ָכא,אֹו ֵ ּבית ַה ִּמ ׁ ְש ֶּתה דִּ ְט ִר ִידי are no special circumstances, he prohibited their use.
ing or the house of a feast because they are preoccupied with other
. ל ֹא ָק ׁ ַשר – ָלא,ָק ׁ ַשר – ִאין
matters and do not have time to tie the wood. However, here, in ordinary
circumstances, if he tied the branches together, yes, it is permitted to sit
on them on Shabbat; if he did not tie them together, no, it is not permitted.
ַמ ְכנִיס ָא ָדם ְמל ֹא:ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה Rav Yehuda said: A person may bring a basket full of earth into his
.עֹושה ָ ּב ּה ָּכל צָ ְר ּכֹו ׂ ֶ ְ ו,קו ּ ָּפתֹו ָע ָפר househ on Shabbat eve, pour it on the floor, and use it for all his needs
יה דְּ ָמר זו ְּט ָרא ּ דָּ ַר ׁש ָמר זו ְּט ָרא ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ on Shabbat, e.g., to cover excrement. Mar Zutra taught in the name of
Mar Zutra Rabba: That applies only if he designated a specific corner
. וְ הוּא ׁ ֶשּיִ ֵחד לֹו ֶק ֶרן זָ וִ ית:ַר ָ ּבה
in his house for the earth.
– ְּכ ַמאן:יה דְּ ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא ּ ָא ְמר ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן ַק ֵּמThe Sages said before Rav Pappa: In accordance with whose opinion
– דְּ ִאי ְּכ ַר ָ ּבנָן,יאלֵ ְּכ ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִלwas this last ruling taught, that designating a place for the earth is sufficient
! ָ ּב ֵעינַן ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה: ָה ָא ְמ ִריto permit its use on Shabbat? It must have been taught in accordance
with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with respect to palm
branches, as if it was taught in accordance with the opinion of the Rab-
bis, didn’t they say that in order to permit use of an object that is set-aside
on Shabbat, we require an action, e.g., tying the palm branches together?
Thought alone is insufficient.
ימא ָ יל ּו ֵּת ּ ֲא ִפ:ָא ַמר ְלה ּו ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא Rav Pappa said to them: Even if you say that the halakha was taught in
ַעד ָּכאן ל ֹא ָק ָא ְמ ִרי ַר ָ ּבנַן דְּ ָב ֵעינַן,ַר ָ ּבנַן accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the Rabbis stated their
ּ ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה – ֶא ָּלא ִמידֵּ י דְּ ַבר ֲע ִב ָידא ֵ ּב
יה opinion that we require an action, only with regard to something with
which it is possible to perform a preparatory action. However, with
יע ְב ָדא ַ ֲא ָבל ִמידֵּ י דְּ ָלא ַ ּבר ִמ,ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה
regard to something with which it is not possible to perform a prepara-
.יה ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה – ָלא
ּ ֵ ּב tory action, no, they did not require an action. Since it is not possible to
perform a preparatory action with the earth, one is permitted to use the
earth by means of thought alone.
נ ףד. ׳ד קרפ. Perek IV . 50a 231
halakha
“ב ּכֹל ָח ִפין ֶאת ַה ֵּכ ִלים
ּ ַ :נֵימא ְּכ ַת ָּנ ֵאי
ָ The Gemara asks: Let us say that this issue, whether or not an action
One may clean utensils with any type of cleaning agent –
ב ּכֹל ָח ִפין ֶאת ַה ֵּכ ִלים:ּ ַ One may clean utensils on Shabbat with
חוּץ ִמ ְּכ ֵלי ֶכ ֶסף ְ ּבגַ ְר ְּתקֹון״ ָהא נֶ ֶתרis required in that case, is parallel to a dispute among the tanna’im.
different cleaning agents. The exception is cleaning silver , וָ חֹול – מו ָּּתרAs it was taught in one baraita: One may clean utensils on Shabbat
utensils with potassium bitartrate, cream of tartar, a by-prod- with any type of cleaning agent,h except for silver utensils with
uct of winemaking, that was dried and hardened (Shulĥan cream of tartar [gartekon],l as that not only polishes the silver, but
Arukh) because in so doing, he removes a thin layer of the also smooths it. By inference: Cleaning with natron and sand is
silver, as per the baraita (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot permitted.
Shabbat 23:7; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 323:9).
“נֶ ֶתר וָ חֹול ָאס ּור״! ַמאי: וְ ָה ַתנְ יָ אWasn’t it taught in the Tosefta: Cleaning with natron and sand is
language ָ ּב ֵעינַן: ְ ּב ָהא ָק ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י; דְּ ָמר ָס ַבר, ָלאוprohibited on Shabbat? What, is it not that they disagree with
White earth [gartekon] – ג ְר ְּתקֹון:ּ ַ From the Latin creticum,
! ָלא ָ ּב ֵעינַן ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה: ו ָּמר ָס ַבר, ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשהregard to this following point? That one Sage, who prohibits use
or possibly from the Greek κρητικόν, kretikon, meaning of sand on Shabbat, holds that an action is required in order to
chalk or limestone. permit the use of items that would otherwise be set-aside on Shab-
bat. Since it is impossible to perform an action with sand, its use is
prohibited. And the other Sage, who permits use of sand, holds that
an action is not required.
, דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא – ָלא ָ ּב ֵעינַן ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה, ָלאThe Gemara rejects this argument: No, everyone agrees that an
– ָהא,(הא – ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ָ : וְ ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ אaction is not required; and, nevertheless, it is not difficult. This
.) ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹוןbaraita, which prohibits use of sand and natron, is in accordance
with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda; that baraita, which permits their
use, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.
דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ֵאין: דְּ ָא ַמר, ָהא ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדהThe Gemara elaborates: This baraita, which prohibits use of sand
ָהא ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון, ִמ ְת ַּכ ֵּוין – ָאס ּורand natron, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda,
. דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ֵאין ִמ ְת ַּכ ֵּוין – מו ָּּתר: דְּ ָא ַמרwho said with regard to the laws of Shabbat in general that an un-
intentional act is prohibited. It is prohibited to perform an other-
wise permitted action from which an unintended prohibited labor
ensues. Therefore, cleaning a silver utensil with sand or natron is
prohibited because he thereby unintentionally smooths the utensil,
which is prohibited on Shabbat. That baraita, which permits the use
of sand and natron, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi
Shimon, who said that an unintentional act is permitted.
Perek IV
Daf 50 Amud b
halakha
ֲא ָבל ל ֹא,חֹופ ף ּו ְמ ַפ ְס ּ ֵפס
ֵ “נָ זִ ירA nazirite,h for whom it is prohibited to cut his hair, may wash his
Nazirite – נָזִ יר: A nazirite is permitted to wash his hair with
.סֹורק״
ֵ hair with sand and natron and separate itn with his fingers; how-
his hands. He is prohibited to comb it or to wash it with earth,
as that will certainly sever his hair. However, if he did so, he
ever, he may not comb it, as combing will certainly cause hair to
is not flogged with lashes, as per the mishna (Rambam Sefer fall out. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon permits washing hair even in a
Hafla’a, Hilkhot Nezirut 5:14). case where it is prohibited to cause hair to fall out; in his opinion,
the fact that washing one’s hair might inadvertently cause that to
notes happen is not a source of concern.
A nazirite may wash his hair and separate it – חֹופף ֵ נָ זִ יר
ו ְּמ ַפ ְס ּ ֵפס: The term wash [ĥofef ] denotes rubbing and , ָהא וְ ָהא – ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ִהיא:ֶא ָּלא Rather, both this baraita and that baraita, which disagree with re-
smoothing. Some commentaries had a variant reading: ַהאי.יבא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ּ ָ ו ְּת ֵרי ַת ָּנ ֵאי ַא ִּל gard to cleaning silver utensils with sand and natron, are in accor-
Rabbi Shimon said, etc. In that version of the text, it is a ba-
, ָ ּג ֵריר:יבא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ָס ַבר ּ ָ ַּת ָּנא ַא ִּל dance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that an unin-
raita, as there is no mention of Rabbi Shimon in the mishna. tentional act is prohibited. And there are two tanna’im in
However, even without that addition, it is clear that the :יבא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ָס ַבר ּ ָ וְ ַהאי ַּת ָּנא ַא ִּל
accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. They disagree with
ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, .ָלא ָ ּג ֵריר regard to Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion. This tanna, in accordance with
as explained in tractate Nazir. Only Rabbi Shimon permits
an unintentional act from which a prohibited result might the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that sand and natron scrape
ensue (Rashba and others). and smooth the utensils. Therefore, their use on Shabbat is prohib-
ited. And that tanna, also in accordance with the opinion of Rab-
bi Yehuda, holds that sand and natron do not scrape and smooth
the utensils. Therefore, their use on Shabbat is permitted.
232 Perek IV . 50b . נ ףד: קרפ ׳ד
background
,ימ ָתא – ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ְ אֹוק
ִ ְ ּב ַמאיThe Gemara raises an objection: How did you establish that baraita?
Aloe – א ָה ָלא:ָ Certain plants named ahal are indigenous
“א ָבל ּ ָפנָיו יָ ָדיו וְ ַרגְ ָליו
ֲ :ימא ֵס ָיפא ָ ֵאIt was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. If so, say the to Eretz Yisrael. One of them is the crystalline ice-plant,
!יערָ מו ָּּתר״ ָהא ְמ ַע ַ ּבר ֵ ׂשlatter clause of the baraita: But his face, his hands, and his feet, it is Mesembrianthemum cristalinum L., an annual plant that
permitted to wash with sand and natron. Doesn’t he thereby cause grows on rocks and walls facing the ocean in the Sha-
hair to fall out? It should be prohibited according to Rabbi Yehuda. ron region and the coastal plain. It is called crystalline
ice-plant because of its glistening vesicles that resemble
יב ֵעית
ּ ָ וְ ִא, ְ ּב ָק ָטן:ימאָ יב ֵעית ֵא ּ ָ ִאThe Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the permission to wash crystals. This plant contains a considerable amount of soda
:ימאָ יב ֵעית ֵא ּ ָ וְ ִא, ְ ּב ִא ׁ ּ ָשה:ימאָ ֵאone’s face with sand and natron refers to a child; and if you wish, say which was used for laundry and bathing.
. ְ ּב ָס ִריסinstead that it refers to a woman; and if you wish, say instead that it
refers to a eunuch. All of them have no facial hair, and that is why
there is no concern that use of sand and natron to clean their faces
will cause hair to fall out.
. ֲע ַפר ְל ִבינְ ָתא ׁ ְש ִרי:ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה The Gemara continues: Rav Yehuda said: Washing one’s face with
. ּכו ְּס ּ ָפא דְּ יַ ְס ִמין ׁ ְש ִרי:יֹוסף
ֵ ֲא ַמר ַרב powdered frankincense (Rav Hai Gaon) is permitted on Shabbat,
ֲא ַמר ַרב. ֲע ַפר ּ ִפ ְל ּ ְפ ֵלי ׁ ְש ִרי:ָא ַמר ָר ָבא even if he has a beard, as it does not cause hair to fall out. Rav Yosef
said: Washing with the solid residue of jasmine from which its fra-
. ְ ּב ָר ָדא ׁ ְש ִרי:ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת
grant oil was squeezed is permitted. Rava said: Washing with ground
pepper is permitted. Rav Sheshet said: Washing with berada is
permitted on Shabbat.
Aloe plant
ִּת ְיל ָּתא:יֹוסף
ֵ ַמאי ְ ּב ָר ָדא? ָא ַמר ַרב The Gemara asks: What is berada? Rav Yosef said: It is a mixture of
יל ָּתא ְ וְ ִת,יל ָּתא ָא ָסא ְ וְ ִת,ָא ָה ָלא one-third aloe,b one-third myrtle, and one-third violets. Rav halakha
ָּכל:יֹוסף ֵ ֲא ַמר ַרב נְ ֶח ְמיָ ה ַ ּבר.ִסיגָ ֵלי Neĥemya bar Yosef said: Everywhere that there is a mixture with Anywhere that there is a mixture with no majority of
no majority of aloe,h it may well be used. Even if the mixture contains aloe – ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר,יכא רו ָ ּּבא ָא ָה ָלא
ָּ יכא דְּ ֵל
ָ כל ֵה:ָּ On Shabbat, it is
יכא רו ָ ּּבא ָא ָה ָלא – ׁ ַש ּ ִפירָּ יכא דְּ ֵלָ ֵה permitted to wash one’s face, even if he has a beard, as
more than a third aloe, as long as it constitutes less than a majority, it
.דָּ ֵמי does not cause hair to fall out. well as his hands and feet with cleaning agents that will
not inevitably cause his hair to fall out. It is also permitted
to utilize liquids containing ingredients that when used
צֹוע
ַ ַמה ּו ִל ְפ:ֵיה ֵמ ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת ּ ָ ּבע ּו ִמ ּינThe Sages raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: What is the halakha
alone would definitely cause his hair to be severed, as
וְ ִכי ַ ּבחֹול ִמי:ּ זֵ ִיתים ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת? ֲא ַמר ְלהוwith regard to splitting olives on a rock on Shabbat in order to wash long as those ingredients do not constitute the majority
ָ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ֶה ְפ ֵסד: ִה ִּתירוּ? ָק ָס ַברwith the oil that oozes from them (ge’onim)? He said to them: And
.אֹוכ ִלין of the liquid (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat
did they permit doing so on a weekday? Rav Sheshet holds that 22:13; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 326:9).
crushing olives in that manner is prohibited even during the week
A person may perform all his needs with bread – עֹושה ֶׂ
because it involves ruining food. After the olives are split in that צֹור ּכֹו ְ ּב ַפת
ְ א ָדם ָּכל:ָ It is permitted to use food for purposes
manner, they are no longer fit for consumption. other than eating, as long as the food will remain ed-
ible afterward, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel
דְּ ָא ַמ ר,ימא ּ ְפ ִל יגָ א דִּ ׁ ְשמ ּו ֵא ל ָ ֵל The Gemara comments: Let us say that Rav Sheshet disagrees with (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 171:1).
צֹור ּכֹו
ְ עֹושה ָא ָדם ָּכל ֶׂ :ׁ ְשמ ּו ֵאל the opinion of Shmuel. As Shmuel said: A person may perform all
,יסא ָ ּ ַפת – ָלא ְמ ִא:ְ ּב ַפת! ָא ְמ ִרי his needs with bread,h and he need not be concerned that it might notes
be ruined. The Sages said in response: Rav Sheshet does not neces- If in order to beautify himself, it is prohibited – ִאם
.יסי
ִ ָהנֵי – ְמ ִא
sarily disagree with Shmuel. Using bread does not render it disgust- ָאסוּר,ב ׁ ְש ִביל ְליַ ּפֹות:
ּ ִ The verse: “A woman shall not wear
ing and inedible; splitting these olives renders them disgusting and that which pertains to a man, neither shall a man put on
inedible. a woman’s garment” (Deuteronomy 22:5) is the source that
not only prohibits members of one gender from wearing
ימר ּו ָמר זו ְּט ָרא וְ ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ֲהו ּו ָ ַא ֵמ The Gemara relates that Ameimar, Mar Zutra, and Rav Ashi were clothes unique to the other gender, but also prohibits
sitting on Shabbat, and they brought berada before them for wash- men from wearing ornaments or undergoing cosmetic
ימר ָ ַא ֵמ. ַאיְ ית ּו ְל ַק ַּמיְ יה ּו ְ ּב ָר ָדא,יָ ְת ִבי
ing. Ameimar and Rav Ashi washed with it; Mar Zutra did not wash. treatments unique to women. According to some authori-
ָמר זו ְּט ָרא – ָלא,ּוְ ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי – ָמ ׁשו ties, any ornament or treatment that has no health benefit
They said to him: Doesn’t the Master hold in accordance with that
ָלא ָס ַבר ָל ּה ָמר:יה ּ ֲא ַמר ּו ֵל.ְמ ׁ ָשא is by definition a practice unique to women and a man
which Rav Sheshet said: Washing with berada is permitted on Shab- who engages in those practices violates the prohibition.
?“ב ָר ָדא ׁ ָש ֵרי״ ּ ְ ְל ָהא דַּ ֲא ַמר ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת bat? Rav Mordekhai, who was also there, said to them: Except for
,ֵיה דְּ ָמרּ ַ ּבר ִמ ּינ:ֲא ַמר ְלה ּו ַרב ָמ ְרדְּ ַכי him, the Master; i.e., do not draw conclusions from Mar Zutra, as he
ּ דַּ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ַ ּבחֹול נַ ִמי ָלא ְס ִב ָירא ֵל
.יה does not hold that one is permitted to use berada, even on a weekday.
“מגָ ֵרר ָא ָדם ְ :ָס ַבר ָל ּה ִּכי ָהא דְּ ַתנְיָא Mar Zutra holds in accordance with that which was taught in a ba-
ָ ִ ּג ְל ֵדי
צֹואה וְ גִ ְל ֵדי ַמ ָּכה ׁ ֶש ַעל ְ ּב ָ ׂשרֹו raita: A person may scrape off dried excrement crusts and scabs of
– ִאם ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ְליַ ּפֹות,ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל צַ ֲערֹו a wound that are on his flesh because of the pain that they are caus-
ing him. However, if he does so in order to clean and beautify himself,
.ָאסוּר״
it is prohibited.n According to the tanna of this baraita, it is prohib-
ited to adorn or beautify oneself, as the verse: “Neither shall a man
put on a woman’s garment” (Deuteronomy 22:5) prohibits dressing
or conducting oneself in the manner of women.
:וְ ִאינְ ה ּו ְּכ ַמאן ַס ְברו ּּה – ִּכי ָהא דְּ ַתנְיָא The Gemara asks: And Ameimar and Rav Ashi, who permit use of
“רֹוחץ ָא ָדם ּ ָפנָיו יָ ָדיו וְ ַרגְ ָליו ְ ּב ָכל יֹום
ֵ berada, in accordance with whose opinion do they hold? They hold
ּ : ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל קֹונֹו״
“כֹל in accordance with that which was taught in a baraita: A person
must wash his face, his hands, and his feet every day for the sake of
.ּ ָפ ַעל ה׳ ַל ַּמ ֲענֵ הוּ״
his Maker, as it is stated: “The Lord has made everything for His
own purpose” (Proverbs 16:4). Every beautiful thing that exists in
the world sings the praise of God Who created beautiful things. There-
fore, it is appropriate for one to beautify himself in praise of God.
נ ףד: ׳ד קרפ. Perek IV . 50b 233
halakha
קו ּ ָּפה:אֹומר ֵ ַ“ר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֶ ּבן ֲעזַ ְריָ ה We learned in the mishna: Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: If he placed
If the cavity was destroyed – אם נִ ְת ַק ְל ְק ָלה ַה ּגו ָּּמא:ִ If one the pot in a basket filled with fleece, he leans the basket on its side
insulated a pot of food in soft materials that were desig- ׁ ֶש ָּמא יִ ּטֹול,נֹוטלֵ ְַמ ָּטה ַעל צִ דָּ ה ו
nated for sale and set-aside, and when he removed the ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא.וכו׳״ so that the fleece will fall to the side of the pot, and takes the pot.
pot, the cavity in which it was placed collapsed, he may Otherwise, there is room for concern lest the wool collapse when he
מֹודים ִ ַה ּכֹל:)(א ַמר ַרב ָ ַ ּבר ַא ׁ ִשי
not return the pot to its place. The Rambam prohibits lifts the pot from the basket. Then he will be unable to replace the pot.
doing so even if the materials were not designated for ׁ ֶש ִאם נִ ְת ַק ְל ְק ָלה ַהגּ ו ָּּמא – ׁ ֶש ָאסוּר It is prohibited to move the fleece to make room for the pot, since the
sale and set-aside (Beit Yosef; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim .ְל ַה ֲחזִ יר fleece is set-aside. However, the Rabbis disagree and say: He may lift
259:3). the pot and afterward replace it. Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Ĥiyya
With regard to this fragrant daffodil branch, one in- bar Ashi said that Rav said: Everyone agrees, even the Rabbis, that
serted it and pulled it out, etc. – דַּ ָ ּצ ּה,ַהאי ְס ִליקו ְּס ָּתא if the cavity in which the pot had been placed was destroyed,hn its
ש ַל ָפ ּה וכו׳:
ְ ׁ If one inserted a branch into the ground with walls having collapsed inward, it is prohibited to return the pot to
the intention that it will not take root, and it has not yet the basket.
taken root, it is permitted to pull it out of the ground
and even to replace it in the ground on Shabbat. That is .נֹוטל ו ַּמ ֲחזִ ירֵ :אֹומ ִרים ְ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים:ְּתנַן The Gemara asks, based on what we learned in the mishna. And the
the case even if he did not pull it out before Shabbat, as Rabbis say: He may lift the pot and afterward replace it. The Ge-
there is no room for stringency here, in accordance with יכי דָּ ֵמי? ִא י דְּ ל ֹא נִ ְת ַק ְל ְק ָלה ִ ֵה
Rav Ketina’s objection (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot !ַהגּ ּו ָּמא – ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר ָקא ָא ְמ ִרי ַר ָ ּבנַ ן mara elaborates: What are the circumstances? If the cavity in which
Shabbat 25:15; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 336:6). the pot had been placed was not destroyed, the Rabbis say fittingly
ֶא ָּלא ָלאו – ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי דְּ נִ ְת ַק ְל ְק ָלה
that it is permitted to replace the pot; why would Rabbi Elazar ben
This knife that is between bricks – האי ַס ִּכינָ א דְּ ֵבינֵי או ְּר ֵ ּבי:ַ !ַהגּ ו ָּּמא Azarya prohibit the practice? Rather, is it not that the Rabbis permit
If a knife was stuck between bricks on Shabbat eve, one
may remove it and reinsert it on Shabbat (Mishna Berura). returning the pot even though the cavity was destroyed? Appar-
If a knife was stuck into a barrel, the common practice is ently, that is the subject of the dispute in the mishna.
to permit removing and reinserting it only if one stuck it
and removed it before Shabbat (Rema, according to the וְ ָה ָכא,עֹולם – דְּ ל ֹא נִ ְת ַק ְל ְק ָלה ָ ְל,ל ֹא The Gemara rejects this: No, actually, everyone agrees that if the cav-
Terumat HaDeshen), otherwise he appears to be making חֹוש ׁ ִשין
ְ ׁ :חֹוש ׁ ִשין ָק ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י; ָמר ָס ַבר
ְ ׁ ְ ּב ity was destroyed, it is prohibited to return the pot to the basket. The
a new hole (Magen Avraham; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim : ו ַּמר ָס ַבר,ׁ ֶש ָּמא נִ ְת ַק ְל ְק ָלה ַהגּ ו ָּּמא mishna is dealing with a case where the cavity was not destroyed,
314:1, 12 and Mishna Berura). and here the tanna’im disagree with regard to whether or not one
.חֹוש ׁ ִשין
ְ ׁ ֵאין
need be concerned lest, if one is allowed to remove the pot from the
basket without tilting it to the side, the cavity be destroyed and he will
come to return the pot to the basket anyway. One Sage, Rabbi Elazar
ben Azarya, holds that one need be concerned lest the cavity be
destroyed and he return the pot anyway; and the other Sage, a refer-
ence to the Rabbis, holds that one need not be concerned about that.
, ַהאי ְס ִליקו ְּס ָּתא: ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ אThe Gemara records several rulings with regard to placing an object
וְ ִאי, דַּ ָ ּצ ּה ׁ ְש ַל ָפ ּה וַ ֲה ַדר דַּ ָ ּצ ּה – ׁ ַש ְריָ אinto another object that is set-aside. Rav Huna said: With regard to
. ָלאו – ֲא ִסירthis fragrant daffodil branch that was kept in a pot of moist earth in
the house; if on Shabbat eve one inserted it into the earth, then pulled
it out,h and then inserted it again into the earth, it is permitted to
pull it out again on Shabbat. By inserting it and then pulling it out, he
has already widened the cavity in which the branch was placed. There
is no room for concern that when he pulls it out again on Shabbat he
will cause earth to shift from its place. And if he did not do so on
Shabbat eve, it is prohibited to pull it out on Shabbat.
ַהאי ַס ִּכינָ א דְּ ֵבינֵי: ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאלShmuel said: This knife that is stored between bricks;h if one stuck
, דַּ ָ ּצ ּה ׁ ְש ַל ָפ ּה וַ ֲה ַדר דַּ ָ ּצ ּה – ׁ ְש ִרי, או ְּר ֵ ּביit between the bricks on Shabbat eve, pulled it out, and then stuck
. וְ ִאי ָלאו – ֲא ִסירit between the bricks, it is permitted to pull it out on Shabbat. And
if he did not do so on Shabbat eve, it is prohibited to pull it out on
Shabbat.
:ימא ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ֲא ַמר ָ יתֵ ָמר זו ְּט ָרא וְ ִאMar Zutra, and some say Rav Ashi, said: Placing a knife between
.יתא דְּ ָקנֵי ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר דָּ ֵמי ְ ְ ּבthe branches of a hedge of reeds (ge’onim) may well be done and there
ָ גֹור ִד
is no concern lest one come to cut the reeds when he removes it.
ְמ ִתיב,יה ַרב ָמ ְרדְּ ַכי ְל ָר ָבא ּ ָא ַמר ֵל Rav Mordekhai said to Rava: Rav Ketina raised a conclusive refu-
ֵ ַה ּט:ַרב ְק ִטינָ א ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא
ֹומן ֶל ֶפת tation of the opinions of Rav Huna and Shmuel from that which we
ִאם ָהיָ ה ִמ ְקצָ ת,וּצְ נֹונֹות ַּת ַחת ַה ֶ ּג ֶפן learned in a mishna: With regard to one who conceals a turnip or
radish in the ground beneath a vine for safekeeping, if some of its
ֵ ׁ ָע ָליו ְמגו ִּּלים – ֵאינֹו
חֹוש ׁש
leaves were showing,n allowing access to pull the turnip or the radish
from the ground, he need neither be concerned;
notes
If the cavity was destroyed – נִ ְת ַק ְל ְק ָלה ַהגּ ו ָּּמא: According to circumstances. Reforming the cavity and insulating the pot their leaves showing, are considered planted with regard to
Rashi and those who adopted his approach, the concern with within it has the legal status of insulating the food anew on land-based mitzvot. Even according to Rashi’s reading: Some
regard to returning a pot to a cavity whose sides collapsed Shabbat, which is prohibited. of its leaves were showing, this halakha is applicable only to
only applies where the pot of food was insulated in material Some of its leaves were showing – מ ְקצָ ת ָע ָליו ְמגו ִּּלים:ִ The Shabbat. However, with regard to the other halakhot listed in
that may not be moved on Shabbat because it is set-aside. variant reading of the ge’onim is: With some of them showing. the mishna, part of the vegetable itself must also be visible
The Rambam, however, holds that the concern applies in all Turnips or radishes, which grow entirely underground with only above the ground (Me’iri ).
mishna
statement of Rav and the custom of Rav Naĥman and not
מתני׳ ל ֹא ִּכ ָּסה ּו ִמ ְ ּבעֹוד יֹום – ל ֹא If one did not cover a pot of cooked food in accordance with Rabbi Ami’s angry reaction (Rambam
– ִּכ ָּסה ּו וְ נִ ְת ַ ּג ָּלה,יְ ַכ ֶּסנּ ּו ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ֶּת ְח ׁ ַש ְך on Shabbat eve while it was still day, he Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 4:4; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ
may not cover it after dark. However, if one covered it while it Ĥayyim 257:6).
ֵ ְ ְמ ַמ ֵּלא ֶאת ַה ִּק ּיתֹון ו. מו ָּּתר ְל ַכ ּסֹותֹוwas still day and it was uncoveredh on Shabbat, he is permitted
נֹותן
. ְל ַת ַחת ַה ַּכר אֹו ַּת ַחת ַה ֶּכ ֶסתto cover it even on Shabbat. One may fill a jug with cold water on notes
Shabbat and place it beneath a pillow or a cushion to prevent it It is permitted to insulate cold food – מו ָּּתר ְל ַה ְט ִמין ֶאת
from getting warm. הצּ ֹונֵן:ַ The ge’onim understood this differently than did Rashi,
who explained that the intention is to insulate the food to
:גמ׳ ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל
ָא ַמר ַרב.מו ָּּתר ְל ַה ְט ִמין ֶאת ַה ּצֹונֵ ן
gemara Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is
permitted to insulate the cold foodhn on
keep it cold. They explained that the intention is to heat
it. However, even according to their opinion, heating the
food is prohibited. Tempering its chill is permitted (Ram-
Shabbat to keep it cold. There is no concern that this will lead one
ְמ ַמ ֵּלא: ַמאי ָק ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן? ָּתנֵינָ א:יֹוסף
ֵ to insulate hot food on Shabbat to keep it hot. Rav Yosef said:
bam; Ramban; Rashba). The opinion cited in the Jerusalem
Talmud seems closer to Rashi’s opinion.
נֹותן ַּת ַחת ַה ַּכר אֹו ַּת ַחתֵ ְָא ָדם ִק ּיתֹון ו What is Shmuel teaching us with this statement? We already
!ַה ֶּכ ֶסת How much they loved each other – ַּכ ָּמה ְמ ַח ְ ּב ִבין זֶ ה ֶאת
learned in our mishna: One may fill a jug with cold water on
זֶ ה: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was the head of the Sanhedrin.
Shabbat and place it beneath a pillow or a mattress to prevent it Traditionally, the authority of the Nasi was greater than that
from getting warm. of any other Torah scholar of his generation, and he had
the power to override the opinions of the other Sages. This
דְּ ִאי, טו ָּבא ָק ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן:יה ַא ַ ּביֵ יּ ָא ַמר ֵל Abaye said to him: He teaches us a great deal. As, if it had been was true in the generations when the Nasi was among the
ילי– דָּ ָבר ֵּ ָהנֵי ִמ:ִמ ַּמ ְתנִי׳ ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א learned from the mishna alone, I would have said that the ruling leading Sages. In later generations during the talmudic pe-
that one is permitted to insulate cold food applies only to some- riod, the Nasi was subject to the authority of the prominent
ֲא ָבל דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶשדַּ ְר ּכֹו,ׁ ֶש ֵאין דַּ ְר ּכֹו ְל ַה ְט ִמין Torah scholars of the generation. Nevertheless, given Rabbi
thing that is not ordinarily insulated when it is hot. However,
. ָק ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן,ְל ַה ְט ִמין – ל ֹא Yehuda HaNasi’s great humility, he acquiesced to Rabbi
something that is commonly insulated when it is hot, no, it may
Yosei’s opinion (Me’iri ). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi felt special
not be insulated even when it is cold. Therefore, Shmuel teaches affection and esteem for Rabbi Yosei both in terms of his
us that this is allowed even in the case of something which is com- Torah knowledge and his pious behavior.
monly insulated when it is hot.
Personalities
ָאסוּר ְל ַה ְט ִמין:)(א ַמר ַרב ָ ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א Rav Huna said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: It is prohibited Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei – יֹוסיֵ ר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי:ַ
ַר ִ ּבי ִה ִּתיר ְל ַה ְט ִמין: וְ ָה ַתנְיָא.ֶאת ַה ּצֹונֵן to insulate cold food on Shabbat to keep it cold. The Gemara Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, was a member of the
ּ ָהא – ִמ ַ ּק ֵּמ,ֶאת ַה ּצֹונֵ ן! ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א
יה raises an objection: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ye- last generation of tanna’im, during which the Mishna was
huda HaNasi permitted cold food to be insulated on Shabbat? completed. He was the most renowned son of Rabbi Yosei
,יֹוסי
ֵ יה ֵמ ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ְ ּב ַר ִ ּביּ יש ְמ ֵע
ַ ׁ דְּ ִל ben Ĥalafta, who is the Rabbi Yosei most commonly cited
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This statement was
ִּכי ָהא דְּ יָ ֵתיב.יה ּ יש ְמ ֵע ַ ׁ ָהא – ְל ָב ַתר דְּ ִל made before he heard the ruling of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rab- in the Mishna.
. ָאסוּר ְל ַה ְט ִמין ֶאת ַה ּצֹונֵ ן:ַר ִ ּבי וְ ָא ַמר Rabbi Yishmael was a disciple-colleague of Rabbi Ye-
bi Yosei; that statement in the baraita was made after he heard it.
huda HaNasi, and was apparently the same age or even
:יֹוסיֵ ָא ַמר ְל ָפנָיו ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי As in that incident where Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sat and said: It slightly older than the Nasi. Rabbi Yishmael accepted the
: ָא ַמר.ַא ָ ּבא ִה ִּתיר ְל ַה ְט ִמין ֶאת ַה ּצֹונֵן is prohibited to insulate cold food on Shabbat to keep it cold, authority of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, but always emphasized
.הֹורה זָ ֵקן
ָ ְּכ ָבר Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei,p said before him: Father that he received the bulk of his Torah from his father, whom
permitted insulating cold food on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda Ha- he regarded as a greater Torah authority than Rabbi Yehuda
Nasi said: I retract my previous statement, as the Elder, Rabbi HaNasi. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi held Rabbi Yishmael in high
Yosei, has already issued a ruling on this topic, and I defer to his esteem largely due to the fact that he was the son of Rabbi
Yosei and transmitted the teachings of his father, whom
ruling. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi revered.
Rabbi Yishmael was once appointed by the authorities
ּבֹא ו ְּר ֵאה ַּכ ָּמה ְמ ַח ְ ּב ִבין:ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא Rav Pappa said: Come and see how much they loved each as chief of police and apparently left Eretz Yisrael for a brief
– יֹוסי ַקּיָ ים ֵ יל ּו ַר ִ ּביּ זֶ ה ֶאת זֶ ה! ׁ ֶש ִא other.n Had Rabbi Yosei still been alive, he would have been period to avoid assuming that position. He was a close
דְּ ָהא ַר ִ ּבי,יֹושב ִל ְפנֵי ַר ִ ּבי
ֵ ׁ ְָהיָ ה ָּכפוּף ו subordinate to and sitting before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi as his friend of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoĥai. Many
student, as Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, who took his anecdotes recorded in the Talmud speak of his sharp mind
יֹוסי דִּ ְמ ַמ ֵּלא ְמקֹום ֵ יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי and keen intellect, both in conversations with his friends
father’s place and was as great a Torah scholar as his father, was
,יֹושב ִל ְפנֵי ַר ִ ּבי
ֵ ׁ ְבֹותיו ֲהוָ ה – וְ ָכפוּף ו ָ ֲא subordinate to and sitting before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi as his and with the interpretation of dreams.
.הֹורה זָ ֵקן״
ָ “כ ָבר ְּ :וְ ָק ָא ַמר student. And, nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The Elder
has already issued a ruling on this topic, and he deferred to Rabbi
Yosei’s ruling.
אנ ףד. ׳ד קרפ. Perek IV . 51a 235
language
:יה
ּ ֵּיה ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ְל ָדר ּו ַע ְבד ּ ָא ַמר ֵל Rav Naĥman said to Daru, his slave: Insulate cold food for me on
Cook [kappeila] – ק ּ ֵפ ָילא:ַ From the Greek κάπηλος, kapelos, Shabbat, so that it will not become warm, and bring me water that
meaning peddler, food salesman, or innkeeper. וְ ַאיְ ִיתי ִלי ַמּיָא דְּ ַא ֵחים,ַא ְט ֵמין ִלי צֹונֵן
ׁ ְש ַמע ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי.ילא ַא ְר ָמ ָאה ָ ַק ּ ֵפ a gentile cook [kappeila]l heated on a weekday, as the prohibition
to eat food cooked by a gentile does not apply to water. When
halakha ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא:יֹוסף ֵ ֲא ַמר ַרב.וְ ִא ְיק ּ ַפד
Rabbi Ami heard this, he became angry. Rav Yosef said: What is
Anything that is eaten as it is, raw, is not subject to the ֲח ָדא ְּכ ַרב,יה ָע ֵביד ּ ותֵ ִָא ְיק ּ ַפד? ְּכ ַר ְ ּבו the reason that Rabbi Ami become angry? Rav Naĥman acted in
prohibition of food cooked by gentiles – ּכֹל ׁ ֶשהוּא נֶ ֱא ָכל
.וַ ֲח ָדא ִּכ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל accordance with the rulings of his teachers; in one matter in ac-
כמֹות ׁ ֶשהוּא ַחי ֵאין ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ִ ּב ׁ ּשו ֵּלי גּ ֹויִ ם:ְּ Food that can be
eaten raw is not subject to the prohibition of food cooked cordance with the ruling of Rav, and in one matter in accordance
by gentiles, in accordance with the statement of Rav and with the ruling of Shmuel.
the custom of Rav Naĥman (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot
Ma’akhalot Assurot 17:14; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 113:1). ִּכ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל – דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר The Gemara explains: In one matter in accordance with the ruling
. מו ָּּתר ְל ַה ְט ִמין ֶאת ַה ּצֹונֵ ן:ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל of Shmuel, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is permitted
If he comes to add, he may add – מֹוסיףִ הֹוסיף
ִ אם ָ ּבא ְל:
ִ to insulate cold food on Shabbat to keep it cold. In one matter in
On Shabbat, it is permitted to add insulation to food that ְּכ ַרב – דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר ַרב
accordance with the ruling of Rav, as Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzĥak
had already been insulated before Shabbat, according to ּכֹל ׁ ֶשהוּא נֶ ֱא ָכל:יִ צְ ָחק ָא ַמר ַרב
the Tosefta. The Rambam permits to replace insulation but said that Rav said: Anything that is eaten as it is, raw, and cooking
ְּכמֹות ׁ ֶשהוּא ַחי – ֵאין ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם it is unnecessary, even if it was cooked it is not subject to the pro-
not to add to it (Rambam Sefer Zemanim 4:4; Shulĥan Arukh,
Oraĥ Ĥayyim 257:4). .ִ ּב ׁ ּשו ֵּלי גּ ֹויִ ם hibition of food cooked by gentiles.hn Since water is commonly
Insulating in a secondary vessel – ה ְט ָמנָ ה ִ ּב ְכ ִלי ׁ ֵשנִי:ַ When
drunk uncooked, one may drink it even if it was boiled by a gentile.
food was cooked in one pot and transferred to another pot, . ָא ָדם ָח ׁשוּב ׁ ָשאנֵי: (הוּא) ָס ַברThe Gemara answers: Rabbi Ami became angry because he held
it is permitted to insulate the second pot, even on Shabbat that an important person is different. A distinguished person like
itself, as long as the insulation does not add heat, in ac-
cordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel
Rav Naĥman should be stringent and distance himself from conduct
(Rambam Sefer Zemanim 4:5; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim that could be perceived, even mistakenly, as a prohibited act.
257:5).
“איןֵ :ּ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ָא ְמרו:ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן The Sages taught in the Tosefta: Although the Sages said that one
If he both insulated it and covered it with something that מֹוסיף
ִ יל ּו ְ ּב ָד ָבר ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ּ טֹומנִין ֲא ִפ ְ may not insulate hot food, even in something that does not add
may not be moved on Shabbat – נִיטל ָּ יסה ְ ּב ָד ָבר ַה
ָּ ָט ַמן וְ ִכ heat after nightfall on Shabbat, if he comes to add to the material
ב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת:ּ ַ If one covered insulated food with material that may
– הֹוסיףִ ִאם ָ ּבא ְל,ֶה ֶבל ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ֲח ׁ ֵש ָכה״
in which he insulated the food on Shabbat eve, he may addh to it
be moved on Shabbat, he may remove the cover, hold the עֹושה? ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון
ׂ ֶ ֵּכיצַ ד הוּא.מֹוסיף ִ
even on Shabbat. How should he do it? Rabban Shimon ben Gam-
pot, and remove it from the insulation. If one covered the pot נֹוטל ֶאת ַה ְּס ִדינִין ֵ :אֹומר
ֵ יאל ֵ ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל
with material that may not be moved on Shabbat, when the
liel said: He takes the sheets with which he insulated a pot and
pot is partially exposed, he may remove it and later restore it נֹוטל ֶאת ֵ אֹו,לֹופ ָק ִרין ְ ו ַּמ ּנ ִַיח ֶאת ַה ְ ּג places the heavy blankets, which provide better insulation, in their
to its place. When the pot is covered with material that will ְ ַה ְ ּג
.לֹופ ָק ִרין ו ַּמ ּנ ִַיח ֶאת ַה ְּס ִדינִין place. Or, if he is concerned about excessive heat, he takes the
not fall off, or if it was insulated in a substance that may be heavy blankets in which the pot had been insulated and places the
moved on Shabbat, he may remove the pot from the insula- lighter sheets in their place.n
tion on its side and shake off the cover (Magen Avraham). If
it was surrounded on top and on its sides by material that :אֹומר
ֵ יאל ֵ וְ ֵכן ָהיָה ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל And likewise, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, in teaching an addi-
may not be moved, one may not remove the pot from the ֲא ָבל,יחם ַ ל ֹא ָא ְסר ּו ֶא ָּלא אֹותֹו ֵמ tional leniency, said: They prohibited insulating a pot on Shabbat
insulation (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 259:4–5). to keep its contents warm when the food remains only in the same
ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא.יחם – מו ָּּתר ַ יחם ְל ֵמ ַ ּ ִפ ָּינה ִמ ֵּמ
urn in which the water was boiled. However, if one emptied the
ַא ְר ּתו ֵּחי ָקא,ַא ּק ֵֹורי ָקא ַמ ֵ ּקיר ָל ּה
water from that urn into another urn, it is permitted to insulate
!?ִמ ְיר ַּתח ָל ּה the second urn to keep the water warm.h The reason for the ruling
of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is: It is prohibited to insulate a pot
on Shabbat, due to concern lest one heat the food beforehand. Now
that he has already taken steps to cool the water by pouring it from
one urn to another, is there concern that he will boil it again on
Shabbat?
אֹו,נִיטל ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ָּ יסה ְ ּב ָד ָבר ַהָּ ָט ַמן וְ ִכ And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: If he insulated the pot and
ָּ ָט ַמן ְ ּב ָד ָבר ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו
נִיטל ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת וְ ִכ ָּיסה covered it with something that may be moved on Shabbat, or if
ֵ נִיטל ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת – ֲה ֵרי זֶ ה
נֹוטל ָּ ְ ּב ָד ָבר ַה he insulated it with something that may not be moved on Shabbat
because it is set-aside and covered it with something that may be
.ו ַּמ ֲחזִ יר
moved on Shabbat, he may take the pot to remove food and return
it to its place and not be concerned.
ָּ ָט ַמן וְ ִכ ָּיסה ְ ּב ָד ָבר ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו
,נִיטל ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת However, if he both insulated it and covered it with something
יסה ָּ אֹו ׁ ֶש ָּט ַמן ְ ּב ָד ָבר ַה
ָּ נִיטל ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת וְ ִכ that may not be moved on Shabbat,h or if he insulated it in some-
ִאם ָהיָ ה,נִיטל ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ָּ ְ ּב ָד ָבר ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו thing that may be moved on Shabbat and covered it with some-
thing that may not be moved on Shabbat, if the pot was partially
וְ ִאם,נֹוטל ו ַּמ ֲחזִ יר ֵ – ְמגו ֶּּלה ִמ ְקצָ תֹו
exposed, he may remove the pot and the cover will fall on its own
– ָלאו and then return it to its place. And if the pot was not partially
exposed,
notes
Food cooked by gentiles – ב ׁ ּשו ֵּלי ּגֹויִ ם:ּ ִ Among the measures the cooking is insignificant, e.g., where the food can be eaten ference between the original covering and the later cover-
introduced by the Sages to prevent assimilation with gentiles without being cooked. ing (Ramban). So it appears in the Jerusalem Talmud as well.
was the decree prohibiting a Jew to eat food cooked by a gen- Some commentaries explain that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel
tile. The decree was not motivated primarily by concern that The opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel – יטת ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ָ ִׁשdisagrees with the unattributed baraita. According to the first
the food contained non-kosher ingredients. Rather, it was a ֵ בן ַ ּג ְמ ִל:ּ ֶ The statement: He takes off the sheets and places tanna, one may only add insulation, while Rabban Shimon ben
יאל
measure specifically intended to distance Jews from gentiles. the heavy blankets, underscores the need for a covering of Gamliel holds that one may remove one covering and replace
Therefore, the Sages did not issue the decree in situations where some sort before Shabbat, even if there is a substantial dif- it with another (Rosh).
This chapter dealt with the halakhot of insulating hot food and liquids for use on
Shabbat. The distinction between substances that add heat, in which insulation
is prohibited due to a decree lest one come to cover a cooked dish in coals, and
substances that do not add heat, which merely preserve the heat of the cooked dish
that was placed in them, in which insulation is permitted, served as a basis for all
the halakhot in this chapter. Related to the discussion of this issue, some halakhot
of set-aside items were also discussed. Some of the substances in which the cooked
dishes are insulated are set-aside, and moving them is prohibited. When dealing with
the insulated food, the manner in which those substances may be moved directly or
indirectly was ascertained.
A related problem discussed in this chapter is that of insulating cold food. Is it permit-
ted to insulate cold food so that it will not get warm on Shabbat? Should insulating
cold food be prohibited by decree lest one come to insulate hot food as well? The
Gemara concluded that there is no room to add to the existing decrees, as even with
regard to hot food, insulation is prohibited only by rabbinic decree.
239
But the seventh day is a Shabbat unto the Lord your God; you
shall not do any manner of work, you, nor your son, nor your
daughter, nor your man-servant, nor your maid-servant, nor
your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.
Introduction to
(Exodus 20:10)
Perek V
Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you
shall rest; that your ox and your ass may have rest, and the
son of your handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.
(Exodus 23:12)
When the Torah commanded us to refrain from labor on Shabbat, it also commanded
us to rest our animals. An animal may not perform labor on behalf of its owner on
Shabbat. This chapter does not clarify the full extent of the mitzva to rest one’s animal;
it deals extensively with preventing one’s animal from performing just one prohibited
labor, the labor of carrying out on Shabbat. The halakhot of carrying out are cited
first primarily because one must be aware at the onset of Shabbat which vessels and
equipment may be left on the animal on Shabbat and which items must be removed.
The central issue discussed in this chapter is: Which of the items that one customar-
ily places on an animal, a saddle, reins, and chains, are considered a garment for the
animal? If they serve the animal’s needs, it is permitted to place them on the animal.
Which items are considered a burden, and it is prohibited to place them on the ani-
mal? The assumption is that any item typically used for protection of the animal is
considered to be serving the animal’s needs, and leaving it on the animal is permit-
ted. Therefore, it is necessary to ascertain the means of protection standard for each
animal and whether or not excessive security measures constitute a burden.
This relates to another issue, discussed primarily in Chapter Six: The concern lest
part of the animal’s harness fall in the public domain, and the owner of the animal
carry the item that fell. Therefore, it is also necessary to ascertain: What are those
items that serve the needs of the animal but are, nevertheless, prohibited due to the
concern lest they fall, leading the owner to perform an unwitting transgression?
The detailed elucidation of these issues and other related issues is the primary focus
of this chapter.
241
Perek V
Daf 51 Amud b
halakha
Due to the mitzva to rest one’s animals on Shabbat, one’s animal may not go With what may an animal go out –
out into the public domain bearing a burden. However, an object designated ב ֶּמה ְ ּב ֵה ָמה יֹוצְ ָאה:ּ ַ An animal may go
to protect the animal or to prevent it from fleeing is not considered a burden; out on Shabbat with the reins and
therefore, an animal bearing objects that serve that purpose may go out into muzzle required to secure it. How-
ever, if the muzzle provides excessive
the public domain.
security or insufficient security, it is a
burden and the animal may not go
out with it. In disputes between Rav
יפין
ִ ַמ ֲח ִל: ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאלRav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The students switched the details in the
?ּ ִל ְפנֵי ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ֶשל זֹו ָ ּבזֹו ַמהוmishna before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and asked: What is the halakha with regard
to this animal going out into the public domain with that which is permitted for
that animal? For example, may a white female camel go out with a bit or a camel
with an iron nose ring?
ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ָלא, ְיב ֵעי ָלךּ ָ אקה ָ ּב ַא ְפ ָסר ָלא ִּת
ָ ָנ The Gemara explains: The case of a white female camel going out with a bit
ּ ָ ִּכי ִּת.יה – ַמ ּ ְ ׂשאֹוי הוּא
יב ֵעי ּ ִמינְ ְט ָרא ֵ ּב should not be a dilemma for you; since it is not sufficiently secured by a bit, it Camel led by a nose ring
,יֹוסי
ֵ ָא ַמר ְל ָפנָיו ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that
ַא ְר ַ ּבע ְ ּב ֵהמֹות יֹוצְ אֹות:ָּכ ְך ָא ַמר ַא ָ ּבא so said father, Rabbi Yosei: Four animalsn may go out with a bit: The horse,
. ַה ּסוּס וְ ַה ּ ֶפ ֶרד וְ ַה ָ ּג ָמל וְ ַה ֲחמֹור:ָ ּב ַא ְפ ָסר and the mule, and the camel, and the donkey. What does this list come to
exclude? Is it not coming to exclude a camel going out with a nose ring? Ap-
? ָלאו ְל ַמעו ֵּטי ָ ּג ָמל ַ ּב ֲח ָטם,ְל ַמעו ֵּטי ַמאי
parently, the dilemma is resolved. The camel may go out only with a bit. The
.אקה ָ ּב ַא ְפ ָסר ָ ָ ְל ַמעו ֵּטי נ,ָלא Gemara rejects this proof: No, the list comes to exclude a white female camel
going out with a bit.
notes
Excessive security – נְ ִטירו ָּתא יְ ֵת ְיר ָתא: Many commentaries (Rosh). That is why the Sages raised a dilemma only with regard Four animals – א ְר ַ ּבע ְ ּב ֵהמֹות:ַ An allusion to this matter is cited
and halakhic authorities explain that excessive security means to whether or not the nose ring of a camel is considered exces- in the Jerusalem Talmud, in the verse: “The horse, the mule, the
securing the animal far beyond what is necessary. However, sive security because it is not to secure camels even during camel, and the donkey” (Zechariah 14:15). Apparently, the phrase
slightly enhancing security is not considered excessive security the week (Ritva). in the Gemara is based on this verse.
ימא ְ ּב ַח ּיָ ה ָ ילֵ ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַ ן? ִאThe Gemara clarifies the case: With what are we dealing here? If you say
ָ ְ ּגthat we are dealing with a large non-domesticated animal, does a collar
וְ ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ַחּיָה,דֹולה – ִמי ַס ִ ּגי ָל ּה סוּגַ ר
? ְק ַט ָּנה – ִמי ָלא ַס ִ ּגי ָל ּה סוּגַ רsuffice for it? Since it does not sufficiently secure the animal, it is con-
sidered a burden, and it is prohibited for the animal to go out with it on
Shabbat. Rather, it must be dealing with a small non-domesticated
animal. In that case, doesn’t a collar suffice for it? Why then does the
anonymous first tanna hold that the animal may not go out with it?
.ּיכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יהוָּ ֶא ָּלא ָלאו – ָחתוּל ִא Rather, is it not that the practical difference between their opinions is
ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ַס ִ ּגי ָל ּה:ַּת ָּנא ַק ָּמא ָס ַבר with regard to a cat? The anonymous first tanna of the baraita holds that
,יתנָ א ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא – ַמ ּ ְ ׂשאֹוי הוּא ְ ְ ּב ִמ since a small rope suffices for the cat, a collar is considered a burden
with which the cat may not go out into the public domain. And Ĥananya
– נְטירו ָּתא יְ ֵת ְיר ָתא ִ ָּכל:וַ ֲחנַ נְיָה ָס ַבר
holds that with regard to a device that provides excessive security, we
ָא ַמר ַרב.ָלא ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן ַמ ּ ְ ׂשאֹוי הוּא do not say that it is a burden. The tanna’im disagree whether or not a
ֲה ָל ָכה:הוּנָ א ַ ּבר ִחּיָ יא ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל device that provides excessive security is considered a burden. The Ge-
.ַּכ ֲחנַ נְיָה mara concludes: Rav Huna bar Ĥiyya said that Shmuel said: The ha-
lakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ĥananya. A device that
provides excessive security is not considered a burden.
וְ ָר ָבה,יה דְּ ַרב הוּנָ א ַ ּבר ִחּיָ יא ּ ֵלוִ י ְ ּב ֵר The Gemara relates that Levi, son of Rav Huna bar Ĥiyya, and Rabba
.אֹור ָחא ְ ַ ּבר ַרב הוּנָ א ֲהו ּו ָק ָאזְ ִלי ְ ּב bar Rav Huna were once going together on a road. Levi’s donkey on
יה ֲח ָמ ָרא דְּ ֵלוִ י ַל ֲח ָמ ָרא דְּ ַר ָ ּבה ּ ְק ַד ֵמ its own initiative went ahead of the donkey of Rabba bar Rav Huna.
Rabba bar Rav Huna was offended because he was the greater Torah
יה דְּ ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר
ּ ֲח ַל ׁש דַּ ֲע ֵת,ַ ּבר ַרב הוּנָ א scholar, and he thought that Levi went first to assert that he considered
יל ָתא ְּ יה ִמ ּ ימא ֵל ָ ֵא: ֲא ַמר.ַרב הוּנָ א himself the greater scholar. Levi said to himself: I will say something to
יכי
ִ ִּכי ֵה him, so that
Perek V
Daf 52 Amud a
notes
ֲחמֹור:יה ּ ָא ַמר ֵל.יה ּ יתֹותב דַּ ֲע ֵת ַ דְּ ִא he will be placatedn and will understand that it was not my intention to
He will be placated– יהּ יתֹותב דַּ ֲע ֵת
ַ דְּ ִא: Levi did not disrespect him. He said to him: An undisciplined donkey whose con-
wish to apologize explicitly because Rabba bar Rav
ַמה ּו ָלצֵ את,ׁ ֶש ֲע ָס ָקיו ָר ִעים ְּכגֹון זֶ ה
ָה ִכי:יהּ ִ ּב ְפרו ְּמ ִ ּבּיָ א ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת? ָא ַמר ֵל duct is wicked like this one that I am riding, what is the ruling with
Huna did not say anything to him, and an apology
regard to having it go out with a halter on Shabbat? Typically, in order
in that case could be taken as an insult. Therefore, ּ ֲא ַמר ֲאבוּךְ ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ
ֲה ָל ָכה:יה דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל
to secure a donkey, a bit suffices and it does not require a halter. A halter
he chose to allude to his remorse in a roundabout
manner.
.ַּכ ֲחנַ נְיָא constitutes excessive security. However, the question is whether or not
a halter that provides excessive security for a wild donkey like this one
The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of
Ĥananya – ה ָל ָכה ַּכ ֲחנַ נְיָא:ֲ Even if the halakha was not is considered a burden with which it is prohibited to go out to the public
in accordance with the opinion of Ĥananya, it would domain on Shabbat. Rabba bar Rav Huna said to him: Even if the secu-
still be permitted to place a halter on an undisciplined rity is considered extraneous, your father said the following in the
donkey, as even Rav agrees in that case. However, name of Shmuel: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of
since Levi raised the question, Rabba bar Rav Huna Ĥananya,n who said that a device that provides excessive security is not
answered that in general, not only in this case, exces- considered a burden.
sive security is permitted (Rashba). Perhaps, he also
sought to cite a halakha in the name of Levi’s father
ֵעז ׁ ֶש ָח ַקק ָל ּה ֵ ּבין:נַשיָ א ִ ּ ׁ ָּתנָ א דְּ ֵבי ְמ A Sage of the school of Menashiya taught a baraita: A goat in which
in order to appease him.
ָ ּב ֵעי.נֶיה – יֹוצְ ָאה ְ ּב ַא ְפ ָסר ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ָ ַק ְר one carved out a hole between its hornsh may go out with a bit on
ָּת ַחב ָל ּה ִ ּבזְ ָקנָ ּה ַמהוּ? ֵּכיוָ ן:יֹוסף ֵ ַרב Shabbat. Because the bit is inserted through the hole, it will not become
halakha
detached. Rav Yosef raised a dilemma: What is the ruling in a case
A goat in which one carved out a hole between דְּ ִאי ְמנַ ַּתח ָל ּה ָּכ ֵאיב ָל ּה – ָלא ָא ְתיָ א
where one inserted the bit through the goat’s beard? The Gemara
its horns – נֶיה
ָ עז ׁ ֶש ָח ַקק ָל ּה ֵ ּבין ַק ְר:ֵ If a hole was carved ימנִין דְּ ָר ֵפי ְ ִ ז:יל ָמא ְ ִּ אֹו ד,ְלנַ ּתו ָּחה
between the horns of a goat, and a bit was inserted explains the dilemma: Is the halakha that since, if the goat attempts to
through the hole, the goat may go out with it on וְ ָא ֵתי ְל ַא ּתֹויֵ י ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות,וְ נָ ֵפיל sever itself from the bit, it would cause it pain because the bit is attached
Shabbat. If the bit was inserted through the goat’s .ִּ ּב ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים? ֵּתיקו to its beard, and therefore it will not come to sever it and the bit will
beard, it may not go out with it, as the ruling is strin- remain in place? Or perhaps is the halakha that sometimes the knot will
gent in unresolved dilemmas pertaining to ritual law loosen and the bit will fall, and the goat’s owner will come to bring the
that involve a Torah prohibition (Rambam Sefer Ze- bit and carry it four cubits in the public domain? No resolution was
manim, Hilkhot Shabbat 20:11).
found to this dilemma. Let it stand unresolved.
244 Perek V . 52a . בנ ףד. קרפ ׳ה
halakha
“וְ ל ֹא ִ ּב ְרצ ּו ָעה ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבין:ְּתנַ ן ָה ָתם We learned there in a mishna: And neither may a cow go out with
a strap between its horns. Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: Rav and And neither with a strap between its horns…whether
יה) ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה ַ ּבר
ּ ָא ַמר ֵ(ל.נֶיה״ָ ַק ְר it was placed for beauty or whether it was placed to se-
ּ ְפ ִליגִ י ָ ּב ּה ַרב ּו ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל; ַחד:ַא ָ ּבא Shmuel disagreed about this: One said: Whether it was placed cure the cow – …בין ְלנֹוי ֵ ּבין ְל ׁ ַש ֵּמר
ּ ֵ נֶיה
ָ וְ ל ֹא ִ ּב ְרצו ָּעה ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבין ַק ְר:
for beauty, as an ornament, or whether it was placed to secure the An animal may not go out with a strap between its horns,
וְ ַחד. ֵ ּבין ְלנֹוי ֵ ּבין ְל ׁ ַש ֵּמר ָאסוּר:ָא ַמר
cow,h it is prohibited for the cow to go out with the strap between whether it was placed for ornamental purposes or whether
. ו ְּל ׁ ַש ֵּמר – מו ָּּתר, ְלנֹוי – ָאסוּר:ָא ַמר its horns. And the other one said: For beauty, it is prohibited; it was placed for security purposes, in accordance with the
however, if it was placed to secure the cow, it is permitted. opinion of Rav (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat
20:11; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 305:17).
ִּת ְס ַּתּיֵ ים דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל:יֹוסף
ֵ ָא ַמר ַרב Rav Yosef said: Conclude that Shmuel is the one who said that if
To a red heifer that is rebellious – מֹור ֶדת
ֶ ב:ּ ְ If an animal
– ְל ׁ ַש ֵּמר,“לנֹוי – ָאסוּר ְ הוּא דְּ ָא ַמר the strap was placed for beauty it is prohibited; however, if it was
is wild and rebellious, one may take it out into the public
דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָא ַ ּבר ִחּיָ יא ָא ַמר,מו ָּּתר״ placed to secure the cow it is permitted. As Rav Huna bar Ĥiyya domain with a suitable restraint, even though that would
said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the be excessive with regard to more docile animals of the
. ֲה ָל ָכה ַּכ ֲחנַ נְיָא:ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל
opinion of Ĥananya: A device that provides excessive security is same species (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Para Aduma 1:7;
not considered a burden. Therefore, an animal may go out on Shab- Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 305:4, and see Mishna Berura).
bat with straps that provide excessive security.
notes
ִּת ְס ַּתּיֵ ים, ַאדְּ ַר ָ ּבה:יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י ּ ָא ַמר ֵל Abaye said to him: On the contrary, conclude that Shmuel is the
Securing a red heifer – ש ִמ ַירת ּ ָפ ָרה ֲאדו ָּּמה:ְׁ There are many
“בין ְלנֹוי ֵ ּבין ּ ֵ דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל הוּא דְּ ָא ַמר one who said that whether it was placed for beauty, as an ornament,
halakhot that relate to the red heifer, as detailed in tractate
דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר,ְל ׁ ַש ֵּמר ָאסוּר״ or whether it was placed to secure the cow, it is prohibited. As Rav Para in the order of Teharot. Some of them deal with the pre-
Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The students exchanged the details cise definition of a yoke and the labors that disqualify a red
ׁ ֶשל זֹו ָ ּבזֹו: ַמ ֲח ִל ִיפין ִל ְפנֵי ַר ִ ּבי:ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל
in the mishna before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and asked: What is the heifer. All the explanations offered in this context are based
ַמהוּ? ָא ַמר ְל ָפנָיו ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי halakha with regard to this animal going out into the public domain on the assumption that all measures necessary for reason-
ַא ְר ַ ּבע ְ ּב ֵהמֹות: ָּכךְ ָא ַמר ַא ָ ּבא,יֹוסי ֵ with that which is permitted for that animal? And Rabbi Yishmael, able and essential security of a heifer, even if they would be
considered a burden with regard to a different animal, are
ַה ּ ֶפ ֶרד וְ ַה ָ ּג ָמל,יֹוצְ אֹות ָ ּב ַא ְפ ָסר; ַה ּסוּס son of Rabbi Yosei, said before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: So said
considered neither a burden nor a yoke.
?עֹוטי ָ ּג ָמל ַ ּב ֲח ָטם ֵ ָלאו ְל ַמ,וְ ַה ֲחמֹור father, Rabbi Yosei: Four animals may go out with a bit: The horse,
.ְס ֵמי ָהא ִמ ַ ּק ֵּמי ָהא the mule, and the camel, and the donkey. Does this list not come
to exclude a camel going out with a nose ring, as a nose ring pro-
vides excessive security beyond that required for a camel? Appar-
ently, according to Shmuel, an animal may not go out on Shabbat
with a device that provides excessive security, as it is considered a
burden. Rav Yosef said to him: Delete this latter statement of Shmu-
el due to thatb first one.
ּו ַמאי ָחזֵ ית דִּ ְמ ַס ֵּמית ָהא ִמ ַ ּק ֵּמי The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to delete this
ָהא? ַס ֵּמי ָהא ִמ ַ ּק ֵּמי ָהא! (דְּ ַא ׁ ְש ַּכ ַחן latter statement due that first one? Delete that first statement due
“לנֹוי ָאס ּור ְ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל הוּא דְּ ָא ַמר to this latter one. The Gemara explains: The first statement is sup-
ported as we find that Shmuel is the one who said : For beauty, it
דְּ ִא ְּת ַמר) ַרב ִחּיָ יא.ְל ׁ ַש ֵּמר מו ָּּתר״
is prohibited; however, if it was placed to secure the cow, it is
ֵ ּבין ְלנֹוי ֵ ּבין:ַ ּבר ַא ׁ ִשי ָא ַמר ַרב permitted, as it was stated that Rav Ĥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav
וְ ַרב ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ָא ִבין,ְל ׁ ַש ֵּמר – ָאסוּר said: Whether the strap was placed for beauty, or whether it was
– ְל ׁ ַש ֵּמר, ְלנֹוי – ָאסוּר:ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל placed to secure the cow, it is prohibited. And Rav Ĥiyya bar Avin
.מו ָּּתר said that Shmuel said: For beauty, it is prohibited; however, if it
was placed to secure the cow, it is permitted.
– מֹוס ָרה ֵ יה ְ ּב ָ ָק ׁ ְש ָרה ְ ּב ָע ֶל:ית ֵיבי
ִ ֵמ The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If its owner tied a
וְ ִאי ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָת ְך ַמ ּ ְ ׂשאֹוי.ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה red heifer with its reins that are attached to the bit, it remains fit for
יה עֹול״ ָ “א ׁ ֶשר ל ֹא ָע ָלה ָע ֶל ֲ – הוּא use in the purification ritual.n And if it should enter your mind to
say that a bit is considered a burden, why does a red heifer remain
!ָא ַמר ַר ֲח ָמנָ א
fit for use? The Torah explicitly stated: “Speak to the children of
Israel, that they bring you a red heifer without defect, in which there
is no blemish, and upon which never came a yoke” (Numbers 19:2).
A red heifer is disqualified by a burden.
,יכ ּה ֵמ ִעיר ְל ִעיר ָ מֹול ִ ְ ּב: ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ יAbaye said: There, the baraita is referring to the case of a red heifer
ָ ׁ ָשאנֵי ּ ָפ ָרה דְּ ָד ֶמ: ָר ָבא ָא ַמרwhose owner is leading it from city to city. When the animal is
.יה יְ ָק ִרין
.מֹור ֶדת ֶ ְ ּב: ָר ִבינָ א ָא ַמרremoved from its habitat, it requires additional security. In that case,
tying the heifer with its reins is conventional rather than excessive
security. Therefore, the bit is not considered a burden. Rava said:
A red heifer, whose monetary value is high, is different and there-
fore secured more carefully than other cows. Ravina said: The ba-
raita is referring to a red heifer that is rebellioush and headstrong.
Therefore, it requires added security.
background
Delete this due to that – ס ֵמי ָהא ִמ ַ ּק ֵּמי ָהא:ְ This expression and thology because it was not sufficiently trustworthy. This was
others like it are only used in connection with baraitot lack- generally done based on a more authoritative variant reading.
ing a reliable amoraic tradition. Each Sage received different The question: What did you see, i.e., why one version should
anthologies of baraitot, which he would review and transmit be preferred over another, could always be raised. Proofs are
to others. Sometimes, prominent contemporary Sages would then cited by comparison with other accredited statements of
teach that a certain halakha should be removed from the an- those same Sages.
notes
An action performed to enhance – מ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְל ַת ֵ ּקן:ַ Rabbi Yehuda’s no longer a vessel. However, an action that enhances the vessel
rationale is that a ritually impure vessel is purified by means of a does not change its essence. Therefore, it does not rid the utensil
destructive action, which renders a vessel unusable and therefore of its impurity.
!?ו ְּל ִענְ יַ ן טו ְּמ ָאה דָּ א וְ ָדא ַא ַחת ִהיא The Gemara raises an objection: And with regard to the matter
, ַט ַ ּב ַע ת ָא ָד ם – ְט ֵמ ָא ה:וְ ָה ְתנַ ן of ritual impurity, are this and that one and the same? Didn’t
וְ ַט ַ ּב ַע ת ְ ּב ֵה ָמ ה וְ ֵכ ִל ים ּו ׁ ְש ָא ר ָּכל we learn in a mishna: A ring worn by a person is ritually impure;
however, the ring of an animal, and that of utensils, and all
ּ ִּכי ָק ָא ַמר ֵל.ַה ַּט ָ ּבעֹות – ְטהֹורֹות
יה
other rings not worn by people are ritually pure? Apparently, a
.יה
ּ ִאיה ּו – נַ ִמי דְּ ָא ָדם ָק ָא ַמר ֵל distinction is made between different types of rings with regard
to the halakhot of ritual impurity as well. The Gemara answers:
When Rabbi Eliezer was saying that statement to the disciple, he
too was saying to him that with regard to ritual impurity there is
no distinction between different types of rings worn by a person.
:ו ְּד ָא ָדם דָּ א וְ ָדא ַא ַחת ִהיא? וְ ָה ַתנְיָא The Gemara raises another objection: And with regard to rings
ַט ַ ּב ַעת ׁ ֶש ִה ְת ִקינָ ּה ַל ֲח גֹור ָ ּב ּה ָמ ְתנָיו worn by a person, are this and that one and the same? Wasn’t it
Ring installed as a belt buckle וְ ל ֹא.הֹורהָ ו ְּל ַק ׁ ּ ֵשר ָ ּב ּה ֵ ּבין ְּכ ֵת ָפיו – ְט taught in a baraita: A ring that one fashioned into a buckle at the
end of a belt to wear it around his waist,bh or into a clasp to tie
!ָא ְמר ּו ְט ֵמ ָאה – ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶשל ֶאצְ ַ ּבע ִ ּב ְל ַבד
garments between his shoulders, is ritually pure? The Sages only
יה ִאיה ּו – נַ ִמי דְּ ֶאצְ ַ ּבע ּ ִּכי ָק ָא ַמר ֵל said that a ring is ritually impure with regard to a ring worn on
.יה
ּ ָק ָא ַמר ֵל a person’s finger. Apparently, there is in fact a distinction between
different rings worn by a person. The Gemara answers: When
Rabbi Eliezer was saying that statement to the disciple, he too
was saying to him that there is no distinction between different
types of rings worn on a person’s finger.
:ו ְּד ֶאצְ ַ ּבע דָּ א וְ ָדא ַא ַחת ִהיא? וְ ָה ְתנַ ן The Gemara raises yet another objection: And with regard to rings
– חֹות ָמ ּה ׁ ֶשל ַא ְלמֹוגָ ְַט ַ ּב ַעת ׁ ֶשל ַמ ֶּת ֶכת ו worn on a person’s finger, are this and that one and the same?
חֹות ָמ ּה ׁ ֶשלָ ְ ִהיא ׁ ֶשל ַא ְלמֹוג ו,ְט ֵמ ָאה Didn’t we learn in a mishna: A ring made of metal and its seal is
made of coral,h is ritually impure? The primary component of
יה ִאיה ּו ּ הֹורה! ִּכי ָק ָא ַמר ֵל
ָ ַמ ֶּת ֶכת – ְט
the ring, metal, is the determining factor, and a metal utensil can
.יהּ נַ ִמי ּכו ָּּל ּה ׁ ֶשל ַמ ֶּת ֶכת ָק ָא ַמר ֵל become ritually impure. However, a ring that is made of coral and
its seal is made of metal is ritually pure. Apparently, there is a
distinction between different types of finger rings with regard to
ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Eliezer was
saying that statement to the disciple, he too was saying to him
that there is no distinction between different types of rings that
are made entirely of metal.
halakha
A ring that one fashioned to wear it around his waist – ַט ַ ּב ַעת A ring of metal and its seal of coral – חֹות ָמ ּהָ ְַט ַ ּב ַעת ׁ ֶשל ַמ ֶּת ֶכת ו
ש ִה ְת ִקינָ ּה ַל ֲחגֹור ָ ּב ּה ָמ ְתנָיו:
ֶ ׁ A ring that was made into a belt buckle של ַא ְלמֹוג:
ֶ ׁ If a ring is made of metal and it has a coral seal, it can
or placed on clothing is not considered a utensil that contracts become ritually impure. However, if it is mostly coral, it remains
ritual impurity, in accordance with the baraita (Rambam Sefer ritually pure, as per the mishna in Kelim (Rambam Sefer Tahara,
Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 8:9). Hilkhot Kelim 4:6).
!?ימה דָּ א וְ ָדא ַא ַחת ִהיא ָ ו ִּב ׁ ְש ֵל The Gemara raises another objection: And with regard to whole needles,
ִאם, ַמ ַחט ׁ ֶש ֶה ֶע ְל ָתה ֲחלוּדָּ ה:וְ ָה ְתנַן are this and that one and the same? Is there no distinction between them?
וְ ִאם,הֹורה ָ ְמ ַע ֵּכב ֶאת ַה ְּת ִפ ָירה – ְט Didn’t we learn in a mishna: With regard to a needle that became rusty;h
if the rust inhibits the sewing, the needle is ritually pure; and if it does
: וְ ָא ְמ ִרי דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי יַ ַּנאי,ָלאו – ְט ֵמ ָאה
not inhibit the sewing, it is ritually impure. And the Sages of the school
– נִיכר! ִּכי ָק ָא ַמר ֵל ּיה ּ ׁ וְ הוּא ׁ ֶש ִר
ָּ ישו ָּמ ּה of Rabbi Yannai said: And that is the halakha that the needle cannot be-
.יה ּ ְ ּב ׁ ִש ָיפא ָק ָא ַמר ֵל come ritually impure not only when it is impossible to push the needle
through the fabric, but even when the mark of rusty needle is conspicuous
in the stitching. Apparently, there is a distinction between different types
of whole needles. The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Eliezer was saying
that statement to the disciple, he was saying to him that there is no distinc-
tion between different types of needles that were smoothed and filed. He
was not referring to rusty needles.
:ו ְּב ׁ ִש ָיפא דָּ א וְ ָדא ַא ַחת ִהיא? וְ ָה ַתנְיָא The Gemara raises yet another objection: And with regard to smoothed
– ֵ ּבין נְ קו ָּבה ֵ ּבין ֵאינָ ה נְ קו ָּבה,ַמ ַחט needles, are this and that one and the same? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita:
וְ ָלא ָא ְמ ִרינַן,מו ָּּתר ְל ַט ְל ְט ָל ּה ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת A needle, whether it has an eye and whether it does not have an eye, may
be moved on Shabbat? And we only said that a needle with an eye is dif-
“נְ קו ָּבה״ – ֶא ָּלא ְל ִענְ יַ ן ט ּו ְמ ָאה
ferent with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity. Apparently, there is
!ִ ּב ְל ַבד a distinction between different types of smoothed needles with regard to
the halakhot of ritual impurity.
ּ ָ ָהא ִּת ְר ְ ּג ָמא ַא ַ ּביֵ י ַא ִּלThe Gemara answers: Didn’t Abaye already interpret that baraita in ac-
– יבא דְּ ָר ָבא
. ְ ּבגָ ְל ֵמיcordance with the opinion of Rava as referring to unfinished needles? If
b
ֲחמֹור יֹוצֵ א ַ ּב ַּמ ְרדַּ ַעת:ַּתנְיָא נַ ִמי ָה ִכי That was also taught in a baraita: A donkey may go out on Shabbat
וְ ל ֹא.ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ְּק ׁשו ָּרה לֹו ֵמ ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת with its saddlecloth when it was tied to the animal from Shabbat
ַא ף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ְּק ׁש ּו ָרה לֹו,ָ ּבאו ָּּכף eve, and it may not go out with the saddle,h even though it was tied
Donkey with a saddlecloth, saddle, a band around its belly, and a strap
under its tail to the animal from Shabbat eve. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:
יאלֵ ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל.ֵמ ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת
The donkey may even go out with its saddle when it was tied to the
ַאף ָ ּבאו ָּּכף ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ְּק ׁשו ָּרה לֹו:אֹומר ֵ animal from Shabbat eve, provided that he does not tie the strap
ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא יִ ְק ׁשֹור,ֵמ ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת with which the saddle is fastened around the donkey’s belly, and
ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא יִ ְפ ׁשֹול לֹו,יכן ָ לֹו ַמ ְס ִר provided that he does not pass a strap under the animal’s tail,b which
.ְרצו ָּעה ַּת ַחת זְ נָ בֹו is standard procedure when placing a burden on the animal.
ֵיה ַרב ַא ִסי ַ ּבר נָ ָתן ֵמ ַר ִ ּבי ּ ְ ּב ָעא ִמ ּינ Rav Asi bar Natan raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Rav
יתן ַמ ְרדַּ ַעת ֵּ ַמה ּו ִל:ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי Ashi: What is the halakha with regard to placing a saddlecloth on a
ּ ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ֲחמֹור ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת? ָא ַמר ֵל
:יה donkey on Shabbath in a private domain in order to warm the donkey
with no intention to take it into the public domain? Rabbi Ĥiyya bar
וְ ִכי ַמה ֵ ּבין זֶ ה:יה ּ ָא ַמר ֵל.מו ָּּתר Ashi said to him: It is permitted. Rav Asi bar Natan said to him:
.יש ִּתיק ְ ׁ ְלאו ָּּכף? ִא What is the difference between this and a saddle, which may not be
moved on Shabbat? Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Ashi remained silent and did
not answer.
– או ָּּכף ׁ ֶש ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ֲחמֹור:יה ּ ית ֵיב ִ ֵא Rav Asi bar Natan thought that Rabbi Ĥiyya was of the opinion that
יכ ּהָ מֹולִ ֶא ָּלא,ל ֹא יְ ַט ְל ְט ֶל ָּנה ְ ּביָ דֹו even a saddle may be placed on a donkey on Shabbat. He, therefore,
.נֹופל ֵמ ֵא ָיליוֵ יא ּה ֶ ּב ָחצֵ ר וְ הוּא ָ ו ְּמ ִב raised an objection from a baraita: A saddle that is on a donkey on
Shabbat, and its owner wishes to remove it, he may not move it with
ּ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא ִל
ְל ַה ּנ ִַיח,יטֹול ָא ְמ ַר ְּת – ָלא
his handh to remove it; rather, he walks the animal back and forth
!?יב ֲעיָ א ּ ָ ִמ in the courtyard, and the saddle falls on its own. Now even with
regard to removing a saddle that is already on the animal’s back, you
said no, one may not move it; is prohibiting one from placing the
saddle on the animal necessary?
halakha
And that only applies to a case where it was tied to the animal provided that it remains in a private domain. However, one may
from Shabbat eve – וְ הוּא ׁ ֶש ְּק ׁשו ָּרה לֹו ֵמ ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת: A donkey may not tie the saddlecloth to the animal on Shabbat, even with a
only go out on Shabbat with its saddlecloth if the saddlecloth makeshift knot (Mishna Berura), in accordance with the opinions
were tied to it from Shabbat eve. This accords with the opinion of of Rav and Shmuel who agree on this matter (Rambam Sefer Ze-
Shmuel (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 20:10; Shulĥan manim, Hilkhot Shabbat 20:13; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 305:8).
Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 305:7).
And not with the saddle – וְ ל ֹא ָ ּבאו ָּּכף: A donkey may not go out A saddle that is on a donkey on Shabbat, he may not move
on Shabbat with a saddle, even if the saddle were tied to the it with his hand – או ָּּכף ׁ ֶש ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ֲחמֹור ל ֹא יְ ַט ְל ְט ֶל ָּנה ְ ּביָ דֹו: One may
animal from Shabbat eve, as per the baraita (Rambam Sefer Ze- not move a saddle on a donkey on Shabbat with his hands, even
manim, Hilkhot Shabbat 20:13; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 305:7). if he seeks to remove it. Rather, one can untie the rope securing
What is the halakha with regard to placing a saddlecloth the saddle to the animal and walk the animal back and forth
on a donkey on Shabbat – מה ּו ִל ֵּיתן ַמ ְרדַּ ַעת ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ֲחמֹור ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת:ַ in the courtyard until the saddle falls off (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ
It is permitted to place a saddlecloth on a donkey on Shabbat, Ĥayyim 305:9).
– ְט ַר ְס ַקל, ִמ ְרדַּ ַעת – מו ָּּתר:ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ָא ַמר Shmuel said: A saddlecloth is permitted; however, a basketn with
יֹוסף ֲא ַמ ָר ּה ִל ׁ ְש ַמ ֲע ָתא
ֵ ֲאזַ ל ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר.ָאסוּר fodder is prohibited. Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Yosef went and said the
ִאי ָה ִכי ֲא ַמר:יה ּ ֲא ַמר ֵל,יה דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ּ דְּ ַרב ַק ֵּמ halakha of Rav before Shmuel. Shmuel said to him: If Abba, Rav,
actually said that, he knows nothing at all about matters of
.ַא ָ ּבא – ָלא יָ ַדע ְ ּב ִמ ֵּילי דְּ ׁ ַש ְ ּב ָתא וְ ל ֹא ְּכלוּם
Shabbat.
ַמאי ׁ ְשנָ א,יהת ִמ ְרדַּ ַעת מו ָּּתר ַ דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ִמThe Gemara continues: In any case, everyone agrees that a saddle-
. ֵמאו ָּּכף? ׁ ָשאנֵי ָה ָתם דְּ ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר דְּ נָ ֵפיל ִמ ֵּמ ָילאcloth is permitted. The question arises: How is a saddlecloth dif-
ferent from a saddle, which may not even be removed from the
donkey? If the concern is for the animal’s suffering, why is it not
permitted to remove the saddle? The Gemara answers: It is differ-
ent there, as it is possible for the saddle to fall on its own. There-
fore, there is no reason to permit its removal by hand.
. ָּכאן – ְלצַ ְּננָ ּה, ָּכאן – ְל ַח ְּמ ָמ ּה:ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא ָא ַמר Rav Pappa said: There is a distinction between the two cases: Here,
ְלצַ ְּננָ ּה – ֵלית ָל ּה,ְל ַח ְּמ ָמ ּה – ִאית ָל ּה צַ ֲע ָרא where the Sages permitted placing a saddlecloth on a donkey on
ילוּ ֲא ִפ, ֲח ָמ ָרא:ינָשיֵ ׁ וְ ַהיְ ינ ּו ְד ָא ְמ ִרי ֱא.צַ ֲע ָרא Shabbat, it is to warm the animal. There, where the Sages prohib-
ited removing a saddle, it is to cool the animal. Placing the saddle-
.ִ ּב ְתקו ַּפת ַּתמוּז ְק ִר ָירא ָל ּה
cloth to warm the animal is permitted because otherwise it experi-
ences discomfort from the cold. However, removing the saddle to
cool the animal is prohibited because the animal does not experi-
ence discomfort from excessive heat. And that is the folk saying
that people say: A donkey, even in the summer season of Tammuz,
is cold. Therefore, seeing to the animal’s warmth is more important.
notes
Basket – ט ַר ְס ַקל:ְ Some of the ge’onim had a variant reading: Klastar, basis of a foreign language root, rikha, meaning king. Elsewhere,
which is a type of covering for the head of the foal that protects it he explains the etymology of Aryokh based on the verse: “Judah is
from heat and cold (Me’iri). a lion’s [arye] cub” (Genesis 49:9). Other commentaries also explain
that the term Aryokh is from the word lion [arye], the king of beasts
Saddlecloth…basket – ת…ט ַר ְס ַקל ְ מ ְרדַּ ַע:ִ Some commentaries sug-
(Sefer Yoĥasin). Some commentaries state that Shmuel’s appellation
gest that Rav permits hanging a basket of fodder around the neck of
was after Aryokh, king of Alasar, mentioned in Genesis 14:1. The name
an animal on Shabbat. While this seems to contradict the baraita, he
is an allusion to the fact that, on the one hand, Shmuel was a great
holds that cruelty to animals is a Torah prohibition. The Sages would
king, as the halakha is ruled in accordance with his opinion in civil
not have issued a decree that would lead to violation of a Torah
matters, but, on the other hand, not [al ] in ritual matters [asar]. Alasar
prohibition. Therefore, he makes no distinction between causing the
is an acronym for al asar (Rashi and Tosafot). Several commentaries
animal to suffer and withholding pleasure from the animal (Rabbi
suggest that he was called by this name because Targum Yonatan
Elazar Moshe Horowitz).
states that Aryokh was as mighty as thirteen people, and Shmuel
Aryokh – יֹוך
ְ א ְר:ַ This nickname of Shmuel has never been fully ex- expounded in thirteen yeshivot. Later commentaries sought a Per-
plained. In this context, Rashi explains the term, Aryokh, on the sian root for this name.
background
יח ין
ִ ָ וְ ל ֹא ְסי:יה ת ַ ָק ָתנֵ י ִמ In any case, it is taught here: Nor foals with baskets of fodder
יהם ִל ְר ׁשוּת ֶ ִ ּב ְט ַר ְס ָק ִלים ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ִפ that are around their mouths into the public domain. By infer-
Horse with red wool as an ornament – סוּס ְ ּבזַ ֲהרו ִּרית:
ִל ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים הוּא.ָה ַר ִ ּבים ence: It is specifically into the public domain that they may not
go with fodder baskets in their mouths; however, in a courtyard,
. ָהא ֶ ּב ָחצֵ ר – ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר דָּ ֵמי,דְּ ָלא
they may well walk with a basket of fodder. What? Is it not refer-
ו ִּמ ׁ ּשוּם,דֹולים ִ ְַמאי ָלאו – ִ ּבג ring to large foals around whose necks fodder baskets are hung
!ַּת ֲענוּג for their pleasure?
, ִ ּב ְק ַט ּנִים ּו ִמ ׁ ּש ּום צַ ַער, ָלאThe Gemara answers: No, it is referring to small foals, and the
דְּ ָק ָתנֵי, דַּ יְ ָקא נַ ִמיbaskets are hung to prevent their discomfort. The legs of a young
h
foal are long and its neck is short. Consequently, eating from the
ground is difficult. Hanging the fodder basket around its neck
enables it to eat without bending down. The Gemara adds: This
is also precise in the language of the Tosefta, as it teaches the case
of the foals
Horses with ornaments
Perek V
Daf 53 Amud b
halakha
. ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה, דּ ו ְּמיָ א דְּ ָק ֵמ ַיעsimilar to the case of an amulet worn for healing purposes. The
Proven effective for a person and has not proven effective for an
Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is the correct
animal – וְ ֵאינֹו מו ְּמ ֶחה ַל ְ ּב ֵה ָמה,מו ְּמ ֶחה ָל ָא ָדם: An amulet that is effective
for a person is not assumed to be effective for an animal until it is
understanding.
tested. Consequently, an animal may not go out with an amulet un- וְ ל ֹא ְ ּב ָ ּק ֵמ ַיע ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי:ָא ַמר ָמר The Gemara further examines the baraita cited earlier. The Master
less it was established as being effective for animals (Rambam Sefer said: Nor may an animal go out with an amulet on Shabbat, even
Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 20:13; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 305:17 and : וְ ָהא ֲאנַן ְּתנַן.ׁ ֶשהוּא מו ְּמ ֶחה
in the comment of the Rema). .וְ ל ֹא ַ ּב ָ ּק ֵמ ַיע ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו מו ְּמ ֶחה if the amulet proved effective. The Gemara asks: Didn’t we learn
in a mishna: One may not go out on Shabbat with an amulet that
ָהא מו ְּמ ֶחה – ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר דָּ ֵמי! ָה ָכא
has not proved effective? By inference: If the amulet proved
notes .נַ ִמי – ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו מו ְּמ ֶחה effective, he may well do so. The Gemara answers: Here too, it is
A person, who is under the protection of an advocate angel
[mazal] – יה ַמּזָ ָלא
ּ א ָדם דְּ ִאית ֵל:ָ There are several additional explanations
referring to an amulet that has not proved effective.
of the term mazal. Elsewhere, Rashi explains that mazal means that a “א ף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ה ּו א ַ וְ ָה א The Gemara asks: Doesn’t the baraita teach: Even if the amulet
person has intelligence and therefore is capable of defending himself.
,מו ְּמ ֶחה״ ָק ָתנֵי! מו ְּמ ֶחה ָל ָא ָדם proved effective? The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring
Other commentaries explain that it means that since a person believes
in the efficacy of the amulet, the amulet provides him with protection, ּו ִמי.וְ ֵאינֹו מ ּו ְמ ֶחה ַל ְ ּב ֵה ָמה to an amulet that proved effective for a person, and did not
which is not the case with regard to an animal (Me’iri). prove effective for an animal.h The Gemara wonders: Is there
יכא מו ְּמ ֶחה ָל ָא ָדם וְ ָלא ָהוֵ י ָּ ִא an amulet that proved effective for a person and is not effective
ָא ָדם,מו ְּמ ֶחה ַל ְ ּב ֵה ָמה? ִאין for an animal? Healing an animal should be easier than healing a
,יה ּ יה ַמּזָ ָלא – ְמ ַסּיַ יע ֵלּ דְּ ִאית ֵל person. The Gemara answers: Yes, an amulet aids a person, who
ְ ּב ֵה ָמה דְּ ֵלית ָל ּה ַמּזָ ָלא – ָלא is under the protection of an advocate angel [mazal];n however,
.ְמ ַסּיַ יע ָל ּה it does not aid an animal, which is not under the protection of
an advocate angel.
252 Perek V . 53b . גנ ףד: קרפ ׳ה
halakha
חֹומר ִ ּב ְב ֵה ָמהֶ ַמאי “זֶ ה, ִאי ָה ִכיThe Gemara poses a question: If so, that the baraita is referring to an amu-
One may smear on oil and scrape off a scab on
? ִמ ְ ּב ָא ָדם״? ִמי ָס ְב ַר ְּת ַא ָ ּק ֵמ ַיע ָק ֵאיlet that did not prove effective for an animal, but if the amulet proved effec- Shabbat for a person – ס ִכין ו ְּמ ַפ ְר ְּכ ִסין ָל ָא ָדם:ָ One
! ַא ַּסנְ דָּ ל ָק ֵאיtive, the animal may indeed go out into the public domain with it; what is may smear on oil and scrape a scab off a person’s
the meaning of the phrase in the Tosefta: And this is a stricture that applies body on Shabbat, even if it is only for pleasure,
to animals beyond the strictures that apply to people? The halakha is the and leaving the scab would not cause pain (Ram-
same with regard to both people and animals. If the amulet has proven ef- bam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 21:30; Shulĥan
fective, even an animal may go out with it on Shabbat. If it has not proven Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 328:22).
effective, even a person may not go out with it. The Gemara responds: Do And one may not smear on oil and scrape off a
you hold that this statement is referring to an amulet? It is referring to a scab for an animal – וְ ֵאין ָס ִכין ו ְּמ ַפ ְר ְּכ ִסין ַל ְ ּב ֵה ָמה: One
shoe; an animal may not go out with a shoe on Shabbat, but a person may. may not smear oil and tend to a healed wound on
an animal’s body for the animal’s pleasure. How-
, ָס ִכין ו ְּמ ַפ ְר ְּכ ִסין ָל ָא ָדם:ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע With regard to whether and to what extent the discomfort of animals is a ever, if the animal will suffer without that treatment,
it is permitted (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot
ַמאי.וְ ֵאין ָס ִכין ו ְּמ ַפ ְר ְּכ ִסין ַל ְ ּב ֵה ָמה factor taken into consideration on Shabbat, the Gemara says: Come and
Shabbat 21:30; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 332:2).
, ו ִּמ ׁ ּשוּם צַ ַער? ל ֹא,יכא ַמ ָּכה ָּ ָלאו דְּ ִא hear that which was taught in a baraita: One may smear on oil and scrape
off a scab on Shabbat for a person,h and one may not smear on oil and
.דִּ גְ ַמר ַמ ָּכה ו ִּמ ׁ ּשוּם ַּת ֲענוּג notes
scrape off a scab for an animal.h Is it not referring here to a case where
Do we really issue a decree for an animal –
there is a wound, and he smears on oil and scrapes the scab due to the
וְ ִל ְב ֵה ָמה ִמי ָ ּגזְ ִרינַן: Some authorities explain this ques-
discomfort caused by the wound, and nevertheless it was permitted exclu- tion as follows: Is it prohibited to cause an animal
sively for a person and not for an animal? The Gemara rejects this argument: to perform an action that one is prohibited to do
No, it is referring to a case where the wound has already ceased and healed, by rabbinic decree? (Rabbi Elazar Moshe Horowitz).
and he smears oil and scrapes due to the pleasure caused by the treatment. The fact that proof is cited from the halakhot of
the Shabbat limit, a rabbinic prohibition, to the
– ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ׁ ֶש ֲא ָחזָ ּה דָּ ם:ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע The Gemara cites an additional proof: Come and hear that which was halakhot of crushing herbs, which is prohibited by
Torah law, is not difficult, as, with regard to animals,
אֹות ּה ַ ּב ַּמיִ ם ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל
ָ ֵאין ַמ ֲע ִמ ִידין taught in the following baraita: With regard to an animal suffering from
there are instances where the Sages are more strin-
ָא ָדם ׁ ֶש ֲא ָחזֹו דָּ ם – ַמ ֲע ִמ ִידין.ׁ ֶש ִּתצְ ַט ּנֵן heart congestion that restricts its blood supply and whose temperature has gent with regard to rabbinic decrees than they are
risen, one may not stand it in water so that it will cool off. However, with with regard to Torah prohibitions (Rabbi Yehuda
אֹותֹו ַ ּב ַּמיִ ם ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ׁ ֶשּיִ צְ ַט ֵּנן! ָא ַמר
regard to a person suffering from heart congestion that restricts his blood Bakhrakh).
. ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ְש ִח ַיקת ַס ְמ ָמנִין:עו ָּּלא supply, one may stand him in water so that he will cool off. Apparently, Beyond the Shabbat limit – חוּץ ַל ְּתחוּם: By rab-
the suffering of an animal is of no concern. Ulla said: Here, the Sages issued binic decree, and some say by Torah law, each
a decree prohibiting all healing on Shabbat due to the crushing of herbs person has a Shabbat limit, beyond the city limits,
for medicinal purposes, which is prohibited by Torah law. The Sages pro- within which he is permitted to walk on Shabbat.
hibited cooling the animal in water lest one come to grind the ingredients Even animals and inanimate objects have a limit,
used in the preparation of medicine. determined by the limit of the person to whose
care they are entrusted, beyond which they may
not be taken. In the case discussed here, there is a
ִא י ָה ִכי ָא ָדם נַ ִמי! ָא ָדם נִ ְר ֶאהIf so, the same decree should also apply in the case of a person. It should place that was beyond the animal’s Shabbat limit
. ְּכ ֵמ ֵיקרbe prohibited to stand a sick person in water to cool him off due to the and within its owner’s Shabbat limit. Therefore, the
rabbinic prohibition against engaging in healing on Shabbat. The Gemara owner is permitted to call the animal to come to
answers: In the case of a person, it appears as if he entered the water him (see Rashash).
merely to cool off, not necessarily to cure an illness.
background
ִאי ָה ִכי ְ ּב ֵה ָמה נַ ִמי נִ ְר ֶאה ְּכ ֵמ ֵיקר! ֵאיןThe Gemara asks: If so, say in the case of an animal as well that it appears Its Shabbat limit and his Shabbat limit – ְּתחוּם
. ֵמ ֵיקר ִל ְב ֵה ָמהas if it entered the water merely to cool off, not necessarily to cure an illness. ש ָּל ּה וְ ׁ ֶש ּלֹו:
ֶ ׁ In this sketch, one sees the animal is
The Gemara answers: An animal does not typically enter the water on its standing within its Shabbat limit, while part of its
own to cool off. Neither does one typically stand an animal in water to cool limit overlaps its owner’s Shabbat limit. The owner
it off unless it serves some healing purpose. Apparently, due to a decree, the is permitted to go to the place where the animal
is currently standing.
Sages were stringent and prohibited standing the animal in water even if it
will die as a result.
ָהיְ ָתה:וְ ִל ְב ֵה ָמה ִמי ָ ּגזְ ִרינַ ן? וְ ָה ַתנְיָ א The Gemara now asks: Do we really issue a decree for an animal?n Wasn’t
קֹורא ָל ּה
ֵ – עֹומ ֶדת ח ּוץ ַל ְּתח ּום ֶ it taught in a baraita: If an animal were standing beyond the Shabbat
וְ ָלא ָ ּגזְ ִרינַן דִּ ְיל ָמא ָא ֵתי.וְ ִהיא ָ ּב ָאה limit,n a situation in which it is prohibited to go fetch it, he may call the
animal and it will come to him on its own? And we do not issue a decree
.ְל ַא ּתוּיֵ י
to prohibit calling the animal, lest he come to bring it himself. Apparently,
the Sages did not issue a decree in a case where one could incur a loss and Overlapping Shabbat limits
there is no actual transgression committed. Here too, it should not be
prohibited to stand his animal in water due to a decree lest he come to grind
herbs and thereby violate a Torah prohibition.
ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ְּתחוּם ׁ ֶש ָּל ּה: וְ ָא ַמר ָר ִבינָ אAnd Ravina said: No proof can be cited from this case, as here it is a situ-
. מו ְּב ָלע ְ ּבתֹוךְ ְּתחוּם ׁ ֶשלּ ֹוation where the animal’s Shabbat limit was subsumed within the limit of
its owner.b The animal strayed beyond its own Shabbat limit, which is de-
termined by the Shabbat limit of the shepherd entrusted with its herding.
However, the animal remained within the Shabbat limit of its owner, which
extended beyond that of the shepherd. Consequently, the owner is permit-
ted to call the animal so that it will return on its own. Even if he forgets and
goes out to fetch the animal, he will not have gone beyond his Shabbat
limit. The fact that the animal itself went beyond its Shabbat limit is of no
concern.
גנ ףד: ׳ה קרפ. Perek V . 53b 253
halakha
ׁ ְש ִח ַיקת:ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק ָא ַמר Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said: The matter of the decree due to crush-
An animal that ate vetch – ב ֵה ָמה ׁ ֶש ָא ְכ ָלה ַּכ ְר ׁ ִשינִין:
ּ ְ If ing herbs is itself subject to a dispute between the tanna’im. As it
an animal ate a large amount of vetch, a climbing ְ ּב ֵה ָמה:ַס ְמ ָמנִין ּגו ָּפ ּה ַּת ָּנ ֵאי ִהיא; דְּ ַתנְיָא
plant from the legume family, and is now suffering, it ׁ ֶש ָא ְכ ָלה ַּכ ְר ׁ ִשינִין – ל ֹא יְ ִריצֶ ָּנה ֶ ּב ָחצֵ ר was taught in a baraita: In the case of an animal that ate vetch,h which
is permitted to run it around the courtyard to loosen its caused a life-threatening case of constipation, one may not run it
.אֹוש ְעיָא ַמ ִּתיר ַ ׁ וְ ַר ִ ּבי,ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ׁ ֶש ִּת ְת ַר ּ ֶפה
bowels. There is no room for concern that he is thereby around in the courtyard to loosen its bowels due to the decree pro-
violating the rabbinic decree prohibiting healing activi- .אֹוש ְעיָ א
ַ ׁ ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי:דָּ ַר ׁש ָר ָבא hibiting healing. Rabbi Oshaya deems it permitted. Apparently, the
ties on Shabbat (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shab- tanna’im disagree whether or not healing is prohibited with regard to
bat 21:30; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 332:3). animals. The Gemara adds that Rava taught: The halakha is in ac-
A zav may not go out with his pouch – ל ֹא יֵ צֵ א ַהּזָ ב cordance with the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya.
ב ִכיס ׁ ֶש ּלֹו:ּ ְ A zav may not go out on Shabbat wearing a
pouch to receive his emissions so that his clothes not “ל ֹא יֵ צֵ א ַהּזָ ב ְ ּב ִכיס ׁ ֶשלּ ֹו וְ ל ֹא: ָא ַמר ָמרThe Master said: Neither may a zav go out with his pouch,h which
become sullied (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shab- יֹוצְ אֹות: וְ ָה ַתנְיָא. ִעּזִ ים ְ ּב ִכיס ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ַדדֵּ ֶיהן״prevents his clothes from becoming sullied by his emissions, nor
bat 19:22; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 301:13).
!יהן ֶ ֵּ ִעּזִ ים ְ ּב ִכיס ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ַדדgoats with the pouch that is on their udders. The Gemara asks:
To dry…to conserve the milk – יח ֵלב ָ …ל
ֵ יַב ׁש
ּ ֵ ל:ְ Goats Wasn’t it taught in a different baraita: Goats may go out with the
may go out with their udders bound to dry the milk pouch that is on their udders?
supply. However, it is prohibited if this was done to
conserve the milk and to prevent it from dripping onto – ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א; ָהא: ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדהRav Yehuda said: This is not difficult. This baraita is referring to a
the ground (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat .יה ַדק ֲ דְּ ִמpouch that is tied tightly to the udder. It is permitted because there is
ֲ ָהא – דְּ ָלא ִמ,יה ַדק
20:12; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 305:6). no concern that the pouch will fall. That baraita is referring to a pouch
that is not tightly tied. It is prohibited because of the concern that the
notes pouch will fall and a person will come to retrieve it.
To dry…to conserve the milk – יח ֵלבָ …ל
ֵ יַב ׁש
ּ ֵ ל:ְ It is pro-
hibited for a cow to wear a pouch under its udders on ? ַּת ָּנ ֵאי ׁ ַש ְק ַל ְּת ֵמ ָע ְל ָמא:יֹוסף ֲא ַמרֵ ַרב Rav Yosef said: Have you removed the tanna’im from the world?
Shabbat because it is designed to conserve the milk. ָה ִעּזִ ים יֹוצְ אֹות:ַּת ָּנ ֵא י ִה יא! דִּ ְתנַ ן This is subject to a disagreement between the tanna’im, as we learned
Since it is prohibited to milk a cow on Shabbat, the in our mishna: She-goats may go out with their udders bound. Rab-
pouch has no use and is considered a burden (Rab- אֹוסר ְ ּב ֻכ ָּלן חוּץ ִמן ֵ יֹוסי ֵ ַר ִ ּבי,צְ רוּרֹות
bi Yosei Rabbi Yosei prohibits the animals from going out with all
beinu Yona). :אֹומר
ֵ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה.ָה ְר ֵחילֹות ַה ְּכבוּנֹות
of these items, as he considers them burdens, except for the ewes
How dishonorable is this person – כ ָּמה ָ ּגרו ַּע ָא ָדם זֶ ה:ַּ יַב ׁש ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ּ ֵ ִעּזִ ים יֹוצְ אֹות צְ רוּרֹות ְל that are kevunot. Rabbi Yehuda says: Goats may go out on Shabbat
Had the person miraculously acquired money, there .יח ֵלב
ָ ֵל with their udders bound to dry their milk supply and discontinue
are many things that he could have done with it, but
their lactation in order to facilitate conception, as in that case, they
now a miracle with a very limited scope was performed
for him (Iyyun Ya’akov). In addition, even though what are tied with a tight, permanent knot. However, they may not go out
transpired was miraculous, it was performed for the with their udders bound to conserve the milk,hn as in that case they
baby, and not for the father (Rav Ya’akov Emden). are bound loosely. Apparently, there are tanna’im who rule leniently
with regard to attaching pouches to the udders of goats and permit
background the practice, and others prohibit doing so.
He developed breasts like the two breasts of a wom-
an – דַּ דִּ ין ִּכ ׁ ְשנֵי דַּ דֵּ י ִא ׁ ּ ָשה: While this is not a common , ָהא וְ ָהא ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה:ימא
ָ יב ֵעית ֵא
ּ ָ וְ ִאAnd if you wish, say instead: Both this baraita and that baraita were
phenomenon, it is not impossible. Similar phenomena – ָּכאן, וְ ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א; ָּכאן – ְליַ ֵ ּב ׁשtaught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and never-
are found, though rarely, in other species as well, e.g., .יח ֵלב ָ ֵלtheless it is not difficult. Here, where the goats are permitted to go
male goats that produce milk. This subject is even dis- out with a pouch on their udders, the baraita is referring to a case
cussed in the halakhic literature. where it was done to dry their milk supply. There, where goats are
prohibited to do so, the baraita is referring to a case where it was done
to conserve the milk.
ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּב ִעּזִ ים:“א ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ָ , ַּתנְיָאThe Gemara adds: It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said:
וְ ָע ׂש ּו,יהן ַ ּג ִּסין ִ ֵ ּבית ַאThere was an incident involving the goats belonging to the residents
ֶ ֵּנְטֹוכיָ א ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו דַּ ד
.יהן״ ִ ָל ֶהן ִּכof a house in Antioch whose udders were especially large and they
ֶ ֵּיסין ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא יִ ָּס ְרט ּו דַּ ד
would drag along the ground. And they made pouches for them so
that their udders would not get scratched.
ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּב ֶא ָחד ׁ ֶש ֵּמ ָתה ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו:ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן The Gemara cites a related baraita in which the Sages taught: There
וְ ל ֹא ָהיָ ה לֹו ְ ׂש ַכר,ִיח ּה ֵ ּבן ִלינֹק ָ וְ ִה ּנ was an incident where one man’s wife died, and she left him a son
נַע ָ ׂשה לֹו נֵס וְ נִ ְפ ְּתח ּו לֹוֲ ְ ו,יתן ֵּ נִיקה ִל ָ ֵמ to nurse, and he did not have money to pay the wages of a wet-nurse.
And a miracle was performed on his behalf, and he developed
.דַּ דִּ ין ִּכ ׁ ְשנֵי דַּ דֵּ י ִא ׁ ּ ָשה וְ ֵהנִיק ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו
breasts like the two breasts of a woman,b and he nursed his son.
ּבֹא ו ְּר ֵאה ַּכ ָּמה גָ דֹול ָא ָדם:יֹוסף ֵ ָא ַמר ַרב Rav Yosef said: Come and see how great this person is that a mir-
:יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י
ּ ׁ ֶש ּנ ֲַע ָ ׂשה לֹו נֵס ָּכזֶ ה! ָא ַמר ֵל,זֶ ה acle of that magnitude was performed on his behalf. Abaye said to
ַּכ ָּמה ָ ּגרו ַּע ָא ָדם זֶ ה ׁ ֶש ּנ ׁ ְִש ַּתנּ ּו לֹו,ַאדְּ ַר ָ ּבה him: On the contrary, how dishonorable is this personn that the
order of creation was altered on his behalf. A miracle was indeed
!אשית ִ ׁ ִס ְד ֵרי ְב ֵר
performed on his behalf; however, it was performed in a demeaning
and unpleasant manner.
ּבֹא ו ְּר ֵאה ַּכ ָּמה ָק ׁ ִשים:ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה Rav Yehuda added and said: Come and see how difficult it is to
ׁ ֶש ּנ ׁ ְִש ַּתנּ ּו ָע ָליו,זֹונֹותיו ׁ ֶשל ָא ָדם
ָ ְמ provide for a person’s sustenance. It is so difficult that the order of
, ֵּת ַדע: ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן.אשית ִ ׁ ִס ְד ֵרי ְב ֵר creation had to be altered on his behalf, which was apparently easi-
er than providing him a source of financial support. Rav Naĥman
.נִיסא וְ ָלא ִא ְבר ּו ְמזֹונֵי
ָ דְּ ִמ ְת ְר ֵח ׁיש
said: Know that it is so, as miracles are often performed on a person’s
behalf; however, it has not yet happened that food was miraculously
created in a person’s home.
254 Perek V . 53b . גנ ףד: קרפ ׳ה
notes
ָשא ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ׂ ָ ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּב ָא ָדם ֶא ָחד ׁ ֶש ּנ:ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן The Gemara relates another unusual story. The Sages taught:
There was an incident involving one man who married a one- Who married a one-armed woman – ָשא ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ִ ּגידֶּ ֶמת
ׂ ָ ש ּנ:
ֶׁ
ָא ַמר.מֹות ּה ָ ִ ּגידֶּ ֶמת וְ ל ֹא ִה ִּכיר ָ ּב ּה ַעד יֹום The connection to the previous story seems to be that
ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא, ּבֹא ו ְּר ֵאה ַּכ ָּמה צְ נו ָּעה ִא ׁ ּ ָשה זֹו:ַרב armed woman,n and he did not realize that she was one-armed in both cases there are two different assessments of the
until the day that she died. Rav said: Come and see how same reality.
זֹו דַּ ְר ָּכ ּה:ִה ִּכיר ָ ּב ּה ַ ּב ְע ָל ּה! ָא ַמר לֹו ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא
modest this woman was that her husband did not realize this
ַּכ ָּמה צָ נו ַּע ָא ָדם זֶ ה ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִה ִּכיר: ֶא ָּלא, ְְ ּב ָכך about her. Rabbi Ĥiyya said to him: That is typical conduct Levuvin – לבו ִּבין:ְ Some commentaries explain that levuvin
refers to cloths and other ornaments placed over their
.ְ ּב ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו for her, as a woman typically covers herself. All the more so a hearts (Me’iri).
one-armed woman makes sure to cover her defect. Rather, say:
Sheĥuzot – שחוּזֹות:ְ ׁ The Jerusalem Talmud cites two terms:
How modest was this man that he did not recognize this in
shuzot and sheĥuzot. Shuzot is understood on the basis of
his wife. the verse: “Attire [shit ] of a harlot” (Proverbs 7:10), whereas
ַמאי ְ‘לבו ִּבין׳? ֲא ַמר.“זְ ָכ ִרים יֹוצְ ִאין ְלבו ִּבין״ We learned in our mishna: Rams may go out levuvin.h The sheĥuzot means prepared for use, as in the phrase: One
sharpens [mashĥizin] the knife.
ַמאי ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע דְּ ַהאי ְלבו ִּבין. ּתו ְּּת ִרי:ַרב הוּנָ א Gemara asks: What is the meaning of levuvin?n Rav Huna said:
“ל ַ ּב ְב ִּתנִי
ִ :רֹובי הוּא – דִּ ְכ ִתיבֵ ישנָ א דְּ ָק ָ ׁ ִל Tied [tutri]l in pairs. The Gemara explains: From where may it
halakha
be inferred that this word levuvin is a term of closeness? As it
.חֹותי ַכ ָלה״ ִ ֲא Rams may go out levuvin – זְ ָכ ִרים יֹוצְ ִאין ְלבו ִּבין: Rams may
is written: “You have drawn me near [libavtini], my sister my
go out with a hide tied under their male organs to prevent
bride” (Song of Songs 4:9). them from mounting females (Rambam Sefer Zemanim,
ֹוש ִרין ָל ֶהם ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ִל ָ ּבם ְ ׁ עֹור ׁ ֶש ּק:עו ָּּלא ָא ַמר Ulla said: Levuvin refers to animal hide that one ties over the Hilkhot Shabbat 20:12; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 305:6).
זְ ֵא ִבים ַאּזְ ָכ ִרים.ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא יִ ּ ְפל ּו ֲע ֵל ֶיהן זְ ֵא ִבים hearts [lev] of rams so that wolves will not attack them. The Ewes may go out sheĥuzot – ה ְר ֵח ִלים יֹוצְ אֹות ׁ ְשחוּזֹות:ָ Ewes
ַא ְּנ ֵקיבֹות ָלא נָ ְפ ִלי?! ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ַמ ְסגּ ּו,נָ ְפ ִלי Gemara asks: Do wolves attack rams but do not attack ewes? may go out with their tails tied back so that the males can
Why is this protection provided only to males? The Gemara more easily mount them (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot
, וּזְ ֵא ִבין ְ ּב ֵר ׁיש ֶע ְד ָרא נָ ְפ ִלי.ְ ּב ֵר ׁיש ֶע ְד ָרא Shabbat 20:12; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 305:6).
answers: Because the males walk at the head of the flock. The
. ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ׁ ַש ְמנִי:ְ ּבסֹוף ֶע ְד ָרא ָלא נָ ְפ ִלי?! ֶא ָּלא Gemara asks: Do wolves attack the head of the flock but not
ִמי יָ ְד ִעי ֵ ּבין,ּיכא ׁ ַש ְמנִי?! וְ תו ָּ ו ִּבנְ ֵקבֹות ֵל the rear of the flock? Rather, the wolves prey specifically on language
,ּחֹוט ַמיְ יהוְ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ זָ ְק ִפי:ָהנֵי ְל ָהנֵי? ֶא ָּלא the rams because they are plump. The Gemara asks: Are there Tied [tutri] – תו ְּּת ִרי:ּ The word is perhaps connected to the
Persian tātūra, meaning ropes placed on the legs of horses.
.ּו ַּמ ְסגּ ּו ִּכי דָּ וו no plump ones among the ewes? And furthermore, do the
wolves know how to distinguish between these, the plump ones,
background
and those, the thin ones? Rather, the wolves prey specifically
on the rams because they raise their noses and walk while While looking to both sides – כי דָּ ו ּו:ִּ According to a vari-
ant reading, some explain that the rams walk like wolves or
looking to both sides.b The wolves think that they are preparing
bears in a very conspicuous manner, thereby challenging
to attack them. the wild animals.
ְ ׁ עֹור ׁ ֶש ּק:ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק ָא ַמר
ֹוש ִרין ָל ֶהן Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said: Levuvin refers to animal hide
. ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא יַ ֲעל ּו ַעל ַה ְּנ ֵקבֹות,ַּת ַחת זַ ְכרו ָּתן that one ties under their male organ so that they will not
“וְ ָה ְר ֵח ִלים יֹוצְ אֹות:ִמ ַּמאי – ִמדְּ ָק ָתנֵי ֵס ָיפא mount the females. And from where do we derive that mean-
ing? Because the latter clause states: Ewes may go out
אֹוחזִ ין ָה ַא ְליָ ה
ֲ ‘שחוּזֹות׳ – ׁ ֶש ְ ׁ ַמאי.ׁ ְשחוּזֹות״
sheĥuzot.nh What is the meaning of sheĥuzot? It means that
.יהן זְ ָכ ִרים ֶ ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשּיַ ֲעל ּו ֲע ֵל,ׁ ֶש ָּל ֶהן ְל ַמ ְע ָלה they fasten [she’oĥazin] their tails with animal hide so that the
וְ ֵס ָיפא,ישא ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא יַ ֲעל ּו ַעל ַה ְּנ ֵקבֹות ָ ׁ ֵר males may mount them more easily. It is reasonable to explain
.יהן זְ ָכ ִרים ֶ ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשּיַ ֲעל ּו ֲע ֵל that the first clause refers to an action undertaken so that the
males will not mount the females, and the latter clause to an
action undertaken so that the males will mount them.
ָ ּ ׁ ‘שחוּזֹות׳ ִל
ישנָ א דִּ גְ לוּיֵ י ְ ׁ ַמאי ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע דְּ ַהאיThe Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this word
“וְ ִה ֵּנה ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ִל ְק ָראתֹו: הוּא – דִּ ְכ ִתיבsheĥuzot is a term of exposure? The Gemara answers: As it is
written in the description of a wicked woman: “And behold
there met him a woman
Perek V
Daf 54 Amud a
halakha
. ׁ ִשית זֹונָ ה וּנְצו ַּרת ֵלב״with the attire of a harlot [shit zona] and wily of heart” (Prov-
Ewes may go out kevulot – ר ֵח ִלים יֹוצְ אֹות ְּכבוּלֹות:ְ Ewes
erbs 7:10). Sheĥuzot can be interpreted as an acronym of the
may go out on Shabbat with their tails tied down to
words shit zona, attire of a harlot, with the letters tav and ĥet, prevent the males from mounting them (Rambam Sefer
which are similar in form, interchanged. Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 20:12).
? ַמאי ְּכבוּלֹות.“ה ְר ֵח ִלים יֹוצְ אֹות ְּכבוּלֹות״ ָ We learned in the mishna: Ewes may go out kevulot.h The Ge-
ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא,ׁ ֶש ְּמ ַכ ְ ּב ִלין ַא ְליָ ה ׁ ֶש ָּל ֶהן ְל ַמ ָּטה mara asks: What is the meaning of kevulot? It means that they
ַמאי ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע דְּ ַהאי.יהן ַהּזְ ָכ ִרים ֶ יַ ֲעל ּו ֲע ֵל bind their tails down with animal hide so that the males will
not mount them. The Gemara explains: From where may it be
– ישנָ א דְּ ָלא ָע ֵביד ּ ֵפ ֵירי הוּא ָ ּ ׁ ָּ‘כבוּל׳ ִל
inferred that this word kavul is a term meaning does not pro-
[ה ֵא ֶּלה] ֲא ׁ ֶשר נָ ַת ָּת ָ “מה ֶה ָע ִרים ָ :דִּ ְכ ִתיב duce fruit? As it is written, when Solomon gave a portion of
ִלי ָא ִחי וַ ּיִ ְק ָרא ָ(ל ֶהן) ֶא ֶרץ ָּכבוּל ַעד ַהּיֹום land to Hiram, he complained: “What cities are these which
.ַהּזֶ ה״ you have given me, my brother? And he called them the land
of Kavul to this day” (I Kings 9:13).
דנ ףד. ׳ה קרפ. Perek V . 54a 255
halakha
ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו ָ ּב ּה ְ ּבנֵי ָא ָדם:“א ֶרץ ָּכבוּל״? ֲא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א ֶ ַמאי What is the meaning of the land of Kavul? Rav Huna said: That the
Ewes may go out kevunot – כבוּנֹות:ְּ people living there were bound [mekhubalin] and surrounded by silver
Ewes may go out covered with a ִאי ָה ִכי ַהיְ ינ ּו:יה ָר ָבא ּ ֲא ַמר ֵל.ׁ ֶש ְּמכו ָ ּּב ִלין ְ ּב ֶכ ֶסף ו ְּבזָ ָהב
special cloth to keep their wool per- ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ְּמכו ָ ּּב ִלין ְ ּב ֶכ ֶסף,יָשר ּו ְ ּב ֵעינָיו״
ְ ׁ )(“כי ל ֹא
ִּ :דִּ ְכ ִתיב and gold. Rava said to him: If so, is that what is written: “And Hiram
fectly clean so that it can be used came out of Tyre to see the cities which Solomon had given him, and they
ֵּכיוָ ן דַּ ֲע ִת ֵירי, ִאין:יה ּ ו ְּבזָ ָהב ל ֹא יָ ׁ ְשר ּו ְ ּב ֵעינָיו?! ֲא ַמר ֵל
in fashioning fine wool garments pleased him not” (I Kings 9:12)? Because the people there were bound
(Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 305:6). .ו ְּמ ַפ ְּנ ִקי – ָלא ָע ְב ִדי ֲע ִב ְיד ָּתא in silver and gold, the cities were not pleasing in his eyes? Rav Huna
She-goats may go out bound – said to him: Yes, indeed, it was precisely the abundant wealth that dis-
ה ִעּזִ ים יֹוצְ אֹות צְ רוּרֹות:ָ If the purpose pleased Hiram. Since the people were wealthy and delicate, they did not
is to dry their milk supply, goats may perform labor. Hiram was seeking people whom he could enlist in the
go out with their udders bound. If service of the king.
the goal is to prevent the milk from
dripping on the ground, it is pro- וְ ַא ַּמאי.חֹומטֹון ָהיְ ָתה
ְ ֶא ֶרץ: ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק ָא ַמרRav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said: It was a sandy [ĥomton]L expanse of land.
hibited. This follows the opinion of .“כבוּל״ – דְּ ִמ ְ ׂש ַּת ְר ָ ּגא ָ ּב ּה ַּכ ְר ָעא ַעד ַּכ ְב ָלא ָּ ָק ֵרי ָל ּהAnd why was it called Kavul? It is because the leg sinks into it up to the
Rabbi Yehuda because Rav ruled in
accordance with his opinion. Ac-
. ַא ְר ָעא ְמ ַכ ְ ּב ָלא דְּ ָלא ָע ַבד ּ ֵפ ֵירי:ינָשי ֵ ׁ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ֱאankle [kavla]. And people say in describing poor quality land: Land that
is bound [mekhabela] shut, i.e., that does not produce fruit.
cording to the Jerusalem Talmud,
apparently Rabbi Yoĥanan, despite ; ַמאי ְּכבוּנֹות? ׁ ֶש ְּמ ַכ ְ ּבנִין אֹותֹו ְל ֵמ ָילת.“כבוּנֹות״ ְּ We learned in the mishna: Ewes may go out kevunot.h The Gemara asks:
his assertion that the halakha is in What is the meaning of kevunot? It is that they covered [mekhabnin] the
ַמאי צֶ ֶמר ָל ָבן? ָא ַמר ַרב. ְ ׂש ֵאת – ְּכצֶ ֶמר ָל ָבן:ְּכ ִד ְתנַן
accordance with the anonymous animal to produce fine wool. Sheep were wrapped in cloth from the day
first tanna, also holds in accordance ְּכצֶ ֶמר נָ ִקי ֶ ּבן יֹומֹו ׁ ֶש ְּמ ַכ ְ ּבנִין אֹותֹו:ֵ ּב ַיבי ַ ּבר ַא ַ ּביֵ י
they were born so that their wool would remain perfectly clean and it
with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. .ְל ֵמ ָילת
In disputes where Rav and Rabbi could be used in fashioning especially fine wool garments. As we learned
Yoĥanan disagree with Shmuel, in a mishna: The color of a leprous sore [se’et] is like that of white wool.
the halakha is ruled in accordance The Gemara asked: What is white wool? Rav Beivai bar Abaye said: Like
with the majority (Rambam Sefer the clean wool of a newborn lamb, which they cover from birth to pro-
Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 20:12; duce fine wool.
Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 305:6).
ֲה ָל ָכה: ַרב ָא ַמר,ית ַמר ְּ ִא. “וְ ָה ִעּזִ ים יֹוצְ אֹות צְ רוּרֹות״Our mishna continues: And the she-goats may go out with their udders
ֵ ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי: ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל ָא ַמר, ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדהbound. Rabbi Yosei prohibits doing so. Rabbi Yehuda distinguishes
h
Language .יֹוסי
Sandy [ĥomton] – חֹומטֹון:
ְ Some between a case where the udders were bound to dry the milk supply and
commentaries state that the proper a case where they were bound to conserve the milk. It was stated that the
reading should be ĥomoton, from amora’im disagreed with regard to the ruling in this dispute: Rav said:
the Greek word ἄμαθος, amathos, The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and
meaning sand or sandy earth. It Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi
also refers to the sand and salts
Yosei.
near the sea.
:יה; ַרב ָא ַמר
ּ יכא דְּ ַמ ְתנֵי ְל ָהא ׁ ְש ַמ ֲע ָתא ְ ּב ַא ּ ֵפי נַ ְפ ׁ ֵש
ָּ וְ ִאAnd there are those who teach this halakha independent of the mishna.
ֶא ָחד זֶ ה: ּו ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ָא ַמר, ְליַ ֵ ּב ׁש מו ָּּתר וְ ל ֹא ֵל ָח ֵלבRav said: If the udders were bound to dry the milk supply it is permitted,
. וְ ֶא ָחד זֶ ה ָאסוּרand not if they were bound to conserve the milk. And Shmuel said: Both
this and that are prohibited.
יַב ׁש
ּ ֵ ִעּזִ ים יֹוצְ אֹות צְ רוּרֹות ְל:יכא דְּ ַמ ְתנֵי ָל ּה ַא ָהא ָּ וְ ִא And there are those who taught this dispute with regard to this baraita:
:ּ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ֶ ּבן ְ ּב ֵת ָירא ָא ְמרו,ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ֵל ָח ֵלב Goats may go out with their udders bound to dry the milk supply but
.יַב ׁש וְ ֵאיזֹו ֵל ָח ֵלב ּ ֵ ֲא ָבל ִמי ֵמ ִפיס ֵאיזֹו ְל,ָּכ ְך ֲה ָל ָכה not to conserve the milk. In the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira they
said: That is the halakha, based on the letter of the law, but who can cast
ָא ַמר.ו ִּמ ּתֹוךְ ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַמ ִּכ ִירים – ֶא ָחד זֶ ה וְ ֶא ָחד זֶ ה ָאסוּר
lots to determine by sight alone which udder is bound to dry the milk
: וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל,ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל supply and which was bound to conserve the milk? And since one can-
ִּכי ֲא ָתא ָר ִבין ָא ַמר.ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ֶ ּבן ְ ּב ֵת ָירא not distinguish between them, the Sages said: Both this and that are
. ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַת ָּנא ַק ָּמא:יֹוחנָן
ָ ַר ִ ּבי prohibited. Shmuel said, and some say Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel
said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda
ben Beteira. In terms of practical halakha, according to all versions of the
disagreement, Shmuel holds that it is prohibited in both cases. When
Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoĥanan
said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the anonymous
first tannan of the mishna. He permits goats to go out with their udders
bound in all cases.
notes
The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the first mentioned here is the first tanna of the baraita cited above, saddlecloth can be tied to both its tail and hump. The precise
tanna – ה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַת ָּנא ַק ָּמא:ֲ According to Rashi, there are three who agrees with Rabbi Yehuda. nature of this metultelet, which is translated as saddlecloth,
opinions in the matter: Rav holds in accordance with the opin- is not clear. Some commentaries maintain that it is a cloth
ion of Rabbi Yehuda and permits binding the udders in some A camel with a saddlecloth – ָ ּג ָּמל ִ ּב ְמטו ְּל ֶט ֶלת: Apparently, other hanging from the camel’s tail as an identifying mark or a talis-
cases. Shmuel prohibits doing so in all cases. Rabbi Yoĥanan, animals as well may not go out with a saddlecloth. However, man (Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishna). Others explain
adopting the opinion of the anonymous first tanna, permits this halakha was taught with regard to a camel because there that it is a pillow under its tail (Me’iri). Yet others hold that it is
doing so in all cases. According to Rav Hai Gaon, the first tanna is a special halakha that applies uniquely to a camel, i.e., the a saddlecloth used exclusively for camels (Rashi and others).
notes
Similar to Isaac, son of Abraham – כיִ צְ ָחק ֶ ּבן ַא ְב ָר ָהם:ְּ This anal- other, and pull them like a caravan on Shabbat. However, if he
ogy is based on the fact that the Hebrew root akad appears only holds the bits of several camels together, it is permitted. How-
in the context of the binding of Isaac [akeda]. That is the source ever, some authorities rule that leading more than one animal
for the meaning of akud, bound. The specific manner of bind- at a time is always prohibited. According to that understanding,
ing sacrifices (see Rashi) is derived from the binding of Isaac. when the Gemara speaks of placing the rope in his hands, it is
One may not tie camels – וְ ל ֹא יִ ְק ׁשֹור ְ ּג ַמ ִּלים: Most commentaries referring to a rope that connects one bit to another (an opinion
explain that it is prohibited to tie several camels one behind the cited in the Tur).
language
Market [ĥinga] – חינְ ָ ּגא:ִ The majority opinion is that the word festival, while ĥinga indicates the sorrow and pain associated
ĥinga in this context refers to a market. Elsewhere, Rashi inter- with idolatry. In similar fashion, the Sages referred to pagan
prets the term as a long journey. The connotation of a market is festivals as yom eidam, meaning a day of their misfortune (see
based on the custom to hold market days in conjunction with also Rabbeinu Ĥananel). Some commentaries teach that the
pagan holidays when large masses of people would gather. word ĥinga is derived from the word ĥuga, a circle or circuit,
Therefore, it is called ĥinga and not ĥaga because ĥaga means because one who goes to a market walks around (Me’iri).
Perek V
Daf 54 Amud b
halakha
ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶשּיַ גְ ִ ּב ַּיה ִמן ַה ַ ּק ְר ַקע: וְ ָה ַתנְיָאThe Gemara raises an objection: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: This is
A donkey may neither go out with the saddlecloth – ֵאין
חמֹור יֹוצֵ א ַ ּב ַּמ ְרדַּ ַעת:ֲ A donkey may not go out on Shabbat ֶט ַפח! ִּכי ַּתנְיָא ַה ִהיא – ְ ּב ַח ְב ָלא דְּ ֵבינֵיonly permitted provided that he raises the rope one handbreadth
with its saddlecloth unless the saddlecloth was tied to its . ֵ ּבינֵיfrom the ground? Apparently, there is no restriction with regard to
back on Shabbat eve (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot the length of rope that may hang below the person’s hand. The Ge-
Shabbat 20:10; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 305:7). mara answers: When this baraita was taught, it was taught with re-
gard to the length of rope between the camel and the person holding
notes it. That part of the rope may not sag to the ground; rather, it must be
Nor with a strap that is around its leg – וְ ל ֹא ִ ּב ְרצו ָּעה raised at least one handbreadth so that it is clear that the rope is at-
ב ַרגְ לֹו:ּ ְ Some explain that this strap was used to bind the tached to the camel.
MISHNA
fractured hoof of a donkey (ge’onim).
מתני׳ ֵאין ֲחמֹור יֹוצֵ א ַ ּב ַּמ ְרדַּ ַעת This mishna lists additional objects with which
וְ ל ֹא ַ ּבּזוּג,ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְק ׁשו ָּרה לֹו an animal may not go out into the public do-
main on Shabbat: A donkey may neither go out with the saddle-
וְ ל ֹא ְ ּבסו ָּּלם, ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶשהוּא ּ ָפקוּקclothh when it is not tied to its back, nor with a bell even if it is
. וְ ל ֹא ִ ּב ְרצו ָּעה ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ַרגְ לֹו, ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ַצ ָּוארֹוplugged to prevent it from ringing, nor with a ladder that is around
its neck, nor with a strap that is around its leg.n
258 Perek V . 54b . דנ ףד: קרפ ׳ה
notes
וְ ל ֹא ִ ּב ְרצ ּו ָעה,גֹולים יֹוצְ ִאין ְ ּבחו ִּטין ִ ְ וְ ֵאין ַה ַּת ְרנAnd the roosters may not go out with strings and not with a
And the rams may not go out with a small
וְ ֵאין ַהּזְ ָכ ִרים יֹוצְ ִאין ָ ּב ֲעגָ ָלה ׁ ֶש ַּת ַחת.יהם ֶ ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ַרגְ ֵלstrap on their feet, which are tied there as a sign of ownership. wagon under their tails – וְ ֵאין ַהּזְ ָכ ִרים יֹוצְ ִאין
. ָה ַא ְליָ ה ׁ ֶש ָּל ֶהןAnd the rams may not go out with a small wagon under their ב ֲעגָ ָלה ׁ ֶש ַּת ַחת ָה ַא ְליָ ה ׁ ֶש ָּל ֶהן:
ּ ָ In the Jerusalem
tails,n as it was common practice to put a small wagon under the Talmud it is explained that a ram may not go
tails of grown sheep so that the tail would not be injured by drag- out with a wagon because the wagon makes a
ging on the ground. groove in the ground.
Nor may a cow go out with the skin of a
וְ ֵאין ָה ֵעגֶ ל יֹוצֵ א.וְ ֵאין ָה ְר ֵח ִלים יֹוצְ אֹות ֲחנוּנֹות And ewes may not go out ĥanunot, nor may a calf go out with a hedgehog – וְ ל ֹא ּ ָפ ָרה ְ ּבעֹור ַהקו ּ ָּפר: The Jerusalem
וְ ל ֹא ִ ּב ְרצו ָּעה ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבין, וְ ל ֹא ּ ָפ ָרה ְ ּבעֹור ַהקו ּ ָּפר,ַ ּב ִ ּגימֹון gimon,l nor may a cow go out with the skin of a hedgehog Talmud explains that this hedgehog skin was
ּ ָפ ָרתֹו ׁ ֶשל ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֶ ּבן ֲעזַ ְריָה ָהיְ ָתה יֹוצְ ָאה.נֶיה
ָ ַק ְר [kupar],nl nor with a strap between its horns. The mishna relates placed over the cow’s udder to prevent calves
that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya’s cown would go out on Shabbat from suckling. Some commentaries state that
.נֶיה ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִ ּב ְרצֹון ֲח ָכ ִמיםָ ִ ּב ְרצו ָּעה ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבין ַק ְר the hedgehog skin was placed on the legs of the
with a strap between its horns, contrary to the will of the Sages.
cow, so that when the animal stands in shallow
יָ ֵתיב ַרב ַא ָחא ַ ּבר.“וְ ֵאין ָה ְר ֵח ִלים יֹוצְ אֹות ֲחנוּנֹות״ The mishna teaches: And ewes may not go out ĥanunot. The
ִמ ׁ ּ ָש ָעה: וְ יָ ֵתיב וְ ָק ָא ַמר,יה דְּ ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א ּ עו ָּּלא ַק ֵּמ Gemara relates that Rav Aĥa bar Ulla sat before Rav Ĥisda and
ִיחין ָל ּה ִ ו ַּמ ּנ,טֹומנִין ָל ּה ֶעזֶ ק ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶמן
ְ אֹות ּה ָ ׁ ֶשגּ ֹוזְ זִ ין he sat and he said: From when they shear the wool off the animal,
they soak a soft swatch of wool or some other material in oil and
:יה ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א ּ ֲא ַמר ֵל.ַעל ּ ַפדַּ ְח ָּת ּה ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִּתצְ ַט ּנֵן place it on the animal’s forehead so that it will not catch cold
!ית ּה ָמר עו ְּק ָבא ָ ִאם ֵּכן ֲע ִ ׂש until its wool grows back. Ĥanunot refers to animals with those
swatches. Rav Ĥisda said to him: If so, you turned the animal
into the Exilarch, Mar Ukva. That is treatment fit for him, not for
a shorn sheep.
יה דְּ ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א ּ ֶא ָּלא יָ ֵתיב ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא ַ ּבר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַק ֵּמ Rather, Rav Pappa bar Shmuel sat before Rav Ĥisda, and he sat
טֹומנִין ָל ּהְ ְ ּב ׁ ָש ָעה ׁ ֶש ּכ ַֹור ַעת ֵל ֵילד:וְ יָ ֵתיב וְ ָק ָא ַמר and he said: At the time that the animal crouches to give birth,
ִיחין ָל ּה ֶא ָחד ַעל ּ ַפדַּ ְח ָּת ּה
ִ ו ַּמ ּנ,ׁ ְשנֵי ֲעזָ ִקין ׁ ֶשל ׁ ֶש ֶמן those tending to the animal soak two swatches of wool in oil, and
place one on the animal’s forehead and the other on its womb
: ֲא ַמר ֵל ּיה ַרב נַ ְח ָמן.וְ ֶא ָחד ַעל ָה ֶר ֶחם ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶש ִּת ְת ַח ֵּמם
so that it will be warmed. Ĥanunot refers to animals with those
!ית ּה יַ ְל ָּתאָ ִאם ֵּכן ֲע ִ ׂש swatches. Rav Naĥman said to him: If so, you turned the animal
into Yalta, my wife, who descended from the house of the Exilarch.
That is treatment fit for her, not for an animal.
דנ ףד: ׳ה קרפ. Perek V . 54b 259
notes
ֵעץ ֶא ָחד יֵ ׁש ִ ּב ְכ ַר ֵּכי:ֶא ָּלא ֲא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א Rather, Rav Huna said: There is a certain tree in the cities on the sea
And a calf may not go out with a gimon – וְ ֵאין shore, and ĥanun is its name. Those tending to the animal bring a wood
ה ֵעגֶ ל יֹוצֵ א ַ ּב ִ ּגימֹון:ָ Gimon is a kind of board. In ִיחין ָל ּה ִ יסם ו ַּמ ּנ
ָ יאין ִק ִ ו ְּמ ִב,ַהּיָ ם וְ ָחנוּן ׁ ְשמֹו
the Jerusalem Talmud a variant reading is cited, ָ ׁ חֹוט ָמ ּה ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶש ִּת ְת ַע ֵּט ׁש וְ יִ ּ ְפל ּו דַּ ְרנֵי ר
.ֹאש ּה ְ ְ ּב chip from the tree and place it in the animal’s nose so that it will sneeze
gimol, which is a rod placed on the calf to pre- and the worms on its head will fall. The Gemara asks: If so, not only
ִאי ָה ִכי זְ ָכ ִרים נַ ִמי! ֵּכיוָ ן דִּ ְמנַ ְ ּג ִחי זְ ָכ ִרים
vent the calf from raising its head to suckle. It ewes but also rams should be given this treatment. The Gemara answers:
was used in order to wean it. : ׁ ִש ְמעֹון נְ זִ ָירא ָא ַמר. ִמ ֵּמ ָילא נָ ְפ ָלן,ַ ּב ֲה ָד ֵדי Since the rams butt heads with each other, the worms fall in any event.
Wherever this pair of Sages is mentioned – ָּכל
.ית ָמא ְ יס ָמא דְּ ִר ְ ִק Shimon the Nazirite said: Ĥanunot is referring to animals into whose
כי ַהאי זוּגָ א:ִּ The Gemara offers this emendation nose the chip of a broom tree would be placed.
because of a chronological problem: Rabbi
Yoĥanan was much younger than Rav, and there , ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא דְּ ַרב הוּנָ א – ַהיְ ינ ּו דְּ ָק ָתנֵי ֲ‘חנוּנֹות׳The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the explanation of Rav Huna
was an even greater age difference between ַמאי ֲ‘חנוּנֹות׳ – דְּ ָע ְב ִדינַן ְלה ּו, ֶא ָּלא ְל ַר ָ ּבנַןthat it is the chip taken from the ĥanun tree, that is why the mishna
him and Rabbi Ĥanina. Therefore, it is difficult
ְּ ִמteaches the halakha employing the term ĥanunot. However, according
.ּיל ָתא דִּ ְמ ַר ֲח ִמינַן ֲע ַליְ יהו
to imagine that these four Sages sat together to the explanations proposed by the other Sages, what is the reason
establishing halakhot and expounding aggadot. that the mishna employed the term ĥanunot? The Gemara explains:
Because we do something to the animals that indicates that we have
halakha mercy on them; hanunot in the sense of merciful.
And not with a strap that is between its
horns – נֶיה
ָ וְ ל ֹא ִ ּב ְרצו ָּעה ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבין ַק ְר: An animal may ? ַמאי ֵעגֶ ל ַ ּב ִ ּגימֹון.“וְ ֵאין ָה ֵעגֶ ל יֹוצֵ א ַ ּב ִ ּגימֹון״ We learned in the mishna: And a calf may not go out on Shabbat with
not go out on Shabbat with a strap tied be- : ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר.נִירא
ָ ַ ּבר:ֲא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א a gimon.n The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: A calf with a gi-
tween its horns, whether it was for ornamental mon? Rav Huna said: A small yoke is placed on the calf in order to train
purposes or whether it was to secure the animal, – יכף ַּ ישנָ א דְּ ִמְ ׁ ַמאי ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע דְּ ַהאי ִ ּגימֹון ִל
it from an early age to bear a yoke. Rabbi Elazar said: From where is it
in accordance with the opinion of Rav. In dis- .ֹאשֹו״
ׁ “ה ָלכֹוף ְּכ ַאגְ מֹון ר ֲ :דִּ ְכ ִתיב
putes between Rav and Shmuel in ritual matters,
inferred that this term gimon is a term of bending? As it is written:
the halakha is in accordance with the opinion “Is it to bow down his head like a bulrush [agmon]” (Isaiah 58:5).
of Rav (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat There is an etymological similarity between the words gimon and agmon.
20:11; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 305:17).
דְּ ָע ְב ִדי ָל ּה ִּכי ֵה ִיכי. “וְ ל ֹא ּ ָפ ָרה ְ ּבעֹור ַה ּקו ּ ָּפר״The mishna continues: And a cow may not go out on Shabbat with the
Anyone who has the capability to effectively
protest – כל ִמי ׁ ֶש ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ְל ַמחֹות:ָּ One who is in a .אליֵ ָ דְּ ָלא ִל ְמצִ יו ּּה יskin of a hedgehog placed over its udder. The Gemara explains that the
owner does this to the cow so that creeping animals will not suckle
position to protest the sinful behavior of another
and fails to do so is punished for that person’s from it.b
sins (Rambam Sefer HaMadda, Hilkhot Deot 6:7).
ִאי ְל ַרב.נֶיה״ ָ “וְ ל ֹא ִ ּב ְרצ ּו ָעה ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבין ַק ְר It was also taught in the mishna: And not with a strap that is between
ִאי,(דְּ ָא ַמר) – ֵ ּבין ְלנֹוי ֵ ּבין ְל ׁ ַש ֵּמר ָאסוּר its horns.h The Gemara notes: If this is explained according to the
ְל ׁ ַש ֵּמר,ִל ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל (דְּ ָא ַמר) – ְלנֹוי ָאס ּור opinion of Rav, whether the strap was intended as an ornament or
whether it was intended to secure the animal, it is prohibited for the
.מו ָּּתר
cow to go out into the public domain with it. If this is explained accord-
ing to the opinion of Shmuel, if the strap was intended as an ornament,
it is prohibited; if it was intended to secure the animal, it is permitted.
וַ ֲח ָדא ּ ָפ ָרה.“פ ָרתֹו ׁ ֶשל ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֶ ּבן ֲעזַ ְריָה״ָּ The mishna relates that the cow of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya would go
וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה ָא ַמר,יה? וְ ָהא ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ָהוְ יָ א ֵל out on Shabbat with a strap between its horns, contrary to the will of
יסר ַא ְל ֵפי ֶעגְ ֵלי ֲהוָ ה ָ ְּת ֵר:ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ַרב the Sages. The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya have only
one cow? Didn’t Rav say, and some say that Rav Yehuda said that Rav
יה ָּכל ּ ְמ ַע ּ ֵ ׂשר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֶ ּבן ֲעזַ ְריָ ה ֵמ ֶע ְד ֵר said: Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya would tithe from his herds 12,000
!ׁ ַש ָּתא וְ ׁ ַש ָּתא calves each and every year? There were 120, 000 calves born in his herds
annually. There is no way, then, to speak of the cow of Rabbi Elazar ben
Azarya.
ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶשל ׁ ְש ֶכינְ ּתֹו, ל ֹא ׁ ֶש ּלֹו ָהיְ ָתה: ָּתנָ אThe Gemara answers: It was taught in the Tosefta: The cow was not his;
יחה ָ ּב ּה – נִ ְק ֵראת ְ ו ִּמ ּת, ָהיְ ָתהrather, it was his neighbor’s. And because he did not protest her
ָ ֹוך ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ִמ
. ַעל ׁ ְשמֹוconduct and tell her that doing so is prohibited the cow was called by
his name to his discredit, as if it were his.
,ּיֹוחנָן וְ ַרב ֲח ִב ָיבא ַמ ְתנו ָ ַרב וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א וְ ַר ִ ּבי It was related that Rav, and Rabbi Ĥanina, and Rabbi Yoĥanan, and
ָּכל ִּכי ַהאי זוּגָ א ֲחלו ֵּפי,מֹועד ֵ יה דְּ ֵס ֶדר ּ ְ ּבכו ֵּּל Rav Ĥaviva taught the statement cited below. The Gemara comments:
ָּכל ִמי ׁ ֶש ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר.יֹוחנָן ו ְּמ ַעּיֵ יל ַר ִ ּבי יֹונָ ָתןָ ַר ִ ּבי Throughout the order of Moed, wherever this pair of Sages is
mentioned,n exchange Rabbi Yoĥanan and insert Rabbi Yonatan in
יחה – נִ ְת ּ ָפס ָ נְשי ֵביתֹו וְ ל ֹא ִמ ֵ ׁ ְל ַמחֹות ְל ַא
his place. In any event, they said: Anyone who had the capability to
נְשי ִעירֹו – נִ ְת ּ ָפס ַעל ֵ ׁ ְ ּב ַא,נְשי ֵביתֹו ֵ ׁ ַעל ַא effectively protesth the sinful conduct of the members of his house-
עֹולם ּכוּלּ ֹו – נִ ְת ּ ָפס ַעל ָ ְ ּב ָכל ָה,נְשי ִעירֹו ֵ ׁ ַא hold and did not protest, he himself is apprehended for the sins of the
.עֹולם ּכוּלּ ֹוָ ָּכל ָה members of his household and punished. If he is in a position to
protest the sinful conduct of the people of his town, and he fails to do
so, he is apprehended for the sins of the people of his town. If he is in
a position to protest the sinful conduct of the whole world, and he fails
to do so, he is apprehended for the sins of the whole world.
background
So that creeping animals will not suckle from it – אליֵ ָדְּ ָלא ִל ְמצִ יו ּּה י: goats and cows. Rats may also try to lick the milk from the udder or
The identity of the creeping animals in this context is not clear (see to gnaw at the udder. Because of all these pests, it was common
the Tosafot). Some commentaries maintain that the reference is to practice to wrap a cow’s udder with hedgehog skin so the quills
a type of lizard, which in certain places was thought to suckle from would keep them away.
Perek V
Daf 55 Amud a
notes
ַעל זְ ֵקנִים ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא:ימא
ָ ֵא, זְ ֵקנִים ֶמה ָח ְטאוּ? ֶא ָּלאwhat did the Elders, i.e., the Sages of that generation, do that was
The superior of your superior will be punished
. ִמיח ּו ַ ּב ּ ָ ׂש ִריםconsidered a sin? Rather, say: God will enter into judgment with in hot water – ימי
ֵ יך ְ ּב ַח ִמ
ְ יש
ָ ׁ ישא דְּ ֵר
ָ ׁ ר:ֵ Apparently,
the Elders because they did not protest the sinful conduct of the Shmuel referred to boiling water based on the
princes. verse, which describes punishment through heat:
“Lest My fury issue forth like fire” (Jeremiah 4:4).
ֲא ַתאי,יה דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ּ ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ֲהוָ ה יָ ֵתיב ַק ֵּמ The Gemara relates: Rav Yehuda was sitting before Shmuel when He said that he would not be scalded like Mar
וְ ָלא ֲהוָ ה,יה ּ וחה ַק ֵּמ ָ ְית ָתא ָקא צָ ו ְּ ַה ִהיא ִא this woman came and cried before Shmuel about an injustice that Ukva, who served as head of the court (Maharsha,
“אֹוטם
ֵ יה ָמר ּ ָלא ָס ַבר ֵל:יה ּ ֲא ַמר ֵל.ַמ ׁ ְשגַ ח ָ ּב ּה had been committed against her, and Shmuel paid no attention to Ĥokhmat Mano’aĥ).
her. Rav Yehuda said to Shmuel: Doesn’t the Master hold in ac-
?ָאזְ נֹו ִמּזַ ֲע ַקת דָּ ל ַ ּגם הוּא יִ ְק ָרא וְ ל ֹא יֵ ָענֶ ה״ Never did a promise manifesting a good attri-
cordance with the verse: “Whoever stops his ears at the cry of the bute emerge from the mouth of the Holy One,
ְישיך ָ ׁ ישא דְּ ֵרָ ׁ ֵר,ישךְ ְ ּב ַק ִר ֵירי
ָ ׁ ֵר, ׁ ִש ָּיננָא:ֲא ַמר ֵל ּיה poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard” (Proverbs Blessed be He, and He later retracted it and
.ימי; ָהא יָ ֵתיב ָמר עו ְּק ָבא ַאב ֵ ּבית דִּ ין ֵ ְ ּב ַח ִמ 21:13)? He said to him: Big-toothed one, your superior, i.e., I, your rendered it evil – טֹובה ִמ ּ ִפי ָ עֹולם ל ֹא יָ צְ ָתה ִמדָּ ה
ָ ֵמ
teacher, will be punished in cold water. The superior of your su- ׁ ה ָ ּק:ַ This assertion, which
דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא וְ ָחזַ ר ָ ּב ּה ְל ָר ָעה
perior will be punished in hot water.n Mar Ukva, who sits as is cited incidentally in this context, is discussed in
president of the court, is responsible for those matters. greater detail in other sources. It is extremely sig-
nificant, particularly with regard to the Rambam’s
“בית דָּ וִ ד ּכֹה ָא ַמר ה׳ דִּ ינ ּו ַל ּב ֶֹקר ּ ֵ :דִּ ְכ ִתיב And from where is it derived that this responsibility is incumbent ruling with regard to the credibility of prophecy.
upon the house of the Exilarch? As it is written: “House of David, Because God never retracts a favorable promise,
עֹושק ּ ֶפן ֵּתצֵ א ָכ ֵא ׁש
ֵ ׁ ִמ ׁ ְש ּ ָפט וְ ַה ִ ּציל ּו גָ זוּל ִמּיַ ד although He may retract an unfavorable promise,
יהםֶ רֹוע ַמ ַע ְל ֵלַ ֲח ָמ ִתי ו ָּב ֲע ָרה וְ ֵאין ְמ ַכ ֶ ּבה ִמ ּ ְפנֵי so says the Lord: Execute judgment in the morning, and deliver the legitimacy of a prophet can only be tested if
him that is robbed out of the hand of the oppressor, lest My fury he prophesied about a favorable outcome. The
.וגו׳״
go forth like fire, and burn so that none can quench it because of realization of that prophecy or the lack thereof
the evil of your doings” ( Jeremiah 21:12). The Exilarch is a direct confirms or denies his legitimacy (see Jeremiah
descendant of the house of David. 28, especially verses 7–9).
A tav of ink…a tav of blood – יֹו…תו ׁ ֶשל
ָּ ְָּּתו ׁ ֶשל ד
לֹוכ ִחינְ ה ּו ָמר
ְ :יה ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא ְל ַר ִ ּבי ִסימֹון
ּ ֲא ַמר ֵל With regard to the issue of reprimand, it was related that Rabbi
דָּ ם: Those who were not marked with any tav at
ָלא ְמ ַק ְ ּב ִלי:יה
ּ לֵ ר מַ א
ֲ .א ּת
ָ ו ל ּ
ג ָ יש
ׁ רֵ י ְל ָהנֵי דְּ ֵב Zeira said to Rabbi Simon: Let the Master reprimand the mem- all were the middling ones. On the one hand, they
– ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ָלא ְמ ַק ְ ּב ִלי:יה ּ ֲא ַמר ֵל.ִמ ָּינ ִאי bers of the house of the Exilarch, as Rabbi Simon had some influ- were not sentenced to total, immediate destruc-
ence over them. Rabbi Simon said to him: They will not accept tion, but neither were they saved.
,לֹוכ ִחינְ ה ּו ָמר
ְ
reprimand from me. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Let my master rep- How are these different from those – ַמה ּנ ׁ ְִש ַּת ָּנה
rimand them even if they do not accept it. א ּל ּו ֵמ ֵא ּל ּו:
ֵ The full-fledged righteous individuals
in each generation are assessed relative to the
עֹולם ל ֹא יָ צְ ָתה ָ ֵמ:ְ ּד ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָחא ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָא As Rabbi Aĥa, son of Rabbi Ĥanina, said: Never did a promise standards and actions of their own generation.
דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא וְ ָחזַ ר ָ ּב ּה ׁ טֹובה ִמ ּ ִפי ַה ָ ּק
ָ ִמדָּ ה manifesting a good attribute emerge from the mouth of the Holy Therefore, since these righteous people are not
ֹאמר ה׳ ֵא ָליו ֶ “וַ ּי: דִּ ְכ ִתיב,ְל ָר ָעה חוּץ ִמדָּ ָבר זֶ ה One, Blessed be He, and He later retracted it and rendered it evil,n perfect, by what merit should they be saved? They
except with regard to this matter, as it is written: “And the Lord did not tend to the spiritual well-being of their
ית ָּתו ָ ֲִעבֹור ְ ּבתֹוךְ ָה ִעיר ְ ּבתֹוךְ יְ רו ׁ ָּש ַליִ ם וְ ִה ְתו
said to him: Go through the midst of the city, through the midst contemporaries (Iyyun Ya’akov).
נָשים ַה ֶּנ ֱאנָ ִחים וְ ַה ֶּנ ֱאנָ ִקים ַעל ִ ׁ ַעל ִמצְ חֹות ָה ֲא of Jerusalem, and set a mark [tav] upon the foreheads of the men
.תֹוכ ּה וגו׳״
ָ ֹועבֹות ַה ּנ ֲַע ׂשֹות ְ ּב ֵ ָּכל ַה ּת that sigh and that cry on account of all the abominations that are
done in her midst” (Ezekiel 9:4).
ֵל ְך:יאל ֵ דֹוש ָ ּברו ְּך הוּא ְלגַ ְב ִר ׁ יה ַה ָ ּק ּ ֲא ַמר ֵל The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the angel Gabriel: Go and
ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא,ו ְּר ׁשֹום ַעל ִמצְ ָחן ׁ ֶשל צַ דִּ ִיקים ָּתיו ׁ ֶשל דְּ יֹו inscribe a tav of ink on the foreheads of the righteous as a sign so
וְ ַעל ִמצְ ָחם ׁ ֶשל.יִ ׁ ְש ְלט ּו ָ ּב ֶהם ַמ ְל ֲא ֵכי ַח ָ ּב ָלה that the angels of destruction will not have dominion over them.
And inscribe a tav of bloodn on the foreheads of the wicked as a
ְר ׁ ָש ִעים ָּתיו ׁ ֶשל דָּ ם ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶשּיִ ׁ ְש ְלט ּו ָ ּב ֶהן ַמ ְל ֲא ֵכי
sign so that the angels of destruction will have dominion over
.ַח ָ ּב ָלה them.
:דֹוש ָ ּברו ְּך הוּא ׁ ָא ְמ ָרה ִמדַּ ת ַהדִּ ין ִל ְפנֵי ַה ָ ּק The attribute of justice said before the Holy One, Blessed be He:
ַמה ּנ ׁ ְִש ַּתנּ ּו ֵאלּ ּו ֵמ ֵאלּ וּ? ָא ַמר,עֹולם
ָ ִר ּבֹונֹו ׁ ֶשל Master of the Universe, how are these different from those?n He
וְ ַה ָּלל ּו ְר ׁ ָש ִעים,יקים ְ ּגמו ִּרים ִ ִּ ַה ָּלל ּו צַ ד:ָל ּה said to that attribute: These are full-fledged righteous people and
those are full-fledged wicked people. The attribute of justice said
ָהיָ ה,עֹולםָ ִר ּבֹונֹו ׁ ֶשל: ָא ְמ ָרה ְל ָפנָיו.ְ ּגמו ִּרים
to Him: Master of the Universe, it was in the hands of the righteous
!ְּ ּביָ ָדם ְל ַמחֹות וְ ל ֹא ִמיחו to protest the conduct of the wicked, and they did not protest.
הנ ףד. ׳ה קרפ. Perek V . 55a 261
notes
– ׁ ֶש ִאם ִמיח ּו ָ ּב ֶהם, ָ ּגלוּי וְ יָ דו ַּע ְל ָפנַי: ָא ַמר ָל ּהHe said to that attribute: It is revealed and known before Me
And what is different about the letter tav – ו ַּמאי
שנָ א ָּתיו:
ְ ׁ It is clear from the Gemara that the letter tav ,עֹולם
ָ ִר ּבֹונֹו ׁ ֶשל:(א ַמר) ְל ָפנָיו ָ . ל ֹא יְ ַק ְ ּבל ּו ֵמ ֶהםthat even had they protested the conduct of the wicked, they
can be interpreted as representing several different ? ִאם ְל ָפנֶיךָ ָ ּגלוּי – ָל ֶהם ִמי ָ ּגלוּיwould not have accepted the reprimand from them. They would
concepts, including life or death. Therefore, it was have continued in their wicked ways. The attribute of justice said
necessary to mark the righteous with a tav written before Him: Master of the Universe, if it is revealed before You
in ink and to mark the wicked with a tav written in that their reprimand would have been ineffective, is it revealed to
blood. Had only one of the groups been marked, the them? The Holy One, Blessed be He, retracted His promise to
significance of the markings may have been misun- protect the righteous and decided that those who failed to protest
derstood as, at times, the righteous are held liable for
would also be punished.
the sins of the generation and the wicked are saved
due to the merit of the righteous. The command, נָשים ִ ׁ ְ “זָ ֵקן ָ ּבחוּר ו ְּבתו ָּלה ַטף ו:וְ ַהיְ ינ ּו דִּ ְכ ִתיב And that is the meaning of that which is written: “Slay utterly
therefore, was to mark each group in a manner that
ַּת ַה ְרג ּו ְל ַמ ׁ ְש ִחית וְ ַעל ָּכל ִא ׁיש ֲא ׁ ֶשר ָע ָליו ַה ָּתו old and young, both maid, and little children, and women; but
would make its fate clear (Iyyun Yaakov).
“וַ ּיָ ֵח ּל ּו: ו ְּכ ִתיב,ַאל ִּת ַ ּג ׁש ּו ו ִּמ ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁ ִשי ָּת ֵח ּלוּ״ come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at
The seal of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is truth My Sanctuary” (Ezekiel 9:6). And it is written in that same verse:
ׁ חֹותמֹו ׁ ֶשל ַה ָ ּק:
[emet] – דֹוש ָ ּברו ְּך הוּא ֱא ֶמת ָ In the Jeru- ָּתנֵי ַרב.נָשים ַהּזְ ֵקנִים ֲא ׁ ֶשר ִל ְפנֵי ַה ָ ּביִ ת״ ִ ׁ ָ ּב ֲא
“Then they began with the elderly men who were before the
salem Talmud it is explained that since the letters that ַאל ִּת ְק ִרי ִ‘מ ְקדָּ ׁ ִשי׳ ֶא ָּלא ְ‘מקוּדָּ ׁ ַשי׳ – ֵאלּ ּו:יֹוסף ֵ house.” Rav Yosef taught: Read not: My Sanctuary [mikdashi],
comprise the word emet, alef, mem, and tav, are the
first, middle, and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet,
ְ ּבנֵי ָא ָדם ׁ ֶש ִּקּיְ מ ּו ֶאת ַה ּת ָֹורה ֻּכ ָּל ּה ֵמ ָא ֶלף וְ ַעד rather: Those sanctified to Me [mekudashai]. These are people
the word alludes to the idea that “I am the first and I נָשים ָ ּב ִאים ִמדֶּ ֶר ְך ִ ׁ ו ִּמּיָ ד “וְ ִה ֵּנה ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה ֲא.ָּתיו who observed the whole Torah in its entirety from alef through
am the last” (Isaiah 44:6), and “I, the Lord, am the first, ׁ ַש ַער ָה ֶע ְליֹון ֲא ׁ ֶשר ָמ ְפנֶ ה צָ פֹונָ ה וְ ִא ׁיש ְּכ ִלי tav. And immediately: “And, behold, six men came from the
and with the last I am the same” (Isaiah 41:4).
תֹוכם ָל ֻב ׁש ַה ַ ּבדִּ ים ָ ַמ ּ ָפצֹו ְ ּביָ דֹו וְ ִא ׁיש ֶא ָחד ְ ּב way of the higher gate, which lies toward the north, and every
man with his weapon of destruction in his hand; and one man
ֹופר ְ ּב ָמ ְתנָיו וַ ּיָ בֹא ּו וַ ּיַ ַע ְמד ּו ֵאצֶ ל ֵ וְ ֶק ֶסת ַה ּס
among them was clothed in linen, with a writer’s inkwell by his
.חֹושת״ֶ ׁ ִמזְ ַ ּבח ַה ְּנ side; and they went in and stood beside the bronze altar”
(Ezekiel 9:2).
ׁ חֹושת ִמי ֲהוָ ה? ָא ַמר ְלה ּו ַה ָ ּק
דֹוש ֶ ׁ ִמזְ ַ ּבח ַה ְּנ The Gemara asks: Was there a bronze altar in the Temple in the
אֹומ ִרים ׁ ִש ָירהְ ַה ְת ִחיל ּו ִמ ָּמקֹום ׁ ֶש:ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא time of Ezekiel? Already in the days of Solomon there was only a
נָשים״? ֲא ַמר ַרב ִ ׁ “ש ׁ ּ ָשה ֲא
ִ ׁ ו ַּמאן נִינְ ה ּו.ְל ָפנַי stone altar. Rather, this should be understood as a figure of speech.
The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them: Begin from the
ו ְּמ ׁ ַש ֵ ּבר, ו ַּמ ׁ ְש ִחית,ימה
ָ וְ ֵח, ַאף, ֶקצֶ ף:ִח ְסדָּ א
place where they recite songs of praise before Me. This is a refer-
.ו ְּמ ַכ ֶּלה ence to the Levites in the Temple whose musical instruments are
made of bronze. And who are the six men mentioned here? Rav
Ĥisda said: Fury, Wrath, and Rage, and Destroyer, and Breaker,
and Annihilator, six angels of destruction.
– ָּתיו, ָּתיו – ִּת ְחיֶ ה: ו ַּמאי ׁ ְשנָ א ָּתיו? ָא ַמר ַרבThe Gemara asks further: And what is different about the letter
וְ ַר ִ ּבי. ַּת ָּמה זְ כוּת ָאבֹות: ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל ָא ַמר. ָּתמוּתtav, that it was inscribed on the foreheads of the righteous? Rav
n
. ָּתחֹון זְ כוּת ָאבֹות:יֹוחנָן ָא ַמר ָ said: Tav is the first letter of the word tiĥye, you shall live, indicat-
ing that the righteous shall live. Tav is also the first letter of the word
tamut, you shall die, indicating that the wicked shall die. And
Shmuel said: The letter tav is the first letter of the word tama,
ceased, indicating that the merit of the Patriarchs has ceased and
will not help the wicked. Rabbi Yoĥanan said: The letter tav is the
first letter of the word taĥon, will have mercy, indicating that due to
the merit of the Patriarchs God will have mercy on the righteous.
ׁ חֹותמֹו ׁ ֶשל ַה ָ ּק
דֹוש ָ ָּתיו – סֹוף:וְ ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש ָא ַמר And Reish Lakish said: The letter tav is the last letter of the seal
חֹותמֹו ׁ ֶשל
ָ :ָ ּברו ְּך הוּא; דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א of the Holy One, Blessed be He, as Rabbi Ĥanina said: The seal
(א ַמר) ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאלָ .דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא ֱא ֶמת ׁ ַה ָ ּק of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is truth [emet],n which ends
with the letter tav. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naĥmani said: The letter
ֵאלּ ּו ְ ּבנֵי ָא ָדם ׁ ֶש ִּקּיְ מ ּו ֶאת ַה ּת ָֹורה:ַ ּבר נַ ְח ָמנִי
tav teaches that these are people who observed the entire Torah
.ֻּכ ָּל ּה ֵמ ָא ֶלף וְ ַעד ָּתיו from alef through tav.
ִמימֹות:ימ ַתי ַּת ָּמה זְ כוּת ָאבֹות? ָא ַמר ַרב ָ ֵמ ֵאWith regard to the statement that the merit of the Patriarchs has
“אגַ ֶּלה ֶאת נַ ְב ֻל ָת ּה ֲ : ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ְ ּב ֵא ִרי
ֵׁ ceased, the Gemara asks: From when did the merit of the Patri-
ָ ְל ֵעינֵי ְמ ַא ֲה ֶבarchs cease? Rav said: From the days of the prophet Hosea, son
.יה וְ ִא ׁיש ל ֹא יַ ִ ּצ ֶיל ָּנה ִמּיָ ִדי״
of Beeri, as it is stated: “And now I will uncover her lewdness
in the sight of her lovers, and none shall deliver her out of My
hand” (Hosea 2:12). Israel will no longer be saved by the merit of
the Patriarchs.
“וַ ֲחזָ ֵאל: ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,ימי ֲחזָ ֵאל ֵ ִמ:ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל ָא ַמר And Shmuel said: The merit of the Patriarchs ceased since the
הֹוא ָחז״
ָ ְֶמ ֶלךְ ֲא ָרם ָל ַחץ ֶאת יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ּכֹל יְ ֵמי י days of Hazael, as it is stated: “And Hazael, king of Aram, op-
יהםֶ אֹותם וַ יְ ַר ֲח ֵמם וַ ּיִ ֶפן ֲא ֵל
ָ “וַ ּיָ ָחן ה׳:ו ְּכ ִתיב pressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz” (II Kings 13:22). And it
is written there: “And the Lord was gracious to them, and had
ְל ַמ ַען ְ ּב ִריתֹו ֶאת ַא ְב ָר ָהם יִ צְ ָחק וְ יַ ֲעקֹב וְ ל ֹא
compassion on them, and turned toward them because of His
יכם ֵמ ַעל ּ ָפנָיו ַעד ָ יתם וְ ל ֹא ִה ׁ ְש ִל
ָ ָא ָבה ַה ׁ ְש ִח covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and would not de-
.ָע ָּתה״ stroy them; neither has He till now cast them away from His
presence” (II Kings 13:23). That was the last time that the merit
of the Patriarchs was mentioned.
262 Perek V . 55a . הנ ףד. קרפ ׳ה
notes
,ּימי ֵא ִלּיָ הו ֵ ִמ:הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י ָא ַמר ֻ ׁ ְַר ִ ּבי י Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The merit of the Patriarchs
ceased since the days of Elijah the Prophet, as it is stated: “And There is no death without sin – אין ִמ ָיתה ְ ּבל ֹא ֵח ְטא:
ֵ The
“וַ יְ ִהי ַ ּב ֲעלֹות ַה ִּמנְ ָחה וַ ּיִ ַ ּג ׁש:ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר proof of this principle is as follows: If a person does not
ֹאמר ה׳ ֱאל ֵֹהי ַא ְב ָר ָהם ַ ֵא ִלּיָ ה ּו ַה ָּנ ִביא וַ ּי it came to pass at the time of the evening sacrifice, that Elijah receive the death penalty for the sins of his own father, he
the Prophet came near and said, Lord, God of Abraham, Isaac, will certainly not receive the death penalty for the sin of
יִש ָר ֵאל ַהּיֹום יִ ָ ּו ַדע ִּכי ַא ָּתה ֱאל ִֹהים ׂ ְ ְיִ צְ ָחק ו
and Israel, let it be known this day that you are God in Israel, Adam (Penei Yehoshua).
][את ֵ יִש ָר ֵאל וַ ֲאנִי ַע ְבדֶּ ךָ ו ִּב ְד ָב ְרךָ ָע ִ ׂש ִיתי
ׂ ְ ְ ּב and that I am Your servant, and that I have done all these things
.ָּכל ַהדְּ ָב ִרים ָה ֵא ֶּלה וגו׳״ at Your word” (I Kings 18:36). By inference: Let it be known this
day and not afterward because the merit of the Patriarchs will
cease today.
“ה ֶּנ ֶפ ׁשַ :יתה ְ ּבל ֹא ֵח ְטא – דִּ ְכ ִתיב ָ ֵאין ִמ The Gemara adduces proof to these assertions: There is no death
חֹוטאת ִהיא ָּתמוּת ֵ ּבן ל ֹא יִ ּ ָ ׂשא ַ ּב ֲע�ֹון ֵ ַה without sin,n as it is written: “The soul that sins, it shall die. The
צִ ְד ַקת,ָה ָאב וְ ָאב ל ֹא יִ ּ ָ ׂשא ַ ּב ֲע�ֹון ַה ֵ ּבן son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the
father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the
ַה ַ ּצדִּ יק ָע ָליו ִּת ְהיֶ ה וְ ִר ׁ ְש ַעת ָה ָר ׁ ָשע ָע ָליו
righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked
: ֵאין יִ ּסו ִּרין ְ ּבל ֹא ָע�ֹון דִּ ְכ ִתיב.ִּת ְהיֶ ה וגו׳״ shall be upon him” (Ezekiel 18:20). A person dies only because
.“ו ָּפ ַק ְד ִּתי ְב ׁ ֵש ֶבט ּ ִפ ׁ ְש ָעם ו ִּבנְ גָ ִעים ֲע�ֹונָ ם״ of his own sins and not because of some preexistent sin. And there
is no suffering without iniquity, as it is written: “Then I will
punish their transgression with the rod and their iniquity with
strokes” (Psalms 89:33).
Perek V
Daf 55 Amud b
ַר ִ ּבי, דְּ ַתנְיָא,הוּא דְּ ָא ַמר – ִּכי ַהאי ַּת ָּנא The Gemara answers: Rav Ami stated his position in accordance
ַאף מ ׁ ֶֹשה וְ ַא ֲהרֹן:אֹומר ֵ ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר with this tanna, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben
“יַ ַען ל ֹא ֶה ֱא ַמנְ ֶּתם: ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,ְּ ּב ֶח ְט ָאם ֵמתו Elazar said: Even Moses and Aaron died due to their sin, as it
is stated: “And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron: Because you
ִ ּבי״ ָהא ֶה ֱא ַמנְ ֶּתם ִ ּבי – ֲע ַדיִ ן ל ֹא ִה ִ ּג ַיע
did not believe in Me, to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children
.עֹולם
ָ זְ ַמנְ ֶכם ִל ּ ָיפ ֵטר ִמן ָה of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this congregation in to the
land which I have given them” (Numbers 20:12). Had you be-
lieved in Me and spoken to the rock as commanded, your time
would not yet have come to leave the world. Apparently, even
Moses and Aaron died due to their sins.
הנ ףד: ׳ה קרפ. Perek V . 55b 263
notes
וְ ֵאלּ ּו, ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ֵמת ּו ְ ּב ֶע ְטיֹו ׁ ֶשל נָ ָח ׁש:ֵמ ִית ֵיבי The Gemara raises an objection from what was taught in the follow-
Due to Adam’s sin with the serpent – ְ ּב ֶע ְטיֹו ׁ ֶשל ing baraita: Four people died due to Adam’s sin with the serpent,n
נָ ָח ׁש: Some commentaries interpret the word etyo וְ יִ ׁ ַשי, וְ ַע ְמ ָרם ֲא ִבי מ ׁ ֶֹשה, ִ ּבנְיָ ִמין ֶ ּבן יַ ֲעקֹב:ֵהן
in this context as its pen [eto], meaning: This de- ְל ַבר, וְ כו ְּלה ּו ְ ּג ָמ ָרא. וְ ִכ ְל ָאב ֶ ּבן דָּ וִ ד,ֲא ִבי דָּ וִ ד in the wake of which death was decreed upon all of mankind, although
cree that people will die was written from the time they themselves were free of sin. And they are: Benjamin, son of
: דִּ ְכ ִתיב,ִמּיִ ׁ ַשי ֲא ִבי דָּ וִ ד דִּ ְמ ָפ ֵר ׁש ֵ ּב ּה ְק ָרא
of the serpent (see Genesis 3; Arukh). Jacob; Amram, father of Moses; Yishai, father of David; and Kilab,
יֹואבָ “וְ ֶאת ֲע ָמ ָ ׂשא ָ ׂשם ַא ְב ׁ ָשלֹום ַּת ַחת son of David. And all of them were learned through tradition, except
Abigail – א ִביגַ יִ ל:
ֲ Although in the verse cited in
the Gemara, the name of David’s sister appears
(שר) ַה ָ ּצ ָבא וַ ֲע ָמ ָ ׂשא ֶ ּבן ִא ׁיש ו ׁ ְּשמֹו יִ ְת ָרא ַׂ for Yishai, father of David, with regard to whom there is an ex-
as Abigail, in the verse in II Samuel her name is ַהּיִ ְ ׂש ְר ֵא ִלי ֲא ׁ ֶשר ָ ּבא ֶאל ֲא ִביגַ יִ ל ַ ּבת נָ ָח ׁש plicit verse interpreted homiletically, as it is written: “And Absalom
Abigal. His wife, the widow of Nabal, was named יֹואב״ ָ ֲאחֹות צְ רוּיָ ה ֵאם placed Amasa in charge of the army in place of Joab, and Amasa
Abigail (I Samuel 25). was the son of a man named Ithra the Israelite, who had taken to
Anyone who says that Reuben sinned with Bil- himself Abigailn the daughter of Nahash, sister of Zeruiah, the
hah is nothing other than mistaken – אֹומר ֵ ּכֹל ָה mother of Joab” (II Samuel 17:25).
ֶ ראו ֵּבן ָח ָטא ֵאינֹו ֶא ָּלא:ְ Torah narratives are con-
טֹועה
structed with Divine wisdom, and their purpose is ! וְ ִכי ַ ּבת נָ ָח ׁש ֲהוָ אי? וַ ֲהל ֹא ַ ּבת יִ ׁ ַשי ֲהוָ איThe Gemara asks: And was Abigal the daughter of Nahash? Wasn’t
to impress upon the reader certain Heavenly les- :יהן צְ רוּיָ ה וַ ֲא ִביגָ יִ ל״! ֶא ָּלא ֵ “וְ ַא ְח: דִּ ְכ ִתיבshe the daughter of Yishai, as it is written: “And Yishai begot his
ֶ יֹות
. ַ ּבת ִמי ׁ ֶש ֵּמת ְ ּב ֶע ְטיֹו ׁ ֶשל נָ ָח ׁשfirstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimea the third, Neth-
sons. In some cases, the most fundamental mes-
sage of the narrative cannot be properly related anel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, Ozem the sixth, David the seventh:
through a straightforward presentation, and God and their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail. And the sons of Zeruiah:
employs metaphor so that the story’s moral will be
Abishai, and Joab, and Asahel, three. And Abigail bore Amasa; and
understood. As time passes, if the metaphor is no
longer clear, the lesson may be misinterpreted as the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmaelite” (I Chronicles 2:13–17)?
well; and it is, then, the responsibility of the Sages Apparently, Abigail was the daughter of Yishai. Rather, the verse states
to utilize their expertise in the oral tradition and that Abigail was the daughter of Nahash in order to teach us that she
clarify matters. By synthesizing the simple mean- was the daughter of one who died on account of Adam’s sin with the
ing of the Bible text with the profound interpre- serpent [naĥash], though he himself was free of sin.
tive methodology of the Sages, they arrive at an
understanding that once again reflects the true ימא ַּת ָּנא דְּ ַמ ְל ֲא ֵכי ַה ׁ ּ ָש ֵרת – וְ ָהא ָ ַמ ּנִי? ִא ֵיל The Gemara now clarifies the matter: Who is the tanna of the baraita
lesson of the Torah (Ein Ayah). that states that four people did not die due to their own sins? If you
ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון: ֶא ָּלא ָלאו,יכא מ ׁ ֶֹשה וְ ַא ֲהרֹן ָּ ִא
יֵ ׁש ִמ ָיתה ְ ּבל ֹא: ו ׁ ְּש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה,ֶ ּבן ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ִהיא say that it is the tanna who taught the conversation between the
ministering angels and God, it is difficult, as weren’t there also
ו ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא דְּ ַרב, וְ יֵ ׁש יִ ּסו ִּרין ְ ּבל ֹא ָע�ֹון,ֵח ְטא
Moses and Aaron who did not die due to their own sins? Rather, it
.ַא ִמי – ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא must be Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who holds that even Moses and
Aaron died because of their own sins. Learn from it then that, in
principle, he agrees that there is death without sin and there is suf-
fering without iniquity, and this is a conclusive refutation of the
opinion of Rav Ami. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclu-
sive refutation.
:ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר נַ ֲח ָמנִי ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יֹונָ ָתן Having mentioned the sins of some of the significant ancestors of the
אֹומר ְ“ראו ֵּבן ָח ָטא״ – ֵאינֹו ֶא ָּלא ֵ ּכֹל ָה Jewish people, the Gemara now addresses several additional ancestors.
“וַ ּיִ ְהי ּו ְבנֵי יַ ֲעקֹב ׁ ְשנֵים ָע ָ ׂשר״: ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,טֹועה
ֶ Rabbi Shmuel bar Naĥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone
who says that Reuben sinned with Bilhah is nothing other than
ֶא ָּלא ָמה ֲאנִי.ְמ ַל ֵּמד ׁ ֶש ּכו ָּּלן ׁ ְשקו ִּלים ְּכ ַא ַחת
mistaken,n as it is stated: “And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in
– “וַ ּיִ ׁ ְש ַּכב ֶאת ִ ּב ְל ָהה ּ ִפ ֶילגֶ ׁש ָא ִביו״:ְמ ַקּיֵ ים that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine;
ו ַּמ ֲע ֶלה ָע ָליו,ְמ ַל ֵּמד ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ְל ֵ ּבל ַמ ָ ּצעֹו ׁ ֶשל ָא ִביו and Israel heard of it. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve” (Genesis
.ַה ָּכתוּב ְּכ ִאילּ ּו ׁ ָש ַכב ִע ָּמה 35:22). The fact that the Torah stated the number of Jacob’s sons at
that point in the narrative teaches that, even after the incident involv-
ing Bilhah, all of the brothers were equal in righteousness. Appar-
ently, Reuben did not sin. How then do I establish the meaning of
the verse: “And he lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine”? The plain
understanding of the verse indicates sin. This verse teaches that
Reuben rearranged his father’s bed in protest of Jacob’s placement
of his bed in the tent of Bilhah and not in the tent of his mother Leah
after the death of Rachel. And the verse ascribes to him liability for
his action as if he had actually lain with Bilhah.
מוּצָ ל:אֹומר ֵ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר,ַּתנְיָא It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: This
וְ ל ֹא ָ ּבא ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה,אֹותֹו צַ דִּ יק ֵמאֹותֹו ָע�ֹון righteous person, Reuben, was saved from that sin of adultery, and
ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ָע ִתיד זַ ְרעֹו ַל ֲעמֹוד ַעל ַהר.זֶ ה ְליָ דֹו that action did not come to be performed by him? Is it possible that
his descendants are destined to stand on Mount Eival and say:
“ארוּר ׁש ֵֹכב ִעם ֵא ׁ ֶשת ָא ִביו״ ָ :לֹומר
ַ ְֵע ָיבל ו
“Cursed be he that lies with his father’s wife; because he uncovers
:וְ יָ בֹא ֵח ְטא זֶ ה ְליָ דֹו? ֶא ָּלא ָמה ֲאנִי ְמ ַקּיֵ ים his father’s skirt. And all the people shall say, amen” (Deuteronomy
“וַ ּיִ ׁ ְש ַּכב ֶאת ִ ּב ְל ָהה ּ ִפ ֶילגֶ ׁש ָא ִביו״ – ֶע ְל ּבֹון 27:20), and this sin will come to be performed by him? Is it conceiv-
ִאם ֲאחֹות ִא ִּמי ָהיְ ָתה ָצ ָרה: ָא ַמר.ִא ּמֹו ָּת ַבע able that the members of a tribe would curse their ancestor? How then
!? ׁ ִש ְפ ַחת ֲאחֹות ִא ִּמי ְּת ֵהא ָצ ָרה ְל ִא ִּמי,ְל ִא ִּמי do I establish the meaning of the verse: “And he lay with Bilhah his
.ָע ַמד ו ִּב ְל ֵ ּבל ֶאת ַמ ָ ּצ ָע ּה father’s concubine”? It is understood as follows: He protested the
affront to his mother. He said: If my mother’s sister Rachel was a
rival to my mother, will my mother’s sister’s concubine be a rival
to my mother? He immediately stood and rearranged her bed so
that Jacob would enter Leah’s tent.
264 Perek V . 55b . הנ ףד: קרפ ׳ה
Background
ַא ַחת ׁ ֶשל, ׁ ְש ֵּתי ַמ ָ ּצעֹות ִ ּב ְל ֵ ּבל:אֹומ ִרים ְ ֲא ֵח ִריםAĥerim say: He rearranged two beds,n one of the Divine Pres-
A woman after childbirth – יֹול ֶדת:ֶ The Torah de-
ָ : וְ ַהיְ ינ ּו דִּ ְכ ִתיב. ׁ ְש ִכינָ ה וְ ַא ַחת ׁ ֶשל ָא ִביוence and one of his father. And that is the meaning of that
“אז ִח ַּל ְל ָּת scribes various halakhot that apply to a woman
ַ יְ צו ִּעי ָע ָלה״which is written: “Unstable as water, you shall not excel; because
.)(אל ִּת ְק ִרי יְ צו ִּעי ֶא ָּלא יְ צו ַּעיי after she gave birth, if the baby was born natu-
you went up to your father’s bed; then you did defile it; he went rally, as opposed to by Caesarean section. She
up to my bed [yetzu’i]” (Genesis 49:4). Do not read it as yetzu’i, is considered ritually impure for seven days, if
in the singular; rather, read it as yetzu’ai, my beds, in the plural, she gave birth to a boy; and for fourteen days,
referring to both the bed of his father and to the bed of the Divine if she gave birth to a girl. Later, after immersion
Presence, which rests in the tents of the righteous. in a ritual bath, she is ritually pure for the next
thirty-three and sixty-six days, respectively, even
if she experiences uterine bleeding. Neverthe-
:אֹומר
ֵ יעזֶ ר ֶ ֹותר״ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִלַ “פ ַחז ַּכ ַּמיִ ם ַאל ּת ַ ּ ,ְּכ ַת ָּנ ֵאי The Gemara notes that the matter of Reuben’s innocence is paral- less, during this period of forty days for a boy, or
ּ ָפ ַס ְע ָּתה:אֹומרֵ הֹוש ַע ֻ ׁ ְ ַר ִ ּבי י.ּ ַפזְ ָּתה ַח ְב ָּתה זַ ְל ָּתה lel to a dispute between tanna’im. As it was taught in a baraita: eighty days for a girl, she is prohibited to enter
, ּ ִפ ַּיל ְל ָּתה:אֹומר
ֵ יאל ֵ ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל.נִית
ָ ָ ז,את ָ ָח ָט,ַעל דָּ ת The verse states: “Unstable [paĥaz] as water, you shall not ex- the Temple and partake of the meat of sacrifices.
cel.” The Sages understood paĥaz as an acronym. Rabbi Eliezer After the fortieth or eightieth day, she offers a
. ָ זָ ְר ָחה ְּת ִפ ָּל ְתך,ַח ְל ָּתה purification sacrifice in the Temple. This sacrifice
says that it means: You were impulsive [pazta], you were liable
consists of a lamb that is younger than one year
[ĥavta], and you acted contemptuously [zalta]. Rabbi Ye- old, which is brought as a burnt-offering; and a
hoshua says that it means: You trampled the law [pasata al dat], young pigeon or turtledove, which is brought
you sinned [ĥatata], and you were promiscuous [zanita]. Rab- as a sin-offering. If she cannot afford the cost
ban Gamliel says: The acronym does not refer to Reuben’s sin. of a lamb for the burnt-offering, she can bring
It refers to his repentance: You prayed [pilalta], you trembled two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one as
in fear [ĥalta], and your prayer shone forth [zarĥa]. a burnt-offering and the other as a sin-offering.
She may then enter the Temple and partake of
sacrificial foods (Leviticus 12:1–8).
יכין ָאנ ּו ַל ּמ ָֹוד ִעי; ַר ִ ּבי ֵ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל
ִ ֲע ַדיִ ן צְ ִר:יאל Rabban Gamliel said: We still need the explanation of the
:דֹור ׁ ָש ּה
ְ ְ ֲהפֹוךְ ֶאת ַה ֵּת ָיבה ו:אֹומר ֵ ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ַה ּמ ָֹוד ִעי Modaite, as Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i said: Reverse the order of
, ָר ָבא ָא ַמר. ָ ּ ָפ ְר ָחה ֵח ְטא ִמ ְּמך, ִה ְר ַּת ְע ָּתה,זִ ְעזַ ְע ָּתה the letters in the word paĥaz and then interpret it homileti-
cally: You shook [zizata], you recoiled [hirtata]; the ĥet in
עֹונְשֹו ׁ ֶשל
ׁ זָ ַכ ְר ָּת:וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא
paĥaz is interchanged with the letter heh, so that you would not
. ּ ֵפ ַיר ׁ ְש ָּת ִמ ַּל ֲחטֹוא,חֹולי ָ ּגדֹול
ִ ָית ַעצְ ְמך ָ ָח ִל,דָּ ָבר sin, and the sin flew [parĥa] from you. Rabban Gamliel and
Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i are of the opinion that Reuben did not
sin. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua held that he did. Rava
said, and some say that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: Reverse
the letters in paĥaz and interpret: You remembered [zakharta]
the punishment for that offense, you made yourself gravely ill
[ĥalita] in order to refrain from sinning, and you successfully
withdrew [peirashta] from sinning.
יֹוא ׁש
ָ ְ ְראו ֵּבן ְ ּבנֵי ֵע ִלי ְ ּבנֵי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל דָּ וִ ד ו ׁ ְּשלֹמֹה וThe Gemara prefaces the following statements of Rabbi Shmuel
.ימן ָ ִסbar Naĥmani with a mnemonic: Reuben, the sons of Eli, the
sons of Samuel, David, Solomon, and Josiah.
ָּכל:ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר נַ ֲח ָמנִי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יֹונָ ָתן Rabbi Shmuel bar Naĥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said:
ֶ אֹומר ְ ּבנֵי ֵע ִלי ָח ְטא ּו – ֵאינֹו ֶא ָּלא
: ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,טֹועה ֵ ָה Anyone who says that the sons of Eli sinned is nothing other
(עם ֲארֹון ְ ּב ִרית ָה ֱאל ִֹהים) ָח ְפנִי ִ “וְ ׁ ָשם ׁ ְשנֵי ְבנֵי ֵע ִלי than mistaken, as it is written: “And the two sons of Eli, Hoph-
ni and Pinehas, were there priests of the Lord” (I Samuel 1:3).
.ו ִּפנְ ָחס ּכ ֲֹהנִים ַלה׳״
ַמ ִּק ׁיש. ּ ִפנְ ָחס ל ֹא ָח ָטא: דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב,ָס ַבר ָל ּה ְּכ ַרב The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yonatan holds in accordance with
ַמה ּ ִפנְ ָחס ל ֹא ָח ָטא – ַאף ָח ְפנִי ל ֹא,ָח ְפנִי ְל ִפנְ ָחס the opinion of Rav, as Rav said: Pinehas did not sin. And the
“א ׁ ֶשר יִ ׁ ְש ְּכ ֻבן ֶאתֲ : ֶא ָּלא ָמה ֲאנִי ְמ ַקּיֵ ים.ָח ָטא verse juxtaposes Hophni to Pinehas; just as Pinehas did not
sin, so too Hophni did not sin. The Gemara asks: How, then, do
ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ָה ְלכ ּו ֵאצֶ ל,ֵיהן
ֶ ַה ּנ ׁ ִָשים״ ִמ ּתֹוךְ ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ִשה ּו ֶאת ִק ּינ
I establish the meaning of the verse: “Now Eli was very old, and
.יהן ַה ָּכתוּב ְּכ ִאילּ ּו ׁ ְש ָכבוּםֶ יהן – ַמ ֲע ֶלה ֲע ֵל ֶ ַ ּב ֲע ֵל heard all that his sons did to all Israel; and how they lay with the
women that assembled at the door of the Tent of Meeting”
(I Samuel 2:22), which indicates otherwise? The Gemara answers:
Since the sons of Eli delayed sacrificing the bird-offerings of
women who had given birth,nB a pair of doves brought as part of
the purification process, and this delay caused the women not to
go to their husbands in timely fashion, the verse ascribes to
Hophni and Pinehas liability as if they had lain with them. They
were guilty of nothing more than negligence and carelessness.
notes
He rearranged two beds – ש ֵּתי ַמ ָ ּצעֹות ִ ּב ְל ֵ ּבל:
ְ ׁ The commentar- Divine Presence because he contemplated God while resting women who had given birth – ֵיהן ֶ מ ּתֹוךְ ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ִשה ּו ֶאת ִק ּינ:ִ The sons
ies explain that Jacob kept a special bed in his tent. He did not upon it. By rearranging his father’s bed, Reuben, in a manner of Eli would delay sacrificing the bird-offerings of women who
sleep in it, rather it served as a symbolic resting place for the of speaking, expelled the Divine Presence from its bed (Me’iri). had given birth because the priests’ portion from those offer-
Divine Presence (see Maharam). Other authorities suggest that ings was small, and they preferred sacrificing the offerings from
the bed upon which Jacob slept was also called the bed of the Since the sons of Eli delayed sacrificing the bird-offerings of which the priests received a larger portion (Rabbi Yoshiya Pinto).
Perek V
Daf 56 Amud a
notes
ֶ ְ ּבנֵי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ָח ְטא ּו – ֵאינֹו ֶא ָּלא
,טֹועה that the sons of Samuel sinned is nothing other than mistaken,n as it is
Anyone says that the sons of Samuel sinned
(כי זָ ֵקן ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ו ָּבנָיו ל ֹא ִּ “וַ יְ ִהי:ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר stated: “And it came to pass, when Samuel was old that he made his sons
is nothing other than mistaken – אֹומר ֵ ּכֹל ָה
ֶ בנֵי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ָח ְטא ּו ֵאינֹו ֶא ָּלא:
טֹועה ּ ְ Some com- – ִ ּב ְד ָר ָכיו הוּא דְּ ל ֹא ָה ְלכ ּו,ָה ְלכוּ) ִ ּב ְד ָר ָכיו״ judges over Israel…And his sons walked not in his ways but sought after
mentaries derived from this discussion that unjust gain, and took bribes, and perverted justice” (I Samuel 8:1–3). By
.ּיח ָטא נַ ִמי ל ֹא ָח ְטאו ֱ ִמ
the children of prominent individuals must be inference: In his ways they did not walk, however, they did not sin either.
vigilant in performing even matters that are They were not the equals of their father, but they were not sinners.
not universal obligations. Since their father
was meticulous with regard to that matter, ֶא ָּלא ָמ ה ֲאנִ י ְמ ַקּיֵ ים “וַ ּיִ ּט ּו ַא ֲח ֵרי However, how then do I establish the meaning of the verse: “And they
they too must be vigilant in its performance ,יהם ֶ ַה ָ ּבצַ ע״ – ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ָע ׂש ּו ְּכ ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה ֲא ִב sought after unjust gain,” indicating that they were sinners? It means that
(Me’iri).
ׁ ֶש ָהיָה ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַה ַ ּצדִּ יק ְמ ַחּזֵ ר ְ ּב ָכל ְמקֹומֹות they did not conduct themselves in accordance with the actions of their
father. As Samuel the righteous would travel to all places where the
Halakha : ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,יהם ֶ אֹותם ְ ּב ָע ֵר
ָ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל וְ ָדן
people of Israel were located and sit in judgment in their towns, as it is
The fees collected by their attendants and “וְ ָה ַל ְך ִמדֵּ י ׁ ָשנָ ה ְ ּב ׁ ָשנָ ה וְ ָס ַבב ֵ ּבית ֵאל stated: “And he went from year to year in circuit from Beth-El, and Gil-
scribes – יהןֶ סֹופ ֵר
ְ נֵיהן ו ְּל
ֶ ָש ָכר ְל ַחּז:
ׂ ָ Any judge .וְ ַה ִ ּג ְל ָ ּגל וְ ַה ִּמצְ ּ ָפה וְ ׁ ָש ַפט ֶאת יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל״ gal, and Mitzpa, and judged Israel in all those places” (I Samuel 7:16). And,
who causes others to increase the fees paid to
the scribes of the judges and their attendants יהם ֶ ֶא ָּלא יָ ׁ ְשב ּו ְ ּב ָע ֵר,וְ ֵהם ל ֹא ָע ׂש ּו ֵּכן however, they did not do so and travel from place to place. Rather, they
violates a prohibition and is included in those .יהן ֶ סֹופ ֵר
ְ נֵיהן ו ְּל ֶ ְָּכ ֵדי ְל ַה ְר ּבֹות ָ ׂש ָכר ְל ַחּז sat in their own cities in order to enhance the fees collected by their at-
who seek after unjust gain (Shulĥan Arukh, tendants and scribes.h Therefore, the verse ascribes to them liability as if
Ĥoshen Mishpat 9:4). they sinned by seeking ill-gotten gains and bribes.
266 Perek V . 56a . ונ ףד. קרפ ׳ה
ֵ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר,ְּכ ַת ָּנ ֵאי; “וַ ּיִ ּט ּו ַא ֲח ֵרי ַה ָ ּבצַ ע״
:אֹומר The Gemara notes that this matter is parallel to a dispute between
ְמ ַלאי:אֹומר
ֵ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה,יהם ֶ ֶח ְל ָקם ׁ ָש ֲאל ּו ְ ּב ִפ tanna’im. As it was taught in a baraita that the verse states: “And they
ֵ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא,ִה ִּטיל ּו ַעל ַ ּב ֲע ֵלי ָב ִּתים
:אֹומר sought after unjust gain.” Rabbi Meir says: This means that they vo-
cally demanded their portions of the tithe due them as Levites, abusing
יֹוסי
ֵ ַר ִ ּבי.רֹוע
ַ ְנָטל ּו ִ ּבז
ְ קו ּ ָּפה יְ ֵת ָירה ׁ ֶשל ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר
their position to the detriment of other Levites. Rabbi Yehuda says: They
.רֹוע
ַ ְנָטל ּו ִ ּבז
ְ ַמ ָּתנֹות:אֹומר ֵ imposed upon local homeowners to sell their merchandise and support
them. Rabbi Akiva says: They took an extra basket of tithes, beyond
that which was their due, by force. Rabbi Yosei says: They took only the
gifts due them; however, they took them by force. They acted improp-
erly, as a Levite is required to wait until he is given his gifts and may not
take them.n
ּכֹל:ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר נַ ֲח ָמנִי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יֹונָ ָתן Rabbi Shmuel bar Naĥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who
ֶ אֹומר דָּ וִ ד ָח ָטא – ֵאינֹו ֶא ָּלא
: ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,טֹועה ֵ ָה says that David sinned with Bathsheba is nothing other than mistaken,
,“וַ יְ ִהי ָדוִ ד ְל ָכל דְּ ָר ָכיו ַמ ְ ׂש ִּכיל וַ ה׳ ִע ּמֹו וגו׳״ as it is stated: “And David succeeded in all his ways; and the Lord was
with him” (I Samuel 18:14). Is it possible that sin came to his hand and
?ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ֵח ְטא ָ ּבא ְליָ דֹו ו ׁ ְּש ִכינָ ה ִע ּמֹו
nevertheless the Divine Presence was with him?
ית ֶאת דְּ ַבר ה׳ ַ ֶא ָּלא ָמה ֲאנִי ְמ ַקּיֵ יםHowever, how then do I establish the meaning of the rebuke of the
ָ ִ“מדּ ו ַּע ָ ּבז
.יק ׁש ַל ֲע ׂשֹות וְ ל ֹא ָע ָ ׂשה ּ ֵ ַל ֲע ׂשֹות ָה ַרע״ – ׁ ֶש ִ ּבprophet Nathan: “Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do
that which is evil in My sight? Uriah the Hittite you have smitten with
the sword, and his wife you have taken to be your wife, and him you have
slain with the sword of the children of Ammon” (II Samuel 12:9), indicat-
ing that David sinned? The Gemara answers: David sought to do evil and
have relations with Bathsheba while she was still married to Uriah but did
not do so.n
ַר ִ ּבי דְּ ָא ֵתי ִמדָּ וִ ד ְמ ַה ּ ֵפ ְך וְ ָד ֵר ׁיש:ָא ַמר ַרב Rav said: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who descends from the house of David,
ית ֶאת דְּ ַבר ה׳ ָ ִ“מדּ ּו ַע ָ ּבז
ַ ;יה דְּ ָדוִ ד ּ ִ ּבזְ כו ֵּת seeks to teach the verse in favor of David. With regard to that which is
ְמ ׁשו ָּּנה ָר ָעה זֹו ִמ ָּכל:אֹומר ֵ ַר ִ ּבי,ַל ֲע ׂשֹות ָה ַרע״ written: “Why have you despised the commandment of the Lord to do
evil,” Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: This evil mentioned with regard to
ׁ ֶש ָּכל ָרעֹות ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ּת ָֹורה ְּכ ִתיב,ָרעֹות ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ּת ָֹורה
David is different from all other evils in the Torah; as with regard to all
יק ׁשּ ֵ ְ ּבה ּו ‘וַ ּיַ ַע ׂש׳ וְ ָכאן ְּכ ִתיב ַ‘ל ֲע ׂשֹות׳ – ׁ ֶש ִ ּב other evils in the Torah, it is written: And he did evil, and here it is
.ַל ֲע ׂשֹות וְ ל ֹא ָע ָ ׂשה written: To do evil. This unique phrase indicates that David sought to
do evil but did not actually do so. His intentions were improper; how-
ever, his actions were proper.
ָית ַב ֶח ֶרב״ – ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ְלך ָ “את או ִּרּיָ ה ַה ִח ִּתי ִה ִּכ ֵ That which is written: “Uriah the Hittite you have smitten with the
“וְ ֶאת ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו ָל ַק ְח ָּת. ְלדוּנֹו ַ ּב ַּסנְ ֶה ְד ִרין וְ ל ֹא דַּ נְ ָּתsword,” means that you could have judged him before the Sanhedrin
ּ ְלךָ ְל ִא ׁ ּ ָשה״ – ִלas one guilty of treason against the throne, and you did not judge him in
.יקו ִּחין יֵ ׁש ְלךָ ָ ּב ּה
that manner. Instead, you had him executed in a manner that deviated
from the generally accepted principles of judgment. With regard to that
which is written: “And his wife you have taken to be your wife”; it means
that you have rights of marriage with her, as by law Bathsheba was al-
ready divorced from Uriah.
:דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר נַ ֲח ָמנִי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יֹונָ ָתן As Rabbi Shmuel bar Naĥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone
ֹותב ֵ ּגט ֵ ּכֹל ַהּיֹוצֵ א ְל ִמ ְל ֶח ֶמת ֵ ּבית דָּ וִ ד ּכ who goes to a war waged by the royal house of David writes a condi-
“וְ ֵאת ֲע ֶ ׂש ֶרת ֲח ִריצֵ י: ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,ְּכ ִריתוּת ְל ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו tional bill of divorce to his wife.n That was done to prevent a situation in
which the soldier’s wife would be unable to remarry because the soldier
ֶָה ָח ָלב ָה ֵא ֶּלה ָּת ִביא ְל ַ ׂשר ָה ָא ֶלף וְ ֶאת ַא ֶחיך
did not return from battle and there were no witnesses to his fate. The
.ִּת ְפקֹד ְל ׁ ָשלֹום וְ ֶאת ֲע ֻר ָ ּב ָתם ִּת ָ ּקח״ conditional bill of divorce accorded her the status of a divorcee and freed
her to remarry. As it is stated: “And carry these ten cheeses to the cap-
tain of their thousand, and to your brothers bring greetings and take
their pledge [arubatam]” (I Samuel 17:18).
notes
The sin of the sons of Samuel – ח ְט ָאם ׁ ֶשל ְ ּבנֵי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל:ֶ The opinions his intentions. Since he ignored the severe prohibitions involved, he is
with regard to the sin committed by the sons of Samuel are listed deemed guilty. The Talmud, on the other hand, judges him according
neither in chronological order nor according to the importance of their to the letter of the law. By this measure, his sin was not so severe. That
authors. For example, Rabbi Akiva’s opinion is cited after the opinion is what the Gemara means in saying that King David sought to do evil
of his disciple, Rabbi Meir. The opinions are cited in that order because but did not do so (Be’er HaGola).
the first two tanna’im judged the sons of Samuel favorably, limiting their
Anyone who goes to a war waged by the royal house of David writes
transgression to inappropriate conduct with regard to permitted items.
a conditional bill of divorce to his wife – ּכֹל ַהּיֹוצֵ א ְל ִמ ְל ֶח ֶמת ֵ ּבית דָּ וִ ד ּכ ֵֹותב
The latter two tanna’im understood that they actually sinned (Rabbi
גט ְּכ ִריתוּת ְל ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו:ּ ֵ The proof cited in this context is from a war waged by
Elazar Moshe Horowitz).
Saul. Since the members of David’s family, his brothers and his father, fol-
ּ ֵ ש ִ ּב:
David sought to do evil but did not do so – יק ׁש ַל ֲע ׂשֹות וְ ל ֹא ָע ָ ׂשה ֶׁ lowed this practice, certainly David’s sons and subjects later conducted
The homiletic interpretations favorable to King David contradict the themselves in a similar manner (Me’iri). When people went to war, they
plain sense of the biblical text. Nevertheless, they may be understood would write their wives a bill of divorce, either conditional or absolute,
in the following manner. A transgression can be judged by two sets of so that if they failed to return or were taken captive their wives would
criteria: The first is strictly legal and the second factors in the transgres- not assume the status of deserted wives and be unable to remarry; they
sor’s intent and desires. The Bible judges David’s conduct according to would be divorcees and permitted to remarry (Tosafot).
ַע ְבדֶּ ךָ וַ יְ ַר ֵ ּגל ְ ּב ַע ְבדְּ ךָ ֶאל ֲאדֹנִי ַה ֶּמ ֶל ְך וַ אדֹנִי ַה ֶּמ ֶל ְך your servant. And he slandered your servant to my lord the king; but
ֶ ְּכ ַמ ְל ַאךְ ָה ֱאל ִֹהים וַ ֲע ֵ ׂשה ַה ּטֹוב ְ ּב ֵעינֶיךָ וַ ּי
ְֹאמר לֹו ַה ֶּמ ֶלך my lord the king is like an angel of God: Do therefore what is good in
ָל ָּמה ְּת ַד ֵ ּבר עֹוד דְּ ָב ֶריךָ ָא ַמ ְר ִּתי ַא ָּתה וְ צִ ָיבא ַּת ְח ְלק ּו ֶאת your eyes” (II Samuel 19:26–28). “And the king said to him: Why do
you speak any more of your matters? I have said: You and Ziba shall
ֹאמר ְמ ִפיב ׁ ֶֹשת ֶאל ַה ֶּמ ֶלךְ ַ ּגם ֶאת ַה ּכֹל יִ ַ ּקח ֶ ַה ּ ָ ׂש ֶדה וַ ּי
divide the estate. And Mephibosheth said to the king: Let him even
: ָא ַמר לֹו.ַא ֲח ֵרי ֲא ׁ ֶשר ָ ּבא ֲאדֹנִי ַה ֶּמ ֶלךְ ְ ּב ׁ ָשלֹום ֶאל ֵ ּביתֹו״ take all, seeing that my lord the king is come back in peace to his own
עֹושה ִלי ָּכךְ – ל ֹא ׂ ֶ וְ ַא ָּתה,ֲאנִי ָא ַמ ְר ִּתי ָמ ַתי ָּתבֹא ְ ּב ׁ ָשלֹום house” (II Samuel 19:30–31). Mephibosheth said to David as follows: I
ֲ ָע ֶליךָ יֵ ׁש ִלי ַּת ְרעֹומֹות ֶא ָּלא ַעל ִמי ׁ ֶש ֱה ִב
.יאךָ ְ ּב ׁ ָשלֹום had hoped for your return, saying: When will he come in peace, and yet
you do this to me, giving Ziba half of my estate? It is not against you that
I have grievances, but against He who brought you back in peace. Me-
phibosheth’s own statement substantiates Ziba’s report about him.
וְ ִכי ְמ ִריב ַ ּב ַעל, “ו ֶּבן יְ הֹונָ ָתן ְמ ִריב ָ ּב ַעל״:ַהיְ ינ ּו דִּ ְכ ִתיב This is what is written: “And the son of Jonathan was Meriv-Baal”
ִמ ּתֹוךְ ׁ ֶש ָע ָ ׂשה ְמ ִר ָיבה:ׁ ְשמֹו! וַ ֲהל ֹא ְמ ִפיב ׁ ֶֹשת ׁ ְשמֹו! ֶא ָּלא (I Chronicles 8:34). The Gemara asks: And was Meriv-Baal his name?
!נַצא Wasn’t his name Mephibosheth? However, since he entered into a
ּ ָ נַצא ַ ּבר ּ ָ : יָ צְ ָתה ַ ּבת קֹול וְ ָא ְמ ָרה לֹו,ִעם ְ ּב ָע ָליו
quarrel [meriva] with his Master [ba’al], i.e., God, and complained
“וַ ּיָ בֹא ׁ ָשאוּל ַעד:נַצא – דִּ ְכ ִתיב ּ ָ ַ ּבר,נַצא – ָהא דַּ ֲא ַמ ַרן ָּ about God having saved David, a Divine Voice emerged and said to him:
. ַעל ִע ְס ֵקי נַ ַחל:ִעיר ֲע ָמ ֵלק וַ ּיָ ֶרב ַ ּב ָּנ ַחל״ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ָמנִי Quarrelsome one, the son of a quarrelsome one; you are just like your
father, Saul. The Gemara explains: Quarrelsome one; that which we just
said that Mephibosheth complained to God about His salvation of David.
The son of a quarrelsome one; as it is written: “And Saul came to a city
of Amalek and quarreled in the valley” (I Samuel 15:5). And Rabbi Mani
said: Saul quarreled with God with regard to matters of the valley, say-
ing: For the murder of even a single person, there is a commandment to
break the neck of a heifer in a valley to atone for the crime (see Deuter-
onomy 21:1–9); why then must all these Amalekites be killed?
: ְ ּב ׁ ָש ָעה ׁ ֶש ָא ַמר דָּ וִ ד ִל ְמ ִפיב ׁ ֶֹשת: ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ַרבTo the matter at hand: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: When David said
“א ָּתה וְ צִ ָיבא ַּת ְח ְלק ּו ֶאת ַה ּ ָ ׂש ֶדה״ יָ צְ ָתה ַ ּבת קֹול וְ ָא ְמ ָרהַ to Mephibosheth: You and Ziba shall divide the estate, a Divine Voice
. ְר ַח ְב ָעם וְ יָ ָר ְב ָעם יַ ְח ְלק ּו ֶאת ַה ְּמלו ָּכה: לֹוemerged and said to him: Rehoboam and Jeroboam shall divide the
kingdom.n
יבל דָּ וִ ד ָל ׁשֹון ּ ֵ ִא ְיל ָמ ֵלי ל ֹא ִק: ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ַרבRav Yehuda said that Rav said: Had David not accepted Ziba’s slander-
וְ ל ֹא ָע ְבד ּו יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל, ָה ַרע ל ֹא נֶ ְח ְל ָקה ַמ ְלכוּת ֵ ּבית דָּ וִ דous report about Mephibosheth, the kingdom of the house of David
n
ָ ֲעwould not have been divided, Israel would not have worshipped idols
.ּ וְ ל ֹא ָ ּג ִלינ ּו ֵמ ַא ְרצֵ נו,בֹודה זָ ָרה
because of Jeroboam, and we would not have been exiled from our land.
אֹומר
ֵ ּכֹל ָה:ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר נַ ֲח ָמנִי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יֹונָ ָתן Rabbi Shmuel bar Naĥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who
“וְ ל ֹא ָהיָ ה: ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,טֹועה ֶ ׁ ְשלֹמֹה ָח ָטא – ֵאינֹו ֶא ָּלא says that King Solomon sinned is nothing other than mistaken, as it is
ִּכ ְל ַבב דָּ וִ ד,ְל ָבבֹו ׁ ָש ֵלם ִעם ה׳ ֱאל ָֹהיו ִּכ ְל ַבב דָּ וִ ד ָא ִביו״ stated: “And his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was
the heart of David, his father” (I Kings 11:4). By inference: Solomon’s
.יח ָטא נַ ִמי ל ֹא ָח ָטא ֱ ָא ִביו הוּא דְּ ָלא ֲהוָ ה – ֶמ
heart was not equal to the heart of David, his father; however, he also
did not sin.
ָ ׁ “וַ יְ ִהי ְל ֵעת זִ ְקנַ ת ׁ ְשלֹמֹה:ֶא ָּלא ָמה ֲאנִי ְמ ַקּיֵ ים
נָשיו However, how then do I establish the meaning of the verse: “For it came
, דְּ ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן ָר ֵמי.ִה ּט ּו ֶאת ְל ָבבֹו״ – ַה ִהיא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart
,נָשיו ִה ּט ּו ֶאת ְל ָבבֹו״ ָ ׁ “וַ יְ ִהי ְל ֵעת זִ ְקנַ ת ׁ ְשלֹמֹה:ְּכ ִתיב after other gods” (I Kings 11:4)? That verse is in accordance with the
statement of Rabbi Natan; as Rabbi Natan raised a contradiction be-
“כ ְל ַבב דָּ וִ ד ָא ִביו״ – ִּכ ְל ַבב דָּ וִ ד ָא ִביו הוּא דְּ ָלא ִּ :וְ ָה ְכ ִתיב tween the two parts of the verse. On the one hand, it is written: “For it
“וַ יְ ִהי ְל ֵעת:יח ָטא נַ ִמי ל ֹא ָח ָטא! ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר ֱ ֲהוָ ה – ֶמ came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his
נָשיו ִה ּט ּו ֶאת ְל ָבבֹו ָל ֶל ֶכת ַא ֲח ֵרי ֱאל ִֹהים ָ ׁ זִ ְקנַ ת ׁ ְשלֹמֹה heart after other gods.” On the other hand, isn’t it written: “And his heart
. ְֲא ֵח ִרים״ – וְ ל ֹא ָה ַלך was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his
father,” indicating that Solomon’s heart was not equal to the heart of
David his father; however, he also did not sin? Rather, the verse says as
follows: For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives
turned away his heart, in an attempt to spur him to go after other gods;
however, he did not go after them.
notes
Rehoboam and Jeroboam shall divide the kingdom – ְר ַח ְב ָעםvant, his kingdom was also divided between the king and his יבל דָּ וִ ד ָל ׁשֹון ָה ַרע
ּ ֵ ל ֹא ִק: In addition to the primary prohibition
וְ יָ ָר ְב ָעם יַ ְח ְלק ּו ֶאת ַה ְּמלו ָּכה: Some commentaries note that the mutinous servant (Maharsha). of speaking or repeating slander, one who hears a slanderous
division of the kingdom was a punishment that fit the crime. report violates a prohibition and one who accepts it as true
Since David divided the estate between its owner and his ser- Had David not accepted Ziba’s slanderous report – ִא ְיל ָמ ֵלי commits an additional transgression.
“וַ ּיַ ַע ׂש ׁ ְשלֹמֹה ָה ַרע ְ ּב ֵעינֵי ה׳״ – ֶא ָּלא: וְ ָה ְכ ִתיבThe Gemara raises another question. Isn’t it written: “And
ַמ ֲע ֶלה,יחה ָ ׁ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה לֹו ְל ַמחֹות ְ ּבSolomon did evil in the sight of the Lord” (I Kings 11:6),
ָ וְ ל ֹא ִמ,נָשיו
. ָע ָליו ַה ָּכתוּב ְּכ ִאלּ ּו ָח ָטאclearly indicating that Solomon sinned? Rather, since he
should have protested against the conduct of his wives, i.e.,
their involvement in idolatry, but he did not protest, the
verse ascribes to him liability as if he had sinned.
נֹוח לֹו ְלאֹותֹו ַ : ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאלRav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It would have been
צַ דִּ יק ׁ ֶשּיְ ֵהא ׁ ַש ָּמ ׁש ְל ָד ָבר ַא ֵחר וְ ַאל יִ ָּכ ֵתב ּבֹוpreferable for that righteous man, Solomon, to be a servant
. “וַ ּיַ ַע ׂש ָה ַרע ְ ּב ֵעינֵי ה׳״tasked with drawing water and hewing wood for another
matter, i.e., idolatry, and not have the verse write about him:
“And he did evil in the sight of the Lord,” even though he
did not.
ָשא ׂ ָ ְ ּב ׁ ָש ָעה ׁ ֶש ּנ:ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: When Solomon mar-
,נִיסה לֹו ֶא ֶלף ִמינֵי זֶ ֶמר ָ ׁ ְשלֹמֹה ֶאת ַ ּבת ּ ַפ ְרעֹה ִה ְכ ried Pharaoh’s daughter, she brought to him a thousand
ְ וְ ָכך,בֹודה זָ ָרה ּ ְפלֹונִית ָ עֹושין ַל ֲע
ִׂ ְ ָּכך:וְ ָא ְמ ָרה לֹו musical instruments and said to him: This is the way we
do it for this idolatry, and this is the way we do it for that
.יחה ָ ּב ּהָ וְ ל ֹא ִמ,בֹודה זָ ָרה ּ ְפלֹונִית ָ עֹושים ַל ֲעִׂ
idolatry, and he did not protest that talk.
ָשא ׂ ָ ְ ּב ׁ ָש ָעה ׁ ֶש ּנ:ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: When Solomon mar-
נָעץ ָקנֶ ה ַ ְיאל ו ֵ ׁ ְשלֹמֹה ֶאת ַ ּבת ּ ַפ ְרעֹה יָ ַרד ַ ּג ְב ִר ried Pharaoh’s daughter, the angel Gabriel descended from
וְ ָע ָליו נִ ְבנָ ה ְּכ ַר ְך ָ ּגדֹול, וְ ָע ָלה ּבֹו ִ ׂש ְירטֹון,ַ ּבּיָ ם heaven and implanted a reed into the sea, and a sandbar
grew around it, growing larger each year, and upon it the
.]רֹומי
ִ [של ֶׁ
great city of Rome was built, which became God’s instru-
ment to punish Israel.
270 Perek V . 56b . ונ ףד: קרפ ׳ה
background
אֹותֹו ַהּיֹום ׁ ֶש ִה ְכנִיס:נִיתא ָּתנָ א ָ ְ ּב ַמ ְת It was taught in a baraita: On that very day that Jeroboam
introduced two golden calves, one in Beth-El and the other Italy of Greece – יט ְליָ ה ׁ ֶשל יָ וָ ן
ַ א:ִ Apparently, Italy of Greece
יָ ָר ְב ָעם ׁ ְשנֵ י ֶע גְ ֵלי זָ ָהב ֶא ָח ד ְ ּב ֵבית refers to the southern portion of Italy. Before Roman rule
וְ זֶ ה ּו,ֵאל וְ ֶא ָחד ְ ּב ָדן נִ ְבנָ ה צְ ִריף ֶא ָחד in Dan, a single small hut was constructed, which was the first spread over the entire Apennine peninsula, the southern
house constructed there. And that was the inauguration of Italy part of Italy as well as part of Sicily was settled by Greek tribes.
.יט ִלּיָ אה ׁ ֶשל יָ וָ ן
ַ ִא
of Greece.b In ancient times, it was called Greater Greece.
As for the chronology, the beginning of a Latin kingdom
ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר נַ ֲח ָמנִי ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי Rabbi Shmuel bar Naĥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: in Italy was during the reign of King Solomon, although,
ֹאשּיָ ה ּו ָח ָטא – ֵאינֹו ִ ׁ אֹומר י
ֵ ּכֹל ָה:יֹונָ ָתן Anyone who says that Josiah sinned is nothing other than according to Roman tradition, Rome was not founded as a
mistaken, as it is stated: “And he did that which was right in city until over two hundred years later.
ֶ ֶא ָּלא
“וַ ּיַ ַע ׂש ַהּיָ ׁ ָשר ְ ּב ֵעינֵי: ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,טֹועה
the sight of the Lord, and walked in all the way of David his
ֶא ָּלא ָמה,ה׳ וַ ּיֵ ֶלךְ ְ ּב ָכל דֶּ ֶרךְ דָּ וִ ד ָא ִביו״
father, and turned not aside to the right hand nor to the left” halakha
ְ “וְ ָכמֹה ּו ל ֹא ָהיָ ה ְל ָפנָיו ֶמ ֶלך:ֲאנִי ְמ ַקּיֵ ים (II Kings 22:2). However, how then do I establish the meaning Age of judges – גיל ַהדַּ יָ ּינִים:ּ ִ Some authorities rule, based
ֲא ׁ ֶשר ׁ ָשב וגו׳״ of the verse: “And like him was there no king before him that on the story of Josiah, that it is inappropriate for a person to
returned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and serve as a judge before the age of eighteen, when he reaches
intellectual maturity. Others disagree, teaching that Josiah
with all his might, according to all the Torah of Moses; neither did not retract his previous rulings, although they were is-
after him arose there any like him” (II Kings 23:25)? The verse sued at a young age. However, once the Torah scroll was
states: Josiah returned to the Lord. Apparently, in his early days found, Josiah was concerned that he might have erred due
he was a sinner, and later he returned to God. to his ignorance of what was written in the Torah (Rashi). Ac-
cording to that opinion, one may serve as a judge as soon as
ׁ ֶש ָּכל דִּ ין ׁ ֶשדָּ ן ִמ ֶ ּבן ׁ ְשמֹנֶ ה ַעד ׁ ְשמֹנֶ ה ֶע ְ ׂש ֵרה The Gemara answers: The reference here is not to repentance he reaches majority, i.e., at the age of thirteen, even if he did
for actual sins that Josiah committed. Rather, in every judgment not yet reach puberty (Shulĥan Arukh, Ĥoshen Mishpat 7:3).
נָטל ִמּזֶ ה וְ נָ ַתן
ַ :ֹאמרַ ׁ ֶש ָּמא ּת.ֶה ֱחזִ ָירן ָל ֶהן
“ב ָכל ְמאֹדֹו״ – ׁ ֶש ָּנ ַתןּ ְ :לֹומר
ַ ָלזֶ ה – ַּת ְלמוּד that he issued from the age of eight, when he was crowned,
until the age of eighteen, he returned the money to the parties
.ָל ֶהם ִמ ׁ ּ ֶשלּ ֹו
whom he judged liable, due to concern that in his youth he may
not have judged the cases correctly.h And lest you say that he
took from this one, whom he exonerated, and gave to that one,
whom he found culpable, therefore the verse states: Returned
to the Lord with all his might [me’odo], i.e., with all his money.
It means that he gave those he judged liable in his youth from
his own money.
ֵאין ְלךָ ָ ּגדֹול: דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב,ו ְּפ ִליגָ א דְּ ַרב The Gemara notes that Rabbi Yonatan disagrees with Rav, as
,ֹאשּיָ ה ּו ְ ּבדֹורֹוִ ׁ יֹותר ִמּי
ֵ ְ ּב ַב ֲע ֵלי ְּת ׁשו ָּבה Rav said: There is no greater penitent than Josiah in his gen-
ו ַּמנּ ּו – ַא ָ ּבא ֲאבו ּּה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי.ּדֹורנו ֵ וְ ֶא ָחד ְ ּב eration, and there is one in our generation. The Gemara asks:
And who is the great penitent in Rav’s generation? The Gemara
ַא ָחא ַאחו ּּה: וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה,יִ ְר ְמיָ ה ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא
answers: He is Abba, father of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba, and
דְּ ָא ַמר.דְּ ַא ָ ּבא ֲאבו ּּה דְּ ַרב יִ ְר ְמיָ ה ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא some say it is Aĥa, brother of Abba, father of Rabbi Yirmeya
.ּ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא וְ ַא ָחא ַא ֵחי ָהוו:ָמר bar Abba, as the Master said: Rabbi Abba and Aĥa were
brothers.
– ו ַּמנּ ּו.ּדֹורנוֵ וְ עֹוד ֶא ָחד ְ ּב:יֹוסף ֵ ָא ַמר ַרב Rav Yosef said: And there is another great penitent in our
וְ ַהיְ ינ ּו נָ ָתן,עֹוק ָבן ַ ּבר נְ ֶח ְמיָ ה ֵר ׁיש ָ ּגלו ָּתא
ְ generation. And who is he? He is Okvan, son of Neĥemya the
ֲהוָ ה יָ ֵת ְיבנָ א:יֹוסף ֵ ָא ַמר ַרב.יתא ָ ִדְּ צוּצ Exilarch. And that is the one also known as Natan detzutzita,n
i.e., from whose head sparks emerged. Rav Yosef said: I was
וַ ֲחזַ אי, וַ ֲה וָ ה ָקא ְמ נַ ְמ נֵ ם,ְ ּב ִפ ְיר ָקא
once sitting at the lecture delivered on the Festival [pirka]
.יה ּ יה וְ ִק ְ ּב ֵל
ּ ְ ּב ֶח ְיל ָמא דְּ ָקא ּ ָפ ׁ ַשט יְ ֵד and I was dozing. And I saw in a dream how an angel stretched
out his hands and received Natan detzutzita, demonstrating
הדרן עלך במה בהמה that his repentance was accepted.
notes
Natan detzutzita – יתא ָ ִנָ ָתן דְּ צוּצ: There are several interpreta- fringes [tzitzit] on his garments (ge’onim). Yet others explain that Rashi, cite a midrashic tale that Natan detzutzita coveted an-
tions to this matter. Some commentaries maintain that he was tzutzita means coarse hair. He was named after the garment other man’s wife. He harassed her family in various ways until
called detzutzita because in his youth he would curl his hair of coarse hair that he wore on his flesh as an act of penitence she agreed to yield to him. At the critical moment, however,
[tzitzit] to enhance his appearance (Rav Sa’adia Gaon). Other (Arukh; ge’onim). he overcame his evil inclination, showered the woman with
authorities explain that fire would issue forth from the ritual As for the story itself, the early commentaries, including bounteous good, and fully repented (see Rashi, Sanhedrin 31b).
In this chapter, the Gemara clarified which items may and which items may not be
placed on an animal on Shabbat, so that neither the animal nor its owner will per-
form the prohibited labor of carrying out or moving objects that may not be moved.
Several principles were established in this chapter. It is permitted for the animal to
bear any part of its harness necessary for its basic security. However, items that pro-
vide less than basic security for the animal and those that provide excessive security
both constitute a burden and may not be borne by the animal because they do not
meet the animal’s standard security needs.
Items intended for the animal’s comfort, not for the owner’s needs, may also be
placed on an animal on Shabbat. With regard to some items, whether intended for
comfort or security, there is concern lest they fall from the animal. This might lead
the owner to unwittingly carry them in the public domain. If items are not valuable,
or if they are fastened tightly in place on the animal and there is no concern lest one
come to carry them, it is permitted to place them on the animal.
273
Introduction to
Perek VI
275
Perek VI
Daf 57 Amud a
notes
The mishna lists items that a woman may or may not carry into, or A woman may neither go out with strings
wear in the public domain on Shabbat. This depends the particular of wool, etc. – ל ֹא ֵּתצֵ א ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ל ֹא ְ ּבחו ֵּטי צֶ ֶמר וכו׳:
object is considered an ornament, which she may wear, or merely a Some explain that it is prohibited to go out with
burden for the woman, which she may not. Even if it is considered an woolen strings on Shabbat because the strings
are not braided into the hair but simply rest upon
ornament, there is still concern that she might remove it and carry it
it. Therefore, one needs only to loosen them in
in her hand in the public domain, which is prohibited by Torah law. order to remove them (Rosh).
יה
ּ ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א ְ ּב ֵר,יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי ָּ וְ ִאAnd some say that Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: I saw that
ותי דְּ ָלא ָק ְפ ָדן ֻ ׁ ְ דְּ ַרב יmy sisters are not particular about removing them, and they bathe even
ִ ָ ָחזֵ ינָ א ְל ַא ְחו:הֹוש ַע
.ּ ֲע ַליְ יהוwith woven chains tied in their hair. Apparently, water reaches the hair.
Therefore, the chain is not an interposition with regard to immersion.
זנ ףד. ׳ו קרפ. Perek VI . 57a 277
notes
ָ ּ ׁ יכא ֵ ּבין ַה ְך ִל
ישנָ א ו ֵּבין ַה ְך ָּ ַמאי ִאThe Gemara asks: What practical difference is there between this
Since they are dirty – נִיפא ָ דִּ ְט: Several commentaries
explain that this is referring to expensive, gold-plated ָ ּ ׁ ִלversion and that version of the resolution of the dilemma?
?ישנָ א
ribbons. The concern is that the woman will remove the ישנָ א ָ ּ ׁ נִיפן; ְל ַה ְך ִל ָ יכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יה ּו – דִּ ְטָּ ִא The Gemara explains: There is a practical difference between them
ribbons to prevent them from getting dirty in the course in a case where the chains are dirty. According to this version, in
of immersion (Rosh).
– “כֹל ׁ ֶשהוּא ָא ִריג ל ֹא ָ ּגזְ רוּ״ ּ :דְּ ָא ַמר
ישנָ א דְּ ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ָ ּ ׁ ו ְּל ַה ְך ִל,ָהנֵי נַ ִמי ָארוּג which you said: With regard to anything woven, the Sages did not
issue a decree, these too are woven. And according to that version,
halakha נִיפא – ִמ ְק ּ ַפד ָ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ְק ֵפ ָידא; ֵּכיוָ ן דִּ ְט
in which you said that it is due to the fact that his sisters were not
Anything woven…since they are dirty – …ּכֹל ׁ ֶשהוּא ָא ִריג .ָּק ְפ ָדא ֲע ַליְ יהו particular; in this case, since they are dirty,nh she is particular
נִיפא
ָ דִּ ְט: A woman is permitted to go out on Shabbat with
woven straps tied to her head. Since water penetrates
about them and will certainly remove them when she washes. There-
them, there is no concern that she will remove them fore, she is required to do so when immersing in a ritual bath as well.
for immersion. However, that ruling applies only when
the ribbons are clean. If they are dirty, she may not go
חו ֵּטי: וְ ֵא ּל ּו חֹוצְ צִ ין ָ ּב ָא ָדם,ְּתנַ ן ָה ָתם We learned in a mishna in tractate Mikvaot: And these are the ob-
out into the public domain with them, since she will אשי
ֵ ׁ וְ ָה ְרצוּעֹות ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ָר,צֶ ֶמר וְ חו ֵּטי ּ ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתן jects that interpose for a person: Strings of wool, and strings of
certainly remove them to prevent them from making ׁ ֶשל צֶ ֶמר:אֹומר ֵ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה.ַה ָ ּבנֹות flax, and the straps that are on the girls’ heads. Rabbi Yehuda says:
her dirty. This ruling is in accordance with the second ver- Strings of wool and strands of hair do not interpose because the
ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ַה ַּמיִ ם,וְ ׁ ֶשל ֵ ׂש ָער – ֵאין חֹוצְ צִ ין
sion of the statement of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua water reaches the hair through them. Rav Huna said: And we
(Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 19:9; Shulĥan ֵ ׁ וְ כו ָּּלן ְ ּב ָר: ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א.ָ ּב ִאין ָ ּב ֶהן
אשי learned all these, strings of wool and flax, in a case where they are
Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 303:1, Yoreh De’a 198:4 in the com- .ַּה ָ ּבנֹות ׁ ָשנִינו used to tie the hair on the girls’ heads.
ment of the Rema).
Because a woman does not strangle herself – ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ? ְל ַמעו ֵּטי ַמאי:יֹוסף ֵ ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ַרב Rav Yosef strongly objects to this halakha of Rav Huna: To exclude
א ׁ ּ ָשה חֹונֶ ֶקת ֶאת ַעצְ ָמ ּה:ִ A woman is permitted go out with ? ּו ְד ַמאי,ימא ְל ַמע ּו ֵטי דְּ ַצ ָּואר ָ יל ֵ ִא what other places in the body did Rav Huna say this? If you say that
ribbons tied around her neck. She does not tighten them
ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא ַר ְך,ימא ְל ַמעו ֵּטי דְּ צֶ ֶמר ָ ִא ֵיל it comes to exclude strings tied to the neck, and then, strings made
excessively around her neck so as not to strangle herself. of what material does it exclude? If you say that it comes to exclude
Therefore, she need not remove them while immers- ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ָק ׁ ֶשה חֹוצֵ ץ – ַר ְך ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַר ְך
strings of wool, now, the mishna stated that soft strings of wool on
ing. However, with regard to a katla, since it is wide and !יב ֲעיָ א ּ ָ ִמ top of hair, which is relatively hard, interpose and invalidates the
can be tightened without causing discomfort, she may
not go out wearing it around her neck (Rambam Sefer
immersion. With regard to soft strings on top of the soft flesh of the
Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 19:10; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ neck, is it necessary to say that they interpose?
Ĥayyim 303:2, Yoreh De’a 198:2).
ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא, וְ ֶא ָּלא ְל ַמעו ֵּטי דְּ חו ֵּטי ּ ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתןRather, say that Rav Huna’s statement came to exclude strings of
ָק ׁ ֶשה ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי, ָק ׁ ֶשה ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ָק ׁ ֶשה חֹוצֵ ץflax. A similar difficulty arises: Now the mishna stated that hard
ּ ָ ַרךְ ִמstrings of wool on top of hair, which is hard, interposes and invali-
!יב ֲעיָ א
dates the immersion. If so, with regard to hard strings on top of the
soft flesh of the neck, is it necessary to say that they interpose?
ֵ ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ַרבRather, Rav Yosef said, this is the reason that Rav Huna restricts
ַהיְ ינ ּו ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַרב:יֹוסף
ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ִא ׁ ּ ָשה חֹונֶ ֶקת ֶאת, הוּנָ אthe concern for interposition to strings tied in her hair and not
. ַעצְ ָמ ּהaround her neck: Because a woman does not strangle herself
h
when adorning herself with a string or straps around her neck. There-
fore, she never tightens the strings or straps to the extent that water
cannot reach the skin.
“ה ָ ּבנֹות יֹוצְ אֹות ַ :יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י ּ יב
ֵ ית ִ ֵא Abaye raised an objection to the explanation of Rav Yosef from a
ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ַ ּב ֲח ָב ִקין,נֵיהן ֶ ְְ ּבחו ִּטין ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ָאז baraita: The girls may go out into the public domain on Shabbat
“אין ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ֵ וְ ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת,יהן״ ֶ אר ֵ ׁ ֶש ְ ּבצַ ְּו with strings in their ears. Young girls would have their ears pierced,
but earrings were not placed in their ears until they were older. In-
יהן
ֶ אר ֵ חֹונֶ ֶקת ַעצְ ָמ ּה״ ֲח ָב ִקין ׁ ֶש ְ ּבצַ ְּו
stead, they inserted strings so that the holes would not close. How-
?ַא ַּמאי ָלא ever, they may not go out with straps around their necks. And if
you say that the principle: A woman does not strangle herself, is
halakhically valid, why may they not go out into the public domain
with straps around their necks? They are not tied tight and do not
constitute an interposition that invalidates immersion.
: ָא ַמר ָר ִבינָ אRavina said:
Perek VI
Daf 57 Amud b
notes
דְּ ִא ׁ ּ ָשה חֹונֶ ֶקת, ָה ָכא ְ ּב ָק ְט ָלא ָע ְס ִקינַןHere we are dealing with a broad, ornamented strap [katla]n
Broad ornamented strap [katla] – ב ָק ְט ָלא:ּ ְ Many of the
early commentaries have a variant reading of the text, ָ ְּ ד, ֶאת ַעצְ ָמ ּהhanging around the neck, to which a small bib is attached. A woman
נִיחא ָל ּה ׁ ֶש ֵּת ָר ֶאה ְּכ ַב ֲע ַלת
kartela. This is not to be confused with the katla that . ָ ּב ָ ׂשרdoes strangle herself with a katla because the strap is broad and
is prohibited in the mishna, as there it refers to a metal tightening it does not cause pain. She tightens it because it pleases
ornament, while here it refers to a strap worn around her her that she will appear fleshy. It was considered beautiful to have
neck (Rashba). flesh protrude from the katla.
ׁ ֶשל צֶ ֶמר וְ ׁ ֶשל ֵ ׂש ָער:אֹומר ֵ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדהIn the same mishna in tractate Mikvaot, Rabbi Yehuda says: Strings
. ֵאין חֹוצְ צִ ין ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ַה ַּמיִ ם ָ ּב ִאין ָ ּב ֶהןof wool and strands of hair do not interpose and invalidate the
immersion because the water reaches through them.
278 Perek VI . 57b . זנ ףד: קרפ ׳ו
notes
:יֹוסף ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ֵ ָא ַמר ַרבRav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The ha-
By saying that the halakha is in accordance with Rav
. ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ְ ּבחו ֵּטי ֵ ׂש ָערlakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with Yehuda, by inference the Rabbis disagree – ֲה ָל ָכה
regard to strands of hair. However, the halakha is not in accor- מ ְּכ ָלל דִּ ְפ ִליגִ י:ִ This is an inference frequently raised by
dance with his opinion with regard to wool strings. Abaye based on the assumption that a ruling in ac-
cordance with the opinion of a particular Sage is only
?“ה ָל ָכה״ – ִמ ְּכ ָלל דִּ ְפ ִליגִ י
ֲ :יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י
ּ ֲא ַמר ֵלAbaye said to him: By saying that the halakha is in accordance necessary when there is a conflicting opinion. An un-
with Rav Yehuda, by inference the Rabbis disagreen with regard contested opinion is the halakha by default. There is no
to strands of hair. However, no opinion stating that strands of hair need to declare that fact. This inference is also raised in
constitute an interposition is cited in the mishna. instances in which it is not clear whether two opinions
that appear in a mishna constitute a dispute; or whether
ימא – ִאי ָלאו דְּ ׁ ָש ְמ ִעינַן ִמ ַּת ָּנא ַק ָּמא ָ וְ ִכי ֵּת And if you say that had we not heard from the first tanna that each opinion was expressed independent of the other,
he is speaking of strands of hair, Rabbi Yehuda would also not and there is no disagreement.
ִאיה ּו נַ ִמי ל ֹא ֲהוָ ה,דְּ ַאיְ ִירי ְ ּבחו ֵּטי ֵ ׂש ָער
“כ ׁ ֵשם״ ָק ָא ַמר ְלה ּו; ִּכי ְּ יל ָמא ְ ַמיְ ִירי; וְ ִד have spoken about them. Apparently, the first tanna prohibited
strands of hair, and Rabbi Yehuda disagreed with him. Neverthe- language
מֹודית ּו ִלי ְ ּבחו ֵּטי ֵ ׂש ָער – אֹוד ּו ִלי ִ ְּיכי ד ִ ֵה Appuzainu – א ּפוּזַ יְ ינ ּו:ַ This word, which appears in vari-
less, it could be explained otherwise. And, perhaps he prefaced
!נַ ִמי ְ ּבחו ֵּטי צֶ ֶמר what he was saying to the Rabbis with the phrase: Just as. Just as ous forms, does not have a clear origin. Some suggest-
ed that it is from the Greek ὀψιανός, opsianos, meaning
you agree with me that strands of hair do not interpose, agree obsidian beads. Apparently, it is related to the Persian
with me that strings of wool also do not interpose. The fact that word abzēn, meaning ring.
he mentioned strands of hair does not indicate a dispute; on the
contrary, it is an attempt to establish a consensus with regard to background
the halakha. Totefet and sarvitin – יטין
ִ טֹוט ֶפת וְ ַּס ְר ִב:
ֶ
מֹודים
ִ : ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל, ִא ְּית ַמרIndeed, it was stated that Rav Naĥman said that Shmuel said:
. ֲח ָכ ִמים ְל ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ְ ּבחו ֵּטי ֵ ׂש ָערThe Rabbis agree with Rabbi Yehuda with regard to strands of
hair.h
חו ֵּטי, חו ֵּטי צֶ ֶמר – חֹוצְ צִ ין: ַּתנְיָא נַ ִמי ָה ִכיThis opinion was also taught in a baraita: Strings of wool inter-
ֵ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה. ֵ ׂש ָער – ֵאין חֹוצְ צִ יןpose. Strands of hair do not interpose. Rabbi Yehuda says: Both
אֹומר ׁ ֶשל
צֶ ֶמר וְ ׁ ֶשל ֵ ׂש ָער ֵאין חֹוצְ צִ יןstrings of wool and strands of hair do not interpose.
נִיתין נַ ִמי
ִ ַמ ְת:ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said: The language of the mishna is
“יֹוצְ ָאה ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ְ ּבחו ֵּטי ֵ ׂש ָער: דְּ ָק ָתנֵי,דַּ יְ ָקא also precise, as we learned in a mishna in our chapter: A woman
ימא ָ ַמ ּנִי? ִא ֵיל.ֵ ּבין ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ָּל ּה ֵ ּבין ִמ ׁ ּ ֶשל ֲח ֶב ְר ָּת ּה״ may go out with strands of hair whether they are from her own
hair or whether they are from the hair of another. Whose opinion
ֶא ָּלא,יל ּו חו ֵּטי צֶ ֶמר נַ ִמי ּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה – ֲא ִפ
is expressed in this mishna? If you say that it is the opinion of
ְ ּבחו ֵּטי ֵ ׂש ָער: ו ׁ ְּש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה,ָלאו – ַר ָ ּבנַן ִהיא Rabbi Yehuda, even strings of wool should also have been per-
. ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה,ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י mitted. Rather, is it not the opinion of the Rabbis; and conclude
from it that with regard to strands of hair, they do not disagree?
The Gemara determines: Indeed, conclude from it.
:יֹוסף
ֵ טֹוט ֶפת? ָא ַמר ַרב
ֶ ַמאי.ֹוט ֶפת״ ֶ “ל ֹא ַ ּב ּטThe mishna said that a woman may not go out with the ornament
. חו ְּמ ְר ָתא דִּ ְק ִט ָיפ ָתאcalled a totefet. The Gemara asks: What is a totefet? Rav Yosef
said: A packet of spices to ward off the evil eye.
halakha
The Rabbis agree with Rabbi Yehuda with regard to strands of ness or to ward off the evil eye, in accordance with the opinion
hair – מֹודים ֲח ָכ ִמים ְל ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה ְ ּבחו ֵּטי ֵ ׂש ָער:
ִ Strands of hair do not of Abaye (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 19:14; Shulĥan
interpose during immersion, in accordance with the Gemara’s Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 303:15).
ruling. If they are gilded, they do interpose (see Rosh 57a; Rambam
A woman may go out with a gilded hairnet, and with the totefet,
Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Mikvaot 2:5; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 198:4).
and with the sarvitin, etc. – ֹוט ֶפת ֶ יֹוצְ ָאה ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ִ ּב ְס ָב ָכה ַה ּמוּזְ ֶה ֶבת ו ַּב ּט
Let this packet have the legal status like that of an effective יטין ַה ְּקבו ִּעין וכו׳ ִ ו ַּב ַּס ְר ִב: A woman may go out on Shabbat wearing
amulet – ת ֱהוִ י ְּכ ָק ֵמ ַיע מו ְּמ ֶחה:ֶּ It is permitted to go out on Shabbat a gilded hairnet. She may also go out with an ornament on her
wearing an effective amulet. An effective amulet is defined as forehead or on her cheeks when they are attached to the hairnet.
one that was tested and found to have healed three people, or In that case, there is no concern that she might remove them
one that was written by a person who wrote amulets that have from her head. However, if they are not attached to the hairnet,
already healed three people. Similarly, it is permissible to go out it is prohibited (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 19:10;
on Shabbat with strings or precious stones worn to prevent sick- Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 303:2). Busts with (A ) totefet and (B ) sarvitin
language ִמ ְס ַּת ְ ּב ָרא ְּכ ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ִּכ ּ ָיפה ׁ ֶשל:ָּא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבהו Rabbi Abbahu said: It is reasonable to say in accordance
Istema – יס ְט ָמא ִ From the Greek ζῶστμα, zostma,
ְ א: יֹוצְ ָאה ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ַ ּב ָּכבוּל: וְ ַתנְיָא נַ ִמי ָה ִכי.צֶ ֶמר ְּתנַן with the one who said that we learned about a cap of wool
meaning a wreath worn on the head or a crown. :אֹומר
ֵ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר,יס ְט ָמא ֶל ָחצֵ ר ְ ו ָּב ִא in the mishna. And this opinion was also taught in a barai-
ta: A woman may go out with a kavul and with an istemal
ְּכ ָלל ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון.ַאף ַ ּב ָּכבוּל ִל ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים
to the courtyard on Shabbat. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar
ּכֹל ׁ ֶשהוּא ְל ַמ ָּטה ִמן ַה ּ ְ ׂש ָב ָכה – יֹוצְ ִאין:ֶ ּבן ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר says: She may even go out with the kavul into the public
ּכֹל ׁ ֶשהוּא ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ִמן ַה ּ ְ ׂש ָב ָכה – ֵאין יֹוצְ ִאין,ּבֹו domain. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar stated a principle:
.ּבֹו Anything that is worn beneath the hairnet,n a woman may
go out into the public domain with it, since a woman will
not uncover her hair even to show off an ornament while in
the public domain. Anything that is worn over the hairnet,
like an ornamental hat, a woman may not go out with it.
From the context and proximity of the halakha dealing with
kavul to the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, appar-
ently a kavul is a wool cap worn under the net.
ַמאי. ֵ ּביזְ יוּנֵי:ּיס ְט ָמא? ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבהו ְ ַמאי ִאSince istema was mentioned in the baraita, the Gemara asks:
. ַּכ ְליָ א ּ ָפרו ֵּחי: ֵ ּביזְ יוּנֵי? ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י ָא ַמר ַרבWhat is an istema? Rabbi Abbahu said: Istema is a beizyu-
nei. However, Rabbi Abbahu’s explanation employed a term
from the Aramaic dialect spoken in Eretz Yisrael, which was
not understood in Babylonia. Therefore, they asked there:
What is a beizyunei? Abaye said that Rav said: It is a small
background
hat or ribbon used to gather hairs that protrude [kalya
Women’s cap – נָשים
ִ ׁ כ ּ ָיפה ׁ ֶשל:ִּ
paruĥei]n from the headdress.
ֵאין:יס ְט ָמא ְ ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה דְּ ָב ִרים נֶ ֶא ְמר ּו ְ ּב ִא, ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַןThe Sages taught in the Tosefta that three things were said
וְ ֵאין, וְ ֵאינָ ּה ִמ ַּט ְּמ ָאה ִ ּבנְ גָ ִעים, ָ ּב ּה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ִּכ ְל ַאיִ םwith regard to an istema: There is no prohibition of a mix-
. יֹוצְ ִאין ָ ּב ּה ִל ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּביםture of diverse kinds, wool and linen, in it. Since it is
hn
notes
Anything that is worn beneath the hairnet – ּכֹל ׁ ֶשהוּא ְל ַמ ָּטה ִמן There is no prohibited mixture of diverse kinds, wool and
ה ּ ְ ׂש ָב ָכה:ַ Even if a kavul is a woolen cap, it is not covered entirely linen, in it – אין ָ ּב ּה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ִּכ ְל ַאיִ ם:
ֵ Rashi explains that although
by the net. Rather, it is possible to move it out from beneath wearing the istema is not a violation of the Torah prohibition
the net and display it to others. The cap was ornamented and of mixing wool and linen, it is prohibited by rabbinic law like all
embroidered with different colors (Ramban; Rashba). other types of felt. Others say that since an istema does not pro-
vide any warmth and is merely decorative, it is not a prohibited
mixture of diverse kinds even by rabbinic law (Ramban).
Hat or ribbon used to gather hairs that protrude [kalya
paruĥei] – כ ְליָ א ּ ָפרו ֵּחי:ַּ Some commentaries explain that this hat And it does not become impure with the ritual impurity of
was made especially for a bride (ge’onim; Rabbeinu Ĥananel; Rif ). leprosy – וְ ֵאינָ ּה ִמ ַּט ְּמ ָאה ִ ּבנְ גָ ִעים: The ge’onim explain that there is
Since everyone looks at her and she is uncomfortable being seen an additional reason for this halakha with regard to the strings
swatting flies from her face, she would hang these colorful strings of the istema. They are colorful and the halakhic midrash on Le-
over her face to protect it from flies. Kalya paruĥei literally means viticus, Torat Kohanim, states explicitly that colored strings do not
Bust with a woolen cap on a woman’s head one that fends off flies. become impure with the ritual impurity of leprosy (Ramban; Ran).
יה ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ְל ַרב ִח ָּיננָ א ַ ּבר ּ וְ ִכי ָהא דְּ ֲא ַמר ֵל And this is like that which Shmuel said to Rav Ĥinnana bar language
ּכו ְּּלה ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן דְּ ֵבי ֵר ׁיש ָ ּגלו ָּתא – ָלא:ׁ ֵש ָילא Sheila: All of the Sages affiliated with the house of the Exilarch Cloak [sarbal] – ס ְר ָ ּבל:ַ This word, which also appears
דְּ ָלא ָק ְפ ִדי, ְ ְל ַבר ִמ ָּינך,ימי
ִ ֵל ְיפק ּו ְ ּב ַס ְר ָ ּב ֵלי ֲח ִת may not go out on Shabbat with sealed cloaks [sarbal],l i.e., gar- in the Bible (Daniel 3:21), in most places refers to a
ments with seals on them, except for you,n since the people of the unique Persian style of trousers. It is from the Persian
.ֲע ַליךְ דְּ ֵבי ֵר ׁיש ָ ּגלו ָּתא shalwār, meaning trousers. In this context, the mean-
Exilarch’s house are not particular with regard to you. The Sages
ing is apparently coat or cloak.
affiliated with the Exilarch were officially considered servants of
the house and would wear the seal of the house of the Exilarch.
halakha
Therefore, it was prohibited for them to go out into the public do-
main on Shabbat with a cloak bearing the Exilarch’s seal, lest the A slave may go out with a seal, etc. – יוׂצֵ א ָה ֶע ֶבד
חֹותם וכו׳
ָ ב: ּ ְ A slave, whose master is required to en-
seal break and, in fear of the Exilarch, they remove the cloak, fold sure that he observes Shabbat, may not go out into
it, place it on their shoulders, and carry it on Shabbat. Only Rav the public domain on Shabbat wearing the metal seal
Ĥinnana bar Sheila was permitted to go out with this seal on Shab- that his master made for him to signify that he is his
bat since the people of the Exilarch’s house were not exacting with slave. If the seal was made of clay and it was hanging
him. Even if he wore clothing with no seal, they would not con- around his neck, it is permitted. If it is attached to his
sider it an act of insubordination against the Exilarch. clothes, it is prohibited. If the slave fashioned the seal
himself, even if it was made of clay, the slave may not
ָ יֹוצֵ א ָה ֶע ֶבד ְ ּב: ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל,גּ ו ָּפא
חֹותם The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Shmuel said that a slave go out wearing it under any circumstances (Rambam
Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 19:18; Shulĥan Arukh,
ַּתנְיָא.חֹותם ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ְכסוּתֹו
ָ ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ַ ּב,ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ַצ ָּוארֹו may go out with a sealnh that is around his neck but not with a
Oraĥ Ĥayyim 304:1 and in the comment of the Rema).
,חֹותם ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ַצ ָּוארֹו
ָ יֹוצֵ א ָה ֶע ֶבד ְ ּב:נַ ִמי ָה ִכי seal that is on his clothes. That opinion was also taught in a ba-
raita: A slave may go out with a seal that is around his neck but
.חֹותם ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ְכסוּתֹו
ָ ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ְ ּב
not with a seal that is on his clothes.
חנ ףד. ׳ו קרפ. Perek VI . 58a 281
notes
חֹותם ָ ל ֹא יֵ צֵ א ָה ֶע ֶבד ְ ּב: ּו ְר ִמינְ ה ּו The Gemara raises a contradiction from another baraita: The slave
The slave may neither go out…and both this and may neither go out with a seal that is around his neck nor with a
that cannot become ritually impure – …ל ֹא יֵ צֵ א ָה ֶע ֶבד זֶ ה וָ זֶ ה,חֹותם ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ְכסוּתֹו ָ וְ ל ֹא ְ ּב,ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ַצ ָּוארֹו
זֶ ה וָ זֶ ה ֵאין ְמ ַק ְ ּב ִלין טו ְּמ ָאה: Even though the seal is made , וְ ל ֹא ְ ּבזוּג ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ַצ ָּוארֹו.ֵאין ְמ ַק ְ ּב ִלין טו ְּמ ָאה seal that is on his clothes on Shabbat, and both this and that can-
of metal, it cannot become ritually impure because it is not become ritually impure.nh And he may not go out with a bellb
זֶ ה וָ זֶ ה,ֲא ָבל יֹוצֵ א הוּא ְ ּבזוּג ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ְכסוּתֹו
not considered a utensil or an ornament. that is hung around his neck; however, he may go out with a bell
.ְמ ַק ְ ּב ִלין טו ְּמ ָאה that is on his clothes, and both this and that can become ritually
halakha impure.
Ritual impurity of a seal – חֹותם ָ טו ְּמ ַאת: A seal that
was not fashioned to make an impression in clay or אר ּהָ חֹותם ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ַצ ָּו ָ וְ ל ֹא ֵּתצֵ א ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ל ֹא ְ ּב And an animal may neither go out with a seal that is around its
wax cannot become ritually impure because it is not a וְ ל ֹא ְ ּבז וּג,חֹותם ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ְכסו ָּת ּה ָ וְ ל ֹא ְ ּב neck,h nor with a seal that is on its clothes, nor with a bell that is
utensil. If it is made of metal and its sole purpose is to זֶ ה וָ זֶ ה,אר ּה ָ ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ְכסו ָּת ּה וְ ל ֹא ְ ּבזוּג ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ַצ ָּו on its clothes, nor with a bell that is around its neck since with
make impressions in clay or wax, it can become ritually regard to an animal these are considered burdens not ornaments.
impure (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 8:9). .ֵאין ְמ ַק ְ ּב ִלין טו ְּמ ָאה
Both this, the seal, and that, the bell, cannot become ritually im-
And an animal may neither go out with a seal that is pureh because animal ornaments and utensils do not fall into the
around its neck – אר ּה
ָ חֹותם ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ַצ ָּו
ָ וְ ל ֹא ֵּתצֵ א ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ל ֹא ְ ּב: category of objects that can become ritually impure. Apparently, it
An animal may not go out wearing a seal on Shabbat, is even prohibited for a slave to go out with a seal around his neck,
whether it is on its body or on a cloth covering it, be- contrary to Shmuel’s opinion.
cause it is a burden (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot
Shabbat 20:10; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 305:12). – ָהא,יה
ּ יה ַר ֵ ּב
ּ ָהא – דַּ ֲע ַבד ֵל:ימא ָ ֵלThe Gemara answers: Say that this baraita, which permits going out,
Ritual impurity of a bell – טו ְּמ ָאת זוּג: A bell attached to !יה
ּ שֵ ׁ פ
ְ ַנ לְ ו
ּ יה א
ִ דבַ דַּ ֲעis referring to a case where his master made him the seal. Since he
a child’s clothing can only become ritually impure if it fears removing it, there is no concern that he will come to carry it.
has a clapper. If it is attached to an adult’s clothes, it can That baraita, which prohibits going out, is referring to a case where
become ritually impure even if it does not have a clapper he made it for himself and there is concern lest he come to remove
(Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 8:8).
it and carry it.
Vessels of stone, etc. – כ ֵלי ֲא ָבנִים וכו׳:ְּ Vessels made
of stone, dung, or unbaked clay, even when they have ,יה
ּ יה ַר ֵ ּבּ ִא ִידי וְ ִא ִידי – דַּ ֲע ַבד ֵל,ָלא The Gemara rejects this resolution: No, both this and that are refer-
a receptacle, can neither become ritually impure by . וְ ָכאן – ְ ּב ׁ ֶשל ִטיט,וְ ָכאן – ְ ּב ׁ ֶשל ַמ ֶּת ֶכת ring to a case where his master made it for him. The difference can
Torah law nor by rabbinic law (Rambam Sefer Tahara, be explained differently. And here, where it was prohibited, it is
Hilkhot Kelim 1:6). דָּ ָבר:וְ ִכ ְד ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ֲאבו ּּה
referring to a seal of metal, and here, where it was permitted, it is a
דָּ ָבר,ַה ַּמ ְק ּ ִפיד ָע ָליו ַר ּבֹו – ֵאין יֹוצְ ִאין ּבֹו
seal of clay. And as Rav Naĥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said:
.ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַמ ְק ּ ִפיד ָע ָליו – יֹוצְ ִאין ּבֹו With an object about which his master is particular, one may not
go out on Shabbat, lest it become detached from the garment, and
fear of his master lead the slave to carry it in his hand. With an object
about which his master is not particular, one may go out with it.
“זֶ ה וָ זֶ ה ֵאין: ִמדְּ ָק ָתנֵי,ָה ִכי נַ ִמי ִמ ְס ַּת ְ ּב ָרא The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable to understand the barai-
ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ׁ ֶשל,ְמ ַק ְ ּב ִלין טו ְּמ ָאה״ ta from the fact that it teaches there: This seal and that seal cannot
,ַמ ֶּת ֶכת – ָהנֵי הוּא דְּ ָלא ְמ ַק ְ ּב ִלי טו ְּמ ָאה become ritually impure. Granted, if you say it is referring to a
metal seal, it is possible to understand the novel aspect of the barai-
.ָהא ֵּכ ִלים דִּ ְידה ּו – ְמ ַק ְ ּב ִלי טו ְּמ ָאה
ta as follows: These are the objects that cannot become ritually
impure; however, their vessels made of the same material can
become ritually impure.
ָהנֵי הוּא, ֶא ָּלא ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ְ ּב ׁ ֶשל ִטיט ְּתנַןHowever, if you say that we learned with regard to seals of clay, can
ָהא ֵּכ ִלים דִּ ְידה ּו, דְּ ָלא ְמ ַק ְ ּב ִלי טו ְּמ ָאהit be similarly inferred that these seals are the objects that cannot
? ְמ ַק ְ ּב ִלי טו ְּמ ָאהbecome ritually impure; however, their vessels made of the same
material can become ritually impure?
ְּכ ֵלי ֲא ָבנִים ְּכ ֵלי ְ ּג ָל ִלים ו ְּכ ֵלי:וְ ָהא ַּתנְיָא Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Vessels of stone,h vessels of dung, and
ֲא ָד ָמה ֵאין ְמ ַק ְ ּב ִלין טו ְּמ ָאה ל ֹא ִמדִּ ְב ֵרי vessels of earth that are not made into earthenware can neither
סֹופ ִרים! ֶא ָּלא ׁ ְש ַמע ְ תֹורה וְ ל ֹא ִמדִּ ְב ֵרי ָ become ritually impure by Torah law nor by rabbinic law? Appar-
ently, even an actual vessel made of clay cannot become ritually
background . ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה, ׁ ֶשל ַמ ֶּת ֶכת:ִמ ָּינ ּה
impure. Rather, learn from it that this baraita is referring to utensils
Bell – זוּג: made of metal. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it.
ֲא ָבל יֹוצֵ א, וְ ל ֹא ְ ּבזוּג ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ַצ ָּוארֹו: ָא ַמר ָמרIn that same baraita the Master said that the slave may not go out
. הוּא ְ ּבזוּג ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ְכסוּתֹוwith a bell that is around his neck, but he may go out with a bell
that is on his clothes.
זוּג ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ַצ ָּוארֹו ַא ַּמאי ל ֹא – דִּ ְיל ָמא ִמ ְיפ ִסיקThe Gemara asks: With a bell that is around his neck, why may he
ֵליחו ּׁש, זוּג ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ְכסוּתֹו נַ ִמי, וַ ֲא ָתא ְל ִאיתוּיֵ יnot go out? It is due to concern lest it be severed and he come to
! דִּ ְיל ָמא ִמ ְיפ ִסיק וְ ָא ֵתי ְל ִאיתוּיֵ יcarry it. If so, with a bell on his clothes too, let us be concerned
lest it be severed and he come to carry it.
יה
ּ יחא ֵ ּב ָ ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַ ן – דְּ ִמ The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? With a case
.הֹוש ַע
ֻ ׁ ְיה דְּ ַרב י
ּ וְ ִכ ְד ַרב הוּנָ א ְ ּב ֵר,מו ְּמ ָחא where the bell is woven into the garment, and it is in accordance
ּכֹל:הֹוש ַע
ֻ ׁ ְיה דְּ ַרב י ּ דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א ְ ּב ֵר with the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, as Rav Huna,
son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Anything that is woven into a garment,
.ּׁ ֶשהוּא ָארוּג – ל ֹא ָ ּגזְ רו
the Sages did not issue a decree prohibiting going out with it on
Ancient bell Shabbat.
282 Perek VI . 58a . חנ ףד. קרפ ׳ו
notes
חֹותםָ “ל ֹא ֵּתצֵ א ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ל ֹא ְ ּב:ָא ַמר ָמר In the baraita cited earlier, it was taught that the Master said: An
animal may neither go out with a seal that is around its neck, nor Bell of an animal, etc. – זוּג ׁ ֶשל ְ ּב ֵה ָמה וכו׳: Ostensibly, the
חֹותם ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ְכסו ָּת ּה וְ ל ֹא ָ אר ּה וְ ל ֹא ְ ּב ָ ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ַצ ָּו list of bells that can become ritually impure contradicts
זֶ ה,אר ּה וְ ל ֹא ְ ּבזוּג ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ְכסו ָּת ּה
ָ ְ ּבזוּג ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ַצ ָּו with a seal that is on its clothes, nor with a bell that is on its the general principle that only utensils used by people can
clothes, nor with a bell that is around its neck. Both this and that become ritually impure. However, the rationale for this is
,וָ זֶ ה ֵאין ְמ ַק ְ ּב ִלין טו ְּמ ָאה״
cannot become ritually impure. that all these bells are for use by people. When the bell on
an animal has a clapper inside, it enables the shepherd to
? וְ זוּג דִּ ְב ֵה ָמה ֵאין ְמ ַק ְ ּב ִלין ט ּו ְמ ָאהThe Gemara asks: And does a bell of an animal not become ritu- locate his animals even when he cannot see them. Simi-
, זוּג ׁ ֶשל ְ ּב ֵה ָמה – ְט ֵמ ָאה:ּ ו ְּר ִמינְ הוally impure? The Gemara proceeds to raise a contradiction from larly, the bells on the mortar aids the act of crushing by
that which was taught in another baraita: The bell of an animalN making a sound, and the bells on a Torah scroll direct the
can become ritually impure, congregation’s attention to the fact that the Torah scroll
is being removed from the ark and the Torah reading is
about to begin (Me’iri).
Perek VI
Daf 58 Amud b
halakha
.הֹורה
ָ וְ ׁ ֶשל דֶּ ֶלת – ְטand the bell of a door is ritually pure. The door itself is not consid-
The bell of a door and converted it into a bell for the
ered a vessel. It is considered part of the house, and therefore its
animal – של דֶּ ֶלת וַ ֲע ָ ׂשאֹו ַל ְ ּב ֵה ָמה:
ֶ ׁ If one takes a doorbell or
status is like that of the house. The house is attached to the ground, any other vessel attached to a building or to the ground
and therefore it cannot become ritually impure. Everything con- and transfers it to be used for something that is not at-
nected to it, including the bell, assumes that status. tached to the ground, e.g., an animal, it can become ritu-
ally impure (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 8:12).
ׁ ֶשל,ׁ ֶשל דֶּ ֶלת וַ ֲע ָ ׂשאֹו ַל ְ ּב ֵה ָמה – ְט ֵמ ָאה If one took the bell of a door and converted it into a bell for an
animal,h it can become ritually impure; however, if one took the The bell of an animal and converted it into a bell for the
ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ִח ְ ּברֹו,ְ ּב ֵה ָמה וַ ֲע ָ ׂשאֹו ַלדֶּ ֶלת
bell of an animal and converted it into a bell for a door,h even door – של ְ ּב ֵה ָמה וַ ֲע ָ ׂשאֹו ַלדֶּ ֶלת:
ֶ ׁ In the case of a bell used
ׁ ֶש ָּכל,ַלדֶּ ֶלת ו ְּק ָבעֹו ְ ּב ַמ ְס ְמ ִרים – ָט ֵמא for an animal that one attached to a door, or to any vessel
though he attached it to the door and even fastened it with nails,
,יֹור ִדין ִל ֵידי טו ְּמ ָא ָתן ְ ּב ַמ ֲח ׁ ָש ָבה
ְ ַה ֵּכ ִלים attached to the ground, or even if one actually attached
it can still become ritually impure because all utensils descend it to the ground itself and fixed it with a nail, the bell can
עֹולין ִמ ֵידי טו ְּמ ָא ָתן ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ׁ ִשנּ וּי
ִ וְ ֵאין into their state of ritual impurity by means of thought alone, i.e., become ritually impure as it did before, until one effects
!ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה as a result of a decision to designate them for a specific purpose a physical change in the bell itself (Rambam Sefer Tahara,
through which they will become susceptible to ritual impurity, they Hilkhot Kelim 8:12).
receive that status immediately. However, they only ascend from
their state of ritual impurity by means of an action that effects language
physical change to the vessel itself. A change in designation alone Clapper [inbal] – עינְ ָ ּבל:ִ This is likely from the
is ineffective. This baraita states that an animal bell can become Greek ἔμβολος or ἔμβολος, embolos or embolon, mean-
ritually impure, contrary to that which was taught in the previous ing pegs inserted into objects or a protrusion inserted into
a vessel. In variant readings, the word appears as inbol and
baraita.
in the Jerusalem Talmud as imbol, imbolot.
,יה ִעינְ ָ ּבל
ּ ָהא – דְּ ִאית ֵל, ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ אThe Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This baraita, where it was
ּ ָהא – דְּ ֵלית ֵלtaught that the bell can become ritually impure, is referring to a case
.יה ִעינְ ָ ּבל notes
where it has a clapper [inbal].l That baraita, where it was taught If the bell is a vessel, etc. – אי ָמנָא הוּא וכו׳:ִ The underlying
that the bell cannot become ritually impure, is referring to a case assumption of the question is that the bell is considered
where it does not have a clapper. a vessel that serves a specific purpose because it is suited
for use in feeding water to a small child. Consequently, the
ִאי ָמנָ א הוּא – ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי: ַמה ַּנ ְפ ׁ ָש ְךThe Gemara asks: Whichever way you look at it, this is difficult. If presence of a clapper or lack thereof is irrelevant (Penei
ּ דְּ ֵלית ֵלthe bell is a vessel, then even though it has no clapper it should
n
– ִאי ָלאו ָמנָ א הוּא,יה ִעינְ ָ ּבל Yehoshua).
?יה ָמנָ אּ ִעינְ ָ ּבל ְמ ׁ ַש ֵּוי ֵלbe susceptible to ritual impurity. If it is not a vessel, does a clapper That produces sound – ל ַמ ׁ ְש ִמ ַיע קֹול:ְ The problem with a
render it a vessel? bell and similar objects is based on the fact that, in order
for a vessel to be susceptible to ritual impurity, it must
ִּכ ְד ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר נַ ֲח ָמנִי ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי,ִאין The Gemara answers: Yes, the clapper can determine the bell’s status
be either a utensil or an ornament; a bell appears to be
יֹונָ ָתן; דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר נַ ֲח ָמנִי with regard to ritual impurity, in accordance with that which Rab- neither. Therefore, from the extraneous phrase: Every-
ִמ ּנַיִ ן ְל ַמ ׁ ְש ִמ ַיע קֹול ִ ּב ְכ ִלי:ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יֹונָ ָתן bi Shmuel bar Naĥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said. As Rabbi thing [davar] that passes through fire (Numbers 31:23), it
Shmuel bar Naĥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: From where is derived that there are additional vessels that can be-
“כל ָּ :ַמ ָּתכֹות ׁ ֶשהוּא ָט ֵמא – ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר is it derived that a metal vessel that produces soundn is considered come ritually impure if they serve a specific purpose, e.g.,
דָּ ָבר ֲא ׁ ֶשר יָ בֹא ָב ֵא ׁש ַּת ֲע ִביר ּו ָב ֵא ׁש״ a vessel and can become ritually impure? As it is stated: “Every producing sound.
.ֲא ִפילּ ּו דִּ ּבוּר יָ בֹא ָ ּב ֵא ׁש thing that passes through the fire, you shall make it pass through
the fire, and it shall be clean; nevertheless, it shall be purified with
the water of sprinkling; and all that does not pass through the fire
you shall make to go through water” (Numbers 31:23). And the
Sages interpret the verse homiletically: Every thing [davar], even
speech [dibbur]; in other words, even an object that makes a sound
you shall pass through fire to purify it because it is a vessel.
,יה ִעינְ ָ ּבל ּ ימ ָּתא – ִ ּב ְד ֵלית ֵל ְ ְ ּב ַמאי או ִּק However, the matter can be clarified further. In what case did you
“וְ ל ֹא ְ ּבזוּג ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ַצ ָּוארֹו:יע ָתא ֲ ִימא ְמצ ָ ֵא establish the baraita; in the case of a bell that does not have a clap-
ֲא ָבל יֹוצֵ א הוּא ְ ּבזוּג ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ְכסוּתֹו וְ זֶ ה וָ זֶ ה per? If so, say the middle clause of that baraita: And he may not go
out with a bell that is hung around his neck; however, he may go
– ִאי דְּ ֵלית ֵל ּיה ִעינְ ָ ּבל,ְמ ַק ְ ּב ִלין טו ְּמ ָאה״
out with a bell that is on his clothes, and both this and that can
?ִמי ְמ ַק ְ ּב ִלי טו ְּמ ָאה become ritually impure. If it is referring to a bell that does not have
a clapper, can it become ritually impure?
חנ ףד: ׳ו קרפ. Perek VI . 58b 283
halakha
יסה ָ עֹושה זַ ִ ּגין ְל ַמ ְכ ֶּת ׁ ֶשת וְ ַל ֲע ִר
ׂ ֶ ָה:ּו ְּר ִמינְ הו The Gemara raises a contradiction from the Tosefta: One who makes
One who makes bells for the mortar and for bells for the mortar used to crush spices, and for the cradle,h and for
ָ עֹושה זַ ִ ּגין ְל ַמ ְכ ֶּת ׁ ֶשת וְ ַל ֲע ִר
the cradle, etc. – יסה ׂ ֶ ָה ,ו ְּל ִמ ְט ּ ְפחֹות ְס ָפ ִרים ו ְּל ִמ ְט ּ ְפחֹות ִּתינֹוקֹות
וכו׳: Bells with clappers that are attached to – ֵאין ָל ֶהם ִעינְ ָ ּבל,יֵ ׁש ָל ֶהם ִעינְ ָ ּבל – ְט ֵמ ִאין mantles of Torah scrolls, and for coverings of small children, if they
garments or those attached to a cradle can have a clapper they can become ritually impure, and if they do not have
יהן – ֲע ַדיִ ן טו ְּמ ָא ָתן ְּ ,הֹורין
ֶ נִיטל ּו ִעינְ ְ ּב ֵל ִ ְט
become ritually impure. The same is true for a clapper they are ritually pure and cannot become impure. If after they
similar objects designed to entertain small !יהם ֶ ֲע ֵל became ritually impure their clappers were removed, their ritual impu-
children. They remain ritually impure even if rity still remains upon them. Apparently, even with regard to bells used
their clappers were subsequently removed, as by people, the original existence of a clapper determines whether or not
per the Tosefta (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot
the bell is considered a vessel.
Kelim 8:7).
The bell and the clapper, this is a connec- ּ ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי – ְ ּב ִתינֹוק דִּ ְל ָק ָלא ֲע ִב ִידי ֵלThe Gemara answers: This applies only to the bells of a small child, since
ֲא ָבל,יה
tion – הּזוּג וְ ָה ִעינְ ָ ּבל ִח ּבוּר:ַ The bell and the ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ֵלית,יה ּ ָ ּגדֹול ַּת ְכ ׁ ִשיט הוּא ֵלthey are placed on him to produce sound. If the bell does not make a
clapper are considered attached and as a
ּ ֵלsound, it serves no purpose and, consequently, cannot become ritually
.יה ִעינְ ָ ּבל
single vessel with regard to the halakhot of impure. However, with regard to an adult, the bell is an ornament for
becoming ritually impure and the halakhot of him even though it does not have a clapper.
sprinkling purification water (Rambam Sefer
Tahara, Hilkhot Para Aduma 12:9). יהן ֲע ַדיִ ן טו ְּמ ָא ָתן ְּ : ָא ַמר ָמרIt was taught in the Tosefta that the Master said: If their clappers were
ֶ נִיטל ּו ִעינְ ְ ּב ֵל
הֹואיל
ִ : ְל ַמאי ֲחז ּו? ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י.יהן ֶ ֲע ֵלremoved after they became ritually impure, their ritual impurity still
notes
. ׁ ֶש ַה ֶה ְדיֹוט יָ כֹול ְל ַה ֲחזִ ירֹוremains upon them. The Gemara wonders: For what use are they suited
Rava raised an objection: The bell and the after their clappers are removed? They are essentially broken and should
clapper – ַהּזוּג וְ ָה ִעינְ ָ ּבל:מ ִתיב ָר ָבא:ְ The com- therefore become ritually pure. Abaye said: The reason that their impu-
mentaries found Rava’s objection difficult and rity remains is because a common person is able to replace the clapper
many interpretations of his statement and the into the bell. According to Abaye, with regard to any vessel that comes
statement of Abaye that precedes it were sug-
apart, if a common person is capable of reassembling it and it does not
gested. Some commentaries explain that, in
response to Abaye’s statement that anything require the expertise of a craftsman, it is not considered broken and its
that a common person can reassemble is ritual impurity is not nullified.
considered a vessel, Rava raised an objection
based on the mishna’s statement that the bell
! ַהּזוּג וְ ָה ִעינְ ָ ּבל ִח ּבוּר: ְמ ִתיב ָר ָבאRava raised an objection to this explanation from that which was taught:
and clapper are considered a connection. A The connection between the bell and the clapper,n this is a connection.h
connection can only exist between separate Therefore, if they are detached from each other, the bell should be con-
entities. Although they are designed to be sidered broken.
attached and it is a bona fide attachment,
nevertheless they are not considered one ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ָלא, ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר:ימא ָ וְ ִכי ֵּת And he adds: And if you say that when employing the term connection,
vessel (Ramban). : וְ ָה ַתנְ יָ א,ְמ ַח ֵ ּבר – ְּכ ַמאן דִּ ְמ ַח ֵ ּבר דָּ ֵמי it is saying as follows: Even though it is not connected, it has the legal
– יטנִי ְ ִמ ְס ּפ ֶֹורת ׁ ֶשל ּ ְפ ָר ִקים וְ ִאיזְ ֵמל ׁ ֶשל ְר ִה status as if it were connected. Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: The
connection between the different parts of scissors made of different parts
. וְ ֵאין ִח ּבוּר ְל ַהּזָ ָאה,ִח ּבוּר ְלטו ְּמ ָאה
that are made to come apart and the connection between the blade of a
carpenter’s plane, which can be removed from its handle, and its handle
are considered a connection with regard to contracting ritual impurity?
If one part becomes ritually impure, the other parts become ritually
impure as well. The baraita continues: However, they are not considered
a connection with regard to the sprinkling of the waters of a purification
offering. When waters of purification are sprinkled on these implements
in order to purify them from ritual impurity imparted by a corpse (see
Numbers 19:17–19), the water must be sprinkled on each part individually.
ִאי ִח ּבוּר הוּא – ֲא ִפלּ ּו, ְ ַמה ַּנ ְפ ׁ ָשך: וְ ָא ְמ ִרינַןThe Gemara asks: Whichever way you look at it, there is a difficulty: If it
יל ּוּ וְ ִאי ל ֹא ִח ּב ּור הוּא – ֲא ִפ, ְל ַהּזָ ָאהis considered a connection, they should be considered connected even
! ְלטו ְּמ ָאה נַ ִמי ל ֹאwith regard to sprinkling; and if they are not considered a connection,
they should not be so considered even with regard to ritual impurity.
– אכה ָ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ְמ ָל, דְּ ַבר ּת ָֹורה:וְ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה And Rabba said: By Torah law, when in use, they are considered a
ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת,ִח ּבוּר ֵ ּבין ְלטו ְּמ ָאה ֵ ּבין ְל ַהּזָ ָאה connection, both with regard to ritual impurity and with regard to
אכה – ֵאינֹו ִח ּבוּר ל ֹא ְלטו ְּמ ָאה וְ ל ֹא ָ ְמ ָל sprinkling. And when not in use, even if the parts are connected, since
they are made to come apart and they are commonly dismantled, they are
וְ גָ זְ ר ּו ַעל ט ּו ְמ ָאה ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת.ְל ַהּזָ ָאה
neither considered a connection with regard to ritual impurity nor with
ִמ ׁ ּש ּום ט ּו ְמ ָאה ׁ ֶש ִהיא ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת,אכה ָ ְמ ָל regard to sprinkling. And the Sages issued a decree that they should be
,אכהָ וְ ַעל ַהּזָ ָאה ׁ ֶש ִהיא ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ְמ ָל.אכה ָ ְמ ָל considered a connection with regard to ritual impurity even when not
!אכהָ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַהּזָ ָאה ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ְמ ָל in use, due to ritual impurity when in use. If one component becomes
ritually impure, the other component becomes ritually impure as well.
And, as a further stringency, they issued a decree that they should not be
considered a connection with regard to sprinkling even when in use,
due to sprinkling when not in use. The waters of purification must be
sprinkled on each part individually. Nevertheless, this type of connection
with regard to ritual impurity is only relevant when the two parts are
actually connected. When the parts are separate, even if they can be
reattached easily, the vessel is considered broken. This contradicts Abaye’s
explanation.
: ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ָר ָבאRather, Rava said: It should be explained differently:
Roman coin of Jerusalem, Aelia Capitolina, from the reign of the emperor
Antonius Pius. It has the imprimatur of the image of Hatikhi, the guardian angel
of Jerusalem, wearing a crown that is apparently the Jerusalem of Gold ornament.
Perek VI
Daf 59 Amud b
Personalities
.ּיתהו
ְ יה ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ִל ְד ֵב
ּ ְּכ ַד ֲע ַבד ֵלlike the one that Rabbi Akiva made for his wife.p
Rabbi Akiva and his wife – ר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא וְ ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו:ַ The city of gold
ornament that Rabbi Akiva made for his wife is mentioned ל ֹא ֵּתצֵ א ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ְ ּב ִעיר ׁ ֶשל:ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן And on this subject, the Sages taught in the Tosefta: A woman
several times throughout the Talmud. The Gemara relates that , וְ ִאם יָ צְ ָתה – ַחּיֶ ֶיבת ַח ָּטאת,זָ ָהב may not go out into the public domain on Shabbat with a city of
when they lived in abject poverty they resided in a hayloft. gold ornament. And if she went out with it into the public domain
When he saw that the hay got into his wife’s hair, Rabbi Akiva :אֹומ ִריםְ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים.דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר
she is liable to bring a sin-offering; that is the statement of
told her that if he ever got rich he would make her a city of gold ַר ִ ּבי. וְ ִאם יָ צְ ָתה – ּ ְפטו ָּרה,ל ֹא ֵּתצֵ א
ornament. Eventually, he kept his promise. In the Jerusalem
Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: She may not go out with it ab
יֹוצְ ָאה ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ְ ּב ִעיר:אֹומרֵ יעזֶ ר ֶ ֱא ִל initio, and if she went out she is exempt. And Rabbi Eliezer says:
Talmud, it is told that the wife of the Nasi, Rabban Shimon
ben Gamliel, complained to him that she does not have so .ׁ ֶשל זָ ָהב ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּלה A woman may go out with a city of gold ornament ab initio.
expensive an ornament. He asked her: Would you have done
for me what Rabbi Akiva’s wife did for him? Rabbi Akiva’s wife
:יפ ְלגִ י? ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ָס ַבר ַ ּ ְ ּב ַמאי ָק ִמ The Gemara explains: With regard to what principle do they
sold the braids of her hair so that he could study Torah and she ַּת ְכ ׁ ִשיט: וְ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ָס ְב ִרי,ַמ ּ ׂשֹוי הוּא disagree? Rabbi Meir holds that it is considered a burdenn and
earned that ornament. יה
ּ יל ָמא ׁ ָש ְל ָפא ו ַּמ ְחוַ ּיָ א ֵל ְ ִּ ד,הוּא not an ornament, and one who carries a burden into the public
domain is liable to bring a sin-offering. And the Rabbis hold that
:יעזֶ ר ָס ַברֶ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל.וְ ַא ְתיָ א ְל ַא ּתֹויֵ י
halakha it is an ornament. Why, then, did they prohibit going out into the
– ַמאן דַּ ְר ָּכ ּה ְל ֵמ ּ ַיפק ְ ּב ִעיר ׁ ֶשל זָ ָהב public domain wearing it? They are concerned lest she remove it,
Kelila – כ ִל ָילא:ְּ It is permitted to go out on Shabbat with the
ornament called kelila, whether it is made exclusively of fabric וְ ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ֲח ׁשו ָּבה ָלא,ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ֲח ׁשו ָּבה and show it to another, and come to carry it in the public domain.
or whether it is inlaid with precious metal. The halakha is in .ְמ ׁ ַש ְּל ָפא ו ַּמ ְחוַ ּיָ א And Rabbi Eliezer holds: Whose manner is it to go out with a
accordance with the opinion of Rav Ashi; Rav and Levi also city of gold ornament? Only an important woman,n and in that
permit doing so (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat case there is no concern, as an important woman does not re-
19:10; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 303:5).
move ornaments and show them to others.
. ַרב ָא ַסר ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל ׁ ָש ֵרי, ְּכ ִל ָילאAfter discussing going out into the public domain on Shabbat with
a city of gold ornament, the Gemara discusses other ornaments.
There is a dispute among amora’im with regard to a kelila,h which
is a tiara-like ornament. Rav prohibited going out with it, and
Shmuel permitted doing so.
notes
With a city of gold ornament…Rabbi Meir holds that it is An important woman – א ׁ ּ ָשה ֲח ׁשו ָּבה:
ִ Some commentaries
considered a burden – ַמ ּ ׂשֹוי הוּא:ב…ר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ָס ַבר
ַ ב ִעיר ׁ ֶשל זָ ָה:ּ ְ claimed that men are permitted to go out on Shabbat wear-
At first glance, Rabbi Meir’s opinion that a city of gold tiara is a ing jewelry since, in the parallel discussion in the Jerusalem
burden is difficult to understand. It is clearly an ornament. Ap- Talmud, it is explained that women are vain and accustomed
parently, Rabbi Meir holds that since even the Rabbis prohibit to flaunt their ornaments, but men are not. Nevertheless, even
going out into the public domain with it, it no longer retains in the Jerusalem Talmud there were those who disagreed
the status of an ornament on Shabbat. Therefore, it is consid- with the conclusion that men may go out with jewelry on
ered a burden (Rashash and see Penei Yehoshua). Shabbat.
נְ ֵפיק, ְּכ ִל ָילא ׁ ְש ִרי:דָּ ַר ׁש ֵלוִ י ִ ּבנְ ַה ְרדְּ ָעא The Gemara returns to the subject of kelila. When Levi taught in
.ֶע ְ ׂש ִרין וְ ַא ְר ַ ּבע ְּכ ִל ֵילי ִמ ּכו ָּּל ּה נְ ַה ְרדְּ ָעא Neharde’a that with the kelila ornament, one is permitted to go out
,דְּ ַר ׁש ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ֲאבו ּּה ִ ּב ְמחֹוזָ א ְּכ ִל ָילא ׁ ְש ִרי into the public domain on Shabbat, twenty-four women wearing the
kelila ornament went out into the public domain from all of
.בֹואה ָ וּנְ ַפק ּו ְּת ָמנֵי ְס ֵרי ְּכ ִל ֵילי ֵמ ֲח ָדא ָמ
Neharde’a. When Rabba bar Avuh taught in Meĥoza that the kelila
ornament is permitted, eighteen women wearing the kelila ornament
went out from one alleyway. Meĥoza was a wealthy mercantile city,
and many women there owned precious jewelry.
טנ ףד: ׳ו קרפ. Perek VI . 59b 287
,
. halakha
:ָא ַמר ַרב יְ ה ּו ָדה ָא ַמר ַרב ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל Rav Yehuda said that Rav Shmuel said: With a precious gilded
Gilded belt – ק ְמ ָרא:ַ According to the second version of the belt [kamra],hlb a woman is permitted to go out into the public
statement in the Gemara, it is permitted to go out with a ,רֹוק ָתאְ דְּ ַא:יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי
ָּ ִא.ַק ְמ ָרא ׁ ְש ִרי
belt inlaid with silver and gold on Shabbat (Rambam Sefer וְ ָא ַמר ַרב ָס ְפ ָרא – ִמידֵּ י דַּ ֲהוָ ה ַא ַּט ִּלית domain on Shabbat. Some say that he was referring to a belt made
Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 19:2). of woven fabric and inlaid with gold. And Rav Safra said: It is
.מוּזְ ֶה ֶבת
permitted just as it is permitted in the case of a gilded cloak.
Two belts – ת ֵרי ֶה ְמיָ ינֵי:ְּ Some authorities permit wearing two
sashes, one over the other, with no garment between them וְ ָא ַמר ַרב,נִיס ָכא
ְ דְּ ַא:יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי ָּ וְ ִאAnd some say that it is referring to a belt made entirely of metal.
(Shulĥan Arukh) and some prohibit doing so (Rema). The
- basis of the dispute is the meaning of Rav Ashi’s statement: . ִמידֵּ י דַּ ֲהוָ ה ָא ַא ְבנֵט ׁ ֶשל ְמ ָל ִכים: ָס ְפ ָראAnd Rav Safra said: It is permitted just as it is permitted to go out
Two belts you said. The commentaries disagree whether he
into the public domain on Shabbat with the belt of kings made
meant that it is obviously permitted or obviously prohibited entirely of gold.
(Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 301:36).
ַק ְמ ָרא ִע ָּילוֵ י:יה ָר ִבינָ א ְל ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי
ּ ָא ַמר ֵלRavina said to Rav Ashi: With regard to going out with a gilded
Short cloak – רסו ָּקא:ַ If a short wide cloak has straps, it is
ּ ֶה ְמיָ ינָ א ַמאי? ָא ַמר ֵלbelt over another belt [hemyana], what is the halakha? He said
l
permitted to wear it out into the public domain on Shabbat.
ְּת ֵרי ֶה ְמיָ ינֵי:יה
!ָק ָא ְמ ַר ְּת to him: Two belts h
you said; n
it is certainly uncommon to wear
If not, doing so is prohibited (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim
:
303:6). two belts. Therefore, one of them is a burden.
Nose rings – נְזָ ִמים: A woman may not go out into the public יה
ּ ִאי ִאית ֵל, ַהאי ַרסו ָּקא: ֲא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשיRav Ashi said: This short cloak;h if it has short straps with
domain on Shabbat with nose rings because she might
. וְ ִאי ָלא – ֲא ִסיר,יתא – ׁ ְש ִריָ ְ ַמ ְפ ַר ַחיwhich to tie it, it is permitted to go out with it, and if not, it is
remove them to show her friend. However, she may go out prohibited.
with earrings if the standard practice in that place is to cover
the earrings with her hair (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot ַמאי ַק ְט ָלא? ַמנְ ְק ָטא. “וְ ל ֹא ְ ּב ַק ְט ָלא״We learned in the mishna: And a woman may not go out on Shab-
Shabbat 19:7; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 303:8).
ֵ ּ ָפbat with a katla. The Gemara explains: What is a katla? A type
. “נְ זָ ִמים״ – נִ זְ ֵמי ָה ַאף.ארי
of small bib hung from the neck. The nezamim mentioned in the
language
. mishna with which a woman may not go out on Shabbat refer to
Gilded belt [kamra] – ק ְמ ָרא:ַ From the Middle Persian kamar, nose rings,h not earrings.
meaning a precious belt that is a symbol of authority.
,
Belt [hemyana] – ה ְמיָ ינַ א:ֶ From the Middle Persian word חֹותם״ ָהא
ָ יה ָ “וְ ל ֹא ְ ּב ַט ַ ּב ַעת ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָע ֶלWe learned in the mishna: Nor with a ring that has no seal on it.
ָ יֵ ׁש ָע ֶלBy inference: If it does have a seal on it, she is liable to bring a
b
hamyān, meaning belt or sash. ָלאו: ַא ְל ָמא,חֹותם – ַחּיֶ ֶיבתָ יה
. ַּת ְכ ׁ ִשיט הוּאsin-offering. She is only exempt from bringing a sacrifice when
background she goes out with a ring that does not have a seal on it, which is
Gilded belt – ק ְמ ָרא:ַ an ornament; however, a ring with a seal on it, typically used by
men for sealing documents, is considered a burden for a woman
on Shabbat. Apparently, that ring is not an ornament.
וְ ֵאלּ ּו,נָשים ְט ֵמ ִאים ִ ׁ יטיֵ ַּת ְכ ׁ ִש:ּו ְּר ִמינְ הו The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna in tractate
, נְ זָ ִמים, ַק ְט ָלאֹות:נָשים ִ ׁ יטי ֵ ֵהן ַּת ְכ ׁ ִש Kelim: Women’s ornamentsn can become ritually impure. And
חֹותםָ יה ָ וְ ַט ַ ּב ַעת ֵ ּבין ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ָע ֶל.וְ ַט ָ ּבעֹות these are women’s ornaments: Bibs; earrings; and rings; and a
ring whether it has a seal on it or whether it does not have a seal
Gold belt buckle from the reign of King Ardashir Isn at the beginning of the . וְ נִ זְ ֵמי ָה ַאף.חֹותםָ יה ָ ֵ ּבין ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָע ֶל
amoraic period in Babylonia
on it; and nose rings. Apparently, even a ring that has a seal on it
is considered a woman’s ornament.
Ring and seal – חֹותם
ָ ְט ַ ּב ַעת ו:ַ
ל ֹא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א; ָהא – ַר ִ ּבי: וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָיראAnd Rabbi Zeira said: This is not difficult. Rather, this ruling in
. ָהא – ַר ָ ּבנַן, נְ ֶח ְמיָ הour mishna, which distinguishes between a ring with a seal and a
ring without a seal, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi
Neĥemya; that ruling in the mishna in tractate Kelim, which does
not distinguish between rings, is in accordance with the opinion
of the Rabbis.
חֹות ָמ ּה ׁ ֶשל
ָ ְ ִהיא ׁ ֶשל ַמ ֶּת ֶכת ו:דְּ ַתנְיָא As it was taught in a baraita: If the ring were made of metal and
ִהיא ׁ ֶשל ַא ְלמֹוג,ַא ְלמֹוג – ְט ֵמ ָאה its seal was made of coral, it can become ritually impure because
וְ ַר ִ ּבי,הֹורה
ָ חֹות ָמ ּה ׁ ֶשל ַמ ֶּת ֶכת – ְט ָ ְו the primary component of the ring is metal, a material that can
become ritually impure. If the ring were made of coral and its
:אֹומרֵ ׁ ֶש ָהיָה ַר ִ ּבי נְ ֶח ְמיָה.נְ ֶח ְמיָה ְמ ַט ֵּמא
seal of metal, it is ritually pure and cannot become ritually im-
ָ ְ ּב ַט ַ ּב ַעת – ַה ֵּלךְ ַא ַחר
– ְ ּבעֹול,חֹות ָמ ּה pure. Rabbi Neĥemya deems it ritually impure, as Rabbi
,ַה ֵּלךְ ַא ַחר ִס ְמלֹונָיו Neĥemya would say: With regard to a ring, follow its seal; if the
seal were made of material that can become ritually impure, the
entire ring can become ritually impure, and if it were made of
material that cannot become ritually impure, the entire ring re-
mains pure. The same is true with regard to a yoke of an animal:
Follow its rods. Rods are placed in the yoke to fasten it to the
animal; the component material of the rods determines whether
Gold ring with a seal made from a precious stone from mishnaic period, or not the entire yoke can become ritually impure.
Pompeii
notes
Two belts you said – ת ֵרי ֶה ְמיָ ינֵי ָק ָא ְמ ַר ְּת:ְּ Rav Ashi’s statement prohibited, since a person does not normally wear two identical Therefore, the fact that one of the Sages suggested that parallel
was interpreted in two different ways: Some commentaries articles of clothing (see Rashi; ge’onim). is surprising. Some commentaries explain that the Sage based
understood that his intention was to say that wearing two his statement not on the halakha, but on the expression: And
belts into the public domain is certainly permitted, just as one Women’s ornaments – נָשים ִ ׁ יטי
ֵ ת ְכ ׁ ִש:ַּ Apparently, the Gemara’s these are women’s ornaments, from which it is derived that
is permitted to add to his clothing (Beit Yosef based on the Rif rejection of the parallel drawn between the halakhot of Shabbat rings without seals are also categorized as women’s ornaments
and the Rambam). Others explain that doing so is certainly and the halakhot of ritual impurity on the next daf is obvious. (Penei Yehoshua).
ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת ְל ַמאי ַחזְ יָ א? ָא ַמר.ְ ׂש ָע ָר ּה Shabbat, when it is prohibited to comb one’s hair, for what use is this
needle suited? Rava said: There is a gold plate on the other end of
,ֹאש ּהָ ׁ ַטס ׁ ֶשל זָ ָהב יֵ ׁש ָל ּה ַעל ר:ָר ָבא
the needle. On a weekday, she uses it to part her hair. On Shabbat,
– ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת.חֹול ֶקת ָ ּב ּה ְ ׂש ָע ָר ּה ֶ – ַ ּבחֹול she inserts the needle into her head covering and lays the gold plate
.ִיח ָת ּה ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ּ ַפדַּ ְח ָּת ּה
ָ ַמ ּנ against her forehead for ornamental purposes.
notes
For what use is that type of needle suited – ל ַמאי ַחזְ יָ א:ְ The here, particularly use of the term ritually pure, is problematic. See
commentaries explain the difficulty in the following manner: Rashi and Tosafot, who offered contrived explanations. Some
Since it is not permitted to go out into the public domain with explain that it is difficult with regard to both the halakhot of ritual
anything other than a utensil or an ornament on Shabbat, for impurity and the halakhot of Shabbat. The Gemara should read
what use is this pin suited? Since a woman cannot use it to as follows: And let it be like a garter; ritually pure and permitted.
gather her hair in the public domain, it is not a utensil. Therefore, This needle should have the legal status of a garter in every sense.
there was a need to explain that the pin is actually an ornament It should not be susceptible to ritual impurity because in this
(Ritva; see Tosafot). case it is not a utensil. At the same time, it should be permitted
And let the needle be like a ritually pure garter and be per- in terms of the prohibited labor of carrying out into the public
mitted – הֹורה וְ ִת ׁ ְש ְּת ִרי
ָ וְ ֶת ֱהוִ י ְּכ ִב ִירית ְט: The phrasing of the Talmud domain on Shabbat (Ramban).
Perek VI
Daf 60 Amud b
ֵ ּבין ְּתפו ִּרין ֵ ּבין, ְמ ׁ ַש ְּל ִחין ֵּכ ִלים ְ ּביֹום טֹובOne may send garments as a gift on a Festival,h whether they are
, ׁ ֶש ֵאינָן ְּתפו ִּרין ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ַסנְ דָּ ל ַה ְמסו ָּּמרsewn or whether they are not sewn, because any object fit for any
.)(ביֹום טֹוב ָ וְ ל ֹא ִמuse on a Festival may be sent as a gift. However, one may neither
ּ ְ נְעל ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָּתפוּר
send a spiked sandal nor an unsewn shoe on a Festival, since using
them is prohibited. Apparently, one may not wear a spiked sandal
on a Festival.
halakha
One may send garments as a gift on a Festival – ְמ ׁ ַש ְּל ִחין ֵּכ ִליםments that are not sewn, as long as they have some use on the
ביֹום טֹוב:ּ ְ One may send gifts of clothing on a Festival, even gar- Festival itself (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 516:3).
,ּיֹותיו
ָ ּו ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם ִמ ָּכאן וְ ַא ַחת ְ ּב ַת ְר ִס are inserted from here, its outer side, one near the toes and one near Sandal – ַסנְדָּ ל
the heel, and two are inserted from there, its inner side, one near the
ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א – ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ִמ ָּכאן וְ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש
toes and one near the heel, and one is inserted on its straps; and for
.ּיֹותיו
ָ ִמ ָּכאן וְ ַא ַחת ְ ּב ַת ְר ִס Rabbi Ĥanina, three from here, and three from there, and one on
its straps.
ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א – הוּא דְּ ָא ַמר The Gemara notes: Granted, according to Rabbi Ĥanina, there is no
ָ ֶא ָּלא ַר ִ ּבי,ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן
יֹוחנָ ן דְּ ָא ַמר problem, as he stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of
;הֹוראיַ ְְּכ ַמאן? הוּא דְּ ָא ַמר ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי נ Rabbi Natan. However, Rabbi Yoĥanan, in accordance with whose
opinion did he state his opinion? Neither of the tanna’im agrees with
ָח ֵמ ׁש:אֹומרֵ הֹוראי
ַ ְ ַר ִ ּבי נ,דְּ ַתנְ יָ א
his opinion. The Gemara answers: He stated his opinion in accor-
. וְ ׁ ֶש ַבע ָאסוּר,מו ָּּתר dance with the opinion of Rabbi Nehorai, as it was taught in a barai-
ta that Rabbi Nehorai says: With five nails inserted into the sole, it is
permitted to go out into the public domain on Shabbat; and with
seven nails, it is prohibited to go out into the public domain on
Shabbat.
:יה ִא ָיפה ְל ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה ּ ֲא ַמר ֵלThe Sage, Ifa, said to Rabba bar bar Ĥana: You, who are students of
ָ ַא ּתוּן ַּת ְל ִמ ֵידי ַר ִ ּביRabbi Yoĥanan, act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi
n
יֹוחנָן – ֲע ִביד ּו ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי
.נַע ֵביד ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א
ֲ ֲאנַן,יֹוחנָן ָ Yoĥanan. We will act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi
Ĥanina.
ס ףד: ׳ו קרפ. Perek VI . 60b 291
notes
ָח ֵמ ׁש:ינֵיה ַרב הוּנָ א ֵמ ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ּ ְ ּב ָעא ִמRav Huna raised a dilemma before Rav Ashi: With a sandal that
The number of nails – מ ְס ּ ָפר ַה ַּמ ְס ְמ ִרים:ִ Since the decree pro-
hibiting a spiked sandal was only enacted to commemorate ֵּת ׁ ַשע. ֲא ִפילּ ּו ׁ ֶש ַבע ֻמ ָּתר: ַמהוּ? ֲא ַמר ֵל ּיהhas five nails inserted into the sole, what is the halakha with re-
ּ ַמאי? ֲא ַמר ֵלgard to going out into the public domain? He said to him: Even
n
an event in the past, in practice, the Sages permitted the use . ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְׁשמֹונֶ ה ָאסוּר:יה
of several kinds of spiked sandals that were slightly different with seven nails it is permitted. He asked further: With nine,
from those involved in the actual event. They suggested dif- what is the halakha? He said to him: Even with eight it is pro-
ferent mnemonics for the different opinions. The one who hibited.
permits a sandal with five nails used the mnemonic of the
five books of Moses. The one who permits a sandal with sev- :ינֵיה ַההוּא ַרצְ ָענָ א ֵמ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי
ּ ְ ּב ָעא ִמThat shoemaker raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ami: If one
en nails used the mnemonic of the seven days of the week.
An allusion to this opinion can be found in the verse: “And as , מו ָּּתר:יה ּ ְּת ָפרֹו ִמ ִ ּב ְפנִים ַמהוּ? ֲא ַמר ֵלsewed the sole and attached it to the sandal from within, what is
are your days, so shall your strength be” (Deuteronomy 33:25). . וְ ָלא יְ ַד ֲענָ א ַמאי ַט ְע ָמאthe halakha? May he go out into the public domain after inserting
The allusion to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who per- nails into it? Rabbi Ami said to him: It is permitted, and I do not
mitted a total of twenty-four nails in a pair of sandals, with know the reason.
thirteen in one and eleven in the other, is from that which is
stated: “And as nails [masmerot] well fastened” (Ecclesiastes ? וְ ל ֹא יָ ַדע ָמר ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא:ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי Rav Ashi said: And does the Master not know the reason? It is
12:11). Since the word is written with the letter sin, the Sages obvious. Since he sewed it from within, it is no longer a sandal,
.נְעל
ָ יה ִמּ ֵּכיוָ ן דִּ ְת ָפרֹו ִמ ִ ּב ְפנִים – ָהוֵ י ֵל
taught that it alludes to the priestly watches [mishmarot] of it is a shoe. With regard to a sandal, the Sages issued a decree;
which there were twenty-four (Jerusalem Talmud). נְעל – ל ֹא ּ ְ ּב ַסנְ דָּ ל – ְ ּגזַ ר ּו ֵ ּב
ָ ְ ּב ִמ,יה ַר ָ ּבנַן
with regard to a shoe, the Sages did not issue a decree.
ּ ְ ּגזַ ר ּו ֵ ּב
.יה ַר ָ ּבנַן
background
ינֵיה ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא ַ ּבר זַ ְבדָּ א ֵמ ַר ִ ּבי
ּ ְ ּב ָעא ִמ Rabbi Abba bar Zavda raised a dilemma before Rabbi Abba bar
The entire sole in nails, so that contact with the ground Avina: If he shaped the nail like tongs [kelavus]l by bending a
will not wear it away – ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ְּת ֵהא ַק ְר ַקע,ֻּכ ּלֹו ְ ּב ַמ ְס ְמרֹות
ֲע ָ ׂשאֹו ְּכ ִמין ְּכ ַלבוּס:ַא ָ ּבא ַ ּבר ֲא ִבינָ א
,ית ַמר נַ ִמי ְּ ִא. מו ָּּתר:יה ּ ַמהוּ? ֲא ַמר ֵל nail with two sharp ends and sticking both ends into the sandal,
אֹוכ ְל ּתֹו:
ַ
what is the halakha? May he go out into the public domain with
ֲע ָ ׂשאֹו ְּכ ִמין:יֹוסי ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א
ֵ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי
it on Shabbat? He said to him: It is permitted. It was also stated
.ְּכ ַלבוּס – מו ָּּתר that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ĥanina, said: If he shaped it like
tongs it is permitted.
, ִח ּ ָיפה ּו ֻּכלּ ֹו ְ ּב ַמ ְס ְמרֹות: ָא ַמר ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשתRav Sheshet said: If he covered the entire sole in nails, so that
ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ְּת ֵהא ַק ְר ַקעcontact with the ground will not wear it away, it is permitted to
b
– אֹוכ ְל ּתֹו
ַ
.מו ָּּתר go out with that sandal on Shabbat, since it is no longer the spiked
sandal with regard to which they issued a decree.
– ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א; ָּכאן: ָא ַמר ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשתRav Sheshet said: This is not difficult, and it can be resolved as
.ּ ָּכאן – ׁ ֶש ּנ ֶֶע ְקרו,ּ ׁ ֶש ִּנגְ ְממוfollows: Here, where it was permitted to go out wearing the sandal
if the majority of nails fell out, it is referring to a case where they
were broken, i.e., the heads of the nails were broken off while
most of the nail remained embedded in the sole. In that case, it is
clearly evident that most of the nails fell out. Here, where it was
permitted only if four or five nails remain, it is referring to a case
where they were totally removed and only the nails that remain
in the shoe are visible.
292 Perek VI . 60b . ס ףד: קרפ ׳ו
background
ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא.“א ְר ַ ּבע אֹו ָח ֵמ ׁש״ מו ָּּתר ַ The Gemara continues its detailed analysis of the Tosefta: It was
taught that if most of the nails in the sandal came out and only four The rationale is reasonable, etc. – מ ְס ַּת ְ ּב ָרא ַט ְע ָמא וכו׳:ִ Even
יב ֲעיָ א?! ָא ַמר ּ ָ ַא ְר ַ ּבע ִמ,ָח ֵמ ׁש ׁ ְש ֵרי though there are set principles for arriving at a halakhic rul-
וְ ָח ֵמ ׁש, ַא ְר ַ ּבע ִמ ַּסנְדָּ ל ָק ָטן:ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א or five nails remain, it is permitted to go out wearing it. The Ge- ing, there is room to deviate from these principles in exigent
mara asks: Now, if it was mentioned that when five nails remain, circumstances. One of the significant reasons for doing so is
.ִמ ַּסנְ דָּ ל ָ ּגדֹול
going out is permitted, is it necessary to mention four? Rav Ĥisda when the rationale of one Sage is reasonable. In that case,
said that the Tosefta means: If four nails remain from the nails in a the halakha could be ruled in accordance with the opinion
small sandal, and if five nails remain from the nails in a large sandal, of an individual in a dispute with the majority or the opinion
going out is permitted. of a student in a dispute with his teacher.
ַר ִ ּבי: וְ ָה ַתנְ יָ א. וְ ַר ִ ּבי ַמ ִּתיר ַעד ׁ ֶש ַבעIt was taught in the Tosefta: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits up notes
,נֹוטה ׁ ָשאנֵי ֶ ! ַמ ִּתיר ַעד ׁ ְשל ֹׁש ֶע ְ ׂש ֶרהto seven. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that for a And he may not go out with a single sandal when there
sandal with an uneven sole, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits up to is no wound on his foot – ּיָחיד ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ֵאין ְ ּב ַרגְ לֹו ַמ ָּכה
ִ וְ ל ֹא ַ ּב:
thirteen? The Gemara answers: An uneven sole is different. Since In the Jerusalem Talmud, it is explained that it is prohibited
the nails are inserted for the purpose of straightening the sole, it does to go out with a single sandal because those who see one
not have the legal status of a spiked sandal. wearing a single sandal might suspect that he is carrying
the second sandal under his armpit.
יֹוחנָ ן
ָ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא דְּ ָא ֵתית ְל ָה ִכי – ְל ַר ִ ּביThe Gemara notes: Now that you have arrived at this new explana-
ֶ , נַ ִמי ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ אtion that a sandal with an uneven sole has a different legal status, for
.נֹוטה ׁ ָשאנֵי
Rabbi Yoĥanan, who stated, contrary to the opinions of the tanna’im
in this baraita, that the number of nails permitted in each sandal is
five, this baraita is also not difficult. He could explain that a sandal
with an uneven sole is different and requires additional nails. How-
ever, in the case of a sandal with an even sole, even the other tanna’im
would not permit that many.
וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה ָא ַמר ַרב,ָא ַמר ַרב ַמ ָּתנָ ה Rav Mattana said, and some say Rav Aĥadvoi bar Mattana said
:ַא ַח ְדבֹוי ַ ּבר ַמ ָּתנָ ה ָא ַמר ַרב ַמ ָּתנָ ה that Rav Mattana said: The halakha is not in accordance with the
.ֵאין ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who completely
prohibited moving a spiked sandal. The Gemara asks: That is obvi-
! יָ ִחיד וְ ַר ִ ּבים ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבים,יטא ָ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש
ous. Isn’t there a halakhic principle that in a dispute between an
ִמ ְס ַּת ְ ּב ָרא ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי:ימא ָ ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת individual and the many, the halakha is in accordance with the
ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע,ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ְ ּב ָהא opinion of the many? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the
.ָלן rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, is
more reasonableb in this case, and therefore the halakha should be
ruled in accordance with his opinion. Rav Mattana teaches us that
that is not the halakha.
ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ִאי ָלאו דְּ ָקר ּו ִלי Rabbi Ĥiyya said: If not for the fact that they would call me: Bab-
יה
ּ יסו ֵּרי״ ׁ ָש ֵרינָ א ֵ ּב ּ “ב ְב ָלאי ׁ ָש ֵרי ִא ַּ ylonian who permits prohibitions, I would permit the insertion
:יתא ָא ְמ ִרין ָ וְ ַכ ָּמה? ְ ּבפו ְּמ ַ ּב ִד.טו ָּבא of many nails into a spiked sandal. The Gemara asks: And how many
nails would he have permitted? In Pumbedita they said: Twenty-
ֶע ְ ׂש ִרין: ְ ּבסו ָּרא ָא ְמ ִרין,ֶע ְ ׂש ִרין וְ ַא ְר ַ ּבע
four nails. In Sura they said: Twenty-two. Rav Naĥman bar
: ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק.וְ ַת ְר ֵּתין Yitzĥak said: And this is your mnemonic to remember which opin-
יתא ָ נָיך – ַעד דַּ ֲא ָתא ִמ ּפו ְּמ ַ ּב ִד ְ ימ
ָ וְ ִס ion was stated in Sura and which opinion was stated in Pumbedita:
. ֲח ַסר ַּת ְר ֵּתי,ְלסו ָּרא Until Rabbi Ĥiyya came from Pumbedita to Sura he lost two nails
from his shoe. Since the route that Rabbi Ĥiyya took from Pumbed-
ita to Eretz Yisrael passed through Sura, one could say: Due to the
rigors of the journey, two nails fell from the sandal of Rabbi Ĥiyya
between Pumbedita and Sura.
“וְ ל ֹא ַ ּבּיָ ִח יד ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ֵא ין ְ ּב ַרגְ לֹוIt was taught in the mishna: And he may not go out with a single
. ַמ ָּכה״sandal when there is no wound on his foot.
n
Perek VI
Daf 61 Amud a
halakha
ְ ּב ֵהי.ָהא יֵ ׁש ְ ּב ַרגְ לֹו ַמ ָּכה – נָ ֵפיק By inference: If there is a wound on his foot, he may go out with
With a sandal on which of his feet does he go out – ְ ּב ָהאי
אֹות ּה
ָ ְ ּב:ִמ ּינַיְ יה ּו נָ ֵפיק? ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א one sandal. In that case, with a sandal on which of his feet does he
מ ּינַיְ יה ּו נָ ֵפיק:ִ One who has a wound on one foot may go
ַסנְ דָּ ל: ַא ְל ָמא ָק ָס ַבר,ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ָ ּב ּה ַמ ָּכה go out?h Rav Huna said: With a sandal on the foot that has a wound out with a single sandal on the healthy foot, in accordance
on it. Apparently, he holds: A sandal is made for the purpose of with the opinion of Ĥiyya bar Rav, the plain understanding
.ְל ׁשוּם צַ ַער ֲע ִביד
avoiding pain. Typically, a person wears sandals only in order to of Rabbi Yoĥanan’s statement, and the discussion in the Ge-
avoid the pain of walking on stones and the like. When he is seen mara (Rabbeinu Ĥananel; Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot
with only one sandal, it is clear that he is oblivious to that pain and Shabbat 19:15; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 301:7).
the only reason that he is wearing the sandal is due to the wound on
his foot. Consequently, no one will suspect that he went out wearing
two sandals and that if he is wearing one, he must be carrying the
other one.
אס ףד. ׳ו קרפ. Perek VI . 61a 293
notes
אֹות ּה ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָ ּב ּה
ָ ְ ּב: וְ ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַרב ָא ַמרAnd Ĥiyya bar Rav said: He goes out with a sandal on the foot
The incident of Rabbi Yoĥanan and the sandal – ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה
יֹוחנָן וְ ַה ַּסנְדָּ ל
ָ ר ִ ּבי:ַ In the Jerusalem Talmud, it is stated ex- , ְל ׁשוּם ַּת ֲענוּג ֲע ִביד: ַא ְל ָמא ָק ָס ַבר, ַמ ָּכהthat does not have a wound on it. Apparently, he holds that the
plicitly that Rabbi Yoĥanan is of the opinion that the ַ וְ זֹו ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ָ ּב ּה ַמ ָּכה – ַמ ָּכ ָת ּהsandal is made for the purpose of providing comfort, and he
.מֹוכ ַחת ָע ֶל ָיה
single sandal is worn on the wounded foot. In addition, wears it on his healthy foot. And it does not arouse suspicion be-
Rabbi Shemen bar Abba gave him the right sandal first cause, with regard to that foot on which there is a wound, its
because he holds in accordance with the baraita that the wound indicates that he is unable to wear a sandal on that foot,
right always takes precedence. and it is clear that he left the other sandal at home.
He puts on the right shoe – נֹועל ׁ ֶשל יָ ִמין:ֵ The Me’iri
,יֹוחנָן ָס ַבר ָל ּה ְל ָהא דְּ ַרב הוּנָ א ָ וְ ַאף ַר ִ ּבי The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yoĥanan also holds that the
writes that all actions of Torah scholars are directed to
one ultimate purpose. Even when they are dealing with :יֹוחנָן ְל ַרב ׁ ֶש ֶמן ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא
ָ יה ַר ִ ּבי
ּ דַּ ֲא ַמר ֵל opinion of Rav Huna, which maintains that one only wears sandals
their bodily needs, their heart is directed toward Heaven. :יה
ּ ָא ַמר ֵל.יה דְּ יָ ִמין ּ ַהב ִלי ְמ ָסנַ אי! יְ ַהב ֵל to avoid pain, is correct. As Rabbi Yoĥanan said to Rav Shemen
When they put on their shoes, they put on the right one bar Abba, his attendant: Give me my sandal. He gave him the
!ֲע ִ ׂשיתֹו ַמ ָּכה
first to evoke the idea that, in all matters, one should give right sandal. He said to him: You have rendered this foot as one
preference to the right. One walking on the right should with a wound.n In Rabbi Yoĥanan’s opinion, one must always put
be treated with deference. on his left shoe first. One who puts on the right shoe first is no
longer permitted to put on the left shoe. By handing him his right
halakha sandal, he is forcing Rabbi Yoĥanan to go out with one sandal,
How does he conduct himself, he puts on his right leading onlookers to conclude that he has a wound on that foot.
shoe, etc. – ינֵיה וכו׳
ּ ימ ִ ִּיכי ָע ֵביד ַסּיֵ ים ד
ִ ה:ֵ One puts on the That incident corresponds to Rav Huna’s opinion that one wears
right shoe first and does not tie it. Then he puts on his
the sandal on the wounded foot.
left shoe and ties it. Then he ties his right shoe (Shulĥan
Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 2:4). וְ ָה ִכי,יה
ּ וְ ִד ְיל ָמא ְּכ ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַרב ְס ִב ָירא ֵלThe Gemara rejects this: And perhaps, he holds in accordance
When he removes, etc. – חֹולץ וכו׳
ֵ כ ׁ ֶשהוּא:ְּ When remov- ָ ָע ִ ׂש: ָק ָא ַמרwith the opinion of Ĥiyya bar Rav, which maintains that one wears
.ית ׁ ֶשל ְ ׂשמֹאל ַמ ָּכה
ing his shoes, one removes the left one first, as per the the sandal on the healthy foot, and he is saying as follows: By
baraita (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 2:5). handing me my right shoe, you have rendered my left foot, on
When one washes, etc. – רֹוחץ וכו׳ ֵ כ ׁ ֶשהוּא:ְּ When which I have no shoe, as one with a wound. No proof can be cited
washing hands, one washes the right hand first. If one from that incident, as Rabbi Yoĥanan’s opinion cannot be ascer-
is washing his entire body, he should begin by washing tained from the exchange with his attendant.
his head (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 4:10).
דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי,יה
ּ יֹוחנָ ן ְל ַט ְע ֵמ
ָ וְ ַאזְ דָּ א ַר ִ ּביAnd Rabbi Yoĥanan follows his regular line of reasoning. As
ילין ִּ ַמה ְּת ִפ.נְע ִלין
ָ ילין ָּכ ְך ִמ ִּ ִּכ ְת ִפ:יֹוחנָ ן
ָ Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Just as one dons phylacteries, so too, one
ָ ַאף ִמ, ִ ּב ְ ׂשמֹאלputs on shoes. Just as phylacteries are placed on the left arm, so
.נְע ִלין ִ ּב ְ ׂשמֹאל
too, when putting on shoes one begins with the left foot.
נֹועל ׁ ֶשל יָ ִמין
ֵ – נֹועל
ֵ “כ ׁ ֶשהוּא ְּ :ית ֵיבי
ִ ֵמThe Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Yoĥanan’s opinion from
ֵ ְ וְ ַא ַחר ָּכךa baraita: When one puts on his shoes, he puts on the right shoe
n
!נֹועל ׁ ֶשל ְ ׂשמֹאל״
first and afterward puts on the left shoe.
וַ ֲא ַמר, ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא דְּ ַתנְיָא ָה ִכי:יֹוסף
ֵ ֲא ַמר ַרבRav Yosef said: Now that it was taught in a baraita in this manner,
ָ ַר ִ ּביand Rabbi Yoĥanan stated the halakha in that manner, one who
וְ ַד ֲע ַבד, דַּ ֲע ַבד ָה ִכי – ֲע ַבד,יֹוחנָן ָה ִכי
. ָה ִכי – ֲע ַבדacted this way acted properly, and one who acted that way acted
properly, as each custom has a basis.
יֹוחנָ ן ָהא ָ דִּ ְיל ָמא ַר ִ ּבי:יה ַא ַ ּביֵ יּ ֲא ַמר ֵל Abaye said to him: Why is the Gemara certain that Rabbi Yoĥanan
יה? וְ ִאי ֲהוָ ה ּ נִיתין ָלא ֲהוָ ה ׁ ְש ִמ ַיע ֵלִ ַמ ְת disagrees with the baraita? Perhaps Rabbi Yoĥanan had not heard
וְ ִאי נַ ִמי ׁ ְש ִמ ַיע.יה
ּ יה – ֲהוָ ה ֲה ַדר ֵ ּב
ּ ׁ ְש ִמ ַיע ֵל this baraita, and had he heard it, he would have retracted his
opinion. And even if he heard it, perhaps he heard it and held that
.אֹות ּה ִמ ׁ ְשנָ ה
ָ ֵאין ֲה ָל ָכה ְּכ: וְ ָק ָס ַבר,יה ּ ֵל the halakha is not in accordance with that mishna. In any case,
it is necessary to rule in accordance with one of the opinions.
יְ ֵרא ׁ ָש ַמיִ ם יֹוצֵ א:ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said: And one who fears Heaven ful-
יכי
ִ ֵה.יה דְּ ַר ָ ּבנָ א
ּ ו ַּמנּ ּו – ָמר ְ ּב ֵר.יהן
ֶ יְ ֵדי ׁ ְש ֵּת fills both opinions. And who is this God-fearing person? Mar, son
וְ ַסּיֵ ים,ינֵיה וְ ָלא ָק ַטר ּ ימ ִ ִָּע ֵביד? ַסּיֵ ים ד of Rabbana. How does he conduct himself? He puts on his right
shoeh and does not tie the laces. And then he puts on his left shoe
.ינֵיה
ּ ימ ִ ִּ וַ ֲה ַדר ָק ַטר ד,יה וְ ָק ַטר ּ אלֵ דִּ ְ ׂש ָמ
and ties it, and then afterward ties the laces of his right shoe. Rav
ֲחזִ ינָ א ְל ַרב ַּכ ֲהנָ א דְּ ָלא,ֲא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי Ashi said: I saw that Rav Kahana was not particular with regard
.ָק ֵפיד to the order in which he put on his shoes.
נֹועל ׁ ֶשל יָ ִמין
ֵ – נֹועלֵ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ְּכ ׁ ֶשהוּא After citing this excerpt from Hilkhot Derekh Eretz with regard to
ְּכ ׁ ֶשהוּא,נֹועל ׁ ֶשל ְ ׂשמֹאל ֵ וְ ַא ַחר ָּכ ְך putting on shoes, the Gemara cites the entire matter. The Sages
חֹולץ
ֵ ְחֹולץ ׁ ֶשל ְ ׂשמֹאל וְ ַא ַחר ָּכך
ֵ – חֹולץ ֵ taught: When one puts on his shoes, he puts on the right shoe
first and afterward puts on the left shoe because the right always
.ׁ ֶשל יָ ִמין
takes precedence. When he removesh them, he removes the left
and afterward he removes the right, so that the right shoe will
remain on the foot longer.
ְרֹוחץ ׁ ֶשל יָ ִמין וְ ַא ַחר ָּכךֵ – רֹוחץ ֵ ְּכ ׁ ֶשהוּא When one washesh his feet, he washes the right first and after-
ְּכ ׁ ֶשהוּא ָסךְ – ָסךְ ׁ ֶשל,רֹוחץ ׁ ֶשל ְ ׂשמֹאל ֵ ward he washes the left. And one who wishes to spread oil on
ְ וְ ָהרֹוצֶ ה ָלסוּך.יָ ִמין וְ ַא ַחר ָּכךְ ׁ ֶשל ְ ׂשמֹאל his feet spreads oil on the right first and afterward spreads oil on
the left. And one who wishes to spread oil on his entire body,
ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶשהוּא,ֹאשֹו ְּת ִח ָּילה
ׁ ָּכל ּגוּפֹו – ָסךְ ר
spreads oil on his head first because it is the king of all his other
.ֶמ ֶלךְ ַעל ָּכל ֵא ָיב ָריו limbs.
294 Perek VI . 61a . אס ףד. קרפ ׳ו
halakha
ָלא: ָא ַמר ַרב ָס ְפ ָרא.“וְ ל ֹא ַ ּב ְּת ִפ ִּילין״ We learned in the mishna: And he may neither go out with
phylacteries.h Rav Safra said: Do not say that this halakha is only And he may neither go out with phylacteries – וְ ל ֹא ַ ּב ְּת ִפ ִּילין:
“ש ָ ּבתַ ׁ יבא דְּ ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ּ ָ ימא ַא ִּל ָ ֵּת One may not go out into the public domain donning phy-
ּ ֶא ָּלא ֲא ִפ,ילין הוּא״
יל ּו ִּ ָלאו זְ ַמן ְּת ִפ in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that Shabbat lacteries on Shabbat. One who does so is not liable to bring
is not an appropriate time to don phylacteries, i.e., it is prohibited a sin-offering, in accordance with both versions of the state-
ילין ִּ “ש ָ ּבת זְ ַמן ְּת ִפ ַ ׁ ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר
to don phylacteries on Shabbat, and that is the reason that one may ments of Rabbi Safra (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shab-
יל ָמא ָא ֵתי ְ ִּ ד,ה ּוא״ – ל ֹא יֵ צֵ א not go out into the public domain with them. Rather, even accord- bat 19:14; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 301:7).
.ְל ִאיתוּיֵ י ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים ing to the one who said that Shabbat is an appropriate time to don ִּ הנָ ָחת ְּת ִפ:ַ
Donning phylacteries on Shabbat – ילין ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת
phylacteries,n he may not go out with them due to the concern lest The halakha is that Shabbat is not an appropriate time to
he come to carry them in his hand in the public domain,n which don phylacteries, and it is prohibited to don phylacteries
is prohibited by Torah law. on Shabbat (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Tefillin UMezuza
VeSefer Torah 4:10; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 31:1).
“וְ ִאם יָ צָ א:וְ ִא ָּיכא דְּ ַמ ְתנִי ָל ּה ַא ֵּס ָיפא And some teach the statement of Rav Safra as referring to the latter Nor with an amulet when it is not from an expert – וְ ל ֹא
: ָא ַמר ַרב ָס ְפ ָרא,ֵאינֹו ַחּיָ יב ַח ָּטאת״ clause of the mishna: And if he went out into the public domain ב ָ ּק ֵמ ַיע ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ִמן ַה ּמו ְּמ ֶחה:
ּ ַ It is permitted to go out on
יבא דְּ ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ּ ָ ימא ַא ִּל ָ ָלא ֵּת with phylacteries he is not liable to bring a sin-offering. Rav Safra Shabbat wearing an amulet in a case where either it has
said: Do not say that this halakha is only according to the opinion proved effective or because the one who wrote it has a
ילין הוּא״ – ֶא ָּלא ִּ “ש ָ ּבת זְ ַמן ְּת ִפ ַׁ
of the one who said that Shabbat is an appropriate time to don reputation for writing effective amulets. It is permitted to go
“ש ָ ּבת ָלאו זְ ַמןַ ׁ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר phylacteries, and therefore he does not violate a Torah prohibition out with an amulet of that sort to the public domain even if
,ילין הוּא״ – ֵאינֹו ַחּיָ יב ַח ָּטאת ִּ ְּת ִפ one is not ill but merely concerned that he might become ill,
by going out into the public domain with phylacteries and is not
as per the Tosefta (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat
.ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא – דֶּ ֶרךְ ַמ ְל ּבו ּׁש ֲע ִב ָידא liable to bring a sin-offering. Rather, even according to the opinion 19:14; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 301:25).
of one who said that Shabbat is not an appropriate time to don
phylacteries,h he is not liable to bring a sin-offering. What is the background
reason that he is exempt? Donning phylacteries is performed in
Amulet – ק ֵמ ַיעָ :
the manner of wearing a garment or an ornament. Although one
may not use phylacteries on Shabbat, there is no Torah prohibition
against moving them.
“וְ ל ֹא ַ ּב ָ ּק ֵמ ַיע ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ֵא ינֹו ִמן We learned in the mishna: Nor with an amuletb when it is not from
ימא ָ ָלא ֵּת: ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא.ַה ּמו ְּמ ֶחה״ an expert.h Rav Pappa said: Do not say that the meaning of the
,ַעד דְּ מו ְּמ ֶחה ַ ּג ְב ָרא וּמו ְּמ ֶחה ָק ֵמ ַיע mishna is that one may only go out with an amulet if the person
who wrote it is an expert and the amulet has proven effective.
ַאף ַעל, ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ מו ְּמ ֶחה ַ ּג ְב ָרא:ֶא ָּלא
Rather, if the person who wrote it is an expert, even though the
.ַ ּגב דְּ ל ֹא מו ְּמ ֶחה ָק ֵמ ַיע amulet has not proven effective, he may go out with it.
“וְ ל ֹא ַ ּב ָ ּק ֵמ ַיע ִ ּבזְ ַמן: דְּ ָק ָתנֵי, דַּ יְ ָקא נַ ִמיThe Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise,
ּ ִ ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ִמן ַה ּמו ְּמ ֶחה״ וְ ָלא ָק ָתנֵיas it teaches: Nor with an amulet when it is not from an expert,
“בזְ ַמן
. ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו מו ְּמ ֶחה״ – ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּהand it does not teach: When the amulet is not effective. Appar-
ently, it is sufficient if the writer of the amulet is an expert, even if
the effectiveness of the amulet has not been proven. The Gemara
comments: Indeed, learn from it.
ֵאיזֶ ה ּו ָק ֵמ ַיע מו ְּמ ֶחה? ָּכל:ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן The Sages taught in the Tosefta: What is an effective amulet? It is
ֶא ָחד ָק ֵמ ַיע. וְ ׁ ִש ֵּל ׁש, וְ ׁ ָשנָ ה,יפאֵ ּ ׁ ֶש ִר any amulet that healed one person once, and healed him again, and
ּ ָ וְ ֶא ָחד ָק ֵמ ַיע ׁ ֶשל ִע,ׁ ֶשל ְּכ ָתב
.יק ִרין healed him a third time. That is the criterion for an effective amulet,
and it applies to both a written amulet and an amulet of herbal
חֹולה ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ּבֹו ַס ָּכנָ ה וְ ֶא ָחד ֶ ֶא ָחד Leather pouch for a written amulet or an amulet of herbs
roots; both if it has proven effective in healing a sick person who
,חֹולה ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּבֹו ַס ָּכנָ ה
ֶ is dangerously ill, and if it has proven effective in healing a sick
person who is not dangerously ill. It is permitted to go out with
these types of amulets on Shabbat.
. ל ֹא ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְכ ּ ָפה – ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא יִ ָּכ ֶפהAnd an amulet was not only permitted in a case where one has al-
ready fallen due to epilepsy and wears the amulet in order to prevent
an additional fall. Rather, even if one has never fallen, and he wears
the amulet so that he will not contract the illness and fall, he is
permitted to go out with it on Shabbat is permitted.
,קֹושר ו ַּמ ִּתיר ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים ֵ ׁ ְ וAnd he may tie and untie itn even in the public domain,n as long
ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא יִ ְק ׁ ְש ֶרנּ ּוas he does not tie it
notes
Time to don phylacteries – ילין ִּ זְ ַמן ְּת ִפ: There is a tannaitic Lest he come to carry them in his hand in the public domain – concern that one might tie the object carelessly and hold it in
dispute whether the mitzva of phylacteries is a time-bound דִּ ְיל ָמא ָא ֵתי ְל ִאיתוּיֵ י ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּבים: In the standard version of the his hand. However, since the wearer of an amulet is concerned
mitzva and one does not don phylacteries on Shabbat and text, the rationale for prohibiting going out with phylacteries about his health, he will be certain to tie it well (Me’iri).
Festivals, or whether it is not a time-bound mitzva and one on Shabbat, that perhaps the strap will be severed, does not
Going out with an amulet on Shabbat – יאה ְ ּב ָק ֵמ ַיע ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת
ָ ִיְ צ:
dons phylacteries at all times, even at night. The crux of the appear. Rather, the prohibition is established because there
Several commentaries asked: Why didn’t the Sages prohibit
dispute is the interpretation of the phrase: Miyamim yamima, are places where it is prohibited to don phylacteries, and one
amulets on Shabbat the same way that they prohibited other
which is written with regard to phylacteries (Exodus 13:10). The will be required to remove them. The concern is that he will
medicinal remedies? The answer is that medicine is prohibited
question is whether the verse should be understood based forget that he has them in his hand and come to carry them
due to the concern lest one come to grind herbs. However,
on Shabbat (Rashba).
on the common interpretation of the word yom, i.e., that the since amulets are prepared exclusively by experts, there is no
mitzva applies only during the day, or whether, in this context, And he may tie and untie it – קֹושר ו ַּמ ִּתיר
ֵ ׁ ְו: It is prohibited to tie concern that a person will come to desecrate Shabbat in their
miyamim yamima means from year to year (Rashi). or untie objects other than amulets in the public domain due to preparation (Me’iri).
Perek VI
Daf 62 Amud a
halakha
ו ִּב ְל ַבד:אֹומר
ֵ אֹוש ֲעיָ א ַ ׁ ַר ִ ּבי, וְ ָה ַתנְיָאBut wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Oshaya says with regard
With an amulet that is covered in leather – ב ְמחו ּ ֶּפה עֹור:ּ ִ It
ֲ ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא יto an amulet: As long as he does not hold it in his hand and carry
ֹאחזֶ נּ ּו ְ ּביָ דֹו וְ יַ ֲע ִב ֶירנּ ּו ַא ְר ַ ּבע is permitted to enter a bathroom with an amulet in which
! ַא ּמֹות ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת ָה ַר ִ ּביםit four cubits in the public domain? Apparently, even with regard names of God are written only if it is covered in leather (Ram-
to an amulet, there is a distinction between wearing it and carrying bam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Tefillin UMezuza VeSefer Torah 10:5;
it. Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 282:6).
– [א ָּלא] ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַ ן ֶ Rather, with what are we dealing here? With an amulet that is One who enters a bathroom must remove the phylacter-
ies, etc. – חֹולץ ְּת ִפ ִּילין וכו׳
ֵ ה ִּנ ְכנָס ְל ֵבית ַה ִּכ ֵּסא:ַ One who wishes
. ִ ּב ְמחו ּ ֶּפה עֹורcovered in leather. Since the writing itself is covered, the name of
h
to enter the bathroom to relieve himself, or even not to
God is not degraded when the amulet is brought into the bathroom relieve himself (Rema), must remove his phylacteries at a
with him. distance of four cubits from the bathroom (Rambam Sefer
Ahava, Hilkhot Tefillin UMezuza VeSefer Torah 4:17; Shulĥan
: וְ ַתנְיָא, דִּ ְמחו ּ ֶּפה עֹור,ילין ִּ וַ ֲה ֵרי ְּת ִפThe Gemara objects. There is writing on the scrolls of phylacteries, Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 43:5).
ֵ – ַה ִּנ ְכנָס ְל ֵבית ַה ִּכ ֵּסאwhich is covered in the leather of boxes housing the scrolls, and
חֹולץ ְּת ִפ ִּילין The shin of the phylacteries – שין ׁ ֶשל ְּת ִפ ִּילין:
ִ ׁ It is a halakha
! וְ נִ ְכנָס, ְ ּב ִרחוּק ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹותnevertheless it was taught in a baraita: One who enters a bathroom transmitted to Moses from Sinai that one must emboss a
while wearing phylacteries must remove the phylacteriesh at a letter shin on the box of the phylacteries of the head. If there
distance of four cubits and only then enter. There is no halakhic is no shin, the phylacteries are invalid (Rambam Sefer Ahava,
difference whether or not the writing is covered. Hilkhot Tefillin UMezuza VeSefer Torah 3:1; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ
Ĥayyim 32:42).
שי״ן: דְּ ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י.ָה ָתם ִמ ׁ ּשוּם שי״ן The Gemara rejects this: There, with regard to phylacteries, the
.ילין ֲה ָל ָכה ְלמ ׁ ֶֹשה ִמ ִּסינַי ִּ ׁ ֶשל ְּת ִפ prohibition to enter the bathroom is not due to the sacred writing
דל״ת ׁ ֶשל ְּת ִפ ִּילין ֲה ָל ָכה:וְ ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י on the scrolls inside the phylacteries. Rather, it is due to the letter
shin that protrudes from the leather of the boxes housing the scroll
יו״ד ׁ ֶשל: וְ ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י.ְלמ ׁ ֶֹשה ִמ ִּסינַי
in the phylacteries of the head, as Abaye said: The source of the
.ְּת ִפ ִּילין ֲה ָל ָכה ְלמ ׁ ֶֹשה ִמ ִּסינַי requirement of the shin of the phylacteriesh is a halakha transmit-
ted to Moses from Sinai. It is required by Torah law. And, Abaye
said: The knot in the shape of the letter dalet in the straps of the
phylacteries of the head is a halakha transmitted to Moses from
Sinai. And, Abaye said: The letter yod of the phylacteries is a ha-
lakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. It is due to those letters
that one must safeguard the sanctity of the phylacteries and refrain
from taking them into the bathroom.
“וְ ל ֹא ַ ּב ׁ ּ ִש ְריֹון וְ ל ֹא ַ ּב ַ ּק ְסדָּ א וְ ל ֹאWe learned in the mishna: And he may neither go out with shiryon,
. ַ ּב ַּמ ָ ּג ַפיִ ים״nor with a kasda, nor with maggafayim. These terms were not
understood, and therefore the Gemara explains them:
בס ףד. ׳ו קרפ. Perek VI . 62a 297
background
:“ק ְסדָּ א״ ָא ַמר ַרב ַ .“ש ְריֹון״ – זְ ָר ָדא ִ ׁ Shiryon is a coat of mail [zerada],lb armor made of scales.
Coat of mail – ש ְריֹון:
ִׁ
ְ ַ ַסנְ וKasda: Rav said that it is a leather hat [sanvarta] worn under
lb l
. ּ ֻפזְ ְמ ֵקי:“מ ָ ּג ַפיִ ים״ ָא ַמר ַרב
ַ .אר ָּתא
a metal helmet. Maggafayim: Rav said they are leg armorb worn
beneath the knee.
דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי,יבת ַח ָּטאת ֶ ֶ וְ ִאם יָ צְ ָתה – ַחּיAnd if she did go out into the public domain, she is liable to
לֹוחית ְ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים ּפ. ֵמ ִאירbring a sin-offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir, who
ִ ְֹוט ִרין ַ ּב ּכ ֶֹוב ֶלת ו ִּבצ
. ׁ ֶשל ּ ַפ ְליָ יטֹוןholds that in doing so she violated the Torah prohibition of
carrying a burden in the public domain on Shabbat. And the
Rabbis exempt one who goes out on Shabbat with a kovelet
and with a flask of balsam oil. In their opinion, these are orna-
ments, and therefore they do not fundamentally violate the
Torah prohibition of carrying in the public domain on Shabbat.
language
Coat of mail [zerada] – זְ ָר ָדא: This is the form of the word in Leather hat [sanvarta] – אר ָּתא
ְ ַסנְ ו:ַ From the Old Persian sara-
Middle Iranian. In Avestan, it is zrāδa; in Middle Persian, zrēh varti, meaning head covering. The word appears in Manichaean
means armor. Middle Persian as sārvār.
Kasda – ק ְסדָּ א:ַ From the Latin cassis, genitive cassidis, meaning
Helmet of a Roman soldier metal helmet used in war. However, the Hebrew word is an Brooch [kulyar] – כו ְּליָ אר:ּ Apparently, the correct reading is kov-
Leg armor – מ ָ ּג ַפיִ ים:ַ abbreviation of the Greek κασσίδιον, kassidion. Due to its Greek- liar from the Greek κοχλεάριον, kokhlearion, an object shaped
Roman origins, it was not understood in Babylonia. like a spring, a circle in the shape of a snail, or round ornament.
notes
A woman with a needle – א ׁ ּ ָשה ְ ּב ַמ ַחט:
ִ Rav Hai Gaon, based assume that the expression: A woman may not go out, was
on the Jerusalem Talmud, explained that this phrase refers to a employed only because it reflects the reality that women typi-
woman who weaves and embroiders professionally. Therefore, cally wear rings, but it was not intended to exclude men. Indeed,
when she carries a needle on Shabbat, she is an artisan plying the difficulty raised from the baraita’s statement: And not with
her trade. regard to the shepherds alone did the Sages say that they are
And the reverse of these halakhot is true with regard to a permitted to go out in sacks on Shabbat; rather, any person
ֶ וְ ִח ּילו ֵּפ: In general, the women’s ornaments men- may do so, indicates that one should not draw inferences from
man – יהן ָ ּב ִא ׁיש
tioned in the previous mishnayot are not at all suitable for men. expressions that merely reflect a common reality. Therefore, the
Therefore, there would be no point to mention the halakha Gemara concludes: Women are a people unto themselves. Men
with regard to a man. However, with regard to a ring, one might do not wear women’s ornaments.
halakha
A woman may neither go out with a perforated needle, etc. – ruled the opposite: He is exempt if he goes out with a perforated
ל ֹא ֵּתצֵ א ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ְ ּב ַמ ַחט ַה ְּנקו ָּבה וכו׳: It is prohibited for a woman to go
needle, and he is liable if he goes out with an unperforated
out on Shabbat with a perforated needle or with a ring that has needle. Similarly, it is prohibited for a man to go out wearing a
a seal. If she went out into the public domain on Shabbat, she is ring without a seal. If he did so he is liable. Some authorities rule
liable (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 19:4–5; Shulĥan that it is prohibited to go out wearing a ring with a seal (Rashi).
Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 303:9). Some authorities permit doing so even ab intitio (Rambam; Rab-
And the reverse of these halakhot is true with regard to a beinu Tam based on the Jerusalem Talmud; Rabbeinu Zeraĥia
ֶ וְ ִח ּילו ֵּפ: It is prohibited for a man to go out on HaLevi; Rosh). Even according to Rashi, one who went out with
man – יהן ָ ּב ִא ׁיש
Shabbat with a needle stuck into his clothing whether or not it a ring with a seal is exempt, in accordance with the statement
is perforated. If he went out with a perforated needle, he is li- of Ulla (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 19:4; Shulĥan
Metal leg armor of a Roman soldier able. If it was not perforated, he is exempt. Some commentaries Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 301:8–9).
Perek VI
Daf 62 Amud b
language
ל ֹא ֵּתצֵ א ִא ׁ ּ ָשה:ו ַּמאי ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר? דְּ ַתנְיָא And to what statement of Rabbi Meir is the Gemara referring? As it was
Balsam oil [palyaton] – פ ְליָ יטֹון:ַ ּ From the Latin
וְ ִאם יָ צָ את – ַחּיֶ ֶיבת,ְ ּב ַמ ְפ ֵּת ַח ׁ ֶש ְ ּביָ ָד ּה taught in a baraita: A woman may not go out on Shabbat with a key that is
word folliatum, meaning something made
from leaf and flower concentrate. ֶ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל, דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר,ַח ָּטאת
יעזֶ ר in her hand, and if she went out she is liable to bring a sin-offering; this
is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Eliezer exempts a woman who goes
.לֹוחית ׁ ֶשל ּ ַפ ְליָ יטֹון
ִ ְֹוטר ַ ּב ּכ ֶֹוב ֶלת ו ִּבצ ֵ ּפ
notes
out with a bundle of fragrant herbs and with a flask of balsam oil
[palyaton].l
One who takes out a measure of food that
is less than the measure that determines !? ּכ ֶֹוב ֶלת ַמאן דְּ ַכר ׁ ְש ָמ ּהThe Gemara finds the statement of Rabbi Eliezer difficult: A bundle of fra-
liability – אֹוכ ִלין ּ ָפחֹות ִמ ַּכ ׁ ּ ִשיעוּר
ָ ה ּמֹוצִ יא:ַ In the grant herbs; who mentioned anything about that? Rabbi Meir did not
context of the halakhot of Shabbat, intention
mention a bundle of herbs; why did Rabbi Eliezer mention it in his response?
is even more significant than action. Therefore,
one who carries out a vessel that contains food וְ ֵכן: וְ ָה ִכי ָק ָתנֵ י,ַח ּס ּו ֵרי ְמ ַח ְּס ָרא The Gemara answers that the baraita is incomplete and it teaches the fol-
is not liable for carrying out the vessel because lowing: And likewise, with a bundle of fragrant herbs, and likewise with
it is secondary to the food inside it. The issue
ל ֹא,לֹוחית ׁ ֶשל ּ ַפ ְליָ יטֹוןִ ְ וְ ֵכן ִ ּבצ,ַ ּב ּכ ֶֹוב ֶלת
דִּ ְב ֵרי, וְ ִאם יָ צְ ָאה – ַחּיֶ ֶיבת ַח ָּטאת,ֵּתצֵ א a flask of balsam oil she may not go out, and if she went out she is liable
of whether or not one is liable for the vessel
to bring a sin-offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Eliezer
has practical significance in a case where one ֹוטר ַ ּב ּכ ֶֹוב ֶלתֵ יעזֶ ר ּפֶ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל.ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר
is not liable for carrying out the food, e.g., if he exempts in the cases of a bundle of fragrant herbs and a flask of balsam
carries out less than the measure that deter-
ַ ּב ֶּמה דְּ ָב ִרים.לֹוחית ׁ ֶשל ּ ַפ ְליָ יטֹון ִ ְו ִּבצ oil. In what case is this statement said? In a case where the vessels have
mines liability by Torah law. In that case, the ֲא ָבל,ֹושם ׂ ֶ ֲאמו ִּרים – ְּכ ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ָ ּב ֶהם ּב perfume in them; however, in a case where they do not have perfume in
Sages seek to prove that if the food was less .ֹושם – ַחּיֶ ֶיבת ׂ ֶ ֵאין ָ ּב ֶהם ּב them, she is liable for carrying the flask out into the public domain on
than that measure, the food is no longer sig- Shabbat.
nificant and the vessel is no longer secondary
to it. In this context, a question is raised based :אֹומ ֶרת
ֶ זֹאת,ָא ַמר ַרב ַאדָּ א ַ ּבר ַא ֲה ָבה Rav Adda bar Ahava said: That is to say that one who carries out a measure
on the assumption that smell is an indication – אֹוכ ִלין ּ ָפחֹות ִמ ַּכ ׁ ּ ִשיעוּר ַ ּב ְּכ ִלי
ָ ַה ּמֹוצִ יא of food that is less than the measure that determines liabilityn on Shabbat,
that there is at least a minimal amount of food. but he does so in a vessel, he is liable. Although he is not liable for carrying
However, this assumption is rejected based ֹושם – ְּכ ָפחֹות ׂ ֶ דְּ ָהא ֵאין ָ ּב ּה ּב.ַחּיָ יב
the food out into the public domain, he is liable for carrying out the vessel.
on the principle that an item that cannot be .“חּיֶ ֶיבת״ ַ וְ ָק ָתנֵי,ִמ ַּכ ׁ ּ ִשיעוּר ַ ּב ְּכ ִלי דָּ ֵמי
detected in a straightforward manner is con-
In that case, the vessel is not subordinate to the food, and therefore it is
sidered non-existent or, at the very least, as significant. Since the case of the flask in which there is no perfume is com-
lacking substance. parable to the case in which there is less than the required measurement
of food in a vessel, and it was taught in the case of the flask that she is liable
even though the fragrance of the perfume remains in the vessel, it stands to
reason that one who carries a vessel containing less than a measure of food
is also liable.
300 Perek VI . 62b . בס ףד: קרפ ׳ו
language
וְ ׁ ָשאנֵי,ימא ָלךְ – ּ ָפטוּר ָ ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא ֵא: ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ָא ַמרRav Ashi said: That is no proof because, in general, I would say to
Multi-spouted vessels [kenishkanin] –
.יה ְל ַמ ָּמ ׁ ָשא ְּכ ָלל ֵ ָה ָכא – דְּ ֵלyou that he is exempt in a case where there is less than the measure
ּ ית נִיש ָקנִין
ְ ׁ ק:ְ The origin of this word and its mean-
that determines liability for food. However, it is different here, in ing are unclear. Kanishka is a word in Syriac,
the case of the empty flask of perfume as, in that case, there is no from the Greek κανίσκιον, kaniskion, meaning
substance at all. Because the vessel is completely empty, he is liable small basket. It might be related to the Latin
for carrying the flask. phrase canistrum siccarium, meaning a basket
in which a wine decanter is placed on the table.
אשית ׁ ְש ָמנִים יִ ְמ ׁ ָשחוּ״ ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ִ ׁ “וְ ֵרRelated to the mention of perfume, the Gemara cites several state- Various scholars suggest additional sources to
align the meaning with Rashi’s explanation, but
. זֶ ה ּ ַפ ְליָ יטֹון: ׁ ְשמו ֵּאלments. It is stated: “That drink wine in mizrekei, and anoint them-
selves with the chief ointments; but they are not grieved for the their suggestions are unlikely.
hurt of Joseph” (Amos 6:6). Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said:
“The chief ointments” is balsam oil. notes
Three things bring a person to poverty –
ַאף ַעל ּ ַפ ְליָ יטֹון ָ ּגזַ ר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה:יֹוסףֵ ְמ ִתיב ַרבRav Yosef raised an objection from the Tosefta: Rabbi Yehuda ben יאין ֶאת ָה ָא ָדם ִל ֵידי ֲענִּיוּת
ִ של ׁ ָֹשה דְּ ָב ִרים ְמ ִב:
ְ ׁ Ap-
parently poverty is not a natural consequence
, וְ ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַּת ֲענוּג. וְ ל ֹא הֹוד ּו לֹו, ֶ ּבן ָ ּב ָבאBava issued a decree on balsam oil as well, prohibiting its use due of the actions listed in the Gemara; it is a divine
? ַא ַּמאי ל ֹא הֹוד ּו לֹוto mourning over the destruction of the Temple, and the Sages did punishment (see Rashi). However, some com-
not agree with him. And if you say that balsam oil is the chief oint- mentaries explain that one who conducts him-
ment cited in the verse, and the decree was issued due to the plea- self in an unhygienic manner displays the traits
sure it provides, why didn’t the Sages agree with his decree? Doesn’t of idleness and laziness, which ultimately lead
the verse criticize those who do not feel the pain of the people? to poverty. Even with regard to the case of his
wife’s jewelry, one who treats his wife poorly
“ה ׁ ּש ִֹתים
ַ : ָהא דִּ ְכ ִתיב, ְ ו ְּל ַט ְע ִמיך:יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י
ּ ֲא ַמר ֵל Abaye said to him: And according to your reasoning, that which will cause his wife to adopt a contemptuous
is written in the same verse: “That drink wine in mizrekei”; Rabbi attitude toward her household responsibilities,
:ְ ּב ִמזְ ְר ֵקי יַ יִ ן״ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי וְ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי; ַחד ָא ַמר which will also lead to poverty (Me’iri). Some
,יהן זֶ ה ָלזֶ ה
ֶ ֹוסֹות
ֵ ׁ ֶש ְּמזָ ְר ִקין ּכ: וְ ַחד ָא ַמר,נִיש ָקנִין ְ ׁ ְק Ami and Rabbi Asi disagree over the meaning of the term mizrekei.
commentaries interpreted the issue of the
One said: They are multi-spouted vessels [kenishkanin],l wine woman’s jewelry as an example of the punish-
ָה ִכי נַ ִמי דַּ ֲא ִסיר? וְ ָהא ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַרב הוּנָ א ִא ְיק ַלע
vessels with spouts from which several people can drink at one time, ment fitting the crime, as will be explained in
וְ ָלא ֲא ַמר,נִיש ָקנִיןְ ׁ ְל ֵבי ֵר ׁיש ָ ּגלו ָּתא וְ ׁ ָש ָתה ִ ּב ְק and one said that they throw [mezarkin] their cups to one an- the Gemara. Since one’s wife is dependent on
!יה וְ ָלא ִמידֵּ י ּ ֵל other in joy and jest. Is that also prohibited? Didn’t Rabba bar Rav him and he fails to meet her needs, he will be
Huna visit the house of the Exilarch and see the Exilarch drink punished in kind and God will not meet his
from a multi-spouted vessel, and Rabba bar Rav Huna did not say needs (Rabbeinu Nissim).
anything to him?
halakha
יה
ּ יה ַּת ֲענוּג וְ ִאית ֵ ּב ּ ָּכל ִמידֵּ י דְּ ִאית ֵ ּב: ֶא ָּלאRather, the principle is as follows: With regard to any matter in One who urinates before his bed – ַה ַּמ ׁ ְש ִּתין
מיִ ם ִ ּב ְפנֵי ִמ ַּטתֹו:ַ One who urinates on the ground
ּ ֲא ָבל ִמידֵּ י דְּ ִאית ֵ ּב, ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה – ְ ּגזַ ר ּו ַר ָ ּבנַןwhich there is an element of pleasure and in which there is an ele-
יה ַּת ֲענוּג
before his bed while facing the bed, whether
.יה ִ ׂש ְמ ָחה – ָלא ְ ּגזַ ר ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן ּ וְ ֵלית ֵ ּבment of joy, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting it due to mourn- or not he is clothed at the time, is deplorable,
ing over the destruction of the Temple. However, with regard to a as per the Gemara and the restrictions of Rava
matter in which there is an element of pleasure and in which there (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 241).
is no element of joy, the Sages did not issue a decree. Since there
One who demeans the ritual washing of
is no element of joy in balsam oil, even though it is precious and
the hands – נְט ַילת יָ ַדיִ ם
ִ ו ְּמזַ ְלזֵ ל ִ ּב: One should
pleasurable, they did not issue a decree prohibiting it. be vigilant and perform the mitzva of ritual
hand-washing in an exemplary manner. Ac-
– “ה ׁ ּש ְֹכ ִבים ַעל ִמ ּטֹות ׁ ֵשן ו ְּס ֻר ִחים ַעל ַע ְר ׂש ָֹותם״ ַ The Gemara interprets additional verses related to the critique of the cording to tractate Eduyyot, one who demeans
ֵ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּביleadership of Samaria. It is stated: “That lie upon beds of ivory and
ְמ ַל ֵּמד ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו ַמ ׁ ְש ִּתינִין:יֹוסי ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א that mitzva is punishable by ostracism and will
.יהן ֲערו ִּּמיםֶ ֹות ֵ ַמיִ ם ִ ּב ְפנֵי ִמ ּטstretch [seruĥim] upon their couches and eat the lambs out of the become impoverished and uprooted from the
flock and the calves out of the midst of the stall” (Amos 6:4). Rabbi world (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Berakhot
Yosei, son of Rabbi Ĥanina, said: This term, seruĥim, interpreted 6:19; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 158:9).
homiletically, teaches that their sin was that they would urinate
before their beds while naked.
“ל ֵכן
ָ : ַהיְ ינ ּו דִּ ְכ ִתיב, ִאי ָה ִכי:ּ ְמגַ דֵּ ף ָ ּב ּה ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבהוRabbi Abbahu ridiculed that interpretation: If so, that this is the
ֹאש ּג ִֹלים״? ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ַמ ׁ ְש ִּתינִין ַמיִ םׁ ַע ָּתה יִגְ ל ּו ְ ּברmeaning of the term seruĥim, is this the meaning of that which is
!?ֹאש גּ ִֹולים ׁ יהם ֲערו ִּּמים יִגְ ל ּו ְ ּבר
ֶ ֹות ֵ ִ ּב ְפנֵי ִמ ּטwritten: “Therefore now they shall go into exile at the head of the
exiles and the revelry of those seruĥim shall pass away” (Amos 6:7),
because they urinate before their beds while naked they will be
exiled at the head of exiles? Although doing so is revolting, a pun-
ishment so severe is certainly excessive.
ֵא ּל ּו ְ ּבנֵי ָא ָדם ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו:ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבה ּו Rather, Rabbi Abbahu said: This verse is referring to a grave sin.
יהן ֵ דֹוב ִקין ִמ ּט
ֶ ֹות ְ ְ ו,ֹותים זֶ ה ִעם זֶ ה ִ אֹוכ ִלים וְ ׁשְ These are people who would eat and drink with each other, and
יחין ִ ו ַּמ ְס ִר,יהן זֶ ה ִעם זֶ ה ֶ ֹות
ֵ ו ַּמ ֲח ִל ִיפין ׁנְש,זֹו ָ ּבזֹו join their beds to each other, and swap wives with each other, and
defile their beds with semen that was not theirs. That is the mean-
.סֹותם ְ ּב ׁ ִש ְכ ַבת זֶ ַרע ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ׁ ֶש ָּל ֶהן
ָ ַע ְר
ing of seruĥim upon their couches. For those severe transgressions
they deserved to be exiled at the head of exiles.
:נִיתא ְּתנָ א ָ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה ְ ּב ַמ ְת,ָּא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבהו On a related note, Rabbi Abbahu said, and some say it was taught
,יאין ֶאת ָה ָא ָדם ִל ֵידי ֲענִּיוּת ִ ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה דְּ ָב ִרים ְמ ִב in a baraita: Three matters bring a person to a state of povertyn as
ו ְּמזַ ְלזֵ ל, ַה ַּמ ׁ ְש ִּתין ַמיִ ם ִ ּב ְפנֵי ִמ ָּטתֹו ָערֹום:וְ ֵאלּ ּו ֵהן a divine punishment from Heaven: One who urinates before his
bedh while naked, and one who demeans the ritual washing of the
. וְ ׁ ֶש ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו ְמ ַק ַּל ְל ּתֹו ְ ּב ָפנָיו,נְט ַילת יָ ַדיִ ם
ִ ִ ּב
hands,h and one whose wife curses him in his presence.
בס ףד: ׳ו קרפ. Perek VI . 62b 301
notes
“ה ַּמ ׁ ְש ִּתין ַמיִ ם ִ ּב ְפנֵי ִמ ָּטתֹו ָערֹום״ ָא ַמר
ַ The Gemara explains: With regard to one who urinates before his
Like venom of a viper – כ ֶא ֶרס ַ ּב ְכעֹוס:ְּ According to parallel
texts and variants of this text, the simple explanation of this ּ ָלא ֲא ַמ ַרן ֶא ָּלא דִּ ְמ ַהדַּ ר ַא ּ ֵפ: ָר ָבאbed while naked, Rava said: We only said this prohibition in a case
יה
phrase is as if it were written: Like venom of a viper [ke’eres . ֲא ָבל ְל ָב ַר ֵאי – ֵלית ָלן ָ ּב ּה,יה ּ ֵ ְלפו ְּריwhere he turns his face toward his bed and urinates toward it;
shel ekes]. Some commentaries explain this reading of the however, if he turns his face and urinates toward the outer portion
text as referring to a snake that bites out of anger [ka’as], in of the room, we have no problem with it.
which case its poison causes more harm (ge’onim).
ָלא:נְט ַילת יָ ַדיִ ם״ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא ִ “ו ְּמזַ ְלזֵ ל ִ ּבWith regard to one who demeans the ritual washing of the
ֲא ָבל,יה ְּכ ָללּ ֲא ַמ ַרן ֶא ָּלא דְּ ָלא ְמ ׁ ָשא יְ ֵדhands, Rava said: We only said this statement in a case where he
. ְמ ׁ ָשא וְ ָלא ְמ ׁ ָשא – ֵלית ָלן ָ ּב ּהdoes not wash his hands at all; however, if he washes his hands
and does not wash them with a significant amount of water, we
have no problem with it.
: דַּ ֲא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א, וְ ָלאו ִמ ְּל ָתא ִהיאThe Gemara notes: And that is not so, as Rav Ĥisda said: I wash
יהב ּו ִליַ ִ ו, ֲאנָ א ְמ ׁ ַשאי ְמל ֹא ָח ְפנַי ַמּיָ אmy hands with handfuls of water and they gave me in reward hand-
. ְמל ֹא ָח ְפנַי ִטיבו ָּתאfuls of prosperity. Apparently, in order to garner the benefits of
ritual washing of his hands, one should use a significant amount of
water.
: “וְ ׁ ֶש ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו ְמ ַק ַּל ְל ּתֹו ְ ּב ָפנָיו״ ָא ַמר ָר ָבאWith regard to one whose wife curses him in his presence, Rava
וְ ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי – הוּא.יה ָ יטֶ ַעל ִע ְס ֵקי ַּת ְכ ׁ ִשsaid: This is referring to a case where she curses him over matters
.יה וְ ָלא ָע ֵביד ּ דְּ ִאית ֵלrelating to her ornaments, i.e., she complains that he does not
provide her with jewelry. The Gemara comments: And that applies
only when he has the resources to buy her jewelry but does not do
so; however, if he does not have sufficient resources he need not be
concerned.
ַמאי,ילאי ַּ יה דְּ ַרב ִע ּ דָּ ַר ׁש ָר ָבא ְ ּב ֵר Since the Gemara spoke of sins in the First Temple era, it continues
ֹאמר ה׳ יַ ַען ִּכי ָ ּג ְבה ּו ְ ּבנֹות ֶ “וַ ּי:דִּ ְכ ִתיב to explain other verses with similar content. Rava, son of Rav
,קֹומה זְ קו ָּפה ָ צִ ּיֹון״ – ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו ְמ ַה ְּלכֹות ְ ּב Ilai, interpreted the following verse homiletically. What is the
meaning of that which is written: “The Lord says because the
“וַ ֵּת ַל ְכנָ ה נְטוּיֹות ָ ּגרֹון״ – ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו ְמ ַה ְּלכֹות
daughters of Zion are haughty and walk with outstretched
– “ו ְּמ ַ ׂש ְּקרֹות ֵעינַיִ ם״,ָע ֵקב ְ ּבצַ ד גּ ו ָּדל necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go and mak-
,דַּ ֲהוָ ה ְמ ָלאן ּכו ֲּח ָלא ְל ֵעינַיְ יה ּו ו ְּמ ַר ְּמזָ ן ing a tinkling with their feet” (Isaiah 3:16)?
“הלֹוךְ וְ ָטפֹוף״ – ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו ְמ ַה ְּלכֹות ֲארו ָּּכה ָ “Because the daughters of Zion are haughty,” indicates that they
יהן ְּת ַע ַּכ ְסנָ ה״ ֶ “ו ְּב ַרגְ ֵל,ְ ּבצַ ד ְק ָצ ָרה would walk with upright stature and carry themselves in an
ְמ ַל ֵּמד:ָא ַמר ַרב יִ צְ ָחק דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי immodest way.
“And walk with outstretched necks,” indicates that they would
,יהן ֲ ׁ ֶש ַּמ ִּטילֹות מֹור וַ ֲא ַפ ְר ְסמֹון ְ ּב ִמ
ֶ נְע ֵל
walk in small steps, heel to toe, so onlookers would notice them.
וְ ֵכיוָ ן,ּו ְמ ַה ְּלכֹות ְ ּב ׁש ּו ֵקי יְ ר ּו ׁ ָש ַליִ ם “Wanton eyes,” indicates that they would fill their eyes with blue
ֹועטֹות ֲ ּב,יִש ָר ֵאל ׂ ְ ׁ ֶש ַּמ ִ ּגיעֹות ֵאצֶ ל ַ ּבחו ֵּרי eye shadow and beckon.
יהם ו ַּמ ְכנִיסֹות ֶ ַ ּב ַ ּק ְר ַקע ו ַּמ ִּתיזֹות ֲע ֵל “Walking and mincing [tafof] as they go,” indicates that the
.ָ ּב ֶהן יֵ צֶ ר ָה ַרע ְּכ ֶא ֶרס ַ ּב ְכעֹוס wealthy women would walk a tall woman alongside a short
one so that the tall woman would stand out. This is derived from
the interchangeability of the letters tet and tzadi; tzafo, meaning,
in this case, to be seen.
“Making a tinkling [te’akasna] with their feet,” Rabbi Yitzĥak
from the school of Rabbi Ami said: This teaches that they
would place myrrh and balsam in their shoes and would walk
in the marketplaces of Jerusalem. And once they approached
a place where the young men of Israel were congregated, they
would stamp their feet on the ground and splash the perfume
toward them and instill the evil inclination into them like
venom of a viper [ke’eres bakhos].nl
language
Like venom of a viper [ke’eres bakhos] – כ ֶא ֶרס ַ ּב ְכעֹוס:ְּ This parallel sources, ke’eres shel ekes, meaning like venom of a viper,
combination of words is difficult to understand, and therefore from the Greek ἔχις, ekhis, meaning poisonous snake. The Sages
several interpretations and various readings were suggested. interpreted the word as te’akasna, meaning that they discharged
Some commentaries had the variant reading, supported by venom like a viper [ekes].
יֹוסי
ֵ ״(וְ ִס ּ ַפח) ה׳ ָק ְדקֹד ְ ּבנֹות צִ ּיֹון״ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי With regard to a different verse: “The Lord will smite with a scab
. ְמ ַל ֵּמד ׁ ֶש ּ ָפ ְר ָחה ָ ּב ֶהן ָצ ַר ַעת:ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion and the Lord will
“ל ּ ְ ׂש ֵאת
ַ :ְּכ ִתיב ָה ָכא ‘וְ ִ ׂש ּ ַפח׳ ו ְּכ ִתיב ָה ָתם lay bare their secret parts” (Isaiah 3:17). And the Lord will smite
with a scab the crown of the heads of the daughters of Zion; Rabbi
.וְ ַל ַּס ּ ַפ ַחת״
Yosei, son of Rabbi Ĥanina, said: This teaches that there was an
outbreak of leprosy among them. It is written here, scab [sippaĥ],
and it is written there, among the types of leprosy: “For a sore,
and for a scab [sappaĥat], and for a bright spot” (Leviticus 14:56).
: ַחד ָא ַמר, ״וַ ה׳ ּ ָפ ְת ֵהן יְ ָע ֶרה״ ַרב ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאלWith regard to the verse: And the Lord will lay bare their secret
ׁ ֶש ּנ ֲַעשׂ ּו ּ ִפ ְת ֵח ֶיהן: וְ ַחד ָא ַמר, ׁ ֶש ּנ ׁ ְִש ּ ְפכ ּו ַּכ ִּק ּיתֹוןparts [pot’hen ye’areh], Rav and Shmuel disagree. One says: It
. ַּכּיַ ַערmeans that they, i.e., their innards, were poured out [ye’areh] like
a jug. And one says: That their orifices [pitĥeihen] were covered
with hair as thick as a forest [ya’ar].
Perek VI
Daf 63 Amud a
language
, ְ ּב ֵמ ַסב ָר ָחב אֹו ְ ּב ֵמ ַסב ָקצָ ר, ְ ּביַ יִ ן ַח ְרדָּ ִליon black wine? Sitting on a wide divan or on a narrow divan?
Treasury [gazza] – גַ ּזָ א: From the Persian ganz, mean-
: ְ ּב ָח ֵבר טֹוב אֹו ְ ּב ָח ֵבר ַרע? ֲא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ אWith a good friend or a bad friend? And Rav Ĥisda said: And all ing treasury. This word in the form ganzakh appears in
. וְ כו ָּּלן ִלזְ נוּתthese allude to promiscuity. These are all euphemisms for different the Bible (see I Chronicles 28:11).
types of women. Well-kneaded bread refers to a woman who is not
a virgin; white wine refers to a fair-complexioned woman; a wide notes
divan refers to a fat woman; a good friend refers to a good-looking
The treasury of Tzimtzemai the queen – ַ ּגּזָ אי
woman. ימצְ ַמאי ַמ ְל ְּכ ָתא
ְ ִדְּ צ: Based on the definition elsewhere
in the Arukh’ of the verb tzimtzem in the sense of deco-
ֲעצֵ י יְ רו ׁ ָּש ַליִ ם:ָא ַמר ַר ֲח ָבה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה On the topic of Jerusalem, Raĥava said that Rabbi Yehuda said: rate, some explain that the cinnamon was found in
The logs of Jerusalem used for fuel were from the cinnamon tree, the queen’s royal treasury and used purely for decora-
ו ְּב ׁ ָש ָעה ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו ַמ ִּס ִיקין ֵמ ֶהן,ּׁ ֶשל ִק ָּינמֹון ָהיו tive purposes (Maharsha).
ו ִּמ ׁ ּ ֶש ָח ְר ָבה.נֹודף ְ ּב ָכל ֶא ֶרץ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ֵ יחן ָ ֵר and when they would ignite them, their fragrance would waft
through all of Eretz Yisrael. And since Jerusalem was destroyed,
,עֹורהָ נִש ַּתּיֵ יר ֶא ָּלא ִּכ ְ ׂש ְ ׁ וְ ל ֹא,ּיְ רו ׁ ָּש ַליִ ם נִ גְ נְ זו
these fragrant logs were buried, and only a sliver the size of a grain
.ימצְ ַמאי ַמ ְל ְּכ ָתא ְ ִו ִּמ ׁ ְש ַּת ַּכח ְ ּבגַ ּזָ אי דְּ צ of barley remains, and it is located in the treasury of [gazzai]l
Tzimtzemai the queen.n
גס ףד. ׳ו קרפ. Perek VI . 63a 303
halakha
A man may neither go out on Shabbat with a sword,
etc. – ל ֹא יֵ צֵ א ָה ִא ׁיש ל ֹא ַ ּב ַּסיִ יף וכו׳: It is prohibited to
ַמתני׳ ל ֹא יֵ צֵ א ָה ִא ׁיש ל ֹא ַ ּב ַּסיִ יף וְ ל ֹא
וְ ל ֹא, וְ ל ֹא ָ ּב ַא ָּלה, וְ ל ֹא ַ ּב ְּת ִריס,ַ ּב ֶ ּק ׁ ֶשת
mishna Just as it is prohibited for a woman to carry out
certain items unique to a woman into the public
go out into the public domain carrying a weapon. . וְ ִאם יָ צָ א – ַחּיָ יב ַח ָּטאת,רֹומח ַ ָ ּב domain, the Sages said that a man may neither go out on Shabbat with
One who does so is liable to bring a sin-offering, in a sword,h nor with a bow, nor with a shield [teris],l nor with an alla,
accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis (Rambam nor with a spear.b And if he unwittingly went out with one of these
Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 19:1; Shulĥan Arukh, weapons to the public domain he is liable to bring a sin-offering.
Oraĥ Ĥayyim 301:7).
The only difference between this world and the .יטין ֵהן לֹו
ִ ַּת ְכ ׁ ִש:אֹומר
ֵ יעזֶ ר
ֶ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִלRabbi Eliezer says: These weapons are ornaments for him; just as a
messianic era – יחַ עֹולם ַהּזֶ ה ִלימֹות ַה ָּמ ׁ ִש
ָ אין ֵ ּבין ָה:ֵ The man is permitted to go out into the public domain with other orna-
Rambam adopted the opinion of Shmuel that there ments, he is permitted to go out with weapons.
will be no change in the natural order of the world
in the messianic era (Rambam Sefer Shofetim, Hilkhot
Melakhim 12:2). ,אֹומ ִרים ֵאינָ ן ֶא ָּלא ִלגְ נַ אי ְ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים And the Rabbis say: They are nothing other than reprehensible and
בֹותם ְל ִא ִּתים ָ “וְ ִכ ְּתת ּו ַח ְר:ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר in the future they will be eliminated, as it is written: “And they shall
All of the prophets only prophesied, etc. – ָּכל
יהם ְל ַמזְ ֵמרֹות וְ ל ֹא יִ ּ ָ ׂשא גּ ֹויֶ נִיתֹות
ֵ וַ ֲח beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning
יאים ל ֹא נִ ְתנַ ְ ּבא ּו ֶא ָּלא וכו׳
ִ ה ְּנ ִב:ַ All prophecies that the
hooks; nation will not raise sword against nation, neither will they
prophets prophesied with regard to the reward that ּ
.ֶאל גֹוי ֶח ֶרב וְ ל ֹא יִ ְל ְמד ּו עֹוד ִמ ְל ָח ָמה״
the Jewish people will merit, refer exclusively to the learn war anymore” (Isaiah 2:4).
physical benefits that Israel will enjoy during the mes-
sianic era, when their sovereignty in Eretz Yisrael will . וְ יֹוצְ ִאין ָ ּב ּה ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת,הֹורה
ָ ִ ּב ִירית – ְטWith regard to women’s ornaments, they added that a garter placed on
be restored. Since the reward of the World-to-Come is her leg to hold up stockings is pure and cannot become ritually impure
neither quantifiable nor imaginable, the prophets did as a utensil, and she may even go out with it on Shabbat.
not describe it in their prophecies to avoid devaluing it
in the minds of the people (Rambam Sefer HaMadda,
Hilkhot Teshuva 8:7). וְ ֵאין יֹוצְ ִאין ָ ּב ֶהן, ְּכ ָב ִלים – ְט ֵמ ִאיםHowever, ankle chains, which were also women’s ornaments, can be-
. ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבתcome ritually impure, and she may not go out with them on Shabbat.
language
Shield [teris] – ת ִריס:ְּ From the Greek θυρεός, thyreos,
meaning a large shield.
.גמ׳ ַמאי ָ ּב ַא ָּלה קו ְּל ּ ָפא
gemara The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the
term alla? It means club [kulpa].l
Club [kulpa] – קו ְּל ּ ָפא: Apparently, the correct read-
ing is kupla from the Persian kūpāl, meaning club or .יטין ֵהן לֹו ִ אֹומר ַּת ְכ ׁ ִש ֵ יעזֶ ר
ֶ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: These weapons are
lance. The ge’onim describe the kulpa as a rod with a ornaments for him. It was taught in a baraita that elaborates on this
וְ ִכי ֵמ ַא ַחר:יעזֶ ר ֶ ָא ְמר ּו לֹו ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל,ַּתנְיָא
thickened end on which there are nails or projections. subject: The Rabbis said to Rabbi Eliezer: And since, in your opinion,
ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ָמה ֵהן ְ ּב ֵט ִלין,יטין ֵהן לֹו ִ דְּ ַת ְכ ׁ ִש
they are ornaments for him, why are they to be eliminated in the
background ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאינָן:ִלימֹות ַה ָּמ ׁ ִש ַיח? ָא ַמר ָל ֶהן
messianic era? He said to them: They will not be needed anymore,
Shield and spear – ּרֹומח
ַ ת ִריס ו:ְ “ל ֹא יִ ּ ָ ׂשא גּ ֹוי ֶאל גּ ֹוי: ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,יכין ִ צְ ִר as it is stated: “Nation will not raise sword against nation” (Isaiah
:ֶח ֶרב״ – וְ ֶת ֱהוִ י ְלנֹוי ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא! ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י 2:4). The Gemara asks: And let the weapons be merely for ornamen-
,יה ָראֲ ִמידֵּ י דַּ ֲהוָ ה ַא ׁ ּ ְש ָרגָ א ְ ּב ִט tal purposes, even though they will not be needed for war. Abaye said:
It is just as in the case of a candle in the afternoon. Since its light is
not needed, it serves no ornamental purpose. Weapons, too; when not
needed for war, they serve no ornamental purpose either.
ֵאין: דְּ ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל,ו ְּפ ִליגָ א דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל And this baraita disagrees with the opinion of Shmuel,n as Shmuel
עֹולם ַהּזֶ ה ִלימֹות ַה ָּמ ׁ ִש ַיח ֶא ָּלא ָ ֵ ּבין ָה said: The only difference between this world and the messianic erah
“כי ל ֹאִּ : ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,יע ּבוּד ָ ּג ֻלּיֹות ִ ּב ְל ַבד
ְ ׁ ִש is subjugation of the exiles to other kingdoms, from which the Jewish
people will be released. However, in other respects, the world will re-
.יֶ ְחדַּ ל ֶא ְביֹון ִמ ֶ ּק ֶרב ָה ָא ֶרץ״
main as it is, as it is written: “Because the poor will not cease from
within the land” (Deuteronomy 15:11). Society will not change, and
wars will continue to be waged.
notes
And this baraita disagrees with the opinion of Shmuel – deemed this baraita insufficiently authoritative or its language the opinion of Shmuel that the transition to the messianic era
ו ְּפ ִליגָ א דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל: In general, when the opinion of an amora is insufficiently precise because it had not been reviewed in the will be natural, precludes the necessity for one who proclaims
inconsistent with the contents of a baraita, it is presented as study hall of Rabbi Ĥiyya and Rabbi Oshaya (Rashash). himself as the Messiah to display any supernatural powers.
a challenge to that amora. Yet, here the Gemara merely notes The messianic era and the World-to-Come – יְ מֹות ַה ָּמ ׁ ִש ַיחAlthough the Rambam expresses his opinion differently in his
that the baraita disagrees with Shmuel. There are several pos- ָ ְו: The disagreement with regard to the messianic Epistle to Yemen, fundamentally he stands by his opinion that
עֹולם ַה ָ ּבא
sible explanations. First, the Gemara does not raise objections era is not strictly aggadic. This dispute has practical halakhic the natural order of the world will not change in the messianic
with regard to aggadic material. Second, perhaps the Sages ramifications as well. The Rambam’s halakhic ruling, based on era, and no such changes should be anticipated.
.ימן זָ רֹות
ָ ִסZarot is a mnemonic acronym for Elazar [zayin], Reish Lakish [reish],
and their students [vav, tav], the amora'im who interpreted the verse
in Psalms cited above
ׁ ְשנֵי:ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר Rabbi Yirmeya said that Rabbi Elazar said: Two Torah scholars
– ַּת ְל ִמ ֵידי ֲח ָכ ִמים ַה ְמ ַחדְּ ִדין זֶ ה ָלזֶ ה ַ ּב ֲה ָל ָכה who sharpen one another in halakha; the Holy One, Blessed be He,
: ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,דֹוש ָ ּברו ְּך הוּא ַמצְ ִל ַיח ָל ֶהם ׁ ַה ָ ּק ensures success for them, as it is written: “And in your majesty
[vahadarkha] prosper, ride on, in behalf of truth and meekness and
“וַ ֲה ָד ְרךָ צְ ַלח״ ַאל ִּת ְק ִרי ‘וַ ֲה ָד ְרךָ ׳ ֶא ָּלא
righteousness; and let your right hand teach you tremendous things”
,עֹולין ִלגְ דו ָּּלה ִ וְ ל ֹא עֹוד ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש.‘וְ ִחדֶּ ְדךָ ׳ (Psalms 45:5). The Sages said:
יל ּו ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ּ יָ כֹול ֲא ִפ. “צְ ַלח ְר ַכב״:ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר Do not read “and your majesty [vahadarkha],” rather, by changing
.“על דְּ ַבר ֱא ֶמת״ ַ :לֹומר
ַ ִל ׁ ְש ָמ ּה – ַּת ְלמוּד some of the vocalization and the letters, read it as and He will
לֹומר “וְ ַענְ וָ ה ַ יָ כֹול ִאם ֵהגִ יס דַּ ְע ּתֹו – ַּת ְלמוּד sharpen you [veĥidedkha], and ultimately you will be successful.
ִיתנָ הְּ זֹוכין ַל ּת ָֹורה ׁ ֶש ּנ
ִ – עֹושין ֵּכן
ׂ ִ וְ ִאם.צֶ ֶדק״ Moreover, they who act in that manner will rise to prominence, as
it is written: “Prosper, ride on.”
.נֹוראֹות יְ ִמינֶ ךָ ״ ָ ָתֹורך
ְ ְ “ו: ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,ְ ּביָ ִמין
I might have thought even if one engages in the study of Torah not
for its own sake; therefore, the verse states: “On behalf of truth.”
I might have thought that one would be rewarded with prosperity
even if he became arrogant; therefore, the verse states: “Meek-
ness and righteousness.”
And if they do so in the proper manner they merit the Torah that
was given with the right hand of the Holy One, Blessed be He,
as it is written: “And let your right hand teach you tremendous
things” (Psalms 45:5).
זֹוכין ִל ְד ָב ִרים
ִ :ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק ָא ַמר Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said: They are rewarded with the matters
דְּ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא,ימינָ ּה ׁ ֶשל ּת ָֹורה ִ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֶא ְמר ּו ִ ּב stated with regard to the right hand of the Torah. As Rava bar Rav
יֹוסף ַ ּבר
ֵ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה ָא ַמר ַרב,ַ ּבר ַרב ׁ ֵש ָילא Sheila said and some say Rav Yosef bar Ĥama said that Rav Shesh-
et said: What is the meaning of that which is written, “Length of
“א ֶֹר ְך: ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב,ָח ָמא ָא ַמר ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת
days is in her right hand and in her left hand are riches and honor”
ֶא ָּלא.ֹאל ּה ע ׁ ֶֹשר וְ ָכבֹוד״ָ ימינָ ּה ִ ּב ְ ׂשמ ִ יָ ִמים ִ ּב (Proverbs 3:16)? Is that to say, however, that in her right there is
? ע ׁ ֶֹשר וְ ָכבֹוד ֵל ָּיכא,ימינָ ּה א ֶֹרךְ יָ ִמים ִא ָּיכא ִ ִ ּב length of days, but there are not riches and honor? Rather, it means:
וְ ָכל,יכאָּ ימינִין ָ ּב ּה – א ֶֹרךְ יָ ִמים ִאִ ְ ְל ַמי:ֶא ָּלא Those who relate to it with the skilled right hand, i.e., who study
עֹושר
ֶ ׁ – ַל ַּמ ְ ׂש ְמ ִא ִילים ָ ּב ּה.עֹושר וְ ָכבֹודֶ ׁ ׁ ֶש ֵּכן Torah for its own sake and with proper intentions, there is length of
.יכא ָּ אֹורךְ יָ ִמים ֵל ֶ ,יכא ָּ וְ ָכבֹוד ִא days and all the more so riches and honor for them. Whereas, those
who relate to it with the unskilled left hand,n there are riches and
honor; there is not length of days.
גס ףד. ׳ו קרפ. Perek VI . 63a 305
halakha
ׁ ְשנֵי:ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש Rabbi Yirmeya said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Two
One who loans another money is greater than Torah scholars who are agreeable to each other when engaging
one who gives him charity – יֹותר ִמן ֵ ָ ּגדֹול ַה ַּמ ְלוֶ ה ׁ ֹוחין זֶ ה ָלזֶ ה ַ ּב ֲה ָל ָכה – ַה ָ ּק
דֹוש ִ ַּּת ְל ִמ ֵידי ֲח ָכ ִמים ַהנ
עֹושה צְ ָד ָקה
ׂ ֶ ה:ָ There are different levels of char- “אז נִ ְד ְ ּבר ּו יִ ְר ֵאי
ָ : ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא ַמ ְק ׁ ִשיב ָל ֶהן in discussions of halakha, the Holy One, Blessed be He, listens
ity. The highest level is establishing a business to them, as it is stated: “Then they that feared the Lord spoke
“יַ ְד ֵ ּבר ַע ִּמים: ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,ה׳ וגו׳״ ֵאין דִּ ּבוּר ֶא ָּלא נַ ַחת
partnership with a poor person or lending him [nidberu] one with another; and the Lord hearkened, and heard,
money and encouraging him so that he will not .ַּת ְח ֵּתינוּ״ and a book of remembrance was written before Him, for them
be dependent on others (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, that feared the Lord, and that thought upon His name” (Malachi
Hilkhot Mattenot Aniyyim 10:8; Shulĥan Arukh, 3:16). And the term speech [dibbur] means nothing other than
Yoreh De’a 249:6).
calm, as it is stated: “He subdues [yadber] people under us”
If a Torah scholar…wrap him tightly around (Psalms 47:4). He will cause the nations to submit to the Jewish
your waist – ָם…חגְ ֵריה ּו ַעל ָמ ְתנֶיך
ָ אם ַּת ְל ִמיד ָח ָכ:ִ By people leading to a period of calm. Here too the term dibbur indi-
Torah law, it is a mitzva to associate with Torah cates calm and agreeability.
scholars and to get close to them in order to
learn from their deeds (Rambam Sefer HaMadda, ישבֵ ּ ׁ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִח:חֹוש ֵבי ׁ ְשמֹו״? ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי ְ ׁ ַמאי “ו ְּלThe Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase in that verse:
Hilkhot Deot 6:1–2).
וְ נֶ ֱאנַס וְ ל ֹא ֲע ָ ׂש ָא ּה – ַמ ֲע ֶלה ָע ָליו,“ ַל ֲע ׂשֹות ִמצְ וָ הAnd those who thought of His name”? Rabbi Ami said: Even if
notes
. ַה ָּכתוּב ְּכ ִאילּ ּו ֲע ָ ׂש ָא ּהone merely planned to perform a mitzva, and ultimately due to
circumstances beyond his control did not perform that mitzva,
If a Torah scholar is as vengeful and begrudg- the verse ascribes him credit as if he performed it.
ing as a snake – נֹוטר ְּכנָ ָח ׁש
ֵ ְנֹוקם ו
ֵ אם ַּת ְל ִמיד ָח ָכם:ִ
Some explain that even if a Torah scholar is עֹושה ִמצְ וָ ה
ׂ ֶ ּכֹל ָה: ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ָּיננָ א ַ ּבר ִא ִידיThe Gemara continues in praise of those who perform mitzvot:
snake-like in that he has a difficult personality,
, ְּכ ַמ ֲא ָמ ָר ּה ֵאין ְמ ַב ּ ְ ׂש ִרין אֹותֹו ְ ּב ׂשֹורֹות ָרעֹותRav Ĥinnana bar Idi said: Anyone who performs a mitzva as it
one should still approach him and cleave to him.
However, one should distance himself from an .ֹומר ִמצְ וָ ה ל ֹא יֵ ַדע דָּ ָבר ָרע״
ֵ “שׁ : ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמרwas commanded, others do not apprise him of bad tidings, as
it is stated: “He who keeps the commandment shall know no
ignoramus, even if he is righteous (Me’iri).
evil thing” (Ecclesiastes 8:5).
ׁ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ַה ָ ּק:ימא ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א
דֹוש ָ ית ֵ ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ִסי וְ ִא Rav Asi, and some say Rabbi Ĥanina said: Even if the Holy One,
: ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,ָ ּברו ְּך הוּא גּ ֹוזֵ ר ְ ּגזֵ ָירה – הוּא ְמ ַב ְּט ָל ּה Blessed be He, issued a decree, He may abrogate it, as it is
ֹאמר לֹו ַמה ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה״ ַ “ב ֲא ׁ ֶשר דְּ ַבר ֶמ ֶלךְ ׁ ִש ְלטֹון ו ִּמי י
ַּ stated: “For the word of the King has authority and who may
say to Him: What do You do?” (Ecclesiastes 8:4). And, although
.ֹומר ִמצְ וָ ה ל ֹא יֵ ַדע דָּ ָבר ָרע״ ֵ “ש ׁ :יהּ ו ְּס ִמיךְ ֵל this indicates that even though the King, God, issued a decree,
juxtaposed to it is the verse: “He who guards the commandment
shall know no evil thing” (Ecclesiastes 8:5). For one who ob-
serves mitzvot properly, the decree is abrogated and he will know
no evil.
ׁ ְשנֵי:ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Two To-
– ַּת ְל ִמ ֵידי ֲח ָכ ִמים ַה ַּמ ְק ׁ ִש ִיבים זֶ ה ָלזֶ ה ַ ּב ֲה ָל ָכה rah scholars who listen to each other in the discussion of hala-
ּיֹוש ֶבת
ֶ ׁ “הַ : ׁ ֶש ּנ ֱֶא ַמר,קֹולן
ָ ֹומ ַע ְל
ֵ דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא ׁשׁ ַה ָ ּק kha, the Holy One, Blessed be He, hears their voice, as it is
stated: “You who dwell in gardens, the companions heed your
,יענִי״ ֵ ַ ּב ַ ּג ּנִים ֲח ֵב ִרים ַמ ְק ׁ ִש ִיבים ְל
ִ קֹולךְ ַה ׁ ְש ִמ
voice, cause me to hear it” (Song of Songs 8:13).
עֹושין ֵּכן – גּ ְֹור ִמין ַל ׁ ּ ְש ִכינָ ה ׁ ֶש ִּמ ְס ַּת ֶּל ֶקת
ׂ ִ וְ ִאם ֵאיןAnd if they do not do so, i.e., they do not listen to each other, they
.“ב ַרח דּ ִֹודי ו ְּד ֵמה וגו׳״ ּ ְ : ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר, ִמּיִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאלcause the Divine Presence to depart from among Israel, as it is
stated in the following verse: “Run away, my beloved, and be
like a gazelle or a young hart upon the mountains of spices” (Song
of Songs 8:14).
ׁ ְשנֵי:ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Two in-
– ילים זֶ ה ָלזֶ ה ַ ּב ֲה ָל ָכה ִ ַּת ְל ִמ ֵידי ֲח ָכ ִמים ַה ַּמ ְד ִ ּג dividual Torah scholars who, while studying together, cause one
“וְ ִדגְ לֹו ָע ַלי: ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,אֹוה ָבןֲ דֹוש ָ ּברו ְּך הוּא ׁ ַה ָ ּק another to err [madgilim] in halakha [Tosafot], nevertheless, the
Holy One, Blessed be He, loves them, as it is stated: “And his
, וְ הוּא דְּ יָ ְד ִעי צו ָּר ָתא דִּ ׁ ְש ַמ ְע ָּתא: ָא ַמר ָר ָבא.ַא ֲה ָבה״
banner [vediglo] over me is love” (Song of Songs 2:4). Rava said:
.ינֵיה
ּ וְ הוּא דְּ ֵלית ְלה ּו ַר ָ ּבה ְ ּב ָמ ָתא ְל ִמיגְ ַמר ִמ And that is only true in a case where they know the foundation
of the law, and their error resulted from the lack of more sophis-
ticated knowledge. And that is only true in a case where they do
not have a prominent person in the city from whom they could
learn without error.
ָ ּגדֹול:(א ַמר ַר ִ ּבי) ַא ָ ּבא ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש ָ Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: One who
ֵ ַה ַּמ ְלוֶ הloans another money is greater than one who gives him charity.
h
ֵ ו ַּמ ִּטיל ַ ּב ִּכיס,עֹושה צְ ָד ָקה
יֹותר ׂ ֶ יֹותר ִמן ָה
.ִמ ּכו ָּּלן And the one who places money into a common purse, i.e., one
who enters into a partnership with a needy person, is the greatest
of them all, since in that case the needy person is not embarrassed
when receiving the assistance.
ִאם:(א ַמר ַר ִ ּבי) ַא ָ ּבא ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁישָ Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Even if a
נֹוטר ְּכנָ ָח ׁש הוּא – ָחגְ ֵריה ּו ֵ ְנֹוקם ו
ֵ ַּת ְל ִמיד ָח ָכם Torah scholar is as vengeful and begrudging as a snake,n wrap
ִאם ַעם ָה ָא ֶרץ הוּא ָח ִסיד – ַאל ָּתדוּר, ַָעל ָמ ְתנֶיך him tightly around your waist,h i.e., keep him close, because you
will benefit from his Torah. On the other hand, even if an am
.ִ ּב ׁ ְשכוּנָ תֹו
ha’aretz is righteous, do not dwell in his neighborhood, as his
righteousness does not compensate for the fact that he is ignorant.
306 Perek VI . 63a . גס ףד. קרפ ׳ו
halakha
ָא ַמר ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן Rav Kahana said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, and some
say Rav Asi said that Reish Lakish said, and some say Rabbi Anyone who raises an evil dog within his home – ּכֹל ַה ְמגַ דֵּ ל
וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ִסי ָא ַמר,ָל ִק ׁיש תֹוך ֵ ּביתֹו
ְ כ ֶלב ַרע ְ ּב:ֶּ It is prohibited to keep dangerous objects,
וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא,)ֵ(ר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש Abba said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Anyone who e.g., an evil dog, in one’s home, as per the opinion of Reish
raises an evil dog within his homeh prevents kindness from Lakish. Anyone who raises an evil dog is ostracized until
ּכֹל ַה ְמגַ דֵּ ל:ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש
entering into his home, since poor people will hesitate to enter he removes the vicious dog from his house (Rambam Sefer
ְמֹונֵע ֶח ֶסד ִמ ּתֹוך
ַ – ֶּכ ֶלב ַרע ְ ּבתֹוךְ ֵ ּביתֹו his house. As it is alluded to in the verse: “To him that is afflicted Nezikin, Hilkhot Rotze’aĥ UShmirat HaNefesh 11:4).
“ל ָּמסַ : ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,ֵ ּביתֹו [lamas],
Perek VI
Daf 63 Amud b
language
קֹורין
ִ ֵמ ֵר ֵעה ּו ָח ֶסד״ ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ְ ּב ָל ׁשֹון יְ וָ נִית kindness from his friend and awe of the Almighty will leave” ( Job
Lamas – ל ָּמס:ַ Many scholars attempted to determine the
: ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק ָא ַמר,ְל ֶכ ֶלב ַ‘ל ָּמס׳ 6:14), since in the Greek language they call a dog lamas.l Rav
Greek origin of this word. Apparently, it is not a precise
: ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,ַאף ּפ ֵֹורק ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו יִ ְר ַאת ׁ ָש ַמיִ ם Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said: One who keeps an evil dog in his translation of the word dog, rather one of the nicknames or
home even divests himself of fear of Heaven, as it is stated at the reproofs for a dog, from the Greek, λοιμός, laimos, meaning
.“וְ יִ ְר ַאת ׁ ַשדַּ י יַ ֲעזֹוב״
end of that verse: “And awe of the Almighty will leave.” plague.
יתא ָ ַה ִהיא ִא ְּית ָתא דְּ ָעיְ ָילא ְל ַההוּא ֵ ּב The Gemara relates: A certain pregnant woman who entered to
background
. ִא ְית ֲע ַקר וַ ְלדָּ ּה, נְ ַבח ָ ּב ּה ַּכ ְל ָ ּבא,ְל ֵמ ָיפא use the oven in a certain house to bake, the dog in that house
barked at her, and her fetus was displaced. The owner of the Caution around dogs – זְ ִהירוּת ִמ ֶּכ ֶלב:
, ָלא ִּת ְיד ֲח ִלי,יתא ָ ֲא ַמר ָל ּה ָמ ִרי דְּ ֵב
house said to her: Do not be afraid because his teeth have been
ֲא ָמ ָרה,יה ּ יה ו ׁ ְּש ִק ִילין טו ְּפ ֵר ּ נִיב
ֵ דִּ ׁ ְש ִק ִילי
removed and his claws have been removed. She said to him:
, ׁ ְשקו ָּלא ִטיבו ִּתיךְ וְ ׁ ַש ְדיָ א ַא ִחיזְ ַרי:יה ּ ֵל Take your goodness and throw it on the thorns. Your encourage-
.ְּכ ָבר נָ ד וָ ָלד ment is useless as the fetus has already been displaced and will
certainly die.b
“ש ַמח ׂ ְ : ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב,ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א On a related note, Rav Huna said: What is the meaning of that
ימי ֵ יבךָ ִל ְ ּבךָ ִ ּב ְ יט
ִ ִָ ּבח ּור ְ ּביַ ְלדו ֶּתךָ ו which is written: “Rejoice young man in your youth, and let
ּרֹותיךָ וְ ַה ֵּלךְ ְ ּב ַד ְר ֵכי ִל ְ ּבךָ ו ְּב ַמ ְר ֵאה
ֶ ְבחו your heart cheer you in the days of your youth, and walk in the
ways of your heart and in the sight of your eyes; but know that
ָיאךֲ ֵעינֶיךָ וְ ָד ע ִּכי ַעל ָּכל ֵא ֶּלה יְ ִב
for all these things God will bring you to judgment” (Ecclesi-
ָה ֱאל ִֹהים ַ ּב ִּמ ׁ ְש ּ ָפט״ – ַעד ָּכאן דִּ ְב ֵרי astes 11:9)? Until here, “the sight of your eyes,” these are the
. ִמ ָּכאן וְ ֵא ָילךְ דִּ ְב ֵרי יֵ צֶ ר טֹוב,יֵ צֶ ר ָה ַרע words of the evil inclination; from here on, “but know that, etc.,” Roman mosaic of a barking dog
these are the words of the good inclination.
halakha
ַעד ָּכאן – ְל ִד ְב ֵרי: ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש ָא ַמרReish Lakish said: Until here, the verse refers to matters of A garter is pure – הֹורה ָ ב ִירית ְט:
ּ ִ A garter cannot become
.טֹובים ִ ִמ ָּכאן וְ ֵא ָילךְ – ְל ַמ ֲע ִ ׂשים,תֹורה
ָ Torah. One is provided the opportunity to study and involve ritually impure because it is not have the form of a vessel,
himself in the Torah and rejoice in its innovations; from here on, as it is simply a ring that facilitates use of a vessel (Rambam
“but know that, etc.,” it refers to good deeds. One will ultimately Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 9:4).
stand trial for that which he studied and did not implement.
ִ ּב ִירית: ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה.הֹורה״
ָ “ב ִירית ְט ּ ִ We learned in the mishna that a garter is pure.h Rav Yehuda said:
. זֹו ֶאצְ ָע ָדהGarter; that is a bracelet worn on the arm.
וְ יֹוצֵ א,הֹורה
ָ ִ ּב ִירית – ְט:יֹוסף ֵ ְמ ִתיב ַרבRav Yosef raised an objection: It is stated here that a garter is
יל ּו ֶאצְ ָע ָדה ְט ֵמ ָאה ּ וְ ִא. ָ ּב ּה ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבתpure and a woman may go out with it on Shabbat, while a brace-
! ִהיאlet is ritually impure. It is mentioned explicitly in the verse enu-
merating the spoils of the war with the Midianites: “And we have
brought the Lord’s offering, what every man has gotten, of jewels
of gold, armlets, and bracelets, signet rings, earrings, and girdles,
to make atonement for our souls before the Lord” (Numbers
31:50). Earlier in that chapter it is written with regard to the spoils:
“Purify yourselves on the third day and on the seventh day both
you and your captives” (Numbers 31:19). Apparently, a bracelet
can become ritually impure.
ִ ּב ִירית ַּת ַחת ֶאצְ ָע ָדה: ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמרRather, this is what Rav Yehuda is saying: A garter on the leg is
.עֹומ ֶדת
ֶ in place of a bracelet on the arm. It goes around the leg to hold a
stocking in place just as a bracelet goes around the arm. However,
unlike a bracelet, a garter cannot become ritually impure because
it is not an ornament. It simply holds up the stocking.
,יה דְּ ַרב יִ ְר ְמיָ ה
ּ יְ ֵתיב ָר ִבין וְ ַרב הוּנָ א ַק ֵּמ The Gemara relates: Ravin and Rav Huna were sitting before
וְ יָ ֵתיב.יתיב ַרב יִ ְר ְמיָ ה וְ ָקא ְמנַ ְמנֵ ם ֵ ִו Rav Yirmeya. And Rav Yirmeya was sitting and dozing as the
– ְּכ ָב ִלים, ִ ּב ִירית – ְ ּב ַא ַחת:ָר ִבין וְ ָק ָא ַמר two students conversed. And Ravin sat and said: The difference
between a garter and ankle chains is that a garter is worn on one
.ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם
leg, and ankle chains are worn on two legs.
גס ףד: ׳ו קרפ. Perek VI . 63b 307
background
, ֵא ּל ּו וָ ֵא ּל ּו ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם:יה ַרב הוּנָ א ּ ָא ַמר ֵלRav Huna said to him: These garters and those ankle chains are both
Frontplate – צִ יץ: The frontplate was attached
to the forehead of the high priest by a sky blue .נַע ׂש ּו ְּכ ָב ִלים ֶ ו ַּמ ִּט ִילין ׁ ַש ְל ׁ ֶש ֶלת ֵ ּבworn on two legs. And when she wears garters on both legs they place
ֲ ְ ו,ינֵיהן
ribbon. The commentaries disagree whether one
a chain between them, and they become vessels with the legal status
or more ribbons were used. equal to that of ankle chains.
!?יה ָמנָ א
ּ וְ ׁ ַש ְל ׁ ֶש ֶלת ׁ ֶש ּבֹו ְמ ׁ ַש ְּויָ א ֵלAnd Ravin asked: And does the chain that is connected to it render it
a vessel? If a garter without a chain is not considered a vessel, why
would the addition of a chain render it a vessel that can become ritu-
ally impure?
דְּ ָא ַמר,ימא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר נַ ֲח ָמנִי ָ וְ ִכי ֵּת And if you say the reason for this is in accordance with the opinion of
ִמ ּנַיִ ין:יֹוחנָן
ָ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר נַ ֲח ָמנִי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי Rabbi Shmuel bar Naĥmani, as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naĥmani said that
– ְל ַמ ׁ ְש ִמ ַיע קֹול ִ ּב ְכ ִלי ַמ ָּתכֹות ׁ ֶשהוּא ָט ֵמא Rabbi Yoĥanan said: From where is it derived that a metal vessel that
makes a sound is considered a vessel and can become ritually impure?
“כל דָּ ָבר ֲא ׁ ֶשר יָ בֹא ָב ֵא ׁש״ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ָּ :ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר As it is stated: “Every thing that passes through the fire, you shall
.יבוּר ְ ּב ַמ ׁ ְש ָמעּ ִּד make it pass through the fire, and it shall be clean; nevertheless it shall
be purified with the water of sprinkling; and all that does not pass
Depiction of the frontplate (see Tosafot) through the fire you shall make to go through water” (Numbers 31:23).
And the Sages interpret the verse homiletically: Every thing [davar],
I saw it in the city of Rome – יתיו ְ ּב ִעיר
ִ ֲאנִי ְר ִא
רֹומי:
ִ Along with Rabbi Shimon bar Yoĥai, Rabbi
even speech [dibbur]; in other words, even an object that makes a
Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, was a member of sound shall pass through fire to become purified because it is a vessel.
a Jewish delegation that traveled to Rome to
petition for the repeal of decrees issued by the ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ָה ָתם – ָקא ָ ּבע ּו ָל ּה ְל ָק ָלא וְ ָק ָע ֵבידHowever, this case is not similar. Granted, there, they require the
Romans against Israel. These Sages cured the ? ָה ָכא ַמאי ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ָק ָע ֵביד. ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשהvessel for the purpose of its sound and it performs an action. How-
emperor’s daughter of her insanity and were able ever, here, what action does the chain perform? Although it creates a
to gain the emperor’s favor and the decrees were sound, the chain serves no purpose.
repealed. They were even granted permission
to visit the emperor’s treasury and see his vari- דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה,ָה ָכא נַ ִמי ָקא ָע ֵביד ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה He said to him: Here, too, the chain is performing a purposeful action,
ous treasures. There are other talmudic sources as Rabba bar bar Ĥana said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: There was one
where Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, relates ִמ ׁ ְש ּ ָפ ָחה:יֹוחנָ ן
ָ ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי
יהן ֶ יעֹות
ֵ ַא ַחת ָהיְ ָתה ִ ּבירו ׁ ָּש ַליִ ם ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו ּ ְפ ִס family in Jerusalem whose daughters’ strides were lengthy, and as a
what he saw in the city of Rome.
result their hymen membranes would fall away. In order to solve this
ָע ׂש ּו ָל ֶהן.נֹושרֹותְ ׁ יהן ֵ וְ ָהי ּו ְ ּבתו,ַ ּג ּסֹות
ֶ ּלֹות
problem they made them ankle chains and they hung a chain between
halakha ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא,ינֵיהן
ֵ וְ ִה ִּטיל ּו ׁ ַש ְל ׁ ֶש ֶלת ֵ ּב,ְּכ ָב ִלים them so that their strides would not be so largen and, indeed, their
Frontplate – צִ יץ: The frontplate was a thin band
יהן ֵ יהן ַ ּג ּסֹות וְ ל ֹא ָהי ּו ְ ּבתו
ֶ ּלֹות ֶ יעֹות
ֵ יִ ְהי ּו ּ ְפ ִס hymen membranes would no longer fall away. Meanwhile, Rabbi
of gold worn by the High Priest on his forehead.
It extended from ear to ear. The words: Sacred ָא ַמר ְלה ּו,ית ַער ְ ּבה ּו ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה
ְ ִא.נֹושרֹותְׁ Yirmeya awoke from their voices and said to them: Correct, and
to God, were inscribed on it, with “sacred to,” in- .יֹוחנָן
ָ וְ ֵכן ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי,ישר ַ ׁ ִי Rabbi Yoĥanan said likewise.
scribed below “God.” If the entire phrase were
written on one line, it is nevertheless valid (Ram- ִמ ּנַיִ ין ְל ָא ִריג:יֹוחנָן
ָ ימי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי
ִ ִּ ִּכי ֲא ָתא ַרב דOn the topic of ritual impurity, the Gemara relates: When Rav Dimi
bam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Kelei HaMikdash 9:1). . ָּכל ׁ ֶשהוּא ׁ ֶשהוּא ָט ֵמא – ִמ ִ ּציץcame from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said:
From where is it derived that a woven fabric of any size can become
ritually impure? It is derived from the frontplate [tzitz]bh of the High
Priest, which is considered a vessel despite its small size.
יתיו
ִ ֲאנִי ְר ִא:יֹוסי
ֵ יעזֶ ר ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי
ֶ וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִלAnd Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: I saw itn in the Caesar’s
ִ ְ ּב ִעירtreasury in the city of Rome and Sacred to God was written on one
b
יטה ָ רֹומי וְ ָכתוּב “ק ֶֹד ׁש ַלה׳״ ְ ּב ׁ ִש
!ַא ַחת line. In any case, since the frontplate is a gold plate, how can it serve as
a source for ritual impurity in fabrics?
notes
So that their strides would not be so large – יהן ֵ ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא יִ ְהי ּו ּ ְפ ִס
ֶ יעֹות from that of the frontplate and certainly to derive the status of an
ַ ּג ּסֹות: Some commentaries explain that the girls in that family would article made of fabric and metal. The Gemara rejects these possibili-
often run, fall, and get injured. Therefore, they made ankle chains ties since it was ascertained from the language of the tanna’im that
that would make noise when they ran, reminding them to slow the frontplate was primarily the metal part alone (Penei Yehoshua).
their gait (Me’iri).
I saw it – אנִי ְר ִא ִיתיו:ֲ The Rambam explained that the Sages’ ruling
And is the frontplate a woven fabric, etc. – וְ צִ יץ ָא ִריג הוּא וכו׳: Some that an inscription not written on the frontplate on two lines is valid,
explain that since the frontplate was a gold band attached with a implies that it was inscribed that way at times. The frontplate seen by
thread to a woven fabric, the fabric was considered part of the front- Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, was apparently inscribed on one line,
plate. Therefore, it was possible to derive the legal status of the fabric even though they were not typically inscribed that way.
by a corpse, and how is it possible to derive from that halakhot of of wool, linen, or any other material that grows on land is
considered a garment and can become ritually impure, as
ritual impurity in general? per the baraita (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 1:11).
ָ ּג ַמר:יה
ּ ָא ַמר ֵלRava said to him: He derived by means of a verbal analogy
Perek VI
Daf 64 Amud a
halakha
. ְּ‘כ ִלי׳ ְּ‘כ ִלי׳ ֵמ ָה ָתםfrom the word vessel written there, with regard to the halakhot of
Braided goat hairs – חו ִּּטים ְקלו ִּעים: Strands of hair that are
ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, and the word vessel written with
woven into a garment or made into a chain can become
regard to the halakhot of other impurities. ritually impure whether goats’ hair, camels’ hair, horses’ hair,
or hair from the tail of a cow. However, ropes and cords
“מו ָּסף ַ ׂשק ַעל ַה ֶ ּבגֶ ד ׁ ֶש ָּט ֵמא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם It was taught in the baraita that a sack is added to the category of made from these materials cannot become ritually impure,
ַא ּט ּו ֶ ּבגֶ ד ָלאו ָא ִריג הוּא?! ָה ִכי,ָא ִריג״ “garment”; it too is ritually impure due to woven fabric. The Ge- as per the baraita (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 1:12).
ַאף ַעל, מו ָּסף ַ ׂשק ַעל ַה ֶ ּבגֶ ד:ָק ָא ַמר mara asks: Is that to say that a garment is not a woven fabric? Rath-
er, the statement should be emended and say as follows: A sack made language
? ְל ַמאי ֲחזִ י.ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָא ִריג – ָט ֵמא
from goat hair is added to the category of garment; even though it Reins [kilkeli] – ק ְיל ְק ִלי:ִ From the Greek word κιλίκιον,
קֹול ַע ׁ ָשל ֹׁש
ֵ ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ָענִי:יֹוחנָן ָ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי is not woven it can nevertheless become ritually impure. The Ge- kilikion, which is a coarse fabric made from goat hair com-
.תֹולה ְ ּב ַצ ַּואר ִ ּב ּתֹו
ֶ ְנִימין ו ִ mara asks: For what is a garment made of unwoven goat hair suitable? mon in the region of Cilicia.
Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Since a poor person occasionally braids three
goat hairs and hangs it on his daughter’s neck as an ornament.h
,“שק״ ֵאין ִלי ֶא ָּלא ַ ׂשק ׂ ָ :ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן The Sages taught a detailed halakhic exposition of that verse in a dif-
יל ְק ִלי וְ ֶאת ְ ִמ ּנַיִ ין ְל ַר ּבֹות ֶאת ַה ִּק ferent baraita. From the fact that the verse mentioned sack, I have
.לֹומר ‘אֹו ָ ׂשק׳ ַ ַה ֶח ֶבק – ַּת ְלמוּד only derived that a whole sack can become ritually impure. From
where is it derived to include even reins [kilkeli]l and a saddle band
יָ כֹול ׁ ֶש ֲאנִי ְמ ַר ֶ ּבה ֶאת ַה ֲח ָב ִלים וְ ֶאת
fastened under the horse’s belly in the category of those objects that
‘שק׳; ַמה ׂ ָ לֹומר
ַ ַה ְּמ ׁ ִשיחֹות – ַּת ְלמוּד can become ritually impure? The verse states: “Or sack”; “or” teach-
.ּ ַ ׂשק ָטווּי וְ ָא ִריג – ַאף ָּכל ָטווּי וְ ָא ִריג es that the verse is referring to items similar to a sack as well. I might
have thought, on that basis, that I should include even the ropes and
measuring cords. The verse states: “Sack,” just as a sack is spun and
woven, so too, everything that is spun and woven can become ritu-
ally impure. Ropes and measuring cords are not made from spun
threads, and they are certainly not woven.
דס ףד. ׳ו קרפ. Perek VI . 64a 309
notes
“וְ ָכל ְּכ ִלי עֹור:אֹומר ְ ּב ֵמת
ֵ ֲה ֵרי הוּאThe baraita continues: Now, it says with regard to the halakhot of
And it may be inferred logically – וְ ִדין הוּא: The structure
of this midrash is prototypical of this type of derivation, – וְ ָכל ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה ִעּזִ ים וגו׳ ִּת ְת ַח ָּטאוּ״ritual impurity imparted by a corpse: “And every garment and all that
typically found in the works of halakhic midrash: Mekhilta, . ְל ַר ּבֹות ַה ִּק ְיל ְק ִלי וְ ֶאת ַה ֶח ֶבקis made of skins and all work of goats’ hair and all things made of
Sifra, and Sifrei. In this context, the midrash seeks to prove wood you shall purify” (Numbers 31:20). This verse comes to in-
a single concept in two ways. The first method utilizes clude reins and the band under the horse’s belly within the category
the method of logical inference by means of comparative of: All work of goats’ hair. They too can become ritually impure.
hermeneutic principles, e.g., a fortiori inference or an anal-
ogy. As the discussion continues, the midrash proves that
יָ כֹול ׁ ֶש ֲאנִי ְמ ַר ֶ ּבה ֶאת ַה ֲח ָב ִלים I might have thought that I would include even the ropes and thin
these inferences can be refuted. At that point, the second
method, verbal analogy [gezera shava], is employed. ימא ֵּ ִט, וְ ִדין הוּא,וְ ֶאת ַה ְּמ ׁ ִשיחֹות cords in this category. The Gemara begins with a logical analysis. And
ימא ֵּ ַמה ְּכ ׁ ֶש ִּט,ימא ְ ּב ֵמת ֵּ ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶרץ וְ ִט it may be inferred logicallyn to the contrary, that a rope cannot be-
come impure. The verse deemed impure an object that came in
Background ,ימא ֶא ָּלא ָטווּי וְ ָא ִריג ֵּ ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶרץ – ל ֹא ִט
contact with a creeping animal, and it deemed impure an object that
A creeping animal – ש ֶרץ:ֶ ׁ Generally, this includes rodents, ימא ֶא ָּלא ֵּ ימא ְ ּב ֵמת – ל ֹא ִט ֵּ ַאף ְּכ ׁ ֶש ִּט
lizards, insects, or any other small creature that crawls.
came in contact with a corpse. Just as when it rendered an object
Ritual impurity is imparted by the carcasses of eight creep-
.ָטווּי וְ ָא ִריג impure from contact with a creeping animal it only rendered im-
ing animals (Leviticus 11:29–37), and the Talmud often pure objects spun and woven, as stated above; so too, when it ren-
refers to these eight creatures by the term creeping animal, dered impure an object from contact with a corpse, it only rendered
without any further description. The Sages stated that impure objects spun and woven.
the smallest of these eight animals was at least the size
of a lentil’s bulk at birth. Therefore, one only contracts
ritual impurity if he comes into contact with a piece of ִאם ֵה ֵיקל ִ ּב ְט ֵמא ׁ ֶש ֶרץ – ׁ ֶש ִהיא,ֵהן There is room to distinguish: Are these indeed comparable? If the
the carcass of a creeping animal no smaller than that size. נָ ֵקיל ְ ּבטו ְּמ ַאת ַה ֵּמת ׁ ֶש ִהיא,ַק ָּלה Torah was lenient with regard to the ritual impurity of an object that
Moreover, one is liable to receive lashes for eating a lentil’s ֶ ּ‘בגֶ ד וְ עֹור׳:לֹומר
ַ ֲחמו ָּרה?! ַּת ְלמוּד came in contact with a creeping animal,B which is a less severe form
bulk of such an animal. of impurity, saying that ropes do not become impure from contact
,ֶ ּ‘בגֶ ד וְ עֹור׳ ִלגְ זֵ ָירה ׁ ָשוָ ה
with that form of ritual impurity, will we be lenient with regard to
ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, which is more severe? Perhaps,
since impurity imparted by a corpse is more severe, even objects not
woven and spun, e.g., ropes, become ritually impure from contact with
it. Therefore, the verse states garment and leather, garment and
leather to establish a verbal analogy.
וְ נֶ ֱא ַמר ֶ ּבגֶ ד,נֶ ֱא ַמר ֶ ּ‘בגֶ ד וְ עֹור׳ ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶרץ The term garment and leather is stated with regard to ritual impu-
ַמה ֶ ּבגֶ ד וְ עֹור ָה ָאמוּר,וְ עֹור ְ ּב ֵמת rity imparted by a creeping animal: “And whatever any of them falls
,ימא ֶא ָּלא ָטווּי וְ ָא ִריג ֵּ ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶרץ – ל ֹא ִט upon when they are dead will be impure whether it be any vessel of
wood, or a garment, or leather, or sack, whatever vessel it be with
ַאף ֶ ּבגֶ ד וְ עֹור ָה ָאמוּר ְ ּב ֵמת – ל ֹא
which any work is done it must be put into water and it will be impure
.ימא ֶא ָּלא ָטווּי וְ ָא ִריג ֵּ ִט until evening, then it will be clean” (Leviticus 11:32). And garment
and leather is stated with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a
corpse. Just as garment and leather stated with regard to a creeping
animal only rendered impure objects that are spun and woven, so
too, garment and leather stated with regard to a corpse only ren-
dered impure objects that are spun and woven.
ו ַּמה ֶ ּבגֶ ד וְ עֹור ָה ָאמוּר ְ ּב ֵמת – ִט ֵּמאUtilizing the same verbal analogy, one could say: And just as garment
ַאף ֶ ּבגֶ ד וְ עֹור ָה ָאמוּר, ָּכל ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה ִעּזִ יםand leather stated with regard to a corpse rendered impure any
. ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶרץ – ִט ֵּמא ָּכל ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה ִעּזִ יםobject that is the work of goats’ hair, so too, garment and leather
stated with regard to a creeping animal rendered impure any object
that is the work of goats’ hair.
, ֵאין ִלי ֶא ָּלא דָּ ָבר ַה ָ ּבא ִמן ָה ִעּזִ יםI have only derived from this verbal analogy that an object that
ִמ ּנַיִ ין ְל ַר ּבֹות דָּ ָבר ַה ָ ּבא ִמּזְ נַ ב ַה ּסוּסcomes from goats can become ritually impure; from where do I
.לֹומר ‘אֹו ָ ׂשק׳ ַ ו ִּמּזְ נַ ב ַה ּ ָפ ָרה? ַּת ְלמוּדderive to include an item that comes from a horse’s tail or from a
cow’s tail? The verse states: Or a sack, and anything like a sack, i.e.,
these other items as well.
ּ ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי – ִמ ַ ּק ֵּמי דְּ ֵל ֵיתThe Gemara answers: That applies only before the verbal analogy
,יה ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ָשוָ ה
ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא דְּ ָא ֵתי ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ָשוָ ה – ַאיְ ּיתוּרwas cited; now that the verbal analogy was cited, the verse is ren-
ּ ֵלdered extraneous. The fact that any item that falls in the category of:
.יה
“And all work of goats’ hair,” can become ritually impure is derived
from the verbal analogy. Reins and a saddle bands are included in the
category of work of goats’ hair. Therefore, they need not be derived
from that phrase. Consequently, a different halakha can be derived
from that extraneous phrase: Objects that come from a horse’s tail or
a cow’s tail can become ritually impure.
310 Perek VI . 64a . דס ףד. קרפ ׳ו
notes
ְ ּבטו ְּמ ַאת ֵמת, וְ ֵאין ִלי ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶרץThe baraita continues: And I have derived that an object made from
And the words are free – וּמו ְּפנֶ ה: There is a tannaitic
? ִמ ּנַיִ יןa horse’s tail can become impure only with regard to a creeping ani- dispute with regard to the authority of a verbal analogy
mal; however, with regard to a corpse, from where is this derived? [gezera shava] where the key words are not superfluous in
their respective contexts. In the Jerusalem Talmud, even a
,ימא ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶרץֵּ ימא ְ ּב ֵמת וְ ִט ֵּ וְ ִדין הוּא; ִט The Gemara begins with a logical analysis. And it may be inferred verbal analogy where the key words are not at all superflu-
ימא ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶרץ – ָע ָ ׂשה דָּ ָבר ֵּ ַמה ְּכ ׁ ֶש ִּט logically that this is so. The Torah rendered impure a sack that came ous, meaning that even if the similarity is between words
ַה ָ ּבא ִמּזְ נַ ב ַה ּס ּוס ּו ִמּזְ נַ ב ַה ּ ָפ ָרה into contact with a corpse and rendered impure a sack that came or verses that are central to the understanding of two
into contact with a creeping animal. Just as when the Torah ren- different halakhot, the gezera shava can be expounded,
– ימא ְ ּב ֵמת ֵּ ַאף ְּכ ׁ ֶש ִּט,ְּכ ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה ִעּזִ ים with the caveat that it is open to refutation. This type of
dered items that came into contact with a creeping animal impure
ָע ָ ׂשה דָּ ָבר ַה ָ ּבא ִמּזְ נַ ב ַה ּסוּס ו ִּמּזְ נַ ב it made the legal status of that which comes from a horse’s tail and verbal analogy is nothing more than an enhanced analogy
[binyan av], and is essentially nothing more than a logical
.ַה ּ ָפ ָרה ְּכ ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה ִעּזִ ים a cow’s tail equal to the legal status of that which is made from goats’ connection, based on the thought that identical expres-
hair, i.e., that it contracts ritual impurity, so too when the Torah ren- sions in two halakhot indicate that the Torah intended to
dered impure items that came into contact with a corpse, it made emphasize the connection between them.
the legal status of that which comes from a horse’s tail and a cow’s However, in the Babylonian Talmud, in order for a
tail equal to the legal status of that which is made from goats’ hair. verbal analogy to be effective, the key words must be
superfluous in at least one of the halakhot, what Rab-
beinu Ĥananel refers to as: Words written that are not
ִאם ִה ְר ָ ּבה ְ ּבטו ְּמ ַאת ֶע ֶרב – ׁ ֶש ִהיא, ֵהןThe Gemara rejects this: Are these indeed comparable? If the verse
necessary for the verse. Those words indicate the connec-
נַ ְר ֶ ּבה ְ ּבטו ְּמ ַאת ׁ ִש ְב ָעה ׁ ֶש ִהיא, ְמרו ָ ּּבהadded additional objects to the category of ritual impurity that lasts tion between halakhot. According to Rabbi Yishmael, the
? מו ֶּע ֶטתuntil nightfall, e.g., the impurity imparted by a creeping animal, superfluity of the key word in one verse is sufficient proof
which is extensive, will we add additional objects to the category of that the Torah intended that this verbal analogy should be
ritual impurity that lasts for seven days, which is limited to the case derived, and it cannot be refuted. The Sages who disagree
of impurity from a corpse? The fact that items made of a horse’s tail with him hold that even that type of verbal analogy can
or a cow’s tail are added to the already broad category of ritual impu- be logically refuted.
rity that lasts until nightfall is not necessarily an indication that they Because if these terms are not free, the verbal anal-
are to be added to the category of ritual impurity that lasts seven days. ogy can be refuted – יפ ַר ְך
ְ יכא ְל ִמ
ָּ דְּ ִאי ָלא מו ְּפנֶ ה ִא: This
phrase comes to explain the need for the key words to be
ֶ ּ‘בגֶ ד וְ עֹור׳ ֶ ּבגֶ ד וְ עֹור:לֹומר ַ ַּת ְלמוּד The verse states: Garment and leather, garment and leather to es- superfluous. If the analogy is logically sound, there is no
fundamental need for superfluity. The Gemara establishes
,ִלגְ זֵ ָירה ׁ ָשוָ ה; נֶ ֱא ַמר ֶ ּבגֶ ד וְ עֹור ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶרץ tablish a verbal analogy. Garment and leather is stated with regard
that if the key words were not superfluous, the verbal
ַמה ֶ ּבגֶ ד וְ עֹור.וְ נֶ ֱא ַמר ֶ ּבגֶ ד וְ עֹור ְ ּב ֵמת to ritual impurity imparted by a creeping animal, and garment and analogy may be refuted logically.
leather is stated with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse.
ָה ָאמוּר ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶרץ – ָע ָ ׂשה דָּ ָבר ַה ָ ּבא
Just as with regard to the garment and leather stated in the halakhot language
ִמּזְ נַ ב ַה ּסוּס ו ִּמּזְ נַ ב ַה ּ ָפ ָרה ְּכ ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה of a creeping animal the Torah rendered the legal status of an item
Indeed [la’ei] – ל ֵאי:ָ The origin of this word and even its
– ַאף ֶ ּבגֶ ד וְ עֹור ָה ָאמוּר ְ ּב ֵמת,ִעּזִ ים made from a horse’s tail or a cow’s tail equal to the legal status of exact meaning are unclear. Rashi thinks it means truly.
ָע ָ ׂשה דָּ ָבר ַה ָ ּבא ִמּזְ נַ ב ַה ּסוּס ו ִּמּזְ נַ ב that which is made from goats’ hair, so too, with regard to the gar- However, some commentaries think that it is a contraction
.ַה ּ ָפ ָרה ְּכ ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה ִעּזִ ים ment and leather stated in the halakhot of a corpse, the Torah ren- of the phrase lo hi, not so, or the phrase, lo hai, not this. In
dered the legal status of an item made from a horse’s tail or a cow’s the Arukh, it is a combination of the Aramaic la, meaning
tail equal to the legal status of that which is made from goats’ hair. not, and the Greek υἱέ, yie, meaning son. It means no, my
son, or not so, my son.
יכא
ָּ דְּ ִאי ָלאו מו ְּפנֶ ה – ִא, וּמו ְּפנֶ הThe Gemara notes: And it must be that the words garment and leath-
ְ ְל ִמer are free. Those terms must be superfluous in their context. The
n
ַמה ְּל ׁ ֶש ֶרץ – ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ְמ ַט ֵּמא:יפ ַר ְך
, ְ ּב ַכ ֲע ָד ׁ ָשהTorah included those terms for the express purpose of establishing
the verbal analogy. A verbal analogy that is based on otherwise extra-
neous terms cannot be logically refuted. Because if these terms are
not free, the verbal analogy can be refuted:n What is unique to a
creeping animal? Its ritual impurity is stringent in that it renders
objects ritually impure even by means of contact with a lentil-bulk
of a creeping animal. That is not the case with regard to a corpse,
which is less severe in that it renders objects ritually impure only by
means of contact with an olive-bulk of a corpse. Unless the terms are
free, the analogy can be refuted.
ׁ ֶש ֶרץ, ִמ ְּכ ִדי. ַא ְפנֹויֵ י מו ְּפנִי:ָל ֵאי Indeed [la’ei],l they are free. The Gemara proves that the terms gar-
“א ׁיש ִ : דִּ ְכ ִתיב,ִא ְית ַק ׁש ְל ׁ ִש ְכ ַבת זֶ ַרע ment and leather are extraneous in their context. Now, since ritual
ְֲא ׁ ֶשר ֵּתצֵ א ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ׁ ִש ְכ ַבת זָ ַרע״ ו ְּס ִמיך impurity from contact with a creeping animal is juxtaposed to ritu-
al impurity from contact with semen, as it is written: “And whoever
,“א ׁיש ֲא ׁ ֶשר יִ ַ ּגע ְ ּב ָכל ׁ ֶש ֶרץ״ ִ יהּ ֵל touches anything that is impure by the dead or a man from whom
יה ְ ּב ׁ ִש ְכ ַבת זֶ ַרע “וְ ָכל ֶ ּבגֶ ד ּ ב ּ ֵ יבת ִ ו ְּכ semen is emitted” (Leviticus 22:4), and juxtaposed to that is the
,וְ ָכל עֹור ֲא ׁ ֶשר ְיִהיֶה ָע ָליו ׁ ִש ְכ ַבת זָ ַרע״ verse: “Or whoever touches any creeping animal which makes him
ֶ ּבגֶ ד וְ עֹור דִּ ְכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֶרץ ָל ָּמה impure, or a person who may make him impure with any impurity
.ִלי? ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה – ְל ַא ְפנֹויֵ י that he has” (Leviticus 22:5). And it is written in the halakhot of the
ritual impurity of semen: “And every garment and every hide on
which the semen is must be washed with water and will be impure
until evening” (Leviticus 15:17). Since the verses appear next to each
other, the halakhot of each can be derived from the other. Conse-
quently, the words garment and leather, which the Torah wrote with
regard to a creeping animal, why do I need them? The relevant ha-
lakha could be derived from the halakhot of seminal impurity. Learn
from it that garment and leather were mentioned to render them free.
דס ףד. ׳ו קרפ. Perek VI . 64a 311
נִיחא
ָ מו ְּפנֶ ה ִמ ַ ּצד ֶא ָחד הוּא! ָה,וְ ַא ַּכ ִּתי The Gemara comments: And still, it is free only from one side of
ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר “מו ְּפנֶ ה ִמ ַ ּצד ֶא ָחד ְל ֵמ ִידין the verbal analogy. Although the terms garment and leather stated
ְ ֶא ָּלא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר,וְ ֵאין ְמ ׁ ִש ִיבין״
“ל ֵמ ִידין with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a creeping animal are ex-
traneous in their context, and the relevant halakha could have been
?ימר ַ יכא ְל ֵמ
ָּ ו ְּמ ׁ ִש ִיבין״ ַמאי ִא derived in another manner, those terms stated with regard to ritual
impurity imparted by a corpse are not extraneous in their context.
This verbal analogy is only free from one side. It works out well ac-
cording to the opinion of the one who said, with regard to a verbal
analogy that is free from only one side, one can derive from it and
cannot refute it logically. However, according to the opinion of the
one who said that one can derive from a verbal analogy of this kind
and one can refute it logically, what can be said?
ֵמת ִא ְת ַק ׁש, ִמ ְּכ ִדי.דְּ ֵמת נַ ִמי ַא ְפנֹויֵ י מו ְּפנֶ ה The Gemara answers: Garment and leather stated with regard to
“וְ ַהנּ ֹגֵ ַע ְ ּב ָכל ְט ֵמא: דִּ ְכ ִתיב,ְל ׁ ִש ְכ ַבת זֶ ַרע impurity imparted by a corpse are also free. Now, since a corpse is
נֶ ֶפ ׁש אֹו ִא ׁיש ֲא ׁ ֶשר ֵּתצֵ א ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ׁ ִש ְכ ַבת juxtaposed with semen, as it is written: “And whoever touches
anything that is impure by the dead or a man whose semen is emit-
“וְ ָכל ֶ ּבגֶ ד וְ ָכל:זָ ַרע״ ו ְּכ ִתיב ְ ּב ׁ ִש ְכ ַבת זֶ ַרע
ted from him” (Leviticus 22:4); and it is stated with regard to se-
ֶ ּבגֶ ד וְ עֹור דִּ ְכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ְ ּב ֵמת ָל ָּמה,עֹור״ men: “And every garment and every hide” (Leviticus 15:17); the
. ְל ַא ְפנֹויֵ י:ִלי? ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה terms garment and leather, which the Torah wrote with regard to
ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, why do I need them? Learn
from it that they are mentioned in order to render them free. These
terms are extraneous in their context, and were written for the pur-
pose of the verbal analogy with the halakhot of creeping animals.
“וַ ַּנ ְק ֵרב ֶאת ָק ְר ַ ּבן ה׳ ִא ׁיש ֲא ׁ ֶשר ָמצָ א ְכ ִלי The Gemara interprets verses written with regard to the Midianite
.זָ ָהב ֶאצְ ָע ָדה וְ צָ ִמיד ַט ַ ּב ַעת ָעגִ יל וְ כו ָּמז״ war discussed above: “And we have brought an offering before the
, ָעגִ יל – זֶ ה דְּ פוּס ׁ ֶשל דַּ דִּ ין:ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר Lord what every man has gotten of jewels of gold, chains, and
bracelets, rings, agil, and kumaz, to make atonement for our souls
.ּכו ָּמז – זֶ ה דְּ פוּס ׁ ֶשל ֵ ּבית ָה ֶר ֶחם
before the Lord” (Numbers 31:50). Rabbi Elazar said: Agil is a mold
in the shape of a woman’s breasts worn over them as an ornament.
Kumaz is a mold in the shape of the womb.
ַהיְ ינ ּו דִּ ְמ ַת ְר ְ ּג ִמינַן, ִאי ָה ִכי:יֹוסף ֵ ָא ַמר ַרב Rav Yosef said: If so, that is the reason that we translate kumaz into
ָא ַמר. ְ“מחֹוךְ ״ – דָּ ָבר ַה ֵּמ ִביא ִל ֵידי ִ ּגיחוּך ָ Aramaic as maĥokh, meaning an item that leads to foolishness.
,יה דִּ ְק ָרא ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה ּ ִמ גּ ו ֵּפ:יה ַר ָ ּבה
ּ ֵל Rabba said to him: This meaning is learned from the verse itself;
kumaz is an acronym for: Here [kan] is the place of [mekom]
.ימה ָּ ִ“כו ָּמז״ – ָּכאן ְמקֹום ז ּ lewdness [zimma].
ָא ַמר,“וַ ּיִ ְקצֹף מ ׁ ֶֹשה ַעל ּ ְפקו ֵּדי ֶה ָחיִ ל״ Later in that chapter, it is written: “And Moses was angry with the
ָא ַמר ָל ֶהן:ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ֲאבו ּּה officers of the host, the captains over thousands, and captains over
ׁ ֶש ָּמא ֲחזַ ְר ֶּתם ְל ִק ְלקו ְּל ֶכם,מ ׁ ֶֹשה ְליִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל hundreds, who came from the battle” (Numbers 31:14); Rav Naĥman
said that Rabba bar Avuh said that Moses said to Israel: Perhaps
. “ל ֹא נִ ְפ ַקד ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ִא ׁיש״:אשֹון? ָא ְמר ּו לֹו ׁ ָה ִר
you have returned to your original sinful behavior, when you sinned
: ַּכ ּ ָפ ָרה ָל ָּמה? ָא ְמר ּו לֹו, ִאם ֵּכן:ָא ַמר ָל ֶהן with the daughters of Moab and Midian at Shittim? They said to him:
ִאם ִמ ֵידי ֲע ֵב ָירה יָ צָ אנ ּו – ִמ ֵידי ִה ְרהוּר “Not one man of us is missing” (Numbers 31:49), we remain as
. ִמּיָ ד – “וַ ַּנ ְק ֵרב ֶאת ָק ְר ַ ּבן ה׳״.ּל ֹא יָ צָ אנו wholesome in deed as we were. He said to them: If so, why do you
need atonement? The princes brought these ornaments to atone for
their souls. They said to him: If we have emerged from the grasps
of actual transgression, we have not emerged from the grasps of
thoughts of transgression. Immediately, they decided: “And we have
brought an offering before the Lord.”
ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ָמה הוּצְ ְרכ ּו, ָּתנָ א דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאלThe Sage of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: For what reason
יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ׁ ֶש ְ ּבאֹותֹו ַהדּ ֹור ַּכ ּ ָפ ָרה – ִמ ּ ְפנֵיdid Israel in that generation require atonement? Because
Perek VI
Daf 64 Amud b
halakha
.ינֵיהם ִמן ָה ֶע ְרוָ ה
ֶ ׁ ֶשּזָ נ ּו ֵעthey nourished their eyes from nakedness.
Anyone who gazes upon a woman’s little finger –
כֹל ַה ִּמ ְס ַּת ֵּכל ְ ּב ֶאצְ ַ ּבע ְק ַט ָּנה ׁ ֶשל ִא ׁ ּ ָשה:ּ A man must keep ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ָמה ָמנָ ה ַה ָּכתוּב:ָא ַמר ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת With regard to the verse that lists the ornaments, Rav Sheshet said:
his distance from women and may not gaze at them For what reason did the verse list outer ornaments, i.e., a bracelet,
– יטין ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ְפנִים
ִ יטין ׁ ֶש ַ ּבחוּץ ִעם ַּת ְכ ׁ ִש ִ ַּת ְכ ׁ ִש
in a lustful manner, even at those body parts that are with inner ornaments, i.e., a kumaz? To tell you that anyone who
normally exposed (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot ּכֹל ַה ִּמ ְס ַּת ֵּכל ְ ּב ֶאצְ ַ ּבע ְק ַט ָּנה ׁ ֶשל: ָלֹומר ְלך
ַ
gazes upon a woman’s little fingerh is considered as if he gazed upon
Issurei Bia 21:2 ; Shulĥan Arukh, Even HaEzer 21:1). .ִא ׁ ּ ָשה – ְּכ ִאילּ ּו ִמ ְס ַּת ֵּכל ִ ּב ְמקֹום ַה ּתו ְּר ּ ָפה
her naked genitals. The atonement was for the sin of looking.
312 Perek VI . 64b . דס ףד: קרפ ׳ו
ֵ ּבין,מתני׳ יֹוצְ ָאה ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ְ ּבחו ֵּטי ֵ ׂש ָער
mishna
ֵ ּבין ִמ ׁ ּ ֶשל, ֵ ּבין ִמ ׁ ּ ֶשל ֲח ֶב ְיר ָּת ּה,ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ָּל ּה
The mishna continues to discuss those items
with which it is permitted to go out and those
halakha
A woman may go out with strands of hair – יֹוצְ ָאה ִא ׁ ּ ָשה
בחו ֵּטי ֵ ׂש ָער:
ּ ְ A woman may go out with strands of hair
items with which it is prohibited to go out on Shabbat. A woman
. ְ ּב ֵה ָמהmay go out with strands of hairh that she put on her head, whether braided into her hair, whether they are strands of her hair
or strands of the hair of others, as long as the color of her
they are from her own hair that she made into a wig, or whether hair and that of the strands are not significantly different,
they are from the hair of another, or whether they are from the hair e.g., an elderly woman with the hairs of a young woman
of an animal. (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 19:9; Shulĥan
Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 303:14).
יט ין ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ֵה ן ֶ ו ַּב ּטAnd a woman may go out with an ornament called totefet, and with
ִ ֹוט ֶפ ת ו ְּב ַס ְר ִב With pepper or with a grain of salt – ב ּ ִפ ְיל ּ ֵפל ו ְּב ַ ּג ְל ַ ּגל ֶמ ַלח:ּ ַ
, ְּתפו ִּריןsarvitin when they are sewn and will not fall. A woman may go out with pepper, with a grain of salt, or
with fragrance in her mouth, if she placed them in her
מֹוך
ְ ְ ּב. ַ ּב ָּכבוּל ו ְּב ֵפ ָאה נָ ְכ ִרית ֶל ָחצֵ רShe may go out on Shabbat with a woolen cap or with a wig to the mouth before Shabbat. If one of these items fell out of her
מֹוך ְ ו ְּב, ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ָאזְ נָ ּהcourtyard, although not to the public domain. And likewise she may
ְ ו ְּב,מֹוך ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ַסנְ דָּ ָל ּה mouth, she may not replace it (Rambam Sefer Zemanim,
. ׁ ֶש ִה ְת ִקינָ ה ְלנִ דָּ ָת ּהgo out with a cloth that is in her ear, and with a cloth in her sandal, Hilkhot Shabbat 19:12; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 303:15).
and with a cloth that she placed due to her menstrual status. Ornaments in a courtyard that is not joined by an
eiruv – עֹור ֶבת
ֶ יטין ֶ ּב ָחצֵ ר ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְמ
ִ ת ְכ ׁ ִש:ַּ The halakhic au-
ָּ וְ ָכל דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ּנ, ו ְּב ַ ּג ְל ַ ּגל ֶמ ַלח, ַ ּב ּ ִפ ְיל ּ ֵפלShe may go out on Shabbat with pepper, or with a grain of salt,
ִיתן hn
thorities disagree with regard to this case. Some ruled
ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִּת ֵּתן ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּלה,יה ָ ְלתֹוךְ ּ ִפor anything placed in her mouth for healing or for preventing bad in accordance with the opinion of Rav, as the mishna
. וְ ִאם נָ ַפל – ל ֹא ַּת ֲחזִ יר. ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבתodor, as long as she does not put these objects in her mouth for the supports his opinion. They prohibit carrying items that
first time on Shabbat. And if it fell out she may not replace it. may not be carried in the public domain in a courtyard
without an eiruv (Rambam; Rif ). The exceptions are a
, ַר ִ ּבי ַמ ִּתיר, ׁ ֵשן ׁ ֶשל זָ ָהב,ֹות ֶבת
ֶ ׁ ֵשן ּתA false tooth as well as (Ramban) a gold tooth,n Rabbi Yehuda woolen cap and a wig. A woman is allowed to go into
ְ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמיםHaNasi permits going out with it, and the Rabbis prohibit doing so.
.אֹוס ִרים the courtyard with them so that she will not become
gemara
unappealing to her husband. With regard to the prohib-
ָ גמ׳ ּו צְ ִר
דְּ ִא י ַא ׁ ְש ַמ ִעינַ ן:יכא We learned in the mishna that a woman may ited items, some explain that it is only prohibited to put
ֲא ָבל,דִּ ָיד ּה – ִמ ׁ ּש ּום דְּ ָלא ְמ ִאיס go out with different strands of hair. The them on in the courtyard, but it is permitted to put them
Gemara comments: And it is necessary to cite all of the cases. If the on in the house and go out into the courtyard (Mishna
,ימא ָלאָ ֲח ֶב ְיר ָּת ּה דִּ ְמ ִאיס – ֵאmishna taught us only with regard to her own hair, I would have said Berura). Others were stricter and prohibited putting them
that she may go out with it because it is not repulsive, as it is her on in the house lest she go out into the courtyard (Beit
Yosef; Rashba).
own hair; therefore, there is no concern lest she come to remove the Nowadays, Jewish women are accustomed to go-
strands and carry them in the public domain. However, the hair of ing out to the courtyard and even to the street while
another, which is repulsive and a different color from hers, say no, wearing jewelry. There are some authorities who say
she may not go out with it, due to concern lest she be embarrassed, that, although this practice is not permitted, the prohibi-
remove it, and come to carry it in the public domain. tion is not enforced because women would not obey it
anyway. Other commentaries explain that the halakha is
וְ ִאי ַא ׁ ְש ַמ ִעינַן דַּ ֲח ֶב ְיר ָּת ּה – דְּ ַבת ִמינָ ּהAnd if the mishna taught us that she is permitted to go out with the in accordance with Rabbi Anani, who said that all orna-
ments have the legal status of a kavul, since in matters of
, ֲא ָבל דִּ ְב ֵה ָמה – ָלאו ַ ּבר ִמינָ ּה הוּא, הוּאhair of another, I would have said that she may go out with it because
rabbinic decrees the ruling is lenient. In addition, women
.יכא ָ ימא ָלא – צְ ִר ָ ֵאit is hair of her own kind. Therefore, it is not repulsive in her eyes today do not typically remove their jewelry to show to
and she will not come to remove it. However, the hair of an animal,
others (Tosafot; Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat
since it is not of her own kind, say no, she may not go out with it 19:8; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 303:18).
due to concern lest she remove it. Therefore, it is necessary to cite
all three cases.
ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ֵּתצֵ א יַ ְלדָּ ה ְ ּב ׁ ֶשל: ָּתנָ אIt was taught in the Tosefta: It is permitted as long as a girl does not
. וּזְ ֵקנָ ה ְ ּב ׁ ֶשל יַ ְלדָּ ה, זְ ֵקנָ הgo out with the hair of an elderly woman, and an elderly woman
does not go out with the hair of a girl.
ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא זְ ֵקנָ ה ְ ּב ׁ ֶשל יַ ְלדָּ ה – ׁ ֶש ַבח הוּא The Gemara challenges: Granted, the Gemara cited the case of an
ֶא ָּלא יַ ְלדָּ ה ְ ּב ׁ ֶשל זְ ֵקנָ ה ַא ַּמאי? ְ ּגנַ אי,ָל ּה elderly woman who goes out with the hair of a girl, as it is a reason-
הוּא ָל ּה! ַאּיְ ֵידי דִּ ְתנָ א “זְ ֵקנָ ה ְ ּב ׁ ֶשל able scenario because it is flattering for her to look young. How-
ever, why would a girl go out with the hair of an elderly woman?
.יַ ְלדָּ ה״ ְּתנָ א נַ ִמי “יַ ְלדָּ ה ְ ּב ׁ ֶשל זְ ֵקנָ ה״
Since it is demeaning for her to appear elderly, it is an unlikely
scenario. The Gemara answers: Since the mishna taught the case of
an elderly woman with the hair of a girl, it also taught the improb-
able case of a girl with the hair of an elderly woman.
: ָא ַמר ַרב.“ב ָּכבוּל ו ְּב ֵפ ָאה נָ ְכ ִרית ֶל ָחצֵ ר״
ַּ It was taught in the mishna that a woman may go out with a woolen
ּכֹל ׁ ֶש ָא ְסר ּו ֲח ָכ ִמים ָלצֵ את ּבֹו ִל ְר ׁשוּת cap or with a wig to the courtyard. Rav said: With regard to all orna-
חוּץ,ָה ַר ִ ּבים – ָאסוּר ָלצֵ את ּבֹו ֶל ָחצֵ ר ments and garments with which the Sages prohibited going out into
the public domain on Shabbat, it is also prohibited to go out with
.ִמ ָּכבוּל ו ֵּפ ָאה נָ ְכ ִרית
them into the courtyardh due to the concern lest she forget and go
out to the street, with the exception of a woolen cap and a wig.
notes
With pepper or with a grain of salt – ב ּ ִפ ְיל ּ ֵפל ו ְּב ַ ּג ְל ַ ּגל ֶמ ַלח:ּ ַ Some to two separate items: An artificial tooth and a gold tooth. There vetoshav (Leviticus 25:35), which is vitotav and refers to a foreign
commentaries explain that the prohibition against a woman are different explanations with regard to the false tooth. The tooth. According to the second interpretation, totav sometimes
placing the pepper or the salt in her mouth on Shabbat is be- Ritva, based on the Jerusalem Talmud, explains that the false means a cloak. There is a distinction between a totav and a gold
cause of the general prohibition of using medicine on Shabbat tooth is a wooden tooth. The Ramban explains that it refers to tooth. As opposed to a gold tooth that a woman might want
(Derush VeĤiddush). a white covering over a black tooth. The dispute centers on to display, she would want to conceal a simple wooden tooth
A false tooth as well as a gold tooth – ׁ ֵשן ׁ ֶשל זָ ָהב,שן ּת ֶֹות ֶבת:
ֵׁ the origin of the word totav. According to the first interpreta- or a covering for a black tooth since they are embarrassing
According to most commentaries, the Gemara is referring tion, the word is similar to the Aramaic translation of the word (Ramban; Ran).
Perek VI
Daf 65 Amud a
ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ְּכנֶ גֶ ד,ֹוט ָחן ַ ּב ַח ָּמה ְ ׁשOne whose clothes fell into water on a Festival may not dry them in
ֶ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל, ָה ָעםthe conventional manner; however, he may spread them out in the
יעזֶ ר וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון
.אֹוס ִרין
ְ sun, but not before the people, who may suspect that he laundered
his clothes on Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon prohibit
doing so even in a place concealed from view. Apparently, the Sages
disagree whether or not an action prohibited due to the appearance
of prohibition is prohibited everywhere.
ָּתנֵי ָר ִמי ַ ּבר.מֹוך ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ָאזְ נָ ּה״ ְ “ו ְּבWe learned in the mishna that a woman may go out on Shabbat with
. וְ הוּא ׁ ֶש ָ ּק ׁשוּר ְ ּב ָאזְ נָ ּה: יְ ֶחזְ ֵקאלa cloth that is in her ear. Rami bar Yeĥezkel taught: And that is
specifically in a case where the cloth is tied to her ear and she will
not come to carry it.
314 Perek VI . 65a . הס ףד. קרפ ׳ו
halakha
: ָּתנֵי ָר ִמי ַ ּבר יְ ֶחזְ ֵקאל.מֹוך ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ַסנְ דָּ ָל ּה״
ְ “ו ְּבThe mishna continues: A woman may go out with a cloth that is in her
The cloth that is in her ear and that is in her
. וְ הוּא ׁ ֶש ָ ּק ׁשוּר ָל ּה ְ ּב ַסנְ דָּ ָל ּהsandal. Rami bar Yeĥezkel taught: And that is specifically in a case sandal – מֹוך ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ָאזְ נָ ּה ו ְּב ַסנְדָּ ָל ּה:
ְ It is permitted to
where the cloth is tied to her sandal.h go out on Shabbat with wadded cloth in one’s
ear or in one’s sandal as long as it is attached
ְס ַבר ָר ִמי.מֹוך ׁ ֶש ִה ְת ִקינָ ה ָל ּה ְלנִ דָּ ָת ּה״
ְ “ו ְּב We learned in the mishna: A woman may go out with a cloth that she
to the ear or sandal, in accordance with the
וְ הוּא ׁ ֶש ְּק ׁשו ָּרה ָל ּה ֵ ּבין:ימרַ ַ ּבר ָח ָמא ְל ֵמ placed due to her menstrual flow. Rami bar Ĥama considered saying statement of Rami bar Yeĥezkel. It is permit-
ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָק ׁשוּר: ָא ַמר ָר ָבא.יכֹות ָיהֶ יְ ֵר that it is permitted specifically in a case where it is tied between her ted for a menstruating woman to go out into
thighs. Rava said: It is permitted even though it is not tied to her; the public domain with a cloth even when it
.ָל ּה – ֵּכיוָ ן דִּ ְמ ִאיס – ָלא ָא ְתיָ א ְל ִא ּיתוּיֵ י
since it is repulsive, she will not come to carry it even if it falls. is not attached, in accordance with the state-
ments of Rava and Rabbi Abba (Rambam Sefer
ָע ְ ׂש ָתה:ינֵיה ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה ֵמ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא
ּ ְ ּב ָעא ִמ Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma before Rabbi Abba: If she made Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 19:11; Shulĥan Arukh,
herself a handgripn in which she could hold the cloth, what is the ha- Oraĥ Ĥayyim 303:15).
ית ַמר ְּ ִא.יה מו ָּּתרּ ָל ּה ֵ ּבית יָ ד ַמהוּ? ָא ַמר ֵל
אֹוש ֲעיָ א ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי
ַ ׁ ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר,][נַ ִמי lakha? Since she does not have to touch the cloth with her bare hand, is Gold tooth – שן ׁ ֶשל זָ ָהב:
ֵ ׁ It is prohibited to go
there concern that she will come to carry it or not? He said to him: It out into the public domain on Shabbat with a
. ָע ְ ׂש ָתה ָל ּה ֵ ּבית יָ ד – מו ָּּתר:יֹוחנָן
ָ
is permitted. It was also stated that Rav Naĥman bar Oshaya said that removable gold tooth. However, it is permitted
Rabbi Yoĥanan said: If she made herself a handgrip it is permitted. to go out with a silver tooth or one made out
of a material that resembles one’s teeth, in ac-
וַ ֲחלו ִּקין,יֹוחנָן נָ ֵפיק ְ ּבה ּו ְל ֵבי ִמ ְד ָר ׁ ָשא ָ ַר ִ ּבי Rabbi Yoĥanan went out with a cloth in his ear to the study hall on cordance with the opinions of the Rabbis and
Shabbat, and his colleagues are in disagreement with him and rule Rabbi Zeira (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot
, ַר ִ ּבי יַ ַּנאי נָ ֵפיק ְ ּבה ּו ְל ַכ ְר ְמ ִלית.ָע ָליו ֲח ֵב ָריו Shabbat 19:7; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 303:12).
וְ ָה ָתנֵי ָר ִמי ַ ּבר.וַ ֲחל ּו ִקין ָע ָליו ָּכל דּ ֹורֹו that it is prohibited to do so because it was not tied to his ear. Rabbi
Yannai went out with it, a cloth in his ear, to a karmelit,n an intermedi-
וְ הוּא ׁ ֶש ָ ּק ׁש ּור ָל ּה ְ ּב ָאזְ נָ ּה! ָלא:יְ ֶחזְ ֵקאל notes
ate domain, neither public nor private. And all the Sages of his genera-
.יה ַדק
ֲ ָהא – דְּ ָלא ִמ,יה ַדק ֲ ָהא – דְּ ִמ,ַק ׁ ְשיָ א tion are in disagreement with him. The Gemara asks: Didn’t Rami If she made herself a handgrip – ָע ְ ׂש ָתה ָל ּה ֵ ּבית
יָ ד: The Ra’avad explains that this handgrip is in-
bar Yeĥezkel teach: And that is specifically in a case where the cloth tended specifically for the cloth in the ear or the
is tied to her ear? How could these Sages ignore this halakha? The sandal. That is how it appears in the Jerusalem
Gemara answers: This is not difficult; this, where it was taught that Talmud as well (Rashba).
certain Sages went out with a cloth, is in a case where it was stuck Rabbi Yannai went out with it in his ear to
tightly in their ears. Therefore, it was permitted even though it was not a karmelit – ר ִ ּבי יַ ַּנאי נָ ֵפיק ְ ּבה ּו ְל ַכ ְר ְמ ִלית:ַ In the
tied. That, where Rami bar Yeĥezkel said that going out with a cloth is Jerusalem Talmud, Rabbi Yannai held that the
permitted only when it is tied, is in a case where it was not stuck tight- cloth itself is irrelevant to healing the ear. The
ly in his ear. main benefit is from the oil that is placed in
the ear. Therefore, one need not be concerned
, ּ ִפ ְל ּ ֵפל – ְל ֵר ַיח ַה ּ ֶפה.“ב ּ ִפ ְל ּ ֵפל ו ְּבגַ ְל ַ ּגל ֶמ ַלח״
ּ ַ We learned in the mishna: A woman may go out with pepper and with about the cloth. It is permissible to place and
replace the cloth in one’s ear.
ֹותנֶ ת ְ ַ ּג ְל ַ ּגל ֶמ ַלח – ְלa grain of salt in her mouth. The Gemara explains: She places pepper
ֶ ּ וְ ָכל דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶשנ.דֹור ׁ ִשינֵי
. דַּ ְרצֹונָ א: ִאי נַ ִמי,יה – זַ נְ ְ ּג ִב ָילא ָ ְלתֹוךְ ּ ִפin her mouth to prevent mouth odor and a grain of salt to treat a To treat a toothache – דֹור ׁ ִשינֵי
ְ ל:ְ The ge’onim in-
toothache.n With regard to that which we learned in the mishna: A terpreted the word dorshinei as gums. The grain
woman may go out on Shabbat with any thing that she places in her of salt alleviates gum pain.
mouth: This refers to ginger or, alternatively, to cinnamon [dartzona].l They only taught with regard to a gold tooth –
ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶשל זָ ָהב: It is explained in the Jerusa-
ֹות ֶבת ׁ ֵשן ׁ ֶשל זָ ָהב ַר ִ ּבי ַמ ִּתיר וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים ֶ “שן ּת ֵׁ We learned in the mishna that the Sages disagree whether or not a lem Talmud that if a gold tooth falls out, she will
ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶשל: ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא.אֹוס ִרין״ ְ woman may go out on Shabbat with a false tooth and a gold not leave it there because it is precious. She will
. ֲא ָבל ְ ּב ׁ ֶשל ֶּכ ֶסף – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל מו ָּּתר,זָ ָהב tooth;h Rabbi Meir permits doing so and the Rabbis prohibit doing lift it and carry it in her hand. The same is true
so. Rabbi Zeira said: They only taught the dispute with regard to a with regard to any false tooth. The woman will
. דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל מו ָּּתר, ְ ּב ׁ ֶשל ֶּכ ֶסף:ַּתנְיָא נַ ִמי ָה ִכי be embarrassed to return to the tooth maker
gold tooth.n Since it is precious, she might remove it from her mouth
.אֹוס ִרין
ְ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים,ׁ ֶשל זָ ָהב – ַר ִ ּבי ַמ ִּתיר to show her friends and come to carry it. However, with regard to a and display her missing tooth. In that case too,
she will lift it and carry it in her hand.
silver tooth, which is less precious, there is no concern that she will
remove it from her mouth. Everyone agrees that it is permitted. That That anything that makes her unappeal-
ing – יהּ דְּ ָכל ִמידֵּ י דְּ ִמ ַ ּיגנְיָא ֵ ּב: With regard to cer-
opinion was also taught in a baraita: With regard to a tooth made of
tain items, e.g., a garter, everyone agrees that
silver, everyone agrees that it is permitted. With regard to a tooth of if displaying it renders her unappealing, there
gold, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits going out with it and the Rabbis is no concern that she will remove it in the
prohibit going out with it. public domain. The dispute in the Gemara can
be explained differently. The Rabbis hold that
וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן,יעזֶ ר
ֶ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל, ַר ִ ּבי: ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ יAbaye said: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi a woman is not embarrassed by flaws that are
ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ּכו ְּּלה ּו ְס ִב ָירא ְלה ּו דְּ ָכל ִמידֵּ י דְּ ִמי ַ ּגנְיָאShimon ben Elazar all hold that anything that makes her unappeal- clearly visible to all, e.g., a gold tooth that clearly
ּ ֵ ּבing when removed, she will not come to remove it and show it to
n indicates that she is missing a tooth. The same
.יה – ָלא ָא ְתיָ א ְל ַא ֲחוֹיֵ י is true with regard to a bundle of fragrant herbs.
others. Therefore, it is permitted for her to go out with it.
However, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, Rabbi Eliezer,
,יעזֶ ר – דְּ ַתנְיָ א
ֶ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל, ַר ִ ּבי – ָהא דַּ ֲא ַמ ַרןThe Gemara elaborates: The opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is that and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintain that even in
the case of a flaw clearly visible to all, women
לֹוחית ׁ ֶשל ִ ְֹוטר ַ ּב ּכ ֶֹוב ֶלת ו ִּבצ ֶ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִלwhich we just stated. The opinion of Rabbi Eliezer is as it was taught
ֵ יעזֶ ר ּפ will not want to call attention to that flaw and
. ּ ַפ ְליָ יטֹוןin a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer exempts a woman who went out with a exhibit it in public (Rashba).
bundle of fragrant herbs and with a flask of balsam oil, since a wom-
an whose odor is foul does not remove and show the bundle to others.
language
ְּכ ָלל ָא ַמר,ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר – דְּ ַתנְיָא The opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is as it was taught in a barai- Cinnamon [dartzona]– דַּ ְרצֹונָ א: Apparently, the
ta. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar stated a principle: Anything that is worn variant reading dartzina is more accurate, from
ּכֹל ׁ ֶשהוּא ְל ַמ ָּטה ִמן:ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר the Iranian dar ī čēn, meaning Chinese wood, i.e.,
– ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ִמן ַה ְּס ָב ָכה,ַה ְּס ָב ָכה – יֹוצְ ָאה ּבֹו beneath the net, a woman may go out into the public domain with it,
a cinnamon tree.
since a woman will not uncover her hair while in the public domain
.ֵאינָ ּה יֹוצְ ָאה ּבֹו
even to show off an ornament. Anything that is worn over the net, e.g.,
an ornamental hat, a woman may not go out with it, since there is
concern that she will remove it and carry it.
הס ףד. ׳ו קרפ. Perek VI . 65a 315
halakha
A woman may go out with a sela coin on a wound on her foot –
יֹוצְ ָאה ְ ּב ֶס ַלע ׁ ֶש ַעל ַה ִ ּצינִית: One may go out on Shabbat with a coin
מתני׳ יֹוצְ ָאה ְ ּב ֶס ַלע ׁ ֶש ַעל
ַה ָ ּבנֹות ְק ַטנּ ֹות יֹוצְ אֹות.ַה ִ ּצינִית
mishna A woman may go out with a sela coin
that she ties on a wound on her foot.hb
The young girls may go out with strings,n and even with wood
tied to a wound on his foot to protect it and heal it. If the coin has יס ִמ יןְ יל ּו ְ ּב ִק ּ וַ ֲא ִפ,ְ ּב ח ּו ִט ין
no healing properties, some hold that it is prohibited to go out chipsh that are in the holes in their ears so that the holes will
with it (Magen Avraham). Others permit it (see Mishna Berura). It
ַע ְר ִבּיֹות יֹוצְ אֹות.יה ם ֶ ֵׁ ֶש ְ ּב ָא זְ נ not seal. Young girls would have their ears pierced, but earrings
is only permitted to go out with the coin if it is tied to one’s foot וְ ָכל, ּו ָמ ִדּיֹות ּ ְפרוּפֹות,ְרעוּלֹות were not placed in their ears until they were older. Jewish wom-
before Shabbat with an insignificant cloth, which is secondary to .ָא ָדם – ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶשדִּ ְ ּבר ּו ֲח ָכ ִמים ַ ּבהֹוֶ ה en in Arab countries may go out veiled,n with a scarf covering
the coin (Mishna Berura; Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat their face, and Jewish women in Media may go out with cloaks
19:13; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 301:28).
וְ ַעל, וְ ַעל ָה ֱאגֹוז,ּפ ֶֹור ֶפת ַעל ָה ֶא ֶבן
ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ִּת ְפרֹוף, ַה ַּמ ְט ֵ ּב ַע fastenedh with stones. And, any person in any place is permit-
The young girls may go out with strings and even with wood ted to go out on Shabbat clothed in that way; however, the
ְ וַ ֲא ִפ ּיל ּו ְ ּב ִק,ה ָ ּבנֹות ְק ַטנּ ֹות יֹוצְ אֹות ְ ּבחו ִּטין:ַ Young girls may
chips – יס ִמין .ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּלה ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת Sages spoke in the present, addressing prevalent situations. A
go out on Shabbat with strings and with wood chips in their ear woman may fasten her cloak on a stone by inserting a small
holes to prevent the holes from closing. If they are colorful and
ornamental it is prohibited, as per the mishna and the custom of
stone and wrapping her cloak around it, as she would with a
Shmuel’s father (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 19:12; button. And likewise, she may do so on a nut or on a coin, as
Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 303:20). long as she does not fasten her cloak with them on Shabbat ab
initio.
Jewish women in Arab countries may go out veiled and Jewish
women in Media may go out with cloaks fastened – ַע ְר ִבּיֹות יֹוצְ אֹות
רעוּלֹות ו ָּמ ִדּיֹות ּ ְפרוּפֹות:ְ On Shabbat, a woman may go out wearing
a scarf that covers all of her head except for her face or her eyes
.גמ׳ ַמאי צִ ינִית – ַ ּבת ַא ְר ָעא
gemara The Gemara asks: What is the tzinit
with regard to which the mishna taught
(Arukh and Rashi). A woman may also wear a brooch that fastens that a woman may go out with a coin tied to it on Shabbat? The
her cloak (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 19:12; Shulĥan Gemara explains: It is a wound on the sole of her foot.
Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 303:21).
And mats in the days of Tishrei – יֹומי ִּת ׁ ְש ֵרי
ֵ ו ַּמ ּ ְפצֵ י ְ ּב: A woman may
ימא ָּכל ָ יל
ֵ ּו ַמאי ׁ ְשנָ א ֶס ַלע? ִא The Gemara asks: What is different about a sela? Why specifi-
not immerse in a body of water with a muddy bottom because the – קֹושא ַמ ֲע ִל י ָל ּה ָ ׁ ִמ ידֵּ י דְּ ַא cally is a coin placed on the wound? If you say that any object
mud might stick to her feet and become an interposition that in- יע ַבד ָל ּה ַח ְס ּ ָפא! ֶא ָּלא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ֱ ֶל that is hard is beneficial for her, make an earthenware shard
validates the immersion, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel’s for her instead. Rather, it is beneficial due to the rust on the
יע ַבד ָל ּה ַט ָּסא! ֶא ָּלא ֱ ׁש ְֹוכ ָתא – ֶל
father (Rashi). Similarly, a woman may not immerse in a place where coin. If so, make a small silver plate for her. Why specifically a
she might be seen. The concern is that she might not immerse !יע ַבד ָל ּה ּפו ְּל ָסאֱ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם צו ָּר ָתא – ֶל coin? Rather it is beneficial due to the imagen engraved on the
properly due to embarrassment, in accordance with Tosafot’s inter- ּכו ְּּלה ּו, ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה:ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י coin. If so, make her an unminted coinb and engrave an image
pretation of Shmuel’s father’s custom (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot
Mikvaot 1:11; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 198:33–34). .ַמ ֲע ִלין ָל ּה on it. Abaye said: Learn from it that all these factors together
are beneficial for her.
Women who rub against one another – סֹוללֹות זֹו ָ ּבזֹו ְ נָשים ַה ְמ:
ִׁ
Women who rub up against one another violate the prohibition: ֲאבו ּּה.“ה ָ ּבנֹות יֹוצְ אֹות ְ ּבחו ִּטין״ ַ The mishna taught that the young girls may go out with strings.
“After the doings of the land of Egypt…shall you not do” (Leviticus The Gemara relates that Shmuel’s father did not allow his
18:3). The authorities deemed this act reprehensible and ruled that יה ּ דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ָלא ׁ ָש ֵביק ְלה ּו ִל ְבנָ ֵת
women may not do so. The punishment for performing acts of that וְ ָלא ׁ ָש ֵביק ְלה ּו,דְּ נָ ְפ ִקי ְ ּבחו ִּטין daughters to go out with strings, and did not allow them to
kind was flogging with lashes for rebelliousness. However, its legal lie next to each other, and he made ritual baths for them in
וְ ָע ֵביד ְל ה ּו,ָ ּג נְ יָ אן ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ֲה ָד דֵּ י
status is not that of prohibited sexual behavior [arayot], which would the days of Nisan and mats in the Euphrates River in the days
disqualify them from marrying a priest (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, יֹומיֵ ו ַּמ ּ ְפצֵ י ְ ּב,נִיסן
ָ יֹומי
ֵ ִמ ְקוָ אֹות ְ ּב of Tishrei.h Since the water was shallow and the riverbed mud-
Hilkhot Issurei Bia 21:8; Shulĥan Arukh, Even HaEzer 20:2). .ִּת ׁ ְש ֵרי dy, he placed mats on the riverbed so that they could immerse
without getting dirty.
background
Sela that she ties on a wound – ס ַלע ׁ ֶש ַעל ַה ִ ּצינִית:ֶ The tzinit is either
,ָלא ׁ ָש ֵביק ְלה ּו יֹוצְ אֹות ְ ּבחו ִּטין The Gemara analyzes the conduct of Shmuel’s father: He did
an inflamed swelling or callus on the sole of the foot. The coin ! ַה ָ ּבנֹות יֹוצְ אֹות ְ ּבחו ִּטין:וְ ָה ֲאנַן ְּתנַן not allow them to go out with strings. Didn’t we learn in the
that is stuck on the wound apparently prevented chafing. It is also יה דַּ ֲאבו ּּה דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל דְּ צִ ְבעֹונִין
ּ ְ ּבנָ ֵת mishna that the girls may go out with strings? The Gemara
conceivable that contact with the metal also healed the wound. answers: The strings with which the daughters of Shmuel’s
.ָּהוו
Nowadays, various metal-based powders are used to heal wounds. father went out were colorful ones, and he was concerned that
However, in the Jerusalem Talmud tzinit is explained as gout, a very because the strings were beautiful they would come to remove
painful condition afflicting the feet, primarily the toes. them to show them to others and carry them.
Unminted coin – פו ְּל ָסא:ּ A pulsa is a token or coin on which there is
no imprimatur, or on which its image has rubbed off. In either case, , ָלא ׁ ָש ֵביק ְלה ּו ָ ּגנְ יָ אן ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ֲה ָד ֵדיHe did not allow them to lie next to one another. Let us say
it is not accepted as a coin. דְּ ָא ַמר,יה ְל ַרב הוּנָא ָ ֵלthat this supports the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said:
ּ ימא ְמ ַסּיַ יע ֵל
ִ ׁ : ַרב הוּנָ אWomen who rub against one another motivated by sexual
hn
סֹוללֹות זֹו ָ ּבזֹוְ נָשים ַה ְמ
desire
notes
The young girls may go out with strings – ַה ָ ּבנֹות ְק ַטנּ ֹותited by Torah law and punishable by stoning, there is no
יֹוצְ אֹות ְ ּבחו ִּטין: Some explain that these refer to strings worn
punishment explicitly stated for women who engage in
around the neck for ornamental purposes (Rambam’s Com- sexual activity. Nevertheless, the prohibition: “After the do-
mentary on the Mishna). ings of the land of Egypt…shall you not do” (Leviticus 18:3),
Veiled – רעוּלֹות:ְ Some explain that this refers to women which the Sages explained as: Man marries man, woman
covered in bell-like ornaments (Rambam’s Commentary marries woman, applies here. Another question with regard
on the Mishna). to female homosexuality is whether or not it falls into the
category of zenut. It is important to note that, halakhically,
Due to the image – מ ׁ ּשוּם צו ָּר ָתא:ִ Some commentaries zenut is not identical to promiscuity. A woman who engages
explain that the depressions on the coin from the engraved in sexual relations that are classified as zenut may not marry
image leave room for the swollen flesh protruding from the
a priest, as she has the legal status of a zona. Rav Huna and
wound. Therefore, it is not painful to wear a shoe (Me’iri).
his son sought to extend the concept of zenut to include
Women who rub against one another – סֹוללֹות זֹו ְ נָשים ַה ְמ
ִׁ acts not prohibited explicitly by Torah law, but their opinion
Unminted coin בזֹו:ּ ָ Unlike male homosexuality, which is explicitly prohib- was rejected.
sentially parallel to the rainfall in Eretz Yisrael. The increased A woman may fasten on a stone…we have arrived at the case of a
water flow of the Euphrates in the spring is the result of the coin – ען…א ָתאן ְל ַמ ְט ֵ ּב ַ
ֲ פ ֶֹור ֶפת ַעל ָה ֶא ֶב:ּ One could ask: Why it is permissible
to fasten the garment on a stone ab initio and not on a coin? Ostensibly,
rainfall in the winter. Shmuel’s father held that immersion in
both have the status of set-aside on Shabbat. Indeed, in the Jerusalem
the Euphrates would not purify them. A river maintains its Talmud, the Sages prohibit fastening a garment on both a coin and a
status as a river in terms of purification through immersion stone and only permit doing so on a nut (Rashba). The reason for the
only if it is established that the rain water that fell would not difference is that a coin is more set aside from use than a stone because
exceedh the naturally flowing spring water.n In the halakhot the coin is designated for a prohibited purpose and it is not a utensil in
of ritual baths, there are two manners of purification. The first any sense. Therefore, the halakha is more stringent with regard to a coin
is the immersion in a place where water is gathered, e.g., col- than it is with regard to other set-aside objects.
lected rainwater that does not flow and remains in place. The
second is immersion in flowing waters in their natural state, halakha
e.g., a spring or a river. However, rainwater purifies only when And he made for them a ritual bath…that the rain water that fell
ְ ּה…שלּ ֹא יִ ְר ּב ּו ַהנ
would not exceed – ֹוט ִפין ֶׁ ֶוְ ָע ֵביד ְלה ּו ִמ ְקו: Since rainwater
it is collected; it does not purify when it is flowing.
only purifies when gathered in one place, one must make certain not to
immerse in a river where most of the water is rain water, in accordance
דְּ ָא ַמ ר,ּו ְפ ִל יגָ א דִּ ׁ ְש מ ּו ֵא ל And he disagrees with his son Shmuel, as Shmuel said: The with the custom of Shmuel’s father and the opinion of Rav. Some authori-
. ְיה ִמ ְיב ַרךּ נַ ֲה ָרא ִמ ֵּכ ֵיפ:ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל river is blessed from its riverbedb (ge’onim); the additional ties permitted immersion in a river which is mostly rain water, relying on
water in the river is not from rainfall but rather from subter- the opinion of Shmuel that a river is blessed from its source (Tosafot;
דְּ ָא ַמר,יה ּ יה ַאדִּ ֵיד ּ ו ְּפ ִליגָ א דִּ ֵיד Sefer Mitzvot Gedolot; and others). Nevertheless, one should follow the
ranean sources. And this statement of Shmuel disagrees with
ֵאין ַה ַּמיִ ם ְמ ַט ֲה ִרין:ׁ ְשמ ּו ֵאל stringent ruling (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Mikvaot 9:13; Shulĥan
another ruling that he himself issued, as Shmuel said: The Arukh, Yoreh De’a 201:2).
ֵ זֹוח ִלין ֶא ָּלא ּ ְפ ָרת ְ ּב
יֹומי ִּת ׁ ְש ִרי ֲ ְ ּב water purifies when flowing only in the Euphrates during
.ִ ּב ְל ַבד the days of Tishrei alone. Since rain does not fall in the sum- A woman may fasten her cloak on a stone – פ ֶֹור ֶפת ַעל ָה ֶא ֶבן:ּ A woman
may fasten the veil on her head with a stone on Shabbat to prevent it
mer, only then is it clear that the water is in fact river water. from falling off her head. In addition, she may go out into the public
domain with that same fastener on Shabbat, as long as she designated
וְ ָה ָא ְמ ַר ְּת.“פ ֶֹור ֶפת ַעל ָה ֶא ֶבן כו׳״ ּ We learned in the mishna: A woman may fasten her cloak on the stone for that purpose before Shabbat (Mishna Berura). If she utilized a
coin as a fastener, she may not go out with it unless it was fastened before
ָ ׁ ֵרa stone, and on a nut, and on a coin, as long as she does not
h
ֵס ָיפא:ישא ּ‘פ ֶֹור ֶפת׳! ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י
Shabbat, in accordance with Abaye’s opinion (Rambam Sefer Zemanim,
. ֲא ָתאן ְל ַמ ְט ֵ ּב ַעfasten her cloak with them ab initio on Shabbat. The Gemara Hilkhot Shabbat, 19:12; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 303:22).
asks: Didn’t you say in the first clause of this halakha in the
mishna that a woman may fasten, indicating that she is per-
mitted to do so even ab initio? How do you explain the con-
tradiction? Abaye said: In the latter clause of the mishna we
have arrived at the case of a coin,n one of the examples cited
in the mishna. The halakha with regard to a coin is the excep-
tion. Because a coin is set-aside from use on Shabbat, one
might conclude that it may not be used at all; nevertheless, it
is only prohibited to fasten the cloak on the coin ab initio on
Shabbat itself.
background
Rain in the west – מ ְט ָרא ְ ּב ַמ ַע ְר ָבא:ִ Apparently, this saying is result of the abundant rain in the Armenian mountains and their Although a great deal of rainwater flows into a river from the
based on the correlation between the weather in northwestern surroundings. When there is abundant rainfall in the Armenian surrounding mountains and streams, a river’s current is more
Babylonia, the source of the Euphrates River, and the weather mountains there is abundant rainfall in Eretz Yisrael as well. conspicuously augmented by another source, i.e., water that
in the Eretz Yisrael. Since there is relatively little rainfall in Baby- penetrates the earth and flows into the underground aquifers
lonia, when the water level of the Euphrates would rise, it was a The river is blessed from its riverbed – יה ִמ ְיב ַר ְך
ּ נַ ֲה ָרא ִמ ֵּכ ֵיפ: that increase the water capacity of the river.
ֵּ מתני׳ ַה ִּק
,יט ַע יֹוצֵ א ְ ּב ַקב ׁ ֶש ּלֹו
.דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר
mishna One with an amputated leg may go out on
Shabbat with his wooden leg, as it has the
legal status of a shoe; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
Perek VI
Daf 66 Amud a
halakha
.אֹוסר
ֵ יֹוסי
ֵ וְ ַר ִ ּביAnd Rabbi Yosei prohibitsh going out into the public domain with
One with an amputated leg may go out on Shab-
the wooden leg, since he does not consider it to have the legal status
bat with his wooden leg…and Rabbi Yosei prohib-
its – אֹוסר ֵ יט ַע יֹוצֵ א ְ ּב ַקב ׁ ֶשלּ ֹו…וְ ַר ִ ּבי
ֵ יֹוסי ֵּ ה ִּק:ַ The ruling that
of a shoe.
an amputee may not go out with his wooden leg on
Shabbat applies only when he does not actually sup-
– יתין
ִ יבוּל ְּכ ִת
ּ וְ ִאם יֵ ׁש לֹו ֵ ּבית ִקAnd if the wooden leg has a receptacle for pads,n a concave space at
port himself with the wooden leg, since, in that case, it is . ָט ֵמאthe top of the leg into which pads are placed to cushion the ampu-
only for decorative purposes. This ruling is in accordance tated leg, it assumes the status of a wooden vessel and can become
with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, ritually impure.
Hilkhot Shabbat 19:15; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 301:15).
וְ יֹוצְ ִאין, ָסמֹוכֹות ׁ ֶשלּ ֹו – ְט ֵמ ִאין ִמ ְד ָרסAnd his supports,h which are shoes that one who had both of his feet
His supports – סמֹוכֹות ׁ ֶש ּלֹו:ָ An amputee who fashions
leather coverings for his knees and walks on them may go ִ וְ נִ ְכ, ָ ּב ֶהן ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבתamputated places on his knees in order to walk on his knees, if a zav
.נָסין ָ ּב ֶהן ָ ּב ֲעזָ ָרה
out with them on Shabbat (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim
wears them, they are subject to ritual impurity imparted by treading.
301:16). A zav is a primary source of ritual impurity. If he touches a vessel it
assumes first-degree ritual impurity status. However, vessels on which
notes he treads, sits, lies, or leans become primary sources of ritual impu-
Receptacle for pads [ketitin] – יתיןִ יבוּל ְּכ ִת
ּ בית ִק:
ּ ֵ Some rity, provided they are designated for that purpose. These supports
commentaries interpreted ketitin as the flesh and bone are vessels designated for treading. And one may go out with them
protruding from an amputated limb. The one who fash- into the public domain on Shabbat since they have the legal status of
ions the prosthesis leaves space for them to prevent pain shoes. And one may enter the Temple courtyard with them. Al-
resulting from pressure on the amputated limb (ge’onim; though, generally, wearing shoes in the Temple courtyard is prohib-
Rabbeinu Ĥananel; Rambam’s Commentary on the ited, in this regard, the supports do not have the legal status of shoes.
Mishna).
, ִּכ ֵּסא וְ ָסמֹוכֹות ׁ ֶשלּ ֹו – ְט ֵמ ִאין ִמ ְד ָרסHowever, if one who is crippled to the extent that he cannot walk at
ִ וְ ֵאין נִ ְכ, וְ ֵאין יֹוצְ ִאין ָ ּב ֶהן ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבתall sits on a chair that is attached to him, places supports on his hands,
נָסין
. ָ ּב ֶהן ָ ּב ֲעזָ ָרהand propels himself along with his hands, his chair and supports are
subject to ritual impurity imparted by treading. And one may not
go out with them on Shabbat, and one may not enter the Temple
courtyard with them.
318 Perek VI . 66a . וס ףד. קרפ ׳ו
notes
. וְ ֵאין יֹוצְ ִאין ָ ּב ֶהן,הֹורין
ִ לֹוק ַט ִמין – ְט
ְ Loketamin, which will be explained in the Gemara, are ritually pure
in the sense that they cannot become ritually impure because they How did we learn – ה ִיכי ְּתנַן:ֵ This question and others like
it are based on the existence of two variant readings of the
are not vessels, and one may not go out with them on Shabbat. same mishna, each of which had equal distribution. The
יכי
ִ ֵה:יה ָר ָבא ְל ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ּ גמ׳ ֲא ַמר ֵל
ִה ְיל ְכ ָתא. ָלא יָ ַד ֲענָ א:יה ּ ְּתנַ ן? ֲא ַמר ֵל
gemara Rava said to Rav Naĥman: How did we
learnn the dispute in our mishna? Does
version in the Babylonian Talmud is: Rabbi Yosei prohibits,
while the version in the Jerusalem Talmud is: Rabbi Meir
prohibits. Since the principle is that the halakha is in ac-
Rabbi Meir rule that the amputee may go out with a wooden leg and cordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei in disputes with
. ָלא יָ ַד ֲענָ א:יה
ּ ַמאי? ֲא ַמר ֵלfoot and Rabbi Yosei prohibits him from doing so? Or is it Rabbi Rabbi Meir, the ruling in this issue depends on ascertain-
Meir who prohibited him from doing so, and Rabbi Yosei’s opinion ing the correct version of the mishna.
is the lenient one? Rav Naĥman said to him: I don’t know. And And Rav signaled him – יה ַרב ּ ו ַּמ ֲחוֵ י ֵל: From the descrip-
Rava asked: What is the halakha in this matter? Rav Naĥman said tions of similar instances, it is assumed that Rav was pray-
to him: I don’t know. ing and did not want to speak and interrupt his prayer.
Therefore, he gestured with his hand that the opinions
ֵּ ‘אין ַה ִּק
.יט ַע׳ ֵ : ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל,ית ַמר ְּ ִא It was stated: Shmuel said that the correct reading of the mishna should be reversed.
ָא ַמר.יט ַע׳ ֵּ ‘אין ַה ִּק ֵ :וְ ֵכן ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א is: An amputee may not go out, and Rabbi Yosei permits him to do If she removed a sandal – ח ְלצָ ה ְ ּב ַסנְדָּ ל:ָ In the context
‘איןֵ הֹואיל וְ ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ִ :יֹוסף ֵ ַרב so. And, likewise, Rav Huna said that the correct reading of the of the halakhot of ĥalitza, the dissolution of the levirate
mishna is: An amputee may not. Rav Yosef said: Since Shmuel ties between a childless widow and her brother-in-law,
– יט ַע׳ֵּ וְ ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א ֵ‘אין ַה ִּק,יט ַע׳ֵּ ַה ִּק the Torah states: “She will remove his shoe from on his
said that the correct reading of the mishna is: An amputee may not,
.יט ַע״ ּ
ֵ “אין ַה ִּק
ֵ נִיתנִי
ְ ֲאנַן נַ ִמי and Rav Huna said: An amputee may not, we will also learn the foot” (Deuteronomy 25:9). The Sages sought to delineate
precisely the details of removing the shoe by defining
mishna: An amputee may not. the meaning of the terms “his foot” and “his shoe.” This
mishna identifies his shoe as the shoe he is wearing, even
ָלא ׁ ְש ִמ ַיע:ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ָר ָבא ַ ּבר ׁ ִש ָירא Rava bar Shira strongly objects to this: And did they not hear that if it does not belong to him and even if the shoe does not
יה ַרב ָחנָ ן ַ ּבר ָר ָבא ּ ְלה ּו ָהא דְּ ַמ ְתנֵי ֵל Rav Ĥanan bar Rava taught the mishna to Ĥiyya bar Rav before fit. Apparently, they disagreed whether a wooden shoe
יה דְּ ַרב ְ ּב ִקיטֹונָ א דְּ ֵבי
ּ ְל ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַרב ַק ֵּמ Rav in a small room [kituna]l in the school of Rav: An amputee falls into the category of “his shoe,” or whether it does not
may not go out on Shabbat with his wooden leg; this is the state- because it contains no leather.
ּל ֵּ “אין ַה ִּק
דִּ ְב ֵרי,יט ַע יֹוצֵ א ְ ּב ַקב ׁ ֶש ֹו ֵ :ַרב
ment of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Yosei permits going out with it. Rabbi Yosei prohibits – אֹוסרֵ יֹוסי
ֵ ר ִ ּבי:ַ Many of the com-
יה
ּ יֹוסי ַמ ִּתיר״ ו ַּמ ֲחוֵ י ֵלֵ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר וְ ַר ִ ּבי And Rav signaled himn with a hand gesture to reverse the opinions, mentaries explain that the reason that going out into the
: ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק.ֹוך ְ ִא ּיפ:ַרב Rabbi Meir permits going out and Rabbi Yosei prohibits doing so. public domain with a prosthetic leg is prohibited is not
.ימנָ א “סמך סמך״ ָ וְ ִס Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said: And the mnemonic to remember because the prosthetic leg is not considered footwear.
which tanna permits and which tanna prohibits is samekh samekh. Rather, it is due to the concern that if the amputee walks
with it on Shabbat, it might fall off and he may come to
The letter samekh appears both in the name Yosei and in the Hebrew
carry it (Rabbeinu Ĥananel; Rambam).
word for prohibits [oser]. In that way, one remembers that Rabbi
Yosei is the one who prohibits it. Plasterers’ sandal – סנְדָּ ל ׁ ֶשל ַסּיָ ִידין:ַ Some commentaries
explain that this a tool used by plasterers that resembles a
ָח ְלצָ ה: דִּ ְתנַ ן,יה shoe in its appearance. The plasterers utilized it to smooth
ּ וְ ַאף ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ֲה ַדר ֵ ּבThe Gemara comments: And even Shmuel, who said that the cor-
the plaster on walls. Occasionally, they wore these sandals
, ְ ּב ַסנְ דָּ ל ׁ ֶשל ֵעץ, ְ ּב ַסנְ דָּ ל ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ׁ ֶש ּלֹוrect reading of the mishna is: An amputee may not, and Rabbi Yosei on their feet (ge’onim).
. אֹו ׁ ֶשל ְ ׂשמֹאל ְ ּביָ ִמין – ֲח ִליצָ ה ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרהpermits it, reversed his opinion. As we learned in a mishna: The Ritual impurity imparted by treading – ט ֵמא ִמ ְד ָרס:ָ Ritual
ĥalitza ceremony, which frees a childless widow from the obligation
impurity imparted by treading, by means of which a ves-
to enter into levirate marriage with her brother-in-law, involves the
sel used by a zav becomes impure, requires that certain
widow removing her brother-in-law’s sandal from his foot. If she conditions are met. One of them is that the vessel must
removed a sandaln that is not his, or a wooden sandal, or the be specifically designated for that use, e.g., sitting or tread-
sandal of the left foot that was on his right foot, the ĥalitza is ing. Rashi interprets the discussion in the Talmud based
valid. exclusively on that principle. The amoraic dispute revolves
around the question as to what extent certain vessels are
ַר ִ ּבי: ַמאן ַּת ָּנא? ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל: וְ ָא ְמ ִרינַןAnd we said: Who is the tanna who holds that a wooden sandal is specifically designated for a particular use.
Another condition is that the zav must lean on the ves-
יט ַע יֹוצֵ א ְ ּב ַקב ֵּ ַה ִּק: דִּ ְתנַ ן, ֵמ ִאיר ִהיאconsidered a shoe for this purpose? Shmuel said: It is Rabbi Meir,
sel in question consistently and with most of his weight.
.אֹוסר ֵ יֹוסי ֵ ַר ִ ּבי, דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר, ׁ ֶשלּ ֹוas we learned in a mishna: An amputee may go out with his wood- According to most commentaries, the distinctions in the
en leg, this is the statement of Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yosei pro- mishna and the Gemara are based on the difference be-
hibitsn doing so. Ultimately, Shmuel accepted Rav’s reading of the tween vessels that the zav leans on with all his weight and
mishna. those that provide support or serve a decorative purpose.
ַסנְ דָּ ל: דְּ ַתנְיָא,יה ּ וְ ַאף ַרב הוּנָ א ֲה ַדר ֵ ּב And Rav Huna also reversed his opinion, as it was taught in a ba- language
וְ ִא ׁ ּ ָשה,ׁ ֶשל ַסּיָ ִידין – ָט ֵמא ִמ ְד ָרס raita: With regard to a plasterers’ sandalnh worn by those who work
Small room [kituna] – קיטֹונָ א:ִ From the Greek κοιτών,
דִּ ְב ֵרי, וְ יֹוצְ ִאין ּבֹו ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת,חֹולצֶ ת ּבֹו
ֶ with lime and would cover their leather shoes with a shoe woven koiton, meaning bedroom or children’s room.
from straw or reeds so that the leather shoes would not get ruined
. וְ ל ֹא הֹוד ּו לֹו.ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא
by the lime. If the plasterer is a zav and walks with his shoes covered, halakha
the shoe covering is subject to ritual impurity imparted by Plasterers’ sandal – סנְדָּ ל ׁ ֶשל ַסּיָ ִידין:ַ A wooden sandal of
treading,n as the legal status of that sandal is that of a shoe. A wom- plasterers becomes ritually impure when worn by a zav,
an may perform ĥalitza with it, and one may go out with it on in accordance with the opinions of Rabbi and Rabbi Meir
Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis did and according to the interpretation that the one who
not agree with him. disputed their opinions was Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Nuri. The
halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva
ַמאן: הֹוד ּו לֹו! ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א: וְ ָה ַתנְיָאThe Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that they agreed with in disputes with one of his colleagues (Rambam Sefer
Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 25:18).
ו ַּמאן “ל ֹא הֹוד ּו, “הֹוד ּו לֹו״ – ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאירhim? Rav Huna said in resolution of this apparent contradiction:
.יֹוסיֵ לֹו״ – ַר ִ ּביWho is the Sage whose opinion is referred to in the phrase: They
agreed with him? It is Rabbi Meir. And who is the Sage whose
opinion is referred to in the phrase: They did not agree with him?
It is Rabbi Yosei. Even Rav Huna accepted Rav’s reading of the
mishna that Rabbi Yosei prohibits going out with a wooden leg.
וס ףד. ׳ו קרפ. Perek VI . 66a 319
halakha
– ) ַמאן “ל ֹא הֹוד ּו לֹו״:יֹוסף ֵ (א ַמר ַרב ָ Rav Yosef said: Who is the Sage whose opinion is referred to in
And if the wooden leg has a receptacle – יבוּלּ וְ ִאם ׁיֵש לֹו ֵ ּבית ִק: the phrase: They did not agree with Rabbi Akiva? It is Rabbi
An artificial leg that has a receptacle for pads can become ַּכ ֶּו ֶרת ׁ ֶשל: דִּ ְתנַ ן,יֹוחנָ ן ֶ ּבן נו ִּרי
ָ ַר ִ ּבי
ritually impure and even become a primary source of ritual פֹופ ֶרת ׁ ֶשל ָקנִים – ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ֶ ַק ׁש ו ׁ ְּש Yoĥanan ben Nuri. As we learned in a mishna: A receptacle
impurity when used by a zav, in accordance with the mishna made of straw and a tube made of reeds, Rabbi Akiva deems
.יֹוחנָן ֶ ּבן נו ִּרי ְמ ַט ֵהר
ָ וְ ַר ִ ּבי,ְמ ַט ֵּמא
and the opinion of Rava. The halakha is in accordance with these vessels capable of becoming ritually impure, and Rabbi
Rava’s opinion in disputes with Abaye (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Yoĥanan ben Nuri deems them pure, i.e., incapable of becoming
Hilkhot Kelim 25:19). ritually impure because they are not vessels. According to Rabbi
The wagon of a small child – עגָ ָלה ׁ ֶשל ָק ָטן:ֲ A child’s wagon Yoĥanan ben Nuri, straw objects are not considered vessels fit
can become ritually impure, even with impurity imparted by for use.
the treading of a zav (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 25:16).
ַסנְ דָּ ל ׁ ֶשל ַסּיָ ִידין – ָט ֵמא:ָא ַמר ָמר It was taught in a baraita that the Master said: A plasterers’ san-
Walking stick, typically used by the elderly – מ ֵ ּקל ׁ ֶשל זְ ֵקנִים:ַ dal is subject to ritual impurity imparted by treading. The Ge-
An elderly person’s cane cannot become ritually impure be-
ָהא ָלאו ְל ִהילּ ו ָּכא ָע ְב ִדי! ָא ַמר.ִמ ְד ָרס
ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ַה ַּסּיָ יד:ַרב ַא ָחא ַ ּבר ַרב עו ָּּלא mara asks: How could that be? These sandals are not made for
cause it is a wooden utensil without a receptacle. In addition,
because the elderly person does not lean most of his weight walking. Rav Aĥa bar Rav Ulla said: They are used for walking,
. ַעד ׁ ֶש ַּמ ִ ּג ַיע ְל ֵביתֹו,ְמ ַטּיֵ יל ּבֹו
on it, it does not become impure with impurity imparted by as, at times, the plasterer walks in them until he reaches his
the treading of a zav (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 25:17). house.
יתין
ִ יבוּל ְּכ ִת
ּ “וְ ִאם יֵ ׁש לֹו ֵ ּבית ִק We learned in the mishna: And if the wooden leg has a recepta-
ָט ֵמא ט ּו ְמ ַאת: ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י.ָט ֵמא״ cleh for pads, it is capable of becoming ritually impure. Abaye
: ָר ָבא ָא ַמר. וְ ֵאין ָט ֵמא ִמ ְד ָרס,ֵמת said: It is subject to ritual impurity due to contact with ritual
impurity imparted by a corpse, and it is not subject to ritual
.ַאף ָט ֵמא ִמ ְד ָרס
impurity imparted by treading. If a zav uses a wooden leg it
merely assumes first-degree ritual impurity status, since he cannot
lean all his weight on it. Rava said: The artificial foot is even
subject to ritual impurity imparted by treading.
: ְמנָ א ָא ִמינָ א ָל ּה – דִּ ְתנַן:ָא ַמר ָר ָבא Rava said: From where do I derive to say this halakha? As we
וְ ַא ַ ּביֵ י.ֲעגָ ָלה ׁ ֶשל ָק ָטן ְט ֵמ ָאה ִמ ְד ָרס learned in a mishna: The wagon of a small childh utilized to teach
– ָה ָכא,יה ּ ֵ ָה ָתם – ָס ֵמיךְ ִע ָּילו:ֲא ַמר him to walk (Tosafot) is subject to ritual impurity imparted by
treading, since its purpose is to lean on it. And Abaye said: The
ּ ֵָלא ָס ֵמיךְ ִע ָּילו
.יה
two cases are not comparable. There, in the case of the wagon, he
leans all his weight on it; here, in the case of the wooden leg, he
does not lean all his weight on it.
: ְמנָ א ָא ִמינָ א ָל ּה – דְּ ַתנְיָא: ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ יAbaye said: From where do I derive to say this halakha? As it was
. ַמ ֵ ּקל ׁ ֶשל זְ ֵקנִים – ָטהֹור ִמ ְּכלוּםtaught in a baraita: A walking stick, typically used by the elderly,
h
Perek VI
Daf 66 Amud b
ְ ָה ָכא – ִל ְסמֹוך, ְל ֵתרֹוצֵ י סוּגְ יָא ֲע ִב ָידאit is made merely to align his steps and straighten his posture. He
.יה ּ ֵ ִע ָּילוdoes not completely lean all his weight on it. Here, in the case of
ּ וְ ָס ֵמיךְ ֲע ֵל,יה הוּא דַּ ֲע ִב ָידא
a wooden leg, it is made to lean on, and in fact he leans all his
weight on it.
“ט ֵמ ִאין ִמ ְד ָרס וְ ֵאין יֹוצְ ִאין ָ ּב ֶהן ְ It was taught in the mishna that the supports of a zav and his chair
ִ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת וְ ֵאין נִ ְכare subject to ritual impurity imparted by treading, and one may
.נָסין ָ ּב ֶהן ָל ֲעזָ ָרה״
not go out with them on Shabbat, and one may not enter into
the Temple courtyard with them.
נִ ְכנָ ִסין:יֹוחנָ ן
ָ יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי
ּ ָּתנֵי ַּת ָּנא ַק ֵּמThe tanna, who recited mishnayot before Rabbi Yoĥanan, taught
. ָ ּב ֶהן ָל ֲעזָ ָרהthe opposite halakha in the mishna: One may enter into the
Temple courtyard with them.
ֶ “א ׁ ּ ָשה
חֹולצֶ ת ִ ֲאנִי ׁשֹונֶ ה:יה ּ ָא ַמר ֵלRabbi Yoĥanan said to him: I teach that a woman may perform
ֵאין: ּבֹו״ וְ ַא ְּת ָא ְמ ַר ְּת נִ ְכנָ ִסין! ְּתנֵיĥalitza with this support, as it has the legal status of a shoe in
ִ נִ ְכevery sense, and you say that one may enter the Temple court-
.נָסין ָ ּב ֶהן ָל ֲעזָ ָרה
yard? Teach the mishna in the following manner: One may not
enter into the Temple courtyard with them.
320 Perek VI . 66b . וס ףד: קרפ ׳ו
language
?לֹוק ַט ִמין
ְ ַמאי.הֹורה״ ָ “לֹוק ַט ִמין ְט ְ We learned in the mishna that loketaminl are pure. The Gemara
asks: What are loketamin?hn Rabbi Abbahu said: They are wooden Loketamin – לֹוק ַט ִמין:
ְ Apparently, the primary reading is
ָר ָבא. ֲח ָמ ָרא דְּ ַא ְּכ ָפא:ָּא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבהו anktamin from the Greek ὄνος κατ᾿ ὤμων, onos kat’ omon,
ָר ָבא ַ ּבר ַרב. ְק ׁ ִש ֵירי:ַ ּבר ּ ַפ ּ ָפא ָא ַמר toys in the shape of a donkey one carried on the shoulders, creating meaning a donkey on the shoulder. Therefore, the interpre-
the impression that the donkey is riding him. Rava bar Pappa said: tation of Rabbi Abbahu, who was from Eretz Yisrael and an
. ּ ְפ ָר ֵמי:הוּנָ א ָא ַמר
They are stilts used to avoid getting dirty when walking in mud or expert in Greek, is closest to the etymology of the word.
for amusement. Rava bar Rav Huna said: They are masks
Masks [peramei ] – פ ָר ֵמי:ְ ּ According to this reading, this word
[peramei].lb may be from the Latin forma, meaning form or mask. How-
mishna
ever, according to the variant reading pedamei, it is from the
,מתני׳ ַה ָ ּבנִים יֹוצְ ִאין ַ ּב ְּק ׁ ָש ִרים Young boys may go out on Shabbat with Middle Persian padām, a ritual kerchief worn by Zoroastrian
וְ ָכל ָא ָדם – ֶא ָּלא,ו ְּבנֵי ְמ ָל ִכים ַ ּבּזוּגִ ין knots as a folk remedy and princes with priests over the mouth while officiating at a sacred fire.
bells. And any person is permitted to go out on Shabbat with those
. ׁ ֶשדִּ ְ ּבר ּו ֲח ָכ ִמים ַ ּבהֹוֶ והobjects; however, the Sages spoke in the present, addressing situ-
halakha
ations that were prevalent. One may not go out with loketamin – לֹוק ַט ִמין
ְ אין יֹוצְ ִאין ְ ּב:ֵ
gemara
One may not go out on Shabbat with the image of a donkey
גמ׳ ַמאי ְק ׁ ָש ִרים? ָא ַמר ַאדָּ א ָמ ִרי We learned in the mishna that young boys made by clowns, with stilts, or with masks because all the
ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר ָ ּברו ְּך ָא ַמר ַרב may go out on Shabbat with knots. The Ge- suggested interpretations of the loketamin in the Gemara
mara asks: What are these knots? Adda Mari said that Rav Naĥman were accepted as halakha (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot
ִק ׁ ּשו ֵּרי: ַא ׁ ִשי ַ ּבר ָא ִבין ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדהbar Barukh said that Rav Ashi bar Avin said that Rav Yehuda said: Shabbat 19:15; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 301:20).
. ּפו ָּאהThey are garlands of the maddern plant that are tied for their me-
dicinal qualities. background
Masks – פ ָר ֵמי:ְ ּ
– ְּת ָל ָתא: ָא ְמ ָרה ִלי ֵאם, ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ יAbaye said: Mother, actually his foster mother, said to me about
ׁ ִש ְב ָעה – ֲא ִפילּ ּו,ּ ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה – ַמ ּסו,מֹוק ִמי
ְ the healing properties of madder: Three garlands maintain the ill-
.ִל ְכ ׁ ָש ִפים ַמ ֲע ִלי ness at its present state and prevent it from worsening, five garlands
heal the illness, and seven are effective even against sorcery.
וְ הוּא דְּ ָלא:ֲא ַמר ַרב ַא ָחא ַ ּבר יַ ֲעקֹב Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov said: And that benefit provided by the madder
וְ ָלא ֲחזִ י,יה ָרא ֲ יה ׁ ִש ְמ ׁ ָשא וְ ִס ּ ֲחזִ י ֵל plant is specifically in a case where one on whom the knots were
,יה קֹול ַ ּב ְרזְ ָלא ּ לֵ יעַ מִ ש
ְ ׁ א ל ָ ְו ,א יט ָר
ְ ִמ tied does not look at the sun and the moon, and does not see rain,
and hears neither the sound of clanging iron, nor the sound of
ָא ַמר ַרב. וְ קֹל נִיגְ ֵרי,גֹול ָתא ְ ְוְ קֹל ַּת ְרנ
the hen, nor the sound of footsteps. Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak
. נְ ַפל ּפו ָּתא ְ ּב ִב ָירא:נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק said: If that is the case, the remedial powers of the madder fell in
a pit, i.e., if so many conditions exist, for all intents and purposes it
provides no benefit at all.
, ַמאי ִא ְיריָ א ָ ּבנִים – ֲא ִפילּ ּו ָ ּבנֹות נַ ִמיThe Gemara asks: If these knots in the madder plant have remedial
ִ ַמאי ִא ְיריָ א ְק ַט ּנִים – ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְ ּגqualities, why specifically were boys mentioned in the mishna?
דֹולים
! נַ ִמיEven girls can benefit from the cure as well. By the same token, why
specifically were young boys mentioned in the mishna? Even
adults can benefit from the cure as well.
ַמאי ְק ׁ ָש ִרים – ִּכי ָהא דְּ ָא ַמר,ֶא ָּלא Rather, what are these knots? Like that which Avin bar Huna said
ָא ִבין ַ ּבר הוּנָ א ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ָח ָמא ַ ּבר that Rav Ĥama bar Gurya said: A son who has longings for his
ֵ ּבן ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ַ ּג ְעגּ ּו ִעין ַעל ָא ִביו:גּ ּו ְריָ א fathern and has a difficult time leaving him, the father takes a strap
Mask of a Roman actor from the mishnaic period
from the right shoe and ties it on the boy’s left arm as a talisman
קֹושר
ֵ ׁ ְנְעל ׁ ֶשל יָ ִמין ו ָ נֹוטל ְרצו ָּעה ִמ ִּמ ֵ
to help the child overcome his longings. These feelings are more
: ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק.לֹו ִ ּב ְ ׂשמֹאלֹו common in small children and especially in boys for their fathers,
. וְ ִחילּ ו ָּפא ַס ַּכנְ ָּתא.ימנִיךְ – ְּת ִפ ִּילין
ָ וְ ִס as fathers were more involved in raising their sons than they were
in raising their daughters. Therefore, the Sages allowed specifically
young boys to go out with these knots. With regard to this practice,
Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said: And your mnemonic for where to
tie the strap is phylacteries, which are tied by the right hand on the
left arm. And the opposite, tying the strap from the left shoe onto
his right arm, is dangerous because it will exacerbate his longings.
notes
What are loketamin – לֹוק ַט ִמין
ְ מאי:ַ The synonyms for loketamin plant. In the Jerusalem Talmud, other numbers of garlands that
cited in the Gemara were themselves not understood over the determine its medicinal efficacy were suggested: Five, seven,
course of the generations and several interpretations were and nine.
suggested. Some authorities explained that ĥamra de’akfa is
A son who has longings for his father – בן ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ַ ּג ְע ּגו ִּעין ַעל ָא ִביו:ּ ֵ
a prosthetic, wooden arm for amputees (Rabbeinu Ĥananel).
Ostensibly, the Gemara is referring to knots tied for small chil-
Some commentaries explain that peramei is as a type of bib that
dren. Since small children are not obligated in the performance
was hung around the neck of small children or the very elderly
of mitzvot, why is the Gemara discussing this halakha? Some
so that their saliva would not drip on their garments (Arukh).
commentaries taught that the father is the one who moves the
Garlands of madder [pua] – ק ׁ ּשו ֵּרי ּפו ָּאה:ִ One commentary laces in his son’s shoes as a talisman (Me’iri). Other authorities
translated pua as a wig, a variation of the word pe’a, from which maintain that it is referring to a son who has reached the age of
they pluck hairs to make garlands (Me’iri). However, the other majority, thirteen, whose father died. He performs this practice
commentaries and the Jerusalem Talmud taught that it is a to alleviate his sorrow (Rabbeinu Ĥananel).
: וְ ָא ַמר ָא ִבין ַ ּבר הוּנָ א ָא ַמר ַרב ָח ָמא ַ ּבר ּגו ְּריָ אAnd Avin bar Huna said that Rav Ĥama bar Gurya said: It is
. מו ָּּתר ְל ַח ֵּנק ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבתpermitted to strangle, i.e., tightly bandage the neck of one
b
: וְ ָא ַמר ָא ִבין ַ ּבר הוּנָ א ָא ַמר ַרב ָח ָמא ַ ּבר ּגו ְּריָ אAnd Avin bar Huna said that Rav Ĥama bar Gurya said: With
. ְלפו ֵּפי יְ נו ָּקא ְ ּב ׁ ַש ְ ּב ָתא – ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר דָּ ֵמיregard to tightly swaddling a baby born on Shabbat in order
h
to align any limbs that may have been dislocated in birth, one
may well do so.
ַרב. ַרב זְ ִביד ַמ ְתנֵי ֵ ּ‘בן׳,ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא ַמ ְתנֵי ָ ּ‘בנִים׳ There were different versions with regard to the halakhot of Avin
ּ ַפ ּ ָפא ַמ ְתנֵי ָ ּ‘בנִים׳ וְ ַת ְרוַ יְ יה ּו ַמ ְתנִי ְלה ּו ְ ּב ָא ִבין bar Huna. Rav Pappa taught two halakhot with regard to chil-
יתא – ַמ ְתנֵי ָ ְ ַק ַּמי, ַרב זְ ִביד ַמ ְתנֵי ֵ ּ‘בן׳,ַ ּבר הוּנָ א dren in his name and Rav Zevid taught one halakha with regard
to a child in his name. The Gemara explains: Rav Pappa taught
וְ ַהאי – ַמ ְתנֵי ָל ּה ְ ּב ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר,ְ ּב ָא ִבין ַ ּבר הוּנָ א
two halakhot with regard to children, and he taught both of
ְלפו ֵּפי יְ נו ָּקא: דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה.ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה them in the name of Avin bar Huna, i.e., the halakha with re-
.ְ ּב ׁ ַש ְ ּב ָתא – ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר דָּ ֵמי gard to knots and the halakha with regard to swaddling. Rav
Zevid taught one halakha with regard to a child. The first, with
regard to knots, he taught in the name of Avin bar Huna. And
this, with regard to swaddling, he taught in the name of Rabba
bar bar Ĥana, as Rabba bar bar Ĥana said: With regard to
tightly swaddling a baby on Shabbat, one may well do so.
ָּכל ִמנְיָ ינֵי – ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָמא: ָא ְמ ָרה ִלי ֵאם, ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ יThe Gemara cites additional statements said by Abaye in the
.אלא ָּ דְּ ִאname of the woman who raised him with regard to remedies.
ָ וְ ָכל ִק ְט ֵרי – ִ ּב ְ ׂש ָמ,ימא
Abaye said, Mother said to me: All incantations that are re-
peated are intoned using the name of the mother of the one
requiring the incantation, and all knots tied for the purpose of
healing are tied on the left.
– ָּכל ִמנְיָינֵי דְּ ִמ ּ ַפ ְר ׁ ִשי: ָא ְמ ָרה ִלי ֵאם, וְ ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ יAnd Abaye said, Mother said to me: All incantations for
.ימנֵיְ ִ ו ְּד ָלא ִמ ּ ַפ ְר ׁ ִשי – ַא ְר ְ ּב ִעין וְ ַחד ז, ִּכ ְד ִמ ּ ַפ ְר ׁ ִשיwhich the number of times they must be intoned is specified,
one recites them as they are specified; and those for which the
number of times they must be intoned is not specified, one
recites them forty-one times.
background
ּ סחו ֵּפי ָּכ ָסא ַא ִּט:ְ According
Overturning a cup on one’s navel – יבו ֵּרי To strangle – ל ַח ֵּנק:ְ According to Rashi, this refers to the realign-
to Rashi’s explanation, the Gemara is apparently discussing a treat- ment of a displaced vertebra in the neck. A similar treatment is still
ment similar to cupping glasses, which was common practice un- in use today. However, the ge’onim explain that this strangulation
til recent times. From a medical perspective, the treatment works involves applying pressure to the veins in the neck for medicinal
by increasing the flow of blood to a certain area. In the Rambam’s purposes. In various cases, such as paroxysmal tachycardia, pres-
opinion, it is speaking in this context of using cupping glasses to sure is indeed applied to the veins in the neck and to the vagus
restore the intestines to their place by drawing the skin outwards. nerve.
יה
ּ יש ַק ֵל ְ ׁ ִל,ׁש ּו ְמ ׁ ְש ָמנָ א ַ ּג ְמ ָלא דְּ ָד ֵרי ִמידֵּ י and when he sees a large ant carrying something, he should Fever of one day – יֹומא ָ א ׁ ְש ָּתא ַ ּבת:ִ This refers to ma-
יס ְּת ַמ ּיָ א ְ וְ ִל,גֹוב ָתא דִּ נְ ָח ׁ ָשא ְ יה ְ ּב ּ ֵיש ַד י
ְ ׁ וְ ִל take the ant and place it in a copper tube, and close it with laria quotidiana that attacks the person each day of his
lead, and seal it with sixty seals, and shake it, and lift it, and illness. This term is used to distinguish between this
ֵ ו ְּל ַב ְר,יח ְת ֵמי ְ ּב ׁ ִש ִּיתין ּגו ׁ ְּש ּ ַפ ֵנְקי
זֹול ּיה ֶ וְ ִל,ְ ּב ַא ָ ּב ָרא illness and tertian fever.
say to it: Your burden is upon me and my burden, my fever, is
. ְ ְטעוּנָ ךְ ֲע ַלי ו ְּטעוּנַ אי ֲע ָלך:יה ּ ימא ֵל ָ וְ ֵל,יהּ וְ ִל ְיד ֵר upon you. Rav Aĥa, son of Rav Huna, said to Rav Ashi: And
:יה דְּ ַרב הוּנָ א ְל ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ּ יה ַרב ַא ָחא ְ ּב ֵר ּ ֲא ַמר ֵל perhaps a different person already found this ant and used this notes
יה? ֶא ָּלא ּ יה וְ ִא ָיפ ֵסק ֵ ּב ּ ינִיש ַא ׁ ְש ַּכ ֵחׁ וְ ִד ְיל ָמא ִא remedy to end his illness. In that case, by accepting the burden Even with the counterweight of a preservation
of the ant, he is bringing another’s illness upon himself. Rather, stone – אף ְ ּב ִמ ׁ ְש ַקל ֶא ֶבן ְּתקו ָּמה:ַ Abaye raised a dilemma
. ְ ְטעוּנַ אי ו ְּטעוּנָ ךְ ֲע ָלך:יה ּ ימא ֵל ָ ֵל whether or not the counterweight to a counterweight
let him say to the ant: My burden and your burden are upon of a preservation stone is effective. The Gemara con-
you. cludes: Let the dilemma stand unresolved. That conclu-
sion does not address the effectiveness of the counter-
,ישקֹול ּכֹוזָ א ֲח ַד ָּתא וְ ֵליזִ יל ְלנַ ֲה ָרא ְ ׁ וְ ִאי ָלא – ִל And if that remedy is not effective, let him take a new jug, and weight of a counterweight, which is a medicinal rather
אֹוזְ ָפן ּכֹוזָ א דְּ ַמּיָ א, נַ ֲה ָרא נַ ֲה ָרא:יה ּ ימא ֵל ָ וְ ֵל go to the river, and say to it: River, river, lend me a jug of than a halakhic issue. Rather, it addresses the halakhot
ימנֵיְ ִיה ַדר ׁ ַשב ז ֲ וְ ִל.יק ַלע ִלי ְ אֹור ָחא דְּ ִא ְ ְל water for a guest who happened to come to me. And let him of carrying out on Shabbat. Since the benefit of this
turn it around his head seven times, and pour out the water object remains unclear, is it permitted to carry out that
:יהּ ימא ֵל ָ וְ ֵל,יה
ּ חֹור
ֵ יה ו ְּל ׁ ַש ְדיָ ין ַל ֲא
ּ ישֵ ׁ ַעל ֵר stone on Shabbat? The dilemma remains unresolved.
behind him, and say to it: River, river, take back the water that
אֹור ָחאְ ְּ ד,יה ְב ְּת ִלי ַ ִּ ׁ ְשקֹול ַמּיָ א ד,נַ ֲה ָרא נַ ֲה ָרא you gave me because the guest who happened to come to me
.יה ֲאזַ לּ יֹומ
ֵ יה ֲא ָתא ו ְּב ּ יֹומ
ֵ דְּ ִא ְיק ַלע ִלי ְ ּב came on its day and left on its day.
:ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א Rav Huna said:
Perek VI
Daf 67 Amud a
background
ילוֵ יְ יתי ׁ ִש ְב ָעה ִס ִ ְיל ָּתא – ַלי ְ ְל ִא ׁ ְש ָּתא ִּת For tertian fever,b which afflicts one every three days, let one
Tertian fever – א ׁ ְש ָּתא ִּת ְיל ָּתא:ִ The illness is called tertian
וְ ׁ ִש ְב ָעה צִ ֵיבי ִמ ׁ ּ ִש ְב ָעה ִּכ ׁ ּשו ֵּרי,ִמ ׁ ּ ִש ְב ָעה דִּ ְיק ֵלי bring seven thorns from seven palm trees, and seven slivers
fever because the fever recurs every three days.
ימי ֵ וְ ׁ ִש ְב ָעה ְק ִט,יכי ִמ ׁ ּ ִש ְב ָעה ְ ּג ׁשו ֵּרי ֵ וְ ׁ ִש ְב ָעה ִס from seven beams, and seven pegs from seven bridges, and
seven types of ashes from seven ovens, and seven types of dust
, וְ ׁ ִש ְב ָעה ַע ְפ ֵרי ִמ ׁ ּ ִש ְב ָעה ִסנְ ֵרי,ִמ ׁ ּ ִש ְב ָעה ַּתנּ ו ֵּרי
from seven door sockets, the hole in which the hinge of the
וְ ׁ ִש ְב ָעה ּבוּנֵי,וְ ׁ ִש ְב ָעה ּכו ְּפ ֵרי ִמ ׁ ּ ִש ְב ָעה ַא ְר ֵ ּבי door revolves, and seven types of tar from seven boats, and
,יקנָ א דְּ ַכ ְל ָ ּבא ָס ָבא ְ ִּ וְ ׁ ִש ְב ָעה ִ ּבינֵי ִמד,ַּכ ּמֹונֵי seven cumin seeds, and seven hairs from the beard of an old
.נִירא ַ ּב ְר ָקאָ ארא ְ ּב ָ ו ְּלצַ ּיְ ִירינְ ה ּו ַ ּב ֲח ָל ָלא דְּ ֵבי ַצ ָּו dog, and let him bind it to the opening of the neckline of his
garment with a thread made of hair.
זס ףד: ׳ו קרפ. Perek VI . 67a 323
background
יש ַקלְ ׁ ְל ִא ׁ ְש ָּתא צְ ִמ ְיר ָתא – ִל:יֹוחנָ ן
ָ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּביRabbi Yoĥanan said: For healing a burning fever,b let one take
Burning fever – א ׁ ְש ָּתא צְ ִמ ְיר ָתא:ִ This is apparently an
extremely high fever from which the patient suffers. יכא ָ וְ ֵליזַ ל ְל ֵה, ַס ִּכינָ א דְּ כו ָּּלא ּ ַפ ְרזְ ָלאa knife that is made entirely of iron, including the handle, and
ָּ יכא דְּ ִא
ּ וַ ְורדִּ ינָ א וְ ִל ְיק ַטר ֵ ּבlet him go to a place where there is a bush and tie a string of
b
.נִירא ַ ּב ְר ָקא
ָ יה
Bush – וַ ְורדִּ ינָ א: In this context, the bush is one of the hair to it.
types of Rubus raspberries from the Rosaceae fam-
ily. The raspberry is an extremely thorny, low bush “וַ ּיֵ ָרא:ימאָ וְ ֵל,יה ּפו ְּר ָּתא
ּ יחרֹוק ֵ ּב ֲ יֹומא ַק ָּמא ִל
ָ On the first day, let him carve the bush a little, and recite:n
with thin stems. The leaves of the plant have three to
,יה ּפו ְּר ָּתא
ּ יחרֹוק ֵ ּב
ֲ ִל ְמ ָחר ִל,ַמ ְל ַאךְ ה׳ ֵא ָליו וגו׳״ “And an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire
five non-deciduous leaflets. The flowers are pink or
white. When ripe, the fruit is reddish-black and edible. ִל ְמ ָחר.ֹאמר מ ׁ ֶֹשה ָא ֻס ָרה ָּנא וְ ֶא ְר ֶאה״ ֶ “וַ ּי:ימאָ וְ ֵל from within the bush and he looked and behold the bush was
Raspberry bushes form thickets along the banks of aflame in fire and the bush was not consumed” (Exodus 3:2). On
“וַ ּיַ ְרא ה׳ ִּכי ָסר:ימא ָ יה ּפו ְּר ָּתא וְ ֵלּ יחרֹוק ֵ ּב
ֲ ִל
rivers. Within the raspberry family, the holy bramble, the following day, let him carve the bush a little more and re-
Rubus sanguineus Frivaldszk, is the most widespread .ִל ְראֹות וגו׳״ cite: “And Moses said: I will turn aside now, and see this great
in Eretz Yisrael. sight, why the bush is not burned” (Exodus 3:3). On the follow-
ing day, let him carve the bush a little more and recite: “And
the Lord saw that he turned aside to see and God called to him
within the bush and said: Moses, Moses, and he said: Here I am”
(Exodus 3:4).n
ַ ּבז ַ ּבזְ יָ יה ַמס ַמ ְסיָ יא:ימא ָה ִכי ָ ימ ָטא ֵל ְ ְל ִס For healing boils,b let him recite as follows: Baz, Bazya, Mas,
ִא ֵּלין ַמ ְל ָא ֵכי, ׁ ַש ְר ָלאי וַ ֲא ַמ ְר ָלאי,ַּכס ַּכ ְסיָ יה Masya, Kas, Kasya, Sharlai, and Amarlai, these are the angels
יש ַּת ַּלח ּו ֵמ ַא ְר ָעא דִּ ְסדֹום ו ְּל ַא ָּס ָאה ׁ ְש ִחינָ א ְ ׁ דְּ ִא who were sent from the land of Sodom and this was all in order
to heal painful boils. Bazakh, Bazikh, Bazbazikh, Masmasikh,
, ְ ַּכ ּמֹון ַּכ ִּמיך, ְ ַ ּבּזָ ךְ ָ ּבזִ יךְ ַ ּבזְ ָ ּבזִ יךְ ַמ ְס ָמ ִסיך,ְּכ ִא ִיבין
Kamon, Kamikh, may your appearance remain with you, may
זַ ְר ִעיךְ ְּכ ָקלוּט, ְ ַא ְת ִריךְ ָ ּבך, ְֵעינִיךְ ִ ּביךְ ֵעינָ ךְ ִ ּביך your appearance remain with you, i.e., the boils should not
ָּכךְ ל ֹא ִּת ְפ ֶרה וְ ל ֹא,ו ְּכ ִפ ְרדָּ ה דְּ ָלא ּ ָפ ָרה וְ ָלא ַר ְביָא grow redder. May your place remain with you, i.e., they should
.יה דִּ ְפלֹונִי ַ ּבר ּ ְפלֹונִית ּ ִּת ְר ֶ ּבה ְ ּבגו ֵּפ not spread, may your, the boils’, seed be like one who is barren
and like a mule that is not fruitful and does not multiply, so
too, do not increase and do not multiply in the body of so-
and-so, son of so-and-so.
notes
And let him go to a place where there is a bush…let him carve that support an action. Another commentary explains that here
the bush a little and recite, etc. – …יכא וַ ְורדִּ ינָ א ָּ יכא דְּ ִא
ָ וְ ֵליזַ ל ְל ֵה the intention is to heal the soul as well as the body. The verses and
ימא וכו׳
ָ יה ּפו ְּר ָּתא וְ ֵל
ּ יחרֹוק ֵ ּב
ֲ ל:ִ The question was raised in Tosafot the incantations speak of the significance of humility and modesty.
with regard to utilizing verses from the Torah as a talisman or as a The intention is for the sick person to repent and consequently be
remedy, especially since this practice is known to be strictly pro- healed from his illness (Maharsha).
hibited to the extent that one who chants verses over a wound has The verses for healing fever – ה ּ ְפסו ִּקים ְל ַר ּ ְפאוׂת ַה ַ ּק ַד ַחת:ַ Although
no share in the World-to-Come. They answer that in a dangerous a fever is called fire for obvious reasons, it is clearly not an actual
situation it is permissible. The Me’iri explains that since one is not fire. Nevertheless, all the verses speaking of the burning bush lend
merely chanting incantations and the main element of the healing themselves to a double meaning; both the depiction of Moses’
involves carving out the bush, it is not prohibited to recite verses encounter with the bush and as an allusion to fever (see Rashi).
ָּכל דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש:ּ ַא ַ ּביֵ י וְ ָר ָבא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי ַּת ְרוַ יְ יהוWith regard to the halakha in the mishna, the Gemara cites
ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ְרפו ָּאה – ֵאין ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דַּ ְר ֵכיAbaye and Rava, who both said: Anything that contains an
ִ ָה ֱאelement of healing and seems to be effective does not contain
h
.מֹורי
an element of the prohibition against following the ways of the
Amorite.n There is no cause for suspicion of one who engages
in their practice, gentile or Jew.
notes
As they use it to cure an earache [shiĥala] – יח ָלא ֲ דְּ ָע ְב ִדי ְל ׁ ִש:
incantation, and divination falls under the rubric of several To-
Rashi, based on the ge’onim, explains shiĥala as an earache. It is rah prohibitions. The prohibition of divination and soothsaying
explicitly stated in the Jerusalem Talmud that the locust’s egg is comes from the verse: “There must not be found among you…a
a remedy for an earache. However, the Rambam and the Rosh soothsayer, an enchanter, a witch” (Deuteronomy 18:10), among
both interpret shiĥala as thigh pain, and they find a similar term others. In addition, there is the general prohibition: “And in their
in the Mishna, shaĥol, meaning a dislocated thigh. statutes do not walk” (Leviticus 18:3). Nevertheless, the state-
ִ דַּ ְר ֵכי ָה ֱא: ments of Abaye and Rava as well as those in the Tosefta are to
The ways of the Amorite and healing – מֹורי ו ְּרפו ָּאה
Many of the customs and healing practices detailed in the sev- be understood in the broadest possible manner. Any practice
enth and eighth chapters of the Tosefta of this tractate, also that was attempted and found to be an effective remedy, even
known as the Amorite chapters, are prohibited as ways of the if there is no clear scientific rationale for its effectiveness, may
Amorites, i.e., superstitious beliefs. Every superstitious belief, be utilized based on the empirical evidence.
Perek VI
Daf 67 Amud b
notes
ַ ּגד ַ ּגדִּ י וְ ָסנ ּוק ָלא ַא ׁ ְש ִּכי:אֹומר ֵ ָה After some discussion of the ways of the Amorite, the Gemara cites
Term of idolatry – בֹודה זָ ָרה
ָ ל ׁשֹון ֲע:ְ As mentioned above,
.מֹוריִ וּבו ׁ ְּש ִכי – יֵ ׁש ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דַּ ְר ֵכי ָה ֱא additional statements from the Amorite chapter in the Tosefta and
all ways of the Amorites have some element of idolatry
or are at least peripherally connected to the prohibitions ַ ּגד ֵאינֹו ֶא ָּלא ְל ׁשֹון:אֹומר ֵ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה from other sources on this topic. One who says: My fortune be
against witchcraft, divination, and soothsaying: “There fortunate [gad gaddi] and be not weary by day or by night; that
“הע ְֹר ִכים ַל ַ ּגד
ָ : ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר,בֹודה זָ ָרה ָ ֲע
must not be found among you…a soothsayer, an en- statement contains an element of the ways of the Amorite. Rab-
chanter, a witch” (Deuteronomy 18:10). However, Rabbi .ׁ ֻש ְל ָחן״ bi Yehuda says: That is more severe than the ways of the Amorite,
Yehuda holds that the expressions cited in the Gemara in as gad is nothing other than a term of idolatry,n as it is stated:
particular contain ancient vestiges of idolatry and must “And you that forsake the Lord, that forget My holy mountain, that
be forcefully attacked, even though the one who utters
prepare a table for Gad, and that offer mingled wine in full mea-
them merely intends them as superstitious enchantments.
sure unto Meni” (Isaiah 65:11). Gad gaddi is a form of prayer to an
idol.
הוּא ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָמ ּה וְ ִהיא ִ ּב ׁ ְשמֹו – ׁיֵש ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּםOne who requests that he be called by his wife’s name and she be
ִ דַּ ְר ֵכי ָה ֱאcalled by his name for good fortune, his request contains an ele-
,מֹורי
ment of the ways of the Amorite.
ִ “דּ ֹונ ּו דַּ ּנֵי״ – ׁיֵש ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דַּ ְר ֵכי ָה ֱא
,מֹורי One who says: Let my barrels be strengthened [donu danei], that
ֵאין דָּ ן ֶא ָּלא ְל ׁשֹון:אֹומר ֵ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה contains an element of the ways of the Amorite. Rabbi Yehuda
“ה ִּנ ׁ ְש ָ ּב ִעים
ַ : ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמ ר,בֹודה זָ ָרה ָ ֲע says: That is more severe than the ways of the Amorite, as Dan is
nothing other than a term of idol worship, as it is stated: “They
.ְ ּב ַא ׁ ְש ַמת ׁש ְֹמרֹון וְ ָא ְמר ּו ֵחי ֱאל ֶֹהיךָ דָּ ן״
that swear by the sin of Samaria and say: As your god Dan lives”
(Amos 8:14).
326 Perek VI . 67b . זס ףד: קרפ ׳ו
halakha
יקיִ “ש ִר ְ ׁ :עֹור ָב ָתאְ “צְ ַרח״ ו ְּל:עֹורב
ֵ אֹומר ָל ֵ ָהOne who hears a raven calling and is concerned about a bad
Slaughter this rooster, etc. – ש ֲחט ּו ַּת ְרנְ גֹול זֶ ה וכו׳:
ַ ׁ It is
ָ וְ ַה ֲחזִ ִירי ִלי זְ נָ ֵביךְ ְלomen and says to the raven: Scream, and says to the female
טֹובה״ – יֵ ׁש ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דַּ ְר ֵכי prohibited to say: Slaughter this rooster who calls arvit,
ִ ָה ֱאraven: Whistle and turn your tail to me for the best; those
.מֹורי which can be interpreted either as this rooster who calls
statements contain an element of the ways of the Amorite. like a raven or this rooster who calls in the evening, or:
Slaughter this chicken who calls like a rooster. There
, ׁ ַש ֲחט ּו ַּת ְרנְ גֹול זֶ ה ׁ ֶש ָ ּק ָרא ַע ְר ִבית:אֹומר
ֵ ָהOne who says: Slaughter this roosterh that calls out in the are authorities who permitted this incantation if one
ֶ ְ וְ ַת ְרנevening and says: Slaughter this chicken that calls out like a
גֹולת ׁ ֶש ָ ּק ְר ָאה ַ ּג ְב ִרית – יֵ ׁש ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם does not explicitly state the reason for his desire to
ִ דַּ ְר ֵכי ָה ֱאmale rooster; those statements contain an element of the ways
slaughter the birds (see Sefer Ĥasidim and the Responsa
.מֹורי of the Maharil; Rambam Sefer HaMadda, Hilkhot Avodat
of the Amorite.
Kokhavim 11:4; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 179:3).
אֹותיר – יֵ ׁש ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם
ִ ְאֹותיר ֶא ׁ ְש ֶּתה ו
ִ ְ ֶא ׁ ְש ֶּתה וOne who says: I will drink and leave over, I will drink and
ִ דַּ ְר ֵכי ָה ֱאleave over, so that his wine will increase; that statement con-
n notes
.מֹורי
tains an element of the ways of the Amorite. I will drink and leave over – אֹותיר
ִ ְא ׁ ְש ֶּתה ו:ֶ There are
variant readings of this matter. Nevertheless, there is a
ֹותל (וְ ַה ָּטח) ִ ּב ְפ נֵ י ֶ ַה ְמ ַב ַ ּק ַעת ֵ ּביצִ ים ַ ּב ּכOne who cracks eggs on a wall and smears them in front of fundamental principle in these chapters in the Tosefta
that any practice or incantation that is deemed auspi-
.מֹורי ִ ָה ֶא ְפthe chicks; that series of actions contains an element of the
ִ רֹוחים – יֵ ׁש ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דַּ ְר ֵכי ָה ֱא cious, especially when it is stated after the fact, con-
ways of the Amorite.
tains an element of the ways of the Amorites. However,
any expression that contains an element of prayer or
רֹוחים – יֵ ׁש ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דַּ ְר ֵכי
ִ וְ ַה ֵּמגִ יס ִ ּב ְפנֵי ֶא ְפAnd one who stirs the pot in front of chicks as an auspicious supplication is considered like any other prayer and
ִ ָה ֱאpractice so they do not die; that action contains an element of
.מֹורי is permitted.
the ways of the Amorite.
ִ ַה ְמ ַר ֶ ּק ֶדת וְ ַה ּמֹונָ ה ׁ ִש ְב ִעים וְ ֶא ָחד ֶא ְפA woman who dances and counts the chicks until she reaches
רֹוחין
ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא יָ מוּת ּו – יֵ ׁש ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דַּ ְר ֵכיthe number of seventy-one chicks, so they won’t die; her ac-
ִ ָה ֱאtion contains an element of the ways of the Amorite.
.מֹורי
, וְ ַה ְמ ׁ ַש ֶּת ֶקת ָל ֲע ָד ׁ ִשים, ַה ְמ ַר ֶ ּק ֶדת ַל ּכו ָּּתחA woman who dances to ensure that the kutaĥ, a spice made
יסין – יֵ ׁש ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּש ּום דַּ ְר ֵכי ַ וְ ַה ְמ ַצ ַּוfrom whey salt and bread, that she is preparing will be success-
ִ וחת ַל ְ ּג ִר
ִ ָה ֱאful, and a woman who silences bystanders to ensure that the
.מֹורי
lentils will cook properly, and a woman who screams to ensure
that the pearl barley will cook properly; all these contain an
element of the ways of the Amorite.
ַה ַּמ ׁ ְש ֶּתנֶ ת ִ ּב ְפנֵי ְק ֵד ָיר ָת ּה ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ׁ ֶש ִּת ְת ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשלA woman who urinates in front of her pot so it will cook
ִ ְמ ֵה ָרה – יֵ ׁש ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דַּ ְר ֵכי ָה ֱאquickly; that action contains an element of the ways of the
.מֹורי
Amorite.
יסם ׁ ֶשל ּתוּת וְ ׁ ִש ְב ֵרי זְ כו ִּכית ָ נֹותנִין ֵק ְ ֲא ָבלBut one may put a chip of mulberry wood and shards of glass
וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים, ַ ּב ְּק ֵד ָירה ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ׁ ֶש ִּת ְת ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשל ְמ ֵה ָרהin the pot so it will cook quickly, as doing so is effective and
.אֹוס ִרין ְ ּב ׁ ִש ְב ֵרי זְ כו ִּכית ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ַה ַּס ָּכנָ ה
ְ not merely superstition. And the Rabbis prohibit shards of
glass not due to superstition; rather, due to the danger involved
if the glass is not strained out completely.
תֹוך ַה ֵּנר
ְ נֹותנִין ּבוּל ׁ ֶשל ֶמ ַלח ְל ְ : ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ןThe Sages taught in the Tosefta: One may place a lump of salt
ְ ְ ו. ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ׁ ֶש ָּת ִאיר וְ ַת ְד ִליקinto a candle so it will burn brightly; that is effective and not
נֹותנִין ִטיט וְ ַח ְר ִסית
. ַּת ַחת ַה ֵּנר ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ׁ ֶש ַּת ְמ ִּתין וְ ַת ְד ִליקmerely for good fortune, so there is no element of the ways of
the Amorites involved. And similarly, one may put mud or clay
under a candle so it will burn longer.
In this chapter numerous halakhot with regard to garments, ornaments, and other
items that a person bears on his body were elucidated; those with which it is per-
mitted to go out into the public domain and those with which it is prohibited were
enumerated.
A general distinction was made between men’s ornaments and women’s ornaments,
based on the assumption that many ornaments suitable for one gender are a burden
for the other. In the category of women’s ornaments, it was established that a woman
is prohibited to go out into the public domain on Shabbat with any item that she is
likely to remove to show off its beauty. With regard to men’s ornaments, this is also
true to a limited extent. Similarly, some items may not be worn in the public domain
because one may remove them due to embarrassment. One may go out into the
public domain only with those items with regard to which there is no concern lest
one remove them and carry them, either because it is impossible to remove them or
because one wearing them does not typically remove them.
Even concerning items that serve medicinal purposes, it was established that it is
only permitted to go out into the public domain with those items that a person is
unlikely or unable to remove.
There was a fundamental conceptual discussion whether or not weapons have the
legal status of an ornament. The halakhic conclusion was that a weapon is a necessary
evil and may be carried on Shabbat only in life and death situations.
329
You shall keep the Sabbath, for it is holy for you. He who profanes it
shall be put to death; whoever does work on it, that person shall be cut
off from among his people.
(Exodus 31:14)
Introduction to
If any one of the common people sin through error, in doing any of the
Perek VII
things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and is guilty, if
his sin, which he has sinned, is known to him, then he shall bring his of-
fering: a goat, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has sinned.
(Leviticus 4:27–28)
331
Perek VII
Daf 67 Amud b
only one sin-offering. were weekdays in the interim that were undoubtedly not Shabbat, that
awareness of the full-fledged permissibility of the week days is sufficient
?גמ׳ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא ְּתנָ א ְּ‘כ ָלל ָ ּגדֹול׳
יתנֵי ‘עֹוד ְ ימא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָק ָב ֵעי ְל ִמ ָ ִא ֵיל
gemara The Gemara attempts to clarify
the language of the mishna and
to render him liable (Rabbeinu Shmuel; Ramban; Rashba).
halakha
One who performs numerous prohibited labors der one primary category of labor during a single lapse
subsumed under a single category of labor – עֹושה ׂ ֶ ָה of awareness is liable to bring only one sin-offering (Ram-
אכה ַא ַחת
ָ מ ָלאכֹות ַה ְר ֵ ּבה ֵמ ֵעין ְמ ָל:ְ One who unwittingly bam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 7:9; Sefer Korbanot
performed several subcategories of labor subsumed un- Hilkhot Shegagot 7:7).
notes
Primary categories and subcategories – תֹולדֹות ָ ְאבֹות ו:
ָ A The Rambam, in his Commentary on the Mishna, explained the lakhot of tithes. Similarly, the punishment for failure to observe
question was raised in Tosafot: Don’t the halakhot of tithes also phrase: A significant principle, in the sense that the punishment the halakhot of tithes is greater than the punishment for failure
contain primary categories and subcategories, as they include for desecrating Shabbat is severe, as one who performs a pro- to observe the halakhot of pe’a. One who eats untithed produce
both Torah prohibitions and rabbinic decrees? The medieval hibited labor on Shabbat is executed by stoning. The Gemara is subject to death at the hand of Heaven, which is not the case
commentaries rejected the answer cited in Tosafot. Some ex- can be understood that way as well. The phrase: The punish- with regard to one who eats produce from a field whose owner
plained that the distinction between primary categories and ment is greater, has a double meaning. It refers both to the did not leave pe’a, a corner of the field for the poor (Maharsha).
subcategories only applies where the primary category is more scope of the applicability of the halakha and to the punishment
significant than the subcategory, and it is clear why certain incurred. The punishment for violating Shabbat, stoning, is The halakhot of the Sabbatical Year are not in effect with
labors are categorized as primary. However, with regard to greater than the punishment for violating the Sabbatical Year, regard to detached plants – יעית ְ ּב ָתלו ּׁש ֵל ָיתא
ִ ש ִב:
ְ ׁ Just as the
tithes, it is only by Torah edict that there is a distinction between lashes. Similarly, the punishment for violating the Sabbatical halakhot of the Sabbatical Year do not apply to items that do
produce that one is obligated to tithe and produce that one is
Year is greater than punishment for violating the laws of tithes, not grow from the ground, the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year
not obligated to tithe (Maharshal; Maharam of Lublin).
as the Torah links the exile from Eretz Yisrael to the failure to does not apply to produce that was detached from the ground
ׁ גדֹול:ּ ָ observe the Sabbatical Year, not to the failure to observe the ha-
The punishment for Shabbat is greater – עֹונְשֹו ׁ ֶשל ׁ ַש ָ ּבת prior to the Sabbatical Year.
ַחּיָ יב,ֲא ָבל ִה ִּכיר ו ְּל ַב ּסֹוף ׁ ָש ַכח ַמאי The Gemara further asks: However, based on that understanding,
ּיֹוד ַע
ֵ “ה ַ :ַעל ָּכל ׁ ַש ָ ּבת וְ ׁ ַש ָ ּבת? ַאדְּ ָתנֵי in the case of one who knew the essence of Shabbat and ultimate-
יקר ׁ ַש ָ ּבת וְ ָע ָ ׂשה ְמ ָלאכֹות ַה ְר ֵ ּבה ּ ַ ִע ly forgot, what is the halakha? Is he liable for each and every
Shabbat? If so, instead of the mishna teaching the next halakha:
ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָ ּבתֹות ַה ְר ֵ ּבה ַחּיָ יב ַעל ָּכל ׁ ַש ָ ּבת
One who knows the essence of Shabbat and performs many la-
, ִה ִּכיר ו ְּל ַב ּסֹוף ׁ ָש ַכח:יתנֵי ְ וְ ׁ ַש ָ ּבת״ ִל bors on multiple Shabbatot is liable to bring a sin-offering for each
יקרּ ַ ּיֹוד ַע ִע
ֵ “ה
ַ וְ ָכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ָהא! ַמאי and every Shabbat, let it teach: One who knew the essence of
ּ ָ יֹוד ַע ִע
יק ָר ּה ׁ ֶשל ֵ ׁ ַש ָ ּבת״ – ִמי ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה Shabbat and ultimately forgot and, all the more so, one who
.ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ו ׁ ְּש ָכ ָח ּה knows the essence of Shabbat would be liable for each Shabbat. The
Gemara answers: According to the opinion of Rav and Shmuel,
what is the meaning of the phrase: One who knows the essence of
Shabbat? One who once knew the essence of Shabbat and has now
forgotten it.
Perek VII
Daf 68 Amud b
halakha
ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ׁ ְש ָכ ָח ּה ַמאי – ַחּיָ יב ַעל ָּכל The Gemara raises another difficulty: But if he did not forget the
A child who was taken captive – תינֹוק ׁ ֶש ּנ ׁ ְִש ָ ּבה:ִּ If a child
ּיֹוד ַע
ֵ “הַ : ַאדְּ ָתנֵי,אכה ָ אכה ו ְּמ ָל ָ ְמ ָל essence of Shabbat, and he knows that today is Shabbat, what would
taken captive among the gentiles, who grew up with no
ׁ ֶשהוּא ׁ ַש ָ ּבת וְ ָע ָ ׂשה ְמ ָלאכֹות ַה ְר ֵ ּבה the halakha be? Certainly he would be liable for each and every knowledge of the Jewish people and their religion and per-
prohibited labor. If so, instead of teaching the halakha: One who formed a prohibited labor on Shabbat or ate forbidden fat
אכה ָ ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָ ּבתֹות ַה ְר ֵ ּבה ַחּיָ יב ַעל ָּכל ְמ ָל
knows that it is Shabbat and performs many labors on multiple or blood, when he subsequently discovers that he sinned,
יקר ּ ַ ּיֹוד ַע ִע ֵ ַה:יתנֵי ְ אכה״ – ִל ָ ּו ְמ ָל Shabbatot is liable for each and every labor, let the mishna teach he brings a sin-offering. The authorities ruled in accordance
– נִיתין ִ וְ ָכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ָהא! ֶא ָּלא ַמ ְת,ׁ ַש ָ ּבת the halakha: One who knows the essence of Shabbat is liable for with the opinion of Rav and Shmuel in their dispute with
ו ְּד ַרב ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל,ְּכ ׁ ֶש ִה ִּכיר ו ְּל ַב ּסֹוף ׁ ָש ַכח each and every labor that he performs and all the more so that one Rabbi Yoĥanan and Reish Lakish, contrary to the standard
ruling, because the opinion of Rav and Shmuel corresponds
וְ ָה ִכי.נַ ִמי – ְּכ ִה ִּכיר ו ְּל ַב ּסֹוף ׁ ָש ַכח דָּ ֵמי who is aware that today is Shabbat would be liable for each labor.
with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. The halakha is in accordance
:ּ ַרב ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי ַּת ְרוַ יְ יהו,ִא ְּית ַמר Rather, when our mishna refers to forgetting, it is referring to a case with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in disputes with Munbaz.
where he knew and ultimately forgot. And the case described by Furthermore, apparently even Rav Yoĥanan holds in accor-
וְ גֵ ר,ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִּתינֹוק ׁ ֶש ּנ ׁ ְִש ָ ּבה ֵ ּבין ַהגּ ֹויִ ם
Rav and Shmuel also has the same legal status as one who knew dance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. The only reason the
ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַ ּגּיֵ יר ְל ֵבין ַהגֹּויִ ם – ְּכ ִה ִּכיר ו ְּל ַב ּסֹוף and ultimately forgot. And it was stated as follows: It was Rav and Gemara associated his opinion with the opinion of Munbaz
. וְ ַחּיָ יב,ׁ ָש ַכח דָּ ֵמי Shmuel who both said: Even a child who was taken captiveh is because of the difficulty raised against him from the pas-
among the gentiles and a convert who converted among the sage in the baraita: How so? A child who was taken captive
among the gentiles (Kesef Mishne; Rambam Sefer Korbanot,
gentiles have the same legal status as one who knew and ulti- Hilkhot Shegagot 2:6).
mately forgot, and they are liable to bring a sin-offering for their
unwitting transgression, even though they never learned about
Shabbat.
חס ףד: ׳ז קרפ. Perek VII . 68b 335
notes
יֹוחנָ ן וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש ָ וְ ַר ִ ּבי And it was Rabbi Yoĥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish who
The essence of the unwitting transgression – ַמהוּתֹו ׁ ֶשל both said: He is liable to bring a sin-offeringn specifically if he knew
ה ׁ ּשֹוגֵ ג:ַ To fully understand the dispute between the pairs of דַּ וְ ָקא ִה ִּכיר ו ְּל ַב ּסֹוף:ּדְּ ָא ְמ ִרי ַּת ְרוַ יְ יהו
amora’im, Rav and Shmuel and Rabbi Yoĥanan and Reish ֲא ָבל ִּתינֹוק ׁ ֶש ּנ ׁ ְִש ָ ּבה ֵ ּבין ַה ּגֹויִ ם,ׁ ָש ַכח of the essence of Shabbat and ultimately forgot. However, a child
Lakish, and even more so the dispute between Rabbi Akiva who was taken captive among the gentiles and a convert who
.וְ גֵ ר ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַ ּגּיֵ יר ְל ֵבין ַהגּ ֹויִ ם – ּ ָפטוּר
and Munbaz, a definition of an unwitting transgression is re- converted among the gentiles are exempt from bringing a sin-of-
quired. The essential discussion revolves around the question ּכֹל:“כ ָלל ָ ּגדֹול ָא ְמר ּו ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ְּ :ֵמ ִית ֵיבי fering. They have the legal status of one who performed the prohib-
whether an action performed due to lack of knowledge is יקר ׁ ַש ָ ּבת וְ ָע ָ ׂשה ְמ ָלאכֹות ּ ַ ַה ׁ ּש ֵֹוכח ִע ited labor due to circumstances beyond his control. The Gemara
deemed unwitting or whether it is tantamount to perform- ַה ְר ֵ ּבה ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָ ּבתֹות ַה ְר ֵ ּבה – ֵאינֹו ַחּיָ יב raises an objection from that which was taught in a baraita: They
ing an action due to circumstances beyond one’s control. On
ֵּכיצַ ד? ִּתינֹוק ׁ ֶש ּנ ׁ ְִש ָ ּבה,ֶא ָּלא ַא ַחת stated a significant principle with regard to the halakhot of Shab-
the one hand, one could say that the act of a person who
does not know that performing a certain action violates וְ גֵ ר ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַ ּגּיֵ יר ֵ ּבין ַהגּ ֹויִ ם,ְל ֵבין ַהגּ ֹויִ ם bat: One who forgets the essence of Shabbat, i.e., one who does
a prohibition is tantamount to an act performed due to not know that there is a mitzva of Shabbat in the Torah, and per-
וְ ָע ָ ׂשה ְמ ָלאכֹות ַה ְר ֵ ּבה ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָ ּבתֹות
circumstances beyond one’s control. On the other hand, forms many prohibited labors on multiple Shabbatot is liable to
any time one violates a prohibition due to forgetfulness, at ַה ְר ֵ ּבה – ֵאינֹו ַחּיָ יב ֶא ָּלא ַח ָּטאת bring only one sin-offering. How so? With regard to a child who
the time that he performs the action, he too is unaware that וְ ַחּיָ יב ַעל ַהדָּ ם ַא ַחת וְ ַעל.ַא ַחת was taken captive among the gentiles and a convert who con-
he is performing a transgression. Nevertheless, that lack of ,בֹודה זָ ָרה ַא ַחת ָ ַה ֵח ֶלב ַא ַחת וְ ַעל ֲע verted among the gentiles and does not know the essence of Shab-
awareness renders the act unwitting and not an action due
.ֹוטר ֵ וּמוּנְ ַ ּבז ּפ bat; and if he performed many prohibited labors on multiple
to circumstances beyond his control.
This dispute also revolves around the dilemma with re- Shabbatot, he is only liable to bring one sin-offering for all his
gard to the obligation to bring a sin-offering; does the sinful unwitting transgressions. And he is liable to bring one sin-offering
act itself render one liable to bring a sin-offering, or is a for all the bloodn he unwittingly ate before he learned of the prohi-
degree of intent and awareness necessary for the action to bition; and one sin-offering for all the forbidden fat that he ate;
be considered a transgression? The halakhic conclusion, in and one for all the idolatry that he worshipped. And Munbaz, one
accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, indicates that of the Sages, deems him exempt from bringing any sacrifice.
the sinner brings a sacrifice because the action itself is a
negative action for which one must atone, even if he was a
child taken captive among the gentiles who had no knowl-
:וְ ָכךְ ָהיָ ה מוּנְ ַ ּבז דָּ ן ִל ְפנֵי ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא And Munbaz deliberated before Rabbi Akiva as follows: Since
edge that behavior of that kind constitutes a transgression. וְ ׁשֹוגֵ ג ָקרוּי,חֹוטא ֵ הֹואיל ו ֵּמזִ יד ָקרוּי ִ one who commits a transgression intentionally is called a sinner
Consequently, one has a certain degree of responsibility for ,יעה ָ ַמה ֵּמזִ יד – ׁ ֶש ָהיְ ָתה לֹו יְ ִד,חֹוטא ֵ in the Torah and one who commits a transgression unwittingly is
actions that he performs of his own free will, even if he did called a sinner, just as one who commits the transgression inten-
ָא ַמר לֹו.יעה ָ ַאף ׁשֹוגֵ ג – ׁ ֶש ָהיְ ָתה לֹו יְ ִד
so without intent to commit a transgression. Only if the ac- tionally is liable for punishment only in a case where he had prior
tion is performed against his will is it considered to be due , ָמֹוסיף ַעל דְּ ָב ֶריך ִ ֲה ֵרינִי:ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא knowledge that it was prohibited, so too, one who commits the
to circumstances beyond his control. יעה ָ ִאי ַמה ֵּמזִ יד – ׁ ֶש ָהיְ ָתה ַהיְ ִד transgression unwittingly is liable to bring a sin-offering only in a
One sin-offering for all the blood, etc. – על ַהדָּ ם ַא ַחת וכו׳:ַ ַאף ׁשֹוגֵ ג – ׁ ֶש ָהיְ ָתה,ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה case where he had prior knowledge. However, the action of one
Apparently, this explanation comes to refute the possibility who had no prior knowledge at all is not considered unwitting;
.יעה ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ָ לֹו יְ ִד
that one would be liable to bring one sin-offering for violat- rather, it has the same legal status as an action performed due to
ing all the Torah prohibitions or for violating all food-related
circumstances beyond one’s control, and he is completely exempt.
prohibitions, e.g., eating forbidden fat and blood. Similarly,
it was necessary to emphasize that he is liable to bring only Rabbi Akiva said to him: I will elaborate upon your statement
one sacrifice for violating the prohibition of idolatry, even and follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion and thereby test
though Munbaz derived his opinion from the above halakha the validity of your reasoning. If so, just as one who commits the
(Rabbi Elazar Moshe Horowitz). transgression intentionally is liable for punishment only in a case
where he had the awareness that he was sinning at the time that he
performed the action, so too, with regard to one who commits the
transgression unwittingly, say that he is only liable to bring a sin-
offering in a case where he had awareness that he was sinning at
the time that he performed the action. If that is the case, it is no
longer an unwitting transgression.
ָא ַמר.הֹוס ְפ ָּת
ַ וְ ָכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ׁ ֶש, ֵהן: ָא ַמר לֹוMunbaz said to him: Yes, there is nothing unusual about that. In
ֶא ָּלא, ִל ְד ָב ֶריךָ ֵאין זֶ ה ָקרוּי ׁשֹוגֵ ג: לֹוmy opinion it is correct and all the more so now that you have
. ֵמזִ ידelaborated upon my statement. Awareness at the time that one is
performing the action is one of the criteria of my definition of an
unwitting transgression, as will be explained below. Rabbi Akiva
said to him: According to your statement, since while performing
the action one is aware that it is prohibited, his action is not called
unwitting; rather, it is a full-fledged intentional transgression.
יהא ֵּ‘כיצַ ד ִּתינֹוק׳ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ָ ָק ָתנֵי ִמ Returning to our issue: In any case, as an example of one who forgot
ֶא ָּלא ְל ַר ִ ּבי,נִיחא ָ – ְל ַרב ּו ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל the essence of Shabbat, it was taught: How so? A child who was
!יֹוחנָן ו ְּל ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש ַק ׁ ְשיָ א
ָ taken captive. Granted, according to the opinion of Rav and Shmu-
el it works out well, as they consider the legal status of a child taken
ָלא:יֹוחנָן וְ ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁישָ ָא ְמ ִרי ָלךְ ַר ִ ּבי
captive equal to that of one who unwittingly forgot the essence of
ִמי ִא ָּיכא מוּנְ ַ ּבז דְּ ָפ ַטר – ֲאנַן דְּ ָא ְמ ִרינַן Shabbat. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan
.ְּכמוּנְ ַ ּבז and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who consider the legal status of a
child taken captive equal to that of one who committed the action
due to circumstances beyond his control and is therefore exempt, it
is difficult because he is liable to bring a sin-offering according to
the opinion of the Rabbis in the baraita. Rabbi Yoĥanan and Rab-
bi Shimon ben Lakish could have said to you: Isn’t there the
opinion of Munbaz who deemed him exempt in that case? We
stated our opinion in accordance with the opinion of Munbaz.
336 Perek VII . 68b . חס ףד: קרפ ׳ז
notes
“ת ָֹורה ּ :ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא דְּ מוּנְ ַ ּבז? דִּ ְכ ִתיב The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of
Munbaz?n Is it based entirely upon the fact that the Torah refers to What is the rationale for the opinion of Munbaz – ַמאי
ַא ַחת יִ ְהיֶ ה ָל ֶכם ָלע ֶ ֹׂשה ִ ּב ׁ ְשגָ גָ ה״ ט ְע ָמא דְּ מוּנְ ַ ּבז:ַ Although Munbaz already explained that his
“וְ ַה ֶּנ ֶפ ׁש ֲא ׁ ֶשר ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּביָ ד:יה
ּ ו ְּס ִמיךְ ֵל sinners, both intentional and unwitting, as sinners? The Gemara rationale is due to the fact that the Torah referred to both
explains that the source for the opinion of Munbaz is as it is written: one who sins intentionally and one who sins unwittingly
ַמה ֵּמזִ יד,ָר ָמה״ ִה ִּק ׁיש ׁשֹוגֵ ג ְל ֵמזִ יד
“The native of the children of Israel, and the stranger who lives as a sinner, it was necessary to delve more deeply into his
ַאף ׁשֹוגֵ ג ׁ ֶש ָהיְ ָתה,יעה ָ ׁ ֶש ָהיְ ָתה לֹו יְ ִד among them, there shall be one law for you, for one who acts reasoning. According to Rashi, that is because Munbaz’s
.יעהָ לֹו יְ ִד unwittingly” (Numbers 15:29), and adjacent to it is the verse: “And first rationale is insufficient. It was stated merely as an allu-
the person who acts with a high hand, whether a native or a sion rather than as an absolute proof. Some commentaries
explain that were Munbaz to rely only on the parallel be-
stranger, he blasphemes God, and that soul shall be cut off from the
tween intentional and unwitting behavior, he would have to
midst of his people” (Numbers 15:30). The Torah juxtaposes assume that it is considered an unwitting transgression only
unwitting transgression to intentional transgression. Just as one when one realizes at the time of action that he is committing
who commits the transgression intentionally is only liable in a case a transgression. Subsequently, the Gemara proves that even
where he had prior knowledge, so too, one who commits the Munbaz agrees that if one remains unaware that his action
transgression unwittingly is only liable in a case where he had prior constitutes a transgression, he is considered an unwitting
knowledge. sinner. Therefore, even though Munbaz agreed with Rabbi
Akiva’s statement, he has yet to cite the fundamental proof
for his assertion that one with no prior knowledge does
וְ ַר ָ ּבנָ ן ַהאי ּ‘ת ָֹורה ַא ַחת׳ ַמאי ָע ְב ִדי The Gemara asks: And what do the Rabbis do with the juxtaposi- not have the legal status of an unwitting sinner (Ramban).
יה ַר ִ ּבי
ּ יב ֵעי ְלה ּו ְל ִכ ְד ַמ ְק ִרי ֵל
ּ ָ יה? ִמּ ֵל tion derived from that verse: One law? The Gemara answers: They
“ת ָֹורה ַא ַחת ּ :יה ּ הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י ִל ְב ֵר
ֻ ׁ ְי require it for that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi taught his son.
It is written: “There shall be one law for you, for one who acts
: ו ְּכ ִתיב,יִ ְהיֶ ה ָל ֶכם ָלע ֶ ֹׂשה ִ ּב ׁ ְשגָ גָ ה״
unwittingly.” And it is written:
Perek VII
Daf 69 Amud a
“וְ ִכי ִת ׁ ְש ּג ּו וְ ל ֹא ַת ֲעשׂ ּו ֵאת ָּכל ַה ִּמצְ �ֹות “And if you err, and do not perform all these commandments
“וְ ַה ֶּנ ֶפ ׁש ֲא ׁ ֶשר ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה: ו ְּכ ִתיב,ָה ֵא ֶּלה״ that God spoke to Moses” (Numbers 15:22). The Sages understood
,בֹודה זָ ָרה ָ ְ ּביָ ד ָר ָמה״ הו ְּק ׁש ּו ּכו ָּּלם ַל ֲע this verse as referring specifically to the laws of idolatry. And it is
written: “And the person who acts with a high hand, he blas-
ַמה ְּל ַה ָּלן – דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ַחּיָ ִיבים ַעל זְ דֹונֹו
phemes God and that soul shall be cut off from the midst of his
ַאף ָּכל דָּ ָבר,ָּכ ֵרת וְ ׁ ִשגְ גָ תֹו ַח ָּטאת people” (Numbers 15:30), from which we learn that all the mitzvot
ׁ ֶש ַחּיָ ִיבין ַעל זְ דֹונֹו ָּכ ֵרת וְ ַעל ׁ ִשגְ גָ תֹו are derived from this juxtaposition to idolatry. Just as there, with
.ַח ָּטאת regard to idolatry, the reference is to a matter which, for its inten-
tional violation, one is liable to be punished with karet, as it is
stated: “And that soul shall be cut off,” and for its unwitting viola-
tion one is liable to bring a sin-offering; so too, any matter that
for its intentional violation one is liable to be punished with karet,
for its unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering.h
ׁ ְשגָ גָ ה ְ ּב ַמאי? ְּכגֹון, וְ ֶא ָּלא מוּנְ ַ ּבזThe Gemara asks: However, according to Munbaz, who holds that
וְ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן – ׁ ִשגְ גַ ת ָק ְר ָ ּבן. ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָשגַ ג ְ ּב ָק ְר ָ ּבןincluded in the category of an unwitting sinner is one who at the
. ל ֹא ׁ ְש ָמ ּה ׁ ְשגָ גָ הtime of action was aware that it was prohibited; if he were fully aware,
in what sense was his action unwitting? The Gemara answers: It is
referring to a case where he was unwitting with regard to the
sacrifice. He was aware that he was committing a transgression for
which one is liable to be punished with karet when performed in-
tentionally; however, he was unaware that he would be liable to
bring a sin-offering if he performed the transgression unwittingly.
Since he was not aware of all punishments and forms of atonement
associated with that transgression, he is considered an unwitting
sinner and is liable to bring a sin-offering. The Gemara asks: And
what do the Rabbis who disagree with Munbaz hold? They hold:
Unwitting with regard to a sacrificeh is not considered unwitting.
halakha
Any matter that for its intentional violation one is liable Unwitting with regard to a sacrifice – ׁ ִשגְ גַ ת ָק ְר ָ ּבן: If one com-
to be punished with karet, for its unwitting violation one mitted a transgression and knows that it is punishable by karet
is liable to bring a sin-offering – דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ַחּיָ ִיבים ַעל זְ דֹונֹו ָּכ ֵרת when performed intentionally but does not know that one is
וְ ׁ ִשגְ גָ תֹו ַח ָּטאת: One is only obligated to bring a sin-offering for liable to bring a sin-offering if he does so unwittingly, he is
unwittingly violating a prohibition that would be punishable by considered to have committed the transgression intentionally,
karet when performed intentionally. Blasphemy is an exception in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis (Rambam Sefer
to this principle (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Shegagot 1:2). Korbanot, Hilkhot Shegagot 2:2).
ַהאי ְק ָרא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון,יֹוחנָן ָ וְ ַר ִ ּבי The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yoĥanan do with that verse
יב ֵעיּ ָ יה? ִמ ּ ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש ַמאי ָע ֵביד ֵל cited as proof by Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish? The Gemara answers: He
“מ ַעם ָה ָא ֶרץ״ – ּ ְפ ָרט ֵ :ֵל ּיה ְל ִכ ְד ַתנְיָא needs it for that which was taught in a baraita: The phrase: “From the
common people” (Leviticus 4:27)n teaches that only some sinners, not
ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר,ִל ְמ ׁשו ָּּמד
all, bring sacrifices for their unwitting sins. It comes to exclude an
“א ׁ ֶשר ֲ :אֹומר ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֵ apostate. When an apostate sins unwittingly, he is under no obligation
(ב ׁ ְשגָ גָ ה) וְ ָא ׁ ֵשם״ ּ ִ ל ֹא ֵת ָע ֶ ׂשינָ ה to bring a sin-offering even after he repents. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar
יעתֹו – ֵמ ִביא ָק ְר ָ ּבן ַעל ָ ַה ׁ ּ ָשב ִמ ִיד says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: This halakha is derived from the
יעתֹו – ֵאינֹו ָ ל ֹא ׁ ָשב ִמ ִיד,ׁ ִשגְ גָ תֹו phrase in that verse: “That may not be done, and he becomes guilty.”
.ֵמ ִביא ָק ְר ָ ּבן ַעל ׁ ִשגְ גָ תֹו One who repents due to his awareness, i.e., one who repents as soon
as he becomes aware that he performed a transgression, brings a sacri-
fice for his unwitting transgression. However, one who does not repent
due to his awareness that he sinned, e.g., an apostate who continues to
sin even after he becomes aware that he committed a transgression, does
not bring an offering for his unwitting action. Rabbi Yoĥanan under-
stood the verse in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben
Elazar.
“אבֹות ְמ ָלאכֹות ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים ֲ :ְּתנַ ן The Gemara cites proof from what we learned in a mishna: The number
ִמנְיָנָ א ָל ָּמה: וְ ָהוֵ ינַן ָ ּב ּה,ָח ֵסר ַא ַחת״ of primary categories of prohibited labors on Shabbat is forty-less-
ׁ ֶש ִאם ֲע ָ ׂש ָאן:יֹוחנָן
ָ ִלי? וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי one, which the mishna proceeds to list. And we discussed this mishna:
Why do I need this tally of forty-less-one? Isn’t merely listing the pro-
ּכו ָּּלן ְ ּב ֶה ְע ֵלם ֶא ָחד – ַחּיָ יב ַעל ָּכל
hibited labors sufficient? And Rabbi Yoĥanan said: The tally was in-
– יכי ַמ ׁ ְש ְּכ ַח ְּת ָל ּהִ ֵה.ַא ַחת וְ ַא ַחת cluded to teach that if he performed all of the prohibited labors in the
.ִ ּבזְ דֹון ׁ ַש ָ ּבת וְ ׁ ִשגְ גַ ת ְמ ָלאכֹות course of one lapse of awarenessh during which he was unaware of the
prohibition involved, he is liable for each and every one. Therefore,
the mishna indicated that one could conceivably be liable to bring
thirty-nine sin-offerings. Under what circumstances can you find a case
where one would be liable for unwittingly violating all thirty-nine la-
bors? It must be in a case where with regard to Shabbat his actions were
intentional, as he was aware that it was Shabbat; and with regard to the
prohibited labors his actions were unwitting, as he was unaware that
these labors are prohibited on Shabbat.
halakha
Unwitting with regard to karet – ש ׁ ּ ָשגַ ג ְ ּב ָכ ֵרת:
ֶ ׁ One who commits
formed all of the prohibited labors in the course of one lapse
of awareness, etc. – אכֹות…ש ִאם ֲע ָ ׂש ָאן ּכו ָּּלן ְ ּב ֶה ְע ֵלם ֶא ָחד
a transgression while aware that he violated a Torah prohibition, ֶׁ ֲאבֹות ְמ ָל
וכו׳: One who was aware that it was Shabbat but was unwitting
but unaware that the violation of that prohibition is punishable
by karet, is considered to have acted unwittingly and is liable
with regard to the prohibited labors of Shabbat, as he did not
to bring a sin-offering, as the halakha is ruled in accordance
know that they were prohibited or he knew that they were
with the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan in disputes with Reish Lakish
prohibited but did not know that they were punishable by karet
(Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Shegagot 2:2). when performed intentionally, is liable to bring a sin-offering
for each primary category of labor he performed (Rambam Sefer
Primary categories of prohibited labors…that if he per- Korbanot, Hilkhot Shegagot 7:3).
.ֲע ִק ָיבא ben Lakish, who said: It is not considered unwitting until he was unwit- Oath on a statement – שבו ַּעת ִ ּב ּיטוּי:
ְ ׁ The term oath
ting with regard to both the prohibition and karet, the result is that he on a statement is derived from the verse: “Or a soul
is completely unaware of all the prohibited labors of Shabbat. If so, when that swears to utter by his lips, to do bad or to do
Rabbi Yoĥanan said that the case where one would be liable to bring good, with regard to all that a person utters by oath,
and it becomes hidden from him, and he knows
thirty-nine sin-offerings is one where with regard to Shabbat, his actions and is guilty of one of these” (Leviticus 5:4). This oath,
were intentional as he was aware that it was Shabbat, the question arises: which a person takes to obligate himself, is called
With regard to what aspect of Shabbat was he aware? If he was com- an “oath on a statement,” to distinguish it from other
pletely unaware of all the labors prohibited on Shabbat, in what sense were oaths, e.g., the oath of testimony. The details of its
his actions intentional with regard to Shabbat? The Gemara answers: He numerous and complex halakhot are articulated in
was aware of the halakhot of the prohibition of Shabbat boundaries,n in tractate Shevuot. The halakha is that one who in-
tentionally swears falsely is not liable to death by
accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. According to Rabbi Akiva,
karet, but only violates a Torah prohibition. If he vio-
the prohibition to go beyond a certain distance outside the city limits on lates the prohibition unwittingly, he is liable to bring
Shabbat is by Torah law and not merely a rabbinic decree. a sliding-scale sin-offering. That liability is unique
among sin-offerings, which, as a rule, are brought
“שגַ גָ ׁ : דְּ ָתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן,ַמאן ְּתנָ א ְל ָהא The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this baraita? As the only for unwittingly violating a prohibition that is
ָ ּבזֶ ה ו ָּבזֶ ה – זֶ ה ּו ׁשֹוגֵ ג ָה ָא מ ּו ר Sages taught: If one acted unwittingly with regard to both this, the fact punishable by karet when performed intentionally.
ֵהזִ יד ָ ּבזֶ ה ו ָּבזֶ ה – זֹו ִהיא ֵמזִ יד,ַ ּב ּת ָֹורה that it is Shabbat, and that, the specific prohibited labors, that is the case
of unwitting transgression stated in the Torah. If one acted intention-
ׁ ָשגַ ג ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת וְ ֵהזִ יד.ָה ָאמוּר ַ ּב ּת ָֹורה
ally with regard to both this and that, that is the case of intentional
אֹו ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָשגַ ג ִ ּב ְמ ָלאכֹות,ִ ּב ְמ ָלאכֹות transgression stated in the Torah. If one acted unwittingly with regard
ֵ : אֹו ׁ ֶש ָא ַמר,וְ ֵהזִ יד ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת
יֹוד ַע ֲאנִי to Shabbat and intentionally with regard to the labors, i.e., he forgot that
יֹוד ַע
ֵ אכה זֹו ֲאסו ָּרה ֲא ָבל ֵאינִי ָ ׁ ֶש ְּמ ָל it was Shabbat, but he was aware that those labors are prohibited when it
,יה ָק ְר ָ ּבן אֹו ל ֹא – ַחּיָ יב״ ָ ׁ ֶש ַחּיָ ִיבין ָע ֶל is Shabbat; or if one acted unwittingly with regard to the labors and
.ְּכ ַמאן – ְּכמוּנְ ַ ּבז intentionally with regard to Shabbat, i.e., he was unaware that these la-
bors are prohibited, but he was aware that labor is prohibited on Shabbat,
or, even if he said: I know that this labor is prohibited on Shabbat;
however, I do not know whether or not one is liable to bring a sacrifice
for its performance, he is liable to bring a sin-offering like anyone who
sins unwittingly. In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is
in accordance with the opinion of Munbaz, who holds that one is con-
sidered an unwitting sinner even in a case where he was unwitting only
with regard to the sacrifice.
מֹודים ִ ּב ׁ ְשב ּו ַעת ִ ַה ּכֹל:ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י Abaye said: Everyone agrees with regard to an oath on a statement,n a
ַעד,יה ָק ְר ָ ּבן
ָ יטוּי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַחּיָ ִיבין ָע ֶל ּ ִ ּב case where one swore to prohibit or to obligate himself to perform an
מֹודים ּג
ִ ַה ּכֹל.ׁ ֶשּיִ ׁ ְש ֹוג ְ ּב ָלאו ׁ ֶש ָ ּב ּה action, that the halakha is as follows: If he violates his oath he is only li-
able to bring an offering if he was unwitting with regard to its prohibi-
יטא! ִּכי ָק ָא ַמר ָ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש,יֹוחנָן
ָ ַמאן – ַר ִ ּבי
tion, i.e., he was unaware that it is prohibited by Torah law to violate an
ֲא ָבל,יכא ָּכ ֵרת ָּ יכא דְּ ִא ָ יֹוחנָן – ֵה
ָ ַר ִ ּבי oath. The Gemara asks: To whose opinion is Abaye referring in the
!יכא ָּכ ֵרת – ָלא ָּ ָה ָכא דְּ ֵל phrase: Everyone agrees? Certainly, it is the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan
with regard to the opinion of the Rabbis in their dispute with Munbaz.
Even though Rabbi Yoĥanan generally holds that the fact that one is un-
witting with regard to karet is sufficient to render his action unwitting, the
case of an oath is different. The Gemara asks: In the case of an oath, it is
obvious that he would agree. When Rabbi Yoĥanan says that one need
not be unwitting with regard to the prohibition, it is in a case where there
is a prohibition punishable by karet; however, here, where there is no
punishment of karet, Rabbi Yoĥanan would not say so. Obviously, he
agrees that one must be unwitting with regard to the prohibition. There
appears to be nothing new in Abaye’s statement.
הֹואיל וְ ַחּיָ יב ִ :ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָתךְ ָא ִמינָ א The Gemara explains: It might enter your mind to say the following:
דִּ ְב ָכל ַה ּת ָֹורה,ָק ְר ָ ּבן ִחידּ ּו ׁש הוּא Since the obligation to bring an offering in the case of the oath is a
יה
ּ יתי ֲע ֵל ִ ְּכו ָּּל ּה ָלא ַא ׁ ְש ַּכ ַחן ָלאו דְּ ַמי novel halakha, as throughout the whole Torah in its entirety we do not
find a prohibition for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring an
– ִּכי ׁ ָשגַ ג ְ ּב ָק ְר ָ ּבן,יתי
ִ ְ וְ ָה ָכא ַמי,ָק ְר ָ ּבן
offering and for whose intentional violation is not punishable by karet;
,יחּיֵ יב
ַ נַ ִמי ִל and here, one is liable to bring an offering for its unwitting violation, I
might have said that if he was unwitting, i.e., unaware that he would be
obligated, with regard to the offering, let him be liable also according to
the Rabbis, who disagree with Munbaz.
טס ףד. ׳ז קרפ. Perek VII . 69a 339
Perek VII
Daf 69 Amud b
notes
ֵאיזֶ ה ּו ׁ ִשגְ גַ ת:ית ֵיבי
ִ ֵמ.ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן Therefore, Abaye teaches us that this is not so. The Gemara raises an
Unwitting violation of an oath on a statement – ׁ ִשגְ גַ ת objection from a baraita: What is an unwitting violation of an oath
ּ שבו ַּעת ִ ּב:
יטוּי ְ ׁ The oath on a statement explicitly men- :ׁ ְשבו ַּעת ִ ּב ּיטוּי ְל ׁ ֶש ָע ַבר – ׁ ֶש ִאם ָא ַמר
tioned in the Torah refers to a person who swears that he ֲא ָבל,“יֹוד ַע ֲאנִי ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְשבו ָּעה זֹו ֲאסו ָּרה
ֵ on a statementnh relating to the past? What is an example of one who
will perform or will not perform a certain action in the unwittingly swore falsely with regard to an incident that occurred in
יה ָק ְר ָ ּבן אֹו ָ יֹוד ַע ִאם ַחּיָ ִיבין ָע ֶל
ֵ ֵאינִי
future. The tanna’im dispute whether or not an oath on a the past? It cannot be a case where he forgot the incident, as in that
statement can also be taken with regard to the past. The .ל ֹא״ – ַחּיָ יב! ָהא ַמ ּנִי – מוּנְ ַ ּבז ִהיא case he is exempt from bringing an offering. It is a case where if he
difficulty in finding a case of an unwitting oath on a state- said: I know that taking this false oath is prohibited, but I do not
ment with regard to the past stems from the Torah edict know whether or not one is liable to bring an offering for swearing
that in order to be liable to bring a sin-offering, the one
falsely, he is liable to bring an offering for an unwitting transgression.
who unwittingly violated the oath must be aware of the
circumstances when he takes the oath. One who forgot
Apparently, with regard to an oath on a statement, unwitting with
and swore falsely in good faith is not liable for taking an regard to the sacrifice renders the action unwitting. The Gemara re-
oath on a statement unwittingly, since he is considered as jects this: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is the
one who swore due to circumstances beyond his control. opinion of Munbaz. In his opinion, one who commits a transgression
Consequently, the Gemara seeks to find a circumstance in while unaware whether or not one is liable to bring an offering if he
which an oath on a statement with regard to the past can performs that transgression unwittingly is considered to have per-
be unwitting (see Tosafot).
formed the transgression unwittingly.
background ימא ָ יל ֵ ַמ ּנִי? ִא:ישנָ א ַא ֲח ִרינָ א ָ ּ ׁ ִ(ל There is another version of the discussion of Abaye’s statement where,
Novelty – חידּ ו ּׁש:ִ This term indicates that a particular ha- ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא ְ ּב ָכל ַה ּת ָֹורה,יטא ָ מוּנְ ַ ּבז – ּ ְפ ׁ ִש after quoting the halakha with regard to an oath on a statement, the
lakha written in the Torah has an aspect that distinguishes ׁ ִשגְ גַ ת ָק ְר ָ ּבן:דְּ ָלאו ִחידּ ו ּׁש הוּא ָא ַמר question was raised: In accordance with whose opinion is this mish-
it from all other halakhot. Consequently, it cannot be eval- na? If you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Munbaz, that is
uated with the criteria used to evaluate standard cases as ָה ָכא דְּ ִחידּ ו ּׁש הוּא ל ֹא,ׁ ְש ָמ ּה ׁ ְשגָ גָ ה
obvious: Now, if throughout the entire Torah where there is no
it could conceivably include additional novel aspects that ,ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן? ֶא ָּלא ָלאו – ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ִהיא noveltyb in the obligation to bring an offering, he said that unwitting
deviate from the norm. .)ו ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא דְּ ַא ַ ּביֵ י! ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא with regard to an offering is considered unwitting; here, where
there is a novelty and the offering in the case of an oath on a state-
ment is more significant than other sin-offerings, certainly unwitting
with regard to the offering should be considered unwitting. Rather,
is it not the opinion of the Rabbis, and this is a conclusive refutation
of the opinion of Abaye? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a con-
clusive refutation.
מֹודים ִ ּב ְתרו ָּמה ִ ַה ּכֹל:וְ ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י And Abaye said: Everyone agrees with regard to teruma that one is
חֹומ ׁש ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ ׁ ְש ּגֹוג
ֶ יה ָ ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַחּיָ ִיבין ָע ֶל only liable to add a payment of one-fifth the value of the teruma for
מֹודים ַמאן – ַר ִ ּבי ִ ַה ּכֹל.ְ ּב ָלאו ׁ ֶש ָ ּב ּה eating it unwittingly if he is unwitting with regard to its prohibition.
The Gemara asks: To whose opinion is Abaye referring in the phrase:
– יֹוחנָן ָ יטא! ִּכי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ָ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש,יֹוחנָן
ָ
Everyone agrees? Certainly, it is the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan. Even
יכא ָּ יכא דְּ ֵל ָ ֵה,יכא ָּכ ֵרת ָּ יכא דְּ ִא ָ ֵה though, in general, he holds that unwitting with regard to karet is suf-
יתה ָ ִמ:ימא ָ ָּכ ֵרת – ָלא! ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת ficient to render the action unwitting, the case of teruma is different.
וְ ִכי ׁ ָשגַ ג,עֹומ ֶד ת ֶ ִ ּב ְמ קֹום ָּכ ֵרת The Gemara asks: In the case of teruma, it is obvious that he would
ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע,יחּיֵ יב ַ יתה – נַ ִמי ִל ָ ְ ּב ִמ agree. When Rabbi Yoĥanan says that one need not be unwitting
יתה ִ ּב ְמקֹום ָּכ ֵרת ָ ִמ: ָר ָבא ָא ַמר.ָלן with regard to the prohibition, it is in a case where there is a prohibi-
tion punishable by karet; however, here, where there is no punish-
.חֹומ ׁש ִ ּב ְמקֹום ָק ְר ָ ּבן ָק ֵאי ֶ ְ ו,עֹומ ֶדת ֶ
ment of karet, Rabbi Yoĥanan would not say so. The Gemara answers
that nonetheless Abaye introduced a novel element: Lest you say that
since one who intentionally eats teruma is subject to death at the hand
of Heaven, perhaps death stands in place of karet. And where he was
unwitting with regard to the punishment of death for this sin, he
should also be liable to pay the added fifth as one who performed
the transgression unwittingly because his case is analogous to one
who is considered unwitting due to lack of awareness of karet. There-
fore, Abaye teaches us that it is not so. Rava said: Indeed, death
stands in place of karet h and the added one-fifth stands in place of
a sacrifice. One who is unwitting with regard to death at the hand of
Heaven and the added fifth has the same legal status as one who is
unwitting with regard to karet and an offering.
halakha
Unwitting violation of an oath on a statement – ׁ ִשגְ גַ ת ׁ ְשבו ַּעת Death stands in place of karet – עֹומ ֶדת
ֶ מ ָיתה ִ ּב ְמקֹום ָּכ ֵרת:ִ One
ב ּיטוּי:ּ ִ A case where one who unwittingly violates an oath on a who is not a priest and unwittingly ate teruma is obligated to
statement with regard to the past is liable to bring a sacrifice is repay its value with the addition of a fifth. That is the halakha
when he swears that he did not eat a particular food. When tak- even if he was aware that it was teruma and that it is prohibited
ing the oath, he is aware that he ate it, and he is aware that it is to eat it but was unaware that eating teruma is punishable by
prohibited to take that oath. However, he is unaware that one is death at the hand of Heaven, as the halakha is in accordance
liable to bring a sacrifice for this violation (Rambam Sefer Hafla’a, with the opinion of Rava in disputes with Abaye (Rambam Sefer
Hilkhot Shevuot 3:7). Zera’im, Hilkhot Terumot 10:1).
!?“מ ׁ ַש ֵּמר יֹום ֶא ָחד ְל ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה״ ְ ,ִאי ָה ִכי The Gemara asks: If so, if that is what the baraita meant, why employ the
“מ ׁ ַש ֵּמר יֹום ֶא ָחד ּומֹונֶ ה ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה״ ְ phrase: He observes one day for six? It should have stated: He observes
ְ ָהיָ ה ְמ ַה ֵּלך: ַּתנְיָא,יה! וְ עֹוד ּ יב ֵעי ֵל ּ ָ ִמ one day and counts six. And furthermore, it was taught in a baraita: If
one was walking along the way or was in the desert, and he does not
ימ ַתי ָ יֹוד ַע ֵא
ֵ וְ ֵאינֹו,ַ ּבדֶּ ֶרךְ אֹו ַ ּב ִּמ ְד ָ ּבר
know when Shabbat occurs, he counts six days and observes one day.
ׁ ַש ָ ּבת – מֹונֶ ה ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה ּו ְמ ׁ ַש ֵּמר יֹום That is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Rav.
! ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא (דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא) ַ ּבר ַרב.ֶא ָחד The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation of the opin-
.ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא ion of Ĥiyya bar Rav.
ִאם ָהיָ ה ַמ ִּכיר ִמ ְקצָ ת:ָא ַמר ָר ָבא Rava said: If he had partial knowledge of the day on which he left,h i.e.,
אכה ָּכל ָ עֹושה ְמ ָלׂ ֶ – ַהּיֹום ׁ ֶשּיָ צָ א ּבֹו he does not recall what day of the week it was but he does recall the num-
:ימא ָ יטא! ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת ָ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש.ַהּיֹום ּכו ּּלֹו ber of days that passed since he left, every week he can perform labor
throughout the day of his departure, since he certainly did not leave his
ְ ּב ַמ ֲע ֵל י,ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ָלא נָ ֵפיק
house on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: That is obvious, and what novel
וְ ַהאי ִאי נַ ִמי,ׁ ַש ְ ּב ָתא [נַ ִמי] ָלא נָ ֵפיק element was introduced here? The Gemara answers: Lest you say, since
ְ ׁ ַ ּב ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ְ ּב ׁ ַש ְ ּב ָתא נָ ֵפיק – ִל
יש ְּת ִרי he did not leave on Shabbat, he also did not leave on Friday, and this
ָקא,יֹומי ֵ אכה ְּת ֵרי ָ יע ַבד ְמ ָל ֱ יה ְל ֶמ ּ ֵל person, even if he left on Thursday, should be permitted to perform
,ימנִין דְּ ַמ ׁ ְש ַּכח ׁ ַשּיָ ְיר ָתאְ ִ ז:ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן labor for two days, the eighth day and the ninth day from his departure,
.ו ִּמ ְק ִרי וְ נָ ֵפיק the same day of the week that he left and the following day. Therefore,
Rava teaches us that at times one finds a convoy and happens to leave
on a journey even on Friday. Therefore, he is not permitted to perform
labor on the day of the week following the day of his departure.
halakha
And he does not know when Shabbat occurs – ימ ַתי ָ יֹוד ַע ֵא
ֵ וְ ֵאינֹו on the day he designated as Shabbat. However, he must refrain
ש ָ ּבת:
ַ ׁ One who was walking in the desert and lost track of which from all other labors, even those prohibited by rabbinic decree
day was Shabbat counts six days from the day that he realizes (Magen Avraham). Other authorities are more lenient and allow
that he is confused and sanctifies the seventh with kiddush and him to perform actions prohibited by rabbinic decrees on that day
havdala. This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna. (Eliya Rabba), in accordance with the opinion of Rava according
The opinion of Rav Ĥiyya bar Rav is rejected based on the baraita to Tosafot (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 2:22; Shulĥan
(Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 2:22; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 344:1).
Ĥayyim 344:1).
Each day he makes enough food to sustain himself – ָּכל יֹום If he had partial knowledge of the day on which he left – ִאם ָהיָה
נָסתֹו
ָ עֹושה לֹו ּ ַפ ְר
ׂ ֶ וָ יֹום: If one was walking in the desert, lost track of מ ִּכיר ִמ ְקצָ ת ַהּיֹום ׁ ֶשּיָ צָ א ּבֹו:ַ One who lost track of the days of the week
which day was Shabbat, established a particular day as Shabbat, but is aware that it is the eighth day since his departure, i.e., he left
and has enough food to survive, it is prohibited for him to per- on that day one week earlier, can be certain that he did not leave on
form labor on any day, since it might be Shabbat. If he does not Shabbat, and that the current day is a weekday. Therefore, he may
have enough food, he may perform the minimal amount of labor perform labor on the eighth day and on the night before (Mishna
necessary to sustain himself, even on the day that he designated Berura), in accordance with the opinion of Rava (Rambam Sefer
as Shabbat. Walking in order to leave the desert is permitted even Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 2:22; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 344:2).
, ַאדְּ ַר ָ ּבה:ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak strongly objects: On the contrary, the
ִא ּ ְיפ ָכא ִמ ְס ַּת ְ ּב ָרא “וְ ׁ ָש ְמר ּו ְבנֵי יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ֶאת opposite is reasonable. “And the children of Israel observed the
,ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת״ – ׁ ְש ִמ ָירה ַא ַחת ְל ָכל ׁ ַש ָ ּבת וְ ׁ ַש ָ ּבת Shabbat”: One observance for each and every Shabbat. “And you
shall observe My Shabbatot”: One observance for multiple Shab-
“וְ ֶאת ׁ ַש ְ ּבת ַֹתי ִּת ׁ ְשמֹר ּו״ ׁ ְש ִמ ָירה ַא ַחת
batot. In any case, Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak also holds that the ha-
.ְל ׁ ַש ָ ּבתֹות ַה ְר ֵ ּבה lakha of our mishna is derived from comparing and contrasting
these two verses.
Perek VII
Daf 70 Amud a
notes
יפא? ָא ַמר ָ ישא ו ַּמאי ׁ ְשנָ א ֵס ָ ׁ ַמאי ׁ ְשנָ א ֵר The Gemara asks: What is different about the former clause, which
Unwitting act and awareness – יעה ָ שגָ גָ ה וִ ִיד:
ְ ׁ Osten-
,יעת ׁ ַש ָ ּבת הוּא ּפ ֵֹור ׁש ַ ָּכאן – ִמ ִיד:ַרב ָס ְפ ָרא states that he in only liable to bring one sin-offering for each Shabbat,
sibly, the difference between Rav Safra’s statement
and Rav Naĥman’s statement is merely semantic. ָא ַמר.אכה הוּא ּפ ֵֹור ׁש ָ יעת ְמ ָל ַ וְ ָכאן – ִמ ִיד and the latter clause, which states that he is liable for each and every
Rav Safra speaks of awareness of Shabbat, while Rav primary category of labor that he performed? Rav Safra said: Here,
ְּכלוּם ּ ָפ ֵר ׁיש ִמ ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת – ֶא ָּלא:יה ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ּ ֵל
Naĥman refers to an act that was unwitting with where he is unaware that the day was Shabbat, when he realizes that
regard to Shabbat. However, Rav Safra’s opinion is – ו ְּכלוּם ּ ָפ ֵר ׁיש ִמ ְּמ ָלאכֹות,ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ְמ ָלאכֹות he sinned, it is due to awareness of Shabbat that he desists. When
based on the understanding that the obligation to ָק ְר ָ ּבן:ֶא ָּלא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ַש ָ ּבת! ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן he is told that it was Shabbat, he stops immediately. And here, where
bring a sin-offering results from awareness of the sin. – ָה ָתם,דְּ ִחּיֵ יב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ַא ַּמאי – ַא ׁ ּ ְשגָ גָ ה he is unaware that the labors are prohibited, it is due to awareness
That cannot be the case here, and therefore, contrary
. ָה ָכא – טו ָּבא ׁ ְשגָ גֹות ָהוְ יָ ין,ֲח ָדא ׁ ְשגָ גָ ה of the labors that he desists. When he is told that this labor is
to standard cases of unwitting actions, the criterion
for liability to bring a sin-offering is based on the un- prohibited, he stops immediately. Rav Naĥman said to Rav Safra:
witting action and not on the subsequent awareness. Does he desist due to Shabbat for any reason other than because
he knows that the labors are prohibited? If he did not know that the
labor is prohibited, telling him that it is Shabbat would not cause
him to desist. And similarly, does he desist from performing the
labors when told that it is prohibited for any reason other than
because he knows that it is Shabbat? If he did not know that it was
Shabbat, there would be no reason for him to desist from labor.
Ostensibly, attributing the distinction between the two parts of the
mishna to what eventually became known to him in the different
cases is incorrect. Rather, Rav Naĥman said: The offering that the
Torah obligated him to bring; for what is he so obligated? It is for
performing an unwitting transgression. There, where he was un-
aware that the day was Shabbat, he was unwitting with regard to
one matter; here, where he was unaware of the prohibited labors,
he was unwitting with regard to multiple matters, and he is liable
to bring sin-offerings in accordance with the number of matters of
which he was unaware.n
342 Perek VII . 70a . ע ףד. קרפ ׳ז
notes
.אכה״ ָ אכה ּו ְמ ָל ָ “חּיָ יב ַעל ָּכל ְמ ָל ַ We learned in the mishna that one is liable to bring a sin-offering for
each prohibited labor that he performs on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: He who desecrates it – יה ָ מ ַח ְל ֶל:ְ The Gemara did not
יל ּו ק ְמ ָל אכֹות ְמ נָ ַל ן? ָא ַמ ר ּ ִח derive multiple Shabbat desecrations from the phrase:
יה מֹות ָ “מ ַח ְל ֶל
ְ : ָא ַמר ְק ָרא,ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל From where do we derive the division of labors? What is the source He who desecrates it, because in the halakhic midrash,
of the halakha that if one performs numerous prohibited labors on the fact that liability for performing prohibited labor
יו ָּמת״ – ַה ּת ָֹורה ִר ְ ּב ָתה ִמיתֹות ַה ְר ֵ ּבה
Shabbat in the course of one lapse of awareness, each prohibited labor on Shabbat also applies to Shabbat evening is derived
! ַהאי ְ ּב ֵמזִ יד ְּכ ִתיב.ילוּל ֶא ָחד ּ ַעל ִח is considered a separate offense with regard to punishment? Shmuel from this verse.
“כל ָּ : דִּ ְכ ִתיב,ִאם ֵאינֹו ִענְ יָ ן ְל ֵמזִ יד said that the verse says: “And you shall observe the Shabbat, for it is If it does not refer to the matter – אם ֵאינֹו ִענְיָ ן:
ִ This
אכה יו ָּמת״ – ְּתנֵ ה ּו ִענְיָ ן ָ ָהע ֶ ֹׂשה ְמ ָל holy to you; he who desecrates itn shall surely die [mot yumat]” (Ex- form of reasoning is one of the thirty-two hermeneutic
. ו ַּמאי ‘יו ָּמת׳ – יו ַּמת ְ ּב ָממֹון,ְל ׁשֹוגֵ ג odus 31:14). We learn from the double language, mot yumat, that the principles of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei. According
Torah amplified multiple deaths for a single desecration. Although to most commentaries, the conclusions drawn from
several violations were committed in the course of a single lapse of them are as authoritative as they would be if they were
awareness, each is considered a separate offense with regard to punish- explicitly written in the Torah (see Yad Malakhi). This
principle is based on the superfluity of verses in the
ment. The Gemara asks: That verse was written with regard to inten- context in which they are written. At the same time,
tional transgression. The Gemara is seeking a source for multiple sacri- the verse is never applied to matters totally unrelated
fices brought for unwitting transgression. The Gemara answers: If it to the meaning of the verse.
does not refer to the mattern of intentional transgression, as the verse
These are the things – א ֶּלה ַהדְּ ָב ִרים:ֵ In the Jerusalem
does not teach a halakha applicable to intentional acts, as it was already Talmud, the exposition is as follows: Devar, devari, de-
written: “Six days you shall perform work, and on the seventh day it varim. Another prohibited labor is derived from each
shall be holy to you, a Shabbat of rest to God; all who desecrate it shall additional letter. According to an alternative interpre-
die” (Exodus 35:2), refer it to the matter of unwitting transgression. tation, all thirty-nine labors are derived from the word
The verse teaches that that which was written with regard to the death eleh. If the letter heh is exchanged with the letter ĥet, a
penalty for desecration of Shabbat in general applies to all halakhot of common exegetical approach, the numerology of eleh
totals thirty-nine.
Shabbat, including cases of unwitting transgression. And what, then, is
the meaning of the term: Shall die, in the verse? Does it mean that one
who commits an unwitting transgression is punishable by death? It
means that he shall die by payment of money. Death is used in the sense
of punishment; he will be forced to pay for numerous sacrifices to atone
for his sins.
יכא ָ יה ִחילּ וּק ְמ ָלאכֹות ֵמ ֵה ּ וְ ֵת ּיפֹוק ֵל The Gemara asks: And let him derive division of labors from where
ַר ִ ּבי, דְּ ַתנְ יָ א,יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן ּ דְּ נָ ְפ ָקא ֵל it was derived according to Rabbi Natan, as it was taught in a baraita
“ל ֹא ְת ַב ֲער ּו ֵא ׁש ְ ּב ָכל:אֹומר ֵ נָ ָתן that Rabbi Natan says that it is written: “You shall not kindle fire in
all your dwellings on the day of Shabbat” (Exodus 35:3). Why does
יכם ְ ּביֹום ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת״ ַמה ַּת ְלמוּד ֶ מ ׁ ְֹשב ֵֹת
the verse state this halakha? The prohibition against kindling is in-
“וַ ּיַ ְק ֵהל מ ׁ ֶֹשה ֶאת:לֹומר? ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ּנ ֱֶא ַמר ַ cluded in the general prohibition against performing labor on Shabbat.
יִש ָר ֵאל ֵא ֶּלה ַהדְּ ָב ִרים וגו׳ ׂ ְ ָּכל ֲע ַדת ְ ּבנֵי Rather, it should be understood as follows. Since it is already stated:
,אכה״ ‘דְּ ָב ִרים׳ ָ ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת יָ ִמים ֵּת ָע ֶ ׂשה ְמ ָל “And Moses gathered the entire assembly of the children of Israel and
‘א ֶּלה ַהדְּ ָב ִרים׳ – ֵא ּל ּו ֵ – ַ‘הדְּ ָב ִרים׳ said to them: These are the things [eleh hadevarim] that God has com-
ׁ ְשל ׁ ִֹשים וְ ֵת ׁ ַשע ְמ ָלאכֹות ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֶא ְמר ּו manded to perform them. Six days you shall perform work, and on
the seventh day it shall be holy to you, a Shabbat of rest to God” (Exodus
.ְלמ ׁ ֶֹשה ְ ּב ִסינַי
35:1–2), and Rabbi Natan derives as follows: “These are the things,”
which refers to the halakhot of Shabbat, there are emphases in this
phrase that are superfluous in the context of the verse. The Torah could
have simply stated: This is a thing [davar]. When it states: Things [de-
varim] in the plural, it teaches at least two points. The addition of the
definite article: The things [hadevarim], adds at least a third point. The
numerological value of letters of the word eleh: Alef, one; lamed, thirty;
and heh, five, is thirty-six. The total numerical value, three plus thirty-six,
derived from the phrase: “These are the things.”n This alludes to the
thirty-nine prohibited labors that were stated to Moses at Sinai.
יָ כֹול ֲע ָ ׂש ָאן ּכו ָּּלן ְ ּב ֶה ְע ֵלם ֶא ָחד ֵאינֹו I might have thought that if one performed them all in the course of
ַ ַּת ְלמ ּוד,ַחּיָ יב ֶא ָּלא ַא ַחת
:לֹומר one lapse of awareness, forgetting that they are prohibited, he would
וַ ֲע ַדיִ ין.“ב ָח ִר ׁיש ו ַּב ָ ּקצִ יר ִּת ׁ ְש ּבֹת״ ֶּ be liable to bring only one sin-offering? Therefore, the verse states: “Six
days you shall work, and on the seventh you shall rest; in plowing time
– ישה וְ ַעל ַה ְּקצִ ָירה ָ ׁ ַעל ֲח ִר:אֹומרֵ ֲאנִי
and in harvest time you shall rest” (Exodus 34:21), indicating that
וְ ַעל ּכו ָּּלן ֵאינֹו ַחּיָ יב ֶא ָּלא,ַחּיָ יב ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם there are prohibitions specific to both plowing and harvesting. And still
“ל ֹא ְת ַב ֲער ּו:לֹומר ַ ַא ַחת! ַּת ְלמוּד I can say: For plowing and for the harvesting he is liable to bring two
וְ ָל ָּמה, ַה ְב ָע ָרה ַ ּב ְּכ ָלל ָהיְ ָתה,ֵא ׁש״ sin-offerings, as they were stated explicitly. However, for performing
ַמה: ָלֹומר ְלךַ ְ ו,יָ צָ את – ְל ַה ִּק ׁיש ֵא ֶל ָיה all the other prohibited labors, he is liable for only one. Therefore, the
אכה וְ ַחּיָ ִיבין
ָ ַה ְב ָע ָרה ׁ ֶש ִהיא ַאב ְמ ָל verse states: “You shall not kindle fire in all your dwellings on the day
of Shabbat” (Exodus 35:3). This is derived in the following manner:
ָע ֶל ָיה ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ ָמ ּה – ַאף ָּכל ׁ ֶשהוּא ַאב
Kindling was included in the general prohibition prohibiting all labors,
.יה ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ ָמ ּה
ָ אכה ַחּיָ ִיבין ָע ֶל ָ ְמ ָל and why was it singled out and prohibited explicitly? It was singled out
in order to equate the other labors to it and to tell you: Just as kindling
is a primary category of prohibited labor, and one is liable for per-
forming it on its own, so too, with regard to every primary category
of prohibited labor, one is liable for performing it on its own.
ע ףד. ׳ז קרפ. Perek VII . 70a 343
notes
: דְּ ָא ַמר,יֹוסיֵ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ָס ַבר ָל ּה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי Rabbi Natan cited a source proving that there is liability for perfor-
To divide – ל ַח ֵּלק:ְ Extrapolating a conclusion about the mance of each prohibited labor of Shabbat on its own. Why doesn’t
entire generalization from a single detail is based on the ַה ְב ָע ָרה: דְּ ַתנְיָא,ַה ְב ָע ָרה ְל ָלאו יָ צָ את
following hermeneutic principle: Something that was in- ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן.יֹוסי
ֵ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי,ְל ָלאו יָ צָ את Shmuel derive that halakha from the same source? The Gemara
cluded in a generalization, but was explicitly singled out answers: Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi
. ְל ַח ֵּלק יָ צָ את:אֹומר
ֵ
to teach something, was intended to teach not just about Yosei, who disagreed with Rabbi Natan’s interpretation of the verse,
itself but about the entire generalization. There are several as Rabbi Yosei said: The prohibition against kindling on Shabbat
halakhic areas which are stated in general terms, and there was singled out to teach that one who lights a fire on Shabbat mere-
is no source applying the halakha to all of its details. Based ly violates a prohibition. Performing other primary categories of
on the unnecessary mention of the halakha vis-à-vis one of
prohibited labor is punishable by stoning or karet. In contrast, one
the details, application of the halakha to the entire gener-
alization is derived.
who lights a fire on Shabbat has merely violated a prohibition, as it
was taught in a baraita: The prohibition of kindling was singled out
as a prohibition; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Natan
says: Kindling is like any other labor prohibited on Shabbat. It was
singled out to dividen the various labors and to establish liability
for performance of each of them.
יה ְל ִחלּ וּק ְמ ָלאכֹות ֵמ ֵה ָיכא ּ וְ ֵת ּיפֹוק ֵל The Gemara raises an additional challenge to Shmuel’s opinion. If
,יֹוסי! דְּ ַתנְ יָ א ֵ יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי ּ דְּ נָ ְפ ָקא ֵל he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei with regard
“וְ ָע ָ ׂשה ֵמ ַא ַח ת:אֹומר ֵ יֹוסי
ֵ ַר ִ ּבי to the explicit prohibition of kindling, let him derive the division
of labors from where Rabbi Yosei derives it. As it was taught in a
ֵמ ֵה ָּנה״ – ּ ְפ ָע ִמים ׁ ֶש ַחּיָ ִיבים ַא ַחת ַעל
baraita that Rabbi Yosei says, it is stated: “Speak to the children of
ו ְּפ ָע ִמים ׁ ֶש ַחּיָ ִיבין ַעל ָּכל ַא ַחת,ּכו ָּּלן Israel, saying: A soul that sins in error, from all the commandments
,יֹוסי ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א
ֵ וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי.וְ ַא ַחת of God that may not be performed, and performs from one of them
‘א ַחת׳ ַ – יֹוסי ֵ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי [me’aĥat me’hena]” (Leviticus 4:2). Rabbi Yosei interprets the verse
ֵ‘מ ַא ַחת׳ ֵ‘ה ָּנה׳ ֵ‘מ ֵה ָּנה׳ – ַא ַחת ׁ ֶש ִהיא that at times one is liable to bring one sin-offering for all of his
. ֵה ָּנה ׁ ֶש ִהיא ַא ַחת,ֵה ָּנה transgressions, and at times one is liable to bring a sin-offering for
each and every transgression. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi
Ĥanina, said: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei?
He interprets the unique phrase employed in that verse: From one
of these. The Torah could have merely stated: One [aĥat]. Instead,
it stated: From one [me’aĥat]. It could have merely stated: Them
[hena]. Instead, it stated: Of them [me’hena]. Rabbi Yosei derives
that there are cases of one transgression that, with regard to punish-
ment, are them, i.e., many. And there are cases of them, several
transgressions, that, with regard to punishment, are one.
Perek VII
Daf 70 Amud b
halakha
,‘ה ָּנה׳ – ָאבֹות ֵ .ׁ ֵשם ִמ ׁ ּ ִש ְמעֹון only shem, part of the word, the letters shin and mem, from Shimon.
Shabbat and prohibited labors – אכה ָ ש ָ ּבת ו ְּמ ָל:
ַ ׁ One who
“א ַחת ׁ ֶש ִהיא ַ ,ֵ‘מ ֵה ָּנה׳ – ּת ָֹולדֹות Them refers to one who performed the primary categories of labor.
was unaware that it was Shabbat and was similarly unaware
that the labors he performed were prohibited is only liable .ֵה ָּנה״ – זְ דֹון ׁ ַש ָ ּבת וְ ׁ ִשגְ גַ ת ְמ ָלאכֹות Of them refers to one who performed subcategories of prohibited
to bring one sin-offering, as per Rashi’s explanation of labors. One that is them refers to one transgression with multiple
“ה ָּנה ׁ ֶש ִהיא ַא ַחת״ – ׁ ִשגְ גַ ת ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ֵ
the Gemara’s conclusion (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot punishments, as in a case where his action was intentional with
Shegagot 7:4). ּו ׁ ְשמ ּו ֵאל? ַא ַחת.ּוזְ דֹון ְמ ָלאכֹות regard to Shabbat in that he was aware that it was Shabbat, and his
וְ ֵה ָּנה ׁ ֶש ִהיא ַא ַחת ָלא,ׁ ֶש ִהיא ֵה ָּנה action was unwitting with regard to the prohibited labors in that
notes .יה
ּ ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ֵל he was unaware that the labors were prohibited. In that case, he is
Did not derive – יה ּ לא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ֵל:ָ The question is raised in liable for each primary category of labor. Them that are one refers
Tosafot: How can Shmuel, an amora, reject the opinions of to several transgressions with one punishment, as in a case where
two tanna’im and adopt an approach in consonance with his action was unwitting with regard to Shabbat in that he was
neither? Elsewhere, an answer is cited in Tosafot that Shmuel unaware that it was Shabbat, and his action was intentional with
holds in accordance with the opinion of a third tanna, Rabbi
Shimon, in this matter. Some commentaries suggest that
regard to the prohibited labors in that he was aware that the labors
since there is no practical halakhic difference between the were prohibited.h In that case, he is liable to bring only one sin-of-
opinions, as it is merely a dispute with regard to finding an fering. Apparently, Rabbi Yosei has a source for the division of
allusion in the Torah for an accepted halakha, an amora can Shabbat labors. Why doesn’t Shmuel derive the halakha from that
disagree with tanna’im (Rav Shmuel Strashun). source? The Gemara answers: Shmuel did not deriven one that is
them and them that are one from the verse.
344 Perek VII . 70b . ע ףד: קרפ ׳ז
notes
ֶה ְע ֵלם זֶ ה וָ זֶ ה:ינֵיה ָר ָבא ֵמ ַרב נַ ְח ָמן
ּ ְ ּב ָעא ִמ Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naĥman: What is the halakha
if a person had a lapse of awareness of both this, Shabbat, and Lapse of awareness of both this and that – ֶה ְע ֵלם זֶ ה
ֲה ֵרי ֶה ְע ֵלם ׁ ַש ָ ּבת:יה ּ ְ ּביָ דֹו ַמהוּ? ֲא ַמר ֵל וָ זֶ ה ְ ּביָ דֹו: Some commentaries sought to distinguish
ֲה ֵרי, ַאדְּ ַר ָ ּבה. וְ ֵאינֹו ַחּיָ יב ֶא ָּלא ַא ַחת,ְ ּביָ דֹו that, a particular labor? He said to him: He had a lapse of between this case and the case in the mishna of one
awareness with regard to Shabbat and is liable to bring only one who forgets the essence of Shabbat. There too, he is
וְ ַחּיָ יב ַעל ָּכל ַא ַחת,ֶה ְע ֵלם ְמ ָלאכֹות ְ ּביָ דֹו
sin-offering. Rava said to him: On the contrary, he had a lapse of unaware of all the prohibited labors and is only liable
ִאי ִמ ׁ ּשוּם, ָחזֵ ינַן:וְ ַא ַחת! ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי awareness with regard to prohibited labors, and he should be to bring one sin-offering. Therefore, they explained
ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ָקא ּ ָפ ֵר ׁיש – ֲה ֵרי ֶה ְע ֵלם ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ְ ּביָ דֹו liable for each and every labor that he performed. Rather, Rav that the Gemara here is referring to a case where one
אכה ָ וְ ִאי ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ְמ ָל,וְ ֵאינֹו ַחּיָ יב ֶא ָּלא ַא ַחת Ashi said: We see, if it is due to awareness of Shabbat that he performed some of the prohibited labors while he was
unwitting with regard to Shabbat and intentional with
ָק ָפ ֵר ׁיש – ֲה ֵרי ֶה ְע ֵלם ְמ ָלאכֹות ְ ּביָ דֹו וְ ַחּיָ יב desists from performing the labor when he is told what day it is,
regard to the labors, and performed the rest of the
יה ָר ִבינָ א ְל ַרב ּ ֲא ַמר ֵל.ַעל ָּכל ַא ַחת וְ ַא ַחת then, apparently, it was a lapse of awareness with regard to prohibited labors while unwitting with regard to the
Shabbat, and he is liable for only one. And if it is due to prohibited labors. There was no point at which he was
ְּכלוּם ּ ָפ ֵר ׁיש ִמ ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת – ֶא ָּלא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם:ַא ׁ ִשי
awareness of the prohibited labor that he desists, then, completely unaware of the essence of Shabbat (Me’iri).
ְּכלוּם ּ ָפ ֵר ׁיש ִמ ְּמ ָלאכֹות – ֶא ָּלא,ְמ ָלאכֹות apparently, it was a lapse of awareness with regard to the labors
. ָלא ׁ ְשנָ א,ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ַש ָ ּבת! ֶא ָּלא and he is liable for each and every one. Ravina said to Rav Ashi:
Does he desist due to Shabbat for any reason other than because
he knows that the labors are prohibited? And similarly, does he
desist from performing the labors when told that it is prohibited
for any reason other than because he knows that it is Shabbat?
When one desists from labor when he is told that it is Shabbat, it
is because he understands that the labor he is performing is
prohibited on Shabbat. Similarly, when one desists from his labor
when he is told that the labor is prohibited, it is because he
understands that the day is Shabbat. Rather, there is no difference
between the cases, and in both he is considered unwitting with
regard to Shabbat.
ֲאבֹות ְמ ָלאכֹות ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים ָח ֵסר ַא ַחת:ְּתנַ ן The Gemara further discusses the matter from a different perspec-
:יֹוחנָן
ָ ִמנְיָ נָ א ָל ָּמה ִלי? וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי:וְ ָהוֵ ינַן ָ ּב ּה tive. We learned in a mishna: The number of primary categories
ׁ ֶש ִאם ֲע ָ ׂש ָאן ּכו ָּּלן ְ ּב ֶה ְע ֵלם ֶא ָחד – ַחּיָ יב ַעל of prohibited labors on Shabbat is forty-less-one, which the
mishna proceeds to list. And we discussed this mishna: Why do
ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ֶה ְע ֵלם.ָּכל ַא ַחת וְ ַא ַחת
I need this tally of forty-less-one? Isn’t merely listing the prohib-
– זֶ ה וָ זֶ ה ְ ּביָ דֹו – ַחּיָ יב ַעל ָּכל ַא ַחת וְ ַא ַחת ited labors sufficient? And Rabbi Yoĥanan said: The tally was
, ֶה ְע ֵלם ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ְ ּביָ דֹו: ֶא ָּלא ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת.ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר included to teach that if he performed all the prohibited labors
– יכי ַמ ׁ ְש ַּכ ַח ְּת ָל ּהִ ֵה,ֵאינֹו ַחּיָ יב ֶא ָּלא ַא ַחת in the course of one lapse of awareness during which he was
.ִ ּבזְ דֹון ׁ ַש ָ ּבת וְ ׁ ִשגְ גַ ת ְמ ָלאכֹות unaware of the prohibition involved, he is liable for each and
every one. Granted, if you say that one who had a lapse of aware-
ness of both this and thatn is liable for each and every one, it
works out well. However, if you say that since one who had a
lapse of awareness of this and that had a lapse of awareness with
regard to Shabbat, and he is liable to bring only one sin-offering,
under what circumstances can you find a case where one would
be liable for unwittingly violating all thirty-nine labors? It must
be in a case where, with regard to Shabbat, his actions were in-
tentional, as he was aware that it was Shabbat, and, with regard
to the prohibited labors, his actions were unwitting, as he was
unaware that these labors were prohibited on Shabbat.
: דְּ ָא ַמר,יֹוחנָ ן
ָ יה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ּ נִיחא ִאי ָס ַבר ֵל ָ ָה It works out well if he holds in accordance with the opinion of
– ֵּכיוָ ן ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָשגַ ג ְ ּב ָכ ֵרת ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵהזִ יד ְ ּב ָלאו Rabbi Yoĥanan, who said: Once he was unwitting with regard
יה ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ְ ּב ָלאו; ֶא ָּלא ִאי ּ ַמ ׁ ְש ַּכ ַח ְּת ָל ּה דְּ יָ ַדע ֵל to the fact that the punishment for his transgression is karet, even
though he was aware that his action was in violation of a Torah
ַעד: דְּ ָא ַמר,ָס ַבר ָל ּה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש
prohibition and performed the transgression intentionally, he is
?יה ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ְ ּב ַמאי ּ דְּ יָ ַדע ֵל,ׁ ֶשּיִ ׁ ְש ּגֹוג ְ ּב ָלאו וְ ָכ ֵרת considered to have sinned unwittingly. You find that possibility
.יבא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ּ ָ וְ ַא ִּל,דְּ יָ ַדע ָל ּה ִ ּב ְתחו ִּמין in a case where he was aware that performing labor on Shabbat
involves violation of a Torah prohibition, but he was unaware that
the punishment for violating that prohibition is karet. However,
if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben
Lakish, who said: It is not considered unwitting until he was
unwitting with regard to both the prohibition and karet, the
result is that he is completely unaware of all the prohibited labors
of Shabbat. The question then arises: With regard to what aspect
of Shabbat was he aware? If he was completely unaware of all the
labors prohibited on Shabbat, in what sense were his actions in-
tentional with regard to Shabbat? The Gemara answers: He was
aware of the halakhot of the prohibition of Shabbat boundaries,
in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who holds that
that prohibition is by Torah law.
ע ףד: ׳ז קרפ. Perek VII . 70b 345
ָקצַ ר וְ ָט ַח ן ִּכגְ רֹוגֶ ֶרת:ָא ַמר ָר ָבא Rava said: One who reaped and ground grain in the measure of a
וְ ָחזַ ר,ְ ּב ׁ ִשגְ גַ ת ׁ ַש ָ ּבת וּזְ דֹון ְמ ָלאכֹות dried fig-bulk, the measure that determines liability for the labors
וְ ָקצַ ר וְ ָט ַחן ִּכגְ רֹוגֶ ֶרת ִ ּבזְ דֹון ׁ ַש ָ ּבת of reaping and grinding on Shabbat, while in performing those ac-
tions he was unwitting with regard to Shabbat and intentional with
נֹוד ע לֹו ַעל ַ ְ ו,וְ ׁ ִשגְ גַ ת ְמ ָלאכֹות
regard to the prohibited labors. He was unaware that it was Shabbat,
ְקצִ ָירה ו ְּט ִחינָ ה ׁ ֶשל ׁ ִשגְ גַ ת ׁ ַש ָ ּבת וּזְ דֹון but he was aware that the labors were prohibited. And he did not
נֹודע לֹו ַעל ְקצִ ָירה ַ ְ וְ ָחזַ ר ו,ְמ ָלאכֹות realize that he had sinned until he again reaped and ground grain
וְ ַעל ְט ִחינָ ה ׁ ֶשל זְ דֹון ׁ ַש ָ ּבת וְ ׁ ִשגְ גַ ת in the measure of a dried fig-bulk, while in performing those ac-
,ְמ ָלאכֹות tions he was intentional with regard to Shabbat and unwitting with
regard to the prohibited labors. He was aware that it was Shabbat,
but he was unaware that the labors were prohibited. And afterward
he became aware that he had performed the labors of reaping and
grinding while unwitting with regard to Shabbat and intentional
with regard to the prohibited labors. He set aside a sin-offering to
atone for his sin, based on the principle that he need set aside only
one sin-offering even though he performed two primary categories
of labor in the same lapse of awareness. And afterward he became
aware that he had performed the labors of reaping and grinding
while intentional with regard to Shabbat and unwitting with regard
to the prohibited labors. For performing two categories of prohib-
ited labor unwittingly, reaping and grinding, one should be liable to
bring two sin-offerings.
Perek VII
Daf 71 Amud a
halakha
ְקצִ ָירה גּ ֶֹור ֶרת ְקצִ ָירה ו ְּט ִחינָ ה גּ ֶֹור ֶרת Nevertheless, in that case, the sin-offering that atoned for the unwit-
Reaping draws reaping – קצִ ָירה ג ֶֹּור ֶרת ְקצִ ָירה:ְ The Gemara
נֹודע לֹו ַעל ְקצִ ָירה ׁ ֶשל ַ ֲא ָבל.ְט ִחינָ ה ting act of reaping, which he performed when his action was unwit-
is referring to one who reaped and ground the requisite
measure of grain while unwitting with regard to Shabbat זְ דֹון ׁ ַש ָ ּבת וְ ׁ ִשגְ גַ ת ְמ ָלאכֹות – ְקצִ ָירה ting with regard to Shabbat, draws with it atonement for the second
and intentional with regard to the prohibited labors, and unwitting act of reaping,h which he performed when his action was
,גּ ֶֹור ֶרת ְקצִ ָירה ּו ְט ִח ינָ ה ׁ ֶש ִע ָּמ ה
then reaped and ground again while intentional with regard unwitting with regard to the prohibited labor, and for which he also
to Shabbat and unwitting with regard to labors. If he first .עֹומ ֶדת ֶ קֹומ ּהָ ו ְּט ִחינָ ה ׁ ֶש ְּכנֶ גְ דָּ ּה ִ ּב ְמ was liable to bring a sin-offering. And similarly, the sin-offering that
became aware with regard to the first acts of reaping and atoned for the unwitting act of grinding, which he performed when
grinding and subsequently became aware of the second, his action was unwitting with regard to Shabbat, draws with it atone-
one sacrifice is sufficient, as reaping draws reaping, in accor-
ment for the unwitting act of grinding, which he performed when
dance with the statement of Rava (Rambam Sefer Korbanot,
Hilkhot Shegagot 7:10). his action was unwitting with regard to the prohibited labor. Since
the offering was sacrificed after he had committed both transgres-
And the parallel grinding remains in its place – ו ְּט ִחינָ ה
sions, he attains atonement with one sacrifice, even though he per-
עֹומ ֶדת
ֶ קֹומ ּה
ָ ש ְּכנֶ גְ דָּ ּה ִ ּב ְמ:
ֶ ׁ If, after performing the unwitting
acts, one first became aware of the reaping he performed
formed several forms of the transgression in a single lapse of aware-
while intentional with regard to Shabbat and unwitting ness. However, if the order of events in that case was different in
with regard to prohibited labors, the sacrifice that he brings that he became aware of reapingn performed when his action was
for that act of reaping atones for it and for the reaping and intentional with regard to Shabbat and his action was unwitting
grinding he performed separately while unwitting with re- with regard to the prohibited labors, and he set aside an offering
gard to Shabbat. The sacrifice does not atone for the grinding to atone for his unwitting transgression, and only afterward he be-
he performed together with the reaping while intentional
came aware that he had performed the labors of reaping and grind-
with regard to Shabbat, as the halakha is ruled in accordance
with the opinion of Rava in disputes with Abaye (Rambam ing when his actions were unwitting with regard to Shabbat, the
Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Shegagot 7:10). sin-offering that he brings for the reaping draws with it atonement
for the previous reaping and the concomitant grinding. As far as
the lapse of awareness with regard to Shabbat is concerned, reaping
and grinding are considered like one sin, and atonement for one
atones for the other. And the parallel grinding that he performed
together with the latter reaping remains in its place,h i.e., he does
not attain atonement for that transgression. When he becomes
aware of it, he brings a separate offering for atonement.
notes
However, if he became aware of reaping – נֹודע לֹו ַעל ַ ֲא ָבל mediately be liable to bring two sin-offerings. Even according to
קצִ ָירה:ְ Some commentaries explain that the phrase: Became the opinion of Abaye, his ultimate discovery that he had a lapse
aware of reaping, refers here to both reaping and grinding. of awareness with regard to Shabbat as well would be irrelevant.
The Gemara deemed it unnecessary to elaborate, relying on However, when he became aware of the labor of reaping alone,
the context (Rav Shmuel Strashun). Others are of the opinion and then he became aware that he was unwitting with regard
that the language is precise because once one became aware to Shabbat, and only then he became aware of the grinding
that he performed the labors of reaping and grinding while as well, Abaye holds that the atonement for one draws with it
unwitting with regard to the prohibited labors, he would im- atonement for the other (Tziyyun LeNefesh Ĥayya).
halakha
One who ate one piece of forbidden fat and then ate another several foods, each prohibited by a separate Torah prohibition,
piece of forbidden fat in one lapse of awareness – ָא ַכל ֵח ֶלב וְ ֵח ֶלב e.g., forbidden fat, blood, notar, and piggul, he is liable to bring a
ב ֶה ְע ֵלם ֶא ָחד:ּ ְ One who ate prohibited food, e.g., forbidden fat, sev- separate sin-offering for each, provided he ate the requisite mea-
eral times in the course of one lapse of awareness, even though sure, an olive-bulk, from each (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot
time passed between the different acts of eating, is liable to bring Shegagot 6:4).
only one sin-offering. If he became aware of the prohibition be-
Two halves of an olive-bulk from two types – חצָ ֵאי זֵ ִיתים ִמ ּ ְשנֵי ִמינִים:ֲ
tween the various unwitting acts of eating, he is liable to bring a
If one unwittingly ate half an olive-bulk of one type of prohibited
sin-offering for each lapse of awareness (Rambam Sefer Korbanot,
food, and then ate half an olive-bulk of another type of prohibited
Hilkhot Shegagot 6:1).
food during the same lapse of awareness, he is exempt from the
If he ate forbidden fat, and blood, and notar, and piggul in one obligation to bring a sin-offering (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot
lapse of awareness – נֹותר ו ִּפגּ וּל ְ ּב ֶה ְע ֵלם ֶא ָחד
ָ ְח ֶלב וְ ָדם ו:ֵ If one ate Shegagot 6:7).
halakha
One who ate two olive-bulks of forbidden fat in one lapse second, he is liable to bring two sin-offerings, as the halakha ו ֶּמ ֱחצָ ה וכו׳: If one unwittingly ate an olive-bulk and a half
of awareness, and became aware of the first…the sec- is ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan in of a prohibited food, became aware of having eaten one
ond – ֹון…על ַ אשׁ נֹודע לֹו ַעל ָה ִר
ַ ְיתי ֵח ֶלב ְ ּב ֶה ְע ֵלם ֶא ָחד ו
ֵ ֵָא ַכל ׁ ְשנֵי ז disputes with Reish Lakish (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot olive-bulk, and then ate another half an olive-bulk while still
ה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי:ַ If one ate two separate olive-bulks of forbidden fat Shegagot 6:9). unaware of the original half of an olive-bulk that he ate, the
separately in the course of one lapse of awareness, and he two half-measures do not combine (Rambam Sefer Korbanot,
became aware of the first and only later became aware of the Where one ate an olive-bulk and a half, etc. – ׁ ֶש ָא ַכל ְּכזַ יִ ת Hilkhot Shegagot 6:10).
ֵ ּבין ְ ּבזֹו ו ֵּבין ְ ּבזֹו, ִמ ְס ַּת ְ ּב ָרא:יהּ ָא ַמר ֵל Rav Ashi said to him: It is reasonable to say that the dispute is both in
קֹודם ֶ דְּ ִא י ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ֲע ָת ְך.לֹוקת ֶ ַמ ֲח this case and in that case. As, should it enter your mind that they dis-
ֲא ָבל ְל ַא ַחר ַה ְפ ָר ׁ ָשה,ַה ְפ ָר ׁ ָשה ּ ְפ ִליגִ י agree only in a case where he became aware of the second sin prior to
designation of an animal for the first sin-offering, and in a case where he
יֹוחנָן דְּ ַחּיָ יב
ָ יה ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש ְל ַר ִ ּבי ּ מֹודה ֵל ֶ
became aware after designation Reish Lakish agrees with Rabbi
– יה ְק ָרא ְל ַא ַחר ַּכ ּ ָפ ָרה ּ מֹוקים ֵל ֵ ְּ ַאד,ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם Yoĥanan that he is liable to bring two sin-offerings, then rather than
לֹוק ֵמ ּיה ְל ַא ַחר ַה ְפ ָר ׁ ָשה! וְ ִאי ַא ַחר ַה ְפ ָר ׁ ָשהְ establishing the verse that posed a difficulty to Reish Lakish’s opinion in
יהּ מֹודה ֵל ֶ קֹודם ַה ְפ ָר ׁ ָשה ֶ ֲא ָבל,ּ ְפ ִליגִ י a case where one became aware of the second sin after atonement for the
יֹוחנָן ְל ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש דְּ ֵאינֹו ַחּיָ יב ֶא ָּלא ָ ַר ִ ּבי first, let him establish it in a case where one became aware of the trans-
,יה ְק ָרא ִ ּב ְכזַ יִ ת ו ֶּמ ֱחצָ הּ מֹוקי ֵל
ִ ְַּא ַחת – ַאד gression after designation of an animal for the first sin-offering. And
similarly, if you say that they disagree only in a case where he became
!קֹודם ַה ְפ ָר ׁ ָשהֶ יה ּ לֹוק ֵמ
ְ
aware of the second sin after designation, and in a case where he became
aware prior to designation Rabbi Yoĥanan agrees with Reish Lakish
that he is only liable to bring one sin-offering, then rather than establish-
ing the verse that posed a difficulty to Rabbi Yoĥanan’s opinion in a case
where he ate an olive-bulk and a half, let him establish it in a case where
he became aware of the transgression prior to designation.
ימצֵ יְ וְ ִאם ִּת,יה ּ וְ ִד ְיל ָמא ַס ּפ ֵֹוקי ְמ ַס ּ ְפ ָקא ֵל Ravina does not accept this proof, as, in his opinion, it is flawed: And
קֹודםֶ לֹומר ַ ימצֵ י ְ ִאם ִּת:לֹומר ָק ָא ַמר ַ perhaps there is uncertainty with regard to this matter, and he spoke
מֹוקי
ֵ יכי ִ יֹוחנָן ֵה
ָ ַר ִ ּבי,ַה ְפ ָר ׁ ָשה ּ ְפ ִליגִ י ָ ּב ּה employing the style of: If you wish to say. If you wish to say that they
disagree in a case where he became aware of the second sin prior to
ימצֵ י ְ וְ ִאם ִּת.יה ִל ְק ָרא – ִ ּב ְכזַ יִ ת ו ֶּמ ֱחצָ ה ּ ֵל designation, then how does Rabbi Yoĥanan establish the verse? He
ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש,לֹומר ְל ַא ַחר ַה ְפ ָר ׁ ָשה ּ ְפ ִליגִ י ַ establishes the verse in a case where one ate an olive-bulk and a half. And
.יה ִל ְק ָרא – ִ ּב ְל ַא ַחר ַּכ ּ ָפ ָרה ּ מֹוקי ֵלֵ יכי ִ ֵה if you wish to say they disgaree in a case where he became aware of the
second sin after designation, then how does Reish Lakish establish the
verse? He establishes the verse in a case where one became aware of the
second sin after attaining atonement.
ָ ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר: ָא ַמר עו ָּּלאUlla said: According to the one who said that in order to designate a
“א ׁ ָשם וַ דַּ אי ָלא
ָ ָ ּב ְעיָ א יְ ִדdefinite guilt-offering, a sacrifice brought by one who committed a
n
יעה ַ ּב ְּת ִח ָּילה״
robbery, misused sacred objects, or had relations with a designated maid-
servant, one does not require prior knowledgen that he definitely sinned,
notes
Definite guilt-offering – א ׁ ָשם וַ דַּ אי:ָ The types of guilt-offerings liability to bring a guilt-offering. Some commentaries, includ- be aware that he has sinned when he designates an animal as
described in the Torah (Leviticus 5:15–26) can be divided into ing Rashi, find a source in the dispute between Rabbi Akiva a guilt-offering or whether he can he bring the guilt-offering
three categories: The guilt-offerings of a nazirite and a leper; and Rabbi Tarfon in tractate Keritot. Other commentaries (Ran) even if he is uncertain whether or not he sinned. The conclu-
the uncertain guilt-offering brought when there is uncertainty derived from tractate Keritot that there is a dispute over this is- sion based on the Gemara here is that there is no need for prior
whether or not a transgression warranting a sin-offering was sue, even though it is not stated explicitly. Yet others say that it knowledge in order to designate an animal as a guilt-offering.
committed; and a definite guilt-offering, which is the standard is a dispute between Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon (Rabbeinu This is true with regard to both intentional and unwitting trans-
guilt-offering, so-called to underscore the difference between Zeraĥia HaLevi; Ramban). Another opinion states that the second gressions, especially in the case of a designated maidservant.
it and the uncertain guilt-offering. opinion is not explicitly mentioned in the Gemara and is only Since there is no difference between intentional and unwitting
ָ יְ ִד: There is no clear source for derived by inference (Me’iri). As to the issue itself, the basic ques-
Prior knowledge – יעה ַ ּב ְּת ִח ָּילה cases, prior knowledge or lack thereof is irrelevant (see Rabbeinu
the dispute over the need for prior knowledge with regard to tion with regard to prior knowledge is whether a person must Ĥananel).