Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 15, 2021 | 讟壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖驻状讘

Masechet Beitzah is dedicated by new friends of Hadran in appreciation of all who find new ways to be marbitzei Torah ba-Rabim ve Rabot.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Beitzah 15

Today’s daf is sponsored by Odi and Judy, in honor of the birth of baby girl to Elana Perlin, her husband Steven, and her children, Shira and Avi. Tizku l’gadlah l’Torah, l’chupah u’l’ma’asim tovim. And Elana, continued hatzlacha learning the Daf Yomi — so proud of you that you’ve been able to keep it up ’til now! And by Eden Prywes in honor of his wife Adele Druck and her mother Susan Fishbein.

It is permissible to send a gift with a material made out of wool and linen on Yom Tov. Why? What can it be used for? It is forbidden to give a gift of a spiked sandal because it is forbidden to wear this kind of sandal on Shabbat or Yom Tov – why was it forbidden? There was a tragedy that was mentioned in Shabbat 60 where Jews trampled each other and the decree was then instituted. What other types of shoes should not be gifted on Yom Tov? It is permissible to send tefillin even though they are not worn on Shabbat because they reread the Mishna to say that anything that will make a person happy even if it is not usable on that day, can be sent as a gift. If one was wearing tefillin and Shabbat came in, can one bring them back to one鈥檚 house? 聽Under what circumstances? Chapter Two begins with a discussion of cooking from Yom Tov for Shabbat and Eruv Tavshilin that permits it. How many cooked dishes does one need for the eruv do you need? Dispute between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel. What is the source in the Torah for Eruv Tavshilin? And what is the reason for it? A story is told of Rabbi Eliezer who was teaching all day on Yom Tov and gradually students started leaving to observe the commandment of Simchat Yom Tov. He was angry with them for leaving the beit midrash. He was very upset with them 鈥 why? What about the mitzva of Simchat Yom Tov? There is a dispute between him and Rabbi Yehoshua – Do you dedicate either the whole day for God (learning Torah) or the whole day for yourselves (meaning to sanctify the day by eating)? Or half for you and half for God?

讗诇讗 讘拽砖讬谉 讜讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讛讗讬 谞诪讟讗 讙诪讚讗 讚谞专砖 砖专讬讗

Rather, it is referring to hard clothes, upon which it is permitted to sit even if they are a mixture of wool and linen. And this is in accordance with the opinion that Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: With regard to this hard felt [namta] material produced in the town of Neresh, it is permitted to sit or recline on it, and one need not be concerned about the fact that it is a mixture of wool and linen.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 注专讚诇讬谉 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讻诇讗讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讬 爪专专讬 讚驻砖讬讟讬 讗讬谉 讘讛诐 诪砖讜诐 讻诇讗讬诐 讚讘讝专谞讬 讬砖 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讻诇讗讬诐 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讻诇讗讬诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讚专讱 讞诪讜诐 讘讻讱

Rav Pappa said: With regard to felt socks [ardalayin], there is no prohibition of diverse kinds regarding them, as they are hard. Rava said: These bundles for coins, comprised of hard fabric or felt, there is no prohibition of diverse kinds with regard to them. However, with regard to pouches for holding seeds, there is a prohibition of diverse kinds with regard to them, as they are larger and softer than both felt socks and hard bundles for coins. Rav Ashi said: Both this and that have no prohibition of diverse kinds with regard to them because using these items is not the usual manner of keeping warm. Even if these objects are placed close to one鈥檚 skin, this is not the usual way of wearing clothes and warming oneself, and therefore they are permitted.

讗讘诇 诇讗 住谞讚诇 讛诪住讜诪专 住谞讚诇 讛诪住讜诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛

搂 The mishna taught: However, one may not send a spiked sandalon a Festival. The Gemara asks: A spiked sandal, what is the reason that it may not be worn? The Gemara answers: It is due to an incident that occurred. A great tragedy resulted when people wore spiked sandals on Shabbat, which led the Sages to decree that these sandals may not be worn on a Shabbat or Festival.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 住谞讚诇 讛诪住讜诪专 讗住讜专 诇谞注诇讜 讜诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇讜 讗住讜专 诇谞注诇讜 诪砖讜诐 诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 讜诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇讜 诪讚拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 诪砖诇讞讬谉 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗住讜专 诇讟诇讟诇讜 讛砖转讗 诇讟诇讟讜诇讬 讗住讜专 诪砖诇讞讬谉 诪讘注讬讗

Abaye said: With regard to a spiked sandal, it is prohibited to wear it on Shabbat, but it is permitted to move it. He clarifies: It is prohibited to wear a spiked sandal, due to the incident that occurred. And it is permitted to move it, from the fact that the mishna teaches: One may not send. For if it enters your mind that it is prohibited even to move a spiked sandal, now consider: If it were prohibited to move it, is the mishna required to state that one may send it? Rather, it must certainly be permitted to move a spiked sandal inside the house, despite the fact that one may not wear it.

讜诇讗 诪谞注诇 砖讗讬谞讜 转驻讜专 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚谞拽讬讟 讘住讬讻讬

The mishna further teaches: Nor may one send an unsewn shoe on a Festival. The Gemara asks: This is obvious, as these shoes are unfit for wearing. The Gemara answers: This statement was necessary only to teach that although the shoe is attached with pins and can be worn, it may not be sent on a Festival. Since it not properly sewn, it is not usually worn.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇讗 诪谞注诇 诇讘谉 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讘砖讞讜专 讜讗讜住专 讘诇讘谉 诪驻谞讬 砖爪专讬讱 讘讬爪转 讛讙讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜住专 讘砖讞讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖爪专讬讱 诇爪讞爪讞讜

The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: One may not even send a white shoe. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda permits the sending of a black shoe but prohibits the sending of a white one because a white one requires a lump of chalk to color it properly. Rabbi Yosei prohibits the sending of a black shoe because one needs to polish it.

讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛 讜诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛 讘讗转专讬讛 讚诪专 讘砖专讗 诇转讞转 讘讗转专讬讛 讚诪专 讘砖专讗 诇注讬诇

The Gemara comments: And they do not disagree with regard to the halakha, as this Sage ruled in accordance with the custom of his locale, and this Sage ruled differently, in accordance with the custom of his locale. In the place of this Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, the leather was made so that the side of the hide facing the flesh is on the underneath, facing the inside of the shoe, and therefore it does not require polishing; whereas in the place of that Sage, Rabbi Yosei, the leather was made so that side of the hide facing the flesh is above, facing the outside of the shoe. That side is often cracked and uneven and requires smoothing and polishing.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖谞讗讜转讬谉 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讘 砖砖转 砖专讗 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 诇砖讚讜专讬 转驻诇讬谉 讘讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讻诇 砖谞讗讜转讬谉 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪砖诇讞讬谉 讗讜转讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 砖谞讗讜转讬谉 讘讜 讘讞讜诇 诪砖诇讞讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

搂 The mishna taught that this is the general principle: With regard to any article that one may use on a Festival, one may send it. The Gemara relates: Rav Sheshet permitted the Sages to send phylacteries on a Festival. Abaye said to him: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: With regard to any article that one may use on a Festival, one may send it? Phylacteries are not worn on Festivals. The Gemara answers: This is what the mishna is saying: With regard to any article that one may use on a weekday, one may send it on a Festival.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转驻诇讬谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗转讜 诇讬讚谉 谞讬诪讗 讘讛讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讛 讘讗 讘讚专讱 讜转驻诇讬谉 讘专讗砖讜 讜砖拽注讛 注诇讬讜 讞诪讛 诪谞讬讞 讬讚讜 注诇讬讛诐 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇讘讬转讜 讛讬讛 讬讜砖讘 讘讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讜转驻诇讬谉 讘专讗砖讜 讜拽讚砖 注诇讬讜 讛讬讜诐 诪谞讬讞 讬讚讜 注诇讬讛谉 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇讘讬转讜

Abaye said: With regard to phylacteries, since this topic has come before us in the previous discussion, let us say a novel matter about it: If someone was coming on the road on the eve of a Shabbat or Festival, and he had phylacteries on his head, as the practice then was to don phylacteries the entire day, but not at night, and the sun set before he arrived at his destination, signaling the beginning of the Shabbat or Festival, when phylacteries may not be worn or even moved, he places his hand upon them to cover them so that people will not see them until he reaches his house, at which point he removes them. If he was sitting in the study hall with phylacteries on his head, and the day of Shabbat or the Festival was sanctified, for which he was unprepared, he places his hand upon them until he reaches his house.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讛讬讛 讘讗 讘讚专讱 讜转驻诇讬谉 讘专讗砖讜 讜拽讚砖 注诇讬讜 讛讬讜诐 诪谞讬讞 讬讚讜 注诇讬讛谉 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇讘讬转 讛住诪讜讱 诇讞讜诪讛 讛讬讛 讬讜砖讘 讘讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讜拽讚砖 注诇讬讜 讛讬讜诐 诪谞讬讞 讬讚讜 注诇讬讛谉 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇讘讬转 讛住诪讜讱 诇讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖

Rav Huna, son of Rav Ika, raised an objection from the following teaching: If one was coming on the road with phylacteries on his head, and the day was sanctified before he arrived at his destination, he places his hand upon them until he reaches the house nearest the wall, where he removes them and leaves them there. If he was sitting in the study hall, outside the city, and the day was sanctified, for which he was unprepared, he places his hand upon them until he reaches a house that is near the study hall, where there are people who can guard the phylacteries. This shows that one may not bring phylacteries all the way to his house, but only to the nearest place within the city boundary.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪谞讟专讗 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪谞讟专讗

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This baraita, which teaches that one places the phylacteries in the house nearest the wall, is referring to a case where the phylacteries can be safeguarded there, whereas that baraita, which states that he may bring them all the way to his house, deals with a situation where they are not safeguarded in the nearest house.

讗讬 讚诇讗 诪谞讟专讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讘专讗砖讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讞转谉 讘讗专注讗 谞诪讬 讚讛讗 转谞谉 讛诪讜爪讗 转驻诇讬谉 诪讻谞讬住谉 讝讜讙 讝讜讙

The Gemara challenges this: If the baraita is dealing with a case where the phylacteries are not safeguarded, why discuss specifically the case of phylacteries that were on his head? Even if one was not donning them but found them placed on the ground, he should also be required to don them and bring them to the house, for didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Eiruvin 95a): One who finds phylacteries lying in a field outside of the city on Shabbat should don them and bring them into the city one pair at a time?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪谞讟专讗 诪讞诪转 讙谞讘讬 讜诪讞诪转 讻诇讘讬 讛讗 讚诪谞讟专讗 诪讞诪转 讻诇讘讬 讜诇讗 诪谞讟专讗 诪讞诪转 讙谞讘讬

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This baraita, where it was taught that one need not don the phylacteries if they were not already on his head, is referring to a situation where they are safeguarded from thieves and also from dogs. That mishna, which stated that even if one found them on the ground, he must put them on and bring them into the city, is referring to a case where they are safeguarded from dogs but are not safeguarded from thieves.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 专讜讘 诇住讟讬诐 讬砖专讗诇 谞讬谞讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讝诇讝诇讬 讘讛讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara clarifies the novel element of the mishna鈥檚 ruling. Lest you say: Since most thieves [listim] are Jews, who would not treat phylacteries with contempt, one should not be allowed to carry them because there is no danger that they will be desecrated if they are left in their place, the mishna teaches us that the halakha takes the minority of cases into account. It is therefore appropriate to don the phylacteries and bring them into the city.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讘讬爪讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 注专讘 砖讘转 诇讗 讬讘砖诇 讘转讞诇讛 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖讘转 讗讘诇 诪讘砖诇 讛讜讗 诇讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗诐 讛讜转讬专 讛讜转讬专 诇砖讘转 讜注讜砖讛 转讘砖讬诇 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜住讜诪讱 注诇讬讜 诇砖讘转

MISHNA: With regard to a Festival that occurs on Shabbat eve, one may not cook on the Festival with the initial intent to cook for Shabbat. However, he may cook on that day for the Festival itself, and if he left over any food, he left it over for Shabbat. The early Sages also instituted an ordinance: The joining of cooked foods [eiruv tavshilin], which the mishna explains. One may prepare a cooked dish designated for Shabbat on a Festival eve and rely on it to cook on the Festival for Shabbat.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖谞讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 转讘砖讬诇 讗讞讚 讜砖讜讬谉 讘讚讙 讜讘讬爪讛 砖注诇讬讜 砖讛谉 砖谞讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉

The tanna鈥檌m disagreed with regard to the details of this ordinance: Beit Shammai say: For the purpose of the joining of cooked foods one must prepare two cooked dishes, and Beit Hillel say: One dish is sufficient. And they both agree with regard to a fish and the egg that is fried on it that these are considered two dishes for this purpose.

讗讻诇讜 讗讜 砖讗讘讚 诇讗 讬讘砖诇 注诇讬讜 讘转讞诇讛 讜讗诐 砖讬讬专 诪诪谞讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 住讜诪讱 注诇讬讜 诇砖讘转

If one ate the food prepared before the Festival as an eiruv and none of it remained for Shabbat, or if it was lost, he may not rely on it and cook with the initial intent to cook for Shabbat. If he left any part of the eiruv, he may rely on it to cook for Shabbat.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讝讻讜专 讗转 讬讜诐 讛砖讘转 诇拽讚砖讜 讝讻专讛讜 诪讗讞专 砖讘讗 诇讛砖讻讬讞讜

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? What is the source of the halakha of the joining of cooked foods and of the halakha that one who failed to prepare such an eiruv may not cook on a Festival for Shabbat? Shmuel said that the source is as the verse states: 鈥淩emember the Shabbat day, to keep it holy鈥 (Exodus 20:8); from which he infers: Remember it and safeguard it from another day that comes to make it forgotten. When a Festival occurs on Friday, preoccupation with the Festival and the preparation and enjoyment of its meals could lead one to overlook Shabbat. Therefore, the Sages instituted an ordinance to ensure that Shabbat will be remembered even then.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讚讬 砖讬讘专讜专 诪谞讛 讬驻讛 诇砖讘转 讜诪谞讛 讬驻讛 诇讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Sages instituted this ordinance in particular to ensure that Shabbat would not be overlooked? Rava said: The Sages did so in deference to Shabbat, and they instituted an eiruv so that one will select a choice portion for Shabbat and a choice portion for the Festival. If one fails to prepare a dish specifically for Shabbat before the Festival, it could lead to failure to show the appropriate deference to Shabbat.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讚讬 砖讬讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 讗讜驻讬谉 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖讘转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讞讜诇

Rav Ashi stated a different reason: The Sages did so in deference to the Festival, so that people will say: One may not bake on a Festival for Shabbat unless he began to bake the day before; all the more so, one may not bake on a Festival for a weekday.

转谞谉 注讜砖讛 转讘砖讬诇 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜住讜诪讱 注诇讬讜 诇砖讘转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讚讗诪专 讻讚讬 砖讬讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 讗讜驻讬谉 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖讘转 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 谞诪讬

We learned in the mishna: One may prepare a cooked dish on a Festival eve and rely on it to cook for Shabbat. Granted, according to Rav Ashi, who said that the reason for an eiruv is so that people will say: One may not bake on a Festival for Shabbat; that is why on a Festival eve, yes, one may prepare the eiruv, but on the Festival itself, no, one may not do so, as it is a reminder that in principle one may not cook on a Festival for Shabbat. However, according to Rava, who stated that the reason for the eiruv is to ensure that one selects choice portions for both the Festival and Shabbat, why does the mishna discuss specifically preparation on a Festival eve? Even were one to prepare a dish for Shabbat on the Festival as well, it would guarantee that he accord the appropriate deference to Shabbat.

讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬驻砖注

The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so; that objective could have been achieved even on the Festival. However, the Sages issued a decree that the eiruv must be prepared on the Festival eve lest one be negligent and fail to prepare one entirely.

讜转谞讗 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪讛讻讗 讗转 讗砖专 转讗驻讜 讗驻讜 讜讗转 讗砖专 转讘砖诇讜 讘砖诇讜 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬谉 讗讜驻讬谉 讗诇讗 注诇 讛讗驻讜讬 讜讗讬谉 诪讘砖诇讬谉 讗诇讗 注诇 讛诪讘讜砖诇 诪讻讗谉 住诪讻讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇注专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 诪谉 讛转讜专讛

The Gemara comments: And a tanna cites the proof for eiruv tavshilin from here, the following verse: 鈥淭omorrow is a day of rest, a holy Shabbat to the Lord. Bake that which you will bake and cook that which you will cook, and all that remains put aside to be kept for you until the morning鈥 (Exodus 16:23). From here Rabbi Eliezer said: One may bake on a Festival for Shabbat only by relying on that which was already baked for Shabbat the day before, and adding to it; and one may cook only by relying on that which was already cooked. From this verse the Sages established an allusion to the joining of cooked foods from the Torah.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讘专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖讛讬讛 讬讜砖讘 讜讚讜专砖 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 讘讛诇讻讜转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讬爪转讛 讻转 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗诪专 讛诇诇讜 讘注诇讬 驻讟住讬谉 讻转 砖谞讬讛 讗诪专 讛诇诇讜 讘注诇讬 讞讘讬讜转 讻转 砖诇讬砖讬转 讗诪专 讛诇诇讜 讘注诇讬 讻讚讬谉

The Sages taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who was sitting and lecturing about the halakhot of the Festival throughout the entire Festival day. When the first group left in the middle of his lecture, he said: These must be owners of extremely large jugs [pittasin], who apparently have huge containers of wine awaiting them as well as a comparable amount of food, and they have left the house of study out of a craving for their food. After a while a second group departed. He said: These are owners of barrels, which are smaller than pittasin. Later a third group took its leave, and he said: These are owners of jugs, even smaller than barrels.

讻转 专讘讬注讬转 讗诪专 讛诇诇讜 讘注诇讬 诇讙讬谞讬谉 讻转 讞诪讬砖讬转 讗诪专 讛诇诇讜 讘注诇讬 讻讜住讜转 讛转讞讬诇讜 讻转 砖砖讬转 诇爪讗转 讗诪专 讛诇诇讜 讘注诇讬 诪讗专讛

A fourth group left, and he said: These are owners of jars [laginin], which are smaller than jugs. Upon the departure of a fifth group, he said: These are owners of cups, which are smaller still. When a sixth group began to leave, he became upset that the house of study was being left almost completely empty and said: These are owners of a curse; i.e., they obviously do not have anything at home, so why are they leaving?

谞转谉 注讬谞讬讜 讘转诇诪讬讚讬诐 讛转讞讬诇讜 驻谞讬讛诐 诪砖转谞讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讘谞讬 诇讗 诇讻诐 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗诇讗 诇讛诇诇讜 砖讬爪讗讜 砖诪谞讬讞讬诐 讞讬讬 注讜诇诐 讜注讜住拽讬诐 讘讞讬讬 砖注讛

He cast his eyes upon the students remaining in the house of study. Immediately, their faces began to change color out of shame, as they feared he was referring to them and that perhaps they should have departed along with the others instead of staying. He said to them: My sons, I did not say that about you but about those who left, because they abandon the eternal life of Torah and engage in the temporary life of eating.

讘砖注转 驻讟讬专转谉 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讻讜 讗讻诇讜 诪砖诪谞讬诐 讜砖转讜 诪诪转拽讬诐 讜砖诇讞讜 诪谞讜转 诇讗讬谉 谞讻讜谉 诇讜 讻讬 拽讚讜砖 讛讬讜诐 诇讗讚谞讬谞讜 讜讗诇 转注爪讘讜 讻讬 讞讚讜转 讛壮 讛讬讗 诪注讝讻诐

At the time of the remaining students鈥 departure at the conclusion of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 lecture, he said to them the verse: 鈥淕o your way, eat the fat and drink the sweet, and send portions to him for whom nothing is prepared, for this day is holy to our Lord; and do not be grieved, for the joy of the Lord is your strength鈥 (Nehemiah 8:10).

讗诪专 诪专 砖诪谞讬讞讬谉 讞讬讬 注讜诇诐 讜注讜住拽讬谉 讘讞讬讬 砖注讛 讜讛讗 砖诪讞转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪爪讜讛 讛讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诪讞转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专砖讜转

The Gemara clarifies this baraita. The Master said above: Because they abandon eternal life and engage in temporary life. The Gemara wonders at this: But isn鈥檛 the joy of the Festival itself a mitzva and therefore part of eternal life? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said: Physical joy on a Festival is merely optional.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诇讗 讗讜 讗讜讻诇 讜砖讜转讛 讗讜 讬讜砖讘 讜砖讜谞讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讞诇拽讛讜 讞爪讬讜 诇讛壮 讜讞爪讬讜 诇讻诐

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: A person has no way of fulfilling the mitzva of a Festival correctly apart from either eating and drinking, thereby fulfilling the mitzva of joy in a completely physical manner, or sitting and studying Torah, thereby emphasizing only the spiritual; and those who did not engage in Torah study to the fullest extent acted inappropriately. Rabbi Yehoshua says: There is no need for such a dichotomy; rather, simply divide it: Half to God, Torah study, and half to yourselves, engaging in eating, drinking, and other pleasurable activities.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜砖谞讬讛诐 诪拽专讗 讗讞讚 讚专砖讜 讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 注爪专转 诇讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讜讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 注爪专转 转讛讬讛 诇讻诐 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讗讜 讻讜诇讜 诇讛壮 讗讜 讻讜诇讜 诇讻诐 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 讞诇拽讛讜 讞爪讬讜 诇讛壮 讜讞爪讬讜 诇讻诐

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: And both of them derived their opinions from one verse, i.e., the two of them addressed the same apparent contradiction between two verses, resolving it in different ways. One verse states: 鈥淚t shall be a solemn assembly for the Lord, your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:8), indicating a Festival dedicated to the service of God, and one verse states: 鈥淚t shall be a solemn assembly for you鈥 (Numbers 29:35), indicating a celebratory assembly for the Jewish people. How is this to be reconciled? Rabbi Eliezer holds that the two verses should be understood as offering a choice: The day is to be either entirely for God, in accordance with the one verse, or entirely for you, as per the other verse; and Rabbi Yehoshua holds that it is possible to fulfill both verses: Split the day into two, half of it for God and half of it for you.

诪讗讬 诇讗讬谉 谞讻讜谉 诇讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇诪讬 砖诇讗 讛谞讬讞 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪讬 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讜 诇讛谞讬讞 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讗讘诇 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 诇讛谞讬讞 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讜诇讗 讛谞讬讞 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗

搂 Since the baraita mentions the verse from Nehemiah, the Gemara poses the following question: What is the meaning of: 鈥淪end portions to him for whom nothing is prepared鈥 (Nehemiah 8:10)? Rav 岣sda said: Send to one who does not have food of his own prepared for Shabbat that follows the Festival because he did not prepare a joining of cooked foods and must therefore rely on others. Some say that he said the following: It is necessary to provide food for one who did not have an opportunity to prepare a joining of cooked foods on the eve of the Festival; but one who had an opportunity to prepare a joining of cooked foods and did not prepare one is negligent, and there is no obligation to care for him.

诪讗讬 讻讬 讞讚讜转 讛壮 讛讬讗 诪注讝讻诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇讬砖专讗诇 讘谞讬 诇讜讜 注诇讬 讜拽讚砖讜 拽讚讜砖转 讛讬讜诐 讜讛讗诪讬谞讜 讘讬 讜讗谞讬 驻讜专注

The Gemara poses another question with regard to the same verse: What is the meaning of: 鈥淔or the joy of the Lord is your strength鈥? Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the Jewish people: My children, borrow on My account, and sanctify the sanctity of the day of Shabbat and the Festivals with wine, and trust in Me, and I will repay this debt.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛专讜爪讛 砖讬转拽讬讬诪讜 谞讻住讬讜 讬讟注 讘讛谉 讗讚专 砖谞讗诪专 讗讚讬专 讘诪专讜诐 讛壮

Apropos the statement attributed to Rabbi Yo岣nan in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, the Gemara cites another statement that Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon: One who wants his properties to be preserved and protected from ruin should plant an eder tree among them, as it is stated: 鈥淭he Lord on high is mighty [adir]鈥 (Psalms 93:4). Due to the similarity of the words eder and adir, this is understood to mean that the eder tree bestows permanence.

讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讚专讗 讻砖诪讬讛 讻讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 诪讗讬 讗讚专讗 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇讚专讬 讚专讬 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 砖讚讛 砖讬砖 讘讛 讗讚专 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讝诇转 讜讗讬谞讛 谞讞诪住转 讜驻讬专讜转讬讛 诪砖转诪专讬谉

Alternatively: The eder tree will preserve one鈥檚 property, as implied by its name, as people say: What is alluded to in the name of the eder? Its name hints that it endures for many generations [darei]. This is also taught in a baraita: A field that contains an eder tree will be neither stolen nor forcibly removed from one鈥檚 possession, as the eder serves as a clear indication of its owner, and its fruit is preserved, as the unique odor of the eder sap wards off insects.

转谞讬 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讗讞讜讛 讚专讘谞讗讬 讞讜讝讗讛

搂 The Gemara returns to the previous issue: Rav Ta岣ifa, brother of Ravnai 岣za鈥檃, taught:

Masechet Beitzah is dedicated by new friends of Hadran in appreciation of all who find new ways to be marbitzei Torah ba-Rabim ve Rabot.

A month of shiurim are sponsored by Rabbi Lisa Malik in honor of her daughter, Rivkah Wyner, who recently made aliyah, and in memory of Rivkah's namesake, Lisa's grandmother, Regina Post z"l, a Holocaust survivor from Lubaczow, Poland who lived in Brooklyn, NY.

And for a refuah shleima for Noam Eliezer ben Yael Chaya v'Aytan Yehoshua.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Beitzah: 15-23 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

As we begin the second chapter of Masechet Beitza we will be learning about Eiruv Tavshilin which allows one to...
sandal nails

For Want of a Nail

In the midst of a series of mishnayot that deal with what can be taken out of the house on...

Beitzah 15

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Beitzah 15

讗诇讗 讘拽砖讬谉 讜讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讛讗讬 谞诪讟讗 讙诪讚讗 讚谞专砖 砖专讬讗

Rather, it is referring to hard clothes, upon which it is permitted to sit even if they are a mixture of wool and linen. And this is in accordance with the opinion that Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: With regard to this hard felt [namta] material produced in the town of Neresh, it is permitted to sit or recline on it, and one need not be concerned about the fact that it is a mixture of wool and linen.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 注专讚诇讬谉 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讻诇讗讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讬 爪专专讬 讚驻砖讬讟讬 讗讬谉 讘讛诐 诪砖讜诐 讻诇讗讬诐 讚讘讝专谞讬 讬砖 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讻诇讗讬诐 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讻诇讗讬诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讚专讱 讞诪讜诐 讘讻讱

Rav Pappa said: With regard to felt socks [ardalayin], there is no prohibition of diverse kinds regarding them, as they are hard. Rava said: These bundles for coins, comprised of hard fabric or felt, there is no prohibition of diverse kinds with regard to them. However, with regard to pouches for holding seeds, there is a prohibition of diverse kinds with regard to them, as they are larger and softer than both felt socks and hard bundles for coins. Rav Ashi said: Both this and that have no prohibition of diverse kinds with regard to them because using these items is not the usual manner of keeping warm. Even if these objects are placed close to one鈥檚 skin, this is not the usual way of wearing clothes and warming oneself, and therefore they are permitted.

讗讘诇 诇讗 住谞讚诇 讛诪住讜诪专 住谞讚诇 讛诪住讜诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛

搂 The mishna taught: However, one may not send a spiked sandalon a Festival. The Gemara asks: A spiked sandal, what is the reason that it may not be worn? The Gemara answers: It is due to an incident that occurred. A great tragedy resulted when people wore spiked sandals on Shabbat, which led the Sages to decree that these sandals may not be worn on a Shabbat or Festival.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 住谞讚诇 讛诪住讜诪专 讗住讜专 诇谞注诇讜 讜诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇讜 讗住讜专 诇谞注诇讜 诪砖讜诐 诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 讜诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇讜 诪讚拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 诪砖诇讞讬谉 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗住讜专 诇讟诇讟诇讜 讛砖转讗 诇讟诇讟讜诇讬 讗住讜专 诪砖诇讞讬谉 诪讘注讬讗

Abaye said: With regard to a spiked sandal, it is prohibited to wear it on Shabbat, but it is permitted to move it. He clarifies: It is prohibited to wear a spiked sandal, due to the incident that occurred. And it is permitted to move it, from the fact that the mishna teaches: One may not send. For if it enters your mind that it is prohibited even to move a spiked sandal, now consider: If it were prohibited to move it, is the mishna required to state that one may send it? Rather, it must certainly be permitted to move a spiked sandal inside the house, despite the fact that one may not wear it.

讜诇讗 诪谞注诇 砖讗讬谞讜 转驻讜专 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚谞拽讬讟 讘住讬讻讬

The mishna further teaches: Nor may one send an unsewn shoe on a Festival. The Gemara asks: This is obvious, as these shoes are unfit for wearing. The Gemara answers: This statement was necessary only to teach that although the shoe is attached with pins and can be worn, it may not be sent on a Festival. Since it not properly sewn, it is not usually worn.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇讗 诪谞注诇 诇讘谉 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讘砖讞讜专 讜讗讜住专 讘诇讘谉 诪驻谞讬 砖爪专讬讱 讘讬爪转 讛讙讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜住专 讘砖讞讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖爪专讬讱 诇爪讞爪讞讜

The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: One may not even send a white shoe. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda permits the sending of a black shoe but prohibits the sending of a white one because a white one requires a lump of chalk to color it properly. Rabbi Yosei prohibits the sending of a black shoe because one needs to polish it.

讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛 讜诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛 讘讗转专讬讛 讚诪专 讘砖专讗 诇转讞转 讘讗转专讬讛 讚诪专 讘砖专讗 诇注讬诇

The Gemara comments: And they do not disagree with regard to the halakha, as this Sage ruled in accordance with the custom of his locale, and this Sage ruled differently, in accordance with the custom of his locale. In the place of this Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, the leather was made so that the side of the hide facing the flesh is on the underneath, facing the inside of the shoe, and therefore it does not require polishing; whereas in the place of that Sage, Rabbi Yosei, the leather was made so that side of the hide facing the flesh is above, facing the outside of the shoe. That side is often cracked and uneven and requires smoothing and polishing.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖谞讗讜转讬谉 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讘 砖砖转 砖专讗 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 诇砖讚讜专讬 转驻诇讬谉 讘讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讻诇 砖谞讗讜转讬谉 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪砖诇讞讬谉 讗讜转讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 砖谞讗讜转讬谉 讘讜 讘讞讜诇 诪砖诇讞讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

搂 The mishna taught that this is the general principle: With regard to any article that one may use on a Festival, one may send it. The Gemara relates: Rav Sheshet permitted the Sages to send phylacteries on a Festival. Abaye said to him: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: With regard to any article that one may use on a Festival, one may send it? Phylacteries are not worn on Festivals. The Gemara answers: This is what the mishna is saying: With regard to any article that one may use on a weekday, one may send it on a Festival.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转驻诇讬谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗转讜 诇讬讚谉 谞讬诪讗 讘讛讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讛 讘讗 讘讚专讱 讜转驻诇讬谉 讘专讗砖讜 讜砖拽注讛 注诇讬讜 讞诪讛 诪谞讬讞 讬讚讜 注诇讬讛诐 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇讘讬转讜 讛讬讛 讬讜砖讘 讘讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讜转驻诇讬谉 讘专讗砖讜 讜拽讚砖 注诇讬讜 讛讬讜诐 诪谞讬讞 讬讚讜 注诇讬讛谉 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇讘讬转讜

Abaye said: With regard to phylacteries, since this topic has come before us in the previous discussion, let us say a novel matter about it: If someone was coming on the road on the eve of a Shabbat or Festival, and he had phylacteries on his head, as the practice then was to don phylacteries the entire day, but not at night, and the sun set before he arrived at his destination, signaling the beginning of the Shabbat or Festival, when phylacteries may not be worn or even moved, he places his hand upon them to cover them so that people will not see them until he reaches his house, at which point he removes them. If he was sitting in the study hall with phylacteries on his head, and the day of Shabbat or the Festival was sanctified, for which he was unprepared, he places his hand upon them until he reaches his house.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讛讬讛 讘讗 讘讚专讱 讜转驻诇讬谉 讘专讗砖讜 讜拽讚砖 注诇讬讜 讛讬讜诐 诪谞讬讞 讬讚讜 注诇讬讛谉 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇讘讬转 讛住诪讜讱 诇讞讜诪讛 讛讬讛 讬讜砖讘 讘讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讜拽讚砖 注诇讬讜 讛讬讜诐 诪谞讬讞 讬讚讜 注诇讬讛谉 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇讘讬转 讛住诪讜讱 诇讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖

Rav Huna, son of Rav Ika, raised an objection from the following teaching: If one was coming on the road with phylacteries on his head, and the day was sanctified before he arrived at his destination, he places his hand upon them until he reaches the house nearest the wall, where he removes them and leaves them there. If he was sitting in the study hall, outside the city, and the day was sanctified, for which he was unprepared, he places his hand upon them until he reaches a house that is near the study hall, where there are people who can guard the phylacteries. This shows that one may not bring phylacteries all the way to his house, but only to the nearest place within the city boundary.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪谞讟专讗 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪谞讟专讗

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This baraita, which teaches that one places the phylacteries in the house nearest the wall, is referring to a case where the phylacteries can be safeguarded there, whereas that baraita, which states that he may bring them all the way to his house, deals with a situation where they are not safeguarded in the nearest house.

讗讬 讚诇讗 诪谞讟专讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讘专讗砖讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讞转谉 讘讗专注讗 谞诪讬 讚讛讗 转谞谉 讛诪讜爪讗 转驻诇讬谉 诪讻谞讬住谉 讝讜讙 讝讜讙

The Gemara challenges this: If the baraita is dealing with a case where the phylacteries are not safeguarded, why discuss specifically the case of phylacteries that were on his head? Even if one was not donning them but found them placed on the ground, he should also be required to don them and bring them to the house, for didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Eiruvin 95a): One who finds phylacteries lying in a field outside of the city on Shabbat should don them and bring them into the city one pair at a time?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪谞讟专讗 诪讞诪转 讙谞讘讬 讜诪讞诪转 讻诇讘讬 讛讗 讚诪谞讟专讗 诪讞诪转 讻诇讘讬 讜诇讗 诪谞讟专讗 诪讞诪转 讙谞讘讬

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This baraita, where it was taught that one need not don the phylacteries if they were not already on his head, is referring to a situation where they are safeguarded from thieves and also from dogs. That mishna, which stated that even if one found them on the ground, he must put them on and bring them into the city, is referring to a case where they are safeguarded from dogs but are not safeguarded from thieves.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 专讜讘 诇住讟讬诐 讬砖专讗诇 谞讬谞讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讝诇讝诇讬 讘讛讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara clarifies the novel element of the mishna鈥檚 ruling. Lest you say: Since most thieves [listim] are Jews, who would not treat phylacteries with contempt, one should not be allowed to carry them because there is no danger that they will be desecrated if they are left in their place, the mishna teaches us that the halakha takes the minority of cases into account. It is therefore appropriate to don the phylacteries and bring them into the city.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讘讬爪讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 注专讘 砖讘转 诇讗 讬讘砖诇 讘转讞诇讛 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖讘转 讗讘诇 诪讘砖诇 讛讜讗 诇讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗诐 讛讜转讬专 讛讜转讬专 诇砖讘转 讜注讜砖讛 转讘砖讬诇 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜住讜诪讱 注诇讬讜 诇砖讘转

MISHNA: With regard to a Festival that occurs on Shabbat eve, one may not cook on the Festival with the initial intent to cook for Shabbat. However, he may cook on that day for the Festival itself, and if he left over any food, he left it over for Shabbat. The early Sages also instituted an ordinance: The joining of cooked foods [eiruv tavshilin], which the mishna explains. One may prepare a cooked dish designated for Shabbat on a Festival eve and rely on it to cook on the Festival for Shabbat.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖谞讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 转讘砖讬诇 讗讞讚 讜砖讜讬谉 讘讚讙 讜讘讬爪讛 砖注诇讬讜 砖讛谉 砖谞讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉

The tanna鈥檌m disagreed with regard to the details of this ordinance: Beit Shammai say: For the purpose of the joining of cooked foods one must prepare two cooked dishes, and Beit Hillel say: One dish is sufficient. And they both agree with regard to a fish and the egg that is fried on it that these are considered two dishes for this purpose.

讗讻诇讜 讗讜 砖讗讘讚 诇讗 讬讘砖诇 注诇讬讜 讘转讞诇讛 讜讗诐 砖讬讬专 诪诪谞讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 住讜诪讱 注诇讬讜 诇砖讘转

If one ate the food prepared before the Festival as an eiruv and none of it remained for Shabbat, or if it was lost, he may not rely on it and cook with the initial intent to cook for Shabbat. If he left any part of the eiruv, he may rely on it to cook for Shabbat.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讝讻讜专 讗转 讬讜诐 讛砖讘转 诇拽讚砖讜 讝讻专讛讜 诪讗讞专 砖讘讗 诇讛砖讻讬讞讜

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? What is the source of the halakha of the joining of cooked foods and of the halakha that one who failed to prepare such an eiruv may not cook on a Festival for Shabbat? Shmuel said that the source is as the verse states: 鈥淩emember the Shabbat day, to keep it holy鈥 (Exodus 20:8); from which he infers: Remember it and safeguard it from another day that comes to make it forgotten. When a Festival occurs on Friday, preoccupation with the Festival and the preparation and enjoyment of its meals could lead one to overlook Shabbat. Therefore, the Sages instituted an ordinance to ensure that Shabbat will be remembered even then.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讚讬 砖讬讘专讜专 诪谞讛 讬驻讛 诇砖讘转 讜诪谞讛 讬驻讛 诇讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Sages instituted this ordinance in particular to ensure that Shabbat would not be overlooked? Rava said: The Sages did so in deference to Shabbat, and they instituted an eiruv so that one will select a choice portion for Shabbat and a choice portion for the Festival. If one fails to prepare a dish specifically for Shabbat before the Festival, it could lead to failure to show the appropriate deference to Shabbat.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讚讬 砖讬讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 讗讜驻讬谉 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖讘转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讞讜诇

Rav Ashi stated a different reason: The Sages did so in deference to the Festival, so that people will say: One may not bake on a Festival for Shabbat unless he began to bake the day before; all the more so, one may not bake on a Festival for a weekday.

转谞谉 注讜砖讛 转讘砖讬诇 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜住讜诪讱 注诇讬讜 诇砖讘转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讚讗诪专 讻讚讬 砖讬讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 讗讜驻讬谉 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖讘转 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 谞诪讬

We learned in the mishna: One may prepare a cooked dish on a Festival eve and rely on it to cook for Shabbat. Granted, according to Rav Ashi, who said that the reason for an eiruv is so that people will say: One may not bake on a Festival for Shabbat; that is why on a Festival eve, yes, one may prepare the eiruv, but on the Festival itself, no, one may not do so, as it is a reminder that in principle one may not cook on a Festival for Shabbat. However, according to Rava, who stated that the reason for the eiruv is to ensure that one selects choice portions for both the Festival and Shabbat, why does the mishna discuss specifically preparation on a Festival eve? Even were one to prepare a dish for Shabbat on the Festival as well, it would guarantee that he accord the appropriate deference to Shabbat.

讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬驻砖注

The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so; that objective could have been achieved even on the Festival. However, the Sages issued a decree that the eiruv must be prepared on the Festival eve lest one be negligent and fail to prepare one entirely.

讜转谞讗 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪讛讻讗 讗转 讗砖专 转讗驻讜 讗驻讜 讜讗转 讗砖专 转讘砖诇讜 讘砖诇讜 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬谉 讗讜驻讬谉 讗诇讗 注诇 讛讗驻讜讬 讜讗讬谉 诪讘砖诇讬谉 讗诇讗 注诇 讛诪讘讜砖诇 诪讻讗谉 住诪讻讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇注专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 诪谉 讛转讜专讛

The Gemara comments: And a tanna cites the proof for eiruv tavshilin from here, the following verse: 鈥淭omorrow is a day of rest, a holy Shabbat to the Lord. Bake that which you will bake and cook that which you will cook, and all that remains put aside to be kept for you until the morning鈥 (Exodus 16:23). From here Rabbi Eliezer said: One may bake on a Festival for Shabbat only by relying on that which was already baked for Shabbat the day before, and adding to it; and one may cook only by relying on that which was already cooked. From this verse the Sages established an allusion to the joining of cooked foods from the Torah.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讘专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖讛讬讛 讬讜砖讘 讜讚讜专砖 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 讘讛诇讻讜转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讬爪转讛 讻转 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗诪专 讛诇诇讜 讘注诇讬 驻讟住讬谉 讻转 砖谞讬讛 讗诪专 讛诇诇讜 讘注诇讬 讞讘讬讜转 讻转 砖诇讬砖讬转 讗诪专 讛诇诇讜 讘注诇讬 讻讚讬谉

The Sages taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who was sitting and lecturing about the halakhot of the Festival throughout the entire Festival day. When the first group left in the middle of his lecture, he said: These must be owners of extremely large jugs [pittasin], who apparently have huge containers of wine awaiting them as well as a comparable amount of food, and they have left the house of study out of a craving for their food. After a while a second group departed. He said: These are owners of barrels, which are smaller than pittasin. Later a third group took its leave, and he said: These are owners of jugs, even smaller than barrels.

讻转 专讘讬注讬转 讗诪专 讛诇诇讜 讘注诇讬 诇讙讬谞讬谉 讻转 讞诪讬砖讬转 讗诪专 讛诇诇讜 讘注诇讬 讻讜住讜转 讛转讞讬诇讜 讻转 砖砖讬转 诇爪讗转 讗诪专 讛诇诇讜 讘注诇讬 诪讗专讛

A fourth group left, and he said: These are owners of jars [laginin], which are smaller than jugs. Upon the departure of a fifth group, he said: These are owners of cups, which are smaller still. When a sixth group began to leave, he became upset that the house of study was being left almost completely empty and said: These are owners of a curse; i.e., they obviously do not have anything at home, so why are they leaving?

谞转谉 注讬谞讬讜 讘转诇诪讬讚讬诐 讛转讞讬诇讜 驻谞讬讛诐 诪砖转谞讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讘谞讬 诇讗 诇讻诐 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗诇讗 诇讛诇诇讜 砖讬爪讗讜 砖诪谞讬讞讬诐 讞讬讬 注讜诇诐 讜注讜住拽讬诐 讘讞讬讬 砖注讛

He cast his eyes upon the students remaining in the house of study. Immediately, their faces began to change color out of shame, as they feared he was referring to them and that perhaps they should have departed along with the others instead of staying. He said to them: My sons, I did not say that about you but about those who left, because they abandon the eternal life of Torah and engage in the temporary life of eating.

讘砖注转 驻讟讬专转谉 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讻讜 讗讻诇讜 诪砖诪谞讬诐 讜砖转讜 诪诪转拽讬诐 讜砖诇讞讜 诪谞讜转 诇讗讬谉 谞讻讜谉 诇讜 讻讬 拽讚讜砖 讛讬讜诐 诇讗讚谞讬谞讜 讜讗诇 转注爪讘讜 讻讬 讞讚讜转 讛壮 讛讬讗 诪注讝讻诐

At the time of the remaining students鈥 departure at the conclusion of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 lecture, he said to them the verse: 鈥淕o your way, eat the fat and drink the sweet, and send portions to him for whom nothing is prepared, for this day is holy to our Lord; and do not be grieved, for the joy of the Lord is your strength鈥 (Nehemiah 8:10).

讗诪专 诪专 砖诪谞讬讞讬谉 讞讬讬 注讜诇诐 讜注讜住拽讬谉 讘讞讬讬 砖注讛 讜讛讗 砖诪讞转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪爪讜讛 讛讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诪讞转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专砖讜转

The Gemara clarifies this baraita. The Master said above: Because they abandon eternal life and engage in temporary life. The Gemara wonders at this: But isn鈥檛 the joy of the Festival itself a mitzva and therefore part of eternal life? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said: Physical joy on a Festival is merely optional.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诇讗 讗讜 讗讜讻诇 讜砖讜转讛 讗讜 讬讜砖讘 讜砖讜谞讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讞诇拽讛讜 讞爪讬讜 诇讛壮 讜讞爪讬讜 诇讻诐

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: A person has no way of fulfilling the mitzva of a Festival correctly apart from either eating and drinking, thereby fulfilling the mitzva of joy in a completely physical manner, or sitting and studying Torah, thereby emphasizing only the spiritual; and those who did not engage in Torah study to the fullest extent acted inappropriately. Rabbi Yehoshua says: There is no need for such a dichotomy; rather, simply divide it: Half to God, Torah study, and half to yourselves, engaging in eating, drinking, and other pleasurable activities.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜砖谞讬讛诐 诪拽专讗 讗讞讚 讚专砖讜 讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 注爪专转 诇讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讜讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 注爪专转 转讛讬讛 诇讻诐 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讗讜 讻讜诇讜 诇讛壮 讗讜 讻讜诇讜 诇讻诐 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 讞诇拽讛讜 讞爪讬讜 诇讛壮 讜讞爪讬讜 诇讻诐

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: And both of them derived their opinions from one verse, i.e., the two of them addressed the same apparent contradiction between two verses, resolving it in different ways. One verse states: 鈥淚t shall be a solemn assembly for the Lord, your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:8), indicating a Festival dedicated to the service of God, and one verse states: 鈥淚t shall be a solemn assembly for you鈥 (Numbers 29:35), indicating a celebratory assembly for the Jewish people. How is this to be reconciled? Rabbi Eliezer holds that the two verses should be understood as offering a choice: The day is to be either entirely for God, in accordance with the one verse, or entirely for you, as per the other verse; and Rabbi Yehoshua holds that it is possible to fulfill both verses: Split the day into two, half of it for God and half of it for you.

诪讗讬 诇讗讬谉 谞讻讜谉 诇讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇诪讬 砖诇讗 讛谞讬讞 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪讬 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讜 诇讛谞讬讞 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讗讘诇 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 诇讛谞讬讞 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讜诇讗 讛谞讬讞 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗

搂 Since the baraita mentions the verse from Nehemiah, the Gemara poses the following question: What is the meaning of: 鈥淪end portions to him for whom nothing is prepared鈥 (Nehemiah 8:10)? Rav 岣sda said: Send to one who does not have food of his own prepared for Shabbat that follows the Festival because he did not prepare a joining of cooked foods and must therefore rely on others. Some say that he said the following: It is necessary to provide food for one who did not have an opportunity to prepare a joining of cooked foods on the eve of the Festival; but one who had an opportunity to prepare a joining of cooked foods and did not prepare one is negligent, and there is no obligation to care for him.

诪讗讬 讻讬 讞讚讜转 讛壮 讛讬讗 诪注讝讻诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇讬砖专讗诇 讘谞讬 诇讜讜 注诇讬 讜拽讚砖讜 拽讚讜砖转 讛讬讜诐 讜讛讗诪讬谞讜 讘讬 讜讗谞讬 驻讜专注

The Gemara poses another question with regard to the same verse: What is the meaning of: 鈥淔or the joy of the Lord is your strength鈥? Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the Jewish people: My children, borrow on My account, and sanctify the sanctity of the day of Shabbat and the Festivals with wine, and trust in Me, and I will repay this debt.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛专讜爪讛 砖讬转拽讬讬诪讜 谞讻住讬讜 讬讟注 讘讛谉 讗讚专 砖谞讗诪专 讗讚讬专 讘诪专讜诐 讛壮

Apropos the statement attributed to Rabbi Yo岣nan in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, the Gemara cites another statement that Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon: One who wants his properties to be preserved and protected from ruin should plant an eder tree among them, as it is stated: 鈥淭he Lord on high is mighty [adir]鈥 (Psalms 93:4). Due to the similarity of the words eder and adir, this is understood to mean that the eder tree bestows permanence.

讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讚专讗 讻砖诪讬讛 讻讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 诪讗讬 讗讚专讗 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇讚专讬 讚专讬 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 砖讚讛 砖讬砖 讘讛 讗讚专 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讝诇转 讜讗讬谞讛 谞讞诪住转 讜驻讬专讜转讬讛 诪砖转诪专讬谉

Alternatively: The eder tree will preserve one鈥檚 property, as implied by its name, as people say: What is alluded to in the name of the eder? Its name hints that it endures for many generations [darei]. This is also taught in a baraita: A field that contains an eder tree will be neither stolen nor forcibly removed from one鈥檚 possession, as the eder serves as a clear indication of its owner, and its fruit is preserved, as the unique odor of the eder sap wards off insects.

转谞讬 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讗讞讜讛 讚专讘谞讗讬 讞讜讝讗讛

搂 The Gemara returns to the previous issue: Rav Ta岣ifa, brother of Ravnai 岣za鈥檃, taught:

Scroll To Top