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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 17, 2021 | 讬状讗 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 17

Today’s learning is sponsored by Leora and Marty Fineberg, in memory of Miriam Adler, Leora’s mother, on her third yahrzeit, whose yahrzeit was on Yom Kippur. As a young girl, she begged her father to teach her Gemara so she could expand her knowledge. She would have loved to know that her daughter and daughter-in-law are pursuing that path.

Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree about how many blessings should be said in Shmone Esreh when a Yom Tov falls on Shabbat – seven or eight? What is the final line of the blessing according to Beit Hillel? Rebbe explained the final line differently. There are two versions of what exactly Rebbe said. On Shabbat Rosh Chodesh, where in the prayer is Rosh Chodesh mentioned? There are three different opinions. Is there a difference between Mussaf and the other prayers? Is it possible to place an Eruv Techimim or Eruv Tashilin on a two-day Yom Tov in the Diaspora on one day to another upon condition? Is there a difference between these two Eruvs regarding this law? Although it is forbidden to bake from one Yom Tov to the next, how can this be done in a permitted manner? If one did not make an Eruv, is one only forbidden to cook or is one鈥檚 flour also forbidden 鈥 the relevance being can one or does one need to transfer rights of one鈥檚 flour to another so that someone else can cook for him/her? If one transgressed and baked without an Eruv for Shabbat, is it permissible to eat what one baked? The Gemara tries to bring an answer from five different sources but all the answers are rejected. The Gemara quotes Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar who understood the debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel regarding how many cooking dishes are needed for an Eruv Tavshilin in a different manner. The Mishnah discusses the purification of vessels and a person on Shabbat that falls on the eve of the holiday – is it permissible to purify oneself in honor of the holiday or should everything be done from before Shabbat? In what way can one purify water on Shabbat or Yom Tov?

讛讬讬谞讜 拽诇拽讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讜诇讗住讜专

this is the corruption that might result from a ruling that renders it prohibited to prepare an eiruv the day before. Therefore, this cannot serve as proof of the conclusive ruling. Rava said that Rav 岣sda said that Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to prohibit one from preparing either type of eiruv. One may not prepare an eiruv either for courtyards or for boundaries, as the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 version of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪转驻诇诇 砖诪谞讛 [ 讜讗讜诪专] 砖诇 砖讘转 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讜砖诇 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪转驻诇诇 砖讘注 诪转讞讬诇 讘砖诇 砖讘转 讜诪住讬讬诐 讘砖诇 砖讘转 讜讗讜诪专 拽讚讜砖转 讛讬讜诐 讘讗诪爪注 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讞讜转诐 讘讛 诪拽讚砖 讛砖讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讛讝诪谞讬诐

The Sages taught the following baraita: In the case of a Festival that occurs on Shabbat, Beit Shammai say: One must recite an Amida prayer that includes eight blessings, inserting two additional blessings between the standard opening three and concluding three. As for the two middle blessings, one recites one for Shabbat as an independent blessing and a second for the Festival as an independent blessing. And Beit Hillel say: One must pray an Amida comprising only seven blessings, i.e., the three opening ones, the three concluding ones, and one in between. One begins the middle blessing with Shabbat and concludes it with Shabbat, and he recites a passage referring to the sanctity of the day of the Festival in the middle. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He even concludes this blessing with mention of both Shabbat and the Festival, saying: Who sanctifies Shabbat, the Jewish people, and the seasons.

转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 诪拽讚砖 讬砖专讗诇 讜讛砖讘转 讜讛讝诪谞讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讟讜 砖讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诪拽讚砖讬 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 砖讘转 诪拽讚砖讗 讜拽讬讬诪讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 诪拽讚砖 讛砖讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讛讝诪谞讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讜讻讚转专讬抓 专讘讬谞讗

A tanna taught a baraita before Ravina with a slightly different reading: He concludes the blessing with: Who sanctifies the Jewish people, Shabbat, and the seasons. Ravina said to that tanna: Is that to say that the Jewish people sanctify Shabbat? Isn鈥檛 Shabbat already sanctified from the six days of Creation? Every seventh day is automatically Shabbat, without the need for any declaration on the part of the Jewish people. Rather, amend it and say as follows: Who sanctifies Shabbat, the Jewish people, and the seasons, as the Jewish people indeed sanctify the New Moon and the Festival days. Rav Yosef said: The halakha with regard to the conclusion of the blessing is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and as the difficulty was resolved by Ravina.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讘转 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘专讗砖 讞讜讚砖 讗讜 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 注专讘讬转 讜砖讞专讬转 讜诪谞讞讛 诪转驻诇诇 砖讘注 讜讗讜诪专 诪注讬谉 讛诪讗讜专注 讘注讘讜讚讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 讗诪专 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗讜转讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讛讜讚讗讛 讜讘诪讜住驻讬谉 诪转讞讬诇 讘砖诇 砖讘转 讜诪住讬讬诐 讘砖诇 砖讘转 讜讗讜诪专 拽讚讜砖转 讛讬讜诐 讘讗诪爪注

The Sages taught the following baraita: In the case of Shabbat that occurs on a New Moon or on one of the intermediate days of a Festival, for the evening, morning, and afternoon prayers, one prays in his usual manner, reciting seven blessings in the Amida, and recites a passage pertaining to the event of the day, i.e.: May there rise and come [ya鈥檃leh veyavo], during the blessing of the Temple service, known as retze; and if he did not recite it, he is required to return to the beginning of the Amida prayer and repeat it. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and says: This passage is recited during the blessing of thanksgiving, known as modim. And in the additional prayer one begins the fourth blessing, the special blessing for the additional service, with Shabbat, and concludes it with Shabbat, and recites a passage pertaining to the sanctity of the day of the New Moon or the Festival in the middle.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜讝拽拽 诇砖讘注 诪转讞讬诇 讘砖诇 砖讘转 讜诪住讬讬诐 讘砖诇 砖讘转 讜讗讜诪专 拽讚讜砖转 讛讬讜诐 讘讗诪爪注 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讜转讜 讛讝讜讙

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, disagree and say: Wherever one is required to recite seven blessings, whether in the evening, morning, or afternoon prayers, he begins the fourth blessing with Shabbat and concludes it with Shabbat, and recites a passage referring to the sanctity of the day of the New Moon or the Festival in the middle. Rav Huna said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of that pair of scholars; rather, it is in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna, that in the evening, morning, and afternoon prayers one recites the usual seven blessings and recites a passage pertaining to the event of the day during the blessing of the Temple service.

讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬讞 讗讚诐 注讬专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讞讘专讜 讜诪转谞讛

Rav 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rav said: If a person forgot to place an eiruv before a Festival occurring on Thursday and Friday in the Diaspora, he may act as follows: He may place an eiruv for the joining of Shabbat boundaries on the first Festival day for the next, i.e., on the first Festival day for the second Festival day kept in the Diaspora, based on a doubt as to which day is the real day of the Festival, and stipulate as follows: If today is in fact the Festival, then tomorrow is a weekday, on which I may walk as far as I wish in all directions; and if today is a weekday and tomorrow is the Festival, I hereby place an eiruv for the joining of Shabbat boundaries for tomorrow. On the following day he makes a similar stipulation with the same eiruv, so that he will have an eiruv for Shabbat.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讬讞 讗讚诐 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜诪转谞讛

Rava said: A person may place an eiruv for the joining of cooked foods on the first Festival day for the next day and stipulate as follows: If today is a weekday and tomorrow is the Festival, this is my joining of cooked foods, so that I may rely on it to cook tomorrow for Shabbat; and if today is in fact the Festival and tomorrow is a weekday, I may cook tomorrow as on a regular weekday.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 注讬专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 讻诇 砖讻谉 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讗讘诇 注讬专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诇诪拽谞讬 砖讘讬转讛 讘砖讘转讗 诇讗

The Gemara comments: With regard to the one who said this halakha concerning an eiruv for the joining of Shabbat boundaries, all the more so would he permit one to act in this manner concerning an eiruv for the joining of cooked foods. On the other hand, the one who said this halakha with regard to an eiruv for the joining of cooked foods spoke only with regard to the joining of cooked foods; however, as for an eiruv for the joining of Shabbat boundaries, this is not permitted. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this difference? It is that they did not permit the acquisition of residence on a day of rest, even in a case of uncertainty. However, with regard to an eiruv for the joining of cooked foods, since it is merely symbolic, it is permitted for the sake of the honor of Shabbat.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 讗讜驻讬谉 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讞讘讬专讜 讘讗诪转 讗诪专讜 诪诪诇讗讛 讗砖讛 讻诇 讛拽讚专讛 讘砖专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讗诇讗 诇讞转讬讻讛 讗讞转 诪诪诇讗 谞讞转讜诐 讞讘讬转 砖诇 诪讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讗诇讗 诇拽讬转讜谉 讗讞讚 讗讘诇 诇讗驻讜转 讗讬谞讜 讗讜驻讛 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖爪专讬讱 诇讜

The Sages taught in a baraita: One may not bake bread on one Festival day for the next, i.e., on the first Festival day for the second Festival day kept in the Diaspora. Nevertheless, actually, they said the following established halakha: A woman may fill an entire pot with meat to cook on a Festival, although she requires only one piece for that day, and all the remainder will be for the following day. Similarly, a baker may fill an entire barrel with water in order to heat it up although he requires only a jug of hot water. But with regard to baking, he may bake only that which he requires for that day.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪诪诇讗讛 讗砖讛 讻诇 讛转谞讜专 驻转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛驻转 谞讗驻转 讬驻讛 讘讝诪谉 砖讛转谞讜专 诪诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专

The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: A woman may fill the entire oven with bread, although she does not intend to use it all on that day, because bread bakes well when the oven is full. A full oven has less empty space and is therefore hotter; consequently, filling the oven with bread serves not only to provide bread for the next day but also to improve the bread to be eaten that same day. Rava said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讬 砖诇讗 讛谞讬讞 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讛讜讗 谞讗住专 讜拽诪讞讜 谞讗住专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讜讗 谞讗住专 讜讗讬谉 拽诪讞讜 谞讗住专

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In the case of one who did not prepare an eiruv for the joining of cooked foods, is he prohibited from cooking for Shabbat and his flour is likewise prohibited, meaning that none of his food may be prepared for Shabbat? Or perhaps only he is prohibited from performing this type of labor, but his flour is not prohibited.

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讗拽谞讜讬讬 拽诪讞讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讗讬 讗诪专转 讛讜讗 谞讗住专 讜拽诪讞讜 谞讗住专 爪专讬讱 诇讗拽谞讜讬讬 拽诪讞讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讛讜讗 谞讗住专 讜讗讬谉 拽诪讞讜 谞讗住专 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇讗拽谞讜讬讬 拽诪讞讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 诪讗讬

The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference that emerges from this question? The Gemara explains: There is a difference with respect to whether or not he must transfer ownership of his flour to others. If you say that he is prohibited and his flour is also prohibited, he must transfer his flour to others so that they are able to bake for him if they so desire. But if you say that only he is prohibited but his flour is not prohibited, he need not transfer his flour to others, as they may bake for him even if the flour is not theirs. The Gemara asks: What, then, is the halakha?

转讗 砖诪注 诪讬 砖诇讗 讛谞讬讞 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讗驻讛 讜诇讗 讬讘砖诇 讜诇讗 讬讟诪讬谉 诇讗 诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜诇讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜驻讬谉 讜诪讘砖诇讬谉 诇讜 讻讬爪讚 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 诪拽谞讛 拽诪讞讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜讗讜驻讬谉 诇讜 讜诪讘砖诇讬谉 诇讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讜讗 谞讗住专 讜拽诪讞讜 谞讗住专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara answers: Come and hear a resolution from the following baraita: One who did not prepare an eiruv for the joining of cooked foods on a Festival eve may neither bake, nor cook, nor insulate food on the Festival for Shabbat that occurs on the following day, neither for himself nor for others, and others may neither bake nor cook for him. What should he do so that he will have food to eat on Shabbat? He must transfer his flour to others, and they may then bake and cook for him. Learn from here, from the fact that the baraita states that he must transfer his flour to others, that he is prohibited and his flour is also prohibited. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from here that this is the case.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注讘专 讜讗驻讛 诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 诪讬 砖诇讗 讛谞讬讞 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讻讬爪讚 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 诪拽谞讛 拽诪讞讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜讗讞专讬诐 讗讜驻讬谉 诇讜 讜诪讘砖诇讬谉 诇讜

Another dilemma was raised before the Sages: In the case of one who transgressed this prohibition and baked on a Festival for Shabbat without having placed an eiruv for the joining of cooked foods on the eve of the Festival, what is the halakha? Is it permitted to partake of his bread and his cooking? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this question from the following baraita: With regard to one who did not prepare an eiruv for the joining of cooked foods, what should he do so that he will have food to eat on Shabbat? He must transfer his flour to others, and they may then bake and cook for him.

讜讗讬 讗讬转讗 诇讬转谞讬 注讘专 讜讗驻讛 诪讜转专 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 转谞讗 转拽谞转讗 讚讛讬转专讗 拽转谞讬 转拽谞转讗 讚讗住讜专讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬

And if it is so that if one baked without having placed an eiruv for the joining of cooked foods, it is permitted to eat the bread, let the baraita simply teach: With regard to one who transgressed the prohibition and baked, it is permitted to eat the bread. Rav Adda bar Mattana said: There is no proof from here, as the tanna is teaching a remedy involving acting in a permitted manner, and is not teaching a remedy involving a prohibited act. The tanna did not want to teach that it is also possible to solve the problem in this proscribed manner.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讬 砖讛谞讬讞 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讜驻讛 讜诪讘砖诇 讜诪讟诪讬谉 讜讗诐 专爪讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讗转 注讬专讜讘讜 讛专砖讜转 讘讬讚讜 讗讻诇讜 注讚 砖诇讗 讗驻讛 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讟诪讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讗驻讛 讜诇讗 讬讘砖诇 讜诇讗 讬讟诪讬谉 诇讗 诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜诇讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜驻讬谉 讜诪讘砖诇讬谉 诇讜

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from a different baraita: One who prepared an eiruv for the joining of cooked foods on a Festival eve may bake and cook and insulate food on the Festival for Shabbat that occurs on the following day, and if he wants to eat his eiruv on Shabbat, he has permission to do so. But if he ate it on the Festival before he baked or before he insulated, he may neither bake, nor cook, nor insulate, neither for himself nor for others, and likewise others may neither bake nor cook for him.

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 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬注专讬诐 讜讗诐 讛注专讬诐 讗住讜专

However, even without an eiruv, one in this situation may cook for the Festival itself, and if he left over part of what he cooked, he has left it over for Shabbat, provided that he does not employ artifice to circumvent the prohibition by saying that he is cooking a large amount for guests on the Festival, when in fact he has Shabbat in mind. And if he employed artifice to circumvent the prohibition, it is prohibited to eat the food, by decree of the Sages. This indicates that one who cooks on a Festival for Shabbat in a prohibited manner may not eat the food.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛注专诪讛 拽讗 讗诪专转 砖讗谞讬 讛注专诪讛 讚讗讞诪讬专讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉 讟驻讬 诪诪讝讬讚

Rav Ashi said: This is no proof, as you speak of a case of artifice, and a case of artifice is different, as the Sages were more stringent with regard to one who employs artifice than with regard to one who intentionally cooks on a Festival for Shabbat. One who purposely transgresses is aware of his sin; therefore, he might repent and desist from his prohibited behavior, thereby preventing others from learning from his actions. However, one who employs artifice to circumvent a prohibition thinks that he is acting in a permitted manner. He is therefore likely to continue his practice. Furthermore, people might emulate him, and the halakha of preparing an eiruv might be forgotten.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讛讗 诪谞讬 讞谞谞讬讛 讛讬讗 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讞谞谞讬讛 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讜驻讬谉 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 注专讘 讘驻转 讜讗讬谉 诪讘砖诇讬谉 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 注专讘 讘转讘砖讬诇 讜讗讬谉 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讜 讞诪讬谉 讟诪讜谞讬谉 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that there is another reason to reject the proof from this baraita: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of 岣nanya and in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. As it is taught in a baraita that 岣nanya says that Beit Shammai say: One may not bake bread on a Festival for Shabbat unless he prepared an eiruv for the joining of cooked foods on the eve of the Festival specifically with bread; and one may not cook any type of dish unless he prepared an eiruv with a cooked dish; and one may not insulate food unless there was hot food insulated from the eve of the Festival.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪注专讘 讘转讘砖讬诇 讗讞讚 讜注讜砖讛 讘讜 讻诇 爪专讻讜

And Beit Hillel say: One may prepare an eiruv for the joining of cooked foods with one cooked dish and use it for all his needs, i.e., baking, cooking, and insulating. Since 岣nanya鈥檚 opinion in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai is strict in this case, it may be assumed that he is stringent after the fact as well, and therefore the baraita provides no proof.

(转谞谉) 讛诪注砖专 驻讬专讜转讬讜 讘砖讘转 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 驻讬专讬 讗讞专讬谞讬

The Gemara offers yet another suggestion. We learned in amishna: In the case of one who transgressed a rabbinic prohibition and tithed his produce on Shabbat, if he did so unwittingly, he may eat of it; if he acted intentionally, he may not eat of it. This indicates that one may not derive benefit from a transgression that he committed intentionally. The Gemara rejects this argument: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha with regard to a case where he has other produce and therefore does not greatly suffer as a result. However, the Sages may have been more lenient with one who did not make an eiruv for the joining of cooked food and consequently has nothing to eat.

转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讟讘讬诇 讻诇讬讜 讘砖讘转 讘砖讜讙讙 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉

The Gemara poses another resolution: Come and hear a proof from a different source: In the case of one who immerses his vessels on Shabbat, an activity that the Sages prohibited because it is akin to repairing a vessel, if he did so unwittingly, he may use them; however, if he did so intentionally, he may not use them. This shows that the product of an action performed in a prohibited manner is prohibited.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讗谞讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 讗讬 谞诪讬 讗驻砖专 讘砖讗诇讛

The Gemara rejects this argument: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha with regard to a case where he has other vessels and is not forced to use these ones. Alternatively, it is possible for him to manage by borrowing vessels from others. But if one failed to set aside an eiruv for the joining of cooked foods, perhaps the Sages allowed him to eat the food he cooked on the Festival for Shabbat since it is difficult to obtain food from others on Shabbat.

转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讘砖诇 讘砖讘转 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讗住讜专讗 讚砖讘转 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara suggests another proof: Come and hear that which was taught in the following baraita: In the case of one who cooks on Shabbat, if he did so unwittingly, he may eat the food that he cooked; but if he cooked it intentionally, he may not eat it. This demonstrates that one who purposely violated a prohibition may not benefit from his prohibited action. The Gemara rejects this argument: There is no proof from here; the prohibition of Shabbat desecration is different, since it entails karet and execution by a court. The same stringency might not necessarily apply to cooking on a Festival for the sake of the next day, and therefore the question raised above remains unresolved.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖谞讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 砖谞讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 砖爪专讬讱 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 讚讙 讜讘讬爪讛 砖注诇讬讜 砖讘讬转 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 砖讗诐 驻专驻专 讘讬爪讛 讜谞转谉 诇转讜讱 讛讚讙 讗讜 砖专住拽 拽驻诇讜讟讜转 讜谞转谉 诇转讜讱 讛讚讙 砖讛谉 砖谞讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉

搂 It is stated in the mishna: Beit Shammai say that for the purpose of the joining of cooked foods one must prepare two cooked dishes, whereas Beit Hillel say that one dish suffices. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, who taught in the Tosefta that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that two dishes are necessary. With regard to what do they disagree? They disagree with regard to a fried fish and the egg on it, as Beit Shammai say: Two proper dishes are required, and this fish is considered only a single dish; and Beit Hillel say: One dish of this kind is viewed as two dishes and is therefore suitable for an eiruv for the joining of cooked foods. And they both agree that if one sliced a cooked egg and placed it inside the fish, or if he mashed leeks [kaflotot] and placed them inside the fish, they are considered two dishes.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇

Rava said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the tanna of our mishna and in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel that one dish suffices.

讗讻诇讜 讗讜 砖讗讘讚 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讘砖诇 注诇讬讜 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞拽讟讬谞谉 讛转讞讬诇 讘注讬住转讜 讜谞讗讻诇 注讬专讜讘讜 讙讜诪专

The mishna states that if one ate the food prepared before the Festival as an eiruv or if it was lost, he may not rely on it and cook with the initial intent to cook for Shabbat. Abaye said: We have a tradition that if one prepared a proper eiruv and began kneading his dough on a Festival for Shabbat, and in the meantime his eiruv was eaten, he may finish baking the bread. Since he had begun in a permitted manner, he is allowed to complete the process and bake the bread.

诪转谞讬壮 讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛讻诇 诪诇驻谞讬 讛砖讘转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇讬诐 诪诇驻谞讬 讛砖讘转 讜讗讚诐 讘砖讘转

MISHNA: If a Festival occurs directly after Shabbat, i.e., on a Sunday, and one wishes to behave in a proper manner and purify himself and his vessels in honor of the Festival, Beit Shammai say: One must immerse everything before Shabbat, and Beit Hillel say: Vessels must be immersed before Shabbat, but a person may immerse himself even on Shabbat.

讜砖讜讬谉 砖诪砖讬拽讬谉 讗转 讛诪讬诐 讘讻诇讬 讗讘谉 诇讟讛专谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讜诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 诪讙讘 诇讙讘 讜诪讞讘讜专讛 诇讞讘讜专讛

And Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel both agree that one may bring ritually impure water into contact with ritually pure water in stone vessels on Shabbat in order to purify the water. Impure water can be purified if it is placed into a vessel that does not contract ritual impurity, such as a stone vessel, and then lowered with the vessel into a ritual bath. The water becomes purified when it comes into contact with the water of the ritual bath. Although this is not considered proper immersion, water may nevertheless be purified in this manner. However, one may not immerse the impure water in a ritually impure vessel in order to purify the vessel at the same time. Likewise, one may immerse on a Festival from one principle to another, and from one group to another, as will be explained in the Gemara.

讙诪壮 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讬讛转 讻诇讬 讘砖讘转 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讙讝专讛

GEMARA: In any event, everyone agrees, i.e., both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree, that one may not immerse a vessel on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that one may not do so? Which type of prohibited labor does it involve? Rabba said: It is a decree issued by the Sages as a preventive measure,

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...

Beitzah 17

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Beitzah 17

讛讬讬谞讜 拽诇拽讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讜诇讗住讜专

this is the corruption that might result from a ruling that renders it prohibited to prepare an eiruv the day before. Therefore, this cannot serve as proof of the conclusive ruling. Rava said that Rav 岣sda said that Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to prohibit one from preparing either type of eiruv. One may not prepare an eiruv either for courtyards or for boundaries, as the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 version of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪转驻诇诇 砖诪谞讛 [ 讜讗讜诪专] 砖诇 砖讘转 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讜砖诇 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪转驻诇诇 砖讘注 诪转讞讬诇 讘砖诇 砖讘转 讜诪住讬讬诐 讘砖诇 砖讘转 讜讗讜诪专 拽讚讜砖转 讛讬讜诐 讘讗诪爪注 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讞讜转诐 讘讛 诪拽讚砖 讛砖讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讛讝诪谞讬诐

The Sages taught the following baraita: In the case of a Festival that occurs on Shabbat, Beit Shammai say: One must recite an Amida prayer that includes eight blessings, inserting two additional blessings between the standard opening three and concluding three. As for the two middle blessings, one recites one for Shabbat as an independent blessing and a second for the Festival as an independent blessing. And Beit Hillel say: One must pray an Amida comprising only seven blessings, i.e., the three opening ones, the three concluding ones, and one in between. One begins the middle blessing with Shabbat and concludes it with Shabbat, and he recites a passage referring to the sanctity of the day of the Festival in the middle. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He even concludes this blessing with mention of both Shabbat and the Festival, saying: Who sanctifies Shabbat, the Jewish people, and the seasons.

转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 诪拽讚砖 讬砖专讗诇 讜讛砖讘转 讜讛讝诪谞讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讟讜 砖讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诪拽讚砖讬 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 砖讘转 诪拽讚砖讗 讜拽讬讬诪讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 诪拽讚砖 讛砖讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讛讝诪谞讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讜讻讚转专讬抓 专讘讬谞讗

A tanna taught a baraita before Ravina with a slightly different reading: He concludes the blessing with: Who sanctifies the Jewish people, Shabbat, and the seasons. Ravina said to that tanna: Is that to say that the Jewish people sanctify Shabbat? Isn鈥檛 Shabbat already sanctified from the six days of Creation? Every seventh day is automatically Shabbat, without the need for any declaration on the part of the Jewish people. Rather, amend it and say as follows: Who sanctifies Shabbat, the Jewish people, and the seasons, as the Jewish people indeed sanctify the New Moon and the Festival days. Rav Yosef said: The halakha with regard to the conclusion of the blessing is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and as the difficulty was resolved by Ravina.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讘转 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘专讗砖 讞讜讚砖 讗讜 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 注专讘讬转 讜砖讞专讬转 讜诪谞讞讛 诪转驻诇诇 砖讘注 讜讗讜诪专 诪注讬谉 讛诪讗讜专注 讘注讘讜讚讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 讗诪专 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗讜转讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讛讜讚讗讛 讜讘诪讜住驻讬谉 诪转讞讬诇 讘砖诇 砖讘转 讜诪住讬讬诐 讘砖诇 砖讘转 讜讗讜诪专 拽讚讜砖转 讛讬讜诐 讘讗诪爪注

The Sages taught the following baraita: In the case of Shabbat that occurs on a New Moon or on one of the intermediate days of a Festival, for the evening, morning, and afternoon prayers, one prays in his usual manner, reciting seven blessings in the Amida, and recites a passage pertaining to the event of the day, i.e.: May there rise and come [ya鈥檃leh veyavo], during the blessing of the Temple service, known as retze; and if he did not recite it, he is required to return to the beginning of the Amida prayer and repeat it. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and says: This passage is recited during the blessing of thanksgiving, known as modim. And in the additional prayer one begins the fourth blessing, the special blessing for the additional service, with Shabbat, and concludes it with Shabbat, and recites a passage pertaining to the sanctity of the day of the New Moon or the Festival in the middle.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜讝拽拽 诇砖讘注 诪转讞讬诇 讘砖诇 砖讘转 讜诪住讬讬诐 讘砖诇 砖讘转 讜讗讜诪专 拽讚讜砖转 讛讬讜诐 讘讗诪爪注 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讜转讜 讛讝讜讙

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, disagree and say: Wherever one is required to recite seven blessings, whether in the evening, morning, or afternoon prayers, he begins the fourth blessing with Shabbat and concludes it with Shabbat, and recites a passage referring to the sanctity of the day of the New Moon or the Festival in the middle. Rav Huna said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of that pair of scholars; rather, it is in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna, that in the evening, morning, and afternoon prayers one recites the usual seven blessings and recites a passage pertaining to the event of the day during the blessing of the Temple service.

讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬讞 讗讚诐 注讬专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讞讘专讜 讜诪转谞讛

Rav 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rav said: If a person forgot to place an eiruv before a Festival occurring on Thursday and Friday in the Diaspora, he may act as follows: He may place an eiruv for the joining of Shabbat boundaries on the first Festival day for the next, i.e., on the first Festival day for the second Festival day kept in the Diaspora, based on a doubt as to which day is the real day of the Festival, and stipulate as follows: If today is in fact the Festival, then tomorrow is a weekday, on which I may walk as far as I wish in all directions; and if today is a weekday and tomorrow is the Festival, I hereby place an eiruv for the joining of Shabbat boundaries for tomorrow. On the following day he makes a similar stipulation with the same eiruv, so that he will have an eiruv for Shabbat.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讬讞 讗讚诐 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜诪转谞讛

Rava said: A person may place an eiruv for the joining of cooked foods on the first Festival day for the next day and stipulate as follows: If today is a weekday and tomorrow is the Festival, this is my joining of cooked foods, so that I may rely on it to cook tomorrow for Shabbat; and if today is in fact the Festival and tomorrow is a weekday, I may cook tomorrow as on a regular weekday.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 注讬专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 讻诇 砖讻谉 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讗讘诇 注讬专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诇诪拽谞讬 砖讘讬转讛 讘砖讘转讗 诇讗

The Gemara comments: With regard to the one who said this halakha concerning an eiruv for the joining of Shabbat boundaries, all the more so would he permit one to act in this manner concerning an eiruv for the joining of cooked foods. On the other hand, the one who said this halakha with regard to an eiruv for the joining of cooked foods spoke only with regard to the joining of cooked foods; however, as for an eiruv for the joining of Shabbat boundaries, this is not permitted. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this difference? It is that they did not permit the acquisition of residence on a day of rest, even in a case of uncertainty. However, with regard to an eiruv for the joining of cooked foods, since it is merely symbolic, it is permitted for the sake of the honor of Shabbat.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 讗讜驻讬谉 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讞讘讬专讜 讘讗诪转 讗诪专讜 诪诪诇讗讛 讗砖讛 讻诇 讛拽讚专讛 讘砖专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讗诇讗 诇讞转讬讻讛 讗讞转 诪诪诇讗 谞讞转讜诐 讞讘讬转 砖诇 诪讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讗诇讗 诇拽讬转讜谉 讗讞讚 讗讘诇 诇讗驻讜转 讗讬谞讜 讗讜驻讛 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖爪专讬讱 诇讜

The Sages taught in a baraita: One may not bake bread on one Festival day for the next, i.e., on the first Festival day for the second Festival day kept in the Diaspora. Nevertheless, actually, they said the following established halakha: A woman may fill an entire pot with meat to cook on a Festival, although she requires only one piece for that day, and all the remainder will be for the following day. Similarly, a baker may fill an entire barrel with water in order to heat it up although he requires only a jug of hot water. But with regard to baking, he may bake only that which he requires for that day.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪诪诇讗讛 讗砖讛 讻诇 讛转谞讜专 驻转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛驻转 谞讗驻转 讬驻讛 讘讝诪谉 砖讛转谞讜专 诪诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专

The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: A woman may fill the entire oven with bread, although she does not intend to use it all on that day, because bread bakes well when the oven is full. A full oven has less empty space and is therefore hotter; consequently, filling the oven with bread serves not only to provide bread for the next day but also to improve the bread to be eaten that same day. Rava said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讬 砖诇讗 讛谞讬讞 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讛讜讗 谞讗住专 讜拽诪讞讜 谞讗住专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讜讗 谞讗住专 讜讗讬谉 拽诪讞讜 谞讗住专

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In the case of one who did not prepare an eiruv for the joining of cooked foods, is he prohibited from cooking for Shabbat and his flour is likewise prohibited, meaning that none of his food may be prepared for Shabbat? Or perhaps only he is prohibited from performing this type of labor, but his flour is not prohibited.

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讗拽谞讜讬讬 拽诪讞讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讗讬 讗诪专转 讛讜讗 谞讗住专 讜拽诪讞讜 谞讗住专 爪专讬讱 诇讗拽谞讜讬讬 拽诪讞讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讛讜讗 谞讗住专 讜讗讬谉 拽诪讞讜 谞讗住专 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇讗拽谞讜讬讬 拽诪讞讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 诪讗讬

The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference that emerges from this question? The Gemara explains: There is a difference with respect to whether or not he must transfer ownership of his flour to others. If you say that he is prohibited and his flour is also prohibited, he must transfer his flour to others so that they are able to bake for him if they so desire. But if you say that only he is prohibited but his flour is not prohibited, he need not transfer his flour to others, as they may bake for him even if the flour is not theirs. The Gemara asks: What, then, is the halakha?

转讗 砖诪注 诪讬 砖诇讗 讛谞讬讞 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讗驻讛 讜诇讗 讬讘砖诇 讜诇讗 讬讟诪讬谉 诇讗 诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜诇讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜驻讬谉 讜诪讘砖诇讬谉 诇讜 讻讬爪讚 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 诪拽谞讛 拽诪讞讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜讗讜驻讬谉 诇讜 讜诪讘砖诇讬谉 诇讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讜讗 谞讗住专 讜拽诪讞讜 谞讗住专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara answers: Come and hear a resolution from the following baraita: One who did not prepare an eiruv for the joining of cooked foods on a Festival eve may neither bake, nor cook, nor insulate food on the Festival for Shabbat that occurs on the following day, neither for himself nor for others, and others may neither bake nor cook for him. What should he do so that he will have food to eat on Shabbat? He must transfer his flour to others, and they may then bake and cook for him. Learn from here, from the fact that the baraita states that he must transfer his flour to others, that he is prohibited and his flour is also prohibited. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from here that this is the case.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注讘专 讜讗驻讛 诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 诪讬 砖诇讗 讛谞讬讞 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讻讬爪讚 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 诪拽谞讛 拽诪讞讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜讗讞专讬诐 讗讜驻讬谉 诇讜 讜诪讘砖诇讬谉 诇讜

Another dilemma was raised before the Sages: In the case of one who transgressed this prohibition and baked on a Festival for Shabbat without having placed an eiruv for the joining of cooked foods on the eve of the Festival, what is the halakha? Is it permitted to partake of his bread and his cooking? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this question from the following baraita: With regard to one who did not prepare an eiruv for the joining of cooked foods, what should he do so that he will have food to eat on Shabbat? He must transfer his flour to others, and they may then bake and cook for him.

讜讗讬 讗讬转讗 诇讬转谞讬 注讘专 讜讗驻讛 诪讜转专 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 转谞讗 转拽谞转讗 讚讛讬转专讗 拽转谞讬 转拽谞转讗 讚讗住讜专讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬

And if it is so that if one baked without having placed an eiruv for the joining of cooked foods, it is permitted to eat the bread, let the baraita simply teach: With regard to one who transgressed the prohibition and baked, it is permitted to eat the bread. Rav Adda bar Mattana said: There is no proof from here, as the tanna is teaching a remedy involving acting in a permitted manner, and is not teaching a remedy involving a prohibited act. The tanna did not want to teach that it is also possible to solve the problem in this proscribed manner.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讬 砖讛谞讬讞 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讜驻讛 讜诪讘砖诇 讜诪讟诪讬谉 讜讗诐 专爪讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讗转 注讬专讜讘讜 讛专砖讜转 讘讬讚讜 讗讻诇讜 注讚 砖诇讗 讗驻讛 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讟诪讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讗驻讛 讜诇讗 讬讘砖诇 讜诇讗 讬讟诪讬谉 诇讗 诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜诇讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜驻讬谉 讜诪讘砖诇讬谉 诇讜

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from a different baraita: One who prepared an eiruv for the joining of cooked foods on a Festival eve may bake and cook and insulate food on the Festival for Shabbat that occurs on the following day, and if he wants to eat his eiruv on Shabbat, he has permission to do so. But if he ate it on the Festival before he baked or before he insulated, he may neither bake, nor cook, nor insulate, neither for himself nor for others, and likewise others may neither bake nor cook for him.

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 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬注专讬诐 讜讗诐 讛注专讬诐 讗住讜专

However, even without an eiruv, one in this situation may cook for the Festival itself, and if he left over part of what he cooked, he has left it over for Shabbat, provided that he does not employ artifice to circumvent the prohibition by saying that he is cooking a large amount for guests on the Festival, when in fact he has Shabbat in mind. And if he employed artifice to circumvent the prohibition, it is prohibited to eat the food, by decree of the Sages. This indicates that one who cooks on a Festival for Shabbat in a prohibited manner may not eat the food.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛注专诪讛 拽讗 讗诪专转 砖讗谞讬 讛注专诪讛 讚讗讞诪讬专讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉 讟驻讬 诪诪讝讬讚

Rav Ashi said: This is no proof, as you speak of a case of artifice, and a case of artifice is different, as the Sages were more stringent with regard to one who employs artifice than with regard to one who intentionally cooks on a Festival for Shabbat. One who purposely transgresses is aware of his sin; therefore, he might repent and desist from his prohibited behavior, thereby preventing others from learning from his actions. However, one who employs artifice to circumvent a prohibition thinks that he is acting in a permitted manner. He is therefore likely to continue his practice. Furthermore, people might emulate him, and the halakha of preparing an eiruv might be forgotten.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讛讗 诪谞讬 讞谞谞讬讛 讛讬讗 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讞谞谞讬讛 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讜驻讬谉 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 注专讘 讘驻转 讜讗讬谉 诪讘砖诇讬谉 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 注专讘 讘转讘砖讬诇 讜讗讬谉 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讜 讞诪讬谉 讟诪讜谞讬谉 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that there is another reason to reject the proof from this baraita: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of 岣nanya and in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. As it is taught in a baraita that 岣nanya says that Beit Shammai say: One may not bake bread on a Festival for Shabbat unless he prepared an eiruv for the joining of cooked foods on the eve of the Festival specifically with bread; and one may not cook any type of dish unless he prepared an eiruv with a cooked dish; and one may not insulate food unless there was hot food insulated from the eve of the Festival.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪注专讘 讘转讘砖讬诇 讗讞讚 讜注讜砖讛 讘讜 讻诇 爪专讻讜

And Beit Hillel say: One may prepare an eiruv for the joining of cooked foods with one cooked dish and use it for all his needs, i.e., baking, cooking, and insulating. Since 岣nanya鈥檚 opinion in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai is strict in this case, it may be assumed that he is stringent after the fact as well, and therefore the baraita provides no proof.

(转谞谉) 讛诪注砖专 驻讬专讜转讬讜 讘砖讘转 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 驻讬专讬 讗讞专讬谞讬

The Gemara offers yet another suggestion. We learned in amishna: In the case of one who transgressed a rabbinic prohibition and tithed his produce on Shabbat, if he did so unwittingly, he may eat of it; if he acted intentionally, he may not eat of it. This indicates that one may not derive benefit from a transgression that he committed intentionally. The Gemara rejects this argument: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha with regard to a case where he has other produce and therefore does not greatly suffer as a result. However, the Sages may have been more lenient with one who did not make an eiruv for the joining of cooked food and consequently has nothing to eat.

转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讟讘讬诇 讻诇讬讜 讘砖讘转 讘砖讜讙讙 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉

The Gemara poses another resolution: Come and hear a proof from a different source: In the case of one who immerses his vessels on Shabbat, an activity that the Sages prohibited because it is akin to repairing a vessel, if he did so unwittingly, he may use them; however, if he did so intentionally, he may not use them. This shows that the product of an action performed in a prohibited manner is prohibited.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讗谞讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 讗讬 谞诪讬 讗驻砖专 讘砖讗诇讛

The Gemara rejects this argument: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha with regard to a case where he has other vessels and is not forced to use these ones. Alternatively, it is possible for him to manage by borrowing vessels from others. But if one failed to set aside an eiruv for the joining of cooked foods, perhaps the Sages allowed him to eat the food he cooked on the Festival for Shabbat since it is difficult to obtain food from others on Shabbat.

转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讘砖诇 讘砖讘转 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讗住讜专讗 讚砖讘转 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara suggests another proof: Come and hear that which was taught in the following baraita: In the case of one who cooks on Shabbat, if he did so unwittingly, he may eat the food that he cooked; but if he cooked it intentionally, he may not eat it. This demonstrates that one who purposely violated a prohibition may not benefit from his prohibited action. The Gemara rejects this argument: There is no proof from here; the prohibition of Shabbat desecration is different, since it entails karet and execution by a court. The same stringency might not necessarily apply to cooking on a Festival for the sake of the next day, and therefore the question raised above remains unresolved.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖谞讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 砖谞讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 砖爪专讬讱 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 讚讙 讜讘讬爪讛 砖注诇讬讜 砖讘讬转 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 砖讗诐 驻专驻专 讘讬爪讛 讜谞转谉 诇转讜讱 讛讚讙 讗讜 砖专住拽 拽驻诇讜讟讜转 讜谞转谉 诇转讜讱 讛讚讙 砖讛谉 砖谞讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉

搂 It is stated in the mishna: Beit Shammai say that for the purpose of the joining of cooked foods one must prepare two cooked dishes, whereas Beit Hillel say that one dish suffices. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, who taught in the Tosefta that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that two dishes are necessary. With regard to what do they disagree? They disagree with regard to a fried fish and the egg on it, as Beit Shammai say: Two proper dishes are required, and this fish is considered only a single dish; and Beit Hillel say: One dish of this kind is viewed as two dishes and is therefore suitable for an eiruv for the joining of cooked foods. And they both agree that if one sliced a cooked egg and placed it inside the fish, or if he mashed leeks [kaflotot] and placed them inside the fish, they are considered two dishes.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇

Rava said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the tanna of our mishna and in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel that one dish suffices.

讗讻诇讜 讗讜 砖讗讘讚 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讘砖诇 注诇讬讜 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞拽讟讬谞谉 讛转讞讬诇 讘注讬住转讜 讜谞讗讻诇 注讬专讜讘讜 讙讜诪专

The mishna states that if one ate the food prepared before the Festival as an eiruv or if it was lost, he may not rely on it and cook with the initial intent to cook for Shabbat. Abaye said: We have a tradition that if one prepared a proper eiruv and began kneading his dough on a Festival for Shabbat, and in the meantime his eiruv was eaten, he may finish baking the bread. Since he had begun in a permitted manner, he is allowed to complete the process and bake the bread.

诪转谞讬壮 讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛讻诇 诪诇驻谞讬 讛砖讘转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇讬诐 诪诇驻谞讬 讛砖讘转 讜讗讚诐 讘砖讘转

MISHNA: If a Festival occurs directly after Shabbat, i.e., on a Sunday, and one wishes to behave in a proper manner and purify himself and his vessels in honor of the Festival, Beit Shammai say: One must immerse everything before Shabbat, and Beit Hillel say: Vessels must be immersed before Shabbat, but a person may immerse himself even on Shabbat.

讜砖讜讬谉 砖诪砖讬拽讬谉 讗转 讛诪讬诐 讘讻诇讬 讗讘谉 诇讟讛专谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讜诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 诪讙讘 诇讙讘 讜诪讞讘讜专讛 诇讞讘讜专讛

And Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel both agree that one may bring ritually impure water into contact with ritually pure water in stone vessels on Shabbat in order to purify the water. Impure water can be purified if it is placed into a vessel that does not contract ritual impurity, such as a stone vessel, and then lowered with the vessel into a ritual bath. The water becomes purified when it comes into contact with the water of the ritual bath. Although this is not considered proper immersion, water may nevertheless be purified in this manner. However, one may not immerse the impure water in a ritually impure vessel in order to purify the vessel at the same time. Likewise, one may immerse on a Festival from one principle to another, and from one group to another, as will be explained in the Gemara.

讙诪壮 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讬讛转 讻诇讬 讘砖讘转 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讙讝专讛

GEMARA: In any event, everyone agrees, i.e., both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree, that one may not immerse a vessel on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that one may not do so? Which type of prohibited labor does it involve? Rabba said: It is a decree issued by the Sages as a preventive measure,

Scroll To Top