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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 1, 2021 | 讻状讛 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.

A month of shiurim are sponsored for a refuah shleima for Noam Eliezer ben Yael Chaya v'Aytan Yehoshua.

  • 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 31

Today’s daf is sponsored by Gitta Neufeld in memory of Ha’Chaver Menachem ben Ha’Chaver Avraham and Chava a”h.聽

The Mishnah states that one is allowed to bring wood for kindling on Yom Tov from a pile of wood that was gathered in the fields or gathered or scattered wood from a karpaf, enclosure used for storage.聽 Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi disagree about whether the karpaf needs to be close to the city or can be farther away (within techum Shabbat) but in a locked space. Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel only permitted bringing from a pile of wood in a karpaf. Since this contradicts the Mishnah, the Gemara concludes that the Mishnah must be an individual’s opinion, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s, and the rabbis disagree. Was Rabbi Yosi ruling leniently that one can collect wood from near the city from an unlocked space and farther away only if it is locked and Rabbi Yehuda requires a locked space near the city only? Or does Rabbi Yehuda not require a locked space and Rabbi Yosi is being stringent in requiring a locked space, even though he permits it further away from the city? The Gemara accepts the first interpretation. One cannot chop wood from beams set aside for use for building, nor from a beam that broke on Yom Tov. But if one has wood that can be chopped, one must chop with a cleaver, not with an ax, saw or sickle which are normally used for chopping. According to Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel, the issue of the beams is because they are muktze, set aside. Is there a side of the ax that can be used or a side of the cleaver that cannot be used? There are two different versions of a statement of Rav Chinina regarding this. In one he limits the prohibition of using an ax, in the other, he limits the permissibility of a cleaver. If a house is filled with produce and there is no access to get in, one cannot take produce from there on Yom Tov but the wall broke and there was an access route, one could take from there. According to Rabbi Meir, one can even break the wall. Why is Rabbi Meir not concerned about breaking apart a structure, which is a melacha (soter)? It must be that they were not cemented together and the rabbis were more lenient on this issue for Yom Tov. Regarding the prohibition to break apart a structure, Shmuel rules on undoing ropes that are fastened to the ground or to an object. He differentiates between the two regarding how one can do it, however, he does not distinguish between Shabbat and Yom Tov. The Gemara raises a difficulty against him from the braita where a distinction between Shabbat and Yom Tov is made regarding this issue. The Gemara suggests that perhaps it is connected to the debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis in our Mishnah, however, the suggestion is rejected.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讘讬讗讬谉 注爪讬诐 诪谉 讛砖讚讛 诪谉 讛诪讻讜谞住 讜诪谉 讛拽专驻祝 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谉 讛诪驻讜讝专 讗讬讝讛讜 拽专驻祝 讻诇 砖住诪讜讱 诇注讬专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖谞讻谞住讬谉 诇讜 讘驻讜转讞转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘转讜讱 转讞讜诐 砖讘转

MISHNA: One may bring wood chopped from a tree the previous day from an unfenced field, but only from that which has been gathered into a pile before the Festival for the purpose of using it for kindling. However, scattered wood is muktze and may not be handled. And if one brings wood from a karpef used for storage, he may bring even from the scattered wood, as it is considered a guarded courtyard rather than a field, and one does not remove even scattered items from his mind if they are stored inside such an enclosure. The mishna explains: What is a karpef? It is any enclosure that is near a city, but if it is far from a city, it is considered a field; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: Any fenced place into which one can enter only with a key is a karpef, even if it is located at a distance from a city, provided that it is within the Shabbat limit.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 注爪讬诐 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛诪讻讜谞住讬谉 砖讘拽专驻祝 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 诪谉 讛拽专驻祝 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪谉 讛诪驻讜讝专讬诐 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讬讞讬讚讗讛 讛讬讗

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One may not bring wood except from the wood that was gathered in a karpef. The Gemara challenges: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: And from a karpef, even from scattered wood? The Gemara answers: The mishna follows an individual opinion.

讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 讛诪驻讜讝专讬诐 砖讘砖讚讜转 砖讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讜注诇 讛诪讻讜谞住讬谉 砖讘拽专驻祝 砖诪讘讬讗讬谉 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 讛诪驻讜讝专讬诐 砖讘拽专驻祝 讜注诇 讛诪讻讜谞住讬谉 砖讘砖讚讜转 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讘讬讗

One may not rely on it, as is clear from a different source that the majority view is otherwise, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to wood scattered in fields that one may not bring it on a Festival to one鈥檚 house for kindling, nor with regard to wood gathered in a karpef that one may bring it. With regard to what did they disagree? It is with regard to scattered wood in a karpef and gathered wood in fields, as Beit Shammai say: He may not bring it, and Beit Hillel say: He may bring it. Although the lenient opinion with regard to gathered wood in a field is attributed to Beit Hillel, this is only according to the minority view of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. However, most Sages disagree and say that one may not bring wood from a field at all, even according to Beit Hillel.

讗诪专 专讘讗 注诇讬 拽谞讬诐 讜注诇讬 讙驻谞讬诐 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讻谞驻讬 诇讛讜 讜诪讜转讘讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 诪讚诇讬 讝讬拽讗 诪讘讚专 诇讛讜 讻诪驻讜讝专讬诐 讚诪讜 讜讗住讜专讬谉 讜讗讬 讗转谞讞 诪谞讗 诪讗转诪讜诇 注诇讬讬讛讜 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

Rava said: With regard to reed leaves and vine leaves, although they are gathered together and placed in the same spot, since if a wind comes it will scatter them, they are already considered scattered and are therefore prohibited. Given that they are likely to be scattered in the wind, one does not intend to use them. However, if one placed a vessel on them the day before to prevent their being scattered in the wind, it seems well and is permitted.

讗讬讝讛讜 拽专驻祝 讜讻讜壮 讗讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 砖住诪讜讱 诇注讬专 讜讛讜讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 驻讜转讞转 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讬诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 驻讜转讞转 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转讜讱 转讞讜诐 砖讘转 谞诪讬

The mishna discussed the question: What is a karpef? Rabbi Yehuda states that it is any enclosure that is near a city, while in Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion it is any fenced place into which one can enter only with a key, provided that it is within the Shabbat limit of a city. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to what case is the mishna speaking? Does Rabbi Yehuda mean to say that a karpef is any place that is near a city, provided that it has a key, otherwise it is not a karpef at all; and Rabbi Yosei comes to say: Since it has a key, even if it is not near a city, as long as it is within the Shabbat limit it is also considered a karpef? According to this understanding, Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 view is more lenient than that of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 砖住诪讜讱 诇注讬专 讘讬谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 驻讜转讞转 讘讬谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻讜转讞转 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讬诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转讜讱 转讞讜诐 砖讘转 讜讚讜拽讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 驻讜转讞转 讗讘诇 诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻讜转讞转 讗驻讬诇讜 住诪讜讱 诇注讬专 谞诪讬 诇讗

Or perhaps this is what Rabbi Yehuda is saying: Any enclosure that is near a city is a karpef, whether it has a key or does not have a key, and Rabbi Yosei comes to say: With regard to the distance, it is a karpef even if it is not near a city, provided that it is within the Shabbat limit, but specifically if it has a key. However, if it does not have a key, even if it is near a city it is also not considered a karpef. According to this understanding, the opinion of Rabbi Yosei is not necessarily the more lenient one; rather, for him the defining issue is whether or not there is a key, regardless of distance.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讚拽转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖谞讻谞住讬谉 诇讜 讘驻讜转讞转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘转讜讱 转讞讜诐 砖讘转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 转专转讬 诇拽讜诇讗 拽讗诪专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 住诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讛拽诇

The Gemara answers: Come and hear from the fact that it is taught in the mishna that Rabbi Yosei says: Any place into which one enters with a key, even within the Shabbat limit, and he does not say: If one enters, but rather: Any place into which one enters, it shows that the key is not the determining factor. One may learn from this that Rabbi Yosei stated two conditions as leniencies. In other words, he is not more stringent than Rabbi Yehuda in any situation; he is lenient in all cases. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from here that this is the case. Rav Salla said that Rabbi Yirmeya said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei as a leniency; Rabbi Yosei should be understood in this manner, and one should rule accordingly.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 诪讘拽注讬谉 注爪讬诐 诇讗 诪谉 讛拽讜专讜转 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛拽讜专讛 砖谞砖讘专讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 诪讘拽注讬谉 诇讗 讘拽专讚讜诐 讜诇讗 讘诪讙专讛 讜诇讗 讘诪讙诇 讗诇讗 讘拽讜驻讬抓

MISHNA: One may not chop wood on a Festival neither from beams intended for construction nor from a beam that broke on a Festival, although it no longer serves any purpose. And one may not chop wood on a Festival, neither with an ax, nor with a saw, nor with a sickle, as these are clearly craftsman鈥檚 tools used on weekdays. Rather, one may chop only with a cleaver. Using this tool differs greatly from the weekday manner in which wood is chopped.

讙诪壮 讜讛讗诪专转 专讬砖讗 讗讬谉 诪讘拽注讬谉 讻诇诇 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 诪讘拽注讬谉 诪谉 讛住讜讗专 砖诇 拽讜专讜转 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛拽讜专讛 砖谞砖讘专讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讘诇 诪讘拽注讬谉 诪谉 讛拽讜专讛 砖谞砖讘专讛 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

GEMARA: The Gemara wonders at the wording of the mishna: But didn鈥檛 you say in the first clause of the mishna that one may not chop beams at all on a Festival, ostensibly due to the extra effort involved? Why, then, does the mishna later define how one may chop, and even permit the use of a cleaver? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: One may not chop wood from the pile of beams intended for construction, nor from a beam that broke on the Festival itself, as it is considered muktze. However, one may chop wood from a beam that broke on the eve of the Festival, since it has presumably been designated as firewood.

讜讻砖讛谉 诪讘拽注讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讘拽注讬谉 诇讗 讘拽专讚讜诐 讜诇讗 讘诪讙诇 讜诇讗 讘诪讙专讛 讗诇讗 讘拽讜驻讬抓 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗讬谉 诪讘拽注讬谉 注爪讬诐 诇讗 诪谉 讛住讜讗专 砖诇 拽讜专讜转 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛拽讜专讛 砖谞砖讘专讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉

Yet even when one chops such a beam, it must not be done in the weekday manner; an adjustment must be made. Therefore, one may not chop it neither with an ax, nor with a saw, nor with a sickle, but with a cleaver. The Gemara comments: This opinion, which is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, is also taught in a baraita: One may not chop wood, neither from the pile of beams nor from the beam that broke on the Festival itself, as it is not considered prepared.

讜诇讗 讘拽专讚讜诐 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 砖诇诪讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘谞拽讘讜转 砖诇讜 讗讘诇 讘讝讻专讜转 砖诇讜 诪讜转专

It is taught in the mishna that even when it is permitted to chop wood on a Festival, one may not do so with an ax. Rav 岣nnana bar Shelemya said in the name of Rav: They taught this prohibition only with regard to a case where one chops with its female side, i.e., the broad side of the ax, as was normally done. But if one chops with its male side, i.e., the narrow side, this is permitted because it is an unusual manner of chopping.

驻砖讬讟讗 讘拽讜驻讬抓 转谞谉 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 拽讜驻讬抓 诇讞讜讚讬讛 讗讘诇 拽专讚讜诐 讜拽讜驻讬抓 讗讬诪讗 诪讙讜 讚讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讗住讜专 讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 谞诪讬 讗住讜专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara challenges: It is obvious that one may do so in this unusual fashion, as we learned in the mishna that it is permitted to chop with a cleaver, and chopping with the narrow side of an ax is similar to chopping with a cleaver. The Gemara explains: It was necessary to teach this halakha lest you say: This applies only to a cleaver, as it is narrow on both sides, but with regard to a tool that is an ax on one side and like a cleaver on the other, one might say: Since this side, that which is like an ax, is prohibited, the other, side, which is like a cleaver, should also be prohibited. Rav therefore teaches us that the cleaver side is in fact permitted.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讗诇讗 讘拽讜驻讬抓 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 砖诇诪讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讝讻专讜转 砖诇讜 讗讘诇 讘谞拽讘讜转 砖诇讜 讗住讜专 驻砖讬讟讗 讜诇讗 讘拽专讚讜诐 转谞谉 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 拽专讚讜诐 讗讘诇 拽讜驻讬抓 讜拽专讚讜诐 讗讬诪讗 诪讙讜 讚讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 砖专讬 讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 谞诪讬 砖专讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

And some teach this halakha in relation to the latter clause of the mishna: Rather, with a cleaver. Rav 岣nnana bar Shelemya said in the name of Rav: They taught that it is permitted to chop wood on a Festival from a beam that was broken the day before, as stated previously, when one does so only with its male side; but if he chops with its female side, it is prohibited. The Gemara challenges: This is obvious. Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that one may not use an ax? The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach this halakha lest you say: This prohibition applies only to an ax, but with regard to a utensil that is both an ax and a cleaver, i.e., that is broad on one side and narrow on the other, one might say: Since this side, the narrower one, is permitted, the other, broader side should also be permitted. Rav therefore teaches us that they did not permit one side due to the other.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 砖讛讜讗 诪诇讗 驻讬专讜转 讜谞驻讞转 谞讜讟诇 诪诪拽讜诐 讛驻讞转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 驻讜讞转 诇讻转讞诇讛 讜谞讜讟诇

MISHNA: If there is a house that is filled with produce and locked on all sides, and a hole formed in one of its walls or its roof, one may remove produce through the place of the hole. The produce is not considered muktze, even though one cannot reach it without the existence of the hole. Rabbi Meir says: One may even make a hole ab initio and take produce through that opening.

讙诪壮 讗诪讗讬 讜讛讗 拽讗 住转专 讗讛诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞讜诪讬 讘专 讗讚讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讗讜讬专讗 讚诇讬讘谞讬 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛谞讬 诇讬讘谞讬 讚讗讬讬转讜专 诪讘谞讬谞讗 砖专讬 诇讟诇讟讜诇讬谞讛讜 讘砖讘转讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讝讬 诇诪讝讙讗 注诇讬讬讛讜 砖专讙讬谞讛讜 讜讚讗讬 讗拽爪讬谞讛讜

GEMARA: The Gemara wonders at Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement: Why does he permit one to make a hole in order to remove the produce ab initio? Isn鈥檛 one who does so dismantling a tent, thereby performing a biblically prohibited labor? Rav Na岣mi bar Adda said that Shmuel said: Here, it is referring to bricks placed one on top of the other [aveira delivni] but not cemented together. This is not considered a building at all. The Gemara challenges: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say: With regard to these bricks remaining from a building, it is permitted to handle them on Shabbat, since they are fit to sit on; however, if one arranged them in rows, one on top of the other, he has certainly set them aside from his intentions? This indicates that even bricks placed on top of one another without being cemented together are nonetheless considered muktze.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诪专讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘砖讘转 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 驻讜讞转 诇讻转讞诇讛 讜谞讜讟诇 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诪专讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘砖讘转

Rabbi Zeira said: Rabbi Meir was referring to a Festival. On a Festival they said that one may do so, but they did not allow it on Shabbat even in such a manner, and Rav Na岣an was speaking of Shabbat. This opinion was also taught explicitly in the following baraita: Rabbi Meir says: One may even make a hole on a Festival ab initio and remove the produce from inside; they said this with regard to a Festival, but not with regard to Shabbat.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讜转诪讜转 砖讘拽专拽注 诪转讬专 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪驻拽讬注 讜诇讗 讞讜转讱 砖讘讻诇讬诐 诪转讬专 讜诪驻拽讬注 讜讞讜转讱 讗讞讚 砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

Shmuel said: In the case of fastenings made of knotted ropes that are attached to the ground and that serve as closures for doors of cellars and caves, one may untie the knot, but one may not unravel the rope itself into its constituent fibers nor cut the rope. This constitutes the prohibited labor of dismantling the cellar or cave on Shabbat. With regard to fastenings that are on the doors of vessels, e.g., cupboards, it is permitted to untie, or unravel, or cut them if necessary, both on Shabbat and on a Festival, as the prohibition against dismantling does not apply to vessels.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讞讜转诪讜转 砖讘拽专拽注 讘砖讘转 诪转讬专 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪驻拽讬注 讜诇讗 讞讜转讱 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪转讬专 讜诪驻拽讬注 讜讞讜转讱

The Gemara raises an objection to this from the following baraita: In a case of fastenings that are attached to the ground, which are on doors, on Shabbat one may untie the rope but not unravel or cut it. Although it is permitted to do so by Torah law, the Sages prohibited it. However, on a Festival, one may untie or unravel or cut it, as this is not prohibited even by rabbinic law. This appears to contradict the opinion of Shmuel, who does not differentiate between Shabbat and Festivals.

讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗祝 驻讜讞转 诇讻转讞诇讛 讜谞讜讟诇 讜驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讜讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻专讘谞谉 讜诪讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讘讞讜转诪讜转 砖讘拽专拽注 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讞讜转诪讜转 砖讘拽专拽注 砖讘砖讘转 诪转讬专 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪驻拽讬注 讜诇讗 讞讜转讱 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪转讬专 讜诪驻拽讬注 讜讞讜转讱

Shmuel could respond: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: One may even make a hole and remove produce ab initio, whereas the Rabbis disagree with him and prohibit it, and I spoke in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara asks: And do the Rabbis disagree with him with regard to doors sealed to the ground? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The Rabbis concede to Rabbi Meir with regard to doors sealed to the ground that one may untie them on Shabbat but not unravel or cut them, while on a Festival one may untie or unravel or cut them?

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 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: 31-35 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn what is considered designated for use on the Festival and what is not ie. Muktza...

Beitzah 31

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Beitzah 31

诪转谞讬壮 诪讘讬讗讬谉 注爪讬诐 诪谉 讛砖讚讛 诪谉 讛诪讻讜谞住 讜诪谉 讛拽专驻祝 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谉 讛诪驻讜讝专 讗讬讝讛讜 拽专驻祝 讻诇 砖住诪讜讱 诇注讬专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖谞讻谞住讬谉 诇讜 讘驻讜转讞转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘转讜讱 转讞讜诐 砖讘转

MISHNA: One may bring wood chopped from a tree the previous day from an unfenced field, but only from that which has been gathered into a pile before the Festival for the purpose of using it for kindling. However, scattered wood is muktze and may not be handled. And if one brings wood from a karpef used for storage, he may bring even from the scattered wood, as it is considered a guarded courtyard rather than a field, and one does not remove even scattered items from his mind if they are stored inside such an enclosure. The mishna explains: What is a karpef? It is any enclosure that is near a city, but if it is far from a city, it is considered a field; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: Any fenced place into which one can enter only with a key is a karpef, even if it is located at a distance from a city, provided that it is within the Shabbat limit.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 注爪讬诐 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛诪讻讜谞住讬谉 砖讘拽专驻祝 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 诪谉 讛拽专驻祝 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪谉 讛诪驻讜讝专讬诐 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讬讞讬讚讗讛 讛讬讗

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One may not bring wood except from the wood that was gathered in a karpef. The Gemara challenges: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: And from a karpef, even from scattered wood? The Gemara answers: The mishna follows an individual opinion.

讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 讛诪驻讜讝专讬诐 砖讘砖讚讜转 砖讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讜注诇 讛诪讻讜谞住讬谉 砖讘拽专驻祝 砖诪讘讬讗讬谉 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 讛诪驻讜讝专讬诐 砖讘拽专驻祝 讜注诇 讛诪讻讜谞住讬谉 砖讘砖讚讜转 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讘讬讗

One may not rely on it, as is clear from a different source that the majority view is otherwise, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to wood scattered in fields that one may not bring it on a Festival to one鈥檚 house for kindling, nor with regard to wood gathered in a karpef that one may bring it. With regard to what did they disagree? It is with regard to scattered wood in a karpef and gathered wood in fields, as Beit Shammai say: He may not bring it, and Beit Hillel say: He may bring it. Although the lenient opinion with regard to gathered wood in a field is attributed to Beit Hillel, this is only according to the minority view of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. However, most Sages disagree and say that one may not bring wood from a field at all, even according to Beit Hillel.

讗诪专 专讘讗 注诇讬 拽谞讬诐 讜注诇讬 讙驻谞讬诐 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讻谞驻讬 诇讛讜 讜诪讜转讘讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 诪讚诇讬 讝讬拽讗 诪讘讚专 诇讛讜 讻诪驻讜讝专讬诐 讚诪讜 讜讗住讜专讬谉 讜讗讬 讗转谞讞 诪谞讗 诪讗转诪讜诇 注诇讬讬讛讜 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

Rava said: With regard to reed leaves and vine leaves, although they are gathered together and placed in the same spot, since if a wind comes it will scatter them, they are already considered scattered and are therefore prohibited. Given that they are likely to be scattered in the wind, one does not intend to use them. However, if one placed a vessel on them the day before to prevent their being scattered in the wind, it seems well and is permitted.

讗讬讝讛讜 拽专驻祝 讜讻讜壮 讗讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 砖住诪讜讱 诇注讬专 讜讛讜讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 驻讜转讞转 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讬诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 驻讜转讞转 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转讜讱 转讞讜诐 砖讘转 谞诪讬

The mishna discussed the question: What is a karpef? Rabbi Yehuda states that it is any enclosure that is near a city, while in Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion it is any fenced place into which one can enter only with a key, provided that it is within the Shabbat limit of a city. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to what case is the mishna speaking? Does Rabbi Yehuda mean to say that a karpef is any place that is near a city, provided that it has a key, otherwise it is not a karpef at all; and Rabbi Yosei comes to say: Since it has a key, even if it is not near a city, as long as it is within the Shabbat limit it is also considered a karpef? According to this understanding, Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 view is more lenient than that of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 砖住诪讜讱 诇注讬专 讘讬谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 驻讜转讞转 讘讬谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻讜转讞转 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讬诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转讜讱 转讞讜诐 砖讘转 讜讚讜拽讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 驻讜转讞转 讗讘诇 诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻讜转讞转 讗驻讬诇讜 住诪讜讱 诇注讬专 谞诪讬 诇讗

Or perhaps this is what Rabbi Yehuda is saying: Any enclosure that is near a city is a karpef, whether it has a key or does not have a key, and Rabbi Yosei comes to say: With regard to the distance, it is a karpef even if it is not near a city, provided that it is within the Shabbat limit, but specifically if it has a key. However, if it does not have a key, even if it is near a city it is also not considered a karpef. According to this understanding, the opinion of Rabbi Yosei is not necessarily the more lenient one; rather, for him the defining issue is whether or not there is a key, regardless of distance.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讚拽转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖谞讻谞住讬谉 诇讜 讘驻讜转讞转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘转讜讱 转讞讜诐 砖讘转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 转专转讬 诇拽讜诇讗 拽讗诪专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 住诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讛拽诇

The Gemara answers: Come and hear from the fact that it is taught in the mishna that Rabbi Yosei says: Any place into which one enters with a key, even within the Shabbat limit, and he does not say: If one enters, but rather: Any place into which one enters, it shows that the key is not the determining factor. One may learn from this that Rabbi Yosei stated two conditions as leniencies. In other words, he is not more stringent than Rabbi Yehuda in any situation; he is lenient in all cases. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from here that this is the case. Rav Salla said that Rabbi Yirmeya said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei as a leniency; Rabbi Yosei should be understood in this manner, and one should rule accordingly.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 诪讘拽注讬谉 注爪讬诐 诇讗 诪谉 讛拽讜专讜转 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛拽讜专讛 砖谞砖讘专讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 诪讘拽注讬谉 诇讗 讘拽专讚讜诐 讜诇讗 讘诪讙专讛 讜诇讗 讘诪讙诇 讗诇讗 讘拽讜驻讬抓

MISHNA: One may not chop wood on a Festival neither from beams intended for construction nor from a beam that broke on a Festival, although it no longer serves any purpose. And one may not chop wood on a Festival, neither with an ax, nor with a saw, nor with a sickle, as these are clearly craftsman鈥檚 tools used on weekdays. Rather, one may chop only with a cleaver. Using this tool differs greatly from the weekday manner in which wood is chopped.

讙诪壮 讜讛讗诪专转 专讬砖讗 讗讬谉 诪讘拽注讬谉 讻诇诇 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 诪讘拽注讬谉 诪谉 讛住讜讗专 砖诇 拽讜专讜转 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛拽讜专讛 砖谞砖讘专讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讘诇 诪讘拽注讬谉 诪谉 讛拽讜专讛 砖谞砖讘专讛 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

GEMARA: The Gemara wonders at the wording of the mishna: But didn鈥檛 you say in the first clause of the mishna that one may not chop beams at all on a Festival, ostensibly due to the extra effort involved? Why, then, does the mishna later define how one may chop, and even permit the use of a cleaver? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: One may not chop wood from the pile of beams intended for construction, nor from a beam that broke on the Festival itself, as it is considered muktze. However, one may chop wood from a beam that broke on the eve of the Festival, since it has presumably been designated as firewood.

讜讻砖讛谉 诪讘拽注讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讘拽注讬谉 诇讗 讘拽专讚讜诐 讜诇讗 讘诪讙诇 讜诇讗 讘诪讙专讛 讗诇讗 讘拽讜驻讬抓 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗讬谉 诪讘拽注讬谉 注爪讬诐 诇讗 诪谉 讛住讜讗专 砖诇 拽讜专讜转 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛拽讜专讛 砖谞砖讘专讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉

Yet even when one chops such a beam, it must not be done in the weekday manner; an adjustment must be made. Therefore, one may not chop it neither with an ax, nor with a saw, nor with a sickle, but with a cleaver. The Gemara comments: This opinion, which is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, is also taught in a baraita: One may not chop wood, neither from the pile of beams nor from the beam that broke on the Festival itself, as it is not considered prepared.

讜诇讗 讘拽专讚讜诐 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 砖诇诪讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘谞拽讘讜转 砖诇讜 讗讘诇 讘讝讻专讜转 砖诇讜 诪讜转专

It is taught in the mishna that even when it is permitted to chop wood on a Festival, one may not do so with an ax. Rav 岣nnana bar Shelemya said in the name of Rav: They taught this prohibition only with regard to a case where one chops with its female side, i.e., the broad side of the ax, as was normally done. But if one chops with its male side, i.e., the narrow side, this is permitted because it is an unusual manner of chopping.

驻砖讬讟讗 讘拽讜驻讬抓 转谞谉 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 拽讜驻讬抓 诇讞讜讚讬讛 讗讘诇 拽专讚讜诐 讜拽讜驻讬抓 讗讬诪讗 诪讙讜 讚讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讗住讜专 讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 谞诪讬 讗住讜专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara challenges: It is obvious that one may do so in this unusual fashion, as we learned in the mishna that it is permitted to chop with a cleaver, and chopping with the narrow side of an ax is similar to chopping with a cleaver. The Gemara explains: It was necessary to teach this halakha lest you say: This applies only to a cleaver, as it is narrow on both sides, but with regard to a tool that is an ax on one side and like a cleaver on the other, one might say: Since this side, that which is like an ax, is prohibited, the other, side, which is like a cleaver, should also be prohibited. Rav therefore teaches us that the cleaver side is in fact permitted.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讗诇讗 讘拽讜驻讬抓 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 砖诇诪讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讝讻专讜转 砖诇讜 讗讘诇 讘谞拽讘讜转 砖诇讜 讗住讜专 驻砖讬讟讗 讜诇讗 讘拽专讚讜诐 转谞谉 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 拽专讚讜诐 讗讘诇 拽讜驻讬抓 讜拽专讚讜诐 讗讬诪讗 诪讙讜 讚讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 砖专讬 讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 谞诪讬 砖专讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

And some teach this halakha in relation to the latter clause of the mishna: Rather, with a cleaver. Rav 岣nnana bar Shelemya said in the name of Rav: They taught that it is permitted to chop wood on a Festival from a beam that was broken the day before, as stated previously, when one does so only with its male side; but if he chops with its female side, it is prohibited. The Gemara challenges: This is obvious. Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that one may not use an ax? The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach this halakha lest you say: This prohibition applies only to an ax, but with regard to a utensil that is both an ax and a cleaver, i.e., that is broad on one side and narrow on the other, one might say: Since this side, the narrower one, is permitted, the other, broader side should also be permitted. Rav therefore teaches us that they did not permit one side due to the other.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 砖讛讜讗 诪诇讗 驻讬专讜转 讜谞驻讞转 谞讜讟诇 诪诪拽讜诐 讛驻讞转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 驻讜讞转 诇讻转讞诇讛 讜谞讜讟诇

MISHNA: If there is a house that is filled with produce and locked on all sides, and a hole formed in one of its walls or its roof, one may remove produce through the place of the hole. The produce is not considered muktze, even though one cannot reach it without the existence of the hole. Rabbi Meir says: One may even make a hole ab initio and take produce through that opening.

讙诪壮 讗诪讗讬 讜讛讗 拽讗 住转专 讗讛诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞讜诪讬 讘专 讗讚讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讗讜讬专讗 讚诇讬讘谞讬 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛谞讬 诇讬讘谞讬 讚讗讬讬转讜专 诪讘谞讬谞讗 砖专讬 诇讟诇讟讜诇讬谞讛讜 讘砖讘转讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讝讬 诇诪讝讙讗 注诇讬讬讛讜 砖专讙讬谞讛讜 讜讚讗讬 讗拽爪讬谞讛讜

GEMARA: The Gemara wonders at Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement: Why does he permit one to make a hole in order to remove the produce ab initio? Isn鈥檛 one who does so dismantling a tent, thereby performing a biblically prohibited labor? Rav Na岣mi bar Adda said that Shmuel said: Here, it is referring to bricks placed one on top of the other [aveira delivni] but not cemented together. This is not considered a building at all. The Gemara challenges: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say: With regard to these bricks remaining from a building, it is permitted to handle them on Shabbat, since they are fit to sit on; however, if one arranged them in rows, one on top of the other, he has certainly set them aside from his intentions? This indicates that even bricks placed on top of one another without being cemented together are nonetheless considered muktze.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诪专讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘砖讘转 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 驻讜讞转 诇讻转讞诇讛 讜谞讜讟诇 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诪专讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘砖讘转

Rabbi Zeira said: Rabbi Meir was referring to a Festival. On a Festival they said that one may do so, but they did not allow it on Shabbat even in such a manner, and Rav Na岣an was speaking of Shabbat. This opinion was also taught explicitly in the following baraita: Rabbi Meir says: One may even make a hole on a Festival ab initio and remove the produce from inside; they said this with regard to a Festival, but not with regard to Shabbat.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讜转诪讜转 砖讘拽专拽注 诪转讬专 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪驻拽讬注 讜诇讗 讞讜转讱 砖讘讻诇讬诐 诪转讬专 讜诪驻拽讬注 讜讞讜转讱 讗讞讚 砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

Shmuel said: In the case of fastenings made of knotted ropes that are attached to the ground and that serve as closures for doors of cellars and caves, one may untie the knot, but one may not unravel the rope itself into its constituent fibers nor cut the rope. This constitutes the prohibited labor of dismantling the cellar or cave on Shabbat. With regard to fastenings that are on the doors of vessels, e.g., cupboards, it is permitted to untie, or unravel, or cut them if necessary, both on Shabbat and on a Festival, as the prohibition against dismantling does not apply to vessels.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讞讜转诪讜转 砖讘拽专拽注 讘砖讘转 诪转讬专 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪驻拽讬注 讜诇讗 讞讜转讱 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪转讬专 讜诪驻拽讬注 讜讞讜转讱

The Gemara raises an objection to this from the following baraita: In a case of fastenings that are attached to the ground, which are on doors, on Shabbat one may untie the rope but not unravel or cut it. Although it is permitted to do so by Torah law, the Sages prohibited it. However, on a Festival, one may untie or unravel or cut it, as this is not prohibited even by rabbinic law. This appears to contradict the opinion of Shmuel, who does not differentiate between Shabbat and Festivals.

讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗祝 驻讜讞转 诇讻转讞诇讛 讜谞讜讟诇 讜驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讜讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻专讘谞谉 讜诪讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讘讞讜转诪讜转 砖讘拽专拽注 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讞讜转诪讜转 砖讘拽专拽注 砖讘砖讘转 诪转讬专 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪驻拽讬注 讜诇讗 讞讜转讱 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪转讬专 讜诪驻拽讬注 讜讞讜转讱

Shmuel could respond: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: One may even make a hole and remove produce ab initio, whereas the Rabbis disagree with him and prohibit it, and I spoke in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara asks: And do the Rabbis disagree with him with regard to doors sealed to the ground? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The Rabbis concede to Rabbi Meir with regard to doors sealed to the ground that one may untie them on Shabbat but not unravel or cut them, while on a Festival one may untie or unravel or cut them?

Scroll To Top