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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 6, 2021 | 诇壮 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.

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 36

There are laws regarding clearing out an entire storage area, moving items from one roof to the next, or bringing items down from the roof using a rope that were forbidden either on Yom Tov or Shabbat and the Gemara ponders whether it would also be forbidden as well on Shabbat/Yom Tov, relying on the differences discussed at the end of Beitzah 35. The Mishna stated that one could cover fruits if there is water dripping on them. Ulla and Rabbi Yitzchak disagree about whether this is only true for fruits that are ready to be eaten or whether this would apply even to a pile of bricks. The Gemara tries to bring proofs for each of the opinions from our Mishna and other tannaitic sources. However, each proof is rejected as it can be explained according to the other opinion as well. One can put out a utensil to catch water dripping from the roof and can keep emptying it and letting it refill. A story is told of Abaye who didn’t take the advice of Raba when water was dripping on his millstone and Raba suggested he bring out his bed and that will them create a situation where he can move the water as it is disgusting to sleep next to it (just as one can move a bowl full of bodily waste). Items that are disgusting are permitted to be moved on Shabbat, even if they are muktze. In the end, his millstone fell (as the water moistened the dirt that it was standing on), and was destroyed. He blamed himself for not heeding Raba’s advice. A utensil used for bodily waste can be carried out and emptied into the garbage, but can it be brought back inside? If so, how? The Mishna lists different categories of things that are forbidden on both Shabbat and Yom Tov and provides examples of each. The categories divide into actions that are forbidden that have no mitzva associated with them, actions that are forbidden even though they are somewhat of a mitzva, and actions that are forbidden, even though they are a mitzvah. The Gemara starts going through the actions listed in the first category and explains why each action is forbidden. In the second category, the Gemara questions some of the cases as they actually seem to be a proper mitzva and answers each question.

讛转诐 转谞谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转 讛讗讜爪专 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转 讛讗讜爪专 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬讙诪讜专 讗转 讛讗讜爪专 讻讜诇讜 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗砖讜讬讬 讙讜诪讜转 讛讻讗 诪讗讬

The Gemara poses another question with regard to the same issue. We learned elsewhere, at the end of the mishna cited above concerning clearing out sacks for guests and study: But one may not clear out a storeroom. And Shmuel said: What is the meaning of: But not a storeroom? It means: But one may not finish clearing out the entire storeroom while clearing out the sacks, exposing the floor of the storeroom. The reason this is prohibited is lest he come to level out depressions in the dirt floor of the storeroom, which would constitute a biblically prohibited labor. What would be the halakha here, with regard to lowering the produce from the roof on a Festival to prevent its ruin in the rain? Is it prohibited also in this case to remove all of it and thereby expose the floor of the roof?

讛转诐 讛讜讗 讘砖讘转 讚讗住讜专 诪砖讜诐 讚讞诪讬专 讗讘诇 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讚拽讬诇 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛转诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讟讜诇 讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讗诪专转 诇讗 讛讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讘讟讜诇 讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The Gemara specifies the possible arguments: Perhaps it is there, on Shabbat, that it is prohibited, because punishment for Shabbat desecration is severe, but on a Festival, which has a lighter punishment for desecration, it is acceptable. Or perhaps it can be argued to the contrary: There, in the case of the sacks on Shabbat, even though there is suspension of study in the study hall, i.e., the clearing out facilitates a mitzva, you say that they did not permit exposing the floor. Here, in the case of lowering produce on a Festival to prevent its ruin, where there is no suspension of study in the study hall, i.e., clearing out the produce does not facilitate any mitzva, is it not all the more so prohibited?

讜讛讻讗 转谞谉 诪砖讬诇讬谉 驻讬专讜转 讚专讱 讗专讜讘讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讗讜转讜 讛讙讙 讗讘诇 诪讙讙 诇讙讙 诇讗 讜转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诪讙讙 诇讙讙 讗驻讬诇讜 讻砖讙讙讜转讬讛谉 砖讜讬谉

The Gemara poses a further question. And here we learned in the mishna: One may lower produce through a skylight on a Festival, and Rav Na岣an said: They taught this halakha only with regard to the same roof, i.e., only if the skylight is in the same roof where the produce is located, but to carry the produce from one roof to another roof in order to lower it through a skylight in the second roof is not permitted. This would involve too much exertion to be permitted on the Festival. And this ruling is also taught in a baraita: One may not carry from one roof to another roof, even when the two roofs are on the same level and there is no extra effort of lifting or lowering the produce while transporting it between the roofs.

讛转诐 诪讗讬 (讻诇 砖讻谉 砖讘转 讚讞诪讬专讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗) 讛讻讗 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 诪砖讜诐 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讚拽讬诇 讜讗转讬 诇讝诇讝讜诇讬 讘讬讛 讗讘诇 砖讘转 讚讞诪讬专讗 讜诇讗 讗转讬 诇讝诇讝讜诇讬 讘讛 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

The question arises: There, in the case of moving sacks on Shabbat for guests or for study, what is the halakha? May the sacks be moved from one roof or house to another for this purpose? Perhaps all the more so they may not be moved on Shabbat, because Shabbat is more severe than a Festival? Or perhaps it can be argued to the contrary: It is here, with regard to a Festival, that it is prohibited to transfer from one roof to another, because a Festival is regarded lightly by people and they might consequently come to belittle it; but on Shabbat, which is severe in people鈥檚 eyes and so they will not come to belittle it, it is acceptable to transfer even from one house to another.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪讛 讛讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讛驻住讚 驻讬专讜转 讗诪专转 诇讗 讛转诐 讚诇讬讻讗 讛驻住讚 驻讬专讜转 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Or perhaps it may be argued: If here, in the case of clearing produce from the roof, when there is the issue of the loss of the produce, you say he may not transfer from one roof to another, then there, in the case of moving sacks on Shabbat for guests or study, when there is no issue of loss of produce, is it not all the more so prohibited?

讛讻讗 (转谞谉) 诇讗 讬砖诇砖诇诐 讘讞讘诇 讘讞诇讜谞讜转 讜诇讗 讬讜专讬讚诐 讚专讱 住讜诇诪讜转 讛转诐 诪讗讬 讛讻讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讚诇讬讻讗 讘讟讜诇 讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讗讘诇 砖讘转 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讟讜诇 讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

The Gemara presents yet another dilemma: Here, with regard to bringing produce into one鈥檚 house from the roof, we learned in a baraita: If there is no skylight from the roof to the house, necessitating another method of moving the produce out of the rain, he may not lower them by means of a rope through the windows, nor may he take them down by way of ladders. There, with regard to moving sacks on Shabbat, what is the halakha? May they be moved by ropes or using a ladder? Perhaps it is only here, in the case of moving produce out of the rain on a Festival, that it is prohibited, because produce left on a roof does not entail suspension of a mitzva such as study in the study hall; but on Shabbat, when there is the possibility that leaving the sacks in their current location will lead to suspension of study in the study hall, it is acceptable to remove them even via windows and ladders.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讛驻住讚 驻讬专讜转 讗诪专转 诇讗 讛转诐 讚诇讬讻讗 讛驻住讚 驻讬专讜转 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 转讬拽讜

Or perhaps it can be argued to the contrary: Here, in the case of the produce on the roof, when there is the issue of the loss of the produce, you say it is not permitted. There, in the case of clearing out sacks on Shabbat, where there is no issue of the loss of produce, should it not all the more so be prohibited to lower them via windows and ladders? No resolution was found, so the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讜诪讻住讬谉 讗转 讛驻讬专讜转 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讗讜讬专讗 讚诇讘谞讬 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 驻讬专讜转 讛专讗讜讬谉 讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讬谉 讻诇讬 谞讬讟诇 讗诇讗 诇讚讘专 讛谞讬讟诇 讘砖讘转

搂 It was taught in the mishna: And one may cover produce with cloths to prevent damage due to a leak. Ulla said: And even a row of bricks that might be ruined by the rain may be covered to prevent damage. Although the halakha in the mishna mentions produce, it is not limited to that case, but extends to any item liable to be spoiled. Rabbi Yitz岣k said: It applies only to an item like produce, which is fit for use on the Festival, but not to items such as bricks, which are designated for building and are not fit for use on the Festival. The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yitz岣k follows his line of reasoning in this regard, as Rabbi Yitz岣k said: A vessel, even if it is of the type that may be handled on Shabbat, may be handled on Shabbat only if it is going to be used for something that may itself be handled on Shabbat, but not for the sake of set-aside [muktze] objects. Since the bricks are muktze, one may not handle cloths to cover the bricks.

转谞谉 诪讻住讬谉 讗转 讛驻讬专讜转 讘讻诇讬诐 驻讬专讜转 讗讬谉 讗讜讬专讗 讚诇讘谞讬 诇讗 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讗讜讬专讗 讚诇讘谞讬 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 诪砖讬诇讬谉 驻讬专讜转 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 诪讻住讬谉 讗转 讛驻讬专讜转

The Gemara attempts to find a proof for this view: We learned in the mishna: One may cover produce with cloths, which seems to imply: Produce, yes, because it may be handled on the Festival, but muktze items such as a row of bricks, no. The Gemara rejects this argument: This is no proof, as it is possible that the same is true even for a row of bricks, i.e., that they may be covered. But since the tanna taught in the first clause of the mishna: One may lower produce, and there it is referring specifically to produce, as bricks may not be handled at all and surely not lowered from the roof, he taught also in the latter clause: One may cover produce. The example of produce was chosen to parallel the first clause in the mishna, not in order to imply exclusion of bricks.

转谞谉 讜讻谉 讻讚讬 讬讬谉 讜讻谉 讻讚讬 砖诪谉 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讟讬讘诇讗

The Gemara offers a different proof. We learned in the mishna: And similarly one may cover jugs of wine and jugs of oil due to a leak in the ceiling. This choice of examples seems to indicate that one may cover only things that are fit for use on the Festival, as opposed to objects such as bricks, which are muktze. The Gemara rejects this proof: With what are we dealing here? With jugs that contain wine and oil that are untithed, which are not fit for Festival use and are therefore muktze. And the same would be true for bricks.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讚讬 讬讬谉 讜讻讚讬 砖诪谉 讚讛转讬专讗 讛讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗 驻讬专讜转

The Gemara goes further: So, too, it is in fact more reasonable that this is the case, as if it enters your mind that the mishna is referring to jugs of wine and jugs of oil containing permitted liquids, didn鈥檛 the tanna already teach in the first clause of this part of the mishna that it is permitted to cover produce? What new information would be added by specifying jugs as well?

讻讚讬 讬讬谉 讜讻讚讬 砖诪谉 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛驻住讚 诪专讜讘讛 讞砖砖讜 诇讛驻住讚 诪讜注讟 诇讗 讞砖砖讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara rejects this assertion. It is possible that the mishna is referring specifically to jugs containing permitted liquids. Nevertheless, it was necessary for the tanna to add the example of jugs of wine and jugs of oil, as it could enter your mind to say that the Sages were concerned over a substantial loss, such as of produce, which can be ruined by drops of rain that leak on it. But with regard to a minor loss, such as drops of rain falling into a wine jug or an oil jug, they were not concerned, and they did not permit covering them. The mishna therefore teaches us that those may be covered as well.

转谞谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 讻诇讬 转讞转 讛讚诇祝 讘砖讘转 讘讚诇祝 讛专讗讜讬

The Gemara raises objections against Rabbi Yitz岣k鈥檚 view: We learned in the mishna: One may place a vessel beneath a leak on Shabbat. It is permitted, then, to bring a bucket for the purpose of containing the water leaking into the house, although that water is ostensibly not fit for drinking and is therefore muktze. The Gemara rejects this objection: The case in the mishna is of leakage of water that is in fact fit to be drunk, at least by animals, and is consequently fit for Festival use.

转讗 砖诪注 驻讜专住讬谉 诪讞爪诇转 注诇 讙讘讬 诇讘谞讬诐 讘砖讘转 讚讗讬讬转讜专 诪讘谞讬谞讗 讚讞讝讬 诇诪讝讙讗 注诇讬讬讛讜

Come and hear another objection from a baraita: One may spread a mat over bricks on Shabbat to protect against rain. The baraita explicitly permits covering bricks, which Rabbi Yitz岣k prohibited. The Gemara rejects this argument: This baraita is referring to bricks that were left over from building and are no longer designated for use in building, and which are consequently fit for use on the Festival by sitting on them.

转讗 砖诪注 驻讜专住讬谉 诪讞爪诇转 注诇 讙讘讬 讗讘谞讬诐 讘砖讘转 讘讗讘谞讬诐 诪拽讜专讝诇讜转 讚讞讝讬讬谉 诇讘讬转 讛讻住讗

Come and hear another objection. It was taught in a baraita: One may spread a mat over stones on Shabbat, although stones are muktze. The Gemara responds: That baraita is speaking not of ordinary stones but of rounded [mekurzalot] stones, which are fit for use in personal hygiene in the lavatory on Shabbat, and are therefore not muktze.

转讗 砖诪注 驻讜专住讬谉 诪讞爪诇转 注诇 讙讘讬 讻讜专转 讚讘讜专讬诐 讘砖讘转 讘讞诪讛 诪驻谞讬 讛讞诪讛 讜讘讙砖诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇爪讜讚 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讘砖

Come and hear an objection from a different source. One may spread a mat over a beehive on Shabbat to protect it from the elements, in the sun due to the sun, and in the rain due to the rain, provided he does not have the intent to trap the bees inside by covering the hive, as trapping is prohibited on Shabbat. A beehive and its bees are not fit for Shabbat use, yet it is permitted to handle a mat in order to cover the hive. The Gemara rejects this: There, too, the reference is to an item that is fit for Shabbat use, as it is discussing a hive when there is honey in it, which can be eaten on Shabbat. It is therefore permitted to handle the mat for the sake of the honey.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 诪诪讬砖谉 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛转讬谞讞 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讘砖 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜转谉 砖转讬 讞诇讜转 讗讜转谉 砖转讬 讞诇讜转 诪讜拽爪讜转 讛谉 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖讞砖讘 注诇讬讛诐

Rav Ukva from Meishan said to Rav Ashi: This explanation works out well with regard to the summer, when there is honey, but in the rainy season, when there is no honey in beehives, what can be said? The baraita explicitly mentioned the two phrases in the sun and in the rain. The Gemara answers: This halakha is necessary only for those two honeycombs left in the beehive in the winter to sustain the bees. The Gemara questions this: Are those two honeycombs not muktze, as they have clearly been left for the sake of the bees, and not to be used by humans? The Gemara replies: With what case are we dealing here? This is a case when the beekeeper had in mind before the Festival that he was going to take them from the bees and eat them himself.

讗讘诇 诇讗 讞砖讘 注诇讬讛诐 诪讗讬 讗住讜专 讗讚转谞讬 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇爪讜讚 诇驻诇讜讙 讜诇转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖讞砖讘 注诇讬讛谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讞砖讘 注诇讬讛诐 讗住讜专

The Gemara raises an objection to this interpretation. But if he did not have in mind to take them for himself, what would be the halakha? Wouldn鈥檛 it be prohibited to spread a mat over the hive? If so, when the baraita goes on to specify that sometimes it is prohibited to cover the hive, rather than teaching: As long as he does not have the intent to trap the bees, introducing a totally new factor into the discussion, let it make a distinction within the case itself by saying: In what case is this statement said, that the beehive may be covered? When he had in mind beforehand to take the honeycombs; but if he did not have in mind to take them, it is prohibited.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讞砖讘 注诇讬讛谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇爪讜讚

The Gemara responds: This is what the tanna is saying: Even if he had in mind to take the honeycombs, so that there is no problem of the hive鈥檚 being muktze, it is still permitted to cover it provided he does not have intent to trap the bees.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇爪讜讚 讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诪讜转专

The Gemara raises a further objection against this interpretation of the baraita. In what manner did you establish and explain this baraita? In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who, in disagreement with Rabbi Shimon, holds that the halakhot of muktze apply. But now say the latter clause of the baraita: Provided he does not have the intent to trap. This indicates that even though the bees may be trapped in the process of covering, it is permitted if this was not his intention. If so, we have come to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who, in disagreement with Rabbi Yehuda, said: An unintentional act is permitted even though it leads inadvertently to a prohibited result. This interpretation of the baraita is internally conflicted, half in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda and half in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

讜转住讘专讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讛讗 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘驻住讬拽 专讬砖讬讛 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转

The Gemara rejects this argument. And how can you understand that the baraita follows the view of Rabbi Shimon at all? But didn鈥檛 Abaye and Rava both say: Rabbi Shimon concedes that even an unintentional act is prohibited in a case of: Cut off its head and will it not die? In this case the person covering the hive with a mat inevitably traps the bees, even if he does not have intent to do so, and this act should be prohibited even by Rabbi Shimon.

诇注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讻讜讬 讜诇讗 转讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇爪讜讚

Rather, actually all of the baraita is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, and with what case are we dealing here? With a beehive that has windows, i.e., small openings, besides the main opening on top, so that some of the windows remain uncovered and covering the hive does not inevitably trap the bees. And in the baraita you should not say, according to Rabbi Yehuda: Provided he does not have intent to trap the bees, which would imply that the deciding factor is the intention of the one who covers them,

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬注砖谞讛 诪爪讜讚讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讘诪讬谞讜 谞爪讜讚 讗住讜专 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞讜 谞爪讜讚 诪讜转专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

but rather say the following: Provided he does not make it a trap as he covers it, i.e., as long as he takes care not to cover all the openings. The Gemara questions this: But it is obvious that it is prohibited to directly trap bees on Shabbat; why would the baraita mention it? The Gemara responds: It does inform us of something that is not obvious: Lest you say: An animal whose type is generally trapped and hunted by people for some purpose is prohibited to be trapped on Shabbat, whereas an animal whose type is not generally trapped, such as a bee, is permitted to be trapped even ab initio, as this is not considered to be the normal manner of hunting. The baraita therefore teaches us that one may not in fact trap bees.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讘讞诪讛 诪驻谞讬 讛讞诪讛 讜讘讙砖诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讛讙砖诪讬诐 拽转谞讬 讘讬讜诪讬 谞讬住谉 讜讘讬讜诪讬 转砖专讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讞诪讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讙砖诪讬诐 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讘砖

Rav Ashi said a different elucidation: Is it taught in the baraita: In the summer, and: In the rainy season? No, it is taught: In the sun due to the sun and in the rain due to the rain. The baraita speaks not of the summer and the rainy season, but of the spring days of Nisan and the autumn days of Tishrei, when there is sometimes sun and there is sometimes rain, and when there is also honey in the hive. It is possible, then, that the baraita permits covering the hive during these seasons because of the honey that is in it, as initially proposed.

讜谞讜转谞讬谉 讻诇讬 转讞转 讛讚诇祝 讘砖讘转 转谞讗 讗诐 谞转诪诇讗 讛讻诇讬 砖讜驻讱 讜砖讜谞讛 讜讗讬谞讜 谞诪谞注

搂 It was taught in the mishna: And one may place a vessel beneath a leak in order to catch the water on Shabbat. A Sage taught in a baraita: If the vessel became full with the leaking water, he may pour out its contents, place the vessel back under the leak, and repeat the entire process if necessary, and he need not refrain from doing so.

讘讬 专讞讬讗 讚讗讘讬讬 讚诇讜祝 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 注讬讬诇讬讛 诇驻讜专讬讱 诇讛转诐 讚诇讛讜讬 讻讙专祝 砖诇 专注讬 讜讗驻拽讬讛

The Gemara relates: Abaye鈥檚 millhouse once developed a leak on Shabbat. Abaye was concerned about the potential damage to the millstones, which were made partly of clay and which would become ruined from the leaking water, and he did not have enough buckets to catch all the water without emptying and refilling them. But the water was unfit for drinking and was therefore muktze and could not be removed. Abaye came before Rabba to ask him how to proceed. Rabba said to him: Go and bring your bed into the millhouse, so that the dirty water will be considered like a container of excrement, which, despite being muktze, may be removed from one鈥檚 presence due to its repulsive nature, and then remove the water.

讬转讬讘 讗讘讬讬 讜拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 注讜砖讬谉 讙专祝 砖诇 专注讬 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗讚讛讻讬 谞驻诇 讘讬 专讞讬讗 讚讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 转讬转讬 诇讬 讚注讘专讬 讗讚诪专

Abaye sat and examined the matter and posed a difficulty: And may one initiate a situation of a container of excrement, i.e., may one intentionally place any repulsive matter into a situation which will bother him and will then have to be removed, ab initio? In the meantime, as he was deliberating the issue, Abaye鈥檚 millhouse collapsed. He said: I had this coming to me for having gone against the words of my master, Rabba, by not following his ruling unquestioningly.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讙专祝 砖诇 专注讬 讜注讘讬讟 砖诇 诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 诪讜转专 诇讛讜爪讬讗谉 诇讗砖驻讛 讜讻砖讛讜讗 诪讞讝讬专讜 谞讜转谉 讘讜 诪讬诐 讜诪讞讝讬专讜

Shmuel said: With regard to a container of excrement and a container of urine, it is permitted to remove them on Shabbat to a garbage heap. And when he returns the container to the house he must place water in it first and then return it, for it is prohibited to carry these containers alone, as their foul odor makes them muktze due to their repulsive nature.

住讘讜专 诪讬谞讛 讙专祝 砖诇 专注讬 讗讙讘 诪谞讗 讗讬谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚讛讛讜讗 注讻讘专转讗 讚讗砖转讻讞 讘讬 讗住驻专诪拽讬 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 讗砖讬 谞拽讟讛 讘爪讜爪讬转讛 讜讗驻拽讜讛

Some Sages at first understood from the wording of Shmuel鈥檚 statement that with regard to removing a container of excrement on account of the vessel, i.e., along with its vessel: Yes, this is permitted; but to remove the excrement by itself, without a vessel containing it: No, this is prohibited. The Gemara counters this conclusion with the following story: Come and hear that a certain dead mouse was discovered in Rav Ashi鈥檚 storeroom for spices [isparmekei]. Rav Ashi said to them: Take hold of it by its tail and remove it. This shows that repulsive matter may be removed even directly.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 诪砖讜诐 专砖讜转 诪砖讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

MISHNA: Any act for which one is liable due to a rabbinic decree made to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest [shevut]; or if it is notable because it is optional, i.e., it involves an aspect of a mitzva but is not a complete mitzva; or if it is notable because it is a full-fledged mitzva, if it is prohibited on Shabbat, one is liable for it on a Festival as well.

讜讗诇讜 讛谉 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 讜诇讗 注讜诇讬谉 讘讗讬诇谉 讜诇讗 专讜讻讘讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讘讛诪讛 讜诇讗 砖讟讬谉 注诇 驻谞讬 讛诪讬诐 讜诇讗 诪讟驻讞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪住驻拽讬谉 讜诇讗 诪专拽讚讬谉

And these are the acts prohibited by the Sages as shevut: One may not climb a tree on Shabbat, nor ride on an animal, nor swim in the water, nor clap his hands together, nor clap his hand on the thigh, nor dance.

讜讗诇讜 讛谉 诪砖讜诐 专砖讜转 诇讗 讚谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讜诇讗 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讘诪讬谉

And the following are acts that are prohibited on Shabbat and are notable because they are optional, i.e., which involve an aspect of a mitzva but are not complete mitzvot: One may not judge, nor betroth a woman, nor perform 岣litza, which is done in lieu of levirate marriage, nor perform levirate marriage.

讜讗诇讜 讛谉 诪砖讜诐 诪爪讜讛 诇讗 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉 讜诇讗 诪注专讬讻讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讞专讬诪讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讙讘讬讛讬谉 转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专

And the following are prohibited on Shabbat despite the fact that they are notable because of the full-fledged mitzva involved in them: One may not consecrate, nor take a valuation vow (see Leviticus 27), nor consecrate objects for use by the priests or the Temple, nor separate teruma and tithes from produce.

讻诇 讗诇讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诪专讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讘砖讘转 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗讜讻诇 谞驻砖 讘诇讘讚

The Sages spoke of all these acts being prohibited even with regard to a Festival; all the more so are they prohibited on Shabbat. The general principle is: There is no difference between a Festival and Shabbat, except for work involving preparation of food alone, which is permitted on a Festival but prohibited on Shabbat.

讙诪壮 诇讗 注讜诇讬谉 讘讗讬诇谉 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬转诇讜砖

GEMARA: The Gemara clarifies the reasons for each of these halakhot: One may not climb a tree. This is a decree that was made lest one detach branches or leaves as he climbs, thereby transgressing the prohibited labor of reaping.

讜诇讗 专讜讻讘讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讘讛诪讛 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬爪讗 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转讞讜诪讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗诇讗 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讞转讜讱 讝诪讜专讛

Nor ride on an animal: This is a decree that was made lest one go beyond the Shabbat limit on the animal. The Gemara asks: Can one then learn from here that the prohibition against venturing beyond the Shabbat limits, which applies also to Festivals, is by Torah law? If the prohibition with regard to the Shabbat limit were rabbinic, the Sages would not have reinforced it with the additional decree against riding an animal. It is known that this is a matter of dispute; in light of this explanation of the mishna it would be a proof that Shabbat boundaries are of Torah origin. Rather, give a different reason for the prohibition: It is a decree that was made lest one cut off a branch to use as a riding switch, and thereby perform the labor of reaping, which is prohibited by Torah law.

讜诇讗 砖讟讬谉 注诇 驻谞讬 讛诪讬诐 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬注砖讛 讞讘讬转 砖诇 砖讬讬讟讬谉

Nor swim in the water: This is a decree that was made lest one make a swimmer鈥檚 barrel, i.e., an improvised flotation device used to teach beginners how to swim.

讜诇讗 诪讟驻讞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪住驻拽讬谉 讜诇讗 诪专拽讚讬谉 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬转拽谉 讻诇讬 砖讬专

Nor clap one鈥檚 hands together, nor clap his hand on the thigh, nor dance: All of these are prohibited due to a decree that was made lest one assemble put together a musical instrument to accompany his clapping or dancing.

讜讗诇讜 讛谉 诪砖讜诐 专砖讜转 诇讗 讚谞讬谉 讜讛讗 诪爪讜讛 拽注讘讬讚 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讚注讚讬祝 诪讬谞讬讛

搂 It was taught in the mishna: And the following are acts that are prohibited on Shabbat and are notable because they are optional, i.e., which involve an aspect of a mitzva but are not complete mitzvot: One may not judge. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 one perform a full-fledged mitzva by acting as a judge in a court? Why is it categorized as optional rather than as a full-fledged mitzva? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the mishna to categorize it as optional, as it is speaking of a case where there is another person who is more qualified than he. Since the other person can judge even better, it is not considered an absolute mitzva for the first one to judge.

讜诇讗 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讜讛讗 诪爪讜讛 拽注讘讬讚 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

Nor betroth a woman: The Gemara asks: Why is this categorized as optional, indicating that it is not a full-fledged mitzva? But doesn鈥檛 one perform a full-fledged mitzva when he marries, as this enables him to fulfill the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the mishna to categorize it as optional,

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: 36-40+Siyum – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

As we finish Masechet Beitzah, we learn various Rabbinic prohibitions that apply to the Festivals. We will also learn how...
Gefet with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni

Business on Shabbat and Yom Tov? – Gefet 10

Why is There a Prohibition to Do Business on Shabbat and Yom Tov? Is it possible to perform this operation...
beehives tel rehov

None of Your Beeswax

From the land of milk and honey to the apples and honey of Rosh Hashanah, honey is important in the...

Beitzah 36

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Beitzah 36

讛转诐 转谞谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转 讛讗讜爪专 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转 讛讗讜爪专 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬讙诪讜专 讗转 讛讗讜爪专 讻讜诇讜 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗砖讜讬讬 讙讜诪讜转 讛讻讗 诪讗讬

The Gemara poses another question with regard to the same issue. We learned elsewhere, at the end of the mishna cited above concerning clearing out sacks for guests and study: But one may not clear out a storeroom. And Shmuel said: What is the meaning of: But not a storeroom? It means: But one may not finish clearing out the entire storeroom while clearing out the sacks, exposing the floor of the storeroom. The reason this is prohibited is lest he come to level out depressions in the dirt floor of the storeroom, which would constitute a biblically prohibited labor. What would be the halakha here, with regard to lowering the produce from the roof on a Festival to prevent its ruin in the rain? Is it prohibited also in this case to remove all of it and thereby expose the floor of the roof?

讛转诐 讛讜讗 讘砖讘转 讚讗住讜专 诪砖讜诐 讚讞诪讬专 讗讘诇 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讚拽讬诇 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛转诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讟讜诇 讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讗诪专转 诇讗 讛讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讘讟讜诇 讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The Gemara specifies the possible arguments: Perhaps it is there, on Shabbat, that it is prohibited, because punishment for Shabbat desecration is severe, but on a Festival, which has a lighter punishment for desecration, it is acceptable. Or perhaps it can be argued to the contrary: There, in the case of the sacks on Shabbat, even though there is suspension of study in the study hall, i.e., the clearing out facilitates a mitzva, you say that they did not permit exposing the floor. Here, in the case of lowering produce on a Festival to prevent its ruin, where there is no suspension of study in the study hall, i.e., clearing out the produce does not facilitate any mitzva, is it not all the more so prohibited?

讜讛讻讗 转谞谉 诪砖讬诇讬谉 驻讬专讜转 讚专讱 讗专讜讘讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讗讜转讜 讛讙讙 讗讘诇 诪讙讙 诇讙讙 诇讗 讜转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诪讙讙 诇讙讙 讗驻讬诇讜 讻砖讙讙讜转讬讛谉 砖讜讬谉

The Gemara poses a further question. And here we learned in the mishna: One may lower produce through a skylight on a Festival, and Rav Na岣an said: They taught this halakha only with regard to the same roof, i.e., only if the skylight is in the same roof where the produce is located, but to carry the produce from one roof to another roof in order to lower it through a skylight in the second roof is not permitted. This would involve too much exertion to be permitted on the Festival. And this ruling is also taught in a baraita: One may not carry from one roof to another roof, even when the two roofs are on the same level and there is no extra effort of lifting or lowering the produce while transporting it between the roofs.

讛转诐 诪讗讬 (讻诇 砖讻谉 砖讘转 讚讞诪讬专讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗) 讛讻讗 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 诪砖讜诐 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讚拽讬诇 讜讗转讬 诇讝诇讝讜诇讬 讘讬讛 讗讘诇 砖讘转 讚讞诪讬专讗 讜诇讗 讗转讬 诇讝诇讝讜诇讬 讘讛 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

The question arises: There, in the case of moving sacks on Shabbat for guests or for study, what is the halakha? May the sacks be moved from one roof or house to another for this purpose? Perhaps all the more so they may not be moved on Shabbat, because Shabbat is more severe than a Festival? Or perhaps it can be argued to the contrary: It is here, with regard to a Festival, that it is prohibited to transfer from one roof to another, because a Festival is regarded lightly by people and they might consequently come to belittle it; but on Shabbat, which is severe in people鈥檚 eyes and so they will not come to belittle it, it is acceptable to transfer even from one house to another.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪讛 讛讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讛驻住讚 驻讬专讜转 讗诪专转 诇讗 讛转诐 讚诇讬讻讗 讛驻住讚 驻讬专讜转 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Or perhaps it may be argued: If here, in the case of clearing produce from the roof, when there is the issue of the loss of the produce, you say he may not transfer from one roof to another, then there, in the case of moving sacks on Shabbat for guests or study, when there is no issue of loss of produce, is it not all the more so prohibited?

讛讻讗 (转谞谉) 诇讗 讬砖诇砖诇诐 讘讞讘诇 讘讞诇讜谞讜转 讜诇讗 讬讜专讬讚诐 讚专讱 住讜诇诪讜转 讛转诐 诪讗讬 讛讻讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讚诇讬讻讗 讘讟讜诇 讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讗讘诇 砖讘转 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讟讜诇 讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

The Gemara presents yet another dilemma: Here, with regard to bringing produce into one鈥檚 house from the roof, we learned in a baraita: If there is no skylight from the roof to the house, necessitating another method of moving the produce out of the rain, he may not lower them by means of a rope through the windows, nor may he take them down by way of ladders. There, with regard to moving sacks on Shabbat, what is the halakha? May they be moved by ropes or using a ladder? Perhaps it is only here, in the case of moving produce out of the rain on a Festival, that it is prohibited, because produce left on a roof does not entail suspension of a mitzva such as study in the study hall; but on Shabbat, when there is the possibility that leaving the sacks in their current location will lead to suspension of study in the study hall, it is acceptable to remove them even via windows and ladders.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讛驻住讚 驻讬专讜转 讗诪专转 诇讗 讛转诐 讚诇讬讻讗 讛驻住讚 驻讬专讜转 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 转讬拽讜

Or perhaps it can be argued to the contrary: Here, in the case of the produce on the roof, when there is the issue of the loss of the produce, you say it is not permitted. There, in the case of clearing out sacks on Shabbat, where there is no issue of the loss of produce, should it not all the more so be prohibited to lower them via windows and ladders? No resolution was found, so the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讜诪讻住讬谉 讗转 讛驻讬专讜转 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讗讜讬专讗 讚诇讘谞讬 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 驻讬专讜转 讛专讗讜讬谉 讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讬谉 讻诇讬 谞讬讟诇 讗诇讗 诇讚讘专 讛谞讬讟诇 讘砖讘转

搂 It was taught in the mishna: And one may cover produce with cloths to prevent damage due to a leak. Ulla said: And even a row of bricks that might be ruined by the rain may be covered to prevent damage. Although the halakha in the mishna mentions produce, it is not limited to that case, but extends to any item liable to be spoiled. Rabbi Yitz岣k said: It applies only to an item like produce, which is fit for use on the Festival, but not to items such as bricks, which are designated for building and are not fit for use on the Festival. The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yitz岣k follows his line of reasoning in this regard, as Rabbi Yitz岣k said: A vessel, even if it is of the type that may be handled on Shabbat, may be handled on Shabbat only if it is going to be used for something that may itself be handled on Shabbat, but not for the sake of set-aside [muktze] objects. Since the bricks are muktze, one may not handle cloths to cover the bricks.

转谞谉 诪讻住讬谉 讗转 讛驻讬专讜转 讘讻诇讬诐 驻讬专讜转 讗讬谉 讗讜讬专讗 讚诇讘谞讬 诇讗 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讗讜讬专讗 讚诇讘谞讬 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 诪砖讬诇讬谉 驻讬专讜转 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 诪讻住讬谉 讗转 讛驻讬专讜转

The Gemara attempts to find a proof for this view: We learned in the mishna: One may cover produce with cloths, which seems to imply: Produce, yes, because it may be handled on the Festival, but muktze items such as a row of bricks, no. The Gemara rejects this argument: This is no proof, as it is possible that the same is true even for a row of bricks, i.e., that they may be covered. But since the tanna taught in the first clause of the mishna: One may lower produce, and there it is referring specifically to produce, as bricks may not be handled at all and surely not lowered from the roof, he taught also in the latter clause: One may cover produce. The example of produce was chosen to parallel the first clause in the mishna, not in order to imply exclusion of bricks.

转谞谉 讜讻谉 讻讚讬 讬讬谉 讜讻谉 讻讚讬 砖诪谉 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讟讬讘诇讗

The Gemara offers a different proof. We learned in the mishna: And similarly one may cover jugs of wine and jugs of oil due to a leak in the ceiling. This choice of examples seems to indicate that one may cover only things that are fit for use on the Festival, as opposed to objects such as bricks, which are muktze. The Gemara rejects this proof: With what are we dealing here? With jugs that contain wine and oil that are untithed, which are not fit for Festival use and are therefore muktze. And the same would be true for bricks.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讚讬 讬讬谉 讜讻讚讬 砖诪谉 讚讛转讬专讗 讛讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗 驻讬专讜转

The Gemara goes further: So, too, it is in fact more reasonable that this is the case, as if it enters your mind that the mishna is referring to jugs of wine and jugs of oil containing permitted liquids, didn鈥檛 the tanna already teach in the first clause of this part of the mishna that it is permitted to cover produce? What new information would be added by specifying jugs as well?

讻讚讬 讬讬谉 讜讻讚讬 砖诪谉 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛驻住讚 诪专讜讘讛 讞砖砖讜 诇讛驻住讚 诪讜注讟 诇讗 讞砖砖讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara rejects this assertion. It is possible that the mishna is referring specifically to jugs containing permitted liquids. Nevertheless, it was necessary for the tanna to add the example of jugs of wine and jugs of oil, as it could enter your mind to say that the Sages were concerned over a substantial loss, such as of produce, which can be ruined by drops of rain that leak on it. But with regard to a minor loss, such as drops of rain falling into a wine jug or an oil jug, they were not concerned, and they did not permit covering them. The mishna therefore teaches us that those may be covered as well.

转谞谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 讻诇讬 转讞转 讛讚诇祝 讘砖讘转 讘讚诇祝 讛专讗讜讬

The Gemara raises objections against Rabbi Yitz岣k鈥檚 view: We learned in the mishna: One may place a vessel beneath a leak on Shabbat. It is permitted, then, to bring a bucket for the purpose of containing the water leaking into the house, although that water is ostensibly not fit for drinking and is therefore muktze. The Gemara rejects this objection: The case in the mishna is of leakage of water that is in fact fit to be drunk, at least by animals, and is consequently fit for Festival use.

转讗 砖诪注 驻讜专住讬谉 诪讞爪诇转 注诇 讙讘讬 诇讘谞讬诐 讘砖讘转 讚讗讬讬转讜专 诪讘谞讬谞讗 讚讞讝讬 诇诪讝讙讗 注诇讬讬讛讜

Come and hear another objection from a baraita: One may spread a mat over bricks on Shabbat to protect against rain. The baraita explicitly permits covering bricks, which Rabbi Yitz岣k prohibited. The Gemara rejects this argument: This baraita is referring to bricks that were left over from building and are no longer designated for use in building, and which are consequently fit for use on the Festival by sitting on them.

转讗 砖诪注 驻讜专住讬谉 诪讞爪诇转 注诇 讙讘讬 讗讘谞讬诐 讘砖讘转 讘讗讘谞讬诐 诪拽讜专讝诇讜转 讚讞讝讬讬谉 诇讘讬转 讛讻住讗

Come and hear another objection. It was taught in a baraita: One may spread a mat over stones on Shabbat, although stones are muktze. The Gemara responds: That baraita is speaking not of ordinary stones but of rounded [mekurzalot] stones, which are fit for use in personal hygiene in the lavatory on Shabbat, and are therefore not muktze.

转讗 砖诪注 驻讜专住讬谉 诪讞爪诇转 注诇 讙讘讬 讻讜专转 讚讘讜专讬诐 讘砖讘转 讘讞诪讛 诪驻谞讬 讛讞诪讛 讜讘讙砖诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇爪讜讚 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讘砖

Come and hear an objection from a different source. One may spread a mat over a beehive on Shabbat to protect it from the elements, in the sun due to the sun, and in the rain due to the rain, provided he does not have the intent to trap the bees inside by covering the hive, as trapping is prohibited on Shabbat. A beehive and its bees are not fit for Shabbat use, yet it is permitted to handle a mat in order to cover the hive. The Gemara rejects this: There, too, the reference is to an item that is fit for Shabbat use, as it is discussing a hive when there is honey in it, which can be eaten on Shabbat. It is therefore permitted to handle the mat for the sake of the honey.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 诪诪讬砖谉 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛转讬谞讞 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讘砖 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜转谉 砖转讬 讞诇讜转 讗讜转谉 砖转讬 讞诇讜转 诪讜拽爪讜转 讛谉 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖讞砖讘 注诇讬讛诐

Rav Ukva from Meishan said to Rav Ashi: This explanation works out well with regard to the summer, when there is honey, but in the rainy season, when there is no honey in beehives, what can be said? The baraita explicitly mentioned the two phrases in the sun and in the rain. The Gemara answers: This halakha is necessary only for those two honeycombs left in the beehive in the winter to sustain the bees. The Gemara questions this: Are those two honeycombs not muktze, as they have clearly been left for the sake of the bees, and not to be used by humans? The Gemara replies: With what case are we dealing here? This is a case when the beekeeper had in mind before the Festival that he was going to take them from the bees and eat them himself.

讗讘诇 诇讗 讞砖讘 注诇讬讛诐 诪讗讬 讗住讜专 讗讚转谞讬 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇爪讜讚 诇驻诇讜讙 讜诇转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖讞砖讘 注诇讬讛谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讞砖讘 注诇讬讛诐 讗住讜专

The Gemara raises an objection to this interpretation. But if he did not have in mind to take them for himself, what would be the halakha? Wouldn鈥檛 it be prohibited to spread a mat over the hive? If so, when the baraita goes on to specify that sometimes it is prohibited to cover the hive, rather than teaching: As long as he does not have the intent to trap the bees, introducing a totally new factor into the discussion, let it make a distinction within the case itself by saying: In what case is this statement said, that the beehive may be covered? When he had in mind beforehand to take the honeycombs; but if he did not have in mind to take them, it is prohibited.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讞砖讘 注诇讬讛谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇爪讜讚

The Gemara responds: This is what the tanna is saying: Even if he had in mind to take the honeycombs, so that there is no problem of the hive鈥檚 being muktze, it is still permitted to cover it provided he does not have intent to trap the bees.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇爪讜讚 讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诪讜转专

The Gemara raises a further objection against this interpretation of the baraita. In what manner did you establish and explain this baraita? In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who, in disagreement with Rabbi Shimon, holds that the halakhot of muktze apply. But now say the latter clause of the baraita: Provided he does not have the intent to trap. This indicates that even though the bees may be trapped in the process of covering, it is permitted if this was not his intention. If so, we have come to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who, in disagreement with Rabbi Yehuda, said: An unintentional act is permitted even though it leads inadvertently to a prohibited result. This interpretation of the baraita is internally conflicted, half in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda and half in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

讜转住讘专讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讛讗 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘驻住讬拽 专讬砖讬讛 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转

The Gemara rejects this argument. And how can you understand that the baraita follows the view of Rabbi Shimon at all? But didn鈥檛 Abaye and Rava both say: Rabbi Shimon concedes that even an unintentional act is prohibited in a case of: Cut off its head and will it not die? In this case the person covering the hive with a mat inevitably traps the bees, even if he does not have intent to do so, and this act should be prohibited even by Rabbi Shimon.

诇注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讻讜讬 讜诇讗 转讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇爪讜讚

Rather, actually all of the baraita is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, and with what case are we dealing here? With a beehive that has windows, i.e., small openings, besides the main opening on top, so that some of the windows remain uncovered and covering the hive does not inevitably trap the bees. And in the baraita you should not say, according to Rabbi Yehuda: Provided he does not have intent to trap the bees, which would imply that the deciding factor is the intention of the one who covers them,

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬注砖谞讛 诪爪讜讚讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讘诪讬谞讜 谞爪讜讚 讗住讜专 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞讜 谞爪讜讚 诪讜转专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

but rather say the following: Provided he does not make it a trap as he covers it, i.e., as long as he takes care not to cover all the openings. The Gemara questions this: But it is obvious that it is prohibited to directly trap bees on Shabbat; why would the baraita mention it? The Gemara responds: It does inform us of something that is not obvious: Lest you say: An animal whose type is generally trapped and hunted by people for some purpose is prohibited to be trapped on Shabbat, whereas an animal whose type is not generally trapped, such as a bee, is permitted to be trapped even ab initio, as this is not considered to be the normal manner of hunting. The baraita therefore teaches us that one may not in fact trap bees.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讘讞诪讛 诪驻谞讬 讛讞诪讛 讜讘讙砖诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讛讙砖诪讬诐 拽转谞讬 讘讬讜诪讬 谞讬住谉 讜讘讬讜诪讬 转砖专讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讞诪讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讙砖诪讬诐 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讘砖

Rav Ashi said a different elucidation: Is it taught in the baraita: In the summer, and: In the rainy season? No, it is taught: In the sun due to the sun and in the rain due to the rain. The baraita speaks not of the summer and the rainy season, but of the spring days of Nisan and the autumn days of Tishrei, when there is sometimes sun and there is sometimes rain, and when there is also honey in the hive. It is possible, then, that the baraita permits covering the hive during these seasons because of the honey that is in it, as initially proposed.

讜谞讜转谞讬谉 讻诇讬 转讞转 讛讚诇祝 讘砖讘转 转谞讗 讗诐 谞转诪诇讗 讛讻诇讬 砖讜驻讱 讜砖讜谞讛 讜讗讬谞讜 谞诪谞注

搂 It was taught in the mishna: And one may place a vessel beneath a leak in order to catch the water on Shabbat. A Sage taught in a baraita: If the vessel became full with the leaking water, he may pour out its contents, place the vessel back under the leak, and repeat the entire process if necessary, and he need not refrain from doing so.

讘讬 专讞讬讗 讚讗讘讬讬 讚诇讜祝 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 注讬讬诇讬讛 诇驻讜专讬讱 诇讛转诐 讚诇讛讜讬 讻讙专祝 砖诇 专注讬 讜讗驻拽讬讛

The Gemara relates: Abaye鈥檚 millhouse once developed a leak on Shabbat. Abaye was concerned about the potential damage to the millstones, which were made partly of clay and which would become ruined from the leaking water, and he did not have enough buckets to catch all the water without emptying and refilling them. But the water was unfit for drinking and was therefore muktze and could not be removed. Abaye came before Rabba to ask him how to proceed. Rabba said to him: Go and bring your bed into the millhouse, so that the dirty water will be considered like a container of excrement, which, despite being muktze, may be removed from one鈥檚 presence due to its repulsive nature, and then remove the water.

讬转讬讘 讗讘讬讬 讜拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 注讜砖讬谉 讙专祝 砖诇 专注讬 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗讚讛讻讬 谞驻诇 讘讬 专讞讬讗 讚讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 转讬转讬 诇讬 讚注讘专讬 讗讚诪专

Abaye sat and examined the matter and posed a difficulty: And may one initiate a situation of a container of excrement, i.e., may one intentionally place any repulsive matter into a situation which will bother him and will then have to be removed, ab initio? In the meantime, as he was deliberating the issue, Abaye鈥檚 millhouse collapsed. He said: I had this coming to me for having gone against the words of my master, Rabba, by not following his ruling unquestioningly.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讙专祝 砖诇 专注讬 讜注讘讬讟 砖诇 诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 诪讜转专 诇讛讜爪讬讗谉 诇讗砖驻讛 讜讻砖讛讜讗 诪讞讝讬专讜 谞讜转谉 讘讜 诪讬诐 讜诪讞讝讬专讜

Shmuel said: With regard to a container of excrement and a container of urine, it is permitted to remove them on Shabbat to a garbage heap. And when he returns the container to the house he must place water in it first and then return it, for it is prohibited to carry these containers alone, as their foul odor makes them muktze due to their repulsive nature.

住讘讜专 诪讬谞讛 讙专祝 砖诇 专注讬 讗讙讘 诪谞讗 讗讬谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚讛讛讜讗 注讻讘专转讗 讚讗砖转讻讞 讘讬 讗住驻专诪拽讬 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 讗砖讬 谞拽讟讛 讘爪讜爪讬转讛 讜讗驻拽讜讛

Some Sages at first understood from the wording of Shmuel鈥檚 statement that with regard to removing a container of excrement on account of the vessel, i.e., along with its vessel: Yes, this is permitted; but to remove the excrement by itself, without a vessel containing it: No, this is prohibited. The Gemara counters this conclusion with the following story: Come and hear that a certain dead mouse was discovered in Rav Ashi鈥檚 storeroom for spices [isparmekei]. Rav Ashi said to them: Take hold of it by its tail and remove it. This shows that repulsive matter may be removed even directly.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 诪砖讜诐 专砖讜转 诪砖讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

MISHNA: Any act for which one is liable due to a rabbinic decree made to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest [shevut]; or if it is notable because it is optional, i.e., it involves an aspect of a mitzva but is not a complete mitzva; or if it is notable because it is a full-fledged mitzva, if it is prohibited on Shabbat, one is liable for it on a Festival as well.

讜讗诇讜 讛谉 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 讜诇讗 注讜诇讬谉 讘讗讬诇谉 讜诇讗 专讜讻讘讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讘讛诪讛 讜诇讗 砖讟讬谉 注诇 驻谞讬 讛诪讬诐 讜诇讗 诪讟驻讞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪住驻拽讬谉 讜诇讗 诪专拽讚讬谉

And these are the acts prohibited by the Sages as shevut: One may not climb a tree on Shabbat, nor ride on an animal, nor swim in the water, nor clap his hands together, nor clap his hand on the thigh, nor dance.

讜讗诇讜 讛谉 诪砖讜诐 专砖讜转 诇讗 讚谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讜诇讗 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讘诪讬谉

And the following are acts that are prohibited on Shabbat and are notable because they are optional, i.e., which involve an aspect of a mitzva but are not complete mitzvot: One may not judge, nor betroth a woman, nor perform 岣litza, which is done in lieu of levirate marriage, nor perform levirate marriage.

讜讗诇讜 讛谉 诪砖讜诐 诪爪讜讛 诇讗 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉 讜诇讗 诪注专讬讻讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讞专讬诪讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讙讘讬讛讬谉 转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专

And the following are prohibited on Shabbat despite the fact that they are notable because of the full-fledged mitzva involved in them: One may not consecrate, nor take a valuation vow (see Leviticus 27), nor consecrate objects for use by the priests or the Temple, nor separate teruma and tithes from produce.

讻诇 讗诇讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诪专讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讘砖讘转 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗讜讻诇 谞驻砖 讘诇讘讚

The Sages spoke of all these acts being prohibited even with regard to a Festival; all the more so are they prohibited on Shabbat. The general principle is: There is no difference between a Festival and Shabbat, except for work involving preparation of food alone, which is permitted on a Festival but prohibited on Shabbat.

讙诪壮 诇讗 注讜诇讬谉 讘讗讬诇谉 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬转诇讜砖

GEMARA: The Gemara clarifies the reasons for each of these halakhot: One may not climb a tree. This is a decree that was made lest one detach branches or leaves as he climbs, thereby transgressing the prohibited labor of reaping.

讜诇讗 专讜讻讘讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讘讛诪讛 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬爪讗 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转讞讜诪讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗诇讗 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讞转讜讱 讝诪讜专讛

Nor ride on an animal: This is a decree that was made lest one go beyond the Shabbat limit on the animal. The Gemara asks: Can one then learn from here that the prohibition against venturing beyond the Shabbat limits, which applies also to Festivals, is by Torah law? If the prohibition with regard to the Shabbat limit were rabbinic, the Sages would not have reinforced it with the additional decree against riding an animal. It is known that this is a matter of dispute; in light of this explanation of the mishna it would be a proof that Shabbat boundaries are of Torah origin. Rather, give a different reason for the prohibition: It is a decree that was made lest one cut off a branch to use as a riding switch, and thereby perform the labor of reaping, which is prohibited by Torah law.

讜诇讗 砖讟讬谉 注诇 驻谞讬 讛诪讬诐 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬注砖讛 讞讘讬转 砖诇 砖讬讬讟讬谉

Nor swim in the water: This is a decree that was made lest one make a swimmer鈥檚 barrel, i.e., an improvised flotation device used to teach beginners how to swim.

讜诇讗 诪讟驻讞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪住驻拽讬谉 讜诇讗 诪专拽讚讬谉 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬转拽谉 讻诇讬 砖讬专

Nor clap one鈥檚 hands together, nor clap his hand on the thigh, nor dance: All of these are prohibited due to a decree that was made lest one assemble put together a musical instrument to accompany his clapping or dancing.

讜讗诇讜 讛谉 诪砖讜诐 专砖讜转 诇讗 讚谞讬谉 讜讛讗 诪爪讜讛 拽注讘讬讚 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讚注讚讬祝 诪讬谞讬讛

搂 It was taught in the mishna: And the following are acts that are prohibited on Shabbat and are notable because they are optional, i.e., which involve an aspect of a mitzva but are not complete mitzvot: One may not judge. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 one perform a full-fledged mitzva by acting as a judge in a court? Why is it categorized as optional rather than as a full-fledged mitzva? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the mishna to categorize it as optional, as it is speaking of a case where there is another person who is more qualified than he. Since the other person can judge even better, it is not considered an absolute mitzva for the first one to judge.

讜诇讗 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讜讛讗 诪爪讜讛 拽注讘讬讚 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

Nor betroth a woman: The Gemara asks: Why is this categorized as optional, indicating that it is not a full-fledged mitzva? But doesn鈥檛 one perform a full-fledged mitzva when he marries, as this enables him to fulfill the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the mishna to categorize it as optional,

Scroll To Top