Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 20, 2020 | ד׳ בכסלו תשפ״א

Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

This month of learning is dedicated by Pam and Yoav Schwartz to honor the 5th yahrtzeit of their nephew Ezra Schwartz. Ezra's life was full of love, curiosity, laughter, and friendship. May this learning replace some of the light that was lost from this world.

Eruvin 104 – Shabbat November 21

This is Shabbat’s daf. For Friday’s daf, please click here. 

The gemara discusses other things that are permitted in the Temple but not outside the Temple. If you find an impure dead creature (on of the eight that according to the Torah are impure) in the Temple, how do you remove it and if it is Shabbat, how far do you carry it out to remove it, despite the fact that it is muktze?

שלש על שלש חוצצות פחות משלש אין חוצצות והיינו דרבא אמר רב חסדא

If the fabric was three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, it interposes; but if it was less than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, it does not interpose. And this is the same teaching that Rava said that Rav Ḥisda said.

לימא פליגא דרב יהודה בריה דרבי חייא שאני צלצול קטן דחשיב

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this disagrees with the opinion of Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Ḥisda, who prohibits a sash even smaller than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths. The Gemara rejects this contention: This is not necessarily so, as a small sash is different, since it is significant. It is therefore like a garment, even if it is smaller than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths.

ולרבי יוחנן אדאשמעינן גמי לישמעינן צלצול קטן

The Gemara raises a question: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Rather than teaching us the halakha with regard to a reed, let the mishna teach us that a priest may wrap his wounded finger with a small sash, as that does not constitute an interposition.

מילתא אגב אורחיה קא משמע לן דגמי מסי:

The Gemara explains: The tanna teaches us another matter in passing, that a reed heals. However, as far as a priest involved in the service in concerned, there is no concern with regard to this prohibition either, as it is also a rabbinic decree that is not in effect in the Temple.

מתני׳ בוזקין מלח על גבי כבש בשביל שלא יחליקו וממלאין מבור הגולה ומבור הגדול בגלגל בשבת ומבאר הקר ביום טוב:

MISHNA: One may scatter salt on Shabbat on the ramp that leads to the altar so that the priests will not slip on their way up. And likewise, one may draw water from the Cistern of the Exiles and from the Great Cistern, which were located in the Temple, by means of the wheel designed for drawing water, even on Shabbat. And one may draw water from the Heker Well only on a Festival.

גמ׳ רמי ליה רב איקא מפשרוניא לרבא תנן בוזקין מלח על גבי הכבש בשביל שלא יחליקו במקדש אין במדינה לא ורמינהי חצר שנתקלקלה במימי גשמים מביא תבן ומרדה בה

GEMARA: Rav Ika from Pashronya raised a contradiction before Rava: We learned in the mishna: One may scatter salt on Shabbat on the ramp that leads to the altar, so that the priests will not slip, from which it can be inferred: In the Temple, yes, it is permitted to do so, but outside the Temple, in the rest of the country, no, it is prohibited to scatter salt on a ramp. And he raised his contradiction from a baraita: With regard to a courtyard that was damaged on Shabbat by rainwater, so that it became difficult to cross, one may bring straw and scatter it about to absorb the water. Apparently, an action of this kind is permitted even outside the Temple.

שאני תבן דלא מבטיל ליה

The Gemara answers: Straw is different, as one does not negate it; rather, he intends to remove it once the water has been absorbed. He is therefore permitted to scatter the straw in the courtyard, just as it is permitted to put it in any other place. However, it is prohibited to scatter objects that one intends to leave in place, such as salt, as this appears as though he is adding to the ground and building.

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי האי מלח היכי דמי אי דמבטליה קא מוסיף אבנין (וכתיב הכל בכתב מיד ה׳ עלי השכיל)

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: This salt, what are the circumstances? If one negates it vis-à-vis the ramp so that it becomes part of the ramp, he effectively adds to the structure of the Temple, and it states with regard to the Temple: “All this do I give you in writing as God has made me wise by His hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern” (I Chronicles 28:19). This verse indicates that all the details of the Temple structure were determined through prophecy and may not be changed in any way, even on a weekday.

ואי דלא קא מבטליה קא הויא חציצה

And if he does not negate the salt vis-à-vis the ramp, it would constitute an interposition between the feet of the priests and the altar. This would mean that they would not be walking on the ramp during their service, and consequently they would not be performing the service as required by the Torah.

בהולכת אברים לכבש דלאו עבודה היא

The Gemara answers: In fact, he does not negate the salt. However, he scatters it when the limbs of the sacrifice are brought up the ramp, a procedure that is not considered part of the Temple service subject to disqualification due to interposition, as it is merely preparation for the burning of the limbs.

ולא והא כתיב והקריב הכהן את הכל והקטיר המזבחה ואמר מר זו הולכת אברים לכבש אלא אימא בהולכת עצים למערכה דלאו עבודה היא

The Gemara asks: And is this not a service? But isn’t it written: “And the priest shall offer it whole and make it smoke upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:13), and the Master said in explanation: This is referring to bringing the limbs to the top of the ramp. Evidently, this too is a service written in the Torah. Rather, say that he scatters the salt when the wood is brought up the ramp to the arrangement of wood on the altar, a procedure that is not a service.

דרש רבא חצר שנתקלקלה במימי גשמים מביא תבן ומרדה בה אמר ליה רב פפא לרבא והתניא כשהוא מרדה אינו מרדה לא בסל ולא בקופה אלא בשולי קופה

Rava taught: In a courtyard that was damaged on Shabbat by rainwater, one may bring straw and scatter it about to make it easier to walk across. Rav Pappa said to Rava: But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: When one scatters the straw, he must not scatter it either with a small basket or with a large basket, but only with the bottom of a broken basket, i.e., he must scatter the straw in a manner different from that of an ordinary weekday. Rava, however, indicates that he may scatter the straw in the usual fashion.

הדר אוקים רבא אמורא עליה ודרש דברים שאמרתי לפניכם טעות הן בידי ברם כך אמרו משום רבי אליעזר וכשהוא מרדה אינו מרדה לא בסל ולא בקופה אלא בשולי קופה:

Rava then appointed an amora before him to publicize his teaching, and taught: The statement I issued before you was a mistake of mine. However, in fact they said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer as follows: And when one scatters the straw, he must not scatter it either with a small basket or with a large basket, but only with the bottom of a broken basket.

ממלאין מבור הגולה: עולא איקלע לבי רב מנשה אתא ההוא גברא טרף אבבא אמר מאן האי ליתחל גופיה דקא מחיל ליה לשבתא

We learned in the mishna: One may draw water from the Cistern of the Exiles by means of a wheel. The Gemara relates: Ulla happened to come to the house of Rav Menashe when a certain man came and knocked at the door. Ulla said: Who is that? May his body be desecrated, as he desecrates Shabbat by producing a sound.

אמר ליה רבה לא אסרו אלא קול של שיר איתיביה אביי מעלין בדיופי ומטיפין מיארק לחולה בשבת

Rabba said to him: The Sages prohibited only a pleasant musical sound on Shabbat, not the rasping sound of knocking on a door. Abaye raised an objection to Rabba from a baraita: One may draw up wine from a barrel with a siphon [diyofei], and one may drip water from a vessel that releases water in drops [miarak], for an ill person on Shabbat.

לחולה אין לבריא לא היכי דמי לאו דנים וקא בעי דליתער שמע מינה אולודי קלא אסיר

The Gemara infers: For an ill person, yes, this is permitted, but for a healthy person, no, one may not do so, what are the circumstances? Is it not the case that he is dozing off and they wish to waken him, and as they do not want to alarm him due to his illness, they do it by means of the sound of water poured from a vessel? And one can learn from here that it is prohibited to produce a sound on Shabbat, even one that is unpleasant, as the Sages permitted this only for an ill person.

לא דתיר וקא בעי דלינים דמשתמע כי קלא דזמזומי

The Gemara rejects this contention: No, it is referring to an ill person who is awake and whom they want to have fall asleep, and to this end they let water fall in drops, producing a sound that is heard as melodious.

איתיביה המשמר פירותיו מפני העופות ודלעיו מפני החיה משמר כדרכו בשבת ובלבד שלא יספק ולא יטפח ולא ירקד כדרך שהן עושין בחול

Abaye raised another objection to Rabba from a baraita: One who is guarding his produce from birds or his gourds from beasts may guard them, in the manner that he typically does so, on Shabbat, as his guarding does not entail a prohibited labor, provided that he neither claps, nor slaps his hands against his body, nor dances and produces noise with his feet, in the manner that is performed on weekdays to chase away birds and animals.

מאי טעמא לאו דקמוליד קלא וכל אולודי קלא אסיר אמר רב אחא בר יעקב גזירה שמא יטול צרור

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that these activities are prohibited? Is it not because he is producing a sound on Shabbat, and any production of a sound is prohibited? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: This is not the reason. Rather, it is a decree issued by the Sages, lest while acting in his usual weekday fashion he mistakenly picks up a pebble to throw at the birds, thereby handling an object that is set-aside.

ואלא הא דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב נשים המשחקות באגוזים אסור מאי טעמא לאו דקא מוליד קלא וכל אולודי קלא אסיר

The Gemara asks: However, with regard to that which Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Women who play with nuts by rolling them on the ground until they collide with each other, it is prohibited for them to do so; what is the reason for this prohibition? Is it not because knocking nuts together produces a sound, and any production of a sound is prohibited?

לא דלמא אתי לאשוויי גומות

The Gemara rejects this contention: No, it is prohibited because perhaps they will come to level the holes. As small holes in the ground will interfere with their game, they might level them out and seal them up on Shabbat, which is prohibited as building.

דאי לא תימא הכי הא דאמר רב יהודה נשים משחקות בתפוחים אסור התם מאי אולודי קלא איכא אלא דילמא אתי לאשוויי גומות

For if you do not say that this is the reason, there is a difficulty with that which Rav Yehuda said: Women who play with apples, this is prohibited, as what production of a sound is involved there? Apples do not produce a sound when they collide with each other. Rather, the reason is that they will perhaps come to level holes, and the same reasoning applies to nuts.

תנן ממלאין מבור הגולה ומבור הגדול בגלגל בשבת במקדש אין במדינה לא מאי טעמא לאו משום דאולודי קלא ואסיר

We learned in the mishna: One may draw water from the Cistern of the Exiles and from the Great Cistern by means of the wheel on Shabbat. From this it can be inferred: In the Temple, yes, it is permitted to do so; but outside the Temple in the rest of the country, no, it is prohibited to draw water from cisterns. What is the reason for this? Is it not because he is producing a sound, and that is prohibited on Shabbat?

לא גזירה שמא ימלא לגינתו ולחורבתו

The Gemara again rejects this contention: No, it is a decree issued by the Sages, lest he draw water for his garden and for his ruin. As the wheel draws up large quantities of water, once he starts to use it, he might draw water for his garden as well and thereby transgress the prohibition against watering on Shabbat, a subcategory of a prohibited labor.

אמימר שרא למימלא בגילגלא במחוזא אמר מאי טעמא גזרו רבנן שמא ימלא לגינתו ולחורבתו הכא לא גינה איכא ולא חורבה איכא

The Gemara relates that Ameimar permitted people to draw water on Shabbat by means of a wheel in Meḥoza, as he said: What is the reason the Sages decreed that this is prohibited? They did so lest one draw water for his garden and for his ruin. However, here in Meḥoza there are neither gardens nor ruins. Meḥoza was entirely built up and lacked gardens or empty areas for sowing, and consequently, there was no concern that people might transgress.

כיון דקא חזא דקא

However, once he saw that

תרו בה כיתנא אסר להו:

they were soaking flax in the water, he prohibited them from drawing water by means of a wheel, so that they should not draw water for prohibited purposes.

ומבאר הקר: מאי באר הקר אמר שמואל בור שהקרו עליה דברים והתירוה

We learned in the mishna that water may be drawn on a Festival from the Heker Well. The Gemara asks: What is the Heker Well? Shmuel said: It is a cistern with regard to which they advanced [hikru] arguments and permitted drawing water from it on a Festival, by proving that the Torah permits doing so.

מיתיבי לא כל הבורות הקרות התירו אלא זו בלבד ואי אמרת שהקרו דברים עליה מאי זו בלבד

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: They did not permit all Heker wells, but only this one. And if you say it was named because it is a cistern with regard to which they put forward arguments and permitted it, what is the meaning of Heker wells in the plural, and what does only this one mean? If it was named because of a particular announcement, how could other wells, about which no announcement was issued, bear the same name?

אלא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק באר מים חיים שנאמר כהקיר ביר מימיה וגו׳

Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The term Heker well denotes a well of living water, as it is stated: “As a well keeps its water fresh [hakir], so she keeps fresh her wickedness” (Jeremiah 6:7), i.e., it is a well of spring water.

גופא לא כל הבורות הקרות התירו אלא זו בלבד וכשעלו בני הגולה חנו עליה ונביאים שביניהן התירו להן ולא נביאים שביניהן אלא מנהג אבותם בידיהם:

Returning to the matter itself, the Gemara cites the above baraita in full: They did not permit all Heker wells, but only this one. And when the exiles ascended from Babylonia, they encamped by it, and the prophets among them, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, permitted it to them. And it was not really the prophets among them who permitted them to draw water from this well on a Festival, but rather, it was a customary practice that was handed down to them from their forefathers, a practice the prophets permitted them to continue.

מתני׳ שרץ שנמצא במקדש כהן מוציאו בהמיינו שלא לשהות את הטומאה דברי רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה רבי יהודה אומר בצבת של עץ שלא לרבות את הטומאה

MISHNA: With regard to the carcass of a creeping animal, of one of the eight species of reptile or rodent listed in Leviticus 11:29–30, one of the primary sources of ritual impurity that is found in the Temple, a priest should carry it out on Shabbat in his girdle, which was one of the priestly garments. Although the girdle will be defiled by the carcass of the creeping animal, this is the best way to proceed, so as not to delay the removal of the impurity from the Temple. This is the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka. Rabbi Yehuda says: The creeping animal carcass should be removed with wooden prongs, so as not to increase the impurity, as a wooden prong is not susceptible to impurity.

מהיכן מוציאין אותו מן ההיכל ומן האולם ומבין האולם ולמזבח דברי רבי שמעון בן ננס

It is obvious that on a weekday the creeping animal carcass is removed from wherever it is found in the Temple, but from where does one remove it on Shabbat? From the Sanctuary, from the Entrance Hall, and from the area in the courtyard between the Entrance Hall and the altar, the most sanctified precincts of the Temple. However, it need not be removed from the rest of the courtyard. This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas.

רבי עקיבא אומר כל מקום שחייבין על זדונו כרת ועל שגגתו חטאת משם מוציאין אותו ושאר כל המקומות כופין עליו פסכתר

Rabbi Akiva says: Any place where one is liable to be punished with karet if he intentionally enters there in a state of ritual impurity, and is liable to bring a sin-offering if he does so unwittingly, from there one must remove it. This includes the entire area of the Temple courtyard. And as for the rest of the places in the Temple, one covers the creeping animal carcass with a bowl [pesakhter] and leaves it there until the conclusion of Shabbat.

רבי שמעון אומר מקום שהתירו לך חכמים משלך נתנו לך שלא התירו לך אלא משום שבות:

Rabbi Shimon says that this is the principle: Wherever the Sages permitted something to you, they granted you only from your own, as they permitted to you only activities that are prohibited due to rabbinic decree, not labors prohibited by Torah law.

גמ׳ אמר רב טבי בר קיסנא אמר שמואל המכניס טמא שרץ למקדש חייב שרץ עצמו פטור מאי טעמא אמר קרא מזכר ועד נקבה תשלחו מי שיש לו טהרה במקוה יצא שרץ שאין לו טהרה

GEMARA: Rav Tavi bar Kisna said that Shmuel said: With regard to one who brings into the Temple an object that was defiled by a creeping animal carcass, he is liable, but if he brings in the carcass of a creeping animal itself, he is exempt. What is the reason for this distinction? The verse said: “Both male and female shall you put out, without the camp shall you put them; that they defile not their camp, in the midst whereof I dwell” (Numbers 5:3). This verse teaches that the obligation to send out of the camp applies only to one who has the option of purification in a ritual bath, i.e., the male and female mentioned by the Torah; this excludes the carcass of a creeping animal, which has no purification. Consequently, one who brings the carcass of a creeping animal into the Temple is exempt, as he did not transgress the Torah’s commandment to send away the impure.

לימא מסייע ליה מזכר עד נקבה תשלחו פרט לכלי חרש דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי מאי טעמא לאו משום דלית ליה טהרה במקוה

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that a baraita supports him: “Both male and female shall you put out”; this excludes an earthenware vessel. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. What is the reason for this? Is it not because an earthenware vessel does not have purification in a ritual bath, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Tavi bar Kisna?

לא מי שנעשה אב הטומאה יצא כלי חרס שאינו נעשה אב הטומאה

The Gemara rejects this contention: No, the reason is that only something that can become a primary source of ritual impurity, i.e., a human being or a metal utensil, must be sent out of the camp. This excludes an earthenware vessel, which cannot become a primary source of ritual impurity.

לימא כתנאי שרץ שנמצא במקדש כהן מוציאו בהמיינו שלא לשהות את הטומאה דברי רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה רבי יהודה אומר בצבת של עץ מוציאו שלא לרבות את הטומאה

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this issue, whether or not there is liability for bringing a creeping animal carcass into the Temple, is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im, as we learned in the mishna: With regard to a creeping animal carcass that is found in the Temple, a priest should carry it out on Shabbat in his girdle, so as not to delay the removal of the impurity. This is the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka. Rabbi Yehuda says: He should remove it with wooden prongs, so as not to increase the impurity.

מאי לאו בהא קא מיפלגי דמאן דאמר שלא לשהות קסבר המכניס שרץ למקדש חייב ומאן דאמר שלא לרבות קסבר המכניס שרץ למקדש פטור

What, isn’t it the case that this is the matter with regard to which the two tanna’im disagree: The one who said we should not delay the removal of the impurity maintains that one who brings a creeping animal carcass into the Temple is liable, and therefore every effort must be made to remove it immediately. And the one who said we should not increase impurity maintains that one who brings a creeping animal carcass into the Temple is exempt. As no special command is in effect, the correct procedure is to prevent any additional impurity.

לא דכולי עלמא חייב והכא בהא קא מיפלגי מר סבר שהויי טומאה עדיף ומר סבר אפושי טומאה עדיף

The Gemara rejects this explanation: No, everyone agrees that one who brings a creeping animal carcass itself into the Temple is liable, and here, this is the matter with regard to which they disagree: The one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, holds: Delaying removal of the impurity is the consideration that takes precedence. Consequently, it is permitted even to defile the priestly garments to prevent any delay in the removal of the impurity from the holy place. Whereas the other Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds: Increasing impurity is the consideration that takes precedence, and therefore the impurity should be removed only by means of wooden prongs.

אלא כהני תנאי דתנן מהיכן מוציאין אותו כו׳

Rather, the Gemara suggests that this issue is the subject of a dispute between these tanna’im, as we learned in that same mishna: From where does one remove the creeping animal carcass? Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas and Rabbi Akiva disagree whether it is removed only from the Sanctuary, the Entrance Hall, and the area of the courtyard between the Entrance Hall and the altar, or from the entire area of the courtyard as well.

מאי לאו בהא קא מיפלגי דמאן דאמר מעזרה לא קסבר המכניס שרץ למקדש פטור ומאן דאמר מכולה עזרה קסבר חייב

Isn’t it the case that the two tanna’im disagree about the following: The one who said we do not remove it from the Temple courtyard maintains that one who brings a creeping animal carcass into the Temple is exempt, and there is therefore no obligation to remove it from the courtyard on Shabbat. And the one who said that it must be removed from the entire courtyard maintains that one who brings a creeping animal carcass into the Temple is liable.

Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

This month of learning is dedicated by Pam and Yoav Schwartz to honor the 5th yahrtzeit of their nephew Ezra Schwartz. Ezra's life was full of love, curiosity, laughter, and friendship. May this learning replace some of the light that was lost from this world.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Architecture during the time of the Talmud- by Amy Cohn for Hadran's Siyum Masechet Eruvin

Architecture During the Time of the Talmud- by Amy Cohn

Watch architect Amy Cohn's full presentation from Hadran's Siyum Masechet Eruvin https://youtu.be/QhuZzfg3vRA
bar k keys

Key to Your Heart

The last chapter of a tractate often includes a roundup of all sorts of miscellaneous ideas. For my last post...

Eruvin 104 – Shabbat November 21

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 104 – Shabbat November 21

שלש על שלש חוצצות פחות משלש אין חוצצות והיינו דרבא אמר רב חסדא

If the fabric was three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, it interposes; but if it was less than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, it does not interpose. And this is the same teaching that Rava said that Rav Ḥisda said.

לימא פליגא דרב יהודה בריה דרבי חייא שאני צלצול קטן דחשיב

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this disagrees with the opinion of Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Ḥisda, who prohibits a sash even smaller than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths. The Gemara rejects this contention: This is not necessarily so, as a small sash is different, since it is significant. It is therefore like a garment, even if it is smaller than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths.

ולרבי יוחנן אדאשמעינן גמי לישמעינן צלצול קטן

The Gemara raises a question: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Rather than teaching us the halakha with regard to a reed, let the mishna teach us that a priest may wrap his wounded finger with a small sash, as that does not constitute an interposition.

מילתא אגב אורחיה קא משמע לן דגמי מסי:

The Gemara explains: The tanna teaches us another matter in passing, that a reed heals. However, as far as a priest involved in the service in concerned, there is no concern with regard to this prohibition either, as it is also a rabbinic decree that is not in effect in the Temple.

מתני׳ בוזקין מלח על גבי כבש בשביל שלא יחליקו וממלאין מבור הגולה ומבור הגדול בגלגל בשבת ומבאר הקר ביום טוב:

MISHNA: One may scatter salt on Shabbat on the ramp that leads to the altar so that the priests will not slip on their way up. And likewise, one may draw water from the Cistern of the Exiles and from the Great Cistern, which were located in the Temple, by means of the wheel designed for drawing water, even on Shabbat. And one may draw water from the Heker Well only on a Festival.

גמ׳ רמי ליה רב איקא מפשרוניא לרבא תנן בוזקין מלח על גבי הכבש בשביל שלא יחליקו במקדש אין במדינה לא ורמינהי חצר שנתקלקלה במימי גשמים מביא תבן ומרדה בה

GEMARA: Rav Ika from Pashronya raised a contradiction before Rava: We learned in the mishna: One may scatter salt on Shabbat on the ramp that leads to the altar, so that the priests will not slip, from which it can be inferred: In the Temple, yes, it is permitted to do so, but outside the Temple, in the rest of the country, no, it is prohibited to scatter salt on a ramp. And he raised his contradiction from a baraita: With regard to a courtyard that was damaged on Shabbat by rainwater, so that it became difficult to cross, one may bring straw and scatter it about to absorb the water. Apparently, an action of this kind is permitted even outside the Temple.

שאני תבן דלא מבטיל ליה

The Gemara answers: Straw is different, as one does not negate it; rather, he intends to remove it once the water has been absorbed. He is therefore permitted to scatter the straw in the courtyard, just as it is permitted to put it in any other place. However, it is prohibited to scatter objects that one intends to leave in place, such as salt, as this appears as though he is adding to the ground and building.

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי האי מלח היכי דמי אי דמבטליה קא מוסיף אבנין (וכתיב הכל בכתב מיד ה׳ עלי השכיל)

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: This salt, what are the circumstances? If one negates it vis-à-vis the ramp so that it becomes part of the ramp, he effectively adds to the structure of the Temple, and it states with regard to the Temple: “All this do I give you in writing as God has made me wise by His hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern” (I Chronicles 28:19). This verse indicates that all the details of the Temple structure were determined through prophecy and may not be changed in any way, even on a weekday.

ואי דלא קא מבטליה קא הויא חציצה

And if he does not negate the salt vis-à-vis the ramp, it would constitute an interposition between the feet of the priests and the altar. This would mean that they would not be walking on the ramp during their service, and consequently they would not be performing the service as required by the Torah.

בהולכת אברים לכבש דלאו עבודה היא

The Gemara answers: In fact, he does not negate the salt. However, he scatters it when the limbs of the sacrifice are brought up the ramp, a procedure that is not considered part of the Temple service subject to disqualification due to interposition, as it is merely preparation for the burning of the limbs.

ולא והא כתיב והקריב הכהן את הכל והקטיר המזבחה ואמר מר זו הולכת אברים לכבש אלא אימא בהולכת עצים למערכה דלאו עבודה היא

The Gemara asks: And is this not a service? But isn’t it written: “And the priest shall offer it whole and make it smoke upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:13), and the Master said in explanation: This is referring to bringing the limbs to the top of the ramp. Evidently, this too is a service written in the Torah. Rather, say that he scatters the salt when the wood is brought up the ramp to the arrangement of wood on the altar, a procedure that is not a service.

דרש רבא חצר שנתקלקלה במימי גשמים מביא תבן ומרדה בה אמר ליה רב פפא לרבא והתניא כשהוא מרדה אינו מרדה לא בסל ולא בקופה אלא בשולי קופה

Rava taught: In a courtyard that was damaged on Shabbat by rainwater, one may bring straw and scatter it about to make it easier to walk across. Rav Pappa said to Rava: But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: When one scatters the straw, he must not scatter it either with a small basket or with a large basket, but only with the bottom of a broken basket, i.e., he must scatter the straw in a manner different from that of an ordinary weekday. Rava, however, indicates that he may scatter the straw in the usual fashion.

הדר אוקים רבא אמורא עליה ודרש דברים שאמרתי לפניכם טעות הן בידי ברם כך אמרו משום רבי אליעזר וכשהוא מרדה אינו מרדה לא בסל ולא בקופה אלא בשולי קופה:

Rava then appointed an amora before him to publicize his teaching, and taught: The statement I issued before you was a mistake of mine. However, in fact they said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer as follows: And when one scatters the straw, he must not scatter it either with a small basket or with a large basket, but only with the bottom of a broken basket.

ממלאין מבור הגולה: עולא איקלע לבי רב מנשה אתא ההוא גברא טרף אבבא אמר מאן האי ליתחל גופיה דקא מחיל ליה לשבתא

We learned in the mishna: One may draw water from the Cistern of the Exiles by means of a wheel. The Gemara relates: Ulla happened to come to the house of Rav Menashe when a certain man came and knocked at the door. Ulla said: Who is that? May his body be desecrated, as he desecrates Shabbat by producing a sound.

אמר ליה רבה לא אסרו אלא קול של שיר איתיביה אביי מעלין בדיופי ומטיפין מיארק לחולה בשבת

Rabba said to him: The Sages prohibited only a pleasant musical sound on Shabbat, not the rasping sound of knocking on a door. Abaye raised an objection to Rabba from a baraita: One may draw up wine from a barrel with a siphon [diyofei], and one may drip water from a vessel that releases water in drops [miarak], for an ill person on Shabbat.

לחולה אין לבריא לא היכי דמי לאו דנים וקא בעי דליתער שמע מינה אולודי קלא אסיר

The Gemara infers: For an ill person, yes, this is permitted, but for a healthy person, no, one may not do so, what are the circumstances? Is it not the case that he is dozing off and they wish to waken him, and as they do not want to alarm him due to his illness, they do it by means of the sound of water poured from a vessel? And one can learn from here that it is prohibited to produce a sound on Shabbat, even one that is unpleasant, as the Sages permitted this only for an ill person.

לא דתיר וקא בעי דלינים דמשתמע כי קלא דזמזומי

The Gemara rejects this contention: No, it is referring to an ill person who is awake and whom they want to have fall asleep, and to this end they let water fall in drops, producing a sound that is heard as melodious.

איתיביה המשמר פירותיו מפני העופות ודלעיו מפני החיה משמר כדרכו בשבת ובלבד שלא יספק ולא יטפח ולא ירקד כדרך שהן עושין בחול

Abaye raised another objection to Rabba from a baraita: One who is guarding his produce from birds or his gourds from beasts may guard them, in the manner that he typically does so, on Shabbat, as his guarding does not entail a prohibited labor, provided that he neither claps, nor slaps his hands against his body, nor dances and produces noise with his feet, in the manner that is performed on weekdays to chase away birds and animals.

מאי טעמא לאו דקמוליד קלא וכל אולודי קלא אסיר אמר רב אחא בר יעקב גזירה שמא יטול צרור

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that these activities are prohibited? Is it not because he is producing a sound on Shabbat, and any production of a sound is prohibited? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: This is not the reason. Rather, it is a decree issued by the Sages, lest while acting in his usual weekday fashion he mistakenly picks up a pebble to throw at the birds, thereby handling an object that is set-aside.

ואלא הא דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב נשים המשחקות באגוזים אסור מאי טעמא לאו דקא מוליד קלא וכל אולודי קלא אסיר

The Gemara asks: However, with regard to that which Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Women who play with nuts by rolling them on the ground until they collide with each other, it is prohibited for them to do so; what is the reason for this prohibition? Is it not because knocking nuts together produces a sound, and any production of a sound is prohibited?

לא דלמא אתי לאשוויי גומות

The Gemara rejects this contention: No, it is prohibited because perhaps they will come to level the holes. As small holes in the ground will interfere with their game, they might level them out and seal them up on Shabbat, which is prohibited as building.

דאי לא תימא הכי הא דאמר רב יהודה נשים משחקות בתפוחים אסור התם מאי אולודי קלא איכא אלא דילמא אתי לאשוויי גומות

For if you do not say that this is the reason, there is a difficulty with that which Rav Yehuda said: Women who play with apples, this is prohibited, as what production of a sound is involved there? Apples do not produce a sound when they collide with each other. Rather, the reason is that they will perhaps come to level holes, and the same reasoning applies to nuts.

תנן ממלאין מבור הגולה ומבור הגדול בגלגל בשבת במקדש אין במדינה לא מאי טעמא לאו משום דאולודי קלא ואסיר

We learned in the mishna: One may draw water from the Cistern of the Exiles and from the Great Cistern by means of the wheel on Shabbat. From this it can be inferred: In the Temple, yes, it is permitted to do so; but outside the Temple in the rest of the country, no, it is prohibited to draw water from cisterns. What is the reason for this? Is it not because he is producing a sound, and that is prohibited on Shabbat?

לא גזירה שמא ימלא לגינתו ולחורבתו

The Gemara again rejects this contention: No, it is a decree issued by the Sages, lest he draw water for his garden and for his ruin. As the wheel draws up large quantities of water, once he starts to use it, he might draw water for his garden as well and thereby transgress the prohibition against watering on Shabbat, a subcategory of a prohibited labor.

אמימר שרא למימלא בגילגלא במחוזא אמר מאי טעמא גזרו רבנן שמא ימלא לגינתו ולחורבתו הכא לא גינה איכא ולא חורבה איכא

The Gemara relates that Ameimar permitted people to draw water on Shabbat by means of a wheel in Meḥoza, as he said: What is the reason the Sages decreed that this is prohibited? They did so lest one draw water for his garden and for his ruin. However, here in Meḥoza there are neither gardens nor ruins. Meḥoza was entirely built up and lacked gardens or empty areas for sowing, and consequently, there was no concern that people might transgress.

כיון דקא חזא דקא

However, once he saw that

תרו בה כיתנא אסר להו:

they were soaking flax in the water, he prohibited them from drawing water by means of a wheel, so that they should not draw water for prohibited purposes.

ומבאר הקר: מאי באר הקר אמר שמואל בור שהקרו עליה דברים והתירוה

We learned in the mishna that water may be drawn on a Festival from the Heker Well. The Gemara asks: What is the Heker Well? Shmuel said: It is a cistern with regard to which they advanced [hikru] arguments and permitted drawing water from it on a Festival, by proving that the Torah permits doing so.

מיתיבי לא כל הבורות הקרות התירו אלא זו בלבד ואי אמרת שהקרו דברים עליה מאי זו בלבד

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: They did not permit all Heker wells, but only this one. And if you say it was named because it is a cistern with regard to which they put forward arguments and permitted it, what is the meaning of Heker wells in the plural, and what does only this one mean? If it was named because of a particular announcement, how could other wells, about which no announcement was issued, bear the same name?

אלא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק באר מים חיים שנאמר כהקיר ביר מימיה וגו׳

Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The term Heker well denotes a well of living water, as it is stated: “As a well keeps its water fresh [hakir], so she keeps fresh her wickedness” (Jeremiah 6:7), i.e., it is a well of spring water.

גופא לא כל הבורות הקרות התירו אלא זו בלבד וכשעלו בני הגולה חנו עליה ונביאים שביניהן התירו להן ולא נביאים שביניהן אלא מנהג אבותם בידיהם:

Returning to the matter itself, the Gemara cites the above baraita in full: They did not permit all Heker wells, but only this one. And when the exiles ascended from Babylonia, they encamped by it, and the prophets among them, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, permitted it to them. And it was not really the prophets among them who permitted them to draw water from this well on a Festival, but rather, it was a customary practice that was handed down to them from their forefathers, a practice the prophets permitted them to continue.

מתני׳ שרץ שנמצא במקדש כהן מוציאו בהמיינו שלא לשהות את הטומאה דברי רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה רבי יהודה אומר בצבת של עץ שלא לרבות את הטומאה

MISHNA: With regard to the carcass of a creeping animal, of one of the eight species of reptile or rodent listed in Leviticus 11:29–30, one of the primary sources of ritual impurity that is found in the Temple, a priest should carry it out on Shabbat in his girdle, which was one of the priestly garments. Although the girdle will be defiled by the carcass of the creeping animal, this is the best way to proceed, so as not to delay the removal of the impurity from the Temple. This is the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka. Rabbi Yehuda says: The creeping animal carcass should be removed with wooden prongs, so as not to increase the impurity, as a wooden prong is not susceptible to impurity.

מהיכן מוציאין אותו מן ההיכל ומן האולם ומבין האולם ולמזבח דברי רבי שמעון בן ננס

It is obvious that on a weekday the creeping animal carcass is removed from wherever it is found in the Temple, but from where does one remove it on Shabbat? From the Sanctuary, from the Entrance Hall, and from the area in the courtyard between the Entrance Hall and the altar, the most sanctified precincts of the Temple. However, it need not be removed from the rest of the courtyard. This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas.

רבי עקיבא אומר כל מקום שחייבין על זדונו כרת ועל שגגתו חטאת משם מוציאין אותו ושאר כל המקומות כופין עליו פסכתר

Rabbi Akiva says: Any place where one is liable to be punished with karet if he intentionally enters there in a state of ritual impurity, and is liable to bring a sin-offering if he does so unwittingly, from there one must remove it. This includes the entire area of the Temple courtyard. And as for the rest of the places in the Temple, one covers the creeping animal carcass with a bowl [pesakhter] and leaves it there until the conclusion of Shabbat.

רבי שמעון אומר מקום שהתירו לך חכמים משלך נתנו לך שלא התירו לך אלא משום שבות:

Rabbi Shimon says that this is the principle: Wherever the Sages permitted something to you, they granted you only from your own, as they permitted to you only activities that are prohibited due to rabbinic decree, not labors prohibited by Torah law.

גמ׳ אמר רב טבי בר קיסנא אמר שמואל המכניס טמא שרץ למקדש חייב שרץ עצמו פטור מאי טעמא אמר קרא מזכר ועד נקבה תשלחו מי שיש לו טהרה במקוה יצא שרץ שאין לו טהרה

GEMARA: Rav Tavi bar Kisna said that Shmuel said: With regard to one who brings into the Temple an object that was defiled by a creeping animal carcass, he is liable, but if he brings in the carcass of a creeping animal itself, he is exempt. What is the reason for this distinction? The verse said: “Both male and female shall you put out, without the camp shall you put them; that they defile not their camp, in the midst whereof I dwell” (Numbers 5:3). This verse teaches that the obligation to send out of the camp applies only to one who has the option of purification in a ritual bath, i.e., the male and female mentioned by the Torah; this excludes the carcass of a creeping animal, which has no purification. Consequently, one who brings the carcass of a creeping animal into the Temple is exempt, as he did not transgress the Torah’s commandment to send away the impure.

לימא מסייע ליה מזכר עד נקבה תשלחו פרט לכלי חרש דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי מאי טעמא לאו משום דלית ליה טהרה במקוה

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that a baraita supports him: “Both male and female shall you put out”; this excludes an earthenware vessel. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. What is the reason for this? Is it not because an earthenware vessel does not have purification in a ritual bath, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Tavi bar Kisna?

לא מי שנעשה אב הטומאה יצא כלי חרס שאינו נעשה אב הטומאה

The Gemara rejects this contention: No, the reason is that only something that can become a primary source of ritual impurity, i.e., a human being or a metal utensil, must be sent out of the camp. This excludes an earthenware vessel, which cannot become a primary source of ritual impurity.

לימא כתנאי שרץ שנמצא במקדש כהן מוציאו בהמיינו שלא לשהות את הטומאה דברי רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה רבי יהודה אומר בצבת של עץ מוציאו שלא לרבות את הטומאה

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this issue, whether or not there is liability for bringing a creeping animal carcass into the Temple, is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im, as we learned in the mishna: With regard to a creeping animal carcass that is found in the Temple, a priest should carry it out on Shabbat in his girdle, so as not to delay the removal of the impurity. This is the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka. Rabbi Yehuda says: He should remove it with wooden prongs, so as not to increase the impurity.

מאי לאו בהא קא מיפלגי דמאן דאמר שלא לשהות קסבר המכניס שרץ למקדש חייב ומאן דאמר שלא לרבות קסבר המכניס שרץ למקדש פטור

What, isn’t it the case that this is the matter with regard to which the two tanna’im disagree: The one who said we should not delay the removal of the impurity maintains that one who brings a creeping animal carcass into the Temple is liable, and therefore every effort must be made to remove it immediately. And the one who said we should not increase impurity maintains that one who brings a creeping animal carcass into the Temple is exempt. As no special command is in effect, the correct procedure is to prevent any additional impurity.

לא דכולי עלמא חייב והכא בהא קא מיפלגי מר סבר שהויי טומאה עדיף ומר סבר אפושי טומאה עדיף

The Gemara rejects this explanation: No, everyone agrees that one who brings a creeping animal carcass itself into the Temple is liable, and here, this is the matter with regard to which they disagree: The one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, holds: Delaying removal of the impurity is the consideration that takes precedence. Consequently, it is permitted even to defile the priestly garments to prevent any delay in the removal of the impurity from the holy place. Whereas the other Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds: Increasing impurity is the consideration that takes precedence, and therefore the impurity should be removed only by means of wooden prongs.

אלא כהני תנאי דתנן מהיכן מוציאין אותו כו׳

Rather, the Gemara suggests that this issue is the subject of a dispute between these tanna’im, as we learned in that same mishna: From where does one remove the creeping animal carcass? Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas and Rabbi Akiva disagree whether it is removed only from the Sanctuary, the Entrance Hall, and the area of the courtyard between the Entrance Hall and the altar, or from the entire area of the courtyard as well.

מאי לאו בהא קא מיפלגי דמאן דאמר מעזרה לא קסבר המכניס שרץ למקדש פטור ומאן דאמר מכולה עזרה קסבר חייב

Isn’t it the case that the two tanna’im disagree about the following: The one who said we do not remove it from the Temple courtyard maintains that one who brings a creeping animal carcass into the Temple is exempt, and there is therefore no obligation to remove it from the courtyard on Shabbat. And the one who said that it must be removed from the entire courtyard maintains that one who brings a creeping animal carcass into the Temple is liable.

Join Hadran Communities! Connect with women learning in your area.

Scroll To Top