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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 25, 2022 | 讻状讙 讘砖讘讟 转砖驻状讘

This month鈥檚 shiurim are dedicated by Efrat Arnold in loving memory of Joshua Carr, Yehoshua Aryeh Leib ben Yonatan Chaim and Malka Esther HaCohen.

This month's shiurim are dedicated by Tova and David Kestenbaum in honor of their children and grandchildren.

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

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

Moed Katan 13

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Ruth Rotenberg in loving memory of her daughter Tanielle Miller, on her 17th yahrzeit. 鈥淭oday we celebrate and commemorate Tanielle鈥檚 short and powerful life. She loved learning, Israel, and doing chessed.鈥

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Harriet Hartman in loving memory of her parents’ yahrzeits this week, Fruma bat Ester (Florence) and Baruch ben Hinda (Bernard) Stillman. 鈥淭hey always encouraged me to follow my dreams and believed I could do whatever I put my mind to. They would have supported my learning whole-heartedly, and my dad would have joined with me.鈥

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Judy (Esther Judith) Tydor Schwartz in loving memory of her grandmother Esther Laufer Tydor (Esther bat Sinai and Chaya Laufer) who lost her life in the Lodz ghetto on 23 Shevat 5701 (1941).

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Beki and Rina Baumel in loving memory of their grandmother Shirly on her yahrzeit. 鈥淪he was a pioneer of women’s advanced education, a true adventurer and a devoted friend. Baba, we love you and miss you.鈥

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Helen Lewis in honor of her daughter Miriam Kunin鈥檚 birthday! 鈥淗appy birthday to my wonderful daughter Miriam Kunin and thank you to all her teachers at Machon Pardes, Drisha and Hadar and all her chavruta partners across the world for helping her to learn Torah with such enthusiasm and joy.鈥澛

Pictures

If one pushes off one’s work to chol hamoed, one cannot benefit from the work that was done. But if one dies, are the heirs penalized as well? Is the penalty on the person or on the possessions? Comparisons are made to other cases to arrive at an answer. If one prepared the land in the shmita year, can one plant after the shmita year? On what does it depend? One can purchase houses, slaves and animals if they are needed for the holiday or if the seller needs money to buy food. According to this one can sell items on chol hamoed if one needs money for food, but can one also work if one needs money for food? Sources are brought, including our Mishna, to try to answer the question. One cannot move items from house to house but can move items from a house to the courtyard as less effort is required. One cannot pick up items from a craftsman unless one is concerned they will be stolen from there, in which case, they can bring it to the nearest courtyard. A braita is brought which says one can bring to and bring home items from a craftsman. How can one resolve the contradiction? What can one do to protect figs that are drying, from the rains? Sellers can sell items needed for the holiday, provided they do it privately. Trapping, threshing and grinding can be done also in private for the holiday. Rabbi Yosi said they are being strict. To what was he referring? Rav Huna permitted spice sellers to sell in a normal manner. How could this be? In what situations is one allowed to shave on chol hamoed?

爪专诐 讗讝谉 讘讻讜专 拽谞住讜 讘谞讜 讗讞专讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

in the case of one who slit the ear of a firstborn animal, the Sages penalized his son after him, that is because the prohibition is by Torah law. A firstborn animal is disqualified from sacrifice if it becomes blemished, rendering it permitted to be eaten as non-sacred meat. It is prohibited to deliberately engender a blemish in a firstborn animal, and one who does so is prohibited from eating the meat.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 诪讻专 注讘讚讜 诇讙讜讬 讜诪转 拽谞住讜 讘谞讜 讗讞专讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讻诇 讬讜诪讗 诪驻拽注 诇讬讛 诪诪爪讜转

And if you might say that in the case of one who sold his slave to a gentile and then died the Sages penalized his son after him, that is because every day the slave is in the gentile鈥檚 possession precludes him from performing mitzvot. A Canaanite slave is obligated in the same mitzvot as a Jewish woman. If he is illicitly sold to a gentile and escapes, requiring the seller to compensate the gentile, the seller may not them re-enslave the slave, who is regarded as emancipated. The Sages extended this penalty to the owner鈥檚 heirs as well.

讛讻讗 诪讗讬 讙讘专讗 拽谞讬住 专讘谞谉 讜讛讗 诇讬转讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪诪讜谞讗 拽谞讬住 专讘谞谉 讜讛讗 讗讬转讬讛

What, then, is the halakha here, where one planned from the outset to perform his work on the intermediate days of a Festival and then after performing the work he died? Should one say that the Sages penalized the man himself and he is no longer alive, or perhaps the Sages imposed a penalty on the money, such that no benefit may be derived from it, and it still exists in the hands of his heirs?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 砖讚讛 砖谞转拽讜讜爪讛 讘砖讘讬注讬转 转讝专注 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转 谞讟讬讬讘讛 讗讜 谞讚讬讬专讛 诇讗 转讝专注 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 谞拽讟讬谞谉 讛讟讬讘讛 讜诪转 讘谞讜 讝讜专注讛 讗诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬讛 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉 诇讘专讬讛 诇讗 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讚讬讚讬讛 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉 诇讘专讬讛 诇讗 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya: You already learned the answer to your question in a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 4:2): A field whose thorns were removed during the Sabbatical Year may be sown in the eighth year, as removing thorns is not full-fledged labor that renders the field prohibited; but if it had been improved with fertilizer, or if had been enclosed so that animals therein would fertilize it with their manure, it may not be sown in the eighth year. The Sages imposed a penalty that one not benefit from prohibited labor. And Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said: We have a tradition that if one improved his field in a prohibited manner and then died, his son may sow it. Apparently, the Sages penalized only him, the one who acted wrongly, but the Sages did not penalize his son. Here, too, with regard to work performed on the intermediate days of a Festival, the Sages penalized him, but the Sages did not penalize his son.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞拽讟讬谞谉 讟讬诪讗 讟讛专讜转讬讜 讜诪转 诇讗 拽谞住讜 讘谞讜 讗讞专讬讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讬讝拽 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讬讻专 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽 诇讚讬讚讬讛 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉 诇讘专讬讛 诇讗 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉

Abaye said: We have a tradition that if one rendered impure another鈥檚 ritually pure items and died before paying, the Sages did not penalize his son after him and require him to pay for the damage. What is the reason for this? It is that damage that is not evident, i.e., that does not involve any physical change visible to the eye, is not considered damage by Torah law; nevertheless, the injured party suffers a loss, and the Sages penalized only him, but the Sages did not penalize his son.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 讘转讬诐 注讘讚讬诐 讜讘讛诪讛 讗诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 讛诪讜注讚 讗讜 诇爪讜专讱 讛诪讜讻专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讛 讬讗讻诇

MISHNA: One may not purchase houses, slaves, and cattle on the intermediate days of a Festival unless it is for the sake of the Festival, or to provide for the needs of the seller who does not have anything to eat.

讙诪壮 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖讻专 驻注讜诇讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讛 讬讗讻诇 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬谞讗 讗讜 诇爪讜专讱 讛诪讜讻专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讛 讬讗讻诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗转讜讬讬 砖讻专 驻注讜诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 驻专讜砖讬 拽讗 诪驻专砖

GEMARA: Rava asked Rav Na岣an: What is the halakha with regard to wages for a worker who does not have anything to eat? Is it permitted to provide a poor worker with work on the intermediate days of the Festival? Rav Na岣an said to him: We learned this in the mishna: Or to provide for the needs of the seller, if he has nothing to eat. What is added by mentioning the condition that he has nothing to eat? Does it not add the case of wages and not only the case of one selling items he owns? Rava said to him: No, it is merely explaining what is meant by the needs of the seller.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讟专讬 讞讜讘 讘诪讜注讚 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讗诪讬谞讜 讗讜 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讛 讬讗讻诇 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讻转讜讘 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讛 讬讗讻诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗转讜讬讬 砖讻专 驻注讜诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Abaye raised an objection from a mishna (18b): Promissory notes may not be written on the intermediate days of a Festival, but if the lender does not trust the borrower and is concerned that without such a note he will be unable to collect, or if he has nothing to eat, he may write a promissory note. The Gemara elaborates: What is added here by the words: If he has nothing to eat? Are they not meant to add that a promissory note may be written for the sake of the wages of the scribe who draws up the document? Conclude from it that it is permitted to hire a worker who is in need of a livelihood even for work that would otherwise be prohibited on the intermediate days of a Festival.

诪讜转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖诇砖 讗讜诪谞讬讜转 注讜砖讬谉 诪诇讗讻讛 讘注专讘讬 驻住讞讬诐 注讚 讞爪讜转 讛讞讬讬讟讬谉 讜讛住驻专讬谉 讜讛讻讜讘住讬谉 讛讞讬讬讟讬谉 砖讻谉 讛讚讬讜讟 转讜驻专 讻讚专讻讜 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 讛住驻专讬谉 讜讛讻讜讘住讬谉 砖讻谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讛讬讜爪讗 诪讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 诪讜转专讬谉 诇住驻专 讜诇讻讘住 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚

Rav Sheshet raised an objection from a mishna (Pesa岣m 55a) that addresses the prohibition against performing labor on the eve of Passover: And the Rabbis say: The practitioners of only three crafts are permitted to perform labor until midday on Passover eve, and they are the tailors, the barbers, and the launderers, whose work is needed for the Festival. The baraita elaborates: The tailors may perform labor on Passover eve, as a layperson is permitted to sew in his usual manner during the intermediate days of the Festival. Since similar labor is permitted during the Festival, one may be lenient on Passover eve as well. The Barbers and the launderers are permitted to work, as those who arrive from overseas or one who leaves聽prison are permitted to cut their hair and wash their clothes on the聽intermediate days of the Festival because they had no opportunity to do so prior to the Festival.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 砖讻专 驻注讜诇讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讛 讬讗讻诇 砖专讬 讻诇 诪诇讗讻讜转 谞诪讬 诇讬砖转专讜 讚讛讗 讗讬讻讗 砖讻专 驻注讜诇讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讛 讬讗讻诇

And if it enters your mind that paying wages to a worker who does not have anything to eat is permitted on the intermediate days of the Festival, then all other types of labor should also be permitted on the eve of Passover, as there is something similar permitted on the intermediate days of the Festival, namely, the wages paid to a worker who does not have anything to eat. Tailors are permitted to work on the eve of Passover because similar work is permitted during the intermediate days of the Festival. The payment of wages to a worker who does not have anything to eat on the Festival must be prohibited, as otherwise similar work, i.e., any work involving the payment of wages, would be permitted on the eve of Passover, which is not the case.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讘谞讬谉 诇讬砖转专讬 砖讻谉 讻讜转诇 讛讙讜讛讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 住讜转专 讜讘讜谞讛 讻讚专讻讜 诪驻谞讬 讛住讻谞讛

Rav Pappa strongly objects to this: If that is so, that one can derive halakhot in this manner, then building as well should be permitted on the eve of Passover, as a wall that tilts toward the public domain and is likely to fall may be demolished and rebuilt in the usual manner on the intermediate days of a Festival due to the danger posed to passersby. Since building under such circumstances is permitted on the intermediate days of a Festival, it should be permitted in general on the eve of Passover.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诇讘诇专 诇讬砖转专讬 砖讻谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖讬 谞砖讬诐 讙讬讟讬谉 讜砖讜讘专讬谉

Ravina also strongly objects to this: If that is so, a scribe [lavlar] who draws up documents should be permitted to do so on the eve of Passover, as one may write betrothal deeds, bills of divorce, and receipts on the intermediate days of a Festival.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讜注讚 讗讗专讘注讛 注砖专 拽讗 专诪讬转 诪讜注讚 诪砖讜诐 讟讬专讞讗 讛讜讗 讜讘诪拽讜诐 驻住讬讚讗 砖专讜 专讘谞谉 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 诪砖讜诐 爪讜专讱 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讜讗 诪讬讚讬 讚爪讜专讱 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖专讜 专讘谞谉 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗讜 爪讜专讱 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讗 砖专讜 专讘谞谉

Rather, Rav Ashi said that Rav Sheshet鈥檚 original objection has no basis: Are you raising a contradiction between the halakhot of the intermediate days of a Festival and the halakhot of the fourteenth day of Nisan, i.e., the eve of Passover? They are not comparable, as the prohibition against labor on each is for a different reason: Labor is prohibited on the intermediate days of a Festival because it involves excessive exertion, and in a situation of significant loss the Sages permitted it. In contrast, the prohibition against labor on the fourteenth of Nisan is due to the need to prepare for the Festival, and especially the Paschal lamb. Whatever is needed for the Festival, e.g., the work of tailors and barbers, the Sages permitted, but whatever is not needed for the Festival, the Sages did not permit.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 诪驻谞讬谉 诪讘讬转 诇讘讬转 讗讘诇 诪驻谞讛 讛讜讗 诇讞爪专讜 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讻诇讬诐 诪讘讬转 讛讗讜诪谉 讗诐 讞讜砖砖 诇讛诐 诪驻谞谉 诇讞爪专 讗讞专转

MISHNA: One may not move his possessions from house to house during the intermediate days of a Festival, but he may move them to his courtyard if that is necessary. One may not bring home utensils from the house of a craftsman after he has completed his work, but if one is concerned about them that if he leaves them in the craftsman鈥檚 house they are likely to be stolen, he may move them to another courtyard.

讙诪壮 讜讛讗诪专转 专讬砖讗 讗讬谉 诪驻谞讬谉 讻诇诇 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇讘讬转 砖讘讞爪专

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you say in the first clause of the mishna that one may not move one鈥檚 possessions at all, even from one house to another? How is it that the mishna then permits moving objects from one courtyard to another in the second clause? Abaye said in explanation: In the latter clause we come to the case of moving objects from the house in his courtyard to that same courtyard.

讜讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讻诇讬诐 诪讘讬转 讛讗讜诪谉 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讚讬拽 诇谉 专讘讗 转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讻诇讬诐 诪讘讬转 讛讗讜诪谉 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讜诪讘讬讗讬谉 讻诇讬诐 诪讘讬转 讛讗讜诪谉 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞谉 诇爪讜专讱 讛诪讜注讚

The mishna states: And one may not bring home utensils from the house of a craftsman. Rav Pappa said: Rava tested us with the following question: We learned in the mishna that one may not bring home utensils from the house of a craftsman. And this raises a contradiction to another mishna (Pesa岣m 55b): One may take utensils to and bring them from the house of a craftsman, even if they are not needed for the sake of the Festival.

讜砖谞讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讻讗谉 讘讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讻讗谉 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 讻讗谉 讘诪讗诪讬谞讜 讻讗谉 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪讗诪讬谞讜

And we answered him: Here, the mishna that permits the practice is referring to the fourteenth of Nisan, the eve of Passover, and here, the mishna that prohibits it, is referring to the intermediate days of a Festival. And if you wish, say another explanation: Both this and that refer to the intermediate days of a Festival, but here, the mishna that prohibits the practice is referring to a case where he trusts the craftsman and is not concerned about his utensils being lost or stolen, whereas here, the mishna that permits taking utensils to and from the craftsman is referring to a case where he does not trust the craftsman.

讜讛转谞讬讗 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讻诇讬诐 诪讘讬转 讛讗讜诪谉 讻讙讜谉 讻讚 诪讘讬转 讛讻讚专 讜讻讜住 诪讘讬转 讛讝讙讙 讗讘诇 诇讗 爪诪专 诪讘讬转 讛爪讘注 讜诇讗 讻诇讬诐 诪讘讬转 讛讗讜诪谉 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讛 讬讗讻诇 谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讻专讜 讜诪谞讬讞讜 讗爪诇讜 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讗诪讬谞讜 诪谞讬讞讜 讘讘讬转 讛住诪讜讱 诇讜 讜讗诐 讞讜砖砖 诇讛诐 砖诪讗 讬讙谞讘讜 诪驻谞谉 诇讞爪专 讗讞专转 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讗诪讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗谉 讘爪谞注讛 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜

And so it is taught in a baraita: One may bring home utensils from the house of a craftsman; for example, a jug from the jug-makers house and a cup from the glass-blower鈥檚 house, as they will be used on the Festival itself. But he may not bring home wool from the dyer鈥檚 house or utensils from the craftsman鈥檚 house, as they are not needed on the Festival. But if the craftsman has nothing to eat, he may give him his wages during the Festival week and leave the utensil with him. And if he does not trust the craftsman to properly safeguard his utensil, he may take the utensil from the craftsman and leave it in a house near him. And if he is concerned about his utensils lest they be stolen, he may move them to another courtyard. And if he does not trust the owner of the other courtyard, he may bring them into his house discreetly.

转专爪转 诪讘讬讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 拽砖讬讗 讚拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚砖谞讬讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗

The Gemara comments: You have adequately explained the contradiction between the mishnayot about whether one may bring home utensils from the house of a craftsman. The mishna that permits it can be understood as referring to a case where the craftsman is not to be trusted. But the mishna in Pesa岣m also states that one may take utensils to the house of a craftsman, and this is difficult, as the mishna above teaches: One may not bring home utensils from the house of a craftsman. And this indicates that all the more so, one may not take utensils from his house to that of the craftsman. Rather, it is clear as we answered initially that one mishna is referring to the eve of Passover and the other to the intermediate days of a Festival.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讞驻讬谉 讗转 讛拽爪讬注讜转 讘拽砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪注讘讬谉 诪讜讻专讬 驻讬专讜转 讻住讜转 讜讻诇讬诐 诪讜讻专讬诐 讘爪谞注讛 诇爪讜专讱 讛诪讜注讚 讛爪讬讬讚讬谉 讜讛讚砖讜砖讜转 讜讛讙专讜住讜转 注讜砖讬谉 讘爪谞注讛 诇爪讜专讱 讛诪讜注讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讛诐 讛讞诪讬专讜 注诇 注爪诪谉

MISHNA: On the intermediate days of a Festival, figs that were spread out to dry may be covered with straw to protect them from rain and dew. Rabbi Yehuda says: One may even condense the figs. Those who sell produce, clothing, and utensils may sell them in private, for the sake of the Festival. Fishermen, and groats makers [dashoshot], and bean pounders, who pulverize the beans, may ply their trades in private for the sake of the Festival. Rabbi Yosei says: They were stringent with themselves to refrain from this work even with respect to what was needed for the Festival.

讙诪壮 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讞讝拽讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讚 讗诪专 诪讞驻讬谉 讗拽诇讜砖讬 诪注讘讬谉 讗住诪讜讻讬 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪讞驻讬谉 讘讬谉 讗拽诇讜砖讬 讘讬谉 讗住诪讜讻讬 诪注讘讬谉 注讜砖讛 讗讜转讜 讻诪讬谉 讻专讬 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪注讘讬谉 注讜砖讛 讗讜转讜 讻诪讬谉 讻专讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

GEMARA: Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba and Rabbi Asi disagree about the following issue, and both of them assert their opinions in the name of 岣zkiyya and Rabbi Yo岣nan. One said: Cover the figs means to lightly cover them with straw, and condense means to spread straw over them densely. And the other one said: Cover means to spread straw over them whether lightly or densely, and condense means to amass the figs into a pile, making it as if it were a pile of grain. This is also taught in a baraita: One may condense, i.e., amass the figs into a pile, making it as if it were a pile of grain. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

诪讜讻专讬 驻讬专讜转 讻住讜转 讜讻诇讬诐 诪讜讻专讬谉 讘爪谞注讛 讜讻讜壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛谉 讛讞诪讬专讜 注诇 注爪诪谉 讚诇讗 讛讜讜 注讘讚讬 讻诇诇 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讚讛讜讜 注讘讚讬 讘爪谞注讛

搂 The mishna states: On the intermediate days of a Festival, those who sell produce, clothing, and utensils may sell them in private, for the sake of the Festival. Fishermen, groats makers, and bean pounders may ply their trades in private for the sake of the Festival. Rabbi Yosei says that they were stringent with themselves. The Sages were asked: When it says that they were stringent with themselves, does it mean that that they did not work at all on the intermediate days of a Festival, or perhaps it means that they did their work in private, though it is permitted to do it publicly?

转讗 砖诪注 诪讜讻专讬 驻讬专讜转 讻住讜转 讜讻诇讬诐 诪讜讻专讬谉 讘爪谞注讛 诇爪讜专讱 讛诪讜注讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 转讙专讬 讟讘专讬讗 讛谉 讛讞诪讬专讜 注诇 注爪诪谉 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 诪讜讻专讬谉 讻诇 注讬拽专 爪讚讬 讞讬讜转 讜注讜驻讜转 讜讚讙讬诐 爪讚讬谉 讘爪谞注讛 诇爪讜专讱 讛诪讜注讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 爪讚讬 注讻讜 讛谉 讛讞诪讬专讜 注诇 注爪诪谉 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 爪讚讬谉 讻诇 注讬拽专 讚砖讜砖讬 讞讬诇拽讗 讟专讙讬住 讜讟讬住谞讬 讚讜砖砖讬谉 讘爪谞注讛 诇爪讜专讱 讛诪讜注讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讚砖讜砖讬 爪讬驻讜专讬 讛谉 讛讞诪讬专讜 注诇 注爪诪谉 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 讚讜砖砖讬谉 讻诇 注讬拽专

The Gemara answers based on a baraita. Come and hear: Those who sell produce, clothing, and utensils may sell them in private, for the sake of the Festival. Rabbi Yosei says: The merchants of Tiberias were stringent with themselves not to sell at all, even in private. Hunters of animals, fowlers, and fishermen may hunt their quarry discreetly for the sake of the Festival. Rabbi Yosei says: The hunters of Akko were stringent with themselves not to hunt at all. Groats makers who crack grain into groats called 岣lka, targis, and tisanei, crack the grain in private for the sake of the Festival. Rabbi Yosei says: The groats makers of Tzippori were stringent with themselves not to crack grain at all. According to Rabbi Yosei, the stringencies involve refraining from work entirely.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讞讬诇拽讗 讞讚讗 诇转专转讬 讟专讙讬住 讞讚讗 诇转诇转 讟讬住谞讬 讞讚讗 诇讗专讘注讛 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讻讜谞转讗

Abaye said: The term 岣lka means one kernel that is broken into two; the term targis means one kernel that is broken into three; and the term tisanei means one grain that is broken into four. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: 岣lka is referring to emmer wheat.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讞讬诇拽讗 讟专讙讬住 讜讟讬住谞讬 讟诪讗讬谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讚讗 诇转专转讬 诇转诇转 讜诇讗专讘注讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讟诪讗讬谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讚讗转讻砖讜专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讜谞转讗 讗诪讗讬 讟诪讗讬谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讛讗 诇讗 讗讬转讻砖讜专

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: 岣lka, targis, and tisanei are susceptible to ritual impurity everywhere. Granted, according to the one who said that these are one grain broken into two, into three, and into four, due to that reason they are susceptible to impurity everywhere, as they have already become fit to contract ritual impurity by being rinsed with water in their processing. But according to the one who says that 岣lka is emmer wheat that has not necessarily been processed, why is it susceptible to ritual impurity everywhere, since it has not necessarily become fit to contract impurity by coming into contact with water?

讻讙讜谉 讚诪讬拽诇驻谉 讚讗讬 诇讗讜 讚砖专讗 诇讛讜 讘诪讬讗 诇讗 讛讜讛 诪讬拽诇驻讗 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讞讬诇拽讗 讚砖拽诇 讞诇拽讬讛讜

The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to a case where, for example, the emmer wheat was husked, since if it had not been previously soaked in water, it would not have been possible to husk it. And why, according to this opinion, is it called 岣lka? It is called this because their husks [岣lkayhu] were removed.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讚讙谉 讗住讜专 讗祝 讘驻讜诇 讛诪爪专讬 讬讘砖 讜诪讜转专 讘诇讞 讜诪讜转专 讘讗讜专讝 讘讞讬诇拽讗 讜讟专讙讬住 讜讟讬住谞讬 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讚讗 诇转专转讬 讞讚讗 诇转诇转 讜讞讚讗 诇讗专讘注讛 砖驻讬专 讚谞驻拽讜 诇讛讜 诪转讜专转 讚讙谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讜谞转讗 讚讙谉 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: One who vows to prohibit himself from eating grain [dagan] is prohibited to partake of even dry Egyptian beans, and it is permitted for him to partake of fresh beans. And it is permitted for him to partake of rice, as well as of 岣lka, and targeis, and tisnei. Granted, according to the one who said that these are one grain broken into two, one grain broken into three, and one grain broken into four, it is fine, as when the wheat is crushed into these it leaves the category of grain. But according to the one who says that 岣lka is emmer wheat, it is still a proper grain. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is difficult.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖专讗 诇讛讜 诇讛谞讛讜 讻专讜驻讬讬转讗 诇诪讬讝诇 诇讝讘讜谞讬 讻讬 讗讜专讞讬讬讛讜 讘砖讜拽讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讞谞讜转 驻转讜讞讛 诇住讟讬讜 驻讜转讞 讜谞讜注诇 讻讚专讻讜

搂 The Gemara relates that Rav Huna permitted the spice merchants [kerufayata] to go and sell their products in their usual manner in the marketplace on the intermediate days of a Festival. Rav Kahana raised an objection to Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling from a baraita: If a store opens into a row of pillars that runs along the street, the storekeeper may open and close it in his usual manner on the intermediate days of a Festival, since it is not in the public鈥檚 view.

驻转讜讞讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 驻讜转讞 讗讞转 讜谞讜注诇 讗讞转 讜注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讗讞专讜谉 砖诇 讞讙 诪讜爪讬讗 讜诪注讟专 讗转 砖讜拽讬 讛注讬专 讘驻讬专讜转 讘砖讘讬诇 讻讘讜讚 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讗讞专讜谉 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讗讞专讜谉 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讗

However, if it is open to the public domain, he may open only one door and must close the other. And on the eve of the last day of the festival of Sukkot, he may take out his wares from the store and adorn the markets of the city with fruit in honor of the last day of the Festival. The Gemara infers: For the honor of the last day of the Festival, yes, it is permitted for him to open the store in order to give people the opportunity to prepare for the holiday, but when not for the honor of the Festival, i.e., during the other intermediate days of the Festival, he is not permitted to do so. How, then, did Rav Huna permit those spice merchants to sell as usual on the intermediate days of the Festival?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘驻讬专讬 讛讗 讘转讘诇讬谉

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: This baraita that prohibits selling in the usual manner is referring to the sale of fruit, which is usually bought in large quantities and could have been purchased before the Festival; people might therefore suspect the buyer of purchasing it for use after the Festival. In contrast, this lenient ruling of Rav Huna is referring to the sale of spices, which is permitted because people buy them only in small quantities for the sake of the Festival.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 诪讬 砖讛驻讱

 

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 诪讙诇讞讬谉 讘诪讜注讚 讛讘讗 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜诪讘讬转 讛砖讘讬讛 讜讛讬讜爪讗 诪讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 讜讛诪谞讜讚讛 砖讛转讬专讜 诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讻谉 诪讬 砖谞砖讗诇 诇讞讻诐 讜讛讜转专 讜讛谞讝讬专 讜讛诪爪讜专注 诪讟讜诪讗转讜 诇讟讛专转讜

MISHNA: And these may shave and cut their hair on the intermediate days of a Festival: One who comes from a country overseas; and one who is released from a house of captivity; and one who comes out of prison on the intermediate days of a Festival; and one who had been ostracized and therefore prohibited from cutting his hair, and the Sages released him from his decree of ostracism on the intermediate days of the Festival; and similarly, one who had vowed not to cut his hair and then requested of a Sage to dissolve his vow and was released from it on the intermediate days of the Festival; and the nazirite whose term of naziriteship ended on the intermediate days of a Festival; and the leper who needs to purify himself on the intermediate days and must shave his entire body in order to leave his state of ritual impurity and regain his ritual purity. Since these people were not able to cut their hair on the eve of the Festival, they are permitted to do so on the intermediate days of the Festival.

讜讗诇讜 诪讻讘住讬谉 讘诪讜注讚 讛讘讗 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜诪讘讬转 讛砖讘讬讛 讜讛讬讜爪讗 诪讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉

And these may launder their clothes on the intermediate days of a Festival: One who comes from a country overseas; and one who is released from a house of captivity; and one who comes out of prison on the intermediate days of a Festival;

This month鈥檚 shiurim are dedicated by Efrat Arnold in loving memory of Joshua Carr, Yehoshua Aryeh Leib ben Yonatan Chaim and Malka Esther HaCohen.

And by Tova and David Kestenbaum in honor of their children and grandchildren.

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

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Moed Katan: 7-13 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about how the priests checked and diagnosed Tzaraat and if they were allowed to do...
hulda drawing

On the Outs

Because of a detail in the Mishnah, the Gemara goes off on a long tangent about nidui, a form of...

Moed Katan 13

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Moed Katan 13

爪专诐 讗讝谉 讘讻讜专 拽谞住讜 讘谞讜 讗讞专讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

in the case of one who slit the ear of a firstborn animal, the Sages penalized his son after him, that is because the prohibition is by Torah law. A firstborn animal is disqualified from sacrifice if it becomes blemished, rendering it permitted to be eaten as non-sacred meat. It is prohibited to deliberately engender a blemish in a firstborn animal, and one who does so is prohibited from eating the meat.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 诪讻专 注讘讚讜 诇讙讜讬 讜诪转 拽谞住讜 讘谞讜 讗讞专讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讻诇 讬讜诪讗 诪驻拽注 诇讬讛 诪诪爪讜转

And if you might say that in the case of one who sold his slave to a gentile and then died the Sages penalized his son after him, that is because every day the slave is in the gentile鈥檚 possession precludes him from performing mitzvot. A Canaanite slave is obligated in the same mitzvot as a Jewish woman. If he is illicitly sold to a gentile and escapes, requiring the seller to compensate the gentile, the seller may not them re-enslave the slave, who is regarded as emancipated. The Sages extended this penalty to the owner鈥檚 heirs as well.

讛讻讗 诪讗讬 讙讘专讗 拽谞讬住 专讘谞谉 讜讛讗 诇讬转讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪诪讜谞讗 拽谞讬住 专讘谞谉 讜讛讗 讗讬转讬讛

What, then, is the halakha here, where one planned from the outset to perform his work on the intermediate days of a Festival and then after performing the work he died? Should one say that the Sages penalized the man himself and he is no longer alive, or perhaps the Sages imposed a penalty on the money, such that no benefit may be derived from it, and it still exists in the hands of his heirs?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 砖讚讛 砖谞转拽讜讜爪讛 讘砖讘讬注讬转 转讝专注 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转 谞讟讬讬讘讛 讗讜 谞讚讬讬专讛 诇讗 转讝专注 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 谞拽讟讬谞谉 讛讟讬讘讛 讜诪转 讘谞讜 讝讜专注讛 讗诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬讛 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉 诇讘专讬讛 诇讗 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讚讬讚讬讛 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉 诇讘专讬讛 诇讗 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya: You already learned the answer to your question in a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 4:2): A field whose thorns were removed during the Sabbatical Year may be sown in the eighth year, as removing thorns is not full-fledged labor that renders the field prohibited; but if it had been improved with fertilizer, or if had been enclosed so that animals therein would fertilize it with their manure, it may not be sown in the eighth year. The Sages imposed a penalty that one not benefit from prohibited labor. And Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said: We have a tradition that if one improved his field in a prohibited manner and then died, his son may sow it. Apparently, the Sages penalized only him, the one who acted wrongly, but the Sages did not penalize his son. Here, too, with regard to work performed on the intermediate days of a Festival, the Sages penalized him, but the Sages did not penalize his son.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞拽讟讬谞谉 讟讬诪讗 讟讛专讜转讬讜 讜诪转 诇讗 拽谞住讜 讘谞讜 讗讞专讬讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讬讝拽 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讬讻专 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽 诇讚讬讚讬讛 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉 诇讘专讬讛 诇讗 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉

Abaye said: We have a tradition that if one rendered impure another鈥檚 ritually pure items and died before paying, the Sages did not penalize his son after him and require him to pay for the damage. What is the reason for this? It is that damage that is not evident, i.e., that does not involve any physical change visible to the eye, is not considered damage by Torah law; nevertheless, the injured party suffers a loss, and the Sages penalized only him, but the Sages did not penalize his son.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 讘转讬诐 注讘讚讬诐 讜讘讛诪讛 讗诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 讛诪讜注讚 讗讜 诇爪讜专讱 讛诪讜讻专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讛 讬讗讻诇

MISHNA: One may not purchase houses, slaves, and cattle on the intermediate days of a Festival unless it is for the sake of the Festival, or to provide for the needs of the seller who does not have anything to eat.

讙诪壮 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖讻专 驻注讜诇讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讛 讬讗讻诇 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬谞讗 讗讜 诇爪讜专讱 讛诪讜讻专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讛 讬讗讻诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗转讜讬讬 砖讻专 驻注讜诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 驻专讜砖讬 拽讗 诪驻专砖

GEMARA: Rava asked Rav Na岣an: What is the halakha with regard to wages for a worker who does not have anything to eat? Is it permitted to provide a poor worker with work on the intermediate days of the Festival? Rav Na岣an said to him: We learned this in the mishna: Or to provide for the needs of the seller, if he has nothing to eat. What is added by mentioning the condition that he has nothing to eat? Does it not add the case of wages and not only the case of one selling items he owns? Rava said to him: No, it is merely explaining what is meant by the needs of the seller.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讟专讬 讞讜讘 讘诪讜注讚 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讗诪讬谞讜 讗讜 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讛 讬讗讻诇 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讻转讜讘 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讛 讬讗讻诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗转讜讬讬 砖讻专 驻注讜诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Abaye raised an objection from a mishna (18b): Promissory notes may not be written on the intermediate days of a Festival, but if the lender does not trust the borrower and is concerned that without such a note he will be unable to collect, or if he has nothing to eat, he may write a promissory note. The Gemara elaborates: What is added here by the words: If he has nothing to eat? Are they not meant to add that a promissory note may be written for the sake of the wages of the scribe who draws up the document? Conclude from it that it is permitted to hire a worker who is in need of a livelihood even for work that would otherwise be prohibited on the intermediate days of a Festival.

诪讜转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖诇砖 讗讜诪谞讬讜转 注讜砖讬谉 诪诇讗讻讛 讘注专讘讬 驻住讞讬诐 注讚 讞爪讜转 讛讞讬讬讟讬谉 讜讛住驻专讬谉 讜讛讻讜讘住讬谉 讛讞讬讬讟讬谉 砖讻谉 讛讚讬讜讟 转讜驻专 讻讚专讻讜 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 讛住驻专讬谉 讜讛讻讜讘住讬谉 砖讻谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讛讬讜爪讗 诪讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 诪讜转专讬谉 诇住驻专 讜诇讻讘住 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚

Rav Sheshet raised an objection from a mishna (Pesa岣m 55a) that addresses the prohibition against performing labor on the eve of Passover: And the Rabbis say: The practitioners of only three crafts are permitted to perform labor until midday on Passover eve, and they are the tailors, the barbers, and the launderers, whose work is needed for the Festival. The baraita elaborates: The tailors may perform labor on Passover eve, as a layperson is permitted to sew in his usual manner during the intermediate days of the Festival. Since similar labor is permitted during the Festival, one may be lenient on Passover eve as well. The Barbers and the launderers are permitted to work, as those who arrive from overseas or one who leaves聽prison are permitted to cut their hair and wash their clothes on the聽intermediate days of the Festival because they had no opportunity to do so prior to the Festival.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 砖讻专 驻注讜诇讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讛 讬讗讻诇 砖专讬 讻诇 诪诇讗讻讜转 谞诪讬 诇讬砖转专讜 讚讛讗 讗讬讻讗 砖讻专 驻注讜诇讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讛 讬讗讻诇

And if it enters your mind that paying wages to a worker who does not have anything to eat is permitted on the intermediate days of the Festival, then all other types of labor should also be permitted on the eve of Passover, as there is something similar permitted on the intermediate days of the Festival, namely, the wages paid to a worker who does not have anything to eat. Tailors are permitted to work on the eve of Passover because similar work is permitted during the intermediate days of the Festival. The payment of wages to a worker who does not have anything to eat on the Festival must be prohibited, as otherwise similar work, i.e., any work involving the payment of wages, would be permitted on the eve of Passover, which is not the case.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讘谞讬谉 诇讬砖转专讬 砖讻谉 讻讜转诇 讛讙讜讛讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 住讜转专 讜讘讜谞讛 讻讚专讻讜 诪驻谞讬 讛住讻谞讛

Rav Pappa strongly objects to this: If that is so, that one can derive halakhot in this manner, then building as well should be permitted on the eve of Passover, as a wall that tilts toward the public domain and is likely to fall may be demolished and rebuilt in the usual manner on the intermediate days of a Festival due to the danger posed to passersby. Since building under such circumstances is permitted on the intermediate days of a Festival, it should be permitted in general on the eve of Passover.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诇讘诇专 诇讬砖转专讬 砖讻谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖讬 谞砖讬诐 讙讬讟讬谉 讜砖讜讘专讬谉

Ravina also strongly objects to this: If that is so, a scribe [lavlar] who draws up documents should be permitted to do so on the eve of Passover, as one may write betrothal deeds, bills of divorce, and receipts on the intermediate days of a Festival.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讜注讚 讗讗专讘注讛 注砖专 拽讗 专诪讬转 诪讜注讚 诪砖讜诐 讟讬专讞讗 讛讜讗 讜讘诪拽讜诐 驻住讬讚讗 砖专讜 专讘谞谉 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 诪砖讜诐 爪讜专讱 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讜讗 诪讬讚讬 讚爪讜专讱 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖专讜 专讘谞谉 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗讜 爪讜专讱 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讗 砖专讜 专讘谞谉

Rather, Rav Ashi said that Rav Sheshet鈥檚 original objection has no basis: Are you raising a contradiction between the halakhot of the intermediate days of a Festival and the halakhot of the fourteenth day of Nisan, i.e., the eve of Passover? They are not comparable, as the prohibition against labor on each is for a different reason: Labor is prohibited on the intermediate days of a Festival because it involves excessive exertion, and in a situation of significant loss the Sages permitted it. In contrast, the prohibition against labor on the fourteenth of Nisan is due to the need to prepare for the Festival, and especially the Paschal lamb. Whatever is needed for the Festival, e.g., the work of tailors and barbers, the Sages permitted, but whatever is not needed for the Festival, the Sages did not permit.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 诪驻谞讬谉 诪讘讬转 诇讘讬转 讗讘诇 诪驻谞讛 讛讜讗 诇讞爪专讜 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讻诇讬诐 诪讘讬转 讛讗讜诪谉 讗诐 讞讜砖砖 诇讛诐 诪驻谞谉 诇讞爪专 讗讞专转

MISHNA: One may not move his possessions from house to house during the intermediate days of a Festival, but he may move them to his courtyard if that is necessary. One may not bring home utensils from the house of a craftsman after he has completed his work, but if one is concerned about them that if he leaves them in the craftsman鈥檚 house they are likely to be stolen, he may move them to another courtyard.

讙诪壮 讜讛讗诪专转 专讬砖讗 讗讬谉 诪驻谞讬谉 讻诇诇 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇讘讬转 砖讘讞爪专

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you say in the first clause of the mishna that one may not move one鈥檚 possessions at all, even from one house to another? How is it that the mishna then permits moving objects from one courtyard to another in the second clause? Abaye said in explanation: In the latter clause we come to the case of moving objects from the house in his courtyard to that same courtyard.

讜讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讻诇讬诐 诪讘讬转 讛讗讜诪谉 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讚讬拽 诇谉 专讘讗 转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讻诇讬诐 诪讘讬转 讛讗讜诪谉 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讜诪讘讬讗讬谉 讻诇讬诐 诪讘讬转 讛讗讜诪谉 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞谉 诇爪讜专讱 讛诪讜注讚

The mishna states: And one may not bring home utensils from the house of a craftsman. Rav Pappa said: Rava tested us with the following question: We learned in the mishna that one may not bring home utensils from the house of a craftsman. And this raises a contradiction to another mishna (Pesa岣m 55b): One may take utensils to and bring them from the house of a craftsman, even if they are not needed for the sake of the Festival.

讜砖谞讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讻讗谉 讘讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讻讗谉 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 讻讗谉 讘诪讗诪讬谞讜 讻讗谉 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪讗诪讬谞讜

And we answered him: Here, the mishna that permits the practice is referring to the fourteenth of Nisan, the eve of Passover, and here, the mishna that prohibits it, is referring to the intermediate days of a Festival. And if you wish, say another explanation: Both this and that refer to the intermediate days of a Festival, but here, the mishna that prohibits the practice is referring to a case where he trusts the craftsman and is not concerned about his utensils being lost or stolen, whereas here, the mishna that permits taking utensils to and from the craftsman is referring to a case where he does not trust the craftsman.

讜讛转谞讬讗 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讻诇讬诐 诪讘讬转 讛讗讜诪谉 讻讙讜谉 讻讚 诪讘讬转 讛讻讚专 讜讻讜住 诪讘讬转 讛讝讙讙 讗讘诇 诇讗 爪诪专 诪讘讬转 讛爪讘注 讜诇讗 讻诇讬诐 诪讘讬转 讛讗讜诪谉 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讛 讬讗讻诇 谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讻专讜 讜诪谞讬讞讜 讗爪诇讜 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讗诪讬谞讜 诪谞讬讞讜 讘讘讬转 讛住诪讜讱 诇讜 讜讗诐 讞讜砖砖 诇讛诐 砖诪讗 讬讙谞讘讜 诪驻谞谉 诇讞爪专 讗讞专转 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讗诪讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗谉 讘爪谞注讛 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜

And so it is taught in a baraita: One may bring home utensils from the house of a craftsman; for example, a jug from the jug-makers house and a cup from the glass-blower鈥檚 house, as they will be used on the Festival itself. But he may not bring home wool from the dyer鈥檚 house or utensils from the craftsman鈥檚 house, as they are not needed on the Festival. But if the craftsman has nothing to eat, he may give him his wages during the Festival week and leave the utensil with him. And if he does not trust the craftsman to properly safeguard his utensil, he may take the utensil from the craftsman and leave it in a house near him. And if he is concerned about his utensils lest they be stolen, he may move them to another courtyard. And if he does not trust the owner of the other courtyard, he may bring them into his house discreetly.

转专爪转 诪讘讬讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 拽砖讬讗 讚拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚砖谞讬讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗

The Gemara comments: You have adequately explained the contradiction between the mishnayot about whether one may bring home utensils from the house of a craftsman. The mishna that permits it can be understood as referring to a case where the craftsman is not to be trusted. But the mishna in Pesa岣m also states that one may take utensils to the house of a craftsman, and this is difficult, as the mishna above teaches: One may not bring home utensils from the house of a craftsman. And this indicates that all the more so, one may not take utensils from his house to that of the craftsman. Rather, it is clear as we answered initially that one mishna is referring to the eve of Passover and the other to the intermediate days of a Festival.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讞驻讬谉 讗转 讛拽爪讬注讜转 讘拽砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪注讘讬谉 诪讜讻专讬 驻讬专讜转 讻住讜转 讜讻诇讬诐 诪讜讻专讬诐 讘爪谞注讛 诇爪讜专讱 讛诪讜注讚 讛爪讬讬讚讬谉 讜讛讚砖讜砖讜转 讜讛讙专讜住讜转 注讜砖讬谉 讘爪谞注讛 诇爪讜专讱 讛诪讜注讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讛诐 讛讞诪讬专讜 注诇 注爪诪谉

MISHNA: On the intermediate days of a Festival, figs that were spread out to dry may be covered with straw to protect them from rain and dew. Rabbi Yehuda says: One may even condense the figs. Those who sell produce, clothing, and utensils may sell them in private, for the sake of the Festival. Fishermen, and groats makers [dashoshot], and bean pounders, who pulverize the beans, may ply their trades in private for the sake of the Festival. Rabbi Yosei says: They were stringent with themselves to refrain from this work even with respect to what was needed for the Festival.

讙诪壮 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讞讝拽讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讚 讗诪专 诪讞驻讬谉 讗拽诇讜砖讬 诪注讘讬谉 讗住诪讜讻讬 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪讞驻讬谉 讘讬谉 讗拽诇讜砖讬 讘讬谉 讗住诪讜讻讬 诪注讘讬谉 注讜砖讛 讗讜转讜 讻诪讬谉 讻专讬 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪注讘讬谉 注讜砖讛 讗讜转讜 讻诪讬谉 讻专讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

GEMARA: Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba and Rabbi Asi disagree about the following issue, and both of them assert their opinions in the name of 岣zkiyya and Rabbi Yo岣nan. One said: Cover the figs means to lightly cover them with straw, and condense means to spread straw over them densely. And the other one said: Cover means to spread straw over them whether lightly or densely, and condense means to amass the figs into a pile, making it as if it were a pile of grain. This is also taught in a baraita: One may condense, i.e., amass the figs into a pile, making it as if it were a pile of grain. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

诪讜讻专讬 驻讬专讜转 讻住讜转 讜讻诇讬诐 诪讜讻专讬谉 讘爪谞注讛 讜讻讜壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛谉 讛讞诪讬专讜 注诇 注爪诪谉 讚诇讗 讛讜讜 注讘讚讬 讻诇诇 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讚讛讜讜 注讘讚讬 讘爪谞注讛

搂 The mishna states: On the intermediate days of a Festival, those who sell produce, clothing, and utensils may sell them in private, for the sake of the Festival. Fishermen, groats makers, and bean pounders may ply their trades in private for the sake of the Festival. Rabbi Yosei says that they were stringent with themselves. The Sages were asked: When it says that they were stringent with themselves, does it mean that that they did not work at all on the intermediate days of a Festival, or perhaps it means that they did their work in private, though it is permitted to do it publicly?

转讗 砖诪注 诪讜讻专讬 驻讬专讜转 讻住讜转 讜讻诇讬诐 诪讜讻专讬谉 讘爪谞注讛 诇爪讜专讱 讛诪讜注讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 转讙专讬 讟讘专讬讗 讛谉 讛讞诪讬专讜 注诇 注爪诪谉 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 诪讜讻专讬谉 讻诇 注讬拽专 爪讚讬 讞讬讜转 讜注讜驻讜转 讜讚讙讬诐 爪讚讬谉 讘爪谞注讛 诇爪讜专讱 讛诪讜注讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 爪讚讬 注讻讜 讛谉 讛讞诪讬专讜 注诇 注爪诪谉 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 爪讚讬谉 讻诇 注讬拽专 讚砖讜砖讬 讞讬诇拽讗 讟专讙讬住 讜讟讬住谞讬 讚讜砖砖讬谉 讘爪谞注讛 诇爪讜专讱 讛诪讜注讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讚砖讜砖讬 爪讬驻讜专讬 讛谉 讛讞诪讬专讜 注诇 注爪诪谉 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 讚讜砖砖讬谉 讻诇 注讬拽专

The Gemara answers based on a baraita. Come and hear: Those who sell produce, clothing, and utensils may sell them in private, for the sake of the Festival. Rabbi Yosei says: The merchants of Tiberias were stringent with themselves not to sell at all, even in private. Hunters of animals, fowlers, and fishermen may hunt their quarry discreetly for the sake of the Festival. Rabbi Yosei says: The hunters of Akko were stringent with themselves not to hunt at all. Groats makers who crack grain into groats called 岣lka, targis, and tisanei, crack the grain in private for the sake of the Festival. Rabbi Yosei says: The groats makers of Tzippori were stringent with themselves not to crack grain at all. According to Rabbi Yosei, the stringencies involve refraining from work entirely.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讞讬诇拽讗 讞讚讗 诇转专转讬 讟专讙讬住 讞讚讗 诇转诇转 讟讬住谞讬 讞讚讗 诇讗专讘注讛 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讻讜谞转讗

Abaye said: The term 岣lka means one kernel that is broken into two; the term targis means one kernel that is broken into three; and the term tisanei means one grain that is broken into four. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: 岣lka is referring to emmer wheat.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讞讬诇拽讗 讟专讙讬住 讜讟讬住谞讬 讟诪讗讬谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讚讗 诇转专转讬 诇转诇转 讜诇讗专讘注讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讟诪讗讬谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讚讗转讻砖讜专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讜谞转讗 讗诪讗讬 讟诪讗讬谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讛讗 诇讗 讗讬转讻砖讜专

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: 岣lka, targis, and tisanei are susceptible to ritual impurity everywhere. Granted, according to the one who said that these are one grain broken into two, into three, and into four, due to that reason they are susceptible to impurity everywhere, as they have already become fit to contract ritual impurity by being rinsed with water in their processing. But according to the one who says that 岣lka is emmer wheat that has not necessarily been processed, why is it susceptible to ritual impurity everywhere, since it has not necessarily become fit to contract impurity by coming into contact with water?

讻讙讜谉 讚诪讬拽诇驻谉 讚讗讬 诇讗讜 讚砖专讗 诇讛讜 讘诪讬讗 诇讗 讛讜讛 诪讬拽诇驻讗 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讞讬诇拽讗 讚砖拽诇 讞诇拽讬讛讜

The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to a case where, for example, the emmer wheat was husked, since if it had not been previously soaked in water, it would not have been possible to husk it. And why, according to this opinion, is it called 岣lka? It is called this because their husks [岣lkayhu] were removed.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讚讙谉 讗住讜专 讗祝 讘驻讜诇 讛诪爪专讬 讬讘砖 讜诪讜转专 讘诇讞 讜诪讜转专 讘讗讜专讝 讘讞讬诇拽讗 讜讟专讙讬住 讜讟讬住谞讬 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讚讗 诇转专转讬 讞讚讗 诇转诇转 讜讞讚讗 诇讗专讘注讛 砖驻讬专 讚谞驻拽讜 诇讛讜 诪转讜专转 讚讙谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讜谞转讗 讚讙谉 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: One who vows to prohibit himself from eating grain [dagan] is prohibited to partake of even dry Egyptian beans, and it is permitted for him to partake of fresh beans. And it is permitted for him to partake of rice, as well as of 岣lka, and targeis, and tisnei. Granted, according to the one who said that these are one grain broken into two, one grain broken into three, and one grain broken into four, it is fine, as when the wheat is crushed into these it leaves the category of grain. But according to the one who says that 岣lka is emmer wheat, it is still a proper grain. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is difficult.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖专讗 诇讛讜 诇讛谞讛讜 讻专讜驻讬讬转讗 诇诪讬讝诇 诇讝讘讜谞讬 讻讬 讗讜专讞讬讬讛讜 讘砖讜拽讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讞谞讜转 驻转讜讞讛 诇住讟讬讜 驻讜转讞 讜谞讜注诇 讻讚专讻讜

搂 The Gemara relates that Rav Huna permitted the spice merchants [kerufayata] to go and sell their products in their usual manner in the marketplace on the intermediate days of a Festival. Rav Kahana raised an objection to Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling from a baraita: If a store opens into a row of pillars that runs along the street, the storekeeper may open and close it in his usual manner on the intermediate days of a Festival, since it is not in the public鈥檚 view.

驻转讜讞讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 驻讜转讞 讗讞转 讜谞讜注诇 讗讞转 讜注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讗讞专讜谉 砖诇 讞讙 诪讜爪讬讗 讜诪注讟专 讗转 砖讜拽讬 讛注讬专 讘驻讬专讜转 讘砖讘讬诇 讻讘讜讚 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讗讞专讜谉 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讗讞专讜谉 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讗

However, if it is open to the public domain, he may open only one door and must close the other. And on the eve of the last day of the festival of Sukkot, he may take out his wares from the store and adorn the markets of the city with fruit in honor of the last day of the Festival. The Gemara infers: For the honor of the last day of the Festival, yes, it is permitted for him to open the store in order to give people the opportunity to prepare for the holiday, but when not for the honor of the Festival, i.e., during the other intermediate days of the Festival, he is not permitted to do so. How, then, did Rav Huna permit those spice merchants to sell as usual on the intermediate days of the Festival?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘驻讬专讬 讛讗 讘转讘诇讬谉

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: This baraita that prohibits selling in the usual manner is referring to the sale of fruit, which is usually bought in large quantities and could have been purchased before the Festival; people might therefore suspect the buyer of purchasing it for use after the Festival. In contrast, this lenient ruling of Rav Huna is referring to the sale of spices, which is permitted because people buy them only in small quantities for the sake of the Festival.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 诪讬 砖讛驻讱

 

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 诪讙诇讞讬谉 讘诪讜注讚 讛讘讗 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜诪讘讬转 讛砖讘讬讛 讜讛讬讜爪讗 诪讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 讜讛诪谞讜讚讛 砖讛转讬专讜 诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讻谉 诪讬 砖谞砖讗诇 诇讞讻诐 讜讛讜转专 讜讛谞讝讬专 讜讛诪爪讜专注 诪讟讜诪讗转讜 诇讟讛专转讜

MISHNA: And these may shave and cut their hair on the intermediate days of a Festival: One who comes from a country overseas; and one who is released from a house of captivity; and one who comes out of prison on the intermediate days of a Festival; and one who had been ostracized and therefore prohibited from cutting his hair, and the Sages released him from his decree of ostracism on the intermediate days of the Festival; and similarly, one who had vowed not to cut his hair and then requested of a Sage to dissolve his vow and was released from it on the intermediate days of the Festival; and the nazirite whose term of naziriteship ended on the intermediate days of a Festival; and the leper who needs to purify himself on the intermediate days and must shave his entire body in order to leave his state of ritual impurity and regain his ritual purity. Since these people were not able to cut their hair on the eve of the Festival, they are permitted to do so on the intermediate days of the Festival.

讜讗诇讜 诪讻讘住讬谉 讘诪讜注讚 讛讘讗 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜诪讘讬转 讛砖讘讬讛 讜讛讬讜爪讗 诪讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉

And these may launder their clothes on the intermediate days of a Festival: One who comes from a country overseas; and one who is released from a house of captivity; and one who comes out of prison on the intermediate days of a Festival;

Scroll To Top