Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 11, 2021 | כ״ז בטבת תשפ״א

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

Pesachim 51

Today’s Daf is sponsored by Paula Winnig in memory of Rabbi Robert (Ruby) Davis, z”l father of Suri Davis Stern. “In memory of someone who took pride in his learning and his transmission of his learning to his family and his students, particularly my dear friend Suri Davis Stern.”

The gemara brings a few cases where people wanted to change the custom in their town and the rabbis reactions. When is this principle used “things that are permitted that people decided to be stringent about and forbid, one cannot permit in front of them”? Is it only referring to Kutim? Can one permit  a custom that is a mistake? Rabba bar Chana came from Israel to Babylonia and ate the fat on the stomach that was a subject of debate between the rabbis in Israel and Babylonia. When the rabbis came, he hid what he was doing. Abaye commented that he treated them as if they were Kutim. Why didn’t he keep the stringency of the place where he went? Abaye and Rava each bring a different answer. How do the words of the mishna “one should not do anything different so as not to create conflict” with the case of one who doesn’t work going to the place where people do work?

אי אתה רשאי להתירן בפניהם אמר לו ולאו מי איתמר עלה אמר רב חסדא בכותאי כותאי מאי טעמא משום דמסרכי מילתא הנך אינשי נמי סרכי מילתא

you are not allowed to permit these actions in their presence, lest they come to treat other prohibitions lightly, saying: If this previously prohibited activity was permitted, other prohibitions are not particularly stringent either. How did Rav Yosef permit the residents of Ḥozai to eat rice dough? Rav Yosef said to Abaye: And wasn’t it stated about this halakha concerning stringencies that Rav Ḥisda said: This was stated specifically with regard to Samaritans? The Gemara rejects this: What is the reason that this applies to Samaritans? It is due to the fact that they will extend this matter of leniency, and add to it additional, unjustified leniencies. These people of Ḥozai will also extend this matter of leniency, and come to practice additional leniencies in other cases, as they are ignoramuses.

אלא אמר רב אשי חזינן אי רובן אורז אכלי לא ניכלה זר באפייהו דילמא משתכחא תורת חלה מינייהו ואי רובן דגן אכלי ניכלה זר באפייהו דילמא אתי לאפרושי מן החיוב על הפטור ומן הפטור על החיוב

Rather, Rav Ashi said: We see, if the majority of people in that place eat rice, do not let a non-priest eat ḥalla in their presence, lest the halakhic category of ḥalla be forgotten from them. And if most of them eat grain, let a non-priest eat ḥalla separated from rice dough in their presence, lest they separate ḥalla from grain, from which separating ḥalla is a requirement, on behalf of rice from which separating ḥalla is an exemption, in which case the priest eating the ḥalla would be eating bread from which ḥalla was not separated; or from that which is an exemption on behalf of that which is a requirement, in which case the person eating the grain bread would be eating bread from which ḥalla was not separated.

גופא דברים המותרין ואחרים נהגו בהן איסור אי אתה רשאי להתירן בפניהן אמר רב חסדא בכותאי עסקינן וכולי עלמא לא והתניא רוחצין שני אחין כאחד ואין רוחצין שני אחין בכבול ומעשה ביהודה והלל בניו של רבן גמליאל שרחצו שניהם כאחד בכבול ולעזה עליהן כל המדינה אמרו מימינו לא ראינו כך ונשמט הלל ויצא לבית החיצון ולא רצה לומר להן מותרין אתם

After mentioning halakhot relating to customs, the Gemara returns to discuss the matter itself. If matters are permitted but others were accustomed to treat them as a prohibition, you are not allowed to permit these actions in their presence. Rav Ḥisda said: We are dealing with Samaritans, not with Jews. The Gemara is surprised at this: And doesn’t this apply to everyone? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita to the contrary? Two brothers may bathe together, and there is no concern that doing so is immodest or will lead to sinful thoughts. However, the custom was that two brothers do not bathe together in the city of Kabul (see I Kings 9:13). And there was an incident involving Yehuda and Hillel, sons of Rabban Gamliel, who bathed together in Kabul, and the entire city denounced them and said: In all our days we have never seen that type of conduct. Hillel stole away and went out to the outer chamber and did not want to tell them: You are permitted to do so. He preferred to obey the city residents rather than rule it permitted for two brothers to bathe together.

יוצאים בקורדקיסון בשבת ואין יוצאין בקורדקיסון בשבת בבירי ומעשה ביהודה והלל בניו של רבן גמליאל שיצאו בקורדקיסון בשבת בבירי ולעזה עליהן המדינה ואמרו מימינו לא ראינו כך ושמטום ונתנום לעבדיהן ולא רצו לומר להן מותרין אתם

Similarly, one may go out with wide shoes that resemble slippers on Shabbat; however, one does not go out with wide shoes in the city of Birei. And there was an incident involving Yehuda and Hillel, sons of Rabban Gamliel, who went out with wide shoes in Birei, and the people of the city denounced them and said: In all our days we have never seen that type of conduct. And Yehuda and Hillel removed their shoes, and gave them to their gentile servants, and did not want to tell the residents of the city: You are permitted to go out with wide shoes on Shabbat.

ויושבין על ספסלי גוים בשבת ואינן יושבין על ספסלי גוים בשבת בעכו ומעשה ברבן שמעון בן גמליאל שישב על ספסלי גוים בשבת בעכו ולעזה עליו כל המדינה אמרו מימינו לא ראינו כך נשמט על גבי קרקע ולא רצה לומר להן מותרין אתם בני מדינת הים נמי כיון דלא שכיחי רבנן גבייהו ככותים דמו

Similarly, one may sit on gentiles’ stools on Shabbat, even though these stools are typically used for displaying merchandise. But one may not sit on gentiles’ stools on Shabbat in the city of Akko. And there was an incident involving Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who sat on gentiles’ stools on Shabbat in the city of Akko, and the entire city denounced him. They said: In all our days we have never seen that type of conduct. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel moved onto the ground and did not want to tell them: You are permitted to sit on the stools. The Gemara answers: The legal status of people in the cities, since Sages are not found among them, is like that of the Samaritans. Therefore, it is prohibited to tell them that these activities are permitted.

בשלמא ספסלי גוים משום דמחזי כמקח וממכר בקורדקיסון נמי דילמא משתלפין ואתי לאיתויינהו ארבע אמות ברשות הרבים

The Gemara proceeds to clarify the reasons for the stringent customs in those communities. Granted, sitting on gentiles’ stools is prohibited because it appears like one is engaged in buying and selling on Shabbat. In the case of wide shoes as well, it is prohibited to wear them due to the concern lest they fall off one’s feet and he come to carry them in his hand four cubits in the public domain, thereby violating a Torah prohibition.

אלא רוחצין מאי טעמא לא כדתניא עם הכל אדם רוחץ חוץ מאביו וחמיו ובעל אמו ובעל אחותו ורבי יהודה מתיר באביו מפני כבוד אביו והוא הדין לבעל אמו

However, what is the reason that two brothers may not bathe together? The Gemara answers: The custom to prohibit doing so is based on that which was taught in a baraita: A person may bathe with anyone except for his father, and his father-in-law, and his mother’s husband, and his sister’s husband. Due to the nature of their relation, one might come to ponder how they came to be related and have prohibited thoughts about intimacy between men and women. And Rabbi Yehuda permits one to bathe with his father, due to the honor that he can accord his father by assisting his father while bathing. The same is true for one’s mother’s husband.

ואתו אינהו וגזור בשני אחין משום בעל אחותו תנא תלמיד לא ירחץ עם רבו ואם רבו צריך לו מותר

And the people of Kabul came and issued a decree to prohibit bathing together for two brothers, due to their concern that it is similar to bathing with one’s sister’s husband. It was taught in the Tosefta: A student may not bathe with his teacher, since it is disrespectful to see one’s teacher naked. But if his teacher requires his help when bathing, it is permitted.

כי אתא רבה בר בר חנה אכל דאייתרא עול לגביה רב עוירא סבא ורבה בריה דרב הונא כיון דחזינהו כסייה מינייהו אתו ואמרו ליה לאביי אמר להו שווינכו ככותאי

The Gemara relates: When Rabba bar bar Ḥana came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he ate the fat found over the straight part of an animal’s stomach. The fat along the stomach consists of two parts: The inner, straight portion, which is shaped like a bowstring, and the outer, rounded portion, which is shaped like a bow. With regard to the fat surrounding the inner, straight portion, the custom in Eretz Yisrael was lenient, whereas in Babylonia it was stringent. Rav Avira the Elder and Rabba, son of Rav Huna, entered to see Rabba bar bar Ḥana. When he saw them coming, he concealed from them what he was eating. They came and told Abaye what had happened, and he said to them: Through his conduct, he rendered you Samaritans, as he could have told you that it is permitted but did not do so.

ורבה בר בר חנה לית ליה הא דתנן נותנין עליו חומרי המקום שיצא משם וחומרי המקום שהלך לשם אמר אביי הני מילי מבבל לבבל ומארץ ישראל לארץ ישראל אי נמי מבבל לארץ ישראל אבל מארץ ישראל לבבל לא כיון דאנן כייפינן להו עבדינן כוותייהו

The Gemara asks: And is Rabba bar bar Ḥana, who was lenient with regard to a matter that is prohibited, not in agreement with that which we learned in the mishna: When one travels from one place to another, the Sages impose upon him the stringencies of the place from which he left and the stringencies of the place to which he went? Abaye said: That applies when one travels from one place in Babylonia to another place in Babylonia, or from one place in Eretz Yisrael to another place in Eretz Yisrael, or alternatively, from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael. However, when traveling from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, no, this principle does not apply. Since we, the residents of Babylonia, are subordinate to them in terms of halakha, we act in accordance with their custom, but a resident of Eretz Yisrael is not required to follow the Babylonian custom.

רב אשי אמר אפילו תימא מארץ ישראל לבבל הני מילי היכא דאין דעתו לחזור ורבה בר בר חנה דעתו לחזור הוה אמר ליה רבה בר בר חנה לבניה בני לא תאכל לא בפני ולא שלא בפני אני שראיתי את רבי יוחנן שאכל כדי הוא רבי יוחנן לסמוך עליו בפניו ושלא בפניו אתה לא ראית אותו לא תאכל בין בפני בין שלא בפני

Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that when one travels from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he is required to act stringently in accordance with the local custom, this applies only when his intent is not to return. One is required to adopt the local customs when permanently settling in a new location. However, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana’s intent was to return to Eretz Yisrael, his point of origin, he continued to follow the custom of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara relates that Rabba bar bar Ḥana said to his son: My son, you live in Babylonia. Therefore, do not eat this fat, neither when you are in my presence nor when you are not in my presence. I, who saw Rabbi Yoḥanan eat this fat, can say that Rabbi Yoḥanan is worthy for one to rely upon him both in his presence and not in his presence. You did not see him. Therefore, do not eat it, neither when you are in my presence nor when you are not in my presence, since you may not rely upon my opinion alone in this matter.

ופליגא דידיה אדידיה דאמר רבה בר בר חנה סח לי רבי יוחנן בן אלעזר פעם אחת נכנסתי אחר רבי שמעון בן רבי יוסי בן לקוניא לגינה

The Gemara comments: And this statement of his disagrees with another statement of his, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Elazar told me: Once I followed Rabbi Shimon ben Rabbi Yosei ben Lakonya into the garden next to his house,

ונטל ספיחי כרוב ואכל ונתן לי ואמר לי בני בפני אכול שלא בפני לא תאכל אני שראיתי את רבי שמעון בן יוחי שאכל כדי הוא רבי שמעון בן יוחי לסמוך עליו בפניו ושלא בפניו אתה בפני אכול שלא בפני לא תאכל

and he took cabbage after-growths that had grown during the Sabbatical Year, and ate from them and gave some to me. And he said to me: My son, in my presence, you may eat this. But when you are not in my presence, you may not eat cabbage that grew as an after-growth. I, who saw Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai eat, can say that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai is worthy for one to rely upon him both in his presence and not in his presence. You, who did not see him eat, in my presence, rely on what I saw and eat; however not in my presence, do not rely on my testimony and do not eat. In this case, Rabba bar bar Ḥana maintained that one who saw a Sage act in a certain way may rely on what he saw, as may his students when they are in the presence of their teacher.

מאי רבי שמעון דתניא רבי שמעון אומר כל הספיחים אסורין חוץ מספיחי כרוב שאין כיוצא בהן בירק השדה וחכמים אומרים כל הספיחין אסורים

The Gemara asks: What is that statement of Rabbi Shimon? As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: All after-growths that grow on their own during the Sabbatical Year are prohibited and may not be eaten, except for the after-growths of cabbage, as there is nothing similar to them among the vegetables in the field. The Sages did not extend the decree prohibiting after-growths to cabbage, because it is unlike other vegetables. Rather, it is like fruit of a tree, which may be eaten if it grows wild during the Sabbatical Year. And the Rabbis say: All after-growths are prohibited, including the after-growths of cabbage.

ותרוייהו אליבא דרבי עקיבא דתניא הן לא נזרע ולא נאסף את תבואתנו אמר רבי עקיבא וכי מאחר שאין זורעין מהיכא אוספין מכאן לספיחין שהן אסורין

The Gemara comments: And both Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis, who disagree in this case, hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. As it was taught in a baraita: The verse states, “And if you shall say: What shall we eat in the seventh year? Behold, we may not sow, nor gather our crops” (Leviticus 25:20). Rabbi Akiva said: And since they cannot sow, from where would they gather? Why does the verse mention gathering? It is derived from here that gathering after-growths that were not planted but grew on their own is prohibited.

במאי קא מיפלגי רבנן סברי גזרינן ספיחי כרוב אטו שאר ספיחי דעלמא ורבי שמעון סבר לא גזרינן ספיחי כרוב אטו ספיחי דעלמא:

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle then, do they disagree? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis, who prohibit all after-growths, hold: We issue a decree prohibiting cabbage after-growths due to other after-growths in general. And Rabbi Shimon holds: We do not issue a decree prohibiting cabbage after-growths due to other after-growths in general.

ההולך ממקום וכו׳: בשלמא ההולך ממקום שעושין למקום שאין עושין נותנין עליו חומרי מקום שהלך לשם ואל ישנה אדם מפני המחלוקת ולא ליעביד

We learned in the mishna with regard to refraining from performance of labor on Passover eve: With regard to one who travels from a place where people perform labor on Passover eve to a place where people do not, or from a place where people do not perform labor on Passover eve to a place where people do, the Sages impose upon him the stringencies of the place from which he left and the stringencies of the place to which he went. The Gemara asks: Granted, in the case of one who travels from a place where people perform labor to a place where they do not perform labor, the Sages impose upon him the stringencies of the place to which he went, and a person should not deviate from the standard practice in that place due to potential dispute, and he should not perform labor.

אלא ממקום שאין עושין למקום שעושין אל ישנה אדם מפני המחלוקת ונעביד הא אמרת נותנין עליו חומרי מקום שהלך לשם וחומרי מקום שיצא משם

However, if one traveled from a place where people do not perform labor to a place where they do perform labor, is the ruling there too, that a person should not deviate from the standard practice in that place due to conflict, and perform labor? That cannot be. Didn’t you say: The Sages impose upon him the stringencies of the place to which he went and the stringencies of the place from which he left? He should not perform any labor.

אמר אביי ארישא רבא אמר לעולם אסיפא והכי קאמר אין בזו מפני שינוי המחלוקת מאי קא אמרת הרואה אומר מלאכה אסורה מימר אמרי כמה בטלני הוי בשוקא

Abaye said: The principle that one should not deviate due to potential dispute is referring to the first clause, that one who arrives at a place where people do not perform labor adopts the local stringency. Rava said: Actually, it is possible to say this halakha is also referring to the latter clause of the mishna, and this is what it is saying: Refraining from labor does not constitute a deviation that causes dispute. What are you saying; one who sees him will say that he is not working because he believes that performing labor is prohibited, contrary to local practice? That is unlikely, as when people see him inactive that will not be their assumption. Instead, they will say: How many idle people there are in the market every day who do not work. In this case, people will assume that this individual was unable to find work that day.

אמר ליה רב ספרא לרבי אבא כגון אנן דידעינן בקביעא דירחא

After discussing stringencies resulting from customs, the Gemara elaborates on the second day of a Festival observed in the Diaspora. Rav Safra said to Rabbi Abba: Communities in a situation like us, who, based on calculations, already know the determination of the month and are no longer concerned lest the Festival be observed on the wrong day, clearly, on the second day of a Festival,

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

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

Pesachim 46-52 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about “deaf dough” and if you can separate Challah from your impure matzah dough. We...
daf_icon

Customs

Pesachim Daf 51 Local customs and personal customs. Moving from place to place - do you take your customs with...
talking talmud_square

Pesachim 51: In Trouble for NOT Following the Local Practice

Following the practice in the place that you're in: 3 examples, including a certain kind of wide shoes. As discovered...

Pesachim 51

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 51

אי אתה רשאי להתירן בפניהם אמר לו ולאו מי איתמר עלה אמר רב חסדא בכותאי כותאי מאי טעמא משום דמסרכי מילתא הנך אינשי נמי סרכי מילתא

you are not allowed to permit these actions in their presence, lest they come to treat other prohibitions lightly, saying: If this previously prohibited activity was permitted, other prohibitions are not particularly stringent either. How did Rav Yosef permit the residents of Ḥozai to eat rice dough? Rav Yosef said to Abaye: And wasn’t it stated about this halakha concerning stringencies that Rav Ḥisda said: This was stated specifically with regard to Samaritans? The Gemara rejects this: What is the reason that this applies to Samaritans? It is due to the fact that they will extend this matter of leniency, and add to it additional, unjustified leniencies. These people of Ḥozai will also extend this matter of leniency, and come to practice additional leniencies in other cases, as they are ignoramuses.

אלא אמר רב אשי חזינן אי רובן אורז אכלי לא ניכלה זר באפייהו דילמא משתכחא תורת חלה מינייהו ואי רובן דגן אכלי ניכלה זר באפייהו דילמא אתי לאפרושי מן החיוב על הפטור ומן הפטור על החיוב

Rather, Rav Ashi said: We see, if the majority of people in that place eat rice, do not let a non-priest eat ḥalla in their presence, lest the halakhic category of ḥalla be forgotten from them. And if most of them eat grain, let a non-priest eat ḥalla separated from rice dough in their presence, lest they separate ḥalla from grain, from which separating ḥalla is a requirement, on behalf of rice from which separating ḥalla is an exemption, in which case the priest eating the ḥalla would be eating bread from which ḥalla was not separated; or from that which is an exemption on behalf of that which is a requirement, in which case the person eating the grain bread would be eating bread from which ḥalla was not separated.

גופא דברים המותרין ואחרים נהגו בהן איסור אי אתה רשאי להתירן בפניהן אמר רב חסדא בכותאי עסקינן וכולי עלמא לא והתניא רוחצין שני אחין כאחד ואין רוחצין שני אחין בכבול ומעשה ביהודה והלל בניו של רבן גמליאל שרחצו שניהם כאחד בכבול ולעזה עליהן כל המדינה אמרו מימינו לא ראינו כך ונשמט הלל ויצא לבית החיצון ולא רצה לומר להן מותרין אתם

After mentioning halakhot relating to customs, the Gemara returns to discuss the matter itself. If matters are permitted but others were accustomed to treat them as a prohibition, you are not allowed to permit these actions in their presence. Rav Ḥisda said: We are dealing with Samaritans, not with Jews. The Gemara is surprised at this: And doesn’t this apply to everyone? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita to the contrary? Two brothers may bathe together, and there is no concern that doing so is immodest or will lead to sinful thoughts. However, the custom was that two brothers do not bathe together in the city of Kabul (see I Kings 9:13). And there was an incident involving Yehuda and Hillel, sons of Rabban Gamliel, who bathed together in Kabul, and the entire city denounced them and said: In all our days we have never seen that type of conduct. Hillel stole away and went out to the outer chamber and did not want to tell them: You are permitted to do so. He preferred to obey the city residents rather than rule it permitted for two brothers to bathe together.

יוצאים בקורדקיסון בשבת ואין יוצאין בקורדקיסון בשבת בבירי ומעשה ביהודה והלל בניו של רבן גמליאל שיצאו בקורדקיסון בשבת בבירי ולעזה עליהן המדינה ואמרו מימינו לא ראינו כך ושמטום ונתנום לעבדיהן ולא רצו לומר להן מותרין אתם

Similarly, one may go out with wide shoes that resemble slippers on Shabbat; however, one does not go out with wide shoes in the city of Birei. And there was an incident involving Yehuda and Hillel, sons of Rabban Gamliel, who went out with wide shoes in Birei, and the people of the city denounced them and said: In all our days we have never seen that type of conduct. And Yehuda and Hillel removed their shoes, and gave them to their gentile servants, and did not want to tell the residents of the city: You are permitted to go out with wide shoes on Shabbat.

ויושבין על ספסלי גוים בשבת ואינן יושבין על ספסלי גוים בשבת בעכו ומעשה ברבן שמעון בן גמליאל שישב על ספסלי גוים בשבת בעכו ולעזה עליו כל המדינה אמרו מימינו לא ראינו כך נשמט על גבי קרקע ולא רצה לומר להן מותרין אתם בני מדינת הים נמי כיון דלא שכיחי רבנן גבייהו ככותים דמו

Similarly, one may sit on gentiles’ stools on Shabbat, even though these stools are typically used for displaying merchandise. But one may not sit on gentiles’ stools on Shabbat in the city of Akko. And there was an incident involving Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who sat on gentiles’ stools on Shabbat in the city of Akko, and the entire city denounced him. They said: In all our days we have never seen that type of conduct. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel moved onto the ground and did not want to tell them: You are permitted to sit on the stools. The Gemara answers: The legal status of people in the cities, since Sages are not found among them, is like that of the Samaritans. Therefore, it is prohibited to tell them that these activities are permitted.

בשלמא ספסלי גוים משום דמחזי כמקח וממכר בקורדקיסון נמי דילמא משתלפין ואתי לאיתויינהו ארבע אמות ברשות הרבים

The Gemara proceeds to clarify the reasons for the stringent customs in those communities. Granted, sitting on gentiles’ stools is prohibited because it appears like one is engaged in buying and selling on Shabbat. In the case of wide shoes as well, it is prohibited to wear them due to the concern lest they fall off one’s feet and he come to carry them in his hand four cubits in the public domain, thereby violating a Torah prohibition.

אלא רוחצין מאי טעמא לא כדתניא עם הכל אדם רוחץ חוץ מאביו וחמיו ובעל אמו ובעל אחותו ורבי יהודה מתיר באביו מפני כבוד אביו והוא הדין לבעל אמו

However, what is the reason that two brothers may not bathe together? The Gemara answers: The custom to prohibit doing so is based on that which was taught in a baraita: A person may bathe with anyone except for his father, and his father-in-law, and his mother’s husband, and his sister’s husband. Due to the nature of their relation, one might come to ponder how they came to be related and have prohibited thoughts about intimacy between men and women. And Rabbi Yehuda permits one to bathe with his father, due to the honor that he can accord his father by assisting his father while bathing. The same is true for one’s mother’s husband.

ואתו אינהו וגזור בשני אחין משום בעל אחותו תנא תלמיד לא ירחץ עם רבו ואם רבו צריך לו מותר

And the people of Kabul came and issued a decree to prohibit bathing together for two brothers, due to their concern that it is similar to bathing with one’s sister’s husband. It was taught in the Tosefta: A student may not bathe with his teacher, since it is disrespectful to see one’s teacher naked. But if his teacher requires his help when bathing, it is permitted.

כי אתא רבה בר בר חנה אכל דאייתרא עול לגביה רב עוירא סבא ורבה בריה דרב הונא כיון דחזינהו כסייה מינייהו אתו ואמרו ליה לאביי אמר להו שווינכו ככותאי

The Gemara relates: When Rabba bar bar Ḥana came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he ate the fat found over the straight part of an animal’s stomach. The fat along the stomach consists of two parts: The inner, straight portion, which is shaped like a bowstring, and the outer, rounded portion, which is shaped like a bow. With regard to the fat surrounding the inner, straight portion, the custom in Eretz Yisrael was lenient, whereas in Babylonia it was stringent. Rav Avira the Elder and Rabba, son of Rav Huna, entered to see Rabba bar bar Ḥana. When he saw them coming, he concealed from them what he was eating. They came and told Abaye what had happened, and he said to them: Through his conduct, he rendered you Samaritans, as he could have told you that it is permitted but did not do so.

ורבה בר בר חנה לית ליה הא דתנן נותנין עליו חומרי המקום שיצא משם וחומרי המקום שהלך לשם אמר אביי הני מילי מבבל לבבל ומארץ ישראל לארץ ישראל אי נמי מבבל לארץ ישראל אבל מארץ ישראל לבבל לא כיון דאנן כייפינן להו עבדינן כוותייהו

The Gemara asks: And is Rabba bar bar Ḥana, who was lenient with regard to a matter that is prohibited, not in agreement with that which we learned in the mishna: When one travels from one place to another, the Sages impose upon him the stringencies of the place from which he left and the stringencies of the place to which he went? Abaye said: That applies when one travels from one place in Babylonia to another place in Babylonia, or from one place in Eretz Yisrael to another place in Eretz Yisrael, or alternatively, from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael. However, when traveling from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, no, this principle does not apply. Since we, the residents of Babylonia, are subordinate to them in terms of halakha, we act in accordance with their custom, but a resident of Eretz Yisrael is not required to follow the Babylonian custom.

רב אשי אמר אפילו תימא מארץ ישראל לבבל הני מילי היכא דאין דעתו לחזור ורבה בר בר חנה דעתו לחזור הוה אמר ליה רבה בר בר חנה לבניה בני לא תאכל לא בפני ולא שלא בפני אני שראיתי את רבי יוחנן שאכל כדי הוא רבי יוחנן לסמוך עליו בפניו ושלא בפניו אתה לא ראית אותו לא תאכל בין בפני בין שלא בפני

Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that when one travels from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he is required to act stringently in accordance with the local custom, this applies only when his intent is not to return. One is required to adopt the local customs when permanently settling in a new location. However, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana’s intent was to return to Eretz Yisrael, his point of origin, he continued to follow the custom of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara relates that Rabba bar bar Ḥana said to his son: My son, you live in Babylonia. Therefore, do not eat this fat, neither when you are in my presence nor when you are not in my presence. I, who saw Rabbi Yoḥanan eat this fat, can say that Rabbi Yoḥanan is worthy for one to rely upon him both in his presence and not in his presence. You did not see him. Therefore, do not eat it, neither when you are in my presence nor when you are not in my presence, since you may not rely upon my opinion alone in this matter.

ופליגא דידיה אדידיה דאמר רבה בר בר חנה סח לי רבי יוחנן בן אלעזר פעם אחת נכנסתי אחר רבי שמעון בן רבי יוסי בן לקוניא לגינה

The Gemara comments: And this statement of his disagrees with another statement of his, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Elazar told me: Once I followed Rabbi Shimon ben Rabbi Yosei ben Lakonya into the garden next to his house,

ונטל ספיחי כרוב ואכל ונתן לי ואמר לי בני בפני אכול שלא בפני לא תאכל אני שראיתי את רבי שמעון בן יוחי שאכל כדי הוא רבי שמעון בן יוחי לסמוך עליו בפניו ושלא בפניו אתה בפני אכול שלא בפני לא תאכל

and he took cabbage after-growths that had grown during the Sabbatical Year, and ate from them and gave some to me. And he said to me: My son, in my presence, you may eat this. But when you are not in my presence, you may not eat cabbage that grew as an after-growth. I, who saw Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai eat, can say that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai is worthy for one to rely upon him both in his presence and not in his presence. You, who did not see him eat, in my presence, rely on what I saw and eat; however not in my presence, do not rely on my testimony and do not eat. In this case, Rabba bar bar Ḥana maintained that one who saw a Sage act in a certain way may rely on what he saw, as may his students when they are in the presence of their teacher.

מאי רבי שמעון דתניא רבי שמעון אומר כל הספיחים אסורין חוץ מספיחי כרוב שאין כיוצא בהן בירק השדה וחכמים אומרים כל הספיחין אסורים

The Gemara asks: What is that statement of Rabbi Shimon? As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: All after-growths that grow on their own during the Sabbatical Year are prohibited and may not be eaten, except for the after-growths of cabbage, as there is nothing similar to them among the vegetables in the field. The Sages did not extend the decree prohibiting after-growths to cabbage, because it is unlike other vegetables. Rather, it is like fruit of a tree, which may be eaten if it grows wild during the Sabbatical Year. And the Rabbis say: All after-growths are prohibited, including the after-growths of cabbage.

ותרוייהו אליבא דרבי עקיבא דתניא הן לא נזרע ולא נאסף את תבואתנו אמר רבי עקיבא וכי מאחר שאין זורעין מהיכא אוספין מכאן לספיחין שהן אסורין

The Gemara comments: And both Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis, who disagree in this case, hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. As it was taught in a baraita: The verse states, “And if you shall say: What shall we eat in the seventh year? Behold, we may not sow, nor gather our crops” (Leviticus 25:20). Rabbi Akiva said: And since they cannot sow, from where would they gather? Why does the verse mention gathering? It is derived from here that gathering after-growths that were not planted but grew on their own is prohibited.

במאי קא מיפלגי רבנן סברי גזרינן ספיחי כרוב אטו שאר ספיחי דעלמא ורבי שמעון סבר לא גזרינן ספיחי כרוב אטו ספיחי דעלמא:

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle then, do they disagree? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis, who prohibit all after-growths, hold: We issue a decree prohibiting cabbage after-growths due to other after-growths in general. And Rabbi Shimon holds: We do not issue a decree prohibiting cabbage after-growths due to other after-growths in general.

ההולך ממקום וכו׳: בשלמא ההולך ממקום שעושין למקום שאין עושין נותנין עליו חומרי מקום שהלך לשם ואל ישנה אדם מפני המחלוקת ולא ליעביד

We learned in the mishna with regard to refraining from performance of labor on Passover eve: With regard to one who travels from a place where people perform labor on Passover eve to a place where people do not, or from a place where people do not perform labor on Passover eve to a place where people do, the Sages impose upon him the stringencies of the place from which he left and the stringencies of the place to which he went. The Gemara asks: Granted, in the case of one who travels from a place where people perform labor to a place where they do not perform labor, the Sages impose upon him the stringencies of the place to which he went, and a person should not deviate from the standard practice in that place due to potential dispute, and he should not perform labor.

אלא ממקום שאין עושין למקום שעושין אל ישנה אדם מפני המחלוקת ונעביד הא אמרת נותנין עליו חומרי מקום שהלך לשם וחומרי מקום שיצא משם

However, if one traveled from a place where people do not perform labor to a place where they do perform labor, is the ruling there too, that a person should not deviate from the standard practice in that place due to conflict, and perform labor? That cannot be. Didn’t you say: The Sages impose upon him the stringencies of the place to which he went and the stringencies of the place from which he left? He should not perform any labor.

אמר אביי ארישא רבא אמר לעולם אסיפא והכי קאמר אין בזו מפני שינוי המחלוקת מאי קא אמרת הרואה אומר מלאכה אסורה מימר אמרי כמה בטלני הוי בשוקא

Abaye said: The principle that one should not deviate due to potential dispute is referring to the first clause, that one who arrives at a place where people do not perform labor adopts the local stringency. Rava said: Actually, it is possible to say this halakha is also referring to the latter clause of the mishna, and this is what it is saying: Refraining from labor does not constitute a deviation that causes dispute. What are you saying; one who sees him will say that he is not working because he believes that performing labor is prohibited, contrary to local practice? That is unlikely, as when people see him inactive that will not be their assumption. Instead, they will say: How many idle people there are in the market every day who do not work. In this case, people will assume that this individual was unable to find work that day.

אמר ליה רב ספרא לרבי אבא כגון אנן דידעינן בקביעא דירחא

After discussing stringencies resulting from customs, the Gemara elaborates on the second day of a Festival observed in the Diaspora. Rav Safra said to Rabbi Abba: Communities in a situation like us, who, based on calculations, already know the determination of the month and are no longer concerned lest the Festival be observed on the wrong day, clearly, on the second day of a Festival,

Scroll To Top
×

דף יומי לנשים

עם הרבנית מישל פרבר

ראשון עד שישי ב6:20 בזום