Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 15, 2020 | כ״ג בסיון תש״פ

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

Shabbat 101

Today’s daf is sponsored by Dodi Lamm in memory of her father, Harav Moshe ben Meir Shmuel v’Perel, Rabbi Maurice Lamm z”l,w ho brought nechama to so many and continues to do so in these difficult times via his books. 

What is the law regarding a hanging mechitza (one that does not reach the ground)? In which cases do we view it as if it drops down to the ground and in which cases do we not allow that solution to be employed? Why? When the mishna mentioned boats that are tied to each other – what were they permitting? In what way did they need to be tied together – how strong a rope?

רבי יהודה אומר עמוקה עשרה ואין גבוהה עשרה מטלטלין מתוכה לים אבל לא מן הים לתוכה מאי שנא מן הים לתוכה דלא דקא מטלטלין מכרמלית לרשות היחיד מתוכה לים נמי קמטלטל מרשות היחיד לכרמלית אלא לאו אחודה ושמע מינה כחו בכרמלית לא גזרו שמע מינה

Rabbi Yehuda says: If the interior of the boat is ten handbreadths deep and it is not ten handbreadths above the surface of the water, one may carry from it into the sea, but not from the sea into it. The Gemara asks: What is different about carrying from the sea into the ship that one may not do so? Is it because in doing so one is carrying from a karmelit into the private domain? In carrying from the ship into the sea, one is also carrying from the private domain into a karmelit. Rather, is it not that from the ship to the sea is permitted because one throws the object onto the edge of the boat and it falls into the sea on its own, and learn from it that the Sages did not issue a decree prohibiting an action caused indirectly by one’s power in a karmelit? The Gemara summarizes: Indeed, learn from it that this is so.

אמר רב הונא הני ביצאתא דמישן אין מטלטלין בהן אלא בארבעה ולא אמרן אלא שאין בפחות משלשה ארבעה אבל יש בפחות משלשה ארבעה לית לן בה ואי מלינהו קני ואורבני לית לן בה

Rav Huna said: With regard to those small boats of Meishan, which are wide on top and narrow at the bottom, one may carry in them only within four cubits. Because they are less than four handbreadths wide at the bottom, they are not a private domain. And we only said this halakha in a case where the width of the boat does not reach four handbreadths less than three handbreadths from the bottom of the boat. However, if the width of the boat reaches four handbreadths less than three handbreadths from the bottom, we do not have this halakha, as those are considered full-fledged partitions which create a private domain. And, similarly, if one fills the bottom of the boat with reeds and thin willow branches up to the point where the boat reaches four handbreadths, we do not have this halakha. If there are ten handbreadths above the point where the boat reaches four handbreadths, it is a private domain.

מתקיף לה רב נחמן ולימא גוד אחית מחיצתא מי לא תניא רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר נעץ קנה ברשות הרבים ובראשו טרסקל וזרק ונח על גביו חייב אלמא אמרינן גוד אחית מחיצתא הכא נמי נימא גוד אחית מחיצתא

Rav Naḥman strongly objects to this: And let us say: Lower the partition. The upper part of the raft is sufficiently wide and its partitions are sufficiently high; why not consider it as if the partitions of the boat descend from the top of the raft in a straight line to the bottom? Was it not taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One who stuck a stick into the ground in the public domain, and hung a basket atop it that is four by four handbreadths wide, and threw an object from the public domain and it landed upon it, he is liable, like one who carried an object into a private domain? Apparently, we say: Lower the partition of the basket and treat it as if it reaches the ground, creating a column that is considered a private domain. Here, too, let us say: Lower the partition.

מתקיף לה רב יוסף ולא שמיעא להו להא דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב ומטו בה משום רבי חייא ותני עלה וחכמים פוטרין אמר ליה אביי ואת לא תסברא והתניא עמוד ברשות הרבים גבוה עשרה ורחב ארבעה ואין בעיקרו ארבעה ויש בקצר שלו שלשה וזרק ונח על גביו חייב אלמא אמרינן גוד אחית מחיצתא הכא נמי גוד אחית מחיצתא

Rav Yosef strongly objects to this statement of Rav Naḥman: And did they not hear that which Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, and there are those who determined that this halakha was stated in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya: And it was taught in a baraita: And the Rabbis deem one exempt in the case of a reed stuck in the ground of a public domain? Apparently, the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, is an individual opinion and was not accepted as halakha. Abaye said to him: And do you not hold the principle of extending partitions? Was it not taught in a baraita: With regard to a column in the public domain that is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, and its base is not four handbreadths wide, and its narrowest point is more than three handbreadths high; and if one threw an object from the public domain and it came to rest atop the column, he is liable? Apparently, we say: Lower the partition. Since the column’s uppermost section is sufficiently wide, its partitions are considered as if they extend to the ground. Here, too, say: Lower the partition.

מידי איריא התם הויא ליה מחיצה שהגדיים בוקעין בה הכא הויא לה מחיצה שאין הגדיים בוקעין בה אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרב אחא לרב אשי גבי ספינה נמי הא איכא בקיעת דגים אמר ליה בקיעת דגים לא שמיה בקיעה ומנא תימרא דבעא מיניה רבי טבלא מרבין מחיצה תלויה מהו שתתיר בחורבה ואמר ליה אין מחיצה תלויה מתרת

The Gemara asks: Are the case of the basket and the case of the boat comparable? There, in the case of the basket, it is a partition that goats pass through. A partition that does not serve as a barrier is not considered a partition. Here, it is a partition that goats do not pass through. It is considered a partition. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Aḥa, said to Rav Ashi: In the case of a boat, too, there is the passage of fish, as they can swim through the lowered partitions of the boat. He said to him: Passage of fish is not considered passage because it is not visible. And from where do you say that this is so? As Rabbi Tavla raised a dilemma before Ravin: With regard to a hanging partition, what is the ruling in terms of it permitting one to carry in a ruin when part of the building’s walls are still intact, and they are still considered partitions? Ravin said to him: A hanging partition only permits one to carry

אלא במים קל הוא שהקילו חכמים במים ואמאי הא איכא בקיעת דגים אלא שמע מינה בקיעת דגים לא שמה בקיעה:

in water. It is a leniency the Sages instituted in water but not in other circumstances. And why were they lenient with regard to a hanging partition in water? Isn’t there the passage of fish? Rather, learn from this that the passage of fish is not considered passage.

ספינות קשורות כו׳: פשיטא אמר רבא לא נצרכה אלא להתיר ביצית שביניהן

We learned in the mishna: If boats are tied together, one may carry an object from one to the other on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: That is obvious, since these boats are like a single domain. Rava said: This mishna was necessary only to permit carrying from one boat to another via a small boat that is between them.

אמר ליה רב ספרא משה שפיר קאמרת מטלטלין מזו לזו תנן אלא אמר רב ספרא לא נצרכה אלא לערב ולטלטל מזו לזו וכדתניא ספינות קשורות זו בזו מערבין ומטלטלין מזו לזו נפסקו נאסרו חזרו ונקשרו בין שוגגין ובין מזידין בין אנוסין בין מוטעין חזרו להיתרן הראשון

Rav Safra said to him: You, who are as great in this generation as Moses, did you speak well? We learned in the mishna that one may carry only from one to the other, not via a small boat. Rather, Rav Safra said: The mishna was only necessary to obligate one to place an eiruv, a joining of courtyards, between the two boats. Since the boats belong to different people, they must be joined to form a single domain in order to permit carrying from one to the other, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to boats tied to one another, one places an eiruv and carries from one to the other. If the ties between them were severed, the people on the boats are prohibited to carry from one to the other. If they were then retied, whether unwittingly, i.e., the one who retied them forgot that it was Shabbat, whether intentionally, whether due to circumstances beyond one’s control, whether mistakenly, the boats are restored to their original permitted status.

וכן מחצלות הפרוסות (לרשות הרבים) מערבין ומטלטלין מזו לזו נגללו נאסרו חזרו ונפרשו בין שוגגין בין מזידין בין אנוסין ובין מוטעין חזרו להיתרן הראשון שכל מחיצה שנעשה בשבת בין בשוגג בין במזיד שמה מחיצה

And similarly, in the case of mats that are unfurled to create a partition between two people and the public domain, one places an eiruv and carries from one to the other. If the mats were furled, the people on the boats are prohibited to carry from one to the other. If the mats were then unfurled again, whether unwittingly, whether intentionally, whether due to circumstances beyond one’s control, whether mistakenly, they are restored to their original permitted status. That is because any partition that is established on Shabbat, whether unwittingly, whether intentionally, is considered a partition.

איני והאמר רב נחמן לא שנו אלא לזרוק אבל לטלטל אסור כי איתמר דרב נחמן אמזיד איתמר

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rav Naḥman say: They only taught the principle that a partition established on Shabbat is considered a partition with regard to throwing. In that case, a partition creates a domain unto itself, and one who throws an object into it from another domain is liable. However, with regard to carrying within that domain, it is certainly prohibited. The Gemara answers: When that statement of Rav Naḥman was stated, it was stated with regard to an act performed intentionally. One who intentionally establishes a partition is penalized and is not permitted to benefit from it. In principle, though, that partition is considered a full-fledged partition.

אמר שמואל ואפילו קשורות בחוט הסרבל היכי דמי אי דיכול להעמידן פשיטא אי דאין יכול להעמידן אמאי

Shmuel said: The halakha that one may carry from one ship to another if they are tied together applies even if they were tied with a string used to close the neckline of a cloak. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If the string is capable of holding the ships together, it is obvious that carrying between the ships is permitted as they are tied together. However, if the string is incapable of holding them, why is it permitted?

לעולם דיכול להעמידן ושמואל לאפוקי מדנפשיה קאתי דתנן קשרה בדבר המעמידה מביא לה טומאה בדבר שאין מעמידה אין מביא לה טומאה ואמר שמואל והוא שקשורה בשלשלת של ברזל

The Gemara explains: Actually, it refers to a string that can hold them, and Shmuel said this to exclude this case from his own statement. As we learned in a mishna: If one tied a ship with an item capable of holding it and the end of that item was in a tent with a corpse, it transmits impurity to the ship. And if one tied it with something that is incapable of holding it, it does not transmit impurity to the ship. And Shmuel said: When the mishna refers to an item capable of holding it, it is referring to a case where it is tied with an iron chain. It was necessary for Shmuel to establish that although with regard to ritual impurity the halakha applies only to an iron chain, with regard to Shabbat the halakha applies to any item capable of holding the ships together.

לענין טומאה הוא דכתיב בחלל חרב חרב הרי הוא כחלל אין אבל לענין שבת כיון דיכול להעמידה (היכר בעלמא הוא) אפילו בחוט הסרבל:

The reason that the halakha is different with regard to impurity is as it is written: “And whoever touches in the open field one slain by sword, or one who dies by himself, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days” (Numbers 19:16). The Sages derived from the phrase: One slain by sword that a sword is like one slain, i.e., a corpse. A metal instrument that comes into contact with a corpse assumes the same level of ritual impurity as the corpse itself, the ultimate primary source of ritual impurity. Therefore, it is only an iron chain in a tent with a corpse in it that can render a boat tied to the other end a primary source of ritual impurity. A string made of other materials cannot. However, with regard to Shabbat, since it is capable of holding it and it is a mere distinctive sign that is necessary, even the string of a cloak is sufficient.

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

one week at a time with tamara spitz

Daf Yomi One Week at a Time – Shabbat 96-102

This week we will review Daf 96-102 and learn about different laws pertaining to throwing on Shabbat. We will also...

Shabbat 101

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 101

רבי יהודה אומר עמוקה עשרה ואין גבוהה עשרה מטלטלין מתוכה לים אבל לא מן הים לתוכה מאי שנא מן הים לתוכה דלא דקא מטלטלין מכרמלית לרשות היחיד מתוכה לים נמי קמטלטל מרשות היחיד לכרמלית אלא לאו אחודה ושמע מינה כחו בכרמלית לא גזרו שמע מינה

Rabbi Yehuda says: If the interior of the boat is ten handbreadths deep and it is not ten handbreadths above the surface of the water, one may carry from it into the sea, but not from the sea into it. The Gemara asks: What is different about carrying from the sea into the ship that one may not do so? Is it because in doing so one is carrying from a karmelit into the private domain? In carrying from the ship into the sea, one is also carrying from the private domain into a karmelit. Rather, is it not that from the ship to the sea is permitted because one throws the object onto the edge of the boat and it falls into the sea on its own, and learn from it that the Sages did not issue a decree prohibiting an action caused indirectly by one’s power in a karmelit? The Gemara summarizes: Indeed, learn from it that this is so.

אמר רב הונא הני ביצאתא דמישן אין מטלטלין בהן אלא בארבעה ולא אמרן אלא שאין בפחות משלשה ארבעה אבל יש בפחות משלשה ארבעה לית לן בה ואי מלינהו קני ואורבני לית לן בה

Rav Huna said: With regard to those small boats of Meishan, which are wide on top and narrow at the bottom, one may carry in them only within four cubits. Because they are less than four handbreadths wide at the bottom, they are not a private domain. And we only said this halakha in a case where the width of the boat does not reach four handbreadths less than three handbreadths from the bottom of the boat. However, if the width of the boat reaches four handbreadths less than three handbreadths from the bottom, we do not have this halakha, as those are considered full-fledged partitions which create a private domain. And, similarly, if one fills the bottom of the boat with reeds and thin willow branches up to the point where the boat reaches four handbreadths, we do not have this halakha. If there are ten handbreadths above the point where the boat reaches four handbreadths, it is a private domain.

מתקיף לה רב נחמן ולימא גוד אחית מחיצתא מי לא תניא רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר נעץ קנה ברשות הרבים ובראשו טרסקל וזרק ונח על גביו חייב אלמא אמרינן גוד אחית מחיצתא הכא נמי נימא גוד אחית מחיצתא

Rav Naḥman strongly objects to this: And let us say: Lower the partition. The upper part of the raft is sufficiently wide and its partitions are sufficiently high; why not consider it as if the partitions of the boat descend from the top of the raft in a straight line to the bottom? Was it not taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One who stuck a stick into the ground in the public domain, and hung a basket atop it that is four by four handbreadths wide, and threw an object from the public domain and it landed upon it, he is liable, like one who carried an object into a private domain? Apparently, we say: Lower the partition of the basket and treat it as if it reaches the ground, creating a column that is considered a private domain. Here, too, let us say: Lower the partition.

מתקיף לה רב יוסף ולא שמיעא להו להא דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב ומטו בה משום רבי חייא ותני עלה וחכמים פוטרין אמר ליה אביי ואת לא תסברא והתניא עמוד ברשות הרבים גבוה עשרה ורחב ארבעה ואין בעיקרו ארבעה ויש בקצר שלו שלשה וזרק ונח על גביו חייב אלמא אמרינן גוד אחית מחיצתא הכא נמי גוד אחית מחיצתא

Rav Yosef strongly objects to this statement of Rav Naḥman: And did they not hear that which Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, and there are those who determined that this halakha was stated in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya: And it was taught in a baraita: And the Rabbis deem one exempt in the case of a reed stuck in the ground of a public domain? Apparently, the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, is an individual opinion and was not accepted as halakha. Abaye said to him: And do you not hold the principle of extending partitions? Was it not taught in a baraita: With regard to a column in the public domain that is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, and its base is not four handbreadths wide, and its narrowest point is more than three handbreadths high; and if one threw an object from the public domain and it came to rest atop the column, he is liable? Apparently, we say: Lower the partition. Since the column’s uppermost section is sufficiently wide, its partitions are considered as if they extend to the ground. Here, too, say: Lower the partition.

מידי איריא התם הויא ליה מחיצה שהגדיים בוקעין בה הכא הויא לה מחיצה שאין הגדיים בוקעין בה אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרב אחא לרב אשי גבי ספינה נמי הא איכא בקיעת דגים אמר ליה בקיעת דגים לא שמיה בקיעה ומנא תימרא דבעא מיניה רבי טבלא מרבין מחיצה תלויה מהו שתתיר בחורבה ואמר ליה אין מחיצה תלויה מתרת

The Gemara asks: Are the case of the basket and the case of the boat comparable? There, in the case of the basket, it is a partition that goats pass through. A partition that does not serve as a barrier is not considered a partition. Here, it is a partition that goats do not pass through. It is considered a partition. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Aḥa, said to Rav Ashi: In the case of a boat, too, there is the passage of fish, as they can swim through the lowered partitions of the boat. He said to him: Passage of fish is not considered passage because it is not visible. And from where do you say that this is so? As Rabbi Tavla raised a dilemma before Ravin: With regard to a hanging partition, what is the ruling in terms of it permitting one to carry in a ruin when part of the building’s walls are still intact, and they are still considered partitions? Ravin said to him: A hanging partition only permits one to carry

אלא במים קל הוא שהקילו חכמים במים ואמאי הא איכא בקיעת דגים אלא שמע מינה בקיעת דגים לא שמה בקיעה:

in water. It is a leniency the Sages instituted in water but not in other circumstances. And why were they lenient with regard to a hanging partition in water? Isn’t there the passage of fish? Rather, learn from this that the passage of fish is not considered passage.

ספינות קשורות כו׳: פשיטא אמר רבא לא נצרכה אלא להתיר ביצית שביניהן

We learned in the mishna: If boats are tied together, one may carry an object from one to the other on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: That is obvious, since these boats are like a single domain. Rava said: This mishna was necessary only to permit carrying from one boat to another via a small boat that is between them.

אמר ליה רב ספרא משה שפיר קאמרת מטלטלין מזו לזו תנן אלא אמר רב ספרא לא נצרכה אלא לערב ולטלטל מזו לזו וכדתניא ספינות קשורות זו בזו מערבין ומטלטלין מזו לזו נפסקו נאסרו חזרו ונקשרו בין שוגגין ובין מזידין בין אנוסין בין מוטעין חזרו להיתרן הראשון

Rav Safra said to him: You, who are as great in this generation as Moses, did you speak well? We learned in the mishna that one may carry only from one to the other, not via a small boat. Rather, Rav Safra said: The mishna was only necessary to obligate one to place an eiruv, a joining of courtyards, between the two boats. Since the boats belong to different people, they must be joined to form a single domain in order to permit carrying from one to the other, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to boats tied to one another, one places an eiruv and carries from one to the other. If the ties between them were severed, the people on the boats are prohibited to carry from one to the other. If they were then retied, whether unwittingly, i.e., the one who retied them forgot that it was Shabbat, whether intentionally, whether due to circumstances beyond one’s control, whether mistakenly, the boats are restored to their original permitted status.

וכן מחצלות הפרוסות (לרשות הרבים) מערבין ומטלטלין מזו לזו נגללו נאסרו חזרו ונפרשו בין שוגגין בין מזידין בין אנוסין ובין מוטעין חזרו להיתרן הראשון שכל מחיצה שנעשה בשבת בין בשוגג בין במזיד שמה מחיצה

And similarly, in the case of mats that are unfurled to create a partition between two people and the public domain, one places an eiruv and carries from one to the other. If the mats were furled, the people on the boats are prohibited to carry from one to the other. If the mats were then unfurled again, whether unwittingly, whether intentionally, whether due to circumstances beyond one’s control, whether mistakenly, they are restored to their original permitted status. That is because any partition that is established on Shabbat, whether unwittingly, whether intentionally, is considered a partition.

איני והאמר רב נחמן לא שנו אלא לזרוק אבל לטלטל אסור כי איתמר דרב נחמן אמזיד איתמר

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rav Naḥman say: They only taught the principle that a partition established on Shabbat is considered a partition with regard to throwing. In that case, a partition creates a domain unto itself, and one who throws an object into it from another domain is liable. However, with regard to carrying within that domain, it is certainly prohibited. The Gemara answers: When that statement of Rav Naḥman was stated, it was stated with regard to an act performed intentionally. One who intentionally establishes a partition is penalized and is not permitted to benefit from it. In principle, though, that partition is considered a full-fledged partition.

אמר שמואל ואפילו קשורות בחוט הסרבל היכי דמי אי דיכול להעמידן פשיטא אי דאין יכול להעמידן אמאי

Shmuel said: The halakha that one may carry from one ship to another if they are tied together applies even if they were tied with a string used to close the neckline of a cloak. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If the string is capable of holding the ships together, it is obvious that carrying between the ships is permitted as they are tied together. However, if the string is incapable of holding them, why is it permitted?

לעולם דיכול להעמידן ושמואל לאפוקי מדנפשיה קאתי דתנן קשרה בדבר המעמידה מביא לה טומאה בדבר שאין מעמידה אין מביא לה טומאה ואמר שמואל והוא שקשורה בשלשלת של ברזל

The Gemara explains: Actually, it refers to a string that can hold them, and Shmuel said this to exclude this case from his own statement. As we learned in a mishna: If one tied a ship with an item capable of holding it and the end of that item was in a tent with a corpse, it transmits impurity to the ship. And if one tied it with something that is incapable of holding it, it does not transmit impurity to the ship. And Shmuel said: When the mishna refers to an item capable of holding it, it is referring to a case where it is tied with an iron chain. It was necessary for Shmuel to establish that although with regard to ritual impurity the halakha applies only to an iron chain, with regard to Shabbat the halakha applies to any item capable of holding the ships together.

לענין טומאה הוא דכתיב בחלל חרב חרב הרי הוא כחלל אין אבל לענין שבת כיון דיכול להעמידה (היכר בעלמא הוא) אפילו בחוט הסרבל:

The reason that the halakha is different with regard to impurity is as it is written: “And whoever touches in the open field one slain by sword, or one who dies by himself, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days” (Numbers 19:16). The Sages derived from the phrase: One slain by sword that a sword is like one slain, i.e., a corpse. A metal instrument that comes into contact with a corpse assumes the same level of ritual impurity as the corpse itself, the ultimate primary source of ritual impurity. Therefore, it is only an iron chain in a tent with a corpse in it that can render a boat tied to the other end a primary source of ritual impurity. A string made of other materials cannot. However, with regard to Shabbat, since it is capable of holding it and it is a mere distinctive sign that is necessary, even the string of a cloak is sufficient.

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

Scroll To Top