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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 15, 2020 | 讻状讙 讘住讬讜谉 转砖状驻

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.

  • 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.

Shabbat 101

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

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?

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注诪讜拽讛 注砖专讛 讜讗讬谉 讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诪转讜讻讛 诇讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪谉 讛讬诐 诇转讜讻讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪谉 讛讬诐 诇转讜讻讛 讚诇讗 讚拽讗 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诪讻专诪诇讬转 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诪转讜讻讛 诇讬诐 谞诪讬 拽诪讟诇讟诇 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇讻专诪诇讬转 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讗讞讜讚讛 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讞讜 讘讻专诪诇讬转 诇讗 讙讝专讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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鈥檚 power in a karmelit? The Gemara summarizes: Indeed, learn from it that this is so.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛谞讬 讘讬爪讗转讗 讚诪讬砖谉 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讛谉 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讗专讘注讛 讗讘诇 讬砖 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讗专讘注讛 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛 讜讗讬 诪诇讬谞讛讜 拽谞讬 讜讗讜专讘谞讬 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛

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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜诇讬诪讗 讙讜讚 讗讞讬转 诪讞讬爪转讗 诪讬 诇讗 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞注抓 拽谞讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘专讗砖讜 讟专住拽诇 讜讝专拽 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇诪讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讙讜讚 讗讞讬转 诪讞讬爪转讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 讙讜讚 讗讞讬转 诪讞讬爪转讗

Rav Na岣an 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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜诇讗 砖诪讬注讗 诇讛讜 诇讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讜诪讟讜 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讗转 诇讗 转住讘专讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 注诪讜讚 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘 讗专讘注讛 讜讗讬谉 讘注讬拽专讜 讗专讘注讛 讜讬砖 讘拽爪专 砖诇讜 砖诇砖讛 讜讝专拽 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇诪讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讙讜讚 讗讞讬转 诪讞讬爪转讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讙讜讚 讗讞讬转 诪讞讬爪转讗

Rav Yosef strongly objects to this statement of Rav Na岣an: 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 岣yya: 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鈥檚 uppermost section is sufficiently wide, its partitions are considered as if they extend to the ground. Here, too, say: Lower the partition.

诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛转诐 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讞讬爪讛 砖讛讙讚讬讬诐 讘讜拽注讬谉 讘讛 讛讻讗 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 诪讞讬爪讛 砖讗讬谉 讛讙讚讬讬诐 讘讜拽注讬谉 讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讙讘讬 住驻讬谞讛 谞诪讬 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讘拽讬注转 讚讙讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘拽讬注转 讚讙讬诐 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讘拽讬注讛 讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讟讘诇讗 诪专讘讬谉 诪讞讬爪讛 转诇讜讬讛 诪讛讜 砖转转讬专 讘讞讜专讘讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 诪讞讬爪讛 转诇讜讬讛 诪转专转

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 A岣, son of Rav A岣, 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鈥檚 walls are still intact, and they are still considered partitions? Ravin said to him: A hanging partition only permits one to carry

讗诇讗 讘诪讬诐 拽诇 讛讜讗 砖讛拽讬诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘诪讬诐 讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讘拽讬注转 讚讙讬诐 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘拽讬注转 讚讙讬诐 诇讗 砖诪讛 讘拽讬注讛:

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鈥檛 there the passage of fish? Rather, learn from this that the passage of fish is not considered passage.

住驻讬谞讜转 拽砖讜专讜转 讻讜壮: 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇讛转讬专 讘讬爪讬转 砖讘讬谞讬讛谉

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 住驻专讗 诪砖讛 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专转 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诪讝讜 诇讝讜 转谞谉 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇注专讘 讜诇讟诇讟诇 诪讝讜 诇讝讜 讜讻讚转谞讬讗 住驻讬谞讜转 拽砖讜专讜转 讝讜 讘讝讜 诪注专讘讬谉 讜诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诪讝讜 诇讝讜 谞驻住拽讜 谞讗住专讜 讞讝专讜 讜谞拽砖专讜 讘讬谉 砖讜讙讙讬谉 讜讘讬谉 诪讝讬讚讬谉 讘讬谉 讗谞讜住讬谉 讘讬谉 诪讜讟注讬谉 讞讝专讜 诇讛讬转专谉 讛专讗砖讜谉

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鈥檚 control, whether mistakenly, the boats are restored to their original permitted status.

讜讻谉 诪讞爪诇讜转 讛驻专讜住讜转 (诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐) 诪注专讘讬谉 讜诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诪讝讜 诇讝讜 谞讙诇诇讜 谞讗住专讜 讞讝专讜 讜谞驻专砖讜 讘讬谉 砖讜讙讙讬谉 讘讬谉 诪讝讬讚讬谉 讘讬谉 讗谞讜住讬谉 讜讘讬谉 诪讜讟注讬谉 讞讝专讜 诇讛讬转专谉 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖讻诇 诪讞讬爪讛 砖谞注砖讛 讘砖讘转 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 砖诪讛 诪讞讬爪讛

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鈥檚 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.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讝专讜拽 讗讘诇 诇讟诇讟诇 讗住讜专 讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪讝讬讚 讗讬转诪专

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an 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 Na岣an 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.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 拽砖讜专讜转 讘讞讜讟 讛住专讘诇 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讬讻讜诇 诇讛注诪讬讚谉 驻砖讬讟讗 讗讬 讚讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛注诪讬讚谉 讗诪讗讬

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?

诇注讜诇诐 讚讬讻讜诇 诇讛注诪讬讚谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗转讬 讚转谞谉 拽砖专讛 讘讚讘专 讛诪注诪讬讚讛 诪讘讬讗 诇讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪注诪讬讚讛 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗 诇讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讜讗 砖拽砖讜专讛 讘砖诇砖诇转 砖诇 讘专讝诇

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.

诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讞诇诇 讞专讘 讞专讘 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讞诇诇 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 讻讬讜谉 讚讬讻讜诇 诇讛注诪讬讚讛 (讛讬讻专 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗) 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讜讟 讛住专讘诇:

The reason that the halakha is different with regard to impurity is as it is written: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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.

  • 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

Daf Yomi One Week at a Time 鈥 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

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注诪讜拽讛 注砖专讛 讜讗讬谉 讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诪转讜讻讛 诇讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪谉 讛讬诐 诇转讜讻讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪谉 讛讬诐 诇转讜讻讛 讚诇讗 讚拽讗 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诪讻专诪诇讬转 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诪转讜讻讛 诇讬诐 谞诪讬 拽诪讟诇讟诇 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇讻专诪诇讬转 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讗讞讜讚讛 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讞讜 讘讻专诪诇讬转 诇讗 讙讝专讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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鈥檚 power in a karmelit? The Gemara summarizes: Indeed, learn from it that this is so.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛谞讬 讘讬爪讗转讗 讚诪讬砖谉 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讛谉 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讗专讘注讛 讗讘诇 讬砖 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讗专讘注讛 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛 讜讗讬 诪诇讬谞讛讜 拽谞讬 讜讗讜专讘谞讬 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛

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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜诇讬诪讗 讙讜讚 讗讞讬转 诪讞讬爪转讗 诪讬 诇讗 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞注抓 拽谞讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘专讗砖讜 讟专住拽诇 讜讝专拽 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇诪讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讙讜讚 讗讞讬转 诪讞讬爪转讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 讙讜讚 讗讞讬转 诪讞讬爪转讗

Rav Na岣an 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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜诇讗 砖诪讬注讗 诇讛讜 诇讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讜诪讟讜 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讗转 诇讗 转住讘专讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 注诪讜讚 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘 讗专讘注讛 讜讗讬谉 讘注讬拽专讜 讗专讘注讛 讜讬砖 讘拽爪专 砖诇讜 砖诇砖讛 讜讝专拽 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇诪讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讙讜讚 讗讞讬转 诪讞讬爪转讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讙讜讚 讗讞讬转 诪讞讬爪转讗

Rav Yosef strongly objects to this statement of Rav Na岣an: 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 岣yya: 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鈥檚 uppermost section is sufficiently wide, its partitions are considered as if they extend to the ground. Here, too, say: Lower the partition.

诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛转诐 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讞讬爪讛 砖讛讙讚讬讬诐 讘讜拽注讬谉 讘讛 讛讻讗 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 诪讞讬爪讛 砖讗讬谉 讛讙讚讬讬诐 讘讜拽注讬谉 讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讙讘讬 住驻讬谞讛 谞诪讬 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讘拽讬注转 讚讙讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘拽讬注转 讚讙讬诐 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讘拽讬注讛 讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讟讘诇讗 诪专讘讬谉 诪讞讬爪讛 转诇讜讬讛 诪讛讜 砖转转讬专 讘讞讜专讘讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 诪讞讬爪讛 转诇讜讬讛 诪转专转

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 A岣, son of Rav A岣, 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鈥檚 walls are still intact, and they are still considered partitions? Ravin said to him: A hanging partition only permits one to carry

讗诇讗 讘诪讬诐 拽诇 讛讜讗 砖讛拽讬诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘诪讬诐 讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讘拽讬注转 讚讙讬诐 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘拽讬注转 讚讙讬诐 诇讗 砖诪讛 讘拽讬注讛:

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鈥檛 there the passage of fish? Rather, learn from this that the passage of fish is not considered passage.

住驻讬谞讜转 拽砖讜专讜转 讻讜壮: 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇讛转讬专 讘讬爪讬转 砖讘讬谞讬讛谉

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 住驻专讗 诪砖讛 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专转 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诪讝讜 诇讝讜 转谞谉 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇注专讘 讜诇讟诇讟诇 诪讝讜 诇讝讜 讜讻讚转谞讬讗 住驻讬谞讜转 拽砖讜专讜转 讝讜 讘讝讜 诪注专讘讬谉 讜诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诪讝讜 诇讝讜 谞驻住拽讜 谞讗住专讜 讞讝专讜 讜谞拽砖专讜 讘讬谉 砖讜讙讙讬谉 讜讘讬谉 诪讝讬讚讬谉 讘讬谉 讗谞讜住讬谉 讘讬谉 诪讜讟注讬谉 讞讝专讜 诇讛讬转专谉 讛专讗砖讜谉

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鈥檚 control, whether mistakenly, the boats are restored to their original permitted status.

讜讻谉 诪讞爪诇讜转 讛驻专讜住讜转 (诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐) 诪注专讘讬谉 讜诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诪讝讜 诇讝讜 谞讙诇诇讜 谞讗住专讜 讞讝专讜 讜谞驻专砖讜 讘讬谉 砖讜讙讙讬谉 讘讬谉 诪讝讬讚讬谉 讘讬谉 讗谞讜住讬谉 讜讘讬谉 诪讜讟注讬谉 讞讝专讜 诇讛讬转专谉 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖讻诇 诪讞讬爪讛 砖谞注砖讛 讘砖讘转 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 砖诪讛 诪讞讬爪讛

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鈥檚 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.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讝专讜拽 讗讘诇 诇讟诇讟诇 讗住讜专 讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪讝讬讚 讗讬转诪专

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an 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 Na岣an 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.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 拽砖讜专讜转 讘讞讜讟 讛住专讘诇 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讬讻讜诇 诇讛注诪讬讚谉 驻砖讬讟讗 讗讬 讚讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛注诪讬讚谉 讗诪讗讬

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?

诇注讜诇诐 讚讬讻讜诇 诇讛注诪讬讚谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗转讬 讚转谞谉 拽砖专讛 讘讚讘专 讛诪注诪讬讚讛 诪讘讬讗 诇讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪注诪讬讚讛 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗 诇讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讜讗 砖拽砖讜专讛 讘砖诇砖诇转 砖诇 讘专讝诇

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.

诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讞诇诇 讞专讘 讞专讘 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讞诇诇 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 讻讬讜谉 讚讬讻讜诇 诇讛注诪讬讚讛 (讛讬讻专 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗) 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讜讟 讛住专讘诇:

The reason that the halakha is different with regard to impurity is as it is written: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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.

Scroll To Top