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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 19, 2020 | 讻状讝 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 105

Today’s daf is dedicated by Ricki Gerger in honor of Orli Halpern, an 11-year-old girl in Takoma Park, Maryland, who is recovering from a liver transplant. She is the bravest person she knows.聽

From where in the Torah do we learn that there are abbreviations? The gemara finishes up the issue of writing with a debate regarding one who wrote two letters but in between found out that it was Shabbat or that it was forbidden to write. What are the requisite amount for weaving and other related melachot? One who tears to sew two stiches is olbigated but what about one who tears their clothing for a dead person or out of anger – is that considered a productive act or a destructive act? The gemara talks about the importance of eulogizing and mourning for others.

讜注诇讜 讘讬讚讜 砖转讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讜讛转谞谉 驻讟讜专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讘注讬 讝讬讜谞讬 讛讗 讚诇讗 讘注讬 讝讬讜谞讬:

and managed to write two letters, he is liable. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that one is exempt in that case? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: That case where we learned that he is exempt is referring to a case where the letters require crowns. This is referring to a case where they do not require crowns, and he is liable. If the letters already had their requisite ornamentation and an individual separated them, it is as if he wrote two letters.

讻转讘 讗讜转 讗讞转 谞讜讟专讬拽讜谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉: 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讝讬诪专讗 诪谞讬谉 诇诇砖讜谉 谞讜讟专讬拽讜谉 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讗讘 讛诪讜谉 讙讜讬诐 谞转转讬讱 讗讘 谞转转讬讱 诇讗讜诪讜转 讘讞讜专 谞转转讬讱 讘讗讜诪讜转 讛诪讜谉 讞讘讬讘 谞转转讬讱 讘讗讜诪讜转 诪诇讱 谞转转讬讱 诇讗讜诪讜转 讜转讬拽 谞转转讬讱 讘讗讜诪讜转 谞讗诪谉 谞转转讬讱 诇讗讜诪讜转

We learned in the mishna If one wrote one letter as an abbreviation [notarikon] representing an entire word, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Beteira deems him liable to bring a sin-offering, and the Rabbis deem him exempt. Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra: From where is it derived that the language of abbreviation is employed in the Torah? As it is stated: 鈥淣either shall your name any more be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for the father of a multitude of nations [av hamon goyim] have I made you鈥 (Genesis 17:5). The verse itself contracts av hamon into Abraham [Avraham]. The words av hamon themselves are interpreted as an abbreviation: I have made you a father [av] for the nations, I have made you chosen [ba岣r] among the nations, I have made you beloved [岣viv] among the nations, I have made you king [melekh] for the nations, I have made you distinguished [vatik] for the nations, I have made you trusted [ne鈥檈man] for the nations.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 讗谞讻讬 谞讜讟专讬拽讜谉 讗谞讗 谞驻砖讬 讻转讬讘转 讬讛讘讬转 专讘谞谉 讗诪专讬 讗诪讬专讛 谞注讬诪讛 讻转讬讘讛 讬讛讬讘讛 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗谞讻讬 诇诪驻专注 讬讛讬讘讛 讻转讬讘讛 谞讗诪谞讬谉 讗诪专讬讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan himself said that the word anokhi that begins the Ten Commandments is an abbreviation for: I myself wrote and gave [ana nafshi ketivat yehavit]. The Rabbis said it is an abbreviation for: A pleasant statement was written and given [amira ne鈥檌ma ketiva yehiva]. Some say the word anokhi can be interpreted backwards: It was written, it was given, its statements are faithful [yehiva ketiva ne鈥檈manim amareha].

讚讘讬 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗诪专讬 讻讬 讬专讟 讛讚专讱 诇谞讙讚讬 讬专讗讛 专讗转讛 谞讟转讛 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 讻专诪诇 讻专 诪诇讗 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 讜讛讜讗 拽诇诇谞讬 拽诇诇讛 谞诪专爪转 谞讜讟专讬拽讜谉 谞讜讗祝 讛讜讗 诪讜讗讘讬 讛讜讗 专讜爪讞 讛讜讗 爪讜专专 讛讜讗 转讜注讘讛 讛讜讗

The school of Rabbi Natan said that there is another abbreviation in the Torah. In the verse: 鈥淎nd the angel of the Lord said to him: Why did you hit your donkey these three times? Behold I have come out as an adversary because your way is contrary [yarat] against me鈥 (Numbers 22:32). Yarat is an abbreviation for: The donkey feared [yare鈥檃], it saw [ra鈥檃ta], and it turned aside [nateta]. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The word karmel in the verse: 鈥淎nd bread, and toasted grain flour, and toasted grain [karmel]鈥 (Leviticus 23:14) means: A full kernel [kar maleh], i.e., the seed fills the stalk. Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said in King David鈥檚 words: 鈥淎nd behold, with you is Shimi ben Gera from Benjamin, of Bahurim, who cursed me with a grievous [nimretzet] curse on the day that I went to Mahanaim鈥 (I Kings 2:8). The word nimretzet is an abbreviation for: He is an adulterer [noef], he is a Moabite [Moavi], he is a murderer [rotze鈥檃岣], he is an oppressor [tzorer], he is an abomination [to鈥檈va].

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 诪讛 谞讚讘专 讜诪讛 谞爪讟讚拽 谞讻讜谞讬诐 讗谞讞谞讜 爪讚讬拽讬诐 讗谞讞谞讜 讟讛讜专讬诐 讗谞讞谞讜 讚讻讬诐 讗谞讞谞讜 拽讚讜砖讬诐 讗谞讞谞讜:

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that there is another abbreviation in the Bible: 鈥淎nd Judah said: What can we say to my master, what can we speak, and how can we justify [nitztadak]鈥 (Genesis 44:16), which stands for: We are honest [nekhonim], we are righteous [tzaddikim], we are pure [tehorim], we are innocent [dakkim], we are holy [kedoshim].

诪转谞讬壮 讛讻讜转讘 砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转 讘砖转讬 讛注诇诪讜转 讗讞转 砖讞专讬转 讜讗讞转 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉:

MISHNA: With regard to one who writes two letters on Shabbat in two separate lapses of awareness separated by a period of awareness that the day was Shabbat, writing one letter in the morning and one letter in the afternoon, Rabban Gamliel deems him liable to bring a sin-offering like someone who has unintentionally performed a full-fledged prohibited labor, and the Rabbis deem him exempt.

讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 讗讬谉 讬讚讬注讛 诇讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讬砖 讬讚讬注讛 诇讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专:

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? Rabban Gamliel holds: There is no awareness for half a measure. One is not liable to bring a sacrifice for half a measure; therefore, the fact that he became aware between performance of the two halves of the prohibited labor is of no significance. His awareness does not demarcate between one act of writing a letter and the second act of writing a letter with regard to liability to bring a sin-offering. And the Rabbis hold: There is awareness for half a measure. If an individual became aware of his transgression between the two parts of the prohibited labor, each individual part is independent of the other, and the two halves of the prohibited labor do not join together to create liability.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讘讜谞讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讗讜专讙 砖诇砖讛 讞讜讟讬谉 讘转讞讬诇讛 讜讗讞转 注诇 讛讗专讬讙 讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 讘转讞讬诇讛 讘讬谉 讘住讜祝 砖讬注讜专讜 砖谞讬 讞讜讟讬谉 讛注讜砖讛 砖转讬 讘转讬 谞讬专讬谉 讘谞讬专讬谉 讘拽讬专讜住 讘谞驻讛 讘讻讘专讛 讜讘住诇 讞讬讬讘 讜讛转讜驻专 砖转讬 转驻讬专讜转 讜讛拽讜专注 注诇 诪谞转 诇转驻讜专 砖转讬 转驻讬专讜转:

MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer says: One who weaves on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering if he wove three threads at the beginning of something new, or if he adds one thread to a preexisting woven fabric. And the Rabbis say: Both at the beginning and at the end, its measure for liability is two threads. One who makes two meshes, i.e., ties the threads of the warp, attaching them to either the nirin or the keiros, which will be explained in the Gemara, in a winnow, sieve, or basket, is liable for making meshes. And one who sews is liable if he sews two stitches. And one who tears is liable if he tears enough fabric in order to sew two stitches to repair it.

讙诪壮 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 转谞讬 砖转讬诐 讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 砖诇砖 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讗诇讬诪讬 讛讗 讘拽讟讬谞讬 讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讗诇讬诪讬 转诇转讗 诇讗 住转专讬 转专讬 住转专讬 拽讟讬谞讬 转专讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 住转专讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 拽讟讬谞讬 转诇转讗 讬讚讬注讬 转专讬 诇讗 讬讚讬注讬 讗诇讬诪讬 转专讬 谞诪讬 讬讚讬注讬

GEMARA: When Rabbi Yitz岣k came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he taught that Rabbi Eliezer said: Two threads is the measure that determines liability for beginning a weave. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 we learn three in the mishna? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, because this source is referring to thick threads and that source is referring to thin threads. Some say it this way, that one is liable when weaving two thick threads, and some say it that way, that one is liable when weaving two thin threads. The Gemara elaborates: Some say it this way: One who weaves thick threads, three threads will not unravel, but two will unravel. With regard to thin threads, two will also not unravel. And some say it this way: One who weaves thin threads, three threads are conspicuous, two are not conspicuous. With regard to thick threads, two are also conspicuous.

转谞讬讗 讛讗讜专讙 砖诇砖讛 讞讜讟讬谉 讘转讞讬诇讛 讜讗讞讚 注诇 讛讗专讬讙 讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 讘转讞讬诇讛 讘讬谉 讘住讜祝 砖讬注讜专谉 砖谞讬 讞讜讟讬谉 讜讘砖驻讛 砖谞讬 讞讜讟讬谉 讘专讜讞讘 砖诇砖讛 讘转讬 谞讬专讬谉 讛讗 诇诪讛 讝讛 讚讜诪讛 诇讗讜专讙 爪诇爪讜诇 拽讟谉 砖谞讬 讞讜讟讬谉 讘专讜讞讘 砖诇砖讛 讘转讬 谞讬专讬谉 讜讛讗讜专讙 砖诇砖讛 讞讜讟讬谉 讘转讞讬诇讛 讜讗讞讚 注诇 讛讗专讬讙 讞讬讬讘 住转诪讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

It was taught in a baraita: One who weaves three threads at the beginning or one thread onto a preexisting woven fabric is liable. And the Rabbis say: Both at the beginning and at the end, its measure for liability is two threads. And if one weaves a hem with a thread or color different from the original garment, he is liable for weaving two threads across a width of three meshes, i.e., three threads of the warp. Why is one liable in that case? To what is this similar? It is similar to weaving a small belt in which one weaves two threads across a width of three meshes, the width of the belt. And when it is taught in the baraita: One who weaves three threads at the beginning or one thread onto a preexisting woven fabric is liable, that unattributed baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讛讗讜专讙 砖谞讬 讞讜讟讬谉 注诇 讛讙住 讜注诇 讛讗讬诪专讗 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞讚 讜讘砖驻讛 砖谞讬 讞讜讟讬谉 讘专讜讞讘 砖诇砖讛 讘转讬 谞讬专讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讛讗 诇诪讛 讝讛 讚讜诪讛 诇讗讜专讙 爪诇爪讜诇 拽讟谉 砖谞讬 讞讜讟讬谉 注诇 专讜讞讘 砖诇砖讛 讘转讬 谞讬专讬谉 讜讛讗讜专讙 砖谞讬 讞讜讟讬谉 注诇 讛讙住 讜注诇 讛讗讬诪专讗 讞讬讬讘 住转诪讗 讻专讘谞谉:

It was taught in another baraita: One who weaves two threads onto a large fabric or onto the border of a fabric alongside the woof on Shabbat is liable. Rabbi Eliezer says: One is liable even if he weaves one thread. And along the edge of the warp, one who weaves two threads across a width of three meshes is liable. To what is this similar? It is similar to weaving a small belt in which one weaves two threads across a width of three meshes. The Gemara comments: When it was taught in the baraita: One who weaves two threads onto a large fabric or onto the border is liable, that unattributed baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讛注讜砖讛 砖谞讬 讘转讬 谞讬专讬谉 讻讜壮: 诪讗讬 [讘谞讬专讬谉] 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转专转讬 讘讘转讬 谞讬专讗 讜讞讚讗 讘谞讬专讗: 讘拽讬专讜住: 诪讗讬 讘拽讬专讜住 讗诪专 专讘 诪爪讜讘讬转讗:

We learned in the mishna that one who makes two meshes, attaching them to either the nirin or the keiros, is liable. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of to the nirin? Abaye said: One ties two to the meshes, the thread of the warp, and ties one to the crosspiece, the thread that extends from the weaving rod. We learned in the mishna that one is liable for attaching the meshes to the keiros, and the Gemara asks: What is a keiros? Rav said: It refers to the slips, the parts that go up and down on a stationary loom and are parallel to the pole.

讜讛转讜驻专 砖转讬 转驻讬专讜转: 讛讗 转谞讬谞讗 讘讗讘讜转 诪诇讗讻讜转 讜讛转讜驻专 砖转讬 转驻讬专讜转 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 住讬驻讗 讜讛拽讜专注 注诇 诪谞转 诇转驻讜专 砖转讬 转驻讬专讜转 拽转谞讬 谞诪讬 讛转讜驻专 讜讛拽讜专注 讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讘讗讘讜转 诪诇讗讻讜转 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛拽讜专注 讘讞诪转讜 讜注诇 诪转讜 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 [讛转讜驻专 砖转讬 转驻讬专讜转]:

And we also learned in the mishna that one who sews on Shabbat is liable if he sews two stitches. The Gemara asks: We already learned that on the list of primary categories of prohibited labor: And one who sews two stitches is liable. The Gemara answers: Since the mishna wanted to teach in the latter clause: And one who tears in order to sew two stitches, it also taught the halakha of one who sews. And one who tears, did we not also learn this in the mishna enumerating the list of primary categories of prohibited labor? Since the mishna wanted to teach a new halakha in the latter clause, namely: One who tears in his anger or for his dead relative, therefore, it also taught the halakha of one who sews two stitches.

讜讛拽讜专注 注诇 诪谞转 诇转驻讜专 砖转讬 转驻讬专讜转: 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

With regard to what we learned in the mishna: And one who tears in order to sew two stitches, the Gemara asks: Where do you find that case where it is necessary to tear a garment in order to sew it?

讚注讘讚讛 讻讬 讻讬住转讗:

The Gemara explains: It is found in a case where a pocketlike protrusion impedes sewing. Therefore, one tears the garment and tucks the protruding portion under the seam.

诪转谞讬壮 讛拽讜专注 讘讞诪转讜 讜注诇 诪转讜 讜讻诇 讛诪拽诇拽诇讬谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 讜讛诪拽诇拽诇 注诇 诪谞转 诇转拽谉 砖讬注讜专讜 讻诪转拽谉 砖讬注讜专 讛诪诇讘谉 讜讛诪谞驻抓 讜讛爪讜讘注 讜讛讟讜讜讛 讻诪诇讗 专讞讘 讛住讬讟 讻驻讜诇 讜讛讗讜专讙 砖谞讬 讞讜讟讬谉 砖讬注讜专讜 讻诪诇讗 讛住讬讟:

MISHNA: One who rends his garment in his anger or in anguish over his dead relative is exempt. And anyone else who performs labors destructively on Shabbat is exempt. And one who performs a labor destructively in order to repair is liable, and his measure for liability is equivalent to the measure for one who performs that labor constructively. The measure that determines liability for one who whitens, or one who combs, or one who dyes, or one who spins wool is the full width of a double sit, which is the distance between the forefinger and the middle finger. And for one who weaves two threads, the measure that determines liability is one sit.

讙诪壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛拽讜专注 讘讞诪转讜 讜讘讗讘诇讜 讜注诇 诪转讜 讞讬讬讘 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讞诇诇 讗转 讛砖讘转 讬爪讗 讬讚讬 拽专讬注讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘诪转 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讗 讘诪转 讚注诇诪讗

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna: One who rends his garment in anger or in anguish over his dead relative is exempt. The Gemara raises a contradiction to this based on a baraita: One who rends his garment in his anger or in his mourning or in his anguish over his dead relative is liable for performing a prohibited labor on Shabbat. And even though he desecrates Shabbat by tearing his garment, he nevertheless fulfilled his obligation of rending his garment in mourning. Apparently, one is liable for rending his garment in anguish over the dead. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this mishna, which states one is liable for rending his garment, is referring to his own dead relative for whom he is obligated to tear his garment. And that mishna, which states one is exempt for rending his garment, is referring to any unrelated dead person.

讜讛讗 诪转讜 拽转谞讬 诇注讜诇诐 讘诪转 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讘讛谞讱 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讗讘讬诇讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗讬 讞讻诐 讛讜讗 讞讬讜讘讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讚转谞讬讗 讞讻诐 砖诪转 讛讻诇 拽专讜讘讬讜 讛讻诇 拽专讜讘讬讜 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛讻诇 讻拽专讜讘讬讜 讛讻诇 拽讜专注讬谉 注诇讬讜 讛讻诇 讞讜诇爪讬谉 注诇讬讜 讛讻诇 诪讘专讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘专讞讘讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚诇讗讜 讞讻诐 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: Over his dead relative? The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna, which says that he is exempt, is referring to his own dead; however, it is referring to those relatives who are not subject to the obligation of mourning by Torah law. The Gemara asks: And even so, if the dead person is a Torah scholar, one is obligated to rend one鈥檚 garment in anguish over his death, as it was taught in a baraita: When a Torah scholar dies, everyone is his relative. The Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind that everyone is his relative? Rather, say: Everyone is considered to be like his relative, in the sense that everyone rends his garment in anguish over him, and everyone bares his shoulder over him in mourning, and everyone eats the mourner鈥檚 meal over him in the public square as mourners do. The death of a Torah scholar is a personal loss for every Jew. The Gemara answers: It was only necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha in a case where the dead person is not a Torah scholar.

讜讗讬 讗讚诐 讻砖专 讛讜讗 讞讬讜讘讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讚转谞讬讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诪转讬诐 讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讜转讬讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讻砖讛谉 拽讟谞讬诐 讻讚讬 砖讬讘讻讛 讜讬转讗讘诇 注诇 讗讚诐 讻砖专 讻讚讬 砖讬讘讻讛 注专讘讜谞讗 砖拽诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖诇讗 讘讻讛 讜讛转讗讘诇 注诇 讗讚诐 讻砖专 砖讻诇 讛讘讜讻讛 注诇 讗讚诐 讻砖专 诪讜讞诇讬谉 诇讜 注诇 讻诇 注讜谞讜转讬讜 讘砖讘讬诇 讻讘讜讚 砖注砖讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚诇讗讜 讗讚诐 讻砖专 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And if he was an upright person, aren鈥檛 all those present at his death obligated to rend their garments over his death? As it was taught in a baraita: Why do a person鈥檚 sons and daughters die when they are young? They die so that he will cry and mourn over the death of an upright worthy person. The Gemara asks: They die so that he will cry? Is security taken from him in advance to ensure that he fulfills his obligation? Rather, emend the statement and say: It is because he did not cry or mourn over an upright person who died, as anyone who cries over an upright person who died, they forgive him for all his transgressions because of the honor he accorded to the deceased. Nevertheless, it is difficult, as one is required to rend his clothing over the death of an upright person. The Gemara answers: It was only necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha in a case where the deceased was not an upright person.

讜讗讬 讚拽讗讬 讘砖注转 讬爪讬讗转 谞砖诪讛 讞讬讜讘讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛注讜诪讚 注诇 讛诪转 讘砖注转 讬爪讬讗转 谞砖诪讛 讞讬讬讘 诇拽专讜注 讛讗 诇诪讛 讝讛 讚讜诪讛 诇住驻专 转讜专讛 砖谞砖专驻讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚诇讗 拽讗讬 讘砖注转 讬爪讬讗转 谞砖诪讛

The Gemara asks: And if one is standing close to the deceased when the soul leaves the body, he is obligated to rend his garment, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One who is standing over the deceased at the time of the departure of the soul is obligated to rend his garment. To what is this similar? It is similar to a Torah scroll that was burned. The Gemara answers: It was only necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha in a case where he is not standing there at the time of the departure of the soul.

转讬谞讞 诪转讜 讗诇讗 讞诪转讜 讗讞诪转讜 拽砖讬讗 讞诪转讜 讗讞诪转讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 诇讙讜驻讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 诇讙讜驻讛 驻讟讜专 注诇讬讛

The Gemara asks further: This works out well in terms of resolving the contradiction with regard to his dead relative. However, the contradiction between the ruling in the mishna that one who rends his garment in his anger is not liable, and the ruling in the baraita that one who rends his garment in his anger is liable, is still difficult. The mishna exempts one who rends garments in anger, while the baraita deems him liable. The Gemara answers: The contradiction between his anger in the mishna and his anger in the baraita is also not difficult, as this ruling in the baraita that deems him liable is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and that ruling in the mishna that exempts him is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara elaborates: This ruling in the baraita follows Rabbi Yehuda, who said that one who performs a prohibited labor on Shabbat that is not needed for its own sake is liable for performing it. Therefore, one who rends his garment in anger is liable. That ruling in the mishna which exempts him is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that one who performs a labor that is not needed for its own sake is exempt for performing it.

讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诪转拽谉 讘诪拽诇拽诇 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诪转拽谉 讛讜讗 讚拽注讘讬讚 谞讞转 专讜讞 诇讬爪专讜 讜讻讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讬 砖专讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 讞讬诇驻讗 讘专 讗讙专讗 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讛诪拽专注 讘讙讚讬讜 讘讞诪转讜 讜讛诪砖讘专 讻诇讬讜 讘讞诪转讜 讜讛诪驻讝专 诪注讜转讬讜 讘讞诪转讜 讬讛讗 讘注讬谞讬讱 讻注讜讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讻讱 讗讜诪谞转讜 砖诇 讬爪专 讛专注 讛讬讜诐 讗讜诪专 诇讜 注砖讛 讻讱 讜诇诪讞专 讗讜诪专 诇讜 注砖讛 讻讱 注讚 砖讗讜诪专 诇讜 注讘讜讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讛讜诇讱 讜注讜讘讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 诪讗讬 拽专讗讛 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讘讱 讗诇 讝专 讜诇讗 转砖转讞讜讛 诇讗诇 谞讻专 讗讬讝讛讜 讗诇 讝专 砖讬砖 讘讙讜驻讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讬爪专 讛专注

The Gemara asks: Say that you heard that Rabbi Yehuda rules that one is liable for performing a labor not needed for its own sake in the case of a constructive act; did you hear him deem one liable in the case of a destructive act? Rabbi Avin said: This case, where one rends his garment in anger, is also constructive, because in doing so he assuages his anger. Rending his garment calms him; therefore, it can be said that he derives benefit from the act of rending, and it is consequently a constructive act. The Gemara asks: And is it at all permitted to tear in that manner? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of 岣lfa bar Agra, who said in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri: One who rends his garments in his anger, or who breaks his vessels in his anger, or who scatters his money in his anger, should be like an idol worshipper in your eyes, as that is the craft of the evil inclination. Today it tells him do this, and tomorrow it tells him do that, until eventually, when he no longer controls himself, it tells him worship idols and he goes and worships idols. Rabbi Avin said: What verse alludes to this? 鈥淭here shall not be a strange god within you, and you shall not bow to a foreign god鈥 (Psalms 81:10). What is the strange god that is within a person鈥檚 body? Say that it is the evil inclination. One may not rend his garments in anger, because in doing so he is deriving pleasure from satisfying the evil inclination.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讗 注讘讬讚 诇诪讬专诪讗 讗讬诪转讗 讗讗讬谞砖讬 讘讬转讬讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖诇讬祝 诪爪讘讬讬转讗 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 转讘专 诪讗谞讬 转讘讬专讬 专讘 砖砖转 专诪讬 诇讛 诇讗诪转讬讛 诪讜谞讬谞讬 讗专讬砖讗 专讘讬 讗讘讗 转讘专 谞讻转诪讗

The Gemara answers: It is only necessary to discuss this in a case where one does so to instill fear in the members of his household. In order to show them that he is very angry, he tears and breaks objects even though he is not that angry. In that case he maintains control of himself and is not in danger of succumbing to the evil inclination. It is like the incident where Rav Yehuda sought to display his anger and he pulled threads off his garment. Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov smashed broken vessels, Rav Sheshet threw small fish on his maidservant鈥檚 head, and Rabbi Abba broke the lid of a jug. All of these Sages caused minimal damage in creating the impression that they were angry.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 讻诇 讛诪讜专讬讚 讚诪注讜转 注诇 讗讚诐 讻砖专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 住讜驻专谉 讜诪谞讬讞谉 讘讘讬转 讙谞讝讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 谞讚讬 住驻专转讛 讗转讛 砖讬诪讛 讚诪注转讬 讘谞讗讚讱 讛诇讗 讘住驻专转讱 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讛诪转注爪诇 讘讛住驻讚讜 砖诇 讞讻诐 专讗讜讬 诇拽讜讘专讜 讘讞讬讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬拽讘专讜 讗讜转讜 讘讙讘讜诇 谞讞诇转讜 讘转诪谞转 住专讞 讗砖专 讘讛专 讗驻专讬诐 诪爪驻讜谉 诇讛专 讙注砖 诪诇诪讚 砖专讙砖 注诇讬讛谉 讛专 诇讛讜专讙谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛诪转注爪诇 讘讛住驻讚讜 砖诇 讞讻诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讗专讬讱 讬诪讬诐 诪讚讛 讻谞讙讚 诪讚讛 砖谞讗诪专 讘住讗住讗讛 讘砖诇讞讛 转专讬讘谞讛

Apropos the laws of mourning for an upright person and a Torah scholar, the Gemara cites that which Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of Bar Kappara: Anyone who sheds tears over an upright person, the Holy One, Blessed be He, counts his tears and places them in His treasury, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou have counted my wanderings, put my tears into your bottle, are they not in your book?鈥 (Psalms 56:9). Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Anyone who is lazy in eulogizing a Torah scholar, it is fitting to bury him alive, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd they buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnat-sera岣, which is in the hill-country of Ephraim, on the north of the mountain of Ga鈥檃sh鈥 (Joshua 24:30). This teaches that the mountain raged against them to kill them because they did not eulogize him appropriately. Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Whoever is lazy in eulogizing a Sage does not live a long life, and his punishment is measure for measure. Since he was unconcerned with the death of the Sage, in the heavens they will be unconcerned with his death. The Holy One, Blessed be He, conducts Himself in this manner, as it is stated: 鈥淚n full measure [besase鈥檃], when You send her away You contend with her鈥 (Isaiah 27:8), and the Sages derived that God punishes from the words: 鈥淵ou contend with her,鈥 and He does so measure for measure, se鈥檃 for se鈥檃, from the word sase鈥檃 in the verse above.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讬注讘讚讜 讛注诐 讗转 讛壮 讻诇 讬诪讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜讻诇 讬诪讬 讛讝拽谞讬诐 讗砖专 讛讗专讬讻讜 讬诪讬诐 讗讞专讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讘诇讗讬 讬诪讬诐 讛讗专讬讻讜 砖谞讬诐 诇讗 讛讗专讬讻讜 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诇诪注谉 讬专讘讜 讬诪讬讻诐 讜讬诪讬 讘谞讬讻诐 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讗 砖谞讬诐 讘专讻讛 砖讗谞讬

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba raised an objection to Rabbi Yo岣nan: It is stated: 鈥淎nd the nation worshipped the Lord all the days of Joshua and all the days of the Elders, who lived many days after Joshua鈥 (Judges 2:7), indicating that the Elders lived long lives even though they did not eulogize Joshua properly. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: Babylonian, you should be more precise in your reading. They indeed lived many days; however, they did not live many years. In fact, they did not live to the end of that year. Again he asked: But then with regard to the verse 鈥淪o that your days and the days of your children will multiply on the land which the Lord your God swore to give to your fathers, as the days of the heavens over the earth鈥 (Deuteronomy 11:21), would you also say that here the reward is to live many days but not years? He answered him: A blessing is different and should be interpreted in its most expansive sense.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讗讞讬谉 砖诪转

And Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If one of the brothers dies,

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

Ilana Kurshan thumbnail

Crossing Trestles (Shabbat 105)

Can an eight-month-old have a favorite book? It seems so. Yitzvi squeals and kicks with visible delight any time I...
learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time – Shabbat 102-109

This week we will learn 2.5 chapters! We will discuss the activity of building and completing items, writing, weaving, sewing,...
Weaving Wisdom

The significance of a single thread

When I started weaving, I had no idea how fundamental it was to the study of Talmud. Again and again,...
ilana k

Breast is Blessed

My baby woke up from his nap today just as I was sitting down to breakfast, and so I decided...

Shabbat 105

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 105

讜注诇讜 讘讬讚讜 砖转讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讜讛转谞谉 驻讟讜专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讘注讬 讝讬讜谞讬 讛讗 讚诇讗 讘注讬 讝讬讜谞讬:

and managed to write two letters, he is liable. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that one is exempt in that case? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: That case where we learned that he is exempt is referring to a case where the letters require crowns. This is referring to a case where they do not require crowns, and he is liable. If the letters already had their requisite ornamentation and an individual separated them, it is as if he wrote two letters.

讻转讘 讗讜转 讗讞转 谞讜讟专讬拽讜谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉: 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讝讬诪专讗 诪谞讬谉 诇诇砖讜谉 谞讜讟专讬拽讜谉 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讗讘 讛诪讜谉 讙讜讬诐 谞转转讬讱 讗讘 谞转转讬讱 诇讗讜诪讜转 讘讞讜专 谞转转讬讱 讘讗讜诪讜转 讛诪讜谉 讞讘讬讘 谞转转讬讱 讘讗讜诪讜转 诪诇讱 谞转转讬讱 诇讗讜诪讜转 讜转讬拽 谞转转讬讱 讘讗讜诪讜转 谞讗诪谉 谞转转讬讱 诇讗讜诪讜转

We learned in the mishna If one wrote one letter as an abbreviation [notarikon] representing an entire word, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Beteira deems him liable to bring a sin-offering, and the Rabbis deem him exempt. Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra: From where is it derived that the language of abbreviation is employed in the Torah? As it is stated: 鈥淣either shall your name any more be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for the father of a multitude of nations [av hamon goyim] have I made you鈥 (Genesis 17:5). The verse itself contracts av hamon into Abraham [Avraham]. The words av hamon themselves are interpreted as an abbreviation: I have made you a father [av] for the nations, I have made you chosen [ba岣r] among the nations, I have made you beloved [岣viv] among the nations, I have made you king [melekh] for the nations, I have made you distinguished [vatik] for the nations, I have made you trusted [ne鈥檈man] for the nations.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 讗谞讻讬 谞讜讟专讬拽讜谉 讗谞讗 谞驻砖讬 讻转讬讘转 讬讛讘讬转 专讘谞谉 讗诪专讬 讗诪讬专讛 谞注讬诪讛 讻转讬讘讛 讬讛讬讘讛 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗谞讻讬 诇诪驻专注 讬讛讬讘讛 讻转讬讘讛 谞讗诪谞讬谉 讗诪专讬讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan himself said that the word anokhi that begins the Ten Commandments is an abbreviation for: I myself wrote and gave [ana nafshi ketivat yehavit]. The Rabbis said it is an abbreviation for: A pleasant statement was written and given [amira ne鈥檌ma ketiva yehiva]. Some say the word anokhi can be interpreted backwards: It was written, it was given, its statements are faithful [yehiva ketiva ne鈥檈manim amareha].

讚讘讬 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗诪专讬 讻讬 讬专讟 讛讚专讱 诇谞讙讚讬 讬专讗讛 专讗转讛 谞讟转讛 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 讻专诪诇 讻专 诪诇讗 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 讜讛讜讗 拽诇诇谞讬 拽诇诇讛 谞诪专爪转 谞讜讟专讬拽讜谉 谞讜讗祝 讛讜讗 诪讜讗讘讬 讛讜讗 专讜爪讞 讛讜讗 爪讜专专 讛讜讗 转讜注讘讛 讛讜讗

The school of Rabbi Natan said that there is another abbreviation in the Torah. In the verse: 鈥淎nd the angel of the Lord said to him: Why did you hit your donkey these three times? Behold I have come out as an adversary because your way is contrary [yarat] against me鈥 (Numbers 22:32). Yarat is an abbreviation for: The donkey feared [yare鈥檃], it saw [ra鈥檃ta], and it turned aside [nateta]. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The word karmel in the verse: 鈥淎nd bread, and toasted grain flour, and toasted grain [karmel]鈥 (Leviticus 23:14) means: A full kernel [kar maleh], i.e., the seed fills the stalk. Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said in King David鈥檚 words: 鈥淎nd behold, with you is Shimi ben Gera from Benjamin, of Bahurim, who cursed me with a grievous [nimretzet] curse on the day that I went to Mahanaim鈥 (I Kings 2:8). The word nimretzet is an abbreviation for: He is an adulterer [noef], he is a Moabite [Moavi], he is a murderer [rotze鈥檃岣], he is an oppressor [tzorer], he is an abomination [to鈥檈va].

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 诪讛 谞讚讘专 讜诪讛 谞爪讟讚拽 谞讻讜谞讬诐 讗谞讞谞讜 爪讚讬拽讬诐 讗谞讞谞讜 讟讛讜专讬诐 讗谞讞谞讜 讚讻讬诐 讗谞讞谞讜 拽讚讜砖讬诐 讗谞讞谞讜:

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that there is another abbreviation in the Bible: 鈥淎nd Judah said: What can we say to my master, what can we speak, and how can we justify [nitztadak]鈥 (Genesis 44:16), which stands for: We are honest [nekhonim], we are righteous [tzaddikim], we are pure [tehorim], we are innocent [dakkim], we are holy [kedoshim].

诪转谞讬壮 讛讻讜转讘 砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转 讘砖转讬 讛注诇诪讜转 讗讞转 砖讞专讬转 讜讗讞转 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉:

MISHNA: With regard to one who writes two letters on Shabbat in two separate lapses of awareness separated by a period of awareness that the day was Shabbat, writing one letter in the morning and one letter in the afternoon, Rabban Gamliel deems him liable to bring a sin-offering like someone who has unintentionally performed a full-fledged prohibited labor, and the Rabbis deem him exempt.

讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 讗讬谉 讬讚讬注讛 诇讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讬砖 讬讚讬注讛 诇讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专:

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? Rabban Gamliel holds: There is no awareness for half a measure. One is not liable to bring a sacrifice for half a measure; therefore, the fact that he became aware between performance of the two halves of the prohibited labor is of no significance. His awareness does not demarcate between one act of writing a letter and the second act of writing a letter with regard to liability to bring a sin-offering. And the Rabbis hold: There is awareness for half a measure. If an individual became aware of his transgression between the two parts of the prohibited labor, each individual part is independent of the other, and the two halves of the prohibited labor do not join together to create liability.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讘讜谞讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讗讜专讙 砖诇砖讛 讞讜讟讬谉 讘转讞讬诇讛 讜讗讞转 注诇 讛讗专讬讙 讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 讘转讞讬诇讛 讘讬谉 讘住讜祝 砖讬注讜专讜 砖谞讬 讞讜讟讬谉 讛注讜砖讛 砖转讬 讘转讬 谞讬专讬谉 讘谞讬专讬谉 讘拽讬专讜住 讘谞驻讛 讘讻讘专讛 讜讘住诇 讞讬讬讘 讜讛转讜驻专 砖转讬 转驻讬专讜转 讜讛拽讜专注 注诇 诪谞转 诇转驻讜专 砖转讬 转驻讬专讜转:

MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer says: One who weaves on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering if he wove three threads at the beginning of something new, or if he adds one thread to a preexisting woven fabric. And the Rabbis say: Both at the beginning and at the end, its measure for liability is two threads. One who makes two meshes, i.e., ties the threads of the warp, attaching them to either the nirin or the keiros, which will be explained in the Gemara, in a winnow, sieve, or basket, is liable for making meshes. And one who sews is liable if he sews two stitches. And one who tears is liable if he tears enough fabric in order to sew two stitches to repair it.

讙诪壮 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 转谞讬 砖转讬诐 讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 砖诇砖 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讗诇讬诪讬 讛讗 讘拽讟讬谞讬 讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讗诇讬诪讬 转诇转讗 诇讗 住转专讬 转专讬 住转专讬 拽讟讬谞讬 转专讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 住转专讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 拽讟讬谞讬 转诇转讗 讬讚讬注讬 转专讬 诇讗 讬讚讬注讬 讗诇讬诪讬 转专讬 谞诪讬 讬讚讬注讬

GEMARA: When Rabbi Yitz岣k came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he taught that Rabbi Eliezer said: Two threads is the measure that determines liability for beginning a weave. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 we learn three in the mishna? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, because this source is referring to thick threads and that source is referring to thin threads. Some say it this way, that one is liable when weaving two thick threads, and some say it that way, that one is liable when weaving two thin threads. The Gemara elaborates: Some say it this way: One who weaves thick threads, three threads will not unravel, but two will unravel. With regard to thin threads, two will also not unravel. And some say it this way: One who weaves thin threads, three threads are conspicuous, two are not conspicuous. With regard to thick threads, two are also conspicuous.

转谞讬讗 讛讗讜专讙 砖诇砖讛 讞讜讟讬谉 讘转讞讬诇讛 讜讗讞讚 注诇 讛讗专讬讙 讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 讘转讞讬诇讛 讘讬谉 讘住讜祝 砖讬注讜专谉 砖谞讬 讞讜讟讬谉 讜讘砖驻讛 砖谞讬 讞讜讟讬谉 讘专讜讞讘 砖诇砖讛 讘转讬 谞讬专讬谉 讛讗 诇诪讛 讝讛 讚讜诪讛 诇讗讜专讙 爪诇爪讜诇 拽讟谉 砖谞讬 讞讜讟讬谉 讘专讜讞讘 砖诇砖讛 讘转讬 谞讬专讬谉 讜讛讗讜专讙 砖诇砖讛 讞讜讟讬谉 讘转讞讬诇讛 讜讗讞讚 注诇 讛讗专讬讙 讞讬讬讘 住转诪讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

It was taught in a baraita: One who weaves three threads at the beginning or one thread onto a preexisting woven fabric is liable. And the Rabbis say: Both at the beginning and at the end, its measure for liability is two threads. And if one weaves a hem with a thread or color different from the original garment, he is liable for weaving two threads across a width of three meshes, i.e., three threads of the warp. Why is one liable in that case? To what is this similar? It is similar to weaving a small belt in which one weaves two threads across a width of three meshes, the width of the belt. And when it is taught in the baraita: One who weaves three threads at the beginning or one thread onto a preexisting woven fabric is liable, that unattributed baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讛讗讜专讙 砖谞讬 讞讜讟讬谉 注诇 讛讙住 讜注诇 讛讗讬诪专讗 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞讚 讜讘砖驻讛 砖谞讬 讞讜讟讬谉 讘专讜讞讘 砖诇砖讛 讘转讬 谞讬专讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讛讗 诇诪讛 讝讛 讚讜诪讛 诇讗讜专讙 爪诇爪讜诇 拽讟谉 砖谞讬 讞讜讟讬谉 注诇 专讜讞讘 砖诇砖讛 讘转讬 谞讬专讬谉 讜讛讗讜专讙 砖谞讬 讞讜讟讬谉 注诇 讛讙住 讜注诇 讛讗讬诪专讗 讞讬讬讘 住转诪讗 讻专讘谞谉:

It was taught in another baraita: One who weaves two threads onto a large fabric or onto the border of a fabric alongside the woof on Shabbat is liable. Rabbi Eliezer says: One is liable even if he weaves one thread. And along the edge of the warp, one who weaves two threads across a width of three meshes is liable. To what is this similar? It is similar to weaving a small belt in which one weaves two threads across a width of three meshes. The Gemara comments: When it was taught in the baraita: One who weaves two threads onto a large fabric or onto the border is liable, that unattributed baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讛注讜砖讛 砖谞讬 讘转讬 谞讬专讬谉 讻讜壮: 诪讗讬 [讘谞讬专讬谉] 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转专转讬 讘讘转讬 谞讬专讗 讜讞讚讗 讘谞讬专讗: 讘拽讬专讜住: 诪讗讬 讘拽讬专讜住 讗诪专 专讘 诪爪讜讘讬转讗:

We learned in the mishna that one who makes two meshes, attaching them to either the nirin or the keiros, is liable. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of to the nirin? Abaye said: One ties two to the meshes, the thread of the warp, and ties one to the crosspiece, the thread that extends from the weaving rod. We learned in the mishna that one is liable for attaching the meshes to the keiros, and the Gemara asks: What is a keiros? Rav said: It refers to the slips, the parts that go up and down on a stationary loom and are parallel to the pole.

讜讛转讜驻专 砖转讬 转驻讬专讜转: 讛讗 转谞讬谞讗 讘讗讘讜转 诪诇讗讻讜转 讜讛转讜驻专 砖转讬 转驻讬专讜转 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 住讬驻讗 讜讛拽讜专注 注诇 诪谞转 诇转驻讜专 砖转讬 转驻讬专讜转 拽转谞讬 谞诪讬 讛转讜驻专 讜讛拽讜专注 讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讘讗讘讜转 诪诇讗讻讜转 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛拽讜专注 讘讞诪转讜 讜注诇 诪转讜 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 [讛转讜驻专 砖转讬 转驻讬专讜转]:

And we also learned in the mishna that one who sews on Shabbat is liable if he sews two stitches. The Gemara asks: We already learned that on the list of primary categories of prohibited labor: And one who sews two stitches is liable. The Gemara answers: Since the mishna wanted to teach in the latter clause: And one who tears in order to sew two stitches, it also taught the halakha of one who sews. And one who tears, did we not also learn this in the mishna enumerating the list of primary categories of prohibited labor? Since the mishna wanted to teach a new halakha in the latter clause, namely: One who tears in his anger or for his dead relative, therefore, it also taught the halakha of one who sews two stitches.

讜讛拽讜专注 注诇 诪谞转 诇转驻讜专 砖转讬 转驻讬专讜转: 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

With regard to what we learned in the mishna: And one who tears in order to sew two stitches, the Gemara asks: Where do you find that case where it is necessary to tear a garment in order to sew it?

讚注讘讚讛 讻讬 讻讬住转讗:

The Gemara explains: It is found in a case where a pocketlike protrusion impedes sewing. Therefore, one tears the garment and tucks the protruding portion under the seam.

诪转谞讬壮 讛拽讜专注 讘讞诪转讜 讜注诇 诪转讜 讜讻诇 讛诪拽诇拽诇讬谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 讜讛诪拽诇拽诇 注诇 诪谞转 诇转拽谉 砖讬注讜专讜 讻诪转拽谉 砖讬注讜专 讛诪诇讘谉 讜讛诪谞驻抓 讜讛爪讜讘注 讜讛讟讜讜讛 讻诪诇讗 专讞讘 讛住讬讟 讻驻讜诇 讜讛讗讜专讙 砖谞讬 讞讜讟讬谉 砖讬注讜专讜 讻诪诇讗 讛住讬讟:

MISHNA: One who rends his garment in his anger or in anguish over his dead relative is exempt. And anyone else who performs labors destructively on Shabbat is exempt. And one who performs a labor destructively in order to repair is liable, and his measure for liability is equivalent to the measure for one who performs that labor constructively. The measure that determines liability for one who whitens, or one who combs, or one who dyes, or one who spins wool is the full width of a double sit, which is the distance between the forefinger and the middle finger. And for one who weaves two threads, the measure that determines liability is one sit.

讙诪壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛拽讜专注 讘讞诪转讜 讜讘讗讘诇讜 讜注诇 诪转讜 讞讬讬讘 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讞诇诇 讗转 讛砖讘转 讬爪讗 讬讚讬 拽专讬注讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘诪转 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讗 讘诪转 讚注诇诪讗

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna: One who rends his garment in anger or in anguish over his dead relative is exempt. The Gemara raises a contradiction to this based on a baraita: One who rends his garment in his anger or in his mourning or in his anguish over his dead relative is liable for performing a prohibited labor on Shabbat. And even though he desecrates Shabbat by tearing his garment, he nevertheless fulfilled his obligation of rending his garment in mourning. Apparently, one is liable for rending his garment in anguish over the dead. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this mishna, which states one is liable for rending his garment, is referring to his own dead relative for whom he is obligated to tear his garment. And that mishna, which states one is exempt for rending his garment, is referring to any unrelated dead person.

讜讛讗 诪转讜 拽转谞讬 诇注讜诇诐 讘诪转 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讘讛谞讱 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讗讘讬诇讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗讬 讞讻诐 讛讜讗 讞讬讜讘讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讚转谞讬讗 讞讻诐 砖诪转 讛讻诇 拽专讜讘讬讜 讛讻诇 拽专讜讘讬讜 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛讻诇 讻拽专讜讘讬讜 讛讻诇 拽讜专注讬谉 注诇讬讜 讛讻诇 讞讜诇爪讬谉 注诇讬讜 讛讻诇 诪讘专讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘专讞讘讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚诇讗讜 讞讻诐 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: Over his dead relative? The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna, which says that he is exempt, is referring to his own dead; however, it is referring to those relatives who are not subject to the obligation of mourning by Torah law. The Gemara asks: And even so, if the dead person is a Torah scholar, one is obligated to rend one鈥檚 garment in anguish over his death, as it was taught in a baraita: When a Torah scholar dies, everyone is his relative. The Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind that everyone is his relative? Rather, say: Everyone is considered to be like his relative, in the sense that everyone rends his garment in anguish over him, and everyone bares his shoulder over him in mourning, and everyone eats the mourner鈥檚 meal over him in the public square as mourners do. The death of a Torah scholar is a personal loss for every Jew. The Gemara answers: It was only necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha in a case where the dead person is not a Torah scholar.

讜讗讬 讗讚诐 讻砖专 讛讜讗 讞讬讜讘讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讚转谞讬讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诪转讬诐 讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讜转讬讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讻砖讛谉 拽讟谞讬诐 讻讚讬 砖讬讘讻讛 讜讬转讗讘诇 注诇 讗讚诐 讻砖专 讻讚讬 砖讬讘讻讛 注专讘讜谞讗 砖拽诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖诇讗 讘讻讛 讜讛转讗讘诇 注诇 讗讚诐 讻砖专 砖讻诇 讛讘讜讻讛 注诇 讗讚诐 讻砖专 诪讜讞诇讬谉 诇讜 注诇 讻诇 注讜谞讜转讬讜 讘砖讘讬诇 讻讘讜讚 砖注砖讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚诇讗讜 讗讚诐 讻砖专 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And if he was an upright person, aren鈥檛 all those present at his death obligated to rend their garments over his death? As it was taught in a baraita: Why do a person鈥檚 sons and daughters die when they are young? They die so that he will cry and mourn over the death of an upright worthy person. The Gemara asks: They die so that he will cry? Is security taken from him in advance to ensure that he fulfills his obligation? Rather, emend the statement and say: It is because he did not cry or mourn over an upright person who died, as anyone who cries over an upright person who died, they forgive him for all his transgressions because of the honor he accorded to the deceased. Nevertheless, it is difficult, as one is required to rend his clothing over the death of an upright person. The Gemara answers: It was only necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha in a case where the deceased was not an upright person.

讜讗讬 讚拽讗讬 讘砖注转 讬爪讬讗转 谞砖诪讛 讞讬讜讘讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛注讜诪讚 注诇 讛诪转 讘砖注转 讬爪讬讗转 谞砖诪讛 讞讬讬讘 诇拽专讜注 讛讗 诇诪讛 讝讛 讚讜诪讛 诇住驻专 转讜专讛 砖谞砖专驻讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚诇讗 拽讗讬 讘砖注转 讬爪讬讗转 谞砖诪讛

The Gemara asks: And if one is standing close to the deceased when the soul leaves the body, he is obligated to rend his garment, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One who is standing over the deceased at the time of the departure of the soul is obligated to rend his garment. To what is this similar? It is similar to a Torah scroll that was burned. The Gemara answers: It was only necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha in a case where he is not standing there at the time of the departure of the soul.

转讬谞讞 诪转讜 讗诇讗 讞诪转讜 讗讞诪转讜 拽砖讬讗 讞诪转讜 讗讞诪转讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 诇讙讜驻讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 诇讙讜驻讛 驻讟讜专 注诇讬讛

The Gemara asks further: This works out well in terms of resolving the contradiction with regard to his dead relative. However, the contradiction between the ruling in the mishna that one who rends his garment in his anger is not liable, and the ruling in the baraita that one who rends his garment in his anger is liable, is still difficult. The mishna exempts one who rends garments in anger, while the baraita deems him liable. The Gemara answers: The contradiction between his anger in the mishna and his anger in the baraita is also not difficult, as this ruling in the baraita that deems him liable is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and that ruling in the mishna that exempts him is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara elaborates: This ruling in the baraita follows Rabbi Yehuda, who said that one who performs a prohibited labor on Shabbat that is not needed for its own sake is liable for performing it. Therefore, one who rends his garment in anger is liable. That ruling in the mishna which exempts him is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that one who performs a labor that is not needed for its own sake is exempt for performing it.

讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诪转拽谉 讘诪拽诇拽诇 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诪转拽谉 讛讜讗 讚拽注讘讬讚 谞讞转 专讜讞 诇讬爪专讜 讜讻讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讬 砖专讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 讞讬诇驻讗 讘专 讗讙专讗 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讛诪拽专注 讘讙讚讬讜 讘讞诪转讜 讜讛诪砖讘专 讻诇讬讜 讘讞诪转讜 讜讛诪驻讝专 诪注讜转讬讜 讘讞诪转讜 讬讛讗 讘注讬谞讬讱 讻注讜讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讻讱 讗讜诪谞转讜 砖诇 讬爪专 讛专注 讛讬讜诐 讗讜诪专 诇讜 注砖讛 讻讱 讜诇诪讞专 讗讜诪专 诇讜 注砖讛 讻讱 注讚 砖讗讜诪专 诇讜 注讘讜讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讛讜诇讱 讜注讜讘讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 诪讗讬 拽专讗讛 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讘讱 讗诇 讝专 讜诇讗 转砖转讞讜讛 诇讗诇 谞讻专 讗讬讝讛讜 讗诇 讝专 砖讬砖 讘讙讜驻讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讬爪专 讛专注

The Gemara asks: Say that you heard that Rabbi Yehuda rules that one is liable for performing a labor not needed for its own sake in the case of a constructive act; did you hear him deem one liable in the case of a destructive act? Rabbi Avin said: This case, where one rends his garment in anger, is also constructive, because in doing so he assuages his anger. Rending his garment calms him; therefore, it can be said that he derives benefit from the act of rending, and it is consequently a constructive act. The Gemara asks: And is it at all permitted to tear in that manner? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of 岣lfa bar Agra, who said in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri: One who rends his garments in his anger, or who breaks his vessels in his anger, or who scatters his money in his anger, should be like an idol worshipper in your eyes, as that is the craft of the evil inclination. Today it tells him do this, and tomorrow it tells him do that, until eventually, when he no longer controls himself, it tells him worship idols and he goes and worships idols. Rabbi Avin said: What verse alludes to this? 鈥淭here shall not be a strange god within you, and you shall not bow to a foreign god鈥 (Psalms 81:10). What is the strange god that is within a person鈥檚 body? Say that it is the evil inclination. One may not rend his garments in anger, because in doing so he is deriving pleasure from satisfying the evil inclination.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讗 注讘讬讚 诇诪讬专诪讗 讗讬诪转讗 讗讗讬谞砖讬 讘讬转讬讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖诇讬祝 诪爪讘讬讬转讗 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 转讘专 诪讗谞讬 转讘讬专讬 专讘 砖砖转 专诪讬 诇讛 诇讗诪转讬讛 诪讜谞讬谞讬 讗专讬砖讗 专讘讬 讗讘讗 转讘专 谞讻转诪讗

The Gemara answers: It is only necessary to discuss this in a case where one does so to instill fear in the members of his household. In order to show them that he is very angry, he tears and breaks objects even though he is not that angry. In that case he maintains control of himself and is not in danger of succumbing to the evil inclination. It is like the incident where Rav Yehuda sought to display his anger and he pulled threads off his garment. Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov smashed broken vessels, Rav Sheshet threw small fish on his maidservant鈥檚 head, and Rabbi Abba broke the lid of a jug. All of these Sages caused minimal damage in creating the impression that they were angry.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 讻诇 讛诪讜专讬讚 讚诪注讜转 注诇 讗讚诐 讻砖专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 住讜驻专谉 讜诪谞讬讞谉 讘讘讬转 讙谞讝讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 谞讚讬 住驻专转讛 讗转讛 砖讬诪讛 讚诪注转讬 讘谞讗讚讱 讛诇讗 讘住驻专转讱 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讛诪转注爪诇 讘讛住驻讚讜 砖诇 讞讻诐 专讗讜讬 诇拽讜讘专讜 讘讞讬讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬拽讘专讜 讗讜转讜 讘讙讘讜诇 谞讞诇转讜 讘转诪谞转 住专讞 讗砖专 讘讛专 讗驻专讬诐 诪爪驻讜谉 诇讛专 讙注砖 诪诇诪讚 砖专讙砖 注诇讬讛谉 讛专 诇讛讜专讙谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛诪转注爪诇 讘讛住驻讚讜 砖诇 讞讻诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讗专讬讱 讬诪讬诐 诪讚讛 讻谞讙讚 诪讚讛 砖谞讗诪专 讘住讗住讗讛 讘砖诇讞讛 转专讬讘谞讛

Apropos the laws of mourning for an upright person and a Torah scholar, the Gemara cites that which Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of Bar Kappara: Anyone who sheds tears over an upright person, the Holy One, Blessed be He, counts his tears and places them in His treasury, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou have counted my wanderings, put my tears into your bottle, are they not in your book?鈥 (Psalms 56:9). Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Anyone who is lazy in eulogizing a Torah scholar, it is fitting to bury him alive, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd they buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnat-sera岣, which is in the hill-country of Ephraim, on the north of the mountain of Ga鈥檃sh鈥 (Joshua 24:30). This teaches that the mountain raged against them to kill them because they did not eulogize him appropriately. Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Whoever is lazy in eulogizing a Sage does not live a long life, and his punishment is measure for measure. Since he was unconcerned with the death of the Sage, in the heavens they will be unconcerned with his death. The Holy One, Blessed be He, conducts Himself in this manner, as it is stated: 鈥淚n full measure [besase鈥檃], when You send her away You contend with her鈥 (Isaiah 27:8), and the Sages derived that God punishes from the words: 鈥淵ou contend with her,鈥 and He does so measure for measure, se鈥檃 for se鈥檃, from the word sase鈥檃 in the verse above.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讬注讘讚讜 讛注诐 讗转 讛壮 讻诇 讬诪讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜讻诇 讬诪讬 讛讝拽谞讬诐 讗砖专 讛讗专讬讻讜 讬诪讬诐 讗讞专讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讘诇讗讬 讬诪讬诐 讛讗专讬讻讜 砖谞讬诐 诇讗 讛讗专讬讻讜 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诇诪注谉 讬专讘讜 讬诪讬讻诐 讜讬诪讬 讘谞讬讻诐 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讗 砖谞讬诐 讘专讻讛 砖讗谞讬

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba raised an objection to Rabbi Yo岣nan: It is stated: 鈥淎nd the nation worshipped the Lord all the days of Joshua and all the days of the Elders, who lived many days after Joshua鈥 (Judges 2:7), indicating that the Elders lived long lives even though they did not eulogize Joshua properly. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: Babylonian, you should be more precise in your reading. They indeed lived many days; however, they did not live many years. In fact, they did not live to the end of that year. Again he asked: But then with regard to the verse 鈥淪o that your days and the days of your children will multiply on the land which the Lord your God swore to give to your fathers, as the days of the heavens over the earth鈥 (Deuteronomy 11:21), would you also say that here the reward is to live many days but not years? He answered him: A blessing is different and should be interpreted in its most expansive sense.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讗讞讬谉 砖诪转

And Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If one of the brothers dies,

Scroll To Top