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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 22, 2020 | 诇壮 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 108

Some things are forbidden because it is considered removing it from its place of growth, including a fetus of an animal from the womb. Is a fetus considered a live being or not? What is the melacha that one is obligated for? Is the skin of a bird or fish considered skin? Can one write tefillin on parchment made from its skin? A story is told of the welcome that Rav received (not the most positive) when he arrived in Babylonia and was greeted first by Karna and quizzed and then by Shmuel. One can write tefillin on a kosher animal even if it was a treifa (sick) or died on its own. This was a subject of debate between a Baitusi and Rabbi Yehoshua the Garsi regarding the rabbinic traditions. Brine cannot be made on Shabbat as it is a tolada of ibud, processing. But can one prepare salt water for dipping one’s bread? Taking medicine is problematic on Shabbat (in certain circumstances) lest one grind one’s own medicines. However if one uses a medication that could also be used not as a medication and therefore it is not clear whether one is using it for medicinal purposes or not, it is allowed. In the context of salt water, the gemara asks regarding one who washes in the Dead Sea for medicinal purposes for one’s eye. In what case would it be allowed? Other issues related to eye salves on Shabbat are discussed.

驻讬讟专讗 诪讗讜谞讗 讚讞爪讘讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 注讜拽专 讚讘专 诪讙讬讚讜诇讜 诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讛转讜诇砖 诪注爪讬抓 谞拽讜讘 讞讬讬讘 讜砖讗讬谞讜 谞拽讜讘 驻讟讜专 讛转诐 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬转讬讛 讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬转讬讛:

a mushroom from the handle of a pitcher on Shabbat is liable for uprooting an object from its place of growth. Rav Oshaya raised an objection from that which we learned: One who detaches a plant on Shabbat from a perforated flowerpot is liable, and one who detaches a plant from an imperforate pot is exempt. A plant that grows in an imperforate pot is not considered connected to the ground. One who detaches it is not uprooting it from its place of growth. The Gemara answers: There, in the case of an imperforate pot, that is not the way a plant grows. Plants are generally planted in the ground; a plant in an imperforate pot is disconnected from the ground. Whereas here, in the case of a mushroom growing from the handle of a pitcher, that is the way it grows. The plant is considered connected to the ground.

讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讜转讘讬谉 转驻讬诇讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 注讜专 砖诇 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 注讜专 转谞讬谞讗 讛讞讜讘诇 讘讛谉 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讟讜讘讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 谞讬拽讘讬 谞讬拽讘讬 诇讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 讻诇 谞拽讘 砖讛讚讬讜 注讜讘专转 注诇讬讜 讗讬谞讜 谞拽讘

We learned in the mishna: One who wounds an animal or a bird on Shabbat is liable. Rav Huna said: One may write phylacteries on the skin of a kosher bird. Rav Yosef said: What is he teaching us with this statement? If he is teaching us that a bird has skin, we already learned that: One who wounds an animal or a bird is liable. Since there is liability only if a wound forms beneath the skin, apparently a bird has skin. Abaye said to him: He is teaching us many things, for if I had only learned from the mishna, I would have said the following: Since the skin of a bird has many holes from which the feathers grow, one should not be allowed to write sacred matters on it. Therefore, he teaches us as they say in the West, i.e., in Eretz Yisrael: Any hole over which ink passes and does not penetrate it, is not considered a hole that invalidates the writing.

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘讻谞驻讬讜 诇讛讻砖讬专 讗转 讛注讜专 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 注讜专 讛讜讗 讛讬讻讬 诪专讘讬 诇讬讛 拽专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 注讜专 讛讜讗 讜专讞诪谞讗 专讘讬讬讛

Rabbi Zeira raised an objection to the conclusion that the skin of a bird is considered skin. Didn鈥檛 we learn in a baraita that the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall rend it by its wings without creating a division, and the priest shall burn it upon the altar on the wood that is on the fire鈥 (Leviticus 1:17), teaches that the priest must prepare even the skin to make it acceptable for the altar? That is not the case when animals are offered, as their skin is flayed before they are sacrificed. And if it should enter your mind that the skin of a bird is skin, how does the verse include it among that which the priest prepares for the altar? Abaye said: This is not difficult. Indeed, it is skin, and nevertheless, the Torah includes it as a biblical decree, specifying that the skin of a bird is sacrificed.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讘讻谞驻讬讜 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛注讜专 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 注讜专 讛讜讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇专讘讜讬讬讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗讜 注讜专 讛讜讗 讗诪讗讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇专讘讜讬讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诇讗讜 注讜专 讛讜讗 讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 驻讬专爪讬 驻讬专爪讬 诪讗讬住 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

Some say that Rabbi Zeira said: We, too, have also learned support for this halakha: The verse: 鈥淏y its wings,鈥 comes to include the skin. Granted, if you say that the skin of a bird is skin, that is the reason that the verse needs to explicitly include it. The verse is teaching us that even though the bird鈥檚 skin is skin, it must still be sacrificed. However, if you say that the skin of a bird is not skin, why is a verse necessary to include it? Clearly, it is sacrificed. Abaye said to him: That is not proof. Actually, I can say to you that it is not skin and, nevertheless, it must be included in the verse. Had the skin of the bird not been specifically included, it might have entered your mind to say that since there are many holes in it, it is repulsive and unfit for the altar. Therefore, the verse teaches us that it is sacrificed. There is no proof that the skin of a bird is considered skin.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪讛讜 诇讻转讜讘 转驻讬诇讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 注讜专 砖诇 讚讙 讟讛讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诐 讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜 讜讬讗诪专 诪讗讬 讗诐 讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜 讜讬讗诪专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗讬 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 注讜专 讗讬 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 注讜专 讛讗 讞讝讬谞谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 注讜专 讜注讜讚 讛转谞谉 注爪诪讜转 讛讚讙 讜注讜专讜 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讘讗讛诇 讛诪转 讗诇讗 讗诐 讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜 讜讬讗诪专 讗讬 驻住拽讗 讝讜讛诪讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讬 诇讗 驻住拽讗 讝讜讛诪讗 诪讬谞讬讛:

Mar, son of Ravina, raised a dilemma before Rav Na岣an bar Yitzhak: What is the halakha with regard to writing phylacteries on the skin of a kosher fish? Rav Na岣an bar Yitzhak said to him: If Elijah comes and says. The Gemara asks: What does the phrase: If Elijah comes and says, mean? What requires clarification? If you say that whether a fish has skin or whether it does not have skin requires clarification, we see that it has skin. And furthermore, we learned in a mishna: Fish bones and skin protect the objects covered with them from becoming impure under a tent with a corpse. Since fish bones and skin do not contract impurity, they constitute a barrier to impurity. Apparently, fish have skin. Rather, if Elijah comes and says whether its foul smell has ceased from it or whether its foul smell has not ceased from it.

砖诪讜讗诇 讜拽专谞讗 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 讗讙讜讚讗 讚谞讛专 诪诇讻讗 讞讝讬谞讛讜 诇诪讬讗 讚拽讗 讚诇讜 讜注讻讬专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇拽专谞讗 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 拽讗转讬 诪诪注专讘讗 讜讞讬讬砖 讘诪注讬讛 讜拽讗 讚诇讜 诪讬讗 诇讗拽讘讜诇讬 讗驻讬讛 拽诪讬讛 讝讬诇 转讛讬 诇讬讛 讗拽谞拽谞讬讛 讗讝诇 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪谞讬讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 转驻讬诇讬谉 讗诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 诇诪注谉 转讛讬讛 转讜专转 讛壮 讘驻讬讱 诪谉 讛诪讜转专 讘驻讬讱 诪谞讬讬谉 诇讚诐 砖讛讜讗 讗讚讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬专讗讜 诪讜讗讘 诪谞讙讚 讗转 讛诪讬诐 讗讚诪讬诐 讻讚诐

It was reported: Shmuel and Karna were sitting on the bank of the Malka River. They saw that the water was rising and was murky. Shmuel said to Karna: A great man is coming from the West, Eretz Yisrael, and his intestines are aching, and the water is rising to greet him. Go sniff out his container, i.e., see if he is a Torah scholar. Karna went and found Rav, who was the Sage that came from Eretz Yisrael, and he asked him several questions to test him. He said to him: From where is it derived that one may write phylacteries only on the hide of a kosher animal? Rav said to him that this halakha is as it is written: 鈥淎nd it shall be a sign for you on your arm, and a reminder between your eyes, so that God鈥檚 Torah will be in your mouth鈥 (Exodus 13:9). Only hide from those animals that are permitted to be placed in your mouth, i.e., may be eaten, may be used for phylacteries. Karna then asked him: From where is it derived that prohibited blood is red? Karna asked Rav this to determine which shades of menstrual blood are impure. Rav said to him that it is as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the Moabites saw the water from afar, red like blood鈥 (II Kings 3:22).

诪谞讬讬谉 诇诪讬诇讛 砖讘讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 注专诇转讜 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 注专诇转讜 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讚讘专 砖注讜砖讛 驻专讬 讗祝 讻讗谉 讚讘专 砖注讜砖讛 驻专讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讘讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜诪诇转诐 讗转 注专诇转 诇讘讘讻诐 讗讬诪讗 讗讝谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讛谞讛 注专诇讛 讗讝谞诐 讚谞讬谉 注专诇转讜 转诪讛 诪注专诇转讜 转诪讛 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 注专诇转讜 转诪讛 诪注专诇转 砖讗讬谞讛 转诪讛

Karna also asked: From where is derived that circumcision is performed in that place? Rav answered him: It is stated here, with regard to circumcision: 鈥淎nd on the eighth day he shall circumcise the flesh of his foreskin [orlato]鈥 (Leviticus 12:3), and it is stated there, with regard to recently planted trees: 鈥淎nd when you come to the land and plant all types of fruit trees, and you shall count the fruit thereof as forbidden [orlato]; three years shall it be as forbidden unto you, it shall not be eaten.鈥 (Leviticus 19:23). Just as there the Torah is referring to a tree, which is an item that bears fruit, here, too, in the case of circumcision, orla is referring to an item that bears fruit. He asked him: Say that circumcision should be performed on one鈥檚 heart, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall circumcise the foreskin of [orlat] your heart鈥 (Deuteronomy 10:16)? Say that circumcision should be performed on one鈥檚 ear, as it is written: 鈥淏ehold, their ear is dull [areila] and they cannot listen鈥 (Jeremiah 6:10)? Rav said to him: One derives the meaning of the complete form orlato from another instance of the complete form orlato; and one does not derive the complete form orlato from the incomplete form orlat, which modifies another word, as is also the case with the word areila.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 砖诪讱 拽专谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讛讗 专注讜讗 讚转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 拽专谞讗 讘注讬谞讬讛

Since Rav understood that Karna came to test him, he said to him: What is your name? He told him: Karna. He said to him: May it be the will of God that a horn [karna] will emerge in his eyes.

诇住讜祝 注讬讬诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讘讬转讬讛 讗讜讻诇讬讛 谞讛诪讗 讚砖注专讬 讜讻住讗 讚讛专住谞讗 讜讗砖拽讬讬讛 砖讬讻专讗 讜诇讗 讗讞讜讬 诇讬讛 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬砖转诇砖诇 诇讬讬讟 专讘 讜讗诪专 诪讗谉 讚诪爪注专谉 诇讗 诇讜拽诪讜讛 诇讬讛 讘谞讬 讜讻谉 讛讜讛:

Ultimately, Shmuel brought him into his house. He fed him barley bread and small fried fish, and gave him beer to drink, and he did not show him the lavatory so he would suffer from diarrhea. Shmuel was a doctor and he wanted to relieve Rav鈥檚 intestinal suffering by feeding him food that would relieve him. Since Rav was unaware of Shmuel鈥檚 intention, he became angry at him. Rav cursed Shmuel and said: Whoever causes me suffering, let his children not survive. Although Rav eventually discovered Shmuel鈥檚 good intentions, his curse was fulfilled, and so it was that Shmuel鈥檚 children did not survive long.

讻转谞讗讬 诪谞讬讬谉 诇诪讬诇讛 砖讘讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 注专诇转讜 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 注专诇转讜 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讚讘专 砖注讜砖讛 驻专讬 讗祝 讻讗谉 讚讘专 砖注讜砖讛 驻专讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜注专诇 讝讻专 讗砖专 诇讗 讬诪讜诇 讗转 讘砖专 注专诇转讜 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讬讻专 讘讬谉 讝讻专讜转 诇谞拽讘讜转

The Gemara comments: The issue mentioned above is in fact a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. It was asked in a baraita: From where is it derived that circumcision is performed in that place? It is stated here, in the case of circumcision, orlato. And it is stated there, with regard to trees, orlato. Just as there the Torah is referring to a tree, which is an item that bears fruit, here too, orla is referring to an item that bears fruit; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Natan says: This verbal analogy is not necessary, as it says: 鈥淎nd an uncircumcised man who does not circumcise the flesh of his foreskin [orlato], his soul will be cut off from his nation, he has broken My covenant鈥 (Genesis 17:14). From the fact that it says: An uncircumcised man, it is derived that circumcision is in the place that distinguishes between a male and a female.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 转驻讬诇讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜注诇 讙讘讬 注讜专 讞讬讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜注诇 讙讘讬 注讜专 谞讘诇讜转 讜讟专驻讜转 砖诇讛谉 讜谞讻专讻讜转 讘砖注专谉 讜谞转驻专讜转 讘讙讬讚谉 讜讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 砖讛转驻讬诇讬谉 谞讻专讻讜转 讘砖注专谉 讜谞转驻专讜转 讘讙讬讚谉 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讜诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬 注讜专 讞讬讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 注诇 讙讘讬 注讜专 谞讘诇讛 讜讟专驻讛 砖诇讛谉 讜讗讬谉 谞讻专讻讬谉 讘砖注专谉 讜讗讬谉 谞转驻专讜转 讘讙讬讚谉

The Gemara cites similar proofs. The Sages taught: One may write phylacteries on the hide of a kosher domesticated animal, and on the hide of a kosher non-domesticated animal, and on the hides of their unslaughtered carcasses [neveilot], and on the hides of animals with a condition that will cause them to die within twelve months [tereifot]. And one may wrap the parchment with the hair of these animals and sew them with their sinews; and it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that the parchment of phylacteries may be wrapped with the hair of these animals and sewn with their sinews. But one may not write on the hide of a non-kosher animal, or on the hide of a non-kosher undomesticated animal, and it goes without saying that one may not write on their skins when they are neveilot or tereifot. And one may not wrap the parchment with the hair of non-kosher animals, nor may one sew them with their sinews.

讜讝讜 砖讗讬诇讛 砖讗诇 讘讬转讜住讬 讗讞讚 讗转 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛讙专住讬 诪谞讬讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 转驻讬诇讬谉 注诇 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讚讻转讬讘 诇诪注谉 转讛讬讛 转讜专转 讛壮 讘驻讬讱 诪讚讘专 讛诪讜转专 讘驻讬讱 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 注诇 讙讘讬 注讜专 谞讘诇讜转 讜讟专驻讜转 讗诇 讬讻转讘讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪砖讜诇 诇讱 诪砖诇 讛讗 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖谞转讞讬讬讘讜 讛专讬讙讛 诇诪诇讻讜转 讗讞讚 讛专讙讜 诪诇讱 讜讗讞讚 讛专讙讜 讗讬住驻拽诇讬讟讜专 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 诪砖讜讘讞 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 砖讛专讙讜 诪诇讱 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讬讗讻诇讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 讻诇 谞讘诇讛 讜讗转 讗诪专转 讬讗讻诇讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽讗诇讜住:

And this question was asked by a Boethusian to Rabbi Yehoshua HaGarsi: From where is it derived that one may not write phylacteries on the hide of a non-kosher animal? He said to him, it is as it is written:So that God鈥檚 Torah will be in your mouth.鈥 The Rabbis derived that one may write the passages only on an item that is permitted to be placed in one鈥檚 mouth, i.e., eaten. He said to him: If that is so, on the skin of neveilot and tereifot coming from kosher animals, one should not write phylacteries, as they may not be eaten. He said to him: I will tell you a parable. To what is this similar? To two people who were sentenced to death by the king. One was killed by the king himself, and one was killed by an executioner [ispaklitor]. Which one is more praiseworthy? You must say: The one that the king himself killed. Therefore, an animal that died at the hands of Heaven and not by a human action is superior. He said to him: If so, then the neveilot and tereifot should be eaten, as they were killed by the king. He said to him: The Torah said: 鈥淒o not eat any neveila (Deuteronomy 14:20) and you say they should be eaten? A Torah decree determines that they may not be eaten, but that does not mean they are inferior. The Boethusian said to him: Well put [kalos].

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讛讬诇诪讬 讘砖讘转

MISHNA: One may not make brine [hilmei] on Shabbat,

讗讘诇 注讜砖讛 讛讜讗 讗转 诪讬 讛诪诇讞 讜讟讜讘诇 讘讛谉 驻转讜 讜谞讜转谉 诇转讜讱 讛转讘砖讬诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讛诇讗 讛讜讗 讛讬诇诪讬 讘讬谉 诪专讜讘讛 讜讘讬谉 诪讜注讟 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 诪讬 诪诇讞 讛诪讜转专讬谉 谞讜转谉 砖诪谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇转讜讱 讛诪讬诐 讗讜 诇转讜讱 讛诪诇讞:

but one may make salt water and dip one鈥檚 bread in it, and place it in cooked food. Rabbi Yosei said: But isn鈥檛 it still brine, whether it is a large quantity or whether it is a small quantity? And this is the type of salt water that is permitted: Salt water in which one places oil initially into the water or into the salt. This is salt water prepared not in the usual manner.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪讬 诪诇讞 诪专讜讘讬谉 讗讘诇 注讜砖讛 讛讜讗 诪讬 诪诇讞 诪讜注讟讬谉:

GEMARA: With regard to that which was stated in the mishna, the Gemara asks: What is the tanna saying with regard to the distinction between brine and salt water? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This is what he is saying: One may not prepare a large quantity of salt water, brine, on Shabbat, but one may prepare a small quantity of salt water.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讛诇讗 讛讜讗 讛讬诇诪讬 讘讬谉 诪专讜讘讬谉 讘讬谉 诪讜注讟讬谉: 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗住讜专 讗讜 诇讛转讬专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讛转讬专 诪讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜住专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 诪讬 诪诇讞 讛诪讜转专讬谉 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗住讜专 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗住讜专

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yosei said: But isn鈥檛 it still brine whether it is a large quantity or a small quantity? A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Rabbi Yosei said that there is no difference between a large and small quantity of salt water, was his intention to prohibit preparing any salt water on Shabbat or to permit doing so? Rav Yehuda said: His intention is to permit doing so, which is understood from the fact that the mishna is not teaching: Rabbi Yosei prohibits. Rabba said to him: From the fact that it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna: And this is the type of salt water that is permitted, by inference, Rabbi Yosei intended to prohibit preparing salt water. Rather, Rabba said: Rabbi Yosei intended to prohibit preparing any salt water on Shabbat. And similarly, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 intention was to prohibit.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪讬 诪诇讞 诪专讜讘讬谉 诇转转 诇转讜讱 讛讻讘砖讬谉 砖讘转讜讱 讙讬住讟专讗 讗讘诇 注讜砖讛 讛讜讗 诪讬 诪诇讞 诪讜注讟讬谉 讜讗讜讻诇 讘讛谉 驻转讜 讜谞讜转谉 诇转讜讱 讛转讘砖讬诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讻讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讛诇诇讜 诪专讜讘讬谉 讜讛诇诇讜 诪讜注讟讬谉 讛诇诇讜 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讛诇诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讬讗诪专讜 诪诇讗讻讛 诪专讜讘讛 讗住讜专讛 诪诇讗讻讛 诪讜注讟转 诪讜转专转 讗诇讗 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 讗住讜专讬谉 讛谉 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 诪讬 诪诇讞 讛诪讜转专讬谉 谞讜转谉 砖诪谉 讜诪诇讞 讗讜 砖诪谉 讜诪讬诐 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转谉 诪讬诐 讜诪诇讞 诇讻转讞诇讛:

That was also taught in a baraita: One may not prepare a large quantity of salt water to add to the pickled vegetables that are inside a flat earthenware shard used for pickling [gistera]. However, one may prepare a small quantity of salt water and eat his bread with it and add it to cooked food. Rabbi Yosei said: Is it because this is a large quantity and this is a small quantity that this is prohibited and this is permitted? People will learn from this and say: A large amount of labor is prohibited on Shabbat, but a small amount of labor is permitted. Rather, certainly they are both prohibited. And this is the type of salt water that is permitted: One may place oil and salt together or oil and water and then add salt to the mixture, and this halakha applies provided one does not place water and salt together ab initio.

(注讝讬谉 爪谞讜谉 讜讗转专讜讙 住讬诪谉):

Strong, radish, and citron are a mnemonic for the following halakhot.

转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讞讘讬讘讗 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪讬 诪诇讞 注讝讬谉 诪讗讬 诪讬 诪诇讞 注讝讬谉 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 讻诇 砖讛讘讬爪讛 爪驻讛 讘讛谉 讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转专讬 转讬诇转讬 诪讬诇讞讗 讜转讬诇转讗 诪讬讗

Rabbi Yehuda bar 岣viva taught: One may not prepare strong salt water on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is strong salt water? Rabba and Rav Yosef bar Abba both said: Any water in which an egg can float. The Gemara asks: And how much salt is in this salt water? Abaye said: Two-thirds salt and one-third water.

诇诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇诪讜专讬讬住讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讞讘讬讘讗 讗讬谉 诪讜诇讞讬谉 爪谞讜谉 讜讘讬爪讛 讘砖讘转 专讘 讞讝拽讬讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 爪谞讜谉 讗住讜专 讜讘讬爪讛 诪讜转专转 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪专讬砖 讛讜讛 诪诇讞谞讗 驻讜讙诇讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻住讜讚讬 拽讗 诪驻住讬讚谞讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 驻讜讙诇讗 讞讜专驻讬 诪注诇讬 讻讬讜谉 讚砖诪注谞讗 诇讛讗 讚讻讬 讗转讗 注讜诇讗 讜讗诪专 讘诪注专讘讗 诪诇讞讬 讻讬砖专讬 讻讬砖专讬 诪诪诇讞 诇讗 诪诇讞谞讗 讟讘讜诇讬 讜讚讗讬 诪讟讘讬诇谞讗

The Gemara asks: For what purpose is this salt water prepared? Rabbi Abbahu said: It is prepared for fish brine [muraisa]. And Rabbi Yehuda bar 岣viva taught with regard to salting: One may not salt a radish or an egg on Shabbat because by salting them he performs a labor that improves them. Rav 岣zkiya said in the name of Abaye: Preparing a radish is prohibited, and preparing an egg is permitted. Rav Na岣an said: Initially, I would salt radishes on Shabbat, as I said: I am ruining it by doing so, as Shmuel said: Sharpness is good for radishes; since salt reduces their sharpness, one who adds salt ruins the radish. However, once I heard this, that when Ulla came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that in the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, they salt many piles of radishes throughout the week, I do not salt them on Shabbat anymore, but I certainly dip them in salt because that is not considered to be an improvement.

转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讞讘讬讘讗 讗转专讜讙 爪谞讜谉 讜讘讬爪讛 讗讬诇诪诇讗 拽诇讬驻转谉 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讗讬谞谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 诪讘谞讬 诪注讬讬诐 诇注讜诇诐

The Gemara cites that which Rabbi Yehuda bar 岣viva taught with regard to radishes and eggs: With regard to a citron, a radish, and an egg, if it were not for their outer peel, or egg white, they would never emerge from the intestines, because they are extremely hard to digest.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 诪注讜诇诐 诇讗 讟讘注 讙讘专讗 讘讬诪讗 讚住讚讜诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛驻讜讻讛 住讚讜诐 讜讛驻讜讻讛 诪讬诇讛 讙讘专讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讟讘注 讻砖讜专讗 讟讘注 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 讻砖讜专讗 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讻诇 诪讬诪讜转 砖讘注讜诇诐 诇讗 讟讘注 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讘专讗 讚讟讘注 讘讻诇 诪讬诪讜转 砖讘注讜诇诐 讘讬诪讗 讚住讚讜诐 诇讗 讟讘注 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘讬谉 讛讜讛 砖拽讬诇 讜讗讝讬诇 讗讞讜专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗讙讜讚讗 讚讬诪讗 讚住讚讜诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 诇诪讬诪砖讬 诪讛谞讬 诪讬讗 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: No person has ever drowned in the Sea of Sodom, the Dead Sea. Since there is so much salt, people easily float in it. Rav Yosef said: Sodom is overturned and Rav Dimi鈥檚 statement is backward. Is his statement saying that it is a man who does not drown in the Dead Sea, but a plank sinks? Abaye said to him: He is saying his statement utilizing the style of: It is not necessary: It is not necessary to mention a plank because it does not sink in any body of water in the world. But even a man, who drowns in other bodies of water in the world, does not drown in the Sea of Sodom. The Gemara asks: What are the practical consequences of this halakha? The Gemara explains: This halakha is relevant in a case of this kind: Ravin was walking after Rabbi Yirmeya on the shore of the Sea of Sodom. Ravin said to Rabbi Yirmeya: What is the ruling? Is it permitted to wash oneself with this water on Shabbat, or perhaps it is prohibited because it has healing properties? Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: One may well do so.

诪讛讜 诇诪讬诪抓 讜诇诪讬驻转讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讜 诇讗 砖诪注转讬 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛 砖诪注转讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 诪转谞讛 讜讝讬诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讜转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜诇讜讬 讗诪专讬谉 讞讚 讗诪专 讬讬谉 讘转讜讱 讛注讬谉 讗住讜专 注诇 讙讘 讛注讬谉 诪讜转专 讜讞讚 讗诪专 专讜拽 转驻诇 [讗驻讬诇讜] 注诇 讙讘 讛注讬谉 讗住讜专

Ravin asked another question: When one washes himself on Shabbat in water from the Dead Sea, what is the halakha? Is it permitted for him to close and open his eyes in the water so that the water gets inside? Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: That case I did not hear; however, with regard to a similar case, placing wine in one鈥檚 eye on Shabbat, I did hear. As Rabbi Zeira said, sometimes he said it in the name of Rav Mattana and sometimes he said it in the name of Mar Ukva, and they both said it in the name of Shmuel鈥檚 father and in the name of Levi: One of them said: With regard to placing wine inside the eye on Shabbat, it is prohibited because it heals; on the eye, it is permitted. And one of them said: Bland saliva, saliva from one who has not eaten since waking, even placing it on the eye on Shabbat is prohibited because it is commonly used as medicine.

转住转讬讬诐 讚讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讬讬谉 讘转讜讱 讛注讬谉 讗住讜专 注诇 讙讘 讛注讬谉 诪讜转专 诪讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讜专讛 讗讚诐 驻讬转讜 讘讬讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讜 注诇 讙讘 讛注讬谉 讘砖讘转 讚砖诪讬注讗 诇讬讛 诪诪讗谉 诇讗讜 讚砖诪讬注讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讘讜讛 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 专讜拽 转驻诇 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讛注讬谉 讗住讜专 讚砖诪讬注讗 诇讬讛 诪诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚砖诪讬注讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讘讜讛 讗诇讗 诇讜讬 讜诇讗 讞讚讗 讗诪专 讗诇讗 讞讚讗 砖诪讬注讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讘讜讛 讜讞讚讗 砖诪讬注讗 诇讬讛 诪诇讜讬 讜诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讛讬 诪讗讘讜讛 讛讬 诪诇讜讬

The Gemara comments: Conclude that Shmuel鈥檚 father is the one who said that placing wine inside the eye is prohibited but on the eye is permitted, from the fact that Shmuel said: A person may soak his bread in wine and place it on his eye on Shabbat. He said this after he heard this halakha from whom? Is it not that he heard it from his father? The Gemara rejects this: And according to your reasoning, that halakha which Shmuel said: It is prohibited to place bland saliva even on the eye on Shabbat, he said this after he heard this halakha from whom? If we say that he heard it from his father, then Levi, who was cited together with Shmuel鈥檚 father in the list of those who stated the halakhot, did he himself not say even one halakha? Rather, one halakha Shmuel heard from his father, and one halakha he heard one from Levi, and we do not know which he heard from his father and which he heard from Levi.

讗诪专 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讜专讛 讗讚诐 拽讬诇讜专讬谉 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讜谞讜转谉 注诇 讙讘 注讬谞讬讜 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖 讘专 诇讬讜讗讬 讛讜讬 拽讗讬 拽诪讬讛 讚诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讞讝讬讬讛 讚讛讜讛 诪讬讬抓 讜驻转讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讜讚讗讬 诇讗 砖专讗 诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诇诪专 注讜拽讘讗 诇讬砖讚专 诇谉 诪专 诪讛谞讱 拽讬诇讜专讬谉 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 砖讚讜专讬 诪砖讚专谞讗 诇讱 讚诇讗 转讬诪讗 爪专 注讬谉 讗谞讗 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讟讜讘讛 讟讬驻转 爪讜谞谉 砖讞专讬转 讜专讞讬爪转 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 讘讞诪讬谉 注专讘讬转 诪讻诇 拽讬诇讜专讬谉 砖讘注讜诇诐 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讜谞讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讟讜讘讛 讟讬驻转 爪讜谞谉 砖讞专讬转 讜专讞讬爪转 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 注专讘讬转 诪讻诇 拽讬诇讜专讬谉 砖讘注讜诇诐

Mar Ukva said that Shmuel said: One may soak eye salves from Shabbat eve and place them on his eyes on Shabbat, and he need not be concerned that he is violating the prohibition against healing on Shabbat. The Gemara relates: Bar Liva鈥檈i was standing before Mar Ukva on Shabbat. He saw Mar Ukva, who was opening and closing his eyes while applying a salve to them. Bar Liva鈥檈i said to him: Master Shmuel certainly did not permit doing all of this. Rabbi Yannai sent a message to Mar Ukva: Can the master send us some of Master Shmuel鈥檚 eye salves? Mar Ukva sent him in response: I will send it to you so that you do not say I am miserly, but be aware that this is what Shmuel said: For healing the eyes, better a drop of cold water in the morning and washing the hands and feet with hot water in the evening than all the eye salves in the world. Follow these instructions and you will need nor other cures. That was also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Mona said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: Better a drop of cold water in the morning and washing the hands and feet in the evening than all the eye salves in the world.

讛讜讗 讛讬讛 讗讜诪专 讬讚 诇注讬谉 转讬拽爪抓 讬讚 诇讞讜讟诐 转讬拽爪抓 讬讚 诇驻讛 转讬拽爪抓 讬讚 诇讗讜讝谉 转讬拽爪抓 讬讚 诇讞住讜讚讛 转讬拽爪抓 讬讚 诇讗诪讛 转讬拽爪抓 讬讚 诇驻讬 讟讘注转 转讬拽爪抓 讬讚

Apropos Rabbi Mona鈥檚 statement with regard to healing, the text cites what he would say about other matters that require special attention: A hand that touches the eye should be severed because it harms the eye. A hand that touches the nose should be severed. A hand that touches the mouth should be severed. A hand that touches the ear should be severed. A hand that touches one鈥檚 wound should be severed. A hand that touches one鈥檚 member should be severed, lest one arouse himself. A hand that touches one鈥檚 anus should be severed, lest one make himself ill. A hand

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 – Shabbat 102-109

This week we will learn 2.5 chapters! We will discuss the activity of building and completing items, writing, weaving, sewing,...
People who live in glass houses

What’s Up, Doc?

This week鈥檚 learning is largely focused on health and medicine 鈥 what is medicinal and therefore forbidden on Shabbat as...
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 108

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 108

驻讬讟专讗 诪讗讜谞讗 讚讞爪讘讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 注讜拽专 讚讘专 诪讙讬讚讜诇讜 诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讛转讜诇砖 诪注爪讬抓 谞拽讜讘 讞讬讬讘 讜砖讗讬谞讜 谞拽讜讘 驻讟讜专 讛转诐 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬转讬讛 讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬转讬讛:

a mushroom from the handle of a pitcher on Shabbat is liable for uprooting an object from its place of growth. Rav Oshaya raised an objection from that which we learned: One who detaches a plant on Shabbat from a perforated flowerpot is liable, and one who detaches a plant from an imperforate pot is exempt. A plant that grows in an imperforate pot is not considered connected to the ground. One who detaches it is not uprooting it from its place of growth. The Gemara answers: There, in the case of an imperforate pot, that is not the way a plant grows. Plants are generally planted in the ground; a plant in an imperforate pot is disconnected from the ground. Whereas here, in the case of a mushroom growing from the handle of a pitcher, that is the way it grows. The plant is considered connected to the ground.

讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讜转讘讬谉 转驻讬诇讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 注讜专 砖诇 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 注讜专 转谞讬谞讗 讛讞讜讘诇 讘讛谉 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讟讜讘讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 谞讬拽讘讬 谞讬拽讘讬 诇讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 讻诇 谞拽讘 砖讛讚讬讜 注讜讘专转 注诇讬讜 讗讬谞讜 谞拽讘

We learned in the mishna: One who wounds an animal or a bird on Shabbat is liable. Rav Huna said: One may write phylacteries on the skin of a kosher bird. Rav Yosef said: What is he teaching us with this statement? If he is teaching us that a bird has skin, we already learned that: One who wounds an animal or a bird is liable. Since there is liability only if a wound forms beneath the skin, apparently a bird has skin. Abaye said to him: He is teaching us many things, for if I had only learned from the mishna, I would have said the following: Since the skin of a bird has many holes from which the feathers grow, one should not be allowed to write sacred matters on it. Therefore, he teaches us as they say in the West, i.e., in Eretz Yisrael: Any hole over which ink passes and does not penetrate it, is not considered a hole that invalidates the writing.

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘讻谞驻讬讜 诇讛讻砖讬专 讗转 讛注讜专 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 注讜专 讛讜讗 讛讬讻讬 诪专讘讬 诇讬讛 拽专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 注讜专 讛讜讗 讜专讞诪谞讗 专讘讬讬讛

Rabbi Zeira raised an objection to the conclusion that the skin of a bird is considered skin. Didn鈥檛 we learn in a baraita that the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall rend it by its wings without creating a division, and the priest shall burn it upon the altar on the wood that is on the fire鈥 (Leviticus 1:17), teaches that the priest must prepare even the skin to make it acceptable for the altar? That is not the case when animals are offered, as their skin is flayed before they are sacrificed. And if it should enter your mind that the skin of a bird is skin, how does the verse include it among that which the priest prepares for the altar? Abaye said: This is not difficult. Indeed, it is skin, and nevertheless, the Torah includes it as a biblical decree, specifying that the skin of a bird is sacrificed.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讘讻谞驻讬讜 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛注讜专 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 注讜专 讛讜讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇专讘讜讬讬讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗讜 注讜专 讛讜讗 讗诪讗讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇专讘讜讬讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诇讗讜 注讜专 讛讜讗 讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 驻讬专爪讬 驻讬专爪讬 诪讗讬住 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

Some say that Rabbi Zeira said: We, too, have also learned support for this halakha: The verse: 鈥淏y its wings,鈥 comes to include the skin. Granted, if you say that the skin of a bird is skin, that is the reason that the verse needs to explicitly include it. The verse is teaching us that even though the bird鈥檚 skin is skin, it must still be sacrificed. However, if you say that the skin of a bird is not skin, why is a verse necessary to include it? Clearly, it is sacrificed. Abaye said to him: That is not proof. Actually, I can say to you that it is not skin and, nevertheless, it must be included in the verse. Had the skin of the bird not been specifically included, it might have entered your mind to say that since there are many holes in it, it is repulsive and unfit for the altar. Therefore, the verse teaches us that it is sacrificed. There is no proof that the skin of a bird is considered skin.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪讛讜 诇讻转讜讘 转驻讬诇讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 注讜专 砖诇 讚讙 讟讛讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诐 讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜 讜讬讗诪专 诪讗讬 讗诐 讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜 讜讬讗诪专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗讬 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 注讜专 讗讬 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 注讜专 讛讗 讞讝讬谞谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 注讜专 讜注讜讚 讛转谞谉 注爪诪讜转 讛讚讙 讜注讜专讜 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讘讗讛诇 讛诪转 讗诇讗 讗诐 讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜 讜讬讗诪专 讗讬 驻住拽讗 讝讜讛诪讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讬 诇讗 驻住拽讗 讝讜讛诪讗 诪讬谞讬讛:

Mar, son of Ravina, raised a dilemma before Rav Na岣an bar Yitzhak: What is the halakha with regard to writing phylacteries on the skin of a kosher fish? Rav Na岣an bar Yitzhak said to him: If Elijah comes and says. The Gemara asks: What does the phrase: If Elijah comes and says, mean? What requires clarification? If you say that whether a fish has skin or whether it does not have skin requires clarification, we see that it has skin. And furthermore, we learned in a mishna: Fish bones and skin protect the objects covered with them from becoming impure under a tent with a corpse. Since fish bones and skin do not contract impurity, they constitute a barrier to impurity. Apparently, fish have skin. Rather, if Elijah comes and says whether its foul smell has ceased from it or whether its foul smell has not ceased from it.

砖诪讜讗诇 讜拽专谞讗 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 讗讙讜讚讗 讚谞讛专 诪诇讻讗 讞讝讬谞讛讜 诇诪讬讗 讚拽讗 讚诇讜 讜注讻讬专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇拽专谞讗 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 拽讗转讬 诪诪注专讘讗 讜讞讬讬砖 讘诪注讬讛 讜拽讗 讚诇讜 诪讬讗 诇讗拽讘讜诇讬 讗驻讬讛 拽诪讬讛 讝讬诇 转讛讬 诇讬讛 讗拽谞拽谞讬讛 讗讝诇 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪谞讬讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 转驻讬诇讬谉 讗诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 诇诪注谉 转讛讬讛 转讜专转 讛壮 讘驻讬讱 诪谉 讛诪讜转专 讘驻讬讱 诪谞讬讬谉 诇讚诐 砖讛讜讗 讗讚讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬专讗讜 诪讜讗讘 诪谞讙讚 讗转 讛诪讬诐 讗讚诪讬诐 讻讚诐

It was reported: Shmuel and Karna were sitting on the bank of the Malka River. They saw that the water was rising and was murky. Shmuel said to Karna: A great man is coming from the West, Eretz Yisrael, and his intestines are aching, and the water is rising to greet him. Go sniff out his container, i.e., see if he is a Torah scholar. Karna went and found Rav, who was the Sage that came from Eretz Yisrael, and he asked him several questions to test him. He said to him: From where is it derived that one may write phylacteries only on the hide of a kosher animal? Rav said to him that this halakha is as it is written: 鈥淎nd it shall be a sign for you on your arm, and a reminder between your eyes, so that God鈥檚 Torah will be in your mouth鈥 (Exodus 13:9). Only hide from those animals that are permitted to be placed in your mouth, i.e., may be eaten, may be used for phylacteries. Karna then asked him: From where is it derived that prohibited blood is red? Karna asked Rav this to determine which shades of menstrual blood are impure. Rav said to him that it is as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the Moabites saw the water from afar, red like blood鈥 (II Kings 3:22).

诪谞讬讬谉 诇诪讬诇讛 砖讘讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 注专诇转讜 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 注专诇转讜 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讚讘专 砖注讜砖讛 驻专讬 讗祝 讻讗谉 讚讘专 砖注讜砖讛 驻专讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讘讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜诪诇转诐 讗转 注专诇转 诇讘讘讻诐 讗讬诪讗 讗讝谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讛谞讛 注专诇讛 讗讝谞诐 讚谞讬谉 注专诇转讜 转诪讛 诪注专诇转讜 转诪讛 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 注专诇转讜 转诪讛 诪注专诇转 砖讗讬谞讛 转诪讛

Karna also asked: From where is derived that circumcision is performed in that place? Rav answered him: It is stated here, with regard to circumcision: 鈥淎nd on the eighth day he shall circumcise the flesh of his foreskin [orlato]鈥 (Leviticus 12:3), and it is stated there, with regard to recently planted trees: 鈥淎nd when you come to the land and plant all types of fruit trees, and you shall count the fruit thereof as forbidden [orlato]; three years shall it be as forbidden unto you, it shall not be eaten.鈥 (Leviticus 19:23). Just as there the Torah is referring to a tree, which is an item that bears fruit, here, too, in the case of circumcision, orla is referring to an item that bears fruit. He asked him: Say that circumcision should be performed on one鈥檚 heart, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall circumcise the foreskin of [orlat] your heart鈥 (Deuteronomy 10:16)? Say that circumcision should be performed on one鈥檚 ear, as it is written: 鈥淏ehold, their ear is dull [areila] and they cannot listen鈥 (Jeremiah 6:10)? Rav said to him: One derives the meaning of the complete form orlato from another instance of the complete form orlato; and one does not derive the complete form orlato from the incomplete form orlat, which modifies another word, as is also the case with the word areila.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 砖诪讱 拽专谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讛讗 专注讜讗 讚转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 拽专谞讗 讘注讬谞讬讛

Since Rav understood that Karna came to test him, he said to him: What is your name? He told him: Karna. He said to him: May it be the will of God that a horn [karna] will emerge in his eyes.

诇住讜祝 注讬讬诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讘讬转讬讛 讗讜讻诇讬讛 谞讛诪讗 讚砖注专讬 讜讻住讗 讚讛专住谞讗 讜讗砖拽讬讬讛 砖讬讻专讗 讜诇讗 讗讞讜讬 诇讬讛 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬砖转诇砖诇 诇讬讬讟 专讘 讜讗诪专 诪讗谉 讚诪爪注专谉 诇讗 诇讜拽诪讜讛 诇讬讛 讘谞讬 讜讻谉 讛讜讛:

Ultimately, Shmuel brought him into his house. He fed him barley bread and small fried fish, and gave him beer to drink, and he did not show him the lavatory so he would suffer from diarrhea. Shmuel was a doctor and he wanted to relieve Rav鈥檚 intestinal suffering by feeding him food that would relieve him. Since Rav was unaware of Shmuel鈥檚 intention, he became angry at him. Rav cursed Shmuel and said: Whoever causes me suffering, let his children not survive. Although Rav eventually discovered Shmuel鈥檚 good intentions, his curse was fulfilled, and so it was that Shmuel鈥檚 children did not survive long.

讻转谞讗讬 诪谞讬讬谉 诇诪讬诇讛 砖讘讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 注专诇转讜 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 注专诇转讜 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讚讘专 砖注讜砖讛 驻专讬 讗祝 讻讗谉 讚讘专 砖注讜砖讛 驻专讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜注专诇 讝讻专 讗砖专 诇讗 讬诪讜诇 讗转 讘砖专 注专诇转讜 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讬讻专 讘讬谉 讝讻专讜转 诇谞拽讘讜转

The Gemara comments: The issue mentioned above is in fact a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. It was asked in a baraita: From where is it derived that circumcision is performed in that place? It is stated here, in the case of circumcision, orlato. And it is stated there, with regard to trees, orlato. Just as there the Torah is referring to a tree, which is an item that bears fruit, here too, orla is referring to an item that bears fruit; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Natan says: This verbal analogy is not necessary, as it says: 鈥淎nd an uncircumcised man who does not circumcise the flesh of his foreskin [orlato], his soul will be cut off from his nation, he has broken My covenant鈥 (Genesis 17:14). From the fact that it says: An uncircumcised man, it is derived that circumcision is in the place that distinguishes between a male and a female.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 转驻讬诇讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜注诇 讙讘讬 注讜专 讞讬讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜注诇 讙讘讬 注讜专 谞讘诇讜转 讜讟专驻讜转 砖诇讛谉 讜谞讻专讻讜转 讘砖注专谉 讜谞转驻专讜转 讘讙讬讚谉 讜讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 砖讛转驻讬诇讬谉 谞讻专讻讜转 讘砖注专谉 讜谞转驻专讜转 讘讙讬讚谉 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讜诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬 注讜专 讞讬讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 注诇 讙讘讬 注讜专 谞讘诇讛 讜讟专驻讛 砖诇讛谉 讜讗讬谉 谞讻专讻讬谉 讘砖注专谉 讜讗讬谉 谞转驻专讜转 讘讙讬讚谉

The Gemara cites similar proofs. The Sages taught: One may write phylacteries on the hide of a kosher domesticated animal, and on the hide of a kosher non-domesticated animal, and on the hides of their unslaughtered carcasses [neveilot], and on the hides of animals with a condition that will cause them to die within twelve months [tereifot]. And one may wrap the parchment with the hair of these animals and sew them with their sinews; and it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that the parchment of phylacteries may be wrapped with the hair of these animals and sewn with their sinews. But one may not write on the hide of a non-kosher animal, or on the hide of a non-kosher undomesticated animal, and it goes without saying that one may not write on their skins when they are neveilot or tereifot. And one may not wrap the parchment with the hair of non-kosher animals, nor may one sew them with their sinews.

讜讝讜 砖讗讬诇讛 砖讗诇 讘讬转讜住讬 讗讞讚 讗转 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛讙专住讬 诪谞讬讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 转驻讬诇讬谉 注诇 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讚讻转讬讘 诇诪注谉 转讛讬讛 转讜专转 讛壮 讘驻讬讱 诪讚讘专 讛诪讜转专 讘驻讬讱 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 注诇 讙讘讬 注讜专 谞讘诇讜转 讜讟专驻讜转 讗诇 讬讻转讘讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪砖讜诇 诇讱 诪砖诇 讛讗 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖谞转讞讬讬讘讜 讛专讬讙讛 诇诪诇讻讜转 讗讞讚 讛专讙讜 诪诇讱 讜讗讞讚 讛专讙讜 讗讬住驻拽诇讬讟讜专 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 诪砖讜讘讞 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 砖讛专讙讜 诪诇讱 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讬讗讻诇讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 讻诇 谞讘诇讛 讜讗转 讗诪专转 讬讗讻诇讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽讗诇讜住:

And this question was asked by a Boethusian to Rabbi Yehoshua HaGarsi: From where is it derived that one may not write phylacteries on the hide of a non-kosher animal? He said to him, it is as it is written:So that God鈥檚 Torah will be in your mouth.鈥 The Rabbis derived that one may write the passages only on an item that is permitted to be placed in one鈥檚 mouth, i.e., eaten. He said to him: If that is so, on the skin of neveilot and tereifot coming from kosher animals, one should not write phylacteries, as they may not be eaten. He said to him: I will tell you a parable. To what is this similar? To two people who were sentenced to death by the king. One was killed by the king himself, and one was killed by an executioner [ispaklitor]. Which one is more praiseworthy? You must say: The one that the king himself killed. Therefore, an animal that died at the hands of Heaven and not by a human action is superior. He said to him: If so, then the neveilot and tereifot should be eaten, as they were killed by the king. He said to him: The Torah said: 鈥淒o not eat any neveila (Deuteronomy 14:20) and you say they should be eaten? A Torah decree determines that they may not be eaten, but that does not mean they are inferior. The Boethusian said to him: Well put [kalos].

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讛讬诇诪讬 讘砖讘转

MISHNA: One may not make brine [hilmei] on Shabbat,

讗讘诇 注讜砖讛 讛讜讗 讗转 诪讬 讛诪诇讞 讜讟讜讘诇 讘讛谉 驻转讜 讜谞讜转谉 诇转讜讱 讛转讘砖讬诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讛诇讗 讛讜讗 讛讬诇诪讬 讘讬谉 诪专讜讘讛 讜讘讬谉 诪讜注讟 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 诪讬 诪诇讞 讛诪讜转专讬谉 谞讜转谉 砖诪谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇转讜讱 讛诪讬诐 讗讜 诇转讜讱 讛诪诇讞:

but one may make salt water and dip one鈥檚 bread in it, and place it in cooked food. Rabbi Yosei said: But isn鈥檛 it still brine, whether it is a large quantity or whether it is a small quantity? And this is the type of salt water that is permitted: Salt water in which one places oil initially into the water or into the salt. This is salt water prepared not in the usual manner.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪讬 诪诇讞 诪专讜讘讬谉 讗讘诇 注讜砖讛 讛讜讗 诪讬 诪诇讞 诪讜注讟讬谉:

GEMARA: With regard to that which was stated in the mishna, the Gemara asks: What is the tanna saying with regard to the distinction between brine and salt water? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This is what he is saying: One may not prepare a large quantity of salt water, brine, on Shabbat, but one may prepare a small quantity of salt water.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讛诇讗 讛讜讗 讛讬诇诪讬 讘讬谉 诪专讜讘讬谉 讘讬谉 诪讜注讟讬谉: 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗住讜专 讗讜 诇讛转讬专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讛转讬专 诪讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜住专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 诪讬 诪诇讞 讛诪讜转专讬谉 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗住讜专 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗住讜专

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yosei said: But isn鈥檛 it still brine whether it is a large quantity or a small quantity? A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Rabbi Yosei said that there is no difference between a large and small quantity of salt water, was his intention to prohibit preparing any salt water on Shabbat or to permit doing so? Rav Yehuda said: His intention is to permit doing so, which is understood from the fact that the mishna is not teaching: Rabbi Yosei prohibits. Rabba said to him: From the fact that it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna: And this is the type of salt water that is permitted, by inference, Rabbi Yosei intended to prohibit preparing salt water. Rather, Rabba said: Rabbi Yosei intended to prohibit preparing any salt water on Shabbat. And similarly, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 intention was to prohibit.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪讬 诪诇讞 诪专讜讘讬谉 诇转转 诇转讜讱 讛讻讘砖讬谉 砖讘转讜讱 讙讬住讟专讗 讗讘诇 注讜砖讛 讛讜讗 诪讬 诪诇讞 诪讜注讟讬谉 讜讗讜讻诇 讘讛谉 驻转讜 讜谞讜转谉 诇转讜讱 讛转讘砖讬诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讻讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讛诇诇讜 诪专讜讘讬谉 讜讛诇诇讜 诪讜注讟讬谉 讛诇诇讜 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讛诇诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讬讗诪专讜 诪诇讗讻讛 诪专讜讘讛 讗住讜专讛 诪诇讗讻讛 诪讜注讟转 诪讜转专转 讗诇讗 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 讗住讜专讬谉 讛谉 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 诪讬 诪诇讞 讛诪讜转专讬谉 谞讜转谉 砖诪谉 讜诪诇讞 讗讜 砖诪谉 讜诪讬诐 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转谉 诪讬诐 讜诪诇讞 诇讻转讞诇讛:

That was also taught in a baraita: One may not prepare a large quantity of salt water to add to the pickled vegetables that are inside a flat earthenware shard used for pickling [gistera]. However, one may prepare a small quantity of salt water and eat his bread with it and add it to cooked food. Rabbi Yosei said: Is it because this is a large quantity and this is a small quantity that this is prohibited and this is permitted? People will learn from this and say: A large amount of labor is prohibited on Shabbat, but a small amount of labor is permitted. Rather, certainly they are both prohibited. And this is the type of salt water that is permitted: One may place oil and salt together or oil and water and then add salt to the mixture, and this halakha applies provided one does not place water and salt together ab initio.

(注讝讬谉 爪谞讜谉 讜讗转专讜讙 住讬诪谉):

Strong, radish, and citron are a mnemonic for the following halakhot.

转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讞讘讬讘讗 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪讬 诪诇讞 注讝讬谉 诪讗讬 诪讬 诪诇讞 注讝讬谉 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 讻诇 砖讛讘讬爪讛 爪驻讛 讘讛谉 讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转专讬 转讬诇转讬 诪讬诇讞讗 讜转讬诇转讗 诪讬讗

Rabbi Yehuda bar 岣viva taught: One may not prepare strong salt water on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is strong salt water? Rabba and Rav Yosef bar Abba both said: Any water in which an egg can float. The Gemara asks: And how much salt is in this salt water? Abaye said: Two-thirds salt and one-third water.

诇诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇诪讜专讬讬住讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讞讘讬讘讗 讗讬谉 诪讜诇讞讬谉 爪谞讜谉 讜讘讬爪讛 讘砖讘转 专讘 讞讝拽讬讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 爪谞讜谉 讗住讜专 讜讘讬爪讛 诪讜转专转 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪专讬砖 讛讜讛 诪诇讞谞讗 驻讜讙诇讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻住讜讚讬 拽讗 诪驻住讬讚谞讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 驻讜讙诇讗 讞讜专驻讬 诪注诇讬 讻讬讜谉 讚砖诪注谞讗 诇讛讗 讚讻讬 讗转讗 注讜诇讗 讜讗诪专 讘诪注专讘讗 诪诇讞讬 讻讬砖专讬 讻讬砖专讬 诪诪诇讞 诇讗 诪诇讞谞讗 讟讘讜诇讬 讜讚讗讬 诪讟讘讬诇谞讗

The Gemara asks: For what purpose is this salt water prepared? Rabbi Abbahu said: It is prepared for fish brine [muraisa]. And Rabbi Yehuda bar 岣viva taught with regard to salting: One may not salt a radish or an egg on Shabbat because by salting them he performs a labor that improves them. Rav 岣zkiya said in the name of Abaye: Preparing a radish is prohibited, and preparing an egg is permitted. Rav Na岣an said: Initially, I would salt radishes on Shabbat, as I said: I am ruining it by doing so, as Shmuel said: Sharpness is good for radishes; since salt reduces their sharpness, one who adds salt ruins the radish. However, once I heard this, that when Ulla came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that in the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, they salt many piles of radishes throughout the week, I do not salt them on Shabbat anymore, but I certainly dip them in salt because that is not considered to be an improvement.

转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讞讘讬讘讗 讗转专讜讙 爪谞讜谉 讜讘讬爪讛 讗讬诇诪诇讗 拽诇讬驻转谉 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讗讬谞谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 诪讘谞讬 诪注讬讬诐 诇注讜诇诐

The Gemara cites that which Rabbi Yehuda bar 岣viva taught with regard to radishes and eggs: With regard to a citron, a radish, and an egg, if it were not for their outer peel, or egg white, they would never emerge from the intestines, because they are extremely hard to digest.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 诪注讜诇诐 诇讗 讟讘注 讙讘专讗 讘讬诪讗 讚住讚讜诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛驻讜讻讛 住讚讜诐 讜讛驻讜讻讛 诪讬诇讛 讙讘专讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讟讘注 讻砖讜专讗 讟讘注 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 讻砖讜专讗 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讻诇 诪讬诪讜转 砖讘注讜诇诐 诇讗 讟讘注 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讘专讗 讚讟讘注 讘讻诇 诪讬诪讜转 砖讘注讜诇诐 讘讬诪讗 讚住讚讜诐 诇讗 讟讘注 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘讬谉 讛讜讛 砖拽讬诇 讜讗讝讬诇 讗讞讜专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗讙讜讚讗 讚讬诪讗 讚住讚讜诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 诇诪讬诪砖讬 诪讛谞讬 诪讬讗 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: No person has ever drowned in the Sea of Sodom, the Dead Sea. Since there is so much salt, people easily float in it. Rav Yosef said: Sodom is overturned and Rav Dimi鈥檚 statement is backward. Is his statement saying that it is a man who does not drown in the Dead Sea, but a plank sinks? Abaye said to him: He is saying his statement utilizing the style of: It is not necessary: It is not necessary to mention a plank because it does not sink in any body of water in the world. But even a man, who drowns in other bodies of water in the world, does not drown in the Sea of Sodom. The Gemara asks: What are the practical consequences of this halakha? The Gemara explains: This halakha is relevant in a case of this kind: Ravin was walking after Rabbi Yirmeya on the shore of the Sea of Sodom. Ravin said to Rabbi Yirmeya: What is the ruling? Is it permitted to wash oneself with this water on Shabbat, or perhaps it is prohibited because it has healing properties? Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: One may well do so.

诪讛讜 诇诪讬诪抓 讜诇诪讬驻转讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讜 诇讗 砖诪注转讬 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛 砖诪注转讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 诪转谞讛 讜讝讬诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讜转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜诇讜讬 讗诪专讬谉 讞讚 讗诪专 讬讬谉 讘转讜讱 讛注讬谉 讗住讜专 注诇 讙讘 讛注讬谉 诪讜转专 讜讞讚 讗诪专 专讜拽 转驻诇 [讗驻讬诇讜] 注诇 讙讘 讛注讬谉 讗住讜专

Ravin asked another question: When one washes himself on Shabbat in water from the Dead Sea, what is the halakha? Is it permitted for him to close and open his eyes in the water so that the water gets inside? Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: That case I did not hear; however, with regard to a similar case, placing wine in one鈥檚 eye on Shabbat, I did hear. As Rabbi Zeira said, sometimes he said it in the name of Rav Mattana and sometimes he said it in the name of Mar Ukva, and they both said it in the name of Shmuel鈥檚 father and in the name of Levi: One of them said: With regard to placing wine inside the eye on Shabbat, it is prohibited because it heals; on the eye, it is permitted. And one of them said: Bland saliva, saliva from one who has not eaten since waking, even placing it on the eye on Shabbat is prohibited because it is commonly used as medicine.

转住转讬讬诐 讚讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讬讬谉 讘转讜讱 讛注讬谉 讗住讜专 注诇 讙讘 讛注讬谉 诪讜转专 诪讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讜专讛 讗讚诐 驻讬转讜 讘讬讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讜 注诇 讙讘 讛注讬谉 讘砖讘转 讚砖诪讬注讗 诇讬讛 诪诪讗谉 诇讗讜 讚砖诪讬注讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讘讜讛 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 专讜拽 转驻诇 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讛注讬谉 讗住讜专 讚砖诪讬注讗 诇讬讛 诪诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚砖诪讬注讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讘讜讛 讗诇讗 诇讜讬 讜诇讗 讞讚讗 讗诪专 讗诇讗 讞讚讗 砖诪讬注讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讘讜讛 讜讞讚讗 砖诪讬注讗 诇讬讛 诪诇讜讬 讜诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讛讬 诪讗讘讜讛 讛讬 诪诇讜讬

The Gemara comments: Conclude that Shmuel鈥檚 father is the one who said that placing wine inside the eye is prohibited but on the eye is permitted, from the fact that Shmuel said: A person may soak his bread in wine and place it on his eye on Shabbat. He said this after he heard this halakha from whom? Is it not that he heard it from his father? The Gemara rejects this: And according to your reasoning, that halakha which Shmuel said: It is prohibited to place bland saliva even on the eye on Shabbat, he said this after he heard this halakha from whom? If we say that he heard it from his father, then Levi, who was cited together with Shmuel鈥檚 father in the list of those who stated the halakhot, did he himself not say even one halakha? Rather, one halakha Shmuel heard from his father, and one halakha he heard one from Levi, and we do not know which he heard from his father and which he heard from Levi.

讗诪专 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讜专讛 讗讚诐 拽讬诇讜专讬谉 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讜谞讜转谉 注诇 讙讘 注讬谞讬讜 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖 讘专 诇讬讜讗讬 讛讜讬 拽讗讬 拽诪讬讛 讚诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讞讝讬讬讛 讚讛讜讛 诪讬讬抓 讜驻转讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讜讚讗讬 诇讗 砖专讗 诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诇诪专 注讜拽讘讗 诇讬砖讚专 诇谉 诪专 诪讛谞讱 拽讬诇讜专讬谉 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 砖讚讜专讬 诪砖讚专谞讗 诇讱 讚诇讗 转讬诪讗 爪专 注讬谉 讗谞讗 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讟讜讘讛 讟讬驻转 爪讜谞谉 砖讞专讬转 讜专讞讬爪转 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 讘讞诪讬谉 注专讘讬转 诪讻诇 拽讬诇讜专讬谉 砖讘注讜诇诐 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讜谞讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讟讜讘讛 讟讬驻转 爪讜谞谉 砖讞专讬转 讜专讞讬爪转 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 注专讘讬转 诪讻诇 拽讬诇讜专讬谉 砖讘注讜诇诐

Mar Ukva said that Shmuel said: One may soak eye salves from Shabbat eve and place them on his eyes on Shabbat, and he need not be concerned that he is violating the prohibition against healing on Shabbat. The Gemara relates: Bar Liva鈥檈i was standing before Mar Ukva on Shabbat. He saw Mar Ukva, who was opening and closing his eyes while applying a salve to them. Bar Liva鈥檈i said to him: Master Shmuel certainly did not permit doing all of this. Rabbi Yannai sent a message to Mar Ukva: Can the master send us some of Master Shmuel鈥檚 eye salves? Mar Ukva sent him in response: I will send it to you so that you do not say I am miserly, but be aware that this is what Shmuel said: For healing the eyes, better a drop of cold water in the morning and washing the hands and feet with hot water in the evening than all the eye salves in the world. Follow these instructions and you will need nor other cures. That was also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Mona said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: Better a drop of cold water in the morning and washing the hands and feet in the evening than all the eye salves in the world.

讛讜讗 讛讬讛 讗讜诪专 讬讚 诇注讬谉 转讬拽爪抓 讬讚 诇讞讜讟诐 转讬拽爪抓 讬讚 诇驻讛 转讬拽爪抓 讬讚 诇讗讜讝谉 转讬拽爪抓 讬讚 诇讞住讜讚讛 转讬拽爪抓 讬讚 诇讗诪讛 转讬拽爪抓 讬讚 诇驻讬 讟讘注转 转讬拽爪抓 讬讚

Apropos Rabbi Mona鈥檚 statement with regard to healing, the text cites what he would say about other matters that require special attention: A hand that touches the eye should be severed because it harms the eye. A hand that touches the nose should be severed. A hand that touches the mouth should be severed. A hand that touches the ear should be severed. A hand that touches one鈥檚 wound should be severed. A hand that touches one鈥檚 member should be severed, lest one arouse himself. A hand that touches one鈥檚 anus should be severed, lest one make himself ill. A hand

Scroll To Top