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

Daf Yomi

March 17, 2020 | 讻状讗 讘讗讚专 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 sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Shabbat 11

Today’s shiur is dedicated in memory of Sima bat Alter Avraham and Rachel z”l by her niece Debbie Schreiber.聽

The gemara continues to bring a number of different statements made by Rava bar Mechasia in the name of Rav. The gemara then goes back to our mishna – does someone who learns Torah need to stop learning for prayer? For Shema? The mishna lists things that one can’t do before Shabbat, like a tailor carrying his needles, lest he come to also do it after Shabbat. The gemara brings the mishna in Eruvin regarding domains and asks if it also relates to a karmelit – Abaye says yes and Rava says no – since a karmelit is already only rabbinic and the rabbis wouldn’t make a rabbinic decree on a rabbinic decree. Several questions including one from our mishna are brought to question Rava.

 

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

注砖专讬诐 讜砖砖 讚讻转讬讘 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 注讘讚讜 讗转 讻讚专诇注讜诪专 讜砖诇砖 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 诪专讚讜 讜讘讗专讘注 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讙讜壮:


during which they committed their sins was altogether twenty-six years, as it is written: 鈥淭welve years they served Chedorlaomer and thirteen years they rebelled, and in the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer came鈥 (Genesis 14:4鈥5). The twelve years plus the fourteen years during which they were enslaved were not years of tranquility, leaving only twenty-six tranquil years when they were sinful.


讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 诪讞住讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 注讬专 砖讙讙讜转讬讛 讙讘讜讛讬谉 诪讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 诇住讜祝 讞专讘讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇专讜诪诐 讗转 讘讬转 讗诇讛讬谞讜 讜诇讛注诪讬讚 讗转 讞专讘讜转讬讜 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讘转讬诐 讗讘诇 讘拽砖拽讜砖讬 讜讗讘专讜专讬 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗谞讗 注讘讚讬 诇诪转讗 诪讞住讬讗 讚诇讗 讞专讘讛 讜讛讗 讞专讘讛 诪讗讜转讜 注讜谉 诇讗 讞专讘讛:


And Rava bar Me岣sseya said that Rav 岣ma bar Gurya said that Rav said: Any city whose roofs are higher than the synagogue will ultimately be destroyed because of the contempt shown the synagogue. Allusion to this is from that which is stated: 鈥淭o uplift the house of our God and restore its ruins鈥 (Ezra 9:9). The house that is devoted to God needs to be elevated above the other houses of the city. The Gemara adds: And this applies only to the height of the houses themselves. However, if the poles [kashkushei] and the towers [abrurei] that extend from the house are higher than the synagogue, we have no problem with it. Rav Ashi said: I caused the city of Mata Me岣sseya to not be destroyed by building the synagogue higher than the other houses. The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 Mata Me岣sseya ultimately destroyed? The Gemara answers: It was not destroyed because of that sin; other sins caused its destruction.


讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 诪讞住讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 转讞转 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜诇讗 转讞转 谞讻专讬 转讞转 谞讻专讬 讜诇讗 转讞转 讞讘专 转讞转 讞讘专 讜诇讗 转讞转 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 转讞转 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讜诇讗 转讞转 讬转讜诐 讜讗诇诪谞讛:


And Rava bar Me岣sseya said that Rav 岣ma bar Gurya said that Rav said: It is preferable to be under the yoke of Ishmael and not under the yoke of a stranger, the Romans; under a stranger and not under a 岣bar, a Persian Zoroastrian fire priest; under a 岣bar and not under a Torah scholar, as if one offends a Torah scholar who is greater than he, the scholar will be exacting with him and he will be punished at the hand of Heaven; under a Torah scholar and not under an orphan or a widow, as they are easily insulted and God promised to hear their cries and punish those who offend them.


讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 诪讞住讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讞讜诇讬 讜诇讗 讞讜诇讬 诪注讬诐 讻诇 讻讗讘 讜诇讗 讻讗讘 诇讘 讻诇 诪讬讞讜砖 讜诇讗 诪讬讞讜砖 专讗砖 讻诇 专注讛 讜诇讗 讗砖讛 专注讛:


And Rava bar Me岣sseya said that Rav 岣ma bar Gurya said that Rav said: It is preferable to suffer from any extended illness and not from an intestinal illness. Similarly, it is preferable to suffer any pain, even if it is sharp and excruciating, and not heart pain; any slight ache and not a headache; any evil and not an evil wife.


讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 诪讞住讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗诐 讬讛讬讜 讻诇 讛讬诪讬诐 讚讬讜 讜讗讙诪讬诐 拽讜诇诪讜住讬诐 讜砖诪讬诐 讬专讬注讜转 讜讻诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诇讘诇专讬谉 讗讬谉 诪住驻讬拽讬诐 诇讻转讜讘 讞诇诇讛 砖诇 专砖讜转 诪讗讬 拽专讗讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 砖诪讬诐 诇专讜诐 讜讗专抓 诇注讜诪拽 讜诇讘 诪诇讻讬诐 讗讬谉 讞拽专:


And Rava bar Me岣sseya said that Rav 岣ma bar Gurya said that Rav said: Even if all the seas would be ink, and the reeds that grow near swamps would be quills, and the heavens would be parchment upon which the words would be written, and all the people would be scribes; all of these are insufficient to write the unquantifiable space of governmental authority, i.e., all the considerations with which a government must concern itself and deal. Rav Mesharshiya said: What is the verse that alludes to this? 鈥淭he Heavens on High and the land to the depth and the heart of kings are unsearchable鈥 (Proverbs 25:3).


讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 诪讞住讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬驻讛 转注谞讬转 诇讞诇讜诐 讻讗砖 诇谞注讜专转 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讜讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转


And Rava bar Me岣sseya said that Rav 岣ma bar Gurya said that Rav said: A fast is effective to neutralize a bad dream like fire burns chaff. Rav 岣sda said: And a fast is effective specifically on that day that he dreamed. And Rav Yosef said: One suffering from a bad dream that he dreamed is permitted to fast even on Shabbat.


专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 专讘 讗砖讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 注讬讙诇讗 转讬诇转讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讟注讜诐 诪专 诪讬讚讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘转注谞讬转 讬转讬讘谞讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 住讘专 诇讬讛 诪专 诇讛讗 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讜讛 讗讚诐 转注谞讬转讜 讜驻讜专注 讗诪专 诇讛讜 转注谞讬转 讞诇讜诐 讛讜讗 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 诪讞住讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬驻讛 转注谞讬转 诇讞诇讜诐 讻讗砖 诇谞注讜专转 讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转:


The Gemara relates: Rav Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi, happened to come to the house of Rav Ashi. They prepared a third-born calf, whose meat is high quality, for him. They said to him: Let the Master taste something. He said to them: I am sitting in the midst of a fast. They said to him: And does the Master not hold in accordance with this halakha of Rav Yehuda, as Rav Yehuda said: A person can borrow his fast and not fast on the day that he originally designated, and repay it by fasting on another day? You can postpone your fast to another day. He said to them: It is a fast for a dream. And Rava bar Me岣sseya said that Rav 岣ma bar Gurya said that Rav said: A fast is effective to neutralize a bad dream like fire burns chaff. And Rav 岣sda said that the fast is effective specifically on that day that he dreamed. And Rav Yosef said that a person suffering due to a bad dream is permitted to fast even on Shabbat.


讜讗诐 讛转讞讬诇讜 讗讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诇拽专讬讗转 砖诪注: 讛讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗 讗讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讚转谞讬讗 讞讘专讬诐 砖讛讬讜 注讜住拽讬谉 讘转讜专讛 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诇拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讜讗讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诇转驻诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讻讙讜谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讜讞讘讬专讬讜 砖转讜专转谉 讗讜诪谞讜转谉 讗讘诇 讻讙讜谉 讗谞讜 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诇拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讜诇转驻诇讛


We learned in the mishna that if they already began any one of the activities mentioned in the mishna they need not stop to recite the Amida prayer; however, they stop to recite Shema. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 the first clause of the mishna already teach that they need not stop? Why does the mishna repeat it? The Gemara answers: In the latter clause of the mishna, we came to discuss matters of Torah. With regard to those engaged in Torah study, they need not stop for prayer, but they are required to stop to recite Shema. As it was taught in a baraita: Torah scholars, who were engaged in the study of Torah, stop their Torah study for Shema, and they do not stop for prayer. Rabbi Yo岣nan said a caveat to this statement: They only taught that they need not stop for prayer with regard to the likes of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i and his colleagues, whose Torah is their vocation and they never interrupt their Torah study. However, for the likes of us, who also engage in other activities, we stop both for Shema and for prayer.


讜讛转谞讬讗 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诇转驻诇讛 讻讱 讗讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诇拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讻讬 转谞讬 讛讛讬讗 讘注讬讘讜专 砖谞讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讜讻谉 转谞讜 住讘讬 讚讛讙专讜谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 爪讚讜拽 讻砖讛讬讬谞讜 注讜住拽讬谉 讘注讬讘讜专 讛砖谞讛 讘讬讘谞讛 诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诇讗 诇拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讜诇讗 诇转驻诇讛:


With regard to the essence of the statement the Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 we learn in a different baraita: Just as they do not stop for prayer, they do not stop for Shema? The Gemara answers: When that baraita was taught, it was taught with regard to those engaged in the intercalation of the year. Since their activity is crucial and all the Festivals of the year are determined through that activity, the Sages allowed them to continue and not stop to recite Shema. As Rav Adda bar Ahava said, and the Elders of the city of Hagronya also taught that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, said: When we were engaged in the intercalation of the year in Yavne, we would stop neither for Shema nor for prayer.


诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讞讬讬讟 讘诪讞讟讜 住诪讜讱 诇讞砖讻讛 砖诪讗 讬砖讻讞 讜讬爪讗 讜诇讗 讛诇讘诇专 讘拽讜诇诪讜住讜 讜诇讗 讬驻诇讛 讗转 讻诇讬讜 讜诇讗 讬拽专讗 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 讘讗诪转 讗诪专讜 讛讞讝谉 专讜讗讛 讛讬讻谉 转讬谞讜拽讜转 拽讜专讗讬谉 讗讘诇 讛讜讗 诇讗 讬拽专讗 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讛讝讘 注诐 讛讝讘讛 诪驻谞讬 讛专讙诇 注讘讬专讛:


MISHNA: This mishna deals with various decrees, especially with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, which were issued in order to distance a person from transgressions that he is liable to commit through habit and routine. The mishna said: The tailor may not go out with his needle adjacent to nightfall on Shabbat eve, lest he forget that he is carrying the needle and go out with it to the public domain even after Shabbat begins. And, similarly, the scribe [lavlar] may not go out with his quill[kulmos] for the same reason. And one may not shake his clothes on Shabbat to rid them of lice; and one may not read a book by candlelight, so that he will not come to adjust the wick of the lamp. However, in truth they said an established halakha: The attendant sees where in the book the children under his supervision are reading in the Torah, even by candlelight on Shabbat. However, he himself may not read. Similarly, the Sages issued a similar decree with regard to other halakhot, as they said: The zav may not eat even with his wife the zava, despite the fact that they are both ritually impure, because, by eating together, they will come to excessive intimacy and become accustomed to sin.


讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 诇讗 讬注诪讜讚 讗讚诐 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讬砖转讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讬砖转讛 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讗讘诇 讗诐 讛讻谞讬住 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜讗 砖讜转讛 诪讜转专


GEMARA: Among the halakhot concerning decrees that were issued lest one come to commit a transgression, we learned in a mishna there: A person may not stand in the private domain and drink water located in the public domain, or vice versa, stand in the public domain and drink water located in the private domain, lest he transfer the vessel from which he is drinking the water to the place where he is standing and become liable to bring a sin-offering. However, if he introduced his head and most of his body into the place where the water that he is drinking is located, there is no longer room for concern, and it is permitted,


讜讻谉 讘讙转


and the same is true in the wine press.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻专诪诇讬转 诪讗讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讬讗 讛讬讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 讙讝讬专讛 讜讗谞谉 谞讬拽讜诐 讜谞讙讝讜专 讙讝讬专讛 诇讙讝讬专讛


In light of the halakha that was taught in this mishna a dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the legal status of a karmelit in this matter? Is it permissible to stand in one domain and drink from a karmelit or not? Abaye said: That case is equal to that case, i.e., the same way that the Sages prohibited drinking from the private domain to the public domain and vice versa, so too, they prohibited drinking from the karmelit to another domain. Rava said: It is not prohibited. It, the prohibition to carry between a karmelit and another domain, itself is merely a rabbinic decree. And will we arise and issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree? Although the Sages prohibited doing so in one of the domains by Torah law, i.e., the public and the private domains, a similar decree was not issued in a karmelit, which is a domain by rabbinic law.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚拽转谞讬 讜讻谉 讘讙转 诪讗讬 讙转 讗讬 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 转谞讬谞讗 讗讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 转谞讬谞讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻专诪诇讬转


Abaye said: From where do I say that halakha, i.e., that the decree applies to a karmelit? From that which we learned at the end of the mishna in tractate Eiruvin: And the same is true in the wine press. The question arises: What is the status of the wine press in terms of the domains of Shabbat? If you say that it is the private domain, we already learned that in the mishna. If it is the public domain, we already learned that as well. Rather, isn鈥檛 this press a karmelit? Apparently, a karmelit was also prohibited in the mishna.


专讘讗 讗诪专 讜讻谉 讘讙转 诇注谞讬谉 诪注砖专 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讜讻谉 讘讙转 诇注谞讬谉 诪注砖专 讚转谞谉 砖讜转讬谉 注诇 讛讙转 讘讬谉 注诇 讛讞诪讬谉 讘讬谉 注诇 讛爪讜谞谉 讜驻讟讜专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注诇 讛讞诪讬谉 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛爪讜谞谉 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讞讝讬专 讗转 讛诪讜转专


Rava said: That which we learned in the mishna: And the same is true in the wine press, is not relevant to the halakhot of Shabbat. It refers to the matter of the halakhot of tithes. And Rav Sheshet also said: That which we learned in the mishna: And the same is true in the wine press, refers to the matter of tithes, as we learned in a mishna: One may ab initio drink grape juice directly on the press without tithing, whether the juice was diluted with hot water, even though he will then be unable to return the leftover wine to the press, as it would ruin all the wine in the press, or whether the juice was diluted with cold water, in which case he could return the leftover wine without ruining the rest, and he is exempt. Drinking that way is considered incidental drinking, and anything that is not a fixed meal is exempt from tithing. That is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, obligates one to separate the tithe in both cases. And the Rabbis say: There is a distinction between these two cases; when the wine was diluted with hot water, since he cannot return what is left of the wine to the press, he is obligated to tithe, as it is like fixed drinking for which one is obligated to tithe. However, when the wine was diluted with cold water, he is exempt, because he returns the leftover wine to the press, and it is incidental drinking, which is exempt from tithing. Our mishna, which says: And the same is true in the press, means that only if his head and most of his body was in the press is he permitted to drink without separating the tithe, and that halakha is not at all related to matters of Shabbat (Rabbeinu 岣nanel).


转谞谉 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讞讬讬讟 讘诪讞讟讜 住诪讜讱 诇讞砖讬讻讛 砖诪讗 讬砖讻讞 讜讬爪讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚转讞讜讘讛 诇讜 讘讘讙讚讜 诇讗 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讬讛 讘讬讚讬讛


As proof for Abaye鈥檚 opinion, the Gemara states that which we learned in our mishna: The tailor may not go out with his needle adjacent to nightfall on Shabbat eve, lest he forget that he is carrying the needle and go out with it to the public domain even after Shabbat begins. Is it not speaking here in a case where the needle was stuck in his clothing? In that case, even if he was to go out into the public domain with the needle, he would not be liable by Torah law, since that is not the typical manner of carrying out; carrying out an object in that manner is prohibited only by rabbinic decree [shevut]. Nevertheless, not only did the Rabbis issue a decree to prohibit going out with the needle on Shabbat, they issued a decree to prevent violation of another decree and prohibited the tailor from going out with his needle adjacent to nightfall. Apparently, the Sages institute a decree to prevent violation of another decree with regard to the halakhot of carrying out on Shabbat (Tosafot). Consequently, with regard to the halakhot of karmelit, the Sages issued a decree as well, and this is proof for Abaye鈥檚 opinion. The Gemara rejects this: No, the mishna is referring to a case where he is holding the needle in his hand, which constitutes performance of the full-fledged prohibited labor of carrying out.


转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讞讬讬讟 讘诪讞讟讜 讛转讞讜讘讛 诇讜 讘讘讙讚讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘注专讘 砖讘转 诇讗 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘砖讘转 讜讛转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讞讬讬讟 讘诪讞讟讜 讛转讞讜讘讛 讘讘讙讚讜 讘注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讬讻讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讜诪谉 讚专讱 讗讜诪谞转讜 讞讬讬讘


Come and hear another proof from that which was taught explicitly in the baraita: The tailor may not go out with his needle stuck in his clothing. Is it not speaking of a case where he goes out on Shabbat eve, and the Sages issued a decree to prevent violation of another decree, just as Abaye said? The Gemara rejects this: No, when that was taught in the baraita, it was only with regard to carrying out on Shabbat itself. The Gemara asks further: Wasn鈥檛 it taught explicitly in a baraita: The tailor may not go out with his needle stuck in his clothing on Shabbat eve at nightfall, and the Sages issued a decree to prevent violation of another decree, just as Abaye said? The Gemara rejects this: Whose opinion is cited in this baraita? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: A craftsman who carries out an object in the manner common to his craft, even if others do not generally carry it out in that manner, the craftsman is liable, because he carried the object out in a manner standard for him.


讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讞讬讬讟 讘诪讞讟讜 讛转讞讜讘讛 诇讜 讘讘讙讚讜 讜诇讗 谞讙专 讘拽讬住诐 砖讘讗讝谞讜 讜诇讗 住讜专拽 讘诪砖讬讞讛 砖讘讗讝谞讜 讜诇讗 讙专讚讬 讘讗讬专讗 砖讘讗讝谞讜 讜诇讗 爪讘注 讘讚讜讙诪讗 砖讘爪讜讗专讜 讜诇讗 砖讜诇讞谞讬 讘讚讬谞专 砖讘讗讝谞讜 讜讗诐 讬爪讗 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪谉 讚专讱 讗讜诪谞转讜 讞讬讬讘 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讗讚诐 驻讟讜专


As it was taught in a baraita: The tailor may not go out with his needle that is stuck in his clothing, and a carpenter may not go out with the wood chip that is behind his ear for use as a measuring stick, and a comber of wool may not go out with a cord with which he ties bundles of wool and which is usually placed that is on his ear, and a weaver [gardi] may not go out with a bit of wool [ira] that is on his ear which he uses for the purpose of his work, and the painter may not go out with the sample of dyed wool that is on his neck, and a money changer may not go out with the dinar that is in his ear. In all of these cases the halakha is that if he went out, he is exempt by Torah law, but it is prohibited for him to do so by rabbinic decree. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: A craftsman who carries out an object in the manner common to his craft on Shabbat is liable by Torah law; any other person who carries it out in that manner is exempt, but it is prohibited for him to do so.


转谞讬 讞讚讗 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讝讘 讘讻讬住讜 讜讗诐 讬爪讗 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诇讗 讬爪讗 讜讗诐 讬爪讗 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转


Since the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the legal status of one who carries out an object in an atypical manner was mentioned, the Gemara discusses a contradiction between two related baraitot. It was taught in one baraita: The zav may not go out on Shabbat with his pouch that he ties to his organ in order to absorb his emission. And if he went out, he is exempt by Torah law but it is prohibited for him to do so by rabbinic law. And it was taught in another baraita: The zav may not go out on Shabbat with his pouch. And if he went out unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


Rav Yosef said: This is not difficult. There is no contradiction between the baraitot, as this baraita, which deems him exempt, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir; that, the other baraita, which deems him liable, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬诪讜专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讘诪讬讚讬 讚讛讬讬谞讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛讚讬讜讟 砖讞拽拽 拽讘 讘讘拽注转 讘砖讘转 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘


Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Say that you heard that Rabbi Meir deems him exempt with regard to an object that is not carried out in its typical manner. However, with regard to a matter that is carried out in its typical manner, did you hear that he deems him exempt? In general, one carries out a needle in his hand. Rabbi Meir exempts one who carries it out in his clothing, even if he is a craftsman. However, this pouch of a zav, even though it is not held in his hand, is always carried out in that manner, and, even according to Rabbi Meir, that constitutes a bona fide act of carrying out. As, if you do not say so, that the specifics of various prohibited labors can be performed in different manners, in the case of a layman [hedyot], who carved out a vessel the size of a kav in a piece of wood on Shabbat, would you say that Rabbi Meir also does not deem him liable for performing a prohibited labor on Shabbat because he is not a craftsman and he did not craft the vessel according to the standards of a craftsman? Certainly, the layman performed a full-fledged labor to the best of his ability and he is liable.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讝讘 讘注诇 砖转讬 专讗讬讜转 讻讗谉 讘讝讘 讘注诇 砖诇砖 专讗讬讜转


Rather, Rav Hamnuna said: This is not difficult, as the two baraitot are referring to two different cases. Here, in the baraita that deemed him liable by Torah law, it is referring to a zav who experienced two sightings of an emission. Liability to bring an offering as part of the purification process is only after he sees three emissions. Therefore, the zav requires the pouch in order to ascertain whether or not he experienced a third emission. However, there, in the baraita that deems him exempt, it is referring to a zav who already experienced three sightings. For him there is no significance whether or not he experiences an additional emission. Therefore, the pouch is insignificant and he has no interest in carrying it out.


诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讝讘 讘注诇 砖转讬 专讗讬讜转 讚讞讬讬讘 讚诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讘讚讬拽讛 讝讘 讘注诇 砖诇砖 谞诪讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇住驻讬专讛 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讘讜 讘讬讜诐


The Gemara asks: What is different about a zav who had two sightings, who is liable, as he requires the pouch for the purpose of examination to ascertain whether or not he experienced a third sighting, and a zav who already experienced three sightings and requires the pouch for the purpose of counting clean days? In order to become ritually pure, he must count seven clean days without experiencing an emission. If so, even a zav who had three sightings requires the pouch, in order to ascertain whether or not he experienced another emission. The Gemara answers: That baraita was only needed for that day when he already saw his third emission. In any case, that day will not be a clean day.


讜讛讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讟谞驻讜 讻诇讬讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讗爪讜诇讬 讟讬谞讜祝 诇讗 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 讚转谞谉 讛讻讜驻讛 拽注专讛 注诇 讛讻讜转诇 讗诐 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转讜讚讞 讛拽注专讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉 讗诐 讘砖讘讬诇


The Gemara asks: Doesn鈥檛 even that zav need the pouch so that his clothes will not get soiled by the emission? Although he does not need the pouch for a halakhic determination, he needs it for practical considerations. Rabbi Zeira said: This tanna is the one who said that any usage intended to prevent filth is not considered a special purpose that will render a certain object an actual vessel. As we learned in a mishna: One who places a bowl on the wall while it is raining, if he did that so that the bowl would be rinsed with the rainwater, that is under the rubric of the verse: 鈥淚f water be placed.鈥 The water has the legal status of a liquid that he poured of his own volition on fruit and seeds. It renders them liable to become ritually impure, as it is written: 鈥淚f water be placed upon seed and any of their carcass fell on it, it is impure to you鈥 (Leviticus 11:38). However, if he placed the bowl so


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 sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Ilana Kurshan

Daf Yomi in the Time of Corona- Vayakhel-Pekudei

I began learning Masechet Shabbat against the backdrop of the Corona Crisis, as I gradually realized that people all over...
daf_icon

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time- Daf 3-11

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VVV4BSVPlg&t= For audio only:   Join Rabbanit Dr. Tamara Spitz each week as she reviews the key topics...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 11: If All the Seas Were Ink

In which the message is in the details. What does "talmudic thinking" mean to you? For some people, it's surely...

Shabbat 11

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 11

注砖专讬诐 讜砖砖 讚讻转讬讘 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 注讘讚讜 讗转 讻讚专诇注讜诪专 讜砖诇砖 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 诪专讚讜 讜讘讗专讘注 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讙讜壮:


during which they committed their sins was altogether twenty-six years, as it is written: 鈥淭welve years they served Chedorlaomer and thirteen years they rebelled, and in the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer came鈥 (Genesis 14:4鈥5). The twelve years plus the fourteen years during which they were enslaved were not years of tranquility, leaving only twenty-six tranquil years when they were sinful.


讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 诪讞住讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 注讬专 砖讙讙讜转讬讛 讙讘讜讛讬谉 诪讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 诇住讜祝 讞专讘讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇专讜诪诐 讗转 讘讬转 讗诇讛讬谞讜 讜诇讛注诪讬讚 讗转 讞专讘讜转讬讜 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讘转讬诐 讗讘诇 讘拽砖拽讜砖讬 讜讗讘专讜专讬 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗谞讗 注讘讚讬 诇诪转讗 诪讞住讬讗 讚诇讗 讞专讘讛 讜讛讗 讞专讘讛 诪讗讜转讜 注讜谉 诇讗 讞专讘讛:


And Rava bar Me岣sseya said that Rav 岣ma bar Gurya said that Rav said: Any city whose roofs are higher than the synagogue will ultimately be destroyed because of the contempt shown the synagogue. Allusion to this is from that which is stated: 鈥淭o uplift the house of our God and restore its ruins鈥 (Ezra 9:9). The house that is devoted to God needs to be elevated above the other houses of the city. The Gemara adds: And this applies only to the height of the houses themselves. However, if the poles [kashkushei] and the towers [abrurei] that extend from the house are higher than the synagogue, we have no problem with it. Rav Ashi said: I caused the city of Mata Me岣sseya to not be destroyed by building the synagogue higher than the other houses. The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 Mata Me岣sseya ultimately destroyed? The Gemara answers: It was not destroyed because of that sin; other sins caused its destruction.


讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 诪讞住讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 转讞转 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜诇讗 转讞转 谞讻专讬 转讞转 谞讻专讬 讜诇讗 转讞转 讞讘专 转讞转 讞讘专 讜诇讗 转讞转 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 转讞转 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讜诇讗 转讞转 讬转讜诐 讜讗诇诪谞讛:


And Rava bar Me岣sseya said that Rav 岣ma bar Gurya said that Rav said: It is preferable to be under the yoke of Ishmael and not under the yoke of a stranger, the Romans; under a stranger and not under a 岣bar, a Persian Zoroastrian fire priest; under a 岣bar and not under a Torah scholar, as if one offends a Torah scholar who is greater than he, the scholar will be exacting with him and he will be punished at the hand of Heaven; under a Torah scholar and not under an orphan or a widow, as they are easily insulted and God promised to hear their cries and punish those who offend them.


讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 诪讞住讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讞讜诇讬 讜诇讗 讞讜诇讬 诪注讬诐 讻诇 讻讗讘 讜诇讗 讻讗讘 诇讘 讻诇 诪讬讞讜砖 讜诇讗 诪讬讞讜砖 专讗砖 讻诇 专注讛 讜诇讗 讗砖讛 专注讛:


And Rava bar Me岣sseya said that Rav 岣ma bar Gurya said that Rav said: It is preferable to suffer from any extended illness and not from an intestinal illness. Similarly, it is preferable to suffer any pain, even if it is sharp and excruciating, and not heart pain; any slight ache and not a headache; any evil and not an evil wife.


讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 诪讞住讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗诐 讬讛讬讜 讻诇 讛讬诪讬诐 讚讬讜 讜讗讙诪讬诐 拽讜诇诪讜住讬诐 讜砖诪讬诐 讬专讬注讜转 讜讻诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诇讘诇专讬谉 讗讬谉 诪住驻讬拽讬诐 诇讻转讜讘 讞诇诇讛 砖诇 专砖讜转 诪讗讬 拽专讗讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 砖诪讬诐 诇专讜诐 讜讗专抓 诇注讜诪拽 讜诇讘 诪诇讻讬诐 讗讬谉 讞拽专:


And Rava bar Me岣sseya said that Rav 岣ma bar Gurya said that Rav said: Even if all the seas would be ink, and the reeds that grow near swamps would be quills, and the heavens would be parchment upon which the words would be written, and all the people would be scribes; all of these are insufficient to write the unquantifiable space of governmental authority, i.e., all the considerations with which a government must concern itself and deal. Rav Mesharshiya said: What is the verse that alludes to this? 鈥淭he Heavens on High and the land to the depth and the heart of kings are unsearchable鈥 (Proverbs 25:3).


讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 诪讞住讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬驻讛 转注谞讬转 诇讞诇讜诐 讻讗砖 诇谞注讜专转 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讜讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转


And Rava bar Me岣sseya said that Rav 岣ma bar Gurya said that Rav said: A fast is effective to neutralize a bad dream like fire burns chaff. Rav 岣sda said: And a fast is effective specifically on that day that he dreamed. And Rav Yosef said: One suffering from a bad dream that he dreamed is permitted to fast even on Shabbat.


专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 专讘 讗砖讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 注讬讙诇讗 转讬诇转讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讟注讜诐 诪专 诪讬讚讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘转注谞讬转 讬转讬讘谞讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 住讘专 诇讬讛 诪专 诇讛讗 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讜讛 讗讚诐 转注谞讬转讜 讜驻讜专注 讗诪专 诇讛讜 转注谞讬转 讞诇讜诐 讛讜讗 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 诪讞住讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬驻讛 转注谞讬转 诇讞诇讜诐 讻讗砖 诇谞注讜专转 讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转:


The Gemara relates: Rav Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi, happened to come to the house of Rav Ashi. They prepared a third-born calf, whose meat is high quality, for him. They said to him: Let the Master taste something. He said to them: I am sitting in the midst of a fast. They said to him: And does the Master not hold in accordance with this halakha of Rav Yehuda, as Rav Yehuda said: A person can borrow his fast and not fast on the day that he originally designated, and repay it by fasting on another day? You can postpone your fast to another day. He said to them: It is a fast for a dream. And Rava bar Me岣sseya said that Rav 岣ma bar Gurya said that Rav said: A fast is effective to neutralize a bad dream like fire burns chaff. And Rav 岣sda said that the fast is effective specifically on that day that he dreamed. And Rav Yosef said that a person suffering due to a bad dream is permitted to fast even on Shabbat.


讜讗诐 讛转讞讬诇讜 讗讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诇拽专讬讗转 砖诪注: 讛讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗 讗讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讚转谞讬讗 讞讘专讬诐 砖讛讬讜 注讜住拽讬谉 讘转讜专讛 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诇拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讜讗讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诇转驻诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讻讙讜谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讜讞讘讬专讬讜 砖转讜专转谉 讗讜诪谞讜转谉 讗讘诇 讻讙讜谉 讗谞讜 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诇拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讜诇转驻诇讛


We learned in the mishna that if they already began any one of the activities mentioned in the mishna they need not stop to recite the Amida prayer; however, they stop to recite Shema. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 the first clause of the mishna already teach that they need not stop? Why does the mishna repeat it? The Gemara answers: In the latter clause of the mishna, we came to discuss matters of Torah. With regard to those engaged in Torah study, they need not stop for prayer, but they are required to stop to recite Shema. As it was taught in a baraita: Torah scholars, who were engaged in the study of Torah, stop their Torah study for Shema, and they do not stop for prayer. Rabbi Yo岣nan said a caveat to this statement: They only taught that they need not stop for prayer with regard to the likes of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i and his colleagues, whose Torah is their vocation and they never interrupt their Torah study. However, for the likes of us, who also engage in other activities, we stop both for Shema and for prayer.


讜讛转谞讬讗 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诇转驻诇讛 讻讱 讗讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诇拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讻讬 转谞讬 讛讛讬讗 讘注讬讘讜专 砖谞讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讜讻谉 转谞讜 住讘讬 讚讛讙专讜谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 爪讚讜拽 讻砖讛讬讬谞讜 注讜住拽讬谉 讘注讬讘讜专 讛砖谞讛 讘讬讘谞讛 诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诇讗 诇拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讜诇讗 诇转驻诇讛:


With regard to the essence of the statement the Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 we learn in a different baraita: Just as they do not stop for prayer, they do not stop for Shema? The Gemara answers: When that baraita was taught, it was taught with regard to those engaged in the intercalation of the year. Since their activity is crucial and all the Festivals of the year are determined through that activity, the Sages allowed them to continue and not stop to recite Shema. As Rav Adda bar Ahava said, and the Elders of the city of Hagronya also taught that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, said: When we were engaged in the intercalation of the year in Yavne, we would stop neither for Shema nor for prayer.


诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讞讬讬讟 讘诪讞讟讜 住诪讜讱 诇讞砖讻讛 砖诪讗 讬砖讻讞 讜讬爪讗 讜诇讗 讛诇讘诇专 讘拽讜诇诪讜住讜 讜诇讗 讬驻诇讛 讗转 讻诇讬讜 讜诇讗 讬拽专讗 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 讘讗诪转 讗诪专讜 讛讞讝谉 专讜讗讛 讛讬讻谉 转讬谞讜拽讜转 拽讜专讗讬谉 讗讘诇 讛讜讗 诇讗 讬拽专讗 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讛讝讘 注诐 讛讝讘讛 诪驻谞讬 讛专讙诇 注讘讬专讛:


MISHNA: This mishna deals with various decrees, especially with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, which were issued in order to distance a person from transgressions that he is liable to commit through habit and routine. The mishna said: The tailor may not go out with his needle adjacent to nightfall on Shabbat eve, lest he forget that he is carrying the needle and go out with it to the public domain even after Shabbat begins. And, similarly, the scribe [lavlar] may not go out with his quill[kulmos] for the same reason. And one may not shake his clothes on Shabbat to rid them of lice; and one may not read a book by candlelight, so that he will not come to adjust the wick of the lamp. However, in truth they said an established halakha: The attendant sees where in the book the children under his supervision are reading in the Torah, even by candlelight on Shabbat. However, he himself may not read. Similarly, the Sages issued a similar decree with regard to other halakhot, as they said: The zav may not eat even with his wife the zava, despite the fact that they are both ritually impure, because, by eating together, they will come to excessive intimacy and become accustomed to sin.


讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 诇讗 讬注诪讜讚 讗讚诐 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讬砖转讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讬砖转讛 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讗讘诇 讗诐 讛讻谞讬住 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜讗 砖讜转讛 诪讜转专


GEMARA: Among the halakhot concerning decrees that were issued lest one come to commit a transgression, we learned in a mishna there: A person may not stand in the private domain and drink water located in the public domain, or vice versa, stand in the public domain and drink water located in the private domain, lest he transfer the vessel from which he is drinking the water to the place where he is standing and become liable to bring a sin-offering. However, if he introduced his head and most of his body into the place where the water that he is drinking is located, there is no longer room for concern, and it is permitted,


讜讻谉 讘讙转


and the same is true in the wine press.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻专诪诇讬转 诪讗讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讬讗 讛讬讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 讙讝讬专讛 讜讗谞谉 谞讬拽讜诐 讜谞讙讝讜专 讙讝讬专讛 诇讙讝讬专讛


In light of the halakha that was taught in this mishna a dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the legal status of a karmelit in this matter? Is it permissible to stand in one domain and drink from a karmelit or not? Abaye said: That case is equal to that case, i.e., the same way that the Sages prohibited drinking from the private domain to the public domain and vice versa, so too, they prohibited drinking from the karmelit to another domain. Rava said: It is not prohibited. It, the prohibition to carry between a karmelit and another domain, itself is merely a rabbinic decree. And will we arise and issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree? Although the Sages prohibited doing so in one of the domains by Torah law, i.e., the public and the private domains, a similar decree was not issued in a karmelit, which is a domain by rabbinic law.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚拽转谞讬 讜讻谉 讘讙转 诪讗讬 讙转 讗讬 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 转谞讬谞讗 讗讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 转谞讬谞讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻专诪诇讬转


Abaye said: From where do I say that halakha, i.e., that the decree applies to a karmelit? From that which we learned at the end of the mishna in tractate Eiruvin: And the same is true in the wine press. The question arises: What is the status of the wine press in terms of the domains of Shabbat? If you say that it is the private domain, we already learned that in the mishna. If it is the public domain, we already learned that as well. Rather, isn鈥檛 this press a karmelit? Apparently, a karmelit was also prohibited in the mishna.


专讘讗 讗诪专 讜讻谉 讘讙转 诇注谞讬谉 诪注砖专 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讜讻谉 讘讙转 诇注谞讬谉 诪注砖专 讚转谞谉 砖讜转讬谉 注诇 讛讙转 讘讬谉 注诇 讛讞诪讬谉 讘讬谉 注诇 讛爪讜谞谉 讜驻讟讜专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注诇 讛讞诪讬谉 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛爪讜谞谉 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讞讝讬专 讗转 讛诪讜转专


Rava said: That which we learned in the mishna: And the same is true in the wine press, is not relevant to the halakhot of Shabbat. It refers to the matter of the halakhot of tithes. And Rav Sheshet also said: That which we learned in the mishna: And the same is true in the wine press, refers to the matter of tithes, as we learned in a mishna: One may ab initio drink grape juice directly on the press without tithing, whether the juice was diluted with hot water, even though he will then be unable to return the leftover wine to the press, as it would ruin all the wine in the press, or whether the juice was diluted with cold water, in which case he could return the leftover wine without ruining the rest, and he is exempt. Drinking that way is considered incidental drinking, and anything that is not a fixed meal is exempt from tithing. That is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, obligates one to separate the tithe in both cases. And the Rabbis say: There is a distinction between these two cases; when the wine was diluted with hot water, since he cannot return what is left of the wine to the press, he is obligated to tithe, as it is like fixed drinking for which one is obligated to tithe. However, when the wine was diluted with cold water, he is exempt, because he returns the leftover wine to the press, and it is incidental drinking, which is exempt from tithing. Our mishna, which says: And the same is true in the press, means that only if his head and most of his body was in the press is he permitted to drink without separating the tithe, and that halakha is not at all related to matters of Shabbat (Rabbeinu 岣nanel).


转谞谉 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讞讬讬讟 讘诪讞讟讜 住诪讜讱 诇讞砖讬讻讛 砖诪讗 讬砖讻讞 讜讬爪讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚转讞讜讘讛 诇讜 讘讘讙讚讜 诇讗 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讬讛 讘讬讚讬讛


As proof for Abaye鈥檚 opinion, the Gemara states that which we learned in our mishna: The tailor may not go out with his needle adjacent to nightfall on Shabbat eve, lest he forget that he is carrying the needle and go out with it to the public domain even after Shabbat begins. Is it not speaking here in a case where the needle was stuck in his clothing? In that case, even if he was to go out into the public domain with the needle, he would not be liable by Torah law, since that is not the typical manner of carrying out; carrying out an object in that manner is prohibited only by rabbinic decree [shevut]. Nevertheless, not only did the Rabbis issue a decree to prohibit going out with the needle on Shabbat, they issued a decree to prevent violation of another decree and prohibited the tailor from going out with his needle adjacent to nightfall. Apparently, the Sages institute a decree to prevent violation of another decree with regard to the halakhot of carrying out on Shabbat (Tosafot). Consequently, with regard to the halakhot of karmelit, the Sages issued a decree as well, and this is proof for Abaye鈥檚 opinion. The Gemara rejects this: No, the mishna is referring to a case where he is holding the needle in his hand, which constitutes performance of the full-fledged prohibited labor of carrying out.


转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讞讬讬讟 讘诪讞讟讜 讛转讞讜讘讛 诇讜 讘讘讙讚讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘注专讘 砖讘转 诇讗 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘砖讘转 讜讛转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讞讬讬讟 讘诪讞讟讜 讛转讞讜讘讛 讘讘讙讚讜 讘注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讬讻讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讜诪谉 讚专讱 讗讜诪谞转讜 讞讬讬讘


Come and hear another proof from that which was taught explicitly in the baraita: The tailor may not go out with his needle stuck in his clothing. Is it not speaking of a case where he goes out on Shabbat eve, and the Sages issued a decree to prevent violation of another decree, just as Abaye said? The Gemara rejects this: No, when that was taught in the baraita, it was only with regard to carrying out on Shabbat itself. The Gemara asks further: Wasn鈥檛 it taught explicitly in a baraita: The tailor may not go out with his needle stuck in his clothing on Shabbat eve at nightfall, and the Sages issued a decree to prevent violation of another decree, just as Abaye said? The Gemara rejects this: Whose opinion is cited in this baraita? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: A craftsman who carries out an object in the manner common to his craft, even if others do not generally carry it out in that manner, the craftsman is liable, because he carried the object out in a manner standard for him.


讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讞讬讬讟 讘诪讞讟讜 讛转讞讜讘讛 诇讜 讘讘讙讚讜 讜诇讗 谞讙专 讘拽讬住诐 砖讘讗讝谞讜 讜诇讗 住讜专拽 讘诪砖讬讞讛 砖讘讗讝谞讜 讜诇讗 讙专讚讬 讘讗讬专讗 砖讘讗讝谞讜 讜诇讗 爪讘注 讘讚讜讙诪讗 砖讘爪讜讗专讜 讜诇讗 砖讜诇讞谞讬 讘讚讬谞专 砖讘讗讝谞讜 讜讗诐 讬爪讗 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪谉 讚专讱 讗讜诪谞转讜 讞讬讬讘 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讗讚诐 驻讟讜专


As it was taught in a baraita: The tailor may not go out with his needle that is stuck in his clothing, and a carpenter may not go out with the wood chip that is behind his ear for use as a measuring stick, and a comber of wool may not go out with a cord with which he ties bundles of wool and which is usually placed that is on his ear, and a weaver [gardi] may not go out with a bit of wool [ira] that is on his ear which he uses for the purpose of his work, and the painter may not go out with the sample of dyed wool that is on his neck, and a money changer may not go out with the dinar that is in his ear. In all of these cases the halakha is that if he went out, he is exempt by Torah law, but it is prohibited for him to do so by rabbinic decree. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: A craftsman who carries out an object in the manner common to his craft on Shabbat is liable by Torah law; any other person who carries it out in that manner is exempt, but it is prohibited for him to do so.


转谞讬 讞讚讗 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讝讘 讘讻讬住讜 讜讗诐 讬爪讗 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诇讗 讬爪讗 讜讗诐 讬爪讗 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转


Since the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the legal status of one who carries out an object in an atypical manner was mentioned, the Gemara discusses a contradiction between two related baraitot. It was taught in one baraita: The zav may not go out on Shabbat with his pouch that he ties to his organ in order to absorb his emission. And if he went out, he is exempt by Torah law but it is prohibited for him to do so by rabbinic law. And it was taught in another baraita: The zav may not go out on Shabbat with his pouch. And if he went out unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


Rav Yosef said: This is not difficult. There is no contradiction between the baraitot, as this baraita, which deems him exempt, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir; that, the other baraita, which deems him liable, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬诪讜专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讘诪讬讚讬 讚讛讬讬谞讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛讚讬讜讟 砖讞拽拽 拽讘 讘讘拽注转 讘砖讘转 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘


Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Say that you heard that Rabbi Meir deems him exempt with regard to an object that is not carried out in its typical manner. However, with regard to a matter that is carried out in its typical manner, did you hear that he deems him exempt? In general, one carries out a needle in his hand. Rabbi Meir exempts one who carries it out in his clothing, even if he is a craftsman. However, this pouch of a zav, even though it is not held in his hand, is always carried out in that manner, and, even according to Rabbi Meir, that constitutes a bona fide act of carrying out. As, if you do not say so, that the specifics of various prohibited labors can be performed in different manners, in the case of a layman [hedyot], who carved out a vessel the size of a kav in a piece of wood on Shabbat, would you say that Rabbi Meir also does not deem him liable for performing a prohibited labor on Shabbat because he is not a craftsman and he did not craft the vessel according to the standards of a craftsman? Certainly, the layman performed a full-fledged labor to the best of his ability and he is liable.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讝讘 讘注诇 砖转讬 专讗讬讜转 讻讗谉 讘讝讘 讘注诇 砖诇砖 专讗讬讜转


Rather, Rav Hamnuna said: This is not difficult, as the two baraitot are referring to two different cases. Here, in the baraita that deemed him liable by Torah law, it is referring to a zav who experienced two sightings of an emission. Liability to bring an offering as part of the purification process is only after he sees three emissions. Therefore, the zav requires the pouch in order to ascertain whether or not he experienced a third emission. However, there, in the baraita that deems him exempt, it is referring to a zav who already experienced three sightings. For him there is no significance whether or not he experiences an additional emission. Therefore, the pouch is insignificant and he has no interest in carrying it out.


诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讝讘 讘注诇 砖转讬 专讗讬讜转 讚讞讬讬讘 讚诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讘讚讬拽讛 讝讘 讘注诇 砖诇砖 谞诪讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇住驻讬专讛 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讘讜 讘讬讜诐


The Gemara asks: What is different about a zav who had two sightings, who is liable, as he requires the pouch for the purpose of examination to ascertain whether or not he experienced a third sighting, and a zav who already experienced three sightings and requires the pouch for the purpose of counting clean days? In order to become ritually pure, he must count seven clean days without experiencing an emission. If so, even a zav who had three sightings requires the pouch, in order to ascertain whether or not he experienced another emission. The Gemara answers: That baraita was only needed for that day when he already saw his third emission. In any case, that day will not be a clean day.


讜讛讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讟谞驻讜 讻诇讬讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讗爪讜诇讬 讟讬谞讜祝 诇讗 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 讚转谞谉 讛讻讜驻讛 拽注专讛 注诇 讛讻讜转诇 讗诐 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转讜讚讞 讛拽注专讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉 讗诐 讘砖讘讬诇


The Gemara asks: Doesn鈥檛 even that zav need the pouch so that his clothes will not get soiled by the emission? Although he does not need the pouch for a halakhic determination, he needs it for practical considerations. Rabbi Zeira said: This tanna is the one who said that any usage intended to prevent filth is not considered a special purpose that will render a certain object an actual vessel. As we learned in a mishna: One who places a bowl on the wall while it is raining, if he did that so that the bowl would be rinsed with the rainwater, that is under the rubric of the verse: 鈥淚f water be placed.鈥 The water has the legal status of a liquid that he poured of his own volition on fruit and seeds. It renders them liable to become ritually impure, as it is written: 鈥淚f water be placed upon seed and any of their carcass fell on it, it is impure to you鈥 (Leviticus 11:38). However, if he placed the bowl so


Scroll To Top