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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 25, 2020 | 讙壮 讘转诪讜讝 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 111

A cup of ikarin – it is forbidden on Shabbat but how can one drink it on a regular day if it causes one to become sterile – isn’t that forbidden. The gemara attempts to establish the case in the mishna to be one where one would not be commanded – several attempts are rejected until the gemara finds an answer. Can one gargle with vinegar to help with tooth pain? Is vinegar good for one’s teeth? A braita says one can gargle and swallow – how does that work with our mishna? Rava and Abaye suggest different answers but Rava’s is questioned by something he holds elsewhere regarding going to the mikveh on Yom Kippur. One can annoint a wound with oil but not rose oil, as it was uncommon to use it and therefore it would be obvious that one was using it for medicinal purposes. Sons of kings used it more commonly and therefore it was allowed for them. Rabbi Shimon holds that everyone is like the sons of kings and it is permitted to all. Rav holds like Rabbi Shimon. The gemara questions how this can be the case as it is known that Rav does not hold like Rabbi Shimon. The gemara concludes that his reality was different and rose oil was commonly used and that’s why he allowed it and not because he agreed with Rabbi Shimon. The new chapter begins with tying knots – what types are prohibited by Torah law and which are permitted?

讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘诪讞诪抓 讗讞专 诪讞诪抓 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讗驻讛 讞诪抓 诇讗 转注砖讛 讞诪抓 讘诪住专住 讗讞专 诪住专住 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 砖谞讗诪专 讜诪注讜讱 讜讻转讜转 讜谞转讜拽 讜讻专讜转 讗诐 注诇 讻专讜转 讞讬讬讘 注诇 谞转讜拽 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诇讗 诇讛讘讬讗 谞讜转拽 讗讞专 讻讜专转 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诇讗 讘讝拽谉

Everyone agrees that one who leavens a meal-offering after one who already leavened it is liable for the additional leavening, as it is stated: 鈥淚t shall not be baked leavened鈥 (Leviticus 6:10), and it is also stated: 鈥淣o offering that you sacrifice to God shall be made with leaven鈥 (Leviticus 2:11). The Sages interpreted this to mean that one is liable for every act of leavening performed on a Temple offering. Similarly, everyone agrees that one who castrates after one who castrates is liable, as it is stated: 鈥淭hose whose testicles are bruised, or crushed, or torn, or cut, shall not be offered to the Lord, and you shall not do this in your land鈥 (Leviticus 22:24). Presumably, if one is liable when the seminal vesicles are cut, when the testicles are detached altogether all the more so one is liable. Rather, this comes to include that one who detaches after one who cuts is liable. Apparently, one is liable for sterilizing one who is already castrated. Rather, we must say that it is permitted to use a remedy that causes sterility in an old man who is no longer capable of procreating.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛谉 讛谉 讛讞讝讬专讜谞讬 诇谞注专讜转讬 讗诇讗 讘讗砖讛 讜诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讚讗诪专 注诇 砖谞讬讛诐 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讬讘专讱 讗讜转诐 讗诇讛讬诐 讜讬讗诪专 诇讛诐 驻专讜 讜专讘讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讘讝拽讬谞讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘注拽专讛:

The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say with regard to remedies that restore procreative ability: These have restored me to my youth? Apparently, even an elderly man can procreate with the proper remedy. Rather, the remedy for jaundice was discussed with regard to a woman, who is not commanded to reproduce. The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, who said: The mitzva is incumbent on both of them, the man and the woman, as it states: 鈥淎nd God blessed them and God said to them: Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and conquer it鈥 (Genesis 1:28), what is there to say? How could a woman use this remedy? In his opinion a woman is also commanded to procreate. The Gemara answers: In his opinion, this remedy may be used for an elderly woman or, alternatively, for a barren woman. He would agree that there is no prohibition to cause infertility in a woman who cannot conceive.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讞讜砖砖 讘砖讬谞讬讜 诇讗 讬讙诪注 讘讛谉 讗转 讛讞讜诪抓 讗讘诇 诪讟讘诇 讛讜讗 讻讚专讻讜 讜讗诐 谞转专驻讗 谞转专驻讗 讛讞讜砖砖 讘诪转谞讬讜 诇讗 讬住讜讱 讬讬谉 讜讞讜诪抓 讗讘诇 住讱 讛讜讗 讗转 讛砖诪谉 讜诇讗 砖诪谉 讜讜专讚 讘谞讬 诪诇讻讬诐 住讻讬谉 砖诪谉 讜专讚 注诇 诪讻讜转讬讛谉 砖讻谉 讚专讻谉 诇住讜讱 讘讞讜诇 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讘谞讬 诪诇讻讬诐 讛诐:

MISHNA: One who is concerned about pain in his teeth may not sip vinegar through them on Shabbat for medicinal purposes: however, he may dip his food in vinegar in his usual manner and eat it, and if he is healed by the vinegar, he is healed. One who is concerned about pain in his loins may not smear wine and vinegar on them on Shabbat because that is a medical treatment. However, one may smear oil on them. However, one may not use rose oil, which is very expensive and used exclusively as a cure. However, princes may smear with rose oil on their wounds on Shabbat because it is their usual manner to smear rose oil on themselves during the week for pleasure. Rabbi Shimon says: All of the Jewish people are princes, and it is permitted for them to smear rose oil on themselves on Shabbat.

讙诪壮 专诪讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讗专讬讻讗 讚讛讜讗 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 驻驻讗 诇专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 转谞谉 讛讞讜砖砖 讘砖讬谞讬讜 诇讗 讬讙诪注 讘讛谉 讗转 讛讞讜诪抓 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讞讜诪抓 诪注诇讬 诇砖讬谞讬诐 讜讛讻转讬讘 讻讞诪抓 诇砖讬谞讬诐 讜讻注砖谉 诇注讬谞讬诐 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘拽讬讜讛讗 讚驻专讬 讛讗 讘讞诇讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘讞诇讗 讛讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讻讛 讛讗 讚诇讬讻讗 诪讻讛 讗讬讻讗 诪讻讛 诪住讬 诇讬讻讗 诪讻讛 诪专驻讬:

GEMARA: Rav A岣 Arikha, so named for his height as the word arikha literally means long in Aramaic, who is also known as Rav Aha bar Pappa, raised a contradiction before Rabbi Abbahu: We learned in the mishna that one who is concerned about pain in his teeth may not sip vinegar through them on Shabbat. Is that to say that vinegar is beneficial for teeth? Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淟ike vinegar to the teeth, and like smoke to the eyes, so is the lazy one to those who send him鈥 (Proverbs 10:26)? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as there is a distinction. This verse, which indicates that vinegar is harmful for teeth, is referring to fruit vinegar. The mishna, which indicates that vinegar is beneficial for teeth, is referring to wine vinegar. And if you wish, say instead that both this and that are referring to wine vinegar. In that case, the distinction is as follows: The mishna, which states that vinegar is beneficial for teeth, is referring to a situation in which there is a wound in the teeth. That verse, which indicates that it is harmful for teeth, is referring to a situation in which there is not a wound in the teeth. The Gemara explains: Where there is a wound, vinegar heals; where there is not a wound, it weakens the teeth.

诇讗 讬讙诪注 讘讛谉 讗转 讛讞讜诪抓: 讜讛转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬讙诪注 讜驻讜诇讟 讗讘诇 诪讙诪注 讜讘讜诇注 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讬 转谞谉 谞诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪讙诪注 讜驻讜诇讟 转谞谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 诪讙诪注 讜讘讜诇注 讻讗谉 诇驻谞讬 讟讬讘讜诇 讻讗谉 诇讗讞专 讟讬讘讜诇

We learned in the mishna: One may not sip vinegar through his teeth on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that the prohibition to sip vinegar on Shabbat means that one may not sip and spit it out; however, one may sip and swallow it? Abaye said: When we learned this ruling in the mishna, we learned it with regard to the case of one who sips and spits it out. Rava said: Even if you say that the mishna prohibits sipping vinegar even in a case where one sips and swallows it, there is still a distinction. Here, the baraita permits sipping vinegar before dipping one鈥檚 food in it, as he appears to be doing so for pleasure. Here, the mishna prohibits sipping vinegar after dipping, when it is clear that one is doing so for medicinal purposes.

讜谞讬诪讗 诪讚诇驻谞讬 讟讬讘讜诇 砖专讬 诇讗讞专 讟讬讘讜诇 谞诪讬 砖专讬 讚砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇

The Gemara asks: And let us say that since before dipping it, sipping it is permitted, after dipping it sipping it is also permitted. As we heard that Rava accepts the principle of since. The principle of since is illustrated in the following example: The Sages discussed whether one may immerse himself in a ritual bath on Shabbat, even though immersion is similar to repairing oneself through purification and is therefore prohibited. The conclusion of that discussion was that immersion is permitted because it appears as if the individual is bathing for pleasure. On the other hand, immersion is prohibited on Yom Kippur, as bathing for pleasure is prohibited then.

讚讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讘砖讘转 砖专讬 讜讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗住讜专 讛讜讗讬诇 讚讘砖讘转 砖专讬 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 谞诪讬 砖专讬

Rava said: There is nothing that is permitted on Shabbat and prohibited on Yom Kippur. The principle is: Since it is permitted on Shabbat, it is also permitted on Yom Kippur. Although the reason to permit bathing on Shabbat does not apply on Yom Kippur, Rava nonetheless permits it due to the principle of since. The decrees of the Sages should be applied equally to whatever degree possible, without making distinctions for particular cases. Here, too, in the case of sipping vinegar, since it is permitted to sip vinegar before dipping food, it should also be permitted to sip vinegar after dipping food.

讛讚专 讘讬讛 专讘讗 诪讛讱 诪诪讗讬 讚诪讛讱 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讛讛讬讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚转谞讬讗 讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬 讟讘讬诇讜转 讟讜讘诇讬谉 讻讚专讻谉 讘讬谉 讘转砖注讛 讘讗讘 讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐:

The Gemara answers: Rava retracted that statement and prohibited sipping vinegar. The Gemara asks: From where can it be determined that he retracted that statement? Perhaps he retracted this statement with regard to immersion in a ritual bath on Yom Kippur. The Gemara answers: It does not enter your mind to say so, as it was taught in a baraita: All obligated in immersions immerse in their usual manner, both on the Ninth of Av and on Yom Kippur. Rava certainly does not dispute this baraita.

讛讞讜砖砖 讘诪转谞讬讜 讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚专讘 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讗讬 诪住讜讻专讬讬讗 讚谞讝讬讬转讗

We learned in the mishna: One who is concerned about pain in his loins may not smear rose oil on them on Shabbat, and Rabbi Shimon permits doing so. Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara is surprised at this: Is that to say that Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? Didn鈥檛 Rav Shimi bar 岣yya say the following in the name of Rav? With regard to this cloth stopper inserted into the spout of a barrel,

讗住讜专 诇讛讚讜拽讬讛 讘讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗 讘讛讛讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜讚讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘驻住讬拽 专讬砖讬讛 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转

it is prohibited to insert it tightly on a Festival due to the prohibited labor of wringing. Doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Shimon permit performing an unintentional act from which a prohibited labor may ensue? The Gemara answers: In that case, even Rabbi Shimon concedes that it is prohibited, as it was Abaye and Rava who both said: Rabbi Shimon concedes in instances categorized as: Cut off its head and it shall not die. This category refers to situations where the ensuing prohibited labor is inevitable. In those kinds of cases, one is liable even according to Rabbi Shimon. Since stuffing a cloth into a barrel will inevitably lead to wringing wine from it, Rabbi Shimon concedes that doing so is forbidden.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 讗诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讘诇讗 讙讘专讬 专讘 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗谞讬 讜讗专讬 砖讘讞讘讜专讛 转专讙讬诪谞讗 讜诪谞讜 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜诇讗讜 诪讟注诪讬讛

The Gemara asks again: Didn鈥檛 Rav 岣yya bar Ashi say that Rav said explicitly: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rav 岣nan bar Ami said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And Rav 岣yya bar Avin taught the same tradition without mentioning the names of the men who cited the statements, but cited it directly: Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rather, Rava said: I and the lion of the group explained this. And the Gemara asks: And who is the lion of the group? It is Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin. He and Rava explained: The halakha is indeed in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, but not for his reason.

诪讗讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜诇讗讜 诪讟注诪讬讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚砖专讬 讜诇讗讜 诪讟注诪讬讛 讚讗讬诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诪住讬 讜专讘 住讘专 诇讗 诪住讬 讜住讘专 专讘 诇讗 诪住讬 讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 讘谞讬 诪诇讻讬诐 住讻讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讻讜转讬讛谉 砖诪谉 讜讜专讚 诪讻诇诇 讚诪住讬 讗诇讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚砖专讬 讜诇讗讜 诪讟注诪讬讛 讚讗讬诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 砖专讬 讜专讘 住讘专 讗讬 砖讻讬讞 讗讬谉 讜讗讬 诇讗 砖讻讬讞 诇讗 讜讘讗转专讗 讚专讘 砖讻讬讞 诪砖讞讗 讚讜讜专讚讗:

The Gemara explains: What exactly is the meaning of the statement: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, but not for his reason? If we say the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who permits smearing rose oil, but not for his reason, because Rabbi Shimon holds that rose oil heals, and Rav holds that it does not heal, which is why he permits smearing it on Shabbat, then does Rav hold that rose oil does not heal? From the fact that it is taught: Princes smear rose [vered] oil on their wounds; by inference, it heals. Rather, it means: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who permits rose oil, but not for his reason. As Rabbi Shimon holds that although rose oil is uncommon and expensive, and anyone who sees one smearing it realizes that it is for medicinal purposes, nevertheless, it is permitted. And Rav holds that if rose oil is common in a given place, yes, one may smear it on himself; however, if it is not common there, it is not permitted. And in Rav鈥檚 place, roses were common, and that is why he permitted smearing with rose oil on Shabbat. However, in a place where rose oil is uncommon, he concedes to the Rabbis, who prohibited doing so.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 砖诪谞讛 砖专爪讬诐

 

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 拽砖专讬诐 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 拽砖专 讛讙诪诇讬谉 讜拽砖专 讛住驻谞讬谉 讜讻砖诐 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 注诇 拽讬砖讜专谉 讻讱 讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛讬转专谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 拽砖专 砖讛讜讗 讬讻讜诇 诇讛转讬专讜 讘讗讞转 诪讬讚讬讜 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜:

MISHNA: And these are knots for which one is liable to bring a sin-offering if one tied them on Shabbat: A camel driver鈥檚 knot and a sailor鈥檚 knot, both of which are meant to be permanent. And just as one is liable to bring a sin-offering for tying these knots, so too, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for untying them. Rabbi Meir says a principle: For tying any knot that one can untie with one of his hands, one is not liable to bring a sin-offering, because a loose knot of that sort is not considered permanent even if that was his intention.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 拽砖专 讛讙诪诇讬谉 讜拽砖专 讛住驻谞讬谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 拽讟专讗 讚拽讟专讬 讘讝诪诪讗 讜拽讟专讗 讚拽讟专讬 讘讗讬住讟专讬讚讗 讛讗讬 拽砖专 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇 拽讬讬诪讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 拽讬讟专讗 讚讝诪诪讗 讙讜驻讬讛 讜讚讗讬住讟专讬讚讗 讙讜驻讛:

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What are a camel driver鈥檚 knot and a sailor鈥檚 knot? If you say that these are a knot that one uses to tie a strap to the camel鈥檚 nose ring in order to pull it and a knot that one uses to tie a rope to the ring [isterida] fixed to the bow of a ship when the ship is docked, then these knots are not meant to be permanent, as they are periodically untied. Rather, a camel driver鈥檚 knot is the knot that fixes the nose ring itself in the camel鈥檚 nose, and the sailor鈥檚 knot is the knot that fixes the ring itself to the ship. These knots are never untied and are permanent.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 拽砖专 讻讜壮: 讘注讬 专讘 讗讞讚讘讜讬 讗讞讜讬 讚诪专 讗讞讗 注谞讬讘讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讛讜 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪砖讜诐 讚讬讻讜诇 诇讛转讬专讜 讘讗讞转 诪讬讚讬讜 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 谞诪讬 讬讻讜诇 诇讛转讬专讜 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪讬讛讚拽 讜讛讗 诪讬讛讚拽 转讬拽讜:

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Meir says a principle: For tying any knot that one can untie with one of his hands, one is not liable for tying it. Rav A岣dvoy, brother of Mar A岣, raised a dilemma: With regard to tying a bow, what is the ruling according to Rabbi Meir? Is it permitted to tie it tightly on Shabbat or not? The dilemma is: Is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir merely that because one can untie the knot with one of his hands it is not considered a permanent knot, and this bow too, he can untie it with one of his hands and therefore he would not be liable for tying on Shabbat? Or perhaps the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir is because typically a knot that can be untied with one hand is not particularly tight, and this bow is tight and therefore it is prohibited to tie it on Shabbat. This dilemma is not resolved, and the Gemara concludes: Let it stand unresolved.

诪转谞讬壮 讬砖 诇讱 拽砖专讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讻拽砖专 讛讙诪诇讬谉 讜讻拽砖专 讛住驻谞讬谉 拽讜砖专转 讗砖讛 诪驻转讞 讞诇讜拽讛 讜讞讜讟讬 住讘讻讛 讜砖诇 驻住拽讬讗 讜专爪讜注讜转 诪谞注诇 讜住谞讚诇 讜谞讜讚讜转 讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讜拽讚讬专讛 砖诇 讘砖专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 拽讜砖专讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讛讘讛诪讛 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇讗 转爪讗:

MISHNA: You have knots for which one is not liable to bring a sin-offering as one is liable for tying a camel driver鈥檚 knot and a sailor鈥檚 knot; however, it is nevertheless prohibited to tie them. A woman may tie closed the opening of her robe with straps, as well as the strings of her hairnet and the laces of her girdle, i.e., a wide belt tied with laces. One may also tie the straps of a shoe or a sandal, as well as the spouts of wine or oil jugs. One may also tie a garment over a pot of meat. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: One may tie a rope across an entrance before an animal so that it will not go out.

讙诪壮 讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讬砖 拽砖专讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讻拽砖专 讛讙诪诇讬谉 讜讻拽砖专 讛住驻谞讬谉 讞讬讜讘讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讛讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讗讬讻讗 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 拽讜砖专转 讗砖讛 诪驻转讞 讞诇讜拽讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讬砖 拽砖专讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讻拽砖专 讛讙诪诇讬谉 讜讻拽砖专 讛住驻谞讬谉 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: This matter itself is difficult, as there is an internal contradiction in the mishna. On the one hand, you said that there are knots for which one is not liable to bring a sin-offering as he is for tying a camel driver鈥檚 knot and a sailor鈥檚 knot, which would seem to indicate that although there is no Torah liability, there is a rabbinic prohibition. And then it was taught that a woman may tie the opening of her robe, indicating that doing so is permitted even ab initio. The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna is saying: There are knots for which one is not liable to bring a sin-offering for tying them on Shabbat as he is for tying a camel driver鈥檚 knot and a sailor鈥檚 knot. And which are these?

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 110-116

We will review concepts in Daf 110-116 including how to prevent snake bites, which knots are prohibited and which are...

Shabbat 111

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 111

讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘诪讞诪抓 讗讞专 诪讞诪抓 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讗驻讛 讞诪抓 诇讗 转注砖讛 讞诪抓 讘诪住专住 讗讞专 诪住专住 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 砖谞讗诪专 讜诪注讜讱 讜讻转讜转 讜谞转讜拽 讜讻专讜转 讗诐 注诇 讻专讜转 讞讬讬讘 注诇 谞转讜拽 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诇讗 诇讛讘讬讗 谞讜转拽 讗讞专 讻讜专转 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诇讗 讘讝拽谉

Everyone agrees that one who leavens a meal-offering after one who already leavened it is liable for the additional leavening, as it is stated: 鈥淚t shall not be baked leavened鈥 (Leviticus 6:10), and it is also stated: 鈥淣o offering that you sacrifice to God shall be made with leaven鈥 (Leviticus 2:11). The Sages interpreted this to mean that one is liable for every act of leavening performed on a Temple offering. Similarly, everyone agrees that one who castrates after one who castrates is liable, as it is stated: 鈥淭hose whose testicles are bruised, or crushed, or torn, or cut, shall not be offered to the Lord, and you shall not do this in your land鈥 (Leviticus 22:24). Presumably, if one is liable when the seminal vesicles are cut, when the testicles are detached altogether all the more so one is liable. Rather, this comes to include that one who detaches after one who cuts is liable. Apparently, one is liable for sterilizing one who is already castrated. Rather, we must say that it is permitted to use a remedy that causes sterility in an old man who is no longer capable of procreating.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛谉 讛谉 讛讞讝讬专讜谞讬 诇谞注专讜转讬 讗诇讗 讘讗砖讛 讜诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讚讗诪专 注诇 砖谞讬讛诐 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讬讘专讱 讗讜转诐 讗诇讛讬诐 讜讬讗诪专 诇讛诐 驻专讜 讜专讘讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讘讝拽讬谞讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘注拽专讛:

The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say with regard to remedies that restore procreative ability: These have restored me to my youth? Apparently, even an elderly man can procreate with the proper remedy. Rather, the remedy for jaundice was discussed with regard to a woman, who is not commanded to reproduce. The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, who said: The mitzva is incumbent on both of them, the man and the woman, as it states: 鈥淎nd God blessed them and God said to them: Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and conquer it鈥 (Genesis 1:28), what is there to say? How could a woman use this remedy? In his opinion a woman is also commanded to procreate. The Gemara answers: In his opinion, this remedy may be used for an elderly woman or, alternatively, for a barren woman. He would agree that there is no prohibition to cause infertility in a woman who cannot conceive.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讞讜砖砖 讘砖讬谞讬讜 诇讗 讬讙诪注 讘讛谉 讗转 讛讞讜诪抓 讗讘诇 诪讟讘诇 讛讜讗 讻讚专讻讜 讜讗诐 谞转专驻讗 谞转专驻讗 讛讞讜砖砖 讘诪转谞讬讜 诇讗 讬住讜讱 讬讬谉 讜讞讜诪抓 讗讘诇 住讱 讛讜讗 讗转 讛砖诪谉 讜诇讗 砖诪谉 讜讜专讚 讘谞讬 诪诇讻讬诐 住讻讬谉 砖诪谉 讜专讚 注诇 诪讻讜转讬讛谉 砖讻谉 讚专讻谉 诇住讜讱 讘讞讜诇 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讘谞讬 诪诇讻讬诐 讛诐:

MISHNA: One who is concerned about pain in his teeth may not sip vinegar through them on Shabbat for medicinal purposes: however, he may dip his food in vinegar in his usual manner and eat it, and if he is healed by the vinegar, he is healed. One who is concerned about pain in his loins may not smear wine and vinegar on them on Shabbat because that is a medical treatment. However, one may smear oil on them. However, one may not use rose oil, which is very expensive and used exclusively as a cure. However, princes may smear with rose oil on their wounds on Shabbat because it is their usual manner to smear rose oil on themselves during the week for pleasure. Rabbi Shimon says: All of the Jewish people are princes, and it is permitted for them to smear rose oil on themselves on Shabbat.

讙诪壮 专诪讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讗专讬讻讗 讚讛讜讗 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 驻驻讗 诇专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 转谞谉 讛讞讜砖砖 讘砖讬谞讬讜 诇讗 讬讙诪注 讘讛谉 讗转 讛讞讜诪抓 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讞讜诪抓 诪注诇讬 诇砖讬谞讬诐 讜讛讻转讬讘 讻讞诪抓 诇砖讬谞讬诐 讜讻注砖谉 诇注讬谞讬诐 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘拽讬讜讛讗 讚驻专讬 讛讗 讘讞诇讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘讞诇讗 讛讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讻讛 讛讗 讚诇讬讻讗 诪讻讛 讗讬讻讗 诪讻讛 诪住讬 诇讬讻讗 诪讻讛 诪专驻讬:

GEMARA: Rav A岣 Arikha, so named for his height as the word arikha literally means long in Aramaic, who is also known as Rav Aha bar Pappa, raised a contradiction before Rabbi Abbahu: We learned in the mishna that one who is concerned about pain in his teeth may not sip vinegar through them on Shabbat. Is that to say that vinegar is beneficial for teeth? Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淟ike vinegar to the teeth, and like smoke to the eyes, so is the lazy one to those who send him鈥 (Proverbs 10:26)? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as there is a distinction. This verse, which indicates that vinegar is harmful for teeth, is referring to fruit vinegar. The mishna, which indicates that vinegar is beneficial for teeth, is referring to wine vinegar. And if you wish, say instead that both this and that are referring to wine vinegar. In that case, the distinction is as follows: The mishna, which states that vinegar is beneficial for teeth, is referring to a situation in which there is a wound in the teeth. That verse, which indicates that it is harmful for teeth, is referring to a situation in which there is not a wound in the teeth. The Gemara explains: Where there is a wound, vinegar heals; where there is not a wound, it weakens the teeth.

诇讗 讬讙诪注 讘讛谉 讗转 讛讞讜诪抓: 讜讛转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬讙诪注 讜驻讜诇讟 讗讘诇 诪讙诪注 讜讘讜诇注 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讬 转谞谉 谞诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪讙诪注 讜驻讜诇讟 转谞谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 诪讙诪注 讜讘讜诇注 讻讗谉 诇驻谞讬 讟讬讘讜诇 讻讗谉 诇讗讞专 讟讬讘讜诇

We learned in the mishna: One may not sip vinegar through his teeth on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that the prohibition to sip vinegar on Shabbat means that one may not sip and spit it out; however, one may sip and swallow it? Abaye said: When we learned this ruling in the mishna, we learned it with regard to the case of one who sips and spits it out. Rava said: Even if you say that the mishna prohibits sipping vinegar even in a case where one sips and swallows it, there is still a distinction. Here, the baraita permits sipping vinegar before dipping one鈥檚 food in it, as he appears to be doing so for pleasure. Here, the mishna prohibits sipping vinegar after dipping, when it is clear that one is doing so for medicinal purposes.

讜谞讬诪讗 诪讚诇驻谞讬 讟讬讘讜诇 砖专讬 诇讗讞专 讟讬讘讜诇 谞诪讬 砖专讬 讚砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇

The Gemara asks: And let us say that since before dipping it, sipping it is permitted, after dipping it sipping it is also permitted. As we heard that Rava accepts the principle of since. The principle of since is illustrated in the following example: The Sages discussed whether one may immerse himself in a ritual bath on Shabbat, even though immersion is similar to repairing oneself through purification and is therefore prohibited. The conclusion of that discussion was that immersion is permitted because it appears as if the individual is bathing for pleasure. On the other hand, immersion is prohibited on Yom Kippur, as bathing for pleasure is prohibited then.

讚讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讘砖讘转 砖专讬 讜讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗住讜专 讛讜讗讬诇 讚讘砖讘转 砖专讬 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 谞诪讬 砖专讬

Rava said: There is nothing that is permitted on Shabbat and prohibited on Yom Kippur. The principle is: Since it is permitted on Shabbat, it is also permitted on Yom Kippur. Although the reason to permit bathing on Shabbat does not apply on Yom Kippur, Rava nonetheless permits it due to the principle of since. The decrees of the Sages should be applied equally to whatever degree possible, without making distinctions for particular cases. Here, too, in the case of sipping vinegar, since it is permitted to sip vinegar before dipping food, it should also be permitted to sip vinegar after dipping food.

讛讚专 讘讬讛 专讘讗 诪讛讱 诪诪讗讬 讚诪讛讱 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讛讛讬讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚转谞讬讗 讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬 讟讘讬诇讜转 讟讜讘诇讬谉 讻讚专讻谉 讘讬谉 讘转砖注讛 讘讗讘 讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐:

The Gemara answers: Rava retracted that statement and prohibited sipping vinegar. The Gemara asks: From where can it be determined that he retracted that statement? Perhaps he retracted this statement with regard to immersion in a ritual bath on Yom Kippur. The Gemara answers: It does not enter your mind to say so, as it was taught in a baraita: All obligated in immersions immerse in their usual manner, both on the Ninth of Av and on Yom Kippur. Rava certainly does not dispute this baraita.

讛讞讜砖砖 讘诪转谞讬讜 讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚专讘 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讗讬 诪住讜讻专讬讬讗 讚谞讝讬讬转讗

We learned in the mishna: One who is concerned about pain in his loins may not smear rose oil on them on Shabbat, and Rabbi Shimon permits doing so. Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara is surprised at this: Is that to say that Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? Didn鈥檛 Rav Shimi bar 岣yya say the following in the name of Rav? With regard to this cloth stopper inserted into the spout of a barrel,

讗住讜专 诇讛讚讜拽讬讛 讘讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗 讘讛讛讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜讚讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘驻住讬拽 专讬砖讬讛 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转

it is prohibited to insert it tightly on a Festival due to the prohibited labor of wringing. Doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Shimon permit performing an unintentional act from which a prohibited labor may ensue? The Gemara answers: In that case, even Rabbi Shimon concedes that it is prohibited, as it was Abaye and Rava who both said: Rabbi Shimon concedes in instances categorized as: Cut off its head and it shall not die. This category refers to situations where the ensuing prohibited labor is inevitable. In those kinds of cases, one is liable even according to Rabbi Shimon. Since stuffing a cloth into a barrel will inevitably lead to wringing wine from it, Rabbi Shimon concedes that doing so is forbidden.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 讗诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讘诇讗 讙讘专讬 专讘 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗谞讬 讜讗专讬 砖讘讞讘讜专讛 转专讙讬诪谞讗 讜诪谞讜 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜诇讗讜 诪讟注诪讬讛

The Gemara asks again: Didn鈥檛 Rav 岣yya bar Ashi say that Rav said explicitly: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rav 岣nan bar Ami said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And Rav 岣yya bar Avin taught the same tradition without mentioning the names of the men who cited the statements, but cited it directly: Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rather, Rava said: I and the lion of the group explained this. And the Gemara asks: And who is the lion of the group? It is Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin. He and Rava explained: The halakha is indeed in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, but not for his reason.

诪讗讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜诇讗讜 诪讟注诪讬讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚砖专讬 讜诇讗讜 诪讟注诪讬讛 讚讗讬诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诪住讬 讜专讘 住讘专 诇讗 诪住讬 讜住讘专 专讘 诇讗 诪住讬 讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 讘谞讬 诪诇讻讬诐 住讻讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讻讜转讬讛谉 砖诪谉 讜讜专讚 诪讻诇诇 讚诪住讬 讗诇讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚砖专讬 讜诇讗讜 诪讟注诪讬讛 讚讗讬诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 砖专讬 讜专讘 住讘专 讗讬 砖讻讬讞 讗讬谉 讜讗讬 诇讗 砖讻讬讞 诇讗 讜讘讗转专讗 讚专讘 砖讻讬讞 诪砖讞讗 讚讜讜专讚讗:

The Gemara explains: What exactly is the meaning of the statement: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, but not for his reason? If we say the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who permits smearing rose oil, but not for his reason, because Rabbi Shimon holds that rose oil heals, and Rav holds that it does not heal, which is why he permits smearing it on Shabbat, then does Rav hold that rose oil does not heal? From the fact that it is taught: Princes smear rose [vered] oil on their wounds; by inference, it heals. Rather, it means: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who permits rose oil, but not for his reason. As Rabbi Shimon holds that although rose oil is uncommon and expensive, and anyone who sees one smearing it realizes that it is for medicinal purposes, nevertheless, it is permitted. And Rav holds that if rose oil is common in a given place, yes, one may smear it on himself; however, if it is not common there, it is not permitted. And in Rav鈥檚 place, roses were common, and that is why he permitted smearing with rose oil on Shabbat. However, in a place where rose oil is uncommon, he concedes to the Rabbis, who prohibited doing so.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 砖诪谞讛 砖专爪讬诐

 

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 拽砖专讬诐 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 拽砖专 讛讙诪诇讬谉 讜拽砖专 讛住驻谞讬谉 讜讻砖诐 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 注诇 拽讬砖讜专谉 讻讱 讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛讬转专谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 拽砖专 砖讛讜讗 讬讻讜诇 诇讛转讬专讜 讘讗讞转 诪讬讚讬讜 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜:

MISHNA: And these are knots for which one is liable to bring a sin-offering if one tied them on Shabbat: A camel driver鈥檚 knot and a sailor鈥檚 knot, both of which are meant to be permanent. And just as one is liable to bring a sin-offering for tying these knots, so too, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for untying them. Rabbi Meir says a principle: For tying any knot that one can untie with one of his hands, one is not liable to bring a sin-offering, because a loose knot of that sort is not considered permanent even if that was his intention.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 拽砖专 讛讙诪诇讬谉 讜拽砖专 讛住驻谞讬谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 拽讟专讗 讚拽讟专讬 讘讝诪诪讗 讜拽讟专讗 讚拽讟专讬 讘讗讬住讟专讬讚讗 讛讗讬 拽砖专 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇 拽讬讬诪讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 拽讬讟专讗 讚讝诪诪讗 讙讜驻讬讛 讜讚讗讬住讟专讬讚讗 讙讜驻讛:

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What are a camel driver鈥檚 knot and a sailor鈥檚 knot? If you say that these are a knot that one uses to tie a strap to the camel鈥檚 nose ring in order to pull it and a knot that one uses to tie a rope to the ring [isterida] fixed to the bow of a ship when the ship is docked, then these knots are not meant to be permanent, as they are periodically untied. Rather, a camel driver鈥檚 knot is the knot that fixes the nose ring itself in the camel鈥檚 nose, and the sailor鈥檚 knot is the knot that fixes the ring itself to the ship. These knots are never untied and are permanent.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 拽砖专 讻讜壮: 讘注讬 专讘 讗讞讚讘讜讬 讗讞讜讬 讚诪专 讗讞讗 注谞讬讘讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讛讜 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪砖讜诐 讚讬讻讜诇 诇讛转讬专讜 讘讗讞转 诪讬讚讬讜 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 谞诪讬 讬讻讜诇 诇讛转讬专讜 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪讬讛讚拽 讜讛讗 诪讬讛讚拽 转讬拽讜:

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Meir says a principle: For tying any knot that one can untie with one of his hands, one is not liable for tying it. Rav A岣dvoy, brother of Mar A岣, raised a dilemma: With regard to tying a bow, what is the ruling according to Rabbi Meir? Is it permitted to tie it tightly on Shabbat or not? The dilemma is: Is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir merely that because one can untie the knot with one of his hands it is not considered a permanent knot, and this bow too, he can untie it with one of his hands and therefore he would not be liable for tying on Shabbat? Or perhaps the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir is because typically a knot that can be untied with one hand is not particularly tight, and this bow is tight and therefore it is prohibited to tie it on Shabbat. This dilemma is not resolved, and the Gemara concludes: Let it stand unresolved.

诪转谞讬壮 讬砖 诇讱 拽砖专讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讻拽砖专 讛讙诪诇讬谉 讜讻拽砖专 讛住驻谞讬谉 拽讜砖专转 讗砖讛 诪驻转讞 讞诇讜拽讛 讜讞讜讟讬 住讘讻讛 讜砖诇 驻住拽讬讗 讜专爪讜注讜转 诪谞注诇 讜住谞讚诇 讜谞讜讚讜转 讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讜拽讚讬专讛 砖诇 讘砖专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 拽讜砖专讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讛讘讛诪讛 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇讗 转爪讗:

MISHNA: You have knots for which one is not liable to bring a sin-offering as one is liable for tying a camel driver鈥檚 knot and a sailor鈥檚 knot; however, it is nevertheless prohibited to tie them. A woman may tie closed the opening of her robe with straps, as well as the strings of her hairnet and the laces of her girdle, i.e., a wide belt tied with laces. One may also tie the straps of a shoe or a sandal, as well as the spouts of wine or oil jugs. One may also tie a garment over a pot of meat. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: One may tie a rope across an entrance before an animal so that it will not go out.

讙诪壮 讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讬砖 拽砖专讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讻拽砖专 讛讙诪诇讬谉 讜讻拽砖专 讛住驻谞讬谉 讞讬讜讘讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讛讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讗讬讻讗 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 拽讜砖专转 讗砖讛 诪驻转讞 讞诇讜拽讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讬砖 拽砖专讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讻拽砖专 讛讙诪诇讬谉 讜讻拽砖专 讛住驻谞讬谉 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: This matter itself is difficult, as there is an internal contradiction in the mishna. On the one hand, you said that there are knots for which one is not liable to bring a sin-offering as he is for tying a camel driver鈥檚 knot and a sailor鈥檚 knot, which would seem to indicate that although there is no Torah liability, there is a rabbinic prohibition. And then it was taught that a woman may tie the opening of her robe, indicating that doing so is permitted even ab initio. The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna is saying: There are knots for which one is not liable to bring a sin-offering for tying them on Shabbat as he is for tying a camel driver鈥檚 knot and a sailor鈥檚 knot. And which are these?

Scroll To Top