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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 1, 2020 | 讟壮 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 117

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rabbi Julie Danan in honor of Keren and Tim Carter. Mazal Tov on your 35th wedding anniversary, and with great appreciation to Keren for being such a wonderful and supportive Talmud Hevruta. And by Ruth Leah Kahan in honor of Jessica Shklar. Wishing you a very happy birthday. I’m excited that we are sharing this journey and wish you a great year of learning ahead.

The gemara continues trying to figure out what question the rabbis asked Rabbi Yishmael, the son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Broka from our mishna (saving the case with the sefer Torah) on the case of flaying the hide of the animal on erev Pesach that falls on Shabbat. Several explanations are brought to explain what is an alleyway that is mefulash and not mefulash, mentioned in the mishna. One can save three meals with from the fire. Does it depend on what time of day 鈥 is it only the amount of meals still needed for that Shabbat or is one always allowed to save three meals worth? If food is not muktze and one is also allowed to carry it out to a space where carrying is allowed, why is it forbidden? The concern is that one will be worked up about losing one鈥檚 possessions and will come to put out the fire and therefore by limiting what is permitted, one will remember that it is Shabbat. Laws of meal son Shabbat including lechem mishne, using two loaves of bread, are derived from the manna in the desert.

诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 谞注砖讛 讘住讬住 诇讚讘专 讛诪讜转专 讛讻讗 谞注砖讛 讘住讬住 诇讚讘专 讛讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讗诐 诪爪讬诇讬谉 转讬拽 砖诇 住驻专 注诐 讛住驻专 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 讘转讜讻讜 诪注讜转 诇讗 谞讟诇讟诇 注讜专 讗讙讘 讘砖专 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 谞注砖讛 讘住讬住 诇讚讘专 讛讗住讜专 讜诇讚讘专 讛诪讜转专 讛讻讗 讻讜诇讜 谞注砖讛 讘住讬住 诇讚讘专 讛讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讗诐 诪讘讬讗讬谉 转讬拽 砖讬砖 讘转讜讻讜 诪注讜转 诪注诇诪讗 诇讛爪讬诇 讘讜 住驻专 转讜专讛 诇讗 谞讟诇讟诇 注讜专 讗讙讘 讘砖专

The Gemara asks: Are they comparable? There, with regard to the Torah scroll, the casing is a base for a permitted object, i.e., the scroll itself, which may be moved on Shabbat; whereas here, with regard to the hide of the Paschal lamb, the skin is a base for a prohibited object, i.e., the flesh of the sacrifice, which may not be moved until nightfall because it may not be eaten until night. Rather, this is what they said to him: If one may save the casing of the Torah scroll along with the scroll, even if there is money inside it, why then may one not move the hide together with the flesh? The Gemara asks: Are they comparable? There, with regard to the Torah scroll, the casing becomes a base for a prohibited object and a permitted object; whereas here, with regard to the hide, it is entirely a base for a prohibited object. Rather, this is what they said to him: If one may bring a casing that has money inside it from outside in order to save a Torah scroll in it, why may one not move the hide together with the flesh?

讜讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 诪谞诇谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诪讚讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 诇讗 砖讚讬 诇讛讜 讗讬转讜讬讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讬转讬谞谉 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讗讚讛讻讬 讜讛讻讬 谞驻诇讛 讚诇讬拽讛 讛讻讗 讗讚讛讻讗 讜讛讻讬 诇讬砖讚讬谞谉 讗诇讗 讗诪专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讛讻讗 讟诇讟讜诇 讜讛讻讗 诪诇讗讻讛 讻讙讜谉 讚诇讗 拽讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇注讜专

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive this halakha itself? As it is not stated in the mishna, from where do we derive that it is permitted on Shabbat to bring a casing containing money from the outside in order to save a Torah scroll? If you say that from the fact that in a situation where the casing has money in it one does not throw it away but brings it out with the casing, when the casing is outside and has money in it, one may also bring the money along with it; is it comparable? There, with regard to the Torah scroll鈥檚 casing with money inside, if one tarries in order to empty the money from the case, in the meantime the fire might catch the Torah scroll and burn it; whereas here, with regard to bringing in the casing, in the meantime he could have thrown it away. Rather, Mar bar Rav Ashi said: Actually, it is as we said initially. The Sages equated carrying the Torah casing with flaying the hide of the Paschal lamb. And as for what was difficult for you, that here, with regard to the Torah casing, moving alone is involved, whereas here, with regard to a Paschal lamb, a prohibited labor is involved, it can be explained as referring to a case where one does not need the hide of the Paschal lamb. Therefore, he is exempt.

讜讛讗 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 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 讚砖拽讬诇 诇讬讛 讘讘专讝讬:

The Gemara asks: But Abaye and Rava both said: Rabbi Shimon concedes in cases categorized as cut off its head and will it not die, i.e., an action with an inevitable consequence. When an action has an inevitable consequence, even Rabbi Shimon, who normally exempts a person for performing an action with an unintended consequence, maintains the one is liable. Rather, we must say that one flays it strip by strip, and thereby he does not benefit from the hide. It therefore does not constitute the prohibited labor of stripping the hide.

讜诇讛讬讻谉 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讜讻讜壮: 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诪驻讜诇砖 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪驻讜诇砖 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 砖诇砖 诪讞讬爪讜转 讜砖谞讬 诇讞讬讬谉 讝讛讜 诪讘讜讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪驻讜诇砖 砖诇砖 诪讞讬爪讜转 讜诇讞讬 讗讞讚 讝讛讜 诪讘讜讬 讛诪驻讜诇砖 讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞谉 讛讻砖专 诪讘讜讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讜 诇讞讬 讗讜 拽讜专讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 诇讞讬讬诐

We learned in the mishna: And to where may one rescue them? Into an alley that is closed, which, if it is surrounded on three sides, is considered to be a private domain by Torah law. Ben Beteira says: Even into an open alley. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of an alley that is open, and what are the circumstances of an alley that is not open? Rav 岣sda said: An alley that has three walls and two posts at its entrance is an alley that is not open; one that has three walls and one post is an alley that is open. And they both, the first tanna and ben Beteira, disagree in the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as we learned in a mishna: For preparation of an alley to permit carrying within it on Shabbat, Beit Shammai say the alley must have a post on the side of the entrance and a beam over the entrance. And Beit Hillel say: Either a post or a beam is sufficient. Rabbi Eliezer says: In order to permit carrying, two posts are required.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 砖诇砖 诪讞讬爪讜转 讜诇讞讬 讗讞讚 诪驻讜诇砖 拽专讬转 诇讬讛 讜注讜讚 诇专讘谞谉 谞爪讬诇 诇转讜讻讜 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 砖转讬 诪讞讬爪讜转 讜砖谞讬 诇讞讬讬谉 讝讛讜 诪讘讜讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪驻讜诇砖 砖转讬 诪讞讬爪讜转 讜诇讞讬 讗讞讚 讝讛讜 诪讘讜讬 讛诪驻讜诇砖

Rabba said to him: Did you call an alley that has three walls and one post open? Even if Rabbi Eliezer does not permit carrying there, it is still not considered to be open but closed. And furthermore, according to the Rabbis, if this is so, let us rescue food and drinks by carrying them there as well. Since the Sages only permitted carrying in an alley that is not open, and because, according to all opinions, it is permitted to carry in a closed alley, one should also be allowed to save food and water, and not only a Torah scroll, by carrying them there. Rather, Rabba said: An alley that has two walls and two posts at both entrances to the alley is an alley that is not open. If it has two walls and one post, it is an alley that is open.

讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讘砖谞讬 爪讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注讜砖讛 诇讞讬 诪讬讻谉 讜诇讞讬 诪讬讻谉 讗讜 拽讜专讛 诪讬讻谉 讜拽讜专讛 诪讬讻谉 讜谞讜砖讗 讜谞讜转谉 讘讗诪爪注 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘讻讱

And both of them hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As it was taught in a baraita: Furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: One who has two houses opposite each other on two sides of the public domain, if he chooses, he may create a private domain for himself in the area of the public domain. He may place a ten-handbreadth high post from here, perpendicular to the public domain. This creates a symbolic wall which, in the halakhot of alleyways, has the legal status of a wall. And he may place an additional post from here, on the other side, and that has the same legal status as if he closed the public domain on all of its sides. Or, he can implement a different solution appropriate for alleyways by placing a beam extending from here, from one end of one house, to the end of the house opposite it. This creates a symbolic partition across the width of the street. And he may place a beam extending from here, from the other side of the house. According to Rabbi Yehuda, in that way, one is permitted to carry objects and place them in the area between the symbolic partitions, as he would in a private domain. The Rabbis said to him: One may not establish an eiruv in the public domain in that way.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇讚讬讚讱 谞诪讬 诇专讘谞谉 谞爪讬诇 诇转讜讻讜 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉

Abaye said to Rabba: According to your opinion too, according to the opinion of the Rabbis cited in the mishna who agree with Rabbi Yehuda and permit carrying in an alley that is closed, let us also save food and drinks by carrying them there.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 砖诇砖 诪讞讬爪讜转 讜诇讞讬 讗讞讚 讝讛 诪讘讜讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪驻讜诇砖 砖诇砖 诪讞讬爪讜转 讘诇讗 诇讞讬 讝讛讜 诪讘讜讬 讛诪驻讜诇砖 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 讘注讬谞谉 诇讞讬讬诐 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讗讘诇 诇住驻专 转讜专讛 讘讞讚 诇讞讬 住讙讬:

Rather, Rav Ashi said: The Sages in the mishna disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer: Three walls and one post is an alley that is closed; three walls without a post at all is an open alley. And even according to Rabbi Eliezer, who said we need two posts, one post being insufficient, those words were stated to permit one to move food and drinks, but for the purpose of moving a Torah scroll, one post is sufficient.

诪转谞讬壮 诪爪讬诇讬谉 诪讝讜谉 砖诇砖 住注讜讚讜转 讛专讗讜讬 诇讗讚诐 诇讗讚诐 讛专讗讜讬 诇讘讛诪讛 诇讘讛诪讛 讻讬爪讚 谞驻诇讛 讚诇讬拽讛 讘诇讬诇讬 砖讘转 诪爪讬诇讬谉 诪讝讜谉 砖诇砖 住注讜讚讜转 讘砖讞专讬转 诪爪讬诇讬谉 诪讝讜谉 砖转讬 住注讜讚讜转 讘诪谞讞讛 诪讝讜谉 住注讜讚讛 讗讞转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诪爪讬诇讬谉 诪讝讜谉 砖诇砖 住注讜讚讜转:

MISHNA: One may rescue food for three meals from a fire on Shabbat. One may rescue food that is suitable for a person for a person; and one may rescue food that is suitable for an animal for an animal. How so? If a fire ignited on Friday night before the Shabbat evening meal, one may rescue food for three meals. If a fire ignited in the morning, after the Shabbat evening meal has been eaten and before the meal of Shabbat day, one may only rescue food for two meals. If a fire ignited in the afternoon, one may rescue food for one meal. Rabbi Yosei says: One may always rescue food for three meals, which is the measure that the Sages permitted without distinguishing between the times of day.

讙诪壮 诪讻讚讬 讘讛讬转专讗 拽讟专讞 谞爪讬诇 讟驻讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转讜讱 砖讗讚诐 讘讛讜诇 注诇 诪诪讜谞讜 讗讬 砖专讬转 诇讬讛 讗转讬 诇讻讘讜讬讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 谞砖讘专讛 诇讜 讞讘讬转 讘专讗砖 讙讙讜 诪讘讬讗 讻诇讬 讜诪谞讬讞 转讞转讬讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讻诇讬 讗讞专 讜讬拽诇讜讟 讻诇讬 讗讞专 讜讬爪专祝 讛转诐 诪讗讬 讙讝讬专讛 讗讬讻讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讘讬讗 讻诇讬 讚专讱 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Now, since one is exerting himself to move permitted objects, let us rescue more. Why was he allowed to rescue food for only three meals? Rava said: Since a person is agitated about his property, if you permit him to move more, he will come to extinguish the fire. Abaye said to him: Rather, that which was taught in a baraita: If one鈥檚 barrel broke atop one鈥檚 roof on Shabbat, he may bring a vessel and place it under the barrel to salvage its contents, and this is permitted provided that he does not bring another vessel and place it on the ground to catch the liquid that flows out of the barrel. Similarly, one may not bring another vessel and attach the vessel next to the roof so that the liquid from the barrel will pour into it. There, what decree applies to prohibit saving it in any other way? Rava said to him: Here, too, it is a decree issued due to the concern lest one bring the additional vessel through the public domain, which is prohibited.

讙讜驻讗 谞砖讘专讛 诇讜 讞讘讬转 讘专讗砖 讙讙讜 诪讘讬讗 讻诇讬 讜诪谞讬讞 转讞转讬讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讻诇讬 讗讞专 讜讬拽诇讜讟 讻诇讬 讗讞专 讜讬爪专祝 谞讝讚诪谉 诇讜 讗讜专讞讬谉 诪讘讬讗 讻诇讬 讗讞专 讜拽讜诇讟 讻诇讬 讗讞专 讜诪爪专祝 讜诇讗 讬拽诇讜讟 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬讝诪讬谉 讗诇讗 讬讝诪讬谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬拽诇讜讟 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讬诪讬谉 讘讻讱 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专讜 诪注专讬诪讬谉

Apropos this baraita, the Gemara discusses the matter itself: If one鈥檚 barrel broke atop one鈥檚 roof on Shabbat, he may bring a vessel and place it under the barrel to salvage its contents, and this is permitted provided that he does not bring another vessel and place it on the ground to catch the liquid, another vessel and attach the vessel next to the roof. If guests happen to come to him and he needs more to drink, he may bring another vessel and catch the liquid, and he may bring another vessel and attach it. And one may not catch the liquid and then invite guests; rather, one must first invite guests, and afterward catch the liquid. Until he invites guests, there is no need for the beverage, and he will be catching the liquid in a prohibited manner. And one may not employ artifice in this by inviting guests expressly for the purpose of rescuing his wine. In the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, they said: One may even employ artifice.

诇讬诪讗 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞讬讗 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 砖谞驻诇讜 诇讘讜专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪注诇讛 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谉 注诇 诪谞转 诇砖讜讞讟讜 讜讛砖谞讬 注讜砖讛 诇讜 驻专谞住讛 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇讗 讬诪讜转 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诪注诇讬谉 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谉 注诇 诪谞转 诇砖讜讞讟讜 讜讗讬谞讜 砖讜讞讟讜 讜诪注专讬诐 讜诪注诇讛 讗转 讛砖谞讬 专爪讛 讝讛 砖讜讞讟 专爪讛 讝讛 砖讜讞讟

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree in the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to it and its offspring that fell into a pit on a Festival, Rabbi Eliezer says: One may raise the first in order to slaughter it, and then slaughter it; and with regard to the second one, one may provide it sustenance in its place in the pit so that it will not die. Rabbi Yehoshua says: One may raise the first in order to slaughter it, and then reconsider and not slaughter it, and one may employ artifice and say that he reconsidered and wants to slaughter the other, and raise the second. If he so desires, he slaughters this one; if he so desires, he slaughters that one.

诪诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛转诐 讚讗驻砖专 讘驻专谞住讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 诇讗 讜注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 爪注专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 爪注专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 诇讗

The Gemara rejects this: From what does that conclusion ensue? Perhaps Rabbi Eliezer only stated that he may not raise the second animal there, in a case where it is possible to save the animal by feeding it in the pit; however, here, in the case of the barrel, where it is impossible to save it by feeding it in the pit, no, he would permit doing so. Perhaps even he agrees that it is permitted to employ artifice in this case. And similarly, perhaps Rabbi Yehoshua only said there that one may employ artifice because there is an issue of the suffering of living beings, but here, where there is no issue of the suffering of living beings, perhaps he did not permit employing artifice.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛爪讬诇 驻转 谞拽讬讛 讗讬谉 诪爪讬诇 驻转 讛讚专讗讛 驻转 讛讚专讗讛 诪爪讬诇 驻转 谞拽讬讛 讜诪爪讬诇讬谉 诪讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诇砖讘转 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪砖讘转 诇讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 诪砖讘转 诇讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜诇讗 诪砖讘转 诇砖讘转 讛讘讗讛

The Sages taught in the Tosefta: If one rescued sufficient fine bread for his needs, he may not then rescue coarse bread [hadra鈥檃], bread made from flour and bran. However, if one rescued coarse bread, he may then rescue fine bread. And one may rescue bread on Yom Kippur for the purpose of Shabbat; however, one may not rescue bread on Shabbat for the purpose of Yom Kippur. And, needless to say, one may not rescue bread on Shabbat for the purpose of a Festival, and one may not rescue bread on Shabbat for the purpose of the next Shabbat.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讻讞 驻转 讘转谞讜专 讜拽讬讚砖 注诇讬讜 讛讬讜诐 诪爪讬诇讬谉 诪讝讜谉 砖诇砖 住注讜讚讜转 讜讗讜诪专 诇讗讞专讬诐 讘讜讗讜 讜讛爪讬诇讜 诇讻诐 讜讻砖讛讜讗 专讜讚讛 诇讗 讬专讚讛 讘诪专讚讛 讗诇讗 讘住讻讬谉 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讗 转注砖讛 讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 讬爪讗 转拽讬注转 砖讜驻专 讜专讚讬讬转 讛驻转 砖讛讬讗 讞讻诪讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪诇讗讻讛 讻诪讛 讚讗驻砖专 诇砖谞讜讬讬 诪砖谞讬谞谉

And the Sages taught: If one forgot bread in the oven and did not remove it until the day of Shabbat was sanctified, he may rescue enough food for three meals from the oven. And, one may say to others: Come and rescue bread for yourselves. And when one removes the bread from the oven, he may not remove it in the usual manner with a baker鈥檚 paddle, but he removes it in an unusual manner, e.g., with a knife. The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn鈥檛 the school of Rabbi Yishmael teach that it is stated: 鈥淎nd the seventh day is Shabbat for the Lord, your God, you shall not perform any labor鈥 (Exodus 20:10), and the emphasis on the word labor excludes blowing the shofar and removing bread, which is a skill and not a labor, and which therefore is not prohibited on Shabbat. If by Torah law removing bread on Shabbat is permitted, why may one not remove it in the usual manner? The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, as much as it is possible to alter the manner in which one removes bread from the oven one alters, to emphasize that the day is Shabbat.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇注讜诇诐 讬砖讻讬诐 讗讚诐 诇讛讜爪讗转 砖讘转 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讛砖砖讬 讜讛讻讬谞讜 讗转 讗砖专 讬讘讬讗讜 诇讗诇转专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讗讚诐 诇讘爪讜注 注诇 砖转讬 讻讻专讜转 讚讻转讬讘 诇讞诐 诪砖谞讛

Rav 岣sda said: A person should always rise early on Friday in order to prepare all of the expenditures for Shabbat, as it is written with regard to the collection of the manna: 鈥淎nd it shall be on the sixth day, and they will prepare that which they have brought鈥 (Exodus 16:5), indicating that the children of Israel would begin preparing the food for Shabbat immediately upon collecting the manna in the morning. Apropos manna, the Gemara mentions other matters derived from it. Rabbi Abba said: On Shabbat a person is obligated to break bread in his meal over two loaves of bread, as it is written: 鈥淎nd it happened on the sixth day, they collected double the bread, two omer for each one鈥 (Exodus 16:22).

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讞讝讬谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚谞拽讟 转专转讬 讜讘爪注 讞讚讗 讗诪专 诇拽讟讜 讻转讬讘 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讜讛 讘爪注 讗讻讜诇讛 砖讬专讜转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛讗 诪讬讞讝讬 讻专注讘转谞讜转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讻诇 讬讜诪讗 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讛讜讗 讚拽注讘讬讚 诇讗 诪讬讞讝讬 讻专注讘转谞讜转讗 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讻讬 诪讬拽诇注 诇讛讜 专讬驻转讗 讚注讬专讜讘讗 砖专讜 注讬诇讜讬讛 讗诪专讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转注讘讬讚 讘讛 讞讚讗 诪爪讜讛 诇讬转注讘讬讚 讘讛 诪爪讜讛 讗讞专讬谞讗:

Rav Ashi said: I saw that Rav Kahana took two loaves in his hand and broke one, not both at once. He said in explanation that it is written: 鈥淭hey collected double the bread,鈥 meaning that one collects and holds two loaves together, but need not break both. Rabbi Zeira would break off a piece that would suffice for his entire meal. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Doesn鈥檛 that appear like gluttony? Rav Ashi said to him: Since on every other day he does not do this and now he is doing so, it does not appear like gluttony. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, when the bread from the eiruv would happen to become available to them, they would begin and recite the blessing over it. They said in explanation: Since one mitzva was performed with it, let an additional mitzva be performed with it.

讻讬爪讚 谞驻诇讛 讚诇讬拽讛 讻讜壮: 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诪讛 住注讜讚讜转 讞讬讬讘 讗讚诐 诇讗讻讜诇 讘砖讘转 砖诇砖 专讘讬 讞讬讚拽讗 讗讜诪专 讗专讘注 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜砖谞讬讛诐 诪拽专讗 讗讞讚 讚专砖讜 讜讬讗诪专 诪砖讛 讗讻诇讜讛讜 讛讬讜诐 讻讬 砖讘转 讛讬讜诐 诇讛壮 讛讬讜诐 诇讗 转诪爪讗讛讜 讘砖讚讛 专讘讬 讞讬讚拽讗 住讘专 讛谞讬 转诇转讗 讛讬讜诐 诇讘专 诪讗讜专转讗 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讘讛讚讬 讚讗讜专转讗 转谞谉 谞驻诇讛 讚诇讬拽讛 讘诇讬诇讬 砖讘转

We learned in the mishna that one may rescue food for three meals on Shabbat. How so? If a fire ignited before the meal on Shabbat evening, one rescues food for three meals; if a fire ignited Shabbat morning, he rescues food for two meals; if a fire ignited in the afternoon, he rescues food for one meal. With regard to meals on Shabbat, the Sages taught in a baraita: How many meals is a person obligated to eat on Shabbat? Three. Rabbi 岣dka says: Four. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: And both of them derived their opinions from one verse: 鈥淎nd Moses said: Eat it today, for today is Shabbat for God, today you will not find it in the field鈥 (Exodus 16:25). Rabbi 岣dka holds: These three mentions of the word today allude to the number of meals on Shabbat besides the evening meal, as Moses spoke on Shabbat morning. And the Rabbis hold that these three mentions include the evening meal. We learned in the mishna: If a fire ignited on Shabbat evening,

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 117-123

This week we will review Daf 117-123. We will discover what things we are allowed to save from a fire,...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 117: Literally, a Bun (or Several) in the Oven

More rescuing from a fire on Shabbat - this time, food: for the 3 meals of Shabbat (or maybe all...

Shabbat 117

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 117

诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 谞注砖讛 讘住讬住 诇讚讘专 讛诪讜转专 讛讻讗 谞注砖讛 讘住讬住 诇讚讘专 讛讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讗诐 诪爪讬诇讬谉 转讬拽 砖诇 住驻专 注诐 讛住驻专 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 讘转讜讻讜 诪注讜转 诇讗 谞讟诇讟诇 注讜专 讗讙讘 讘砖专 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 谞注砖讛 讘住讬住 诇讚讘专 讛讗住讜专 讜诇讚讘专 讛诪讜转专 讛讻讗 讻讜诇讜 谞注砖讛 讘住讬住 诇讚讘专 讛讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讗诐 诪讘讬讗讬谉 转讬拽 砖讬砖 讘转讜讻讜 诪注讜转 诪注诇诪讗 诇讛爪讬诇 讘讜 住驻专 转讜专讛 诇讗 谞讟诇讟诇 注讜专 讗讙讘 讘砖专

The Gemara asks: Are they comparable? There, with regard to the Torah scroll, the casing is a base for a permitted object, i.e., the scroll itself, which may be moved on Shabbat; whereas here, with regard to the hide of the Paschal lamb, the skin is a base for a prohibited object, i.e., the flesh of the sacrifice, which may not be moved until nightfall because it may not be eaten until night. Rather, this is what they said to him: If one may save the casing of the Torah scroll along with the scroll, even if there is money inside it, why then may one not move the hide together with the flesh? The Gemara asks: Are they comparable? There, with regard to the Torah scroll, the casing becomes a base for a prohibited object and a permitted object; whereas here, with regard to the hide, it is entirely a base for a prohibited object. Rather, this is what they said to him: If one may bring a casing that has money inside it from outside in order to save a Torah scroll in it, why may one not move the hide together with the flesh?

讜讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 诪谞诇谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诪讚讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 诇讗 砖讚讬 诇讛讜 讗讬转讜讬讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讬转讬谞谉 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讗讚讛讻讬 讜讛讻讬 谞驻诇讛 讚诇讬拽讛 讛讻讗 讗讚讛讻讗 讜讛讻讬 诇讬砖讚讬谞谉 讗诇讗 讗诪专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讛讻讗 讟诇讟讜诇 讜讛讻讗 诪诇讗讻讛 讻讙讜谉 讚诇讗 拽讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇注讜专

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive this halakha itself? As it is not stated in the mishna, from where do we derive that it is permitted on Shabbat to bring a casing containing money from the outside in order to save a Torah scroll? If you say that from the fact that in a situation where the casing has money in it one does not throw it away but brings it out with the casing, when the casing is outside and has money in it, one may also bring the money along with it; is it comparable? There, with regard to the Torah scroll鈥檚 casing with money inside, if one tarries in order to empty the money from the case, in the meantime the fire might catch the Torah scroll and burn it; whereas here, with regard to bringing in the casing, in the meantime he could have thrown it away. Rather, Mar bar Rav Ashi said: Actually, it is as we said initially. The Sages equated carrying the Torah casing with flaying the hide of the Paschal lamb. And as for what was difficult for you, that here, with regard to the Torah casing, moving alone is involved, whereas here, with regard to a Paschal lamb, a prohibited labor is involved, it can be explained as referring to a case where one does not need the hide of the Paschal lamb. Therefore, he is exempt.

讜讛讗 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 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 讚砖拽讬诇 诇讬讛 讘讘专讝讬:

The Gemara asks: But Abaye and Rava both said: Rabbi Shimon concedes in cases categorized as cut off its head and will it not die, i.e., an action with an inevitable consequence. When an action has an inevitable consequence, even Rabbi Shimon, who normally exempts a person for performing an action with an unintended consequence, maintains the one is liable. Rather, we must say that one flays it strip by strip, and thereby he does not benefit from the hide. It therefore does not constitute the prohibited labor of stripping the hide.

讜诇讛讬讻谉 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讜讻讜壮: 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诪驻讜诇砖 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪驻讜诇砖 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 砖诇砖 诪讞讬爪讜转 讜砖谞讬 诇讞讬讬谉 讝讛讜 诪讘讜讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪驻讜诇砖 砖诇砖 诪讞讬爪讜转 讜诇讞讬 讗讞讚 讝讛讜 诪讘讜讬 讛诪驻讜诇砖 讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞谉 讛讻砖专 诪讘讜讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讜 诇讞讬 讗讜 拽讜专讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 诇讞讬讬诐

We learned in the mishna: And to where may one rescue them? Into an alley that is closed, which, if it is surrounded on three sides, is considered to be a private domain by Torah law. Ben Beteira says: Even into an open alley. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of an alley that is open, and what are the circumstances of an alley that is not open? Rav 岣sda said: An alley that has three walls and two posts at its entrance is an alley that is not open; one that has three walls and one post is an alley that is open. And they both, the first tanna and ben Beteira, disagree in the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as we learned in a mishna: For preparation of an alley to permit carrying within it on Shabbat, Beit Shammai say the alley must have a post on the side of the entrance and a beam over the entrance. And Beit Hillel say: Either a post or a beam is sufficient. Rabbi Eliezer says: In order to permit carrying, two posts are required.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 砖诇砖 诪讞讬爪讜转 讜诇讞讬 讗讞讚 诪驻讜诇砖 拽专讬转 诇讬讛 讜注讜讚 诇专讘谞谉 谞爪讬诇 诇转讜讻讜 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 砖转讬 诪讞讬爪讜转 讜砖谞讬 诇讞讬讬谉 讝讛讜 诪讘讜讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪驻讜诇砖 砖转讬 诪讞讬爪讜转 讜诇讞讬 讗讞讚 讝讛讜 诪讘讜讬 讛诪驻讜诇砖

Rabba said to him: Did you call an alley that has three walls and one post open? Even if Rabbi Eliezer does not permit carrying there, it is still not considered to be open but closed. And furthermore, according to the Rabbis, if this is so, let us rescue food and drinks by carrying them there as well. Since the Sages only permitted carrying in an alley that is not open, and because, according to all opinions, it is permitted to carry in a closed alley, one should also be allowed to save food and water, and not only a Torah scroll, by carrying them there. Rather, Rabba said: An alley that has two walls and two posts at both entrances to the alley is an alley that is not open. If it has two walls and one post, it is an alley that is open.

讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讘砖谞讬 爪讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注讜砖讛 诇讞讬 诪讬讻谉 讜诇讞讬 诪讬讻谉 讗讜 拽讜专讛 诪讬讻谉 讜拽讜专讛 诪讬讻谉 讜谞讜砖讗 讜谞讜转谉 讘讗诪爪注 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘讻讱

And both of them hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As it was taught in a baraita: Furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: One who has two houses opposite each other on two sides of the public domain, if he chooses, he may create a private domain for himself in the area of the public domain. He may place a ten-handbreadth high post from here, perpendicular to the public domain. This creates a symbolic wall which, in the halakhot of alleyways, has the legal status of a wall. And he may place an additional post from here, on the other side, and that has the same legal status as if he closed the public domain on all of its sides. Or, he can implement a different solution appropriate for alleyways by placing a beam extending from here, from one end of one house, to the end of the house opposite it. This creates a symbolic partition across the width of the street. And he may place a beam extending from here, from the other side of the house. According to Rabbi Yehuda, in that way, one is permitted to carry objects and place them in the area between the symbolic partitions, as he would in a private domain. The Rabbis said to him: One may not establish an eiruv in the public domain in that way.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇讚讬讚讱 谞诪讬 诇专讘谞谉 谞爪讬诇 诇转讜讻讜 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉

Abaye said to Rabba: According to your opinion too, according to the opinion of the Rabbis cited in the mishna who agree with Rabbi Yehuda and permit carrying in an alley that is closed, let us also save food and drinks by carrying them there.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 砖诇砖 诪讞讬爪讜转 讜诇讞讬 讗讞讚 讝讛 诪讘讜讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪驻讜诇砖 砖诇砖 诪讞讬爪讜转 讘诇讗 诇讞讬 讝讛讜 诪讘讜讬 讛诪驻讜诇砖 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 讘注讬谞谉 诇讞讬讬诐 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讗讘诇 诇住驻专 转讜专讛 讘讞讚 诇讞讬 住讙讬:

Rather, Rav Ashi said: The Sages in the mishna disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer: Three walls and one post is an alley that is closed; three walls without a post at all is an open alley. And even according to Rabbi Eliezer, who said we need two posts, one post being insufficient, those words were stated to permit one to move food and drinks, but for the purpose of moving a Torah scroll, one post is sufficient.

诪转谞讬壮 诪爪讬诇讬谉 诪讝讜谉 砖诇砖 住注讜讚讜转 讛专讗讜讬 诇讗讚诐 诇讗讚诐 讛专讗讜讬 诇讘讛诪讛 诇讘讛诪讛 讻讬爪讚 谞驻诇讛 讚诇讬拽讛 讘诇讬诇讬 砖讘转 诪爪讬诇讬谉 诪讝讜谉 砖诇砖 住注讜讚讜转 讘砖讞专讬转 诪爪讬诇讬谉 诪讝讜谉 砖转讬 住注讜讚讜转 讘诪谞讞讛 诪讝讜谉 住注讜讚讛 讗讞转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诪爪讬诇讬谉 诪讝讜谉 砖诇砖 住注讜讚讜转:

MISHNA: One may rescue food for three meals from a fire on Shabbat. One may rescue food that is suitable for a person for a person; and one may rescue food that is suitable for an animal for an animal. How so? If a fire ignited on Friday night before the Shabbat evening meal, one may rescue food for three meals. If a fire ignited in the morning, after the Shabbat evening meal has been eaten and before the meal of Shabbat day, one may only rescue food for two meals. If a fire ignited in the afternoon, one may rescue food for one meal. Rabbi Yosei says: One may always rescue food for three meals, which is the measure that the Sages permitted without distinguishing between the times of day.

讙诪壮 诪讻讚讬 讘讛讬转专讗 拽讟专讞 谞爪讬诇 讟驻讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转讜讱 砖讗讚诐 讘讛讜诇 注诇 诪诪讜谞讜 讗讬 砖专讬转 诇讬讛 讗转讬 诇讻讘讜讬讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 谞砖讘专讛 诇讜 讞讘讬转 讘专讗砖 讙讙讜 诪讘讬讗 讻诇讬 讜诪谞讬讞 转讞转讬讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讻诇讬 讗讞专 讜讬拽诇讜讟 讻诇讬 讗讞专 讜讬爪专祝 讛转诐 诪讗讬 讙讝讬专讛 讗讬讻讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讘讬讗 讻诇讬 讚专讱 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Now, since one is exerting himself to move permitted objects, let us rescue more. Why was he allowed to rescue food for only three meals? Rava said: Since a person is agitated about his property, if you permit him to move more, he will come to extinguish the fire. Abaye said to him: Rather, that which was taught in a baraita: If one鈥檚 barrel broke atop one鈥檚 roof on Shabbat, he may bring a vessel and place it under the barrel to salvage its contents, and this is permitted provided that he does not bring another vessel and place it on the ground to catch the liquid that flows out of the barrel. Similarly, one may not bring another vessel and attach the vessel next to the roof so that the liquid from the barrel will pour into it. There, what decree applies to prohibit saving it in any other way? Rava said to him: Here, too, it is a decree issued due to the concern lest one bring the additional vessel through the public domain, which is prohibited.

讙讜驻讗 谞砖讘专讛 诇讜 讞讘讬转 讘专讗砖 讙讙讜 诪讘讬讗 讻诇讬 讜诪谞讬讞 转讞转讬讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讻诇讬 讗讞专 讜讬拽诇讜讟 讻诇讬 讗讞专 讜讬爪专祝 谞讝讚诪谉 诇讜 讗讜专讞讬谉 诪讘讬讗 讻诇讬 讗讞专 讜拽讜诇讟 讻诇讬 讗讞专 讜诪爪专祝 讜诇讗 讬拽诇讜讟 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬讝诪讬谉 讗诇讗 讬讝诪讬谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬拽诇讜讟 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讬诪讬谉 讘讻讱 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专讜 诪注专讬诪讬谉

Apropos this baraita, the Gemara discusses the matter itself: If one鈥檚 barrel broke atop one鈥檚 roof on Shabbat, he may bring a vessel and place it under the barrel to salvage its contents, and this is permitted provided that he does not bring another vessel and place it on the ground to catch the liquid, another vessel and attach the vessel next to the roof. If guests happen to come to him and he needs more to drink, he may bring another vessel and catch the liquid, and he may bring another vessel and attach it. And one may not catch the liquid and then invite guests; rather, one must first invite guests, and afterward catch the liquid. Until he invites guests, there is no need for the beverage, and he will be catching the liquid in a prohibited manner. And one may not employ artifice in this by inviting guests expressly for the purpose of rescuing his wine. In the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, they said: One may even employ artifice.

诇讬诪讗 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞讬讗 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 砖谞驻诇讜 诇讘讜专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪注诇讛 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谉 注诇 诪谞转 诇砖讜讞讟讜 讜讛砖谞讬 注讜砖讛 诇讜 驻专谞住讛 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇讗 讬诪讜转 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诪注诇讬谉 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谉 注诇 诪谞转 诇砖讜讞讟讜 讜讗讬谞讜 砖讜讞讟讜 讜诪注专讬诐 讜诪注诇讛 讗转 讛砖谞讬 专爪讛 讝讛 砖讜讞讟 专爪讛 讝讛 砖讜讞讟

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree in the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to it and its offspring that fell into a pit on a Festival, Rabbi Eliezer says: One may raise the first in order to slaughter it, and then slaughter it; and with regard to the second one, one may provide it sustenance in its place in the pit so that it will not die. Rabbi Yehoshua says: One may raise the first in order to slaughter it, and then reconsider and not slaughter it, and one may employ artifice and say that he reconsidered and wants to slaughter the other, and raise the second. If he so desires, he slaughters this one; if he so desires, he slaughters that one.

诪诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛转诐 讚讗驻砖专 讘驻专谞住讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 诇讗 讜注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 爪注专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 爪注专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 诇讗

The Gemara rejects this: From what does that conclusion ensue? Perhaps Rabbi Eliezer only stated that he may not raise the second animal there, in a case where it is possible to save the animal by feeding it in the pit; however, here, in the case of the barrel, where it is impossible to save it by feeding it in the pit, no, he would permit doing so. Perhaps even he agrees that it is permitted to employ artifice in this case. And similarly, perhaps Rabbi Yehoshua only said there that one may employ artifice because there is an issue of the suffering of living beings, but here, where there is no issue of the suffering of living beings, perhaps he did not permit employing artifice.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛爪讬诇 驻转 谞拽讬讛 讗讬谉 诪爪讬诇 驻转 讛讚专讗讛 驻转 讛讚专讗讛 诪爪讬诇 驻转 谞拽讬讛 讜诪爪讬诇讬谉 诪讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诇砖讘转 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪砖讘转 诇讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 诪砖讘转 诇讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜诇讗 诪砖讘转 诇砖讘转 讛讘讗讛

The Sages taught in the Tosefta: If one rescued sufficient fine bread for his needs, he may not then rescue coarse bread [hadra鈥檃], bread made from flour and bran. However, if one rescued coarse bread, he may then rescue fine bread. And one may rescue bread on Yom Kippur for the purpose of Shabbat; however, one may not rescue bread on Shabbat for the purpose of Yom Kippur. And, needless to say, one may not rescue bread on Shabbat for the purpose of a Festival, and one may not rescue bread on Shabbat for the purpose of the next Shabbat.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讻讞 驻转 讘转谞讜专 讜拽讬讚砖 注诇讬讜 讛讬讜诐 诪爪讬诇讬谉 诪讝讜谉 砖诇砖 住注讜讚讜转 讜讗讜诪专 诇讗讞专讬诐 讘讜讗讜 讜讛爪讬诇讜 诇讻诐 讜讻砖讛讜讗 专讜讚讛 诇讗 讬专讚讛 讘诪专讚讛 讗诇讗 讘住讻讬谉 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讗 转注砖讛 讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 讬爪讗 转拽讬注转 砖讜驻专 讜专讚讬讬转 讛驻转 砖讛讬讗 讞讻诪讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪诇讗讻讛 讻诪讛 讚讗驻砖专 诇砖谞讜讬讬 诪砖谞讬谞谉

And the Sages taught: If one forgot bread in the oven and did not remove it until the day of Shabbat was sanctified, he may rescue enough food for three meals from the oven. And, one may say to others: Come and rescue bread for yourselves. And when one removes the bread from the oven, he may not remove it in the usual manner with a baker鈥檚 paddle, but he removes it in an unusual manner, e.g., with a knife. The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn鈥檛 the school of Rabbi Yishmael teach that it is stated: 鈥淎nd the seventh day is Shabbat for the Lord, your God, you shall not perform any labor鈥 (Exodus 20:10), and the emphasis on the word labor excludes blowing the shofar and removing bread, which is a skill and not a labor, and which therefore is not prohibited on Shabbat. If by Torah law removing bread on Shabbat is permitted, why may one not remove it in the usual manner? The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, as much as it is possible to alter the manner in which one removes bread from the oven one alters, to emphasize that the day is Shabbat.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇注讜诇诐 讬砖讻讬诐 讗讚诐 诇讛讜爪讗转 砖讘转 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讛砖砖讬 讜讛讻讬谞讜 讗转 讗砖专 讬讘讬讗讜 诇讗诇转专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讗讚诐 诇讘爪讜注 注诇 砖转讬 讻讻专讜转 讚讻转讬讘 诇讞诐 诪砖谞讛

Rav 岣sda said: A person should always rise early on Friday in order to prepare all of the expenditures for Shabbat, as it is written with regard to the collection of the manna: 鈥淎nd it shall be on the sixth day, and they will prepare that which they have brought鈥 (Exodus 16:5), indicating that the children of Israel would begin preparing the food for Shabbat immediately upon collecting the manna in the morning. Apropos manna, the Gemara mentions other matters derived from it. Rabbi Abba said: On Shabbat a person is obligated to break bread in his meal over two loaves of bread, as it is written: 鈥淎nd it happened on the sixth day, they collected double the bread, two omer for each one鈥 (Exodus 16:22).

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讞讝讬谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚谞拽讟 转专转讬 讜讘爪注 讞讚讗 讗诪专 诇拽讟讜 讻转讬讘 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讜讛 讘爪注 讗讻讜诇讛 砖讬专讜转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛讗 诪讬讞讝讬 讻专注讘转谞讜转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讻诇 讬讜诪讗 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讛讜讗 讚拽注讘讬讚 诇讗 诪讬讞讝讬 讻专注讘转谞讜转讗 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讻讬 诪讬拽诇注 诇讛讜 专讬驻转讗 讚注讬专讜讘讗 砖专讜 注讬诇讜讬讛 讗诪专讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转注讘讬讚 讘讛 讞讚讗 诪爪讜讛 诇讬转注讘讬讚 讘讛 诪爪讜讛 讗讞专讬谞讗:

Rav Ashi said: I saw that Rav Kahana took two loaves in his hand and broke one, not both at once. He said in explanation that it is written: 鈥淭hey collected double the bread,鈥 meaning that one collects and holds two loaves together, but need not break both. Rabbi Zeira would break off a piece that would suffice for his entire meal. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Doesn鈥檛 that appear like gluttony? Rav Ashi said to him: Since on every other day he does not do this and now he is doing so, it does not appear like gluttony. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, when the bread from the eiruv would happen to become available to them, they would begin and recite the blessing over it. They said in explanation: Since one mitzva was performed with it, let an additional mitzva be performed with it.

讻讬爪讚 谞驻诇讛 讚诇讬拽讛 讻讜壮: 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诪讛 住注讜讚讜转 讞讬讬讘 讗讚诐 诇讗讻讜诇 讘砖讘转 砖诇砖 专讘讬 讞讬讚拽讗 讗讜诪专 讗专讘注 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜砖谞讬讛诐 诪拽专讗 讗讞讚 讚专砖讜 讜讬讗诪专 诪砖讛 讗讻诇讜讛讜 讛讬讜诐 讻讬 砖讘转 讛讬讜诐 诇讛壮 讛讬讜诐 诇讗 转诪爪讗讛讜 讘砖讚讛 专讘讬 讞讬讚拽讗 住讘专 讛谞讬 转诇转讗 讛讬讜诐 诇讘专 诪讗讜专转讗 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讘讛讚讬 讚讗讜专转讗 转谞谉 谞驻诇讛 讚诇讬拽讛 讘诇讬诇讬 砖讘转

We learned in the mishna that one may rescue food for three meals on Shabbat. How so? If a fire ignited before the meal on Shabbat evening, one rescues food for three meals; if a fire ignited Shabbat morning, he rescues food for two meals; if a fire ignited in the afternoon, he rescues food for one meal. With regard to meals on Shabbat, the Sages taught in a baraita: How many meals is a person obligated to eat on Shabbat? Three. Rabbi 岣dka says: Four. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: And both of them derived their opinions from one verse: 鈥淎nd Moses said: Eat it today, for today is Shabbat for God, today you will not find it in the field鈥 (Exodus 16:25). Rabbi 岣dka holds: These three mentions of the word today allude to the number of meals on Shabbat besides the evening meal, as Moses spoke on Shabbat morning. And the Rabbis hold that these three mentions include the evening meal. We learned in the mishna: If a fire ignited on Shabbat evening,

Scroll To Top