Shabbat 117

מי דמי התם נעשה בסיס לדבר המותר הכא נעשה בסיס לדבר האסור אלא הכי קאמרי ליה אם מצילין תיק של ספר עם הספר ואף על פי שיש בתוכו מעות לא נטלטל עור אגב בשר מי דמי התם נעשה בסיס לדבר האסור ולדבר המותר הכא כולו נעשה בסיס לדבר האסור אלא הכי קאמרי ליה אם מביאין תיק שיש בתוכו מעות מעלמא להציל בו ספר תורה לא נטלטל עור אגב בשר

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?

והיא גופה מנלן אילימא דמדהיכא דאית ביה לא שדי להו איתויי נמי מייתינן מי דמי התם אדהכי והכי נפלה דליקה הכא אדהכא והכי לישדינן אלא אמר מר בר רב אשי לעולם כדאמרינן מעיקרא ודקא קשיא לך הכא טלטול והכא מלאכה כגון דלא קבעי ליה לעור

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’s 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.

והא אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו מודה רבי שמעון בפסיק רישיה ולא ימות דשקיל ליה בברזי:

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.

ולהיכן מצילין אותן וכו׳: היכי דמי מפולש היכי דמי שאינו מפולש אמר רב חסדא שלש מחיצות ושני לחיין זהו מבוי שאינו מפולש שלש מחיצות ולחי אחד זהו מבוי המפולש ותרוייהו אליבא דרבי אליעזר דתנן הכשר מבוי בית שמאי אומרים לחי וקורה ובית הלל אומרים או לחי או קורה רבי אליעזר אומר שני לחיים

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 Ḥisda 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.

אמר ליה רבה שלש מחיצות ולחי אחד מפולש קרית ליה ועוד לרבנן נציל לתוכו אוכלין ומשקין אלא אמר רבה שתי מחיצות ושני לחיין זהו מבוי שאינו מפולש שתי מחיצות ולחי אחד זהו מבוי המפולש

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.

ותרוייהו אליבא דרבי יהודה דתניא יתר על כן אמר רבי יהודה מי שיש לו שני בתים בשני צדי רשות הרבים עושה לחי מיכן ולחי מיכן או קורה מיכן וקורה מיכן ונושא ונותן באמצע אמרו לו אין מערבין רשות הרבים בכך

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.

אמר ליה אביי לדידך נמי לרבנן נציל לתוכו אוכלין ומשקין

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.

אלא אמר רב אשי שלש מחיצות ולחי אחד זה מבוי שאינו מפולש שלש מחיצות בלא לחי זהו מבוי המפולש ואפילו לרבי אליעזר דאמר בעינן לחיים הני מילי לאוכלין ומשקין אבל לספר תורה בחד לחי סגי:

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.

מתני׳ מצילין מזון שלש סעודות הראוי לאדם לאדם הראוי לבהמה לבהמה כיצד נפלה דליקה בלילי שבת מצילין מזון שלש סעודות בשחרית מצילין מזון שתי סעודות במנחה מזון סעודה אחת רבי יוסי אומר לעולם מצילין מזון שלש סעודות:

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.

גמ׳ מכדי בהיתרא קטרח נציל טפי אמר רבא מתוך שאדם בהול על ממונו אי שרית ליה אתי לכבויי אמר ליה אביי אלא הא דתניא נשברה לו חבית בראש גגו מביא כלי ומניח תחתיה ובלבד שלא יביא כלי אחר ויקלוט כלי אחר ויצרף התם מאי גזירה איכא הכא נמי גזירה שמא יביא כלי דרך רשות הרבים

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’s barrel broke atop one’s 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.

גופא נשברה לו חבית בראש גגו מביא כלי ומניח תחתיה ובלבד שלא יביא כלי אחר ויקלוט כלי אחר ויצרף נזדמן לו אורחין מביא כלי אחר וקולט כלי אחר ומצרף ולא יקלוט ואחר כך יזמין אלא יזמין ואחר כך יקלוט ואין מערימין בכך משום רבי יוסי בר יהודה אמרו מערימין

Apropos this baraita, the Gemara discusses the matter itself: If one’s barrel broke atop one’s 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.

לימא בפלוגתא דרבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע קמיפלגי דתניא אותו ואת בנו שנפלו לבור רבי אליעזר אומר מעלה את הראשון על מנת לשוחטו והשני עושה לו פרנסה במקומו בשביל שלא ימות רבי יהושע אומר מעלין את הראשון על מנת לשוחטו ואינו שוחטו ומערים ומעלה את השני רצה זה שוחט רצה זה שוחט

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.

ממאי דילמא עד כאן לא קאמר רבי אליעזר התם דאפשר בפרנסה אבל הכא דלא אפשר לא ועד כאן לא קאמר רבי יהושע התם משום דאיכא צער בעלי חיים אבל הכא דליכא צער בעלי חיים לא

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.

תנו רבנן הציל פת נקיה אין מציל פת הדראה פת הדראה מציל פת נקיה ומצילין מיום הכפורים לשבת אבל לא משבת ליום הכפורים ואין צריך לומר משבת ליום טוב ולא משבת לשבת הבאה

The Sages taught in the Tosefta: If one rescued sufficient fine bread for his needs, he may not then rescue coarse bread [hadra’a], 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.

תנו רבנן שכח פת בתנור וקידש עליו היום מצילין מזון שלש סעודות ואומר לאחרים בואו והצילו לכם וכשהוא רודה לא ירדה במרדה אלא בסכין איני והא תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל לא תעשה כל מלאכה יצא תקיעת שופר ורדיית הפת שהיא חכמה ואינה מלאכה כמה דאפשר לשנויי משנינן

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’s paddle, but he removes it in an unusual manner, e.g., with a knife. The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t the school of Rabbi Yishmael teach that it is stated: “And the seventh day is Shabbat for the Lord, your God, you shall not perform any labor” (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.

אמר רב חסדא לעולם ישכים אדם להוצאת שבת שנאמר והיה ביום הששי והכינו את אשר יביאו לאלתר אמר רבי אבא בשבת חייב אדם לבצוע על שתי ככרות דכתיב לחם משנה

Rav Ḥisda 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: “And it shall be on the sixth day, and they will prepare that which they have brought” (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: “And it happened on the sixth day, they collected double the bread, two omer for each one” (Exodus 16:22).

אמר רב אשי חזינא ליה לרב כהנא דנקט תרתי ובצע חדא אמר לקטו כתיב רבי זירא הוה בצע אכולה שירותיה אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי והא מיחזי כרעבתנותא אמר ליה כיון דכל יומא לא עביד והאידנא הוא דקעביד לא מיחזי כרעבתנותא רבי אמי ורבי אסי כי מיקלע להו ריפתא דעירובא שרו עילויה אמרי הואיל ואיתעביד בה חדא מצוה ליתעביד בה מצוה אחרינא:

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: “They collected double the bread,” 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’t 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.

כיצד נפלה דליקה כו׳: תנו רבנן כמה סעודות חייב אדם לאכול בשבת שלש רבי חידקא אומר ארבע אמר רבי יוחנן ושניהם מקרא אחד דרשו ויאמר משה אכלוהו היום כי שבת היום לה׳ היום לא תמצאהו בשדה רבי חידקא סבר הני תלתא היום לבר מאורתא ורבנן סברי בהדי דאורתא תנן נפלה דליקה בלילי שבת

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 Ḥidka says: Four. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And both of them derived their opinions from one verse: “And Moses said: Eat it today, for today is Shabbat for God, today you will not find it in the field” (Exodus 16:25). Rabbi Ḥidka 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,