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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 18, 2020 | 讻状讘 讘讗讚专 转砖状驻

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Sami Groff in honor of Shoshana Keats Jaskoll and Chochmat Nashim.

Shabbat 12

Today’s shiur is dedicated by Gitta Neufeld in honor of the daf yomi learners of Long Island and as a zechut for all the sick people.聽

The gemara continues to resolve the contradiction between two sources relating to a zav going out into the public domain wearing a pouch tied on to him – one says it is forbidden by Torah law and one by rabbinic. Does it matter if he is wearing it to keep his clothes from getting dirty? The gemara concludes that whether or not it is forbidden by rabbinic or Torah law is dependent on the debate Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon regarding a melacha she’aina tzricha l’egufa. Can one walk out wearing one’s tefillin close to Shabbat? Why is it forbidden to remove lice from clothing on Shabbat- is it because one may kill them or because one needs good light and may come to move the candle (and then it would only be forbidden at night). Can one visit sick people on Shabbat? Can one ask for one’s needs in Aramaic? Can one pray for sick people in Aramaic? Why would it matter? Are there circumstances where one is allowed to read by candlelight on Shabbat?

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

砖诇讗 讬诇拽讛 讛讻讜转诇 讗讬谞讜 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诇讗 拽讗 讘注讬 诇讛讜 诇讛谞讬 诪砖拽讬谉 讻诇诇 讛讻讗 拽讗 讘注讬 诇讛讜 诇讛讗讬 讻讬住 诇拽讘讜诇讬 讘讬讛 讝讬讘讛


that the wall will not be damaged, it is not under the rubric of the verse: 鈥淚f water be placed.鈥 The water does not have the legal status of water poured for that purpose. This tanna does not consider protecting the wall from dirt as a significant usage. Similarly, protecting the zav from being soiled by the emission would not be considered a significant usage and the pouch used for that purpose would not be considered a significant vessel. The Gemara rejects this: Are these cases comparable? There, he does not need those liquids at all, and therefore the vessel is not considered to have been placed to receive them. However, here he needs this pouch to absorb the emission, to ascertain whether or not he experienced an emission. Although on that particular day he does not require the pouch, the zav typically requires his pouch for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not there is another emission.


讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬讗 讗诇讗 诇住讬驻讗 注专讬讘讛 砖讬专讚 讚诇祝 诇转讜讻讛 诪讬诐 讛谞讬转讝讬谉 讜讛谞爪驻讬谉 讗讬谞谉 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉 讜砖讘转讜讻讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉


Rather, this halakha with regard to the zav is comparable only to the latter clause of the mishna dealing with rainwater, in which we learned: A bowl that the drip of rain from the roof dropped into it, the water that splashes or overflows from the bowl does not have the legal status of water collected for a purpose, and is not under the rubric of the verse: 鈥淚f water be placed.鈥 And the water that is in the bowl has the legal status of water collected for a purpose and is under the rubric of the verse: 鈥淚f water be placed.鈥 Although, fundamentally, one has no interest in the drip of water, once the water already dripped, he wants it to remain in the bowl and not dirty the house. That desire is sufficient to accord the water in the bowl the legal status of water placed there willfully. The same is true with regard to the pouch of the zav. In the current situation of the zav, he is interested in keeping the emission in its place, and therefore the original difficulty posed by the contradiction between the two baraitot remains intact.


讗诇讗 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉


Rather, it is Abaye and Rava, who both said that this is not difficult. There is no contradiction between the baraitot. This baraita, which deems a zav liable by Torah law for going out with his pouch, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. His opinion is that one who performs a prohibited labor that is not needed for its own sake, but rather for a different consequence of that prohibited labor, is liable. And that baraita, which deems him exempt, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. He holds that one who performs a prohibited labor that is not needed for its own sake is exempt. Since the zav is not at all interested in the flow and the pouch, he is exempt by Torah law for carrying the pouch.


转谞讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讬讜爪讗 讗讚诐 讘转驻讬诇讬谉 讘注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讬讻讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讞讬讬讘 讗讚诐 诇诪砖诪砖 讘转驻讬诇讬谉 讻诇 砖注讛 讜砖注讛 拽诇 讜讞诪专 诪爪讬抓 诪讛 爪讬抓 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 讗讝讻专讛 讗讞转 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讜讛讬讛 注诇 诪爪讞讜 转诪讬讚 砖诇讗 讬住讬讞 讚注转讜 诪诪谞讜 转驻讬诇讬谉 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 讗讝讻专讜转 讛专讘讛 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛 讛诇讻讱 诪讬讚讻专 讚讻讬专 诇讛讜 转谞讬讗 讞谞谞讬讗 讗讜诪专 讞讬讬讘 讗讚诐 诇诪砖诪砖 讘讘讙讚讜 注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讻讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛诇讻转讗 专讘转讬 诇砖讘转


The Sage of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught in a baraita: A person may go out ab initio donning phylacteries on Shabbat eve at nightfall. Although one does not don phylacteries on Shabbat and going out donning them involves an element of carrying, there is no concern lest he forget and remove them on Shabbat. What is the reason for this? Because Rabba bar Rav Huna said: A person is obligated to touch his phylacteries at all times that he is donning them. This is derived from an a fortiori inference [kal va岣mer] from the frontplate [tzitz] of the High Priest. Just as with regard to the frontplate, which has only one mention of God鈥檚 name, the Torah said: 鈥淎nd it should be always upon his forehead鈥 (Exodus 28:38), which means that the High Priest must always be aware that the tzitz is placed on his head and that he should not be distracted from it; phylacteries that have numerous mentions of God鈥檚 name, all the more so one should always be aware of them. Therefore, he remembers that the phylacteries are on his head and is not likely to come to carry them on Shabbat. On a related note, the Gemara mentions that it was taught in a baraita that 岣nanya says: A person is required to feel his clothing on Shabbat eve at nightfall to ascertain whether he forgot an object in his pockets that he might come to carry on Shabbat. And Rav Yosef commented and said: That is a significant halakha for Shabbat, and it is fitting to do so in order to refrain from violating a prohibition.


诇讗 讬驻诇讛 讗转 讻诇讬讜 讻讜壮: 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇讗 讬驻诇讛 讗转 讻诇讬讜 讘讬讜诐 砖诪讗 讬讛专讜讙 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讛讜专讙 讻讬谞讛 讘砖讘转 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜专讙 讙诪诇 讜诇讗 讬拽专讗 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 砖诪讗 讬讟讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 砖诪讗 讬讟讛


We learned in the mishna: One may not shake his clothes on Shabbat to rid them of lice; and one may not read a book by candlelight, so that he will not come to adjust the wick of the lamp. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does this mean that one may not shake his clothes even during the day due to the concern lest he kill the louse that he finds in his clothing, and our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said: One who kills a louse on Shabbat, even though it is a very small creature, it is as if he killed a camel, and there is no difference in the severity of the prohibition. And what was said in the mishna: And he may not read by candlelight, is due to concern lest he adjust the wick, a totally independent matter. Or, perhaps both of these halakhot are due to the concern lest he adjust the wick, and both halakhot apply exclusively at night. During the day he is permitted to shake his clothes, and there is no concern lest he kill a louse.


转讗 砖诪注 讗讬谉 驻讜诇讬谉 讜讗讬谉 拽讜专讬谉 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 诪讬 讗诇讬诪讗 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉


Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which was taught in a baraita: One may not shake clothing and one may not read a book by candlelight on Shabbat. The style of the baraita indicates that both actions are prohibited for the same reason. The Gemara rejects this: Is this proof from the baraita a stronger proof than our mishna? In our mishna, both halakhot are also cited together, and that was insufficient proof that they share a common rationale.


转讗 砖诪注 讗讬谉 驻讜诇讬谉 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 讜讗讬谉 拽讜专讬谉 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 讗诇讜 诪谉 讛讛诇讻讜转 砖讗诪专讜 讘注诇讬讬转 讞谞谞讬讛 讘谉 讞讝拽讬讛 讘谉 讙专讜谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 砖诪讗 讬讟讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which was taught in another baraita: One may not shake clothing by the light of the lamp and one may not read by the light of the lamp. These two decrees are among the halakhot that the Sages said in the upper story of 岣nanya ben 岣zkiya ben Garon. Learn from this that both of the decrees are due to the concern lest he adjust the wick. In both decrees, the prohibition of doing so by the light of the lamp, lest he come to adjust the wick, was mentioned. Indeed, learn from this.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讛讘讞讬谉 讘讬谉 讘讙讚讜 诇讘讙讚讬 讗砖转讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚讘谞讬 诪讞讜讝讗 讗讘诇 讚讘谞讬 讞拽诇讬转讗 诪讬讚注 讬讚注讬 讜讚讘谞讬 诪讞讜讝讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚讝拽谞讜转 讗讘诇 讚讬诇讚讜转 诪讬讚注 讬讚讬注讬


Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is prohibited to use candlelight even to distinguish between his garments and the garments of his wife. Because that requires a certain degree of scrutiny, there is concern lest he adjust the wick in order to see better. To qualify this statement, Rava said: We only said this with regard to the garments of the people of the city of Me岣za, as there the men鈥檚 garments are wide and ornamented similar to the women鈥檚 garments; however, with regard to farmers and village residents, they know the difference between men鈥檚 and women鈥檚 garments. There is no concern lest they adjust the wick to distinguish between the garments, as the differences between men鈥檚 garments and women鈥檚 garments are obvious. Even with regard to the clothing of the people of Me岣za, we only said that it is prohibited to distinguish between men鈥檚 and women鈥檚 garments with regard to the garments of old women; however, with regard to the garments of young women, they know the difference and there is no concern lest one adjust the wick to distinguish between them.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 驻讜诇讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讛讻讘讜讚 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讗诪专 (专讘) 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗驻讬拽讟讜讬讝讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讛讻讘讜讚 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪驻诇讛 讗转 讻诇讬讜 诪讜诇诇 讜讝讜专拽 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛专讜讙 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 谞讜讟诇 讜讝讜专拽 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬诪诇讜诇 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻讛 诪讜诇诇 讜讝讜专拽 讜讝讛讜 讻讘讜讚讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讜诇 专讘讛 诪拽讟注 诇讛讜 讜专讘 砖砖转 诪拽讟注 诇讛讜 专讘讗 砖讚讬 诇讛讜 诇拽谞讗 讚诪讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讘谞转讬讛 拽讟讜诇讬谉 讜讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬 拽诇讗 讚住谞讜讜转讬


The Sages taught: One may not shake clothing to rid them of lice in the public domain in deference to human dignity, as passersby would be offended by this. Similarly, Rabbi Yehuda said, and some say that Rabbi Ne岣mya said it: One may not make an appiktoizin, a drug to induce vomiting, in the public domain in deference to human dignity. With regard to the matter of shaking clothing to rid them of lice on Shabbat, the Gemara cites that which the Sages taught in the Tosefta: One who shakes his clothing may squeeze the louse and throw it, as long as he does not kill it. Abba Shaul says: He may take the louse and throw it, as long as he does not squeeze it. In his opinion, killing a louse is prohibited by Torah law. Therefore, even squeezing it is prohibited, lest he come to kill it. Rav Huna said: The halakha is that he may squeeze and throw the louse, and that is the dignified way to get rid of a louse, and even during the days of the week, when it is not Shabbat and there is no concern lest he violate the prohibition of killing a louse. Even then, it is preferable not to kill it because it is disgusting and it is sufficient to simply throw it (Me鈥檌ri). The Gemara relates that Rabba would kill the lice. And Rav Sheshet would also kill them. Rava would throw them into a cup [lekna] of water and he would not kill them directly with his hands. The Gemara relates that Rav Na岣an would say to his daughters: Kill them, and let me hear the sound of the combs, meaning, you may kill the lice in the usual manner on the comb.


转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讛讜专讙讬谉 讗转 讛诪讗讻讜诇转 讘砖讘转 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉


As far as the basic halakha is concerned, it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed with regard to killing a louse on Shabbat: One may not kill a louse on Shabbat, this is the statement of Beit Shammai; and Beit Hillel permit doing so. In their opinion, a louse is unlike the other creatures for which one is liable for killing them on Shabbat.


讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讬谉 诪砖讚讻讬谉 讗转 讛转讬谞讜拽讜转 诇讗专住 讜诇讗 讗转 讛转讬谞讜拽 诇诇诪讚讜 住驻专 讜诇诇诪讚讜 讗讜诪谞讜转 讜讗讬谉 诪谞讞诪讬谉 讗讘诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪讘拽专讬谉 讞讜诇讬谉 讘砖讘转 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉:


And Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would also say in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: One may not make matches [meshaddekhin] for the children, to betroth them on Shabbat, and one may not enter into an agreement to take the child and teach him to read a sacred book or to teach him a trade, and one may not comfort mourners on Shabbat, and one may not visit the sick on Shabbat, this is the statement of Beit Shammai, as in their opinion, those are weekday activities and not appropriate on Shabbat. And Beit Hillel permit performing all of these activities on Shabbat, as they each include an aspect of mitzva.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞讻谞住 诇讘拽专 讗转 讛讞讜诇讛 讗讜诪专 砖讘转 讛讬讗 诪诇讝注讜拽 讜专驻讜讗讛 拽专讜讘讛 诇讘讗 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇讛 讛讬讗 砖转专讞诐


The Sages taught in a baraita: One who enters to visit a sick person on Shabbat does not address him in the manner customary during the week; rather, he says: It is on Shabbat that it is prohibited to cry out and ask for compassion, and healing is soon to come. And Rabbi Meir says that it is appropriate to add: The merit of Shabbat is capable of engendering compassion.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛诪拽讜诐 讬专讞诐 注诇讬讱 讜注诇 讞讜诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讛诪拽讜诐 讬专讞诐 注诇讬讱 讘转讜讱 讞讜诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 砖讘谞讗 讗讬砖 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘讻谞讬住转讜 讗讜诪专 砖诇讜诐 讜讘讬爪讬讗转讜 讗讜诪专 砖讘转 讛讬讗 诪诇讝注讜拽 讜专驻讜讗讛 拽专讜讘讛 诇讘讗 讜专讞诪讬讜 诪专讜讘讬谉 讜砖讘转讜 讘砖诇讜诐 讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讞讜诇讛 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 爪专讬讱 砖讬注专讘谞讜 讘转讜讱 讞讜诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬


Rabbi Yehuda says that it is appropriate to say: May the Omnipresent have compassion upon you and upon all the sick people of Israel. Rabbi Yosei says that it is appropriate to say: May the Omnipresent have compassion upon you among the sick people of Israel, thereby including this sick person within the community of Israel. When Shevna of Jerusalem would visit a sick person on Shabbat, upon entering, he would say shalom. And when he exited he would say: It is Shabbat when one is prohibited to cry out, and healing is soon to come, and His compassion is abundant, and rest on Shabbat in peace. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is the halakha that Rabbi 岣nina said: One who has a sick person in his house must include him among the sick people of Israel in his prayer? In accordance with whose opinion? In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘拽讜砖讬 讛转讬专讜 诇谞讞诐 讗讘诇讬诐 讜诇讘拽专 讞讜诇讬诐 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讻讬 讛讜讛 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇砖讬讜诇讬 讘转驻讬讞讛 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 讛诪拽讜诐 讬驻拽讚讱 诇砖诇讜诐 讜讝讬诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 (诇讬讛) 专讞诪谞讗 讬讚讻专讬谞讱 诇砖诇诐 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇注讜诇诐 讗诇 讬砖讗诇 讗讚诐 爪专讻讬讜 讘诇砖讜谉 讗专诪讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛砖讜讗诇 爪专讻讬讜 讘诇砖讜谉 讗专诪讬 讗讬谉 诪诇讗讻讬 讛砖专转 谞讝拽拽讬谉 诇讜 砖讗讬谉 诪诇讗讻讬 讛砖专转 诪讻讬专讬谉 讘诇砖讜谉 讗专诪讬 砖讗谞讬 讞讜诇讛 讚砖讻讬谞讛 注诪讜


And Rabbi 岣nina said: It was only with great difficulty that the Sages permitted to comfort the mourners and visit the sick on Shabbat, as both the visitor and the comforter experience suffering on Shabbat. They permitted it only due to the mitzva involved in these activities. Rabba bar bar 岣na said: When we would follow Rabbi Elazar to inquire about the health of a sick person; sometimes he would say in Hebrew: May the Omnipresent remember you for peace, and sometimes he would say to him in Aramaic: May the all-Merciful remember you for peace. He would say it in Aramaic when the sick person did not understand Hebrew (Rav Elazar Moshe Horovitz). The Gemara asks: How did he do this, pray in Aramaic? Didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say: A person should never request that his needs be met in the Aramaic language? And, similarly, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Anyone who requests that his needs be met in the Aramaic language, the ministering angels do not attend to him to bring his prayer before God, as the ministering angels are not familiar with the Aramaic language, but only with the sacred tongue, Hebrew, exclusively. The Gemara responds: A sick person is different. He does not need the angels to bring his prayer before God because the Divine Presence is with him.


讚讗诪专 专讘 注谞谉 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬谉 砖砖讻讬谞讛 住讜注讚 讗转 讛讞讜诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讛壮 讬住注讚谞讜 注诇 注专砖 讚讜讬 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛谞讻谞住 诇讘拽专 讗转 讛讞讜诇讛 诇讗 讬砖讘 诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讟讛 讜诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬 讻住讗 讗诇讗 诪转注讟祝 讜讬讜砖讘 诇驻谞讬讜 诪驻谞讬 砖砖讻讬谞讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪专讗砖讜转讬讜 砖诇 讞讜诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讛壮 讬住注讚谞讜 注诇 注专砖 讚讜讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谉 诪谞讬谉 砖讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讝谉 讗转 讛讞讜诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讛壮 讬住注讚谞讜 注诇 注专砖 讚讜讬:


As Rav Anan said that Rav said: From where is it derived that the Divine Presence cares for and aids the sick person? As it is stated: 鈥淕od will support him on the bed of illness鈥 (Psalms 41:4). The Gemara comments: That was also taught in a baraita: One who enters to visit the sick person should sit neither on the bed nor on a chair; rather, he should wrap himself in his prayer shawl with trepidation and awe, and sit before the sick person below him, as the Divine Presence is above the head of the sick person, as it is stated: 鈥淕od will support him on the bed of illness,鈥 and he must treat the Divine Presence with deference. On a similar note, Rava said that Ravin said: From where is it derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He, feeds the sick person during his illness? As it is stated: 鈥淕od will support him on the bed of illness.鈥


讜诇讗 讬拽专讗 诇讗讜专 讛谞专: 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讘讜讛 砖转讬 拽讜诪讜转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖转讬 诪专讚注讜转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 注砖专讛 讘转讬诐 讝讜 注诇 讙讘 讝讜 讞讚 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诇讬拽专讬 讛讗 转专讬 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 诇讗 讗讞讚 讜诇讗 砖谞讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘注谞讬谉 讗讞讚 讻讗谉 讘砖谞讬 注谞讬谞讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讘诪讚讜专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 注砖专讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讗住讜专


We learned in the mishna that one may not read a book by candlelight on Shabbat. Rabba said: Since a decree was issued, there is no distinction whether or not the lamp was near enough to him to enable him to adjust the wick. The prohibition applies even if the lamp was two statures of a person high, and even as high as two plow handles, and even if it was as high as ten houses one atop the other. We learned in the mishna that one may not read, and the Gemara infers: One may not read, but for two, apparently, he may well do so. They will not violate any prohibition, as two people together will certainly not forget the Shabbat prohibition. The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that neither one nor two are permitted to read by the light of the lamp? Rabbi Elazar said: This is not difficult, as there is room to distinguish between them and say that here, where two were permitted to read by candlelight, it is referring to a case where they are both engaged in one matter and will remind each other to refrain from adjusting the wick. There, where two were prohibited to read by candlelight it is referring to a case where they are engaged in two different matters. Since each is preoccupied with a different text, they will not pay attention and remind each other. Rav Huna said: And with regard to a bonfire, where everyone is sitting around it and not adjacent to it, even if they were ten people, it is prohibited to read by its light. When sitting around a bonfire, everyone sits at a distance from the others, and therefore they do not notice each other, and each is liable to adjust the firebrands to provide himself with more light.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 讗讚诐 讞砖讜讘 讛讜讗 诪讜转专 诪讬转讬讘讬 诇讗 讬拽专讗 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 砖诪讗 讬讟讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谉 讗诇讬砖注 讗谞讬 讗拽专讗 讜诇讗 讗讟讛 驻注诐 讗讞转 拽专讗 讜讘拽砖 诇讛讟讜转 讗诪专 讻诪讛 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬拽专讗 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讟讛 讜讻转讘 注诇 驻谞拽住讜 讗谞讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谉 讗诇讬砖注 拽专讬转讬 讜讛讟讬转讬 谞专 讘砖讘转 诇讻砖讬讘谞讛 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讗讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 砖诪谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 砖讗谞讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谉 讗诇讬砖注 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪砖讬诐 注爪诪讜 注诇 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讻讛讚讬讜讟


Rava said: Even though they prohibited reading by candlelight due to a decree lest they adjust the wick, if he is an important person, it is permitted, as even on weekdays he is not accustomed to adjust a lamp that is dirty with oil. The Gemara raises an objection from that which was taught in a Tosefta: One may not read a book on Shabbat by the light of the lamp, lest he adjust it. The Tosefta relates that Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha said: I will read and will not adjust, as I will certainly not forget that it is Shabbat. However, once he read a book by candlelight and he sought to adjust the wick. He said: How great are the words of the Sages, who would say that one may not read by candlelight, as even a person like me sought to adjust the wick. Rabbi Natan says: That was not the way it happened. Rather, he read and actually adjusted the wick, and he wrote afterward in his notebook [pinkas]: I, Yishmael ben Elisha, read and adjusted a lamp on Shabbat. When the Temple will be rebuilt I will bring a fat sin-offering as atonement for this sin. This proves that even an important person like Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha is liable to adjust the wick. Rabbi Abba said: Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha is different, since with regard to the study of Torah, he comports himself like a simple man with no air of importance, but generally, an important person would not dirty his hands and adjust the wick.


转谞讬 讞讚讗 砖诪砖 讘讜讚拽 讻讜住讜转 讜拽注专讜转 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诇讗 讬讘讚讜拽 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘砖诪砖 拽讘讜注 讻讗谉 讘砖诪砖 砖讗讬谞讜 拽讘讜注 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘砖诪砖 拽讘讜注 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讚诪砖讞讗 讜讛讗 讘讚谞驻讟讗


On this subject, the Gemara cites two apparently contradictory baraitot. It was taught in one baraita that a servant may examine cups and bowls by candlelight to check if they are clean. And it was taught in another baraita that he may not examine them. The Gemara explains: This is not difficult. Rather, here, the baraita that prohibited examining the cups, is referring to a regularly employed servant who fears his master and examines the dishes meticulously. Therefore, there is concern lest he come to adjust the wick. While there, the baraita that permitted examining the cups, is referring to a servant who is not regularly employed, does not fear his master, and therefore will not check meticulously. There is no concern lest he come to adjust the wick. And if you wish, say instead that this baraita and that baraita are both referring to a regularly employed servant. And this is not difficult, as they are not referring to the same kind of lamp. This baraita, which prohibited examining the dishes, is referring to an oil lamp, where there is room for concern lest he adjust it. And that baraita, which permitted examining the dishes, is referring to a naphtha [nafta] lamp. Since the naphtha lamp is dirty, the servant certainly will not touch it while checking the cups and dishes.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖诪砖 砖讗讬谞讜 拽讘讜注 讘讚诪砖讞讗 诪讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讜专讬谉 讻谉 讜专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讜诪讜专讬谉 讻谉 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 专讘 讗住讬 拽诐 砖诪注讬讛 拽讗 讘讚讬拽 诇谞讛讜专讗 讚砖专讙讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讚讘讬转讛讜 讜诪专 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛 砖讘拽讬讛 讻专讘讬讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛:


A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the ruling with regard to a servant who is not regularly employed in terms of examining cups and dishes by the light of an oil lamp? Is he permitted to examine the cups by candlelight, or not? From the perspective of his being a servant not regularly employed, it should be permitted. On the other hand, because it is an oil lamp it should be prohibited. Rav said: The halakha is that it is permitted, and, however, ab initio a public ruling is not issued to that effect so that they will not come to sin. However, one who knows the halakha that it is permitted may practice accordingly. Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: That halakha is that it is permitted and a public ruling is issued to that effect. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba happened to come to the house of Rav Asi on Shabbat. Rabbi Yirmeya鈥檚 servant stood and examined the cups by the light of a lamp [sheraga], as he was not a regularly employed servant in the house of Rav Asi. Rav Asi鈥檚 wife said to Rav Asi: But the Master, you, does not do so. You prohibit doing so. Why is the servant of Rabbi Yirmeya examining the cups? He said to her: Leave him, he holds in accordance with the opinion of his master.


讘讗诪转 讗诪专讜 讛讞讝谉 讻讜壮: 讜讛讗诪专转 专讬砖讗 专讜讗讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇拽专讜转 诇讗 诇住讚专 专讗砖讬 驻专砖讬讜转讬讜 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讘诇 诪住讚专 讛讜讗 专讗砖讬 驻专砖讬讜转讬讜 讜讻讜诇讛 驻专砖讛 诇讗


We learned in the mishna that in truth they said that the attendant sees where in the book the children under his supervision are reading, but he himself should not read. The Gemara asked: Didn鈥檛 you say in the first clause of the mishna that the attendant sees? Doesn鈥檛 that mean that he sees in order to read? How can that part of the mishna conclude by saying that he may not read? The Gemara answers: No, it does not mean that the attendant is permitted to actually read; rather, he is only permitted to look and arrange the beginning of his sections of the Torah that he must read the next day. And so too, Rabba bar Shmuel said: However, he may arrange the beginning of his sections that he must read the next day. The Gemara asks: And may he not read the entire section?


Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Sami Groff in honor of Shoshana Keats Jaskoll and Chochmat Nashim.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

daf yomi One week at a time (1)

Daf Yomi: One week at a Time -Shabbat 12-18

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMz6ZWYxaTc   This week we will learn key concepts from Daf 12-18 including the Laws of Purity and...
Ilana Kurshan

Daf Yomi in the Time of Corona- Vayakhel-Pekudei

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

Shabbat 12: Did Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha Break Shabbos?!

There's a whole lot of holiness on this daf: why wearing Tefillin on erev Shabbat is allowed. The presence of...

Shabbat 12

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 12

砖诇讗 讬诇拽讛 讛讻讜转诇 讗讬谞讜 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诇讗 拽讗 讘注讬 诇讛讜 诇讛谞讬 诪砖拽讬谉 讻诇诇 讛讻讗 拽讗 讘注讬 诇讛讜 诇讛讗讬 讻讬住 诇拽讘讜诇讬 讘讬讛 讝讬讘讛


that the wall will not be damaged, it is not under the rubric of the verse: 鈥淚f water be placed.鈥 The water does not have the legal status of water poured for that purpose. This tanna does not consider protecting the wall from dirt as a significant usage. Similarly, protecting the zav from being soiled by the emission would not be considered a significant usage and the pouch used for that purpose would not be considered a significant vessel. The Gemara rejects this: Are these cases comparable? There, he does not need those liquids at all, and therefore the vessel is not considered to have been placed to receive them. However, here he needs this pouch to absorb the emission, to ascertain whether or not he experienced an emission. Although on that particular day he does not require the pouch, the zav typically requires his pouch for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not there is another emission.


讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬讗 讗诇讗 诇住讬驻讗 注专讬讘讛 砖讬专讚 讚诇祝 诇转讜讻讛 诪讬诐 讛谞讬转讝讬谉 讜讛谞爪驻讬谉 讗讬谞谉 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉 讜砖讘转讜讻讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉


Rather, this halakha with regard to the zav is comparable only to the latter clause of the mishna dealing with rainwater, in which we learned: A bowl that the drip of rain from the roof dropped into it, the water that splashes or overflows from the bowl does not have the legal status of water collected for a purpose, and is not under the rubric of the verse: 鈥淚f water be placed.鈥 And the water that is in the bowl has the legal status of water collected for a purpose and is under the rubric of the verse: 鈥淚f water be placed.鈥 Although, fundamentally, one has no interest in the drip of water, once the water already dripped, he wants it to remain in the bowl and not dirty the house. That desire is sufficient to accord the water in the bowl the legal status of water placed there willfully. The same is true with regard to the pouch of the zav. In the current situation of the zav, he is interested in keeping the emission in its place, and therefore the original difficulty posed by the contradiction between the two baraitot remains intact.


讗诇讗 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉


Rather, it is Abaye and Rava, who both said that this is not difficult. There is no contradiction between the baraitot. This baraita, which deems a zav liable by Torah law for going out with his pouch, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. His opinion is that one who performs a prohibited labor that is not needed for its own sake, but rather for a different consequence of that prohibited labor, is liable. And that baraita, which deems him exempt, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. He holds that one who performs a prohibited labor that is not needed for its own sake is exempt. Since the zav is not at all interested in the flow and the pouch, he is exempt by Torah law for carrying the pouch.


转谞讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讬讜爪讗 讗讚诐 讘转驻讬诇讬谉 讘注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讬讻讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讞讬讬讘 讗讚诐 诇诪砖诪砖 讘转驻讬诇讬谉 讻诇 砖注讛 讜砖注讛 拽诇 讜讞诪专 诪爪讬抓 诪讛 爪讬抓 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 讗讝讻专讛 讗讞转 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讜讛讬讛 注诇 诪爪讞讜 转诪讬讚 砖诇讗 讬住讬讞 讚注转讜 诪诪谞讜 转驻讬诇讬谉 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 讗讝讻专讜转 讛专讘讛 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛 讛诇讻讱 诪讬讚讻专 讚讻讬专 诇讛讜 转谞讬讗 讞谞谞讬讗 讗讜诪专 讞讬讬讘 讗讚诐 诇诪砖诪砖 讘讘讙讚讜 注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讻讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛诇讻转讗 专讘转讬 诇砖讘转


The Sage of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught in a baraita: A person may go out ab initio donning phylacteries on Shabbat eve at nightfall. Although one does not don phylacteries on Shabbat and going out donning them involves an element of carrying, there is no concern lest he forget and remove them on Shabbat. What is the reason for this? Because Rabba bar Rav Huna said: A person is obligated to touch his phylacteries at all times that he is donning them. This is derived from an a fortiori inference [kal va岣mer] from the frontplate [tzitz] of the High Priest. Just as with regard to the frontplate, which has only one mention of God鈥檚 name, the Torah said: 鈥淎nd it should be always upon his forehead鈥 (Exodus 28:38), which means that the High Priest must always be aware that the tzitz is placed on his head and that he should not be distracted from it; phylacteries that have numerous mentions of God鈥檚 name, all the more so one should always be aware of them. Therefore, he remembers that the phylacteries are on his head and is not likely to come to carry them on Shabbat. On a related note, the Gemara mentions that it was taught in a baraita that 岣nanya says: A person is required to feel his clothing on Shabbat eve at nightfall to ascertain whether he forgot an object in his pockets that he might come to carry on Shabbat. And Rav Yosef commented and said: That is a significant halakha for Shabbat, and it is fitting to do so in order to refrain from violating a prohibition.


诇讗 讬驻诇讛 讗转 讻诇讬讜 讻讜壮: 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇讗 讬驻诇讛 讗转 讻诇讬讜 讘讬讜诐 砖诪讗 讬讛专讜讙 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讛讜专讙 讻讬谞讛 讘砖讘转 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜专讙 讙诪诇 讜诇讗 讬拽专讗 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 砖诪讗 讬讟讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 砖诪讗 讬讟讛


We learned in the mishna: One may not shake his clothes on Shabbat to rid them of lice; and one may not read a book by candlelight, so that he will not come to adjust the wick of the lamp. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does this mean that one may not shake his clothes even during the day due to the concern lest he kill the louse that he finds in his clothing, and our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said: One who kills a louse on Shabbat, even though it is a very small creature, it is as if he killed a camel, and there is no difference in the severity of the prohibition. And what was said in the mishna: And he may not read by candlelight, is due to concern lest he adjust the wick, a totally independent matter. Or, perhaps both of these halakhot are due to the concern lest he adjust the wick, and both halakhot apply exclusively at night. During the day he is permitted to shake his clothes, and there is no concern lest he kill a louse.


转讗 砖诪注 讗讬谉 驻讜诇讬谉 讜讗讬谉 拽讜专讬谉 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 诪讬 讗诇讬诪讗 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉


Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which was taught in a baraita: One may not shake clothing and one may not read a book by candlelight on Shabbat. The style of the baraita indicates that both actions are prohibited for the same reason. The Gemara rejects this: Is this proof from the baraita a stronger proof than our mishna? In our mishna, both halakhot are also cited together, and that was insufficient proof that they share a common rationale.


转讗 砖诪注 讗讬谉 驻讜诇讬谉 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 讜讗讬谉 拽讜专讬谉 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 讗诇讜 诪谉 讛讛诇讻讜转 砖讗诪专讜 讘注诇讬讬转 讞谞谞讬讛 讘谉 讞讝拽讬讛 讘谉 讙专讜谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 砖诪讗 讬讟讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which was taught in another baraita: One may not shake clothing by the light of the lamp and one may not read by the light of the lamp. These two decrees are among the halakhot that the Sages said in the upper story of 岣nanya ben 岣zkiya ben Garon. Learn from this that both of the decrees are due to the concern lest he adjust the wick. In both decrees, the prohibition of doing so by the light of the lamp, lest he come to adjust the wick, was mentioned. Indeed, learn from this.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讛讘讞讬谉 讘讬谉 讘讙讚讜 诇讘讙讚讬 讗砖转讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚讘谞讬 诪讞讜讝讗 讗讘诇 讚讘谞讬 讞拽诇讬转讗 诪讬讚注 讬讚注讬 讜讚讘谞讬 诪讞讜讝讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚讝拽谞讜转 讗讘诇 讚讬诇讚讜转 诪讬讚注 讬讚讬注讬


Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is prohibited to use candlelight even to distinguish between his garments and the garments of his wife. Because that requires a certain degree of scrutiny, there is concern lest he adjust the wick in order to see better. To qualify this statement, Rava said: We only said this with regard to the garments of the people of the city of Me岣za, as there the men鈥檚 garments are wide and ornamented similar to the women鈥檚 garments; however, with regard to farmers and village residents, they know the difference between men鈥檚 and women鈥檚 garments. There is no concern lest they adjust the wick to distinguish between the garments, as the differences between men鈥檚 garments and women鈥檚 garments are obvious. Even with regard to the clothing of the people of Me岣za, we only said that it is prohibited to distinguish between men鈥檚 and women鈥檚 garments with regard to the garments of old women; however, with regard to the garments of young women, they know the difference and there is no concern lest one adjust the wick to distinguish between them.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 驻讜诇讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讛讻讘讜讚 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讗诪专 (专讘) 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗驻讬拽讟讜讬讝讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讛讻讘讜讚 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪驻诇讛 讗转 讻诇讬讜 诪讜诇诇 讜讝讜专拽 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛专讜讙 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 谞讜讟诇 讜讝讜专拽 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬诪诇讜诇 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻讛 诪讜诇诇 讜讝讜专拽 讜讝讛讜 讻讘讜讚讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讜诇 专讘讛 诪拽讟注 诇讛讜 讜专讘 砖砖转 诪拽讟注 诇讛讜 专讘讗 砖讚讬 诇讛讜 诇拽谞讗 讚诪讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讘谞转讬讛 拽讟讜诇讬谉 讜讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬 拽诇讗 讚住谞讜讜转讬


The Sages taught: One may not shake clothing to rid them of lice in the public domain in deference to human dignity, as passersby would be offended by this. Similarly, Rabbi Yehuda said, and some say that Rabbi Ne岣mya said it: One may not make an appiktoizin, a drug to induce vomiting, in the public domain in deference to human dignity. With regard to the matter of shaking clothing to rid them of lice on Shabbat, the Gemara cites that which the Sages taught in the Tosefta: One who shakes his clothing may squeeze the louse and throw it, as long as he does not kill it. Abba Shaul says: He may take the louse and throw it, as long as he does not squeeze it. In his opinion, killing a louse is prohibited by Torah law. Therefore, even squeezing it is prohibited, lest he come to kill it. Rav Huna said: The halakha is that he may squeeze and throw the louse, and that is the dignified way to get rid of a louse, and even during the days of the week, when it is not Shabbat and there is no concern lest he violate the prohibition of killing a louse. Even then, it is preferable not to kill it because it is disgusting and it is sufficient to simply throw it (Me鈥檌ri). The Gemara relates that Rabba would kill the lice. And Rav Sheshet would also kill them. Rava would throw them into a cup [lekna] of water and he would not kill them directly with his hands. The Gemara relates that Rav Na岣an would say to his daughters: Kill them, and let me hear the sound of the combs, meaning, you may kill the lice in the usual manner on the comb.


转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讛讜专讙讬谉 讗转 讛诪讗讻讜诇转 讘砖讘转 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉


As far as the basic halakha is concerned, it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed with regard to killing a louse on Shabbat: One may not kill a louse on Shabbat, this is the statement of Beit Shammai; and Beit Hillel permit doing so. In their opinion, a louse is unlike the other creatures for which one is liable for killing them on Shabbat.


讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讬谉 诪砖讚讻讬谉 讗转 讛转讬谞讜拽讜转 诇讗专住 讜诇讗 讗转 讛转讬谞讜拽 诇诇诪讚讜 住驻专 讜诇诇诪讚讜 讗讜诪谞讜转 讜讗讬谉 诪谞讞诪讬谉 讗讘诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪讘拽专讬谉 讞讜诇讬谉 讘砖讘转 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉:


And Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would also say in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: One may not make matches [meshaddekhin] for the children, to betroth them on Shabbat, and one may not enter into an agreement to take the child and teach him to read a sacred book or to teach him a trade, and one may not comfort mourners on Shabbat, and one may not visit the sick on Shabbat, this is the statement of Beit Shammai, as in their opinion, those are weekday activities and not appropriate on Shabbat. And Beit Hillel permit performing all of these activities on Shabbat, as they each include an aspect of mitzva.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞讻谞住 诇讘拽专 讗转 讛讞讜诇讛 讗讜诪专 砖讘转 讛讬讗 诪诇讝注讜拽 讜专驻讜讗讛 拽专讜讘讛 诇讘讗 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇讛 讛讬讗 砖转专讞诐


The Sages taught in a baraita: One who enters to visit a sick person on Shabbat does not address him in the manner customary during the week; rather, he says: It is on Shabbat that it is prohibited to cry out and ask for compassion, and healing is soon to come. And Rabbi Meir says that it is appropriate to add: The merit of Shabbat is capable of engendering compassion.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛诪拽讜诐 讬专讞诐 注诇讬讱 讜注诇 讞讜诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讛诪拽讜诐 讬专讞诐 注诇讬讱 讘转讜讱 讞讜诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 砖讘谞讗 讗讬砖 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘讻谞讬住转讜 讗讜诪专 砖诇讜诐 讜讘讬爪讬讗转讜 讗讜诪专 砖讘转 讛讬讗 诪诇讝注讜拽 讜专驻讜讗讛 拽专讜讘讛 诇讘讗 讜专讞诪讬讜 诪专讜讘讬谉 讜砖讘转讜 讘砖诇讜诐 讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讞讜诇讛 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 爪专讬讱 砖讬注专讘谞讜 讘转讜讱 讞讜诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬


Rabbi Yehuda says that it is appropriate to say: May the Omnipresent have compassion upon you and upon all the sick people of Israel. Rabbi Yosei says that it is appropriate to say: May the Omnipresent have compassion upon you among the sick people of Israel, thereby including this sick person within the community of Israel. When Shevna of Jerusalem would visit a sick person on Shabbat, upon entering, he would say shalom. And when he exited he would say: It is Shabbat when one is prohibited to cry out, and healing is soon to come, and His compassion is abundant, and rest on Shabbat in peace. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is the halakha that Rabbi 岣nina said: One who has a sick person in his house must include him among the sick people of Israel in his prayer? In accordance with whose opinion? In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘拽讜砖讬 讛转讬专讜 诇谞讞诐 讗讘诇讬诐 讜诇讘拽专 讞讜诇讬诐 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讻讬 讛讜讛 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇砖讬讜诇讬 讘转驻讬讞讛 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 讛诪拽讜诐 讬驻拽讚讱 诇砖诇讜诐 讜讝讬诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 (诇讬讛) 专讞诪谞讗 讬讚讻专讬谞讱 诇砖诇诐 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇注讜诇诐 讗诇 讬砖讗诇 讗讚诐 爪专讻讬讜 讘诇砖讜谉 讗专诪讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛砖讜讗诇 爪专讻讬讜 讘诇砖讜谉 讗专诪讬 讗讬谉 诪诇讗讻讬 讛砖专转 谞讝拽拽讬谉 诇讜 砖讗讬谉 诪诇讗讻讬 讛砖专转 诪讻讬专讬谉 讘诇砖讜谉 讗专诪讬 砖讗谞讬 讞讜诇讛 讚砖讻讬谞讛 注诪讜


And Rabbi 岣nina said: It was only with great difficulty that the Sages permitted to comfort the mourners and visit the sick on Shabbat, as both the visitor and the comforter experience suffering on Shabbat. They permitted it only due to the mitzva involved in these activities. Rabba bar bar 岣na said: When we would follow Rabbi Elazar to inquire about the health of a sick person; sometimes he would say in Hebrew: May the Omnipresent remember you for peace, and sometimes he would say to him in Aramaic: May the all-Merciful remember you for peace. He would say it in Aramaic when the sick person did not understand Hebrew (Rav Elazar Moshe Horovitz). The Gemara asks: How did he do this, pray in Aramaic? Didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say: A person should never request that his needs be met in the Aramaic language? And, similarly, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Anyone who requests that his needs be met in the Aramaic language, the ministering angels do not attend to him to bring his prayer before God, as the ministering angels are not familiar with the Aramaic language, but only with the sacred tongue, Hebrew, exclusively. The Gemara responds: A sick person is different. He does not need the angels to bring his prayer before God because the Divine Presence is with him.


讚讗诪专 专讘 注谞谉 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬谉 砖砖讻讬谞讛 住讜注讚 讗转 讛讞讜诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讛壮 讬住注讚谞讜 注诇 注专砖 讚讜讬 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛谞讻谞住 诇讘拽专 讗转 讛讞讜诇讛 诇讗 讬砖讘 诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讟讛 讜诇讗 注诇 讙讘讬 讻住讗 讗诇讗 诪转注讟祝 讜讬讜砖讘 诇驻谞讬讜 诪驻谞讬 砖砖讻讬谞讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪专讗砖讜转讬讜 砖诇 讞讜诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讛壮 讬住注讚谞讜 注诇 注专砖 讚讜讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谉 诪谞讬谉 砖讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讝谉 讗转 讛讞讜诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讛壮 讬住注讚谞讜 注诇 注专砖 讚讜讬:


As Rav Anan said that Rav said: From where is it derived that the Divine Presence cares for and aids the sick person? As it is stated: 鈥淕od will support him on the bed of illness鈥 (Psalms 41:4). The Gemara comments: That was also taught in a baraita: One who enters to visit the sick person should sit neither on the bed nor on a chair; rather, he should wrap himself in his prayer shawl with trepidation and awe, and sit before the sick person below him, as the Divine Presence is above the head of the sick person, as it is stated: 鈥淕od will support him on the bed of illness,鈥 and he must treat the Divine Presence with deference. On a similar note, Rava said that Ravin said: From where is it derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He, feeds the sick person during his illness? As it is stated: 鈥淕od will support him on the bed of illness.鈥


讜诇讗 讬拽专讗 诇讗讜专 讛谞专: 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讘讜讛 砖转讬 拽讜诪讜转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖转讬 诪专讚注讜转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 注砖专讛 讘转讬诐 讝讜 注诇 讙讘 讝讜 讞讚 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诇讬拽专讬 讛讗 转专讬 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 诇讗 讗讞讚 讜诇讗 砖谞讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘注谞讬谉 讗讞讚 讻讗谉 讘砖谞讬 注谞讬谞讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讘诪讚讜专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 注砖专讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讗住讜专


We learned in the mishna that one may not read a book by candlelight on Shabbat. Rabba said: Since a decree was issued, there is no distinction whether or not the lamp was near enough to him to enable him to adjust the wick. The prohibition applies even if the lamp was two statures of a person high, and even as high as two plow handles, and even if it was as high as ten houses one atop the other. We learned in the mishna that one may not read, and the Gemara infers: One may not read, but for two, apparently, he may well do so. They will not violate any prohibition, as two people together will certainly not forget the Shabbat prohibition. The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that neither one nor two are permitted to read by the light of the lamp? Rabbi Elazar said: This is not difficult, as there is room to distinguish between them and say that here, where two were permitted to read by candlelight, it is referring to a case where they are both engaged in one matter and will remind each other to refrain from adjusting the wick. There, where two were prohibited to read by candlelight it is referring to a case where they are engaged in two different matters. Since each is preoccupied with a different text, they will not pay attention and remind each other. Rav Huna said: And with regard to a bonfire, where everyone is sitting around it and not adjacent to it, even if they were ten people, it is prohibited to read by its light. When sitting around a bonfire, everyone sits at a distance from the others, and therefore they do not notice each other, and each is liable to adjust the firebrands to provide himself with more light.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 讗讚诐 讞砖讜讘 讛讜讗 诪讜转专 诪讬转讬讘讬 诇讗 讬拽专讗 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 砖诪讗 讬讟讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谉 讗诇讬砖注 讗谞讬 讗拽专讗 讜诇讗 讗讟讛 驻注诐 讗讞转 拽专讗 讜讘拽砖 诇讛讟讜转 讗诪专 讻诪讛 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬拽专讗 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讟讛 讜讻转讘 注诇 驻谞拽住讜 讗谞讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谉 讗诇讬砖注 拽专讬转讬 讜讛讟讬转讬 谞专 讘砖讘转 诇讻砖讬讘谞讛 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讗讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 砖诪谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 砖讗谞讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谉 讗诇讬砖注 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪砖讬诐 注爪诪讜 注诇 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讻讛讚讬讜讟


Rava said: Even though they prohibited reading by candlelight due to a decree lest they adjust the wick, if he is an important person, it is permitted, as even on weekdays he is not accustomed to adjust a lamp that is dirty with oil. The Gemara raises an objection from that which was taught in a Tosefta: One may not read a book on Shabbat by the light of the lamp, lest he adjust it. The Tosefta relates that Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha said: I will read and will not adjust, as I will certainly not forget that it is Shabbat. However, once he read a book by candlelight and he sought to adjust the wick. He said: How great are the words of the Sages, who would say that one may not read by candlelight, as even a person like me sought to adjust the wick. Rabbi Natan says: That was not the way it happened. Rather, he read and actually adjusted the wick, and he wrote afterward in his notebook [pinkas]: I, Yishmael ben Elisha, read and adjusted a lamp on Shabbat. When the Temple will be rebuilt I will bring a fat sin-offering as atonement for this sin. This proves that even an important person like Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha is liable to adjust the wick. Rabbi Abba said: Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha is different, since with regard to the study of Torah, he comports himself like a simple man with no air of importance, but generally, an important person would not dirty his hands and adjust the wick.


转谞讬 讞讚讗 砖诪砖 讘讜讚拽 讻讜住讜转 讜拽注专讜转 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诇讗 讬讘讚讜拽 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘砖诪砖 拽讘讜注 讻讗谉 讘砖诪砖 砖讗讬谞讜 拽讘讜注 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘砖诪砖 拽讘讜注 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讚诪砖讞讗 讜讛讗 讘讚谞驻讟讗


On this subject, the Gemara cites two apparently contradictory baraitot. It was taught in one baraita that a servant may examine cups and bowls by candlelight to check if they are clean. And it was taught in another baraita that he may not examine them. The Gemara explains: This is not difficult. Rather, here, the baraita that prohibited examining the cups, is referring to a regularly employed servant who fears his master and examines the dishes meticulously. Therefore, there is concern lest he come to adjust the wick. While there, the baraita that permitted examining the cups, is referring to a servant who is not regularly employed, does not fear his master, and therefore will not check meticulously. There is no concern lest he come to adjust the wick. And if you wish, say instead that this baraita and that baraita are both referring to a regularly employed servant. And this is not difficult, as they are not referring to the same kind of lamp. This baraita, which prohibited examining the dishes, is referring to an oil lamp, where there is room for concern lest he adjust it. And that baraita, which permitted examining the dishes, is referring to a naphtha [nafta] lamp. Since the naphtha lamp is dirty, the servant certainly will not touch it while checking the cups and dishes.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖诪砖 砖讗讬谞讜 拽讘讜注 讘讚诪砖讞讗 诪讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讜专讬谉 讻谉 讜专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讜诪讜专讬谉 讻谉 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 专讘 讗住讬 拽诐 砖诪注讬讛 拽讗 讘讚讬拽 诇谞讛讜专讗 讚砖专讙讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讚讘讬转讛讜 讜诪专 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛 砖讘拽讬讛 讻专讘讬讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛:


A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the ruling with regard to a servant who is not regularly employed in terms of examining cups and dishes by the light of an oil lamp? Is he permitted to examine the cups by candlelight, or not? From the perspective of his being a servant not regularly employed, it should be permitted. On the other hand, because it is an oil lamp it should be prohibited. Rav said: The halakha is that it is permitted, and, however, ab initio a public ruling is not issued to that effect so that they will not come to sin. However, one who knows the halakha that it is permitted may practice accordingly. Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: That halakha is that it is permitted and a public ruling is issued to that effect. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba happened to come to the house of Rav Asi on Shabbat. Rabbi Yirmeya鈥檚 servant stood and examined the cups by the light of a lamp [sheraga], as he was not a regularly employed servant in the house of Rav Asi. Rav Asi鈥檚 wife said to Rav Asi: But the Master, you, does not do so. You prohibit doing so. Why is the servant of Rabbi Yirmeya examining the cups? He said to her: Leave him, he holds in accordance with the opinion of his master.


讘讗诪转 讗诪专讜 讛讞讝谉 讻讜壮: 讜讛讗诪专转 专讬砖讗 专讜讗讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇拽专讜转 诇讗 诇住讚专 专讗砖讬 驻专砖讬讜转讬讜 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讘诇 诪住讚专 讛讜讗 专讗砖讬 驻专砖讬讜转讬讜 讜讻讜诇讛 驻专砖讛 诇讗


We learned in the mishna that in truth they said that the attendant sees where in the book the children under his supervision are reading, but he himself should not read. The Gemara asked: Didn鈥檛 you say in the first clause of the mishna that the attendant sees? Doesn鈥檛 that mean that he sees in order to read? How can that part of the mishna conclude by saying that he may not read? The Gemara answers: No, it does not mean that the attendant is permitted to actually read; rather, he is only permitted to look and arrange the beginning of his sections of the Torah that he must read the next day. And so too, Rabba bar Shmuel said: However, he may arrange the beginning of his sections that he must read the next day. The Gemara asks: And may he not read the entire section?


Scroll To Top