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

December 5, 2021 | ב׳ בטבת תשפ״ב | TODAY'S DAF: Taanit 23

Today's Daf Yomi

March 18, 2020 | כ״ב באדר תש״פ

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.

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. 

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?

תוכן זה תורגם גם ל: עברית

שלא ילקה הכותל אינו בכי יותן מי דמי התם לא קא בעי להו להני משקין כלל הכא קא בעי להו להאי כיס לקבולי ביה זיבה

that the wall will not be damaged, it is not under the rubric of the verse: “If water be placed.” 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.

הא לא דמיא אלא לסיפא עריבה שירד דלף לתוכה מים הניתזין והנצפין אינן בכי יותן ושבתוכה הרי זה בכי יותן

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: “If water be placed.” 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: “If water be placed.” 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.

אלא אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו לא קשיא הא רבי יהודה והא רבי שמעון

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.

תני דבי רבי ישמעאל יוצא אדם בתפילין בערב שבת עם חשיכה מאי טעמא כיון דאמר רבה בר רב הונא חייב אדם למשמש בתפילין כל שעה ושעה קל וחמר מציץ מה ציץ שאין בו אלא אזכרה אחת אמרה תורה והיה על מצחו תמיד שלא יסיח דעתו ממנו תפילין שיש בהן אזכרות הרבה על אחת כמה וכמה הלכך מידכר דכיר להו תניא חנניא אומר חייב אדם למשמש בבגדו ערב שבת עם חשכה אמר רב יוסף הלכתא רבתי לשבת

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 vaḥomer] from the frontplate [tzitz] of the High Priest. Just as with regard to the frontplate, which has only one mention of God’s name, the Torah said: “And it should be always upon his forehead” (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’s 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 Ḥananya 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.

לא יפלה את כליו כו׳: איבעיא להו לא יפלה את כליו ביום שמא יהרוג ורבי אליעזר היא דתניא אמר רבי אליעזר ההורג כינה בשבת כאילו הורג גמל ולא יקרא לאור הנר שמא יטה או דילמא תרוייהו שמא יטה

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.

תא שמע אין פולין ואין קורין לאור הנר מי אלימא ממתניתין

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.

תא שמע אין פולין לאור הנר ואין קורין לאור הנר אלו מן ההלכות שאמרו בעליית חנניה בן חזקיה בן גרון שמע מינה דתרוייהו שמא יטה שמע מינה

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 Ḥananya ben Ḥizkiya 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.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל אפילו להבחין בין בגדו לבגדי אשתו אמר רבא לא אמרן אלא דבני מחוזא אבל דבני חקליתא מידע ידעי ודבני מחוזא נמי לא אמרן אלא דזקנות אבל דילדות מידע ידיעי

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 Meḥoza, as there the men’s garments are wide and ornamented similar to the women’s garments; however, with regard to farmers and village residents, they know the difference between men’s and women’s garments. There is no concern lest they adjust the wick to distinguish between the garments, as the differences between men’s garments and women’s garments are obvious. Even with regard to the clothing of the people of Meḥoza, we only said that it is prohibited to distinguish between men’s and women’s 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.

תנו רבנן אין פולין ברשות הרבים מפני הכבוד כיוצא בו אמר (רב) יהודה ואמרי לה רבי נחמיה אין עושין אפיקטויזין ברשות הרבים מפני הכבוד תנו רבנן המפלה את כליו מולל וזורק ובלבד שלא יהרוג אבא שאול אומר נוטל וזורק ובלבד שלא ימלול אמר רב הונא הלכה מולל וזורק וזהו כבודו ואפילו בחול רבה מקטע להו ורב ששת מקטע להו רבא שדי להו לקנא דמיא אמר להו רב נחמן לבנתיה קטולין ואשמעינן לי קלא דסנוותי

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 Neḥemya 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’iri). 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 Naḥman 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.

תניא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר אין הורגין את המאכולת בשבת דברי בית שמאי ובית הלל מתירין

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.

וכן היה רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר משום רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אין משדכין את התינוקות לארס ולא את התינוק ללמדו ספר וללמדו אומנות ואין מנחמין אבלים ואין מבקרין חולין בשבת דברי בית שמאי ובית הלל מתירין:

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.

תנו רבנן הנכנס לבקר את החולה אומר שבת היא מלזעוק ורפואה קרובה לבא ורבי מאיר אומר יכולה היא שתרחם

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.

רבי יהודה אומר המקום ירחם עליך ועל חולי ישראל רבי יוסי אומר המקום ירחם עליך בתוך חולי ישראל שבנא איש ירושלים בכניסתו אומר שלום וביציאתו אומר שבת היא מלזעוק ורפואה קרובה לבא ורחמיו מרובין ושבתו בשלום כמאן אזלא הא דאמר רבי חנינא מי שיש לו חולה בתוך ביתו צריך שיערבנו בתוך חולי ישראל כמאן כרבי יוסי

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 Ḥanina 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.

ואמר רבי חנינא בקושי התירו לנחם אבלים ולבקר חולים בשבת אמר רבה בר בר חנה כי הוה אזלינן בתריה דרבי אלעזר לשיולי בתפיחה זימנין אמר המקום יפקדך לשלום וזימנין אמר (ליה) רחמנא ידכרינך לשלם היכי עביד הכי והאמר רב יהודה לעולם אל ישאל אדם צרכיו בלשון ארמי ואמר רבי יוחנן כל השואל צרכיו בלשון ארמי אין מלאכי השרת נזקקין לו שאין מלאכי השרת מכירין בלשון ארמי שאני חולה דשכינה עמו

And Rabbi Ḥanina 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 Ḥana 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’t Rav Yehuda say: A person should never request that his needs be met in the Aramaic language? And, similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

דאמר רב ענן אמר רב מנין ששכינה סועד את החולה שנאמר ה׳ יסעדנו על ערש דוי תניא נמי הכי הנכנס לבקר את החולה לא ישב לא על גבי מטה ולא על גבי כסא אלא מתעטף ויושב לפניו מפני ששכינה למעלה מראשותיו של חולה שנאמר ה׳ יסעדנו על ערש דוי ואמר רבא אמר רבין מנין שהקדוש ברוך הוא זן את החולה שנאמר ה׳ יסעדנו על ערש דוי:

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: “God will support him on the bed of illness” (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: “God will support him on the bed of illness,” 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: “God will support him on the bed of illness.”

ולא יקרא לאור הנר: אמר רבה אפילו גבוה שתי קומות ואפילו שתי מרדעות ואפילו עשרה בתים זו על גב זו חד הוא דלא ליקרי הא תרי שפיר דמי והתניא לא אחד ולא שנים אמר רבי אלעזר לא קשיא כאן בענין אחד כאן בשני ענינים אמר רב הונא ובמדורה אפילו עשרה בני אדם אסור

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’t 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.

אמר רבא אם אדם חשוב הוא מותר מיתיבי לא יקרא לאור הנר שמא יטה אמר רבי ישמעאל בן אלישע אני אקרא ולא אטה פעם אחת קרא ובקש להטות אמר כמה גדולים דברי חכמים שהיו אומרים לא יקרא לאור הנר רבי נתן אומר קרא והטה וכתב על פנקסו אני ישמעאל בן אלישע קריתי והטיתי נר בשבת לכשיבנה בית המקדש אביא חטאת שמנה אמר רבי אבא שאני רבי ישמעאל בן אלישע הואיל ומשים עצמו על דברי תורה כהדיוט

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.

תני חדא שמש בודק כוסות וקערות לאור הנר ותניא אידך לא יבדוק לא קשיא כאן בשמש קבוע כאן בשמש שאינו קבוע ואי בעית אימא הא והא בשמש קבוע ולא קשיא הא בדמשחא והא בדנפטא

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.

איבעיא להו שמש שאינו קבוע בדמשחא מהו אמר רב הלכה ואין מורין כן ורבי ירמיה בר אבא אמר הלכה ומורין כן רבי ירמיה בר אבא איקלע לבי רב אסי קם שמעיה קא בדיק לנהורא דשרגא אמרה ליה דביתהו ומר לא עביד הכי אמר לה שבקיה כרביה סבירא ליה:

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’s 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’s 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.

באמת אמרו החזן כו׳: והאמרת רישא רואה מאי לאו לקרות לא לסדר ראשי פרשיותיו וכן אמר רבה בר שמואל אבל מסדר הוא ראשי פרשיותיו וכולה פרשה לא

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’t you say in the first clause of the mishna that the attendant sees? Doesn’t 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.

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

שלא ילקה הכותל אינו בכי יותן מי דמי התם לא קא בעי להו להני משקין כלל הכא קא בעי להו להאי כיס לקבולי ביה זיבה

that the wall will not be damaged, it is not under the rubric of the verse: “If water be placed.” 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.

הא לא דמיא אלא לסיפא עריבה שירד דלף לתוכה מים הניתזין והנצפין אינן בכי יותן ושבתוכה הרי זה בכי יותן

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: “If water be placed.” 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: “If water be placed.” 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.

אלא אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו לא קשיא הא רבי יהודה והא רבי שמעון

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.

תני דבי רבי ישמעאל יוצא אדם בתפילין בערב שבת עם חשיכה מאי טעמא כיון דאמר רבה בר רב הונא חייב אדם למשמש בתפילין כל שעה ושעה קל וחמר מציץ מה ציץ שאין בו אלא אזכרה אחת אמרה תורה והיה על מצחו תמיד שלא יסיח דעתו ממנו תפילין שיש בהן אזכרות הרבה על אחת כמה וכמה הלכך מידכר דכיר להו תניא חנניא אומר חייב אדם למשמש בבגדו ערב שבת עם חשכה אמר רב יוסף הלכתא רבתי לשבת

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 vaḥomer] from the frontplate [tzitz] of the High Priest. Just as with regard to the frontplate, which has only one mention of God’s name, the Torah said: “And it should be always upon his forehead” (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’s 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 Ḥananya 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.

לא יפלה את כליו כו׳: איבעיא להו לא יפלה את כליו ביום שמא יהרוג ורבי אליעזר היא דתניא אמר רבי אליעזר ההורג כינה בשבת כאילו הורג גמל ולא יקרא לאור הנר שמא יטה או דילמא תרוייהו שמא יטה

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.

תא שמע אין פולין ואין קורין לאור הנר מי אלימא ממתניתין

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.

תא שמע אין פולין לאור הנר ואין קורין לאור הנר אלו מן ההלכות שאמרו בעליית חנניה בן חזקיה בן גרון שמע מינה דתרוייהו שמא יטה שמע מינה

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 Ḥananya ben Ḥizkiya 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.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל אפילו להבחין בין בגדו לבגדי אשתו אמר רבא לא אמרן אלא דבני מחוזא אבל דבני חקליתא מידע ידעי ודבני מחוזא נמי לא אמרן אלא דזקנות אבל דילדות מידע ידיעי

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 Meḥoza, as there the men’s garments are wide and ornamented similar to the women’s garments; however, with regard to farmers and village residents, they know the difference between men’s and women’s garments. There is no concern lest they adjust the wick to distinguish between the garments, as the differences between men’s garments and women’s garments are obvious. Even with regard to the clothing of the people of Meḥoza, we only said that it is prohibited to distinguish between men’s and women’s 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.

תנו רבנן אין פולין ברשות הרבים מפני הכבוד כיוצא בו אמר (רב) יהודה ואמרי לה רבי נחמיה אין עושין אפיקטויזין ברשות הרבים מפני הכבוד תנו רבנן המפלה את כליו מולל וזורק ובלבד שלא יהרוג אבא שאול אומר נוטל וזורק ובלבד שלא ימלול אמר רב הונא הלכה מולל וזורק וזהו כבודו ואפילו בחול רבה מקטע להו ורב ששת מקטע להו רבא שדי להו לקנא דמיא אמר להו רב נחמן לבנתיה קטולין ואשמעינן לי קלא דסנוותי

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 Neḥemya 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’iri). 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 Naḥman 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.

תניא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר אין הורגין את המאכולת בשבת דברי בית שמאי ובית הלל מתירין

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.

וכן היה רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר משום רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אין משדכין את התינוקות לארס ולא את התינוק ללמדו ספר וללמדו אומנות ואין מנחמין אבלים ואין מבקרין חולין בשבת דברי בית שמאי ובית הלל מתירין:

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.

תנו רבנן הנכנס לבקר את החולה אומר שבת היא מלזעוק ורפואה קרובה לבא ורבי מאיר אומר יכולה היא שתרחם

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.

רבי יהודה אומר המקום ירחם עליך ועל חולי ישראל רבי יוסי אומר המקום ירחם עליך בתוך חולי ישראל שבנא איש ירושלים בכניסתו אומר שלום וביציאתו אומר שבת היא מלזעוק ורפואה קרובה לבא ורחמיו מרובין ושבתו בשלום כמאן אזלא הא דאמר רבי חנינא מי שיש לו חולה בתוך ביתו צריך שיערבנו בתוך חולי ישראל כמאן כרבי יוסי

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 Ḥanina 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.

ואמר רבי חנינא בקושי התירו לנחם אבלים ולבקר חולים בשבת אמר רבה בר בר חנה כי הוה אזלינן בתריה דרבי אלעזר לשיולי בתפיחה זימנין אמר המקום יפקדך לשלום וזימנין אמר (ליה) רחמנא ידכרינך לשלם היכי עביד הכי והאמר רב יהודה לעולם אל ישאל אדם צרכיו בלשון ארמי ואמר רבי יוחנן כל השואל צרכיו בלשון ארמי אין מלאכי השרת נזקקין לו שאין מלאכי השרת מכירין בלשון ארמי שאני חולה דשכינה עמו

And Rabbi Ḥanina 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 Ḥana 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’t Rav Yehuda say: A person should never request that his needs be met in the Aramaic language? And, similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

דאמר רב ענן אמר רב מנין ששכינה סועד את החולה שנאמר ה׳ יסעדנו על ערש דוי תניא נמי הכי הנכנס לבקר את החולה לא ישב לא על גבי מטה ולא על גבי כסא אלא מתעטף ויושב לפניו מפני ששכינה למעלה מראשותיו של חולה שנאמר ה׳ יסעדנו על ערש דוי ואמר רבא אמר רבין מנין שהקדוש ברוך הוא זן את החולה שנאמר ה׳ יסעדנו על ערש דוי:

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: “God will support him on the bed of illness” (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: “God will support him on the bed of illness,” 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: “God will support him on the bed of illness.”

ולא יקרא לאור הנר: אמר רבה אפילו גבוה שתי קומות ואפילו שתי מרדעות ואפילו עשרה בתים זו על גב זו חד הוא דלא ליקרי הא תרי שפיר דמי והתניא לא אחד ולא שנים אמר רבי אלעזר לא קשיא כאן בענין אחד כאן בשני ענינים אמר רב הונא ובמדורה אפילו עשרה בני אדם אסור

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’t 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.

אמר רבא אם אדם חשוב הוא מותר מיתיבי לא יקרא לאור הנר שמא יטה אמר רבי ישמעאל בן אלישע אני אקרא ולא אטה פעם אחת קרא ובקש להטות אמר כמה גדולים דברי חכמים שהיו אומרים לא יקרא לאור הנר רבי נתן אומר קרא והטה וכתב על פנקסו אני ישמעאל בן אלישע קריתי והטיתי נר בשבת לכשיבנה בית המקדש אביא חטאת שמנה אמר רבי אבא שאני רבי ישמעאל בן אלישע הואיל ומשים עצמו על דברי תורה כהדיוט

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.

תני חדא שמש בודק כוסות וקערות לאור הנר ותניא אידך לא יבדוק לא קשיא כאן בשמש קבוע כאן בשמש שאינו קבוע ואי בעית אימא הא והא בשמש קבוע ולא קשיא הא בדמשחא והא בדנפטא

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.

איבעיא להו שמש שאינו קבוע בדמשחא מהו אמר רב הלכה ואין מורין כן ורבי ירמיה בר אבא אמר הלכה ומורין כן רבי ירמיה בר אבא איקלע לבי רב אסי קם שמעיה קא בדיק לנהורא דשרגא אמרה ליה דביתהו ומר לא עביד הכי אמר לה שבקיה כרביה סבירא ליה:

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’s 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’s 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.

באמת אמרו החזן כו׳: והאמרת רישא רואה מאי לאו לקרות לא לסדר ראשי פרשיותיו וכן אמר רבה בר שמואל אבל מסדר הוא ראשי פרשיותיו וכולה פרשה לא

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’t you say in the first clause of the mishna that the attendant sees? Doesn’t 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