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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 5, 2020 | 讬状讙 讘转诪讜讝 转砖状驻

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

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Shabbat 121

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Dr. Robin Zeiger and Professor Jonathan Ben-Ezra in memory of Robin’s mother Helen (Chana) Zeiger z”l, whose Yarzheit is today.

Does Rabbi Yosi really hold that it is a mitzva to go to the mikveh exactly at the time that one is able to go? If there is a fire in your house and a non-Jew comes to put out the fire, are you allowed to say anything to the non-Jew – to put it out, to stop putting it out? Can you hint to the fact that if the non-Jew puts it out, you will compensate him/her for their work? What about a child who goes to put out the fire? Does one have to prevent an child from sinning in general? Is the court commanded to do that? For what purposes can one carry a utensil in order to cover something? To cover a candle so it doesn’t light the rafters on fire, to cover feces so a child doesn’t touch them, to cover a scorpion so it doesn’t bite. Why do we need to learn that we can cover the feces, can’t we move it because a dog can eat it? Or because it is disgusting and one can move something that is disgusting, even if it’s muktze. Can one kill bugs or creatures that can bite or endanger people? If so, according to Rabbi Shimon only or also according to Rabbi Yehuda? Does everyone agree? Is it only if it’s done by way of walking and one steps on it?

讟讘讬诇讛 讘讝诪谞讛 诇讗讜 诪爪讜讛 讜诪讛讚专讬谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讟讘讬诇讛 讘讝诪谞讛 诪爪讜讛 讜诇讗 诪讛讚专讬谞谉

that performing immersion at its designated time is not a mitzva, and we seek a reed to wrap around God鈥檚 name even if it means postponing immersion to the next day, and Rabbi Yosei holds that immersion at its designated time is a mitzva, and therefore we do not seek a reed, since immersion cannot be postponed.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讟讘讬诇讛 讘讝诪谞讛 诪爪讜讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讝讘 讜讛讝讘讛 讛诪爪讜专注 讜讛诪爪讜专注转 讘讜注诇 谞讚讛 讜讟诪讗 诪转 讟讘讬诇转谉 讘讬讜诐 谞讚讛 讜讬讜诇讚转 讟讘讬诇转谉 讘诇讬诇讛 讘注诇 拽专讬 讟讜讘诇 讜讛讜诇讱 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪谉 讛诪谞讞讛 讜诇诪注诇讛 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讟讘讜诇 讛讛讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讚讬讬讛 讟讘讬诇讛 讘讗讞专讜谞讛:

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei hold that immersion at its designated time is a mitzva? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to a zav and a zava, a male and female leper, one who has relations with a menstruating woman, and a person impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, their immersion is during the day. They immerse at the designated time even on Yom Kippur, when bathing is prohibited. A menstruating woman and a woman after childbirth immerse at night. A man who has had a seminal emission immerses at any point during the entire day after the emission. Rabbi Yosei says: From the time that he recited the afternoon prayer and on he does not immerse. Since he already recited the afternoon prayer, he waits until after Yom Kippur to immerse, and then recites the evening prayer in a state of purity. Apparently, Rabbi Yosei holds that immersion at the designated time is not a mitzva. The Gemara rejects this: In that baraita the reference is not to the Rabbi Yosei most commonly cited in tannaitic literature without a patronymic, Rabbi Yosei ben 岣lafta, but it is to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: Her latest immersion is sufficient. A woman who is uncertain with regard to the correct time for her immersion need not immerse multiple times. She may postpone her immersion until a time when she will be certain to fulfill her obligation, even though it might not be immersion at the designated time.

诪转谞讬壮 讙讜讬 砖讘讗 诇讻讘讜转 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 讻讘讛 讜讗诇 转讻讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 砖讘讬转转讜 注诇讬讛谉 讗讘诇 拽讟谉 砖讘讗 诇讻讘讜转 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诪驻谞讬 砖砖讘讬转转讜 注诇讬讛谉:

MISHNA: If a gentile comes to extinguish a Jew鈥檚 fire on Shabbat, one may not say to him: Extinguish, and: Do not extinguish, because responsibility for his rest is not incumbent upon the Jew. However, if a Jewish child comes to extinguish a fire on Shabbat, they do not listen to him and allow him to extinguish it, even though he is not yet obligated in mitzva observance, because responsibility for his rest is incumbent upon the Jew.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讘讚诇讬拽讛 讛转讬专讜 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讛诪讻讘讛 讗讬谞讜 诪驻住讬讚 谞讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讙讜讬 砖讘讗 诇讻讘讜转 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 讻讘讛 讜讗诇 转讻讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 砖讘讬转转讜 注诇讬讛谉 讻讘讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讛讗 讻诇 讛诪讻讘讛 讗讬谞讜 诪驻住讬讚 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗诇 转讻讘讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讻诇 讛诪讻讘讛 讗讬谞讜 诪驻住讬讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诪讛讗 诇讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

GEMARA: Rabbi Ami said: During a fire, the Sages permitted to say in the presence of gentiles: Anyone who extinguishes the fire will not lose, so that the gentiles will come and extinguish the fire; it is only prohibited to tell gentiles to do so explicitly. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna supports his statement: If a gentile comes to extinguish a Jew鈥檚 fire on Shabbat, one may not say to him: Extinguish, and: Do not extinguish, because responsibility for his rest is not incumbent upon the Jew. It can be inferred from the language of the mishna: It is a direct command, e.g., extinguish, that we may not say to him; however, anyone who extinguishes will not lose, we may tell him, which supports Rabbi Ami鈥檚 statement. The Gemara rejects this. Say the latter clause of the mishna: Do not extinguish, we do not tell him. It can be inferred that neither do we say to him: Anyone who extinguishes will not lose. Rather, nothing can be inferred from this mishna.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讜谞驻诇讛 讚诇讬拽讛 讘讞爪讬专讜 砖诇 讬讜住祝 讘谉 住讬诪讗讬 讘砖讬讞讬谉 讜讘讗讜 讗谞砖讬 讙讬住讟专讗 砖诇 爪讬驻讜专讬 诇讻讘讜转 诪驻谞讬 砖讗驻讟专讜驻讜住 砖诇 诪诇讱 讛讬讛 讜诇讗 讛谞讬讞谉 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讛砖讘转 讜谞注砖讛 诇讜 谞住 讜讬专讚讜 讙砖诪讬诐 讜讻讬讘讜 诇注专讘 砖讬讙专 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 砖转讬 住诇注讬谉 讜诇讗驻专讻讜住 砖讘讛谉 讞诪砖讬诐 讜讻砖砖诪注讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讚讘专 讗诪专讜 诇讗 讛讬讛 爪专讬讱 诇讻讱 砖讛专讬 砖谞讬谞讜 讙讜讬 砖讘讗 诇讻讘讜转 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 讻讘讛 讜讗诇 转讻讘讛:

The Sages taught in a baraita: There was an incident that a fire ignited on Shabbat in the courtyard of Yosef ben Simai in a place called Shi岣n. And men came from the fortress [gistera] of Tzippori to extinguish the fire, because he was a steward [apotropos] of the king and they wanted to help him. However, Yosef ben Simai would not allow them to extinguish the fire in deference to Shabbat; and a miracle transpired for him and rain fell and extinguished the fire. That evening after Shabbat he sent two sela to each one of the soldiers who came to his aid, and fifty to their commander [iparkhos]. And when the Sages heard about this, they said: He need not have prevented them from extinguishing the fire, as we learned in the mishna: If a gentile comes to extinguish a Jew鈥檚 fire on Shabbat, one may not say to him: Extinguish, and: Do not extinguish, because responsibility for his rest is not incumbent upon the Jew; rather, the gentile may do as he pleases.

讗讘诇 拽讟谉 砖讘讗 诇讻讘讜转 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诪驻谞讬 砖砖讘讬转转讜 注诇讬讛谉: 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 拽讟谉 讗讜讻诇 谞讘诇讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪爪讜讜讬谉 注诇讬讜 诇讛驻专讬砖讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘拽讟谉 讛注讜砖讛 诇讚注转 讗讘讬讜 讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 讙讜讬 讚拽讗 注讘讬讚 诇讚注转讬讛 讚讬砖专讗诇 诪讬 砖专讬 讙讜讬 诇讚注转讬讛 讚谞驻砖讬讛 注讘讬讚:

We learned in the mishna: However, if a Jewish child comes to extinguish a fire on Shabbat, they do not listen to him and allow him to extinguish it, even though he is not yet obligated in mitzva observance, because responsibility for his rest is incumbent upon the Jew. The Gemara seeks to conclude: Learn from this that a child who eats meat from unslaughtered animals or violates other prohibitions, the court is commanded to prevent him from eating it. This mishna would resolve a dilemma that arose regarding that issue. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This mishna is referring to a child who is acting with the intention of fulfilling his father鈥檚 will, and therefore one is obligated to prevent him from doing so. However, if a child sins of his own volition, one is not obligated to prevent him from doing so. The Gemara asks: If so, the case with regard to a gentile in the mishna must be interpreted in a similar manner as referring to a case where he is acting with the intention to fulfill the will of a Jew. Is that permitted? It is prohibited to derive benefit from an action performed by a gentile for a Jew on Shabbat. The Gemara responds: This is not the case; the gentile is acting of his own volition. Because he is paid for extinguishing the fire he is not doing so in order to help the Jew.

诪转谞讬壮 讻讜驻讬谉 拽注专讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讛谞专 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇讗 转讗讞讜讝 讘拽讜专讛 讜注诇 爪讜讗讛 砖诇 拽讟谉 讜注诇 注拽专讘 砖诇讗 转讬砖讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘讗 诇驻谞讬 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讘注专讘 讜讗诪专 讞讜砖砖谞讬 诇讜 诪讞讟讗转:

MISHNA: One may overturn a bowl on top of a lamp so that fire will not take hold in the ceiling beam on Shabbat. And similarly, one may overturn a bowl on top of a child鈥檚 feces inside the house so he will not touch it and dirty himself, and on top of a scorpion so that it will not bite. Rabbi Yehuda said: An incident came before Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai in his village of Arav, where a person covered a scorpion on Shabbat, and Rabban Yo岣nan said: I am concerned that he is liable to bring a sin-offering because he might have violated a Torah prohibition.

讙诪壮 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讜专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘讗 讗讬拽诇注讜 诇讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讚诪谉 谞砖讬拽讬讗 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗

GEMARA: The Gemara relates: Rav Yehuda and Rav Yirmeya bar Abba and Rav 岣nan bar Rava happened to come to the house of Avin from a place called Nashikiya. For Rav Yehuda and Rav Yirmeya bar Abba,

讗讬讬转讜 诇讛讜 驻讜专讬讬转讗 诇专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘讗 诇讗 讗讬讬转讜 诇讬讛 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 诇讘专讬讛 讜注诇 爪讜讗讛 砖诇 拽讟谉 诪驻谞讬 拽讟谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬谉 砖讟讬讗 诪转谞讬 砖讟讜转讗 诇讘谞讬讛 讜讛诇讗 讛讬讗 注爪诪讛 诪讜讻谞转 诇讻诇讘讬诐 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讗转诪讜诇 讜讛转谞讬讗 谞讛专讜转 讛诪讜砖讻讬谉 讜诪注讬讬谞讜转 讛谞讜讘注讬谉 讛专讬 讛谉 讻专讙诇讬 讻诇 讗讚诐

they brought beds for them to sit on, whereas for Rav 岣nan bar Rava, they did not bring one for him. Rav 岣nan was insulted and got angry at his host. He found Rabbi Avin teaching his son the mishna and saying: And one may place a bowl on top of the feces of a child due to the child so that he will not touch it and dirty himself. Rav 岣nan said to him: Avin the fool is teaching his son folly; aren鈥檛 the feces themselves prepared as food for dogs? An object that is fit for consumption by a dog may be carried, so why need one cover the feces if he can remove them? And if you say these feces were not prepared for that use from yesterday, that would not prohibit moving them. Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to rivers that flow and springs that gush, they do not have specific Shabbat boundaries, but they may be used anywhere and their boundaries are like the feet of all people who draw from them. Even though the water was not within the boundaries when Shabbat began, since the nature of flowing water is to move from place to place, it is as if they were prepared for this purpose. So too, here, since a child will relieve himself in any place, it is as if it was prepared from before Shabbat.

讜讗诇讗 讛讬讻讬 讗转谞讬讬讛 讗讬诪讗 注诇 爪讜讗讛 砖诇 转专谞讙讜诇讬诐 诪驻谞讬 拽讟谉

Rabbi Avin asked: And how, then, should I teach it to him? Rav 岣nan answered: Say, one may place a bowl on top of chicken feces due to a child.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讬 讙专祝 砖诇 专注讬 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讙专祝 砖诇 专注讬 讗讙讘 诪谞讗 讗讬谉 讗讬讛讜 讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 讜讛讗 讛讛讜讗 注讻讘专 讚讗讬砖转讻讞 讘讗讬住驻专诪拽讬 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 谞拽讜讟讜 讘爪讜爪讬转讬讛 讜讗驻拽讜讛 讘讗砖驻讛 讜拽讟谉 讘讗砖驻讛 诪讗讬 讘注讬 诇讬讛 讘讞爪专 讞爪专 谞诪讬 讙专祝 砖诇 专注讬 讛讜讗 讘讗砖驻讛 砖讘讞爪专:

The Gemara asks: And derive that it is permitted to remove the feces because it is like a chamber pot of feces, which may be moved out of the room because it is disgusting. And if you say that a chamber pot of feces together with the vessel, yes, it may be moved; but feces itself, no, it may not be moved. What about that mouse that was found among the spices [isperamaki] of Rav Ashi, and he said to his servants: Take it by its tail and remove it? Apparently, a disgusting object may be moved even without a vessel. Rather, we must say that the feces were in the garbage dump, and since the feces were not before the household members it was only permitted to conceal them, not to move them. The Gemara asks: And what is a child doing in the garbage dump in the public domain? It is not adjacent to the house; how would the child get there? The Gemara answers that the feces were not in the garbage dump but were in the courtyard. The Gemara rejects this: In the courtyard, it is also considered a chamber pot of feces and may be moved. Rather, it is referring to a garbage dump that is in the courtyard, to which the child sometimes has access. Feces in a place designated for garbage are no more disgusting than their surroundings, and therefore it is prohibited to move the feces.

讜注诇 注拽专讘 砖诇讗 转讬砖讱: 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻诇 讛诪讝讬拽讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 讘砖讘转 诪转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 讞诪砖讛 谞讛专讙讬谉 讘砖讘转 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讝讘讜讘 砖讘讗专抓 诪爪专讬诐 讜爪讬专注讛 砖讘谞讬谞讜讛 讜注拽专讘 砖讘讞讚讬讬讘 讜谞讞砖 砖讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讻诇讘 砖讜讟讛 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诪谞讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讗诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讙讜驻讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讛谞讬 讛讜讗 讚砖专讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 诇讗

And we also learned in the mishna that one may cover a scorpion with a bowl on Shabbat so that it will not bite. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: All harmful creatures are killed on Shabbat. Rav Yosef raised an objection to this from the following baraita: Five creatures may be killed even on Shabbat, and they are: The poisonous fly that is in the land of Egypt, and the hornet that is in Ninveh, and the scorpion that is in 岣dyab, and the snake that is in Eretz Yisrael, and a mad dog in any place. The Gemara clarifies this: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? If you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn鈥檛 he say that one is liable for a prohibited labor that is not needed for its own sake, and it is therefore prohibited to kill even these creatures? Rather, is it not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and these are those creatures that it is permitted to kill; others, no, it is not permitted to kill?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜诪讗谉 谞讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讛讗 诪转专爪转讗 讛讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诪砖讘砖转讗 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗谞讗 诪转谞讬谞讗 诇讛 讜讗讜转讬讘谞讗 诇讛 讜讗谞讗 诪转专讬爪谞讗 诇讛 讘专爪讜 讗讞专讬讜 讜讚讘专讬 讛讻诇

Rabbi Yirmeya said: And who will say to us that this baraita is accurate? Perhaps it is corrupted, and an objection cannot be raised from it. Rav Yosef said: I taught the baraita and raised an objection from it, and I will answer it as follows: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi permitted killing all harmful creatures on Shabbat when they are running after him; as in that case the danger is real, and therefore it is permitted to kill them according to all opinions.

转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讛讜专讙 谞讞砖讬诐 讜注拽专讘讬诐 讘砖讘转 讗讬谉 专讜讞 讞住讬讚讬诐 谞讜讞讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗讜转谉 讞住讬讚讬诐 讗讬谉 专讜讞 讞讻诪讬诐 谞讜讞讛 诪讛诐 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讞讝讬讬讛 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚拽讗 拽讟讬诇 讝讬讘讜专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诇讬诪转讬谞讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜

The tanna who recited tannaitic literature before Rava bar Rav Huna taught a baraita: One who kills snakes and scorpions on Shabbat, the spirit of the pious is not pleased with him. Rava bar Rav Huna said to him: And with regard to those pious, the spirit of the Sages is not pleased with them, as snakes and scorpions harm people. The Gemara comments: And this statement disagrees with the opinion of Rav Huna, for Rav Huna saw a person killing a hornet on Shabbat and said to him: Have you finished killing all the hornets? This indicates that he was not pleased with him.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞讝讚诪谞讜 诇讜 谞讞砖讬诐 讜注拽专讘讬诐 讛专讙谉 讘讬讚讜注 砖谞讝讚诪谞讜 诇讜 诇讛讜专讙谉 诇讗 讛专讙谉 讘讬讚讜注 砖谞讝讚诪谞讜 诇讛讜专讙讜 讜谞注砖讛 诇讜 谞住 诪谉 讛砖诪讬诐 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谞讬砖讜驻讬谉 讘讜

The Sages taught in a baraita: One who snakes and scorpions happened before him, if he killed them, it is clear that they happened before him in order for him to kill them. If he did not kill them it is clear that they happened before him in order for them to kill him, but a miracle from heaven transpired for him and he was saved. Ulla said, and some say it was Rabba bar bar 岣na who said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This is referring to when they were touching and brushing up against him (Rabbeinu 岣nanel), as in that case if they cause him no harm, it is surely a miracle that saved him.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讻讛谞讗 驻注诐 讗讞转 谞驻诇 讗讞讚 讘讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讜注诪讚 谞讬讜转讬 讗讞讚 讜讛专讙讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 驻讙注 讘讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜

Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: One time, a snake fell into the study hall on Shabbat, and a Nabatean [Nivati] stood and killed it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: One of its type killed it.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 驻讙注 讘讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讚砖驻讬专 注讘讬讚 讗讜 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 讗拽讬诇注讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 谞驻拽 诪讬诇转讗 诪讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诪讛讜 诇讛专讜讙 谞讞砖讬诐 讜注拽专讘讬诐 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讛讜 爪讬专注讛 讗谞讬 讛讜专讙 谞讞砖 讜注拽专讘 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讚讬诇诪讗 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 专讜拽 讚讜专住讜 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讜讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 谞讞砖 讚讜专住讜 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讜讗诪专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 注拽专讘 讚讜专住讜 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: One of its type killed it, did he mean that he acted properly or not? Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which was related about Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, and Rabbi Zeira, who were sitting in the courtyard of Rabbi Yannai鈥檚 house. A matter emerged from among them, and they raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yannai: What is the ruling with regard to killing snakes and scorpions on Shabbat? He said to them: I would kill a hornet, all the more so would I kill a snake or a scorpion, as they are more dangerous and it is permitted to kill them. The Gemara rejects this: There is no conclusive proof from this, as perhaps it is only permitted when one steps on it innocently as he is walking, so that it does not appear to others that he intended to step on it. As Rav Yehuda said: With regard to spittle on Shabbat, one may trample it innocently and need not be concerned about the prohibitions of smoothing or leveling holes. And Rav Sheshet said: With regard to a snake, one may trample it innocently. And Rav Ketina said: With regard to a scorpion, one may trample it innocently.

讗讘讗 讘专 诪专转讗 讚讛讜讗 讗讘讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讛讜讛 诪住拽讬 讘讬讛 讚讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讝讜讝讬 讗讬讬转讬讜讛讜 拽讗 诪爪注专讗 诇讬讛 讛讜讛 砖讚讬 专讜拽讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讗讬讬转讜 诪讗谞讗 住讞讬驻讜 注诇讜讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 爪专讬讻转讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讜拽 讚讜专住讜 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 砖讘拽讜讛讜

The Gemara relates: Abba bar Marta, who is Abba bar Manyomi, owed money to members of the Exilarch鈥檚 household. They brought him to the house of the Exilarch on Shabbat and they tormented him to force him to pay. There was spittle there. The Exilarch said to the members of his household: Bring me a vessel and place it over the spittle so that people will not step on it. Abba bar Manyomi said to them: You need not do so, as Rav Yehuda said as follows: With regard to spittle, one may trample it innocently. The Exilarch said to the members of his household: He is a Torah scholar, leave him alone.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 驻诪讜讟讜转 砖诇 讘讬转 专讘讬 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇谉 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘谞讬讟诇讬谉 讘讬讚讜 讗讞转 讗讜 讘砖转讬 讬讚讬诐

Apropos Rabbi Abba bar Kahana, the Gemara cites additional statements of his. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said that Rabbi 岣nina said: With regard to the candlesticks of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, it is permitted to move them on Shabbat. It was not clear what the nature of these candlesticks was, and Rabbi Zeira said to him: Is this referring to candlesticks that are small, which are moved with one hand, or even to those that are moved with two hands?

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

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time – Shabbat 117-123

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

Shabbat 121: The 5 Dangerous Creatures

A footnote to the Who's Who on Rabbi Yosi ben Halafta. And: Amira le-Akum, and how Jews are not responsible...

Shabbat 121

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 121

讟讘讬诇讛 讘讝诪谞讛 诇讗讜 诪爪讜讛 讜诪讛讚专讬谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讟讘讬诇讛 讘讝诪谞讛 诪爪讜讛 讜诇讗 诪讛讚专讬谞谉

that performing immersion at its designated time is not a mitzva, and we seek a reed to wrap around God鈥檚 name even if it means postponing immersion to the next day, and Rabbi Yosei holds that immersion at its designated time is a mitzva, and therefore we do not seek a reed, since immersion cannot be postponed.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讟讘讬诇讛 讘讝诪谞讛 诪爪讜讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讝讘 讜讛讝讘讛 讛诪爪讜专注 讜讛诪爪讜专注转 讘讜注诇 谞讚讛 讜讟诪讗 诪转 讟讘讬诇转谉 讘讬讜诐 谞讚讛 讜讬讜诇讚转 讟讘讬诇转谉 讘诇讬诇讛 讘注诇 拽专讬 讟讜讘诇 讜讛讜诇讱 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪谉 讛诪谞讞讛 讜诇诪注诇讛 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讟讘讜诇 讛讛讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讚讬讬讛 讟讘讬诇讛 讘讗讞专讜谞讛:

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei hold that immersion at its designated time is a mitzva? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to a zav and a zava, a male and female leper, one who has relations with a menstruating woman, and a person impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, their immersion is during the day. They immerse at the designated time even on Yom Kippur, when bathing is prohibited. A menstruating woman and a woman after childbirth immerse at night. A man who has had a seminal emission immerses at any point during the entire day after the emission. Rabbi Yosei says: From the time that he recited the afternoon prayer and on he does not immerse. Since he already recited the afternoon prayer, he waits until after Yom Kippur to immerse, and then recites the evening prayer in a state of purity. Apparently, Rabbi Yosei holds that immersion at the designated time is not a mitzva. The Gemara rejects this: In that baraita the reference is not to the Rabbi Yosei most commonly cited in tannaitic literature without a patronymic, Rabbi Yosei ben 岣lafta, but it is to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: Her latest immersion is sufficient. A woman who is uncertain with regard to the correct time for her immersion need not immerse multiple times. She may postpone her immersion until a time when she will be certain to fulfill her obligation, even though it might not be immersion at the designated time.

诪转谞讬壮 讙讜讬 砖讘讗 诇讻讘讜转 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 讻讘讛 讜讗诇 转讻讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 砖讘讬转转讜 注诇讬讛谉 讗讘诇 拽讟谉 砖讘讗 诇讻讘讜转 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诪驻谞讬 砖砖讘讬转转讜 注诇讬讛谉:

MISHNA: If a gentile comes to extinguish a Jew鈥檚 fire on Shabbat, one may not say to him: Extinguish, and: Do not extinguish, because responsibility for his rest is not incumbent upon the Jew. However, if a Jewish child comes to extinguish a fire on Shabbat, they do not listen to him and allow him to extinguish it, even though he is not yet obligated in mitzva observance, because responsibility for his rest is incumbent upon the Jew.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讘讚诇讬拽讛 讛转讬专讜 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讛诪讻讘讛 讗讬谞讜 诪驻住讬讚 谞讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讙讜讬 砖讘讗 诇讻讘讜转 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 讻讘讛 讜讗诇 转讻讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 砖讘讬转转讜 注诇讬讛谉 讻讘讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讛讗 讻诇 讛诪讻讘讛 讗讬谞讜 诪驻住讬讚 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗诇 转讻讘讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讻诇 讛诪讻讘讛 讗讬谞讜 诪驻住讬讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诪讛讗 诇讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

GEMARA: Rabbi Ami said: During a fire, the Sages permitted to say in the presence of gentiles: Anyone who extinguishes the fire will not lose, so that the gentiles will come and extinguish the fire; it is only prohibited to tell gentiles to do so explicitly. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna supports his statement: If a gentile comes to extinguish a Jew鈥檚 fire on Shabbat, one may not say to him: Extinguish, and: Do not extinguish, because responsibility for his rest is not incumbent upon the Jew. It can be inferred from the language of the mishna: It is a direct command, e.g., extinguish, that we may not say to him; however, anyone who extinguishes will not lose, we may tell him, which supports Rabbi Ami鈥檚 statement. The Gemara rejects this. Say the latter clause of the mishna: Do not extinguish, we do not tell him. It can be inferred that neither do we say to him: Anyone who extinguishes will not lose. Rather, nothing can be inferred from this mishna.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讜谞驻诇讛 讚诇讬拽讛 讘讞爪讬专讜 砖诇 讬讜住祝 讘谉 住讬诪讗讬 讘砖讬讞讬谉 讜讘讗讜 讗谞砖讬 讙讬住讟专讗 砖诇 爪讬驻讜专讬 诇讻讘讜转 诪驻谞讬 砖讗驻讟专讜驻讜住 砖诇 诪诇讱 讛讬讛 讜诇讗 讛谞讬讞谉 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讛砖讘转 讜谞注砖讛 诇讜 谞住 讜讬专讚讜 讙砖诪讬诐 讜讻讬讘讜 诇注专讘 砖讬讙专 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 砖转讬 住诇注讬谉 讜诇讗驻专讻讜住 砖讘讛谉 讞诪砖讬诐 讜讻砖砖诪注讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讚讘专 讗诪专讜 诇讗 讛讬讛 爪专讬讱 诇讻讱 砖讛专讬 砖谞讬谞讜 讙讜讬 砖讘讗 诇讻讘讜转 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 讻讘讛 讜讗诇 转讻讘讛:

The Sages taught in a baraita: There was an incident that a fire ignited on Shabbat in the courtyard of Yosef ben Simai in a place called Shi岣n. And men came from the fortress [gistera] of Tzippori to extinguish the fire, because he was a steward [apotropos] of the king and they wanted to help him. However, Yosef ben Simai would not allow them to extinguish the fire in deference to Shabbat; and a miracle transpired for him and rain fell and extinguished the fire. That evening after Shabbat he sent two sela to each one of the soldiers who came to his aid, and fifty to their commander [iparkhos]. And when the Sages heard about this, they said: He need not have prevented them from extinguishing the fire, as we learned in the mishna: If a gentile comes to extinguish a Jew鈥檚 fire on Shabbat, one may not say to him: Extinguish, and: Do not extinguish, because responsibility for his rest is not incumbent upon the Jew; rather, the gentile may do as he pleases.

讗讘诇 拽讟谉 砖讘讗 诇讻讘讜转 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诪驻谞讬 砖砖讘讬转转讜 注诇讬讛谉: 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 拽讟谉 讗讜讻诇 谞讘诇讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪爪讜讜讬谉 注诇讬讜 诇讛驻专讬砖讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘拽讟谉 讛注讜砖讛 诇讚注转 讗讘讬讜 讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 讙讜讬 讚拽讗 注讘讬讚 诇讚注转讬讛 讚讬砖专讗诇 诪讬 砖专讬 讙讜讬 诇讚注转讬讛 讚谞驻砖讬讛 注讘讬讚:

We learned in the mishna: However, if a Jewish child comes to extinguish a fire on Shabbat, they do not listen to him and allow him to extinguish it, even though he is not yet obligated in mitzva observance, because responsibility for his rest is incumbent upon the Jew. The Gemara seeks to conclude: Learn from this that a child who eats meat from unslaughtered animals or violates other prohibitions, the court is commanded to prevent him from eating it. This mishna would resolve a dilemma that arose regarding that issue. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This mishna is referring to a child who is acting with the intention of fulfilling his father鈥檚 will, and therefore one is obligated to prevent him from doing so. However, if a child sins of his own volition, one is not obligated to prevent him from doing so. The Gemara asks: If so, the case with regard to a gentile in the mishna must be interpreted in a similar manner as referring to a case where he is acting with the intention to fulfill the will of a Jew. Is that permitted? It is prohibited to derive benefit from an action performed by a gentile for a Jew on Shabbat. The Gemara responds: This is not the case; the gentile is acting of his own volition. Because he is paid for extinguishing the fire he is not doing so in order to help the Jew.

诪转谞讬壮 讻讜驻讬谉 拽注专讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讛谞专 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇讗 转讗讞讜讝 讘拽讜专讛 讜注诇 爪讜讗讛 砖诇 拽讟谉 讜注诇 注拽专讘 砖诇讗 转讬砖讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘讗 诇驻谞讬 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讘注专讘 讜讗诪专 讞讜砖砖谞讬 诇讜 诪讞讟讗转:

MISHNA: One may overturn a bowl on top of a lamp so that fire will not take hold in the ceiling beam on Shabbat. And similarly, one may overturn a bowl on top of a child鈥檚 feces inside the house so he will not touch it and dirty himself, and on top of a scorpion so that it will not bite. Rabbi Yehuda said: An incident came before Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai in his village of Arav, where a person covered a scorpion on Shabbat, and Rabban Yo岣nan said: I am concerned that he is liable to bring a sin-offering because he might have violated a Torah prohibition.

讙诪壮 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讜专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘讗 讗讬拽诇注讜 诇讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讚诪谉 谞砖讬拽讬讗 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗

GEMARA: The Gemara relates: Rav Yehuda and Rav Yirmeya bar Abba and Rav 岣nan bar Rava happened to come to the house of Avin from a place called Nashikiya. For Rav Yehuda and Rav Yirmeya bar Abba,

讗讬讬转讜 诇讛讜 驻讜专讬讬转讗 诇专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘讗 诇讗 讗讬讬转讜 诇讬讛 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 诇讘专讬讛 讜注诇 爪讜讗讛 砖诇 拽讟谉 诪驻谞讬 拽讟谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬谉 砖讟讬讗 诪转谞讬 砖讟讜转讗 诇讘谞讬讛 讜讛诇讗 讛讬讗 注爪诪讛 诪讜讻谞转 诇讻诇讘讬诐 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讗转诪讜诇 讜讛转谞讬讗 谞讛专讜转 讛诪讜砖讻讬谉 讜诪注讬讬谞讜转 讛谞讜讘注讬谉 讛专讬 讛谉 讻专讙诇讬 讻诇 讗讚诐

they brought beds for them to sit on, whereas for Rav 岣nan bar Rava, they did not bring one for him. Rav 岣nan was insulted and got angry at his host. He found Rabbi Avin teaching his son the mishna and saying: And one may place a bowl on top of the feces of a child due to the child so that he will not touch it and dirty himself. Rav 岣nan said to him: Avin the fool is teaching his son folly; aren鈥檛 the feces themselves prepared as food for dogs? An object that is fit for consumption by a dog may be carried, so why need one cover the feces if he can remove them? And if you say these feces were not prepared for that use from yesterday, that would not prohibit moving them. Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to rivers that flow and springs that gush, they do not have specific Shabbat boundaries, but they may be used anywhere and their boundaries are like the feet of all people who draw from them. Even though the water was not within the boundaries when Shabbat began, since the nature of flowing water is to move from place to place, it is as if they were prepared for this purpose. So too, here, since a child will relieve himself in any place, it is as if it was prepared from before Shabbat.

讜讗诇讗 讛讬讻讬 讗转谞讬讬讛 讗讬诪讗 注诇 爪讜讗讛 砖诇 转专谞讙讜诇讬诐 诪驻谞讬 拽讟谉

Rabbi Avin asked: And how, then, should I teach it to him? Rav 岣nan answered: Say, one may place a bowl on top of chicken feces due to a child.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讬 讙专祝 砖诇 专注讬 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讙专祝 砖诇 专注讬 讗讙讘 诪谞讗 讗讬谉 讗讬讛讜 讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 讜讛讗 讛讛讜讗 注讻讘专 讚讗讬砖转讻讞 讘讗讬住驻专诪拽讬 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 谞拽讜讟讜 讘爪讜爪讬转讬讛 讜讗驻拽讜讛 讘讗砖驻讛 讜拽讟谉 讘讗砖驻讛 诪讗讬 讘注讬 诇讬讛 讘讞爪专 讞爪专 谞诪讬 讙专祝 砖诇 专注讬 讛讜讗 讘讗砖驻讛 砖讘讞爪专:

The Gemara asks: And derive that it is permitted to remove the feces because it is like a chamber pot of feces, which may be moved out of the room because it is disgusting. And if you say that a chamber pot of feces together with the vessel, yes, it may be moved; but feces itself, no, it may not be moved. What about that mouse that was found among the spices [isperamaki] of Rav Ashi, and he said to his servants: Take it by its tail and remove it? Apparently, a disgusting object may be moved even without a vessel. Rather, we must say that the feces were in the garbage dump, and since the feces were not before the household members it was only permitted to conceal them, not to move them. The Gemara asks: And what is a child doing in the garbage dump in the public domain? It is not adjacent to the house; how would the child get there? The Gemara answers that the feces were not in the garbage dump but were in the courtyard. The Gemara rejects this: In the courtyard, it is also considered a chamber pot of feces and may be moved. Rather, it is referring to a garbage dump that is in the courtyard, to which the child sometimes has access. Feces in a place designated for garbage are no more disgusting than their surroundings, and therefore it is prohibited to move the feces.

讜注诇 注拽专讘 砖诇讗 转讬砖讱: 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻诇 讛诪讝讬拽讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 讘砖讘转 诪转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 讞诪砖讛 谞讛专讙讬谉 讘砖讘转 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讝讘讜讘 砖讘讗专抓 诪爪专讬诐 讜爪讬专注讛 砖讘谞讬谞讜讛 讜注拽专讘 砖讘讞讚讬讬讘 讜谞讞砖 砖讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讻诇讘 砖讜讟讛 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诪谞讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讗诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讙讜驻讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讛谞讬 讛讜讗 讚砖专讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 诇讗

And we also learned in the mishna that one may cover a scorpion with a bowl on Shabbat so that it will not bite. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: All harmful creatures are killed on Shabbat. Rav Yosef raised an objection to this from the following baraita: Five creatures may be killed even on Shabbat, and they are: The poisonous fly that is in the land of Egypt, and the hornet that is in Ninveh, and the scorpion that is in 岣dyab, and the snake that is in Eretz Yisrael, and a mad dog in any place. The Gemara clarifies this: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? If you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn鈥檛 he say that one is liable for a prohibited labor that is not needed for its own sake, and it is therefore prohibited to kill even these creatures? Rather, is it not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and these are those creatures that it is permitted to kill; others, no, it is not permitted to kill?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜诪讗谉 谞讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讛讗 诪转专爪转讗 讛讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诪砖讘砖转讗 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗谞讗 诪转谞讬谞讗 诇讛 讜讗讜转讬讘谞讗 诇讛 讜讗谞讗 诪转专讬爪谞讗 诇讛 讘专爪讜 讗讞专讬讜 讜讚讘专讬 讛讻诇

Rabbi Yirmeya said: And who will say to us that this baraita is accurate? Perhaps it is corrupted, and an objection cannot be raised from it. Rav Yosef said: I taught the baraita and raised an objection from it, and I will answer it as follows: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi permitted killing all harmful creatures on Shabbat when they are running after him; as in that case the danger is real, and therefore it is permitted to kill them according to all opinions.

转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讛讜专讙 谞讞砖讬诐 讜注拽专讘讬诐 讘砖讘转 讗讬谉 专讜讞 讞住讬讚讬诐 谞讜讞讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗讜转谉 讞住讬讚讬诐 讗讬谉 专讜讞 讞讻诪讬诐 谞讜讞讛 诪讛诐 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讞讝讬讬讛 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚拽讗 拽讟讬诇 讝讬讘讜专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诇讬诪转讬谞讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜

The tanna who recited tannaitic literature before Rava bar Rav Huna taught a baraita: One who kills snakes and scorpions on Shabbat, the spirit of the pious is not pleased with him. Rava bar Rav Huna said to him: And with regard to those pious, the spirit of the Sages is not pleased with them, as snakes and scorpions harm people. The Gemara comments: And this statement disagrees with the opinion of Rav Huna, for Rav Huna saw a person killing a hornet on Shabbat and said to him: Have you finished killing all the hornets? This indicates that he was not pleased with him.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞讝讚诪谞讜 诇讜 谞讞砖讬诐 讜注拽专讘讬诐 讛专讙谉 讘讬讚讜注 砖谞讝讚诪谞讜 诇讜 诇讛讜专讙谉 诇讗 讛专讙谉 讘讬讚讜注 砖谞讝讚诪谞讜 诇讛讜专讙讜 讜谞注砖讛 诇讜 谞住 诪谉 讛砖诪讬诐 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谞讬砖讜驻讬谉 讘讜

The Sages taught in a baraita: One who snakes and scorpions happened before him, if he killed them, it is clear that they happened before him in order for him to kill them. If he did not kill them it is clear that they happened before him in order for them to kill him, but a miracle from heaven transpired for him and he was saved. Ulla said, and some say it was Rabba bar bar 岣na who said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This is referring to when they were touching and brushing up against him (Rabbeinu 岣nanel), as in that case if they cause him no harm, it is surely a miracle that saved him.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讻讛谞讗 驻注诐 讗讞转 谞驻诇 讗讞讚 讘讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讜注诪讚 谞讬讜转讬 讗讞讚 讜讛专讙讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 驻讙注 讘讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜

Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: One time, a snake fell into the study hall on Shabbat, and a Nabatean [Nivati] stood and killed it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: One of its type killed it.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 驻讙注 讘讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讚砖驻讬专 注讘讬讚 讗讜 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 讗拽讬诇注讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 谞驻拽 诪讬诇转讗 诪讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诪讛讜 诇讛专讜讙 谞讞砖讬诐 讜注拽专讘讬诐 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讛讜 爪讬专注讛 讗谞讬 讛讜专讙 谞讞砖 讜注拽专讘 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讚讬诇诪讗 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 专讜拽 讚讜专住讜 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讜讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 谞讞砖 讚讜专住讜 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讜讗诪专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 注拽专讘 讚讜专住讜 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: One of its type killed it, did he mean that he acted properly or not? Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which was related about Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, and Rabbi Zeira, who were sitting in the courtyard of Rabbi Yannai鈥檚 house. A matter emerged from among them, and they raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yannai: What is the ruling with regard to killing snakes and scorpions on Shabbat? He said to them: I would kill a hornet, all the more so would I kill a snake or a scorpion, as they are more dangerous and it is permitted to kill them. The Gemara rejects this: There is no conclusive proof from this, as perhaps it is only permitted when one steps on it innocently as he is walking, so that it does not appear to others that he intended to step on it. As Rav Yehuda said: With regard to spittle on Shabbat, one may trample it innocently and need not be concerned about the prohibitions of smoothing or leveling holes. And Rav Sheshet said: With regard to a snake, one may trample it innocently. And Rav Ketina said: With regard to a scorpion, one may trample it innocently.

讗讘讗 讘专 诪专转讗 讚讛讜讗 讗讘讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讛讜讛 诪住拽讬 讘讬讛 讚讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讝讜讝讬 讗讬讬转讬讜讛讜 拽讗 诪爪注专讗 诇讬讛 讛讜讛 砖讚讬 专讜拽讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讗讬讬转讜 诪讗谞讗 住讞讬驻讜 注诇讜讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 爪专讬讻转讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讜拽 讚讜专住讜 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 砖讘拽讜讛讜

The Gemara relates: Abba bar Marta, who is Abba bar Manyomi, owed money to members of the Exilarch鈥檚 household. They brought him to the house of the Exilarch on Shabbat and they tormented him to force him to pay. There was spittle there. The Exilarch said to the members of his household: Bring me a vessel and place it over the spittle so that people will not step on it. Abba bar Manyomi said to them: You need not do so, as Rav Yehuda said as follows: With regard to spittle, one may trample it innocently. The Exilarch said to the members of his household: He is a Torah scholar, leave him alone.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 驻诪讜讟讜转 砖诇 讘讬转 专讘讬 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇谉 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘谞讬讟诇讬谉 讘讬讚讜 讗讞转 讗讜 讘砖转讬 讬讚讬诐

Apropos Rabbi Abba bar Kahana, the Gemara cites additional statements of his. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said that Rabbi 岣nina said: With regard to the candlesticks of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, it is permitted to move them on Shabbat. It was not clear what the nature of these candlesticks was, and Rabbi Zeira said to him: Is this referring to candlesticks that are small, which are moved with one hand, or even to those that are moved with two hands?

Scroll To Top