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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 9, 2020 | 讬状讝 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聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Shabbat 125

The gemara goes through a list of items, determining whether or not they are muktze – can they serve a function or not? There is a debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda regarding a broken piece of an earthenware oven. The gemara discussed the case in which they argue and what the argument is about. Two different explanations are suggested. If one built a utensil out of a gourd and put a stone in to weigh it down so one could draw water from a well or stream, can one use it on Shabbat – does the gourd fall into the category of a base for a muktze item or is the stone considered secondary to the gourd? How is it similar to the case of a stone placed on top of a barrel that appears in a different mishna. If one wants to use an item that is muktze machamat gufo, muktze because it doesn’t serve any function, what is needed to be able to use it – is it enough to think before Shabbat that one plans to use it or is some action necessary and if so, how serious an action? Can one add an enclosure to a window? On what does it depend? Is it considered building a temporary wall?

讗诐 讝专拽讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 诇讗砖驻讛 讗住讜专讛


If one threw the clay seal of a jug into the garbage dump while it is still day, before Shabbat, it is prohibited to move it on Shabbat because he indicated that he set it aside from use.


讗诪专 讘专 讛诪讚讜专讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 拽专讜诪讬讜转 砖诇 诪讞爪诇转 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇诐 讘砖讘转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 讛诪讚讜专讬 讗住讘专讗 诇讬 诪讞爪诇转 讙讜驻讗 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬讗 诇讻住讜讬讬 讘讬讛 注驻专讗 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 讞讝讬讬谉 诇讻住讜讬讬 讘讛讜 讟讬谞讜驻转


Bar Hamduri said that Shmuel said: With regard to shreds of reeds that separated from a mat, it is permitted to move them on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rava said: Bar Hamduri explained it to me: The mat itself, for what use is it suited? It is suited to cover dirt with it. These shreds, too, are suited to cover filth with them.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬专讬 驻专讜讝诪讬讜转 讗住讜专 诇讟诇讟诇谉 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘诪讟诇谞讬讜转 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讬谉 诇讗 诇注谞讬讬诐 讜诇讗 诇注砖讬专讬诐:


Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: With regard to the remains of cloaks [perozemiyyot], it is prohibited to move them on Shabbat. Abaye said: This is referring to small rags that do not have an area of three by three fingerbreadths, that are neither suited for use by the poor nor by the wealthy.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讘专讬 转谞讜专 讬砖谉 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讛谞讬讟诇讬谉 讘讞爪专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 谞讬讟诇讬谉 讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 注诇 砖讘专讬 转谞讜专 讬砖谉 砖谞讬讟诇讬谉 讘砖讘转 讜注诇 讻讬住讜讬讜 砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讘讬转 讬讚


The Sages taught in the Tosefta: The shards of an old oven may be moved in a courtyard on Shabbat like all of the vessels that may be moved in a courtyard on Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: They may not be moved. Rabbi Yosei testified in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov about shards of an old oven that may be moved on Shabbat, and about its cover, which does not require a handle.


讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘注讜砖讬谉 诪注讬谉 诪诇讗讻讛 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪注讬谉 诪诇讗讻转谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讟注诪讬讛


The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? Abaye said: It is with regard to shards when they serve some function but do not serve a function similar to their own original function that they disagree. And Rabbi Yehuda follows his own line of reasoning, and Rabbi Meir follows his own line of reasoning, as they differed in the mishna.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘砖讘专讬 转谞讜专 诇讬驻诇讙讜 讘砖讘专讬 讻诇讬诐 讘注诇诪讗


Rava strongly objects to this: If so, instead of disagreeing with regard to shards of an oven, let them disagree with regard to ordinary shards. Why is the dispute specifically with regard to an oven?


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘砖讘专讬 讚讛讗讬 转谞讜专 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞谉 谞转谞讜 注诇 驻讬 讛讘讜专 讗讜 注诇 驻讬 讛讚讜转 讜谞转谉 砖诐 讗讘谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诪住讬拽 诪诇诪讟讛 讜讛讜讗 谞住讜拽 诪诇诪注诇讛 讟诪讗 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讟讛讜专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜住拽 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讟诪讗


Rather, Rava said: It is with regard to shards of this particular oven that they disagree, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to a clay oven that is not attached to the ground with mortar in the standard manner, but rather, one placed it over the mouth of a pit or over the mouth of a cistern, and he placed a stone there between the wall of the pit and the oven to secure the oven in place, Rabbi Yehuda says: If one heats the oven from beneath the oven, inside the pit, and the oven is thereby heated at the top, the oven serves its standard function; it is a full-fledged utensil and it can become ritually impure. And if it is not attached so tightly that it is heated at the top, it is ritually pure, because it is not a full-fledged vessel. And the Rabbis say: Since it can be heated in some manner, it can become ritually impure, because it serves its standard purpose.


讜讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讛讗讬 拽专讗 转谞讜专 讜讻讬专讬诐 讬讜转抓 讟诪讗讬诐 讛诐 讜讟诪讗讬诐 讬讛讬讜 诇讻诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诪讞讜住专 谞转讬爪讛 讟诪讗 砖讗讬谉 诪讞讜住专 谞转讬爪讛 讟讛讜专 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讟诪讗讬诐 讬讛讬讜 诇讻诐 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐


And with regard to what do they disagree? It is with regard to this verse: 鈥淎nd everything upon which any part of their carcass falls shall be impure; whether oven, or stove, it shall be broken in pieces; they are impure, and they shall be impure to you鈥 (Leviticus 11:35). Rabbi Yehuda holds: An oven that lacks smashing, i.e., it is whole and can be broken, can become impure. One that does not lack smashing, but it is situated in a place where it is not completely effective, is considered broken and is pure, i.e., it cannot become ritually impure. And the Rabbis hold that the verse comes to add: 鈥淭hey shall be impure to you,鈥 in any case, under any circumstances.


讜专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讬讜转抓 讛讛讜讗 诇讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讗 讚住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讘专讬讛 讘讗专注讗 讻讙讜驻讗 讚讗专注讗 讚诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, too, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭hey shall be broken into pieces,鈥 and why don鈥檛 they interpret the verse in the same way that Rabbi Yehuda does? The Gemara explains: The Rabbis understand this verse from another direction, as it could have entered your mind to say: Since he attached it to the ground, its legal status is like that of the ground itself, and anything attached to the ground cannot become impure. Therefore, it teaches us that since it is possible to detach it from the ground, it is indeed impure.


讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讟诪讗讬诐 讬讛讬讜 诇讻诐 讛讛讬讗 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讛讬住拽 专讗砖讜谉 讗讘诇 讘讛讬住拽 砖谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 转诇讜讬 讘爪讜讗专 讙诪诇


The Gemara asks: And according to the other tanna, Rabbi Yehuda, too, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭hey shall be impure to you鈥? The Gemara answers: He understood that verse in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis is specifically with regard to the first lighting. The first lighting transforms an earthenware oven that did not yet completely dry into a vessel. However, with regard to the second lighting they do not disagree, even if it was hanging around a camel鈥檚 neck; since it had already been fired up once, it is impure.


讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讜讛讬住拽 专讗砖讜谉 诇专讘谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 转诇讜讬 讘爪讜讗专 讙诪诇


Ulla says: And with regard to the first lighting according to the Rabbis, even if it was hanging around a camel鈥檚 neck, since it had already been fired up once it is a full-fledged oven and is impure.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘砖讘专讬 转谞讜专 诇讬驻诇讙讜 讘转谞讜专 讙讜驻讛 讛砖转讗 转谞讜专 讙讜驻讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪谞讗 砖讘专讬讜 诪讬讘注讬讗


Rav Ashi strongly objects to this line of reasoning: If so, instead of disagreeing with regard to the shards of an oven, let them disagree with regard to the oven itself. Now the oven itself, according to Rabbi Yehuda, is not considered a vessel; therefore, to say that its broken pieces are not vessels, is it necessary?


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚讗诪专谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讜讘注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 讟驻拽讗 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讚讘专讬讜 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽讗诪专 诇讚讬讚讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注讜砖讬谉 诪注讬谉 诪诇讗讻讛 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讗讜讚讬 诇讬 诪讬讛讗 讚讻讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪诇讗讻转讜 讛讜讗


Rather, Rav Ashi said: Actually, it is as we said initially, that it is referring to shards of any oven, and with which he crafts a ceramic board [tapka], and Rabbi Meir is speaking in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda: According to my opinion, it is permitted to move even shards that serve any purpose. However, according to your opinion, agree with me at least that in a case of this sort, it is a function similar to their own original function. The shards can be used for baking.


讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讛住拽讜 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讛讻讗 讛住拽讜 诪讘讞讜抓 讛转诐 诪注讜诪讚 讛讻讗 诇讗讜 诪注讜诪讚:


And Rabbi Yehuda says: It is not similar. There, in the case of an intact oven, its firing is from within. Here, with regard to the shard, its firing is from without. There, in the case of an intact oven, it bakes standing; here, it does not bake standing. Therefore, its function is not similar to its original function.


讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 注诇 砖讘专讬 转谞讜专 讬砖谉 砖谞讬讟诇讬谉 讘砖讘转 讜注诇 讻讬住讜讬讜 砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讘讬转 讬讚: 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讻诪讗谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谞谉 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讻讬住讜讬 讚转谞讜专讬 讚诪转讗 诪讞住讬讗 讚讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讗讞讬讝讛 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘


In that same Tosefta where Rabbi Yosei testified in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov about shards of an old oven that may be moved on Shabbat, and about its cover, which does not require a handle, and which is considered a vessel and may be moved as is, Ravina says: In accordance with whose opinion do we now move the oven covers in the city of Me岣sya that do not have handles? In accordance with whose opinion is it? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讘谉 砖讘拽讬专讜讬讛 讗诐 诪诪诇讗讬谉 讘讛 讜讗讬谞讛 谞讜驻诇转 诪诪诇讗讬谉 讘讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 诪诪诇讗讬谉 讘讛


MISHNA: A stone that is in a gourd used to draw water [kiruya], if they fill it with water and the stone does not fall, one may fill with it on Shabbat, and if not, and the stone does fall, one may not fill with it.


讝诪讜专讛 砖讛讬讗 拽砖讜专讛 讘讟驻讬讞 诪诪诇讗讬谉 讘讛 讘砖讘转


With regard to a vine branch that is tied to a pitcher, one may fill water with it on Shabbat because the branch became part of the vessel.


驻拽拽 讛讞诇讜谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 拽砖讜专 讜转诇讜讬 驻讜拽拽讬谉 讘讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 驻讜拽拽讬谉 讘讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 驻讜拽拽讬谉 讘讜:


With regard to a window shutter, Rabbi Eliezer says: When it is tied to and hanging from the window, i.e., it is not touching the ground, one may shutter the window with it, because it is not considered building; and if not, i.e., it is touching the ground, one may not shutter the window with it. And the Rabbis say: Both in this case and in that case one may shutter with it.


讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 讗讘谉 砖注诇 驻讬 讛讞讘讬转 诪讟讛 注诇 爪讬讚讛 讜讛讬讗 谞讜驻诇转 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讜讻讞 讗讘诇 讘诪谞讬讞 谞注砖讛 讘住讬住 诇讚讘专 讛讗住讜专 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讜讻讞 讗讘诇 讘诪谞讬讞 谞注砖讛 讻讬住讜讬 诇讛讞讘讬转


GEMARA: We learned in a mishna there: In the case of a stone that is atop a barrel and one wants to open the barrel, he tilts the barrel on its side and the stone falls. Rabba said that Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They only taught this in a case where one forgets the stone atop the barrel; however, in a case where one places the stone atop the barrel intentionally, the barrel becomes a base for a prohibited object, and it is therefore prohibited to move the barrel. And Rav Yosef said that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They only taught this in a case where one forgets it; however, in a case where one places it there, the stone becomes a cover for the barrel and it is permitted to use it like other barrel covers.


讗诪专 专讘讛 诪讜转讘讬谞谉 讗砖诪注转讬谉 讛讗讘谉 砖讘拽讬专讜讬讛 讗诐 诪诪诇讗讬谉 讘讛 讜讗讬谞讛 谞讜驻诇转 诪诪诇讗讬谉 讘讛 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讚拽讛 砖讜讬讗 讚讜驻谉


Rabba said: We raise an objection to our halakha from the mishna: With regard to a stone that is in a gourd used to draw water, if they fill it with water and the stone does not fall, one may fill with it on Shabbat. Apparently, if the stone is designated for a purpose, it is no longer set-aside. He rejects the proof: And that is not so, as these cases are not comparable. There, in the case of the stone in the gourd, since one attached it to the gourd, he rendered the stone a wall of the gourd and part of the vessel, unlike in the case of the stone atop the barrel.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜诪讜转讘讬谞谉 讗砖诪注转讬谉 讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 诪诪诇讗讬谉 讘讛 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讛讚拽讛 讘讟讜诇讬 讘讟诇讛


Rav Yosef said: And we raise an objection to our halakha from the mishna: And if not, and the stone does fall, one may not fill with it. A stone that is not attached is not considered to be part of the vessel and is therefore set-aside. He rejects the proof. And that is not so, as these cases are not comparable. There, since he did not attach the stone to the gourd, he negates its status as a part of the vessel and it remains set-aside.


讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讘注讬谞谉 诪注砖讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诪注砖讛


The Gemara explains: With regard to what do they disagree? One Sage, Rabba, holds that we require an action to change the status of a stone or another set-aside object into a vessel, and one Sage, Rav Yosef, holds that we do not require an action.


讜讗讝讚讜 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 驻注诐 讗讞转 讛诇讱 专讘讬 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讜诪爪讗 谞讚讘讱 砖诇 讗讘谞讬诐 讜讗诪专 诇转诇诪讬讚讬讜 爪讗讜 讜讞砖讘讜 讻讚讬 砖谞砖讘 注诇讬讛谉 诇诪讞专 讜诇讗 讛爪专讬讻谉 专讘讬 诇诪注砖讛


And they, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, follow their regular line of reasoning, as when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi 岣nina said, and some say that it was Rabbi Zeira who said that Rabbi 岣nina said: Once Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi went to one place and found a course of building stones, and he said to his students: Go out and think that you are designating these stones for Shabbat so that we may sit on them tomorrow on Shabbat, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not require them to perform an action with those stones. Thought alone was sufficient.


专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讛爪专讬讻谉 专讘讬 诇诪注砖讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 爪讗讜 讜诇诪讚讜诐 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 爪讗讜 讜砖驻砖驻讜诐 讗诪专 诇讛讜


Rabbi Yo岣nan said: That is not what happened. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi required them to perform an action to designate the stones. The Gemara asks: What action did he say to them to perform? Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: Go out and arrange the stones. Rabbi Asi said that he said to them: Go out and rub the mortar off of them. Rabbi Ami requires a more significant action to render the stones a vessel.


讗讬转诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 讗诪专 住讜讗专 砖诇 拽讜专讜转 讛讜讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 讗诪专 讙砖讜砖 砖诇 住驻讬谞讛 讛讜讛 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讙砖讜砖 讻诇 砖讻谉 住讜讗专 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 住讜讗专 讗讘诇 讙砖讜砖 拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讛:


It was stated that there was a dispute with regard to this matter. Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said: It was a new stack of beams, not stones. And Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Shaul said: It was the sounding pole of a ship used to determine the depth of the water. The one who said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted sitting on a ship鈥檚 sounding pole, all the more so he permitted doing so in the case of beams. And with regard to the one who said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted sitting on a stack of beams, but in the case of the sounding pole he would prohibit doing so because it is set-aside due to monetary loss, as he is particular about it that it will not become warped and damaged.


讝诪讜专讛 砖讛讬讗 拽砖讜专讛 讻讜壮: 拽砖讜专讛 讗讬谉 诇讗 拽砖讜专讛 诇讗 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇


We learned in the mishna: With regard to a vine branch that is tied to a pitcher, one may fill water with it on Shabbat. The Gemara infers: If it is tied, yes, it is permitted; if it is not tied, no, it is prohibited. Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.


讚转谞讬讗 讞专讬讜转 砖诇 讚拽诇 砖讙讚专谉 诇注爪讬诐 讜谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛谉 诇讬砖讬讘讛 爪专讬讱 诇拽砖讜专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽砖讜专


As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to hard branches of a palm tree that one cut for firewood or for construction, and then he reconsidered their designation and decided to use them for sitting, he must tie the branches together on Shabbat eve so that they will not be set-aside. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He need not tie them together, and nevertheless, it is permitted to move them. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, cut wood need not be specially prepared to be used on Shabbat.


讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪讞讜讘专转 讘讗讘讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 拽讗 诪砖转诪砖 讘诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 诇诪讟讛 诪砖诇砖讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘转诇讜砖讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬拽讟讜诐:


Rav Sheshet says: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, with what are we dealing here? With a case where the shoot is still connected to its origin, the vine. The Gemara asks: If so, he is making use of an item that is attached to the ground, and the Sages issued a decree prohibiting the use of any plant attached to the ground. The Gemara answers: This is referring to a branch attached to the vine below three handbreadths off the ground. A vine attached to the ground below three handbreadths off the ground was not prohibited in that decree, just as it is permitted to make use of tree roots adjacent to the ground. Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that it is referring to a branch that is detached, nevertheless, its use is prohibited due to the decree lest one cut and straighten the branch to prepare it for use with the bucket. Therefore, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel teaches that there is no need for concern.


驻拽拽 讛讞诇讜谉 讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗讛诇 注专讗讬 讘转讞诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘砖讘转 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 诇讛讜住讬祝 砖专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪讜住讬驻讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘砖讘转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜住讬驻讬谉 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘


We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis dispute the case of a window shutter and in what manner one is permitted to shutter a window on Shabbat. Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Everyone agrees that one may not construct a temporary tent on a Festival for the first time, and needless to say, one may not do so on Shabbat. The tanna鈥檌m disagree only with regard to adding to an existing tent, as Rabbi Eliezer says: One may not add to an existing structure on a Festival, and needless to say, one may not do so on Shabbat. And the Rabbis say: One may add to a temporary structure on Shabbat, and needless to say, one may do so on a Festival.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 驻讜拽拽讬谉 讘讜: 诪讗讬 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗


We learned in the mishna that the Rabbis say: Both in this case and in that case one may shutter with it. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Both in this case and in that case, in this context? Rabbi Abba said that Rav Kahana said:

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聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

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

Shabbat 124-130 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will review concepts in Daf 124-130 including moving utensils, moving boxes of food to make room for...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 125: Leaving Muktzah

What do you do with the broken shards of an item that was (or wasn't) designated before Shabbat? The daf...

Shabbat 125

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 125

讗诐 讝专拽讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 诇讗砖驻讛 讗住讜专讛


If one threw the clay seal of a jug into the garbage dump while it is still day, before Shabbat, it is prohibited to move it on Shabbat because he indicated that he set it aside from use.


讗诪专 讘专 讛诪讚讜专讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 拽专讜诪讬讜转 砖诇 诪讞爪诇转 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇诐 讘砖讘转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 讛诪讚讜专讬 讗住讘专讗 诇讬 诪讞爪诇转 讙讜驻讗 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬讗 诇讻住讜讬讬 讘讬讛 注驻专讗 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 讞讝讬讬谉 诇讻住讜讬讬 讘讛讜 讟讬谞讜驻转


Bar Hamduri said that Shmuel said: With regard to shreds of reeds that separated from a mat, it is permitted to move them on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rava said: Bar Hamduri explained it to me: The mat itself, for what use is it suited? It is suited to cover dirt with it. These shreds, too, are suited to cover filth with them.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬专讬 驻专讜讝诪讬讜转 讗住讜专 诇讟诇讟诇谉 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘诪讟诇谞讬讜转 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讬谉 诇讗 诇注谞讬讬诐 讜诇讗 诇注砖讬专讬诐:


Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: With regard to the remains of cloaks [perozemiyyot], it is prohibited to move them on Shabbat. Abaye said: This is referring to small rags that do not have an area of three by three fingerbreadths, that are neither suited for use by the poor nor by the wealthy.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讘专讬 转谞讜专 讬砖谉 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讛谞讬讟诇讬谉 讘讞爪专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 谞讬讟诇讬谉 讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 注诇 砖讘专讬 转谞讜专 讬砖谉 砖谞讬讟诇讬谉 讘砖讘转 讜注诇 讻讬住讜讬讜 砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讘讬转 讬讚


The Sages taught in the Tosefta: The shards of an old oven may be moved in a courtyard on Shabbat like all of the vessels that may be moved in a courtyard on Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: They may not be moved. Rabbi Yosei testified in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov about shards of an old oven that may be moved on Shabbat, and about its cover, which does not require a handle.


讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘注讜砖讬谉 诪注讬谉 诪诇讗讻讛 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪注讬谉 诪诇讗讻转谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讟注诪讬讛


The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? Abaye said: It is with regard to shards when they serve some function but do not serve a function similar to their own original function that they disagree. And Rabbi Yehuda follows his own line of reasoning, and Rabbi Meir follows his own line of reasoning, as they differed in the mishna.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘砖讘专讬 转谞讜专 诇讬驻诇讙讜 讘砖讘专讬 讻诇讬诐 讘注诇诪讗


Rava strongly objects to this: If so, instead of disagreeing with regard to shards of an oven, let them disagree with regard to ordinary shards. Why is the dispute specifically with regard to an oven?


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘砖讘专讬 讚讛讗讬 转谞讜专 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞谉 谞转谞讜 注诇 驻讬 讛讘讜专 讗讜 注诇 驻讬 讛讚讜转 讜谞转谉 砖诐 讗讘谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诪住讬拽 诪诇诪讟讛 讜讛讜讗 谞住讜拽 诪诇诪注诇讛 讟诪讗 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讟讛讜专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜住拽 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讟诪讗


Rather, Rava said: It is with regard to shards of this particular oven that they disagree, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to a clay oven that is not attached to the ground with mortar in the standard manner, but rather, one placed it over the mouth of a pit or over the mouth of a cistern, and he placed a stone there between the wall of the pit and the oven to secure the oven in place, Rabbi Yehuda says: If one heats the oven from beneath the oven, inside the pit, and the oven is thereby heated at the top, the oven serves its standard function; it is a full-fledged utensil and it can become ritually impure. And if it is not attached so tightly that it is heated at the top, it is ritually pure, because it is not a full-fledged vessel. And the Rabbis say: Since it can be heated in some manner, it can become ritually impure, because it serves its standard purpose.


讜讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讛讗讬 拽专讗 转谞讜专 讜讻讬专讬诐 讬讜转抓 讟诪讗讬诐 讛诐 讜讟诪讗讬诐 讬讛讬讜 诇讻诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诪讞讜住专 谞转讬爪讛 讟诪讗 砖讗讬谉 诪讞讜住专 谞转讬爪讛 讟讛讜专 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讟诪讗讬诐 讬讛讬讜 诇讻诐 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐


And with regard to what do they disagree? It is with regard to this verse: 鈥淎nd everything upon which any part of their carcass falls shall be impure; whether oven, or stove, it shall be broken in pieces; they are impure, and they shall be impure to you鈥 (Leviticus 11:35). Rabbi Yehuda holds: An oven that lacks smashing, i.e., it is whole and can be broken, can become impure. One that does not lack smashing, but it is situated in a place where it is not completely effective, is considered broken and is pure, i.e., it cannot become ritually impure. And the Rabbis hold that the verse comes to add: 鈥淭hey shall be impure to you,鈥 in any case, under any circumstances.


讜专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讬讜转抓 讛讛讜讗 诇讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讗 讚住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讘专讬讛 讘讗专注讗 讻讙讜驻讗 讚讗专注讗 讚诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, too, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭hey shall be broken into pieces,鈥 and why don鈥檛 they interpret the verse in the same way that Rabbi Yehuda does? The Gemara explains: The Rabbis understand this verse from another direction, as it could have entered your mind to say: Since he attached it to the ground, its legal status is like that of the ground itself, and anything attached to the ground cannot become impure. Therefore, it teaches us that since it is possible to detach it from the ground, it is indeed impure.


讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讟诪讗讬诐 讬讛讬讜 诇讻诐 讛讛讬讗 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讛讬住拽 专讗砖讜谉 讗讘诇 讘讛讬住拽 砖谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 转诇讜讬 讘爪讜讗专 讙诪诇


The Gemara asks: And according to the other tanna, Rabbi Yehuda, too, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭hey shall be impure to you鈥? The Gemara answers: He understood that verse in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis is specifically with regard to the first lighting. The first lighting transforms an earthenware oven that did not yet completely dry into a vessel. However, with regard to the second lighting they do not disagree, even if it was hanging around a camel鈥檚 neck; since it had already been fired up once, it is impure.


讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讜讛讬住拽 专讗砖讜谉 诇专讘谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 转诇讜讬 讘爪讜讗专 讙诪诇


Ulla says: And with regard to the first lighting according to the Rabbis, even if it was hanging around a camel鈥檚 neck, since it had already been fired up once it is a full-fledged oven and is impure.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘砖讘专讬 转谞讜专 诇讬驻诇讙讜 讘转谞讜专 讙讜驻讛 讛砖转讗 转谞讜专 讙讜驻讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪谞讗 砖讘专讬讜 诪讬讘注讬讗


Rav Ashi strongly objects to this line of reasoning: If so, instead of disagreeing with regard to the shards of an oven, let them disagree with regard to the oven itself. Now the oven itself, according to Rabbi Yehuda, is not considered a vessel; therefore, to say that its broken pieces are not vessels, is it necessary?


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚讗诪专谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讜讘注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 讟驻拽讗 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讚讘专讬讜 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽讗诪专 诇讚讬讚讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注讜砖讬谉 诪注讬谉 诪诇讗讻讛 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讗讜讚讬 诇讬 诪讬讛讗 讚讻讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪诇讗讻转讜 讛讜讗


Rather, Rav Ashi said: Actually, it is as we said initially, that it is referring to shards of any oven, and with which he crafts a ceramic board [tapka], and Rabbi Meir is speaking in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda: According to my opinion, it is permitted to move even shards that serve any purpose. However, according to your opinion, agree with me at least that in a case of this sort, it is a function similar to their own original function. The shards can be used for baking.


讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讛住拽讜 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讛讻讗 讛住拽讜 诪讘讞讜抓 讛转诐 诪注讜诪讚 讛讻讗 诇讗讜 诪注讜诪讚:


And Rabbi Yehuda says: It is not similar. There, in the case of an intact oven, its firing is from within. Here, with regard to the shard, its firing is from without. There, in the case of an intact oven, it bakes standing; here, it does not bake standing. Therefore, its function is not similar to its original function.


讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 注诇 砖讘专讬 转谞讜专 讬砖谉 砖谞讬讟诇讬谉 讘砖讘转 讜注诇 讻讬住讜讬讜 砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讘讬转 讬讚: 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讻诪讗谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谞谉 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讻讬住讜讬 讚转谞讜专讬 讚诪转讗 诪讞住讬讗 讚讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讗讞讬讝讛 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘


In that same Tosefta where Rabbi Yosei testified in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov about shards of an old oven that may be moved on Shabbat, and about its cover, which does not require a handle, and which is considered a vessel and may be moved as is, Ravina says: In accordance with whose opinion do we now move the oven covers in the city of Me岣sya that do not have handles? In accordance with whose opinion is it? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讘谉 砖讘拽讬专讜讬讛 讗诐 诪诪诇讗讬谉 讘讛 讜讗讬谞讛 谞讜驻诇转 诪诪诇讗讬谉 讘讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 诪诪诇讗讬谉 讘讛


MISHNA: A stone that is in a gourd used to draw water [kiruya], if they fill it with water and the stone does not fall, one may fill with it on Shabbat, and if not, and the stone does fall, one may not fill with it.


讝诪讜专讛 砖讛讬讗 拽砖讜专讛 讘讟驻讬讞 诪诪诇讗讬谉 讘讛 讘砖讘转


With regard to a vine branch that is tied to a pitcher, one may fill water with it on Shabbat because the branch became part of the vessel.


驻拽拽 讛讞诇讜谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 拽砖讜专 讜转诇讜讬 驻讜拽拽讬谉 讘讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 驻讜拽拽讬谉 讘讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 驻讜拽拽讬谉 讘讜:


With regard to a window shutter, Rabbi Eliezer says: When it is tied to and hanging from the window, i.e., it is not touching the ground, one may shutter the window with it, because it is not considered building; and if not, i.e., it is touching the ground, one may not shutter the window with it. And the Rabbis say: Both in this case and in that case one may shutter with it.


讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 讗讘谉 砖注诇 驻讬 讛讞讘讬转 诪讟讛 注诇 爪讬讚讛 讜讛讬讗 谞讜驻诇转 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讜讻讞 讗讘诇 讘诪谞讬讞 谞注砖讛 讘住讬住 诇讚讘专 讛讗住讜专 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讜讻讞 讗讘诇 讘诪谞讬讞 谞注砖讛 讻讬住讜讬 诇讛讞讘讬转


GEMARA: We learned in a mishna there: In the case of a stone that is atop a barrel and one wants to open the barrel, he tilts the barrel on its side and the stone falls. Rabba said that Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They only taught this in a case where one forgets the stone atop the barrel; however, in a case where one places the stone atop the barrel intentionally, the barrel becomes a base for a prohibited object, and it is therefore prohibited to move the barrel. And Rav Yosef said that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They only taught this in a case where one forgets it; however, in a case where one places it there, the stone becomes a cover for the barrel and it is permitted to use it like other barrel covers.


讗诪专 专讘讛 诪讜转讘讬谞谉 讗砖诪注转讬谉 讛讗讘谉 砖讘拽讬专讜讬讛 讗诐 诪诪诇讗讬谉 讘讛 讜讗讬谞讛 谞讜驻诇转 诪诪诇讗讬谉 讘讛 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讚拽讛 砖讜讬讗 讚讜驻谉


Rabba said: We raise an objection to our halakha from the mishna: With regard to a stone that is in a gourd used to draw water, if they fill it with water and the stone does not fall, one may fill with it on Shabbat. Apparently, if the stone is designated for a purpose, it is no longer set-aside. He rejects the proof: And that is not so, as these cases are not comparable. There, in the case of the stone in the gourd, since one attached it to the gourd, he rendered the stone a wall of the gourd and part of the vessel, unlike in the case of the stone atop the barrel.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜诪讜转讘讬谞谉 讗砖诪注转讬谉 讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 诪诪诇讗讬谉 讘讛 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讛讚拽讛 讘讟讜诇讬 讘讟诇讛


Rav Yosef said: And we raise an objection to our halakha from the mishna: And if not, and the stone does fall, one may not fill with it. A stone that is not attached is not considered to be part of the vessel and is therefore set-aside. He rejects the proof. And that is not so, as these cases are not comparable. There, since he did not attach the stone to the gourd, he negates its status as a part of the vessel and it remains set-aside.


讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讘注讬谞谉 诪注砖讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诪注砖讛


The Gemara explains: With regard to what do they disagree? One Sage, Rabba, holds that we require an action to change the status of a stone or another set-aside object into a vessel, and one Sage, Rav Yosef, holds that we do not require an action.


讜讗讝讚讜 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 驻注诐 讗讞转 讛诇讱 专讘讬 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讜诪爪讗 谞讚讘讱 砖诇 讗讘谞讬诐 讜讗诪专 诇转诇诪讬讚讬讜 爪讗讜 讜讞砖讘讜 讻讚讬 砖谞砖讘 注诇讬讛谉 诇诪讞专 讜诇讗 讛爪专讬讻谉 专讘讬 诇诪注砖讛


And they, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, follow their regular line of reasoning, as when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi 岣nina said, and some say that it was Rabbi Zeira who said that Rabbi 岣nina said: Once Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi went to one place and found a course of building stones, and he said to his students: Go out and think that you are designating these stones for Shabbat so that we may sit on them tomorrow on Shabbat, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not require them to perform an action with those stones. Thought alone was sufficient.


专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讛爪专讬讻谉 专讘讬 诇诪注砖讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 爪讗讜 讜诇诪讚讜诐 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 爪讗讜 讜砖驻砖驻讜诐 讗诪专 诇讛讜


Rabbi Yo岣nan said: That is not what happened. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi required them to perform an action to designate the stones. The Gemara asks: What action did he say to them to perform? Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: Go out and arrange the stones. Rabbi Asi said that he said to them: Go out and rub the mortar off of them. Rabbi Ami requires a more significant action to render the stones a vessel.


讗讬转诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 讗诪专 住讜讗专 砖诇 拽讜专讜转 讛讜讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 讗诪专 讙砖讜砖 砖诇 住驻讬谞讛 讛讜讛 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讙砖讜砖 讻诇 砖讻谉 住讜讗专 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 住讜讗专 讗讘诇 讙砖讜砖 拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讛:


It was stated that there was a dispute with regard to this matter. Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said: It was a new stack of beams, not stones. And Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Shaul said: It was the sounding pole of a ship used to determine the depth of the water. The one who said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted sitting on a ship鈥檚 sounding pole, all the more so he permitted doing so in the case of beams. And with regard to the one who said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted sitting on a stack of beams, but in the case of the sounding pole he would prohibit doing so because it is set-aside due to monetary loss, as he is particular about it that it will not become warped and damaged.


讝诪讜专讛 砖讛讬讗 拽砖讜专讛 讻讜壮: 拽砖讜专讛 讗讬谉 诇讗 拽砖讜专讛 诇讗 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇


We learned in the mishna: With regard to a vine branch that is tied to a pitcher, one may fill water with it on Shabbat. The Gemara infers: If it is tied, yes, it is permitted; if it is not tied, no, it is prohibited. Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.


讚转谞讬讗 讞专讬讜转 砖诇 讚拽诇 砖讙讚专谉 诇注爪讬诐 讜谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛谉 诇讬砖讬讘讛 爪专讬讱 诇拽砖讜专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽砖讜专


As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to hard branches of a palm tree that one cut for firewood or for construction, and then he reconsidered their designation and decided to use them for sitting, he must tie the branches together on Shabbat eve so that they will not be set-aside. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He need not tie them together, and nevertheless, it is permitted to move them. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, cut wood need not be specially prepared to be used on Shabbat.


讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪讞讜讘专转 讘讗讘讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 拽讗 诪砖转诪砖 讘诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 诇诪讟讛 诪砖诇砖讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘转诇讜砖讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬拽讟讜诐:


Rav Sheshet says: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, with what are we dealing here? With a case where the shoot is still connected to its origin, the vine. The Gemara asks: If so, he is making use of an item that is attached to the ground, and the Sages issued a decree prohibiting the use of any plant attached to the ground. The Gemara answers: This is referring to a branch attached to the vine below three handbreadths off the ground. A vine attached to the ground below three handbreadths off the ground was not prohibited in that decree, just as it is permitted to make use of tree roots adjacent to the ground. Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that it is referring to a branch that is detached, nevertheless, its use is prohibited due to the decree lest one cut and straighten the branch to prepare it for use with the bucket. Therefore, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel teaches that there is no need for concern.


驻拽拽 讛讞诇讜谉 讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗讛诇 注专讗讬 讘转讞诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘砖讘转 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 诇讛讜住讬祝 砖专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪讜住讬驻讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘砖讘转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜住讬驻讬谉 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘


We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis dispute the case of a window shutter and in what manner one is permitted to shutter a window on Shabbat. Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Everyone agrees that one may not construct a temporary tent on a Festival for the first time, and needless to say, one may not do so on Shabbat. The tanna鈥檌m disagree only with regard to adding to an existing tent, as Rabbi Eliezer says: One may not add to an existing structure on a Festival, and needless to say, one may not do so on Shabbat. And the Rabbis say: One may add to a temporary structure on Shabbat, and needless to say, one may do so on a Festival.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 驻讜拽拽讬谉 讘讜: 诪讗讬 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗


We learned in the mishna that the Rabbis say: Both in this case and in that case one may shutter with it. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Both in this case and in that case, in this context? Rabbi Abba said that Rav Kahana said:

Scroll To Top