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

January 18, 2022 | 讟状讝 讘砖讘讟 转砖驻状讘 | TODAY'S DAF: Moed Katan 6

Today's Daf Yomi

March 19, 2020 | 讻状讙 讘讗讚专 转砖状驻

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

Shabbat 13

Today’s daf is sponsored by Karolyn Benger in memory of her father Bernhard Benger, Dov ben Tzvi z”l and by Rena Septee Goldstein and Mark Goldstein in memory of Moe Septee, Moshe Ben Elazar Shmuel z”l and by Irine Schweitzer in memory of her grandmother Hasya bat Rachel and by Sharona and Binyamin Aranoff in memory of their grandmother, Mollie Chideckell, Esther Malka bat Zeev Wolf z”l who inspired them with her dedication to Limud Torah.聽

The gemara deals with the case of the chazan – what is permitted and what is forbidden for him to do? Why? The zav can’t eat with a zava at the same table lest they come to sin. What can we learn from the fact that they didn’t say a pure person can’t eat with an impure person? Can a nidda sleep with her husband in the same bed each fully clothed? The gemara brings several sources to try to answer this question. Is being fully clothed enough of a distinction to remind them? What is required for one to assume that people will remember or remind each other – whether it relates to eating milk and meat together or a couple having sexual relations together when the wife is a nidda? A woman whose husband died young tries to figure out why. Eliyahu asks her details and discovers that during her seven clean days they were more leninent regarding certain things and that must be why he was punished. The mishna talks about the day the rabbis sat in the attic of Chananiya ben Chizkiya and there were more people from Beit Shamai than Beit Hillel and they determined halachot like Beit Shamai and instituted 18 ordinances. The gemara tells us a few things about Chananya that he wrote Megilat Taanit and also resolved the contradictions in Yechezkel and saved the book from being “taken out.” The gemara starts to list some of the 18 ordinances, all relating to purity and impurity and items that can disqualify teruma.

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛转讬谞讜拽讜转 砖诇 讘讬转 专讘谉 讛讬讜 诪住讚专讬谉 驻专砖讬讜转 讜拽讜专讬谉 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讗砖讬 驻专砖讬讜转讬讜 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬诪转 专讘谉 注诇讬讛谉 诇讗 讗转讬 诇讗爪诇讜讬讬:

The Gemara raises an objection from that which was taught in a Tosefta: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The schoolchildren would organize the sections and read the book by candlelight. Apparently, it is permitted to read by candlelight on Shabbat. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the Tosefta is only referring to the beginning of the sections. And if you wish, say instead that children are different in this regard. Since the fear of their teacher is upon them, they will not come to adjust the wick. Even on a weekday, fear of their teacher will prevent them from tending to the lamp during their study.

讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讛讝讘: 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讜讗 讜专讗讛 注讚 讛讬讻谉 驻专爪讛 讟讛专讛 讘讬砖专讗诇 砖诇讗 砖谞讬谞讜 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讛讟讛讜专 注诐 讛讟诪讗讛 讗诇讗 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讛讝讘 注诐 讛讝讘讛 诪驻谞讬 讛专讙诇 注讘讬专讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讝讘 驻专讜砖 注诐 讝讘 注诐 讛讗专抓 砖诪讗 讬专讙讬诇谞讜 讗爪诇讜

We learned in the mishna: Similar to this decree of Shabbat, the Sages issued a decree that the zav may not eat with his wife, the zava, even though they are both ritually impure, because by eating together they will come to excessive intimacy and become accustomed to sin. It was taught in a Tosefta that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Come and see to what extent ritual purity was widespread in Israel, as we did not learn: The ritually pure may not eat with the ritually impure woman; but rather, the zav may not eat with the zava, although they are both ritually impure, lest he become accustomed to sin. Needless to say, a pure and an impure person certainly would not eat together, as everyone was careful with regard to ritual purity. On a similar note, the Sages said: A zav who generally distances himself from ritual impurity, eats ritually pure food, and is careful about separating tithes, may not eat with a zav who is an am ha鈥檃retz, who does not distance himself from ritual impurity and is not careful about separating tithes, due to the concern lest the am ha鈥檃retz accustom him to frequently spend time with him, by means of a shared meal.

讜讻讬 诪专讙讬诇讜 讗爪诇讜 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 砖诪讗 讬讗讻讬诇谞讜 讚讘专讬诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讗讟讜 讝讘 驻专讜砖 诇讗讜 讚讘专讬诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讗讻讬诇 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗讻讬诇谞讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 诪转讜拽谞讬谉 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 专讜讘 注诪讬 讛讗专抓 诪注砖专讬谉 讛谉 讗诇讗 砖诪讗 讬讛讗 专讙讬诇 讗爪诇讜 讜讬讗讻讬诇谞讜 讚讘专讬诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讘讬诪讬 讟讛专转讜

The Gemara wonders: And if he accustoms him to be with him, what of it, what is the problem? Rather, say: Lest he feed him impure items. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the zav who generally distances himself from ritual impurity does not eat impure things? In his impure state, everything he touches automatically becomes impure, so why would he be concerned with regard to impure items? Abaye said: This prohibition is due to a decree issued by the Sages lest the am ha鈥檃retz feed him food items that are not tithed. Rava said: He needn鈥檛 worry about items that are not tithed. Even if his friend was an am ha鈥檃retz, there is a general principle in effect that most amei ha鈥檃retz tithe their fruits. Rather, the Sages were concerned lest he become accustomed to spending time with the am ha鈥檃retz even after the period of his impurity and he feed him impure items even during the days of his purity.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 谞讚讛 诪讛讜 砖转讬砖谉 注诐 讘注诇讛 讛讬讗 讘讘讙讚讛 讜讛讜讗 讘讘讙讚讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讗 砖诪注 讛注讜祝 注讜诇讛 注诐 讛讙讘讬谞讛 注诇 讛砖诇讞谉 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讗讻诇 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专 诇讗 注讜诇讛 讜诇讗 谞讗讻诇 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诇讬讻讗 讚讬注讜转

An additional dilemma was raised before the Sages with regard to the requirement to distance oneself from prohibition and impurity: What is the halakha with regard to a menstruating woman? May she sleep with her husband in one bed while she is in her clothes and he is in his clothes? Rav Yosef said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from what we learned in a mishna: The fowl is permitted to be placed together with the cheese on the table, although it may not be eaten with cheese. This is the statement of Beit Shammai. Beit Hillel say: The fowl is neither permitted to be placed together with the cheese on the table, nor may it be eaten with it. According to the opinion of Beit Hillel, which is the halakha, not only must one distance himself from the sin itself, but one must also make certain that items that are prohibited together are not placed together. The Gemara rejects this: There it is different as there are not several consciousnesses. When the fowl and the cheese are on one person鈥檚 table, he is liable to err and eat them both, as there is only one consciousness there, his. That is not the case when there are two people in one bed. In that case, there are two consciousnesses and there is no concern that they will both forget the prohibition.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讬注讜转 砖讗谞讬 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 讗讻住谞讬讬诐 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注诇 砖诇讞谉 讗讞讚 讝讛 讗讜讻诇 讘砖专 讜讝讛 讗讜讻诇 讙讘讬谞讛 讜讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 讜诇讗讜 讗转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谉 讘专 讗诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讗讘诇 诪讻讬专讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讗住讜专讬诐 讜讛谞讬 谞诪讬 诪讻讬专讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讚讬注讜转 讗讬讻讗 砖讬谞讜讬 诇讬讻讗 讛讻讗 讗讬讻讗 讚讬注讜转 讜讗讬讻讗 砖讬谞讜讬

The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable to say that where there are two or more consciousnesses it is different, as it was taught in the latter clause of that mishna, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Two guests in one house may eat on one table this one eating meat and this one eating cheese, and they need not be concerned. The Gemara rejects this: That is not a proof. Was it not said with regard to this halakha that Rabbi 岣nin bar Ami said that Shmuel said: They only taught that the two of them may eat on one table when they are not familiar with each other; however, if they are familiar with each other it is prohibited for them to eat on one table, as there is room for concern that due to their familiarity they will share their food and come to sin. And, if so, these too, the husband and his wife, are familiar with each other. There is room for concern that they will not keep appropriate distance, and therefore they may not sleep together in one bed even if he is wearing his clothes and she is wearing her clothes. The Gemara rejects this: How can you compare these two cases? There, in the case of meat and milk, there are two consciousnesses; however, there is no noticeable change from the norm, as the meat and the cheese are on the table without any obvious indication to remind them not to mix the food items. While, here, in the case of the menstruating woman, there are two consciousnesses and there is also a noticeable change from the norm, as it is unusual for people to sleep in their clothes. The fact that they are both dressed constitutes a change.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 转讗 砖诪注 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 讗讻住谞讬讬诐 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注诇 砖诇讞谉 讗讞讚 讝讛 讘砖专 讜讝讛 讙讘讬谞讛 讜讗转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谉 讘专 讗诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讗讘诇 诪讻讬专讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讗住讜专 讜讛谞讬 谞诪讬 诪讻讬专讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讛转诐 讚讬注讜转 讗讬讻讗 砖讬谞讜讬 诇讬讻讗 讛讻讗 讗讬讻讗 讚讬注讜转 讜讗讬讻讗 砖讬谞讜讬

Others cite the previous passage as proof for Rav Yosef鈥檚 opinion and then reject it and say: Come and hear, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Two guests may eat on one table, this one eating meat and this one eating cheese. And it was stated with regard to this halakha that Rabbi 岣nin bar Ami said that Shmuel said: They only taught that the two of them may eat on one table when they are not familiar with each other; however, if they are familiar with each other it is prohibited for them to eat on one table, as there is room for concern that due to their familiarity they will share their food and come to sin. And, if so, these too, the husband and his wife are familiar with each other. There is room for concern that they will not act with the appropriate separation, and therefore they cannot sleep together in one bed, even if he is wearing his clothes and she is wearing her clothes. The Gemara distinguishes between the cases: There, in the case of meat and cheese, although there are two consciousnesses, there is no noticeable change. The meat and the cheese are on the table with no obvious indication to remind them not to mix the food items. While here, in the case of the menstruating woman, there are two consciousnesses and there is also a noticeable change.

转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讛讝讘 注诐 讛讝讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讛专讙诇 注讘讬专讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚讬注讜转 讗讬讻讗 砖讬谞讜讬 诇讬讻讗

Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from what we learned in our mishna: The zav may not eat with the zava due to concern that excessive intimacy will lead them to become accustomed to sin. Even eating together is prohibited. The Gemara answers: Here, too, although there are two consciousnesses, there is no noticeable change.

转讗 砖诪注 讗诇 讛讛专讬诐 诇讗 讗讻诇 讜注讬谞讬讜 诇讗 谞砖讗 讗诇 讙诇讜诇讬 讘讬转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗转 讗砖转 专注讛讜 诇讗 讟诪讗 讜讗诇 讗砖讛 谞讚讛 诇讗 讬拽专讘 诪拽讬砖 讗砖讛 谞讚讛 诇讗砖转 专注讛讜 诪讛 讗砖转 专注讛讜 讛讜讗 讘讘讙讚讜 讜讛讬讗 讘讘讙讚讛 讗住讜专 讗祝 讗砖转讜 谞讚讛 讛讜讗 讘讘讙讚讜 讜讛讬讗 讘讘讙讚讛 讗住讜专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Come and hear a different resolution from that which was taught in a baraita: It is stated: 鈥淎nd he has not eaten upon the mountains, neither has he lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither has he defiled his neighbor鈥檚 wife, neither has he come near to a woman in her impurity鈥 (Ezekiel 18:6). This verse juxtaposes a menstruating woman to his neighbor鈥檚 wife. Just as lying together with his neighbor鈥檚 wife, even when he is in his clothes and she is in her clothes, is prohibited, so too, lying with his wife when she is menstruating, even when he is in his clothes and she is in her clothes, is prohibited.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 驻讚转 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 驻讚转 诇讗 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 拽讜专讘讛 砖诇 讙诇讜讬 注专讬讜转 讘诇讘讚 砖谞讗诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 讗诇 讻诇 砖讗专 讘砖专讜 诇讗 转拽专讘讜 诇讙诇讜转 注专讜讛

The Gemara comments: And this conclusion disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Pedat, as Rabbi Pedat said: The Torah only prohibited intimacy that involves engaging in prohibited sexual relations, as it is stated: 鈥淣one of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness鈥 (Leviticus 18:6). The prohibition of intimacy in the Torah applies exclusively to relations, and all other kinds of intimacy that do not include actual relations are not included in the prohibition. When there is separation, they did not issue a decree.

注讜诇讗 讻讬 讛讜讬 讗转讬 诪讘讬 专讘 讛讜讛 诪谞砖拽 诇讛讜 诇讗讞讜讜转讬讛 讗讘讬 讞讚讬讬讛讜 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗讘讬 讬讚讬讬讛讜 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讗讚讬讚讬讛 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜诐 拽讜专讘讛 讗住讜专 诪砖讜诐 诇讱 诇讱 讗诪专讬 谞讝讬专讗 住讞讜专 住讞讜专 诇讻专诪讗 诇讗 转拽专讘:

The Gemara relates that Ulla, when he would come from the house of his teacher, would kiss his sisters on their chests. And some say: On their hands. Ulla was not concerned about violating the prohibition of displaying affection toward a relative forbidden to him, as his intention was not to have relations with them. The Gemara adds that his action was in contradiction to a saying of his, as Ulla said: Even any intimacy is prohibited with a woman with whom he is forbidden to engage in sexual relations due to the reason formulated as an adage: Go around, go around, and do not approach the vineyard, they say to the nazirite. They advise the nazirite, who is forbidden to consume any product of a vine, that he should not even approach the vineyard. The same is true with regard to the prohibition of forbidden relations. According to Ulla, one must distance himself from them to whatever degree possible.

转谞讬 讚讘讬 讗诇讬讛讜 诪注砖讛 讘转诇诪讬讚 讗讞讚 砖砖谞讛 讛专讘讛 讜拽专讗 讛专讘讛 讜砖讬诪砖 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讛专讘讛 讜诪转 讘讞爪讬 讬诪讬讜 讜讛讬转讛 讗砖转讜 谞讜讟诇转 转驻讬诇讬讜 讜诪讞讝专转诐 讘讘转讬 讻谞住讬讜转 讜讘讘转讬 诪讚专砖讜转 讜讗诪专讛 诇讛诐 讻转讬讘 讘转讜专讛 讻讬 讛讜讗 讞讬讬讱 讜讗讜专讱 讬诪讬讱 讘注诇讬 砖砖谞讛 讛专讘讛 讜拽专讗 讛专讘讛

The Sage in the school of Eliyahu taught a baraita that deals with this halakha: There was an incident involving one student who studied much Mishna and read much Bible, and served Torah scholars extensively, studying Torah from them, and, nevertheless, died at half his days, half his life expectancy. His wife in her bitterness would take his phylacteries and go around with them to synagogues and study halls, and she said to the Sages: It is written in the Torah: 鈥淔or it is your life and the length of your days鈥 (Deuteronomy 30:20). If so, my husband who studied much Mishna, and read much Bible,

讜砖讬诪砖 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讛专讘讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诪转 讘讞爪讬 讬诪讬讜 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 讗讚诐 诪讞讝讬专讛 讚讘专 驻注诐 讗讞转 谞转讗专讞转讬 讗爪诇讛 讜讛讬转讛 诪住讬讞讛 讻诇 讗讜转讜 诪讗讜专注 讜讗诪专转讬 诇讛 讘转讬 讘讬诪讬 谞讚讜转讱 诪讛 讛讜讗 讗爪诇讱 讗诪专讛 诇讬 讞住 讜砖诇讜诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗爪讘注 拽讟谞讛 诇讗 谞讙注 [讘讬] 讘讬诪讬 诇讘讜谞讬讱 诪讛讜 讗爪诇讱 讗讻诇 注诪讬 讜砖转讛 注诪讬 讜讬砖谉 注诪讬 讘拽讬专讜讘 讘砖专 讜诇讗 注诇转讛 讚注转讜 注诇 讚讘专 讗讞专 讜讗诪专转讬 诇讛 讘专讜讱 讛诪拽讜诐 砖讛专讙讜 砖诇讗 谞砖讗 驻谞讬诐 诇转讜专讛 砖讛专讬 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讜讗诇 讗砖讛 讘谞讚转 讟讜诪讗转讛 诇讗 转拽专讘 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 诪讟讛 讞讚讗 讛讜讗讬 讘诪注专讘讗 讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 住讬谞专 诪驻住讬拽 讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛:

and served Torah scholars extensively, why did he die at half his days? Where is the length of days promised him in the verse? No one would respond to her astonishment at all. Eliyahu said: One time I was a guest in her house, and she was relating that entire event with regard to the death of her husband. And I said to her: My daughter, during the period of your menstruation, how did he act toward you? She said to me: Heaven forbid, he did not touch me even with his little finger. And I asked her: In the days of your white garments, after the menstrual flow ended, and you were just counting clean days, how did he act toward you then? She said to me: He ate with me, and drank with me, and slept with me with bodily contact and, however, it did not enter his mind about something else, i.e., conjugal relations. And I said to her: Blessed is the Omnipresent who killed him for this sin, as your husband did not show respect to the Torah. The Torah said: 鈥淎nd to a woman in the separation of her impurity you should not approach鈥 (Leviticus 18:19), even mere affectionate contact is prohibited. The Gemara relates that when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: That student did not actually sleep with her with bodily contact; rather, it was in one bed that they slept without contact. In the West, in Eretz Yisrael, they say that Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef said: When they would sleep together in one bed, she wore a belt [sinar] from the waist down that would separate between him and her. Nevertheless, since the matter is prohibited, that student was punished.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 诪谉 讛讛诇讻讜转 砖讗诪专讜 讘注诇讬讬转 讞谞谞讬讛 讘谉 讞讝拽讬讛 讘谉 讙专讜谉 砖注诇讜 诇讘拽专讜 谞诪谞讜 讜专讘讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 注诇 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专 讚讘专讬诐 讙讝专讜 讘讜 讘讬讜诐:

MISHNA: And these are among the halakhot that the Sages, who went up to visit him, said in the upper story of 岣nanya ben 岣zkiya ben Garon. The precise nature of these halakhot will be explained in the Gemara. These halakhot are considered one unit because they share a distinctive element. Since many Sages were there, among them most of the generation鈥檚 Torah scholars in Eretz Yisrael, they engaged in discussion of various halakhot of the Torah. It turned out that when the people expressing opinions were counted, the students of Beit Shammai outnumbered the students of Beit Hillel, and they issued decrees with regard to eighteen matters on that day in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诇讜 转谞谉 讗讜 讜讗诇讜 转谞谉 讜讗诇讜 转谞谉 讛谞讬 讚讗诪专谉 讗讜 讗诇讜 转谞谉 讚讘注讬谞谉 诇诪讬诪专 拽诪谉 转讗 砖诪注 讗讬谉 驻讜诇讬谉 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 讜讗讬谉 拽讜专讬谉 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 讜讗诇讜 诪谉 讛讛诇讻讜转 砖讗诪专讜 讘注诇讬讬转 讞谞谞讬讛 讘谉 讞讝拽讬讛 讘谉 讙专讜谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讜讗诇讜 转谞谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:

GEMARA: With regard to the language that introduces our mishna, Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Did we learn in our mishna: These are among the halakhot, or did we learn in our mishna: And these are among the halakhot? The difference is significant. Did we learn: And these, and if so, the reference would be to those that we said earlier, i.e., that those halakhot are included in the decrees? Or did we learn: These, and if so the reference would be to those that we seek to mention below? Come and hear a solution to this dilemma from the fact that these matters were taught together in a baraita: One may not shake garments to rid them of lice by the light of the lamp and one may not read by the light of the lamp; and these are among the halakhot that the Sages said in the attic of 岣nanya ben 岣zkiya ben Garon. Conclude from this that we learned: And these in the mishna, and the reference is to the decrees mentioned earlier.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讬 讻转讘 诪讙讬诇转 转注谞讬转 讗诪专讜 讞谞谞讬讛 讘谉 讞讝拽讬讛 讜住讬注转讜 砖讛讬讜 诪讞讘讘讬谉 讗转 讛爪专讜转

The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to Megillat Ta鈥檃nit, which is a list of days of redemption that were established as celebrations for generations: Who wrote Megillat Ta鈥檃nit? This scroll was written by 岣nanya ben 岣zkiya ben Garon and his faction, who held dear the memory of the troubles that befell Israel and their salvation from them.

讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗祝 讗谞讜 诪讞讘讘讬谉 讗转 讛爪专讜转 讗讘诇 诪讛 谞注砖讛 砖讗诐 讘讗谞讜 诇讻转讜讘 讗讬谉 讗谞讜 诪住驻讬拽讬谉

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: We also hold dear the memory of the troubles from which Israel was saved, but what can we do? If we came to write all the days of that kind, we would not manage to do so, as the troubles that Israel experienced in every generation and era are numerous, and on each day there is an event worthy of commemoration.

讚讘专 讗讞专 讗讬谉 砖讜讟讛 谞驻讙注

Alternatively: Why do we not record the days of salvation from troubles? Just as a crazy person is not hurt, as he is not aware of the troubles that befall him, so too, we cannot appreciate the magnitude of the calamities that befall us.

讚讘专 讗讞专 讗讬谉 讘砖专 讛诪转 诪专讙讬砖 讘讗讬讝诪诇 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 拽砖讛 专讬诪讛 诇诪转 讻诪讞讟 讘讘砖专 讛讞讬 砖谞讗诪专 讗讱 讘砖专讜 注诇讬讜 讬讻讗讘 讜谞驻砖讜 注诇讬讜 转讗讘诇 讗讬诪讗 讗讬谉 讘砖专 讛诪转 砖讘讞讬 诪专讙讬砖 讘讗讬讝诪诇

Alternatively: The flesh of a dead person does not feel the scalpel [izemel] cutting into him, and we, too, are in such a difficult situation that we no longer feel the pains and troubles. With regard to the last analogy, the Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn鈥檛 Rav Yitz岣k say: The gnawing of maggots is as excruciating to the dead as the stab of a needle is to the flesh of the living, as it is stated with regard to the dead: 鈥淏ut his flesh shall hurt him, and his soul mourns over him鈥 (Job 14:22)? Rather, say and explain the matter: The dead flesh in parts of the body of the living person that are insensitive to pain does not feel the scalpel that cuts him.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘专诐 讝讻讜专 讗讜转讜 讛讗讬砖 诇讟讜讘 讜讞谞谞讬讛 讘谉 讞讝拽讬讛 砖诪讜 砖讗诇诪诇讗 讛讜讗 谞讙谞讝 住驻专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 砖讛讬讜 讚讘专讬讜 住讜转专讬谉 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 诪讛 注砖讛 讛注诇讜 诇讜 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 讙专讘讬 砖诪谉 讜讬砖讘 讘注诇讬讬讛 讜讚专砖谉:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Truly, that man is remembered for the good, and his name is 岣nanya ben 岣zkiya, as if not for him, the book of Ezekiel would have been suppressed because its contents, in many details, contradict matters of Torah. The Sages sought to suppress the book and exclude it from the canon. What did he, 岣nanya ben 岣zkiya, do? They brought him three hundred jugs of oil, for light and food, up to his upper story, and he sat isolated in the upper story and did not move from there until he homiletically interpreted all of those verses in the book of Ezekiel that seemed contradictory, and resolved the contradictions.

讜砖诪谞讛 注砖专 讚讘专 讙讝专讜: 诪讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 砖诪谞讛 注砖专 讚讘专 讚转谞谉 讗诇讜 驻讜住诇讬谉 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 讛讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 专讗砖讜谉 讜讛讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讜讛砖讜转讛 诪砖拽讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讛讘讗 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讘诪讬诐 砖讗讜讘讬谉 讜讟讛讜专 砖谞驻诇讜 注诇 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 诪讬诐 砖讗讜讘讬谉 讜讛住驻专 讜讛讬讚讬诐 讜讛讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜讛讗讜讻诇讬诐 讜讛讻诇讬诐 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讘诪砖拽讬谉

We learned in the mishna that when the Sages went up to the upper story of the house of 岣nanya ben 岣zkiya ben Garon, they were counted and issued eighteen decrees in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. The Gemara asks: What are those eighteen matters? The Gemara answers: As we learned in a mishna, a list of the decrees that the Sages issued with regard to items whose level of impurity is such that if they come into contact with teruma they disqualify it. By means of that contact, the teruma itself becomes impure, but it does not transmit impurity to other items. These disqualify teruma: One who eats food with first degree ritual impurity status acquired as a result of contact with a primary source of ritual impurity, e.g., a creeping animal; and one who eats food with second degree ritual impurity status acquired as a result of contact with an item with first degree ritual impurity status; and one who drinks impure liquids of any degree of impurity; and one whose head and most of his body come into drawn water after he immersed himself in a ritual bath to purify himself; and a ritually pure person that three log of drawn water fell on his head and most of his body; and a Torah scroll; and the hands of any person who did not purify himself for the purpose of handling teruma; and one who immersed himself during the day, i.e., one who was impure and immersed himself, and until evening he is not considered completely pure; and foods and vessels that became impure by coming into contact with impure liquids. Contact with any of these disqualifies the teruma. The Gemara seeks to clarify these matters.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讛讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 专讗砖讜谉 讜讛讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 砖谞讬 诪驻住诇 驻住诇讬 讟诪讜讬讬

The Gemara asks first: Who is the tanna who holds that one who eats food with first degree ritual impurity status, and one who eats food with second degree ritual impurity status, disqualify the teruma, but

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 13: A Fool Is Not Harmed (or: The Dead Feel No Pain)

Some important texts get attention today - first, the book of Ezekiel and its apparently controversial material that apparently contradicted...

Shabbat 13

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 13

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛转讬谞讜拽讜转 砖诇 讘讬转 专讘谉 讛讬讜 诪住讚专讬谉 驻专砖讬讜转 讜拽讜专讬谉 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讗砖讬 驻专砖讬讜转讬讜 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬诪转 专讘谉 注诇讬讛谉 诇讗 讗转讬 诇讗爪诇讜讬讬:

The Gemara raises an objection from that which was taught in a Tosefta: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The schoolchildren would organize the sections and read the book by candlelight. Apparently, it is permitted to read by candlelight on Shabbat. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the Tosefta is only referring to the beginning of the sections. And if you wish, say instead that children are different in this regard. Since the fear of their teacher is upon them, they will not come to adjust the wick. Even on a weekday, fear of their teacher will prevent them from tending to the lamp during their study.

讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讛讝讘: 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讜讗 讜专讗讛 注讚 讛讬讻谉 驻专爪讛 讟讛专讛 讘讬砖专讗诇 砖诇讗 砖谞讬谞讜 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讛讟讛讜专 注诐 讛讟诪讗讛 讗诇讗 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讛讝讘 注诐 讛讝讘讛 诪驻谞讬 讛专讙诇 注讘讬专讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讝讘 驻专讜砖 注诐 讝讘 注诐 讛讗专抓 砖诪讗 讬专讙讬诇谞讜 讗爪诇讜

We learned in the mishna: Similar to this decree of Shabbat, the Sages issued a decree that the zav may not eat with his wife, the zava, even though they are both ritually impure, because by eating together they will come to excessive intimacy and become accustomed to sin. It was taught in a Tosefta that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Come and see to what extent ritual purity was widespread in Israel, as we did not learn: The ritually pure may not eat with the ritually impure woman; but rather, the zav may not eat with the zava, although they are both ritually impure, lest he become accustomed to sin. Needless to say, a pure and an impure person certainly would not eat together, as everyone was careful with regard to ritual purity. On a similar note, the Sages said: A zav who generally distances himself from ritual impurity, eats ritually pure food, and is careful about separating tithes, may not eat with a zav who is an am ha鈥檃retz, who does not distance himself from ritual impurity and is not careful about separating tithes, due to the concern lest the am ha鈥檃retz accustom him to frequently spend time with him, by means of a shared meal.

讜讻讬 诪专讙讬诇讜 讗爪诇讜 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 砖诪讗 讬讗讻讬诇谞讜 讚讘专讬诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讗讟讜 讝讘 驻专讜砖 诇讗讜 讚讘专讬诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讗讻讬诇 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗讻讬诇谞讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 诪转讜拽谞讬谉 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 专讜讘 注诪讬 讛讗专抓 诪注砖专讬谉 讛谉 讗诇讗 砖诪讗 讬讛讗 专讙讬诇 讗爪诇讜 讜讬讗讻讬诇谞讜 讚讘专讬诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讘讬诪讬 讟讛专转讜

The Gemara wonders: And if he accustoms him to be with him, what of it, what is the problem? Rather, say: Lest he feed him impure items. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the zav who generally distances himself from ritual impurity does not eat impure things? In his impure state, everything he touches automatically becomes impure, so why would he be concerned with regard to impure items? Abaye said: This prohibition is due to a decree issued by the Sages lest the am ha鈥檃retz feed him food items that are not tithed. Rava said: He needn鈥檛 worry about items that are not tithed. Even if his friend was an am ha鈥檃retz, there is a general principle in effect that most amei ha鈥檃retz tithe their fruits. Rather, the Sages were concerned lest he become accustomed to spending time with the am ha鈥檃retz even after the period of his impurity and he feed him impure items even during the days of his purity.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 谞讚讛 诪讛讜 砖转讬砖谉 注诐 讘注诇讛 讛讬讗 讘讘讙讚讛 讜讛讜讗 讘讘讙讚讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讗 砖诪注 讛注讜祝 注讜诇讛 注诐 讛讙讘讬谞讛 注诇 讛砖诇讞谉 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讗讻诇 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专 诇讗 注讜诇讛 讜诇讗 谞讗讻诇 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诇讬讻讗 讚讬注讜转

An additional dilemma was raised before the Sages with regard to the requirement to distance oneself from prohibition and impurity: What is the halakha with regard to a menstruating woman? May she sleep with her husband in one bed while she is in her clothes and he is in his clothes? Rav Yosef said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from what we learned in a mishna: The fowl is permitted to be placed together with the cheese on the table, although it may not be eaten with cheese. This is the statement of Beit Shammai. Beit Hillel say: The fowl is neither permitted to be placed together with the cheese on the table, nor may it be eaten with it. According to the opinion of Beit Hillel, which is the halakha, not only must one distance himself from the sin itself, but one must also make certain that items that are prohibited together are not placed together. The Gemara rejects this: There it is different as there are not several consciousnesses. When the fowl and the cheese are on one person鈥檚 table, he is liable to err and eat them both, as there is only one consciousness there, his. That is not the case when there are two people in one bed. In that case, there are two consciousnesses and there is no concern that they will both forget the prohibition.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讬注讜转 砖讗谞讬 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 讗讻住谞讬讬诐 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注诇 砖诇讞谉 讗讞讚 讝讛 讗讜讻诇 讘砖专 讜讝讛 讗讜讻诇 讙讘讬谞讛 讜讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 讜诇讗讜 讗转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谉 讘专 讗诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讗讘诇 诪讻讬专讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讗住讜专讬诐 讜讛谞讬 谞诪讬 诪讻讬专讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讚讬注讜转 讗讬讻讗 砖讬谞讜讬 诇讬讻讗 讛讻讗 讗讬讻讗 讚讬注讜转 讜讗讬讻讗 砖讬谞讜讬

The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable to say that where there are two or more consciousnesses it is different, as it was taught in the latter clause of that mishna, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Two guests in one house may eat on one table this one eating meat and this one eating cheese, and they need not be concerned. The Gemara rejects this: That is not a proof. Was it not said with regard to this halakha that Rabbi 岣nin bar Ami said that Shmuel said: They only taught that the two of them may eat on one table when they are not familiar with each other; however, if they are familiar with each other it is prohibited for them to eat on one table, as there is room for concern that due to their familiarity they will share their food and come to sin. And, if so, these too, the husband and his wife, are familiar with each other. There is room for concern that they will not keep appropriate distance, and therefore they may not sleep together in one bed even if he is wearing his clothes and she is wearing her clothes. The Gemara rejects this: How can you compare these two cases? There, in the case of meat and milk, there are two consciousnesses; however, there is no noticeable change from the norm, as the meat and the cheese are on the table without any obvious indication to remind them not to mix the food items. While, here, in the case of the menstruating woman, there are two consciousnesses and there is also a noticeable change from the norm, as it is unusual for people to sleep in their clothes. The fact that they are both dressed constitutes a change.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 转讗 砖诪注 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 讗讻住谞讬讬诐 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注诇 砖诇讞谉 讗讞讚 讝讛 讘砖专 讜讝讛 讙讘讬谞讛 讜讗转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谉 讘专 讗诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讗讘诇 诪讻讬专讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讗住讜专 讜讛谞讬 谞诪讬 诪讻讬专讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讛转诐 讚讬注讜转 讗讬讻讗 砖讬谞讜讬 诇讬讻讗 讛讻讗 讗讬讻讗 讚讬注讜转 讜讗讬讻讗 砖讬谞讜讬

Others cite the previous passage as proof for Rav Yosef鈥檚 opinion and then reject it and say: Come and hear, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Two guests may eat on one table, this one eating meat and this one eating cheese. And it was stated with regard to this halakha that Rabbi 岣nin bar Ami said that Shmuel said: They only taught that the two of them may eat on one table when they are not familiar with each other; however, if they are familiar with each other it is prohibited for them to eat on one table, as there is room for concern that due to their familiarity they will share their food and come to sin. And, if so, these too, the husband and his wife are familiar with each other. There is room for concern that they will not act with the appropriate separation, and therefore they cannot sleep together in one bed, even if he is wearing his clothes and she is wearing her clothes. The Gemara distinguishes between the cases: There, in the case of meat and cheese, although there are two consciousnesses, there is no noticeable change. The meat and the cheese are on the table with no obvious indication to remind them not to mix the food items. While here, in the case of the menstruating woman, there are two consciousnesses and there is also a noticeable change.

转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讛讝讘 注诐 讛讝讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讛专讙诇 注讘讬专讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚讬注讜转 讗讬讻讗 砖讬谞讜讬 诇讬讻讗

Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from what we learned in our mishna: The zav may not eat with the zava due to concern that excessive intimacy will lead them to become accustomed to sin. Even eating together is prohibited. The Gemara answers: Here, too, although there are two consciousnesses, there is no noticeable change.

转讗 砖诪注 讗诇 讛讛专讬诐 诇讗 讗讻诇 讜注讬谞讬讜 诇讗 谞砖讗 讗诇 讙诇讜诇讬 讘讬转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗转 讗砖转 专注讛讜 诇讗 讟诪讗 讜讗诇 讗砖讛 谞讚讛 诇讗 讬拽专讘 诪拽讬砖 讗砖讛 谞讚讛 诇讗砖转 专注讛讜 诪讛 讗砖转 专注讛讜 讛讜讗 讘讘讙讚讜 讜讛讬讗 讘讘讙讚讛 讗住讜专 讗祝 讗砖转讜 谞讚讛 讛讜讗 讘讘讙讚讜 讜讛讬讗 讘讘讙讚讛 讗住讜专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Come and hear a different resolution from that which was taught in a baraita: It is stated: 鈥淎nd he has not eaten upon the mountains, neither has he lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither has he defiled his neighbor鈥檚 wife, neither has he come near to a woman in her impurity鈥 (Ezekiel 18:6). This verse juxtaposes a menstruating woman to his neighbor鈥檚 wife. Just as lying together with his neighbor鈥檚 wife, even when he is in his clothes and she is in her clothes, is prohibited, so too, lying with his wife when she is menstruating, even when he is in his clothes and she is in her clothes, is prohibited.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 驻讚转 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 驻讚转 诇讗 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 拽讜专讘讛 砖诇 讙诇讜讬 注专讬讜转 讘诇讘讚 砖谞讗诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 讗诇 讻诇 砖讗专 讘砖专讜 诇讗 转拽专讘讜 诇讙诇讜转 注专讜讛

The Gemara comments: And this conclusion disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Pedat, as Rabbi Pedat said: The Torah only prohibited intimacy that involves engaging in prohibited sexual relations, as it is stated: 鈥淣one of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness鈥 (Leviticus 18:6). The prohibition of intimacy in the Torah applies exclusively to relations, and all other kinds of intimacy that do not include actual relations are not included in the prohibition. When there is separation, they did not issue a decree.

注讜诇讗 讻讬 讛讜讬 讗转讬 诪讘讬 专讘 讛讜讛 诪谞砖拽 诇讛讜 诇讗讞讜讜转讬讛 讗讘讬 讞讚讬讬讛讜 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗讘讬 讬讚讬讬讛讜 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讗讚讬讚讬讛 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜诐 拽讜专讘讛 讗住讜专 诪砖讜诐 诇讱 诇讱 讗诪专讬 谞讝讬专讗 住讞讜专 住讞讜专 诇讻专诪讗 诇讗 转拽专讘:

The Gemara relates that Ulla, when he would come from the house of his teacher, would kiss his sisters on their chests. And some say: On their hands. Ulla was not concerned about violating the prohibition of displaying affection toward a relative forbidden to him, as his intention was not to have relations with them. The Gemara adds that his action was in contradiction to a saying of his, as Ulla said: Even any intimacy is prohibited with a woman with whom he is forbidden to engage in sexual relations due to the reason formulated as an adage: Go around, go around, and do not approach the vineyard, they say to the nazirite. They advise the nazirite, who is forbidden to consume any product of a vine, that he should not even approach the vineyard. The same is true with regard to the prohibition of forbidden relations. According to Ulla, one must distance himself from them to whatever degree possible.

转谞讬 讚讘讬 讗诇讬讛讜 诪注砖讛 讘转诇诪讬讚 讗讞讚 砖砖谞讛 讛专讘讛 讜拽专讗 讛专讘讛 讜砖讬诪砖 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讛专讘讛 讜诪转 讘讞爪讬 讬诪讬讜 讜讛讬转讛 讗砖转讜 谞讜讟诇转 转驻讬诇讬讜 讜诪讞讝专转诐 讘讘转讬 讻谞住讬讜转 讜讘讘转讬 诪讚专砖讜转 讜讗诪专讛 诇讛诐 讻转讬讘 讘转讜专讛 讻讬 讛讜讗 讞讬讬讱 讜讗讜专讱 讬诪讬讱 讘注诇讬 砖砖谞讛 讛专讘讛 讜拽专讗 讛专讘讛

The Sage in the school of Eliyahu taught a baraita that deals with this halakha: There was an incident involving one student who studied much Mishna and read much Bible, and served Torah scholars extensively, studying Torah from them, and, nevertheless, died at half his days, half his life expectancy. His wife in her bitterness would take his phylacteries and go around with them to synagogues and study halls, and she said to the Sages: It is written in the Torah: 鈥淔or it is your life and the length of your days鈥 (Deuteronomy 30:20). If so, my husband who studied much Mishna, and read much Bible,

讜砖讬诪砖 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讛专讘讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诪转 讘讞爪讬 讬诪讬讜 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 讗讚诐 诪讞讝讬专讛 讚讘专 驻注诐 讗讞转 谞转讗专讞转讬 讗爪诇讛 讜讛讬转讛 诪住讬讞讛 讻诇 讗讜转讜 诪讗讜专注 讜讗诪专转讬 诇讛 讘转讬 讘讬诪讬 谞讚讜转讱 诪讛 讛讜讗 讗爪诇讱 讗诪专讛 诇讬 讞住 讜砖诇讜诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗爪讘注 拽讟谞讛 诇讗 谞讙注 [讘讬] 讘讬诪讬 诇讘讜谞讬讱 诪讛讜 讗爪诇讱 讗讻诇 注诪讬 讜砖转讛 注诪讬 讜讬砖谉 注诪讬 讘拽讬专讜讘 讘砖专 讜诇讗 注诇转讛 讚注转讜 注诇 讚讘专 讗讞专 讜讗诪专转讬 诇讛 讘专讜讱 讛诪拽讜诐 砖讛专讙讜 砖诇讗 谞砖讗 驻谞讬诐 诇转讜专讛 砖讛专讬 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讜讗诇 讗砖讛 讘谞讚转 讟讜诪讗转讛 诇讗 转拽专讘 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 诪讟讛 讞讚讗 讛讜讗讬 讘诪注专讘讗 讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 住讬谞专 诪驻住讬拽 讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛:

and served Torah scholars extensively, why did he die at half his days? Where is the length of days promised him in the verse? No one would respond to her astonishment at all. Eliyahu said: One time I was a guest in her house, and she was relating that entire event with regard to the death of her husband. And I said to her: My daughter, during the period of your menstruation, how did he act toward you? She said to me: Heaven forbid, he did not touch me even with his little finger. And I asked her: In the days of your white garments, after the menstrual flow ended, and you were just counting clean days, how did he act toward you then? She said to me: He ate with me, and drank with me, and slept with me with bodily contact and, however, it did not enter his mind about something else, i.e., conjugal relations. And I said to her: Blessed is the Omnipresent who killed him for this sin, as your husband did not show respect to the Torah. The Torah said: 鈥淎nd to a woman in the separation of her impurity you should not approach鈥 (Leviticus 18:19), even mere affectionate contact is prohibited. The Gemara relates that when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: That student did not actually sleep with her with bodily contact; rather, it was in one bed that they slept without contact. In the West, in Eretz Yisrael, they say that Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef said: When they would sleep together in one bed, she wore a belt [sinar] from the waist down that would separate between him and her. Nevertheless, since the matter is prohibited, that student was punished.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 诪谉 讛讛诇讻讜转 砖讗诪专讜 讘注诇讬讬转 讞谞谞讬讛 讘谉 讞讝拽讬讛 讘谉 讙专讜谉 砖注诇讜 诇讘拽专讜 谞诪谞讜 讜专讘讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 注诇 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专 讚讘专讬诐 讙讝专讜 讘讜 讘讬讜诐:

MISHNA: And these are among the halakhot that the Sages, who went up to visit him, said in the upper story of 岣nanya ben 岣zkiya ben Garon. The precise nature of these halakhot will be explained in the Gemara. These halakhot are considered one unit because they share a distinctive element. Since many Sages were there, among them most of the generation鈥檚 Torah scholars in Eretz Yisrael, they engaged in discussion of various halakhot of the Torah. It turned out that when the people expressing opinions were counted, the students of Beit Shammai outnumbered the students of Beit Hillel, and they issued decrees with regard to eighteen matters on that day in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诇讜 转谞谉 讗讜 讜讗诇讜 转谞谉 讜讗诇讜 转谞谉 讛谞讬 讚讗诪专谉 讗讜 讗诇讜 转谞谉 讚讘注讬谞谉 诇诪讬诪专 拽诪谉 转讗 砖诪注 讗讬谉 驻讜诇讬谉 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 讜讗讬谉 拽讜专讬谉 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 讜讗诇讜 诪谉 讛讛诇讻讜转 砖讗诪专讜 讘注诇讬讬转 讞谞谞讬讛 讘谉 讞讝拽讬讛 讘谉 讙专讜谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讜讗诇讜 转谞谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:

GEMARA: With regard to the language that introduces our mishna, Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Did we learn in our mishna: These are among the halakhot, or did we learn in our mishna: And these are among the halakhot? The difference is significant. Did we learn: And these, and if so, the reference would be to those that we said earlier, i.e., that those halakhot are included in the decrees? Or did we learn: These, and if so the reference would be to those that we seek to mention below? Come and hear a solution to this dilemma from the fact that these matters were taught together in a baraita: One may not shake garments to rid them of lice by the light of the lamp and one may not read by the light of the lamp; and these are among the halakhot that the Sages said in the attic of 岣nanya ben 岣zkiya ben Garon. Conclude from this that we learned: And these in the mishna, and the reference is to the decrees mentioned earlier.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讬 讻转讘 诪讙讬诇转 转注谞讬转 讗诪专讜 讞谞谞讬讛 讘谉 讞讝拽讬讛 讜住讬注转讜 砖讛讬讜 诪讞讘讘讬谉 讗转 讛爪专讜转

The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to Megillat Ta鈥檃nit, which is a list of days of redemption that were established as celebrations for generations: Who wrote Megillat Ta鈥檃nit? This scroll was written by 岣nanya ben 岣zkiya ben Garon and his faction, who held dear the memory of the troubles that befell Israel and their salvation from them.

讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗祝 讗谞讜 诪讞讘讘讬谉 讗转 讛爪专讜转 讗讘诇 诪讛 谞注砖讛 砖讗诐 讘讗谞讜 诇讻转讜讘 讗讬谉 讗谞讜 诪住驻讬拽讬谉

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: We also hold dear the memory of the troubles from which Israel was saved, but what can we do? If we came to write all the days of that kind, we would not manage to do so, as the troubles that Israel experienced in every generation and era are numerous, and on each day there is an event worthy of commemoration.

讚讘专 讗讞专 讗讬谉 砖讜讟讛 谞驻讙注

Alternatively: Why do we not record the days of salvation from troubles? Just as a crazy person is not hurt, as he is not aware of the troubles that befall him, so too, we cannot appreciate the magnitude of the calamities that befall us.

讚讘专 讗讞专 讗讬谉 讘砖专 讛诪转 诪专讙讬砖 讘讗讬讝诪诇 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 拽砖讛 专讬诪讛 诇诪转 讻诪讞讟 讘讘砖专 讛讞讬 砖谞讗诪专 讗讱 讘砖专讜 注诇讬讜 讬讻讗讘 讜谞驻砖讜 注诇讬讜 转讗讘诇 讗讬诪讗 讗讬谉 讘砖专 讛诪转 砖讘讞讬 诪专讙讬砖 讘讗讬讝诪诇

Alternatively: The flesh of a dead person does not feel the scalpel [izemel] cutting into him, and we, too, are in such a difficult situation that we no longer feel the pains and troubles. With regard to the last analogy, the Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn鈥檛 Rav Yitz岣k say: The gnawing of maggots is as excruciating to the dead as the stab of a needle is to the flesh of the living, as it is stated with regard to the dead: 鈥淏ut his flesh shall hurt him, and his soul mourns over him鈥 (Job 14:22)? Rather, say and explain the matter: The dead flesh in parts of the body of the living person that are insensitive to pain does not feel the scalpel that cuts him.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘专诐 讝讻讜专 讗讜转讜 讛讗讬砖 诇讟讜讘 讜讞谞谞讬讛 讘谉 讞讝拽讬讛 砖诪讜 砖讗诇诪诇讗 讛讜讗 谞讙谞讝 住驻专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 砖讛讬讜 讚讘专讬讜 住讜转专讬谉 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 诪讛 注砖讛 讛注诇讜 诇讜 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 讙专讘讬 砖诪谉 讜讬砖讘 讘注诇讬讬讛 讜讚专砖谉:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Truly, that man is remembered for the good, and his name is 岣nanya ben 岣zkiya, as if not for him, the book of Ezekiel would have been suppressed because its contents, in many details, contradict matters of Torah. The Sages sought to suppress the book and exclude it from the canon. What did he, 岣nanya ben 岣zkiya, do? They brought him three hundred jugs of oil, for light and food, up to his upper story, and he sat isolated in the upper story and did not move from there until he homiletically interpreted all of those verses in the book of Ezekiel that seemed contradictory, and resolved the contradictions.

讜砖诪谞讛 注砖专 讚讘专 讙讝专讜: 诪讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 砖诪谞讛 注砖专 讚讘专 讚转谞谉 讗诇讜 驻讜住诇讬谉 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 讛讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 专讗砖讜谉 讜讛讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讜讛砖讜转讛 诪砖拽讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讛讘讗 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讘诪讬诐 砖讗讜讘讬谉 讜讟讛讜专 砖谞驻诇讜 注诇 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 诪讬诐 砖讗讜讘讬谉 讜讛住驻专 讜讛讬讚讬诐 讜讛讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜讛讗讜讻诇讬诐 讜讛讻诇讬诐 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讘诪砖拽讬谉

We learned in the mishna that when the Sages went up to the upper story of the house of 岣nanya ben 岣zkiya ben Garon, they were counted and issued eighteen decrees in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. The Gemara asks: What are those eighteen matters? The Gemara answers: As we learned in a mishna, a list of the decrees that the Sages issued with regard to items whose level of impurity is such that if they come into contact with teruma they disqualify it. By means of that contact, the teruma itself becomes impure, but it does not transmit impurity to other items. These disqualify teruma: One who eats food with first degree ritual impurity status acquired as a result of contact with a primary source of ritual impurity, e.g., a creeping animal; and one who eats food with second degree ritual impurity status acquired as a result of contact with an item with first degree ritual impurity status; and one who drinks impure liquids of any degree of impurity; and one whose head and most of his body come into drawn water after he immersed himself in a ritual bath to purify himself; and a ritually pure person that three log of drawn water fell on his head and most of his body; and a Torah scroll; and the hands of any person who did not purify himself for the purpose of handling teruma; and one who immersed himself during the day, i.e., one who was impure and immersed himself, and until evening he is not considered completely pure; and foods and vessels that became impure by coming into contact with impure liquids. Contact with any of these disqualifies the teruma. The Gemara seeks to clarify these matters.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讛讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 专讗砖讜谉 讜讛讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 砖谞讬 诪驻住诇 驻住诇讬 讟诪讜讬讬

The Gemara asks first: Who is the tanna who holds that one who eats food with first degree ritual impurity status, and one who eats food with second degree ritual impurity status, disqualify the teruma, but

Scroll To Top