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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 15, 2020 | 讻状讙 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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.

Shabbat 131

Today’s daf is sponsored by Idana Goldberg and Michael Kellman in celebration of Idana’s grandfather, Meyer Weitz’s 100th birthday. Mr. Weitz loves studying Talmud and has always been a strong proponent of women’s advanced Talmud study. And by Susan Fisher in memory of her father, Eliezer ben Shraga Pharvish Allweis z”l on his yahrzeit. “He loved learning and filled our home with sifrei kodesh and the books which made limmud Torah a joy.” And by Vicki Gordon in memory of her father Yisroel (Izzy) Herzog z”l, a giant in Chesed – “I miss him every day.”

The gemara brings two explanations of Rav’s statement where he distinguishes between carrying in an alley without a proper eiruv (just one beam either horizontal or vertical) when 1. there was an eiruv done between the houses and the courtyard – in that case one is not permitted to carry in the alley more than 4 cubits in a case without a proper eiruv in the alley – and when 2. there was no eiruv between the houses and the courtyard – one is then not permitted to move items that are in the alley more than 4 cubits. Why does he distinguish between those two cases? Rabbi Eliezer holds that preparations for a brit milah are permitted. However, he doesn’t hold this for every mitzva. For which mitzvot does he hold this way and for which does he not? From where is each derived from and why can’t we learn from one to the other – why does each need its own drasha?

讘转讬诐 讜讞爪专讜转 驻转讜讞讬谉 诇转讜讻讜 讜讛讻讗 讘转讬诐 讗讬讻讗 讞爪专讜转 诇讬讻讗 讻讬 诇讗 注讬专讘讜 谞诪讬 诇讬讞讝讬谞讛讜 诇讛谞讬 讘转讬诐 讻诪讗谉 讚住转讬诪讬 讚诪讜 讜讞爪专讜转 讗讬讻讗 讜讘转讬诐 诇讬讻讗

houses and courtyards open to it, and each courtyard contains at least two houses, and there are at least two courtyards. And here, there are houses but there are no courtyards, and therefore the standard halakhot of a closed alleyway do not apply. However, if that is the case, when they did not join the courtyards with the houses too, let us consider these houses as though they were sealed, because their residents may not carry from their houses into the courtyards, and the houses should be considered irrelevant. Therefore, in that case too, there are courtyards but there are no houses.

讗驻砖专 讚诪讘讟诇讬 诇讬讛 专砖讜转讗 讚讻讜诇讛讜 诇讙讘讬 讞讚 住讜祝 住讜祝 讘讬转 讗讬讻讗 讘转讬诐 诇讬讻讗

The Gemara answers: In that case it is possible for them to renounce all of their property rights and transfer them to one person. Just as the residents of a courtyard can join together, thereby rendering it permitted to carry in the courtyard, they can also relinquish their property rights to a single resident. In that way, it is considered as though there is only one inhabited house in the courtyard, and it is therefore permitted to carry within the courtyard as well as between that particular house and the courtyard. The Gemara rejects this answer: Ultimately, even in that case, there is one house, yet there are not multiple houses, as it is possible to relinquish one鈥檚 privileges to only one homeowner and not to two. This would fail to meet the minimum requirement of two houses for the area to be considered a courtyard.

讗驻砖专 讚诪爪驻专讗 讜注讚 驻诇讙讗 讚讬讜诪讗 诇讙讘讬 讞讚 诪驻诇讙讬讛 讚讬讜诪讗 讜诇驻谞讬讗 诇讙讘讬 讞讚 住讜祝 住讜祝 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇讛讗讬 诇讬转讬讛 诇讛讗讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讬 讙专诐 诇讞爪专讜转 砖讬讗住专讜 讘转讬诐 讜诇讬讻讗

The Gemara answers: It is possible to resolve this: From morning until midday they can relinquish their rights to one, and from midday until evening they can relinquish their rights to another, and as a result there will be two houses. The Gemara rejects this answer: Ultimately, at the time when this house has the ownership rights, that house does not have them, as at any point in time there is only one house from which it is permitted to carry into the courtyard. Rather, Rav Ashi said: The explanation that there are no houses and courtyards here is rejected, and the explanation is: What caused the courtyards to be prohibited? It is the presence of the houses. Had there been no houses, it would have been permitted to carry from the courtyards into the alleyway, since they are one domain according to Rabbi Shimon. And here, it is considered as though there are no houses. Therefore, it is permitted to carry in the alleyway.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 诇讻诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讻砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 砖讛专讬 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讞讜讘转 讛讬讜诐 讛谉 讜诇讗 诇诪讚谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 诪讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬讬谉 诇诪讻砖讬专讬 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 砖讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 谞讗诪专讛 讛讘讗讛 讘注讜诪专 讜谞讗诪专讛 讛讘讗讛 讘砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 诪讛 讛讘讗讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘注讜诪专 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗祝 讛讘讗讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Rabbi Eliezer did not say with regard to all mitzvot that actions that facilitate performance of a mitzva override Shabbat. This is not a fixed principle with regard to preparations for all mitzvot. Rather, each case must be considered on its own merits, and proof must be cited that this principle applies to a specific mitzva. As the two loaves offered on the festival of Shavuot are an obligation of that day, and Rabbi Eliezer only learned that the activities that facilitate their sacrifice override Shabbat from a special verbal analogy. As it was taught in a baraita, Rabbi Eliezer says: From where is it derived that the actions that facilitate the offering of the two loaves override Shabbat? The term bringing is stated in the verse with regard to the omer offering, and the term bringing is stated with regard to the two loaves. Just as in the case of the bringing stated with regard to the omer, all the actions that facilitate its offering override Shabbat, as the reaping of the omer, which facilitates its offering, overrides Shabbat, so too, in the case of the bringing stated with regard to the two loaves, actions that facilitate its offering override Shabbat.

诪讜驻谞讬 讚讗讬 诇讗 诪讜驻谞讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇注讜诪专 砖讻谉 讗诐 诪爪讗 拽爪讜专 拽讜爪专 转讗诪专 讘砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 砖讗诐 诪爪讗 拽爪讜专 讗讬谞讜 拽讜爪专 诇讗讬 讗驻谞讜讬讬 诪讜驻谞讬 诪讻讚讬 讻转讬讘 讜讛讘讗转诐 讗转 注讜诪专 专讗砖讬转 拽爪讬专讻诐 讗诇 讛讻讛谉 讘讬讜诐 讛讘讬讗讻诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬

With regard to this verbal analogy the Gemara comments: It must be that those terms are free, i.e., they are superfluous in their context and therefore available for the purpose of establishing a verbal analogy. As, if they are not free, the verbal analogy can be logically refuted, as it is possible to say: What is unique to the omer? That if one found reaped barley one must nevertheless reap more barley for the sake of the mitzva. Can you say the same with regard to the halakhot of the two loaves, where it is taught that if one found reaped grain one need not reap additional grain for the sacrifice? Apparently, the halakhot of the offering of the two loaves are not parallel to those of the omer. The same might be true with regard to actions that facilitate the performance of the mitzva. In truth, the verse is free for establishing the verbal analogy. The Gemara explains: Since the verse already states: 鈥淲hen you come to the land that I am giving to you, and you reap its harvest, then you shall bring the sheaf [omer], the first of your harvest to the priest鈥 (Leviticus 23:10), when the verse restates, 鈥淎nd you shall count for yourselves from the morrow after the day of rest, from the day you have brought the sheaf of the waving, seven whole weeks they shall be鈥 (Leviticus 23:15), why do I need this repetition? Conclude from this that the additional statement is there to render the term 鈥渂ringing鈥 free for establishing a verbal analogy.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讜驻谞讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讜砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 诪讜驻谞讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 诇诪讬讚讬谉 讜诪砖讬讘讬谉 转讘讬讗讜 专讘讜讬讗 讛讜讗

And yet there is still a difficulty: The verbal analogy is free only from one side, as only the verse that mentions bringing in the context of the omer offering is superfluous in its context, and we heard Rabbi Eliezer, who said with regard to a verbal analogy that it is only free from one side, that one can derive from it, and one can also refute it logically. The Gemara answers: There is a superfluous usage of the term with regard to the two loaves as well, as in the verse: 鈥淔rom your dwelling places you shall bring the loaves of waving of two tenth parts of an ephah; they shall be of fine flour, they shall be baked with leaven for first-fruits unto the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 23:17) the phrase: 鈥淵ou shall bring鈥 is an amplification. Since it was mentioned in the previous verse it is superfluous in its context. Consequently, the verbal analogy is available from both sides.

诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诇讜诇讘 讜讛转谞讬讗 诇讜诇讘 讜讻诇 诪讻砖讬专讬讜 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讗诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 住讜讻讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 住讜讻讛 讜讻诇 诪讻砖讬专讬讛 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讗诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪爪讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪爪讛 讜讻诇 诪讻砖讬专讬讛 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讗诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讜驻专 讜讛转谞讬讗 砖讜驻专 讜讻诇 诪讻砖讬专讬讜 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

The Gemara poses a question with regard to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement: Rabbi Eliezer did not say with regard to all mitzvot that actions that facilitate performance of a mitzva override Shabbat; to exclude actions that facilitate the performance of what mitzva was he referring?
If you say that it was to exclude actions that facilitate the performance of the mitzva of taking the palm branch [lulav] and the other three species on the festival of Sukkot, wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The mitzva of lulav and all its facilitators override Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer?
Rather, say that it comes to exclude the mitzva to dwell in a sukka on Sukkot. Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The mitzva of sukka and all its facilitators override Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer?
Rather, say that it comes to exclude the mitzva to eat matza on Passover. Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The mitzva of matza and all its facilitators override Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer?
Rather, say that it comes to exclude the mitzva to sound the shofar on Rosh HaShana. But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The mitzva of shofar and all its facilitators override Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer?

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 爪讬爪讬转 诇讟诇讬转讜 讜诪讝讜讝讛 诇驻转讞讜 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗诐 爪讬讬抓 讟诇讬转讜 讜注砖讛 诪讝讜讝讛 诇驻转讞讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: The statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan comes to exclude attaching ritual fringes to his garment and affixing a mezuza to the doorway, which do not override Shabbat. The Gemara notes that that was also taught in a baraita: And they, Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis, agree that if one attached ritual fringes to his garment on Shabbat, and similarly, if one affixed a mezuza to his doorway on Shabbat, that he is liable.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 拽讘讜注 诇讛诐 讝诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讚专讘讛 诪讚讗讬谉 拽讘讜注 诇讛诐 讝诪谉

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Rabbi Eliezer concedes that actions that facilitate the performance of these mitzvot do not override Shabbat? Rav Yosef said: Because they have no fixed time and these mitzvot need not be performed on Shabbat. Abaye said to him: On the contrary, from the fact that they have no fixed time,

讻诇 砖注转讗 讜砖注转讗 讝诪谞讬讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘讬讚讜 诇讛驻拽讬专谉:

it can be said that each and every moment is its proper time. The obligation to fulfill the mitzva is perpetual and one may not neglect it. Why should it be prohibited for him to perform actions that facilitate the performance of the mitzva on Shabbat? Rather, Rav Na岣an said that Rav Yitz岣k said, and some say that he said that Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: The actions that facilitate the performance of these mitzvot do not override Shabbat, since one can render the relevant objects ownerless. One is only required to perform these mitzvot if the objects, i.e., the garment and the house, belong to him. If he renders them ownerless, he is no longer obligated to perform these mitzvot.

讗诪专 诪专 诇讜诇讘 讜讻诇 诪讻砖讬专讬讜 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 讗讬 诪注讜诪专 讜砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 砖讻谉 爪讜专讱 讙讘讜讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讬讜诐 讘讬讜诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转

It was taught that the Master said in a baraita: The mitzva of lulav and all its facilitators override Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. The Gemara poses a question: From where does Rabbi Eliezer derive this halakha? If you say he derives it from the mitzvot of the omer and the two loaves, whose facilitators override Shabbat, this can be refuted by saying that the performance of facilitating actions is permitted on Shabbat in these cases because they are for the necessities of Temple service to God on High, as they are connected to the sacrificial service, which proceeds even on Shabbat. Rather, we can say that he derives it from the fact that the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall take for yourselves on the first day, the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, boughs of thick-leaved trees, and willows of the river, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days鈥 (Leviticus 23:40), from which he infers: 鈥淥n the first day,鈥 meaning that one is obligated to take it on the first day even if it occurs on Shabbat.

讜诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讟诇讟讜诇 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇诪讬砖专讬 讟诇讟讜诇 讗诇讗 诇诪讻砖讬专讬讜

The Gemara clarifies: And with regard to what halakha is this emphasis stated? In what way would the laws of Shabbat have prohibited fulfilling the mitzva of lulav? If you say that it comes to permit moving the lulav despite the prohibition against moving set-aside items, is a verse required in order to permit moving the lulav? The prohibition to move items that are set-aside is not a Torah prohibition. The Torah would not come to permit an action prohibited by the Sages. Rather, it must be that the verse is coming to permit violation of Shabbat prohibitions for the facilitators of the lulav.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讜诇讗 讘诇讬诇讛

The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer understand the verse鈥檚 emphasis that the mitzva must be performed on that day? The Gemara answers: According to the Rabbis, that expression in the verse is necessary to teach that this mitzva must be performed by day and not by night.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讬讜诐 讜诇讗 讘诇讬诇讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讜砖诪讞转诐 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讻诐 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讗 诇讬诇讜转

The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Eliezer derive that this mitzva must be performed by day and not by night? The Gemara answers: He derives this halakha from the phrase: 鈥淎nd you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days,鈥 as this indicates that the mitzva applies during the days and not the nights.

讜专讘谞谉 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讬诇祝 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 诪住讜讻讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讬诪讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬诇讜转 讗祝 讻讗谉 讬诪讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬诇讜转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis respond to this? The Gemara answers: The previous derivation was necessary because it might have entered your mind to say that we should derive the seven days stated here from the seven days stated with regard to sukka, and say: Just as there, the mitzva of sukka applies not only during the days but even the nights, so too here, the mitzva of lulav applies not only during the days but even the nights. Therefore, the derivation teaches us that the mitzva only applies during the day based upon the original expression: 鈥淥n the first day.鈥

讜诇讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘诇讜诇讘 讜谞讬转讜 讛谞讱 讜谞讬诇驻讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇诇讜诇讘 砖讻谉 讟注讜谉 讗专讘注讛 诪讬谞讬诐:

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 approach, let the Torah write this principle only with regard to lulav, and let these, the mitzva of the omer and similar cases, be derived from it. The Gemara answers: Because the analogy can be refuted. What is unique about lulav? That it requires four species, as the Torah demands that three other species be taken along with the lulav. Therefore, lulav cannot serve as a paradigm for other mitzvot that do not share this characteristic.

住讜讻讛 讜讻诇 诪讻砖讬专讬讛 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 讗讬 诪注讜诪专 讜砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 砖讻谉 爪讜专讱 讙讘讜讛 讛讜讗 讗讬 诪诇讜诇讘 砖讻谉 讟注讜谉 讗专讘注讛 诪讬谞讬诐

Earlier, it was taught in a baraita: The mitzva of sukka and all its facilitators override Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. The Gemara asks: From where does Rabbi Eliezer derive this matter? If you say he derives it from the halakha with regard to the omer and the two loaves, this can be refuted by saying that the performance of facilitators is permitted on Shabbat in these cases as these are the necessities of Temple service to God on High. If you say he derives it from the halakha with regard to lulav, this too can be refuted, as lulav requires four species and therefore has special significance.

讗诇讗 讙诪专 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 诪诇讜诇讘 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪讻砖讬专讬讜 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗祝 讻讗谉 谞诪讬 诪讻砖讬专讬讜 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转

Rather, he derived it through the following verbal analogy based upon the expression 鈥渟even days,鈥 which is stated with regard to both the mitzva of sukka and the mitzva of lulav. Just as below, with regard to the mitzva of lulav, its facilitators override Shabbat, so too here, with regard to the mitzva of sukka, its facilitators override Shabbat.

讜诇讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘住讜讻讛 讜谞讬转讬 讛谞讱 讜谞讬讙诪讜专 诪讬谞讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇住讜讻讛 砖讻谉 谞讜讛讙转 讘诇讬诇讜转 讻讘讬诪讬诐:

The Gemara asks: And let the Torah write only that actions that facilitate the performance of the mitzva override the halakhot of Shabbat, and let us bring these other mitzvot and derive their halakhot from sukka. The Gemara answers: Because this suggestion can be refuted: What is unique about the mitzva of sukka? That it applies during the nights just as it applies during the days, whereas the others apply only during the day.

诪爪讛 讜讻诇 诪讻砖讬专讬讛 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 讗讬 诪注讜诪专 讜砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 砖讻谉 爪讜专讱 讙讘讜讛 讗讬 诪诇讜诇讘 砖讻谉 讟注讜谉 讗专讘注讛 诪讬谞讬诐 讗讬 诪住讜讻讛 砖讻谉 谞讜讛讙转 讘诇讬诇讜转 讻讘讬诪讬诐

Earlier it was taught in a baraita: The mitzva of matza and all its facilitators override Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. The Gemara asks: From where does Rabbi Eliezer derive this matter? If you say he derives it from the halakha with regard to the omer and the two loaves, this can be refuted, as these are the necessities of Temple service to God on High. If you say he derives it from the halakha with regard to lulav, this too can be refuted, as it requires four species. If you say he derives it from the precedent of sukka, this too can be refuted, as it applies during the nights just as it applies during the days.

讗诇讗 讙诪专 讞诪砖讛 注砖专 讞诪砖讛 注砖专 诪讞讙 讛住讜讻讜转 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪讻砖讬专讬讛 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪讻砖讬专讬讛 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转

Rather, Rabbi Eliezer derived it by means of a verbal analogy based upon the word fifteenth stated with regard to the mitzva of matza, and the word fifteenth stated with regard to the festival of Sukkot: Just as below, with regard to the mitzva to dwell in a sukka on the festival of Sukkot, which is on the fifteenth of the month, its facilitators override Shabbat, so too here, with regard to the mitzva to eat matza on the fifteenth of the month, its facilitators override Shabbat.

讜诇讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘诪爪讛 讜谞讬转讜 讛谞讱 讜诇讬讙诪讜专 诪讬谞讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇诪爪讛 砖讻谉 谞讜讛讙转 讘谞砖讬诐 讻讘讗谞砖讬诐:

The Gemara asks: And let the Torah write this principle with regard to matza, and let us bring these other mitzvot and derive their halakhot from matza. The Gemara answers: Because this suggestion can be refuted: What is unique about the mitzva of matza? That it applies to women as it does to men. It is therefore different from the other mitzvot under discussion, which only apply to men.

砖讜驻专 讜讻诇 诪讻砖讬专讬讜 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 讗讬 诪注讜诪专 讜砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 砖讻谉 爪讜专讱 讙讘讜讛 讗讬 诪诇讜诇讘 砖讻谉 讟注讜谉 讗专讘注讛 诪讬谞讬诐 讗讬 诪住讜讻讛 砖讻谉 谞讜讛讙转 讘诇讬诇讜转 讻讘讬诪讬诐 讗讬 诪诪爪讛 砖讻谉 谞讜讛讙转 讘谞砖讬诐 讻讘讗谞砖讬诐 讗诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讬讜诐 转专讜注讛 讬讛讬讛 诇讻诐 讘讬讜诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转

It was also taught in the baraita: The mitzva of shofar and all its facilitators override Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. The Gemara asks: From where does Rabbi Eliezer derive this matter? If you say he derives it from the halakha with regard to the omer and the two loaves, this can be refuted, as these are the necessities of Temple service to God on High. If you say he derives it from the halakha with regard to lulav, this too can be refuted, as it requires four species. If you say he derives it from the precedent of sukka, this too can be refuted, as it applies during the nights just as it applies during the days. If you say he derives it from matza, this too can be refuted, as it applies to women just as it applies to men. Rather, Rabbi Eliezer derives it from the fact that the verse stated: 鈥淎nd in the seventh month, on the first of the month, a holy calling it shall be to you; any prohibited labor of work you shall not perform; a day of sounding the shofar it shall be for you鈥 (Numbers 29:1). The verse鈥檚 emphasis that the shofar must be sounded on that day teaches us that it applies even on Shabbat.

讜诇诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇转拽讬注讛 讛讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 诪诇讗讻转 注讘讜讚讛 诇讗 转注砖讜 讬爪转讛 转拽讬注转 砖讜驻专 讜专讚讬讬转 讛驻转 砖讛讬讗 讞讻诪讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪诇讗讻讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讻砖讬专讬谉

And for what purpose was this emphasized? If you say it is in order to permit sounding the shofar, this has already been taught by one of the Sages of the school of Shmuel with regard to the verse that prohibits performing prohibited labor on Festivals: 鈥淎ny prohibited labor of work you shall not perform鈥 (Numbers 29:1), which comes to exclude from the category of prohibited labors the sounding of the shofar and the removal of bread from the oven, which are skills and not labors. Rather, it is necessary to teach with regard to actions that facilitate the performance of the mitzva.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讜诇讗 讘诇讬诇讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讬讜诐 讜诇讗 讘诇讬诇讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 转注讘讬专讜 砖讜驻专 讘讻诇 讗专爪讻诐 讜讙诪专讬 诪讛讚讚讬

The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis understand the verse鈥檚 emphasis that the mitzva must be performed on that day? The Gemara answers: That expression in the verse is necessary according to the Rabbis in order to teach that this mitzva must be performed by day and not by night. The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Eliezer derive that this mitzva must be performed by day and not by night? The Gemara answers: He derives this halakha from the verse with regard to the laws of the Jubilee Year: 鈥淎nd you shall pass a shofar of sounding in the seventh month, on the tenth of the month, on the Day of Atonement you shall pass a shofar throughout your land鈥 (Leviticus 25:9), and the laws of all instances of sounding the shofar during the seventh month are derived from each other. Therefore, just as on Yom Kippur the shofar is sounded during the day, as emphasized by the fact that the verse uses the phrase Day of Atonement, the same applies on Rosh HaShana.

讜诇讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘砖讜驻专 讜诇讬转讜 讛谞讱 讜诇讬讙诪专讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪转拽讬注转 砖讜驻专 讚专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬讙诪专 砖讻谉 诪讻谞住转 讝讻专讜谞讜转 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗讘讬讛谉 砖讘砖诪讬诐 诪转拽讬注讜转 [砖讜驻专] 讚讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬讙诪专讬 讚讗诪专 诪专 转拽注讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖讜驻专 谞驻讟专讜 注讘讚讬诐 诇讘转讬讛诐 讜砖讚讜转 讞讜讝专讜转 诇讘注诇讬讛谉:

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 approach, let the Torah write this principle only with regard to shofar, and let us bring these other mitzvot and derive their halakhot from shofar. The Gemara answers: From the sounding of the shofar of Rosh HaShana, the principle that actions that facilitate the performance of a mitzva override Shabbat cannot be derived, because it has special significance in that it introduces the remembrances of the Jewish people before their Father in heaven. From the sounding of the shofar of Yom Kippur, the principle that actions that facilitate the performance of a mitzva override Shabbat cannot be derived, as this shofar sounding also has special significance, as the Master said: Once the court sounds the shofar on Yom Kippur in the Jubilee Year, the declaration of freedom applies at once. Slaves may take leave of their masters and go to their homes, and fields that had been sold return to their ancestral owners. Therefore, other mitzvot cannot be derived from the sounding of the shofar of Yom Kippur.

(讗诪专 诪专) 诪讬诇讛 讜讻诇 诪讻砖讬专讬讛 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 讗讬 诪讻讜诇讛讜 讙诪专 讻讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讜注讜讚 诪讛 诇讛谞讱

Earlier it was taught that the Master said in the baraita: The mitzva of circumcision and all its facilitators override Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. The Gemara asks: From where does Rabbi Eliezer derive this halakha? If he derives it from all of the other mitzvot cited above, we can refute it, as we have already said that each one of them includes a unique aspect of severity or significance. And furthermore, there is another difficulty: What is unique about these mitzvot

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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.

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

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time: Shabbat 131-137

This week we will review key concepts in Daf 131-137 including when and how does Brit Milah, circumcision, override Shabbat,...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 131: Overriding Shabbat

Gezerah shavah again. The Omer sacrifice and the Shtei HaLechem sacrifice - both of which involve grinding of flour to...

Shabbat 131

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 131

讘转讬诐 讜讞爪专讜转 驻转讜讞讬谉 诇转讜讻讜 讜讛讻讗 讘转讬诐 讗讬讻讗 讞爪专讜转 诇讬讻讗 讻讬 诇讗 注讬专讘讜 谞诪讬 诇讬讞讝讬谞讛讜 诇讛谞讬 讘转讬诐 讻诪讗谉 讚住转讬诪讬 讚诪讜 讜讞爪专讜转 讗讬讻讗 讜讘转讬诐 诇讬讻讗

houses and courtyards open to it, and each courtyard contains at least two houses, and there are at least two courtyards. And here, there are houses but there are no courtyards, and therefore the standard halakhot of a closed alleyway do not apply. However, if that is the case, when they did not join the courtyards with the houses too, let us consider these houses as though they were sealed, because their residents may not carry from their houses into the courtyards, and the houses should be considered irrelevant. Therefore, in that case too, there are courtyards but there are no houses.

讗驻砖专 讚诪讘讟诇讬 诇讬讛 专砖讜转讗 讚讻讜诇讛讜 诇讙讘讬 讞讚 住讜祝 住讜祝 讘讬转 讗讬讻讗 讘转讬诐 诇讬讻讗

The Gemara answers: In that case it is possible for them to renounce all of their property rights and transfer them to one person. Just as the residents of a courtyard can join together, thereby rendering it permitted to carry in the courtyard, they can also relinquish their property rights to a single resident. In that way, it is considered as though there is only one inhabited house in the courtyard, and it is therefore permitted to carry within the courtyard as well as between that particular house and the courtyard. The Gemara rejects this answer: Ultimately, even in that case, there is one house, yet there are not multiple houses, as it is possible to relinquish one鈥檚 privileges to only one homeowner and not to two. This would fail to meet the minimum requirement of two houses for the area to be considered a courtyard.

讗驻砖专 讚诪爪驻专讗 讜注讚 驻诇讙讗 讚讬讜诪讗 诇讙讘讬 讞讚 诪驻诇讙讬讛 讚讬讜诪讗 讜诇驻谞讬讗 诇讙讘讬 讞讚 住讜祝 住讜祝 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇讛讗讬 诇讬转讬讛 诇讛讗讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讬 讙专诐 诇讞爪专讜转 砖讬讗住专讜 讘转讬诐 讜诇讬讻讗

The Gemara answers: It is possible to resolve this: From morning until midday they can relinquish their rights to one, and from midday until evening they can relinquish their rights to another, and as a result there will be two houses. The Gemara rejects this answer: Ultimately, at the time when this house has the ownership rights, that house does not have them, as at any point in time there is only one house from which it is permitted to carry into the courtyard. Rather, Rav Ashi said: The explanation that there are no houses and courtyards here is rejected, and the explanation is: What caused the courtyards to be prohibited? It is the presence of the houses. Had there been no houses, it would have been permitted to carry from the courtyards into the alleyway, since they are one domain according to Rabbi Shimon. And here, it is considered as though there are no houses. Therefore, it is permitted to carry in the alleyway.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 诇讻诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讻砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 砖讛专讬 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讞讜讘转 讛讬讜诐 讛谉 讜诇讗 诇诪讚谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 诪讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬讬谉 诇诪讻砖讬专讬 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 砖讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 谞讗诪专讛 讛讘讗讛 讘注讜诪专 讜谞讗诪专讛 讛讘讗讛 讘砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 诪讛 讛讘讗讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘注讜诪专 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗祝 讛讘讗讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Rabbi Eliezer did not say with regard to all mitzvot that actions that facilitate performance of a mitzva override Shabbat. This is not a fixed principle with regard to preparations for all mitzvot. Rather, each case must be considered on its own merits, and proof must be cited that this principle applies to a specific mitzva. As the two loaves offered on the festival of Shavuot are an obligation of that day, and Rabbi Eliezer only learned that the activities that facilitate their sacrifice override Shabbat from a special verbal analogy. As it was taught in a baraita, Rabbi Eliezer says: From where is it derived that the actions that facilitate the offering of the two loaves override Shabbat? The term bringing is stated in the verse with regard to the omer offering, and the term bringing is stated with regard to the two loaves. Just as in the case of the bringing stated with regard to the omer, all the actions that facilitate its offering override Shabbat, as the reaping of the omer, which facilitates its offering, overrides Shabbat, so too, in the case of the bringing stated with regard to the two loaves, actions that facilitate its offering override Shabbat.

诪讜驻谞讬 讚讗讬 诇讗 诪讜驻谞讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇注讜诪专 砖讻谉 讗诐 诪爪讗 拽爪讜专 拽讜爪专 转讗诪专 讘砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 砖讗诐 诪爪讗 拽爪讜专 讗讬谞讜 拽讜爪专 诇讗讬 讗驻谞讜讬讬 诪讜驻谞讬 诪讻讚讬 讻转讬讘 讜讛讘讗转诐 讗转 注讜诪专 专讗砖讬转 拽爪讬专讻诐 讗诇 讛讻讛谉 讘讬讜诐 讛讘讬讗讻诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬

With regard to this verbal analogy the Gemara comments: It must be that those terms are free, i.e., they are superfluous in their context and therefore available for the purpose of establishing a verbal analogy. As, if they are not free, the verbal analogy can be logically refuted, as it is possible to say: What is unique to the omer? That if one found reaped barley one must nevertheless reap more barley for the sake of the mitzva. Can you say the same with regard to the halakhot of the two loaves, where it is taught that if one found reaped grain one need not reap additional grain for the sacrifice? Apparently, the halakhot of the offering of the two loaves are not parallel to those of the omer. The same might be true with regard to actions that facilitate the performance of the mitzva. In truth, the verse is free for establishing the verbal analogy. The Gemara explains: Since the verse already states: 鈥淲hen you come to the land that I am giving to you, and you reap its harvest, then you shall bring the sheaf [omer], the first of your harvest to the priest鈥 (Leviticus 23:10), when the verse restates, 鈥淎nd you shall count for yourselves from the morrow after the day of rest, from the day you have brought the sheaf of the waving, seven whole weeks they shall be鈥 (Leviticus 23:15), why do I need this repetition? Conclude from this that the additional statement is there to render the term 鈥渂ringing鈥 free for establishing a verbal analogy.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讜驻谞讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讜砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 诪讜驻谞讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 诇诪讬讚讬谉 讜诪砖讬讘讬谉 转讘讬讗讜 专讘讜讬讗 讛讜讗

And yet there is still a difficulty: The verbal analogy is free only from one side, as only the verse that mentions bringing in the context of the omer offering is superfluous in its context, and we heard Rabbi Eliezer, who said with regard to a verbal analogy that it is only free from one side, that one can derive from it, and one can also refute it logically. The Gemara answers: There is a superfluous usage of the term with regard to the two loaves as well, as in the verse: 鈥淔rom your dwelling places you shall bring the loaves of waving of two tenth parts of an ephah; they shall be of fine flour, they shall be baked with leaven for first-fruits unto the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 23:17) the phrase: 鈥淵ou shall bring鈥 is an amplification. Since it was mentioned in the previous verse it is superfluous in its context. Consequently, the verbal analogy is available from both sides.

诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诇讜诇讘 讜讛转谞讬讗 诇讜诇讘 讜讻诇 诪讻砖讬专讬讜 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讗诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 住讜讻讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 住讜讻讛 讜讻诇 诪讻砖讬专讬讛 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讗诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪爪讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪爪讛 讜讻诇 诪讻砖讬专讬讛 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讗诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讜驻专 讜讛转谞讬讗 砖讜驻专 讜讻诇 诪讻砖讬专讬讜 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

The Gemara poses a question with regard to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement: Rabbi Eliezer did not say with regard to all mitzvot that actions that facilitate performance of a mitzva override Shabbat; to exclude actions that facilitate the performance of what mitzva was he referring?
If you say that it was to exclude actions that facilitate the performance of the mitzva of taking the palm branch [lulav] and the other three species on the festival of Sukkot, wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The mitzva of lulav and all its facilitators override Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer?
Rather, say that it comes to exclude the mitzva to dwell in a sukka on Sukkot. Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The mitzva of sukka and all its facilitators override Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer?
Rather, say that it comes to exclude the mitzva to eat matza on Passover. Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The mitzva of matza and all its facilitators override Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer?
Rather, say that it comes to exclude the mitzva to sound the shofar on Rosh HaShana. But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The mitzva of shofar and all its facilitators override Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer?

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 爪讬爪讬转 诇讟诇讬转讜 讜诪讝讜讝讛 诇驻转讞讜 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗诐 爪讬讬抓 讟诇讬转讜 讜注砖讛 诪讝讜讝讛 诇驻转讞讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: The statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan comes to exclude attaching ritual fringes to his garment and affixing a mezuza to the doorway, which do not override Shabbat. The Gemara notes that that was also taught in a baraita: And they, Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis, agree that if one attached ritual fringes to his garment on Shabbat, and similarly, if one affixed a mezuza to his doorway on Shabbat, that he is liable.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 拽讘讜注 诇讛诐 讝诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讚专讘讛 诪讚讗讬谉 拽讘讜注 诇讛诐 讝诪谉

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Rabbi Eliezer concedes that actions that facilitate the performance of these mitzvot do not override Shabbat? Rav Yosef said: Because they have no fixed time and these mitzvot need not be performed on Shabbat. Abaye said to him: On the contrary, from the fact that they have no fixed time,

讻诇 砖注转讗 讜砖注转讗 讝诪谞讬讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘讬讚讜 诇讛驻拽讬专谉:

it can be said that each and every moment is its proper time. The obligation to fulfill the mitzva is perpetual and one may not neglect it. Why should it be prohibited for him to perform actions that facilitate the performance of the mitzva on Shabbat? Rather, Rav Na岣an said that Rav Yitz岣k said, and some say that he said that Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: The actions that facilitate the performance of these mitzvot do not override Shabbat, since one can render the relevant objects ownerless. One is only required to perform these mitzvot if the objects, i.e., the garment and the house, belong to him. If he renders them ownerless, he is no longer obligated to perform these mitzvot.

讗诪专 诪专 诇讜诇讘 讜讻诇 诪讻砖讬专讬讜 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 讗讬 诪注讜诪专 讜砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 砖讻谉 爪讜专讱 讙讘讜讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讬讜诐 讘讬讜诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转

It was taught that the Master said in a baraita: The mitzva of lulav and all its facilitators override Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. The Gemara poses a question: From where does Rabbi Eliezer derive this halakha? If you say he derives it from the mitzvot of the omer and the two loaves, whose facilitators override Shabbat, this can be refuted by saying that the performance of facilitating actions is permitted on Shabbat in these cases because they are for the necessities of Temple service to God on High, as they are connected to the sacrificial service, which proceeds even on Shabbat. Rather, we can say that he derives it from the fact that the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall take for yourselves on the first day, the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, boughs of thick-leaved trees, and willows of the river, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days鈥 (Leviticus 23:40), from which he infers: 鈥淥n the first day,鈥 meaning that one is obligated to take it on the first day even if it occurs on Shabbat.

讜诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讟诇讟讜诇 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇诪讬砖专讬 讟诇讟讜诇 讗诇讗 诇诪讻砖讬专讬讜

The Gemara clarifies: And with regard to what halakha is this emphasis stated? In what way would the laws of Shabbat have prohibited fulfilling the mitzva of lulav? If you say that it comes to permit moving the lulav despite the prohibition against moving set-aside items, is a verse required in order to permit moving the lulav? The prohibition to move items that are set-aside is not a Torah prohibition. The Torah would not come to permit an action prohibited by the Sages. Rather, it must be that the verse is coming to permit violation of Shabbat prohibitions for the facilitators of the lulav.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讜诇讗 讘诇讬诇讛

The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer understand the verse鈥檚 emphasis that the mitzva must be performed on that day? The Gemara answers: According to the Rabbis, that expression in the verse is necessary to teach that this mitzva must be performed by day and not by night.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讬讜诐 讜诇讗 讘诇讬诇讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讜砖诪讞转诐 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讻诐 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讗 诇讬诇讜转

The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Eliezer derive that this mitzva must be performed by day and not by night? The Gemara answers: He derives this halakha from the phrase: 鈥淎nd you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days,鈥 as this indicates that the mitzva applies during the days and not the nights.

讜专讘谞谉 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讬诇祝 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 诪住讜讻讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讬诪讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬诇讜转 讗祝 讻讗谉 讬诪讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬诇讜转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis respond to this? The Gemara answers: The previous derivation was necessary because it might have entered your mind to say that we should derive the seven days stated here from the seven days stated with regard to sukka, and say: Just as there, the mitzva of sukka applies not only during the days but even the nights, so too here, the mitzva of lulav applies not only during the days but even the nights. Therefore, the derivation teaches us that the mitzva only applies during the day based upon the original expression: 鈥淥n the first day.鈥

讜诇讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘诇讜诇讘 讜谞讬转讜 讛谞讱 讜谞讬诇驻讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇诇讜诇讘 砖讻谉 讟注讜谉 讗专讘注讛 诪讬谞讬诐:

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 approach, let the Torah write this principle only with regard to lulav, and let these, the mitzva of the omer and similar cases, be derived from it. The Gemara answers: Because the analogy can be refuted. What is unique about lulav? That it requires four species, as the Torah demands that three other species be taken along with the lulav. Therefore, lulav cannot serve as a paradigm for other mitzvot that do not share this characteristic.

住讜讻讛 讜讻诇 诪讻砖讬专讬讛 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 讗讬 诪注讜诪专 讜砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 砖讻谉 爪讜专讱 讙讘讜讛 讛讜讗 讗讬 诪诇讜诇讘 砖讻谉 讟注讜谉 讗专讘注讛 诪讬谞讬诐

Earlier, it was taught in a baraita: The mitzva of sukka and all its facilitators override Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. The Gemara asks: From where does Rabbi Eliezer derive this matter? If you say he derives it from the halakha with regard to the omer and the two loaves, this can be refuted by saying that the performance of facilitators is permitted on Shabbat in these cases as these are the necessities of Temple service to God on High. If you say he derives it from the halakha with regard to lulav, this too can be refuted, as lulav requires four species and therefore has special significance.

讗诇讗 讙诪专 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 诪诇讜诇讘 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪讻砖讬专讬讜 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗祝 讻讗谉 谞诪讬 诪讻砖讬专讬讜 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转

Rather, he derived it through the following verbal analogy based upon the expression 鈥渟even days,鈥 which is stated with regard to both the mitzva of sukka and the mitzva of lulav. Just as below, with regard to the mitzva of lulav, its facilitators override Shabbat, so too here, with regard to the mitzva of sukka, its facilitators override Shabbat.

讜诇讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘住讜讻讛 讜谞讬转讬 讛谞讱 讜谞讬讙诪讜专 诪讬谞讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇住讜讻讛 砖讻谉 谞讜讛讙转 讘诇讬诇讜转 讻讘讬诪讬诐:

The Gemara asks: And let the Torah write only that actions that facilitate the performance of the mitzva override the halakhot of Shabbat, and let us bring these other mitzvot and derive their halakhot from sukka. The Gemara answers: Because this suggestion can be refuted: What is unique about the mitzva of sukka? That it applies during the nights just as it applies during the days, whereas the others apply only during the day.

诪爪讛 讜讻诇 诪讻砖讬专讬讛 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 讗讬 诪注讜诪专 讜砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 砖讻谉 爪讜专讱 讙讘讜讛 讗讬 诪诇讜诇讘 砖讻谉 讟注讜谉 讗专讘注讛 诪讬谞讬诐 讗讬 诪住讜讻讛 砖讻谉 谞讜讛讙转 讘诇讬诇讜转 讻讘讬诪讬诐

Earlier it was taught in a baraita: The mitzva of matza and all its facilitators override Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. The Gemara asks: From where does Rabbi Eliezer derive this matter? If you say he derives it from the halakha with regard to the omer and the two loaves, this can be refuted, as these are the necessities of Temple service to God on High. If you say he derives it from the halakha with regard to lulav, this too can be refuted, as it requires four species. If you say he derives it from the precedent of sukka, this too can be refuted, as it applies during the nights just as it applies during the days.

讗诇讗 讙诪专 讞诪砖讛 注砖专 讞诪砖讛 注砖专 诪讞讙 讛住讜讻讜转 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪讻砖讬专讬讛 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪讻砖讬专讬讛 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转

Rather, Rabbi Eliezer derived it by means of a verbal analogy based upon the word fifteenth stated with regard to the mitzva of matza, and the word fifteenth stated with regard to the festival of Sukkot: Just as below, with regard to the mitzva to dwell in a sukka on the festival of Sukkot, which is on the fifteenth of the month, its facilitators override Shabbat, so too here, with regard to the mitzva to eat matza on the fifteenth of the month, its facilitators override Shabbat.

讜诇讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘诪爪讛 讜谞讬转讜 讛谞讱 讜诇讬讙诪讜专 诪讬谞讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇诪爪讛 砖讻谉 谞讜讛讙转 讘谞砖讬诐 讻讘讗谞砖讬诐:

The Gemara asks: And let the Torah write this principle with regard to matza, and let us bring these other mitzvot and derive their halakhot from matza. The Gemara answers: Because this suggestion can be refuted: What is unique about the mitzva of matza? That it applies to women as it does to men. It is therefore different from the other mitzvot under discussion, which only apply to men.

砖讜驻专 讜讻诇 诪讻砖讬专讬讜 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 讗讬 诪注讜诪专 讜砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 砖讻谉 爪讜专讱 讙讘讜讛 讗讬 诪诇讜诇讘 砖讻谉 讟注讜谉 讗专讘注讛 诪讬谞讬诐 讗讬 诪住讜讻讛 砖讻谉 谞讜讛讙转 讘诇讬诇讜转 讻讘讬诪讬诐 讗讬 诪诪爪讛 砖讻谉 谞讜讛讙转 讘谞砖讬诐 讻讘讗谞砖讬诐 讗诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讬讜诐 转专讜注讛 讬讛讬讛 诇讻诐 讘讬讜诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转

It was also taught in the baraita: The mitzva of shofar and all its facilitators override Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. The Gemara asks: From where does Rabbi Eliezer derive this matter? If you say he derives it from the halakha with regard to the omer and the two loaves, this can be refuted, as these are the necessities of Temple service to God on High. If you say he derives it from the halakha with regard to lulav, this too can be refuted, as it requires four species. If you say he derives it from the precedent of sukka, this too can be refuted, as it applies during the nights just as it applies during the days. If you say he derives it from matza, this too can be refuted, as it applies to women just as it applies to men. Rather, Rabbi Eliezer derives it from the fact that the verse stated: 鈥淎nd in the seventh month, on the first of the month, a holy calling it shall be to you; any prohibited labor of work you shall not perform; a day of sounding the shofar it shall be for you鈥 (Numbers 29:1). The verse鈥檚 emphasis that the shofar must be sounded on that day teaches us that it applies even on Shabbat.

讜诇诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇转拽讬注讛 讛讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 诪诇讗讻转 注讘讜讚讛 诇讗 转注砖讜 讬爪转讛 转拽讬注转 砖讜驻专 讜专讚讬讬转 讛驻转 砖讛讬讗 讞讻诪讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪诇讗讻讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讻砖讬专讬谉

And for what purpose was this emphasized? If you say it is in order to permit sounding the shofar, this has already been taught by one of the Sages of the school of Shmuel with regard to the verse that prohibits performing prohibited labor on Festivals: 鈥淎ny prohibited labor of work you shall not perform鈥 (Numbers 29:1), which comes to exclude from the category of prohibited labors the sounding of the shofar and the removal of bread from the oven, which are skills and not labors. Rather, it is necessary to teach with regard to actions that facilitate the performance of the mitzva.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讜诇讗 讘诇讬诇讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讬讜诐 讜诇讗 讘诇讬诇讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 转注讘讬专讜 砖讜驻专 讘讻诇 讗专爪讻诐 讜讙诪专讬 诪讛讚讚讬

The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis understand the verse鈥檚 emphasis that the mitzva must be performed on that day? The Gemara answers: That expression in the verse is necessary according to the Rabbis in order to teach that this mitzva must be performed by day and not by night. The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Eliezer derive that this mitzva must be performed by day and not by night? The Gemara answers: He derives this halakha from the verse with regard to the laws of the Jubilee Year: 鈥淎nd you shall pass a shofar of sounding in the seventh month, on the tenth of the month, on the Day of Atonement you shall pass a shofar throughout your land鈥 (Leviticus 25:9), and the laws of all instances of sounding the shofar during the seventh month are derived from each other. Therefore, just as on Yom Kippur the shofar is sounded during the day, as emphasized by the fact that the verse uses the phrase Day of Atonement, the same applies on Rosh HaShana.

讜诇讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘砖讜驻专 讜诇讬转讜 讛谞讱 讜诇讬讙诪专讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪转拽讬注转 砖讜驻专 讚专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬讙诪专 砖讻谉 诪讻谞住转 讝讻专讜谞讜转 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗讘讬讛谉 砖讘砖诪讬诐 诪转拽讬注讜转 [砖讜驻专] 讚讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬讙诪专讬 讚讗诪专 诪专 转拽注讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖讜驻专 谞驻讟专讜 注讘讚讬诐 诇讘转讬讛诐 讜砖讚讜转 讞讜讝专讜转 诇讘注诇讬讛谉:

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 approach, let the Torah write this principle only with regard to shofar, and let us bring these other mitzvot and derive their halakhot from shofar. The Gemara answers: From the sounding of the shofar of Rosh HaShana, the principle that actions that facilitate the performance of a mitzva override Shabbat cannot be derived, because it has special significance in that it introduces the remembrances of the Jewish people before their Father in heaven. From the sounding of the shofar of Yom Kippur, the principle that actions that facilitate the performance of a mitzva override Shabbat cannot be derived, as this shofar sounding also has special significance, as the Master said: Once the court sounds the shofar on Yom Kippur in the Jubilee Year, the declaration of freedom applies at once. Slaves may take leave of their masters and go to their homes, and fields that had been sold return to their ancestral owners. Therefore, other mitzvot cannot be derived from the sounding of the shofar of Yom Kippur.

(讗诪专 诪专) 诪讬诇讛 讜讻诇 诪讻砖讬专讬讛 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 讗讬 诪讻讜诇讛讜 讙诪专 讻讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讜注讜讚 诪讛 诇讛谞讱

Earlier it was taught that the Master said in the baraita: The mitzva of circumcision and all its facilitators override Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. The Gemara asks: From where does Rabbi Eliezer derive this halakha? If he derives it from all of the other mitzvot cited above, we can refute it, as we have already said that each one of them includes a unique aspect of severity or significance. And furthermore, there is another difficulty: What is unique about these mitzvot

Scroll To Top