Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 21, 2020 | כ״ט בתמוז תש״פ

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

Shabbat 137

This week’s learning is sponsored by Margie Zweibel in honor of Howie Shocket, Chaim Tzvi ben Yenta Bluma. He is in our tefillot.

Today’s daf is sponsored by The Mitchell Family in honor of Rabia Mitchell’s birthday. Mazel tov!

In which additional case does Rabbi Yehuda hold that an andrgyne is considered a case of doubt and not for sure male? If there are two babies (of one father) and was born on Friday and the other on Shabbat and the father mistakenly circumcises the Friday baby, or there were two babies one born on Sunday and one born on Shabbat and the father mistakenly circumcises the Sunday baby, is he obligated to bring a sacrifice for unwittingly desecrating Shabbat? Rabbi Eliezer and rabbi Yehoshua disagree in one of the cases and agree in the other but it is not clear in which case do they agree and do they both agree one is obligated or exempt? Three versions are brought in the gemara. The underlying issues is: does the fact that one performed a mitzva or was involved in trying to perform a mitzva exempt him from bringing a sacrifice for desecrating Shabbat? One can perform the brrit milah sometimes on the 9th, 10th, 11th or 12th day after the birth and still be circumcising in its proper time. The mishna describes each case and why. When is brit milah in its proper time for a child who is sick? What are the additional pieces of skin that must be removed in order for the circumcision to be valid? If someone is overweight, more needs to be removed so it will not appear (marit ayin) as if he isn’t circumcised. If one is overweight, how can it be determined whether or not more needs to be removed? What blessings are recited at the brit milah? How are the blessings different for a convert and a Canaanite slave? Can one hang a wine strainer on Yom Tov? Is it a problem of building? Can one pour wine into an already set up wine strainer even on Shabbat? Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis debate this issue. Rabbi Eliezer is lenient. How does it connect with Rabbi Eliezer’s stringent opinion about the window shutter where he forbids adding to an already existing temporary tent?

וסתם ספרא רבי יהודה

And an unattributed halakha cited in the Sifra generally reflects the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אף אנן נמי תנינא הכל כשרים לקדש חוץ מחרש שוטה וקטן רבי יהודה מכשיר בקטן ופוסל באשה ואנדרוגינוס שמע מינה

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: We too also learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yehuda does not consider a hermaphrodite to be a male in every sense. The Sages disagreed over sanctification of the waters of a purification offering, i.e., the placing of the ashes of the red heifer in potable, running spring water: Everyone is fit to sanctify the waters of a purification offering, except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor. Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit, but deems a woman and a hermaphrodite unfit. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda does not consider the legal status of a hermaphrodite to be like that of a male. The Gemara concludes: Conclude from this.

ומאי שנא מילה משום דכתיב המול לכם כל זכר:

The Gemara asks: What is different about the halakhot of circumcision, with regard to which Rabbi Yehuda categorizes a hermaphrodite as a male in regard to its laws? The Gemara answers that it is due to the fact that it is written: “This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your seed after you: Circumcise for yourselves every male” (Genesis 17:10), and he interprets the phrase “every male” as an amplification including anyone who could possibly be included in the category of a male.

מתני׳ מי שהיו לו שני תינוקות אחד למול אחר השבת ואחד למול בשבת ושכח ומל את של אחר השבת בשבת חייב

MISHNA: One who had two babies to circumcise, one of whom he needed to circumcise on the day after Shabbat, and one of whom he needed to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one that should have been circumcised after Shabbat on Shabbat, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, because he performed the prohibited labor of causing a wound not in the framework of performing a mitzva, as no obligation yet exists to circumcise the child.

אחד למול בערב שבת ואחד למול בשבת ושכח ומל את של ערב שבת בשבת רבי אליעזר מחייב חטאת ורבי יהושע פוטר:

If there were two babies, one to circumcise on Shabbat eve, and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one that he should have circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering, as circumcision after its appointed time does not override Shabbat. And Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him; since he intended to perform a mitzva, and despite his error in fact performed a mitzva, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering.

גמ׳ רב הונא מתני חייב רב יהודה מתני פטור

GEMARA: There is a dispute among the amora’im with regard to the correct version of our mishna, based on an early dispute of the tanna’im: Rav Huna teaches the first clause of the mishna as stating: Liable, whereas Rav Yehuda teaches the first clause as stating: Exempt.

רב הונא מתני חייב דתניא אמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר לא נחלקו רבי אלעזר ורבי יהושע על מי שהיו לו שני תינוקות אחד למול בשבת ואחד למול אחר השבת ושכח ומל את של אחר השבת בשבת שהוא חייב

The Gemara explains: Rav Huna taught the first clause as stating: Liable, based on that which was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree with regard to one who had two babies, one to circumcise on Shabbat and one to circumcise after Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised after Shabbat on Shabbat; in that case, everyone agrees that he is liable to bring a sin-offering.

על מה נחלקו על מי שהיו לו שני תינוקות אחד למול בערב שבת ואחד למול בשבת ושכח ומל את של ערב שבת בשבת שרבי אליעזר מחייב חטאת ורבי יהושע פוטר

With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to one who had two babies, one to circumcise on Shabbat eve and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat, as Rabbi Eliezer renders him liable to bring a sin-offering for this unwitting transgression, and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him.

ושניהם לא למדוה אלא מעבודה זרה רבי אליעזר סבר כעבודה זרה מה עבודה זרה אמר רחמנא לא תעביד וכי עביד מיחייב הכא נמי לא שנא

And both of them only derived it from idolatry, where the Torah details the halakhot of bringing a sin-offering for an unwitting transgression. Rabbi Eliezer holds: The law of every unwitting transgression is like that of idolatry. Just as with regard to idolatry the Torah stated: Do not perform certain activities, and when one performs them unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, here too it is no different, and since he transgressed the prohibition, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.

ורבי יהושע התם דלאו מצוה הכא מצוה

And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: There, where the unwitting transgression was not performed in order to fulfill a mitzva, one is liable to bring a sin-offering. Here, his intention was to perform a mitzva, and one who unwittingly violates a prohibition in the course of attempting to fulfill a mitzva is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. This is according to the opinion of Rav Huna, based on the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

רב יהודה מתני פטור דתניא אמר רבי מאיר לא נחלקו רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע על מי שהיו לו שני תינוקות אחד למול בערב שבת ואחד למול בשבת ושכח ומל את של ערב שבת בשבת שהוא פטור

Rav Yehuda taught the first clause as stating: Exempt, based on that which was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir said: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree over one who had two babies to circumcise, one to circumcise on Shabbat eve and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat; in that case, everyone agrees that he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, as that circumcision fulfilled a mitzva.

על מה נחלקו על מי שהיו לו שני תינוקות אחד למול אחר השבת ואחד למול בשבת ושכח ומל את של אחר השבת בשבת שרבי אליעזר מחייב חטאת ורבי יהושע פוטר

With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to one who had two babies, one to circumcise after Shabbat and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised after Shabbat on Shabbat, as Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering, and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him.

ושניהם לא למדוה אלא מעבודה זרה רבי אליעזר סבר כעבודה זרה מה עבודה זרה אמר רחמנא לא תעביד וכי עביד מיחייב הכא נמי לא שנא

And the Gemara notes here too that both of them only derived it from idolatry. Rabbi Eliezer holds: The halakha of every unwitting transgression sin is like that of idolatry: Just as with regard to idolatry the Torah stated: Do not perform certain activities, and when one performs them unwittingly he is liable to bring a sin-offering, here too it is no different, and since he violated the prohibition, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.

ורבי יהושע התם לא טריד מצוה הכא טריד מצוה

And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: There, with regard to idolatry, one is liable to bring a sin-offering when he performs the transgression, because he is not preoccupied with the performance of a mitzva. Here, he is preoccupied with the performance of a mitzva, and anyone who unwittingly transgresses a prohibition while preoccupied with a mitzva is exempt from bringing a sin-offering.

תני רבי חייא אומר היה רבי מאיר לא נחלקו רבי אלעזר ורבי יהושע על מי שהיו לו שני תינוקות אחד למול בערב שבת ואחד למול בשבת ושכח ומל את של ערב שבת בשבת שהוא חייב

Rabbi Ḥiyya taught another version of the same dispute between the tanna’im: Rabbi Meir would say that Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree over one who had two babies, one to circumcise on Shabbat eve and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat; in that case, everyone agrees that he is liable to bring a sin-offering.

על מה נחלקו על מי שהיו לו שני תינוקות אחד למול אחר השבת ואחד למול בשבת ושכח ומל של אחר השבת בשבת שרבי אליעזר מחייב חטאת ורבי יהושע פוטר

With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to one who had two babies to circumcise, one to circumcise after Shabbat and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised after Shabbat on Shabbat, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering, and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him.

השתא רבי יהושע סיפא דלא קא עביד מצוה פוטר רישא דקא עביד מצוה מחייב

The Gemara expresses surprise at this last version: Now, after all, in the latter clause, where he did not perform a mitzva, Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him; in the first clause, where he performed a mitzva, does Rabbi Yehoshua deem him liable?

אמרי דבי רבי ינאי רישא כגון שקדם ומל של שבת בערב שבת דלא ניתנה שבת לידחות סיפא ניתנה שבת לידחות

In the school of Rabbi Yannai they say: The first clause of the baraita is referring to a unique situation, where the circumcisor first unwittingly circumcised the baby who should have been circumcised on Shabbat on Shabbat eve. In that case, Shabbat is not given to be overridden at all, since the baby who was supposed to be circumcised on Shabbat was already circumcised. In the latter clause, however, the circumcision was performed in a situation where Shabbat is given to be overridden.

אמר ליה רב אשי לרב כהנא רישא נמי ניתנה שבת לידחות לגבי תינוקות דעלמא להאי גברא מיהא לא איתיהיב:

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana that this explanation is difficult: In the first clause too, Shabbat is given to be overridden with regard to babies in general, as it is permitted to circumcise a baby whose eighth day occurs on Shabbat. He replied: That is indeed so; however, with regard to this person, Shabbat is not given to be overridden, as there is no longer any child who is supposed to be circumcised on Shabbat. Therefore, if he unwittingly performed a circumcision on Shabbat, he is not considered to have unwittingly performed a transgression while preoccupied with the performance of a mitzva.

מתני׳ קטן נימול לשמנה לתשעה ולעשרה ולאחד עשר ולשנים עשר לא פחות ולא יותר

MISHNA: Although a child is generally circumcised at eight days, as the verse states: “And on the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 12:3), nevertheless, at times he is circumcised at nine days, at times at ten days, at eleven days, and at twelve days, no earlier and no later.

הא כיצד כדרכו לשמנה נולד לבין השמשות נימול לתשעה בין השמשות של ערב שבת נימול לעשרה

How so? In his usual manner, a child is circumcised at eight days. If he was born at twilight and it is therefore uncertain on which day he was born, he is circumcised at nine days, as his circumcision is postponed due to that uncertainty, as perhaps the eighth day from his birth has not yet arrived. If he was born at twilight on Shabbat eve, he is not circumcised on the following Shabbat, due to the uncertainty whether it is the eighth or ninth day since his birth, and only a circumcision definitely performed at the appointed time overrides Shabbat. Rather, he is circumcised on Sunday, and the result is that he is circumcised at ten days.

יום טוב לאחר השבת נימול לאחד עשר שני ימים של ראש השנה נימול לשנים עשר

If there was a Festival after that Shabbat, he is not circumcised on the Festival either, and he is circumcised at eleven days. And if that Shabbat was followed by two days of Rosh HaShana, the result is that he is circumcised at twelve days.

קטן החולה אין מוהלין אותו עד שיבריא:

The mishna states another halakha: With regard to a sick child, one does not circumcise him until he becomes healthy.

גמ׳ אמר שמואל חלצתו חמה נותנין לו כל שבעה להברותו

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that one does not circumcise a sick baby until he becomes healthy. Shmuel said: A baby that was sick and had a high fever, and subsequently the fever left him, one gives him a full seven days to heal before circumcising him.

איבעיא להו מי בעינן מעת לעת

With regard to this issue, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Do we require, during the recovery period, to wait from the time the seven days begin to the exact same time seven days later, i.e., seven complete, twenty-four-hour periods, or is it enough to wait seven days without taking into account the time of day?

תא שמע דתני לודא יום הבראתו כיום הולדו מאי לאו מה יום הולדו לא בעינן מעת לעת אף יום הבראתו לא בעינן מעת לעת

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution to this from that which the Sage Luda taught: The day of his healing is like the day of his birth. What, is it not that just as from the day of his birth we need not wait from the time he is born to the same time on the eighth day to circumcise him, so too, with regard to the day of his healing, we need not wait from the time he heals to the same time seven days later?

לא עדיף יום הבראתו מיום הולדו דאילו יום הולדו לא בעינן מעת לעת ואילו יום הבראתו בעינן מעת לעת:

The Gemara refutes this: No, the day of his healing is superior to the day of his birth. While from the day of his birth until circumcision we need not wait from time to time, from the day of his healing we need to wait seven complete days from time to time.

מתני׳ אלו הן ציצין המעכבין את המילה בשר החופה את רוב העטרה ואינו אוכל בתרומה

MISHNA: These are the shreds of flesh that invalidate the circumcision if they are not cut. The essential element of circumcision is the removal of the flesh that covers most of the corona, and a child that was not circumcised in this manner is considered uncircumcised, and he does not eat teruma.

ואם היה בעל בשר מתקנו מפני מראית העין

And if he was properly circumcised but he was fleshy, and it appears as though he has not been properly circumcised, the circumcisor should correct it by circumcising more than necessary, to avoid the appearance of transgression, so he will not appear uncircumcised.

מל ולא פרע את המילה כאילו לא מל:

If one circumcised but did not uncover the flesh at the area of the circumcision by folding back the thin membrane beneath the foreskin, it is as if he had not circumcised.

גמ׳ אמר רבי אבינא אמר רבי ירמיה בר אבא אמר רב בשר החופה את רוב גובהה של עטרה:

GEMARA: Rabbi Avina said that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said: When the mishna said most of the corona, they meant the flesh that covers most of the height of the corona, as well as most of its circumference.

ואם היה בעל בשר וכו׳: אמר שמואל קטן המסורבל בבשר רואין אותו כל זמן שמתקשה ונראה מהול אינו צריך למול ואם לאו צריך למול

We learned in the mishna: If the baby was fleshy, the circumcisor corrects the circumcision so that it will not appear uncircumcised. Shmuel said: A child who is encumbered with flesh, one examines him, and as long as when his limb hardens he looks circumcised, one need not circumcise him again. And if not, meaning he does not appear circumcised even then, one must circumcise him again.

במתניתא תנא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר קטן המסורבל בבשר רואין אותו כל זמן שמתקשה ואינו נראה מהול צריך למולו ואם לאו אינו צריך למולו

It was taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A child who is encumbered with flesh, one examines him, and as long as when it hardens it does not appear circumcised, one needs to circumcise him again, and if not, one need not circumcise him again.

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו נראה ואינו נראה:

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two formulations? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in a case where he appears circumcised but does not appear fully circumcised. According to Shmuel, in order to avoid an additional circumcision, one must appear fully circumcised, and this state is insufficient. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, only one who appears uncircumcised requires further circumcision; this partial circumcision is adequate.

מל ולא פרע: תנו רבנן המל אומר אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על המילה אבי הבן אומר אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו להכניסו בבריתו של אברהם אבינו העומדים אומרים כשם שנכנס לברית כך יכנס לתורה לחופה ולמעשים טובים

We learned in the mishna: If he circumcised a child but did not uncover the area of the circumcision, it is as if he did not circumcise him. The Sages taught in a Tosefta that one who circumcises a child recites: Who has made us holy through His commandments, and commanded us concerning circumcision. The father of the circumcised child recites: Who has made us holy through His commandments, and commanded us to bring him into the covenant of Abraham, our father. Those standing there recite: Just as he has entered into the covenant, so may he enter into Torah, marriage, and good deeds.

והמברך אומר אשר קידש ידיד מבטן חוק בשארו שם וצאצאיו חתם באות ברית קדש על כן בשכר זאת אל חי חלקנו צוה להציל ידידות שארינו משחת למען בריתו אשר שם בבשרנו ברוך אתה ה׳ כורת הברית

And the one who recites the additional blessing says: Who made the beloved one holy from the womb, marked the decree in his flesh, and gave his descendants the seal and the sign of the holy covenant. Therefore, as a reward for this, the living God, our Portion, commanded to deliver the beloved of our flesh from destruction, for the sake of His covenant that He set in our flesh. Blessed are You, Lord, Who establishes the covenant.

המל את הגרים אומר ברוך אתה ה׳ אלהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על המילה והמברך אומר אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו למול את הגרים ולהטיף מהם דם ברית שאילמלא דם ברית לא נתקיימו שמים וארץ שנאמר אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה חוקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי ברוך אתה ה׳ כורת הברית

One who circumcises converts says: Blessed are You, Lord, our God, King of the universe, Who made us holy with His commandments, and commanded us concerning circumcision. And the one who recites the additional blessing recites: Who has made us holy with His commandments, and commanded us to circumcise converts, and to drip from them covenantal blood, as were it not for the blood of the covenant, the heaven and earth would not be sustained, as it is stated: “If My covenant would not be with day and night, the ordinances of heaven and earth I would not have placed” (Jeremiah 33:25), which is interpreted to mean that were it not for the covenant of circumcision that is manifest both day and night, the world would cease to exist. He concludes the blessing with the phrase: Blessed are You, Lord, Who establishes the covenant.

המל את העבדים אומר אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על המילה והמברך אומר אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו למול את העבדים ולהטיף מהם דם ברית שאילמלא דם ברית חוקות שמים וארץ לא נתקיימו שנאמר אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה חוקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי ברוך אתה ה׳ כורת הברית:

When a Jew buys a Canaanite slave, he is obligated to circumcise the slave, as the slave is partially entering the covenant of the Jewish people. One who circumcises slaves recites a blessing: Who made us holy with His commandments, and commanded us concerning circumcision. And the one who recites the additional blessings says a blessing similar to those mentioned above: Who made us holy with His commandments, and commanded us to circumcise slaves, and to drip from them covenantal blood, as were it not for the blood of the covenant the heaven and earth would not be sustained, as it is stated: “If My covenant would not be with day and night, the ordinances of heaven and earth I would not have placed” (Jeremiah 33:25). Blessed are You, Lord, Who establishes the covenant.

הדרן עלך רבי אליעזר דמילה

 

מתני׳ רבי אליעזר אומר תולין את המשמרת ביום טוב ונותנין לתלויה בשבת וחכמים אומרים אין תולין את המשמרת ביום טוב ואין נותנין לתלויה בשבת אבל נותנין לתלויה ביום טוב:

MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer says: One may suspend and stretch over a base the strainer through which sediment is filtered from wine, on a Festival. And one may place wine through a strainer that was already suspended the day before; however, one may not suspend the strainer on Shabbat. And the Rabbis say: One may not suspend the strainer on a Festival, and one may not place wine for filtering through a suspended strainer on Shabbat; however, one may place wine through a suspended strainer on a Festival.

גמ׳ השתא רבי אליעזר אוסופי אהל עראי לא מוספינן למיעבד לכתחלה שרי

GEMARA: The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rabbi Eliezer’s position: Now, Rabbi Eliezer holds that we may not even add to a temporary tent on Shabbat; could it be that to make a tent is permitted ab initio? Stretching a strainer over a base, which Rabbi Eliezer permits, is comparable to making a tent.

מאי היא דתנן פקק החלון רבי אליעזר אומר בזמן שקשור ותלוי פוקקין בו ואם לאו אין פוקקין בו וחכמים אומרים בין כך ובין כך פוקקין בו

The Gemara explains the question: What is this opinion of Rabbi Eliezer’s? As we learned in a mishna: With regard to a window shutter used to cover a skylight, Rabbi Eliezer says: When it is tied to and hanging from the window, i.e., it is not touching the ground, one may shutter the window with it, and if not, one may not shutter the window with it. And the Rabbis say: Both in this case and in that case one may shutter with it.

ואמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן הכל מודים שאין עושין אהל עראי בתחלה ביום טוב ואין צריך לומר בשבת לא נחלקו אלא להוסיף שרבי אליעזר אומר אין מוסיפין ביום טוב ואין צריך לומר בשבת וחכמים אומרים מוסיפין בשבת ואין צריך לומר ביום טוב

And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Everyone agrees that one may not construct a temporary tent on a Festival for the first time, and needless to say, one may not do so on Shabbat. The tanna’im disagree only with regard to adding to an existing tent, as Rabbi Eliezer says: One may not add to an existing structure on a Festival, and needless to say, one may not do so on Shabbat. And the Rabbis say: One may add to the temporary structure on Shabbat, and needless to say, one may do so on a Festival.

רבי אליעזר סבר לה כרבי יהודה דתניא אין בין יום טוב לשבת אלא אוכל נפש בלבד רבי יהודה מתיר אף מכשירי אוכל נפש

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer indeed holds that the suspension of a strainer constitutes a prohibited labor. However, Rabbi Eliezer holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to actions that facilitate preparation of food on a Festival, as it was taught in a baraita: The only difference between a Festival and Shabbat is with regard to the preparation of food alone. It is permitted to perform labors for the purpose of food preparation on a Festival, but not on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda permits even actions that facilitate food preparation on a Festival, e.g., fixing utensils with which food is prepared on the Festival. Similarly, Rabbi Eliezer permits the suspension of a strainer, which would otherwise constitute a prohibited labor, in order to prepare wine for use on the Festival.

אימר דשמעינן ליה לרבי יהודה במכשירין שאי אפשר לעשותם מערב יום טוב במכשירין שאפשר לעשותם מערב יום טוב מי שמעת ליה

The Gemara asks: Say that we heard that Rabbi Yehuda permits labors that are otherwise prohibited if they pertain to actions that facilitate food preparation that cannot be performed on the eve of the Festival; however, with regard to actions that facilitate food preparation that can be performed on the eve of the Festival, did you hear that he permits doing so?

דרבי אליעזר עדיפא מדרבי יהודה:

The Gemara answers: The leniency of Rabbi Eliezer exceeds that of Rabbi Yehuda. Unlike Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Eliezer does not distinguish between actions that facilitate food preparation that can and those that cannot be performed on the eve of the Festival.

וחכמים אומרים: איבעיא להו תלה מאי אמר רב יוסף תלה חייב חטאת

We learned in the mishna: And the Rabbis say: One may not suspend the strainer on a Festival. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If he suspended a strainer unwittingly, what is the halakha? Rav Yosef said: If he suspended it, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, like anyone who unwittingly performs a labor prohibited by Torah law on Shabbat.

אמר ליה אביי אלא מעתה תלא כוזא בסיכתא הכי נמי דמיחייב

Abaye said to him: But if that is so, that an action of that sort constitutes performance of the prohibited labor of building by Torah law, then if one suspended a jug on a peg, is he also liable for building a tent?

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

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,...

Shabbat 137

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 137

וסתם ספרא רבי יהודה

And an unattributed halakha cited in the Sifra generally reflects the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אף אנן נמי תנינא הכל כשרים לקדש חוץ מחרש שוטה וקטן רבי יהודה מכשיר בקטן ופוסל באשה ואנדרוגינוס שמע מינה

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: We too also learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yehuda does not consider a hermaphrodite to be a male in every sense. The Sages disagreed over sanctification of the waters of a purification offering, i.e., the placing of the ashes of the red heifer in potable, running spring water: Everyone is fit to sanctify the waters of a purification offering, except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor. Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit, but deems a woman and a hermaphrodite unfit. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda does not consider the legal status of a hermaphrodite to be like that of a male. The Gemara concludes: Conclude from this.

ומאי שנא מילה משום דכתיב המול לכם כל זכר:

The Gemara asks: What is different about the halakhot of circumcision, with regard to which Rabbi Yehuda categorizes a hermaphrodite as a male in regard to its laws? The Gemara answers that it is due to the fact that it is written: “This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your seed after you: Circumcise for yourselves every male” (Genesis 17:10), and he interprets the phrase “every male” as an amplification including anyone who could possibly be included in the category of a male.

מתני׳ מי שהיו לו שני תינוקות אחד למול אחר השבת ואחד למול בשבת ושכח ומל את של אחר השבת בשבת חייב

MISHNA: One who had two babies to circumcise, one of whom he needed to circumcise on the day after Shabbat, and one of whom he needed to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one that should have been circumcised after Shabbat on Shabbat, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, because he performed the prohibited labor of causing a wound not in the framework of performing a mitzva, as no obligation yet exists to circumcise the child.

אחד למול בערב שבת ואחד למול בשבת ושכח ומל את של ערב שבת בשבת רבי אליעזר מחייב חטאת ורבי יהושע פוטר:

If there were two babies, one to circumcise on Shabbat eve, and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one that he should have circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering, as circumcision after its appointed time does not override Shabbat. And Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him; since he intended to perform a mitzva, and despite his error in fact performed a mitzva, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering.

גמ׳ רב הונא מתני חייב רב יהודה מתני פטור

GEMARA: There is a dispute among the amora’im with regard to the correct version of our mishna, based on an early dispute of the tanna’im: Rav Huna teaches the first clause of the mishna as stating: Liable, whereas Rav Yehuda teaches the first clause as stating: Exempt.

רב הונא מתני חייב דתניא אמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר לא נחלקו רבי אלעזר ורבי יהושע על מי שהיו לו שני תינוקות אחד למול בשבת ואחד למול אחר השבת ושכח ומל את של אחר השבת בשבת שהוא חייב

The Gemara explains: Rav Huna taught the first clause as stating: Liable, based on that which was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree with regard to one who had two babies, one to circumcise on Shabbat and one to circumcise after Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised after Shabbat on Shabbat; in that case, everyone agrees that he is liable to bring a sin-offering.

על מה נחלקו על מי שהיו לו שני תינוקות אחד למול בערב שבת ואחד למול בשבת ושכח ומל את של ערב שבת בשבת שרבי אליעזר מחייב חטאת ורבי יהושע פוטר

With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to one who had two babies, one to circumcise on Shabbat eve and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat, as Rabbi Eliezer renders him liable to bring a sin-offering for this unwitting transgression, and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him.

ושניהם לא למדוה אלא מעבודה זרה רבי אליעזר סבר כעבודה זרה מה עבודה זרה אמר רחמנא לא תעביד וכי עביד מיחייב הכא נמי לא שנא

And both of them only derived it from idolatry, where the Torah details the halakhot of bringing a sin-offering for an unwitting transgression. Rabbi Eliezer holds: The law of every unwitting transgression is like that of idolatry. Just as with regard to idolatry the Torah stated: Do not perform certain activities, and when one performs them unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, here too it is no different, and since he transgressed the prohibition, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.

ורבי יהושע התם דלאו מצוה הכא מצוה

And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: There, where the unwitting transgression was not performed in order to fulfill a mitzva, one is liable to bring a sin-offering. Here, his intention was to perform a mitzva, and one who unwittingly violates a prohibition in the course of attempting to fulfill a mitzva is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. This is according to the opinion of Rav Huna, based on the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

רב יהודה מתני פטור דתניא אמר רבי מאיר לא נחלקו רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע על מי שהיו לו שני תינוקות אחד למול בערב שבת ואחד למול בשבת ושכח ומל את של ערב שבת בשבת שהוא פטור

Rav Yehuda taught the first clause as stating: Exempt, based on that which was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir said: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree over one who had two babies to circumcise, one to circumcise on Shabbat eve and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat; in that case, everyone agrees that he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, as that circumcision fulfilled a mitzva.

על מה נחלקו על מי שהיו לו שני תינוקות אחד למול אחר השבת ואחד למול בשבת ושכח ומל את של אחר השבת בשבת שרבי אליעזר מחייב חטאת ורבי יהושע פוטר

With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to one who had two babies, one to circumcise after Shabbat and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised after Shabbat on Shabbat, as Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering, and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him.

ושניהם לא למדוה אלא מעבודה זרה רבי אליעזר סבר כעבודה זרה מה עבודה זרה אמר רחמנא לא תעביד וכי עביד מיחייב הכא נמי לא שנא

And the Gemara notes here too that both of them only derived it from idolatry. Rabbi Eliezer holds: The halakha of every unwitting transgression sin is like that of idolatry: Just as with regard to idolatry the Torah stated: Do not perform certain activities, and when one performs them unwittingly he is liable to bring a sin-offering, here too it is no different, and since he violated the prohibition, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.

ורבי יהושע התם לא טריד מצוה הכא טריד מצוה

And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: There, with regard to idolatry, one is liable to bring a sin-offering when he performs the transgression, because he is not preoccupied with the performance of a mitzva. Here, he is preoccupied with the performance of a mitzva, and anyone who unwittingly transgresses a prohibition while preoccupied with a mitzva is exempt from bringing a sin-offering.

תני רבי חייא אומר היה רבי מאיר לא נחלקו רבי אלעזר ורבי יהושע על מי שהיו לו שני תינוקות אחד למול בערב שבת ואחד למול בשבת ושכח ומל את של ערב שבת בשבת שהוא חייב

Rabbi Ḥiyya taught another version of the same dispute between the tanna’im: Rabbi Meir would say that Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree over one who had two babies, one to circumcise on Shabbat eve and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat; in that case, everyone agrees that he is liable to bring a sin-offering.

על מה נחלקו על מי שהיו לו שני תינוקות אחד למול אחר השבת ואחד למול בשבת ושכח ומל של אחר השבת בשבת שרבי אליעזר מחייב חטאת ורבי יהושע פוטר

With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to one who had two babies to circumcise, one to circumcise after Shabbat and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised after Shabbat on Shabbat, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering, and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him.

השתא רבי יהושע סיפא דלא קא עביד מצוה פוטר רישא דקא עביד מצוה מחייב

The Gemara expresses surprise at this last version: Now, after all, in the latter clause, where he did not perform a mitzva, Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him; in the first clause, where he performed a mitzva, does Rabbi Yehoshua deem him liable?

אמרי דבי רבי ינאי רישא כגון שקדם ומל של שבת בערב שבת דלא ניתנה שבת לידחות סיפא ניתנה שבת לידחות

In the school of Rabbi Yannai they say: The first clause of the baraita is referring to a unique situation, where the circumcisor first unwittingly circumcised the baby who should have been circumcised on Shabbat on Shabbat eve. In that case, Shabbat is not given to be overridden at all, since the baby who was supposed to be circumcised on Shabbat was already circumcised. In the latter clause, however, the circumcision was performed in a situation where Shabbat is given to be overridden.

אמר ליה רב אשי לרב כהנא רישא נמי ניתנה שבת לידחות לגבי תינוקות דעלמא להאי גברא מיהא לא איתיהיב:

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana that this explanation is difficult: In the first clause too, Shabbat is given to be overridden with regard to babies in general, as it is permitted to circumcise a baby whose eighth day occurs on Shabbat. He replied: That is indeed so; however, with regard to this person, Shabbat is not given to be overridden, as there is no longer any child who is supposed to be circumcised on Shabbat. Therefore, if he unwittingly performed a circumcision on Shabbat, he is not considered to have unwittingly performed a transgression while preoccupied with the performance of a mitzva.

מתני׳ קטן נימול לשמנה לתשעה ולעשרה ולאחד עשר ולשנים עשר לא פחות ולא יותר

MISHNA: Although a child is generally circumcised at eight days, as the verse states: “And on the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 12:3), nevertheless, at times he is circumcised at nine days, at times at ten days, at eleven days, and at twelve days, no earlier and no later.

הא כיצד כדרכו לשמנה נולד לבין השמשות נימול לתשעה בין השמשות של ערב שבת נימול לעשרה

How so? In his usual manner, a child is circumcised at eight days. If he was born at twilight and it is therefore uncertain on which day he was born, he is circumcised at nine days, as his circumcision is postponed due to that uncertainty, as perhaps the eighth day from his birth has not yet arrived. If he was born at twilight on Shabbat eve, he is not circumcised on the following Shabbat, due to the uncertainty whether it is the eighth or ninth day since his birth, and only a circumcision definitely performed at the appointed time overrides Shabbat. Rather, he is circumcised on Sunday, and the result is that he is circumcised at ten days.

יום טוב לאחר השבת נימול לאחד עשר שני ימים של ראש השנה נימול לשנים עשר

If there was a Festival after that Shabbat, he is not circumcised on the Festival either, and he is circumcised at eleven days. And if that Shabbat was followed by two days of Rosh HaShana, the result is that he is circumcised at twelve days.

קטן החולה אין מוהלין אותו עד שיבריא:

The mishna states another halakha: With regard to a sick child, one does not circumcise him until he becomes healthy.

גמ׳ אמר שמואל חלצתו חמה נותנין לו כל שבעה להברותו

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that one does not circumcise a sick baby until he becomes healthy. Shmuel said: A baby that was sick and had a high fever, and subsequently the fever left him, one gives him a full seven days to heal before circumcising him.

איבעיא להו מי בעינן מעת לעת

With regard to this issue, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Do we require, during the recovery period, to wait from the time the seven days begin to the exact same time seven days later, i.e., seven complete, twenty-four-hour periods, or is it enough to wait seven days without taking into account the time of day?

תא שמע דתני לודא יום הבראתו כיום הולדו מאי לאו מה יום הולדו לא בעינן מעת לעת אף יום הבראתו לא בעינן מעת לעת

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution to this from that which the Sage Luda taught: The day of his healing is like the day of his birth. What, is it not that just as from the day of his birth we need not wait from the time he is born to the same time on the eighth day to circumcise him, so too, with regard to the day of his healing, we need not wait from the time he heals to the same time seven days later?

לא עדיף יום הבראתו מיום הולדו דאילו יום הולדו לא בעינן מעת לעת ואילו יום הבראתו בעינן מעת לעת:

The Gemara refutes this: No, the day of his healing is superior to the day of his birth. While from the day of his birth until circumcision we need not wait from time to time, from the day of his healing we need to wait seven complete days from time to time.

מתני׳ אלו הן ציצין המעכבין את המילה בשר החופה את רוב העטרה ואינו אוכל בתרומה

MISHNA: These are the shreds of flesh that invalidate the circumcision if they are not cut. The essential element of circumcision is the removal of the flesh that covers most of the corona, and a child that was not circumcised in this manner is considered uncircumcised, and he does not eat teruma.

ואם היה בעל בשר מתקנו מפני מראית העין

And if he was properly circumcised but he was fleshy, and it appears as though he has not been properly circumcised, the circumcisor should correct it by circumcising more than necessary, to avoid the appearance of transgression, so he will not appear uncircumcised.

מל ולא פרע את המילה כאילו לא מל:

If one circumcised but did not uncover the flesh at the area of the circumcision by folding back the thin membrane beneath the foreskin, it is as if he had not circumcised.

גמ׳ אמר רבי אבינא אמר רבי ירמיה בר אבא אמר רב בשר החופה את רוב גובהה של עטרה:

GEMARA: Rabbi Avina said that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said: When the mishna said most of the corona, they meant the flesh that covers most of the height of the corona, as well as most of its circumference.

ואם היה בעל בשר וכו׳: אמר שמואל קטן המסורבל בבשר רואין אותו כל זמן שמתקשה ונראה מהול אינו צריך למול ואם לאו צריך למול

We learned in the mishna: If the baby was fleshy, the circumcisor corrects the circumcision so that it will not appear uncircumcised. Shmuel said: A child who is encumbered with flesh, one examines him, and as long as when his limb hardens he looks circumcised, one need not circumcise him again. And if not, meaning he does not appear circumcised even then, one must circumcise him again.

במתניתא תנא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר קטן המסורבל בבשר רואין אותו כל זמן שמתקשה ואינו נראה מהול צריך למולו ואם לאו אינו צריך למולו

It was taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A child who is encumbered with flesh, one examines him, and as long as when it hardens it does not appear circumcised, one needs to circumcise him again, and if not, one need not circumcise him again.

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו נראה ואינו נראה:

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two formulations? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in a case where he appears circumcised but does not appear fully circumcised. According to Shmuel, in order to avoid an additional circumcision, one must appear fully circumcised, and this state is insufficient. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, only one who appears uncircumcised requires further circumcision; this partial circumcision is adequate.

מל ולא פרע: תנו רבנן המל אומר אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על המילה אבי הבן אומר אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו להכניסו בבריתו של אברהם אבינו העומדים אומרים כשם שנכנס לברית כך יכנס לתורה לחופה ולמעשים טובים

We learned in the mishna: If he circumcised a child but did not uncover the area of the circumcision, it is as if he did not circumcise him. The Sages taught in a Tosefta that one who circumcises a child recites: Who has made us holy through His commandments, and commanded us concerning circumcision. The father of the circumcised child recites: Who has made us holy through His commandments, and commanded us to bring him into the covenant of Abraham, our father. Those standing there recite: Just as he has entered into the covenant, so may he enter into Torah, marriage, and good deeds.

והמברך אומר אשר קידש ידיד מבטן חוק בשארו שם וצאצאיו חתם באות ברית קדש על כן בשכר זאת אל חי חלקנו צוה להציל ידידות שארינו משחת למען בריתו אשר שם בבשרנו ברוך אתה ה׳ כורת הברית

And the one who recites the additional blessing says: Who made the beloved one holy from the womb, marked the decree in his flesh, and gave his descendants the seal and the sign of the holy covenant. Therefore, as a reward for this, the living God, our Portion, commanded to deliver the beloved of our flesh from destruction, for the sake of His covenant that He set in our flesh. Blessed are You, Lord, Who establishes the covenant.

המל את הגרים אומר ברוך אתה ה׳ אלהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על המילה והמברך אומר אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו למול את הגרים ולהטיף מהם דם ברית שאילמלא דם ברית לא נתקיימו שמים וארץ שנאמר אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה חוקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי ברוך אתה ה׳ כורת הברית

One who circumcises converts says: Blessed are You, Lord, our God, King of the universe, Who made us holy with His commandments, and commanded us concerning circumcision. And the one who recites the additional blessing recites: Who has made us holy with His commandments, and commanded us to circumcise converts, and to drip from them covenantal blood, as were it not for the blood of the covenant, the heaven and earth would not be sustained, as it is stated: “If My covenant would not be with day and night, the ordinances of heaven and earth I would not have placed” (Jeremiah 33:25), which is interpreted to mean that were it not for the covenant of circumcision that is manifest both day and night, the world would cease to exist. He concludes the blessing with the phrase: Blessed are You, Lord, Who establishes the covenant.

המל את העבדים אומר אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על המילה והמברך אומר אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו למול את העבדים ולהטיף מהם דם ברית שאילמלא דם ברית חוקות שמים וארץ לא נתקיימו שנאמר אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה חוקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי ברוך אתה ה׳ כורת הברית:

When a Jew buys a Canaanite slave, he is obligated to circumcise the slave, as the slave is partially entering the covenant of the Jewish people. One who circumcises slaves recites a blessing: Who made us holy with His commandments, and commanded us concerning circumcision. And the one who recites the additional blessings says a blessing similar to those mentioned above: Who made us holy with His commandments, and commanded us to circumcise slaves, and to drip from them covenantal blood, as were it not for the blood of the covenant the heaven and earth would not be sustained, as it is stated: “If My covenant would not be with day and night, the ordinances of heaven and earth I would not have placed” (Jeremiah 33:25). Blessed are You, Lord, Who establishes the covenant.

הדרן עלך רבי אליעזר דמילה

 

מתני׳ רבי אליעזר אומר תולין את המשמרת ביום טוב ונותנין לתלויה בשבת וחכמים אומרים אין תולין את המשמרת ביום טוב ואין נותנין לתלויה בשבת אבל נותנין לתלויה ביום טוב:

MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer says: One may suspend and stretch over a base the strainer through which sediment is filtered from wine, on a Festival. And one may place wine through a strainer that was already suspended the day before; however, one may not suspend the strainer on Shabbat. And the Rabbis say: One may not suspend the strainer on a Festival, and one may not place wine for filtering through a suspended strainer on Shabbat; however, one may place wine through a suspended strainer on a Festival.

גמ׳ השתא רבי אליעזר אוסופי אהל עראי לא מוספינן למיעבד לכתחלה שרי

GEMARA: The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rabbi Eliezer’s position: Now, Rabbi Eliezer holds that we may not even add to a temporary tent on Shabbat; could it be that to make a tent is permitted ab initio? Stretching a strainer over a base, which Rabbi Eliezer permits, is comparable to making a tent.

מאי היא דתנן פקק החלון רבי אליעזר אומר בזמן שקשור ותלוי פוקקין בו ואם לאו אין פוקקין בו וחכמים אומרים בין כך ובין כך פוקקין בו

The Gemara explains the question: What is this opinion of Rabbi Eliezer’s? As we learned in a mishna: With regard to a window shutter used to cover a skylight, Rabbi Eliezer says: When it is tied to and hanging from the window, i.e., it is not touching the ground, one may shutter the window with it, and if not, one may not shutter the window with it. And the Rabbis say: Both in this case and in that case one may shutter with it.

ואמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן הכל מודים שאין עושין אהל עראי בתחלה ביום טוב ואין צריך לומר בשבת לא נחלקו אלא להוסיף שרבי אליעזר אומר אין מוסיפין ביום טוב ואין צריך לומר בשבת וחכמים אומרים מוסיפין בשבת ואין צריך לומר ביום טוב

And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Everyone agrees that one may not construct a temporary tent on a Festival for the first time, and needless to say, one may not do so on Shabbat. The tanna’im disagree only with regard to adding to an existing tent, as Rabbi Eliezer says: One may not add to an existing structure on a Festival, and needless to say, one may not do so on Shabbat. And the Rabbis say: One may add to the temporary structure on Shabbat, and needless to say, one may do so on a Festival.

רבי אליעזר סבר לה כרבי יהודה דתניא אין בין יום טוב לשבת אלא אוכל נפש בלבד רבי יהודה מתיר אף מכשירי אוכל נפש

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer indeed holds that the suspension of a strainer constitutes a prohibited labor. However, Rabbi Eliezer holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to actions that facilitate preparation of food on a Festival, as it was taught in a baraita: The only difference between a Festival and Shabbat is with regard to the preparation of food alone. It is permitted to perform labors for the purpose of food preparation on a Festival, but not on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda permits even actions that facilitate food preparation on a Festival, e.g., fixing utensils with which food is prepared on the Festival. Similarly, Rabbi Eliezer permits the suspension of a strainer, which would otherwise constitute a prohibited labor, in order to prepare wine for use on the Festival.

אימר דשמעינן ליה לרבי יהודה במכשירין שאי אפשר לעשותם מערב יום טוב במכשירין שאפשר לעשותם מערב יום טוב מי שמעת ליה

The Gemara asks: Say that we heard that Rabbi Yehuda permits labors that are otherwise prohibited if they pertain to actions that facilitate food preparation that cannot be performed on the eve of the Festival; however, with regard to actions that facilitate food preparation that can be performed on the eve of the Festival, did you hear that he permits doing so?

דרבי אליעזר עדיפא מדרבי יהודה:

The Gemara answers: The leniency of Rabbi Eliezer exceeds that of Rabbi Yehuda. Unlike Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Eliezer does not distinguish between actions that facilitate food preparation that can and those that cannot be performed on the eve of the Festival.

וחכמים אומרים: איבעיא להו תלה מאי אמר רב יוסף תלה חייב חטאת

We learned in the mishna: And the Rabbis say: One may not suspend the strainer on a Festival. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If he suspended a strainer unwittingly, what is the halakha? Rav Yosef said: If he suspended it, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, like anyone who unwittingly performs a labor prohibited by Torah law on Shabbat.

אמר ליה אביי אלא מעתה תלא כוזא בסיכתא הכי נמי דמיחייב

Abaye said to him: But if that is so, that an action of that sort constitutes performance of the prohibited labor of building by Torah law, then if one suspended a jug on a peg, is he also liable for building a tent?

More Ways to Learn with Hadran

Join Hadran Communities! Connect with women learning in your area.

Scroll To Top