Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 22, 2020 | א׳ באב 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 138

Today’s shiur is sponsored by Elizabeth Kirshner in loving memory of her father, Rabbi Gabriel M. Kirshner, HaRav Gavriel Meir ben HaRav Shraga Feyvel z”l, who instilled in her a love of Torah from the very first moments of her life. May his neshama have an aliyah and may his legacy bring healing and harmony to the world. And by Caroline Musin Berkowitz in honor of the 98th birthday of her grandmother, Florence Hirsch. As it says in Arakhin 19a, savta b’veita, sima (treasure) b’veita. She is our treasure indeed. And by Marcia Baum in memory of her father Sam Baum, Chaim Simcha Ben Aaron Halevi and Leba z”l , on his 17th Yartzeit. He taught his daughters that they could be, do and learn anything… including the Talmud. And wishing Kay Weinberger a very happy birthday, chodesh tov , and hope you are enjoying learning daf – with love from Valerie Adler.

According to the rabbis who forbid hanging up the wine strainer, is it forbidden by Torah law due to building or by rabbinic law due to the fact that it is considered uvda d’chol, a weekday activity? Rav Yosef and Abaye disagree. Abaye splits building into 3 categories and lists braitot that discuss what type of building is forbidden by Torah law, rabbinic law or entirely permitted (like folding chairs/tables). According to the rabbis who forbade straining the wine of Shabbat, is it by Torah or rabbinic law? Is it because of the melacha of separating or sifting? The gemara discusses various type of temporary tents and explains under what conditions can one build a bridal canopy? Rami bar Yechezkel asked Rav Huna to tell him some laws of Rav regarding Shabbat and also something regarding Torah. In that context, the gemara brings Rav’s opinion that there will come a time when the Torah will be forgotten. A Tosefta is brought saying the same things, using a verse from Amos. The gemara goes to lengths to assess what type of Torah will be forgotten? Will it be even things written in the Torah explicitly or in the mishna or did he mean more complicated things? Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai disagrees and thinks that the Torah will not be forgotten – the issue will be that there will not be one central halachic authority and it will be unclear what the law is.

אלא אמר אביי מדרבנן היא שלא יעשה כדרך שהוא עושה בחול

Rather, Abaye said: It is a rabbinic decree issued so that one will not conduct himself on Shabbat in the manner that he conducts himself during the week.

מנקיט אביי חומרי מתניתא ותני הגוד והמשמרת כילה וכסא גלין לא יעשה ואם עשה פטור אבל אסור אהלי קבע לא יעשה ואם עשה חייב חטאת אבל מטה וכסא טרסקל ואסלא מותר לנטותן לכתחילה:

Abaye would consolidate the principles of the baraitot pertaining to the construction of a tent on Shabbat and teach: With regard to a large wineskin, a wine strainer, a canopy hung over a bed, and a folding chair whose cover is detached from its legs, one may not assemble them due to the prohibition against making a temporary tent. If one did so unwittingly, he is exempt by Torah law from bringing a sin-offering, but it is prohibited by rabbinic decree. With regard to permanent tents, one may not make them, and if he did so, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for performing the prohibited labor of building. However, with regard to a bed, and a folding chair [teraskal] whose cover is attached to its legs, and a collapsible toilet, it is permissible to open them ab initio, since they are prepared for use from before Shabbat.

ואין נותנין לתלויה בשבת: איבעיא להו שימר מאי אמר רב כהנא שימר חייב חטאת

We also learned in the mishna: One may not place wine for filtering even into a suspended strainer on Shabbat. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one strained wine, what is the halakha? Rav Kahana said: If one strained wine, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.

מתקיף לה רב ששת מי איכא מידי דרבנן מחייבי חטאת ורבי אליעזר שרי לכתחילה

Rav Sheshet strongly objects to this: Is there something for which the Rabbis render one liable to bring a sin-offering and Rabbi Eliezer permits its performance ab initio? Extreme differences of opinion of that kind are rarely found in one mishna.

מתקיף לה רב יוסף אלמה לא הרי עיר של זהב דרבי מאיר מחייב חטאת ורבי אליעזר שרי לכתחילה

Rav Yosef strongly objects to this question: Why not? Isn’t there an analogous dispute with regard to a woman who wears a city of gold ornament from one domain to another on Shabbat, as Rabbi Meir renders her liable to bring a sin-offering, and Rabbi Eliezer permits it even ab initio?

מאי היא דתניא לא תצא אשה בעיר של זהב ואם יצאה חייבת חטאת דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים לא תצא ואם יצאה פטורה רבי אליעזר אומר יוצאה אשה בעיר של זהב לכתחילה

What is that dispute? As it was taught in a baraita: A woman may not go out into the public domain on Shabbat with a city of gold ornament. And if she did go out with it into the public domain, she is liable to bring a sin-offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: She may not go out with it ab initio, and if she went out, she is exempt. And Rabbi Eliezer says: A woman may go out with a city of gold ornament ab initio. Apparently, there is precedent for a dispute in which one opinion maintains that an action incurs liability to bring a sin-offering, while another opinion rules that it is permitted ab initio.

אמר ליה אביי מי סברת רבי אליעזר אדרבי מאיר קאי דאמר חייבת חטאת אדרבנן קאי דאמרי פטור אבל אסור ואמר להו איהו מותר לכתחילה

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Do you hold that Rabbi Eliezer is relating to the statement of Rabbi Meir, who said that she is liable to bring a sin-offering? He is relating to the statement of the Rabbis, who said one is exempt but it is prohibited, and he said to them that he holds that it is permitted ab initio. Had there not been the intermediate opinion of the Rabbis, an argument with such extreme opinions would not have been possible.

משום מאי מתרינן ביה רבה אמר משום בורר רבי זירא אמר משום מרקד

The Gemara asks: One is liable to bring a sin-offering for straining. Due to performance of what category of prohibited labor do we forewarn him? Rabba said: It is for the category of selecting, as one is selecting the wine from the sediment. Rabbi Zeira said: It is for the category of sifting, as straining is similar to sifting flour in a sifter, which is a form of selecting.

אמר רבה כוותי דידי מסתברא מה דרכו של בורר נוטל אוכל ומניח הפסולת אף הכא נמי נוטל את האוכל ומניח את הפסולת

Rabba said: According to my opinion, it is reasonable. What is the manner of one who selects? He takes the food and leaves the refuse; here too, when straining wine, one takes the food and leaves the refuse.

אמר רבי זירא כוותי דידי מסתברא מה דרכו של מרקד פסולת מלמעלה ואוכל מלמטה אף הכא נמי פסולת מלמעלה ואוכל מלמטה

Rabbi Zeira said: According to my opinion, that this is not typical selection but rather a specific type of selection, it is reasonable, as what is the manner of sifting? The refuse remains atop the sifter and the food is below. Here too, when straining wine, the refuse remains atop the strainer and the food is below.

תני רמי בר יחזקאל טלית כפולה לא יעשה ואם עשה פטור אבל אסור היה כרוך עליה חוט או משיחה מותר לנטותה לכתחילה

Rami bar Yeḥezkel taught: With regard to a doubled cloak, one may not make a covering on Shabbat by taking the cloak and placing it over a rope and extending the two sides in order to form something similar to a canopy beneath which one could lie (ge’onim; Rif). And if one made it, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering by Torah law, but it is prohibited by rabbinic decree. If there was a string or a cord wrapped around it before Shabbat, and the cloak was attached to the string while folded, it is permitted to spread it and stretch it ab initio.

בעא מיניה רב כהנא מרב כילה מהו אמר ליה אף מטה אסורה מטה מהו אמר ליה אף כילה מותרת כילה ומטה מהו אמר ליה כילה אסורה ומטה מותרת

On a related issue, Rav Kahana raised a dilemma before Rav: In the case of a canopy, what is the halakha? Is it permitted to spread it on Shabbat? He said to him: Even a bed is prohibited. Rav Kahana asked: With regard to a bed, what is the halakha? He said to him: Even a canopy is permitted. Rav Kahana again asked: In the case of a bed and a canopy, what is the halakha? He said to him: A canopy is prohibited, and a bed is permitted.

ולא קשיא הא דקאמר אף מטה אסורה כדקרמנאי הא דקאמר ליה אף כילה מותרת כדרמי בר יחזקאל כילה אסורה ומטה מותרת כדדידן

The Gemara comments: And this is not difficult, as the responses do not in fact contradict one another. Rather, when he said: Even a bed is prohibited, this is referring to folding beds like those of the Carmanians. Unfolding them is considered like making a tent. When he said: Even a canopy is permitted, this is referring to spreading the canopy in the manner explained by Rami bar Yeḥezkel. The canopy was bound by a string from before Shabbat. When he said: A canopy is prohibited, and a bed is permitted, this is referring to beds and canopies like ours, which do not fold. A bed of that kind involves no building. However, spreading canopies is performed in a manner similar to constructing a tent.

אמר רב יוסף חזינא להו לכילי דבי רב הונא דמאורתא נגידו ומצפרא חביטא רמיא

Rav Yosef said: I saw the canopies of the house of Rav Huna that were spread out in the evening, and in the morning they were cast off and lying on the ground. This indicates that it is permitted to dismantle and spread them on Shabbat.

אמר רב משום רבי חייא וילון מותר לנטותו ומותר לפורקו

Rav said in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya: With regard to a curtain, it is permitted to spread it, and it is permitted to dismantle it. Since a curtain has no roof, neither action constitutes establishing a tent.

ואמר שמואל משום רבי חייא

And Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya:

כילת חתנים מותר לנטותה ומותר לפורקה

With regard to a bridegroom’s canopy, which has no roof but is entirely sloped, it is permitted to spread it and it is permitted to dismantle it on Shabbat.

אמר רב ששת בריה דרב אידי לא אמרן אלא שאין בגגה טפח אבל יש בגגה טפח אסורה וכי אין בגגה טפח נמי לא אמרן אלא שאין בפחות משלשה סמוך לגגה טפח אבל יש בפחות משלשה סמוך לגגה טפח אסור ולא אמרן אלא שאין בשיפועה טפח אבל יש בשיפועה טפח שפועי אהלים כאהלים דמו ולא אמרן אלא דלא נחית מפוריא טפח אבל נחית מפוריא טפח אסור:

Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: We only said that it is permitted in a case where its roof is not a handbreadth wide; however, if its roof is a handbreadth wide, it is prohibited. Furthermore, even when its roof is not a handbreadth wide, we only said that it is permitted where there is not the width of a handbreadth within three handbreadths of its roof; however, if it expands to the width of a handbreadth within three handbreadths of its roof, it is prohibited. And we only stated that it is permitted where there is not in its incline the width of a handbreadth; however, if there is in its incline the width of a handbreadth, it is prohibited. This halakha is in accordance with the principle that the inclines of tents, even though they are not actual roofs, are considered like tents. And we only said that this canopy is permitted where no part of the canopy descends to a handbreadth below the bed; however, if part of the canopy descends to a handbreadth below the bed, it is prohibited, as the bed itself becomes a roof, and the curtain is considered a wall.

ואמר רב ששת בריה דרב אידי האי סיאנא שרי והאיתמר סיאנא אסור לא קשיא הא דאית ביה טפח הא דלית ביה טפח

And Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, also said: Wearing this felt hat is permitted on Shabbat, even though it has a wide brim and is similar to a tent. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Wasn’t it stated elsewhere that it is prohibited to wear a felt hat on Shabbat? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: This latter statement, which prohibited wearing the hat, is referring to a case where its brim has the width of a handbreadth wide and is similar to a tent. That statement by Rav Sheshet, which permits wearing the hat, is referring to a case where its brim does not have the width of a handbreadth.

אלא מעתה שרביב בגלימא טפח הכי נמי דמיחייב אלא לא קשיא הא דמיהדק הא דלא מיהדק

The Gemara asks: But if that is so, if one extended his cloak a handbreadth beyond his head, would you also say that he is liable for making a tent? Rather, this is not difficult. The reason the hat is prohibited is not due to making a tent, but due to concern that the wind might blow the cap off one’s head and he will come to carry it by hand. The conflicting statements can be resolved as follows: This statement of Rav Sheshet, which permits wearing the hat, is referring to a case where it is fitted firmly on his head. That statement, which prohibits wearing the hat, is referring to a case where it is not fitted firmly.

שלח ליה רמי בר יחזקאל לרב הונא אימא לן איזי הנך מילי מעלייתא דאמרת לן משמיה דרב תרתי בשבת וחדא בתורה

Rami bar Yeḥezkel sent to Rav Huna: Say to us, please, those excellent statements that you said to us in the name of Rav, two with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, and one with regard to the Torah.

שלח ליה הא דתניא גוד בכיסנא מותר לנטותה בשבת אמר רב לא שנו אלא בשני בני אדם אבל באדם אחד אסור

Rav Huna sent to him in response: With regard to that which was taught in a baraita: It is permitted to spread a large wineskin and suspend it by its straps on Shabbat, Rav said: They only taught that it is permitted if it is performed by two people together. They do not stretch the wineskin like a tent; rather, they place it without stretching it. However, it is prohibited for one person to do so by himself, due to the concern that he may establish a tent of sorts.

אמר אביי וכילה אפילו בעשרה בני אדם אסור אי אפשר דלא מימתחא פורתא

Abaye said: And it is prohibited to spread a canopy on Shabbat even with ten people. The reason for this is that it is impossible that it will not be stretched a bit for a certain period of time, which would establish a temporary tent.

אידך מאי היא דתניא כירה שנשמטה אחת מירכותיה מותר לטלטלה שתים אסור רב אמר אפילו חד נמי אסור גזירה שמא יתקע

And the other halakha with regard to Shabbat, what is it? As it was taught in a baraita: In the case of a stove, one of whose legs fell, it is permitted to move it on Shabbat. Since it remains a vessel, it may be moved if it is taking up a space that is needed. However, if two of its legs fell, it is prohibited, since it is then a broken vessel. Rav said: Even if only one leg fell, it is also prohibited to handle it, due to a decree lest one fasten the leg in place forcefully and be liable for preparing a vessel for use.

תורה דאמר רב עתידה תורה שתשתכח מישראל שנאמר והפלא ה׳ את מכתך הפלאה זו איני יודע מהו כשהוא אומר לכן הנני יוסיף להפליא את העם הזה הפלא ופלא הוי אומר הפלאה זו תורה

With regard to Torah, Rav Huna related that Rav said: The Torah is destined to be forgotten from the Jewish people. It is stated at the conclusion of the curses in the Torah’s reproof: “And the Lord will make your plagues astonishing, and the plagues of your seed, great plagues of long continuance, and evil diseases of long continuance” (Deuteronomy 28:59). This term of astonishment, mentioned in the verse in addition to the explicit punishments, I do not know what it is. But when the verse states elsewhere: “Therefore, behold, I will continue to astonish this people with wondrous astonishment, and the wisdom of its wise will be lost, and the understanding of its men of understanding shall be hidden” (Isaiah 29:14), you must say: This astonishment is referring to forgetting the Torah.

תנו רבנן כשנכנסו רבותינו לכרם ביבנה אמרו עתידה תורה שתשתכח מישראל שנאמר הנה ימים באים נאם ה׳ אלהים והשלחתי רעב בארץ לא רעב ללחם ולא צמא למים כי אם לשמוע את דברי ה׳ וכתיב ונעו מים עד ים ומצפון ועד מזרח ישוטטו לבקש את דבר ה׳ ולא ימצאו

The Sages taught a similar idea in the Tosefta: When our Sages entered the vineyard in Yavne, they said: The Torah is destined to be forgotten from the Jewish people, as it is stated: “Behold, days are approaching, says the Lord God, and I will send forth a hunger in the land, not a hunger for bread and not a thirst for water, but for hearing the words of the Lord” (Amos 8:11). And it states: “And they will drift from sea to sea, and from north to east they will roam to find the word of the Lord, but they will not find it” (Amos 8:12).

דבר ה׳ זו הלכה דבר ה׳ זה הקץ דבר ה׳ זו נבואה

“The word of the Lord” in this context bears many meanings. “The word of the Lord”; that is halakha. “The word of the Lord”; that is the end of days. “The word of the Lord”; that is prophecy. All these will be lost from the Jewish people.

ומאי ישוטטו לבקש את דבר ה׳ אמרו עתידה אשה שתטול ככר של תרומה ותחזור בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות לידע אם טמאה היא ואם טהורה היא ואין מבין

And what is the meaning of: “They will roam to find the word of the Lord, but they will not find it”? They said: It is destined that a woman will take a loaf of teruma bread and circulate among the synagogues and study halls to ascertain whether it is ritually impure or whether it is ritually pure, and there will be none who understands.

אם טהורה היא ואם טמאה היא בהדיא כתיב ביה מכל האוכל אשר יאכל אלא לידע אם ראשונה היא ואם שניה היא ואין מבין

The Gemara asks: How is it possible that they will be unable to understand whether the loaf is impure or whether it is ritually impure? It is explicitly written in the Torah with regard to this: “All food that is eaten upon which water falls shall contract impurity, and all liquid drunk in any vessel shall contract impurity” (Leviticus 11:34). There can be no doubt as to the question of whether or not the loaf can become impure. Rather, the Gemara explains: The woman seeks to ascertain whether it assumes first-degree ritual impurity status or whether it assumes second-degree ritual impurity status; and there will be none who understands.

הא נמי מתניתין היא כדתנן השרץ שנמצא בתנור הפת שבתוכו שניה שהתנור תחילה

The Gemara asks: That too is an explicit mishna, and how is it that none will know an explicit mishna? As we learned in a mishna: If the carcass of a creeping animal was found in the airspace of an oven, the bread inside it assumes second-degree ritual impurity status, as the creeping animal, which is a primary source of impurity, renders the oven impure with first-degree ritual impurity. The oven then renders the bread impure with second-degree ritual impurity.

מסתפקא להו הא דאמר ליה רב אדא בר אהבה לרבא ליחזייה האי תנורא כמאן דמלי טומאה ותיהוי פת ראשונה

The Gemara responds: They are uncertain with regard to that which Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava: Let us view this oven as one filled with impurity, and the bread will then assume first-degree ritual impurity status. In other words, the legal status of food in the airspace of an earthenware vessel that also has the carcass of a creeping animal in its airspace is that of food that came into contact with the creeping animal, even if the food does not come into contact with the carcass of a creeping animal.

אמר ליה לא אמרינן ליחזייה האי תנורא כמאן דמלי טומאה דתניא יכול יהו כל הכלים מיטמאין באויר כלי חרס תלמוד לומר כל אשר בתוכו יטמא מכל האוכל אשר יאכל אוכלין מטמאין באויר כלי חרס ואין כלים מטמאין באויר כלי חרס

He said to him that we do not say: Let us view the oven as one filled with ritual impurity, as it was taught in a baraita: One might think that all vessels should become ritually impure in the airspace of an earthenware vessel that has the carcass of a creeping animal in its airspace; therefore, the verse states: “And any earthenware vessel in which any of them falls, all that is in it shall be impure, and you shall break it. All food that is eaten, upon which water comes, shall be impure; and all drink that may be drunk, in any vessel, shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:33–34). The baraita learns from the juxtaposition of these verses that foods become ritually impure in the airspace of earthenware vessels, but vessels do not become ritually impure in the airspace of earthenware vessels. Apparently, the airspace of an oven is not considered filled with the impurity of the carcass of a creeping animal. If that were the case, even vessels would become ritually impure.

תניא רבי שמעון בן יוחי אומר חס ושלום שתשתכח תורה מישראל שנאמר כי לא תשכח מפי זרעו אלא מה אני מקיים ישוטטו לבקש את דבר ה׳ ולא ימצאו שלא ימצאו

An opposing view was taught in another baraita. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Heaven forfend that the Torah should be forgotten from the Jewish people, as it is stated: “And this song shall answer to him as a witness, for it shall not be forgotten from his seed” (Deuteronomy 31:21). Rather, how do I explain: “They will roam to find the word of God, but they will not find it”? It means that they will not find

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

5

We Built This City

Sometimes the daf has impeccable timing. This week, as we begin the days of mourning that start with Rosh Chodesh...

Shabbat 138

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 138

אלא אמר אביי מדרבנן היא שלא יעשה כדרך שהוא עושה בחול

Rather, Abaye said: It is a rabbinic decree issued so that one will not conduct himself on Shabbat in the manner that he conducts himself during the week.

מנקיט אביי חומרי מתניתא ותני הגוד והמשמרת כילה וכסא גלין לא יעשה ואם עשה פטור אבל אסור אהלי קבע לא יעשה ואם עשה חייב חטאת אבל מטה וכסא טרסקל ואסלא מותר לנטותן לכתחילה:

Abaye would consolidate the principles of the baraitot pertaining to the construction of a tent on Shabbat and teach: With regard to a large wineskin, a wine strainer, a canopy hung over a bed, and a folding chair whose cover is detached from its legs, one may not assemble them due to the prohibition against making a temporary tent. If one did so unwittingly, he is exempt by Torah law from bringing a sin-offering, but it is prohibited by rabbinic decree. With regard to permanent tents, one may not make them, and if he did so, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for performing the prohibited labor of building. However, with regard to a bed, and a folding chair [teraskal] whose cover is attached to its legs, and a collapsible toilet, it is permissible to open them ab initio, since they are prepared for use from before Shabbat.

ואין נותנין לתלויה בשבת: איבעיא להו שימר מאי אמר רב כהנא שימר חייב חטאת

We also learned in the mishna: One may not place wine for filtering even into a suspended strainer on Shabbat. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one strained wine, what is the halakha? Rav Kahana said: If one strained wine, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.

מתקיף לה רב ששת מי איכא מידי דרבנן מחייבי חטאת ורבי אליעזר שרי לכתחילה

Rav Sheshet strongly objects to this: Is there something for which the Rabbis render one liable to bring a sin-offering and Rabbi Eliezer permits its performance ab initio? Extreme differences of opinion of that kind are rarely found in one mishna.

מתקיף לה רב יוסף אלמה לא הרי עיר של זהב דרבי מאיר מחייב חטאת ורבי אליעזר שרי לכתחילה

Rav Yosef strongly objects to this question: Why not? Isn’t there an analogous dispute with regard to a woman who wears a city of gold ornament from one domain to another on Shabbat, as Rabbi Meir renders her liable to bring a sin-offering, and Rabbi Eliezer permits it even ab initio?

מאי היא דתניא לא תצא אשה בעיר של זהב ואם יצאה חייבת חטאת דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים לא תצא ואם יצאה פטורה רבי אליעזר אומר יוצאה אשה בעיר של זהב לכתחילה

What is that dispute? As it was taught in a baraita: A woman may not go out into the public domain on Shabbat with a city of gold ornament. And if she did go out with it into the public domain, she is liable to bring a sin-offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: She may not go out with it ab initio, and if she went out, she is exempt. And Rabbi Eliezer says: A woman may go out with a city of gold ornament ab initio. Apparently, there is precedent for a dispute in which one opinion maintains that an action incurs liability to bring a sin-offering, while another opinion rules that it is permitted ab initio.

אמר ליה אביי מי סברת רבי אליעזר אדרבי מאיר קאי דאמר חייבת חטאת אדרבנן קאי דאמרי פטור אבל אסור ואמר להו איהו מותר לכתחילה

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Do you hold that Rabbi Eliezer is relating to the statement of Rabbi Meir, who said that she is liable to bring a sin-offering? He is relating to the statement of the Rabbis, who said one is exempt but it is prohibited, and he said to them that he holds that it is permitted ab initio. Had there not been the intermediate opinion of the Rabbis, an argument with such extreme opinions would not have been possible.

משום מאי מתרינן ביה רבה אמר משום בורר רבי זירא אמר משום מרקד

The Gemara asks: One is liable to bring a sin-offering for straining. Due to performance of what category of prohibited labor do we forewarn him? Rabba said: It is for the category of selecting, as one is selecting the wine from the sediment. Rabbi Zeira said: It is for the category of sifting, as straining is similar to sifting flour in a sifter, which is a form of selecting.

אמר רבה כוותי דידי מסתברא מה דרכו של בורר נוטל אוכל ומניח הפסולת אף הכא נמי נוטל את האוכל ומניח את הפסולת

Rabba said: According to my opinion, it is reasonable. What is the manner of one who selects? He takes the food and leaves the refuse; here too, when straining wine, one takes the food and leaves the refuse.

אמר רבי זירא כוותי דידי מסתברא מה דרכו של מרקד פסולת מלמעלה ואוכל מלמטה אף הכא נמי פסולת מלמעלה ואוכל מלמטה

Rabbi Zeira said: According to my opinion, that this is not typical selection but rather a specific type of selection, it is reasonable, as what is the manner of sifting? The refuse remains atop the sifter and the food is below. Here too, when straining wine, the refuse remains atop the strainer and the food is below.

תני רמי בר יחזקאל טלית כפולה לא יעשה ואם עשה פטור אבל אסור היה כרוך עליה חוט או משיחה מותר לנטותה לכתחילה

Rami bar Yeḥezkel taught: With regard to a doubled cloak, one may not make a covering on Shabbat by taking the cloak and placing it over a rope and extending the two sides in order to form something similar to a canopy beneath which one could lie (ge’onim; Rif). And if one made it, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering by Torah law, but it is prohibited by rabbinic decree. If there was a string or a cord wrapped around it before Shabbat, and the cloak was attached to the string while folded, it is permitted to spread it and stretch it ab initio.

בעא מיניה רב כהנא מרב כילה מהו אמר ליה אף מטה אסורה מטה מהו אמר ליה אף כילה מותרת כילה ומטה מהו אמר ליה כילה אסורה ומטה מותרת

On a related issue, Rav Kahana raised a dilemma before Rav: In the case of a canopy, what is the halakha? Is it permitted to spread it on Shabbat? He said to him: Even a bed is prohibited. Rav Kahana asked: With regard to a bed, what is the halakha? He said to him: Even a canopy is permitted. Rav Kahana again asked: In the case of a bed and a canopy, what is the halakha? He said to him: A canopy is prohibited, and a bed is permitted.

ולא קשיא הא דקאמר אף מטה אסורה כדקרמנאי הא דקאמר ליה אף כילה מותרת כדרמי בר יחזקאל כילה אסורה ומטה מותרת כדדידן

The Gemara comments: And this is not difficult, as the responses do not in fact contradict one another. Rather, when he said: Even a bed is prohibited, this is referring to folding beds like those of the Carmanians. Unfolding them is considered like making a tent. When he said: Even a canopy is permitted, this is referring to spreading the canopy in the manner explained by Rami bar Yeḥezkel. The canopy was bound by a string from before Shabbat. When he said: A canopy is prohibited, and a bed is permitted, this is referring to beds and canopies like ours, which do not fold. A bed of that kind involves no building. However, spreading canopies is performed in a manner similar to constructing a tent.

אמר רב יוסף חזינא להו לכילי דבי רב הונא דמאורתא נגידו ומצפרא חביטא רמיא

Rav Yosef said: I saw the canopies of the house of Rav Huna that were spread out in the evening, and in the morning they were cast off and lying on the ground. This indicates that it is permitted to dismantle and spread them on Shabbat.

אמר רב משום רבי חייא וילון מותר לנטותו ומותר לפורקו

Rav said in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya: With regard to a curtain, it is permitted to spread it, and it is permitted to dismantle it. Since a curtain has no roof, neither action constitutes establishing a tent.

ואמר שמואל משום רבי חייא

And Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya:

כילת חתנים מותר לנטותה ומותר לפורקה

With regard to a bridegroom’s canopy, which has no roof but is entirely sloped, it is permitted to spread it and it is permitted to dismantle it on Shabbat.

אמר רב ששת בריה דרב אידי לא אמרן אלא שאין בגגה טפח אבל יש בגגה טפח אסורה וכי אין בגגה טפח נמי לא אמרן אלא שאין בפחות משלשה סמוך לגגה טפח אבל יש בפחות משלשה סמוך לגגה טפח אסור ולא אמרן אלא שאין בשיפועה טפח אבל יש בשיפועה טפח שפועי אהלים כאהלים דמו ולא אמרן אלא דלא נחית מפוריא טפח אבל נחית מפוריא טפח אסור:

Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: We only said that it is permitted in a case where its roof is not a handbreadth wide; however, if its roof is a handbreadth wide, it is prohibited. Furthermore, even when its roof is not a handbreadth wide, we only said that it is permitted where there is not the width of a handbreadth within three handbreadths of its roof; however, if it expands to the width of a handbreadth within three handbreadths of its roof, it is prohibited. And we only stated that it is permitted where there is not in its incline the width of a handbreadth; however, if there is in its incline the width of a handbreadth, it is prohibited. This halakha is in accordance with the principle that the inclines of tents, even though they are not actual roofs, are considered like tents. And we only said that this canopy is permitted where no part of the canopy descends to a handbreadth below the bed; however, if part of the canopy descends to a handbreadth below the bed, it is prohibited, as the bed itself becomes a roof, and the curtain is considered a wall.

ואמר רב ששת בריה דרב אידי האי סיאנא שרי והאיתמר סיאנא אסור לא קשיא הא דאית ביה טפח הא דלית ביה טפח

And Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, also said: Wearing this felt hat is permitted on Shabbat, even though it has a wide brim and is similar to a tent. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Wasn’t it stated elsewhere that it is prohibited to wear a felt hat on Shabbat? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: This latter statement, which prohibited wearing the hat, is referring to a case where its brim has the width of a handbreadth wide and is similar to a tent. That statement by Rav Sheshet, which permits wearing the hat, is referring to a case where its brim does not have the width of a handbreadth.

אלא מעתה שרביב בגלימא טפח הכי נמי דמיחייב אלא לא קשיא הא דמיהדק הא דלא מיהדק

The Gemara asks: But if that is so, if one extended his cloak a handbreadth beyond his head, would you also say that he is liable for making a tent? Rather, this is not difficult. The reason the hat is prohibited is not due to making a tent, but due to concern that the wind might blow the cap off one’s head and he will come to carry it by hand. The conflicting statements can be resolved as follows: This statement of Rav Sheshet, which permits wearing the hat, is referring to a case where it is fitted firmly on his head. That statement, which prohibits wearing the hat, is referring to a case where it is not fitted firmly.

שלח ליה רמי בר יחזקאל לרב הונא אימא לן איזי הנך מילי מעלייתא דאמרת לן משמיה דרב תרתי בשבת וחדא בתורה

Rami bar Yeḥezkel sent to Rav Huna: Say to us, please, those excellent statements that you said to us in the name of Rav, two with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, and one with regard to the Torah.

שלח ליה הא דתניא גוד בכיסנא מותר לנטותה בשבת אמר רב לא שנו אלא בשני בני אדם אבל באדם אחד אסור

Rav Huna sent to him in response: With regard to that which was taught in a baraita: It is permitted to spread a large wineskin and suspend it by its straps on Shabbat, Rav said: They only taught that it is permitted if it is performed by two people together. They do not stretch the wineskin like a tent; rather, they place it without stretching it. However, it is prohibited for one person to do so by himself, due to the concern that he may establish a tent of sorts.

אמר אביי וכילה אפילו בעשרה בני אדם אסור אי אפשר דלא מימתחא פורתא

Abaye said: And it is prohibited to spread a canopy on Shabbat even with ten people. The reason for this is that it is impossible that it will not be stretched a bit for a certain period of time, which would establish a temporary tent.

אידך מאי היא דתניא כירה שנשמטה אחת מירכותיה מותר לטלטלה שתים אסור רב אמר אפילו חד נמי אסור גזירה שמא יתקע

And the other halakha with regard to Shabbat, what is it? As it was taught in a baraita: In the case of a stove, one of whose legs fell, it is permitted to move it on Shabbat. Since it remains a vessel, it may be moved if it is taking up a space that is needed. However, if two of its legs fell, it is prohibited, since it is then a broken vessel. Rav said: Even if only one leg fell, it is also prohibited to handle it, due to a decree lest one fasten the leg in place forcefully and be liable for preparing a vessel for use.

תורה דאמר רב עתידה תורה שתשתכח מישראל שנאמר והפלא ה׳ את מכתך הפלאה זו איני יודע מהו כשהוא אומר לכן הנני יוסיף להפליא את העם הזה הפלא ופלא הוי אומר הפלאה זו תורה

With regard to Torah, Rav Huna related that Rav said: The Torah is destined to be forgotten from the Jewish people. It is stated at the conclusion of the curses in the Torah’s reproof: “And the Lord will make your plagues astonishing, and the plagues of your seed, great plagues of long continuance, and evil diseases of long continuance” (Deuteronomy 28:59). This term of astonishment, mentioned in the verse in addition to the explicit punishments, I do not know what it is. But when the verse states elsewhere: “Therefore, behold, I will continue to astonish this people with wondrous astonishment, and the wisdom of its wise will be lost, and the understanding of its men of understanding shall be hidden” (Isaiah 29:14), you must say: This astonishment is referring to forgetting the Torah.

תנו רבנן כשנכנסו רבותינו לכרם ביבנה אמרו עתידה תורה שתשתכח מישראל שנאמר הנה ימים באים נאם ה׳ אלהים והשלחתי רעב בארץ לא רעב ללחם ולא צמא למים כי אם לשמוע את דברי ה׳ וכתיב ונעו מים עד ים ומצפון ועד מזרח ישוטטו לבקש את דבר ה׳ ולא ימצאו

The Sages taught a similar idea in the Tosefta: When our Sages entered the vineyard in Yavne, they said: The Torah is destined to be forgotten from the Jewish people, as it is stated: “Behold, days are approaching, says the Lord God, and I will send forth a hunger in the land, not a hunger for bread and not a thirst for water, but for hearing the words of the Lord” (Amos 8:11). And it states: “And they will drift from sea to sea, and from north to east they will roam to find the word of the Lord, but they will not find it” (Amos 8:12).

דבר ה׳ זו הלכה דבר ה׳ זה הקץ דבר ה׳ זו נבואה

“The word of the Lord” in this context bears many meanings. “The word of the Lord”; that is halakha. “The word of the Lord”; that is the end of days. “The word of the Lord”; that is prophecy. All these will be lost from the Jewish people.

ומאי ישוטטו לבקש את דבר ה׳ אמרו עתידה אשה שתטול ככר של תרומה ותחזור בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות לידע אם טמאה היא ואם טהורה היא ואין מבין

And what is the meaning of: “They will roam to find the word of the Lord, but they will not find it”? They said: It is destined that a woman will take a loaf of teruma bread and circulate among the synagogues and study halls to ascertain whether it is ritually impure or whether it is ritually pure, and there will be none who understands.

אם טהורה היא ואם טמאה היא בהדיא כתיב ביה מכל האוכל אשר יאכל אלא לידע אם ראשונה היא ואם שניה היא ואין מבין

The Gemara asks: How is it possible that they will be unable to understand whether the loaf is impure or whether it is ritually impure? It is explicitly written in the Torah with regard to this: “All food that is eaten upon which water falls shall contract impurity, and all liquid drunk in any vessel shall contract impurity” (Leviticus 11:34). There can be no doubt as to the question of whether or not the loaf can become impure. Rather, the Gemara explains: The woman seeks to ascertain whether it assumes first-degree ritual impurity status or whether it assumes second-degree ritual impurity status; and there will be none who understands.

הא נמי מתניתין היא כדתנן השרץ שנמצא בתנור הפת שבתוכו שניה שהתנור תחילה

The Gemara asks: That too is an explicit mishna, and how is it that none will know an explicit mishna? As we learned in a mishna: If the carcass of a creeping animal was found in the airspace of an oven, the bread inside it assumes second-degree ritual impurity status, as the creeping animal, which is a primary source of impurity, renders the oven impure with first-degree ritual impurity. The oven then renders the bread impure with second-degree ritual impurity.

מסתפקא להו הא דאמר ליה רב אדא בר אהבה לרבא ליחזייה האי תנורא כמאן דמלי טומאה ותיהוי פת ראשונה

The Gemara responds: They are uncertain with regard to that which Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava: Let us view this oven as one filled with impurity, and the bread will then assume first-degree ritual impurity status. In other words, the legal status of food in the airspace of an earthenware vessel that also has the carcass of a creeping animal in its airspace is that of food that came into contact with the creeping animal, even if the food does not come into contact with the carcass of a creeping animal.

אמר ליה לא אמרינן ליחזייה האי תנורא כמאן דמלי טומאה דתניא יכול יהו כל הכלים מיטמאין באויר כלי חרס תלמוד לומר כל אשר בתוכו יטמא מכל האוכל אשר יאכל אוכלין מטמאין באויר כלי חרס ואין כלים מטמאין באויר כלי חרס

He said to him that we do not say: Let us view the oven as one filled with ritual impurity, as it was taught in a baraita: One might think that all vessels should become ritually impure in the airspace of an earthenware vessel that has the carcass of a creeping animal in its airspace; therefore, the verse states: “And any earthenware vessel in which any of them falls, all that is in it shall be impure, and you shall break it. All food that is eaten, upon which water comes, shall be impure; and all drink that may be drunk, in any vessel, shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:33–34). The baraita learns from the juxtaposition of these verses that foods become ritually impure in the airspace of earthenware vessels, but vessels do not become ritually impure in the airspace of earthenware vessels. Apparently, the airspace of an oven is not considered filled with the impurity of the carcass of a creeping animal. If that were the case, even vessels would become ritually impure.

תניא רבי שמעון בן יוחי אומר חס ושלום שתשתכח תורה מישראל שנאמר כי לא תשכח מפי זרעו אלא מה אני מקיים ישוטטו לבקש את דבר ה׳ ולא ימצאו שלא ימצאו

An opposing view was taught in another baraita. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Heaven forfend that the Torah should be forgotten from the Jewish people, as it is stated: “And this song shall answer to him as a witness, for it shall not be forgotten from his seed” (Deuteronomy 31:21). Rather, how do I explain: “They will roam to find the word of God, but they will not find it”? It means that they will not find

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

Scroll To Top