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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 22, 2020 | 讗壮 讘讗讘 转砖状驻

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

Shabbat 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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 砖诇讗 讬注砖讛 讻讚专讱 砖讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 讘讞讜诇


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.


诪谞拽讬讟 讗讘讬讬 讞讜诪专讬 诪转谞讬转讗 讜转谞讬 讛讙讜讚 讜讛诪砖诪专转 讻讬诇讛 讜讻住讗 讙诇讬谉 诇讗 讬注砖讛 讜讗诐 注砖讛 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讗讛诇讬 拽讘注 诇讗 讬注砖讛 讜讗诐 注砖讛 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讗讘诇 诪讟讛 讜讻住讗 讟专住拽诇 讜讗住诇讗 诪讜转专 诇谞讟讜转谉 诇讻转讞讬诇讛:


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.


讜讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇转诇讜讬讛 讘砖讘转: 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖讬诪专 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 砖讬诪专 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转


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.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖砖转 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚专讘谞谉 诪讞讬讬讘讬 讞讟讗转 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖专讬 诇讻转讞讬诇讛


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.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诇诪讛 诇讗 讛专讬 注讬专 砖诇 讝讛讘 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖专讬 诇讻转讞讬诇讛


Rav Yosef strongly objects to this question: Why not? Isn鈥檛 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?


诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 转爪讗 讗砖讛 讘注讬专 砖诇 讝讛讘 讜讗诐 讬爪讗讛 讞讬讬讘转 讞讟讗转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 转爪讗 讜讗诐 讬爪讗讛 驻讟讜专讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讜爪讗讛 讗砖讛 讘注讬专 砖诇 讝讛讘 诇讻转讞讬诇讛


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.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讬 住讘专转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 拽讗讬 讚讗诪专 讞讬讬讘转 讞讟讗转 讗讚专讘谞谉 拽讗讬 讚讗诪专讬 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬讛讜 诪讜转专 诇讻转讞讬诇讛


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.


诪砖讜诐 诪讗讬 诪转专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 专讘讛 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讘讜专专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 诪专拽讚


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.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讻讜讜转讬 讚讬讚讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讛 讚专讻讜 砖诇 讘讜专专 谞讜讟诇 讗讜讻诇 讜诪谞讬讞 讛驻住讜诇转 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 谞讜讟诇 讗转 讛讗讜讻诇 讜诪谞讬讞 讗转 讛驻住讜诇转


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.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻讜讜转讬 讚讬讚讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讛 讚专讻讜 砖诇 诪专拽讚 驻住讜诇转 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜讗讜讻诇 诪诇诪讟讛 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 驻住讜诇转 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜讗讜讻诇 诪诇诪讟讛


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.


转谞讬 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讟诇讬转 讻驻讜诇讛 诇讗 讬注砖讛 讜讗诐 注砖讛 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讛讬讛 讻专讜讱 注诇讬讛 讞讜讟 讗讜 诪砖讬讞讛 诪讜转专 诇谞讟讜转讛 诇讻转讞讬诇讛


Rami bar Ye岣zkel 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鈥檕nim; 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.


讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪专讘 讻讬诇讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗祝 诪讟讛 讗住讜专讛 诪讟讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗祝 讻讬诇讛 诪讜转专转 讻讬诇讛 讜诪讟讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬诇讛 讗住讜专讛 讜诪讟讛 诪讜转专转


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.


讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚拽讗诪专 讗祝 诪讟讛 讗住讜专讛 讻讚拽专诪谞讗讬 讛讗 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗祝 讻讬诇讛 诪讜转专转 讻讚专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讻讬诇讛 讗住讜专讛 讜诪讟讛 诪讜转专转 讻讚讚讬讚谉


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 Ye岣zkel. 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.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讞讝讬谞讗 诇讛讜 诇讻讬诇讬 讚讘讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚诪讗讜专转讗 谞讙讬讚讜 讜诪爪驻专讗 讞讘讬讟讗 专诪讬讗


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.


讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜讬诇讜谉 诪讜转专 诇谞讟讜转讜 讜诪讜转专 诇驻讜专拽讜


Rav said in the name of Rabbi 岣yya: 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.


讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗


And Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi 岣yya:


讻讬诇转 讞转谞讬诐 诪讜转专 诇谞讟讜转讛 讜诪讜转专 诇驻讜专拽讛


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


讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 讘讙讙讛 讟驻讞 讗讘诇 讬砖 讘讙讙讛 讟驻讞 讗住讜专讛 讜讻讬 讗讬谉 讘讙讙讛 讟驻讞 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 住诪讜讱 诇讙讙讛 讟驻讞 讗讘诇 讬砖 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 住诪讜讱 诇讙讙讛 讟驻讞 讗住讜专 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 讘砖讬驻讜注讛 讟驻讞 讗讘诇 讬砖 讘砖讬驻讜注讛 讟驻讞 砖驻讜注讬 讗讛诇讬诐 讻讗讛诇讬诐 讚诪讜 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 谞讞讬转 诪驻讜专讬讗 讟驻讞 讗讘诇 谞讞讬转 诪驻讜专讬讗 讟驻讞 讗住讜专:


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.


讜讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讛讗讬 住讬讗谞讗 砖专讬 讜讛讗讬转诪专 住讬讗谞讗 讗住讜专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讟驻讞 讛讗 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讟驻讞


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鈥檛 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.


讗诇讗 诪注转讛 砖专讘讬讘 讘讙诇讬诪讗 讟驻讞 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪讬讛讚拽 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讛讚拽


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鈥檚 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.


砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬诪讗 诇谉 讗讬讝讬 讛谞讱 诪讬诇讬 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讚讗诪专转 诇谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 转专转讬 讘砖讘转 讜讞讚讗 讘转讜专讛


Rami bar Ye岣zkel 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.


砖诇讞 诇讬讛 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讙讜讚 讘讻讬住谞讗 诪讜转专 诇谞讟讜转讛 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讗讘诇 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 讗住讜专


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.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讻讬诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注砖专讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讗住讜专 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 诪讬诪转讞讗 驻讜专转讗


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.


讗讬讚讱 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讻讬专讛 砖谞砖诪讟讛 讗讞转 诪讬专讻讜转讬讛 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇讛 砖转讬诐 讗住讜专 专讘 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讚 谞诪讬 讗住讜专 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬转拽注


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.


转讜专讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 注转讬讚讛 转讜专讛 砖转砖转讻讞 诪讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛驻诇讗 讛壮 讗转 诪讻转讱 讛驻诇讗讛 讝讜 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讻谉 讛谞谞讬 讬讜住讬祝 诇讛驻诇讬讗 讗转 讛注诐 讛讝讛 讛驻诇讗 讜驻诇讗 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讛驻诇讗讛 讝讜 转讜专讛


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鈥檚 reproof: 鈥淎nd the Lord will make your plagues astonishing, and the plagues of your seed, great plagues of long continuance, and evil diseases of long continuance鈥 (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: 鈥淭herefore, 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鈥 (Isaiah 29:14), you must say: This astonishment is referring to forgetting the Torah.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻砖谞讻谞住讜 专讘讜转讬谞讜 诇讻专诐 讘讬讘谞讛 讗诪专讜 注转讬讚讛 转讜专讛 砖转砖转讻讞 诪讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讗诪专 讛谞讛 讬诪讬诐 讘讗讬诐 谞讗诐 讛壮 讗诇讛讬诐 讜讛砖诇讞转讬 专注讘 讘讗专抓 诇讗 专注讘 诇诇讞诐 讜诇讗 爪诪讗 诇诪讬诐 讻讬 讗诐 诇砖诪讜注 讗转 讚讘专讬 讛壮 讜讻转讬讘 讜谞注讜 诪讬诐 注讚 讬诐 讜诪爪驻讜谉 讜注讚 诪讝专讞 讬砖讜讟讟讜 诇讘拽砖 讗转 讚讘专 讛壮 讜诇讗 讬诪爪讗讜


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: 鈥淏ehold, 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鈥 (Amos 8:11). And it states: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Amos 8:12).


讚讘专 讛壮 讝讜 讛诇讻讛 讚讘专 讛壮 讝讛 讛拽抓 讚讘专 讛壮 讝讜 谞讘讜讗讛


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


讜诪讗讬 讬砖讜讟讟讜 诇讘拽砖 讗转 讚讘专 讛壮 讗诪专讜 注转讬讚讛 讗砖讛 砖转讟讜诇 讻讻专 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜转讞讝讜专 讘讘转讬 讻谞住讬讜转 讜讘讘转讬 诪讚专砖讜转 诇讬讚注 讗诐 讟诪讗讛 讛讬讗 讜讗诐 讟讛讜专讛 讛讬讗 讜讗讬谉 诪讘讬谉


And what is the meaning of: 鈥淭hey will roam to find the word of the Lord, but they will not find it鈥? 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.


讗诐 讟讛讜专讛 讛讬讗 讜讗诐 讟诪讗讛 讛讬讗 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 诪讻诇 讛讗讜讻诇 讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 讗诇讗 诇讬讚注 讗诐 专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讗 讜讗诐 砖谞讬讛 讛讬讗 讜讗讬谉 诪讘讬谉


The Gemara asks: How is it possible that they will be unable to understand whether the loaf is ritually pure or whether it is ritually impure? It is explicitly written in the Torah with regard to this: 鈥淎ll food that is eaten upon which water falls shall contract impurity, and all liquid drunk in any vessel shall contract impurity鈥 (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.


讛讗 谞诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讬讗 讻讚转谞谉 讛砖专抓 砖谞诪爪讗 讘转谞讜专 讛驻转 砖讘转讜讻讜 砖谞讬讛 砖讛转谞讜专 转讞讬诇讛


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.


诪住转驻拽讗 诇讛讜 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诇专讘讗 诇讬讞讝讬讬讛 讛讗讬 转谞讜专讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诪诇讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讜转讬讛讜讬 驻转 专讗砖讜谞讛


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.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讞讝讬讬讛 讛讗讬 转谞讜专讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诪诇讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讜 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 诪讬讟诪讗讬谉 讘讗讜讬专 讻诇讬 讞专住 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讗砖专 讘转讜讻讜 讬讟诪讗 诪讻诇 讛讗讜讻诇 讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讗讜讬专 讻诇讬 讞专住 讜讗讬谉 讻诇讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讗讜讬专 讻诇讬 讞专住


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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Leviticus 11:33鈥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.


转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讗讜诪专 讞住 讜砖诇讜诐 砖转砖转讻讞 转讜专讛 诪讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 诇讗 转砖讻讞 诪驻讬 讝专注讜 讗诇讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讬砖讜讟讟讜 诇讘拽砖 讗转 讚讘专 讛壮 讜诇讗 讬诪爪讗讜 砖诇讗 讬诪爪讗讜


An opposing view was taught in another baraita. Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i says: Heaven forfend that the Torah should be forgotten from the Jewish people, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd this song shall answer to him as a witness, for it shall not be forgotten from his seed鈥 (Deuteronomy 31:21). Rather, how do I explain: 鈥淭hey will roam to find the word of God, but they will not find it鈥? 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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Shabbat 138

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 138

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 砖诇讗 讬注砖讛 讻讚专讱 砖讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 讘讞讜诇


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.


诪谞拽讬讟 讗讘讬讬 讞讜诪专讬 诪转谞讬转讗 讜转谞讬 讛讙讜讚 讜讛诪砖诪专转 讻讬诇讛 讜讻住讗 讙诇讬谉 诇讗 讬注砖讛 讜讗诐 注砖讛 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讗讛诇讬 拽讘注 诇讗 讬注砖讛 讜讗诐 注砖讛 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讗讘诇 诪讟讛 讜讻住讗 讟专住拽诇 讜讗住诇讗 诪讜转专 诇谞讟讜转谉 诇讻转讞讬诇讛:


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.


讜讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇转诇讜讬讛 讘砖讘转: 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖讬诪专 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 砖讬诪专 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转


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.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖砖转 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚专讘谞谉 诪讞讬讬讘讬 讞讟讗转 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖专讬 诇讻转讞讬诇讛


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.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诇诪讛 诇讗 讛专讬 注讬专 砖诇 讝讛讘 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖专讬 诇讻转讞讬诇讛


Rav Yosef strongly objects to this question: Why not? Isn鈥檛 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?


诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 转爪讗 讗砖讛 讘注讬专 砖诇 讝讛讘 讜讗诐 讬爪讗讛 讞讬讬讘转 讞讟讗转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 转爪讗 讜讗诐 讬爪讗讛 驻讟讜专讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讜爪讗讛 讗砖讛 讘注讬专 砖诇 讝讛讘 诇讻转讞讬诇讛


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.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讬 住讘专转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 拽讗讬 讚讗诪专 讞讬讬讘转 讞讟讗转 讗讚专讘谞谉 拽讗讬 讚讗诪专讬 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬讛讜 诪讜转专 诇讻转讞讬诇讛


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.


诪砖讜诐 诪讗讬 诪转专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 专讘讛 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讘讜专专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 诪专拽讚


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.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讻讜讜转讬 讚讬讚讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讛 讚专讻讜 砖诇 讘讜专专 谞讜讟诇 讗讜讻诇 讜诪谞讬讞 讛驻住讜诇转 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 谞讜讟诇 讗转 讛讗讜讻诇 讜诪谞讬讞 讗转 讛驻住讜诇转


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.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻讜讜转讬 讚讬讚讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讛 讚专讻讜 砖诇 诪专拽讚 驻住讜诇转 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜讗讜讻诇 诪诇诪讟讛 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 驻住讜诇转 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜讗讜讻诇 诪诇诪讟讛


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.


转谞讬 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讟诇讬转 讻驻讜诇讛 诇讗 讬注砖讛 讜讗诐 注砖讛 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讛讬讛 讻专讜讱 注诇讬讛 讞讜讟 讗讜 诪砖讬讞讛 诪讜转专 诇谞讟讜转讛 诇讻转讞讬诇讛


Rami bar Ye岣zkel 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鈥檕nim; 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.


讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪专讘 讻讬诇讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗祝 诪讟讛 讗住讜专讛 诪讟讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗祝 讻讬诇讛 诪讜转专转 讻讬诇讛 讜诪讟讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬诇讛 讗住讜专讛 讜诪讟讛 诪讜转专转


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.


讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚拽讗诪专 讗祝 诪讟讛 讗住讜专讛 讻讚拽专诪谞讗讬 讛讗 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗祝 讻讬诇讛 诪讜转专转 讻讚专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讻讬诇讛 讗住讜专讛 讜诪讟讛 诪讜转专转 讻讚讚讬讚谉


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 Ye岣zkel. 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.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讞讝讬谞讗 诇讛讜 诇讻讬诇讬 讚讘讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚诪讗讜专转讗 谞讙讬讚讜 讜诪爪驻专讗 讞讘讬讟讗 专诪讬讗


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.


讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜讬诇讜谉 诪讜转专 诇谞讟讜转讜 讜诪讜转专 诇驻讜专拽讜


Rav said in the name of Rabbi 岣yya: 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.


讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗


And Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi 岣yya:


讻讬诇转 讞转谞讬诐 诪讜转专 诇谞讟讜转讛 讜诪讜转专 诇驻讜专拽讛


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


讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 讘讙讙讛 讟驻讞 讗讘诇 讬砖 讘讙讙讛 讟驻讞 讗住讜专讛 讜讻讬 讗讬谉 讘讙讙讛 讟驻讞 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 住诪讜讱 诇讙讙讛 讟驻讞 讗讘诇 讬砖 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 住诪讜讱 诇讙讙讛 讟驻讞 讗住讜专 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 讘砖讬驻讜注讛 讟驻讞 讗讘诇 讬砖 讘砖讬驻讜注讛 讟驻讞 砖驻讜注讬 讗讛诇讬诐 讻讗讛诇讬诐 讚诪讜 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 谞讞讬转 诪驻讜专讬讗 讟驻讞 讗讘诇 谞讞讬转 诪驻讜专讬讗 讟驻讞 讗住讜专:


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.


讜讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讛讗讬 住讬讗谞讗 砖专讬 讜讛讗讬转诪专 住讬讗谞讗 讗住讜专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讟驻讞 讛讗 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讟驻讞


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鈥檛 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.


讗诇讗 诪注转讛 砖专讘讬讘 讘讙诇讬诪讗 讟驻讞 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪讬讛讚拽 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讛讚拽


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鈥檚 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.


砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬诪讗 诇谉 讗讬讝讬 讛谞讱 诪讬诇讬 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讚讗诪专转 诇谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 转专转讬 讘砖讘转 讜讞讚讗 讘转讜专讛


Rami bar Ye岣zkel 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.


砖诇讞 诇讬讛 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讙讜讚 讘讻讬住谞讗 诪讜转专 诇谞讟讜转讛 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讗讘诇 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 讗住讜专


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.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讻讬诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注砖专讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讗住讜专 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 诪讬诪转讞讗 驻讜专转讗


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.


讗讬讚讱 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讻讬专讛 砖谞砖诪讟讛 讗讞转 诪讬专讻讜转讬讛 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇讛 砖转讬诐 讗住讜专 专讘 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讚 谞诪讬 讗住讜专 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬转拽注


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.


转讜专讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 注转讬讚讛 转讜专讛 砖转砖转讻讞 诪讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛驻诇讗 讛壮 讗转 诪讻转讱 讛驻诇讗讛 讝讜 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讻谉 讛谞谞讬 讬讜住讬祝 诇讛驻诇讬讗 讗转 讛注诐 讛讝讛 讛驻诇讗 讜驻诇讗 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讛驻诇讗讛 讝讜 转讜专讛


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鈥檚 reproof: 鈥淎nd the Lord will make your plagues astonishing, and the plagues of your seed, great plagues of long continuance, and evil diseases of long continuance鈥 (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: 鈥淭herefore, 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鈥 (Isaiah 29:14), you must say: This astonishment is referring to forgetting the Torah.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻砖谞讻谞住讜 专讘讜转讬谞讜 诇讻专诐 讘讬讘谞讛 讗诪专讜 注转讬讚讛 转讜专讛 砖转砖转讻讞 诪讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讗诪专 讛谞讛 讬诪讬诐 讘讗讬诐 谞讗诐 讛壮 讗诇讛讬诐 讜讛砖诇讞转讬 专注讘 讘讗专抓 诇讗 专注讘 诇诇讞诐 讜诇讗 爪诪讗 诇诪讬诐 讻讬 讗诐 诇砖诪讜注 讗转 讚讘专讬 讛壮 讜讻转讬讘 讜谞注讜 诪讬诐 注讚 讬诐 讜诪爪驻讜谉 讜注讚 诪讝专讞 讬砖讜讟讟讜 诇讘拽砖 讗转 讚讘专 讛壮 讜诇讗 讬诪爪讗讜


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: 鈥淏ehold, 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鈥 (Amos 8:11). And it states: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Amos 8:12).


讚讘专 讛壮 讝讜 讛诇讻讛 讚讘专 讛壮 讝讛 讛拽抓 讚讘专 讛壮 讝讜 谞讘讜讗讛


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


讜诪讗讬 讬砖讜讟讟讜 诇讘拽砖 讗转 讚讘专 讛壮 讗诪专讜 注转讬讚讛 讗砖讛 砖转讟讜诇 讻讻专 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜转讞讝讜专 讘讘转讬 讻谞住讬讜转 讜讘讘转讬 诪讚专砖讜转 诇讬讚注 讗诐 讟诪讗讛 讛讬讗 讜讗诐 讟讛讜专讛 讛讬讗 讜讗讬谉 诪讘讬谉


And what is the meaning of: 鈥淭hey will roam to find the word of the Lord, but they will not find it鈥? 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.


讗诐 讟讛讜专讛 讛讬讗 讜讗诐 讟诪讗讛 讛讬讗 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 诪讻诇 讛讗讜讻诇 讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 讗诇讗 诇讬讚注 讗诐 专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讗 讜讗诐 砖谞讬讛 讛讬讗 讜讗讬谉 诪讘讬谉


The Gemara asks: How is it possible that they will be unable to understand whether the loaf is ritually pure or whether it is ritually impure? It is explicitly written in the Torah with regard to this: 鈥淎ll food that is eaten upon which water falls shall contract impurity, and all liquid drunk in any vessel shall contract impurity鈥 (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.


讛讗 谞诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讬讗 讻讚转谞谉 讛砖专抓 砖谞诪爪讗 讘转谞讜专 讛驻转 砖讘转讜讻讜 砖谞讬讛 砖讛转谞讜专 转讞讬诇讛


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.


诪住转驻拽讗 诇讛讜 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诇专讘讗 诇讬讞讝讬讬讛 讛讗讬 转谞讜专讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诪诇讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讜转讬讛讜讬 驻转 专讗砖讜谞讛


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.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讞讝讬讬讛 讛讗讬 转谞讜专讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诪诇讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讜 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 诪讬讟诪讗讬谉 讘讗讜讬专 讻诇讬 讞专住 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讗砖专 讘转讜讻讜 讬讟诪讗 诪讻诇 讛讗讜讻诇 讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讗讜讬专 讻诇讬 讞专住 讜讗讬谉 讻诇讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讗讜讬专 讻诇讬 讞专住


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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Leviticus 11:33鈥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.


转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讗讜诪专 讞住 讜砖诇讜诐 砖转砖转讻讞 转讜专讛 诪讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 诇讗 转砖讻讞 诪驻讬 讝专注讜 讗诇讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讬砖讜讟讟讜 诇讘拽砖 讗转 讚讘专 讛壮 讜诇讗 讬诪爪讗讜 砖诇讗 讬诪爪讗讜


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


Scroll To Top