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

Daf Yomi

July 26, 2020 | 讛壮 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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Shabbat 142

This week’s shiurim are dedicated for a refuah shleima for our dear Ellie, Chana Esther Bat Ayala Hadar – with all our love, Elana and Danny Storch and family. And by Cliff Felig in honor of Minna Ferziger Felig on the occasion of her birthday. Mazel tov!

Why is one allowed to carry a child with a rock in his/her hand but not money? In the case of the basket with money, it must be there are fruits in the basket also as the basket is serving as a base for both muktze and non muktze items and that is why it can be carried. Why don’t we dump the fruits and the rock out and then put the fruits back in? One can carry pure and impure truma if they are together. Rav Chisda says this is only if the impure is at the top and one cannot access the pure that is underneath. However a braita is brought that says either way it is allowed. How can Rav Chisda explain himself in light of the braita? How does Rabbi Yehuda allow on Shabbat one to fix a mixture of 100 measures regular produce and one of truma by removing one that will now be considered the truma – isn’t this like fixing something which should be forbidden on Shabbat? Three possible explanations are brought – the first two are rejected. Is there is a stone on top of a barrel, how can one get it off to get to the wine in the barrel? Or money on a pillow? The gemara explains the exact details of the cases and how and why it can be done in that way? Can one carry an item that is muktze in order to protect it by bringing something that is permitted to be carried and carrying them both? Or is that solution only permitted for a dead body out of respect for the body?

诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讗讘谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讬谞专 谞诪讬 讗诇诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讗讘谉 讗讘诇 讚讬谞专 讗住讜专 讗讘谉 讗讬 谞驻诇讛 诇讛 诇讗 讗转讬 讗讘讜讛 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讚讬谞专 讗讬 谞驻讬诇 讗转讬 讗讘讜讛 诇讗转讜讬讬


why does the mishna refer specifically to moving a stone? The same should hold true even for a dinar, as well. Why, then, did Rava say: They only taught this in a case where the child has a stone in his hand; however, if the child has a dinar in his hand, it is prohibited to lift the child? The Gemara answers: Actually, lifting the child with a dinar should also be permitted. However, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting lifting the child with a dinar because with regard to a stone, if it falls, his father will not come to bring it. However, with regard to a dinar, if it falls, his father will come to bring it.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讻诇讬讜 诪拽讜驻诇讬诐 讜诪讜谞讞讬诐 注诇 讻转驻讜 讜住谞讚诇讬讜 讜讟讘注讜转讬讜 讘讬讚讜 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 诪诇讜讘砖 讘讛谉 驻讟讜专


It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: On Shabbat, one who carries out his clothes to the public domain while they are folded and placed on his shoulder, and his sandals on his feet and his rings in his hand, not on his fingers, is liable. And if he was wearing them, he is exempt for all of them, as they are negated relative to him.


讛诪讜爪讬讗 讗讚诐 讜讻诇讬讜 注诇讬讜 讜住谞讚诇讬讜 讘专讙诇讬讜 讜讟讘注讜转讬讜 讘讬讚讬讜 驻讟讜专 讜讗讬诇讜 讛讜爪讬讗谉 讻诪讜转 砖讛谉 讞讬讬讘:


One who carries out a person with his garments on him, and his sandals on his feet, and his rings on the fingers of his hands, i.e., wearing all of his clothes and jewelry in the typical manner, is exempt, whereas if he carried them out as they are, i.e., the person was holding his clothes in his hands, he is liable for carrying out the clothes, just as Rava said.


讻诇讻诇讛 讜讛讗讘谉 讘转讜讻讛: 讜讗诪讗讬 转讬讛讜讬 讻诇讻诇讛 讘住讬住 诇讚讘专 讛讗住讜专 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讗 讘讻诇讻诇讛 诪诇讗讛 驻讬专讜转 注住拽讬谞谉 讜诇讬砖讚讬谞讛讜 诇驻讬专讬 讜谞讬砖讚讬 诇讗讘谉 讜谞讬谞拽讟讬谞讛讜 讘讬讚讬诐 讻讚专讘讬 讗诇注讬 讗诪专 专讘 讘驻讬专讜转 讛诪讬讟谞驻讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘驻讬专讜转 讛诪讬讟谞驻讬谉


We learned in the mishna: And it is permissible to take a basket with a stone inside it on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: And why may he do so? The basket should be a base for a prohibited object, and a base for a prohibited object is set-aside and may not be moved on Shabbat. Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Here, we are dealing with a basket full of fruit. The basket is a base for permitted items as well, not only a base for the stone. The Gemara asks: Why may he move the basket and the stone? There is an alternative. And let him throw the fruit and throw the stone out of the basket, and take the fruit in his hands, and there will be no need to move the stone. The Gemara answers: As Rabbi Elai said that Rav said in a different context: It is referring to fruits that become soiled and ruined. Here, too, it is referring to fruits that become soiled and ruined if he throws them down.


讜诇讬谞注专讬谞讛讜 谞注讜专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讗 讘讻诇讻诇讛 驻讞讜转讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗讘谉 讙讜驻讛 谞注砖讬转 讚讜驻谉 诇讻诇讻诇讛:


The Gemara asks a question: And let him shake them until the stone is on one side of the basket, enabling him to throw the stone out of the basket. Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said that Rava said: Here, we are dealing with a broken basket with a hole, in which the stone serves as a side of the basket by sealing the hole. Therefore, he cannot throw it out of the basket.


诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 转专讜诪讛 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讟讛讜专讛 诇诪讟讛 讜讟诪讗讛 诇诪注诇讛 讗讘诇 讟讛讜专讛 诇诪注诇讛 讜讟诪讗讛 诇诪讟讛 砖拽讬诇 诇讬讛 诇讟讛讜专讛 讜砖讘讬拽 诇讬讛 诇讟诪讗讛


We learned in the mishna: And one may move ritually impure teruma with ritually pure teruma. Rav 岣sda said: They only taught this in a case where the pure teruma is on the bottom and the impure teruma is on the top. In that case, if one wants to reach the pure teruma, there is no alternative to taking the impure teruma as well. However, if the pure teruma is on the top and the impure teruma is on the bottom, he takes the pure teruma and leaves the impure teruma.


讜讻讬 讟讛讜专讛 诇诪讟讛 谞诪讬 诇讬砖讚讬谞讛讜 讜诇讬谞拽讟讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讬 讗诪专 专讘 讘驻讬专讜转 讛诪讬讟谞驻讬谉 注住拽讬谞谉


The Gemara asks a question: And when the pure teruma is on the bottom too, let him throw the impure fruit, and take the pure fruit. Rabbi Elai said that Rav said: It is referring to fruits that become soiled and ruined, which cannot be thrown from the basket.


诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 注诐 讛讟讛讜专讛 讜注诐 讛讞讜诇讬谉 讘讬谉 砖讟讛讜专讛 诇诪注诇讛 讜讟诪讗讛 诇诪讟讛 讘讬谉 砖讟诪讗讛 诇诪注诇讛 讜讟讛讜专讛 诇诪讟讛 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗


The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rav 岣sda: One may move impure teruma with the pure teruma and with the non-sacred produce, whether the pure is on the top and the impure is on the bottom, or whether the impure is on the top and the pure is on the bottom. This is a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rav Hisda.


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讘专讬讬转讗 诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜


The Gemara answers that Rav 岣sda could have said to you: The mishna, which, according to Rav 岣sda, permits moving the impure teruma with the pure teruma only when the pure teruma is on top, is referring to a case where he needs the basket for the purpose of utilizing the object itself, i.e., he wants to eat the fruit. The baraita is referring to a case where he needs the basket for the purpose of utilizing its place, i.e., he wants to move the basket in order to vacate its place, in which case he may move it even if it contains impure teruma exclusively.


诪讗讬 讚讜讞拽讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗讜拽诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜


The Gemara asks: What impelled Rav 岣sda to establish the mishna as referring specifically to a case where he needs the basket for the purpose of utilizing the object itself? Why can鈥檛 he explain the mishna as referring to any case?


讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚讬讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 诪注讜转 砖注诇 讛讻专 诪谞注专 讗转 讛讻专 讜讛谉 谞讜驻诇讜转 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讗讘诇 诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 诪讟诇讟诇讜 讜注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜 讜诪讚住讬驻讗 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜:


Rava said: The mishna is precise in accordance with the opinion of Rav 岣sda, as it is taught in the latter clause, the next mishna: With regard to coins that are on a cushion, he shakes the cushion and the coins fall. And Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They only taught that he may shake the cushion in a case where it is for the purpose of utilizing the cushion itself. However, if he needs it for the purpose of utilizing its place, he may move it, even though the coins are still on it. And from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna is referring to a case where he needs the cushion for the purpose of utilizing the cushion itself, the first clause, too, is referring to a case where he needs the basket for the purpose of utilizing the basket itself.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪注诇讬谉 讜讻讜壮: 讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 拽讗 诪转拽谉


We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: One may even lift a measure of teruma that was nullified from a mixture of one hundred measures of non-sacred produce and one measure of teruma. The Gemara asks: And why is it permitted? Isn鈥檛 he rendering the produce fit for consumption? The Sages issued a decree prohibiting the performance of any action that renders an item fit for use on Shabbat.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 转专讜诪讛 讘注讬谞讗 诪讞转讗


The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: Teruma is considered as if it is placed in its pure unadulterated state. By lifting the measure of teruma, one does not render the rest of the mixture fit for consumption. It is considered as if the measure of teruma never intermingled with the rest of the produce and the measure that he lifted from the produce is the measure that fell into the produce.


讚转谞谉 住讗讛 转专讜诪讛 砖谞驻诇讛 诇驻讞讜转 诪诪讗讛 谞讚诪注讜 讜谞驻诇 诪谉 讛诪讚讜诪注 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪讚诪注转 讻转专讜诪转 讜讚讗讬


As we learned in a mishna: A se鈥檃 of teruma that fell into less than one hundred se鈥檃 of non-sacred produce causes it to become a prohibited mixture. The teruma is not nullified by the non-sacred produce. And then, if a se鈥檃 from the mixture fell into a different place with non-sacred produce, Rabbi Eliezer says: The se鈥檃 from the original mixture renders it a prohibited mixture in the same way that definite teruma would. This is due to the concern that the same se鈥檃 of teruma that fell into the first mixture never intermingled with the produce and subsequently fell into the second mixture. Therefore, it requires nullification like unadulterated teruma.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讛诪讚讜诪注 诪讚诪注 讗诇讗 诇驻讬 讞砖讘讜谉


And the Rabbis say: The se鈥檃 from the original prohibited mixture only renders the second one a prohibited mixture according to the proportion of teruma in the entire mixture. In other words, the percentage of teruma in each se鈥檃 of the original mixture is representative of the percentage of teruma in the entire mixture. Only that measure of teruma need be nullified. Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion that the teruma in the mixture is not considered mixed, and it is considered as if it was placed in its pure unadulterated state, corresponds to Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion that by lifting the measure of teruma, one does not render the rest of the mixture fit for consumption.


讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇讞讜诪专讗 诇拽讜诇讗 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛


The Gemara rejects this: Say that you heard that Rabbi Eliezer expresses his opinion in this matter to rule stringently. Did you hear him express his opinion to rule leniently? He expressed concern lest the fallen teruma might not have intermingled with the non-sacred produce in the first mixture, and therefore, the second mixture is prohibited. However, he does not consider this a certainty.


讗诇讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讚转谞谉 住讗讛 转专讜诪讛 砖谞驻诇讛 诇诪讗讛 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讛讙讘讬讛 注讚 砖谞驻诇讛 讗讞专转 讛专讬 讝讜 讗住讜专讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专


Rather, Rabbi Yehuda stated his halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned in a mishna: If a se鈥檃 of teruma fell into one hundred se鈥檃 of non-sacred produce, and he did not manage to lift that se鈥檃 from the mixture until another se鈥檃 of teruma fell into the mixture, this entire mixture is prohibited. This is because two se鈥檃 of teruma are mixed with one hundred se鈥檃 of non-sacred produce. And Rabbi Shimon permits the mixture. Rabbi Shimon holds that the first se鈥檃 that fell into the produce is not mixed with it; it is placed in its unadulterated state. When the second se鈥檃 falls, it is also placed in its unadulterated state, and the two se鈥檃 do not join together.


讜诪诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讛转诐 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚谞驻诇讜 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讻诪讗谉 讚谞驻诇 讘讘转 讗讞转 讚诪讬 讜讛讗 诇讞诪砖讬谉 谞驻诇讛 讜讛讗 诇讞诪砖讬谉 谞驻诇讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 拽诪讬讬转讗 讘讟讬诇 讘诪讗讛 讜讛讗 转讬讘讟讬诇 讘诪讗讛 讜讞讚


The Gemara rejects this comparison: And from what does that conclusion ensue? Perhaps there, they are disagreeing with regard to this: That the first tanna holds: Even though two se鈥檃 of teruma fell one after another, it is as though they fell at once, and this se鈥檃 of teruma fell into fifty se鈥檃 of non-sacred produce, and this se鈥檃 of teruma fell into fifty se鈥檃 of non-sacred produce, which are insufficient to nullify teruma. And Rabbi Shimon holds: The first se鈥檃 was nullified immediately when it fell into one hundred se鈥檃, and this se鈥檃 will be nullified in one hundred and one se鈥檃. There is no connection between this dispute and the opinion that by lifting the measure of teruma, one does not render the rest of the mixture fit for consumption.


讗诇讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 注讬谞讬讜 讘爪讚 讝讛 讜讗讜讻诇 诪爪讚 讗讞专


Rather, Rabbi Yehuda stated his halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One need not lift a se鈥檃 from the mixture in order to render it permitted to eat. It is sufficient if he casts his eyes on this side of the mixture and decides to separate a se鈥檃 from the produce on that side, and he eats from a different side of the mixture and physically separates the se鈥檃 later. Lifting a se鈥檃 from the mixture does not render the mixture fit for consumption, as it is permitted to partake from the mixture even without removing a se鈥檃. That is the rationale for Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion.


讜诪讬 住讘专 诇讬讛 讻讜讜转讬讛


The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar?


讜讛讗 诪讬驻诇讬讙 驻诇讬讙 注讬诇讜讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪注诇讬谉 讗转 讛诪讚讜诪注 讘讗讞讚 讜诪讗讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 注讬谞讬讜 讘爪讚 讝讛 讜讗讜讻诇 诪爪讚 讗讞专


Doesn鈥檛 he disagree with him? As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: One may lift a measure of teruma that was nullified from a mixture of one hundred measures of non-sacred produce and one measure of teruma. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One casts his eyes on this side of the mixture and decides to separate a se鈥檃 from the produce on that side, and he eats from a different side of the mixture.


讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 注讚讬驻讗 诪讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专:


The Gemara rejects this: Fundamentally, the two tanna鈥檌m agree, but the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda is more far-reaching than the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. Rabbi Yehuda says that since thought is sufficient, lifting the se鈥檃 does not render the produce fit for consumption, and it is preferable if he lifts the se鈥檃 even on Shabbat.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讘谉 砖注诇 驻讬 讛讞讘讬转 诪讟讛 注诇 爪讚讛 讜讛讬讗 谞讜驻诇转 讛讬转讛 讘讬谉 讛讞讘讬讜转 诪讙讘讬讛 讜诪讟讛 注诇 爪讚讛 讜讛讬讗 谞讜驻诇转


MISHNA: With regard to a stone, which is set-aside on Shabbat and may not be moved, that was placed on the mouth of a barrel, one tilts the barrel on its side, and the stone falls. If the barrel was among other barrels, and the other barrels might break if the stone falls on them, he lifts the barrel to distance it from the other barrels, and then tilts it on its side, and the stone falls.


诪注讜转 砖注诇 讛讻专 诪谞注专 讗转 讛讻专 讜讛谉 谞讜驻诇讜转 讛讬转讛 注诇讬讜 诇砖诇砖转 诪拽谞讞讛 讘住诪专讟讜讟 讛讬转讛 砖诇 注讜专 谞讜转谞讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪讬诐 注讚 砖转讻诇讛:


With regard to coins that are on a cushion, he shakes the cushion and the coins fall. If there was bird dung (Arukh) on the cushion, he wipes it with a rag, but he may not wash it with water because of the prohibition against laundering. If the cushion was made of leather, and laundering is not a concern, he places water on it until the bird dung ceases.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讜讻讞 讗讘诇 讘诪谞讬讞 谞注砖讛 讘住讬住 诇讚讘专 讛讗住讜专:


GEMARA: Rav Huna said that Rav said: They only taught this halakha with regard to a stone in a case where one forgets the stone on the barrel. However, if he places the stone on the barrel, the barrel becomes a base for a prohibited object, which itself may not be moved throughout Shabbat.


[讛讬转讛 讘讬谉 讛讞讘讬讜转 讻讜壮]: 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讜讛讬转专讗 讘讛讬转专讗 讟专讞讬谞谉 讘讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 讟专讞讬谞谉


We learned in the mishna: If the barrel was among other barrels, he lifts the barrel and then tilts it on its side, and the stone falls. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds that any place that there is a prohibited item and a permitted item, we may exert ourselves for the permitted item, but we may not exert ourselves for the prohibited item? One must exert himself to lift the barrel, and he may not remove the stone, although doing so would minimize his exertion.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛讘讜专专 拽讟谞讬转 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讜专专 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讜讻诇 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讜专专 讻讚专讻讜 讘讞讬拽讜 讜讘转诪讞讜讬


Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. As we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who selects legumes on a Festival, separating edible and inedible, Beit Shammai say: He selects food and eats it immediately and leaves the waste. And Beit Hillel say: He selects in his usual manner, and may even remove the waste and leave the food, in his lap or in a large vessel.


讜转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖讛讗讜讻诇 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻住讜诇转 讗讘诇 驻住讜诇转 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讘讜专专 讗讜讻诇


And it was taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case are these matters, the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, stated: In a case where the quantity of the food is greater than the quantity of the waste. However, if the quantity of the waste is greater than the quantity of the food, everyone agrees that one selects the food to avoid the exertion involved in removing the waste, which itself may not be moved. The same is true here. He moves the barrel and not the stone, which is like waste.


讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讻讬 讗讜讻诇 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻住讜诇转 讚诪讬


The Gemara asks: And here, in the case of the barrel, isn鈥檛 it comparable to a case where the food is greater than the waste, as the barrel, which is food, is bigger and heavier than the stone. In addition, it is easier to move the stone. Nevertheless, he is not permitted to do so, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.


讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诇诪讬砖拽诇 诇讗 诪砖转拽讬诇 诇讬讛 讬讬谉 注讚 讚砖拽讬诇 诇讛 诇讗讘谉 讻驻住讜诇转 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇 讚诪讬:


The Gemara answers: Here, too, since if he wants to take the wine, the wine cannot be taken until he removes the stone, the legal status of the stone is like that of waste which is greater in quantity than the food, and it cannot be likened to the case of selecting. In this case, he is unable to move the barrel without moving the stone.


讛讬转讛 讘讬谉 讛讞讘讬讜转 诪讙讘讬讛: 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讛讬转讛 讛讞讘讬转 诪讜谞讞转 讘讗讜爪专 讗讜 砖讛讬讜 讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 诪讜谞讞讬谉 转讞转讬讛 诪讙讘讬讛 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讜诪讟讛 注诇 爪讚讛 讜讛讬讗 谞讜驻诇转 讜谞讜讟诇 讛讬诪谞讛 诪讛 砖爪专讬讱 诇讜 讜诪讞讝讬专讛 诇诪拽讜诪讛:


We learned in the mishna: If the barrel was among other barrels, he lifts the barrel. It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: If the barrel was placed in a storeroom amongst other barrels, or if glass vessels were placed beneath it, preventing him from tilting the barrel and letting the stone fall, he lifts the barrel and moves it to a different place, and he tilts it on its side, and the stone falls. And then he takes from the barrel what he needs, and restores the barrel to its place.


诪注讜转 砖注诇 讛讻专: 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讜讻讞 讗讘诇 讘诪谞讬讞 谞注砖讛 讘住讬住 诇讚讘专 讛讗住讜专


We learned in the mishna: With regard to coins that are on a cushion, he shakes the cushion and the coins fall. Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: They only taught this halakha with regard to a case where one forgets the coins on the cushion; however, if he places the coins on the cushion, the cushion becomes a base for a prohibited object and may not be moved at all.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讗讘诇 诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 诪讟诇讟诇讜 讜注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜 讜讻谉 转谞讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 诪讚讬驻转讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讗讘诇 诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 诪讟诇讟诇讜 讜注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜:


Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They only taught the halakha that one shakes the cushion and the coins fall, when he needs the cushion for the purpose of utilizing the cushion itself; but if he needs it for the purpose of utilizing its place, he moves the cushion with the coins still on it. And likewise, Hiyya bar Rav from Difti taught in a baraita: They only taught the halakha that one shakes the cushion and the coins fall, when he needs the cushion for the purpose of utilizing the cushion itself, but if he needs it for the purpose of utilizing its place, he moves the cushion with the coins still on it.


诪注讜转 砖注诇 讛讻专 诪谞注专 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 砖讻讞 讗专谞拽讬 讘讞爪专 诪谞讬讞 注诇讬讛 讻讻专 讗讜 转讬谞讜拽 讜诪讟诇讟诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 砖讻讞 诇讘讬谞讛 讘讞爪专 诪谞讬讞 注诇讬讛 讻讻专 讗讜 转讬谞讜拽 讜诪讟诇讟诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 砖讬诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 驻注诐 讗讞转 砖讻讞讜 讚住拽讬讗 诪诇讗讛 诪注讜转 讘住专讟讬讗 讜讘讗讜 讜砖讗诇讜 讗转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诪专 诇讛谉 讛谞讬讞讜 注诇讬讛 讻讻专 讗讜 转讬谞讜拽 讜讟诇讟诇讜讛


We learned in the mishna: With regard to coins that are on a cushion, he shakes the cushion and the coins fall.
Rabbi Oshaya said: If one forgot a purse of money in the courtyard on Shabbat eve, and he remembers it on Shabbat and wants to bring it into the house, he places a loaf of bread or a baby on it and moves it. The purse becomes a base for a permitted object and may be moved.
Rav Yitzhak said: If one forgot a brick in the courtyard, he places a loaf of bread or a baby on it and moves it.
Rabbi Yehuda bar Sheila said that Rabbi Asi said: Once, they forgot a saddlebag [diskaya] full of coins in a main street, and they came and asked Rabbi Yo岣nan, and he said to them: Place a loaf or a baby on it, and move it.


讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻讻诇 讛谞讬 砖诪注转转讗 讘砖讜讻讞 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讻讞 谞诪讬 [诇讗] 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 讻讻专 讗讜 转讬谞讜拽 讗诇讗 诇诪转 讘诇讘讚


Mar Zutra said: The halakha is in accordance with all these statements in the case of one who forgets. However, if one intentionally left an object, even a valuable object, on Shabbat eve, he may not employ artifice and move it the following day. Rav Ashi said: If one forgot, he may also not employ artifice, and they only stated that movement by means of a loaf or a baby for the purposes of moving a corpse alone.


讗讘讬讬 诪谞讞 讻驻讗 讗讻讬驻讬 专讘讗 诪谞讞 住讻讬谞讗 讗讘专 讬讜谞讛 讜诪讟诇讟诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻诪讛 讞专讬驻讗 砖诪注转转讗 讚讚专讚拽讬 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讘砖讜讻讞 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诪讬 讗诪讜专


The Gemara relates: Abaye would place a spoon on bundles of produce, so that he would be able to move the bundles because of the spoon. Rava would place a knife on a slaughtered young dove and move it. Rav Yosef said mockingly: How sharp is the halakha of children? Say that the Sages stated this halakha only in a case where one forgets, but did they say that one may do so ab initio?


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗讚诐 讞砖讜讘 讗谞讗 讻驻讗 讗讻讬驻讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讗 讞讝讜 诇诪讬讝讙讗 注诇讬讬讛讜


Abaye explained his actions and said: If not for the fact that I am an important person, why would I need to place a spoon on the bundles? Aren鈥檛 the bundles themselves suited to lean upon? I could have carried the bundles without the spoon.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗谞讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗讚诐 讞砖讜讘 讗谞讗 住讻讬谞讗 讗讘专 讬讜谞讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讗 讞讝讬 诇讬 诇讗讜诪爪讗


Similarly, Rava said: If not for the fact that I am an important person, why would I need to place a knife on a young dove? Isn鈥檛 the young dove itself suited to be eaten as raw meat?


讟注诪讗 讚讞讝讬 诇讗讜诪爪讗 讛讗 诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讗讜诪爪讗 诇讗 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚专讘讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: The reason that it is permitted to move the slaughtered dove is because it is suited to be eaten by a person as raw meat; but if it is not suited to be eaten by a person as raw meat, no, it may not be moved. Is that to say that Rava holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that on Shabbat it is prohibited to move food that was originally designated for human consumption and is now only suited for animal consumption?


讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 诇砖诪注讬讛 讟讜讜讬 诇讬 讘专 讗讜讜讝讗 讜砖讚讬 诪讬注讬讛 诇砖讜谞专讗


Didn鈥檛 Rava say to his attendant on a Festival: Roast a duck for me, and throw its intestines to the cat. Moving the duck鈥檚 intestines was permitted in order to feed the cat. Similarly, moving the dove should have been permitted not because it is raw meat fit for consumption by a person, but because it is suited for consumption by a dog.


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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

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 142

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 142

诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讗讘谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讬谞专 谞诪讬 讗诇诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讗讘谉 讗讘诇 讚讬谞专 讗住讜专 讗讘谉 讗讬 谞驻诇讛 诇讛 诇讗 讗转讬 讗讘讜讛 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讚讬谞专 讗讬 谞驻讬诇 讗转讬 讗讘讜讛 诇讗转讜讬讬


why does the mishna refer specifically to moving a stone? The same should hold true even for a dinar, as well. Why, then, did Rava say: They only taught this in a case where the child has a stone in his hand; however, if the child has a dinar in his hand, it is prohibited to lift the child? The Gemara answers: Actually, lifting the child with a dinar should also be permitted. However, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting lifting the child with a dinar because with regard to a stone, if it falls, his father will not come to bring it. However, with regard to a dinar, if it falls, his father will come to bring it.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讻诇讬讜 诪拽讜驻诇讬诐 讜诪讜谞讞讬诐 注诇 讻转驻讜 讜住谞讚诇讬讜 讜讟讘注讜转讬讜 讘讬讚讜 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 诪诇讜讘砖 讘讛谉 驻讟讜专


It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: On Shabbat, one who carries out his clothes to the public domain while they are folded and placed on his shoulder, and his sandals on his feet and his rings in his hand, not on his fingers, is liable. And if he was wearing them, he is exempt for all of them, as they are negated relative to him.


讛诪讜爪讬讗 讗讚诐 讜讻诇讬讜 注诇讬讜 讜住谞讚诇讬讜 讘专讙诇讬讜 讜讟讘注讜转讬讜 讘讬讚讬讜 驻讟讜专 讜讗讬诇讜 讛讜爪讬讗谉 讻诪讜转 砖讛谉 讞讬讬讘:


One who carries out a person with his garments on him, and his sandals on his feet, and his rings on the fingers of his hands, i.e., wearing all of his clothes and jewelry in the typical manner, is exempt, whereas if he carried them out as they are, i.e., the person was holding his clothes in his hands, he is liable for carrying out the clothes, just as Rava said.


讻诇讻诇讛 讜讛讗讘谉 讘转讜讻讛: 讜讗诪讗讬 转讬讛讜讬 讻诇讻诇讛 讘住讬住 诇讚讘专 讛讗住讜专 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讗 讘讻诇讻诇讛 诪诇讗讛 驻讬专讜转 注住拽讬谞谉 讜诇讬砖讚讬谞讛讜 诇驻讬专讬 讜谞讬砖讚讬 诇讗讘谉 讜谞讬谞拽讟讬谞讛讜 讘讬讚讬诐 讻讚专讘讬 讗诇注讬 讗诪专 专讘 讘驻讬专讜转 讛诪讬讟谞驻讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘驻讬专讜转 讛诪讬讟谞驻讬谉


We learned in the mishna: And it is permissible to take a basket with a stone inside it on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: And why may he do so? The basket should be a base for a prohibited object, and a base for a prohibited object is set-aside and may not be moved on Shabbat. Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Here, we are dealing with a basket full of fruit. The basket is a base for permitted items as well, not only a base for the stone. The Gemara asks: Why may he move the basket and the stone? There is an alternative. And let him throw the fruit and throw the stone out of the basket, and take the fruit in his hands, and there will be no need to move the stone. The Gemara answers: As Rabbi Elai said that Rav said in a different context: It is referring to fruits that become soiled and ruined. Here, too, it is referring to fruits that become soiled and ruined if he throws them down.


讜诇讬谞注专讬谞讛讜 谞注讜专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讗 讘讻诇讻诇讛 驻讞讜转讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗讘谉 讙讜驻讛 谞注砖讬转 讚讜驻谉 诇讻诇讻诇讛:


The Gemara asks a question: And let him shake them until the stone is on one side of the basket, enabling him to throw the stone out of the basket. Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said that Rava said: Here, we are dealing with a broken basket with a hole, in which the stone serves as a side of the basket by sealing the hole. Therefore, he cannot throw it out of the basket.


诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 转专讜诪讛 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讟讛讜专讛 诇诪讟讛 讜讟诪讗讛 诇诪注诇讛 讗讘诇 讟讛讜专讛 诇诪注诇讛 讜讟诪讗讛 诇诪讟讛 砖拽讬诇 诇讬讛 诇讟讛讜专讛 讜砖讘讬拽 诇讬讛 诇讟诪讗讛


We learned in the mishna: And one may move ritually impure teruma with ritually pure teruma. Rav 岣sda said: They only taught this in a case where the pure teruma is on the bottom and the impure teruma is on the top. In that case, if one wants to reach the pure teruma, there is no alternative to taking the impure teruma as well. However, if the pure teruma is on the top and the impure teruma is on the bottom, he takes the pure teruma and leaves the impure teruma.


讜讻讬 讟讛讜专讛 诇诪讟讛 谞诪讬 诇讬砖讚讬谞讛讜 讜诇讬谞拽讟讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讬 讗诪专 专讘 讘驻讬专讜转 讛诪讬讟谞驻讬谉 注住拽讬谞谉


The Gemara asks a question: And when the pure teruma is on the bottom too, let him throw the impure fruit, and take the pure fruit. Rabbi Elai said that Rav said: It is referring to fruits that become soiled and ruined, which cannot be thrown from the basket.


诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 注诐 讛讟讛讜专讛 讜注诐 讛讞讜诇讬谉 讘讬谉 砖讟讛讜专讛 诇诪注诇讛 讜讟诪讗讛 诇诪讟讛 讘讬谉 砖讟诪讗讛 诇诪注诇讛 讜讟讛讜专讛 诇诪讟讛 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗


The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rav 岣sda: One may move impure teruma with the pure teruma and with the non-sacred produce, whether the pure is on the top and the impure is on the bottom, or whether the impure is on the top and the pure is on the bottom. This is a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rav Hisda.


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讘专讬讬转讗 诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜


The Gemara answers that Rav 岣sda could have said to you: The mishna, which, according to Rav 岣sda, permits moving the impure teruma with the pure teruma only when the pure teruma is on top, is referring to a case where he needs the basket for the purpose of utilizing the object itself, i.e., he wants to eat the fruit. The baraita is referring to a case where he needs the basket for the purpose of utilizing its place, i.e., he wants to move the basket in order to vacate its place, in which case he may move it even if it contains impure teruma exclusively.


诪讗讬 讚讜讞拽讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗讜拽诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜


The Gemara asks: What impelled Rav 岣sda to establish the mishna as referring specifically to a case where he needs the basket for the purpose of utilizing the object itself? Why can鈥檛 he explain the mishna as referring to any case?


讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚讬讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 诪注讜转 砖注诇 讛讻专 诪谞注专 讗转 讛讻专 讜讛谉 谞讜驻诇讜转 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讗讘诇 诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 诪讟诇讟诇讜 讜注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜 讜诪讚住讬驻讗 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜:


Rava said: The mishna is precise in accordance with the opinion of Rav 岣sda, as it is taught in the latter clause, the next mishna: With regard to coins that are on a cushion, he shakes the cushion and the coins fall. And Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They only taught that he may shake the cushion in a case where it is for the purpose of utilizing the cushion itself. However, if he needs it for the purpose of utilizing its place, he may move it, even though the coins are still on it. And from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna is referring to a case where he needs the cushion for the purpose of utilizing the cushion itself, the first clause, too, is referring to a case where he needs the basket for the purpose of utilizing the basket itself.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪注诇讬谉 讜讻讜壮: 讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 拽讗 诪转拽谉


We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: One may even lift a measure of teruma that was nullified from a mixture of one hundred measures of non-sacred produce and one measure of teruma. The Gemara asks: And why is it permitted? Isn鈥檛 he rendering the produce fit for consumption? The Sages issued a decree prohibiting the performance of any action that renders an item fit for use on Shabbat.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 转专讜诪讛 讘注讬谞讗 诪讞转讗


The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: Teruma is considered as if it is placed in its pure unadulterated state. By lifting the measure of teruma, one does not render the rest of the mixture fit for consumption. It is considered as if the measure of teruma never intermingled with the rest of the produce and the measure that he lifted from the produce is the measure that fell into the produce.


讚转谞谉 住讗讛 转专讜诪讛 砖谞驻诇讛 诇驻讞讜转 诪诪讗讛 谞讚诪注讜 讜谞驻诇 诪谉 讛诪讚讜诪注 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪讚诪注转 讻转专讜诪转 讜讚讗讬


As we learned in a mishna: A se鈥檃 of teruma that fell into less than one hundred se鈥檃 of non-sacred produce causes it to become a prohibited mixture. The teruma is not nullified by the non-sacred produce. And then, if a se鈥檃 from the mixture fell into a different place with non-sacred produce, Rabbi Eliezer says: The se鈥檃 from the original mixture renders it a prohibited mixture in the same way that definite teruma would. This is due to the concern that the same se鈥檃 of teruma that fell into the first mixture never intermingled with the produce and subsequently fell into the second mixture. Therefore, it requires nullification like unadulterated teruma.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讛诪讚讜诪注 诪讚诪注 讗诇讗 诇驻讬 讞砖讘讜谉


And the Rabbis say: The se鈥檃 from the original prohibited mixture only renders the second one a prohibited mixture according to the proportion of teruma in the entire mixture. In other words, the percentage of teruma in each se鈥檃 of the original mixture is representative of the percentage of teruma in the entire mixture. Only that measure of teruma need be nullified. Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion that the teruma in the mixture is not considered mixed, and it is considered as if it was placed in its pure unadulterated state, corresponds to Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion that by lifting the measure of teruma, one does not render the rest of the mixture fit for consumption.


讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇讞讜诪专讗 诇拽讜诇讗 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛


The Gemara rejects this: Say that you heard that Rabbi Eliezer expresses his opinion in this matter to rule stringently. Did you hear him express his opinion to rule leniently? He expressed concern lest the fallen teruma might not have intermingled with the non-sacred produce in the first mixture, and therefore, the second mixture is prohibited. However, he does not consider this a certainty.


讗诇讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讚转谞谉 住讗讛 转专讜诪讛 砖谞驻诇讛 诇诪讗讛 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讛讙讘讬讛 注讚 砖谞驻诇讛 讗讞专转 讛专讬 讝讜 讗住讜专讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专


Rather, Rabbi Yehuda stated his halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned in a mishna: If a se鈥檃 of teruma fell into one hundred se鈥檃 of non-sacred produce, and he did not manage to lift that se鈥檃 from the mixture until another se鈥檃 of teruma fell into the mixture, this entire mixture is prohibited. This is because two se鈥檃 of teruma are mixed with one hundred se鈥檃 of non-sacred produce. And Rabbi Shimon permits the mixture. Rabbi Shimon holds that the first se鈥檃 that fell into the produce is not mixed with it; it is placed in its unadulterated state. When the second se鈥檃 falls, it is also placed in its unadulterated state, and the two se鈥檃 do not join together.


讜诪诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讛转诐 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚谞驻诇讜 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讻诪讗谉 讚谞驻诇 讘讘转 讗讞转 讚诪讬 讜讛讗 诇讞诪砖讬谉 谞驻诇讛 讜讛讗 诇讞诪砖讬谉 谞驻诇讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 拽诪讬讬转讗 讘讟讬诇 讘诪讗讛 讜讛讗 转讬讘讟讬诇 讘诪讗讛 讜讞讚


The Gemara rejects this comparison: And from what does that conclusion ensue? Perhaps there, they are disagreeing with regard to this: That the first tanna holds: Even though two se鈥檃 of teruma fell one after another, it is as though they fell at once, and this se鈥檃 of teruma fell into fifty se鈥檃 of non-sacred produce, and this se鈥檃 of teruma fell into fifty se鈥檃 of non-sacred produce, which are insufficient to nullify teruma. And Rabbi Shimon holds: The first se鈥檃 was nullified immediately when it fell into one hundred se鈥檃, and this se鈥檃 will be nullified in one hundred and one se鈥檃. There is no connection between this dispute and the opinion that by lifting the measure of teruma, one does not render the rest of the mixture fit for consumption.


讗诇讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 注讬谞讬讜 讘爪讚 讝讛 讜讗讜讻诇 诪爪讚 讗讞专


Rather, Rabbi Yehuda stated his halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One need not lift a se鈥檃 from the mixture in order to render it permitted to eat. It is sufficient if he casts his eyes on this side of the mixture and decides to separate a se鈥檃 from the produce on that side, and he eats from a different side of the mixture and physically separates the se鈥檃 later. Lifting a se鈥檃 from the mixture does not render the mixture fit for consumption, as it is permitted to partake from the mixture even without removing a se鈥檃. That is the rationale for Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion.


讜诪讬 住讘专 诇讬讛 讻讜讜转讬讛


The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar?


讜讛讗 诪讬驻诇讬讙 驻诇讬讙 注讬诇讜讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪注诇讬谉 讗转 讛诪讚讜诪注 讘讗讞讚 讜诪讗讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 注讬谞讬讜 讘爪讚 讝讛 讜讗讜讻诇 诪爪讚 讗讞专


Doesn鈥檛 he disagree with him? As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: One may lift a measure of teruma that was nullified from a mixture of one hundred measures of non-sacred produce and one measure of teruma. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One casts his eyes on this side of the mixture and decides to separate a se鈥檃 from the produce on that side, and he eats from a different side of the mixture.


讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 注讚讬驻讗 诪讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专:


The Gemara rejects this: Fundamentally, the two tanna鈥檌m agree, but the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda is more far-reaching than the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. Rabbi Yehuda says that since thought is sufficient, lifting the se鈥檃 does not render the produce fit for consumption, and it is preferable if he lifts the se鈥檃 even on Shabbat.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讘谉 砖注诇 驻讬 讛讞讘讬转 诪讟讛 注诇 爪讚讛 讜讛讬讗 谞讜驻诇转 讛讬转讛 讘讬谉 讛讞讘讬讜转 诪讙讘讬讛 讜诪讟讛 注诇 爪讚讛 讜讛讬讗 谞讜驻诇转


MISHNA: With regard to a stone, which is set-aside on Shabbat and may not be moved, that was placed on the mouth of a barrel, one tilts the barrel on its side, and the stone falls. If the barrel was among other barrels, and the other barrels might break if the stone falls on them, he lifts the barrel to distance it from the other barrels, and then tilts it on its side, and the stone falls.


诪注讜转 砖注诇 讛讻专 诪谞注专 讗转 讛讻专 讜讛谉 谞讜驻诇讜转 讛讬转讛 注诇讬讜 诇砖诇砖转 诪拽谞讞讛 讘住诪专讟讜讟 讛讬转讛 砖诇 注讜专 谞讜转谞讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪讬诐 注讚 砖转讻诇讛:


With regard to coins that are on a cushion, he shakes the cushion and the coins fall. If there was bird dung (Arukh) on the cushion, he wipes it with a rag, but he may not wash it with water because of the prohibition against laundering. If the cushion was made of leather, and laundering is not a concern, he places water on it until the bird dung ceases.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讜讻讞 讗讘诇 讘诪谞讬讞 谞注砖讛 讘住讬住 诇讚讘专 讛讗住讜专:


GEMARA: Rav Huna said that Rav said: They only taught this halakha with regard to a stone in a case where one forgets the stone on the barrel. However, if he places the stone on the barrel, the barrel becomes a base for a prohibited object, which itself may not be moved throughout Shabbat.


[讛讬转讛 讘讬谉 讛讞讘讬讜转 讻讜壮]: 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讜讛讬转专讗 讘讛讬转专讗 讟专讞讬谞谉 讘讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 讟专讞讬谞谉


We learned in the mishna: If the barrel was among other barrels, he lifts the barrel and then tilts it on its side, and the stone falls. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds that any place that there is a prohibited item and a permitted item, we may exert ourselves for the permitted item, but we may not exert ourselves for the prohibited item? One must exert himself to lift the barrel, and he may not remove the stone, although doing so would minimize his exertion.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛讘讜专专 拽讟谞讬转 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讜专专 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讜讻诇 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讜专专 讻讚专讻讜 讘讞讬拽讜 讜讘转诪讞讜讬


Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. As we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who selects legumes on a Festival, separating edible and inedible, Beit Shammai say: He selects food and eats it immediately and leaves the waste. And Beit Hillel say: He selects in his usual manner, and may even remove the waste and leave the food, in his lap or in a large vessel.


讜转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖讛讗讜讻诇 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻住讜诇转 讗讘诇 驻住讜诇转 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讘讜专专 讗讜讻诇


And it was taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case are these matters, the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, stated: In a case where the quantity of the food is greater than the quantity of the waste. However, if the quantity of the waste is greater than the quantity of the food, everyone agrees that one selects the food to avoid the exertion involved in removing the waste, which itself may not be moved. The same is true here. He moves the barrel and not the stone, which is like waste.


讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讻讬 讗讜讻诇 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻住讜诇转 讚诪讬


The Gemara asks: And here, in the case of the barrel, isn鈥檛 it comparable to a case where the food is greater than the waste, as the barrel, which is food, is bigger and heavier than the stone. In addition, it is easier to move the stone. Nevertheless, he is not permitted to do so, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.


讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诇诪讬砖拽诇 诇讗 诪砖转拽讬诇 诇讬讛 讬讬谉 注讚 讚砖拽讬诇 诇讛 诇讗讘谉 讻驻住讜诇转 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇 讚诪讬:


The Gemara answers: Here, too, since if he wants to take the wine, the wine cannot be taken until he removes the stone, the legal status of the stone is like that of waste which is greater in quantity than the food, and it cannot be likened to the case of selecting. In this case, he is unable to move the barrel without moving the stone.


讛讬转讛 讘讬谉 讛讞讘讬讜转 诪讙讘讬讛: 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讛讬转讛 讛讞讘讬转 诪讜谞讞转 讘讗讜爪专 讗讜 砖讛讬讜 讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 诪讜谞讞讬谉 转讞转讬讛 诪讙讘讬讛 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讜诪讟讛 注诇 爪讚讛 讜讛讬讗 谞讜驻诇转 讜谞讜讟诇 讛讬诪谞讛 诪讛 砖爪专讬讱 诇讜 讜诪讞讝讬专讛 诇诪拽讜诪讛:


We learned in the mishna: If the barrel was among other barrels, he lifts the barrel. It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: If the barrel was placed in a storeroom amongst other barrels, or if glass vessels were placed beneath it, preventing him from tilting the barrel and letting the stone fall, he lifts the barrel and moves it to a different place, and he tilts it on its side, and the stone falls. And then he takes from the barrel what he needs, and restores the barrel to its place.


诪注讜转 砖注诇 讛讻专: 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讜讻讞 讗讘诇 讘诪谞讬讞 谞注砖讛 讘住讬住 诇讚讘专 讛讗住讜专


We learned in the mishna: With regard to coins that are on a cushion, he shakes the cushion and the coins fall. Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: They only taught this halakha with regard to a case where one forgets the coins on the cushion; however, if he places the coins on the cushion, the cushion becomes a base for a prohibited object and may not be moved at all.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讗讘诇 诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 诪讟诇讟诇讜 讜注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜 讜讻谉 转谞讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 诪讚讬驻转讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讗讘诇 诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 诪讟诇讟诇讜 讜注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜:


Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They only taught the halakha that one shakes the cushion and the coins fall, when he needs the cushion for the purpose of utilizing the cushion itself; but if he needs it for the purpose of utilizing its place, he moves the cushion with the coins still on it. And likewise, Hiyya bar Rav from Difti taught in a baraita: They only taught the halakha that one shakes the cushion and the coins fall, when he needs the cushion for the purpose of utilizing the cushion itself, but if he needs it for the purpose of utilizing its place, he moves the cushion with the coins still on it.


诪注讜转 砖注诇 讛讻专 诪谞注专 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 砖讻讞 讗专谞拽讬 讘讞爪专 诪谞讬讞 注诇讬讛 讻讻专 讗讜 转讬谞讜拽 讜诪讟诇讟诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 砖讻讞 诇讘讬谞讛 讘讞爪专 诪谞讬讞 注诇讬讛 讻讻专 讗讜 转讬谞讜拽 讜诪讟诇讟诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 砖讬诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 驻注诐 讗讞转 砖讻讞讜 讚住拽讬讗 诪诇讗讛 诪注讜转 讘住专讟讬讗 讜讘讗讜 讜砖讗诇讜 讗转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诪专 诇讛谉 讛谞讬讞讜 注诇讬讛 讻讻专 讗讜 转讬谞讜拽 讜讟诇讟诇讜讛


We learned in the mishna: With regard to coins that are on a cushion, he shakes the cushion and the coins fall.
Rabbi Oshaya said: If one forgot a purse of money in the courtyard on Shabbat eve, and he remembers it on Shabbat and wants to bring it into the house, he places a loaf of bread or a baby on it and moves it. The purse becomes a base for a permitted object and may be moved.
Rav Yitzhak said: If one forgot a brick in the courtyard, he places a loaf of bread or a baby on it and moves it.
Rabbi Yehuda bar Sheila said that Rabbi Asi said: Once, they forgot a saddlebag [diskaya] full of coins in a main street, and they came and asked Rabbi Yo岣nan, and he said to them: Place a loaf or a baby on it, and move it.


讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻讻诇 讛谞讬 砖诪注转转讗 讘砖讜讻讞 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讻讞 谞诪讬 [诇讗] 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 讻讻专 讗讜 转讬谞讜拽 讗诇讗 诇诪转 讘诇讘讚


Mar Zutra said: The halakha is in accordance with all these statements in the case of one who forgets. However, if one intentionally left an object, even a valuable object, on Shabbat eve, he may not employ artifice and move it the following day. Rav Ashi said: If one forgot, he may also not employ artifice, and they only stated that movement by means of a loaf or a baby for the purposes of moving a corpse alone.


讗讘讬讬 诪谞讞 讻驻讗 讗讻讬驻讬 专讘讗 诪谞讞 住讻讬谞讗 讗讘专 讬讜谞讛 讜诪讟诇讟诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻诪讛 讞专讬驻讗 砖诪注转转讗 讚讚专讚拽讬 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讘砖讜讻讞 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诪讬 讗诪讜专


The Gemara relates: Abaye would place a spoon on bundles of produce, so that he would be able to move the bundles because of the spoon. Rava would place a knife on a slaughtered young dove and move it. Rav Yosef said mockingly: How sharp is the halakha of children? Say that the Sages stated this halakha only in a case where one forgets, but did they say that one may do so ab initio?


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗讚诐 讞砖讜讘 讗谞讗 讻驻讗 讗讻讬驻讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讗 讞讝讜 诇诪讬讝讙讗 注诇讬讬讛讜


Abaye explained his actions and said: If not for the fact that I am an important person, why would I need to place a spoon on the bundles? Aren鈥檛 the bundles themselves suited to lean upon? I could have carried the bundles without the spoon.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗谞讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗讚诐 讞砖讜讘 讗谞讗 住讻讬谞讗 讗讘专 讬讜谞讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讗 讞讝讬 诇讬 诇讗讜诪爪讗


Similarly, Rava said: If not for the fact that I am an important person, why would I need to place a knife on a young dove? Isn鈥檛 the young dove itself suited to be eaten as raw meat?


讟注诪讗 讚讞讝讬 诇讗讜诪爪讗 讛讗 诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讗讜诪爪讗 诇讗 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚专讘讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: The reason that it is permitted to move the slaughtered dove is because it is suited to be eaten by a person as raw meat; but if it is not suited to be eaten by a person as raw meat, no, it may not be moved. Is that to say that Rava holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that on Shabbat it is prohibited to move food that was originally designated for human consumption and is now only suited for animal consumption?


讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 诇砖诪注讬讛 讟讜讜讬 诇讬 讘专 讗讜讜讝讗 讜砖讚讬 诪讬注讬讛 诇砖讜谞专讗


Didn鈥檛 Rava say to his attendant on a Festival: Roast a duck for me, and throw its intestines to the cat. Moving the duck鈥檚 intestines was permitted in order to feed the cat. Similarly, moving the dove should have been permitted not because it is raw meat fit for consumption by a person, but because it is suited for consumption by a dog.


Scroll To Top