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

Daf Yomi

July 27, 2020 | 讜壮 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 143

Today’s daf is dedicated by Caroline Ben-Ari in honor of Talya Brown. Mazal tov to you on passing your qualifying exams to become a Morat Halacha Musmechet, and much nachat to all your family.聽

Can one clear bones and peels off the table? Are they considered muktze? Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel debate how this can be done. Each one sides with either Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda regarding whether we have a narrow definition of what is muktze or a wider one. Rav Nachman says there’s a mistake regarding who said which opinion. Can one use a sponge on Shabbat? Does one need to be concerned that one may squeeze out liquid? There is a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis regarding squeezing fruits. Both agree that juicing fruits is forbidden but they disagree regarding liquids that come out of the fruits on their own. There are different opinions regarding what categories of fruits they disagree about – ones that are mainly used for their juices, ones that are mainly used for eating or possibly only those in between.

讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚诪住专讞 讚注转讬讛 注讬诇讜讬讛 诪讗转诪讜诇


The Gemara answers: There, since the intestines will putrefy as time passes, they are on his mind from yesterday. Since Shabbat eve, he has had in mind to feed them to the cat.


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚专讘讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讚专砖 专讘讗 讗砖讛 诇讗 转讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讛注爪讬诐 诇讬讟讜诇 诪讛谉 讗讜讚 讜讗讜讚 砖谞砖讘专 讗住讜专 诇讛住讬拽讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇驻讬 砖诪住讬拽讬谉 讘讻诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪住讬拽讬谉 讘砖讘专讬 讻诇讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:


The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable to say that Rava holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as Rava taught: A woman may not enter the wood storehouse to take a wooden poker to stoke a fire on a Festival. And with regard to a poker that broke, it is prohibited to kindle a fire with it on a Festival, as one may kindle a fire on a Festival with vessels that may be moved, but one may not kindle a fire with broken vessels that broke during the Festival. They are set-aside and prohibited. Conclude from it that Rava ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the halakhot of set-aside.


诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪注讘讬专讬谉 诪注诇 讛砖诇讞谉 注爪诪讜转 讜拽诇讬驻讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪住诇拽 讗转 讛讟讘诇讗 讻讜诇讛 讜诪谞注专讛


MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: One may clear bones and shells left from the Shabbat meal from the table with his hand. And Beit Hillel say: One may remove the entire board [tavla] that is the table surface and shake the bones and shells off of it, but he may not lift them with his hand because they are set-aside and may not be moved.


诪注讘讬专讬谉 诪诇驻谞讬 讛砖诇讞谉 驻讬专讜专讬谉 驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转 讜砖注专 砖诇 讗驻讜谞讬谉 讜砖注专 注讚砖讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讗讻诇 讘讛诪讛


One may clear bread crumbs from the table, even if they are less than an olive-bulk, and pea and lentil pods. Even though it is not fit for human consumption, it may be moved because it is animal fodder.


住驻讜讙 讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 注讜专 讘讬转 讗讞讬讝讛 诪拽谞讞讬谉 讘讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 诪拽谞讞讬谉 讘讜 (讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐) 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 谞讬讟诇 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谞讜 诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛:


With regard to a sponge, if it has leather as a handle, one may wipe the table with it, and if not, one may not wipe the table with it lest he come to squeeze liquid from it. And the Rabbis say: Both this, a dry sponge with a handle, and that, one without a handle, may be moved on Shabbat and it does not become ritually impure. A sponge is not among the substances that can become ritually impure, neither by Torah law nor by rabbinic decree.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗谞讜 讗讬谉 诇谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉:


GEMARA: Rav Na岣an said: Reverse the two opinions, as we have only Beit Shammai in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who prohibits moving set-aside items, and Beit Hillel in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who permits doing so.


诪注讘讬专讬谉 诪诇驻谞讬 讛砖诇讞谉 驻讬专讜专讬谉: 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻讬专讜专讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讻讝讬转 讗住讜专 诇讗讘讚谉 讘讬讚:


We learned in the mishna: One may clear bread crumbs from the table. The Gemara comments: This supports the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: With regard to crumbs that are less than an olive-bulk, it is prohibited to destroy them by hand in deference to the food.


砖注专 砖诇 讗驻讜谞讬谉: 诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛


We learned in the mishna: One may clear pea and lentil pods from the table on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is it in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who is not of the opinion that there is a prohibition of set-aside.


讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 住驻讜讙 讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 讘讬转 讗讞讬讝讛 诪拽谞讞讬谉 讘讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 诪拽谞讞讬谉 讘讜 讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讗住讜专


Say the latter clause of the mishna: With regard to a sponge, if it has leather as a handle, one may wipe the table with it, and if not, one may not wipe the table with it. We have arrived at the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: An unintentional act is prohibited, as he certainly does not intend to squeeze liquid from the sponge.


讘讛讗 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜讚讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘驻住讬拽 专讬砖讬讛 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转


The Gemara answers: In that case, even Rabbi Shimon agrees that it is prohibited, as it is Abaye and Rava who both say: Rabbi Shimon agrees in a case of: Cut off its head will it not die, i.e., inevitable consequences. When the prohibited outcome that ensues from the unintentional action is inevitable, Rabbi Shimon agrees that it is prohibited. Squeezing liquid from a sponge is an inevitable consequence.


讛谞讬 讙专注讬谞讬谉 讚转诪专讬 讗专诪讬讬转讗 砖专讜 诇讟诇讟讜诇讬谞讛讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讝讬讬谉 讗讙讘 讗诪谉 讜讚驻专住讬讬转讗 讗住讜专


With regard to those pits of Aramean dates, which are low quality and occasionally fed to animals, it is permitted to move the pits since they are fit for use due to their origin, i.e., the dates that were prepared as animal feed beforehand. And moving pits of Persian dates is prohibited. Since those dates are high quality and are not prepared for animals, their pits, too, are not prepared for that use.


砖诪讜讗诇 诪讟诇讟诇 诇讛讜 讗讙讘 专讬驻转讗: (砖专谞诐 砖驻讝 住讬诪谉): 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讜砖讛 讗讚诐 讻诇 爪专讻讜 讘驻转


The Gemara relates that Shmuel would carry them along with bread. The letters shin, resh, nun, mem, shin, peh, zayin are a mnemonic of the Sages whose opinions are cited below: Shmuel, Rabba, Huna, Ameimar, Sheshet, Pappa, Zekharya. The Gemara comments: Shmuel鈥檚 statement is consistent with his reasoning, as Shmuel said: A man may perform all his needs with bread. As long as the bread remains edible, he need not be concerned that he is treating the bread contemptuously.


专讘讛 诪讟诇讟诇 诇讛讜 讗讙讘 诇拽谞讗 讚诪讬讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 讻讙专祝 砖诇 专讬注讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 讜讻讬 注讜砖讬谉 讙专祝 砖诇 专讬注讬 诇讻转讞讬诇讛


Rabba would move them along with a pitcher of water. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, would render them a chamber pot with excrement. The Sages permitted moving repulsive vessels. Here, too, he would collect all the date pits and then move them out because they were disgusting. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: And may one create a chamber pot with excrement ab initio? Although the Sages permitted moving a container of excrement, they did not permit creating one ab initio so that it would be permitted to move it.


专讘 砖砖转 讝专讬拽 诇讛讜 讘诇讬砖谞讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讝专讬拽 诇讛讜 讗讞讜专讬 讛诪讟讛 讗诪专讜 注诇讬讜 注诇 专讘讬 讝讻专讬讛 讘谉 讗讘拽讜诇住 砖讛讬讛 诪讞讝讬专 驻谞讬讜 讗讞讜专讬 讛诪讟讛 讜讝讜专拽谉:


Rav Sheshet would dispose of the pits with his tongue. Rav Pappa would dispose of them behind the divan on which he sat while eating because he did not want to move them in another manner. They said about Rabbi Zekharya ben Avkolas that he would turn his face toward the back of the divan and dispose of them.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 谞讜讟诇 讗讚诐 讗转 讘谞讜


MISHNA: From a barrel of wine or oil that broke on Shabbat, one may rescue from it food sufficient for three meals, and one may also say to others: Come and rescue food for yourselves. This applies provided that one does not soak up the wine or oil with a sponge or rag, due to the prohibition of squeezing. One may not squeeze fruits on Shabbat in order to extract liquids from them. And if liquids seeped out on their own, it is prohibited to use them on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the fruits were designated for eating, the liquid that seeps from them on Shabbat is permitted. There is no concern lest one purposely squeeze liquids from fruit that is designated for eating. And if the fruits were originally designated for liquids, the liquids that seep from them on Shabbat are prohibited. In the case of honeycombs that one crushed on Shabbat eve, and honey and wax seeped from them on their own on Shabbat, they are prohibited, and Rabbi Eliezer permits using them.


诪转谞讬壮 讞讘讬转 砖谞砖讘专讛 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讛讬诪谞讛 诪讝讜谉 砖诇砖 住注讜讚讜转 讜讗讜诪专 诇讗讞专讬诐 讘讗讜 讜讛爪讬诇讜 诇讻诐 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬住驻讜讙 讗讬谉 住讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讛驻讬专讜转 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讛谉 诪砖拽讬谉 讜讗诐 讬爪讗讜 诪注爪诪谉 讗住讜专讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗讜讻诇讬谉 讛讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉 诪讜转专 讜讗诐 诇诪砖拽讬谉 讛讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉 讗住讜专 讞诇讜转 讚讘砖 砖专讬住拽谉 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讜讬爪讗讜 诪注爪诪谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪转讬专:


GEMARA: It was taught in the Tosefta: One may not soak up wine and one may not collect oil in his hand, so that one will not conduct himself on Shabbat in the manner that he conducts himself during the week. The Sages taught in a baraita: If one鈥檚 fruit was scattered in a courtyard on Shabbat, one may collect them from hand to hand, a little at a time, and eat them immediately. However, one may not collect them into a basket or into a box, so that one will not conduct himself on Shabbat in the manner that he conducts himself during the week.


讙诪壮 转谞讗 诇讗 讬住驻讜讙 讘讬讬谉 讜诇讗 讬讟驻讞 讘砖诪谉 砖诇讗 讬注砖讛 讻讚专讱 砖讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 讘讞讜诇 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞转驻讝专讜 诇讜 驻讬专讜转 讘讞爪专 诪诇拽讟 注诇 讬讚 注诇 讬讚 讜讗讜讻诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇转讜讱 讛住诇 讜诇讗 诇转讜讱 讛拽讜驻讛 砖诇讗 讬注砖讛 讻讚专讱 砖讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 讘讞讜诇:


We learned in the mishna: One may not squeeze fruit on Shabbat, and the liquid that seeps from fruit on its own is prohibited. Rabbi Yehuda, however, distinguishes between fruit that is designated for eating, in which case the liquid that seeps out on its own is permitted, and fruit that is designated for juicing, in which case the liquid that seeps out on its own on Shabbat is prohibited. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Rabbi Yehuda concedes to the Rabbis with regard to olives and grapes. Even if they were designated for eating, the liquid that seeps from them on its own on Shabbat is prohibited. What is the reason for this? Since they are generally used for squeezing, one had in mind from the outset that these would serve that purpose as well, even if he designated them for eating. And Ulla said that Rav said: Rabbi Yehuda was in disagreement even with regard to olives and grapes. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to other fruits, and the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to olives and grapes.


讗讬谉 住讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讛驻讬专讜转: 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讘讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇住讞讬讟讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讬讛讬讘 讚注转讬讛 讜注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞诇讜拽 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗祝 讘讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘砖讗专 驻讬专讜转 讜讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐


Rabba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said as follows: Rabbi Yehuda would concede to the Rabbis with regard to olives and grapes, and the Rabbis would concede to Rabbi Yehuda with regard to other fruit.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讘讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 讜诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘砖讗专 驻讬专讜转


Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Abba: If it is true that they agree with each other, with regard to what do they disagree? He said to him: When you find it, i.e., examine this matter and you will find areas in which they disagree. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: It stands to reason that they disagree with regard to mulberries and pomegranates, which have intermediate status, between olives and grapes, which are always considered designated for juicing, and other fruits, which are not.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诇讗 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讻讬 转砖讻讞 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪住转讘专讗 讘转讜转讬诐 讜专诪讜谞讬诐 驻诇讬讙讬


As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to olives from which one squeezed oil and grapes from which one squeezed wine before Shabbat (Tosafot), and he subsequently brought them into his house, whether he brought them in for use as food or whether he brought them in for use of their liquids, that which seeps from them on its own on Shabbat is prohibited. However, with regard to mulberries from which one squeezed water, i.e., juice, and pomegranates from which one squeezed wine, i.e., pomegranate juice, and he brought them into the house, if he originally brought them in for use as food, what seeps from them is permitted. And if he brought them in for use of their liquids, and similarly, if he brought them in without specifying his intention, what seeps from them is prohibited. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: Whether he brought them into the house for use as food or whether he brought them in for use of their liquids, what seeps from them is prohibited.


讚转谞讬讗 讝讬转讬诐 砖诪砖讱 诪讛谉 砖诪谉 讜注谞讘讬诐 砖诪砖讱 诪讛谉 讬讬谉 讜讛讻谞讬住谉 讘讬谉 诇讗讜讻诇 讘讬谉 诇诪砖拽讬谉 讛讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉 讗住讜专 转讜转讬诐 砖诪砖讱 诪讛谉 诪讬诐 讜专诪讜谞讬诐 砖诪砖讱 诪讛谉 讬讬谉 讜讛讻谞讬住谉 诇讗讜讻诇讬谉 讛讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉 诪讜转专 诇诪砖拽讬谉 讜诇住转诐 讛讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉 讗住讜专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 诇讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘讬谉 诇诪砖拽讬谉 讛讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉 讗住讜专


The Gemara questions this baraita: And does Rabbi Yehuda maintain that in the case of undesignated fruit that was not designated for a specific purpose, the liquid that seeps on its own is prohibited? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: A woman鈥檚 milk is considered a liquid and therefore renders food susceptible to ritual impurity, whether the milk was expressed volitionally and whether it was expressed unvolitionally? On the other hand, milk of an animal only renders food susceptible to ritual impurity if it was milked volitionally but not if it drips out on its own.


讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住转诐 讗住讜专 讜讛转谞谉 讞诇讘 讛讗砖讛 诪讟诪讗 诇专爪讜谉 讜砖诇讗 诇专爪讜谉 讞诇讘 讘讛诪讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讗诇讗 诇专爪讜谉


Rabbi Akiva said: It is an a fortiori inference that this is incorrect: Just as a woman鈥檚 milk, which is intended only for young children, is considered a liquid and renders food susceptible to ritual impurity both if the milk is expressed volitionally and if it is expressed unvolitionally, the milk of an animal, which is intended for both young and old, is it not logical that it should render food susceptible to ritual impurity, both if it was expressed volitionally and if it was expressed unvolitionally? They said to him that this a fortiori inference can be refuted in the following way: If a woman鈥檚 milk renders food susceptible to ritual impurity even when the milk was expressed unvolitionally, as the status of the blood of her wound is also that of a liquid that renders food susceptible to ritual impurity, that does not mean that the milk of an animal renders food susceptible to ritual impurity


讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讞诇讘 讛讗砖讛 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬讜讞讚 讗诇讗 诇拽讟谞讬诐 诪讟诪讗 诇专爪讜谉 讜砖诇讗 诇专爪讜谉 讞诇讘 讛讘讛诪讛 砖诪讬讜讞讚 讘讬谉 诇拽讟谞讬诐 讘讬谉 诇讙讚讜诇讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讟诪讗 讘讬谉 诇专爪讜谉 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诇专爪讜谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诐 讟诪讗 讞诇讘 讛讗砖讛 砖诇讗 诇专爪讜谉 砖讚诐 诪讙驻转讛 讟诪讗 讬讟诪讗 讞诇讘 讛讘讛诪讛



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 143

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 143

讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚诪住专讞 讚注转讬讛 注讬诇讜讬讛 诪讗转诪讜诇


The Gemara answers: There, since the intestines will putrefy as time passes, they are on his mind from yesterday. Since Shabbat eve, he has had in mind to feed them to the cat.


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚专讘讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讚专砖 专讘讗 讗砖讛 诇讗 转讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讛注爪讬诐 诇讬讟讜诇 诪讛谉 讗讜讚 讜讗讜讚 砖谞砖讘专 讗住讜专 诇讛住讬拽讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇驻讬 砖诪住讬拽讬谉 讘讻诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪住讬拽讬谉 讘砖讘专讬 讻诇讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:


The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable to say that Rava holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as Rava taught: A woman may not enter the wood storehouse to take a wooden poker to stoke a fire on a Festival. And with regard to a poker that broke, it is prohibited to kindle a fire with it on a Festival, as one may kindle a fire on a Festival with vessels that may be moved, but one may not kindle a fire with broken vessels that broke during the Festival. They are set-aside and prohibited. Conclude from it that Rava ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the halakhot of set-aside.


诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪注讘讬专讬谉 诪注诇 讛砖诇讞谉 注爪诪讜转 讜拽诇讬驻讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪住诇拽 讗转 讛讟讘诇讗 讻讜诇讛 讜诪谞注专讛


MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: One may clear bones and shells left from the Shabbat meal from the table with his hand. And Beit Hillel say: One may remove the entire board [tavla] that is the table surface and shake the bones and shells off of it, but he may not lift them with his hand because they are set-aside and may not be moved.


诪注讘讬专讬谉 诪诇驻谞讬 讛砖诇讞谉 驻讬专讜专讬谉 驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转 讜砖注专 砖诇 讗驻讜谞讬谉 讜砖注专 注讚砖讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讗讻诇 讘讛诪讛


One may clear bread crumbs from the table, even if they are less than an olive-bulk, and pea and lentil pods. Even though it is not fit for human consumption, it may be moved because it is animal fodder.


住驻讜讙 讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 注讜专 讘讬转 讗讞讬讝讛 诪拽谞讞讬谉 讘讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 诪拽谞讞讬谉 讘讜 (讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐) 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 谞讬讟诇 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谞讜 诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛:


With regard to a sponge, if it has leather as a handle, one may wipe the table with it, and if not, one may not wipe the table with it lest he come to squeeze liquid from it. And the Rabbis say: Both this, a dry sponge with a handle, and that, one without a handle, may be moved on Shabbat and it does not become ritually impure. A sponge is not among the substances that can become ritually impure, neither by Torah law nor by rabbinic decree.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗谞讜 讗讬谉 诇谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉:


GEMARA: Rav Na岣an said: Reverse the two opinions, as we have only Beit Shammai in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who prohibits moving set-aside items, and Beit Hillel in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who permits doing so.


诪注讘讬专讬谉 诪诇驻谞讬 讛砖诇讞谉 驻讬专讜专讬谉: 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻讬专讜专讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讻讝讬转 讗住讜专 诇讗讘讚谉 讘讬讚:


We learned in the mishna: One may clear bread crumbs from the table. The Gemara comments: This supports the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: With regard to crumbs that are less than an olive-bulk, it is prohibited to destroy them by hand in deference to the food.


砖注专 砖诇 讗驻讜谞讬谉: 诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛


We learned in the mishna: One may clear pea and lentil pods from the table on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is it in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who is not of the opinion that there is a prohibition of set-aside.


讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 住驻讜讙 讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 讘讬转 讗讞讬讝讛 诪拽谞讞讬谉 讘讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 诪拽谞讞讬谉 讘讜 讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讗住讜专


Say the latter clause of the mishna: With regard to a sponge, if it has leather as a handle, one may wipe the table with it, and if not, one may not wipe the table with it. We have arrived at the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: An unintentional act is prohibited, as he certainly does not intend to squeeze liquid from the sponge.


讘讛讗 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜讚讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘驻住讬拽 专讬砖讬讛 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转


The Gemara answers: In that case, even Rabbi Shimon agrees that it is prohibited, as it is Abaye and Rava who both say: Rabbi Shimon agrees in a case of: Cut off its head will it not die, i.e., inevitable consequences. When the prohibited outcome that ensues from the unintentional action is inevitable, Rabbi Shimon agrees that it is prohibited. Squeezing liquid from a sponge is an inevitable consequence.


讛谞讬 讙专注讬谞讬谉 讚转诪专讬 讗专诪讬讬转讗 砖专讜 诇讟诇讟讜诇讬谞讛讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讝讬讬谉 讗讙讘 讗诪谉 讜讚驻专住讬讬转讗 讗住讜专


With regard to those pits of Aramean dates, which are low quality and occasionally fed to animals, it is permitted to move the pits since they are fit for use due to their origin, i.e., the dates that were prepared as animal feed beforehand. And moving pits of Persian dates is prohibited. Since those dates are high quality and are not prepared for animals, their pits, too, are not prepared for that use.


砖诪讜讗诇 诪讟诇讟诇 诇讛讜 讗讙讘 专讬驻转讗: (砖专谞诐 砖驻讝 住讬诪谉): 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讜砖讛 讗讚诐 讻诇 爪专讻讜 讘驻转


The Gemara relates that Shmuel would carry them along with bread. The letters shin, resh, nun, mem, shin, peh, zayin are a mnemonic of the Sages whose opinions are cited below: Shmuel, Rabba, Huna, Ameimar, Sheshet, Pappa, Zekharya. The Gemara comments: Shmuel鈥檚 statement is consistent with his reasoning, as Shmuel said: A man may perform all his needs with bread. As long as the bread remains edible, he need not be concerned that he is treating the bread contemptuously.


专讘讛 诪讟诇讟诇 诇讛讜 讗讙讘 诇拽谞讗 讚诪讬讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 讻讙专祝 砖诇 专讬注讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 讜讻讬 注讜砖讬谉 讙专祝 砖诇 专讬注讬 诇讻转讞讬诇讛


Rabba would move them along with a pitcher of water. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, would render them a chamber pot with excrement. The Sages permitted moving repulsive vessels. Here, too, he would collect all the date pits and then move them out because they were disgusting. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: And may one create a chamber pot with excrement ab initio? Although the Sages permitted moving a container of excrement, they did not permit creating one ab initio so that it would be permitted to move it.


专讘 砖砖转 讝专讬拽 诇讛讜 讘诇讬砖谞讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讝专讬拽 诇讛讜 讗讞讜专讬 讛诪讟讛 讗诪专讜 注诇讬讜 注诇 专讘讬 讝讻专讬讛 讘谉 讗讘拽讜诇住 砖讛讬讛 诪讞讝讬专 驻谞讬讜 讗讞讜专讬 讛诪讟讛 讜讝讜专拽谉:


Rav Sheshet would dispose of the pits with his tongue. Rav Pappa would dispose of them behind the divan on which he sat while eating because he did not want to move them in another manner. They said about Rabbi Zekharya ben Avkolas that he would turn his face toward the back of the divan and dispose of them.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 谞讜讟诇 讗讚诐 讗转 讘谞讜


MISHNA: From a barrel of wine or oil that broke on Shabbat, one may rescue from it food sufficient for three meals, and one may also say to others: Come and rescue food for yourselves. This applies provided that one does not soak up the wine or oil with a sponge or rag, due to the prohibition of squeezing. One may not squeeze fruits on Shabbat in order to extract liquids from them. And if liquids seeped out on their own, it is prohibited to use them on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the fruits were designated for eating, the liquid that seeps from them on Shabbat is permitted. There is no concern lest one purposely squeeze liquids from fruit that is designated for eating. And if the fruits were originally designated for liquids, the liquids that seep from them on Shabbat are prohibited. In the case of honeycombs that one crushed on Shabbat eve, and honey and wax seeped from them on their own on Shabbat, they are prohibited, and Rabbi Eliezer permits using them.


诪转谞讬壮 讞讘讬转 砖谞砖讘专讛 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讛讬诪谞讛 诪讝讜谉 砖诇砖 住注讜讚讜转 讜讗讜诪专 诇讗讞专讬诐 讘讗讜 讜讛爪讬诇讜 诇讻诐 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬住驻讜讙 讗讬谉 住讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讛驻讬专讜转 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讛谉 诪砖拽讬谉 讜讗诐 讬爪讗讜 诪注爪诪谉 讗住讜专讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗讜讻诇讬谉 讛讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉 诪讜转专 讜讗诐 诇诪砖拽讬谉 讛讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉 讗住讜专 讞诇讜转 讚讘砖 砖专讬住拽谉 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讜讬爪讗讜 诪注爪诪谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪转讬专:


GEMARA: It was taught in the Tosefta: One may not soak up wine and one may not collect oil in his hand, so that one will not conduct himself on Shabbat in the manner that he conducts himself during the week. The Sages taught in a baraita: If one鈥檚 fruit was scattered in a courtyard on Shabbat, one may collect them from hand to hand, a little at a time, and eat them immediately. However, one may not collect them into a basket or into a box, so that one will not conduct himself on Shabbat in the manner that he conducts himself during the week.


讙诪壮 转谞讗 诇讗 讬住驻讜讙 讘讬讬谉 讜诇讗 讬讟驻讞 讘砖诪谉 砖诇讗 讬注砖讛 讻讚专讱 砖讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 讘讞讜诇 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞转驻讝专讜 诇讜 驻讬专讜转 讘讞爪专 诪诇拽讟 注诇 讬讚 注诇 讬讚 讜讗讜讻诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇转讜讱 讛住诇 讜诇讗 诇转讜讱 讛拽讜驻讛 砖诇讗 讬注砖讛 讻讚专讱 砖讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 讘讞讜诇:


We learned in the mishna: One may not squeeze fruit on Shabbat, and the liquid that seeps from fruit on its own is prohibited. Rabbi Yehuda, however, distinguishes between fruit that is designated for eating, in which case the liquid that seeps out on its own is permitted, and fruit that is designated for juicing, in which case the liquid that seeps out on its own on Shabbat is prohibited. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Rabbi Yehuda concedes to the Rabbis with regard to olives and grapes. Even if they were designated for eating, the liquid that seeps from them on its own on Shabbat is prohibited. What is the reason for this? Since they are generally used for squeezing, one had in mind from the outset that these would serve that purpose as well, even if he designated them for eating. And Ulla said that Rav said: Rabbi Yehuda was in disagreement even with regard to olives and grapes. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to other fruits, and the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to olives and grapes.


讗讬谉 住讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讛驻讬专讜转: 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讘讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇住讞讬讟讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讬讛讬讘 讚注转讬讛 讜注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞诇讜拽 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗祝 讘讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘砖讗专 驻讬专讜转 讜讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐


Rabba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said as follows: Rabbi Yehuda would concede to the Rabbis with regard to olives and grapes, and the Rabbis would concede to Rabbi Yehuda with regard to other fruit.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讘讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 讜诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘砖讗专 驻讬专讜转


Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Abba: If it is true that they agree with each other, with regard to what do they disagree? He said to him: When you find it, i.e., examine this matter and you will find areas in which they disagree. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: It stands to reason that they disagree with regard to mulberries and pomegranates, which have intermediate status, between olives and grapes, which are always considered designated for juicing, and other fruits, which are not.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诇讗 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讻讬 转砖讻讞 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪住转讘专讗 讘转讜转讬诐 讜专诪讜谞讬诐 驻诇讬讙讬


As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to olives from which one squeezed oil and grapes from which one squeezed wine before Shabbat (Tosafot), and he subsequently brought them into his house, whether he brought them in for use as food or whether he brought them in for use of their liquids, that which seeps from them on its own on Shabbat is prohibited. However, with regard to mulberries from which one squeezed water, i.e., juice, and pomegranates from which one squeezed wine, i.e., pomegranate juice, and he brought them into the house, if he originally brought them in for use as food, what seeps from them is permitted. And if he brought them in for use of their liquids, and similarly, if he brought them in without specifying his intention, what seeps from them is prohibited. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: Whether he brought them into the house for use as food or whether he brought them in for use of their liquids, what seeps from them is prohibited.


讚转谞讬讗 讝讬转讬诐 砖诪砖讱 诪讛谉 砖诪谉 讜注谞讘讬诐 砖诪砖讱 诪讛谉 讬讬谉 讜讛讻谞讬住谉 讘讬谉 诇讗讜讻诇 讘讬谉 诇诪砖拽讬谉 讛讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉 讗住讜专 转讜转讬诐 砖诪砖讱 诪讛谉 诪讬诐 讜专诪讜谞讬诐 砖诪砖讱 诪讛谉 讬讬谉 讜讛讻谞讬住谉 诇讗讜讻诇讬谉 讛讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉 诪讜转专 诇诪砖拽讬谉 讜诇住转诐 讛讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉 讗住讜专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 诇讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘讬谉 诇诪砖拽讬谉 讛讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉 讗住讜专


The Gemara questions this baraita: And does Rabbi Yehuda maintain that in the case of undesignated fruit that was not designated for a specific purpose, the liquid that seeps on its own is prohibited? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: A woman鈥檚 milk is considered a liquid and therefore renders food susceptible to ritual impurity, whether the milk was expressed volitionally and whether it was expressed unvolitionally? On the other hand, milk of an animal only renders food susceptible to ritual impurity if it was milked volitionally but not if it drips out on its own.


讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住转诐 讗住讜专 讜讛转谞谉 讞诇讘 讛讗砖讛 诪讟诪讗 诇专爪讜谉 讜砖诇讗 诇专爪讜谉 讞诇讘 讘讛诪讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讗诇讗 诇专爪讜谉


Rabbi Akiva said: It is an a fortiori inference that this is incorrect: Just as a woman鈥檚 milk, which is intended only for young children, is considered a liquid and renders food susceptible to ritual impurity both if the milk is expressed volitionally and if it is expressed unvolitionally, the milk of an animal, which is intended for both young and old, is it not logical that it should render food susceptible to ritual impurity, both if it was expressed volitionally and if it was expressed unvolitionally? They said to him that this a fortiori inference can be refuted in the following way: If a woman鈥檚 milk renders food susceptible to ritual impurity even when the milk was expressed unvolitionally, as the status of the blood of her wound is also that of a liquid that renders food susceptible to ritual impurity, that does not mean that the milk of an animal renders food susceptible to ritual impurity


讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讞诇讘 讛讗砖讛 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬讜讞讚 讗诇讗 诇拽讟谞讬诐 诪讟诪讗 诇专爪讜谉 讜砖诇讗 诇专爪讜谉 讞诇讘 讛讘讛诪讛 砖诪讬讜讞讚 讘讬谉 诇拽讟谞讬诐 讘讬谉 诇讙讚讜诇讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讟诪讗 讘讬谉 诇专爪讜谉 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诇专爪讜谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诐 讟诪讗 讞诇讘 讛讗砖讛 砖诇讗 诇专爪讜谉 砖讚诐 诪讙驻转讛 讟诪讗 讬讟诪讗 讞诇讘 讛讘讛诪讛



Scroll To Top