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

Daf Yomi

August 1, 2020 | 讬状讗 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 148

Today’s daf is sponsored by Julie Mendelsohn in honor of her son who is drafting into the army on Sunday. 鈥淢y favorite study partner – I know you might not have time to listen to the daf every day, but we鈥檒l all learn on your behalf while you defend us. B鈥檈zrat Hashem – I hope you have a successful and meaningful service, and come home safe and sound. Love, Mom

Can one set a broken bone on Shabbat?聽Can one lend food items to someone else on Shabbat 鈥 is it like a business transaction? In what way can it be done so that it will not be. Loaning bread to someone can create a problem of loaning on interest 鈥 how and how can this be avoided? Can one demand the return of the value of the item in court if it was loaned on Shabbat? Raba and Rav Yosef debate this and the gemara tries to bring sources to prove who is right.

讛诇讻讛 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗讬拽诇注 诇驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 诇讗 注诇 诇驻讬专拽讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讚专讬讛 诇讗讚讗 讚讬讬诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讙专讘讬讛 讗讝讬诇 讙专讘讬讛 讗转讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚拽讗 讚专讬砖 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讗 讘讙讚转讗讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 讞谞讗 讚讬讚谉 讜讛讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讬讚谉 讜诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讜诇讗讜 讘讚讬谞讗 讙专讘转讬讱:


The halakha is that one may reset a break on Shabbat, which was the ruling in Shmuel鈥檚 version of the mishna. The Gemara relates that Rabba bar bar 岣na happened to come to Pumbedita and he did not enter Rav Yehuda鈥檚 lecture. Rav Yehuda sent for Adda, his attendant, and said to him: Go drag him to the lecture. He went and dragged him forcibly to the lecture (Rabbeinu 岣nanel). Rabba bar bar 岣na came and found Rav Yehuda teaching that one may not reset a break on Shabbat. He said to him: This is what Rav 岣na of Baghdad said that Shmuel said: The halakha is that one may reset a break on Shabbat. Rav Yehuda said to him: 岣na is ours, a Babylonian scholar, and Shmuel is ours, and nevertheless, I did not yet hear this halakha; did I not rightfully drag you to the lecture?


诪讬 砖谞驻专拽讛 讬讚讜 讻讜壮: 专讘 讗讜讬讗 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 砖谞讬讗 诇讬讛 讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗住讜专 讜讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗住讜专 讗讚讛讻讬 讗讬转驻讞 讬讚讬讛


We learned in the mishna that one whose hand was dislocated may not treat it by vigorously moving it about in water. The Gemara relates that Rav Avya was once sitting before Rav Yosef and his hand became dislocated. Rav Avya then displayed a variety of hand positions and he said to him: What is the ruling with regard to this? Am I permitted to place my hand in this way, or is it a violation of the prohibition against healing on Shabbat? Rav Yosef said to him: It is prohibited. Rav Avya again asked: And what is the ruling if I position my hand in this way? Rav Yosef said to him: It is prohibited. In the meantime, his hand was restored to its proper location and was healed.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讛讗 转谞谉 诪讬 砖谞驻专拽讛 讬讚讜 讗讜 专讙诇讜 诇讗 讬讟专驻诐 讘爪讜谞谉 讗讘诇 专讜讞抓 讻讚专讻讜 讜讗诐 谞转专驻讗 谞转专驻讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘专 讜讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讗 讘讙讚转讗讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讜诇讛讜 讘讞讚讗 诪讞讬转讗 诪讞讬转谞讛讜 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转诪专 讗讬转诪专 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗讬转诪专 诇讗 讗讬转诪专:


Rav Yosef said to him: What is your dilemma? We learned in our mishna that one whose hand or foot was dislocated on Shabbat may not vigorously move it about in cold water; however, he may rinse it in the usual manner, and if it is healed, it is healed. Rav Avya said to him: That is no proof, as didn鈥檛 we learn in our mishna that one may not reset a break, and Rav 岣na of Baghdad said that Shmuel said that the halakha is that one may indeed reset a broken bone. Therefore, perhaps a dislocated limb may also be treated on Shabbat. Rav Yosef said to him: Were all these woven together in a single weave? Where it was stated that an alternative version of the mishna exists, it was stated; where it was not stated, it was not stated. Therefore, the ruling of the mishna with regard to a dislocated limb must be observed.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讞讘讬转



诪转谞讬壮 砖讜讗诇 讗讚诐 诪讞讘讬专讜 讻讚讬 讬讬谉 讜讻讚讬 砖诪谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专 诇讜 讛诇讜讬谞讬 讜讻谉 讛讗砖讛 诪讞讘讬专转讛 讻讻专讜转 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讗诪讬谞讜 诪谞讬讞 讟诇讬转讜 讗爪诇讜 讜注讜砖讛 注诪讜 讞砖讘讜谉 诇讗讞专 砖讘转 讜讻谉 注专讘 驻住讞 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 诪谞讬讞 讟诇讬转讜 讗爪诇讜 讜谞讜讟诇 讗转 驻住讞讜 讜注讜砖讛 注诪讜 讞砖讘讜谉 诇讗讞专 讬讜诐 讟讜讘:


MISHNA: One may borrow jugs of wine and jugs of oil from another on Shabbat, as long as one does not say the following to him: Loan me. And similarly, a woman may borrow from another loaves of bread on Shabbat. And if the lender does not trust him that he will return them, the borrower may leave his cloak with him as collateral and make the proper calculation with him after Shabbat. And similarly, on the eve of Passover in Jerusalem, when it occurs on Shabbat, one who is procuring a Paschal lamb may leave his cloak with him, i.e., the person from whom he is purchasing it, and take the lamb to bring as his Paschal lamb, and then make the proper calculation with him after the Festival.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛砖讗讬诇谞讬 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛诇讜讬谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛砖讗讬诇谞讬 诇讗 讗转讬 诇诪讬讻转讘 讛诇讜讬谞讬 讗转讬 诇诪讬讻转讘


GEMARA: It was taught in the mishna that one is permitted to borrow jugs from another on Shabbat, but one may not use the phrase loan me. Rava bar Rav 岣nan said to Abaye: What is different about the expression let me borrow, that makes it permitted? And what is different about the expression loan me that makes it prohibited? He said to him: If someone says let me borrow, the lender will not come to write down the loan because the expression indicates that the borrower intends to return the object in its current state within a short amount of time. On the other hand, the expression loan me indicates a more extended loan in which the object is not necessarily returned in exactly the same manner in which it was taken. Therefore, the lender will come to write down the terms of the loan.


讜讛讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘讞讜诇 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬诪专 诇讬讛 讛诇讜讬谞讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛砖讗讬诇谞讬 讜诇讗 拽驻讬讚 注讬诇讜讬讛 讜讗转讬 诇诪讬讻转讘 讘砖讘转 谞诪讬 讗转讬 诇诪讬讻转讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 (讘讞讜诇 讚诇讗 砖谞讗 讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛诇讜讬谞讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛砖讗讬诇谞讬 诇讗 拽驻讚讬谞谉 注讬诇讜讬讛 讗转讬 诇诪讬讻转讘) 讘砖讘转 讻讬讜谉 讚讛砖讗讬诇谞讬 讛讜讗 讚砖专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 讛诇讜讬谞讬 诇讗 砖专讜 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讻专讗 诪讬诇转讗 讜诇讗 讗转讬 诇诪讬讻转讘


Rava bar Rav 岣nan challenged Abaye鈥檚 answer: But since on weekdays there are times one intends to say loan me and instead says let me borrow, and the lender is not particular about his imprecise terminology and he comes to write down the terms of the loan, on Shabbat he will also come to write. Abaye said to him: On a weekday, when there is no difference if one says loan me or let me borrow, lenders are not particular about his terminology, and the lender will therefore come to write down the terms of the loan. On Shabbat, since only the expression let me borrow was allowed by the Sages, while the expression loan me was not permitted, the matter is recognizable. Both of the parties must bear in mind which terminology is acceptable, and the lender will not come to write.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讻讚讬 讗诪专讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讚讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讻诪讛 讚讗驻砖专 诇砖谞讜讬讬 诪砖谞讬谞谉 讛谞讬 谞砖讬 讚诪诇讬讬谉 讞爪讘讬讬讛讜 诪讬讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪砖谞讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讛讬讻讬 诇注讘讚讬 讚诪诇讬讬谉 讘讞爪讘讗 专讘讗 诇讬诪诇讜 讘讞爪讘讗 讝讜讟讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪驻砖讜 讘讛讬诇讜讻讗 讚诪诇讬讬谉 讘讞爪讘讗 讝讜讟讗 诇讬诪诇讜 讘讞爪讘讗 专讘讗 拽讗 诪驻砖讜 讘诪砖讜讬


Rava bar Rav 岣nan said to Abaye: Now, since the Sages said that with regard to all matters of a Festival, as much as we can change the way we do things from the manner in which we do them on weekdays, we change, these women who fill their pitchers with water, what is the reason they do not change the way they draw water from their normal weekday procedure? Abaye answers: Because it is not possible to change the procedure. How would they do it differently? If you say that those who normally fill a large pitcher should fill a small pitcher on a Festival, they would thereby add to their walking and expend extra effort. Conversely, if those who normally fill a small pitcher would fill a large pitcher on a Festival, they would thereby add to the weight of their load. Even though these methods are different from the norm, they would cause added exertion. Therefore, the Sages did not require that one draw water in an unusual fashion.


谞讬驻专讜住 住讜讚专讗 讗转讬 诇讬讚讬 住讞讬讟讛 谞讻住讬讬讛 讘谞讻转诪讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪讬驻住拽 讜讗转讬 诇诪拽讟专讬讛 讛诇讻讱 诇讗 讗驻砖专


If you say that, in order to draw water in an unusual manner, we should require a woman to spread a cloth over the vessel, she may come to violate the prohibition of squeezing water from the cloth. And if we would cover it with a lid, sometimes it is severed from the pitcher, and one will then come to tie it. Therefore, since it is impossible to require women to draw water any other way, women draw water on a Festival in the usual manner.


讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 转谞谉 诇讗 诪住驻拽讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讟驻讞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪专拽讚讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜拽讗 讞讝讬谞谉 讚注讘讚讬谉 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讜诇讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 诇讬转讬讘 讗讬谞讬砖 讗驻讜诪讗 讚诇讞讬讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讬讙谞讚专 诇讬讛 讞驻抓 讜讗转讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讜讛讗 拽讗 讞讝讬谞谉 谞诪讬 讚诪讜转讘讬 讞爪讘讬 讜讬转讘谉 讗驻讜诪讗 讚诪讘讜讗讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗诇讗 讛谞讞 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪讜讟讘 砖讬讛讜 砖讜讙讙讬谉 讜讗诇 讬讛讜 诪讝讬讚讬谉


And Rava bar Rav 岣nan said to Abaye: Did we not learn in a mishna that one may not clap hands, or clap one鈥檚 hand against one鈥檚 body, or dance on a Festival? And we see, however, that people do these things, and we do not say anything to stop them. Abaye responded: And according to your reasoning, what about this halakha that Rava said: One may not sit on Shabbat at the entrance of a private alleyway next to the post, which delineates its boundaries, lest an object roll away into the public domain and he come to bring it back? And yet we see that women put down their jugs and sit at the entrance of the alleyway, and we do not say anything to stop them. Rather, in these matters we rely on a different principle: Leave the Jewish people alone, and do not rebuke them. It is better that they be unwitting in their halakhic violations and that they not be intentional sinners, for if they are told about these prohibitions they may not listen anyway.


住讘讜专 诪讬谞讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讚专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讚专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讛讗 转讜住驻转 讚讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讜拽讗 讞讝讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讚拽讗讻诇讬 讜砖转讜 注讚 砖转讞砖讱 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬:


There were those who understood from this statement that this halakha applies only to rabbinic prohibitions but not to Torah prohibitions, with regard to which we must certainly reprimand transgressors. However, that is not so. There is no difference between rabbinic prohibitions and Torah prohibitions. In both cases one does not reprimand those who violate unwittingly and would not listen to the reprimand. For the requirement of adding to Yom Kippur by beginning the fast while it is still day is from the Torah, and we see women who eat and drink on the eve of Yom Kippur up until nightfall, and we do not say anything to them. Thus, this rule, which applies to rabbinic prohibitions, applies to Torah prohibitions as well.


讜讻谉 讗砖讛 诪讞讘讬专转讛 讻讻专讜转: 讘砖讘转 讛讜讗 讚讗住讬专 讗讘诇 讘讞讜诇 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讛诇诇 讚转谞谉 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专 诇讗 转诇讜讛 讗砖讛 讻讻专 诇讞讘讬专转讛 注讚 砖转注砖讬谞讛 讚诪讬诐 砖诪讗 讬讜拽专讜 讞讟讬谉 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讘讗讜转 诇讬讚讬 专讘讬转


We learned in the mishna: And similarly, a woman may borrow loaves of bread from another on Shabbat. However, as in the previous halakha, she may not ask for them using the word loan. The Gemara asks: Is it only on Shabbat that it is prohibited, but on a weekday it seems well. Is it permitted to borrow bread as a loan on a weekday? If so, let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Hillel, for we learned in a mishna: And thus Hillel would say: A woman may not loan a loaf of bread to another until she calculates its monetary value, lest wheat become more valuable and they come to violate the prohibition against lending with interest. If the price of wheat rises and the borrower returns the same sized loaf of bread, she will have returned something of greater value than what she borrowed, and therefore she will have paid interest on her loan. From here we see that even on weekdays it is prohibited to borrow a loaf of bread from another person.


讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讛诇诇 讛讗 讘讗转专讗 讚拽讬抓 讚诪讬讛 讛讗 讘讗转专讗 讚诇讗 拽讬抓 讚诪讬讛:


The Gemara answers: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Hillel, we may distinguish between the cases such that there is no contradiction: This case, in which the mishna permits borrowing a loaf of bread as a loan, is applicable in a place where the price of the loaf is set, while this statement, which was said by Hillel, is applicable in a place where its price is not set.


讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讗诪讬谞讜: 讗讬转诪专 讛诇讜讜讗转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 诇讬转讘注 讜专讘讛 讗诪专 谞讬转谞讛 诇讬转讘注 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 诇讬转讘注 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 谞讬转谞讛 诇讬转讘注 讗转讬 诇诪讬讻转讘 专讘讛 讗诪专 谞讬转谞讛 诇讬转讘注 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讜讗转讬 诇讗讬诪谞讜注讬 诪砖诪讞转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘


The mishna taught further that if the lender does not trust the one who borrows from him on Shabbat or a Festival, the borrower may leave his cloak as collateral. On this topic, the Gemara cites that which was said in an amoraic dispute with regard to loans on a Festival: Rav Yosef said that such a loan cannot be claimed in court. Although the borrower is obligated to return the object or reimburse the lender, the lender cannot force him to do so by taking legal action. And Rabba said that such a loan is like any other type of loan and can be claimed in court. The Gemara explains these two positions: Rav Yosef said that a loan made on a Festival cannot be claimed in court, for if you say that it can be claimed, there is a concern that the lender may come to write the details of the loan on the Festival so that he can claim it later. Rabba said that it can be claimed, for if you say that it cannot be claimed, the lender will not give him anything to borrow, and the potential borrower will refrain from rejoicing on the Festival.


转谞谉 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讗诪讬谞讜 诪谞讬讞 讟诇讬转讜 讗爪诇讜 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 诇讬转讘注 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诪谞讬讞 讟诇讬转讜 讗爪诇讜 讜注讜砖讛 注诪讜 讞砖讘讜谉 诇讗讞专 砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 谞讬转谞讛 诇讬转讘注 讗诪讗讬 诪谞讬讞 讟诇讬转讜 讗爪诇讜 诇讬转谉 诇讬讛 讜诇转讘注讬讛 讗诪专 诇讗 讘注讬谞讗 讚诇讬拽讜诐 讘讚讬谞讗 讜讚讬讬谞讗


We learned in the mishna that if he does not trust him, he may leave his cloak with him as collateral. The Gemara attempts to show that this halakha supports Rav Yosef鈥檚 position: Granted, this halakha makes sense if you say that loans given on a Festival cannot be claimed, in accordance with Rav Yosef鈥檚 position. Due to this, he leaves his cloak with him and makes a calculation with him after Shabbat. However, if you say that loans given on a Festival can indeed be claimed in court, why then would he leave his cloak with him? Let him give him the item on loan and bring him to court if he does not return it. The Gemara rejects this argument because the lender can say: I do not want to stand in judgment before judges; he may prefer taking collateral so that he will not need to go to court at a later time.


诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛驻专讛 讜讞讬诇拽讛 讘专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讗诐 讛讬讛 讞讚砖 诪注讜讘专 诪砖诪讟 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟


Rav Idi bar Avin raised an objection to the view of Rav Yosef, based on a mishna pertaining to one who slaughters a cow and divides it among purchasers on Rosh HaShana of a year that follows the Sabbatical Year [shemitta]. Even during the times of the Temple, they were already celebrating two days of Rosh HaShana. The first day was possibly the last day of the month of Elul and possibly the first day of the month of Tishrei, which is the actual date of Rosh Hashana. The question therefore arises as to whether those who bought the meat of the cow initiated their debt on the final day of the Sabbatical Year, in which case the debts would be canceled, or whether the transactions took place on the first day of the following year, in which case the debts may still be collected. The mishna said that if it becomes clear that Elul of the previous year was a full thirty-day month, the Sabbatical Year cancels the debts because the very end of the Sabbatical Year cancels the ability to collect all previous debts. And if this was not the case, and the first day of Rosh HaShana was actually the first day of the new year, the Sabbatical Year does not cancel the loan.


讜讗讬 诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 诇讬转讘注 诪讗讬 诪砖诪讟 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讞讜诇 讛讜讗


Based on that mishna, Rav Idi bar Avin makes the following argument: If a loan given on a Festival cannot be claimed in court, what is the meaning of the word cancels? In any event, the lender could not have presented his claim against the borrower in court. The Gemara rejects this argument: It is different there, in an instance in which the month of Elul has thirty days, for it has become clear that the first day of Rosh HaShana was a regular weekday. The loan could therefore be claimed in court, if not for the fact that it was canceled by the Sabbatical Year.


转讗 砖诪注 诪住讬驻讗 讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 谞讬转谞讛 诇讬转讘注 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 诇讬转讘注 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 讚讗讬 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 砖拽讬诇


The Gemara attempts to bring a different proof: Come and hear a proof for this from what we learned in the latter clause of that mishna: If the month of Elul did not turn out to be a full month, such that the first day of Rosh HaShana was actually the first day of the new year, the Sabbatical Year does not cancel the loan. Granted, if you say that a loan given on a Festival can be claimed, that which was taught that it does not cancel the loan is understandable. But if you say that it cannot be claimed, why does it teach that it does not cancel the loan? In any event, the lender cannot make a claim on it in court. The Gemara explains: A loan given on a Festival cannot be claimed in court, but since it has not been canceled, if the borrower gives him the money he may take it.


诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 讗讬 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖拽讬诇 专讬砖讗 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖诪讟 讗谞讬 住讬驻讗 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖诪讟 讗谞讬 讻讚转谞谉 讛诪讞讝讬专 讞讜讘 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讬讗诪专 诇讜 诪砖诪讟 讗谞讬


The Gemara is surprised at this statement: Does this prove by inference that, in the first clause of the mishna, if the borrower gives him the money, he may not take it? One does not have to refuse repayment of a loan that the Sabbatical Year has canceled. One is simply not allowed to demand repayment from the borrower. The Gemara explains the difference between the two clauses of the mishna: In the first clause of the mishna, in which the first day of Rosh HaShana turned out to be the last day of Elul, the lender must say to him: I relinquish my claim against you. However, in the latter clause of the mishna, in which the first day of Rosh HaShana is the first day of the new year, he does not need to say to him: I relinquish my claim. This is as we learned in a mishna: When one repays a debt during the Sabbatical Year, the lender should say to him: I relinquish my claim.


讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讻谉 讬拽讘诇 诪诪谞讜 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讝讛 讚讘专 讛砖诪讟讛


And if the borrower says to him: Nonetheless, I want to repay you, he may accept it due to that which is stated: 鈥淎nd this is the manner of the release [devar hashemitta], every creditor shall release that which he has lent to his neighbor; he shall not exact it of his neighbor or brother because the Lord鈥檚 Sabbatical Year has been proclaimed鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:2). The manner of the release, devar hashemitta, can be rendered: The statement of release. The Sages derived that, although the creditor must verbally release the debtor from obligation, if the debtor persists in his desire to repay the debt, the creditor may accept payment. If, however, the loan was made after the Sabbatical Year, as is the case in the latter clause of the mishna, the creditor need not verbally release the debtor from obligation.


专讘 讗讜讬讗 砖拽讬诇 诪砖讻讜谞讗 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 诪注专讬诐 讗讬注专讜诪讬:


The Gemara relates that Rav Avya would take collateral for loans that he gave on a Festivals. Rabba bar Ulla would circumvent the issue by taking something from the borrower after the conclusion of the Festival and holding onto it until the repayment of the loan.


讜讻谉 注专讘 驻住讞: 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪拽讚讬砖 讗讚诐 驻住讞讜 讘砖讘转 讜讞讙讬讙转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 谞讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讜讻谉 注专讘 驻住讞 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 诪谞讬讞 讟诇讬转讜 讗爪诇讜 讜谞讜讟诇 讗转 驻住讞讜 讜注讜砖讛 注诪讜 讞砖讘讜谉 诇讗讞专 讬讜诐 讟讜讘


We learned in the mishna: And similarly, on the eve of Passover in Jerusalem, when it occurs on Shabbat, one who needs to obtain an animal for the Paschal lamb may leave his cloak with the owner of the lamb as collateral and then make the appropriate calculations with him after the Festival. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A person may consecrate his Paschal lamb on Shabbat and his Festival peace-offering on the Festival. The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that the mishna supports him? It states: And similarly, on the eve of Passover in Jerusalem which occurred on Shabbat, one may leave one鈥檚 cloak with him and take his Paschal lamb and make the appropriate calculation with him after the Festival. Here, we see that the lamb itself is consecrated on Shabbat, which follows the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan.


讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪诪谞讛 讗讞专讬诐 注诪讜 注诇 驻住讞讜 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诪讬拽讚砖 讜拽讗讬


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: This is not necessarily the case, for with what are we dealing here? With a case in which one registers others to participate with him in bringing his Paschal lamb. In other words, the case is not one in which a person consecrates a previously unconsecrated animal but rather a case in which one allows others to join with him in registering for an animal that was already consecrated from the outset.


讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讗讬谉 谞诪谞讬谉 注诇 讛讘讛诪讛 讘转讞讬诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚专讙讬诇 讗爪诇讜 讻诪讗谉 讚讗讬诪谞讬 讘讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讚诪讬


The Gemara challenges this: But we learned in a mishna: One may not initially register for an animal on the Festival. Therefore, even if the animal has been consecrated in advance, it is prohibited to register for it on the Festival, and it should certainly be prohibited to do so on Shabbat. The Gemara answers: The case here is different. Since each person who joins regularly registers together with him, the legal status of that person is like that of one who registered for it from the outset.


讜讛讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讛讜砖注讬讗 讛讜诇讱 讗讚诐 讗爪诇 专讜注讛 讛专讙讬诇 讗爪诇讜 讜谞讜转谉 诇讜 讟诇讛 诇驻住讞讜 讜诪拽讚讬砖讜 讜讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚专讙讬诇 讗爪诇讜 讗拽讚讜砖讬 诇讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讜讛讗 诪拽讚讬砖 拽转谞讬 讛拽讚砖 注讬诇讜讬 诪讚专讘谞谉


The Gemara raises another proof to the view of Rabbi Yo岣nan: But Rabbi Hoshaya taught: One who wants to bring a Paschal lamb and does not have his own lamb may go to a shepherd to whom he normally goes, and the shepherd may give him a lamb to be used for his Paschal lamb, and he may consecrate it and fulfill his obligation with it. This indicates that one may consecrate an animal on Shabbat. The Gemara answers: There, too, it is referring to a special case. Since he normally goes to him every year, the shepherd has already consecrated it beforehand, prior to Shabbat. The Gemara challenges this explanation: But it taught that one may consecrate it, indicating that the animal is only now being consecrated. The Gemara answers: This is not an actual sanctification in the normal sense, but rather consecration by valuation. By consecrating their animals on their own, the owners add further sanctity to the offering. This process is merely rabbinic, and it may be performed on Shabbat according to all opinions.


讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛 讜转谞谉 诇讗 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉 讜诇讗 诪注专讬讻讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讞专讬诪讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讙讘讬讛讬谉 转专讜诪讜转 讜诪注砖专讜转 讻诇 讗诇讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诪专讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讘砖讘转 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讞讜讘讜转 砖拽讘讜注 诇讛谉 讝诪谉 讻讗谉 讘讞讜讘讜转 砖讗讬谉 拽讘讜注 诇讛谉 讝诪谉:


The Gemara questions the very basis of this discussion: Did Rabbi Yo岣nan really say this? But Rabbi Yo岣nan stated as a general principle that the halakha is always in accordance with an unattributed mishna, i.e., a mishna that does not mention the name of the Sage whose ruling is quoted in the mishna. And we learned in an unattributed mishna: One may not consecrate, or take a valuation vow, or consecrate objects for use by the priests or the Temple, or separate terumot or tithes; they said all of these prohibitions with regard to a Festival, and it is an a fortiori inference that these activities are prohibited on Shabbat as well. How, then, would Rabbi Yo岣nan have permitted sanctifying an animal on Shabbat or on a Festival? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, in the case in which Rabbi Yo岣nan deems it permitted, it is referring to obligations that have a set time, such that if the person does not consecrate the animal right now he will no longer be able to fulfill the mitzva. There, in the mishna that prohibits these activities, the prohibition is referring to obligations that do not have a set time, and one can therefore consecrate the animal after Shabbat.


诪转谞讬壮 诪讜谞讛 讗讚诐 讗转 讗讜专讞讬讜 讜讗转 驻专驻专讜转讬讜 诪驻讬讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪谉 讛讻转讘 诪驻讬住 讗讚诐 注诐 讘谞讬讜 讜注诐 讘谞讬 讘讬转讜 注诇 讛砖讜诇讞谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇注砖讜转 诪谞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讻谞讙讚 诪谞讛 拽讟谞讛 讜诪讟讬诇讬谉 讞诇砖讬谉 注诇 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讘诇 诇讗 注诇 讛诪谞讜转:


MISHNA: One may count his guests who are coming to his meal and his appetizers, as long as he does so from memory; but one may not read them from a written list, the reason for which will be explained in the Gemara. A person may draw lots with his children and family members at the table on Shabbat, in order to determine who will receive which portion, as long as he does not intend to set a large portion against a small portion in such a lottery. Rather, the portions must be of equal size. And one may cast lots among the priests for sanctified foods on a Festival, but not for the specific portions.


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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Daf Yomi One Week at a Time – Shabbat 145-151

Join Rabbanit Dr. Tamara Spitz each week as she reviews the key topics of the previous week鈥檚 seven pages. This...
Weaving Wisdom

Be Happy With Your Portion

Today I am weaving together ideas rather than threads. Michelle raised an interesting point on Daf 148/149 that comes from...

Shabbat 148

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 148

讛诇讻讛 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗讬拽诇注 诇驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 诇讗 注诇 诇驻讬专拽讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讚专讬讛 诇讗讚讗 讚讬讬诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讙专讘讬讛 讗讝讬诇 讙专讘讬讛 讗转讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚拽讗 讚专讬砖 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讗 讘讙讚转讗讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 讞谞讗 讚讬讚谉 讜讛讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讬讚谉 讜诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讜诇讗讜 讘讚讬谞讗 讙专讘转讬讱:


The halakha is that one may reset a break on Shabbat, which was the ruling in Shmuel鈥檚 version of the mishna. The Gemara relates that Rabba bar bar 岣na happened to come to Pumbedita and he did not enter Rav Yehuda鈥檚 lecture. Rav Yehuda sent for Adda, his attendant, and said to him: Go drag him to the lecture. He went and dragged him forcibly to the lecture (Rabbeinu 岣nanel). Rabba bar bar 岣na came and found Rav Yehuda teaching that one may not reset a break on Shabbat. He said to him: This is what Rav 岣na of Baghdad said that Shmuel said: The halakha is that one may reset a break on Shabbat. Rav Yehuda said to him: 岣na is ours, a Babylonian scholar, and Shmuel is ours, and nevertheless, I did not yet hear this halakha; did I not rightfully drag you to the lecture?


诪讬 砖谞驻专拽讛 讬讚讜 讻讜壮: 专讘 讗讜讬讗 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 砖谞讬讗 诇讬讛 讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗住讜专 讜讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗住讜专 讗讚讛讻讬 讗讬转驻讞 讬讚讬讛


We learned in the mishna that one whose hand was dislocated may not treat it by vigorously moving it about in water. The Gemara relates that Rav Avya was once sitting before Rav Yosef and his hand became dislocated. Rav Avya then displayed a variety of hand positions and he said to him: What is the ruling with regard to this? Am I permitted to place my hand in this way, or is it a violation of the prohibition against healing on Shabbat? Rav Yosef said to him: It is prohibited. Rav Avya again asked: And what is the ruling if I position my hand in this way? Rav Yosef said to him: It is prohibited. In the meantime, his hand was restored to its proper location and was healed.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讛讗 转谞谉 诪讬 砖谞驻专拽讛 讬讚讜 讗讜 专讙诇讜 诇讗 讬讟专驻诐 讘爪讜谞谉 讗讘诇 专讜讞抓 讻讚专讻讜 讜讗诐 谞转专驻讗 谞转专驻讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘专 讜讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讗 讘讙讚转讗讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讜诇讛讜 讘讞讚讗 诪讞讬转讗 诪讞讬转谞讛讜 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转诪专 讗讬转诪专 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗讬转诪专 诇讗 讗讬转诪专:


Rav Yosef said to him: What is your dilemma? We learned in our mishna that one whose hand or foot was dislocated on Shabbat may not vigorously move it about in cold water; however, he may rinse it in the usual manner, and if it is healed, it is healed. Rav Avya said to him: That is no proof, as didn鈥檛 we learn in our mishna that one may not reset a break, and Rav 岣na of Baghdad said that Shmuel said that the halakha is that one may indeed reset a broken bone. Therefore, perhaps a dislocated limb may also be treated on Shabbat. Rav Yosef said to him: Were all these woven together in a single weave? Where it was stated that an alternative version of the mishna exists, it was stated; where it was not stated, it was not stated. Therefore, the ruling of the mishna with regard to a dislocated limb must be observed.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讞讘讬转



诪转谞讬壮 砖讜讗诇 讗讚诐 诪讞讘讬专讜 讻讚讬 讬讬谉 讜讻讚讬 砖诪谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专 诇讜 讛诇讜讬谞讬 讜讻谉 讛讗砖讛 诪讞讘讬专转讛 讻讻专讜转 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讗诪讬谞讜 诪谞讬讞 讟诇讬转讜 讗爪诇讜 讜注讜砖讛 注诪讜 讞砖讘讜谉 诇讗讞专 砖讘转 讜讻谉 注专讘 驻住讞 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 诪谞讬讞 讟诇讬转讜 讗爪诇讜 讜谞讜讟诇 讗转 驻住讞讜 讜注讜砖讛 注诪讜 讞砖讘讜谉 诇讗讞专 讬讜诐 讟讜讘:


MISHNA: One may borrow jugs of wine and jugs of oil from another on Shabbat, as long as one does not say the following to him: Loan me. And similarly, a woman may borrow from another loaves of bread on Shabbat. And if the lender does not trust him that he will return them, the borrower may leave his cloak with him as collateral and make the proper calculation with him after Shabbat. And similarly, on the eve of Passover in Jerusalem, when it occurs on Shabbat, one who is procuring a Paschal lamb may leave his cloak with him, i.e., the person from whom he is purchasing it, and take the lamb to bring as his Paschal lamb, and then make the proper calculation with him after the Festival.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛砖讗讬诇谞讬 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛诇讜讬谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛砖讗讬诇谞讬 诇讗 讗转讬 诇诪讬讻转讘 讛诇讜讬谞讬 讗转讬 诇诪讬讻转讘


GEMARA: It was taught in the mishna that one is permitted to borrow jugs from another on Shabbat, but one may not use the phrase loan me. Rava bar Rav 岣nan said to Abaye: What is different about the expression let me borrow, that makes it permitted? And what is different about the expression loan me that makes it prohibited? He said to him: If someone says let me borrow, the lender will not come to write down the loan because the expression indicates that the borrower intends to return the object in its current state within a short amount of time. On the other hand, the expression loan me indicates a more extended loan in which the object is not necessarily returned in exactly the same manner in which it was taken. Therefore, the lender will come to write down the terms of the loan.


讜讛讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘讞讜诇 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬诪专 诇讬讛 讛诇讜讬谞讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛砖讗讬诇谞讬 讜诇讗 拽驻讬讚 注讬诇讜讬讛 讜讗转讬 诇诪讬讻转讘 讘砖讘转 谞诪讬 讗转讬 诇诪讬讻转讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 (讘讞讜诇 讚诇讗 砖谞讗 讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛诇讜讬谞讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛砖讗讬诇谞讬 诇讗 拽驻讚讬谞谉 注讬诇讜讬讛 讗转讬 诇诪讬讻转讘) 讘砖讘转 讻讬讜谉 讚讛砖讗讬诇谞讬 讛讜讗 讚砖专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 讛诇讜讬谞讬 诇讗 砖专讜 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讻专讗 诪讬诇转讗 讜诇讗 讗转讬 诇诪讬讻转讘


Rava bar Rav 岣nan challenged Abaye鈥檚 answer: But since on weekdays there are times one intends to say loan me and instead says let me borrow, and the lender is not particular about his imprecise terminology and he comes to write down the terms of the loan, on Shabbat he will also come to write. Abaye said to him: On a weekday, when there is no difference if one says loan me or let me borrow, lenders are not particular about his terminology, and the lender will therefore come to write down the terms of the loan. On Shabbat, since only the expression let me borrow was allowed by the Sages, while the expression loan me was not permitted, the matter is recognizable. Both of the parties must bear in mind which terminology is acceptable, and the lender will not come to write.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讻讚讬 讗诪专讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讚讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讻诪讛 讚讗驻砖专 诇砖谞讜讬讬 诪砖谞讬谞谉 讛谞讬 谞砖讬 讚诪诇讬讬谉 讞爪讘讬讬讛讜 诪讬讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪砖谞讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讛讬讻讬 诇注讘讚讬 讚诪诇讬讬谉 讘讞爪讘讗 专讘讗 诇讬诪诇讜 讘讞爪讘讗 讝讜讟讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪驻砖讜 讘讛讬诇讜讻讗 讚诪诇讬讬谉 讘讞爪讘讗 讝讜讟讗 诇讬诪诇讜 讘讞爪讘讗 专讘讗 拽讗 诪驻砖讜 讘诪砖讜讬


Rava bar Rav 岣nan said to Abaye: Now, since the Sages said that with regard to all matters of a Festival, as much as we can change the way we do things from the manner in which we do them on weekdays, we change, these women who fill their pitchers with water, what is the reason they do not change the way they draw water from their normal weekday procedure? Abaye answers: Because it is not possible to change the procedure. How would they do it differently? If you say that those who normally fill a large pitcher should fill a small pitcher on a Festival, they would thereby add to their walking and expend extra effort. Conversely, if those who normally fill a small pitcher would fill a large pitcher on a Festival, they would thereby add to the weight of their load. Even though these methods are different from the norm, they would cause added exertion. Therefore, the Sages did not require that one draw water in an unusual fashion.


谞讬驻专讜住 住讜讚专讗 讗转讬 诇讬讚讬 住讞讬讟讛 谞讻住讬讬讛 讘谞讻转诪讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪讬驻住拽 讜讗转讬 诇诪拽讟专讬讛 讛诇讻讱 诇讗 讗驻砖专


If you say that, in order to draw water in an unusual manner, we should require a woman to spread a cloth over the vessel, she may come to violate the prohibition of squeezing water from the cloth. And if we would cover it with a lid, sometimes it is severed from the pitcher, and one will then come to tie it. Therefore, since it is impossible to require women to draw water any other way, women draw water on a Festival in the usual manner.


讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 转谞谉 诇讗 诪住驻拽讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讟驻讞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪专拽讚讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜拽讗 讞讝讬谞谉 讚注讘讚讬谉 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讜诇讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 诇讬转讬讘 讗讬谞讬砖 讗驻讜诪讗 讚诇讞讬讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讬讙谞讚专 诇讬讛 讞驻抓 讜讗转讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讜讛讗 拽讗 讞讝讬谞谉 谞诪讬 讚诪讜转讘讬 讞爪讘讬 讜讬转讘谉 讗驻讜诪讗 讚诪讘讜讗讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗诇讗 讛谞讞 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪讜讟讘 砖讬讛讜 砖讜讙讙讬谉 讜讗诇 讬讛讜 诪讝讬讚讬谉


And Rava bar Rav 岣nan said to Abaye: Did we not learn in a mishna that one may not clap hands, or clap one鈥檚 hand against one鈥檚 body, or dance on a Festival? And we see, however, that people do these things, and we do not say anything to stop them. Abaye responded: And according to your reasoning, what about this halakha that Rava said: One may not sit on Shabbat at the entrance of a private alleyway next to the post, which delineates its boundaries, lest an object roll away into the public domain and he come to bring it back? And yet we see that women put down their jugs and sit at the entrance of the alleyway, and we do not say anything to stop them. Rather, in these matters we rely on a different principle: Leave the Jewish people alone, and do not rebuke them. It is better that they be unwitting in their halakhic violations and that they not be intentional sinners, for if they are told about these prohibitions they may not listen anyway.


住讘讜专 诪讬谞讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讚专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讚专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讛讗 转讜住驻转 讚讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讜拽讗 讞讝讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讚拽讗讻诇讬 讜砖转讜 注讚 砖转讞砖讱 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬:


There were those who understood from this statement that this halakha applies only to rabbinic prohibitions but not to Torah prohibitions, with regard to which we must certainly reprimand transgressors. However, that is not so. There is no difference between rabbinic prohibitions and Torah prohibitions. In both cases one does not reprimand those who violate unwittingly and would not listen to the reprimand. For the requirement of adding to Yom Kippur by beginning the fast while it is still day is from the Torah, and we see women who eat and drink on the eve of Yom Kippur up until nightfall, and we do not say anything to them. Thus, this rule, which applies to rabbinic prohibitions, applies to Torah prohibitions as well.


讜讻谉 讗砖讛 诪讞讘讬专转讛 讻讻专讜转: 讘砖讘转 讛讜讗 讚讗住讬专 讗讘诇 讘讞讜诇 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讛诇诇 讚转谞谉 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专 诇讗 转诇讜讛 讗砖讛 讻讻专 诇讞讘讬专转讛 注讚 砖转注砖讬谞讛 讚诪讬诐 砖诪讗 讬讜拽专讜 讞讟讬谉 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讘讗讜转 诇讬讚讬 专讘讬转


We learned in the mishna: And similarly, a woman may borrow loaves of bread from another on Shabbat. However, as in the previous halakha, she may not ask for them using the word loan. The Gemara asks: Is it only on Shabbat that it is prohibited, but on a weekday it seems well. Is it permitted to borrow bread as a loan on a weekday? If so, let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Hillel, for we learned in a mishna: And thus Hillel would say: A woman may not loan a loaf of bread to another until she calculates its monetary value, lest wheat become more valuable and they come to violate the prohibition against lending with interest. If the price of wheat rises and the borrower returns the same sized loaf of bread, she will have returned something of greater value than what she borrowed, and therefore she will have paid interest on her loan. From here we see that even on weekdays it is prohibited to borrow a loaf of bread from another person.


讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讛诇诇 讛讗 讘讗转专讗 讚拽讬抓 讚诪讬讛 讛讗 讘讗转专讗 讚诇讗 拽讬抓 讚诪讬讛:


The Gemara answers: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Hillel, we may distinguish between the cases such that there is no contradiction: This case, in which the mishna permits borrowing a loaf of bread as a loan, is applicable in a place where the price of the loaf is set, while this statement, which was said by Hillel, is applicable in a place where its price is not set.


讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讗诪讬谞讜: 讗讬转诪专 讛诇讜讜讗转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 诇讬转讘注 讜专讘讛 讗诪专 谞讬转谞讛 诇讬转讘注 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 诇讬转讘注 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 谞讬转谞讛 诇讬转讘注 讗转讬 诇诪讬讻转讘 专讘讛 讗诪专 谞讬转谞讛 诇讬转讘注 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讜讗转讬 诇讗讬诪谞讜注讬 诪砖诪讞转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘


The mishna taught further that if the lender does not trust the one who borrows from him on Shabbat or a Festival, the borrower may leave his cloak as collateral. On this topic, the Gemara cites that which was said in an amoraic dispute with regard to loans on a Festival: Rav Yosef said that such a loan cannot be claimed in court. Although the borrower is obligated to return the object or reimburse the lender, the lender cannot force him to do so by taking legal action. And Rabba said that such a loan is like any other type of loan and can be claimed in court. The Gemara explains these two positions: Rav Yosef said that a loan made on a Festival cannot be claimed in court, for if you say that it can be claimed, there is a concern that the lender may come to write the details of the loan on the Festival so that he can claim it later. Rabba said that it can be claimed, for if you say that it cannot be claimed, the lender will not give him anything to borrow, and the potential borrower will refrain from rejoicing on the Festival.


转谞谉 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讗诪讬谞讜 诪谞讬讞 讟诇讬转讜 讗爪诇讜 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 诇讬转讘注 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诪谞讬讞 讟诇讬转讜 讗爪诇讜 讜注讜砖讛 注诪讜 讞砖讘讜谉 诇讗讞专 砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 谞讬转谞讛 诇讬转讘注 讗诪讗讬 诪谞讬讞 讟诇讬转讜 讗爪诇讜 诇讬转谉 诇讬讛 讜诇转讘注讬讛 讗诪专 诇讗 讘注讬谞讗 讚诇讬拽讜诐 讘讚讬谞讗 讜讚讬讬谞讗


We learned in the mishna that if he does not trust him, he may leave his cloak with him as collateral. The Gemara attempts to show that this halakha supports Rav Yosef鈥檚 position: Granted, this halakha makes sense if you say that loans given on a Festival cannot be claimed, in accordance with Rav Yosef鈥檚 position. Due to this, he leaves his cloak with him and makes a calculation with him after Shabbat. However, if you say that loans given on a Festival can indeed be claimed in court, why then would he leave his cloak with him? Let him give him the item on loan and bring him to court if he does not return it. The Gemara rejects this argument because the lender can say: I do not want to stand in judgment before judges; he may prefer taking collateral so that he will not need to go to court at a later time.


诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛驻专讛 讜讞讬诇拽讛 讘专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讗诐 讛讬讛 讞讚砖 诪注讜讘专 诪砖诪讟 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟


Rav Idi bar Avin raised an objection to the view of Rav Yosef, based on a mishna pertaining to one who slaughters a cow and divides it among purchasers on Rosh HaShana of a year that follows the Sabbatical Year [shemitta]. Even during the times of the Temple, they were already celebrating two days of Rosh HaShana. The first day was possibly the last day of the month of Elul and possibly the first day of the month of Tishrei, which is the actual date of Rosh Hashana. The question therefore arises as to whether those who bought the meat of the cow initiated their debt on the final day of the Sabbatical Year, in which case the debts would be canceled, or whether the transactions took place on the first day of the following year, in which case the debts may still be collected. The mishna said that if it becomes clear that Elul of the previous year was a full thirty-day month, the Sabbatical Year cancels the debts because the very end of the Sabbatical Year cancels the ability to collect all previous debts. And if this was not the case, and the first day of Rosh HaShana was actually the first day of the new year, the Sabbatical Year does not cancel the loan.


讜讗讬 诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 诇讬转讘注 诪讗讬 诪砖诪讟 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讞讜诇 讛讜讗


Based on that mishna, Rav Idi bar Avin makes the following argument: If a loan given on a Festival cannot be claimed in court, what is the meaning of the word cancels? In any event, the lender could not have presented his claim against the borrower in court. The Gemara rejects this argument: It is different there, in an instance in which the month of Elul has thirty days, for it has become clear that the first day of Rosh HaShana was a regular weekday. The loan could therefore be claimed in court, if not for the fact that it was canceled by the Sabbatical Year.


转讗 砖诪注 诪住讬驻讗 讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 谞讬转谞讛 诇讬转讘注 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 诇讬转讘注 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 讚讗讬 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 砖拽讬诇


The Gemara attempts to bring a different proof: Come and hear a proof for this from what we learned in the latter clause of that mishna: If the month of Elul did not turn out to be a full month, such that the first day of Rosh HaShana was actually the first day of the new year, the Sabbatical Year does not cancel the loan. Granted, if you say that a loan given on a Festival can be claimed, that which was taught that it does not cancel the loan is understandable. But if you say that it cannot be claimed, why does it teach that it does not cancel the loan? In any event, the lender cannot make a claim on it in court. The Gemara explains: A loan given on a Festival cannot be claimed in court, but since it has not been canceled, if the borrower gives him the money he may take it.


诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 讗讬 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖拽讬诇 专讬砖讗 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖诪讟 讗谞讬 住讬驻讗 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖诪讟 讗谞讬 讻讚转谞谉 讛诪讞讝讬专 讞讜讘 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讬讗诪专 诇讜 诪砖诪讟 讗谞讬


The Gemara is surprised at this statement: Does this prove by inference that, in the first clause of the mishna, if the borrower gives him the money, he may not take it? One does not have to refuse repayment of a loan that the Sabbatical Year has canceled. One is simply not allowed to demand repayment from the borrower. The Gemara explains the difference between the two clauses of the mishna: In the first clause of the mishna, in which the first day of Rosh HaShana turned out to be the last day of Elul, the lender must say to him: I relinquish my claim against you. However, in the latter clause of the mishna, in which the first day of Rosh HaShana is the first day of the new year, he does not need to say to him: I relinquish my claim. This is as we learned in a mishna: When one repays a debt during the Sabbatical Year, the lender should say to him: I relinquish my claim.


讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讻谉 讬拽讘诇 诪诪谞讜 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讝讛 讚讘专 讛砖诪讟讛


And if the borrower says to him: Nonetheless, I want to repay you, he may accept it due to that which is stated: 鈥淎nd this is the manner of the release [devar hashemitta], every creditor shall release that which he has lent to his neighbor; he shall not exact it of his neighbor or brother because the Lord鈥檚 Sabbatical Year has been proclaimed鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:2). The manner of the release, devar hashemitta, can be rendered: The statement of release. The Sages derived that, although the creditor must verbally release the debtor from obligation, if the debtor persists in his desire to repay the debt, the creditor may accept payment. If, however, the loan was made after the Sabbatical Year, as is the case in the latter clause of the mishna, the creditor need not verbally release the debtor from obligation.


专讘 讗讜讬讗 砖拽讬诇 诪砖讻讜谞讗 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 诪注专讬诐 讗讬注专讜诪讬:


The Gemara relates that Rav Avya would take collateral for loans that he gave on a Festivals. Rabba bar Ulla would circumvent the issue by taking something from the borrower after the conclusion of the Festival and holding onto it until the repayment of the loan.


讜讻谉 注专讘 驻住讞: 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪拽讚讬砖 讗讚诐 驻住讞讜 讘砖讘转 讜讞讙讬讙转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 谞讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讜讻谉 注专讘 驻住讞 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 诪谞讬讞 讟诇讬转讜 讗爪诇讜 讜谞讜讟诇 讗转 驻住讞讜 讜注讜砖讛 注诪讜 讞砖讘讜谉 诇讗讞专 讬讜诐 讟讜讘


We learned in the mishna: And similarly, on the eve of Passover in Jerusalem, when it occurs on Shabbat, one who needs to obtain an animal for the Paschal lamb may leave his cloak with the owner of the lamb as collateral and then make the appropriate calculations with him after the Festival. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A person may consecrate his Paschal lamb on Shabbat and his Festival peace-offering on the Festival. The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that the mishna supports him? It states: And similarly, on the eve of Passover in Jerusalem which occurred on Shabbat, one may leave one鈥檚 cloak with him and take his Paschal lamb and make the appropriate calculation with him after the Festival. Here, we see that the lamb itself is consecrated on Shabbat, which follows the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan.


讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪诪谞讛 讗讞专讬诐 注诪讜 注诇 驻住讞讜 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诪讬拽讚砖 讜拽讗讬


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: This is not necessarily the case, for with what are we dealing here? With a case in which one registers others to participate with him in bringing his Paschal lamb. In other words, the case is not one in which a person consecrates a previously unconsecrated animal but rather a case in which one allows others to join with him in registering for an animal that was already consecrated from the outset.


讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讗讬谉 谞诪谞讬谉 注诇 讛讘讛诪讛 讘转讞讬诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚专讙讬诇 讗爪诇讜 讻诪讗谉 讚讗讬诪谞讬 讘讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讚诪讬


The Gemara challenges this: But we learned in a mishna: One may not initially register for an animal on the Festival. Therefore, even if the animal has been consecrated in advance, it is prohibited to register for it on the Festival, and it should certainly be prohibited to do so on Shabbat. The Gemara answers: The case here is different. Since each person who joins regularly registers together with him, the legal status of that person is like that of one who registered for it from the outset.


讜讛讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讛讜砖注讬讗 讛讜诇讱 讗讚诐 讗爪诇 专讜注讛 讛专讙讬诇 讗爪诇讜 讜谞讜转谉 诇讜 讟诇讛 诇驻住讞讜 讜诪拽讚讬砖讜 讜讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚专讙讬诇 讗爪诇讜 讗拽讚讜砖讬 诇讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讜讛讗 诪拽讚讬砖 拽转谞讬 讛拽讚砖 注讬诇讜讬 诪讚专讘谞谉


The Gemara raises another proof to the view of Rabbi Yo岣nan: But Rabbi Hoshaya taught: One who wants to bring a Paschal lamb and does not have his own lamb may go to a shepherd to whom he normally goes, and the shepherd may give him a lamb to be used for his Paschal lamb, and he may consecrate it and fulfill his obligation with it. This indicates that one may consecrate an animal on Shabbat. The Gemara answers: There, too, it is referring to a special case. Since he normally goes to him every year, the shepherd has already consecrated it beforehand, prior to Shabbat. The Gemara challenges this explanation: But it taught that one may consecrate it, indicating that the animal is only now being consecrated. The Gemara answers: This is not an actual sanctification in the normal sense, but rather consecration by valuation. By consecrating their animals on their own, the owners add further sanctity to the offering. This process is merely rabbinic, and it may be performed on Shabbat according to all opinions.


讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛 讜转谞谉 诇讗 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉 讜诇讗 诪注专讬讻讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讞专讬诪讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讙讘讬讛讬谉 转专讜诪讜转 讜诪注砖专讜转 讻诇 讗诇讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诪专讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讘砖讘转 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讞讜讘讜转 砖拽讘讜注 诇讛谉 讝诪谉 讻讗谉 讘讞讜讘讜转 砖讗讬谉 拽讘讜注 诇讛谉 讝诪谉:


The Gemara questions the very basis of this discussion: Did Rabbi Yo岣nan really say this? But Rabbi Yo岣nan stated as a general principle that the halakha is always in accordance with an unattributed mishna, i.e., a mishna that does not mention the name of the Sage whose ruling is quoted in the mishna. And we learned in an unattributed mishna: One may not consecrate, or take a valuation vow, or consecrate objects for use by the priests or the Temple, or separate terumot or tithes; they said all of these prohibitions with regard to a Festival, and it is an a fortiori inference that these activities are prohibited on Shabbat as well. How, then, would Rabbi Yo岣nan have permitted sanctifying an animal on Shabbat or on a Festival? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, in the case in which Rabbi Yo岣nan deems it permitted, it is referring to obligations that have a set time, such that if the person does not consecrate the animal right now he will no longer be able to fulfill the mitzva. There, in the mishna that prohibits these activities, the prohibition is referring to obligations that do not have a set time, and one can therefore consecrate the animal after Shabbat.


诪转谞讬壮 诪讜谞讛 讗讚诐 讗转 讗讜专讞讬讜 讜讗转 驻专驻专讜转讬讜 诪驻讬讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪谉 讛讻转讘 诪驻讬住 讗讚诐 注诐 讘谞讬讜 讜注诐 讘谞讬 讘讬转讜 注诇 讛砖讜诇讞谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇注砖讜转 诪谞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讻谞讙讚 诪谞讛 拽讟谞讛 讜诪讟讬诇讬谉 讞诇砖讬谉 注诇 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讘诇 诇讗 注诇 讛诪谞讜转:


MISHNA: One may count his guests who are coming to his meal and his appetizers, as long as he does so from memory; but one may not read them from a written list, the reason for which will be explained in the Gemara. A person may draw lots with his children and family members at the table on Shabbat, in order to determine who will receive which portion, as long as he does not intend to set a large portion against a small portion in such a lottery. Rather, the portions must be of equal size. And one may cast lots among the priests for sanctified foods on a Festival, but not for the specific portions.


Scroll To Top