Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 2, 2020 | י״ב באב תש״פ

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

Shabbat 149

Can one go over a written list of guests that one wants one’s servant to invite on Shabbat? Or a list of foods to serve? What is the concern? The gemara brings two explanations and tries to find the situation where there would be a disagreement between the two. Can one look in a mirror on Shabbat – what would be the concern and in what case would it be an issue? Can one cast lots on Shabbat to give out food? What is the concern? In what case would it be forbidden even on a weekday, due to a concern that one may come to gamble? If one causes another to get punished, he is not invited to dwell in the abode of God. From where is this derived – from the spirit of Navot who seduced the king Achav and led him to his death, from Tzidkiahu the king who caused Nevuchadnetzer to be punished? Or from a verse in Proverbs? The gemara tells of the strength of Nevbuchanetzer and also of a story where he was punished in a very embarrassing manner.

גמ׳ מאי טעמא רב ביבי אמר גזירה שמא ימחוק אביי אמר גזירה שמא יקרא בשטרי הדיוטות

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that one may not read the names of his guests or the appetizers served in his meal from a written list. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this prohibition? Rav Beivai said: It is a decree lest one erase something that is written on the list if he regrets inviting a particular guest or changes his mind about a particular dish. Abaye said: It is a decree lest one read regular business documents.

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דכתב אכותל ומידלי למאן דאמר שמא ימחוק לא חיישינן ולמאן דאמר שמא יקרא חיישינן

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them in a case in which the writing is on a wall and it is raised higher than a person can reach. According to the one who says that the decree was made lest one erase something from the list, in a case such as this we are not concerned about erasure because one cannot even reach the writing. But according to the one who says that the decree was made lest one read business documents, we are still concerned in this case.

ולמאן דאמר שמא ימחוק ניחוש שמא יקרא ותו לשמא ימחוק לא חיישינן והתניא לא יקרא לאור הנר ואמר רבה אפילו גבוה שתי קומות אפילו גבוה שתי מרדעות אפילו עשרה בתים זה על גבי זה לא יקרא

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that the decree was made lest one erase, we should also be concerned lest one read business documents. And furthermore, are we really not concerned lest one erase when the writing is high up? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that one may not read by the light of a lamp on Shabbat lest one adjust the lamp toward oneself; and Rabba said: Even if the lamp was two statures of a person high, and even as high as two plow handles, and even if it was as high as ten houses one atop the other, one may not read by its light. This clearly demonstrates that when we are concerned that one may violate halakha, we do not distinguish between situations in which such a violation is more or less likely.

אלא איכא בינייהו דכתב אכותל ומיתתי למאן דאמר שמא ימחוק חיישינן למאן דאמר שמא יקרא לא חיישינן גודא בשטרא לא מיחלף

Rather, there is a difference between them in a case in which the writing is on a wall and it is low down. According to the one who says that the reason for the decree is lest one erase, in a case such as this we are concerned because one can easily reach the writing and erase it. However, according to the one who says that the decree was made lest one read business documents, we are not concerned because a wall will not be confused with a document, and reading from the wall will not cause one to then read business documents.

ולמאן דאמר שמא יקרא ליחוש שמא ימחוק אלא איכא בינייהו דחייק אטבלא ואפינקס למאן דאמר שמא ימחוק לא חיישינן למאן דאמר שמא יקרא חיישינן

The Gemara asks further: And according to the one who says that the concern is lest one read, we should also be concerned lest one erase. Rather, there is a practical difference between them in a case where the writing is engraved on a tablet or on a board. According to the one who says that the concern is lest one erase, in a case such as this we are not concerned. Since the writing is not in ink, there is no concern that he will erase it. According to the one who says that the concern is lest one read business documents, we are concerned. The style of writing is irrelevant in terms of the likelihood that one will end up reading business documents.

ולמאן דאמר שמא ימחוק ליחוש שמא יקרא וכי תימא טבלא ופינקס בשטרא לא מיחלף והתניא מונה אדם כמה מבפנים וכמה מבחוץ וכמה מנות עתיד להניח לפניהם מכתב שעל גבי הכותל אבל לא מכתב שעל גבי טבלא ופינקס

The Gemara asks further: According to the one who says that the concern is lest one erase, we should also be concerned lest one read business documents. And if you say: A tablet or a board will not be confused with a document, but wasn’t it taught explicitly in a baraita: One may count how many guests will sit inside, and how many guests will sit outside, and how many portions he will place before them from writing that is on the wall, but not from writing that is on a tablet or a board?

היכי דמי אילימא דכתיב מיכתב מאי שנא הכא ומאי שנא הכא אלא לאו דחייק וקתני מכתב שעל גבי הכותל אבל לא מכתב שעל גבי טבלא ופינקס

The Gemara attempts to clarify this: What are the circumstances of the case described in this statement? If you say that it was written in ink, what is the difference here, when the writing is on a wall, and what is the difference here, when the writing is on a tablet? Rather, is it not a case of a list that has been engraved, and nonetheless it teaches that one may read from writing that is on the wall but not from writing that is on a tablet or a board?

אלא לעולם דכתב אכותל ומידלי ודקא קשיא לך דרבה דרבה תנאי היא דתניא מונה אדם את אורחיו ואת פרפרותיו מפיו אבל לא מן הכתב רבי אחא מתיר מכתב שעל גבי הכותל

Rather, we should actually explain that the writing was on a wall and was raised. And with regard to what was difficult for you, based on Rabba’s statement that prohibited reading by candlelight on Shabbat regardless of the height of the candle, which presumably means that in our case, too, we should be stringent regardless of the height of the writing, that statement of Rabba is the subject of dispute between tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: One may count one’s guests and one’s appetizers from memory, but not from a written list. Rabbi Aḥa permits reading from a written list that is on a wall.

היכי דמי אילימא דכתיב מתתא ליחוש שמא ימחוק אלא לאו דכתב ומידלי ושמע מינה דרבה תנאי היא שמע מינה

The Gemara attempts to clarify this: What are the circumstances in which Rabbi Aḥa permits this? If you say that it is written below, low down on the wall, we should be concerned that perhaps one will erase it. Rather, is it not referring to a case in which it is written and the location of the writing is raised such that it is high up on the wall, and conclude from this that the statement of Rabba is the subject of dispute among the tanna’im? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from this that it is so.

והני תנאי כהני תנאי דתניא אין רואין במראה בשבת רבי מאיר מתיר במראה הקבוע בכותל

The Gemara comments that in this matter, these tanna’im are like those tanna’im, who also argued over the same principle, as it was taught in a baraita: One may not look in a mirror on Shabbat lest one see a hair hanging and pluck it. Rabbi Meir permits looking in a mirror that is fixed on a wall.

מאי שנא הקבוע בכותל דאדהכי והכי מדכר שאינו קבוע נמי אדהכי והכי מדכר

The Gemara questions Rabbi Meir’s leniency: What is different about a mirror that is fixed on a wall? In that situation we say that, in the meantime, while one goes to bring scissors or another appliance to cut one’s hair, one will remember that it is Shabbat and that it is prohibited to cut hair. If so, with regard to a mirror that is not fixed on a wall, we can also say that in the meantime one will remember.

הכא במראה של מתכת עסקינן וכדרב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה דאמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה מפני מה אמרו מראה של מתכת אסורה מפני שאדם עשוי להשיר בה נימין המדולדלין

Rather, here we are dealing with a metal mirror, and it is as Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said, for Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: For what reason did the Sages say that a metal mirror is prohibited for use on Shabbat? Because a person may remove hanging hairs with it, meaning that one may use the sharp edge of the mirror itself to cut the hairs. If the mirror is permanently set on the wall, we are not concerned that one will do this. This is similar to the view that one may read writing that is high up on a wall because it is impractical to erase the writing.

תנו רבנן כתב המהלך תחת הצורה ותחת הדיוקנאות אסור לקרותו בשבת ודיוקנא עצמה אף בחול אסור להסתכל בה משום שנאמר אל תפנו אל האלילים מאי תלמודא אמר רבי חנין אל תפנו אל מדעתכם:

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to writing that is under a picture or under graven images [deyokenaot], it is prohibited to read it on Shabbat lest one end up reading business documents. And with regard to an idolatrous image itself, even on a weekday it is prohibited to look at it, because it says: “Do not turn toward idols [al tifnu el ha’elilim] or make yourselves molten gods, I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 19:4). The Gemara asks for clarification: What is the biblical derivation? How does this verse indicate that one may not look at an idolatrous image? Rabbi Ḥanin said: Do not push God [al tefannu El] out of your mind by looking at these images (Arukh).

מפיס אדם עם בניו וכו׳: עם בניו ועם בני ביתו אין ועם אחר לא מאי טעמא כדרב יהודה אמר שמואל דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל בני חבורה המקפידין זה על זה עוברין משום מדה ומשום משקל ומשום מנין ומשום לווין ופורעין ביום טוב

We learned in the mishna that a person may draw lots with one’s children and family members at the table on Shabbat to see who will receive which meal portion. The Gemara infers: With one’s children and family members, yes, it is permitted, but with another person it is not. What is the reason for this? The Gemara explains that it is as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said, for Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Members of a group who are eating together on Shabbat or on a Festival and who are particular with each other that no one receive a larger portion than anyone else are in violation of the prohibitions of measuring, and weighing, and counting merchandise on Shabbat or a Festival, and they are also in violation of the prohibition against lending and repaying on a Festival.

וכדברי (בית הלל) אף משום רבית

And according to Beit Hillel, they even violate the prohibition of interest. In Beit Hillel’s view, it is prohibited to loan or return objects without determining their monetary value, lest the object rise in value and the borrower end up returning an item that is more expensive than the one he borrowed.

אי הכי בניו ובני ביתו נמי בניו ובני ביתו היינו טעמא כדרב יהודה אמר רב דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב מותר להלוות בניו ובני ביתו ברבית כדי להטעימן טעם רבית

The Gemara asks: If this is so, and one violates so many prohibitions when drawing lots, it should be prohibited to do so with one’s children and family members also. The Gemara answers: With regard to one’s children and family members, this is the reason that it is permitted: It is like the ruling that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, for Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: It is permitted to loan to one’s children and family members with interest, in order to let them experience a taste of how difficult it is to repay a loan taken with interest. Also, in the case of family members, all the money, including the money used to repay the loan, belongs to the same person. Therefore, there is no real prohibition of interest.

אי הכי מנה גדולה כנגד מנה קטנה נמי

The Gemara asks: If this is so, and everything in this case actually belongs to the father, and he uses a lottery system in order to educate his family, it should be permitted to cast lots for a big portion against a small portion also.

אין הכי נמי וחסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני מפיס אדם עם בניו ועם בני ביתו על השלחן אפילו מנה גדולה כנגד מנה קטנה מאי טעמא כדרב יהודה אמר רב עם בניו ועם בני ביתו אין עם אחרים לא מאי טעמא כדרב יהודה אמר שמואל מנה גדולה כנגד מנה קטנה אף בחול לאחרים אסור מאי טעמא משום קוביא:

The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, and the mishna is incomplete and it teaches the following: A person may draw lots with his children and his family members at the table, and he may even do so with a large portion against a small portion. What is the reason for this? It is in accordance with the ruling that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said. Although with one’s children and family members, yes, this is permitted, with others it is not. What is the reason for this? It is in accordance with the ruling that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Raffling a large portion against a small portion is prohibited to do for other people, even on a weekday. What is the reason? Due to the prohibition against gambling with dice, which is prohibited by rabbinic law as a form of theft.

מטילין חלשין על וכו׳: מאי אבל לא על המנות אמר רבי יעקב בריה דבת יעקב אבל לא על המנות של חול ביום טוב פשיטא מהו דתימא הואיל וכתיב ועמך כמריבי כהן אפילו מנות דחול נמי קא משמע לן

The mishna taught that one may draw lots for the sacrifices but not for the specific portions. This statement is not entirely clear, and the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: But not for the specific portions? Rabbi Ya’akov, son of the daughter of Ya’akov, said that it means: But one may not draw lots for the weekday [ḥol] portions on a Festival. The Gemara challenges: This is obvious. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that since the priests are naturally quarrelsome, which the Sages derive from that which is written: “Yet let no man strive, neither let any man reprove, for your people are like those that strive with the priest” (Hosea 4:4), and in order to maintain peace between them even lotteries for weekday portions were also permitted, therefore, the mishna teaches us that this is not the case.

ואמר רבי יעקב בריה דבת יעקב כל שחבירו נענש על ידו אין מכניסין אותו במחיצתו של הקדוש ברוך הוא מנלן אילימא משום דכתיב ויאמר ה׳ מי יפתה את אחאב ויעל ויפול ברמות גלעד ויאמר זה בכה וזה אמר בכה ויצא הרוח ויעמוד לפני ה׳ ויאמר אני אפתנו וגו׳ ויאמר אצא והייתי רוח שקר בפי כל נביאיו ויאמר תפתה וגם תוכל צא ועשה כן

Having quoted Rabbi Ya’akov, son of the daughter of Ya’akov, the Gemara brings another teaching of this amora. And Rabbi Ya’akov, son of the daughter of Ya’akov, said: Anyone who causes another to be punished on his account, they do not bring him within the partition of the Holy One, Blessed be He, even if he is right. The Gemara asks: From where do we know this? If you say it is because of what is written in the prophecy of Micaiah, that proof can be disputed. It is written: “And the Lord said: Who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramot Gilad? And one said: In this manner, and another said: In that manner. And the spirit came out and stood before the Lord and said: I will entice him. And the Lord said to it: With what? And it said: I will go out and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all of his prophets. And He said: You shall entice him and will prevail. Go out and do this” (I Kings 22:20–22).

ואמרינן מאי רוח אמר רבי יוחנן זה רוחו של נבות ומאי צא אמר רב צא ממחיצתי ודילמא התם היינו טעמא דכתיב דובר שקרים לא יכון

And we said: What is this spirit? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is the spirit of Naboth the Jezreelite, who asked to avenge his death at the hands of Ahab. And what is the meaning of the words: Go out, which God commanded him? Rav said: It means that he was given permission to entice Ahab, but God said: Leave from within My partition. Therefore, it seems that the spirit of Naboth was told to leave God’s area because it caused Ahab to be punished. The Gemara rejects this proof: But perhaps there, the reason is as it is written: “One who speaks lies shall not dwell before My eyes” (Psalms 101:7), and this is the only reason that the spirit of Naboth was removed from within God’s partition.

אלא מהכא שבעת קלון מכבוד שתה גם אתה והערל וגו׳ שבעת קלון מכבוד זה נבוכדנצר שתה גם אתה והערל זה צדקיה חדא דכוליה קרא בנבוכדנצר כתיב ועוד צדקיה צדיקא מאי הוה ליה למיעבד ליה דאמר רבי יהודה אמר רב בשעה שבקש אותו רשע לעשות לאותו צדיק כך וכו׳

Rather, it is derived from here: “You are filled with shame instead of honor. Drink, you, and be like one who is uncircumcised, the cup of the Lord’s right hand will turn to you and filthiness shall be upon your glory” (Habakkuk 2:16). The verse is expounded: “You are filled with shame instead of honor”; this is referring to Nebuchadnezzar. “Drink, you, and be like one who is uncircumcised”; this is referring to Zedekiah, who was also punished for being the cause of Nebuchadnezzar’s punishment, as will be explained. The Gemara rejects this proof: One objection to this is that the entire verse is written about Nebuchadnezzar. And furthermore, with regard to Zedekiah, the righteous one, what could he have done to him? For Rav Yehuda said that Rav said about this matter: When that wicked man wanted to do this to that righteous man, his foreskin was stretched, as will be explained.

אלא מהכא גם ענוש לצדיק לא טוב אין לא טוב אלא רע וכתיב כי לא אל חפץ רשע אתה לא יגורך רע צדיק אתה ה׳ ולא יגור במגורך רע

Rather, the basis for this idea is from here: “Punishment is also not good for the righteous” (Proverbs 17:26), meaning that it is not good for a righteous person to issue punishment. There is no meaning of not good other than evil. And it says: “For You are not a God that desires wickedness, evil will not dwell with You” (Psalms 5:5), meaning that You, God, are righteous and evil shall not dwell with You in Your place of dwelling. Even a righteous person who punishes someone and is called evil and cannot dwell within God’s partition.

מאי משמע דהאי חלשים לישנא דפורא הוא דכתיב איך נפלת משמים הילל בן שחר נגדעת לארץ חולש על גוים וגו׳ אמר רבה בר רב הונא מלמד שהיה מטיל פור על גדולי מלכות לידע איזה בן יומו של משכב זכור וכתיב כל מלכי גוים כולם וגו׳ אמר רבי יוחנן שנחו ממשכב זכור

The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this term used in the mishna, ḥalashim, is a word for lots? As it is written: “How have you fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! How have you been cut down to the ground, casting lots [ḥolesh] over the nations!” (Isaiah 14:12), and Rabba bar Rav Huna said: This verse teaches us that he, Nebuchadnezzar, would cast lots [ḥolesh] for the royal leaders of the nations he had captured, in order to know whose day it was to service him with homosexual relations. And it is written: “All the kings of the nations, all of them sleep in glory, every one in his own house” (Isaiah 14:18). And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The meaning of this verse is that they rested from homosexual relations.

ואמר רבי יוחנן כל ימיו של אותו רשע לא נמצא שחוק בפה כל בריה שנאמר נחה שקטה כל הארץ פצחו רנה מכלל דעד השתא לא הוה רנה

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: All of the days of the life of that wicked man, laughter could not be found in the mouth of any creature, as it is stated: “The whole earth is at rest and is quiet; they break forth into singing” (Isaiah 14:7). This proves by inference that until now there was not any song.

ואמר רבי יצחק אמר רבי יוחנן אסור לעמוד בביתו של אותו רשע שנאמר ושעירים ירקדו שם

And Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is prohibited even nowadays to stand in the ruins of the house of that wicked man, Nebuchadnezzar, in Babylonia, for it is stated about that place: “And demons shall dance there” (Isaiah 13:21). There is concern that one may be injured by the harmful forces there (Maharsha).

ואמר רב יהודה אמר רב בשעה שביקש אותו רשע לעשות לאותו צדיק כך נמשכה ערלתו שלש מאות אמה והיתה מחזרת על כל המסיבה כולה שנאמר שבעת קלון מכבוד שתה גם אתה והערל ערל בגימטריא שלש מאות הוי

And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: At the time when that wicked man, Nebuchadnezzar, wanted to do to that righteous man, Zedekiah, this act of sodomy, his foreskin was stretched three hundred cubits, and it surrounded the entire company at Nebuchadnezzar’s feast, as it is stated: “Woe to one who gives his neighbor drink, who puts your venom in and also makes him drunk so that you may look upon their nakedness. You are filled with shame instead of honor. Drink, you, and be like one who is uncircumcised [vehe’arel]” (Habakkuk 2:15–16). The word arel, which refers here to one who is uncircumcised and also connotes the foreskin, has a numerical value of three hundred.

ואמר רב יהודה אמר רב בשעה שירד אותו רשע לגיהנם רעשו כל יורדי גיהנם אמרו שמא למשול עליהם הוא בא או ליחלות כמותם הוא בא שנאמר גם אתה חולית כמונו אלינו נמשלת יצאתה בת קול ואמרה ממי נעמת רדה והשכבה את ערלים

And Rav Yehuda also said that Rav said: When that wicked man descended into Gehenna, everyone who had already descended to Gehenna trembled, and they said, referring to themselves in third person: Perhaps he is coming to rule over them; or is he coming to be weakened like them? As it is stated: “They all answer and say to you: Have you also become weak like us? Have you become like us [eleinu nimshalta]?” (Isaiah 14:10). The Hebrew phrase: Eleinu nimshalta, can mean: Have you become like us, or alternatively: Have you come to rule over us. A Divine Voice emerged and said: “Whom do you pass in beauty? Go down and be laid with the uncircumcised” (Ezekiel 32:19). This confirmed that Nebuchadnezzar has the same status in Gehenna as everyone else.

איך שבת נוגש שבתה מדהבה אמר רבי יהודה אמר רב שבתה אומה זו שאמרה

On a related note, the verse states: “And you shall take up this parable against the king of Babylonia and you shall say: How has the oppressor ceased. The exactor of gold has ceased” (Isaiah 14:4). Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The meaning of this verse is that this nation that said:

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

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’s 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...
flashback grafitti

Kilroy Was Here

As a child of the seventies in New York, I have a hard time with so called street art. When...

Shabbat 149

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 149

גמ׳ מאי טעמא רב ביבי אמר גזירה שמא ימחוק אביי אמר גזירה שמא יקרא בשטרי הדיוטות

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that one may not read the names of his guests or the appetizers served in his meal from a written list. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this prohibition? Rav Beivai said: It is a decree lest one erase something that is written on the list if he regrets inviting a particular guest or changes his mind about a particular dish. Abaye said: It is a decree lest one read regular business documents.

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דכתב אכותל ומידלי למאן דאמר שמא ימחוק לא חיישינן ולמאן דאמר שמא יקרא חיישינן

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them in a case in which the writing is on a wall and it is raised higher than a person can reach. According to the one who says that the decree was made lest one erase something from the list, in a case such as this we are not concerned about erasure because one cannot even reach the writing. But according to the one who says that the decree was made lest one read business documents, we are still concerned in this case.

ולמאן דאמר שמא ימחוק ניחוש שמא יקרא ותו לשמא ימחוק לא חיישינן והתניא לא יקרא לאור הנר ואמר רבה אפילו גבוה שתי קומות אפילו גבוה שתי מרדעות אפילו עשרה בתים זה על גבי זה לא יקרא

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that the decree was made lest one erase, we should also be concerned lest one read business documents. And furthermore, are we really not concerned lest one erase when the writing is high up? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that one may not read by the light of a lamp on Shabbat lest one adjust the lamp toward oneself; and Rabba said: Even if the lamp was two statures of a person high, and even as high as two plow handles, and even if it was as high as ten houses one atop the other, one may not read by its light. This clearly demonstrates that when we are concerned that one may violate halakha, we do not distinguish between situations in which such a violation is more or less likely.

אלא איכא בינייהו דכתב אכותל ומיתתי למאן דאמר שמא ימחוק חיישינן למאן דאמר שמא יקרא לא חיישינן גודא בשטרא לא מיחלף

Rather, there is a difference between them in a case in which the writing is on a wall and it is low down. According to the one who says that the reason for the decree is lest one erase, in a case such as this we are concerned because one can easily reach the writing and erase it. However, according to the one who says that the decree was made lest one read business documents, we are not concerned because a wall will not be confused with a document, and reading from the wall will not cause one to then read business documents.

ולמאן דאמר שמא יקרא ליחוש שמא ימחוק אלא איכא בינייהו דחייק אטבלא ואפינקס למאן דאמר שמא ימחוק לא חיישינן למאן דאמר שמא יקרא חיישינן

The Gemara asks further: And according to the one who says that the concern is lest one read, we should also be concerned lest one erase. Rather, there is a practical difference between them in a case where the writing is engraved on a tablet or on a board. According to the one who says that the concern is lest one erase, in a case such as this we are not concerned. Since the writing is not in ink, there is no concern that he will erase it. According to the one who says that the concern is lest one read business documents, we are concerned. The style of writing is irrelevant in terms of the likelihood that one will end up reading business documents.

ולמאן דאמר שמא ימחוק ליחוש שמא יקרא וכי תימא טבלא ופינקס בשטרא לא מיחלף והתניא מונה אדם כמה מבפנים וכמה מבחוץ וכמה מנות עתיד להניח לפניהם מכתב שעל גבי הכותל אבל לא מכתב שעל גבי טבלא ופינקס

The Gemara asks further: According to the one who says that the concern is lest one erase, we should also be concerned lest one read business documents. And if you say: A tablet or a board will not be confused with a document, but wasn’t it taught explicitly in a baraita: One may count how many guests will sit inside, and how many guests will sit outside, and how many portions he will place before them from writing that is on the wall, but not from writing that is on a tablet or a board?

היכי דמי אילימא דכתיב מיכתב מאי שנא הכא ומאי שנא הכא אלא לאו דחייק וקתני מכתב שעל גבי הכותל אבל לא מכתב שעל גבי טבלא ופינקס

The Gemara attempts to clarify this: What are the circumstances of the case described in this statement? If you say that it was written in ink, what is the difference here, when the writing is on a wall, and what is the difference here, when the writing is on a tablet? Rather, is it not a case of a list that has been engraved, and nonetheless it teaches that one may read from writing that is on the wall but not from writing that is on a tablet or a board?

אלא לעולם דכתב אכותל ומידלי ודקא קשיא לך דרבה דרבה תנאי היא דתניא מונה אדם את אורחיו ואת פרפרותיו מפיו אבל לא מן הכתב רבי אחא מתיר מכתב שעל גבי הכותל

Rather, we should actually explain that the writing was on a wall and was raised. And with regard to what was difficult for you, based on Rabba’s statement that prohibited reading by candlelight on Shabbat regardless of the height of the candle, which presumably means that in our case, too, we should be stringent regardless of the height of the writing, that statement of Rabba is the subject of dispute between tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: One may count one’s guests and one’s appetizers from memory, but not from a written list. Rabbi Aḥa permits reading from a written list that is on a wall.

היכי דמי אילימא דכתיב מתתא ליחוש שמא ימחוק אלא לאו דכתב ומידלי ושמע מינה דרבה תנאי היא שמע מינה

The Gemara attempts to clarify this: What are the circumstances in which Rabbi Aḥa permits this? If you say that it is written below, low down on the wall, we should be concerned that perhaps one will erase it. Rather, is it not referring to a case in which it is written and the location of the writing is raised such that it is high up on the wall, and conclude from this that the statement of Rabba is the subject of dispute among the tanna’im? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from this that it is so.

והני תנאי כהני תנאי דתניא אין רואין במראה בשבת רבי מאיר מתיר במראה הקבוע בכותל

The Gemara comments that in this matter, these tanna’im are like those tanna’im, who also argued over the same principle, as it was taught in a baraita: One may not look in a mirror on Shabbat lest one see a hair hanging and pluck it. Rabbi Meir permits looking in a mirror that is fixed on a wall.

מאי שנא הקבוע בכותל דאדהכי והכי מדכר שאינו קבוע נמי אדהכי והכי מדכר

The Gemara questions Rabbi Meir’s leniency: What is different about a mirror that is fixed on a wall? In that situation we say that, in the meantime, while one goes to bring scissors or another appliance to cut one’s hair, one will remember that it is Shabbat and that it is prohibited to cut hair. If so, with regard to a mirror that is not fixed on a wall, we can also say that in the meantime one will remember.

הכא במראה של מתכת עסקינן וכדרב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה דאמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה מפני מה אמרו מראה של מתכת אסורה מפני שאדם עשוי להשיר בה נימין המדולדלין

Rather, here we are dealing with a metal mirror, and it is as Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said, for Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: For what reason did the Sages say that a metal mirror is prohibited for use on Shabbat? Because a person may remove hanging hairs with it, meaning that one may use the sharp edge of the mirror itself to cut the hairs. If the mirror is permanently set on the wall, we are not concerned that one will do this. This is similar to the view that one may read writing that is high up on a wall because it is impractical to erase the writing.

תנו רבנן כתב המהלך תחת הצורה ותחת הדיוקנאות אסור לקרותו בשבת ודיוקנא עצמה אף בחול אסור להסתכל בה משום שנאמר אל תפנו אל האלילים מאי תלמודא אמר רבי חנין אל תפנו אל מדעתכם:

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to writing that is under a picture or under graven images [deyokenaot], it is prohibited to read it on Shabbat lest one end up reading business documents. And with regard to an idolatrous image itself, even on a weekday it is prohibited to look at it, because it says: “Do not turn toward idols [al tifnu el ha’elilim] or make yourselves molten gods, I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 19:4). The Gemara asks for clarification: What is the biblical derivation? How does this verse indicate that one may not look at an idolatrous image? Rabbi Ḥanin said: Do not push God [al tefannu El] out of your mind by looking at these images (Arukh).

מפיס אדם עם בניו וכו׳: עם בניו ועם בני ביתו אין ועם אחר לא מאי טעמא כדרב יהודה אמר שמואל דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל בני חבורה המקפידין זה על זה עוברין משום מדה ומשום משקל ומשום מנין ומשום לווין ופורעין ביום טוב

We learned in the mishna that a person may draw lots with one’s children and family members at the table on Shabbat to see who will receive which meal portion. The Gemara infers: With one’s children and family members, yes, it is permitted, but with another person it is not. What is the reason for this? The Gemara explains that it is as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said, for Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Members of a group who are eating together on Shabbat or on a Festival and who are particular with each other that no one receive a larger portion than anyone else are in violation of the prohibitions of measuring, and weighing, and counting merchandise on Shabbat or a Festival, and they are also in violation of the prohibition against lending and repaying on a Festival.

וכדברי (בית הלל) אף משום רבית

And according to Beit Hillel, they even violate the prohibition of interest. In Beit Hillel’s view, it is prohibited to loan or return objects without determining their monetary value, lest the object rise in value and the borrower end up returning an item that is more expensive than the one he borrowed.

אי הכי בניו ובני ביתו נמי בניו ובני ביתו היינו טעמא כדרב יהודה אמר רב דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב מותר להלוות בניו ובני ביתו ברבית כדי להטעימן טעם רבית

The Gemara asks: If this is so, and one violates so many prohibitions when drawing lots, it should be prohibited to do so with one’s children and family members also. The Gemara answers: With regard to one’s children and family members, this is the reason that it is permitted: It is like the ruling that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, for Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: It is permitted to loan to one’s children and family members with interest, in order to let them experience a taste of how difficult it is to repay a loan taken with interest. Also, in the case of family members, all the money, including the money used to repay the loan, belongs to the same person. Therefore, there is no real prohibition of interest.

אי הכי מנה גדולה כנגד מנה קטנה נמי

The Gemara asks: If this is so, and everything in this case actually belongs to the father, and he uses a lottery system in order to educate his family, it should be permitted to cast lots for a big portion against a small portion also.

אין הכי נמי וחסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני מפיס אדם עם בניו ועם בני ביתו על השלחן אפילו מנה גדולה כנגד מנה קטנה מאי טעמא כדרב יהודה אמר רב עם בניו ועם בני ביתו אין עם אחרים לא מאי טעמא כדרב יהודה אמר שמואל מנה גדולה כנגד מנה קטנה אף בחול לאחרים אסור מאי טעמא משום קוביא:

The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, and the mishna is incomplete and it teaches the following: A person may draw lots with his children and his family members at the table, and he may even do so with a large portion against a small portion. What is the reason for this? It is in accordance with the ruling that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said. Although with one’s children and family members, yes, this is permitted, with others it is not. What is the reason for this? It is in accordance with the ruling that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Raffling a large portion against a small portion is prohibited to do for other people, even on a weekday. What is the reason? Due to the prohibition against gambling with dice, which is prohibited by rabbinic law as a form of theft.

מטילין חלשין על וכו׳: מאי אבל לא על המנות אמר רבי יעקב בריה דבת יעקב אבל לא על המנות של חול ביום טוב פשיטא מהו דתימא הואיל וכתיב ועמך כמריבי כהן אפילו מנות דחול נמי קא משמע לן

The mishna taught that one may draw lots for the sacrifices but not for the specific portions. This statement is not entirely clear, and the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: But not for the specific portions? Rabbi Ya’akov, son of the daughter of Ya’akov, said that it means: But one may not draw lots for the weekday [ḥol] portions on a Festival. The Gemara challenges: This is obvious. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that since the priests are naturally quarrelsome, which the Sages derive from that which is written: “Yet let no man strive, neither let any man reprove, for your people are like those that strive with the priest” (Hosea 4:4), and in order to maintain peace between them even lotteries for weekday portions were also permitted, therefore, the mishna teaches us that this is not the case.

ואמר רבי יעקב בריה דבת יעקב כל שחבירו נענש על ידו אין מכניסין אותו במחיצתו של הקדוש ברוך הוא מנלן אילימא משום דכתיב ויאמר ה׳ מי יפתה את אחאב ויעל ויפול ברמות גלעד ויאמר זה בכה וזה אמר בכה ויצא הרוח ויעמוד לפני ה׳ ויאמר אני אפתנו וגו׳ ויאמר אצא והייתי רוח שקר בפי כל נביאיו ויאמר תפתה וגם תוכל צא ועשה כן

Having quoted Rabbi Ya’akov, son of the daughter of Ya’akov, the Gemara brings another teaching of this amora. And Rabbi Ya’akov, son of the daughter of Ya’akov, said: Anyone who causes another to be punished on his account, they do not bring him within the partition of the Holy One, Blessed be He, even if he is right. The Gemara asks: From where do we know this? If you say it is because of what is written in the prophecy of Micaiah, that proof can be disputed. It is written: “And the Lord said: Who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramot Gilad? And one said: In this manner, and another said: In that manner. And the spirit came out and stood before the Lord and said: I will entice him. And the Lord said to it: With what? And it said: I will go out and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all of his prophets. And He said: You shall entice him and will prevail. Go out and do this” (I Kings 22:20–22).

ואמרינן מאי רוח אמר רבי יוחנן זה רוחו של נבות ומאי צא אמר רב צא ממחיצתי ודילמא התם היינו טעמא דכתיב דובר שקרים לא יכון

And we said: What is this spirit? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is the spirit of Naboth the Jezreelite, who asked to avenge his death at the hands of Ahab. And what is the meaning of the words: Go out, which God commanded him? Rav said: It means that he was given permission to entice Ahab, but God said: Leave from within My partition. Therefore, it seems that the spirit of Naboth was told to leave God’s area because it caused Ahab to be punished. The Gemara rejects this proof: But perhaps there, the reason is as it is written: “One who speaks lies shall not dwell before My eyes” (Psalms 101:7), and this is the only reason that the spirit of Naboth was removed from within God’s partition.

אלא מהכא שבעת קלון מכבוד שתה גם אתה והערל וגו׳ שבעת קלון מכבוד זה נבוכדנצר שתה גם אתה והערל זה צדקיה חדא דכוליה קרא בנבוכדנצר כתיב ועוד צדקיה צדיקא מאי הוה ליה למיעבד ליה דאמר רבי יהודה אמר רב בשעה שבקש אותו רשע לעשות לאותו צדיק כך וכו׳

Rather, it is derived from here: “You are filled with shame instead of honor. Drink, you, and be like one who is uncircumcised, the cup of the Lord’s right hand will turn to you and filthiness shall be upon your glory” (Habakkuk 2:16). The verse is expounded: “You are filled with shame instead of honor”; this is referring to Nebuchadnezzar. “Drink, you, and be like one who is uncircumcised”; this is referring to Zedekiah, who was also punished for being the cause of Nebuchadnezzar’s punishment, as will be explained. The Gemara rejects this proof: One objection to this is that the entire verse is written about Nebuchadnezzar. And furthermore, with regard to Zedekiah, the righteous one, what could he have done to him? For Rav Yehuda said that Rav said about this matter: When that wicked man wanted to do this to that righteous man, his foreskin was stretched, as will be explained.

אלא מהכא גם ענוש לצדיק לא טוב אין לא טוב אלא רע וכתיב כי לא אל חפץ רשע אתה לא יגורך רע צדיק אתה ה׳ ולא יגור במגורך רע

Rather, the basis for this idea is from here: “Punishment is also not good for the righteous” (Proverbs 17:26), meaning that it is not good for a righteous person to issue punishment. There is no meaning of not good other than evil. And it says: “For You are not a God that desires wickedness, evil will not dwell with You” (Psalms 5:5), meaning that You, God, are righteous and evil shall not dwell with You in Your place of dwelling. Even a righteous person who punishes someone and is called evil and cannot dwell within God’s partition.

מאי משמע דהאי חלשים לישנא דפורא הוא דכתיב איך נפלת משמים הילל בן שחר נגדעת לארץ חולש על גוים וגו׳ אמר רבה בר רב הונא מלמד שהיה מטיל פור על גדולי מלכות לידע איזה בן יומו של משכב זכור וכתיב כל מלכי גוים כולם וגו׳ אמר רבי יוחנן שנחו ממשכב זכור

The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this term used in the mishna, ḥalashim, is a word for lots? As it is written: “How have you fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! How have you been cut down to the ground, casting lots [ḥolesh] over the nations!” (Isaiah 14:12), and Rabba bar Rav Huna said: This verse teaches us that he, Nebuchadnezzar, would cast lots [ḥolesh] for the royal leaders of the nations he had captured, in order to know whose day it was to service him with homosexual relations. And it is written: “All the kings of the nations, all of them sleep in glory, every one in his own house” (Isaiah 14:18). And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The meaning of this verse is that they rested from homosexual relations.

ואמר רבי יוחנן כל ימיו של אותו רשע לא נמצא שחוק בפה כל בריה שנאמר נחה שקטה כל הארץ פצחו רנה מכלל דעד השתא לא הוה רנה

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: All of the days of the life of that wicked man, laughter could not be found in the mouth of any creature, as it is stated: “The whole earth is at rest and is quiet; they break forth into singing” (Isaiah 14:7). This proves by inference that until now there was not any song.

ואמר רבי יצחק אמר רבי יוחנן אסור לעמוד בביתו של אותו רשע שנאמר ושעירים ירקדו שם

And Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is prohibited even nowadays to stand in the ruins of the house of that wicked man, Nebuchadnezzar, in Babylonia, for it is stated about that place: “And demons shall dance there” (Isaiah 13:21). There is concern that one may be injured by the harmful forces there (Maharsha).

ואמר רב יהודה אמר רב בשעה שביקש אותו רשע לעשות לאותו צדיק כך נמשכה ערלתו שלש מאות אמה והיתה מחזרת על כל המסיבה כולה שנאמר שבעת קלון מכבוד שתה גם אתה והערל ערל בגימטריא שלש מאות הוי

And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: At the time when that wicked man, Nebuchadnezzar, wanted to do to that righteous man, Zedekiah, this act of sodomy, his foreskin was stretched three hundred cubits, and it surrounded the entire company at Nebuchadnezzar’s feast, as it is stated: “Woe to one who gives his neighbor drink, who puts your venom in and also makes him drunk so that you may look upon their nakedness. You are filled with shame instead of honor. Drink, you, and be like one who is uncircumcised [vehe’arel]” (Habakkuk 2:15–16). The word arel, which refers here to one who is uncircumcised and also connotes the foreskin, has a numerical value of three hundred.

ואמר רב יהודה אמר רב בשעה שירד אותו רשע לגיהנם רעשו כל יורדי גיהנם אמרו שמא למשול עליהם הוא בא או ליחלות כמותם הוא בא שנאמר גם אתה חולית כמונו אלינו נמשלת יצאתה בת קול ואמרה ממי נעמת רדה והשכבה את ערלים

And Rav Yehuda also said that Rav said: When that wicked man descended into Gehenna, everyone who had already descended to Gehenna trembled, and they said, referring to themselves in third person: Perhaps he is coming to rule over them; or is he coming to be weakened like them? As it is stated: “They all answer and say to you: Have you also become weak like us? Have you become like us [eleinu nimshalta]?” (Isaiah 14:10). The Hebrew phrase: Eleinu nimshalta, can mean: Have you become like us, or alternatively: Have you come to rule over us. A Divine Voice emerged and said: “Whom do you pass in beauty? Go down and be laid with the uncircumcised” (Ezekiel 32:19). This confirmed that Nebuchadnezzar has the same status in Gehenna as everyone else.

איך שבת נוגש שבתה מדהבה אמר רבי יהודה אמר רב שבתה אומה זו שאמרה

On a related note, the verse states: “And you shall take up this parable against the king of Babylonia and you shall say: How has the oppressor ceased. The exactor of gold has ceased” (Isaiah 14:4). Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The meaning of this verse is that this nation that said:

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

Scroll To Top