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

Daf Yomi

August 3, 2020 | 讬状讙 讘讗讘 转砖状驻

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

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

Shabbat 150

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rabbi David Young in honor of his chevruta called “Day Yomi, Baby!鈥 – Rabbi Rachel Greengrass,聽Rabbi Stephen Wise,聽Rabbi Eric Linder,聽Rabbi Andy Rosenkranz and聽Rabbi Sari Laufer.

Can one hire workers on Shabbat for work on Shabbat or after Shabbat? Can one tell someone else to hire workers for them? Is that referring to telling a Jew or a non-Jew? Can one go to the edge of techum Shabbat and wait there until Shabbat ends to do something immediately after Shabbat? It depends on whether or not what you are planning to do is something forbidden on Shabbat. Can one do calculations on Shabbat – under what circumstances? Can one gather to discuss public issues? If one did not make havdala at the end of Shabbat, can one perform melacha?

诪讚讜讚 讜讛讘讗 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 砖讗诪专讛 诪讗讚 诪讗讚 讛讘讬讗 讘诇讗 诪讚讛


Measure and bring a lot of money, has ceased. And some say that the meaning of the statement is that this nation said: Bring very, very much, without measure.


讜专讘讜 讬转讬专讛 讛讜住驻转 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 诪诇诪讚 砖专讻讘 注诇 讗专讬 讝讻专 讜拽砖专 转谞讬谉 讘专讗砖讜 诇拽讬讬诐 诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讙诐 讗转 讞讬转 讛砖讚讛 谞转转讬 诇讜 诇注讘讚讜:


The Gemara cites another verse pertaining to Nebuchadnezzar: 鈥淎nd surpassing greatness was added unto me鈥 (Daniel 4:33), about which Rav Yehuda said that Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said: This teaches that Nebuchadnezzar rode atop a male lion and tied a serpent to its head, fulfilling what was said of him: 鈥淎nd the beasts of the field I have also given him to serve him鈥 (Jeremiah 27:6).


诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讬砖讻讜专 讗讚诐 驻讜注诇讬诐 讘砖讘转 讜诇讗 讬讗诪专 讗讚诐 诇讞讘讬专讜 诇砖讻讜专 诇讜 驻讜注诇讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讞砖讬讻讬谉 注诇 讛转讞讜诐 诇砖讻讜专 诇讜 驻讜注诇讬诐 讜诇讛讘讬讗 驻讬专讜转 讗讘诇 诪讞砖讬讱 讛讜讗 诇砖诪讜专 讜诪讘讬讗 驻讬专讜转 讘讬讚讜 讻诇诇 讗诪专 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讻诇 砖讗谞讬 讝讻讗讬 讘讗诪讬专转讜 专砖讗讬 讗谞讬 诇讛讞砖讬讱 注诇讬讜:


MISHNA: A person may not hire workers on Shabbat to work for him after Shabbat because even speaking about weekday matters is prohibited on Shabbat. Similarly, a person may not tell another on Shabbat to hire workers for him. One may not even wait for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary in order to leave the boundary immediately after Shabbat to hire workers for himself or to bring produce from his field. But he may wait for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary in order to guard his produce that is outside the Shabbat boundary, and he may then bring produce back in his hand, since he did not initially intend to wait at the edge of the boundary for this purpose. Abba Shaul stated a general principle: With regard to anything that I am permitted to discuss on Shabbat, I am permitted to wait for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary for its sake.


讙诪壮 (驻砖讬讟讗) 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讜讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讞讘讬专讜 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讞讘专 讙讜讬 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪讬专讛 诇讙讜讬 砖讘讜转


GEMARA: The beginning of the mishna taught that one may not hire workers on Shabbat, and one may not tell another to hire workers for him. The Gemara finds this puzzling and states: This is obvious. What is the difference between him and another? Just as he is prohibited from hiring workers on Shabbat, others are also prohibited from doing so. Rav Pappa said: Another is referring to a gentile. Rav Ashi strongly objects to this: This is itself a prohibition, for telling a gentile to do something that is prohibited for a Jew on Shabbat violates a rabbinic prohibition.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讞讘讬专讜 讬砖专讗诇 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇讗 讬讗诪专 讗讚诐 诇讞讘讬专讜 砖讻讜专 诇讬 驻讜注诇讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 诇讞讘讬专讜 讛谞专讗讛 砖转注诪讜讚 注诪讬 诇注专讘 讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬讗诪专 讗讚诐 诇讞讘讬专讜 讛谞专讗讛 砖转注诪讜讚 注诪讬 诇注专讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 诇讞讘讬专讜 讛谞专讗讛 砖转注诪讜讚 注诪讬 诇注专讘


Rather, Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that it is referring to another Jew, it can be said that the novel element of this ruling is not the statement itself but what can be derived from it. This is what it is teaching us: One may not say to another explicitly on Shabbat: Hire workers for me, but one may say to another: Does it seem that you will join me this evening? This is permitted even though both of them understand that the questioner intends to hire the other person to work for him. And in accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣; as it was taught in a baraita: A person may not say to another on Shabbat: Does it seem that you will join me this evening? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 says: A person may say to another on Shabbat: Does it seem that you will join me this evening?


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讚讻转讬讘 诪诪爪讜讗 讞驻爪讱 讜讚讘专 讚讘专 讚讬讘讜专 讗住讜专 讛专讛讜专 诪讜转专


Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣. And Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣鈥檚 ruling? As it is written in the verse from which we derive the prohibition to speak on Shabbat about activities that one may not perform on that day: 鈥淎nd you shall honor it by not doing your ways, nor pursuing your business, nor speaking of it鈥 (Isaiah 58:13). We derive from this verse that speaking is prohibited, but merely contemplating these matters is permitted.


专诪讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇专讘讗 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讬讘讜专 讗住讜专 讛专讛讜专 诪讜转专 讗诇诪讗 讛专讛讜专 诇讗讜 讻讚讬讘讜专 讚诪讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诪讜转专 诇讛专讛专 讞讜抓 诪讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讜诪讘讬转 讛讻住讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讬讛 诪讞谞讬讱 拽讚讜砖 讜诇讬讻讗


Rav A岣 bar Rav Huna raised a contradiction to Rava: Did Rabbi Yo岣nan really state as a general principle that speaking is prohibited, but contemplating is permitted? Consequently, we can derive from here that contemplation is not tantamount to speech. But Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is permitted to think about Torah in any place except for a bathhouse and a bathroom. This statement indicates that contemplation is tantamount to speech, as even thought is prohibited in these locations. The Gemara answers: It is different there, for with regard to Torah we need to fulfill the verse: 鈥淔or the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp to deliver you and to give your enemies before you; therefore, your camp shall be sacred so that He see no unseemly thing in you and turn away from you鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:15); and the requirement to be sacred is not fulfilled if one thinks about Torah while in the bathhouse or bathroom.


讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜诇讗 讬专讗讛 讘讱 注专讜转 讚讘专 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讙讜讬 注专讜诐 讗住讜专 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬转 砖诪注 讻谞讙讚讜


The Gemara challenges this: But here, too, with regard to a bathhouse and a bathroom, it is written: 鈥淪o that He see no unseemly thing [davar] in you鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:15). We can infer that this prohibits speech [dibbur] but not contemplation. The Gemara answers: That verse is not referring to speech. It is needed for the ruling of Rav Yehuda, for Rav Yehuda said: Opposite a naked gentile, it is prohibited to recite Shema, as this is included in the prohibition of unseemly things mentioned above.


诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讙讜讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讬砖专讗诇 讚讗住讜专 讗讘诇 讙讜讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讗砖专 讘砖专 讞诪讜专讬诐 讘砖专诐 讗讬诪讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara asks: Why did Rav Yehuda teach this prohibition particularly with regard to a gentile? Even in the presence of a naked Jew, reciting Shema is also prohibited. The Gemara answers: That ruling is stated employing the style of: There is no need. The Gemara explains: There is no need to state this halakha with regard to a Jew, as it is certainly prohibited to recite Shema in the presence of a naked Jew. However, with regard to a gentile, since it is written about him: 鈥淲hose flesh is as the flesh of donkeys鈥 (Ezekiel 23:20), perhaps his flesh is not considered nakedness, and one may say that it seems well and permitted. Therefore, Rav Yehuda teaches us that it is also prohibited to recite Shema before a naked gentile.


讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜注专讜转 讗讘讬讛诐 诇讗 专讗讜


The Gemara asks: Why not say that it is indeed so, that gentile flesh is not considered nakedness? The Gemara rejects this idea: The verse already said with regard to the sons of Noah: 鈥淎nd they walked backward and covered their father鈥檚 nakedness, and their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father鈥檚 nakedness鈥 (Genesis 9:23). The verse uses the term nakedness with regard to Noah, who was a gentile.


讜讚讬讘讜专 诪讬 讗住讬专 讜讛讗 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讞砖讘讜谞讜转 砖诇 诪爪讜讛 诪讜转专 诇讞砖讘谉 讘砖讘转 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 驻讜住拽讬诐 爪讚拽讛 诇注谞讬讬诐 讘砖讘转 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪驻拽讞讬谉 驻讬拽讜讞 谞驻砖 讜驻讬拽讜讞 专讘讬诐 讘砖讘转 讜讛讜诇讻讬谉 诇讘转讬 讻谞住讬讜转 诇驻拽讞 注诇 注住拽讬 专讘讬诐 讘砖讘转


The Gemara addresses the basis of the halakha mentioned above: And is it speaking about proscribed activities prohibited on Shabbat? But Rav 岣sda and Rav Hamnuna both said: It is permitted to make calculations pertaining to a mitzva on Shabbat, and Rabbi Elazar said that this means that one may apportion charity for the poor on Shabbat. And Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One may attend to activities necessary for saving a life or for communal needs on Shabbat, and one may go to a synagogue to attend to communal affairs on Shabbat.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜诇讻讬谉 诇讟专讟讬讗讜转 讜诇拽专拽住讗讜转 讜诇讘住讬诇拽讗讜转 诇驻拽讞 注诇 注住拽讬 专讘讬诐 讘砖讘转 讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 诪谞砖讛 诪砖讚讻讬谉 注诇 讛转讬谞讜拽讜转 诇讬讗专住 讘砖讘转 讜注诇 讛转讬谞讜拽 诇诇诪讚讜 住驻专 讜诇诇诪讚讜 讗讜诪谞讜转 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪诪爪讜讗 讞驻爪讱 讜讚讘专 讚讘专 讞驻爪讬讱 讗住讜专讬诐 讞驻爪讬 砖诪讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉


And Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One may go to theaters [tarteiot], and circus performances [kirkesaot], and courthouses [basilkaot] to attend to communal affairs on Shabbat. And one of the Sages in the school of Menashe taught: One may make the necessary arrangements to pair off children so that they will be betrothed on Shabbat, and one may likewise make arrangements for a child by finding someone to teach him how to read books and to teach him a craft. If speaking about monetary matters is prohibited on Shabbat, how is it possible to participate in all these activities? The Gemara answers that although speaking about similar things is generally prohibited on Shabbat, it is permitted in these cases because the verse said: 鈥淣or pursuing your business, nor speaking of it鈥 (Isaiah 58:13), which indicates that your business matters are prohibited to speak of on Shabbat, but the business of Heaven, matters which have religious significance, is permitted to speak of.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞砖讘讜谞讜转 砖诇 [诪诇讱] 讜砖诇 诪讛 讘讻讱 诪讜转专 诇讞砖讘谉 讘砖讘转 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讞砖讘讜谞讜转 砖注讘专讜 讜砖注转讬讚讬谉 诇讛讬讜转 讗住讜专 诇讞砖讘谉 砖诇 诪诇讱


Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to calculations of: What is it to you, [mallakh], calculations that are in no way relevant to the person making them, and of: What significance does it have [ma bekhakh], calculations that do not have any practical significance, it is permitted to make them on Shabbat. This was also taught in the Tosefta: Calculations with regard to matters that have passed or that will be in the future may not be calculated on Shabbat. However, with regard to calculations of: What is it to you,


讜砖诇 诪讛 讘讻讱 诪讜转专 诇讞讜砖讘谉


and of: What significance does it have, it is permitted to calculate them.


讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讞讜砖讘讬谉 讞砖讘讜谞讜转 砖讗讬谞谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讬谉 讞砖讘讜谞讜转 砖爪专讬讻讬谉 讘砖讘转 讻讬爪讚 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 诇讞讘讬专讜 讻讱 讜讻讱 驻讜注诇讬诐 讛讜爪讗转讬 注诇 砖讚讛 讝讜 讻讱 讜讻讱 讚讬谞专讬谉 讛讜爪讗转讬 注诇 讚讬专讛 讝讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬讗诪专 诇讜 讻讱 讜讻讱 讛讜爪讗转讬 讜讻讱 讜讻讱 讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇讛讜爪讬讗


The Gemara raises a contradiction based on what was taught in another baraita: One may make calculations that are unnecessary, but one may not make calculations that are necessary on Shabbat. How so? One may say to another: I sent out such and such number of workers to this field, and I spent such and such number of dinar for this home. But he may not say to him: I spent such and such amount of money, and I am going to spend such and such amount in the future. Apparently, one is permitted to calculate one鈥檚 previous expenditures on Shabbat.


讜诇讟注诪讬讱 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讗 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讙专讗 讚讗讙讬专讗 讙讘讬讛 讛讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讗讙专讗 讚讗讙讬专讗 讙讘讬讛:


The Gemara responds: And according to your reasoning, it itself, the Tosefta quoted previously, is difficult for you, for it prohibits calculating past expenditures while allowing one to make calculations that do not have practical significance. Rather, it must be explained in the following manner: This Tosefta, which taught that it is prohibited to calculate past expenses, is referring to a case in which he has payment with him that he still owes his workers. Therefore, although his calculation pertains to projects that have already been completed, it is still relevant in a practical manner. And this baraita, which taught that it is permitted to calculate past expenses, is referring to a case in which he does not have payment with him that he must still pay his workers, and therefore his calculation does not have practical significance.


讗讬谉 诪讞砖讬讻讬谉: 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讘讞住讬讚 讗讞讚 砖谞驻专爪讛 诇讜 驻专抓 讘转讜讱 砖讚讛讜 讜谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛 诇讙讜讚专讛 讜谞讝讻专 砖砖讘转 讛讜讗 讜谞诪谞注 讗讜转讜 讞住讬讚 讜诇讗 讙讚专讛 讜谞注砖讛 诇讜 谞住 讜注诇转讛 讘讜 爪诇祝 讜诪诪谞讛 讛讬转讛 驻专谞住转讜 讜驻专谞住转 讗谞砖讬 讘讬转讜


We learned in the mishna that one may not wait for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary in order to hire workers or bring produce from outside of the boundary immediately after Shabbat. The Sages taught: There was an incident with a pious man in which a breach was made in the fence around his field, and when he saw it he decided to fence it in. And then he remembered that it was Shabbat. And that pious man refrained from fixing the fence forever because he had thought about fixing it on Shabbat. And a miracle was done for him, and a caper bush grew in the breach, thereby closing it up. And from it and its produce he then received his livelihood and the livelihood of the members of his household.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜转专 诇讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 诇讻专讱 驻诇讜谞讬 讗谞讬 讛讜诇讱 诇诪讞专 砖讗诐 讬砖 讘讜专讙谞讬谉 讛讜诇讱


Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A person is permitted to say to another on Shabbat: I am going to such and such city tomorrow, for if there were small guardhouses [burganin] one would be permitted to walk. If small guardhouses, from which the surrounding area and fields could be watched, were located along the way one needs to travel, the entire area would attain the status of a single city, and walking from one part to the other on Shabbat would be permitted ab initio. Since it would be permitted to traverse this area on Shabbat with burganin present, it is permitted to talk about such a journey on Shabbat, even when these guardhouses are not present. This is because it is permitted to speak about or prepare for something that can be done in a permitted fashion on Shabbat, even in the absence of the conditions that make it permitted.


转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讞砖讬讻讬谉 注诇 讛转讞讜诐 诇砖讻讜专 驻讜注诇讬诐 讜诇讛讘讬讗 驻讬专讜转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇砖讻讜专 驻讜注诇讬诐 讚讘砖讘转 诇讗 诪爪讬 讗讙专 讗诇讗 诇讛讘讬讗 驻讬专讜转 诇讬诪讗 砖讗诐 讬砖 砖诐 诪讞讬爪讜转 诪讘讬讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘驻讬专讜转 讛诪讞讜讘专讬诐


We learned in the mishna: One may not wait for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary in order to hire workers or bring produce after Shabbat from the other side of the boundary. Granted, it makes sense that it is prohibited to wait at the Shabbat boundary in order to hire workers, as one may not hire workers under any circumstances on Shabbat. But if one waits there in order to bring produce, why is it prohibited? Let us say that since one would be permitted to bring produce at the edge of the boundary on Shabbat ab initio if there were partitions there, one may wait for nightfall at the border to bring produce even when there are not partitions present, in accordance with Rav Yehuda鈥檚 ruling mentioned above. The Gemara answers: You find a case where bringing produce is not permitted under any circumstances; that is when the produce is still attached to the ground, as there is no permitted way to pick produce on Shabbat.


讜讛转谞讬 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讞砖讬讻讬谉 注诇 讛转讞讜诐 诇讛讘讬讗 转讘谉 讜拽砖 讘砖诇诪讗 拽砖 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘诪讞讜讘专 讗诇讗 转讘谉 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘转讬讘谞讗 住专讬讗


The Gemara again questions Rav Yehuda鈥檚 ruling: But Rabbi Oshaya taught: One may not wait for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary in order to bring in hay and straw after Shabbat. Granted, Rabbi Oshaya taught that it is prohibited in the case of straw; you find the case of straw that is still attached to the ground, which it is clearly prohibited to pick under any circumstances. But hay, which has already been detached from the ground, how do you find a case in which it would be prohibited to carry it on Shabbat, even with partitions present? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Oshaya鈥檚 ruling referred to rotten straw, which may not be carried on Shabbat because it is considered set-aside [muktze].


转讗 砖诪注 诪讞砖讬讻讬谉 注诇 讛转讞讜诐 诇驻拽讞 注诇 注住拽讬 讻诇讛 讜注诇 注住拽讬 讛诪转 注诇 注住拽讬 讻诇讛 讜诪转 讗讬谉 注诇 注住拽讬 讗讞专 诇讗


Come and hear a proof with regard to this matter based on what was taught elsewhere: One may wait for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary in order to attend to the needs of a bride or the needs of a corpse. The Gemara infers from this that for the needs of a bride or a corpse, yes, one is permitted to wait for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary, but for the needs of another person, no, it is not permitted.


讘砖诇诪讗 讗讞专 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讻诇讛 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诇诪讬讙讝讗 诇讬讛 讗住讗 讗诇讗 诪转 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诇讛讘讬讗 诇讜 讗专讜谉 讜转讻专讬讻讬谉 讜拽转谞讬 诪转 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 讗讞专 诇讗


Granted, with regard to attending to the needs of another in a manner similar to attending to the needs of a bride, you find a case where it is prohibited to cut him a myrtle branch as was customarily done for brides because this is absolutely prohibited on Shabbat. But with regard to a corpse, what is it that one might do which would be prohibited to do for others? To bring for it a coffin and shrouds. And it teaches that for a corpse, yes, it is permitted, but for another it is not.


讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 砖讗诐 讬砖 砖诐 诪讞讬爪讜转 诪讘讬讗 诪转 谞诪讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诇诪讬讙讝讗 诇讬讛 讙诇讬诪讗:


And why is it prohibited to do so for others? Let us say that since one would be permitted to bring these items on Shabbat if there were partitions there, one may wait for nightfall at the edge of the border to bring these items after Shabbat, in accordance with the ruling of Rav Yehuda. The Gemara answers: In the case of a corpse, you also find a case where bringing an item is prohibited under any circumstance, e.g., if one is waiting to cut a garment for the corpse to use as shrouds. There is no permissible way to do that on Shabbat. In that case, it would be prohibited to wait at the edge of the Shabbat boundary for this purpose if not for the fact that it is for the sake of a corpse, as it is a mitzva to attend to the needs of a corpse.


讗讘诇 诪讞砖讬讻讬谉: 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗讘讚讬诇 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗住讜专 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 砖讬注砖讛 讞驻爪讬讜 拽讜讚诐 砖讬讘讚讬诇 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚讗讘讚讬诇 讘转驻诇讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪讘讚讬诇 讘转驻诇讛 爪专讬讱 砖讬讘讚讬诇 注诇 讛讻讜住 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚讗讘讚讬诇 注诇 讛讻讜住 讻讜住 讘砖讚讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 转专讙诪讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讘专 讗诪讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘讬谉 讛讙讬转讜转 砖谞讜


We learned in the mishna: But one may wait for nightfall at the Shabbat boundary in order to guard one鈥檚 produce. The Gemara asks: And is this the case even if he has not recited the blessing of distinction [havdala] marking the end of Shabbat? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar ben Antigonos say in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov that it is prohibited for a person to tend to his weekday affairs after Shabbat before he recites havdala? And if you say that this is referring to a case in which one already recited havdala during prayer, as formulated by the Sages in the blessing of: Who graciously grants knowledge, didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel said that one who recites havdala in prayer must still recite havdala over a cup of wine? And if you say that this is an instance in which one already recited havdala over a cup of wine, does one have a cup of wine in the field? Rabbi Natan bar Ami explained this before Rava: They taught this halakha with regard to a unique case in which the edge of the Shabbat boundary was situated among wine presses, and one took wine from the wine press and recited havdala over it.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讘诪注专讘讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讻讬 讛诪讘讚讬诇 讘讬谉 拽讜讚砖 诇讞讜诇 讜注讘讚讬谞谉 爪讜专讻讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讬 讛讜讬谞讗 讘讬 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讜讛 讗诪专 讛诪讘讚讬诇 讘讬谉 拽讜讚砖 诇讞讜诇 讜诪住诇转讬谞谉 住讬诇转讬:


Rabbi Abba said another explanation to Rav Ashi: In the West, in Eretz Yisrael, we say this at the end of Shabbat: The One who distinguishes between the sacred and the mundane, and then we attend to our needs, as reciting havdala over a cup is unnecessary in order to begin doing labor after Shabbat. It is therefore possible that the mishna addressed a similar case. Similarly, Rav Ashi said: When I was in the house of Rav Kahana, he would say: The One who distinguishes between the sacred and the mundane, at the end of Shabbat, and we would cut wood to burn for light and heat.


讻诇诇 讗诪专 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讻诇 砖讗谞讬 讜讻讜壮: (讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜) 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗专讬砖讗 拽讗讬 讗讬谉 诪讞砖讬讻讬谉 注诇 讛转讞讜诐 诇砖讻讜专 驻讜注诇讬诐 诇讛讘讬讗 驻讬专讜转


We learned in the mishna: Abba Shaul stated a general principle: With regard to anything that I am permitted to discuss on Shabbat, I am permitted to wait for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary for its sake. The Gemara raises a dilemma: To which part of the mishna did Abba Shaul鈥檚 statement refer? If you say that it relates to the first clause of the mishna, which taught: One may not wait for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary in order to hire workers or to bring produce,


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

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

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...

Shabbat 150

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 150

诪讚讜讚 讜讛讘讗 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 砖讗诪专讛 诪讗讚 诪讗讚 讛讘讬讗 讘诇讗 诪讚讛


Measure and bring a lot of money, has ceased. And some say that the meaning of the statement is that this nation said: Bring very, very much, without measure.


讜专讘讜 讬转讬专讛 讛讜住驻转 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 诪诇诪讚 砖专讻讘 注诇 讗专讬 讝讻专 讜拽砖专 转谞讬谉 讘专讗砖讜 诇拽讬讬诐 诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讙诐 讗转 讞讬转 讛砖讚讛 谞转转讬 诇讜 诇注讘讚讜:


The Gemara cites another verse pertaining to Nebuchadnezzar: 鈥淎nd surpassing greatness was added unto me鈥 (Daniel 4:33), about which Rav Yehuda said that Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said: This teaches that Nebuchadnezzar rode atop a male lion and tied a serpent to its head, fulfilling what was said of him: 鈥淎nd the beasts of the field I have also given him to serve him鈥 (Jeremiah 27:6).


诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讬砖讻讜专 讗讚诐 驻讜注诇讬诐 讘砖讘转 讜诇讗 讬讗诪专 讗讚诐 诇讞讘讬专讜 诇砖讻讜专 诇讜 驻讜注诇讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讞砖讬讻讬谉 注诇 讛转讞讜诐 诇砖讻讜专 诇讜 驻讜注诇讬诐 讜诇讛讘讬讗 驻讬专讜转 讗讘诇 诪讞砖讬讱 讛讜讗 诇砖诪讜专 讜诪讘讬讗 驻讬专讜转 讘讬讚讜 讻诇诇 讗诪专 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讻诇 砖讗谞讬 讝讻讗讬 讘讗诪讬专转讜 专砖讗讬 讗谞讬 诇讛讞砖讬讱 注诇讬讜:


MISHNA: A person may not hire workers on Shabbat to work for him after Shabbat because even speaking about weekday matters is prohibited on Shabbat. Similarly, a person may not tell another on Shabbat to hire workers for him. One may not even wait for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary in order to leave the boundary immediately after Shabbat to hire workers for himself or to bring produce from his field. But he may wait for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary in order to guard his produce that is outside the Shabbat boundary, and he may then bring produce back in his hand, since he did not initially intend to wait at the edge of the boundary for this purpose. Abba Shaul stated a general principle: With regard to anything that I am permitted to discuss on Shabbat, I am permitted to wait for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary for its sake.


讙诪壮 (驻砖讬讟讗) 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讜讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讞讘讬专讜 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讞讘专 讙讜讬 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪讬专讛 诇讙讜讬 砖讘讜转


GEMARA: The beginning of the mishna taught that one may not hire workers on Shabbat, and one may not tell another to hire workers for him. The Gemara finds this puzzling and states: This is obvious. What is the difference between him and another? Just as he is prohibited from hiring workers on Shabbat, others are also prohibited from doing so. Rav Pappa said: Another is referring to a gentile. Rav Ashi strongly objects to this: This is itself a prohibition, for telling a gentile to do something that is prohibited for a Jew on Shabbat violates a rabbinic prohibition.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讞讘讬专讜 讬砖专讗诇 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇讗 讬讗诪专 讗讚诐 诇讞讘讬专讜 砖讻讜专 诇讬 驻讜注诇讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 诇讞讘讬专讜 讛谞专讗讛 砖转注诪讜讚 注诪讬 诇注专讘 讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬讗诪专 讗讚诐 诇讞讘讬专讜 讛谞专讗讛 砖转注诪讜讚 注诪讬 诇注专讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 诇讞讘讬专讜 讛谞专讗讛 砖转注诪讜讚 注诪讬 诇注专讘


Rather, Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that it is referring to another Jew, it can be said that the novel element of this ruling is not the statement itself but what can be derived from it. This is what it is teaching us: One may not say to another explicitly on Shabbat: Hire workers for me, but one may say to another: Does it seem that you will join me this evening? This is permitted even though both of them understand that the questioner intends to hire the other person to work for him. And in accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣; as it was taught in a baraita: A person may not say to another on Shabbat: Does it seem that you will join me this evening? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 says: A person may say to another on Shabbat: Does it seem that you will join me this evening?


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讚讻转讬讘 诪诪爪讜讗 讞驻爪讱 讜讚讘专 讚讘专 讚讬讘讜专 讗住讜专 讛专讛讜专 诪讜转专


Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣. And Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣鈥檚 ruling? As it is written in the verse from which we derive the prohibition to speak on Shabbat about activities that one may not perform on that day: 鈥淎nd you shall honor it by not doing your ways, nor pursuing your business, nor speaking of it鈥 (Isaiah 58:13). We derive from this verse that speaking is prohibited, but merely contemplating these matters is permitted.


专诪讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇专讘讗 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讬讘讜专 讗住讜专 讛专讛讜专 诪讜转专 讗诇诪讗 讛专讛讜专 诇讗讜 讻讚讬讘讜专 讚诪讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诪讜转专 诇讛专讛专 讞讜抓 诪讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讜诪讘讬转 讛讻住讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讬讛 诪讞谞讬讱 拽讚讜砖 讜诇讬讻讗


Rav A岣 bar Rav Huna raised a contradiction to Rava: Did Rabbi Yo岣nan really state as a general principle that speaking is prohibited, but contemplating is permitted? Consequently, we can derive from here that contemplation is not tantamount to speech. But Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is permitted to think about Torah in any place except for a bathhouse and a bathroom. This statement indicates that contemplation is tantamount to speech, as even thought is prohibited in these locations. The Gemara answers: It is different there, for with regard to Torah we need to fulfill the verse: 鈥淔or the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp to deliver you and to give your enemies before you; therefore, your camp shall be sacred so that He see no unseemly thing in you and turn away from you鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:15); and the requirement to be sacred is not fulfilled if one thinks about Torah while in the bathhouse or bathroom.


讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜诇讗 讬专讗讛 讘讱 注专讜转 讚讘专 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讙讜讬 注专讜诐 讗住讜专 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬转 砖诪注 讻谞讙讚讜


The Gemara challenges this: But here, too, with regard to a bathhouse and a bathroom, it is written: 鈥淪o that He see no unseemly thing [davar] in you鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:15). We can infer that this prohibits speech [dibbur] but not contemplation. The Gemara answers: That verse is not referring to speech. It is needed for the ruling of Rav Yehuda, for Rav Yehuda said: Opposite a naked gentile, it is prohibited to recite Shema, as this is included in the prohibition of unseemly things mentioned above.


诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讙讜讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讬砖专讗诇 讚讗住讜专 讗讘诇 讙讜讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讗砖专 讘砖专 讞诪讜专讬诐 讘砖专诐 讗讬诪讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara asks: Why did Rav Yehuda teach this prohibition particularly with regard to a gentile? Even in the presence of a naked Jew, reciting Shema is also prohibited. The Gemara answers: That ruling is stated employing the style of: There is no need. The Gemara explains: There is no need to state this halakha with regard to a Jew, as it is certainly prohibited to recite Shema in the presence of a naked Jew. However, with regard to a gentile, since it is written about him: 鈥淲hose flesh is as the flesh of donkeys鈥 (Ezekiel 23:20), perhaps his flesh is not considered nakedness, and one may say that it seems well and permitted. Therefore, Rav Yehuda teaches us that it is also prohibited to recite Shema before a naked gentile.


讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜注专讜转 讗讘讬讛诐 诇讗 专讗讜


The Gemara asks: Why not say that it is indeed so, that gentile flesh is not considered nakedness? The Gemara rejects this idea: The verse already said with regard to the sons of Noah: 鈥淎nd they walked backward and covered their father鈥檚 nakedness, and their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father鈥檚 nakedness鈥 (Genesis 9:23). The verse uses the term nakedness with regard to Noah, who was a gentile.


讜讚讬讘讜专 诪讬 讗住讬专 讜讛讗 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讞砖讘讜谞讜转 砖诇 诪爪讜讛 诪讜转专 诇讞砖讘谉 讘砖讘转 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 驻讜住拽讬诐 爪讚拽讛 诇注谞讬讬诐 讘砖讘转 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪驻拽讞讬谉 驻讬拽讜讞 谞驻砖 讜驻讬拽讜讞 专讘讬诐 讘砖讘转 讜讛讜诇讻讬谉 诇讘转讬 讻谞住讬讜转 诇驻拽讞 注诇 注住拽讬 专讘讬诐 讘砖讘转


The Gemara addresses the basis of the halakha mentioned above: And is it speaking about proscribed activities prohibited on Shabbat? But Rav 岣sda and Rav Hamnuna both said: It is permitted to make calculations pertaining to a mitzva on Shabbat, and Rabbi Elazar said that this means that one may apportion charity for the poor on Shabbat. And Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One may attend to activities necessary for saving a life or for communal needs on Shabbat, and one may go to a synagogue to attend to communal affairs on Shabbat.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜诇讻讬谉 诇讟专讟讬讗讜转 讜诇拽专拽住讗讜转 讜诇讘住讬诇拽讗讜转 诇驻拽讞 注诇 注住拽讬 专讘讬诐 讘砖讘转 讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 诪谞砖讛 诪砖讚讻讬谉 注诇 讛转讬谞讜拽讜转 诇讬讗专住 讘砖讘转 讜注诇 讛转讬谞讜拽 诇诇诪讚讜 住驻专 讜诇诇诪讚讜 讗讜诪谞讜转 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪诪爪讜讗 讞驻爪讱 讜讚讘专 讚讘专 讞驻爪讬讱 讗住讜专讬诐 讞驻爪讬 砖诪讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉


And Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One may go to theaters [tarteiot], and circus performances [kirkesaot], and courthouses [basilkaot] to attend to communal affairs on Shabbat. And one of the Sages in the school of Menashe taught: One may make the necessary arrangements to pair off children so that they will be betrothed on Shabbat, and one may likewise make arrangements for a child by finding someone to teach him how to read books and to teach him a craft. If speaking about monetary matters is prohibited on Shabbat, how is it possible to participate in all these activities? The Gemara answers that although speaking about similar things is generally prohibited on Shabbat, it is permitted in these cases because the verse said: 鈥淣or pursuing your business, nor speaking of it鈥 (Isaiah 58:13), which indicates that your business matters are prohibited to speak of on Shabbat, but the business of Heaven, matters which have religious significance, is permitted to speak of.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞砖讘讜谞讜转 砖诇 [诪诇讱] 讜砖诇 诪讛 讘讻讱 诪讜转专 诇讞砖讘谉 讘砖讘转 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讞砖讘讜谞讜转 砖注讘专讜 讜砖注转讬讚讬谉 诇讛讬讜转 讗住讜专 诇讞砖讘谉 砖诇 诪诇讱


Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to calculations of: What is it to you, [mallakh], calculations that are in no way relevant to the person making them, and of: What significance does it have [ma bekhakh], calculations that do not have any practical significance, it is permitted to make them on Shabbat. This was also taught in the Tosefta: Calculations with regard to matters that have passed or that will be in the future may not be calculated on Shabbat. However, with regard to calculations of: What is it to you,


讜砖诇 诪讛 讘讻讱 诪讜转专 诇讞讜砖讘谉


and of: What significance does it have, it is permitted to calculate them.


讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讞讜砖讘讬谉 讞砖讘讜谞讜转 砖讗讬谞谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讬谉 讞砖讘讜谞讜转 砖爪专讬讻讬谉 讘砖讘转 讻讬爪讚 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 诇讞讘讬专讜 讻讱 讜讻讱 驻讜注诇讬诐 讛讜爪讗转讬 注诇 砖讚讛 讝讜 讻讱 讜讻讱 讚讬谞专讬谉 讛讜爪讗转讬 注诇 讚讬专讛 讝讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬讗诪专 诇讜 讻讱 讜讻讱 讛讜爪讗转讬 讜讻讱 讜讻讱 讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇讛讜爪讬讗


The Gemara raises a contradiction based on what was taught in another baraita: One may make calculations that are unnecessary, but one may not make calculations that are necessary on Shabbat. How so? One may say to another: I sent out such and such number of workers to this field, and I spent such and such number of dinar for this home. But he may not say to him: I spent such and such amount of money, and I am going to spend such and such amount in the future. Apparently, one is permitted to calculate one鈥檚 previous expenditures on Shabbat.


讜诇讟注诪讬讱 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讗 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讙专讗 讚讗讙讬专讗 讙讘讬讛 讛讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讗讙专讗 讚讗讙讬专讗 讙讘讬讛:


The Gemara responds: And according to your reasoning, it itself, the Tosefta quoted previously, is difficult for you, for it prohibits calculating past expenditures while allowing one to make calculations that do not have practical significance. Rather, it must be explained in the following manner: This Tosefta, which taught that it is prohibited to calculate past expenses, is referring to a case in which he has payment with him that he still owes his workers. Therefore, although his calculation pertains to projects that have already been completed, it is still relevant in a practical manner. And this baraita, which taught that it is permitted to calculate past expenses, is referring to a case in which he does not have payment with him that he must still pay his workers, and therefore his calculation does not have practical significance.


讗讬谉 诪讞砖讬讻讬谉: 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讘讞住讬讚 讗讞讚 砖谞驻专爪讛 诇讜 驻专抓 讘转讜讱 砖讚讛讜 讜谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛 诇讙讜讚专讛 讜谞讝讻专 砖砖讘转 讛讜讗 讜谞诪谞注 讗讜转讜 讞住讬讚 讜诇讗 讙讚专讛 讜谞注砖讛 诇讜 谞住 讜注诇转讛 讘讜 爪诇祝 讜诪诪谞讛 讛讬转讛 驻专谞住转讜 讜驻专谞住转 讗谞砖讬 讘讬转讜


We learned in the mishna that one may not wait for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary in order to hire workers or bring produce from outside of the boundary immediately after Shabbat. The Sages taught: There was an incident with a pious man in which a breach was made in the fence around his field, and when he saw it he decided to fence it in. And then he remembered that it was Shabbat. And that pious man refrained from fixing the fence forever because he had thought about fixing it on Shabbat. And a miracle was done for him, and a caper bush grew in the breach, thereby closing it up. And from it and its produce he then received his livelihood and the livelihood of the members of his household.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜转专 诇讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 诇讻专讱 驻诇讜谞讬 讗谞讬 讛讜诇讱 诇诪讞专 砖讗诐 讬砖 讘讜专讙谞讬谉 讛讜诇讱


Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A person is permitted to say to another on Shabbat: I am going to such and such city tomorrow, for if there were small guardhouses [burganin] one would be permitted to walk. If small guardhouses, from which the surrounding area and fields could be watched, were located along the way one needs to travel, the entire area would attain the status of a single city, and walking from one part to the other on Shabbat would be permitted ab initio. Since it would be permitted to traverse this area on Shabbat with burganin present, it is permitted to talk about such a journey on Shabbat, even when these guardhouses are not present. This is because it is permitted to speak about or prepare for something that can be done in a permitted fashion on Shabbat, even in the absence of the conditions that make it permitted.


转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讞砖讬讻讬谉 注诇 讛转讞讜诐 诇砖讻讜专 驻讜注诇讬诐 讜诇讛讘讬讗 驻讬专讜转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇砖讻讜专 驻讜注诇讬诐 讚讘砖讘转 诇讗 诪爪讬 讗讙专 讗诇讗 诇讛讘讬讗 驻讬专讜转 诇讬诪讗 砖讗诐 讬砖 砖诐 诪讞讬爪讜转 诪讘讬讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘驻讬专讜转 讛诪讞讜讘专讬诐


We learned in the mishna: One may not wait for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary in order to hire workers or bring produce after Shabbat from the other side of the boundary. Granted, it makes sense that it is prohibited to wait at the Shabbat boundary in order to hire workers, as one may not hire workers under any circumstances on Shabbat. But if one waits there in order to bring produce, why is it prohibited? Let us say that since one would be permitted to bring produce at the edge of the boundary on Shabbat ab initio if there were partitions there, one may wait for nightfall at the border to bring produce even when there are not partitions present, in accordance with Rav Yehuda鈥檚 ruling mentioned above. The Gemara answers: You find a case where bringing produce is not permitted under any circumstances; that is when the produce is still attached to the ground, as there is no permitted way to pick produce on Shabbat.


讜讛转谞讬 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讞砖讬讻讬谉 注诇 讛转讞讜诐 诇讛讘讬讗 转讘谉 讜拽砖 讘砖诇诪讗 拽砖 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘诪讞讜讘专 讗诇讗 转讘谉 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘转讬讘谞讗 住专讬讗


The Gemara again questions Rav Yehuda鈥檚 ruling: But Rabbi Oshaya taught: One may not wait for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary in order to bring in hay and straw after Shabbat. Granted, Rabbi Oshaya taught that it is prohibited in the case of straw; you find the case of straw that is still attached to the ground, which it is clearly prohibited to pick under any circumstances. But hay, which has already been detached from the ground, how do you find a case in which it would be prohibited to carry it on Shabbat, even with partitions present? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Oshaya鈥檚 ruling referred to rotten straw, which may not be carried on Shabbat because it is considered set-aside [muktze].


转讗 砖诪注 诪讞砖讬讻讬谉 注诇 讛转讞讜诐 诇驻拽讞 注诇 注住拽讬 讻诇讛 讜注诇 注住拽讬 讛诪转 注诇 注住拽讬 讻诇讛 讜诪转 讗讬谉 注诇 注住拽讬 讗讞专 诇讗


Come and hear a proof with regard to this matter based on what was taught elsewhere: One may wait for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary in order to attend to the needs of a bride or the needs of a corpse. The Gemara infers from this that for the needs of a bride or a corpse, yes, one is permitted to wait for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary, but for the needs of another person, no, it is not permitted.


讘砖诇诪讗 讗讞专 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讻诇讛 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诇诪讬讙讝讗 诇讬讛 讗住讗 讗诇讗 诪转 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诇讛讘讬讗 诇讜 讗专讜谉 讜转讻专讬讻讬谉 讜拽转谞讬 诪转 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 讗讞专 诇讗


Granted, with regard to attending to the needs of another in a manner similar to attending to the needs of a bride, you find a case where it is prohibited to cut him a myrtle branch as was customarily done for brides because this is absolutely prohibited on Shabbat. But with regard to a corpse, what is it that one might do which would be prohibited to do for others? To bring for it a coffin and shrouds. And it teaches that for a corpse, yes, it is permitted, but for another it is not.


讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 砖讗诐 讬砖 砖诐 诪讞讬爪讜转 诪讘讬讗 诪转 谞诪讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诇诪讬讙讝讗 诇讬讛 讙诇讬诪讗:


And why is it prohibited to do so for others? Let us say that since one would be permitted to bring these items on Shabbat if there were partitions there, one may wait for nightfall at the edge of the border to bring these items after Shabbat, in accordance with the ruling of Rav Yehuda. The Gemara answers: In the case of a corpse, you also find a case where bringing an item is prohibited under any circumstance, e.g., if one is waiting to cut a garment for the corpse to use as shrouds. There is no permissible way to do that on Shabbat. In that case, it would be prohibited to wait at the edge of the Shabbat boundary for this purpose if not for the fact that it is for the sake of a corpse, as it is a mitzva to attend to the needs of a corpse.


讗讘诇 诪讞砖讬讻讬谉: 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗讘讚讬诇 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗住讜专 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 砖讬注砖讛 讞驻爪讬讜 拽讜讚诐 砖讬讘讚讬诇 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚讗讘讚讬诇 讘转驻诇讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪讘讚讬诇 讘转驻诇讛 爪专讬讱 砖讬讘讚讬诇 注诇 讛讻讜住 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚讗讘讚讬诇 注诇 讛讻讜住 讻讜住 讘砖讚讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 转专讙诪讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讘专 讗诪讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘讬谉 讛讙讬转讜转 砖谞讜


We learned in the mishna: But one may wait for nightfall at the Shabbat boundary in order to guard one鈥檚 produce. The Gemara asks: And is this the case even if he has not recited the blessing of distinction [havdala] marking the end of Shabbat? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar ben Antigonos say in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov that it is prohibited for a person to tend to his weekday affairs after Shabbat before he recites havdala? And if you say that this is referring to a case in which one already recited havdala during prayer, as formulated by the Sages in the blessing of: Who graciously grants knowledge, didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel said that one who recites havdala in prayer must still recite havdala over a cup of wine? And if you say that this is an instance in which one already recited havdala over a cup of wine, does one have a cup of wine in the field? Rabbi Natan bar Ami explained this before Rava: They taught this halakha with regard to a unique case in which the edge of the Shabbat boundary was situated among wine presses, and one took wine from the wine press and recited havdala over it.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讘诪注专讘讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讻讬 讛诪讘讚讬诇 讘讬谉 拽讜讚砖 诇讞讜诇 讜注讘讚讬谞谉 爪讜专讻讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讬 讛讜讬谞讗 讘讬 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讜讛 讗诪专 讛诪讘讚讬诇 讘讬谉 拽讜讚砖 诇讞讜诇 讜诪住诇转讬谞谉 住讬诇转讬:


Rabbi Abba said another explanation to Rav Ashi: In the West, in Eretz Yisrael, we say this at the end of Shabbat: The One who distinguishes between the sacred and the mundane, and then we attend to our needs, as reciting havdala over a cup is unnecessary in order to begin doing labor after Shabbat. It is therefore possible that the mishna addressed a similar case. Similarly, Rav Ashi said: When I was in the house of Rav Kahana, he would say: The One who distinguishes between the sacred and the mundane, at the end of Shabbat, and we would cut wood to burn for light and heat.


讻诇诇 讗诪专 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讻诇 砖讗谞讬 讜讻讜壮: (讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜) 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗专讬砖讗 拽讗讬 讗讬谉 诪讞砖讬讻讬谉 注诇 讛转讞讜诐 诇砖讻讜专 驻讜注诇讬诐 诇讛讘讬讗 驻讬专讜转


We learned in the mishna: Abba Shaul stated a general principle: With regard to anything that I am permitted to discuss on Shabbat, I am permitted to wait for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary for its sake. The Gemara raises a dilemma: To which part of the mishna did Abba Shaul鈥檚 statement refer? If you say that it relates to the first clause of the mishna, which taught: One may not wait for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary in order to hire workers or to bring produce,


Scroll To Top