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

Daf Yomi

August 7, 2020 | 讬状讝 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 154

Today’s daf is sponsored by Leslie Jakoby Green in honor of the first yahrzeit of her wonderful father, Alexander Jakoby, A”H Yehoshua Aryeh ben Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen. He survived starvation, hardship and the Dachau Concentration Camp as a teenager. He persevered to build a new life in New York, along with his wife Rose, also a survivor, and to impart to his children and grandchildren a love of Judaism and a belief in the destiny of Jewish people and Eretz Yisrael. He is deeply missed and forever in our hearts. And by Deborah Aschheim for the 40th yartzeit of her beloved father, David Aschheim, z”l on 17 Av. An ardent Zionist. He would be amazed by all the learning now available to women, especially his public school educated daughter.

Does one who leads a donkey with its load on Shabbat get punished and if so, what punishment? Three different opinions are brought. Rav Huna says that if the animal was carrying glass vessels, one brings pillows and blankets and unties the rope around the vessels and they fall without breaking. The gemara asks several questions on Rav Huna. Rabban Gamliel didn’t remove a load from his donkey on shabbat and the donkey died. The gemara questions his actions. One cannot use animals on Shabbat but can one use the sides of the animal. Raba and Abaye disagree and questions are brought regarding each approach.

专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛诪讞诪专 讗讞专 讘讛诪讛 讘砖讘转 讘砖讜讙讙 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讘诪讝讬讚 讞讬讬讘 住拽讬诇讛


Rav Zevid taught this as follows. Rami bar 岣ma said: With regard to one who drives his laden animal on Shabbat, if he does so unwittingly, he is not liable to bring a sin-offering, and if he does so intentionally, he is liable to be executed by stoning.


诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讛诪讞诇诇 讗转 讛砖讘转 讘讚讘专 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讝讚讜谞讜 住拽讬诇讛 讛讗 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讝讚讜谞讜 住拽讬诇讛


Rava raised an objection based on that which was taught in a baraita: One who desecrates Shabbat by performing a matter that for its unwitting performance one is liable to bring a sin-offering, then for its intentional performance one is liable to be executed by stoning. The Gemara explains: By inference, for a matter that for its unwitting performance one is not liable to bring a sin-offering, for its intentional performance one is not liable to be executed by stoning. This contradicts Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 statement.


诪讬 拽转谞讬 讛讗 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讻讜壮 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讝讚讜谞讜 住拽讬诇讛 讜讬砖 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讝讚讜谞讜 住拽讬诇讛 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诪讞诪专


The Gemara answers: Was it taught in the baraita: By inference, for a matter that for its unwitting performance one is not liable to bring a sin-offering, for its intentional performance one is not liable to be executed by stoning? The baraita can be understood differently, and this is what it is saying: With regard to a matter that for its unwitting performance one is liable to bring a sin-offering, for its intentional performance one is always liable to be executed by stoning. However, there is also a matter that for its unwitting performance one is not liable to bring a sin-offering, and nevertheless, for its intentional performance one is liable to be executed by stoning. And what is that case? It is the case of driving a laden animal.


专讘讗 讗讞讜讛 讚专讘 诪专讬 讘专 专讞诇 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗讘讜讛 讚专讘 诪专讬 讘专 专讞诇 诇诇讬砖谞讗 讘转专讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚专讘 讗讻砖专讬讛 诇专讘 诪专讬 讘专 专讞诇 讜诪谞讬讬讛 讘驻讜专住讬讛 讚讘讘诇 讚讬诇诪讗 转专讬 诪专讬 讘专 专讞诇 讛讜讜


Rava, the brother of Rav Mari bar Ra岣l, cites a different opinion with regard to the halakha of driving a laden animal on Shabbat, and some say that he was the father of Rav Mari bar Ra岣l and stated this halakha. As an aside, the Gemara comments: According to the latter version above, that Rava was the father of Rav Mari bar Ra岣l, the fact that Rav needed to validate the status of Rav Mari bar Ra岣l and only then appoint him as an official [pursei] of Babylonia is difficult. This incident teaches that Rav Mari bar Ra岣l鈥檚 father was not Jewish, and before he could be appointed his status required validation through the fact that his mother was Jewish. If Rav Mari bar Ra岣l鈥檚 father was a sage named Rava, why was it necessary to validate his status by means of his mother鈥檚 lineage? The Gemara answers: Perhaps there were two people named Mari bar Ra岣l. One was the son of a convert and a Jewish mother, and the other was the son of a Sage named Rava.


讛讜讛 诪转谞讬 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讬讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇驻讟讜专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪讞诪专 讗讞专 讘讛诪转讜 讘砖讘转 驻讟讜专 诪讻诇讜诐


In any event, that Sage taught his halakha in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan to exempt one who drives a laden animal, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One who drives a laden animal on Shabbat is exempt from any punishment.


讘砖讜讙讙 诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讚讛讜拽砖讛 讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘诪讝讬讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讚转谞谉 讛诪讞诇诇 讗转 讛砖讘转 讘讚讘专 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转 讜注诇 讝讚讜谞讜 住拽讬诇讛 讛讗 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讝讚讜谞讜 住拽讬诇讛


The Gemara explains: For driving the animal unwittingly, he is not liable to bring a sin-offering because all of the prohibitions in the Torah were juxtaposed to the prohibition of idolatry, from which the principle is derived that one is liable only for actions that he himself performed. And for driving the animal intentionally, he is also not liable to be executed by stoning, as we learned in the mishna: One who desecrates Shabbat by performing a matter that for its unwitting performance one is liable to bring a sin-offering, and for its intentional performance one is liable to be executed by stoning. By inference, for a matter that for its unwitting performance one is not liable to bring a sin-offering, for its intentional performance one is not liable to be executed by stoning.


讘诇讗讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 砖谞讬转谉 诇讗讝讛专转 诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讻诇 诇讗讜 砖谞讬转谉 诇讗讝讛专转 诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜


And similarly, he is not even liable to be flogged for violating a Torah prohibition for which the punishment is lashes. Even though the Torah explicitly warns against performing labor on Shabbat, it is a prohibition that was fundamentally given, not as a standard prohibition punishable by lashes, but rather as a warning of court-imposed capital punishment, and for any prohibition that was given as a warning of court-imposed capital punishment, if the death penalty is not imposed for any reason, one is not flogged for its violation.


讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讜拽讬谉 诇讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转注砖讛 讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 讜讘讛诪转讱 讗转讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讜讗 谞讬讛讜 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 讘讛诪转讜 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘:


And even according to the one who said that one is flogged for violating a prohibition that was given as a warning of court-imposed capital punishment, the halakha with regard to driving a laden animal can be derived by means of an inference from the language of the verse. Let the Torah write: 鈥淵ou shall not perform any manner of labor鈥nd neither shall your animal.鈥 Why do I need the superfluous word you in the phrase: You and your animal? Rather it is to teach that it is he himself who is liable for performing a prohibited labor on Shabbat; however, for a prohibited labor performed by his animal, he is not liable.


讛讙讬注 诇讞爪专 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛: 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讬转讛 讘讛诪转讜 讟注讜谞讛 讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 诪讘讬讗 讻专讬诐 讜讻住转讜转 讜诪谞讬讞 转讞转讬讛 讜诪转讬专 讛讞讘诇讬诐 讜讛砖拽讬谉 谞讜驻诇讬诐


We learned in the mishna: Once he reached the outer courtyard, he may untie the ropes that attach his bags to the donkey, and the bags of vessels that may not be moved on Shabbat fall on their own. Rav Huna said: If one鈥檚 animal was laden with glass vessels, which would break if he let them fall to the ground, he may bring cushions and blankets and place them beneath the animal and untie the ropes and let the bags fall onto the cushions.


讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 谞讜讟诇 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 讛谞讬讟诇讬谉 讘砖讘转


The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to unload glass vessels in so complicated a manner? Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: He takes the vessels that may be moved on Shabbat off the donkey? As glass vessels fall into that category, why not simply remove the glass vessels and then untie the bags?


讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘拽专谞讬 讚讗讜诪谞讗 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪讘讟诇 讻诇讬 诪讛讬讻谞讜 讘砖诇讬驻讬 讝讜讟专讬


The Gemara answers: When Rav Huna stated this halakha, he was referring to the horns of a blood letter, which are not suitable for any other purpose and are therefore set-aside on Shabbat due to prohibition and repulsiveness. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 he thereby negating a vessel鈥檚 preparedness? Initially, the cushion was available for any use. Since it now has the set-aside vessels on it, the cushion, too, may no longer be moved. The Sages ruled that one may not place a vessel in a circumstance that will render it prohibited to move. The Gemara answers: This mishna is referring to small bundles of glass vessels that will not break if the cushions are subsequently removed from beneath them.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬转讛 讘讛诪转讜 讟注讜谞讛 讟讘诇 讜注砖砖讬讜转 诪转讬专 讗转 讛讞讘诇讬诐 讜讛砖拽讬谉 谞讜驻诇讬谉 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪砖转讘专讬谉 讛转诐 讘讻讜诇住讗 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讟讘诇 诪讛 讟讘诇 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛


The Gemara raises an objection based on that which was taught in a baraita: If one鈥檚 animal was laden with untithed produce and chunks of glass [ashashiot], one unties the ropes and the bags fall on their own, even though they break. Apparently, placing cushions beneath the animal is prohibited. The Gemara answers: There, the baraita is not referring to vessels but rather to chunks [kulsa] of glass that are designated to be broken so that they can be melted and crafted into vessels. The Gemara adds: The language of the baraita is also precise, as it teaches that chunks are similar to untithed produce: Just as untithed produce is not fit for his use, here too, the chunks are also not fit for his use.


讜诪讗讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪砖转讘专讬谉 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讛驻住讚 诪讜注讟 谞诪讬 讞砖砖讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara explains: And what is the meaning of the phrase: Even though they break? If the mishna is indeed referring to chunks of glass, they are designated to be broken. Rather, lest you say that the Sages were also concerned about a minimal loss, as certainly some small slivers of glass will be lost when the chunks fall and break, the tanna in the baraita teaches us that the Sages did not consider minimal loss a reason significant enough to permit carrying the prohibited glass.


转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讗讜诪专 讛讬转讛 讘讛诪转讜 讟注讜谞讛 砖诇讬祝 砖诇 转讘讜讗讛 诪谞讬讞 专讗砖讜 转讞转讬讛 讜诪住诇拽讜 诇爪讚 讗讞专 讜讛讜讗 谞讜驻诇 诪讗诇讬讜


It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i says: If one鈥檚 animal was loaded with a burden of untithed grain, he may place his head beneath the pile and move it to a different side of the animal, and it falls by itself. The Sages prohibited moving set-aside objects in the typical manner, but there is no concern about doing so in an unusual manner.


讞诪讜专讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬转讛 讟注讜谞讛 讚讘砖 讜诇讗 专爪讛 诇驻讜专拽讛 注讚 诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 诪转讛 讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 谞讜讟诇 讻诇讬诐 讛谞讬讟诇讬谉 讻砖讛讚讘讬砖 讛讚讘讬砖 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬 诇讻转讬转讗 讚讙诪诇讬


The Gemara relates: Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 donkey was laden with honey and he did not want to unload the donkey until the conclusion of Shabbat. At the conclusion of Shabbat, the donkey died of fatigue. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: He takes the vessels that may be moved on Shabbat off the donkey? Why, then, did Rabban Gamliel not unload the honey? The Gemara answers: This is a case where the honey had spoiled. The Gemara asks: For what use is spoiled honey suited? Why did Rabban Gamliel bring it? The Gemara answers: It can be used to rub on the wounds of camels.


讜讬转讬专 讞讘诇讬诐 讜讬驻诇讜 砖拽讬谉 诪讬爪讟专讜 讝讬拽讬 讜讬讘讬讗 讻专讬诐 讜讻住转讜转 讜讬谞讬讞 转讞转讬讛谉 诪讟谞驻讬 讜拽诪讘讟诇 讻诇讬 诪讛讬讻谞讜 讜讛讗讬讻讗 爪注专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 拽住讘专 爪注专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讚专讘谞谉


The Gemara asks: And let Rabban Gamliel untie the ropes and the bags will fall on their own. The Gemara answers: It was due to the concern that the jugs containing the honey would crack. The Gemara asks: And let him bring cushions and blankets and place them beneath the jugs. The Gemara answers: He was concerned lest they become soiled and he would thereby negate the vessel鈥檚 preparedness, i.e., the cushions and blankets would be rendered unusable. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 there the matter of the suffering of a living creature? He should suffer monetary loss rather than cause the animal to suffer. The Gemara answers: Rabban Gamliel holds that causing a living creature to suffer is prohibited not by Torah law but rather by rabbinic law. Therefore, he need not suffer monetary loss due to the rabbinic prohibition (Ramban).


讗讘讬讬 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讛 讚拽讗 诪砖驻砖祝 诇讬讛 诇讘专讬讛 讗讙讘讗 讚讞诪专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖转诪砖 诪专 讘讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 爪讚讚讬谉 讛谉 讜爪讚讚讬谉 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚转谞谉 诪转讬专 讞讘诇讬诐 讜讛砖拽讬谉 谞讜驻诇讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讞讘专 讙讜讜诇拽讬 讚讛讜讜 诇讛讜 爪讚讚讬谉 讜爪讚讚讬谉 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉


The Gemara relates: Abaye found Rabba sliding his son on the back of a donkey on Shabbat to entertain him. He said to him: The Master is making use of living creatures on Shabbat, and the Sages prohibited doing so. Rabba said to him: I placed my son on the side of the donkey, and as they are sides, the Sages did not issue a decree prohibiting making use of them. From where do you say that this is so? As we learned in the mishna: One may untie the ropes and the bags fall on their own. What, is it not referring to a case where one attached the bags by means of guvalaki, where the bags are strapped to the animal and the only way to loosen them involves leaning against the sides of animal in order to unstrap them? That is because it is a case of making use of the sides, and the Sages did not issue a decree prohibiting making use of an animal鈥檚 sides.


诇讗 讘讞讘专 讗讙诇讜讜拽讬 讚诇讗 讛讜讜 爪讚讚讬谉 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘诇讻转讗


Abaye answered: No, this is a case where one attached the bags by means of agalavki, i.e., where the bags were not tightly strapped to the animal, but rather attached by means of a hook. In such a case, there is no need to make use of the sides of the animal in order to unhook the strap. Alternatively, the bags were tied to the sides of the animal with a rope, which could likewise be untied with ease and without leaning against the animal.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 砖转讬诐 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讜讗讞转 讘讗讬诇谉 讻砖专讛 讜讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讞拽 讘讬讛 讘讗讬诇谉 讚讛讜讜 诇讛讜 爪讚讚讬谉 讜爪讚讚讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉


Abaye raised an objection to Rabba鈥檚 opinion based on that which was taught in a mishna: A sukka that had two of its walls on the ground, built by a person, and one wall on a tree is valid and can be used to fulfill the mitzva of sukka. However, one may not enter it on the festival day of Sukkot because it is prohibited to use trees rooted in the ground on Shabbat or a Festival. What, is this not referring to a case where one carved a hole in the tree and inserted a beam into the hole for support, in which case these are sides of the tree that are being used, and apparently, using the sides of the tree is prohibited?


诇讗 讚讻驻讬讬讛 诇讗讬诇谉 讜讗谞讞 住讬讻讜讱 注讬诇讜讬讛 讚拽诪砖诪砖 讘讗讬诇谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 砖诇砖 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讜讗讞转 讘讗讬诇谉 讻砖专讛 讜注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬 讚讻驻讬讬讛 诇讗讬诇谉 讗诪讗讬 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘


Rabba rejected this: No, it is referring to a case where one bent the tree over and placed the roofing atop it, as in that case, he is making use of the tree itself and not its sides. Abaye asked: If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: If there are three walls built by a person and one on a tree, it is a valid sukka and one may enter it on a Festival. And if one bent a tree and placed the roofing atop it, why may one enter it on a Festival?


讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 爪讚讚讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 住讜祝 住讜祝 讗诪讗讬 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诇讗 讛转诐 讘讙讜讗讝讗 驻专住讻谞讗 讚讗讬诇谉 讙讜驻讬讛 讚讜驻谉 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚砖讜讜讬讛 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讗讬诇讜 砖讬谞讟诇 讛讗讬诇谉 讜讬讻讜诇讛 诇注诪讜讚 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Rabba rejected this question: Rather, what would you say? Making use of sides is prohibited. If so, the same problem still exists, why is the sukka fit for use in the latter case? Ultimately, why may one enter it on a Festival? Rather, there it is referring to a case where the branches [gavaza] are spread out and where one made the tree itself into a wall, not where he leaned a wall against it. The language of the mishna is also precise. The wall may not be used if it is an integral part of the sukka, meaning that it is one of the three required walls. However, if it serves as a fourth wall, one may use the sukka on a Festival as it is taught that this is the principle: In any case where if the tree was taken the sukka would still be able to stand, one may enter it on a Festival. Then it is clear that the walls are not leaning against the tree; rather, the tree itself serves as a wall. The Gemara says in summary: Learn from here that this is so.


诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 爪讚讚讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜诪专 住讘专 诪讜转专讬谉


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that these amora鈥檌m disagree in a dispute parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m with regard to making use of the sides of a tree, as it was taught in the Tosefta: One may not enter a sukka whose walls are leaning against a tree on a Festival. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Meir: One may enter it on a Festival. What, is it not that they are disagreeing about this issue, as this Master, meaning the Rabbis, holds that making use of the sides is prohibited, and this Master, Rabbi Meir, holds that they are permitted?


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 爪讚讚讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讛讻讗 讘爪讚讬 爪讚讚讬谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 爪讚讬 爪讚讚讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜诪专 住讘专 爪讚讬 爪讚讚讬谉 诪讜转专讬谉


Abaye said: No. Everyone agrees that the sides are prohibited, and it is with regard to the sides of the sides, i.e., not a wall leaning against the tree itself, but a wall that is supported by a beam that is placed in the hole carved in the tree, that they disagree. This Master, meaning the Rabbis, holds that the sides of the sides are prohibited, and this Master, Rabbi Meir, holds that the sides of the sides are permitted.


专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讗谉 讚讗住专 讘爪讚讚讬谉 讗住专 谞诪讬 讘爪讚讬 爪讚讚讬谉 诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 讘爪讚讬 爪讚讚讬谉 砖专讬 谞诪讬 讘爪讚讚讬谉 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诇专讘讗 谞注抓


Rava said: The one who prohibited making use of the sides also prohibited making use of the sides of the sides, and the one who permitted making use of the sides also permitted making use of the sides of the sides. Rav Mesharshiyya raised an objection to the opinion of Rava: If one drove


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 152-157 +Siyum

We will review key concepts in Daf 152-157 including the effects of aging, having a Non-Jew carry your items on...

Shabbat 154

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 154

专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛诪讞诪专 讗讞专 讘讛诪讛 讘砖讘转 讘砖讜讙讙 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讘诪讝讬讚 讞讬讬讘 住拽讬诇讛


Rav Zevid taught this as follows. Rami bar 岣ma said: With regard to one who drives his laden animal on Shabbat, if he does so unwittingly, he is not liable to bring a sin-offering, and if he does so intentionally, he is liable to be executed by stoning.


诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讛诪讞诇诇 讗转 讛砖讘转 讘讚讘专 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讝讚讜谞讜 住拽讬诇讛 讛讗 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讝讚讜谞讜 住拽讬诇讛


Rava raised an objection based on that which was taught in a baraita: One who desecrates Shabbat by performing a matter that for its unwitting performance one is liable to bring a sin-offering, then for its intentional performance one is liable to be executed by stoning. The Gemara explains: By inference, for a matter that for its unwitting performance one is not liable to bring a sin-offering, for its intentional performance one is not liable to be executed by stoning. This contradicts Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 statement.


诪讬 拽转谞讬 讛讗 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讻讜壮 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讝讚讜谞讜 住拽讬诇讛 讜讬砖 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讝讚讜谞讜 住拽讬诇讛 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诪讞诪专


The Gemara answers: Was it taught in the baraita: By inference, for a matter that for its unwitting performance one is not liable to bring a sin-offering, for its intentional performance one is not liable to be executed by stoning? The baraita can be understood differently, and this is what it is saying: With regard to a matter that for its unwitting performance one is liable to bring a sin-offering, for its intentional performance one is always liable to be executed by stoning. However, there is also a matter that for its unwitting performance one is not liable to bring a sin-offering, and nevertheless, for its intentional performance one is liable to be executed by stoning. And what is that case? It is the case of driving a laden animal.


专讘讗 讗讞讜讛 讚专讘 诪专讬 讘专 专讞诇 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗讘讜讛 讚专讘 诪专讬 讘专 专讞诇 诇诇讬砖谞讗 讘转专讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚专讘 讗讻砖专讬讛 诇专讘 诪专讬 讘专 专讞诇 讜诪谞讬讬讛 讘驻讜专住讬讛 讚讘讘诇 讚讬诇诪讗 转专讬 诪专讬 讘专 专讞诇 讛讜讜


Rava, the brother of Rav Mari bar Ra岣l, cites a different opinion with regard to the halakha of driving a laden animal on Shabbat, and some say that he was the father of Rav Mari bar Ra岣l and stated this halakha. As an aside, the Gemara comments: According to the latter version above, that Rava was the father of Rav Mari bar Ra岣l, the fact that Rav needed to validate the status of Rav Mari bar Ra岣l and only then appoint him as an official [pursei] of Babylonia is difficult. This incident teaches that Rav Mari bar Ra岣l鈥檚 father was not Jewish, and before he could be appointed his status required validation through the fact that his mother was Jewish. If Rav Mari bar Ra岣l鈥檚 father was a sage named Rava, why was it necessary to validate his status by means of his mother鈥檚 lineage? The Gemara answers: Perhaps there were two people named Mari bar Ra岣l. One was the son of a convert and a Jewish mother, and the other was the son of a Sage named Rava.


讛讜讛 诪转谞讬 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讬讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇驻讟讜专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪讞诪专 讗讞专 讘讛诪转讜 讘砖讘转 驻讟讜专 诪讻诇讜诐


In any event, that Sage taught his halakha in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan to exempt one who drives a laden animal, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One who drives a laden animal on Shabbat is exempt from any punishment.


讘砖讜讙讙 诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讚讛讜拽砖讛 讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘诪讝讬讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讚转谞谉 讛诪讞诇诇 讗转 讛砖讘转 讘讚讘专 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转 讜注诇 讝讚讜谞讜 住拽讬诇讛 讛讗 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讝讚讜谞讜 住拽讬诇讛


The Gemara explains: For driving the animal unwittingly, he is not liable to bring a sin-offering because all of the prohibitions in the Torah were juxtaposed to the prohibition of idolatry, from which the principle is derived that one is liable only for actions that he himself performed. And for driving the animal intentionally, he is also not liable to be executed by stoning, as we learned in the mishna: One who desecrates Shabbat by performing a matter that for its unwitting performance one is liable to bring a sin-offering, and for its intentional performance one is liable to be executed by stoning. By inference, for a matter that for its unwitting performance one is not liable to bring a sin-offering, for its intentional performance one is not liable to be executed by stoning.


讘诇讗讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 砖谞讬转谉 诇讗讝讛专转 诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讻诇 诇讗讜 砖谞讬转谉 诇讗讝讛专转 诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜


And similarly, he is not even liable to be flogged for violating a Torah prohibition for which the punishment is lashes. Even though the Torah explicitly warns against performing labor on Shabbat, it is a prohibition that was fundamentally given, not as a standard prohibition punishable by lashes, but rather as a warning of court-imposed capital punishment, and for any prohibition that was given as a warning of court-imposed capital punishment, if the death penalty is not imposed for any reason, one is not flogged for its violation.


讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讜拽讬谉 诇讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转注砖讛 讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 讜讘讛诪转讱 讗转讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讜讗 谞讬讛讜 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 讘讛诪转讜 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘:


And even according to the one who said that one is flogged for violating a prohibition that was given as a warning of court-imposed capital punishment, the halakha with regard to driving a laden animal can be derived by means of an inference from the language of the verse. Let the Torah write: 鈥淵ou shall not perform any manner of labor鈥nd neither shall your animal.鈥 Why do I need the superfluous word you in the phrase: You and your animal? Rather it is to teach that it is he himself who is liable for performing a prohibited labor on Shabbat; however, for a prohibited labor performed by his animal, he is not liable.


讛讙讬注 诇讞爪专 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛: 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讬转讛 讘讛诪转讜 讟注讜谞讛 讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 诪讘讬讗 讻专讬诐 讜讻住转讜转 讜诪谞讬讞 转讞转讬讛 讜诪转讬专 讛讞讘诇讬诐 讜讛砖拽讬谉 谞讜驻诇讬诐


We learned in the mishna: Once he reached the outer courtyard, he may untie the ropes that attach his bags to the donkey, and the bags of vessels that may not be moved on Shabbat fall on their own. Rav Huna said: If one鈥檚 animal was laden with glass vessels, which would break if he let them fall to the ground, he may bring cushions and blankets and place them beneath the animal and untie the ropes and let the bags fall onto the cushions.


讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 谞讜讟诇 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 讛谞讬讟诇讬谉 讘砖讘转


The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to unload glass vessels in so complicated a manner? Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: He takes the vessels that may be moved on Shabbat off the donkey? As glass vessels fall into that category, why not simply remove the glass vessels and then untie the bags?


讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘拽专谞讬 讚讗讜诪谞讗 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪讘讟诇 讻诇讬 诪讛讬讻谞讜 讘砖诇讬驻讬 讝讜讟专讬


The Gemara answers: When Rav Huna stated this halakha, he was referring to the horns of a blood letter, which are not suitable for any other purpose and are therefore set-aside on Shabbat due to prohibition and repulsiveness. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 he thereby negating a vessel鈥檚 preparedness? Initially, the cushion was available for any use. Since it now has the set-aside vessels on it, the cushion, too, may no longer be moved. The Sages ruled that one may not place a vessel in a circumstance that will render it prohibited to move. The Gemara answers: This mishna is referring to small bundles of glass vessels that will not break if the cushions are subsequently removed from beneath them.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬转讛 讘讛诪转讜 讟注讜谞讛 讟讘诇 讜注砖砖讬讜转 诪转讬专 讗转 讛讞讘诇讬诐 讜讛砖拽讬谉 谞讜驻诇讬谉 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪砖转讘专讬谉 讛转诐 讘讻讜诇住讗 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讟讘诇 诪讛 讟讘诇 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛


The Gemara raises an objection based on that which was taught in a baraita: If one鈥檚 animal was laden with untithed produce and chunks of glass [ashashiot], one unties the ropes and the bags fall on their own, even though they break. Apparently, placing cushions beneath the animal is prohibited. The Gemara answers: There, the baraita is not referring to vessels but rather to chunks [kulsa] of glass that are designated to be broken so that they can be melted and crafted into vessels. The Gemara adds: The language of the baraita is also precise, as it teaches that chunks are similar to untithed produce: Just as untithed produce is not fit for his use, here too, the chunks are also not fit for his use.


讜诪讗讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪砖转讘专讬谉 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讛驻住讚 诪讜注讟 谞诪讬 讞砖砖讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara explains: And what is the meaning of the phrase: Even though they break? If the mishna is indeed referring to chunks of glass, they are designated to be broken. Rather, lest you say that the Sages were also concerned about a minimal loss, as certainly some small slivers of glass will be lost when the chunks fall and break, the tanna in the baraita teaches us that the Sages did not consider minimal loss a reason significant enough to permit carrying the prohibited glass.


转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讗讜诪专 讛讬转讛 讘讛诪转讜 讟注讜谞讛 砖诇讬祝 砖诇 转讘讜讗讛 诪谞讬讞 专讗砖讜 转讞转讬讛 讜诪住诇拽讜 诇爪讚 讗讞专 讜讛讜讗 谞讜驻诇 诪讗诇讬讜


It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i says: If one鈥檚 animal was loaded with a burden of untithed grain, he may place his head beneath the pile and move it to a different side of the animal, and it falls by itself. The Sages prohibited moving set-aside objects in the typical manner, but there is no concern about doing so in an unusual manner.


讞诪讜专讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬转讛 讟注讜谞讛 讚讘砖 讜诇讗 专爪讛 诇驻讜专拽讛 注讚 诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 诪转讛 讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 谞讜讟诇 讻诇讬诐 讛谞讬讟诇讬谉 讻砖讛讚讘讬砖 讛讚讘讬砖 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬 诇讻转讬转讗 讚讙诪诇讬


The Gemara relates: Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 donkey was laden with honey and he did not want to unload the donkey until the conclusion of Shabbat. At the conclusion of Shabbat, the donkey died of fatigue. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: He takes the vessels that may be moved on Shabbat off the donkey? Why, then, did Rabban Gamliel not unload the honey? The Gemara answers: This is a case where the honey had spoiled. The Gemara asks: For what use is spoiled honey suited? Why did Rabban Gamliel bring it? The Gemara answers: It can be used to rub on the wounds of camels.


讜讬转讬专 讞讘诇讬诐 讜讬驻诇讜 砖拽讬谉 诪讬爪讟专讜 讝讬拽讬 讜讬讘讬讗 讻专讬诐 讜讻住转讜转 讜讬谞讬讞 转讞转讬讛谉 诪讟谞驻讬 讜拽诪讘讟诇 讻诇讬 诪讛讬讻谞讜 讜讛讗讬讻讗 爪注专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 拽住讘专 爪注专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讚专讘谞谉


The Gemara asks: And let Rabban Gamliel untie the ropes and the bags will fall on their own. The Gemara answers: It was due to the concern that the jugs containing the honey would crack. The Gemara asks: And let him bring cushions and blankets and place them beneath the jugs. The Gemara answers: He was concerned lest they become soiled and he would thereby negate the vessel鈥檚 preparedness, i.e., the cushions and blankets would be rendered unusable. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 there the matter of the suffering of a living creature? He should suffer monetary loss rather than cause the animal to suffer. The Gemara answers: Rabban Gamliel holds that causing a living creature to suffer is prohibited not by Torah law but rather by rabbinic law. Therefore, he need not suffer monetary loss due to the rabbinic prohibition (Ramban).


讗讘讬讬 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讛 讚拽讗 诪砖驻砖祝 诇讬讛 诇讘专讬讛 讗讙讘讗 讚讞诪专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖转诪砖 诪专 讘讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 爪讚讚讬谉 讛谉 讜爪讚讚讬谉 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚转谞谉 诪转讬专 讞讘诇讬诐 讜讛砖拽讬谉 谞讜驻诇讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讞讘专 讙讜讜诇拽讬 讚讛讜讜 诇讛讜 爪讚讚讬谉 讜爪讚讚讬谉 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉


The Gemara relates: Abaye found Rabba sliding his son on the back of a donkey on Shabbat to entertain him. He said to him: The Master is making use of living creatures on Shabbat, and the Sages prohibited doing so. Rabba said to him: I placed my son on the side of the donkey, and as they are sides, the Sages did not issue a decree prohibiting making use of them. From where do you say that this is so? As we learned in the mishna: One may untie the ropes and the bags fall on their own. What, is it not referring to a case where one attached the bags by means of guvalaki, where the bags are strapped to the animal and the only way to loosen them involves leaning against the sides of animal in order to unstrap them? That is because it is a case of making use of the sides, and the Sages did not issue a decree prohibiting making use of an animal鈥檚 sides.


诇讗 讘讞讘专 讗讙诇讜讜拽讬 讚诇讗 讛讜讜 爪讚讚讬谉 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘诇讻转讗


Abaye answered: No, this is a case where one attached the bags by means of agalavki, i.e., where the bags were not tightly strapped to the animal, but rather attached by means of a hook. In such a case, there is no need to make use of the sides of the animal in order to unhook the strap. Alternatively, the bags were tied to the sides of the animal with a rope, which could likewise be untied with ease and without leaning against the animal.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 砖转讬诐 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讜讗讞转 讘讗讬诇谉 讻砖专讛 讜讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讞拽 讘讬讛 讘讗讬诇谉 讚讛讜讜 诇讛讜 爪讚讚讬谉 讜爪讚讚讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉


Abaye raised an objection to Rabba鈥檚 opinion based on that which was taught in a mishna: A sukka that had two of its walls on the ground, built by a person, and one wall on a tree is valid and can be used to fulfill the mitzva of sukka. However, one may not enter it on the festival day of Sukkot because it is prohibited to use trees rooted in the ground on Shabbat or a Festival. What, is this not referring to a case where one carved a hole in the tree and inserted a beam into the hole for support, in which case these are sides of the tree that are being used, and apparently, using the sides of the tree is prohibited?


诇讗 讚讻驻讬讬讛 诇讗讬诇谉 讜讗谞讞 住讬讻讜讱 注讬诇讜讬讛 讚拽诪砖诪砖 讘讗讬诇谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 砖诇砖 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讜讗讞转 讘讗讬诇谉 讻砖专讛 讜注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬 讚讻驻讬讬讛 诇讗讬诇谉 讗诪讗讬 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘


Rabba rejected this: No, it is referring to a case where one bent the tree over and placed the roofing atop it, as in that case, he is making use of the tree itself and not its sides. Abaye asked: If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: If there are three walls built by a person and one on a tree, it is a valid sukka and one may enter it on a Festival. And if one bent a tree and placed the roofing atop it, why may one enter it on a Festival?


讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 爪讚讚讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 住讜祝 住讜祝 讗诪讗讬 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诇讗 讛转诐 讘讙讜讗讝讗 驻专住讻谞讗 讚讗讬诇谉 讙讜驻讬讛 讚讜驻谉 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚砖讜讜讬讛 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讗讬诇讜 砖讬谞讟诇 讛讗讬诇谉 讜讬讻讜诇讛 诇注诪讜讚 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Rabba rejected this question: Rather, what would you say? Making use of sides is prohibited. If so, the same problem still exists, why is the sukka fit for use in the latter case? Ultimately, why may one enter it on a Festival? Rather, there it is referring to a case where the branches [gavaza] are spread out and where one made the tree itself into a wall, not where he leaned a wall against it. The language of the mishna is also precise. The wall may not be used if it is an integral part of the sukka, meaning that it is one of the three required walls. However, if it serves as a fourth wall, one may use the sukka on a Festival as it is taught that this is the principle: In any case where if the tree was taken the sukka would still be able to stand, one may enter it on a Festival. Then it is clear that the walls are not leaning against the tree; rather, the tree itself serves as a wall. The Gemara says in summary: Learn from here that this is so.


诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 爪讚讚讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜诪专 住讘专 诪讜转专讬谉


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that these amora鈥檌m disagree in a dispute parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m with regard to making use of the sides of a tree, as it was taught in the Tosefta: One may not enter a sukka whose walls are leaning against a tree on a Festival. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Meir: One may enter it on a Festival. What, is it not that they are disagreeing about this issue, as this Master, meaning the Rabbis, holds that making use of the sides is prohibited, and this Master, Rabbi Meir, holds that they are permitted?


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 爪讚讚讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讛讻讗 讘爪讚讬 爪讚讚讬谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 爪讚讬 爪讚讚讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜诪专 住讘专 爪讚讬 爪讚讚讬谉 诪讜转专讬谉


Abaye said: No. Everyone agrees that the sides are prohibited, and it is with regard to the sides of the sides, i.e., not a wall leaning against the tree itself, but a wall that is supported by a beam that is placed in the hole carved in the tree, that they disagree. This Master, meaning the Rabbis, holds that the sides of the sides are prohibited, and this Master, Rabbi Meir, holds that the sides of the sides are permitted.


专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讗谉 讚讗住专 讘爪讚讚讬谉 讗住专 谞诪讬 讘爪讚讬 爪讚讚讬谉 诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 讘爪讚讬 爪讚讚讬谉 砖专讬 谞诪讬 讘爪讚讚讬谉 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诇专讘讗 谞注抓


Rava said: The one who prohibited making use of the sides also prohibited making use of the sides of the sides, and the one who permitted making use of the sides also permitted making use of the sides of the sides. Rav Mesharshiyya raised an objection to the opinion of Rava: If one drove


Scroll To Top