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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 10, 2020 | 讻壮 讘讗讘 转砖状驻

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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Shabbat 157

The Siyum is sponsored in memory of Rabbi Adin Even Yisrael Steinsaltz zt鈥漧 a true giant in Torah learning and a leading educator of our generation who made talmud accessible to all.聽And by Roslyn Jaffe in honor of the seventh Yahrzeit of her wonderful father Mickey Muhlrad, A鈥滺, Moshe Yaakov Ben Dovid. He followed in Hashem鈥檚 ways with his kindness, chesed and love for Yiddishkeit and learning. He had great respect for talmidei chachamim and would be so proud of all the women learning Daf Yomi. And for a refuah shleima to Elchanan David ben Yatza Ruth and Tzippora bat Charna.聽

Can one nullify or dissolve vows on Shabbat? What is the difference between nullifying and dissolving? Does it matter if it is for the purposes of Shabbat or not? What if one could have done it before Shabbat and didn’t? The rabbis take a situation that happened relating to a case of potential impurity from a dead body and derive from there that certain things are permitted for the purposes of a mitzva. The gemara ends with a story of a rabbi measuring a tub of water and when approaced by Ulla and questioned how one can do this, he responded that he was not measuring for any purpose – mitasek – and therefore it was permitted.

The complete Siyum Masechet Shabbat:

 

讗讬谉 诪讘拽注讬谉 注爪讬诐 诪谉 讛拽讜专讜转 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛拽讜专讛 砖谞砖讘专讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讛讜讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转谞讬 诇讛 转讗 砖诪注 诪转讞讬诇讬谉 讘注专讬诪转 讛转讘谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘注爪讬诐 砖讘诪讜拽爪讛 讛转诐 讘讗专讝讬 讜讗砖讜讞讬 讚诪讜拽爪讛 诪讞诪转 讞住专讜谉 讻讬住 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜讚讛

One may chop wood neither from beams set aside for building nor from a beam that broke on a Festival. Apparently, this unattributed mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yo岣nan answered: That mishna is actually in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, which is an individual opinion. Come and hear: One may start a fire on a Festival with a pile of straw but not with wood that is from the wood storage behind one鈥檚 house, because that wood is set aside for other uses. Apparently, this is an unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the prohibition of set-aside. The Gemara answers: There, the mishna is referring to wood from cedar and fir trees that are set aside due to monetary loss. Even Rabbi Shimon concedes that the prohibition of set-aside is in effect in that case.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讬谉 诪砖拽讬谉 讜砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讛诪讚讘专讬讜转 讗讘诇 诪砖拽讬谉 讜砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讛讘讬讬转讜转

Come and hear a proof from another mishna: One may neither give water to nor slaughter non-domesticated desert animals, animals that are always grazing in the fields. Since people do not generally tend to them, they are considered set-aside and may not be used. Giving them water would ease removal of their hides. However, one may give water to and slaughter domesticated animals. This is apparently an unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住转诪讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗砖讻讞 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讙讘讬讛讬谉 诪注诇 讛砖诇讞谉 注爪诪讜转 讜拽诇讬驻讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪住诇拽 讗转 讛讟讘诇讛 讻讜诇讛 讜诪谞注专讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗谞讜 讗讬谉 诇谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan found a different unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Beit Shammai say: One may lift bones and peels and shells, which are set-aside, from the table on Shabbat. And Beit Hillel say: One must remove the entire board from atop the table and shake it; however, he may not lift the set-aside objects. And Rav Na岣an said to reverse the two opinions, and we have only Beit Shammai in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Beit Hillel in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As the halakha is always ruled in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, this mishna has the authority of an unattributed mishna.

驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讘讻诇 讛砖讘转 讻讜诇讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讘专 诪诪讜拽爪讛 诪讞诪转 诪讬讗讜住 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 谞专 讬砖谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讘诪讜拽爪讛 诪讞诪转 诪讬讗讜住 谞诪讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讘专 诪诪讜拽爪讛 诪讞诪转 讗讬住讜专 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 谞专 砖讛讚诇讬拽讜 讘讛 讘讗讜转讛 砖讘转 讗讘诇 诪讜拽爪讛 诪讞诪转 讞住专讜谉 讻讬住 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜讚讛 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 谞讬讟诇讬谉 讘砖讘转 讞讜抓 诪诪住专 讛讙讚讜诇 讜讬转讚 砖诇 诪讞专讬砖讛:

Rav A岣 and Ravina disputed this matter. One said: In all of the halakhot of Shabbat in which there is a tannaitic dispute involving Rabbi Shimon, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, except for the case of an item set aside due to repulsiveness. And what is that case? It is the case of an old oil lamp, which may not be moved on Shabbat, contrary to Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion. And one said: In the case of an item set aside due to repulsiveness, the halakha is also in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon except for the case of set aside due to prohibition. And what is that case? It is the case of moving an oil lamp that one kindled for that very Shabbat. However, with regard to an item set aside due to monetary loss, even Rabbi Shimon concedes that it is prohibited to move that item, as we learned in a mishna according to his position: All vessels may be moved on Shabbat except for a large saw and the blade of a plow, both of which are prohibited. Due to their significance, their owners make certain that they will not be damaged.

诪转谞讬壮 诪驻讬专讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 讘砖讘转 讜谞砖讗诇讬谉 诇谞讚专讬诐 砖讛谉 诇爪讜专讱 讛砖讘转 讜驻讜拽拽讬谉 讗转 讛诪讗讜专 讜诪讜讚讚讬谉 讗转 讛诪讟诇讬转 讜诪讜讚讚讬谉 讗转 讛诪拽讜讛 讜诪注砖讛 讘讬诪讬 讗讘讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讜讘讬诪讬 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讘谉 讘讟谞讬转 砖驻拽拽讜 讗转 讛诪讗讜专 讘讟驻讬讞 讜拽砖专讜 讗转 讛诪拽讬讚讛 讘讙诪讬 诇讬讚注 讗诐 讬砖 讘讙讬讙讬转 驻讜转讞 讟驻讞 讗诐 诇讗讜 讜诪讚讘专讬讛诐 诇诪讚谞讜 砖驻讜拽拽讬谉 讜诪讜讚讚讬谉 讜拽讜砖专讬谉 讘砖讘转:

MISHNA: A father or husband may nullify his daughter鈥檚 or his wife鈥檚 vows on Shabbat, and one may request from a Sage to dissolve vows that are for the purpose of Shabbat. Failure to dissolve the vow will compromise one鈥檚 fulfillment of the mitzva to delight in Shabbat. And one may seal a window on Shabbat to prevent light from entering, and one may measure a rag to determine whether or not it is large enough to contract ritual impurity, and one may measure a ritual bath to determine if it contains enough water for immersion. The mishna relates that there was an incident in the time of Rabbi Tzadok鈥檚 father and the time of Abba Shaul ben Botnit, in which they sealed a window using an earthenware vessel and tied an earthenware shard with a long reed-grass with a temporary knot, in order to ascertain whether or not the roofing had an opening the size of a handbreadth. And from their statements and their actions, we derived that one may seal a window, and measure, and tie a knot on Shabbat.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛驻专讛 讘讬谉 诇爪讜专讱 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 讜砖讗诇讛 诇爪讜专讱 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 诇讗 讜诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽驻诇讙讬谞讛讜 诪讛讚讚讬

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that it is permitted to nullify vows and to request that Sages dissolve vows for the purpose of Shabbat. In an attempt to understand the mishna, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is nullification of vows on Shabbat permitted both for the purpose of Shabbat and when it is not for the purpose of Shabbat? And the request to dissolve vows, when it is for the purpose of Shabbat, yes, it is permitted, but when it is not for the purpose of Shabbat, no, it is prohibited? And is it due to that distinction that the tanna of the mishna separated the cases from each other and listed them separately?

讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛驻专讛 谞诪讬 诇爪讜专讱 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 诇讗 讜讛讗 讚拽讗 驻诇讬讙 诇讛讜 诪讛讚讚讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讛驻专讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜砖讗诇讛 爪专讬讻讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉

Or perhaps with regard to nullification of vows on Shabbat as well, when it is for the purpose of Shabbat, yes, it is permitted, but when they are not for the purpose of Shabbat, no, it is prohibited; and the fact that the tanna of the mishna separated the cases from each other and listed them separately is due to the fact that for nullification one does not require a court, and a husband or father can nullify a woman鈥檚 vows on his own, but for the request to dissolve vows one requires a court.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 讝讜讟讬 讚讘讬 专讘 驻驻讗 诪驻讬专讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 讘砖讘转 诇爪讜专讱 讛砖讘转 诇爪讜专讱 讛砖讘转 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 讛砖讘转 诇讗

Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from that which the Sage, Zutei, of the school of Rav Pappa taught: One may nullify vows on Shabbat for the purpose of Shabbat. Apparently, when the nullification is for the purpose of Shabbat, yes, it is permitted to nullify vows, but when it is not for the purpose of Shabbat, no, it is prohibited.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇爪讜专讱 讗转专讜讬讬讛讜 拽转谞讬 讜砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 诇讗 讗诇诪讗 讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 诪注转 诇注转 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬 拽转谞讬 诇爪讜专讱 讗砖讗诇讛 讛讜讗 讚拽转谞讬 讗讘诇 讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 讗诇诪讗 讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 讻诇 讛讬讜诐

The Gemara cites another version of the dilemma that was raised before the Sages. Was the phrase: When they are for the purpose of Shabbat, taught about both of them, and nullification is only permitted for the purpose of Shabbat, but when it is not for the purpose of Shabbat, no, it is prohibited? If so, apparently, nullification of vows may be performed for an entire twenty-four hour period after hearing the vow, and the father or husband can wait until after Shabbat to nullify the vow if he does not need to do so for the purpose of Shabbat. Or perhaps when the mishna taught that it is permitted when the nullification is for the purpose of Shabbat, that was taught only with regard to the request to dissolve that which was prohibited by the vow, but nullification of vows may be performed on Shabbat even when it is not for the purpose of Shabbat. If so, apparently nullification of vows may be performed only for the entire day that the husband or father heard the vow. Once Shabbat concludes, the vow may no longer be nullified. Therefore, even vows whose nullification is not for the purpose of Shabbat may be nullified on Shabbat.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘 讝讜讟讬 讚讘讬 专讘 驻驻讬 诪驻讬专讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 讘砖讘转 诇爪讜专讱 讛砖讘转 诇爪讜专讱 讛砖讘转 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 讛砖讘转 诇讗 讗诇诪讗 讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 诪注转 诇注转

Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from that which the Sage, Zutei, of the school of Rav Pappa taught: One may nullify vows on Shabbat for the purpose of Shabbat. Apparently, when the nullification is for the purpose of Shabbat, yes, it is permitted to nullify vows, but when it is not for the purpose of Shabbat, no, it is prohibited. If so, apparently nullification of vows may be performed for the entire twenty-four hour period after hearing the vow.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讜讬砖 讘讚讘专 诇讛拽诇 讜诇讛讞诪讬专 讻讬爪讚 谞讚专讛 诇讬诇讬 砖讘转 诪讬驻专 诇讬诇讬 砖讘转 讜讬讜诐 讛砖讘转 注讚 砖转讞砖讱 谞讚专讛 注诐 讞砖讻讛 诪讬驻专 注讚 砖诇讗 转讞砖讱 砖讗诐 诇讗 讛驻专 诪砖讞砖讻讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专讜 诪注转 诇注转:

Rav Ashi said: Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna that one may nullify vows for the entire day, and there is both a leniency and a stricture in this matter to extend or curtail the period during which the vow may be nullified. How so? If the woman vowed on Shabbat evening, her father or husband may nullify the vow on Shabbat evening and on Shabbat day until dark. However, if she vowed before Shabbat at nightfall, her father or husband may only nullify the vow until nightfall, as if he did not nullify the vow before nightfall, he can no longer nullify it because the day ended. The Gemara answers that this issue is subject to a tannaitic dispute, as it was taught in a baraita: One may nullify vows for the entire day. Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said: For a twenty-four hour period.

讜谞砖讗诇讬诐 诇谞讚专讬诐: 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻砖诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讜 驻谞讗讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讛 诇讜 驻谞讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗讝讚拽讬拽讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讝讬专讗 讜砖专讜 诇讬讛 谞讚专讬讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 驻谞讗讬:

We learned in the mishna: And one may request from a Sage to dissolve vows on Shabbat. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is this only permitted when one did not have time to request to have the vow dissolved before Shabbat, or perhaps it is permitted even if one had time before Shabbat to request to have his vow dissolved? Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the fact that the Sages attended to Rav Zutra, the son of Rav Zeira, and dissolved his vow even though he had time to request its dissolution before Shabbat.

砖驻拽拽讜 讗转 讛诪讗讜专 讘讟驻讬讞 讜拽砖专讜 讗转 讛诪拽讬讚讛 讘讙诪讬: 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讬诇拽讟讬 拽讟谞讛 讛讬转讛 讘讬谉 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 [讜讟讜诪讗讛 讛讬转讛 砖诐]

The mishna related: They sealed a window using an earthenware vessel and tied an earthenware shard with a long reed-grass. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said in explanation: There was a small alleyway [heilketei] between two houses, and there was ritual impurity imparted by a corpse there in the alleyway,

讜讙讬讙讬转 住讚讜拽讛 诪讜谞讞转 注诇 讙讘谉 讜驻拽拽讜 讗转 讛诪讗讜专 讘讟驻讬讞 讜拽砖专讜 讗转 讛诪拽讬讚讛 讘讙诪讬 诇讬讚注 讗诐 讬砖 砖诐 讘讙讬讙讬转 驻讜转讞 讟驻讞 讗诐 诇讗讜:

and there was a cracked roofing placed atop the two houses. If the roofing was intact it would have the legal status of a tent over a corpse, rendering everything in the alleyway, and, through the windows, everything in the houses, ritually impure. However, since the roofing was cracked and the corpse was directly beneath the opening, if the opening was the size of a handbreadth or more, the entire alleyway and the houses would not become impure. Only the area directly over the corpse extending through the opening is impure. And that is the reason that they sealed the window of the house with an earthenware vessel, so that the ritual impurity would not enter the houses, and they tied an earthenware shard with a long reed-grass inserted into the opening in the roofing in order to ascertain whether or not there is an opening there in the roofing the size of a handbreadth.

讜诪讚讘专讬讛诐 诇诪讚谞讜 砖驻讜拽拽讬谉 讜诪讜讚讚讬谉 讜拽讜砖专讬谉 讘砖讘转: 注讜诇讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讞讝讬讬讛 诇专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讬转讬讘 讘讗讜讜谞讗 讚诪讬讗 讜拽讗 诪砖讞 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 诪讚讬讚讛 讚诪爪讜讛 讚诇讗讜 诪爪讜讛 诪讬 讗诪讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪转注住拽 讘注诇诪讗 讗谞讗:

The mishna concludes: And from their statements and their actions, we derived that one may seal a window, and measure, and tie a knot on Shabbat. The Gemara relates: Ulla happened to come to the house of the Exilarch. He saw Rabba bar Rav Huna sitting in a tub [avna] of water and measuring it. He said to Rabba bar Rav Huna: Say that the Sages said that it is permitted to measure on Shabbat only a measurement for a mitzva. However, with regard to a measurement like this one, which is not for a mitzva, did they say that it is permitted? Rabba bar Rav Huna said to him: I am merely acting unawares and am not at all interested in the measurements. Therefore, it is not prohibited.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 诪讬 砖讛讞砖讬讱 讜住诇讬拽讗 诇讛 诪住讻转 砖讘转

 

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 Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

daf_icon

Hadran鈥檚 Siyum Masechet Shabbat

Welcome to Hadran鈥檚 Siyum Masechet Shabbat   Featuring: The Last Daf with Rabbanit Michelle Farber Hear from the community -...
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...
Ilana Kurshan thumbnail

Rav Adin Steinsaltz, z鈥漧

The weekend that Rav Adin Steinsaltz,聽zecher tzaddik li鈥檝racha, passed away, I was in the middle of editing an article about...

Shabbat 157

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 157

讗讬谉 诪讘拽注讬谉 注爪讬诐 诪谉 讛拽讜专讜转 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛拽讜专讛 砖谞砖讘专讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讛讜讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转谞讬 诇讛 转讗 砖诪注 诪转讞讬诇讬谉 讘注专讬诪转 讛转讘谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘注爪讬诐 砖讘诪讜拽爪讛 讛转诐 讘讗专讝讬 讜讗砖讜讞讬 讚诪讜拽爪讛 诪讞诪转 讞住专讜谉 讻讬住 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜讚讛

One may chop wood neither from beams set aside for building nor from a beam that broke on a Festival. Apparently, this unattributed mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yo岣nan answered: That mishna is actually in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, which is an individual opinion. Come and hear: One may start a fire on a Festival with a pile of straw but not with wood that is from the wood storage behind one鈥檚 house, because that wood is set aside for other uses. Apparently, this is an unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the prohibition of set-aside. The Gemara answers: There, the mishna is referring to wood from cedar and fir trees that are set aside due to monetary loss. Even Rabbi Shimon concedes that the prohibition of set-aside is in effect in that case.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讬谉 诪砖拽讬谉 讜砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讛诪讚讘专讬讜转 讗讘诇 诪砖拽讬谉 讜砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讛讘讬讬转讜转

Come and hear a proof from another mishna: One may neither give water to nor slaughter non-domesticated desert animals, animals that are always grazing in the fields. Since people do not generally tend to them, they are considered set-aside and may not be used. Giving them water would ease removal of their hides. However, one may give water to and slaughter domesticated animals. This is apparently an unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住转诪讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗砖讻讞 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讙讘讬讛讬谉 诪注诇 讛砖诇讞谉 注爪诪讜转 讜拽诇讬驻讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪住诇拽 讗转 讛讟讘诇讛 讻讜诇讛 讜诪谞注专讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗谞讜 讗讬谉 诇谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan found a different unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Beit Shammai say: One may lift bones and peels and shells, which are set-aside, from the table on Shabbat. And Beit Hillel say: One must remove the entire board from atop the table and shake it; however, he may not lift the set-aside objects. And Rav Na岣an said to reverse the two opinions, and we have only Beit Shammai in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Beit Hillel in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As the halakha is always ruled in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, this mishna has the authority of an unattributed mishna.

驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讘讻诇 讛砖讘转 讻讜诇讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讘专 诪诪讜拽爪讛 诪讞诪转 诪讬讗讜住 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 谞专 讬砖谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讘诪讜拽爪讛 诪讞诪转 诪讬讗讜住 谞诪讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讘专 诪诪讜拽爪讛 诪讞诪转 讗讬住讜专 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 谞专 砖讛讚诇讬拽讜 讘讛 讘讗讜转讛 砖讘转 讗讘诇 诪讜拽爪讛 诪讞诪转 讞住专讜谉 讻讬住 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜讚讛 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 谞讬讟诇讬谉 讘砖讘转 讞讜抓 诪诪住专 讛讙讚讜诇 讜讬转讚 砖诇 诪讞专讬砖讛:

Rav A岣 and Ravina disputed this matter. One said: In all of the halakhot of Shabbat in which there is a tannaitic dispute involving Rabbi Shimon, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, except for the case of an item set aside due to repulsiveness. And what is that case? It is the case of an old oil lamp, which may not be moved on Shabbat, contrary to Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion. And one said: In the case of an item set aside due to repulsiveness, the halakha is also in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon except for the case of set aside due to prohibition. And what is that case? It is the case of moving an oil lamp that one kindled for that very Shabbat. However, with regard to an item set aside due to monetary loss, even Rabbi Shimon concedes that it is prohibited to move that item, as we learned in a mishna according to his position: All vessels may be moved on Shabbat except for a large saw and the blade of a plow, both of which are prohibited. Due to their significance, their owners make certain that they will not be damaged.

诪转谞讬壮 诪驻讬专讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 讘砖讘转 讜谞砖讗诇讬谉 诇谞讚专讬诐 砖讛谉 诇爪讜专讱 讛砖讘转 讜驻讜拽拽讬谉 讗转 讛诪讗讜专 讜诪讜讚讚讬谉 讗转 讛诪讟诇讬转 讜诪讜讚讚讬谉 讗转 讛诪拽讜讛 讜诪注砖讛 讘讬诪讬 讗讘讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讜讘讬诪讬 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讘谉 讘讟谞讬转 砖驻拽拽讜 讗转 讛诪讗讜专 讘讟驻讬讞 讜拽砖专讜 讗转 讛诪拽讬讚讛 讘讙诪讬 诇讬讚注 讗诐 讬砖 讘讙讬讙讬转 驻讜转讞 讟驻讞 讗诐 诇讗讜 讜诪讚讘专讬讛诐 诇诪讚谞讜 砖驻讜拽拽讬谉 讜诪讜讚讚讬谉 讜拽讜砖专讬谉 讘砖讘转:

MISHNA: A father or husband may nullify his daughter鈥檚 or his wife鈥檚 vows on Shabbat, and one may request from a Sage to dissolve vows that are for the purpose of Shabbat. Failure to dissolve the vow will compromise one鈥檚 fulfillment of the mitzva to delight in Shabbat. And one may seal a window on Shabbat to prevent light from entering, and one may measure a rag to determine whether or not it is large enough to contract ritual impurity, and one may measure a ritual bath to determine if it contains enough water for immersion. The mishna relates that there was an incident in the time of Rabbi Tzadok鈥檚 father and the time of Abba Shaul ben Botnit, in which they sealed a window using an earthenware vessel and tied an earthenware shard with a long reed-grass with a temporary knot, in order to ascertain whether or not the roofing had an opening the size of a handbreadth. And from their statements and their actions, we derived that one may seal a window, and measure, and tie a knot on Shabbat.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛驻专讛 讘讬谉 诇爪讜专讱 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 讜砖讗诇讛 诇爪讜专讱 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 诇讗 讜诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽驻诇讙讬谞讛讜 诪讛讚讚讬

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that it is permitted to nullify vows and to request that Sages dissolve vows for the purpose of Shabbat. In an attempt to understand the mishna, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is nullification of vows on Shabbat permitted both for the purpose of Shabbat and when it is not for the purpose of Shabbat? And the request to dissolve vows, when it is for the purpose of Shabbat, yes, it is permitted, but when it is not for the purpose of Shabbat, no, it is prohibited? And is it due to that distinction that the tanna of the mishna separated the cases from each other and listed them separately?

讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛驻专讛 谞诪讬 诇爪讜专讱 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 诇讗 讜讛讗 讚拽讗 驻诇讬讙 诇讛讜 诪讛讚讚讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讛驻专讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜砖讗诇讛 爪专讬讻讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉

Or perhaps with regard to nullification of vows on Shabbat as well, when it is for the purpose of Shabbat, yes, it is permitted, but when they are not for the purpose of Shabbat, no, it is prohibited; and the fact that the tanna of the mishna separated the cases from each other and listed them separately is due to the fact that for nullification one does not require a court, and a husband or father can nullify a woman鈥檚 vows on his own, but for the request to dissolve vows one requires a court.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 讝讜讟讬 讚讘讬 专讘 驻驻讗 诪驻讬专讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 讘砖讘转 诇爪讜专讱 讛砖讘转 诇爪讜专讱 讛砖讘转 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 讛砖讘转 诇讗

Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from that which the Sage, Zutei, of the school of Rav Pappa taught: One may nullify vows on Shabbat for the purpose of Shabbat. Apparently, when the nullification is for the purpose of Shabbat, yes, it is permitted to nullify vows, but when it is not for the purpose of Shabbat, no, it is prohibited.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇爪讜专讱 讗转专讜讬讬讛讜 拽转谞讬 讜砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 诇讗 讗诇诪讗 讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 诪注转 诇注转 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬 拽转谞讬 诇爪讜专讱 讗砖讗诇讛 讛讜讗 讚拽转谞讬 讗讘诇 讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 讗诇诪讗 讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 讻诇 讛讬讜诐

The Gemara cites another version of the dilemma that was raised before the Sages. Was the phrase: When they are for the purpose of Shabbat, taught about both of them, and nullification is only permitted for the purpose of Shabbat, but when it is not for the purpose of Shabbat, no, it is prohibited? If so, apparently, nullification of vows may be performed for an entire twenty-four hour period after hearing the vow, and the father or husband can wait until after Shabbat to nullify the vow if he does not need to do so for the purpose of Shabbat. Or perhaps when the mishna taught that it is permitted when the nullification is for the purpose of Shabbat, that was taught only with regard to the request to dissolve that which was prohibited by the vow, but nullification of vows may be performed on Shabbat even when it is not for the purpose of Shabbat. If so, apparently nullification of vows may be performed only for the entire day that the husband or father heard the vow. Once Shabbat concludes, the vow may no longer be nullified. Therefore, even vows whose nullification is not for the purpose of Shabbat may be nullified on Shabbat.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘 讝讜讟讬 讚讘讬 专讘 驻驻讬 诪驻讬专讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 讘砖讘转 诇爪讜专讱 讛砖讘转 诇爪讜专讱 讛砖讘转 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 讛砖讘转 诇讗 讗诇诪讗 讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 诪注转 诇注转

Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from that which the Sage, Zutei, of the school of Rav Pappa taught: One may nullify vows on Shabbat for the purpose of Shabbat. Apparently, when the nullification is for the purpose of Shabbat, yes, it is permitted to nullify vows, but when it is not for the purpose of Shabbat, no, it is prohibited. If so, apparently nullification of vows may be performed for the entire twenty-four hour period after hearing the vow.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讜讬砖 讘讚讘专 诇讛拽诇 讜诇讛讞诪讬专 讻讬爪讚 谞讚专讛 诇讬诇讬 砖讘转 诪讬驻专 诇讬诇讬 砖讘转 讜讬讜诐 讛砖讘转 注讚 砖转讞砖讱 谞讚专讛 注诐 讞砖讻讛 诪讬驻专 注讚 砖诇讗 转讞砖讱 砖讗诐 诇讗 讛驻专 诪砖讞砖讻讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专讜 诪注转 诇注转:

Rav Ashi said: Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna that one may nullify vows for the entire day, and there is both a leniency and a stricture in this matter to extend or curtail the period during which the vow may be nullified. How so? If the woman vowed on Shabbat evening, her father or husband may nullify the vow on Shabbat evening and on Shabbat day until dark. However, if she vowed before Shabbat at nightfall, her father or husband may only nullify the vow until nightfall, as if he did not nullify the vow before nightfall, he can no longer nullify it because the day ended. The Gemara answers that this issue is subject to a tannaitic dispute, as it was taught in a baraita: One may nullify vows for the entire day. Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said: For a twenty-four hour period.

讜谞砖讗诇讬诐 诇谞讚专讬诐: 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻砖诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讜 驻谞讗讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讛 诇讜 驻谞讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗讝讚拽讬拽讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讝讬专讗 讜砖专讜 诇讬讛 谞讚专讬讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 驻谞讗讬:

We learned in the mishna: And one may request from a Sage to dissolve vows on Shabbat. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is this only permitted when one did not have time to request to have the vow dissolved before Shabbat, or perhaps it is permitted even if one had time before Shabbat to request to have his vow dissolved? Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the fact that the Sages attended to Rav Zutra, the son of Rav Zeira, and dissolved his vow even though he had time to request its dissolution before Shabbat.

砖驻拽拽讜 讗转 讛诪讗讜专 讘讟驻讬讞 讜拽砖专讜 讗转 讛诪拽讬讚讛 讘讙诪讬: 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讬诇拽讟讬 拽讟谞讛 讛讬转讛 讘讬谉 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 [讜讟讜诪讗讛 讛讬转讛 砖诐]

The mishna related: They sealed a window using an earthenware vessel and tied an earthenware shard with a long reed-grass. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said in explanation: There was a small alleyway [heilketei] between two houses, and there was ritual impurity imparted by a corpse there in the alleyway,

讜讙讬讙讬转 住讚讜拽讛 诪讜谞讞转 注诇 讙讘谉 讜驻拽拽讜 讗转 讛诪讗讜专 讘讟驻讬讞 讜拽砖专讜 讗转 讛诪拽讬讚讛 讘讙诪讬 诇讬讚注 讗诐 讬砖 砖诐 讘讙讬讙讬转 驻讜转讞 讟驻讞 讗诐 诇讗讜:

and there was a cracked roofing placed atop the two houses. If the roofing was intact it would have the legal status of a tent over a corpse, rendering everything in the alleyway, and, through the windows, everything in the houses, ritually impure. However, since the roofing was cracked and the corpse was directly beneath the opening, if the opening was the size of a handbreadth or more, the entire alleyway and the houses would not become impure. Only the area directly over the corpse extending through the opening is impure. And that is the reason that they sealed the window of the house with an earthenware vessel, so that the ritual impurity would not enter the houses, and they tied an earthenware shard with a long reed-grass inserted into the opening in the roofing in order to ascertain whether or not there is an opening there in the roofing the size of a handbreadth.

讜诪讚讘专讬讛诐 诇诪讚谞讜 砖驻讜拽拽讬谉 讜诪讜讚讚讬谉 讜拽讜砖专讬谉 讘砖讘转: 注讜诇讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讞讝讬讬讛 诇专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讬转讬讘 讘讗讜讜谞讗 讚诪讬讗 讜拽讗 诪砖讞 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 诪讚讬讚讛 讚诪爪讜讛 讚诇讗讜 诪爪讜讛 诪讬 讗诪讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪转注住拽 讘注诇诪讗 讗谞讗:

The mishna concludes: And from their statements and their actions, we derived that one may seal a window, and measure, and tie a knot on Shabbat. The Gemara relates: Ulla happened to come to the house of the Exilarch. He saw Rabba bar Rav Huna sitting in a tub [avna] of water and measuring it. He said to Rabba bar Rav Huna: Say that the Sages said that it is permitted to measure on Shabbat only a measurement for a mitzva. However, with regard to a measurement like this one, which is not for a mitzva, did they say that it is permitted? Rabba bar Rav Huna said to him: I am merely acting unawares and am not at all interested in the measurements. Therefore, it is not prohibited.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 诪讬 砖讛讞砖讬讱 讜住诇讬拽讗 诇讛 诪住讻转 砖讘转

 

Scroll To Top