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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 24, 2020 | 讻状讞 讘讗讚专 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 dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Shabbat 18

Today’s shiur is dedicated by Leah Brick in memory of her father-in-law, Murray Brick, Mordechai ben Chaim Yosef Gershon z”l and by Jonathan, Kenny and Danny Sadinoff in memory of their father, Frank Sadinoff, Efraim Mordechai ben Menachem Mendel z”l and for a refuah sheleima to Pesach Yehoshua ben Tova Chaya.聽

The gemara asks according to which approach regarding kneading does the mishna hold – by which one can be obligated for kneading by putting something in water that will thicken without actually kneading with one’s hands or a utensil? The gemara bring various braitot with cases similar to our mishna – where an act is done before Shabbat that will continue through Shabbat – and tries to figure out if the source is authored by Beit Shamai or Beit Hillel. It is complicated as there seem to be many exceptions to the rule. Once the gemara explains the reasons for the exceptions, they bring relevant halachot that can be derived from the reasons given for the exceptions.

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讛砖诪砖 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 谞讜讛讙讬谉 讛讬讜 讘讬转 讗讘讗 砖讛讬讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 讻诇讬 诇讘谉 诇讻讜讘住 讙讜讬 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 拽讜讚诐 诇砖讘转 讜砖讜讬谉 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 砖讟讜注谞讬谉 拽讜专转 讘讬转 讛讘讚 讜注讙讜诇讬 讛讙转:

the sun, i.e., as long as the sun is shining on Friday. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: The ancestral house of my father, the dynasty of Nesi鈥檌m from the house of Hillel, was accustomed to give its white clothes to a gentile launderer no fewer than three days before Shabbat. And, however, these, Beit Shammai, and those, Beit Hillel, agree that, ab initio, one may load the beam of the olive press on the olives on Shabbat eve while it is still day, so that the oil will continue to be squeezed out of the olives on Shabbat. So too, one may load the circular wine press to accelerate the process of producing wine from the grapes.

讙诪壮 诪讗谉 转谞讗 谞转讬谞转 诪讬诐 诇讚讬讜 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖专讬讬转谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 谞讜转谉 讗转 讛拽诪讞 讜讗讞讚 谞讜转谉 讗转 讛诪讬诐 讛讗讞专讜谉 讞讬讬讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讙讘诇

GEMARA: Before clarifying the matters themselves, the Gemara seeks to determine: Who is the tanna who holds that merely adding water to ink without any additional action constitutes its soaking, and one is liable for doing so on Shabbat, as he performed an act of kneading, one of the primary categories of labor? Rav Yosef said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. As it was taught in a baraita: In a case where one person adds the flour and another one adds the water into one vessel, the latter one is liable for kneading the dough, which is a prohibited labor on Shabbat, even though he did not actually knead the dough; that is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Yosei says: He is not liable for the prohibited labor of kneading until he actually kneads the dough. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, merely soaking the dough in water is considered a prohibited labor.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讚讬诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诇讗 讘拽诪讞 讚讘专 讙讬讘讜诇 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 讚讬讜 讚诇讗讜 讘专 讙讬讘讜诇 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 谞讜转谉 讗转 讛讗驻专 讜讗讞讚 谞讜转谉 讗转 讛诪讬诐 讛讗讞专讜谉 讞讬讬讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讙讘诇

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And perhaps Rabbi Yosei only stated that actual kneading is required to be liable for performing the prohibited labor of kneading in the case of flour, which can be kneaded; however, ink, which cannot be kneaded, say that its soaking is considered a full-fledged prohibited labor, and he will therefore be liable, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara rejects this: It should not enter your mind to say so, as it was taught in a baraita: In a case where one places the ashes and one adds the water, the latter one is liable, although he did not knead them. That is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: He is not liable until he actually kneads them. Apparently, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, he is only liable for committing the prohibited labor of kneading on Shabbat if he actually kneads the mixture, as he stated his halakha even with regard to ashes, which cannot be kneaded.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 诪讗讬 讗驻专 注驻专 讚讘专 讙讬讘讜诇 讛讜讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗驻专 讜讛转谞讬讗 注驻专 诪讬讚讬 讙讘讬 讛讚讚讬 转谞讬讗:

The Gemara asks: And perhaps, what is the meaning of ashes [efer] mentioned here? Perhaps it is soil [afar], which can be kneaded. In that case he is not liable until he actually kneads the mixture. However, with regard to ashes, which cannot be kneaded, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, also holds that even if he did not actually knead the mixture he is liable. The Gemara rejects this: Wasn鈥檛 the dispute taught in one baraita with regard to ashes, and wasn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita with regard to soil? In both cases, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, disagreed. The Gemara rejects this proof: Were they taught next to each other? Had both of these baraitot been taught together, it would have been truly possible to arrive at the conclusion that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, disagrees both in the case of ashes and in the case of soil. However, since the baraita that speaks about ashes was taught elsewhere by a different amora who cited it in the name of Rabbi Yosei, the difference in language does not prove that Rabbi Yosei disagrees in both cases.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 驻讜转拽讬谉 诪讬诐 诇讙讬谞讛 注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讬讻讛 讜诪转诪诇讗转 讜讛讜诇讻转 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 讜诪谞讬讞讬谉 诪讜讙诪专 转讞转 讛讻诇讬诐 (注专讘 砖讘转) 讜诪转讙诪专讬谉 讜讛讜诇讻讬谉 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 讜诪谞讬讞讬谉 讙驻专讬转 转讞转 讛讻诇讬诐 (注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讬讻讛) 讜诪转讙驻专讬谉 讜讛讜诇讻讬谉 讻诇 讛砖讘转 讻讜诇讛 讜诪谞讬讞讬谉 拽讬诇讜专 注诇 讙讘讬 讛注讬谉 讜讗讬住驻诇谞讬转 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讻讛 (注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讬讻讛) 讜诪转专驻讗转 讜讛讜诇讻转 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 讞讟讬谉 诇转讜讱 讛专讬讞讬诐 砖诇 诪讬诐 讗诇讗 讘讻讚讬 砖讬讟讞谞讜 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐

The Sages taught in a Tosefta: One may open a canal that passes adjacent to a garden on Shabbat eve at nightfall, so that water will flow into a garden and the garden continuously fills with water all day long on Shabbat. Similarly, one may place incense, perfumed herbs placed on coals to produce a fragrance, on coals beneath the clothes on Shabbat eve and the clothes may be continuously perfumed all day long. And, similarly, one may place sulfur beneath the silver vessels on Shabbat eve at nightfall for the purpose of coloring the vessels, and they may be continuously exposed to sulfur all day long. And one may place an eye salve [kilor] on the eye and a bandage [ispelanit] smeared with cream on a wound on Shabbat eve at nightfall, and the wound may continuously heal all day long on Shabbat. However, one may not place wheat kernels into the water mill unless he does so in a way so that they will be ground while it is still day on Friday and not on Shabbat.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诪砖诪注转 拽讜诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜诇讬诪讗 诪专 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬转转 讻诇讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 讜讘讻诇 讗砖专 讗诪专转讬 讗诇讬讻诐 转砖诪专讜 诇专讘讜转 砖讘讬转转 讻诇讬诐 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬转转 讻诇讬诐

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the baraita prohibited a mill and permitted other prohibited labor? Rabba said: Because it makes noise and the public will hear the mill grinding on Shabbat. Although no prohibited labor is being performed, doing so displays contempt for Shabbat. Therefore, the Sages prohibited it. Rav Yosef said to Rabba: And let the Master say a better reason, due to the obligation to ensure the resting of utensils. Even the utensils of a Jewish person may not be used for prohibited labor on Shabbat. As it was taught in halakhic midrash, the Mekhilta: That which is stated: 鈥淎nd in all that I said to you, take heed鈥 (Exodus 23:13), is an allusion to matters mentioned in the Oral Torah. It comes to include the resting of utensils on Shabbat. Rather, Rav Yosef said: The reason for the prohibition of the mill on Shabbat is due to the resting of utensils.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讬转 诇讛讜 砖讘讬转转 讻诇讬诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讙驻专讬转 讜诪讜讙诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖专讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 拽注讘讬讚 诪注砖讛 讗讜谞讬谉 砖诇 驻砖转谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖专讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 诪注砖讛 讜诪讬谞讞 谞讬讬讞讗 诪爪讜讚转 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讜讚讙讬诐 讚拽讗 注讘讬讚 诪注砖讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖专讜 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜拽专讬 讚诇讗 拽注讘讬讚 诪注砖讛

Since the obligation of resting utensils on Shabbat was mentioned, the Gemara says: Now that you said that Beit Hillel also hold that resting utensils on Shabbat is required by Torah law, with regard to sulfur and incense on coals that are placed under silver vessels and clothes, respectively, what is the reason that the Sages permitted this on Shabbat? Isn鈥檛 that performed on Shabbat in utensils? The Gemara answers: Because the utensil itself does not perform an action when the incense or sulfur is burning. With regard to the bundles of flax, what is the reason that they permitted placing them in the oven on Shabbat eve at nightfall to dry, even though the oven is performing a prohibited labor on Shabbat? Because it does not perform an action; rather, on the contrary, it sits idle in its place and the prohibited labor occurs on its own. However, with regard to traps of an animal, and a bird, and a fish, which perform a bona fide action of trapping, what is the reason that they permitted spreading them on Shabbat eve at nightfall? The Gemara explains: There too, it is referring to a fish hook and nets [kokrei], which perform no action. They stand in place, and the fish comes to them and is trapped. Indeed, a trap that performs an action is prohibited.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 诪讗谉 转谞讗 砖讘讬转转 讻诇讬诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讘讬谉 拽注讘讬讚 诪注砖讛 讘讬谉 讚诇讗 拽注讘讬讚 诪注砖讛 讗住讜专 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽注讘讬讚 诪注砖讛 砖专讬 讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 讚诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 诪注砖讛 讗住讜专 讗讬 讛讻讬

And now that Rav Oshaya said that Rav Asi said: Who is the tanna who states that the obligation of resting utensils on Shabbat is by Torah law? The tanna is Beit Shammai and not Beit Hillel. Consequently, according to Beit Shammai, whether the utensil performs an action or whether it does not perform an action, it is prohibited. And according to Beit Hillel, even though it performs an action, it is nevertheless permitted. The Gemara asks: And now that you said that according to Beit Shammai even though the utensil does not perform an action it is prohibited, if so,

诪讜讙诪专 讜讙驻专讬转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖专讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛转诐 诪谞讞 讗讗专注讗 讙讬讙讬转 讜谞专 讜拽讚专讛 讜砖驻讜讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖专讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚诪驻拽专 诇讛讜 讗驻拽讜专讬

with regard to placing incense and sulfur beneath clothes and silver vessels, respectively, what is the reason Beit Shammai permitted this? The Gemara answers: The case under discussion was not one where the incense was placed in a vessel; rather, there, the incense was placed on the ground, and therefore there was no utensil that was obligated to rest. The Gemara asks further: A tub in which fruit or grains are placed to ferment into beer, and where they stay for an extended period; and a Shabbat lamp; and a pot in which food is being cooked, which they place on the fire while it is still day; and a spit [shapud] on which they placed food to roast while it is still day; what is the reason Beit Shammai permitted placing them on Shabbat eve while it is still day even though the prohibited labor continues over time, including on Shabbat? The Gemara answers: These are cases where he declares the utensils ownerless. According to Beit Shammai, the utensils must be declared ownerless while it is still day. Once the utensils are declared ownerless, they no longer belong to a Jew and, consequently, there is no obligation to let them rest.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 转诪诇讗 讗砖讛 拽讚专讛 注住住讬讜转 讜转讜专诪住讬谉 讜转谞讬讞 诇转讜讱 讛转谞讜专 注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讻讛 讜讗诐 谞转谞谉 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讻讚讬 砖讬注砖讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 诇讗 讬诪诇讗 谞讞转讜诐 讞讘讬转 砖诇 诪讬诐 讜讬谞讬讞 诇转讜讱 讛转谞讜专 注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讻讛 讜讗诐 注砖讛 讻谉 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讻讚讬 砖讬注砖讜 诇讬诪讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讞转讛 讘讙讞诇讬诐

The Gemara asks: Based on these conclusions, who is the tanna who taught this Tosefta that the Sages taught: A woman may not fill up a pot with pounded wheat and lupines, a type of legume, and place them in the oven to cook on Shabbat eve at nightfall. And if she placed them in the oven, not only may they not be eaten on Shabbat itself, but even at the conclusion of Shabbat they are forbidden for a period of time that would be sufficient for them to be prepared, i.e., the time it takes to cook the dish from the beginning, so that he will derive no benefit from a prohibited labor performed on Shabbat. Similarly, the Tosefta said: A baker may not fill a barrel of water and place it in the oven on Shabbat eve at nightfall to boil the water that is in the barrel, and if he did so, even at the conclusion of Shabbat it is forbidden for the period of time that would be sufficient for it to be prepared from the beginning. Let us say that this Tosefta is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai and not in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. The Gemara answers: Even if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, in those cases the Sages issued a decree due to concern lest the one cooking stoke the coals on Shabbat in order to accelerate the cooking.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讜讙诪专 讜讙驻专讬转 谞诪讬 诇讙讝讜专 讛转诐 诇讗 诪讞转讬 诇讛讜 讚讗讬 诪讞转讬 住诇讬拽 讘讛讜 拽讜讟专讗 讜拽砖讬 诇讛讜 讗讜谞讬谉 砖诇 驻砖转谉 谞诪讬 诇讬讙讝讜专 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚拽砖讬 诇讛讜 讝讬拽讗 诇讗 诪讙诇讜 诇讬讛 爪诪专 诇讬讜专讛 诇讬讙讝讜专 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讬讜专讛 注拽讜专讛 讜谞讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 诪讙讬住 讘讛 讘注拽讜专讛 讜讟讜讞讛

The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to incense and sulfur, the Sages should also issue a decree that prohibits placing them beneath clothes and silver vessels, respectively, on Shabbat eve at nightfall. The Gemara answers: There, in that case, he will not stoke them, as if he stokes them smoke will rise into the garments and the silver, and that is damaging for them. The smoke from the wood will ruin the fragrance and the coating of sulfur. The Gemara asks further: With regard to bundles of flax, the Sages should also issue a decree. The Gemara answers: There, since wind is damaging for them, he does not expose them, and he will not come to stoke the coals. The Gemara asks further: With regard to wool placed in the dyer鈥檚 kettle, the Sages should also issue a decree. Shmuel said: The mishna is referring to a pot that is removed from the fire, where there is no concern lest he stoke the coals. The Gemara still asks: Let us be concerned lest he stir that same pot, thereby accelerating the cooking, which is prohibited by Torah law. Rather, the mishna is referring to a pot that is removed from the fire and sealed with clay spread around its cover to prevent it from opening.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专 诪专 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讞转讛 讘讙讞诇讬诐 讛讗讬 拽讚专讛 讞讬讬转讗 砖专讬 诇讗谞讜讞讛 注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讬讻讛 讘转谞讜专讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讗讜专转讗 讗住讜讞讬 诪住讞 讚注转讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讜诇讗 讗转讬 诇讞转讜讬讬 讙讞诇讬诐 讜讘砖讬诇 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讘砖讬诇 讜诇讗 讘砖讬诇 讗住讬专 讜讗讬 砖讚讗 讘讬讛 讙专诪讗 讞讬讬讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

The Gemara comments: And now that the Master said that in these cases the prohibition of placing the pot on the fire is due to a decree issued by the Sages lest he stoke the coals; with regard to this pot of raw meat, it is permitted to place it in an oven on Shabbat eve at nightfall. What is the reason for this? Since it is not fit for consumption during the night, as it will not be cooked by then, he diverts his thoughts from it and will not come to stoke the coals. And the same is true of cooked meat; it is permitted to place it on the fire on Shabbat eve at nightfall. Since it is reasonably cooked, one will not come to stoke the coals to cook it more. Meat that is cooked and not sufficiently cooked is prohibited, as there is concern lest he come to stoke the coals. And if he threw a raw bone into this pot, he may well do so, as due to the bone he will not remove the meat to eat it in the evening.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专 诪专 讻诇 诪讬讚讬 讚拽砖讬 诇讬讛 讝讬拽讗 诇讗 诪讙诇讜 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 讘砖专讗 讚讙讚讬讗 讜砖专讬拽 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讚讘专讞讗 讜诇讗 砖专讬拽 讗住讜专 讚讙讚讬讗 讜诇讗 砖专讬拽 讚讘专讞讗 讜砖专讬拽 专讘 讗砖讬 砖专讬 讜专讘 讬专诪讬讛 诪讚讬驻转讬 讗住讬专 讜诇专讘 讗砖讬 讚砖专讬 (讜讛转谞讬讗) 讗讬谉 爪讜诇讬谉 讘砖专 讘爪诇 讜讘讬爪讛 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 砖讬爪讜诇讜 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讛转诐 讚讘专讞讗 讜诇讗 砖专讬拽

And now that the Master said that anything for which wind is damaging one does not expose, one could say that with regard to meat of a kid and an oven whose opening is sealed with clay, he may well place it there on Shabbat eve at nightfall. Since the meat of the kid cooks quickly and the opening of the oven is sealed, there is no concern lest he come to stoke the coals. If it is the meat of a ram [bar岣] and the opening of the oven is not sealed with clay, it is prohibited to place it there on Shabbat eve at nightfall. The above are cases where the ruling is clear. However, with regard to the case of the meat of a kid and the opening of the oven is not sealed with clay, or the case of a ram and the opening of the oven is sealed, there is a dispute. Rav Ashi permitted placing it in the oven on Shabbat eve at nightfall, and Rav Yirmeya from Difti prohibited doing so. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rav Ashi, who permitted placing it there on Shabbat eve at nightfall, wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that one may not roast meat, an onion, and an egg on Shabbat eve unless there is sufficient time for them to be roasted while it is still day? Apparently, one may not place meat that is not sufficiently roasted in an oven on Shabbat eve. The Gemara answers: There, the baraita is referring to the meat of a ram and the opening of the oven is not sealed with clay. However, in other cases it is permitted.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讚讙讚讬讗 讘讬谉 砖专讬拽 讘讬谉 诇讗 砖专讬拽 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讚讘专讞讗 谞诪讬 讜砖专讬拽 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讘专讞讗 讜诇讗 砖专讬拽 讚专讘 讗砖讬 砖专讬 讜专讘 讬专诪讬讛 诪讚驻转讬 讗住讬专 讜诇专讘 讗砖讬 讚砖专讬 (讜讛转谞讬讗) 讗讬谉 爪讜诇讬谉 讘砖专 讘爪诇 讜讘讬爪讛 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 砖讬爪讜诇讜 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讛转诐 讘讘砖专讗 讗讙讜诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛讗讬 拽专讗 讞讬讬讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚拽砖讬 诇讬讛 讝讬拽讗 讻讘砖专讗 讚讙讚讬讗 讚诪讬:

Others say that with regard to the meat of a kid, whether it is in an oven that is sealed or whether it is in one that is not sealed, everyone agrees that he may well do so. With regard to the meat of a ram, when the opening of the oven is sealed, one may well do so too. Where they disagreed was in the case of the meat of a ram and the opening of the oven was not sealed. Rav Ashi permitted placing it in the oven on Shabbat eve at nightfall, and Rav Yirmeya from Difti prohibited doing so. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rav Ashi, who permitted this, wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that one may only roast meat, an onion, and an egg on Shabbat eve if there is sufficient time for them to be roasted while it is still day? Apparently, one may not place meat that is not sufficiently roasted in an oven on Shabbat eve. The Gemara answers: There, the baraita is referring to the case of meat roasted directly on the coals. In that case, there is greater concern that he will come to stoke the coals. Ravina said: With regard to that raw gourd, one may well place it in a pot on the fire on Shabbat eve at nightfall. The reason for this is that since the wind is damaging for it, it is considered like the meat of a kid.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉: 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬诪讻讜专 讗讚诐 讞驻爪讜 诇讙讜讬 讜诇讗 讬砖讗讬诇谞讜 讜诇讗 讬诇讜谞讜 讜诇讗 讬转谉 诇讜 讘诪转谞讛 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 砖讬讙讬注 诇讘讬转讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讚讬 砖讬讙讬注 诇讘讬转 讛住诪讜讱 诇讞讜诪讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻讚讬 砖讬爪讗 诪驻转讞 讘讬转讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谉 讛谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛谉 讛谉 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讗 讘讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诇讗 诇驻专砖 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇:

The full text of the baraita is: Beit Shammai say: One may only sell an item to a gentile on Shabbat eve, and one may only load a burden onto his donkey with him, and one may only lift a burden onto him if the destination of the gentile is near enough that there remains sufficient time for the gentile to arrive at a place near there prior to Shabbat. The Sages taught in a baraita that elaborated upon this dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel with regard to selling to a gentile on Shabbat eve: Beit Shammai say: A person may not sell his object to a gentile, and lend it to him, and loan him money, and give him an object as a gift on Shabbat eve, unless there is sufficient time for him, the gentile, to reach his house while it is still day. And Beit Hillel say: He is permitted to do this if there is sufficient time for him to reach a house adjacent to the wall of the place where he is going. Rabbi Akiva says: It is permitted to give an object to a gentile on Shabbat eve if there is sufficient time for him to exit the entrance of the Jewish person鈥檚 house. What the gentile does afterward is irrelevant. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said: That is the statement of Rabbi Akiva; that is the statement of Beit Hillel. Rabbi Akiva came only to explain the statement of Beit Hillel. The tanna whose version of Beit Hillel鈥檚 statement was: Until he reaches the house adjacent to the wall, held that Beit Hillel鈥檚 opinion was similar to Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion. Rabbi Akiva came to elucidate the actual opinion of Beit Hillel.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬诪讻讜专 讗讚诐 讞诪爪讜 诇讙讜讬 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讬讜讚注 讘讜 砖讬讻诇讛 拽讜讚诐 讛驻住讞 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪讜转专 诇讗讜讻诇讜 诪讜转专 诇诪讜讻专讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专

The Sages taught a similar principle in a baraita with regard to another tannaitic dispute. Beit Shammai say: A person may not sell his leaven to a gentile on Passover eve unless he knows that the leaven will be finished before Passover. And Beit Hillel say: As long as it is permitted for the Jew to eat leaven, it is also permitted for him to sell it to a gentile. The Jew ceases to be responsible for the leaven sold to a gentile from the moment it is sold. And Rabbi Yehuda says:

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 dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

daf yomi One week at a time (1)

Daf Yomi: One week at a Time -Shabbat 12-18

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMz6ZWYxaTc   This week we will learn key concepts from Daf 12-18 including the Laws of Purity and...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 18: “Set It and Forget It” – A Daf of Modern Shabbat Issues

We found this daf to be remarkably replete with contemporary issues - or perhaps eternal issues of Shabbat. From what...
Ilana Kurshan

Daf Yomi in the Time of Corona- Vayakhel-Pekudei

I began learning Masechet Shabbat against the backdrop of the Corona Crisis, as I gradually realized that people all over...

Shabbat 18

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 18

讛砖诪砖 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 谞讜讛讙讬谉 讛讬讜 讘讬转 讗讘讗 砖讛讬讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 讻诇讬 诇讘谉 诇讻讜讘住 讙讜讬 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 拽讜讚诐 诇砖讘转 讜砖讜讬谉 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 砖讟讜注谞讬谉 拽讜专转 讘讬转 讛讘讚 讜注讙讜诇讬 讛讙转:

the sun, i.e., as long as the sun is shining on Friday. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: The ancestral house of my father, the dynasty of Nesi鈥檌m from the house of Hillel, was accustomed to give its white clothes to a gentile launderer no fewer than three days before Shabbat. And, however, these, Beit Shammai, and those, Beit Hillel, agree that, ab initio, one may load the beam of the olive press on the olives on Shabbat eve while it is still day, so that the oil will continue to be squeezed out of the olives on Shabbat. So too, one may load the circular wine press to accelerate the process of producing wine from the grapes.

讙诪壮 诪讗谉 转谞讗 谞转讬谞转 诪讬诐 诇讚讬讜 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖专讬讬转谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 谞讜转谉 讗转 讛拽诪讞 讜讗讞讚 谞讜转谉 讗转 讛诪讬诐 讛讗讞专讜谉 讞讬讬讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讙讘诇

GEMARA: Before clarifying the matters themselves, the Gemara seeks to determine: Who is the tanna who holds that merely adding water to ink without any additional action constitutes its soaking, and one is liable for doing so on Shabbat, as he performed an act of kneading, one of the primary categories of labor? Rav Yosef said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. As it was taught in a baraita: In a case where one person adds the flour and another one adds the water into one vessel, the latter one is liable for kneading the dough, which is a prohibited labor on Shabbat, even though he did not actually knead the dough; that is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Yosei says: He is not liable for the prohibited labor of kneading until he actually kneads the dough. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, merely soaking the dough in water is considered a prohibited labor.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讚讬诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诇讗 讘拽诪讞 讚讘专 讙讬讘讜诇 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 讚讬讜 讚诇讗讜 讘专 讙讬讘讜诇 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 谞讜转谉 讗转 讛讗驻专 讜讗讞讚 谞讜转谉 讗转 讛诪讬诐 讛讗讞专讜谉 讞讬讬讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讙讘诇

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And perhaps Rabbi Yosei only stated that actual kneading is required to be liable for performing the prohibited labor of kneading in the case of flour, which can be kneaded; however, ink, which cannot be kneaded, say that its soaking is considered a full-fledged prohibited labor, and he will therefore be liable, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara rejects this: It should not enter your mind to say so, as it was taught in a baraita: In a case where one places the ashes and one adds the water, the latter one is liable, although he did not knead them. That is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: He is not liable until he actually kneads them. Apparently, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, he is only liable for committing the prohibited labor of kneading on Shabbat if he actually kneads the mixture, as he stated his halakha even with regard to ashes, which cannot be kneaded.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 诪讗讬 讗驻专 注驻专 讚讘专 讙讬讘讜诇 讛讜讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗驻专 讜讛转谞讬讗 注驻专 诪讬讚讬 讙讘讬 讛讚讚讬 转谞讬讗:

The Gemara asks: And perhaps, what is the meaning of ashes [efer] mentioned here? Perhaps it is soil [afar], which can be kneaded. In that case he is not liable until he actually kneads the mixture. However, with regard to ashes, which cannot be kneaded, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, also holds that even if he did not actually knead the mixture he is liable. The Gemara rejects this: Wasn鈥檛 the dispute taught in one baraita with regard to ashes, and wasn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita with regard to soil? In both cases, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, disagreed. The Gemara rejects this proof: Were they taught next to each other? Had both of these baraitot been taught together, it would have been truly possible to arrive at the conclusion that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, disagrees both in the case of ashes and in the case of soil. However, since the baraita that speaks about ashes was taught elsewhere by a different amora who cited it in the name of Rabbi Yosei, the difference in language does not prove that Rabbi Yosei disagrees in both cases.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 驻讜转拽讬谉 诪讬诐 诇讙讬谞讛 注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讬讻讛 讜诪转诪诇讗转 讜讛讜诇讻转 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 讜诪谞讬讞讬谉 诪讜讙诪专 转讞转 讛讻诇讬诐 (注专讘 砖讘转) 讜诪转讙诪专讬谉 讜讛讜诇讻讬谉 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 讜诪谞讬讞讬谉 讙驻专讬转 转讞转 讛讻诇讬诐 (注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讬讻讛) 讜诪转讙驻专讬谉 讜讛讜诇讻讬谉 讻诇 讛砖讘转 讻讜诇讛 讜诪谞讬讞讬谉 拽讬诇讜专 注诇 讙讘讬 讛注讬谉 讜讗讬住驻诇谞讬转 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讻讛 (注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讬讻讛) 讜诪转专驻讗转 讜讛讜诇讻转 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 讞讟讬谉 诇转讜讱 讛专讬讞讬诐 砖诇 诪讬诐 讗诇讗 讘讻讚讬 砖讬讟讞谞讜 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐

The Sages taught in a Tosefta: One may open a canal that passes adjacent to a garden on Shabbat eve at nightfall, so that water will flow into a garden and the garden continuously fills with water all day long on Shabbat. Similarly, one may place incense, perfumed herbs placed on coals to produce a fragrance, on coals beneath the clothes on Shabbat eve and the clothes may be continuously perfumed all day long. And, similarly, one may place sulfur beneath the silver vessels on Shabbat eve at nightfall for the purpose of coloring the vessels, and they may be continuously exposed to sulfur all day long. And one may place an eye salve [kilor] on the eye and a bandage [ispelanit] smeared with cream on a wound on Shabbat eve at nightfall, and the wound may continuously heal all day long on Shabbat. However, one may not place wheat kernels into the water mill unless he does so in a way so that they will be ground while it is still day on Friday and not on Shabbat.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诪砖诪注转 拽讜诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜诇讬诪讗 诪专 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬转转 讻诇讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 讜讘讻诇 讗砖专 讗诪专转讬 讗诇讬讻诐 转砖诪专讜 诇专讘讜转 砖讘讬转转 讻诇讬诐 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬转转 讻诇讬诐

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the baraita prohibited a mill and permitted other prohibited labor? Rabba said: Because it makes noise and the public will hear the mill grinding on Shabbat. Although no prohibited labor is being performed, doing so displays contempt for Shabbat. Therefore, the Sages prohibited it. Rav Yosef said to Rabba: And let the Master say a better reason, due to the obligation to ensure the resting of utensils. Even the utensils of a Jewish person may not be used for prohibited labor on Shabbat. As it was taught in halakhic midrash, the Mekhilta: That which is stated: 鈥淎nd in all that I said to you, take heed鈥 (Exodus 23:13), is an allusion to matters mentioned in the Oral Torah. It comes to include the resting of utensils on Shabbat. Rather, Rav Yosef said: The reason for the prohibition of the mill on Shabbat is due to the resting of utensils.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讬转 诇讛讜 砖讘讬转转 讻诇讬诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讙驻专讬转 讜诪讜讙诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖专讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 拽注讘讬讚 诪注砖讛 讗讜谞讬谉 砖诇 驻砖转谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖专讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 诪注砖讛 讜诪讬谞讞 谞讬讬讞讗 诪爪讜讚转 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讜讚讙讬诐 讚拽讗 注讘讬讚 诪注砖讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖专讜 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜拽专讬 讚诇讗 拽注讘讬讚 诪注砖讛

Since the obligation of resting utensils on Shabbat was mentioned, the Gemara says: Now that you said that Beit Hillel also hold that resting utensils on Shabbat is required by Torah law, with regard to sulfur and incense on coals that are placed under silver vessels and clothes, respectively, what is the reason that the Sages permitted this on Shabbat? Isn鈥檛 that performed on Shabbat in utensils? The Gemara answers: Because the utensil itself does not perform an action when the incense or sulfur is burning. With regard to the bundles of flax, what is the reason that they permitted placing them in the oven on Shabbat eve at nightfall to dry, even though the oven is performing a prohibited labor on Shabbat? Because it does not perform an action; rather, on the contrary, it sits idle in its place and the prohibited labor occurs on its own. However, with regard to traps of an animal, and a bird, and a fish, which perform a bona fide action of trapping, what is the reason that they permitted spreading them on Shabbat eve at nightfall? The Gemara explains: There too, it is referring to a fish hook and nets [kokrei], which perform no action. They stand in place, and the fish comes to them and is trapped. Indeed, a trap that performs an action is prohibited.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 诪讗谉 转谞讗 砖讘讬转转 讻诇讬诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讘讬谉 拽注讘讬讚 诪注砖讛 讘讬谉 讚诇讗 拽注讘讬讚 诪注砖讛 讗住讜专 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽注讘讬讚 诪注砖讛 砖专讬 讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 讚诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 诪注砖讛 讗住讜专 讗讬 讛讻讬

And now that Rav Oshaya said that Rav Asi said: Who is the tanna who states that the obligation of resting utensils on Shabbat is by Torah law? The tanna is Beit Shammai and not Beit Hillel. Consequently, according to Beit Shammai, whether the utensil performs an action or whether it does not perform an action, it is prohibited. And according to Beit Hillel, even though it performs an action, it is nevertheless permitted. The Gemara asks: And now that you said that according to Beit Shammai even though the utensil does not perform an action it is prohibited, if so,

诪讜讙诪专 讜讙驻专讬转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖专讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛转诐 诪谞讞 讗讗专注讗 讙讬讙讬转 讜谞专 讜拽讚专讛 讜砖驻讜讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖专讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚诪驻拽专 诇讛讜 讗驻拽讜专讬

with regard to placing incense and sulfur beneath clothes and silver vessels, respectively, what is the reason Beit Shammai permitted this? The Gemara answers: The case under discussion was not one where the incense was placed in a vessel; rather, there, the incense was placed on the ground, and therefore there was no utensil that was obligated to rest. The Gemara asks further: A tub in which fruit or grains are placed to ferment into beer, and where they stay for an extended period; and a Shabbat lamp; and a pot in which food is being cooked, which they place on the fire while it is still day; and a spit [shapud] on which they placed food to roast while it is still day; what is the reason Beit Shammai permitted placing them on Shabbat eve while it is still day even though the prohibited labor continues over time, including on Shabbat? The Gemara answers: These are cases where he declares the utensils ownerless. According to Beit Shammai, the utensils must be declared ownerless while it is still day. Once the utensils are declared ownerless, they no longer belong to a Jew and, consequently, there is no obligation to let them rest.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 转诪诇讗 讗砖讛 拽讚专讛 注住住讬讜转 讜转讜专诪住讬谉 讜转谞讬讞 诇转讜讱 讛转谞讜专 注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讻讛 讜讗诐 谞转谞谉 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讻讚讬 砖讬注砖讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 诇讗 讬诪诇讗 谞讞转讜诐 讞讘讬转 砖诇 诪讬诐 讜讬谞讬讞 诇转讜讱 讛转谞讜专 注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讻讛 讜讗诐 注砖讛 讻谉 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讻讚讬 砖讬注砖讜 诇讬诪讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讞转讛 讘讙讞诇讬诐

The Gemara asks: Based on these conclusions, who is the tanna who taught this Tosefta that the Sages taught: A woman may not fill up a pot with pounded wheat and lupines, a type of legume, and place them in the oven to cook on Shabbat eve at nightfall. And if she placed them in the oven, not only may they not be eaten on Shabbat itself, but even at the conclusion of Shabbat they are forbidden for a period of time that would be sufficient for them to be prepared, i.e., the time it takes to cook the dish from the beginning, so that he will derive no benefit from a prohibited labor performed on Shabbat. Similarly, the Tosefta said: A baker may not fill a barrel of water and place it in the oven on Shabbat eve at nightfall to boil the water that is in the barrel, and if he did so, even at the conclusion of Shabbat it is forbidden for the period of time that would be sufficient for it to be prepared from the beginning. Let us say that this Tosefta is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai and not in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. The Gemara answers: Even if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, in those cases the Sages issued a decree due to concern lest the one cooking stoke the coals on Shabbat in order to accelerate the cooking.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讜讙诪专 讜讙驻专讬转 谞诪讬 诇讙讝讜专 讛转诐 诇讗 诪讞转讬 诇讛讜 讚讗讬 诪讞转讬 住诇讬拽 讘讛讜 拽讜讟专讗 讜拽砖讬 诇讛讜 讗讜谞讬谉 砖诇 驻砖转谉 谞诪讬 诇讬讙讝讜专 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚拽砖讬 诇讛讜 讝讬拽讗 诇讗 诪讙诇讜 诇讬讛 爪诪专 诇讬讜专讛 诇讬讙讝讜专 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讬讜专讛 注拽讜专讛 讜谞讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 诪讙讬住 讘讛 讘注拽讜专讛 讜讟讜讞讛

The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to incense and sulfur, the Sages should also issue a decree that prohibits placing them beneath clothes and silver vessels, respectively, on Shabbat eve at nightfall. The Gemara answers: There, in that case, he will not stoke them, as if he stokes them smoke will rise into the garments and the silver, and that is damaging for them. The smoke from the wood will ruin the fragrance and the coating of sulfur. The Gemara asks further: With regard to bundles of flax, the Sages should also issue a decree. The Gemara answers: There, since wind is damaging for them, he does not expose them, and he will not come to stoke the coals. The Gemara asks further: With regard to wool placed in the dyer鈥檚 kettle, the Sages should also issue a decree. Shmuel said: The mishna is referring to a pot that is removed from the fire, where there is no concern lest he stoke the coals. The Gemara still asks: Let us be concerned lest he stir that same pot, thereby accelerating the cooking, which is prohibited by Torah law. Rather, the mishna is referring to a pot that is removed from the fire and sealed with clay spread around its cover to prevent it from opening.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专 诪专 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讞转讛 讘讙讞诇讬诐 讛讗讬 拽讚专讛 讞讬讬转讗 砖专讬 诇讗谞讜讞讛 注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讬讻讛 讘转谞讜专讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讗讜专转讗 讗住讜讞讬 诪住讞 讚注转讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讜诇讗 讗转讬 诇讞转讜讬讬 讙讞诇讬诐 讜讘砖讬诇 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讘砖讬诇 讜诇讗 讘砖讬诇 讗住讬专 讜讗讬 砖讚讗 讘讬讛 讙专诪讗 讞讬讬讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

The Gemara comments: And now that the Master said that in these cases the prohibition of placing the pot on the fire is due to a decree issued by the Sages lest he stoke the coals; with regard to this pot of raw meat, it is permitted to place it in an oven on Shabbat eve at nightfall. What is the reason for this? Since it is not fit for consumption during the night, as it will not be cooked by then, he diverts his thoughts from it and will not come to stoke the coals. And the same is true of cooked meat; it is permitted to place it on the fire on Shabbat eve at nightfall. Since it is reasonably cooked, one will not come to stoke the coals to cook it more. Meat that is cooked and not sufficiently cooked is prohibited, as there is concern lest he come to stoke the coals. And if he threw a raw bone into this pot, he may well do so, as due to the bone he will not remove the meat to eat it in the evening.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专 诪专 讻诇 诪讬讚讬 讚拽砖讬 诇讬讛 讝讬拽讗 诇讗 诪讙诇讜 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 讘砖专讗 讚讙讚讬讗 讜砖专讬拽 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讚讘专讞讗 讜诇讗 砖专讬拽 讗住讜专 讚讙讚讬讗 讜诇讗 砖专讬拽 讚讘专讞讗 讜砖专讬拽 专讘 讗砖讬 砖专讬 讜专讘 讬专诪讬讛 诪讚讬驻转讬 讗住讬专 讜诇专讘 讗砖讬 讚砖专讬 (讜讛转谞讬讗) 讗讬谉 爪讜诇讬谉 讘砖专 讘爪诇 讜讘讬爪讛 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 砖讬爪讜诇讜 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讛转诐 讚讘专讞讗 讜诇讗 砖专讬拽

And now that the Master said that anything for which wind is damaging one does not expose, one could say that with regard to meat of a kid and an oven whose opening is sealed with clay, he may well place it there on Shabbat eve at nightfall. Since the meat of the kid cooks quickly and the opening of the oven is sealed, there is no concern lest he come to stoke the coals. If it is the meat of a ram [bar岣] and the opening of the oven is not sealed with clay, it is prohibited to place it there on Shabbat eve at nightfall. The above are cases where the ruling is clear. However, with regard to the case of the meat of a kid and the opening of the oven is not sealed with clay, or the case of a ram and the opening of the oven is sealed, there is a dispute. Rav Ashi permitted placing it in the oven on Shabbat eve at nightfall, and Rav Yirmeya from Difti prohibited doing so. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rav Ashi, who permitted placing it there on Shabbat eve at nightfall, wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that one may not roast meat, an onion, and an egg on Shabbat eve unless there is sufficient time for them to be roasted while it is still day? Apparently, one may not place meat that is not sufficiently roasted in an oven on Shabbat eve. The Gemara answers: There, the baraita is referring to the meat of a ram and the opening of the oven is not sealed with clay. However, in other cases it is permitted.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讚讙讚讬讗 讘讬谉 砖专讬拽 讘讬谉 诇讗 砖专讬拽 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讚讘专讞讗 谞诪讬 讜砖专讬拽 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讘专讞讗 讜诇讗 砖专讬拽 讚专讘 讗砖讬 砖专讬 讜专讘 讬专诪讬讛 诪讚驻转讬 讗住讬专 讜诇专讘 讗砖讬 讚砖专讬 (讜讛转谞讬讗) 讗讬谉 爪讜诇讬谉 讘砖专 讘爪诇 讜讘讬爪讛 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 砖讬爪讜诇讜 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讛转诐 讘讘砖专讗 讗讙讜诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛讗讬 拽专讗 讞讬讬讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚拽砖讬 诇讬讛 讝讬拽讗 讻讘砖专讗 讚讙讚讬讗 讚诪讬:

Others say that with regard to the meat of a kid, whether it is in an oven that is sealed or whether it is in one that is not sealed, everyone agrees that he may well do so. With regard to the meat of a ram, when the opening of the oven is sealed, one may well do so too. Where they disagreed was in the case of the meat of a ram and the opening of the oven was not sealed. Rav Ashi permitted placing it in the oven on Shabbat eve at nightfall, and Rav Yirmeya from Difti prohibited doing so. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rav Ashi, who permitted this, wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that one may only roast meat, an onion, and an egg on Shabbat eve if there is sufficient time for them to be roasted while it is still day? Apparently, one may not place meat that is not sufficiently roasted in an oven on Shabbat eve. The Gemara answers: There, the baraita is referring to the case of meat roasted directly on the coals. In that case, there is greater concern that he will come to stoke the coals. Ravina said: With regard to that raw gourd, one may well place it in a pot on the fire on Shabbat eve at nightfall. The reason for this is that since the wind is damaging for it, it is considered like the meat of a kid.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉: 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬诪讻讜专 讗讚诐 讞驻爪讜 诇讙讜讬 讜诇讗 讬砖讗讬诇谞讜 讜诇讗 讬诇讜谞讜 讜诇讗 讬转谉 诇讜 讘诪转谞讛 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 砖讬讙讬注 诇讘讬转讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讚讬 砖讬讙讬注 诇讘讬转 讛住诪讜讱 诇讞讜诪讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻讚讬 砖讬爪讗 诪驻转讞 讘讬转讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谉 讛谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛谉 讛谉 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讗 讘讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诇讗 诇驻专砖 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇:

The full text of the baraita is: Beit Shammai say: One may only sell an item to a gentile on Shabbat eve, and one may only load a burden onto his donkey with him, and one may only lift a burden onto him if the destination of the gentile is near enough that there remains sufficient time for the gentile to arrive at a place near there prior to Shabbat. The Sages taught in a baraita that elaborated upon this dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel with regard to selling to a gentile on Shabbat eve: Beit Shammai say: A person may not sell his object to a gentile, and lend it to him, and loan him money, and give him an object as a gift on Shabbat eve, unless there is sufficient time for him, the gentile, to reach his house while it is still day. And Beit Hillel say: He is permitted to do this if there is sufficient time for him to reach a house adjacent to the wall of the place where he is going. Rabbi Akiva says: It is permitted to give an object to a gentile on Shabbat eve if there is sufficient time for him to exit the entrance of the Jewish person鈥檚 house. What the gentile does afterward is irrelevant. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said: That is the statement of Rabbi Akiva; that is the statement of Beit Hillel. Rabbi Akiva came only to explain the statement of Beit Hillel. The tanna whose version of Beit Hillel鈥檚 statement was: Until he reaches the house adjacent to the wall, held that Beit Hillel鈥檚 opinion was similar to Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion. Rabbi Akiva came to elucidate the actual opinion of Beit Hillel.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬诪讻讜专 讗讚诐 讞诪爪讜 诇讙讜讬 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讬讜讚注 讘讜 砖讬讻诇讛 拽讜讚诐 讛驻住讞 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪讜转专 诇讗讜讻诇讜 诪讜转专 诇诪讜讻专讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专

The Sages taught a similar principle in a baraita with regard to another tannaitic dispute. Beit Shammai say: A person may not sell his leaven to a gentile on Passover eve unless he knows that the leaven will be finished before Passover. And Beit Hillel say: As long as it is permitted for the Jew to eat leaven, it is also permitted for him to sell it to a gentile. The Jew ceases to be responsible for the leaven sold to a gentile from the moment it is sold. And Rabbi Yehuda says:

Scroll To Top