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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 25, 2020 | 讻状讟 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 19

Today’s daf is sponsored by Margie Zwiebel in memory of her father Yitzchak ben Yechiel Eliezer z”l and for a refuach shleima to Yaakov Yehuda ben Chana and Esther Roisa bat Sara Mindel by Debbie and Ben Zion Niderberg and for Elimelech ben Malka by his daughter, Jeanne Klempner and for Amalia Sigal bat Faigel Rut and Chaim by Rabbi Shosh Dworsky – wishing Amalie a full and speedy recovery and refuat hanefesh to her loving family.

Does one have to sell one’s chametz with enough time for the non Jew to eat it before Pesach? Can one send letters to be delivered for a聽 non Jew if he might deliver them on Shabbat? Does it make a different if a price was agreed upon in advance? Why? Can one travel in a boat within a few days before Shabbat? Can one besiege a city? One can learn how to not get taken advantage of by store owners from the rabbis – see how through a story told of Abaye. Why do Beit Shamai allow placing the beam in the olive and wine press before Shabbat, even though they don’t allow anything else? Rav and Shmuel disagreed regarding whether certain items are muktze or not, based on an earlier debate between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda. There are also two different opinions regarding what one can do in case of a fire to save one’s items from burning – can one only carry out items in one basket or can one carry out items in multiple baskets.

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讻讜转讞 讛讘讘诇讬 讜讻诇 诪讬谞讬 讻讜转讞 讗住讜专 诇诪讻讜专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 拽讜讚诐 讛驻住讞:

With regard to Babylonian kuta岣, a spice that contains leavened bread crumbs, and all kinds of kuta岣, it is prohibited to sell it to a gentile thirty days before Passover. Because kuta岣 is used exclusively as a spice, it lasts longer than other foods.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诪讝讜谞讜转 诇驻谞讬 讛讻诇讘 讘讞爪专 谞讟诇讜 讜讬爪讗 讗讬谉 谞讝拽拽讬谉 诇讜

The Sages taught in a different baraita: One may, ab initio, put food before the dog in the courtyard on Shabbat, and we are not concerned that the dog may lift it and carry it out to the public domain. If the dog lifted it and exited the courtyard, one need not attend to him, as he is not required to ensure that the dog will eat it specifically in that courtyard.

讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 诪讝讜谞讜转 诇驻谞讬 讛讙讜讬 讘讞爪专 谞讟诇讜 讜讬爪讗 讗讬谉 谞讝拽拽讬谉 诇讜 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讗讬 专诪讬 注诇讬讛 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 专诪讬 注诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:

On a similar note, the baraita continued: One may place food before the gentile in the courtyard on Shabbat. If the gentile lifted it and exited, one need not attend to him. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this as well? This case is the same as that case. The halakhot with regard to the dog and the gentile are identical, as Shabbat prohibitions do not apply to either of them. The Gemara answers: There is a distinction. Lest you say that in this case, the case of the dog, responsibility for its food is incumbent upon the owner of the courtyard who owns the dog. And in this case, the case of the gentile, responsibility for his food is not incumbent upon the owner of the courtyard. Therefore, in a situation where there is concern that Shabbat will be desecrated, there is room to say that one may not give the gentile his food. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that in that case, it is also permitted.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讬砖讻讬专 讗讚诐 讻诇讬讜 诇讙讜讬 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讘专讘讬注讬 讜讘讞诪讬砖讬 诪讜转专 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讗讬谉 诪砖诇讞讬谉 讗讬讙专讜转 讘讬讚 讙讜讬 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讘专讘讬注讬 讜讘讞诪讬砖讬 诪讜转专 讗诪专讜 注诇讬讜 注诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讻讛谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 注诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讞住讬讚 砖诇讗 谞诪爪讗 讻转讘 讬讚讜 讘讬讚 讙讜讬 诪注讜诇诐

The Sages taught in a Tosefta: A person may not rent his utensils to a gentile on Shabbat eve, as it appears that the Jew is receiving payment for work performed on Shabbat. However, on the fourth and on the fifth days of the week it is permitted. On a similar note, one may not send letters in the hand of a gentile on Shabbat eve. However, on the fourth and on the fifth days of the week it is permitted. Nevertheless, they said about Rabbi Yosei the priest, and some say that they said this about Rabbi Yosei the 岣sid, that a document in his handwriting was never found in the hand of a gentile, so that a gentile would not carry his letter on Shabbat.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诪砖诇讞讬谉 讗讬讙专转 讘讬讚 讙讜讬 注专讘 砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 拽讜爪抓 诇讜 讚诪讬诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讚讬 砖讬讙讬注 诇讘讬转讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻讚讬 砖讬讙讬注 诇讘讬转 讛住诪讜讱 诇讞讜诪讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: One may not send a letter in the hand of a gentile on Shabbat eve unless he stipulates a set sum of money for him. In that case, anything the gentile does with this letter is not in service of the Jew, but rather on his own, since his payment is stipulated in advance. Beit Shammai say: One may only give a letter to a gentile on Shabbat eve if there is sufficient time for the gentile to reach his house before dark. And Beit Hillel say: If there is sufficient time for him to reach the house adjacent to the wall of the city to which he was sent.

讜讛诇讗 拽爪抓 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讗诐 诇讗 拽爪抓 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 砖讬讙讬注 诇讘讬转讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 砖讬讙讬注 诇讘讬转 讛住诪讜讱 诇讞讜诪讛

The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 he stipulate a set price? What difference does it make whether he reaches the city on Shabbat eve or on Shabbat? Rav Sheshet said, the baraita is saying as follows: And if he did not stipulate a set price for the task, Beit Shammai say: One may only give a letter to a gentile on Shabbat eve if there is sufficient time for the gentile to reach his house before dark. And Beit Hillel say: If there is sufficient time for him to reach the house adjacent to the wall of the city to which he was sent.

讜讛讗诪专转 专讬砖讗 讗讬谉 诪砖诇讞讬谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚拽讘讬注 讘讬 讚讜讗专 讘诪转讗 讜讛讗 讚诇讗 拽讘讬注 讘讬 讚讜讗专 讘诪转讗:

The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 you say in the first clause of the baraita, that one may not send a letter unless he stipulated a set price? Without stipulating a set price, one may not send a letter at all. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as it is possible to explain that this, where we learned that one is permitted to give a letter to a gentile on Shabbat eve even if he did not stipulate a set price, is in a case where the house of the mail carrier [bei doar] is permanently located in the city. And this, where it is permitted to give a letter to a gentile only if he stipulated a set price, is in a case where the house of the mail carrier is not permanently located in the city.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诪驻诇讬讙讬谉 讘住驻讬谞讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 拽讜讚诐 诇砖讘转 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 诇讚讘专 讛专砖讜转 讗讘诇 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讜驻讜住拽 注诪讜 注诇 诪谞转 诇砖讘讜转 讜讗讬谞讜 砖讜讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讜诪爪讜专 诇爪讬讚谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注专讘 砖讘转 诪讜转专:

The Sages taught: One may not set sail on a ship fewer than three days before Shabbat, to avoid appearances that the Jew is performing a prohibited labor on Shabbat. In what case is this statement said? In a case where he set sail for a voluntary matter; however, if he sailed for a matter involving a mitzva, he may well do so. And, even then, he must stipulate with the gentile ship captain that this is on the condition that he rests, i.e., stops the ship, and even if the gentile does not rest. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He need not stipulate. And sailing on a ship that is traveling from Tyre to Sidon, a short journey by sea, is permitted even on Shabbat eve.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 爪专讬谉 注诇 注讬讬专讜转 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 拽讜讚诐 诇砖讘转 讜讗诐 讛转讞讬诇讜 讗讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 注讚 专讚转讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转:

The Sages taught in a Tosefta: One may not lay siege to cities of gentiles fewer than three days before Shabbat, to avoid the need to desecrate Shabbat in establishing the siege. And if they already began establishing the siege fewer than three days before Shabbat, they need not stop all war-related actions even on Shabbat. And so Shammai would say: From that which is written: 鈥淎nd you should build a siege against the city that is waging war with you until it falls鈥 (Deuteronomy 20:20), it is derived that the siege should be sustained 鈥渦ntil it falls.鈥 Consequently, the siege must continue even on Shabbat.

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 讜讻讜壮: 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讻讱 讛讬讛 诪谞讛讙讜 砖诇 讘讬转 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖讛讬讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 讻诇讬 诇讘谉 诇讻讜讘住 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 拽讜讚诐 诇砖讘转 讜爪讘讜注讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讜诪讚讘专讬讛诐 诇诪讚谞讜 砖讛诇讘谞讬诐 拽砖讬诐 诇讻讘住谉 讬讜转专 诪谉 讛爪讘讜注讬谉

We learned in the mishna that 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. It was taught in the Tosefta that Rabbi Tzadok said: This was the custom of the house of Rabban Gamliel: They would give white clothes to the gentile launderer three days before Shabbat, and they would give him colored clothes even on Shabbat eve. The Gemara comments: And from their statement we learned that white garments are more difficult to launder than colored ones, as in white garments every stain is more conspicuous.

讗讘讬讬 讛讜讛 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪谞讗 讚爪讘讬注讗 诇拽爪专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诪讛 讘注讬转 注讬诇讜讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讚讞讬讜专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讘专 拽讚诪讜讱 专讘谞谉 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讬讛讬讘 诪谞讗 诇拽爪专讗 讘诪砖讞讗 谞讬转讬讘 诇讬讛 讜讘诪砖讞讗 谞砖拽讜诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讗讬 讟驻讬 讗驻住讚讬讛 讚诪转讞讬讛 讜讗讬 讘爪讬专 讗驻住讚讬讛 讚讻讜讜爪讬讛:

On a related note, the Gemara relates that Abaye gave this dyed garment to the launderer. Abaye said to the launderer: How much do you want as payment to wash it? The launderer said to Abaye: Same as for a white garment. Abaye said to him: You cannot deceive me in this matter, as the Sages already preceded you, as it was taught in the baraita which garment is more difficult to wash. On this topic, Abaye said: One who gives clothing to the launderer, he should give it to him by measure and he should take it back from him by measure. In that way, if it is longer, it is an indication that the launderer caused him a loss because he stretched the garment. And if it is shorter, he certainly caused him a loss because he shrunk it.

讜砖讜讬谉 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 砖讟讜注谞讬谉 讻讜壮: 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讻讜诇讛讜 讚讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 拽讜专讜转 讘讬转 讛讘讚 讜注讬讙讜诇讬 讛讙转 讚诇讗 讙讝专讜 讛谞讱 讚讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 讘砖讘转 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讻讛 拽讜专讜转 讘讬转 讛讘讚 讜注讬讙讜诇讬 讛讙转 讚讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 讘砖讘转 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 诇讗 讙讝专讜

We learned in the mishna that these, Beit Shammai, and those, Beit Hillel, agree that one may load the beam of the olive press and the circular wine press. The Gemara asks: What is different about all of the cases in the mishna, where Beit Shammai issued a decree prohibiting them, and what is different about the beams of the olive press and the circular wine press that Beit Shammai did not issue a decree prohibiting them? The Gemara answers: Those cases, where if he performed them on Shabbat he is rendered liable to bring a sin-offering, Beit Shammai issued a decree prohibiting them on Shabbat eve at nightfall. However, in the cases of the beams of the olive press and the circular wine press, where even if he performed them on Shabbat he is not rendered liable to bring a sin-offering, Beit Shammai did not issue a decree.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚讻诇 诪讬讚讬 讚讗转讬 诪诪讬诇讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 (讘专) 讞谞讬谞讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛砖讜诐 讜讛讘讜住专 讜讛诪诇讬诇讜转 砖专住拽谉 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讬讙诪讜专 诪砖转讞砖讱 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds that anything that comes on its own, and not as the result of an action, it may well be done on Shabbat? Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to the garlic and the unripe grapes, and the stalks of wheat that he crushed while it was still day, Rabbi Yishmael says: He may continue tending to them and finish after it gets dark, as after the crushing is completed these items are placed beneath a weight, so that the liquids will continue to seep out. And Rabbi Akiva says:

诇讗 讬讙诪讜专 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讞诇讜转 讚讘砖 砖专讬住拽谉 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讜讬爪讗讜 诪注爪诪谉 讗住讜专 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪转讬专

He may not finish. And the amora Rabbi Elazar said: Our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar the tanna. As we learned in a mishna: With regard to honeycombs that he crushed on Shabbat eve and the honey came out on its own on Shabbat day, it is prohibited to eat the honey, like anything that was prepared on Shabbat. And Rabbi Elazar permits eating it on Shabbat.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 诇讱 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讗讜讻诇 讜诇讘住讜祝 讗讜讻诇 讛讻讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讛砖转讗 诪砖拽讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 诇讱 讛讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 谞诪讬 砖专讬 讚讛讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讗转讗 讜讗讬讬转讬 诪转谞讬转讗 讘讬讚讬讛 讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 砖专讬住拽谉 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讜讬爪讗讜 诪注爪诪谉 讗住讜专讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专讬讬转讗 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina, what is the reason he did not say in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Elazar? Apparently, Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 explanation in the mishna is more accurate. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei could have said to you that there, in the case of the honeycombs, it is food from the beginning and it is food at the end, as honey is considered food. Therefore, there was no squeezing of liquid from food at all. However, here, in all of the cases in the mishna, from the beginning they were food and now they became liquid, and that is the definition of squeezing. And Rabbi Elazar could have said to you in response to this assertion: We heard that Rabbi Elazar permitted olives and grapes as well. As when Rav Hoshaya from Neharde鈥檃 came, he came and brought a baraita with him, in which it was taught: Olives and grapes that he crushed from Shabbat eve and the liquids seeped out on their own, the liquids are prohibited. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon permit those liquids. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi 岣nina did not know this baraita.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讱 诇讗讜 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘诪讞讜住专讬谉 讚讬讻讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪讞讜住专讬谉 砖讞讬拽讛 讜讛谞讬 谞诪讬 讻诪讞讜住专讬谉 讚讬讻讛 讚诪讜 讛讜专讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

On the other hand, the Gemara asks: And Rabbi Elazar, what is the reason he did not say in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina, that our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar could have said to you: Wasn鈥檛 it stated that Rava bar 岣nina said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Here it is referring to items that lack grinding, i.e., when the garlic and the unripe grapes were not ground in a pestle at all, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to place them in a manner that causes their liquids to come out on their own on Shabbat. The case where they disagreed was where they were already completely ground, but they were still lacking additional pounding; and these cases in our mishna are also considered as if they were lacking grinding. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina issued a practical ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, and permitted a person to finish tending to them even after dark.

砖诪谉 砖诇 讘讚讚讬谉 讜诪讞爪诇讜转 砖诇 讘讚讚讬谉 专讘 讗住专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 砖专讬 讛谞讬 讻专讻讬 讚讝讜讝讬 专讘 讗住专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 砖专讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 注讝 诇讞诇讘讛 讜专讞诇 诇讙讬讝转讛 讜转专谞讙讜诇转 诇讘讬爪转讛 讜转讜专讬 讚专讬讚讬讗 讜转诪专讬 讚注讬住拽讗 专讘 讗住专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪讜转专 讜拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Since the Gemara raised issues related to the olive press, it cites other connected matters: Oil of olive pressers and mats of olive pressers, which they use in their work, Rav prohibited moving them on Shabbat since they are set aside for a specific purpose, and it is prohibited to move an item set aside and designated for a defined purpose on Shabbat. And Shmuel permitted doing so, as according to Shmuel, the legal status of set-aside [muktze] does not apply in most cases. Along the same lines, they disagreed with regard to those mats used to cover merchandise transported on a ship. Rav prohibited using them because they are set aside and Shmuel permitted using them. Similarly, Rav Na岣an said: A goat raised for its milk, and a ewe that is raised for shearing its wool, and a chicken raised for its egg, and oxen used for plowing, all of which are designated for purposes other than eating, as well as dates used for commerce; in all of these Rav prohibited using them for food, or slaughtering them even on a Festival due to the prohibition of set-aside. The reason for this is that during the day, before Shabbat, he had no intention of eating them, as he set them aside for a different purpose. And Shmuel said: They are permitted, as in his opinion there is no prohibition of set-aside. The Gemara comments that they disagree in the dispute of the tanna鈥檌m Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon with regard to the issue of muktze.

讛讛讜讗 转诇诪讬讚讗 讚讗讜专讬 讘讞专转讗 讚讗专讙讬讝 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖诪转讬讛 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讜讛讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇谉 讘讗转专讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜讛 诇讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬注讘讚 讛讻讬 讛谞讬 转专讬 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讚 诪爪讬诇 讘讞讚 诪谞讗 讜讞讚 诪爪讬诇 讘讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 诪讗谞讬 讜拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讛 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗:

The Gemara relates: There was this student who issued a ruling in the city of 岣rta De鈥檃rgiz that items that are set aside are permitted, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and Rav Hamnuna excommunicated him. The Gemara asks: Don鈥檛 we hold that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? Why, then, did Rav Hamnuna excommunicate him? The Gemara answers: This incident was in the place of Rav and the student should not have done this; even if the accepted ruling is lenient, the city was under Rav鈥檚 jurisdiction, and the student鈥檚 public ruling, contrary to Rav鈥檚 opinion, was a blatant display of disrespect. Incidentally, the Gemara relates a story involving these two students: One would rescue from a fire with one vessel and one would rescue with four and five vessels, as it is permitted to rescue one鈥檚 belongings from a fire on Shabbat. They disagreed with regard to whether it is preferable to carry just one vessel and go back and forth several times, or to carry several vessels and go back and forth fewer times. And they disagree with regard to the same issue that was the subject of the dispute of Rabba bar Zavda and Rav Huna elsewhere.

诪转谞讬壮 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 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 驻转 诇转谞讜专 注诐 讞砖讻讛 讜诇讗 讞专专讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讙讞诇讬诐 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 砖讬拽专诪讜 驻谞讬讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻讚讬 砖讬拽专讜诐 讛转讞转讜谉 砖诇讛 诪砖诇砖诇讬谉 讗转 讛驻住讞 讘转谞讜专 注诐 讞砖讻讛 讜诪讗讞讬讝讬谉 讗转 讛讗讜专 讘诪讚讜专转 讘讬转 讛诪讜拽讚

MISHNA: This mishna enumerates actions that may only be performed on Shabbat eve if the prohibited labor will be totally or mostly completed while it is still day. One may only roast meat, an onion, or an egg if there remains sufficient time so that they could be roasted while it is still day. One may only place dough to bake into bread in the oven on Shabbat eve at nightfall, and may only place a cake on the coals, if there is time enough that the surface of this cake or bread will form a crust while it is still day. Rabbi Eliezer says: Enough time so that its bottom crust should harden, which takes less time. However, in a case that is an exception, one may, ab initio, lower the Paschal lamb into the oven on Shabbat eve at nightfall, so that its roasting is completed on Shabbat if Passover eve coincides with Shabbat eve. And one may, ab initio, kindle the fire in the bonfire of the Chamber of the Hearth in the Temple on Shabbat eve, adjacent to the start of Shabbat, and allow the fire to spread afterward throughout all the wood in the bonfire.

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

talking talmud_square

Shabbat 19: Your Dog Can Break Shabbos

All kinds of things come together: Jew/non-Jew interaction, Pesach, selling chametz... Kutach. Shabbat responsibility (when those who are not obligated...
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 19

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 19

讻讜转讞 讛讘讘诇讬 讜讻诇 诪讬谞讬 讻讜转讞 讗住讜专 诇诪讻讜专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 拽讜讚诐 讛驻住讞:

With regard to Babylonian kuta岣, a spice that contains leavened bread crumbs, and all kinds of kuta岣, it is prohibited to sell it to a gentile thirty days before Passover. Because kuta岣 is used exclusively as a spice, it lasts longer than other foods.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诪讝讜谞讜转 诇驻谞讬 讛讻诇讘 讘讞爪专 谞讟诇讜 讜讬爪讗 讗讬谉 谞讝拽拽讬谉 诇讜

The Sages taught in a different baraita: One may, ab initio, put food before the dog in the courtyard on Shabbat, and we are not concerned that the dog may lift it and carry it out to the public domain. If the dog lifted it and exited the courtyard, one need not attend to him, as he is not required to ensure that the dog will eat it specifically in that courtyard.

讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 诪讝讜谞讜转 诇驻谞讬 讛讙讜讬 讘讞爪专 谞讟诇讜 讜讬爪讗 讗讬谉 谞讝拽拽讬谉 诇讜 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讗讬 专诪讬 注诇讬讛 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 专诪讬 注诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:

On a similar note, the baraita continued: One may place food before the gentile in the courtyard on Shabbat. If the gentile lifted it and exited, one need not attend to him. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this as well? This case is the same as that case. The halakhot with regard to the dog and the gentile are identical, as Shabbat prohibitions do not apply to either of them. The Gemara answers: There is a distinction. Lest you say that in this case, the case of the dog, responsibility for its food is incumbent upon the owner of the courtyard who owns the dog. And in this case, the case of the gentile, responsibility for his food is not incumbent upon the owner of the courtyard. Therefore, in a situation where there is concern that Shabbat will be desecrated, there is room to say that one may not give the gentile his food. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that in that case, it is also permitted.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讬砖讻讬专 讗讚诐 讻诇讬讜 诇讙讜讬 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讘专讘讬注讬 讜讘讞诪讬砖讬 诪讜转专 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讗讬谉 诪砖诇讞讬谉 讗讬讙专讜转 讘讬讚 讙讜讬 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讘专讘讬注讬 讜讘讞诪讬砖讬 诪讜转专 讗诪专讜 注诇讬讜 注诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讻讛谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 注诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讞住讬讚 砖诇讗 谞诪爪讗 讻转讘 讬讚讜 讘讬讚 讙讜讬 诪注讜诇诐

The Sages taught in a Tosefta: A person may not rent his utensils to a gentile on Shabbat eve, as it appears that the Jew is receiving payment for work performed on Shabbat. However, on the fourth and on the fifth days of the week it is permitted. On a similar note, one may not send letters in the hand of a gentile on Shabbat eve. However, on the fourth and on the fifth days of the week it is permitted. Nevertheless, they said about Rabbi Yosei the priest, and some say that they said this about Rabbi Yosei the 岣sid, that a document in his handwriting was never found in the hand of a gentile, so that a gentile would not carry his letter on Shabbat.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诪砖诇讞讬谉 讗讬讙专转 讘讬讚 讙讜讬 注专讘 砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 拽讜爪抓 诇讜 讚诪讬诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讚讬 砖讬讙讬注 诇讘讬转讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻讚讬 砖讬讙讬注 诇讘讬转 讛住诪讜讱 诇讞讜诪讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: One may not send a letter in the hand of a gentile on Shabbat eve unless he stipulates a set sum of money for him. In that case, anything the gentile does with this letter is not in service of the Jew, but rather on his own, since his payment is stipulated in advance. Beit Shammai say: One may only give a letter to a gentile on Shabbat eve if there is sufficient time for the gentile to reach his house before dark. And Beit Hillel say: If there is sufficient time for him to reach the house adjacent to the wall of the city to which he was sent.

讜讛诇讗 拽爪抓 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讗诐 诇讗 拽爪抓 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 砖讬讙讬注 诇讘讬转讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 砖讬讙讬注 诇讘讬转 讛住诪讜讱 诇讞讜诪讛

The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 he stipulate a set price? What difference does it make whether he reaches the city on Shabbat eve or on Shabbat? Rav Sheshet said, the baraita is saying as follows: And if he did not stipulate a set price for the task, Beit Shammai say: One may only give a letter to a gentile on Shabbat eve if there is sufficient time for the gentile to reach his house before dark. And Beit Hillel say: If there is sufficient time for him to reach the house adjacent to the wall of the city to which he was sent.

讜讛讗诪专转 专讬砖讗 讗讬谉 诪砖诇讞讬谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚拽讘讬注 讘讬 讚讜讗专 讘诪转讗 讜讛讗 讚诇讗 拽讘讬注 讘讬 讚讜讗专 讘诪转讗:

The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 you say in the first clause of the baraita, that one may not send a letter unless he stipulated a set price? Without stipulating a set price, one may not send a letter at all. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as it is possible to explain that this, where we learned that one is permitted to give a letter to a gentile on Shabbat eve even if he did not stipulate a set price, is in a case where the house of the mail carrier [bei doar] is permanently located in the city. And this, where it is permitted to give a letter to a gentile only if he stipulated a set price, is in a case where the house of the mail carrier is not permanently located in the city.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诪驻诇讬讙讬谉 讘住驻讬谞讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 拽讜讚诐 诇砖讘转 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 诇讚讘专 讛专砖讜转 讗讘诇 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讜驻讜住拽 注诪讜 注诇 诪谞转 诇砖讘讜转 讜讗讬谞讜 砖讜讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讜诪爪讜专 诇爪讬讚谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注专讘 砖讘转 诪讜转专:

The Sages taught: One may not set sail on a ship fewer than three days before Shabbat, to avoid appearances that the Jew is performing a prohibited labor on Shabbat. In what case is this statement said? In a case where he set sail for a voluntary matter; however, if he sailed for a matter involving a mitzva, he may well do so. And, even then, he must stipulate with the gentile ship captain that this is on the condition that he rests, i.e., stops the ship, and even if the gentile does not rest. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He need not stipulate. And sailing on a ship that is traveling from Tyre to Sidon, a short journey by sea, is permitted even on Shabbat eve.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 爪专讬谉 注诇 注讬讬专讜转 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 拽讜讚诐 诇砖讘转 讜讗诐 讛转讞讬诇讜 讗讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 注讚 专讚转讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转:

The Sages taught in a Tosefta: One may not lay siege to cities of gentiles fewer than three days before Shabbat, to avoid the need to desecrate Shabbat in establishing the siege. And if they already began establishing the siege fewer than three days before Shabbat, they need not stop all war-related actions even on Shabbat. And so Shammai would say: From that which is written: 鈥淎nd you should build a siege against the city that is waging war with you until it falls鈥 (Deuteronomy 20:20), it is derived that the siege should be sustained 鈥渦ntil it falls.鈥 Consequently, the siege must continue even on Shabbat.

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 讜讻讜壮: 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讻讱 讛讬讛 诪谞讛讙讜 砖诇 讘讬转 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖讛讬讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 讻诇讬 诇讘谉 诇讻讜讘住 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 拽讜讚诐 诇砖讘转 讜爪讘讜注讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讜诪讚讘专讬讛诐 诇诪讚谞讜 砖讛诇讘谞讬诐 拽砖讬诐 诇讻讘住谉 讬讜转专 诪谉 讛爪讘讜注讬谉

We learned in the mishna that 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. It was taught in the Tosefta that Rabbi Tzadok said: This was the custom of the house of Rabban Gamliel: They would give white clothes to the gentile launderer three days before Shabbat, and they would give him colored clothes even on Shabbat eve. The Gemara comments: And from their statement we learned that white garments are more difficult to launder than colored ones, as in white garments every stain is more conspicuous.

讗讘讬讬 讛讜讛 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪谞讗 讚爪讘讬注讗 诇拽爪专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诪讛 讘注讬转 注讬诇讜讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讚讞讬讜专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讘专 拽讚诪讜讱 专讘谞谉 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讬讛讬讘 诪谞讗 诇拽爪专讗 讘诪砖讞讗 谞讬转讬讘 诇讬讛 讜讘诪砖讞讗 谞砖拽讜诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讗讬 讟驻讬 讗驻住讚讬讛 讚诪转讞讬讛 讜讗讬 讘爪讬专 讗驻住讚讬讛 讚讻讜讜爪讬讛:

On a related note, the Gemara relates that Abaye gave this dyed garment to the launderer. Abaye said to the launderer: How much do you want as payment to wash it? The launderer said to Abaye: Same as for a white garment. Abaye said to him: You cannot deceive me in this matter, as the Sages already preceded you, as it was taught in the baraita which garment is more difficult to wash. On this topic, Abaye said: One who gives clothing to the launderer, he should give it to him by measure and he should take it back from him by measure. In that way, if it is longer, it is an indication that the launderer caused him a loss because he stretched the garment. And if it is shorter, he certainly caused him a loss because he shrunk it.

讜砖讜讬谉 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 砖讟讜注谞讬谉 讻讜壮: 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讻讜诇讛讜 讚讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 拽讜专讜转 讘讬转 讛讘讚 讜注讬讙讜诇讬 讛讙转 讚诇讗 讙讝专讜 讛谞讱 讚讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 讘砖讘转 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讻讛 拽讜专讜转 讘讬转 讛讘讚 讜注讬讙讜诇讬 讛讙转 讚讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 讘砖讘转 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 诇讗 讙讝专讜

We learned in the mishna that these, Beit Shammai, and those, Beit Hillel, agree that one may load the beam of the olive press and the circular wine press. The Gemara asks: What is different about all of the cases in the mishna, where Beit Shammai issued a decree prohibiting them, and what is different about the beams of the olive press and the circular wine press that Beit Shammai did not issue a decree prohibiting them? The Gemara answers: Those cases, where if he performed them on Shabbat he is rendered liable to bring a sin-offering, Beit Shammai issued a decree prohibiting them on Shabbat eve at nightfall. However, in the cases of the beams of the olive press and the circular wine press, where even if he performed them on Shabbat he is not rendered liable to bring a sin-offering, Beit Shammai did not issue a decree.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚讻诇 诪讬讚讬 讚讗转讬 诪诪讬诇讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 (讘专) 讞谞讬谞讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛砖讜诐 讜讛讘讜住专 讜讛诪诇讬诇讜转 砖专住拽谉 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讬讙诪讜专 诪砖转讞砖讱 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds that anything that comes on its own, and not as the result of an action, it may well be done on Shabbat? Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to the garlic and the unripe grapes, and the stalks of wheat that he crushed while it was still day, Rabbi Yishmael says: He may continue tending to them and finish after it gets dark, as after the crushing is completed these items are placed beneath a weight, so that the liquids will continue to seep out. And Rabbi Akiva says:

诇讗 讬讙诪讜专 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讞诇讜转 讚讘砖 砖专讬住拽谉 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讜讬爪讗讜 诪注爪诪谉 讗住讜专 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪转讬专

He may not finish. And the amora Rabbi Elazar said: Our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar the tanna. As we learned in a mishna: With regard to honeycombs that he crushed on Shabbat eve and the honey came out on its own on Shabbat day, it is prohibited to eat the honey, like anything that was prepared on Shabbat. And Rabbi Elazar permits eating it on Shabbat.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 诇讱 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讗讜讻诇 讜诇讘住讜祝 讗讜讻诇 讛讻讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讛砖转讗 诪砖拽讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 诇讱 讛讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 谞诪讬 砖专讬 讚讛讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讗转讗 讜讗讬讬转讬 诪转谞讬转讗 讘讬讚讬讛 讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 砖专讬住拽谉 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讜讬爪讗讜 诪注爪诪谉 讗住讜专讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专讬讬转讗 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina, what is the reason he did not say in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Elazar? Apparently, Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 explanation in the mishna is more accurate. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei could have said to you that there, in the case of the honeycombs, it is food from the beginning and it is food at the end, as honey is considered food. Therefore, there was no squeezing of liquid from food at all. However, here, in all of the cases in the mishna, from the beginning they were food and now they became liquid, and that is the definition of squeezing. And Rabbi Elazar could have said to you in response to this assertion: We heard that Rabbi Elazar permitted olives and grapes as well. As when Rav Hoshaya from Neharde鈥檃 came, he came and brought a baraita with him, in which it was taught: Olives and grapes that he crushed from Shabbat eve and the liquids seeped out on their own, the liquids are prohibited. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon permit those liquids. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi 岣nina did not know this baraita.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讱 诇讗讜 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘诪讞讜住专讬谉 讚讬讻讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪讞讜住专讬谉 砖讞讬拽讛 讜讛谞讬 谞诪讬 讻诪讞讜住专讬谉 讚讬讻讛 讚诪讜 讛讜专讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

On the other hand, the Gemara asks: And Rabbi Elazar, what is the reason he did not say in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina, that our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar could have said to you: Wasn鈥檛 it stated that Rava bar 岣nina said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Here it is referring to items that lack grinding, i.e., when the garlic and the unripe grapes were not ground in a pestle at all, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to place them in a manner that causes their liquids to come out on their own on Shabbat. The case where they disagreed was where they were already completely ground, but they were still lacking additional pounding; and these cases in our mishna are also considered as if they were lacking grinding. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina issued a practical ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, and permitted a person to finish tending to them even after dark.

砖诪谉 砖诇 讘讚讚讬谉 讜诪讞爪诇讜转 砖诇 讘讚讚讬谉 专讘 讗住专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 砖专讬 讛谞讬 讻专讻讬 讚讝讜讝讬 专讘 讗住专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 砖专讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 注讝 诇讞诇讘讛 讜专讞诇 诇讙讬讝转讛 讜转专谞讙讜诇转 诇讘讬爪转讛 讜转讜专讬 讚专讬讚讬讗 讜转诪专讬 讚注讬住拽讗 专讘 讗住专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪讜转专 讜拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Since the Gemara raised issues related to the olive press, it cites other connected matters: Oil of olive pressers and mats of olive pressers, which they use in their work, Rav prohibited moving them on Shabbat since they are set aside for a specific purpose, and it is prohibited to move an item set aside and designated for a defined purpose on Shabbat. And Shmuel permitted doing so, as according to Shmuel, the legal status of set-aside [muktze] does not apply in most cases. Along the same lines, they disagreed with regard to those mats used to cover merchandise transported on a ship. Rav prohibited using them because they are set aside and Shmuel permitted using them. Similarly, Rav Na岣an said: A goat raised for its milk, and a ewe that is raised for shearing its wool, and a chicken raised for its egg, and oxen used for plowing, all of which are designated for purposes other than eating, as well as dates used for commerce; in all of these Rav prohibited using them for food, or slaughtering them even on a Festival due to the prohibition of set-aside. The reason for this is that during the day, before Shabbat, he had no intention of eating them, as he set them aside for a different purpose. And Shmuel said: They are permitted, as in his opinion there is no prohibition of set-aside. The Gemara comments that they disagree in the dispute of the tanna鈥檌m Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon with regard to the issue of muktze.

讛讛讜讗 转诇诪讬讚讗 讚讗讜专讬 讘讞专转讗 讚讗专讙讬讝 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖诪转讬讛 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讜讛讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇谉 讘讗转专讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜讛 诇讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬注讘讚 讛讻讬 讛谞讬 转专讬 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讚 诪爪讬诇 讘讞讚 诪谞讗 讜讞讚 诪爪讬诇 讘讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 诪讗谞讬 讜拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讛 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗:

The Gemara relates: There was this student who issued a ruling in the city of 岣rta De鈥檃rgiz that items that are set aside are permitted, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and Rav Hamnuna excommunicated him. The Gemara asks: Don鈥檛 we hold that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? Why, then, did Rav Hamnuna excommunicate him? The Gemara answers: This incident was in the place of Rav and the student should not have done this; even if the accepted ruling is lenient, the city was under Rav鈥檚 jurisdiction, and the student鈥檚 public ruling, contrary to Rav鈥檚 opinion, was a blatant display of disrespect. Incidentally, the Gemara relates a story involving these two students: One would rescue from a fire with one vessel and one would rescue with four and five vessels, as it is permitted to rescue one鈥檚 belongings from a fire on Shabbat. They disagreed with regard to whether it is preferable to carry just one vessel and go back and forth several times, or to carry several vessels and go back and forth fewer times. And they disagree with regard to the same issue that was the subject of the dispute of Rabba bar Zavda and Rav Huna elsewhere.

诪转谞讬壮 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 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 驻转 诇转谞讜专 注诐 讞砖讻讛 讜诇讗 讞专专讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讙讞诇讬诐 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 砖讬拽专诪讜 驻谞讬讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻讚讬 砖讬拽专讜诐 讛转讞转讜谉 砖诇讛 诪砖诇砖诇讬谉 讗转 讛驻住讞 讘转谞讜专 注诐 讞砖讻讛 讜诪讗讞讬讝讬谉 讗转 讛讗讜专 讘诪讚讜专转 讘讬转 讛诪讜拽讚

MISHNA: This mishna enumerates actions that may only be performed on Shabbat eve if the prohibited labor will be totally or mostly completed while it is still day. One may only roast meat, an onion, or an egg if there remains sufficient time so that they could be roasted while it is still day. One may only place dough to bake into bread in the oven on Shabbat eve at nightfall, and may only place a cake on the coals, if there is time enough that the surface of this cake or bread will form a crust while it is still day. Rabbi Eliezer says: Enough time so that its bottom crust should harden, which takes less time. However, in a case that is an exception, one may, ab initio, lower the Paschal lamb into the oven on Shabbat eve at nightfall, so that its roasting is completed on Shabbat if Passover eve coincides with Shabbat eve. And one may, ab initio, kindle the fire in the bonfire of the Chamber of the Hearth in the Temple on Shabbat eve, adjacent to the start of Shabbat, and allow the fire to spread afterward throughout all the wood in the bonfire.

Scroll To Top