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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 31, 2020 | 讜壮 讘谞讬住谉 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 the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Shabbat 25

Today’s daf is dedicated l’ilui nishmat Moshe ben Betzalel and Sprintze Pessel z”l by his daughter Rachel Levy and by Matt Nelson in honor of Liz Kershner’s birthday. Happy birthday!

From where in the Torah do we learn that one can benefit from teruma that became impure while one is burning it? Three answers are brought. One is derived from ma’aser – one can’t benefit from burning impure ma’aser but it is implied that in another case one would be allowed to. This case is attributed to teruma. However, the gemara questions – why teruma and not sanctified items? Why can’t one light using tar? One is concerned since it smells bad, one won’t eat by light of the candles – why is this a problem? Shabbat candles are an obligation so that there will be light in the house on Shabbat. Washing one’s body before Shabbat is optional. A verse from Eicha is brought regarding a lamentation for the good things that they are missing when they went into exile. The beginning of the verse is explained as a reference to lighting Shabbat candles. For the end of the verse several explanations are brought regarding what is a sign of prosperity that they were missing and then the gemara brings a braita with four tannaitic opinions about “Who is considered wealthy?” An opinion is brought that one cannot light with sap from a balsam tree. Two reasons for this are brought.

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

注砖讛 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讜讗讬谉 注砖讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜注砖讛

The latter term is a positive mitzva to rest. And, if so, observance of a Festival is a mitzva that was commanded with both a positive mitzva to rest and a prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall do no manner of servile work鈥 (Leviticus 23:8). And there is a principle that a positive mitzva, e.g., burning consecrated items whose time has expired, does not override a mitzva that was commanded with both a prohibition and a positive mitzva, e.g., observance of the Festival.

讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讜讗 讚讗住讬专 讛讗 讘讞讜诇 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻砖诐 砖诪爪讜讛 诇砖专讜祝 讛拽讚砖讬诐 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讻讱 诪爪讜讛 诇砖专讜祝 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 砖谞讟诪讗转 讜讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讘砖注转 讘讬注讜专讛 转讬讛谞讬 诪诪谞讛 讛讬讻谉 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诪讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗谞讬 讛谞讛 谞转转讬 诇讱 讗转 诪砖诪专转 转专讜诪讜转讬 讘砖转讬 转专讜诪讜转 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讞转 转专讜诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜讗讞转 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讱 砖诇讱 转讛讗 诇讛住讬拽讛 转讞转 转讘砖讬诇讱

By inference, the conclusion is that, specifically on a Festival, lighting with burnt oil is prohibited. During the week one may well do so. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this distinction? It would be reasonable to say that it is prohibited to derive any benefit from teruma that became ritually impure. Rav said: Just as there is a mitzva to burn consecrated items that became ritually impure, so too, there is a mitzva to burn teruma that became ritually impure, and the Torah said: While it is being destroyed, derive benefit from it. The Gemara asks: Where did the Torah say this? Where is there an allusion to this in the Bible? The Gemara answers: It can be derived from the statement of Rav Na岣an, as Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: The verse said: 鈥淎nd I, behold, I have given you the charge of My terumot (Numbers 18:8). From the amplification of the plural: My terumot, it is derived that the verse is speaking of two terumot, one teruma that is ritually pure and one teruma that is ritually impure. And God said: 鈥I have given you,鈥 i.e., it shall be yours, and you may derive benefit from it. Since there is a stringent prohibition against eating it, the benefit permitted is to burn it beneath your cooked dish. Similar forms of benefit may also be derived from burning teruma.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诇讗 讘注专转讬 诪诪谞讜 讘讟诪讗 诪诪谞讜 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讘注讬专 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诪讘注讬专 砖诪谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞讟诪讗转 讜讗讬诪讗 诪诪谞讜 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讘注讬专 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诪讘注讬专 砖诪谉 砖诇 拽讚砖 砖谞讟诪讗

And if you wish, say instead an alternative manner to derive this halakha, from the statement of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is written in the confession of the tithes: I have not eaten thereof in my mourning, neither have I destroyed from it while impure鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:14). By inference: From it you may not destroy, but you may destroy the oil of teruma that has become ritually impure. The Gemara asks: And say differently: From it you may not destroy, but you may destroy and derive benefit from burning consecrated oil that became ritually impure.

诇讗讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 诪讛 诪注砖专 讛拽诇 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诇讗 讘注专转讬 诪诪谞讜 讘讟诪讗 拽讚砖 讞诪讜专 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The Gemara responds: That possibility is unacceptable. Is it not an a fortiori inference? If with regard to the tithe which is lenient, the Torah said: Neither have I destroyed from it, while impure, items consecrated to the Temple, which are more stringent, all the more so that it is prohibited to burn it while ritually impure.

讗讬 讛讻讬 转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 诇讬诪讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讛讗 讻转讬讘 诪诪谞讜

The Gemara rejects this: If so, that this matter is derived through an a fortiori inference, then, with regard to teruma as well, let us say that it is an a fortiori inference, as teruma is more stringent than tithes. If it is prohibited to benefit from tithes while they are burning, all the more so would one be prohibited to benefit from the teruma while it is burning. The Gemara answers: Doesn鈥檛 it say: From it? From there it is derived that there is an item excluded from the prohibition of burning in ritual impurity.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诪住转讘专讗 拽讚砖 诇讗 诪诪注讬讟谞讗 砖讻谉 住讬诪谉 驻谞拽 注讻住 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 拽专讘谉 诪注讬诇讛 讜讻专转 讗住讜专 诇讗讜谞谉

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to conclude that 鈥渇rom it鈥 comes to exclude teruma? Perhaps 鈥渇rom it鈥 comes to exclude consecrated items. The Gemara replies: It is reasonable that I do not exclude consecrated items from the prohibition against benefiting from its burning, as with regard to consecrated items there are many stringent elements. Their Hebrew acronym is peh, nun, kuf, ayin, kaf, samekh, which is a mnemonic for the following terms. Piggul: With regard to an offering, if, during one of the services involved in its sacrifice, i.e., slaughter, receiving the blood, bringing it to the altar, sprinkling it on the altar, the priest or the one bringing the offering entertains the thought of eating the sacrifice at a time that is unfit for eating, it is thereby invalidated. Notar: Meat of a sacrifice that remained beyond its allotted time may not be eaten and must be burned. Korban meila: One who unwittingly derives benefit from consecrated items is required to bring a guilt-offering for misuse of consecrated items. Karet: The punishment of one who eats consecrated items while ritually impure is karet. Asur leonen: An acute mourner, i.e., one whose relative died that same day and has not yet been buried, is prohibited to eat consecrated items. None of these halakhot applies to teruma. Therefore, consecrated items are more stringent than teruma, and therefore it is consecrated items that are not excluded from the prohibition against deriving benefit while ritually impure.

讗讚专讘讛 转专讜诪讛 诇讗 诪诪注讬讟谞讗 砖讻谉 诪讞驻讝 住讬诪谉 诪讬转讛 讞讜诪砖

The Gemara rejects this: On the contrary, it is teruma that I would not exclude from the prohibition, as, with regard to teruma, there are many stringent elements represented by the acronym mem, 岣t, peh, zayin, which is a mnemonic for the following: Mita: One for whom teruma is prohibited who ate it intentionally is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven. 岣mesh: A non-priest, for whom teruma is prohibited, who unwittingly ate teruma is obligated to pay its value to the priest plus one-fifth of the sum.

讜讗讬谉 诇讛 驻讚讬讜谉 讜讗住讜专讛 诇讝专讬诐 讛谞讱 谞驻讬砖谉

And, teruma does not have the possibility of pidyon: redemption, as, once it is sanctified, it may not be redeemed and rendered non-sacred. And it is prohibited to zarim: non-priests may not eat it. These stringencies do not apply to consecrated items. The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, those stringencies that apply to consecrated items are more numerous than those that apply to teruma. Therefore, it is appropriate to be more stringent with consecrated items and exclude impure teruma from the prohibition against deriving benefit when burning it.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽讚砖 讞诪讜专 砖讻谉 注谞讜砖 讻专转 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 转转谉 诇讜 诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讗讜专讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讘转 讗讜专讜 讛讜讗:

And if you wish, say instead a different reason, without counting the number of stringencies: Consecrated items are more stringent because one who eats them while ritually impure is punishable by karet, while in the case of teruma the punishment is death at the hand of Heaven. In this regard, the Torah is more stringent vis-脿-vis consecrated items than it is vis-脿-vis teruma. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that there is a different proof that one is permitted to benefit from teruma while it is burning. As the verse said: 鈥淭he first fruits of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the first of the fleece of your sheep shall you give him鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4). The Sages derived from this verse: Give the priest teruma that is ritually pure, that is fit for him to consume, and do not give the priest teruma that is suitable only for his fire, to be burned. By inference, ritually impure teruma is suitable for his fire, i.e., a priest may derive benefit from it.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻讜壮: 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转讜讱 砖专讬讞讜 专注 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬谞讬讞谞讛 讜讬爪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讬爪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讛讚诇拽转 谞专 讘砖讘转 讞讜讘讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 专讘 讝讘讚讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讚诇拽转 谞专 讘砖讘转 讞讜讘讛 专讞讬爪转 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 讘讞诪讬谉 注专讘讬转 专砖讜转 讜讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 诪爪讜讛

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yishmael says that kindling a lamp on Shabbat with tar is prohibited. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rava said: Because its odor is bad the Sages issued a decree prohibiting the use of tar, lest one forsake the light and leave. Abaye said to him: And let him leave. What obligation is there to sit next to the light? Rava said to him: Because I say that kindling Shabbat lights is an obligation, and one is required to eat specifically by that light in deference to Shabbat. As Rav Na岣an bar Rav Zavda said, and others say that it was Rav Na岣an bar Rava who said that Rav said: Kindling the Shabbat lamps is an obligation, whereas washing one鈥檚 hands and feet with hot water in the evening prior to Shabbat is merely optional. And I say: Washing is not merely optional; it is a mitzva even though it is not an obligation.

诪讗讬 诪爪讜讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻讱 讛讬讛 诪谞讛讙讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗诇注讗讬 注专讘 砖讘转 诪讘讬讗讬诐 诇讜 注专讬讘讛 诪诇讗讛 讞诪讬谉 讜专讜讞抓 驻谞讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 讜诪转注讟祝 讜讬讜砖讘 讘住讚讬谞讬谉 讛诪爪讜讬讬爪讬谉 讜讚讜诪讛 诇诪诇讗讱 讛壮 爪讘讗讜转 讜讛讬讜 转诇诪讬讚讬讜 诪讞讘讬谉 诪诪谞讜 讻谞驻讬 讻住讜转谉 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讘谞讬 诇讗 讻讱 砖谞讬转讬 诇讻诐 住讚讬谉 讘爪讬爪讬转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 驻讜讟专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜讗讬谞讛讜 住讘专讬 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 讻住讜转 诇讬诇讛:

The Gemara asks: What mitzva is there? The Gemara explains that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This was the custom of Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai: On Shabbat eve, they would bring him a bowl full of hot water and he would use it to wash his face, hands, and feet, and he would wrap himself, and sit in linen cloaks with ritual fringes, and he was like an angel of the Lord of hosts. He did all this in deference to Shabbat. And the Gemara relates that his students, who also sat wrapped in linen cloaks, would conceal the corners of their garments from him so that he would not see that they did not have ritual fringes on their garments. He said to them: My sons, did I not teach you with regard to the obligation to attach ritual fringes to a linen cloak: Beit Shammai exempt the linen sheet because at least part of the ritual fringes is always made from wool, and there is a Torah prohibition against a mixture of wool and linen that applies even to ritual fringes? And Beit Hillel obligate linen sheets in the mitzva of ritual fringes, as they hold that the positive mitzva of ritual fringes overrides the prohibition of mixing wool and linen. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, and therefore the sheets require ritual fringes. And the students held: Although it is permitted by Torah law to attach ritual fringes to a linen garment, the Sages issued a decree that one may not do so due to garments worn at night. The Sages were concerned lest a person wear this cloak at night. Since one is not obligated in the mitzva of ritual fringes at night, he would be wearing the prohibited mixture of wool and linen at a time when he is not fulfilling the mitzva of ritual fringes. Therefore, attaching ritual fringes made of wool to a linen garment is prohibited, even to a garment worn during the day.

讜转讝谞讞 诪砖诇讜诐 谞驻砖讬 谞砖讬转讬 讟讜讘讛 诪讗讬 讜转讝谞讞 诪砖诇讜诐 谞驻砖讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讝讜 讛讚诇拽转 谞专 讘砖讘转 谞砖讬转讬 讟讜讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讝讜 讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 (讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉) 讝讜 专讞讬爪转 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 讘讞诪讬谉 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讗诪专 讝讜 诪讟讛 谞讗讛 讜讻诇讬诐 谞讗讬诐 砖注诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 讝讜 诪讟讛 诪讜爪注转 讜讗砖讛 诪拽讜砖讟转 诇转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐:

Since bathing as preparation for enjoyment of Shabbat was discussed, the Gemara cites the homiletic interpretation of the verse describing those heading into exile: 鈥淎nd my soul is removed far off from peace, I forgot prosperity鈥 (Lamentations 3:17). What is: And my soul is removed far off from peace? Rabbi Abbahu said: That is the lack of opportunity to engage in kindling the Shabbat lights, which a refugee is unable to do. I forgot prosperity, Rabbi Yirmeya said: That is the lack of opportunity to bathe in the bathhouse. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: That is the lack of opportunity to engage in washing one鈥檚 hands and feet in hot water. Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 said: Prosperity is a pleasant bed and the pleasant bedclothes that are on it, which are not available in exile. Rabbi Abba said: That is a made bed, and a wife adorned, i.e., worthy of and suitable (Rashba) for Torah scholars.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 注砖讬专 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 谞讞转 专讜讞 讘注砖专讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专: 住讬诪谉 诪讟 拽住: 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪讗讛 讻专诪讬诐 讜诪讗讛 砖讚讜转 讜诪讗讛 注讘讚讬诐 砖注讜讘讚讬谉 讘讛谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗砖讛 谞讗讛 讘诪注砖讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 住诪讜讱 诇砖讜诇讞谞讜

Incidental to the discussion of prosperity, the Gemara mentions that on a similar topic, the Sages taught: Who is wealthy? Anyone who gets pleasure from his wealth, that is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The letters mem (Meir), tet (Tarfon), kuf (Akiva), samekh (Yosei) are a mnemonic for the tannaim who expressed opinions on this matter. Rabbi Tarfon says: A wealthy person is anyone who has one hundred vineyards, and one hundred fields, and one hundred slaves working in them. Rabbi Akiva says: Anyone who has a wife whose actions are pleasant. Rabbi Yosei says: Anyone who has a bathroom close to his table.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘爪专讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 诪转讜讱 砖专讬讞讜 谞讜讚祝 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬住转驻拽 诪诪谞讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬

It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One may not light on Shabbat with sap from balsam trees [tzori]. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rabba said: Since its pleasant smell diffuses, the Sages were concerned lest one forget and come to take some sap from it on Shabbat. That is tantamount to extinguishing the lamp, as removing oil from a burning lamp curtails the amount of time that it will burn. Abaye said to him:

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 the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Copy of Facebook posts

The Sweet Smell of Apharsemon

There are many references in the Gemara to apharsemon. We learn that one of the things that a woman cannot...
Weaving Wisdom

Rabbis, Archaeologist and Linguists

In the Daf Yomi, we see many interesting discussions about ancient vessels and other types of furnishings and tools.聽 An...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 25: Who Is Rich? Those Who Have Indoor Plumbing

Some basic terms of what invalidates kodshim - the sanctified offerings - including immediate mourners who cannot partake. Also: welcoming...

Shabbat 25

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 25

注砖讛 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讜讗讬谉 注砖讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜注砖讛

The latter term is a positive mitzva to rest. And, if so, observance of a Festival is a mitzva that was commanded with both a positive mitzva to rest and a prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall do no manner of servile work鈥 (Leviticus 23:8). And there is a principle that a positive mitzva, e.g., burning consecrated items whose time has expired, does not override a mitzva that was commanded with both a prohibition and a positive mitzva, e.g., observance of the Festival.

讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讜讗 讚讗住讬专 讛讗 讘讞讜诇 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻砖诐 砖诪爪讜讛 诇砖专讜祝 讛拽讚砖讬诐 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讻讱 诪爪讜讛 诇砖专讜祝 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 砖谞讟诪讗转 讜讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讘砖注转 讘讬注讜专讛 转讬讛谞讬 诪诪谞讛 讛讬讻谉 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诪讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗谞讬 讛谞讛 谞转转讬 诇讱 讗转 诪砖诪专转 转专讜诪讜转讬 讘砖转讬 转专讜诪讜转 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讞转 转专讜诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜讗讞转 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讱 砖诇讱 转讛讗 诇讛住讬拽讛 转讞转 转讘砖讬诇讱

By inference, the conclusion is that, specifically on a Festival, lighting with burnt oil is prohibited. During the week one may well do so. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this distinction? It would be reasonable to say that it is prohibited to derive any benefit from teruma that became ritually impure. Rav said: Just as there is a mitzva to burn consecrated items that became ritually impure, so too, there is a mitzva to burn teruma that became ritually impure, and the Torah said: While it is being destroyed, derive benefit from it. The Gemara asks: Where did the Torah say this? Where is there an allusion to this in the Bible? The Gemara answers: It can be derived from the statement of Rav Na岣an, as Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: The verse said: 鈥淎nd I, behold, I have given you the charge of My terumot (Numbers 18:8). From the amplification of the plural: My terumot, it is derived that the verse is speaking of two terumot, one teruma that is ritually pure and one teruma that is ritually impure. And God said: 鈥I have given you,鈥 i.e., it shall be yours, and you may derive benefit from it. Since there is a stringent prohibition against eating it, the benefit permitted is to burn it beneath your cooked dish. Similar forms of benefit may also be derived from burning teruma.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诇讗 讘注专转讬 诪诪谞讜 讘讟诪讗 诪诪谞讜 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讘注讬专 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诪讘注讬专 砖诪谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞讟诪讗转 讜讗讬诪讗 诪诪谞讜 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讘注讬专 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诪讘注讬专 砖诪谉 砖诇 拽讚砖 砖谞讟诪讗

And if you wish, say instead an alternative manner to derive this halakha, from the statement of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is written in the confession of the tithes: I have not eaten thereof in my mourning, neither have I destroyed from it while impure鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:14). By inference: From it you may not destroy, but you may destroy the oil of teruma that has become ritually impure. The Gemara asks: And say differently: From it you may not destroy, but you may destroy and derive benefit from burning consecrated oil that became ritually impure.

诇讗讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 诪讛 诪注砖专 讛拽诇 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诇讗 讘注专转讬 诪诪谞讜 讘讟诪讗 拽讚砖 讞诪讜专 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The Gemara responds: That possibility is unacceptable. Is it not an a fortiori inference? If with regard to the tithe which is lenient, the Torah said: Neither have I destroyed from it, while impure, items consecrated to the Temple, which are more stringent, all the more so that it is prohibited to burn it while ritually impure.

讗讬 讛讻讬 转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 诇讬诪讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讛讗 讻转讬讘 诪诪谞讜

The Gemara rejects this: If so, that this matter is derived through an a fortiori inference, then, with regard to teruma as well, let us say that it is an a fortiori inference, as teruma is more stringent than tithes. If it is prohibited to benefit from tithes while they are burning, all the more so would one be prohibited to benefit from the teruma while it is burning. The Gemara answers: Doesn鈥檛 it say: From it? From there it is derived that there is an item excluded from the prohibition of burning in ritual impurity.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诪住转讘专讗 拽讚砖 诇讗 诪诪注讬讟谞讗 砖讻谉 住讬诪谉 驻谞拽 注讻住 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 拽专讘谉 诪注讬诇讛 讜讻专转 讗住讜专 诇讗讜谞谉

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to conclude that 鈥渇rom it鈥 comes to exclude teruma? Perhaps 鈥渇rom it鈥 comes to exclude consecrated items. The Gemara replies: It is reasonable that I do not exclude consecrated items from the prohibition against benefiting from its burning, as with regard to consecrated items there are many stringent elements. Their Hebrew acronym is peh, nun, kuf, ayin, kaf, samekh, which is a mnemonic for the following terms. Piggul: With regard to an offering, if, during one of the services involved in its sacrifice, i.e., slaughter, receiving the blood, bringing it to the altar, sprinkling it on the altar, the priest or the one bringing the offering entertains the thought of eating the sacrifice at a time that is unfit for eating, it is thereby invalidated. Notar: Meat of a sacrifice that remained beyond its allotted time may not be eaten and must be burned. Korban meila: One who unwittingly derives benefit from consecrated items is required to bring a guilt-offering for misuse of consecrated items. Karet: The punishment of one who eats consecrated items while ritually impure is karet. Asur leonen: An acute mourner, i.e., one whose relative died that same day and has not yet been buried, is prohibited to eat consecrated items. None of these halakhot applies to teruma. Therefore, consecrated items are more stringent than teruma, and therefore it is consecrated items that are not excluded from the prohibition against deriving benefit while ritually impure.

讗讚专讘讛 转专讜诪讛 诇讗 诪诪注讬讟谞讗 砖讻谉 诪讞驻讝 住讬诪谉 诪讬转讛 讞讜诪砖

The Gemara rejects this: On the contrary, it is teruma that I would not exclude from the prohibition, as, with regard to teruma, there are many stringent elements represented by the acronym mem, 岣t, peh, zayin, which is a mnemonic for the following: Mita: One for whom teruma is prohibited who ate it intentionally is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven. 岣mesh: A non-priest, for whom teruma is prohibited, who unwittingly ate teruma is obligated to pay its value to the priest plus one-fifth of the sum.

讜讗讬谉 诇讛 驻讚讬讜谉 讜讗住讜专讛 诇讝专讬诐 讛谞讱 谞驻讬砖谉

And, teruma does not have the possibility of pidyon: redemption, as, once it is sanctified, it may not be redeemed and rendered non-sacred. And it is prohibited to zarim: non-priests may not eat it. These stringencies do not apply to consecrated items. The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, those stringencies that apply to consecrated items are more numerous than those that apply to teruma. Therefore, it is appropriate to be more stringent with consecrated items and exclude impure teruma from the prohibition against deriving benefit when burning it.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽讚砖 讞诪讜专 砖讻谉 注谞讜砖 讻专转 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 转转谉 诇讜 诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讗讜专讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讘转 讗讜专讜 讛讜讗:

And if you wish, say instead a different reason, without counting the number of stringencies: Consecrated items are more stringent because one who eats them while ritually impure is punishable by karet, while in the case of teruma the punishment is death at the hand of Heaven. In this regard, the Torah is more stringent vis-脿-vis consecrated items than it is vis-脿-vis teruma. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that there is a different proof that one is permitted to benefit from teruma while it is burning. As the verse said: 鈥淭he first fruits of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the first of the fleece of your sheep shall you give him鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4). The Sages derived from this verse: Give the priest teruma that is ritually pure, that is fit for him to consume, and do not give the priest teruma that is suitable only for his fire, to be burned. By inference, ritually impure teruma is suitable for his fire, i.e., a priest may derive benefit from it.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻讜壮: 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转讜讱 砖专讬讞讜 专注 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬谞讬讞谞讛 讜讬爪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讬爪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讛讚诇拽转 谞专 讘砖讘转 讞讜讘讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 专讘 讝讘讚讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讚诇拽转 谞专 讘砖讘转 讞讜讘讛 专讞讬爪转 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 讘讞诪讬谉 注专讘讬转 专砖讜转 讜讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 诪爪讜讛

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yishmael says that kindling a lamp on Shabbat with tar is prohibited. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rava said: Because its odor is bad the Sages issued a decree prohibiting the use of tar, lest one forsake the light and leave. Abaye said to him: And let him leave. What obligation is there to sit next to the light? Rava said to him: Because I say that kindling Shabbat lights is an obligation, and one is required to eat specifically by that light in deference to Shabbat. As Rav Na岣an bar Rav Zavda said, and others say that it was Rav Na岣an bar Rava who said that Rav said: Kindling the Shabbat lamps is an obligation, whereas washing one鈥檚 hands and feet with hot water in the evening prior to Shabbat is merely optional. And I say: Washing is not merely optional; it is a mitzva even though it is not an obligation.

诪讗讬 诪爪讜讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻讱 讛讬讛 诪谞讛讙讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗诇注讗讬 注专讘 砖讘转 诪讘讬讗讬诐 诇讜 注专讬讘讛 诪诇讗讛 讞诪讬谉 讜专讜讞抓 驻谞讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 讜诪转注讟祝 讜讬讜砖讘 讘住讚讬谞讬谉 讛诪爪讜讬讬爪讬谉 讜讚讜诪讛 诇诪诇讗讱 讛壮 爪讘讗讜转 讜讛讬讜 转诇诪讬讚讬讜 诪讞讘讬谉 诪诪谞讜 讻谞驻讬 讻住讜转谉 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讘谞讬 诇讗 讻讱 砖谞讬转讬 诇讻诐 住讚讬谉 讘爪讬爪讬转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 驻讜讟专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜讗讬谞讛讜 住讘专讬 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 讻住讜转 诇讬诇讛:

The Gemara asks: What mitzva is there? The Gemara explains that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This was the custom of Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai: On Shabbat eve, they would bring him a bowl full of hot water and he would use it to wash his face, hands, and feet, and he would wrap himself, and sit in linen cloaks with ritual fringes, and he was like an angel of the Lord of hosts. He did all this in deference to Shabbat. And the Gemara relates that his students, who also sat wrapped in linen cloaks, would conceal the corners of their garments from him so that he would not see that they did not have ritual fringes on their garments. He said to them: My sons, did I not teach you with regard to the obligation to attach ritual fringes to a linen cloak: Beit Shammai exempt the linen sheet because at least part of the ritual fringes is always made from wool, and there is a Torah prohibition against a mixture of wool and linen that applies even to ritual fringes? And Beit Hillel obligate linen sheets in the mitzva of ritual fringes, as they hold that the positive mitzva of ritual fringes overrides the prohibition of mixing wool and linen. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, and therefore the sheets require ritual fringes. And the students held: Although it is permitted by Torah law to attach ritual fringes to a linen garment, the Sages issued a decree that one may not do so due to garments worn at night. The Sages were concerned lest a person wear this cloak at night. Since one is not obligated in the mitzva of ritual fringes at night, he would be wearing the prohibited mixture of wool and linen at a time when he is not fulfilling the mitzva of ritual fringes. Therefore, attaching ritual fringes made of wool to a linen garment is prohibited, even to a garment worn during the day.

讜转讝谞讞 诪砖诇讜诐 谞驻砖讬 谞砖讬转讬 讟讜讘讛 诪讗讬 讜转讝谞讞 诪砖诇讜诐 谞驻砖讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讝讜 讛讚诇拽转 谞专 讘砖讘转 谞砖讬转讬 讟讜讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讝讜 讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 (讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉) 讝讜 专讞讬爪转 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 讘讞诪讬谉 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讗诪专 讝讜 诪讟讛 谞讗讛 讜讻诇讬诐 谞讗讬诐 砖注诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 讝讜 诪讟讛 诪讜爪注转 讜讗砖讛 诪拽讜砖讟转 诇转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐:

Since bathing as preparation for enjoyment of Shabbat was discussed, the Gemara cites the homiletic interpretation of the verse describing those heading into exile: 鈥淎nd my soul is removed far off from peace, I forgot prosperity鈥 (Lamentations 3:17). What is: And my soul is removed far off from peace? Rabbi Abbahu said: That is the lack of opportunity to engage in kindling the Shabbat lights, which a refugee is unable to do. I forgot prosperity, Rabbi Yirmeya said: That is the lack of opportunity to bathe in the bathhouse. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: That is the lack of opportunity to engage in washing one鈥檚 hands and feet in hot water. Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 said: Prosperity is a pleasant bed and the pleasant bedclothes that are on it, which are not available in exile. Rabbi Abba said: That is a made bed, and a wife adorned, i.e., worthy of and suitable (Rashba) for Torah scholars.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 注砖讬专 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 谞讞转 专讜讞 讘注砖专讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专: 住讬诪谉 诪讟 拽住: 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪讗讛 讻专诪讬诐 讜诪讗讛 砖讚讜转 讜诪讗讛 注讘讚讬诐 砖注讜讘讚讬谉 讘讛谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗砖讛 谞讗讛 讘诪注砖讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 住诪讜讱 诇砖讜诇讞谞讜

Incidental to the discussion of prosperity, the Gemara mentions that on a similar topic, the Sages taught: Who is wealthy? Anyone who gets pleasure from his wealth, that is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The letters mem (Meir), tet (Tarfon), kuf (Akiva), samekh (Yosei) are a mnemonic for the tannaim who expressed opinions on this matter. Rabbi Tarfon says: A wealthy person is anyone who has one hundred vineyards, and one hundred fields, and one hundred slaves working in them. Rabbi Akiva says: Anyone who has a wife whose actions are pleasant. Rabbi Yosei says: Anyone who has a bathroom close to his table.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘爪专讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 诪转讜讱 砖专讬讞讜 谞讜讚祝 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬住转驻拽 诪诪谞讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬

It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One may not light on Shabbat with sap from balsam trees [tzori]. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rabba said: Since its pleasant smell diffuses, the Sages were concerned lest one forget and come to take some sap from it on Shabbat. That is tantamount to extinguishing the lamp, as removing oil from a burning lamp curtails the amount of time that it will burn. Abaye said to him:

Scroll To Top