Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 31, 2020 | ו׳ בניסן תש״פ

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

Shabbat 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.

תוכן זה תורגם גם ל: עברית

עשה והוה ליה יום טוב עשה ולא תעשה ואין עשה דוחה את לא תעשה ועשה

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: “You shall do no manner of servile work” (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.

ביום טוב הוא דאסיר הא בחול שפיר דמי מאי טעמא אמר רב כשם שמצוה לשרוף הקדשים שנטמאו כך מצוה לשרוף את התרומה שנטמאת ואמרה תורה בשעת ביעורה תיהני ממנה היכן אמרה תורה מדרב נחמן דאמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר קרא ואני הנה נתתי לך את משמרת תרומותי בשתי תרומות הכתוב מדבר אחת תרומה טהורה ואחת תרומה טמאה ואמר רחמנא לך שלך תהא להסיקה תחת תבשילך

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 Naḥman, as Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: The verse said: “And 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: “I have given you,” 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.

ואיבעית אימא מדרבי אבהו דאמר רבי אבהו אמר רבי יוחנן ולא בערתי ממנו בטמא ממנו אי אתה מבעיר אבל אתה מבעיר שמן של תרומה שנטמאת ואימא ממנו אי אתה מבעיר אבל אתה מבעיר שמן של קדש שנטמא

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 Yoḥanan 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” (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.

לאו קל וחומר הוא מה מעשר הקל אמרה תורה לא בערתי ממנו בטמא קדש חמור לא כל שכן

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.

אי הכי תרומה נמי לימא קל וחומר הוא הא כתיב ממנו

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’t it say: From it? From there it is derived that there is an item excluded from the prohibition of burning in ritual impurity.

ומה ראית מסתברא קדש לא ממעיטנא שכן סימן פנק עכס פיגול נותר קרבן מעילה וכרת אסור לאונן

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to conclude that “from it” comes to exclude teruma? Perhaps “from it” 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.

אדרבה תרומה לא ממעיטנא שכן מחפז סימן מיתה חומש

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, ḥet, 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. Ḥomesh: 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.

ואין לה פדיון ואסורה לזרים הנך נפישן

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.

ואיבעית אימא קדש חמור שכן ענוש כרת רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר אמר קרא תתן לו לו ולא לאורו מכלל דבת אורו הוא:

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-à-vis consecrated items than it is vis-à-vis teruma. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that there is a different proof that one is permitted to benefit from teruma while it is burning. As the verse said: “The 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” (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.

רבי ישמעאל אומר כו׳: מאי טעמא אמר רבא מתוך שריחו רע גזרה שמא יניחנה ויצא אמר ליה אביי ויצא אמר ליה שאני אומר הדלקת נר בשבת חובה דאמר רב נחמן בר רב זבדא ואמרי לה אמר רב נחמן בר רבא אמר רב הדלקת נר בשבת חובה רחיצת ידים ורגלים בחמין ערבית רשות ואני אומר מצוה

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 Naḥman bar Rav Zavda said, and others say that it was Rav Naḥman bar Rava who said that Rav said: Kindling the Shabbat lamps is an obligation, whereas washing one’s 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.

מאי מצוה דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב כך היה מנהגו של רבי יהודה בר אלעאי ערב שבת מביאים לו עריבה מלאה חמין ורוחץ פניו ידיו ורגליו ומתעטף ויושב בסדינין המצוייצין ודומה למלאך ה׳ צבאות והיו תלמידיו מחבין ממנו כנפי כסותן אמר להן בני לא כך שניתי לכם סדין בציצית בית שמאי פוטרין ובית הלל מחייבין והלכה כדברי בית הלל ואינהו סברי גזירה משום כסות לילה:

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.

ותזנח משלום נפשי נשיתי טובה מאי ותזנח משלום נפשי אמר רבי אבהו זו הדלקת נר בשבת נשיתי טובה אמר רבי ירמיה זו בית המרחץ (אמר רבי יוחנן) זו רחיצת ידים ורגלים בחמין רבי יצחק נפחא אמר זו מטה נאה וכלים נאים שעליה רבי אבא אמר זו מטה מוצעת ואשה מקושטת לתלמידי חכמים:

Since bathing as preparation for enjoyment of Shabbat was discussed, the Gemara cites the homiletic interpretation of the verse describing those heading into exile: “And my soul is removed far off from peace, I forgot prosperity” (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 Yoḥanan said: That is the lack of opportunity to engage in washing one’s hands and feet in hot water. Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa 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.

תנו רבנן איזהו עשיר כל שיש לו נחת רוח בעשרו דברי רבי מאיר: סימן מט קס: רבי טרפון אומר כל שיש לו מאה כרמים ומאה שדות ומאה עבדים שעובדין בהן רבי עקיבא אומר כל שיש לו אשה נאה במעשים רבי יוסי אומר כל שיש לו בית הכסא סמוך לשולחנו

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.

תניא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר אין מדליקין בצרי מאי טעמא אמר רבה מתוך שריחו נודף גזרה שמא יסתפק ממנו אמר ליה אביי

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.

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.  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

עשה והוה ליה יום טוב עשה ולא תעשה ואין עשה דוחה את לא תעשה ועשה

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: “You shall do no manner of servile work” (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.

ביום טוב הוא דאסיר הא בחול שפיר דמי מאי טעמא אמר רב כשם שמצוה לשרוף הקדשים שנטמאו כך מצוה לשרוף את התרומה שנטמאת ואמרה תורה בשעת ביעורה תיהני ממנה היכן אמרה תורה מדרב נחמן דאמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר קרא ואני הנה נתתי לך את משמרת תרומותי בשתי תרומות הכתוב מדבר אחת תרומה טהורה ואחת תרומה טמאה ואמר רחמנא לך שלך תהא להסיקה תחת תבשילך

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 Naḥman, as Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: The verse said: “And 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: “I have given you,” 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.

ואיבעית אימא מדרבי אבהו דאמר רבי אבהו אמר רבי יוחנן ולא בערתי ממנו בטמא ממנו אי אתה מבעיר אבל אתה מבעיר שמן של תרומה שנטמאת ואימא ממנו אי אתה מבעיר אבל אתה מבעיר שמן של קדש שנטמא

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 Yoḥanan 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” (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.

לאו קל וחומר הוא מה מעשר הקל אמרה תורה לא בערתי ממנו בטמא קדש חמור לא כל שכן

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.

אי הכי תרומה נמי לימא קל וחומר הוא הא כתיב ממנו

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’t it say: From it? From there it is derived that there is an item excluded from the prohibition of burning in ritual impurity.

ומה ראית מסתברא קדש לא ממעיטנא שכן סימן פנק עכס פיגול נותר קרבן מעילה וכרת אסור לאונן

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to conclude that “from it” comes to exclude teruma? Perhaps “from it” 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.

אדרבה תרומה לא ממעיטנא שכן מחפז סימן מיתה חומש

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, ḥet, 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. Ḥomesh: 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.

ואין לה פדיון ואסורה לזרים הנך נפישן

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.

ואיבעית אימא קדש חמור שכן ענוש כרת רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר אמר קרא תתן לו לו ולא לאורו מכלל דבת אורו הוא:

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-à-vis consecrated items than it is vis-à-vis teruma. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that there is a different proof that one is permitted to benefit from teruma while it is burning. As the verse said: “The 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” (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.

רבי ישמעאל אומר כו׳: מאי טעמא אמר רבא מתוך שריחו רע גזרה שמא יניחנה ויצא אמר ליה אביי ויצא אמר ליה שאני אומר הדלקת נר בשבת חובה דאמר רב נחמן בר רב זבדא ואמרי לה אמר רב נחמן בר רבא אמר רב הדלקת נר בשבת חובה רחיצת ידים ורגלים בחמין ערבית רשות ואני אומר מצוה

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 Naḥman bar Rav Zavda said, and others say that it was Rav Naḥman bar Rava who said that Rav said: Kindling the Shabbat lamps is an obligation, whereas washing one’s 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.

מאי מצוה דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב כך היה מנהגו של רבי יהודה בר אלעאי ערב שבת מביאים לו עריבה מלאה חמין ורוחץ פניו ידיו ורגליו ומתעטף ויושב בסדינין המצוייצין ודומה למלאך ה׳ צבאות והיו תלמידיו מחבין ממנו כנפי כסותן אמר להן בני לא כך שניתי לכם סדין בציצית בית שמאי פוטרין ובית הלל מחייבין והלכה כדברי בית הלל ואינהו סברי גזירה משום כסות לילה:

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.

ותזנח משלום נפשי נשיתי טובה מאי ותזנח משלום נפשי אמר רבי אבהו זו הדלקת נר בשבת נשיתי טובה אמר רבי ירמיה זו בית המרחץ (אמר רבי יוחנן) זו רחיצת ידים ורגלים בחמין רבי יצחק נפחא אמר זו מטה נאה וכלים נאים שעליה רבי אבא אמר זו מטה מוצעת ואשה מקושטת לתלמידי חכמים:

Since bathing as preparation for enjoyment of Shabbat was discussed, the Gemara cites the homiletic interpretation of the verse describing those heading into exile: “And my soul is removed far off from peace, I forgot prosperity” (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 Yoḥanan said: That is the lack of opportunity to engage in washing one’s hands and feet in hot water. Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa 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.

תנו רבנן איזהו עשיר כל שיש לו נחת רוח בעשרו דברי רבי מאיר: סימן מט קס: רבי טרפון אומר כל שיש לו מאה כרמים ומאה שדות ומאה עבדים שעובדין בהן רבי עקיבא אומר כל שיש לו אשה נאה במעשים רבי יוסי אומר כל שיש לו בית הכסא סמוך לשולחנו

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.

תניא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר אין מדליקין בצרי מאי טעמא אמר רבה מתוך שריחו נודף גזרה שמא יסתפק ממנו אמר ליה אביי

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:

Join Hadran Communities! Connect with women learning in your area.

Scroll To Top