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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 3, 2020 | 讟壮 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 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 28

Today’s shiur is dedicated in memory of Freidl bat Meir and Rivka z”l, Frieda Carlin, by Rikki and Alan Zibitt on her 4th yahrzeit, and by Rachel Sabbath beit Halachmi in honor of her husband Ofer her ezer imadi and forever chevruta.

From where do we learn that from natural materials, only flax can create impurity of a tent over a dead body? It is learned out from the mishkan (Tabernacle). Does a tent/covering made from non kosher animals also create impurity of a tent? Is the tachash聽that Moshe used to make a covering for the mishkan a domesticated or not domesticated animal? Kosher or not kosher? If one takes a cloth and folds it into a wick but doesn’t yet singe it, is it susceptible to impurities? Can one light with it for Shabbat? There is a debate between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva. The first explanation of each opinion is brought.

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

诪诪砖讻谉 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讝讗转 讛转讜专讛 讗讚诐 讻讬 讬诪讜转 讘讗讛诇 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讜讬驻专讜砖 讗转 讛讗讛诇 注诇 讛诪砖讻谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖诇 驻砖转谉 拽专讜讬 讗讛诇 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖诇 驻砖转谉 拽专讜讬 讗讛诇 讗讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖讝讜专讬谉 讜讞讜讟谉 讻驻讜诇 砖砖讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖讝讜专讬谉 讜讞讜讟谉 讻驻讜诇 砖砖讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讛诇 讗讛诇 专讬讘讛 讗讬 讗讛诇 讗讛诇 专讬讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 谞诪讬 讗诐 讻谉 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诪讗讬 讗讛谞讬 诇讬讛

written in the context of the Tabernacle. It is written here, in the discussion of the laws of ritual impurity: 鈥淭his is the law: When a man dies in a tent, every one that comes into the tent, and everything that is in the tent, shall be impure seven days鈥 (Numbers 19:14), and it is written there: 鈥淎nd he spread the tent over the Tabernacle, and put the covering of the tent above upon it; as the Lord commanded Moses鈥 (Exodus 40:19). Just as below, with regard to the Tabernacle, the tent was made of linen and is considered a tent, so too, here, with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, only a tent made of linen is considered a tent. The Gemara asks: If so, derive the following from that same verbal analogy: Just as below the linen threads in the Tabernacle were specifically threads that were twisted and the threads were folded six times, so too, here, in all of the halakhot pertaining to a tent over a corpse, the threads must be twisted and their threads folded six times. The verse states the word tent, tent several times to amplify and include even a tent made of linen not identical to the Tabernacle. The Gemara asks: If the repetition of the word tent, tent several times amplifies, even all things should be included among those items that can receive ritual impurity as a tent. The Gemara answers: This amplification cannot be that far-reaching, as, if so, the verbal analogy of tent, tent, that teaches us to derive the tent over a corpse from the Tabernacle, what purpose does it serve if everything is included? Rather, certainly the amplification is not absolute. Through the combination of the verbal analogy and the amplification, it is derived that this halakha applies specifically to linen.

讜讗讬诪讗 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 拽专砖讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 拽专砖讬诐 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜注砖讬转 拽专砖讬诐 诇诪砖讻谉 诪砖讻谉 拽专讜讬 诪砖讻谉 讜讗讬谉 拽专砖讬诐 拽专讜讬讬谉 诪砖讻谉 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讜注砖讬转 诪讻住讛 诇讗讛诇 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讻住讛 诇讗 讗讬拽专讬 讗讛诇 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讘注讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪讛讜 砖讬讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇 讛诪转 讛砖转讗 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪讬讘注讬讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讛讚专 讗讛讚专讬讛 拽专讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞砖讗讜 讗转 讬专讬注讜转 讛诪砖讻谉 讜讗转 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 诪讻住讛讜 讜诪讻住讛 讛转讞砖 讗砖专 注诇讬讜 诪拽讬砖 注诇讬讜谉 诇转讞转讜谉 诪讛 转讞转讜谉 拽专讜讬 讗讛诇 讗祝 注诇讬讜谉 拽专讜讬 讗讛诇:

And perhaps say: Just as below, in the Tabernacle, there were beams supporting the tent, so too, here, in the laws of ritual impurity, a tent made of beams should also be considered a tent. The Gemara responds that the verse said: 鈥淎nd you shall make the beams for the Tabernacle of acacia wood, standing up鈥 (Exodus 26:15). From the language of the verse, it is derived that the Tabernacle, i.e., the curtains alone, is called Tabernacle, and the beams are not called Tabernacle, because they merely facilitate the Tabernacle. The Gemara rejects this: But if that is so, based on an analysis of the language of the verse, it says there: 鈥淎nd you shall make a covering for the tent of rams鈥 skins dyed red and a covering of te岣shim above鈥 (Exodus 26:14), then in that case, too, say that the covering is not considered a tent. If so, however, what of the dilemma raised by Rabbi Elazar: With regard to the hide of a non-kosher animal over a corpse, what is the ruling? Can it become ritually impure as a tent over a corpse? If the covering of the Tabernacle is not considered a tent, now, the hide of a kosher animal that covered the Tabernacle cannot become ritually impure. If that is so, is it necessary to mention that the hide of a non-kosher animal cannot become ritually impure? The Gemara answers: The cases are not comparable because it is different there, in the case of the covering of animal hides, because the verse subsequently restored its status as a tent by uniting the tent and its covering, as it is written: 鈥淭hey shall bear the curtains of the Tabernacle, and the Tent of Meeting, its covering, and the covering of ta岣sh that is upon it鈥 (Numbers 4:25). The verse juxtaposes the upper to the lower covering; just as the lower covering is considered a tent, so too, the upper covering is considered a tent.

讙讜驻讗 讘注讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪讛讜 砖讬讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讛诇讬谉 诪讗讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 转讞砖 砖讛讬讛 讘讬诪讬 诪砖讛 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讟诪讗 讛讬讛 讗讜 讟讛讜专 讛讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 转谞讬谞讗 诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讜 诇诪诇讗讻转 砖诪讬诐 讗诇讗 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讘诇讘讚

Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 dilemma was mentioned above, and now the Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma: With regard to the hide of a non-kosher animal over a corpse, what is the ruling? Can it become ritually impure as a tent over a corpse? The Gemara clarifies: What is the essence of his dilemma? Rav Adda bar Ahava said: The ta岣sh that existed in the time of Moses is at the crux of Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 dilemma. Was it non-kosher or was it kosher? Rav Yosef said: What is his dilemma? Didn鈥檛 we learn explicitly: Only the hide of a kosher animal was deemed suitable for heavenly service? Certainly, the ta岣sh was a kosher species.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 诪讻住讗讜转 讛讬讜 讗讞讚 砖诇 注讜专讜转 讗讬诇讬诐 诪讗讚诪讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖诇 注讜专讜转 转讞砖讬诐 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 诪讻住讛 讗讞讚 讛讬讛 讜讚讜诪讛 讻诪讬谉 转诇讗 讗讬诇谉 讜讛讗 转诇讗 讗讬诇谉 讟诪讗 讛讜讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诪讬谉 转诇讗 讗讬诇谉 讛讜讗 砖讬砖 讘讜 讙讜讜谞讬谉 讛专讘讛 讜诇讗 转诇讗 讗讬诇谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讛转诐 讟诪讗 讜讛讻讗 讟讛讜专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪转专讙诪讬谞谉 住住讙讜谞讗 砖砖砖 讘讙讜讜谞讬谉 讛专讘讛

Rabbi Abba raised an objection. Rabbi Yehuda says: There were two coverings for the Tabernacle, one made of the reddened hides of rams and one of the hides of te岣shim. Rabbi Ne岣mya says: There was only one covering for the Tabernacle, half of which was made of rams鈥 hides and half from the hides of te岣shim. And te岣shim were similar to the species of undomesticated animals called tela ilan. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 a tela ilan a non-kosher creature? The Gemara emends this statement: This is what Rabbi Ne岣mya intended to say: It was like a tela ilan in that it was multicolored; however, it was not an actual tela ilan. There, the tela ilan is non-kosher, and here, the covering of the tent was made from kosher animals. Rav Yosef said: If so, that is the reason that we translate the word ta岣sh as sasgona, which means that it rejoices [sas] in many colors [gevanim].

专讘讗 讗诪专 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讚诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇 讛诪转 诪讛讻讗 讚转谞讬讗 注讜专 讗讜 讘注讜专 专讬讘讛 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讜砖诇拽讛 讘讬讚 讻讛谉 拽爪抓 诪讻讜诇谉 讜注砖讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 讘讻诇 诪诇讗讻转 注讜专 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇谞讙注讬诐 砖讻谉 砖转讬 讜注专讘 讟诪讗 讘讛谉

Rava said that the proof that the hide of a non-kosher animal becomes ritually impure in a tent over a corpse is derived from here, as it was taught in a baraita that it is stated in the halakhot of ritual impurity of leprosy that the leprosy could be: 鈥淓ither in the warp, or in the woof, whether they be of linen, or of wool; or in a hide, or in any thing made of hide鈥 (Leviticus 13:48). The verse could have simply stated: Or hide, and it said instead: Or in a hide. The Sages said: These words, or in a hide, amplify to include the hide of a non-kosher animal as well as hide that was afflicted in the hands of a priest, i.e., before the owner showed it to the priest there was no leprosy but it became leprous while in the hands of the priest, that they too become ritually impure. If one cut pieces from each of these types and made of them a single cloth, from where is it derived that it can become ritually impure? The verse states from the broader amplification: Or in anything made of hide. The Gemara remarks: There is room to refute this parallel, rendering it impossible to derive the laws of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse from the laws of leprosy. What is the comparison to leprosy with regard to which the Torah is stringent, as even the warp and woof that have not been woven into a garment can become ritually impure from it, which is not the case in impurity imparted by a corpse?

讗诇讗 讙诪专 诪砖专爪讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 注讜专 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 注讜专 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇砖专爪讬诐 砖讻谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讻注讚砖讛 谞讙注讬诐 讬讜讻讬讞讜 讜讞讝专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖注讜专 讟诪讗 讘讛谉 讜注砖讛 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讻注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讘讬讗 讗讛诇 讛诪转 砖注讜专 讟诪讗 讘讜 讜谞注砖讛 讘讜 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讻注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛

Rather, one could say that he derived it from the laws of the ritual impurity of creeping animals, as it is stated with regard to them: 鈥淎nd upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, does fall, it shall be impure; whether it be any vessel of wood, or garment, or hide, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, with which any work is done鈥 (Leviticus 11:32). As it was taught in a baraita: From the use of the word hide, I have derived nothing other than the fact that the hide of a kosher animal becomes ritually impure from contact with a creeping animal; however, from where is it derived that the hide of a non-kosher animal can become ritually impure? This is derived from the amplification, as the verse states: Or hide. Since, with regard to the ritual impurity of creeping animals the laws of the hides of kosher and non-kosher animals are identical, it is derived that this is also true with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. Once again, the Gemara says: There is room to refute this derivation and say: What is the comparison to creeping animals, as their legal status is stringent because they become ritually impure even if they are as small as a lentil-bulk, which is not true in the case of a corpse? In order for a corpse to transmit ritual impurity, it must be larger, an olive-bulk. Therefore, the Gemara says: If so, the case of leprosy can prove that the fact that creeping animals that are a lentil-bulk transmit impurity is not a factor in whether or not a non-kosher animal hide can become ritually impure. Leprosy that is a lentil-bulk does not transmit impurity and, nevertheless, the hide of a non-kosher animal becomes ritually impure from it. And the derivation has reverted to its starting point. The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case, as each case has its own unique stringencies. However, their common denominator is that hide, in general, is ritually impure in both cases, and the Torah rendered the hide of a non-kosher animal equal to the hide of a kosher animal in that it becomes ritually impure. I will also bring the additional halakha of a tent over a corpse made of the hide of a non-kosher animal, and in that case as well, the hide of a non-kosher animal will be rendered equal to the hide of a kosher animal.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讘专谞讬砖 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 讟诪讗讬谉 讘驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转 转讗诪专 讘诪转 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讘讻讝讬转

Rava from Barnish said to Rav Ashi: There is still room to refute this statement and say: What is the comparison to leprosy and creeping animals? Their common denominator is that they both transmit ritual impurity when smaller than an olive-bulk. Can you say the same in the case of a corpse, which only transmits ritual impurity when it is at least an olive-bulk? Therefore, despite the differences between them, these two halakhot are both more stringent than the laws of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, and the status of a non-kosher animal hide cannot be derived from them.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讘专谞讬砖

Rather, Rava from Barnish said it can be derived in the following manner:

讗转讬讗 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪谞讜爪讛 砖诇 注讝讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讘谞讙注讬诐 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇 讛诪转 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 砖诪讟诪讗讛 讘谞讙注讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诪讟诪讗讛 讘讗讛诇 讛诪转

It is derived through an a fortiori inference from goats鈥 hair. Although goats鈥 hair does not become ritually impure from leprosy, it does become ritually impure as a tent over a corpse; with regard to the hide of a non-kosher animal that becomes ritually impure from leprosy, is it not the case that it becomes ritually impure as a tent over a corpse?

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讜 讘诪诇讗讻转 砖诪讬诐 讗诇讗 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讘诇讘讚 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇转驻讬诇讬谉 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 诇诪注谉 转讛讬讛 转讜专转 讛壮 讘驻讬讱 诪谉 讛诪讜转专 讘驻讬讱

Since the conclusion was that the hide of even a non-kosher animal can become ritually impure as a tent over a corpse, it is not necessary to assume that the covering of the Tabernacle was made specifically from the hide of a kosher animal. And, if so, that which Rav Yosef taught: Only the hide of a kosher animal was suitable for heavenly service, for what halakha is that relevant, as it is clearly not relevant to the Tabernacle? The Gemara replies: This halakha was stated with regard to phylacteries, which may be prepared only from the hide of a kosher animal. The Gemara asks: Phylacteries? Why did Rav Yosef need to state that halakha? It is written explicitly with regard to them: 鈥淎nd it shall be for a sign unto you upon your hand, and for a memorial between your eyes, that the law of the Lord may be in your mouth鈥 (Exodus 13:9). The Sages derived from there that the phylacteries must be prepared from that which is permitted to be eaten in your mouth.

讗诇讗 诇注讜专谉 讜讛讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖讬谉 砖诇 转驻讬诇讬谉 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬

Rather, the Gemara explains that this halakha of Rav Yosef was said only with regard to the leather of the boxes that house the phylacteries, which must be crafted from the hide of a kosher animal. It was not referring to the parchment on which the portions of the Torah inserted into the phylacteries are written. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 Abaye say: The obligation to make a letter shin protruding on the phylacteries of one鈥檚 head is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? Since Torah law addresses the boxes of the phylacteries, presumably their legal status is parallel to that of the parchment and the prohibition against preparing them from the hide of a non-kosher animal is by Torah law as well.

讗诇讗 诇讻讜专讻谉 讘砖注专谉 讜诇转讜驻专谉 讘讙讬讚谉 讛讗 谞诪讬 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 转驻讬诇讬谉 诪专讜讘注讜转 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 谞讻专讻讜转 讘砖注专谉 讜谞转驻专讜转 讘讙讬讚谉

Rather, the Gemara explains that Rav Yosef鈥檚 halakha comes to teach that one must tie the parchments upon which the portions of the Torah are written in the phylacteries with a kosher animal鈥檚 hair, as well as sew the phylacteries with a kosher animal鈥檚 sinews. The Gemara asks: The source of these halakhot is also a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, as it was taught in a baraita: The requirement that phylacteries must be square is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, as is the requirement that they must be tied with their hair and sewn with their sinews.

讗诇讗 诇专爪讜注讜转 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 专爪讜注讜转 砖讞讜专讜转 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 谞讛讬 讚讙诪讬专讬 砖讞讜专讜转 讟讛讜专讜转 诪讬 讙诪讬专讬

Rather, the Gemara says that Rav Yosef came to teach with regard to the halakha of the straps of the phylacteries. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yitz岣k say: The straps of the phylacteries must be black is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? The Gemara responds: Although we learned this halakha, which states that the straps must be black, did we also learn that they must be from kosher animals? Rav Yosef was certainly referring to straps when he said that all heavenly service must be performed with the hides of kosher animals.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 讚转讞砖 砖讛讬讛 讘讬诪讬 诪砖讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 转讞砖 砖讛讬讛 讘讬诪讬 诪砖讛 讘专讬讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讛讬讛 讜诇讗 讛讻专讬注讜 讘讛 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诐 诪讬谉 讞讬讛 讛讜讗 讗诐 诪讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讛讜讗 讜拽专谉 讗讞转 讛讬转讛 诇讜 讘诪爪讞讜 讜诇驻讬 砖注讛 谞讝讚诪谉 诇讜 诇诪砖讛 讜注砖讛 诪诪谞讜 诪砖讻谉 讜谞讙谞讝

The Gemara asks: What is the halakhic conclusion reached about this matter of the ta岣sh that existed in the days of Moses? Rabbi Ela said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said that Rabbi Meir used to say: The ta岣sh that existed in the days of Moses was a creature unto itself, and the Sages did not determine whether it was a type of undomesticated animal or a type of domesticated animal. And it had a single horn on its forehead, and this ta岣sh happened to come to Moses for the moment while the Tabernacle was being built, and he made the covering for the Tabernacle from it. And from then on, the ta岣sh was suppressed and is no longer found.

诪讚拽讗诪专 拽专谉 讗讞转 讛讬转讛 诇讜 讘诪爪讞讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讟讛讜专 讛讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讜专 砖讛拽专讬讘 讗讚诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 拽专谉 讗讞转 讛讬转讛 诇讜 讘诪爪讞讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜转讬讟讘 诇讛壮 诪砖讜专 驻专 诪拽专讬谉 诪驻专讬住 诪拽专讬谉 转专转讬 诪砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪拽专谉 讻转讬讘 讜诇讬驻砖讜讟 诪讬谞讬讛 讚诪讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讛讜讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 拽专砖 讚诪讬谉 讞讬讛 讛讜讗 讜诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讞讚讗 拽专谉 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讬谉 讞讬讛 讛讜讗:

The Gemara comments: From the fact that it is said that the ta岣sh had a single horn on its forehead, conclude from this that it was kosher, as Rav Yehuda said in a similar vein: The ox that Adam, the first man, sacrificed as a thanks-offering for his life being spared, had a single horn on its forehead, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd it shall please the Lord better than a horned [makrin] and hooved ox鈥 (Psalms 69:32). The word makrin means one with a horn. The Gemara asks: On the contrary, makrin indicates that it has two horns. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Despite the fact that it is vocalized in the plural, it is written mikeren without the letter yod to indicate that it had only a single horn. The Gemara asks: If so, let us resolve from the same baraita that just as it was derived from the ox of Adam, the first man, that an animal with one horn is kosher, derive that an animal with one horn is a type of domesticated animal. The Gemara answers: Since there is the keresh which is a type of undomesticated animal, and it has only a single horn, it is also possible to say that the ta岣sh is a type of undomesticated animal. This dilemma was not resolved.

诪转谞讬壮 驻转讬诇转 讛讘讙讚 砖拽讬驻诇讛 讜诇讗 讛讘讛讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讟诪讗讛 讛讬讗 讜讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讟讛讜专讛 讛讬讗 讜诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讛:

MISHNA: The wick of a garment, i.e., cloth made into a wick for a lamp, that one folded it into a size and shape suitable for a wick, but did not yet singe it slightly in order to facilitate its lighting, Rabbi Eliezer says: This wick is ritually impure. With regard to the laws of ritual impurity, it can, like other garments, still become ritually impure and one may not light with it on Shabbat. Rabbi Akiva says: It is ritually pure and one may even light with it on Shabbat.

讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 拽讬驻讜诇 讗讬谞讜 诪讜注讬诇 讜讘诪讬诇转讬讛 拽诪讬讬转讗 拽讬讬诪讗 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 拽讬驻讜诇 诪讜注讬诇 讜讘讟讜诇讬 讘讟讬诇

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to ritual impurity, the reasons for their disagreement are clear and this is their dispute: Rabbi Eliezer holds that folding alone is ineffective in altering the identity of the garment and it retains its original status. It can become ritually impure like any other garment. Rabbi Akiva holds that folding is effective, and it negates its garment status, and therefore, it can no longer become ritually impure.

讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讛讚诇拽讛 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讛讻讗 讘砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 诪爪讜诪爪诪讜转 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 注专讘 砖讘转 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 诪住讬拽讬谉 讘讻诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪住讬拽讬谉 讘砖讘专讬 讻诇讬诐 讜讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚注讜诇讗 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讛诪讚诇讬拽 爪专讬讱 砖讬讚诇讬拽 讘专讜讘 讛讬讜爪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 拽讬驻讜诇 讗讬谞讜 诪讜注讬诇 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讚诇讬拽 讘讬讛 驻讜专转讗 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 砖讘专 讻诇讬 讜讻讬 拽讗 诪讚诇讬拽 讘砖讘专 讻诇讬 拽诪讚诇讬拽 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 拽讬驻讜诇 诪讜注讬诇 讜讗讬谉 转讜专转 讻诇讬 注诇讬讜 讜讻讬 拽诪讚诇讬拽 讘注抓 讘注诇诪讗 拽诪讚诇讬拽

However, with regard to lighting on Shabbat what is at the crux of their dispute? Rabbi Elazar said that Rav Oshaya said, and Rav Adda bar Ahava said likewise: Here we are dealing with a cloth that is precisely three by three fingerbreadths and we are dealing with a Festival that occurred on Shabbat eve. And everyone is of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that on a Festival one may only kindle a fire with whole vessels, as it is permitted to carry them and they do not have set-aside [muktze] status; however, one may not kindle a fire using broken vessels, i.e., vessels that broke on the Festival. Since they broke on the Festival itself, they are classified as an entity that came into being [nolad] on the Festival, and the halakha prohibits moving them. And, similarly, everyone is of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ulla, as Ulla said: One who lights a lamp must light most of the wick that protrudes from the lamp. Based on these assumptions, the dispute in the mishna can be understood as follows: Rabbi Eliezer holds that folding alone is ineffective in negating the wick鈥檚 vessel status, and once one lights only a small part of it, it thereby becomes a broken vessel, as part of it burns and the remainder is less than three by three fingerbreadths. A smaller cloth is no longer considered significant. Since he is required to light most of the protruding wick and, as mentioned above, it is prohibited to light broken vessels, he may not light the folded garment. And Rabbi Akiva held that folding is effective and, immediately when he folded it, the garment no longer has the status of a vessel. It was not considered a vessel even before he lit it, and when he lights it, it is as if he were lighting plain wood, not a vessel that broke on the Festival.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讬讬谞讜 讚转谞讬谞讗 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 诪爪讜诪爪诪讜转 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗

Rav Yosef said, that is what I learned: Three by three exactly. And I did not know to what halakha this was relevant. Rav Yosef received from his teachers that the baraita is referring to a case of three by three exactly, and he did not know why it was significant to establish the baraita in a case of exactly three by three and no more.

讜诪讚拽讗 诪转专抓 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛

The Gemara adds incidentally: And from the fact that Rav Adda bar Ahava interpreted this mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, conclude from this that he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Did Rav Adda bar Ahava actually say this? Didn鈥檛 Rav Adda bar Ahava himself say:

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

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...
daf yomi One week at a time (1)

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time- Shabbat 26-32

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26nklNuIUc8 Join Rabbanit Dr. Tamara Spitz each week as she reviews the key topics of the previous week鈥檚 seven pages....
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 28: It’s a Unicorn!

Still talking about ritual impurity... Including non-kosher animals. Holy endeavors must use a kosher animal, and the Gemara explains where...

Shabbat 28

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 28

诪诪砖讻谉 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讝讗转 讛转讜专讛 讗讚诐 讻讬 讬诪讜转 讘讗讛诇 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讜讬驻专讜砖 讗转 讛讗讛诇 注诇 讛诪砖讻谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖诇 驻砖转谉 拽专讜讬 讗讛诇 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖诇 驻砖转谉 拽专讜讬 讗讛诇 讗讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖讝讜专讬谉 讜讞讜讟谉 讻驻讜诇 砖砖讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖讝讜专讬谉 讜讞讜讟谉 讻驻讜诇 砖砖讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讛诇 讗讛诇 专讬讘讛 讗讬 讗讛诇 讗讛诇 专讬讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 谞诪讬 讗诐 讻谉 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诪讗讬 讗讛谞讬 诇讬讛

written in the context of the Tabernacle. It is written here, in the discussion of the laws of ritual impurity: 鈥淭his is the law: When a man dies in a tent, every one that comes into the tent, and everything that is in the tent, shall be impure seven days鈥 (Numbers 19:14), and it is written there: 鈥淎nd he spread the tent over the Tabernacle, and put the covering of the tent above upon it; as the Lord commanded Moses鈥 (Exodus 40:19). Just as below, with regard to the Tabernacle, the tent was made of linen and is considered a tent, so too, here, with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, only a tent made of linen is considered a tent. The Gemara asks: If so, derive the following from that same verbal analogy: Just as below the linen threads in the Tabernacle were specifically threads that were twisted and the threads were folded six times, so too, here, in all of the halakhot pertaining to a tent over a corpse, the threads must be twisted and their threads folded six times. The verse states the word tent, tent several times to amplify and include even a tent made of linen not identical to the Tabernacle. The Gemara asks: If the repetition of the word tent, tent several times amplifies, even all things should be included among those items that can receive ritual impurity as a tent. The Gemara answers: This amplification cannot be that far-reaching, as, if so, the verbal analogy of tent, tent, that teaches us to derive the tent over a corpse from the Tabernacle, what purpose does it serve if everything is included? Rather, certainly the amplification is not absolute. Through the combination of the verbal analogy and the amplification, it is derived that this halakha applies specifically to linen.

讜讗讬诪讗 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 拽专砖讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 拽专砖讬诐 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜注砖讬转 拽专砖讬诐 诇诪砖讻谉 诪砖讻谉 拽专讜讬 诪砖讻谉 讜讗讬谉 拽专砖讬诐 拽专讜讬讬谉 诪砖讻谉 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讜注砖讬转 诪讻住讛 诇讗讛诇 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讻住讛 诇讗 讗讬拽专讬 讗讛诇 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讘注讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪讛讜 砖讬讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇 讛诪转 讛砖转讗 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪讬讘注讬讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讛讚专 讗讛讚专讬讛 拽专讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞砖讗讜 讗转 讬专讬注讜转 讛诪砖讻谉 讜讗转 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 诪讻住讛讜 讜诪讻住讛 讛转讞砖 讗砖专 注诇讬讜 诪拽讬砖 注诇讬讜谉 诇转讞转讜谉 诪讛 转讞转讜谉 拽专讜讬 讗讛诇 讗祝 注诇讬讜谉 拽专讜讬 讗讛诇:

And perhaps say: Just as below, in the Tabernacle, there were beams supporting the tent, so too, here, in the laws of ritual impurity, a tent made of beams should also be considered a tent. The Gemara responds that the verse said: 鈥淎nd you shall make the beams for the Tabernacle of acacia wood, standing up鈥 (Exodus 26:15). From the language of the verse, it is derived that the Tabernacle, i.e., the curtains alone, is called Tabernacle, and the beams are not called Tabernacle, because they merely facilitate the Tabernacle. The Gemara rejects this: But if that is so, based on an analysis of the language of the verse, it says there: 鈥淎nd you shall make a covering for the tent of rams鈥 skins dyed red and a covering of te岣shim above鈥 (Exodus 26:14), then in that case, too, say that the covering is not considered a tent. If so, however, what of the dilemma raised by Rabbi Elazar: With regard to the hide of a non-kosher animal over a corpse, what is the ruling? Can it become ritually impure as a tent over a corpse? If the covering of the Tabernacle is not considered a tent, now, the hide of a kosher animal that covered the Tabernacle cannot become ritually impure. If that is so, is it necessary to mention that the hide of a non-kosher animal cannot become ritually impure? The Gemara answers: The cases are not comparable because it is different there, in the case of the covering of animal hides, because the verse subsequently restored its status as a tent by uniting the tent and its covering, as it is written: 鈥淭hey shall bear the curtains of the Tabernacle, and the Tent of Meeting, its covering, and the covering of ta岣sh that is upon it鈥 (Numbers 4:25). The verse juxtaposes the upper to the lower covering; just as the lower covering is considered a tent, so too, the upper covering is considered a tent.

讙讜驻讗 讘注讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪讛讜 砖讬讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讛诇讬谉 诪讗讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 转讞砖 砖讛讬讛 讘讬诪讬 诪砖讛 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讟诪讗 讛讬讛 讗讜 讟讛讜专 讛讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 转谞讬谞讗 诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讜 诇诪诇讗讻转 砖诪讬诐 讗诇讗 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讘诇讘讚

Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 dilemma was mentioned above, and now the Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma: With regard to the hide of a non-kosher animal over a corpse, what is the ruling? Can it become ritually impure as a tent over a corpse? The Gemara clarifies: What is the essence of his dilemma? Rav Adda bar Ahava said: The ta岣sh that existed in the time of Moses is at the crux of Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 dilemma. Was it non-kosher or was it kosher? Rav Yosef said: What is his dilemma? Didn鈥檛 we learn explicitly: Only the hide of a kosher animal was deemed suitable for heavenly service? Certainly, the ta岣sh was a kosher species.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 诪讻住讗讜转 讛讬讜 讗讞讚 砖诇 注讜专讜转 讗讬诇讬诐 诪讗讚诪讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖诇 注讜专讜转 转讞砖讬诐 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 诪讻住讛 讗讞讚 讛讬讛 讜讚讜诪讛 讻诪讬谉 转诇讗 讗讬诇谉 讜讛讗 转诇讗 讗讬诇谉 讟诪讗 讛讜讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诪讬谉 转诇讗 讗讬诇谉 讛讜讗 砖讬砖 讘讜 讙讜讜谞讬谉 讛专讘讛 讜诇讗 转诇讗 讗讬诇谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讛转诐 讟诪讗 讜讛讻讗 讟讛讜专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪转专讙诪讬谞谉 住住讙讜谞讗 砖砖砖 讘讙讜讜谞讬谉 讛专讘讛

Rabbi Abba raised an objection. Rabbi Yehuda says: There were two coverings for the Tabernacle, one made of the reddened hides of rams and one of the hides of te岣shim. Rabbi Ne岣mya says: There was only one covering for the Tabernacle, half of which was made of rams鈥 hides and half from the hides of te岣shim. And te岣shim were similar to the species of undomesticated animals called tela ilan. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 a tela ilan a non-kosher creature? The Gemara emends this statement: This is what Rabbi Ne岣mya intended to say: It was like a tela ilan in that it was multicolored; however, it was not an actual tela ilan. There, the tela ilan is non-kosher, and here, the covering of the tent was made from kosher animals. Rav Yosef said: If so, that is the reason that we translate the word ta岣sh as sasgona, which means that it rejoices [sas] in many colors [gevanim].

专讘讗 讗诪专 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讚诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇 讛诪转 诪讛讻讗 讚转谞讬讗 注讜专 讗讜 讘注讜专 专讬讘讛 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讜砖诇拽讛 讘讬讚 讻讛谉 拽爪抓 诪讻讜诇谉 讜注砖讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 讘讻诇 诪诇讗讻转 注讜专 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇谞讙注讬诐 砖讻谉 砖转讬 讜注专讘 讟诪讗 讘讛谉

Rava said that the proof that the hide of a non-kosher animal becomes ritually impure in a tent over a corpse is derived from here, as it was taught in a baraita that it is stated in the halakhot of ritual impurity of leprosy that the leprosy could be: 鈥淓ither in the warp, or in the woof, whether they be of linen, or of wool; or in a hide, or in any thing made of hide鈥 (Leviticus 13:48). The verse could have simply stated: Or hide, and it said instead: Or in a hide. The Sages said: These words, or in a hide, amplify to include the hide of a non-kosher animal as well as hide that was afflicted in the hands of a priest, i.e., before the owner showed it to the priest there was no leprosy but it became leprous while in the hands of the priest, that they too become ritually impure. If one cut pieces from each of these types and made of them a single cloth, from where is it derived that it can become ritually impure? The verse states from the broader amplification: Or in anything made of hide. The Gemara remarks: There is room to refute this parallel, rendering it impossible to derive the laws of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse from the laws of leprosy. What is the comparison to leprosy with regard to which the Torah is stringent, as even the warp and woof that have not been woven into a garment can become ritually impure from it, which is not the case in impurity imparted by a corpse?

讗诇讗 讙诪专 诪砖专爪讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 注讜专 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 注讜专 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇砖专爪讬诐 砖讻谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讻注讚砖讛 谞讙注讬诐 讬讜讻讬讞讜 讜讞讝专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖注讜专 讟诪讗 讘讛谉 讜注砖讛 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讻注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讘讬讗 讗讛诇 讛诪转 砖注讜专 讟诪讗 讘讜 讜谞注砖讛 讘讜 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讻注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛

Rather, one could say that he derived it from the laws of the ritual impurity of creeping animals, as it is stated with regard to them: 鈥淎nd upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, does fall, it shall be impure; whether it be any vessel of wood, or garment, or hide, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, with which any work is done鈥 (Leviticus 11:32). As it was taught in a baraita: From the use of the word hide, I have derived nothing other than the fact that the hide of a kosher animal becomes ritually impure from contact with a creeping animal; however, from where is it derived that the hide of a non-kosher animal can become ritually impure? This is derived from the amplification, as the verse states: Or hide. Since, with regard to the ritual impurity of creeping animals the laws of the hides of kosher and non-kosher animals are identical, it is derived that this is also true with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. Once again, the Gemara says: There is room to refute this derivation and say: What is the comparison to creeping animals, as their legal status is stringent because they become ritually impure even if they are as small as a lentil-bulk, which is not true in the case of a corpse? In order for a corpse to transmit ritual impurity, it must be larger, an olive-bulk. Therefore, the Gemara says: If so, the case of leprosy can prove that the fact that creeping animals that are a lentil-bulk transmit impurity is not a factor in whether or not a non-kosher animal hide can become ritually impure. Leprosy that is a lentil-bulk does not transmit impurity and, nevertheless, the hide of a non-kosher animal becomes ritually impure from it. And the derivation has reverted to its starting point. The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case, as each case has its own unique stringencies. However, their common denominator is that hide, in general, is ritually impure in both cases, and the Torah rendered the hide of a non-kosher animal equal to the hide of a kosher animal in that it becomes ritually impure. I will also bring the additional halakha of a tent over a corpse made of the hide of a non-kosher animal, and in that case as well, the hide of a non-kosher animal will be rendered equal to the hide of a kosher animal.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讘专谞讬砖 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 讟诪讗讬谉 讘驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转 转讗诪专 讘诪转 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讘讻讝讬转

Rava from Barnish said to Rav Ashi: There is still room to refute this statement and say: What is the comparison to leprosy and creeping animals? Their common denominator is that they both transmit ritual impurity when smaller than an olive-bulk. Can you say the same in the case of a corpse, which only transmits ritual impurity when it is at least an olive-bulk? Therefore, despite the differences between them, these two halakhot are both more stringent than the laws of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, and the status of a non-kosher animal hide cannot be derived from them.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讘专谞讬砖

Rather, Rava from Barnish said it can be derived in the following manner:

讗转讬讗 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪谞讜爪讛 砖诇 注讝讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讘谞讙注讬诐 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇 讛诪转 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 砖诪讟诪讗讛 讘谞讙注讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诪讟诪讗讛 讘讗讛诇 讛诪转

It is derived through an a fortiori inference from goats鈥 hair. Although goats鈥 hair does not become ritually impure from leprosy, it does become ritually impure as a tent over a corpse; with regard to the hide of a non-kosher animal that becomes ritually impure from leprosy, is it not the case that it becomes ritually impure as a tent over a corpse?

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讜 讘诪诇讗讻转 砖诪讬诐 讗诇讗 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讘诇讘讚 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇转驻讬诇讬谉 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 诇诪注谉 转讛讬讛 转讜专转 讛壮 讘驻讬讱 诪谉 讛诪讜转专 讘驻讬讱

Since the conclusion was that the hide of even a non-kosher animal can become ritually impure as a tent over a corpse, it is not necessary to assume that the covering of the Tabernacle was made specifically from the hide of a kosher animal. And, if so, that which Rav Yosef taught: Only the hide of a kosher animal was suitable for heavenly service, for what halakha is that relevant, as it is clearly not relevant to the Tabernacle? The Gemara replies: This halakha was stated with regard to phylacteries, which may be prepared only from the hide of a kosher animal. The Gemara asks: Phylacteries? Why did Rav Yosef need to state that halakha? It is written explicitly with regard to them: 鈥淎nd it shall be for a sign unto you upon your hand, and for a memorial between your eyes, that the law of the Lord may be in your mouth鈥 (Exodus 13:9). The Sages derived from there that the phylacteries must be prepared from that which is permitted to be eaten in your mouth.

讗诇讗 诇注讜专谉 讜讛讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖讬谉 砖诇 转驻讬诇讬谉 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬

Rather, the Gemara explains that this halakha of Rav Yosef was said only with regard to the leather of the boxes that house the phylacteries, which must be crafted from the hide of a kosher animal. It was not referring to the parchment on which the portions of the Torah inserted into the phylacteries are written. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 Abaye say: The obligation to make a letter shin protruding on the phylacteries of one鈥檚 head is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? Since Torah law addresses the boxes of the phylacteries, presumably their legal status is parallel to that of the parchment and the prohibition against preparing them from the hide of a non-kosher animal is by Torah law as well.

讗诇讗 诇讻讜专讻谉 讘砖注专谉 讜诇转讜驻专谉 讘讙讬讚谉 讛讗 谞诪讬 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 转驻讬诇讬谉 诪专讜讘注讜转 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 谞讻专讻讜转 讘砖注专谉 讜谞转驻专讜转 讘讙讬讚谉

Rather, the Gemara explains that Rav Yosef鈥檚 halakha comes to teach that one must tie the parchments upon which the portions of the Torah are written in the phylacteries with a kosher animal鈥檚 hair, as well as sew the phylacteries with a kosher animal鈥檚 sinews. The Gemara asks: The source of these halakhot is also a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, as it was taught in a baraita: The requirement that phylacteries must be square is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, as is the requirement that they must be tied with their hair and sewn with their sinews.

讗诇讗 诇专爪讜注讜转 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 专爪讜注讜转 砖讞讜专讜转 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 谞讛讬 讚讙诪讬专讬 砖讞讜专讜转 讟讛讜专讜转 诪讬 讙诪讬专讬

Rather, the Gemara says that Rav Yosef came to teach with regard to the halakha of the straps of the phylacteries. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yitz岣k say: The straps of the phylacteries must be black is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? The Gemara responds: Although we learned this halakha, which states that the straps must be black, did we also learn that they must be from kosher animals? Rav Yosef was certainly referring to straps when he said that all heavenly service must be performed with the hides of kosher animals.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 讚转讞砖 砖讛讬讛 讘讬诪讬 诪砖讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 转讞砖 砖讛讬讛 讘讬诪讬 诪砖讛 讘专讬讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讛讬讛 讜诇讗 讛讻专讬注讜 讘讛 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诐 诪讬谉 讞讬讛 讛讜讗 讗诐 诪讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讛讜讗 讜拽专谉 讗讞转 讛讬转讛 诇讜 讘诪爪讞讜 讜诇驻讬 砖注讛 谞讝讚诪谉 诇讜 诇诪砖讛 讜注砖讛 诪诪谞讜 诪砖讻谉 讜谞讙谞讝

The Gemara asks: What is the halakhic conclusion reached about this matter of the ta岣sh that existed in the days of Moses? Rabbi Ela said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said that Rabbi Meir used to say: The ta岣sh that existed in the days of Moses was a creature unto itself, and the Sages did not determine whether it was a type of undomesticated animal or a type of domesticated animal. And it had a single horn on its forehead, and this ta岣sh happened to come to Moses for the moment while the Tabernacle was being built, and he made the covering for the Tabernacle from it. And from then on, the ta岣sh was suppressed and is no longer found.

诪讚拽讗诪专 拽专谉 讗讞转 讛讬转讛 诇讜 讘诪爪讞讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讟讛讜专 讛讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讜专 砖讛拽专讬讘 讗讚诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 拽专谉 讗讞转 讛讬转讛 诇讜 讘诪爪讞讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜转讬讟讘 诇讛壮 诪砖讜专 驻专 诪拽专讬谉 诪驻专讬住 诪拽专讬谉 转专转讬 诪砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪拽专谉 讻转讬讘 讜诇讬驻砖讜讟 诪讬谞讬讛 讚诪讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讛讜讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 拽专砖 讚诪讬谉 讞讬讛 讛讜讗 讜诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讞讚讗 拽专谉 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讬谉 讞讬讛 讛讜讗:

The Gemara comments: From the fact that it is said that the ta岣sh had a single horn on its forehead, conclude from this that it was kosher, as Rav Yehuda said in a similar vein: The ox that Adam, the first man, sacrificed as a thanks-offering for his life being spared, had a single horn on its forehead, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd it shall please the Lord better than a horned [makrin] and hooved ox鈥 (Psalms 69:32). The word makrin means one with a horn. The Gemara asks: On the contrary, makrin indicates that it has two horns. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Despite the fact that it is vocalized in the plural, it is written mikeren without the letter yod to indicate that it had only a single horn. The Gemara asks: If so, let us resolve from the same baraita that just as it was derived from the ox of Adam, the first man, that an animal with one horn is kosher, derive that an animal with one horn is a type of domesticated animal. The Gemara answers: Since there is the keresh which is a type of undomesticated animal, and it has only a single horn, it is also possible to say that the ta岣sh is a type of undomesticated animal. This dilemma was not resolved.

诪转谞讬壮 驻转讬诇转 讛讘讙讚 砖拽讬驻诇讛 讜诇讗 讛讘讛讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讟诪讗讛 讛讬讗 讜讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讟讛讜专讛 讛讬讗 讜诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讛:

MISHNA: The wick of a garment, i.e., cloth made into a wick for a lamp, that one folded it into a size and shape suitable for a wick, but did not yet singe it slightly in order to facilitate its lighting, Rabbi Eliezer says: This wick is ritually impure. With regard to the laws of ritual impurity, it can, like other garments, still become ritually impure and one may not light with it on Shabbat. Rabbi Akiva says: It is ritually pure and one may even light with it on Shabbat.

讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 拽讬驻讜诇 讗讬谞讜 诪讜注讬诇 讜讘诪讬诇转讬讛 拽诪讬讬转讗 拽讬讬诪讗 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 拽讬驻讜诇 诪讜注讬诇 讜讘讟讜诇讬 讘讟讬诇

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to ritual impurity, the reasons for their disagreement are clear and this is their dispute: Rabbi Eliezer holds that folding alone is ineffective in altering the identity of the garment and it retains its original status. It can become ritually impure like any other garment. Rabbi Akiva holds that folding is effective, and it negates its garment status, and therefore, it can no longer become ritually impure.

讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讛讚诇拽讛 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讛讻讗 讘砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 诪爪讜诪爪诪讜转 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 注专讘 砖讘转 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 诪住讬拽讬谉 讘讻诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪住讬拽讬谉 讘砖讘专讬 讻诇讬诐 讜讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚注讜诇讗 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讛诪讚诇讬拽 爪专讬讱 砖讬讚诇讬拽 讘专讜讘 讛讬讜爪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 拽讬驻讜诇 讗讬谞讜 诪讜注讬诇 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讚诇讬拽 讘讬讛 驻讜专转讗 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 砖讘专 讻诇讬 讜讻讬 拽讗 诪讚诇讬拽 讘砖讘专 讻诇讬 拽诪讚诇讬拽 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 拽讬驻讜诇 诪讜注讬诇 讜讗讬谉 转讜专转 讻诇讬 注诇讬讜 讜讻讬 拽诪讚诇讬拽 讘注抓 讘注诇诪讗 拽诪讚诇讬拽

However, with regard to lighting on Shabbat what is at the crux of their dispute? Rabbi Elazar said that Rav Oshaya said, and Rav Adda bar Ahava said likewise: Here we are dealing with a cloth that is precisely three by three fingerbreadths and we are dealing with a Festival that occurred on Shabbat eve. And everyone is of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that on a Festival one may only kindle a fire with whole vessels, as it is permitted to carry them and they do not have set-aside [muktze] status; however, one may not kindle a fire using broken vessels, i.e., vessels that broke on the Festival. Since they broke on the Festival itself, they are classified as an entity that came into being [nolad] on the Festival, and the halakha prohibits moving them. And, similarly, everyone is of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ulla, as Ulla said: One who lights a lamp must light most of the wick that protrudes from the lamp. Based on these assumptions, the dispute in the mishna can be understood as follows: Rabbi Eliezer holds that folding alone is ineffective in negating the wick鈥檚 vessel status, and once one lights only a small part of it, it thereby becomes a broken vessel, as part of it burns and the remainder is less than three by three fingerbreadths. A smaller cloth is no longer considered significant. Since he is required to light most of the protruding wick and, as mentioned above, it is prohibited to light broken vessels, he may not light the folded garment. And Rabbi Akiva held that folding is effective and, immediately when he folded it, the garment no longer has the status of a vessel. It was not considered a vessel even before he lit it, and when he lights it, it is as if he were lighting plain wood, not a vessel that broke on the Festival.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讬讬谞讜 讚转谞讬谞讗 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 诪爪讜诪爪诪讜转 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗

Rav Yosef said, that is what I learned: Three by three exactly. And I did not know to what halakha this was relevant. Rav Yosef received from his teachers that the baraita is referring to a case of three by three exactly, and he did not know why it was significant to establish the baraita in a case of exactly three by three and no more.

讜诪讚拽讗 诪转专抓 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛

The Gemara adds incidentally: And from the fact that Rav Adda bar Ahava interpreted this mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, conclude from this that he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Did Rav Adda bar Ahava actually say this? Didn鈥檛 Rav Adda bar Ahava himself say:

Scroll To Top