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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 4, 2020 | 讬壮 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 29

Another explanation is brought for explaining Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva’s debate regarding the wicks made from a cloth and are not yet singed for purposes of impurities and another explanation is brought regarding their debate for lighting candles using it. The debate between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda regarding laws of nolad is discussed more in depth. Can one make a contraption with an eggshell or something else that allows extra oil to drip into the utensil where the candle is burning? Or does one have to be concerned that people may use the oil from there for other uses and will then be obligated for extinguishing? Can one make exceptions to the rule if people there are known to be careful or is that a tricky thing to start allowing some people and not others as it may lead to confusion.

 

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讙讜讬 砖讞拽拽 拽讘 讘讘拽注转 讬砖专讗诇 诪住讬拽讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讜诇讚 讛讜讗 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

When a gentile carved out a vessel the size of a kav from a piece of wood on a Festival and thereby rendered it a new vessel, a Jew may burn the vessel on a Festival ab initio. And why may he do so? This new vessel that was made from the wood is an object that came into being [nolad] on a Festival, and is set-aside [muktze]. Since Rav Adda bar Ahava permitted doing so, apparently he holds that the laws of set-aside do not apply on a Festival, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara answers: Rav Adda bar Ahava said this statement in explanation of the statements of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva in the mishna; however, he himself does not hold that way. Although he explained the opinions in the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, he himself does not hold that that is the halakha.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘驻转讬诇讛 砖讗讬谞讛 诪讞讜专讻转 讜诇讗 讘住诪专讟讜讟讬谉 砖讗讬谞谉 诪讞讜专讻讬谉 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 诪爪讜诪爪诪讜转 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚转谞谉 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 砖讗诪专讜 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛诪诇诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 诪讻讜讜谞讜转:

Rava said, this is the reasoning behind Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion with regard to lighting the wick: Because he holds that one may neither light on Shabbat using a wick that is not slightly singed and prepared for lighting nor light with rags that were not singed before Shabbat. If a person singes the wick slightly before lighting it, it will burn well. A wick that has not been singed does not burn well and will not show the appropriate deference to Shabbat. The Gemara asks: If so, that which Rav Yosef taught: Three by three exactly, to what halakha is it relevant? According to Rava鈥檚 explanation, the precise size of the garment used in making the wick is irrelevant. The Gemara responds: Rav Yosef鈥檚 statement was with regard to another matter, the halakhot of ritual impurity. As we learned in a mishna in tractate Kelim: Three by three fingerbreadths that they stated as the smallest sized garment that can become ritually impure, excludes the portion used for the hem, i.e., those threads that emerge at the edge of the garment and are sewn into a hem; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. And the Rabbis say: Three by three exactly, even including the hem. That is the context of Rav Yosef鈥檚 statement: Three by three exactly.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 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 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 诪住讬拽讬谉 讘转诪专讬谉 讗讻诇谉 讗讬谉 诪住讬拽讬谉 讘讙专注讬谞讬讛谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 诪住讬拽讬谉 讘讗讙讜讝讬诐 讗讻诇谉 讗讬谉 诪住讬拽讬谉 讘拽诇讬驻讜转讬讛谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专

With regard to the statement cited above, Rav Yehuda said that Rav said that there is a dispute between the tannaim on this issue: One may only kindle a fire with whole vessels and one may not kindle a fire with broken vessels; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Shimon permits kindling a fire even with broken vessels. An additional halakha: One may kindle a fire with whole dates on a Festival, and if he ate them, he may not kindle a fire with their pits as they are set-aside; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Shimon permits kindling a fire with the pits. Furthermore, one may kindle a fire with whole nuts on a Festival, and if he ate them, he may not kindle a fire with their shells; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Shimon permits doing so.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 拽诪讬讬转讗 讘讛讛讬讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讻诇讬 讜讛砖转讗 砖讘专 讻诇讬 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 谞讜诇讚 讜讗住讜专 讗讘诇 转诪专讬诐 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讙专注讬谞讬谉 讜讛砖转讗 讙专注讬谞讬谉 讗讬诪讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讙专注讬谞讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诪讻住讬讬谉 讜讛砖转讗 诪讬讙诇讬讬谉 讗讘诇 拽诇讬驻讬 讗讙讜讝讬谉 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诪讬讙诇讜 讜讛砖转讗 诪讬讙诇讜 讗讬诪讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara comments: And it was necessary to cite all three of these cases because each teaches a novel idea. As, had Rav taught us only the first halakha, we would have thought that it is specifically in that case, with regard to burning broken vessels, that Rabbi Yehuda said that it is prohibited, as initially it was a vessel and now it is a broken vessel, and therefore it is considered an object that came into being [nolad] and prohibited; however, dates, initially there were pits in the dates and now they remain pits, say that one may well do so. And had Rav taught us only with regard to date pits I would have said that they are prohibited because initially they were concealed within the fruit and now they are exposed, it is a case of an object that came into being and prohibited. However, nutshells, which initially were exposed and now are exposed, as they were before, say that one may well do so. Therefore, it was necessary to teach all of these cases.

讜讛讗 讚专讘 诇讗讜 讘驻讬专讜砖 讗讬转诪专 讗诇讗 诪讻诇诇讗 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘 讗讻诇 转诪专讬 讜砖讚讗 拽砖讬讬转讗 诇讘讜讻讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 驻讞转讬 讻谞讙讚讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗住讜专 拽讬讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讜 诇讗 拽讬讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛

And the Gemara adds: This halakha of Rav was not stated explicitly; rather, it was stated by inference based on conclusions drawn from Rav鈥檚 actions and not from his explicit statements. There was an instance where Rav ate dates on a weekday and threw the pits into the oven. Rabbi 岣yya said to him: Son of noblemen, the corresponding action, throwing pits into an oven, is prohibited on a Festival. The Gemara asks: Did Rav accept this halakha from him or did he not accept it from him?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 诇讘讘诇 讗讻诇 转诪专讬 讜砖讚讗 拽砖讬讬转讗 诇讞讬讜转讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘驻专住讬讬讗转讗 讜诇讗 拽讬讘诇讛 诇讗 讘讗专诪讬讗转讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讝讬 讗讙讘 讗讬诪讬讬讛讜

Come and hear: When Rav came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he ate dates on a Festival and threw their pits to the animals so that they may eat them. Wasn鈥檛 it a case involving Persian dates, which are quality dates whose fruit comes completely off the pits, leaving the pits with no trace of fruit? Ostensibly, they are completely set-aside as they are of no use at all to people. And the fact that Rav threw the pits to the animals indicates that he did not accept this halakha from Rabbi 岣yya, and he holds that there is no prohibition in that case. The Gemara replies: No, this is a case involving Aramean dates whose fruit does not come off completely, and remnants of the date remain attached to the pit. These pits, since they are still fit for use due to their mother, i.e., the fruit itself, one is permitted to carry them.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诇专讘讬 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 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讚诇讬拽 讘讛讜 驻讜专转讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖讘专讬 讻诇讬诐 讜讻讬 拽讗 诪讛驻讱 讘讗讬住讜专讗 拽讗 诪讛驻讱 讚注讘讚 讻讚专讘 诪转谞讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 注爪讬诐 砖谞砖专讜 诪谉 讛讚拽诇 诇转谞讜专 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪专讘讛 注爪讬诐 诪讜讻谞讬谉 讜诪住讬拽谉

Rav Shmuel bar bar 岣na said to Rav Yosef: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that one may kindle a fire with whole vessels, and one may not kindle a fire with broken vessels, how it is possible to use whole vessels? Once they are ignited a bit, they become broken vessels, and when one turns the wood over to accelerate their ignition, he turns them over in a prohibited manner, as it is prohibited to light with broken vessels. The Gemara answers: This is a case where he acted in accordance with the statement of Rav Mattana. As Rav Mattana said that Rav said: Branches that fell from a palm tree into an oven on a Festival, since these branches were attached to the tree at the onset of the Festival, they are set-aside and it is prohibited to move them. Nevertheless, he can remedy the situation if he adds wood that was prepared for burning prior to the Festival, until the majority of the wood in the oven is not set-aside, and then kindles them. Since the majority of the wood is permitted, he need not concern himself with the minority. One may do the same when burning vessels by adding wood that is not set-aside.

专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗诪专 讛讻讗 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 注住拽讬谞谉 诪拽讜诇讬 诪讟诇谞讬讜转 砖谞讜 讻讗谉

Rav Hamnuna said a different explanation of the dispute in the mishna. In his opinion, here we are dealing with a garment that is smaller than three by three handbreadths, and they taught here halakhot established by the Sages with regard to insignificant small cloths.

讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讟注诪讬讛 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚转谞谉 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 砖讛转拽讬谞讜 诇驻拽拽 讘讜 讗转 讛诪专讞抓 讜诇谞注专 讘讜 讗转 讛拽讚讬专讛 讜诇拽谞讞 讘讜 讗转 讛专讞讬讬诐 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 讜讘讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 讟诪讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 讟讛讜专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 讟诪讗 讜砖诇讗 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 讟讛讜专 讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讝专拽讜 讘讗砖驻讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讟讛讜专

And Rabbi Eliezer followed his line of reasoning expressed elsewhere, and Rabbi Akiva followed his line of reasoning expressed elsewhere. As we learned in a mishna in tractate Kelim: A cloth smaller than three by three handbreadths that was utilized to plug the bath, and to pour from a boiling pot, and to wipe the millstone, whether this cloth was expressly prepared for that purpose or whether it was not prepared, it can become ritually impure; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And Rabbi Yehoshua says: Whether it was prepared or whether it was not prepared, it is ritually pure, i.e., it cannot become ritually impure. Rabbi Akiva distinguishes between the cases and says: If it was prepared it is ritually impure, and if it was not prepared it is ritually pure. And Ulla said, and some say that Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Everyone agrees that a cloth this size, if one threw it into the garbage dump, it is ritually pure. His discarding of the cloth indicates that he no longer considers this cloth a garment and no longer considers it significant.

讛谞讬讞讜 讘拽讜驻住讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讟诪讗 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 砖转诇讗讜 讘诪讙讜讚 讗讜 砖讛谞讬讞讜 诇讗讞讜专讬 讛讚诇转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 诪讚诇讗 讝专拽讜 讘讗砖驻讛 讚注转讬讛 注讬诇讜讬讛 讜诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 砖诇讗 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 讚诇讙讘讬 拽讜驻住讗 诇讗讜 诪讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 诪讚诇讗 讛谞讬讞讜 讘拽讜驻住讗 讘讟讜诇讬 讘讟诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 诪讜讻谉 讚诇讙讘讬 讗砖驻讛 诪讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘转诇讗讜 讘诪讙讜讚 住讘专 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讛谞讬讞讜 讗讞讜专讬 讛讚诇转 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注

If one placed it in a box, everyone agrees that it can become ritually impure because his placing the cloth in a box indicates that he considers the cloth significant and is keeping it in order to use it. They only disagreed in a case where one hung the garment on a dryer, i.e., a stake in the wall, or where he placed it behind a door. Rabbi Eliezer held: From the fact that he did not throw it in the garbage dump, it is certainly on his mind and he is planning to use it. And what is the reason that he called it not prepared? It is because, relative to a cloth placed in a box, it is not considered prepared for use. And Rabbi Yehoshua held that since he did not place it in a box, certainly he has negated its garment status. And what is the reason that he called it prepared? Because relative to one thrown in the garbage, this garment is prepared for use, although, in fact, the cloth has already been negated. And Rabbi Akiva, in the case where he hung it on a dryer, held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that one has not yet negated it from use and it can therefore become ritually impure. In the case where he placed it behind a door, Rabbi Akiva held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua that, in doing so, he negated its garment status, and it can no longer become ritually impure.

讜讛讚专 讘讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讙讘讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 驻转讬诇转 讛讘讙讚 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讬 驻转讬诇转 讛讘讙讚 诇讬转谞讬 驻转讬诇讛 砖诇 讘讙讚 诪讗讬 驻转讬诇转 讛讘讙讚 讚注讚讬讬谉 讘讙讚 讛讜讗:

The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Akiva retracted his opinion in favor of the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua and held in accordance with his opinion. And from where do we know this? Rava said: From the term that we learned in our mishna: The wick of a garment [petilat habeged]. Why did it specifically teach: The wick of a garment? Teach that halakha using the phrase: A wick made from a garment. What is the reason that the mishna taught: A wick of a garment? It is because it remains a garment. Nevertheless, Rabbi Akiva deemed it ritually pure, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讬拽讜讘 讗讚诐 砖驻讜驻专转 砖诇 讘讬爪讛 讜讬诪诇讗谞讛 砖诪谉 讜讬转谞谞讛 注诇 驻讬 讛谞专 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转讛讗 诪谞讟驻转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讗 砖诇 讞专住 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讗讘诇 讗诐 讞讘专讛 讛讬讜爪专 诪转讞诇讛 诪讜转专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诇讬 讗讞讚 诇讗 讬诪诇讗 讗讚诐 拽注专讛 砖诇 砖诪谉 讜讬转谞谞讛 讘爪讚 讛谞专 讜讬转谉 专讗砖 讛驻转讬诇讛 讘转讜讻讛 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转讛讗 砖讜讗讘转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专:

MISHNA: The fundamental dispute in this mishna is with regard to the determination whether or not indirect acts of kindling and extinguishing fall within the parameters of the prohibition on Shabbat. The Rabbis said: A person may not pierce a hole in an eggshell and fill it with oil, and place it over the mouth of a lamp so that the egg will drip additional oil into the lamp and thereby extend the time that it burns. And this is the ruling even if it is not an actual egg but an earthenware vessel. And Rabbi Yehuda permits doing so. However, if the craftsman, who crafts ceramic vessels, attached the egg to the lamp from the outset, one is permitted to fill it with oil because it constitutes a single, large vessel. The Rabbis decreed that a person may not fill a bowl with oil, and place it beside the lamp, and place the unlit head of the wick into the bowl so that it draws additional oil from the bowl and thereby extend the time that the lamp burns. And Rabbi Yehuda permits doing so.

讙诪壮 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 砖驻讜驻专转 砖诇 讘讬爪讛 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪讗讬住讗 讗转讬 诇讗住转驻讜拽讬 诪讬谞讛 讗讘诇 砖诇 讞专住 讚诪讗讬住讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 砖诇 讞专住 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讘诇 讘讛讛讬讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛谞讱 转专转讬 讘讛谞讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪讬驻住拽 讗讘诇 拽注专讛 讚诪讬驻住拽讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讛讛讬讗 讘讛讛讬讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讘讛谞讬 转专转讬 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 爪专讬讻讗:

GEMARA: The Gemara comments on the fact that the mishna cited three cases that all share the same rationale: And it was necessary to cite all of the aforementioned cases because it is impossible to derive one from the other. As, had the Gemara only taught us the prohibition of an eggshell, I would have said that, specifically in that case, the Rabbis said that it is prohibited to do so. Since the egg is not dirty and disgusting, there is room for concern that one might come to take oil from it, which would be tantamount to taking oil from a burning lamp on Shabbat, because it causes the flame to be extinguished faster. However, an earthenware tube that is disgusting, say that the Rabbis agree with Rabbi Yehuda that there is no room for concern, and even according to their opinion it would be permitted. And, conversely, had the Gemara only taught us the prohibition of an earthenware tube, I would have said that, specifically in that case, Rabbi Yehuda says that one is permitted to do so because it is disgusting, as explained above; however, in that case of the eggshell that is not disgusting, say that he agrees with the Rabbis that it is prohibited. And had the Gemara taught us only those two cases of the eggshell and the earthenware tube, I would have said that, specifically in those cases, Rabbi Yehuda said that it is permitted because there is no separation between the lamp and the second receptacle. However, in the case of a bowl, which is separate, say that he agrees with the Rabbis that it is prohibited. And, conversely, had the Gemara only taught us in that case of the added bowl, I would have said that only in that case did the Rabbis say it is prohibited because it is separate. However, in these two cases of the eggshell and the ceramic tube, I would say that the Rabbis agree with Rabbi Yehuda and permit doing so. Therefore, it was necessary for the mishna to specifically state the halakha in each of the cases cited.

讜讗诐 讞讘专讛 讛讬讜爪专 诪转讞诇讛 诪讜转专 讜讻讜壮: 转谞讗 讗诐 讞讘专讛 讘住讬讚 讜讘讞专住讬转 诪讜转专 讜讛讗谞谉 讬讜爪专 转谞谉 诪讗讬 讬讜爪专 讻注讬谉 讬讜爪专:

And we also learned in our mishna that if the craftsman attached the tube to the lamp from the outset, it is permitted to fill it with oil and use it. It was taught in a baraita that even if a homeowner attached it to the vessel before Shabbat by means of plaster or with dry potter鈥檚 clay, it is permitted. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 we specifically learn in the mishna: If the craftsman attached it from the outset, not a layman? The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of craftsman in the mishna? It refers to any attachment similar to the attachment of the craftsman.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻注诐 讗讞转 砖讘转讬谞讜 讘注诇讬讬转 讘讬转 谞转讝讛 讘诇讜讚 讜讛讘讬讗讜 诇谞讜 砖驻讜驻专转 砖诇 讘讬爪讛 讜诪诇讗谞讜讛 砖诪谉 讜谞拽讘谞讜讛 讜讛谞讞谞讜讛 注诇 驻讬 讛谞专 讜讛讬讛 砖诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讜讝拽谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇谞讜 讚讘专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讘讬转 谞转讝讛 讚讝专讬讝讬谉 讛谉

With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said to the Rabbis: One time we spent our Shabbat in the upper story of the house of Nit鈥檢a in the city of Lod. And they brought us an eggshell, and we filled it with oil, and pierced it, and left it over the lamp in order to extend its burning. And Rabbi Tarfon and other Elders were there and they did not say anything to us. Apparently, there is no prohibition. The Rabbis said to him: Do you bring proof from there? The legal status of the Elders who were sitting in the house of Nit鈥檢a is different. They are vigilant. There is no room for concern lest they use the oil in the eggshell and accelerate the extinguishing of the lamp. However, in every other circumstance, doing so is prohibited.

讗讘讬谉 爪讬驻讜专讗讛 讙专专 住驻住诇讗 讘注讬诇讬转讗 讚砖讬砖讗 诇注讬诇讗 诪专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 砖转讜拽讬 诇讱 讻讚砖转讬拽讜 诇讬讛 讞讘专讬讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞驻讬拽 诪讬谞讬讛 讞讜专讘讗 讙讝讬专讛 注诇讬转讗 讚砖讬砖讗 讗讟讜 注诇讬转讗 讚注诇诪讗

The Gemara relates: Avin from the city of Tzippori dragged a bench in an upper story, whose floor was made of marble, before Rabbi Yitz岣k ben Elazar. Rabbi Yitz岣k ben Elazar said to him: If I remain silent and say nothing to you, as Rabbi Tarfon and the members of the group of Elders were silent and said nothing to Rabbi Yehuda, damage will result, as it will lead to unfounded leniency in the future. Had they told Rabbi Yehuda at that time that it is prohibited to puncture the eggshell, he would not have disagreed with the Rabbis. He would not have mistakenly derived a general leniency. So too, here the Sages issued a decree on a marble-floored upper story due to a standard upper story with an earth floor. One who drags a bench on an earth floor will create a furrow.

专讬砖 讻谞讬砖转讗 讚讘爪专讛 讙专专 住驻住诇讗 诇注讬诇讗 诪专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讙讚讜诇讬诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讘拽讟谞讬诐 诪讬 讗诪专 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚注讜诇讗 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘拽讟谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讘讙讚讜诇讬诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专

On the topic of dragging, the Gemara relates that the Head of the Kenesset of Batzra dragged a bench before Rabbi Yirmeya the Great on Shabbat. Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: In accordance with whose opinion do you permit yourself to drag a bench on Shabbat? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? Say that Rabbi Shimon said his statement specifically with regard to large benches that are impossible to move from place to place in any other way, but in the case of small benches did he say that one is permitted to drag them? And this disagrees with the opinion of Ulla, as Ulla said: The dispute with regard to dragging is in the case of small benches; however, in the case of large benches, everyone agrees that one is permitted to drag them, as there is no other way to move them.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讙讜专专 讗讚诐 诪讟讛 讻住讗 讜住驻住诇 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇注砖讜转 讞专讬抓 拽转谞讬 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜拽转谞讬 拽讟谞讬诐 拽砖讬讗 诇转专讜讜讬讬讛讜

Rav Yosef raised an objection from what was taught in a baraita, Rabbi Shimon says: One may drag a bed, a chair, and a bench across the floor on Shabbat even though it creates a furrow, as long as he does not intend to create a furrow. This baraita teaches about large objects, like a bed, and teaches about small objects, like a chair. If so, this is difficult for both Rabbi Yirmeya the Great and for Ulla. Rabbi Yirmeya holds that Rabbi Shimon prohibits dragging even small furniture. Ulla holds that even Rabbi Yehuda permits dragging large pieces of furniture. According to his opinion, there is no need for Rabbi Shimon to state that it is permitted.

注讜诇讗 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 专讘讛 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 注讜诇讗 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 诪讟讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讻住讗 讜专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 专讘讛 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讻住讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚诪讟讛

The Gemara answers that Ulla reconciles the objection in accordance with his reasoning and Rabbi Yirmeya the Great reconciles the objection in accordance with his reasoning. The Gemara explains: Ulla reconciles the objection in accordance with his reasoning: A bed, similar to a chair; the baraita is referring here to a small bed that can be carried like a chair, with regard to which there is a dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Yirmeya the Great reconciles the objection in accordance with his reasoning: A chair, similar to a bed; the baraita is referring to dragging a heavy chair that cannot be moved in any other way.

诪转讬讘 专讘讛 诪讜讻专讬 讻住讜转 诪讜讻专讬谉 讻讚专讻谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 讘讞诪讛 诪驻谞讬 讛讞诪讛 讜讘讙砖诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讜讛爪谞讜注讬谉 诪驻砖讬诇讬谉 讘诪拽诇 诇讗讞讜专讬讛谉 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讗驻砖专 诇诪讬注讘讚 讻爪谞讜注讬谉 讚讻讬 拽讟谞讬诐 讚诪讬 讜讻讬 诇讗 诪转讻讜讬谉 砖专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 专讘讛 转讬讜讘转讗:

Rabba raised an objection to Rabbi Yirmeya鈥檚 statement from that which we learned in a mishna: Clothing merchants who sell garments made of diverse kinds, a prohibited mixture of wool and linen, may sell them as they normally would to gentiles, and they may place the garments that they are selling on their shoulders and need not be concerned about the prohibition against wearing diverse kinds, as long as the merchant does not intend to benefit from the garments in the sun as protection from the sun, or in the rain as protection from the rain. However, the modest people, those who are particularly fastidious in performing mitzvot, would suspend the wool and linen garments on a stick behind them. And here, in the case of dragging benches, where it is possible to act like the modest people, as the clothes are similar to small benches, and nevertheless, when one does not intend to perform the prohibited action, Rabbi Shimon permits dragging even ab initio. Rabbi Shimon holds that one who does not intend to violate a prohibition need not take an alternative course of action due to concern that resulting from his action, the prohibited act might come to be performed. Based on that principle, it is clear that Rabbi Shimon would permit dragging small benches since one does not intend to create a furrow in dragging them. This is a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rabbi Yirmeya the Great, who held that dragging small objects is prohibited according to Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讻讘讛 讗转 讛谞专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪转讬专讗 诪驻谞讬 讙讜讬诐 讜诪驻谞讬 诇讬住讟讬诐 诪驻谞讬 专讜讞 专注讛 诪驻谞讬 讛讞讜诇讛 砖讬讬砖谉 驻讟讜专 讻讞住 注诇 讛谞专 讻讞住 注诇 讛砖诪谉 讻讞住 注诇 讛驻转讬诇讛 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 驻讜讟专 讘讻讜诇谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛驻转讬诇讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 驻讞诐:

MISHNA: One who extinguishes the lamp on Shabbat because he is afraid due to gentiles, from whom he is hiding in his home, and due to thieves, or if one is afraid due to an evil spirit, i.e., he is depressed and prefers sitting in the dark, or if he extinguished the flame due to the sick person so that he will sleep, he is exempt. However, in a case where he extinguishes the flame in order to spare the lamp, spare the oil, or spare the wick, he is liable. Rabbi Yosei exempts him in all of those cases, as in his opinion no labor prohibited by Torah law is being performed by extinguishing the flame, except for the case where he seeks to spare the wick. Only in that case is extinguishing a creative action because he makes the wick into charcoal by extinguishing the flame.

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 29: MacGyvering Shabbat Candles

The daf begins with a discussion about repurposing -- specifically, a garment into candle wicks -- with the accompanying implications...

Shabbat 29

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 29

讙讜讬 砖讞拽拽 拽讘 讘讘拽注转 讬砖专讗诇 诪住讬拽讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讜诇讚 讛讜讗 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

When a gentile carved out a vessel the size of a kav from a piece of wood on a Festival and thereby rendered it a new vessel, a Jew may burn the vessel on a Festival ab initio. And why may he do so? This new vessel that was made from the wood is an object that came into being [nolad] on a Festival, and is set-aside [muktze]. Since Rav Adda bar Ahava permitted doing so, apparently he holds that the laws of set-aside do not apply on a Festival, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara answers: Rav Adda bar Ahava said this statement in explanation of the statements of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva in the mishna; however, he himself does not hold that way. Although he explained the opinions in the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, he himself does not hold that that is the halakha.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘驻转讬诇讛 砖讗讬谞讛 诪讞讜专讻转 讜诇讗 讘住诪专讟讜讟讬谉 砖讗讬谞谉 诪讞讜专讻讬谉 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 诪爪讜诪爪诪讜转 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚转谞谉 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 砖讗诪专讜 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛诪诇诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 诪讻讜讜谞讜转:

Rava said, this is the reasoning behind Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion with regard to lighting the wick: Because he holds that one may neither light on Shabbat using a wick that is not slightly singed and prepared for lighting nor light with rags that were not singed before Shabbat. If a person singes the wick slightly before lighting it, it will burn well. A wick that has not been singed does not burn well and will not show the appropriate deference to Shabbat. The Gemara asks: If so, that which Rav Yosef taught: Three by three exactly, to what halakha is it relevant? According to Rava鈥檚 explanation, the precise size of the garment used in making the wick is irrelevant. The Gemara responds: Rav Yosef鈥檚 statement was with regard to another matter, the halakhot of ritual impurity. As we learned in a mishna in tractate Kelim: Three by three fingerbreadths that they stated as the smallest sized garment that can become ritually impure, excludes the portion used for the hem, i.e., those threads that emerge at the edge of the garment and are sewn into a hem; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. And the Rabbis say: Three by three exactly, even including the hem. That is the context of Rav Yosef鈥檚 statement: Three by three exactly.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 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 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 诪住讬拽讬谉 讘转诪专讬谉 讗讻诇谉 讗讬谉 诪住讬拽讬谉 讘讙专注讬谞讬讛谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 诪住讬拽讬谉 讘讗讙讜讝讬诐 讗讻诇谉 讗讬谉 诪住讬拽讬谉 讘拽诇讬驻讜转讬讛谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专

With regard to the statement cited above, Rav Yehuda said that Rav said that there is a dispute between the tannaim on this issue: One may only kindle a fire with whole vessels and one may not kindle a fire with broken vessels; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Shimon permits kindling a fire even with broken vessels. An additional halakha: One may kindle a fire with whole dates on a Festival, and if he ate them, he may not kindle a fire with their pits as they are set-aside; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Shimon permits kindling a fire with the pits. Furthermore, one may kindle a fire with whole nuts on a Festival, and if he ate them, he may not kindle a fire with their shells; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Shimon permits doing so.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 拽诪讬讬转讗 讘讛讛讬讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讻诇讬 讜讛砖转讗 砖讘专 讻诇讬 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 谞讜诇讚 讜讗住讜专 讗讘诇 转诪专讬诐 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讙专注讬谞讬谉 讜讛砖转讗 讙专注讬谞讬谉 讗讬诪讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讙专注讬谞讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诪讻住讬讬谉 讜讛砖转讗 诪讬讙诇讬讬谉 讗讘诇 拽诇讬驻讬 讗讙讜讝讬谉 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诪讬讙诇讜 讜讛砖转讗 诪讬讙诇讜 讗讬诪讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara comments: And it was necessary to cite all three of these cases because each teaches a novel idea. As, had Rav taught us only the first halakha, we would have thought that it is specifically in that case, with regard to burning broken vessels, that Rabbi Yehuda said that it is prohibited, as initially it was a vessel and now it is a broken vessel, and therefore it is considered an object that came into being [nolad] and prohibited; however, dates, initially there were pits in the dates and now they remain pits, say that one may well do so. And had Rav taught us only with regard to date pits I would have said that they are prohibited because initially they were concealed within the fruit and now they are exposed, it is a case of an object that came into being and prohibited. However, nutshells, which initially were exposed and now are exposed, as they were before, say that one may well do so. Therefore, it was necessary to teach all of these cases.

讜讛讗 讚专讘 诇讗讜 讘驻讬专讜砖 讗讬转诪专 讗诇讗 诪讻诇诇讗 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘 讗讻诇 转诪专讬 讜砖讚讗 拽砖讬讬转讗 诇讘讜讻讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 驻讞转讬 讻谞讙讚讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗住讜专 拽讬讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讜 诇讗 拽讬讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛

And the Gemara adds: This halakha of Rav was not stated explicitly; rather, it was stated by inference based on conclusions drawn from Rav鈥檚 actions and not from his explicit statements. There was an instance where Rav ate dates on a weekday and threw the pits into the oven. Rabbi 岣yya said to him: Son of noblemen, the corresponding action, throwing pits into an oven, is prohibited on a Festival. The Gemara asks: Did Rav accept this halakha from him or did he not accept it from him?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 诇讘讘诇 讗讻诇 转诪专讬 讜砖讚讗 拽砖讬讬转讗 诇讞讬讜转讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘驻专住讬讬讗转讗 讜诇讗 拽讬讘诇讛 诇讗 讘讗专诪讬讗转讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讝讬 讗讙讘 讗讬诪讬讬讛讜

Come and hear: When Rav came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he ate dates on a Festival and threw their pits to the animals so that they may eat them. Wasn鈥檛 it a case involving Persian dates, which are quality dates whose fruit comes completely off the pits, leaving the pits with no trace of fruit? Ostensibly, they are completely set-aside as they are of no use at all to people. And the fact that Rav threw the pits to the animals indicates that he did not accept this halakha from Rabbi 岣yya, and he holds that there is no prohibition in that case. The Gemara replies: No, this is a case involving Aramean dates whose fruit does not come off completely, and remnants of the date remain attached to the pit. These pits, since they are still fit for use due to their mother, i.e., the fruit itself, one is permitted to carry them.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诇专讘讬 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 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讚诇讬拽 讘讛讜 驻讜专转讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖讘专讬 讻诇讬诐 讜讻讬 拽讗 诪讛驻讱 讘讗讬住讜专讗 拽讗 诪讛驻讱 讚注讘讚 讻讚专讘 诪转谞讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 注爪讬诐 砖谞砖专讜 诪谉 讛讚拽诇 诇转谞讜专 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪专讘讛 注爪讬诐 诪讜讻谞讬谉 讜诪住讬拽谉

Rav Shmuel bar bar 岣na said to Rav Yosef: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that one may kindle a fire with whole vessels, and one may not kindle a fire with broken vessels, how it is possible to use whole vessels? Once they are ignited a bit, they become broken vessels, and when one turns the wood over to accelerate their ignition, he turns them over in a prohibited manner, as it is prohibited to light with broken vessels. The Gemara answers: This is a case where he acted in accordance with the statement of Rav Mattana. As Rav Mattana said that Rav said: Branches that fell from a palm tree into an oven on a Festival, since these branches were attached to the tree at the onset of the Festival, they are set-aside and it is prohibited to move them. Nevertheless, he can remedy the situation if he adds wood that was prepared for burning prior to the Festival, until the majority of the wood in the oven is not set-aside, and then kindles them. Since the majority of the wood is permitted, he need not concern himself with the minority. One may do the same when burning vessels by adding wood that is not set-aside.

专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗诪专 讛讻讗 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 注住拽讬谞谉 诪拽讜诇讬 诪讟诇谞讬讜转 砖谞讜 讻讗谉

Rav Hamnuna said a different explanation of the dispute in the mishna. In his opinion, here we are dealing with a garment that is smaller than three by three handbreadths, and they taught here halakhot established by the Sages with regard to insignificant small cloths.

讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讟注诪讬讛 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚转谞谉 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 砖讛转拽讬谞讜 诇驻拽拽 讘讜 讗转 讛诪专讞抓 讜诇谞注专 讘讜 讗转 讛拽讚讬专讛 讜诇拽谞讞 讘讜 讗转 讛专讞讬讬诐 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 讜讘讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 讟诪讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 讟讛讜专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 讟诪讗 讜砖诇讗 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 讟讛讜专 讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讝专拽讜 讘讗砖驻讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讟讛讜专

And Rabbi Eliezer followed his line of reasoning expressed elsewhere, and Rabbi Akiva followed his line of reasoning expressed elsewhere. As we learned in a mishna in tractate Kelim: A cloth smaller than three by three handbreadths that was utilized to plug the bath, and to pour from a boiling pot, and to wipe the millstone, whether this cloth was expressly prepared for that purpose or whether it was not prepared, it can become ritually impure; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And Rabbi Yehoshua says: Whether it was prepared or whether it was not prepared, it is ritually pure, i.e., it cannot become ritually impure. Rabbi Akiva distinguishes between the cases and says: If it was prepared it is ritually impure, and if it was not prepared it is ritually pure. And Ulla said, and some say that Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Everyone agrees that a cloth this size, if one threw it into the garbage dump, it is ritually pure. His discarding of the cloth indicates that he no longer considers this cloth a garment and no longer considers it significant.

讛谞讬讞讜 讘拽讜驻住讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讟诪讗 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 砖转诇讗讜 讘诪讙讜讚 讗讜 砖讛谞讬讞讜 诇讗讞讜专讬 讛讚诇转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 诪讚诇讗 讝专拽讜 讘讗砖驻讛 讚注转讬讛 注讬诇讜讬讛 讜诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 砖诇讗 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 讚诇讙讘讬 拽讜驻住讗 诇讗讜 诪讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 诪讚诇讗 讛谞讬讞讜 讘拽讜驻住讗 讘讟讜诇讬 讘讟诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 诪讜讻谉 讚诇讙讘讬 讗砖驻讛 诪讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘转诇讗讜 讘诪讙讜讚 住讘专 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讛谞讬讞讜 讗讞讜专讬 讛讚诇转 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注

If one placed it in a box, everyone agrees that it can become ritually impure because his placing the cloth in a box indicates that he considers the cloth significant and is keeping it in order to use it. They only disagreed in a case where one hung the garment on a dryer, i.e., a stake in the wall, or where he placed it behind a door. Rabbi Eliezer held: From the fact that he did not throw it in the garbage dump, it is certainly on his mind and he is planning to use it. And what is the reason that he called it not prepared? It is because, relative to a cloth placed in a box, it is not considered prepared for use. And Rabbi Yehoshua held that since he did not place it in a box, certainly he has negated its garment status. And what is the reason that he called it prepared? Because relative to one thrown in the garbage, this garment is prepared for use, although, in fact, the cloth has already been negated. And Rabbi Akiva, in the case where he hung it on a dryer, held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that one has not yet negated it from use and it can therefore become ritually impure. In the case where he placed it behind a door, Rabbi Akiva held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua that, in doing so, he negated its garment status, and it can no longer become ritually impure.

讜讛讚专 讘讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讙讘讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 驻转讬诇转 讛讘讙讚 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讬 驻转讬诇转 讛讘讙讚 诇讬转谞讬 驻转讬诇讛 砖诇 讘讙讚 诪讗讬 驻转讬诇转 讛讘讙讚 讚注讚讬讬谉 讘讙讚 讛讜讗:

The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Akiva retracted his opinion in favor of the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua and held in accordance with his opinion. And from where do we know this? Rava said: From the term that we learned in our mishna: The wick of a garment [petilat habeged]. Why did it specifically teach: The wick of a garment? Teach that halakha using the phrase: A wick made from a garment. What is the reason that the mishna taught: A wick of a garment? It is because it remains a garment. Nevertheless, Rabbi Akiva deemed it ritually pure, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讬拽讜讘 讗讚诐 砖驻讜驻专转 砖诇 讘讬爪讛 讜讬诪诇讗谞讛 砖诪谉 讜讬转谞谞讛 注诇 驻讬 讛谞专 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转讛讗 诪谞讟驻转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讗 砖诇 讞专住 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讗讘诇 讗诐 讞讘专讛 讛讬讜爪专 诪转讞诇讛 诪讜转专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诇讬 讗讞讚 诇讗 讬诪诇讗 讗讚诐 拽注专讛 砖诇 砖诪谉 讜讬转谞谞讛 讘爪讚 讛谞专 讜讬转谉 专讗砖 讛驻转讬诇讛 讘转讜讻讛 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转讛讗 砖讜讗讘转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专:

MISHNA: The fundamental dispute in this mishna is with regard to the determination whether or not indirect acts of kindling and extinguishing fall within the parameters of the prohibition on Shabbat. The Rabbis said: A person may not pierce a hole in an eggshell and fill it with oil, and place it over the mouth of a lamp so that the egg will drip additional oil into the lamp and thereby extend the time that it burns. And this is the ruling even if it is not an actual egg but an earthenware vessel. And Rabbi Yehuda permits doing so. However, if the craftsman, who crafts ceramic vessels, attached the egg to the lamp from the outset, one is permitted to fill it with oil because it constitutes a single, large vessel. The Rabbis decreed that a person may not fill a bowl with oil, and place it beside the lamp, and place the unlit head of the wick into the bowl so that it draws additional oil from the bowl and thereby extend the time that the lamp burns. And Rabbi Yehuda permits doing so.

讙诪壮 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 砖驻讜驻专转 砖诇 讘讬爪讛 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪讗讬住讗 讗转讬 诇讗住转驻讜拽讬 诪讬谞讛 讗讘诇 砖诇 讞专住 讚诪讗讬住讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 砖诇 讞专住 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讘诇 讘讛讛讬讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛谞讱 转专转讬 讘讛谞讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪讬驻住拽 讗讘诇 拽注专讛 讚诪讬驻住拽讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讛讛讬讗 讘讛讛讬讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讘讛谞讬 转专转讬 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 爪专讬讻讗:

GEMARA: The Gemara comments on the fact that the mishna cited three cases that all share the same rationale: And it was necessary to cite all of the aforementioned cases because it is impossible to derive one from the other. As, had the Gemara only taught us the prohibition of an eggshell, I would have said that, specifically in that case, the Rabbis said that it is prohibited to do so. Since the egg is not dirty and disgusting, there is room for concern that one might come to take oil from it, which would be tantamount to taking oil from a burning lamp on Shabbat, because it causes the flame to be extinguished faster. However, an earthenware tube that is disgusting, say that the Rabbis agree with Rabbi Yehuda that there is no room for concern, and even according to their opinion it would be permitted. And, conversely, had the Gemara only taught us the prohibition of an earthenware tube, I would have said that, specifically in that case, Rabbi Yehuda says that one is permitted to do so because it is disgusting, as explained above; however, in that case of the eggshell that is not disgusting, say that he agrees with the Rabbis that it is prohibited. And had the Gemara taught us only those two cases of the eggshell and the earthenware tube, I would have said that, specifically in those cases, Rabbi Yehuda said that it is permitted because there is no separation between the lamp and the second receptacle. However, in the case of a bowl, which is separate, say that he agrees with the Rabbis that it is prohibited. And, conversely, had the Gemara only taught us in that case of the added bowl, I would have said that only in that case did the Rabbis say it is prohibited because it is separate. However, in these two cases of the eggshell and the ceramic tube, I would say that the Rabbis agree with Rabbi Yehuda and permit doing so. Therefore, it was necessary for the mishna to specifically state the halakha in each of the cases cited.

讜讗诐 讞讘专讛 讛讬讜爪专 诪转讞诇讛 诪讜转专 讜讻讜壮: 转谞讗 讗诐 讞讘专讛 讘住讬讚 讜讘讞专住讬转 诪讜转专 讜讛讗谞谉 讬讜爪专 转谞谉 诪讗讬 讬讜爪专 讻注讬谉 讬讜爪专:

And we also learned in our mishna that if the craftsman attached the tube to the lamp from the outset, it is permitted to fill it with oil and use it. It was taught in a baraita that even if a homeowner attached it to the vessel before Shabbat by means of plaster or with dry potter鈥檚 clay, it is permitted. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 we specifically learn in the mishna: If the craftsman attached it from the outset, not a layman? The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of craftsman in the mishna? It refers to any attachment similar to the attachment of the craftsman.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻注诐 讗讞转 砖讘转讬谞讜 讘注诇讬讬转 讘讬转 谞转讝讛 讘诇讜讚 讜讛讘讬讗讜 诇谞讜 砖驻讜驻专转 砖诇 讘讬爪讛 讜诪诇讗谞讜讛 砖诪谉 讜谞拽讘谞讜讛 讜讛谞讞谞讜讛 注诇 驻讬 讛谞专 讜讛讬讛 砖诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讜讝拽谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇谞讜 讚讘专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讘讬转 谞转讝讛 讚讝专讬讝讬谉 讛谉

With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said to the Rabbis: One time we spent our Shabbat in the upper story of the house of Nit鈥檢a in the city of Lod. And they brought us an eggshell, and we filled it with oil, and pierced it, and left it over the lamp in order to extend its burning. And Rabbi Tarfon and other Elders were there and they did not say anything to us. Apparently, there is no prohibition. The Rabbis said to him: Do you bring proof from there? The legal status of the Elders who were sitting in the house of Nit鈥檢a is different. They are vigilant. There is no room for concern lest they use the oil in the eggshell and accelerate the extinguishing of the lamp. However, in every other circumstance, doing so is prohibited.

讗讘讬谉 爪讬驻讜专讗讛 讙专专 住驻住诇讗 讘注讬诇讬转讗 讚砖讬砖讗 诇注讬诇讗 诪专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 砖转讜拽讬 诇讱 讻讚砖转讬拽讜 诇讬讛 讞讘专讬讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞驻讬拽 诪讬谞讬讛 讞讜专讘讗 讙讝讬专讛 注诇讬转讗 讚砖讬砖讗 讗讟讜 注诇讬转讗 讚注诇诪讗

The Gemara relates: Avin from the city of Tzippori dragged a bench in an upper story, whose floor was made of marble, before Rabbi Yitz岣k ben Elazar. Rabbi Yitz岣k ben Elazar said to him: If I remain silent and say nothing to you, as Rabbi Tarfon and the members of the group of Elders were silent and said nothing to Rabbi Yehuda, damage will result, as it will lead to unfounded leniency in the future. Had they told Rabbi Yehuda at that time that it is prohibited to puncture the eggshell, he would not have disagreed with the Rabbis. He would not have mistakenly derived a general leniency. So too, here the Sages issued a decree on a marble-floored upper story due to a standard upper story with an earth floor. One who drags a bench on an earth floor will create a furrow.

专讬砖 讻谞讬砖转讗 讚讘爪专讛 讙专专 住驻住诇讗 诇注讬诇讗 诪专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讙讚讜诇讬诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讘拽讟谞讬诐 诪讬 讗诪专 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚注讜诇讗 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘拽讟谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讘讙讚讜诇讬诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专

On the topic of dragging, the Gemara relates that the Head of the Kenesset of Batzra dragged a bench before Rabbi Yirmeya the Great on Shabbat. Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: In accordance with whose opinion do you permit yourself to drag a bench on Shabbat? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? Say that Rabbi Shimon said his statement specifically with regard to large benches that are impossible to move from place to place in any other way, but in the case of small benches did he say that one is permitted to drag them? And this disagrees with the opinion of Ulla, as Ulla said: The dispute with regard to dragging is in the case of small benches; however, in the case of large benches, everyone agrees that one is permitted to drag them, as there is no other way to move them.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讙讜专专 讗讚诐 诪讟讛 讻住讗 讜住驻住诇 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇注砖讜转 讞专讬抓 拽转谞讬 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜拽转谞讬 拽讟谞讬诐 拽砖讬讗 诇转专讜讜讬讬讛讜

Rav Yosef raised an objection from what was taught in a baraita, Rabbi Shimon says: One may drag a bed, a chair, and a bench across the floor on Shabbat even though it creates a furrow, as long as he does not intend to create a furrow. This baraita teaches about large objects, like a bed, and teaches about small objects, like a chair. If so, this is difficult for both Rabbi Yirmeya the Great and for Ulla. Rabbi Yirmeya holds that Rabbi Shimon prohibits dragging even small furniture. Ulla holds that even Rabbi Yehuda permits dragging large pieces of furniture. According to his opinion, there is no need for Rabbi Shimon to state that it is permitted.

注讜诇讗 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 专讘讛 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 注讜诇讗 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 诪讟讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讻住讗 讜专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 专讘讛 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讻住讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚诪讟讛

The Gemara answers that Ulla reconciles the objection in accordance with his reasoning and Rabbi Yirmeya the Great reconciles the objection in accordance with his reasoning. The Gemara explains: Ulla reconciles the objection in accordance with his reasoning: A bed, similar to a chair; the baraita is referring here to a small bed that can be carried like a chair, with regard to which there is a dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Yirmeya the Great reconciles the objection in accordance with his reasoning: A chair, similar to a bed; the baraita is referring to dragging a heavy chair that cannot be moved in any other way.

诪转讬讘 专讘讛 诪讜讻专讬 讻住讜转 诪讜讻专讬谉 讻讚专讻谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 讘讞诪讛 诪驻谞讬 讛讞诪讛 讜讘讙砖诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讜讛爪谞讜注讬谉 诪驻砖讬诇讬谉 讘诪拽诇 诇讗讞讜专讬讛谉 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讗驻砖专 诇诪讬注讘讚 讻爪谞讜注讬谉 讚讻讬 拽讟谞讬诐 讚诪讬 讜讻讬 诇讗 诪转讻讜讬谉 砖专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 专讘讛 转讬讜讘转讗:

Rabba raised an objection to Rabbi Yirmeya鈥檚 statement from that which we learned in a mishna: Clothing merchants who sell garments made of diverse kinds, a prohibited mixture of wool and linen, may sell them as they normally would to gentiles, and they may place the garments that they are selling on their shoulders and need not be concerned about the prohibition against wearing diverse kinds, as long as the merchant does not intend to benefit from the garments in the sun as protection from the sun, or in the rain as protection from the rain. However, the modest people, those who are particularly fastidious in performing mitzvot, would suspend the wool and linen garments on a stick behind them. And here, in the case of dragging benches, where it is possible to act like the modest people, as the clothes are similar to small benches, and nevertheless, when one does not intend to perform the prohibited action, Rabbi Shimon permits dragging even ab initio. Rabbi Shimon holds that one who does not intend to violate a prohibition need not take an alternative course of action due to concern that resulting from his action, the prohibited act might come to be performed. Based on that principle, it is clear that Rabbi Shimon would permit dragging small benches since one does not intend to create a furrow in dragging them. This is a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rabbi Yirmeya the Great, who held that dragging small objects is prohibited according to Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讻讘讛 讗转 讛谞专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪转讬专讗 诪驻谞讬 讙讜讬诐 讜诪驻谞讬 诇讬住讟讬诐 诪驻谞讬 专讜讞 专注讛 诪驻谞讬 讛讞讜诇讛 砖讬讬砖谉 驻讟讜专 讻讞住 注诇 讛谞专 讻讞住 注诇 讛砖诪谉 讻讞住 注诇 讛驻转讬诇讛 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 驻讜讟专 讘讻讜诇谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛驻转讬诇讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 驻讞诐:

MISHNA: One who extinguishes the lamp on Shabbat because he is afraid due to gentiles, from whom he is hiding in his home, and due to thieves, or if one is afraid due to an evil spirit, i.e., he is depressed and prefers sitting in the dark, or if he extinguished the flame due to the sick person so that he will sleep, he is exempt. However, in a case where he extinguishes the flame in order to spare the lamp, spare the oil, or spare the wick, he is liable. Rabbi Yosei exempts him in all of those cases, as in his opinion no labor prohibited by Torah law is being performed by extinguishing the flame, except for the case where he seeks to spare the wick. Only in that case is extinguishing a creative action because he makes the wick into charcoal by extinguishing the flame.

Scroll To Top