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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 9, 2020 | 讟状讜 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 34

The mishna recommends that a husband should ask his wife before Shabbat starts if she tithed the produce and set up an eiruv and if so, she should light the candles. What things cannot be done once the time of twilight (bein hashmashot) has arrived? What things can still be done during this time period? The gemara resolves a potential contradiction in the mishna reagarding eiruv. What is hatmana? What type is forbidden even before Shabbat and what type is permitted even during twilight. Why? Twilight is considered a time that is maybe day, maybe night or maybe both. What is the tannatic debate regarding when exactly is twilight? What is the relevance for this time of doubt regarding impurity of a zav? Raba and Rav Yosef have a disagreement about how to understand the time of twilight according to Rabbi Yehuda, as his words seem to include contradictory statements and each resolves it in a different way. This disagreement is consistent with their opinion regarding the length of time that twilight spans.

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讜讗讬转 诇讛讜 爪注专讗 诇讻讛谞讬诐 诇讗拽讜驻讬 讗诪专 讗讬讻讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讬讚注 讚讗讬转讞讝拽 讛讻讗 讟讛专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 讻讗谉 拽讬爪抓 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 转讜专诪住讬 转专讜诪讛 注讘讚 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讛讜讛 拽砖讬 讟讛专讬讛 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讛讜讛 专驻讬 爪讬讬谞讬讛

and the priests are troubled by being forced to circumvent it, as it is prohibited for them to become ritually impure from contact with a corpse. There was suspicion, but no certainty, that a corpse was buried there. Therefore, they were unable to definitively determine its status. Rabbi Shimon said: Is there a person who knows that there was a presumption of ritual purity here? Is there anyone who remembers a time when this place was not considered ritually impure, or that at least part of it was considered to be ritually pure? An Elder said to him: Here ben Zakkai planted and cut the teruma of lupines. In this marketplace Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Zakkai, who himself was a priest, once planted lupines that were given to him as teruma. On that basis, the conclusion can be drawn that it was definitely ritually pure. Rabbi Shimon, like Jacob, also did so and took steps to improve the city and examined the ground (Tosafot). Everywhere that the ground was hard, he pronounced it ritually pure as there was certainly no corpse there, and every place that the ground was soft, he marked it indicating that perhaps a corpse was buried there. In that way, he purified the marketplace so that even priests could walk through it.

讗诪专 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 讟讬讛专 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诇诪诇讬 (诇讗) 讛讬讬转 注诪谞讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讬转 注诪谞讜 讜诇讗 谞诪谞讬转 注诪谞讜 讬驻讛 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 注讻砖讬讜 砖讛讬讬转 注诪谞讜 讜谞诪谞讬转 注诪谞讜 讬讗诪专讜 讝讜谞讜转 诪驻专讻住讜转 讝讜 讗转 讝讜 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讬讛讘 讘讬讛 注讬谞讬讛 讜谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 谞驻拽 诇砖讜拽讗 讞讝讬讬讛 诇讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讙专讬诐 讗诪专 注讚讬讬谉 讬砖 诇讝讛 讘注讜诇诐 谞转谉 讘讜 注讬谞讬讜 讜注砖讛讜 讙诇 砖诇 注爪诪讜转:

A certain Elder said in ridicule and surprise: Ben Yo岣i purified the cemetery. Rabbi Shimon got angry and said to him: Had you not been with us, and even had you been with us and were not counted with us in rendering this ruling, what you say is fine. You could have said that you were unaware of my intention or that you did not agree or participate in this decision. Now that you were with us and were counted with us in rendering this ruling, you will cause people to say that Sages are unwilling to cooperate with one another. They will say: If competing prostitutes still apply makeup to each other to help one another look beautiful, all the more so that Torah scholars should cooperate with each other. He directed his eyes toward him and the Elder died. Rabbi Shimon went out to the marketplace and he saw Yehuda, son of converts, who was the cause of this entire incident. Rabbi Shimon, said: This one still has a place in the world? He directed his eyes toward him and turned him into a pile of bones.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 爪专讬讱 讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讻讛 注砖专转诐 注专讘转诐 讛讚诇讬拽讜 讗转 讛谞专 住驻拽 讞砖讻讛 住驻拽 讗讬谞讜 讞砖讻讛 讗讬谉 诪注砖专讬谉 讗转 讛讜讚讗讬 讜讗讬谉 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讗转 讛谞专讜转 讗讘诇 诪注砖专讬谉 讗转 讛讚诪讗讬 讜诪注专讘讬谉 讜讟讜诪谞讬谉 讗转 讛讞诪讬谉:

MISHNA: There are three things a person must say in his home on Shabbat eve at nightfall and not before. The mishna elaborates: He should ask the members of his household, have you tithed the crop that required tithing? Have you placed the eiruv for joining the courtyards and joining the Shabbat borders? If you have done so, light the lamp in honor of Shabbat. The Sages stated a principle: If the time arrives on Friday when there is uncertainty whether it is nightfall and uncertainty whether it is not yet nightfall, one may not tithe the crop that has definitely not been tithed, and one may not immerse ritually impure vessels in a ritual bath to render them ritually pure, and one may not light the Shabbat lights. However, one may tithe demai, doubtfully tithed produce, which must be tithed due to mere suspicion. And one may place an eiruv and insulate the hot water to be used on Shabbat.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬讚注转 讻讬 砖诇讜诐 讗讛诇讱 讜驻拽讚转 谞讜讱 讜诇讗 转讞讟讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 爪专讬讱 讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 讜讻讜壮 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬诪专讬谞讛讜 讘谞讬讞讜转讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬拽讘诇讬谞讛讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗谞讗 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讛讗 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜拽讬讬诪转讬 诪住讘专讗

GEMARA: The Gemara attempts to clarify: From where are these matters, that one must ask these questions in his home at nightfall of Shabbat, derived? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: As the verse said: 鈥淎nd you shall know that your tent is in peace; and you shall visit your habitation, and shall not sin鈥 (Job 5:24). From here it is derived that one should visit his habitation, i.e., ask in his home, so that he will not come to sin. Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Although the Sages said that there are three things a person should, indeed he is required to, say in his home on Shabbat eve at nightfall, one must say them calmly so that the members of his household will accept them from him. If he says them harshly, his family members may mislead him and cause him to sin. Rav Ashi said: I did not hear this halakha of Rabba bar Rav Huna, but I fulfilled it based on my own reasoning.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 爪专讬讱 讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讻讛 注诐 讞砖讻讛 讗讬谉 住驻拽 讞砖讻讛 住驻拽 讗讬谞讜 讞砖讻讛 诇讗 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 住驻拽 讞砖讻讛 住驻拽 讗讬谞讜 讞砖讻讛 诪注专讘:

The Gemara asks: This mishna itself is difficult, as it contains an internal contradiction. On the one hand, you stated initially that there are three things a person must say in his home before Shabbat at nightfall, and this means: At nightfall, i.e., before nightfall, yes, he should say those things; when there is uncertainty whether it is nightfall and uncertainty whether it is not yet nightfall, no, he should not say them. Even if one were to ask then, it is no longer permitted to correct these matters. And then it taught: When there is uncertainty whether it is nightfall and uncertainty whether it is not yet nightfall, one may place an eiruv. One may correct the situation even then. Why did the mishna restrict asking these questions to an earlier time?

住讬诪谉 讘讙讜驻讬讗 讝讬诪专讗 爪讬驻专讗 讘讞讘诇讗 讚诪讬诇转讗:

Incidentally, prior to answering this question, the Gemara lists all of the other halakhot in tractate Shabbat stated by the Sage who answers the question, with the mnemonic: Self, pruning, bird, cord, silk.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘注讬专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 讻讗谉 讘注讬专讜讘讬 讞爪专讜转

Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rav said: This is not difficult and there is no contradiction here. Here, at the beginning of the mishna, where it indicates that the eiruv can only be placed while it is still day, it is referring to the joining of Shabbat boundaries, which is based on a Torah law. Therefore, one must place this eiruv while it is definitely day. And here, where the mishna said that it is permitted even when it is uncertain whether or not it is already nighttime, it is referring to the joining of courtyards, which is more lenient and based merely on a stringency.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 砖谞讬诐 爪讗 讜注专讘 注诇讬谞讜 诇讗讞讚 注讬专讘 注诇讬讜 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讜诇讗讞讚 注讬专讘 注诇讬讜 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讝讛 砖注讬专讘 注诇讬讜 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 谞讗讻诇 注讬专讜讘讜 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讜讝讛 砖注讬专讘 注诇讬讜 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 谞讗讻诇 注讬专讜讘讜 诪砖讞砖讻讛 砖谞讬讛诐 拽谞讛 注讬专讜讘

In connection to this, the Gemara cites the halakha that Rava said in order to emphasize the rabbinic aspect of the halakhot of eiruv: One to whom two people said: Go and place an eiruv, a joining of courtyards (Rabbeinu 岣nanel), for us. For one of them he placed an eiruv while it was still day, and for one he placed an eiruv at twilight, when it is uncertain whether it is day or night. The one for whom he placed an eiruv while it was still day had his eiruv eaten during twilight, and the one for whom he placed an eiruv during twilight had his eiruv eaten after nightfall. The principle is as follows: Whether or not an eiruv takes effect is determined at the moment that Shabbat begins. If one placed the eiruv beforehand, and it remains intact at the moment Shabbat begins, the eiruv is in effect. However, if the eiruv that was placed at the appropriate time was eaten during twilight, it is problematic. Twilight is a period of uncertainty. There is uncertainty whether it is day, and consequently the eiruv was not in place at the moment that Shabbat began, or whether it is night, and it was in place. In the latter case, there is still uncertainty as to whether or not the eiruv was in place prior to Shabbat, so that it could take effect at all. In that case, Rava ruled that both of them acquired the eiruv.

诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讬诪诪讗 讛讜讗 讘转专讗 诇讬拽谞讬 拽诪讗 诇讗 诇讬拽谞讬 讜讗讬 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 诇讬诇讬讗 讛讜讗 拽诪讗 诇讬拽谞讬 讘转专讗 诇讗 诇讬拽谞讬 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 住驻拽讗 讛讜讗 讜住驻拽讗 讚专讘谞谉 诇拽讜诇讗:

The Gemara is surprised by this: Whichever way you look at it, this ruling is difficult. If the twilight period is considered day, let the latter one acquire his eiruv, but let the first one not acquire his because his eiruv was eaten while it was still day. And if the twilight period is night, let the first one acquire his eiruv, but let the latter one not acquire his eiruv because his was not placed before Shabbat. In any event, it is impossible for the eiruv in both of these cases to be valid. The Gemara answers this according to Rava鈥檚 position: The status of twilight is uncertain, as it is unknown whether it is day, or night, or both, and uncertainty in the case of a rabbinic ordinance is ruled leniently. Therefore, in both cases the eiruv is acquired.

(讜讗诪专) 专讘讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜住讬祝 讛讘诇 诪砖讞砖讻讛 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬专转讬讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 谞诪讬 谞讬讙讝专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 住转诐 拽讚讬专讜转 专讜转讞讜转 讛谉

And Rava said: Why did they say that one may not insulate hot water even in something that does not add heat, but only retains the pre-existing heat, from nightfall on Friday? It is a decree lest one come to boil the pot on Shabbat. Abaye said to him: If so, if it is due to concern that one may boil it, then during twilight we should also issue a decree and prohibit insulating in something that does not add heat. Rava said to him: During twilight, there is no reason to be concerned because at that time most pots are boiling, as they have just been taken off of the fire. Later at night the pots cool down and it is conceivable that one may come to boil them in order to restore the heat.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗

And Rava said:

诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讘讚讘专 讛诪讜住讬祝 讛讘诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讟诪讬谉 讘专诪抓 砖讬砖 讘讛 讙讞诇转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讬讟诪讬谉 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讞转讛 讘讙讞诇讬诐:

Why did the Sages say that one may not insulate hot water for Shabbat in something that adds heat, even while it is still day? It is a decree lest one come to cover it in hot ashes that contain a glowing ember. People may not differentiate between addition of heat by means of hot ashes and other additions of heat. Abaye said to him: Let him insulate it with hot ashes, what is the problem? Rava answered him: It is a decree lest one come to stoke the coals in order to make them burn on Shabbat and thereby violate a Torah prohibition.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 住驻拽 诪谉 讛讬讜诐 讜诪谉 讛诇讬诇讛 住驻拽 讻讜诇讜 诪谉 讛讬讜诐 住驻拽 讻讜诇讜 诪谉 讛诇讬诇讛 诪讟讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讞讜诪专 砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐

The Sages taught a baraita which discusses the range of problems that arise with regard to the twilight period. Twilight is a period of uncertainty. It is uncertain whether it consists of both day and night, it is uncertain whether it is completely day, and it is uncertain whether it is completely night. Therefore, the Sages impose the stringencies of both days upon it. If there is a stringency that applies on either of the days, one is obligated to adhere to it during the twilight period.

讜讗讬讝讛讜 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 诪砖转砖拽注 讛讞诪讛 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖驻谞讬 诪讝专讞 诪讗讚讬诪讬谉 讛讻住讬祝 讛转讞转讜谉 讜诇讗 讛讻住讬祝 讛注诇讬讜谉 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讛讻住讬祝 讛注诇讬讜谉 讜讛砖讜讛 诇转讞转讜谉 讝讛讜 诇讬诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 讻讚讬 砖讬讛诇讱 讗讚诐 诪砖转砖拽注 讛讞诪讛 讞爪讬 诪讬诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讻讛专祝 注讬谉 讝讛 谞讻谞住 讜讝讛 讬讜爪讗 讜讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇注诪讜讚 注诇讬讜

Nevertheless, the definition of twilight is uncertain. And what is twilight? From when the sun sets, as long as the eastern face of the sky is reddened by the light of the sun. If the lower segment of the sky has lost its color, and the upper segment has not yet lost its color, that is the twilight period. If the upper segment has lost its color, and its color equals that of the lower one, it is night; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Ne岣mya says: The duration of the twilight period is the time it takes for a person to walk half a mil after the sun sets. Rabbi Yosei says: Twilight does not last for a quantifiable period of time; rather, it is like the blink of an eye: This, night, enters and that, day, leaves, and it is impossible to calculate it due to its brevity.

讗诪专 诪专 诪讟讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讞讜诪专 砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讻讚转谞谉 专讗讛 砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 住驻拽 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讜诇拽专讘谉 专讗讛 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 住驻拽 诇讟讜诪讗讛

It was taught in the baraita that the Master said: The Sages impose the stringencies of both days upon twilight. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha was this stated? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: With regard to the matter of ritual impurity, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to a zav who saw an emission for two consecutive days during twilight, it is unclear whether it should be considered as if he only saw the emission for a single day, as perhaps twilight of the first day was part of the following day, and twilight of the second day was part of the previous day; or, whether it should be considered as two days, attributing each twilight to either the previous or the following day; or, whether it should be considered three days, as it is possible to view the twilight period as two days. By Torah law, a zav who saw two emissions is ritually impure, and all of the stringencies of a zav apply to him. If he sees a third emission, he is liable to bring an offering as part of his purification ritual. Therefore, this zav, with regard to whom there is uncertainty whether he saw emissions for one day, two days, or three days, has uncertain status with regard to both ritual impurity and to sacrifice. If he saw an emission one day during twilight, he has uncertain status with regard to ritual impurity because it may be considered two days.

讛讗 讙讜驻讛 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讗讬讝讛讜 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 诪砖转砖拽注 讛讞诪讛 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖驻谞讬 诪讝专讞 诪讗讚讬诪讬谉 讛讗 讛讻住讬祝 讛转讞转讜谉 讜诇讗 讛讻住讬祝 讛注诇讬讜谉 诇讬诇讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讚专 转谞讗 讛讻住讬祝 讛转讞转讜谉 讜诇讗 讛讻住讬祝 讛注诇讬讜谉 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻专讜讱 讜转谞讬 讗讬讝讛讜 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 诪砖转砖拽注 讛讞诪讛 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖驻谞讬 诪讝专讞 诪讗讚讬诪讬谉 讜讛讻住讬祝 讛转讞转讜谉 讜诇讗 讛讻住讬祝 讛注诇讬讜谉 谞诪讬 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讛讻住讬祝 讛注诇讬讜谉 讜讛砖讜讛 诇转讞转讜谉 诇讬诇讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪砖转砖拽注 讛讞诪讛 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖驻谞讬 诪讝专讞 诪讗讚讬诪讬谉 讬讜诐 讛讻住讬祝 讛转讞转讜谉 讜诇讗 讛讻住讬祝 讛注诇讬讜谉 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讛讻住讬祝 讛注诇讬讜谉 讜讛砖讜讛 诇转讞转讜谉 诇讬诇讛

The Gemara comments on the baraita cited by the Gemara. This baraita is itself difficult, self-contradictory. Initially you said, what is twilight? From when the sun sets, as long as the eastern face of the sky is reddened by the light of the sun. By inference, if the bottom segment lost its color, and the upper one has not lost its color, it is night. And then the baraita taught: If the lower segment of the sky has lost its color, and the upper segment has not yet lost its color, that is the twilight period. There is an apparent internal contradiction in the baraita. Rabba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: In order to resolve the contradiction, unify the two statements and teach it as follows: What is twilight? From when the sun sets, as long as the eastern face of the sky is reddened by the light of the sun. If the lower segment of the sky has lost its color and the upper segment has not yet lost its color, that is also the twilight period. Only if the upper segment lost its color, and it equals that of the lower one, is it night. And Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said otherwise: From when the sun sets, as long as the eastern face of the sky is reddened by the light of the sun, it is day. If the lower segment of the sky has lost its color, and the upper segment has not yet lost its color, that is the twilight period. If the upper segment lost its color and it equals that of the lower one, it is night.

讜讗讝讚讜 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讗讬转诪专 砖讬注讜专 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讘讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇砖讛 讞诇拽讬 诪讬诇 诪讗讬 砖诇砖讛 讞诇拽讬 诪讬诇 讗讬诇讬诪讗 转诇转讗 驻诇讙讬 诪讬诇讗 谞讬诪讗 诪讬诇 讜诪讞爪讛 讗诇讗 转诇转讗 转讬诇转讬 诪讬诇讗 谞讬诪讗 诪讬诇 讗诇讗 转诇转讗 专讬讘注讬 诪讬诇讗 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖谞讬 讞诇拽讬 诪讬诇 诪讗讬 砖谞讬 讞诇拽讬 诪讬诇 讗讬诇讬诪讗 转专讬 驻诇讙讬 诪讬诇讗 诇讬诪讗 诪讬诇 讜讗诇讗 转专讬 专讘注讬 诪讬诇讗 诇讬诪讗 讞爪讬 诪讬诇 讗诇讗

And the Gemara remarks: In this dispute over the precise definition of twilight both Rabba and Rav Yosef follow their line of reasoning stated elsewhere. As it was stated: What is the measure of the duration of twilight? Rabba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The time it takes to walk three parts of a mil. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of three parts of a mil? If you say that it refers to three halves of a mil, let him say a mil and a half. Rather, if you say that it means three-thirds of a mil, let him simply say one mil. Rather, it means three-quarters of a mil. And Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The duration of twilight is two parts of a mil. Again the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of two parts of a mil? If you say that it means two halves of a mil, let him simply say one mil. Rather, if you say that it means two-quarters of a mil, let him say instead: Half of a mil. Rather,

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)

Shabbat 33-37- Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCb2NcsYM50 We will review topics on Daf 33-37 including types of cooking and ovens.聽 We will then learn...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 34: The Twilight Zone — Literally

A brief mention of "hatmanah" and crock pots. More: The checklist going into Shabbat. Keeping tension in check, and welcoming...

Shabbat 34

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 34

讜讗讬转 诇讛讜 爪注专讗 诇讻讛谞讬诐 诇讗拽讜驻讬 讗诪专 讗讬讻讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讬讚注 讚讗讬转讞讝拽 讛讻讗 讟讛专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 讻讗谉 拽讬爪抓 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 转讜专诪住讬 转专讜诪讛 注讘讚 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讛讜讛 拽砖讬 讟讛专讬讛 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讛讜讛 专驻讬 爪讬讬谞讬讛

and the priests are troubled by being forced to circumvent it, as it is prohibited for them to become ritually impure from contact with a corpse. There was suspicion, but no certainty, that a corpse was buried there. Therefore, they were unable to definitively determine its status. Rabbi Shimon said: Is there a person who knows that there was a presumption of ritual purity here? Is there anyone who remembers a time when this place was not considered ritually impure, or that at least part of it was considered to be ritually pure? An Elder said to him: Here ben Zakkai planted and cut the teruma of lupines. In this marketplace Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Zakkai, who himself was a priest, once planted lupines that were given to him as teruma. On that basis, the conclusion can be drawn that it was definitely ritually pure. Rabbi Shimon, like Jacob, also did so and took steps to improve the city and examined the ground (Tosafot). Everywhere that the ground was hard, he pronounced it ritually pure as there was certainly no corpse there, and every place that the ground was soft, he marked it indicating that perhaps a corpse was buried there. In that way, he purified the marketplace so that even priests could walk through it.

讗诪专 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 讟讬讛专 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诇诪诇讬 (诇讗) 讛讬讬转 注诪谞讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讬转 注诪谞讜 讜诇讗 谞诪谞讬转 注诪谞讜 讬驻讛 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 注讻砖讬讜 砖讛讬讬转 注诪谞讜 讜谞诪谞讬转 注诪谞讜 讬讗诪专讜 讝讜谞讜转 诪驻专讻住讜转 讝讜 讗转 讝讜 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讬讛讘 讘讬讛 注讬谞讬讛 讜谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 谞驻拽 诇砖讜拽讗 讞讝讬讬讛 诇讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讙专讬诐 讗诪专 注讚讬讬谉 讬砖 诇讝讛 讘注讜诇诐 谞转谉 讘讜 注讬谞讬讜 讜注砖讛讜 讙诇 砖诇 注爪诪讜转:

A certain Elder said in ridicule and surprise: Ben Yo岣i purified the cemetery. Rabbi Shimon got angry and said to him: Had you not been with us, and even had you been with us and were not counted with us in rendering this ruling, what you say is fine. You could have said that you were unaware of my intention or that you did not agree or participate in this decision. Now that you were with us and were counted with us in rendering this ruling, you will cause people to say that Sages are unwilling to cooperate with one another. They will say: If competing prostitutes still apply makeup to each other to help one another look beautiful, all the more so that Torah scholars should cooperate with each other. He directed his eyes toward him and the Elder died. Rabbi Shimon went out to the marketplace and he saw Yehuda, son of converts, who was the cause of this entire incident. Rabbi Shimon, said: This one still has a place in the world? He directed his eyes toward him and turned him into a pile of bones.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 爪专讬讱 讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讻讛 注砖专转诐 注专讘转诐 讛讚诇讬拽讜 讗转 讛谞专 住驻拽 讞砖讻讛 住驻拽 讗讬谞讜 讞砖讻讛 讗讬谉 诪注砖专讬谉 讗转 讛讜讚讗讬 讜讗讬谉 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讗转 讛谞专讜转 讗讘诇 诪注砖专讬谉 讗转 讛讚诪讗讬 讜诪注专讘讬谉 讜讟讜诪谞讬谉 讗转 讛讞诪讬谉:

MISHNA: There are three things a person must say in his home on Shabbat eve at nightfall and not before. The mishna elaborates: He should ask the members of his household, have you tithed the crop that required tithing? Have you placed the eiruv for joining the courtyards and joining the Shabbat borders? If you have done so, light the lamp in honor of Shabbat. The Sages stated a principle: If the time arrives on Friday when there is uncertainty whether it is nightfall and uncertainty whether it is not yet nightfall, one may not tithe the crop that has definitely not been tithed, and one may not immerse ritually impure vessels in a ritual bath to render them ritually pure, and one may not light the Shabbat lights. However, one may tithe demai, doubtfully tithed produce, which must be tithed due to mere suspicion. And one may place an eiruv and insulate the hot water to be used on Shabbat.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬讚注转 讻讬 砖诇讜诐 讗讛诇讱 讜驻拽讚转 谞讜讱 讜诇讗 转讞讟讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 爪专讬讱 讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 讜讻讜壮 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬诪专讬谞讛讜 讘谞讬讞讜转讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬拽讘诇讬谞讛讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗谞讗 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讛讗 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜拽讬讬诪转讬 诪住讘专讗

GEMARA: The Gemara attempts to clarify: From where are these matters, that one must ask these questions in his home at nightfall of Shabbat, derived? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: As the verse said: 鈥淎nd you shall know that your tent is in peace; and you shall visit your habitation, and shall not sin鈥 (Job 5:24). From here it is derived that one should visit his habitation, i.e., ask in his home, so that he will not come to sin. Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Although the Sages said that there are three things a person should, indeed he is required to, say in his home on Shabbat eve at nightfall, one must say them calmly so that the members of his household will accept them from him. If he says them harshly, his family members may mislead him and cause him to sin. Rav Ashi said: I did not hear this halakha of Rabba bar Rav Huna, but I fulfilled it based on my own reasoning.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 爪专讬讱 讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讻讛 注诐 讞砖讻讛 讗讬谉 住驻拽 讞砖讻讛 住驻拽 讗讬谞讜 讞砖讻讛 诇讗 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 住驻拽 讞砖讻讛 住驻拽 讗讬谞讜 讞砖讻讛 诪注专讘:

The Gemara asks: This mishna itself is difficult, as it contains an internal contradiction. On the one hand, you stated initially that there are three things a person must say in his home before Shabbat at nightfall, and this means: At nightfall, i.e., before nightfall, yes, he should say those things; when there is uncertainty whether it is nightfall and uncertainty whether it is not yet nightfall, no, he should not say them. Even if one were to ask then, it is no longer permitted to correct these matters. And then it taught: When there is uncertainty whether it is nightfall and uncertainty whether it is not yet nightfall, one may place an eiruv. One may correct the situation even then. Why did the mishna restrict asking these questions to an earlier time?

住讬诪谉 讘讙讜驻讬讗 讝讬诪专讗 爪讬驻专讗 讘讞讘诇讗 讚诪讬诇转讗:

Incidentally, prior to answering this question, the Gemara lists all of the other halakhot in tractate Shabbat stated by the Sage who answers the question, with the mnemonic: Self, pruning, bird, cord, silk.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘注讬专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 讻讗谉 讘注讬专讜讘讬 讞爪专讜转

Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rav said: This is not difficult and there is no contradiction here. Here, at the beginning of the mishna, where it indicates that the eiruv can only be placed while it is still day, it is referring to the joining of Shabbat boundaries, which is based on a Torah law. Therefore, one must place this eiruv while it is definitely day. And here, where the mishna said that it is permitted even when it is uncertain whether or not it is already nighttime, it is referring to the joining of courtyards, which is more lenient and based merely on a stringency.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 砖谞讬诐 爪讗 讜注专讘 注诇讬谞讜 诇讗讞讚 注讬专讘 注诇讬讜 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讜诇讗讞讚 注讬专讘 注诇讬讜 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讝讛 砖注讬专讘 注诇讬讜 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 谞讗讻诇 注讬专讜讘讜 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讜讝讛 砖注讬专讘 注诇讬讜 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 谞讗讻诇 注讬专讜讘讜 诪砖讞砖讻讛 砖谞讬讛诐 拽谞讛 注讬专讜讘

In connection to this, the Gemara cites the halakha that Rava said in order to emphasize the rabbinic aspect of the halakhot of eiruv: One to whom two people said: Go and place an eiruv, a joining of courtyards (Rabbeinu 岣nanel), for us. For one of them he placed an eiruv while it was still day, and for one he placed an eiruv at twilight, when it is uncertain whether it is day or night. The one for whom he placed an eiruv while it was still day had his eiruv eaten during twilight, and the one for whom he placed an eiruv during twilight had his eiruv eaten after nightfall. The principle is as follows: Whether or not an eiruv takes effect is determined at the moment that Shabbat begins. If one placed the eiruv beforehand, and it remains intact at the moment Shabbat begins, the eiruv is in effect. However, if the eiruv that was placed at the appropriate time was eaten during twilight, it is problematic. Twilight is a period of uncertainty. There is uncertainty whether it is day, and consequently the eiruv was not in place at the moment that Shabbat began, or whether it is night, and it was in place. In the latter case, there is still uncertainty as to whether or not the eiruv was in place prior to Shabbat, so that it could take effect at all. In that case, Rava ruled that both of them acquired the eiruv.

诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讬诪诪讗 讛讜讗 讘转专讗 诇讬拽谞讬 拽诪讗 诇讗 诇讬拽谞讬 讜讗讬 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 诇讬诇讬讗 讛讜讗 拽诪讗 诇讬拽谞讬 讘转专讗 诇讗 诇讬拽谞讬 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 住驻拽讗 讛讜讗 讜住驻拽讗 讚专讘谞谉 诇拽讜诇讗:

The Gemara is surprised by this: Whichever way you look at it, this ruling is difficult. If the twilight period is considered day, let the latter one acquire his eiruv, but let the first one not acquire his because his eiruv was eaten while it was still day. And if the twilight period is night, let the first one acquire his eiruv, but let the latter one not acquire his eiruv because his was not placed before Shabbat. In any event, it is impossible for the eiruv in both of these cases to be valid. The Gemara answers this according to Rava鈥檚 position: The status of twilight is uncertain, as it is unknown whether it is day, or night, or both, and uncertainty in the case of a rabbinic ordinance is ruled leniently. Therefore, in both cases the eiruv is acquired.

(讜讗诪专) 专讘讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜住讬祝 讛讘诇 诪砖讞砖讻讛 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬专转讬讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 谞诪讬 谞讬讙讝专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 住转诐 拽讚讬专讜转 专讜转讞讜转 讛谉

And Rava said: Why did they say that one may not insulate hot water even in something that does not add heat, but only retains the pre-existing heat, from nightfall on Friday? It is a decree lest one come to boil the pot on Shabbat. Abaye said to him: If so, if it is due to concern that one may boil it, then during twilight we should also issue a decree and prohibit insulating in something that does not add heat. Rava said to him: During twilight, there is no reason to be concerned because at that time most pots are boiling, as they have just been taken off of the fire. Later at night the pots cool down and it is conceivable that one may come to boil them in order to restore the heat.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗

And Rava said:

诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讘讚讘专 讛诪讜住讬祝 讛讘诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讟诪讬谉 讘专诪抓 砖讬砖 讘讛 讙讞诇转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讬讟诪讬谉 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讞转讛 讘讙讞诇讬诐:

Why did the Sages say that one may not insulate hot water for Shabbat in something that adds heat, even while it is still day? It is a decree lest one come to cover it in hot ashes that contain a glowing ember. People may not differentiate between addition of heat by means of hot ashes and other additions of heat. Abaye said to him: Let him insulate it with hot ashes, what is the problem? Rava answered him: It is a decree lest one come to stoke the coals in order to make them burn on Shabbat and thereby violate a Torah prohibition.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 住驻拽 诪谉 讛讬讜诐 讜诪谉 讛诇讬诇讛 住驻拽 讻讜诇讜 诪谉 讛讬讜诐 住驻拽 讻讜诇讜 诪谉 讛诇讬诇讛 诪讟讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讞讜诪专 砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐

The Sages taught a baraita which discusses the range of problems that arise with regard to the twilight period. Twilight is a period of uncertainty. It is uncertain whether it consists of both day and night, it is uncertain whether it is completely day, and it is uncertain whether it is completely night. Therefore, the Sages impose the stringencies of both days upon it. If there is a stringency that applies on either of the days, one is obligated to adhere to it during the twilight period.

讜讗讬讝讛讜 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 诪砖转砖拽注 讛讞诪讛 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖驻谞讬 诪讝专讞 诪讗讚讬诪讬谉 讛讻住讬祝 讛转讞转讜谉 讜诇讗 讛讻住讬祝 讛注诇讬讜谉 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讛讻住讬祝 讛注诇讬讜谉 讜讛砖讜讛 诇转讞转讜谉 讝讛讜 诇讬诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 讻讚讬 砖讬讛诇讱 讗讚诐 诪砖转砖拽注 讛讞诪讛 讞爪讬 诪讬诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讻讛专祝 注讬谉 讝讛 谞讻谞住 讜讝讛 讬讜爪讗 讜讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇注诪讜讚 注诇讬讜

Nevertheless, the definition of twilight is uncertain. And what is twilight? From when the sun sets, as long as the eastern face of the sky is reddened by the light of the sun. If the lower segment of the sky has lost its color, and the upper segment has not yet lost its color, that is the twilight period. If the upper segment has lost its color, and its color equals that of the lower one, it is night; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Ne岣mya says: The duration of the twilight period is the time it takes for a person to walk half a mil after the sun sets. Rabbi Yosei says: Twilight does not last for a quantifiable period of time; rather, it is like the blink of an eye: This, night, enters and that, day, leaves, and it is impossible to calculate it due to its brevity.

讗诪专 诪专 诪讟讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讞讜诪专 砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讻讚转谞谉 专讗讛 砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 住驻拽 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讜诇拽专讘谉 专讗讛 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 住驻拽 诇讟讜诪讗讛

It was taught in the baraita that the Master said: The Sages impose the stringencies of both days upon twilight. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha was this stated? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: With regard to the matter of ritual impurity, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to a zav who saw an emission for two consecutive days during twilight, it is unclear whether it should be considered as if he only saw the emission for a single day, as perhaps twilight of the first day was part of the following day, and twilight of the second day was part of the previous day; or, whether it should be considered as two days, attributing each twilight to either the previous or the following day; or, whether it should be considered three days, as it is possible to view the twilight period as two days. By Torah law, a zav who saw two emissions is ritually impure, and all of the stringencies of a zav apply to him. If he sees a third emission, he is liable to bring an offering as part of his purification ritual. Therefore, this zav, with regard to whom there is uncertainty whether he saw emissions for one day, two days, or three days, has uncertain status with regard to both ritual impurity and to sacrifice. If he saw an emission one day during twilight, he has uncertain status with regard to ritual impurity because it may be considered two days.

讛讗 讙讜驻讛 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讗讬讝讛讜 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 诪砖转砖拽注 讛讞诪讛 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖驻谞讬 诪讝专讞 诪讗讚讬诪讬谉 讛讗 讛讻住讬祝 讛转讞转讜谉 讜诇讗 讛讻住讬祝 讛注诇讬讜谉 诇讬诇讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讚专 转谞讗 讛讻住讬祝 讛转讞转讜谉 讜诇讗 讛讻住讬祝 讛注诇讬讜谉 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻专讜讱 讜转谞讬 讗讬讝讛讜 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 诪砖转砖拽注 讛讞诪讛 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖驻谞讬 诪讝专讞 诪讗讚讬诪讬谉 讜讛讻住讬祝 讛转讞转讜谉 讜诇讗 讛讻住讬祝 讛注诇讬讜谉 谞诪讬 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讛讻住讬祝 讛注诇讬讜谉 讜讛砖讜讛 诇转讞转讜谉 诇讬诇讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪砖转砖拽注 讛讞诪讛 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖驻谞讬 诪讝专讞 诪讗讚讬诪讬谉 讬讜诐 讛讻住讬祝 讛转讞转讜谉 讜诇讗 讛讻住讬祝 讛注诇讬讜谉 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讛讻住讬祝 讛注诇讬讜谉 讜讛砖讜讛 诇转讞转讜谉 诇讬诇讛

The Gemara comments on the baraita cited by the Gemara. This baraita is itself difficult, self-contradictory. Initially you said, what is twilight? From when the sun sets, as long as the eastern face of the sky is reddened by the light of the sun. By inference, if the bottom segment lost its color, and the upper one has not lost its color, it is night. And then the baraita taught: If the lower segment of the sky has lost its color, and the upper segment has not yet lost its color, that is the twilight period. There is an apparent internal contradiction in the baraita. Rabba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: In order to resolve the contradiction, unify the two statements and teach it as follows: What is twilight? From when the sun sets, as long as the eastern face of the sky is reddened by the light of the sun. If the lower segment of the sky has lost its color and the upper segment has not yet lost its color, that is also the twilight period. Only if the upper segment lost its color, and it equals that of the lower one, is it night. And Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said otherwise: From when the sun sets, as long as the eastern face of the sky is reddened by the light of the sun, it is day. If the lower segment of the sky has lost its color, and the upper segment has not yet lost its color, that is the twilight period. If the upper segment lost its color and it equals that of the lower one, it is night.

讜讗讝讚讜 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讗讬转诪专 砖讬注讜专 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讘讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇砖讛 讞诇拽讬 诪讬诇 诪讗讬 砖诇砖讛 讞诇拽讬 诪讬诇 讗讬诇讬诪讗 转诇转讗 驻诇讙讬 诪讬诇讗 谞讬诪讗 诪讬诇 讜诪讞爪讛 讗诇讗 转诇转讗 转讬诇转讬 诪讬诇讗 谞讬诪讗 诪讬诇 讗诇讗 转诇转讗 专讬讘注讬 诪讬诇讗 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖谞讬 讞诇拽讬 诪讬诇 诪讗讬 砖谞讬 讞诇拽讬 诪讬诇 讗讬诇讬诪讗 转专讬 驻诇讙讬 诪讬诇讗 诇讬诪讗 诪讬诇 讜讗诇讗 转专讬 专讘注讬 诪讬诇讗 诇讬诪讗 讞爪讬 诪讬诇 讗诇讗

And the Gemara remarks: In this dispute over the precise definition of twilight both Rabba and Rav Yosef follow their line of reasoning stated elsewhere. As it was stated: What is the measure of the duration of twilight? Rabba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The time it takes to walk three parts of a mil. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of three parts of a mil? If you say that it refers to three halves of a mil, let him say a mil and a half. Rather, if you say that it means three-thirds of a mil, let him simply say one mil. Rather, it means three-quarters of a mil. And Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The duration of twilight is two parts of a mil. Again the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of two parts of a mil? If you say that it means two halves of a mil, let him simply say one mil. Rather, if you say that it means two-quarters of a mil, let him say instead: Half of a mil. Rather,

Scroll To Top