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

Daf Yomi

April 11, 2020 | 讬状讝 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.

Shabbat 36

Today’s shiur is dedicated by Naomi Ferziger and Minna Felig in memory of their Aunt Helene Aylon z”l who passed away on Monday. A matriarch of female Jewish artists, Aunt Helene would have been thrilled to be a part of Hadran and probably would have thoroughly enjoyed learning the daf each day with us.聽

How can one reconcile various sources regarding whether or not a shofar or a trumpet is muktze? The terms shofar and trumpet changed after the destruction of the temple as did various other words. What are the halachic implications of each name change? The third chapter discusses laws of cooking. Upon what type of flame can one leave food before Shabbat and return food on Shabbat? Does it depend on what type of food and how cooked it was before Shabbat? Is the mishna referring to placing before Shabbat or only to returning food to the flame on Shabbat.

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

诇转讬谞讜拽 讘爪讬讘讜专 谞诪讬 讞讝讬 诇讙诪注 诇转讬谞讜拽 注谞讬 讜转讜 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讻砖诐 砖诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗转 讛砖讜驻专 讻讱 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗转 讞爪讜爪专讜转 诪谞讬 讗诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛


to a child. Because the mouth of a shofar is bent, one can pour a little water at a time. If so, a shofar belonging to the community is also suitable to feed water to a poor infant whose sustenance is provided by the community. And furthermore, that halakha which was taught in a baraita: Just as one may move the shofar, so too one may move the trumpets, is contrary to that which was taught previously that there is a difference between moving the shofar and moving the trumpet. In accordance with whose opinion is that baraita? Rather, this is not difficult, as it can be explained that these three baraitot correspond to the three opinions with regard to these halakhot. This baraita, which permits moving the shofar but not the trumpet, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that the laws of set-aside apply to these items on Shabbat and one may not move a utensil whose only function is prohibited. Since a trumpet has no permitted use on Shabbat, it may not be moved. On the other hand, one is permitted to move a shofar, which can be used to feed a child. And that baraita, which permits moving both a shofar and a trumpet, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the halakhot of set-aside do not apply to utensils of this kind on Shabbat. Whereas this other baraita, which prohibits moving both a shofar and a trumpet, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya, who holds that one may not use a utensil whose primary function is prohibited on Shabbat, even for a permissible purpose.


讜诪讗讬 砖讜驻专 谞诪讬 讞爪讜爪专讜转 讻讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛谞讬 转诇转 诪讬诇讬 讗讬砖转谞讬 砖诪讬讬讛讜 诪讻讬 讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讞爪讜爪专转讗 砖讜驻专讗 砖讜驻专讗 讞爪讜爪专转讗 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇砖讜驻专 砖诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛


However, this explanation raises a slight difficulty with regard to the statement that one may move neither a shofar nor a trumpet. There was no need to mention the trumpet. If one may not move a shofar, certainly he may not move a trumpet. However, it can be explained as follows: What is the shofar mentioned in this baraita? It refers to trumpets, in accordance with the statement of Rav 岣sda, as Rav 岣sda said: These three objects, their names changed since the Holy Temple was destroyed. That which was called trumpet was called shofar in later generations, and that which was called shofar was called trumpet in later generations. The baraita that was cited employed the style that switches trumpet and shofar, and they were mentioned in that order. Incidentally, the Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference whether a shofar is called shofar or trumpet? The Gemara answers: It is significant with regard to the halakhot of shofar of Rosh HaShana. On Rosh HaShana one fulfills his obligation only by sounding a shofar. If one comes today and asks what instrument he should use to sound the requisite blasts, he should be told to use a trumpet.


注专讘讛 爪驻爪驻讛 爪驻爪驻讛 注专讘讛 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诇讜诇讘


The second object whose name was changed: That which was called willow [arava] was called in later generations tzaftzafa, and that which was called tzaftzafa was called willow. Here too the Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference that emerges from the name change? The Gemara answers: With regard to the mitzva of the four species, referred to by the name of one of the species, as taking the palm branch, as one of the four species is a willow branch, not a tzaftzafa.


驻转讜专讛 驻转讜专转讗 驻转讜专转讗 驻转讜专讛 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专


The third item whose name was changed: That which was called petora, originally meaning a large table, was called in later generations petorata, and that which was called petorata, orginally meaning a small table, was called petora in later generations. The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference that emerges from the change of name? The Gemara answers: With regard to the laws of buying and selling. A person who orders a petora should know that he ordered a small table and not a large one.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗祝 讗谞讜 谞讗诪专 讛讜讘诇讬诇讗 讘讬 讻住讬 讘讬 讻住讬 讛讜讘诇讬诇讗 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪讞讟 砖谞诪爪讗转 讘注讜讘讬 讘讬转 讛讻讜住讜转 讚诪爪讚 讗讞讚 讻砖讬专讛 讜诪砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬诐 讟专讬驻讛


Abaye said: We too shall speak and comment on changes in the meaning of terms in our generation. What was called huvlila, the first stomach of animals that chew their cud, is, in recent generations, called bei kasei, the name of the animal鈥檚 second stomach. Similarly, what was once called in the past bei kasei is called huvlila in recent generations. What is the practical halakhic difference that emerges from this change of names? With regard to a needle that is found in the thick wall of the second stomach. In the halakhot of tereifot, one is prohibited to eat animals with a life expectancy of less than a year. It was established that if a needle punctured the wall of the second stomach from only one side, the animal is kosher. If the needle penetrated through the wall in a manner visible from both sides, the animal assumes the halakhic status of a tereifa. In the first stomach, even if the needle penetrated only one side of the wall, the animal assumes the halakhic status of a tereifa. Therefore, it is crucial to distinguish between the first and the second stomachs.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗祝 讗谞讜 谞讗诪专 讘讘诇 讘讜专住讬祝 讘讜专住讬祝 讘讘诇


Rav Ashi said: We too shall speak of matters whose name changed over the generations. The city that, in biblical times, was called Babylon was called Bursif in later generations, and Bursif was called Babylon in later generations.


诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐:


What is the practical halakhic difference that emerges from this change of names? It is in the area of women鈥檚 bills of divorce. With regard to bills of divorce, special care is devoted to ensuring that the name of the place where the bill is written is not altered. Therefore, it is important to be aware that Babylon underwent a name change in later generations.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讘诪讛 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉



诪转谞讬壮 讻讬专讛 砖讛住讬拽讜讛 讘拽砖 讜讘讙讘讘讗 谞讜转谞讬诐 注诇讬讛 转讘砖讬诇 讘讙驻转 讜讘注爪讬诐 诇讗 讬转谉 注讚 砖讬讙专讜祝 讗讜 注讚 砖讬转谉 讗转 讛讗驻专 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 转讘砖讬诇 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪讬谉 讜转讘砖讬诇 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 诪讞讝讬专讬谉:


MISHNA: With regard to a stove that was lit on Shabbat eve with straw or with rakings, scraps collected from the field, one may place a pot of cooked food atop it on Shabbat. The fire in this stove was certainly extinguished while it was still day, as both straw and rakings are materials that burn quickly. However, if the stove was lit with pomace, pulp that remains from sesame seeds, olives, and the like after the oil is squeezed from them, and if it was lit with wood, one may not place a pot atop it on Shabbat until he sweeps the coals from the stove while it is still day or until he places ashes on the coals, so that the fire will not ignite on Shabbat. Beit Shammai say: Even after one has swept away the coals, it is only permitted to place hot water on it, as it is sufficiently hot and does not require additional cooking, but not cooked food. Since, in general, one prefers that food will cook more, there is concern lest he come to ignite the fire by stoking the coals. And Beit Hillel say: Both hot water and cooked food may be placed. Beit Shammai say: One may remove a pot from the stove on Shabbat but may not return it. And Beit Hillel say: One may even return it.


讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讗讬 诇讗 讬转谉 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 诇砖讛讜转 诪砖讛讬谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讙专讜祝 讜讗讬谞讜 拽讟讜诐 讜诪谞讬 讞谞谞讬讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讞谞谞讬讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讻诪讗讻诇 讘谉 讚专讜住讗讬 诪讜转专 诇砖讛讜转讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讻讬专讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讙专讜祝 讜讗讬谞讜 拽讟讜诐 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇砖讛讜转 转谞谉 讜讗讬 讙专讜祝 讜拽讟讜诐 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 诇讛讞讝讬专


GEMARA: The students raised a dilemma with regard to the explanation of the mishna. That which we learned in the mishna: One may not place, does it mean that one may not return a pot that he took off the fire and wishes to return on Shabbat; however, to leave the pot from Shabbat eve into Shabbat, one may leave it even though this stove is not swept of its coals and its coals are not covered with ashes? And, according to this, whose opinion is it in this mishna? It is the opinion of 岣nanya. As it was taught in a baraita, 岣nanya says: Any food that has already been cooked to the extent of the food of ben Drosai, who would only cook his food the minimum amount necessary, one is permitted to leave it atop a stove on Shabbat even though the stove is not swept and not covered with ashes. Or perhaps, that which we learned in the mishna: One may not place, means one may not leave it on the fire from Shabbat eve. And if the coals in the stove were swept or covered with ashes, yes, one may leave the pot on the stove. And if not, no, one may not leave it, and all the more so one may not return it to the stove on Shabbat under any circumstances.


转讗 砖诪注 诪讚拽转谞讬 转专讬 讘讘讬 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 转讘砖讬诇 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪讬谉 讜转讘砖讬诇 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇砖讛讜转 转谞谉 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻讬专讛 砖讛住讬拽讜讛 讘拽砖 讜讘讙讘讘讗 诪砖讛讬谉 注诇讬讛 转讘砖讬诇 讘讙驻转 讜讘注爪讬诐 诇讗 讬砖讛讗 注讚 砖讬讙专讜祝 讗讜 注讚 砖讬转谉 讗驻专 讜诪讛 讛谉 诪砖讛讬谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 转讘砖讬诇 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪讬谉 讜转讘砖讬诇 讜讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讘诇砖讛讜转 驻诇讬讙讬 谞诪讬 讘诇讛讞讝讬专 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 诪讞讝讬专讬谉


In order to resolve this dilemma, the Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this from the fact that two sections were taught in our mishna. In the first, Beit Shammai say: Hot water but not cooked food. And Beit Hillel say: Both hot water and cooked food. And in the second, Beit Shammai say: One may remove it but may not return it. And Beit Hillel say: One may even return it. Granted, if you say that when we learned in the mishna that one may not place it means that it is prohibited to leave it; in that case, the mishna is teaching as follows: With regard to a stove that was lit with straw or with rakings, one may leave cooked food on it. If it was lit with pomace or with wood, one may not leave the cooked food on it until he sweeps the coals out while it is still day or until he places ashes on it. And what may they leave? Beit Shammai say: Hot water but not cooked food. And Beit Hillel say: One may leave both hot water and cooked food on it. And just as they disagree with regard to leaving a pot on the stove, so too, they disagree with regard to whether or not it is permitted to return it to the stove. As Beit Shammai say: One may take the pot from the stove on Shabbat but may not return it to the stove at all. And Beit Hillel say: One may even return it.


讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讛讞讝讬专 转谞谉 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻讬专讛 砖讛住讬拽讜讛 讘拽砖 讜讘讙讘讘讗 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 注诇讬讛 转讘砖讬诇 讘讙驻转 讜讘注爪讬诐 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 注讚 砖讬讙专讜祝 讗讜 注讚 砖讬转谉 讗驻专 讜诪讛 讛谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 转讘砖讬诇 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪讬谉 讜转讘砖讬诇 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬


However, if you say that when we learned in the mishna that one may not place, it means that it is prohibited to return it, then the mishna is teaching as follows: A stove that was lit with straw or with rakings, one may return cooked food onto it. If it was lit with pomace or with wood, one may not return cooked food to it until one sweeps the coals out while it is still day or until one places ashes on them. And what may they return? Beit Shammai say: Hot water but not cooked food. And Beit Hillel say: Both hot water and cooked food. Beit Shammai say: One may remove but may not return. And Beit Hillel say: One may even return. If in the first section the question of what may be returned was already addressed, why do I need this additional dispute in the second section? The gist of Beit Shammai鈥檚 statement that cooked food may not be returned to the stove is that one may remove but may not return. Apparently, the mishna can only be understood in accordance with the first explanation. The first clause discusses leaving and the latter clause discusses returning.


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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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 36: We Don’t Always Know What the Words Mean – and the Gemara Agrees

Shofar, aravot, and the name of Babylonia - definitions in the absence of the Temple and losing the nuances of...

Shabbat 36

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 36

诇转讬谞讜拽 讘爪讬讘讜专 谞诪讬 讞讝讬 诇讙诪注 诇转讬谞讜拽 注谞讬 讜转讜 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讻砖诐 砖诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗转 讛砖讜驻专 讻讱 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗转 讞爪讜爪专讜转 诪谞讬 讗诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛


to a child. Because the mouth of a shofar is bent, one can pour a little water at a time. If so, a shofar belonging to the community is also suitable to feed water to a poor infant whose sustenance is provided by the community. And furthermore, that halakha which was taught in a baraita: Just as one may move the shofar, so too one may move the trumpets, is contrary to that which was taught previously that there is a difference between moving the shofar and moving the trumpet. In accordance with whose opinion is that baraita? Rather, this is not difficult, as it can be explained that these three baraitot correspond to the three opinions with regard to these halakhot. This baraita, which permits moving the shofar but not the trumpet, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that the laws of set-aside apply to these items on Shabbat and one may not move a utensil whose only function is prohibited. Since a trumpet has no permitted use on Shabbat, it may not be moved. On the other hand, one is permitted to move a shofar, which can be used to feed a child. And that baraita, which permits moving both a shofar and a trumpet, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the halakhot of set-aside do not apply to utensils of this kind on Shabbat. Whereas this other baraita, which prohibits moving both a shofar and a trumpet, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya, who holds that one may not use a utensil whose primary function is prohibited on Shabbat, even for a permissible purpose.


讜诪讗讬 砖讜驻专 谞诪讬 讞爪讜爪专讜转 讻讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛谞讬 转诇转 诪讬诇讬 讗讬砖转谞讬 砖诪讬讬讛讜 诪讻讬 讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讞爪讜爪专转讗 砖讜驻专讗 砖讜驻专讗 讞爪讜爪专转讗 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇砖讜驻专 砖诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛


However, this explanation raises a slight difficulty with regard to the statement that one may move neither a shofar nor a trumpet. There was no need to mention the trumpet. If one may not move a shofar, certainly he may not move a trumpet. However, it can be explained as follows: What is the shofar mentioned in this baraita? It refers to trumpets, in accordance with the statement of Rav 岣sda, as Rav 岣sda said: These three objects, their names changed since the Holy Temple was destroyed. That which was called trumpet was called shofar in later generations, and that which was called shofar was called trumpet in later generations. The baraita that was cited employed the style that switches trumpet and shofar, and they were mentioned in that order. Incidentally, the Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference whether a shofar is called shofar or trumpet? The Gemara answers: It is significant with regard to the halakhot of shofar of Rosh HaShana. On Rosh HaShana one fulfills his obligation only by sounding a shofar. If one comes today and asks what instrument he should use to sound the requisite blasts, he should be told to use a trumpet.


注专讘讛 爪驻爪驻讛 爪驻爪驻讛 注专讘讛 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诇讜诇讘


The second object whose name was changed: That which was called willow [arava] was called in later generations tzaftzafa, and that which was called tzaftzafa was called willow. Here too the Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference that emerges from the name change? The Gemara answers: With regard to the mitzva of the four species, referred to by the name of one of the species, as taking the palm branch, as one of the four species is a willow branch, not a tzaftzafa.


驻转讜专讛 驻转讜专转讗 驻转讜专转讗 驻转讜专讛 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专


The third item whose name was changed: That which was called petora, originally meaning a large table, was called in later generations petorata, and that which was called petorata, orginally meaning a small table, was called petora in later generations. The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference that emerges from the change of name? The Gemara answers: With regard to the laws of buying and selling. A person who orders a petora should know that he ordered a small table and not a large one.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗祝 讗谞讜 谞讗诪专 讛讜讘诇讬诇讗 讘讬 讻住讬 讘讬 讻住讬 讛讜讘诇讬诇讗 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪讞讟 砖谞诪爪讗转 讘注讜讘讬 讘讬转 讛讻讜住讜转 讚诪爪讚 讗讞讚 讻砖讬专讛 讜诪砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬诐 讟专讬驻讛


Abaye said: We too shall speak and comment on changes in the meaning of terms in our generation. What was called huvlila, the first stomach of animals that chew their cud, is, in recent generations, called bei kasei, the name of the animal鈥檚 second stomach. Similarly, what was once called in the past bei kasei is called huvlila in recent generations. What is the practical halakhic difference that emerges from this change of names? With regard to a needle that is found in the thick wall of the second stomach. In the halakhot of tereifot, one is prohibited to eat animals with a life expectancy of less than a year. It was established that if a needle punctured the wall of the second stomach from only one side, the animal is kosher. If the needle penetrated through the wall in a manner visible from both sides, the animal assumes the halakhic status of a tereifa. In the first stomach, even if the needle penetrated only one side of the wall, the animal assumes the halakhic status of a tereifa. Therefore, it is crucial to distinguish between the first and the second stomachs.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗祝 讗谞讜 谞讗诪专 讘讘诇 讘讜专住讬祝 讘讜专住讬祝 讘讘诇


Rav Ashi said: We too shall speak of matters whose name changed over the generations. The city that, in biblical times, was called Babylon was called Bursif in later generations, and Bursif was called Babylon in later generations.


诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐:


What is the practical halakhic difference that emerges from this change of names? It is in the area of women鈥檚 bills of divorce. With regard to bills of divorce, special care is devoted to ensuring that the name of the place where the bill is written is not altered. Therefore, it is important to be aware that Babylon underwent a name change in later generations.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讘诪讛 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉



诪转谞讬壮 讻讬专讛 砖讛住讬拽讜讛 讘拽砖 讜讘讙讘讘讗 谞讜转谞讬诐 注诇讬讛 转讘砖讬诇 讘讙驻转 讜讘注爪讬诐 诇讗 讬转谉 注讚 砖讬讙专讜祝 讗讜 注讚 砖讬转谉 讗转 讛讗驻专 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 转讘砖讬诇 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪讬谉 讜转讘砖讬诇 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 诪讞讝讬专讬谉:


MISHNA: With regard to a stove that was lit on Shabbat eve with straw or with rakings, scraps collected from the field, one may place a pot of cooked food atop it on Shabbat. The fire in this stove was certainly extinguished while it was still day, as both straw and rakings are materials that burn quickly. However, if the stove was lit with pomace, pulp that remains from sesame seeds, olives, and the like after the oil is squeezed from them, and if it was lit with wood, one may not place a pot atop it on Shabbat until he sweeps the coals from the stove while it is still day or until he places ashes on the coals, so that the fire will not ignite on Shabbat. Beit Shammai say: Even after one has swept away the coals, it is only permitted to place hot water on it, as it is sufficiently hot and does not require additional cooking, but not cooked food. Since, in general, one prefers that food will cook more, there is concern lest he come to ignite the fire by stoking the coals. And Beit Hillel say: Both hot water and cooked food may be placed. Beit Shammai say: One may remove a pot from the stove on Shabbat but may not return it. And Beit Hillel say: One may even return it.


讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讗讬 诇讗 讬转谉 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 诇砖讛讜转 诪砖讛讬谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讙专讜祝 讜讗讬谞讜 拽讟讜诐 讜诪谞讬 讞谞谞讬讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讞谞谞讬讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讻诪讗讻诇 讘谉 讚专讜住讗讬 诪讜转专 诇砖讛讜转讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讻讬专讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讙专讜祝 讜讗讬谞讜 拽讟讜诐 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇砖讛讜转 转谞谉 讜讗讬 讙专讜祝 讜拽讟讜诐 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 诇讛讞讝讬专


GEMARA: The students raised a dilemma with regard to the explanation of the mishna. That which we learned in the mishna: One may not place, does it mean that one may not return a pot that he took off the fire and wishes to return on Shabbat; however, to leave the pot from Shabbat eve into Shabbat, one may leave it even though this stove is not swept of its coals and its coals are not covered with ashes? And, according to this, whose opinion is it in this mishna? It is the opinion of 岣nanya. As it was taught in a baraita, 岣nanya says: Any food that has already been cooked to the extent of the food of ben Drosai, who would only cook his food the minimum amount necessary, one is permitted to leave it atop a stove on Shabbat even though the stove is not swept and not covered with ashes. Or perhaps, that which we learned in the mishna: One may not place, means one may not leave it on the fire from Shabbat eve. And if the coals in the stove were swept or covered with ashes, yes, one may leave the pot on the stove. And if not, no, one may not leave it, and all the more so one may not return it to the stove on Shabbat under any circumstances.


转讗 砖诪注 诪讚拽转谞讬 转专讬 讘讘讬 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 转讘砖讬诇 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪讬谉 讜转讘砖讬诇 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇砖讛讜转 转谞谉 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻讬专讛 砖讛住讬拽讜讛 讘拽砖 讜讘讙讘讘讗 诪砖讛讬谉 注诇讬讛 转讘砖讬诇 讘讙驻转 讜讘注爪讬诐 诇讗 讬砖讛讗 注讚 砖讬讙专讜祝 讗讜 注讚 砖讬转谉 讗驻专 讜诪讛 讛谉 诪砖讛讬谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 转讘砖讬诇 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪讬谉 讜转讘砖讬诇 讜讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讘诇砖讛讜转 驻诇讬讙讬 谞诪讬 讘诇讛讞讝讬专 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 诪讞讝讬专讬谉


In order to resolve this dilemma, the Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this from the fact that two sections were taught in our mishna. In the first, Beit Shammai say: Hot water but not cooked food. And Beit Hillel say: Both hot water and cooked food. And in the second, Beit Shammai say: One may remove it but may not return it. And Beit Hillel say: One may even return it. Granted, if you say that when we learned in the mishna that one may not place it means that it is prohibited to leave it; in that case, the mishna is teaching as follows: With regard to a stove that was lit with straw or with rakings, one may leave cooked food on it. If it was lit with pomace or with wood, one may not leave the cooked food on it until he sweeps the coals out while it is still day or until he places ashes on it. And what may they leave? Beit Shammai say: Hot water but not cooked food. And Beit Hillel say: One may leave both hot water and cooked food on it. And just as they disagree with regard to leaving a pot on the stove, so too, they disagree with regard to whether or not it is permitted to return it to the stove. As Beit Shammai say: One may take the pot from the stove on Shabbat but may not return it to the stove at all. And Beit Hillel say: One may even return it.


讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讛讞讝讬专 转谞谉 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻讬专讛 砖讛住讬拽讜讛 讘拽砖 讜讘讙讘讘讗 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 注诇讬讛 转讘砖讬诇 讘讙驻转 讜讘注爪讬诐 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 注讚 砖讬讙专讜祝 讗讜 注讚 砖讬转谉 讗驻专 讜诪讛 讛谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 转讘砖讬诇 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪讬谉 讜转讘砖讬诇 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬


However, if you say that when we learned in the mishna that one may not place, it means that it is prohibited to return it, then the mishna is teaching as follows: A stove that was lit with straw or with rakings, one may return cooked food onto it. If it was lit with pomace or with wood, one may not return cooked food to it until one sweeps the coals out while it is still day or until one places ashes on them. And what may they return? Beit Shammai say: Hot water but not cooked food. And Beit Hillel say: Both hot water and cooked food. Beit Shammai say: One may remove but may not return. And Beit Hillel say: One may even return. If in the first section the question of what may be returned was already addressed, why do I need this additional dispute in the second section? The gist of Beit Shammai鈥檚 statement that cooked food may not be returned to the stove is that one may remove but may not return. Apparently, the mishna can only be understood in accordance with the first explanation. The first clause discusses leaving and the latter clause discusses returning.


Scroll To Top