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

January 18, 2022 | 讟状讝 讘砖讘讟 转砖驻状讘 | TODAY'S DAF: Moed Katan 6

Today's Daf Yomi

April 17, 2020 | 讻状讙 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 42

Today’s shiur is dedicated in memory of Natan Zvi ben Moshe Yehuda Leib Zeiger z”l by his daughter Dr. Robin Zeiger and his son-in-law Prof. Jonathan ben Ezra.

How can we say that Shmuel holds like Rabbi Shimon who permits performing a melacha in a case where one had no intention to do the melacha if in another case, he doesn’t hold like Rabbi Shimon – if there is burning metal on the street one can extinguish it but not if it is a burning wood coal. The gemara answers that it is not the same category. The issue with the coals is what we call a melacha sheaina tzricha legufa – it is not done for the purpose that it was done in the tabernacle. Shmuel held like Rabbi Yehuda in that debate and like Rabbi Shimon in the other debate. There is an argument between Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasia regarding whether one can put hot water into cold or cold water into hot. Does it depend on what type of utensil – cup or bathtub? What about a basin?On what issue does Rabbi Shimon ben Mensai disagree with them or is he actually disagreeing about their debate? Spices cannot be put in a kli rishon – a utensil that was on the fire but can be put in a kli sheni. Is salt the same as spices or do they cook in less time? In more time? Laws of muktze are discussed – can one put a utensil under the oil that one set up for candles – in order to catch the oil that spills? Is it allowed if it was set up before Shabbat? In what way is one allowed to protect eggs that hatch on Shabbat (which are muktze) from being stepped on by people? The gemara distinguishes between common cases (one is allowed to) and less common cases (one is not permitted). The gemara questions that premise.

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

诪讜转专

is permitted, since one did not intend to perform that prohibited labor.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讻讘讬谉 讙讞诇转 砖诇 诪转讻转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇讗 讬讝讜拽讜 讘讛 专讘讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 讙讞诇转 砖诇 注抓 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇 注抓 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Shmuel, who permits adding water even in an amount sufficient to harden a vessel, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that one may perform an action that inadvertently results in a prohibited labor? Didn鈥檛 Shmuel say: One may extinguish a piece of white-hot metal in a public area on Shabbat so that the masses will not be injured? That is because the piece of white-hot metal is not actual fire and extinguishing it is prohibited by rabbinic decree, not Torah law. The Sages did not issue decrees in situations where there is concern for public safety. However, one may not extinguish a red-hot wood coal because extinguishing it is prohibited by Torah law. And if it would enter your mind that Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, it should even be permitted to extinguish wood as well. When one extinguishes the coal, he intends neither to perform a prohibited labor nor to derive any benefit. He merely intends to prevent the coal from causing injury. Extinguishing the coal is a labor not necessary for its own sake. Rabbi Shimon says that one who performs a labor not necessary for its own sake is exempt.

讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讙讜驻讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛诇讻讱 拽讜抓 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讜诇讬讻讜 驻讞讜转 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讘讻专诪诇讬转 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讜讘讗:

The Gemara responds: In the case of an unintentional act, Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. In the case of labor not necessary for its own sake, he holds that he is liable, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Ravina said: Therefore, a thorn in the public domain that is liable to cause injury, one may move it from there in increments, each less than four cubits, on Shabbat. Although the Torah prohibits carrying an object four cubits in the public domain on Shabbat, carrying less than four cubits is prohibited only by rabbinic law. From Shmuel鈥檚 statement, it is clear that the Sages did not issue a decree in any case where there is a threat to the masses. And, therefore, if the thorn was in a karmelit, where the prohibition to carry is by rabbinic law, one is permitted to carry it even more than four cubits.

讗讘诇 谞讜转谉 讻讜壮: 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞讜转谉 讗讚诐 讞诪讬谉 诇转讜讱 讛爪讜谞谉 讜诇讗 讛爪讜谞谉 诇转讜讱 讛讞诪讬谉 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 讞诪讬谉 诇转讜讱 讛爪讜谞谉 讜讘讬谉 爪讜谞谉 诇转讜讱 讛讞诪讬谉 诪讜转专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讻讜住 讗讘诇 讘讗诪讘讟讬 讞诪讬谉 诇转讜讱 讛爪讜谞谉 讜诇讗 爪讜谞谉 诇转讜讱 讛讞诪讬谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讗讜住专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗

We learned in the mishna: However, one may place water into an urn in order to warm it. The Sages taught in a baraita: A person may place hot water into cold water, but not cold into hot; this is the statement of Beit Shammai. In their opinion the cold water becomes heated by the hot water beneath it. And Beit Hillel say: Both hot into cold and cold into hot are permitted. However, Beit Hillel did not permit this in all cases. In what case is this said? It is in the case of a cup. However, in a bath with a lot of water, it is permitted to pour hot into cold but not cold into hot. And Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya prohibits even putting hot into cold. Rav Na岣an said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya in this matter.

住讘专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇诪讬诪专 住驻诇 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讗诪讘讟讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 住驻诇 讗讬谞讜 讻讗诪讘讟讬 讜诇诪讗讬 讚住诇讬拽 讗讚注转讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讚住驻诇 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讗诪讘讟讬 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讗诇讗 讘砖讘转 专讞讬爪讛 讘讞诪讬谉 诇讬讻讗

Rav Yosef thought to say that the legal status of a basin [sefel], which is a vessel used for washing, is like that of a bath, and it is prohibited to pour water into it. Abaye said to him that Rabbi 岣yya taught a baraita: A basin is not like a bath in terms of pouring water into it. The Gemara asks: And according to what entered Rav Yosef鈥檚 mind initially, that a basin is like a bath with regard to this halakha, and Rav Na岣an said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya in this matter, does that mean that on Shabbat there is no possibility of washing with hot water? No all-encompassing prohibition of washing with hot water on Shabbat was ever taught.

诪讬 住讘专转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗住讬驻讗 拽讗讬 讗专讬砖讗 拽讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉 讘讬谉 讞诪讬谉 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 讜讘讬谉 爪讜谞谉 诇转讜讱 讛讞诪讬谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讗讜住专 爪讜谞谉 诇转讜讱 讞诪讬谉 诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讚讗诪专 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讚讘专 讝讛

The Gemara replies: Do you think that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya is referring to the latter clause of the mishna? No, he is referring to the first clause of the mishna, where we learned that Beit Hillel permit both hot water into cold and cold water into hot, and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya prohibits placing cold water into hot. The Gemara asks: If so, say that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. Isn鈥檛 the halakha generally established according to Beit Hillel? The Gemara explains: He said the following: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not dispute this matter. Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya had a different tradition with regard to the opinions of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讞讝讬谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讚诇讗 拽驻讬讚 讗诪谞讗 诪讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 谞讜转谉 讗讚诐 拽讬转讜谉 砖诇 诪讬诐 诇转讜讱 住驻诇 砖诇 诪讬诐 讘讬谉 讞诪讬谉 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 讜讘讬谉 爪讜谞谉 诇转讜讱 讞诪讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讚讬诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诪讬驻住拽 讻诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪注专讛 讗讬转诪专 诪注专讛 讗讚诐 拽讬转讜谉 砖诇 诪讬诐 诇转讜讱 住驻诇 砖诇 诪讬诐 讘讬谉 讞诪讬谉 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 讘讬谉 爪讜谞谉 诇转讜讱 讞诪讬谉:

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: I saw that Rava was not strict in the case of a vessel and made no distinction between cold and hot. From where did he derive this leniency? From a baraita that Rabbi 岣yya taught: A person may place a jug of water into a basin of water, both hot into cold and cold into hot. Rav Huna said to Rav Ashi: There is a weakness in this proof, as perhaps there it is different because the vessel forms a partition between the hot and cold water. He is not pouring cold water into the basin itself but is placing a jug whose sides form a partition into the basin. He said to him: The term pour was stated in that baraita. This is the correct version: A person may pour a jug of water into a basin of water, both hot into cold or cold into hot. Therefore, there is no room to distinguish between the two cases.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讬诇驻住 讜讛拽讚专讛 砖讛注讘讬专谉 诪专讜转讞讬谉 诇讗 讬转谉 诇转讜讻谉 转讘诇讬谉

MISHNA: In continuation of the discussion of vessels where the prohibition of cooking applies even though the vessels are not actually on the fire itself, the mishna establishes: A stew pot [ilpas] and a pot that were removed from the fire while they were still boiling, even if they were removed before Shabbat, one may not place spices into them on Shabbat itself. Even though the pot is not actually standing on the fire, the spices are still cooked in it because the pot is a primary vessel, i.e., a vessel whose contents were cooked on the fire.

讗讘诇 谞讜转谉 讛讜讗 诇转讜讱 讛拽注专讛 讗讜 诇转讜讱 讛转诪讞讜讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讻诇 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 讞讜抓 诪讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 讞讜诪抓 讜爪讬专:

However, one may place the spices into a bowl or into a tureen [tam岣i], which is a large bowl into which people pour the contents a stew pot or a pot. Bowls and tureens are both secondary vessels and food placed into them does not get cooked. Rabbi Yehuda says: One may place spices into anything on Shabbat except for a vessel that has in it something containing vinegar or brine of salted fish.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗专讬砖讗 拽讗讬 讜诇拽讜诇讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗住讬驻讗 拽讗讬 讜诇讞讜诪专讗

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is Rabbi Yehuda referring to the first clause of the mishna and being lenient? According to that possibility, the mishna prohibits placing spices into any boiling pot and Rabbi Yehuda holds that this only applies if there is fish brine or vinegar inside the pot. Or perhaps he is referring to the latter clause of the mishna and is being stringent? The Rabbis said that one is permitted to place spices into a bowl or a tureen, and Rabbi Yehuda came to add a stringency and say that if the bowl or tureen contains vinegar or brine, it is prohibited to place spices into it.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讻诇 讗讬诇驻住讬谉 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 诇讻诇 讛拽讚讬专讜转 专讜转讞讜转 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 讞讜抓 诪讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 讞讜诪抓 讜爪讬专

Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which was taught explicitly in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: Into all stew pots one may place spices on Shabbat; into all pots, even those that are boiling, one may place spices, except for one that contains vinegar or brine. The baraita clearly indicates that Rabbi Yehuda disputes the first clause of the mishna and is being lenient.

住讘专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇诪讬诪专 诪诇讞 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻转讘诇讬谉 讚讘讻诇讬 专讗砖讜谉 讘砖诇讛 讜讘讻诇讬 砖谞讬 诇讗 讘砖诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪诇讞 讗讬谞讛 讻转讘诇讬谉 讚讘讻诇讬 砖谞讬 谞诪讬 讘砖诇讛 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 爪专讬讻讗 诪讬诇讞讗 讘讬砖讜诇讗 讻讘砖专讗 讚转讜专讗

Rav Yosef thought to say that salt is like a spice whose legal status is: In a primary vessel that was on the fire, salt gets cooked and therefore it is prohibited to place salt into it on Shabbat. And in a secondary vessel, into which the contents of a primary vessel were poured, salt does not get cooked. Abaye said to him: Didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya already teach that salt is not like a spice? Certainly he meant that in a secondary vessel it also gets cooked. And the Gemara remarks that this conclusion disputes the statement of Rav Na岣an, as Rav Na岣an said: Salt requires cooking for as long as the meat of an ox does, i.e., it requires extensive cooking.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 住讘专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇诪讬诪专 诪诇讞 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻转讘诇讬谉 讚讘讻诇讬 专讗砖讜谉 讘砖诇讛 讘讻诇讬 砖谞讬 诇讗 讘砖诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪诇讞 讗讬谞讛 讻转讘诇讬谉 讚讘讻诇讬 专讗砖讜谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 讘砖诇讛 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 爪专讬讻讗 诪讬诇讞讗 讘讬砖讜诇讗 讻讘讬砖专讗 讚转讜专讗:

And some say a very different version of this: Rav Yosef thought to say that salt is like a spice, i.e., in a primary vessel it gets cooked, whereas in a secondary vessel it does not get cooked. Abaye said to him: Didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya already teach that salt is not like a spice, meaning that in a primary vessel, it also does not get cooked? And that is precisely what Rav Na岣an said: Salt requires cooking for as long as the meat of an ox does.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 讻诇讬 转讞转 讛谞专 诇拽讘诇 讘讜 讗转 讛砖诪谉 讜讗诐 谞转谞讜讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 诪讜转专 讜讗讬谉 谞讬讗讜转讬谉 诪诪谞讜 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉:

MISHNA: From a discussion of the halakhot of insulation and preparation for Shabbat followed by a brief tangent dealing with the prohibited labor of cooking on Shabbat, the mishna proceeds to briefly discuss prohibitions relating to set-aside [muktze] items in terms of Shabbat lamps. One may not place a vessel beneath the oil lamp, the vessel containing the oil and the wick, on Shabbat in order to receive the oil that drips from the wick. And if one placed the vessel on Friday while it was still day, it is permitted. However, in any case, one may not make use of the oil on Shabbat because it is not from the oil prepared from Shabbat eve for use on Shabbat. The oil in the lamp was already set aside and designated solely for the purpose of lighting the lamp.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 讻诇讬 转讞转 转专谞讙讜诇转 诇拽讘诇 讘讬爪转讛 讗讘诇 讻讜驻讛 注诇讬讛 讻诇讬 砖诇讗 转砖讘专 讗诪专 专讘讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 拽住讘专 转专谞讙讜诇转 注砖讜讬讛 诇讛讟讬诇 讘讬爪转讛 讘讗砖驻讛 讜讗讬谞讛 注砖讜讬讛 诇讛讟讬诇 讘讬爪转讛 讘诪拽讜诐 诪讚专讜谉 讜讛爪诇讛 诪爪讜讬讛 讛转讬专讜 讜讛爪诇讛 砖讗讬谞讛 诪爪讜讬讛 诇讗 讛转讬专讜

GEMARA: Rav 岣sda said: Although the Sages said that one may not place a vessel beneath a hen preparing to lay an egg on Shabbat on an inclined surface, in order to receive its egg and prevent it from breaking when it falls; however, they permitted overturning a vessel onto an egg on Shabbat so that it will not be trampled and break. Rabba said: What is Rav 岣sda鈥檚 reason? He holds that a hen is likely to lay its egg in a garbage dump and people or animals will oftentimes step on it, but it is not likely to lay its egg on an inclined surface where the egg could roll down and break. And in a common case of preservation, the Sages permitted overturning a vessel onto the egg that is located in the garbage dump to protect it from being broken. And in an uncommon case of preservation, i.e., placing a vessel beneath a hen to receive its egg so that it would not roll down an inclined surface, they did not permit doing so.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛爪诇讛 砖讗讬谞讛 诪爪讜讬讛 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 谞砖讘专讛 诇讜 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讟讘诇 讘专讗砖 讙讙讜 诪讘讬讗 讻诇讬 讜诪谞讬讞 转讞转讬讛 讘讙讜诇驻讬 讞讚转讬 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讚驻拽注讬

Abaye raised an objection to Rabba鈥檚 opinion from a baraita: And is it so that in an uncommon case of preservation they did not permit taking steps to protect the object on Shabbat? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One whose barrel of untithed produce [tevel], which may not be eaten until it is tithed, broke on top of his roof on Shabbat, may bring a vessel and place it beneath the barrel so that the untithed produce is not lost. Even though eating untithed produce is prohibited on Shabbat, they permitted carrying a vessel to preserve it even in the uncommon case of a barrel that breaks. Apparently, even in an uncommon case of preservation the Sages permit taking the necessary steps. Rabba answered: This too, is a common case of preservation because it is an instance of new barrels [gulfei], which commonly break.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 谞讜转谞讬谉 讻诇讬 转讞转 讛谞专 诇拽讘诇 谞讬爪讜爪讜转 谞讬爪讜爪讜转 谞诪讬 砖讻讬讞讬

Abaye raised another objection to Rabba鈥檚 opinion from the last mishna in this chapter: One may place a vessel beneath the oil lamp in order to receive burning sparks of oil that drip from the burning wick even though this is not common. Rabba answered: Sparks are also common and therefore, it is a common case of preservation.

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 38-46 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiVHiL6DOBc 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 42: When You Dig a Hole, Do You Need the Hole, or Do You Need the Dirt?

So many ways of not *meaning* to do melakhah. Partially defining "melekhet machshevet," and its requirements. Intent (davar she'eino mitkaven)....

Shabbat 42

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 42

诪讜转专

is permitted, since one did not intend to perform that prohibited labor.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讻讘讬谉 讙讞诇转 砖诇 诪转讻转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇讗 讬讝讜拽讜 讘讛 专讘讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 讙讞诇转 砖诇 注抓 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇 注抓 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Shmuel, who permits adding water even in an amount sufficient to harden a vessel, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that one may perform an action that inadvertently results in a prohibited labor? Didn鈥檛 Shmuel say: One may extinguish a piece of white-hot metal in a public area on Shabbat so that the masses will not be injured? That is because the piece of white-hot metal is not actual fire and extinguishing it is prohibited by rabbinic decree, not Torah law. The Sages did not issue decrees in situations where there is concern for public safety. However, one may not extinguish a red-hot wood coal because extinguishing it is prohibited by Torah law. And if it would enter your mind that Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, it should even be permitted to extinguish wood as well. When one extinguishes the coal, he intends neither to perform a prohibited labor nor to derive any benefit. He merely intends to prevent the coal from causing injury. Extinguishing the coal is a labor not necessary for its own sake. Rabbi Shimon says that one who performs a labor not necessary for its own sake is exempt.

讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讙讜驻讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛诇讻讱 拽讜抓 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讜诇讬讻讜 驻讞讜转 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讘讻专诪诇讬转 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讜讘讗:

The Gemara responds: In the case of an unintentional act, Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. In the case of labor not necessary for its own sake, he holds that he is liable, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Ravina said: Therefore, a thorn in the public domain that is liable to cause injury, one may move it from there in increments, each less than four cubits, on Shabbat. Although the Torah prohibits carrying an object four cubits in the public domain on Shabbat, carrying less than four cubits is prohibited only by rabbinic law. From Shmuel鈥檚 statement, it is clear that the Sages did not issue a decree in any case where there is a threat to the masses. And, therefore, if the thorn was in a karmelit, where the prohibition to carry is by rabbinic law, one is permitted to carry it even more than four cubits.

讗讘诇 谞讜转谉 讻讜壮: 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞讜转谉 讗讚诐 讞诪讬谉 诇转讜讱 讛爪讜谞谉 讜诇讗 讛爪讜谞谉 诇转讜讱 讛讞诪讬谉 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 讞诪讬谉 诇转讜讱 讛爪讜谞谉 讜讘讬谉 爪讜谞谉 诇转讜讱 讛讞诪讬谉 诪讜转专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讻讜住 讗讘诇 讘讗诪讘讟讬 讞诪讬谉 诇转讜讱 讛爪讜谞谉 讜诇讗 爪讜谞谉 诇转讜讱 讛讞诪讬谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讗讜住专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗

We learned in the mishna: However, one may place water into an urn in order to warm it. The Sages taught in a baraita: A person may place hot water into cold water, but not cold into hot; this is the statement of Beit Shammai. In their opinion the cold water becomes heated by the hot water beneath it. And Beit Hillel say: Both hot into cold and cold into hot are permitted. However, Beit Hillel did not permit this in all cases. In what case is this said? It is in the case of a cup. However, in a bath with a lot of water, it is permitted to pour hot into cold but not cold into hot. And Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya prohibits even putting hot into cold. Rav Na岣an said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya in this matter.

住讘专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇诪讬诪专 住驻诇 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讗诪讘讟讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 住驻诇 讗讬谞讜 讻讗诪讘讟讬 讜诇诪讗讬 讚住诇讬拽 讗讚注转讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讚住驻诇 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讗诪讘讟讬 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讗诇讗 讘砖讘转 专讞讬爪讛 讘讞诪讬谉 诇讬讻讗

Rav Yosef thought to say that the legal status of a basin [sefel], which is a vessel used for washing, is like that of a bath, and it is prohibited to pour water into it. Abaye said to him that Rabbi 岣yya taught a baraita: A basin is not like a bath in terms of pouring water into it. The Gemara asks: And according to what entered Rav Yosef鈥檚 mind initially, that a basin is like a bath with regard to this halakha, and Rav Na岣an said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya in this matter, does that mean that on Shabbat there is no possibility of washing with hot water? No all-encompassing prohibition of washing with hot water on Shabbat was ever taught.

诪讬 住讘专转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗住讬驻讗 拽讗讬 讗专讬砖讗 拽讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉 讘讬谉 讞诪讬谉 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 讜讘讬谉 爪讜谞谉 诇转讜讱 讛讞诪讬谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讗讜住专 爪讜谞谉 诇转讜讱 讞诪讬谉 诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讚讗诪专 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讚讘专 讝讛

The Gemara replies: Do you think that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya is referring to the latter clause of the mishna? No, he is referring to the first clause of the mishna, where we learned that Beit Hillel permit both hot water into cold and cold water into hot, and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya prohibits placing cold water into hot. The Gemara asks: If so, say that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. Isn鈥檛 the halakha generally established according to Beit Hillel? The Gemara explains: He said the following: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not dispute this matter. Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya had a different tradition with regard to the opinions of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讞讝讬谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讚诇讗 拽驻讬讚 讗诪谞讗 诪讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 谞讜转谉 讗讚诐 拽讬转讜谉 砖诇 诪讬诐 诇转讜讱 住驻诇 砖诇 诪讬诐 讘讬谉 讞诪讬谉 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 讜讘讬谉 爪讜谞谉 诇转讜讱 讞诪讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讚讬诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诪讬驻住拽 讻诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪注专讛 讗讬转诪专 诪注专讛 讗讚诐 拽讬转讜谉 砖诇 诪讬诐 诇转讜讱 住驻诇 砖诇 诪讬诐 讘讬谉 讞诪讬谉 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 讘讬谉 爪讜谞谉 诇转讜讱 讞诪讬谉:

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: I saw that Rava was not strict in the case of a vessel and made no distinction between cold and hot. From where did he derive this leniency? From a baraita that Rabbi 岣yya taught: A person may place a jug of water into a basin of water, both hot into cold and cold into hot. Rav Huna said to Rav Ashi: There is a weakness in this proof, as perhaps there it is different because the vessel forms a partition between the hot and cold water. He is not pouring cold water into the basin itself but is placing a jug whose sides form a partition into the basin. He said to him: The term pour was stated in that baraita. This is the correct version: A person may pour a jug of water into a basin of water, both hot into cold or cold into hot. Therefore, there is no room to distinguish between the two cases.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讬诇驻住 讜讛拽讚专讛 砖讛注讘讬专谉 诪专讜转讞讬谉 诇讗 讬转谉 诇转讜讻谉 转讘诇讬谉

MISHNA: In continuation of the discussion of vessels where the prohibition of cooking applies even though the vessels are not actually on the fire itself, the mishna establishes: A stew pot [ilpas] and a pot that were removed from the fire while they were still boiling, even if they were removed before Shabbat, one may not place spices into them on Shabbat itself. Even though the pot is not actually standing on the fire, the spices are still cooked in it because the pot is a primary vessel, i.e., a vessel whose contents were cooked on the fire.

讗讘诇 谞讜转谉 讛讜讗 诇转讜讱 讛拽注专讛 讗讜 诇转讜讱 讛转诪讞讜讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讻诇 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 讞讜抓 诪讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 讞讜诪抓 讜爪讬专:

However, one may place the spices into a bowl or into a tureen [tam岣i], which is a large bowl into which people pour the contents a stew pot or a pot. Bowls and tureens are both secondary vessels and food placed into them does not get cooked. Rabbi Yehuda says: One may place spices into anything on Shabbat except for a vessel that has in it something containing vinegar or brine of salted fish.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗专讬砖讗 拽讗讬 讜诇拽讜诇讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗住讬驻讗 拽讗讬 讜诇讞讜诪专讗

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is Rabbi Yehuda referring to the first clause of the mishna and being lenient? According to that possibility, the mishna prohibits placing spices into any boiling pot and Rabbi Yehuda holds that this only applies if there is fish brine or vinegar inside the pot. Or perhaps he is referring to the latter clause of the mishna and is being stringent? The Rabbis said that one is permitted to place spices into a bowl or a tureen, and Rabbi Yehuda came to add a stringency and say that if the bowl or tureen contains vinegar or brine, it is prohibited to place spices into it.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讻诇 讗讬诇驻住讬谉 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 诇讻诇 讛拽讚讬专讜转 专讜转讞讜转 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 讞讜抓 诪讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 讞讜诪抓 讜爪讬专

Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which was taught explicitly in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: Into all stew pots one may place spices on Shabbat; into all pots, even those that are boiling, one may place spices, except for one that contains vinegar or brine. The baraita clearly indicates that Rabbi Yehuda disputes the first clause of the mishna and is being lenient.

住讘专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇诪讬诪专 诪诇讞 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻转讘诇讬谉 讚讘讻诇讬 专讗砖讜谉 讘砖诇讛 讜讘讻诇讬 砖谞讬 诇讗 讘砖诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪诇讞 讗讬谞讛 讻转讘诇讬谉 讚讘讻诇讬 砖谞讬 谞诪讬 讘砖诇讛 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 爪专讬讻讗 诪讬诇讞讗 讘讬砖讜诇讗 讻讘砖专讗 讚转讜专讗

Rav Yosef thought to say that salt is like a spice whose legal status is: In a primary vessel that was on the fire, salt gets cooked and therefore it is prohibited to place salt into it on Shabbat. And in a secondary vessel, into which the contents of a primary vessel were poured, salt does not get cooked. Abaye said to him: Didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya already teach that salt is not like a spice? Certainly he meant that in a secondary vessel it also gets cooked. And the Gemara remarks that this conclusion disputes the statement of Rav Na岣an, as Rav Na岣an said: Salt requires cooking for as long as the meat of an ox does, i.e., it requires extensive cooking.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 住讘专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇诪讬诪专 诪诇讞 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻转讘诇讬谉 讚讘讻诇讬 专讗砖讜谉 讘砖诇讛 讘讻诇讬 砖谞讬 诇讗 讘砖诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪诇讞 讗讬谞讛 讻转讘诇讬谉 讚讘讻诇讬 专讗砖讜谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 讘砖诇讛 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 爪专讬讻讗 诪讬诇讞讗 讘讬砖讜诇讗 讻讘讬砖专讗 讚转讜专讗:

And some say a very different version of this: Rav Yosef thought to say that salt is like a spice, i.e., in a primary vessel it gets cooked, whereas in a secondary vessel it does not get cooked. Abaye said to him: Didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya already teach that salt is not like a spice, meaning that in a primary vessel, it also does not get cooked? And that is precisely what Rav Na岣an said: Salt requires cooking for as long as the meat of an ox does.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 讻诇讬 转讞转 讛谞专 诇拽讘诇 讘讜 讗转 讛砖诪谉 讜讗诐 谞转谞讜讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 诪讜转专 讜讗讬谉 谞讬讗讜转讬谉 诪诪谞讜 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉:

MISHNA: From a discussion of the halakhot of insulation and preparation for Shabbat followed by a brief tangent dealing with the prohibited labor of cooking on Shabbat, the mishna proceeds to briefly discuss prohibitions relating to set-aside [muktze] items in terms of Shabbat lamps. One may not place a vessel beneath the oil lamp, the vessel containing the oil and the wick, on Shabbat in order to receive the oil that drips from the wick. And if one placed the vessel on Friday while it was still day, it is permitted. However, in any case, one may not make use of the oil on Shabbat because it is not from the oil prepared from Shabbat eve for use on Shabbat. The oil in the lamp was already set aside and designated solely for the purpose of lighting the lamp.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 讻诇讬 转讞转 转专谞讙讜诇转 诇拽讘诇 讘讬爪转讛 讗讘诇 讻讜驻讛 注诇讬讛 讻诇讬 砖诇讗 转砖讘专 讗诪专 专讘讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 拽住讘专 转专谞讙讜诇转 注砖讜讬讛 诇讛讟讬诇 讘讬爪转讛 讘讗砖驻讛 讜讗讬谞讛 注砖讜讬讛 诇讛讟讬诇 讘讬爪转讛 讘诪拽讜诐 诪讚专讜谉 讜讛爪诇讛 诪爪讜讬讛 讛转讬专讜 讜讛爪诇讛 砖讗讬谞讛 诪爪讜讬讛 诇讗 讛转讬专讜

GEMARA: Rav 岣sda said: Although the Sages said that one may not place a vessel beneath a hen preparing to lay an egg on Shabbat on an inclined surface, in order to receive its egg and prevent it from breaking when it falls; however, they permitted overturning a vessel onto an egg on Shabbat so that it will not be trampled and break. Rabba said: What is Rav 岣sda鈥檚 reason? He holds that a hen is likely to lay its egg in a garbage dump and people or animals will oftentimes step on it, but it is not likely to lay its egg on an inclined surface where the egg could roll down and break. And in a common case of preservation, the Sages permitted overturning a vessel onto the egg that is located in the garbage dump to protect it from being broken. And in an uncommon case of preservation, i.e., placing a vessel beneath a hen to receive its egg so that it would not roll down an inclined surface, they did not permit doing so.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛爪诇讛 砖讗讬谞讛 诪爪讜讬讛 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 谞砖讘专讛 诇讜 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讟讘诇 讘专讗砖 讙讙讜 诪讘讬讗 讻诇讬 讜诪谞讬讞 转讞转讬讛 讘讙讜诇驻讬 讞讚转讬 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讚驻拽注讬

Abaye raised an objection to Rabba鈥檚 opinion from a baraita: And is it so that in an uncommon case of preservation they did not permit taking steps to protect the object on Shabbat? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One whose barrel of untithed produce [tevel], which may not be eaten until it is tithed, broke on top of his roof on Shabbat, may bring a vessel and place it beneath the barrel so that the untithed produce is not lost. Even though eating untithed produce is prohibited on Shabbat, they permitted carrying a vessel to preserve it even in the uncommon case of a barrel that breaks. Apparently, even in an uncommon case of preservation the Sages permit taking the necessary steps. Rabba answered: This too, is a common case of preservation because it is an instance of new barrels [gulfei], which commonly break.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 谞讜转谞讬谉 讻诇讬 转讞转 讛谞专 诇拽讘诇 谞讬爪讜爪讜转 谞讬爪讜爪讜转 谞诪讬 砖讻讬讞讬

Abaye raised another objection to Rabba鈥檚 opinion from the last mishna in this chapter: One may place a vessel beneath the oil lamp in order to receive burning sparks of oil that drip from the burning wick even though this is not common. Rabba answered: Sparks are also common and therefore, it is a common case of preservation.

Scroll To Top