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

Daf Yomi

April 21, 2020 | 讻状讝 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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Shabbat 46

This week鈥檚 shiurim are sponsored by Eva Schwartz in memory of her mother Hilde Schwartz z”l who still is a daily inspiration to her family.

Today鈥檚 shiur is sponsored by Carolyn Ben-Ari in memory of her father Ivor Rhodes, Yisrael ben Meir and Sarah z”l on his tenth yarzheit. And by Yael Asher in memory of Miriam Pesia Flesh bat Malka z鈥漧. And as today is Yom HaShoah, in memory of all those who perished in the Holocaust.

Rav Yosef originally thought that Rabbi Yochanan held like Rabbi Shimon. Abaye questions this based on a story with Rabbi Yochanan’s student who didn’t move a candelabra. Rav Yosef explains that a candelabra is different and that case wasn’t reflective of Rabbi Yochanan’s position regarding the Rabbi Yehuda/Rabbi Shimon debate on muktze. Rebbi gave a ruling about a candelabra, however it was unclear what he ruled – to be lenient or stringent? There were different opinions among amoraim regarding wether to hold like Rabbi Shimon or Rabbi Yehuda regarding moving a lamp after it burned out. Would Rabbi Shimon hold in a case of a lamp with naphtha since it has a terrible odor that it would also be forbidden after it burned out? Several contradictions are brought regarding Rabbi Shimon’s opinion – a firstborn animal that became blemished on Yom Tov that cannot be slaughtered because one did not assume it would become blemished. Why is that case different? Rabbi Shimon forbade moving a lamp while lit, presumably because it would extinguish, however, Rabbi Shimon himself would not think that was an issue as it was a davar sheino mitkaven – one did not intend to extinguish it. This is resolved by saying that the reason Rabbi Shimon forbids is because it serves as a base for a forbidden item.

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

诪讜转专 诇谞讟讜转讛 讜诪讜转专 诇驻专拽讛 讘砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘砖诇 讞讜诇讬讜转 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讚砖专讬


it is permitted to assemble it and it is permitted to dismantle it on Shabbat. If a permanent object like that one may be assembled on Shabbat and there is no concern for the prohibition of building, all the more so it should not be considered building and dismantling in the case of a candelabrum. Rather, Abaye said: Here it is referring to a special candelabrum made of joints, removable parts, and there is concern lest it fall and break into its component parts when it is moved, and one may come to reassemble it, which would be tantamount to crafting a vessel on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: If so, if it is referring to that type of candelabrum, what is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish who permits moving the candelabrum?


诪讗讬 讞讜诇讬讜转 讻注讬谉 讞讜诇讬讜转 讚讗讬转 讘讛 讞讬讚拽讬 讛诇讻讱 讞讜诇讬讜转 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇讛 讘讬谉 拽讟谞讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讟诇讟诇讛 讙讚讜诇讛 谞诪讬 讚讗讬转 讘讛 讞讬讚拽讬 讙讝讬专讛 讗讟讜 讙讚讜诇讛 讚讞讜诇讬讜转 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘拽讟谞讛 讚讗讬转 讘讛 讞讬讚拽讬 诪专 住讘专 讙讝专讬谞谉 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉


The Gemara replies: It is not referring to a candelabrum that can actually be dismantled. Rather, what is the meaning of joints? Similar to joints, i.e., there are grooves in it and it appears as if it is made of different components. Therefore, in summary: With regard to a candelabrum made of actual joints, both one that is large and one that is small, it is prohibited to move it. In addition, a large candelabrum that has grooves, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to move it by rabbinic decree, which was issued due to a large candelabrum made of joints. Because it is common for a large candelabrum to be made of joints, if one saw someone carrying a large, grooved candelabrum, he would mistakenly assume that it had joints due to the similarity between them, and would mistakenly permit carrying a large candelabrum actually composed of joints. Where Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish disagree is in the case of a small candelabrum that has grooves. This Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds that we issue a decree prohibiting moving even a small, grooved candelabrum due to a large one. And this Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that we do not issue a decree. Because a small candelabrum is not typically made of joints, everyone realizes that the grooves are strictly decorative.


讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛 讜转谞谉 诪讜讻谞讬 砖诇讛 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讗 谞砖诪讟转 讗讬谉 讞讬讘讜专 诇讛 讜讗讬谉 谞诪讚讚转 注诪讛 讜讗讬谉 诪爪诇转 注诪讛 讘讗讛诇 讛诪转 讜讗讬谉 讙讜专专讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘砖讘转 讘讝诪谉 砖讬砖 注诇讬讛 诪注讜转


The Gemara questions: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan state the following principle: The halakha is in accordance with an unattributed mishna? And we learned in the mishna that discusses ritual impurity of a wagon with a detachable undercarriage: The wagon鈥檚 undercarriage, when it is detachable from the wagon, it is not considered connected to it and they are considered independent units as far as the halakhot of ritual impurity are concerned. And it is not measured with it. This refers to calculating the volume of forty se鈥檃, as a vessel with a volume larger than forty se鈥檃 does not have the legal status of a vessel and cannot become ritually impure. And the undercarriage likewise does not protect together with the wagon in a tent over the corpse. A large wagon is considered a tent in and of itself, and the vessels inside the wagon do not become impure if the wagon is over a dead body. However, the undercarriage is not included with the wagon in this regard. If a hole in the wagon is sealed by the undercarriage, it is not considered to be sealed with regard to preventing ritual impurity. And, likewise, one may not pull the wagon on Shabbat when there is money upon it.


讛讗 讗讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪注讜转 砖专讬讗 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛讜讜 注诇讬讛 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 转讛讗 诪砖谞转讬谞讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讜 注诇讬讛 诪注讜转 讻诇 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 砖诇讗 诇砖讘讜专 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉


By inference: If there is not money on it, one is permitted to move the wagon even though there was money on it at twilight. An object that was set aside at twilight is set aside for the entire Shabbat. In this mishna, moving the wagon is permitted. Clearly, the unattributed mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that there is no prohibition of set-aside. Why, then, did Rabbi Yo岣nan, who always rules in accordance with an unattributed mishna, not rule in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? Rabbi Zeira said: Let our mishna apply only to a case in which there was no money on the wagon throughout the entire duration of twilight. This strained interpretation is accepted so as not to contradict and reject Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 驻注诐 讗讞转 讛诇讱 专讘讬 诇讚讬讜住驻专讗 讜讛讜专讛 讘诪谞讜专讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谞专 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讜专讛 讘诪谞讜专讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谞专 诇讛讬转专讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讜专讛 讘诪谞讜专讛 诇讗讬住讜专讗 讜讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谞专 诇讛讬转专讗 转讬拽讜


Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One time, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi went to the town of Deyosfera, and issued a ruling with regard to a candelabrum in accordance with the ruling that Rabbi Shimon made with regard to an oil lamp. This description is insufficiently clear, therefore a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does this mean that he issued a ruling in the case of a candelabrum, like the ruling that Rabbi Shimon made in the case of an oil lamp, to permit moving it? Or, perhaps, he issued a ruling in the case of a candelabrum to prohibit moving it, and in another case he ruled in accordance with the ruling that Rabbi Shimon made in the case of an oil lamp, to permit moving it. There was no resolution found to this dilemma and therefore it stands unresolved.


专讘 诪诇讻讬讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 专讘讬 砖诪诇讗讬 讜讟讬诇讟诇 砖专讙讗 讜讗讬拽驻讚 专讘讬 砖诪诇讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讙诇讬诇讗讛 讗讬拽诇注 诇讗转专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讟讬诇讟诇 砖专讙讗 讜讗讬拽驻讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讻讬 讗讬拽诇注 诇讗转专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛讜讛 诪讟诇讟诇 砖专讙讗 讻讬 讗讬拽诇注 诇讗转专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 讛讜讛 诪讟诇讟诇 砖专讙讗 诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇讬注讘讚 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇讬注讘讚 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇注讜诇诐 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜诪砖讜诐 讻讘讜讚讜 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 注讘讬讚


It is told that Rav Malkiya happened to come to the house of Rabbi Simlai and moved an extinguished oil lamp, and Rabbi Simlai became angry, as in his opinion it is prohibited to move an oil lamp because it is set-aside. Likewise, Rabbi Yosei the Galilean happened to come to the place of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, and moved an oil lamp, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, became angry. The Gemara also relates that Rabbi Abbahu, when he happened to come to the place of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, he would move an oil lamp. However, when he happened to come to the place of Rabbi Yo岣nan, he would not move an oil lamp. The Gemara wondered: Whichever way you look at it there is a difficulty. If he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, let him act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda everywhere and refrain from moving the lamp. And if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, let him act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon everywhere and move the oil lamp. The Gemara answers: Actually, it can be explained that Rabbi Abbahu holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon; however, in deference to Rabbi Yo岣nan he did not act accordingly, so as not to act contrary to his ruling in the place where he was the authority.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖专讙讗 讚诪砖讞讗 砖专讬 诇讟诇讟讜诇讛 讚谞驻讟讗 讗住讜专 诇讟诇讟讜诇讛 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讚谞驻讟讗 谞诪讬 砖专讬 诇讟诇讟讜诇讛 (讚讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讝讬 诇讻住讜转 讘讬讛 诪谞讗)


With regard to the halakhot of moving lamps on Shabbat, Rav Yehuda said: With regard to an extinguished oil lamp, it is permitted to move it, whereas a naphtha lamp, it is prohibited to move it. Since the smell of naphtha is unpleasant, the lamp is used exclusively for lighting. Therefore, moving it is prohibited. Rabba and Rav Yosef both said: With regard to a naphtha lamp, too, it is permitted to move it.


专讘 讗讜讬讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 专讘讗 讛讜讛 诪讗讬住谉 讘讬 讻专注讬讛 讘讟讬谞讗 讗转讬讘讬 讗驻讜专讬讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗讬拽驻讚 专讘讗 讘注讗 诇爪注讜专讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 砖专讙讗 讚谞驻讟讗 谞诪讬 砖专讬 诇讟诇讟讜诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讝讬讗 诇讻住讜讬讬 讘讛 诪谞讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讻诇 爪专讜专讜转 砖讘讞爪专 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讝讬讗 诇讻住讜讬讬 讘讛讜 诪谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 转讜专转 讻诇讬 注诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诇讬讻讗 转讜专转 讻诇讬 注诇讬讛 诪讬 诇讗 转谞讬讗


The Gemara relates: Rav Avya happened to come to Rava鈥檚 house. His feet were dirty with clay and he put them on the bed before Rava. Rava became angry at him for dirtying the bed and, therefore, sought to torment him with questions that he could not answer. Rava said to him: What is the reason that Rabba and Rav Yosef both said that with regard to a naphtha lamp, too, that it is permitted to move it? Rav Avya said to him: Since it is suitable to cover a vessel with it. Rava said to him: But if that is so, all pebbles in the yard may also be carried ab initio on Shabbat, since it is suitable to cover a vessel with them. Rav Avya said to him: There is a distinction between these cases. This, the lamp, the status of a vessel applies to it and there are leniencies that apply to vessels with regard to the halakhot of set-aside. These, the pebbles, the status of a vessel does not apply to it, as they are a raw material. Carrying them is prohibited unless designated for a specific purpose before Shabbat. Was it not taught in a baraita that


讛砖讬专讬诐 讜讛谞讝诪讬诐 讜讛讟讘注讜转 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讛谞讟诇讬诐 讘讞爪专 讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪讛 讟注诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬讻讗 转讜专转 讻诇讬 注诇讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬讻讗 转讜专转 讻诇讬 注诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讘专讬讱 专讞诪谞讗 讚诇讗 讻住讬驻讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 讗讜讬讗


bracelets, nose-rings and rings, although it is prohibited to go out into the public domain wearing them on Shabbat, they are like all the vessels that may be moved in the courtyard; in the private domain, one may move them and they are not set-aside. And Ulla said: What is the reason that it is permitted to move nose-rings in the yard? It is because the status of a vessel applies to it. Apparently, vessel status is sufficient to permit moving it on Shabbat. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Thank God that Rava did not embarrass Rav Avya and Rav Avya managed to successfully answer Rava鈥檚 questions.


专诪讬 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讛 转谞讬讗 诪讜转专 讛砖诪谉 砖讘谞专 讜砖讘拽注专讛 讗住讜专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 讗诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诪讜诪讜 谞讬讻专 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谉 讝讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉


Abaye raised a contradiction before Rabba citing two sources with regard to set-aside on Shabbat. It was taught in a baraita: With regard to the remaining oil that is in an oil lamp and in a bowl in which a wick was lit, it is prohibited to use it on Shabbat and Rabbi Shimon permits using it. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon is not of the opinion that there is a prohibition of set-aside. And a contradiction is raised from a parallel source, in which the Sages discussed the halakha of the firstborn of a kosher animal that developed a blemish on a Festival. The firstborn must be examined to determine whether or not that type of blemish disqualifies the animal from being sacrificed as an offering. If it is disqualified, it may be redeemed, slaughtered, and eaten as non-sacred meat on the Festival. Rabbi Shimon says: Any firstborn animal whose blemish is not perceptible before the Festival is not among the animals prepared prior to the Festival for use on the Festival, and it is prohibited to slaughter it. Apparently, an item not prepared in advance has set-aside status according to Rabbi Shimon.


讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讗讚诐 讬讜砖讘 讜诪爪驻讛 讗讬诪转讬 转讻讘讛 谞专讜 讛讻讗 讗讚诐 讬讜砖讘 讜诪爪驻讛 诪转讬 讬驻讜诇 讘讜 诪讜诐 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚谞驻讬诇 讘讬讛 诪讜诪讗 讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讚谞驻讬诇 讘讬讛 诪讜诪讗 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚谞驻讬诇 讘讬讛 诪讜诐 拽讘讜注 讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讚谞驻诇 讘讬讛 诪讜诐 拽讘讜注 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚诪讝讚拽拽 诇讬讛 讞讻诐


Rabba said to him: How can you compare these cases? There, in the case of the lamp, a person sits and anticipates when his candle will be extinguished. It is clear to him that it will be extinguished, and he can safely assume that a certain amount of oil will remain in the lamp or the bowl. Here, does a person sit and anticipate when a blemish will befall his animal? The owner of the animal says: Who says that a blemish will befall his animal? And even if you say that a blemish will befall it, who says that a permanent blemish that would enable it to be slaughtered will befall it? And even if you say that a permanent blemish will befall it, who says that a Sage will agree to engage in examining the blemish? Since there are so many uncertainties involved, if the blemish is not perceptible before the Festival, the possibility of the firstborn animal becoming available does not enter a person鈥檚 mind at all.


诪转讬讘 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪驻讬专讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 讘砖讘转 [讜谞砖讗诇讬谉 诇谞讚专讬诐 砖讛谉] 诇爪讜专讱 讛砖讘转 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚诪讬讝讚拽拽 诇讛 讘注诇


Rami bar 岣ma raised an objection to this last point from that which we learned in a mishna: One may nullify vows on Shabbat. A woman who vowed that certain food is prohibited to her, her husband can nullify her vow on Shabbat. And likewise one may request that a Sage find an opening to dissolve his vows, i.e., a factor that the one taking the vow failed to take into account or an element of regret, if that nullification or dissolution is for the purpose of Shabbat. The question arises: And why, after a man has nullified his wife鈥檚 vow, should she be permitted to eat that food? When the woman vowed not to eat that food, she consciously set it aside. Even if some way to dissolve the vow is found, the food should remain set-aside. On the basis of the same uncertainty that was raised above, say: Who says that her husband will agree to engage in nullifying her oath? Perhaps he will refuse to nullify it.


讛转诐 讻讚专讘 驻谞讞住 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 驻谞讞住 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讻诇 讛谞讜讚专转 注诇 讚注转 讘注诇讛 讛讬讗 谞讜讚专转


The Gemara answers: There, in the case of vows, it can be explained in accordance with that which Rav Pine岣s said in the name of Rava, who came to explain some of the fundamentals of the halakhot of vows, as Rav Pine岣s said in the name of Rava: Every woman who takes a vow, it is from the outset contingent on her husband鈥檚 consent that she takes the vow. Since she knows that her husband has the ability to nullify it, her vows are not absolute and their final validation comes only through her husband鈥檚 agreement. When a woman vows, she does not set aside the food absolutely from potential use.


转讗 砖诪注 谞砖讗诇讬谉 诇谞讚专讬诐 砖诇 爪讜专讱 讛砖讘转 讘砖讘转 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚诪讝讚拽拽 诇讬讛 讞讻诐 讛转诐 讗讬 诇讗 诪讬讝讚拽拽 诇讬讛 讞讻诐 住讙讬讗 诇讬讛 讘砖诇砖讛 讛讚讬讜讟讜转 讛讻讗 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚诪讬讝讚拽拽 诇讬讛 讞讻诐


Moreover, the Gemara cites proof for this from that which was taught: Come and hear: One may request that a Sage dissolve his vows for the purpose of Shabbat on Shabbat, i.e., one who vowed on Shabbat that eating on that day is prohibited for him. And why is he permitted to eat something that was prohibited to him by his vow? Say again: Who says that the Sage will agree to engage in dissolution of his vow? Consequently, one has certainly diverted his attention from the food, set it aside, and it should be prohibited to eat it. The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, there is a difference, as there, in the halakhot of vows, even if the Sage does not agree to engage in dissolution of his vow, he can suffice with renouncing the vow before three common people. Even though it is preferable to have a Sage dissolve his vow, in exigent circumstances one may turn to a court of three common people to dissolve it. He will certainly find a way to dissolve his vow. However, here, in the case of the firstborn animal, who says that the Sage will agree to engage in examination of the blemish? In the halakhot of firstborn animals only an ordained Sage, who received special license to do so, is authorized to verify that it is a permanent blemish and permit redemption and slaughter of the animal as a non-sacred animal.


专诪讬 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讘转讛 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇讛 讻讘转讛 讗讬谉 诇讗 讻讘转讛 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讘讛讚讬 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讛 讻讘转讛 讛讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诪讜转专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讙讜专专 讗讚诐 讻住讗 诪讟讛 讜住驻住诇 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇注砖讜转 讞专讬抓


Abaye raised a contradiction before Rav Yosef: Did Rabbi Shimon actually say that when a lamp is extinguished, it is permitted to move it on Shabbat? By inference: After it is extinguished, yes, moving it is permitted; so long as it is not extinguished, no, moving it is prohibited. What is the reason that it is prohibited to move a burning candle? It is due to concern that perhaps, as he moves the lamp, the flame will be extinguished. However, is Rabbi Shimon really concerned that a flame will be extinguished under those circumstances? Didn鈥檛 we learn that Rabbi Shimon stated a principle: An unintentional act, a permitted action from which an unintended prohibited labor ensues on Shabbat, since he did not intend to perform the prohibited action, is permitted? As it was taught in a baraita, Rabbi Shimon says: A person may drag a bed, chair, and bench on the ground, as long as he does not intend to make a furrow in the ground. Even if a furrow is formed inadvertently, one need not be concerned. Since that was not his intention, there is no prohibition according to Rabbi Shimon. Consequently, according to Rabbi Shimon there should be no prohibition in moving a burning candle, even though it may be extinguished. Since that is not the intention of the one moving it, no prohibition would be violated.


讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻讬 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讻讬 诇讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讙讝专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讚专讘谞谉 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻讬 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讚专讘谞谉 讻讬 诇讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 砖专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讻转讞讬诇讛


The Gemara answers that there is a distinction between the cases: In every case where if he intends to perform the action, there is a prohibition by Torah law, e.g., extinguishing a candle; even when he does not intend to do so, Rabbi Shimon issued a decree prohibiting it by rabbinic law. However, in every case where even if he intends to perform the action, there is merely a prohibition by rabbinic law, e.g., digging a furrow which is not a full-fledged act of plowing that is prohibited by Torah law, but is prohibited only by rabbinic law, when he does not intend to perform the action, Rabbi Shimon even permits performing this action ab initio.


诪转讬讘 专讘讗 诪讜讻专讬 讻住讜转 诪讜讻专讬谉 讻讚专讻谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 讘讞诪讛 诪驻谞讬 讛讞诪讛 讜讘讙砖诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讜讛爪谞讜注讬谉 诪驻砖讬诇讬谉 讘诪拽诇 诇讗讞讜专讬讛谉 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讻讬 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讬讻讗 讻讬 诇讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 砖专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讻转讞讬诇讛


Rava raised an objection to this distinction from that which we learned in a mishna: Clothing merchants who sell garments made of diverse kinds, a prohibited mixture of wool and linen, may sell them as they normally would to gentiles. A merchant may place the garments he is selling on his shoulders and need not be concerned about the prohibition against wearing diverse kinds, as long as the merchant does not intend to benefit from the garments in the sun as protection from the sun, or in the rain as protection from the rain. However, the modest people, those who are particularly meticulous in their performance of mitzvot, would suspend the wool and linen garments on a stick behind them. And here, isn鈥檛 it a case where if one intends to wear the clothing, there is a prohibition by Torah law, and even so when he does not intend to wear it, Rabbi Shimon permits it ab initio. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon does not distinguish between cases on that basis.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗


Rather, Rava said a different explanation for Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 prohibition in the case of an oil lamp:


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 sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

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 46: Living Proof

Stories of Hazal - how they kept the laws of Muktzah themselves, as per the Gemara's account. Sussing out halakhic...

Shabbat 46

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 46

诪讜转专 诇谞讟讜转讛 讜诪讜转专 诇驻专拽讛 讘砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘砖诇 讞讜诇讬讜转 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讚砖专讬


it is permitted to assemble it and it is permitted to dismantle it on Shabbat. If a permanent object like that one may be assembled on Shabbat and there is no concern for the prohibition of building, all the more so it should not be considered building and dismantling in the case of a candelabrum. Rather, Abaye said: Here it is referring to a special candelabrum made of joints, removable parts, and there is concern lest it fall and break into its component parts when it is moved, and one may come to reassemble it, which would be tantamount to crafting a vessel on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: If so, if it is referring to that type of candelabrum, what is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish who permits moving the candelabrum?


诪讗讬 讞讜诇讬讜转 讻注讬谉 讞讜诇讬讜转 讚讗讬转 讘讛 讞讬讚拽讬 讛诇讻讱 讞讜诇讬讜转 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇讛 讘讬谉 拽讟谞讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讟诇讟诇讛 讙讚讜诇讛 谞诪讬 讚讗讬转 讘讛 讞讬讚拽讬 讙讝讬专讛 讗讟讜 讙讚讜诇讛 讚讞讜诇讬讜转 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘拽讟谞讛 讚讗讬转 讘讛 讞讬讚拽讬 诪专 住讘专 讙讝专讬谞谉 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉


The Gemara replies: It is not referring to a candelabrum that can actually be dismantled. Rather, what is the meaning of joints? Similar to joints, i.e., there are grooves in it and it appears as if it is made of different components. Therefore, in summary: With regard to a candelabrum made of actual joints, both one that is large and one that is small, it is prohibited to move it. In addition, a large candelabrum that has grooves, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to move it by rabbinic decree, which was issued due to a large candelabrum made of joints. Because it is common for a large candelabrum to be made of joints, if one saw someone carrying a large, grooved candelabrum, he would mistakenly assume that it had joints due to the similarity between them, and would mistakenly permit carrying a large candelabrum actually composed of joints. Where Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish disagree is in the case of a small candelabrum that has grooves. This Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds that we issue a decree prohibiting moving even a small, grooved candelabrum due to a large one. And this Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that we do not issue a decree. Because a small candelabrum is not typically made of joints, everyone realizes that the grooves are strictly decorative.


讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛 讜转谞谉 诪讜讻谞讬 砖诇讛 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讗 谞砖诪讟转 讗讬谉 讞讬讘讜专 诇讛 讜讗讬谉 谞诪讚讚转 注诪讛 讜讗讬谉 诪爪诇转 注诪讛 讘讗讛诇 讛诪转 讜讗讬谉 讙讜专专讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘砖讘转 讘讝诪谉 砖讬砖 注诇讬讛 诪注讜转


The Gemara questions: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan state the following principle: The halakha is in accordance with an unattributed mishna? And we learned in the mishna that discusses ritual impurity of a wagon with a detachable undercarriage: The wagon鈥檚 undercarriage, when it is detachable from the wagon, it is not considered connected to it and they are considered independent units as far as the halakhot of ritual impurity are concerned. And it is not measured with it. This refers to calculating the volume of forty se鈥檃, as a vessel with a volume larger than forty se鈥檃 does not have the legal status of a vessel and cannot become ritually impure. And the undercarriage likewise does not protect together with the wagon in a tent over the corpse. A large wagon is considered a tent in and of itself, and the vessels inside the wagon do not become impure if the wagon is over a dead body. However, the undercarriage is not included with the wagon in this regard. If a hole in the wagon is sealed by the undercarriage, it is not considered to be sealed with regard to preventing ritual impurity. And, likewise, one may not pull the wagon on Shabbat when there is money upon it.


讛讗 讗讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪注讜转 砖专讬讗 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛讜讜 注诇讬讛 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 转讛讗 诪砖谞转讬谞讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讜 注诇讬讛 诪注讜转 讻诇 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 砖诇讗 诇砖讘讜专 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉


By inference: If there is not money on it, one is permitted to move the wagon even though there was money on it at twilight. An object that was set aside at twilight is set aside for the entire Shabbat. In this mishna, moving the wagon is permitted. Clearly, the unattributed mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that there is no prohibition of set-aside. Why, then, did Rabbi Yo岣nan, who always rules in accordance with an unattributed mishna, not rule in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? Rabbi Zeira said: Let our mishna apply only to a case in which there was no money on the wagon throughout the entire duration of twilight. This strained interpretation is accepted so as not to contradict and reject Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 驻注诐 讗讞转 讛诇讱 专讘讬 诇讚讬讜住驻专讗 讜讛讜专讛 讘诪谞讜专讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谞专 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讜专讛 讘诪谞讜专讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谞专 诇讛讬转专讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讜专讛 讘诪谞讜专讛 诇讗讬住讜专讗 讜讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谞专 诇讛讬转专讗 转讬拽讜


Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One time, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi went to the town of Deyosfera, and issued a ruling with regard to a candelabrum in accordance with the ruling that Rabbi Shimon made with regard to an oil lamp. This description is insufficiently clear, therefore a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does this mean that he issued a ruling in the case of a candelabrum, like the ruling that Rabbi Shimon made in the case of an oil lamp, to permit moving it? Or, perhaps, he issued a ruling in the case of a candelabrum to prohibit moving it, and in another case he ruled in accordance with the ruling that Rabbi Shimon made in the case of an oil lamp, to permit moving it. There was no resolution found to this dilemma and therefore it stands unresolved.


专讘 诪诇讻讬讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 专讘讬 砖诪诇讗讬 讜讟讬诇讟诇 砖专讙讗 讜讗讬拽驻讚 专讘讬 砖诪诇讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讙诇讬诇讗讛 讗讬拽诇注 诇讗转专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讟讬诇讟诇 砖专讙讗 讜讗讬拽驻讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讻讬 讗讬拽诇注 诇讗转专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛讜讛 诪讟诇讟诇 砖专讙讗 讻讬 讗讬拽诇注 诇讗转专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 讛讜讛 诪讟诇讟诇 砖专讙讗 诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇讬注讘讚 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇讬注讘讚 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇注讜诇诐 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜诪砖讜诐 讻讘讜讚讜 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 注讘讬讚


It is told that Rav Malkiya happened to come to the house of Rabbi Simlai and moved an extinguished oil lamp, and Rabbi Simlai became angry, as in his opinion it is prohibited to move an oil lamp because it is set-aside. Likewise, Rabbi Yosei the Galilean happened to come to the place of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, and moved an oil lamp, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, became angry. The Gemara also relates that Rabbi Abbahu, when he happened to come to the place of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, he would move an oil lamp. However, when he happened to come to the place of Rabbi Yo岣nan, he would not move an oil lamp. The Gemara wondered: Whichever way you look at it there is a difficulty. If he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, let him act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda everywhere and refrain from moving the lamp. And if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, let him act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon everywhere and move the oil lamp. The Gemara answers: Actually, it can be explained that Rabbi Abbahu holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon; however, in deference to Rabbi Yo岣nan he did not act accordingly, so as not to act contrary to his ruling in the place where he was the authority.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖专讙讗 讚诪砖讞讗 砖专讬 诇讟诇讟讜诇讛 讚谞驻讟讗 讗住讜专 诇讟诇讟讜诇讛 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讚谞驻讟讗 谞诪讬 砖专讬 诇讟诇讟讜诇讛 (讚讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讝讬 诇讻住讜转 讘讬讛 诪谞讗)


With regard to the halakhot of moving lamps on Shabbat, Rav Yehuda said: With regard to an extinguished oil lamp, it is permitted to move it, whereas a naphtha lamp, it is prohibited to move it. Since the smell of naphtha is unpleasant, the lamp is used exclusively for lighting. Therefore, moving it is prohibited. Rabba and Rav Yosef both said: With regard to a naphtha lamp, too, it is permitted to move it.


专讘 讗讜讬讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 专讘讗 讛讜讛 诪讗讬住谉 讘讬 讻专注讬讛 讘讟讬谞讗 讗转讬讘讬 讗驻讜专讬讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗讬拽驻讚 专讘讗 讘注讗 诇爪注讜专讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 砖专讙讗 讚谞驻讟讗 谞诪讬 砖专讬 诇讟诇讟讜诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讝讬讗 诇讻住讜讬讬 讘讛 诪谞讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讻诇 爪专讜专讜转 砖讘讞爪专 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讝讬讗 诇讻住讜讬讬 讘讛讜 诪谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 转讜专转 讻诇讬 注诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诇讬讻讗 转讜专转 讻诇讬 注诇讬讛 诪讬 诇讗 转谞讬讗


The Gemara relates: Rav Avya happened to come to Rava鈥檚 house. His feet were dirty with clay and he put them on the bed before Rava. Rava became angry at him for dirtying the bed and, therefore, sought to torment him with questions that he could not answer. Rava said to him: What is the reason that Rabba and Rav Yosef both said that with regard to a naphtha lamp, too, that it is permitted to move it? Rav Avya said to him: Since it is suitable to cover a vessel with it. Rava said to him: But if that is so, all pebbles in the yard may also be carried ab initio on Shabbat, since it is suitable to cover a vessel with them. Rav Avya said to him: There is a distinction between these cases. This, the lamp, the status of a vessel applies to it and there are leniencies that apply to vessels with regard to the halakhot of set-aside. These, the pebbles, the status of a vessel does not apply to it, as they are a raw material. Carrying them is prohibited unless designated for a specific purpose before Shabbat. Was it not taught in a baraita that


讛砖讬专讬诐 讜讛谞讝诪讬诐 讜讛讟讘注讜转 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讛谞讟诇讬诐 讘讞爪专 讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪讛 讟注诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬讻讗 转讜专转 讻诇讬 注诇讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬讻讗 转讜专转 讻诇讬 注诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讘专讬讱 专讞诪谞讗 讚诇讗 讻住讬驻讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 讗讜讬讗


bracelets, nose-rings and rings, although it is prohibited to go out into the public domain wearing them on Shabbat, they are like all the vessels that may be moved in the courtyard; in the private domain, one may move them and they are not set-aside. And Ulla said: What is the reason that it is permitted to move nose-rings in the yard? It is because the status of a vessel applies to it. Apparently, vessel status is sufficient to permit moving it on Shabbat. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Thank God that Rava did not embarrass Rav Avya and Rav Avya managed to successfully answer Rava鈥檚 questions.


专诪讬 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讛 转谞讬讗 诪讜转专 讛砖诪谉 砖讘谞专 讜砖讘拽注专讛 讗住讜专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 讗诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诪讜诪讜 谞讬讻专 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谉 讝讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉


Abaye raised a contradiction before Rabba citing two sources with regard to set-aside on Shabbat. It was taught in a baraita: With regard to the remaining oil that is in an oil lamp and in a bowl in which a wick was lit, it is prohibited to use it on Shabbat and Rabbi Shimon permits using it. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon is not of the opinion that there is a prohibition of set-aside. And a contradiction is raised from a parallel source, in which the Sages discussed the halakha of the firstborn of a kosher animal that developed a blemish on a Festival. The firstborn must be examined to determine whether or not that type of blemish disqualifies the animal from being sacrificed as an offering. If it is disqualified, it may be redeemed, slaughtered, and eaten as non-sacred meat on the Festival. Rabbi Shimon says: Any firstborn animal whose blemish is not perceptible before the Festival is not among the animals prepared prior to the Festival for use on the Festival, and it is prohibited to slaughter it. Apparently, an item not prepared in advance has set-aside status according to Rabbi Shimon.


讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讗讚诐 讬讜砖讘 讜诪爪驻讛 讗讬诪转讬 转讻讘讛 谞专讜 讛讻讗 讗讚诐 讬讜砖讘 讜诪爪驻讛 诪转讬 讬驻讜诇 讘讜 诪讜诐 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚谞驻讬诇 讘讬讛 诪讜诪讗 讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讚谞驻讬诇 讘讬讛 诪讜诪讗 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚谞驻讬诇 讘讬讛 诪讜诐 拽讘讜注 讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讚谞驻诇 讘讬讛 诪讜诐 拽讘讜注 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚诪讝讚拽拽 诇讬讛 讞讻诐


Rabba said to him: How can you compare these cases? There, in the case of the lamp, a person sits and anticipates when his candle will be extinguished. It is clear to him that it will be extinguished, and he can safely assume that a certain amount of oil will remain in the lamp or the bowl. Here, does a person sit and anticipate when a blemish will befall his animal? The owner of the animal says: Who says that a blemish will befall his animal? And even if you say that a blemish will befall it, who says that a permanent blemish that would enable it to be slaughtered will befall it? And even if you say that a permanent blemish will befall it, who says that a Sage will agree to engage in examining the blemish? Since there are so many uncertainties involved, if the blemish is not perceptible before the Festival, the possibility of the firstborn animal becoming available does not enter a person鈥檚 mind at all.


诪转讬讘 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪驻讬专讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 讘砖讘转 [讜谞砖讗诇讬谉 诇谞讚专讬诐 砖讛谉] 诇爪讜专讱 讛砖讘转 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚诪讬讝讚拽拽 诇讛 讘注诇


Rami bar 岣ma raised an objection to this last point from that which we learned in a mishna: One may nullify vows on Shabbat. A woman who vowed that certain food is prohibited to her, her husband can nullify her vow on Shabbat. And likewise one may request that a Sage find an opening to dissolve his vows, i.e., a factor that the one taking the vow failed to take into account or an element of regret, if that nullification or dissolution is for the purpose of Shabbat. The question arises: And why, after a man has nullified his wife鈥檚 vow, should she be permitted to eat that food? When the woman vowed not to eat that food, she consciously set it aside. Even if some way to dissolve the vow is found, the food should remain set-aside. On the basis of the same uncertainty that was raised above, say: Who says that her husband will agree to engage in nullifying her oath? Perhaps he will refuse to nullify it.


讛转诐 讻讚专讘 驻谞讞住 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 驻谞讞住 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讻诇 讛谞讜讚专转 注诇 讚注转 讘注诇讛 讛讬讗 谞讜讚专转


The Gemara answers: There, in the case of vows, it can be explained in accordance with that which Rav Pine岣s said in the name of Rava, who came to explain some of the fundamentals of the halakhot of vows, as Rav Pine岣s said in the name of Rava: Every woman who takes a vow, it is from the outset contingent on her husband鈥檚 consent that she takes the vow. Since she knows that her husband has the ability to nullify it, her vows are not absolute and their final validation comes only through her husband鈥檚 agreement. When a woman vows, she does not set aside the food absolutely from potential use.


转讗 砖诪注 谞砖讗诇讬谉 诇谞讚专讬诐 砖诇 爪讜专讱 讛砖讘转 讘砖讘转 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚诪讝讚拽拽 诇讬讛 讞讻诐 讛转诐 讗讬 诇讗 诪讬讝讚拽拽 诇讬讛 讞讻诐 住讙讬讗 诇讬讛 讘砖诇砖讛 讛讚讬讜讟讜转 讛讻讗 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚诪讬讝讚拽拽 诇讬讛 讞讻诐


Moreover, the Gemara cites proof for this from that which was taught: Come and hear: One may request that a Sage dissolve his vows for the purpose of Shabbat on Shabbat, i.e., one who vowed on Shabbat that eating on that day is prohibited for him. And why is he permitted to eat something that was prohibited to him by his vow? Say again: Who says that the Sage will agree to engage in dissolution of his vow? Consequently, one has certainly diverted his attention from the food, set it aside, and it should be prohibited to eat it. The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, there is a difference, as there, in the halakhot of vows, even if the Sage does not agree to engage in dissolution of his vow, he can suffice with renouncing the vow before three common people. Even though it is preferable to have a Sage dissolve his vow, in exigent circumstances one may turn to a court of three common people to dissolve it. He will certainly find a way to dissolve his vow. However, here, in the case of the firstborn animal, who says that the Sage will agree to engage in examination of the blemish? In the halakhot of firstborn animals only an ordained Sage, who received special license to do so, is authorized to verify that it is a permanent blemish and permit redemption and slaughter of the animal as a non-sacred animal.


专诪讬 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讘转讛 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇讛 讻讘转讛 讗讬谉 诇讗 讻讘转讛 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讘讛讚讬 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讛 讻讘转讛 讛讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诪讜转专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讙讜专专 讗讚诐 讻住讗 诪讟讛 讜住驻住诇 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇注砖讜转 讞专讬抓


Abaye raised a contradiction before Rav Yosef: Did Rabbi Shimon actually say that when a lamp is extinguished, it is permitted to move it on Shabbat? By inference: After it is extinguished, yes, moving it is permitted; so long as it is not extinguished, no, moving it is prohibited. What is the reason that it is prohibited to move a burning candle? It is due to concern that perhaps, as he moves the lamp, the flame will be extinguished. However, is Rabbi Shimon really concerned that a flame will be extinguished under those circumstances? Didn鈥檛 we learn that Rabbi Shimon stated a principle: An unintentional act, a permitted action from which an unintended prohibited labor ensues on Shabbat, since he did not intend to perform the prohibited action, is permitted? As it was taught in a baraita, Rabbi Shimon says: A person may drag a bed, chair, and bench on the ground, as long as he does not intend to make a furrow in the ground. Even if a furrow is formed inadvertently, one need not be concerned. Since that was not his intention, there is no prohibition according to Rabbi Shimon. Consequently, according to Rabbi Shimon there should be no prohibition in moving a burning candle, even though it may be extinguished. Since that is not the intention of the one moving it, no prohibition would be violated.


讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻讬 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讻讬 诇讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讙讝专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讚专讘谞谉 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻讬 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讚专讘谞谉 讻讬 诇讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 砖专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讻转讞讬诇讛


The Gemara answers that there is a distinction between the cases: In every case where if he intends to perform the action, there is a prohibition by Torah law, e.g., extinguishing a candle; even when he does not intend to do so, Rabbi Shimon issued a decree prohibiting it by rabbinic law. However, in every case where even if he intends to perform the action, there is merely a prohibition by rabbinic law, e.g., digging a furrow which is not a full-fledged act of plowing that is prohibited by Torah law, but is prohibited only by rabbinic law, when he does not intend to perform the action, Rabbi Shimon even permits performing this action ab initio.


诪转讬讘 专讘讗 诪讜讻专讬 讻住讜转 诪讜讻专讬谉 讻讚专讻谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 讘讞诪讛 诪驻谞讬 讛讞诪讛 讜讘讙砖诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讜讛爪谞讜注讬谉 诪驻砖讬诇讬谉 讘诪拽诇 诇讗讞讜专讬讛谉 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讻讬 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讬讻讗 讻讬 诇讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 砖专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讻转讞讬诇讛


Rava raised an objection to this distinction from that which we learned in a mishna: Clothing merchants who sell garments made of diverse kinds, a prohibited mixture of wool and linen, may sell them as they normally would to gentiles. A merchant may place the garments he is selling on his shoulders and need not be concerned about the prohibition against wearing diverse kinds, as long as the merchant does not intend to benefit from the garments in the sun as protection from the sun, or in the rain as protection from the rain. However, the modest people, those who are particularly meticulous in their performance of mitzvot, would suspend the wool and linen garments on a stick behind them. And here, isn鈥檛 it a case where if one intends to wear the clothing, there is a prohibition by Torah law, and even so when he does not intend to wear it, Rabbi Shimon permits it ab initio. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon does not distinguish between cases on that basis.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗


Rather, Rava said a different explanation for Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 prohibition in the case of an oil lamp:


Scroll To Top