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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 22, 2020 | 讻状讞 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 Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Shabbat 47

Today’s daf is sponsored by Elana Storch in appreciation of Hadran. Thank you for giving us the chizuk and continuing to inspire us, the women of Hadran daily with a love of learning.

Rebbi allowed carrying a coal pan with ashes. Why? Isn’t it a utensil that is used for something forbidden? Three answers are brought – two of which are rejected. Is muktze subjective? Can something be muktze for someone and permitted for someone else? Can one put together a collapsible weaving loom or other collapsible item? There seem to be different opinions about this. On what might it depend? One can put something under the lamp to catch sparks – why? However one can’t fill it with water as that will extinguish the sparks. Is that true only if one holds like Rabbi Yosi who thinks that indirect extinguishing is forbidden? Rav Ashi thinks that this is actually considered directly extinguishing. What materials can one not use for wrapping food – hatmana – even before Shabbat?

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讛谞讞 诇谞专 砖诪谉 讜驻转讬诇讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讚谞注砖讛 讘住讬住 诇讚讘专 讛讗住讜专

Leave the candle, oil, and wick, since they became a base for a prohibited object. Even Rabbi Shimon agrees that a flame burning on Shabbat is set-aside. Since it is prohibited to move the flame, moving the lamp, oil, and wick is also prohibited.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 专讜诪谞讜住 诇讬 讛转讬专 专讘讬 诇讟诇讟诇 诪讞转讛 讘讗驻专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讗住讬 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞谉 谞讜讟诇 讗讚诐 讘谞讜 讜讛讗讘谉 讘讬讚讜 讗讜 讻诇讻诇讛 讜讛讗讘谉 讘转讜讻讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讻诇讻诇讛 诪诇讗讛 驻讬专讜转 注住拽讬谞谉 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬转 讘讛 驻讬专讬 讛讗 诇讬转 讘讛 驻讬专讬 诇讗

Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that Rabbi 岣nina said that Rabbi Romanus said: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted me to carry a coal pan with its ashes. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: Did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say that? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: A person may carry his son in his hands and even if the son has a stone, which is prohibited to carry, in his hands; or, one may carry a basket with a stone inside it? And Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: We are dealing with a basket that is full of fruit. Due to the fruit, carrying the stone is also permitted. The reason for the leniency is because there is fruit inside the basket; however, if there is no fruit inside it, no, one may not move it. With regard to the coal pan that is filled with ashes, how can moving it be permitted according to Rabbi Yo岣nan?

讗砖转讜诪诐 讻砖注讛 讞讚讗 讜讗诪专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚讗讬转 讘讛 拽专讟讬谉 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 拽专讟讬谉 讘讬 专讘讬 诪讬 讞砖讬讘讬

鈥淗e was astonished for a while鈥 (Daniel 4:16) and could not find an answer. And, ultimately, Rabbi Asi said: Here, too, it is referring to a case where the coal pan has bits of frankincense that were not yet burned. Due to those bits, moving the pan is permitted. Abaye said: Are small bits in the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi significant? Since they are not significant, they are nullified by the ashes and the mixture is entirely unsuitable for use.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讞讝讜 诇注谞讬讬诐 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讙讚讬 注谞讬讬诐 诇注谞讬讬诐 讘讙讚讬 注砖讬专讬诐 诇注砖讬专讬诐 讗讘诇 讚注谞讬讬诐 诇注砖讬专讬诐 诇讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讙专祝 砖诇 专讬注讬

And if you say: The bits are suitable for the poor. We will explain that the value of an object is determined not by its context, but by its intrinsic value. Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that there is a difference with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity between garments belonging to poor people, which can become ritually impure even if they are very small, and garments belonging to the wealthy, which are not considered significant unless they contain a larger amount of fabric? Garments the size of poor people鈥檚 clothing are for the poor, and garments the size of rich people鈥檚 clothing are for the rich; however, clothes of the poor for the rich are not significant. Apparently, the significance of an object is determined by its context and its owner. Rather, Abaye said an alternative explanation: The halakha here is just as it is in the case of a chamber pot of feces. Since it is disgusting, removing it from the house is permitted, even though clearly there is no use for it.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖转讬 转砖讜讘讜转 讘讚讘专 讞讚讗 讙专祝 砖诇 专讬注讬 诪讗讬住 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 诪讗讬住 讜注讜讚 讙专祝 砖诇 专讬注讬 诪讬讙诇讬 讜讛讗讬 诪讬讻住讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讜讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬谞谉 讻谞讜谞讗 讗讙讘 拽讬讟诪讗 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 注诇讬讛 砖讘专讬 注爪讬诐 诪讬转讬讘讬 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗诐 讬砖 讘讛 砖讘专讬 驻转讬诇讛 砖讗住讜专 诇讟诇讟诇 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讙诇讬诇讗 砖谞讜

Rava said: There are two answers to reject this analogy: One, a chamber pot with feces is disgusting, and the coal pan is not disgusting. And furthermore: A chamber pot with feces is uncovered and smells, and the coal pan is covered. Rather, Rava said an alternative explanation: When we were at the house of Rav Na岣an we would move a coal pan [kanuna] on account of the ashes, and we did this even though there were broken pieces of wood on it. Since the ashes can be used to cover filth, it is not set-aside and the coal pan may be moved due to the ashes. Even if there were also broken sticks on the pan that are useless, nevertheless they are nullified by the ashes. The Gemara raises an objection to this last remark from that which was cited previously: And Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon agree that if there were fragments of a wick in the lamp, that it is prohibited to move it. Apparently, these fragments are not null and render the entire lamp set-aside. Abaye said: No proof can be cited from that baraita because they taught it in the Galilee, where oil is abundant and inexpensive. That is why broken wicks are not nullified relative to the oil (Rav Nissim Gaon).

诇讜讬 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 诇专讘讬 讗讘讗 讜诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讚讛讜讜 拽讬讬诪讬 讗驻讬转讞讗 讚讘讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪讟讛 砖诇 讟专住讬讬诐 讘砖讘转 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讛讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讛诪讞讝讬专 诪讟讛 砖诇 讟专住讬讬诐 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转

The Gemara relates that Levi bar Shmuel found Rabbi Abba and Rav Huna bar 岣yya, who were standing at the entrance of Rav Huna鈥檚 house. Levi bar Shmuel said to them: What is the halakha with regard to reassembling a weaver鈥檚 loom, which was typically a collapsible frame, on Shabbat? He said to him: It may well be done. He came before Rav Yehuda, asking him the same question, and Rav Yehuda said to him that Rav and Shmuel both said: One who reassembles a weaver鈥檚 loom on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering, as he performed a labor prohibited by Torah law on Shabbat.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛诪讞讝讬专 拽谞讛 诪谞讜专讛 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 拽谞讛 住讬讬讚讬谉 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜讗诐 讛讞讝讬专 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 拽专谉 注讙讜诇讛 讞讬讬讘 拽专谉 驻砖讜讟讛 驻讟讜专 讗讬谞讛讜 讚讗诪讜专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪诇讘谞讜转 讛诪讟讛 讜讻专注讜转 讛诪讟讛 讜诇讜讜讞讬诐 砖诇 住拽讬讘住 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜讗诐 讛讞讝讬专 驻讟讜专

The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Levi bar Shmuel from the Tosefta: One who reassembles the branch of a disassembled candelabrum on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering. With regard to the plasterer鈥檚 pole, which has several component parts, one may not reassemble it ab initio, and if he reassembled it, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, although it is prohibited. Rabbi Simai says: With regard to a rounded horn, which is a trumpet that can be dismantled and whose assembly is complicated, one who reassembled it is liable. However, a straight horn, which is easy to assemble, one who assembled it is exempt. Apparently, assembling an object that consists of several components on Shabbat is prohibited by Torah law, and one is liable to bring a sin-offering for doing so. The Gemara answers: They said that it is permitted in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it was taught in a baraita: A bed frame, which is a wooden frame through which the ropes of the bed were interlaced, and the legs of the bed, and the archer鈥檚 tablets [skibas], which refers to the part of a bow upon which one pulls the arrow back, if they were detached from the bed or from the bow, one may not reassemble them, and if he reassembled them he is exempt.

讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讜诇讗 讬转拽注 讜讗诐 转拽注 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 专驻讜讬 诪讜转专

However, doing so is prohibited. And one may not fasten the pieces together forcefully, and if he fastens them, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for performing a labor prohibited by Torah law. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If it was loose and could be assembled with ease, it is permitted. Rabbi Abba and Rav Huna bar 岣yya relied on this opinion.

讘讬 专讘 讞诪讗 讛讜讛 诪讟讛 讙诇诇谞讬转讗 讛讜讛 诪讛讚专讬 诇讛 讘讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 诪讗讬 讚注转讬讱 讘谞讬谉 诪谉 讛爪讚 讛讜讗 谞讛讬 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讬讻讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪讬讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘讬专讗 诇讬 讚讗诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 专驻讜讬 诪讜转专:

The Gemara relates: In the house of Rav 岣ma, Rava鈥檚 grandfather, there was a collapsible bed, similar to a weaver鈥檚 loom, and they would reassemble it on a Festival. One of the Sages said to Rava: What is your opinion? Do you hold that this is allowed because it is building in an atypical manner? In other words, one is not performing the prohibited labor of building since it is was not performed in the standard manner? Although there is no Torah prohibition, there is, in any case, a rabbinic prohibition. Rava said to him: I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who said that if it were loose, it is permitted even ab initio.

诪转谞讬壮 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 讜诇讗 讬转谉 诇转讜讻讜 诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讻讘讛:

MISHNA: One may place a vessel beneath the oil lamp in order to receive burning sparks of oil that fall from the lamp so that they will not cause a fire. And he may not place water into the vessel because he thereby extinguishes the sparks.

讙诪壮 讜讛讗 拽诪讘讟诇 讻诇讬 诪讛讬讻谞讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 谞讬爪讜爪讜转 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪诪砖:

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: How is it permitted to position this vessel to receive the sparks, doesn鈥檛 he thereby negate the vessel鈥檚 preparedness? It is no longer prepared for any use on Shabbat as the sparks accord it set-aside status. The opinion that negating the preparedness of a vessel is prohibited has already been stated. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Sparks have no substance. They burn immediately and do not leave behind any trace of oil in the vessel. Therefore, the vessel remains suitable to be moved.

讜诇讗 讬转谉 诇转讜讻讜 诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讻讘讛: 诇讬诪讗 转谞谉 住转诪讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 讙讜专诐 诇讻讬讘讜讬 讗住讜专

And we also learned in the mishna that one may not place water into the vessel situated beneath the candle because he thereby extinguishes the sparks. The Gemara remarks: Is that to say that we learned an unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that even an action that causes extinguishing indirectly is prohibited? The extinguishing in this case, where water was placed into a vessel, was not accomplished by means of a direct action. His action only caused it to extinguish indirectly.

讜转住讘专讗 讗讬诪讜专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘砖讘转 讘注专讘 砖讘转 诪讬 讗诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘砖讘转 讜讛转谞讬讗 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 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讜诇讗 讬转谉 诇转讜讻讜 诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讻讘讛 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 诪驻谞讬 砖诪拽专讘 讗转 讻讬讘讜讬讜:

The Gemara rejects this question in astonishment: And how can you understand it in that manner? Say that Rabbi Yosei said that indirectly causing extinguishing is prohibited on Shabbat; on Shabbat eve did he say this? And if you say that here, too, it is referring to a case where he placed water in the vessel on Shabbat, wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One may place a vessel underneath an oil lamp to receive sparks that fall from the lamp on Shabbat, and, needless to say, placing it there is permitted on Shabbat eve? And one may not put water into the vessel because he will thereby extinguish the spark, even if he placed it there on Shabbat eve, and, needless to say, doing so is prohibited on Shabbat itself. Apparently, the prohibition in the mishna is not at all connected to Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 approach. Rather, Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, it is different here because, in this case, he is not only causing the spark to extinguish. He is hastening its extinguishing, as the sparks are extinguished immediately when they fall into the water (Rabbeinu 岣nanel). In this matter even the Rabbis would prohibit doing so.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻讬专讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讘诪讛 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讜讘诪讛 讗讬谉 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讗讬谉 讟讜诪谞讬谉 诇讗 讘讙驻转 讜诇讗 讘讝讘诇 诇讗 讘诪诇讞 讜诇讗 讘住讬讚 讜诇讗 讘讞讜诇 讘讬谉 诇讞讬谉 讘讬谉 讬讘砖讬谉

When a pot is removed from the fire on Shabbat eve it may be insulated in materials that preserve its heat, but not in materials that increase its heat. Raising the temperature of a pot is tantamount to cooking. The mishnayot that follow list those materials in which such a pot may be insulated on Shabbat eve and those materials in which it may not be insulated.

MISHNA: In what may one insulate a pot of cooked food on Shabbat eve, and in what may one not insulate it? One may neither insulate it in the solid residue of produce that has been pressed free of its oil, nor in manure, nor in salt, nor in lime, nor in sand, whether those materials are moist or whether they are dry. All of these materials spontaneously generate heat when piled for an extended period. Therefore, they add heat to a pot insulated in them.

讜诇讗 讘转讘谉 讜诇讗 讘讝讙讬谉 讜诇讗 讘诪讜讻讬谉 讜诇讗 讘注砖讘讬谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 诇讞讬谉 讗讘诇 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讘讛谉 讻砖讛谉 讬讘砖讬谉:

And one may neither insulate a pot in straw, nor in the residue of grapes that have been pressed for their juice, nor in soft material, e.g., from tattered clothing, nor in grass, when these materials are moist. However, one may insulate a pot in them when they are dry.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讙驻转 砖诇 讝讬转讬诐 转谞谉 讗讘诇 讚砖讜诪砖诪讬谉 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讚砖讜诪砖诪讬谉 转谞谉 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讚讝讬转讬诐

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Did we learn with regard to the residue of olives in the mishna, but the residue of sesame seeds that were pressed for their oil, which produces less heat, may well be used for insulating food on Shabbat eve? Or, perhaps, we learned with regard to the residue of sesame in the mishna, and all the more so insulating food in the residue of olives is prohibited?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪砖讜诐 讞讚 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 拽讜驻讛 砖讟诪谉 讘讛 讗住讜专 诇讛谞讬讞讛 注诇 讙驻转 砖诇 讝讬转讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖诇 讝讬转讬诐 转谞谉

Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from what Rabbi Zeira said in the name of one of the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai: With regard to a basket in which one insulated food in a permissible manner, e.g., in dry soft material or the like, it is prohibited to place it upon the residue of olives. Conclude from this that we learned with regard to the residue of olives in our mishna; however, insulating food in the residue of sesame is permitted.

诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诇注谞讬谉 讛讟诪谞讛 讚砖讜诪砖诪讬谉 谞诪讬 讗住讜专 诇注谞讬谉

The Gemara rejects this proof: Actually, I can say to you that with regard to actual insulation, the residue of sesame is also prohibited. However, with regard to

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 Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

daf yomi One week at a time (1)

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time: Shabbat 47-54

We will review Daf 47-54 and talk about insulating food on Shabbat, the power of wearing Tefilin, and can animals...
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...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 47: What Do Clothes Mean to You? Halakhic Subjectivity (in a good way)

First, an unusual use of a biblical verse that we found delightful. Next: Carrying ashes on Shabbat - muktzah, no?...

Shabbat 47

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 47

讛谞讞 诇谞专 砖诪谉 讜驻转讬诇讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讚谞注砖讛 讘住讬住 诇讚讘专 讛讗住讜专

Leave the candle, oil, and wick, since they became a base for a prohibited object. Even Rabbi Shimon agrees that a flame burning on Shabbat is set-aside. Since it is prohibited to move the flame, moving the lamp, oil, and wick is also prohibited.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 专讜诪谞讜住 诇讬 讛转讬专 专讘讬 诇讟诇讟诇 诪讞转讛 讘讗驻专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讗住讬 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞谉 谞讜讟诇 讗讚诐 讘谞讜 讜讛讗讘谉 讘讬讚讜 讗讜 讻诇讻诇讛 讜讛讗讘谉 讘转讜讻讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讻诇讻诇讛 诪诇讗讛 驻讬专讜转 注住拽讬谞谉 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬转 讘讛 驻讬专讬 讛讗 诇讬转 讘讛 驻讬专讬 诇讗

Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that Rabbi 岣nina said that Rabbi Romanus said: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted me to carry a coal pan with its ashes. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: Did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say that? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: A person may carry his son in his hands and even if the son has a stone, which is prohibited to carry, in his hands; or, one may carry a basket with a stone inside it? And Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: We are dealing with a basket that is full of fruit. Due to the fruit, carrying the stone is also permitted. The reason for the leniency is because there is fruit inside the basket; however, if there is no fruit inside it, no, one may not move it. With regard to the coal pan that is filled with ashes, how can moving it be permitted according to Rabbi Yo岣nan?

讗砖转讜诪诐 讻砖注讛 讞讚讗 讜讗诪专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚讗讬转 讘讛 拽专讟讬谉 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 拽专讟讬谉 讘讬 专讘讬 诪讬 讞砖讬讘讬

鈥淗e was astonished for a while鈥 (Daniel 4:16) and could not find an answer. And, ultimately, Rabbi Asi said: Here, too, it is referring to a case where the coal pan has bits of frankincense that were not yet burned. Due to those bits, moving the pan is permitted. Abaye said: Are small bits in the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi significant? Since they are not significant, they are nullified by the ashes and the mixture is entirely unsuitable for use.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讞讝讜 诇注谞讬讬诐 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讙讚讬 注谞讬讬诐 诇注谞讬讬诐 讘讙讚讬 注砖讬专讬诐 诇注砖讬专讬诐 讗讘诇 讚注谞讬讬诐 诇注砖讬专讬诐 诇讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讙专祝 砖诇 专讬注讬

And if you say: The bits are suitable for the poor. We will explain that the value of an object is determined not by its context, but by its intrinsic value. Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that there is a difference with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity between garments belonging to poor people, which can become ritually impure even if they are very small, and garments belonging to the wealthy, which are not considered significant unless they contain a larger amount of fabric? Garments the size of poor people鈥檚 clothing are for the poor, and garments the size of rich people鈥檚 clothing are for the rich; however, clothes of the poor for the rich are not significant. Apparently, the significance of an object is determined by its context and its owner. Rather, Abaye said an alternative explanation: The halakha here is just as it is in the case of a chamber pot of feces. Since it is disgusting, removing it from the house is permitted, even though clearly there is no use for it.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖转讬 转砖讜讘讜转 讘讚讘专 讞讚讗 讙专祝 砖诇 专讬注讬 诪讗讬住 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 诪讗讬住 讜注讜讚 讙专祝 砖诇 专讬注讬 诪讬讙诇讬 讜讛讗讬 诪讬讻住讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讜讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬谞谉 讻谞讜谞讗 讗讙讘 拽讬讟诪讗 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 注诇讬讛 砖讘专讬 注爪讬诐 诪讬转讬讘讬 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗诐 讬砖 讘讛 砖讘专讬 驻转讬诇讛 砖讗住讜专 诇讟诇讟诇 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讙诇讬诇讗 砖谞讜

Rava said: There are two answers to reject this analogy: One, a chamber pot with feces is disgusting, and the coal pan is not disgusting. And furthermore: A chamber pot with feces is uncovered and smells, and the coal pan is covered. Rather, Rava said an alternative explanation: When we were at the house of Rav Na岣an we would move a coal pan [kanuna] on account of the ashes, and we did this even though there were broken pieces of wood on it. Since the ashes can be used to cover filth, it is not set-aside and the coal pan may be moved due to the ashes. Even if there were also broken sticks on the pan that are useless, nevertheless they are nullified by the ashes. The Gemara raises an objection to this last remark from that which was cited previously: And Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon agree that if there were fragments of a wick in the lamp, that it is prohibited to move it. Apparently, these fragments are not null and render the entire lamp set-aside. Abaye said: No proof can be cited from that baraita because they taught it in the Galilee, where oil is abundant and inexpensive. That is why broken wicks are not nullified relative to the oil (Rav Nissim Gaon).

诇讜讬 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 诇专讘讬 讗讘讗 讜诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讚讛讜讜 拽讬讬诪讬 讗驻讬转讞讗 讚讘讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪讟讛 砖诇 讟专住讬讬诐 讘砖讘转 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讛讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讛诪讞讝讬专 诪讟讛 砖诇 讟专住讬讬诐 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转

The Gemara relates that Levi bar Shmuel found Rabbi Abba and Rav Huna bar 岣yya, who were standing at the entrance of Rav Huna鈥檚 house. Levi bar Shmuel said to them: What is the halakha with regard to reassembling a weaver鈥檚 loom, which was typically a collapsible frame, on Shabbat? He said to him: It may well be done. He came before Rav Yehuda, asking him the same question, and Rav Yehuda said to him that Rav and Shmuel both said: One who reassembles a weaver鈥檚 loom on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering, as he performed a labor prohibited by Torah law on Shabbat.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛诪讞讝讬专 拽谞讛 诪谞讜专讛 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 拽谞讛 住讬讬讚讬谉 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜讗诐 讛讞讝讬专 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 拽专谉 注讙讜诇讛 讞讬讬讘 拽专谉 驻砖讜讟讛 驻讟讜专 讗讬谞讛讜 讚讗诪讜专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪诇讘谞讜转 讛诪讟讛 讜讻专注讜转 讛诪讟讛 讜诇讜讜讞讬诐 砖诇 住拽讬讘住 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜讗诐 讛讞讝讬专 驻讟讜专

The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Levi bar Shmuel from the Tosefta: One who reassembles the branch of a disassembled candelabrum on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering. With regard to the plasterer鈥檚 pole, which has several component parts, one may not reassemble it ab initio, and if he reassembled it, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, although it is prohibited. Rabbi Simai says: With regard to a rounded horn, which is a trumpet that can be dismantled and whose assembly is complicated, one who reassembled it is liable. However, a straight horn, which is easy to assemble, one who assembled it is exempt. Apparently, assembling an object that consists of several components on Shabbat is prohibited by Torah law, and one is liable to bring a sin-offering for doing so. The Gemara answers: They said that it is permitted in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it was taught in a baraita: A bed frame, which is a wooden frame through which the ropes of the bed were interlaced, and the legs of the bed, and the archer鈥檚 tablets [skibas], which refers to the part of a bow upon which one pulls the arrow back, if they were detached from the bed or from the bow, one may not reassemble them, and if he reassembled them he is exempt.

讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讜诇讗 讬转拽注 讜讗诐 转拽注 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 专驻讜讬 诪讜转专

However, doing so is prohibited. And one may not fasten the pieces together forcefully, and if he fastens them, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for performing a labor prohibited by Torah law. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If it was loose and could be assembled with ease, it is permitted. Rabbi Abba and Rav Huna bar 岣yya relied on this opinion.

讘讬 专讘 讞诪讗 讛讜讛 诪讟讛 讙诇诇谞讬转讗 讛讜讛 诪讛讚专讬 诇讛 讘讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 诪讗讬 讚注转讬讱 讘谞讬谉 诪谉 讛爪讚 讛讜讗 谞讛讬 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讬讻讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪讬讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘讬专讗 诇讬 讚讗诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 专驻讜讬 诪讜转专:

The Gemara relates: In the house of Rav 岣ma, Rava鈥檚 grandfather, there was a collapsible bed, similar to a weaver鈥檚 loom, and they would reassemble it on a Festival. One of the Sages said to Rava: What is your opinion? Do you hold that this is allowed because it is building in an atypical manner? In other words, one is not performing the prohibited labor of building since it is was not performed in the standard manner? Although there is no Torah prohibition, there is, in any case, a rabbinic prohibition. Rava said to him: I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who said that if it were loose, it is permitted even ab initio.

诪转谞讬壮 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 讜诇讗 讬转谉 诇转讜讻讜 诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讻讘讛:

MISHNA: One may place a vessel beneath the oil lamp in order to receive burning sparks of oil that fall from the lamp so that they will not cause a fire. And he may not place water into the vessel because he thereby extinguishes the sparks.

讙诪壮 讜讛讗 拽诪讘讟诇 讻诇讬 诪讛讬讻谞讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 谞讬爪讜爪讜转 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪诪砖:

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: How is it permitted to position this vessel to receive the sparks, doesn鈥檛 he thereby negate the vessel鈥檚 preparedness? It is no longer prepared for any use on Shabbat as the sparks accord it set-aside status. The opinion that negating the preparedness of a vessel is prohibited has already been stated. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Sparks have no substance. They burn immediately and do not leave behind any trace of oil in the vessel. Therefore, the vessel remains suitable to be moved.

讜诇讗 讬转谉 诇转讜讻讜 诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讻讘讛: 诇讬诪讗 转谞谉 住转诪讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 讙讜专诐 诇讻讬讘讜讬 讗住讜专

And we also learned in the mishna that one may not place water into the vessel situated beneath the candle because he thereby extinguishes the sparks. The Gemara remarks: Is that to say that we learned an unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that even an action that causes extinguishing indirectly is prohibited? The extinguishing in this case, where water was placed into a vessel, was not accomplished by means of a direct action. His action only caused it to extinguish indirectly.

讜转住讘专讗 讗讬诪讜专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘砖讘转 讘注专讘 砖讘转 诪讬 讗诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘砖讘转 讜讛转谞讬讗 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 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讜诇讗 讬转谉 诇转讜讻讜 诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讻讘讛 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 诪驻谞讬 砖诪拽专讘 讗转 讻讬讘讜讬讜:

The Gemara rejects this question in astonishment: And how can you understand it in that manner? Say that Rabbi Yosei said that indirectly causing extinguishing is prohibited on Shabbat; on Shabbat eve did he say this? And if you say that here, too, it is referring to a case where he placed water in the vessel on Shabbat, wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One may place a vessel underneath an oil lamp to receive sparks that fall from the lamp on Shabbat, and, needless to say, placing it there is permitted on Shabbat eve? And one may not put water into the vessel because he will thereby extinguish the spark, even if he placed it there on Shabbat eve, and, needless to say, doing so is prohibited on Shabbat itself. Apparently, the prohibition in the mishna is not at all connected to Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 approach. Rather, Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, it is different here because, in this case, he is not only causing the spark to extinguish. He is hastening its extinguishing, as the sparks are extinguished immediately when they fall into the water (Rabbeinu 岣nanel). In this matter even the Rabbis would prohibit doing so.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻讬专讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讘诪讛 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讜讘诪讛 讗讬谉 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讗讬谉 讟讜诪谞讬谉 诇讗 讘讙驻转 讜诇讗 讘讝讘诇 诇讗 讘诪诇讞 讜诇讗 讘住讬讚 讜诇讗 讘讞讜诇 讘讬谉 诇讞讬谉 讘讬谉 讬讘砖讬谉

When a pot is removed from the fire on Shabbat eve it may be insulated in materials that preserve its heat, but not in materials that increase its heat. Raising the temperature of a pot is tantamount to cooking. The mishnayot that follow list those materials in which such a pot may be insulated on Shabbat eve and those materials in which it may not be insulated.

MISHNA: In what may one insulate a pot of cooked food on Shabbat eve, and in what may one not insulate it? One may neither insulate it in the solid residue of produce that has been pressed free of its oil, nor in manure, nor in salt, nor in lime, nor in sand, whether those materials are moist or whether they are dry. All of these materials spontaneously generate heat when piled for an extended period. Therefore, they add heat to a pot insulated in them.

讜诇讗 讘转讘谉 讜诇讗 讘讝讙讬谉 讜诇讗 讘诪讜讻讬谉 讜诇讗 讘注砖讘讬谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 诇讞讬谉 讗讘诇 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讘讛谉 讻砖讛谉 讬讘砖讬谉:

And one may neither insulate a pot in straw, nor in the residue of grapes that have been pressed for their juice, nor in soft material, e.g., from tattered clothing, nor in grass, when these materials are moist. However, one may insulate a pot in them when they are dry.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讙驻转 砖诇 讝讬转讬诐 转谞谉 讗讘诇 讚砖讜诪砖诪讬谉 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讚砖讜诪砖诪讬谉 转谞谉 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讚讝讬转讬诐

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Did we learn with regard to the residue of olives in the mishna, but the residue of sesame seeds that were pressed for their oil, which produces less heat, may well be used for insulating food on Shabbat eve? Or, perhaps, we learned with regard to the residue of sesame in the mishna, and all the more so insulating food in the residue of olives is prohibited?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪砖讜诐 讞讚 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 拽讜驻讛 砖讟诪谉 讘讛 讗住讜专 诇讛谞讬讞讛 注诇 讙驻转 砖诇 讝讬转讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖诇 讝讬转讬诐 转谞谉

Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from what Rabbi Zeira said in the name of one of the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai: With regard to a basket in which one insulated food in a permissible manner, e.g., in dry soft material or the like, it is prohibited to place it upon the residue of olives. Conclude from this that we learned with regard to the residue of olives in our mishna; however, insulating food in the residue of sesame is permitted.

诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诇注谞讬谉 讛讟诪谞讛 讚砖讜诪砖诪讬谉 谞诪讬 讗住讜专 诇注谞讬谉

The Gemara rejects this proof: Actually, I can say to you that with regard to actual insulation, the residue of sesame is also prohibited. However, with regard to

Scroll To Top