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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 23, 2020 | 讻状讟 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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Shabbat 48

Today’s daf is dedicated in honor of a number of birthdays. In honor of Akiva Blander’s birthday by his parents, Peri Rosenfeld and Stuart Blander. He lights up our lives with his wry humor and his ongoing support of our learning the daf. In honor of Rivka Greenstone鈥檚 birthday from her parents David and Shira. And in honor of my son, Moshe鈥檚 birthday.聽

Two events happened in the house of the Exilarch in which Raba was critical of the behavior of a servant – one regarding hatmana/warming water on Shabbat and one regarding covering a barrel with a kerchief. If one uses pieces of wool generally used for making clothing, but one time it was used for hatmana, would the wool be allowed to be carried on a different Shabbat as it was at some point useful on Shabbat? Can one refill the wool stuffing of a pillow if it falls out on Shabbat? Can one put the stuffing in to make the pillow? What about cutting out the part for the neck of clothing or untying the neck that was sewn together by the launderer? The gemara then talks about uncovering a sealed barrel – is that the same as cutting out the part for the neck in a new shirt? The gemara then discusses different issues regarding items that are temporarily connected – are they considered connecting for purity/impurity issues? On what does it depend?

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讗住讜拽讬 讛讘诇讗 讚讝讬转讬诐 诪住拽讬 讛讘诇讗 讚砖讜诪砖诪讬谉 诇讗 诪住拽讬 讛讘诇讗

causing heat to rise, i.e., heating food that is not actually insulated in it, but merely resting upon it, the residue of olives causes heat to rise. Therefore, it is prohibited even to place cooked food upon it. However, the residue of sesame does not cause heat to rise to that extent. Therefore, it is permitted to place food upon it.

专讘讛 讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗讬拽诇注讜 诇讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讞讝讬讜讛 诇讛讛讜讗 注讘讚讗 讚讗谞讞 讻讜讝讗 讚诪讬讗 讗驻讜诪讗 讚拽讜诪拽讜诪讗 谞讝讛讬讛 专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪诪讬讞诐 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讬讞诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讗讜拽讜诪讬 拽讗 诪讜拽讬诐 讛讻讗 讗讜诇讜讚讬 拽讗 诪讜诇讬讚

The Gemara relates an anecdote somewhat relevant to the previous discussion: Rabba and Rabbi Zeira happened to come to the house of the Exilarch on Shabbat, and saw this servant who placed a jug [kuza] of cold water on the mouth of a kettle filled with hot water. Rabba rebuked him for having acted contrary to the halakha. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabba: How is this case different from placing an urn on top of another urn, which is permitted on Shabbat? Rabba said to him: There, when he places one urn on top of another urn, he merely preserves the heat in the upper urn; therefore, it is permitted. Here, in the case where he places the jug of cold water on the mouth of a kettle, he is generating heat in the water in the upper vessel; therefore, it is prohibited.

讛讚专 讞讝讬讬讛 讚驻专住 讚住转讜讚专 讗驻讜诪讬讛 讚讻讜讘讗 讜讗谞讞 谞讟诇讗 注讬诇讜讬讛 谞讝讛讬讛 专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 讞讝讬转 诇住讜祝 讞讝讬讬讛 讚拽讗 诪注爪专 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪驻专讜谞拽讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 诇讗 拽驻讬讚 注讬诇讜讬讛 讛讻讗 拽驻讬讚 注讬诇讜讬讛:

The Gemara continues: Rabba then saw that same servant spread a kerchief [dastodar] over a vat of water and place a cup used to draw water from the vat, on the kerchief. Once again, Rabba rebuked him for having acted improperly. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Why did you rebuke him? Rabba said to him: Now, see what will happen. Ultimately, he saw that the servant was squeezing out the water that was absorbed by the kerchief, thereby violating a Torah prohibition. Nevertheless, Rabbi Zeira said to him: How is this case different from that of a cloth [parvanka], which one is permitted to spread over a vat even on Shabbat? Rabba said to him: There is a distinction between the two cases: There, in the case of the cloth, he is not particular about it; even if it gets wet, he will not come to squeeze it dry. Here, with regard to the kerchief, he is particular about it, and he will wring it so that it will not remain wet.

讜诇讗 讘转讘谉: 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 诪讗讘讬讬 诪讜讻讬谉 砖讟诪谉 讘讛谉 诪讛讜 诇讟诇讟诇谉 讘砖讘转

We learned in the mishna: And one may neither insulate a pot in straw, nor in the residue of grapes that were pressed for their juice, nor in soft material. Rav Adda bar Mattana raised a dilemma before Abaye: With regard to swatches of soft material in which he insulated a pot, what is the halakha with regard to moving that material on Shabbat? Ordinarily, swatches of materials of that kind are set-aside because they have no use. Therefore, moving them on Shabbat is prohibited. Do we say that since they are now being used to insulate a pot, they assume the legal status of a utensil, which may be moved on Shabbat?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽讜驻讛 砖诇 转讘谉 注讜诪讚 讜诪驻拽讬专 拽讜驻讛 砖诇 诪讜讻讬谉

Abaye said to him: Just because he does not now have a basket of straw in which to insulate his food, does he stand up and renounce his basket of soft material? Obviously, he would have preferred to insulate his food in straw, as it is less expensive. The only reason that he used that material was because there was no straw available at the time. However, he does not want the swatches of material to be used for any other purpose, lest it be ruined. Therefore, it remains set-aside.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讘讙讬讝讬 爪诪专 讜讘爪讬驻讬 爪诪专 讜讘诇砖讜谞讜转 砖诇 讗专讙诪谉 讜讘诪讜讻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉

The Gemara asks: Let us say that the following baraita supports him: One may insulate a pot of food on Friday afternoon in woolen fleece, in combed wool, in tabs of wool dyed purple, and in swatches of soft material; however, he may not move them. Apparently, this is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye.

讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讗 诇讗 讗讬专讬讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 诇讗 讟诪谉 讘讛谉 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉

The Gemara rejects this proof: If that is the reason, there is no conclusive argument, as it is saying in the baraita as follows: If, however, he did not insulate a pot in them, he may not move them on Shabbat. In that case, they remain earmarked for their own purpose and are therefore set-aside [muktze].

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讞讝讬 诇诪讝讙讗 注诇讬讬讛讜 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉:

The Gemara questions this last assertion: If so, what is the reason to say that? Obviously, those materials are set-aside. The Gemara explains: Lest you say that all these materials are suitable for one to sit on them, and, consequently, their legal status is that of utensils, which may be moved. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this is not so, and they may not be moved due to the prohibition of set-aside.

专讘 讞住讚讗 砖专讗 诇讗讛讚讜专讬 讗讜讚专讗 诇讘讬 住讚讬讗 讘砖讘转讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 诪转讬专讬谉 讘讬转 讛爪讜讗专 讘砖讘转 讗讘诇 诇讗 驻讜转讞讬谉 讜讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 讗转 讛诪讜讻讬谉 诇讗 诇转讜讱 讛讻专 讜诇讗 诇转讜讱 讛讻住转 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘砖讘转

The Gemara relates that Rav 岣sda permitted returning stuffing to the pillow from which it had fallen on Shabbat. Rav 岣nan bar 岣sda raised an objection to the opinion of Rav 岣sda from a baraita: One may untie the neck opening of a shirt on Shabbat if it had been tied by the launderer; however, one may not open a new neck opening for the first time on Shabbat. And one may not place soft material into a pillow or into a cushion on a Festival, and, needless to say, one may not do so on Shabbat. This baraita contradicts the ruling issued by Rav 岣sda.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讞讚转讬 讛讗 讘注转讬拽讬

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This, the baraita is referring to new pillows, whereas that, the statement of Rav 岣sda is referring to old pillows. Stuffing a pillow for the first time on Shabbat is prohibited because by so doing one fashions a new utensil. However, if the stuffing fell out of the pillow, refilling the pillow is permitted even on Shabbat.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 讗转 讛诪讜讻讬谉 诇讗 诇转讜讱 讛讻专 讜诇讗 诇转讜讱 讛讻住转 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘砖讘转 谞砖专讜 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The Gemara notes: That opinion was also taught in a baraita: One may not place soft material as stuffing into a pillow or into a cushion on a Festival, and needless to say one may not do so on Shabbat. However, if the stuffing fell out, it may be replaced even on Shabbat, and needless to say that doing so is permitted on a Festival.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛驻讜转讞 讘讬转 讛爪讜讗专 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转

Having raised the issue of opening a collar, the Gemara cites that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: One who opens a new neck opening in a shirt on Shabbat, by cutting through the fabric and threads that kept it closed, is liable to bring a sin-offering. By creating the opening, he renders the shirt fit to wear, thereby fashioning a utensil on Shabbat.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗

Rav Kahana strongly objects to this:

诪讛 讘讬谉 讝讜 诇诪讙讜驻转 讞讘讬转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讝讛 讞讬讘讜专 讜讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讘讜专

What is the difference between this and the stopper of a wine barrel, which the Sages permitted piercing on Shabbat in order to serve wine to guests? There, too, by piercing the stopper, he fashions a utensil. Rava said to him: The cases are not comparable: In this case, the neck opening of a shirt, it is considered a connection, i.e., it is an organic part of the weave of the fabric; whereas in that case, the stopper of the barrel, it is not considered a connection. Even though the stopper is sealed in place in the barrel, it is a separate entity. When the stopper is pierced, no new vessel is fashioned.

专诪讬 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 转谞谉 砖诇诇 砖诇 讻讜讘住讬谉 讜砖诇砖诇转 砖诇 诪驻转讞讜转 讜讛讘讙讚 砖讛讜讗 转驻讜专 讘讻诇讗讬诐 讞讬讘讜专 诇讟讜诪讗讛 注讚 砖讬转讞讬诇 诇讛转讬专 讗诇诪讗 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 谞诪讬 讞讬讘讜专

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a contradiction before Rabbi Zeira. We learned in a mishna: The basting of launderers, garments that a launderer sewed together with loose, temporary stitches to avoid losing them; and a ring of keys; and a garment that was sewn with a thread of diverse kinds, e.g., a woolen garment that was stitched with linen thread, which must be pulled out; even though they are attached only temporarily, as they will all eventually be separated, it is considered a connection with regard to issues of ritual impurity. If a source of ritual impurity comes into contact with one of the garments, they all become ritually impure, until one actually begins to untie them, thereby indicating that he does not want them attached. Apparently, even when these items are not in use, e.g., after the launderer finished laundering the clothes, it is also considered a connection.

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诪拽诇 砖注砖讛 讬讚 诇拽讜专讚讜诐 讞讬讘讜专 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 诇讗

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a different mishna: With regard to a stick that one made into an axe handle, it is considered a connection between the stick and the axe with regard to issues of ritual impurity when in use. If the axe comes into contact with a source of ritual impurity, the stick also becomes ritually impure, and vice versa. By inference: Only when the axe is actually in use, yes, it is considered a connection; when the axe is not in use, no, it is not considered a connection.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讚诐 注砖讜讬 诇讝讜专拽讜 诇讘讬谉 讛注爪讬诐 讛讻讗 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 谞诪讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚讗讬 诪讬讟谞驻讜 讛讚专 诪讞讜讜专 诇讛讜

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya: There, in the case of the axe, when not in use, a person is likely to throw the stick into the wood pile, as he is not particular about keeping them together. Therefore, it is not considered a connection with regard to ritual impurity. Here, with regard to the items listed in the first mishna, even when not in use, he prefers that they remain attached. In that way, if they get dirty, he can launder them again, as it is easier to wash one connected unit than several smaller swatches of fabric. Therefore, it is considered a connection with regard to ritual impurity.

讘住讜专讗 诪转谞讜 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 诪转谞讜 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讛讗 诪诇转讗 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讻诇 讛诪讞讜讘专 诇讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻诪讜讛讜

In Sura, they taught this following halakha in the name of Rav 岣sda; in Pumbedita, they taught it in the name of Rav Kahana, and some say, it was taught in the name of Rava: Who is the tanna who taught this matter stated by the Sages: The status of anything connected to an object is like that of the object with regard to ritual impurity?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讘讬转 讛驻讱 讜讘讬转 讛转讘诇讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛谞专 砖讘讻讬专讛 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘诪讙注 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讗讜讬专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讟讛专

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The tanna in question is Rabbi Meir, as we learned in a mishna: The receptacle for the cruse of oil, and the receptacle for the spices, and the receptacle for the lamp that are in the stove become ritually impure through contact, i.e., if the wall of the stove becomes ritually impure through contact with a creeping animal, the receptacles also become ritually impure. However, these receptacles do not become ritually impure through air space, i.e., if the creeping animal were inside the stove but did not come into contact with its walls, the stove itself becomes ritually impure, but the receptacles do not; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Shimon deems the receptacles ritually pure, even if the creeping animal came into actual contact with the stove.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽住讘专 诇讗讜 讻讻讬专讛 讚诪讜 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬 讻讻讬专讛 讚诪讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讜讬专 谞诪讬 诇讬讟诪讜 讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讻讬专讛 讚诪讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪讙注 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬讟诪讜

The Gemara analyzes this dispute: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon; he holds that these receptacles are not considered like the stove itself, and therefore they do not become ritually impure when the stove becomes ritually impure. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it is difficult. If he holds that they are considered like the stove itself, then even if the creeping animal was in the stove鈥檚 air space, the receptacles should also become ritually impure. If he holds that they are not considered like the stove itself, then even if the creeping animal came into contact with the stove, the receptacles should also not become ritually impure.

诇注讜诇诐 诇讗讜 讻讻讬专讛 讚诪讜 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 讗讬 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讜讬专 谞诪讬 诇讬讟诪讜

The Gemara answers: Actually, by Torah law, the receptacles are not considered like the stove itself, and the Sages are the ones who issued a decree that they become ritually impure due to their proximity to the stove. The Gemara asks: If the Sages issued a decree that they become ritually impure, then even in the case where the creeping animal does not come into contact with the walls of the oven, but is merely in its air space, the receptacles should also become ritually impure.

注讘讚讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 讛讬讻专讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 讗转讬 诇诪砖专祝 注诇讬讛 转专讜诪讛 讜拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara answers: The Sages made a conspicuous distinction, so that one will not come to burn his teruma and other consecrated items because of it. There is a severe prohibition to destroy teruma or consecrated items. If teruma becomes ritually impure, there is an obligation by Torah law to burn it; however, teruma that is ritually impure only by rabbinic decree is still fit by Torah law and may not be destroyed. Since there is concern that people will come to burn teruma even when doing so is prohibited, the Sages made a distinction, imposing ritual impurity on the receptacles only if the source of impurity came into physical contact with the walls of the stove, and not if it merely entered the stove鈥檚 airspace. In that way, it is clear that the ritual impurity is by rabbinic decree, and one will not come to burn teruma and consecrated objects due to that impurity.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪住驻讜专转 砖诇 驻专拽讬诐 讜讗讬讝诪诇 砖诇 专讛讬讟谞讬 讞讬讘讜专 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讘讜专 诇讛讝讗讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to scissors made of component parts that are made to come apart and the blade of a carpenter鈥檚 plane, which can be removed from its handle, it is considered a connection between the components with regard to contracting ritual impurity. If one part becomes ritually impure, the other part becomes ritually impure as well. However, it is not considered a connection with regard to the sprinkling of the water of a purification offering. When water of purification is sprinkled on these implements in order to purify them from ritual impurity contracted through contact with a corpse (see Numbers 19:17鈥19), the water must be sprinkled on each part individually.

诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讞讬讘讜专 讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讛讝讗讛 谞诪讬 讗讬 诇讗讜 讞讬讘讜专 讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讟讜诪讗讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 讞讬讘讜专 讘讬谉 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讘讬谉 诇讛讝讗讛 讜砖诇讗 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讘讜专 诇讗 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讜诇讗 诇讛讝讗讛

The Gemara asks: Whichever way you look at it, there is a difficulty: If it is considered a connection, it should be so considered even with regard to sprinkling; and if it is not considered a connection, it should not be so considered even with regard to ritual impurity. Rava said: By Torah law, when in use, it is considered a connection, both with regard to ritual impurity and with regard to sprinkling. And when not in use, even if the parts are now together, since they are made to eventually come apart and are typically dismantled, it is neither considered a connection with regard to ritual impurity nor with regard to sprinkling.

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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

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 48: Keeping the Soup Hot Friday Night

The new perek! Insulating food on Shabbat, without cooking it. What substances protect the heat without increasing it and cooking....

Shabbat 48

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 48

讗住讜拽讬 讛讘诇讗 讚讝讬转讬诐 诪住拽讬 讛讘诇讗 讚砖讜诪砖诪讬谉 诇讗 诪住拽讬 讛讘诇讗

causing heat to rise, i.e., heating food that is not actually insulated in it, but merely resting upon it, the residue of olives causes heat to rise. Therefore, it is prohibited even to place cooked food upon it. However, the residue of sesame does not cause heat to rise to that extent. Therefore, it is permitted to place food upon it.

专讘讛 讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗讬拽诇注讜 诇讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讞讝讬讜讛 诇讛讛讜讗 注讘讚讗 讚讗谞讞 讻讜讝讗 讚诪讬讗 讗驻讜诪讗 讚拽讜诪拽讜诪讗 谞讝讛讬讛 专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪诪讬讞诐 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讬讞诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讗讜拽讜诪讬 拽讗 诪讜拽讬诐 讛讻讗 讗讜诇讜讚讬 拽讗 诪讜诇讬讚

The Gemara relates an anecdote somewhat relevant to the previous discussion: Rabba and Rabbi Zeira happened to come to the house of the Exilarch on Shabbat, and saw this servant who placed a jug [kuza] of cold water on the mouth of a kettle filled with hot water. Rabba rebuked him for having acted contrary to the halakha. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabba: How is this case different from placing an urn on top of another urn, which is permitted on Shabbat? Rabba said to him: There, when he places one urn on top of another urn, he merely preserves the heat in the upper urn; therefore, it is permitted. Here, in the case where he places the jug of cold water on the mouth of a kettle, he is generating heat in the water in the upper vessel; therefore, it is prohibited.

讛讚专 讞讝讬讬讛 讚驻专住 讚住转讜讚专 讗驻讜诪讬讛 讚讻讜讘讗 讜讗谞讞 谞讟诇讗 注讬诇讜讬讛 谞讝讛讬讛 专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 讞讝讬转 诇住讜祝 讞讝讬讬讛 讚拽讗 诪注爪专 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪驻专讜谞拽讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 诇讗 拽驻讬讚 注讬诇讜讬讛 讛讻讗 拽驻讬讚 注讬诇讜讬讛:

The Gemara continues: Rabba then saw that same servant spread a kerchief [dastodar] over a vat of water and place a cup used to draw water from the vat, on the kerchief. Once again, Rabba rebuked him for having acted improperly. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Why did you rebuke him? Rabba said to him: Now, see what will happen. Ultimately, he saw that the servant was squeezing out the water that was absorbed by the kerchief, thereby violating a Torah prohibition. Nevertheless, Rabbi Zeira said to him: How is this case different from that of a cloth [parvanka], which one is permitted to spread over a vat even on Shabbat? Rabba said to him: There is a distinction between the two cases: There, in the case of the cloth, he is not particular about it; even if it gets wet, he will not come to squeeze it dry. Here, with regard to the kerchief, he is particular about it, and he will wring it so that it will not remain wet.

讜诇讗 讘转讘谉: 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 诪讗讘讬讬 诪讜讻讬谉 砖讟诪谉 讘讛谉 诪讛讜 诇讟诇讟诇谉 讘砖讘转

We learned in the mishna: And one may neither insulate a pot in straw, nor in the residue of grapes that were pressed for their juice, nor in soft material. Rav Adda bar Mattana raised a dilemma before Abaye: With regard to swatches of soft material in which he insulated a pot, what is the halakha with regard to moving that material on Shabbat? Ordinarily, swatches of materials of that kind are set-aside because they have no use. Therefore, moving them on Shabbat is prohibited. Do we say that since they are now being used to insulate a pot, they assume the legal status of a utensil, which may be moved on Shabbat?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽讜驻讛 砖诇 转讘谉 注讜诪讚 讜诪驻拽讬专 拽讜驻讛 砖诇 诪讜讻讬谉

Abaye said to him: Just because he does not now have a basket of straw in which to insulate his food, does he stand up and renounce his basket of soft material? Obviously, he would have preferred to insulate his food in straw, as it is less expensive. The only reason that he used that material was because there was no straw available at the time. However, he does not want the swatches of material to be used for any other purpose, lest it be ruined. Therefore, it remains set-aside.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讘讙讬讝讬 爪诪专 讜讘爪讬驻讬 爪诪专 讜讘诇砖讜谞讜转 砖诇 讗专讙诪谉 讜讘诪讜讻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉

The Gemara asks: Let us say that the following baraita supports him: One may insulate a pot of food on Friday afternoon in woolen fleece, in combed wool, in tabs of wool dyed purple, and in swatches of soft material; however, he may not move them. Apparently, this is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye.

讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讗 诇讗 讗讬专讬讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 诇讗 讟诪谉 讘讛谉 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉

The Gemara rejects this proof: If that is the reason, there is no conclusive argument, as it is saying in the baraita as follows: If, however, he did not insulate a pot in them, he may not move them on Shabbat. In that case, they remain earmarked for their own purpose and are therefore set-aside [muktze].

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讞讝讬 诇诪讝讙讗 注诇讬讬讛讜 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉:

The Gemara questions this last assertion: If so, what is the reason to say that? Obviously, those materials are set-aside. The Gemara explains: Lest you say that all these materials are suitable for one to sit on them, and, consequently, their legal status is that of utensils, which may be moved. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this is not so, and they may not be moved due to the prohibition of set-aside.

专讘 讞住讚讗 砖专讗 诇讗讛讚讜专讬 讗讜讚专讗 诇讘讬 住讚讬讗 讘砖讘转讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 诪转讬专讬谉 讘讬转 讛爪讜讗专 讘砖讘转 讗讘诇 诇讗 驻讜转讞讬谉 讜讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 讗转 讛诪讜讻讬谉 诇讗 诇转讜讱 讛讻专 讜诇讗 诇转讜讱 讛讻住转 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘砖讘转

The Gemara relates that Rav 岣sda permitted returning stuffing to the pillow from which it had fallen on Shabbat. Rav 岣nan bar 岣sda raised an objection to the opinion of Rav 岣sda from a baraita: One may untie the neck opening of a shirt on Shabbat if it had been tied by the launderer; however, one may not open a new neck opening for the first time on Shabbat. And one may not place soft material into a pillow or into a cushion on a Festival, and, needless to say, one may not do so on Shabbat. This baraita contradicts the ruling issued by Rav 岣sda.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讞讚转讬 讛讗 讘注转讬拽讬

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This, the baraita is referring to new pillows, whereas that, the statement of Rav 岣sda is referring to old pillows. Stuffing a pillow for the first time on Shabbat is prohibited because by so doing one fashions a new utensil. However, if the stuffing fell out of the pillow, refilling the pillow is permitted even on Shabbat.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 讗转 讛诪讜讻讬谉 诇讗 诇转讜讱 讛讻专 讜诇讗 诇转讜讱 讛讻住转 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘砖讘转 谞砖专讜 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The Gemara notes: That opinion was also taught in a baraita: One may not place soft material as stuffing into a pillow or into a cushion on a Festival, and needless to say one may not do so on Shabbat. However, if the stuffing fell out, it may be replaced even on Shabbat, and needless to say that doing so is permitted on a Festival.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛驻讜转讞 讘讬转 讛爪讜讗专 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转

Having raised the issue of opening a collar, the Gemara cites that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: One who opens a new neck opening in a shirt on Shabbat, by cutting through the fabric and threads that kept it closed, is liable to bring a sin-offering. By creating the opening, he renders the shirt fit to wear, thereby fashioning a utensil on Shabbat.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗

Rav Kahana strongly objects to this:

诪讛 讘讬谉 讝讜 诇诪讙讜驻转 讞讘讬转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讝讛 讞讬讘讜专 讜讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讘讜专

What is the difference between this and the stopper of a wine barrel, which the Sages permitted piercing on Shabbat in order to serve wine to guests? There, too, by piercing the stopper, he fashions a utensil. Rava said to him: The cases are not comparable: In this case, the neck opening of a shirt, it is considered a connection, i.e., it is an organic part of the weave of the fabric; whereas in that case, the stopper of the barrel, it is not considered a connection. Even though the stopper is sealed in place in the barrel, it is a separate entity. When the stopper is pierced, no new vessel is fashioned.

专诪讬 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 转谞谉 砖诇诇 砖诇 讻讜讘住讬谉 讜砖诇砖诇转 砖诇 诪驻转讞讜转 讜讛讘讙讚 砖讛讜讗 转驻讜专 讘讻诇讗讬诐 讞讬讘讜专 诇讟讜诪讗讛 注讚 砖讬转讞讬诇 诇讛转讬专 讗诇诪讗 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 谞诪讬 讞讬讘讜专

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a contradiction before Rabbi Zeira. We learned in a mishna: The basting of launderers, garments that a launderer sewed together with loose, temporary stitches to avoid losing them; and a ring of keys; and a garment that was sewn with a thread of diverse kinds, e.g., a woolen garment that was stitched with linen thread, which must be pulled out; even though they are attached only temporarily, as they will all eventually be separated, it is considered a connection with regard to issues of ritual impurity. If a source of ritual impurity comes into contact with one of the garments, they all become ritually impure, until one actually begins to untie them, thereby indicating that he does not want them attached. Apparently, even when these items are not in use, e.g., after the launderer finished laundering the clothes, it is also considered a connection.

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诪拽诇 砖注砖讛 讬讚 诇拽讜专讚讜诐 讞讬讘讜专 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 诇讗

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a different mishna: With regard to a stick that one made into an axe handle, it is considered a connection between the stick and the axe with regard to issues of ritual impurity when in use. If the axe comes into contact with a source of ritual impurity, the stick also becomes ritually impure, and vice versa. By inference: Only when the axe is actually in use, yes, it is considered a connection; when the axe is not in use, no, it is not considered a connection.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讚诐 注砖讜讬 诇讝讜专拽讜 诇讘讬谉 讛注爪讬诐 讛讻讗 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 谞诪讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚讗讬 诪讬讟谞驻讜 讛讚专 诪讞讜讜专 诇讛讜

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya: There, in the case of the axe, when not in use, a person is likely to throw the stick into the wood pile, as he is not particular about keeping them together. Therefore, it is not considered a connection with regard to ritual impurity. Here, with regard to the items listed in the first mishna, even when not in use, he prefers that they remain attached. In that way, if they get dirty, he can launder them again, as it is easier to wash one connected unit than several smaller swatches of fabric. Therefore, it is considered a connection with regard to ritual impurity.

讘住讜专讗 诪转谞讜 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 诪转谞讜 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讛讗 诪诇转讗 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讻诇 讛诪讞讜讘专 诇讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻诪讜讛讜

In Sura, they taught this following halakha in the name of Rav 岣sda; in Pumbedita, they taught it in the name of Rav Kahana, and some say, it was taught in the name of Rava: Who is the tanna who taught this matter stated by the Sages: The status of anything connected to an object is like that of the object with regard to ritual impurity?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讘讬转 讛驻讱 讜讘讬转 讛转讘诇讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛谞专 砖讘讻讬专讛 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘诪讙注 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讗讜讬专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讟讛专

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The tanna in question is Rabbi Meir, as we learned in a mishna: The receptacle for the cruse of oil, and the receptacle for the spices, and the receptacle for the lamp that are in the stove become ritually impure through contact, i.e., if the wall of the stove becomes ritually impure through contact with a creeping animal, the receptacles also become ritually impure. However, these receptacles do not become ritually impure through air space, i.e., if the creeping animal were inside the stove but did not come into contact with its walls, the stove itself becomes ritually impure, but the receptacles do not; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Shimon deems the receptacles ritually pure, even if the creeping animal came into actual contact with the stove.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽住讘专 诇讗讜 讻讻讬专讛 讚诪讜 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬 讻讻讬专讛 讚诪讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讜讬专 谞诪讬 诇讬讟诪讜 讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讻讬专讛 讚诪讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪讙注 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬讟诪讜

The Gemara analyzes this dispute: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon; he holds that these receptacles are not considered like the stove itself, and therefore they do not become ritually impure when the stove becomes ritually impure. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it is difficult. If he holds that they are considered like the stove itself, then even if the creeping animal was in the stove鈥檚 air space, the receptacles should also become ritually impure. If he holds that they are not considered like the stove itself, then even if the creeping animal came into contact with the stove, the receptacles should also not become ritually impure.

诇注讜诇诐 诇讗讜 讻讻讬专讛 讚诪讜 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 讗讬 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讜讬专 谞诪讬 诇讬讟诪讜

The Gemara answers: Actually, by Torah law, the receptacles are not considered like the stove itself, and the Sages are the ones who issued a decree that they become ritually impure due to their proximity to the stove. The Gemara asks: If the Sages issued a decree that they become ritually impure, then even in the case where the creeping animal does not come into contact with the walls of the oven, but is merely in its air space, the receptacles should also become ritually impure.

注讘讚讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 讛讬讻专讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 讗转讬 诇诪砖专祝 注诇讬讛 转专讜诪讛 讜拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara answers: The Sages made a conspicuous distinction, so that one will not come to burn his teruma and other consecrated items because of it. There is a severe prohibition to destroy teruma or consecrated items. If teruma becomes ritually impure, there is an obligation by Torah law to burn it; however, teruma that is ritually impure only by rabbinic decree is still fit by Torah law and may not be destroyed. Since there is concern that people will come to burn teruma even when doing so is prohibited, the Sages made a distinction, imposing ritual impurity on the receptacles only if the source of impurity came into physical contact with the walls of the stove, and not if it merely entered the stove鈥檚 airspace. In that way, it is clear that the ritual impurity is by rabbinic decree, and one will not come to burn teruma and consecrated objects due to that impurity.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪住驻讜专转 砖诇 驻专拽讬诐 讜讗讬讝诪诇 砖诇 专讛讬讟谞讬 讞讬讘讜专 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讘讜专 诇讛讝讗讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to scissors made of component parts that are made to come apart and the blade of a carpenter鈥檚 plane, which can be removed from its handle, it is considered a connection between the components with regard to contracting ritual impurity. If one part becomes ritually impure, the other part becomes ritually impure as well. However, it is not considered a connection with regard to the sprinkling of the water of a purification offering. When water of purification is sprinkled on these implements in order to purify them from ritual impurity contracted through contact with a corpse (see Numbers 19:17鈥19), the water must be sprinkled on each part individually.

诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讞讬讘讜专 讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讛讝讗讛 谞诪讬 讗讬 诇讗讜 讞讬讘讜专 讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讟讜诪讗讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 讞讬讘讜专 讘讬谉 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讘讬谉 诇讛讝讗讛 讜砖诇讗 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讘讜专 诇讗 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讜诇讗 诇讛讝讗讛

The Gemara asks: Whichever way you look at it, there is a difficulty: If it is considered a connection, it should be so considered even with regard to sprinkling; and if it is not considered a connection, it should not be so considered even with regard to ritual impurity. Rava said: By Torah law, when in use, it is considered a connection, both with regard to ritual impurity and with regard to sprinkling. And when not in use, even if the parts are now together, since they are made to eventually come apart and are typically dismantled, it is neither considered a connection with regard to ritual impurity nor with regard to sprinkling.

Scroll To Top