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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 24, 2020 | 诇壮 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 Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Shabbat 49

Today’s shiur is sponsored in memory of Shlomo Chaim Asher ben Luna Sol z”l by Yael Asher.聽

Items that can be used to insulating foods when dry but not moist – do we mean moist from something external or from within the item? Which items can be used for insulation? Due to a mention of dove’s wings, the gemara tells the story of Elisha ba’al knafayim (wings) who wore tefillin even though the Roman decreed against wearing them and he was saved via a miracle having to do with dove’s wings. From him we learn that tefillin require a “clean body.” The mishna describes items that one can use for insulating and discusses if they can be moved or are they muktze? If they can’t be moved, hwo can one remove the food? Hides of animals are permitted to be moved – but do they mean a regular person or even a tanner who uses them for business purposes? From where do we derive that there are 39 forbidden melachot on Shabbat? Two answers are brought. Rava teaches about wool that was used for insulating that it is not muktze. A student on his first day in the yeshiva questions Rava from the mishna and Rava corrects his teaching.

讜讙讝专讜 专讘谞谉 注诇 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 讜注诇 讛讝讗讛 砖讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讝讗讛 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛:

And the Sages issued a decree that it should be considered a connection with regard to ritual impurity even when not in use, due to ritual impurity when in use. If one component becomes ritually impure, the other component becomes ritually impure as well. And, as a further stringency, they issued a decree that it is not considered a connection with regard to sprinkling even when in use, due to sprinkling when not in use. The water of purification must be sprinkled on each part individually.

讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 诇讞讬谉: 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇讞讬谉 诪讞诪转 注爪诪谉 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讞讬谉 诪讞诪转 讚讘专 讗讞专

The mishna listed several materials in which food may not be insulated on Shabbat eve when those materials are moist. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the mishna referring specifically to materials that are moist due to their own natural state, or is it referring perhaps even to materials that are now moist due to something else, e.g., because they were soaked by liquid?

转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讘转讘谉 讜诇讗 讘讝讙讬诐 讜诇讗 讘诪讜讻讬谉 讜诇讗 讘注砖讘讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 诇讞讬谉 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讞讬谉 诪讞诪转 讚讘专 讗讞专 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讞讬谉 诪讞诪转 注爪诪谉 诪讜讻讬谉 诇讞讬谉 诪讞诪转 注爪诪谉 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诪诪专讟讗 讚讘讬谞讬 讗讟诪讬

Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the materials listed in the mishna: 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 materials, nor in grass, when these materials are moist. Granted, if you say that the mishna is referring to materials that are moist due to something else, this can be well understood, as all of these materials can get wet. However, if you say that it is referring to materials that are moist due to their own natural state, where do you find soft materials that are moist due to their own natural state? Wool is dry in its natural state. The Gemara rejects this argument: The mishna is referring to a case where the material is made from wool plucked from between the thighs of the animal, as that wool is usually damp from sweat.

讜讛讗 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讘讻住讜转 讬讘砖讛 讜讘驻讬专讜转 讬讘砖讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讻住讜转 诇讞讛 讜诇讗 讘驻讬专讜转 诇讞讬谉 讻住讜转 诇讞讛 诪讞诪转 注爪诪讛 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诪诪专讟讗 讚讘讬谞讬 讗讟诪讬:

The Gemara continues with a similar question: And that which Rabbi Oshaya taught in a baraita: One may insulate a pot of hot food on Shabbat eve in a dry garment and in dry produce, but not in a moist garment or in moist produce. Where do you find a ruling pertaining to a cloth that is moist due to its own natural state? The Gemara answers: Here too, the baraita is referring to a case where the cloth was made from wool plucked from between the thighs of the animal. The wool was spun and the cloth was woven while the wool was still moist. Consequently, there is no conclusive proof whether the materials listed in the mishna are prohibited only when naturally moist or even if they are moist due to another source.

诪转谞讬壮 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讘讻住讜转 讜讘驻讬专讜转 讘讻谞驻讬 讬讜谞讛 讜讘谞住讜专转 砖诇 讞专砖讬诐 讜讘谞注讜专转 砖诇 驻砖转谉 讚拽讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜住专 讘讚拽讛 讜诪转讬专 讘讙住讛:

MISHNA: One may insulate a pot of hot food on Shabbat eve in clothing, in produce, in doves鈥 wings, in a carpenter鈥檚 wood-shavings, and in the chaff of fine flax. Rabbi Yehuda prohibits doing so when it is fine, and permits doing so when it is coarse.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 转驻讬诇讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 讙讜祝 谞拽讬 讻讗诇讬砖注 讘注诇 讻谞驻讬诐 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 砖诇讗 讬驻讬讞 讘讛谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 砖诇讗 讬讬砖谉 讘讛谉

GEMARA: Since doves鈥 wings were mentioned in the mishna, the Gemara cites a related story: Rabbi Yannai said: Donning phylacteries requires a clean body, like that of Elisha, Man of Wings. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the statement that donning phylacteries requires a clean body? Abaye said: It means that one may not break wind while donning them. Rava said: It means that one may not sleep in them.

讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讻谞驻讬诐 砖驻注诐 讗讞转 讙讝专讛 诪诇讻讜转 专讜诪讬 讛专砖注讛 讙讝讬专讛 注诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖讻诇 讛诪谞讬讞 转驻讬诇讬谉 讬谞拽专讜 讗转 诪讜讞讜 讜讛讬讛 讗诇讬砖注 诪谞讬讞诐 讜讬讜爪讗 诇砖讜拽 专讗讛讜 拽住讚讜专 讗讞讚 专抓 诪驻谞讬讜 讜专抓 讗讞专讬讜 讜讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 讗爪诇讜 谞讟诇谉 诪专讗砖讜 讜讗讞讝谉 讘讬讚讜 讗诪专 诇讜 诪讛 讝讛 讘讬讚讱 讗诪专 诇讜 讻谞驻讬 讬讜谞讛 驻砖讟 讗转 讬讚讜 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讻谞驻讬 讬讜谞讛 诇驻讬讻讱 拽讜专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗诇讬砖注 讘注诇 讻谞驻讬诐

The Gemara asks: And why did they call Elisha Man of Wings? Because on one occasion the evil kingdom of Rome issued a decree against Israel that, as punishment, they would pierce the brain of anyone who dons phylacteries. Nevertheless, Elisha would don them and defiantly go out to the marketplace. One day, an official [kasdor] who was appointed to enforce the decree saw him; Elisha ran away from him, and the official ran after him. When the official reached him, Elisha removed the phylacteries from his head and held them in his hand. The officer asked him: What is that in your hand? Elisha said to him: It is merely a dove鈥檚 wings. A miracle was performed: He opened his hand, and, indeed, it was found to be a dove鈥檚 wings. Therefore, in commemoration of this miracle, they would call him Elisha, Man of Wings.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讻谞驻讬 讬讜谞讛 诪砖讗专 注讜驻讜转 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪转讬诇 讻谞住转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讬讜谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻谞驻讬 讬讜谞讛 谞讞驻讛 讘讻住祝 讜讙讜壮 诪讛 讬讜谞讛 讻谞驻讬讛 诪讙讬谞讜转 注诇讬讛 讗祝 讬砖专讗诇 诪爪讜转 诪讙讬谞讜转 注诇讬讛谉:

The Gemara asks: And what is different about doves鈥 wings from those of other birds that led Elisha to say that he had doves鈥 wings in his hand? The Gemara answers: Because the congregation of Israel is likened to a dove, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall shine as the wings of a dove covered with silver and her pinions with yellow gold鈥 (Psalms 68:14). Just as this dove, only its wings protect it and it has no other means of protection, so too the Jewish people, only mitzvot protect them.

讘谞住讜专转 砖诇 讞专砖讬谉 讻讜壮: 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗谞住讜专转 砖诇 讞专砖讬谉 拽讗讬 讗讜 讗谞注讜专转 砖诇 驻砖转谉 拽讗讬

We learned in the mishna: One may insulate food on Shabbat eve in a carpenter鈥檚 wood-shavings, and in the chaff of fine flax. Rabbi Yehuda prohibits doing so when it is fine, and permits doing so when it is coarse. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda referring to the carpenter鈥檚 wood-shavings, or is it referring to the chaff of flax?

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞注讜专转 砖诇 驻砖转谉 讚拽讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讝讘诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗谞注讜专转 砖诇 驻砖转谉 拽讗讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:

The Gemara answers: Come and hear proof as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: The legal status of the chaff of fine flax is like that of manure, i.e., it adds heat. The Gemara comments: Conclude from it that Rabbi Yehuda is referring to the chaff of flax. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it.

诪转谞讬壮 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讘砖诇讞讬谉 讜诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘讙讬讝讬 爪诪专 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻讬爪讚 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 谞讜讟诇 讗转 讛讻住讜讬 讜讛谉 谞讜驻诇讜转

MISHNA: One may insulate cooked food on Shabbat eve in animal hides and may move those hides on Shabbat. So too, one may insulate food in wool fleece and, in contrast to hides, one may not move the fleece. How, then, does one act if he insulated food in fleece, and now wishes to remove the pot? He lifts the cover, which he is permitted to move, and the fleece falls by itself. He need not even touch it.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 拽讜驻讛 诪讟讛 注诇 爪讚讛 讜谞讜讟诇 砖诪讗 讬讟讜诇 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讞讝讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讜讟诇 讜诪讞讝讬专:

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: If he placed the pot in a basket filled with fleece, he leans the basket on its side so that the fleece will fall to the side and takes the pot. Otherwise, there is concern lest the wool collapse when he lifts the pot from the basket. And then, he will be unable to replace the pot, as it is prohibited to move the wool to make room for the pot, since the wool is set-aside. And the Rabbis disagree and say: He may take the pot and afterward replace it.

讙诪壮 讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 注讻讬谞讗讬 讜专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讜讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讙讘讬讬讛讜 讜拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖诇讞讬谉 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 转谞谉 讗讘诇 砖诇 讗讜诪谉 讻讬讜谉 讚拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讬讛讜 诇讗 诪讟诇讟诇讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 砖诇 讗讜诪谉 转谞谉 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转

GEMARA: The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yonatan ben Akhinai and Rabbi Yonatan ben Elazar sat, and Rabbi 岣nina bar 岣ma sat with them, and they raised the following dilemma: Did we learn the halakha in the mishna that only the hides of a common homeowner may be moved; however, the hides of a craftsman, whose profession is processing hides, since he is particular that they not be ruined because they are essential to his work, one may not move them on Shabbat? Or, perhaps, we learned the halakha in the mishna that even the hides of a craftsman may be moved, and all the more so that hides of a common homeowner may be moved.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诪住转讘专讗 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 转谞谉 讗讘诇 砖诇 讗讜诪谉 拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讻讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬

Rabbi Yonatan ben Elazar said to them: It stands to reason that we learned the halakha in the mishna with regard to the hides of a common homeowner; however, hides of a craftsman may not be moved, since he is particular about them. Rabbi 岣nina bar 岣ma said to them that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said as follows:

讗讘讗 砖诇讞讗 讛讜讛 讜讗诪专 讛讘讬讗讜 砖诇讞讬谉 讜谞砖讘 注诇讬讛谉

My father was a tanner, and one Shabbat he said: Bring me hides and we will sit on them (Rabbeinu 岣nanel). In other words, even the hides of a craftsman may be moved on Shabbat.

诪讬转讬讘讬 谞住专讬谉 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讜砖诇 讗讜诪谉 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讜讗诐 讞讬砖讘 诇转转 注诇讬讛谉 驻转 诇讗讜专讞讬谉 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 砖讗谞讬 谞住专讬诐 讚拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讬讛讜

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to wooden boards belonging to a homeowner, one may move them on Shabbat; however, those belonging to a craftsman, one may not move them. And if, however, he thought to place bread upon them for guests, both these, the boards of the homeowner, and those, the boards of the craftsman, may be moved. Apparently, the raw materials of a craftsman may not be moved on Shabbat. The Gemara answers: Wooden boards are different in that one is particular about them that they not be damaged. Hides, on the other hand, are not damaged when one sits on them.

转讗 砖诪注 注讜专讜转 讘讬谉 注讘讜讚讬谉 讜讘讬谉 砖讗讬谉 注讘讜讚讬谉 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇谉 讘砖讘转 诇讗 讗诪专讜 注讘讜讚讬谉 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讘诇讘讚 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗 砖谞讗 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 砖诇 讗讜诪谉 诇讗 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转

The Gemara cites another proof. Come and hear that which was taught in a different baraita: With regard to hides, whether they are tanned or whether they are not tanned, it is permitted to move them on Shabbat. The Sages said that tanned hides have a unique legal status, distinct from the status of hides that have not been tanned only with regard to ritual impurity. Only tanned hides become ritually impure. What, is it not saying that there is no difference whether they are hides belonging to a homeowner and there is no difference whether they are hides belonging to a craftsman; in both cases they may be moved on Shabbat? The Gemara rejects this argument: No, the baraita is referring exclusively to hides belonging to a homeowner.

讗讘诇 砖诇 讗讜诪谉 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讗 讚转谞讬 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 注讘讜讚讬谉 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讘诇讘讚 诇驻诇讜讙 讜诇讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讘诇 讘砖诇 讗讜诪谉 诇讗 讻讜诇讛 讘讘注诇 讛讘讬转 拽诪讬讬专讬

The Gemara asks: But with regard to hides belonging to a craftsman, what is the halakha? Is it true that they may not be moved on Shabbat? If so, that which was taught in the baraita: The Sages said that the legal status of tanned hides is distinct from the status of hides that have not been tanned only with regard to ritual impurity; let the tanna of the baraita distinguish and teach within the halakhot of Shabbat itself, and say: In what case is this statement, that there is no distinction between whether or not the hides were tanned, said? It was stated specifically with regard to hides belonging to a homeowner. However, with regard to hides belonging to a craftsman, no, if they were tanned they may not be moved. The Gemara answers: Since the entire baraita is speaking with regard to hides of a homeowner, it would have been forced to elaborate at greater length to introduce the distinction with regard to the hides of a craftsman than it did to introduce the distinction with regard to ritual impurity.

讻转谞讗讬 注讜专讜转 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讜砖诇 讗讜诪谉 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉:

The Gemara notes that this issue is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to hides belonging to a homeowner, one may move them on Shabbat, and those of a craftsman, one may not move them. Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to both these, the hides of a homeowner, and those, the hides of a craftsman, one may move them.

讛讚讜专 讬转讘讬 讜拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讗讘讜转 诪诇讗讻讜转 讗专讘注讬诐 讞住专 讗讞转 讻谞讙讚 诪讬

The Gemara relates that those same Sages who sat and discussed the issue of hides, sat again and they raised a dilemma: That which we learned in the mishna: The primary categories of labor, which are prohibited by Torah law on Shabbat, are forty-less-one; to what does this number correspond? That is to say, what is the source of this number?

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讻谞讙讚 注讘讜讚讜转 讛诪砖讻谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 诇拽讜谞讬讗 讻谞讙讚 诪诇讗讻讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 讜诪诇讗讻转 砖讘转讜专讛 讗专讘注讬诐 讞住专 讗讞转

Rabbi 岣nina bar 岣ma said to them: They correspond to the labors in the Tabernacle. All types of labor that were performed in the Tabernacle are enumerated as primary categories of labor with respect to Shabbat. However, other labors, even if they are significant, are not enumerated among the primary categories of labor since they were not performed in the Tabernacle. Rabbi Yonatan, son of Rabbi Elazar, said to them that so said Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yosei ben Lakonya: They correspond to the instances of the words labor, his labor, and the labor of, that appear in the Torah a total of forty-less-one times.

讘注讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讬讘讗 讛讘讬转讛 诇注砖讜转 诪诇讗讻转讜 诪诪谞讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讗讜 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诇讬转讬 住驻专 转讜专讛 讜诇讬诪谞讬 诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 讝讝讜 诪砖诐 注讚 砖讛讘讬讗讜 住驻专 转讜专讛 讜诪谞讗讜诐

Rav Yosef raised a dilemma: The term his labor is written with regard to Joseph: 鈥淎nd it came to pass about this time, that he came into the house to do his labor; and there was none of the men of the house there within鈥 (Genesis 39:11). Is it included in the count of the thirty-nine instances or not? Abaye said to him: And let us bring a Torah scroll and count the instances of the word labor and thereby determine whether or not there are thirty-nine instances without that one. Didn鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say that Rabbi Yo岣nan said in a case of similar uncertainty: They did not move from there until they brought a Torah scroll and counted them?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬 拽讗 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛诪诇讗讻讛 讛讬转讛 讚讬诐 诪诪谞讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇注砖讜转 爪专讻讬讜 谞讻谞住

Rav Yosef said to Abaye: I cannot reach a conclusion relying solely on a count because there is another instance of the term labor, whose meaning is not clear to me. The reason I am uncertain is because it is written with regard to the Tabernacle: 鈥淔or the labor they had was sufficient for all the work to do it, and too much鈥 (Exodus 36:7). The question arises whether or not this mention of labor is included in the count of thirty-nine instances, i.e., whether or not it refers to actual labor. And if it does, that verse with regard to Joseph should be understood in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that the expression, to do his labor, is a euphemism. It means that it was to attend to his needs and engage in relations with Potiphar鈥檚 wife that he entered.

讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讜讬讘讗 讛讘讬转讛 诇注砖讜转 诪诇讗讻转讜 诪诪谞讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讜讛讗讬 讜讛诪诇讗讻讛 讛讬转讛 讚讬诐 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讚砖诇讬诐 诇讬讛 注讘讬讚转讗 转讬拽讜

Or, perhaps, the verse relating to Joseph: 鈥淗e came into the house to do his labor,鈥 is included in the count, and it refers to actual labor. And this verse: 鈥淭he labor they had was sufficient,鈥 is saying the following: That they completed the preparatory labor, i.e., they brought all the materials, not that they engaged in the actual labor. Let the uncertainty stand unresolved.

转谞讬讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻谞讙讚 注讘讜讚讜转 讛诪砖讻谉 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗诇讗 注诇 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讛讬转讛 讘诪砖讻谉 讛诐 讝专注讜 讜讗转诐 诇讗 转讝专注讜 讛诐 拽爪专讜 讜讗转诐 诇讗 转拽爪专讜

With regard to the matter itself, it was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that the thirty-nine labors of Shabbat correspond to the labors performed in the Tabernacle. As it was taught in a baraita: One is only liable for performing a labor to which there was a corresponding labor in the Tabernacle. They sowed in order to grow dyes for the Tabernacle, and therefore you may not sow on Shabbat. They reaped, and therefore you may not reap on Shabbat.

讛诐 讛注诇讜 讗转 讛拽专砖讬诐 诪拽专拽注 诇注讙诇讛 讜讗转诐 诇讗 转讻谞讬住讜 诪专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讛诐 讛讜专讬讚讜 讗转 讛拽专砖讬诐 诪注讙诇讛 诇拽专拽注 讜讗转诐 诇讗 转讜爪讬讗讜 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛诐 讛讜爪讬讗讜 诪注讙诇讛 诇注讙诇讛 讜讗转诐 诇讗 转讜爪讬讗讜 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚

They lifted the boards from the ground in the wilderness, which is a public domain, and placed them into the wagon, which is a private domain, and therefore you shall not carry objects in from the public domain to the private domain on Shabbat. They lowered the boards from the wagon to the ground, and therefore you shall not carry objects out from the private domain to the public domain on Shabbat. They took boards and other objects out and passed them from wagon to wagon, i.e., from one private domain to another private domain, and therefore you shall not take objects out from one private domain to another private domain on Shabbat.

诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诪讗讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讜讬讛讜 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讚专讱 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐:

The Gemara expresses astonishment with regard to the last clause of the baraita: One who takes an object out from one private domain to another private domain, what prohibited labor is he thereby performing? The Gemara answers: It was Abaye and Rava who both said, and some say that it was Rav Adda bar Ahava who said: This is referring to taking an object out from one private domain to another private domain via the public domain, as the space between the two wagons in the wilderness was a public domain.

讘讙讬讝讬 爪诪专 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉: 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 讟诪谉 讘讛谉 讗讘诇 讟诪谉 讘讛谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉

We learned in the mishna: One may insulate food in wool fleece, and he may not move it. Rava said: This halakha that fleece may not be moved on Shabbat applies only to a case where one did not insulate food in it. Only in that case is it set-aside. However, if one insulated cooked food in it, he may move it. By insulating food in the fleece, he indicated that he intends to use it on Shabbat.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 讘专 讬讜诪讬讛 诇专讘讗 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讘讙讬讝讬 爪诪专 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻讬爪讚 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛

A certain Sage for whom it was his first day in that study hall raised an objection to Rava from our mishna: One may insulate food in wool fleece, and one may not move it. How, then, does he act if he insulated food in wool fleece and now wishes to remove the pot?

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 Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 49: Doves’ Wings

More hatmanah/insulation. Elisha (not the prophet). Explaining why the dove. Plus: The important discussion of the 39 Melakhot and their...

Shabbat 49

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 49

讜讙讝专讜 专讘谞谉 注诇 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 讜注诇 讛讝讗讛 砖讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讝讗讛 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛:

And the Sages issued a decree that it should be considered a connection with regard to ritual impurity even when not in use, due to ritual impurity when in use. If one component becomes ritually impure, the other component becomes ritually impure as well. And, as a further stringency, they issued a decree that it is not considered a connection with regard to sprinkling even when in use, due to sprinkling when not in use. The water of purification must be sprinkled on each part individually.

讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 诇讞讬谉: 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇讞讬谉 诪讞诪转 注爪诪谉 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讞讬谉 诪讞诪转 讚讘专 讗讞专

The mishna listed several materials in which food may not be insulated on Shabbat eve when those materials are moist. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the mishna referring specifically to materials that are moist due to their own natural state, or is it referring perhaps even to materials that are now moist due to something else, e.g., because they were soaked by liquid?

转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讘转讘谉 讜诇讗 讘讝讙讬诐 讜诇讗 讘诪讜讻讬谉 讜诇讗 讘注砖讘讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 诇讞讬谉 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讞讬谉 诪讞诪转 讚讘专 讗讞专 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讞讬谉 诪讞诪转 注爪诪谉 诪讜讻讬谉 诇讞讬谉 诪讞诪转 注爪诪谉 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诪诪专讟讗 讚讘讬谞讬 讗讟诪讬

Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the materials listed in the mishna: 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 materials, nor in grass, when these materials are moist. Granted, if you say that the mishna is referring to materials that are moist due to something else, this can be well understood, as all of these materials can get wet. However, if you say that it is referring to materials that are moist due to their own natural state, where do you find soft materials that are moist due to their own natural state? Wool is dry in its natural state. The Gemara rejects this argument: The mishna is referring to a case where the material is made from wool plucked from between the thighs of the animal, as that wool is usually damp from sweat.

讜讛讗 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讘讻住讜转 讬讘砖讛 讜讘驻讬专讜转 讬讘砖讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讻住讜转 诇讞讛 讜诇讗 讘驻讬专讜转 诇讞讬谉 讻住讜转 诇讞讛 诪讞诪转 注爪诪讛 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诪诪专讟讗 讚讘讬谞讬 讗讟诪讬:

The Gemara continues with a similar question: And that which Rabbi Oshaya taught in a baraita: One may insulate a pot of hot food on Shabbat eve in a dry garment and in dry produce, but not in a moist garment or in moist produce. Where do you find a ruling pertaining to a cloth that is moist due to its own natural state? The Gemara answers: Here too, the baraita is referring to a case where the cloth was made from wool plucked from between the thighs of the animal. The wool was spun and the cloth was woven while the wool was still moist. Consequently, there is no conclusive proof whether the materials listed in the mishna are prohibited only when naturally moist or even if they are moist due to another source.

诪转谞讬壮 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讘讻住讜转 讜讘驻讬专讜转 讘讻谞驻讬 讬讜谞讛 讜讘谞住讜专转 砖诇 讞专砖讬诐 讜讘谞注讜专转 砖诇 驻砖转谉 讚拽讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜住专 讘讚拽讛 讜诪转讬专 讘讙住讛:

MISHNA: One may insulate a pot of hot food on Shabbat eve in clothing, in produce, in doves鈥 wings, in a carpenter鈥檚 wood-shavings, and in the chaff of fine flax. Rabbi Yehuda prohibits doing so when it is fine, and permits doing so when it is coarse.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 转驻讬诇讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 讙讜祝 谞拽讬 讻讗诇讬砖注 讘注诇 讻谞驻讬诐 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 砖诇讗 讬驻讬讞 讘讛谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 砖诇讗 讬讬砖谉 讘讛谉

GEMARA: Since doves鈥 wings were mentioned in the mishna, the Gemara cites a related story: Rabbi Yannai said: Donning phylacteries requires a clean body, like that of Elisha, Man of Wings. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the statement that donning phylacteries requires a clean body? Abaye said: It means that one may not break wind while donning them. Rava said: It means that one may not sleep in them.

讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讻谞驻讬诐 砖驻注诐 讗讞转 讙讝专讛 诪诇讻讜转 专讜诪讬 讛专砖注讛 讙讝讬专讛 注诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖讻诇 讛诪谞讬讞 转驻讬诇讬谉 讬谞拽专讜 讗转 诪讜讞讜 讜讛讬讛 讗诇讬砖注 诪谞讬讞诐 讜讬讜爪讗 诇砖讜拽 专讗讛讜 拽住讚讜专 讗讞讚 专抓 诪驻谞讬讜 讜专抓 讗讞专讬讜 讜讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 讗爪诇讜 谞讟诇谉 诪专讗砖讜 讜讗讞讝谉 讘讬讚讜 讗诪专 诇讜 诪讛 讝讛 讘讬讚讱 讗诪专 诇讜 讻谞驻讬 讬讜谞讛 驻砖讟 讗转 讬讚讜 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讻谞驻讬 讬讜谞讛 诇驻讬讻讱 拽讜专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗诇讬砖注 讘注诇 讻谞驻讬诐

The Gemara asks: And why did they call Elisha Man of Wings? Because on one occasion the evil kingdom of Rome issued a decree against Israel that, as punishment, they would pierce the brain of anyone who dons phylacteries. Nevertheless, Elisha would don them and defiantly go out to the marketplace. One day, an official [kasdor] who was appointed to enforce the decree saw him; Elisha ran away from him, and the official ran after him. When the official reached him, Elisha removed the phylacteries from his head and held them in his hand. The officer asked him: What is that in your hand? Elisha said to him: It is merely a dove鈥檚 wings. A miracle was performed: He opened his hand, and, indeed, it was found to be a dove鈥檚 wings. Therefore, in commemoration of this miracle, they would call him Elisha, Man of Wings.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讻谞驻讬 讬讜谞讛 诪砖讗专 注讜驻讜转 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪转讬诇 讻谞住转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讬讜谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻谞驻讬 讬讜谞讛 谞讞驻讛 讘讻住祝 讜讙讜壮 诪讛 讬讜谞讛 讻谞驻讬讛 诪讙讬谞讜转 注诇讬讛 讗祝 讬砖专讗诇 诪爪讜转 诪讙讬谞讜转 注诇讬讛谉:

The Gemara asks: And what is different about doves鈥 wings from those of other birds that led Elisha to say that he had doves鈥 wings in his hand? The Gemara answers: Because the congregation of Israel is likened to a dove, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall shine as the wings of a dove covered with silver and her pinions with yellow gold鈥 (Psalms 68:14). Just as this dove, only its wings protect it and it has no other means of protection, so too the Jewish people, only mitzvot protect them.

讘谞住讜专转 砖诇 讞专砖讬谉 讻讜壮: 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗谞住讜专转 砖诇 讞专砖讬谉 拽讗讬 讗讜 讗谞注讜专转 砖诇 驻砖转谉 拽讗讬

We learned in the mishna: One may insulate food on Shabbat eve in a carpenter鈥檚 wood-shavings, and in the chaff of fine flax. Rabbi Yehuda prohibits doing so when it is fine, and permits doing so when it is coarse. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda referring to the carpenter鈥檚 wood-shavings, or is it referring to the chaff of flax?

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞注讜专转 砖诇 驻砖转谉 讚拽讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讝讘诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗谞注讜专转 砖诇 驻砖转谉 拽讗讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:

The Gemara answers: Come and hear proof as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: The legal status of the chaff of fine flax is like that of manure, i.e., it adds heat. The Gemara comments: Conclude from it that Rabbi Yehuda is referring to the chaff of flax. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it.

诪转谞讬壮 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讘砖诇讞讬谉 讜诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘讙讬讝讬 爪诪专 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻讬爪讚 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 谞讜讟诇 讗转 讛讻住讜讬 讜讛谉 谞讜驻诇讜转

MISHNA: One may insulate cooked food on Shabbat eve in animal hides and may move those hides on Shabbat. So too, one may insulate food in wool fleece and, in contrast to hides, one may not move the fleece. How, then, does one act if he insulated food in fleece, and now wishes to remove the pot? He lifts the cover, which he is permitted to move, and the fleece falls by itself. He need not even touch it.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 拽讜驻讛 诪讟讛 注诇 爪讚讛 讜谞讜讟诇 砖诪讗 讬讟讜诇 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讞讝讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讜讟诇 讜诪讞讝讬专:

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: If he placed the pot in a basket filled with fleece, he leans the basket on its side so that the fleece will fall to the side and takes the pot. Otherwise, there is concern lest the wool collapse when he lifts the pot from the basket. And then, he will be unable to replace the pot, as it is prohibited to move the wool to make room for the pot, since the wool is set-aside. And the Rabbis disagree and say: He may take the pot and afterward replace it.

讙诪壮 讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 注讻讬谞讗讬 讜专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讜讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讙讘讬讬讛讜 讜拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖诇讞讬谉 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 转谞谉 讗讘诇 砖诇 讗讜诪谉 讻讬讜谉 讚拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讬讛讜 诇讗 诪讟诇讟诇讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 砖诇 讗讜诪谉 转谞谉 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转

GEMARA: The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yonatan ben Akhinai and Rabbi Yonatan ben Elazar sat, and Rabbi 岣nina bar 岣ma sat with them, and they raised the following dilemma: Did we learn the halakha in the mishna that only the hides of a common homeowner may be moved; however, the hides of a craftsman, whose profession is processing hides, since he is particular that they not be ruined because they are essential to his work, one may not move them on Shabbat? Or, perhaps, we learned the halakha in the mishna that even the hides of a craftsman may be moved, and all the more so that hides of a common homeowner may be moved.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诪住转讘专讗 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 转谞谉 讗讘诇 砖诇 讗讜诪谉 拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讻讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬

Rabbi Yonatan ben Elazar said to them: It stands to reason that we learned the halakha in the mishna with regard to the hides of a common homeowner; however, hides of a craftsman may not be moved, since he is particular about them. Rabbi 岣nina bar 岣ma said to them that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said as follows:

讗讘讗 砖诇讞讗 讛讜讛 讜讗诪专 讛讘讬讗讜 砖诇讞讬谉 讜谞砖讘 注诇讬讛谉

My father was a tanner, and one Shabbat he said: Bring me hides and we will sit on them (Rabbeinu 岣nanel). In other words, even the hides of a craftsman may be moved on Shabbat.

诪讬转讬讘讬 谞住专讬谉 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讜砖诇 讗讜诪谉 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讜讗诐 讞讬砖讘 诇转转 注诇讬讛谉 驻转 诇讗讜专讞讬谉 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 砖讗谞讬 谞住专讬诐 讚拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讬讛讜

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to wooden boards belonging to a homeowner, one may move them on Shabbat; however, those belonging to a craftsman, one may not move them. And if, however, he thought to place bread upon them for guests, both these, the boards of the homeowner, and those, the boards of the craftsman, may be moved. Apparently, the raw materials of a craftsman may not be moved on Shabbat. The Gemara answers: Wooden boards are different in that one is particular about them that they not be damaged. Hides, on the other hand, are not damaged when one sits on them.

转讗 砖诪注 注讜专讜转 讘讬谉 注讘讜讚讬谉 讜讘讬谉 砖讗讬谉 注讘讜讚讬谉 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇谉 讘砖讘转 诇讗 讗诪专讜 注讘讜讚讬谉 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讘诇讘讚 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗 砖谞讗 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 砖诇 讗讜诪谉 诇讗 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转

The Gemara cites another proof. Come and hear that which was taught in a different baraita: With regard to hides, whether they are tanned or whether they are not tanned, it is permitted to move them on Shabbat. The Sages said that tanned hides have a unique legal status, distinct from the status of hides that have not been tanned only with regard to ritual impurity. Only tanned hides become ritually impure. What, is it not saying that there is no difference whether they are hides belonging to a homeowner and there is no difference whether they are hides belonging to a craftsman; in both cases they may be moved on Shabbat? The Gemara rejects this argument: No, the baraita is referring exclusively to hides belonging to a homeowner.

讗讘诇 砖诇 讗讜诪谉 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讗 讚转谞讬 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 注讘讜讚讬谉 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讘诇讘讚 诇驻诇讜讙 讜诇讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讘诇 讘砖诇 讗讜诪谉 诇讗 讻讜诇讛 讘讘注诇 讛讘讬转 拽诪讬讬专讬

The Gemara asks: But with regard to hides belonging to a craftsman, what is the halakha? Is it true that they may not be moved on Shabbat? If so, that which was taught in the baraita: The Sages said that the legal status of tanned hides is distinct from the status of hides that have not been tanned only with regard to ritual impurity; let the tanna of the baraita distinguish and teach within the halakhot of Shabbat itself, and say: In what case is this statement, that there is no distinction between whether or not the hides were tanned, said? It was stated specifically with regard to hides belonging to a homeowner. However, with regard to hides belonging to a craftsman, no, if they were tanned they may not be moved. The Gemara answers: Since the entire baraita is speaking with regard to hides of a homeowner, it would have been forced to elaborate at greater length to introduce the distinction with regard to the hides of a craftsman than it did to introduce the distinction with regard to ritual impurity.

讻转谞讗讬 注讜专讜转 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讜砖诇 讗讜诪谉 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉:

The Gemara notes that this issue is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to hides belonging to a homeowner, one may move them on Shabbat, and those of a craftsman, one may not move them. Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to both these, the hides of a homeowner, and those, the hides of a craftsman, one may move them.

讛讚讜专 讬转讘讬 讜拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讗讘讜转 诪诇讗讻讜转 讗专讘注讬诐 讞住专 讗讞转 讻谞讙讚 诪讬

The Gemara relates that those same Sages who sat and discussed the issue of hides, sat again and they raised a dilemma: That which we learned in the mishna: The primary categories of labor, which are prohibited by Torah law on Shabbat, are forty-less-one; to what does this number correspond? That is to say, what is the source of this number?

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讻谞讙讚 注讘讜讚讜转 讛诪砖讻谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 诇拽讜谞讬讗 讻谞讙讚 诪诇讗讻讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 讜诪诇讗讻转 砖讘转讜专讛 讗专讘注讬诐 讞住专 讗讞转

Rabbi 岣nina bar 岣ma said to them: They correspond to the labors in the Tabernacle. All types of labor that were performed in the Tabernacle are enumerated as primary categories of labor with respect to Shabbat. However, other labors, even if they are significant, are not enumerated among the primary categories of labor since they were not performed in the Tabernacle. Rabbi Yonatan, son of Rabbi Elazar, said to them that so said Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yosei ben Lakonya: They correspond to the instances of the words labor, his labor, and the labor of, that appear in the Torah a total of forty-less-one times.

讘注讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讬讘讗 讛讘讬转讛 诇注砖讜转 诪诇讗讻转讜 诪诪谞讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讗讜 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诇讬转讬 住驻专 转讜专讛 讜诇讬诪谞讬 诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 讝讝讜 诪砖诐 注讚 砖讛讘讬讗讜 住驻专 转讜专讛 讜诪谞讗讜诐

Rav Yosef raised a dilemma: The term his labor is written with regard to Joseph: 鈥淎nd it came to pass about this time, that he came into the house to do his labor; and there was none of the men of the house there within鈥 (Genesis 39:11). Is it included in the count of the thirty-nine instances or not? Abaye said to him: And let us bring a Torah scroll and count the instances of the word labor and thereby determine whether or not there are thirty-nine instances without that one. Didn鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say that Rabbi Yo岣nan said in a case of similar uncertainty: They did not move from there until they brought a Torah scroll and counted them?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬 拽讗 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛诪诇讗讻讛 讛讬转讛 讚讬诐 诪诪谞讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇注砖讜转 爪专讻讬讜 谞讻谞住

Rav Yosef said to Abaye: I cannot reach a conclusion relying solely on a count because there is another instance of the term labor, whose meaning is not clear to me. The reason I am uncertain is because it is written with regard to the Tabernacle: 鈥淔or the labor they had was sufficient for all the work to do it, and too much鈥 (Exodus 36:7). The question arises whether or not this mention of labor is included in the count of thirty-nine instances, i.e., whether or not it refers to actual labor. And if it does, that verse with regard to Joseph should be understood in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that the expression, to do his labor, is a euphemism. It means that it was to attend to his needs and engage in relations with Potiphar鈥檚 wife that he entered.

讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讜讬讘讗 讛讘讬转讛 诇注砖讜转 诪诇讗讻转讜 诪诪谞讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讜讛讗讬 讜讛诪诇讗讻讛 讛讬转讛 讚讬诐 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讚砖诇讬诐 诇讬讛 注讘讬讚转讗 转讬拽讜

Or, perhaps, the verse relating to Joseph: 鈥淗e came into the house to do his labor,鈥 is included in the count, and it refers to actual labor. And this verse: 鈥淭he labor they had was sufficient,鈥 is saying the following: That they completed the preparatory labor, i.e., they brought all the materials, not that they engaged in the actual labor. Let the uncertainty stand unresolved.

转谞讬讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻谞讙讚 注讘讜讚讜转 讛诪砖讻谉 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗诇讗 注诇 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讛讬转讛 讘诪砖讻谉 讛诐 讝专注讜 讜讗转诐 诇讗 转讝专注讜 讛诐 拽爪专讜 讜讗转诐 诇讗 转拽爪专讜

With regard to the matter itself, it was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that the thirty-nine labors of Shabbat correspond to the labors performed in the Tabernacle. As it was taught in a baraita: One is only liable for performing a labor to which there was a corresponding labor in the Tabernacle. They sowed in order to grow dyes for the Tabernacle, and therefore you may not sow on Shabbat. They reaped, and therefore you may not reap on Shabbat.

讛诐 讛注诇讜 讗转 讛拽专砖讬诐 诪拽专拽注 诇注讙诇讛 讜讗转诐 诇讗 转讻谞讬住讜 诪专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讛诐 讛讜专讬讚讜 讗转 讛拽专砖讬诐 诪注讙诇讛 诇拽专拽注 讜讗转诐 诇讗 转讜爪讬讗讜 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛诐 讛讜爪讬讗讜 诪注讙诇讛 诇注讙诇讛 讜讗转诐 诇讗 转讜爪讬讗讜 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚

They lifted the boards from the ground in the wilderness, which is a public domain, and placed them into the wagon, which is a private domain, and therefore you shall not carry objects in from the public domain to the private domain on Shabbat. They lowered the boards from the wagon to the ground, and therefore you shall not carry objects out from the private domain to the public domain on Shabbat. They took boards and other objects out and passed them from wagon to wagon, i.e., from one private domain to another private domain, and therefore you shall not take objects out from one private domain to another private domain on Shabbat.

诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诪讗讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讜讬讛讜 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讚专讱 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐:

The Gemara expresses astonishment with regard to the last clause of the baraita: One who takes an object out from one private domain to another private domain, what prohibited labor is he thereby performing? The Gemara answers: It was Abaye and Rava who both said, and some say that it was Rav Adda bar Ahava who said: This is referring to taking an object out from one private domain to another private domain via the public domain, as the space between the two wagons in the wilderness was a public domain.

讘讙讬讝讬 爪诪专 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉: 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 讟诪谉 讘讛谉 讗讘诇 讟诪谉 讘讛谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉

We learned in the mishna: One may insulate food in wool fleece, and he may not move it. Rava said: This halakha that fleece may not be moved on Shabbat applies only to a case where one did not insulate food in it. Only in that case is it set-aside. However, if one insulated cooked food in it, he may move it. By insulating food in the fleece, he indicated that he intends to use it on Shabbat.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 讘专 讬讜诪讬讛 诇专讘讗 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讘讙讬讝讬 爪诪专 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻讬爪讚 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛

A certain Sage for whom it was his first day in that study hall raised an objection to Rava from our mishna: One may insulate food in wool fleece, and one may not move it. How, then, does he act if he insulated food in wool fleece and now wishes to remove the pot?

Scroll To Top